Skip to main content

Full text of "An introduction to the New Testament"

See other formats 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  EDUCATOR. 


UNDER  this  title  a  series  of  Manuals  is  being 
published,  giving  a  solid  and  trustworthy  ground- 
ing in  all  branches  of  Theological  study.  It 
is  remarkable  that,  while  such  works  on  Lite- 
rature and  Science  abound,  the  field  in  Theology 
is  still  unoccupied. 

The  books  are  wholly  unsectarian,  and  are 
written  by  men  recognised  as  authorities  on 
their  subjects.  They  are  specially  adapted  to 
the  needs  of  those  preparing  for  examinations 
in  Theology. 

While  the  Manuals  are  specially  useful  to 
Theological  Students,  the  clearness  and  simplicity 
of  their  style  will,  it  is  hoped,  attract  the  many 
laymen  interested  in  these  subjects;  while  their 
freshness  and  scholarship  make  them  interesting 
even  to  proficients  in  Theology. 

(f.  r.  o« 


2  THE   THEOLOGICAL   EDUCATOR. 

A  Manual  of  Christian  Evidences.  By  the 
Rev.  C.  A.  Row,  M.A.,  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's.  Third 
Edition. 

An  Introduction  to  the  Textual  Criticism 
of  the  New  Testament.  By  the  Rev.  Prof.  B.  B. 
WARFIELD,  D.D. 

A  Hebrew  Grammar.    By  the  REV.  W.  H.  LOWE, 

M.A.,  Joint- Author  of  "  A  Commentary  on  the  Psalms," 
etc. ;  Hebrew  Lecturer,  Christ's  College,  Cambridge. 

The  Prayer-Book.  By  the  REV.  CHARLES  HOLE, 
B.A.,  King's  College,  London. 

A  Manual  of  Church  History.  In  Two  Parts. 
By  the  Rev.  A.  C.  JENNINGS,  M.A.,  Author  of  "  Ecclesia 
Anglicana,"  Joint- Author  of  "A  Commentary  on  the 
Psalms,"  etc.  Vol.  I.  From  the  First  to  the  Tenth  Century. 
Vol.  II.  From  the  Eleventh  to  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

An    Introduction    to    the    New  Testament. 

By  the  Rev.  MARCUS  DODS,  D.D. 

An  Exposition  of  the  Apostles'   Creed.      By 

the  Rev.  J.  E.  YONGE,  M.A.,  late  Fellow  of  King  s  College, 
Cambridge ;  and  Assistant  Master  in  Eton  College. 

The  Language  of  the  New  Testament.  By 
the  Rev.  WILLIAM  HENRY  SIMCOX,  M.A.,  late  Fellow  of 
Queen's  College,  Oxford. 

Outlines  of  Christian  Doctrine.  By  the 
Rev.  H.  C.  G.  MOULE,  M.A.,  Principal  of  Ridley  Hall, 
Cambridge. 

LONDON : 
HODDER  AND  STOUGHTON, 27,  PATERNOSTER  ROW. 


THE 


THEOLOGICAL  EDUCATOR 


Edited  by  the 

REV.    W.    ROBERTSON    NICOLL,    M.A.,    LL.D., 

Editor  of  "  The  Expositor. 


DR.    MARCUS   DODS' 
INTRODUCTION    TO    THE   NEW    TESTAMENT. 


HODDER    AND     STOUGHTON, 
27,    PATERNOSTER   ROW. 


Israel's  Iron  Age:  Sketches  from  the  Period 
of  the  Judges.  Fifth  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  cloth,  35.  6d. 

The   Prayer  that   Teaches  to   Pray.    Sixth 

Edition.     Crown  8vo,  vs.  6d. 

Mohammed,  Buddha,  and  Christ :  Four  Lec- 
tures on  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion.  Fifth 
Thousand.  Crown  8vo,  cloth,  3$.  6d. 

Isaac,  Jacob,  and  Joseph.     Fifth   Thousand. 

3s.  6d. 

The  Parables  of  our  Lord.    (Matthew.)    Fifth 

Thousand.     3*.  6d. 

The    Parables   of  our   Lord.     Second   Series. 

(Luke.)     Fourth  Thousand.     35.  6d. 

The  Book  of  Genesis.  Fourth  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  cloth,  7$.  6d. 

The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.    Second 

Edition.     Crown  8vo,  cloth,  7$.  6d. 


LONDON  :  HODDER  &  STOUGHTON,  27,  PATERNOSTER  Row 


AN    INTRODUCTION 


TO   THE 


NEW     TESTAMENT 


BY 

MARCUS   DODS,   D.D., 

Author  of  "  The  Book  of  Genesis,"  "  The  Parables  of  our  Lore/,' 
"  Israel's  Iron  Age,"  etc. 


SIXTH  THOUSAND. 


HODDER     AND     STOUGHTON, 

27,    PATERNOSTER   ROW. 


Printed  by  Hazell,  Watson,  &  Vine}-,  Ld.,  London  and  Aylesbur}'. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

THE  GOSPELS  1 


ST.  MATTHEW    .  .    15 

ST.  MARK  .......  .    24 

ST.  LUKE    .  33 

ST.  JOHN     .        .       .       .       .       .       .       .  .43 

THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  .       .        .       .       .  .63 

THE  EPISTLES  .        ..."-..       .              •  .76 

THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES   .        .       .      ...  .78 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  .       ...        .  .84 

EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  •     96 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  QALATIANS     •       •  •   109 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS           •       •  •    121 


vi  CONTEXTS. 

THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES  (continued). 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS  .       .       .       .127 
EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS   .       .       .       .137 

EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON 117 

FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS  .        .  151 
SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS      .  162 

PASTORAL  EPISTLES 167 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS       .       .       .       .177 

EPISTLE  OP  JAMES 189 

FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER.       ....  198 
SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER      ....  206 

FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN 213 

SECOND  AND  THIRD  EPISTLES  OF  JOHN  .        .218 

EPISTInS   OF  JUDE 225 

REVELATION  .  235 


THE   GOSPELS. 

THE  word  "  gospel  "  *  represents  the  Greek 
cvayye'Aiov,  which  originally  signified  "  the 
reward  of  good  tidings,"  given  to  the  messenger 
(Od.  xiv.  152  ;  2  Sam.  iv.  10,  LXX.),  and  subsequently 
"  good  tidings."  In  the  New  Testament  it  has  the 
specific  meaning  of  "  the  good  news  of  the  kingdom  " 
(Matt.  iv.  23;  Mark  i.  15).  "Jesus  came  into 
Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  saying,  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  at  hand  :  repent  ye  and  believe  the  gospel" 
This  speedily  became  a  technical  usage,  and  "  the 
gospel"  without  further  designation  meant  the  gospel 
of  the  kingdom  (Mark  viii.  35  ;  x.  29  ;  xiii.  10,  etc.). 
But  it  continued  to  be  described  according  to  its 
contents,  its  author,  its  medium.  In  respect  of  its 
contents  it  was  spoken  of  as  "the  gospel  of  Christ" 
(Rom.  i.  16,  rec.  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  12);  "the  gospel  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (2  Thess.  i.  8);  "of  our  salva- 
tion" (Eph.  i.  13);  and  its  contents  are  described  in 
1  Cor.  xv.  1  —  7.  In  relation  to  its  Author  it  was 
spoken  of  as  "the  gospel  of  God"  (Rom.  xv.  16, 


saya  Gospel  —  God,  spell  =  narrative  of  God  =  life 
of  Christ.  And  for  the  form  he  refers  to  gossip  —  god,  sib. 
Others  think  it  is  the  exact  equivalent  of  evayylXtov,  and  is 
compounded  of  "  good  "  and  "  spell." 

1 


2  THE   GOSPELS. 

etc.) ;  and  it  was  also  designated  according  to  the 
special  messenger  or  mode  of  its  delivery,  and  thus 
we  find  Paul  speaking  of  "my  gospel"  (Rom.  ii.  16). 

Nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  is  the  word 
"gospel"  used  to  denote  a  book,  but  in  the  time  of 
Justin  Martyr*  this  use  had  come  into  vogue.  He 
speaks,  as  we  do,  of  "the  gospels."  But  when  the 
titles  were  given  to  our  gospels,  this  usage  had  not 
yet  come  into  vogue;  for  the  word  "gospel,"  as 
employed  in  these  titles,  has  not  the  signification  of 
a  written  book,  but  still  denotes  the  one  message 
of  salvation.  The  unity  of  the  theme  is  marked  by 
the  several  gospels  being  named  not  "  Matthew's 
Gospel,"  "Mark's  Gospel,"  etc.,  but  "The  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew,"  "according  to  Mark."  The 
form  of  the  titles  has  led  some  critics  to  maintain 
that  they  are  not  intended  to  indicate  authorship, 
but  the  authority  guaranteeing  what  is  related.  But 
/caret  ("  according  to  v)  in  this  connection  does  denote 
authorship,  as  the  lexicons  prove.  The  "history  of 
Herodotus  "  is  y  Ka0'  'HpoSorov  toTopta.  t  It  is  true, 
the  "Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews"  and  "  accord- 
ing to  the  Egyptians"  does  not  mean  the  gospel 
written  by  the  Hebrews,  or  by  the  Egyptians.  But 
even  though  these  titles  may  not  mean  (as  Holtzmann 
suggests)  that  these  gospels  received  their  final  form 
at  the  hands  of  those  whose  names  are  given,  yet 
the  reception  of  the  gospel  in  a  particular  form — 
which  apparently  is  all  that  the  titles  indicate — is  a 

*  In  his  Apol.,  i.  66,  he  speaks  of  the  Apostles'  "memoirs 
which  are  called  gospels." 
f  Other  instances  are  given  by  Holtzmann,  p.  329  ;  Bleek,etc. 


AUTHENTICITY.  3 

meaning  cognate  to  and  certainly  not  exclusive  of 
the  meaning  that  those  whose  names  appear  in  the 
title  wrote  down  the  particular  form  of  the  gospel 
given  in  the  work.  But  apart  from  the  lexical  usage, 
it  is  obvious  that  if  "  according  to"  had  been  intended 
to  indicate  the  ultimate  authority  or  guarantor  and 
not  the  writer,  the  second  gospel  would,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  belief  of  primitive  times,  have  been 
styled  "the  Gospel  according  to  Peter";  and  the 
third,  "  the  Gospei  according  to  Paul."  * 

It  is  impossible  to  fix  the  date  of  those  first 
attempts  at  gospels,  of  which  Luke  speaks  in  his 
prologue.  But  in  any  case  they  must  have  been 
early,  and  must  with  more  or  less  directness  and 
accuracy  have  rested  on  the  authority  of  the  Apostles. 
The  first  authentic  account  of  what  our  Lord  was, 
and  said,  and  did,  was  given  by  those  who  had 
companied  with  Him  from  the  first.  Luke  (i.  1)  and 
probably  all  who  wrote  down  any  part  of  what  they 
heard,  understood  the  importance  of  having  their 
information  at  first-hand  and  from  eye-witnesses. 
The  substantial  accuracy  of  the  Apostolic  narration, 
and  of  its  transcription  in  our  gospels,  may  be  tested 
by  the  manner  in  which  the  discourses,  sayings,  and 
conversations  of  our  Lord  are  recorded.  Even  Renan 
cordially  affirms  that  Matthew  merits  absolute  con- 
fidence as  a  reporter  of  our  Lord's  words.  In  his 
opinion  there  is  no  mistaking  the  authenticity  of 
this  part  of  the  gospel:  "A  divine  force,  if  I  may 
make  bold  to  say  so,  underlines  these  words,  detaches 
them  from  the  context  and  enables  the  critic  to 
*  Salmon's  Introduction,  p.  132. 


4  THE  GOSPELS. 

recognise  them  without  difficulty  .  .  .  The  true  words 
of  Jesus,  so  to  speak,  discover  themselves ;  when  they 
are  touched  in  this  chaos  of  traditions  of  unequal 
authenticity,  we  feel  them  vibrate."*  The  justice  of 
this  deliverance  can  scarcely  be  disputed.  In  all 
literature  there  is  nothing  that  rivals  the  Parables, 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  brief  sayings  which 
the  gospels  record.  They  are  stamped  with  an  abso- 
lutely inimitable  character  of  their  own.  But  this 
self-evidencing  accuracy  of  the  gospels  in  recording 
the  words  of  our  Lord  is  a  strong  argument  in  favour 
of  their  accuracy  in  recording  His  actions  and  manner 
of  life.  For  not  only  is  it  easier  to  recall  with  accu- 
racy what  we  have  seen  than  to  repeat  with  exactness 
what  we  have  heard;  but  there  was,  no  doubt,  a 
great  demand  for  information  regarding  the  life  and 
ways  of  Christ.  The  Apostles  would  be  required  to 
give  instances  of  His  working  miracles,  to  relate  the 
closing  scenes,  to  tell  again  and  again  how  they  knew 
He  rose  again.  Proof  that  He  was  the  Messiah 
could  only  be  drawn  from  what  He  had  actually 
been  and  done;  and  those  parts  of  His  life  which 
seemed  most  conspicuously  to  reveal  His  kingly 
qualities  were  necessarily  brought  forward  as  often 
as  the  Apostles  claimed  for  Him  supremacy.  But 
this  fragmentary  narration  evoked  by  the  require- 
ments of  casual  audiences  would  on  no  occasion 
furnish  a  complete  and  detailed  biography;  although, 
when  Churches  were  formed,  the  demand  for  more 
complete  and  systematic  instruction  would  necessarily 
increase.  And  this  demand  would  very  naturally  be 

*  Vie  de  Jesus,  xxxvii.-viii. 


THE  SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM.  5 

satisfied  by  written  attempts  at  a  full  and  consecutive 
account  of  the  life  of  Christ.  This  agrees  with  what 
we  learn  from  the  prologue  to  Luke's  Gospel,  in 
which  we  are  informed  that  "  many" — say  twelve  or 
twenty — such  attempts  had  been  made,  and  that 
they  were  all  founded  upon  the  Apostolic  preaching, 
or,  to  use  Luke's  own  words,  were  written  "  even  as 
they  delivered  them  unto  us  which  from  the  beginning 
were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word."  Ap- 
parently the  eye-witnesses  themselves  had  not  written 
down  what  they  proclaimed ;  they  felt  their  memory 
to  be  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  accuracy.*  The  date 
of  these  first  attempts  at  gospel-writing  must  have 
been  early;  and  it  is  a  strong  argument  in  favour 
of  the  early  date  and  authenticity  of  the  canonical 
gospels,  that  none  of  those  which  preceded  them  had 
so  rooted  themselves  in  popular  esteem  as  to  ensure 
their  survival.  Their  disappearance  and  the  exclusive 
acceptance  of  our  four  gospels  can  be  accounted  for 
only  on  the  ground  that  they  were  understood  to  be 
by  writers  who  had  direct  access  to  authoritative 
information. 

SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM. 

The  relation  of  the  three  Synoptic  f  Gospels  to  one 
another  is  one  of  the  standing  problems  of  criticism. 

*  It  will  be  observed  that  the  testing  time  for  the  memory 
of  the  Apostles  was  the  period  between  the  beginning  and  the 
close  of  Christ's  ministry,  before  they  began  to  relate  to  others 
what  they  had  seen  and  heard. 

f '  Synoptic '= giving  a  general  view  of  the  same  series  of 
events  in  the  life  of  Christ,  is  not  the  happiest  term  to- describe 
the  first  three  gospels  as  distinguished  from  the  fourth,  but 
usage  is  paramount. 


6  THE   GOSPELS. 

On  examination  these  gospels  are  found  to  present 
minute  and  frequent  correspondences,  and  also  very 
striking  differences.  The  problem  is  to  discover  a 
theory  of  their  origin  which  will  at  once  account  for 
their  likeness  and  unlikeness.  Their  likeness  consists 
(1)  in  their  giving  the  same 


life  of  Jesus,  and  in  filling  up  this  outline  with  a 
series  o£  incidents  which  are  largely  identical.  This 
is  all  the  more  striking,  because,  while  each  Evangelist 
records  nearly  the  sarne^  miracle^  as  the__otkers,  they 
all  speak  of  numberless  unrecorded  miracles.  The 
extent  of  this  coincidence  in  material  has  been  pre- 
sented in  a  tabular  form.*  The  entire  contents  of 
the  several  gospels  being  represented  by  100,  the 
following  proportions  are  obtained  :  — 

Peculiarities.  Coincidences. 
Mark                                 7  93 

Matthew  42  58 

Luke  59  41 

John  92  8 

But  coincidence  is  largely  found  not  only  in  the 
material  or  substance,  but  (2)  in  the  form  in  which 
the  several  incidents  are  presented,  and  even  in  the 
language  used.  As  a  classical  instance  of  resemblance 
in  form  Holtzmann  cites  the  interpolation  of  a  paren- 
thesis ("  then  saith  He  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy  ")  in 
the  narrative  of  the  healing  of  the  paralytic,  Matt. 
ix.  6;  Mark  ii.  10;  Luke  v.  24.  The  form  of  the 
narrative  cannot,  in  this  instance,  be  accidentally 
similar,  but  is  such  as  prompts  us  to  seek  a  cause  of 
so  striking  a  uniformity.  In  language  the  correspon- 
*  See  Westcott's  Introd.,  p.  lyi. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM.  7 

dence  is  also  remarkable,  though  rather  on  account 
of  its  character  and  significance  than  on  account  of 
its  extent.  For  it  never  extends  through  passages 
of  any  length;  and,  unless  in  reported  discourses  of 
our  Lord,  rarely  beyond  a  few  words  at  a  time.  In 
narrating  the  same  event  the  verbal  coincidences  of 
the  gospels  are  continually  interrupted  by  thoughts 
and  words  peculiar  to  each.  And  by  far  the  larger 
portion  of  their  verbal  agreement  occurs  in  passages 
in  which  the  words  of  others,  and  especially  of  Jesus, 
are  reported.  The  verbal  coincidences  of  Matthew 
with  Mark  or  Luke  is  less  than  a  sixth  part  of  the 
entire  contents  of  Matthew ;  and  of  this  sixth  seven- 
eighths  occur  in  the  reporting  of  the  words  of  others, 
and  only  one-eighth  in  the  Evangelist's  own  narrative. 
In  Mark  the  proportion  is  also  about  a  sixth,  and 
in  Luke  not  more  than  a  tenth ;  and  of  these 
coincidences  four-fifths  in  Mark's  case,  and  nineteen- 
twentieths  in  Luke's,  occur  in  the  recital  of  the  words 
of  others.*  It  has  further  been  observed  that  in  the 
recital  of  our  Lord's  words  verbal  coincidences  between 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  frequent,  but  in  the  narrative 
coincidences  "  cannot  be  rated  at  more  than  one- 
hundredth  part  of  the  whole."  f 

HISTORY  OF  SOLUTION  OF  PROBLEM. 

Attention  has  been  called  to  these  peculiarities  of 
the  gospels,  and  attempts  have  been  made  to  account 
for  them  from  the  days  when  Augustine  wrote  his 
De  Consensu  Evangelistarum,  and  named  Mark  the 

*  See  Norton,  Cfenuinenexs  of  Gospels,  i.  1^40. 
t  Westcott,  194. 


8  THE   GOSPELS. 

pediseqiius  [footman,  one  who  treads  in  the  steps  of 
another]  Matthcei.*  Little  was  done  to  throw  light 
on  the  origin  of  the  gospels,  until  in  1782  Koppe 
published  his  refutation  of  Augustine's  idea  (Marcus 
non  epitomator  Matthcei).  Various  derivations  of  one 
gospel  from  the  others  were  suggested  by  Busching, 
Evaiison,  etc.,  till  a  new  departure  was  taken  by 
Lessing  in  1785,  who  broached  the  theory  that  instead 
of  being  derived  from  one  another,  the  three  gospels 
wereajj_derived  from  some  previously  existing  docu- 
ment, and  this  document  might  likely  enough  be  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  This  idea  was  developed  by 
the  genius  of  Eichhorn,  who  perceived  that  the  docu- 
ment to  which  the  similarities  of  the  Synoptics  were 
due,  must  have  been  not  an  Aramaic  (though  that 
was  his  first  notion),  but  a  Greek  gospel.  This 
"  Ur-evangelium"  or  Original_Gospel,  was  a  fruitful 
idea ;  and  in  fertile  minds  it  was  multiplied  into 
several  sources  now  lost,  or  transformed  into  pre-exist- 
ing "Memorabilia"  (Paulus),  "Narratives"  (Schleier- 
macher),  or  "  Corpuscles "  (Lachmann).  In  1818 
another  germinant  suggestion_was  made  by  Gieseler 
(in  his  Historisch-kritischer  Versucfi),  who  endeavoured 
to  show  thatthj^siniilarities  of  the  Synoptics  are  fully 
accountedTor  by  their  common  dependence  on  the 
oral  gospel ;  that  is,  on  the  form  which  the  preaching 
)f  Christ  by  the  Apostles  naturally  took.  This^oral 
bradition^_at_ jfirst  satisfied  all  requirements  \  and, 
eing  continually  repeaticc^ it  gradually  became 
tereotyped,  and  was  finally  fixed  in  writing  in  forms 

*  Augustine's  words  are  "  Marcus  eum  subsecutus,  tanquam 
pedisequus  et  bre viator  ejus  videtur  "  (I.  ii.  4.). 


DOCUMENTARY  THEORY.  9 

modified   by   the   knowledge    and    purpose   of    each 
synoptist.* 

Investigation  has  recently  been  conductfid  with 
greater  approach  to  scientific  exactness,  but  it  has 
always  run  on  these  three  lines,  indicated  respectively 
by  Koppe,  Lessing  or  Eichhorn,  and  Gieseler.  The 
gospels  are  either  dependent  on  one  another,  or  on 
a  previously  existing  document  (or  documents),  or  on 
the  oral  gospel.  The  first  alternative  may  evidently 
be  adjusted  in  various  ways.t  It  may  be  held 

1.  That  Matthew  wrote  first,  that  Mark  used  his 

gospel,  and  Luke  used  both.  This  was  held 
by  Grotius,  Mill,  Wetstein,  Bengel,  Bolton, 
Townson,  and  most  ingeniously  by  Hug.  In 
later  times  and  with  characteristic  modifications 
by  Hilgenfeld. 

2.  Matthew,  Luke,  Mark.     So  Griesbach,  Ammon, 

Saunier,  Theile,  Fritzsche,  Gfroier,  De  Wette, 
Bleek,  Delitzsch ;  and  substantially  Baur, 
Schwegler,  Kb'stlin,  Keim. 

3.  Mark,    Luke,    Matthew.       So    Wilke,    Weiss, 

Hitzig,  Volkmar. 

4.  Mark,    Matthew,    Luke.      So    Storr,    RitschI, 

Lachrnanii,  Ewald,  Reuss,  Holtzmann. 

5.  Luke,  Mark,  Matthew.     Vogel,  Ileubner,  Rodi- 

ger,  Schneckenburger. 

6.  Luke,  Matthew,  Mark.     Biisching,  Evanson. 

*  For  a  fuller  account  see  Holtzmann's  Einlcitung,  333—339 ; 
or  his  standard  work  Die  Synoptisclicn  Ecangelien. 

f  In  this  list  the  title  of  a  gospel  is  sometimes  set  down 
where,  to  be  strictly  accurate,  some  form  of  the  gospel  which 
preceded  the  canonical  edition  is  meant 


10  THE  GOSPELS. 

But  the  view  of  Eichhorn  has  more  and  more  as- 
serted itself,  and  gradually  won  all  critics  to  the  belief 
that  the  similarities  and  dissimilarities  of  our  gospels 
are  best  accounted  for  by  the  hypothesis  that  their 
authors  had  access  to  some  common  source  either 
written  or  oral.  A  great  crop  of  fancied  original  gospels 
has  naturally  sprung  from  the  acceptance  of  this  idea. 
The  Tubingen  school  arrange  the  growth  of  our  gospels 
thus:  First  there  was  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews, 
an  Ebionite  account  of  Jesus.  Out  of  this  by  the 
addition  of  more  liberal  sentiments  arose  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew  in  a  more  or  less  complete  form ;  also 
a  first  draft  of  Luke,  which  was  anti-Ebionitic  and 
strongly  Pauline,  and  a  second  edition  of  a  more 
conciliatory  character.  Lastly  came  Mark,  which 
was  a  colourless  compilation  from  Matthew  and 
Luke. 

The  idea  that  the  antecedent  oral  gospel  is  sufficient 
to  account  for  all  the  facts,  and  explain  the  rela- 
tionship of  our  gospels,  has  been  largely  accepted  in 
this  country,  chiefly  through  the  influence  of  Canon 
Westcott,  in  whose  Introduction  the  hypothesis  is  ably 
and  elaborately  expounded  and  urged.  It  is  of  course 
admitted  by  all  critics  that  oral  tradition  preceded 
all  our  gospels,  that  the  story  was  told  before  it  was 
written.*  Mediately  our  synoptical  gospels  are  un- 
doubtedly derived  from  oral  teaching,  preaching,  and 

*  Thus  Holtzmann  (Eirileitung,  340) :  "  At  bottom  all 
gospels  rest  on  the  oral  tradition,  etc.,"  and  in  his  Syn.  Evang., 
p.  52,  "It  is  nowadays  an  accepted  position  that  the  oral 
tradition  must  be  considered  the  ultimate  basis  of  the  entire 
gospel-literature." 


ORIGINAL  ORAL  GOSPEL.  11 

relation.  Some  of  the  narratives  in  Luke  and  in 
Mark  may  have  been  directly  transferred  to  their 
pages  from  the  lip  of  the  narrator.  Matthew's  Gospel 
may  contain  what  never  elsewhere  existed  in  writing. 
But  this  is  one  thing,  and  it  is  another  to  say  that 
the  peculiarities  of  the  gospels,  their  agreement  in 
general  outline  and  their  verbal  coincidences,  are 
explained  by  their  derivation  from  a  common  oral 
tradition. 

The  valid  objections  urged  against  the  hypothesis 
of  a  stereotyped  oral  gospel  are  these — 

1.  It  has  not  been  made  out  that  the  preaching 
of  the  Apostles  was  of  such  a  kind   as  to  furnish 
material  for  such  biographical  details  as  our  gospels 
contain.     They  proclaimed,  as  Paul  explicitly  affirms 
(1  Cor.  xv.  1),  the  great  facts  of  Christ's  coming,  of 
His  death  and  resurrection,    but  did  not,  so  far   as 
can   be  gathered,  relate   in    detail  His  journeys   in 
Galilee,  His  conversations  with  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
and   so   forth.     Certainly  our   gospels   contain   both 
more   and  less   than  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles 
contained. 

2.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  Apostles  when 
called  upon   to   narrate    particular  incidents    would 
restrict  themselves  to  one  stereotyped  form,  and  would 
adhere  even  to  such  insignificant  details  as  are  cited 
in  the  story  of  the  cure  of  the  paralytic. 

3.  Even  if  it  were  credible  that  individual  incidents 
were  thus  orally  handed  down  in   a   fixed  form  of 
words,  it  is  not  to  be  believed  that  the  order  of  the 
narrative  would  similarly  be  preserved.     Dr.  Salmon 
puts  this  in  a  quite   convincing  way :     "A  careful 


12  THE  GOSPELS. 

examination  brings  out  the  fact  that  the  likeness 
between  the  synoptic  gospels  is  not  confined  to  agree- 
ment in  the  way  of  telling  separate  stories,  but 
extends  also  to  the  order  of  arranging  them.  Take, 
for  instance,  the  agreement  between  Matthew  and 
Mark  as  to  the  place  in  which  they  tell  the  death 
of  John  the  Baptist  (Matt.  xiv.  1 ;  Mark  vi.  14). 
They  relate  that  when  Herod  heard  of  the  fame  of 
Jesus  he  was  perplexed  who  He  must  be,  and  said  to 
his  servants,  "  This  is  John  whom  I  beheaded."  And 
then,  in  order  to  explain  this  speech,  the  two  evan- 
gelists go  back  in  their  narrative  to  relate  the  beheading 
of  John.  Their  agreement  in  this  deviation  from  the 
natural  chronological  order  can  scarcely  be  explained 
except  by  supposing  either  that  one  Evangelist  copied 
from  the  other,  or  both  from  a  common  source."  * 

But  supposing  that  our  gospels  depend  on  some 
precedent  written  gospel,  can  we  form  any  idea  of 
the  character  of  this  pristine  document  ?  Strenuous 
attempts  to  do  so  have  been  made  by  many  scholars. 
Most  strenuous  of  all  is  perhaps  the  attempt  recently 
made  by  Dr.  Abbott,t  who  passes  his  pen  through 
all  that  is  not  common  to  the  three  synoptists,  and 
offers  us  the  residuum  as  the  closest  approximation 
we  possess  to  the  original  narrative  from  which  each 
of  the  three  was  derived.  The  "triple  tradition" 
thus  eliminated,  and  showing  the  matter  common  to 
the  synoptics,  has  the  appearance  of  notes  or  catch- 
words, abrupt,  broken,  elliptical.  It  forms  neither 

*  Introduction,  164.     Of.  also  Meyer,  Introd.  to  Matthew, 
and  Holtzmann,  Syn.  Ev,,  60. 
f  Encyo.  Brit.,  Art,  "  Gospels." 


THE  TRIPLE  TRADITION.  13 

a  grammatically  coherent  narrative  nor  a  complete 
gospel.  But,  Dr.  Abbott  asks,  "  Is  it  not  possible 
that  the  condensed  narrative  which  we  can  pick  out 
of  the  three  synoptic  records  represents  the  '  elliptical 
style'  of  the  earliest  gospel  notes  or  memoirs,  which 
needed  to  be  ' expanded'  before  they  could  be  used 
for  the  purposes  of  teaching,  and  which  might  natu- 
rally be  expanded  with  various  and  somewhat  diver- 
gent amplifications?"  *  Dr.  Abbott  seems  to  overstep 
the  bounds  of  probability  when  he  supposes  that  a 
gospel  in  this  elliptical  style  ever  existed;  but, 
mechanical  as  his  method  is,  he  has  done  great  service 
in  contributing  to  the  establishment  of  the  critical 
conclusion  that  the  original  written  gospel  from  which 
ours  were  largely  drawn  was  a  gospel  closely  resembling 
that  of  Mark,  and  containing  the  "triple  tradition." 
The  approximation  of  Mark  to  the  original  written 
gospel  is  one  of  the  most  generally  accepted  findings 
of  modern  criticism.  It  has  been  shown  almost  to 
demonstration  by  Holtzmann,  and  scholars  like  Sanday 
and  Salmon  agree  in  this  particular  with  him.  Salmon 
concludes  his  very  instructive  discussion  with  affirming 
his  belief  that  "all  drew  from  a  common  source,  which 
however  is  represented  with  most  verbal  exactness  in 
St.  Mark's  version.1 'f 

The  two  theories  which  may  at  present  be  said  to 
hold  the  field  are  those  of  Holtzmann  and  Weiss. 
Holtzmann's  opinion  is  that  our  gospels  were  preceded 
by  two  documents  which  are.  now  lost  as  separate 

*  The  Common  Tradition  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  xi. 
f  Dr.  Bruce  also  (Presb.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1884)  holds  that  the 
original  gospel  was  a  book  somewhat  like  Mark. 


14  THE  GOSPELS. 

documents,  (1)  the  original  Mark  (Ur-Marcus,  which 
he  denominates  Quelle  A),  which  fixed  in  writing  a 
general  outline  and  some  scenes  of  our  Lord's  life; 
and  (2)  the  Logia  (Ur-Matthaus,  Quelle  A),  or  collec- 
tion of  our  Lord's  discourses  compiled  by  Matthew. 
Our  canonical  Mark  is  an  edition  of  (1)  without  any 
infusion  of  (2).  Matthew  and  Luke  availed  themselves 
of  both  (1)  and  (2),  and  also  of  other  written  and  oral 
sources.  Weiss  on  the  other  hand  fights  hard  for  the 
priority  of  Matthew.  In  his  view  the  original  gospel 
was  a  Matthew  which  combined  the  Logia  with  a  con- 
siderable number  of  incidents.  Then  came  Mark,  who 
combined  with  his  recollections  of  Peter's  preaching 
as  much  of  Matthew's  discourses  as  would  harmonise 
with  his  plan.  Next  came  our  canonical  Matthew 
dependent  on  the  two  preceding  gospels ;  and  finally 
Luke. 

It  will  therefore  be  apparent  that  the  multifarious 
and  perplexed  synoptical  problem  has  gradually  been 
concentrating  itself  on  two  points — the  comparative 
priority  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  the  existence  and 
character  of  the  Logia  document.*  In  connection 
with  the  Logia,  it  is  yet  in  dispute  whether  Mark  as 
well  as  Matthew  is  indebted  to  it ;  whether  it  is  to 
be  found  in  its  purest  form  in  Matthew  or  in  Luke ; 
whether  it  was  coloured  by  party  feeling ;  whether 
it  is  itself  a  work  of  Matthew ;  what  exactly  is  the 
significance  el  Papias'  reference  to  the  Logia  compiled 

*  Holtzmann  gives  utterance  to  the  general  opinion  of  critics 
when  he  says  :  "All  things  considered,  the  Double-source 
Hypothesis  offers  the  most  probable  solution  of  the  Synoptic 
Problem." 


MATTHEW.  15 

by  Matthew.*  In  comparing  the  priority  of  Mark 
with  that  of  Matthew,  it  must  be  kept  in  view  that 
even  although  it  be  demonstrated  that  Mark  is  a 
closer  approximation  to  the  original  common  source 
than  Matthew,  this  does  not  prove  that  Mark's  gospel 
is  actually  of  an  earlier  date.  And  the  critical  ques- 
tion at  present  concerns  not  so  much  the  date  as  the 
natural  order  of  the  gospels,  their  closeness  to  or 
remoteness  from  the  primitive  source.  When  these 
points  are  determined  there  will  be  hope  of  a  per- 
manent and  satisfactory  solution  of  the  synoptical 
problem. 

ST.  MATTHEW. 

Although  not  expressly  ascribed  to  Matthew  until 
towards  the  close  of  the  second  century,  our  first 
gospel  was  quoted  and  used  in  the  sub-apostolic  agef 
(A.D.  90 — 120),  and  was  never  ascribed  to  any  one 
else  than  the  Apostle  whose  name  it  bears.  The  name 
of  Matthew  (probably  a  contraction  of  Mat^athias, 
Gift  of  God,  Theodore),  occurs  in  the  four  lists  of  the 
Apostles  :  Matt.  x.  3;  Mark  iii.  18;  Luke  vi.  15;  Acts 
i.  13.  He  is  usually  identified  with  Levi,  for  what 
is  in  the  first  gospel  (ix.  9)  related  of  Matthew  is 
in  Mark  (ii.  14)  and  Luke  (v.  27)  told  of  Levi.  To 
change  the  name  on  some  life-changing  occasion  was 
not  uncommon,  and  Levi  may  have  taken  the  name 
of  Matthew  at  his  call ;  or,  as  is  rather  implied  in  the 

*  Adherents  of  various  opinions  on  these  points  are  regis- 
tered in  Holtzmann,  Einl.t  355. 

f  Used  by  the  Gnostics  Carpocrates  and  Cerinthus  ;  quoted 
by  Barrabas. 


16  THE   GOSPELS. 

first  gospel,  he  may  have  had  it  earlier,  to  distinguish 
him  from  the  many  others  called  Levi.  Neither  Mark 
nor  Luke,  however,  intimates  that  he  whose  name 
appears  in  their  Apostolic  lists  as  Matthew  is  the  same 
person  as  the  Levi  whose  call  they  have  related.  It 
has  been  accepted  as  evidence  of  Matthew's  humility 
that  he  adds  to  his  name  the  opprobrious  designation, 
"  the  publican,"  which  is  omitted  by  the  other  Evan- 
gelists. He  also  puts  his  own  name  after  that  of 
his  companion,  Thomas,  though  the  others  name  him 
first.  According  to  Mark  (ii.  14)  Levi  was  the  son 
of  Alphseus,  and  hence  some  have  concluded  that  he 
was  a  brother  of  James  the  Little  and  a  relative  of 
Jesus.*  When  called  to  follow  Christ,  Matthew  was 
a  collector  of  customs  in  Capernaum,  and  although 
the  same  odium  may  not  have  attached  to  the 
publicans  serving  under  Herod  as  to  those  who 
directly  served  and  symbolized  the  Roman  empire, 
the  occupation  was  certainly  in  any  case  odious.  His 
presence  in  the  Apostolic  circle  was  the  permanent 
sign  of  the  all-embracing  openness  of  Christ's  kingdom 
(Matt.  ix.  11 — 13),  while  the  requirements  of  his 
occupation  may  have  trained  his  powers  of  observa- 
tion, his  use  of  the  pen  and  of  the  Greek  language, 
and  have  given  him  other  qualifications  of  an 
Evangelist.t  Of  the  Apostolic  labours  of  Matthew 
nothing  is  certainly  known.  Tradition  has  sent  him 
to  all  known  and  some  unknown  countries.  He 

*  So  Luther,  "  He  was  a  relative  of  Jesus." 

f  Luther  says  he  deserves  Vespasian's  epitaph,  "The  best 
Tax-gatherer,"  as  he  brought  in  to  God  and  the  Saviour  human 
toll. 


MATTHEW.  17 

appears  to  have  lived  an  ascetic  life  (ix.  15  is  illus- 
trated by  this  fact),  sustaining  himself  on  nuts, 
berries,  and  vegetables,  and  to  have  died  a  natural 
death. 

But  the  unhesitating  use  of  the  first  gospel  by  the 
early  Church  as  the  work  of  Matthew  is  somewhat 
complicated  by  the  equally  constant  tradition  that 
Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew.*  Eusebiusf  quotes  Papias, 
a  Phrygian  bishop,  who  died  in  A.D.  164,  as  giving 
a  circumstantial  account  of  the  work  of  Matthew  : — 
"  Matthew,"  says  Papias,  "  compiled  the  oracles  (Aoyta) 
in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  and  each  interpreted  them  as 
he  was  able."  In  this  account  he  is  followed  by 
Irenseus,  who  adds  that  the  gospel  was  composed  while 
Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  in  Rome.  But  an 
examination  of  our  gospel  discloses  that  our  Greek 
gospel  is  not  a  translation.  This  is  proved,  not  by 
the  plays  of  words  (xxi.  41;  vi.  16;  xxiv.  30),  nor  by 
the  interpretation  of  Hebrew  words  and  sayings 
(i.  23 ;  xxvii.  33,  46),  for  these  a  translator,  anxious 
to  retain  significant  words  of  the  original,  might  have 
interpolated ;  but  explanations  of  customs  peculiar  to 
Palestine  (xxvii.  15;  xxviii.  15;  Tnrii-  23),  and  which 
seem  to  be  a  substantive  part  of  the  narrative,  indicate 
that  the  gospel  was  intended  to  be  read  where  Jewish 
customs  were  not  known ;  and,  above  all,  a  comparison 
of  the  passages  in  which  this  gospel  coincides  with 
Mark  and  Luke  discloses  that  its  author  was  using 
a  Greek  source.  That  our  gospel  is  not  a  translation 

*  That  is,  Aramaic  ;  see  Studio,  Biblica. 
f  Hist.  Eccl.t  iii.  39. 

2 


18  THE   GOSPELS. 

but  an  original  may  be  accepted  as  one  of  the  ascer- 
tained conclusions  of  criticism.* 

Is  it  possible  to  reconcile  this  conclusion  with  the 
constant  tradition  regarding  the  Aramaic  original  ? 
A  very  common  opinion  is  that  Papias  was  mistaken. 
He  may  have  seen  or  heard  of  a  translation  of  this 
gospel  into  Aramaic,  which  he  took  for  the  original 
(so  Luther  and  Tischendorf).  Or  there  may  have 
been  neither  original  nor  translation  of  this  gospel 
in  Aramaic,  and  the  only  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  the 
Greek  gospel  we  now  have.  Professor  Salmon  puts 
the  alternative  rigorously  :f  "  We  must  choose  be- 
tween the  two  hypotheses,  a  Greek  original  of  St. 
Matthew,  or  a  lost  Hebrew  original  with  a  translation 
by  an  unknown  author.  Or  rather,  since  our  Greek 
gospel  bears  marks  of  not  being  a  mere  translation, 
we  must  choose  between  the  hypotheses  that  we  have 
in  the  Greek  the  gospel  as  written  by  Matthew  him- 
self, or  the  gospel  as  written  by  an  unknown  writer 
who  used  as  his  principal  materials  an  Aramaic 
writing  by  St.  Matthew  which  has  now  perished." 
Dr.  Salmon  himself  adopts  the  former  alternative ; 
but  Dr.  Westcott  J  accepts  the  latter.  He  believes  in 
a  Hebrew  original  from  the  hand  of  Matthew,  and 
a  subsequent  Greek  edition,  a  representative  rather 
than  a  translation  of  the  original,  by  an  unknown 
hand.  Godet  §  is  more  definite,  and  affirms  that  Papias 

*  "  The  Greek  original  of  the  first  gospel  is  now  absolutely 
assured,"  Holtzmann,  367.  "Hardly  any  one  now  believes 
that  this  gospel  was  written  in  Hebrew  "  (Keim,  i.  77). 

f  Introd.  to  New  Testament,  202. 

j  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  224. 

§  Godet,  New  Testament  Studies,  p.  20. 


MATTHEW.  19 

meant  that  Matthew  compiled  in  Aramaic  the  Dis- 
courses of  the  Lord,  and  that  a  little  later  some 
coadjutor  of  Matthew,  who  had  helped  him  in  evan- 
gelizing, translated  these  discourses  into  Greek  and 
added  material  from  the  current  tradition  so  as  to 
complete  an  evangelical  narrative.  Nicholson,*  whose 
researches  have  not  received  the  attention  they  deserve, 
maintains  that  our  gospel,  though  evidently  not  a 
translation  of  the  "Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews," 
is  from  the  same  hand,  and  that  the  hand  of  Matthew. 
Others,  though  they  do  not  identify  Matthew's  Aramaic 
with  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  accept 
Papias*  statement  that  Matthew  did  write  an  Aramaic 
Scripture  of  some  kind;  and  that  as  it  attained  an 
increasing  circulation  among  those  who  were  more 
familiar  with  Greek  than  with  Aramaic,  Matthew 
himself  met  this  demand  for  a  Greek  gospel  by  com- 
posing what  is  now  in  our  hands,  and  what  from  the 
second  century  has  been  cited  under  his  name. 

It  is,  however,  satisfactory  to  find  that  even  the 
critics  who  deny  the  Apostolic  authorship  of  the  first 
gospel  admit  that  it  attained  its  present  form  during 
the  Apostolic  age.f  Of  convincing  evidence  against 
the  Apostolic  authorship  there  is  none.  Some  critics 
find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  Matthew  could  have 
spoken  of  himself  in  the  terms  used  in  this  gospel 
(ix.  9).  They  think  the  expressions  of  time  are  too 
indefinite  for  an  eye-witness  to  use,  and  that  some 
remarkable  events  are  omitted  and  some  imperfectly 

*  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  (London  :  1879). 
f  Thus  Keim  (i.  73)  says :  "  The  book   and  not  only  its 
source  was  written  about  the  year  A.D.  66." 


20  THE  GOSPELS. 

described.  Inaccuracies  (xxvi.  17 — 19)  and  exaggera- 
tions of  the  miraculous  (xxvii.  52,  53)  are  also 
charged  against  the  Evangelist.  The  selection  and 
grouping  of  material,  and  in  general  the  artistic 
character  of  the  gospel  is  thought  to  belong  more  to 
the  second  generation,  the  age  of  reflection,  than  to 
the  first,  the  age  of  mere  recipiency  of  fact.  But  this 
is  precarious  and  unsubstantial  criticism.*  That  the 
gospel  was  not  written  for  some  years  after  the  events 
it  describes  is  apparent  from  express  allusion  to  the 
lapse  of  a  considerable  interval  of  time  (xxvii.  8 ; 
xxviii.  15).  On  the  other  hand  there  are  clear 
indications  that  it  was  written  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  and  even  before  the  war  broke  out  in 
the  year  66.  After  this  date  Jerusalem  would  scarcely 
have  been  spoken  of  as  "  the  holy  city "  (iv.  5 ;  cf . 
v.  35,  etc.).  The  predictions  of  Jesus  in  chap.  xxiv. 
which  were  not  fulfilled  in  the  sense  that  lies  on  the 
surface,  would  scarcely  have  been  set  down  without 
a  word  of  explanation  after  that  unexpected  fulfilment. 
And  the  warning,  "  whoso  readeth,  let  him  under- 
stand," interjected  by  the  Evangelist  into  the  Lord's 
discourse  (xxiv.  15),  is  proof  that  the  outbreak  of  the 
war,  though  imminent,  was  not  yet  present.t 

Written  primarily  for  Jewish  readers,  the  first 
gospel  was  evidently  meant  to  exhibit  Jesus  as  the 

*  Eenan  (Les  Evangiles,  197)  and  others  find  evidence  of  a 
later  date  in  the  use  of  the  word  "  Church  "  (xvi.  18  ;  xviii.  17) 
and  in  the  developed  Trinitarian  formula  of  baptism  (xxviii. 
19). 

t  Mark  also  has  this  expression,  so  that  it  probably  came 
from  the  first  recorder  of  the  discourse.  But  these  Evangelists 
would  not  have  inserted  it  after  the  catastrophe. 


MATTHEW.  21 

Messiah,  the  Anointed  of  God  to  fulfil  all  God's  pur- 
pose among  men,  the  King  for  whom  the  Israelitish 
heart  had  been  trained  to  long,  and  by  whom  the  true 
theocracy,  the  "kingdom  of  heaven,"  is  actually  in- 
augurated. It  is  fittingly  placed  next  to  the  Old 
Testament,  not  because  it  was  the  earliest  contribution 
to  the  New — for  it  was  not  that — but  because  it 
resumes  and  completes  each  strand  of  the  former 
revelation.  The  long  and  chequered  history  related 
in  the  Old  Testament  finds  its  consummation  and 
significance  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  All  the  hints,  fore- 
shadowings,  and  predictions  of  the  true  King  are 
realised  in  Him  of  whom  the  Father  at  last  says,  "  This 
is  My  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  The 
promises  made  to  the  father  of  all  believers  are  ful- 
filled in  this  seed  of  Abraham  through  whom  blessing 
comes  to  all  nations.  The  law  which  had  seemed  too 
high  for  human  weakness  is  re-issued  in  a  more  pene- 
trating form  and  is  also  fulfilled.  The  motto  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  as  read  and  rendered  by  Matthew  is  "  I 
am  come  to  fulfil "  (v.  17).  The  stages  in  the  history 
are  marked  with  this  design  :  "  that  it  might  be  ful- 
filled which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet." 

The  plan  of  the  book  subserves  this  purpose.  It 
opens  with  the  register  which  proves  Jesus  to  be  the 
heir  of  David  and  of  Abraham,  appearing  in  the  ful- 
ness of  time  after  thrice  fourteen  generations.  Reir 
of  Abraham,  through  whom  all  nations  are  to  be 
blessed,  this  Babe,  born  King  of  the  Jews,  is  hailed 
by  the  Wise  Men  from  the  East.  But  as  this  King  is 
to  reign  not  by  bare  hereditary  right  nor  by  force,  but 
by  sympathy  and  the  supremacy  which  absolute  self- 


22  THE  GOSPELS. 

sacrifice  gives,  His  path  is  one  not  of  regal  splendour  but 
of  hazard  and  obscurity  (chap.  ii.).  His  proclamation 
too  at  baptism  carries  with  it  the  necessity  of  tempta- 
tion in  the  wilderness,  for  the  true  King  can  rule  only 
by  rejecting  all  false  ideas  of  glory  and  by  personally 
overcoming  the  temptations  which  enthrall  His  weaker 
fellows  (iii. — iv.  11).  The  proclamation  of  the  kingdom 
heralded  by  John  is  then  taken  up  by  Jesus,  who  pro- 
ceeds to  its  actual  establishment  (iv.  12 — 17),  and  for 
this  purpose  selects  suitable  followers  (18 — 22),  and 
begins  His  teaching  and  healing  (23 — 25).  The  body  of 
the  book  falls  into  two  parts,  iv.  1 7 — xvi.  20  and  xvi. 
21 — end,  each  part  opening  with  the  words,  "  From 
that  time  Jesus  began."  These  two  main  divisions 
correspond  on  the  whole  to  the  two  chief  aspects  of  the 
Messiah  as  the  righteous  beneficent  King,  "  God  with 
us,"  and  as  the  Man  of  sorrows.  Though  not  mutually 
exclusive,  the  first  part  exhibits  Jesus  as  bringing 
fulness  of  life  and  righteousness,  while  the  second 
part  exhibits  Him  preparing  His  disciples  for  His 
death,  warning  the  people  against  rejecting  Him, 
entering  Jerusalem  as  king,  and  therefore  led  to  His 
throne  on  the  cross.  The  gospel  culminates  in  the 
transfiguration,  when  the  representatives  of  the  Old 
Testament  resign  to  Him  their  mediatorial  functions. 
Or  the  turning  point  may  be  found  in  the  preceding 
chapter  (xvi.)  when  through  unbelief ,  doubt,  rejection, 
spiteful  usage  at  the  hands  of  rulers  and  people, 
Peter's  confession  rises  clear  and  decided. 

Some  detect  the  aitistic  finish  of  this  gospel  in  its 
three  temptations  (iv.  1 — 11),  three  paroxysms  in 
Gethsemane  (xxvi.  39,  42,  44)  ;  seven  parables  (xiii.)  ; 


MATTHEW.  23 

ten  miracles  (viii.  2 — ix.  34),  and  so  forth ;  but  the 
careful  reader  will  rather  detect  it  in  the  relevancy 
of  each  paragraph  to  the  main  theme.  Kenan,  though 
he  pronounces  Mark  to  be  the  only  authentic  docu- 
ment for  the  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  finds  in  the 
discourses  preserved  by  Matthew  a  value  so  great  as 
to  make  it  "  the  most  important  book  of  Christendom, 
the  most  important  book  which  has  ever  been 
written."* 

The  unity  of  the  gospel  has  been  denied  (1)  on  the 
ground  that  Papias  referred  to  Matthew  only  the 
collection  and  publication  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus.t 
This  is  a  misunderstanding  of  the  word  Aoyia  used  by 
Papias,t  which  does  not  exclude  the  narration  of  deeds, 
and  probably  was  used  as  equivalent  to  "  scriptures."§ 
(2)  It  is  aifirmed  that  both  strict  and  liberal  Jewish 
Christianity  are  represented  in  the  gospel,  the  one  in 
such  passages  as  v.  17 — 19  ;  xxiii.  3;  xix.  28,  and  in 
the  assertion  of  the  exclusive  mission  of  the  Messiah 
to  the  Jews  x.  5,  6 ;  xv.  24 ;  the  other  in  passages 
where  the  exclusion  of  the  Jews  and  the  ingathering 
of  the  Gentiles  are  foretold  (xxi.  43),  in  the  visit  of 
the  Magi,  the  words  to  the  centurion  (viii.  10 — 12), 
and  the  commission  to  preach  to  all  nations.  But  as 
Farrar  ||  says  :  "The  answer  is  simple.  The  asserted 

*  Leg  Evangiles,  p.  212. 

f  Schleiermacher,  Holtzmann. 

\  Lightfoot,  in  Contemporary  Review,  August,  1875. 

§  Keim  (i.  81)  refutes  this  assault  on  the  unity  of  Matthew, 
and  concludes  "we  decidedly  reject  a  theory  which,  in  its 
mechanical  platitude,  gives  a  mortal  wound  to  the  organic  life 
of  this  gospel." 

<>f  flic  7?w7'-p,  HI 


24  TEE  GOSPELS. 

discrepancy  lay  in  facts  which  found  their  synthesis 
in  wider  truths.  Jesus  was  both  the  Messiah  of  the 
Jews  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  He  came  to 
the  Jew  first,  and  afterwards  to  the  Gentile.  The 
Evangelist  was  a  Jewish  Christian,  but  he  could  not 
suppress,  nor  did  he  desire  to  suppress,  facts  and  words 
which  belonged  to  an  order  of  thoughts  infinitely 
wider  than  that  in  which  he  had  been  trained."  (3) 
It  has  been  pointed  out  that  quotations  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  this  gospel  are  sometimes  taken  from 
the  Hebrew,  sometimes  from  the  LXX.  But  of  these 
quotations,  even  after  Massebieau's  IZxamen,  no  satis- 
factory account  can  be  given,  and  certainly  they  do  not 
form  a  safe  test  for  separating  part  from  part  of  this 
gospel. 


ST.    MARK. 

Tradition  uniformly  ascribed  the  second  gospel  to 
Mark.  The  first  extant  account  of  its  composition  is 
preserved  by  Eusebius  (iii.  39)  who  quotes  from 
Papias  (Bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century)  the  following  words  :  "  This  too  the 
presbyter  [John,  contemporary  of  Apostles]  used  to 
say  :  Mark  having  become  the  interpreter  *  of  Peter 

*  'EpnTjvtvrfa,  sometimes  supposed  to  imply  that  Mark  trans- 
lated Peter's  addresses  into  Latin  for  the  sake  of  the  Romans  ; 
sometimes  that  he  acted  as  secretary  (to  Peter)  aiding  him 
in  the  composition  of  letters  and  so  forth.  From  the  passage 
quoted  above,  it  can  only  be  gathered  that  Mark  in  this  parti- 
cular instance  became  the  interpreter  of  Peter  by  putting  in 
writing  words  of  his  which  otherwise  would  have  been  lost. 


MARK.  25 

wrote  with  accuracy,  though  not  in  order,  whatever 
he  remembered  of  the  things  which  had  been  either 
said  or  done  by  Christ.  For  he  neither  heard  the 
Lord  nor  accompanied  Him  but  afterwards,  as  I  said, 
[accompanied]  Peter,  who  used  to  suit  his  teaching  to 
[his  hearers']  needs,  but  not  as  if  giving  an  orderly 
account  of  the  Lord's  words  ;  so  that  Mark  in  writing 
down  in  this  fashion  the  individual  things  which  he 
remembered,  made  no  mistake;  for  of  one  thing  he 
made  sure,  that  he  neither  omitted  nor  falsified  any- 
thing." The  connection  of  Mark  with  Peter,  implied 
in  this  passage,  is  taken  for  granted  by  Justin  Martyr 
who  quotes  the  second  gospel  under  the  title  of  the 
"  Reminiscences  of  Peter."  [Dial.  c.  T.,  106].*  Irenaeus 
(iii.  1,  1)  adds  a  little  to  the  tradition,  saying, 
"After  the  decease  [of  Peter  and  Paul]  Mark,  the 
disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  himself  also  wrote 
and  handed  on  to  us  what  Peter  had  preached."  And 
Clement  of  Alexandria  goes  still  a  little  further  and 
says  that  there  was  a  tradition  to  the  effect  that  Mark 
wrote  at  the  instigation  of  those  who  were  in  Rome 
and  had  presumably  heard  Peter. 

Now  this  tradition  in  many  particulars  suits  both 
what  we  know  of  Mark  and  what  we  know  of  the 
second  gospel.  In  the  New  Testament  only  one 
person  of  the  name  is  mentioned,  the  John  Mark 
of  the  Acts,  whose  Jewish  name  John  is  gradually 
discarded  so  that  he  appears  simply  as  "  Mark "  in 
the  epistles.  That  this  Mark  was  from  his  early 
years  an  ally  of  Peter's  is  apparent  from  the  circum- 

*  That  the  avrov  of  Justin  refers  to  Peter  is  admitted.  See 
Otto  in  loo. 


26  THE  GOSPELS. 

stance  that  it  was  to  his  molher's  house  in  Jerusalem 
Peter  most  naturally  betook  himself  when  rescued 
from  prison  (Acts  xii.  12).  Whether,  as  Farrar 
suggests,  this  house  may  have  been  the  scene  of  the 
Last  Supper  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost, 
we  do  not  know,  but  certainly — and  this  is  more  to  our 
present  purpose, — it  was  the  home  of  Mark  and  the 
natural  resort  of  Peter.*  We  are  not  surprised  then 
to  find  Peter  (1  Peter  v.  13)  speaking  of  his  young 
friend  as  "Marcus,  my  son,"  whether  this  be  the 
affectionate  epithet  of  an  older  man,  or  implying  that 
Mark  had  been  brought  to  Christ  by  Peter.  It  is 
true  that  it  is  in  connection  with  Paul,  to  whom  he 
was  introduced  by  his  cousin  f  Barnabas,  Mark  seems 
to  have  been  introduced  to  the  life  of  an  evangelist. 
And  notwithstanding  his  desertion  of  Paul  and  the 
unfortunate  rupture  which  this  occasioned  between 
men  who  owed  so  much  to  one  another  as  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  it  is  still  with  Paul,  commended  and  trusted 
by  him,  that  we  find  Mark  in  after  years  (Col.  iv.  10 1 
Philem.  24).  But  between  his  departure  from  Pan; 
on  his  first  tour  and  his  presence  with  him  in  Rome, 
there  was  ample  time  for  his  being  in  Babylon  with 
Peter  (1  Peter  v.  13)  and  for  his  accompanying  him 
as  well  as  Barnabas  in  many  journeys. 

There  is  much  also  in  the  gospel  itself  which  gives 
verisimilitude  to  the  tradition.  Not  only  are  there 

*  Weiss  (Mnleitvng,  p.  516),  thinks  the  tradition  of  Mark's 
authorship  receives  confirmation  and  an  obscure  passage  of 
the  gospel  becomes  intelligible,  if  the  young  man  of  xiv.  51 
was  Mark,  who  had  followed  Jesus  and  the  disciples  out  of  his 
house  when  they  had  eaten  the  supper. 

f  Col  iv.  10  with  Lightfoot's  note. 


MARK.  27 

throughout  it  unquestionable  evidences  that  the  story 
had  been  told  by  an  eye-witness  (see  Characteristics, 
I  elow),  but  there  is  also  evidence  that  this  eye- witness 
was  Peter,  *  The  Gospel  really  begins  with  his  call ; 
it  culminates  in  his  confession ;  it  closes  with  the 
message  of  the  risen  Lord  to  "  his  disciples  and  to 
Peter."  At  Capernaum  it  is  Peter's  house  which  is 
the  centre  of  operations,  and  those  who  accompany 
Jesus  are  "Simon  and  those  that  were  with  him." 
Various  allusions  and  incidents  are  found  in  this 
gospel  alone  f  and  some  of  these  can  most  reasonably 
be  accounted  for  by  the  supposition  that  Peter  was 
the  source  of  information  (i.  35 — 38;  xiii.  3).  On 
the  other  hand  there  is  a  significant  suppression  of 
particulars  connected  with  Peter  which  are  related  in 
the  other  gospels  (cf.  vii.  17  with  Matt.  xv.  15; 
vi.  47 — 51  with  Matt.  xiv.  28—31 ;  ix.  33  with  Matt, 
xvii.  24—27;  viii.  29,  30  with  Matt.  xvi.  16—19). 
These  omissions  are  credited  to  the  modesty  of  Peter ; 
but  this  does  not  satisfactorily  account  for  all  of  them, 
and  still  less  for  the  omission  of  incidents  of  which 
Peter  could  have  given  a  circumstantial  account. 
But  this  irregularity  in  the  narrative  is  precisely 
what  Papias'  account  [John  Presbyter's]  of  the  origin 
of  the  gospel  would  lead  us  to  expect.  For  Mark 
was  not  writing  to  Peter's  dictation  nor  with  Peter 
sitting  within  questioning  distance;  he  was  writinj 
from  memory  and  himself  striving  to  recall  what  he 

*  Note  the  oXiyov  of  i.  19  ;  also  the  «/t0t/3a\\otrae  of  the  one 
boat's  crew,  the  KarapriZovTac  of  the  other. 

f  For  a  full  list  of  these  see  Dr.  Lindsay's  Comments :  p. 
60—63. 


28  THE   GOSPELS. 

had  heard  Peter  preach  to  this  and  that  audience  or 
relate  to  this  or  that  inquirer  as  occasion  demanded. 

That  the  gospel  was  written  for  Gentile  readers  is 
apparent  from  the  explanation  given  of  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic  names  and  expressions, as  of  Boanerges,  iii.  17; 
Talitha  cumi,  v.  41 ;  Corban,  vii.  11 ;  see  also  x.  46 ; 
xiv.  36 ;  xv.  22.  Jewish  customs  are  also  explained 
as  in  vii.  2,  3,  4,  where  "  denied "  (common  in  the 
Greek)  is  explained  by  "  unwashed,"  and  the  clause 
is  added  "  For  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  except 
they  wash  their  hands  oft  eat  not."  (See  also  xiii.  3 ; 
xiv.  12;  xv.  42.)  The  genealogy  of  Jesus  is  also 
omitted  as  having  no  interest  for  Gentile  readers. 
The  Old  Testament  is  only  once  quoted  by  the  Evan- 
gelist in  his  own  narrative,  and  the  law  is  not  men- 
tioned. From  his  reducing  money  to  Roman  currency 
(xii.  42,  "  two  mites,  which  make  a  quadrans  "),  speak- 
ing of  Pilate  as  if  his  readers  would  know  who  was 
meant  (xv.  1),  and  from  his  frequent  Latinisms*it 
has  been,  with  much  plausibility,  concluded  that  it 
was  written  in  Rome. 

A  definite  date  can  scarcely  be  assigned  to  this 
gospel.  But  though  Keim  would  bring  it  down  to  the 
year  100  A.D.  the  general  tendency  of  modern  criti- 
cism is  to  place  it  very  early.  Those  who  consider 
Matthew  and  Luke  to  be  expansions  of  Mark  are  of 
course  compelled  to  find  an  early  date  for  this  gospel. 
But  this  early  date  is  also  argued  from  "  the  rudeness 

*  Some  of  these  he  uses  in  common  with  the  other  evangelists, 
KJ/vffog,  \iyitjiv,  KpafBftaTOQ,  KodpdvrqG,  7rpairw/>ioj>,  typayeXXovv: 
peculiar  to  him  are  Ktvrup'uav,  aTriKovXarup,  JjEffrijj;,  TO  itcavov 


MARK.  29 

and  even  vulgarity  of  his  Greek,"  and  especially  from 
his  blunt  insertion  of  many  expressions  which  are 
liable  to  misconstruction  or  which  might  give  offence 
to  weak  believers,  and  which  are  consequently  omitted 
from  the  later  gospels  (as  in  vi.  5,  "  He  was  not  able 
to  do  there  any  mighty  work  ").*  At  the  same  time, 
as  Mark  only  wrote  what  he  "  remembered  "  of  Peter's 
narrations,  we  must  place  the  gospel  after  the  date  of 
Peter's  death,  or  say  about  the  year  67  or  68  A.D. 
This,  however,  is  uncertain.f 

The  most  striking  literary  characteristic  of  the 
second  gospel  is  its  picturesqueness.  The  narrative  is 
full  of  realistic  and  graphic  details  which  have  the 
effect  of  a  picture.:}:  The  expression  of  face,  the 
bearing,  the  gestures  of  Jesus  are  described  as  if  by 
one  who  had  them  imprinted  on  his  own  memory. 
Thus  we  are  told  how  Jesus  "  looked  round  about  on  " 
His  hearers  (iii.  5  and  34;  cf.  also  v.  32;  vi.  41;  x.  23; 
xi.  11);  how  He  "turned  round  "  on  Peter,  viii.  33; 
how  He  "  took  a  little  child  in  His  arms,"  ix.  36,  took 
up  other  children  and  put  His  hands  on  them,  x.  16. 
This  fulness  of  concrete  detail  extends  to  the  descrip- 
tions given  of  His  cures ;  he  put  His  fingers  in  the 
ears  of  the  deaf  mute,  spat,  and  touched  his  tongue, 
vii.  33.  So  clearly  does  the  narrator  see  what  he 
describes  that  he  frequently  drops  into  the  present 
tense,  i.  40 ;  ii.  10,  etc.,  and  gives  the  Lord's  words  in 

*  Article  "  Gospels,"  Encyc.  Brit. 

f  The  tradition  recorded  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  implies 
that  Peter  was  yet  alive  when  the  gospel  was  written. 

J  "  It  seeks  to  present  not  a  chronological  or  pragmatical 
history,  but  a  picture  of  the  public  life  of  Jesus." — Weiss, 
p.  500. 


30  THE  GOSPELS. 

direct  rather  than  in  indirect  narration,  "  Peace,  be 
still,"  iv.  39  ;  cf.  also  v.  8 ;  v.  12 ;  vi.  31 ;  ix.  25.  The 
time  and  place  are  exactly  specified ;  Jesus  betakes 
Himself  to  a  desert  place  "  a  great  while  before  day  " 
(i.  35)  ;  He  embarked  to  cross  the  sea  of  Galilee 
"  when  even  was  come  "  (iv.  35) ;  He  went  forth  "  by 
the  sea  side  "  ii.  13 ;  iv.  1 ;  the  centurion  "  stood  over 
against  him,"  xv.  39 ;"  they  saw  a  young  man  sitting 
on  the  right  side"  xvi.  5.  Perhaps  it  is  the  same 
pictorial  gift  rather  than  any  design  which  leads  the 
writer  so  often  to  vivify  his  story  by  noting  the  feel- 
ings with  which  the  Lord  was  affected  by  what  was 
passing;  how  He  "  grieved  "  (iii.  5),  "  sighed  "  (vii.  34; 
viii.  12),  "wondered"  (vi.  6),  was  "angry"  (iii.  5; 
x.  14),  "hungered"  (xi.  12),  felt  fatigue  (vi.  31), 
slept  (iv.  38). 

An  important  element  in  this  life-like  picture  is 
the  description  of  the  effects  produced  on  the  people 
by  what  they  saw  and  heard.  The  superficial  popu- 
larity is  constantly  kept  in  view.  The  people  "  pressed 
upon  Him,"  "  thronged  Him  "  so  that  He  had  to  enter 
a  boat ;  so  that  there  was  "  no  room  even  about  the 
doors"  of  Simon's  house;  so  that  He  had  once  and 
again  to  seek  leisure  by  retreating  to  a  desert  place. 
There  were  so  many  coming  and  going  that  Jesus  and 
His  disciples  had  not  leisure  "  so  much  as  to  eat 
bread "  (the  touch  surely  of  one  who  was  present, 
cf.  ii,  2 ;  iii.  10,  20 ;  v.  21 ;  vi.  31,  33,  etc.).  But 
deeper  effects  are  also  recorded.  The  greatness  of 
Jesus  is  reflected  in  the  "awe  and  wonder"  of  tha 
people  (i.  22,  27;  ii.  12;  vi.  2),  in  the  "fear"  and 
"  amazement  "  of  the  disciples  (iv.  41 ;  vi.  51),  in  tho 


MARK.  31 

wonder  excited  by  His   teaching  as  well  as  by  His 
deeds  (x.  24,  26,  32).* 

This  pictorial  power  admirably  serves  the  purpose 
of  the  Evangelist,  who  writes  in  no  special  dogmatic, 
interest  but  aims  at  presenting  to  the  Roman  mind 
the  actual  personality  and  power  of  Christ,  the  verit- 
able things  He  did  and  said,  the  effects  produced  on 
the  various  classes  of  society. f  The  plan  of  the 
gospel  is  the  simplest  possible.  It  proceeds  on  the 
idea  of  showing  the  gradual  expansion  of  the  field 
of  Christ's  activity,  and  the  consequently  increasing- 
enthusiasm  and  faith  of  the  masses  over  against  the 
steadily  deepening  hostility  of  the  scribes,  Pharisees, 
and  Herodians  (iii.  6  ;  xii.  13).  Incidents  which  dis- 
close the  beginnings  of  this  hostility  are  grouped  in 
ii.  1 — iii.  6 ;  and  with  ever-widening  rings  it  at  last 
reaches  the  point  of  overflow  as  described  in  xi.  27— 
xii.  40.  The  retirement  of  Jesus  from  the  presence 
of  these  conflicting  tides  of  feeling  form  a  feature  of 
this  gospel.  Eleven  of  these  retirements  are  men- 
tioned. And  they  are  mentioned  to  show  the  intensity 
of  the  feeling  on  both  sides  and  also  the  command  of 
the  situation  which  Jesus  throughout  kept,  not  suffer- 
ing the  enthusiasm  of  the  people  to  override  His 
purpose  and  precipitate  Him  into  a  merely  earthly 
kingdom,  nor  on  the  other  hand  yielding  Himself  to 

*  The  concatenated  rapidity  of  the  sketch  is  illustrated  by 
the  use  of  ev9ioj£,  straightway,  forty-one  times. 

f  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  Mark  disregards  the  teaching 
of  Christ,  and  exhibits  only  His  might  in  action.  He  intro- 
duces Him  as  a  teacher  (i.  21),  and  more  than  once  he  gathers 
specimens  of  His  pregnant  sayings  (iv.  21 — 25;  vii.  34;  ix.  33 — 
60).  But  cf.  Westcott's  Introd^l  and  Farrar's  Messages,  p.  57. 


32  THE   GOSPELS. 

the  hatred  of  the  authorities  before  He  had  effectively 
uttered  His  teaching  and  fixed  Himself  in  the  endur- 
ing affection  of  some.  Therefore  alongside  of  the 
popular  enthusiasm  runs  a  more  silent  but  deeper 
current  of  profound  conviction.  Out  of  the  mass  of 
the  people  some  receptive  souls  are  drawn  by  a  sense 
of  His  teaching  and  a  sense  of  His  worth  (iii.  34; 
iv.  10)  ;  an  inner  circle  of  disciples  who  constantly  ac- 
company Him  is  chosen,  and  among  these  an  inmost 
trio,  of  which  Peter  is  the  most  prominent  member, 
is  trained. 

The  concluding  verses  of  the  gospel  (xvi.  9 — 20) 
are  generally  regarded  as  an  appendix  by  an  unknown 
hand.  The  best  textual  critics  *  reject  them.  They 
are  not  found  in  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  nor  in  the  Vatican. t 
The  internal  evidence  is  strongly  against  their  recep- 
tion. The  repetition  of  "  early"  (ver.  9,  cf.  ver.  2)  is 
needless ;  the  word  for  "  week  "  is  never  elsewhere 
used  by  Mark ;  the  addition  "  out  of  whom  He  cast 
seven  devils,"  to  Mary  Magdalene's  name  is  quite 
unaccountable,  as  she  has  been  already  named  in  this 
chapter  as  well  as  previously  in  the  gospel ;  •'*  the 
Lord  "  occurs  twice  in  these  few  verses,  never  else- 
where in  Mark  ;  other  words  and  constructions  occur- 
ring in  this  passage  are  unknown  to  Mark.  The 
promises  made  to  believers  and  the  general  character 
of  the  paragraph  are  suspicious.  There  is,  however, 

*  Tregelles,  Meyer,  Tischendorf,  Westcott  and  Hort,  and 
others. 

f  But  some  doubt  hangs  over  the  testimony  of  these  MSS. 
in  this  passage.  See  the  critical  editions  and  Salmon's  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  the  present  ending  of  Mark  (Introd.,  190-3). 


LUKE.  33 

a  difficulty  in  removing  these  verses,  for,  if  removed, 
they  leave  the  gospel  terminating  with  the  words 
tyofiovvTo  yap ;  and  as  Dr.  Abbott  says,  "  from  a 
literary  point  of  view  the  yap,  and  from  a  moral  point 
of  view  the  ill-omened  tyofiovvro,  make  it  almost 
incredible  that  these  words  represent  a  deliberate 
termination  assigned  by  an  author  to  a  composition 
of  his  own."  He  accordingly  supposes  that  as  the 
common  (triple)  tradition  ended  here  Mark  shrank 
from  adding  anything  to  it.  Certainly  the  conjecture 
that  a  leaf  has  been  torn  off  must  be  discarded.  Torn 
off  when?  Before  any  copy  of  the  autograph  had 
been  made  ?  Then  Mark  could  readily  supply  it  in 
the  original  MS.  Torn  off  after  copies  were  made? 
Then  the  original  paragraphs  were  already  multiplied, 
and  the  loss  of  the  one  actual  autograph  was  of  no 
importance.  We  can  only  say  the  termination  has 
somehow  been  tampered  with,*  and  that  the  difficul- 
ties connected  with  it  have  not  yet  been  satisfactorily 
solved. 

ST.  LUKE. 

The  earliest  traces  of  the  third  gospel  are  analogous 
to  those  of  the  second.  It  was  quoted  and  used  in 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century  t;  expressly 
ascribed  to  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul,  in  the 

*  All  that  can  be  said  in  favour  of  the  present  ending  may 
be  seen  in  Dean  Burgon's  Last  Twelve  Verses  of  St.  Mark. 

f  Marcion,  who  taught  at  Rome  140 — 170,  and  Cerdo  before 
him,  used  Luke,  and  traces  of  its  use  are  fotond  in  Basilides 
(c.  A.D.  120).  It  is  also  probable  that  Clement  (80—100  A.D.) 
had  seen  it.  For  full  discussion,  see  Godet  on  Lulte. 

3 


34  THE  GOSPELS. 

second  half  of  the  century.  In  the  Muratorian  Canon 
it  is  described  as  the  work  of  "Luke,  a  physician, 
whom  Paul  received  among  his  followers."  Irenseus  * 
says  that  "  Luke,  the  follower  of  Paul,  set  down  in  a 
book  the  gospel  preached  by  him  (Paul)."  Tertullian 
(adv.  Marc.,  iv.  5)  says  that  "  Luke's  digest  is  usually 
ascribed  to  Paul";  and  in  the  same  passage  he  re- 
minds Marcion  that  Luke's  gospel  from  its  first 
publication  (ab  initio  editionis  sure)  has  had  the  con- 
fidence of  the  Church.  Origen  f  speaks  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  Luke  as  praised  by  Paul.  And  Eusebius, 
without  himself  approving,  refers  to  the  common 
belief  that  when  Paul  speaks  of  "  my  gospel "  he 
means  the  gospel  of  Luke. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  then  that  in  the  mind  of  the 
early  Church  the  person  designated  in  the  title  of 
this  gospel  as  its  author  was  the  "beloved  physician" 
of  Col.  iv.  14,  the  "fellow-labourer"  and  faithful 
friend  of  Paul  (Philem.  24  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  11),  who  accom- 
panied him  to  Rome  and  stood  by  him  to  the  end. 
From  the  manner  in  which  Paul  distinguishes  him 
from  those  of  the  circumcision  (Col.  iv.  11,  14)  it 
is  generally  concluded  that  he  was  of  Gentile  origin, 
and  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  assertion  of 
Eusebius  £  that  he  was  born  in  Antioch.§  He  seems 

*  iii.  1,  1,  and  m  xiv.  1  he  calls  Luke  "  inseparabilis  a  Paulo 
et  cooperarius  ejus  in  Evangelic." 

f  Quoted  in  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  vi.  25. 

j  H.  E.,  iii.  4. 

§  Attempts  to  identify  him  with  Lucius  of  Gyrene  (Acts 
xiii.  1),  or  with  Silas  (Silvanus,  silva  =  lucus)  proceed  on 
mistakes.  Also  the  prologue  of  the  gospel  shows  that  its 
authi  r  cannot  have  been  one  of  the  Seventy. 


LUKE.  35 

to  have  joined  Paul  at  Troas  (Acts  xvi.  11,  at  which 
point  the  "  they  "  of  the  preceding  narrative  becomes 
"  we  "),  to  have  remained  at  Philippi  when  Paul  had 
to  leave  it,  and  to  have  been  resumed  into  the 
Apostle's  company  when,  six  or  seven  years  after, 
Paul  returned  to  Philippi  (Acts  xx.  5)  on  his  way 
to  Jerusalem  for  the  last  time.  From  this  point 
onward  he  seems  to  have  continued  in  Paul's 
company,  and  may,  as  Holtzmann  suggests,*  have 
suffered  with  him  in  Rome. 

That  the  contents  of  the  gospel  to  some  extent 
corroborate  this  tradition  is  not  denied. t  But  to 
what  extent  this  gospel  can  be  said  to  be  Pauline  has 
been  very  largely  debated.  A  few  modern  critics 
(Godet,  New  Testament  Studies,  p.. 44)  adhere  to  the 
traditional  view  that  Luke's  gospel  is  virtually  Paul's. 
Others  (Reuss,  History  of  New  Testament,  209—213) 
minimise  its  Paulinism.  Baur  and  Volkmar  find  it 
to  be  a  purely  party  book  intended  to  exalt  Paul  and 
combat  Jewish  Christianity.  The  more  recent  mem- 
bers of  the  Tubingen  school  lean  more  to  the  idea 
that  it  is  meant  to  accomplish  a  reconcilement  between 
the  Pauline  and  Jewish  Christian  parties  in  the 
Church.  (So  Hilgenfeld  and  Holsten.)  That  the 
gospel  is  not  anti-Jewish  is  sufficiently  evinced  by 
the  scenes  in  the  temple  (i.  and  ii.) ;  the  reverence 
of  Jesus  as  "  Son  of  David "  (xviii.  38,  etc),  and  as 

*  Die  Synoptischen  Evangelien,  376. 

f  Weiss  (p.  654)  thinks  it  mere  "  Spielerei "  to  find  in  iv.  38 
and  elsewhere  indications  of  Luke's  professional  knowledge  as 
a  physician  j  but  see  Hobart  on  the  Medical  La-nguage  of  St. 
lake. 


36  THE   GOSPELS. 

Theocratic  king  (xix.  38) ;  the  recognition  of  the  prior 
claims  of  the  Jews  (xiii.  16;  xix.  9),  and  the  refer- 
ences to  the  fulfilment  of  Scripture  (iv.  21 ;  xxiv.  44).* 
But  to  find  in  these  passages  and  in  the  commendation 
of  poverty  (vi.  20;  xvi.  19),  and  of  other  ascetic 
characteristics  (vi.  35),  evidence  of  a  Judaizing  bias, 
is  to  run  to  an  extreme.  There  is,  however,  on  the 
other  hand  much  in  the  gospel  which  seems  to  indi- 
cate that  it  was  written  by  one  who  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  preach  it  to  the  Gentiles.  There  is  the 
significant  announcement  made  by  our  Lord  at  the 
commencement  of  His  ministry  (iv.  26,  27).  There 
is  prominence  given  to  the  call  to  the  Gentiles  (xiii. 
28,  30 ;  cf.  xxiv.  47.) ;  and  not  only  is  importance 
attached  to  Christ's  ministry  in  Samaria  (ix.  52 ; 
xvii.  1 1 ),  but  the  somewhat  adulterated  Jewish  resent- 
ment against  the  Samaritans  is  vehemently  rebuked 
(ix.  55,  56),  and  instances  are  cited  in  which  Sama- 
ritans showed  themselves  more  appreciative  of  Christ's 
kindness  than  Jews  (xvii.  11 — 19),  and  more  ready 
to  fulfil  the  law  of  love  than  even  priest  or  Levite 
(x.  30 — 33).  In  harmony  with  this  deletion  of  the 
distinction  which  sundered  Jew  from  Gentile  is  the 
grand  universality  of  Christ's  announcement  of  His 
purpose  in  the  world,  "to  seek  and  to  save  that  which 
is  lost"  inclusive  of  all  men;  and  the  memorable 

*  After  citing  these  and  other  passages  Reuss  says,  "  After 
this  it  is  evident  what  is  to  be  thought  of  the  old  idea  of  a 
direct,  even  controlling,  influence  of  the  Apostle  Paul  upon 
the  editing  of  the  third  gospel,  an  idea  for  which  the  modern 
Tubingen  school  has  after  all  only  invented  a  different 
formula." 


LUKE,  37 

parables  in  which  the  Fatherly  love  and  sense  of  loss 
on  God's  part  are  set  forth  (xv. ;  cf.  Matt,  xviii. 
12 — 14),  as  well  as  the  instances  in  which  this  love 
is  shown  in  actual  operation,  lifting  up  the  humble 
penitent  and  welcoming  the  almost  hopeless,  the 
woman  who  was  a  sinner  (vii.  36 — 50),  Zacchseus, 
the  outcast  publican  who  looked  for  nothing  less  than 
that  he  should  be  invited  (xix.  1 — 10),  the  publican 
praying  "afar  off"  (xviii.  10).  The  man  who  saw 
the  significance  of  these  parables  and  incidents,  and 
out  of  the  mass  of  material  before  him  chose  these  for 
their  significance,  certainly  understood  and  sympa- 
thized with  the  gospel  of  Paul. 

Here  again,  however,  we  must  beware  of  running 
to  an  extreme,  and  finding  Paulinism  where  there 
is  none;*  as  in  the  mission  of  the  Seventy  (x.  1), 
which  has  been  again  and  again  used  by  critics  t' 
as  proof  of  the  strong  Pauline  bias  of  the  writer. 
Even  Bleek  says :  "  According  to  the  later  Jews 
the  number  of  the  Gentile  nations  was  seventy  (or 
seventy- two),  according  to  the  list  of  nations  in 
Gen.  x.  It  is  therefore  very  probable  that,  as  the 
twelve  apostles  represented  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel,  so  the  seventy  disciples  were  intended  to 
represent  other  nations  collectively;  and  Luke,  in 
mentioning  them,  intended  to  show  that  the  Gentiles, 
as  well  as  the  Jews,  were  to  be  sharers  of  the  salvation 

*  For  a  comparison  of  Luke's  account  of  the  appearances 
of  the  risen  Lord  with  Paul's  account  (1  Cor.  xv.)  we  must 
refer  to  Holtzmann's  great  work,  2>ie  Synoptischcn  Evangelien, 
p.  396. 

t  Strauss,  Baur,  etc. 


38  THE   GOSPELS. 

which  the  Kingdom  of  God  secured."  Not  a  hint 
of  this  is  given  in  the  narrative,  and  the  Apostles 
themselves  are  commissioned  to  preach  to  all  nations 
(xxiv.  47).  The  seventy  were  not  sent  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  were  no  more  intended  to  represent 
them  than  the  seventy  men  who  were  appointed  to 
aid  Moses  in  his  work  (Num.  xi.  16).*  Precarious 
also  is  it  to  argue  from  Luke's  recording  the 
ignorance  and  slowness  of  the  twelve,  that  he 
undervalued  them  (cf.  ix.  45,  51 — 56 ;  xviii.  34 ; 
xxiv.  25,  36—43;  xxii.  32).  But  the  result  to 
which  an  examination  of  the  gospel  leads  is  that 
its  writer  was  well  acquainted  with  the  views  of 
Paul  and  thoroughly  sympathised  with  him,  and 
that  this  has  not  only  coloured  his  phraseology,  but 
has  occasionally  determined  his  choice  of  material. f 
The  third  gospel,  then,  is  especially  the  gospel  of 
a  "  gratuitous  and  universal  "  salvation.  J  Paul's 
tender  and  all-embracing  heart  finds  here  its  stimulus 
and  justification.  His  extension  of  the  gospel  to 
all  and  his  doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith  versus 
works  finds  its  basis  and  anticipation  in  the  life  and 

*  Eenan's  idea  is  that  Luke,  by  showing  that  others  besides 
the  twelve  had  apostolic  powers,  meant  to  save  the  legitimacy 
of  Paul's  apostolate  (Evangiles,  p.  171). 

f  For  a  full  list  of  verbal  analogies  between  Luke  and 
Paul  see  Davidson's  Introd.,  437.  Holtzmann  says:  "The 
Pauline  standpoint  of  Luke  regulates  his  choice  and  arrange- 
ment of  his  material ;  here  and  there  also  the  verbal  ex- 
pression of  the  discourses,  yet  not  as  if  a  subjective  tendency- 
character  took  the  place  of  an  objective  view  of  the  history." 

J  Renan  says  :  "  Luke's  boldest  stroke  in  this  respect  is 
the  conversion  of  the  thief  on  the  cross." 


LUKE.  39 

work  of  Christ  Himself.  The  gospel  opens  with 
hymns  to  celebrate  the  salvation  of  the  humble  and 
waiting  souls,  and  it  throughout  exhibits  Christ's 
compassion  for  the  poor,  for  women,  for  children,  for 
sinners.  The  Saviour  is  Himself  born  among  the 
houseless  (ii.  7),  and  shepherds  celebrate  His  birth 
(ii.  8).  His  parents  offer  for  Him  the  sacrifice  of 
the  poor  (ii.  24),  and  when  He  grew  up  He  had 
not  where  to  lay  His  head  (ix.  58).  The  poor 
are  "  blessed  "  (vi.  20) ;  the  rich  not  by  any  means 
necessarily  happy  (xvi.  25).  Equally  conspicuous  is 
the  Evangelist's  desire  to  show  the  relation  of  women 
to  the  kingdom  (v.iii.  3),  and  although  it  is  difficult 
to  trace  any  plan  in  the  gospel,  the  aim  and  idea  of  it 
are  everywhere  apparent.*  In  the  words  of  Arch- 
deacon Farrar,  it  is  "  the  gospel  of  the  Greek  and  of  the 
future ;  of  catholicity  of  mind ;  the  gospel  of  hymns 
and  of  prayers ;  the  gospel  of  the  Saviour ;  the 

* "  The  keynote  is  struck  in  the  song  of  Zacharias,  and 
repeated  in  the  first  sermon  of  Jesus  in  Nazareth.  The 
object  of  the  message  of  Jesus  is  (i.  77)  '  to  give  us  knowledge 
of  salvation '  by  '  the  remission  of  sins,'  by  reason  of  '  the* 
tender  mercy  of  our  God ;  whereby  the  day  spring  from  on 
high  hath  visited  us,  to  give  light  to  them  that  sit  in  darkness,' 
and  the  object  of  Jesus  Himself  (iv.  18)  is  'to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  poor,'  to  'heal  the  broken-hearted,  to  preach 
deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recovering  of  sight  to  the 
blind.'  All  through  the  gospel  (or  at  least  the  parts  peculiar 
to  Luke)  there  appears  to  a  greater  degree  than  in  the  first 
or  second  gospel  the  contrast  between  light  and  darkness, 
God  and  Satan,  sin  and  remission  of  sins,  culminating  in  the 
triumph  of  forgiveness  and  mercy  ;  so  that  in  the  very  last 
words  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples  (xxiv.  47)  the  proclamation 
of  '  repentance  and  remission  of  sins,'  is  made  the  prospect  of 
the  future  gospel  to  all  nations."-  -Encyc.  Brit.,  808. 


40  THE   GOSPELS. 

gospel  of  the  universality  and  gratuitousness  of 
salvation;  the  gospel  of  holy  toleration;  the  gospel 
of  those  whom  the  religious  world  regards  as 
heretics ;  the  gospel  of  the  publican,  and  the  outcast, 
and  the  weeping  Magdalene,  and  the  crucified  male- 
factor, and  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  and  of  the 
Prodigal  Son."  Renan,  though  he  considers  that 
this  gospel  is  entangled  with  legend,  and  that  its 
historical  value  is  less  than  that  of  Matthew  and 
Mark,  declares  it  to  be  the  most  beautiful  book  ever 
written,  and  exhausts  his  copious  vocabulary  in  praise 
of  its  largeheartedness  and  sweetness. 

From  the  general  character  of  Luke's  gospel  it 
would  naturally  be  inferred  that  it  was  written  for 
Gentiles.  The  brief  preface  written  by  the  evangelist 
himself  confirms  this  inference  so  far  as  to  show 
us  that  the  writer  addressed  it  to  "  Theophilus "  * 
primarily  for  his  own  use,  but,  as  the  issue  proves, 
not  exclusively  so.  Accordingly,  topographical  and 
other  references  not  likely  to  be  understood  except  in 
Palestine,  are  explained  (see  i.  26;  iv.  31 ;  xxi.  37; 
xxii.  1,  etc).  Dates  are  fixed  by  the  year  of  the 
reigning  emperor  (iii.  1) ;  the  taxing  under  Quirinius 
is  mentioned  (ii.  2) ;  and  Luke  omits  the  scourging 
and  ill-usage  which  Jesus  received  at  the  hands  of 
the  Roman  soldiers.  The  same  liking  for  the  Roman 
character  and  regard  for  the  Roman  government 

*  The  only  suggestion  regarding  Theophilus  which  seems 
worth  regarding  is  that  of  the  Clementine  Recognitions 
(x.  71),  which  records  that  he  was  a  man  in  great  authority 
at  Antioch.  This  coincides  with  Eusebius'  statement  that 
Luke  was  a  man  of  Antioch. 


LUKE.  41 

appears  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  Where  and  when  the 
gospel  was  written  are  matters  of  conjecture.  Its 
date  is  partly  determined  by  the  date  of  its  continua- 
tion— the  Book  of  Acts.  If  this  history  of  the  early 
Church  was  written  prior  to  the  year  70  A.D.,  then 
the  gospel  must  have  been  written  still  earlier.  My 
own  opinion  is  that  the  Book  of  Acts  was  written 
about  the  year  64,  and  that  the  gospel  was  written 
not  long  before,  possibly  while  Paul  was  detained  in 
Csesarea.  Kenan,  with  little  exaggeration,  says  that 
every  one  admits  that  the  gospsl  was  written  after 
A.D.  70.*  But  the  grounds  of  this  common  belief 
are  not  altogether  safe  to  build  on.  They  are  stated 
most  fully  by  Dr.  Abbott  f  as  follows  :  "  (1)  thepre- 
existence  and  implied  failure  of  many  *  attempts '  to 
set  forth  continuous  narratives  of  the  things  '  surely 
believed;'  (2)  the  mention  of  the  'tradition  of  the 
eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word '  as  past,  not 
as  present  (Trape'Soo-av)  (i.  2) ;  (3)  the  dedication  of 
the  gospel  to  a  man  of  rank  (fictitious  or  otherwise), 
who  is  supposed  to  have  been  '  catechised '  in 
Christian  truth ;  (4)  the  attempt  at  literary  style 
and  at  improvement  of  the  'usus  ecclesiasticus ' 
of  the  common  tradition;  (5)  the  composition  of 
something  like  the  commencement  of  a  Christian 
hymnology ;  (6)  the  development  of  the  genealogy 
and  the  higher  tone  of  the  narrative  of  the  incarna- 

*  Hilgenfeld  dates  it  100—110  ;    Keim  about  90  ;  Meyer, 
Bleek,  Reuss,  after  70.     Weiss   puts  it  between  70  and  80, 
inferring  this  date  chiefly  from  the  wording  of  the  prediction 
xix.  43,  which  he  thinks  plainly  Ex  evcntu. 
\  Encyc.  Brit.,  Art.  "  Gospels,"  p.  813. 


42  THE  GOSPELS. 

tion  ;  (7)  the  insertion  of  many  passages  mentioning 
our  Lord  as  6  /cvpios,  not  in  address  but  in  narrative  ; 
(8)  the  distinction,  more  clearly  drawn,  between  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  final  coming;  (9)  the 
detailed  prediction  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  implying 
reminiscences  of  its  fulfilment ;  (10)  the  very  great 
development  of  the  manifestations  of  Jesus  after  the 
resurrection.  The  inference  from  all  this  evidence 
would  be  that  Luke  was  not  written  till  about  80  A.D. 
at  earliest."  Of  these  arguments  (5),  (6)  and  (10) 
imply  a  theory  of  the  growth  of  legend  which  we 
cannot  accept;  and  besides,  (6)  and  (10)  might,  with 
equal  plausibility,  be  used  to  prove  the  late  date  of 
Romans  and  1  Corinthians.  Arguments  (1),  (2),  (3), 
(4)  and  (7)  do  not  require  a  date  later  than  the  year 
60.  The  only  arguments  of  real  weight  are  those 
drawn  from  the  wording  of  our  Lord's  predictions. 
There  is  no  question  that  Luke  speaks  more  definitely 
of  a  siege  and  of  some  of  its  results  than  Matthew 
and  Mark.  But  on  the  other  hand,  had  the  pre- 
diction been  modified  by  Luke's  knowledge  of  the 
event,  could  he  have  inserted  such  a  verse  as  xxi.  27  ; 
and  could  he,  had  he  been  writing  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  have  so  tranquilly  closed  his 
gospel,  leaving  the  disciples  in  the  Temple  ?  But, 
after  all,  the  main  thing  is  that  whether  written 
before  or  after  70,  it  was  written,  as  Renan,  Weiss, 
and  Holtzmann  cordially  allow,  by  Paul's  companion, 
Luke. 


43 


ST.  JOHN. 

The  authorship  of  the  fourth  gospel  has  been  hotly 
contested.  In  ancient  times  its  genuineness  was 
denied  by  some  persons  whom  Epiphanius*  calls 
"  Alogi,"  a  nickname  which  has  the  double  meaning 
of  "  deniers  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  "  and  "  men 
without  reason."  It  is,  however,  generally  admitted 
that  their  rejection  of  the  gospel  is  of  no  significance, 
and  so  far  from  suggesting  that  the  Church  in  general 
rejected  it,  is  rather  an  indication  of  the  general  recep- 
tion of  the  gospel  as  Apostolic.  "  The  fact  that  their 
difficulty  with  the  gospel  was  a  doctrinal  one,  and  that 
they  appealed  to  no  tradition  in  favour  of  their  view  \ 
that  they  denied  the  Johannean  authorship  of  the 
Apocalypse  likewise,  and  absurdly  ascribed  both  books 
to  Cerinthus  .  .  .  shows  that  they  were  persons  of 
no  critical  judgment. "t  In  recent  times,  after  the 
frivolous  assaults  on  the  gospel  by  Evanson  (1792) 
and  others,  appeared  Bretschneider's  Probdbilia 
(1820),  in  which  all  subsequent  objections  have  been 
anticipated  either  explicitly  or  in  germ. 

In  considering  the  authorship  of  this  gospel,  the 
external  witnesses  may  first  be  called.  It  is  not 
questioned  that  the  fourth  gospel  was  accepted  as 
John's  by  the  Church  catholic  in  the  last  quarter  of 
the  second  century.  The  importance  of  this  fact  may 
easily  be  under-estimated,  and  its  significance  missed. 

*  Hcer.,  51. 

f  The  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  by  Ezra  Abbot,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  p.  18.  See  also  Luthardt's  St.  John  the  Author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  E.  T.,  c.  ii. 


44  THE  GOSPELS. 

But,  as  Mr.  Norton,  in  his  richly  suggestive  work  on 
the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  has  pointed  out,  the 
reception  of  the  four  canonical  gospels  at  this  date 
can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition  that 
they  are  genuine.  The  question  of  their  genuineness 
was  not  a  merely  literary  question  in  which  few  were 
interested;  it  was  a  question  in  which  every  Christian 
had  the  deepest  interest,  as  that  on  which  his  faith 
rested  ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  whole  Church 
could  have  been  persuaded  to  accept  them,  and  espe- 
cially a  gospel  such  as  the  fourth,  which  so  widely 
differs  from  the  others,  unless  there  was  a  general 
recognition  that  from  the  beginning  these  writings 
had  been  known  to  be  genuine.  Mr.  Norton's  words 
are  worth  quoting:  "About  the  end  of  the  second 
century  the  gospels  were  reverenced  as  sacred  books 
by  a  community  dispersed  over  the  world,  composed 
of  men  of  different  nations  and  languages.  There 
were,  to  say  the  least,  60,000  copies  of  them  in 
existence;  they  were  read  in  the  churches  of  Chris- 
tians ;  they  were  continually  quoted  and  appealed 
to,  as  of  the  highest  authority;  their  reputation 
was  as  well  established  among  believers  from  one 
end  of  the  Christian  community  to  the  other  as 
it  is  at  the  present  day  among  Christians  in  any 
country.  But  it  is  asserted  that  before  that  period 
we  find  no  trace  of  their  existence ;  and  it  is,  there- 
fore, inferred  that  they  were  not  in  common  use,  and 
but  little  known,  even  if  extant  in  their  present 
form.  This  reasoning  is  of  the  same  kind  as  if  one 
were  to  say  that  the  first  mention  of  Egyptian  Thebes 
is  in  the  time  of  Homer.  He,  indeed,  describes  it  as 


JOHN.  45 

a  city  which  poured  a  hundred  armies  from  its  hundred 
gates ;  but  his  is  the  first  mention  of  it,  and  therefore 
we  have  no  reason  to  suppose,  that,  before  his  time, 
it  was  a  place  of  any  considerable  note."  * 

The  first  writer  who  cites  the  Gospel  of  John  by 
name  is  Theophilus  of  Antioch  (c.  180  A.D.).  In  his 
Ad  Autolycum  (ii.  22)  he  has  occasion  to  explain  what 
is  meant  by  the  Word  of  God,  and  appeals  to  "  inspired 
men,  one  of  whom,  John,  says,  '  In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word,' "  etc.  A  little  earlier,  in  the  Mura- 
torian  fragment,  the  first  extant  account  of  the  com- 
position of  the  gospel  is  found :  "  The  fourth  of  the 
gospels  is  by  the  disciple  John.  He  was  urged  by 
his  fellow-disciples  and  bishops,  and  he  said,  '  Fast 
with  me  this  day,  and  for  three  days,  and  whatever 
shall  be  revealed  to  any  of  us,  lefc  us  relate  it.'  The 
same  night  it  was  revealed  to  the  Apostle  Andrew 
that  John  should  write  the  whole  in  his  own  name 
and  that  all  the  rest  should  revise  it."  A  similar 
tradition  is  preserved  by  Clement  t  of  Alexandria  and 
by  Epiphanius.j: 

But  although  the  fourth  gospel  is  not  cited  as  the 
Gospel  of  John  earlier  than  the  year  180  A.D.,  there  is 
no  doubt  that  it  was  in  existence  during  the  first  half 
of  the  second  century.  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  first 
Apology,  which  was  written  not  later  than  147  A.D. 
and  probably  earlier,  so  echoes  the  teaching  of  the 
fourth  gospel,  and  makes  such  use  of  its  contents,  and 
cites  words  so  closely  resembling  the  words  of  the 

*  Vol.  i.  123. 

t  See  Eusebius,  H.E.,  vi.  H. 

j  Pa?iarium,  llcer.,  li.  12. 


46  THE  GOSPELS. 

gospel,  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  he  was  not 
acquainted  with  a  document  virtually  the  same  as,  if 
not  identical  with,  our  fourth  gospel.  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot's 
very  elaborate  and  exact  examination  *  of  the  allusions 
and  quotations  in  Justin  amply  justifies  his  conclusion 
that  "  we  are  authorised  to  regard  it  as  in  the  highest 
degree  probable,  if  not  morally  certain,  that  in  the 
time  of  Justin  Martyr  the  fourth  gospel  was  generally 
received  as  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John." 

We  can,  however,  trace  the  gospel  further  back 
than  Justin.  Hippolyj-ap  (Philosophumena  or  Refut, 
Hcer.,  vii.  22),  in  giving  an  account  of  the  opinions 
of  Basileides,  who  flourished  at  Alexandria  about  the 
year  125  A.D.,  says,  "'This,'  says  he  (i.e.  Basileides), 
'  is  that  whicfr  Is^saia^nTthe  Gospels,  "  That  was  the 
true  light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into 
the  world."  '  The  words  are  cited  precisely  as  they 
stand  in  the  fourth  gospel,  and  as  they  are  not  words 
of  Jesus,  which  might  have  been  handed  down  through 
some  other  channel,  but  words  of  the  Evangelist  him- 
self, they  prove  that  the  gospel  existed  before  the  year 
125.  This  conclusion  some  critics  seek  to  evade  by 
maintaining  that  though  Hippolytus  seems  to  be 
quoting  Basileides  with  the  formula  "  he  says,"  he  is, 
in  point  of  fact,  rather  quoting  the  followers  of 
Basileides,  never  being  careful  to  distinguish  between 
the  opinions  of  the  head  of  a  school  and  his  disciples. 
Any  one  who  carefully  examines  the  method  of  Hip- 
polytus and  the  passages  in  question  will  agree  with 
Matthew  Arnold  in  his  reply  to  this  objection :  "  It 

*  The  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  External  Evidences. 
By  Ezra  Abbot,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


JOHN.  47 

is  true  that  the  author  of  the  Philosophumena  (or 
Refut.  Hcer.)  sometimes  mixes  up  the  opinions  of  the 
master  of  a  school  with  those  of  his  followers,  so  that 
it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  between  them.  But  if  we 
take  all  doubtful  cases  of  the  kind  and  compare  them 
with  our  present  case,  we  shall  find  that  it  is  not  one 
of  them.  It  is  not  true  that  here,  where  the  name 
of  Basileides  has  come  just  before,  and  where  no 
mention  of  his  son  or  of  his  disciples  has  intervened 
since,  there  is  any  such  ambiguity  as  is  found  in  other 
cases.  It  is  not  true  that  the  author  of  the  Philo- 
sophumena habitually  wields  the  subjectless  he  says  in 
the  random  manner  alleged  with  no  other  formula  for 
quotation  both  from  the  master  and  from  his  followers. 
In  general,  he  uses  the  formula  according  to  them  when 
he  quotes  from  the  school,  and  the  formula  he  says 
when  he  gives  the  dicta  of  the  master.  And  in  this 
particular  case  he  manifestly  quotes  the  dicta  of 
Basileides,  and  no  one  who  had  not  a  theory  to  serve 
would  ever  dream  of  doubting  it.  Basileides,  there- 
fore, about  the  year  125  of  our  era,  had  before  him 
the  fourth  gospel."  * 

But  this  same  writer  Hippolytus  gives  an  account 
of  heretical  sects  which  preceded  Basileides  in  point  of 
time,  and  which  must  therefore  have  well-nigh  touched 
the  first  century.  These  sects,  the  Naasseni  and 
Peratse,  make  large  use  of  the  fourth  gospel,  and 
whoever  will  read  the  fifth  book  of  the  Philoso- 
phumena will  find  it  hard  to  believe  that  this  gospel 
did  not  exist,  in  one  form  or  other,  in  the  earliest 

*  God  and  the  Bible,  268-9. 


48  THE   GOSPELS. 

years  of  the  second  century.  The  question  of  the 
authorship  of  the  gospel  is  not  settled  by  these 
quotations,  but  the  question  of  its  existence  is  settled. 
A  document  virtually  identical  with  our  fourth  gospel 
was  freely  used  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  Add  to  this  the  testimony  of  Polycarp  and 
the  chain  of  external  evidence  both  to  the  existence  and 
to  the  authorship  seems  complete.  For  Polycarp, 
who  suffered  martyrdom  at  the  age  of  eighty-six  (as 
Mart.  Polyc.,  ix.,  seems  to  mean),*  in  the  year  155-6 
A.D.,  must  have  been  alive  during  the  greater  part 
of  John's  residence  in  Asia,  and  used  to  speak  to  his 
scholars  of  "the  intercourse  he  had  with  John  and 
the  rest  of  those  who  had  seen  the  Lord  "  (Irenseus, 
ad  Florin.,  2.)  But  Jrcn^eiug  who  assigns  our  fourth 
gospel  to  John,  was  the  pupil  of  Polycarp,  and 
"  cannot,  with  any  reason,  be  supposed  to  have 
assigned  to  the  fourth  gospel  the  place  which  he 
gives  to  it,  unless  he  had  received  it  with  the  sanction 
of  Polycarp.  The  person  of  Polycarp,  the  living  sign 
of  the  unity  of  the  faith  of  the  first  and  second 
centuries,  is  in  itself  a  sure  proof  of  the  apostolicity 
of  the  gospel."  f  The  evidence  is  not  copious  but  it 
is  good  in  quality. 

Dr.  Sanday,  who  thinks  that  the  external  evidence 
is  not  in  itself  sufficient  to  prove  the  Johannean 
authorship,  is  perhaps  the  more  inclined  to  make  this 
admission  because  he  attaches  quite  decisive  weight  to 
the  internal  evidence.  This  evidence  may  be  exhibited 
under  the  heads  of  proof  that  the  writer  of  the  gospel 

*  See  Lightfoot  in  loc. 

f  Westcott,  Gospel  of  St.  John,  Tntrod.,  xxx. 


JOHN.  49 

was :  (1)  ajew,  (2)  a  Palestinian,  (3)  an  eve-witnes^. 
(4)  John,  the  son  of  Zebedee. 

l.That  the  writer  was  a  Jew  is  apparent  from 
the  Hebraistic  style.  Keim  justly  speaks  of  the 
language  as  "  a  remarkable  tissue  of  genuine  Greek 
lightness  and  skill,  and  of  Hebrew  forms  of  expression, 
in  all  their  directness,  childishness,  figurativeness,  and 
awkwardness."  The  style  of  thought  is  also  Jewish : 
a  process  of  reasoning  or  argumentative  discourse  is 
carried  on  by  the  juxtaposition  of  consecutive  ideas 
rather  than  by  their  rigid  logical  concatenation  effected 
by  means  of  particles.  There  appears  also  not  only 
a  familiarity  with  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament 
(xiii.  18;  xix.  37),  but  also  with  specially  Jewish 
conceptions,  such  as  that  of  the  Messiah  (i.  19 — 28 ; 
iv.  25;  vi.  14,  15;  vii.  passim,  etc.),  the  relation  of 
Jews  to  Samaritans  (iv.  9),  the  Rabbinical  idea  that 
a  teacher  should  not  converse  with  a  woman  (iv.  27), 
the  connection  of  sin  with  affliction  (ix.  2,  3).  Surely 
it  is  plain  that  no  one  but  a  Jew  could  have  written 
the  seventh  chapter. 

Matthew  Arnold  *  indeed  maintains  that  the  writer 
speaks  of  the  Jews  and  their  usages  as  if  they  belonged 
to  another  race  from  himself,  to  another  world.  "  The 
water- pots  at  Cana  are  set  l  after  the  manner  of  the 
purifying  of  the  Jews ; '  '  there  arose  a  question 
between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  a  Jew  about 
purifying ; '  *  now  the  Jews'  passover  was  nigh  at 
hand ; '  '  they  wound  the  body  of  Jesus  in  linen 
clothes  with  spices,  as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to 

*  God  atul  the  Bible,  p.  261. 


60  THE  GOSPELS. 

bury ; '  '  there  they  laid  Jesus  because  of  the  pre- 
paration of  the  Jews.'  No  other  evangelist  speaks 
in  this  manner.  It  seems  almost  impossible  to  think 
that  a  Jew  born  and  bred — a  man  like  the  Apostle 
John — could  ever  have  come  to  speak  so.  ...  A  Jew 
talking  of  the  Jews'  passover,  and  of  a  dispute  of  some 
of  John's  disciples  with  a  Jew  about  purifying.  It 
is  like  an  Englishman  writing  of  the  Derby  as  the 
English  peoples  Derby,  or  talking  of  a  dispute  between 
some  of  Mr.  Cobden's  disciples  and  an  Englishman 
about  free  trade.  An  Englishman  would  never  speak 
so."  But,  put  as  this  is  with  characteristic  deftness, 
it  is  faulty  criticism.  An  Englishman  who  had  been 
thirty  years  resident  abroad,  and  who  was  writing  for 
foreigners,  would  use  precisely  such  forms  of  expres- 
sion. And,  in  point  of  fact,  the  evangelist  Mark,  who 
wrote  for  Gentile  readers,  does  adopt  a  similar  style, 
explaining  to  persons  unfamiliar  with  Jewish  ways, 
customs  familiar  to  himself. 

2.  That  the  author  was  a  Palestinian  appears  from 
his  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  topography  of 
the  country  and  of  Jerusalem.  The  towns  are  men- 
tioned "  with  some  exact  specification  "  added ;  as, 
Bethany,  beyond  Jordan;  Bethsaida,  the  city  of 
Andrew  and  Peter  (i.  44);  ^Enon,  near  to  'Salim 
(iii.  23) ;  and  so  on.*  He  knows  that  the  pool  by  the 
sheep-gate  in  Jerusalem  has  five  porches  (v.  2) ;  he  is 
familiar  with  the  various  arrangements  and  cloisters 

*  The  supposed  mistakes  in  topography,  which  Matthew 
Arnold  and  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  ridicule, 
have  turned  out  to  be  no  mistakes  at  all,  but  only  evidence  of 
minute  knowledge  of  the  country. 


JOHN.  51 

of  the  temple  (viii.  20 ;  x.  23),  although,  when  he 
wrote,  the  temple  had  been  swept  away ;  he  recalls  the 
Hebrew  word  "  Gabbatha,"  which  was  used  to  denote 
the  tesselated  pavement  of  the  Roman  magistrate. 
In  the  sixth  chapter  he  relates  the  movements  of 
Christ  and  the  people  as  one  who  is  familiar  with 
the  locality. 

.  3.  The  a"t%r  wpsj  a™  gyg-w'tne^  The  description 
given  by  an  eye-witness  is  recognised  by  its  circum- 
stantiality and  graphic  detail.  But  as  the  author  of 
Supernatural  Religion  quite  truly  says,*  "in  the 
works  of  imagination  of  which  the  world  is  full,  and 
the  singular  realism  of  many  of  which  is  recognised 
by  all,  we  have  the  most  minute  and  natural  details 
of  scenes  which  never  occurred,  and  of  conversations 
which  never  took  place,  the  actors  in  which  never 
actually  existed."  That  is  true  and  relevant,  but 
the  critic  should  also  have  observed  that  no  amount 
of  imagination  can  avail  to  depict  correctly  a  real 
person  or  place  which  has  not  been  seen.  Imagina- 
tion cannot  take  the  place  of  eyesight.  Raphael 
himself  could  not  have  painted  the  likeness  of  a  man 
he  had  not  seen,  nor  would  the  imagination  of  a 
Shakespeare  serve  him  to  describe  accurately  a  scene 
which  had  actually  occurred,  but  which  he  had  not 
witnessed.  He  might  describe  a  scene  quite  as  true 
to  nature  and  as  consistent  with  the  characters  of 
the  actors,  but  it  would  not  be  as  true  to  fact.  Now 
John  speaks  of  real  places,  of  persons  who  actually 
existed,  and  of  events  which  actually  happened. 

*  ii.  244. 


52  THE   GOSPELS. 

And  if  in  those  instances  in  which  we  have  the  means 
of  checking  his  statements  we  find  them  true,  it  is  a 
reasonable  conclusion  that  the  graphic  details  with 
which  the  narrative  is  filled  out  are  due  to  the  natural 
reminiscences  of  an  eye-witness,  and  are  not  the 
picturesque  adornment  of  a  skilful  writer  of  fiction — 
a  branch  of  literature,  it  may  be  observed,  which  in 
the  first  century  was  not  in  a  high  stage  of  develop- 
ment. The  immense  stretch  of  corn  land  round 
Sychar,  the  relative  positions  of  the  fishing  villages 
on  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  the  tesselated  pavement  on 
which  Pilate  gave  judgment,  the  temple  arrangements, 
and  other  details  freely  interwoven  with  his  narra- 
tive, could  not  be  described  from  imagination,  but 
only  from  special  knowledge.  And  finding  that  this 
is  so,  we  conclude  that  those  other  details  which 
cannot  now  be  checked — such  as  the  mention  of  the 
very  time  at  which  this  and  that  occurred  (i.  39 ; 
iv.  6,  etc.),  or  the  naming  of  the  individuals  who 
were  present  on  such  and  such  an  occasion  (i.  35 — 51 ; 
vi.  5,  etc.) — are  also  due  to  the  fact  that  the  writer 
was  a  witness  of  what  he  describes.  And  when  to 
this  is  added  the  express  assertion  of  xix.  35  (cf.  i.  14 
and  xxi.  24),  we  are  confronted  with  the  alternative, 
either  an  eye-witness  wrote  this  gospel,  or  a  forger 
whose  genius  for  truth  and  for  lying  are  alike  in- 
explicable.* 

*  One  of  the  most  convincing  proofs  that  the  gospel  is  the 
work  of  an  eye-witness  is  that  given  by  Dr.  Sanday  :  "  Was 
he  a  contemporary  of  our  Lord  and  a  member  of  the  original 
Christian  circle  ?  There  is  one  point  especially  which  seems 
to  decide  this— that  is,  the  way  in  which  the  conflict  is 


JOHN.  53 

4.  The  author  is  the  Apostle  John.  This  is  declared 
in  the  close  of  the  gospel,  xxi.  24,  where  the  author 
indicates  with  sufficient  clearness  who  he  is,  and 
declares  that  he  is  not  only  the  source  of  information, 
but  the  actual  writer  of  the  gospel.  The  writer  ex- 
pressly claims  to  be  "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved" 
(xxi.  24,  cf.  20),  and  our  identification  of  this  disciple 
is  limited  by  the  list  given  in  xxi.  2,  But  as  it 
appears  from  the  synoptics  that  the  disciples  to  whom 
such  a  title  could  be  given  were  Peter,  James,  and 
John;  and  as  the  circumstances  narrated  in  the 
twenty -first  chapter  exclude  Peter,  James  and  John 
remain  as  the  only  disciples  who  could  be  so  desig- 
nated. In  the  Book  of  Acts  it  is  John  who  is  found 
in  the  same  companionship  with  Peter  as  the  beloved 
disciple  enjoyed  in  the  fourth  gospel;  and  besides, 
James  was  so  early  removed  that  it  is  impossible  that 
he  should  be  the  author  of  this  gospel.  The  reason- 
able conclusion  is  that  it  was  written  by  John  the 
Apostle. 

To  this  conclusion  there  are  objections,  and  some 
of  these  are  serious.  1.  Attention  is  called  to  the 
difference  in  thought  and  in  language  which  is  recog- 
nisable between  the  fourth  gospel  and  the  Book  of 
Revelation.  In  the  gospel  the  Greek  is  not  of  a  high 
literary  quality,  but  it  is  correct,  easy,  and  perspicu- 

iescribed  between  the  Jewish  and  Christian  conception  of 
the  Messiah.  Only  the  first  generation  of  Christians  could 
represent  this  accurately.  The  breach  between  the  two  con- 
ceptions was  soon  so  wide  that  it  became  impossible  for  a 
writer  to  pass  from  the  one  to  the  other  as  easily  and  readily 
as  the  fourth  eyangelist  has  done."  The  whole  passage  should 
be  read,  in  Authorship  of  FowrtU  Gospel,  pp.  290-2. 


54  THE  GOSPELS. 

ous.  Its  characteristic  is  its  simplicity.  "  It  is  free 
from  solecisms  because  it  avoids  all  idiomatic  expres- 
sions." In  Revelation  there  are  violations  of  the 
commonest  grammatical  rules.  But  these  cannot  be 
explained  by  the  supposition  that  the  writer  was 
ignorant  of  these  rules,  for  in  other  passages  he 
observes  them.  "  In  the  language  of  the  Apocalypse 
there  is  nothing  of  the  bungling  and  happy-go-lucky 
style  of  a  beginner — indeed,  it  bears  the  stamp  of 
consistency  and  purpose."  That  he  should  retain  the 
nominative  case  after  a  preposition  in  i.  4  while  in 
the  same  connection  he  gives  the  preposition  its  proper 
governing  power,  shows  that  he  wished  to  preserve 
Christ's  title  in  its  exact  form  as  an  indeclinable  proper 
name.*  Some  difference  in  the  style  of  the  same  author 
is  to  be  expected  when  the  subjects  he  is  handling  are 
different;  and  in  the  vocabulary  used  considerable 
difference  is  necessitated.  In  the  Revelation  such 
descriptions  as  occur  in  xxi.  19 — 21  require  an  ex- 
pansion of  the  Evangelist's  vocabulary ;  but  there  are 
passages  in  the  book — notably  i. — iii.,  and  xxii. — in 
which  both  vocabulary  and  style  remind  us  of  the 
fourth  gospel.  That  ideas  and  words  abound  in  the 
one  book  in  common  with  the  other  has  been  put 
beyond  question.  In  both  Jesus  is  the  Word  and 
the  Lamb,  though  with  a  difference.  In  both  He  is 
the  First  and  the  Last,  the  Light,  the  Giver  of  the 

*  Harnack  (Imcyc.  Brit.,  "  Revelation  ")  says  his  purpose 
was  "  to  give  to  the  words  of  his  greeting  a  certain  elevation 
and  solemnity.  Of  course  only  to  a  foreigner  could  it  have 
occurred  to  employ  those  means  for  this  end."  This  is 
doubtful. 


JOHN.  55 

water  of  life.  "  The  remarkable  word  dA.r/0ivos  occurs 
nine  times  in  the  gospel,  four  times  in  the  epistle, 
ten  times  in  the  Revelation,  and  only  five  times  in 
all  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  Similar  evidence 
may  be  drawn  from  the  words  ju,a/orupea>  and  /iaprupta 
in  all  the  Johannine  books."* 

It  has,  however,  become  a  recognised  axiom  of  the 
newer  criticism  that  not  only  the  language  but  the 
substance  and  mode  of  thought  of  the  gospel  and  the 
Apocalypse  are  so  different  as  quite  to  preclude  the 
idea  of  their  proceeding  from  one  hand.  This  dis- 
crepancy is  no  new  discovery;  indeed,  it  was  never 
more  forcibly  stated  than  by  a  writer  of  the  third 
century.t  An  English  critic  states  the  difference 
thus :  +  "  The  Apocalypse  is  pervaded  with  the  glow  and 
breathes  the  vehement  and  fierce  spirit  of  the  old 
Hebrew  prophecy,  painting  vividly  to  the  mental  eye, 
but  never  appealing  directly  to  the  spiritual  percep- 
tion of  the  soul.  When  we  turn  to  the  fourth  gospel 
we  find  ourselves  at  once  in  another  atmosphere  of 
thought,  full  of  deep  yearnings  of  the  unseen  and 
eternal,  ever  soaring  into  a  region  which  the  imagery 
of  things  visible  cannot  reach ;  even  in  its  descriptions 
marked  by  a  contemplative  quietness,  as  if  it  looked 
at  things  without  from  the  retired  depths  of  the  soul 

*  Salmon,  Introd.,  p.  279.  Mr.  Evans  has  published  very 
serviceable  tables  of  similarities,  one  of  them  showing  two 
hundred  verbal  agreements  between  the  two  books.  See  his 
St.  John  the  Author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  (1888). 

f  Dionysius,  quoted  by  Eusebius,  If.  E.,  vii.  25.  His  con- 
elusion  was  the  reverse  of  that  of  modern  criticism.  He 
rejected  Revelation. 

J  Tayler's  Fourth  Gosvd,  p.  10. 


56  THE  GOSPELS. 

within.  We  at  once  recognise  in  the  authors  of  the 
Apocalypse  and  the  gospel  a  genius  essentially  dis- 
tinct." This  difference  weighs  so  heavily  with  many 
critics  that  they  declare  it  to  be  a  psychological 
impossibility  that  the  same  writer  should  have  pro- 
duced both  books ;  and  as  the  Apocalypse  is  accepted 
by  modern  criticism  as  the  work  of  John,  the  gospel 
is  rejected. 

But  were  we  only  to  consider  the  versatility 
possessed  by  some  authors,  we  should  shrink  from 
dogmatically  affirming  that  the  production  by  one 
mind  of  two  books  so  different  as  the  Apocalypse 
and  the  fourth  gospel  is  a  psychological  impossibility. 
And  certainly  the  difference  between  these  books  has 
been  exaggerated.  It  will  scarcely  be  denied  nowadays 
that  they  are  identical  in  their  theological  ideas  * — in 
the  exaltation  of  Christ's  person,  in  His  redeeming 
work  and  His  sacrificial  death,  in  the  ingathering  of 
all  nations.  The  imagery  in  the  two  books  is  also  very 
similar ;  and  as  Canon  Westcott  has  noticed,  even  the 
plan  or  guiding  conception  of  both  is  the  same :  "  Both 
present  a  view  of  a  supreme  conflict  between  the 
powers  of  good  and  evil.  ...  In  both  books  Christ 
is  the  central  figure.  His  victory  is  the  end  to  which 
history  and  vision  lead  as  their  consummation." 

2.  Again,  attention  is  directed  to  the  difference 
between  this  gospel  and  the  synoptists.  The  scene  of 
our  Lord's  ministry  is  in  the  synoptical  gospels  laid  in 
Galilee,  while  the  fourth  gospel  places  it  in  Judaea; 
and  many  events  and  persons  are  introduced  in  this 

*  See  Gebhardt's  Doctrine  of  the  Apocalypse. 


JOHN.  57 

gospel  which  are  unknown  to  the  others.  This  diffi- 
culty, however,  is  insignificant  in  comparison  to  that 
which  is  presented  in  the  different  personality  that 
appears  in  the  fourth  gospel.  As  Renan  summarily 
puts  it,  "  If  Jesus  spoke  as  Matthew  represents,  He 
could  not  have  spoken  as  John  represents."  In  the 
synoptists  we  find  a  humble,  genial  Son  of  man ;  in 
John  a  self-asserting,  controversial  person,  always 
arguing  out  His  own  dignity,  and  making  claims 
which  find  no  parallel  in  the  synoptists.  It  is  enough 
in  answer  to  this  objection  to  point  to  Matt.  xxv.  31, 
where  Jesus  claims  the  highest  prerogative,  the  supreme 
judicial  function;  to  Matt.  xi.  27,  where  He  claims 
the  same  relation  to  the  Father  and  the  same  know- 
ledge of  Him  as  the  fourth  gospel  exhibits  Him  as 
claiming.  Other  passages  carry  the  same  significance. 
But,  undoubtedly,  there  is  a  distinction  between  the 
utterances  of  Jesus  as  reported  by  the  synoptists,  and 
as  reported  by  the  author  of  the  fourth  gospel.  In 
the  first  three  gospels  the  utterances  of  Jesus  are 
terse  and  epigrammatic ;  in  the  fourth  they  are  dis- 
cursive and  argumentative.  No  doubt  there  are 
parables  in  the  fourth  gospel  and  epigrammatic  say- 
ings which  would  seem  in  place  in  any  of  the  synop- 
tics, as  there  are  in  the  synoptics  passages  which 
would  amalgamate  with  the  fourth  gospel ;  and  this 
must  not  be  left  out  of  sight.  Nevertheless,  the  char- 
acteristic difference  undoubtedly  remains.  This  con- 
tinual preaching  of  Himself,  the  long  argumentations 
that  follow  every  miracle,  are,  in  M.  Kenan's  opinion, 
insufferable  alongside  of  the  delicious  sentences  of  the 
synoptists.  But  does  not  Dean  Chad  wick's  presenta- 


58  THE   GOSPELS. 

tion  of  the  case  exhibit  the  reality  when  he  says  that 
"  without  any  gospel  of  John,  we  should  divine  that 
He  was  interrupted,  contradicted,  brought  to  bay, 
driven  to  the  self-assertion  which  is  pronounced  so 
strange  "  ?  It  is  not  unnatural,  after  all,  that  if  Jesus 
found  Himself  among  bitter  controversialists.  He 
should  adopt  for  awhile  that  "intention  of  proving 
a  theme,  and  of  convincing  adversaries/'  which  is  so 
painful  to  M.  Renan.  "The  time  must  have  come 
when  the  bearing  of  our  Lord  in  set  controversy 
would  be  a  subject  of  profound  interest  and  importance, 
and  when  a  record  such  as  John's  ought  to  complete 
the  Apostolic  memoirs."  * 

4.  The  most  serious  difficulty  which  attaches  to  the 
fourth  gospel  as  a  faithful  record  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  arises  from  the  manner  in  which  the  writer 
seems  to  mingle  his  own  thoughts  and  words  with 
those  of  our  Lord.  The  reported  sayings  of  Jesus 
have  been  so  moulded  by  the  writer  that  we  are 
not  always  sure  whether  we  are  reading  the  words  of 
the  Lord  or  the  words  of  his  biographer  (cf.  iii.  18 — 21). 
The  words  which  purport  to  be  spoken  by  the  Baptist 
are  quite  in  the  style  common  to  the  author  of  the 
gospel  and  to  Jesus  (iii.  27 — 36).  Impressed  by  this, 
even  so  conservative  a  critic  as  Dr.  Sanday  says :  "It 
cannot,  I  think,  be  denied  that  the  discourses  are  to 

*  "  A  Messiah  should  be  many-sided.  A  teacher  whose  only 
gift  was  that  of  '  admirable  flashes  '  '  the  fine  raillery  of  a  man 
of  the  world,'  and  even  that '  peerless  charm  '  which  St.  John 
is  declared  to  want,  would  scarcely  have  survived  the  first 
shock  of  solid  opposition,  to  march  in  the  van  of  nineteen 
centuries  with  unwearied  feet." — Chad  wick,  Christ  Searing 
Witness  to  Himself,  p.  64. 


JOHN.  59 

a  certain  extent  unauthentic,  but  this  is  rather  in 
form  and  disposition  than  in  matter  and  substance." 
We  may  trust  John  in  no  case  to  have  misrepresented 
his  master,  and  it  need  not  trouble  us  if  we  cannot 
in  every  case  demonstrate  that  such  and  such 
are  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  Lord.*  It  was  inevit- 
able that  in  reporting  in  Greek  what  had  been  spoken 
in  Aramaic  the  style  of  the  translator  should  be 
visible.  But  there  is  no  ground  whatever  for  affirming 
that  the  discourses  are  ideal  compositions  of  the 
Evangelist  without  basis  in  any  utterances  of  Jesus. 

4.  Lastly,  it  is  affirmed  that  John  writes  with  an 
object  in  view,  to  prove  a  certain  proposition,  and  that 
history  written  from  such  a  standpoint  cannot  be 
accepted  as  true  history.  Thus  Keim  says :  "  Who- 
ever sees  a  historian  begin  with  his  philosophy,  may 
with  good  reason  feel  convinced  that  he  has  before 
him  a  writer  whose  starting-point  and  deepest  sym- 
pathies consist  in  philosophic  studies,  whose  study  of 
history  is  a  philosophy  of  history,  and  who  in  impart- 
ing it  may  adapt  that  which  actually  happened,  not 
always  faithfully,  to  suit  the  point  of  view  of  his 
exalted  contemplation  of  the  universe."  As  a  repri- 
mand administered  to  Keim's  own  school  nothing  could 
be  more  relevant ;  as  applied  to  a  writing  such  as  the 
fourth  gospel  it  has  no  relevancy.  John  plainly 

*  The  tables  exhibiting  differences  in  the  vocabulary  fouiid 
in  the  Evangelist's  narrative  and  in  the  reported  words  of  our 
Lord,  which  are  published  in  Dr.  Reynolds'  Introduction  to 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John  (Pulpit  Com.)  are  valuable  but  mani- 
festly do  not  prove  that  the  discourses  had  not  passed  through 
John's  mind,  Difference  in  style  as  well  as  in  vocabulary  must 
be  shown. 


60  THE  GOSPELS. 

announces  his  aim,  and  undoubtedly  selects  the 
material  most  suitable  to  his  purpose,  and  may  in 
consequence  give  us  an  incomplete  view  of  Christ ; 
but  it  must  be  proved,  instance  by  instance,  that  he 
has  misrepresented.  As  Godet  points  out :  "  Sallust 
begins  his  history  of  Catiline  with  a  philosophical  dis- 
sertation, but  no  one  imagines  on  that  account  that 
the  narrative  of  the  conspiracy  is  merely  a  romance 
composed  on  that  theme.  It  is  not  the  fact  which 
has  come  out  of  the  idea :  on  the  contrary  it  is  the 
idea  which  has  proceeded  from  the  contemplation  of 
the  fact."  * 

The  purpose  of  the  author  in  writing  the  fourth 
gospel  is  declared  by  himself  (xx.  31),  "These  are 
written,  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing,  ye  might  have 
life  through  His  name."  This  object  he  keeps  in 
view  throughout,  selecting  from  the  life  and  words 
of  Christ  that  material  which  best  forwards  his  design. 
No  composition  in  the  whole  compass  of  literature  is 
a  more  perfect  unity.  Each  word  has  its  own  place 
and  helps  out  the  plan.  There  is  not  a  wasted  clause, 
nor  one  without  significance  from  the  first  word  to 
the  last.  In  the  Prologue  (L  1 — 14)  the  idea  of  the 
whole  is  set  before  the  reader.  The  history  of  the 
Incarnate  Word,  and  of  the  results  of  the  Incarnation, 

*  Other  difficulties  cannot  here  be  entered  into.  A  clear 
statement  of  the  bearing  of  the  Passover  controversy  on  the 
authorship  of  the  fourth  gospel  will  be  found  in  Luthardt's 
St.  John  the  Author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  Luthardt  follows 
Schiirer,  De  Controversiis  Paschalibus  (Leipzig  :  1869)  ;  or  in 
Kahnis'  Zeitschrift  for  1870. 


JOHN.  61 

which  he  means  to  relate,  is  here  given  in  essence  and 
in  germ.  The  Word,  the  Being  in  whom  is  Life  and 
Light,  who  is  God,  and  through  whom  God  expresses 
Himself,  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  men.  John 
was  sent  beforehand  to  prepare  men  for  His  coming, 
and  yet  when  He  came  to  His  own  His  own  received 
Him  not.  But  some  believed,  and  to  them  He  gave 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God.  The  whole  gospel 
is  but  an  extension  of  this  idea,  an  exhibition  of  the 
actual  history  of  the  manifestation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  of  the  belief  and  unbelief  with  which  this  mani- 
festation was  met. 

John  writes  to  convince  men  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  He  does  not  expect  that 
men  will  believe  this  stupendous  truth  on  his  mere 
word.  He  sets  himself  to  reproduce  the  life  of  Jesus 
and  to  reproduce  those  salient  features  which  gave 
it  its  character.  He  believes  that  what  convinced 
him  will  convince  others.  One  by  one  he  cites  his 
witnesses.  In  the  simplest  language  he  tells  us  what 
Christ  said  and  what  He  did,  and  lets  us  hear  what 
this  man  and  that  man  said  of  Him.  He  tells  us  how 
the  Baptist  himself  pure  to  asceticism,  so  pure  and 
holy  and  true  as  to  command  the  veneration  of  all 
classes  in  the  community,  assured  the  people  that  he 
himself  was  not  of  the  same  world  as  Jesus — that  he 
was  of  earth,  Jesus  from  above.  He  tells  us  how 
the  incredulous  but  guileless  Nathanael  was  convinced 
of  the  supremacy  of  Jesus,  and  how  the  hesitating 
Nicodemus  was  constrained  to  risk  everything  and 
acknowledge  Him.  He  cites  witness  after  witness, 
never  garbling  their  testimony,  but  showing  with 


62  THE  GOSPELS. 

as  exact  truthfulness  how  unbelief  grew  and  hardened 
into  opposition,  as  he  tells  us  how  faith  grew  till  it 
culminated  in  the  explicit  confession  of  Thomas,  "  My 
Lord  and  my  God."  The  miracles  are  related  as  the 
works  through  which  Christ  manifested  Himself,  for 
John  looks  upon  the  miracles  as  "signs,"  each  of 
them  intended  to  exhibit  in  visible  form  some  charac- 
teristic of  Christ's  spiritual  work.  The  turning  point 
of  the  gospel  is  in  the  twelfth  chapter.  In  this 
chapter  it  becomes  evident  that  the  manifestation  of 
Christ  has  wrought  in  some  a  deep  belief  in  and 
attachment  to  His  person  which  makes  it  certain  that 
He  will  be  remembered  and  adhered  to ;  His  personal 
friends,  (1 — 8),  the  Jewish  people  (9 — 18),  even  the 
Greeks  (20—23),  recognise  Him  as  of  God.  But  at 
the  same  time  unbelief  also  comes  to  a  head  (10,  19, 
37 — 42),  and  no  more  can  be  done  to  convince  gain- 
sayers.  From  this  point  it  is  the  results  of  this 
unbelief  and  faith  that  are  shown. 


THE   ACTS  OF   THE  APOSTLES. 

rpHAT  the  book  named  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles*  is 
-1-  from  the  same  hand  as  the  third  gospel  is  in- 
ferred from  the  reference  in  the  preface  of  the  Acts  to 
a  former  treatise  addressed  to  Theophilus  by  the  same 
writer,  and  from  the  characterisation  of  that  former 
treatise  in  terms  descriptive  of  a  gospel.  This  in- 
ference is  confirmed  by  the  similarity  of  style  which 
the  two  works  exhibit,  and  is  universally  accepted 
as  a  legitimate  conclusion,  f  All  evidence  therefore 
which  goes  to  prove  that  Luke  was  the  author  of  the 
third  gospel  is  evidence  also  for  his  authorship  of  the 
Acts;  and  in  this  latter  book  itself  there  is  nothing 
inconsistent  with  this  conclusion,  but  rather  some 
peculiarities  which  confirm  it.  Chief  among  these  are 
what  are  known  as  the  "  we  "  sections,  those  passages 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  book  in  which  the  writer 
speaks  in  the  first  person.  The  first  occurrence  of 
this  peculiarity  is  in  xvi.  10  "we  endeavoured  to 

*  Unfortunately  so  named,  as  only  the  acts  of  Peter  and  Paul 
are  recounted,  while  mention  is  also  made  of  the  acts  of  others 
who  were  not  Apostles. 

f  Renan,  Les  Apotres,  p.  10,  speaks  of  it  as  a  conclusion 
•*  iaquelle  n'a  jamais  6td  serieusement  contcstee." 


64         THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

go  into  Macedonia"  (comp.  v.  8);  from  which  it  is 
inferred  that  the  writer  had  joined  Paul  at  Troas,  and 
continued  with  him  till  he  left  Philippi.  The  "  we  " 
is  not  resumed  until  Paul  returns  to  Philippi  six  or 
or  seven  years  after,  chap.  xx.  5,  from  which  point  it 
is  maintained  till  Paul's  arrival  in  Jerusalem  xxi.  18. 
It  again  appears  in  the  account  of  Paul's  voyage, 
chap,  xxvii.,  and  continues  till  his  arrival  in  Rome 
xxviii.  16.  But  as  at  Troas  where  the  "  we "  first 
appears,  both  Silas  and  Timothy  were  with  Paul, 
some  have  ascribed  to  the  one  and  some  to  the  other 
the  authorship  of  these  sections.  The  claim  of  Silas 
however  is  disposed  of  by  the  fact  that  in  the  incident 
at  Philippi  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person 
(xvi.  19 — 40);  while  the  claim  of  Timothy*  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  definite  differentiation  of  the  "  we " 
writer  from  Timothy  in  chap.  xx.  4,  5.  Against  the 
claim  of  Luke  there  is  no  such  objection. 

But  admitting  that  the  "  we  "  sections  were  written 
by  Luke,  or  at  any  rate,  by  some  companion  of  Paul, 
does  it  necessarily  follow  that  the  whole  book  was 
written  by  this  same  hand  ?  By  no  means,  say  the 
Tubingen  critics.  Some  unknown  writer  of  the 
second  century  used  these  memoranda  of  Paul's 
journeys  to  eke  out  his  other  sources  of  information 
and  to  serve  his  own  purposes.  That  the  account  of 
Paul's  voyage  was  written  by  an  eye-witness  is  too 
obvious  to  be  denied,  and  in  general  the  circumstan- 
tiality and  vividness  of  the  "  we  "  sections  guarantee 
their  authenticity;  but  this,  it  is  said,  only  proves  tho 

*  Asserted  by  Schleiermacher,  De  Wette,  Bleek,  and 
especially  Mayerhoff. 


INTEGRITY.  65 

early  authorship  of  these  sections,  not  of  the  entire 
book.  But  this  idea,  that  the  author  of  the  Acts 
merely  incorporated  these  sections  into  his  book 
without  alteration,  is  given  up,  because  further 
investigation  has  put  it  beyond  doubt  that  the  same 
peculiarities  of  style  and  diction  are  found  in  these 
sections  as  in  the  remainder  of  the  book.  And  those 
who  still  maintain  that  the  book  was  written  in  the 
second  century  are  placed  in  the  awkward  predica- 
ment of  being  obliged  to  hold  that  the  skilful  literary 
hand  which  is  discernible  throughout,  incorporated 
and  re-wrote  these  sections  so  clumsily  as  not  even  to 
alter  the  "  we  "  of  his  sources  into  "  they."  This  is 
too  much  for  literary  critics  like  Renan,  who  frankly 
declares  that  such  an  explanation  is  inadmissible, 
and  that  although  a  ruder  compiler  would  have  left 
the  "  we"  unaltered,  it  is  not  possible  to  ascribe  such 
clumsiness  to  the  writer  of  Acts.  "  We  are  therefore 
irresistibly  led  to  the  conclusion  that  he  who  wrote 
the  latter  part  of  the  work  wrote  also  the  former1, 
and  that  the  writer  of  the  whole  is  he  who  says, 
'we'  in  the  sections  alluded  to."*  But  if  the 
integrity  of  the  Acts  is  proved,  then  its  authorship 
may  confidently  be  ascribed  to  Luke,  for  it  is  un- 
questionably from  the  same  hand  as  the  third  gospel, 
and  the  earliest  MSS.  as  well  as  tradition  ascribe 
this  gospel  to  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul,  f 

Other  material,  besides  his  own  reminiscences,  Luke 
must   have   had,   and   of   this   material   some   small 

*  Renan,  Les  Apotres,  xi.,  xii. 

f  Cross  references  proving  the  integrity  of  the  Acts  will  be 
found  in  Salmon's  Introduction,  p.  375. 

5 


66          THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

proportion  may  have  been  documentary.  It  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  missionaries  and  deputa- 
tions would  sometimes  make  written  reports  of  their 
work  to  the  Church  from  which  they  held  their 
commission.  Letters  would  necessarily  pass  between 
the  Churches,  and  the  decisions  of  the  several  com- 
munities would  probably  be  preserved  in  writing. 
"It  cannot  be  supposed  that  when  complaints  had 
risen  in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  of  unfairness  in 
the  distribution  of  the  common  funds,  and  deacons 
had  been  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  removing  this 
ground  of  dissatisfaction,  they  would  not  be  required 
to  furnish  accounts  of  the  moneys  they  had  received 
and  the  modes  of  distribution,  which  might  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  Apostles  and  the  Church  at  stated 
periods.  And  if  Matthew  had  been  a  tax-collector 
we  may  be  certain  that  these  accounts  would  be 
carefully  prepared  and  scrutinised.  The  presentation 
of  these  accounts  would  imply  formal  proceedings, 
minutes  of  which  would  be  kept ;  for  it  would  often 
be  requisite  to  refer  to  what  had  occurred  at  previous 
meetings  as  a  guide  for  future  conduct."  * 

Weiss  goes  much  further,  and  holds  that  the  dis- 
courses which  appear  in  the  early  part  of  the  book 
were  handed  down  in  a  written  form.  "  Of  course," 
he  says  (Bibl.  TheoL,  Eng.  Transl.,  i  161),  "these  dis- 
courses which  the  author  did  certainly  not  hear,  and 
which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  could  not  well  be 
transmitted  orally,  could  be  only  free  compositions  if, 
in  his  first  part,  he  had  really  used  no  kind  of  literary 

*  Sir  Richard  D.  Hanson's  Apostle  Paul. 


MATERIAL.  67 

sources,  but  had  simply  related  them  according  to 
oral  tradition,  however  trustworthy.  When,  however, 
we  consider  the  analogy  of  the  gospel,  which  goes 
back  almost  entirely  upon  written  sources,  this  is 
exceedingly  unlikely."  But  Luke's  preface  to  his 
gospel  would  rather  suggest  that  he  had  gathered 
his  information  from  a  number  of  persons  to  whom 
he  had  access,  and  who  had  themselves  been  eye- 
witnesses of  the  events  to  be  narrated,  and  accordingly 
many  critics  believe  that  for  the  information  conveyed 
in  the  Acts,  Luke  was  indebted  to  Peter  himself, 
James,  John,  Mark,  Philip,  and  others. 

The  difficulty  indeed  is  not  in  conceiving  what 
material  lay  to  the  hand  of  an  author  in  composing 
such  a  history,  as  in  discovering  what  determined 
his  selection  from  the  abundant  material.  It  was 
in  1798  that  attention  was  called  by  Dr.  Paulus  *  to 
certain  features  of  the  book  which  seemed  to  him  to 
indicate  that  the  writer  aimed  at  clearing  Paul  from 
the  aspersions  of  the  Judaists.  Forty-three  years 

*  In  his  programme  entitled  De  consilio,  quo  scriptor  in 
Actis  Ap.  concinnandis  ductus  fut'rit,  Sir  Pdehard  Hanson 
advocates  the  view  that  the  book  is  a  Pauliad.  "  It  will  of 
course  be  said  that  the  work  is  obviously  natural  and  spon- 
taneous, that  the  author  has  no  other  object  than  to  describe 
the  salient  incidents  in  the  history  of  the  early  Church,  and 
that  he  has  simply  selected  those  which  commended  them- 
selves to  his  judgment  for  the  purpose  ;  and  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  he  does  possess  in  an  eminent  degree  that  higher 
art  which  knows  how  to  assume  the  aspect  of  nature,  keeping 
itself  out  of  sight.  But  if  there  were  no  such  motive  as  we 
have  suggested  [an  advocacy  of  Paul],  how  does  it  happen 
that  the  work  contains  no  reference,  even  by  implication,  to 
the  dispute  with  Peter,  or  with  any  parties  in  the  Church 


68          THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

afterwards  Sckneckenburger  *  elaborated  this  idea, 
and  pointed  out  that  in  the  first  half  of  the  book 
Peter  is  represented  as  the  forerunner  of  Paul,  and  as 
foreshadowing  his  views,  while  in  the  latter  half  Paul 
is  represented  as  in  many  respects  approximating  to 
Peter.  Baur  pushed  the  idea  a  little  further  and 
endeavoured  to  prove  that  the  object  of  this  represen- 
tation was  conciliatory,  that  it  was  intended  to  draw 
the  Jewish  and  Gentile  sections  of  the  Church  more 
closely  together. 

Zeller  accepts  the  theory  of  Baur  that  there  was  an 
irreducible  difference  between  the  teaching  of  Paul 
and  that  of  Peter  and  the  other  original  Apostles; 
that  this  difference  grew  to  such  dimensions  that 
there  were  to  all  intents  and  purposes  two  Churches, 
presenting  antagonistic  types  of  Christianity;  that 
subsequent  to  the  Apostolic  age  sundry  attempts  were 
made  to  heal  this  breach,  and  that  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  written  about  the  year  120,  was  one  of  the 
most  successful  of  these  conciliatory  efforts.  It  is 
written  by  a  Gentile  Christian,  and  is  intended  to 
make  such  concessions  to  Judaism  as  might  be  ex- 
pected to  purchase  the  good-will  of  Judaistic  Christians. 
The  writer,  therefore,  represents  Paul  as  being  on 
friendly  terms  with  the  Jerusalem  Apostles,  and  as 
appealing  to  them  on  the  question  of  Gentile  Christi- 

itself,  while  Peter  is  made  by  his  conduct  to  vindicate  the 
pretensions  and  practices  of  Paul  in  those  very  particulars  in 
which,  they  were  most  vehemently  assailed.  And  how  does  it 
happen  that  all  the  incidents  worthy  of  description  should  be 
associated  exclusively  with  those  individuals  in  the  Church 
who  are  afterwards  brought  into  contact  with  Paul  ?  " 
*  Ueber  Zden  week  dcr  Ajjost. 


AIM  OF  THE  BOOK.  69 

anity.  Paul  is  also  represented  as  on  various  occasions 
observing  the  Jewish  law,  circumcising  Timothy, 
shaving  his  head,  and  observing  the  Jewish  feasts. 
The  writer  also  enlarges  upon  Peter's  reception  of  a 
Gentile  within  the  Church.  And  in  general  a  parallel 
is  run  between  Peter  and  Paul.  If  Peter's  first  act 
of  healing  is  that  of  a  lame  man  at  the  Temple  gate ; 
so  also  is  Paul's  first  act  of  healing  upon  a  cripple  at 
Lystra.  Peter  is  delivered  from  prison  miraculously 
in  Jerusalem ;  in  Philippi  Paul  has  a  similar  experi- 
ence. If  Peter  strikes  dead  Ananias  and  Sapphira, 
a  like  power  is  exhibited  in  Paul's  blinding  of  Elymas 
the  sorcerer.  Peter  raises  Tabitha;  Paul  raises 
Eutychus.  This  parallelism,  it  is  said,  cannot  be 
authentic  history.  The  facts  are  manipulated  in  order 
to  bring  out  a  parallelism  between  Peter  and  Paul  and 
thus  to  promote  the  reconciliation  of  the  two  antagon- 
istic parties  in  the  Church. 

But  the  theory  of  Baur  is  not  only  in  itself 
groundless,  but  its  application  to  the  Book  of  Acts 
is  impossible.  Had  it  been  written  for  the  sake 
of  conciliating  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians,  is  it 
credible  that  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  should  be  so 
thrust  upon  the  reader  as  it  is  from  first  to  last  in 
this  book  ?  Is  it  credible  that  if  the  writer's  purpose 
were  to  hide  from  view  everything  which  could  accen- 
tuate the  distinction  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Christians,  he  should  call  attention  at  the  critical 
point  in  the  history  to  the  jealousy  of  Paul's  action 
which  many  Jews  felt,  and  put  into  the  mouth  of 
the  elders  at  Jerusalem  these  words  :  "  Thou  seest, 
brother,  how  many  myriads  of  Jews  there  are  which 


70         THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

believe,  and  they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law"?  In 
explanation  of  this,  Baur  can  only  helplessly  say  that 
here  the  writer  "  forgets  his  role  " — forgets  his  rdle 
forsooth  at  the  very  crisis  of  the  history,  at  the  one 
point  at  which  it  is  simply  impossible  he  should  forget 
his  role  !  Is  it  likely  that  the  writer  of  an  historical 
romance  in  the  second  century  who  desired  to  con- 
ciliate Judaizing  Christians  would  give  us  so  slender 
an  account  of  the  growth  of  Jewish  Christianity,  and 
direct  attention  almost  exclusively  to  the  growth  of 
the  Gentile  Church  1 

It  is  satisfactory  to  note  in  the  modern  critical 
school  a  disposition  largely  to  modify  the  theory  of 
Baur  and  accordingly  to  reject  some  of  his  chief 
critical  conclusions.  Thus  Schenkel,  one  of  the  boldest 
of  critics  says :  *  «« Having  never  been  able  to  con- 
vince myself  of  the  sheer  opposition  between  Petrinism 
and  Paulinism,  it  has  also  never  been  possible  for 
me  to  get  a  credible  conception  of  a  reconciliation 
effected  by  means  of  a  literature  sailing  between  the 
contending  parties  under  false  colours.  In  respect 
to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  particular  I  have  been 
led  in  part  to  different  results  from  those  represented 
by  the  modern  critical  school.  I  have  been  forced 
to  the  conviction  that  it  is  a  far  more  trustworthy 
source  of  information  than  is  commonly  allowed  on 
the  part  of  modern  criticism." 

Overbeck,  while  refuting  the  theory  of  Zeller,  ad- 
vances his  own  opinion,  that  the  book  is  the  attempt 
of  a  Gentile  Christian  to  clear  up  the  position  of  his 

*  Das  ChristusUld  der  Apostcl,  etc.  (preface). 


AIM  OF  THE   BOOK.  71 

own  section  of  the  Church,  and  to  show  that  Gentile 
Christianity  was  the  legitimate  fruit  of  the  Christianity 
of  the  older  Apostles,  and  was  not  originally  founded 
by  Paul.*  This  view  approximates  to  the  truth.  The 
Book  of  Acts  does  in  point  of  fact  exhibit  Paulinism 
and  Gentile  Christianity  as  the  legitimate  fruit  of 
the  Christianity  of  the  older  Apostles,  but  that  it 
was  the  special  and  exclusive  object  of  the  writer  to 
explain  and  justify  the  position  of  Gentile  Christianity 
is  doubtful.  Perhaps  after  imagining  various  designs 
cherished  by  the  author,  critics  might  do  worse  than 
accept  his  own  very  simple  statement,  implied  in  the 
first  paragraph  of  the  book  (i.  1 — 8),  that  he  meant  to 
relate  how  the  work  which  the  Lord  had  initiated,  as 
he  had  already  told  in  his  gospel,  gradually  took  hold 
of  the  world.  He  aims  at  relating  how  Christ  was 
preached  and  was  accepted  in  ever-widening  circles, 
first  in  Jerusalem,  then  in  Juda3a,  then  in  Samaria, 
and  at  last  in  the  whole  world  (i.  8).  Necessarily  he 
justifies  the  work  of  Paul,  and  as  a  true  historian 
shows  that  each  widening  circle  of  the  gospel's  in- 
fluence resulted  from  what  went  before ;  that  the 
increase  of  the  Church  was  not  by  catastrophe,  but  by 
growth.  Himself  a  companion  of  Paul  and  writing 
for  the  information  of  a  Gentile,  it  was  inevitable 
that  he  should  enlarge  on  those  features  and  incidents 

*  See  Overbeck's  introduction  to  Zeller's  Commentary  on 
Acts.  Overbeck  thinks  also  that  the  writer  had  a  subordinate 
political  aim,  and  that  he  introduces  incidents  which  illustrate 
the  good  terms  on  which  Paul  stood  with  the  Roman  state  and 
its  officials,  in  order  to  ward  off  political  suspicion  from  the 
Church. 


72         THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

of  the  Church's  growth  with  which  he  himself  had  been 
chiefly  concerned  ;  but  he  does  not  confine  himself  to 
one  aspect  of  Christianity.  He  does  not  follow  every 
line  on  which  Christian  influence  travelled,  but  he 
follows  the  track  of  Paul,  which  was  unquestionably 
by  far  the  most  important.  By  giving  the  true 
history  of  the  extension  of  the  Church,  he  necessarily 
justifies  Gentile  Christianity. 

The  date  of  the  book  has  been  much  canvassed,  and 
even  some  critics  who  accept  -it  as  the  work  of  Luke, 
are  of  opinion  that  it  cannot  have  been  written  till 
about  the  year  80  A.D.*  The  key  to  its  date,  how- 
ever, is  most  likely  to  be  found  in  its  abrupt  ending. 
Great  difficulty  has  been  experienced  in  accounting 
for  this  ending ;  and  although  the  writer  may  have 
felt  that  having  brought  his  story  down  to  the  arrival 
of  Paul  in  Rome  his  task  wras  accomplished,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  if  the  book  did  not  leave  its  author's 
hands  till  after  the  death  of  Paul,  it  is  unaccountable 
that  he  makes  no  mention  of  that  event.  And  cer- 
tainly the  simplest  reason  we  can  give  for  his  stopping 
where  he  does  is  that  he  wrote  the  book  in  Rome  at 
the  close  of  Paul's  two  years'  residence,  and  that  he 
tells  no  more  because  as  yet  there  was  no  more  to  tell. 
The  unfortunate  attempt  of  Holtzmann,  to  show  that 
Luke  was  indebted  to  Josephus,  and  therefore  wrote 
not  before  the  close  of  the  first  century,  is  treated  by 
Salmon  with  suitable  raillery.f 

*  Lekebusch,  Ewaltf,  Lechler,  Bleek. 

f  A  further  and  convincing  argument  for  the  early  date  of 
Acts  is  found  in  the  fact  that  no  use  of  the  epistles  of  Paul  is 
traceable  in  the  book. 


ACCURACY  OF  THE    WRITER.          73 

The  promise  of  accuracy  which  Luke  gave  in  the 
preface  to  his  gospel  is  fulfilled  in  the  Book  of  Acts. 
In  the  first  century  the  various  Roman  magistrates 
and  governors  of  provinces  were  distinguished  by  titles 
which  were  apt  to  be  confounded  by  an  ill-informed  or 
careless  writer.  These  titles  are  applied  with  accu- 
racy by  Luke.  Thus  Sergius  Paulus  is  spoken  of 
(xiii.  7)  as  avflwraros,  that  is  Proconsul  or  governor  of 
a  senatorial  province.  Gallic  at  Corinth  (xviii.  12)  is 
described  by  the  same  title.  The  magistrates  of  Thessa- 
lonica  are  spoken  of  as  politarchs  (xvii.  6),  while  those 
at  Philippi  are  called  praetors  (crrpaTq-yoL,  xvi.  20),  and 
the  governor  of  Melita,  merely  "  head-man  "  (Trpurros, 
xxviii.  7),  all  which  designations  are  confirmed  by 
extant  inscriptions  or  by  ancient  historians.*  Luke's 
accuracy  has  also  been  tested  by  comparing  his  reports 
of  the  speeches  of  Peter  and  Paul  with  the  extant 
remains  of  their  writings.  It  is  admitted  by  all 
critics  that  the  speeches  ascribed  to  Paul  contain 
expressions  which  are  peculiarly  Pauline.  And  it  has 
further  been  remarked  that  in  Luke's  report  of  the 
speech  at  Athens,  which  he  did  not  himself  hear,  there 
occur  none  of  the  phrases  characteristic  of  Luke's 
style ;  whereas  the  speech  of  Paul  (xxii.),  which  was 
delivered  in  Hebrew,  contains  no  Pauline,  but  many 
Lucan  peculiarities.  Certainly  these  facts  point  to  a 
companion  of  Paul's  as  the  author.  Traces  of  Luke's 
style  in  his  reports  of  speeches  indicates  that  he  \\vs 
not  mechanically  incorporating  in  his  narrative  written 


*  Many  instances  will  be  found  in  Biscoe,  History  of  tit* 
Acts  Confirmed,  etc. 


74         THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

records  of  these  speeches,  but  was  writing  them  as 
they  lived  in  his  own  memory. 

But  Luke's  trustworthiness  has  been  challenged  on 
the  ground  of  the  distribution  and  substance  of  these 
speeches  rather  than  on  the  score  of  their  diction.  It 
is  affirmed  that  they  "  give  prominence  to  the  charac- 
teristic culminating  points  of  the  narrative,  and  in 
this  respect  they  are  spread  over  the  narrative  in  the 
most  artistic  manner  "  (Overbeck).  It  is  thus  insinu- 
ated that  these  discourses  of  Peter,  Stephen,  and  the 
rest,  have  no  historical  reality,  but  are  invented  by 
Luke  to  bear  out  his  view  of  the  development  of  the 
early  Church.  Now  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  we 
are  always  dependent  on  the  historian  for  his  selection 
of  facts,  and  for  the  perspective  in  which  he  sets  them, 
and  unquestionably  Luke  has  told  us  just  those  facts 
which  seemed  to  him  most  clearly  to  elucidate  the 
state  and  growth  of  the  primitive  Church.  And  in 
recording  speeches  he  has,  of  course,  followed  the 
same  rule.  He  has  not  recorded  all  that  was  said, 
but  only  salient  and  significant  points  in  important 
speeches.  So  far  he  may  be  said  to  have  used  his 
material  to  express  his  own  views.  But  that  he 
has  invented  anything  or  dist cited  facts  or  utterances, 
or  given  us  false  and  misleading  impressions  is  not 
proved.  On  the  contrary,  so  far  as  we  can  test  his 
accuracy  in  reporting  these  speeches,  his  trustworthi- 
ness stands  the  test.  The  substance  of  Peter's  first 
preaching,  the  resurrection  of  Christ  for  our  salvation, 
corresponds  with  the  account  Paul  gives  of  the  general 
substance  of  Apostolic  preaching  in  1  Cor.  xv.  Ideas 
which  occur  in  1  Peter  are  found  also  in  the  speeches 


ACCURACY  OF  THE   WRITER.          75 

ascribed  to  Peter;  thus  the  idea  so  prominent  in 
Peter's  mind  as  revealed  by  the  speeches,  and  so 
emphatically  asserted  by  him,  that  the  death  of  Jesus 
was  according  to  "  the  determinate  counsel "  of  God 
(ii.  23  ;  iv.  28 ;  cf.  x.  42)  is  also  found  more  than 
once  in  the  Epistle  (i.  20  ;  ii.  4) ;  the  co-ordinate  idea 
of  Christ  as  the  stone  rejected  by  the  builders  but 
chosen  of  God,  appears  in  Peter's  speech  (Acts  iv.  11) 
and  also  in  his  Epistle  (ii.  6). 


THE   EPISTLES. 

F  the  twenty-seven  books  which  compose  the  New 
Testament,  twenty-one  are  in  epistolary  form. 
This  species  of  literature,  though  it  had  not  been  com- 
mon among  the  Greeks,*  was  familiar  to  the  Romans 
of  the  Empire,  with  its  numberless  foreign  connections 
and  ramified  s}7stem  of  communication.  To  the  early 
Christian  Church  it  became  a  necessity.  Novel  diffi- 
culties arose  in  the  young  communities,  and  these 
could  best  be  removed  by  a  direct  appeal  to  the 
Apostles.  Information  which  Paul  received  regarding 
any  of  the  Churches  in  which  he  took  so  intense  an 
interest  naturally  elicited  from  him  some  expression 
of  joy  or  gratitude  or  disappointment.  He  seems 
never  to  have  thought  of  writing  a  book ;  and  cease- 
lessly moving  as  he  was  from  place  to  place,  and 
burdened  with  a  multiplicity  of  cares,  any  extended 
literary  labour  was  out  of  the  question.  He  did  not 
even  take  any  steps  for  the  wider  publication  of  his 
letters,  except  on  those  rare  occasions  when  he  in- 

*  A  recent  writer  says :  "  The  Greeks  .  .  .  did  not  write 
letters.  They,  the  great  originators  of  the  world,  had  the 
magnanimity  to  leave  this  little  corner  a  blank  for  their 
victors  and  imitators."— Spectator,  4th  Sept.,  1886. 


THE  EPISTLES.  77 

•structed  two  Churches  to  interchange  the  letters  he 
had  sent  to  them  (Col.  iv.  16).  Some  of  his  letters, 
indeed,  by  their  elaborate  and  argumentative  treat- 
ment of  a  theme,  present  rather  the  appearance  of 
essays;  but  their  epistolary  character  is  maintained 
by  their  being  addressed  to  a  definite  class  of  con- 
temporaries resident  in  a  particular  locality.  Other 
letters  in  the  New  Testament  are  little  more  than 
private  notes.  Six  are  addressed  to  individuals,  ten 
to  local  Churches,  and  five  to  Christians  in  general, 
though  in  the  group  commonly  entitled  "  Catholic 
Epistles  "  seven  are  included.* 

From  this  feature  of  the  New  Testament  writings 
both  advantages  and  disadvantages  result.  A-  letter 
admits  of  a  freer  handling  of  a  subject  than  a  treatise. 
The  personality  of  the  writer  finds  a  fuller  expression, 
and  ampler  use  can  be  made  of  the  actual  circum- 
stances of  the  reader.  Hence  we  gain  vividness, 
warmth,  personal  interest.  On  the  other  hand,  wo 
miss  the  completeness  of  information  which  is  gained 
by  systematic  treatment.  The  points  touched  upon 
in  the  Apostolic  letters  are  sometimes  of  merely  pass- 
ing interest,  while  points  that  intensely  exercise  the 
modern  mind  find  no  place  in  them.  No  doubt,  in 
dealing  with  matters  which  no  longer  interest  Chris- 
tians, the  Apostles  illustrate  principles  which  are  of 
permanent  importance,  and  in  general  exhibit  tho 

*  LrEpitre  fut  ainsi  la  forme  de  la  literature  chre"tienne 
primitive,  forme  admirable,  parfaitement  appropriee  a  l'e"tat 
du  temps  aux  aptitudes  naturelles." — Renan,  St.  Paul,  230. 
The  same  form  was  continued  by  Clement,  Ignatius,  Polycarp 
and  B.irnabas.  See  Westcott,  On  thf  Canon,  p.  18. 


78  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 

bearing  which  the  facts  of  Christianity  have  upon  life 
and  doctrine.  But  it  is  often  difficult  to  apply  these 
principles  to  the  matters  which  now  concern  us — a 
difficulty  which  however  need  not  be  greatly  regretted, 
as  the  average  Christian  mind  is  not  wont  unduly 
to  exercise  itself  or  gain  independence  of  thought 
without  urgent  provocation.  The  Church  in  its  in- 
fancy had  these  direct  instructions  regarding  its  actual 
difficulties ;  the  Church  in  its  maturity  should  be  ab'e 
to  deduce  from  the  general  argument  and  unapplied 
principles  of  these  letters  all  the  guidance  she  now 
requires. 


THE   PAULINE   EPISTLES. 

The  epistles  of  Paul  are  the  earliest  literary  relics 
of  Christianity.  Their  value  was  speedily  recognised 
by  the  Church,  and  they  were  gathered  into  one 
volume.  Marcion,  who  taught  in  the  reign  of 
Antoninus  Pius  (A.D.  138 — 161),  appealed  to  a  rule 
of  faith,  composed  of  two  parts,  the  Gospel,  and 
the  "Apostolicon"  or  "Apostolos."  This  Apostolicon 
consisted  of  ten  epistles  of  Paul,  who  was  the  only 
Apostle  recognised  by  Marcion  as  authoritative.  The 
Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus  were  omitted.  This 
is  the  earliest  collection  of  which  any  record  is  extant, 
and  even  this  was  not  made  until  some,  probably 
many,  of  Paul's  letters  had  been  lost.  For  letter- 
writing  must  have  been  to  this  Apostle  a  familiar 
occupation.  The  care  of  all  the  Churches  scattered 
throughout  the  Roman  world  came  upon  him,  not  on 


COMPLETENESS  OF  THE  COLLECTION.  79 

set  occasions,  but  daily  (2  Cor.  xi.  28),  a  care  which 
could  be  practically  exercised  only  by  correspondence. 
That    he    received   many   business   letters   from   his 
Churches  is  not  only  likely  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  but  certain  from  his  own  statement  (1   Cor.  xvi. 
3;   cf.  2  Cor.  iii.  1  and  1  Cor.   vii.  1).     His  letters 
are  spoken  of   by  the  Corinthians  (2  Cor.  x.  10)  in 
terms  which  imply  that  several  had  been  read,  although 
only  one  addressed  to  them  is  extant  of  a  date  prior 
to  the  use  of  that   language  (cf.  also   1   Cor.  v.  9, 
which    Salmon    (Introd.,  p.    462)    understands   of   a 
previous    letter    to    1    Cor.,  though    Jowett    thinks 
the  words  refer  to  the  epistle  then  being  written; 
St.  Paul's  Epistles,  i.   195).     Other  expressions  inci- 
dentally used  by  the  Apostle  carry  the  same  inference, 
that  the  writing  of  letters  was  a  frequent  employment 
with  him  (2  Thess.  iii.  17;   Phil  iii.  18).     The  same 
conclusion  is  forced  upon  the  mind  from  a  considera- 
tion of  the  dates  of  the  thirteen  epistles  we  have. 
Of  these  none  can  be  referred  to  an  earlier  date  than 
the  year  53,  or  fifteen  years  after  his  conversion.     In 
that  year,  or  about  it,  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  were  written,  and  again  there  is  silence  for 
about   five   years.     But    in    the  year  following   this 
interval  the  four  largest  epistles,  forming  the  greater 
part  of  all  his  extant  writings,  were  composed.     It 
is  very  difficult  to  believe  that  the  warm  affections 
and   intense   interest   betrayed   in   the   Thessa.lonian 
Epistles,  and  which  he  felt  for  many  of  his  Churches, 
lay  dormant  or  unuttered  for  five  years ;  or  that  the 
exuberant   literary  activity  manifest   in   the   longer 
epistles  was  a  novel  exercise  to  Paul,  or  found  expres- 


80  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 

sion  no  more  frequently  than  at  the  long  intervals 
marked  by  the  extant  epistles.* 

As  Paul  wrote  little  with  his  own  hand,  whether 
from  some  defect  of  eyesight  or  from  an  inability  to 
write  the  Greek  character  with  ease,  he  was  compelled 
to  be  careful  to  authenticate  his  letters.  Accordingly, 
as  the  letter  drew  to  a  close  he  took  the  pen  from 
the  scribe  and  added  with  his  own  hand  the 
salutation  to  his  friends  and  the  authenticating  sig- 
nature t  (see  2  Thess.  iii.  17;  Philem.  19;  Gal.  vi.  11, 
"  Ye  see  in  how  large  characters  I  write  unto  you 
with  mine  own  hand  ").  It  is  seldom  that  the  amanu- 
ensis throws  off  his  anonymity  and  appears  in  his  own 
person,  as  in  Rom.  xvi.  22  :  "I  Tertius,  who  write 
this  epistle,  salute  you  in  the  Lord."  Generally  the 
reader  is  left  to  gather  who  the  amanuensis  was  from 
the  association  of  some  other  name  with  that  of  Paul 


*  An  important  inference  is  drawn  by  Prof.  Jowett  (St. 
Paul's  Epistles,  p.  200)  :  "  It  is  obvious  that  the  supposition, 
or  rather  the  simple  fact,  that  epistles  have  been  lost  which 
were  written  by  St.  Paul,  is  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  a 
plan  which  is  sometimes  attributed  to  the  extant  ones,  which 
are  regarded  as  a  temple  having  many  parts,  even  as  there 
are  many  members  in  one  body,  and  all  members  have  not 
the  same  office.  A  mistaken  idea  of  design  is  one  of  the 
most  attractive  errors  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  no 
less  than  of  nature.  No  such  plan  or  unity  can  be  really 
conceived  as  existing  in  the  Apostle's  own  mind,  for  he  could 
never  have  distinguished  between  the  epistles  destined  to  be 
lost  and  those  which  have  been  allowed  to  survive." 

f  Similar  authentication  was  in  use  among  the  Romans. 
Thus  Cicero  writes :  "  In  ea  Pompeii  epistola  erat  in  extreme 
in  ij)sius  maim,  Tu,  censeo,"etc.  Vide  Benan's  St.  Paul,  233, 
note. 


THEIR  ARRANGEMENT.  81 

in  the  opening  of  the  epistle  (1  Cor.  i.  1 ;  2  Cor.  i.  1). 
And  it  is  tolerably  certain  that  a  scribe  employed  in 
the  arduous  task  of  keeping  pace  in  writing  with  the 
torrent  of  Paul's  dictation  would  have  little  leisure  to 
insert  any  thoughts  of  his  own.  It  is  possible  he  may 
have  here  and  there  obscured  a  phrase,  and  the  very 
fact  that  these  letters  were  spoken  may  account  for 
the  broken  grammar  and  for  the  abrupt  introduction 
of  new  thoughts,  and  for  that  overwhelming  rapidity 
which  the  pen  would  have  bridled. 

The  order  in  which  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  now 
stand  in  the  New  Testament  is  meaningless,  and  has 
to  all  appearance  been  determined  by  the  relative 
bulk  of  the  letters,  or  by  the  comparative  rank  and 
importance  of  the  cities  and  Churches  to  which  they 
were  addressed.  By  critics  they  have  been  variously 
classified  according  to  their  contents,  their  dates,  their 
authenticity.  Kenan  divides  them  into  five  groups 
according  to  their  authenticity.  His  classification 
may  be  given  as  a  sample. 

1st.  There  are  the  incontestable  and  uncontested 
epistles,  namely,  Galatians,  1  and  2  Corinthians, 
Romans. 

2nd.  The  epistles  certainly  authentic  but  to  which 
objections  have  been  raised,  viz.,  1  and  2  Thessa- 
lonians,  and  Philippians. 

3rd.  The  epistles  certainly  authentic,  though  gravely 
suspected,  viz.,  Colossians  and  its  pendant  to  Philemon. 

4th.  A  doubtful  epistle,  that  to  the  Ephesians. 

5th.  Spurious  epistles,  the  two  to  Timothy  arid  one 
to  Titus. 

This  classification  conveniently  summarises  the  con- 

6 


82  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 

elusions  of   that   great  school   of   criticism  to  which 
Kenan  may  be  said  to  belong. 

But  for  the  student  who  wishes  to  read  the  epistles 
with  intelligence  the  chronological  order  is,  without 
doubt,  the  most  significant  and  helpful.  The  epistles 
may  be  classified  according  to  their  date  in  three 
groups. 

1st.  Those  written  during  the  period  of  Paul's 
missionary  activity,  1  and  2  Thessalonians,  1  and  2 
Corinthians,  Galatians,  Romans. 

2nd.  Those  written  during  his  imprisonment,  Philip- 
pians,  Colossians,  Philemon,  Ephesians. 

3rd.  Those  written  after  his  release  in  the  closing 
years  of  his  life,  1  Timothy,  Titus,  and  2  Timothy. 

The  date  of  the  various  epistles  cannot  be  absolutely 
determined,  but  we  may  accept  as  highly  probable  the 
following  dates :  1  and  2  Thessalonians  in  the  year  53  ; 
1  Corinthians  in  the  spring  and  2  Corinthians  in 
the  summer  of  58  ;  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was 
probably  written  late  in  the  same  year  58,  and  that 
to  the  Romans  in  the  following  spring.  The  epistles 
of  the  imprisonment  must  be  placed  in  the  years  62 
and  63,  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  being  assigned 
to  the  former  year,  those  to  the  Colossians,  Philemon, 
and  Ephesians,  to  the  latter.  The  first  pastoral  epistle 
to  Timothy,  and  that  to  Titus,  must  be  assigned  to  the 
year  64  or  65,  and  the  second  to  Timothy  to  the  year 
66  or  67. 

It  is  of  course  only  by  ascertaining  the  date  and 
ccasion  of  an  epistle  that  we  can  thoroughly  under- 
stand it.     If  we  do  not  know  the  circumstances  which 
have  evoked  it  and  the  object  the  writer  has  in  view, 


THEIR  ARRANGEMENT.  83 

the  force  of  the  epistle  as  a  whole  is  lost  upon  us, 
although  we  may  appreciate  individual  utterances  and 
be  edified  by  the  sentiments  and  flashes  which  are  struck 
out  in  the  collision  of  hostile  opinions.  Allusions  which 
the  writer  introduces  lose  their  point  and  significance, 
unless  we  know  something  of  the  conditions  of  himself 
and  his  correspondents. 

Another  advantage  accrues  from  the  study  of  the 
epistles  of  St.  Paul  in  chronological  order.  It  is  only 
thus  we  can  observe  the  growth  of  his  ideas  and  so 
harmonise  them.  In  illustration  of  this  the  difference 
in  Paul's  eschatology  in  his  earlier  and  later  epistles 
may  be  adduced.  In  writing  to  the  Thessalonians  he 
holds  out  the  hope  of  Christ's  personal  coming.  By 
the  breath  of  His  mouth,  that  is  to  say,  by  His  very 
presence,  He  should  destroy  the  enemies  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  who  persecuted  and  tempted  them.  But  in 
writing  to  the  Corinthians  it  is  another  prospect  he 
holds  out  to  those  who,  like  himself,  were  suffering 
for  the  faith.  That  prospect  no  longer  is  that  their 
enemies  shall  be  destroyed,  but  that  they  themselves 
shall  be  delivered  by  death.  In  writing  to  the  Corinth- 
ians he  has  much  to  say  of  the  dissolution  of  the 
body,  of  the  striking  of  frail  tents,  and  of  the  entering 
into  everlasting  habitations.  It  is  no  longer  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  but  the  departure  of  the  believer 
that  is  to  effect  the  happy  meeting.  What  has  wrought 
this  change1?  No  one  can  read  Paul's  intervening 
experience  without  recognising  the  cause  and  the  natu- 
ralness of  the  growth  of  his  new  eschatology.  These 
distressing  sicknesses  and  scourgings,  the  stonings,  and 
shipwrecks,  and  outrages,  and  risks,  and  privations, 


84  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 

had  impressed  on  his  mind  the  nearness  of  death,  but 
they  had  also  taught  him  that  through  his  very  suffer- 
ings the  strength  which  upheld  him  was  seen  to  be 
divine.  He  thus  learned  that  what  had  been  the  law 
for  the  Master  that  He  should  draw  men  by  being 
lifted  up  on  the  cross,  was  the  law  for  the  disciple 
also,  and  that  the  world  was  to  be  converted  to  Christ 
not  by  a  glorious  and  sensible  exhibition  of  His  power, 
but  by  the  slow  conviction  produced  by  the  spiritual 
majesty  of  loving  toil  and  suffering  patience.  The 
treasure  was  in  earthen  vessels  that  the  glory  might 
be  merely  spiritual.  He  himself  was  full  of  infirmities, 
but  he  gloried  in  them  as  the  medium  through  which 
Christ's  power  to  sustain  was  exhibited.  He  bore 
about  in  his  body  the  dying  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
so  the  life,  the  present  upholding  living  power  of 
Jesus  was  manifest  in  hi  in. 


EPISTLE  TO   THE   KOMANS. 

That  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  should  long  to 
preach  the  gospel  in  Rome  was  a  matter  of  course. 
It  was  the  true  metropolis  to  which  every  road  led, 
which  received  from  all  the  provinces  whatever  they 
possessed  of  interest  or  value,  and  which  distributed 
to  the  world  law,  order,  civilisation.  During  his  three 
years'  residence  at  Ephesus  the  desirableness  of  visit- 
ing the  greater  city  pressed  upon  Paul  with  the  force 
of  a  necessity,  "  I  must  also  see  Rome  "  (Acts  xix.  21). 
And  this  was  not  the  only  nor  the  first  time  he  had 
conceived  the  purpose  of  visiting  the  imperial  city 


EPISTLE*  TO  THE   ROMANS.  85 

(Rom.  i.  13).  Hitherto,  however,  the  East  had 
claimed  him.  But  now  that  he  has  once  and  again 
"  fully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ  from  Jerusalem 
and  round  about  unto  Illyricum "  his  work  in  these 
parts  seems  to  be  finished  for  the  time  (Rom.  xv.  23), 
and  he  looks  to  the  extreme  West,  and  resolves  to  find 
his  way  to  Spain.  The  one  duty  that  remains  to  be 
discharged  before  he  turns  his  back  on  the  East  is  to 
carry  to  Jerusalem  the  fund  for  the  poor  Christians 
there,  which  had  been  collected  by  the  Churches  of 
Macedonia  and  Achaia.  This  was  a  duty  he  would 
not  delegate,  for  not  only  was  it  an  ordinary  expres- 
sion of  Christian  charity,  but  he  hoped  it  might  prove 
a  bond  which  should  more  firmly  unite  the  Jewish 
and  Gentile  sections  of  the  Church.  After  handing 
over  this  fund  he  would  start  for  Rome.  This  inten- 
tion of  his  was  fulfilled  in  unthought-of  ways,  but  for 
the  sake  of  preparing  the  Christians  in  Rome  for  his 
visit  he  sends  this  letter.  Preparatory  to  his  visit  to 
Corinth  he  had  sent  a  letter  which  had  smoothed  his 
way  and  made  his  visit  more  welcome  and  more  pro- 
fitable, and  to  a  Church  like  that  of  Rome,  on  which 
he  had  no  personal  claims,  he  no  doubt  felt  it  would 
only  be  courteous  to  intimate  his  intended  visit. 
Besides,  in  view  of  a  missionary  journey  to  Spain, 
and  it  might  be  to  Gaul  and  the  remotest  parts  of 
the  empire,  it  was  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the 
Church  of  the  imperial  city  should  countenance  and 
aid  him,  and  should  do  so  especially  by  distinctly 
recognising  the  claims  of  the  Gentiles,  of  the  world, 
to  the  benefits  of  the  gospel. 

The  time  and  place  of  writing  are   fixed    by  the 


86  EPISTLE  TO   THE  ROMANS. 

account  of  his  movements,  which  the  writer  gives  in 
the  fifteenth  chapter.  He  is  on  the  eve  of  starting 
to  Jerusalem  (xv.  25)  with  the  money  for  the  poor 
saints.  But  from  Acts  xx.  1 — 3  we  know  that  this 
journey  was  made  after  Paul  had  spent  at  Corinth 
the  winter  immediately  succeeding  his  long  residence 
at  Ephesus,  presumably  the  winter  of  58  A. D.  From 
the  same  passage  in  Acts  we  learn  that  he  had  in- 
tended to  sail  direct  from  Greece  to  Syria,  but  was 
compelled  at  the  last  moment  to  change  his  route  in 
order  to  baulk  a  plot  of  the  Jews.  In  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  there  is  no  mention  of  this  plot,  though 
occasion  for  its  mention  was  present  in  Rom.  xv.  31; 
and  this  seems  to  involve  that  the  letter  was  written 
previous  to  the  discovery  of  the  plot,  that  is  to  say, 
previous  to  his  leaving  Corinth.  The  time  of  year  at 
which  he  left  Corinth  is  approximately  fixed  by  the 
mention  (Acts  xx.  6)  that  he  spent  "  the  days  of 
unleavened  bread  "  at  Philippi.  A  few  weeks  would 
suffice  for  his  visiting  the  Churches  which  lay  between 
Corinth  and  Philippi,  and  we  may  therefore  conclude 
that  he  left  the  former  city  in  early  spring. 

That  the  letter  was  written  from  Corinth  is  indi- 
cated also  by  the  circumstance  that  Phoebe,  a  "deacon" 
of  the  Church  at  Cenchrese  is  commended  to  the 
Church  at  Rome,  and  may  possibly  have  carried  the 
letter.  Gaius,  in  whose  house  Paul  was  living  (xvi. 
23),  was  a  Corinthian  (1  Cor.  i.  14),  though  several 
of  that  name  are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament. 
That  Erastus  (xvi.  23)  was  chamberlain  of  Corinth 
would  seem  at  least  in  some  degree  probable  from 
2  Tim.  iv.  20. 


JEWS  IN  ROME.  87 

Though  the  letter  was  occasioned  by  Paul's  intended 
visit  and  his  desire  to  pave  the  way  for  his  personal 
presence,  the  contents  of  it  were  necessarily  deter- 
mined by  the  character  of  the  Christian  Church  in 
Rome.  Unfortunately  nothing  is  certainly  known  of 
this  Church,  save  what  may  be  learnt  from  the  epistle 
itself.  It  is  known  that  as  early  as  Cicero's  time 
(speech  in  defence  of  Flaccus,  B.C.  59)  the  Jews  were 
a  numerous,  wealthy,  and  influential  part  of  the 
population  of  Rome.  Their  number  was  further 
increased  by  the  Jews  whom  Pompey  brought  to 
Rome  as  captives.*  Under  the  empire  they  were  for 
the  most  part  protected  and  even  favoured.  No  party 
in  the  state  bewailed  the  death  of  Julius  Caesar  with 
greater  ostentation  or  with  more  reason.t  Under 
Augustus  their  strength  and  prosperity  still  increased. 
Tiberius,  possibly  through  fear  of  their  growing  in- 
fluence, instituted  against  them  severely  repressive 
measures.:}:  In  spite,  however,  of  these  measures  and 
the  subsequent  edict  of  banishment  issued  by  Claudius, 
they  continued  to  prosper  in  Rome  and  to  make  many 
proselytes.§  Indeed  it  would  seem,  from  the  passage 
of  Tacitus  cited  below,  that  a  very  large  number  of 
Roman  freemen  had  adopted  the  Jewish  faith,  not- 
withstanding the  ridicule  they  thereby  incurred. 
With  so  large  a  Jewish  population  in  Rome  there 

*  Philo,  De  Legal,  23. 

f  Suetonius,  Julius,  84. 

j  Tacitus,  Annals,  ii.  85  ;  Suetonius,  Tiberius,  36. 

§  The  authorities  are  named  in  Schiirer  and  Hausrath,  and 
a  great  number  of  instructive  passages  from  ancient  authors 
are  quoted  in  full  by  J.  E.  B.  Mayor  in  his  Juvenal,  xiv.  96. 


88  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS. 

was  bound  to  be  a  constant  communication  with 
Jerusalem.  Accordingly  we  find  (Acts  ii.  10)  that 
"  strangers  from  Rome  "  were  present  when  Peter  for 
the  first  time  proclaimed  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  It  is 
certain  that  when  these  Jews  returned  to  Rome  they 
would  not  be  silent  regarding  what  they  had  heard. 
But  Rome  was  in  communication  not  only  with  Jeru- 
salem, but  with  every  other  town  in  which  Christ 
was  preached,  and  intimations  of  the  progress  of  the 
new  faith  must  from  time  to  time  have  reached  the 
city.*  Whether  Aqtiila  was  already  a  Christian  when 
Paul  took  up  his  abode  with  him  at  Corinth  is  uncer- 
tain; but  that  there  were  Christians  in  the  Rome 
from  which  Aquila  had  recently  been  expelled  may 
be  gathered  from  the  reason  which  Suetonius  assigns 
for  the  edict  of  expulsion.  Claudius,  he  says,  "banished 
the  Jews  from  Rome  because  they  were  ceaselessly 
making  disturbances  at  the  instigation  of  Chrestus. 
This  is  generally  and  justly  supposed  to  indicate  that 
the  name  of  Christ  had  something  to  do  with  the 
Jewish  riots,  and  that  it  may  be  concluded  there  were 
Christians  in  Rome  at  that  time. 

But  the  account  given  in  the  Acts  (xxviii.  17)  of 
Paul's  reception  by  the  Jews  in  Rome  is  such  as  to 
make  it  difficult  to  suppose  that  there  existed  before 
his  arrival  any  large  number  of  Christians  there  or 
any  organised  Church.  The  leading  Jews  had  indeed 

*  Dr.  Gifford  (Speaker's  Commentary}  quotes  a  passage  from 
Tacitus  (Annals,  xv.  44)  to  show  that  Christians  were  found 
in  Rome  "  very  soon  "  after  the  crucifixion.  But  in  Tacitus 
there  is  nothing  that  represents  the  words  which  Dr.  Gifford 
translates  "  very  soon,"  and  underlines. 


COMPOSITION  OF  CHURCH  IN  ROME.  89 

heard  of  Paul,  but  they  had  received  no  instructions 
from  the  authorities  in  Jerusalem  regarding  him. 
They  knew  also  of  the  Christian  "  sect,"  but  from  the 
language  they  use  regarding  it,  one  might  suppose 
they  had  as  yet  had  no  opportunity  of  observing  its 
character  and  customs.  Apparently  they  had  not 
become  acquainted  with  his  letter  to  the  Roman 
Christians,  and  had  not  been  alarmed  by  any  con- 
siderable secession  from  Judaism.  And  yet  their 
language  is  quite  consistent  with  their  knowledge  that 
some  Jews  in  Eome  had  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
and  probably  it  would  give  them  very  little  concern 
to  know  that  among  the  multifarious  religions  of 
Rome  and  the  daily  changes  of  belief  which  charac- 
terised that  period,  some  of  the  Gentile  population 
had  become  Christians.  But  certainly  the  language 
of  the  leading  Jews  of  Rome  to  Paul  would  incline 
us  to  believe  that  the  Christians  in  Rome  had  been 
chiefly  drawn,  not  from  among  the  Jews,  but  from 
the  Gentile  population. 

The  salutations  appended  to  the  epistle  point  to 
the  same  conclusion.  For  while  kinsmen  of  Paul's 
are  mentioned,  who  must  have  been  pure-blooded 
Jews,  and  while  others,  such  as  Mary,  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  and  Apelles,  with  undoubtedly  Jewish 
names  (Hor.,  Sat.,  I.  v.  100),  are  greeted,  the  majority 
of  the  names  are  Gentile  and  for  the  most  part  Greek. 
At  the  date  of  this  epistle  the  active,  pushing,  and 
pliable  Greek  was  possessing  himself  of  every  re- 
munerative business,  of  all  promising  commercial  and 
social  activity  in  the  metropolis;  so  much  so  that 
shortly  after  this  time  the  Roman  satirist  upbraids 


90  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS. 

Rome  with  having  become  a  Greek  city  (Juv.,  Sat., 
iii.  60).  It  is  not  surprising  then  to  find  that  the 
names  in  this  letter  are  Greek  rather  than  Latin, 
that  the  language  used  both  in  this  letter  and  in 
the  earliest  literature  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  Greek, 
and  that  in  the  catacombs  the  Greek  characters  so 
often  appear  in  the  inscriptions.*  The  same  mingling 
of  Jew  and  Gentile  in  the  Christian  community  at 
Rome  is  apparent  in  the  substance  of  the  Epistle. 
Sometimes  Paul  addresses  Jews,  as  in  ii.  17,  27  ; 
iv.  1  ;  while  at  other  times  Gentiles  are  explicitly 
addressed  as  in  xi.  13  ;  xv.  16;  i.  13. 

It  matters  little,  however,  whether  we  conclude  that 
the  Gentiles  were  in  a  numerical  majority,  or  (with 
Sabatier)  that  the  Jews  greatly  outnumbered  them  in 
the  Church  of  Rome.  The  matter  of  importance  to 
determine  is,  the  type  of  Christianity  to  which  they 
were  attached.  Did  the  Pauline  or  the  Jewish- 
Christian  view  of  the  gospel  prevail  ?  Lipsius  (Protes- 
tantenbibel)  finds  that  everything  in  the  epistle  was 
meant  for  Jewish-Christian  readers.  The  writer,  he 
says,  "  assumes  throughout  that  he  is  addressing 
readers  of  Jewish  education,  who  are  also  accustomed 
to  the  Jewish  methods.  The  hypotheses  from  which 
he  sets  out,  the  conceptions  with  which  he  wrorks,  the 
arguments  from  the  maxims  and  examples  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scripture,  the  express  appeal  to  the 
readers'  knowledge  of  the  Law — all  this  is  only  intelli- 
gible if  the  Apostle  wishes  to  influence  the  Jewish- 
Christian  niiiid.  .  .  .  The  Pauline  gospel  can  have  had 

*  See  Lightfoot's  Philijtpians,  p.  20. 


TYPE  OF  CHRISTIANITY  IN  ROME.    91 

few  if  any  adherents  at  that  time  in  Rome,  and  no 
doubt  even  those  believers  who  had  been  gathered 
from  among  the  Gentiles  were  altogether  under  the 
influence  of  the  Jewish  spirit."  Pfleiderer  (Hibbert 
Lectures,  139)  thinks  that  the  epistle  suggests  that 
the  relations  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  sections 
of  the  Church  were  strained,  that  the  healthy  develop- 
ment of  the  Church  was  thus  daily  placed  in  increas- 
ing peril,  and  the  more  so  as  through  the  rapid 
growth  of  the  Gentile  section,  the  Jewish,  which  had 
undoubtedly  formed  the  principal  element  originally, 
had  sunk  into  the  position  of  a  powerless  minority. 
Even  this  more  moderate  statement  seems  to  lay 
more  stress  on  the  strained  relations  between  the  two 
sections  of  the  Church  than  the  epistle  warrants. 
That  the  majority  in  the  Church  was  free  from 
Jewish-Christian  scrupulosity  is  apparent  from  the 
circumstance  that  Paul  feels  called  upon  to  exhort 
the  majority  to  admit  to  fellowship  the  weakly,  scru- 
pulous believer  who  observed  days  and  refused  to  eat 
what  was  offered  to  idols.  And  it  is  obvious  that  had 
the  Church  been  to  any  large  extent  tainted  with 
distinctively  Jewish-Christian  views,  Paul  could  not 
have  spoken  of  its  members  as  "  full  of  all  goodness, 
tilled  with  all  knowledge,  able  also  to  admonish  one 
another  "  (Rom.  xv.  14).  There  is  no  evidence  in  the 
epistle  that  there  was  any  anti-Pauline  party  in  the 
Church.  No  doubt,  such  a  party  might  at  any  time 
arise.  For  Jewish-Christianity  was  merely  a  one- 
sided exaggeration  of  a  view  of  the  relation  of  the 
Jews  to  Christ,  which  must  inevitably  have  suggested 
itself  to  every  Jewish  mind.  And  certainly  this  letttr 


92  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 

cuts  the  ground  from  the  Jewish-Christian  position 
by  proving  that  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike  are  under 
sin,  and  alike  must  be  saved  by  grace.  But  this  is 
done  without  any  polemical  pushing  of  principles 
to  their  issues,  or  explicit  assault  upon  the  Jewish  - 
Christian  position  such  as  is  found  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians.  As  Sabatier  says  :  "  This  epistle  marks 
the  precise  moment  at  which  polemic  naturally  resolves 
itself  into  dogmatic." 

What  then  is  the  precise  object  Paul  has  in  view  : 
what  is  the  aim  which  determines  all  the  contents  of 
the  letter  ?  In  substance  the  letter  is  a  justification 
of  the  Apostle's  mission  to  the  Gentiles,  a  justification 
first  to  his  own  mind,  and  secondly  to  the  Christian 
community  at  Rome.  He  habitually  considered  him- 
self "the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Gentiles" 
(xv.  16),  and  among  the  Gentiles  he  made  no  distinc- 
tions but  recognised  that  he  was  bound  to  carry  the 
gospel  to  the  most  highly  civilised  as  well  as  to  the 
uneducated  and  rude,  or,  as  he  himself  puts  it,  he 
felt  himself  to  be  "  debtor  both  to  the  Greeks  and  to 
the  barbarians,  both  to  the  wise  and  to  the  unwise." 
Accordingly  he  longed  to  bring  the  gospel  into  contact 
with  the  world's  social  and  political  centre  at  Rome, 
for  he  was  "  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ " 
(i.  15,  16).  But  in  thus  committing  himself  to  a 
mission  in  the  West  he  felt  he  was  taking  a  new  step 
and  was  more  distinctly  than  ever  giving  himself  to 
the  Gentiles.  It  was  natural  therefore  that  he  should 
now  review  the  situation  and  should  especially  make 
clear  to  the  Church  of  the  imperial  city,  the  centre 
cf  the  Gentile  world,  what  his  gospel  was  and  how 


OBJECT  OF  THE  EPISTLE.  93 

it  was  applicable  to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  That 
this  was  his  object,  he  himself  explicitly  affirms 
(xv.  15,  16),  and  the  letter  is  accordingly  an  exposi- 
tion of  the  applicability  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles. 
This  will  more  clearly  appear  if  we  briefly  analyse 
the  epistle.  He  means,  he  says,  to  preach  the  gospel 
at  Rome  because  he  believes  it  is  "the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation,"  not  to  one  race  only,  but  "  to  every 
one  that  believeth  ;  to  the  Jew  first,"  in  accordance 
with  the  providential  plan,  "but  also  to  the  Greek" 
(i.  16).  Christ,  that  is,  is  the  medium  througli  which 
God's  power  to  lift  men  out  of  moral  evil  and  bring 
them  into  perfect  correspondence  with  His  own 
righteousness,  is  exercised.  That  this  is  God's  grand 
purpose  with  man  is  apparent  from  the  results  of 
unrighteousness,  "the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed 
against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men  " 
(i  18).  These  results  the  inhabitants  of  Rome  had 
only  too  ample  opportunity  to  observe  (i.  21 — 32). 
But  the  frightful  wickedness  of  the  Gentiles  and  its 
punishment  were  no  sufficient  reasons  for  the  scorn 
with  which  the  Jew  looked  upon  them,  nor  for 
abandoning  them  to  a  hopeless  doom.  Rather  did  the 
scorn  with  which  the  Jew  looked  on  the  immoral  and 
ignorant  Gentiles  who  knew  not  the  law,  reflect  upon 
his  own  sin  against  the  light  of  the  law.  If  the 
Gentile  who  knew  not  the  law  was  by  his  immorality 
beyond  God's  mercy,  equally  or  more  so  was  the  Jew 
who  knew  the  law  and  yet  did  not  observe  it.  Not 
the  having  the  law,  but  the  keeping  of  it,  was 
righteousness ;  not  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh,  but  of 
the  spirit,  saves  (ii.  passim).  If  so,  is  the  Jew  righteous 


94  EPISTLE  TO   THE  ROMANS. 

and  the  Gentile  condemned  ?  Alas !  the  law  itself 
says :  "  There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one ; "  and 
what  it  says  it  of  course  says  to  those  who  are  under 
the  law,  to  Jews,  not  to  Gentiles.  It  means,  there  is 
no  Jew  righteous,  no,  not  one  (iii.  19).  If  then,  men 
are  to  be  justified,  it  cannot  be  by  the  Jewish  law. 
Jew  and  Gentile  alike  must  put  away  boasting,  and 
on  an  equal  footing  of  absolute  demerit  accept  God's 
grace.*  Thus  was  even  Abraham  justified  (c.  iv.), 
righteousness  was  imputed  to  him  without  his  merit- 
ing God's  favour  by  his  works.  As  he  believed  God's 
promise  and  did  not  think  of  earning  what  He  pro- 
mised, so  must  we  accept  the  peace  offered  us  in 
Christ,  and  not  think  we  can  earn  it.  For  it  is  in 
Christ  God's  love  and  righteousness  are  now  revealed 
(chap.  v.).  Neither  will  our  abandonment  of  the  idea 
we  can  earn  God's  blessing  make  us  indifferent  to  His 
will  or  to  the  attainment  of  holiness.  On  the  contrary 
the  acceptance  of  Christ  and  the  Spirit  of  life  that  is 
in  Him  at  last  enables  us  to  fulfil  the  righteousness  of 
the  law  and  to  become  truly  the  sons  of  God,  destined 
to  holiness  and  glory  everlasting  (chap.  vi. — viii.) 

But  the  very  triumph  Paul  feels  in  depicting  a 
salvation  so  perfect  and  so  applicable  to  Gentiles, 
suggests  to  him  the  misery  of  his  own  countrymen 
who  reject  this  salvation,  and  in  chap.  ix. — xi.  he 
discusses  the  reason  and  the  results  of  this  rejection. 
It  was  a  perplexing  circumstance  that  the  Jews  who 
had  been  specially  prepared  to  receive  Christ  should 

*  "  Unite  et  egalite  dans  le  peche,  unit6  et  e"galite  dans  la 
redemption  ;  en  ces  mots  sont  resumes  et  la  pensee  ge'ne'rale  et 
le  plan  entier  de  ce  grand  ouvrage." — Sabatier,  178. 


INTEGRITY  OF  THE  EPISTLE.          95 

be  precisely  those  who  most  unanimously  rejected 
Him.  What  did  this  mean?  Have  the  Jews  no 
advantage?  To  a  mind  like  Paul's,  craving  con- 
sistency of  thought,  this  problem  came  as  a  demand 
to  form  a  theory  of  providence,  or,  as  we  should  now 
say,  a  philosophy  of  history  to  solve  it.  Many  of 
Paul's  enemies  must  have  expected  him  to  solve  it 
by  saying  that  the  Jew  had  no  advantage  over  the 
Gentile,  and  that  his  long  preparation  meant  nothing. 
Many  of  the  Gentiles  might  suppose  that  he  who 
had  been  insulted,  beaten,  outraged  by  the  Jews, 
would  be  careless  of  their  fate.  On  the  contrary,  his 
heart  bleeds  for  them.  He  would  accept  any  fate  for 
himself,  if  thereby  he  could  alter  the  fate  they  had 
brought  on  themselves  by  their  unbelief.  He  will 
not  suffer  the  Gentiles  to  think  that  the  Jews  are 
for  ever  rejected.  Their  unbelief  has  been  the 
occasion  of  his  turning  to  the  Gentiles,  if  then  "  the 
casting  away  of  them  be  the  reconciling  of  the 
world,  what  shall  the  receiving  of  them  be  but  life 
from  the  dead?"  (xi.  15).  A  full  and  beautiful 
exhibition  of  the  conduct  appropriate  to  the  Christian 
follows  this,  and  the  epistle  closes  with  the  usual 
salutations. 

These  salutations  have  given  rise  to  some  suspicions 
regarding  the  integrity  of  the  epistle.  Is  it  likely 
that  in  a  Church  he  had  never  visited  Paul  should 
have  had  so  many  friends?  And  how  is  it  that  so 
many  of  the  names  which  occur  are  associated  rather 
with  Ephesus  than  with  Rome?  It  is  obvious, 
however,  that  these  two  questions  neutralize  one 
another.  If  some  of  Paul's  Ephesian  friends  had 


96      EPISTLES  TO   THE  CORINTHIAN'S. 

been  carried  by  business  requirements  to  Rome,  it 
is  not  strange  that  he  should  name  so  many.  But 
there  are  other  reasons  for  doubting  the  integrity  of 
the  epistle.  The  reader  observes  that  again  and 
again  the  epistle  seems  to  close,  but  is  re-opened. 
At  xv.  33  ;  xvi.  20,  24,  27  there  occur  expressions 
which  might  stand  as  terminal.  Additional  difficulty 
is  raised  by  the  fact  that  in  most  cursive  MSS.  and 
in  one  uncial,  the  doxology  (xv.  25 — 27)  is  found  at 
the  end  of  chap.  xiv.  It  is  found  in  both  places  in 
some  important  MSS. ;  and  in  neither  in  other  MSS. 
To  account  for  these  discrepancies  some  critics  adopt 
the  theory  that  several  editions  of  the  epistle  were 
sent  by  Paul  to  different  Churches ;  while  other 
critics  suppose  that  at  a  later  period  of  his  life  Paul 
adapted  the  epistle  to  general  circulation  by  omitting 
the  words  "  in  Rome  "  and  by  cutting  off  the  last 
two  chapters.  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  these 
suggestions  we  must  refer  to  Dr.  Gifford's  elaborate 
treatment  of  them  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  in  the  Speaker's  Bible. 


EPISTLES  TO  THE   CORINTHIANS. 

When  Paul  visited  Corinth  it  was  the  capital  of 
the  Roman  province  of  Achaia  and  the  headquarters 
of  the  Proconsul.  From  the  earliest  times  its 
situation  on  the  isthmus,  "  the  bridge  of  the  untiring 
sea,"  *  with  its  eastern  port  of  Cenchrese  and  its 
western  port  Lechseum,  had  given  it  importance. 

*  Pindar,  Nem.  Odes,  vi. 


CORINTH.  97 

The  ancient  ships  were  small  and  not  very  well 
managed,  and  sailors  bringing  goods  from  Asia  to 
Italy  preferred  to  carry  their  bales  across  the 
narrow  neck  of  land  rather  than  to  face  the  stormy 
passage  round  Cape  Malea,  "of  bad  fame."  So 
commonly  was  this  done  that  arrangements  were 
made  for  conveying  the  ships  themselves  across  on 
rollers;  and  shortly  after  Paul's  visit  Nero  cut  the 
first  turf  of  an  intended,  but  never  finished,  canal 
to  connect  the  two  seas.*  Towards  the  southern 
extremity  of  the  isthmus  stood  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  natural  fortifications  in  the  world,  the 
abrupt,  massive  rock,  nearly  2,000  feet  high,  known 
as  the  Acrocorinthus.  It  was  on  a  slightly  elevated 
platform  at  the  northern  base  of  this  commanding 
hill  that  the  city  was  built. 

Completely  destroyed  by  the  Eoman  general 
Mummius  in  146  B.C.,  it  was  repeopled  and  rebuilt 
by  Julius  Caesar,  who,  exactly  a  century  after  its 
demolition,  colonised  it  (coloiiia  Julia  Corinthus)  with 
Roman  veterans  and  freedmen.f  Under  these 
auspices  it  speedily  regained  something  of  its  former 
beauty,  all  its  former  wealth,  and  apparently  more 
than  its  former  size.+  But  the  old  profligacy  was 
also  revived.  In  Paul's  day,  "  to  live  as  they  do  at 
Corinth  "  was  the  equivalent  for  living  in  luxury  and 

*  Suetonius,  Nero  ;  Pausanias  says,  "  Where  they  began  to 
dig  is  plainly  visible,  but  they  did  not  make  much  progress 
because  of  the  rock." 

f  Hence  many  of  the  names  of  Corinthians  in  the  New 
Testament  are  such  as  indicate  a  Roman  or  servile  origin— 
Quartus,  Achaicus,  Fortunatus,  Crispus,  Gaius,  Justus. 

I  200,000  freemen  and  460,000  slaves. 

7 


98     EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS. 

licentiousness.*  Sailors  from  all  parts  with  a  little 
money  to  spend,  merchants  eager  to  compensate  for 
the  privations  and  hardships  of  a  voyage,  refugees, 
adventurers  of  all  kinds  were  continually  passing 
through  the  city,  introducing  foreign  customs  and 
confounding  moral  distinctions.  Too  plainly  are  the 
engrained  vices  of  the  Corinthians*  reflected  in  the 
epistles  (1  Cor.  v.  1;  vi.  9—11;  xi.  21).  In  the 
letters  are  also  visible  reminiscences  of  what  Paul 
had  seen  in  the  Isthmian  and  gladiatorial  contests 
(1  Cor.  ix.  24;  iv.  9).  He  had  noted,  too,  as  he 
walked  through  Corinth  how  the  fire  of  the  Roman 
army  had  consumed  all  the  meaner  houses  of  "  wood, 
hay,  stubble,"  but  had  been  comparatively  harmless 
on  the  precious  marbles  (1  Cor.  iii.  12). 

To  the  vices  of  a  cosmopolitan  sea-port  and  of  a 
wealthy  commercial  city  Corinth  added  the  restless 
factiousness  of  degenerate  Greece,  and  the  windy  and 
vain  logomachy  of  an  imitative  philosophy.  Rhetori- 
cal displays  in  which  the  "  wisdom  of  words "  was 
accepted  as  final  knowledge  (ii.  4;  viii  1) ;  subtle  but 
foolish  intellectual  perplexities  (xv.  13,  35);  readiness 
to  listen  to  arguments  that  tended  to  sensual  and 
worldly  living  (xv.  32,  33)  were  the  snares  of  this 
mixed  and  monied  population.  It  is  because  the 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  throw  so  clear  a  light  on 
the  life  of  a  Christian  Church  formed  out  of  so  un- 
promising a  society  that  they  become,  as  Weizsacker 
has  called  them,  "  a  fragment  which  has  no  parallel  in 
ecclesiastical  history."  "  We  are  here  and  (as  far  as 

*  See  Wetstein  on  1  Cor.  i.  2.  "  Ecclesia  Dei  in  Corintko, 
laetum  et  ingens  paradoxon."  Bengel. 


CHRISTIANITY  IN  CORINTH.  99 

the  epistles  are  concerned)  here  only,  allowed  to  wit- 
ness the  earliest  conflict  of  Christianity  with  the  cul- 
ture and  the  vices  of  the  ancient  classical  world ;  here 
we  have  an  insight,  it  may  be  only  by  glimpses,  into  the 
principles  which  regulated  the  Apostle's  choice  or  re- 
jection of  the  customs  of  that  vast  fabric  of  heathen 
society  which  was  then  emphatically  called  '  the  world ' ; 
here  we  trace  the  mode  in  which  he  combated  the 
false  pride,  the  false  knowledge,  the  false  liberality,  the 
false  freedom,  the  false  display,  the  false  philosophy* 
to  which  an  intellectual  age,  especially  in  a  declining 
nation,  is  constantly  liable ;  here  more  than  anywhere 
else  in  his  writings  his  allusions  and  illustrations  are 
borrowed  not  merely  from  Jewish  customs  and  feelings, 
but  from  the  literature,  the  amusements,  the  educa- 
tion, the  worship  of  Greece  and  Rome.  It  is  the 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  as  it  were,  in  his  own  peculiar 
sphere — in  the  midst  of  questions  evoked  by  his  own 
peculiar  mission — watching  over  Churches  of  his  own 
creation,  .  .  .  feeling  that  on  the  success  of  his  work 
then,  the  whole  success  and  value  of  his  past  and 
future  work  depended."! 

How  Paul  founded  the  Church  at  Corinth  is  re- 
corded in  Acts  xviii.  1 — 18.  The  edict  of  Claudius 
expelling  the  Jews  from  Rome  would  seem  to 
have  been  enacted  shortly  before  Paul's  visit  (Acts 
xviii.  2),  and  Gallic  seems  to  have  entered  on  his 
proconsulship  when  Paul  had  already  been  eighteen 

*  See  i.  17  ;  iii.  4,  18—23  ;  iv.  7—13  ;  vi.  12—20  ;  viii.  1—7  ; 
xii,  xiv.,  xv.  35—41. 

t  Stanley's  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  p.  4. 
The  whole  introduction  should  be  read. 


100    EPISTLES  TO  THE   CORINTHIANS. 

months  in  Corinth  (Acts  xviii.  11,  12),  but  unfor- 
tunately, though  it  is  probable  that  the  edict  of 
Claudius  belongs  to  the  year  52  A.D.,  neither  date  can 
be  exactly  determined.  The  probability  is  that  Paul 
remained  in  Corinth  part  of  the  year  52,  the  whole  of 
53,  and  part  of  54.  During  the  first  eighteen  months 
of  his  stay  a  large  number  (ver.  10)  of  the  Corinthians 
accepted  his  gospel,  and  many  of  them,  being  of  quick 
intellect,  must  have  made  marked  attainment  under 
this  continuous  and  weighty  teaching.  But  the 
jealous  Jews,  thinking  that  the  new  proconsul,  the 
"  dulcis  Gallio,"  would  wish  to  make  favour  with  all 
parties  in  his  new  province,  bring  Paul  before  him. 
They  are  met  with  a  decided  rebuff.  A  question  or 
two  shows  that  this  is  a  matter  over  which  he  has  no 
jurisdiction,  and  he  orders  his  lictors  to  clear  the 
court.  After  this  victory  Paul  remains  some  time 
longer  (ver.  18,  "  yet  a  good  while  "),  and  then  goes 
to  Jerusalem,  vi&  Ephesus  and  Csesarea,  probably  to 
be  present  at  Pentecost,  54  A.D.  After  celebrating 
the  feast  he  goes  to  Antioch,  where  he  spends  "  some 
time"  (ver.  23),  and  then,  having  visited  Galatia, 
Phrygia  and  "the  upper  coasts,"  strengthening  the 
Churches,  he  at  length  reaches  Ephesus  where  he 
remains  for  nearly  three  years.  Apparently,  there- 
fore, it  was  late  in  54,  or  early  in  55,  when  he  reached 
Ephesus.  At  this  time  Apollos,  an  Alexandrian  Jew 
with  exceptional  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
power  of  expression,  who  had  reasoned  powerfully 
with  the  Ephesian  Jews,  was  labouring  in  Corinth  and 
the  whole  of  Achaia,  and  exercising  a  most  powerful 
influence  there,  especially  among  the  Jews.  Every- 


SCANDALS  IN  CORISTH1AN  CHURCH.     101 

thing,  therefore,  seemed  to  promise  well  for  the  Church 
at  Corinth.  But  before  very  long  old  habits  and  the 
customs  of  heathen  society  proved  too  strong  for  some 
of  the  recent  converts,  who  fell  back  into  Greek  vice. 
This  scandalised  the  purer  portion  of  the  Church,  who 
communicated  with  Paul  and  asked  his  advice.  He 
wrote  to  them  that  they  must  not  associate  with  for- 
nicators,  covetous  persons,  extortioners,  or  idolaters. 
To  this  epistle  reference  is  made  in  1  Cor.  v.  9,  10.* 
They  replied  that  Corinthian  society  was  wholly 
formed  of  such  persons,  not  apprehending  that  by 
"  not  keeping  company  "  he  meant  not  acknowledging 
as  Christians  and  associating  in  worship,  and  with  this 
reply  they  laid  before  him  a  number  of  other  difficul- 
ties (1  Cor.  vii.  1 ;  viii.  1 ;  xii.  1,  etc.).  This,  together 
with  the  oral  information  f  he  had  received  from 

*  Two  epistles,  professing  to  be  the  lost  first  of  Paul  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  that  of  the  Corinthians  to  Paul,  and  received 
as  canonical  by  the  Armenian  Church,  have  been  published  and 
translated  several  times.  The  most  complete  translation  is 
that  of  Lord  Byron  and  Father  Aucher.  The  epistles  are  given 
in  Stanley's  Corinthians,  ii.  (Appendix).  They  are  undoubtedly 
spurious. 

f  Much  has  been  written  on  the  parties  in  the  Church  of 
Corinth.  The  opinions  of  Baur,  Holsten,  Renan,  and  others 
are  cited  in  the  commentaries.  A  well-arranged  digest  will  be 
found  in  Godet,  1  Corinthians,  in  loc: — It  is  apparent  from  the 
epistle  that  the  adhesion  of  certain  members  to  1'aul,  others  to 
Apollos,  and  so  on,  was  in  the  meanwhile  productive  rather  of 
bitter  feeling  than  of  fixed  doctrinal  differences.  Paul  was 
certainly  not  afraid  that  the  teaching  of  Apollos  would  do  the 
Corinthians  harm,  for  he  was  extremely  anxious  that  he  should 
return  to  Corinth.  And  to  all  appearance  the  other  parties 
were,  at  the  date  of  the  first  epistle,  insignificant,  for  it  is  to 
the  Apollos  party  alone  that  he  addresses  himself  in  its  early 


102    EPISTLES  TO   THE   CORINTHIANS. 

members  of  Chloe's  household  who  had  come  to  Ephe- 
ous  (1  Cor.  i.  11),  calls  forth  the  first  extant  epistle. 

In  this  epistle,  then,  we  see  the  kind  of  work  which 
was  required  of  one  on  whom  lay  the  care  of  all  the 
Churches.  A  host  of  difficult  questions  poured  in  upon 
him,  questions  regarding  conduct,  questions  of  casuis- 
try, questions  about  the  ordering  of  public  worship 
and  about  social  intercourse.  Are  we  to  dine  with 
our  heathen  relatives  ?  May  we  intermarry  with 
them ;  may  we  marry  at  all  1  Can  slaves  continue 
in  the  service  of  heathen  masters  ?  Can  we  restrain 

chapters.  The  second  epistle,  however,  indicates  both  that  the 
Christ  party  had  grown  more  formidable,  and  that  its  tenets 
were  dangerous.  From  2  Cor.  x.  7 — xii.  18  it  would  appear 
that  the  Christ  party  was  formed  and  led  by  men  who  prided 
themselves  on  their  Hebrew  descent  (xi.  22),  and  on  having 
learned  their  Christianity  not  from  Paul,  Apollos,  or  Cephas, 
but  from  Christ  Himself  (1  Cor.  i.  12  with  2  Cor.  x.  7), 
These  men  came  to  Corinth  with  letters  of  commendation  (2 
Cor.  iii.  1)  probably  from  Palestine,  as  they  had  known  Jesus  ; 
but  not  from  the  Apostles  in  Jerusalem,  for  they  separated 
themselves  from  the  Petrine  party  in  Corinth.  They  claimed 
to  be  apostles  of  Christ  (2  Cor.  xi.  13),  and  "  ministers  of 
righteousness  "  (xi.  15),  but  as  they  taught  "  another  Jesus," 
"another  spirit,"  and  "another  gospel"  (xi.  4),  Paul  does 
not  hesitate  to  denounce  them  as  "false  apostles"  (xi.  13) 
and  ironically  to  hold  them  up  as  "  out-and-out  apostles  " 
(virtpXiav  airoarbXai).  Probably  therefore  they  were  Judaisers. 
Godet  is  not  to  be  followed  in  his  idea  that  they  were  "  gnos- 
tics before  gnosticism."  Weiss  is  throughout  satisfactory 
(Einleitung ',  197  sqq.).  It  is  especially  important  to  notice  what 
Beyschlag  was  the  first  to  bring  clearly  out,  that  "  the  very 
existence  in  Corinth  of  a  Cephas  party,  expressly  distinguished 
from  the  Jewish- Christian  opponents  of  the  Apostle,  and 
evidently  regarded  by  Paul  (iii.  22)  as  being  in  no  material 
opposition  to  himself,  shows  most  clearly  that  the  primitive 
apostles  themselves  did  not  stand  in  hostile  relation  to  Paul," 


OCCASION  OF  THE  EPISTLES.       103 

those  who  speak  with  tongues,  or  must  we  allow  all 
who  are  inclined  to  speak  at  once  ?  But  it  was  not 
the  delicacy  of  answering  these  questions  which  caused 
the  tears  to  fill  Paul's  eyes  as  he  wrote  this  letter 
(2  Cor.  ii.  4).  It  was  the  self-satisfied  vanity  that 
shone  through  even  their  request  for  advice  (viii.  1), 
the  evidence  which  some  of  their  difficulties  bore  to 
the  working  of  a  restless  Greek  intellectualism  (xv. 
35),  and  litigiousness  (vi.  1 — 11),  and  of  a  potent 
residuum  of  Corinthian  sensuality  (vi.  16 ;  x.  8 ;  xi.  21), 
and  above  all,  the  news  that  had  reached  him  of  their 
factious  spirit,  and  of  their  retaining  in  their  com- 
munion, to  the  scandal  even  of  their  heathen  neighbours, 
a  man  who  had  married  his  father's  wife,  and  of  their 
glorying  in  this  spurious  liberality  (v.  2,  6) — it  was 
this  which  excited  in  Paul's  mind  the  deepest  mis- 
givings regarding  the  future  of  the  Church.  But 
repressing  his  feelings  of  indignation  and  sorrow  he 
writes  the  most  lucid  and  complete  of  his  epistles, 
taking  up  point  by  point  the  questions  they  had 
raised,  and  replying  with  a  decided  and  broad  exposi- 
tion of  Christian  principles  invaluable  to  all  time. 
The  brevity  and  yet  completeness  with  which  intricate 
practical  problems  are  discussed,  the  unerring  firmness 
with  which  through  all  plausible  sophistry  and  falla- 
cious scruples  the  radical  principle  is  laid  hold  of,  and 
the  sharp  finality  with  which  it  is  expressed,  reveal 
not  merely  the  bright-eyed  sagacity  and  thorough 
Christian  feeling  of  Paul,  but  also  his  measureless 
intellectual  vigour;  while  such  a  passage  as  the 
thirteenth  chapter  betrays  that  strong  an^.  sane 
imagination  which  can  hold  in  view  a  wide  field  of 


104    EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS. 

human  life,  and  the  fifteenth  rises  from  a  basis  af 
keen  cut  and  solidly  laid  reasoning  to  the  most 
dignified  and  stirring  eloquence.  It  was  a  happy 
circumstance  for  the  future  of  Christianity  that  in 
these  early  days,  when  there  were  almost  as  many 
wild  suggestions  and  foolish  opinions  as  there  were 
converts,  there  should  have  been  this  one  clear  prac- 
tical judgment,  the  embodiment  of  Christian  wisdom. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  1  Corinthians  was 
written  shortly  before  Paul  left  Ephesus.  His  own 
words  (xvi.  8)  are  conclusive  on  that  point.  He  had 
sent  Timothy  to  Corinth  that  he  might  more  fully 
answer  the  questions  asked,  and  expound  Paul's 
teaching  (1  Cor.  iv.  17).  But  Timothy  was  not  to 
go  direct  to  Corinth,  but  through  Macedonia  (Acts 
xix.  22),  so  that  the  letter  might  reach  Corinth  before 
Timothy  (1  Cor.  xvi.  10).  But  Paul  himself  must 
have  left  Ephesus  a  very  short  time  after  Timothy, 
for  (Acts  xix.  22,  23)  at  that  juncture  the  riot  which 
compelled  him  to  flee  broke  out.  Sometime  in  the 
spring  of  58*  this  first  epistle  was  written;  and  it 
may  have  been  carried  by  the  three  Corinthians  who 
had  come  to  visit  Paul  (xvi.  17),  certainly  not  by 
Timothy. 

Bleek,  followed  by  several  scholars,  supposes  a 
second  visit  of  Paul  to  Corinth  between  the  first  visit 
and  our  first  epistle.  Godet  supposes  a  second  visit, 
but  places  it  in  an  apparently  impossible  position, 
after  the  first  epistle  and  prior  to  his  wintering  in 
Corinth  after  passing  through  Macedonia.  That  this 

*  Godet  says  57.  Holtzmann  (p.  244)  58.  Seethe  chronology 
fully  examined  in  Beet's  Corinthians,  Diss.  III. 


DATE  OF  THE  EPISTLES.  105 

supposed  visit  could  not  have  occurred  between  the 
writing  of  the  first  and  second  Epistles  is  evident 
from  his  still  defending  himself  in  the  second  epistle 
(i.  15 — 17)  against  the  charge  of  lightly  changing  his 
mind,  which  had  been  brought  against  him  because 
he  had  intended  to  visit  Corinth  before  going  to 
Macedonia  and  had  not  done  so.  Already  in  the 
first  epistle  he  had  given  up  this  intention,  plainly 
telling  the  Corinthians  (xvi.  7)  that  he  would  not 
now  see  them  on  his  way  to  Macedonia,  and  justifying 
his  doing  so  (ver.  9)  by  the  urgency  of  the  work  in 
ELjhesus,  and  by  his  sending  an  efficient  substitute, 
Timothy  (ver.  10,  "  even  as  I "),  in  his  place.  It  appears 
from  2  Cor.  i.  23  that  he  had  also  another  reason  for 
not  visiting  Corinth ;  he  could  not  bear  to  go  "  with 
a  rod,"  to  find  fault  and  to  punish.  Now  as  there  are 
in  the  first  epistle  allusions  to  his  founding  the 
Church,  but  none  to  any  second  visit,  and  as  there 
is  plainly  no  room  for  a  visit  between  the  first  and  the 
second  letters,  it  is  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to 
find  any  place  for  a  visit  between  the  first  epistle 
and  his  arrival  in  Corinth  to  winter  there.  Besides, 
in  2  Cor.  L  15,  he  himself  speaks  of  the  visit  he  had 
not  yet  been  able  to  pay  as  his  "  second  "  visit. 

But  what  then  is  to  be  made  of  the  passages  in 
the  second  epistle  which  seem  to  imply  that  a  second 
visit  had  been  made  before  it  was  written  (ii.  1 ; 
xii.  14;  xii.  21 ;  xiii.  1,  2)  ?  To  interpret  these  passages 
fairly  we  must  remember  the  important  place  which 
Paul's  intended  visit  occupied  both  in  his  own  mind 
and  in  the  mind  of  the  Corinthian  Church.  It  had 
exposed  him  to  the  accusation  of  fickleness  and  vacil- 


106    EPISTLES  TO   THE   CORINTHIANS. 

lation,  of  lightly  promising  and  lightly  breaking 
Ids  promise,  of  making  his  "yea"  and  "nay" 
equivalents  (2  Cor.  i.  17).  This  accusation  seemed  to 
him  so  serious,  and  to  reflect  so  injuriously  on  his 
truthfulness  as  a  preacher,  that  he  calls  "  God  to 
witness  on  his  soul"  (i.  23)  that  his  apology  was  true. 
Now  considering  the  important  place  this  unfulfilled 
intention  occupied  in  his  mind  and  in  his  corre- 
spondents' mind,  it  is  not  surprising  that  when  he 
speaks  of  his  present  intention  to  visit  Corinth  he  should 
say,  "  This  third  time  I  am  coming  to  you  "  (xiii.  1). 
His  meaning  is,  "  This  third  time  I  am  intending  to 
visit  you."  And  that  his  words  must  be  so  understood 
becomes  apparent  when  we  pass  to  the  next  verse,  in 
which  he  says,  "  I  tell  you  before  I  come,  and  as  if 
I  were  already  present  with  you  a  second  time,  though 
indeed  I  am  still  absent,"  etc.  Had  he  already  visited 
Corinth  twice  he  must  of  necessity  have  said,  "  as  if 
I  were  already  present  a  third  time."* 

The  date  of  2  Corinthians  is  also  easily  ascertainable, 
abounding  as  it  does  in  allusions  to  the  writer's  move- 
ments and  relations  to  his  correspondents.  Driven 
from  Ephesus,  where  he  had  barely  escaped  with  his 
life  (L  8—10),  Paul  went  to  Troas  (ii.  12),  expecting 
to  find  Titus  there  with  news  from  Corinth.  Dis- 
appointed in  this,  and  fearing  that  delay  on  the  part 
of  Titus  might  mean  a  condition  of  things  in  Corinth 
even  more  disastrous  than  he  had  supposed,  he  has 
no  heart  to  proceed  with  his  work  in  Troas,  but 
presses  on  to  Macedonia  (ii  13),  where  he  was  always 

*  Stanley  thinks  this  second  epistle  is  counted  as  the  second 
visit. 


OBJECT  OF  THE  SECOND  EPISTLE.  107 

among  friends.  Here  ai  length  Titus  met  him  (vii.  6) 
and  communicated  reassuring  news.  It  seems  that 
Paul  had  "boasted"  to  Titus  (vii.  14)  of  the  results 
of  the  gospel  in  Corinth,  and  this  boasting  was  veri- 
fied by  what  Titus  saw  of  their  true  affection  for  Paul 
(vii.  7),  their  distress  that  they  had  provoked  such  a 
letter  as  1st  Corinthians  (vii.  8,  9),  and  their  kindness 
and  obedience  to  him  as  Paul's  representative  (vii.  15). 
Paul's  anxiety  was  therefore  in  the  main  relieved  by 
hearing  from  Titus  that  the  great  body  of  the 
Corinthian  Church  was  faithful  to  his  gospel,  and 
he  at  once  writes  to  express  his  thankfulness  for  this, 
and  so  to  pave  the  way  for  his  approaching  visit. 
There  was,  however,  the  more  urgency  for  writing 
because  Titus  had  evidently  given  him  a  fuller  account 
of  the  "Christ  party,"  and  the  mischief  they  were 
working.  The  second  epistle  is  therefore  separated 
from  the  first  only  by  two  or  three  months,  possibly 
not  so  much,  and  was  written  from  Macedonia  while 
Paul  was  on  his  way  to  Corinth. 

The  first  part  of  the  second  epistle  is  accordingly 
occupied  with  an  endeavour  to  remove  any  soreness 
which  might  linger  in  the  minds  of  the  Corinthian 
Christians  on  account  of  his  visiting  Macedonia  before 
visiting  Corinth.  He  gives  some  account  of  his  own 
movements  and  lets  them  see  how  glad  he  is  that 
they  should  have  taken  his  letter  in  good  part,  and 
been  profited  both  by  it  and  by  the  visit  of  Titus. 
Parenthetically  (ii.  14 — vi.  10)  he  indulges  in  an 
eloquent  panegyric  of  the  gospel,  pointing  out  how 
in  every  place  it  approved  itself  a  savour  of  life,  how 
by  its  very  nature  as  a  ministration  of  righteousness 


108    EPISTLES  TO   THE   CORINTHIANS. 

it  excelled  the  law  in  glory,  and  how  even  when  he 
proclaimed  it  in  dangers  and  distresses,  bearing  about 
in  the  body  the  dying  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  life  and 
present  power  of  Jesus  were  made  manifest  in  him. 
He  then  (vi.  11)  recurs  to  the  condition  of  the 
Corinthian  Church,  and  urges  the  necessity  of  dealing 
vigorously  with  scandalous  sins,  even  though  this 
should  cause  them  sorrow.  For,  as  he  is  forward  to 
acknowledge  (vii.  8 — 11),  their  sorrow  at  being  blamed 
by  him  in  his  first  epistle  for  holding  fellowship 
with  scandalous  sinners  had  incited  them  to  clear 
themselves  of  all  cause  of  blame.  He  then  praises 
them  for  their  liberality  in  collecting  for  the  Jeru- 
salem poor  (viii.  and  ix.).  In  chapter  x.  he  passes 
to  the  painful  part  of  his  letter,  the  exposure  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Christ-party  and  the  vindication  of  his 
own  authority.  But  he  writes  this  straightforward 
and  powerful  passage  (x. — xiii.)  in  order  that  when 
he  comes  he  may  not  require  to  mar  the  pleasure  of 
their  meeting  by  such  denunciatory  language  (xiii.  10). 
As  the  authenticity  of  these  epistles  is  universally 
admitted  the  early  witnesses  need  not  be  cited.  It  is 
interesting,  however,  to  find  that  Clement  of  Rome, 
in  writing  to  the  Church  of  Corinth,  probably  about 
the  year  96,  uses  the  following  language:  "Take  up 
the  epistle  of  the  blessed  Paul  the  Apostle.  What  at 
first  did  he  write  to  you  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  ? 
In  fact,  he  wrote  spiritually  to  you  both  about  himself 
and  Cephas  and  Apollos,"  etc.  (Clem.,  Ep.  xlvii.). 
The  internal  evidence  is  also  very  strong.  There  are 
so  many  allusions  to  Paul's  movements,  so  many 
expressions  of  personal  feeling  that  forgery  is  out  of 


THEIR  AUTHENTICITY.  109 

the  question.  Besides,  as  Mr.  Beet  very  justly  re- 
marks, the  exposure  which  the  epistles  make  of  the 
condition  of  the  Corinthian  Church  is  strongly  in 
favour  of  their  genuineness,  for  "no  Church  would 
accept  without  careful  scrutiny  so  public  a  monument 
of  its  degradation." 

NOTE. — The  arguments  which  Hilgenfeld  {Einleitung,  281 
seqq.)  adduces  to  prove  that  Paul  had  written  a  letter  between 
our  1  and  2  Corinthians  are  plausible.  Timothy  had  returned 
to  Paul  before  2  Corinthians  was  written  (i.  1),  and  yet  in  this 
letter  no  allusion  is  made  to  the  effects  of  his  visit  to  Corinth 
or  to  the  news  he  brought.  Again  Paul  speaks  (ii.  4)  of 
having  written  in  tears  and  anguish  to  the  Corinthians,  but 
in  our  first  epistle  there  is  no  trace  of  such  disturbance  of 
mind.  And  especially  the  terms  in  which  Paul  speaks 
(ii.  5 — 11)  of  the  offender  in  the  Church  of  Corinth  are  not 
so  applicable  to  the  incestuous  person  as  to  some  one  who 
had  personally  attacked  Paul.  The  reasons  on  the  other  side 
seem,  however,  insurmountable.  Paul  is  still  excusing  himself 
for  not  visiting  them  on  his  way  to  Macedonia.  This  brings 
the  second  epistle  into  very  close  connection  with  the  first. 
Further,  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  Petrine  party  or  to  the 
Christ  party  in  the  first  part  of  the  epistle,  in  which  alone  the 
Corinthian  offender  is  present  to  Paul's  mind.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  whole  passage  (vi.  11  to  vii.  12)  shows  beyond 
dispute  that  the  offence  was  a  moral  one.  And  when  the 
strength  of  denunciation  employed  by  Paul  in  1  Cor.  v.  is 
taken  into  account  his  strong  expressions  in  the  second  epistle 
are  quite  intelligible. 

THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS. 

Of  all  the  epistles  of  Paul  this  alone  is  addressed, 
not  to  an  individual  or  to  a  single  Church,  but  to  a 
group  of  churches  ("unto  the  Churches  of  Galatia," 
i.  2).  It  is  not  possible  to  determine  with  precision 
in  what  towns  these  Churches  were  situated.  But 


110       EPISTLE  TO    THE  GALATIANS. 

the  three  principal  tribes  of  Galatians,  the  Trocmi, 
the  Tolistobogii,  and  the  Tectosages  had  each  a  chief 
town,  named  respectively  Tavium,  Pessinus,  and 
Ancyra,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  in  each  of  these 
there  was  a  Christian  community.  Some  writers 
(Hausrath,  Kenan,  and  others)  have  sought  the 
Churches  addressed  by  Paul  in  the  Roman  province 
called  Galatia  (formed  26  B.C.),  which  embraced 
Lycaonia,  Isauria,  and  parts  of  Phrygia  and  Pisidia. 
But  it  is  much  more  likely  that  when  Galatia  is 
spoken  of  in  the  Acts  and  here  the  old  geographical 
division  is  intended.  Certainly  in  the  Acts  (xiii.  14  ; 
*iv.  6,  24;  xvi.  6)  Lycaonia,  Pisidia  and  Phrygia 
ire  spoken  of  as  if  they  were  distinct  from  Galatia. 
The  region  in  which  we  are  to  seek  for  these  Churches 
is  therefore  the  rich  country  crossed  by  the  river 
Halys  (Kizil-Irmak),  and  separated  from  the  Black 
Sea  by  Bithynia  and  Paphlagonia,  while  to  the  east 
of  it  lie  Pontus  and  Cappadocia,  and  south  and  west 
Phrygia.  The  population  of  this  country  was  mixed. 
The  Galatians,  from  whom  it  was  named,  had  been 
called  in  during  the  third  century  B.C.  to  aid  Nico- 
medes,  king  of  Bithynia,  and  received  as  pay  a  part 
of  his  territory.  They  belonged  to  that  great  and 
migratory  stock  which  had  overrun  western  Europe, 
and  was  known  indifferently  by  three  names,  Celtse, 
Galatse,  Galli.  (The  Romans  confined  the  name  Galatre 
to  the  Celts  of  Asia  Minor).  Whether  they  were  of 
Germanic  origin  (as  Wieseler,  Holsten,  Davidson,  etc., 
think)*  or  of  Celtic  origin  is  uncertain.  The  theory 

*  S.  Hilgenfeld,  251  ;   Holsten,  Prot.  Bibel;   Holtzmann, 
235  ;  Davidson,  i.  71. 


COMPOSITION  OF  GALATIAN  CHURCH.  Ill 

which  advocates  their  Germanic  origin  places  consider- 
able dependence  upon  a  statement  made  by  Jerome 
in  the  preface  to  his  Commentary  on  the  epistle : 
"  Besides  the  Greek,  which  is  spoken  throughout  the 
East,  the  Galatians  use  as  their  native  tongue  a 
language  almost  identical  with  that  of  the  Treveri." 
The  Treveri,  it  is  affirmed,  spoke  a  German  dialect. 
Lightfoot  (Galatians,  p.  235)  discusses  the  question 
fully,  and  concludes  that  the  Galatian  settlers  were 
genuine  Celts  belonging  to  the  Cymric  subdivision  of 
that  great  race.  But  besides  these  invading  Celts 
many  Greeks  were  scattered  through  Galatia,  and 
since  the  Roman  occupation  many  of  the  governing 
race  were  to  be  found  at  the  various  centres  of  busi- 
ness. Jews  also  had  been  attracted  to  the  country 
by  its  commercial  advantages,  and  in  the  Monumentum 
Ancyranum,  or  pillar  which  Augustus  caused  to  be 
fixed  in  his  temple  at  Ancyra,  the  rights  and  privileges 
extended  to  the  Jews  are  recorded.* 

By  far  the  strongest  element  in  this  mixed  popu- 
lation was  the  Celtic.  Modern  travellers  assert  that 
even  now  the  Celtic  type  of  face  is  recognisable  in 
Galatia.  And  in  the  Galatians  of  Paul's  letter  this 
type  of  character  is  distinctly  recognisable.  The  cha- 
racteristics of  the  Celtic  race  were  frequently  remarked 
upon  by  ancient  writers,t  their  drunkenness,  their 
niggardliness,  their  vanity  and  quarrelsomeness,  their 
impressibility  and  quickness  of  apprehension,  their 
inquisitive,  eager  and  fickle  disposition.  All  these 
features  are  readily  traced  in  the  Galatians  of  Paul's 

*  Josephus,  Antiq. ,  xvi.  6,  2. 

f  See  the  passages  in  Lightfoot's  Galatians,  pp.  13 — 16. 


112       EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS. 

epistle  (v.  21 ;  vi.  6,  7 ;  v.  15,  2G  :  i.  6,  etc.).  What 
Michelet  says  *  of  the  French  might  equally  be  said 
of  them:  "The  foundation  of  the  French  people  is 
the  youthful,  soft,  and  mobile  race  of  the  Gaels, 
bruyante,  sensual,  and  legere,  prompt  to  learn,  prompt 
to  despise,  and  greedy  of  new  things."  And  in  read- 
ing the  epistle  it  is  especially  necessary  to  remember 
the  remark  of  Caesar,  that  the  whole  race  is  excessively 
devoted  to  religious  observances.  "  Settled  among 
the  Phrygians,  they  with  their  wonted  facility  adopted 
the  religion  of  the  subject  people.  The  worship  of 
Cybele,  with  its  wild  ceremonial  and  hideous  mutila- 
tions, would  naturally  be  attractive  to  the  Gaulish 
mind."  It  was  this  craving  for  a  sensuous  ritual 
which  made  Paul's  converts  among  them  an  easy  prey 
to  the  Judaizing  teachers,  who  pressed  upon  them 
circumcision  and  the  observance  of  Sabbaths  and  new 
moons. 

The  first  preaching  of  Christianity  to  the  Galatians 
is  not  narrated  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  That  Paul,  with 
Silas  and  Timothy,  passed  through  Galatia  while 
prosecuting  his  second  missionary  journey  we  learn 
from  Acts  xvi.  6.  And  it  would  appear  as  if  even 
then  he  had  sot  contemplated  any  prolonged  effort 
to  found  a  Christian  Church ;  but  being  delayed  by 
illness  (Gal.  iv.  13*),  his  fervid  spirit  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity to  preach  the  gospel.  The  effect  seems  to 
have  been  immediate  and  memorable.  Far  from 
despising  the  "contemptible"  bodily  presence,  ren- 
dered more  contemptible  by  disease  (Gal.  iv.  14),  they 

*  Mill's  Dissertations,  ii.  146. 


OCCASION  OF  THE  EPISTLE.         113 

were  deeply  moved,  and  showed  the  Apostle  the  most 
touching  attentions  (iv.  15).  And  when  he  left  them 
they  were  "  running  well"  (v.  7),  promising  to  be 
foremost  in  the  Christian  race.*  But  with  charac- 
teristic fickleness  f  their  ardour  was  soon  cooled,  so 
that  when  after  more  than  two  years'  absence  Paul 
returned,  he  found  symptoms  of  alienated  affection 
and  weariness  in  well-doing.  This  second  visit  was 
made  while  he  was  on  his  way  from  Jerusalem  to 
Ephesus  in  the  year  54  (Acts  xviii.  23).  Echoes  of 
the  emphatic  warnings  which  he  had  found  occasion 
to  give  on  this  second  visit  are  found  in  the  epistle 
(i.  9,  and  iv.  16)4  But  though  no  doubt  his  presence 
"  stablished "  (Acts  xviii.  23)  the  waverers,  more 
serious  dangers  threatened  the  Galatian  Churches  after 
his  departure.  And  the  letter  he  addressed  to  them 
for  the  purpose  of  guarding  them  against  these  dangers 
leaves  no  doubt  as  to  their  nature.  The  Galatians 
were  being  persuaded  that  if  they  would  be  Chris- 

*  "  The  Galatians  we  may  suppose  to  have  been  a  Gentile 
Church  which  was  first  converted  to  Christianity  by  St.  Paul, 
but  previous  to  its  conversion  had  gone  through  a  phase  of 
Judaism."— Jowett,  i.  234.  But  Hilgenfeld  (252-3)  proves 
that  the  converts  were  from  heathenism. 

f  For  some  suggestive  remarks  on  Celtic  theologians  and 
Celtic  Churches,  see  Macgregor's  Galatians,  19,  20 ;  and  Stokes, 
Celtic  Church  in  Ireland,  63. 

%  It  should  however  be  mentioned  that  many  careful  critics, 
such  as  Davidson,  De  Wette,  Bleek,  and  Warfield,  are  of  opinion 
that  the  inroads  of  the  Judaizers  began  only  after  the  second 
visit.  This  opinion  is  founded  chiefly  on  the  evidence  the 
epistle  affords  of  the  surprise  awakened  in  Paul's  mind  on 
receiving  the  information  regarding  the  altered  views  of  the 
Galatians. 

8 


114        EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS. 

tians  they  must  be  circumcised  and  keep  the  Jewish 
law. 

How  this  serious  danger  had  so  rapidly  emerged 
does  not  distinctly  appear  from  the  letter.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  emissaries  from  the  Judaizing  party 
in  Palestine  were  at  work  in  Galatia.  That  Paul  at 
least  did  not  know  of  any  such  individuals  is  apparent 
from  his  exclamation  (iii.  1),  "Who  hath  bewitched 
you?"  The  question  of  the  relation  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tians to  the  Mosaic  law  was  one  which  was  sure  to 
emerge  in  every  Church  in  which  there  were  Jewish 
Christians.  The  easy  solution  of  the  question,  or  its 
elevation  into  a  matter  of  discussion  and  party  strife, 
depended  on  the  amount  of  sagacity  and  charity,  and 
also  on  the  proportion  of  the  Jewish  element  in  each 
community.  In  the  arguments  of  the  Judaizers,  who 
maintained  that  the  Gentiles  must  be  circumcised 
and  observe  the  law,  there  was  much  that  was  most 
plausible.  The  law  was  a  divine  institution,  and 
could  not  be  neglected;  the  promises  were  given  solely 
to  the  Jews,  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  seed;  the  Messiah 
was  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  and  those  who  desired 
to  enter  His  kingdom  must  become  Jews ;  Jesus  was 
Himself  circumcised,  and  kept  the  whole  law ;  the 
original  Apostles  did  the  same;  and  if  the  Gentile 
converts  were  not  to  be  required  to  keep  the  law 
how  could  they  be  emancipated  from  the  immoralities 
in  which  they  were  enslaved  ?  These  arguments  told 
everywhere,  and  had  they  entirely  prevailed,  Chris- 
tianity must  have  dwindled  into  a  shortlived  Jewish 
sect.  This  was  Paul's  fear.  He  heard  that  the 
Galatians  were  being  moved  by  these  arguments,  and 


ARGUMENT  OF  THE  EPISTLE.        115 

the  Judaizing  emissaries  in  Galatia  had  also  insinuated 
that  though  Paul  preached  another  gospel,  he  was 
not  one  of  the  original  Apostles,  but  was  an  unauthor- 
ised interloper,  whose  gospel  had  been  picked  up  no 
one  knew  where.*  Besides,  Paul  himself  was  not 
consistent.  He  had  caused  Timothy  to  be  circum- 
cised ;  and  if  he  exempted  the  Galatians,  it  was  that 
he  might  curry  favour  with  them.  Paul  saw  that 
this  attempt  to  uphold  the  obligation  of  the  Mosaic 
law  endangered  the  very  soul  of  Christianity,  the 
sufficiency  of  Christ  alone.  If  the  law  as  well  as 
Christ  was  necessary,  if  the  Gentiles  must  receive 
something  more  than  Christ,  then  Christ  was  not 
sufficient. 

Never  was  there  a  more  compact  and  effective 
elucidation  of  an  important  question  than  is  furnished 
in  the  epistle  which  Paul  wrote  at  this  crisis  to  the 
Galatians.  The  three  elements  in  the  assault — the 
disparagement  of  his  apostleship,  the  elevation  of 
Judaism  to  the  same  rank  as  Christianity,  the  insinua- 
tion that  liberty  meant  licence — are  met  in  order,  the 
first  occupying  Paul  in  the  first  and  second  chapters, 
the  second  in  iii.  and  iv.,  and  the  third  in  v.  and  vi. 
To  the  disparagement  of  his  apostleship  he  has  a 
threefold  reply.  First,  he  asserts  himself  as  "an 
Apostle,  not  of  men  nor  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ" 
(i.  1),  and  by  a  simple  narrative  of  his  movements  he 
shows  that  he  was  not  taught  his  gospel  by  man,  "  but 

*  Hilgenfeld  says  they  represented  Paul  "as  a  kind  of 
ecclesiastical  Demagogue."  His  evidence  that  the  Judaizers 
were  from  beyond  Galatia  (p.  254)  is  not  sufficient,  though  it 
is  quite  probable  that  was  the  case. 


116       EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS. 

by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ"  (i.  12).  Second, 
when  it  became  apparent  that  his  gospel  was  one 
which  exempted  the  Gentiles  from  the  burdens  to 
which  the  Jews  clung,  and  when  his  right  to  preach 
such  a  gospel  was  called  in  question,  he  went  up  to 
Jerusalem  and,  with  the  meekness  of  a  man  who  felt 
his  responsibility  and  was  seeking  not  his  own  repu- 
tation but  solely  the  good  of  men  and  the  recognition 
of  the  truth,  he  consulted  those  "which  were  of 
reputation  "  (ii.  2).  The  result  was  that  these  highly 
esteemed  Apostles  at  Jerusalem  "added  nothing"  (ii.  6) 
to  his  gospel,  but  "  gave  him  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship "  (ii.  9),  and  encouraged  him  to  go  to  the  Gentiles. 
Third,  and  most  convincing  of  all,  when  Peter  came 
to  Antioch  he,  with  his  native  frankness  and  remem- 
bering the  vision  at  Joppa,  eat  with  the  Gentiles, 
which  no  Jew  who  stood  upon  his  Judaism  wrould 
have  done.  This,  to  Paul's  mind,  seemed  to  yield  the 
whole  question,  for,  as  he  afterwards  told  Peter,  if  he 
himself  being  a  Jew  neglected  the  strictest  Jewish 
regulations  he  could  not  possibly  require  one  who  was 
not  a  Jew  to  observe  them.  Peter  stood  convicted  by 
his  own  act,  and  was  rebuked  by  Paul  accordingly — 
proof  that  both  his  gospel  and  his  apostleship  were 
valid. 

In  dealing  with  the  dogmatic  significance  of  the 
Judaizing  demand  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  cir- 
cumcised, and  should  observe  the  Jewish  law,  Paul 
first  of  all  (iii.  2)  appeals  to  their  own  experience. 
They  had  received  the  Spirit ;  that  is,  they  had  the 
earnest  and  germ  of  all  salvation  and  blessedness : 
how  then  had  they  received  this  ?  There  could  only 


ARGUMENT  OF  THE  EPISTLE.       117 

be  one  answer :  "  by  the  hearing  of  faith/'  and  not 
by  the  works  of  the  law.  Again,  look  at  the  typical 
justified  man,  Abraham,  the  friend  of  God  and  father 
of  the  Jewish  race.  It  was  not  by  works  but  by  faith 
he  was  justified,  and  similarly  all  his  seed.  In  fact  the 
law  has  only  power  to  curse,  for  no  man  can  fancy 
that  he  is  not  condemned  when  the  law  says,  "  Cursed 
is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  that  are 
written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them  "  (iii.  10). 
And  most  forcible  argument  of  all,  the  promise  was 
given  to  Abraham  and  could  not  be  made  of  none  effect 
by  the  law  "  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
after."  If  men  inherited  God's  blessing  and  fellowship 
by  the  keeping  of  the  law,  then  the  promise  was  useless. 
And  if  any  one  suggested  that  if  this  is  so  then  the 
law  is  profitless,  Paul  replies  that  it  serves  a  great 
purpose.  Through  all  these  years  it  had  shown  men 
the  holiness  of  God  and  the  righteousness  He  requires. 
It  taught  them  at  once  to  aspire  and  made  them  feel 
their  sin.  It  disclosed  to  them  as  somehow  to  be 
attained  by  them,  as  that  which  they  were  commanded 
fco  attain  and  responsible  for  not  attaining,  a  beauty  of 
holiness  they  could  not  have  conceived  without  it,  and 
would  not  have  thought  possible,  and  thus  it  prepared 
them  for  salvation  from  sin  in  Christ.  The  work  of 
the  law  was  thus  a  preparatory  work  which  became 
needless  when  Christ  came ;  as  needless  as  the  training 
of  the  child  is  when  the  training  has  done  its  work 
and  made  a  man  of  him.  For  Christians  to  observe 
the  Mosaic  ordinances  and  live  in  Judaism  is  as  absurd 
as  for  a  grown  man  to  be  led  about  by  a  psedagogue. 
After  clinching  his  dogmatic  exposition  by  an  appeal 


118       EPISTLE  TO  THE   GALATIANS. 

to  their  instinctive  sense  of  the  rectitude  of  his  conduct 
in  throwing  aside  all  Jewish  scruples  for  their  sake 
and  by  quoting  against  them,  out  of  the  very  law  they 
were  trusting  to,  an  allegory  which  showed  how  the 
slave  must  always  be  extruded  from  the  father's  house 
by  the  freeborn  child,  he  passes  in  the  fifth  chapter  to 
vindicate  the  liberty  which  the  Spirit  gives  against  all 
aspersions.  Faith,  he  says,  works  by  love,  and  where 
you  have  love  the  law  will  be  fulfilled.  The  Spirit 
upholds  and  guides  those  who  believe,  and  the  proof 
that  they  are  believers  is  that  they  do  not  walk  after 
the  flesh. 

It  is  only  by  a  blundering  interpretation  that  the 
Tiibingen  critics  can  find  in  this  epistle  a  foothold  for 
their  favourite  idea  of  an  opposition  between  Paul  and 
the  older  Apostles.  Paul's  narrative  of  his  own  appeal 
to  them,  and  of  his  receiving  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship from  Peter,  James  and  John  shows  that  there 
was  no  irreconcileable  difference  between  them.  The 
older  Apostles  occupied  a  middle  position  between 
the  Judaizers  and  Paul.  The  Judaizers  insisted  that 
only  by  passing  through  Judaism  could  any,  Jew  or 
Gentile,  become  a  Christian.  All  must  be  circumcised 
and  must  keep  the  whole  law.  Paul  occupied  the 
position  at  the  other  extreme,  maintaining  that 
neither  for  Jew  nor  Gentile  was  the  Mosaic  law 
any  longer  needful.  The  older  Apostles  occupied 
the  middle  ground,  continuing  to  observe  the  law 
themselves  but  deeming  it  unnecessary  to  exact  from 
the  Gentiles  any  such  observance.  They  felt  it  to  be 
becoming  in  themselves  as  Jews  to  maintain  their  old 
customs,  but  thev  did  not  reckon  circumcision  or  any 


DATE  OF  THE  EPISTLE.  119 

of  the  observances  to  which  circumcision  pledged  Jew 
and  proselyte  as  necessary  to  salvation.  They  did  not 
feel  justified  in  interposing  even  the  law  of  Moses 
between  the  human  soul  and  Christ.  In  this  middle 
party  there  were,  however,  minor  differences,  Peter 
apparently  supposing  that  although  himself  a  Jew  he 
need  not  punctiliously  observe  the  Mosaic  regulations, 
while  James  (Gal.  ii.  12)  thought  it  expedient  that  as 
Jews  they  should  observe  all  their  old  law,  or  at  any 
rate,  the  authority  of  James  was  quoted  in  favour  of 
this  view. 

The  date  of  this  important  epistle  is  uncertain.  It 
is  either  placed,  as  Lightfoot  (p.  40)  places  it,  "  in  the 
winter  or  spring  of  the  years  57,  58  A.D.,"  in  which 
case  it  must  have  been  written  from  Macedonia  or 
Achaia ;  or  it  is  placed  before  the  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  in  which  case  it  was  dated  from  Ephesus. 
But,  as  Professor  Warfield  (Journal  of  Exegetical 
Society,  paper  read  December,  1884),  says,  "  The 
plain  fact  is  that  this  epistle  is  unique  among  Paul's 
letters  in  its  entire  lack  of  any  allusion,  capable  of 
easy  interpretation,  to  the  Apostle's  circumstances  and 
surroundings  at  the  time  when  he  wrote  it."  The 
absence  of  such  allusions,  especially  the  absence  of 
salutations  from  members  of  the  Ephesian  Church, 
might  be  thought  rather  to  indicate  that  he  was  not 
writing  from  that  great  centre.  His  uniting  witli 
himself  (i.  2)  "All  the  brethren  which  are  with  me," 
would  very  well  suit  the  idea  that  he  was  on  a  journey 
while  writing.  Those  who  advocate  the  earlier  date 
have  generally  laid  stress  upon  the  suddenness  of  the 
Galatian  declension  :  "  I  marvel  that  you  are  so  soon 


120       EPISTLE  TO   THE  GALATIANS. 

removed  from  Him  that  called  you  "  (i.  6).  Warfield 
does  not  press  this,  but  finds  some  support  for  the 
view  in  one  or  two  apparent  allusions  to  the  state  of 
matters  in  Galatia  which  are  to  be  found  by  a  careful 
reader  of  1  Corinthians.  It  would  appear  from 
1  Cor.  xvi.  1  that  Paul's  authority  was  acknowledged, 
and  that  he  was  again  on  good  terms  with  the  Churches 
in  Galatia.  Also  when  Paul  in  1  Cor.  ix.  2,  says, 
"  If  to  others  I  am  not  an  apostle,  yet  to  you  at  least 
I  am,"  there  is  some  plausibility  in  the  assertion  that 
the  Galatians  were  in  his  thoughts,  and  that  already 
their  disparagement  of  his  apostleship  was  known  to 
him.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians had  been  written  very  shortly  before  the  first 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  it  is  extremely  unlikely 
that  Paul  should  not  have  spoken  more  strongly  of 
the  parties  at  Corinth  than  he  does  in  his  first  epistle, 
and  that  he  should  not  have  more  fully  unfolded  the 
error  of  the  Christ  party  than  he  did  in  the  second 
epistle.  We  find  that  the  Galatian  Judaizers  had 
thoroughly  aroused  his  apprehensions,  and  brought 
into  the  strongest  relief  in  his  mind  the  doctrines  of 
grace,  and  these  are  in  the  subsequent  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  still  more  fully  unfolded.  Had  Galatians 
preceded  Corinthians  we  should  have  found  in  the 
latter  Epistle  more  evident  traces  of  the  explicit  and 
full  doctrine  of  freedom  from  the  law  which  the 
Galatian  disturbance  had  compelled  him  to  formulate. 

NOTE. — For  comparison  of  the  language  of  these  epistles, 
eee  Jowett.  Lightfoot,  and  Speaker's  Com.  on  Gal. 


121 


EPISTLE  TO   THE   EPHESIANS. 

As  we  read  this  epistle,  which  bears  to  be  from 
Paul  "to  the  saints  which  are  at  Ephesus,"  two 
difficulties  emerge.  From  Acts  (xviii.  19  ;  xix.  8, 
13  —  16)  we  know  that  in  the  Church  of  Ephesus  there 
were  Jews.  But  this  epistle  is  manifestly  addressed 
to  Gentiles  (ii.  11  —  19;  iii.  1  and  passim).  We  also 
know,  from  the  same  source,  that  Paul  spent  more 
than  two  years  at  Ephesus,  and  must  have  had  many 
personal  friends  among  the  Ephesian  Christians.  So 
must  Timothy  and  Aristarchus,  who  had  been  with 
him  in  that  city  (Acts  xix.  29  ;  1  Cor.  iv.  17),  and 
were  now  with  him  in  Rome.  But  not  only  does 
Paul  depart  from  his  usual  practice  and  abstain  from 
sending  any  personal  salutations  to  the  Ephesians  ;  but 
in  the  letter  he  speaks  of  them  as  if  they  were  strangers 
who  still  required  proof  of  his  apostleship  (iii.  2  —  4). 

But  we  find  that  in  the  earliest  times  there  was 
some  doubt  as  to  the  destination  of  this  epistle.  Ter- 
tullian  tells  us  that  Marcion  called  it  "  the  Epistle  to 
the  Laodiceans;"  and  there  was  apparently  in 
Tertullian'sown  mind  a  suspicion  that  Marcion  might 
be  right.*  Basil  tells  us  that  the  words  cv  ' 


*  Tcrtullian's  words  are  worth  quoting  :  "  We  have  it  on 
the  true  tradition  of  the  Church  that  this  Epistle  was  sent  to 
the  Ephesians,  not  to  the  Laodiceans.  Marcion,  however,  was 
very  desirous  to  interpolate  the  title,  as  if  he  were  extremely 
accurate  in  investigating  the  point  [diligentissimus  explorator'J. 
But  of  what  consequence  are  the  titles,  since  in  writing  to  a 
certain  Church  the  Apostle  did  in  fact  write  to  all?"  —  Adv. 
Marcion.,  v.  17. 


122       EPISTLE  TO   TEE  EPHESIANS. 

were  omitted  in  the  most  ancient  MSS.  And  this  is 
true  of  the  two  oldest  MSS.  in  our  hands,  the  Sinaitic 
and  the  Vatican.*  The  suggestion  of  Beza  and  Ussher 
that  it  might  be  intended  as  a  circular  letter  to  the 
Churches  of  the  proconsular  province  of  Asia  has 
accordingly  found  favour  with  many  critics.  This 
supposition  indeed  satisfies  all  the  facts  of  the  case. 
"  An  epistle  addressed  to  a  plurality  of  Churches  might 
either  be  written  so  as  to  dispense  with  any  local 
address,  or  it  might  have  a  blank  space,  to  be  filled  up 
in  each  case  with  a  different  local  address."  f  In  the 
former  case  the  epistle  would  be  addressed  "  to  the 
saints  who  are  also  believing,"  which  is  clumsy  and 
inappropriate.^  In  the  latter  case  a  copy  of  the  letter 
could  be  made  for  each  Church  it  was  brought  to  and 
the  name  of  that  Church  inserted.  This  may  also 
account  for  the  absence  of  the  usual  signature  by 
Paul  himself.  That  signature  could  not  be  repeated 
in  the  copies. 

Another  fact  which  throws  light  on  the  destination 
of  this  epistle  is  Paul's  instructions  to  the  Colossians 
(iv.  16)  to  send  to  Laodicea  the  letter  he  had  addressed 
to  them,  and  also  to  "  read  the  epistle  from  Laodicea." 
This  "  epistle  from  Laodicea  "  was  plainly  an  epistle 
written  by  Paul.  But  it  cannot  have  been  addressed 
particularly  and  exclusively  to  Laodicea,  else  Paul 
could  not  have  requested  the  Colossians  to  greet  the 
Laodicean  Church  and  particular  members  of  it. 

*  Inserted  by  later  hand  in  Vatican. 
f  Wcstcott  and  Hort,  Greek  Test.,  Ap.  124. 
j  Credner ;  see  also  Weiss  (Einleit.,  2GO-2),  who  is  not  so 
satisfactory  on  this  point  as  he  generally  is. 


ITS   OBJECT  AND  ARGUMENT.        123 

Such  greetings  would  have  been  sent  direct  had  Paul 
been  writing  to  them  exclusively.  It  must  in  fact 
have  been  a  letter  of  a  general  character,  such  as  that 
to  the  Ephesians.  May  it  not  then  have  been  that 
letter  itself  ?  Paul  knew  that  in  passing  from  Ephe- 
sus  to  Colossse  Tychicus  must  go  through  Laodicea, 
and  he  did  not  wish  to  ignore  the  Church  there.  He 
writes  a  letter,  therefore,  which  will  equally  benefit 
Ephesians,  Laodiceans,  and  Colossians,  and  bids  Ty- 
chicus carry  it  to  the  three  Churches,  while  he  instructs 
the  Colossians  to  receive  it  "  from  Laodicea." 

For  a  circular  letter  no  subject  could  be  more 
appropriate  than  the  unity  of  the  Church.  Unity 
is  the  key  to  this  epistle :  the  unity  of  the  Church 
with  God,  the  unity  of  the  two  great  sections  of  the 
Christian  Church,  the  unity  of  the  members  of  the 
Church  Catholic.  "  In  Christ  all  things,  both  which 
are  in  heaven  and  which  are  in  earth  are  gathered 
together  in  one  "  (i.  10).  This  is  God's  eternal  pur- 
pose, hid  from  former  ages  (iii.  5),  but  now  made 
known  (iii.  5,  9).  To  reconcile  all  things  to  God — 
that  is  the  purpose  which  has  in  all  ages  been  running 
on  to  fulfilment.  In  this  purpose  men  are  included, 
"  chosen  in  Christ  to  be  holy  "  (i.  4),  "  predestinated 
unto  the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  Him- 
self," received  into  the  closest  and  truest  fellowship 
with  God.  Through  Christ  this  purpose  of  God  is 
fulfilled,  for  as  in  the  Epistle  to  Colossians  he  had 
said  that  "  in  Christ  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily,"  so  now  he  says  that  as  Christ  is  as 
it  were  the  body  and  fulness  of  God,  the  Church  is 
"  Christ's  body,  the  fulness  of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all " 


124       EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPEESIANS. 

(i.  23).  In  reconciling  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  to  God, 
he  has  reconciled  them  to  one  another,  "  making  of 
twain  one  new  man  "  (ii.  15)  and  giving  "both  access 
through  one  spirit  unto  the  Father."  In  order  to 
come  into  this  true  reconciliation  with  God  and  be 
"filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God"  (iii.  19),  Christ 
must  dwell  in  the  heart  by  faith  till  the  sovereignty 
and  dominion  of  His  love  over  all  things  be  in  some 
measure  understood  (iii.  17 — 20).  As  soon  as  Churches 
and  members  of  Churches  recognise  that  "  there  is  one 
body  and  one  spirit,  even  as  they  are  called  in  one 
hope  of  their  calling,  one  Lord,  one  faith,"  etc.  (iv.  4 — 
6),  they  are  ashamed  of  bitterness,  wrangling,  fraud, 
and  feel  themselves  dignified  and  enlarged,  as  belong- 
ing, not  to  a  small  sect,  but  to  the  Church  catholic. 
The  practical  injunctions  which  follow  are  ruled  by 
two  ideas.  The  idea  of  unity  excludes  lying,  "  speak 
every  man  truth  with  his  neighbour;  for  we  are 
members  one  of  another"  (iv.  25).  Anger,  stealing, 
foul  conversation,  are  also  excluded  by  the  law  that 
binds  us  to  do  and  to  say  what  may  minister  to  those 
about  us  (iv.  29).  The  idea  that  the  radical  relation- 
ships of  life  are  pure  also  plays  its  part.  In  opposition 
to  the  Gnostic  asceticism,  which  taught  that  these 
relationships  must  be  abjured  if  men  would  be  holy, 
Paul  shows  that  in  these  relationships  the  highest 
Christian  grace,  the  very  love  which  Christ  bore  to 
men,  is  to  be  cultivated. 

But  this  explicit  exhibition  of  the  unity  of  the 
Church  has  been  turned  into  an  argument  against 
the  authenticity  of  the  epistle.  Thus  Baur  asserts 
that  we  are  carried  in  this  epistle  "to  that  period 


RELATION  TO  COLOSSIANS.          125 

when  the  Christian  Church  was  coming  to  realise 
herself  and  achieve  her  unity."*  "We  have  thus 
before  us  a  state  of  affairs  which  lies  beyond  the 
standpoint  of  the  Apostle  Paul."  It  is  impossible 
that  Baur  should  admit  the  genuineness  of  this 
epistle,  for  in  point  of  fact  it  upsets  his  whole  theory 
of  the  growth  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  reader 
who  comes  to  the  epistle  with'out  a  theory  which 
compels  him  to  pronounce  it  un- Pauline,  will  see  in 
it  evidence  that  Paul's  strife  with  the  Judaizers,  so 
far  as  Asia  was  concerned,  was  over. 

Baur  also  considers  that  the  epistle  contains  Gnos- 
tic and  Montanistic  ideas  and  expressions.t  But  the 
chief  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  this  letter 
is  that  which  is  founded  on  the  similarity  existing 
between  it  and  Colossians.  De  Wette  J  affirms  that 
it  "  stands  in  such  dependence  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  as  to  be  scarcely  more  than  a  verbose 
amplification  of  the  same.  .  .  .  Such  a  transcription 
of  himself  is  unworthy  of  an  Apostle  and  must  there- 
fore be  the  work  of  an  imitator.  The  style  ...  is 
un-Pauline,  being  diffuse,  loaded  with  parenthetic  and 
secondary  clauses,  somewhat  disconnected,  verbose, 
and  wanting  in  new  thoughts."  But  this  apparent 
dependence  has  been  by  some  critics  reversed.  Mayer- 
hoff  gives  reason  for  his  belief  that  Colossians  is 
dependent  on  Ephesians ;  while  Holtzmann  has  shown 
that  the  balance  of  dependence  is  equal,  and  that  the 

*  Paul,  ii.  38  ;  cf.  Davidson,  ii.  213. 

f  Refuted  by  Reuss,  History,  117  ;  who  gives  also  the  best 
account  of  the  connection  of  these  epistles. 
J  Introd.,277. 


126        EPISTLE  TO  THE  EPHESIANS. 

two  epistles  are  mutually  indebted.  De  Wette's 
comparison  of  the  two  is  somewhat  mechanical.  He 
sets  side  by  side  the  verses  and  phrases  in  which  they 
agree.  So  far  as  this  method  goes,  it  is  perfectly 
wrought  out  by  De  Wette,  whose  tables  are  most 
useful.  But  in  examining  the  coincidence  of  the 
epistles  the  first  thing  that  strikes  a  reader  is  that 
the  subject  of  the  one  is  quite  different  from  that  of 
the  other.  It  is  incipient  Gnosticism  which  is  present 
to  the  Apostle's  mind  in  the  one;  the  unity  of  the 
Church  Catholic  and  its  place  in  God's  eternal  purpose 
which  he  treats  in  the  other.  But  writing  these 
epistles  on  the  same  day  or  in  the  same  week,  that 
they  might  be  sent  by  the  same  messenger,  as  a 
matter  of  course  the  same  ideas  and  the  same 
expressions  find  place  in  the  two.  The  forger  who 
proposed  to  fill  his  mind  with  the  ideas  of  the  Colos- 
sians  and  by  the  help  of  these  ideas  to  treat  a  wholly 
different  subject,  would  find  he  had  set  for  himself  an 
uncommonly  difficult  task.  Whereas,  supposing  that 
one  man  wrote  these  two  epistles  at  the  same  time, 
it  was  impossible  he  should  not  have  used  the  same 
great  ideas  and  the  same  expressions.  The  ideas 
which  the  epistles  have  in  common  are  those  which 
were  suggested  to  Paul  by  the  Colossian  heresy,  the 
supremacy  of  Christ,  His  central  position  as  the 
Reconciler  of  all  things,  His  possession  of  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  for  the  Church,  the  reality  and  import 
of  His  death. 

The  close  connection  in  point  of  time  between  the 
two  epistles  is  irresistibly  brought  home  to  the  mind 
by  a  coincidence  which  a  forger  could  neither  have 


ITS  AUTHENTICITY.  127 

de \dsed  nor  been  bold  enough  to  use.  In  Col.  iv.  7 
we  read,  "  All  my  state  shall  Tychicus  declare  unto 
you,"  etc. ;  and  in  Eph.  vi.  21  we  read,  "  But  that 
ye  also  may  know  my  state,  and  how  I  do,  Tychicus," 
etc. — a  phrase  which  would  not  be  very  intelligible 
to  the  readers  of  the  epistle,  but  which  Paul  naturally 
used  when  writing  it  immediately  after  informing  the 
Colossians  that  Tychicus  was  to  give  them  all  news 
from  Rome. 

Of  external  attestation  this  epistle  has  the  usual 
amount.  Clement  of  Rome  (i.  46)  seems  to  have  it 
in  his  mind  when  he  says,  "  Have  we  not  one  God, 
and  one  Christ,  and  one  Spirit  of  Grace  poured  out 
upon  us,  and  one  calling  in  Christ  ? "  Ignatius,  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (circa  110),  mentions  Paul's 
epistle  to  them  and  imitates  the  introduction  of  the 
Apostolic  letter  in  his  own.  In  chaps,  ix.  and  xv. 
he  also  makes  such  use  of  the  idea  of  a  Temple  built 
of  living  stones  as  naturally  suggests  the  similar 
language  of  Paul.  Polycarp  also  (c.  12)  quotes  as 
Scripture,  "  Be  ye  angry  and  sin  not,"  and  "  Let  not 
the  sun  go  down  on  your  wrath,"  and  by  connecting 
the  two  texts  he  seems  to  have  in  his  mind,  not  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  in  which  they  originally 
occur,  but  Paul's  quotation  of  them  in  Eph.  iv.  26. 
In  the  first  chapter  of  his  letter  he  also  quotes  Eph. 
ii.  8,  9.  The  epistle  is  also  included  as  Pauline  in 
the  Canons  of  the  second  century. 

EPISTLE  TO   THE   PHILIPPIANS. 

Four  of  Paul's  epistles— Philippians,  Colossians, 
Ephesians,  and  Philemon — bear  on  their  face  that 


128    EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS. 

they  were  written  while  their  author  was  a  prisoner.* 
They  are  therefore  usually  classed  together  and 
styled  the  Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment,  or  the 
Prison-epistles.  The  three  last-named  letters  are 
assigned  by  many  good  critics  f  to  the  imprisonment 
in  Csesarea.  But  from  Col.  iv.  3,  11  and  Eph.  vi. 
19,  20,  it  would  appear  that  when  Paul  wrote  these 
letters  he  had  liberty  to  preach  the  gospel.  This 
liberty  we  know  he  had  at  Rome  (Acts  xxviii.  16); 
it  is  not  likely  that  he  had  it  at  Csesarea.  It  has 
also  been  pointed  out  that  when  these  letters  were 
written  he  was  chained  to  a  soldier  (Eph.  vi.  20; 
Col.  iv.  3),  but  that  while  in  Caesarea  he  was  not 
chained  until  Felix  was  superseded  by  Festus  (Acts 
xxiv.  27).  This  argument  is,  however,  uncertain. 
But  even  those  who  maintain  the  Csesarean  origin 
of  these  epistles,  assign  Philippians  to  the  Roman 
imprisonment.  For  although  the  prsetorium,  or 
"  palace,"  mentioned  in  i.  13,  might  possibly  be  the 
palace  of  Herod  at  Caesarea  where  he  was  confined 
(Acts  xxiii.  35),  the  mention  of  Caesar's  household 
(iv.,  22),  and  the  circumstances  described  in  the  first 
chapter  are  decisive  in  favour  of  Rome. 

Of  course  if   it  could  be  put  beyond  doubt  that 

*  Phil.  i.  7,  13,  14,  17  ;  Col.  iv.  18  ;  Eph.  iii.  1  ;  iv.  1  ; 
vi.  20  ;  Philem.  1. 

fSo  Keuss,  History,  p.  106;  Meyer,  Hausrath,  Hilgenfeld, 
Weiss  (pp.  249-50).  Weiss  lays  too  much  stress  on  the 
diversity  of  intention  expressed  in  PhiL  ii.  24  and  Philemon 
22.  He  should  have  noticed  that  Paul  meant  to  send 
Timothy  to  Macedonia  before  lie  went  himself  (ii.  23),  and 
yet  after  his  trial,  which  proves  that  he  himself  intended  to 
go  elsewhere,  presumably  to  Colossae,  first. 


DATE  OF  THE  EPISTLE.  129 

Philippians  is  the  earliest  of  the  four,  this  would 
imply  that  the  three  other  prison-epistles  must  also 
date  from  Rome.  But  this  is  by  no  means  certain. 
The  general  opinion,  indeed,  is  that  Philippians  is  the 
latest  of  the  four.*  Paul's  debating  the  comparative 
advantage  of  life  and  death  (i.  20 — 26)  seems  to 
imply  that  the  crisis  of  his  fate  was  impending. 
Time  also  must  be  allowed  for  the  progress  of  the 
gospel  in  Rome  (i.  13)  ;  as  well  as  for  the  arrival 
of  Epaphroditus  from  Philippi,  his  work  in  Rome, 
dangerous  illness,  the  report  of  his  illness  reaching 
Philippi,  and  a  message  being  carried  back  to  Rome. 
But  although  these  requirements  certainly  forbid  our 
dating  the  epistle  at  an  early  period  of  the  Roman 
imprisonment  they  do  not  require  us  to  place  it  at 
the  very  close.  The  anxiety  he  felt  regarding  his 
fate  must  have  been  chronic  during  the  two  years' 
imprisonment,  and  may  have  varied  in  intensity  with 
rumours  of  the  uourt  or  with  changes  in  the  imperial 
temper.  The  request  made  to  Philemon  (ver.  22) 
that  he  would  prepare  him  a  lodging,  indicates  a 
more  certain  and  immediate  prospect  of  release  than 
anything  in  Philippians.  A  strong  argument  in 
favour  of  the  earlier  date  of  this  epistle  ih  also 
found  in  its  similarity  of  expression  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  t  and  in  its  general  unlikeness  to 
Colossians  and  Ephesians,  which,  had  they  been 
written  shortly  before,  would  almost  certainly  have 

*  Holtzmann  (p.  282), "  It  is  the  last  Will  and  Testament  of 
the  Apostle  that  we  have  here."  Hilgenfeld  (p.  347),  "  In 
this  letter  we  have  the  Swan-song  of  Paul." 

f  For  parallels  see  Lightfoot,  Philippians,  pp.  42 — 43 

9 


130      EPISTLE  TO   THE  P1IILIPPIANS. 

found  some  echo  in  this  letter.  These  arguments 
are  by  no  means  final,  but  the  scale  seems  slightly 
to  preponderate  in  favour  of  the  earlier  date.  We 
conclude,  then,  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 
was  written  in  the  second  year  of  the  Roman 
imprisonment,  either  in  the  end  of  63  or  early  in 
64  A.D.* 

The  occasion  of  the  letter  is  obvious.  Philippif 
was  naturally  J  the  first  city  in  Europe  where  Paul 
preached  Christ.  His  maltreatment  in  their  city 
drew  out  more  powerfully  the  affection  of  the 
Philippians,  so  that  "  once  and  again "  after  he 

*  Bleek  shows  his  usual  sound  judgment  in  the  following  : 
"  We  may  regard  it  as  certain  (a)  that  all  four  epistles  were 
written  during  the  Ecman  imprisonment ;  (b)  that  none  of 
them  were  written  in  the  early  months  of  that  imprisonment ; 
and  (c)  that  Colossians,  Ephesians,  and  Philemon  were 
despatched  at  one  and  the  same  time,  but  Philippians  at  a 
different  time.  We  cannot,  however,  decide  whether  Philip- 
pians was  sent  before  or  after  the  other  three  :  one  supposition 
is  as  probable  as  the  other." 

f  Called  after  Philip,  who  strengthened  the  site  of  the 
ancient  Crenides,  or  Fountains,  which  commanded  the  great 
road  from  east  to  west.  In  Paul's  time  it  had  become  a 
Roman  colony  (Phil.  iii.  20 ;  our  citizenship  is  in  heaven). 
"  In  the  course  of  Roman  history  we  find  colonies  used  for 
three  different  purposes  : — as  fortified  outposts  in  a  conquered 
country,  as  a  means  of  providing  for  the  poor  of  Rome,  and 
as  settlements  for  veterans  who  had  served  their  time.  The 
colonies  established  in  Italy  before  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century  were  of  the  first  class,  those  designed  by 
Gracchus  were  to  be  of  the  second,  and  those  founded  by 
Augustus  were  of  the  third."  Arnold's  Roman  Provincial 
Administration,  218.  See  also  Merivale's  History,  vi.  238. 

J  Trpwrij  in  Acts  xvi.  20  is  probably  geographical,  but  see 
Hilgenfeld,  332,  note. 


OCCASION  OF  THE  EPISTLE.         131 

left  them,  they  sent  him  pecuniary  aid  (Phil.  iv.  14). 
For  some  time  before  the  Roman  imprisonment  their 
friendly  assistance  had  ceased  (iv.  10),  which  Paul 
with  his  usual  delicacy  attributes  to  no  decay  of 
their  affection,  but  solely  to  lack  of  opportunity. 
But  this  blank  interval  marked  with  all  the  greater 
emphasis  their  resumption  of  their  old  expressions 
of  affection.  While  in  Rome  Paul  received  from 
his  first  European  converts  a  gift  made  all  the  more 
acceptable  by  its  conveyance  in  the  hand  of  Epaphro- 
ditus,  whose  energetic  co-operation  with  himself  in 
Rome  Paul  cannot  sufficiently  eulogize.  Indeed  this 
stranger  from  Philippi  so  threw  himself  into  the 
work  of  Christ  in  the  metropolis,  that  he  became 
seriously  ill  (ii.  30) ;  and  on  recovering  and  hearing 
how  anxious  his  friends  in  Philippi  had  been  on  hi? 
account,  he  desired  to  return  to  them.  Paul  could 
scarcely  send  him  back  without  putting  in  his  hands 
a  written  acknowledgment  of  their  kindness. 

This  letter,  then,  was  meant  to  be  a  simple  letter 
of  friendship ;  "  the  most  epistolary  of  the  epistles," 
the  easiest  and  most  friendly  of  letters,  it  has  been 
called.  Paul  pours  into  sympathetic  ears  a  frank 
account  of  his  circumstances,  his  expectations,  his 
state  of  mind;  and  with  a  passing  hint  that  their 
besetting  infirmities  were  vanity  and  strife  (ii.  2,  3), 
he  sets  before  them  the  great  example  of  lowliness, 
and  goes  on  to  promise  them  a  visit  from  Timothy 
and  himself,  and  to  commend  Epaphroditus.  Ap- 
parently he  meant  to  conclude  at  this  point;  but 
after  writing  "  Finally,  my  brethren,  rejoice  in  the 
Lord  "  (iii.  1),  he  resumes  in  a  somewhat  different 


132     EPISTLE  TO  THE  PEILIPPIANS. 

tone,  and  adds  nearly  as  much  as  he  had  already 
written.  This  introduction  of  a  new  and  important 
subject  at  the  point  where  the  letter  was  apparently 
intended  to  close,  has  given  rise  to  the  supposition 
that  as  Paul  was  closing  he  was  interrupted  by  the 
entrance  of  some  friend  who  reported  to  him  some 
further  mischievous  machinations  of  the  Judaizing 
party  in  Rome."  *  This  moves  him,  when  he  returns 
to  the  letter,  to  break  out  "  Beware  of  dogs,"  etc. 
This  is  ingenious,  but  scarcely  necessary.  The  fresh 
beginning  and  continuance  of  the  letter,  even  in  a 
different  tone,  needs  no  further  explanation  than 
it  finds  in  the  ardour  and  rapidity  of  Paul's  mind. 
Having  finished  all  he  meant  to  say,  he  adds  an 
exhortation  similar  to  the  conclusion  of  the  Galatian 
epistle,  and  this  exhortation  gathers  as  it  goes.f 
At  iv.  2  he  resumes  where  he  had  broken  off  and, 
again  warning  them  against  a  spirit  of  discord, 
names  two  female  members  of  the  Church, J  Euodia 
and  Syntyche,  whom  he  begs  to  be  reconciled.  Who 
the  "  true  yoke-fellow "  is,  who  is  to  help  them  to  a 
reconciliation,  is  not  known,  unless,  as  Bishop  Light- 
foot  suggests,  it  be  Epaphroditus.  § 

*  Ewald,  Sendschreiben,  448,  and  Lightfoot. 

fThe  verses  12 — 21  are  addressed  to  the  reactionary  or 
antinomian  party,  whose  resistance  to  Judaizers  led  them  to 
make  too  little  not  only  of  the  law  but  of  morality. 

J  Which  proves  that  the  differences  were  not  doctrinal,  but 
social  and  individual. 

§  Hilgenfeld  (345)  suggests  that  the  president  of  the 
Philippian  Church  is  intended.  Eenan  translates  yvrjffit 
ov£vys  "ma  chere  epouse"  (Saint  Paul,  148),  and  suggests 
that  it  is  quite  possible  that  Paul  may  have  married  Lydia. 
Salmon's  note  (Introduction^.  465)  is  a  little  too  hard  on  Renan. 


CONTENTS  OF  THE  EPISTLE.        133 

Erom  the  expression  "  To  write  the  same  things  to 
you"  (iii.  1),  Bleek  and  others  infer  that  Paul  had 
written  a  letter  to  the  Philippians  previous  to  the  one 
extant.*  It  is  very  possible,  and  indeed  probable, 
that  Paul  wrote  other  letters  to  this  Church,  with 
which  he  was  on  terms  so  intimate,  but  the  words 
cited  do  not  prove  this.  What  "  the  same  things  " 
refer  to  is  doubtful.  The  words  may  refer  to  the 
immediately  preceding  injunction,  "  Rejoice  in  the 
Lord,"  to  which  he  afterwards  returns,  and  returns 
with  a  similar  consciousness  that  he  is  harping  on  one 
string  (iv.  4)  tj  and  already  in  the  epistle  (i.  18,  25  j 
ii.  2,  17,  28)  his  allusions  to  joy  have  been  frequent. 
To  Paul's  happy  mind  the  reiteration  of  this  precept 
was  not  irksome,  and  it  was  safe  for  the  Philippians, 
for  joy  in  the  Lord  is  certainly  the  great  safeguard 
against  murmuring  and  discord.  But  the  words  may 
possibly  refer  to  what  follows,:}:  and  Paul  may  have 
wished  to  say  that  to  repeat  to  them  the  warnings 
against  Judaizers  which  he  had  given  to  others,  or  to 
themselves  by  word  of  mouth,  was  not  irksome  to  him, 
and  was  certainly  safe  for  them. 

The  epistle  is  valuable  as  illustrating  the  heroism 
and  tenderness  of  Paul's  character.  Nothing  daunts 
him,  nothing  even  damps  his  joy.  This  equanimity  is 
the  result  of  his  real  consecration  to  Christ's  service. 

*  Meyer  and  others  think  that  a  testimony  to  the  plurality 
of  letters  to  this  Church  is  to  be  found  in  Polycarp's  use  of 
the  plural  (&ri<7rcAa's)  when  speaking  of  Paul's  communication 
with  them  (Polyc.,  ad  Phil,  iii),  but  Lightfoot  has  shown  this 
to  be  an  unwarrantable  inference. 

f  Summa  Epistolae — gaudeo,  gaudete. — Bengel. 

J  So  Holtzmann  (285). 


134     EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS. 

It  is  because  "  to  live  is  Christ "  that  he  feels  assured 
"  to  die  is  gain"  for  him.  The  enthusiasm  with  which 
he  speaks  of  the  furtherance  of  the  gospel,  and  directs 
his  friend's  attention  to  this  result  of  his  hardships, 
and  not  to  those  hardships  themselves ;  the  sympathy 
and  cordial  acknowledgment  of  the  service  and  illness 
of  Epaphroditus ;  the  remarkable  delicacy  with  which 
he  alludes  to  the  gift  of  the  Philippians  and  his  need 
of  it,  are  all  thoroughly  Pauline. 

But  the  epistle  is  also  valuable  for  its  compressed 
statement  of  his  gospel  as  opposed  to  the  teaching  of 
the  Judaizers  (iii.  1 — 12).  If  circumcision,  Hebrew 
descent,  legal  blamelessness,  formed  a  just  claim  to 
salvation,  Paul  had  more  to  rely  upon  than  the  most 
convinced  and  zealous  Judaizer.  He  was  circumcised, 
of  pure  blood,  and  a  rigid  observer  of  the  law.  But 
though  he  once  built  his  hope  of  God's  favour  on 
these  things,  and  counted  them  over  in  his  own  mind 
as  his  spiritual  gains,  he  now  esteemed  them  not  at 
all.  He  found  them  to  be  an  actual  hindrance,  a 
loss,  a  minus  quantity.  He  had  to  cast  them  away, 
to  renounce  all  these  claims,  in  order  that  he  might 
win  Christ.  For  a  man  who  hopes  to  earn  God's 
favour  by  his  own  righteousness  has  no  need  of 
Christ,  and  will  not  accept  Him.  But,  says  Paul, 
"  I  have  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things — all,  i.e.,  that 
he  had  founded  his  hope  of  God's  favour  upon — and 
do  count  them  but  dung,  that  I  may  win  Christ 
and  be  found  in  Him,"  etc.  (iii,  8,  9).  He  saw  how 
much  purer,  deeper,  more  efficient  was  the  righteous- 
ness offered  to  him  in  Christ,  and  therefore  in  order 
to  win  it  he  rejected  the  other.  To  depend  on  both 


CONTENTS  OF  THE  EPISTLE.        135 

was  impossible :  they  mutually  exclude  each  other. 
Paul  made  his  choice,  threw  away  his  former  gains, 
and  so  gained  Christ.  That  is,  when  Christ  was 
revealed  to  him,  he  saw  that  the  favour  of  God  he 
had  been  labouring  for  by  strict  observance  of  the 
minutest  injunction  of  the  law,  was  already  his  by 
God's  free^gift.  And  at  the  same  time  he  saw  in  the 
character  of  Christ  how  infinite  a  righteousness  is 
the  righteousness  of  God,  and  how  impossible  to  win 
God's  favour  by  a  life  which  should  perfectly  meet 
the  necessary  requirement  of  a  perfect  God. 

But  while  he  abandoned  his  own  righteousness  as  a 
ground  on  which  he  might  hope  to  earn  God's  favour, 
he  was  far  from  abandoning  the  hope  of  holiness  or 
efforts  to  attain  it.  On  the  contrary,  his  aim  is  not 
only  to  win  Christ  and  to  be  found  in  Him,  but  "  to 
know  Christ  and  the  power  of  His  resurrection,"  etc. 
(ver.  10).  His  final  object  being  "  to  attain  to  the  re- 
surrection of  the  dead,"  to  be  conformed  to  Christ  in 
spirit  and  in  body  (ver.  21),  he  finds  in  Christ  new 
forces  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  object.  He,  in 
the  first  place,  sees  it  attained  in  Christ,  and  that 
gives  a  definiteness  and  hopefulness  to  his  aim  which 
it  had  not  before.  And,  further,  the  intimate  fellow- 
ship into  which  Christ  has  called  him  sustains,  purifies, 
strengthens  him.  Subdued  and  melted  to  humility  and 
tenderness  by  the  love  Christ  had  shown  him  in  meeting 
him  in  the  full  career  of  his  sin,  and  giving  him  a 
place  next  to  Himself :  enlightened  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  deepest  roots  of  human  character  by  what 
he  learned  of  Christ's  own  career;  convinced  of  the 
mission  and  power  of  Christ  by  his  vision  of  Him,  he 


136     EPISTLE  TO   THE  PHILIPPIANS. 

gives  himself  hopefully  to  the  work  appointed  to  him, 
and  "  presses  towards  the  mark  for  the  prize  of  the 
high  calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  "  (ver.  14). 

The  authenticity  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 
has  not  been  seriously  questioned.  It  receives  early 
support,*  and  was  universally  accepted  as  Pauline  in 
the  second  century.  The  objections  of  Baur  are  thus 
summarised  by  himself  :  "  What  appears  suspicious  to 
me  in  the  Philippian  epistle  may  be  reduced  to  the 
following  three  heads :  1.  The  appearance  of  Gnostic 
ideas  in  the  passage  ii.  6 — 9.f  2.  The  want  of  any- 
thing distinctively  Pauline.  3.  The  questionableness 
of  some  of  the  historical  data."  Such  objections  only 
tend  to  lessen  our  esteem  for  the  critical  insight  of 
the  writer  who  raises  them.  Bleek  very  justly  says 
that  Baur's  arguments  "  are  partly  derived  from  a 
perverted  interpretation  of  certain  passages  in  the 
epistle;  they  partly  rest  upon  arbitrary  historical 
presuppositions ;  some  of  them  are  really  so  weak  that 
we  can  hardly  believe  that  he  could  have  attached 
any  importance  to  them  himself."  The  onesidedness 
of  much  of  Baur's  criticism  is  illustrated  by  the  fact 
that  he  spends  many  pages  on  an  attempt  to  show 
that  "Clement  is  named  in  Phil.  iv.  3  in  order  to 
glorify  Clement  of  Rome  as  a  fellow-labourer  of  the 
Apostle."  He  omits  to  notice  that  the  Clement  named 

*  For  passages  see  Davidson  and  Kirchhofer. 

f  Hilgenfeld  says  :  "  In  no  case  admissible  is  the  interpre- 
tation of  Baur,  who  discovers  here  opposition  to  the  gnostic- 
valentinian  doctrine  that  the  last  Aeon  of  the  Pleroma  wished 
to  connect  itself  immediately  with  the  Original  Being  but 
sank  back  into  the 


EPISTLE  TO   THE  COLOSSIANS.       137 

in  the  epistle  belongs  to  the  Philippian,  and  not  to 
the  Roman  Church. 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS. 

Colossae,*  situated  on  the  river  Lycus,  in  south- 
western Phrygia,  but  within  the  Roman  proconsular 
province  of  Asia,  had  in  earlier  times  been  a  large 
and  populous  city,  but  was  considerably  reduced  at 
the  date  of  this  letter,  possibly  owing  to  the  rivalry 
of  its  prosperous  neighbours  Laodiceaf  and  Hierapolis, 
which  lay  a  few  miles  farther  down  the  river.  The 
only  feature  of  the  population  which  throws  light  on 
the  epistle  is  its  very  considerable  Jewish  ingredient. 
Two  thousand  Jewish  families  had  been  transplanted 
by  Antiochus  the  Great,  and  had  been  settled  in 
Lydia  and  Phrygia;  and  it  is  important  to  observe 
that  these  families  had  been  brought  from  Babylonia 
and  Mesopotamia,  t  Other  influences  increased  the 
Jewish  population  §  until  in  Paul's  time  they  formed 

*  The  form  Colassae  seems  to  have  prevailed  only  in  a  later 
age.  Bishop  Lightfoot  therefore,  while  he  admits  /coXao-craets 
into  the  heading  or  title  of  the  epistle,  rejects  it  from  the  text. 
See  the  evidence  in  his  Commentary,  pp.  16,  17,  note. 

f  Tacitus  (AnnaL,  xiv.  27)  is  evidently  astonished  that 
Laodicea  should  have  been  able  to  recover  from  an  earth- 
quake by  its  own  resources  ;  "  nullo  a  nobis  remedio,  propriis 
opibus  revaluit."  For  the  demand  on  the  imperial  exchequer 
made  by  Sardis  in  similar  circumstances,  see  Annal.,  iL  47, 
and  cf.  Kev.  iii.  17. 

I  Josephus,  Antif[.,  xii.  3. 

§  "  The  vines  and  the  baths  of  Phrygia  have  separated  the 
ten  tribes  from  Israel."  Quoted  by  Lightfoot  from  the  Talmud. 
See  also  Cicero,  pro  Flacco. 


138      EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS. 

a  distinctly  influential  element  in  the  towns  of 
Phrygia. 

Although  the  missionary  journeys  of  Paul  had  more 
than  once  lain  through  Phrygia,  it  is  clear  that  his 
route  had  always  heen  east  and  north  of  the  cities 
lying  in  the  valley  of  the  Lycus.  He  therefore,  in 
writing  to  the  Colossians,  classes  them  (ii.  1)  with 
those  "who  have  not  seen  [his]  face  in  the  flesh."* 
Apparently  they  had  received  the  gospel  through 
Epaphras  (i.  7),t  who  was  himself  a  Colossian  (iv.  12), 
and  probably  was  one  of  those  who  heard  Paul  preach 
at  Ephesus  in  the  school  of  Tyrannus,  and  who  spread 
the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  Jesus  among  "all  them 
which  dwelt  in  Asia"  (Acts  xix.  10).  Epaphras  had 
joined  Paul  in  Rome,  and  had  given  him  a  vivid  idea 
of  the  progress  and  of  the  dangers  of  the  Christian 
Churches  in  the  valley  of  the  Lycus  (i.  8 ;  iv.  12,  13). 
Teachers  had  appeared  in  Colossse  who  were  confusing 
the  minds  of  the  converts  not  yet  "  stablished  in  the 
faith." 

The  precise  doctrines  and  affinities  of  these  teachers 
can  be  gathered  from  the  epistle  itself,  in  which  Paul 
wrarns  the  Christians  against  them.  That  they  were 
Jews  is  evident  from  their  enjoining  circumcision 
(ii.  11 ;  iii.  11)  and  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic 
ordinances,  sacred  days  and  seasons,  and  so  forth 
(ii.  14 — 22).  So  far  they  resembled  the  Judaizers 

*  For  the  right  interpretation  of  these  words,  see  Lightfoot, 
and  Bleek,  ii.  23. 

f  Lardner  argues  strongly  for  the  position,  that  Paul 
founded  the  Colossian  Church.  His  arguments  are  answered 
by  Davidson,  ii.  171-6. 


THE   GOLOSSIAN  HERESY.  139 

who  had  marred  Paul's  work  in  Galatia  and  else- 
where. But  with  this  Judaism  the  Colossian  teachers 
mingled  a  "philosophy"  (ii.  8),  a  "worshipping  of 
angels"  (ii.  18),  and  an  ascetic  "neglect  of  the  body" 
(ii.  23),  which  were  not  characteristic  of  Judaizing 
teachers.  It  would  also  appear  that  their  philosophy 
or  theosophy  endangered  the  supremacy  of  Christ, 
probably  by  ascribing  to  angels  the  work  of  creation 
(i.  16),  of  giving  and  enforcing  the  law  (ii.  15),  and 
of  mediating  in  redemption  between  God  and  man 
(ii.  18).  And  it  is  plain  that  all  this  was  taught  as 
a  mystery  or  as  esoteric  doctrine  imparted  to  the 
initiated  alone,  and  under  seal  of  secrecy  (cf .  ii.  3 ; 
i.  27 ;  and  the  emphasis  laid  on  the  non-exclusiveness 
of  the  gospel  i.  28,  in  the  three  times  repeated 
"every"). 

But  no  sooner  are  these  characteristics  of  the 
Colossian  heresy  stated  than  it  is  obvious  that  point 
by  point  they  coincide  with  Gnosticism.  The  very 
terms  used  by  Paul  are  Gnostic  terms.*  Gnosticism, 
as  the  name  itself  implies,  asserted  the  supremacy  of 
knowledge  (Gnosis).  Faith  may  suffice  for  the  multi- 
tude, but  the  initiated,  the  select  few,  are  saved  by 
knowledge.  The  esoteric  doctrine  they  imparted  was 
a  doctrine  of  creation  devised  to  save  God  from  the 
responsibility  of  being  the  author  of  evil.  God,  who 
is  absolutely  good,  cannot  by  His  immediate  act  have 
produced  the  world ;  for  had  He  done  so  it  also  must, 
like  its  Author,  be  only  good.  Besides  this  moral 
difficulty  there  was  ever  clamouring  for  solution  the 
metaphysical  difficulty  of  connecting  the  Absolute 
*  Pleroma  (ii.  9),  principalities  and  powers,  etc.  (i.  16). 


140      EPISTLE  TO  THE  COLOSSTANS. 

God  with  the  material  world.  Both  these  difficulties 
the  Gnostics  claimed  to  solve  by  their  theory  of 
emanations.  God  expressed  Himself  by  giving  birth 
to  a  Being  worthy  of  Him;  and  this  Being  again 
reproduced  a  third,  and  so  on  through  successive 
emanations,  each  naturally  in  proportion  to  its  dis- 
tance from  the  Source,  having  a  feebler  divine 
ingredient,  until  contact  with  matter  and  the  work 
of  creation  became  possible.  Between  the  Supreme, 
Perfect  God,  and  the  world,  there  are  thus  interposed 
a  graduated  series  of  beings,  which  appear  sometimes 
as  personal,  sometimes  as  impersonal  in  the  various 
Gnostic  systems,  and  which  are  variously  known  as 
emanations,  aeons,  or  angels.  Underlying  this  whole 
theory  is  the  oriental  dualism  which  ascribes  the 
origin  of  evil,  not  to  the  will  of  man  but  to  matter. 
And  as  a  necessary  result  of  this  tenet  the  Gnostics 
taught  that  redemption  is  to  be  achieved  by  asceticism. 
The  form  which  Gnosticism  took  when  combined 
with  Jewish  Christianity  is  distinctly  seen  in  the 
teaching  of  Cerinthus,  who  flourished  in  the  time 
of  Trajan.  He  was  a  Jewish  Christian,  who  adopted 
Gnostic  views,  and  taught  that  the  world  was  not 
made  by  the  Supreme  God  but  by  a  power  distinct 
from  Him  and  ignorant  of  Him.  Jesus,  who  was  a 
mere  man,  received  at  His  baptism  the  Christ,  by 
whose  inspiration  He  announced  the  unknown  Father, 
the  Supreme  God.  Towards  the  end  of  His  ministry 
the  Christ  departed  from  Him,  so  that  the  mere  man 
Jesus  suffered,  died,  and  rose  again.*  This  teaching 

*  See  Hansel's  Gnostics,  113  ;  and  Nitzsch's  note  in  Bleek, 
ii.  25—27. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  GNOSTICISM.       141 

brings  out  clearly  the  Ebionite  tendency  which  natur- 
ally resulted  from  the  Gnostic  horror  of  matter ;  and 
that  some  similar  tendency  was  exhibited  by  the 
Colossian  errorists  is  evident  from  the  emphatic 
manner  in  which  Paul  (i.  14,  19,  20,  22,  etc.)  links 
together  the  supremacy  of  Christ  and  His  death, 
insisting  that  the  same  person  who  made  all  things 
suffered  on  the  cross. 

But  the  emergence  of  Gnostic  ideas  and  terminology 
in  a  letter  purporting  to  be  written  in  the  year 
A.D.  64,  is  declared  to  be  sufficient  proof  that  it  is 
not  what  it  claims  to  be.  Thus  Baur  affirms*  that 
"  we  are  here  transported  to  a  circle  of  ideas  which 
belongs  to  a  wholly  different  historical  period,  viz., 
to  the  period  of  Gnosticism" — that  is,  to  the  second 
century.  It  is  true  that  before  the  time  of  Cerinthus 
we  have  no  trustworthy  record  of  any  sect  or  teacher 
who  combined  fully  developed  Gnostic  ideas  with 
Christ's  doctrine.  But  to  argue  that  Gnosticism  was 
not  known  in  the  Church  until  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century,  and  that  this  epistle  must  therefore 
be  referred  to  that  period,  is  either  to  throw  dust  in 
the  eyes  or  to  betray  ignorance  of  history.  For  the 
roots  from  which  Gnosticism  sprang  can  be  traced 
not  merely  into  the  first  century,  but  through  the 
writings  of  Philo,  the  Books  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesi- 
asticus,  back  to  the  Persian  speculations  with  which 

*  Paul,  ii.  8  ;  "  And  in  this  I  follow  him,"  says  Hilgenfeld, 
863.  Holtzmann  thinks  the  peculiarities  of  the  epistle  are 
best  accounted  for  by  the  supposition  that  it  is  a  genuine 
Pauline  letter  which  has  been  interpolated  to  the  extent  of 
half  its  contents  by  the  unknown  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians. 


142       EPISTLE   TO  THE   COLOSSIANS. 

the  Jews  became  familiar  during  the  Captivity.  And 
there  is  as  much  reason  to  refer  Philo  to  the  second 
century  as  to  refer  this  epistle  to  the  period  of  fully 
developed  and  explicitly  enounced  Gnosticism.  The 
fact  is  that,  long  before  the  Christian  Church  was 
founded,  the  thinkers  of  Asia  were  familiar  with  the 
ideas  and  speculations  which  were  afterwards  identified 
with  Gnosticism ;  *  and  if  this  great  system  was  not 
earlier  recognised  as  a  Christian  heresy,  the  proba- 
bility is  that  the  delay  was  caused  not  by  any  lack 
of  endeavour  to  combine  Christianity  and  Gnosticism, 
but  by  the  strenuous  opposition  which  the  Apostles 
offered  to  the  incipient  tendencies  towards  this  com- 
bination.t  It  would  be  strange  indeed  if,  in  an  age 
when  East  and  West  were  mingling,  when  amalgama- 
tions and  combinations  of  every  kind  were  attempted, 
when  men  seem  to  have  come  to  distrust  each  separate 
philosophy  and  to  imagine  that  truth  might  be  found 
by  combining  all,  no  attempt  had  been  made  to 
combine  Christianity  and  Gnostic  speculations.  This 
epistle  is  the  most  trustworthy  evidence  we  have  of 
any  actual  attempt  of  this  kind,  and  in  these  Colos- 
sian  teachers  we  see  the  spiritual  progenitors  of 
Cerinthus  and  the  rest. 

Bishop  Lightfoot  has  materially  aided  the  endeavour 
to  posit  this  Colossian  heresy  in  its  proper  historical 
place,  by  showing  that  it  has  its  natural  precursor  in 

*  "  It  is  a  matter  of  little  moment  at  what  precise  timo  the 
name  'Gnostic'  was  adopted,  whether  before  or  after  contact 
with  Christianity." — Lightfoot,  p.  81. 

f  See  a  singularly  lucid  statement  in  Davies'  St.  Paul's 
Epistles,  p.  80.  Hilgenfeld's  discussion  of  the  rise  of  Christian 
Gnosticism  is  superficial.  Eirileitung,  pp.  652-8. 


ESSENE  GNOSTICISM.  143 

a  well-known  form  of  Judaism,  which  existed  in  the 
time  of  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles.  He  has  shown 
that  Essenism  was  Gnostic  Judaism,  and  that  this 
type  of  Jewish  thought  had  established  itself  in 
Phrygia  and  Asia  in  the  Apostolic  age.  The  Essenes 
represented  among  the  Jews  legalism,  mysticism,  and 
asceticism.  They  were  scrupulous  in  their  observance 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  though  they  looked  with  horror  on 
bloody  sacrifices,  abstained,  as  it  would  seem,  from 
eating  flesh  and  drinking  wine,  and  discountenanced 
marriage.  It  is  easy  to  recognise  the  principle  which 
lay  at  the  root  of  this  asceticism,  the  principle  that 
matter  is  evil,  and  that  to  be  delivered  from  sin  man 
must,  as  far  as  possible,  be  emancipated  from  all 
dependence  on  matter.  They  betrayed  their  genea- 
logical connection  with  Persian  speculation  by  their 
worship  of  the  sun  and  their  doctrine  of  angels. 
What  that  doctrine  precisely  was  it  is  impossible  to 
say,  for  the  initiated  was  sworn  "to  conceal  nothing 
from  the  members  of  the  sect,  and  to  report  nothing 
concerning  them  to  others  .  .  .  not  to  communicate 
any  of  their  doctrines  to  any  one,  otherwise  than  as 
he  himself  had  received  them  .  .  .  and  to  guard 
carefully  the  names  of  the  angels."  The  Essenes 
would  thus  seem  to  have  possessed  three  of  the 
characteristic  notes  of  Gnosticism :  "  This  Jewish  sect 
exhibits  the  same  exclusiveness  in  the  communication 
of  its  doctrines.  Its  theological  speculations  take  the 
same  direction,  dwelling  on  the  mysteries  of  creation, 
regarding  matter  as  the  abode  of  evil,  and  postulating 
certain  intermediate  spiritual  agencies  as  necessary 
links  of  communication  between  heaven  and  earth. 


144       EPISTLE   TO  THE   COLOSSIANS. 

And  lastly,  its  speculative  opinions  involve  the  same 
ethical  conclusions,  and  lead  in  like  manner  to  a  rigid 
asceticism."  If  then  Essenism  came  in  contact  with 
Christianity  and  sought  to  form  an  alliance  with  it, 
there  would  result  a  conglomerate  distinguishable  by 
the  very  features  of  this  Colossian  heresy. 

By  these  explanations  not  only  is  the  genuineness 
of  the  epistle  established,  but  the  point  and  power 
of  its  statements  are  brought  clearly  out.  Paul  does 
not  aim  at  exploding  the  incipient  heresy  by  argu- 
ment. He  contents  himself  \vith  showing  that  all 
that  was  advantageous  or  attractive  in  the  new  doc- 
trine existed  already  in  Christ,  and  existed  in  Him 
not  in  appearance  but  in  truth.  To  the  attractiveness 
of  being  initiated  into  mysteries  and  esoteric  doctrines 
to  which  none  but  the  select  few  were  admitted,  he 
opposes  his  ministry  of  a  gospel  free  from  all  intel- 
lectual exclusiveness,  which  he  preaches  to  "  every 
creature"  (i.  23),  "warning  every  man,  and  teaching 
every  man  in  all  wisdom,  that  we  may  present  every 
man  perfect  in  Christ  Jesus  "  (i.  28).  The  mere  state- 
ment of  this  true  perfecting  of  every  man  by  the 
revelation  of  the  mystery  of  Christ  should  be  enough 
to  make  every  sound-hearted  man  ashamed  of  being 
led  away  by  a  promised  "  perfection,"  accomplished 
in  a  few  by  initiation  into  mysterious  speculative 
theories.  Similarly,  over  against  the  theory  of  inter- 
mediate beings  saving  God  from  direct  contact  with 
matter,  Paul  enunciates  the  true  Deity  of  Christ,  and 
affirms  that  "by  Him  were  all  things  created,  that 
are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in  earth,"  and  that  so  far 
from  matter  being  evil,  "  all  things  were  created  .  .  . 


ANTAGONISM  TO  GNOSTIC  HERESY.  145 

for  Him"  (i.  16).  No  language  could  more  firmly 
and  explicitly  affirm  the  proper  Divinity  of  Christ,  or 
dispel  the  growing  tendency  to  an  Ebionitism  which 
might  seem  to  save  the  Divine  from  coming  into 
ignominious  contact  with  matter  and  even  with  death. 
The  Christ  whom  Paul  preached  was  not  one  emana- 
tion to  be  found  at  some  point  of  the  graduated 
descent  from  God  to  the  last  developed  seon,  but  was 
Himself  Divine;  "it  pleased  the  Father  that  in 
Him  should  all  the  pleroma  dwell,"  the  totality  or 
fulness  of  the  Godhead,  so  that  in  Him  all  Divine 
attributes  were  to  be  found  (i.  19 ;  ii.  9).  There  was 
therefore  no  need  of  any  wisdom  or  help  which  could 
not  be  found  in  Christ  (ii.  3,  10).  To  worship  angels 
and  seek  their  help  (ii.  18)  may  seem  humility,  but 
it  is  gratuitous  and  futile;  for  "ye  are  complete 
in  Christ,  Who  is  the  head  of  all  principality  and 
power"  (ii.  10).  Hold  the  Head  and. you  are  saved; 
and  refrain  from  all  speculations  which  merely  puff 
you  up  with  a  sense  of  fancied  superiority  (ii.  18). 

The  practical  results  of  this  incipient  Gnosticism 
are  exposed  in  the  same  manner,  by  exhibiting  in 
contrast  the  greater  efficacy  of  the  purely  Christian 
teaching.  The  rules  of  an  ascetic  avoidance  of 
material  things,  "  Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not," 
have  a  show  of  humility,  but  "  are  of  no  value  against 
the  indulgence  of  the  flesh  "  (ii.  23).  The  true  de- 
liverance from  carnality  and  earthliness  is  to  be  found 
in  fellowship  with  Christ,  in  so  truly  believing  in  and 
loving  Him  that  our  affections  are  carried  with  Him 
to  things  above  (iii.  1 — 5). 

The  authenticity  of  the  Epistle  is  externally 

10 


146       EPISTLE  TO  THE   COLOSSIANS. 

attested  by  echoes  in  Barnabas,  Clement,  and 
Ignatius;  by  quotations  in  Justin  Martyr,  and  by 
its  reception  into  the  Canons  of  the  first  century. 
Mayerhoff  was  the  first  to  throw  suspicion  upon  it, 
by  exhibiting  its  resemblances  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians.  Renan  argues  strongly  for  its  genuine- 
ness,* and  among  other  grounds  urges  that  if  Ephe- 
sians was  an  imitation  of  it,  this  implies  that  the 
imitator  accepted  Colossians  as  Pauline.  Hilgenfeld 
holds  with  Baur,  that  "  the  Colossian  letter  has  to  do 
with  an  already  fully  developed  Gnosticism,  and  this 
carries  it  not  merely  beyond  Paul's  life-time,  but  be- 
yond the  first  century. t  It  is,  however,  impossible  to 
imagine  a  letter  such  as  this  to  have  been  written  in 
presence  of  the  fully  developed  systems.  Opposition 
to  these  systems  would  have  been  more  detailed  and 
pronounced. 

The  difficulties  which  have  been  found  in  the  style 
of  the  latter  are  explained  by  Paul's  want  of  famili- 
arity with  this  novel  teaching.  He  was  on  ground 
he  had  not  traversed  before,  using  the  suggestions 
of  heresy  to  elucidate  new  aspects  of  Christ  and  His 
gospel.  The  easy  and  natural  manner  in  which  this 
letter  links  itself  to  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  (cf.  iv 
9—14  with  Phil.  23,  24 ;  iv.  17  with  Phil.  2)  is,  as 
Renan  shows,  strong  proof  of  authenticity.  It  may 
be  added  that  the  descriptions  given  of  those  who 
send  salutations  correspond  with  the  fact  that  Paul 
and  his  constant  companions  had  not  been  at  Colossse. 
Baur's  idea  that  Luke  and  Mark  are  brought  together 
with  "  reconciling  "  intention  is  too  ridiculous. 
*  St.  Paul,  x.— xii.  f  Einleitvng,  667. 


EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON.  147 

The  mention  of  "  the  Epistle  from  Laodicea " 
(iv.  16)  has  given  rise  to  a  number  of  theories  which 
are  classified  and  examined  by  Lightfoot.  His  own 
opinion  is  that  the  epistle  here  referred  to  was  that 
to  the  Ephesians,  which  was  intended  as  a  circular 
letter  to  be  read  first  by  the  Ephesians,  then  by  the 
Laodiceans,  and  then  by  the  Colossians.  The  spurious 
Laodicean  Epistle  is  given  by  Lightfoot.  It  is  a 
mere  cento  of  phrases  and  clauses  from  the  Pauline 
letters  and  is  entirely  worthless. 

EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON. 

The  Epistle  to  Philemon  stands  alone  among  the 
Pauline  epistles  as  a  letter  addressed  to  an  individual 
on  a  private  matter.  The  letters  to  Timothy  and 
Titus  are  addressed  to  them  as  officials  in  the  Church, 
and  they  deal  with  matters  which  concerned  the 
Church.  But  this  letter  is  written  to  intercede  for 
a  runaway  slave  with  his  master.  "It  is  only  one 
sample  of  numberless  letters  which  must  have  been 
written  to  his  many  friends  and  disciples  by  one  of 
St.  Paul's  eager  temperament  and  warm  affections 
in  the  course  of  a  long  and  chequered  life."  *  Of 
Philemon  we  only  know  what  is  implied  in  this  letter 
and  in  that  to  the  Colossians.  He  was  resident  in 
Colos^se,  as  we  gather  from  Col.  iv.  9,  where  it  is 
stated  that  Onesimus  belongs  to  Colossae.  He  had 
been  brought  to  the  faith  by  Paul  (Philemon  19) ; 
and  as  Paul  does  not  appear  to  have  hitherto  visited 
Colossae  (Col.  ii.  1),  it  is  probable  that  Philemon  had 
*  Lightfoot,  Coloxsians  and  Philemon,  p.  369. 


148  EPISTLE   TO  PHILEMON. 

heard  him  in  Ephesus,  or  in  some  Phrygian  town. 
If  he  himself  had  not  founded  the  Christian  Church 
in  Colossse,*  at  all  events  his  house  is  the  Christian 
meeting  place  (Philemon  2),  and  Paul  calls  him  his 
"  fellow-labourer."  He  has  also  distinguished  himself 
by  his  kindness  and  helpfulness,  but  whether  this 
involves  that  he  was  a  man  of  considerable  pecuniary 
means  does  not  appear.  His  wife,  also  a  Christian, 
had  the  common  Phrygian  name,  Apphia;  and 
Archippus,  who  was  a  minister  or  deacon  of  some  sort 
in  the  church  (Col.  iv.  17),t  is  generally  supposed  to 
have  been  their  son,  and  from  the  position  his  name 
occupies  in  the  address  of  the  letter  this  seems  not 
unlikely. 

But  the  letter  to  Philemon  was  occasioned  not  by 
Paul's  interest  in  him,  but  in  his  slave  Onesimus.  A 
Phrygian  slave  was  one  of  the  lowest  known  types  to 
be  found  in  the  Roman  world,  displaying  all  the 
worst  features  of  character  which  the  servile  condition 
developed.  Onesimus  proved  no  exception.  He  ran 
away  from  his  master,  and,  as  Paul  thought  probable 
(ver.  18,  19),  not  without  helping  himself  to  a  share  of 
his  master's  possessions.^  By  the  help  of  what  he 
had  stolen,  and  by  the  cleverness  which  afterwards 
made  him  so  helpful  to  Paul,  he  made  his  way  to 
Rome,  naturally  drawn  to  the  great  centre,  and 
prompted  both  by  a  desire  to  hide  himself  and  by  a 
youthful  yearning  to  see  the  utmost  the  world  could 

*  See  on  Colossians. 

f  Probably  in  Colossae,  but  Lightfoot  supposes  in  Laodicea. 
j  Dr.  Abbott,  in  his  instructive  romance  Onegimits,  repre- 
sents the  theft  as  unpremeditated. 


OCCASION  OF  THE  LETTER.          149 

show  of  glory  and  of  vice.  But  whether  feeling  his 
loneliness,  or  wearied  with  a  life  of  vice,  or  impoverished 
and  reduced  to  want,  or  seized  with  the  fear  of  detec- 
tion, he  made  his  way  to  Paul,  or  unbosomed  himself 
to  some  Asiatic  he  saw  on  the  street.  And  as  he 
stepped  out  of  the  coarse  debauchery  and  profanity  of 
the  crowded  resorts  of  the  metropolis  into  the  room 
hallowed  by  the  presence  of  Paul,  he  saw  the  foulness 
of  the  one  life  and  the  beauty  of  the  other,  and  was 
persuaded  to  accept  the  gospel  he  had  often  heard  in 
his  master's  house.  How  long  he  remained  with  Paul 
does  not  appear,  but  long  enough  to  impress  on  the 
Apostle's  mind  that  this  slave  was  no  common  man. 
Paul  had  devoted  and  active  friends  by  him,  but  this 
slave,  trained  to  watch  his  master's  wants  and  to 
execute  promptly  all  that  was  entrusted  to  him,  be- 
came almost  indispensable  to  Paul.  But  to  retain 
him,  Paul  feels,  would  be  to  steal  him,  or  at  any  rate 
to  deprive  Philemon  of  the  pleasure  of  voluntarily 
sending  him  to  minister  to  him  (ver.  14).  He  therefore 
sends  him  back  with  this  letter  so  exquisitely  worded  * 
that  it  cannot  but  have  secured  the  forgiveness  and 
cordial  reception  of  Onesimus. 

Mediation  is  always  a  difficult  task,  and  it  is  cer- 
tainly not  lightened  when  the  parties  to  be  reconciled 
are  a  slave  and  his  master.  Nothing  could  surpass  the 
delicacy  and  fine  feeling  with  which  Paul  manages  this 
matter.  Every  verse  contains  some  turn  of  phrase 
that  reveals  his  tact  and  courtesy.  Philemon's  past 
favours  and  habitual  kindness  are  appealed  to,  and 

*  For  a  variety  of  testimonies  to  the  beauty  of  the  letter, 
see  Lightfoot,  p.  384,  where  Pliny's  similar  letter  is  also  given. 


150  EPISTLE  TO  PHILEMON-. 

Paul  does  not  hesitate  to  beg  for  the  slave's  forgive- 
ness as  a  favour  to  himself.  The  play  upon  the  name 
Onesimus  *  is  similar  to  many  instances  in  the  Old 
Testament — "Onesimus  [Profitable],  who  in  time  past 
was  to  thee  unprofitable,  but  now  profitable  to  thee  and 
to  me"  (ver.  ll),t  and  still  more  obviously  in  ver.  20, 
"Yea,  brother,  may  I  be  profited  by  thee  in  the  Lord." 
The  authenticity  of  this  private  note  is  undoubted. 
Marcion  accepted  it  as  Pauline,  and  it  was  not  ques- 
tioned until  the  fourth  century.  Baur's  position 
regarding  Colossians  compelled  him  to  attack  .the 
Pauline  authorship  of  Philemon,  but  he  feels  how 
awkward  a  task  this  is,  and  apologizes  for  undertaking 
it.  "  In  the  case  of  this  epistle  more  than  any  other, 
if  criticism  should  inquire  for  evidence  in  favour  of 
its  Apostolic  name,  it  seems  liable  to  the  reproach  of 
hyper-criticism,  of  exaggerated  suspicion,  of  restless 
doubt,  from  the  attacks  of  which  nothing  is  safe. 
What  has  criticism  to  do  with  this  short,  attractive, 
graceful  and  friendly  letter,  inspired  as  it  is  by  the 
noblest  Christian  feeling,  and  which  has  never  yet 
been  touched  by  the  breath  of  suspicion  ? "  %  This 

*  Farrar  compares  Whitefield's  appeal  to  Skuter,  the 
comedian,  who  was  best  known  in  the  character  of  Ramble. 
"And  thou,  poor  Ramble,  who  hast  so  often  rambled  from 
Him,  oh,  end  thy  ramblings  and  come  to  Jesus." 

f  "As  a  converted  slave  he  has  been  changed  out  of  an 
axprjaroc,  one  from  whom  his  master  derived  no  profit,  but 
rather  the  reverse,  into  an  tvxprjoTOQ  for  both,  for  his  master 
and  the  Apostle.  Here  there  is  a  play,  not  only  on  the  slave's 
name  Onesimus  (serviceable),  but  on  the  Christian  name  itself, 
for  the  heathens  often  said  Xpjjoroc  instead  of 
Baur's  Paul,  ii.  82. 

J  Paulm,  ii.  80. 


ITS  A  UTHENTIGITJ.  151 

critic  regards  it  as  a  romance  intended  to  convey  the 
Christian  idea  that  what  one  loses  in  the  world  one 
recovers  in  Christianity,  and  that  for  ever  \  that  the 
world  and  Christianity  are  related  to  one  another  as 
separation  and  reunion,  as  time  and  eternity  (cf .  ver. 
15).  But  there  is  no  trace  of  such  use  of  the  epistle  in 
early  times.  On  the  contrary  it  was  considered  as  a 
purely  private  and  common-place  letter,  and  the  first 
objections  to  its  authenticity  arose  from  the  absence 
of  any  profound  teaching  in  it.  It  would  be  much 
more  to  the  point  to  say  that  it  was  intended  to 
supply  an  actual  instance  of  Paul's  treatment  of  the 
slave  which  might  justify  the  admission  of  slaves  to 
the  Christian  brotherhood  and  to  office  in  the  Church. 
But  for  such  a  purpose  this  epistle  is  at  once  too 
much  and  too  little  :  too  much,  for  there  was  no 
disposition  to  exclude  slaves,  and  too  little  because 
any  one  who  troubled  himself  to  build  this  little 
romance,  and  who  could  so  successfully  imitate  Paul's 
style,  would  certainly  have  gone  much  further  and  have 
used  the  suggestions  which  occur  in  the  other  epistles.  * 
For  the  bearing  of  this  epistle  and  of  Christianity  on 
slavery,  reference  must  be  made  to  the  Commentaries. f 


FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS. 

Thessalonica,  now   known   under   the  abbreviated 
name  Salonika  or  Salonica,  was  in  ancient  times  known 

*  See  Holtzmann,  262. 

f  And  to  such  works  as  Brace's  Ge&ta  Christi,  and  Boissier's 
Rditjion  liomaine. 


152   FIRST  EPISTLE  TO   THESSALONIANS. 

as  Emathia,  Halia,*  and  finally  Therm®,  a  name,  like 
our  Bath,  Wells,  and  Spa,  common  to  a  number  of 
towns  which  possessed  hot  medicinal  springs.  It  is 
situated  at  the  head  of  the  Thermaic  gulf,f  which 
deeply  indents  the  Macedonian  shore,  and  it  covers 
the  irregular  slope  which  runs,  not  very  steeply,  up 
from  the  water's  edge  to  the  crest  of  the  hill  which 
"  forms  a  semi-circular  barrier  round  the  upper  ex- 
tremity" of  the  gulf.  With  a  rich  district  behind 
and  the  open  sea  in  front,  Thessalonica  rapidly  became 
one  of  the  most  important  Mediterranean  ports.  Its 
position,  being  at  once  suitable  for  commerce  and 
capable  of  defence,  attracted  the  eye  of  Cassander, 
who  in  the  year  315  B.C.  rebuilt  and  enlarged  the 
town,  and  gave  it  the  name  of  his  wife  Thessalonica, 
a  sister  of  Alexander  the  Great.  The  subsequent 
prosperity  of  the  city  justified  the  wisdom  of  its 
founder.  When  the  Romans  divided  Macedonia  into 
a  tetrarchy,  Thessalonica  was  made  the  chief  city  of 
the  second  province  (Macedonia  secunda),  and  ulti- 
mately it  became  the  metropolis  of  the  whole.  At 
the  time  of  Paul's  visit  it  enjoyed  the  rights  of  a  free 
city,J  being  governed  by  seven  politarchs  (cf.  Acts 
xvii.  6,  8),  who,  though  responsible  to  the  Roman  pro- 
consul (Acts  xvii.  7,  8),  were  elected  by  the  citizens 
themselves. 

Into  this  politically  and  commercially  important 
city  the  feet  of  Paul  were  guided  as  he  came  from 
Philippi  by  the  great  Roman  road  (Via  Egnatia) 

*  So  called  from  its  situation  on  the  sea. 

f  Herodotus,  vii.  21. 

|  "  Liberae  conditionis.''— Plin.,  NIL.   v.  17. 


THE   CHURCH  IN  THESSALONICA.    153 


which  connected  the  region  to  the  north  of  the 
sea  with  Rome.  His  letter  affords  evidence  (ii.  9) 
that  he  quickly  found  employment,  and  felt  himself 
at  home  among  the  working  men  and  tradespeople  of 
Thessalonica.  This  coincides  with  the  fact  that  one 
of  the  staple  manufactures  of  the  city  was  and  is  goafs- 
hair  cloth.*  The  sound  that  follows  the  ear  as  one 
walks  through  the  streets  of  Salonika  to-day  is  the 
wheezing  and  straining  vibration  of  the  loom  and 
the  pendulum-like  click  of  the  regular  and  ceaseless 
shuttle.  Another  allusion  in  the  epistle  (i.  8)  re- 
minds us  that  not  only  must  such  a  city  have  had 
especial  attraction  for  Paul,  as  likely  to  give  a  favour- 
able hearing  to  his  message,  but  that  its  commercial 
and  seafaring  population  would  rapidly  diffuse  what- 
ever they  themselves  might  receive.  Every  ship  that 
left  the  harbour,  and  every  wagon  that  returned  in- 
land, carried  some  account  of  the  riot  at  Thessalonica 
and  of  the  extraordinary  man  who  had  been  the 
unwitting  occasion  of  it.  No  doubt  his  determination 
to  visit  this  city  was  also  influenced  by  his  knowledge 
that  it  contained  a  large  resident  Jewish  population.t 
But  among  his  fellow-countrymen  his  words  found 
little  acceptance.  "  Some,"  indeed,  believed  (Acts 
xvii.  4)  ;  but  after  three  Sabbaths  he  was  no  longer 
admitted  to  the  synagogue  ;  and  it  is  obvious,  from 
various  expressions  in  the  epistle,  that  the  young 

*  See  Davies'  St.  Paul  in  Greece. 

f  The  modern  population  approaches  90,000,  and  is  composed 
in  almost  equal  proportions,  of  Jews,  Greeks,  and  Turks.  The 
Jews,  who  own  upwards  of  twenty  synagogues,  use  the  Spanish 
language.  The  Greeks  are  chiefly  sailors  and  fishermen.  The 
Bulgarians  rear  horses  and  cultivate  the  soil. 


154   FIRST  EPISTLE  TO   THESSALONIANS. 

Christian  community  was  mainly,  if  not  almost  exclu- 
sively, composed  of  Gentiles  (1  Thess.  i.  9;  ii.  14; 
and  the  absence  of  allusions  to  Jewish  tenets,  or  to 
the  facts  of  Jewish  history,  or  to  the  O.T.). 

Being  soon  and  suddenly  separated  from  his 
converts  in  Thessalonica,  and  knowing  that  he 
left  them  in  a  hazardous  position  in  which  great 
pressure  would  be  used  to  induce  them  to  recant, 
Paul  was  naturally  anxious  to  revisit  them  (1  Thess. 
ii.  17,  18).  When  he  found  that  this  was  impos- 
sible he  sent  Timothy  (iii.  2)  to  encourage  them ; 
and  when  this  daring  and  faithful  messenger  returned 
and  reported  their  steadfastness,  Paul,  filled  with 
joy  and  gratitude,  could  not  forbear  writing  (iii.  6 — 
10).  The  report  of  Timothy  is  partly  expressed,  partly 
implied.  It  had  not  been  entirely  favourable.  Greek 
vices  had  been  carried  into  the  Christian  Church  (iv. 
3 — 8),  and  Paul's  character  and  motives  had  already 
been  attacked.  Timothy  must,  indeed,  have  smiled 
when  he  reported  to  Paul,  "  Some  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews  are  trying  to  persuade  the  converts  that  you  are 
covetous,  and  find  it  an  easy  kind  of  life  to  stroll  round 
and  see  foreign  parts,  and  get  kept  by  harder  working 
men,  and  receive  the  adulation  of  foolish  women." 
Against  such  insinuations  the  Thessalonian  converts 
must  be  supposed  to  have  been  sufficiently  armed,  for 
they  had  seen  the  Apostle  walking  lame  from  the 
treatment  he  had  received  at  Philippi  while  prose- 
cuting this  easy,  remunerative,  sauntering  life  of  his. 
They  had  looked  with  shame  at  the  unhealed  cuts  on 
his  face  and  head,  at  his  torn,  soiled,  much-mended 
clothes.  Yet  Paul  felt  it  needful,  after  hearing 


OBJECT  OF  THE  LETTER.  155 

Timothy's  report,  to  defend  himself  against  insinua- 
tions which  might  injure  the  Christian  cause  (ii.  3 — 9). 
He  sees  that  if  they  begin  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of 
the  messenger  they  will  go  on  to  doubt  the  truth  of 
the  message. 

The  object  of  this  letter  is,  therefore,  to  remove 
from  the  minds  of  the  Thessalonians  suspicions  which 
may  weaken  their  faith  and  retard,  or  quite  prevent, 
their  progress.  The  writer,  therefore,  begins  by 
assuring  them  that  their  faith  and  the  fruits  which 
have  evinced  its  truth,  have  been  matter  of  constant 
gratitude  to  God  on  his  part  (i.  1 — 3)  ;  and  that  they 
might  be  stimulated  to  still  greater  efforts,  he  reminds 
them  that  their  election  of  God,  and  not  merely  Apo- 
stolic approval,  had  been  proved  by  their  faith  and  its 
consistent  fruit.  They  had,  indeed,  been  made  exem- 
plary to  others  (i.  4 — 10),  so  that  among  them  it  had 
been  manifest  that  his  preaching  was  not  a  mere 
human  device,  but  was  the  instrument  of  God's  power. 
In  the  second  chapter  he  repels  the  calumnies  which 
were  being  circulated  about  his  motives,  and  appeals 
to  what  they  themselves  have  seen  of  his  conduct  and 
character  (ii.  1 — 12);  and  then  cites  their  own  stead- 
fastness under  persecution  as  proof  that  the  Gospel 
they  had  received  from  him  was  the  word  of  God,  and 
*hat,  therefore,  by  implication,  he  was  God's  com- 
missioned servant  (ii.  13—16).  In  ii.  17 — Hi.  13  he 
defends  himself  against  the  accusation  of  cowardice 
and  fickleness,  which  were  supposed  to  be  exhibited 
in  his  sudden  abandonment  of  Thessalonica,  leaving 
his  young  converts  to  fight  their  own  battle.  To  this 
he  replies  that  he  had  striven  to  return,  and  that,  al- 


156   FIRST  EPISTLE  TO   THESSALONIANS. 

though  absent,  his  happiness  depended  on  his  receiving 
good  tidings  of  them ;  and  he  further  reminds  them 
that  he  had  been  content  to  remain  alone  in  an  un- 
friendly city,  that  he  might  send  his  companion  to  aid 
them  and  bring  news  of  them. 

This  defence  of  himself  and  of  the  gospel,  as  sent 
by  God,  forms  the  true  body  of  the  letter,  and  the 
rest  is  supplementary,  as  is  shown  by  the  connecting 
words,  "  Finally,  then  "  (iv.  1).  In  this  supplement 
Paul  admonishes  them  to  hold  fast  the  command- 
ments of  Jesus  and  especially  to  guard  against 
unchastity,  little  as  it  might  be  blamed  by  their 
heathen  friends  (iv.  1 — 8).  Of  brotherly  love  he 
would  not  have  spoken  had  there  not  been  among 
them  some  manifestations  which  might  endanger  their 
love:  he  exhorts  them  therefore  to  increase  in  love 
and  to  study  to  be  quiet  and  earn  their  own  bread 
(iv.  9 — 12).  And  as  it  was  the  expectation  of  the 
Lord's  coming  which  had  led  some  to  give  up  their 
ordinary  employments,  so  the  same  expectation  had 
led  them  to  unwise  questionings  regarding  the  fate 
of  those  who  died  before  that  event,  and  regarding 
the  time  at  which  it  might  be  looked  for.  These 
questionings  Paul  deprecates  and  replies  to  (iv.  13 — 
v.  11).  A  series  of  admonitions  bearing  upon  the 
actual  condition  of  the  Church  is  added,  and  the 
letter  concludes  with  the.  injunction  that  it  be 
publicly  read. 

There  is  in  this  epistle  little  affirmation  of  specially 
Pauline  doctrine.  "  Of  the  inability  of  the  natural 
man  to  work  out  his  own  salvation,  of  the  seat  of 
sin  in  the  flesh,  of  justification  by  grace  or  of  com- 


ITS  CONTENTS.  157 

munity  of  life  with  Christ  mediated  by  His  Spirit, 
of  the  position  of  the  Christian  as  regards  the  law, 
or  of  the  Apostle's  profound  reflections  on  the 
relation  of  Christianity  to  Judaism  and  heathenism, 
we  have  not  a  word "  (Weiss).  From  this  fact  it 
is  commonly  inferred  that  at  the  date  of  this  epistle 
Paul  had  not  as  yet  fully  developed  his  theology. 
That  may  be  so  :  but  the  proof  of  it  can  scarcely 
be  found  in  this  epistle,  in  which  he  was  addressing 
a  Church  whose  difficulties  were  practical  and 
personal  rather  than  doctrinal.  The  constantly 
recurring  theme  in  the  epistle  is  the  coming  of  the 
Lord.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  "  a  constant 
allusion  to  it  is  woven  like  a  golden  thread  through- 
out its  whole  texture,  and  each  section,  whatever  its 
subject,  is  sure  to  reach  its  climax  in  a  reference 
to  it  (i.  10;  ii.  19;  iii.  13;  v.  23)."*  The  reason 
of  this  is  that  Paul  is  writing  to  a  young  Gentile 
Church.  In  preaching  to  Gentiles  the  Apostle  could 
not  readily  prove  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah  or  appeal 
to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  His  appeal  must 
be  to  conscience,  to  the  undying  sense  of  responsi- 
bility in  man,  and  to  his  natural  recognition  of  the 
righteousness  of  judgment.  He  summoned  men  to 
repentance  because  a  day  was  appointed  in  which 
the  world  would  be  judged  by  Christ.  Emphasis 
was  given  to  this  appeal,  and  a  sense  of  near  reality 
imparted  to  the  apprehension  of  judgment,  by  the 
fact  that  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  to  be 
Judge  (Acts  xvii.  30,  31).  The  coming  of  the  Lord 
was  therefore  primarily  a  coming  to  judgment,  when 
*  Professor  Warfield,  Expositor,  July,  1886. 


158    FIRST  EPISTLE  TO   THESSALONIANS. 

"  destruction  from  the  face  of  the  Lord  "  would  light 
upon  His  enemies  (1  Thess.  v.  3 ;  ii.  1 — 9),  while  His 
followers  would  for  ever  dwell  with  Him  (1  Thess. 
iv.  17)  being  "established  in  holiness"  (iii.  13). 

But  some  of  the  large  terms  which  cover  so  much 
in  Paul's  system  of  truth  are  here  familiarly  used 
by  him.  "His  gospel"  (i.  5;  the  "gospel"  or 
"word  of  God,"  ii.  8,  9,  13)  with  which  to  his 
perpetual  joy  and  wonder  he  had  been  entrusted  (ii.  4) 
was  God's  gracious  summons  of  men  to  holiness  (iv.  7) 
and  to  deliverance  from  the  wrath  to  come  (i.  10). 
"  To  serve  the  living  and  true  God  and  to  wait  for 
His  Son  from  heaven  "  (i.  9,  10) — this  is  the  conduct 
and  attitude  of  those  who  "receive  the  word." 
Jesus  is  God's  Son,  the  Lord  raised  from  the  dead, 
Who  is  suddenly  (v.  3)  to  appear  from  heaven  with 
His  saints  (iv.  16 ;  iii.  13). 

And  in  no  epistle  is  the  character  of  Paul  more 
frankly  disclosed.  His  affectionate  and  ardent  dis- 
position, his  devotedness  to  the  welfare  of  his  fellow- 
men,  his  generous  recognition  of  the  beginnings  of 
good  in  his  converts,  his  solicitude  for  their  progress, 
his  purity  of  motive  and  untiring  energy  are  clearly 
reflected  in  this  letter.  He  felt  for  his  converts  all 
the  love  and  responsibility  of  a  parent.  It  was 
with  pain  he  absented  himself  from  thgm,  with 
difficulty  he  was  prevented  from  revisiting  them, 
with  delight  that  he  looked  forward  to  the  time  when 
this  should  be  possible.  A  great  nature  absorbed 
in  great  aims  shines  through  every  page  of  the 
letter. 

It  will  therefore  be  apparent  that  this  epistle  carries 


AUTHENTICITY.  159 

in  itself  the  proof  of  its  genuineness.  Baur  indeed  had 
boldness  enough  to  deny  its  authenticity,  but  in  this 
denial  he  has  not  been  followed  by  his  usual  adherents 
but  only  by  Noack,  Van  der  Yies,  Yolkmar,  and  Hol- 
sten.  His  chief  ground  for  rejecting  it,  he  thus  states : 
"  The  insignificance  of  its  contents,  the  want  of  any 
special  aim  and  of  any  intelligible  occasion  or  purpose 
is  itself  a  criterion  adverse  to  a  Pauline  origin."  *  We 
have,  however,  seen  that  adequate  occasion,  aim,  and 
purpose  do  appear;  while  the  demand  that  every 
apostolic  letter  should  contain  matters  of  primary 
importance  reveals  a  wholly  artificial  conception  of 
apostolic  life.  An  Apostle  might  surely  write  a  letter 
of  friendship  as  well  as  an  ordinary  man.  Besides, 
as  Jowett  observes,  "  if  it  were  admitted  that  the 
absence  of  doctrinal  ideas  makes  the  epistle  un- 
worthy of  St.  Paul,  it  makes  it  also  a  forgery 
without  an  object." 

Another  of  Baur's  difficulties  is  that  "  the  chief  part 
of  the  epistle  is  nothing  but  a  lengthy  version  of  the 
history  of  the  conversion  of  the  Thessalonians  as  we 
know  it  from  the  Acts."  But  as  Baur  himself  grounds 
another  objection  on  the  difficulty  of  harmonizing  these 
two  documents,  and  as  the  full  and  feeling  narrative 
of  Paul  is  quite  different  in  character  from  the  brief 
sketch  in  the  Acts,  this  objection  may  be  cancelled. 
Again,  he  thinks  it  too  much  a  mere  echo  of  the 
Corinthian  epistles.  If  an  epistle  is  unlike  the 
Pauline  epistles  Baur  rejects  it ;  if  it  is  too  like  them 
he  also  rejects  it.  Jowett  gives  us  a  principle  of 
criticism :  "  There  is  one  kind  of  resemblance  between 
*  Paul iis,  ii.  85  (Eng.  Trans.). 


160   FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THESSALONIANS. 

two  passages  which  indicates  that  one  of  them  is 
an  imitation  or  transcript  of  the  other;  while 
another  kind  only  proves  them  to  have  been  the 
production  of  the  same  mind.*  There  is  nothing 
to  excite  suspicion  in  the  recurrence  of  similar 
expressions,  where  similar  thoughts  and  feelings 
demand  expression ;  and  there  is  nothing  to  excite 
suspicion  in  the  recurrence  of  similar  thoughts  and 
feelings,  when  the  same  circumstances  are  reproduced." 
It  is  important  also  to  note  the  remark  of  Jowett 
that  the  ancient  forgers  stole  not  words  but 
passages. 

Over  and  above  the  unmistakable  marks  which 
have  been  left  on  this  epistle  by  Paul's  character, 
some  of  his  favourite  expressions  may  be  cited  in 
evidence  of  authenticity.  Thus  we  have  "  joy  or 
crown"  (ii.  19,  cf.  Phil.  iv.  1);  the  playing  upon  words 
(ii.  4) ;  involved  sentences  growing  as  they  go  (iii.  6). 
The  "  even  I  Paul "  (ii.  18)  with  which  the  writer 
modifies  the  previous  expression,  "  we  would  have 
come  unto  you,"  when  he  remembers  that  one  of 
those  named  with  him  in  the  inscription  of  the  epistle 
had  actually  revisited  Thessalonica,  is  an  inimitable 
mark  of  truth.  Again,  it  seems  flagrantly  un- 
critical to  refer  to  a  forger  of  later  date  an  epistle 
in  which  Paul  is  represented  as  speaking  as  if  he 
might  possibly  survive  till  the  coming  of  Christ.t 

*  Jowett's  Ep.  of  Paul,  i.  24. 

t  Jowett's  establishment  of  the  authenticity  of  this  epistle 
is  a  masterpiece,  and  the  study  of  it  an  education  in  criticism. 
Sabatier  (ISApfare  Paul,  94,  note)  should  be  consulted,  He 
draws  attention  to  one  of  those  inconsistencies  which  betray 


DATE.  161 

Externally  the  epistle  is  amply  authenticated.  It 
is  contained  in  Marcion's  list,  in  the  Muratorian 
Canon,  in  the  Syriac  and  Old  Latin  versions,  while 
reminiscences  of  it,  if  not  quotations,  are  found  in 
Clement,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp. 

The  date  of  the  epistle  is  readily  ascertained  from 
the  narrative  given  in  Acts  xvii.  and  xviii.  From 
this  narrative  we  learn  that  after  leaving  Thessalonica 
with  Silas  and  Timothy,  Paul  proceeded  to  Berea 
and  went  thence  to  Athens.  Whether  Timothy 
was  sent  back  to  Thessalonica  from  Berea  or 
from  some  other  point,  does  not  appear,  but  that  he 
was  sent  back  to  encourage  the  disciples  is  stated  in 
1  Thess.  ii.  17,  18.  Meanwhile  the  Apostle  went  on 
to  Corinth,  and  there  he  was  overtaken  by  Silas  and 
Timothy  coming  from  Macedonia  (Acts  xviii.  5).  It 
was  this  arrival  of  Timothy  and  the  tidings  he  brought 
which  prompted  Paul  to  write  to  the  Thessalonian 
Church  (1  Thess.  iii.  6).  The  epistle  must  therefore 
have  been  written  two  or  three  months  after  the 
Apostle's  visit,  and  most  probably  in  the  early  part  of 
53  A.D.  Between  his  visit  and  his  letter  time  must 
be  allowed  for  the  occurrence  of  the  events  which  are 
alluded  to  in  the  letter — the  death  of  some  at  least  of 

the  hollowness  and  crudeness  of  much  of  Baur's  criticism. 
In  the  body  of  his  Paul,  Baur  argues  that  the  author  of 
these  epistles  drew  slavishly  upon  the  Acts,  which,  according 
to  Baur,  was  not  written  before  120  A.D.  ;  but  in  his  disserta- 
tion on  these  epistles  (printed  at  the  end  of  the  second 
volume  of  the  English  translation)  he  adopts  Kern's  idea  that 
the  Antichrist  of  2  Thess.  ii.  is  Nero,  and  that  therefore  the 
one  epistle  was  written  slightly  before,  the  other  slightly 
after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 

11 


162  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THESSALONIANS 

the  Thessalonian  Christians  (iv.  13),  and  the  fame 
which  their  faith  had  attained,  not  only  in  their  own 
neighbourhood,  but  in  more  remote  localities  (i.  8). 
But  for  these  events  two  or  three  months  are  sufficient. 
This  is  therefore  the  earliest  extant  epistle  of  Paul. 


SECOND    EPISTLE    TO    THE 
THESSALONIANS. 

The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  was  evoked 
by  a  misapplication,  if  not  a  misunderstanding,  of 
some  expressions  used  in  the  first ;  and  it  was  probably 
written  a  few  months  after  it,  and  certainly  while 
Paul,  Silas,  and  Timothy  were  still  together  at  Corinth. 
These  brethren  are  included  with  Paul  in  the 
inscription  of  the  letter.  It  has  also  been  remarked 
that  the  allusion  in  iii.  1,  2  to  opposition  experienced 
by  the  Apostle  agrees  well  with  the  state  of  matters 
in  Corinth  which  led  to  the  appeal  to  Gallio.  Grotius 
indeed  maintained  that  this  so-called  Second  Epistle 
was  really  the  First,  and  in  this  idea  he  has  been 
followed  by  Baur,  Renan,*  Ewald,  and  Davidson. 
But  there  is  less  plausibility  in  the  supposition  than 
these  names  might  incline  us  to  believe.  The  second 

*  Kenan's  words  may  be  cited  as  a  specimen  of  reckless 
criticism :  "  La  IP3  paralt  avoir  £t6  6crite  la  premiere.  La 
regie  suivie  dans  la  classification  des  lettres  de  Paul  portant 
la  meme  adresse  a  toujours  6te  de  donner  la  premiere  place  a 
la  plus  longue."  The  "  toujours  "  being  founded  on  the  one 
instance  of  the  Epistle  to  Corinthians  (as  Eenan  rejects  those 
to  Timothy),  which  certainly  stand  in  their  proper  chrono- 
logical order,  is  a  fine  touch. 


ITS  OBJECT.  163 

epistle  not  only  presupposes,  but  expressly  refers  to 
the  first  (ii.  15).  In  the  first  the  allusions  to  the 
recent  visit  of  the  Apostle  are,  as  was  natural,  abun- 
dant and  vivid  :  in  the  second  such  allusions  are  rare. 
In  the  first  the  Parousia  is  spoken  of  as  imminent : 
in  the  second  it  is  guardedly  and  more  definitely 
explained.  The  hostility  of  the  Jews,  which  at  the 
date  of  the  earlier  epistle  had  begun  to  make  itself 
felt,  has  at  the  date  of  the  second  become  formidable. 
In  the  face  of  these  traces  of  date  it  is  impossible  to 
invert  the  order  of  the  epistles. 

The  object  of  this  epistle  then  was  to  remove  some 
misunderstandings  of  what  Paul  had  said  in  the  first 
epistle  regarding  the  coming  of  the  Lord.  The 
Thessalonians  had  conceived  the  idea  that  the  day  of 
Christ  was  at  hand  (ii.  2),  and  in  consequence  they 
had  been  in  some  cases  led  into  idle  waiting  and  dis- 
orderly conduct,  while  as  the  months  went  by  without 
fulfilling  their  expectations,  they  became  perplexed. 
Paul  therefore  assures  them  that  their  continued 
exposure  to  persecution  is  only  a  more  certain  evidence 
that  Christ  will  one  day  come  for  the  discomfiture  of 
their  enemies  and  their  own  deliverance  (i.  4 — 12). 
Moreover,  they  are  not  to  be  disturbed  by  the  non- 
intervention of  the  Lord's  judgment,  as  if  this-  had 
been  definitely  announced  as  immediately  to  take 
place.  Much,  Paul  tells  them,  must  first  take  place. 
Lawlessness  must  come  to  a  head  before  Christ  appears 
to  destroy  it  (ii.  1 — 12).  They  themselves,  chosen  as 
they  are  to  salvation,  must  hold  fast  what  he  had 
taught  them  (ii.  13 — 17).  They  must  also  pray  for 
him  and  for  the  success  of  the  gospel,  and  deal  ranr- 


164  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THESSALONIANS. 

gently  with  all  who  walked  disorderly,  being  excited 
and  earned  away  by  foolish  expectations  of  the  imme- 
diacy of  the  Parousia. 

The  authenticity  of  this  epistle  has  been  seriously 
questioned.  Weiss  says  that  "  in  the  modern  critical 
school  the  rejection  of  the  second  epistle  has  become 
almost  as  universal  as  the  recognition  of  the  first." 
Externally  it  has  the  same  attestation  as  the  first. 
But  J.  E.  0.  Schmidt  first  (in  1801)  questioned  the 
genuineness  of  ii.  1 — 12 ;  and  subsequently  of  the 
whole  epistle.  In  this  he  has  been  followed  by  Baur, 
Pfleiderer,  Hilgenfeld,  and  others.  P.  W.  Schmidt 
(Protest.  Bibel)  thinks  it  possible  that  "  our  epistle 
is  only  the  later  form  of  a  Pauline  epistle  which,  in 
its  original  form,  is  lost  to  us."  Davidson  *  thinks 
that  "the  purely  Pauline  basis  has  been  wrought 
over,  changed,  and  extended." 

This  uncertainty  has  a  twofold  source.  It  is  thought 
that  the  view  taken  of  the  Parousia  in  the  one  epistle 
differs  from  that  which  is  taken  in  the  other.  The 
first  epistle  speaks  of  it  as  imminent ;  the  second  as 
not  immediate.  But  on  more  careful  examination  of 
the  first  epistle  it  is  found  to  be  rather  the  suddenness 
than  the  immediacy  of  the  Parousia  that  is  urged, 
and  in  fact  the  writer  declines  to  say  anything  of 
"times  and  seasons."  The  other  ground  on  which 
this  epistle  is  rejected  is  the  apocalyptic  language  of 
the  second  chapter.  It  is  affirmed  that  the  eschato- 
logy  of  this  chapter  is  not  the  eschatology  of  Paul, 
but  is  borrowed  from  the  Book  of  Revelation  (cf. 
Rev.  xiii.  2,  14;  xix.  20).  The  man  of  sin  is  sup- 
*  Introduction,  i.  347. 


ITS  AUTHENTICITY.  165 

posed  to  be  Nero*  who  was  popularly  supposed  to 
be  not  dead  but  in  hiding  in  the  East,  from  which 
he  was  one  day  to  return.  The  "  withholder "  is 
consequently  Vespasian.  And  according  to  this  in- 
terpretation the  epistle  must  have  been  written  by  a 
disciple  of  Paul's  in  the  year  68  or  70.  Hilgenfeld  f 
calls  the  passage  "a  little  apocalypse  of  the  closing 
years  of  Trajan ; "  the  mystery  of  iniquity  being  the 
advancing  Gnosticism  of  that  age. 

But  the  actual  circumstances  in  which  Paul  was 
placed,  as  described  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  give  us  the 
key  to  the  true  interpretation  of  the  passage.  The 
Jews  were  the  chief  danger  of  the  infant  Church.  It 
was  by  the  Jews  the  Apostle  himself  had  everywhere 
been  opposed  and  maltreated ;  and  it  was  by  them 
also  the  Thessalonians  were  now  being  persecuted. 
But  again  and  again  in  Paul's  experience  the  Jewish 
hostility  was  thwarted  by  the  Roman  magistracy,  and 
wherever  he  went  it  became  more  evident  that  but  for 
the  protection  accorded  to  him  and  his  converts  by  the 
imperial  justice  and  authority,  the  Christian  Church 
would  be  crushed.  This  Jewish  anti-Christian  fanati- 
cism Paul  saw  to  be  increasing.  His  own  early  life 
taught  him  its  unscrupulous  bitterness  and  cruelty, 
and  he  seems  to  have  anticipated  that  it  would  cul- 
minate in  a  personal  Antichrist  or  false  Messiah,  who 
should  be  defeated  by  the  re-appearance  of  Christ 
Himself.  These  expectations  and  the  phraseology  in 
which  they  were  clothed  by  Paul  find  their  source  in 
the  eschatological  discourses  of  Christ  Himself  and  in 

*  So  Kern  followed  by  Baur. 
f  Einleitung,  p.  264. 


166   SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THESSALONIANS. 

the  Book  of  Daniel.  Such  ideas  do  seem  incongruous 
in  the  writings  of  Paul,  and  yet  compelled  as  he  was  in 
this  instance  to  allude  to  the  future  of  Christianity 
and  Judaism,  there  is  nothing  either  in  his  expectations 
or  in  his  wording  of  them  to  create  surprise.  As  to 
the  fulfilment  of  the  prediction  he  utters,  it  is  safest 
to  say  with  Weiss :  "  Only  in  case  the  definitive 
apostasy  of  unbelieving  Judaism  culminated  in  the 
pseudo-rnessiah  who,  equipped  with  Satanic  powers, 
should  overthrow  the  bulwark  of  the  Roman  admini- 
stration in  the  last  Jewish  revolution  was  the  way 
opened  up  for  anti-Christianity,  to  the  complete 
destruction  of  Christianity ;  if  the  return  of  the  true 
Messiah  did  not  at  this  juncture  at  once  put  an  end 
to  His  caricature."  * 

Wai-field's  exposition  f  of  the  passage  is  ingenious 
and  plausible,  but  scarcely  in  keeping  with  Paul's 
experience.  He  precisely  reverses  the  interpretation 
given  above,  and  finds  in  the  imperial  line  of  Rome 
all  the  characteristics  of  the  man  of  sin.  The  "  with- 
holder  "  is  therefore  the  Jewish  state  which,  so  long 
as  it  existed,  formed  a  protecting  sheath  in  which  the 
Church  was  sheltered  till  it  acquired  strength. 

All  criticisms  of  this  epistle  should  be  studied  in  the 
light  of  Dr.  Salmon's  wise  and  cautious  words :  "  It  is 
undeniable  that  long  before  the  year  70,  eschatological 
speculation  was  a  subject  of  Christian  thought.  We 
have  not  the  materials  to  write  its  history,  and  I 
marvel  at  the  assurance  of  the  man  who  pretends  that 
he  so  knows  all  about  the  progress  of  Christian  ideas 
on  the  subject  in  the  fifteen  years  between  54  and  69, 
*  Eialeitutoj,  178.  f  Expositor,  July,  1886. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  167 

that  while  he  feels  it  to  be  quite  credible  that  such  a 
forecast  of  the  end  of  the  dispensation  as  is  contained 
in  2  Thess.  ii.  might  have  been  written  at  the  latter 
of  these  two  dates,  he  is  quite  sure  it  could  not  have 
been  written  at  the  former."  * 


PASTOKAL  EPISTLES. 

The  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus  are  entitled 
"  The  Pastoral  Epistles  "  because  they  were  addressed 
to  these  friends  of  Paul  in  their  capacity  of  pastors, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  \guiding  them  in  the  discharge 
of  their  pastoral  functions.  But  while  this  title  suffi- 
ciently indicates  their  common  and  general  charac- 
teristic, it  should  not  be  allowed  to  obscure  the  fact 
that  there  is,  in  all  the  three  letters,  and  especially 
in  2  Timothy,  much  that  is  personal  and  private. 

They  have  as  abundant  external  attestation  as 
could  be  expected.  In  Clement's  Epistle  (vii.  3 ; 
xxix.  1)  there  are  echoes  of  1  Tim.  v.  41  and  ii.  8. 
In  Polycarp's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  besides  echoes, 
there  is  a  distinct  reference  to  1  Tim.  vi.  10,  7  in 
c.  4,  "  The  love  of  money  is  the  beginning  of  all  evil. 
Knowing  therefore  that  we  brought  nothing  into  the 
world,  and  are  unable  to  carry  anything  out  .  .  .  .  " 
After  the  middle  of  the  second  century  the  epistles 
are  recognised  as  Paul's  and  quoted  freely.  Marcion, 
indeed,  rejected  them,  and  Tatian  is  supposed  to  have 
rejected  those  to  Timothy.  But,  as  Jerome  states  in 
the  preface  to  his  Commentary  on  Titus,  these  heretics 
rejected  the  epistles,  not  on  critical  grounds,  but 
*  Introduction,  p.  459. 


168  PASTORAL   EPISTLES. 

merely  because  they  disliked  their  teaching.  He  says 
they  used  no  argument,  but  merely  asserted,  This  is 
Paul's,  This  is  not  Paul's.  It  is  obvious  that  men 
holding  such  opinions  as  Marcion  and  Tatian  held 
would  not  willingly  ascribe  authority  to  epistles  which 
condemned  asceticism. 

So  far,  then,  as  the  early  Church  can  guarantee  to 
us  the  authenticity  of  writings  ascribed  to  Paul,  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  are  guaranteed.  But  since  the 
beginning  of  this  century,  when  J.  E.  0.  Schmidt 
(Einleitung,  1804)  cast  doubts  on  the  first  epistle,  they 
have  all  been  seriously  called  in  question.  Schleier- 
macher,  in  his  letter  to  Gass  (1807),  argued  that 
1  Timothy  is  an  imitation  of  2  Timothy  and  Titus, 
and  decidedly  rejected  it.  Eichhorn  proceeded  to 
show  that  the  difficulties  attaching  to  the  first  Pastoral 
equally  attached  to  all  the  three,  and  that  they  must 
stand  or  fall  together — a  conclusion  which  has  gene- 
rally been  accepted  by  all  schools  of  criticism.*  Fol- 
lowing such  pioneers,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  Baur 
should  decidedly  reject  all  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  He 
concluded  that  they  were  written  about  the  year  150 
for  the  purpose  of  combating  Gnosticism  and  of 
defending  the  Church  against  its  assaults  by  a  more 
definite  ecclesiastical  organisation.f  And  although 
some  of  his  statements  and  positions  have  been  modi- 
fied by  his  followers,  they  have,  as  a  school,  accepted 
it  as  a  final  decision  of  criticism  that  these  epistles 

*  Holtzmann  (Die  Pastoral-Brief c,  p.  7)  calls  the  three 
letters  "  unzertrennlichere  Drillinge,"  as  Ephesians  and 
Colossians  are  inseparable  twins.  Holtzmann's  book  is  the 
fullest  on  the  subject. 

\  Baur.  Die  sogenannten  Pastoralbriefe,  1835. 


THEIR  AUTHENTICITY.  169 

are  not  from  the  hand  or  time  of  Paul.  But  in  face 
of  the  proofs  adduced  to  show  that  the  errors  and 
ecclesiastical  organisation  implied  in  the  epistles  can- 
not be  matched  by  anything  in  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  few  critics  of  repute,  save  Hilgenfeld, 
are  courageous  enough  to  place  the  epistles  so  late  as 
Baur  did.  Hausrath  would  find  a  place  for  them  in 
the  time  of  Hadrian,  and  Pfleiderer  is  much  of  the 
same  mind.  These  two  critics  also  admit  that  in 
2  Timothy  there  are  undoubted  Pauline  fragments.* 
Some  of  the  difficulties  which  have  prevented  the 
acceptance  of  these  epistles  have  been  exaggerated, 
and  may  at  once  be  removed.  It  has,  for  example, 
been  pointed  out  that  Paul's  name  appears  alone  in 
the  address  of  these  letters,  whereas  in  the  genuine 
Pauline  letters  he  unites  with  himself  Timothy  (six 
times),  or  Silvanus  (twice),  or  Sosthenes  (once).  But 
both  in  Romans  and  Ephesians  the  name  of  Paul 
stands  alone,  and  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  there  is  a 
personal  element  which  quite  accounts  for  Paul's 
departure  from  the  usual  custom,  as  well  as  for  the 
absence  of  greetings  to  friends  in  Ephesus.  At  the 
same  time  the  letters  were  in  their  ultimate  destination 
public.  The  strong  affirmation  of  his  apostleship  ( 1 
Tim.  ii.  7)  would  seem  out  of  place  in  a  letter  written 
by  Paul  to  Timothy  as  friend  to  friend ;  but  the  writer 

*  Pfleiderer  (Protest.  JBibel)  accepts  as  genuine  Pauline 
fragments  2  Tim.  i.  15 — 18  and  iv.  9—21.  See  also  Hausrath. 
Renan  says  :  "  Some  passages  of  these  three  epistles  are  so 
beautiful  that  we  naturally  ask  whether  the  forger  had  not  in 
his  hand  some  authentic  notes  (billets)  of  Paul,  which  he  has 
incorporated  in  his  apocryphal  composition." — ISEgliise  Chretl- 
enne.  p.  95. 


170  PASTORAL  EPISTLES. 

could  not  keep  out  of  view  the  persons  in  whose  society 
Timothy  was  living.  It  is  also  surprising  that  Paul 
should  write  instructions  to  one  whom  he  had  recently 
parted  from,  and  should  advise  him  regarding  circum- 
stances which  had  arisen  before  the  parting  took  place 
(1  Tim.  i.  3).  This  difficulty  has  appeared  to  some  to  be 
increased  by  the  fact  that  Paul  expected  soon  to  return 
to  Ephesus  (1  Tim,  iii.  14).  But  after  Paul's  depar- 
ture Timothy  may  have  more  urgently  felt  his  need 
of  written  instructions,  and  may  have  wished  advice 
in  writing  that  he  might  refer  to  it  from  time  to 
time,  and,  if  need  were,  even  refer  others  to  it.  Or, 
without  any  application  from  Timothy  for  such  in- 
structions, Paul  may  have  had  reason  to  know  that 
he  would  be  none  the  worse  of  receiving  them.  And 
that  Paul  could  not  count  on  speedily  rejoining 
Timothy  is  apparent  from  1  Tim.  iii.  15. 

The  important  difficulties  are  these  three :  1st,  the 
difficulty  of  finding  any  place  for  these  letters  in  the 
known  life  of  Paul;  2nd,  the  fact  that  they  seem 
to  imply  an  ecclesiastical  organisation  and  a  doctrinal 
development,  both  orthodox  and  heretical,  considerably 
in  advance  of  the  Pauline  age;  and  3rd,  that  the 
language  of  the  epistles  is  in  a  great  measure  different 
from  that  of  the  accepted  epistles. 

1.  Where  can  we  find  a  place  for  these  letters  in 
the  life  of  Paul  ?  The  data  for  positing  1  Timothy 
are  that  Paul  had  gone  from  Ephesus  into  Macedonia, 
leaving  Timothy  in  Ephesus  (i.  3).*  These  conditions 
are  not  satisfied :  (a)  on  Paul's  first  visit  to  Ephesus 

*  Otto's  attempt  to  make  out  that  it  was  not  Paul  but 
Timothy  who  had  gone  into  Macedonia,  is  futile. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  DATE.  171 

(Acts  xviii.  19—21),  for  then  he  went,  not  to  Mace- 
donia, but  to  Syria.  (/3)  The  second  visit  was  prolonged, 
and  there  is  evidence  that,  during  his  stay  in  Ephesus, 
Paul  made  excursions  into  other  parts ;  but  the  epistle 
implies  a  longer  previous  existence  of  the  Ephesian 
Church  than  this  early  date  would  admit  of.  (y)  On 
the  occasion  of  the  riot  which  terminated  Paul's  long 
stay  in  Ephesus,  he  did  leave  that  city  to  go  into 
Macedonia;  but  he  did  not  leave  Timothy  behind 
him,  for  already  he  had  "  sent  into  Macedonia  Timo- 
theus  and  Erastus  "  (Acts  xix.  22),  and,  as  we  find 
Timothy  again  in  Paul's  company  on  his  return  from 
Greece  (Acts  xx.  4),  there  is  no  room,  in  the  intervening 
months  for  any  such  stay  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus  as 
is  implied  in  the  epistle.  Besides,  when  Paul  was  in 
Macedonia  after  being  compelled  to  flee  from  Ephesus, 
Timothy  was  with  him  (2  Cor.  i.  1),  and  therefore 
could  not  have  been  "  left "  in  Ephesus  by  Paul.  It 
is  also  apparent,  from  the  predictive  language  of  Acts 
xx.  29,  30,  that  heretical  teachers  had  not  yet  plainly 
appeared  in  the  Church  of  Ephesus.  We  must,  there- 
fore, place  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  which  imply  the 
presence  and  influence  of  such  teachers,  after  Paul's 
arrest  at  Jerusalem  and  subsequent  imprisonment. 

The  data  of  the  historical  position  of  2  Timothy  are : 
(1)  that  Paul  had  recently  been  at  Troas,  Corinth, 
and  Miletus  (iv.  13,  20);  (2)  that  he  was  now  in 
Rome  (i.  17);  (3)  that  he  had  been  tried  (iv.  16); 
(4)  that  he  was  still  a  prisoner  (i.  8,  16;  ii.  9);  (5) 
that  he  believed  himself  near  the  end  of  his  life 
(iv.  6) ;  and  (6)  that  he  hoped  shortly  to  see 
Timothy  (iv.  9,  21).  Some  of  these  data  agree  very 


172  PASTORAL  EPISTLES. 

well  with  the  first  imprisonment;  but  others  seem 
irreconcilable  with  the  idea  that  the  letter  dates  from 
that  period.  Before  coming  to  Rome  the  first  time 
Paul  had  been  two  years  in  Csesarea,  and  could  not 
have  spoken  of  having  recently  been  at  Troas. 

The  data  given  us  in  the  letter  to  Titus  are:  (1) 
that  Paul  had  been  with  Titus  in  Crete,  and  had  left 
him  there  (i.  5) ;  and  (2)  that  he  meant  to  winter  in 
Nicopolis  (iii.  12).  All  attempts  to  find  a  place  for 
these  data  in  the  recorded  life  of  Paul  have  been  in 
vain. 

It  appears  then  that  in  the  life  of  Paul,  so  far  as 
recorded  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  there  is  no  room  for  the 
Pastoral  Epistles.  But  in  the  Prison  Epistles  we 
have  found  anticipations  of  acquittal  and  departure 
from  Rome,  which,  to  say  the  least,  make  it  doubtful 
whether  Paul's  life  ended  in  the  year  64.  And  it  is 
remarkable  that  in  anticipating  deliverance  he  ex 
presses  also  intentions  regarding  his  future  move- 
ments which  perfectly  correspond  with  the  actual 
route  implied  in  1  Tim.  i.  3.  In  writing  to  Philemon 
he  requested  that  a  lodging  might  be  prepared  for 
him,  intimating  thereby  that  he  meant  to  make 
Colossae  his  first  destination.  But  in  writing  to  the 
Philippians  at  nearly  the  same  time  he  had  expressed 
the  further  intention  of  visiting  Macedonia  (Phil, 
ii.  24),  which  he  would  naturally  fulfil  by  passing 
through  Ephesus  on  his  way  from  Colossse.  As  there 
is,  then,  no  historical  evidence  that  Paul  did  not 
survive  the  year  64,  and  as  these  Pastoral  Epistles 
were  recognised  as  Pauline  in  the  immediately  suc- 
ceeding age,  we  may  legitimately  accept  them  as 


PAUL'S  SECOND  IMPRISONMENT.     173 

evidence*  that  Paul  did  survive  the  year  64 — that 
he  was  acquitted,  resumed  his  missionary  labours, 
was  again  arrested  and  brought  to  Rome,  and  from 
this  second  imprisonment  in  the  city  wrote  the  Second 
Epistle  to  Timothy — his  last  extant  writing. 

These  epistles  do  not  stand  alone  as  evidence  of 
the  acquittal  and  second  imprisonment  of  Paul.  In 
the  Muratorian  fragment  (circa  170  A.D.)  the  journey 
of  Paul  to  Spain  is  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  a  well- 
known  fact.f  Clement  of  Rome  had  long  before 
used  language  (Ep.  c.  v.)  which  is  indeed  variously 
understood,  but  which  it  is  not  unreasonable  to 
suppose  alludes  to  the  same  journey.  "Paul  .  .  . 
having  become  a  herald  both  in  the  east  and  in  the 
west,  received  the  noble  renown  of  his  faith,  having 
taught  righteousness  to  the  whole  world,  and  having 
come  to  the  boundary  of  the  west,+  and  having 
witnessed  before  the  rulers,  he  thus  departed  from 
the  world."  Critics  who  deny  Paul's  acquittal  under- 
stand the  "  boundary  of  the  west "  to  mean  Rome. 
Considering  that  Clement  was  himself  in  Rome,  with 
half  the  Roman  empire  lying  to  the  west  of  him,  it 
seems  extremely  improbable  that  he  should  have 
spoken  of  that  city  as  "  the  boundary  of  the  west," 
especially  as  he  must  have  known  that  Paul  had 
intended  to  go  much  farther  west  than  Rome.  The 

*  See  this  ably  argued  by  Salmon,  Introd.,  p.  497 — 500. 

f  The  words  are  "  Lucas  optime  Theophilo  comprendit,  quia 
sub  praesentia  ejus  singula  gerebantur,  sicuti  et  semote 
passionem  Petri  evidenter  declarat,  sed  et  profectionem  Pauli 
ab  urbe  ad  Spaniam  proficiscentis."  On  the  meaning  of  the 
whole  sentence,  see  Westcott,  Canon,  479. 


174  PASTORAL  EPISTLES. 

best  modern  editors  of  Clement's  Epistle  (Lightfoot 
and  Gebhardt  and  Harnack)  are  agreed  that  the 
expression  means  Spain.*  Moved  by  these  evidences 
Renan,  though  he  rejects  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
believes  in  the  acquittal  of  Paul,  and  in  his  resumption 
of  missionary  labours.  And  while  the  language  of 
Clement  is  not  without  ambiguity,  the  balance  of 
probability  does  seem  to  incline  that  way.  We  con- 
clude, therefore,  that  there  is  room  for  these  epistles 
in  the  life  of  Paul,  though  not  in  that  portion  of  his 
life  which  is  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Acts. 

2.  The  second  difficulty  in  the  way  of  accepting 
these  epistles  is  found  in  the  traces  which  they 
betray  of  an  ecclesiastical  organization  and  theological 
development  which  belong  to  an  age  later  than  the 
Pauline.  Baur  finds  in  the  m/Tt0eWs  of  1  Tim.  vi.  20 
an  allusion  to  Marcion's  work  of  that  name,  and  in 
the  fia^cu  vofUKai  of  Titus  iii.  9  further  allusions  to 
Marcion's  tenets.  Others  have  found  allusions  to 
Valentinian  or  Ophite  ideas ;  but  Holtzmann  has 
shown  that  no  definite  sect  of  Gnostics  is  aimed 
at,  but  rather  that  an  incipient  Gnosticism  not  yet 
formulated  is  in  view. 

The  condition  described  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  is 
rather  that  of  a  soil  prepared  for  Gnosticism,  than 
that  of  an  already  developed  heresy.  As  Weiss  says, 
"  It  was  not  a  question  of  actual  error  that  denied  or 

*  "  Bishop  Pearson  (Minor  Thcol.  Works,  i.  362)  quotes  in 
illustration  a  passage  from  Philostratus  (v.  4)  in  which  Gades 
is  said  to  lie  KCLTOL  TO  TIJG  EvpwTrtjQ  rlp^a."  Wace,  in  Speaker's 
Commentary  ;  his  introduction  to  the  Pastoral  Epistles  is  an 
admirable  summary. 


INCIPIENT  GNOSTICISM  IMPLIED.  175 

combated  the  truth  of  salvation,  a  fact  that  has 
constantly  been  ignored  or  directly  contradicted ;  but 
of  teaching  strange  things  that  had  nothing  to  do 
with  saving  truth  (1  Tim.  i.  3 ;  vi.  3),  of  foolish  and 
presumptuous  enquiry  (2  Tim.  ii.  23;  Tit.  iii.  9) 
respecting  things  of  which  nothing  is  or  can  actually 
be  known  (1  Tim.  i.  7 ;  vi.  4);  which,  moreover,  are 
altogether  unprofitable  and  empty  of  truth  (Tit.  iii.  9), 
so  that  they  lead  only  to  vain  talk  (//.aratoAoyui, 
1  Tim.  i.  6,  cf.  Tit.  i.  10),  to  profane  babbling,  desti- 
tute of  all  true  religious  value  (j3c(3r)\cu  KciHxjxaviai,  1  Tim. 
vi.  20 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  16).  Those  who  occupy  themselves 
with  such  things  think  by  this  means  to  attain  to 
and  participate  in  knowledge  of  an  exceptionally  high 
character  (1  Tim.  vi.  20,  i^euSaWfios  yvoms)." 

So  also  Godet  says:*  -'The  danger  here  is  of  substi- 
tuting intellectualism  in  religion  for  piety  of  heart  and 
life.  Had  the  writer  been  a  Christian  of  the  second 
century  trying,  under  the  name  of  Paul,  to  stigmatise 
the  Gnostic  systems,  he  would  certainly  have  used  much 
stronger  expressions  to  describe  their  character  and 
influence."  Of  that  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The 
writer  enters  into  no  direct  polemic  with  the  heretical 
teachers,  but  merely  in  a  passing  and  incidental 
manner  warns  Timothy  against  them.  The  ^evSww/ios 
yvwo-ts  and  the  "endless  genealogies"  do,  however, 
identify  these  teachers  with  incipient  Gnosticism,! 
while  the  use  they  made  of  "  the  Law  "  and  "  Jewish 
fables,"  as  well  as  their  comparison  to  Jannes  and 
Jambres,  identify  them  as  Jews.  In  fact,  the  class  of 

*  Expositor,  Jan.  1888. 

f  See  Mansel,  Gnostic  Heresies,  p.  56. 


176  PASTORAL  EPISTLES. 

persons  alluded  to  in  these  epistles  is  not  essentially 
different  from  the  teachers  referred  to  in  Oolossians. 

That  the  epistles  imply  an  ecclesiastical  organization 
in  advance  of  that  which  their  supposed  date  warrants 
can  scarcely  be  maintained.  The  letters  themselves 
were  written  because  as  yet  there  was  no  definite, 
well-understood  organization.  They  were  meant  to 
guide  Timothy  and  Titus  in  matters  so  fundamental 
as  the  character  requisite  in  those  who  were  ordained 
as  elders  and  deacons.  Besides,  we  find  in  these 
epistles  precisely  what  was  characteristic  of  apostolic 
times,  and  not  of  the  second  century,  the  plurality 
and  equality  of  presbyters  in  each  Church.  There  is 
no  trace  of  the  monarchical  episcopate  elevating  itself 
above  the  presbyterial  administration.  For  the  tradi- 
tion mentioned  by  Eusebius,  that  Timothy  was  "  bishop  " 
of  Ephesus  and  Titus  "  bishop  "  of  Crete,  is  refuted  by 
the  letters  themselves,  which  amply  prove  that  the 
office,  if  such  it  may  be  called,  held  by  these  friends 
of  Paul  was  merely  temporary. 

3.  The  third  difficulty  arises  from  the  un-Pauline 
character  of  the  phraseology.  (1)  There  occurs  an 
unusual  number  of  Hapax  legomena.  In  1  Timothy 
there  are  seventy-four  words  which  do  not  occur  else- 
where in  the  New  Testament.  In  2  Timothy  there 
are  forty-six  such  words,  and  in  Titus  twenty-eight. 
The  impression  made  by  these  numbers  is,  however, 
considerably  modified  when  we  read  the  lists  of  these 
words,*  and  find  them  largely  composed  of  very 
common  Greek  words,  such  as  oXAtos,  p^rois,  tnor^ptos, 
u>,  (rax^/Dovtos,  TCKvoyovelv,  and  so  on.  No  one 
*  Holzmann's  Pastoralbriefe,  86,  87. 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.         177 

can  read  these  lists  without  perceiving  that,  if  Paul 
has  not  elsewhere  used  the  word,  it  is  because  he  had 
no  occasion  to  mention  the  thing — e.g.,  70175,  xoAKcv's, 
ypaw&fs,  7rp€<r/:?vris,  /xr/rpaXwr/?,  etc.  Still,  with  all 
deductions,  there  remains  a  sufficient  number  of  words 
to  excite  remark,  especially  when  we  recognise  that 
these  new  words  are  to  some  extent  unusual  compound 
words  such  as  avroKaraKptTOS,  eTepoSiSaovcaAetv,  KaAo- 
SiSao-KaAos.  (2)  Perhaps  it  is  even  more  staggering 
to  find  that  the  use  of  particles  in  these  epistles  differs 
from  that  which  is  found  in  the  Pauline  epistles. 
Thus  apa,  Sto,  eTretra,  tSe,  tSov,  /Z^TTCDS,  owceu,  wcrTrep, 
do  not  occur.  This,  however,  may  be  satisfactorily 
accounted  for  by  the  character  of  the  epistles.  They 
are  not  argumentative,  and  do  not  require  to  employ 
such  particles  as  apa  and  Sio. 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBKEWS. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  in  the  singular  posi- 
tion of  being  a  book  of  unquestioned  canonicity,  but 
of  unknown  authorship.  Modern  critics  are  agreed 
in  disregarding  its  occasional  rejection  in  ancient 
times,  and  in  allowing  its  adequate  treatment  of  an 
important  subject,  its  final  adjustment  of  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  dispensations,  its  skilful  composition 
and  flexible  style,  to  win  for  it  a  secure  place  in  the 
New  Testament  canon.  And  yet  of  its  authorship 
we  can  only  say  with  Origen,  "Who  wrote  this 
epistle  God  alone  certainly  knows." 

1.  In  the  Latin  or  Western  Church  the  tradition 
is  against  the  Pauline  authorship.  Clement  of  Rome 

12 


178         EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

(circa  93)  freely  quotes  the  epistle,  but  on  no  occasion 
does  he  name  its  author.  The  Muratorian  Canon 
reckons  only  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul,  and  omits  that 
to  the  Hebrews.  So  too  Caius,  a  presbyter  of  Rome 
(c.  200)  (cited  by  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  vi.  20),  ascribes  to 
Paul  only  thirteen  epistles,  and  leaves  out  Hebrews. 
Irenseus  and  Hippolytus  are  said  (Photius  quoting 
Stephan  Gobar)  to  have  denied  the  Pauline  author- 
ship, and  certainly  Irenseus,  in  his  work  against 
Heresies,  cites  every  epistle  of  Paul's  except  the  short 
Epistle  to  Philemon  and  that  to  the  Hebrews.  This 
negative  tradition  of  the  Western  Church  passes  into 
positive  repudiation  of  the  Pauline  authorship  in 
the  African  branch  of  that  church.  Tertullian  (De 
Pudititia,  20)  says,  "  I  am  unwilling  to  superadd  the 
testimony  of  a  companion  of  the  apostles.  For  there 
is  extant  an  epistle  addressed  to  the  Hebrews  by 
Barnabas,  a  man  of  such  authority  that  Paul  ranked 
him  with  himself  in  1  Cor.  ix.  6."  He  then  identifies 
the  epistle  as  our  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  by  citing 
Heb.  vi.  4 — 8.  From  the  manner  in  which  Tertullian 
refers  to  the  epistle  we  should  gather  that  it  was  not 
merely  his  private  opinion  that  Barnabas  was  the 
author,  but  an  opinion  uncontradicted  in  his  country. 
2.  Passing  to  the  Eastern  Church  we  find  a  very 
different  tradition.  Here  the  uniform  popular  belief 
was  that  the  epistle  belonged  to  Paul.  And  "  what 
we  observe  in  Alexandria  is  the  very  interesting 
spectacle  of  a  struggle  between  the  inherited  tradition 
and  theological  scholarship,  in  which  the  latter  is  seen 
putting  forth  a  variety  of  efforts  to  reconcile  the 
results  of  its  own  observation  of  the  epistle  with  the 


ITS  AUTHORSHIP.  179 

external  tradition."  *  Thus,  as  early  as  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  Pantsenus  is  found  striving  to 
explain  the  absence  of  Paul's  name  from  the  epistle, 
which  he  accounts  for  by  Paul's  modest  reluctance  to 
call  himself  the  apostle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  the  Lord 
Himself  had  been  sent  to  the  Hebrews.f  In  the  end 
of  the  second  century  Clement  of  Alexandria  accounts 
for  the  absence  of  Paul's  name,  on  the  ground  that, 
as  the  Hebrews  had  imbibed  prejudices  against  him, 
his  name  might  deter  them  from  reading  the  epistle. 
He  also  affirms  that  Paul  wrote  it  in  Hebrew,  and 
Luke  carefully  translated  it  for  the  use  of  the  Greeks. 
Origen's  opinion  may  be  gathered  from  his  words  :  J 
"  I  should  say  that  the  thoughts  are  the  Apostle's,  but 
the  language  and  composition  belong  to  some  one  who 
recorded  what  the  Apostle  said,  and,  as  it  were,  noted 
down  what  his  master  had  spoken.  If,  then,  any 
Church  receives  this  epistle  as  Paul's,  let  it  be  com- 
mended for  this,  for  not  without  reason  have  the 
ancient  men  handed  it  down  as  the  work  of  Paul. 
But  who  it  was  that  really  wrote  the  epistle  God  only 
knows.  Tke  account,  however,  that  has  been  current 
before  us  is,  according  to  some,  that  Clement,  who 
was  bishop  of  Rome,  wrote  it ;  according  to  others, 
that  it  was  written  by  Luke,  who  wrote  the  Gospel 
and  the  Acts."  It  is  obvious  that  these  writers  are 
aware  of  a  tradition  which  refers  the  epistle  to  Paul, 
but  that  from  the  first  difficulties  had  been  felt  in 
reconciling  with  this  tradition  the  actual  peculiarities 
of  the  epistle. 

•  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  by  Prof.  A.  B.  Davidson,  p.  29. 
f  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  vi.  14.  J  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  vi.  26. 


180         EPISTLE   TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

3.  From  the  fifth  century  to  the  reformation  the 
epistle  was  accepted  with  rare  exceptions  as  Pauline. 
This  was  due  to  the  influence  of  Jerome  and  Augustine, 
especially   the   latter.     Jerome's   mode  of  citing  the 
epistle  reveals  his  dubiety  :  "The  epistle  which,  under 
the  name  of  Paul,  is  written  to  the  Hebrews ; "  "  He 
who  writes  to  the  Hebrews ; "  "  The  Apostle  Paul,  or 
whoever    else  wrote   the  Epistle   to   the   Hebrews." 
Augustine  vacillates,  sometimes  counting  this  epistle 
among  Paul's,  sometimes  citing  it  anonymously,  some- 
times declaring  that  he  is  moved  by  the  authority  of 
the  Oriental  Churches.    The  progress  of  opinion  during 
the  lifetime  of  Augustine  is  distinctly  marked  by  the 
decisions  of  councils.    In  the  Council  of  Hippo  in  393, 
while  Augustine  was  still  a  presbyter,  and  in  the  third 
Council    of    Carthage,    held    in    398,    the    prevalent 
dubiety  was  indicated  in  the  enumeration,   "  Of  the 
Apostle   Paul  thirteen  epistles  :   of  the  same  to   the 
Hebrews  one."     But  in  the  fifth  Council  of  Carthage 
in  419,  where  Augustine  was  also  present,  the  some- 
what  meaningless  distinction  is  abandoned  and   the 
enumeration  boldly  runs  :  "Of  the  epistles  of  Paul  in 
number  fourteen." 

4.  In  later  times  the  authorship  of  the  epistle  has 
been  much  debated.     Erasmus  advocated  the  claims 
of  Clement,  while  Luther  suggested  that  Apollos  was 
the  author.     In  this  idea  he  has  been   followed   by 
several  recent  critics  (Tholuck,  Bleek,  Farrar,  Hilgen- 
feld),  while  with  others  (Renan,  Salmon*)  Tertullian's 

*  "The  place  of  the  epistle  in  our  Bible  testifies  to  the 
lateness  of  the  recognition  of  the  epistle  as  Paul's  in  the 
West,  .  .  .  this  order,  after  Paul's  acknowledged  letters,  is 


ITS  AUTHORSHIP.  181 

ascription  of  the  letter  to  Barnabas  is  supposed  to  be 
correct.  Many,  however,  still  hold  the  Pauline 
authorship. 

From  this  brief  recital  of  opinion  it  will  be  evident 
that  we  must  depend  mainly  on  internal  evidence  for 
the  ascertainment  of  the  authorship  of  this  epistle. 
An  examination  of  the  epistle  proves :  (1)  that  it  is  not 
a  translation.  Not  only  are  the  citations  of  the  Old 
Testament  taken  from  the  LXX.,  but  its  language  is 
woven  into  the  argument.  There  are  also  plays  upon 
words  and  alliterations  (v.  8;  ix.  15 — 18;  x.  38,  39; 
xi.  37;  xiii.  14)  *  impossible  in  a  translation.  The  free- 
dom of  the  style  is  also  evidence  in  the  same  direction. 
(2)  The  author  was  a  Jew.  He  addresses  Jewish 
readers  as  one  of  themselves.  (3)  He  was,  however, 
a  Hellenist,  a  Jew  in  contact  with  Greek  thought  and 
using  the  LXX.f  (4)  He  was  acquainted  with  the 
writings  of  Paul.*  (5)  He  was  not  an  apostle,  but 

that  which  prevails  in  later,  and  especially  in  Western,  MSS. 
But  the  earliest  order  of  all  concerning  which  we  have  infor- 
mation is  that  of  the  archetype  from  which  the  Vatican  MS. 
was  copied.  In  the  Vatican  MS.  itself,  and  in  other  Eastern 
MSS.  this  epistle  comes  after  that  to  the  Thessalonians,  and 
before  the  letters  to  individuals  ;  but  the  numbering  of  the 
sections  shows  that  the  Vatican  MS.  was  copied  from  one  in 
which  the  Hebrews  stood  still  higher  in  the  rank  of  Pauline 
epistles  and  came  next  after  that  to  the  Galatians.  The 
Thebaic  version  placed  it  even  a  step  higher,  viz.,  immediately 
before  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians."— /foZwww,  619. 

*  See  Holtzmann,  314  ;  and  Alford. 

f  For  coincidence  of  his  language  with  Philo's  see  Carpzov's 
Sacra  Exercitationes. 

J  This  is  put  beyond  a  doubt  by  the  parallels  in  Bleek, 
Holtzmann,  and  Salmon. 


182         EPISTLE  TO  THE   HEBREWS. 

one  who  had  received  his  knowledge  of  the  truth  at 
second-hand  (see  ii.  3).  Some  of  these  characteristics 
oppose  the  Pauline  authorship.  Paul  uses  the  Hebrew 
and  not  the  Greek  Bible  ;  and  his  formulae  of  citation 
are  also  different  from  those  employed  by  this  author. 
Paul  never  speaks  of  himself  as  receiving  the  gospel 
through  the  ministry  of  others.  His  epistles  are  never 
impersonal  but  always  overflowing  with  personal 
feeling  and  abounding  in  personal  references.  But 
convincing  as  these  features  of  the  epistle  are,  it  is  the 
language  and  the  thought  which  prove  it  un-Pauline. 
The  language  of  Paul  is  rugged  and  disjointed  and 
impetuous;  while  this  epistle  is  distinguished  by 
rhetorical  skill,  studied  antithesis,  even  flow  of 
faultless  grammar,  and  measured  march  of  rhyth- 
mical periods."* 

Considerable  difference  of  opinion  exists  as  to  the 
relation  which  the  doctrine  of  the  epistle  holds  to 
Paulinism.  By  some  critics  it  is  believed  to  represent 

*  "  Diversity  of  style  is  more  easily  felt  by  the  reader  than 
expressed  by  the  critic,  without  at  least  a  tedious  analysis  of 
language  ;  one  simple  and  tangible  test  presents  itself,  how- 
ever, in  the  use  of  connecting  particles,  inasmuch  as  these 
determine  the  structure  of  sentences.  A  minute  comparison 
of  these  possesses  therefore  real  importance  in  the  differentia- 
tion of  language.  Now  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  tl  TIQ  occurs 
50  times,  tire  63,  iron  (in  affirmative  clauses)  19,  tlra  (in 
enumerations)  6,  «  8k  Kai  4,  t'nrep  5,  IKTOQ  ei  \ir\  3,  tlyt  4, 
fiijTrioQ  12,  p.r)K(.Ti  10,  fjitvovvyt  3.  idv  88  times,  while  none  of 
them  are  found  in  the  epistle  except  lav  and  that  only  once 
(or  twice)  except  in  quotations.  On  tho  other  hand,  Wiv 
which  occurs  6  times,  and  idvirep  which  occurs  3  times  in  the 
epistle  are  never  used  by  St.  Paul." — Kendall,  p.  27  ;  Theology 
of  Hebrew  Christians. 


ITS  AUTHORSHIP.  183 

the  early  apostolic  Jewish  Christianity  as  distinct 
from  Paulinism  (Schutz,  Planck,  Riehm,  Weiss)  ;  to 
others  it  seems  to  have  been  written  by  one  of  the 
Pauline  school  (Neander,  Delitzsch) ;  some  find  in  it 
Paulinism  modified  by  Alexandrianism  (Pfleiderer, 
Hilgenfeld,  Hausrath).  The  point  of  view  is  certainly 
not  that  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  To  this  writer 
there  are  110  Gentiles  and  no  question  of  circumcision 
and  uncircumcision.  The  writer  occupies  a  position 
regarding  the  law  which  is  slightly  in  advance  of 
Paul's,  though  it  does  not  disagree  with  it.  He 
considers  the  law  to  be  the  Divinely  appointed  pre- 
paration for  the  gospel,  as  Paul  also  did.  The  house 
ruled  by  Moses  and  by  Christ  is  one  house.  But 
the  law  "  made  nothing  perfect ;  "  it  was  a  thing  of 
shadow  and  symbol;  the  reality  is  of  Christ.  The 
coming  of  Christ  therefore  involves  the  obsolescence  of 
the  law.  The  Jew  is  as  free  from  it  as  the  Gentile. 
All  this,  however,  was  involved  in  Paul's  teaching 
(although  the  law  is  spoken  of  more  disparagingly, 
vii.  16 — 18,  than  in  Paul's  writings).  The  death  of 
Christ  is  also  viewed  in  this  epistle  as  a  priestly  act ; 
in  addition  to  what  we  learn  from  Paul  this  writer 
developes  the  significance  of  Christ's  priesthood,  as 
well  as  of  His  sonship.  On  the  other  hand,  we  miss 
the  subjective  and  uo-called  mystical  treatment  of  the 
believer's  connection  with  Christ's  death — a  theme 
never  absent  from  Paul's  thoughts. 

But  if  not  Paul,  who  wrote  this  remarkable  letter  ? 
One  who  spoke  of  Timothy  as  brother  (xiii.  23),  as 
Paul  spoke  of  him  as  son.  One,  therefore,  of  the 
younger  companions  of  Paul.  Luke,  Clement,  Titus, 


184         EPISTLE   TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

Silas,  Barnabas,  Apollos,  Mark,  have  all  been  thought 
of.  But  in  behalf  of  most  of  these  names  there  is 
nothing  positive  to  urge.  The  description  of  Apollos 
in  Acts  xviii.  24,  is  decidedly  in  his  favour ;  but  the 
circumstance  that  so  far  as  we  know  his  labours 
were  confined  to  the  Greek  cities  on  the  JEgean  sea 
presents  a  considerable  difficulty.*  In  favour  of 
Barnabas'  claim  is  the  positive  affirmation  of  Ter- 
tullian,  and  much  that  we  know  about  him.t  But 
probably  the  only  safe  conclusion  is  that  of  Mr. 
Kendall :  "I  see  little  hope  of  our  recovering  now  a 
name  which  was  mere  matter  of  conjecture  in  the 
second  century."  And  in  these  circumstances  Dr. 
Bruce's  reflection  may  appear  suitable,*  "  It  seems 
fitting  that  the  author  of  an  epistle  which  begins  by 
virtually  proclaiming  God  as  the  only  speaker  in 
Scripture,  and  Jesus  Christ  as  the  one  speaker  in  the 
New  Testament,  should  himself  retire  out  of  sight 
into  the  background." 

Neither  is  it  quite  easy  to  determine  for  what 
readers  the  epistle  was  intended.  That  the  title  "  To 
the  Hebrews"  is  correct  may  be  inferred  from  the 
contents  of  the  epistle.  But  was  it  addressed  to  the 
Jewish  Christian  Churches  as  a  whole  (Keuss),  or  to 
some  particular  Church  or  Churches  ?  That  the  latter 
is  the  correct  view  appears  not  only  from  the  salu- 
tation and  personal  references  at  the  close  (xiii.  23,  24), 

*  "  The  silence  of  primitive  tradition  appears  to  me  con- 
clusive against  the  theory." — Rendall,  p.  18. 

f  His  claims  and  their  inadmissibility  are  well  stated  by 
Godet  in  the  Expositor,  April,  1888. 

J  Expositor,  March,  1888. 


FOR   WHAT  READERS  INTENDED.    185 

but  also  from  allusions  here  and  there  in  the  body 
of  the  letter  to  circumstances  which  must  have  been 
peculiar  to  particular  Churches  (v.   11,  12;  x.   34). 
Antioch,  Alexandria,  Rome,  Palestine,  have  all  been 
advocated  as  the  probable  destination  of  the  letter. 
On  the  whole,  the  opinion  that  the  writer  addressed 
some  Church  in  or  near  Palestine  is  the  most  defensible. 
His  appeals  are  directed  to  persons  who  were  in  danger 
of  falling  back  into  Judaism,  owing  to  the  hold  which 
their  hereditary  forms  of  worship  and  the  fascination 
of  the   visible  temple  had  over  them.     "Jerusalem 
was  the  home  of  Jewish  conservatism,  and  all  the 
influences  there   tended  to  develop   and   strengthen 
even  in  Christian  circles  a  reactionary  spirit."     But 
a  letter  addressed  to  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  could 
scarcely  have  used  language  which  implies  that  it 
had  furnished  no  martyrs  (xii.  4),  nor  could  it  have 
spoken  of  that  Church  as  deriving  its  knowledge  of 
Christ  indirectly  and  not  from  Himself  (ii.  3).     And 
even   though   the   writer,  being  a  Hellenist,  might 
naturally  use  Greek  to  whomsoever  he  was  writing, 
there  is  some  weight  in  the  objection  that  any  one 
writing  to  the  Jewish  Christians  of  Jerusalem  would 
naturally   use   Aramaic.     We   must,   therefore,  find 
the  original  recipients  of  the  letter  in  some  Church 
outside   Jerusalem,   and    possibly   beyond    Palestine 
itself,   but   composed    largely   of   Jewish    Christians. 
Probably  those  who  read  Mr.  Kendall's  careful  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject  will  agree  with  his  conclusion  : 
"To   one   of   these   great   Syrian   cities,  perhaps   to 
Antioch  itself,   I  conceive  the  epistle  to  have  been 
addressed;  for  there  alone  existed  nourishing  Chris- 


186         EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

tian  Churches,  founded  by  the  earliest  missionaries 
of  the  Gospel,  animated  with  Jewish  sympathies,  full 
of  interest  in  the  Mosaic  worship,  and  glorying  in 
the  name  of  Hebrews;  who  nevertheless  spoke  the 
Greek  language,  used  the  Greek  version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  numbered  amongst  their  members  converts 
who  had,  like  the  author,  combined  the  highest  ad- 
vantages of  Greek  culture  with  careful  study  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  especially  of  the  sacrificial  law." 

But  if  we  cannot  certainly  name  the  particular 
Church  to  which  this  epistle  was  addressed,  we  may 
at  least  hope  to  ascertain  the  condition  in  which  its 
members  were.  It  is  apparent  that  the  letter  was 
prompted  by  the  writer's  desire  to  check  the  begin- 
nings of  apostasy  or  tendencies  towards  it  which  were 
making  themselves  visible  among  those  to  whom  he 
writes.  The  practical  purpose  of  the  letter  appears  at 
once,  and  as  early  in  the  letter  as  chap.  ii.  1  the  writer 
betrays  his  fear  lest  his  readers  might  already  have 
been  drifting  away  from  their  moorings.  This  purpose 
to  encourage,  to  stimulate,  to  prevent  relapse  and 
apostasy,  to  check  faint-heartedness  and  unbelief, 
appears  throughout  the  epistle  (iii.  6,  14;  iv.  1,  11; 
vi.  1—8,  11,  12;  x.  23,  36—39;  xii.  1,  etc.).  The 
writer  has  observed  a  disposition  to  "  turn  back  "  ;  he 
fears  that  some  may  not  hold  fast  their  profession. 
This  wavering  has  been  occasioned  by  their  exposure 
to  persecution  (xii.  1 — 8),  but  this  persecution  was 
not  of  a  severe  kind  (xii.  4),  such  as  they  had  at  an 
earlier  period  been  subjected  to  (x.  32 — 34),  and  had 
"joyfully"  endured.  They  seem  rather  to  be  now 
exposed  to  the  privations  which  result  from  social 


ITS  OBJECT.  187 

excommunication,  and  to  the  inroad  of  doubts  which 
were  insinuated  into  their  minds  by  the  arguments 
of  their  former  co-religionists,  the  Jews.  These  doubts 
had  not  as  yet  availed  to  cause  them  to  apostatize, 
but  they  had  dimmed  their  vision  and  numbed  their 
energies.  They  had  been  twitted  with  adopting  a 
religion  which  had  neither  temple,  priest,  nor  altar ; 
with  choosing  as  their  king  and  leader  one  who  had 
suffered  death ;  with  abandoning  a  religion  which  had 
been  ordained  by  God,  mediated  by  angels,  adminis- 
tered by  Moses.  And  although  they  still  adhered  to 
Christianity,  they  were  so  moved  by  this  "contradic- 
tion of  sinners,"  that  they  had  admitted  questionings 
whether  they  were  not  perhaps  making  sacrifices  and 
exposing  themselves  to  privations  for  a  mistake. 

The  writer  knows  that  if  only  they  can  once  see 
the  real  glory  of  Christ  and  His  religion,  all  these 
doubts  will  vanish,  and  accordingly  he  proceeds  to 
send  them  such  an  exposition  of  that  glory  as  is  in 
point  of  fact  a  magnificent  apologetic  for  Christianity 
from  the  Jewish  point  of  view.  Comparing  Christ 
with  the  angels,  with  Moses,  and  with  the  Aaronic 
priesthood,  he  demonstrates  the  superiority,  the  reality 
and  perfectness,  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  This  com- 
parison occupies  the  first  seven  chapters.  The  writer 
then,  after  a  brief  summing  up  of  what  he  has  already 
said,  proceeds  to  exhibit  the  superiority  of  the  second 
to  the  first  covenant  (viii.  6 — 13),  and  of  the  true,  God- 
pitched  tabernacle  and  the  salvation  therein  accom- 
plished to  the  first,  man-made  tabernacle  with  its 
furniture  and  sacrifices  (ix.l — x.  18).  On  this 
demonstration  of  the  perfect  and  eternal  character 


188         EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

of  the  religion  of  Christ  and  of  its  superiority  as  the 
medium  through  which  men  are  brought  nigh  to 
God,  the  author  founds  a  forcible  appeal  and  exhorts 
his  readers  to  draw  near  to  God  and  to  hold  fast 
their  profession  (x.  19 — 25).  This  exhortation  he 
enforces  by  warnings  (x.  26 — 31),  by  awakening 
remembrances  of  better  times  (32 — 39),  and  by  the 
rapid,  suggestive,  and  eloquent  survey  of  their  pre- 
decessors in  faith  (xi.),  and  of  Him  whose  example 
of  faith  and  endurance  is  perfect  (xii.  1 — 4).  This 
strain  of  exhortation  is  continued  through  the  twelfth 
chapter,  and  the  epistle  closes  with  miscellaneous 
admonitions. 

From  the  manner  in  which  the  Levitical  services 
are  spoken  of  it  is  generally*  gathered  that  the  epistle 
cannot  have  been  written  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  a  writer 
wishing  to  demonstrate  the  evanescent  nature  of  the 
Levitical  dispensation,  and  writing  after  the  Temple 
services  had  been  discontinued,  should  not  have 
pointed  to  that  event  as  strengthening  his  argument. 
How  could  he  possibly  have  used  such  language  as 
that  of  x.  2,  regarding  such  services,  if  already  they 
had  ceased  to  be  offered  It  Mr.  Kendall  very  strongly 
argues  for  a  date  immediately  preceding  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  "I  conceive  that  the  fatal  year 
A.D.  70  had  arrived,  and  the  Roman  armies  had 
gathered  round  Jerusalem.  .  .  .  The  approaching 
end  of  the  sanctuary  is  the  thought  which  underlies 
the  whole  epistle,  and  furnishes  the  only  satisfactory 

*  Though  Holtzmann  and  some  others  give  it  a  later  date. 
f  See  this  forcibly  put  in  Hilgenf eld's  Einleitung,  p.  381. 


DATE.  189 

key  to  its  contents."  But  it  is  difficult  to  suppose 
that  had  this  been  the  date,  there  would  have  been 
no  more  direct  reference  to  the  impending  event  or 
the  present  distress,  a  distress  in  which  the  Jews 
were  more  likely  to  suffer  than  the  Jewish  Christians. 
The  epistle  may,  therefore,  be  assigned  to  the  year 
66  or  67.  It  was  possibly  written  from  Italy,  but 
the  words  "they  of  Italy  (OLTTO  -njs  'IroXtas)  salute 
you"  certainly  are  more  naturally  understood  to 
imply  that  some  Christians  had  come  from  Italy  to 
the  place  where  the  writer  was  at  the  date  of  the 
epistle.  These  same  travellers  may  have  brought  the 
news  recorded  in  the  preceding  verse,  that  Timothy 
had  been  set  at  liberty.  For  in  all  probability 
Timothy  had  gone  to  Rome  in  answer  to  Paul's 
urgent  request  (2  Tim.  iv.  9,  21),  and  had  there 
shared  his  friend's  imprisonment,  though  not  his 
condemnation  and  fate.  Timothy,  we  gather  from 
the  same  closing  verses  of  our  epistle,  was  shortly  to 
leave  Rome  and  to  arrive  at  the  place  where  the 
writer  was. 

EPISTLE  OF  JAMES. 

Among  the  Catholic  epistles,  that  of  James  stands 
first.*  It  is  addressed  "to  the  twelve  tribes  which 
are  scattered  abroad ; "  f  in  other  words,  to  the 
Jewish  Christians  dwelling  beyond  Palestine.  The 
merely  national  meaning  of  "the  twelve  tribes"  is 

*  "  Quia  ipse  Hierosolymorum  regendam  suscepit  Ecclesiam."' 
— Seda,  Prologue  to  Cath.  Ep. 

t  iv  ry  Siaoiropy,  in  the  Dispersion  ;  cf.  Deut,  xxviii.  26. 


190  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES. 

excluded  by  the  fact  that  the  writer  as  "a  servant 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  addresses  them  as  holding 
the  faith  of  the  same  Lord  (ii.  1).  Neither  can  "  the 
twelve  tribes  "  denote  the  spiritual  Israel,  the  Church 
of  Christ,  whether  Jewish  or  Gentile,  for  the  epistle 
is  Jewish  in  every  line.  The  Hebrew  Christians 
throughout  the  world  are  addressed.  And  the  chief 
difficulty  is  not,  to  see  how  this  small  document  should 
find  its  way  from  town  to  town  and  Church  to  Church, 
for  the  constant  intercommunication  might  accom- 
plish that ;  but  it  is,  to  reconcile  this  large,  universal 
address  with  descriptions  of  Church  life  which  cannot 
readily  be  accepted  as  universal ;  see  v.  6 ;  iii.  1 ; 
v.  4;  ii.  2. 

The  state  of  matters  among  the  Jewish  Christians 
which  this  letter  discloses  is  not  a  happy  one.  Not 
only  had  the  members  of  the  Church  suffered,  from 
unexplained  causes,  strange  reversals  of  fortune 
(i.  9,  10) ;  but  no  such  attainment  in  character  as 
might  be  expected  of  Christians,  had  been  made.  Of 
heathen  grossness  there  is  indeed  no  word;  but 
worldly  greed  and  the  pride  of  life  and  selfish  cruelty 
that  come  of  greed  abounded  (iv.  1 ;  v.  9).  The 
distinction  between  rich  and  poor  had  been 
accentuated  in  unseemly  angling  for  rich  proselytes 
(ii.  2),  and  in  heartless  contempt  of  the  poor  (ii.  3). 
And  at  the  root  of  all  lay  a  contentment  with  super- 
ficial knowledge  and  bare  profession  of  faith  (ii.  14), 
an  otiose  creed,  and  a  practical  denial  of  the  truth 
that  life  is  a  training  ground  for  the  making  of 
"perfected"  (i.  4)  men,  and  that  only  by  trials  or 
temptations  can  men  be  trained.  Very  forcibly  and 


ITS  CHARACTER.  191 

explicitly  does  the  writer  denounce  these  vices.  The 
epistle  is  throughout  ethical.  It  is,  as  it  has  been 
called,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  among  the  epistles. 
It  presents  Christianity  as  the  ethical  fulfilment  of 
the  law.  By  looking  into  the  perfect  law  of  liberty 
and  continuing  therein,  by  manfully  enduring 
temptation,  the  people  of  God  are  to  be  perfected, 
and  so  to  win  the  crown  of  life.  The  faith  of  Christ 
must  show  itself  not  in  wrangling  and  pretentious 
word-splitting,  but  in  exemplary  and  meek  conduct 
(iii.  13;  i.  26,  27).  The  Christian  is  to  be  the 
perfect  man  (i.  4  j  iii.  2). 

That  doctrine  is  eschewed  in  the  epistle  is  there- 
fore intelligible.  Not  so  easily  is  it  understood  why 
specially  Christian  motives  are  not  urged.  There  are 
indeed  explicit  Christian  allusions  (i  1 ;  ii.  1 ;  ii.  7 ; 
v.  7,  8).  The  faith  spoken  of  in  chap.  ii.  is  Christian 
faith  (ii.  1,  and  notwithstanding  ii.  19).  And  the 
law  which  James  has  in  view  throughout  is  the  law 
as  exemplified  in  the  life  of  Christ  and  which  His 
friends  delight  to  keep,  "the  law  of  liberty,"  "the 
perfect  law  "  (i.  25).*  The  word  also  by  which  God 
has  begotten  the  Jewish  Christians  (i.  18),  the  word 
of  truth,  the  engrafted  word,  can  be  nothing  else 
than  the  Gospel  of  Christ. t  While  too  there  is  no 
teaching  about  Christ,  there  is  throughout  the 
clearest  echo  of  Christ's  teaching.:}:  Everywhere 
the  language  of  the  epistle  recalls  the  language  of  our 

*  Cf.  Barnabas  ii.  6  :  6  Kaivbf  vop,of  TOV  Kvpiov  rm&v  avtv  £vyoQ. 
f  See  Lechler,  i.  293  ff. 

i  As  Beyschlag  says  :  "  Essentially  it  is  the  teaching  of 
Christ,  and  thus  there  is  little  teaching  about  Christ." 


102  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES. 

Lord.*  The  style  also  is  similar ;  the  brief,  com- 
pressed sayings  and  the  frequent  use  of  figure.t 
This  would  seem  to  argue  that  the  James  who  wrote 
the  letter  was  a  contemporary  and  friend  of  Jesus. 

Other  marks  of  date  there  are,  but  all  contested. 
There  is  no  allusion  to  the  great  controversy  about 
circumcision  and  the  Mosaic  law,  which  occupies  so 
much  space  in  the  writings  of  Paul.  Does  this  imply 
that  our  epistle  was  written  before  that  controversy 
arose  (as  Neander,  Lechler,  Hofmann,  Salmon, 
suppose)  or  after  it  had  died  out  (as  is  held  by 
Hausrath)  ?  The  epistle  was  written  at  a  time  when 
few  of  the  richer  Jews  were  Christians ;  the  member- 
ship of  the  Church  was  mainly  filled  from  the  poorer 
classes  (ii.  5),  and  the  rich  are  characterized  by  greed 
and  oppression.  If  the  rich  men  apostrophized  in 
v.  1  are  not  Christians  but  Jews,  and  if  those  visitors 
to  the  Christian  meeting  came  as  guests  or  spectators 
and  not  as  fellow-worshippers,  then  this  relation  of 
the  Jewish  Christian  to  the  Jewish  population  belongs 
to  a  date  at  which  as  yet  the  Christians  were  a  sect 
within  the  Jewish  community.  The  reference  in 
v.  6  is  so  uncertain  that  to  base  an  argument  upon 
it  cannot  be  considered  safe.  But  the  Christian 
place  of  meeting  is  still  the  "  synagogue "  (ii.  2), 
either  the  Jewish  synagogue  or  at  all  events  a  place 
so  distinctively  Jewish  as  to  be  naturally  called  the 

*  Of.  v.  12,  Matt.  v.  37  ;  i.  22,  Matt.  vii.  26 ;  i.  25,  John 
xiii.  17  ;  ii.  5,  Luke  vi.  20 ;  iv.  10,  Matt,  xxiii.  12  ;  iv.  12, 
Matt.  vii.  1 ;  i.  5,  Matt.  vii.  7  j  i.  4,  Matt.  v.  48 ;  iv.  9,  Luke 
vi.  25.  See  Salmon,  pp.  669-70. 

t  See  i  6,  11,  17,  23  ;  iii.  3,  4,  5—12. 


ITS  DATE.  193 

synagogue.  The  officials  of  the  Church  are  also 
presbyters  (v.  14),  and  there  is  no  word  of  any 
bishop. 

But  these  signs  of  an  early  date  must  be  otherwise 
interpreted,  if  it  is  found  that  the  writer  of  this 
epistle  made  use  of  the  epistles  of  Paul,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  1  Peter,  and  the  gospels.  Certainly 
the  discussion  of  the  relation  of  faith  and  works,  in 
the  second  chapter,  does  not  prove  the  writer's 
acquaintance  with  Paul's  position.  Rather  it  must 
be  accepted  as  evidence  against  such  acquaintance, 
for  it  is  incredible  that  with  a  knowledge  of  the 
Pauline  letters  he  could  have  said  just  so  much  and 
no  more.  He  is  in  perfect  agreement  with  Paul's 
teaching,  and  had  he  known  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
he  could  hardly  have  failed  to  affirm  his  agreement, 
or  at  any  rate  to  accommodate  his  language  to  that 
of  Paul.  The  passages  commonly  cited  to  prove  the 
writer's  acquaintance  with  the  Epistle  to  Romans 
are  chiefly  i.  3  (cf.  Rom.  v.  3,  4),  i.  22  (Rom.  ii.  13), 
iv.  1  (Rom.  vii  23),  iv.  4  (Rom.  viii.  7).*  Consider- 
ing that  both  the  thoughts  and  the  vocabulary  of 
Paul  and  James  must  have  been  to  a  considerable 
extent  identical,  these  passages  can  hardly  be 
accepted  as  proof  that  James  had  seen  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  "  Doers  of  the  law,"  "  hearers  of  the 
law,"  "enmity  against  God" — how  constantly  must 
such  terms  have  been  heard  on  Jewish  lips.  The  idea 
that  the  trial  of  faith  works  patience  is  common  to 

*  Parallels  to  other  epistles  of  Paul  consist  solely  of  the 
recurrence  of  single  words  which  happen  to  have  been  used 
by  Paul. 

13 


194  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES. 

Paul  and  to  James ;  but  was  there  ever  any  Christian 
who  had  not  this  idea  1  Besides,  the  mould  in  which 
the  idea  is  cast  is  quite  different  in  the  two  letters. 

The  analogies  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  are 
superficially  striking.  In  Heb.  xii.  11,  we  find  "the 
peaceable  fruit  of  righteousness  "  (KapTros  ei/n?i'ucos 
SiKaioo-unjs)  while  in  James  iii.  18  we  have  "  the 
fruit  of  righteousness  in  peace "  (KOPTTOS  SIKCUOCTWT^ 
ev  fipyvy).  But  the  idea  in  the  one  passage  is 
quite  different  from  the  thought  of  the  other.  ID 
James  the  idea  is  that  those  who  make  peace  sow 
righteousness ;  in  other  words,  that  out  of  unity  and 
kindliness  springs  righteousness.  The  thought  in 
Hebrews  is  that  out  of  chastisement  with  all  its  pain, 
perplexity,  and  trouble,  there  springs  serene  and  un- 
troubled righteousness.  So  far  then  as  appears  from 
the  writer's  supposed  use  of  other  epistles,  this  Epistle 
of  James  may  be  of  an  earlier  date  than  the  rest ; 
and  so  far  as  signs  of  date  are  concerned,  it  may 
have  been  written  by  a  contemporary  of  the  Lord.* 

With  none  of  the  three  contemporaries  of  the  Lord 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  under  the  name  of 
James  does  the  writer  of  our  epistle  explicitly  identify 
himself — not  with  James  "  the  brother  of  John,"  nor 
with  James  "the  less,"  literally  "the  little"  (Mark 
xv.  40),  nor  with  James  the  "  Lord's  brother  "  (Gal. 

*  Davidson  (i.  313)  is  of  opinion  that  "  the  production  is 
a  post-Pauline  one,  proceeding  from  a  Jewish  Christian  or 
Bbionite. "  He  does  not  think  it  as  late  as  the  second  century  ; 
but  most  probably  of  date  A.D.  69  or  70.  Hilgenfeld  puts  it 
later,  in  the  reign  of  Domitian.  Baur,  Zeller,  Hausrath,  and 
others  put  it  in  the  second  century. 


BY   WHAT  JAMES   WRITTEN.          195 

i.  19).  The  authority  with  which  the  writer  speaks, 
combined  with  the  circumstance  that  he  does  not  call 
himself  an  apostle,  is  generally  supposed  to  point  to 
James  the  Lord's  brother ;  *  who,  though  he  withheld 
his  adhesion  to  the  faith  while  Jesus  lived,  seems  to 
have  been  convinced  by  the  resurrection  (1  Cor.  xv.  7), 
and  to  have  early  occupied  the  place  of  greatest  in- 
fluence among  the  disciples  at  Jerusalem.  To  him 
Peter  sent  the  news  of  his  release  (Acts  xii.  17); 
in  the  council  at  Jerusalem  he  presided  (Acts  xv.); 
and  it  is  still  James  to  whom  Paul  reports  himself 
on  a  subsequent  occasion  (Acts  xxi.-18).  Among  the 
unbelieving  Jews,  as  well  as  among  the  Christians, 
he  won  universal  respect  by  his  unblemished  character 
and  the  severe  sanctity  of  his  life.  This  respect  seems 
not  to  have  been  diminished  by  his  attachment  to  the 
new  faith,  for  that  attachment  did  not  make  him  less, 
but  more  a  patriot  and  an  upholder  of  the  law.  His 
holiness  seemed  to  the  people  to  stand  between  them 
and  the  calamities  that  were  felt  to  be  impending, 
so  that  they  called  him  Obliam,  the  bulwark  of  the 
people.f  His  martyrdom  must  have  taken  place  be- 
tween A.D.  62  and  63. 

*  The  claims  of  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  are  strongly 
urged  by  Mr.  Bassett  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Epistle. 

f  Eusebius  (H.E.,  ii.  23)  preserves  from  Hegesippus,  a  Jewish 
Christian  of  the  second  century,  the  following  account  of 
James :  "  James  was  holy  from  his  mother's  womb.  He  drank 
neither  wine  nor  any  intoxicating  drink,  and  ate  no  flesh 
meat.  His  head  was  not  touched  with  a  razor,  he  did  not 
anoint  himself  with  oil  or  make  use  of  the  bath.  He  alone 
was  permitted  to  enter  into  the  sanctuary,  for  his  garment 
was  not  of  wool  but  of  linen.  He  alone  entered  into  the 


196  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES. 

The  right  of  this  epistle  to  a  place  in  the  canon 
was  early  canvassed.  Eusebius  *  tells  us  that  it  was 
classed  among  the  antilegomena,  that  it  was  not 
mentioned  by  many  of  the  older  writers,  but  that 
it  was  read  in  the  churches.  Jerome  f  gives  a  similar 
account  of  it :  "  James  wrote  only  one  epistle.  .  .  . 
It  is  asserted  that  this  was  published  by  some  other 
person  under  his  name,  though  as  time  went  on,  it  by 
degrees  obtained  authority."  Origen  is  the  first  to 
quote  it  by  name,  and  his  manner  of  doing  so  shows 
that  he  was  aware  that  doubts  as  to  its  authorship 
might  be  entertained  (ev  Ty  c^epofjifvy  Ia,Ku>/3ou 
eVioroXirj).  Clement  of  Alexandria  does  not  appear 
to  have  known  it ;  nor  is  it  mentioned  in  the  Mura- 
torian  Fragment.  But  the  Peshito  has  it,  and  if  the 
allusions  in  Clement  of  Rome  are  uncertain,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  Hermas  made  very  large  use 
of  it.J  Its  canonicity  was  settled  by  the  Council  of 
Carthage,  A.D.  397,  but  was  denied  at  the  Reformation 
by  Erasmus,  Cajetan,  and  others. 

The  language  of  the  epistle  has  given  rise  to  much 
discussion.  The  style  is  Jewish  in  its  abruptness; 

temple,  and  he  was  found  prostrate  on  his  knees  praying  for 
forgiveness  for  the  nation,  so  that  his  knees  became  hard  like 
those  of  the  camel  .  .  .  On  account  of  his  extraordinary 
righteousness,  he  was  called  the  '  just.' "  A  careful  examination 
of  the  tradition  regarding  James  will  be  found  in  Lechler, 
i.  59 — 66.  The  entire  passage  in  Eusebius  should  be  read ; 
and  reference  should  be  made  to  Stanley's  Apostolical  Age, 
p.  319. 

*  H.  E.,  ii.  23. 

t  De  Vir.  lllustr.,  3. 

t  See  Salmon,  562  ;  or  Kirchhofer. 


LANGUAGE   OF  THE  EPISTLE.        197 

but  the  Greek  is  pure,  *  and  the  vocabulary  seems 
to  indicate  that  the  author  was  well  read  in  Greek 
classical  literature.  Hence  Bishop  Wordsworth  argues 
for  an  Aramaic  original,  a  hypothesis  which  he  sup- 
ports by  a  minute  examination  of  the  Old  Latin 
Version.  This  hypothesis  cannot  be  said  to  be  estab- 
lished, but  it  is  well  worth  the  attention  of  scholars. 
That  James  should  have  adopted  the  same  method  as 
his  countryman  Josephus,  and  have  originally  com- 
posed his  letter  in  Aramaic,  and  then  have  had  it 
translated  into  Greek  with  the  aid  of  some  one  who 
was  master  of  both  languages  is  in  itself  probable  and 
accounts  for  the  facts.  The  Gospel  and  the  Epistles 
of  John  are  as  well  written  as  this  epistle,  but  the 
vocabulary  employed  by  John  is  the  colloquial  vo- 
cabulary and  not  the  literary,f  whereas  in  the  Epistle 
of  James  words  occur  which  would  hardly  be  used 
save  by  a  writer  acquainted  with  Greek  literature. 
There  are  thirteen  words  in  this  short  letter  which  are 
not  found  in  the  Septuagint;  and  though  a  certain 
proportion  of  these  are  common  words,  three  or  four 
of  them  are  not  so.  Besides  these  there  are  seven  very 
rare  words,  dWAeos,  dve/Ai£o/x,evos,  aTmpaoros,  aTrocnaaoyAa, 
Sai/x,oi>tw8?75,  OpfjcrKoSj  xpvcroSaKTvXios.  And  among  the 
twenty-seven  words  which  James  uses  in  common  with 
both  Septuagint  and  classics,  some  are  words  which 
would  scarcely  be  picked  up  by  hearing  colloquial  Greek. 

*  An  exact  analysis  of  its  language  is  given  in  Stiidia 
Biblwa,  p.  149. 

f  Cf.  Bunyan's  style ;  perfectly  lucid  and  harmonious  but 
constructed  with  merely  the  colloquial  material  available  to 
an  uneducated  man. 


198          FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

While  therefore  it  might  perhaps  be  rash  to  say  that 
this  letter  could  not  have  been  written  by  a  Pales- 
tinian Jew  who  habitually  used  the  Septuagint,  the 
probability  seems  on  the  whole  to  be  that  if  written 
either  by  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  or  by  James  the 
Lord's  brother,  it  would  first  be  composed  in  Aramaic 
and  then  be  rendered  into  Greek. 


FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

This  epistle  claims  to  be  from  the  hand  of  the 
Apostle  Peter,  and  it  was  universally  accepted  as 
genuine  by  the  early  Church.  Eusebius  mentions  it 
among  the  undisputed  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  found  in  the  Syriac  and  Old  Latin  versions.  It 
is  referred  to  in  2  Peter  iii.  1,  which,  whether  written 
by  Peter  or  not,  is  certainly  a  very  ancient  document. 
It  is  freely  used  by  Poly  carp,  and  echoes  of  it  are 
heard  in  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus.  Papias  also  used 
it,  and  by  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  it  was  undoubtingly 
accepted ;  *  so  that  Kenan's  language  t  is  not  too 
strong  when  he  says,  "The  First  of  Peter  is  one  of 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  which  are  the 
most  anciently  and  the  most  unanimously  cited  as 
authentic." 

Neither  is  internal  evidence  altogether  awanting. 
We  have  indeed  not  much  material  for  forming  an 
idea  of  Peter's  style;  but  knowing  that  he  was  a 

*  Polycarp,  ad  Phil,  1 ;  2 ;  8 ;  Papias  in  Eus.,  H.E.,  iii.  39  ; 
Iren.,  ad  Hcer.,  IV.  ix.  2  ;   Tertullian,  Scorpiace,  12. 
f  Renan,  L'Anteckrist,  p.  vii. 


ITS  AUTHENTICITY.  199 

companion  of  the  Lord's,  we  should  expect  this  to 
colour  to  some  extent  anything  he  might  write. 
Neither  are  we  disappointed.  He  claims  to  be  a 
witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  (v.  1),  and  seems 
to  differentiate  himself  from  those  who  had  not  seen 
Christ  (i.  8).  His  exhortation  to  the  presbyters  (v. 
2),  "  feed  the  flock,"  recalls  Christ's  parting  command 
to  himself  (John  xxi.  16).  In  v.  5  he  uses  the 
expression  "  gird  on,  like  a  slave's  apron,  humility," 
which  naturally  takes  us  back  to  the  scene  in  the 
upper  chamber,  when  Peter  had  seen  the  Lord  gird 
Himself  and  do  the  slave's  office.  And  the  passage 
(ii.  20 — 25)  in  which  the  writer  sets  before  his  readers 
the  great  example  of  unmerited  and  submissive  suffer- 
ing, is  certainly  very  agreeable  to  the  idea  that  he 
had  seen  Christ  buffeted  and  heard  Him  reviled.  The 
rich  practical  teaching  of  the  epistle,  and  its  stronglv 
hopeful  tone,  may  also  be  accepted  in  evidence  of  its 
apostolic  authorship. 

Against  this  evidence  it  is  pleaded  that  the  allusions 
bo  persecution  found  in  the  epistle  do  not  accord  with 
the  historical  conditions  during  the  lifetime  of  Peter. 
[f  we  are  to  find  circumstances  which  agree  with 
those  implied  in  the  epistle,  we  must  come  down  at 
any  rate  as  far  as  Trajan.  It  is  only  then  that  the 
very  name  of  Christian  (iv.  16)  was  enough  to  con- 
demn a  man.  Baur  and,  with  certain  modifications, 
his  followers  call  attention  to  the  decidedly  Pauline 
tone  of  the  letter,  and  argue  that  it  must  have  been 
written  by  a  Paulinist  with  the  purpose  of  conciliating 
the  Jewish  Christians  by  adducing  the  name  and 
teaching  of  Peter  in  confirmation  of  Pauline  doctrine. 


200          FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

Both  these  objections  touch   points  of  interest  and 
importance  in  the  epistle. 

It  is  apparent  (i.  6;  iv.  12,  etc.)  that  the  letter 
was  written  to  Christians  who  were  suffering  for  their 
religion.  But  the  persecution  to  which  they  were 
being  subjected  does  not  appear  to  have  been  insti- 
tuted by  the  magistrate  or  governor  of  the  district 
in  which  they  lived,  but  to  have  been  of  a  social  kind. 
The  Christians  addressed  in  the  letter  had  refused  to 
join  their  old  associates  in  "  excess  of  riot "  (iv.  4), 
and  were  therefore  calumniated.  They  were  spoken 
against  as  evil-doers  (iii.  16 ;  ii.  12),  and  they  were 
invoked  by  Peter  to  prove  by  their  conduct  that  these 
accusations  were  false  (iii.  16;  ii.  12).  These  accu- 
sations therefore  were  social  calumnies,  and  not  legal 
indictments.  Indeed  Peter  hints  (iii.  13)  that  to  be 
free  from  persecution  they  have  only  to  continue  in 
well-doing,  each  in  his  own  position,  whether  as  ser- 
vant (ii.  18 — 25),  as  wife  (iii.  1 — 6),  or  as  husband 
(iii.  7).  There  is  no  allusion  to  trials  before  the 
authorities,  nor  to  imprisonment,  nor  to  death ;  so 
that  it  is  needless  to  suppose  either  with  Mayerhoff 
and  others  that  the  IsTeronian  persecution  is  referred 
to,  or  with  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,  and  others  that  the 
persecution  under  Trajan  had  commenced.  Even  the 
strongest  passage  adduced  in  favour  of  these  views 
(iv.  16)  will  not  bear  such  an  interpretation.  It  is 
"reproach"  (iv.  14)  they  suffered  as  Christians,  and 
the  fear  was  that  they  would  be  "  ashamed  "  of  this 
reproach,  and  their  deliverance  from  it  was  still  to 
be  by  unmurmuring  patience  and  continuance  in  well- 
doing (iv.  19^1. 


ITS  PAULINISM.  201 

Baur's  idea  that  the  epistle  was  penned  by  a  Paulin- 
ist  personating  Peter  for  conciliatory  purposes  is 
based  on  the  fact  that  the  epistle  presents  numerous 
resemblances  in  thought  and  expression  to  the  epistles 
of  Paul.  Identity  of  thought  is  found  in  Rom.  viii. 
17,  18  and  1  Pet.  i.  4,  5;  Rom.  viii.  28 — 30  and 
1  Pet.  i.  2;  Rom.  v.  6  and  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  The 
practical  exhortations  found  in  1  Peter  can  all  be 
paralleled,  and  seem  in  many  instances  to  be  verbally 
derived  from  Rom.  xii.  1 — xiii.  14.*  The  verbal 
coincidences  in  these  passages  are  too  numerous  to 
admit  of  any  other  explanation  than  that  the  author 
of  the  one  letter  had  access  to  the  other. 

Between  this  epistle  and  that  to  the  Ephesians 
there  are  also  resemblances,  but  these  are  fainter  and 
rather  in  thought  than  in  language.t  But  unfortu- 
nately for  the  theory  of  Baur,  this  epistle  shows  also 
decided  traces  of  familiarity  with  the  letter  of  James, 
the  pillar  of  Judaistic  Christianity.:}:  Not  only  may 
the  address  of  Peter's  epistle  seem  to  have  been 
suggested  by  that  of  James,  but  three  quotations 

*  See  Holtzmann,  p.  488. 

f  They  will  be  found  stated  in  Salmon,  pp.  553-5 ;  and 
Pluraptre  on  this  epistle. 

|  Hatch  (JEncyc.  Brit.,  Art.  Ep.  of  Peter)  gives  the  following 
coincidences  "(1)  between  1  Peter  and  James  i.  6,  7  and  i.  2, 
3  ;  i.  12  and  i.  25  ;  i.  22  and  iv.  8  ;  ii,  1  and  i.  21  ;  iv.  8  and 
r.  20  ;  v.  5,  9  and  iv.  6,  7  ;  v.  6  and  iv.  10 ;  (2)  between 
I  Peter  and  Romans  i.  14  and  xii.  2  ;  ii.  5  and  xii.  1  ;  ii.  6 — 
10  and  ix.  32  ;  ii.  13  and  xiii.  1  ;  iii.  9  and  xii.  17 ;  iii.  22  and 
viii.  34 ;  iv.  3,  7  and  xiii.  11,  12  ;  iv.  9  and  xiii.  13  ;  iv.  10  and 
xii.  6  ;  (3)  between  1  Peter  and  Ephesians  i.  1  sq.  and  i.  3sq.; 
i,  14  and  ii.  3  ;  ii.  18  and  vi.  5  ;  iii.  1  and  v.  22 ;  iii.  22  and  i. 
20;  v.  5  and  v.  21." 


202          FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER, 

from  the  Old  Testament  are  common  to  the  two 
epistles  (1  Pet.  i.  24;  iv.  8;  v.  5).  Such  expressions 
as  "manifold  temptations,"  which  are  common  to  both 
epistles,  must  have  been  frequent  in  the  lips  of 
Christians,  and  cannot  be  founded  on;  but  perhaps 
the  words  "the  trying  of  your  faith"  (1  Pet.  i.  7) 
may  be  evidence  that  Peter  had  read  the  remarkable 
passage  in  James  i.  All  that  we  can  conclude  there- 
fore from  the  familiarity  with  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  which  this  letter  betrays,  is  that  the  writer 
had  probably  been  in  Rome  after  that  epistle  had 
reached  its  destination,  or  at  any  rate  had  seen  it, 
and  that  the  irreconcileable  difference  which  Baur 
supposes  to  have  existed  between  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  and  the  older  apostles  is  the  creation  of  his 
own  imagination. 

We  have  still  to  ascertain  for  whom  the  epistle 
was  intended.  The  geographical  area  within  which 
it  was  to  find  its  first  readers  is  accurately  defined — 
"  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia." 
But  who  the  elect  strangers  scattered,  e/cAe/cTois  ira.pf.Tn- 
STJ/MOIS  Siao-Tropas,  throughout  these  places  are,  is  doubt- 
ful. Weiss  and  many  other  critics  hold  that  Diaspora 
is  here  used  in  its  usual  and  unchristianized  sense  of 
the  Jews  who  lived  outside  the  Holy  Land,  and  that 
Peter  addresses  the  Jewish  Christians  living  in  the 
countries  named.  In  favour  of  this  it  may  not  only 
be  pleaded  that  this  is  the  usual  meaning  of  the  word, 
but  that  in  the  letter  itself  appeal  is  made  to  Old 
Testament  Scripture  (i.  16;  ii.  6,  etc.);  the  prophets 
of  the  Jews  are  familiarly  introduced  (i.  10);  the 
example  of  holy  women,  and  especially  of  Sarah,  is 


TO   WHOM  ADDRESSED.  203 

presented  (iii.  5,  6) ;  the  history  of  Noah  is  supposed 
to  be  known  (iii.  20) ;  and  the  letter  closes  with  the 
Jewish  salutation,  "Peace  be  with  you."  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  argued  that  some  knowledge  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  always  acquired  by  Gentile  con- 
verts, even  though  they  had  not  been  formerly  prose- 
lytes ;  that  the  wives  spoken  of  in  chap.  iii.  are  said 
to  have  become  Sarah's  children,  which  shows  they 
cannot  have  been  Jewesses  by  birth ;  that  the  state 
of  the  Jews  prior  to  their  reception  of  Christ  could 
scarcely  be  spoken  of  as  "your  ignorance"  (i.  14); 
that  the  text  cited  from  Hosea  (ii.  10)  was  applied 
by  Paul  to  Gentiles,  and  that  in  iv.  3  the  readers 
seem  to  be  explicitly  declared  to  be  Gentiles,  and  to 
have  been  idolaters.  It  is  further  argued  that  as 
Christians  were  the  spiritual  Israel,  so  the  desig- 
nation "diaspora"  might  be  applied  to  Christians 
scattered  abroad.  The  natural  objection  to  this  appli- 
cation of  the  word  is  that  Christians  were  not  "  scat- 
tered abroad"  in  these  countries;  but,  if  Gentiles, 
were  dwelling  in  their  own  homes  there.  This  objec- 
tion is  obviated  by  the  supposition  of  Dr.  Salmon, 
who  feels  "  much  inclined  to  take  the  word  literally, 
and  to  believe  that  Peter's  letter  was  written  to 
members  of  the  Roman  Church  whom  Nero's  perse- 
cution had  dispersed  to  seek  safety  in  the  provinces, 
Asia  Minor  -being  by  no  means  an  unlikely  place  for 
them  to  flee  to."  This  is  an  inviting  interpretation ; 
but  the  contents  of  the  epistle  indicate  rather  a  settled 
society  and  an  organized  Church.  It  may  indeed  be 
accepted  as  certain  that  the  letter  is  addressed  to  all 
Christians  dwelling  in  the  regions  named.  And  that 


204          FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

the  Christian  Churches  of  these  districts  were  com- 
posed of  Gentiles  and  Jews  may  also  be  accepted  as 
certain.  The  differences  which  elicited  Paul's  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  had  apparently  been  removed,  and 
now  there  existed  a  consolidated  Church,  in  which 
evidently  the  Gentile  element  prevailed.  And  Peter 
addresses  these  composite  Christian  communities  under 
the  designation  "  elect  strangers  of  the  dispersion," 
from  his  old  Jewish  habit  of  calling  all  his  co-reli- 
gionists in  those  foreign  parts  "  the  dispersion." 

The  place  where  the  letter  was  written  is  not  so 
undoubted  as  the  explicit  naming  of  it  would  at  first 
sight  lead  us  to  suppose.  For  though  Babylon  had, 
since  the  captivity,  always  contained  a  large  Jewish 
population,  it  is  known  that  there  occurred,  in  the 
reign  of  Caligula,  a  very  considerable  exodus  from  that 
city.  Tradition,  too,  points  rather  to  the  West  than 
to  the  East  as  the  scene  of  Peter's  apostolic  labours. 
The  early  ecclesiastical  writers,*  therefore,  believe 
that  under  the  name  "  Babylon  "  Peter  means  Rome; 
and  this  idea  has  been  fostered  by  Roman  Catholic 
writers,  who  think  they  make  a  point  if  they  establish 
that  Peter  was  first  bishop  of  the  imperial  city.  But 
it  is  naturally  asked,  If  Peter  meant  Rome  why  did 
he  not  say  "  Rome  "  ?  He  is  not  writing  an  Apoca- 
lypse but  a  friendly  letter,  and  unless  good  reason  can 
be  shown  for  his  using  this  figurative  style  we  must 
adhere  to  the  literal  meaning.  Besides,  it  is  doubtful 
if  Rome  was  thought  of  as  Babylon  before  the  Nero- 
nian  persecution,  or  before  the  Apocalypse  of  John. 

The  date  is  also  uncertain.  It  seems  likely  that 
*  Eusebius,  H.E.,  ii.  15. 


ITS  OBJECT.  205 

Peter  suffered  martyrdom  at  Rome  about  the  year 
67  A.D.,  which  accordingly  limits  the  date  on  the  one 
side.  On  the  other  side  the  date  is  limited  by  the 
Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Romans,  of  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  Peter  made  use.  If  he  also  had  seen  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  this  would  bring  his  epistle  down 
to  some  year  subsequent  to  Paul's  imprisonment ;  so 
that  we  should  be  compelled  to  place  it  in  the  year 
65  or  66.  Weiss,  who  holds  that  this  epistle  preceded 
those  of  Paul,  places  it  in  the  year  54,  before  the  dis- 
turbances alluded  to  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 
Bleek  and  Wieseler  find  a  place  for  it  during  the 
Roman  imprisonment  of  Paul.  Among  critics  who 
do  not  accept  it  as  Petrine,  some  place  it  in  the  reign 
of  Domitian,  but  the  great  majority,  following  Baur, 
find  a  date  for  it  under  Trajan,  who  in  the  year  112 
authorised  the  prosecution  of  Christians. 

The  object  of  the  letter  is  practical.  It  is  intended 
to  encourage  the  Christians  who  were  suffering  on 
account  of  their  faith,  and  who  apparently  feared  even 
greater  sufferings.  The  Apostle  writes  cheerily  and 
hopefully,  reminding  them  that  they  have  an  inherit- 
ance "  incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not 
away,"  and  that,  although  they  may  be  called  to  many 
trials,  these  will  pass  away  and  leave  them  in  possession 
of  a  perfect  salvation,  which  will  be  revealed  at  the 
appearing  of  Christ.  This  salvation  is  so  great,  that  it 
occupied  the  minds  of  the  prophets,  and  you  are  to  keep 
this  salvation  in  view,  and  strive  to  be  holy,  as  He  who 
calls  you  to  it  is  holy.  Think,  too,  of  the  price  that  has 
been  paid  for  your  redemption, — Jesus  Christ,  a  lamb 
without  blemish.  It  is  to  glorify  Him  you  are  called, 


206        SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

and  to  partake  with  Him.  Therefore,  be  exemplary 
among  the  Gentiles  in  all  social  relations,  as  members 
of  society,  servants,  wives,  husbands.  To  suffer,  doing 
well,  is  a  grace,  and  by  continuing  in  well-doing  though 
you  suffer,  you  will  convince  the  Gentiles.  Imitate 
Christ  in  this,  who  when  He  was  reviled,  reviled  not 
again,  when  He  suffered,  threatened  not,  but  committed 
Himself  to  Him  that  judgeth  righteously.  As  Christ 
suffered  in  the  flesh,  arm  yourselves  with  the  same 
mind.  It  will  not  be  for  long :  the  end  of  all  things 
is  at  hand. 


SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

This  epistle  claims  to  have  been  written  by  "  Simon 
Peter  ...  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ "  (i.  1),  and  to 
be  the  "  second  "  from  that  hand  (iii.  1).  The  writer 
accordingly  alludes  to  his  having  been  a  companion  of 
the  Lord  (i.  14),  an  eye-witness  of  His  majesty  (i.  16). 
one  of  the  apostles  (iii.  2),  and  a  friend  of  Paul's 
(iii.  15).  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  any  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  were  acquainted  with  the  epistle. 
Clement  of  Home*  does  indeed  speak  of  Noah  as  a 
preacher  of  repentance,  and  of  the  exemption  of  Lot 
from  the  punishment  that  fell  on  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
rah ;  but  in  Josephus,  the  Mishna,  and  the  Sibylline 
books,  f  Noah  is  also  spoken  of  in  similar  terms,  and 
the  language  used  by  Clement  regarding  the  cities  of 
the  plain  does  not  resemble  that  which  we  find  in  this 
epistle.  Dr.  Abbott  and  others  lay  great  stress  on 

*  Ep.  ad  Cor.  vii. ;  ii.  f  Holtzmann,  p.  500. 


ITS  AUTHENTICITY.  207 


Clement's  use  of  the  expression  /xeyoXoTrpcTnjs  8o£o  (ix.  ; 
cf.  2  Pet.  i.  17),  but  it  must  be  owned  that  the  force 
of  this  coincidence  is  somewhat  deadened  by  the  occur- 
rence of  pfyaXoTrpenrel  /JouXrjo-ei  previously  in  the  same 
paragraph,  and  by  the  fact  that  the  expression  is  used  in 
quite  a  different  connection.  Echoes  of  the  epistle  may 
be  heard  in  Theophilus  (ad  AutoL,  ii.  9;  ii.  13),  but  these 
also  must  be  admitted  to  be  somewhat  doubtful. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  towards  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  is  said*  to  have  commented  on  all 
the  canonical  Scriptures,  not  excepting  the  disputed 
books.  But  the  context  makes  it  doubtful  whether 
by  the  "  disputed  books  "  he  did  not  mean  the  Epistle 
of  Barnabas  and  the  Apocalpyse  of  Peter.  So  that  it 
is  not  until  we  reach  the  time  of  Origen  that  we  find 
the  epistle  certainly  mentioned  and  freely  used,  while 
even  yet,  and  to  the  time  of  Eusebius,  it  was  only 
admitted  among  the  disputed  books. 

To  determine  the  authenticity  of  this  epistle  we  are 
therefore  thrown  almost  entirely  on  the  internal 
evidence.  The  difficulties  in  fairly  estimating  this 
evidence  are  unquestionably  considerable.  Against 
the  authenticity  of  the  epistle  it  may  be  urged  that 
the  writer  is  over-anxious  to  identify  himself  with 
the  Apostle  Peter  ;  that  the  identification  bears  marks 
of  intention,  and  thus  excites  suspicion.  The  naming 
of  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  "  the  holy  mount  " 
(i.  18),  and  the  mention  of  Paul's  epistles  as  a  whole, 
and  as  forming  a  part  of  Scripture,  are  evidences  of 
later  date  than  the  life  of  Peter  includes.  The  style 
of  the  second  epistle  differs  considerably  from  that  of 
*  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  vi.  14. 


208        SECOND  EPISTLE   OF  PETER. 

the  first ;  and  the  thought  also  is  different,  the  key- 
note of  the  former  being  hope,  that  of  the  latter  being 
knowledge.  In  the  first  epistle  our  Lord  is  generally 
spoken  of  as  "  Christ "  or  "  Jesus  Christ " ;  in  the 
second  He  is  spoken  of  with  some  added  title,  "  the 
Lord"  or  "the  Saviour."  If  the  first  epistle  was 
written  shortly  before  the  Apostle's  death,  the  second 
must  have  been  written  very  nearly  at  the  same  time, 
and  yet,  although  it  is  addressed  to  the  same  readers, 
their  circumstances  seem  to  have  entirely  changed  ; 
the  first  epistle  being  addressed  to  persons  whose 
danger  lay  in  persecution,  the  second  to  those  who 
were  exposed  to  the  wiles  of  heretical  teachers.  And 
if  they  were  so  closely  related  by  their  date,  and  by 
the  fact  of  their  being  sent  to  the  same  Churches,  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  why  the  one  should  have  been 
at  once  accepted  by  the  Church,  while  the  other  was 
for  so  long  looked  upon  with  suspicion. 

Some  of  these  difficulties  disappear  on  the  slightest 
examination.  The  Mount  of  Transfiguration  is  cer- 
tainly called  "  the  holy  hill,"  but  this  not  as  a  name, 
but  only  as  an  epithet.  And  to  Peter,  who  had  wit- 
nessed the  transfiguration,  it  was  more  natural  than 
it  might  have  been  to  another  writer  to  use  this 
epithet,  especially  as  the  word  "  holy  "  is  a  favourite 
of  Peter's. 

The  allusion  to  scenes  in  Peter's  intercourse  with 
his  Lord  has  nothing  suspicious  in  it.  The  character 
of  Peter  was  simple  and  outspoken,  and  it  was  likely 
that  such  a  man  should  frankly  refer  to  what  he  had 
himself  seen  and  heard.  Add  to  this,  that  the  allu- 
sions to  our  Lord's  predictions  of  his  death  and  to  the 


MARKS  OF  LATE  DATE.  209 

Transfiguration  are  not  foisted  in,  but  are  naturally 
suggested  by  the  course  of  thought  in  the  letter. 
The  first  of  these  allusions  especially  is  much  too 
delicately  introduced  to  allow  the  idea  of  forgery. 
Peter  knew  that  he  was  to  die  a  violent  death,  and  as 
now  he  was  an  old  man  this  could  not  be  long  delayed 
else  nature  would  claim  her  due.  But  his  readers 
did  not  know  this.  The  Gospel  of  John  was  not 
yet  written.  And  therefore  the  explanatory  clause 
"  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  shewed  me  "  is  in- 
serted. This  was  not  a  likely  idea  to  occur  to  a 
forger,  nor  is  the  simplicity  of  its  expression  at  all 
like  forgery. 

The  objection  taken  from  the  manner  in  which  the 
epistles  of  Paul  are  spoken  of  is  thus  stated  by  Bleek  : 
"  The  manner  in  which  St.  Paul's  epistles  are  spoken 
of  is  somewhat  strange.  They  are  mentioned  col- 
lectively, not  one  only,  but  all,  as  writings  KO.T  e£ox^v, 
not  merely  known  and  widely  spread  in  the  Church, 
but  as  already  the  topic  of  various  interpretations,  on 
account  of  the  obscurity  and  difficulty  of  their  con- 
tents, so  that  "  the  unlearned  and  unstable  ...  as 
they  do  also  the  other  Scriptures  (ras  XoiTras  ypa<£as). 
This  last  expression  may  either  mean  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  or  other  Christian  Scriptures,  but 
the  term  al  ypafai  of  itself  also  denotes  writings 
which  were  considered  specially  holy,  which  were 
esteemed  ecclesiastically  canonical,  and  side  by  side 
with  these  (by  the  word  Aonrds)  the  Pauline  epistles 
are  ranked."  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  expression 
does  classify  the  epistles  of  Paul  with  the  sacred 
writings,  that  is,  with  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

14 


210        SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

Neither  is  there  any  doubt  that  it  was  only  at  a  later 
date  than  that  of  Peter's  martyrdom  that  the  writings 
which  now  form  the  New  Testament  were  classified, 
explicitly  and  as  a  whole,  with  the  Old  Testament. 
But  the  Apostles  are  always  named  as  co-ordinate 
with  the  Old  Testament  Prophets,  a  like  authority  is 
ascribed  to  them,  and  it  cannot  surprise  us  if  Peter 
should  so  early  have  recognised  that  their  writings 
belonged  to  the  same  order  as  those  of  the  Prophets. 
Paul  did  not  hesitate  to  claim  authority  for  his  letters 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  37). 

Too  much  has  been  made  of  the  difference  in  style 
between  the  first  and  second  epistles.  The  resem- 
blances are  much  more  striking.  There  is  the  same 
Petrine  fondness  for  pictorial  words,  such  as  pot^8ov, 
/Aiia>7ra£a)v,  crKrjvwfjia,  apyel,  av\fjif]po<s.  There  is  the 
same  duplication  of  phrase,  "exceeding  great  and 
precious,"  "neither  barren  nor  unfruitful,"  "blind 
and  cannot  see  afar  of,"  "  day  dawn  and  day  star 
arise,"  "judgment  lingereth  not  and  damnation 
slumbereth  not,"  "  spots  and  blemishes."  Charac- 
teristic of  Peter  are  also  the  words  8eAea£co  (ii.  14,  18), 
the  fisherman's  word,  "to  take  with  bait,"  and  a-Trjpi^ov 
(cf.  Luke  xxii.  33)  carried  out  by  Peter  in  i.  12 ; 
iii.  16,  17.  Many  phrases  are  found  to  be  common  to 
the  two  epistles,  as  dpe-nj  used  of  God  (I.  ii.  9  ;  II.  i.  3) ; 
d/xco/xov  Kal  doTTiXov  of  I.  i.  19,  and  acrmXoL  KOL 
of  II.  iii.  14;  eVoTmys  of  II.  i.  16,  and 
of  I.  ii.  12,  and  iii.  2 ;  tStos  in  both  epistles  is 
commonly  used  as  a  possessive  pronoun,  I.  iii.  1 ; 
II.  ii.  16,  22;  iii.  16.  In  this  epistle  there  are  also 
peculiar  words  used,  which  occur  in  the  speeches  of 


RESEMBLANCES  TO  FIRST  EPISTLE.   211 

Peter  reported  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  also  in  the 
Gospel  of  Mark.* 

Other  similarities,  especially  to  the  first  epistle, 
abound  in  2  Peter.  There  is  the  same  constant 
allusion  to  "  fleshly  lusts ; "  the  same  strenuous 
exhortation  to  holiness  (2  Pet.  i.  10,  iii.  11  and  14, 
cTTTovSao-are,  cf.  1  Pet.  i.  13);  the  same  considerations 
urged,  as,  that  Christians  are  purchased  with  the 
precious  blood  of  Christ  (1  Pet.  i.  18,  19,  and  2  Pet. 
ii.  1),  that  they  are  " called"  to  holiness  (I.  i.  15  ; 
II.  i.  3),  that  the  end  is  not  distant  (I.  passim, 
II.  i.  11,  iii.  11,  12);  the  same  individual  graces 
emphasised  as  <£i\aSeA<£ia,  only  thrice  in  the  New 
Testament  outside  these  epistles,  but  found  in  both 
of  them  (I.  i.  22;  iii.  8;  II.  i.  7).  The  word 
ayios  (holy)  is,  of  course,  common  in  all  parts  of 
the  New  Testament,  but  nowhere  so  constantly  and 
variously  applied  as  in  these  two  epistles  (I.  i. 
passim,  and  in  the  second  chapter,  we  have  the  "  holy 
priesthood,"  "  holy  nation,"  and  in  the  third  chapter 
"  holy  women ; "  so  in  2  Peter  we  have  "  the  holy 
mount,"  "  holy  men,"  "  holy  commandment,"  "  holy 
prophets,"  "  holy  conversation ").  In  both  epistles 
we  meet  with  a  mind  that  has  been  exercised  about 
prophecy  and  the  attitude  of'  the  prophet  to  his  mes- 
sage (I.  i.  10—12;  II.  i.  19—21).  The  use  of 
Xoprjyew  and  its  compound,  and  also  the  use  of  IXOVTCS 
in  describing  character,  may  also  be  noticed  as  com- 


*  These  will  be  found  in  Dr.  Lumby's  articles  in  the 
Expositor  for  1876,  which  contain  the  fullest  and  best  dig- 
cussion  of  the  subject. 


212        SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

mon  to  the  invo  epistles,  although  not  peculiar  t3 
them.* 

The  objection  that  the  one  epistle  has  Hope  for  irs 
keynote,  the  other  Knowledge,  is  absolutely  without 
weight.  The  one  epistle  was  addressed  to  men  who 
were  suffering  for  the  faith,  and  the  presentation  of 
hope  was  fitting.  The  other  was  addressed  to  Chris- 
tians exposed  to  false  teaching,  and  it  was  fit  that 
knowledge  should  be  more  emphasized.  But  the  key- 
note of  both  epistles  is  Holiness.  It  is  the  same 
earnest,  practical  spirit  that  breathes  through  both; 
not  neglecting  in  the  first  epistle  the  importance  of 
knowledge  (i.  22;  ii.  2 ;  iii.  15;  v.  2),  nor  in  the 
second  omitting  to  urge  hope  as  a  motive  (L  11 ;  iii. 
11—13). 

The  object  of  the  epistle  is  declared  in  chap.  iii. 
1 — 2.  It  was  "  stir  up  the  pure  minds  "  of  those  who 
received  it,  that  they  might  remember  the  command- 
ment of  Christ.  The  same  object  is  also  declared  in 
chap.  i.  12.  The  writer  desired  that  the  knowledge 
of  the  Lord  might  not  prove  unfruitful,  but  might 
urge  the  faithful  to  zeal  in  adding  to  their  faith  all 
grace  which  might  fit  them  for  entrance  into  the 
everlasting  kingdom  of  Christ  (i.  1 — 11).  This  he  is 
the  rather  prompted  to  do  because  he  is  sure  that 
false  teachers  will  shortly  appear  among  the  Churches 
to  which  he  writes  (ii.  1 — 3).  These  teachers  would  be 
recognisable  by  their  wicked  life,  their  selfish  greed, 
and  especially  by  their  abuse  of  the  doctrine  of  grace, 

*  For  a  complete  refutation  of  Dr.  Abbott's  criticism  of  this 
book  the  student '  must  be  referred  to  Professor  Salmon's 
brilliant  pages,  Introd.  to  N.  T.,  626—653. 


OBJECT  OF  THE  EPISTLE.  213 

turning  liberty  into  licence  (ii.,  and  especially  ii.  19). 
Most  solemnly  does  the  writer  affirm  that  if  his  readers 
yield  to  the  representations  of  these  teachers,  it  would 
be  better  that  they  had  never  known  the  way  of  right- 
eousness at  all.  Against  another  error,  whether  taught 
by  the  same  persons  or  not,  he  warns  them.  Scoffers 
would  come  among  them,  deriding  the  idea  that  the 
day  of  the  Lord  was  at  hand;  and  pointing  to  the 
stability  of  nature  in  proof  that  no  change  was  at  hand. 
This  scoff  Peter  rebuts  by  referring  to  the  destruction 
of  the  world  by  water,  and  affirming  that  the  same 
power  which  effected  that  destruction  now  holds  the 
world  "in  reserve  unto  fire."  The  delay  must  be 
measured  by  the  fact  that  with  God  a  thousand 
years  are  as  one  day,  and  must  be  ascribed  to  God's 
long-suffering,  seeking  to  give  men  ampler  oppor- 
tunities of  salvation  (iii.  8 — 15). 


FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN. 

This  epistle  was  received  as  apostolic  by  the  early 
Church.  It  is  referred  to  by  Polycarp,  by  Papias, 
and  in  the  Muratorian  canon.*  Even  Davidson,  who 
thinks  the  internal  evidence  unfavourable,  admits  that 
"  the  letter  is  well  attested  by  the  voice  of  antiquity. 
As  far  as  external  evidence  reaches,  the  authenticity 
seems  to  be  secure."  t  The  internal  evidence  might 
seem,  to  the  unsophisticated  reader,  to  be  of  the  very 
strongest  kind.  The  epistle  at  once  connects  itself  in 

*  For  references,  see  Charteris'  KiroTiJiofer9 
f  Introd..  ii.  232. 


214  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN. 

the  mind  with  the  fourth  gospel.  .Not  only  are  indi- 
vidual words  and  phrases  the  same*  in  both  writings, 
but  the  point  of  view  of  the  writer,  the  spirit  in  which 
he  writes,  the  ideas  that  occupy  his  mind,  are  identical. 
Notwithstanding  the  similarities  which  link  the  gospel 
and  the  epistle  together,  it  is  believed  by  some  critics 
that  there  are  differences  so  great  as  to  outweigh  these 
resemblances.  Davidson  finds  as  many  as  ten  differ- 
ences between  the  gospel  and  the  epistle.  Of  these 
the  chief  are  :  (1)  the  eschatological.  In  the  epistle 
the  coming  of  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  in  the  Pauline 
epistles.  "  Of  such  eschatology  the  evangelist  knows 
nothing ;  for  instead  of  a  visible  coming,  he  speaks  of 
a  spiritual  reappearance.  Christ's  second  advent  is 
resolved  into  the  Spirit's  mission  to  the  disciples." 
The  evangelist  knows  and  speaks,  not  only  of  a  spirit- 
ual reappearance  but  of  a  personal  and  visible  "  com- 
ing "  in  xiv.  3  and  xxi.  22.  (2)  "  The  doctrine  of  a 
paraclete  distinct  from  Christ  is  wanting  in  the  epistle. 
Indeed,  the  Spirit  is  never  called  the  paraclete  in  it. 
Christ  Himself  is  so  termed  (ii.  1)."  But  this  objection 
is  superficial,  resting  on  the  mere  word  "  paraclete," 
and  not  on  the  idea  conveyed  by  it.  In  the  epistle  it 
is  not  used  in  the  same  sense  as  in  the  gospel,  and  is 
applied  to  Christ  in  a  sense  which  does  not  interfere 
with  or  contradict  its  application  to  the  Spirit. 

The  only  objection  which  stirs  the  mind  to  any 

*  For  lists  see  Davidson  or  Westcott.  "  To  be  of  the  truth," 
"of  the  world,"  "of  God,"  "to  walk  in  darkness,"  "to  over- 
come  the  world,"  are  some  of  the  characteristic  expressions. 
Also  compare  1  Ep.  ii.  11,  with  Gospel  xii.  35  ;  iii.  13  with 
xv  18  ;  iij.  14  with  v.  24 ;  iv.  6  with  viii.  47,  etc. 


HERESIES  IMPLIED.  215 

serious  enquiry  is  that  which  proceeds  upon  the 
finding  that  the  epistle  deals  with  post-apostolic 
heresy.  It  was  maintained  by  Bretschneider,  and 
has  been  maintained  by  many  since,  that  the  form 
of  Gnosticism  which  the  writer  is  confronted  with 
and  combats  did  not  make  its  appearance  till  after 
the  close  of  the  first  century.  Gnosticism,  as  its 
name  implies,  preached  a  salvation  by  knowledge, 
and  thus  proved  itself  to  be  an  immoral  system. 
That  one  form  or  other  of  Gnosticism  was  aimed  at 
by  the  writer  of  this  epistle  is  apparent  from  the 
warnings  which  occur  throughout  it  against  being 
satisfied  with  knowledge  or  profession  or  anything 
short  of  actual  righteousness  (cf.  ii.  4;  i.  6;  i.  8;  iii.  7). 
The  epistle  is  an  earnest  remonstrance  against  pro- 
fession without  practice,  knowledge  without  character. 
It  is  a  powerful  appeal  to  Christians  to  strive  after 
the  full  moral  results  of  fellowship  with  Christ  and 
with  God. 

But  evidently  those  to  whom  the  epistle  was  ad- 
dressed were  in  danger  not  only  of  being  seduced  to 
carelessness  qf  life,  but  also  of  being  misled  regarding 
the  person  of  Christ,  "Who  is  a  liar  but  he  that 
denieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ?"  "Every  spirit 
that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh 
is  of  God."  "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  is  born  of  God."  Now  Cerinthus,  who  lived  in 
Ephesus  while  John  was  also  there,  and  whose  name 
is  associated  with  John's  in  tradition,  taught  that 
the  Christ,  the  Divine  element  in  the  Person,  was 
imparted  to  Jesus  at  His  baptism  and  retired  from 
Him  before  His  passion.  And  it  would  appear  that 


216  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN. 

it  was  tliis  form  of  heretical  teaching  which  the  writei 
of  the  epistle  had  especially  in  view.  He  wished  to 
reprobate  the  view  that  the  Christ  and  Jesus  were 
two  separate  persons.  It  is  very  likely  also  that  in 
v.  6,  when  he  states  that  Jesus  Christ  came  "  not  by 
water  only  but  by  water  and  blood,"  he  alludes  to 
the  opinion  that  the  Christ  came  upon  Jesus  in  the 
water  of  baptism,  but  was  not  present  in  the  blood 
of  the  crucifixion ;  and  accordingly  Mansel  paraphrases 
the  words,  "  Christ  was  not  merely  joined  to  Jesus  at 
His  baptism,  to  leave  Him  before  His  crucifixion.  It 
is  one  and  the  same  Jesus  Christ,  who  manifested 
Himself  by  water  in  baptism  and  by  blood  on  the 
cross."* 

The  object  of  the  epistle  is  explicitly  enounced  by 
the  writer  himself  in  i.  4,  "These  things  write  we 
unto  you  that  your  joy  may  be  full";  and  in  v.  13, 
"These  things  have  I  written  .  .  .  that  ye  may  know 
that  ye  have  eternal  life,  and  that  ye  may  believe  on 
the  name  of  the  Son  of  God."  With  similar  explicit- 
ness  the  object  of  John's  gospel  is  enounced  (xx.  31), 
"These  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."  The  gospel  was  written 
to  present  to  men  a  worthy  object  of  faith,  to  present 
the  expected  Saviour,  the  Revealer  of  the  unseen 
God;  the  epistle  is  written  to  explain  more  fully 
what  belief  in  Jesus  implies  and  to  confirm  that  belief. 
The  course  of  thought  in  the  epistle  is  not  easily  traced. 
It  would  seem  as  if  the  thought  of  one  verse  sug- 
gested the  next,  rather  than  as  if  there  were  a  plan 
*  Mansel .  Gnostic  Heresies  77. 


ITS  OBJECT.  217 

previously  conceived  for  the  epistle  as  a  whole.  Still 
it  is  apparent  that  in  the  first  part  of  the  epistle 
John  dwells  on  the  idea  that  God  is  Light  and  on  the 
consequences  of  this  in  those  who  have  fellowship 
with  God,  while  in  the  latter  part  of  the  epistle  it 
is  the  idea  of  God  as  Love.that  forms  the  centre  of  his 
thought.  The  course  of  thought  from  i.  5  to  ii.  11 
obviously  carries  the  idea  that  God  is  Light  into  some 
of  its  applications  to  professed  believers,  and  though 
not  so  obviously,  yet  certainly,  this  same  idea  of  Gcd 
being  Light  and  Truth  is  pursued  as  far  as  ii.  27. 
From  this  point  to  iii.  10  it  is  God's  righteousness 
and  our  conformity  to  it  that  is  the  guiding 
thought ;  after  iii.  10  God  as  Love  is  brought  more 
prominently  into  view.  But  all  three  ideas  run 
into  one  another,  and  the  ideas  proper  to  one  section 
re-appear  in  the  other  sections,  because  God's  light  or 
truth,  His  righteousness  and  His  love  are  so  closely 
related  as  to  be  inseparable. 

The  epistle  was  probably  addressed  to  the  Church 
of  Ephesus  and  the  neighbouring  Churches.  Augustine 
or  his  pupil  and  biographer  Possidius  calls  it  "the 
Epistle  of  John  to  the  Parthians  "  (ad  Pai  thos),  and 
the  same  title  is  found  in  other  Latin  writers  and 
MSS.  Gieseler  conjectured  that  this  arose  from  some 
Latin  writer  finding  the  letter  designated  as  "the 
Epistle  of  John  the  Virgin "  (row  irapOevov),  which 
he  misunderstood  as  "  the  Epistle  of  John  to  the 
Parthians"  (-n-pos  Traptfovs).*  Certainly  John  was 
commonly  known  as  the  Virgin  in  the  early  Church. 

*  See  Plummer's  full  and  instructive  Introduction  in  his 
Epistles  of  St.  John  in  the  Cambridge  Greek  Testament. 


218 


SECOND  AND  THIRD  EPISTLES  OF  JOHN. 

Eusebius  *  classes  these  two  epistles  with  the  anti- 
legomena  or  disputed  books;  and  indicates  that 
though  they  were  well  known  there  was  a  question 
whether  they  were  written  by  the  evangelist  or  some 
other  person  of  the  same  name.  He  himself,  however, 
uses  them  as  if  he  believed  them  to  be  from  the 
hand  of  the  Apostle.t  Origen  also  mentions  that 
there  was  not  universal  agreement  regarding  their 
authorship.  They  were  not  included  in  the  Peshito 
version  and  the  testimony  of  the  Muratoriari  Canon 
is  doubtful,  though  it  appears  to  be  in  favour  of  their 
acceptance.  Irenseus  quotes  the  second  epistle  as  John's. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  £  from  the  first  epistle 
under  the  designation  "  the  greater  epistle,"  showing 
that  it  was  not  the  only  one  he  received  as  Johannine. 
The  brevity  and  unimportant  nature  of  the  epistles 
would  naturally  retard  their  acceptance  into  the 
Canon.  If  the  third  epistle  was  to  be  received,  why 
might  not  every  "letter  of  commendation"  or  certificate 
of  Church  membership  which  happened  to  bear  an 
apostle's  signature,  be  received  ?  Ajid  this  same 
brevity  and  absence  of  special  teaching  puts  the 
idea  of  forgery  out  of  the  question.  Besides,  a 
forger  would  have  named  John  the  Apostle  if  he 
wished  to  gain  acceptance  for  his  productions.  Indeed 
the  only  ground  on  which  the  acceptance  of  letters  so 

*  H.  E.  iii.  25.        f  Dem.  Ev.,  iii.  5. 
J  Strom.,  ii.  16. 


A  UTHENTIGIT7.  219 

private  and  void  of  public  significance  can  be  accounted 
for  is  that  they  are  genuine.* 

Neither  are  positive  indications  of  authorship 
wholly  awanting  in  these  two  brief  letters.  That 
they  are  from  the  same  hand  is  admitted  even  by 
Baur.f  The  writer  designates  himself  by  the  same 
title,  "  the  elder,"  in  both ;  and  the  formula  with 
which  he  opens  the  letter  is  the  same  in  both,  "  The 
elder  unto  .  .  .  whom  I  love  in  the  truth."  In  both 
letters  the  same  formula  for  expressing  gratification 
is  used,  and  the  same  ground  for  joy  is  mentioned 
(2  Ep.  4 ;  3  Ep.  3,  4).  And  in  both  letters  the  brevity 
is  excused  on  the  ground  of  a  promised  visit  in  almost 
identical  terms  (2  Ep.  12;  3  Ep.  13).  If  therefore 
the  second  epistle  belongs  to  the  Apostle  John,  the 
third  also  must  be  ascribed  to  him.  But  the  second 
epistle  is  as  strictly  connected  with  the  first  as  with 
the  third.  For  of  its  thirteen  verses  no  fewer  than 
eight  can  be  matched  with  verses  of  the  first  epistle, 

*  Dr.  Gloag  sums  up  the  argument  in  favour  of  the  third 
epistle  thus  :  "It  is  impossible  to  assign  any  adequate  motive 
for  forgery.  It  contains  no  statement  of  doctrine  ;  it  does 
not,  like  the  second  epistle,  refer  to  any  heresy ;  it  does  not 
even  insist  on  any  definite  line  of  conduct ;  it  purports  to  be  a 
private  letter  of  the  Apostle  John  to  a  certain  Gaius  otherwise 
unknown,  called  forth  by  a  mere  transitory  circumstance. 
Besides  ...  had  this  third  epistle  been  the  work  of  a  forger 
who  personated  the  Apostle,  the  writer  would  not  have 
designated  himself  by  the  simple  and  ambiguous  title  "the 
elder,"  but  would  have  called  himself  John  the  Apostle,  to 
give  weight  and  authority  to  the  epistle.  But  the  strongest 
argument  in  favour  of  this  epistle  arises  from  the  resemblance 
between  it  and  the  second  epistle,  a  resemblance  so  close  that 
both  must  stand  or  fall  together. 

f  Holtzmann  (Einleitwig,  467)  calls  them  "  Twin-sisters." 


220       SMALLER  EPISTLES  OF  JOHN. 

and  so  far  as  there  is  teaching  in  it,  that  teaching 
resembles  the  first  epistle.  The  differences*  in  ex- 
pression cannot  be  said  to  countervail  these  resem- 
blances. 

But  while  critics  like  Bleek  think  the  internal 
evidence  overwhelmingly  in  favour  of  the  Johannine 
authorship,  others  maintain  that  they  belong  to  the 
second  century.  Baur  ascribes  them  to  a  Montanist, 
and  believes  that  they  are  addressed  to  Rome,  the 
bishop  of  which  Church  is  alluded  to  under  the  name 
of  Diotrephes.  This  opinion  is  too  baseless  to  find 
any  support.  Hilgenfeld  supposes  the  second  epistle 
to  be  an  official  document  uttering  the  apostolic 
judgment  of  excommunication  against  the  Gnostics; 
while  the  third  is  a  letter  of  recommendation  in 
which  the  metropolitan  Church  of  Asia  seeks  to 
vindicate  its  right  to  utter  such  documents,  and  to 
have  them  attended  to. 

Why  these  letters,  which  would  seem  to  be  from 
the  hand  of  the  Apostle  John,  do  not  bear  his  name, 
it  is  hard  to  say.  Some  have  laid  such  stress  on  the 
title  "  the  elder,"  under  which  the  writer  appears,  as 
to  maintain  that  they  cannot  proceed  from  one  who 
might  have  used  the  greater  title  of  Apostle.  This 
was  felt  as  early  as  Jerome,  who  says  :  "  John  wrote 
one  epistle,  which  is  accepted  by  all  ecclesiastics 
and  scholars  ;  but  the  other  two,  beginning  with  '  the 
elder/  are  said  to  have  been  written  by  John  the 


*  These  differences  are  tl  TIQ  instead  of  lav  rig  ;  tig 
for  tig  ret  ISia  ;  Koiviovttv  for  icoivwviav  t\nv\  and  one  or  two 
peculiarities  as  iriarbv  irou'iv,  ^Xwapar,  Qibv  *xilv-  See  Holtz- 
mann,  468. 


AUTHENTICITY  221 

Presbyter,  whose  sepulchre  is  at  this  day  shown  in 
Ephesus."  This  opinion  has  been  held  by  Erasmus, 
Grotius,  Bretschneider,  Reuss,  and  others;  and  is 
strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  writer  speaks  of  his 
authority  having  been  disowned  by  Diotrephes,  which, 
it  is  supposed,  could  not  have  occurred  had  the  writer 
been  the  Apostle  John  But  the  existence  of  this 
presbyter  John  is  problematical  An  expression  used 
by  Papias  is  the  only  ground  for  supposing  that  such 
a  person  existed,  and  when  that  expression  is  looked 
into,  it  becomes  doubtful  whether  he  was  not  referring 
to  the  Apostle.*  It  is  also  to  be  considered  that 
towards  the  close  of  the  first  century  "Apostle"  had 
become  a  very  common  designation,  and  was  applied 
to  such  persons  as  are  mentioned  in  the  third  epistle, 
and  who  were  sent  out  on  various  missions  by  the 
Churches.  If  John  occupied  in  Ephesus  the  office  of 
a  presbyter,  as  doubtless  he  did,  the  difficulty  con- 
sists in  understanding  not  why  he  should  have 
preferred  the  title  "  Presbyter  "  to  that  of  "  Apostle," 
but  why  without  naming  himself  or  describing  the 
Church  to  which  he  belonged,  he  should  have  de- 
signated himself  in  this  absolute  way  as  "the 
presbyter."  Perhaps  it  is  wisest  to  say  with  Dr. 
Westcott,  that  "  far  too  little  is  known  of  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor  at  the  close  of  the 
apostolic  age  to  allow  any  certain  conclusion  to  be 
formed  as  to  the  sense  in  which  he  may  have  so 

*  So  good  a  patristic  scholar  as  Dr.  Salmon  says  :  "  We 
frankly  own  that,  if  it  were  not  for  deference  to  better  judges, 
we  should  unite  with  Keim  in  relegating,  though  in  a  different 
way,  this  Doppelganger  of  the  Apostle  to  the  region  of  ghost- 
land." 


222       SMALLER  EPISTLES  OF  JOHN. 

styled  himself."  *  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  Papias  applied  the  distinctive  title, 
"  the  presbyters,"  to  those  who  had  been  disciples  of 
the  Lord,  using  the  title  not  as  a  designation  of  office, 
but  as  descriptive  of  those  who  belonged  to  a  past 
generation.t  If  this  usage  had  become  popular  in 
the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  then  it  is  intelligible 
that  John  as  the  sole  survivor  among  them  of  the 
original  eye-witnesses  of  Christ,  should  be  named  by 
pre-eminence  "  the  presbyter." 

The  second  epistle  is  addressed  to  "  the  elect  lady 
and  her  children,"  e/cAeAcri}  KV/OI'O,  KCU  rots  Te/ci/ois  avr^s  ; 
but  who  is  meant,  whether  an  individual  matron 
or  a  Church,  is  much  debated.  J  Some  have  supposed 
that  a  lady  of  the  name  of  Electa  is  intended,§  but 
this  is  untenable  in  the  face  of  the  salutation  (ver.  13) 
sent  from  a  sister  of  the  same  name.  Others  ||  have 
thought  that  the  letter  is  sent  "  to  the  elect  Kyria," 
but  this  is  grammatically  untenable.^  Besides,  the 
tenor  of  the  letter  agrees  better  with  the  idea  that  it 
was  addressed  to  a  Church  than  to  an  individual.  A 
private  household  would  scarcely  have  received  the 

*  Epistles  of  St.  John,  p.  Iv. 

•f  The  words  of  Papias  referred  to  are  to  be  found  in 
Eusebius,  H.E.,  iii.  39,  and  are,  "  If  I  met  with  any  one  who 
had  been  a  follower  of  the  presbyters,  I  used  to  ask  what  the 
presbyter  said,  what  Andrew,  Peter,  or  Philip  said,"  etc. 

%  Westcott  thinks  the  key  is  lost,  and  that  no  proposed 
interpretation  is  satisfactory. 

§  Grotius,  etc. 

||  Pseudo-Athanasius,  Bengel,  Liicke,  Bleek,  De  Wette. 

^[  Liicke  thinks  it  not  unlikely  John  may  have  written  un- 
grammatically here. 


TO    WHOM  ADDRESSED.  223 

instructions  of  ver.  10;  and  had  these  instructions 
been  given  to  the  mistress  of  a  household,  she  would 
have  been  advised  not  to  receive  the  heretic  into  her 
house  (cts  rrjv  oi/aW).  The  use  of  the  plural  in 
these  passages,  and  the  easy  transition  from  singular 
to  plural  in  ver.  5,  seem  decisive  against  supposing 
that  an  individual  is  meant.  The  "  elect  lady  "  then 
must  be  a  Christian  Church  (comp.  1  Pet.  v.  13: 
17  Iv  Ba/JvXwvi  owe/cXe/crr/),  and  probably  is  called 
"  lady  "  (KVPLO)  as  the  bride  of  Christ  (Eph.  v.  32).* 
And  if  so,  then  the  "  children "  are  the  members  of 
the  Church  ;  f  and  this  makes  it  intelligible  that  the 
•writer  should  speak  (ver.  4)  of  some  of  these  children 
as  walking  in  truth.  The  particular  Church  intended 
it  is  impossible  to  ascertain,  although  conjectures 
have  been  freely  ventured. 

Apparently  John  had  visited  this  Church  some  time 
previously  (vers.  4,  8),  although  Weiss  denies  this 
inference.  At  any  rate,  either  by  personal  observa- 
tion or  by  trustworthy  report,  he  had  ascertained  that 
a  proportion  of  its  members  were  adhering  to  the 
truth  and  living  in  its  light.  These  he  wishes  to 
confirm,  and  to  warn  against  departure  from  the 
original  and  fundamental  teaching  of  Christ  (vers. 
5,  6).  This  he  does,  because  false  teachers  were 
going  about,  who  did  not  confess  "  Christ  coming  in 
flesh,"  that  is  to  say,  who  denied  the  proper  humanity 

*  The  opinion  of  Clement  of  Alex,  is  worth  giving  \n  Ms 
own  words  :  "  Secunda  Johannis  Epistola  .  .  .  scripta  est  ad 
quandam  Babyloniam  Electam  nomine,  significat  autem 
electionem  ecclesias  sanctae"  (Op.,  Migne's  ed.  ii.  1470). 

f  This  opinion  is  maintained  by  Hammond,  Ewald,  Hilgen- 
feld,  and  many  others. 


224        SMALLER  EPISTLES   OF  JOHN. 

of  Christ,  teaching  some  form  of  docetism.  With 
such  teachers  there  was  to  be  no  intercourse  (ver.  10). 
The  doctrine  they  taught  might  seem  innocent,  and 
an  advance  to  higher  knowledge,  but  it  was  not  so. 
"  Every  one  who  advances  (TTCIS  6  irpoayw,  Westcott 
and  Hort)  and  does  not  abide  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  hath  not  God." 

The  third  epistle  is  addressed  to  Gaius.  This  was 
a  very  common  name.  In  the  New  Testament  persons 
so  called  appear  in  Rom  xvi.  23  ;  1  Cor.  i.  14  (possibly 
the  same) ;  Acts  xix.  29  ;  xx.  4  Another  is  men- 
tioned in  early  Church  history  (Const  Ap.,  vii.  46)  as 
having  been  made  bishop  of  Pergamum  by  the  Apostle 
John.  But  it  is  uncertain  whether  this  is  the  person 
here  addressed.  From  the  letter  itself  it  appears  that 
some  Christians  who  had  recently  arrived  in  Ephesus 
from  some  neighbouring  town,  had  spoken  in  terms 
of  high  commendation  of  the  hospitality  of  Gaius, 
evidently  a  person  of  influence  and  means  in  the 
Church  they  had  been  visiting  John  writes  this 
letter  to  express  his  satisfaction  at  this  tidings,  and 
to  beg  that  the  kind  offices  of  Gaius  may  be  continued, 
as  these  Christian  brethren  were  again  setting  out  to 
evangelise,  and  habitually  acted  on  the  principle  of 
receiving  no  pecuniary  remuneration  or  assistance  from 
those  to  whom  they  carried  the  gospel.  He  would 
naturally  have  sent  this  letter  to  the  Church,  but  a 
former  application  of  the  same  kind  which  he  had  made 
to  the  Church  (ver.  9)  had  been  intercepted  by  Dio- 
trephes,  and  its  appeal  not  only  refused  with  contempt, 
but  threats  of  excommunication  uttered  against  those 
how  proposed  to  listen  to  it.  Ewald,  Weiss,  and 


EPISTLE  OF  JUDE.  225 

others,  think  that  the  letter  referred  to  is  the  second 
epistle,  but  that  letter  is  a  warning  against  showing 
hospitality  to  the  wrong  men,  not  an  invitation  to 
entertain  courteously  the  right  men.  The  letter  gives 
a  glimpse  of  the  Christian  Church  in  the  closing  years 
of  the  first  century.  The  Church  was  a  new  field  for 
influence  both  through  teaching  and  through  means. 
Ambitious  men  pushed  to  the  front ;  speculative  men 
inculcated  error ;  good  Christians  went  from  place  to 
place  evangelising  with  no  certain  livelihood.  The 
state  of  things  disclosed  in  these  epistles  may  pro- 
fitably be  compared  with  the  instructions  in  The 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles. 

EPISTLE  OF  JUDE. 

In  comparing  the  Epistle  of  Jude  with  that  of 
James,  and  in  accounting  for  the  limited  circulation 
of  these  two  Palestinian  letters,  Professor  Salmon 
remarks  that  "  what  is  really  surprising  is,  that  of 
these  two,  it  is  the  letter  of  the  less  celebrated  man 
which  seems  to  have  been  the  better  known,  and  to 
have  obtained  the  wider  circulation.  The  external 
testimony  to  the  Epistle  of  James  is  comparatively 
weak,  and  it  is  only  the  excellence  of  the  internal 
evidence  which  removes  all  hesitation.  Now  the  case 
is  just  the  reverse  with  regard  to  Jude's  epistle. 
There  is  very  little  in  the  letter  itself  to  enable  us  to 
pronounce  a  confident  opinion  as  to  the  date  of  com- 
position ;  but  it  is  recognised  by  writers  who  are  silent 
with  respect  to  the  epistle  of  James."  *  It  is  appa- 
*  Introd.,  p.  593. 

15 


226  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE. 

rently  included  in  the  Muratorian  canon.*  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  in  both  of  his  great  works,  f  quotes  the 
epistle  under  the  name  of  Jude.  Tertullian  and  Origen 
also  use  it  freely.  It  is,  however,  absent  from  the 
Peshito  version.  +  Eusebius,§  in  giving  some  account 
of  James,  concludes  with  this  statement  regarding  his 
epistle  and  Jude's:  "  Not  many,  indeed,  of  the  ancients 
have  mentioned  it,  nor  even  that  called  the  Epistle  of 
Jude,  which  is  also  one  of  the  seven  called  Catholic 
Epistles.  Nevertheless,  we  know  that  these,  with  the 
rest,  are  publicly  used  in  most  of  the  Churches." 

Turning  to  the  epistle  itself  we  find  that  it  purports 
to  be  by  "  Jude,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  brother 
of  James."  This  is  generally  and  justly  considered  to 
be  an  indication  that  not  the  Apostle  Jude,  but  Jude 
the  Lord's  brother  (Matt.  xiii.  55  ;  Mark  vi.  3)  was 
the  author.  As  Davidson  (ii.  264)  remarks :  "  Why 
should  he  call  himself  brother  of  another  person,  if  he 
possessed  independent  authority  and  apostleship  1 " 
That  he  should  designate  himself  "  brother  of  James," 
and  not  "  brother  of  the  Lord  "  is  also  natural;  because 
the  saying  of  Jesus  in  which  the  spiritual  relationship 
was  shown  to  take  precedence  of  the  physical  (Mark 

*  The  words  are  "Epistola  sane  Judae  et  superscript! 
Johannis  duas  in  Catholica  habentur,"  which  may  best  be 
rendered,  "The  Epistle  of  Jude  and  the  two  inscribed  with 
the  name  of  John  are  accepted  in  the  Catholic  (Church)  [or, 
among  the  Catholic  Epistles]." 

f  Peed.,  iii.  8  ;  Strom.,  iii.  2. 

J  A  fact  which  Canon  Venables  (Smith's  Diet.,  Art.  Ep.  of 
Jude)  cites  as  decisive  that  it  was  not  written  by  the  Apostle 
Jude,  who  was  the  traditional  evangelist  of  Edessa. 

§  H.  E.,  ii.  23. 


A  UTHENTICITY.  227 

iii.  31 — 35),  was  now  understood,  and  also  because 
James  was  so  well  known  in  the  Christian  Church  that 
to  be  his  brother  was  a  sufficient  identification.* 

The  chief  difficulty  which  has  prevented  the  epistle 
from  being  universally  accepted  as  authentic  is  that 
the  immoral  perversions  of  Christian  truth  against 
which  it  is  aimed  are  supposed  to  belong  to  a  later 
date  than  that  which  is  covered  by  the  life  of  Jude. 
There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Jude  was  dead  before 
Domitian  acceded  to  the  imperial  throne  in  A.D.  81. 
And  it  is  supposed  that  it  was  not  till  some  time  after 
this  date  any  such  teaching  as  is  alluded  to  in  the 
epistle  was  known.  Thus  Davidson  (ii.  269)  says  : — 
"  The  description  of  the  men  who  had  crept  in  among 
the  readers  suits  antinomian  Gnostics  only.  Now 
Gnosticism  proper  did  not  exist  in  the  first  century." 
Similarly  Hilgenfeld  f  says :  "  The  heretical  teachers 
here  attacked  are  manifestly  Gnostics  of  the  second 
century  with  their  contemptuous  repudiation  of  God 
and  the  angels  of  the  Old  Testament  (ver.  8 — 10),  of 
Jesus  as  the  merely  human  organ  of  the  higher  Christ 
(ver.  4),  and  of  the  inferior  psychical  people  (ver.  19), 
and  with  their  Gnostic  libertine  tendencies  (vets.  8, 
10,  16).  .  .  .  Its  composition  by  Jude,  whether  the 
Lord's  brother  or  one  of  the  twelve,  is  out  of  the 
question."  To  this  it  may  be  added  that  Clement  of 
Alexandria  believed  that  Jude  spoke  prophetically  of 
the  errors  of  Carpocrates. 

The  question  is  whether  the  language  of  the  epistle 
implies  a  fully  developed  Gnostic  antinomianism  or  is 
more  easily  understood  of  an  undeveloped,  embryonic 

*  Eusebius,  H.K,  iii.  19,  20.  f  Wnleitung,  p.  744. 


228  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE. 

heresy.  And  undoubtedly  the  epistle  does  speak  of  a 
manifestation  that  was  new  and  had  as  yet  gained  no 
great  currency.  The  teachers,  if  they  were  teachers 
and  not  merely  ordinary  members,  had  "  crept  in," 
and  they  might  yet  be  saved  from  the  immoral  position 
they  held  (vers.  22,  23).  Their  teaching  too  was  simi- 
lar to  that  perversion  of  the  doctrines  of  grace  against 
which  Paul  had  constantly  to  warn  his  readers  (Rom. 
vi. ;  Gal.  v.  13).  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  Gnos- 
ticism is  intended  at  all.  The  teachers  are  charac- 
terised as  denying  our  only  Master  (Seo-Tro-njv)  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  they  "  despise  dominion  "  and 
"  speak  evil  of  dignities  "  (So£as).  That  is  to  say,  they 
threw  off  all  rule,  and  did  so  in  order  that  they 
might  unrestrainedly  follow  their  lusts.  In  the 
words  of  Peter  they  "  walk  after  the  flesh  in  the  lust 
of  uncleanness,  and  despise  government"  (KV/DIOTT/TOS 
Kara^povowras,  2  Pet.  ii.  10).  The  only  lordship  or 
government  recognised  by  the  Christian,  these  god- 
less men  repudiated,  becoming  a  law  to  themselves. 
But  there  is  no  hint  of  the  doctrinal  basis  of  this 
immoral  revolt,  further  than  what  is  suggested  by 
the  words  tl  turning  the  grace  of  our  God  into  las- 
civiousness."  In  fact  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that 
an  epistle  which  contains  so  little  explicit  allusion  to 
the  false  doctrines  of  Gnosticism  should  have  been 
written  after  the  apostolic  age  and  at  a  time  when 
these  doctrines  were  well  known  and  prevalent. 

It  is  further  affirmed  that  the  17th  verse,  which 
alludes  to  the  "words  which  were  spoken  before  of 
the  apostles  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  betrays  that 
the  writer  belongs  to  a  post-apostolic  age.  The  words 


HIS   USE  OF  APOCRYPHAL  BOOKS.   229 

prove  the  very  opposite.  The  writer  addresses  persons 
who  had  been  themselves  addressed  by  word  or  by 
letter  by  the  apostles,  and  are  now  requested  to  remem- 
ber what  they  had  thus  learned. 

Jerome  apparently  considered  that  the  main  obstacle 
to  the  reception  of  this  epistle  was  its  quotation  of 
apocryphal  literature.  "  Jude,"  he  says,*  "  the  bro- 
ther of  James,  has  left  us  a  short  epistle,  which  is 
one  of  the  seven  so-called  Catholic  Epistles.  But 
because  of  a  quotation  from  the  Book  of  Enoch,  which 
is  apocryphal,  it  is  rejected  by  many."  The  quota- 
tion alluded  to  is  introduced  (ver.  14)  with  a  formula 
which  does  not  necessitate  its  derivation  from  a  book ; 
but  as  there  did  exist  a  "  Book  of  Enoch  "  previous  to 
the  date  of  this  epistle,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
it  was  used  by  Jude.t  This  apocryphal  book  lay 
buried  for  many  centuries,  and  was  supposed  to  be 
irrecoverably  lost,  but  in  1773,  Bruce,  the  traveller, 
brought  from  Abyssinia  three  copies  of  the  book  in 
Ethiopia  In  1821  Laurence  published  an  English 
translation,  and  in  1853  Dillmann  re-edited  the  book 
and  translated  it  into  German.  The  passage  in  Jude  is 
found  in  it,  with  such  variations  as  might  be  expected 
after  a  double  translation.  It  runs  thus :  "  Behold, 
He  cometh  with  myriads  of  His  holy  ones,  to  pass 
judgment  on  them,  and  will  destroy  the  ungodly,  and 
reckon  with  all  flesh  for  everything  which  the  sinners 
and  ungodly  have  done  and  committed  against  Him." 
That  Jude  should  thus  have  made  use  of  an  apocryphal 
book  no  more  requires  explanation  than  Paul's  similar 
allusions  in  2  Tim.  iii.  8,  to  Jannes  and  Jambres,  or 
*  Catalog.,  S.E.,  iv.  f  Few  critics  deny  this. 


230  EPISTLE   OF  JUDE. 

his  citation  of  the  heathen  poets  Epimenides,  Aratus, 
and  Menander.* 

It  would  appear  that  Jude's  employment  of  apocry- 
phal literature  was  not  confined  to  the  Book  of  Enoch. 
Origent  tells  us  that  the  reference  to  the  contest 
between  Michael  and  the  devil  about  the  body  of 
Moses  is  derived  from  the  Assumption  of  Moses.  Un- 
fortunately only  a  small  portion  of  this  book  is  extant, 
so  that  we  have  not  the  means  of  judging  for  our- 
selves. In  these  circumstances  we  may  accept  the 
testimony  of  Origen,  who  was  likely  to  be  well  informed 
on  such  a  point. 

The  indebtedness  of  Jude  to  already  existing  writings 
does  not  end  here.  No  one  can  read  his  epistle  with- 
out being  at  once  reminded  of  the  second  Epistle  of 
Peter.  It  is,  in  fact,  in  almost  its  entire  contents, 
identical  with,  or  closely  analogous  to,  that  epistle. 
For  convenience  of  comparison  the  parallel  passages 
may  be  thus  presented  : — 

"  But  there  arose  false  pro-  "  For  there  are  certain  men 

phets  also  among  the  people,  crept  in   privily,  even  they 

as  among  you  also  there  shall  who  were  of    old  set  forth 

be  false  teachers,  who  shall  unto  this  condemnation,  un- 

privily  bring  in  destructive  godly  men,  denying  our  only 

heresies,   denying    even    the  Master     and      Lord,     Jesus 

Master  that   bought  them"  Christ "  (Jude  4). 
(2  Pet.  ii.  1). 

"For  if    God   spared  not  "And  angels  which  kept 

angels  when  they  sinned,  but  not  their  own  principality,  but 

cast  them  down  to  hell,  and  left  their  proper  habitation, 

committed  them  to  pits  [or  he  hath   kept  in  everlasting 

*  See  Gloat's  Catholic  Epistles,  406. 
f  De  Princip.,  iii.  2. 


COMPARED   WITH  SECOND  PETER.  231 


chains]  of  darkness  to  be 
reserved  unto  judgment"  (2 
Pet.  ii.  4). 

"  And  turning  the  cities  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  into 
ashes,  condemned  them  with 
ah  overthrow,  having  made 
them  an  example  unto  those 
that  should  live  ungodly  "  (2 
Pet.  ii.  6). 

"But  chiefly  them  that 
walk  after  the  flesh  in  the 
lust  of  defilement,  and  de- 
spise dominion.  Daring,  self- 
willed,  they  tremble  not  to 
rail  at  dignities  "  (2  Peter  ii. 
10). 

"  Whereas  angels,  though 
greater  in  might  and  power, 
bring  not  a  railing  judgment 
against  them  before  the  Lord  " 
(2  Pet.  ii.  11). 

"But  these,  as  creatures 
without  reason,  born  mere 
animals,  railing  in  matters 
whereof  they  are  ignorant, 
shall  in  their  destroying  surely 
be  destroyed  "  (2  Pet.  ii.  12). 

"  Spots  and  blemishes,  re- 
velling in  their  love-feasts 
while  they  feast  with  you" 
(2  Pet.  ii.  13). 

"  Forsaking  the  right  way, 
they  went  astray,  having  fol- 
lowed the  way  of  Balaam  the 
son  of  Beor,  who  loved  the 
hire  of  wrong-doing  "  (2  Pet. 
ii.  15). 


bonds  under  darkness  unto 
the  judgment  of  the  great 
day  "  (Jude  6). 

"  Even  as  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrah, and  the  cities  about 
them  ....  are  set  forth  as 
an  example,  suffering  the 
punishment  of  eternal  fire" 
(Jude  7). 

"  Yet  in  like  manner  these 
also  in  their  dreamings  defile 
the  flesh,  and  set  at  nought 
dominion,  and  rail  at  digni- 
ties "  (Jude  8). 


"  But  Michael  thearchangel, 
when  contending  with  the 
devil,  he  disputed  about  the 
body  of  Moses,  durst  not  bring 
against  him  a  railing  judg- 
ment" (Jude  9). 

"But  these  rail  at  what- 
soever things  they  know  not : 
and  what  they  understand 
naturally,  like  the  creatures 
without  reason,  in  these  things 
are  they  destroyed"  (Jude 
10). 

"  These  are  they  who  are 
spots  in  your  love-feasts  when 
they  feast  with  you  "  (Jude 
12). 

"  They  went  in  the  way  of 
Cain,  and  ran  riotously  in  the 
error  of  Balaam  for  hire,  and 
perished  in  the  gainsaying  of 
Korah"  (Jude  11). 


232 


EPISTLE   OF  JUDE. 


"  These  are  springs  without 
water,  and  mists  driven  by  a 
storm  ;  for  whom  the  black- 
ness of  darkness  hath  been 
reserved  "  (2  Pet.  ii.  17). 

"  Uttering  great  swelling 
words  of  vanity  "  (2  Pet.  ii. 
18). 

"  That  ye  should  remember 
the  words  which  were  spoken 
before  by  the  holy  prophets 
and  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord  and  Saviour  through 
your  [yn&v]  apostles  "  (2  Pet. 
iii.  2). 

"Knowing  this  first,  that 
in  the  last  days  mockers  shall 
come  with  mockery,  walking 
after  their  own  lusts  "  (2  Pet. 
iii.  3). 


"  Clouds  without  water,  car- 
ried about  by  winds  .... 
wandering  stars,  for  whom 
the  blackness  of  darkness 
hath  been  reserved  for  ever" 
(Jude  12,  13). 

"  Their  mouth  speaking 
great  swelling  words"  (Jude 
16). 

"  But  ye,  beloved,  remember 
the  words  which  have  been 
spoken  before  by  the  apostles 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ" 
(Jude  17). 


"  How  that  they  said  unto 
you,  In  the  last  time  there 
shall  be  mockers,  walking 
after  their  own  ungodly  lusts  " 
(Jude  18).* 


How  are  these  marked  resemblances  to  be  accounted 
for?  Apparently  the  two  writers  must  either  have 
had  access  to  a  common  document;  or  the  one  must 
have  copied  the  other.  The  hypothesis  of  a  common 
document  does  not  explain  the  references  to  the 
Apostles  of  the  Lord  (2  Peter  iii.  2;  Jude  17),  and 
is  generally  abandoned.  Great  difference  of  opinion 
exists  as  to  the  relative  priority  of  Peter  or  Jude ;  but 
certainly  the  balance  of  criticism  is  in  favour  of  the 
originality  of  the  latter.  To  this  conclusion,  however, 
there  are  one  or  two  serious  objections.  In  the  first 
place  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  verses  of  Jude 


*  I  have  taken  these  parallels  from  Gloag's  Cath.  Ep.,  p. 
238-9. 


COMPARED    WITH  SECOND  PETER.   233 

do  certainly  look  like  a  direct  reference  to  2  Peter  iii. 
1 — 3.  In  2  Peter  the  words,  "  there  shall  come  in  the 
last  days  scoffers,  walking  after  their  own  lusts,"  are 
not  introduced  as  a  quotation,  but  as  the  writer's  own 
statement.  In  Jude  the  same  words  are  introduced 
as  a  statement  of  what  the  Apostles  had  told  the 
people  now  addressed.  In  Peter  the  appearance  of 
these  scoffers  is  regarded  as  future ;  in  Jude  they  have 
appeared.  It  would  seem  therefore  as  if  the  Epistle 
of  Jude  were  later  than  2  Peter,  and  also  alluded  to 
it.  But  a  still  stronger  objection  to  the  priority  of 
Jude  may  be  found  in  the  superiority  of  his  style. 
It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  if  Peter  had  before  him 
the  clear  and  vivid  phrases  of  Jude  he  could  have 
so  obscured  them  in  the  copying,  as  he  certainly  has 
done  if  he  did  copy  them.  As  an  example  of  this, 
is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  with  Jude's  "  wandering 
stars,  to  whom  is  reserved  the  mist  of  darkness  for 
ever,"  Peter  should  have  omitted  the  significant  words, 
"  wandering  stars,"  and  given  us  only  the  clause,  "  to 
whom  is  reserved  the  mist  of  darkness  for  ever?" 
This  applies  to  the  entire  parallel.  In  each  statement 
the  language  of  Jude  is  lucid  and  apt,  while  Peter's, 
though  made  up  of  the  same  words,  is  harsh  and 
difficult.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Jude 
re- wrote  and  improved  what  he  found  in  Peter,  than 
that  Peter,  having  clear  and  powerful  expressions 
before  him  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  should  retain  just 
so  much  of  his  language  as  would  show  that 'he  was 
borrowing  and  yet  have  left  uncopied  the  most  signi- 
ficant words.  If  Peter  borrowed  he  blundered  in 
borrowing;  if  Jude  borrowed  he  did  it  skilfully. 


234  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE. 

Besides,  the  section  in  2  Peter,  which  resembles  Jude, 
is  embedded  in  the  epistle  as  an  integral  part  of  it. 
It  is  not  connected  with  what  goes  before,  and  with 
what  follows,  by  artificial  and  discernible  dovetailing, 
but  grows  out  of  the  previous  section  and  runs 
naturally  on  into  what  follows. 

Probably  the  epistle  was  written  about  the  year 
67,  and  for  Palestinian  readers,  though  this  is  very 
uncertain. 


EEVELATION. 


THE  Greek  title  of  this  book,  dTroKaAv^is,  connects 
it  with  the  branch  of  Jewish  and  early 
Christian  literature  known  as  Apocalyptic.  Both  in 
time  and  in  character  this  literature  was  differentiated 
from  the  Prophetic.  It  arose  after  the  cessation  of 
Old  Testament  prophecy,  and  under  the  stress  of 
foreign  oppression.  At  each  critical  period  of  their 
country's  history,  and  when  the  people  were  becoming 
hopeless,  the  Apocalyptists  sought  to  revive  their 
courage  by  assuring  them  of  the  speedy  approach 
of  the  Messiah,  and  His  overthrow  of  all  their 
oppressions.  The  end  was  at  hand  ;  its  signs  were 
already  visible.  Apocalyptic  literature  was  essentially 
eschatological.  It  also  bore  direct  reference  to  the 
existing  circumstances  of  God's  people  ;  and  as  these 
circumstances,  the  oppressors  and  deliverance  of  Israel, 
could  not  be  alluded  to  explicitly  and  by  name,  they 
were  compelled  to  use  a  system  of  symbols  which 
renders  their  writings  obscure  and  sometimes  repulsive 
to  a  modern  reader.  The  prophets  speaking  of  hostile 
nations,  or  of  remote  times,  or  of  the  sins  of  the 
people,  had  no  occasion  to  veil  their  meaning.  The 
more  explicit  and  direct  they  could  be  the  better. 
They  might  also  address  the  people  and  use  the 


236  REVELATION. 

influence  they  had  acquired  as  well-known  servants 
and  commissioners  of  God.  The  Apocalyptists,  on  the 
other  hand,  were  obliged  to  write  and  to  represent 
their  views  under  a  series  of  visions.  They  were  in 
fact  literary  artists,  while  the  prophets  were  orators 
and  statesmen.  And  having  no  authority  of  their 
own,  the  Apocalyptists  frequently  borrowed  the 
authority  of  a  great  name,  and  issued  their  writings 
under  the  name  of  Enoch,  Noah,  Moses,  Isaiah,  or 
Ezra.  The  earliest  extant  Apocalypse  appears  under 
the  name  of  Daniel,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  John, 
though  belonging  to  this  branch  of  literature  and 
betraying  its  characteristics,  is  so  unique  in  form, 
contents  and  spirit,  as  to  justify  its  separation  as 
canonical  from  the  non-canonical  apocalypses.* 

The  key-note  of  the  book,  then,  is  sounded  at  once. 
It  is  of  things  "  which  must  shortly  come  to  pass,"  the 
writer  is  to  speak  (i.  1),  and  these  things  centre  in  the 
second  coming  of  Christ.  He  is  best  named  as  that 
One  "  which  is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come  " 
(i.  4). 

It  is  the  same  determining  and  welcome  event  which 
is  in  view  throughout,  so  that  the  last  word  of  the 
Book  is,  "  He  that  testifieth  these  things  saith,  Surely 
I  come  quickly.  Amen.  Even  so,  come,  Lord  Jesus  " 
(xxii.  20).  But  as  the  coming  of  the  Lord  is  not  an 
event  arbitrarily  fixed,  but  prepared  for  and  necessi- 
tated by  the  condition  of  the  world,  the  first  care  of 
the  Apocalyptist  is  to  exhibit  the  condition  of  the 
Church,  and  to  stir  it  to  the  requisite  efforts  and 

*  See  Encyc.  J3rit.,  art.  Apocalyptic  Literature ;  and  Holtz- 
mann,  p.  398 


CONTENTS.  237 

expectation.  This  he  does  in  the  letters  to  the  seven 
Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  which  represent  the  Church 
Catholic  (ii.  1 — iii.  22),*  the  number  seven,  here  as 
elsewhere,  indicating  totality.  Then  follows  the  first 
vision,  in  which  a  sealed  book,f  the  unknown  destiny 
of  men,  is  seen  the  hand  of  Him  that  sitteth  on 
the  throne.  That  book  could  be  opened  by  none  but 
the  Lamb  of  God,  to  whom  therefore  it  is  given  (iv.  5). 
As  the  first  six  seals  are  opened  in  order,  there  go 
forth,  a  conqueror  on  a  white  horse  (the  gospel),  war, 
famine,  pestilence,  earthquake;  an  order  determined 
by  the  words  of  the  Lord  in  Matt.  xxiv.  7  :  "  Nation 
shall  rise  against  nation,  and  kingdom  against  king- 
dom, and  there  shall  be  famines,  and  pestilences,  and 
earthquakes  in  divers  places."  But  interpolated  into 
this  order  is  the  fifth  seal,  which  announces  the  great 
persecution  of  Christ's  people  (chap,  vi.),  and  appended 
to  it  is  an  elaborate  description  of  the  sealing  of  those 
who  are  carried  victorious  through  all  these  calamities 
(vii.  1 — 17).  The  opening  of  the  seventh  seal  intro- 
duces the  seven  trumpets,  and  as  these  are  blown 
various  woes  appear  destroying  earth,  sea,  and  sky, 
and  causing  men  to  long  for  death ;  but  no  repentance 
followed  these  plagues  (viii.  2 — ix.  20).  But  just  as, 

*  On  the  order  of  these  letters,  see  Godet,  N.  T.  Studies,  303. 

f  "The  seal  is  the  emblem  of  an  event  still  hidden,  but 
divinely  decreed.  The  trumpet  is  something  more  than  the 
mere  revelation  of  an  event  that  is  to  happen  in  the  future  ; 
it  is  a  manifestation  of  will  which  calls  for  a  speedy  realisation. 
Lastly,  a  vial  poured  out  is  the  image  of  a  decree  as  identified 
with  its  execution." — Godet,  p.  305.  "  The  seals  answer  to  the 
first  miracles  of  Moses  before  Pharaoh,  the  trumpets  to  the 
ten  plagues,  and  the  vials  to  the  catastrophe  of  the  Red  Fea." 


238  REVELATION. 


prior  to  the  opening  of  the  seventh  seal,  a  pause  had 
been  made  and  matters  of  a  consolatory  kind  mingled 
with  the  judgments,  so  prior  to  the  blast  of  the  seventh 
trumpet  an  angel  appears  with  a  little  book  in  his 
hand,  which  John  is  required  to  eat,  that  he  may 
fully  assimilate  its  contents  (x.  1 — 11).  Then  appears 
an  angel  measuring  the  temple  court,  and  the  two 
witnesses  prophesy,  are  killed  by  the  beast,  and  rise 
to  life  again,  and  ascend  to  heaven.  This  is  supposed 
to  describe  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  seventh 
trumpet  then  sounds,  announcing  that  all  nations  have 
become  Christian.  But  this  does  not  terminate  the 
visions.  Wonders  are  now  seen  in  heaven ;  opposition 
is  still  made  to  God  and  His  purposes,  the  dragon 
seeks  to  devour  the  woman,  and  the  wild  beasts  from 
land  and  sea  tyrannise  over  men  (xii. — xiii.).  At 
length  the  plagues  are  poured  forth  from  the  seven 
vials  of  the  seven  angels  (xv.  1 — xvi.  21),  and  special 
attention  is  called  to  the  judgment  of  Babylon  (xvii. — 
xviii.),  after  which  the  Word  of  God,  the  King  of  kings 
and  Lord  of  lords,  appears  seated  on  a  white  horse, 
and  the  enemies  of  Christ,  the  beast  and  the  false 
prophet,  are  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  (xix.).  Satan  is 
then  bound  for  a  thousand  years,  and  when  loosed 
gathers  Gog  and  Magog  to  do  battle  with  the  saints, 
but  is  cast  finally  into  the  lake  of  fire.  Then  arrives 
the  final  judgment  (xx.  11 — 15),  and  the  new  heavens 
and  earth  and  their  glories  are  described  (xxi. — xxii.) 
The  contents  of  the  book  are  thus  conveniently 
summarised  by  Farrar.  "  After  the  prologue,  which 
occupies  the  first  eight  verses,  there  follow  seven 
sections : — 


DESIGN  OF  THE  BOOK.  239 

1 .  The  letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia  (i.  9 — 

iii.  22). 

2.  The  Seven  Seals  (iv. — vii.). 

3.  The  Seven  Trumpets  (viii. — xi.). 

4.  The    Seven    Mystic    Figures — the   Sun-clothed 

Woman ;  the  Red  Dragon ;  the  Man-child ; 
the  Wild  Beast  from  the  Sea ;  the  Wild  Beast 
from  the  Land ;  the  Lamb  on  Mount  Zion ; 
the  Son  of  Man  on  the  Cloud  (xii. — xiv.). 

5.  The  Seven  Vials  (xv. — xvi.). 

6.  The  Doom  of  the  Foes  of  Christ  (xvii. — xx.). 

7.  The  Blessed  Consummation  (xxi. — xxii.  7).     The 

Epilogue  (xxii.  8 — 21)." 

The  design  and  interpretation  of  the  book  have 
given  rise  to  endless  conjectures.  The  tendency  of 
modern  criticism  may  be  gathered  from  the  following 
statement  of  Harnack  *  :  "  That  the  beast  (xiii.  1  sq. ; 
xvii.  3,  sq.)  is  the  Roman  Empire ;  that  the  seven 
heads  are  seven  emperors ;  that  the  woman  (xvii.  3 — 
9)  is  the  city  of  Rome,  that  the  ten  horns  (xiii.  1 — 
xvii.  3 — 12,  sq.)  are  imperial  governors;  all  this  is  now 
beyond  dispute.  Also  it  is  settled  that  a  Roman  gover- 
nor will  be  the  Antichrist."  But  difference  of  opinion 
exists  as  to  the  particular  emperor  pointed  to  by  the 
writer.  The  idea  that  the  book  is  intended  to  depict 
the  circumstances  of  the  age  which  called  it  forth  is 
certainly  in  accordance  with  the  character  of  Apoca- 
lyptic literature  in  general.  Those  systems  of  inter- 
pretation which  find  in  it  a  sketch  of  the  history  of 

*  Encycl.  Brit ,  art.  "  Revelation," 


240  PEVELATION. 

Christ's  people  and  cause  from  the  first  to  the  present 
century,  and  beyond  it,  are  discountenanced  by  the 
many  expressions  pointing  to  immediate  fulfilment 
which  occur  in  the  book  (cf.  i.  1,  19  ;  iv.  1 ;  xxii.  7, 
10),  and  find  it  more  difficult  to  assign  a  definite  aim 
to  the  writer.  A  very  general  opinion,  therefore,  is 
that  the  book  was  written  between  the  death  of  Nero 
(June,  68)  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (Septem- 
ber, 70).  It  is  maintained  that  if  we  accept  this  date 
the  visions  can  be  accounted  for  by  what  was  actually 
happening.  War  (Parthian),  earthquake  (Phrygian), 
and  pestilence  (see  Tacitus,  Ann.,  xvi.  13),  had  actually 
alarmed  the  nations  in  recent  years.  The  slaughter 
of  Christians  by  Nero  in  64  had  impressed  the  Church. 
The  occupation  of  Jerusalem  by  the  heathen  was 
pretty  well  assured  at  the  date  supposed.  Besides, 
it  is  argued,  that  the  writer  definitely  dates  his  book 
when  he  says  (xvii.  10),  "There  are  seven  kings,  five 
are  fallen,  the  one  is,  the  other  is  not  yet  come." 
This,  it  is  alleged,  can  only  mean  that  Augustus, 
Tiberius,  Caligula,  Claudius,  Nero,  had  fallen,  and 
that  the  sixth  Roman  emperor  Galba  was  now  reign- 
ing. It  is  also  pointed  out  that  in  chap.  xiii.  3  one  of 
the  heads  of  the  beast  is  represented  as  having  received 
a  deadly  wound,  but  as  recovering  from  it  to  the  as- 
tonishment of  the  world,  which  it  is  supposed  can  only 
refer  to  Nero,  who  had  killed  himself,  but  was  popu- 
larly believed  to  be  hiding  in  the  East,  whence  he  was 
to  return.  And  the  further  description  of  this  head 
in  chap.  xvii.  8,  11,  where  it  is  identified  with  the 
whole  beast,  seems  to  confirm  the  idea  that  Nero  is 
meant,  for  here  it  is  said  that  "  the  beast  was,  and  is 


DESIGN  OF  THE  BOOK.  241 

not,  and  will  come  again."*  This  opinion  further 
claims,  as  indubitable  evidence  of  its  accuracy,  what  is 
said  in  chap.  xiii.  18,  regarding  the  "  number  "  of  the 
beast.  This  number  is  said  to  be  666,  that  is  to  say, 
the  letters  which  compose  his  name,  when  added 
together  according  to  their  numerical  value,t  gives 
this  total.  In  1835  it  was  simultaneously  discovered 
by  Fritzsche,  Benary,  Reuss,  and  Hitzig,  that  the 
numerical  values  of  the  letters  forming  the  words 
J1TJ  "Op,  Neron  Caesar,  equal  666. 

To  these  arguments  it  is  objected  that  it  is  not 
legitimate  to  calculate  the  value  in  Hebrew  letters, 
the  book  itself  being  written  in  Greek ;  that  even  to 
reach  the  value  claimed,  the  ordinary  spelling  of  Nero's 
name  is  departed  from ;  and  that  many  other  names 
satisfy  the  cryptogram  quite  as  readily. 

But  a  much  more  formidable  objection  arises 
when  we  seek  to  interpret  the  book  in  the  light  of 
the  idea  that  Nero,  about  to  return,  is  indicated 
as  Antichrist.  Who,  for  example,  is  the  false 
prophet,  who  works  miracles  and  persuades  the  world 
to  worship  the  beast  ?  How  can  the  beast  be  said 
to  hate  Eome  and  to  destroy  her  (xvii.  16)?J  In 

*  The  passages  which  speak  of  this  belief  about  Nero  are 
Suetonius,  Nero,  57  ;  Tacitus,  Hist.,  i.  2,  ii.  8  (Simcox'  note 
should  be  read  in  his  edition  of  the  Histories).  Suetonius 
says,  "  There  were  some  who  for  a  long  time  decked  his  tomb 
with  spring  and  summer  flowers,  and  sometimes  set  robed 
images  of  him  on  the  rostra,  sometimes  issued  edicts  as  if  from 
him,  yet  living,  and  shortly  to  return  to  the  destruction  of  his 
enemies." 

f  The  Hebrews  and  Greeks  used  the  letters  of  the  alphabet, 
and  not  special  signs,  to  express  numbers. 

J  On  the  other  side  see  Holtzmann,  p.  403. 

16 


242  REVELATION. 

fact  this  key  does  not  unlock  the  book.  Moreover,  it 
involves  the  enormous  assumption  that  a  book  which 
had  predicted  the  return  of  Nero  as  eighth  Emperor, 
his  destruction  of  Rome,  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  but 
preservation  of  the  temple,  and  which  in  all  these 
particulars  was  falsified  almost  as  soon  as  published, 
was  yet  accepted  by  the  Church  as  inspired  and 
apostolic.  It  is  on  all  hands  granted  that  if  its  pre- 
dictions are  to  be  thus  interpreted  they  certainly  were 
falsified;  but  it  is  maintained  that  while  the  particulars 
were  incorrect  the  general  drift  of  the  prophecy  was 
true,  and  carried  the  Church  through  a  time  of  trial 
by  its  cheering  prospects  of  ultimate  victory.  To 
which  Dr.  Salmon,  with  his  usual  sobriety  of  judg- 
ment, replies :  "  I  feel  myself  safe  in  saying  that  the 
view  is  quite  modern  which  regards  prophecy  as  a 
kind  of  sacred  song,  of  which  the  melody  only  need 
be  attended  to,  the  words  to  which  the  air  is  set  being 
quite  unimportant." 

Godet  and  others  find  in  the  very  name  Antichrist 
a  clue  to  its  meaning,  and  hold  that  Antichrist  or 
a  competing  and  opposing  Messiah  must  of  necessity 
be  a  Jew.  Anti-Christian  Judaism  may  well  be  de- 
scribed as  the  beast  "  that  was,  and  is  not,  and  which 
shall  be  " — the  head  wounded  to  death  which  was  to 
be  healed  to  the  astonishment  of  the  nations.  Godet 
thinks  there  is  no  mistaking  that  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  is  meant  by  the  fatal  sword-thrust 
of  xiii.  14.  According  to  this  interpretation  Israel 
takes  its  place  as  the  fifth  head  of  the  beast,  the  first 
being  Egypt,  the  second  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  the 
third  Persia,  the  fourth  Greece,  the  sixth  Rome,  and 


VARIOUS  SYSTEMS  OF  INTERPRETATION.  243 

the  seventh  the  Antichrist  who  is  to  make  a  clean  sweep 
of  the  Roman  power  from  the  earth ;  and  he  believes 
that  in  our  own  day  the  trained  ear  may  catch  the 
sound  of  the  approaching  steps  of  this  revived  Jewish 
power.*  Godet's  scheme  is  one  of  the  most  favourable 
specimens  of  those  systems  of  interpretation  known  as 
the  "  continuously  historical."  It  escapes  the  ignominy 
which  attaches  to  all  schemes  which  seek  detailed  f  ulfil- 
ments  of  particular  predictions  in  the  history  of  the  last 
eighteen  centuries,  and  of  the  years  that  are  yet  to  be. 
It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  grave  difficulties 
attach  to  his  scheme  also. 

A  still  more  effectual  evasion  of  the  difficulties 
attaching  to  any  historical  interpretation  whether 
Praeterist,  Futurist,  or  Continuously  Historical,  is 
suggested  by  Dr.  Milligan,  who  proposes  that  we 
should  read  the  book  as  a  representation  of  ideas 
rather  than  events.  It  embraces,  he  thinks,  the  whole 
period  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  but  within  this 
period  it  sets  before  the  reader  the  action  of  great  prin- 
ciples and  not  special  incidents.  It  is  meant  to  impress 
the  reader  with  the  idea  that  many  waves  of  judgment, 
of  trial,  of  victory  must  pass  over  the  Church  before 
the  end  comes.  The  end,  indeed,  is  spoken  of  as  near ; 
but  this  results  from  the  impression  which  could  not 
but  be  received  by  the  early  Church,  that  now  that 
Christ  had  actually  come,  the  end  was  virtually  present- 
"  The  book  thus  becomes  to  us  not  a  history  of  either 

*  Godet  thinks  the  number  666,  or  x£f,  is  composed  of  the 
usual  abbreviation  of  the  name  of  Christ,  xc  with  a  symbol 
of  the  serpent  (in  form  and  sound)  inserted  to  convey  tha  idea 
of  Antichrist."— Biblical  Studiet,  p.  388. 


244  REVELATION. 

early,  or  mediaeval,  or  last  events  written  of  before 
they  happened,  but  a  spring  of  elevating  encourage- 
ment and  holy  joy  to  Christians  in  every  age."  It 
exhibits  the  Church  of  Christ  in  its  conflict,  preserva- 
tion, and  victory ;  and  it  sees  these  through  the  forms, 
and  in  the  colours  presented  to  the  writer's  imagina- 
tion by  what  he  himself  had  seen  and  experienced, 
and  by  his  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of 
our  Lord's  discourses.  It  is  not  a  political  pamphlet 
disguised,  but  a  vision  of  the  Church's  necessary 
fortunes  as  the  Body  of  her  Lord,  and  as  His  repre- 
sentative on  earth.  Babylon,  therefore,  is  not  pagan 
Home,  but  the  apostate  Church  of  all  ages,  described 
in  a  highly  elaborated  picture,  of  which  the  outlines 
had  already  been  drawn  by  the  prophets.  This  system 
of  interpretation  has  its  attractions,  but  is  certainly 
out  of  keeping  with  the  general  purpose  of  Apocalyptic 
literature,  and  fails  to  present  a  sufficiently  pressing 
motive  for  the  composition  and  a  sufficiently  definite 
guide  through  its  intricacies. 

Whether  John,  who  appears  in  the  book  as  its 
author  (i.  1,  4,  9  ;  xxii.  8),*  was  the  Apostle  of  that 
name  or  some  less  known  disciple  is  much  debated. 
The  Church  Fathers  of  the  second  century  ascribed  it 
to  the  Apostle ;  and  the  testimony  of  Irenseus,  who 
represents  the  opinion  of  those  who  had  known  the 
Apostle,  is  especially  weighty.  In  modern  times  con- 
servative critics  have  accepted  the  traditional  view,  in 
which  they  are  confirmed  by  the  very  striking  re- 
semblance between  this  book  and  the  fourth  gospel, 

*  The  occurrence  in  xxi.  2  is  rejected  by  the  best  critics. 


ITS  AUTHORSHIP.  245 

both  in  ideas  and  in  terminology.*  The  Tubingen 
school,  for  reasons  of  its  own,  accepts  it  as  the  work 
of  the  Apostle.  Thus  both  Baur  himself  and  his 
ablest  living  representative  (Hilgenfeld),  while  reject- 
ing the  fourth  gospel,  accept  the  Revelation  as 
Apostolic.  Many  other  critics,  however,  agreeing 
with  the  Tubingen  school  in  their  judgment  that  both 
books  cannot  be  the  work  of  one  author,  accept  the 
fourth  gospel  and  reject  the  Revelation.  This  they 
believe  to  be  the  work  of  some  one  of  the  same  name, 
possibly  the  Presbyter  John.  (So  especially  Liicke 
and  Bleek).  The  arguments  against  the  Apostolic 
authorship  are  thus  given  by  Harnack  :  "  (1)  The  so- 
called  Alogi  (Epiph.,  Hcer.,  li.)  denied  that  the  work 
was  by  the  Apostle,  and  declared  that  it  came  from 
Corinth,  and  thence  was  a  forgery;  but  the  Alogi  were 
in  Asia  Minor  about  160,  and  their  negative,  if  not 
their  positive,  evidence  has  therefore  great  weight ; 

(2)  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  does  not  style  him- 
self an  Apostle,  and  nowhere  does  he  designate  himself 
as  a  personal  disciple  of  Jesus,  or  as  an  eye-witness ; 

(3)  the  author  speaks  (xxi.  14)  in  such  ail  objective 
way  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb  that  it  is 
scarcely  credible  that  he  himself  belonged  to  them 

(4)  the  descriptions  of  Christ  in  the  Apocalypse  are 
psychologically  scarcely  intelligible  on  the  assumption 
that  they  were  written  by  a  personal  disciple  of  the 
Lord."      But  as  Harnack  does   not  think  the  work 
can  possibly  be  a  forgery  in  the  ordinary  sense,  and 


*  A  complete  list  of  these  resemblances  is  given  by  Evans, 
St.  John  the  Author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  pp.  118 — 132. 


246  REVELATION. 

as  he  is  not  disposed  to  believe  in  the  existence  of 
any  John,  not  the  Apostle,  who  had  such  considera- 
tion among  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor  as  was 
manifestly  enjoyed  by  the  author  of  Revelation,  he 
is  reduced  to  the  unsatisfactory  makeshift  of  sup- 
posing that  originally  no  author's  name  existed  in 
the  book,  but  was  afterwards  inserted  to  give  it 
currency 

The  integrity  of  the  book  has  been  gravely  ques- 
tioned in  recent  years.  It  is  difficult  to  consider  with 
patience  theories  which  propose  to  allot  to  different 
authors  various  portions  of  a  book  than  which  there 
is  in  all  literature,  none  more  obviously  a  carefully 
designed  and  artistic  whole.  Literary  criticism  musb 
count  for  nothing  if  such  a  book  is  composed  of 
fragments  casually  accumulating  through  successive 
generations.  The  most  resolute  assault  upon  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  book  is  that  which  has  been  published 
by  Professor  Volter  of  Amsterdam.*  This  writer 
concludes  that  several  strata  are  discernible  :  (1) 
The  original  Apocalypse  of  the  time  of  Nero,  containing 
the  body  of  the  book.  (2)  A  first  revision  of  the  time 
of  Trajan,  when  were  added  xii.  1 — 17,  xix.  11,  xxi.  8. 
(3)  A  second  revision,  about  130,  which  added  v.  11 — 14, 
vii.  9—17,  xiii.  1 — 18,  xiv.  9—12,  xv.  1 — 8,  xvi.  1 — 21, 
xxi.  9 — xxii.  5,  and  much  of  xxii.  (4)  A  third 
revision,  about  140,  when  i. — iii.  (except  i.  4 — 6)  was 
added,  and  verses  here  and  there,  f  But  as  Professor 
Davidson  shows,  the  author  of  this  superfine  criticism 


*  Die  Entsteliwng  der  Apocalypse  (1882,  2nd  Edition,  1885). 
See  Professor  Davidson  in  Theological  Review,  Feb.,  1887. 


ITS  INTEGRITY.  247 

sets  a  fool's  cap  on  it  by  admitting  that  his  various 
authors  exhibit  the  same  characteristics.* 

Herr  Eberhard  Vischer,  a  pupil  of  Harnack's,  has 
published  a  theory  that  the  original  Apocalypse  was 
a  Jewish  book,  and  that  it  has  been  worked  over 
by  a  Paulinist  for  use  in  the  Gentile  Church.  The 
original  he  supposes  to  have  been  written  in  Hebrew, 
and  to  have  been  translated  by  the  Christian  redactor. 
The  difficulty  of  chap.  xii.  is  removed  by  this  theory,  as 
the  prediction  of  the  birth  of  the  man-child  can  satis- 
factorily be  referred  to  the  birth  of  the  Messiah, 
'which  was  still  future,  if  the  book  was  Jewish.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  impossible  on  this  theory  to 
account  for  the  prominence  given  throughout  the  book 
to  the  figure  of  the  Lamb.  Impugners  of  the  integrity 
of  the  book  must  do  something  more  than  merely 
show  that  it  is  cast  in  the  ordinary  form,  and  follows 
the  common  order  of  the  Jewish  Apocalypses. 

*  Further  criticism  of  this  theory  will  be  found  in  the 
Expositor,  June,  1887,  and  in  Dr.  Milligan's  The  Book  of  Reve- 
lation. 


Printed  by  Hazel  1,  Watson,  &  Viney,  Ld.,  London  and  Aylesbury. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO 
LIBRARY 


Acme    Library    Card    Pocket 

Under  Pat.  "  Ref.  Index  File." 
Made  by  LIBRARY  BUREAU