Full text of "Introduction to the New Testament"

INTRODUCTION
TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

. .
i

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

NEW TESTAMENT

THEODOR ZAHN

PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS, ERLANGEN UNIVERSITY

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION

JOHN MOORE TROUT, WILLIAM ARNOT MATHER, LOUIS

HODOUS, EDWARD STRONG WORCESTER, WILLIAM

HOYT WORRELL, AND ROWLAND BACKUS DODGE

FELLOWS AND SCHOLARS OF HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF

MELANCTHON WILLIAMS JACOBUS

HOSMER PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS
AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY

ASSISTED BY

CHARLES SNOW THAYER

DIRECTOR OF THE CASE MEMORIAL LIBRARY

IN THREE VOLUMES
VOL. I.

EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET

1909

Printed by
MORRISON & GIBB LIMITED

FOR

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND co. LIMITED

NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNKR*S SONS

CORRIGENDA

Vol. i. page 260, line 14, for Stephanas read Stephanas.
Vol. ii. page 425, line 8, for Wetzele read Wetzel.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH

EDITION

I HAVE been asked by Professor Jacobus, who first
suggested the plan for the translation into English of
my Introduction to the New Testament, and to whose
praiseworthy energy the carrying out of the plan is due,
to prepare an Introduction for the English edition. This
affords me a welcome opportunity to express my hearty
thanks, first of all to Professor Jacobus himself, and also
to Dr. Thayer, his fellow Professor in the Hartford
Theological Seminary, who has seen the entire work
through the press, and to the younger theologians, by
whom the first draft of the translation has been prepared,
for the great sacrifice of time and labour required in order
to present this work to the English-speaking public in a
form as complete as possible, and at the same time con-
venient for use. What these difficulties are no one is in
better position to appreciate than the author himself, who
is responsible for the plan and the style which render his
work difficult to read especially for foreigners and to
translate. Of these difficulties I was very early reminded.
I still recall, often with very mingled feelings, the words
with which E. Renan l once described my book on Ignatius
of Antioch (1873): " Quiconque aura le courage de lire
ces 650 pages, e"crites d'un style obscure et embarasse',
poss6dera re'element les elements pour resoudre la ques-

1 Journal des Savants (1874), p. 34.

vi PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

tion ; mais tout le travail du raisonuement et de la
critique restera bien a sa charge." For this criticism,
certainly not flattering, I have found a twofold consola-
tion. Whoever attempts to answer definitely a question
complex in character and long discussed without satis-
factory results, and to prove in as thorough a manner
as possible that his is the only possible answer, will
certainly not succeed in writing an elegant romance such
as the brilliant Frenchman's Vie de Jesus. If, with a
fair degree of completeness and accuracy, he succeeds in
supplying the reader with the elements from which a
correct judgment can be formed, he may reasonably crave
some indulgence for "the obscure and confused style"
which reflects the great variety of the material handled,
and of the observations to be made. As regards criticism
itself, this very Ignatian question is an instructive illus-
tration of the fact that the wide currency of a critical
view is no guarantee that this view will be permanently
held. Even Renan admitted that my " uncritical mono-
graph " definitely disposed (definitivement 6carte") of the
hypothesis of W. Cureton, which was a favourite one in
Germany also, that the genuine portion of the Ignatiau
literature consisted of the brief recension of only three
Epistles edited by Cureton himself from a Syriac transla-
tion. Kenan's judgment on this point has proved correct.
At the same time, his own new hypothesis, that only
Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans and some sentences in
the other Epistles are genuine, found scarcely any accept-
ance ; whereas to-day the genuineness of the seven
Epistles, the attempt to prove which in 1875 was re-
garded by the majority of critics as a youthful venture,
and as evidence of a lack of critical judgment, is almost
universally accepted. Such experiences are a plea for
patience ; they also strengthen the hope that patient
work in the realm of early Christian literature will not
be done in vain.

PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION vii

Likewise, in the literary criticism of the New Testa-
ment the last forty years have witnessed at least the
beginnings of a trend toward betterment. Unhealthy
eccentricities in criticism have appeared, especially in
the criticism of the Pauline Epistles, but at the same
time sound tendencies have made themselves felt. One
of these sounder tendencies I hold to be the greater
appreciation of the tradition, without which it is impos-
sible for any criticism to make an historical presentation.
To be noted also is a modest realisation of the gaps in our
knowledge which forbids us regarding all that seems
strange to us, and especially what is unintelligible, as
evidence against the genuineness of the document in
question. To be noted further is an increasing distrust
of a priori constructions of every kind, and more attention
to material and personal details, which were inserted quite
unconsciously on the part of the New Testament writers,
but which are of inestimable value to us, because frequently
they afford us a better insight than do leading ideas, into
the connection between literary remains and the circum-
stances and conditions under which they were produced.

This development of the historical sense among
theologians has redounded to the benefit of my Intro-
duction. In one of the reviews of the first volume of
the first edition (1897), the reviewer made the conjecture
that owing to the great bulk of the work the circulation
would not be wide. The conjecture has not proved true.
The English translation of the third German edition now
completed is to me an encouraging confirmation of the
hope with which I ventured to dedicate the first edition
to the University of Cambridge. I can only hope that
the great and self-denying efforts which the translators
have made may be rewarded by a corresponding influence
of the work in the wide English-speaking world.

THEODOR ZAHN.
ERLANGEN, March 1909.

VOL, I, n *

EDITOR'S PREFACE

EVER since the appearance of Dr. Zahn's great work on
New Testament Introduction, it has been evident that
sooner or later its stores of critical investigation would
have to be placed at the disposal of the English-reading
world. The problems of New Testament study are too
important to allow the results which this renowned
scholar's years of scientific study have gathered into the
two large volumes of his great book to be permanently
locked up in a foreign language.

To release this scholarship, however, was no easy
undertaking. A thousand pages of closely printed matter,
written in a style often most difficult to follow even in
the text, and with notes too constantly abbreviated in the
spirit of a scholar's abundant knowledge of the facts,
and too frequently confused with indistinct allusions to
unfamiliar literature, presented a formidable task of
translation, which any set of men might hesitate to
attempt, and which was practically impossible for any
individual. Notwithstanding, in the spring of 1900 a
formal request was made of the author that certain
Fellows of Hartford Theological Seminary, Mr. John M.
Trout, Mr. Louis Hodous, and Mr. William A. Mather,
should be allowed to take the work in hand. Permission
was cordially granted them, and being then engaged in
study abroad they entered upon the beginning of their
work in the summer of that year. During the year

x EDITOR'S PREFACE

several conferences were held with Professor Zahn, to
whose helpful suggestions the translators are greatly
indebted.

It was fully expected that the larger part of the text
would be translated before return to this country would
necessitate such engagements in the active ministry as to
restrict the time possible to be devoted to the task. To a
large extent this hope was realised ; but the early de-
parture to Foreign Mission service of Mr. Hodous and
Mr. Mather, who had undertaken the preparation of the
notes, left the burden of completing what had been begun
practically with Mr. Trout. Upon his shoulders it has
rested since that time, and to his faithful and patient
efforts, carried on in the midst of pressing pulpit and
pastoral cares, is due largely the successful accomplish-
ment of the undertaking.

To his aid in the translation of the notes there came at
different times Mr. Rowland B. Dodge, Hartranft Prize
Scholar of Hartford in 1905, Mr. Edward S. Worcester,
William Thompson Fellow of Hartford for 1901-1903,
and Mr. William H. Worrell, John S. Welles Fellow of
Hartford for 1906-1908, all of whom laboured with will-
ing sacrifice of time in rendering service to the work.
Along with them in translating, but particularly in the
extra service of assisting the editor in his supervision of
the translation and in the especially laborious care of the
proofs, the aid of Professor Charles S. Thayer of the Case
Memorial Library of the Seminary has been invaluable.
If, in spite of the necessarily scattered and interrupted
character of the work which has been carried on through

these years, the results are marked with accuracy and
completeness, it has been due largely to him. From him
has come also the General Index, which places the widely
extended details of notice and of reference in the book at
the immediate service of the reader. Associated with
Professor Thayer in this work for one summer was Mr.

EDITOR'S PREFACE xi

Worrell, and with Mr. Mather before his departure to his
foreign field was Mr. Frederick B. Hartranft of the In-
struction Corps of the Seminary ; while at various times
the editor has had the help in reading proof of Mr. John
J. Moment of the Class of 1906 and Mr. Alvin C. Bacon
and Mr. Watson Woodruff of the Class of 1907 of Hart-
ford Seminary.

It has been a long task, delayed by many and un-
expected interruptions, not the least among which was the
appearance of the third German edition after the first
English volume was practically in print. The labour of
correcting the whole translation to the details of all the
changes and alterations which the tireless scholarship of
the author had wrought into his book seemed beyond
accomplishment ; but it has been effected, and the work
goes out in every detail a reproduction of the last German
edition.

The Editor cannot hope to have escaped altogether the
faults rendered likely by such a diversified translating,
carried on in such a broken way ; but he has appreciated
the fidelity and the enthusiasm of those who have worked
with him, and he has believed that it would be no small
service that could be rendered to the English-reading
scholarship of his day if he could place at its command
what this book has to offer of the masterly results of
scientific research in a field the treasures of which are ever
open to those whose work is patient and whose vision is
clear.

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT,
April 1909.

CONTENTS

PAOB

I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS CONCERNING THE LANGUAGE AND ITS

HISTORY ........ 1

1. The Original Language of the Gospel ... 1

2. The Greek Language among the Jews . . .34

II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES ...... 73

3. The Destination of the Letter indicated by the Greeting 73

4. The Circumstances of the Readers . . .83

5. The Personality of James .... 101

6. The Author's Training and Habits of Thought . .110

7. The External Evidence . . . . .123

8. Divergent Views . . . . . .136

III. THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL .... 152

9. Preliminary Critical Remarks .... 152
10. The Historical Presuppositions and the Occasion of the

Epistle to the Galatians . . . 1G4

11. Galatia and the Galatians . . . .173

12. Time and Place of the Composition of the Epistle to

the Galatians . . . . . .193

13. The Origin of the Church in Thessalonica, and the

Course of its History until the Composition of Paul's

First Epistle to the Church there . . . 203

14. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians . . .215

15. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians . . 224

16. The Genuineness of the First Three Epistles . . 242

IV. THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL WITH THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 256

17. The Early History of the Church . . .256

18. The Condition of the Corinthian Church at the Time

when First Corinthians was written . . . 273

19. Survey of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians . 307

20. Occasion, Purpose, and Effect of the Second Epistle to

the Corinthians . .321

xiv CONTENTS

PAGE

V. THE EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS ..... 352

21. Contents of the Letter and the Progress of its Thought 352

22. The Integrity of the Epistle to the Romans . . 378

23. Constituency and Origin of the Roman Church . 421
24. The Occasion of the Letter . . . .434

VI. THE LETTERS OP THE FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT . . 439

25. Time and Place of the Composition of the Epistles to

Philemon, the Colossians, and " the Ephesians " . 439

26. The Epistle to Philemon . . . 452

27. The Epistle to the Colossians . 459

28. The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians . 479
29. The Genuineness of the Epistles to the Ephesians and

Colossians . . . . . .491

30. The Historical Presuppositions and the Occasion of the

Epistle to the Philippians .... 522
31. Paul's Situation at the Time when Philippians was

written ...... 539

32. The Genuineness of the Epistle to the Philippians . 556

ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES

AJSL . . . American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.

AJTh . . . American Journal of Theology.

AOF . . . Altorientalisclie Forschungen.

BZ . . . . Byzantische Zeitschrift.

BbZ . . . Biblische Zeitschrift.

ChW . . . Christliche Welt.

Expos. . . Expositor.

ET . . . Expository Times.

GGA . . . Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.

GGN . . . Gottingische Gelehrte Nachrichten.

JBL . . . Journal of Biblical Literature.

JbBW . . Jahrbiicher der biblischen Wissenschaft.

JbfDTli . . Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie.

JbfKPli . . Jahrbiicher fiir Klassische Philologie.

JbfPTh . . Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie.

JbPK . . Jahrbuch der kgl. Preussischen Kunstsaminlungen.

JHSt . . . Journal of Hellenic Studies.

JPh . . . Journal of Philology.

JQR . . . Jewish Quarterly Review.

JRAS . . Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

JThSt . . Journal of Theological Studies.

LCB1 . . . Literarisches Centralblatt.

LR . . . Literarische Rundschau.

MBBA . . Monatschrift der Berliner Akademie.

MDPV . . Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palastina-

Vereins.

MGWJ . . Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden-

thums.

MVG . . . Mittheilungen der Vorder-asiatischen Gesellschaft.

NGWG . . Nachrichten der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften

zu Gottingen.

NHJb . . Neue Heidelberger Jahrbiicher.

NJbfDTh . Neue Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie.

NKZ . . . Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift.

OLZ , . , Ork'Utalische Litteratuiv.eitung.

XVI

ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES

PEF .
RB .
REJ .
1!KZ .
SB AW
SWAW
ThJb .
TliLb .
ThLz .

ThQSc
ThR . .
ThStKr .
ThTij or
ThTjd
TU . .
TZfTh .
WZfKM .
Zf AgSp or
ZfA

ZfA . .
ZfATW .
ZDMG .
ZDPV .
ZfHTh .
ZfKG . ,
ZfKTh . ,
ZfKW or
ZfKWuKL
ZfLTh .
ZfNTW .
ZfThuK .
ZfWTh

Palestine Exploration Fund.

Revue Biblique.

Revue des Etudes Juives.

Reformirte Kirchenzeitung.

Sitzungsbericlite der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akadeinie der Wissenschaften.

Theologische Jahrbiicher.

Theologisches Litteraturblatt.

Theologische Literaturzeitung.

Theologische Quartalschrift.

Theologische Rundschau.
Theologische Studien und Kritiken.

} Theologische Tijdschrif t.

Texte und Untersuchungen.

Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie.

Wiener Zeitschrift fiir Kunde des Morgenlandes.

I Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde.

Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie und Vervvandte Gebiete.
Zeitschrift fiir Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft.
Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins.
Zeitschrift fiir Historische Theologie.
Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte.
Zeitschrift fiir Katholische Theologie.

-Zeitschrift fiir Kirkliche Wissenschaft und Kirchliches Leben

Zeitschrift fiir lutherische Theologie.
Zeitschrift fiir Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft.
Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche.
Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Theologie.

ABBREVIATIONS OTHER THAN FOR
REVIEW TITLES

BKP .... Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine.

CIG or CIGr . Corpus Inscriptionum Grsecarum.

OIL .... Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.

CISuui . . . Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.

Dalman Gr 2 . . Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-palustinischen Aramiiisch,

2te Aufl. 1905.

EB Encyclopaedia Biblica.

Forsch. i.-vii. 1 . Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen

Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, 1888-1892.
GAP .... Buhl, Geographic des alten Palastina.
Grundriss . . Zahn, Gr. der Geschichte des alt. Kanons, 2te Aufl. 1904.
HDB .... Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.
HK i.-iv. . . Handkommentar zum N.T. von Holtzmann, Lipsius, etc.,

2te resp. 3te Auti.
Hoffmann . . Die hi. Schrift des N.T.'s zusanimenhangend untersucht

i.-ii. 3 (2te Aufl.) ; iii.-xi., 1868-1886.
Kiihner-Blass . Kiihner, AusfiihrlicheGrammatikdergriechischenSprache,

1 Teil, Elemental 1 - u. Formenlehre, 3te Aufl. besorgt von

Fr. Blass.
Kiihner-Gerth . Preceding, 2 Teil, Satzlehre, 3te Aufl. besorgt von Bernli.

Gerth.
MS .... Manuscript.

N.T New Testament.

O.T Old Testament.

PRE 3 .... Real - Encyclopitdie fur protestantische Theologie und

Kirche, 3rd ed.

RE Real-Encyclopadie.

S 1 Peshito.

S 2 Philoxeniana (only for the four shorter Catholic Epistles

and Revelation).

S 3 Syriac Text of Thomas of Heraclea.

Sc Syrus Curetonianus.

Sh Syrus Hierosolymitanus.

Ss Syrus Sinaiticus.

xviii ABBREVIATIONS OTHER THAN REVIEW TITLES

Schiirer . . . Geschichte des jtidischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,
3 Aufl. i.-iii., 1898-1901 [English translation of 2nd ed.,
" The Jewish People in the Time of Christ "].

Skizzen . . . Zahn, Sk. aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, 2 Aufl. 1898.

SWP .... Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine.

TU Texte und Untersuchungen.

ZKom. . . . Kommentar zum N.T. unter Mitwirkung von Bachman,
Ewald, Horn, Riggenbach, Seeberg, Wohlenberg, heraus-
geg. von Th. Zahn, 1903.

See also the bibliographies on pages 14, 58, vol. i., and

bibliographies of commentaries given throughout this

work in connection with the discussions of the separate

books of the N.T.

The editors have attempted to make all other abbreviations full enough

to be self-explanatory.

CITATIONS.

Passages in the O.T. are cited according to the figures of the Hebrew
Text ; the O.T. Apocrypha, if not otherwise noted, according to the edition
of Fritzsche, 1871 ; the witnesses for the N.T. text, except as noted above
under S, according to Tischendorf-Gregory ; the Church Fathers according
to the Vienna " Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum," and " Die
griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte "
herausgeg. von der Berliner Akademie.

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW
TESTAMENT.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS CONCERNING
THE LANGUAGE AND ITS HISTORY.

1. THE OEIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE GOSPEL.

THE gospel is older than the N.T. Between the time
when Jesus proclaimed the coming of the rule of God in
His kingdom and the emergence from His Church of the
earliest document which has come down to us, possibly
some two decades elapsed ; and some seventy years passed
before the appearance of the last of the writings found
in the N.T. collection. Even if the investigation of this
oldest Christian literature should result in showing that
no single part of it originated on the soil of Palestine, or
within the Jewish Christianity of the first generation, we
should still be unable, without some knowledge of the
language in which Jesus taught, and in which His disciples
preached the gospel to the Jews in Palestine, to form a
correct conception of the beginnings of Christian litera-
ture. For, quite independent of the results of all literary
criticism, and especially of the answer to the question
whether the N.T. writings were composed, as tradition

VOL. I. I

2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

says they were, almost without exception by native Jews,
and to no small extent by Palestinian Jews, the fact
remains, that the Christian preaching began from Pales-
tine, and that Jews who had no idea of giving up their
nationality carried it beyond the limits of their land and
nation. This statement, in which Paul (Rom. xv. 27),
Luke (Acts xi. 19), and Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) agree, does
not require further proof. It does, however, need to be
explained why a religious movement, which had its roots
in the Judaism of Palestine, produced very soon after it
bewail a distinctive literature which has come down to us

only in the Greek language.

The first question that suggests itself concerns the
language in which Jesus preached to the people and
instructed His disciples (u. 1). Fortunately, in answering
this question, we are not left wholly to our knowledge of
the linguistic condition in Palestine in Jesus' time, a
knowledge which is still very much in need of clarification
and confirmation, nor are we dependent upon inferences
from examples of a similar character. For the Gospels
themselves, particularly those which pass under the names
of Mark and John, preserve for us not only single words
used by Jesus and those with whom He mingled, but also
a number of short sayings of His in their original form.
There can be no doubt that in introducing these foreign
words into their Greek writings with Greek translations
attached in various ways (n. 2), the evangelists were
firmly convinced that they were reproducing what Jesus
said in its original form, and that it was their duty to
convey the same also to their readers, though most of
these were acquainted only with Greek. Nor could they
very well have been mistaken in this belief; for, leaving
quite out of consideration the facts to be established later,
that the second evangelist was a native of Jerusalem,
and the fourth evangelist one of the twelve apostles, an
error of this kind would have been possible only if these

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 3

Greek authors had been removed from Jesus and those
who heard Him by a period of history during which, and
by a region of country in which, on the one hand, the
gospel was no longer preached in its original language,
while, on the other hand, it had not yet come to be pro-
pagated by the use of the Greek language. Only in these
circumstances could Greek Christians, who were entirely
uninformed about the previous history of their faith, have
taken for original what was in fact only a translation.
But there were no such period and region as those
suo-crested intervening between Jesus and our Gospels. A

OO O A ^

few years after Jesus' death the gospel made its way
directly from Jerusalem to the Greek population of
Antioch.

We possess, therefore, documentary evidence concern-
ino 1 the language used by Jesus. While no fragments of

O O O v < '

His preaching are preserved, all the utterances recorded
are important, and were spoken at critical moments.
Among these utterances are two expressions used by
Jesus in prayer (Mark xiv. 36, xv. 34), one of which is a
phrase taken from one of the psalms and used by Jesus in
supplication during the agony of His death (Matt, xxvii.
46 ; Mark xv. 34). From these passages we discover in
what language Jesus pondered the words of the O.T. and
communed with His God in prayer. As we learn from
other passages, He used this same language when He
healed the sick and called the dead to life among the
people of Galilee (Mark v. 41, vii. 34). This must, there-
fore, have been the language in which Jesus preached to
the people and taught His disciples. But all the sayings
of Jesus, and of those among whom He moved, which are
preserved to us in their original form, exhibit the same
linguistic features. These features are not those of the
Hebrew language, or of a confused mixture of Hebrew
and some other language ; but, with the exception of a
few foreign words, more or less modified in form, they are

4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

those of the Aramaic (n. 3) or Syriac tongue. For the
use of the latter name there is as much historical justifica-
tion as for the use of the former ; since, during the
centuries when this language was the dominant one in
Palestine, it was very commonly called Syriac by the Jews
and by those Christians who were so situated as to be
familiar with the linguistic conditions of Palestine and the
adjoining regions (u. 4). The only advantage in using
the term Aramaic, instead of Syriac, to designate the
language spoken by Jesus and by His immediate followers
in the early Church, is the fact that we have become
accustomed to employ the term Syriac exclusively with
reference to the language of the Christian literature of the
Syrian national Church, which began to be prepared first
in Edessa after the close of the second century.

If we are inclined to the false notion that the language

of Jesus was an uncultivated vernacular, a Jewish jargon,

the terms Aramaic and Syriac may serve to remind us

that we are dealing with a language which, during the

five hundred years preceding the advent of Christianity,

had gradually spread until it had become the dominant

language of western Asia. And in spite of the rivalry

with Greek that had existed since the time of Alexander,

it maintained this position over wide regions until it was

replaced by the Arabic of Islam. It was not without

some reason that a Syrian of the sixth century A.D. called

it the queen of languages (n. 5). Its reign was a long

one. As early as 700 B.C. the Jerusalem court officials

could propose to an Assyrian general that he carry on his

negotiations with them in Aramaic, in order that the

people standing by, who knew only Hebrew, might not

understand what was said (Isa. xxxvi. 11 ; 2 Kings xviii.

26). Aramaic was the native language of neither party,

but was employed as a medium of intercourse between

powers speaking different languages, just as French is

used now in negotiations between Russians and Italians.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 5

At the time of the Persian world-empire, Aramaic had
already become the official language in which the royal
government and the satraps of the western provinces main-
tained communication with their polyglot subordinates,
including those as far removed as Egypt (n. 6). From
this time on Aramaic came more and more into use as a
living vernacular, especially in districts where heretofore
other Semitic languages had prevailed. Long before the
time of Christ, the old " language of Canaan," as the
Israelites once called their own language (Isa. xix. 18),
because of the fact that it did not differ essentially from
the languages of their nearest heathen neighbours, had
ceased to be the spoken language of Palestine and the
adjoining regions. Phoenician was no longer spoken in
Tyre and Sidon. While this old language continued to be
spoken in Carthage, and, after the fall of the Carthaginian
State, for centuries longer in the Roman provinces of
North Africa, in its original home it had given place to
Aramaic or Syriac (n. 7). In the old dwelling-places of
the Edomites and the Moabites, and in the entire
Nabatsean kingdom, which stretched from the Elamitic
gulf to the vicinity of Damascus, Aramaic was the
dominating language, as is evident from numerous inscrip-
tions (n. 7), in the time of Christ and of king Aretas iv.,
father-in-law of Herod Antipas (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 32), whose
reign lasted from about 9 B.C. to 40 A.D.

In the midst of Palestine dwelt the Samaritans, a
mixed race, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, possibly from
the beginning of their history. Nor was the little remnant
of the Jewish nation that resettled in and about Jerusalem
able to resist permanently this general development.
Consequently, when the nation freed itself from its
oppressors, and secured a larger degree of independence
by the Maccabean revolt, the Jews had ceased to speak
their own language. Of course, they did possess some-
thing that the neighbouring peoples did not have, in the

6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

large body of literature which had come down to them
from the times of their kings and prophets, a sacred
literature, to which they now clung as the charter of their
national calling, and as the law of worship, of faith, and
of civil life. This literature w r as collected, and new pro-
phetical, historical, and poetical writings were added in
the old and sacred language. The introduction of
Aramaic forms and words was more strenuously avoided
than in the times before and during the Exile, just because
of opposition to the inroads of the Aramaic spoken by all
the tribes, in the midst of which the little Jewish com-
munity had to maintain its existence. The hymns and
set liturgical forms for use in the temple worship were
taken from the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible was
read and expounded to the people in the synagogues, and
there soon grew up a distinct class of learned men who
made it the subject of special study.

In the case of a people whose individuality and con-
tinued existence depended so much upon their religion, and
whose religious life was so thoroughly conditioned by its
hold upon its classical literature as was that of the Jewish
people at the time of the second temple, the language in
which this literature was written could not fall entirely
into disuse. It not only survived in the sacred books and
in inscriptions upon coins (n. 8), but strenuous efforts
were also made to keep it in use as a spoken language.
Jesus the son of Sirach, a resident of Jerusalem, wrote
his book of proverbs in biblical Hebrew about 180 B.C.,
and his grandson in Egypt translated it into Greek after
132 B.C. Because it was the sacred language, the scholars
gave it preference in their disputations, and as a medium
for the presentation of their traditional lore. In order to
adapt it to these purposes, by the construction of new forms
and the introduction of foreign words (n. 9), they modified
it into a learned language, the Modern Hebrew of the
Mislmah. Of the uneducated multitude they spoke with

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 7

contempt (John vii. 49 ; Acts iv. 13), and called their
language the " speech of the vulgar." At a time when they
themselves had to acquire the sacred language of the
Scriptures artificially, they protested against the use, in
their own learned circles at least, of the living language
of daily intercourse (n. 10). But the effort, at least when
made with authority and determination, was too late to
be effective. Long before the time of Christ this language
which the scholars despised, the Sursi, as the Jews of the
Holy Land were wont to call it (n. 4), had become the
vernacular of Palestine and the adjoining regions on the
east and north (n. 11). Like every other Semite who
grew up in these regions, the Jew learned Aramaic as his
native tongue before he could learn to read and write and
to study the Hebrew Bible. The rule laid down by an
aged interpreter of the law, that fathers should teach their
sons the sacred language first, only shows that the reverse
was the general case. The daughters are expressly ex-
empted from this requirement ; nor did anyone expect
them to learn Hebrew (n. 10). So that even in
families which were zealous for the law the wives had no
knowledge of Hebrew. At the time of Christ, Hebrew
was, in the strict sense of the word, the native tongue of
no Jew. The small sections of country where the Jews
lived together closely and in large numbers, were inter-
spersed with and surrounded by other Aramaic-speaking
peoples, Samaritans, Syrians, Edomites, and Nabatseans.
AVithin these narrow limits, necessarily, the language was
practically homogeneous. Without the aid of an inter-
preter Jesus conversed with the Samaritan woman from
Sychar and with other Samaritans (John iv. 7-43 ; Luke
xvii. 16), also with the Syriac-speaking Phoenician woman
(n. 7). Syrians serving in the Roman army understood
every word of the table-talk engaged in by the Jews, who
supposed that what they said was not understood by
them (Jos. Bell. iv. 1. 5).

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

This community of language, which can be proved,
and which makes it permissible to speak of a vernacular,
did not exclude very perceptible differences of dialect.
These differences were necessarily all the greater since
Aramaic had been but very little employed for literary
purposes, and particularly since there was no common
literature which brought the various Aramaic- speaking
tribes and religious communities together. From His
dialect, the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well is able at
once to recognise Jesus as a Jew (John iv. 9), and vice
versd. Especially when spoken by Jews, Aramaic must
have had a peculiar stamp. The Jewish people were so
zealous in the practice of their religion, that a large
number of Hebrew expressions taken from the language
of the Bible, from the cultus, and from the rabbis, must
have been adopted into the language of daily life, and in
the nature of the case these expressions were only partly
Aramaicised. Just as the Modern Hebrew of the learned
classes took on its peculiar form not without being
strongly influenced by Aramaic, so it was impossible and
not to be expected that Jews throughout the Orient,
especially in Palestine, and most particularly in Jerusalem,
the seat of national worship and the seat of rabbinic
learning, should speak Aramaic without using some
Hebraisms. The Jews themselves not infrequently called
the Aramaic which they spoke Hebrew, at least they did
so in their intercourse with Greeks and Romans in con-
trasting their language with Greek (n. 12). It was not
only their mother tongue, but also their national language,
and those who retained it were called Hebrews in contrast
to the Hellenists ( 2). Inevitably, also, the various
Aramaic dialects spoken by the non-Jewish part of the
population in different districts had their influence upon
the Aramaic spoken by the Jews living in these regions.
As spoken in Babylon, the language sounded different
from what it did in Jerusalem ; nor did all the Jews in

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 9

Palestine speak it in exactly the same way. The Galilean
was easily recognised in Jerusalem by his pronunciation
(n. 13). But these differences, which were not greater
than those existino- amonsr the Hio;h German dialects still

o o o

spoken (n. 14), must not cause us to overlook the common
character of the Aramaic spoken by all " Hebrews," i.e.
by Oriental Jews who were not Hellenists.

Especially to be rejected as wholly wrong is the notion
that at the time of Christ, Hebrew was spoken in Judea
and Jerusalem, and Aramaic only in Galilee. According
to Acts i. 19, the Aramaic name of the "field of blood"
belonged to the language of Jerusalem Jews ; and there
were other places in and near Jerusalem which had
Aramaic names, such as Bethesda (n. 15). On the
occasion of the processions in connection with the feast of
Tabernacles, and at the triumphal entry of Jesus, the
Galilean pilgrims and the inhabitants of Jerusalem joined
in shouting the Hebrew Hoscliia-na in its Aramaicised

form Oschanna (n. 3, p. 21). No difference is to be
observed between Judea and Galilee in the use of the
numerous Aramaic proper names which appear in use
along with the old Hebrew names (n. 16). There were
many Aramaic expressions, frequently employed and long
current, that were in use by all " Hebrews," among these
some associated with religious thought and life, such as
the title Messiah and the party name Pharisees (n. 17).
When Josephus, a native of Jerusalem, and a scion of a
priestly house, wrote his history of the Jewish War in the
" language of his fathers," i.e. the language spoken in
Jerusalem, a history which was afterwards re-edited in
Greek, he did so in the belief that it would be intelligible
to the Jews on the other side of the Tigris and in Arabia.
But, as is quite clear from this intention of Josephus, and
from the combined impression of all the statements which
he makes relative to the matter, the language which he
used was not that of the O.T. nor the learned language of

io INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

the rabbis, but the vernacular of Palestine, which was
intelligible to all Jews not entirely estranged from the
national life, regularly spoken by the "Hebrews" proper,
and used by them in correspondence. AVe have three
official documents (n. 18) dealing with certain questions
about the calendar and tithes, which were issued between
the years 80 and 110 by Gamaliel probably not the
famous teacher of Paul (Acts v. 34, xxii. 3), but his no less
distinguished grandson in his own name and that of his
colleagues, i.e. of the highest court of the Jews in Jabne.

O ' CD

One of these is directed to the brethren in Upper and
Lower Galilee, a second to those in Upper and Lower
Daroma, i.e. Judea and South Palestine, and the third to
the brethren of the Babylonian diaspora, to those of the
diaspora in Media, to the Greek diaspora, and all the
other exiles of Israel. The account in which the three
documents are incorporated is in Hebrew ; the documents
themselves are written in good Aramaic. In view of this
fact, there can be no doubt that the document issued by
the Jerusalem Sanhedrin which was still in existence
to the man who afterwards became the Apostle Paul,
introducing him, and giving him authority among the
Jews in Damascus (Acts xxii. 5), was also written in
Aramaic. But if the most learned body of the nation
found it advisable to use this language in its official
deliverances, and if they made no distinction among their
countrymen in Judea, in Galilee, and in the diaspora,
then it necessarily follows that Josephus must have
written his history of the Jewish War of 63-70 in the
same language, since it was prepared with a specific object
in view, and was designed for the propagation of certain
views. An account of this war in Hebrew would have
made about the same impression on Josephus' con-
temporaries, especially the Jews of Mesopotamia and
Arabia, who were included among those whom the book
was intended to reach (n. 12), that a history of the

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS n

Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 in the language of the
Nibelungenlied would make upon modern Germans. In
his defence before the Sanhedrin, had not the presence of
the Roman commander necessitated the use of Greek
(Acts xxii. 30-xxiii. 10), Paul might have spoken
Hebrew, at least with the expectation of being under-
stood, only he would have created the impression of
delivering a learned address, rather than of defending his
life, which was in danger. To have spoken to the excited
mob, which he addressed from the steps of the Roman
barracks (Acts xxi. 40-xxii. 21), in the learned language
of the time, or in the language of an Isaiah, would have
been largely a waste of energy, if not a direct occasion for
ridicule. The efipah SidXercros (Acts xxi. 40-xxii. 2), of
which he made use, could have been no other than the
Aramaic of common daily life. The fact that, in a
Hebrew work like the Mislmah, the sayings of those
introduced as speaking are usually reported in Hebrew, is
no more proof that these persons spoke Hebrew than our
Gospels are evidence that Jesus spoke Greek. On the \
contrary, from the fact that this same Mishnah tran-
scribes in Aramaic single sayings of the Hillel who was
born some thirty years earlier than Jesus, and of some
of his contemporaries, it is natural to conclude that
Aramaic was widely employed even in rabbinic circles
(n. 19).

By Jesus' time Aramaic had come into use also in
the synagogue services (n. 20). The story related of
Gamaliel the elder, the teacher of Paul, how he ordered a
targum, or Aramaic paraphrase of the Book of Job, to be
buried, does not, of course, prove the existence at the time
of such written translations of the law and prophets also,
and still less does it prove that such translations were
read in the synagogues in place of the sacred text, or
along with it. This came later. But the existence of a
targum of the Book of Job in the year 40 A.D. does

12 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

certainly prove that at this time the Hebrew Bible was
unintelligible even to men who studied other parts of
the O.T. besides the biblical pericopes, parashas, and
haphtarahs. Long before the preparation of the written
targums which in part have come down to us, and which
were made in order to explain to the people the biblical
text, understood by them only imperfectly, use was made
in the synagogues of oral translations into Aramaic. It
is clear, further, that if it was to accomplish its purpose,
the exposition and application, i.e. the sermon which
followed, also must have been in Aramaic. This must
have been true also of Jesus' preaching in the synagogues,
upon the mountains of Galilee, and in the courts of the
temple at Jerusalem.

What we learn from extra-biblical sources concerning
linguistic conditions in Palestine at the time simply con-
firms what we gather from the original testimony of the
four Gospels. The language in which Jesus prayed and
talked to the multitudes, and to His disciples, was used
also in the Church gathered in Jerusalem shortly after His
resurrection. This fact is so self-evident as hardly to call
for direct proof. Still it is to be observed that the
surname which, according to Acts iv. 36, was given by
the apostles to Joseph of Cyprus very early in the history
of the Church was Aramaic. Besides, the name assigned
was not an ordinary one, but was chosen for a particular
reason (n. 16). Expressions other than Greek, which we
find employed from the very first in the worship of the
Greek Churches, such as the Hebrew a^v, which was used
without modification in prayer by Aramaic-speaking Jews,
the Aramaicised form wa-awa (n. 3, p. 21 f.), to which is to
be added also a\\rf\ovla (Rev. xix. 1-6, cf. Mark xiv. 26),
were not adopted by the Gentile Christians from the
Greek O.T., for not all of them are to be found there.
Nor were they taken from the Hebrew Bible, which the

Gentile Christians did not possess : they came rather with

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 13

the gospel from Jerusalem. The occurrence of the
Aramaic expression ^apavaOa in the Greek eucharistic
prayers of the so-called Didache (x. 2) in very close
connection with an a^v and an wo-awa, indicates that
these liturgical formulae originated in a congregation
which used Aramaic in its worship. This could have been
none other than the congregation in Jerusalem, the Church
in Palestine. Paul makes use of the same formula in a
passage where he expressly excludes from his greeting to
the Church certain strangers who were disturbing the
peace of the Church in Corinth, and threatening to destroy
the cordial relations between the Church and the apostle
(1 Cor. xvi. 22). As we shall see later, the persons for
whom this threatening hint was meant were Jewish
Christians from Palestine ( 18, n. 12). By using the
language employed in the Church from which they came,
the apostle meant to make clear to these men themselves
and to the Greek-speaking Christians in Corinth whom he
had in mind.

The successors and heirs of the Jewish'- Christian
Church in Jerusalem, which ceased to exist after the time
of Hadrian, were the Ebionites, who lived in the region
east of the Jordan, and in some localities lying farther
north in Syria, as Aleppo. As late as the fourth century
they continued to cling to their national traditions.
According to Epiphanius (Hcer. xxix. 7), they were well
trained in the use of Hebrew, and, like the Jews, read the
O.T. in the original ; they were also familiar with the
rabbinic traditions as far back as the time of Hadrian.
But the only Gospel which they used, the so-called Gospel
of the Hebreu-s, was an Aramaic book, which is known to
have been in existence from the middle of the second
century (GK, ii. 648-672). Aramaic, consequently, was
the language employed in their religious worship from the
time of their enforced departure from Jerusalem before
the middle of the second century.

14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

The bearing of these results upon the beginnings of
Christian literature must be reserved until the separate
writings are discussed. But before we proceed to that
discussion, it is necessary to consider another language
element of predominating importance in the wide field of
the apostolic missionary labours, and of great importance
also in Palestine.

1. (P. 2.) G. DE Eossi, Delia lingua propria di Cristo e degli Ebrei nazionali
della Palestina da' tempi de' Maccabei, Parma, 1772. The lines here laid down
were followed out by PFANNKUCHE in his article on the vernacular of Palestine
in the time of Christ and the apostles in Eichhorn's Ally. Bibl. der bill. Literatur,
viii. 3 (1798), S. 365-480. Cf., further, FR. DELITZSCH, " Uber die palast.
Volkssprache, welche Jesus und seine Jiinger geredet haben," in Saat auf
Hoffnuny, 1874, S. 195-215. With regard to later utterances of this scholar,
in which he declared Hebrew rather than Aramaic to have been the original
language of Matthew at least, see below, 55. A. NEUBAUER, " On the
dialects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ," in Studia Biblica (vol. i. of
the Oxford Studia bibl. et ecclesiastica), 1885, pp. 39-74. MARSHALL, " The
Aramaic Gospel," a long continued article in the Expositor, New Series,
vols. ii.-viii. (1890-1893). A. MEYER, Jesu Mutter sprache. Das Galilaische
Aramiiisch in seiner Bedeutung fur die Erkldrung der Reden Jesu und der
Evangelien Uberhaupt, 1896. E. NESTLE, Philologica Sacra, Bemerkungen
iiber die Urgestalt der Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte, 1896. G. DALMAN,
Die Worte Jesu mit Beriicksichtigung dcs nachkanonischenjiidischen Schri/ttums
und der aramdischen Sprache erortert, Bd. i., Einleitung und wichtige Begriffe.
Nebst Anhang : Messianische Texte, 1898 (Eng. trans. 1902). Of funda-
mental importance from a philological standpoint is G. DALMAN, Grammatik
des judisch-paltiotinischen Aramdisch, 2te Aufl. 1905. Also by the same author,
Aramdische Dialektproben, Lesestiicke zur Grammatik, etc., 1896. Lexica :
J. BUXTORF, Lex. chaldaicum, talmudicum et rabbinicum, 1639 ; J. LEVY,
Neuhebr und chald. Worterluch, 4 vols. 1876-1889 ; ibid. Chaldaisches Wb'rter-
buch iiber die Targumim, 2 vols. 1876 ; M. JASTROW, Dictionary of the Tar-
gumim, the Talmud babli and yeruschalmi, 2 vols. 1886-1903. G. DALMAN,
Aramdisch-neuhebrdisches JForterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch, 1897-
1901. Though the rapid development of these studies is very gratifying,
it is too soon to draw from them wide-reaching conclusions as to the history
and doctrine of the N.T. It is a bypath, and not a very alluring one at
that, which leads from Wellhausen's remarks upon the concept "Son of
man " (Israelit. u. jiid. Geschichte, 1st ed. S. 312), altogether correct as many
of them are, to the development of these by A. Meyer (op. cit. 91 ff.), and from
thence to Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (1896), and back to Wellhausen him-
self (Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, vi. 187-215). Cf. Dalman, Worte Jesu, S. 191-219
(Eng. trans, pp. 234-268) ; Fiebig, Der Menschensohn, 1901 ; ZKom. Matt.
346-356.

2. (P. 2.) Referring to words of Jesus, Mark v. 41, xv. 34, 5 tcmv

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 15

vevopevov (cf. Matt. i. 23; Mark xv. 22; Acts iv. 36, xiii. 8 ; Mark iii. 17,
vii. 11, 34, o fo-rtv (cf. Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Acts i. 19) ; in Mark xiv. 36 there is
simply a juxtaposition of the Aramaic and Greek expressions (cf. Rom. viii.
15 ; Gal. iv. 6). John sometimes uses the same or similar formulae, i. 38, 41,
42 ix. 7, xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2 ; sometimes he notes that a name used by
him is Hebrew, without, however, adding a translation, v. 2 ; sometimes,
after designating a place by its Greek name, he tells what it is called in
Hebrew, xix. 13, 17.

3. (P. 4.) Aramaic words, which Jesus either used to express His own
thoughts or quoted from the speech of His fellow-countrymen, are the fol-
lowing : (1) Mark v. 41, TaXida. Kovp. (BLK) or KOV/U (AD, the Latins, S 1 ,
Aphraates, p. 65), to be written 'Pip xp'V? 5 cf. Dalman, Gr. 2 150, A. 6 ; 321, A. 1.
The Greek variants make it doubtful whether the final i, which in the Semitic
character is to be written at any rate, was still audible. The statement of an
anonymous onomasticon (ed. Lagarde, 199. 78), that Kovp is niasc., Kovp.1 fern.,
is grammatically correct, but is probably mere book-learning without regard
to the actual pronunciation. (2) Mark vii. 34, e^ada (so most authorities,
f(f)<j)fda DK c Lat., ceffeta Jerome, Onomast., ed. Lagarde, 64. 2), correctly taken
by Mark (6 cariv Siaj/oi'xfyn) and the Syrian translators (Ss Sh S l nnsnx) as a
call in the singular addressed to the deaf man, not as a call in the plural the
ending being dropped addressed to the ears, cf. Dalman, Gr. 2 278, A. 1. (3)
Mark xv. 34 = Matt, xxvii. 46. In both passages the text has been trans-
mitted in many various forms, partly owing to recollection of the parallel
passage. The original reading of Mark is perhaps eXon e'Xcoi Xe/xa (KCL,
Xa^a BD, \ifta AKM, X M a EFG) era|3a X 0aw (EFKL, Eus. Dem. X. 8. 14,
<ra{3ax6avei CGH, (ra^a/crai/ei K, a<j)6avei DLat., afia(j)davei B) ; that of
Matthew is perhaps rj\ei JjXet (instead of this eXon K, eX&> B, both drawn
from Mark) Xf/ia (NBL, Xa/xa D, \ip.a or Xr/^a most authorities) <rapa X 6xvi
(al. -vd, DLat. a$#ai>ei). Of the ancient Syrian translators (Sc lacks both
passages, Sh Mark xv. 34), Ss has in Mark 'jnpac' tush '.iVx 'n"?x, i.e. exactly like
the Syriac rendering of Ps. xxii. 1 ; it has the question in just the same form
in Matthew also, S 1 likewise has it similarly in both Gospels, while Sh, on
the contrary, has in Matt, xxvii. 46, VT nput? xnV ; Ss and Sh have '? as the
form of the address in Matthew (pp. 204, 211, only in the latter passage
along with it being given the translation M'TN), S 1 has W in both Gospels ;
cf. the writer's Das Evang. des Petrus, 1893, S. 33, 78. Epiphanius, Hcer. Ixix.
68, Dindorf, iii. 221, cf. Ixix. 49, p. 196, remarks on Matt, xxvii. 46, that Jesus
spoke the words i;Xt, 77X1 in Hebrew, following the original text of the psalm,
but that He said what follows in Syriac. Lagarde, Gott. gel. Anz. 1882, S. 329,
pointed to this passage as proof of the systematic correction of even our most
ancient MSS. which is only partially correct. As proof of the historical
originality of Matthew's ''px, a form which, while certainly Hebrew, was
not unheard of in the Targum, is the fact that through this form the mis-
understanding of the people (Matt, xxvii. 47-49, xv. 35) becomes more in-
telligible ; cf. ZKom. Matt. 705, A. 86 (contrary to view held in first and
second editions of the Einleitung), Mark, a native of Jerusalem, probably
substituted vta, to which he was more accustomed, and which in style was
more suitable in an otherwise Aramaic sentence. The obscure pronunciation
eXo>7 instead of eXaV, which was to have been expected, probably arose from

1 6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

dependence on the sound of the Hebrew elohim, elohai (cf. Dalnian, Gr. 2 156,
A. 1), customary in the living languaga of the Aramaic speaking Jews. On
the other hand, the Western reading a<p6avei in both Gospels, which had
found its way also into B in a still more corrupt form (see above), quite
certainly points to scholarly knowledge and conscious consideration of the
Hebrew text of the Psalms ; cf. Westcott-Hort, Appendix, 21. For evidently
an a, which could easily have fallen out after Xe/xa or Xa/xa, is to be supplied ;
so that act(pdavft, an entirely regular transliteration of the Hebrew 'jnutj,', is
to be considered the original form of the reading. The fact, moreover, that
D has Xa^ia in both Gospels (B only in Mark), discloses the effort to make
the entire sentence Hebrew, a result upon which Luther also ventured in
both Gospels. We cannot therefore be wrong in judging that the mutilated
text a(J)davei was traced back to the Aramaic ^nsyi by those acquainted with
Syriac, and was translated, as in D (Mark xv. 34), by uvfiSurds p.e (cf. also
Dalman, Worie Jesu, i. 43, A. 2 [Eng. trans. 54, n. 1]). (4) Mark vii. 11,
Kopj3av = 8(opov, in Matt. xv. 5 only the translation. In the els rov Kopfiavdv
(al. -fiovav, -ftava, -/3ai/) of Matt, xxvii. 6, where the high priests are speaking,
and in Jos. Bell. ii. 9. 4, where, however, we should certainly read Kopftavas,
and not, with Niese, Kopftuvas, the Aramaic stat. emphat. appears. In Mark
vii. 11, where the word forms the predicate (cf. Jos. Ant. iv. 4. 4 ; c. Apion.
i. 22), this form was at least not necessary ; hence Ss also in Mark vii. 11,
Matt. xv. 5, is content with the stat. absol. p-iip (Sc S 1 'jmip) ; on the other
hand, in Matt, xxvii. 6, Ss S 1 have xmip no, Sh X3:nip3. (5) Mark xiv. 36,
aj3j3a = 6 Trarrip. This is its only occurrence in the Gospels, but it is found
also in Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 6, cf. 2, and, with regard to Bar-abba, below,
n. 16. Instead of this, Ss has here as in Matt. xxvi. 39 (iruTep) OK, a form
which S 1 pedantically enough places as a Syriac translation beside the exact
transcription xnx in Mark xiv. 36, and uses elsewhere for irarep as well as for
6 irarrip intended as a vocative, Matt. xi. 25, 26, xxxvi. 39; Luke x. 21. The
East Syrians considered ON better Syriac, while Sh has .NON in Matt. xxvi. 39 ;
Luke x. 21. Cf. ZKom. Matt. 436, A. 40 ; Schlatter, Heimat u. Sprache des
4 Evany. 54). (6) Mark iii. 17, Boainjpye; (al. -epyrjs, -epyes, min. 700 [al.
604], ed. Hoskier, fiavr]peye, min. 565 [al. 473], ed. Belsheim, Pavr}pey(i) = viol
fipovTtjs. Ss 'tyn ':a, so likewise S 1 with appended translation KDJH 'ja.
Jerome on Dan. ii. 7, Vail. v. 625, and Onom., ed. Lagarde, 66. 9, demanded
nothing less than a change of the text, which was alleged to be corrupt, into
bane (or bene) reein. According to Kautzsch, Gr. des bibl. Aram. 9, the verb is
not BUI, but m " to be angry " (Ss S 1 Matt. v. 22). The free translation in
Mark is perhaps to be explained on the ground that viol opyrjs would be very
liable to misunderstanding ; cf. Eph. ii. 3 ; Dalman, recently, Gr. 2 144, A. 2 ;
199, A. 3, prefers BUI. The transcription, however, is remarkable. A
superfluous a in 'Icoaxf/3e'>? (Jos. Ant. ii. 9. 4, cf. iii. 5. 3 moreover, the
text here as transmitted is uncertain) will not explain the superfluous o in
Boanerges. Delitzsch and Noldeke, Gutt.gel. Anz. 1884, S. 1023, saw in this an
attempt to reproduce a particular Galilean pronunciation ; whereas Dalinau,
Worte Jesu, 39, A. 2 (Eng. trans. 49, n. 2), would prefer to have either o or a
stricken out. (7) John i. 43, Krj(pas = o Uerpos ; in the other Gospels only the
translation. With regard to Paul's usage, see below, 38, on 1 Pet. i. 1. Jerome,
Onomast. 66. 14 j 77. 15, says : Syrum est ; and rightly : for it is not rp, which

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 17

occurs only twice in the O.T. and then in the plural, but the very common
Syriac word NBND (so Ss S 1 in John i. 42, and the Syrians generally as the
regular substitution for rierpo?, Sh NS'J). Instead of the translation 6 IleVpor
we should have expected IleVpo?, or at best irtrpa, without the article (cf.
Acts iv. 36) ; but John shows by this definite form that he felt the deter-
minative force of the stat. eniphat. It is established by Matt. xvi. 17 that
Jesus gave this new name as a contrast to that which had been given Simon at
birth, as the son of his earthly father. Matthew has preserved the Aramaic
form .tj'v 13. According to this the father bore the name of the prophet Jonah,
cf. Matt. xii. 39-41 ; Luke xi. 29-32, which was common among Palestinian
Jews even in later times (Levy, Neuhebr. Lex. ii. 229, "name of many
Amoraim, especially in the Jerus. Gemara"). According to the correct text
of John i. 42, xxi. 15-17, and two fragments of the Gospel of the
Hebrews (GK, ii. 693, 694, 712), his name was rather John. The latter
name is written in the O.T. jjrii.T, or when contracted jjn'v, e.g. Neh. xii.
22 = Ezra x. 6; the former spelling as late as the coins of John Hyrcanus
(a. 135-105 ; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 76-80) and the Targum (e.g. 2 Chron.
xvii. 15), in which occurs also the shorter form (e.g. Jer. xl. 13). The
ancient Hebrew pronunciation is reproduced most exactly in Greek by
'luavav (2 Chron. xvii. 15 ; Ezra x. 6 ; Jer. xl. 13, xli. 11, etc., in LXX ;
Luke iii. 27 ; along with which occur also here and there Ivavvav, Iwawa,
Invar, and in 2 Kings xxv. 23 in Cod. B the altogether incorrect Itava) ; the
next transliteration in the order of precision is 'Imdvrjs, the form in the N.T.
in Cod. B throughout, even where Tischendorf has not noted it, sometimes
also in K Matt. xvi. 14, xvii. 1, 13 ; Cod. L John i. 32. In the Acts, D,
which has the sharpened pronunciation everywhere in the Gospels, comes
over to the side of B : Acts i. 5, 13, 22, iii. 1, 11, x. 37, xiii. 24, 25, xix. 3, 4.
Once, in iii. 4, D alone has this form. This spelling must be attributed to
the older recension of Acts, and therefore to the author himself. Moreover,
the corresponding female name is spelled 'Iai>a by BD in Luke viii. 3, and by
DL in Luke xxiv. 10. The wide diffusion of the form 'icaawrjs (cf. also jjnv
among the Syrians) cannot be due to a mere error of the Greek copyists, but
implies that along with the old Hebrew form there was also a sharpened
pronunciation current in Palestine ; cf. Dalman, Gr.~ 179, A. 5. An analogous
case is the name of the high priest |in (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2. 1 ; Bell. v. 12. 2
correctly Avavos), which we find in the N.T. (Luke iii. 2 ; John xviii. 13 ;
Acts iv. 6) written A.was almost without variants ; for this form certainly
cannot be explained as arising from a confusion of memory with the name
njn (1 Sam. i. 2 ; Luke ii. 36 ; Virg. Aen. iv. 9). (8) Matt. v. 22 pa <a (BE
and most authorities, pa^a K*D and the Latins) is classed with the Talmudic
opprobrious term Njr-i (stat. emph.), and this is explained as an abbreviation
of jj3'i_. This is the view even of Dalman, Gr. 2 173, A. 2. The Syrians, who,
without any hint that they were dealing with a foreign word, wrote xpn
(Ss Sc Sh S 1 ), seem with better right to have taken it for a Syriac word.
Corresponding to the Hebrew pi (thin, lean, Gen. xli. 19) the word has
acquired among the Syrians the meaning " insignificant, despicable," and
among the Syriac speaking population about Antioch has been used as a
derogatory form of addressing the lower classes, which has become almost
meaningless. See, further, ZKom. Matt. 24. The p-wpe standing near it is Greek,

VOL. I. 2

1 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

of course. But since this Greek word occurs quite often in the form rnin,
DiiiD in the Midrash as an expression for "fool' : (Neubauer, Athcnceum, 1881,
ii. 779 ; Stud. Bibl, Oxford, 1885, p. 55 ; Krauss, Lehnworter, i. 50, ii. 328), it
follows that the Galileans, who otherwise spoke Aramaic, used this, like many
another Greek word, in common life. (9) The Hebrew fpx, originally an
adjective, but regularly an exclamation for the solemn confirmation of a
prayer, a word of God, and the like. Usually in the LXX it is translated by
yevniTo, but sometimes (1 Chron. xvi. 36 ; Neh. v. 13) is transcribed as a^v,
and in this form was immediately introduced into the liturgical use of the
Greek Churches, 1 Cor. xiv. 16 ; 2 Cor. i. 20. Even in the mouth of Jesus
the single or double a^v is an elliptical exclamation, like vai in Matt. xi. 9 ;
Luke xi. 51, and is by no means an adverb modifying \tyca or the statement
introduced by Xe'yw, that verb being on such a view a parenthetical inquam.
The latter supposition is excluded by the simple fact that in many cases a
ort dependent upon Xe'yw follows. But a usage peculiar to the speech of Jesus
is the dp')i>, >f'y<a vp.1v (30 times in Matthew, 13 times in Mark, 6 times in
Luke, 25 times with doubled d/n^i/ in John) at the beginning of a sayin"
which is neither in answer to a question nor in any way related to another
saying as its solemn confirmation, as in Jer. xxviii. 6 ; 1 Kings i. 36 ; Rev.
v. 14. The usage in Rev. vii. 12, xix. 4, xxii. 20 is not essentially different
from that of Jesus. With regard to Rev. iii. 14, see 68, n. 8. Delitzsch
(ZfLTh. 1856, S. 422 f.) conjectured that the original form was NVCK JCN,
the latter word being a contradiction for KJN TEN. According to him, the
Synoptists had given an exact translation, but John, in addition to this, and
indeed quite after his manner, imitated the sound. The Babylonian Talmud
was the only place where Delitzsch could find instances of the elision of
the i in the case of contraction, and on this account Dalman, Gr. 2 243, will
not admit that it occurred in the speech of Jesus ; nevertheless, the con-
jecture remains probable. (10) Matt. vi. 24 ; Luke xvi. 9-13 p.a/j.a)vas
dj.cip.p.<i)vaf is poorly attested ; in Church literature it is the prevalent
form), Jinn Pirke Aboth ii. 12, Aram. NJICD, not infrequent, Levy, ii. 138 f.,
so also Ss Sc S 1 , KJDID Sh, Luke xvi. 13. Jerome, Ep. xxii. 31 (cf. Ep.
cxxi. 6 ; ad Matth. vi. 24 ; Vail. vii. 36) : " Nam gentili Syrorum lingua
(Ep. 121: 'Non Hebraeorum, sed Syrorum lingua') Mammona divitise
nuncupantur." Ibid. Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 2. 86 : " Mamona in lingua
hebrsea divitise nuncupantur, non aurum, ut quid am putant." Adam.
Dial. c. Marc. (Lat. ed., Caspari, 37, effaced in the Greek text) : " Mam-
monam . . . pecuniam dicit gentili lingua," which probably is to be traced
back to Theophilus of Antioch, and refers to the Syriac spoken in the neigh-
bourhood of that city, cf. ZKQ, ix. 232 f., 238 f. ; Iren. iii. 8. 1 (probably
dependent upon Theophilus or Justin, or both) : " Secundum Judaicam
loquelam, qua et Samaritse utuntur," etc. ; August, de Serm. in Monte, ii. 14.
47, and Serm. 113 on Luke xvi. (cf. Qucest. ev. ii. 34; Enarr. in Ps. liii. 2)
distinguishes the " Hebrew " mammona, the meaning of which he knew
through Jerome, from the Punic mammon, which he knew through his own
acquaintance with the language, and which he says means lucrum ; cf.
Schroder, Phonic. Sprache, 30. See also ZKom. Matt. 291, A. 6 ; concerning
the doubtful etymology, cf. Nestle, EB, col. 2914 ; Dalman, PEE, 3 xii.
153. (11) craravas, in the Gospel and Acts, the authors of which regu-

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 19

larly use Sta/SoXos (made current by the LXX), used simply by Jesus
(this is true of Acts xxvi. 18 also), the only exceptions being Mark i. 13 ;
Luke xxii. 3 ; John xiii. 27, and one other passage (Acts v. 3), where it is
used by Peter. It is used ordinarily by Paul also (2 Cor. xii. 7, Antiochian
reading crarav, as in LXX 1 Kings xi. 14, 23). It is only in his later
Epistles, from Eph. iv. 27 (?) on, that it is sometimes replaced by 8t/3oXoy.
The Aramaic form occurs as early as Sir. xxi. 27 (TOV Sarai/d B* al. -vav) ; it
is found in the Targum, even where it has no support in the original text ; it
is used also in the Syriac Gospels, sometimes even for &a/3o\os, Sc Matt. iv. 1 ;
Ss Luke iv. 2, 13 ; Ss Sc John vi. 70 ; S 1 more seldom, e.g. Matt. xiii. 39 ;
Sh, on the other hand, regularly. (12) ye'ei/i/a occurs outside of the Gospels
(Matthew 7 times, Mark 3 times, Luke once) only once, Jas. iii. 6. The
Hebrew DJ.TJ ; the pronunciation ge-hinndm, from which the Hellenised form
of the N.T. arose by dropping the m, is also that of the Targums and
Talmuds. (13) TO Trao-^a is used by Jesus in Matt. xxvi. 2, 17, 18 ;
Mark xiv. 14 ; Luke xxii. 8, 11, 15. Still earlier than this, in the LXX
(</>no-ec in Chron. only), and hence used also by Philo and Josephus (also
spelled 0a(rKa repeatedly by the latter author, Ant. v. 1. 4, ix. 13. 3;
Bell. ii. 1. 3) regularly in this Aramaicised form of the Hebrew np. In
Sh it is written NPID'S in Matt. xxvi. 2, 17, 18, Luke xxii. 8, and quite
often, though the form ttnos also occurs, Luke ii. 41. In Sc Ss S 1 the
form is xnxs. Among the Jews the pronunciation pnscha must be older than
pischa. (14) <ra/3/3ara, as regards its form, treated as the plural of adBftaTov,
and actually used with a plural meaning in Acts xvii. 2, perhaps also in Matt,
xii. 5, 10, 12, Luke iv. 31, is, however, originally the sing, emphat. form
KKV, and denotes : (a) a single Sabbath day, Matt. xii. 1, 11 ; Mark i. 21,
ii. 23, iii. 2 ; cf. LXX very frequently, and perhaps even clearer instances in
Jos. Ant. i. 1. 1, iii. 6. 6; Hor. Sat. i. 1. 69: "Hodie tricesima sabbata";
hence also the expressions fye o-apfidrcav, Matt, xxviii. 1, and f)p.epa TO>V <r.,
Luke iv. 16, xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5 ; Acts xiii. 14, xvi. 13, the latter phrase being
used by Luke alone of the N.T. writers (in Mark vi. 2 it is an erroneous
insertion of the Westerns) ; (6) the week, so at least in p.ia [TI/] a-apftuTtav,
Matt, xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 2 ; Luke xxiv. 1 ; John xx. 1, 19 ; Acts xx. 7 ;
1 Cor. xvi. 2. In Mark xvi. 9 this is changed into the un-Jewish Trpcarr)
o-a/3/3., a form corresponding to KZV$ in the first day of the week, Sunday.
Among the Jews also rat?, Kme', or contracted K2t?, together with Nan?, had
received the meaning of ynp " week " (Levy, iv. 493, 506). Since even
Josephus, in spite of his etymological learning, according to which cra/3/3ara
= dva.Trav(Tis (Ant. i. 1. 1 ; c. Ap. ii. 2. 11), uses e/3So^ay, which properly denotes
a group of seven, a week, also for the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath
(Bell. i. 2. 4, 7. 3, ii. 19. 2; c. Ap. ii. 39; cf. 2 Mace. vi. 11), it is clear
that the people generally had ceased to feel the distinction in derivation
between roc', Nroir, or rather the contracted form x;c ; , and the word for
" seven " yiv, Nyns?. Upon this supposition alone is explicable the signification
given under (6). (15) Here the writer puts BeeAfoSouA, a word cited by
Jesus from the speech of His opponents as a term of reviling for Himself and
for the devil as His ally (Matt. x. 25 ; Luke xi. 18), or put by the evangelists
in the mouth of these opponents (Matt. xii. 24 ; Mark iii. 22 ; Luke xi. 15),
or adopted by Jesus Himself (Matt. xii. 27 ; Luke xi. 19), and even used in a

20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

good sense (Matt. x. 25). The Syrian translators (Ss Sc S 1 , unfortunately Sh
is wanting in all these passages) have everywhere put for it aiai Sjn, i.e. the
Ekron god of flies, 2 Kings i. 2 ; and even a writer as early as Jerome was
so convinced of the correctness of this interpretation, that, on the strength of
it, he declared the reading Beelzebub, which is attested in no Greek MS., to be
the only correct one (Onom. 66. 11-13), and through his Vulgate presented
to the Latin Church this form now so general among us. Not a particle of
proof has yet been found in the LXX, the remains of the other Greek
versions, the Targum, or the Talmud ic-rabbinic literature, which would
support the view that the later Jews altered the name of this Ekron god so
arbitrarily, or that they took any interest in him at all ; such proof must first
be forthcoming before we can rest satisfied with such a quid pro quo. Yet
even recent writers like Kautzsch, 9 ; Dalman, Gr. n - 137 ; Graf v. Baudissin,
PKE, 5 ii. 514, content themselves with this explanation. To be sure, the
thought of ^ai to dung, Sat dung, Siai dunging, and the application of these
words to idol-worship, which had become customary (Levy, i. 509 f.), may
have contributed to give the name Beelzebub an evil sense ; but this name
(and the only forms which have come down to us are BeeX (or Bee, or Be)
-fe/3ovX) cannot be a transcription of scbcl or sibb-ul, consequently the name
must have been "??aj H:? " lord of the dwelling." By the dwelling is meant
naturally not that of God, the temple (1 Kings viii. 13), but the abode of the
dead (Ps. xlix. 15), the stronghold of Hades, whence all the powers of
destruction break forth (Matt. xvi. 18 ; Luke viii. 31 ; Eev. ix. 1-11, xx. 1-3).
Jesus adopts the very word which His adversaries have used. When they
call the devil a lord of the abode, they should at the same time consider that
as such he has charge of an ordered household which he will not himself
wantonly destroy, nor suffer to be plundered by others, so long as he can
prevent it (Matt. xii. 25, 29). If they apply the name to Jesus Himself, He
can appropriate it when reminding the disciples that He is the master of the
house in which they form the household (Matt. x. 25). The first word of the
compound name has the Aram, form, the second is Hebrew as well. Here
belong also words which were spoken by those about Jesus, but as to which
it is not expressly recorded that He used them Himself : (1) pa/3/3i, '??, was
the customary form with which the pupil addressed the teacher (John i. 38,
translated by SiSao-jcaXe 8 times in John, 4 times in Matt., 3 times in Mark),
and as such was referred to by Jesus Himself (Matt, xxiii. 7, 8 ; cf. John
xiii. 13). Beside this, however, paftfiowi is used in addressing Jesus
(Mark x. 51 ; John xx. 16) both times with the variant reading pcifi/Suvd.
The pronunciation of Mian "my lord and master," may at that time have
fluctuated between u and o in the penult. The Jewish pronunciation
ribboni (Levy, iv. 416) probably belongs to a later period. Cf. also ZKom,
Matt. 643, A. 70. Among the Syriac versions, Sh S 1 have retained this word
in John xx. 16, S 1 has 'an in Mark x. 51, Ss ^un in both passages, Sc is
wanting. (2) Metro-iar only in John i. 41, iv. 25, and then with the
translation (6) Xpiar<k = Aramaic nira ! p, in the Targums, and especially
among the Aramaic speaking Jews = nT?ri. The Syrians, without exception,
have used for this word the Aramaic form, which everywhere in the N.T. is
to be presupposed as the original of (6) Xpio-ros ; Sh alone, who elsewhere
also has preserved Greek forms (e.g. DID' Jesus), wrote N'OD in John i. 42,

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 21

iv. 25, and thus it was possible for him also, in slavish imitation of the
original, to add a translation, a thing which Ss Sc S l declined to do. The
view of Lagarde (I'crhultnis des deutschen Staats, etc., 1873, S. 29; Semitica,
i. 50 ; Symmicta, ii. 92 ; Ubersicht iiber die Bildung der Nomina, 1889, S. 93-95 ;
Register und Nachtruye, 1891, S. 62 f.), that Meo-a-ias goes back to a
Nnvs, which, according to him, was originally Assyrian or Babylonian, later
Nabatsean, i.e. trans-Jordanic, and means "the repeatedly anointing one,"
has justly met with no favour. It is beyond belief that the original meaning
of the Aramaic word should have been misunderstood, not only by John,
who was the first to transliterate it into Greek, and by all Greek speaking
Christians, who called their Lord 6 Xptoros even before the year 43-44,
during which the name \picm.avoi arose in Antioch ( 40, n. 9), but also
by the Jews, who long since had used it in the sense of " the anointed,
the promised king " (e.g. also Onkelos, Gen. xlix. 10). The double <ro- for
single i?, especially in the middle of a word, has analogies enough : A/3f<ro-a,
Cod. B, 1 Sam. xxvi. 6 ; Jos. Ant. xvii. 1. 3 ; A/Seo-o-aAw/n, LXX 2 Sam. iii. 3,
xiii. 1 ff., which also has some attestation in 1 Mace. xi. 70 ; Jos. Ant. vii. 14 ;
EAio-eraioy, Cod. A, without exception after 1 Kings xix. 16, attested pre-
ponderantly in Jos. Ant. viii. 13. 7, and not inconsiderably in Luke iv. 27 ;
leo-crat, 1 Sam. xvi. 1 ff. ; Isa. xi. 1 (X leo-ai) ; Matt. i. 5 f. ; Luke iii. 32 ;
xn'"9 Dan. vi. 5 (al. 4), rendered by Jerome (Vail. v. 658) essaitha. If all
this should be insufficient to explain the form Mecrcrias, we might regard as
reproducing the original spelling the reading Mea-ias in John i. 42, iv. 25, a
reading the attestation of which can hardly be called slight. (3) Matt. xxi.
9, 15 ; Mark xi. 9, 10 ; John xii. 13, axravva ; Ss Sc (so far as they have these
passages) and S 1 everywhere xiyaix ; on the contrary, Sh tuyvin. Further-
more, osanna occurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews according to Jerome,
Epist. xx. (GK, ii. 650, 694), it was early received into the liturgy of the
Eucharist according to Didache x. 6, and it was shouted by the people in
Jerusalem in the year 66 according to Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. ii. 23. 14).
The original form of this, as is also shown by the context in the Gospels, ig
unquestionably the NJ njrtyin of Ps. cxviii. 25. Whether he knew the whole
psalm or not, every Jewish child was familiar with these words, occurring
as they did in the liturgy of the feast of Tabernacles, a feast, moreover,
which the palm branches would recall ; cf. Delitzsch, ZfLTIi. 1855, S.
653 ff. The view proposed first, perhaps, by Merx in Hilgenfeld, NT
extra can. iv. 26, ed. ii. p. 25, and adopted by Siegfried, ZflVTk. 1884,
S. 359, and others, according to which the original form was an Aramaic
wytfix " save us," is in the first place opposed to all the tradition. The
Greek translators of Ps. cxviii. 25 and the ancient commentators under-
stood (juicrov 8r) ; cf. also Jerome, Onotnast. 62. 29. Good proof must then be
forthcoming before we can believe that Jews by misunderstanding the Biblical
form found here a suffix of the first person plural. In the second place, the
dative " to the son of David " (Matt. xxi. 9, 15) or " to the God of David "
(Didache x. 6), excludes the possibility that those who thus hailed Jesus, or those
who reported this, thought of an " us " as contained in the hosanna. In the
third place, there is no verb ye>' in Aramaic at all, nor one related to this in
derivation. The Hiph'il of this Hebrew verb is rendered regularly in
Targ. and Pesh. by pis. The Talmudic juyunn as a name of the festal palm

22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

branch and (with D'V) of the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, which
passed over to the Syrians as a foreign word in the form wynK, and was
made to apply to Palm Sunday (Payne Smith, Tlics. s.v.\ can certainly
be nothing else than a shortened pronunciation of the Hebrew exclama-
tion, a pronunciation reproduced exactly in the Gospels and in the liturgy
of the Didache. To Aramaic-speaking Jews this pronunciation probably
seemed an assimilation to their ordinary speech ; and when the East Syrians
Ss Sc S 1 replaced the initial n by K (Sh retained the Hebrew spelling with
n), this was simply a further Aramaicising of the foreign Hebrew word. An
equally superficial and specious assimilation to the Aramaic is seen in the
form Oshaya, the Babylonian Talmud's spelling of the name which occurs as
Hoshaya in the Palestinian Talmud (Levy, i. 48, 460), or in the variant
spellings ,TJJN and NJVUX, which occur in both Talmuds along with the form
rnarr, a word derived from ran, and therefore Hebrew. By such a change
hosanna became Aramaic to just about the same extent that Pension-irung is
a German word. The same tendency, though in the reverse direction, is seen
in the inscription on the sarcophagus of a Jewish princess, apparently from
Adiabene (C. I. Sem. ii. No. 156, see n. 12), in which the Aramaic word
" queen " is written once in Syriac script correctly NnaSo, and once in the
Hebrew square characters nruSa, a form which appeared more Jewish. We
cannot tell from Jerome's report whether in the Gospel of the Hebrews the
axrawa began with a n or an x, and it is still less possible to decide with how
strong an aspiration the various members of the mixed multitude on that
Palm Sunday shouted the first syllable of this word.

4. (Pp. 4, 7.) Even translators as early as the LXX (and Theodotion)
rendered rrp-w in Dan. ii. 4, Ezra iv. 7 by a-vpicrri (Vulg. syriace), i.e. gave the
name "Syriac" to the so-called Biblical Aramaic. The corresponding pcpnio
and 'pi?D jit^ are the terms which the Palestinian rabbis apply both to the
Biblical Aramaic and to the colloquial speech of their time, cf. Dalman, Gr. 2 2 ;
Levy, i. 168, ii. 529, iii. 495. According to Sotah, 496 (cf. Baba Karnma, 83),
Judah the " nasi," the editor of the Mishnah, who lived in Palestine c. 200,
says : " What business has the Syriac language in the land of Israel ? Let
us have either the sacred tongue or the Greek, none other." A rabbi, Joseph,
living in Babylonia, recast this as follows : " What business has the Aramaic
language in Babel ? Let us have either the sacred tongue or the Persian,
none other." On the other hand, according to Jerus. Sotah vii. fol. 21c,
Samuel bar-Nachman says in the name of rabbi Jochanan : " Let not the
Syriac speech be of small account in thine eyes ; for it is spoken in the
Torah, the Nebiim, and the Kethubim," which he then verifies by quoting
Gen. xxxi. 47; Jer. x. 11 ; Dan. ii. 4; cf. the Midrash on Gen. xxxi. 47,
translated into German by Wunsche, S. 364. Then follows in Jerus. Sotah
vii. fol. 21c : "Jonathan of Bethgubrin (i.e. a South Palestinian) saith: Four
languages are adapted to be of service to the world, namely, the Greek for
song, the Eoman for war, the Syriac for lamentation, the Hebrew for oratory,
and certain say : the Assyrian also for writing." In Dial. ciii. Justin, who
was born in the colony Flavia Neapolis in Samaria, calls the speech of the
non-Greek inhabitants of Palestine 17 'louSat'cuv KOI 2vpa>v (pa>vi], and distin-
guishes it, so far as can be made out from the corrupt text, from r/ 'Eppaiuv
Eusebius of Caesarea was bishop of a city, the non-Jewish inhabitants

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 23

and neighbours of which were called Syrians by Josephus, Vita, 11 ; Bell. ii.
18. 1 f., and he could not have remained ignorant of the language of the
country. Moreover, he had acquired also some knowledge of Hebrew, prob-
ably even in his early years under Dorotheus in Antioch (Eus. H. E. vii. 32. 2),
and often showed it in his exegesis ; yet he applied the name " Syriac " not
only to the language of Edessa, from which he translated into Greek the
legend of King Abgar (H. E. i. 13. 5, 20, iv. 30), but also to the vernacular
of Palestine, into which the several parts of the Greek service had to be
translated orally by interpreters in polyglot Churches, such as those at Jeru-
salem and Scythopolis, for the benefit of those who did not understand Greek
(Syr. text of the Book of the Martyrs of Palestine, ed. Cureton, p. 4 ; cf. the
Latin and Greek excerpts published by Violet in TU, xiv. 4, S. 7, 110). Just so
Silvice pereyrin. Itin. Hieros., ed. Geyer, 99, 14-24 ; Jerome, Epist. cviii. 30 ;
Vita Hilarionis, cc. xxii. xxiii. (Vail. i. 723, ii. 25) ; Marci, Vita Porphyrii Gaz.
(Bonn, 1895), pp. 55-57. What is meant is the language of the so-called Evan-
geliarium Hierosolymitanum. Cf. in general Forsch. i. 18-44, 268-272, ii.
292-299 ; GK, i. 43, ii. 659 f. Moreover, Eusebius has no hesitation in call-
ing the mother tongue of the Galilean apostles Syriac : Demonstr. ev. iii.
7. 10, avSofs TV Svpav evrpa(f)ei>Tfs fj.6i>>j (frcovfj, cf. iii. 4. 44 ; Theoph. syr., ed.
Lee, iv. 6, v. 26, 46, partly also in Greek in Mai, Nova p. bibl. iv. 1. 118, 120.
So Qucest. ev. ad Steph. in Mai, 270 (probably words of the Julius Africanus
who wrote at Nicopolis in Palestine a hundred years before Eusebius, Forsch.
i. 40, n. 4, 6 Mortfalos Svpos dvrip. In this sense Lucian, whose mother tongue
was the Syriac spoken in Samosata (Forsch. ii. 297), called Jesus the well-
known Syrian of Palestine, who is a good hand at healing demoniacs (Philo-
pseudes, 16) ; and the Alexandrians derided the Jewish king Agrippa as a
Syrian by hailing him as nc, a term about equivalent to monseignewr (Philo,
c. Flaccum, vi. Mangey, ii. 522 f. ; cf. Dalman, Gr. 2 152, A. 3). The " five-
tongued " Epiphanius (Jerome, c. Rufinus, iii. 6) was a Palestinian by birth,
indeed, according to a not very trustworthy tradition, a Jew, and brought up
by a rabbi (Opera, ed. Dindorf, v. p. 5 f.) ; but when he seeks to speak with
precision (Hcer. Ixix. 68, above, p. 15), he calls the Aramaic words spoken by-
Jesus on the cross " Syriac," in distinction from the Hebrew words joined to
them in Matt, xxvii. 46. Jerome in his explanation of the Hebrew names
in the Bible regularly appends to the words and names in the N.T. which he
regards as Aramaic the phrase Syrum est (Onomastica, ed. Lagarde, 62. 19 ; 63.
3, 13 ; 64. 27 ; 65. 12 ; 66. 14, 28 ; 67. 27 ; 71. 7 ; 73. 24 ; 75. 25), frequently
with the further addition non hebrceum (60. 18, 21, 25, 29 ; 61. 23 ; 63. 17 ;
cf. the passage concerning Mammonas above, p. 18, and the clear distinction
between Hebrew and Syriac in Qucest. hebr. in Gen., ed. Lagarde, 22. 11 ;
50. 29). When the distinction between the Hebrew and the Aramaic form
is insignificant, or one part of a compound word seems to admit of a Hebrew
meaning, he expresses this also, though often rather unclearly. Onom. 60.
22 : "' Barjona,' films coluuibae, syrum est pariter et hebrteum, 'bar' quippe
lingua syra filius, et 'jona' columba utroque serrnone dicitur" ; cf. 65. 30 f. ;
67. 22, 28 ; comm. in Matth. x. 13 (Vail. vii. 60 ; cf. the text-critical note
appended): "Quod enim grace dicitur x c "P f et l at i ne 'we,' hoc hebraico
syroque sermone appellatur ' Salom Icujh (lack? 1 ) sive ' Saliona huh' id est
'pax tecum'" ; comm. in Gal. ii. 11 (Vail. vii. 409) : "Quod quam nos latine

24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

et groece petram vocemus, Hebrsei et Syri propter linguae inter se viciniam
Cephan nuncupent." On the other Land, Jerome when thinking of Dan. ii. 4
chose to call the Biblical Jewish Aramaic sermo chaldceus or chaldaicus (Prcef.
in ])iin., Tab., Judith, ix. 1361, x. 2 L, 22), e\ r en though in his translation of
Dan. ii. 4 he had used syriace. This explains, then, the combination Syrorum
et Chaldceorum lingua in the Prol. yaleatus in libros Reyum (Vail. ix. 454), and
the statement about the Gospel of the Hebrews (c. Pelayium, iii. 2 Vail. ii.
782) : " Chaldaico quidem syroque sermone, sed hebraicis literis scriptum
est " ; cf. GK, ii. 659 if. Theodoret, who was acquainted with Syriac (cf.
Forsch. i. 39-43), recognised no distinctions of dialect within that language
as it was spoken in Palestine, in Phoenicia, on the Euphrates, and in Edessa,
but such as according to Judg. xii. 6 existed within ancient Israel (Opp., ed.
Schulxe, i. 347). To this may be added the opinion of a modern philologist
(Sacliau, on the Palmyrene tax law of 137 A.D. in ZDMG, 1883, S. 564 :
" The language on no other monument is so closely related to Biblical Aramaic
as that in this Palmyrene tax inscription. ... It is the language which was
spoken in Palestine at the time of the composition of Chronicles (circa 200 B.C.)
and of Daniel (167-166 B.C.), as well as at Palmyra in Hadrian's time. . . .
It is the language of Christ and His contemporaries." The ancient Syrian
translators of the Gospels recognised their own tongue in the Aramaic words
and sentences written in -Greek letters, and transcribed them in Syriac letters
either altogether unchanged (Mark v. 41), or with merely a slight change of
form (Mark xv. 34), so that it was possible for them to dispense with almost
all the remarks in the Gospels referring to translation. S 1 , who was later
than Ss Sc, was the first who quite often, e.g. Mark xiv. 36, John xx. 24, took
the needless trouble of preserving for the Syrians these remarks so superfluous
for them.

5. (P. 4.) The Treasure Cave (Syriac and German by Bezold, German
part, p. 29, also on the margin of the Syriac text) names as the original
language of mankind " the Syriac tongue, which is the Aramaic ; for this
tongue is the king (^ being masc.) of all tongues . . . for all tongues on the
earth have sprung from the Syriac, and commingled with it are all discourses
in books." Cf. the Syrian Tatian's opinion of Greek, Oratio ad Grcec. i. 26, and
the writer's explanation of this, Forsch. i. 271 f.

6. (P. 5.) Concerning Aramaic in the Persian period, cf. Noldeke, Die
semitische Sprachen, eine Skizze, 2te Aufl. 1899, S. 34. Among other proofs are
the Aramaic inscriptions and papyri from Egypt beginning with 482 B.C.
(G. I. Sem. ii. No. 122). Cf. Ezra iv. 7.

7. (Pp. 5, 7.) The heathen woman from the region of Tyre and Sidon is
called by Matthew (xv. 22), in accordance with his antique style (cf. ii. 20 f. yrj
'icrpa-^X, and also the saying of Judah quoted above, p. 22, n. 4), a Canaanite
woman ; in Mark vii. 26 she is called, with reference to her heathen religion,
'EXX^/s (see 2, n. 2), to which, however, 2upo<ou/ua<ra-a is added in order to
denote that she was a Phoenician by birth and a Syrian in speech, certainly
not in order to tell, superfluously enough, in what country Tyre (vii. 24) was
situated ; cf. Lucian, Deor. concil. 4, where 2u/jo0oiVi in contradistinction to
"EXX?;!/ denotes those Phoenicians who spoke Syriac. The earliest writings in
which 2t/po0oiW/o; is found are those of Justin ; he uses it when referring to
an administrative measure which had been passed shortly before, but which

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 25

probably remained in force only temporarily, saying (Dial. Ixviii.) of the
Damascus of his time as contrasted with that of the time of Christ's birth :
vvv irpocrvevfUTiTai rfj SvpcxpotviKj] \fyofj.ei>rj (cf. Spart. Hadrianus, 14, and
Tertullian, c. Marc. iii. 13, who is here dependent upon Justin). Archae-
ologists fail to give this sentence due weight when they put the first estab-
lishment of a province of this name as late as circa 194 ; see the summary in
Marquardt, Ram. Staatsverw. 2 i. 423 f. Cf. also the inscriptions from the
time of Aretas (Haritat) iv. published by Euting, Nabatiiische Itwhriften
(1885), Nos. 1-20, or G. I. Sem. ii. No. 19G if. Perhaps even as early as
Neheniiah's time Aramaic in various dialects was spoken in Moab and in
Ashdod, so that the speech contrasted with the " Jews' language " in Neh.
xiii. 24 is essentially the same as that in Isa. xxxvi. 11.

8. (P. 6.) Even as late as the times of the Hasmonoean princes, John
Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.) and Aristobulus (105-104), the language on the coins
is pure Hebrew (Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 76-83). Moreover, when
Alexander Jannneus (104-78) ventured to have stamped, not only coins with
a Hebrew inscription, on which he designated himself as high priest, but also
coins inscribed in Greek on the one side and in Semitic on the other, on
which he assumed the title of king, he used in both cases a purely Hebrew
expression (Madden, pp. 83-90). Even his Aramaicised name \xr is replaced
by the original Hebrew forms }n:irr or jnr, more rarely jruv.

9. (P. 6.) Aids to the elementary study of the Modern Hebrew of the
learned class : Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sjjrache der Mischnah, 2 parts,
1845 ; Siegfried and Strack, Lchrbuch der neuhebraischen Sprache, 1884. Since
the Greek I8iu>r^s, pronounced aviri by the Jews, denotes the uncultured in
contrast to the scholar, i.e. to the scribe among the Jews (Acts iv. 13, dypdp.-
p-aroi Kal i8i>Tcu, cf. Arteniid. iv. 59 = an-ai'Sevrot), ovin pi? 1 ? primarily forms
the contrast to the " tongue of the learned " (c'Dsn psr 1 ?) or the " tongue of our
teachers." When contrasted with the Aramaic vernacular, this learned tongue
and the Biblical Hebrew were regarded as forming a single language ; so
that the tongue of the " sacred language," or " Sursi " (p. 22, n. 4), which is
but another designation of the same language, came to be contrasted with the
" sacred tongue " in like manner (Jerus. Sanhed. 25rf, line 8). At other times,
however, the " tongue of the learned " was in its turn distinguished from the
"tongue of the Torah," or Biblical Hebrew.

10. (P. 7.) We must not form our judgment of the actual relation between
Hebrew and Aramaic even among learned circles from such dictatorial
words as those of Judah the "nasi" (above, p. 22, n. 4). Among the good
works by which a man earns eternal life, one is for an inhabitant of the land
of Israel to speak the sacred tongue (Jerus. Shekalim iii. 47c, line 2 from
bottom), which shows that this was no insignificant task. A very ancient
commentary (Sifre, in Ugolini, Thes. xv. 581) emphasises the fact that Deut.
xi. 19 speaks only of sons, not of daughters, and appends the remark of a
rabbi, Jose ben Akiba (this should read probably Akabja, see Strack, Einl. in
d. Talmud, 84) : " Therefore it is said, When the boy begins to speak, the
father should speak the sacred tongue with him and teach him the Torah.
If he neglects this, he might as well have buried him." A learned Jew in
Palestine confessed to Origen that he did not trust himself to give the Hebrew
names of things not mentioned anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, and that

26 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

the most learned were in no better case ; but lie held that it was over hasty
to make use of the Syriac tongue instead of the Hebrew in such cases (Orig.
t. ad Afric. vi. IMarue, i. 18).

11. (P. 7.) Josephus, who employs irdrpios yXio-o-a (Bell. v. G. 3) and

(Bell. v. 2. 1), uses also not infrequently and with propriety f/ eVt^copto?
7X0)0-0-0. According to him, Bell. iv. 3. 5, the name of a certain Jew in this
language meant oopKados TTCUS, " Son of the Gazelle" ; hence the Aramaic must
have been Nn-np 12 : cf. Acts ix. 3G ; Levy, ii. 134. Cf. Bell. v. 4. 2,
8' eirix*>pios Be(6u TO veiiKTKTTOv p.fpos o p.f6ep/j.r]vfv6iJ.fi>ov e'XAuSi -y
KOLvf) Xe'yotr' ui> irciXis. This name has been transmitted in very manifold
forms here and in ii. 15. 5 ; 194 ; v. 5. 8 ; see below, n. 15.

12. (Pp. 8, 10.) The Aramaic or Syriac (above, p. 4 f.), spoken by the Jews
of Palestine, is called fftpdio-ri in John v. 2, xix. 13, 17 ; for whatever the
decision as to the correct reading in v. 2, there are Aramaic word forms in all
three passages (n. 15). It is most natural, then, to assume that the same was
true of the title on the cross, xix. 20. The ffipa'iari in John xx. 16, if its genu-
ineness may be considered established, refers to a late Hebrew form. Josephus,
too, applies the term Hebrew to both Hebrew and Aramaic forms without
distinction : Ant. iii. 10. 6, TTevTrjKoa-Tr], fjv 'E/3/jmoi da-apda KaXoixri, Heb. JTISJ;,
Aram. w-nsH., a form which first occurs in this signification of Pentecost.
Although the distinction between Hebrew and Syriac must have been perfectly
clear to him from the studies of his youth as well as from the O.T. (Ant.
x. 1. 2, cf. iii. 7. 2), he substitutes without ceremony Aramaic for Hebrew
forms not only in a-djBjSaTa, n-ao-^a, where he had been preceded by the LXX
(above, p. 18 f.), but also on his own responsibility, as, e.g., when he says
of the priests, Ant. iii. 7. 1, ovs x avava ' La ^ (better ^aavaias) KaXovcrii> =
Nuns; cf. Siegfried, Z/ATW, 1883, S. 50. If, according to him, JSw/xa =
"red," is Hebrew (Ant. ii. 1. 1), xay/pas or ayipas, "lame" (Bell. v. 11. 5),
can also be called Hebrew. The " tongue of the Hebrews," in which a freed-
man of King Agrippa I. announced to that monarch in Eome the death of
Tiberius (Ant. xviii. 6. 10), can surely be none other than that from which
the Alexandrians borrowed the derisive term Mari for the same Agrippa
(above, p. 23). It is the Trdrpios yXwo-o-a of the Jerusalemites (Bell. v. 6. 3 ;
9. 2 ; cf. c. Apion. i. 9), to use which is termed efipai&tv (Bell. vi. 2. 1). In
this language Josephus had originally written his work upon the Jewish
War, so that the Jews throughout the whole East might read it (Bdl. i.
procem. 1 f.). In that very passage he designates the readers for which this
first draft was intended primarily as ol uvco /3up/3apo< by way of contrast to
the domain of Greek literature ( 1) ; and it is not until 2, where he
speaks of them as dwelling in the remotest parts of Arabia and also in
Parthia, Babylonia, and Adiabene, that he incidentally drops the hint that
he really has in mind only his own people in those regions. But this im-
plies also that the living language which he calls his Trurpios -yXaJo-wa (his
mother tongue, as we would say) was in the main the common language of
the whole territory described. To be sure, king Izates of Adiabene, a con-
vert to Judaism, sent five of his sons to Jerusalem in order that they might
learn there the language and culture accurately (y\5>TTav TI}V Trap fip.lv
Trdrpiov, says Jos. Ant. xx. 3. 4) ; but all that follows from this is that a
Syrian from Adiabene did not speak Aramaic quite so accurately as it was

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 27

spoken " among us " in Jerusalem, to use Josephus' phrase. Upon the sarco-
phagus of a princess, probably of this royal house, is a double Aramaic in-
scription (C. I. Sem. ii. No. 156, cf. Schiirer, iii. 121 (Eng. trans, u. ii. 310,
n. 287) ; above, p. 22, line 17). This, then, was the irarpios yXwcrcra of Josephus,
which not infrequently he calls Hebrew. The same term was used also by
those Church Fathers whose knowledge of the facts cannot be denied. Euse-
bius, or perhaps Julius Africanus (above, p. 23), calls Matthew in the same
breath a Syrian man and "a Hebrew as to his speech." The same writer
calls the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, which he had in his hands and
from which he made intelligent excerpts, "the Gospel which among the
Jews is in the Hebrew tongue " (Theoph. iv. 12). Jerome, who by copying
this Gospel and by translating it twice had become thoroughly acquainted
with it, and who has indicated with precision the character of its language
(above, p. 23), calls it very frequently a Hebrew Gospel, or the Hebrew
Matthew (GK, ii. 651 ft*.). Moreover, the same Aramaic words and names in
the N.T. which in the Onomasticon and elsewhere he declares to be not
Hebrew, but Syriac, are yet called Hebrew by him quite frequently in other
passages (above, p. 18, line 35 f. ; GK, ii. 660). Epiphanius, who, as was shown
above, p. 15, line 38, was quite able to distinguish between Hebrew and Syriac,
nevertheless in the same passage in which he expresses the distinction, and
immediately before he does so (Hcer. Ixix. 68, Bind. iii. 221. 26), classes both
languages under the concept of the e/Spm'Kij fiiaXeKi-oj. Likewise in Hcer.
xxvi. 1 he reckons the Syriac N-IU "fire," primarily as belonging to the
Hebrew tongue, but adds immediately that it is not the "deep," i.e. ancient
tongue of this name, in which the name for fire is quite different, but the
Sj'riac dialect to which it bears this relation. Nevertheless he asserts else-
where (Ancyr. 2) that j3dp is a Hebrew word. As late as 600 A.D. or there-
abouts, Joannes Moschus used ffipdiarl of the vernacular of Palestine (Prat.
S'pir. 136, Migne, 87. 3000, in the old translation syriacc). From all of which
it follows that in the whole realm of N.T. and ancient Church literature
the word "Hebrew" denotes the Aramaic tongue of the Oriental Jews quite
as much as it does the original language of the O.T. and the learned language
of the rabbis.

13. (P. 9.) According to the corrected text of Mark xiv. 70, the way in
which Peter's Galilean origin was discovered is not expressly stated, since
Roman readers, for whom this Gospel was probably intended, were unac-
quainted with linguistic conditions in Palestine ; yet it is presupposed.
And Matt. xxvi. 73 says explicitly, for the benefit of its Palestinian readers,
KOI yap ?; XaAifi crov 8fj\6v &e Trotei. This word is not like StdXejcro? in the
ancient sense of that word (Acts ii. 6, 8) ; it denotes, not a grammatically
and lexically separate language or dialect, but the manner of speaking (cf.
also John viii. 43), and has reference to accent and pronunciation. Variations
of this kind had existed from time immemorial (cf. Judg. xii. 6, and Theo-
doret's comment upon it, Schulze, i. 337). The anecdotes in which the
Galilean "dialect" is ridiculed in the Talmud, especially Erubin, 53&, concern
the pronunciation of consonants of similar sound (Neubauer, 51 ; Dalman,
Gr. 2 57 tf. ; for illustrations see Fischer in his revision of Winer's C'liald. Gram.
31 ff.). There is not a hint in the New Testament that Jesus caused any
surprise in Jerusalem by His pronunciation, although, like Peter, He was

28 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

looked upon askance as an unlearned man (John vii. 15) and as a Galilean
(John vii. 41). With all due respect for the learning and thoroughness
with which of late Dalinan has been at pains to distinguish Judean from
Galilean Aramaic, one may question whether the separation of the sources
which underlies this work furnishes a sufficiently secure foundation for
such an undertaking.

14. (P. 9.) The Aramaic dialects spoken by non-Jews (East Syriac, West
Syriac, Nabattean, Palmyrene), which exerted an unavoidable influence upon
the speech of Aramaic-speaking Jews also, are one language in spite of their
differences, as can be seen clearly upon comparison with the High German
dialects (Alemannic, Swabian, Bavarian, Franconian, etc.). Similarly a
certain idea of the relation of Hebrew to Aramaic may be gained by one not
versed in those languages, if he contrasts High German with Low German.
In both cases there is a correspondence between certain sibilants in the one
language and certain dentals in the other (High Ger. Zeit = Low Ger. Tid,
lassen = d<e?i, beissen = Zu7cH, muss = mot ; in like manner, Heb. 3.11 gold =
Aram. 3.11, nix rock = iia, -TON Assyria = mnx). The difference is much greater,
however, in the case of Hebrew and Aramaic, for the reason that Aramaic
has no article, and possesses only an imperfect substitute for it in its status
emphatic us with termination in a (N-VU).

15. (P. 9.) In John v. 2 the name of the pool at the sheep-gate, which
the MSS. give in such various forms, is not indeed translated, as in ix. 7 ;
yet the remark is made that it is a Hebrew word, which shows that the
evangelist reflected upon its meaning. But there would be reason and sense
in his doing so only in case he wrote BrjOea-Sa and meant this to be under-
stood as N^pri rr3 "house of grace," "mercy." By a deed of gracious love, in
imitation of His Father who is ever working (v. 17-21), and in spite of the
Sabbath, Jesus gave true meaning to the name of the place, while His oppo-
nents, who lacked the divine love (v. 42), accuse Him on account of this as
a Sabbath-breaker, but for this very reason shut themselves out from the
sphere of His quickening activity (v. 40). This reading, which is supported
by the Greek MSS. (with the exception of D and the closely related KBL),
was understood as above by the ancient Syrians (Sc Sh S 1 , Ss is wanting
here), and was so transcribed. Concerning the variants in text, and the
attempts, continued to the present time, to give other meanings to the names,
see ZKom. Joh. (ad loc.). In any case, then, the name would be Aramaic.
Likewise AiceXSa/ia(so most authorities, NOT ^pn S 1 , AxeXSa/xa^ B, A^fXSa/na^ D,
A/ceXSa/iti/c E), which according to Acts i. 19 belongs to the language of those
in Jerusalem (S 1 " in the language of the place "), and in agreement with
Matt, xxvii. 8 is translated -^utpiov aijjLaros. The first part of the compound
name *?pn, used in the Targums to translate the Heb. rny, has no essentially
identical Hebrew word corresponding to it. Klostermann, Proll. 1-8, refers
the second part to the Syriac HOT " to sleep," and accordingly translates the
word " field of the dead." But such an interpretation seems to have in-
sufficient grounds from an exegetical standpoint, cannot be regarded as
corresponding to Palestinian usage, and even though the x a ^ the end is
probably genuine, cannot be established on the strength of that. Dalrnan,
Gr* 202, A. 3, cites as parallels 'loxr^y, Luke iii. 26, for 'pi', the abbreviated
Joseph, and 2eipax for *n t 'p. Tappada, John xix. 13 (written also, though

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 29

less accurately, Taffada, Sh nrj, S 1 Kna'SJ, Ss Sc are wanting), is probably
(Neubauer, 56; Dalman, Gr., Ite Aufl. 108, A. 1, but KJIWJ 2te Aufl. 160,
A. 4 ; Worte Jesu, 6 [Eng. trans. 7, n. 2]). Alongside of this the evangelist
puts Aitfoorparroy (or -ov), pavement, especially mosaic pavement ; and
though, indeed, he does not give it as the translation of Gabbatha, he
remarks that the Jews in their language call this particular mosaic pave-
ment in the prtetorium at Jerusalem, or any pavement of that kind,
"gabbatha"; so that he must have in mind a derivation which explains
this. He cannot, then, have been thinking of 3J, Nag (masc.) "ridge,"
"hillock," or iqaa "summit," or of xnrigj "baldness" (Dalman, Worte, 6
[Eng. trans. 7, n. 2]), but probably rather on 33J (to pick up, rake together
straw, wood, vegetables, etc.), and substantive nan:, xnaj (small sticks of wood
and the like ; examples in Jastrow, 204 ; Levy, i. 291). The signification
" parquet or mosaic floor " would be natural enough. TohynQa, Matt, xxvii.
33 ; Mark xv. 22 ; John xix. 17 ; in Sh MiSuSi:!, written exactly as in Targ.
Onkelos Ex. xvi. 16, the stat. emph. of K^ihti "skull," corresponding to the
Heb. rta 1 ?:, rendered easier of pronunciation in Greek by omission of the
second h, and in Ss S 1 by omission of the first. The localities near Jeru-
salem, Br)6<f)ay7], Matt. xxi. 1, Mark xi. 1 (?), Luke xix. 29 (Sh 'KJS rrn, Ss
S 1 without N, written by the Jews also 'JN-J rra, literally " house of the unripe
figs"), and Tf6a"qij.avfi (-vi, -vrj), Matt. xxvi. 36, Mark xiv. 32 (misunderstood
by all the Syriac versions ; it is uei? n?, literally " press of the oils "), are by
no means Hellenised by the appending of a termination, like so many names
in Josephus, but are exact reproductions of Aramaic plurals in e, or i for in,
and are treated as indeclinable ; cf. Dalman, Gr. 2 191. Moreover, 'O0Xay,
Jos. Bell. ii. 17. 9, v. 4. 2, is Aramaicised. Of course, in addition to these
there remained in use time-honoured names such as nSy Isa. viii. 6 in LXX
(X also in Neh. iii. 15) ; Luke xiii. 4 ; John ix. 7, 11, 2etXcon/x or SiAwa/^, prob-
ably written by Josephus regularly 2iAo>a, so that he could decline it, Bell. v.
4. 1. 2. As for the name of the Holy City itself, the Jew, and especially the
Palestinian Jew, save when he wished to adapt it to the Greek by transforming
it into 'lepovoXvpa, probably never pronounced it otherwise than Yerushalem,
and certainly in no case said Urishlem, the pronunciation in Edessa.

16. (Pp. 9, 12.) No ononiasticon of the N.T. can be given here, yet certain
remarks can be made which will be in part pertinent to later detailed investi-
gations. We find old Hebrew names, such as Jacob, Jochanan, Joseph, Judah,
Simon, among Galileans as well as in Jerusalem and Judea. It may be that
people in Jerusalem, like the historian Josephus, preferred the full form ppv
(Jos. Vita, 1; Bell. i. prooem. 1, 'I 0-7771- or, like the patriarch, Ant. i. 19. 7, the
high priest Joseph Caiaphas, Ant. xviii. 2. 2 ; Joseph the son of Kami, Ant.
xx. 1, 3 ; the father of Jesus, a Juclean, in the N.T. invariably written
'Io)o-7j0) ; and that, on the other hand, the abbreviated 'or (Dalman, Gr. 2 106,
175, A. 2) was more usual among the Galileans (Mark vi. 3, probably also Matt.
xiii. 55, a brother of Jesus, Mark xv. 40, 47 ; Matt, xxvii. 56 another ; Jos.
Bell. iv. 1. 41, 9, probably 'laarjv should be read, a Jew in Gamala ; among the
great rabbis "Jose the Galilean"; but there are many others also who were
not Galileans in the lists given by Strack, Einl. in d. Talmud, 77-93, about
a dozen). The Heb. pyi? is written 2//i&>i/ as early as Sir. 1. 1; 1 Mace.
ii. 3 (alternating with Stefan-, ii. 1, 65), and regularly so in Josephus and

30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

the X.T., a form identical with a Greek name of even classical times (Pape-
Benseler, W&rterbuch der cjriech. Eigennamen, s.v. ; Fick - Bechtel, Griech.
Personennamen, 251), and which, therefore, could not have sounded so
strange to a Greek as 2u/ifo>i>. This latter form was used regularly in the
LXX, is the only form to be found in many passages in 1 Mace., and was
used sometimes by Josephus also, Ant. xii. 6. 1 (along with Si^wi/) ; Bell. iv.
3. 10 ; used in the N.T. of the old man in Luke ii. 25, 34 ; put in the mouth
of James, Acts xv. 14, and used by Peter himself, 2 Pet. i. 1, with reference to
Simon Peter ; used of a teacher in Antioch, Acts xiii. 1 ; of the Israelitish
tribe, Rev. vii. 7 ; and once in the genealogy, Luke iii. 30. This form sounded
more ancient and more genuinely Jewish. The e in it was an attempt to repro-
duce the sound of the y, as in 'EX-e-afapor, and the v served the same purpose as
in Su^e'/i, Gen. xxxiv. 2, along with which occurs St'/a/za, Gen. xxxiii. 18. In
a family in Jerusalem the husband bore the Heb. name Chananyah, the wife
the Arm. Shappira or Shafira (Acts v. 1). In the home in Bethany we find
together names of most various kinds, viz. first ons, which the Massoretes (Ex.
xv. 20) intended should be read Miryam, but which seems to have been pro-
nounced commonly Maryam in N.T. times, and even long before that; for
the LXX everywhere has Mapia/j. ; and Josephus, after his fashion of adding
an ending so as to decline it in Greek, has everywhere Mapii'ipr) (probably it
is to be spelled thus with a p, throughout), only once MO/HO, Bell. vi. 3, 4
(Niese, vi. 201). The name of Jesus' mother, as one might expect from the
antiquated Hebraic style of the stories of the infancy, which are the only
passages where that name occurs frequently (elsewhere only in Matt. xiii. 55 ;
Mark vi. 3 ; Acts i. 14), is in the nominative (v. 1 ; Luke ii. 19), accusative
(also Matt. i. 20), and vocative Mapuip. ; in the genitive, however, Mapia?, in
the dative once Mapla (Acts i. 14), and once Mapiap. (Luke ii. 5). Only once
elsewhere do we find the latter form attested as the name of a Christian
woman of the East (Rom. xvi. 6; see below, 23, n. 1). All other Marys of
the N.T., including her of Bethany, are always called Mapt'o. Cf. Barden-
hewer, Bibl. Stud. i. 1. 1-17, especially also 9, n. 1, 2. Second, the sister
Martha bears an Aram, name which is quite common even in Talmudic
literature (Zunz, Ges. Schr. ii. 14; Levy, ii. 234, 251), but which is not
Hebrew at all, xn-is, "the lady"; cf. also Orig. c. Gels. v. 62; Epiph. Hcer.
xix. 2. Third, the brother has the ancient Heb. name ITJJ'TX in an abbreviated
form then common, Aafap (-os), John xi. 1 ; cf. Luke xvi. 20; Jos. Bell. v. 13. 7;
Jastrow, 72. It is also indicative of the language then in use that in the
N.T. there are numerous patronymics beginning with Bar-, but not one
beginning with the corresponding Heb. Ben-. In Josephus, indeed, except for
Barnabazos, which was probably the Jewish way of writing the Persian
Pharnabazos (Ant. xi. 6. 4), Bar- is altogether lacking also; but this is simply
because he translates it by vlos or irms, or else substitutes the genitive of the
father's name. The Simon whom he calls the son of Gioras, Bell. ii. 19. 2,
22. 1, had, according to Dio Cass. Ixvi. 7 ; Tac. Hist. v. 12, the good Aram, name
of N-m -n, i.e. "son of the proselyte." Like this Simon, most if not all the
bearers of such patronymics probably possessed in addition personal names
of their own ; see above, p. 16, concerning Simon Peter. This must have been
the case with the many who were called Bar-abba, "son of the father" (C. I.
Sein. ii. No. 154, and the list of the Talmudic teachers in Strack's Einl. in d.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 31

Talmud, 2te Aufl. S. 88, 90). Thus the name of the Bar-abba in Matt, xxvii
16-26, Mark xv. 7-15, Luke xxiii. 18, John xviii. 40, was Jesus, according
to very ancient tradition, which lias been confirmed recently by the reading
of Ss in Matt, xxvii. 1C (Fursth. i. 105, 108 ; GK, ii. 699 ; this treats also of
the misinterpretation of the name traceable to the Gospel of the Hebrews to
the effect that it meant "son of their teacher"). So the Barsabbas of Acts
i. 23, who bore the particular name Joseph, and in addition to this the Latin
cognomen Justus ; so also the other Barsabbas of Acts xv. 22, whose par-
ticular name was Judah. Aside from the cases, which are quite frequent,
where the former person is confounded with Joseph Barnabas of Acts iv. 36
(GK, ii. 562), the reading in both passages of Acts, just as in Papias (Eus.
H. E. iii. 39. 9), fluctuates between -aafipas and -o-a/Say. The former reading
suggests N2^( = xn3B' Sabbath and week, see above, p. 19), to which Hitzig,
Merx' Archiv, i. 107, called attention (though he himself preferred KIV host) ;
the latter, ten " the old man," as Theodoret translated it even when a proper
name (Hist. *Rel. 2, Schulze, iii. 1119). Other instances in Dalman, Gr. 2 180,
A. 2. Opinions still differ widely about the second element of Bar-nabas
also (Hitzig, op. cit. 106 ; Klostermann, Probleme, 8-14 ; Deissmann, Bibelstud.
177 ; Neue Bibelstud. 16 ; Dalman, Gr., Ite Aufl. 142, again differently
2te Aufl. 178 ; Worte Jesu, 32 (Eng. trans. 40 f.) ; Nestle, Phil, sacra, 19 f.),
and the meaning of Bar-timai (Mark x. 46) has not been cleared up yet
even by Nestle, Marginalien, 83-92. The evangelist, who here, con-
trary to his custom, mentions by name a person healed by Jesus, plainly
because he was known by this name in Christian circles (cf. Mark xv. 21 and
Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium, 222, 292), does not show the slightest
interest in the meaning of Timai. Otherwise he would have translated it.
He might have contented himself with 6 vlos rov Tt/Wou, just as Ss does on
the other hand with Bar-Timai, except for the simple reason that such an
expression instead of an individual proper name would have been as strange
to Greek readers in a prose narrative as it would have been natural to Jews
or Syrians ; hence after the Greek words he puts the Aram, form with a
Greek ending, thus making clear that this was a proper name or the ordinary
substitute for such. Moreover, we do not know the particular name of the
Apostle Bap#oXo/zaioy (Matt. x. 3 ; Mark iii. 18 ; Luke vi. 14 ; Acts i. 13,
Ss S 1 'nSin ->a, Sh 'sboin -Q, which may mean " son of Ptolemy," but which can
just as well go back to a Semitic name, Dalman, Gr. 2 176. In the writings of
the oldest Syrians, Aphraates, 65, and the translator of Eus. H. E. i. 12. 3,
ii. 1. 1, iii. 25. 6, 29. 4, 39. 10, the name Matthias, Acts i. 23, is supplanted
by Thulmai). It is therefore very possible, indeed, and a very simple
putting of facts together makes it also probable, that he was called Natfai/ar/X
= '?Njn^ (John i. 46-50), an ancient Heb. name (Num. i. 8 ; 1 Chron. ii. 14, xv.
24, xxiv. 6 ; in later times, Ezra x. 22 ; Neh. xii. 36 ; also Jos. Ant. xx. 1, 2 ;
Jerus. Hagiga, 77a, line 8 from bottom). If this name was rare in N.T.
times, as seems probable, it is the more easily explained why Nathanael, like
Barabba, Barnaba, Bartirnai, was, as a rule, called by his father's name or his
surname. SiXay, also, Acts xv. 22 ff., is an Aram. name. Especially to be
rejected is the idea that it is a contraction from SiXovai/os or SiX/Sai/oy (so
B in 1 Pet. v. 12), which would be rather StXoua? or 2iX/3ar (Jos. Bell. vii.
8. 1, a $Xaouios 2tX/3as, whose name, according to inscriptions and writers, is

32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

spelled now Silva, now Silvanus (see Prosopographia, ii. 75, No. 243). If the
names Silas and Silvanus in the N.T. denote the same person (see below, 13,
n. 1), it is one of the many cases in which a Jew bore, besides his name in his
native tongue, a Greek or Roman name of similar sound. It seems doubtful
whether there was a Greek name StXay. The writer finds it only in C. I.
Grceciw sept. No. 1772. On the other hand, it is quite common among Syrians
and Jews. It occurs in the form fyv on an East Aramaic inscription as early
as the fifth century B.C. (C. I. Sem. ii. No. 101, there derived from W) ; in the
form K^xy on a Palmyrene inscription cited by Dalman, Gr.~ 157, A. 5 ;
several Rabbi* with the name W Jerus. Shabbath, 5a ; Sanhed. 2Qa ;
Tosefta Berach. ii. 10 ; Midrash on Cant. viii. 10, and on Ruth ii. 18 ; cf.
also the proverb on Ruth i. 1 (trans, by Wiinsche, S. 12). SiXaj is written
thus in Acts by S 1 . It is the name of a Jew from Babylonia, Jos. Bell. ii. 19. 2,
iii. 2. 1 f.; of other Jews, Ant. xiv. 3. 2, xviii. 6. 7 ; Vita, 17, 53 ; of a Syrian
in Emesa in the year 78 A.D., Le Bas-Waddington, iii. No. 2567, 2n/*o-tyepa/*os
6 /cm SeiXaj. But in seeking for the derivation of this Aramaic name we are
not to think of nto " to send," with Jerome on Gal. i. 7 (Vail. vii. 374, and
Onomast., Lagarde, 71. 16, 72. 25 ; cf. also the Greeks in the same work, pp. 198.
61, 199. 70), nor of riv Gen. x. 24 ; 1 Chron. i. 18, 24 (LXX and Luke iii. 35
2aXa), with Zimmer (JfPTh. 1881, S. 723), but of W, "to ask, inquire."

17. (P. 9.) Since names of parties, like most names of peoples, are regu-
larly used first in the plural and only after that in the singular, this reason
alone should lead us to say that ol ^apiaaloi is the stat. emphat. plur. n>y'^ =
Heb. D'n?n, and not that <J>apraios is the stat. emphat. sing, x^n? = ^nsn.
This latter assumption is unlikely even for grammatical reasons, since the
numerous names in alos ('Ayynloj, 'AX^aZo?, Bapdd\op.a~ms, ZaK^aTos, Ztftedalos,
GaSSaZos-, Ae/3/3cuoj, Mar&uos), and also the national and local names 'Apip.a0ai.os,
FaXiXruor, 'lovSatoy, Nafwpaloj, are always based upon Heb. or Aram, forms
which already have at least i and more often ai or ay as their final sound, so
that the appended Greek ending is not ior, as Dalman, Gr. 2 157, A. 2, thinks,
but or. On the other hand, a form based upon Perisha or Pherisha must
have been Qapiaas, like Tivpas from K-IVJ, Xaytpas from Nr:n (above, p. 26, n.
12; p. 30, line 45); cf. Messias, Kaiaphas, Kephas, Sabas, etc. Inasmuch,
then, as no Greek form of the party name but &api<ra~iot is to be found, we
must assume that the Jews of Palestine, among whom the name arose perhaps
circa 150-130 K.C., never applied to the party either then or later any but the
Aram, form of the name. Essentially the same is true of SaSSouKalot and
Kavavalos (if in Matt. x. 4, Mark iii. 18 we are to read this latter word =
V;Awri7j, Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), likewise of 'AonSmoi, which does not occur
in the N.T. (1 Mace. ii. 42, vii. 13 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 6), and of the oft-quoted
'Eo-o-aiot. To be sure, in the Talmudic literature, which emanated from the
circles of the former Pharisaic party, the name regularly has the Heb. form
ptn-19 ; but this is an affectation of antiquity which proves nothing when
set over against such witnesses for the usage in the living language of the
Pharisee Paul, the evangelists, and Josephus. Concerning the Aram, forms
Meo-o-i'as, xopftavas, x<*avaiai, acrapda, Tratr^a, <r/3/3ara, which relate to the life
of religion and worship, see above, pp. 18, 19, 20, 26.

18. (P. 10.) With regard to the three letters of Gamaliel, cf. Derenbourg,
Hist, ct geogr. de la Palestine, 241-244. In Jerus. Sanhedrin i. I8d (the meaning

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 33

is essentially the same, though the order is different, in Jerus. Maaser sheni
v. 56c and elsewhere), after some introductory words, it runs, literally trans-
lated : " Rabban Gamliel said unto him (Johanan, the priest and secretary) :
Write to our brethren the sons of upper Doroma and to our brethren the
sons of nether Daroma : May your peace increase. I make known unto you,"
etc. The salutation NJD* paoVtf^iJ flptjvi} v/^wv irfydwdfiij is repeated in all
these letters, cf. 1 Pet. i. 2 ; 2 Pet. i. 2. It is only in the third letter that
Gamaliel speaks of the elders (D'jpn), who had been mentioned also in the
introduction, as joint authors with him of the resolution and decree. Dalman
in Dialektproben, 3, gives a pointed text of this among other ancient documents.

19. (P. 11.) Aram, sayings of Hillel : Pirke Aboth i. 13, ii. 6. In Jerus.
Sotah ix. 246 (cf. Jos. Ant. xiii. 10. 3) a supernatural voice which the high
priest Johanan (John Hyrcanus, 135-105 B.C.) heard, is given in Aramaic,
and on the same page it is expressly said of a word which Rabbi Samuel
the Less uttered when dying, that this was spoken in the Aramaic tongue.
Cf. the Midrash on Cant. viii. 10, translated into German by Wiinsche, 188.

20. (P. 11.) With regard to the relation of Gamaliel the elder and the
younger to the Targum of Job, see Derenbourg, 241, 243. Concerning oral
translation in the synagogue, see for brief discussions Zunz, Die gottesdienst-
lichen Vortrage der Juden, 2te Aufl. 9 ; Schiirer, ii. 457 (Eng. trans. II. ii. 81) ;
Kb'nig, Einl. in das Alte Testament, 99 ; more details in Hamburger, BE fiir
Bibel und Talmud, ii. 1167-1174. Even if the rules of the Mishnah (Megillah
iv. 4) had been in force as early as Jesus' time, such a short pericope from the
prophets as the single sentence which he read in Nazareth (Luke iv. 18-19 ;
Isa. Ixi. l-2a) would have been read through in Hebrew without interruption
on the part of the mfthurfman (also thorg e man = dragoman), or interpreter,
and only after that was done would have been interpreted, either by the same
person who had read it or by someone else. The narrator had no occasion to
mention the latter proceeding, since it always took place. If Jesus omitted
translating the text Himself, so long as He stood with the roll in His hand
(Luke iv. 16), He probably combined the interpretation with the sermon,
which He gave sitting (Luke iv. 20). For later times, cf. Joel Muller, Masechet
Sopherim Einl. 24 ; Kommentar, 256. Naturally the meaning of John vii. 15
is not that Jesus had not learned to read and write (cf. the ancient apocryphon,
John viii. 6), but that He had received no classical education, which, in the
case of other men, was the presupposition of their public activity as teachers.
Men wondered in Jerusalem as in Galilee (Luke iv. 22 ; Matt. xiii. 54 ;
Mark vi. 2), though with very mixed feelings, at this gifted, self-taught man.
There would have been no occasion for such wonder if His knowledge of the
Scriptures had been as scanty as A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, 54 f., is disposed
to represent it in view of the discourses in the Gospels, excluding the fourth
and even such passages as Matt. iv. 1-12, xxiv. 15 ; Luke xxiv. 27. The
question, " Where did He get this learning or technical knowledge?" we
cannot answer by precise biographical statements. The narrative in Luke
ii. 46 justifies the assumption that from youth up Jesus took advantage of
every opportunity to acquire knowledge of the Scriptures with uncommon
zeal. In the judgment of those who heard His discourses, and in the recollec-
tion of His Church, He was not inferior in this respect to the teachers who
had the regular rabbinical training.

VOL. I. 3

34 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

2. THE GREEK LANGUAGE AMONG THE JEWS (N. 1).

That Greek was a cosmopolitan language at the time
when the N.T. books were written, was due primarily, of
course, to the rapid conquests of Alexander, and the long-
continued existence of the great empires of his successors ;
but it can be fully understood only when due recogni-
tion is given to the fact that the Eomans, themselves
nourished by Greek culture, united east and west in a
world-empire. According to a law, the working of w r hich
may be observed in a variety of instances, great political
changes work their effect upon language only gradually.
In Gaul, e.g., complete change from the Celtic vernacular
to Latin was not effected under the Roman emperors, but
took place later under the Fraukish kings. In the same
way the Hellenisation of Asia Minor, which had been pre-
pared for so long in advance, made its most rapid progress
under the Roman rule, and the process was not concluded
until the time of the Empire. Under the Seleucidse and
the Ptolemies the transformation of Syria and Egypt went
on even more slowly than that of Asia Minor during the
same period. In fact, Aramaic spread more widely and
took deeper root during the period of the Diadochi than
in the Persian period. It was not until now, indeed, that
Aramaic became the common language of the " Hebrews "
and the vernacular of Palestine ; and even so late as the
Roman period it maintained its position as the distinct-
ively national language through the whole of the Seleuci-
dan empire. Before the Gates of Antioch, "the beautiful
city of the Greeks," as it is called in the fifth century by
the Syrian poet Isaac, the common people continued to
speak Syriac until the triumph of Islam. While the
uneducated peasantry in general remained entirely un-
acquainted with Greek, many of the inhabitants of the
cities had some knowledge of the vernacular. The farther
we go from the capital, the port cities, and the highways

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 35

of commerce, the less disturbed do we find the sway of
Aramaic and the more superficial the influence of Greek
culture.

Under the dominion of the Ptolemies and, afterward,
of the Seleucidae, conditions in Palestine were somewhat
different. In these times the Jewish community was like
a small island which was not only girt about by Greek
influence, but frequently also flooded by waves from the
two great Greek powers between which it lay. The
community was isolated from its countrymen in Galilee
and Berea, and surrounded by a circle of Gentile cities,
some of which offered very little resistance to the inroads
of the Greek language and culture, and others of which
were founded or colonised for the very purpose of Hellenis-
ing the land. Names of Macedonian cities, such as Pella
and Dion, recall the times of Alexander himself, while
names like Ptolemais (Accho) on the coast and Philadelphia
in the east take us back to the reign of the Ptolemies.
South and south-east from the Lake of Gennesaret, the
regions occupied by the non-Jewish cities, Hippus, Gadara,
Scythopolis, and Pella, formed an organised district, which,
in Mark v. 20, vii. 31, Matt. iv. 25, is called 77 ^e/ca-TroXi?,
from the fact that originally it was a confederation con-
sisting of ten autonomous cities. In ancient Samaria,
Alexander himself had settled Macedonian colonists ; and
it was made still more a Gentile city, speaking the Greek
language, by Herod the Great, who rebuilt it when it was
falling into decay, calling it Sebaste, in honour of Augustus,
and colonising it in part with discharged soldiers. Of
similar character were the cities Antipatris (Acts xxiii. 31)
and Phaselus, north of Jericho, both of which were founded
by Herod. Of course, one must not be misled into the
error of concluding, from the names of cities found in
Greek authors, from inscriptions on coins, and from traces
of Greek religious worship, that the Greek language was
universally spoken in the cities mentioned and in others

36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

like them, e.g. in Csesarea (Strato's fortress) on the coast
and its environs. Unless it is further defined, the ex-
pression 7roXt9 \\rjvi^ cannot be taken to mean a city in
which the Greek language is spoken ; because to the Jews,
who had been exposed to the seductions and then to the
threats and violence of Greek heathenism since the third
century B.C., "Hellenic" was synonymous with heathen
(n. 2). Among the inhabitants of the cities so designated
by Josephus there were strong Jewish minorities, and of
the non- Jewish population the majority were "Syrians"
by birth and language. E.g., centuries later in the
Christian era we find large numbers of people in and
about Gaza and Scythopolis who not only spoke Syriac,
but who were even unacquainted with Greek. This was
due not to a reaction from Greek conditions, but simply
to a continuation of the conditions that existed before and
during the time of Christ ; and only because the old
Semitic names of cities survived after they were given
Greek names was it possible for these Greek names to be
displaced again, as was done so largely in the centuries
after Christ. In the thought of the Palestinian Jews,
Greek remained a foreign language, or rather " the

o o o ?

foreign language" (n. 3). But, in spite of this feeling,
how profoundly were the Jews influenced by it and by
the culture which came with it, even as early as 170 B.C. !
High priests borrowed their names from the Greek legends,
as in the case of a certain Jesus, who gave up his Hebrew
name and called himself Jason ; and of a certain Menelaus,
whose Hebrew name we do not know. It was upon this
disposition and tendency manifesting itself among the
best classes in Jerusalem that Antiochus Epiphanes relied
in his attempt to destroy Judaism. The Maccabean revolt
showed that there was still vitality in the faith and
institutions of the Jews, but nevertheless it was not
possible longer for the Jews to keep themselves aloof
from Hellenism. Men might fight for religious freedom

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 37

with prayer and sword, but the measure of political
independence necessary for the maintenance of this
religious freedom could not be won and retained without

the use of diplomacy. The ambassadors of Judas Macca-
beus who appeared in the Roman senate in the year 161
B.C. could not use in that place any other language than
Greek. These enemies of the Greeks, whose fathers were
still known by the Hebrew names Jochanan and Eleazar,
were called Eupolemos and Jason, and the former was
probably one of the first Jews to write Jewish history in
Greek (n. 4). As evidenced by their coins, the Has-
monean high priests, as they developed into worldly
princes, allowed their government to become more and
more Hellenised.

The first of them, Aristobulus (105-104 B.C.), who
styled himself a king, and who was known also as a
Philhellene (Jos. Ant. xiii. 11. 3), calls himself on his
coins simply " Juda the high priest." In the case of his
successor, Alexander Jannai (104-78 B.C.), part of the
coins have only the Hebrew inscription, " Jonathan
the high priest," while others are inscribed in Greek,
" King Alexander," having on the reverse side the words
" Jonathan the kino- " in Hebrew. From Herod the Great

and his successors only Greek coins have come down to
us. The founder of this foreign dynasty, which came
into power by the favour of the Romans and through his
own cunning and violence, made no concealment of the
fact that he felt himself more a Greek than a Jew (Jos.
Ant. xix. 7. 3). His first minister, Nicolaus of Damascus,
was a Greek man of letters, and his court consisted of
men of the same stamp. His sons he had educated in
Rome. His army consisted largely of foreign mercenaries,
Gauls, Germans, and Thracians, who would not have been
at home in any other than a Greek command. In the
theatres, amphitheatres, hippodromes, and all those
heathen institutions established by Herod in and about

38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Jerusalem, in Jericho, and in all the cities of the land,
predominantly Gentile, as Caesarea (n. 4), Greek was
practically the only language spoken. If the Jewish
tragic poet Ezekiel, whose old Hebrew name suggests
that he was a native of Palestine rather than of Alex-
andria, really wrote his poems for presentation on the
stage, his use of Greek iambics would show that all his
conceptions of the drama were Greek. Even the rabbis
were of the opinion that Greek was the proper language
for " Song " and all poetry intended for entertainment
and amusement (above, p. 22, n. 4). The system estab-
lished in 6 A.D., by which Judea and Samaria were put
directly under Roman rule, and, with a brief interruption,
governed by Roman procurators residing in Csesarea until
the fall of Jerusalem, far from checking further inroads of
the Greek language, tended rather to increase its influence.
According to Josephus (c. Apion. i. 9), he himself was the
only man in the Roman army at the time of the Jewish
War who understood the Jewish deserters. While the
Herodian princes were Jews, at least to the extent that
they understood the vernacular, the Roman officials,
changing frequently as they did, never took the trouble
to familiarise themselves with the language of the people.
Here, as everywhere else in the East, they used Greek in
their official relations. Many Latin names of objects may
have been more commonly used in Palestine than pre-
viously, and may have passed over into the vernacular as
foreign words. Undoubtedly also, out of deference to the
ruling nation, public notices were sometimes written in
Latin as well as Greek (n. 5). But this had no more
practical use in Palestine than did the Latin inscriptions
upon monuments and milestones in Asia Minor arid
other lands in the East. Greek was the only language
that could be used as a medium of communication among
the different bodies of soldiers who maintained the Roman
authority in Palestine, representing as they did such a

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 39

variety of nationalities (n. 6). Though the tax-gatherers
and their subordinates may have been native Jews in the
Roman districts (Luke xix. 2-9 ; Jos. Bell. ii. 14. 4) as
well as in the domain of Herod Antipas (Mark ii. 14 ;
Matt. ix. 9), all their business intercourse with their
superiors in Caesarea had to be carried on in Greek.

But foreign rule, which in one form or another had
burdened the land of the Jews for centuries, was not the
only agency by which Greek thought and life were intro-
duced. Jerusalem was the metropolis of Judaism the
world over, including the " Greek diaspora." Among the
embassies who brought tithes and offerings to the temple
at Jerusalem from all parts of the world, and among the
pilgrims who streamed thither of their own accord, especi-
ally at the time of the great pilgrim feasts, there were
not a few Jews who, during their long residence abroad,
had entirely or largely forgotten their native tongue.
Among these pilgrims there were also Greeks and
Hellenised barbarians, who, though they had not espoused
Judaism formally and fully by accepting the rite of cir-
cumcision, were nevertheless attracted by its faith and
worship, and attended the temple services in so far as
these were open to them (n. 7). There were also a great
many Jews from outside Palestine who had come to re-
side permanently in Jerusalem in order that they might
be near the temple, and that they might end their days
in the holy city, and be buried in the " land of Israel."
Those who had grown accustomed to use the Greek
language found no occasion in Jerusalem to give it up.
Jews of this sort were called "Hellenists" in contrast to
the " Hebrews," i.e. those who remained in the land of
their birth and retained the Aramaic vernacular (n. 8).
This unwillingness on the part of the Hellenists to give
up their language is the chief reason why they had their
own synagogues in Jerusalem. Two such are fairly dis-
tinguished in Acts vi. 9, one whose adherents were

40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Hellenists from Alexandria, Cyrene, and Rome ; the other
made up of Jews from Asia Minor, especially from the
provinces of Cilicia and Asia (n. 8). They would not
' have grouped themselves together in this way according
to the countries from which they came, nor would they
have been called Hellenists, if they had not insisted upon
the retention in these synagogues at Jerusalem of the
Greek form of worship and the Greek translation of
the 0. T., the Septuagint, to which they had become
accustomed in the foreign lands in which they had made
their homes. The Pharisees and rabbis could make no
objection to this use of a foreign language, because these
Hellenists, whose settlement in Jerusalem was due mainly
to their genuine Jewish piety, were among the most
zealous members of the community in the fulfilment of
their religious and ceremonial obligations. The useless
zeal of the rabbis for the sacred language was directed
not against Greek, but against Aramaic as used by the
common people (n. 9). Greek was spoken even in the
more prominent rabbinic families ; and the law at one
time enacted, that sons should not be taught Greek, was
one of those renunciations which betray the peculiar
earnestness of the times and the anxiety to preserve
everything essential to the national good.

This leads to the consideration of the question, how
far knowledge of Greek had spread among the middle and
lower classes. That the majority of Palestinian Jews who
came in contact with public life and were engaged in
business generally had some acquaintance with Greek, is
clear from the historical facts and conditions already
mentioned. That this must have been the case becomes
evident, when it is recalled how small the region was
which was occupied more or less exclusively by Jews. It
required only a day's journey, or a little more, in almost
any direction from Jerusalem, to reach cities where more
Greek than Aramaic was spoken. And in Galilee the

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 41

same conditions must have existed all the way from
Csesarea on the coast to Csesarea Philippi, which are to
be met anywhere to-day near the language boundaries,
where numbers of people are to be found who, though
otherwise uneducated, are able to make themselves fairly
well understood in two languages. And it is hardly
necessary to appeal to similar conditions in modern times
to prove that the cosmopolitan language, without which
no Jew belonging to the better social classes could get
along, had everywhere an advantage over the Aramaic
vernacular, which no Greek or Roman needed to take the
trouble to learn. Representatives of the common people,
like the apostles Andrew and Philip, must have been called
by these Greek names in ordinary life ; otherwise the
Hebrew names by which also they may have been known
would somewhere crop out (n. 10). The Aramaic ver-
nacular and the Hebrew used by the learned classes were
full of words borrowed from the Greek, and included also
the Latin terms with which the Jews in Palestine became
familiar through contact with Greeks and with Greek-
speaking officials, countrymen, and neighbours. In par-
ticular, technical terms of a legal character were very
generally Greek, but in everyday life and social inter-
course also objects and relations were very commonly
designated by Greek and Latin words. By reason of the
ability of the Jews to adopt these foreign words into their
speech through various devices, and even to form new
verbs, Semitic in form, from Greek substantives, the
common people were not at all conscious that these new
elements in the language were foreign. Undoubtedly
there were many such foreign words in the Aramaic
spoken by Jesus. Words like crweSpiov,

Kvpie (as address), fyvapiov, daa-dpiov,

TravSotcelov, Xeyecov, and many others which we
find in the discourses of Jesus, are not translations made
by the evangelists, but were spoken by Jesus Himself,

42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

modified as they would be by a Jew, the evangelists
simply restoring the original sounds and characters
(n. 11). Besides, Jesus and His disciples must have
been able when occasion required to reply in Greek when
they were addressed in this language. Persons who
would hardly have been called Greeks if they had spoken
Aramaic like the Jews, make their request to see Jesus
personally, directly of the two disciples with Greek names
(John xii. 21). Of Pilate's transactions with the repre-
sentatives of the Sanhedrin who remained outside the
pretorium, and with Jesus who was taken inside the
pretorium, we have different and comparatively full
accounts. If, as certainly was the case, Greek was used
in the first transaction, there could not fail to be some
hint of the fact if, in the intercourse between Pilate and
Jesus, they had difficulty in understanding each other, or
if an interpreter had been necessary. While the com-
mander of the Roman garrison was surprised because
Paul, whom he took for an uneducated Egyptian, under-
stood Greek, the populace were surprised when Paul
addressed them in their native Aramaic (Acts xxi. 37-
xxii. 2 ; cf. above, p. 11). Even before he began to speak
an expectant stillness fell over the crowd. Had he
spoken Greek, as the crowd expected he would, it would
not have been altogether without point ; he would have
been understood not only by the pilgrims of the Greek
diaspora who had come to the feast (xxi. 27), but also by
many of the natives of Jerusalem. But it is easy to
understand why attention increased when Paul addressed
them in the vernacular as " brethren and fathers." Even
visiting Hellenists and Hellenists settled in Jerusalem

who understood only with difficulty, some of them not
at all, must have been touched sympathetically by this
expression of genuine Israelitish thought and spirit. If
only it be kept clearly in mind that Aramaic was the
language ordinarily used by the Jews living within the

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 43

bounds of Palestine proper, one can hardly go too far in
the assumption of a certain practical familiarity with
Greek, not only in Galilee, but also in Jerusalem ; not
only among the better classes, but in the middle and
lower ranks of society as well (n. 9, end).

In this regard, the position of the early Church in
Jerusalem was a peculiar one. According to the notices
of Acts, which are the only sources we have, the member-
ship of the Church from the start consisted predominantly
of Hellenists (n. 8, 12). The first three thousand converts
(Acts ii. 41) to gather about the personal disciples of Jesus,
who were mainly Galileans, were not natives of Jerusalem
and Palestine. From the names of their home countries
one must infer that the language " in which most of them
were born" was Greek. It is probable that the later
accessions to the Church were largely from the native
population, and that the Hellenists were already in the
minority when they made complaint that their widows
were not treated in the same way as the widows of the
Hebrews (Acts vi. 1). But that they still constituted a
considerable portion of the Church it is fair to infer from
the fact that, of the seven men who as a result of this
complaint were intrusted with the care of the funds for
the widows and the poor, one was a proselyte from
Antioch, and that no one of the seven has a Hebrew
name. Though the Church was scattered after the death
of Stephen, as soon as peace was restored, and the Church
could reassemble in Jerusalem, many of the refugees came
back ; and then, as before, the Jerusalem Church was the
mother Church of Christianity. And in this Church more
than one language was and continued to be used. Of the
fugitives who testified their faith wherever they went, and
gathered the nuclei of new Churches, persons from Gyrene
and Cyprus are distinguished as the most courageous
(Acts xi. 19-21). The fact that it was in Antioch that
they first ventured to preach the gospel to the Greeks as

44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

well as to the Hebrews, is proof that they themselves were
Hellenists, or, to put it less strongly, Jews who were
familiar with the Greek language. In the most important
cities lying on the route from Jerusalem to Antioch,
where primarily as a result of this dispersion Jewish
Christian Churches were established, as in Csesarea (Acts
viii. 40, x., 1 ff., xxi. 8), Ptolemais, and Tyre (xxi. 4-7),
though the members were Jewish Christians, Greek was
spoken quite as much as was Aramaic (Syriac). In the
cities of Cyprus and in Antioch, Greek was universally
used. So that, even before the beginning of Paul's mis-
sionary work, Greek had a wide use in the Church, in
spite of the fact that as yet its membership consisted
very largely of native Jews. Nor is there any reason to
assume, what is not suggested in the tradition, that at
that time the Hebrews opposed this development, which
had its origin in the nature of existing conditions, and
which was destined to become more and more marked
with the growth of the Church. People who boasted
proudly that they were Hebrews (2 Cor. xi. 22) neverthe-
less found shortly afterwards a fruitful field for their
propaganda in the Greek Churches of Asia Minor and
Greece. It was not until after the last struggles with the
Romans in 66-70, 116, and 133, that the Palestinian Jews
made serious efforts to get rid of the Greek language
(above, p. 40 ; below, n. 9). Likewise the strenuousness
with which the Ebionitic communities, described to us by
Epiphanius and Jerome, restricted themselves in life and
worship to national customs and the national language
(above, p. 13), is to be explained from circumstances con-
nected with the final catastrophe in the history of
Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation. Their exile from
the city was due to the enactments of Hadrian, who
transformed Jerusalem into a heathen city, calling it ^Elia
Capitolina. In order to retain their nationality, they tore
themselves away from Jerusalem, thereby severing all

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 45

connection not only with the Gentile Christian Churches,
but also with the Hellenistic branch of the Jewish Chris-
tian Church. But in the apostolic age the Church in
Jerusalem and throughout Palestine was comprised to
such an extent of both Hellenists and Hebrews, and these
were so closely united, that the only evidences in our
sources of the existence of this difference of language are
incidental references to the fact. It is clear that the
leaders and teachers of the Palestinian Church were the
ones who were most concerned with this condition of
affairs. Men like James, who for at least twenty years
presided over the bilingual mother Church, and Philip,
residing permanently as he did in Csesarea, the population
of which was principally Gentile and half Greek, also the
apostles Peter and John, who at first served both the
Hellenists and the Hebrews in the Jerusalem Church as
preachers and as ministers to the poor, and who laboured
later as superintendents of the Churches scattered through-
out the regions around Jerusalem, and as missionary
preachers in Palestine and adjoining districts (Acts ii. 42,
vi. 2, viii. 14-25, ix. 32-xi. 18, xii. 17; Gal. ii. 11;
1 Cor. ix. 5), no one of these could have fulfilled even
the immediate duties involved by his office, to say nothing
whatever of that extension of their apostolic work which
they had in view outside of their own country and nation,
without a good deal of readiness in speaking Greek. How
much knowledge of Greek they had before they became
disciples of Jesus and entered the service of the Church,
how much ability they had for acquiring language, which
ability may have differed in the individual cases, and
whether they made special effort to perfect themselves
in the language, we do not know. But the supposition
that twenty or thirty years after Jesus' death these men
were still the purist " Hebrews," unable to read a Greek
book, to write a letter in Greek, or to address Greeks or
Hellenists without the aid of an interpreter, has against

46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

it both the general conditions existing in Palestine at the
time, and the peculiar position that these men occupied.

Keference has already been made more than once to
the language conditions of the Jewish diaspora in the
apostolic age. There is no doubt that the Jews in Egypt,
where their number was estimated at a million, in Asia
Minor, in the European provinces, and in Rome, used the
Greek language in their daily intercourse and in their
religious services, and that this was really the only lan-
guage with which they were familiar. For proof we
have only to remind ourselves of the Alexandrian trans-
lation of the O.T., which from the legendary accounts of
its origin is called the Septuagint ; of such pieces of
writing as the preface with which the grandson of Jesus
Sirach introduced the Greek translation which he had
made of his grandfather's proverbs to the Jews in Egypt ;
of an author like Philo of Alexandria, who considered
himself a Greek in language and training, contrasting
himself in this regard with the Hebrews ; and of the
inscriptions found upon Jewish tombs in Rome (n. 13).
The Hellenisation of the " diaspora of the Greeks," which
was now practically complete, and which had taken place
in many cases with surprising rapidity, will seem less
strange when we recall that the vast majority of Jewish
emigrants did not leave the "land of Israel" until after
Aramaic had displaced the old sacred language in Pales-
tine. Certainly the Jews in Alexandria who translated
the O.T. into Greek still retained a respectable linguistic
knowledge of the original ; but that their native tongue
was not the Hebrew of the O.T., which they could read
tolerably well, but Aramaic, which they found used also
in several chapters of the O.T., is proved by their tran-
scriptions of Hebrew technical terms and not a few trans-
lations of single words. Whnt was true of these scholars
must have been much more true of the uneducated mass
of the Jews in the diaspora. Their knowledge of Hebrew

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 47

was originally limited to their recollection of a number
(certainly of many) of liturgical passages which they
understood only imperfectly. By the second generation
this knowledge was likely to have dwindled to a few
Hebrew words such as are found upon Jewish gravestones,
the inscriptions otherwise being in Greek. The Aramaic
colloquial, which the first generation brought with them
from Palestine, was all the more easily and completely
exchanged by the second generation, born abroad, for the
cosmopolitan Greek without which they could not get
along, because even among Jews in the East, who used
Aramaic as their regular language and continued to do so,
it was not regarded with any special reverence (above,
pp. 5 f., 22). Aramaic was not a sacred language through
which the pious Jew could gain access to the sources of
his religion, and it was only in the far East that it was
a language of common intercourse. Now essentially the
same causes which led to the substitution of Aramaic for
Hebrew among the Jews in the East, produced the Hel-
leuisation of the Jews in Egypt, Asia Minor, and Europe.
But, owing to the intercourse that was kept up between
the homeland and the Greek cities abroad, the return of
Jews to Palestine (above, p. 39 ), and the constant
migrations from Palestine abroad, the extent to which
Jews in the diaspora forgot their native tongue and came
to use Greek in its stead, naturally varied very much in
individual cases. The Oriental Jew who settled in Ephesus
or Rome may very quickly have mastered Greek enough
for practical purposes, but he could not at once forget his
native tongue, and it would not be easy for him to learn
to think and pray in Greek. This came with the next
generation. One of the seven synagogues in Rome, the
existence of which has so far been proved from inscrip-
tions, was a synagogue of the Hebrews (n. 14). There
can be little doubt that its adherents were Jews who had
recently come from the East, and who in Rome were un-

48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

willing to give up the Hebrew O.T., the Aramaic oral
translation and interpretation to which they had been
accustomed in their synagogues at home. This synagogue
of the Hebrews in Rome was the counterpart of the
synagogues of the Hellenists in Jerusalem (above, p. 39 f.).
One case of the retention of the national Ian<ma2;e in

o o

the diaspora, and one of great interest to us, is that of
Paul the apostle. To think of him as a Hellenist con-
tradicts not only what is said in Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2,
xxvi. 14, but also his own very clear testimony. Twice
with emphasis he calls himself a Hebrew (2 Cor. xi. 22 ;
Phil. iii. 5). He cannot have reference to his pure Jewish
origin, since in both passages this is sufficiently described
by other expressions (cf. Rom. xi. 1). Quite as little can
he refer to the thoroughly Israelitish spirit or bent with
which he grew up ; 'Eppcuos is never used in that sense,
and in Phil. iii. 5 f., Gal. i. 13 f., his strong Jewish bias is
denoted by other expressions, particularly by the reminder
that he belonged to the party of the Pharisees. The only
possible meaning left is that of Acts vi. 1 , where the word
is used in contrast to the Hellenists. In the Philippian
passage, Paul calls himself a Hebrew when contrasting
himself to the wandering Jewish Christian teachers against
whom he warns the Philippians ; and in the Corinthian
passage when comparing himself to the followers of Peter
who had come to Corinth from Palestine. He is a Hebrew
in the same sense that they are Hebrews. The language
in which he threatens them (1 Cor. xvi. 22, above, p. 13)
is his own mother-tongue, and therefore also the language
in which he was accustomed to pray. This is perfectly
clear from Gal. iv. 6 ; Rorn. viii. 1 5. The only word
adequate for the natural expression of his consciousness
of divine sonship, as this consciousness expresses itself in
prayer before God, is the Aramaic abba. He could expect
only a few Christians in Rome, and fewer still in Galatia,
to understand really what this prayer word meant ; in

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 49

both passages he adds a Greek translation. This makes
it all the more certain that when he wrote the abba it
was not with his readers in mind, but because, without
reflection on his part, that word welled up with irresistible
force out of the depths of his own heart. But the anti-
thesis in both the passages where he so emphatically speaks
of himself as a Hebrew is to be explained by the fact
that it was with Paul's case in view that his opponents,
especially those in Corinth, were boasting that they were
Hebrews. In general, the Palestinians were disposed to
look a little askance at their countrymen in the Greek
diaspora, and the chief point of difference was that of
language. So it is easy to see how the followers of Peter
in their narrowness may have cast reflections upon Paul,
suggesting that he was born in Tarsus, and that his many
years of travel in Greek lands had thrown him out of
touch with genuine Israelitish life, thus at the same time
emphasising the fact that they had come to Corinth
directly from the native land of Israel and of Jesus, and
spoke the same language that Jesus spoke. So then, far
from contradicting the statement of Acts that Paul was
born in Tarsus, the emphasis and antithesis with which
Paul calls himself a Hebrew goes rather to confirm the
statement that he was born in the Greek diaspora, and
that on this account his Hebrew character could be called
in question (n. 15). In the same way his designation
of himself as e E{3palos e 'Eftpalwv can be explained from
the biographical notices of Acts. Inasmuch as he was
brought to Jerusalem at an early age, there to be educated
under Gamaliel for a rabbi (Acts xxii. 3), it was possible
to explain the knowledge of Aramaic which he really did
possess, and which could not be denied by anyone of his
opponents, as one of the acquisitions of his student days
in Jerusalem, while in reality he was the son of a Hellen-
istic household. But this is not a true representation of
the case. His Hebrew character was rather an inherit-
VOL. i. 4

50 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

ance from his fathers. Aramaic was the language spoken
in his father's house in Tarsus, the language in which his
mother taught him to pray. There are other things also
which confirm the opinion that his home was of this
character. For one thing, his membership in the Phari-
saic party was not merely in consequence of his training
under the Pharisee Gamaliel, but an inheritance from his
father and grandfather (n. 15). To be sure, Pharisees,
like other Jews, sometimes made journeys abroad on
various errands (e. g. Matt, xxiii. 15); but it is inconceiv-
able that a Jewish family living in the Greek diaspora
should continue for generations to count itself a member
of the Pharisaic party. This party was kept up largely
by its opposition to the party of the Sadducees, i.e. the
high priestly aristocracy and their following. The seat
of both parties was Jerusalem, and individual members of
either who went abroad must soon have lost their dis-
tinctively Pharisaic or Sadducaic character. This shows
that Paul's family had emigrated from Palestine only
recently, and that it cherished zealously its connection
with the home land. The first statement is supported by
an apocryphal tradition (n. 16), the second by Acts. The
father had given his son the old Hebrew name Saul (n. 16),
and had sent him to Jerusalem in his boyhood to be in-
structed by the most distinguished Pharisaic teacher of
the time. He had a married sister living in Jerusalem,
and her son saved the life of his uncle by disclosing to
the Roman commandant a plot against the apostle's life
(Acts xxiii. 16-22). And later, in frequently interrupt-
ing his widely extended missionary labours in Gentile
lands by journeys to Jerusalem, Paul remained loyal to
the traditions of his family. It is very improbable that
during the years of his residence at Jerusalem the young
Hebrew, Saul, attached himself to the synagogue of the
Hellenists from Cilicia and Asia (Acts vi. 9, above, p. 40 ;
below, p. 60 f. ). On the contrary, it may be considered

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 51

certain that under the instruction of Gamaliel he became
a more confirmed Hebrew, and made his acquaintance
with the Hebrew O.T. Certainly there is nothing in his
letters to prove the contrary (n. 17).

But even after full weight has been given to Paul's
own testimony that he was a Hebrew, to the statements
of Acts which agree with this testimony, and to the
apocryphal tradition, the mastery of language and the
breadth of view disclosed in his letters are by no means
fully explained. He does not write Greek as a person
would who had acquired the language with effort late in
life (n. 18). Although he makes no claims to be an orator
(2 Cor. xi. 6 ; 1 Cor. i. 17), and pays little attention to
the purity of his diction, he does know how to use the
language with versatility and effect. Paul was a man
whose heart was easily moved and often deeply stirred,
and there is no emotion which he is not able to express
to his readers, as occasion may require, by delicate sug-
gestion, in sharp tones of bitter irony, or in a full stream
of irresistible eloquence. The most uninteresting material,
such as the tedious details about a collection, disagreeable
facts involved in cases of discipline, or the rebellious
suspicions of persons greatly his inferiors, he is able to
treat in so broad a manner that the reader is amply repaid
for his effort to understand them correctly, although the
matters referred to are no longer of interest. And when
one takes into consideration also the dialectical skill which
Paul shows when he attempts to teach, to argue, or to
refute objections, it must be admitted by unfriendly
modern readers, as by his ancient opponents, that "his
letters are weighty and strong " (2 Cor. x. 10), an estimate
which is just as applicable to a short note like Philemon
as it is to a lengthy Epistle like Romans. Paul had
indeed a habit of frequently repeating certain words and
phrases within a comparatively short passage, but this is
not due to poverty of language ; it is to be explained

52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

rather by his indifference to elegance of style. In short,
taking into survey all his writings left to us, the wealth of
his vocabulary and the versatility of his grammatical
constructions are astonishing. In comparison with his
letters, considered simply from a literary point of view,
the Fourth Gospel is monotonous and the Epistle of
James is barren. From the Epistles, from the narratives
in Acts, and from the discourses which the latter puts
into Paul's mouth, we get uniformly the impression that
Paul was a finely cultured man, thoroughly acquainted
with the usages of Greek educated society. There is
apparently no good reason for assuming, as some are fond
of doing, that the knowledge of the poetical literature of
the Greeks, of which there are traces here and there in the
letters, was picked up from hearsay, and not derived from
his own reading (n. 19). The manner in which he in-
troduces the verse from Epimenides in Tit. i. 12 shows,
better than would any mention of the poet by name,
and of the work from which the verse is taken,
Paul's familiarity with the traditions about this writer. It
cannot be proved that the verse of the Attic comic poet,
Menander, of which he makes use in 1 Cor. xv. 33, was a
widely used proverb. In Acts, Paul is represented as
knowing that the poetical quotation which he uses in his
speech on the Areopagus (Acts xvii. 28) occurred not
simply in one poet, Aratus, but in essentially the same
form in another, Cleanthes, i.e. " in several poets," and
these poets of the Stoic school. Whether he was familiar
at all with the philosophical literature, and if so to what
extent, it is difficult to say. Certainly he studied the
Greek O.T. with far more zeal than he did the heathen
poets and philosophers. He is perfectly familiar with the
LXX, and follows it in most of his quotations from the
O.T. Indeed, he makes use of his knowledge of the
Hebrew original so rarely that some have gone so far as to
deny his acquaintance with it altogether (n. 17).

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 53

The question whence the Hebrew Saul derived all this
wisdom it is not difficult to answer from the story of his
life. Since his father could hardly have sent him to
Jerusalem, to be educated in the principal school of the
Pharisees, before he was twelve, and since also there is
other evidence to show that he passed his childhood in
Tarsus (n. 15), there is hardly any doubt that besides
learning Aramaic at home he acquired at an early age a
practical knowledge of Greek as it was spoken in the
streets of his native city. He could not have failed to
have occasion to use it even in Jerusalem. During his
first visit there after his conversion a visit lasting only
fifteen days he immediately had personal dealings with
the Hellenists (Acts ix. 29), from which we may assume
that even before the event which took place on the road to
Damascus he had had relations with his Jewish country-
men from Cilicia (Acts vi. 9), although he did not belong
to their synagogue. Being a Hebrew who knew Greek, he
occupied a mediating position between those Hebrews
who understood little or no Greek and the Hellenists who
understood little or no Aramaic. But the most important
factor in the development of this culture of which we find
Paul possessed, is the fact that between his conversion and
the beginning of his Christian ministry he spent at least
five years (38-43 A.D.) in his native city, Tarsus, before
Barnabas brought him to Antioch to assist in the work
there (see Chronological Survey, part xi. vol. iii.). Since
during this long period Paul was waiting for a new divine
commission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts
xxii. 21), undoubtedly he prepared himself for this new
work. He had received scholarly training along the lines
of Judaism, and nothing was more natural than that he
should pursue such studies in the literature of the Greeks,
among whom he expected to labour in the future, as
seemed best suited to fit him for this work. For this
purpose Tarsus was admirably adapted (n. 20). It was a

54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

prominent centre for the study of philosophy and rhetoric,
and the citizens of Tarsus, unlike those of Athens, Alex-
andria, and other famous centres of learning, are praised
for the very lively interest which they took in the sciences
taught in their schools. Only rarely did students from
abroad resort to Tarsus ; while, on the other hand, many of
the native students, not satisfied with the opportunities
afforded them in their own city, completed elsewhere the
education begun at home. In Paul's case Tarsus offered
quite enough of literary information and stimulus to
enable him to become a Greek to the Greeks, just as
his rabbinic training received at home and in Jerusalem
enabled him to be a Hebrew to the Hebrews (cf. 1 Cor. ix.
19-23).

The purpose of this text-book does not call for a
historical, grammatical, and lexical investigation of N.T.
Greek. At the present time, researches relating directly
and indirectly to this subject are being so vigorously
prosecuted, and consequently are in a condition so incom-
plete, that I would not venture in a compendium like this
to set forth any definite results. Still a few remarks may
be in order, so that statements about the language made
in connection with the separate writings may not seem
entirely arbitrary. As is well known, after the time of
Alexander the Great there grew up a popular Greek,
which in distinction from the various dialects, spoken
and literary, into which the Greek of classical times had
separated, was called $ Kowr) or rj eXX-rjviKrj StaAeT09. This
language, based upon the later Attic, was used in litera-
ture and among the educated classes. The old dialects
held their sway in the regions where they had been in use
earlier ; but there grew up also, as an offshoot from the
literary language, a language used in daily life, varying
greatly in the different lands in which it was spoken,
but nevertheless taking its place along with the common
literary language as a medium of general intercourse.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 55

Only by artificial effort could its impure grammatical
forms and mixed vocabulary be kept out of literature
permanently. With this end in view the Greek stylists
and their docile pupils had been endeavouring, ever since
the beginning of the Christian era, to restore the use of
the language in its Attic purity. There were those, how-
ever, more concerned about what they said than how they
said it, who persisted in writing practically as they spoke.
Such were the writers of the N.T. One principal cause
for the continuous development of this living language
after the time of Alexander, was the fact that of those
speaking the Greek language there were ten non-Greeks to
every genuine Greek, and of the former very many con-
tinued to make more or less use of their native tongues.
In Egypt and Syria, there were some who spoke a
mixture of Greek and their own language in their inter-
course with Greeks and Komans (^o/Sdp^apo^. Others
spoke Greek and even wrote it when necessary, but in
both cases with gross violations of grammatical usage
(solecisms). Then there were Syrians whose Greek style
was not inferior to that of any native-born Athenian, e.g.,
that of Lucian of Samosata, whose native tongue was
Syriac. Between these extremes were almost as many
intermediate stages as there were individual writers.
There was never any language that could be called dis-
tinctly Syrian or Egyptian Greek, although, just to the
degree that Greek was a foreign language to the barbarian,
the characteristics of his national language cropped out.
This is true also in the case of the Jews. Certainly the
manner in which they wrote Greek calls for special notice.
For, although the Jewish Aramaic spoken at the time was
not very different from the Aramaic spoken by Gentile
Syrians, the effect of the O.T. literature and of the
religious life inseparably connected with it was always to
make the Jew look at things from a point of view dis-
tinctly national, and so gives an unmistakable character to

56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

his Greek style. And this was particularly the case when
he dealt with subjects relating to his own history and
religion. Even so we may not speak of the Greek written
by Jews as if it were something uniform. For this reason
the term dialectus hellenistica, which did not come into
use until after the beginning of the seventeenth century,
is not an adequate expression with which to describe the
very complex facts in the case ; and the number of
different meanings which the word can have has given
rise repeatedly to all sorts of misunderstandings (u. 21).
The extremes of Jewish Greek are represented, on the one
hand, by the LXX, including post-canonical books trans-
lated from Hebrew or Aramaic, such as 1 Mace., Sirach,
Psalms of Solomon, etc. ; and, on the other, by the
writings of Philo. The latter wrote the current literary
language, and wrote it just as well as did Clement of
Alexandria who was born in Athens. So also Josephus'
writings, thanks to the help of Greek correctors of whom
he made use in editing his works, approach the KOIVIJ of
the educated classes. On the other hand, the Alexandrian
translators in their effort to render literally the holy ori-
ginal, used language which was altogether inadmissible, and
indeed impossible, in the speech of common life. Still even
they did not try the patience of their readers with such
absurdities as those of Aquila in the Christian era, who,
in order to reproduce the two meanings of the Hebrew
ritf, translated Gen. i. 1, *Ev K<fra\aicp e/cTiaev 6 $eo? avv
TOV ovpavbv Kal <rvv ri)v <yrjv (Field, Hexapla, i. 7). Between
these extremes, the Greek of the Alexandrian translators
and that of Philo, were as many gradations of style as we
find between the barbarous Greek of numerous inscrip-
tions in Asia Minor and of various Egyptian papyri, and
the Greek of the Syrian Lucian with this difference,
however, that in the case of Jewish literature it is possible
to trace some little development. The language of the
LXX must have exerted on the language of those who

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 57

heard it from Sabbath to Sabbath a strong influence, com-
parable to that of the Luther Bible upon the language of
the German people. The sermon which followed the
reading and the synagogue prayers based upon the Greek
Bible could not have been in language wholly different
from that Bible, It was not without reason that R. Simon
spoke of le Grec de la synagogue. Moreover, it is self-
evident that native-born " Hebrews " who did not become
acquainted with Greek until late in life would always
have had to make an effort to think in Greek, and it is a
question to what extent they really made such an effort.
If a man like Paul, who was far more than a " Hebrew,"
continued to use Aramaic, even in his old age, when he
wished to express his deepest emotions (above, p. 49), we
must assume that the same was true of the disciples of
Jesus. The use of the term "Jewish Greek" has some
justification, though the idea may be exaggerated by
association with the modern expression " Jewish German."
Possibly there was a language actually spoken among
Jews and Jewish Christians which with propriety could be
so designated. But the writings which have been gathered
up in the N.T. were all written under circumstances and
conditions so complex, that the language of no one of them
can properly be described by the single word Jewish
Greek. And, on the other hand, there is no one of them,
not even the two parts of the work of Luke, born a
Gentile, the language of which is not consistent with the
Jewish origin of every one of the N.T. writings.

1. (P. 34.) With, regard to the penetration of the Greek culture and lan-
guage into Judaism, cf. SCHURER, ii. 21-175, iii. 304-562 (Eng. trans, n. i.
11-148, n. iii. 156-381). A bibliography of the extensive literature on the
character of the Greek written by Jews on the diffusion of the knowledge of
the Greek language in Palestine at the time of Jesus and similar facts, is
given by SCHMIEDEL in his revision of Winer's Grammatik des neuter/aim ///-
lichen Sprachidwms (8th ed. part i. 1894), in the notes to 2-4 and the
addenda, p. xiii. f. Here belong also some works cited above, p. 14. Of
more recent treatises may be mentioned : E. HATCH, Essays in Bibl. Greek,
Oxford, 1889; J. VITEAU, fitude sur le Grec du NT (2 parts), Paris, 18<J3,

58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

1896 ; DEISSMANN, Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1895 ; ibid., Neue Bibelstudien,
1897 (Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1901); ibid., " Hellenistisches griechisch,"
PEE, 3 vii. 627-639; KENNEDY, Sources of N.T. Greek; or, the Influence of
the Sept v.aiji tit on the Vocabulary of the N.T., Edinburgh, 1895 ; BLABS, Gram-
iiMtik des neutestamentlichem Griechisch, 2te Anil. 1902 (Eng. trans., London,
2nd ed. 1905) ; ibid., Philology of the Gospels, London, 1898. Of. also the
brief remarks of Schlatter, Geschichte Israels von Alexander bis Hadrian, 2te
Aufl. 1906, S. 22-28 ; ibid., Sprache und Heimat des 4 Ev. S. 7 ff. J. Voss,
in his .De septuaginta interpr. dissertationes, 1661, p. 76 if. cc. xxiv, xxv, had con-
tented himself simply with establishing the authority of the LXX by its use
on the part of the apostles and the evangelists. But in his treatise, De
Sibyllinis, Oxon. 1679, he went much further. He now made Christ Himself
the witness for the authority of the LXX, p. 75 ft'., believed that by Hel-
lenists and Hebrews in Acts vi. 1 should be understood friends of Greek
culture and genuine national Jews, p. 92 f., held that it was owing to a pre-
conceived opinion that Christ and the apostles were supposed to have spoken
Hebrew constantly and exclusively, p. 96, and in general unfolded a picture
of the linguistic conditions of Palestine, according to which, except for a
scanty knowledge of Hebrew among the learned (nor did he deny this
wholly to Jesus, p. 94) and a mixed jargon of Syriac and Greek among the
peasants, the ordinary language of everyone, Jesus included, was Greek. A
hundred years later appeared D. DIODATI, J. C. Neapolitans de Christo Greece
loquente dissertatio, Neap. 1767, against whom de Eossi wrote (above, p. 14),
and a hundred years later still in a similar vein A. ROBERTS, Discussions on
the Gospel : I. On the Language employed by our Lord and His Disciples
(ed. 2), Cambridge and London, 1864. Such exaggerations are refuted simply
by the facts adduced in 1.

2. (P. 36.) 2 Mace. vi. 8, with reference to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes,
speaks of ras aarrvyeirovas TrdXeir e\\i)vi8as, along with this vi. 9, xi. 24 of
ra l\\T)viKd as heathen religion and custom ; cf. iv. 10, 6 e\\rjviKos x a P aKT ^P I
iv. 13, eX\r)vicrp.bs /cat czXXoc^uXto-^ds 1 . Jos. Vita, 13, uses the term e'Xatoi/
(\\rjviKov of oil prepared by Gentiles in distinction from that which was
ceremonially clean ; cf. Ant. xii. 5. 1, 5, xv. 9. 5. He designates Gadara,
Hippos, Scythopolis, Gaza as iroXeis e'XXrjj/i'Sej (Bell. ii. 6. 3; Ant. xvii. 11. 4,
at eV rfi Svpt'a SfKan-oXeiy over against TrdXets 'Iov8aio>v, Vita 65, Niese 341, 349),
meaning in every case simply that the majority of the inhabitants were non-
Jews, and that the form of government was modelled after that of Greek
communities. According to him, at the beginning of the Jewish War 20,000
Jews were slain by non-Jews in Caesarea (Bell. ii. 18. 1), 13,000 in Scythopolis
(ii. 18. 3), 2500 in Askalon, 2000 in Ptolemais (ii. 18. 5). It was said of the
Jews in Scythopolis ( = Bethshan, Baishan) that in their pronunciation they
interchanged certain Hebrew consonants (Levy, Lex. i. 224), hence they must
have used " Hebrew," i.e. Aramaic, frequently, to say the least, when speak-
ing to one another and to their fellow-countrymen. Josephus, in a passage
where he has in mind the distinction between heathen worship and Judaism,
calls the non-Jews in Cassarea Hellenes, Bell. ii. 13. 7, 14. 4, but remarks at
the same time, ii. 13. 7, that the Roman troops in Csesarea, which for the
most part were levied in Syria, and hence were composed of Syrians by birth
and language (see above, p. 7), were of the same race as these " Hellenes " ;

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 59

indeed, he distinctly calls these non-Jews of Ctesarea Syrians in Ant. xx. 8. 7,
9 ; Bell. ii. 18. 1 ; Vita, 11 ; cf. above, pp. 22, 24, n. 7. With regard to the
survival of the Aramaic language in Scythopolis and Gaza in Christian
times, see p. 22. The Greek names of many of the " Hellenic cities," such
as Gadara, have not been handed down with any certainty ; others, such
as Abila, Gerasa, bear their Greek names only on coins and isolated in-
scriptions.

3. (P. 36.) The subst. jj (related to the Heb. and Syr. verb tj; 1 ? Ps.
cxiv. 1) when used alone denotes any foreign language, but in the Palestinian
Talmud, in the passage about the four languages cited above, p. 22, and
elsewhere (see Levy, ii. 515), it denotes without further modification the
Greek tongue, so that the part, ijn 1 ? and subst. nj? 1 ? (properly = /3dp/3a/3os, 1 Cor.
xiv. 11) denote simply a Greek-speaking person. In intercourse with Greeks
and in books intended for Greek readers, the Jews were obliged to reverse
the proceedings and to call themselves and their fellow-countrymen, so far
as these spoke Aramaic and were unacquainted with Greek, ftdpftapoi (Jos.
Bell. i. procem. 1). A native of Jerusalem like Josephus could not indeed
attain to such a degree of self-effacement as the Alexandrian Philo, who
reckons himself among the Greeks when he treats of the contrast between
the Hebrew language and the Greek (De conf. ling. 26, e'ori 8e y p.tv 'Eppaiot
Ae'yoixrt 'bavovrjX, cos Be rj/jLels dnocrrpofpi} deov), and who highly praises among
the merits of Augustus that he enlarged Greece by adding to it many
Greeces, and that he thoroughly Hellenized the most important parts of the
land of the Barbarians (Leg. ad Oai. xxi, dfaXXr] vivas). Yet even as early as
Aristotle's time there were fully Hellenised Jews (Jos. c. Apion. i. 22,
'EXXrjviiios ov T>) 8ia\fKTa> p.6i>ov, d\\a KOI rrj ^v^/). Cf., on the other hand,
Jos. c. Apion. i. 11, and quite frequently.

4. (Pp. 37, 38.) Concerning Eupolemos, see the statement in Schiirer, iii.
351 f. (Eng. trans, n. iii. 203 f.). The identity of the historian with the one in
1 Mace. viii. 17 is opposed by Willrich, Juden u. Griechen, 1895, p. 157. The
coins are found most conveniently classified in Madden, Coins of the Jews,
1881. Concerning Herod's troops, see Jos. Bell. i. 33. 9, 15. 6, 20. 3, 22. 2 ;
Ant. xvii. 8. 2 ; concerning his military colonies, see Ant. xv. 8. 5, xvi. 5. 2 ;
Bell. i. 21. 9. Concerning theatres, etc., in and near Jerusalem, see Ant.
xv. 8. 1 ; cf. Schurer, i. 387 f., ii. 46 (Eng. trans. I. i. 432 f., n. i. 32 f.) ; in
Jericho, Bell. i. 33. 6, 8 ; Ant. xvii. 6. 3, 5, 8. 2. Concerning the tragedian
Ezechiel (Clem. Strom, i. 155 ; Eus. Pnep. ix. 28 ; 29. 4-12), see in brief
Schurer, iii. 373 f. (Eng. trans, ii. iii. 225 1'.).

5. (P. 38.) An instance in point is the title on the cross, John xix. 20
(Luke xxiii. 38 ?). Mention is made of bilingual inscriptions from the times
just before Christ in Askalon, Tyre, and Sidon, Jos. Ant. xiv. 10. 2, 3, 12. 5.
The case is different, however, with the inscriptions, partly Latin and partly
Greek, which were placed upon the stone wall separating the inner from the
outer court of the temple, and which forbade every non-Jew to advance
further on pain of death, Jos. Bell. v. 5. 2, vi. 2. 4. The purpose here was
a very practical one. The Latin inscriptions were to warn the Roman officials
and soldiers. A Greek inscription of this kind was found in 1871, Survey of
Western Palestine, vol. iii. (Jerusalem) 423.

6. (P. 39.) While an Alexander Jannteus was willing to have Pisidians

60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

and Cilicians but no Syrians in his army of mercenaries (Jos. Bell. i. 4. 3), the
Roman garrison of Csesarea, circa 66 A.D., consisted largely of native Syrians
(Bell. ii. 13. 7 ; cf. iv. 1. 5, above, n. 2). A cavalry troop of the Augustans is
mentioned repeatedly (Bell. ii. 12. 5; Ant. xx. G. 1 ; cf. xix. 9. 2, according
to which men of Csesarea also served in it). We are not accurately informed
as to the composition of the infantry in Csesarea (5 cohorts, Ant. xix. 9. 2), in
Jerusalem (John xviii. 3, 12; Acts xxi. 31 f., xxii. 24 ff., xxiii. 17-33), and
elsewhere. The name a-n-flpa 2eacn-J7 (cohors Augusta) in Acts xxvii. 1 gives
no information as to the origin of the soldiers that served in it. On the
other hand, o-jrelpa rj K.a\ovp.tvr) 'iraXiKi'], Acts x. 1, certainly denotes a band
the nucleus of which consisted of Italian volunteers. Schurer's argument,
i. 462 f. (Eng. trans. I. ii. 51-54), against the historicity of the statement that
such a band was stationed in Caesarea at that time (perhaps circa 35-40) is based
upon an unwarranted combination of data. The statement in Jos. Aid. xx.
8. 7, according to which in the year 66 not only the cavalry troop mentioned,
but the whole Roman garrison of Ccesarea, was made up largely of men from
Coesarea and Sebaste, is in itself improbable, cannot be maintained in view of
the obviously more exact statement in Bell. ii. 13. 7 (see above), and would
prove nothing about the earlier time of Acts x. 1.

7. (P. 39.) Philo, who calls Jerusalem the p.rjTpo7roXis of all Jews on earth
(c. Flacc.vii ; Leg. ad Cai. xxxvi), and who had visited it at least once himself
(Fragm. in Eus. Prcep. ev. viii. 14. 64, Mangey, ii. 646), speaks probably with-
out exaggeration of the pilgrimages thither by Jews of all lands, de Mon. ii. 1,
and of the bearing of tribute and gifts to that city, Mon. ii. 3 ; Leg. ad Cai.
xxiii, xxxi, xl ; cf. Jos. Ant. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6. 2-7, xviii. 9. 1 ; Cicero, pro Flacco,
xxviii. Turning to the N.T., we find in John xii. 20 certain Greeks ; in Acts
viii. 27, an Ethiopian who apparently spoke Greek and read the Septuagint ;
in Acts xxi. 27, Jews from the province of Asia. Vice versa, the central
authority in Jerusalem, later in Jabne and Tiberias, kept in touch with all
the Jews in foreign countries, and likewise with the ftiao-iropa iwv 'EXXijvw,
John vii. 35 = pn xm 1 ?;, as it is called in one of the letters of Gamaliel
mentioned above, pp. 10, 33 (Jerus. Maas. sheni, 56c).

8. (Pp. 40, 43.) In Acts vi. 1 we find the division into 'EAXi/KtoTat and
'Eftpaioi within the community of Christians at Jerusalem ; in Acts ix. 29, where
the reading "EAXr/vas is not to be considered, Jews in Jerusalem hostile to Chris-
tianity are called 'EXX^ioToi. S 1 was right in the main in translating Acts ix.
29, " with the Jews who understood Greek " ; Chrysostom was more exact in
Horn, xiv on Acts vi. land in Horn, xxi on Actsix. 29 (Montfaucon, ix. 111,169).
The same name would form a contrast to 'lovdaim in Acts xi. 20, if it were to be
read there ; but for that very reason it is incredible that such is the reading.
In Acts vi. 9 it is uncertain whether the author, in consideration of the fact
that AijSe pTivuv was a Latin word, prefixed to it TU>V Xt-yo/ieVwi/, or whether
we should read -rr,s \fyop.fvrjs, which is supported by the most authorities.
In the latter case it would be certain that two groups were meant to be dis-
tinguished. In the former case also this is the only thing probable, for
otherwise simply *ai ruv UTTO KtX. KT\. would have been written instead of
(cat KiXi'/ccdi/ cai 'Aenai^wi/. A synagogue of the Alexandrians in Jerusalem is
mentioned also in the Jerus. Talmud (Megilla, 73d). Nothing seems more
natural than that Cyreniaus, like the Simon mentioned in Mark xv. 21, should

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 61

have connected themselves with this synagogue. Allied to them also were
the Libertines, i.e. descendants of Jews who had been brought to Rome by
Pompey as prisoners of war and sold as slaves, but who afterward had been
manumitted and made Roman citizens (Philo, Leg. ad Cai. xxiii ; Schiirer, iii.
84 (Eng. trans. II. ii. 276). The thousands of Acts ii. 5 ff. also belong to the
number of foreign Jews who had taken up residence in Jerusalem ; for Kai-ot-
Kovi'Tfs, ii. 5, 14, not to be confused with -n-apoiKovvrfs (Luke xxiv. 18), signifies
that they were permanent residents of Jerusalem (iv. 16, vii. 4, ix. 35, xiii. 27).
This interpretation is but confirmed by the use of the same word in ii. 9.
With reference to the language in the midst of which they had grown up, the
Jews from Mesopotamia, etc., are called " dwellers in Mesopotamia" instead of
" Mesopotamians," so as not to weary by an uninterrupted series of names of
nations. The idea that at this time their fixed abode was still Mesopotamia,
etc., is a misunderstanding, and is excluded by vv. 5, 14. Moreover, eVt-
fynflv (ver. 10), not to be confounded with TrapeTrtS^eu/ (1 Pet. i. 1, ii. 11,
below, 38, n. 4), denotes not a visit at a feast, but very commonly, as
every lexicon shows, residence at home and return home, in contrast to a
passing sojourn in a strange place. The attempt of Blass (NKZ, 1892,
S. 826 ff., and in his Ada Apostolorum, Acts ii. 5) to omit the 'Iov8aloi in
ii. 5 (following N), and thus to transform the witnesses of the miracle at
Pentecost into " God-fearing " Gentiles, i.e. so-called proselytes of the gate, is
to be rejected. In ver. 10 it is said expressly of the "Romans" that they
were partly Jews, partly proselytes (i.e., according to the usage of the N.T., of
Josephus, and of the Early Church, circumcised proselytes of righteousness) ;
but this also implies that all the rest were Jews by birth, and that it was only
among the Romans that there were also certain proselytes. Without a hint
being given of a change in the circle of hearers, Peter addresses them in a
body as Jews and Israelites (w. 14, 22, 36, 39), as inhabitants of Jerusalem
(vv. 14, 29, f'v fjijuv = m Jerusalem), as representatives of the Jewish people,
among whom and upon whom Jesus had clone His works (ver. 22), and who
by the hand of the Gentiles had slain Him (ver. 23). For the author of Acts
it would have been an insupportable thought that the hearers of the first
preaching of the apostles should have been uncircumcised Gentiles (i. 6, 8,
ii. 39, iii. 26, xiii. 46, etc.). Further, it is not demonstrable that eiAn/Seir,
ii. 5, ever denotes, like <o/3oi^ej/oi or o-e/Sojuei/oi rov 6f6v, proselytes of the
second degree. These Jews who had returned from a foreign land to the
home of their fathers are called " Romans, Parthians, Arabians," etc., just as
the Jew Aquila is called HOVTIKOS, and the Jew Apollos 'AXtgavSpevs T<J> yevti,
Acts xviii. 2, 24. It is not their parentage which is stated in ii. 5 (this would
have been expressed by e'< navros edvovs or yevovs, Acts xv. 23 ; Rev. v. 9,
vii. 9 ; Gal. ii. 15 ; Phil. iii. 5 ; Rom. ix. 24), but the fact that they had
come from the most various lands ; cf. with reference to e'^oy, 21, n. 2.
They were therefore native Jews throughout, and only in the case of the
Romans is it remarked that there were also some proselytes among them.
The only difficulty in this text arises from 'lovfiaiav, ver. 9, for which Bentlcy,
(Grit, sacra, ed. Ellies, p. 22) suggested Avdtav or 'iSou/Wai', the present writer
'ivS/av. For one of the motives for their return hinted at above, p. 39,
namely, the wish to be buried in the Holy Land, see the instances in Weber,
System der altsynag. Theol. 64, 352 ; for other instances of high regard for

62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

the Holy Land, 62 f., 192, 200 ff. All that has been said of the Hellenists
in Jerusalem naturally has its exceptions ; and it is also probable that
Hellenist families in Jerusalem in the second and third generation again
came to receive a Hebrew education. The family of the Bcethusians, e.g.,
which came from Alexandria (Jos. Ant. xv. 9. 3), and from which five or
six high priests arose during the last century of the temple, bears in its
male and female members nothing but Hebrew and Aramaic names : Simon,
Joazar, Eleazar, Eljonai, Marjam (Jos. Bell. i. 28. 4 ; Ant. xvii. 4. 2), Martha
(Mishna, Jebani. vi. 4). See the list in Schiirer, ii. 216-220 (Eng. trans. II.
i. 197-202).

9. (Pp. 40, 43.) For the preference of Greek to Aramaic on the part of
Judah the Nasi, see above, p. 22. In the portion of the Mishna edited by him,
Megillah i. 8, we read : " There is no difference between the (holy) writings
(on the one hand) and the Thephilin and Mesusoth (on the other), except that
the writings may be written in any desired language, whereas the Thephilin
and Mesusoth may be written only in Assyrian " (i.e. Hebrew). Rabbi Simeon
son of Gamaliel (the younger), says : " Also with reference to the writings,
it has been permitted that they be written only in Greek." Connected with
this in Jerus. Megillah, 71c, is the following : " Search was made, and it was
found that the Torah cannot be translated satisfactorily into any language
but Greek." In the same passage it is stated that the Greek translation of
the Bible by Aquila had met the approval of the most celebrated rabbis of
his time (circa 100-130). The fact that this slavishly literal translation was
preferred to the Septuagint as well as the origin of this translation itself, rests
in part upon the opposition to Christianity. There were no objections to the
use of Greek in worship. There was seen in this rather a fulfilment of the
prophecy in Gen. ix. 27 (Jerus. Megillah, 716), and by a play upon words
Ps. xlv. 3 was applied to Aquila, the most accurate translator of the Torah
into the language of Japhet (op. cit. 71c). Although in Caesarea the so-called
Schema, the basal creed of Judaism (Deut. vi. 4-9, xi. 13-21 ; Num. xv.
37-41), was said in Greek, no serious objection was made to this (Jerus.
Sotah, 216, moreover the Mishnah itself, Sotah vii. 1 ; Megillah ii. 1).
According to the express testimony of rabbi Ishmael (Shekalim iii. 2), Greek
letters were inscribed on the chests iised for the offerings in the temple ;
while, according to Shekalim v. 3, certain tokens which served as receipts for
gifts offered on the altar bore Aramaic inscriptions, cf. Joel, Blicke in die
Religionsgesch. ii. 170f. With reference to the Greek inscriptions of the
Herodians in the Hauran (especially Waddington, No. 2329), cf. Schlatter,
Gesch. Israels von Alexander bis Hadrian, 2 S. 26, 317, and also Sifre on Deut.
33 (Sprache und Heimat des 4 Ev. S. 128), " Everbody runs to read a new
Staray/ia (edict)." In Sotah ix. 14 we read : " In the war of Vespasian the
crowns of the bridegrooms were forbidden, and the drums. In the war
of Titus the crowns of the brides were forbidden, nor was anyone allowed to
teach his son Greek. In the last war the bride was forbidden to go about in
the midst of the town in a sedan chair." It is now probably universally
recognised that instead of Titus we are rather to read Quietus, and hence to
think of the Jewish revolt under Trajan, circa 116 (Schiirer, i. 667 [Eng. trans,
i. i. 286]). It is only of the ordinance which it was claimed arose in the last
war, i.e. that of Hadrian, that the Mishna says expressly that it was repealed

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 63

by the rabbis. But the prohibition with reference to the Greek language
likewise failed to be maintained. In true rabbinic fashion, later writers used
the letter of the ordinance, which speaks only of sons, not of daughters, in
order to set it aside as far as possible. A rabbi Abbahu (circa 300) declares in
the name of his teacher Johanan (died 279) : "A man is permitted to teach
his daughter Greek, since it is an ornament unto her" (Jerus. Shabbath, 7rf ;
Sotah, 24c). To be sure, this Abbaliu, who lived in Csesarea, shows himself
to an unusual degree to have been conformed to the world and open to Greek
influences (Hamburger, RE, ii. 4-8 ; Levy, Verhandlungen der 33 Versamm.
deutscher Phil. 1879, S. 81). The family of Gamaliel, which after the year
70 occupied an almost princely position for a number of generations, was
pardoned for its diligent cultivation of Greek as a colloquial language just
because of its social standing. Tradition is probably right in this particular,
that the reaction against the adoption of the Greek language and culture is
connected with the last spasmodic struggles of the nation to assert its in-
dependence. Even from the historical accounts all signs of this are absent
before the year 66. Josephus, born 37 A.D., the son of an eminent priestly
family, but not belonging to the aristocracy proper, had acquired, in addition
to the rabbinic learning of which he could boast when only fourteen ( Vita,
2 ; Ant. xx. 12), so great a knowledge of Greek in Jerusalem, that when
twenty-six years old, without ever having been out of his country before, he
could undertake a mission to Rome, and could mingle with the highest
circles of society there, advocating his cause with zeal and success before the
wife of Nero, Vita,, 3. He also endeavoured to learn Greek from books,
receiving instruction in grammar ; but he confesses that the use of his mother-
tongue hindered him from acquiring a correct pronunciation of Greek. In
preparing the Greek revision of his work on the Jewish War, and probably
also in writing the Antiquities, he availed himself of the assistance of several
Greek literati, c. Apion. i. 9. In Ant. xx. 12 he explains that his education
was lacking on this side, because among his countrymen a knowledge of
foreign languages was not highly prized. Such knowledge was in their eyes
something vulgar, being easily attainable, not only by any free man, but also
by every slave who had a liking for it. It was only knowledge of the Law
and ability to explain the O.T., in which few accomplish anything, that gave
one a reputation for learning. According to this, it is a mistake to think
that a knowledge of Greek was limited to the aristocratic circles in Jerusalem,
much less to the scholars. Many a merchant and artisan probably excelled
famous rabbis in this respect. Among the women, knowledge of Greek was
at any rate much more common than knowledge of the sacred language (see
above in this note, also pp. 7, 25, n. 10). Nevertheless it was expedient that
Titus, when seeking to induce the besieged Jews in Jerusalem to surrender,
should have treated with them through an interpreter (Jos. Bell. vi. 6. 2), just
as it was also perfectly natural that Josephus should have used his mother-
tongue when commissioned by Titus to address them (v. 9. 2, vi. 2. 1).

10. (P. 41.) Among the apostles, only Andrew, whose father and brother
bore Hebrew names, and Philip have Greek names. Every one of the seven
names in Acts vi. 5, among which also the name Philip occurs (cf. viii. 5,
xxi. 8), is Greek ; but this is explained by the occasion for the appointment
of these seven men. " Hebrews " probably always had along with their

64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Greek names Hebrew or Aramaic names, like the later Hasmoneans Johanan-
Hyrkanos, Juda-Aristobulos, Jannay- Alexandras, Salome -Alexandra. So
a Nicodemus (Jewish Nakdimon), perhaps identical with the one men-
tioned in John iii. 1, is said to have been called originally Bunay (Bali.
Taanith, 20a). Latin names also were very common along with the Hebrew :
Johanan-Marcus, Acts xii. 12, 25 ; Joseph-Barsaba- Justus, Acts i. 23 ; Jesus-
Justus, Col. iv. 11 ; Shimon-Niger, Acts xiii. 1 ; Shila-Silvanus, above, p. 32,
line 6. Even when we know only of the Latin name, as in the case of Niger,
Jos. Bell. iv. 6. 1, Justus Julius Capellus or Capella and Crispus, Jos. Vita,
0, a Jewish name besides was probably not lacking. The Greek name Petrus
(Phlegon, de Lonymvis, 3 ; in Josephus xviii. 6. 3 poorly attested for TlpSiros)
occurs even in the case of Palestinian Jews (Jerus. Moed Katon, 82(7, line 9
from bottom), but belongs to the apostles only as a translation of the surname
Kepha given him by Jesus, above, p. 16, ZKoin. Matt. 537.

11. (P. 42.) Concerning foreign words from the Greek and Latin in Jewish
literature : J. FURST, Glossarium Grccco-hebraicum oder der griech. Wortschatz dcr
judischen Midraschiverke, 1890 ; KRAUSS, Griech. u. lat. Lehnwurtcr im Talmud,
Midrasch u. Targum, 2 vols. 1898-1899 ; SCHURER, ii. 44-67 (Eng. trans. II. i.
31-47), gives a selection from the Mishnah arranged according to subjects, and
DALMAN, Gr. z 182 ff., presents from the grammatical point of view examples
drawn from the literature claimed to be Palestinian Aramaic. Greek and
Latin words probably used by Jesus are, vvvtSpiov, Matt. v. 22, x. 17 ; Mark
xiii. 9 ; in the LXX nine times, also in Ps. Solomon iv. 1 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 5,
Jewish pyinjp court of justice, especially the highest at Jerusalem ; also title
of a tractate of the Mishnah. Whether we should include here dvrlBiKos,
Matt. v. 25 ; Luke xii. 58, xviii. 3, which is quite common in the Midrash
literature, but which does not seem to occur in the Talmud and Targum, is
doubtful. On the other hand, there is little doubt that he used irapa.K.\r)Tos,
John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7 ; 1 John ii. 1 ; Didache, v. 2, TrAovcnW Trapa-
K\I]TOI, TrevrjTtov (ivofj.oi npirai ', Clem. Quis dives, xxv, rov TTJS (rrjs (rvvrjyopov KOI
irapaK\riTov tyvxys ; Heb. tr^p-i? Pirke Aboth iv. 11, "advocate." Here, as in
the Targum of Job xxxiii. 23, the word is used in opposition to -iwp = Karrj-
yopos, or rather K.a.Tr]yu>p, Ptev. xii. 10, a form which probably belonged to the
Greek colloquial; a similar form is o-t/i/^ywp ( = a-wrjynpos), vuup, which in
Jewish literature forms the contrast to katcgor much oftener than does
peraklit, e.g. Jerus. Joma, 44& ; cf. Krauss, P>Z, 1893, S. 526. Among the Jews
the meaning of the more infrequent peraklit has become broadened and is
plainly treated as active = 7rapa/caAa>j/. In the Targum of Job xvi. 20, xxxiii.
23, the Aram. NB'^p" 19 corresponds to the Heb. pta, which in both passages,
even in xvi. 20, where it does not suit, the translator has taken in the sense
of "interpreter, representative of another before a third party, mediator."
Two Jewish translators, Aquila and Theodotion, render Job xvi. 2, D'cmn
"comforters," by rrnpaKX^rot, where the LXX has TrapaK~\rjTopfs and Sym-
machus Triiprj-ynpovi'res (Field, Hexapla, ii. 30). Thus Philo, Opif. inundi, 6,
expresses the thought that God, without having been persuaded or exhorted
thereto by anyone, bestowed the riches of His goodness upon His creatures,
ovftfvl 8f 7rapaKAr}rw ris yup f]v (Ttpos fj.6va> 8e eaura) xprj(rdfj.fvos 6 dtos f'yvu>

KT\. Less characteristic is Vita Mosis, iii. 14. Likewise Origen, de Orat. 10,
treats the TrapnK^ros irpbs TOV iraTtpa in 1 John ii. 1 as active, among other

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 65 .

tilings paraphrasing it o-v/iTrapaicaXtoi' TO'IS irapaKaXoixri. Originally the word
was not construed actively, but such a meaning grammatically is by no means
impossible. To the examples in Kiihner-Blass, ii. 289, should be added XuX^Tor,
"speaking, able to speak," Iren. Fraym. xiv., Stieren, 833. Tertullian, who
translates TrapaKaXeu/ by advocare, c. Marc. iv. 14, p. 191, frapaK\r]a-is by
advocatio, Pud. xvii, and rrapaK\r)Tos by advocatus, Prax. ix, found it necessary
to form advocator, Marc. iv. 15, p. 193 ; Greeks, however, and Jews who used
the foreign term 7rapdK\T]Tos, could dispense with the other form irapaK\rjTwp
found in the LXX. Jesus, who in John xiv. 16 applied the term to Himself
primarily, had been up to that time not the advocate called to the aid of
the disciples, but the teacher speaking to their hearts in the name of God,
the interpreter through whom God spoke to them. After His departure this
is the office of the Spirit, xiv. 26. On the other hand, it is the ascended
Jesus who, in the name of the disciples and for their advantage appeals to
the heart of God, intercedes for them, 1 John ii. 1. The extent to which the
meaning of the word can vary is just the same in the N.T. as in Jewish
writings. 8ia6i']K.r), Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, cf. xxii.
29, Stcm'$ecr#m, of testamentary disposal, very common in the form 'p'jvn or
'p'nN'i, in the sense of a testamentary disposal of one's property in the event of
death, as distinguished from n:na, a gift during one's lifetime, Jerus. Pea, I7d ;
on the other hand, 8iddffj.a, which was uncommon even among the Greeks,
or the verb 8if6f'ni]i> (according to JASTROW, 294), which occurs in a saying of
Simon the son of Gamaliel, was unintelligible to a later rabbi Joshua (Jerus.
Baba Bathra, 16c, lines 17-19). nvpie as a form of address to a superior,
Matt. vii. 21 f., xiii. 27, xxi. 30 ; John xiii. 13 f.; also the numerous cases where
in the narrative Jesus is thus addressed. How common the Greek word was
among the Jews is shown by the fact that n<p is adduced as an example of
the corrupt pronunciation of the Galileans, in whose mouth it became 'T2
(allegedly = xet'pie ')> b. Erubin, 53& ; moreover, in b. Chullin, 139&, we have
even the doubling of n*p, which goes to show that in Matt. vii. 21 we have
not a translation, but merely a transcription. Outside of the Targums, which
are acquainted also with o'rp 6 Kvpios, and use it even of God (Levy, Tare/.
IViirierliiich, ii. 360; Dalman, Gr. 2 186), we meet with n<p almost exclusively,
and that, too, in the vocative ; but this is explained by the fact that the form
of address Kvpie was more frequently to be heard than the other case forms, and
was the first to become common among the Jews (cf. Monsieur and le Sieur).
In this it is like the Greek proper names, which as spoken by the Syrians
were often in the vocative form (Noldeke, Syr. Gr. 144). However, what
is found in the lexica under 'T3 (also = xaipe, x a P**> or X"P IS )> ' T P> D ' T P> i 3 still
very much in need of sifting. TravSo^eus-, or more correctly irav8o<fvs, and
Trai'SoKflov, Luke x. 34, 35, the former as 'p-ma (yet it also has the spelling
of the latter in the Mishnah, Gittin viii. 9 ; Kidd. iv. 12), the latter as pijis,
Np-nis, .Tp-ms, were very common, as is especially evident from the further
fact that even the feminine r\'p-M3 = irav8oK.(VTpia occurs not infrequently in
the Mishnah (e.g. Jebam. xvi. 7), Targums, etc. Srjvdpiov, Matt, xviii. 28,
xx. 2-13 ; Mark xii. 15 ; Luke vii. 41, x. 35, xx. 24, in the mouth of the
disciples, Mark vi. 37, xiv. 5 ; John vi. 7, xii. 5. The transliteration in
is at least as common in the Mishnah as the Heb. equivalent m (examples in
Schurer, ii. 54, A. 162 [Eng. trans, ii. i. 39, n. 164]) ; in the Jerus. Talmud
VOL. I. 5

66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

(also N-UH in an Aram, context), Targ., and Mid. the proportion is probably
about the same. Also dcro-dpiov, Matt. x. 29, Luke xii. 6, which as no'N (i3x)
is very common in the Mishnah (Erubin vii. 10 ; Kidd. i. 1, etc.) and in all
Jewish literature, was probably used by Jesus in this form ; probably also
KoSpdvTr]?, Matt. v. 26, Latin quadrans in the form Darmp. It is not necessary
to suppose that Mark of Jerusalem, who in xii. 42 writes for his Kornan readers
\firra 8vo o eWi KodpdvTrjs, did not learn this last expression until he came
to Rome, for we read almost exactly the same thing in Jerus. Kidd. 58d,
DBJvmp mans 'JB>. But, in any event, Luke, who in the parallel passages, xii. 59,
xxi. 2, uses the purely Greek \firr6v, which had not made its way into the
Jewish vernacular at all, has not preserved for us, as Schiirer, ii. 55, A. 169
(Eng. trans, n. i. 40, n. 171), thinks, the wording of the original written source
used also by Matthew ; for this was written not in Greek, but in Aramaic.
Elsewhere, also, Luke has substituted the genuine Greek word for the Latin
term used by the Jews of Palestine ; thus (popos, xx. 22 (xxiii. 2), instead of
Kr)vcros, Matt. xxii. 17 ; Mark xii. 14 (Matt. xvii. 25, xxii. 19). How completely
the latter word had become naturalised is seen from the fact that o:p, ttoip occurs
mostly in the later and secondary sense of " mulct, fine," that a denominative
verb wp was in use, and that a Greek derivative form K^o-w/ia, NDID'P, which
cannot be pointed out elsewhere, occurs (Krauss, Lehnworter, ii. 534, 554).
Xe-yiwv, Xeyewi/, Matt. xxvi. 53, cf. Mark v. 9, 15 ; Luke viii. 30, ]rih, plur.
j'jiu 1 ? and nuvj 1 ?. Levy in both his lexica maintains that this has a second
meaning, " commander " ; and on the basis of that A. Meyer makes bold
assertions concerning Mark v. 9, 15 ; but such a meaning is incredible at the
oiitset, since the Romans had no title of an officer that was formed from leyio.
When the word denotes an individual, we must either alter \vb into xar 1 ?
(legatus ; Fiirst, Gloss. 130) or understand a soldier (miles legionarius ; Krauss,
ii. 305). A verb corresponding to dyyaptveiv in Matt. v. 41 (xxvii. 32 ;
Mark xv. 21 ; cf. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 37 ; DEISSMANN, Bibelst. 81
[Eng. trans. 86 f.]) has not been pointed out as yet in Jewish literature ; but
the substantive wiK = dyyapeia (Epict. Diss. iv. 1. 79 ; Artemid. Oneirocr. v.
16) is very common, and the Jews appropriated dyyapfvrj'js also, which shows
that these words, though derived from the Persian (Herodot. viii. 98), did not
become naturalised among the Jews until Hellenistic times. The people
were for the most part not conscious that such words were foreign, as is
shown by the remark of the linguist Epiphanius that (povpva=fornax=
Kti/zii'oy, belonged to the vernacular of Palestine (Hcer. xxx. 12). The Latin
farnus, or even f-urna, in the form N:IB, 'ms, was common among both Jews
and Syrians ; cf. Krauss, BZ, 1893, S. 524 ; Lehnworter, i. 72, ii. 434.

12. (P. 43.) Concerning Acts ii. 5 ff., see above, p. 61. The half foreign
character of the young Church in Jerusalem is confirmed by iv. 36 (Barnabas
from Cyprus), vi. 1-5 (above, p. 63, n. 10), xi. 20 (Kinrpioi KOI Kvprjimloi), xxi.
16 (Mnason, a disciple from the early days of the Church, from Cyprus). Per-
haps we may reckon with these the family of Simon of Gyrene (Mark xv. 21 ;
Rom. xvi. 13 ; below, 22). The further growth is given in iv. 4, without a
statement of their origin ; v. 16 mentions people from the towns in the
neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; vi. 1 refers to the increase of the Church as
occasioning the complaint of the Hellenists, in so far as they seem to have
been forced by it into the background ; vi. 7 speaks of many priests, or more

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 67

probably according to J^S 1 c^Aos 'Iov8aiu>v, i.e. Judeans, cf. Klostermann,
Probleme, 13 ; further, Pharisees are mentioned xv. 5, i.e. certainly genuine
" Hebrews," even if zeal for the law was common to all Jewish Christians in
Palestine, whatever their origin or language, xxi. 20. What was said above,
p. 44, of Ctfisarea, Ptolemais, and Tyre, is probably not true of Damascus.
Although belonging to the Decapolis, it had received no Greek name, but
had, on the contrary, a large Jewish population ; according to Jos. Bell. ii.
20. 2, almost all the wives of the Gentiles were attached to Judaism, and in
the war 10,500 Jewish men were slain in one day. The names Hananyah and
Judah in Acts ix. 10 f. are Hebrew.

13. (P. 46.) Concerning Philo as a Hellene, see above, p. 59, n. 3. The
question to what extent he and other Jews of the diaspora were acquainted
with Hebrew (answered in very different ways, e.g., by Frankel, Vorstudien
zur Septuayinta, S. xv. 45 f., who denies him all such knowledge; and by
Siegfried, Philo, 142ff.) may be allowed to remain unanswered all the more
since the point at issue as between " Hebrews " and Hellenists is not a
scholarly knowledge of Hebrew, but the practical use, either of Greek or of
Aramaic, inaccurately called Hebrew (above, p. 46 f .). Philo, c. Flacc. vi,
states that the Jews in Alexandria and in Egypt, as far as the Ethiopian
border, were no fewer than a hundred myriads (1,000,000). Among perhaps
a hundred and fifty Jewish epitaphs from Rome, there are, according to A.
Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, i. 53, only forty in Latin, the rest indeed,
all those dating from the first three centuries A.D. are in Greek. It is only
seldom that the word " Peace," or " In peace," or " Peace upon Israel, " is
added in the Hebrew language and character. See the list in Berliner, i.
71-92, which is convenient, even if not satisfactory in every respect. For
Aramaic forms in the LXX, see above, p. 18 f. No. 13. Here belongs also
yetcopay for the Heb. nj = irpo(Tri\vTQs, Ex. xii. 19; Isa. xiv. 1 ; cf. above, p.
30, line 45. The translation i/iK^o-r/s in Ps. li. 6, cf. Rom. iii. 4, gives to the
Heb. naj (" to be pure ") the meaning of the Aram. NDI (" to conquer"). Other
Examples in Frankel, 201.

14. (P. 47.) C. I. G. No. 9909, also Schiirer, Gemeindeverfassung der Juden
in Rom, 35, No. 8 epitaph of a certain Salome, daughter of Gadia, who bears
the title of a Trarrjp o-ui/a-ywyr/s Alftpfwv = 'E/SpmW. Another epitaph, first
brought to light by Derenbourg in Melange Renier, 1887, p. 439, calls this
same Gadia " father of the Hebrews " (-rrarpos TO>V 'E/Spewv). For the interpret-
ation given in the text, cf. Schiirer, ibid. 16 ; ibid. Gesch. iii. 46 (Eng. trans.
ii. ii. 248) ; still more definitely Berliner, 104, who cites Neubauer also in
support of this ; while Derenbourg, who appeals to Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 6, etc.,
tries to make out that the Hebrews in and about Rome were Samaritans.
Gadia (Jastrow, 211, JTIJI n. ; Berliner, 55) and Salome were ordinary names
among Palestinian Jews.

15. (Pp. 49, 50, 53.) With this and the following note, cf. the writer's
essay, "Zur Lebensgesch. des Paulus," NZK, 1904, S. 23 ff. (among others
against Momnisen, Z/NTW, 1901, S. 81 ff.) and S. 189 ff. ; also PRE, 3 xv.
61-88. Acts xxii. 3 tells unequivocally in what sense Paul is called Tapo-evs
in xxi. 39, cf. ix. 11, 30, xi. 25. It was a needless supposition of Fabricius,
Cod. apocr. NT, iii. 571, that on account of the tradition to be cited in n. 16
Jerome must have read in Acts xxii. 3 with Cod. A, yfy(i>rjp.fvos (simply

68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

" having been "). The contrast between the birthplace and the place of
education was unmistakable. Starting with the fact that Paul was born in
Tarsus, the Ebionite work entitled dvaftadp-ol 'lanufiov (Epiph. Hcer. xxx. 16,
25) asserts that he was a Hellene on both, his father's and his mother's side.
Paul would not have called himself a citizen of Tarsus if he and his father
had not really possessed, in addition to the civitas Eomana, municipal citizen-
ship in his native town (cf. a number of inscriptions in JHSt. 1889, p. 50 ff.,
Nos. 12-20, 'Pwfj.aios KOI AvSdrrjs, and similar expressions). The fact that
Paul spent the first part of his youth in another city than Jerusalem and
among a population differing in race from him, is attested also in Acts
xxvi. 4 ; for there is no doubt of the genuineness of the re (NABES 1 ), and
certainly not of the TTJV air' apx^s, which Blass strikes out ; and, moreover,
ev TV fdvfi cannot mean "among the Jewish people," which in any case
would be a singular mode of expression in an address to the Jew Agrippa (cf.
contra ij/xerepa, rjp-oiv, xxvi. 5-7), but = ev ry Trarpt'Si fj.ov. For this use of
edvos, cf. below, 21, n. 2. He says in this address that all the Jews know
how from his youth up he has led a life of strict conformity to the law,
and this, too, not merely as a result of his rabbinic training, but " from the
beginning," in his native city of Tarsus, as well as later in Jerusalem. This
piety, inherited as it was and early instilled into him in the home before
ever he sat at Gamaliel's feet (cf. 2 Tim. i. 3), is defined more closely in
xxvi. 5 as Pharisaic piety; cf. Phil. iii. 5; Acts xxiii. 6, where we are certainly
to read <apio-aiW, not <&api<raiov. For several generations the family had
belonged to that party. Moreover, in Gal. i. 14 (T&V n-arpiK.wv [not Trarpoiwi']
/jiov TrapaSocrewi') Paul is thinking of his father, as in Gal. i. 15 of his mother ;
and one can hardly avoid the conjecture that he uses the words 6 dcpopia-a^
pe (Gal. i. 15), u(f)o)pi(Tp.evos (Rom. i. 1), as a play upon the name of the
Pharisees, a name which earlier he had borne with pride, but which now
he can employ in an altogether different sense ; cf. Clem. Horn. xi. 28, TV>V
Qapiaaicav . . . oi eiaiv dcpcupia-p-evot. Cf. Orig. in Matt, serin. 20 (Delarue, iii.
843, cf. 835 f . 847). Epiph. Hcer. xvi. 1 ; Jerome, Interpr. heir. nom. (Lagarde,
Onom, 61. 20, 69. 6 ; also 204. 47).

16. (P. 50.) Jerome in Ep. ad Philem. 23 (Vail. vii. 762) : " Quis sit
Epaphras concaptivus Pauli, talem fabulam accepimus : Ajunt parentes apos-
toli Pauli de Gyscalis regione fuisse Judteae, et eos, quum tota provincia
Romana vastaretur manu et dispergerentur in orbem Judsei, in Tharsuni
urbern Cilicioe fuisse translates ; parentum conditionem adolescentulum
Paulum sequutuni. Et sic posse stare illud quod de se ipse testatur ' Hebraei
sunt,' etc. (2 Cor. xi. 22), et rursum alibi ' Hebrseus ex Hebraeis ' (Phil. iii. 5), et
cetera, quae ilium Judseum magis indicant quarn Tharsensem." Ibid., Vir. 111. v:
" Paulus apostolus . . . de tribu Benjamin et oppido Judteae Giscalis fuit, quo
a Romanis capto cum parentibus suis Tarsum Cilicioa commigravit." From
this latter passage the story passed over into Latin Bibles, cf. Card. Thomasius
Opp., ed. Vezzosi, i. 382 (ex oppido Judcece Egirgalis). The fact should not
have been overlooked that the tradition which is given in full in the com-
mentary on Philem. 23 (written A.D. 387) is essentially altered through care-
less abbreviation in the later work, Vir, III. v. The tradition, in the only
form in which it needs to be considered, does not say that Paul emigrated
with his parents from Gischala to Tarsus, but means that his parents, on the

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 69

occasion of a capture of Gischala by the Romans, were (taken prisoners of
war, and thus, perhaps having been sold as slaves, involuntarily) removed to
Tarsus, and that Paul (inherited and) shared in his youth this condition of
his parents. It surely goes without saying that Jerome learned about this
fabula not through hearsay, but from an older commentary. Probably his
source is Origen's commentary on Philem., cf. GK, ii. 1002. Photius draws
his similar statements (Qucest. Amphil. 116, 117, Migne, 101, col. 688 f. ; per-
haps also the further statements in Quccst. 211, col. 965) from the same
source, and by no means from the Greek translation of Jerome, Vir. 111.,
though he often shows dependence upon this elsewhere (Forsch. ii. 8, iii. 35 ;
Wentzel, Die griech. Ubers. der viri ill. 1895, S. 1 ff.). The ra> 'Pw/ini'Kw Sdpcm
of Photius, <?.'/., corresponds to the Romano, manu of Jerome. Although the
Coptic fragments of the Acts of Paul have furnished no verification, the
supposition remains probable, that this legend, which was quite highly
esteemed by Origen (GK, ii. 865 f.) is the ultimate source of the tradition.
The fabula of Jerome, hardly worthy of notice, is in keeping with his attitude
toward apocryphal writings, which differed from Origen's ; and the Acts of
Paul, which was written circa 170, represents its hero as a Hebrew. Prayers
spoken in Hebrew are represented as being the apostle's last words before
his execution (Ada Petri, Pauli, etc., ed. Lipsius, p. 115 ; GK, ii. 875, 877).
In any case this tradition, which does not contradict Acts, and yet cannot by
any possibility have been derived from it, is too definite to have been invented.
Hero Krenkel, Beitrage z. Gesch. des Paulus, 8ff., is right as against Hausrath,
Neutest. Zeitgesch. 1 ii. 404 ; Schenkel's Bibellex. iv. 408. The criticism of
neither, however, is satisfactory, since both confuse the careless version in Vir.
III. v with the original tradition, and overtax our credulity by the assump-
tion that there existed in Gischala until Jerome's time a true (so Krenkel) or
false (so Hausrath) tradition of this purport. The tradition that Paul's
parents lived in Gischala in Galilee (see Buhl, Geocjr. Palastinas, 233 ;
Schurer, i. 616 ff., ii. 445 f. [Eng. trans. I. ii. 226 f., n. ii. 70 f.]) before
they removed to Tarsus, where their son was born, is one that probably
dates from the second century, is independent, and supplements the NT
statements in a most satisfactory way. If the first person who recorded this
tradition, very probably Jerome, regarded the taking of Gischala by the
Romans in 67 A.D. (Jos. Bell. vi. 2. 1-5), i.e. perhaps about the year of
Paul's death, as the occasion of the captivity of Paul's parents, it was
certainly a gross error on his part. But aside from the fact that we do
not know this certainly, such an error on the part of this reporter would
not prejudice much the essential truth of the tradition worked over by him.
The event might very easily have taken place in the year 4 B.C., when
Galilee suffered severely at the hands of the legions of Varus and his Aiab
auxiliaries ; and among others the inhabitants of Sepphoris were made
captives and slaves (Jos. Ant. xvii. 10. 9 ; Bell. ii. 5. 1 ; cf. the allusion in
Keim, Gesch. Jesu, i. 318, A. 1 [Eng. trans, ii. 15, n. 1]). The story thus corrected
deserves credence for the added reason that in this way it becomes explicable
why such a strict Pharisaic family should have come to Tarsus ; they came to
Tarsus, just as the original contingent of the Roman Jewish population came
to Rome, in the condition of prisoners of war and then slaves. As the latter
for the most part obtained their freedom and at the same time Roman citizen-

70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

ship (above, p. 61), so Paul's father must have done, and that, too, before Paul's
birth, for Paul was born a Roman citizen (Acts xxii. 25-28, cf. xvi. 37 .,
xxiii. 27). As such he must also have had a Roman prasnomen, nomen, and
cognomen in this general form : (Marcus Claudius) Paulus. In the inter-
pretation of a hideous dream, Artenridorus says (Oneirocr. v. 91) : " The
slave receives at his emancipation three names instead of the one which he
has borne hitherto, taking two names from the master who gives him his
freedom. The view that Paul took this name in honour of his convert
Sergius Paulus, was known even to Origen (com: in Rom., prref., Delarue, iv.
460), was spread especially by Jerome ( Vir, III. v ; ad Philem. 1, Vail. vii. 746 f.),
and of late has been defended by Krenkel (18) ; but this view finds no
support in Acts xiii. 9, where it is said simply that in addition to his Jewish
name Saul, Paul bore the Roman name Paulus, the name which Luke uses
thenceforth. Cf. 'lavvaiov TOV KOL 'A\(av8pov, Jos. Ant. xiii. 12. 1 ; also Sipav
6 KOI Tlfrpos (Alexandrin. Inschr. Bull, di arch, crist. 1865, p. 60). Concerning
this formula in general, see the writer's note on Ign. Eph. Inscr., or Deissmann,
Bibclst. 182 (Eng. trans. 313). It is still more improbable that the apostle
exchanged the name Saul for Paul after his conversion ; for Luke applies the
Hebrew name to him after that event as well as before it. It was natural
that a Pharisee who, since his son was born a Roman citizen, had to give him
Roman names, should have given him also a Heb. name, and that Paul should
have ordinarily borne the latter name as a disciple of the rabbis and a persecutor
of the Christians in Jerusalem, and on the other hand his Roman cognomen
as a missionary to the Gentiles. The doubts of Krenkel (20 f.), that an
orthodox Pharisee should have called his son after king Saul, the persecutor
of David, are not sufficient to cast suspicion upon the statement of Acts.
Many contemporaries of the apostle in Palestine were called Saul (Bell. ii.
17. 4, a relative of the house of Herod ; Bell. ii. 18. 4, a prominent man in
Scythopolis) ; Abba Shaul is a rabbinic authority of the second century
(Strack, Einl. in d. Talmud, 84) ; moreover, the female name Shaulah occurs
in rabbinic circles (Levy, Neuhebr. Lex. iv. 491). The question whether the
fathers who bestowed these names thought more of king Saul, who was by
no means a monster, and who like Paul belonged to the tribe of Benjamin
(Rom. xi. 1 ; Phil. iii. 5), or of the meaning of the word (" the one asked
for"), need not be considered. Conjectures as to why the particular name
Paul was chosen are to be found in a letter of Levy to Delitzsch, ZfLTh.
1877, S. 12.

17. (Pp. 51, 52.) The question as to what extent Paul shows a knowledge
of the Hebrew O.T. is in no wise settled by the work of KAUTZSCH, De VTi locis
a Paulo apostolo allegatis, 1869, or of VOLLMER, Die alttest. Citate bci Paulus, 1895.
At the same time, isolated remarks in reply, for which alone there would be
room here, would not help in its solution. Cf. Konig, ThLb, 1896, No. 14.

18. (P. 51.) E. CURTIUS, Sitzungsber. der Berliner Akad. 1893, S. 934 :
" Paul did not acquire Greek as a missionary acquires the language of the
natives, in order to make himself understood by them as far as might be
necessary. Paul did not acquire the language for missionary purposes at all,
but grew up in it." With the qualification made above in the text, this is
correct. Blass, Gr. des neutest. Griech. 2 5 f. (Eug. trans. 2nd ed. 5), finds in
Paul's speech before Agrippa, which he regards as "very accurately repro-

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 71

duced," signs that Paul was in a measure familiar with the finer Attic forms,
and made use of them when before a select audience.

19. (P. 52.) Even in early times attention was paid to Paul's quotations
from profane literature, Clem. Strom, i. 59 (cf. Pcr.d. ii. 50 ; Epiph. Hwr. xlii.,
ed. Pet. p. 362 ; Jerome, Ep. Ixx ad Mayn. ; comm. in Gal. iv., Eph. v., Tit. i.
(Vail. i. 426, vii. 471, 647, 706) ; Socrat. H. E. iii. 16 ; pseudo-Euthalius
(Zacagni, Hon. coll. i. 420, 543, 545, 558, 567). Concerning Tit. i. 12, see
below, 35, n. 1. The verse from the Thais of Menander (Frarjm. com. gr. t
ed. Meineke, iv. 132), or, according to the Church historian Socrates, from
a tragedy of Euripides (cf. Clem. Strom, i. 59), which Paul appropriates in
1 Cor. xv. 33, is not, to be sure, quoted by him as the saying of a poet. But,
on the other hand, we are not to conclude from the fact that the Pauline
text as handed down is without the metrical form (xpi]<r&\ as Lachmann
printed it, instead of xpjjora, the form handed down), that Paul dictated the
word in unmetrical form, and was not conscious that he was quoting poetry.
Copyists have very frequently destroyed the metrical form of such quota-
tions (e.g. Just. Apol. i. 39, -yXwo-o-a o/ico/io/cev for yXaxra-' <'jua>juox' in a verse
of Euripides). In a sacred text, which was to be read in church, anything
that would remind of a comedy would be disturbing rather than pleasing.
Yet in later times verses from Menander were inscribed even on Christian
tombstones (C. I. G. No. 3902r ; Ritter, De compos, tit. christ. 27 ; de Rossi, Inscr.
christ. ii. 1, procem. viii.). In Acts xvii. 28, where TYO^T^V is an addition
to fit the facts which does not make its appearance until the second recension
of the text, the idea expressed in any case is that several writers have said
essentially the same thing. The quotation agrees literally with Aratus, Phai-
nom. v. 5 ; as also Acts xvii. 25 corresponds to the preceding sentence in
Aratus, Travrrj <5e 6eov KexpfjfJ-fda Trdvres. Cf. also the citation of the Jew,
Aristobulos, in Eus. Prcep. xiii. 12. 6 ; but a quite similar thing is said by
Cleanthes, Hymn, in Jovem, v. 4 (Mullach, Philos. grcec. fracjm. i. 150), <
dov yap ytvos ta-p.fv. Aratus of Soloi in Cilicia, whither his family probably
moved from Tarsus, is thought to have composed his Phainomena in Athens
(see in brief, Knaack in Pauly-Wissowa, .RE, ii. 394); Cleanthes was for
years a disciple of Zeno in Athens, and then head of the Stoic school there
until his death. Paul could therefore reckon them both among the Athenian
poets. Since both were Stoics, he could also say with reference to the Stoics
present (xvii. 18), rivts TU>V KO$' vfjias noir/Taiv.

20. (P. 53.) With the statement in the text concerning Tarsus (above,
p. 54), cf. Strabo, xiv. p. 673. That writer also mentions a considerable
number of well-known Stoics and other philosophers also and of philologists
who came from Tarsus. Cf. Lightfoot, Ep. to the Phil., 3rd ed. p. 301 ff.,
ibid. 308 ; Hill. Essays, 205 f. Concerning the time of waiting in Tarsus, cf.
the Chronological Survey, Part XI., and also Skizzen, 67, 69.

21. (P. 56.) Jos. SCALIGER, who in his Animadv. in chron. Eusebii after
the Thes. temp. 1606, p. 124, ed. 1658, p. 134, reproduced correctly the ancient
interpretation (above, p. 60) of 'EXXqi/torai, Acts vi. 1, nowhere to my knowledge
speaks of Hellenistic language. On the contrary, JOH. DRUSIUS, Annot. in NT,
1612, on Acts vi. 1 (Critici sacri, Frankf. 1696, torn. iv. 2193) writes : " Hi grseca
biblia in synagogis legebant et grace sciebant, peculiari dialccto utentes, quam
hellenisticam vocant, cujus frequens mentio in his libris." On the analogy of

72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

ol (Toffriorai (sc. rex^r], ewtoTty/Hj), derived from rj cro<f)i<mKr), we might have had
01 'EXXTji/iorai, formed from r} eXX^no-rno; StdXeKro? ; but such is not the case.
Further, since Luke, who in the extant literature is the first writer and the
only one for a long period to use this word, unquestionably understands by
'EXXiji/torai Jews, it did not seem unfitting to call the Greek used by such
Jews Hellenistic. But this limitation of the concept lies merely in the his-
torical setting here. In itself the word 'EXKrjvicrTai refers to all non- Hellenes
who speak Greek or who in general have adopted Greek customs and ways
of thinking. Indeed, the intrans. fXXrjvi^eiv taken alone means simply "to
speak Greek," and in general " to appear as a Greek " ; yet it lies in the
nature of things that it is used only where there is a contrast to other
languages (Luc. Philopseudes, 16, t\\rivia>v fj ftapftapifav), and hence as a
rule only of non-Greeks (Xenoph. Anab. vii. 3. 25 ; ^;Eschmes, c. Ctesiph. 54 of
Demosthenes with reference to his Scythian grandmother, /3dp/3apoj eXXrjvifav
TV (pavf)'), just as jjupaL^ftv denotes Roman waj r s of thinking on the part of non-
Romans (Jos. Bell. ii. 20. 3), and lovbaifav Jewish manner of life on the part
of non-Jews (Gal. ii. 14). Moreover, the transitive and occasionally passive
eXXr)vi(iv (Thuc. ii. 68 ; Jos. Ant. i. 6. 1) and d^eXX^ifeii/ (Philo, above, p.
59, n. 3) must everywhere mean simply to make Greek a person or thing that
is not Greek ; cf. " Germanise," " Anglicise," and similar terms. So also
{\\T)vi<rp6s means, as a rule, Greek ways adopted by non-Greeks. We are not
justified by such passages as 2 Mace. iv. 13 (above, p. 58, n. 2, line 4) in limiting
this concept to Greek language, culture, and customs only so far as they were
appropriated by Jews ; we must rather apply the term Hellenism to all the
Greek culture spread abroad since Alexander's time among the barbarian
peoples, and thereby modified according to their individual peculiarities.
On the same principle, dialectus hellenistica must denote all Greek spoken by
barbarians (Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, Phrygians, Scythians) with its conse-
quent modifications in each case. As a matter of fact, the term " Hellen-
istic " has often been used in this sense, and, what is altogether confusing,
the Hebraistic colouring of the Greek written by Jews has even been con-
trasted with Hellenistic, and in the works written by Jews in Greek the
Hebraisms as a rule have been distinguished as exceptions from the Hellen-
istic used elsewhere in them. If a writer is unwilling to give up the un-
fortunate concept of the dialectus or liwjua hellenistica, he should state clearly
in the preface to the work in which he is going to use the term whether he
employs it in the narrow sense which Drusius gave it, or in the wider sense
so common to-day. In the former case, Hebraisms would be just the char-
acteristic marks of that peculiaris dialectus. In the latter case, the Greek
written by Jews would be a variety within that species of Greek speech
which people choose to call " Hellenistic." Likewise this variety, in dis-
tinction, say, from the Greek which Copts (Egyptians) wrote, would be recog-
nised by its Hebrew or Aramaic colouring ; for in proportion as Jews have
been able to divest themselves of their national peculiarities in the use of
the Greek, they have approached or fully adopted the common Greek,
whether that was the cultured literary language or the vulgar colloquial
of their time.

II.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.

3. THE DESTINATION OF THE LETTEE INDICATED

BY THE GKEETING.

REGARDING the origin of this Epistle, there is no tradition
whose certain age or apparent originality makes it of use
as a guide in the investigation. Though the document
itself is in the form of a letter, it contains very little
which can be connected with events of which we have
knowledge from other sources. With the exception of
the author (i. 1), mention is made of no person living at
the time when the letter was written ; nor is there notice
of any historical event which had taken place in the im-
mediate past, nor reference to any event that had hap-
pened in the life of the author or of the readers (n. 1).
Nothing is said which indicates the abode of the author
or the place where the readers lived. Here, as in the
case of all the N.T. Epistles, the address placed on the
outside of the letter, and designed to assist the messenger
in delivering it into the proper hands, has not been pre-
served (n. 2). On the other hand, unlike some of the N.T.
Epistles (1 John, Heb.), James does retain the salutation
at the beginning of the letter, which in ancient literature
contained both the address to the reader, as is customary
in modern letters, and as a rule also the writer's signa-
ture. Doubtless in many instances it happened that per-
sons receiving letters did not know from whom they came
until they opened them and saw the writer's name in the

74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

greeting. On the other hand, as a general rule, the address
to the reader served no such practical purpose, but, like the
greeting proper with which the superscription was gene-
rally concluded, it could be used to express in various
ways the esteem in which the person addressed was held
and the way in which the writer felt toward him. Con-
sequently, in greetings of this kind, we generally find,
in addition to the mention of the person addressed by
name, and where necessary of his place of residence also,
elements of a purely ideal character (n. 3). There are
instances in the N.T. of greetings where the designation
of the person addressed is altogether of this kind, as, in
fact, is the case with Jas. i. 1.

Hopeless as the undertaking may seem in the absence
of every other clue, we are compelled, provisionally at least,
to seek a historical and geographical background for the
letter by an exegetical discussion of the words rat? SwSe/ca
</)tA,at? Tai<? ev rfj Biaa-jropa. Taken alone, the words at
SwSefea (f>v\al can hardly mean anything but the Jewish
people, and the Jewish people in their entirety (n. 4).
But throughout the entire letter it is clearly presupposed,
both by implication and by express statement (ii. 1), that
the readers as a body accept Jesus as the Messiah. Even
if this were not so, it hardly needs proof that what we
have here is not an epistolary address to the entire Jewish
nation (u. 5). Naturally, therefore, one looks to the
accompanying rat? ev rfj Siaa-Tropa to supply the exacter
definition which the conception requires. That this modi-
fying phrase gives a characterisation of the readers'
situation which cannot be logically dispensed with, and
which is by no means unimportant for the determination
of the conception itself, is clear from the conditions
existing in apostolic and post-apostolic times (u. 6). At
that time no one could say that the Jewish nation as such
was living in a dispersion, either as regards its condition
or its location, nor is any such statement made. No

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 75

matter how largely the Jews were living outside of Pales-
tine, and no matter how widely they were scattered, the
nation retained its fatherland. Long after Jerusalem was
destroyed, and even after the still more stringent measures
adopted by Hadrian, Jews and Jewish Christians called
Palestine "the land of Israel," and so it is spoken of
to-day (n. 7). Jews living abroad, such as Philo, for
example, nevertheless considered Jerusalem, " where stood
the temple of the Most High God," their capital (c. Place, vii ;
Leg. ad Cai. xxxvi). The high priests ruling in Jerusalem
treated Palestine, with its land and people, as their domain
(John xi. 48), and Jews living in Palestine were accustomed
to speak of their countrymen living abroad as the diaspora
among the Greeks (John vii. 35), as the exiles in Babylon
and other lands, in contrast to themselves who lived in
the land of their fathers and constituted the nation (n. 7).
Consequently no author informed at all as to the facts
could say that the Jewish nation was living in the diaspora.
On the other hand, if it is assumed that someone hostile
to the Jewish nation made use of this exao-o-erated and

awkward expression (instead of some such phrase as rat?

Kara iracrav rrjv ol/covfMevr/v StecrTrap/u.ei'ai?) in Order to direct

attention to the sorry plight into which the Jews had
fallen, one is still at a loss to understand why he makes
it include his Christian readers also, and how he could
have omitted to indicate by a word the religious condition
which distinguished his readers from Israel as a whole.
These objections retain their full force also against the
interpretation, often attempted, by which it is maintained
that, so far as the words are concerned, James does address
the Jews living outside of Palestine, but really means
the Jewish Christians living outside of Palestine (n. 8).
And besides, this construction stands in absolute contra-
diction to the idea of the " Twelve Tribes " which indicates
specifically the Jewish people with special emphasis upon
their entirety. The interpretation is right only in its

76 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEAV TESTAMENT

recognition of the fact that rat? cv r. 8. is one of those
appositives or attributes which complete the idea and at
the same time express a contrast to another determination
of it which might be possible, or which is assumed to be
known (n. 6). Here the contrast is not between individual
Jews, or single tribes of Israel, and the remaining Jews
or tribes, but between the " Twelve Tribes" which live in
the dispersion, so constituting a homeless diaspora, and
another " Twelve Tribes " of which this is not true. It
is only by such an assumption that we get a natural
explanation of the omission of the usual rov 'la-pa^X after
rcu<? B. <f>. (n. 4). This phrase is replaced by one which,
while on the one hand retaining the comparison with the
Jewish people, on the other brings the object which it
describes into sharp contrast with the Jewish people.
Unlike the twelve tribes who have Palestine for their
native land, Jerusalem for their capital, and the temple
as a centre of religious worship, the twelve tribes ad-
dressed in the letter have no earthly fatherland, nor any
capital upon earth, but always, no matter where they may
be settled, live scattered in a strange world, like the Jewish
exiles in Mesopotamia or Egypt. It is no new doctrine
concerning a twofold Israel which James develops here ;
this would be entirely out of place in a greeting. He
assumes that his readers are familiar with the general
thought which he has in mind ; and more than this, that
the language which he uses to express the idea will be
understood at once. It is not likely that he was mis-
taken (n. 9). It is only for us moderns, before w r e have
made a careful examination of the historical conditions
under which the letter was written, that the greeting
can have a double meaning. The expression, the twelve
tribes in the diaspora, may mean either the entire body
of Christians living at the time, the sense in which Peter
and Paul use practically identical expressions, or it may
mean the believing Israel, the entire body of Jewish

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 77

Christians, a sense in which Paul sometimes uses expres-
sions of this kind. Between these two meanings the
letter itself must decide. It is to be remembered, how-
ever, that there was a time when such an alternative did
not exist, because the believing Israel constituted the
entire Church (n. 10).

1. (P. 73.) Some writers have thought that they found in Jas. v. 11 a
reference to the death of Jesus as an event that had taken place before the eyes
of the readers. This is the view of as late a writer as W. Schmidt, Lchrbegr.
des Jakobus, 76. But since in the same verse 6 Kvpios undoubtedly refers to
God, Kvpios without the article, occurring as it does just a few words before,
cannot possibly mean Jesus. Where there is a distinction, it is in the reverse
direction, nvpios meaning God, and 6 Kvpias, Jesus (Jas. v. 8, 10, 14, 15). If the
death of Jesus is to be understood, then we must remember that this was in
no way witnessed by " the twelve tribes in the dispersion," that no one at all
saw the resurrection, and that only a few beheld the ascension. There is no
intelligible reference to the patience of Jesus or to His blessed departure con-
tained in TO reXos. In fact, the juxtaposition of UTTO/XOI/TJ and Te'Xo? (cf. Matt.
x. 22, xxiv. 13 ; Jas. i. 4) makes it clear that what is meant is the end in
keeping with Job's patience and constancy, the end which God the Lord
put to His testing of Job. On logical grounds the reading "Sere has much to
commend it ; and if this is the true reading, there should be a heavy mark of
punctuation before it. It was so understood even by Greek commentators :
Leontius, c. Aphthardoc. et Nestor, iii. 13 ; Cramer, Cat. viii. 35. Among more
recent writers, see Hofmann, ad loc.

2. (P. 73.) The salutations which stand at the head of most letters of
antiquity preserved to us in literature are not to be confused with the address
of the letter, the inscription written upon the outside of the sealed Epistle.
Among the Agypt. Urkunden aus den lerliner Museen, which have been
appearing in parts since 1892, as in other collections of similar content,
there are not a few letters, mostly of a business character and dating from
the first century A.D., which illustrate this relation, and which are instructive
in other ways also. No. 37 of the 15th Aug. 51 (i.e. about contemporaneous
with James) has at the top of the enclosed letter Mvarapicov Srorojyn T t5i'o>
TrXeiora ^ai'petv, and on the outside has the address Sroro^n Aeo-wi'j; els rrjv
v?]O~ov T . . . No. 93, riroXf/za? (sic) 'A/3oi)(ri) TW rt/itwrdi^w) irarpl 77X(eicrra)
Xai'peiv, the outside address 'AfiovTi oi>fTpav<a -^(aipeiv) Tr(apa) ITroX(e p.aiov)
vlov. Sometimes the address on the outside names also the place of
destination : No. 423, els 3>i\aSf\(f>iav 'EITI/JLU^ dn-o 'Airiatvos vlov. After
this a still more precise direction to the bearer, introduced by aTroSos (" to
be delivered at"). This form of the address is particularly common : Nos.
38, 164, 261, 332, 435, 523, 530. Near as address and salutation often
stand to one another, yet these examples confirm the fact that there is a dis-
tinction and that a self-evident one between the two, the address being
primarily a direction for the bearer, though occasionally informing the re-
ceiver from whom the letter comes before he opens it, the salutation, on the

78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

other hand, being an address and greeting directed to the recipient of the
letter. Chrysostom (Montfaucon, iii. 55) remarks that on receiving a letter
one is not wont to read immediately what is within, aXXa Trpnrepov TTJV
eu>dev cntypa(pf]v (jrepxopeda. KOI e' fKfivrjs fUlvBdvOfiXV Kal TOV 7rffj.\l/a.i>Ta KOL
TOV ocpeiXovTo. vTTo8facr6ai. Since the address served its purely practical pur-
pose at the moment of delivery, it is not to be wondered at that it fell away
in the literary transmission of letters. Especially with more voluminous
letters consisting of several sheets, in ancient as in modern times, the address,
together with the enfolding sheet (envelope) on which it was written, in most
cases probably was soon destroyed. The salutation, on the other hand, which
in case of proper delivery of the letter served no practical end, and hence
occasionally could even be omitted altogether, was regularly transmitted in
the literature together with the other essential and constituent parts of the
letter. Of the three letters in the Aristeas legend (Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 4-6), the
first has only an address, the second and third have only a salutation. Of
the three regular parts of ancient salutations (name of the writer of the letter
in the nominative, name of the recipient in the dative, and greeting), the
third had among the Greeks from ancient times usually the form xaiptiv,
the form employed in Jas. i. 1, but only twice elsewhere in the N.T., Acts
xv. 23, xxiii. 26 ; cf. the six letters of king Philip (Epistologr. gr., ed. Hercher,
461 ff.). The remark of Artemidorus, Oneirocr. iii. 44, 'i8iov yap irda-rjs eVi-
oroXijs TO x a ~ l P e Ka ' tppwo-o (cf. Acts xv. 23, 29), is not to be taken literally
with reference to the opening salutation ; for unless the greeting took the
form of a grammatically independent sentence, the writer's designation of
himself in the third person required, instead of the x a 'P e usual in oral
address (seldom so in letters, Barn. Epist. ; Berl. ag. Urk. 435, 821 ; Oxijrh.
Pap. i. 189, No. 122 ; Faydm towns, p. 285, No. 129), the elliptical infinitive
Xaipuv dependent on Xeyet, ei'^ercu understood (cf. 2 John 10, 11) and often
strengthened by TrXaora, cf . Berl. tig. Urk. 37, 93, 623 ; Ign. ad Polyc. (address) ;
in the other letters of Ignatius except ad Philad. there are Christian em-
bellishments. Other Greek forms, such as ev vpaTreiv, preferred by Plato to
xaipeiv, it is alleged, and employed in the pseudo-Platonic letters (Hercher,
492 ff., especially Ep. 3, p. 496 ; cf. Plato, Charmides, 164), and lyialvav (Berl.
ay. Urk. 775, 794), which writers as early as Pythagoras and Epicurus are said
to have used commonly (Lucian, de lapsu in salut. 4-6, cf. Pearson, Annot.
in epist. Ign., ed. Smith, 6 ; Bernays, Lucian und die Kyniker, 3 f ., 88 f.),
did not pass over into common Christian usage ; cf., however, Acts xv. 29,
fv Trpd^fre, and 3 John 2, (voftovadat KOI vyiaiveiv, also as early a passage as
2 Mace. i. 10.

3. (P. 74.) We find prosaic mention of place united to ideal elements in
all Epistles addressed to local Churches, i.e. in those of Paul except the private
letters and Eph., also in Rev. i. 4 ; 1 Pet. ; Clem. 1 Cor. ; in the letters of
Ignatius, of Polycarp, and of the Churches of Smyrna (Mart. Polyc.) and of
Lyons (Eus. H. E.v. 1. 3). Every external indication of the recipient, such
as would have been necessary for the address of a letter, is lacking in Eph.
i. 1 ( 28, n. 4) ; 2 Pet. i. 1 ; Jude 1 ; 2 John 1, and probably also Rom. i. 7.

4. (Pp. 74, 76.) Usually we find (TOV) 'ItrpaijX or words of similar meaning
appended to a! SciSe/ca $vXcu : Ex. xxiv. 4 ; Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 30 ; Rev.
xxi. 12 ; Protev. Jac. 1. 1 ; cf. Acts xxvi. 7, TO do)8(Ka<pv\ov fjp.5>t> ; Clem. 1 Cor.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 79

lv. 6, ro 8(o8fKa(f)v\ov rov 'lap. ; Protev. Jac. 1. 3, r^v 8(a8ndv\ov r. 'lap. (see
the variants in Tischendorf, p. 3 ; Thilo, Cod. ap. 166) ; Test. patr. Napht. 5,
ra 8o>8tK.a cncijTrrpa row 'lap. ; Clem. 1 Cor. xxxi. 4, ro 8o)8(KiiaKT}irTpov rou 'lap.;
Just. Dial, cxxvi, vptnv al SG>Se/<a <pv\ai. The context alone can render such
an addition unnecessary, e.g. Ex. xxxix. 14; Sibyll. iii. 249. This is not
practicable, however, at the beginning of a letter, especially of such a one as
James, which at all events is not addressed to the Jewish people. Conse-
quently Jas. i. 1 is distinguished from all the other passages cited by its lack
of a genitive with at 8. <p. Further, it must be borne in mind that since the
political separation of the Israelitish people and State, and especially since the
return of but a fraction of the nation from the Exile, at Swfieica <p. r. 'la-p. was
synonymous with an emphatic jraaai al (p. T. 'lap. (Josh. xxiv. 1 ; Judg. xxi.
5-8) or nas'lapaqX (2 Chron. xxix. 24, cf. xxx. 1, 5 ; Horn. xi. 26), cf.Ezra vi. 17
or 1 Kings xviii. 31 with xiv. 21, or Ezek. xlvii. 13 with xlviii. 19, or
Sir. xxxiii. 11 (avvdyaye Trdaas (pvXas 'laKto^) with xliv. 23, or Eev. xxi. 12
with vii. 4. Over against the statement " All Israel (Vx^ "73) has a share in
the future world " (Mishnah Sanhedrin x. 1), Rabbi Akiba declared : "The
ten tribes will not return," in reply to which Rabbi Eliezer, plainly in de-
pendence upon Isa. viii. 23-ix. 1, asserted that at last the light would arise
again upon them also (Sanh. x. 3). It goes without saying that it would have
been quite impossible for a Jew and Christian of ancient times to designate
as the people of the twelve tribes a part of the Jewish people, such as the
Jews of the diaspora ; and even if this were not self-evident, it would be
proved most clearly by the Apocalypse of Baruch, written probably c. 80
A.D. Viewed from the standpoint of the time after the first destruction
of Jerusalem, the nation divides itself into three parts : (1) the two and a
half tribes of the former kingdom of Judah, which were deported to Babylon ;
(2) the nine and a half tribes of the former northern kingdom, which were
deported farther toward the north-east ; and (3) the few from all twelve tribes
who remained behind among the ruins of Zion (Ixxvii. 1-19, Ixxviii. 1,
Ixxx. 4f., cf. i. 2, Ixii. 5, Ixiii. 3, Ixiv. 5). Including these three divisions,
Baruch writes, Ixxviii. 4 : " Ecce colligati sumus nos omnes duodecim tribus
uno vinculo." On this point cf. the fantastic speculations about the lost ten,
or nine and a half, tribes in 2 Esdr. xiii. 40 ff., and in the writings of the
Christian Commodianus, Instr. ii. 1, Apol. 941-998, ed. Dombart. See also
Zo'ckler, Bibl. und Kircheng. Studien, v. 74-114.

5. (P. 74.) This was the view of M. Baumgarten, Apostelyesch. ii. 2. 121.
So far as the formal correctness of the exegesis of Jas. i. 1 is concerned, this is
certainly to be preferred to the view of H. Grotius on Jas. i. 1 and of Creduer,
Einl. 595, that the letter is addressed to "Jews outside of Palestine" quite
aside from their division into Christian and unbelieving Jews ; and also to
the view of Spitta, that the letter was written by a Jew and addressed to the
Jews in the diaspora who had not been touched at all by Christianity as
yet ; see n. 8 and 8. But what was said above in the text is a sufficient
answer to Baumgarten as well.

6. (Pp. 74, 76.) The history of the interpretation of Jas. i. 1 compels us to
recall some rather trivial considerations. We must decide whether rats eV rfj
SiaaTropa belongs to that class of appositives and attributives which could be
omitted without impairing the logical and grammatical completeness of the

So INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

concept, or whether we have here really a closer definition and limitation
of the concept, a contrast being thus expressed to something else under the
more general class to which the concept might be referred if it were not for
this closer specification. Examples of the first kind are Jas. ii. 25, f/
Matt. i. 6, TOV fiacriKfa ; Matt. xxi. 11,6 dtro Nafape'0 ; Acts xxiv. 5, 7ra<rtv
'lovSaiois TIHS Kara rijv oiKov/jifv^v ("all Jews" are nothing more nor less than
"the Jews in the whole world ") ; Mark iv. 31, in like manner, IFUVTOV T&V
(rirepfj-uTcov TOJV eVl rrjs -yrjs. Examples of the second kind are Rorn. x. 5, rf/v
en TOV vofjiov (cf. Phil. iii. 9) ; 2 Cor. i. 1, rf/ 01/0-77 eV KopiVtfw ; Acts xi. 22,
xv. 23, TO'IS e' edvwv, in contrast to the writers and their Jewish fellow be-
lievers. In many cases, such as Gal. i. 22 (Is rals ev Xpia-rut in contrast to
unbelieving Jewish communities ?), the decision may remain doubtful, but
not so in Jas. i. 1.

7. (P. 75.) In the Pesachhaggadah (ed. D. Cassel, 5): " Here this year, next
year in the land of Israel." So in Matt. ii. 20 f., and very commonly in the
Mishnah, e.g. Baba Kamma vii. 7 ; Jebamoth xvii. 7, and above, p. 22, n. 4.
Also in direct contrast to the diaspora in Babylonia, e.g. Bab. Sanhedr. 38a.
Aiao-TTopu, like the corresponding n^3, m!?j, ttmhi (Levy, Neuhebr. Lex. i. 332,
Jastrow, 221, 247), had originally the abstract meaning "act or state of dis-
persion, banishment from home " (Jer. xv. 7 ; Dan. xii. 2 ; LXX Ps. Sol.
ix. 2 ; Clem. Horn. iii. 44 ; so also 1 Pet. i. 1, 38, n. 5) ; it then came to
mean "the territory in which the banished ones are dispersed" (Judith v. 19 ;
so also Jas. i. 1 and John vii. 35, since we should there read not els, but
Trpos Tijv diiunropav TU>V 'E\\T)va>v ; cf. Parahp. Jeremice : Eapov^ direoreiXev
els TTJV Siaa-rropav TO>V e'6v<av, cited by Wetstein, i. 888, on John vii. 35, not to
be found in Ceriani, Monum. v. 1-18) ; finally, it meant "the Jews dwelling
in scattered communities outside the home land (Deut. xxviii. 25, Cod. B,
ea-rj uiao-TTopd ; Isa. xlix. 6 ; 2 Mace. i. 27 ; Ps. Sol. viii. 34 f.), the same who in
Gamaliel's letters are called " sons of the diaspora," above, pp. 10, 33.

8. (P. 75.) This was probably the meaning of Didymus (Migne, xxxix.
1749), " Judseis scribit in dispersione constitutis," with the note appended that
this could be interpreted also of the spiritual Israel. Most significant is the
way in which pseudo-Euthalius, in order to gain the desired meaning, improves
upon the clumsy author (Zacagni, Coll. mon. i. 486), rots OTTO TO>V SwSeKa
(pvXuv 8ia<nrape'i<Tiv KOI TrL(TTeva-acriv els TOV Kvpiov q(j.>v 'I. Xp. Even apart
from this additional assumption that they were Christian Jews, the mode of
expression presupposed in James would be hardly more sensible than ex-
pressions, say, like this : " that German nation which lives in America." If
he had been speaking of real Jews, James must have written TO'IS ev Tfj
Siacnropa 'lovSaiois or dSfXcpoT? ; cf. 2 Mace. i. 1 (also i. 10), TO!S d8f\cpais rots
/car' A.'iyvTTTov 'lovSaiois ; Apoc. Baruchi, Ixxviii. 2, "fratribus in captivitatem
abductis" ; see also the letters of Gamaliel, above, pp. 10, 33. To this day the
expression used by James as a rule is grossly misinterpreted : (1) al 8. (p.=
" the Jewish people in its entirety " ; (2) as limited by TOLS ev T. 8. = the Jews
dwelling outside of Palestine ; (3) = Christians, but only as determined from
the contents of the Epistle. Cf. the commentaries of Kern, 79 ; Wiesinger, 49 ;
Beyschlag, 43. This seems to be the view of Mayor also, who, in his
introduction, ex., refers us to his comment on Jas. i. 1, p. 30, and in his
comment on that passage refers to the introduction, without, in either place,

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 81

going into a very thorough discussion of the concepts. Kecently (1896) this
position has been taken by Spitta with the greatest frankness, Zur Gesch. u.
Literatur des Urchristentums, ii. 14, though he abandons the idea that either
author or readers are Christians ; see below, 8.

9. (P. 76.) Since this idea is important in several questions of N.T. intro-
duction, its development must be set forth briefly here. Even the Baptist,
gathering suggestions as he did from O.T. prophecies, conceived at least as
possible a future race of Abraham, into which non-Jews would be received in
place of unworthy Israelites (Matt. iii. 9 ; Luke iii. 8). In the mouth of Jesus
this thought became the prediction of a future actuality (Matt. viii. 11 f., xxii.
9f. ; Luke xiii. 28 f., xiv. 21 f. ; John x. 16, xii. 32, cf. xii. 20 ; also on the
negative side, John viii. 33-40 ; Matt. xv. 13). Jesus spoke of this future
fellowship as of another edvos in contrast with the Jewish people led by the
high priests and rabbis (Matt. xxi. 43). There is, of course, no need of proof
to show that He meant His readers to understand by this, not some other par-
ticular nation, the Greek, e.g., in which case all non-Greeks, His own disciples
at that time among the rest, would have been excluded from it, but rather
the same people of God whom He elsewhere called His Church, and represented
as a house to be built by Him (Matt. xvi. 18, xviii. 17). The thought that
the Christian Church, composed of men of various nationalities, and based
not on birth at all, but on faith in Jesus, was a new people of God, the true
race of Abraham, or a spiritual Israel, was consequently implanted in His
Church from the beginning, and was developed by it in manifold directions.
Indeed, an instance of this is the frequent likening of Christ's redemption of
mankind or of His Church to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (1 Cor.
v. 7, x. 1 ff. ; Rev. i. 5 f., v. 9 f. ; 1 Pet. i. 15-20 ; Jude 5), a comparison which
found expression also at every celebration of the Lord's Supper, this feast
serving as the antitype of the Passover meal. Paul especially developed the
thought that the Church, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, was the
legitimate continuation of the people of God which began with Abraham
(Rom. 4 ; Gal. iii. 7-29 ; 1 Cor. x. 1) ; or, to put it in another way, that the
Gentiles, who before were excluded from citizenship in Israel and from the
sphere of saving revelation, were now, so far as they had become believers,
incorporated into the holy people (Eph. ii. 11-22), or, like wild olive branches,
were grafted into the good olive tree (Rom. xi. 17-24). While in these
passages Paul represents Christianity as the continuation of the O.T. Church,
being simply an enlargement of Israel through the reception of believing
Gentiles, in other passages, written from a different point of view, the great
schism which Jesus produced in His own nation finds its appropriate ex-
pression. It is, after all, not the Jewish nation, but only a small fraction of
it, which has united with the believing Gentiles to form a new people of
God. In contrast to the Jewish people, the vastly greater part of which will
have nothing to do with the gospel, and, like Ishmael, is begotten according
to the flesh, since it is connected with Abraham only through bodily descent
and other externalities. Christianity is like Isaac, who was begotten accord-
ing to the promise, i.e., according to the Spirit, but was persecuted by his
brother (Gal. iv. 21-31). The thought that the Christian Church, in contrast
to the Jewish people, is the spiritual Israel, is so usual with Paul, that he
once tacitly presupposes it, and quite incidentally calls the Jewish people

VOL. I. 6

82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

with its cultus " Israel according to the flesh " (1 Cor. x. 18 ; cf. Buttmann,
Neutest. Grammatik, 81 [Eug. trans. 92]). This spiritual Israel also has its
metropolis, which likewise can be termed Jerusalem. It lies, however, not in
Palestine, but in heaven, where the ascended King of the spiritual Israel is
enthroned (Gal. iv. 26, cf. Heb. xii. 22). There the members of the true
Israel are enrolled, even while still living upon earth (Phil. iv. 3, cf. Luke x.
20) ; there is the proper seat of the commonwealth, of which they are citizens
even here (Phil. iii. 20), and there they are received if they die before the
return of the Lord (2 Tim. iv. 18). The reverse side of this view is that
Christians here have no sure and abiding dwelling-place (Heb. xiii. 14) and
no citizenship. Peter gave especial prominence to this idea, not only trans-
ferring to the Gentile Churches all Israel's titles of honour (1 Pet. ii. 9 f., cf. i.
15), but also likening their condition in the world to that of those Jews who
are scattered abroad far from their native land, calling them sojourners in
distinction from the citizens of the cities and lands in which they dwelt, or
strangers who tarry only for a time, in contrast to those who live upon this
earth as if they could remain here always (i. 1, 17, ii. 11 ; cf. 38). It is to
Peter that most of the later Church usage with regard to napoiKflv, TrapoiKia is
related : Clem. 1 Cor. (address) ; 2 Cor. v. 1, 5 ; Polyc. ad Phil, (address) ; Mart.
Polyc. (address) ; Dion. Corinth, in Eus. H. E. iv. 23. 5 ; Epist. Lugd. in Eus.
v. 1. 3 ; Apollonius in Eus. v. 18. 9 ; Irenseus in Eus. v. 24. 14. Indeed, the
connection is traceable even down to our attenuated use of " parish." More-
over, the concept of the Sicunropd is further developed in Iren. i. 10. 1 (8if<nrap-
fjifvT)) ; iii. 11. 8 ; Can. Mur. 77 (GK, ii. 7, 142). Hernias, Sim. ix. 17, in a
manner quite characteristic of him and yet often misunderstood, applied the
figure of the twelve tribes to all mankind as the field of mission work and
the source of the materials for the building of the Church ; cf. the writer's
Hirt des Hermas, 223-232. On the other hand, Hermas represents the Church
as the true Israel, making Michael Israel's guardian angel, the chief overseer of
the Church, Sim. viii. 3. 3 ; cf. the writer's Hirt des Hermas, 230 f ., 264 f .
But the thought of the spiritual Israel was developed in still another direction ;
and here again we must look to the many-sided apostle. Inasmuch as Paul did
not abandon his belief in the ideal continuance and future revival of his nation
in its calling as leader in religious history, he was forced to inquire after a
real ground and pledge of this belief. He found the answer in the fact that
God, in accordance with the O.T. promise, has even yet left to His people a
remnant in which the people as a people is preserved for this its calling
(Rom. ix. 29). Every single Israelite who is converted to Christ is a practical
proof of the fact that God has not cast off this people for ever ; and there are
thousands of such Jews. The seven thousand of Elijah's time is a typical
expression for their numbers, but falls far below the reality (Rom. xi. 1-7,
cf. Acts xxi. 20). These Jews who believe in Christ, who through the Spirit
have received a circumcision of the heart, are the real Jews (Rom. ii. 29,
cf. Phil. iii. 3), the "Israel of God," which, when Christians in general are
referred to, can be especially singled out as a narrower circle (Gal. vi. 16).
Corresponding to this, the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham in its relation to
Christianity is twofold ; he is the father of all believing Gentiles, but in an
especial and more limited sense by reason of circumcision he is the father of
Christian Jews (Rom. iv. 11 f.). Whether this thought is expressed also in

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 83

Rev. vii. 1-8 (xxi. 12) is not so easy to determine. There is no need of proof,
however, to show that it must have been an exceedingly natural thought for
every Christian of Jewish birth who was as lovingly attached to his people
as were Paul and James.

10. (P. 77.) An essentially correct interpretation of the "address" is to
be found in Thiersch, Die Kirche im apost. Zeilalter, 3te Aufl. 109 ; a more
thorough demonstration is given by Hofmann, vii. 3. 8 ff., 159 ff.

4. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EEADERS.

There is no reason to doubt that the readers whom
James addresses were, without exception, Christians. In
ii. 1 they are exhorted to hold their faith in Christ without
respect of persons ; and there is nothing to indicate that
this exhortation is intended for only a part of those to
whom he is writing. The confession which James makes so
frankly for himself at the very beginning of the letter (i. 1 )
is likewise their confession ; the only question is whether
they are willing to live in accordance with it. They have
implanted in them the word of truth, by which God has
begotten them and the author alike to a new life(i. 18, 21).
How long they had been Christians, and through whose
influence they had been converted, is not indicated.

Even with the exact meaning of the salutation left
undecided ( 3, p. 76f.), it is yet clear from it that the
letter was not intended for a single local Church, but for
a large number of Churches, widely separated. Where
the author speaks of elders of the Church, he does so only
as an example, and means the elders of the particular
Church where a case of serious illness, such as he has in
mind, may occur (v. 14). If, as is perfectly possible,
awaryatyr) V/AWV in ii. 2 means a building and not the
coming together of the congregation for worship, or the
congregation as gathered from time to time for worship
(n. 1), the omission of the article shows that a number of
such buildings belonged to the readers. As a matter of

o o

fact, the plural Kpnripia in ii. 6 indicates that in the region
where the readers lived there were a number of tribunals.

84 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Some of the readers lived in cities, others in the country.
Besides wealthy landowners and the day labourers in
their employ (v. 1-6), there were merchants among them
whose business took them from city to city, often requir-
ing a residence of a year or more (iv. 13-17). On the
other hand, without assuming at all that James meant
his reproofs to apply alike to all his readers, one does get
from the letter the impression that the readers were a
homogeneous body, representing about the same grade of
intelligence, having similar tastes, and exposed to the
same moral dangers. Theoretical knowledge of the way
of salvation is everywhere presupposed (i. 18, 21, ii. 1,
iv. 17), and no effort is made to instruct them further in
this regard. Many of them boast their faith, make
capital of their religious knowledge (ii. 14, iii. 13), ex-
hibit a passionate zeal for teaching others, and give free
rein to their tongues, even yielding to crude curses in
their anger at those who prove to be un teachable (i. 18 f.,
26, iii. 1-18, n. 2). In fact, among themselves they are
more inclined to revile and curse than they are to help
one another by prayer and loving admonition (iv. 11 f.,
v. 16, 19 f.). At the same time they are zealous in the
fulfilment of formal religious duties (n. 3). There is no
want of prayer, but an entire lack of the energy of faith
and sincerity of motive, without which prayer works no
outward effect and brings no inward peace (i. 6-8, iv.
3, 8, cf. v. 15-18). The most serious defect which the
author discovers, however, is the want of a proper corre-
spondence between their conduct and the vital content of
the word which they have heard and know (i. 22-25) ;
the faith which they confess with their lips, they do not
manifest in a life that evidences its truth and vitality
(ii. 14-26); particularly do they fail in works of mercy
and love (i. 27, ii. 13, 15 f.), in bridling the tongue
(i. 26, iii. 2ff.), and in being patient in suffering (i. 3 f.,
12, v. 7-11). Many of those who boast about their

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 85

faith could well be put to shame by the good conduct of
the confessor of another religion doubtless a Jew. With
good reason such a one might compare the dead faith of
the Christian with the involuntary recognition of the
existence of God by evil spirits (n. 4). The readers are
constantly charged with prizing too highly the things of
this world. Among those engaged in commerce this
tendency manifests itself in utter disregard of all religious
restraint (iv. 13-17); those who are landowners rob
their labourers without mercy (v. 4-G) ; while such as
have no property are full of vain longings for better
conditions (iv. 2), and give way constantly to impatient
sighs and complaints, not only against their oppressors
(v. 7-11), but even against God (i. 13, iv. 7). This same
spirit leads to contemptuous treatment of the poor and
cringing politeness toward the rich (ii. 1-9). The author
brands them all " adulteresses," unfaithful to their cove-
nant vow to God, and forgetful that in and of itself the
love of the world is enmity against God, and that the
Spirit which God has sent to dwell in them is a Spirit of
jealous love, whose presence precludes all division of the
heart (iv. 4f.). They all need to be reminded of the
transitoriness and worthlessness of the things which they
overvalue (i. 10 f., iv. 14, v. 2 ), and to be made to feel
the incomparably greater value of the things which God
gives and promises to them as Christians (i. 9, 12, 17 f.,
21, ii. 5, iv. 6, v. 7f.). A feeling of general discontent
seems to have taken possession of the readers, as appears
from the fact that immediately following the %aipew of the
greeting, indeed with this very word, James begins his
exhortation that they count it pure joy when they fall
into all sorts of trials, and that they never on any account
regard God as the author of the temptation to sin that
may be involved in such trials (i. 2, 13). The expression
shows clearly that the author is not referring to some
single great distress and danger which affects or threatens

86 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

all the readers, but to trials as varied as are their own
separate conditions or personal aptitudes.

According to i. 9-11, one principal cause for the state
of affairs described was the sharp distinction made between
rich and poor. It is clear also from the same passage that
these distinctions were made within the Church ; for, in
his exhortation to the readers, James urges that instead
of complaining about the difficulties of his lot, and asking
God's help only in a half-hearted way, the Christian re-
joice with a certain feeling of pride ; if in humble circum-
stances, let him remember the high place that belongs to
him as a child of God (i. 18) ; if he is rich, let him glory
that in spite of wealth he is privileged to be reckoned
among the poor and lowly to whom the grace of God is
given (u. 5). In the same way the severe reproof which in
v. 1-6 is administered to the rich for their luxurious living,
and to landowners for their heartlessness, is meant for con-
fessors of the Christian faith. In and of itself it is hardly
conceivable that James should have directed such an
earnest and such a practical reproof to non-Christians
whom he knew it would never reach ; in fact, such a
supposition is ruled out altogether by the clear parallelism
between the two paragraphs beginning wither/ 6 vw (iv. 13,
v. 1); inasmuch as iv. 15 shows that the merchants of
whom he is speaking (iv. 13-17) must have been mem-
bers of the Church. Moreover, when it is recalled that
v. 7-9 not only follows the reproof of the landowners, but
is also a consequence of it (v. 7, naKpodv^crare ovv), and
when it is further remembered that the suffering which
the readers are exhorted to endure with patience is the
oppression of the field labourers just described, the
brethren mentioned in v. 9 (prj a-reva^ere KO.T aXX^Xwf,
a8eX</>ot) must have included the oppressors among the
readers as well as the oppressed. James does not address
the rich any more than the covetous merchants as
brothers, but reserves this epithet until he comes to

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 87

speak words of comfort to the oppressed (v. 7). He calls
the oppressed labourer " the righteous," in contrast to his
oppressor whom he calls a murderer (v. 6). This is a
severe judgment, but it is in keeping with the entire
character of the reproof, which is designed to awaken
terror. Moreover, the exhortation to lament in view of
the impending judgment, which we have in v. 1, is found
also in iv. 9, where without any question the persons
addressed are Christians, though they are called sinners,
not brethren. And in a still earlier passage (iv. 2) the
readers as a body are charged with committing murder
through their contentions about worldly possessions. Of
course, this is not to be taken literally, any more than the
epithet /u-o^aTu'Se? in the immediate context (iv. 4) applies
to a few of his women readers and not to all the readers.
As the context shows, the expression is certainly em-
ployed in the well-known figurative sense in which it is
used in the O.T. and by Jesus (e.g. Matt. xii. 39). The
strong expression in v. 6 is anticipated by what is said in
v. 4. Because the landowners withhold or reduce the
lawful wages of their harvesters while living themselves
in luxury, they are held like unjust judges to have de-
prived them of their rights, and like murderers to have
taken their very life. The same strong comparison is to
be found also in Sir. xxxi. 21 f. (al. xxxiv. 25), a book
which seems to have been carefully read by James (6,
n. 10). These charges of murder and adultery were per-
fectly intelligible to readers acquainted with the circum-
stances here alluded to, and who knew how Jesus had
interpreted the Decalogue.

The reference in ii. 1-7 is different. Here a case is
assumed in which two persons come into the place of
assembly together, the one well dressed and prosperous,
the other a poor man in soiled garments. Neither of
them is described as a Christian. The author simply
pictures the different way in which these two persons are

88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

received by the Christians as they assemble for worship.
The one is politely shown to a comfortable place, while the
other is told in a contemptuous manner to remain stand-
ing, or to occupy one of the poorer seats. The description
suits only such visitors at the Christian services, who are
not members, or not yet members of the Church (n. 6).
The readers are not reproved because they show prefer-
ence to wealthy non-Christians over poor Christians, but
simply because the poor man is mistreated on account of
his poverty and shabby dress (ii. 6), while the rich man is
treated with obsequious politeness for no other reason
than his fine appearance. Such " respect of persons " is
inconsistent with faith in the exalted and glorified Christ
(ii. 1), as well as with God's stated attitude toward the
poor and the general conduct of the rich toward the
Christian (ii. 5-7). "Hath not God chosen those who
are poor so far as this world is concerned and in the
judgment of the world, to be rich in faith, and heirs of the
kingdom which He has promised to them that love Him ? "
(n. 7). So God had actually treated the poor as a class
since the days of Jesus. In every sense of the word the
gospel had been preached to the poor. On the other
hand, when he describes the rich as a class, James appeals
to the daily experience of the readers. It is by the rich
that they are oppressed and dragged before judgment-
seats, and it is the rich who blaspheme that worthy name
by which they are called. Both from the illustration
with which this whole discussion is introduced (ii. 2), and
from the reminder that God has chosen His Church chiefly
from among the poor (ii. G), it is entirely natural to
suppose that the comparatively few rich persons in the
Church are here left out of account. While these latter
may have manifested more the spirit of the wealthy than
of the Christian (i. 10, iv. 1C, v. 1-6), making their
poor fellow-Christians feel the superiority of their social
position (icaTaBwatrrevova-iv), and while in isolated cases

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 89

contentions about property (iv. If., v. 4, 6) may have
led them to prefer charges against their poorer brethren
before secular magistrates (cf. 1 Cor. vi. Iff.), here, where
the author is describing the treatment which Christians
were accustomed to receive at the hands of wealthy men
as a class, the description gets its colour not from the
conduct of wealthy Christians, but of wealthy non-Chris-
tians. Only of such could it be said that the chief reason
why Christians should dislike and not honour them was
the fact that they blasphemed the name of Jesus, which
was borne not by themselves, but by the Christians (n. 8).
Although there is no statement directly to that effect, it is
easy to see how this blasphemy was uttered in connection
with the civil processes, in which a malicious hint to the
effect that the accused belonged to the sect of the Naza-
renes or Christians must have prejudiced their case in the
eyes of a non-Christian judge. If such was actually the
case, no explanation is necessary why it is the rich non-
Christians who are charged with such blasphemy. It is
also easy to see how in common life men of wealth and
position would be likely to express their contempt for the
Nazarene and His poverty-stricken Church more frequently
than would the poor (cf. John vii. 48 f. ; Luke xvi. 14.
Acts iv. 1, 5f., v. 17. Acts iii. 6, xi. 29; Gal. ii. 10;
1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Rom. xv. 25-31).

That the readers were Jews is proved neither by ii. 21
(6 Trarrjp r)pwv ; cf., however, Rom. iv. 1 ff. ; 1 Cor. x. 1 ;
Clement, 1 Cor. xxxi. 2) nor by the greeting (above, p.
76 f.) ; nor does it follow certainly from the use of cwajwytj
(n. 1), and the employment of the expression "Lord of
Sabaoth" (v. 4) in a passage where even a Gentile
Christian, if he were familiar with the Scriptures, would
recognise an echo of Isa. v. 9. It is proved rather by
the general impression which the letter gives of the
character of its readers. Though its purpose throughout
is practical, the letter contains no warning against idolatry

90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

and the evils associated with it (n. 9), nor against un-
rlmstity, a subject dwelt upon at such length and with
such emphasis in all letters written by Christians to
Gentile Christians and Christians living among; the

o o

Gentiles. Nothing is said which indicates the proximity
of the readers to Gentiles and their contact with Gentile
institutions. Furthermore, there is no mention of the
relations of slaves to their masters, relations, the signi-
ficance of which was altogether different among Gentile
Christians from what it was amonor Jews and Jewish

Christians in Palestine. The non-Christians with whom
the readers come in contact are Jews, not Gentiles. In ii.
18 f. this is self-evident (n. 5), and in ii. 6 f. it is the only
natural inference ; since it is necessary to assume the
peculiar relations existing between Jewish Christians in
Palestine and their chief opponents in order to explain
naturally why it is just the upper classes who profane the
name of Jesus by their treatment of those who bear his
name (see above). Moreover, the sins and weaknesses
which James denounces are the very ones for which Jesus
scourged His countrymen, particularly the Pharisees.
What James wants his readers to get rid of are the
remnants of inherited faults (n. 2 end). Among these
are the superficial hearing of God's word instead of that
living of it which shows that it has been inwardly
appropriated ; pious prattle and profession instead of the
practice of what they believe (Jas. i. 19-26, ii. 14-26, iii.
13; cf. Matt. vii. 21-27, xiii. 19-22, xv. 8, xxi. 28-31,
xxiii. 3) ; the disposition to dogmatise and proselytise (Jas.
i. 19 f., iii. 1-18 ; cf. Matt. vii. 3-5, xv. 14, xxiii. 4, 15 f. ;
Rom. ii. 19-24); the failure to fulfil the real requirements
of the law, mercy, love, and justice, while paying devotion
to its letter (Jas. i. 26 f., ii. 8-12, 15 f., v. 4-6 ; cf. Matt,
xii. 7, xv. 2-9, xxiii. 23-33 ; Mark xii. 40) ; the getting
of wealth without any thought of God, with the im-
possible attempt to divide their affections between God

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 91

and earthly possessions (Jas. iv. 4, 1 3, v. 2 ; cf. Matt. vi.
19-24; Luke xii. 15-34, xvi. 13); the exercise of prayer
without faith in God (Jas. i. 5-8, xiii. IGf., v. 16f. ; cf.
Matt. vii. 7-11 ; Luke xi. 5-13, xviii. 1-8); the judging,
slandering, and cursino; of their neighbours (Jas. iii. 9, iv.

~ 7 O O \

llf. ; cf. Matt. v. 22, vii. 1); and the taking of oaths too
lightly. The examples of oath formulae in Jas. v. 12 are
such as were in use among the Jews, not among the
Greeks and Eomans (n. 10); while the numerous refer-
ences to objects in nature are at least suited to conditions
in Palestine (u. 11).

If from what has been said above it is reasonably
certain that the body of the readers to whom the letter
was addressed were Jewish Christians living among their
countrymen, this by no means precludes the possibility
of there having been among them a number of native
Gentiles and proselytes. Hofmann (vii. 3. 81-84, 159)
held with good reason that there is reference to these
in Jas. ii. 25 ; the lesson from Abraham's example is
developed to its completion and finally stated in ii. 24 ;
then follows the example of the heathen woman Rahab,
which neither substantiates what has been said before nor
develops a new phase of the truth, and appears to be
dragged in without purpose. It does have point, however,
if referriuo; to a number of Gentiles who had been received

into the Jewish Christian Churches, and if designed to
say : the example of Rahab has the same lesson for them
that the history of Abraham has for his descendants.

This being the case, we are able to determine when
the letter was written, and to answer the question left un-
answered above (p. 76 f.). If by the twelve tribes in the
dispersion James meant the entire Christian Church, then
the letter must have been written at a time when as yet
there were but few Gentile converts, and while these were
still members of Churches which otherwise were composed
of Jewish Christians, i.e. before Paul's missionary labours

92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

bad resulted in the organisation of a number of Churches
composed mainly of Gentile Christians, and before the
Gentile Church began to develop along lines independent
of the Jewish Christian Church. The same conclusion
holds also if we assume that James intended by the
expression to designate the Jewish Christian as the true
Israel ; for in the membership of the Churches organised
in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome, there was
included among the Gentiles a considerable number of
Jews who had accepted Christ. These James could not
ignore when speaking of the twelve tribes in the dis-
persion. Nor if his letter was meant for them could he
have remained so entirely silent concerning the very
peculiar position which they occupied in relation to the
Gentile majorities in the Churches where they were ;
neither could he have ignored so completely all those
questions arising out of this situation, which since the
first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas had agitated
the minds of Jewish and Gentile Christians alike, and
occupied the attention of leaders on both sides. If it be
assumed that the letter was written after the time when a
faction of the Jewish Church undertook to force the obser-
vation of the Mosaic law upon the newly formed Gentile
Church as a means and condition of the acceptance of
the Gentiles with God, it is impossible, in view of the
historical situation, to understand the entire silence of
the letter about the question of the obligatoriuess of the
Mosaic law upon all Christians. Equally difficult of
explanation is the simple way in which the author speaks,
on the one hand, of the word with its life-begetting power
and of the law of liberty (i. 18-21, 25, ii. 12) ; and, on the
other hand, of justification by works (ii. 14-26), without
in any way suggesting in contrast the bondage of the law.
If, now, as is probable, the Gentile Christian Churches in
Lycaonia were not organised before the year 50 or 51
(Chron. Survey, Part XL), we have the latest date at which

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 93

James could have addressed his letter to the Church while
it was still entirely Jewish, and confined to Palestine and
the regions immediately adjoining. Only thus does the
designation of the readers in Jas. i. 1 become perfectly
clear. Although the idea expressed in this address can be
traced back to the preaching of Jesus, and even to that of
the Baptist (above, p. 81), the definite form which it here
assumes, if it is to appear natural at all, must have some
historical explanation. The Churches organised in various
parts of Palestine and Syria prior to the year 50 were
colonies of the mother Church in Jerusalem. Up to the
time of Stephen's death Jerusalem was practically the
only centre which the Church had ; by the persecution
of 35 the Christians were driven from Jerusalem and
scattered beyond the bounds of Palestine, with the result
that many of the ties which had bound them to the
Jewish nation while they remained a part of it, were
severed. Wherever these Christians went they became
the nuclei of new Churches, and we know that they
travelled as far as Cyprus and Antioch. The journey of
Peter and John to Samaria (Acts viii. 14-24), the more
extended journeys of Peter (Acts ix. 32-xi. 2), the sending
of Barnabas to Antioch (Acts xi. 22), and the visits to
this city of other Christians like Agabus and John Mark
(xi. 27, xii. 25), show that effort was made to hold the
scattered members of the Church together. And this was
the purpose for which the Epistle of James was written.
Under these conditions, how natural that the feeling-
should grow that the Church was another people of God,
chosen by God through Jesus, the true Israel ! How
natural also that existing conditions should suggest a term
which should fittingly express the relation of the spiritual
Israel both to the Jewish nation and to God's heavenly
kingdom (n. 12). So James did not employ an obscure
allegory, which was arbitrarily invented by himself, and
afterwards spun out by other authors, and applied in a

94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

different direction, but actual conditions in the Church at
the time became of themselves a symbol perfectly in-
telligible to James' contemporaries who found themselves
in this situation.

1. (Pp. 83, 89.) According to N*BC, we should read in Jas. ii. 2, els a-waya>y^v
without the article. For this reason, if for no other, we must reject the asser-
tion that, in inconceivable contradiction to the salutation, the real destination
of the Epistle is evidently "a single narrowly exclusive conventicle of Essene
Jewish Christians " (Bruckner, Chronol. Reihenfolge, 293). Further than this,
tyicov, following as it does an address to the readers which plainly charac-
terises them as Christians, just as certainly excludes the view that what is
referred to is a Jewish synagogue, which these Christians yet occasionally
visit. Something regarding o-uvayuyr) maybe found in Harnack on Herm.
Mand. xi. p. 115, and in the writer's Forsch. ii. 164. It denotes originally,
and in profane Greek usually, (1) the act of collecting and assembling the
meeting, Ex. xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22 ; Deut. x. 4 ; Sir. xxxiv. 3 ; Ps. Sol. xvii.
50 (cf. xvii. 48, x. 8) ; of the meetings of Christians for worship, Ign. ad.
Pobjc. iv. 2 ; Dioiiys. Al. quoted in Eus. H. E. vii. 11. 17, cf. 9. 2. Also in
a heathen inscription published by Foucart, Assoc. relig. 238, not a corpora-
tion, but a "reunion en 1'honneur de Zeus " ; (2) concretely: the assembled
congregation, commonly for rnj; Ex. xii. 3 ; Num. xiv. 7, 10, xvi. 19, not
infrequently also for ^ Num. x. 7. As in our "meeting," this second
meaning cannot always be distinguished clearly from the first, e.g. Acts
xiii. 43 ; Herm. Mand. xi. 9, of Christian meetings : orav e\dr] . . . f l s
o-waywyrjv dv8pS)v 8iKaia>v, and ibid. 9, 13, 14, three times more ; cf. also
the Gnostic Ads of Peter (ed. Lipsius, p. 56. 23, cf. p. 53. 17) and eVto-uj/aywyij,
Heb. x. 25. So probably is it to be understood in our passage, though it
is not impossible that we have here the third meaning, namely, place of
meeting, Matt. vi. 2, 5 ; Luke iv. 16, vii. 5 ; John xviii. 20 ; Acts xviii.
4, 7, xxiv. 12. Whereas in these and other passages <rwaya>yr), without any
modifying word, denotes Jewish meeting-places, the vp,S>v here would seem
to indicate that the Christians addressed had their own particular places of
worship by themselves. An inscription of 318 A.D. (Le Bas-Waddington, iii.
No. 2558) designates a building as a-vvaycayf) Map<acoiuo-ro>i>. It does not
seem to me at all certain that the African Commodian, Instr. i. 24. 11, under-
stands by synngor/a a Christian church. (4) Even aside from the meeting at
a particular place and time, it may mean in general the religious community,
association of those with common interests, for rny Ex. xii. 19, 47, xvi. 22 ;
Num. xvi. 24 (the company of Korah); Ps. xxii. 17 ; for Srij? Ex. xvi. 2, 3 ;
Num. xv. 15, xvi. 47 (al. xvii. 12) ; cf. 1 Mace. ii. 42 (a-vvay. 'Aa-tSai'wi/), vii. 12
(a-vvay. ypanfj.nT(u>r). Quite early, however, crvvayaiyr) was used as tin- specific
designation of the Jewish religious community in contrast to the Christian
fKK\r)(ria. We see this usage at least in process of formation in Rev. ii. 9,
iii. 9 ; Just. Dial, cxxxiv (Aeta 6 Aaor v/icoi/ *al 17 trvi/nycoy^, 'P^iyX 8e ij (KK\T)(ria
ilpuv). We see it fully established in Commod. Instr. xxxix. 1-4 ; Apol. 253.
Eusebius lays stress upon the fact that Jesus called His Church, not (rwayuyf),
but (KK.\rj(Tia (Theoph. syr. iv. 12). On the other ham], the Ebionites in East

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 95

Palestine called their Church community a-wayuyr], and seem also to have
retained the title dpxi<rvvdyo>yot. (Epiph. Hccr. xxx. 18). The Evang. hierox.
translates eVicX^a-ta in Matt. xvi. 18, xviii. 17 by KHC'^D, i.e. (rvvayvyr] (Form-h.
i. 372, n. 1). The Christian compiler of the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs (Benjamin, 11) terms the Church and the individual congregations
of the Gentile Christians a-vvaywyr) and crwaycoyal rdov edv&v. But we find
the word sometimes used of the Christian Church and its individual con-
gregations even where we may not assume a direct connection with Palestine
and Judaism : Just. Dial. Ixiii ; Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 14 (ray avvaymyds,
Xeyo/xeVar Se fKK~\Tjcrias ayi'ay) ; Iren. iii. 6. 1 (here in an interpretation of Ps.
Ixxxii. 1); Iren. iv. 31. 1 and 2 (at 8vo crvi>., the Jewish and the Christian,
suggested by the story of Lot's daughters), a combination like that of
Victorinus on Gal. iv. 24 (Mai, Script, vet. coll. iii. 2. 38), who, however, uses
the opposite term : " ecclesiis Judseorum et Christianorum." In the dis-
cussion of our passage, we may leave out of account the common Greek usage
under No. 1, and we should notice that James by no means avoids the word
fKK\T)a-ia when he wishes to designate the Church as a corporate body (v. 14).
When, then, he designates the Church assembly (or place of assembly) by
a-vvaya>yr) instead of by fKK\rjcria (cf. per contra 1 Cor. xi. 18, xiv. 28, 35 ;
3 John 6 ; Didache, iv 14), and this, too, not in a theological discussion or
in rhetorical speech, but in the simple description of an external event, this
may be considered good evidence that we are here on Jewish soil or near
it. This view is confirmed by the Ebionites of Epiphanius, by the Evang.
hieros., which arose in Palestine and exhibits many other Jewish expressions,
and by the compiler of the Testaments, who, whether by nature or by design,
wrote Greek just like a Jew (under No. 4). Hernias (under No. 2) shows by
his speech that he is a Jew by birth or education (cf. the writer's Hirt des
Hermas, 485-497). It should also be noted that Justin was born in Palestine ;
that Theophilus (under No. 4) and Ignatius (under No. l)were bishops of the
Syrian capital, and that the Marcionite " synagogue " referred to was some
miles south of Damascus. Cf. also Epist. Hadriani given in Vopiscus,
Saturninus, viii. 2, " Archisynagogus Judaeorum . . . Christianorum presl >y-
ter"; Lampridius, Alex. Sev. 6, "Syrum archisynagogum." With regard to
the failure to distinguish between Syrians and Jews, cf. Origen on Job xlii.
18 in Pitra, Analecta, ii. 390 f.

2. (Pp. 84, 90.) The continuity of thought in iii. 1-18 is unbroken, and
this fact determines the meaning of particular sentences in it. The cursing,
iii. 9, can hardly have reference to fellow-Christians, for in that case they
would have been designated as such (cf. per contra, iv. 11) ; it refers rather to
men whom the Christian, obtrusively desirous of being a teacher (iii. 1), would
like to instruct and convert, so that James is calling to mind simply the
dignity common to all men by virtue of their creation in the image of 0" 1.
Moreover, in iii. 13-18, the matter under discussion is not, as it is from iv. 1
on, the behaviour of Christians one toward another, but rather the demeanour
of the one who, lifted up by the consciousness of his own religious know-
ledge, desires to teach others, and thus falls into a bitter, disputatious tone,
failing, however, for that reason to achieve the desired result, namely, the
righteousness of the person to be instructed (cf. i. 20). The TrpaiVqy, which
is the proper disposition for the reception of the word, is the very attribute

96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

which is indispensable in the teacher also (Matt. xi. 29; 2 Tim. ii. 24 f.;

2 Cor. x. 1 ; Gal. vi. 1 ; 1 Pet. iii. 15, towards non-Christians ; Tit. iii. 2,
"toward all men" ; Ign. Trail, iii. 2 ; ad Polyc. ii. 1). In all probability ^
tyfvdto-df KOTO. TTJS d\r]6eias in iii. 14 is not an idle pleonasm, but (like
Xenoph. Apol. Socr. 13, ov ^evSofiai Kara TOV 6eoi>) = Kara\l/fv8f(T0ai (ri)
nvos, " to make a lying statement about a thing or person " (cf. Ign. Trail, x. ;
Herm. Vis. i. 1. 7 ; Jos. c. Apion. ii. 10 beginning, 13 end; Ep. ad Diogn. iv.

3 ; Ep. Lvrjfl. in Eus. H. E. v. 1. 14 ; Hippo! . Refut. vii. 20 in. ; Eus. v. 28,
6 and 16 ; Plutarch, de Superst. 10 end). If this is so, the warning here is
not simply against lying, but it is presupposed that the person in question is
speaking about the truth, i.e. saving truth, but that in so doing he makes
statements that are in contradiction to that very truth. On this view,
KaraKavxaa-de also, which further is modified by KOTO TV)? ahr/deia:, is not
any boasting in general, but a boasting specifically with reference to the
truth, a bragging about the truth, which, however, at the same time contra-
dicts it. This untruthfulness is not, however, a theoretical departure from
Christian doctrine, but is rather practical, consisting in the fact that one who
claims to be a knower and teacher of revealed truth opposes himself to
others, thereby showing a lack of the wisdom and gentleness which neces-
sarily flow from the real possession of the truth. Jas. i. 20 bears upon this
very point. At all events, the translation, " The wrath of man doeth not
what is right before God," is incorrect ; for (1) the connecting link between
i. 17 and i. 18-25 is plainly the concept Xoyor dXrjddas. Consequently the
subject treated in i. 19 f. cannot be talkativeness and passionateness in
general, but rather the evil disposition to teach others the word of God
instead of allowing oneself to be instructed, thus becoming angry instead
of waiting for God to give His blessing. (2) The thought involved in such a
translation would require 6 opyi^o^fvos instead of dpyjj, if the passage were
to be measurably clear. (3) Such a general statement would be very incorrect,
for there is an anger which is righteous. (4) The evidently intended con-
trast between dvdpos and deov does not, on this view, receive its proper
emphasis. We are not indeed to read with the later MSS. Karepyd^frai, yet
neither is epyaferai to be taken in the sense of -n-oiel, as in Jas. ii. 9 ; Acts x.
35 ; Matt. vii. 23 ; rather, as in John vi. 27 ; 2 Cor. vii. 10, it has the
meaning of Korepyd^fTai (Jas. i. 3). The object of the verb is the thing
produced. A man's anger does not bring about God's righteousness (cf.
Matt. vi. 33, and below, 7). This is a fruit which is sown in a peaceable
spirit, and the growth and ripening of which must be waited for with
patience (Jas. iii. 18). No man can come to believe that he himself can
achieve righteousness through angry speech ; yet, on the other hand, nothing
is more common than for heralds of the truth to imagine that they should
convert their hearers by passionate zeal. It can be therefore only the latter
error that James is opposing ; cf. Schneckenburger, Beitrage z. Einl. 199 ;
Hofmann, vii. 3. 35. In Jas. i. 21 Trepia-creia is used unquestionably in the
sense of Trs/nVcret'/ia (Rom. v. 17), and hence cannot mean excess (Matt. xii.
34) ; for a man should lay aside not only a certain excess of wickedness, but
all wickedness. The only meaning possible is therefore " residue, remainder "
(Mark viii. 8). The writer means the old hereditary faults which still cling
even to those born of God, the first-fruits of His creatures (i. 18), in other

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 97

words, the evil Jewish nature, the " leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees "
(Matt. xvi. 6-12, xv. 1-20).

3. (P. 84.) Jas. i. 26 f., Bprja-Kos dprja-Kfla, dprjo-Keveiv denotes not the pious
disposition (evaefaia, CKTIOTTJS, also Qeoa-e&eia, though this concept inclines
towards tfpqo-Kei'a; cf. Seeberg, Forsch. v. 264 f.), but the outwardly displayed
religion, worship, ceremonies (Philo, Quod deterior, vii, Mang. i. 195, IT* TrXdi/qrai
yap (cat OVTOS TTJS Trpos fvcrefieiav 6ot), QprfO'Kfiav dvrl ocrtdr^roy i/yovfjievos <ai
Supa TW aSfKfio-rw 8i8ovs ; cf. Wis. xi. 15, xiv. 16, 18, 27 ; Jos. A ut. ix. 13. 3 ;
Col. ii. 18, 23 ; Clem. 1 Cor. xlv. 7) ; so that it also comes to mean not infre-
quently a publicly-professed religion together with its worship in distinction
from other religions and forms of worship : Acts xxvi. 5 ; Ep. ad Dioijn. i. ;
Melito quoted in Eus. iv. 26. 7 ; Ep. Liujd. in Eus. v. 1. 63.

4. (P. 85.) The words in Jas. ii. 18, dXX' e'pet TIS, at any rate do not intro-
duce an objection to the author's preceding statements to be expected from one
of the readers or from a like-minded Christian, as is the case in 1 Cor. xv. 35,
cf. Jtom. ix. 19, xi. 19 ; for the person speaking in ii. 18, 19 agrees with James
in requiring works and in condemning faith without works ; and the people
characterised in ii. 14-17 are the ones who are taken to task in ii. 18, 19
also. On the other hand, James cannot introduce himself, or a Christian
who agrees with him, as speaking in this way (cf. Rom. x. 18, 19) ; for what
reason would there be in introducing a third person, when that person has
nothing to say which James himself could not say just as well ? Further, it
is hard to understand how James could assert of himself so confidently, even
though in the disguise of a third person, that he, in distinction from the one
addressed, had works to show ; cf. per contra, iii. 2. Then, too, it would be
quite uncalled for on James' part to defend himself against the charge that he
lacked the faith of which the person addressed boasted. This charge is
implied in the speaker's offer through his works to prove his faith, thus
called in question by his opponent. Finally, in recognising the formal
orthodoxy of the Christians addressed, James could not possibly have limited
their creed to their confession of monotheism. For these outwardly profess-
ing Christians are not content simply to acknowledge the unity of God,
which the devils also do, or even to bless God as their Lord and Father
(iii. 9), which the devils do not do, they confess their faith in Christ (ii. 1).
From all of which it follows that the (pel ns of ii. 18 is not an empty and
purposeless phrase ; rather there is thus introduced into the discussion
between James and the ris of ii. 14 a speaker who is represented as really a
third person, and that, too, of another faith. But this third person must be
a Jew, not a pagan ; for the speaker praises the Christian addressed, even if
in a sarcastic tone, for confessing monotheism, the fundamental dogma of
Judaism. Not only is it evident that the Jewish Christians, following the
example of Jesus (Mark xii. 29), held fast to the doctrinal content of the
"Schema" from Deut. vi. 4-9, which every Israelite repeated morning and
evening daily ; but there is also no reason to doubt that as persons " zealous
for the law " (Acts xxi. 20), they repeated it with their fellow-countrymen
after their conversion as well as before it. Later Jewish Christians empha-
sised the p,ovapx<.Kr) dprja-Kfia so much, that the distinguishing mark of Chris-
tianity came to be regarded as of less importance than the fundamental
dogma common to Jews and Jewish Christians (Clem. Horn. vii. 12, v. 28 ;

VOL. i. 7

98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Ep. Petri ad Jac. 1). But besides this, James would have defeated his own
purpose if he had made the Jew introduced by him speak of the doctrinal
difference between Judaism and Christianity. Lastly, as to the form of the
introduction, it goes without saying that the Jew does not begin to speak
until after e'pel TIS, and hence that the dXXd is spoken by James himself.
After giving his own judgment, he uses dXXd to introduce as something new
and startling the doubly humiliating judgment of the Jew dXXd, even with-
out itai, being adapted to this purpose (cf. John xvi. 2 ; 2 Cor. vii. 11). That
it is not James himself who is speaking in ii. 18, 19, follows also from the
fact that iu these sentences not a single thought from ii. 14-17 is developed
further. It is not until ii. 20 that James begins to speak again, and resumes
the thought of ii. 17. The assumption of Spitta, Z. Gesch. u. Lit. ii. 79, that
an objection of the man of faith without works, who has been attacked by
James, has fallen out after e'pei ns, and that James begins to answer this with
(TV triariv f'xfis, is not called for by the text, and for positive reasons is
inadmissible.

5. (Pp. 86, 90.) Since 6 rairfivos and 6 ir\ovo-ios in i. 9 f. form an antithesis,
the former cannot be a lightly accented epithet of a merely explanatory char-
acter (the brother, who by very reason of being a brother, is, as everybody
knows, always poor likewise) ; it is rather within the class denoted by 6 dSeX^ci?
(perhaps better without 6, following Cod. B) that the poor is contrasted with
the rich. On the view that the rich non-Christian is contrasted with the
poor Christian, the ground upon which the rich man should boast remains
unclear. If Ta-rrdvao-is denotes the exact opposite of v\^os, i.e. lack of moral
and religious worth, or even lack of the riches of the rich man, an interpret-
ation which has no usage at all to support it, then the same K.avxacr6u>,
which is meant very seriously when used with its first subject, must, when
used with the second, have the sense of a mocking challenge : " Let the rich
man boast, if he likes, in his baseness or his miserable riches." Such a
rendering is impossible, for the added reason that the argument which
follows presupposes not an ironical challenge to sinful boasting, but an
earnest exhortation to glory only in the possessions that endure. Nor
indeed can TanfivuxTis denote the attitude of humility (cf. Jas. iv. 6-10 ;
Sir. iii. 18), for to glory in this would be the worst kind of pride ; it
denotes rather, as might be expected from its position in antithesis to ttyor,
the rank and condition of lowliness (Luke i. 48 ; Phil. iii. 21). If the rich
man is a Christian, of course he also possesses the exalted station of which
the poor Christian should rest assured ; but as it is fitting for the latter to
emphasise just that side of his condition as a Christian which forms a con-
trast to his outward situation, so likewise is it for the former (cf. 1 Cor.
vii. 22 with reference to slaves and free). We need only recall Matt. xix.
23-26 ; Luke vi. 24, xvi. 14 f., 19-31, to see that the rich man is the very one
who should be glad and thankful to belong among the confessors of Jesus,
those who were called 01 puepoi by Jesus Himself, and who are despised by
the world. The reason added in i. 106-11 is intended primarily to enforce
the warning to the rich man implied in 10, but it thus bears at the same
time upon the positive exhortation. This reason agrees with the context ;
for just as poverty is a temptation to the poor man, so are riches for the rich
man. It is also very applicable to the Christian who is rich ; for since he

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 99

is rich, indeed since he is a man living in the flesh, he is actually like the
fast fading flower; cf. Jas. iv. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 6-10, 17-19; Ps. xc. 5 f.,
ciii. 15.

6. (P. 88.) We have evidence that Christian preaching was permitted
temporarily in Jewish synagogues (Acts ix. 22, xviii. 4-6, xix. 8), and that
Jewish Christians in Palestine visited the synagogues, the Jews on their part
resorting to prohibitive measures in order to exclude them (cf. Derenbourg,
Hist, d ydoyr. de la Palestine, 354 f.). The perfectly reasonable inference, then,
is that the reverse was true, and that Christian services were visited by non-
Christians. Quite aside from such an inference, however, we have direct
proof in 1 Cor. xiv. 23-25 that this was the case. Whether this was done from
a religious desire, or from curiosity, or even with hostile intent, is indifferent
in this supposed case.

7. (P. 88.) It will not do in Jas. ii. 5 to connect TrXoucrt'ou? KT\. with
rovs ITT(OXOVS as its attribute ; for (1) a 6e or dXXa would be necessary with
iT\ova-iovs ; (2) the men whom God has chosen are not rich in faith before
and apart from their being thus chosen, and are certainly not heirs of the
kingdom ; it is only through being chosen that they become so. Conse-
quently what we have here is the good Greek usage of e'/cXe-yeo-tfcu with a
double accusative, the ilvai (Eph. i. 4) not being necessary in such a con-
struction, cf. Mayor, 79 f. It stands to reason that James does not say here
that all the poor and none of the rich find grace before God, any more than
we may infer from Matt. xi. 25 that all uncultured people and none of
superior culture attain to a knowledge of salvation. The self-evident mean-
ing of general statements such as these, which briefly sum up a multitude of
individual experiences (1 Cor. i. 27 f.), is clearly expressed by Paul in 1 Cor.
i. 26 (oi TroXAot).

8. (P. 89.) The blaspheming in Jas. ii. 7 is not an indirect dishonouring
of the name of God or of Christ through the unworthy behavour of those who
confess Him ; for (1) this could not well have been left unexpressed (cf. Eus.
H. E. V. 1. 48, 8ia TTJS dva<TTpo(j)ijs avratv /^Xaox^/iouircoi/ TTJV 686v) ; (2) the
blasphemers must have been designated as themselves bearers of the name
of Christ (eV avrovs instead of e'0' v^as ; cf. Herm. Sim. viii. 6) ; (3) such
indirect blasphemy of God or of Christ is always expressed in the passive
form elsewhere : Rom. ii. 24 (Isa. lii. 5) ; 1 Tim. vi. 1 ; Tit. ii. 5 ; 2 Pet.
ii. 2 ; Clem. 1 Cor. i. 1 (xlvii. 7) ; Clem. 2 Cor. xiii. 1-4 ; Ign. Trail, viii. 2 ;
Polyc. ad Phil. x. 2. " The honourable name," judging simply from the O.T.
parallels, from which the expression is borrowed (Isa. xliii. 7 ; Jer. xiv. 9,
xv. 16 ; Amos ix. 12 ; cf. Acts xv. 17), can be none other than the name of
God or of Christ. In what form the readers bore this name, whether as
^adrjral rov 'Irjaov (John vii. 3, xviii. 25 ; Acts iv. 13), or as NafcopaTot
(Acts xxiv. 5, following the usage 'Irjo-ovs 6 Naojpaloy, Matt. xxvi. 71 ; John
xviii. 5 ; Acts xxvi. 9 ; cf. GK, ii. 662 f., n. 2, where there is reference also
to the reviling of the Nazarenes on the part of the Jews), or as Xpicmavoi
(Acts xi. 26, xxvi. 28 ; 1 Pet. iv. 16 ; cf. Mark ix. 41), is as impossible to
conclude from the expression used by James as to gather from the above
O.T. passages in what form Israel bore Jehovah's name. In this passage,
which would lend itself most inappropriately to such a reference, there is no
trace of any government persecution of the Christians because of their

ioo INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

confession, as there is none in other passages (e.g. i. 2-12) where such refer-
ence would be quite in place.

9. (P. 90.) In the matter of worship and similar topics, cf. Acts xv. 20,
29, xxi. 25 ; 1 Cor. v. 10 f., viii. 1-xi. 1, especially viii. 10, x. 7, 14-22 ;
2 Cor. vi. 15 ; Gal. v. 20 ; 1 John v. 21 ; Rev. ii. 14, 20, xxi. 8, xxii. 15 ;
Didache, iii. 4, v. 1, vi. 3 ; Herni. Sim. ix. 21. 3. Cf. also the reminder of the
readers' former worship, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 11, xii. 2; 1 Thess. i. 9; Gal. iv. 8;
1 Pet. iv. 3 ; Clem. 2 Cor. i. 6, iii. 1, xvii. 1, and the parallels, Col. iii. 5 ;
Eph. v. 5 ; Herm. Mand. xi. 4 ; Polyc. ad Phil. xi. 2. In the matter of
Tropvfia, cf. Acts xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25 ; 1 Cor. v. 1-13, vi. 9-11, 13-20, vii. 2, 9,
x. 8 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1, xii. 21 ; Gal. v. 13-21 ; Eph. iv. 19, v. 3-14 ; Col. iii. 5 ;
1 Thess. iv. 3-5 ; 1 Tim. i. 10 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22, iii. 6 ; Rom. i. 24-27, vi. 19-21,
xiii. 13 ; 1 Pet. iv. 3 ; Rev. ii. 14, 20-24, xiv. 8, xvii. 1 if., xix. 2, xxi. 8,
xxii. 15 ; Didache, ii. 1, iii. 3, v. 1 ; Herm. Mand. iv. 1 ; Clem. 2 Cor. iv. 3,
viii. 6-ix. 4, xii. 5, xiv. 3-5 ; Pliny, ad Traj. xcvi. 7. On the other hand,
James speaks in general only of worldly luxury, i. 27, iv. 1-4 (as to /zot^aXi'Sfs-,
see above, p. 87), iv. 9, v. 1-3, 5. Perhaps in ii. 1 1 there is a testimony to
the prevailing honourableness of the readers as regards the conjugal life.
The command p.t] p.oixevo-ys was generally observed, the command ^17
(povevo-ys often through hard-heartedness transgressed, cf. iv. 2, v. 6. In the
matter of the life among the Gentiles, cf. 1 Cor. v. 1, 10 ff., ix. 24, x. 32,
xv. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 14-18; Eph. iv. 17 ff. ; 1 Pet. ii. 12-17, iv. 3ff. ; Rom.
xii. 2, xiii. 1-7 ; 3 John 7 ; Ign. Trail, iii. 2, viii. 2 ; Herm. Mand. x. 4 ;
Sim. i. 10, viii. 9. 1. In the matter of slaves, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 21 f. ; Eph.
vi. 5-9 ; Col. iii. 22-iv. 1 ; 1 Pet, ii. 18-25 ; 1 Tim. vi. 1 f. ; Tit. ii. 9 f. ;
Philein. 10-21 ; Didache, iv. 10 f. ; Ign. ad Polyc. iv. 3 (1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Gal.
iii. 28; Col. iii. 11); also the writer's Skizzen, 93-115, especially 102, also
136 ff., 350, n. 17.

10. (P. 91.) For the form of oath, cf. Matt. v. 34-37, xxiii. 22, and in
addition Lightfoot, Op. ii. 2, 93, 359 ; Schottgen, Hor. Hebr. 1733, pp. 48, 202.
It is characteristic of the Jewish, in distinction from the Gentile oath, that
it avoids the name of God. In place of such a sacrilegious formula, Philo
recommends swearing preferably by the Earth, Sun, Stars, Heaven, and the
Universe entire (Leg. Spec, i, ed. Mangey, ii. 271).

11. (P. 91.) The scorching wind, i. 11 (Luke xii. 55), the early and the
latter rain, v. 7 (providing verov be an essentially right completion of the
passage, cf. Deut. xi. 14), fig, olive, and vine culture (iii. 12) in addition to con-
siderable agriculture (v. 4, 7), salt springs (iii. 12), unless in the obscure and
most uncertainly traditioned text there be a reference to 77 daXaaa-a fj aXvKrj
the Dead Sea (Num. xxxiv. 3, 12 ; Deut. iii. 17 ; Josh. xv. 2, 5 ; cf. Gen. xiv. 3 ;
Ezek. xlvii. 9 ff.). On the other hand, we can understand the Mediterranean
as the source of the conceptions in i. 6, iii. 4, without assuming that James,
at the time he wrote, was resident in Joppa a view that Hitzig at one time
expressed ; cf. for additional points, Hug, Einl. ii. 3 511.

12. (P. 93.) Acts viii. 1, Trtivrts Sita-irdprja-av ; viii. 4, 01 ovv SiaffTrapevres
8ifj\dov rX.; xi. 19, ol p.tv ovv 8ia(nrap(vTfs 8if<\dov tens . . . 'Ai/rto^et'af. The
connection of Jas. i. 1 with these facts I find first noticed by Georgius
Syncellus, ad A. M. 5537, ed. Bonn, i. G23. Accordingly we are to consider
as included in this greeting the communities in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee,

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 101

Acts viii. 1, 14, 25, 40, ix. 31, 32, 36, x. 24, xxi. 8 ; Gal. i. 22 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14;
further, those at Ptolemais and Tyre, in Cyprus, and at Antioch, Acts xi. 1-26,
xiii. 1, xxi. 3, 7, and then the one at Damascus, where it would seem that,
even before the death of Stephen, there were disciples, Acts ix. 2-25. In fact,
the community which reassembled in Jerusalem after the persecution that
followed Stephen's death is not to be excluded. To be sure, without taking
into account the half -Jewish Samaritans, Acts viii. 14, and such isolated
cases as Acts viii. 27, x. 1-11, 18 ; cf. xv. 7, there were, even previous to the
first mission tour, not a few Gentile Christians in Antioch. But supposing
that they numbered into the hundreds, their proportion to the many myriads
of Jewish Christians (Acts xxi. 20) was never more than 1 to 100, and the way
in which James gives passing notice to this exceptional class (above, p. 91) and
then pays no further attention to it, is in perfect keeping with the relations
existing in the Church up to 50 A.D.

5. THE PEESONALITY OF JAMES.

The author introduces himself to his readers by the
simple mention of his name, which was a very common
one among the Jews, and by the modest designation of
himself as a Christian (i. 1). The omission of all reference
to the occasion for his writing is not explained entirely by
the fact that what he writes is not a letter, but an address
thrown into the form of a letter in order the more easily
to reach his readers, who were widely scattered (n. 1).
There is no indication as to the grounds on which James
based his right to address his opinions in any form to the
entire Church of his time with so much earnestness and
with so little regard to personal feelings. The tone of the
letter is not overbearing ; James calls his readers brethren,
and reckons himself among them, not only when he is
referring to their experience of divine grace (i. 18), but
also when speaking of their moral weaknesses and actual
failures (iii. 2, 9). But he speaks as an older brother
accustomed to receive attention from his brothers when he
gives advice, and unquestioning obedience when he re-
bukes them (n. 2).

Who is this James whose authority is so widely ac-
knowledged ? The opinion that he was the Apostle James,
the son of Zebedee, is of late origin, and was not very

102 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

generally held (n. 3). On account of the obvious connec-
tion between the number of the apostles and the twelve
tribes of Israel, one would expect that an apostle, in
addressing the twelve tribes of the spiritual Israel, would
indicate the fact that he was one of the twelve apostles.
Although James the son of Zebcdee, who was executed
very early in the history of the Church, in the year 44
(Acts xii. 2), was one of Jesus' intimate disciples, there is
no evidence that his position was so commanding as to
render unnecessary any explanation on his part why he,
and not one of the other apostles, should write his
opinions to the entire Church. In Acts i.-xii. only Peter
and John are prominent. Moreover, when this James is
mentioned, he is always spoken of as one of the sons of
Zebedee, or as a brother of John (Matt. iv. 21, x. 2,
xvii. 1, xx. 20, xxvi. 37, xxvii. 56; Mark i. 19, iii. 17,
v. 37, x. 35; Luke v. 10; John xxi. 2; Acts xii. 2), or
this relation is indicated by the context (Mark i. 29 cf.
i. 19, ix. 2, x. 41 cf. x. 35, xiii. 3 cf. iii. 16-18, xiv. 33 ;
Luke vi. 14, viii. 51, ix. 28, 54; Acts i. 13). What has
just been said argues also, and in some respects with even
greater force, against the assumption that the letter was
written sometime after the death of James the son of
Zebedee by the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus ; unless
this second James of the apostolic circle is artificially
identified with a third person of the same name. Where
the name of this second Apostle James actually occurs he
is always spoken of as the son of Alphseus (Matt. x. 3 ;
Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13). On the other
hand, in spite of the frequency of its occurrence, the
name James is always deemed a sufficient designation of
the James who at the latest from the year 44 on was
the head of the Jerusalem Church and the leader of
Jewish Christianity: Acts xii. 17, xv. 13-21, xxi. 18;
Gal. ii. 9 according to the correct reading, James is
mentioned before Peter and John ; Gal. ii. 12.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 103

That, among the Christians of the apostolic age, there
was one James distinguished above all his contemporaries
of the same name is strongly attested by Jude 1. This is
the James who, according to the tradition of the second
century, was the first bishop of Jerusalem. Although the
accounts of Hegcsippus, Clement of Alex., and later
authors are partly legendary, so much may be regarded as
historical : this James never ceased to love his country-
men and to pray for their conversion ; on account of his
strict observance of the law and otherwise ascetic manner
of life, and on account of his faithful attendance upon the
temple worship, he was held in high esteem, even among
non-Christian Jews, and, among other titles, bore that of
"the Just." Shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish
War, probably at the time of the Passover in the year 66,
because of his public confession of Jesus, he was hurled
from the top of the temple by fanatical Jews, stoned,
and finally clubbed to death (n. 4). In this account the
subordination of the distinctively Christian to the Jewish
elements in the description of James' character impresses
one as being original. It was just because of this dis-
position of his that the orthodox rabbis and Pharisees
tried to induce him openly to deny that Jesus was the
Messiah. His unhesitating confession left no doubt as to
where he stood. Similarly for the Ebionitic account which
makes James the head of all the Churches centring in the
Hebrew Church at Jerusalem, there must be some historical
basis (n. 5). So long as the Church was composed only
of congregations whose charter members had been mem-
bers of the Jerusalem Church before they were scattered
abroad by persecution, and before the missionary work
among the Gentiles, which began from Antioch, made this
city a new centre of church life independent of Jerusalem,
the man at the head of the mother Church must have
had authority throughout the entire Church. Until this
independent movement developed, his name was a power

104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

even in Antiocli, and could be used to intimidate even a
man like Peter (Gal. ii. 12 ; regarding the time, cf. Chron.
Survey, Part XL). Such a position on the part of the
writer is presupposed in this letter, which tradition has
always ascribed to James, the head of the Jerusalem
Church.

Tradition is just as unanimous in identifying this
" bishop " James with James " the brother of the Lord."
There is little doubt, therefore, that the writer of this
letter is the James referred to by Paul in Gal. i. 19 (n. 6).
As to the sense in which he was called a brothei of the
Lord, there has been difference of opinion ever since the
beginning of the second century, and after the fourth
century the question was warmly debated. But it is easy
to see that it was dogmatic and aesthetic rather than
historical considerations which prevented a general accept-
ance of the facts as stated in the Bible and in the earliest
traditions of the Jerusalem Church. It is shown else-
where (Forsch. vi. 328-363) that this James, his brother
Jude (Jude 1), together with a Simon and a Joseph, all
younger brothers of Jesus, were real sons of Joseph and
Mary (Mark vi. 3 ; Matt. xiii. 55). After the death of their
father they lived with their mother (Mark iii. 21, 31-35 ;
Matt. xii. 46-50; Luke viii. 19-21), without, however,
keeping themselves entirely apart from their brother's
public work. When Jesus selected Capernaum as the centre
of His prophetic work in Galilee, His brothers removed
thither with their mother (John ii. 12 ; cf. Matt. iv. 13) ;
while their sisters, who were probably married, continued
to reside in Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 56 ; Mark vi. 3). Still,
Jesus' brothers were never among His intimate disciples.
We learn from John vii. 3-10 that six months before Jesus'
death His brothers did not believe in Him. But the words
which this remark of the evangelist is intended to explain,
bitter as they may seem, are very far from betraying in-
difference, and certainly do not show any hostility. Since

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 105

Jesus' influence on the people in Galilee was already on
the wane, and the ranks of His faithful followers were
growing constantly thinner (John vi. 60-71), the brothers
impatiently urge the Lord to go back now to Jerusalem,
which He had avoided for a long time, and there at the
centre of Jewish life, where He had won considerable
following earlier (John ii. 23, iii. 22-iv. 3), to remove all
doubt, particularly their own doubt, regarding His high
calling by there performing miracles such as He had been
doino- in Galilee since His withdrawal from Jerusalem.

Jesus did not follow their suggestion, or, at least, He
followed it in such a way as to teach them that they
ought to accommodate their ideas to His. We are unable
to trace accurately the development of their relation to
Him. We only know that at the latest within a few days
after the Eesurrection they had decided for Jesus ; for
on the day of the Ascension w r e find them gathering for
prayer with their mother and the apostles (Acts i. 14),
and we have the record of a separate appearance of the
risen Jesus to James, the brother of the Lord (n. 7). In
the year 57, Paul mentions the brothers of the Lord and
the apostles as being married missionaries. Jude was a
married man, for tradition mentions his grandsons ; and
this may have been true also of Joseph and Simon. Paul
could hardly have meant to include James ; for though f
the tradition has more to say about James than about any
other of Jesus' brothers, it makes no mention of descend-
ants of his ; only distant relatives are spoken of. The
picture of James as a stern ascetic, so deeply impressed
upon the memory of the early Church, favours the view-
that he remained unmarried. And then, according to all
the evidence w r hich we can gather from the N.T. (Acts
xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18; Gal. i. 19, ii. 9, 12), from the
tradition of the Church, and from the Ebionitic literature,
James was a resident of Jerusalem, whereas the persons
referred to in 1 Cor. ix. 5 were itinerant teachers.

io6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

In order thus to overshadow every contemporary of
the same name in the early Church, from the death of
James, the son of Zebedee, in 44 to the time of his own
death in 66, James must have occupied a very prominent
place in Jerusalem ; and it is to be remembered that
this list includes not only a certain James the Less (Mark
xv. 40), but also the Apostle James, the son of Alphreus.
Whether the latter died undistinguished at an early date,
or whether his influence was never widely exerted, we do
not know, but the fact that his position in the early
Church was an entirely subordinate one must simply be
recognised. Just as the bare name Simon stands for
Simon Cephas, even under circumstances where the
Apostle Simon the Zealot seems to be present (Luke
xxiv. 34 ; Acts xv. 14), so from 44 to 66 and long after-
ward the name James was always understood as referring
to the eldest of Jesus' four brothers.

1. (P. 101.) As regards the authoritative tone in which the author speaks,
there is a general resemblance between the Epistle of James and the com-
munications of Jewish patriarchs (above, pp. 10, 33), the Easter letters of the
Christian patriarch of Alexandria (GK, ii. 203), or even the Lenten pastoral
letters of bishops in our own time. In these cases, ecclesiastical custom,
or the recognised official character of the authors, is sufficient occasion for
writing. On the other hand, compare the explanations or even apologies in
Rom. i. 1-16, xv. 14 ff. ; 1 Cor. i. 11 ; 2 Cor. ii. 3, 9, iii. 1, vi. 11-13, vii. 8ff.,
xi. 1 ff., xiii. 10 ; Eph. iii. 3 f. ; Col. ii. 1-5 ; Phil. iii. 1 ; 1 Pet. v. 12 ; 2 Pet. i.
12; Heb. xiii. 18, 22; Ign. Rom. iv. 3 ; Eph. xii. 1; Trail, iii. 3; Polyc. ad Phil.
iii. 1, xii. 1. The only remains of early Christian literature which are
comparable with James in this regard are the Johannine Epistles.

2. (P. 101.) Change of tone is reflected in change of address. ae\(f)oi /uou
ayanrjToi, i. 16, 19, ii. 5 ; dSeX0oi pov, i. 2, ii. 1, 14, iii. 1, V. 12, 19 ; nScX^ot, iv.
11, v. 7, 9, 10. Until, finally, the name of brother is omitted altogether, iii. 13,
iv. 1, 13, and the tone becomes that of severest rebuke, ii. 20, iv. 4, v. 1.

3. (P. 102.) The old Latin translation, the latest and best edition of which
is that of J. Wordsworth (Stud. bibl. Oxoniensia, i. 113-123), based on the only
existing MS. (ninth or tenth century), has this note at the end, "explicit
epistola Jacobi filii Zsebedei" (sic). A trace of this same view, for which
Wordsworth in another passage, i. 144, probably by an oversight, makes
Jerome responsible, is to be found in the confused lists of the twelve apostles
and seventy disciples known as those of Hippolytus and Dorotheus, where it is
said of James the son of Zebedee, that he preached the gospel " to the twelve
tribes of Israel in the diaspora." Then either no other James is mentioned

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 107

among the apostles, while James the brother of the Lord is mentioned among
the seventy disciples without any suggestion that he wrote the letter (Chron.
pasch., ed. Bonn, ii. 122, 136 ; cf. Cave, Hist. lit. 1720, p. 107), or, without
his being made the son of Alplueus, his name is found among the apostles
between "Judas of James" and "Thaddceus Judas" on the one hand, and
Simon Zelotes and Matthew on the other (Lagartle, Const. ap. p. 283). In the
first printed edition of the Syriac N.T. (ed. Widmanstad, Viennse, 1555), the
following is found in Syriac on a title-page just before the Catholic Epistles :
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we print three Epistles of James, Peter,
and John, who were witnesses of our Lord's revelation, when He was trans-
figured before their eyes on Mount Tabor, and when they saw Moses and
Elias, who talked with Him. Until it is proved that this statement is found
in ancient MSS. the entire title must be regarded as the work of the Jacobite
bishop Moses of Mardin, who furnished the MS. for the edition of 1555.
Of an entirely different character is the frequent designation of the writer
of the letter as an apostle. Thus, e.g., in the sixth century MSS. of the Pesh.
in Wright's Catal. of Syr. MSS. pp. 80, 81, 82, and in the Latin versions of
Origen, cf. ed. Delarue, ii. 139, 158, 671 ("apostolus est qui dicit"), but never
in the writings which are extant in Greek. This may be due to Jerome's
identification of the bishop James with James the son of Alplueus, or simply
to the fact that in ancient times the apostolic title was quite freely used (cf.
Skizsen, 341, n. 12) being given to the seventy disciples (Iren. ii. 21. 2 ; Tert.
c. Marc. iv. 24 in.) but especially to authors whose writings were regarded
with more or less unanimity as belonging in the N.T., as Luke (Hippol. De
Antichr. 56), Barnabas (Clem. Strom, ii. 31 and 35), Clement of Eome (Clem.
Strom, iv. 105). In modern times the authorship of the Epistle by James
the son of Zebedee has been defended by G. Jager, ZfLTh. 1878, S. 420 ft.

4. (P. 103.) Cf. the treatise on "Briider und Vettern Jesu," Forsch. vi.
225-363. The title 6 8i K mos was given him not only by Christians, such as
the redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews (GK, ii. 700, Frag. 18), Hegesippus
(Eus. ii. 23. 18, iv. 22. 4), Clement (Eus. ii. 1. 3f.); but, according to
Hegesippus, by all from the time of Jesus (Eus. ii. 23. 4), particularly by
the unbelieving Jews (Eus. ii. 23. 6, 15-17). Probably by the event which
followed shortly after the death of James, Hegesippus did not understand
the siege and capture of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), but the outbreak
of the Jewish war under Vespasian in the spring of A.D. 67 (Eus. ii.
23. 18, (cat fvdvs Ovfa-rra<Tiavbs Tro\iopKfl avrovs). A war which not only
ended with the siege and capture of Jerusalem, but which in its previous
conduct had been characterized mainly by the investment and capture
of fortified places (Jotapata, Gamala, Tabor), might very appropriately be
described as a iroXiopKflv rovs 'lovdaiovs ; cf. 2 Kings xvii. 4, 5 ; Eus. H. E.
iv. 5. 2 and 6 title ; cf. also Cliron. ad, a. Abrah. 2039 of the entire Hadrian-
itic war. This statement of Hegesippus is our only authority, since the
passage in Josephus (Ant. xx. 9. 1) where it is said that "James the brother
of Jesus, the so-called Christ," along with several others, was condemned to
be stoned for breaking the law by a court appointed by the high priest
Ananus, in the year 62, shows unmistakable signs of interpolation by a
Christian hand. Besides this passage, which is accurately quoted in H. E.
ii. 23. 21, Eusebius cites another statement of Josephus (ii. 23. 20) which

i o8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

represents the destruction of Jerusalem as a penalty for the killing of James.
This statement is not to be found in any of the extant MSS. of Josephus,
but is given in essentially the same form by Origen, c. Gels. i. 47 (cf. ii. 13),
and is elsewhere referred by him to the Antiquities of Josephus (Com. in Mt.
xiii. 55, ed. Delarue, iii. 463). Since Eusebius cites the passage in direct
discourse, while Origen gives it only in indirect discourse, it is highly im-
probable that Eusebius took it from Origen. More likely both read it in
their Josephus, but not in the twentieth book of the Antiquities cited by
Eusebius in the context, but in the Jewish War, in the fifth book of which
something similar was found by later readers (Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 463).
Origen, quoting from memory, made a slight mistake in citing his authority,
as he does in making other quotations from Josephus (e.g. on Matt. xvii. 25;
Del. iii. 805). This passage, which is not to be found in existing MSS. of
the Jewish War, is even more open to suspicion than Ant. xx. 9. 1, which is
extant. It is on the authority of the latter passage that the Chronicle of
Eusebius fixes the date of James' death (a. Abrah. 2077, in the redaction of
Jerome 2078, i.e. 61 or 62 A.D.), while the date given in the Paschal Chronicle
(ed. Bonn, i. 460), 69 A.D., is based upon the other apocryphal Josephus
passage, or upon a wrong interpretation of the statement of Hegesippus.
The statements of Jerome, Vir. III. ii (cf. xiii), which depend upon Eusebius and
which are very confused, are worthless. While Jerome seems to think that
the gravestone of James, erected on the spot where he was executed, beside
the temple, remained there only until the time of Hadrian, Hegesippus,
who did not write before 180, says, fri avrov f) crTrjXr) p,tvei rrapa TW vaa>.
Andreas Cretensis, who lived in Jerusalem in 680, says of James (op. cit.
p. 12), \a(36vTfs avTov eda-^av ev Totrat Ka\ovfjLeva> KaXw ir\r)triov TOV vaov
TOV 6fov. In Jerome's time (Vir. 111. ii end) it was a matter of common
belief that he was burned on the Mount of Olives.

5. (P. 103.) Ep. Petri ad Jac. 1 ; dementis ad Jac. 1 ; cf. Skizzen, 64 f., 342,
n. 17. Nothing is said in Acts concerning the beginning of the " episcopate "
of James. Just as we learn in Acts xi. 30 without any previous notice of
the existence of presbyters in Jerusalem, so in Acts xii. 17 we learn that
"James and the brethren" means the entire Jerusalem Church. Though
not an apostle, he stands in close relation to the presbyters (Acts xv. 6, 13,
22 f.), and the latter are represented as gathering to him (Acts xxi. 18).
Clement makes the vesting of James with the episcopate follow immediately
upon the ascension (see Eus. ii. 1-3, and Forsch. iii. 73, 75, n. 1). Hegesip-
pus says that James assumed the leadership of the Jerusalem Church, not
like the bishops of other Churches who became the successors of the apostles
who founded the Churches, on the death of the latter, but in conjunction
with the apostles while these still remained for the most part in Palestine
(Eus. ii. 23. 4, pcra rwv aTrooToAtoi/, not post apodolos, as in Jerome, Vir. III. ii).
More trustworthy seems the statement of Eusebius (ii. 1. 2), which probably
rests back upon other passages in Hegesippus, that he became bishop after
the death of Stephen. The changes in the organisation of the Jerusalem
Church, which we observe from Acts xi. 30 on, were probably the result of
the temporary dissolution of the Church in the year 35 (Acts viii. 1-4), not of
the events recorded in Acts xii. As late as the fourth century, in Jerusalem
was shown the seat in which James was accustomed to sit (Eus. vii. 19.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 109

32. 29). Gregorius Barhebr. (Chron. Eccl, ed. Abbeloos et Lamy, i. 62), who
could not have derived his information from Eusebius, testifies that this was
true in the time of Tiiuseus (called by him Timothy), 270-280 A.D. While
the principal reason for James' promotion to a place of commanding influence
may have been his personal integrity, there was another influence that
helped to bring it about. After his death, Simeon, another relative of
Jesus, was chosen bishop (Heges. ; see Eus. iv. 22. 4). The grandchildren of
Judas the brother of Jesus were considered by non-Christians to be of the
line of David, and until the time of Hadrian occupied prominent positions
in the Palestinian Church (Heges. ; see Eus. iii. 20. 1-8, 32. 6, cf. iii. 11.
12, 19). As late as the third century there were still kindred of Jesus in
Palestine and outside who were honoured with the title deo-nocrvvoi (belonging
to the family of the fieo-jroVijs, i.e. Christ. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 1 ; Jude 4), and who
boasted about their nobility (Africanus ; see Eus. i. 7. 11, 14). According
to the same writer, they had spread from Nazareth and Kokaba throughout
the world. According to the Syrian tradition, three successive bishops
of Seleucia, in the third century, the third a contemporary of Porphyrius,
the opponent of Christianity, were descendants of the carpenter Joseph
(Greg. Barh. Chron. Eccl. iii. 22 f. ; Assemani, Bibl. Or. ii. 395). With these
traditions compare the fact that after the destruction of the temple and of
the high priesthood, which had always had a certain show of princely
dignity (Acts xxiii. 5), the Jews called the Rabbi who, after seventy, stood
at the head of the highest rabbinic school and court, a prince (N'^)> regarded
the office as hereditary, and laid emphasis upon the descent of Hillel and
his posterity, from David on the maternal side ; cf. Hamburger, RE fur Bibel
und Talmud, ii. 401, 838 ff. One is reminded also of the so-called exiliarch,
the "head of the diaspora" in Babylon, and of the Jewish ethnarchs of
Alexandria. James, and after him Simeon, was such a Nasi of the Christian
twelve tribes. So, when in Clem. Recogn. i. 68, James is called episcoporum
princeps in contrast to Caiaphas, the princeps sacerdotum, it is not out of
keeping with the view current in the earliest Jewish Christian Church.

6. (P. 104.) C. Wieseler's hypothesis (TliStKr. 1842, S. 80 ff., cf. his Kom.
zum Galatcrbrief, ad Zoc.), that the brother of Jesus mentioned in Gal. i. 19
was not an apostle, while the James referred to in Gal. ii. 9, 12 is James the
son of Alphaeus, scarcely requires refutation to-day. It would be easier to
believe that two different persons are referred to in Gal. i. 19 and Gal. ii. 9, 12,
if in the former passage mention were made simply of a James, and then later
of a James further distinguished as 6 aSeX^os TOV nvpLov. Gal. i. 19 deals with
an event which took place while James the son of Zebedee was still alive,
and in the connection it was natural to note that the James in question was
not an apostle. On the other hand, the events mentioned in Gal. ii. 9, 12
took place subsequent to the death of the son of Zebedee.

7. (P. 105.) From 1 Cor. xv. 7 it is not clear whether the James referred to
is an apostle or not. Nor is the statement of the Hebrew Gospel decisive ; for,
on the one hand, it represents the James to whom the risen Christ appeared as
the brother of Jesus, known as " The Just" ; but, on the other hand, it speaks
of him as partaking of the Last Supper with Jesus, apparently regarding him
as an apostle (Fragment 18, GK, ii. 700). This Gospel contradicts both Paul
and the canonical Gospels when it speaks of the appearance as if it were the

no INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

very first that occurred in the early morning. According to 1 Cor. xv. 7, the
appearance to James occurred toward the end of the forty days (Acts i. 3, xiii.
31), and so must have taken place in Galilee, where Jesus appeared to more than
live hundred brethren before He appeared to James. There is nothing to indi-
cate that the brothers of Jesus were present at the Passover during which Jesus
was put to death. John xix. 26 f. is more easy to understand if they retained
their critical attitude and at the time remained away from Jerusalem.
Although the Hebrew Gospel varies from the true tradition at this point, it
does not impress one as being a mere idle tale. It is supported by 1 Cor. xv. 7.
The saying of Jesus to James, " My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of
Man is risen from the dead," is beautiful. The vow of James which the say-
ing presupposes, namely, that he will eat no more bread until he sees the Lord
risen, is not only thoroughly Jewish (Acts xxiii. 14), but quite in keeping
with the personal character of James, who was a Nazarite (Heges. ; see Eus.
ii. 23. 5), and there is no reason for questioning its historicity. The
sentiment expressed in such a vow is not unlike that of Thomas (John xx.
24-29, xi. 16). In the very unbelief there is a longing to behold what it is
not yet possible to believe.

6. THE AUTHOK'S TEAINING AND HABITS OF

THOUGHT.

Better acquaintance is to be had with James from his
own letter than from the scant remains we have of trust-
worthy tradition. It is due quite as much to James' way
of looking at things as to the circumstances of the readers
to whom he wrote, that he does not feel it necessary to
develop the faith confessed by him and his readers (i. 1,
ii. 1) in any of its theoretical aspects, but insists as
strenuously as he can that they make their lives conform
to the orthodox faith which they profess. That he had
a profound and vital opinion concerning the cardinal
doctrines of the Christian faith, is proved by incidental
references to the glory of Christ (ii. 1), to sin and the
deep roots which it has in human nature (i. 14 f., iii. 7 f.),
and to the power of God's word, once rooted in the
Christian's heart, to create new life and to save. This
word is a law of liberty which the Christian can and
ought to obey (i. 18, 21, 25, n. 1). It is shown further
by references to the Spirit which God has sent to dwell
in the hearts of Christians (iv. 5), to the still greater

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES in

boon which Christians are finally to receive (iv. 6),
the heavenly kingdom to be ushered in with the parousia
of the Lord, of which they are heirs, and to the new
creation of which they, the children of God begotten by
the word of His truth, are the first-fruits (i. 12, 18, ii. 5,
v. 8 f. ). While a man like Paul, even in cases where the
application of religious truth to life was direct, always
sought to show the relation between the content of the
Christian faith and its practical application by recalling
the facts of the gospel history and showing the natural
development of the practical application from these facts,
James always begins at once with practical exhortation.
He is not so much a teacher who develops the truth, as
he is a preacher who speaks like a prophet (n. 2). A
man of the logical type of mind and a teacher who had
been trained in the schools could hardly have failed, in
a discussion as elaborate as that in Jas. i. 2-17, to make
clear to the readers the distinction between the two ideas
in the word ireipaa^. Nor would such a person have
been likely to cite Gen. xv. 6 without stating in what
sense he understood the reckoning of faith there spoken
of to be righteousness, and without showing wherein this
idea here expressed differed from his own conception of

BiKaiovadai.

Without any extended discussion or argument, James
shows that he has a vital grasp of the truth, in language
which for forcibleness is without parallel in early Christian
literature, excepting the discourses of Jesus. We have
here the eloquence that comes from the heart and goes
to the conscience, a kind which was never learned in a
school of rhetoric. The flow of words (n. 4) seems to be
just as natural as the succession of ideas (n. 3). Several
words do not occur in literature before James. Whether
some of these were coined by the author or whether all
of them were in common use in the locality where he lived,
we do not know. But it is very clear that the author

H2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

got his facility in the use of Greek, not in some rhetorical
school, but from life. His language is comparatively free
from gross mistakes, and even shows some feeling for the
euphony and rhythm of the Greek tongue (n. 5). And
yet on the whole how limited is his command of this
foreign language. In the entire Epistle there is scarcely
one periodic sentence, the language used consisting for
the most part of short sayings, questions, and exclamations.
There is no good reason for denying that James wrote
Greek by assuming that the letter was written originally
in Aramaic (n. 6) ; nor is it right to make his inability to
do so an argument against the historical character of the
tradition concerning James. If the membership of the
mother Church consisted from the beginning in large part
of Hellenists who kept on using the Greek language after
their settlement in Jerusalem (above, pp. 39 f., 42 f.), the
same is likely also to have been the case in the Churches
colonised from this centre. Then, besides the native Jews,
who were called Hellenists, in Csesarea (Acts x.), certainly
also in Ptolernais and Tyre (above, p. 44), there must have
been added to the Church a number of Gentiles and prose-
lytes, who had no more occasion after than before their
conversion to familiarise themselves with the Jewish ver-
nacular, Greek being the language of common intercourse
in those cities ; and in Antioch this number must have
been very large. Now, if an author wanted to be under-
stood by these Greeks and to reach the heart of these
Hellenists, it was necessary to address them in Greek.
And he could do so in the confidence that he would be
understood by much the larger part of the "Hebrews"
living in this extended region. The latter were certainly
to be found not only in Jerusalem, but also in Lydda,
Joppa, Damascus, and elsewhere (above, p. 66, n. 12).
But, writing from Jerusalem in the circumstances that he
did, while not formally excluding the Christians near him
from the address, he must have had these far less in mind

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 113

than the more remote Churches, including those as far
away as Antioch, who could not have the benefit of his
oral instructions. We saw, moreover, that James took
account of the Gentiles who were among his readers
(above, p. 91). What was there, then, to prevent him
from adapting the form of his letter to the large number
of Hellenists among his readers by writing in a language
which was certainly intelligible to all, and which it did
not greatly inconvenience him to use ? Even the greeting,
i. 1, shows conscious adaptation to the habits of these
Greeks and Hellenists ; for, without obscuring the sense
at all, James could have used a Jewish greeting, as do
Paul and the other apostles, translating it into Greek and
adapting it for Christian use (n. 7).

To assume that from the position which James occu-
pied in Jerusalem he would have had no opportunity to
acquire the facility in the use of Greek which the author
of this letter had, or that he lacked the ability to acquire
it, is entirely arbitrary (above, p. 45). Assuming that the
letter was written between 44 and 51, the author had
been from fifteen to twenty years a member, and for a
number of years the official head, of this Jerusalem Church,
which very early in its history had more Hellenists than
Hebrews in its membership. As the head of this Church,
James must have been familiar with the Greek O.T.
(above, p. 40), so that it would be entirely natural in
writing a Greek letter that he should make his quotations
from the LXX (n. 8). Still the letter is not altogether
without traces of the author's familiarity with the original
text. James lives and moves in the atmosphere of the
O.T. Besides the few instances where the O.T. is quoted
directly (ii. 8, 11, 23, iv. 5, 6) and specific references to
individuals and facts in the O.T. (ii. 21, 25, v. 10 , 17 f.),
there are numerous passages where the author's thought
seems to flow unconsciously in the mould of O.T. language
(i. 10 f., ii. 7, iii. 9, v. 4, 20). One of his quotations is

VOL. i. 8

ii4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

from a writing unknown to us (n. 9). While the Book of
Proverbs, written by the Palestinian Jesus the son of
Sirach, is not quoted, the letter does show familiarity with
a number of his sayings (n. 10), though it would be going
too far to say that there was any particular mental affinity
between this author and James. On the other hand, there
is a resemblance both in thought and in language between
James' letter and the discourses of his brother Jesus which
have come down to us, which is all the more natural if James
was not directly under Jesus' influence during the latter's
public ministry, and if the resemblance is due neither to
artificial imitation of nor to conscious dependence upon
the discourses of Jesus. There is not a single word of
Jesus' quoted, much less anything from the Gospels. And
yet, although none of the sayings of Jesus are reproduced
in exactly the form in which they have come down to us,
it is possible to fill the margin of the Epistle with
parallels of Jesus' discourses which resemble James more
closely in thought than the parallels from Jewish litera-
ture, some of which are closer verbally (n. 11). Though
James may have become acquainted with most of the words
of Jesus preserved in the oral tradition of the Church by
hearing them from others, still there were not a few of
these sayings which he had heard from Jesus' own lips,
though often with doubt and disapproval (above, p. 104 f.).
After he became a believer, what he learned from others
and what he had heard himself fused together in his
thought, and the impression of the personality of Jesus,
under the influence of which he had been ever since his
childhood, made the tradition so vital that it developed
in him a Christian character which in the early Church
made him seem all but superior to the apostles them-
selves.

Unlike his brothers, he felt no call to engage in mis-
sionary work(l Cor. ix. 5 ; above, p. 105). Here also the
letter is in keeping with James' character, for there is

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 115

very little of the gospel in it, and of all the N.T. writings
it is the one least adapted to give us an idea of the sort
of preaching by which converts were made. It does,
however, presuppose this preaching. It is also in keeping
with the description which we have of the character of
James of Jerusalem, that his letter, while presupposing
the Christian faith, pays little attention to forms of state-
ment specifically Christian, and that its teachings have
the O.T. and Jewish stamp. If this were not the case,
we should have to deny that the Epistle was written by
James, for he was a man who was looked upon as an
authority by the Jews of his own time and by the
Ebionites of a later period, such a man that, as he was
being stoned, Jewish priests are said to have exclaimed,
" Stop ! what do ye ? the Just is praying for you." It
was possible to be deceived into supposing that James'
Christian confession was only an adjunct of his Jewish
piety, which could be cast off without changing his
character. But this supposition he proved to be mis-
taken (above, pp. 103, 107).

1. (P. 110.) From the connection of i. 18, 21, 22, 25 it appears that the
law, whose continued contemplation and fulfilment is urged upon the readers,
is identical with the word of truth, through which God has given them their
religious life, making it thus an " implanted word," or at least is included as
an essential element in it. Now, if it is self-evident that i. 18, 21 f. refer not
to O.T. revelation but to the gospel of Christ, it is also plain that i. 25, ii.
9-12, iv. 11 f., refer not to the Mosaic law as such, but to the law contained
in the gospel. When it is characterised, then, as a " perfect law," the epithet
is not loosely applied to divine law in general (Ps. xix. 8), but marks the
law which is binding upon the newborn, and is implanted in them as a
perfect law in distinction from another which is imperfect. This distinction
is made still clearer by the added phrase, TOV rrjs ehevdepias. But since
" freedom " is not regarded, in the common experience and usage of any age,
as a natural attribute of " law," but rather as its contradiction, it is plain
that James meant his readers to feel in the very form of his expression (cf.
Rom. ix. 30) the contrast between this law and another to which the phrase
could not apply. There is a law of bondage, also, which for that very reason
is imperfect. By this can be meant no other than the Mosaic law, which
was not implanted in the heart, but inscribed on tables of stone (Jer. xxxi.
31-34 ; Heb. viii. 7-13 ; Rom. viii. 15 ; Acts xv. 10), and which, particularly
in the hands of the Rabbis, had become a heavy yoke of slavery (Matt, xxiii. 4,

n6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

cf. xi. 29 f., xii. 7) ; while by the same treatment, on the other hand, it was
reduced in fact and impoverished in spirit (Matt. v. 21-48, xv. 1-20). The
law contained in the gospel demands not less, but more, than the Mosaic law
as expounded by the Pharisees. At the very point, therefore, where Janice
reminds his readers of the increased responsibility of Christians and the
seriousness of the judgment which awaits them (ii. 12), he dwells once more
upon the character of Christian law as a law of liberty. In this he is quite
in accord with the preaching of Jesus. The fact that this new and perfect
law of liberty includes commandments from the Decalogue also, and that
special stress is laid (ii. 8-11) upon the law of love to one's neighbour, which
is likewise an O.T. command, is again in agreement with the preaching of
Jesus, and with the teaching of Paul as well (Rom. ii. 23-27, viii. 4, xiii.
8-10; Gal. v. 14, vi. 2). When James calls the law of love a "royal law,"
he cannot mean simply that it was given by a king, for that is true of all
commands of God and Christ. Nor is there any usage to justify the inter-
pretation, "a law royally superior to all others, an all-inclusive law." He
means rather that it is a law for kings and not for slaves. In Philo, de
creat. Princ. iv, Mangey, ii. 364, @acri\iKf) 686s denotes the manner of life and
conduct which befits a king. It would seem that James was so understood
by Clement (Strom, vi. not vii. 164, vii. 73, cf. GK, i. 323 ; Mayor, 84).
How admirably this suits the context is apparent. The heirs of the kingdom
(ii. 5), who are themselves kings (Rev. i. 6, v. 10 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9), ought to be
ashamed to meet the rich with fawning politeness, offered under pretext of
due brotherly love, and at the same time dishonour the poor. The reverse
legalistic attitude accordingly is closely related to the idea expressed in e'Xeu-
6fpias, As a king's sons, the disciples of Jesus are free, just as He Him-
self was ; and if as members of the pre-Christian people of God they perform
what is there required of them, they are still free nevertheless (Matt. xvii.
24-27).

2. (P. 111.) The distinction between SiSao-KaXos and Trpo^rrjs is by no
means absolute. In Acts xiii. 1 it is hardly permissible to arrange the various
names under the two titles separately. By the transition to the first person
plural in iii. 1, James intimates that he is one of the 8i8uo-Ko\oi in the
broader sense. But the difference between StSa^ij and irpo^rfia was clearly
felt in the life of the Church till well into the second century, cf. 1 Cor. xii.
8-10, 28, xiv. 6, 26 ; Eph. iv. 11 (cf. ii. 20, iii. 5) ; Herm. Mand. xi. ; Didache,
x. 7 ; xi. 3, 7-12 ; xiii. 1-4, cf. Forsch. iii. 298-302 ; Ign. Philad, vii. Although
1 Cor. xiv. 3, 24 f. deals with quite another distinction between prophecy
and the gift of tongues, its characterisation of the prophetic type of discourse
is of general validity, and is applicable to James. Andrew of Crete calls
James a -rrpo^TJjs (iii. 7, xiv. 3) ; and in referring to the Epistle, from which
he makes extended extracts, he speaks repeatedly of its prophetic style (iv.
31, v. 24, vii. 28). Luther did not, as is commonly said, call James "a straw
Epistle" outright, but, contrasting it with John, Romans, Galatians, and
1 Peter, he wrote in 1522 what he did not reprint in later editions of his
Bible : " Therefore St. James' Epistle is a right strawy Epistle as compared
with them; for it has no real gospel character " (Erlangen, eel. 63. 115). There
is, nevertheless, both here and in the introduction to James and Jude (63.
156 if.), a degree of unfairness, which is as easily accounted for as it is re-

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 117

grettable. Cf., further, Kawerau, "Die Schicksale des Jas. in 16 Jahr-
liundert" (ZfKW, 1899, S. 359 ff.).

3. (P. 111.) \atpfiv, i. 1, is echoed immediately in iracrav x a pnv, the open-
ing words of tlie first section, i. 2-18, which set fortli and urge the right attitude
toward the assaults of temptation. The special mention among God's gifts of
the ^generative word (i. 18) forms the transition to the second Action, i. 19-27,
which calls for the right acceptance of this word in heart and life. Care for
widows and orphans, which is mentioned (i. 27) as an example of the proper
activity of the word, leads on to the reproof of a wrong attitude toward both
rich and poor in the third section, ii. 1-13. The contrast between believing
and doing, pointed out in the very beginning of this section, becomes the
theme of the fourth section, ii. 14-26. As this passage censures the dead faith,
which expresses itself in words and not in deeds (ii. 14, 16, 19), it is naturally
followed by the fifth section, iii. 1-18, rebuking the tendency to instruct
others (cf. i. 19), and pointing out the danger of sins of the tongue (cf. i. 26).
In the description of true and false wisdom (iii. 13-18), James does not lose
sight of its immediate occasion (see above, p. 95 f., n. 2) ; but the description
becomes so comprehensive, and passes finally into so urgent a commendation
of peaceableness, that it brings to mind in contrast the many disputes among
the readers, which are dealt with in the sixth section, iv. 1-12. The desire
for the betterment of external conditions, which is noted as the chief ground
of these dissensions, appears most markedly among the merchants and the
landowners, but also among the farm hands, who complain against them.
To these classes the seventh section, iv. 13-v. 12, with its three subdivisions,
refers. Not only Job, however, but Elijah is an example to be considered.
The Christian is not simply to endure in patience what is well-nigh unen-
durable ; prayer offers to the individual and to the Church a means for the
relief of earthly suffering and the cure of moral hurt which transcends even
the natural order. This is pointed out in the eighth section, v. 13-20. Thus,
at the close, as at the beginning of his Epistle, James treats of earthly suffer-
ing, patience, and prayer.

4. (P. 111.) Mayor, clii-cciv, presents a comprehensive examination of
the language of James, and concludes, not improperly, that it contains
fewer formal violations of good usage than any other N.T. book, except
perhaps Hebrews. This is by no means to assert, however, that Paul
had not far greater facility in the use of Greek, or that the style of James
could be confused with that of a classical writer. There are only three
periodic sentences of any extent in the whole letter (ii. 2-4, 15-16, iv.
13-15). The first two are similarly arranged ; the third (and perhaps the
second also) is not correctly carried out. The genitive absolute participle,
the accusative with infinite, and the optative, are entirely lacking. The
use of the particles is exceedingly limited, e.g. av (iii. 4, v. 7, spurious ;
only iv. 4, os fdv), p.ev (only iii. 17 ; never p,ev Se), apa, eirei, Snare, do not
occur, iva appears but twice (i. 4, iv. 3). Rare words are di/e'Xeo?, ii. 13
(instead of dreXer/^coi/, LXX), altered to di/tXecoy by the Antiochians ; di/e-
n'^fa-Bai, i. 6; uireipavTos, i. 13, of persons = untested, or above temptation
(differently, Jos. Hell. Jud. v. 9. 3, vii. 8. 1), next again in Clern. Strom, vii.
45, 70, Const. Ap. ii. 8, in an apocryphal citation; airocmiaa-^a, i. 17, it
is perhaps a matter of chance that this is not found till the later Church

n8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Fathers, for Plutarch has dnoa-Kiaa-fios ; 8atfjiu>i>ia8rjs, iii. 15, first reappearing
in the Jewish Christian Symmachus, Ps. xci. 6, Stylos, i. 8, iv. 8 ; Clem.
1 Cor. xi. 2, also in an apocryphal citation, xxiii. 3, cf. Clem. 2 Cor. xi. 2
(5t\^uxeli > and Sn/n^/a some twenty times in Hennas) ; 6prjcrKus, i. 2G, only
in grammarians and lexicographers ; TroXi'o-TrXay^i/oj, v. 11, recurring for the
first time with its derivatives, Herm. Vis. iv. 3. 5 ; Sim. v. 7. 4 (cf. the writer's
Hirt des Hennas, 330, 399, 487), and Clem. Quis Dives, xxxix ; TrpocrcoTro-
X?;/*7rreti', ii. 9 (together with the more common 7rpoo-o>7roX7p.\//ta, ii. 1, cf. Rom.
ii. 11 ; Col. iii. 25 ; Eph. vi. 9) ; -%a\ivayu>yt~iv, i. 26, iii. 2, cf. Herm. Maud.
xii. 1. 1 ; Polyc. ad Phil. v. 3; Lucian, Tyrannic, 4; xpvcroSaicruXioy, ii. 2,
otherwise unknown.

5. (P. 112.) With regard also to paronomasia, alliteration, rhythm, etc.,
Mayor, cxcv ff., is well worth reading. In many passages he finds something
of a " Miltonic organtone," and in others a volcanic fire glowing through
the words. It is still a question whether irdcra 86a-is dyadrj /cat irav Scop^p-a
rAeioi/, i. 17, is an hexameter, known and quoted by James, as, for example,
Ewald, Das Sendschr. an die Hebr. u. JaTc. Rundschreiben, 190, and Mayor, 53,
think probable, or one accidentally formed with a permissible use of the
short final syllable of Soo-i? in the arsis. The analogy of Heb. xii. 13 (cf.
Winer, 68. 4) favours the latter view, as does the circumstance that the
line contains only a subject and no predicate. The conjecture that it was a
one line adage, " Every gift is good, and every present perfect," in the same
sense as " Don't look a gift horse in the mouth " (H. Fischer, Philolwjus,
1891, p. 378), needlessly charges James with a decidedly ill-timed use of a
somewhat flippant proverb.

6. (P. 112.) The almost forgotten hypothesis of an Aramaic original
(Berthold, Hist. krit. Einl. vi. 3033 ff.) has been revived by J. Wordsworth
(Stud. Bibl. Oxon. i. 141-150). He does not base the theory upon an enumera-
tion of errors and obscurities in the Greek text which would be explained by
the reference to an Aramaic original, but on the Latin translation of the Cod.
Corb., which presupposes, he says, a Greek original very different from the
text otherwise transmitted. Then the existence of two Greek texts so
divergent is to be explained on the ground that they are two independent
versions of an Aramaic original, and this in turn is confirmed by corre-
spondences between the Latin Corb. and the Pesh. Now, these correspond-
ences amount to no more than those between Corb. and other versions and
Greek MSS. (cf. e.g. Tischendorf on Jas. ii. 25), and would be significant only
in case one could assert and prove that the Pesh. contained not a translation
of James but the original. The only point which might demand attention,
namely, the translation of l^dna by res, Jas. v. 2, as an indication that the
Syriac word used in the Pesh. was here the underlying term, is after all of
no consequence ; for, as Mayor, ccvii, shows, Rufinus, Eus. ii. 23. 18, translates
('p-arta in the same way. The originality of the Greek text is established
not only by the lack of proof to the contrary, but by the unconstrained
manner of the Epistle, which, if it were not in the original language, would
imply a mastery of the translator's art unparalleled among the ancients. In
i. 1, 2 the paronomasia between ^a/pai/ and ^apa, so essential to the thought,
would have to be ascribed to the translator. For nothing could have stood
in an Aramaic original but the a^v of the Pesh., which excludes the possi-

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 119

bility of assonance, and which, in connection with the usual N.T. salutation,
would have been rendered by flpfjvrj, and not xm'pav, by any ancient trans-
lator ; see the following note.

7. (P. 113.) The Jews of the Hellenistic period considered the Gentile
xaipeiv an equivalent for the Semitic salutation of peace ; cf. Jerome, p. 23
above, n. 4. This appears even in the LXX, Isa. xlviii. 22, Ivii. 21, cf. Luke
i. 28 ; then at the opening of letters, not only those from Gentile rulers to
Jews (ad Est. vi. 1, Fritzsche, 62 ; 1 Mace. x. 25, xi. 30), but also letters from
Jewish high priests to Gentiles (1 Mace. xii. 6 ; Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 6, according
to Aristeas). 2 Mace. i. 1 shows a combination of Jewish and Greek forms in
the intercourse between the Jews of Palestine and those of Egypt, first
and then elprjvrjv dyadijv (more skilfully in Barn. i. 1, xaipere . . . ev
In the second letter, 2 Mace. i. 10, a thoroughly Greek expression,
<a\ vyiaivfiv, see above, p. 78, n. 2. The Semitic greeting, Dan. iii. 31, vi. 25
(cf. Ezra v. 78), which Gamaliel also uses (see above, p. 33, n. 18), is translated
by LXX and Theodotion pretty literally flprjvr) vp.lv Tr\r]dvv6eir], cf. 1 Pet.
i. 2 ; 2 Pet. i. 2 ; Jude 2. elprjvr/ alone in closing, 1 Pet. v. 14 ; 3 John 15.
There are also strictly Jewish expansions, like that of ap. Baruchi, Ixxviii. 2, in
the letter to the nine and a half tribes beyond the river (Ceriani, Monumenta
S. et Prof. v. 2. 168) : pa 1 ? MI.IJ xchv qx Nam, cf. Gal. vi. 16 ; Jude 2, e\eos nal
flpijvrj. After x^P LS ' with its resemblance in sound to ^ai'petv, had estab-
lished itself in connection with elpiivrj, eXeos might still be added, 1 Tim. i. 2 ;
2 Tim. i. 2 (Tit. i. 3 ?) ; 2 John 3. James contents himself with the simplest,
because he knows that the more ceremonious greeting of the Israelite may
degenerate into empty formality (cf. John xiv. 27), and that the Greek
salutation, though not exactly the expression of a serious conception of life,
may be lifted to a higher plane of thought. John, who incidentally assumes
the customary use of ^cupeii/ in the spoken intercourse of Christians (2 John
10 f.), does not hesitate to appropriate the specifically Epicurean form, 3 John 2,
cf. p. 78, n. 2. Bengel, Gnomon on Acts xv. 23, " Non semper utuntur fideles
formulis ardentissimis." It is noteworthy that, except for the letter of a
Gentile, Acts xxiii. 26, this xai'peu/ occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in Acts
xv. 23, in a document sent at James' suggestion to the Gentile Christians of
Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Other resemblances between Acts xv. 13-29 and
James have been noticed (Schneckenburger, Beitrage zur Einl. 209 ; Mayor,
iv), e.g. Acts XV. 13, aVSpe? aSeX<pol aKOUtrare JJLOV, cf. Jas. ii. 5 ; Acts XV. 17
(Amos ix. 12), e<' ovs eVt/ce'icX^Tai TO OVO/JLO. p.ov eV avrovs, cf. Jas. ii. 7 ; Acts
XV. 29, e' u>v BiaTrfpovvTes eavrovs, cf. Jas. i. 27, uffiriXov rrjpelv eavTov OTTO row
Ko<rp.ov. Such similarities tend constantly to confirm the tradition, which
ascribes the origin of both letters to the same period and the same circle.

8. (P. 113.) In Jas. ii. 23, Gen. xv. 6 is cited according to the LXX with
the passive eXoyicrOr), and not the active construction of the original. The
connective Se, which is well attested, also, in Rom. iv. 3, and recurs in Clem.
1 Cor. x. 6, Just. Dial, xcii, appears as early as Philo, de Mut. Norn, xxxiii,
Mangcy, i. 605, and then in the text of Lucian, ed. Lagarde. Lacking N and B
for Gen. xv. 6, it is hard to say whether nai or 8e is original in the LXX.
Jas. ii. 8 = Lev. xix. 18, LXX ; but this could scarcely have been translated
otherwise. One can hardly determine from Jas. ii. 11 the arrangement of
the Decalogue to which James was accustomed. The order of the command-

120 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

ruents as James uses them is based upon their content (see above, p. 100, n. 9),
UT) instead of ov, Ex. xx. 13 ff., was an amendment of style, cf . Luke xviii. 20.
Kad' 6/ioiWiv deov yeyovoTas, Jas. iii. 9, is derived from Gen. i. 26, LXX.
Jas. iv. 6 = Prov. iii. 34, but differs materially from the Hebrew, to which the
substitution of 0f6s for Kvpios brings it no nearer. If we grant that Jas.
i. 10 f. is manifestly based on Isa. xl. 6-8, avdos xoprou is an agreement with
the LXX against the Hebrew (" flower of the field "). The same is true of
Jas. v. 4, if Isa. v. 9 is, in the main at least, its foundation. But in one
passage, at any rate, and perhaps two, the case is different. Jas. v. 20 (cf.
1 Pet. iv. 8) has affinities with the Masoretic text of Prov. x. 12, but none
with the LXX. Jas. ii. 23, KOI (piXos deov {K\ydy, does not indeed purport to
be part of the citation from Gen. xv. 6, but it is introduced as an undoubted
fact, that is, as one to be found in the O.T. It is derived from the original
of Isa. xli. 8 ; 2 Chron. xx. 7, whereas the LXX in both passages, in different
forms, makes the one "loving" God into one "loved" by Him. Still the
application of this term to Abraham need not necessarily be accounted for
by personal acquaintance with the original text. James might also have
learned it in the synagogue, like Philo, who, in quoting Gen. xviii. 17 (cfe
Sobr. xi. ed. Mangey, i. 401) inserts after Abraham's name TOV (piXov p.ov, to
which there is nothing in the Hebrew to correspond. In another citation of
the same passage (Leg. All. iii. 8 M. i. 93) he has, instead of this, TOV rrai86s
/nou, like the LXX. The epithet occurs also in the Book of Jubilees (xix. 20,
xxx. 21, ed. Ronsch, xxiv. 25, 420 f.), which was probably written in Palestine
in the first century. It is doubtful whether this term was in the thought
of so early a writer as Apollonius Molon (area 80 B.C., according to Schuivr,
iii. 402 [Eng. trans. II. iii. 252]) when he explained the name Abraham
etymologically as iraTpbs (pi\os (Bus. Prcep. ev. ix. 19. 2, cf. HilgenMd,
Einl. 542). Symmachus, at a later period, translated Isa. xli. 8, TOV (fetXov
fiov (Field, Hexapla, ii. 513), and seems then to have been followed by the
Antiochian recension of the LXX (Holmes- Parsons on 2 Chrou. xx. 7).

9. (P. 114.) The formula fj ypcxpr; Xe'yei (without ort, moreover), as well as
the fragmentary and obscure form of the saying Jas. iv. 5, forbid the view of
Hofmann, vii. 3. Ill f., and Mayor, 131, that this is simply a free combination
of O.T. ideas (Ex. xx. 5, xxix. 45 ; Deut. xxxii. 21 ; Isa. Ixiii. 10). The
saying does indeed ally itself with that O.T. line of thought (cf. 1 Cor. x. 22 ;
Rom. x. 19) of which poixaXio'es, iv. 4, is already just a suggestion, but in such
a way that we recognise that it must have been taken from a connection
unknown to us. " Enviously (jealously) does that spirit long (love its object)
which He (God) has made to dwell in us." Spitta, 117-123, conjectures that
the saying is taken from the Book of Eldad and Modad cited by Hermas,
Vis. ii. 3. 4. Resch, who does not consider it an anachronism that James
should already quote gospels as Scripture, is positive that we have here a
citation from a Hebrew gospel (Agrapha, 256). It is to be hoped that Spitta's
proposition (118f.) to connect npbs (pdovov with f) yprxprj Ae'ya in the sense
of irfpl TOV (p06i>ov(\) will not meet with approval. Kirn, ThStKr. 1904, S.
127 ff., would read wpos TOV 6(6v, cf. Ps. xlii. 2 ; Eccles. xii. 7. The change of
subject between eVi7ro# and KaruiKia-fv need not surprise us in a quotation
thus removed from its context. Otherwise we should not hesitate to read
with the Antiochiaus.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 121

10. (P. 114.) Jas. i. 5 = Sir. xli. 22, pera TO 8ovvai pr) ovfi8i^f, cf. xviii. 17,
xx. 14, always of human beings. Jas. i. 13 f. = Sir. xv. 11-20. Jas. i. 19 =
Sir. iv. 29, fj.i] yivov raxvs (al. rpaxvs, dpacrvs) (v yXcoo-cr^ crou (in contrast with
slotlifulness in works); v. 11, yivov raxvs ev aKpodcrfi crov KOI ti> panpo-
6vp.la (pBfyyov unoKpia-Lv (and gentle in answering), cf. vi. 33-36. Jas. i. 20
(p. 96 above) = Sir. i. 19 (al. 22), ov Swija-erai 6vp.bs il8iKos dutauodfivat KT\.,
Jas. i. 25 = Sir. xiv. 23. Jas. ii. 1-6 = Sir. x. 19-24 (22, art^ticrat irTu>x" 1 '
Jas. ii. 6). Jas. iii. 2 = Sir. xiv. 1, panapios uvijp os OVK ui\i<rdr)crfv ev crrd/xart
aiiTOv ; cf. xxv. 8, xix. 16, ris ov% ijp.apTev tv TIJ yXuxra-rj avrov. Jas. iii. 9 (to
be considered with its context) = Sir. xvii. 3, 4. Jas. v. 3 = Sir. xxix. 10, 11
(apyvptov p.i} la>61]Ta> . . . xpva-iov'), cf. xii. 10. Jas. v. 4, 6 = Sir. xxxi. (xxxiv.)
22 f. (al. 25 f.), cf. iv. 1-6. Jas. v. 13ff. = Sir. xxxviii. 9-15. There is not
enough material to determine whether James had read the Hebrew original
of Sirach, still extant in Jerome's time, or the Greek translation, or both.
The parallels from Wisdom, and those from Philo diligently collected by
Schneckenburger, Annotatio in Epic. Jac. 1832 (in his comments on the
several passages) ; Siegfried, Philo, 310-314 ; Mayor, 1, are useful for illus-
tration, but are by no means sufficient to show that James was acquainted
with these writings. With regard to Philo, cf. Feine, Jakobusbrief, 142-146.
Parallels from Greek philosophical literature, especially that of Stoicism
(Mayor, Ixxix ff.), are even less pertinent. One might rather undertake
to show that Epictetus had read James. Hilgenfeld, 539, A. 2, saw in
Jas. iii. 6 (TOV rpoxov TTJS yeveo-futs) a " conclusive " proof that James was
familiar with the conceptions of Orphic mysticism. In that case, as it was
the progress of souls contemplated in the doctrine of metempsychosis which
was spoken of in Orphic phraseology as KVK.XOS yeveaeas, and occasionally
also (with a reference to the wheel of Ixion) as rpoxos yei/eVeco? (Lobeck,
Aglaophamus, 798 ff.), we must suppose that James seized upon a phrase
which he did not understand, without making the least use of the correspond-
ing idea. But James uses yevea-is here just as in i. 23, and he compares
human existence to a wheel, because he is thinking of it in its constant
activity. The tongue, though itself a very unstable member (iii. 8), stands
amid the members (/ca&'o-rarai ev TO"LS p.f\f(nv) as the centre of the body, and
in relation to it may be likened to the hub or axle of a wheel which con-
tinually revolves about it. Cf. in addition also the gloss after Sir. xx. 30
(in Fritzsche on margin) dSeo-rroTos rpo^AarT/s TTJS I8!.as {TTTJS. It is remark-
able that, in connection with the Orphic suggestions in James, no one has
adduced also the line in Clem. Strom, v. 127, 8aifj.ovfs ov (ppia-a-ova-iv (Jas.
ii. 19), and the oracle of Apollo of Miletus in Lact. de Ira, xxiii, and the
Egyptian incantations (Pap. mag. Luyd., ed. Dieterich, JbfKPh., Supplement,
Bel. xvi. 800 ; Neue griech. Zaulerpap., ed. Wessely, Denkschr. der Wiener Ak.
xlii. 2. 65).

11. (P. 114.) James' affinity with the discourses of Jesus can be but imper-
fectly indicated by means of figures. The less immediate parallels are placed
in parentheses. Jas. i. 2 = Matt. v. 12 (Luke vi. 23 is further removed on
account of eV fKfivy T;/ J][j.cpa). Jas. i. 4 = Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13. Jas. i. 5 f.,
17 = Matt. vii. 7 (alre'ire Koi 8o6!]<TfTai v/xti/)-!!, xxi. 21 (p.f) 8iciKpi0?)Tf)-22
(Luke xi. 9-13; Mark xi. 23). Jas. i. 22-25 = Matt. vii. 21-27 ; Luke vi.
46-49. Jas. i. 26f. = Mark xii. 40 (Matt. xii. 7, xv. 2-9, xxiii. 2-4, 23-26).

122 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

(Jas. ii. 1-4 = Mark xii. 38 f. ; Matt, xxiii. 6-12.) Jas. ii. 5 = Luke vi. 20, 24,
xii. 21 ; Matt. v. 3. (Jas. ii. 8, 10f. = Matt. v. 19 ff., xix. 18 f., xxii. 36 IF.,
with the synoptic parallels, and with reference to the conceptions e\evd(pia
and paviXiKos, p. 116, note 1, above.) Jas. ii. 13 = Matt. v. 7, xviii. 23-37;
Luke vi. 33. (Jas. iii. 1 = Mark xii. 40, XTJ^OVTCU TTfpicrcroTfpov Kpl/ia.) Jas.
iii. 10-12 = Luke vi. 43-45. (Jas. iii. 18 = Matt. v. 9.) Jas. iv. 4 = Matt. vi.
24 ; Luke xvi. 13 ; and for poixd\i8(s, Matt. xii. 39 ; Mark viii. 38. Jas. iv. 9
= Luke vi. 25. Jas. iv. 10 = Matt, xxiii. 12 ; Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14. Jas. iv.
ll = Matt. vii. 1 ; Luke vi. 37. Jas. iv. 12 = Matt. x. 22. (Jas. iv. 17 = Luke
xii. 47.) Jas. v. 2 f . = Matt. vi. 19. (Jas. v. 8 f . = Matt. xxiv. 33 ; Mark xiii.
29.) Jas. v. 12 = Matt. v. 33-37, xxiii. 16-22. Jas. v. 17 = Luke iv. 25 (with
regard to the note of time, which is not to be traced directly to the O.T.,
cf. Hofmann, vii. 3. 143). The correspondence between Jas. v. 14 and Mark
vi. 13 indicates a close connection with the earliest days of Christianity. We
have nothing to do here with the sacramental use of oil in the ancient Church ;
James stands, like Jesus, on the soil of Judaism, cf. Spitta, 144 f. Those
sayings deserve special consideration, to which certain of James' readers
appealed in a way that he disapproved. Since Trpoa-ojrroX^p.nTflre, Jas. ii. 9,
maintains the connection with ii. 1, we are to infer from ii. 8 that to justify
obsequiousness toward persons of prominence, in spite of their own generally
hostile attitude, appeal was made to Lev. xix. 18, that is, of course, to its
meaning as interpreted by Jesus, Matt. v. 43-47, according to whom the
command is not rightly fulfilled till it includes love to enemies. In Jas.
ii. 14 it is implied that the persons whom the writer would oppose fall back
upon the proposition f] TTIO-TIS pov o-co^ei (o-oxm, o-e'o-o)/cei>) p.f, cf. Matt. ix. 22 ;
Mark v. 34, x. 52 ; Luke vii. 50, viii. 48, 50, xvii. 19, xviii. 42 (viii. 12).
It has been repeatedly pointed out that those elements in James which
remind us of the Gospels are closely related to Luke (No'sgen, ThStKr. 1880,
S. 109 ; Feine, Vorkanonische Ueberlicferung des Lucas in Ev. u. der AG, 132 ;
the same, Jakdbusbrief, 70 ff., 133 f.), but it cannot be said that the points
of contact with Luke outnumber those with Matthew. The only inference
which can be drawn is that Luke, even in what is peculiar to his Gospel,
follows early Palestinian tradition. The same is true of the Fourth Gospel,
for James presents noteworthy resemblances to this Gospel also ; cf. P. Ewald,
Hauptprdblem der Evanyelienfrage, 58-68; Mayor, Ixxxiv. ff. Jas. i. 18 =
John iii. 3 [a.TroKvel.v = yevvav, which even in John iii. 4 is applied primarily
to the function of the mother ; povfydeis, cf. John iii. 8, onov #<?A, and the
denial of any other 6e\jjfj.a, John i. 13. awdtv Karafiaivov, Jas. i. 17, may
also remind us of John iii. 3, 13 (vi. 33, 50), and Xoyw aXrjdeia? of John xvii.
17]. Jas. i. 25 = John viii. 31 f. [Jesus' word, or the truth contained in it,
is the means of freedom to him who abides in it ; add the blessing of the
doer, John xiii. 17.] Eesch, Agrapha, 131 ff., 255 ff., claims to have found
extra-canonical sayings of Jesus in Jas. i. 12, 17, iv. 5, 6, 7, especially Jas.
i. 12, on account of the alleged formula of quotation. But as James left
fVr/yyf/XaTo without an expressed subject, and 6 Kvpios or Kvpios or 6 6e6s was
plainly inserted later by way of supplement, it is impossible to assume that
Jesus, of whom, except for i. 1, he has not yet spoken, is the intended subject.
Cf. rather Jas. ii. 5 and Zee. vi. 14 LXX, 6 (rrefpavos ecrrai TOIS inrofj.fvova-iv
The crown of life, like the crown of righteousness (2 Tim. iv. 8) and

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 123

the crown of glory (1 Pet. v. 4), is a general term for the reward of the
persistent and victorious fighter. The assertion that, because this phrasu
appears also in Rev. ii. 10, James must have read the Apocalypse, or that he
refers directly to the promise of Jesus found in that passage (Pileiderer,
Urchristentum, 867), needs no further refutation. Bruckner, who declares
this to be unquestionable (Chronol. Reihenfolye der Briefe des NT, 289),
adduces even more trivial resemblances. All we can say is that James and
Revelation show a certain similarity in their point of view ; cf. Spitta,
0/enbaritmj des Johannes, 521 ; Feine, JaJcobusbrief, 131. According to
Bruckner, 291, and Pfleiderer, 867, James' dependence on Hebrews is also
indisputable, since Jas. ii. 21, 25 = Heb. xi. 17, 31, and Jas. iii. 18 = Heb.
xii. 11; further parallels in Mayor, cii. According to Holtzmann (ZfWTh.
1882, S. 293), James more than once presents itself as a direct answer to
Hebrews. Cf., further, M. Zimmer, " Das schriftstellerische Verhaltnis des
Jakobus zur paulin. Lit.," ZfWTh. 1893 (year 36, vol. ii.), 481-503 ; and
a,-aiu, on the other hand, Feine, NJbfDTh. iii. 305-334, 411-434. On the
Epistle's relation to Romans and to 1 Peter, see 7.

7. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

Between the time of the composition of the letter, as
determined in the preceding paragraphs, and the time
when James came to be recognised generally as a part of
the N.T. Canon, there is an interval of more than three
hundred years, cf. Grundriss? S. 21, 43, 45, 53, 56, 61, 68,
70, and below nn. 4-6. The Latin Church did not receive
it into its N.T. until after the middle of the fourth century,
and then only gradually. The Churches in Mesopotamia
and adjoining regions did not include any of the so-called
Catholic Epistles in the Syriac Bible which they used. In
the Peshito, James takes its place in the Canon for the
first time along with 1 Peter and 1 John. The recollec-
tion of this fact still survived in the time of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, who, against the authority of his own Church,
the Greek Church of Antioch, went back to the original
Syriac Canon, claiming that James and the other Catholic
Epistles ought not to be included in the Canon. The
Alexandrian Church is the only one which, as far as the
sources enable us to determine, can be proved always to
have included James in the Canon along with a number of
other Catholic Epistles on a basis of equal authority with

124 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

the rest. In the case of the Churches in Jerusalem and
Antioch, this can be shown to be probable. All this is not
so strange, if the fact is taken into consideration that the
N.T. Canon was composed of the books coming down from
the apostolic age which were adopted as lectionaries in the
religious services of the Gentile- Christian Church, and if
it is admitted that James was addressed to the Church in
the year 50, while its membership was still almost entirely
Jewislt.

That this is the right date for the composition of the
letter, is confirmed by the clear traces of its influence
upon the Christian writers of the period immediately
following the year 50. Assuming that the letter reached
Autioch while Paul and Barnabas were still engaged in
teaching there, or during their first missionary journey, it
is not likely that Paul would have failed to read the letter
of a man of such recognised authority as James. And it
can be proved that he had read it with care. It has, of
course, been very often claimed that Jas. ii. 14-26 was
written in opposition to Paul's doctrine of justification by
faith, or to counteract the degeneration of Christian life
resulting from teaching of this kind. But, in order to
maintain the first position, it is necessary to assert that
James misunderstood Paul's doctrine in a way almost
incredible, or that he perverted it wilfully, and then
undertook to refute it by a cowardly trick (n. 1). But
such a supposition contradicts the impression which every
unprejudiced reader gets from the letter regarding the
intellectual and moral character of the author. What
James opposes in ii. 14-26 is not a doctrine, but a
religious profession which was unhealthy and not genuine.
Equally untenable is the other assumption, that what is
here said is directed against a practical abuse of Paul's
doctrine of justification. It is a well-known fact that the
effect of the gospel preaching in the apostolic age, as well
as later, among those superficially affected by it, was to

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 125

produce moral apathy rather than to stimulate moral
energy. All the apostles sounded a note of warning
against it, or testified against it (Gal. v. 13 ; 1 Pet. ii. 16 ;
Jude 4 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1 ff., cf. 1 John i. 6, ii. 4 ; Rev. ii. 14,
20-24 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9-20), defending Christianity against
the charges made on this ground by non-Christians (Rom.
iii. 8, cf. vi. 1). It is true that at different times Paul's
letters have been misinterpreted and misused (2 Pet. iii.
16), particularly by Valentinus and his school. That,
however, these Gnostics paid little attention to the
doctrine of justification by faith, is proved by the con-
ceited way in which they despised those who were no
more than believers. We know that Marcion, who pro-
fessed to be a faithful disciple of Paul, combined with his
fanatical hatred of the O.T. ethical views of an ascetic
kind. But how could either the error of Valentinus or of
Marcion have induced a man in his senses to write what
we have in Jas. ii. 14-26 ? That neither Marcion nor
any of the great Gnostic teachers could have taken such
an attitude, goes without saying. The tendencies which
they represented had nothing whatever to do with Paul's
doctrine of justification on the ground of faith ; and,
besides, it cannot be proved that it was Paul's particular
doctrine, and not the common Christian teaching about
redemption by grace and the consequent freedom of the
Christian, which was abused by thoughtless believers
and slandered by non-Christians. Finally, what James
opposes is not libertinism, but the moral indolence which
went along with the consciousness of faith and of orthodox
profession. According to James, his readers were con-
victed of the worthlessness of their faith and their
confession not by the immorality of their living, but by
their lack of good works. When he represents them as
speaking (ii. 14), it is not a Pauline formula which he
puts into their mouth ; he makes them say, rather, that
they have faith, meaning^ that their faith saves them. If

126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

this was based upon any formula at all, it must have been
some such saying as the one used so often by Jesus,
" Thy faith hath saved thee" (above, p. 122, n. 11).

Although, in view of what has been said, opposition to
Paul's doctrine of justification, and opposition to any
tendency supporting itself by false appeals to Paul's
teaching, is out of the question, it is not to be denied that
a relation exists between Jas. ii. 14-26 and Rom. iv. 1 ff.
(n. 2). The statement in Rom. iv. 2, that Abraham was
justified by works, thereby obtaining something of which
he could boast, is introduced as the opinion of someone
else. The statement contradicts Paul's conclusion that
the manner in which Christians obtain righteousness and
life excludes all boasting (iii. 27). Or if Paul held both
views to be correct, then Abraham must have had a
religion different from the Christian's. But if this be the
case, then the question is raised whether Paul and the
readers who have agreed with him in the preceding
exposition are not forced to admit that they are apostates
from the religion of Abraham, and without any vital
relation to him. Moreover, there is nothing in the pre-
ceding context which leads up to this statement, to the
discussion of which the whole of chap. iv. is devoted. It
is not one of those apparent conclusions from the pre-
ceding discussion, which Paul so often introduces in order
to strengthen the position already developed by refuting
supposed inferences from it. Neither is it a familiar
sentence taken from the O.T., for the statement is con-
trasted emphatically with Scripture (iv. 3). From what
source, then, was this proposition taken? In Jas. ii. 21
we have the statement that Abraham was justified by
works, and in ii. 23 the title of distinction which Abraham
thereby obtained is given. In the same passage, Gen. xv. 6
is quoted just as it is in Rom. iv. 3, with the same text
and at the same length (above, p. 1 1 9, n. 8). Paul does not
dispute the application which James makes of Gen. xv. 6,

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 127

nor does he question directly James' thesis. But from the
Scripture passage which James had used incidentally, and
left without definite explanation, he develops his own
thesis, namely, that Abraham's significance for the history
of religion rests upon the fact that in the Genesis account
his righteousness is reckoned as faith, and so his justifica-
tion is on the ground of faith. There is no conflict at all
between Paul and James ; Paul takes up the thought
where James left it, and develops it further. The con-
ception SiKaioavvi] deov (Rom. i. 17, iii. 21, x. 3, cf. 2 Cor.
v. 21 ; Phil. iii. 9) did not originate with Paul. It goes
back to Jesus (Matt. vi. 33), starting from his descrip-
tion of the difference between true righteousness and
the human makeshift for it, the righteousness of the
Pharisees. James uses the same contrast (i. 20, above,
p. 96). Paul merely puts emphasis upon the thought
suggested in 0eov, and so develops a new idea. Is it
merely by accident that SiKatoa-vvrj deov (Rom. i. 17) occurs
for the first time just after Paul has called the gospel a
SiW/u? ei5 o-wrrjplav (Rom. i. 16), and that it is just before
he makes the statement that the word of the Christian pro-
clamation is rbv Bwd/jbevov crwa-ai (i. 21), that James speaks
of the SiKaioa-vwr) 6eov (i. 20)? There is also a very close
connection between Rom. v. 3 f. and Jas. i. 2-4, especially
if teal Kavj^fjieda ev ral? 6\tyecriv be taken as a hortative.
Not only is there exact verbal correspondence between

Paul's et'Sore? (Jas. yiVMcncovTes} QTI r) 0Xn/ri5 virofjiov^v

Ka-rep^d^erai and Jas. i. 3, but the passage in Romans
throws light upon the meaning of James' somewhat
obscure language. The expression, " ways by which your
faith is tested," must certainly mean the same as
" manifold trials," or, according to Paul, " tribulations."
Finally, the question is raised in the mind of a thought-
ful reader by Jas. i. 4, how the viro^ovr) is to persist to the
end and to be made perfect. It was this that suggested
to Paul the writing of Rom. v. 4 f. Even the word

128 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

is a reflection of James' So/a/uoz/. Anyone's character may
be described as tested or proved when the means of
testing it are rightly and patiently endured. Further-
more, although the thoughts expressed in Rom. vii. 23,

erepov vopov ev rots fjLe\ecrlv /JLOV avTiarparevofjievov rw
KT\., and Jas. iv. 1, K TWV riSovwv vfjiwv TWV crrpa-

ev rot? jj,e\eariv V/JLWV, show differences, they
are essentially the same, and neither of them is obvious.
Now, if these parallels prove that Paul had James in
mind when he wrote Romans, then it may be the
more readily admitted that there are indications of a
use of the same in other passages where the dependence
cannot be absolutely proved (n. 2). Altogether, a letter
which left Paul unsatisfied with its conclusion about
Abraham's justification, and which influenced him to take
up the passage Gen. xv. 6 and discuss the subject with
far greater thoroughness (Rom. iv. 3-24) than he had
done heretofore (Gal. iii. 5-7), must have made a deep
impression upon him.

But it is important to bear in mind that Romans is
the only one of Paul's letters which shows traces of
James' influence. 1 Peter was written in Rome, probably
in the year 63 or 64 ( 39). Granted that the resemblance
between this letter and James is such as to necessitate
the assumption that one of them depends upon the other,
it is easy to see that throughout it is Peter who elaborates
James' short suggestions, expands his pithy sentences, and
tones down the boldness and abruptness of his thought
(n. 3). Chronologically, the next document which shows
clear traces of the influence of James is the letter, sent
probably about the time of Domitian's death (Sept. 96),
from the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church, which,
according to ancient and unanimous tradition, was written
by Clement, the head of the Roman Church (n. 4). In
the Shepherd, written during Clement's lifetime by
Hernias, a lay member of the Roman Church, there are

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 129

a number of passages from James which are made, as it
were, texts for extended remarks (n. 5). If we leave out
of account those parts of the Church where James was
early accepted into the Canon, and the later periods when
James was commonly quoted, these are all the clear
evidences which we have of the influence of the Epistle
upon Christian literature (n. 6). Not only do these refer-
ences to James in Romans, and its use in 1 Peter, confirm
the conclusion already arrived at, that James was written
in or before the year 50 ; but if the organisation of the
Roman Church was due in no small measure to the in-
fluence of Jewish Christians who came from Palestine and
settled in Rome, and if during the first decades of its
history its membership was composed largely of Jewish
Christians ( 23), then there is nothing strange about the
fact that it is this series of writings prepared in Rome in
the years 63-64 and 96-100 which betray acquaintance
with James, and that it is in Romans that Paul refers to
this Epistle. It was among the Christians there that he
could assume acquaintance with James' teaching, and he
is wise in making the reference that he does to his
Epistle.

1. (P. 124.) It is well understood that Paul developed and defended his
doctrine that men are justified not by the works of the law, but through faith
in Christ, in opposition to the Judaistic demand that the Gentiles should
submit to circumcision, and with it to the whole Mosaic law, if they would
become Christians in full standing, and partakers of salvation. For anyone
who knew anything whatever of the great struggle of the decade 50-60, this
position denned Avith historical precision the works of the law, to which
Paul denied justifying efficacy. On the other hand, the faith to which Paul
does ascribe this efficacy is more fully defined in his designation of it in his
most polemic Epistle (Gal. v. 5, cf. Tit. iii. 8), as the faith which works
itself out through love. All misunderstanding as to the ethical consequences
of his teaching is precluded by his unconditional requirement of the observ-
ance of God's commands (1 Cor. vii. 19 ; cf. Rom. viii. 4) or the fulfilment of
the law of Christ (Gal. vi. 2), by his insistence on the avoidance of all vicious
life as a condition of blessedness (1 Cor. vi. 9 f. ; Gal. v. 21 ; Rom. viii. 5-13),
and by his expectation of a judgment awaiting Christians, when inquiry
shall be made into their actual conduct (2 Cor. v. 10 ; Rom. ii. 6ff., xiv. 10;
1 Cor. iv. 3-5). The faith, however, to which James denies saving efficacy ia

VOL. I. 9

130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

riot only not the faith which he praises elsewhere (i. 6, v. 13-18) as the vital
strength of prayer, unfailing in its operation, and for which he claims that
its possessor is rich in the midst of outward poverty (ii. 5). To James'
mind the "empty" man (ii. 20, KCVOS, contrasted with 7rXov<rtor, ii. 5, cf.
Luke i. 53) is rather the man who says he has faith, while at the same time
he has no works to show for it. It is true that James calls this inactive
faith faith also, but only in the way in which the speaking of charitable
sounding phrases is called love in 1 John iii. 18, that is to say, a love with
word and tongue as over against love in deed and in truth. James neglects
here, as in the similar instance in which the words Treipao-^or, irfipd^ea-dai
denote very different things (i. 2-15, see p. Ill above), to distinguish with
precision between true and false faith. But he is careful not to deny saving
power to all faith. The question P.TJ biivarai KT\., ii. 14, like the question
ri TO o$eXor, is dependent upon the particular conditions stated, as indeed
OVTOV for avdpunov shows. Moreover, he puts it beyond question that this
\tyofjLfvrj iriarts has nothing in common with what he himself considers
faith, further than the name. It is an intellectual conviction, which even
the devils may possess. It is to true faith what sympathising words are to
really helpful love (ii. 15 f.), what the corpse is to the body (ii. 17-26). Now,
just as this faith to which James denies all saving efficacy bears no resem-
blance to that which Paul sets forth as the condition and means of justifica-
tion, so is it too with the works which James represents as the basis of
justification and those works of law to which Paul denies any such value.
The offering of Isaac and the reception of the spies by Rahab are anything
but the fulfilment of legal requirements ; rather are they heroic acts of faith ;
and James expressly emphasises (ii. 22) the fact that faith was involved in
them, and in them found its realisation. On the other hand, he makes not
the slightest attempt to represent them ingeniously as works of law, by
characterising them, for example, as the fulfilment of some exceptional com-
mand of God, and thus the rendering of obedience. How could a man of
sound intelligence imagine that ii. 14-26 was any refutation of Paul ? Even
the fact that James makes use of the very passage (Gen. xv. 6) with which
Paul supports his doctrine of justification, is no proof that he was familiar
with the latt.er's treatment of it. On the contrary, it would then be incom-
prehensible that James should not have made an attempt, at least, by a
different exposition of the passage, to invalidate Paul's very obvious deduc-
tions. James gives no interpretation of the passage at all, but is satisfied to
represent the fact to which it testifies as a presage of Abraham's subsequent
justification by his works, without so much as hinting what he understands
by this imputation of faith as righteousness. We may conclude, however,
from the context that James was not in the habit of designating this imputa-
tion (which he himself adduces from Gen. xv. 6 without any modifying
addition) as diKaiovvdai. It was absolutely wrong to infer from the mere
use of 8iicaiovo-6a<. f< rivos by both James and Paul, that one was dependent
upon the other. Neither of them invented the verb, and the prepositional
connection is the most natural one ; cf. Matt. xii. 37, and similarly Kpiveo-dai,
Rev. xx. 12 (Luke xix. 22). Certainly James conceives the good conduct,
which he considers indispensable, as a fulfilment of law (i. 25, ii. 8-11,
iv. 11 f.). But, in the first place, Paul does so also, and, in the second place,

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 131

James characterises the law he has in mind, in direct contrast to that given
by Moses and interpreted by the rabbis, as the law of liberty, the law im-
planted in Christians in and with the gospel, to be fulfilled by them in
kingly freedom (above, p. 115f.)- How could a James, or a pseudo- James,
imagine that to demand the fulfilment of such a law was to oppose Paul ?
To the question at issue between Paul and the Judaisers with regard to the
attitude of Gentile Christians toward the Mosaic law, James does not devote
a single word, even where he refers to the Gentiles among his readers (ii. 25,
above, p. 91). As little does he touch upon the closely related question,
how far Jewish Christians were under obligation to observe the Mosaic
law, or were justified in so doing. The only passage which could possibly
be referred to Jewish ceremonial (i. 26 f., p. 97, n. 3) criticises all over-
rating of ritual piety. To infer from this that this James, utterly unlike the
James of history, was opposed to the continued participation of Jewish
Christians in the temple services and to the Mosaic regulation of life, would
be as preposterous as to ascribe a like attitude to Jesus on the ground of His
denunciations of the Pharisees. Nor does it need to be proved that James
could not have directed a polemic against the legal observance of the Jewish
Christians in this indirect and casual way. For him and his readers it was
a matter of course, and was assailed by no one, not even Paul. A polemic
against those SOKOVVTCS dprja-Kol dvai is entirely consistent with legal observ-
ance on one's own part, cf. Matt, xxiii. 23, iii. 15. If, as tradition tells us
(above, p. 103), James' manner of life was strictly, even exaggeratedly,
legal, and he was himself, therefore, a dprja-nos, this only gives the more
weight to his warning against the over-estimation of Oprja-Kfia, just as Paul's
argument against the over-estimation of the gift of tongues is emphasised by
the fact of his own facility in that particular (1 Cor. xiv. 18). That the
author of James was an enthusiast for the law of the same type as the
Judaisers of Galatians, is certainly unthinkable ; but neither does the James
of history occupy any such position. With regard to his attitude toward
missionary work among the Gentiles, Paul (Gal. ii. 4, 9) distinguishes him
as clearly from the false brethren whose proceedings made the action of the
council necessary, as does the account in Acts xv. 13-29. Any reasonably
careful exegesis of Acts xv. 21 shows that James sets aside effort for the ex-
tension of the Mosaic law and of the legal manner of life as a task which
has no claim upon him and the mother Church. MCOUO-TJ? . . . TOVS
Kijpvcra'ovTas avrbv e^ei does not mean simply K^piVcrerat, but calls for a
corresponding clause in contrast, as in John v. 45, e<mv 6 Karrj-yopav v^as
Ma>vafjs, cf. John viii. 50. It is as unsafe to conclude from Gal. ii. 12 that
James would have disapproved Peter's participation in the meals of Gentile
Christians (though Feine, ii. 89, is still of this opinion), as to hold Peter
responsible for the conduct of his partisans at Corinth. The disinterested
wording of the statement made by the elders gathered with James in
Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 20, virdpxovo-iv, not virdpxo[j.ti>), suggests that in their
judgment the legalistic zeal of Jewish Christians was a one-sidedness which
should be treated with forbearance, rather than that the speakers themselves
occupied that standpoint. Even in Hegesippus' account there is no hint
which might be interpreted as Judaistic in the historic sense of the word.
2. (Pp. 126, 128.) The present writer presupposes as the reading of Horn.

132 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

iv. 1 f., ri ovv tpovfitv ; (vprjuevai "A/3pau/x TOV Trporraropa i)fj.(av /earn crapxa el
yap' \f3paap. e e'pycav f8iKaiu>8r], t%ei (cau^/ia dXX" ov irpos deov ; with V. Hengel,
v. Hofinann, and others, I hold that ri ovv epovpev undoubtedly constitutes an
independent question, as in vi. 1, vii. 7, ix. 14 (cf. iii. 5, vi. 15, viii. 31 ; 1 Cor.
x. 19), and that, taken with the following question, which requires a negative
answer, it yields this meaning : " Are we, then, compelled by the foregoing
discussion to adopt some such conclusion as follows ? " The sense is not sub-
stantially altered by the omission, with B, of evprjKfvat (to which supply "we"
as subject). Klostermann, Korrekturen zur bisheriyen Erklarung des Itomerbriefs,
1881, S. 121, 129, made a decided advance in the interpretation of the pas-
sage by pointing out the parenthesis indicated above. But the question
whether Paul and his readers who followed him must now admit that
Abraham was indeed their physical but not their spiritual ancestor, was pos-
sible only in case the readers were, like the writer, actually sons of Abraham
Kara crdpKa (see 23 below). I agree with Spitta, 209-217, in the opinion
that Paul has James in mind; but I fail to find any satisfactory evidence that
Paul could have assumed such an attitude only toward a Jewish writing, and
therefore that he knew James as the work not of a Christian, but of a Jew
(210, 211, 217). The way in which James is referred to in Rom. iv. 2 pre-
supposes that the readers, or many of them at least, knew and esteemed the
authority which had put forward this proposition. How could Paul assume
this in the case of an obscure Jew whose private composition had by chance
come to his notice ? Why does he avoid combating the statement outright as
erroneous, and let it stand as in some measure valid, or at least uncontra-
dicted, unsatisfactory as he regards it ? In Rom. iii. 28, too, we can find no
polemic against James, for James had by no means ascribed justifying efficacy
to the f'pya vofjiov with which Paul was dealing. In spite of his acquaintance
with James, Paul could, here as in Gal. ii. 15-21, express the conviction that
a man becomes just through faith independently of works of law, as the out-
come of the common experience of all sincere Christians of Jewish origin.
In so doing he by no means asserted that this thesis was continually on the
lips of all Jewish Christians, a Peter or a James ; in that case he would have
had no need to write Romans. He lays down his proposition in Rom. iii. 28 not
as a generally recognised Christian doctrine, but as a conclusion reached by
elaborate arguments and deductions. It is the conclusion at which he him-
self has arrived, and every reader who has followed him with assent thus far
must finally come to the same. It is the same "we" as in Rom. iii. 9, iv. 1,
vi. 1, etc. According to this view, Rom. iv. 2, not iii. 28, is the point at which
we may trace Paul's reference to James. In addition to the passages already
mentioned, compare Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 4 with Jas. iv. 11 ff. ; Rom. ii. 13, 21-29
with Jas. i. 22-25, ii. 9, iii. 1, iv. 11 (iroirjTtjs v6p.ov); Rom. viii. 2 ff., 15
with Jas. i. 25, ii. 12 (law of liberty) ; Rom. viii. 7, 8 with Jas. iv. 4-7
(f^Qpa TOV dfov . . . TO irvfiifj.a o KaT<pKio~fv fv iipiv . . . VTTOTayrjTe TO> 6eu>) ;
Rom. xii. 8 (6 p.fraoi.8ovs fv aTrXdrr;) with Jas. i. 5. M. Zimmer (loc. cit.)
and Mayor, xcii.-xcv., give more than exhaustive lists of points of contact
between James and the Pauline Epistles. Von Soden in his guarded treat-
ment (JbfPTh. 1884, S. 163) mentions as indications of the writer's literary
acquaintance with the Pauline letters, only Jag. i. 13 = 1 Cor. x. 13 (where,
however, avOpuirwos has by no means a contrasted ddos), and Jas. ii. 5 =

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 133

1 Cor. i. 27, in addition to passages from Romans. Spitta, 217-225, concludes
that aside from Eomans there are but few passages in Paul's letters which
could suggest any direct dependence upon James, but does not account for
this marked difference between Romans and the other Pauline Epistles.

3. (P. 128.) Spitta (183-202) is the latest writer to maintain the de-
pendence of 1 Peter upon James. Bruckner, ZfWTh. 1874, S. 530 ff., Chronol.
Reihenfolge, 60-66 ; Plleiderer, 868, and others, have attempted to prove the
converse. We may decide confidently for the first-mentioned view, if for no
other reason than that the author of 1 Peter, in his attitude toward other N.T.
books as well, particularly toward Romans and Ephesians, shows himself as
one whose tendency is to appropriate the ideas of others without possessing any
marked literary individuality of his own (see 40 below). No one can deny
that James has a consistent style, with a bold and even rugged character of
its own. To come to details, a superficial comparison of 1 Pet. i. 6 f. with
Jas. i. 2-4 shows unmistakable similarities: 1. dya\\iao-0e = -rrdo-av
TjyTja-acrdf ; 2. \VTrrjdevTfSfv TTOLKI\OIS 7reipaoyioZr = orai' TroiKi\ois
TTfipao-p.o~is ; 3. TO 8oKifj.Lov vp.a>i> TTjs TTi'oTfcoy. But while James, following
Jesus' example (Matt. v. 12 ; Luke vi. 22 f.), calls upon those who suffer to
regard their still continuing trials even now as a matter for rejoicing, 1 Peter,
at least in the beginning (for contrast iv. 13fl, 16), tones down the thought to
this, that, over against the tribulations which seem now to have their right,
there will be joy for the Christian at the Parousia. For the connection of o>
<a with (i> Kciipa> eV^aro), the contrasted oprt, and the comparison of i. 8 and
iv. 136, make it certain that dyaXXidcrdf, i. 6 and ver. 8, have a future sense,
even if it may not be permissible to construe dyaXXta<r$e directly as an
Attic future = dyaXXirio-fcrfle (cf. Schmiedel- Winer, Gramm. 13, A. 5;
but also A. Buttmann, Nil. Gramm. S. 33 end [Eng. trans, p. 38]). Note,
further, the difference in the use of TO SoKipiov. James used it, as Paul also
understood him to do (p. 128 above), in the sense of a means of testing
( = 8oKijjLflov, cf. Orig. Exh. ad Mart. 6, ed. Berol. viii. 1, 8oKip.iov ovv KO\
ffTao~Ti']piov TTJS irpbs TO deiov dydnrjs vofUOTeov rjl^v yeyovfvai TOV fCTTTjKora
[al. fvto-TTjKOTa] ireipno-fjiov). In 1 Peter, on the other hand, the word is treated
as the neuter of the adjective SoKijj.ios-8oKifj.os (cf. Deissrnann, N. Bibelst.
86-90 [Eng. trans. 259-262]), "the tested, genuine," and so practically =
8oK.ifj.ij, " approvedness." But if 1 Peter is convicted here of dependence upon
James, one cannot escape the feeling that James was before the writer's
thought from the very beginning. It is not that the word 8iao-iropd, 1 Pet.
i. 1, Jas. i. 1 is peculiarly significant, but the constant transfer to the
Christian Churches of the characteristics of Israel, and especially of the Jews
living in the diaspora ( 38), seems like an amplification of the thought sug-
gested in three words in Jas. i. 1. The idea of being born of God (Jas. i. 18)
reappears in more detail in 1 Pet. i. 23-25, and in addition the passage
Isa. xl. 6-8, which is only hinted at in Jas. i. 10 f., is utilised here in more
extended quotation. As Jas. (i. 19 ff.) follows the mention of new birth with
the exhortation to attend repeatedly to the word whose quickening power
has been thus experienced, so we find in 1 Peter. Cf. Jas. i. 21, Sib dirodepcvoi
nacrav . . . TOV 8vvdfj,fvov auxrat with 1 Pet. ii. 1, diro6ip.fvoi. ovv irarrav . . .
(Is a-toTripiav. While James speaks of this constant need of receiving the word
in terms which would apply equally well to the first acceptance of the gospel,

134 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Peter takes pains to bring out the distinction by adding to James' figure of
birth through the word a reference to the readers as newborn babes. Even
the admonition to put in practice that which has been heard (Jas. i. 22-25)
follows soon enough, in 1 Pet. ii. 11 if. It is applied by Peter in substance
only, with entire independence and in a way adapted to the circumstances of
his Gentile readers, but there are echoes of James even here : 1 Pet. ii. 16,
i\(vdfpoi = Jas. i. 25, TTJS (\tvdfpias ', 1 Pet. ii. 11, an-e'^ecr^at raiv <rapKiKa>v eiri-
curives (TTparfiiovrai Kara TTJS ^VXTJS = Jas. iv. 1, e'lc ra>v fjdovaiv vp.wv TU>V
tv rots p.t\fcriv vpaov. Prov. iii. 34 is cited in 1 Pet. v. 5 pre-
cisely as it is in Jas. iv. 6 (6 6e6s instead of Kvpios, LXX) ; with it is connected
(1 Pet. v. 6) the admonition to humility which follows more briefly in
Jas. iv. 10, and finally in 1 Pet. v. 8, 9 the exhortation to resistance of the
devil, which Jas. iv. 7 inserts between the quotation and the admonition just
mentioned. Thus we have again quite a complex of ideas and expressions
in which the two Epistles coincide. If Jas. v. 20 follows in the main the
Hebrew text without regard to the LXX (above, p. 120), the similarity of 1 Pet.
iv. 8 cannot be accidental. 1 Peter, however, which adopts from the original
the 0707777 omitted by James, has again (as in i. 24) gone back directly to the
O.T. passage suggested by James' reference, and thus given a different turn
to the thought. It is plain that the author of 1 Peter was well acquainted
with James, and had read the letter reflectively. The fact that he often alters
its antiquated strictly speaking, its primitive Christian style to the more
developed modes of expression current in the Churches founded, and thus far
trained, by Paul and his associates, does not justify Spitta's argument (201)
that he knew James only as a Jewish, not as a Christian, writing. The
absence of all allusion to the section Jas. ii. 14-26 no more calls for explana-
tion than does the fact that 1 Peter has no echo of the thundering rebukes
addressed to the merchants (Jas. iv. 13-17) and the landowners (Jas. v. 1-6).
It is perfectly evident that not everything that James had to say to believers
of his own race (e.g. v. 12) would apply to the Gentile Christians of Asia
Minor. For these the section ii. 14-26 was quite useless ; it could not be
transformed into the language of the Pauline Churches without perverting it to
its opposite, while the appropriation of it but in part could only have con-
fused such readers, and frustrated the main object of the Epistle as set forth
in 1 Pet. v. 12.

4. (P. 128.) Clem. 1 ('or, x. 1, 'A@pa.iip. o </>i'Xos irpocrayoptvdf}? marus
fvptdr) ev r<5 a\jT(n> inrrjKonv yfi'fcrdat. roir pr]p.a(riv TOV deov. 17. 2, (fj.apTvpi]6rj
Se jxeyuXcos 'A/jpnap. KO\ (pi\os Trpoo-rjyopfvdr] TOV deov. The mere designation of
Abraham as a "lover of God " would not show that Clement had read Jas. ii.
23 (above, p. 120f.) ; but, like James, he speaks (twice, indeed) of the bestow-
ment of this title as an historical event, and emphasises the proof of Abraham's
faith through acts of obodu-nce (x. 1), while in tin- same connection (x. 7)
he cites Gen. xv. 6 quite as it appears in Jas. ii. 23, and recalls similarly the
offering of Isaac (x. 6). When Clem. xxx. 2, like Jas. iv. 6 and 1 Pet. v. 5,
quotes Prov. iii. 34 with 6 6e6s, instead of Kvpios as in the LXX, there is, besides
a dependence on James or 1 Peter, still a third possibility, namely, that in
early times there may have been a text of the LXX with 6 defa. That in
reality Clement followed James appears from the fact that immediately after-
ward in xxx. 3 he writes tpyms SiKaiovp-fvot, <a\ p.r) \6yois ; and it is the more

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 135

certain that this goes back to Jas. ii. 21, 24, since there, too, works are con-
trasted with a \tyeiv, Jas. ii. 14, 16. The same contrast is drawn in Clem,
xxxviii. 2 (6 cro<pos eV8et/a'ucr$co TTJV <ro(piai> avrov p.f) tv Xo-yotr, dXX' tv epyois
dyadols) in a way which reminds us of Jas. iii. 13, cf. iii. 1 ff. That an
admirer of Paul acquainted with his Epistles should venture at all to speak
of justification through works, could hardly be explained unless he were
emboldened by another authority. Clement was aware, too, of the difference
between Paul's type of teaching and James', for it cannot but appear that he
was undertaking to reconcile the two when, shortly after the reference to
James (xxx. 3), he attributes Abraham's blessing to the fact that he exercised
righteousness and fidelity through faith (xxxi. 2, cf. Jas. ii. 22, 7} -n-la-ts o-vvtjpyd
rols 'ipyois avrov), then maintains that the devout of all ages have been
justified not of themselves, but by the will of God ; not through their works,
but through faith(xxxii.3f.) ; and, finally, in setting forth the necessity of works
arrives at the formula (xxxiv. 4) : TrporpeTreTtu oi/v TJ^OJ ma'TevovTas e' 6X77? TTJS
KapSias eV avru>, p.r) dpyovs p.r]8e Trapfiptvovs flvai eVt irav spyov dyadov. Cf.
Lightfoot, St. Clement, ii. 100. Similarly Clement combines the iricrrei of
Heb. xi. 31 with the e tpyav of Jas. ii. 25 when he writes (xii. 1), Sta irioriv
KOI (f)L\ofviav to-vflr] 'Paa/3 77 jropvrj. The like could be said of Clem. xlix. 5
(dyaTTTj KaXvTTTfi 7r\r]dos ap-apnuv, dyd-nt] irdvra dvf^fTai, -rravra fiaKpodv/jifl KT\.)
as compared with Jas. v. 20 and 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 7, were it not that the word
dyaTrrj points primarily to 1 Pet. iv. 8 (p. 134 above). But it is highly probable
that Clement was influenced at the same time by Jas. v. 20 also, since in
1. 5 he mentions love, as James does, as a means of obtaining forgiveness of
sins for oneself.

5. (P. 129.) On Hernias and James, cf. Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, i.
339 ; the writer's Hirt des Hermas, 396-409 ; GK, i. 962 ; Hofmann, vii. 3.
175 f. ; Taylor, JPh. xviii. 297 ff. As early as in one of the Greek catenae
(Cramer, viii. 4), Herm. Mand. ix. is quoted in connection with Jas. i. 6. The
assertion often heard, that the proofs of the dependence of Hermas upon
James are not forthcoming, is valueless so long as one will not take the
trouble to refute the thorough presentation of the actual facts, which cannot
well be repeated here, and whose place, moreover, cannot be supplied by a
table of citations (like that in Feine, 137). In answer to Pfleiderer's verdict
(868) that Hermas is the earlier of the two, it is quite sufficient to remark
with Mayor (cxliii. f.) that one might with as good right declare Quintus
Smyrnseus older than Homer, or any present-day sermon older than its text.

6. (P. 129.) We are probably to assume that James was known to Irenseus
(GK, i. 325) ; the Marcosians (Iren. i. 13. 6), whose leader belonged in Syria,
and was principally active in Asia Minor (GK, i. 729, 759) ; Justin (GK, i. 576 ;
Mayor, Ixi.), who became a Christian in Ephesus and wrote in Rome. It is
possible, too, that the echoes of James found in the old sermon known as Clem.
2 Cor. are not all to be accounted for by the large dependence of the preacher
on Clem. 1 Cor. and on Hermas, but are derived from an independent acquaint-
ance with James. Clem. 2 Cor. iii. 4-iv. 3 is quite in James' spirit. Further,
cf. Clem. 2 Cor. xv. 1, xvi. 4, and ii. 5-7 with Jas. v. 19 f. In the case of xvi. 4,
however, 1 Pet. iv. 8 and Clem. 1 Cor. xlix. 5 (see above, n. 4) come still closer.
Cf. also Clem. 2 Cor. xx. 3 with Jas. v. 7. Mayor, liv.-lvi., gives a long list of
correspondences between Test. XII Pair, and James. Nothing is absolutely

136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

conclusive, and until greater certainty is attained with regard to the time and
place of this book in its present form, more definite testimony, even, would be
of little value. In the pseudo-Clementine literature, which esteems the bishop
James so highly (above, pp. 103, 108 f. n. 5), we look for more points of contact
with James than we find. Kern, 56-60, and Schwegler, i. 413, 424, have
decidedly exaggerated the kinship of ideas which they maintain. Even Feine,
too (81 f.), adduces parallels, which on closer examination show only the radical
difference between James' thinking and this Ebionitic tendency (see also 8,
n. 4). The chief points deserving consideration would perhaps be these : the
modification of Matt. v. 37 in conformity with Jas. v. 12 in Clem. Horn. iii.
55, xix. 2 especially iii. 55 (cf. xvi. 13), the mention of those who say on o
debs TTfipd(i, and appeal to the Bible for support, with which cf. Jas. i. 13.
Further, in Horn. v. 5 it is said of the demons, that they, when exorcised by
the names of the higher angels, (^piVroi/rer eiKoixm/ ; cf. Jas. ii. 19 and p. 121,
n. 10. Reminders of Jas. i. 18 may perhaps be found in Horn. ii. 52 ; iii. 17,
of Adam, 6 inrb TOV 6tov Keipcav K vo(poprj6e is.

8. DIVEKGENT VIEWS.

Of those who accept this as the letter of James the
Just, there are always some who hold that he wrote it
toward the end of his life, somewhere about the time of
Paul's imprisonment in Eome (n. 1). But the chief
ground on which this assumption rests, namely, James' sup-
posed polemic against Paul, or against an abuse of Pauline
doctrine, is itself an untenable hypothesis (above, p. 125 f.);
while, if it be held that the letter was addressed to the
entire Church at a time when the Church was still almost
entirely Jewish (above, p. 92), it is absolutely necessary
to give up the hypothesis with the dating of the Epistle
that it involves. Even granting that it is possible exe-
getically to take Jas. i. 1 as an address to Jewish
Christians outside of Palestine, there is no reasonable
explanation of the entire absence of reference in the letter
to the relation which in the year 60 many, in fact most,
of these Jewish Christians sustained to their more
numerous Gentile Christian neighbours and to their
Gentile surroundings. Equally inexplicable is the letter's
entire silence about the significance of the Mosaic law,
a question which, if the testimony of the times can be
trusted, was still agitating the minds of all affected by it

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 137

(n. 2). That all these great questions should be passed
over in a letter written in the year 60, particularly in a
letter in which the fulfilling of the law, and of the entire
law, is repeatedly spoken of, and the proposition polemic-
ally maintained that men are justified by works and not
by faith alone, in which, moreover, there is shown a
grasp of the readers' practical situation, is historically
impossible, to say nothing of the cowardice it would
evidence on James' part to ignore so completely the well-
known author of the principles which he combats. In
fact, it is impossible to explain how such Pauline watch-
words and interpretations of particular passages of Scrip-
ture (Gen. xv. 6) could come to exert such a dangerous
influence among James' immediate associates, among men
who were zealous for the law (Acts xxi. 20 ; Gal. ii. 12),
and in circles which mistrusted Paul, and sought every-
where to arouse the same mistrust in others. If, on the
other hand, contrary to his agreement with Paul (Gal.
ii. 9), James presumed to warn Gentile Christian Churches
quite outside his own acknowledged sphere of influence
against misunderstanding or abuse of Pauline formulae,
he must at least have done so directly by a fundamental
setting forth of the true doctrine, and not by a few
incidental, furtive hints.

Such a halting, weak, and cowardly polemic would be
more comprehensible if it had come from someone who,
unwilling in his own name to vouch for his convictions,
preferred to assume deceptively the mask of James, long
since dead. For this reason the majority of those who
hold James to be the product of the post-Pauline develop-
ment of the Church, admit frankly that it is pseud -
epigraphic. The earlier Tubingen school dated the letter
about 150. They explained it as growing out of opposi-
tion to Paul's doctrine of justification, leading it to place
a construction upon this doctrine as injurious to practical
Christianity, and to discover in it a toned-down Jewish

138 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Christianity, whose tendency was to become more catholic
(n. 3). But a Jewish Christianity of this sort is a
phenomenon, the reality of which cannot be proved
historically ; it is wholly imaginary, constructed from
writings declared to be pseudonomous without any care-
ful investigation of their historical character. The real
Jewish Christianity of the post-apostolic age, the Jewish
Christianity which, according to the testimony alike of
Ignatius, Barnabas, and Justin, and of the Ebionitic
literature, concerned itself about Paul and the general
progress of the Church, never ceased to insist that
Gentiles should observe the Jewish law, with allowances,
to be sure, but always this particular law, and the Jewish
manner of life determined by it. Nor did this Jewish
Christianity ever cease to hate and to persecute Paul on
the ground of his hostility to Jewish institutions, and on
the ground that he taught men to disregard the law, at
the same time ignoring his doctrine of justification, which
was looked upon as a harmless theory. These objections
hold also against the theory of AVeizsacker, who dates the
letter after the death of James, assigning it to the time
when the Church was leaving Jerusalem. He regards it
as a product of Palestinian Jewish Christianity at the
time when this had begun to develop in the direction of
Ebionitism ; Jewish Christianity, " shut up against Gentile
Christians," " with no course open but that of resignation,"
takes up Paul's teaching, adopts very essential ideas from
it, and at the same time subjects its principal doctrine to
" a mild, almost conciliatory criticism," but nevertheless
rejects it most decisively (n. 4). According to Pfleiderer
(865-880), James has very close affinities with the Shep-
herd of Hermas, both being products of the " practical
Catholicism " of the post-Hadrianic age ; it combats the
intellectualism of the Gnostics or pneumatics (Jas. iii. 5),
the antinomianism of Marcion (iv. 11), and the tendency
to worldliness on the part of the more well-to-do Chris-

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 139

tians. In view of the situation in the Roman Church,
the condition of which he had primarily in view, but in
view also of the general situation in the Church at large,
to which the letter was addressed, the author condemns
Paul himself with those who had fallen into all sorts of
errors, ostensibly because of the emphasis they put upon
the idea of faith and upon Paul's doctrine of justification
(above, p. 125 f.). While Pfleiderer very quietly passes
over all those facts, which, as we saw, point to the Church
of Palestine and the adjoining regions as the home of
author and readers, von Soclen (HK, iii. 2. 160ff.) con-
tends there are things in the letter which indicate the
Jewish origin of author or readers.

There is thus great diversity of opinion as to the
conditions actually presupposed by the letter ; but all
who believe that it could not have been written by the
distinguished James of Jerusalem are very generally
agreed that it was meant to pass as his work. The
perfectly artless way, however, in which the author
introduces himself is very much against this assumption
that the letter is a literary fiction. A later writer,
passing himself off for James the Just, if he were like
other writers of this kind whose work is preserved in
literature, would certainly have called himself the brother
of the Lord, or the head of the Jerusalem Church, or have
indicated in some way that he was the great contemporary
of the apostles. He would have been all the more likely
to do so, because there was more than one James of dis-
tinction in the early Church (n. 5). Such a writer would
never have begun his letter with an address so simple and
so nearly like those used in secular literature, when he had
before him apostolic writings of earlier date in which was
a fixed model for the sort of greeting which might be
appropriately used by an apostle or by one of apostolic
rank. In keeping also with the simple dignity of its
beginning is the entire literary character of the letter,

140 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

the peculiarity of its style, and the clear impression which
it gives of the character of the writer. In the literature
of the early Church, admitted to be pseudepigraphic,
there is nothing that can be even remotely compared
with James. And in cases where opinion is divided as
to whether a writing is spurious or genuine, the character-
istics mentioned always argue strongly in favour of
genuineness. A class of pseudo-writers possessing origin-
ality and genius, and able to write in a dignified, crisp,
and pithy style, has never existed. Nor, as a rule
certainly not in the literature of the early Church are
these pseudo-writings without some discernible purpose,
which explains why a particular role is assumed. If, for
the purpose of teaching or rebuking his contemporaries,
someone found it advantageous to pass himself off as
the distinguished James, then the end which he had in
view must have been such that the personality of James,
as the recollection was retained in the tradition, would
have lent especial weight to what he said. But the con-
tents of the Epistle are absolutely against this presup-
position. It does not bring out a single one of those
characteristics by which James is distinguished in history
and legend ; there is nothing to suggest the brother of
the Lord, the first bishop of Jerusalem, the Israelite
clinging with tenacious love to his people and to the
temple, the strict observer of the law who was in high
favour with the Judaistic party, and the ascetic, severe
beyond what the law required of him. All that does
appear is the strong personality of an earnest Christian
who might have had these peculiarities. Moreover, ancient
pseudepigraphic writings are never free from tell-tale
anachronisms, things which can be avoided only through
the aid of archseological science, which at that time was
unknown. No anachronisms have been discovered in
James (n. f>). The thing which strikes one as peculiar
about the Epistle is not the evidence of its late date, but

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 141

the absence of clear indication that the author and readers
had drunk of the new wine of the gospel at all.

This impression is at the basis of the hypothesis
recently advanced by Spitta, which he thinks solves all
the difficulties. According to Spitta's theory, James is a
purely Jewish writing, dating from either the first century
after or the first century before Christ, and given the
superficial appearance of a Christian writing simply by
the later addition of the phrases nal tcvpcov 'lya-ov Xpia-rov
(i. 1) and ^/AMI/ 'lyvov Xpiarov (ii. 1, n. 7). This letter has
come down to us only through Christian channels, and in
Christian circles has always passed as the work of a dis-
tinguished Christian of the apostolic age. Moreover,
according to the text of the letter as we have it, the
author calls himself a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ,
indicating also that a belief in the same Lord Jesus or

in His glorification is an essential part of his readers'
faith. For these reasons it has always been regarded as
a product of Christian thought. If Spitta is right, it
simply shows how little real progress the art of criticism
has made in spite of its long history ; but when he (p. 8)
calls the opinion which heretofore has prevailed a hypo-
thesis built upon rotten foundations, it only goes to show
how far he himself is from standing upon the foundation
of a criticism that is sound and just. Anyone trying
to judge from the point of view of sound criticism can
readily see that this new hypothesis, supported as it is by
exegesis for which the word bold is mild, has not been
worked out by its author into a clear, historically
grounded view. If it were, how possibly could Spitta
compare the work of this supposed Christian interpolator
with the interpolations and verbal changes in Jewish
writings known to have been introduced by Christian
hands (p. 56) ! Books like the Jewish Sibyllines, the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Ascension of
Isaiah, and many others which have been handled in this

142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

way, were originally written with a view to easily deceiv-
ing the credulous. It was the honourable names of remote
antiquity and of Israel's past that made these works inter-
esting, and made them seem credible, first to Jews and
then to Christians ; and it was this that brought about
their adaptation to the changed conditions and the differ-
ent religious point of view of the Christian reader. No
attempt was made to give them the appearance of Chris-
tian writings, but the design was, rather to make these
supposed representatives of bygone ages and of different
stages of religious development prophets of Christian
truth. Or, take the case of a work by an author of dis-
tinguished name, such as the author of the Jewish James
is supposed to have been. The person who changed
Josephus' Antiquities so as to make it a witness for Christ,
apparently inserting also the remark about the death of
James, the brother of Jesus, was not foolhardy enough
to attempt the making of the Jew Josephus over into a
Christian. On the contrary, everything depended upon
Josephus' remaining a Jewish historian of the time of
Jesus, whom by his insertion the interpolator designs to
make an impartial witness of the wonderful greatness of
Jesus. The interpolator was careful to make Josephus
retain his historical Jewish character. This manifest
intention on his part is not affected in the least by the
fact that he did not understand that character better, and
that he was not able permanently to deceive persons
trained in methods of historical criticism. The Latin
writer who slipped the name Jesus into the place of the
original Christ in the Jewish apocalypse known as the
Fourth Book of Ezra (vii. 28), had no idea of making this
alleged Ezra a disciple of Jesus in spite of the distin-
guished name which he bore, and in spite of the chron-
ology ; he simply meant to make a work which passed
for that of the original Ezra still more beautiful and still
more edifying to Christian readers, by putting into Ezra's

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 143

mouth an unmistakable prophecy concerning the Jesus
whom the Christians accepted as Messiah. The procedure
of the Christian interpolator of James would, however,
have been just the reverse. For by the insertion of
seven words he is assumed to have deceived the Christian
world in all ages, learned as well as unlearned, concerning
the religious character of James. Taking the work of a
Jew named James, a person entirely undistinguished in
history, and inserting these seven words, but leaving it
otherwise unchanged, the interpolator leads every unsus-
pecting reader to say at once, as a matter of course,
"This was written by a Christian." If the writing
seemed to him to be good reading for Christians, as it was,
why did he treat it in a manner different from the way
in which the Proverbs of Jesus Sirach or the Wisdom of
Solomon were treated in the early Church ? If he felt it
necessary to subject it to a Christian revision, why did he
content himself with adding to it two Christian con-
fessions which only serve to make its pre-Christian or
un-Christian character all the more glaring ? The work
of this supposed interpolator is as inconceivable as it is
unparalleled. Indeed, the character of the entire hypo-
thesis may be judged from the fact that its author does
not feel under any necessity whatever to tell us the
motives for the interpolation, nor to indicate the con-
ditions under which it was made.

If Paul was acquainted with James when he wrote
Romans in Corinth at the beginning of the year 58, and
if Peter was familiar with the work when he wrote from
Rome to Christians in Asia Minor in 63 or 64, at that
time the letter must have been already widely circulated
in the Chinch. But this makes it extremely improbable
that a Christian interpolation made subsequently should
have had the general acceptance in the Church which,
from all we know of the history of James in the Church,
must have been accorded it. Moreover, the manner in

144 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

which Paul refers to James shows that it was known by
him and by the Roman Christians of that time to be the
work of a distinguished Christian teacher (above, p. 126 f.).
But the assumption that this Christian interpolation was
made as early as 50-60, during the lifetime of James of
Jerusalem, and the supposition that even Paul was de-
ceived by it, hardly requires refutation. Furthermore,
the impression which we get of the Jewish writing and of
its author after these seven words are stricken out, is in
the highest degree fantastical. Without any apparent
authority for doing so, a Jew addresses the entire Jewish
nation, or, as Spitta understands the " address," all the
Jews in the dispersion, in the superior tones of fatherly
advice and of prophetic condemnation. Possibly before
the destruction of the temple this might have been
done by a high priest in Jerusalem, or, after the year
70; by the recognised head of one of the schools, as
Gamaliel the younger. Earlier than this, such a letter
might have been sent in the name of the whole body of
Jews in Palestine, represented by the Sanhedrin, through
the autocratic head of this body (n. 8). But for a Jew
named James, with no other credentials than the claim to
be the servant of God, to have written such a letter,
would have been to expose himself to ridicule. Generally,
persons not in any recognised position of authority who
felt called upon to preach to their fellow-countrymen in
this way, preferred to suppress their own names entirely,
and to write in the name of Solomon, or Enoch, or Ezra,
or Baruch, or even of the Sibyl or Hystaspes. Moreover,
it is an error to suppose that a letter with these contents
could have been addressed by a Jew to his countrymen.
To begin with, there were no twelve tribes in the dis-
persion, SO that the words rals e'v if) Biaa-Tropa (i. 1) must
also be a Christian interpolation (above, pp. 74 f., 79).
The idea of divine birth through the word of truth, i.e.
through the soul-saving word of divine revelation read

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 145

and preached in religious services (i. 18-21, n. 7), made
its first appearance upon Christian soil. So also did the
conception of a moral law, which, as distinguished from
the imperfect law that had been in force heretofore, is
perfect ; and in contrast to a law which compels and
enslaves, is a law of liberty ; which, finally, in view
especially of its principal commandment love for one's
neighbour, is called a law for kings (i. 25, ii. 8, 12 ; above,
p. 115 f. ). Although it is true that quite independently
of Christianity the Jews esteemed faith very highly, the
thought that one may be rich in such faith even in this
world, and an heir through faith of the promised kingdom
of God, is a Christian thought (ii. 5). It needs also to
be proved that, before Jesus' time (Matt. v. 12), and inde-
pendently of Him, a Jew could have exhorted his readers
not only to endure suffering and temptation with patience
and hope, but to discover in them as well a source of pure
and proud rejoicing (Jas. i. 2, 9). But, what is most
significant, the folly combated in Jas. ii. 14-26 of sup-
posing that faith of itself, without being manifested or
proved by works, can save, is a possibility only as the
preaching of Jesus is presupposed ; while the careful proof
of the proposition that a man is justified in consequence
of works and not of faith alone, by which this folly is
combated, would have been superfluous for Jewish
readers. So, then, the entire result of this bold attempt
to interpret James as the product of Judaism before it
came into contact with the gospel, is simply to re-emphas-
ize the thought how deeply this first piece of Christian
literature is rooted in the soil out of which it sprang
originally, namely, the Jewish Christian Church of Pales-
tine. Its genuinely Israelitish character, and the absence
from it of that ecclesiastical language with which we are so
familiar, and which was a development out of the Pauline
gospel, are the strongest possible proofs of the correctness
of the interpretation which led us to assign the letter to

VOL. I. 10

146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

a time prior to the apostolic council, and of the truthful-
ness of the tradition which ascribes its composition to
James of Jerusalem.

It was at the suggestion of this same James that the
apostles and elders of the mother Church, gathered in
Jerusalem in the winter of 51-52, sent the communication
preserved in Acts xv. 23-29 to the Gentile Christians in
and about Antioch. It is of interest to note that the
discourse of James, preserved in this passage, which re-
sulted in the communication to the Churches, shows very
striking resemblances to the letter which James had
written in his own name only a few years perhaps only
a single year before (above, p. 119, n. 7). Regarding
the genuineness of this document, it will be necessary to
inquire in connection with the question about the sources
of Acts. All the other writings originating in the Pales-
tinian Church and meant for this Church belong to a
date considerably later, and take for granted the inde-
pendent development of the Gentile Christian Church
concerning which we get our information from the letters
of the great apostle to the Gentiles (n. 9).

1. (P. 136.) For example, Kern, Kommentar, 65 ff., 82 ff. ; Wiesinger, 36 ff. ;
Feine, 57 ff., 89 f. The last named, without entering on a discussion of the
idea and wording of the salutation, claims that the Epistle was originally a
discourse addressed by James to "the Palestinian Church" (the local Church
of Jerusalem, more properly), a homily which he afterwards allowed to circu-
late in the form of a letter among "the believing Jews of the dispersion," or
also among the mixed congregations, in Syria probably, composed of both
Gentile and Jewish Christians (95, 97, 99). The local colour would thus be
explained by the original destination of the document, and the alleged inap-
propriateness of its " address " by its subsequent use. But how shall we ex-
plain the thoughtless indolence which led James to set down his opinions in
a form quite unsuited to the wider audience, or, if the homily was already in
writing, to have it copied mechanically without adding a few words at least
to indicate to the new readers that he was submitting to their consideration
a discourse originally intended for quite different people ? Other letters,
indeed, were soon enough current beyond the circle to which they were first
addressed, without the addition of a new heading (cf. Col. iv. 16 ; Polyc. ad
Phil. xiii. 2). But in this case we are asked to suppose that James confined
his efforts in a new edition to the preparation of an address which, in its
general terms, as Feine himself holds (97), did not correspond at all to

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 147

the actual destination of the Epistle now in view. Compared with this
it would be almost preferable to accept Harnack's bold hypothesis (TU,
ii. 2. 106-109), that in this, as in other general Epi.-tles, the salutation is a
false heading attached later, because the authority of the old writing could
be maintained only by connecting it with the name of an apostle. Apart
from the absence of positive proof of such a state of affairs, this conjecture
must be set aside, first, because the celebrated James was not considered an
apostle in the second century or for some time thereafter. In the second
place, whoever sought to preserve or heighten the dignity of the Epistle by
attaching the false heading, would either have pointed to the well-known
James by describing him as the brother of the Lord, or bishop of Jerusalem,
or the like, or else have assigned the authorship to one of the two apostles
of that name, in which case he would have had to designate him as such.
In the third place, the connection between xaipetv, Jas. i. 1, and iraa-av
Xapdv, i. 2 (see p. 117, n. 3 above), shows that both greeting and text are from
the same hand ; cf. Spitta, Der zweite Brief d. Petrus, 26-30, 475. The
attempt to evade this difficulty by declaring (Harnack, 108) that in this
instance only the words 'laxa/Sos . . . 8ov\os are a later insertion, and what
follows is genuine, cannot be justified by the bold assertion that a greeting
which does not mention the writer's name is just as complete as the opening
of the Epistle of Barnabas or the Didache, which have no greeting at all.
Harnack has recently (Chron. 485-491) declared the entire greeting to be a
label attached towards the close of the second century, and the whole letter
a compilation, prepared probably before 150, from various discourses of an
unknown but " vigorous " teacher.

2. (P. 137.) From the period following the apostolic council and the
heated controversy in Galatia, indications of the continued friction between
Jewish and Gentile Christianity in many various forms are to be found in
such passages as 1 Cor. xvi. 22 (i. 12, iii. 16-23, ix. 1 f., xv. 11 ; cf. 18) ;
2 Cor. ii. 17-iv. 6, v. 11-16, xi. 1-xii. 13 ; Rom. ii. 11-iii. 8, iii. 29-viii. 17,
xiv. 1-xv. 13, xv. 25-33, xvi. 4 ; Col. ii. 6-iii. 11, iv. 10 f. ; Phil. i. 14-18,
iii. 2 ff. ; 1 Tim. i. 3-11 ; Tit. i. 10, 14, iii. 9. Acts xxi. 18-26. Ign. Magn.
viii-x ; Philad. vi-ix ; Smyrn. i (cf. the writer's Ignatius^. A nt. 359 ff.); Barn,
iii. 6, iv. 6, ix.-x. 15 ; Just. Dial, xlvi-xlviii (GK, ii. 671) ; the Anabathmoi of
James, Epiph. Hcer. xxx. 16 = Clem. Recogn. i. 55-71, and the whole pseudo-
Clementine literature.

3. (P. 138.) Baur, Paulus, 2 ii. 322-340 (all thought of genuineness already
set aside on account of the writer's familiarity with the Greek language and
modes of thought, 335) ; Christentum der drei ersten Jahrh. 122 f. (somewhat
earlier than the Pastoral Epistles). Schwegler, i. 418 : "In any case it was
not written earlier than the Clementine homilies " [which cannot be shown
to have existed before the third century]. Schwegler's remark (i. 437), that
the view that James was not opposing Paul directly, but a misconception of
the Pauline doctrine, was "in itself a most absurd hypothesis," did not deter
Baur from adopting that view in his presentation of the subject.

4. (P. 138.) A more definite impression than that outlined above cannot
be gained from Weizsacker's shifting and altogether inconclusive reasonings
(Apost. Zeitalter, 364-369, 671). When we read that Jas. iii. 6 shows the
writer's acquaintance with Greek literature, and that iii. 1 ff. warns " against

148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

all sorts of wisdom-teaching " (366), Hilgenfeld's treatment of the passage
(Einl. 535 f., 539, n. 2, see p. 121 f. above) seems to be regarded as an adequate
exegetical foundation. Yet Weizsacker goes even beyond Hilgenfeld, in his
claim (368) that not merely false wisdom is combated in Jas. iii. 1-13, but all
striving after wisdom of any sort. It would be folly to argue against such
wisdom as this, and useless to point to Jas. i. 5, iii. 17. It is alleged further
(367), that James' attitude toward rich and poor is Ebionitic, and presupposes
that Ebionite modification of the first part of the Sermon on the Mount
which, we are told, appears in Luke. Now the cardinal principle of Ebionism
is (Clem. Horn. xv. 9) Ttacri ra KTrj^ara dp.apTJjfj.ara, whereas James follows
Jesus (Matt. xiii. 22) in considering the cares of poverty no less a temptation
than the deceitfulness of riches, and urges the wealthy Christian not to
dispose of his goods, but to make his boast of lowliness (i. 2-11, see p. 86).
In Jesus' usage the conception of jrrco^ot is derived, as we know, from
Isa. Ixi. 1 ; cf. Luke iv. 18, vii. 22 ; Matt. xi. 5 ; also Matt. v. 3 ; Luke vi. 20,
and accordingly, even without the explanatory TO> iri>evp.ari, Matt. v. 3, it
corresponds to the Hebrew D'uy, cf. ZKom. Matt. 2 177 ff. Those who cannot
see this should at least take account of the fact that the Ebionites saw fit
to substitute irfvtjTts, a word of quite different signification, for the scriptural
TTTCO^OI, and then again, afterward, were obliged to guard by arbitrary addi-
tions against too gross a misconception (Clem. Horn. xv. 10, 6 SiSdo-KaXoy rjfiStv
TTKTTOVS Trevrjras fp.aKapi<Tfi>). Again, we are told (366) that the Epistle has
no "dedication," in spite of the opening greeting, because "the address
mentions only an ideal body like the one hundred and forty and four
thousand of Eev." ! In this way the " address," which may not be counted
a "dedication," is left without any explanation whatever; and, further,
Weizsacker overlooks the fundamental difference, that James addresses the
twelve tribes of his people as his brethren, and discusses with no little
thoroughness their social, moral, and religious condition, with which, of
course, Eev. vii. 1-8 has nothing to do. Neither Weizsacker nor Hilgen-
feld, whose view is that the letter was written by an Eastern Jewish Christian
in the reign of Domitian (540 f.), explains why the " facile " use of Greek
(which, in their judgment, makes the composition of the letter by James
impossible) should be more conceivable in the case of a Jewish Christian
of Palestine in the episcopate of Simeon than it would be some twenty to
forty years earlier, circa 45-50 A.D.

5. (P. 139.) We have a spurious letter of James (translated from the
Armenian by Vetter, LR, 1896, S. 259), which begins, " James, bishop of Jeru-
salem, to Quadratus," etc. ; cf. also Clement, ed. Lagarde, 3, Herpos 'laK&>/3a> r<5

KOI fTncrKOTrut Trjs dyias eKK\Tj(rias KT\. ; 6, K.\T)p.rjs 'Ia/cco/3a> r5 Kvpia KOI
OTrcoj/ eTTia-KOTTca, 8i(7rovTi 8f rrjv 'lepovaahfjp. dyiav 'K/3paiu>v fKK\T)(riav
., and the other recension (Pair. Ap., ed. Cotelerius-Clericus, 1724, i. 617),
" Clemens Jacobo, f ratri Domini et episcopo episcoporum," etc. Cf. also the
spurious letters of Paul, GK, ii. 584, 600, and the letter of John in the writer's
Ada Jo. Ixiii. 2. On the curious self-concealment of the author of Protevang.
Jac. see GK, ii. 775.

6. (P. 140.) It is hardly necessary to say anything about the comfortably
arranged meeting-places (ii. 2) and the Church organisation (v. 14) which, we
are sometimes told, shows an advanced stage of development ; see Hofmann's

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 149

brief and excellent remarks, vii. 3. 157 f. In particular, the confidence with
which healing efficacy is attributed to prayer, without leaving a place for the
physician, as in the parallel passage Sir. xxxviii. 9-15, points to high
antiquity. As to the use of oil, above, p. 122, n. 11. The opinion repeatedly
expressed that such distressing conditions as James censures might indeed
appear in Christian communities thirty, sixty, or one hundred, but not
twenty years after Jesus' death, cannot be historically substantiated. We
have no right to think of the Jewish Christians, among whom even before
35 there were such murmurings as are reported in Acts vi. 1, and such
occurrences as that described in Acts v. 1-11, as above all need of serious
reproof. Certainly not, when perhaps only a few months after the composi-
tion of this letter, men among them were asserting themselves to whom Paul
denied all right to be in the Church (Gal. ii. 4), and whom James disowned
as unwarranted disturbers (Acts xv. 19, 24). If the errors which James
rebukes are thoroughly Jewish (p. 90 f.), then, as uneradicated vestiges
of pre-Christian thinking, they are most comprehensible at an early period.
Paul found more practical heathenism to correct in the newly founded
Church at Corinth than the leaders of the post-apostolic time found in their
Churches. The historical picture of the early Churches, whether of Jewish
or of Gentile origin, becomes unintelligible only when the rebukes ad-
ministered to individuals and for individual misdeeds are generalised, and
we assume in preachers of such deep moral earnestness as James or Paul,
Isaiah or Jesus, the equanimity of an ethical statistician.

7. (P. 141.) Spitta supports his hypothesis in a commentary on James
(14-155), the value of which lies in its citation of parallels from Jewish,
especially Jewish-Greek, literature, not in its interpretation of the text. The
latter can be illustrated here in a few examples only, but in passages which
are fundamental to the conception of the book as a Jewish product. With
regard to the "address," see above, pp. 73, 80, n. 8. Spitta understands
i. 18 not of the new birth of the Christian, but of the creation of mankind
(45). But that the creative word of God should be referred to as " a word
of truth" instead of being characterised in accordance with the power which
is shown in creation (cf. Heb. i. 3 ; Wis. xviii. 15 ; Clem. 1 Cor. xxvii. 4 ;
Herm. Vis. i. 3. 4), is hardly credible in itself, and is contrary to the
usage both of the Old Testament, where the "word of truth " signifies the
revelation given to Israel (Ps. cxix. 43, cf. vv. 30, 86, 138, 142, 160), and of
the New (Eph. i. 13 ; 2 Tim. ii. 15 ; John xvii. 17 ; cf. Clem. Horn. Epist.
Petri, ii.). The impossibility of this interpretation appears from the con-
text, since the word spoken of in i. 18 must be identical, as Spitta himself
recognises (48, 50), with that which is read and heard in public worship,
i. 19-25. But the assertion that James tacitly identified this soul-saving
word with the word of creation, is one which the exegete should not venture,
unless the text somehow indicated this mistaken conception ; and even then
the choice of phrase in i. 18 would be as unmeaning as it is unparalleled.
In order to make it possible to refer ii. 14-26 to controversies within
Judaism, and to prepare for that conception of irlcms as Jewish orthodoxy,
which in commenting on ii. 14 (72) is put forward as a matter of course,
we are asked to understand the word in the same sense in i. 6, where it
plainly denotes the spiritual attitude of the worshipper (cf. v. 15), against

ISO INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

whose lack of childlike trust in God even i. 5 is directed. For proof of the
incredible we are pointed to i. 7, according to which the doubter also
expects to receive something from God, as if one who was certain that he
should obtain nothing from God by prayer could be called a doubting
petitioner, or would still pray at all. The very fact that he wavers between
fear and hope, between desire and distrust, makes him a 8iaKpi.v6iJ.fvos.
"With regard to ii. 14-26, exegetical agreement is practically out of the
question, as Spitta (79) without sufficient reason assumes a lacuna at an
important point (see p. 98 above). But he has not succeeded in finding
in Jewish literature a single example of the view opposed by James, that
faith saves of itself apart from works. Even in the passages from 4 Esdr.
which he cites (75), which indeed have sometimes been taken as showing
traces of contact with Christian thought, there is nothing in the least similar
not so much as an antithesis between works and faith. While Spitta (54)
explains re'Xaor as an attribute of the law, i. 25, in contrast with the laws of
heathen nations, he overlooks the contrast much more sharply emphasised
by the very wording of the passage, which calls this law the law of freedom,
and thinks he has accounted for this Christian idea as Jewish by referring to
the well-known Stoic phrases about the wise and virtuous which are found
in Philo, and to the saying of a certain rabbi Joshua of the third century
after Christ in the Appendix to the Pirke Aboth vi. 2 : " No one is free but
him who devotes himself to the study of the Thorah." So also does he fail
to comprehend the use of the same term in ii. 12 ; for the idea that the law
is there spoken of as a law of liberty because it puts forward no impossible
requirements, and in order to represent the judgment as reasonable or
lenient (70), is plainly at variance with the phraseology of ii. 13 (77 yap Kpia-is
dixfXeo? KT-X., not TJ 8f, or, better, dXXa). Then, too, aside from the possibility
of explaining the contents of James from the Jewish standpoint which he
claims to have established in his commentary, Spitta holds that the seven
words which mark the writer as a Christian may be recognised as disturbing
interpolations. Though Christians are often enough referred to in the
N.T. now as servants of God (1 Pet. ii. 16; Tit. i. 1 ; Rev. xix. 2) and now
as servants of Christ (Gal. i. 10 ; 1 Cor. vii. 22 ; Rom. i. 1 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Rev.
i. 1, ii. 20), the combination of the two terms in Jas. i. 1, being a solitary
instance, is said to be suspicious. But if Paul and the author of Revelation
used the two conceptions interchangeably, why might not James combine
them, just as in 2 Pet. i. 1 we find the two titles servant and apostle of
Christ united ? These latter Paul commonly uses by turns (Gal. i. 1, 1 Cor.
i. 1 on the one hand, Phil. i. 1, Tit. i. 1 on the other), in combination but
once (Rom. i. 1), and even then in a form unlike that of 2 Peter. We see
from 1 Cor. viii. 6 and Eph. iv. 5 f. how little fear the early Christians had
that they might appear either to be serving two masters or obliged to choose
between two, God and Christ. In faith, in worship, and in service, God and
Christ for them were one. This finds striking grammatical illustration in
1 Thess. iii. 11 ; Rev. xxii. 3 ; and for the same reason 6 Kvpios is not
infrequently a title which stands above the distinction between God and
Christ, 1 Thess. iii. 12 ; Rom. x. 9-15. Until examples are brought forward,
we cannot believe that a Jew without office or honours would have intro-
duced himself to his readers as a "servant of God"; and no one will find

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 151

passages like Ezra v. 11, or the use of the formula " thy servant" in prayer,
Ps. xix. 12, Luke ii. 29, at all comparable. In Spitta's opinion (4 f., cf.
Vorrede, iv), the difficulty which ii. 1 has presented to expositors arises
from the fact that the original text rfjv triunv rov Kvpuw rrjs fid^y (to be
understood of God) has been obscured by the interpolation of qptav 'Ir/o-ou
XpioToO (in the sense of 1 Cor. ii. 8). But how are we to conceive that an
interpolator, whose important object was to make a Christian book out of a
Jewish writing, which, according to Spitta, had already been read and highly
esteemed by Paul and Peter, should have used no other means to that end
than the introduction at one point of four words which make the passage
" unique" in early Christian literature, and at the other point of three words
which constitute a crux interpretum, when it would have been child's play to
avoid both 1 Here, too, the difficulty of the text is an indication of its
originality. Moreover, we cannot see why the words should not be trans-
lated, as by the Peshito, Grotius, and Hofmann, " the faith in the glory of
our Lord Jesus Christ." For the order of words, cf. Jas. iii. 3 (TO>I> "nnrw
. . . ordyuara) ; Acts iv. 33 (according to B and Chrysost., d-rre&idovv TO
fiaprvpiov ol dir6(rro\ot TOV Kvpiov 'Irjcrov [Xpioroi}] rrjs ava<rra<Tfa>s) ', and for
nicrris rf/s fid^r, cf. euayyeAiov rrjs 86r]s, 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; 1 Tim. i. 11 ; e\irls rrjs
86frs, Col. i. 27.

8. (P. 144.) In addition to the writings of Gamaliel, which have been
mentioned several times (p. 33, n. 18), cf. 2 Mace. i. 1 and 10 ; also a com-
munication which the Jews of Jerusalem at the time of Simon ben Shetach
and king Alexander Jannai (104-78 B.C.) addressed to the Jewish community
of Alexandria in order to bring about the return of Judah ben Tabai
(reputed to be the Nasi of that period) who had fled thither, Jer. Chagigah,
77d ; Sanhedrin, 23c ; and in the same connection Joel Miiller, Briefe u.
Responsen in der vorgeonaischen jiidischen Literatur, Berlin, 1886, S. 7, 21
a book in general well worth reading. See above also, p. 106, n. 1.

9. (P. 146.) The letters of recommendation, by means of which the
Petrine party introduced themselves in Corinth (2 Cor. iii. 1), would be
properly considered, if they were extant, among the literary products of
Jewish Christianity. Of the documents which have been preserved, 2 Pet.,
Jude, and Matt, belong here, but probably not Heb.

III.

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL.

9. PEELIMINAEY CKITICAL EEMAEKS.

IT is impossible to investigate the letters commonly
attributed to Paul without discussing a great many
different opinions. It seems best, therefore, in order to
avoid repetition, to preface the investigation proper by a
general survey of the history of the various attempts
which have been made to criticise the Pauline letters
(n. 1).

As early as the year 150, Marcion (GK, i. 585-718,
ii. 409-529), who held that Paul was the only one of
those called apostles who really preached an uncorrupted
gospel, found the collection of Pauline letters in use by
the Church at that time to be in need of a thoroughgoing
criticism. There is no hint, however, that Marcion's view
regarding the origin of any one of these letters differed
from that of the Church, or that he regarded any one of
them as wrongly attributed to Paul, or as an intentional
forgery in Paul's name. Besides the nine letters addressed
to Churches, he included in his Apostolicon, or collection
of Pauline letters, designed for use in the independent
Church which he organised, the Epistle to Philemon. The
Epistles to Timothy and to Titus were not in this collec-
tion. Whether Marcion was familiar with them, and for
some reason rejected them, is a disputed question. But
we do know, from the form which he gave the ten letters
that he did accept, as well as from the statements of his

152

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 153

opponents, that lie held the form of the Pauline letters
current in the Church at that time and later to he the
result of a systematic interpolation, Jewish in spirit, and
made after the Church had been degenerated by Jewish
influences. He undertook to restore the genuine text by
cutting out a number of longer sections and shorter para-
graphs, by the addition of a few sentences and words,
most of which were taken from other passages of Paul's
letters, and by slightly emending the text in numerous
places. Marcion was in possession neither of the sources
nor of the historical information necessary for such a
critical operation ; nor did he profess to be. The only
criterion which he used, and which sufficed for his Church
several centuries afterwards, was his preconception of
what was genuinely Christian and so genuinely Pauline.

It is readily seen how it was easier for the Church to
refute Marcion's criticism of the Pauline documents, lacking
as it did all historical basis, than it was for it to get rid
of the fundamental idea upon which this criticism was
based, namely, the irreconcilable contradiction between
Christianity and Judaism, an idea which has since come
to the front more than once in a variety of forms. What
critical investigations of Paul's letters were made by the
early Church was not the result of historical or linguistic
inquiry into the letters themselves, but simply of the fact
that the differences in tradition and opinion which had
long existed in different parts of the Church entered
gradually into the consciousness of the Church at large.
Thus from the third century we have such a process
taking place with reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
which was regarded as Pauline and canonical in some
sections, but not by any means in all. So also in the
fourth century a similar process took place with reference
to Philemon, which was not included in the collection of
Pauline letters used by the Syrian Church (GK, ii.
997-1006). Whether or not the appearance of spurious

154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Pauline letters, two of which are mentioned in the
Muratori Canon, particularly whether the acceptance and
subsequent rejection of an apocryphal Third Epistle to the
Corinthians in the Syrian Canon, occasioned critical dis-
cussion, we do not know. Though in discussions of this
kind occasional reference was made to the style and
contents of the questionable letters, the discussion of
such references belongs rather in the history of the Canon
than in a history of the theological investigation of the
Pauline letters ; still more so the statement of the con-
clusion with which the entire Church was finally satisfied.
The tradition regarding the Pauline letters, which in its
essential points existed even before Marcion's time, which
was substantially accepted by him, and which, after some
question had been raised with reference to a few points,
finally prevailed through the entire Church, remained prac-
tically unquestioned up to the beginning of the last century.
The question of origin, sources, and authenticity of the
Gospels had been heatedly discussed for decades before
there was the least question about the genuineness of any
of the Pauline Epistles. Doubts expressed by Evanson in
his critique of the Gospels in 1792 made little impression
(n. 2). When, in 1807, Schleiermacher asserted with great
positiveness that 1 Tim. was spurious, serious -minded
people asked " whether perhaps the whole was not a mere
lusus ingenii, a game of wit and ingenuity, just to see
how far critical Pyrrhonism could be carried and still
retain a semblance of truth" (n. 3). When, however, F.
Chr. Baur, a man whom no one could suspect of joking
about things scientific, subjected all the extant Pauline
letters to criticism in the light of his new and compre-
hensive theory about the development of Christianity in
the apostolic age, concluding that only Gal, 1 and 2 Cor.,
and Eom. (excepting chaps, xv. and xvi.) were genuine,
the whole Pauline question became one of the utmost
importance (n. 4). It was a great mistake on the part

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 155

of those who found that they could not follow Baur in his
rejection of Pauline Epistles, or who could not accept his
results regarding them all, that they raised no question
about the genuineness of the Epistles which Baur did
accept, although Baur and his followers never attempted
any proof for their positive critical conclusions. Since no
effort was made by critics to set forth the reasons which
compelled historical investigators to accept some of Paul's
letters as genuine historical documents, or to show the
scope of these reasons, we are not surprised when Bruno
Bauer declares that all the Pauline Epistles are spurious,
written between the years 130 and 170 ; and when a later
school of Dutch critics, working independently of Bauer,
question and finally deny the genuineness of all the
Pauline writings (n. 5). The position of the critic is not
an enviable one, who, by denying the genuineness of all
the documents associated with a distinguished name, and
the essential trustworthiness of all the early traditions
concerning these documents, deprives himself of a fixed
and common standard by which he may test what seems
doubtful. What is spurious can be tested only with
reference to what is acknowledged to be authentic, and if
criticism is to obtain any positive results, it must be based
upon historical data acknowledged to be trustworthy.
We need not inquire whether it is from this consideration
primarily, or because of the irresistible impression that
the character of the life portrayed in the Pauline letters
is such as could not have been produced second-hand,
that criticism of the sort which simply denies everything
is not making headway at the present time.

Consequently, at the present time all the more atten-
tion is being paid to that type of criticism of which
Marcion is still the best example. When in doubt about
any point, the critic satisfies his own mind by assuming an
interpolation, and so avoids depriving himself of the
necessary basis for the critical process, as he would do if

156 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

he denied the genuineness of all his traditional sources
and facts. Attempts in this direction were made by
Herm. Weisse and F. Hitzig in Germany. More recently
this method has been pursued chiefly in Holland (n. 6).

Another method followed by many is that suggested
first by J. S. Semler. Certain inequalities which are
thought to exist between different parts of the same
letter, it is assumed, can be explained by supposing that
when the separate letters were first copied, or when
they were gathered into a collection, either by oversight
or intention, parts became dislocated and confused, so
that sections were united in a single document which
originally did not belong together. Inasmuch as we have
not the means at our command for restoring the text of
Paul's letters, and the N.T. text generally, so that every
sentence and every word is established beyond all doubt,
the process of text criticism is largely identical with the
process of the higher, literary, and historical criticism.

The more important of the critical attempts made
along these various lines we shall have occasion to notice
in connection with the investigation of the separate
Epistles. Here a few considerations of a more general
character may be stated briefly.

1. The early date of all Paul's Epistles, except that of
the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, is comprehensively
and strongly attested by Marcion's Apostolicon. That
Marcion, who withdrew from the Eoman Church and
became the head of a separate organisation, probably in
the year 144, did not himself write any one of the Pauline
letters in his collection, is clear from the fact that, in the
year 180, the Catholic Church accepted all the ten docu-
ments in Marcion's Apostolicon as Pauline, and used
them in their religious services. Now it is simply im-
possible to suppose that any of these could have been
borrowed from this "firstborn son of Satan" by a Church
whose bishops and their faithful followers summarily

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 157

rejected Marcion's teaching and treatment of the apostolic
writings. The probability is that Marcion accepted these
ten letters as Pauline from the Church in which he grew
up, and, after making some changes in them, adopted
them in his own Church. His acceptance of the Pauline
origin of these letters, his criticism of single points in the
tradition regarding them, e.g. regarding the traditional
address of the Ephesian letter ( 28), the belief which led
him to make a new recension of the text, namely, that all
the copies of the Pauline letters extant in his time con-
tained a text which had been corrupted by the Church, all
o-o to show that in 140-150 there was no suspicion in the
Church of the recent date or sudden appearance of any of
the Pauline letters. That these Epistles should have been
written during Marcion's lifetime, or after the year 110, is
therefore out of the question.

2. A comparison of Marcion's text of the Pauline letters
with the text used in the Church, shows that Marcion
found a number of readings which, in the course of the
transmission of the text in the Church, have been re-
placed by other readings. But, leaving this difference
out of account, it is clear that in plan, general contents
and compass, the Pauline letters which Marcion had before
him were substantially the same as the letters which
have come down to us. He found chaps, xv. and xvi.
already a part of Rom., and chaps, i.-xiii. of 2 Cor. form-
ing a single letter. Hence it follows that all important
changes in the order and structure of the letters must

have been made before the year 110.

3. Difference of opinion still exists regarding the date
of a great many early Christian writings, e.g., that of the
letters of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Epistle
of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache.
Even a work which is so thoroughly attested, and which
can be so definitely dated as Clement's so-called First
Epistle to the Corinthians, is sometimes brought down

158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

to a later period. But, allowing for this uncertainty, we
have still a sufficiently large number of Christian writings,
admittedly belonging in the period between 90 and 170,
from which to form a definite idea as to the thoughts
which were uppermost in the mind of the Church during
this period, and the spiritual forces which were at work.
Perhaps it would be too much to say that this literature
shows a general decline from the high standard of
apostolic Christianity, especially from the strikingly
original teachings of Paul. But so much is clear, that
there is nothing in the literature of 90-170 comparable in
character to what we find in the letters of Paul accepted
by Marcion, or to the ideas which these letters were
meant to refute. How little this age was in a position
even to understand Paul's thoughts, is quite as evident in
the case of Marcion and of the school of Valentinus as
in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the earlier
apologists, such as Aristides and Justin. It is absurd to
suppose that a Christian living in the year 100 or 130,
with interests so different from those of his age, and so
superior to his contemporaries in the compass and depth
of his thought, should have given no expression to his
ideas except under a false name, and in letters dated back
into the past. The Pauline letters must therefore have
been written prior to the period of transition between the
first and second centuries.

4. Before a denial of the genuineness of this collection
of letters, or of separate parts of the same, can command
general assent, it must be shown to be made in agreement
with the principles derived from a careful study of the
literature of the early Christian Church, which is acknow-
ledged to be pseudepigraphic. Here we have, besides the
apocryphal letters of Paul already mentioned, some other
letters (n. 7), some fragments of the ancient "Preaching
of Peter," the apostolic legends of the second and third
centuries, and the pseudo- Clementine literature. All

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 159

these are similar in character to the pseudo-Pauline litera-
ture. The conclusion of an unbiassed comparison must
always be, that even the least important and the most
suspected of Paul's letters show characteristics altogether
the opposite of those in this literature, which leave no
intelligent reader in doubt as to its fictitious character.

5. It has not always been clearly realised what diffi-
culties are in the way, not so much of the composition of
letters of this kind, as of their successful forgery and
circulation. From 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17, it may be
inferred that even in Paul's lifetime letters were put into
circulation which were falsely attributed to him ; but it
is to be remembered at the same time that the forgery
was almost immediately detected ( 15). Then, as now,
spurious letters, if written with any expectation of
permanently deceiving people, could not be put into
circulation until after the death of the alleged author and
readers. With the exception of Philem., 1 and 2 Tim.,
and Tit., however, Paul's letters are addressed to Churches
which had a continuous life. Though there is proof
enough of the fact, if it were necessary to adduce it (n. 8),
it goes without saying that up to the close of the first
century there were Christians living in Corinth and else-
where who had been members of the Church during Paul's
lifetime. I confess that I cannot conceive how a letter,
purporting to be Paul's, and addressed to the Corinthians,
the Thessalonians, the Philippians, or the Colossians,
could have been actually written and put into circulation
between the year 80 and the year 100, and yet have been
received and accepted in these various localities. Then
the older members of these Churches must have made
themselves believe that the letter, which now came to
light, had been sent to them by the apostle himself thirty
or forty years before, and yet had been entirely lost sight
of up to this time.

Special difficulties arise from the occurrence in many

160 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

of these letters of a great many significant personal refer-
ences (1 Cor. i. 14-16, xvi. 15-17 ; Col. iv. 9-17 ; Philem.
If., 10; Phil. ii. 25-30, iv. 2 f., 18; Rom. xvi. 1-23).
Even if, as is extremely improbable and contrary to what
is usual in pseudepigraphic literature, the forger was well
enough acquainted with conditions in the several Churches
to employ only names of persons who were actually
members of these Churches during Paul's lifetime, and to
assign them their proper roles, such very personal remarks,
greetings, warning exhortations, and injunctions of the
apostle, which never reached the persons for whom they
were intended, must have been read by these persons,
or if they were dead, then by their relatives, with the
greatest interest and with no little astonishment. Every
mistake which the writer made in these matters and a
person writing thus in Paul's name could hardly have
avoided making some tended during the generation
after Paul's death to make the forged letter appear in the
highest degree ridiculous, at least in the Church to which
it was addressed, and so absolutely to preclude its accept-
ance by such a Church. And as a matter of fact, so far
as we know, this was actually the fate of the spurious
letters put out in Paul's name. And these spurious
letters were certainly written later than the canonical
letters of Paul, even assuming that the latter are spurious,
at a time when one might expect the Churches to which
these letters are alleged to have been sent by Paul to be
more easily deceived. The third letter to the Corinthians
never found acceptance in Corinth, but only in the far
East, among the Syrians and Armenians. Early Chris-
tians in Alexandria and Asia Minor seem never to
have known anything about the spurious letters to the
Laodiceans and Alexandrians. The first mention made of
them is by a Roman writer, and in the case of the letter
to the Alexandrians this is the only mention. Such com-
pilations could never be widely accepted, for the reason

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 16 1

that the Churches to which they are alleged to have
been sent, and from which alone they could be success-
fully circulated, never did and never could accept
them.

6. The same reasons which make it improbable that
the spurious letters to the Churches purporting to be from
Paul were put into circulation between the time of the
apostle's death and the time of Marcion, argue just as
strongly against the assumption that the letters which
Paul did write to the Churches were materially altered
during the same period. Such alterations are usually
associated with the gathering up of Paul's letters into a
collection, and changes generally supposed to have been
made in the text are explained as due to the fact that the
letters were circulated only in the form of a collection.
Such a hypothesis presupposes that up to the time when
the letters were collected, and so passed into general
circulation, they remained quite unnoticed and were not
much copied. But this in turn, an assumption of itself,
is improbable, and contrary to plain facts. That Paul's
letters made a profound impression at the time when they
were written, and did not remain without influence until
they were accepted by the Church as Holy Scripture, is
clear from the N.T. itself. Besides Paul's own hints
(2 Cor. x. 9-11) and that of 2 Pet. iii. 15 , a passage
generally assigned to a much later date ( 42, 44), we
have as proof the fact that the author of 1 Peter, which
was written in Rome, certainly before the close of the first
century and probably in 63 or 64, had read Ephesians
and Romans, and was influenced by them in the com-
position of his own letter ( 40). What is expressly
enjoined in one case in Col. iv. 16 must have happened
in other cases where there was no express direction, and
Churches which were in communication with one another
must have exchanged the apostle's letters very soon after
they were received. It is hardly likely that Paul's letters

VOL. I. II

162 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

created less interest than the hastily written Epistles of
Ignatius to the Churches in Asia Minor, for which request
was made of the bishop of Smyrna by the Church in
Philippi shortly after the martyr passed through that
city (Pol. ad Phil. 13). Moreover, we know that in the
post-apostolic age Churches made a great deal of any
special relations they had had with particular apostles,
and letters addressed to them were regarded as being
of special importance (n. 8). An idea like this, which
determined the whole development of the Church, could
not have grown up suddenly, nor could it have been the
immediate effect of the introduction of a collection of the
letters of Paul or of any apostolic writings. If, as is more
probable, the making and general circulating of such col-
lections presuppose an interest in the apostles and the
writings they left behind them, then there is no reason to
doubt that before the collection was made, which Marcion
found in existence, Paul's letters to the Churches had been
much copied and circulated. In particular, there is no
reason to doubt that in the Churches which could boast
that they had been the first to receive them, such letters
were not forgotten. But in that case it is next to im-
possible that in the process of gathering Paul's letters to
Churches into a collection, which afterwards passed into
general circulation, material changes should have been
made in the text. Such alterations must have been made
before the letters began to be copied and circulated in this
way ; but at that stage in their history such alterations
are not at all likely to have been made.

In making these general statements, the purpose has
been to establish a certain degree of confidence in the
tradition according to which nine of the N.T. writings
are letters of Paul addressed to different churches, ar.d
to create a general mistrust of attempts of one sort and
another to replace this tradition by theories which do not
themselves hang together.

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OE PAUL 163

1. (P. 152.) The writer has discussed several aspects of the matter more
fully in the ZfKWuKL, 1889, S. 451-466, "Die Briefe des Paulus seit
fimfzig Jahren in Feuer der Kritik."

2. (P. 154.) E. EVAXSON (The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received
Evangelists and the Evidence of their Authenticity Examined, Ipswich, 1792, a
work not to be found in Erlangen or Munich, but cited on the authority of
Hesedamm, cf. n. 6, p. 1) accepted of the Gospels only Luke, omitting
chaps, i. and ii. ; and of Paul's letters rejected Rom., Eph., Col. as spurious,
questioning also Titus, Phil., Philem.

3. (P. 154.) With regard to SCHLEIERMACHER, see below, 37, n. 1.
The opinion quoted in the text was expressed by H. PLANCK (and in the
name of other scholars also), Bemerkungen iiber den ersten paulin. Brief an
Tim., Gottingen 1808, S. 256.

4. (P. 154.) F. CHR. BAUR (1792-1860) began his critical work on the
N.T. with an essay on the Christ party in Corinth (TZfTh. 1831, S.
61 ff.). A criticism of the Pastoral Epistles followed (1835, see 37, n. 1),
and various essays which are to be regarded as preliminary studies for
his Paulus (1845, 2nd ed. in 2 volumes, published by Zeller, 1866-1867).
H. THIERSCH in his Versuch ::nr Herstelluug des histor. Standpunkts fur die
Kritik der nil. Schriften, 1845, a work issued at about the same time, and still
worth reading, could not, of course, take Baur's Paulus into consideration,
and touched upon the criticism of the Pauline Epistles only in his chapters
on the heresies mentioned in the N.T. and on the Canon. J. CHR. K. v.
HOFMANN, however (1810-1877), in his last and unfinished work, Die heilirje
Schrift NT's zusammenhangend untersucht (i.-ii. 3, 1862-1866, 2nd ed. 1869-
1877 ; iii.-viii. 1868-1878 ; ix.-xi. published by Volck, 1881-1886), chose as
the starting-point in his historical and exegetical investigations of the N.T.,
primarily the Pauline Epistles, in opposition to Baur (i. 2 60).

5. (P. 155.) BR. BAUER, Kritik der paul. Briefe, 3 parts, 1850-1852 ;
Cliristus u. die Casaren, der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem rb'misclieu
Griechentum, 1877, S. 371 ft'. Doubts of the authenticity of Galatians were
expressed by A. PIERSON in Holland, De Bercjrede, etc., 1878, p. 99 ff. A. D.
LOMAN, Qu(estiones Paulince in ThTjd. 1882 ff., and R. STECK, Der Gal. nach
seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst krit. Bemerkungen zur den paul. Hauptbriefen,
1888, followed with greater confidence and more detailed argument, with
some dependence also on Bauer. In opposition to Steck, cf. J. GLOEL, Die
jiingste Kritik des Gal. auf ihre Berechtigung gepriift, 1890, and the writer's
essay (S. 462-466), mentioned in n. 1 above.

6. (P. 156.) CHR. H. WEISSE, Beilrage zur Kritik der paul. Briefe an die
Gal., Rom., Phil., Kol., published by Sulze, 1867. F. HITZIG, Zur Kritik paul.
Briefe, 1870, belongs here also, on account of his hypothesis with regard to
Col. and Eph. (S. 11-33, see 29 below). The same PIERSON who gave the
first impulse in Holland to the denial of the genuineness of all the Pauline
Epistles (n. 5), had at the time remarked on the possibility that their
difficulties Avere to be ascribed to an interpolator. While LOMAN went
further in the first-named path, Pierson, in collaboration with the philologist
NABEE, pursued the second : Vensiimlia. Laceram conditionem NTi exempli*
i I lustra-runt et ab origine npetierunt A. Pierson et S. A. Naber, 1886. The
obscurities and contradictions of this account of the origin of the Epistles,

1 64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

as based upon able Jewish writings appropriated and redacted by an
ignorant Churchman, may be due in part to the fact that two different minds
were at work in this critical effort, as well as (supposedly) in the writings
with which it deals. Cf. in opposition KUENEN, Verisimilia? ThTjd.
1886, S. 491-536, and the writer's essay (S. 458 ff.) mentioned in n. 1 above.
Another work to be mentioned here is D. VOLTER'S Die Komposition der paul.
Jfauptbricfe, I. Kdm. u. Gat., 1890, in which a genuine Romans (i. Ire, 7, v.
6, 8-17, v. and vi., xii. and xiii., xv. 14-32, xvi. 21-23) is extracted from the
shell of the traditional Epistle, which is held to have acquired its present
form by a fivefold interpolation and the addition of a letter addressed to
Ephesus, Rom. xvi. 1-20. Galatians, according to this critic, has suffered
only minor interpolations ; but even so is the work not of Paul himself, but
of a Paulinist of a later period. On Volter's treatment of Philippians see 32.
C. CLEMEN, Die Einheitlichkeit der paul. Brief e an der Hand der bisher mit bezug
auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und Kompilationshypothesen, 1894, gives
an outline of all attempts in this direction. Worth reading, also, is the
pseudonymous essay of an American theologian, Der Rum. beurteilt u. gev-ir.r-
teilt, eine krit. Uutersuchung von CARL HESEDAMM, 1890 [Romans Dissected,
by E. D. M'Eealsham = Charles M. Mead].

7. (P. 158.) With regard to spurious letters by James and to James,
see above, p. 148, n. 5 ; spurious Pauline Epistles, GK, ii. 565-621. The
principles referred to above the writer has already developed, and supported
by examples, in his Ignatius, 529 ff., especially 537-541 ; and to some extent,
indeed, in his Hirt des Hernias, 70-93.'

8. (Pp. 159, 162.) Clem. 1 Cor. xliv. 3-6, the presbyters appointed by the
apostles at Corinth, some of them still living. Fortunatus. chap. Ixv. = 1 Cor.
xvi. 17, see 18, seems to have been one of these. On the relations of the
several Churches to the apostles and on apostolic letters, see Clem. 1 Cor. xlvii. ;
and on chap. v. see 36 below ; also Ign. Eph. xi. 2, xii. 2 ; Rom. iv. 3 ;
Polyc. ad Phil. iii. 2, xi. 3 ; cf. <JK, i. 807, 811 ff., 839.

10. THE HISTORICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS AND THK
OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

Since it is impossible to determine beforehand what is
understood by Ta\aria, to the Churches of which the letter
is addressed (i. 2, iii. 1), the only thing to do is to gather
from the letter itself what historical information it has to
give with reference to the origin and early development
of the Churches to which it was sent, the relation Paul
sustained to these Churches, and the occasion which led
to the composition of the letter.

These Churches had been established by Paul's own
preaching (i. 8). From him they received tin 1 gospel

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 165

(i. 9). He recalls now with sorrow the labour he had
bestowed upon them (iv. 11), and remembers with a feel-
ing of sadness the joyful reception he had had among
them when for the first time he came to them with the
preaching of the gospel (iv. 13-15). He calls them his
own children, whom he, like a mother, had born with
travail (iv. 19); speaking manifestly in the same sense in
which, addressing another Church, he speaks of himself as
their father who had begotten them (1 Cor. iv. 15). This
does not, of course, preclude the possibility of Paul's having
had the support of one or more helpers in his work among
the Galatians (cf. 2 Cor. i. 19). That this was actually
the case is proved by the plural ev^yyeXicrd/jLeda (i. 8,
n. 1 ). When in iv. 1 3 f. Paul says that it was on account
of physical illness that he first preached the gospel among
the Galatians, an illness that might have made him repul-
sive to those who heard his preaching, of course he does
not mean to say that this was the primary motive of his
preaching, but only that it was this circumstance that
kept him in this region for a sufficient length of time
to preach the gospel to these particular persons (n. 2).
From this same passage we learn also that Paul after-
wards revisited the Galatian region and preached the
gospel there a second time. In those instances where
Paul reminds the Galatians of something that he had said
to them previously, there is no way of determining abso-
lutely whether it is to be referred to the first or to the
second visit. On the first visit he must certainly have
declared that scandalous living excluded one from the
kingdom of God (v. 21, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 9 ; 1 Thess. iv. 2,
11 ; 2 Thess. iii. 10). But he preached the gospel also
on his second visit, and so had occasion to re-emphasise
this primary rule. It may not have been until his second
visit to the Galatiaus that he had occasion to warn them
against permitting themselves to be circumcised, and
against preachers of a false gospel (n. 3). Even if he

1 66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

did warn them on the second visit, the occasion for
it could not have been the condition of the Galatian
Churches, still less so if the warnings are to be referred
back to the earlier visit ; for the letter begins with a
strong expression of surprise that the Galatians had
turned away so quickly from the real and the only
gospel of Christ, and had suffered themselves to be per-
suaded by certain troublesome preachers to accept a cari-
cature of the gospel. This introduction and the tone of
the Epistle throughout show that shortly before writing-
Paul had been surprised by the report of the first appear-
ance of these teachers, and of the rapid success of their
work. Consequently they must have come among the
Galatians in the interval between Paul's second visit and
the writing of this letter, and they must have been still
at work when he wrote. This latter point is proved by
the use of present tenses in i. 6, 7, v. 10-12, vi. 12 f.
Throughout the letter these false teachers are distinguished
from the members of the Churches addressed, and charged
with being their seducers (i. 7, iii. 1, iv. 17, 29-31,
v. 7, 10, 12, vi. 12f.). There is no hint anywhere that
they belonged in the Galatian Churches (for this distinc-
tion cf. 1 Cor. xv. 12; Acts xx. 30 with Acts xx. 29).
Paul does not resist them as if they were settled teachers,
who as members of the Churches were doing things which
to him seemed injurious* but he treats them as if they
were preachers of a false gospel, i.e. missionary preachers
who dogged his steps and invaded the Churches which he
founded. In the Galatian Churches, as in all the Pauline
Churches of which we know anything, there were some
native Jews, a necessary assumption if Gal. iii. 26-29 is
to have a natural explanation. But he is writing with
the large majority of the members in view, and with
reference to the character which he himself had impressed
upon them, so that he treats them throughout as Gentile
Christians, Not only is this clear from single passages

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 167

such as iv. 8 f., ii. 5 (737309 u/ta?, cf. ii. 2, eV rot? Wveaiv ; ii. 8,
ek ra eQvr)), iii. 29, v. 2, vi. 12, but it appears also from
the character of the questions discussed throughout the
letter. On the other hand, the preachers of what can
only falsely be called a gospel are Jews, by birth, through
circumcision, and in spirit (iv. 29-31, v. 12, vi. 12-17).
The comparison which Paul makes in iv. 21-31 between
his opponents and himself by contrasting the spiritual
with the fleshly descendants of Abraham, referring to the
earthly Jerusalem as the home or mother of the latter,
and to the heavenly Jerusalem as the home or mother of
the former, is very far-fetched, unless these Jewish Chris-
tian missionaries had come into Galatia from this earthly
Jerusalem. This supposition is favoured by what we
know of similar disturbances in the Gentile Christian
Churches (Acts xv. 1, 24 ; Gal. ii. 12 ; 2 Cor. iii. 1, 18).
As indicated by the plurals in i. 7, iv. 17, v. 12, vi. 12 f.,
there were certainly a number of these missionaries who
came to the Galatians, so that in all probability they had
a prearranged plan, entering the various Churches simul-
taneously, and doing their work in concert. That one
of their number acted as a leader is not unlikely ; but
there is no hint of it in the letter, and it certainly cannot
be inferred from the one singular 6 -rapdaacov vpas in v. 10,
much less from the form of the questions in iii. 1, v. 7.

From the first main division of the Epistle, i. 11-ii. 14,
which is principally historical and apologetic in char-
acter, we learn that these Jewish missionaries had criti-
cised in an unkindly manner his missionary work and
his life history since his conversion, hoping thereby to
undermine the confidence of the Galatian Churches in
their founder, and so to gain foothold for their own
teaching, which they represented as a more perfect form
of the gospel. They must have made it appear that
immediately after his conversion Paul accepted a position
quite subordinate, and entirely dependent upon the earlier

i63 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

apostles, and also that at the so-called apostolic council
he submitted to the decision of his superiors in Jerusalem.
So, they argued, the independence with which Paul
worked among the Gentiles was an unjustifiable preten-
sion on his part, while the radical departure from the
practices of Jewish Christians in Palestine, which Paul
not only permitted in the Churches under his influence,
but for which he himself was directly responsible, was
nothing less than a degeneracy from Christianity as
originally taught. It is implied in i. 10 that in his
effort to please men, i.e. to make the gospel palatable to
the Gentiles, and to make as many converts as he could
in his missionary work, Paul abridged the gospel in some
of its essential points, and preached it to the Gentiles
only in a mutilated form.

AVhat it was that Paul's opponents wanted to sub-
stitute for the gospel, parts of which they claimed Paul
had left out, we learn from the second main division of
the letter (ii. 15-iv. 11), in which Paul develops his own
doctrine, and from certain portions of the third main
division (iv. 12-vi. 18), which is largely hortatory.
They insisted that the Mosaic law, which they regarded
as God's chief revelation, was to be for all time the rule
of faith and practice in the Church of God. Therefore, if
they were to be saved, Gentile Christians must submit
to its demands. First of all they must be circumcised
(v. 2, vi. 12 f.); and, in order to become real Christians,
sanctified and fully qualified members of the Church of
Jesus, they must become proselytes of righteousness and
accept Judaism. This was the position taken by those
Pharisaic Jewish Christians from Palestine, the coming
of whom to Antioch made necessary the apostolic council
(Acts xv. 1, 5 ; Gal. ii. 4). At the time when this letter
was written, the persons holding similar views who had
gone among the Galatians do not seem to have succeeded
in inducing a single Gentile Christian to accept circum-

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 169

cision, though they had made a deep impression. All
the Churches seem to Paul to have been bewitched (iii. 1),
and their prosperous growth interfered with (v. 7). All
the Galatians have suffered themselves to be disturbed
(i. 7, v. 10), and are even on the point of turning away
from the only gospel of Christ (i. 6, iii. 3). Their con-
fidence in Paul is shaken (iv. 12-20). The observance
of Jewish holy days and feasts seems to have become
quite general (iv. 9 ). Many, at least, were contemplat-
ing further steps in the same direction (iv. 21). Although
these foreign Judaisers were wise enough to assume a
certain appearance of liberality by not demanding at
once from the Gentile Christians a complete observance
of the law, so that Paul himself was compelled to call
attention to this inevitable consequence (v. 3), yet with
regard to one point, namely, the necessity of being circum-
cised, they made no concessions. The worst was to be
feared.

Since Paul does not seem anywhere to be uncertain
with regard to the facts and conditions among the
Galatians which are presupposed and discussed by him,
it is hardly possible that his information was derived
solely from private sources, letters and oral statements
of individual Christians (cf. 1 Cor. i. 11, xi. 18). On
the other hand, also, nothing in the letter gives evi-
dence that it is an answer to a writing sent to Paul in
the name and by direction of the Churches, cf. ZKoin.
Gal. 8. It is much more probable that accredited repre-
sentatives of the Galatian Churches had come to Paul to
obtain a decision on the question, which had not yet been
decided. Of them he could have inquired also concerning
everything which they had not reported to him of their
own accord. Otherwise he could not have written this
Epistle without first asking for an explanation of the
surprising things that were going on, or without express-
ing doubt as to the truthfulness of the reports that had

1 70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

come to him. The qucestio facti between him and his
readers is settled. Therefore, assuming the facts, he
proceeds at once (i. 6) to pass judgment upon them,
beginning with a passionate remonstrance in which attack
and defence are almost inseparably blended. Although,
as we learn in this Epistle, he was in the habit of dic-
tating his letters, this one was written by his own hand,
a fact to which he calls his readers' attention (vi. 11,
11. 4). On this occasion, when he needed to throw
the entire weight of his personality into the wavering
balance, to address them through another seemed like
erecting 1 a barrier between himself and the hearts of the

children for whom he had been in travail. And even
when he wrote himself, words seemed wooden and unsuited
to his purpose. Best of all would it be if he could be
present in person and with the emotion of his voice win
their half-estranged hearts back again to himself and to
the truth for which he stood (iv. 20). It is necessary to
assume that he was at such a distance from the Galatians
that a journey to them in the near future was out of the
question. Otherwise in this passage he must have stated
in so many words that at the time a journey was out of
the question, with the reasons why it was impossible.
From what is said in other letters, one would at least
expect him to say something about coming to them in
the more remote future (1 Thess. ii. 17-iii. 11 ; 1 Cor. iv.
18-21, xi. 34, xvi. 2-7 ; 2 Cor. ix. 4, x. 2-16, xii. 20-
xiii. 10). How long a period had elapsed since his last
visit we are not able to determine from the letter (n. 5),
nor is there any indication as to the place where it was
written, except that from i. 2 f., and the entire absence
of special greetings, it may be inferred that no one of the
persons who assisted in the organisation of the Galatian
Churches was with Paul at the time. The fact that he
represents the letter as being from all those about him
(i. 2), does no more than produce the impression that

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 171

what Paul says in this letter, where his position is that of an
advocate in a process affecting his own person and moving
him deeply, is, by the unanimous judgment of all unbiassed
persons capable of judging the matter, correctly said.

1. (P. 165.) That "we," i. 8 and i. 9 (where reference is had probably to
two distinct incidents, 11), is to be taken literally, follows from the other-
wise constant use of " I " throughout the Epistle. Special proof of this
interpretation is afforded by apn ird\ii> Aeyo>, which stands in immediate
sequence to the plural in i. 9. In spite of the inclusion with him in the
address of all the brethren in his company (i. 2), which cannot be looked
upon as a joint authorship, Paul is the sole speaker throughout the Epistle,
as in 1 Cor., in spite of the mention of Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1.

2. (P. 165.) It is not necessary to prove that 6V da-deveiav TTJS vapKos
(iv. 13) cannot designate merely an accompanying situation, as though it
read either 81 da-devdas or ev da-deveia a-apKos. The text will hardly support
the hypothesis of Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. 1893,
pp. 62-65 ; St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, 1896, pp. 92-97) that the
apostle is here referring to an attack of fever to which he fell a victim in the
heated regions of Pamphylia, and on account of which he felt constrained
to travel northward to the cooler mountain region of Pisidian Antioch. An
attack of malaria must certainly incapacitate one for strenuous exertions of
any sort. But when one has recuperated to such a degree as to enable him
to preach successfully as Paul did among the Galatians, his convalescence
cannot make him an object of aversion, either natural or religious, as was
the case with Paul in his first preaching in Galatia (iv. 13 f.). The reference
here, as in 2 Cor. xii. 7-9, is rather to another malady, incurable in its
nature, and reappearing from time to time. Against Ramsay, but especially
in opposition to Krenkel's assumption (epilepsy), see the medical opinion of
Professor W. Herzog (RKZ, 1899, Nos. 10, 11), who thinks it most likely
to have been "neurasthenic conditions in consequence of repeated over-
exertions and an excessive strain upon the nerve system, combined with
periodic nervous pains." TO irporepov (iv. 13), used as it is with a verb
expressing definite action (aorist), cannot designate simply the past, as in
John vi. 62, ix. 8, but involves, by way of comparison, a irdXiv or TO devrepov
(vayy\if<rdai. At the same time, however, it can have no reference to the
composition of Galatians so long as euayyeAi'feo-$m retains the meaning which
it has throughout the N.T., namely, " to bring the message of salvation to those
who do not yet know it, or have not yet received it." The objection that
fvayye\iTdai, ill the strict sense of the term, could not be directed twice to
the same persons, is without point, since Paul in Galatia addressed a number
of persons, or rather of congregations a large circle, in which some heard
the gospel during his first and others during his second visit to the province.
Even in a local congregation like that at Corinth, we find some who were
brought to the faith by Paul and others after Paul's departure by Apollos
(1 Cor. iii. 5).

3. (P. 165.) rrdXiv in v. 3 implies contrast to a declaration of the truth
here expressed made before the writing of the Epistle ; for in the Epistle itself

i/2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

there is uo expression of this truth before this passage. This is even clearer
in the case of npn TraXiv of i. 9, especially since we find the plural trpofiprjK.afj.fv
displaced by the immediately following singular Ae'yo>. Whom Paul includes
with himself in i. 8, 9 depends upon a determination of the exact meaning
of Ta\aria (see 11). It has been incorrectly inferred from iv. 16

(Wieseler, Sieffert, ad loc. ; Godet, Introd. i. 270) that Paul was compelled
to utter bitter truths or earnest warnings as early as his second visit to the
Galatians, a conclusion which led to the further assumption that by that
time the Judaistic movement had already taken root among the Galatians.
In iv. 15-20 Paul sketches his present relationship to the Galatians as con-
trasted with his first contact with them described in vv. 13, 14, and again
alluded to in the intermediate sentence of ver. 15. In reviewing the letter,
which at this point would seem to have reached its conclusion, he discusses
the existing state of aft'airs. The Galatians have forgotten with what
enthusiasm they received him when he first came to them (ver. 15a), and
how earnest was the expression of mutual love between himself and them as
long and as often as he was in their midst (ver. 18). Instead of this now, they
permit his opponents to court their favour (ver. 17). Paul, who as he writes
feels again the birth throes which the conversion of the Galatians had cost
him, stands pen in hand at a loss what to advise them, since he cannot now
realise his desire to treat with them in person (vv. 19, 20). He seems now
to be their enemy, because he writes them the truth. It is not to the point
to say that the Galatians knew nothing of this enmity before reading the
Epistle ; for with f^dpos vpcHv yiyova u>8iv(o dfropovfiat Paul describes his
present relation to them, as he himself feels it at this particular moment, and
not as they look at it. wore refers back beyond the parenthesis to the ques-
tion : "Where is then that gratulation of yourselves?" The question has
the force of a demonstrative referring to oxrre (Kiihner-Gerth, ii. 502). So
thoroughly has their relationship to Paul been disturbed, that his fearless
declaration of the truth in this letter has made him seem their enemy. This
is the picture he presents to himself, while at the same time he is conscious
of striving for their spiritual life with a maternal love. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 11,
ytyova ctypav. The present dXydevav cannot possibly refer to the past of
his second visit, as if Paul meant to say that he became their enemy on
account of the censures uttered at that time ; for it is connected with the
present perfect, and follows the question ver. 15a, also in the present, upon
which the clause introduced by wore is dependent. Such reference Paul
must have expressed by Iyfv6p.rfif or f'yevtjdrjv (cf. Isa. Ixiii. 10, eWpa^
avTo'is els fx&puv, a passage which otherwise perhaps he had in mind). It
would have been also necessary for him to distinguish this second sojourn
from the first (TO Trporepov, ver. 13). Instead of this, he passes from the first
visit (vv. 13, 14) directly to the present moment of his writing (vv. 15-20).

4. (P. 170.) The i'Sere Tr^X/KOtr Vfj.iv ypap.fj.acnv fypa^a rfj f/j-fj ^etpi of
vi. 11 is certainly not, with Jerome (Vallarsi, vii. 529) and Theodore
(Swete, i. 107), to be confined in its reference to the immediately following
conclusion of the Epistle which Paul is supposed to have written in larger
characters on account of its importance, or in order to show the fearless
spirit with which it was written. Such a limitation would have been
expressed as in 1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; 2 Thess. iii. 17 ; Col. iv. 18. Moreover,

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 173

the aorist f'ypa\lra is never employed at least in the N.T. to refer to
something which the author is about to write ; rather does Paul look
back upon the entire letter which is just being closed, cf. Rom. xv. 15,
xvi. 22. In the same way we conclude from Philern. 19 that the apostle
wrote all of this short letter with his own hand. Anyone accustomed to
dictate, and not hindered from so doing by external circumstances, when
he deviates from this course, does so because he desires to give to his
writing the highest possible personal character. Cf. Ambrosius, Ep. i. 3
(ed. Ben. ii. 753 to the Emperor Gratian) : " Scripsisti tua totem epistolam
manu, ut ipsi apices fidem tuam pietatemque loquerentur." Herein lies the
explanation of the 7777X1*01? ypd/j./j.aa-iv in this instance. Hofmann, i. 2. 205,
has not succeeded in justifying, from linguistic usage, his translation : " Such
a large, explicit Epistle I have written to you." Cf. per contra Actsxxiii. 25 ;
2 Pet. iii. 1, eVioroAqi; ; Eph. iii. 3, eV oXi'yw ; 1 Pet. v. 12, 81 o\lya>v ; Heb.
xiii. 22, 8ia Ppaxf&v eVeVretXa ; Eus. H. E. i. 7. 1, 81 eTrtaroXJjy
ypdtpaiv Trfpl icrX. ; Ign. Rom. viii. 2, Si' o\iy<av ypa/*/iarcoi> aiTovfiai
likewise ad Polyc. vii. 3 with Trape/cn'Xeo-a. In case the helplessness of the
writer, which showed itself in the unusually large characters of his writing,
was caused by Paul's constant manual labour, or by his continuous bodily
suffering, or by a recent injury, the reference to the roughly formed large
letters, supplemented by rfj ep.fj x fl Ph was > a t the same time, a proof of the
self-sacrificing labour it had cost him to approach as near and as personally
as possible to the readers, cf. ZKom. Gal. 277.

5. (P. 170.) It cannot by any means be inferred from i. 6 that only a
brief period had elapsed since Paul's last visit to Galatia certainly not since
the founding of the Galatian Churches, for only when a distinct point of
time, from which the rapid introduction of an event is measured, is either
distinctly expressed or implied in the statement, does renews acquire the
meaning "soon," e.g. with Zpxopai, eXeuo-o/zat, in which the present moment
of the statement is the point of time after which the coming is to follow
promptly, without delay and at once (1 Cor. iv. 19 ; Phil. ii. 19, 24). It
would not indeed be specially strange if Churches just established and
consequently immature, or if Churches that had just been visited by their
founder, allowed themselves to be estranged by false teachers ; but such a
situation would become intelligible only if we were here reminded of the
apostle's last visit, and of the favourable state of affairs which he found.
As a matter of fact, however, Paul represents himself as astonished and
incensed at the situation, and says merely that the Galatians have so im-
pulsively allowed themselves to be turned in a false direction, and that the
Judaists have needed but little time to secure such a dangerous influence
over them. The original sense of raxvs, raxeas, ra^ivcy is frequently pre-
served, e.g. 2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Jas. i. 19 ; Mark ix. 39 ; John xx. 4 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1.

11. GALATIA AND THE GALATIANS (N. l).

In order to connect the statements of Galatians with
what is said elsewhere about Paul, it is necessary to decide

174 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

what is meant by 77 Ta\arLa in i. 2 (cf. iii. 1), a question
which conies up again in connection with 1 Cor. xvi. 1
and 1 Pet. i. 1 (n. 2). According to the older view,
which distinguished scholars still hold, Galatia means the
region about Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, which, after
the incursions of Celtic warriors in the third century B.C.,
was called Takaria. By others, raXa-n'a, in i. 2, is under-
stood as referring to the Roman province of that name,
which was organised in 25 B.C., after the death of Amyntus,
the last king of the Galatians. From the time of its
establishment, the province, the boundaries of which
fluctuated greatly, included besides the Galatian region
the greater part of the region of Pisidia, Isauria, and
Lycaonia, also a portion of eastern Phrygia, though the
greater part of Phrygia belonged to the province of Asia.
In Asia Minor, as elsewhere, the organisation and marking
out of Roman provinces, though furnishing new names,
did not by any means displace the old territorial designa-
tions. Roman writers, such as the elder Pliny (died 79) and
Tacitus (circa 115), also the geographer Ptolemy (circa 150),
understood by Galatia the entire Roman province, which,
besides other districts, included Galatia proper (n. 3).
The question as to which usage is followed by Paul would
not for so long a time have been given such different
answers, were it not for a tendency, on the one hand, to
let Paul's usage be determined by that of Acts, and, on
the other, to interpret the statements of Acts in the light
of the Pauline usage. There is all the less excuse for this
confusion, since the name Ta\aria does not occur in Acts
at all, while the meaning of the peculiar expression (%)
Ta\arLKr] %c6po,, which is twice used by Luke (Acts xvi. 6,
xviii. 23), can be determined only from the context of
these passages and from Luke's usage elsewhere. Now it
is clear that, when speaking of Asia Minor and other
districts, Luke employs the old territorial names, which
do not correspond at all with the divisions and names of

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PATJL 175

the Kornan provinces, whereas Paul never uses any but
the provincial name for districts under Roman rule, and
never employs territorial names which are not also names
of Roman provinces (n. 4). So that the natural supposi-
tion is that 77 FaXarla in Gal. i. 2, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, means
the Roman province of Galatia. And this judgment is
but confirmed by the fact that in an Epistle written in
Rome ( 39), in 1 Pet. i. 1, the name Galatia occurs in a
list of names which otherwise consists entirely of names of
Roman provinces (n. 3, end). Even admitting that by
Galatia Paul could have meant the entire province of that
name, some have had difficulty in understanding how the
readers could be addressed as Galatians in iii. 1 when the
majority of them were not Galatians at all, i.e. of Celtic
stock. But it is to be noticed that both Paul and Luke
speak elsewhere of all the inhabitants of a given city or
district without making ethnographical distinctions, e.g.
between Jews and Greeks, Romans and non-Romans ; thus,
Corinthians (2 Cor. vi. 11), Philippians (Phil. iv. 15),
Macedonians (2 Cor. ix. 2, 4 ; Acts xix. 29), Pontians
(Acts xviii. 2), Asians (Acts xx. 4), Alexandrians (Acts
xviii. 24), Romans (Acts ii. 10). To take a modern
example, no one hesitates at all to call the inhabitants of
the regions about Nuremberg and Wiirzburg Bavarians,
although the original stock was Frankish, and although
the political union of these people with peoples of Bava-
rian stock is not much older than the political union of
Lycaonians and Galatians in the province of Galatia at
the time when this letter was written. The greater the
diversity of nationality in a Christian community, the
more natural it was in addressing them to designate them
by the customary name of the political division where they
lived, which was a neutral term.

The question, what is meant by the name Galatia in
Gal. i. 2 ? must be decided ultimately by a comparison of
the historical facts involved in each of these views with

i/6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

the text of the letter itself. If by Galatia the Koman
province is meant, then, of those addressed, the most
important, if not the only, Churches are the four which
were founded by Paul and Barnabas on Paul's first mis-
sionary journey, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium, Lystra,
and Derbe (n. 5). Concerning the first preaching among
the readers, mentioned in Gal. iv. 13, we should have a
more detailed account in Acts xiii. 14-xiv. 23, and the
second preaching of the gospel in Galatia, indirectly but
certainly attested by Gal. iv. 13, would be evidenced in
reference to these Churches by Acts xvi. 5. For as a
result of the visit of Paul and Silas to the Churches
founded in South Galatia during the first missionary
journey (xvi. 1-5), these Churches were not only confirmed
in the faith, but their membership was also increased.
With these Churches Paul (Gal. i. 2) must have included
also the other Churches which had been organised in other
parts of the province in the interval preceding the writing
of the letter ; provided there were such Churches in exist-
ence at that time, and provided they were established by
his preaching. But both are very doubtful. Certainly
the second visit to South Galatia was followed at once by
a tour through the regions of Phrygia and Galatia, which
Paul had not succeeded in reaching on his first journey
(Acts xvi. 6) ; and when it is said that this route was
chosen because the Spirit forbade them to preach in Asia,
this command did not hold for the regions through which

O O

in obedience to this direction they actually passed. It
could be taken for granted, therefore, in spite of the
silence of Acts, which in xvi. 6 mentions merely a journey
of the missionaries through these regions, that Paul and
Silas on this occasion preached in Phrygia and a portion
of North Galatia ; and that the disciples (not Churches,
as in xv. 41, xvi. 5, cf. xiv. 23) whom Paul met on the
third missionary journey to several places of the same
regions (Acts xviii. 23) had been converted by the preach-

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 177

ing of Paul and Silas on the second journey. But every-
one feels the uncertainty of these combinations.

And yet, if one connects the name Galatia with the
northern portion of the province, the region inhabited by
the Celtic tribes, the account of the founding of all the
Churches addressed in Galatians must be read between
the lines of Acts xvi. 6, and the second visit must be
identified with that mentioned in Acts xviii. 23. But
this in itself is a serious objection to the latter hypothesis.
We do not lay great stress upon the fact that Gal. iv. 13
presupposes not only a second visit, but also a second
preaching of the gospel in Galatia, and that, on the con-
trary, in Acts xviii. 23 there is no more reference to a
second than in xvi. 6 to a first preaching in those
regions. The thing that makes the hypothesis improb-
able is especially the fact that, assuming it, the Churches
in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch in Pisidia, whose
importance is evidenced by the account of their organisa-
tion (Acts xiii. 14-xiv. 23; 2 Tim. iii. 11), and by the
fact that from them come several of Paul's helpers (Acts
xvi. 1, xx. 4), would be left with scarcely a trace of
their subsequent development in the N.T. On the other
hand, the Churches in the northern part of the province
of Galatia, of whose founding we can read something
between the lines of Acts, would have in Galatians, in the
greeting of 1 Peter, and in the mention of 1 Cor. xvi. 1,
witnesses of an ecclesiastical importance, of which the
author of Acts could have had no idea whatever. Further-
more, it would be strange if Jewish teachers from Palestine
passed by such important cities as Iconium and Antioch,
where there were Jewish synagogues (n. 6), and where there
would certainly be some native Jews in the local Christian
Churches, without starting a movement considerable
enough to leave some traces of itself in our sources, and
still more strange if they made their way to the more
remote Galatian region, the Churches of which, according

VOL. I. 12

i ;3 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

to statements of Acts, were not important, in order to
oppose Paul's gospel and influence. This hypothesis also
involves difficulties as to the time and place of the com-
position of Galatians, which disappear when the other
hypothesis is accepted ( 12). Besides, it has against it
Paul's assurance (Gal. ii. 5) that, in the transactions of
the so-called apostolic council in Jerusalem, he had in
mind the readers addressed in Galatians, endeavouring to
retain for them the truth and freedom of the gospel (n. 7) ;
moreover, at the time when the events described in Acts xv.
took place, the winter of 51-52, Paul as yet had not
even visited Galatia proper, the first indication of such a
visit being that in Acts xvi. 6. This of itself is sufficient
proof that the " Churches of Galatia," to which the letter
is addressed, were primarily at least the Churches of the
southern part of the province of Galatia, which were
organised prior to the apostolic council on the first
missionary journey.

This hypothesis (12) gets positive confirmation from
a comparison of Galatians with the accounts in Acts, which
under this presupposition are to be taken into considera-
tion. If without question in Gal. i. 8 Paul is speaking
primarily of the preaching of the gospel which led to the
organisation of the Churches of Galatia, i.e. to the evayy-
e\L^aOai TO Trporepov of iv. 13, then the helper to whose
assistance he refers is Barnabas. In so far, however, as
there is a reference to the second visit, on which occasion
also the gospel was preached with good success, Silas is
to be thought of as the fellow-worker (Acts xv. 40-xvi. 6).
Only Silas is referred to in Gal. i. 9, since on the first
missionary journey which Paul made in company with
Barnabas there would hardly have been as yet any occasion
for warnings against a false gospel, particularly against a
gospel distorted by requirements of a legalistic kind (cf.
Gal. v. 3). The condition of the Churches in the early
stages of their development furnished no occasion for such

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 179

warnings (above, p. 171 f. n. 3); while, on the other hand, it
was perfectly natural that on the second journey, which he
made in company with Silas, after the experiences which
he had had in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts xv. 1-29 ;
Gal. ii. 1-10) in the interval between the first and second
visit to the province of Galatia, Paul should warn the
newly organised Churches in Lycaonia against the false
brethren and their legalistic Christianity. According
to Acts xvi. 4, the missionaries communicated to the
Churches of Lycaonia also the decisions of the apostolic
council which were intended only for the Christians in
Antioch in Syria and the neighbouring regions, who had
been disturbed by the Judaisers (Acts xv. 23). In this
way they were prepared for the attacks of the Judaisers,
xvi. 5, which were to be expected. Similarly, the repeated
reference to Barnabas by name (ii. 1, 9, 13) is especially
appropriate if Paul is here writing to Churches the most
important of which were organised with Barnabas' help.
While, to be sure, it does appear from 1 Cor. ix. 6, Col.
iv. 10, that Barnabas was known as a distinguished
missionary even in Churches which he had not visited in
person, in both these cases there were special reasons for
the mention of his name. In 1 Cor. ix. 6 he is mentioned
because Paul wants to say that from the beoinnino- of his

/ O O

missionary work, when he was associated with Barnabas,
he had followed the principle under discussion ; while in
Col. iv. 10 it is necessary because in commending Mark,
who was entirely unknown to his readers, to the kindly
reception of the Church, he has occasion to say that he is
a relative of a distinguished missionary. In Gal. ii. no
special reasons of this character are discernible, and if the
threefold mention of Barnabas is to be explained natur-
ally, it must be assumed that Barnabas assisted in the
organisation of the most important of the Churches which
he was addressing. That in thinking over his first and
second visits in Galatia, Paul should occasionally at least

i8o INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

think of his helpers Barnabas and Silas (i. 8f.), and at
the same time consistently represent himself to be the
organizer and head of the Galatian Churches (iv. 11-20,
v. 2f., 21), is consistent with the accounts in Acts. Even
on the first missionary journey which was made in com-
pany with Barnabas, Paul was the spokesman and principal
preacher (Acts xiii. 16, xiv. 9, 12). In this connection
attention is called to the noteworthy incident in Lystra
(Acts xiv. 11-14), of which there is a reflection in Gal.
iv. 14. While in their excitement at the case of miracu-
lous healing, the Lycaonians thought they recognised in
Barnabas Zeus ; they took Paul, to whose preaching they
listened, to be Hermes, the messenger and interpreter of
the gods ; so it is with deep emotion that Paul looks
back to the day when they received him as "a messenger
of God " ; indeed, as the son of God. This was, to be
sure, only an outburst of naive popular superstition,
which the missionaries repudiated with indignation ; but
in the case of those who were afterwards taught and con-
verted, this heathen superstition, in which their enthusiasm
found expression at first, gave place to a feeling of grateful
joy that not the gods of Olympus, but " the living God,
who made heaven and earth," had sent His "messenger"
to them, and that Christ Himself had visited them in the
gospel which Paul preached. If Acts xvii. 16-34 gives an
historical picture of the apostle to the Gentiles, which
statement no one has as yet disproved, it is perfectly con-
ceivable that Paul should see a connection between the
worship which the Gentiles rendered to the unknown gods
and their enthusiastic love for the God whom he preached
(Acts xvii. 23), and for God's messenger. Unless this
coincidence between the hints in the letter and the account
in Acts is a tantalising accident, it must be admitted that
there is an echo of this same event also in Gal. i. 8, where
likewise Paul is looking back to the first preaching in
Galatia, and where we have the strange combination of

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 181

two ideas, in themselves quite foreign to each other, " we
or an angel from heaven." In the ancient legend of
Thecla, which begins with the flight from Antioch in
Pisidia (Acts xiii. 50-xiv. 1; Acta T/ieclce,i.), the impression
which Paul made at that time upon the impressionable
mind of one of the citizens of Iconium is thus described,
evidently with the words of Galatians in mind : " How
he seemed like a man, and again he had the face of an
angel" (chap. 3 ; GK, ii. 904).

Regarding the illness of Paul, which was the occasion
of his first sojourn and so of his first preaching among
the Galatians (iv. 13, above, p. 171, n. 2), there is no
direct information in Acts. Perhaps, however, Paul's
statement offers some explanation of the unusual route
chosen by the missionaries. The direction which they
took from Perga to Antioch (Acts xiii. 14) would seem to
indicate their intention of pressing their way from Antioch
northward or westward into the valleys of the Lycus and
of the Meander, where there were numerous cities, and
of making their way thence to the large cities on the
western coast of Asia Minor. When, instead of following

out this plan, the missionaries turn toward the south-east
from Antioch, returning shortly from this same point by
the route over which they had come, though no statement
is made as to the reasons for the change (cf. Acts xvi.
6-10), it may have been an attack of his malady that led
Paul for the time being to give up the carrying out of
this more extended plan.

Naturally, to us, who are able only to infer the facts
presupposed in the letter from allusions which Paul makes
for the benefit of those who were already acquainted with
them, much must remain obscure. But this itsell is the
very strongest proof that we are not dealing with a
literary fiction, but with a genuine letter, which had its
occasion in circumstances connected with real life. One
of the most obscure of these passages is v. 11, and obscure

1 82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

it will remain unless we are allowed to explain the letters
of Paul from Acts. It appears that the opponents of
Paul had called the attention of the Galatians to the fact
that even Paul, the man of progress, could, like the older
apostles, when occasion demanded, preach circumcision.
So, they argued, it would be no serious rupture with their
past Christian experience, which had been formed under
Paul's influence, if now the Galatians permitted them-
selves to be circumcised. Basing their argument on
Paul's conduct, the errorists could make it appear to the
Galatians that Paul might be easily convinced, and in the
end allow the Galatians to be Judaised. How untrue
this representation of his attitude was, Paul shows by
pointing out that it was just because he was so unyielding
of this point that he was hated and persecuted by the
Judaisers (SKW/CO/HCU, v. 11, to be understood in the same
sense in which the word is used in iv. 29). It was in
opposition to insinuations of this character that in v. 2-4
he solemnly avowed that his judgment regarding the
unreasonable demands of the Judaisers was unalterable.
It must have been some recent event, which had come
within the observation of the Galatians, which enabled
the Judaisers to represent with some show of plausibility
that Paul could Trepi.To^v en Kripvaarew. This event is the
one recorded in Acts xvi. 1-3, none other than the cir-
cumcision, at Paul's suggestion, of Timothy, a native of
Lystra in the province of Galatia, whose father was a
Gentile and whose mother was a Jewess.

Assuming that this is the right reconstruction of the
facts, the appearance of the Judaisers at this time is most
natural. Their defeat at the apostolic council did not
discourage them permanently. It was only in Antioch
and the Churches of which Antioch was the centre (Acts
xv. 23) that they seem not to have ventured a second
attack; for what is narrated in Gal. ii. 11-14 probably
took place earlier ( 11). When they learned that Paul

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 183

had gone over to Europe on his second missionary
journey, and was kept there by the success of his work,
they thought it an opportune time to attack the Churches
in Galatia, which had been founded before the apostolic
council, and in the absence of their founder to induce
them to accept a legalistic form of Christianity. As soon
as Paul heard of their move, he hastened to meet the
threatening danger by sending this letter.

1. (P. 173.) On Galatia, cf. PERROT, Die Galatia provincia Romana, 1867 ;
also his Exploration de la Galatie, 1872, pp. 173-206 ; SIEFFERT, Galatien und
seine erst en CJiristengemeinden, 1871 ; MARQUARDT, Rum. Staatsverwaltung,' 2
i. 358-365; RAMSAY, Historical Geography of Asia Minor, 1890, pp. 252 ft'.,
375, 453, and his Church in the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. 1893, pp. 8-15,
25-111 ; see also n. 2. The view the present writer has taken of the destina-
tion of the Epistle would justify him, if such justification were necessary, in
leaving out of consideration the question, in any case so unimportant for the
understanding of the letter, as to the nationality of the tribes which gave the
district of Galatia its name, the Tectosages, Trocmi, and Tolistobogii. Their
Germanic origin has been argued with unwearied zeal by WIESELER in his
Komm. zum Gal. S. 521-528, and in special monographs : Die deutsche
Nationalitat der kleinasiatischen Galater, 1877 ; Zur Geschichte der kleinas Gal.
1879 ; Untersuch. zur Geschichte und Religion der alien Germanen, 1881, S.
1-51. Among those who have combated his theory are W. GRIMM, ThStKr.
1876, S. 199-221, and HERTSBERG, ibid. 1878, S. 525-541.

2. (P. 174.) According to J. D. Michaelis, Einl, 4th ed. 1199, the view
which is adopted above was first put forward by J. J. SCHMIDT, rector of
Ilfeld, and was afterward defended by him against the criticisms of Michaelis.
The contributions made to the subject by MYNSTER, Kleinere ScJu-iften, 1825,
and BOTTGER, Beitriige, 1837, pt. iii. 1-5, and Suppl. 32-47, produced no par-
ticular impression, nor did the agreement with the view by THIERSCH, Die
Kirche im apost. Zeitalter (lie Aun. 1852, 3te Aufl. 1879), 123. It was not till
after the appearance of Perrot's works (see n. 1) that this view began to win
more numerous adherents, as RENAN, St. Paul, 1869, pp. 47-53, and HAUS-
RATH, Ntl. Zeitgesch. ii. (1872) 528 ff. In more recent times its most prominent
advocate has been RAMSAY, Church in the Roman Empire, 8-15, 59-111 ;
Stud. Bill, et Eccl. iv. (Oxford, 1896) 15-57, and A historical comm. on St.
Paul's Ep. to the Galatians, 1899. Cf. also V. Weber, Die Addressaten
des Gal. Beweis der rein siidgal. TJieorie, 1900 ; J. Weiss, PRE, 3 x. 554 ff., and
others. Of the representatives of the older view, according to which
"Galatia" in the N.T. always denotes the country of the Galatre, we may
mention WIESELER, Komm. zum Gal. 530 ff. ; LIGHTFOOT, Galatians (4th ed.),
19 ; HOFMANN, i. 149 ; SIEFFERT (see n. 1), also in the revision of Meyer's
Commentary, 7th ed. 1886, S. 6-15 ; SCHURER, JbfPTIi. 1892, S. 460-474 ;
ZOCKLER, ThStKr. 1895, S. 51-102.

3. (Pp. 174, 175.) Pliny understands by "Galatia" the whole Roman

1 84 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

province, when he refers (Hist. Nat. v. 27. 95) to Idc ("YSq), a city of eastern
Lycaonia, as lying "in confinio Galatia? atque Cappadocia;"; again, when in
v. 32. 147 he assigns the Lycaonian cities, Lyatra and Thebasa (cf. v. 27. 95),
to Galatia ; ami when in the same passage he speaks of Galatia as bordering on
the districts of Cabalia and Milyas, which at that time belonged to the province
of Pamphylia. These were separated by some distance from the country of the
Galatae, whereas Galatia, in the meaning of Pliny and the Romans generally,
and Pamphylia were actually adjoining provinces. To them Tacitus refers,
Hist. ii. 9, " Galatiam ac Pamphyliam provincias Calpurnio Asprenati re-
gendas permiserat Galba." That Galatia here does not mean the country of
the Galatse proper, but the whole of the province organised c. 25 B.C., appears
not merely from the fact that only on this assumption should we have a
connected administrative district, but even from the word provincias itself, for
the several districts of which provinces were composed were not themselves
called provinces. The same usage, therefore, must underlie Ann. xiii. 35,
"habiti per Galatiam Cappadociamque dilectus" ; xv. 6, " Galatarum Cappa-
documque auxilia." The assertion, repeated with strange persistency, that
only those of Celtic birth, or residents of Galatia proper, could be termed
Galatse, and not all the inhabitants of the province called Galatia by
Pliny and Tacitus, has already been refuted from the N.T., p. 175 above ;
cf. ZKom. Gal. 11. Eamsay discusses this point fully and conclusively,
Stud. Bibl. et Eccl, Oxford, 1896, pp. 26-38, and in his Hist. Comm. Ptolemy
describes Asia Minor essentially and at the outset quite clearly in accordance
with the Roman provincial divisions : () v. 1. 1, Pontus-Bithynia (in viii.
17. 1, Bithynia for brevity) ; (I) v. 2. 1, / I8ia or r; I8i<as KaXovpfvrj or 77
I8ia>s 'Ao-i'a (cf. viii. 17. 1, 8), to which belonged Greater Phrygia, with
Eurneneia, Philomelion, and Hierapolis (v. 2. 22-26) ; (c) v. 3, Lycia ; (d) v. 4,
Galatia, with which he reckons parts of Lycaouia, Pisidia, and Isauria, and
among other cities Pisidian Antioch, 11, and Lystra, 12. Following
another authority, he assigns the Antioch situated "in Pisidian Phyrgia"
to the province of Pamphylia, v. 5. 4, and Iconium and Derbe to Cappadocia,
v. 6. 16 ff. The latter agrees with his statement regarding the a-Tparrjyiai
of Cappadocia, which is somewhat obscure and at all events depends on
antiquated sources ; cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog. 283 f., 310, 336. Further-
more, the inscriptions, rightly understood, confirm the usage of Pliny,
Tacitus, and Ptolemy. An honorary inscription set up in Iconium to an
imperial administrator of domains or revenue officer (eVn-poTros Kmcrapo?) of
the time of Claudius and Nero (C. I. Gr. 3991) designates his administrative
district as TaXaTiKfjs eVapxei'ar. The city of Iconium, which, having
been made a Roman colony under Claudius (see below, n. 5), honoured this
official as its founder and benefactor, belonged to what they called simply
the Galatic province (cf. Ramsay, Church, etc. 56 ; Marquardt, i. 364, n. 11).
Provinces formed by the union of two districts originally separate might
bear a double name, like Bithynia-Pontus (see the reference to Ptolemy
above, and Marquardt, i. 351), as we have in Bavaria "Schweben and Neu-
burg." But, on the other hand, it is quite incredible that the name com-
monly applied in ollicial business to the great province which was erected
out of the kingdom of Amyntas should have consisted of an enumeration
of all the districts which composed it. Even if one concluded from a few

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 185

inscriptions dealing with Galatia, that official usage described the united
province thus circumstantially and reserved the term Galatia for the region
of the Galatae proper, that would be, in the first place, of no consequence to
our inquiry ; for Paul had even less occasion than Pliny, Tacitus, Ptolemy,
and the municipality of Iconium in its inscription, to employ the legal style.
And, in the second place, the reasoning itself is as incorrect as if we should
undertake to determine our own official usage from the so-called great titles
of our German rulers, which even in the official publication of laws are
usually omitted altogether or abbreviated by an "etc." An inscription
(found in Pisidian Antioch and dating from the end of the first century) in
honour of a certain Sospes not Sellers governor of Galatia (C. I. L. iii.
No. 291, corrected Suppl. No. 6818), designates his administrative territory
by nine names, beginning provinc. Gal. Pisid. Phryg. etc. (similarly in Suppl.
No. 6819, except that Phryg. precedes Pits-id.). If we read provinc(iarum),
then Pisidia, Phrygia, and the rest, which at that time were not separate
provinces, are inaccurately so called, and this Sospes is represented as in
charge of nine provinces at once. More probably we are to read in this as
in similar inscriptions provinc(ice), which applies only to Galatice, while the
eight following names are connected with it by apposition, to describe the
great province as impressively as possible. In other inscriptions in which
we are really to read provinciarum, e.g. on two milestones from Ancyra from
the years 80 and 82 (C. I. L. Nos. 312, 318), the names of actual provinces
come first, Galatice, Cuppadocice, and not till afterward such districts as Pisidia
and Lycaonia, which are already involved in the larger titles. We have further
to consider those enumerations which would be unintelligible if we could
not assume that by the term Galatia, as by Asia, all the sections belonging
to these provinces were intended. When we read in C. I. L. iii. No. 249
(Ancyra), the following, inter al. t "proc. fam. glad, per Asiam. Bithyn.
Galat. Cappad. Lyciam. Pamphyl. Oil. Cyprum. Pontum. Paflag.," we are
taken the rounds of all Asia Minor together with Cyprus. Consequently
Lycaonia and Pisidia, which are not mentioned, must be included in Galatia,
and Phrygia, also not mentioned, partly with Galatia and partly with
Asia. This is true also in 1 Pet. i. 1. There all the Roman provinces of
Asia Minor are enumerated with the exception of Lycia-Pamphylia, where
there can hardly have been any Christians (Acts xiii. 13, xiv. 25), and of
Cilicia, where Christianity seems to have been introduced not by Paul and
his helpers, but from Antioch, so that from the beginning the Cilician
Churches were grouped ecclesiastically with those of Syria (Acts xv. 23, 41).
As Phrygia and Mysia are not explicitly named, the Phrygian Churches,
Colossse, Laodicea, Hierapolis (Col. i. 1, ii. 1), the Church at Troas (Acts xx.
6-12), and the six Churches besides Laodicea mentioned in Rev. i. 11, so far
as they were in existence at the time of 1 Peter, were evidently included in
Asia ; that is, the name was used in its Roman sense. The like holds true,
then, of the word Galatia in the same passage (1 Pet. i. 1) ; the term in-
cludes Lycaonia and Pisidia also. Indeed, it would be impossible to conceive
why Peter should exclude from his greeting the Churches of that region,
belonging historically with the Churches of the province Asia, and take up
instead of them the much less important Churches in Galatia proper.

4. (P. 175.) Paul uses 'A^a/a, Rom. xv. 26 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ; 2 Cur. i. 1, ix. 2,

1 86 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

xi. 10 ; 1 Thess. i. 7, 8, and Manftiovia, 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 16, ii. 13, vii. 5,
viii. 1, xi. 9 ; Rom. xv. 26 ; 1 Thess. i. 7 f., iv. 10 ; Phil. iv. 15, evidently in the
sense of the Roman provincial divisions. Along with TO 'lAXupiKoi/, Rom. xv.
19, we find in 2 Tim. iv. 10 the term AaX/itm'a also used by the Romans of that
time ; cf. Marquardt, i. 299. 'lovSat'a, Gal. i. 22 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14 ; 2 Cor. i. 16 ;
Rom. xv. 31, is not used, as the first-named passages show, in contradistinction
to Galilee, Samaria, and Perea, for there were Christians in these districts
also (Acts viii. 5-25, ix. 31-xi. 1) whom Paul could not exclude in this con-
nection ; but he uses the term in the Roman sense = Palestine, cf. Tac. Hist. v.
9 ; Ptol. v. 16. 1 on the one hand, and v. 16. 6-9 on the other. 'Apafiia, Gal.
i. 17, iv. 25, is a political term; it stands for the Nabatsean kingdom of
Aretas (2 Cor. xi. 32), which at that time was still independent of Rome.
Syria and Cilicia, Gal. i. 21, were then politically united ; cf. Marquardt, i.
387. Of the divisions of Asia Minor, Paul names only 'Ao-t'a, 1 Cor. xvi. 19 ;
2 Cor. i. 8 ; Rom. xvi. 5 ; 2 Tim. i. 15 ; and ToXarta, Gal. i. 2 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ;
and it is unlikely that he meant by these anything else than the Roman
provinces so called, for the very reason that he mentions no districts of Asia
Minor whose names do not at the same time denote such provinces. This
corresponds with the terminology of 1 Pet. i. 1 (see the preceding note) and
of Revelation; for all the seven Churches of Asia (Rev. i. 4, 11), even the
Phrygian city of Laodicea on the Lycus, were in the province of Asia. In
the same way Polycrates of Ephesus in his letter to Victor of Rome
(Eus. H. E. v. 24. 2-5) uses 'Ao-m of the whole extent of the Roman province,
including Hierapolis, Eumeneia, and Laodicea. Luke, however, as a rule
expresses himself differently. Of course the Roman nomenclature is not
unknown to him, and he uses it where it seems to him necessary or appro-
priate ; but usually in his geographical references he follows the other usage,
and employs the names of the several sections. So 'lovBaia stands (a) in
Luke i. 5 for the whole country of the Jews, or Palestine, even without
the Tracra, 0X17, which he adds elsewhere to make sure that the term shall have
its widest significance (Luke vi. 17, vii. 17, xxiii. 5 ; Acts x. 37) ; (b) in Luke
iii. 1 for the territory governed by the Roman procurator, which in addition
to Judea proper included Samaria and the coast district to Caesarea and
beyond ; (c) but otherwise regularly for Judea proper as distinguished from
Galilee and Samaria, Luke ii. 4 ; Acts i. 8, viii. 1, ix. 31, xi. 1, xii. 19. Luke
knows 'A^ai'a, and uses the term to denote the Roman province where refer-
ence is made to its prefect, Acts xviii. 12, and twice besides, xviii. 27, xix.
21, where he mentions journeys to Corinth, its capital city. But he uses
'EXXay in xx. 2, and, according to the more ancient text of xvii. 15, probably
Geo-craX/a also, both of them names which have no place in Paul's nomen-
clature. It is just so with regard to his references to Asia Minor. True, it
is of no moment that after Pamphylia he mentions Lycia also (xxvii. 5, cf.
ii. 10, xiii. 13, xiv. 24, xv. 38), and Pontus (ii. 9, cf. xviii. 2) as well as Bithynia
(xvi. 7), for in each of these instances the official usage of the Romans also
retained the names of the two sections which were united to form the pro-
vince. But Luke also uses the names of smaller districts in Asia Minor
which at that time did not constitute provinces, but were distributed among
various Roman provinces of other names, namely, Lycaonia (xiv. 6, cf. xiv.
11), Pisidia (xiv. 24, cf. xiii. 14), Mysia (xvi. 7, 8), and Phrygia (ii. 10, xvi.

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 187

6, xviii. 23). Since he also speaks of Asia (ii. 9f., xvi. 6-8) along with
Phiygia, Mysia, and Troas, and in the same connection, it follows that Asia,
too, does not mean for him the whole Roman province of that name, c!'.
Winer, RWf i. 97 ; Wieseler, Chruuol. 34. For at that time Mysia and the
greater part of Plirygia belonged to the province of Asia, and the city of
Troas was also situated in it. For the boundaries of the province of Asia,
the Asia propria of Ptolemy (above, p. 184), see Waddiugton, Fustes des prov.
Asiat. 25 ; Ramsay, Hist, yeoyr. 172, and the map in his Church in //; Ron
I'.niiiii-c. We are not dealing here, however, with a peculiarity of Luke.
The Church at Lyons, intimately connected with the Churches of Asia Minor,
writes in the year 177 (Eus. H. E. v. 1. 3), ro'ts Kara rf]v 'Acriav KOI 3>pvyiav
. . . dSeX(poIs. So Tertulliau, c. Praxean, i, " ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae."
Asia and Phrygia are here, as with Luke, mutually exclusive or supple-
mentary terms, and Asia has a narrower meaning than in Roman official
usage. It is the same region which Irentcus (Epist. ad Flor. in Eus. H. E. v.
20. 5, cf. Pausanias, i. 4. 6) calls 17 Acdrw 'Acr/a, that part of the province Asia
which lay nearer the coast, in distinction from the parts which lay farther
inland (Acts xix. 1, ra di/a>repucu pepr) ; cf. Acts xviii. 23 ; Clearchus in Jos.
c. Ap. i. 22. 180, Niese ; Epiph. Hcer. xlv. 4, eV rots dj/a>rdrco ^.epecriv). This
more restricted use of the name corresponds to some extent with older
boundaries (Marquardt, i. 334) and divisions (Plin. H. N. v. 27. 102), and
to some extent also with Diocletian's arrangement, which returned in so
many particulars to older groupings (Marquardt, i. 348). Luke appears,
however, to use the term consistently in its narrowest sense. At least there
is no necessity of supposing that in Acts xix. 10 the Phrygian cities,
Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosste (Col. ii. 1, iv. 13) are also intended, or of
thinking of the entire province in Acts vi. 9, xix. 22, xx. 4, 16, 18, xxi. 27,
xxiv. 18, xxvii. 2. Only in the mouth of Demetrius (xix. 26, 27) is it likely
that the term, which is strengthened, moreover, by the addition of oXr? and
Tracra (cf. Jutlea above), is used in its wider application. In Acts xvi. 6 this
is quite excluded by the accompanying and contrasted $puyi'a. Both recen-
sions (KABCE and D with the old versions against HLP) agree on the
main point in the reading of xvi. 6f. : 8irj\6ov 8e rr]v Qpvyiav KCU FaXon/c^v
^copai/ . . . (\66vrfs (or yei>6p.fvoi) 8e Kara TTJV Mvcriav. The article before
FaA. (EHLP) is to be suspected as a simplification, and the reading Galatie
(sic) regiones (cf. Acts viii. 1), preserved only in one Latin authority (Blass, ed.
ruin. 53), seems to be an arbitrary substitution for an unusual expression.
If we compare xviii. 23, 8ifpx6p.evos Kade^fjs TI}V Ta\aTiKi]v x&p av ndi $pvyiay,
it would seem that the construction of &pvyiav as an adjective (Lightfoot,
Galatians, 22 ; Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, 78 ff.), which is quite im-
possible there, is out of the question in xvi. 6. If the analogy of xv. 41,
where the article before KiXi/aW is of very doubtful authenticity to say the
least, or of Luke v. 17 ; Acts i. 8, ix. 31, or (to meet perfectly Ramsay's
requirement, Stiid. Bill, et Eccl., Oxford, 1896, p. 57) Luke iii. 1 (rfjs 'irovpalas
KOI Tpaxwin'rtSof x^P as - : c ^- a ^ so Winer, Gr. 19. 3-5 [Eng. trans, pp. 1:20-
130]; A. Buttmann, Gr. 85 ff. [Eng. trans, p. 97 ff.]; Blass, Gr. 2 46. 11
[Eng. trans. 2 46. 11]), did not suffice to excuse the anarthrous ToX. x- in
xvi. 6, one might find in it an expression of the idea that this through-
journey did not touch everything that fell within the term r<iX. ^. iioui

1 88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

beginning to end (nade^s, xviii. 23), but only some " Galatian country "
among other regions. But the choice of the unusual geographical term
can itself be explained naturally only on the ground that Luke, in
deliberate consideration of the usage by which the whole great province,
including the Lycaonian cities, and the so-called Pisidian Antioch arid
other Phrygian cities, was styled ?} FaXcm'a or rj FaXart/ci) eVap^i'a, meant
by raXariKr) x">P a *- indicate the country of the actual Galatae, which was
absolutely distinct from the districts of Phrygia and Lycaonia from which
Paul came to it. The attempt of Renan, St. Paul, 52, and the still more
ingenious attempt of Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, 77 ff., to interpret
Luke's TaX. x- as also referring to the Roman province, go to pieces first of
all on the connection of the narrative. The journey was from Syrian Antioch
first through Syrian and Cilician territory (xv. 41), but this only in passing.
According to xv. 36 the first object was to visit the four Churches which had
been founded in the three Lycaonian cities and Pisidian Antioch on the first
missionary journey (xiii. 14-xiv. 23). This visit is reported xvi. 1-5. The
journey, proceeding from south-east to north-west, brought Paul first to
Derbe and then to Lystra. Here the narrative pauses in order to relate
something of Timothy, who lived there. That the journey was continued to
Iconium and Antioch is not expressly stated, not even with regard to Iconium,
which is mentioned in xvi. 2 for an incidental reason only. But in view of
xv. 36 it goes without saying that Iconium and Antioch were not omitted,
and that xvi. 4, 5 refers to all four cities and their Churches. Not till the
missionaries had reached Antioch, a meeting-place of the roads leading west
and north, did the question arise whether they should continue their journey
in a westerly direction, i.e. to Asia, or northward. A revelation from " the
Spirit" decided the question. The negative expression employed by the
narrator shows that the intention and inclination of the missionaries them-
selves had been to proceed, after the visitation of the four Churches, to
" Asia," to the large cities on the coast, Ephesus, Smyrna, etc., and to preach
there. In this, however, they were hindered by the Spirit ; and this decision,
according to the clear construction of the best-attested text, gives the reason
why the missionaries now, instead of journeying westward from Antioch
toward Asia, turned northward rather, and proceeded through Phrygian
territory, on which they had already entered just before reaching Antioch,
and then through a part of Galatia proper, until they reached the borders of
Bithynia. Thus the order of events and of the geographical terms shows
clearly that by TaX. x^P a Luke did not mean the province of Galatia, within
which the missionaries already were during their stay in Derbe, Lystra,
Iconium, and Antioch, but the country of the Galatae. It is in vain that
Ramsay (77 f.) undertakes to persuade us that xvi. 6a is to be carried back
to the journey already described by its content, and to be understood in
some such way as this : " On the tour of visitation described in xvi. 4 f. they
traversed a region which, with respect to its population, may be called
Phrygian, and with respect to the Roman provincial divisions, Galatian."
In the first place, the account of the tour of visitation is entirely finished
in xvi. 1-5. In the second place, fiir;X#oi> has for its temporal and logical
presupposition the decision of the Spirit, which would be communicated
only at the close of the visitation and as they were on the point of departure

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 189

from Pisidian Antioch, i.e. 8uj\6ov can only refer to a farther journey
which followed the completed tour of visitation. In the third place, as has
been shown, we are to understand by the cities of xvi. 4, 5 not only Iconium
and Antioch, to which if necessary Ramsay's elaborate paraphrase of the
simple words might be applied (see n. 5), but Lystra and Derbe as well.
These, however, were not Phrygian but Lycaonian cities particularly accord-
ing to Luke's own usage, Acts xiv. 6, 11. Further, according to Ramsay (76)
we are to understand Acts xvi. 66, la as stating : " The Spirit forbade their
preaching in Asia, but by no means forbade travelling through ; accordingly
they proceeded through a part of the province of Asia also as far as Bithynia,
but without preaching." But, in the first place, it follows from Acts xx. 18,
(cf. xix. 8-10, xx. 31) that before Paul's first arrival in Ephesus (xviii. 19),
and therefore before his first activity in Macedonia and Greece (xvi. 11-xviii.
17), he had not been in the region which Luke calls Asia at all. Further-
more, the unprejudiced reader finds in the text no suggestion of an antithesis
between "preaching" and "travelling," or of a journey through part of
" Asia," but sees only the contrast between the mutually exclusive geographical
references. Because they may not preach, and consequently may not travel,
in Asia, where they wished to go as missionaries, they go through Phrygia
and through Galatian country, not forgetting, of course, that preaching was
their commission. Since an intelligent narrator in such a connection would
have made explicit reference to the contrary condition, we must assume that
the missionaries, as they continued their journey from Antioch, tried to
apply themselves to their vocation. The difficulties which Ramsay (81 ff.)
urges against what is shown by Acts xvi. 6a to be the fact, namely, that
Paul then passed through a part of the Galatian region preaching, rest upon
the arbitrary assumption that when he set out from Pisidian Antioch or from
Iconium he already had Bithynia in view as his objective, and that until
he reached this goal he wished to refrain from preaching (84). In that case,
certainly, he would have had no occasion to touch Galatian cities like Pessinus,
the capital of the Tolistobogii, or the colony Germa. He would have gone
more directly to Nicaea and Nicomedia by way of Cotieeum or by Nacoleia
and Dorylaeum. But the second assumption has no foundation in the text,
and the first contradicts the text. But the purpose to push forward into
Bithynia was first conceived when Paul stood not far from its border, and
at the same time at a point where another road struck off toward Mysia
(xvi. 7). The phrase eVeipa^'oi' els TTJV Bidvviav iropevecrOai does not at all
suggest that the missionaries had now attained a long-sought-for goal, but,
on the contrary, rather that, having arrived at this point, they were trying
to decide in which direction they should turn next. We do not know their
route in detail ; it may have been a zigzag course, as the hope of finding
somewhere a favourable soil for their preaching drew them now this way
and now that. A side trip into Galatia proper may have ended with a
return to Phrygia, as on the first journey the side trip from Antioch
(which was not originally intended) returned to that city (xiv. 21). The
summary account in xvi. 6-8, especially the union of Phrygia and the
Galatian country under one article, leaves the utmost freedom to fancy.
The present writer does not know what objection there would be to
supposing that the missionaries, setting out from Armarium, say, under-

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

took to preach in Pessinus and Germa, and finding the conditions there
unfavourable or their success small, turned to Dorylreum, where, then, it
was necessary to decide whether they should proceed to Bithynia or to
Mysia. Again, Acts xviii. 23 raises difficulties not for us, but for Ramsay.
Though he claims that in Acts xvi. 6 the vicinity of Iconium and Antioch
is styled "the Phrygian and at the same time Galatian country," he
interprets (93) quite differently the double term in xviii. 23, which ex-
cept for the relative position of the two members is precisely similar.
Here, he tells us, TTJV Ta\ariKf]v X&SHIV by itself denotes the district
so enigmatically referred to in xvi. 6, but with the addition of Derbe
and Lystra ; and Qpvyiav, beside it, denotes the region usually so called,
to which Paul betook himself after visiting the Churches which had been
organised on the first journey. This of itself is a good deal to ask the
exegete to believe ; but it ought besides to be shown, by examples or credible
conjectures, that the southern part of the province of Galatia may conceiv-
ably have been called f) FaX. x- (note the article), or why Luke, if he merely
wished to say that at some point Paul passed through the province, did not
write TTJV Ta\ariav, to be sure, leaving the reader to guess what route he
followed. Differing from his earlier view, Ramsay (Historical Comm. 209)
finds the expression xviii. 23 only shorter than that in xvi. 6, and in spite
of the arrangement of the words assures us that in xviii. 23 "the Phrygian
region " is mentioned. But if, on the contrary, Luke here, too, meant by
f) TaX. x- tne northern part of the province, the country of the Galatsc,
Galatia, strictly speaking, then it follows first from the order of the districts
named that Paul on this occasion, as compared with xvi. 6, was travelling
in quite a different direction, not from the south toward the north and
north-east, but from east to west. Further, nade^s indicates that he did
not visit merely individual towns in the two districts as on the former
journey, but that he traversed both quite extensively. Also the fact that
there is no mention here of Churches, but only of disciples (see above, p. 176),
does not agree well with the opinion that it has to do with a visit to the
great Churches which Paul himself had established in the Southern part of
the province. The expression jravras TOVS y-aB-qras does not at all allow one
to think of a great number, but is to be explained by the number of the
places where Paul met disciples. The route this time may have been
from the Cilician Gates by way of Tyana, Archelais, Ancyra, Pessinus, and
on through northern Phrygia to Ephesus. The journey did not bring him
(cf. Col. ii. 1) to the valley of the Lycus and the Meander, which would
have been the natural way if he had occasion to go from Iconium and
Antioch to Ephesus. The support which Ramsay (Stud. Bibl. et Ecc}.,
Oxford, 16fi.) finds for his view of Acts xviii. 23 in a homily of Asterius
(Migne, xl. 294), which he claims as evidence of an old tradition, appears
weak. Asterius' homily, like an essay on Paul's journeys falsely ascribed
to Euthalius (Zacagni, Coll. mon. 426), took the Antioch of Acts xviii. 22 to
be the Pisidian Antioch. Asterius, sharing this undoubtedly traditional error,
is reminded, probably without looking up the references, of the narrative,
Acts xiii. 14-xiv. 7, and then tacitly assumes Avicaoviav instead of TaXcm/^
X<apav as the text of xviii. 23. Since Ramsay also (Historical Comm. 209 f.,
314 ff.) is unable to adduce one satisfactory proof for his ever varying in-

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 191

terpretation of (?>) TaXcm**) xV a > ' ie nas deprived himself of all right to
lay stress upon the lack of examples elsewhere of this designation of the
Galatian country proper, as a determining reason against this interpretation
(namely, the country inhabited by Galatians). In itself, indeed, the expres-
sion is anything but striking. Cf. e.g. 1 Mace. viii. 8 (^pav TTJV 'li-SiK^i/),
x. 38, xii. 25 ; Jos. Bell. iii. 3. 4 (17 Sa/iapetns- x">P a \ an ^ the innumerable
instances, where an adjective formed from the name of a people with the
ending -IKOS in the feminine, designates the country inhabited by the people
concerned, also without x^>P a which is to be understood, as 17

5. (Pp. 176, 177.) ANTIOCH, on Phrygian soil, near the border of Pisidia,
hence 'Aimo^ta Trpos Ilia-iSia, Strabo, 557, 569, 577, less exactly 'Ai>r. ILo-iSta?,
Ptol. v. 4. 11, or 'Avr. 77 TIi<n8ia (v.l. TTJS Hi<ri8ias), Acts xiii. 14, now Yalowadi,
the most important military colony of Augustus in that region, founded
probably in 6 B.C. (Marquardt, i. 365 ; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 398, 396, 391 ;
Church in Roman Empire, 25-27). ICONIUM, the most south-easterly city
of Phrygia (Xen. Anab. i. 2. 19), still called a Phrygian city about 160 by a
Christian who was born there (Ada Justini, chap. iv. ed. Otto, ii. 3. 274), and
again a century later by bishop Firmilianus, who attended a synod there
(Cyprian, Ep. Ixxv. 7), and distinguished from the Lycaonian cities in Acts
xiv. 1, 6 also (cf. Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, 37 ff.), was nevertheless
commonly reckoned with Lycaonia (Cic. Ep. xv. 4. 2 ; Strabo, 568 ; Plin.
Hist. Nat. v. 27. 95), in fact was considered its chief city, a Roman colony
under the emperor Claudius (contrary to Ramsay, Hist. Comm. 123, who dis-
putes this, see ZKom. Gal. 13), and at that time attached to the province of
Galatia (C. I. Gr. 3991, see p. 184 above). LYSTRA, a colony of Aiigustus,
see Sterrett, The Wolfe Expedition, p. 142, No. 242 (by which the situation is
determined also), p. 219, No. 352 ; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 332, 390, 398 ;
Church in Roman Empire, 48. DERBE, probably near the modern Gudel-
issin, between one and two days' journey from Lystra, farther west and
nearer the Isaurian mountains than was formerly supposed, probably made
a colony under Claudius, and named C'laudio-Derbe, cf. Sterrett, 20ft". ;
Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 336; Church in Roman Empire, 54, 69. All four of
the cities, then, in which we are to look primarily for "the Churches of
Galatia," were half Roman cities like Philippi and Corinth. The more
natural is it therefore that the " Roman " Paul (Acts xvi. 37) should address
these Christians not as Lycaonians and Phrygians, but as Galatians, from the
province to which they belonged. When we come to inquire whether these
four Churches or the Christians of Galatia proper, who are not so much as
called Churches in Acts xviii. 23, are the eK/cX^o-iat TTJS TaXarias referred to in
Gal. i. 2 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 1, we must further take into consideration
the fact that in the post-canonical literature, also, the Lycaonian Churches
occupy a much more prominent place than the north Galatian. In the
Thecla legend we find Iconium, Lystra, Antioch, and perhaps, in the per-
verted form Daphne, Derbe as well, GK, ii. 908. In the passage already
mentioned, Cypr. Ep. Ixxv. 7, Firmilian says : " Quod totum nos iam pridem
in Iconio, qui Phrygiae locus est, collecti in unum convenientibus ex Galatia et
Cilicia et ceteris proximis regionibus confirmavimus," etc. As the reporter
himself was bishop of Csesarea, Cappadocia was also represented in the synod

192 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

in addition to the districts mentioned by name. Iconium was a centre of
ecclesiastical life. Contemporaries of Origen speak of a bishop Celsus of
Iconium and a bishop Neon of Laranda (in Ens. H. E. vi. 19. 18) ; a little
later Nicomas of Iconium is mentioned as a noted bishop, Ens. vii. 29. 2.
On the other hand, Church history has little to say of the cities in the
Galatian region. We know from Eus. H. E. v. 16. 4 that there was a
Christian Church in Ancyra about 192 A.D. The next witness is the Synod
of Ancyra in 314, at which Marcellus of Ancyra probably presided ; cf. the
writer's essay on Marcellus, 8 f. ; Hefele, Konzilienyesch? i. 221; Stud. BM.
et Eccl., Oxford, iii. 197, 211. Lequien, Oriens Christ, i. 489 f., could not
discover any bishop of Pessinus earlier than the fifth century.

6. (P. 177.) Furthermore, if the appearance of Judaisers in Galatia pre-
supposes the presence of Jews and Jewish Christians as a natural point of
connection, we know from Acts xiii. 14-51, xiv. 19, that Antioch had to all
appearances a prominent and influential body of Jews. In Iconium, too,
there was a synagogue largely attended by Jews and God-fearing Gentiles
(xiv. 1), and in Lystra (or Derbe ?), the home of Timothy, who was of Jewish
descent on his mother's side, there were at least individual Jews (xvi. 1-3 ;
2 Tim. i. 5, iii. 15). On the other hand, even in rhetorical accounts like
that of Philo, Ley. ad Cai. xxxvi, one hears nothing of Jews in the Galatian
country. In Acts ii. 9-11, Galatia is not included. That Jews had gone to
Ancyra is a pure conjecture of Scaliger's in connection with Jos. Ant. xvi. 6. 2 ;
and even if the conjecture were right, it would point to the Ancyra in the
province of Asia, and not to the Galatian city of that name ; cf. Mommsen, Res.
Geslce D. Aug. ed. 2, p. x ; Waddington, Fastes des prov. Asiat. 102, whose con-
jecture is Pergamus. An epitaph (C. I. Gr. No. 4129), which is possibly
Jewish, and which was not found in the Galatian region, but near its western
boundary, and another, discovered on the road between Germa and Pessinus,
and probably from a somewhat later period (Bull, de Corresp. hellen. 1883,
p. 24), do not prove that there were Jews in the Galatian region in the first
century. Cf. ZKom. Gal. 13, A. 12. We are by no means to infer from
Acts xiii. 43 that any considerable number of Jews in Antioch became
adherents to Christianity, for it is not said that the admonitions of the
missionaries were accepted by the Jews, who were at first favourably
inclined toward them. According to xiii. 45-51, for which we are already
prepared by xiii. 41, the contrary is more probable. In xiii. 48 f. it is
only said of a number of Gentiles in and about Antioch that they really
became believers and so continued. In Iconium it seems not to have been
very different (xiv. 1-7), even if the success among the Jews was perhaps some-
what greater there than in Antioch. From the reports concerning Lystra and
Derbe, aside from the supplementary notice of Timothy's Jewish mother (xvi.
1), and the intimation of an influence exercised upon the citizens of Lystra
and Derbe by the Jews of Antioch and Iconium (xiv. 19), one receives nothing
more than the impression that the missionaries were dealing with Gentiles,
xiv. 6-18. The fact that Paul constantly deals with the readers of Galatians
as Gentile Christians (see p. 166 f. above) is consequently no obstacle to the
assumption that it was primarily these four Churches for which Galatians was
intended. It is impossible to say with Wieseler (Komm. 533) that Paul in
ii. 15 ff., iii. 13, 23-25, iv. 3 groups himself and his readers together as

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 193

Jewish Christians. The readers, the great majority of whom were of Gentile
origin, understood readily enough that in these passages Paul was associating
with himself in a " we " not themselves, but others who like him were of
Jewish birth. In ii. 15 this is perfectly clear from the context, ii. 11-14,
even if one does not take ii. 15 ff. as a continuation of the address to Peter.
In iii. 13, 14 the distinction between r^as, to whom Paul belongs, and TU
edvi], to whom the readers belong, is unmistakable. So is the transition from
the Jewish Christians in whose name Paul speaks to the Gentile Christians
whom he addresses, iii. 23-25 to iii. 26-29, and iv. 1-7 to iv. 8-11. Only it
follows from the otherwise superfluous Trui/res, iii. 2G, and 6W, iii. 27, and
especially from iii. 28, that there were also some of Jewish birth among the
readers themselves ; for only on this supposition could the idea that in
Christianity distinctions between Jew and Gentile, like those between man
and woman, or between slave and freeman, are ideally abolished, be expressed
in the form of the direct address, " you all " (instead of, we all, i.e. we Jews
and you Gentiles) "are one in Christ." These four Churches were composed
of a few full-born Jews, a number of proselytes of different grades (Acts
xiii. 43, xiv. 1, xvi. 1), and a much larger number of Gentiles, and they
received through Paul the stamp of law-free Gentile Churches (cf. Acts xvi.
4). According to Galatians, the same was true of the Churches of Galatia.
The two groups are identical.

7. (P. 178.) Hofmann, i. 93, thought it permissible to interpret vp.as,
Gal. ii. 5, of the Gentile world not yet affected by the gospel ; Sieffert, finding
this at variance with the text, understood Gentile Christians at large. But
comparison with Eph. ii. 11 or Eph. iii. 1 f., by which one or the other view
is to be supported, shows that Paul would have indicated it by an apposi-
tional phrase like TU i'6vrj if he meant to take the readers as representatives
either of Gentile Christians at large or of the Gentile world. In the latter
case one ought also to expect that he would have referred to the former status
of his readers as a condition now past, as in Eph. ii. 11 f. (wore . . . r<5
(catpoi eKfivat); 1 Cor. xiL 2. Moreover, the translation "for you" cannot
be defended ; the phrase presupposes, rather, that the readers had already
received " the truth of the gospel." The use of -n-pos is not more remarkable
than in emufveiv irpos ru/a, Gal. i. 18 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 7, cf. Buttmann, Gram.
292 [Eng. trans. 339 f.]. 8ia[j.eveiv in such a connection only intimates with
especial emphasis that the relation in which the true gospel had already stood
to the Galatians was to continue uninterrupted for all time.

12. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

On the supposition that the Galatians addressed in
this letter are to be sought in the northern part of the
province of that name and only there, the terminus a quo
of the Epistle is fixed as the settlement of Paul in Ephesus
at the beginning of the year 55 (Acts xix. 1). The

VOL. i. 13

194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

second visit implied in Gal. iv. 13 will then be the one
referred to in Acts xviii. 23 ; and even when the error is
avoided of supposing that ra^eco? in Gal. i. 6 implies that
the danger which was threatening the Galatian Churches
at the hands of the Judaisers, and which occasioned this
letter, arose immediately after this second visit of Paul,
the advocate of this theory will be inclined to place the
composition of the letter in the period of 2^ years ending
at Pentecost 57 (n. 1), during which Paul was at work in
Ephesus (Acts xix. 8-10). But this time and place seem
to be ruled out by the fact that in Gal. iv. 20 it is taken
for granted that Paul is at such a distance from the readers
that it is impossible for him to make a journey to them in
the near future (above, p. 170). Yet at any time during
the year it was quite possible to make the journey from
Ephesus to Pessinus or Ancyra. Furthermore, if the
letter was written in Ephesus, the expression in Gal. iv. 20,
of a desire to visit them which could not be fulfilled, is
very strange, in view of the fact that during this period
Paul did visit the Church in Corinth ( 17).

If, on the other hand, it be accepted as proved that
the letter was meant for the Churches in South Galatia
which were founded on the first missionary journey,
every reason for supposing that the letter was written
in Ephesus between the beginning of the year 55 and
Pentecost 57 disappears. Then the terminus a quo is the
second visit to the Churches in Lycaonia (Acts xvi. 1-5)
in the spring of 52. Any reference of the letter to an
earlier date (u. 2) is at once precluded by the chrono-
logical and historical data of Gal. i. 15-ii. 10. The
apostolic council, to which reference is made in Gal. ii.
1-10 (cf. Acts xv. 1-29), took place during the winter of
51-52. It was not until after this council that Paul
and Silas set out upon the second missionary journey,
and visited the Churches in Lycaonia a second time.
Similarly the terminus ad quern of Galatians is the

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 195

beginning of Paul's two imprisonments in Csesarea and
Rome (Pentecost 58), which together lasted for at least five
years. The hypothesis that Galatians was written while
Paul was a prisoner in Rome is of long standing (n. 3),
but quite untenable. All the letters which Paul wrote
while in prison, or which he is supposed to have written
in prison, disclose this fact unmistakably and in various
ways (Col. iv. 3, 10, 18, cf. i. 24 ; Eph. iii. 1, iv. 1, vi. 20 ;
Philem. 1, 9, 10, 13, 22, 23 ; Phil. i. 7, 12-17, cf. ii. 23,
iv. 10-18; 2 Tim. i. 8, 16, ii. 9, cf. i. 12, ii. 10, iv.
6-18). But in Galatians there is no hint that at the
time of writing Paul's free movements were hindered, or
that he was being persecuted by the civil authorities on
account of his missionary activity. If he had been in
prison at the time, he could hardly have failed to make
some reference to the fact in the passage where he ex-
presses his earnest wish, impossible of fulfilment, that he
might be present among the Galatian Churches in person,
and that they might hear his trembling voice (iv. 20).
Nor, when speaking of his preaching as still being carried
on, ii. 2, v. 11, also i. 8, 16, could he have remained
entirely silent about his captivity had he been a prisoner.
While, to be sure, he is being opposed, iv. 29, v. 11, his per-
secutors are Judaising Christians, and the means employed
are not violence, but slanders and insinuations. When he
does speak of bodily injuries inflicted upon him on account
of his Christian faith or on account of his missionary
activity (vi. 17), they are not referred to, as in the letters
of his imprisonment, as something being endured at the
time ; he simply mentions the marks of injuries received
some time before, which he still bore and could show.
In view of the infrequency of references of this kind in
Paul's letters, it is very improbable that he is referring to
the marks of ill-treatment which he had borne for years,
such as an ineffaceable scar on his forehead, or the maim-
ing of a limb caused by a stone thrown at the time when

196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

he was organising the Church in Galatia (Acts xiv. 19,
cf. xiv. 5), or on some other occasion about which we are
not definitely informed (2 Cor. xi. 23-25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32 ?).

The mention of the fact, ra aTi^^a-ra rov 'Irjaov Iv TW

cr&yiaTi pov /3ac7Ta&>, and the peculiar expression used, are
natural here only if the wounds, marks of which were
still visible when Galatians was written, had been in-
flicted not very long before. They are the same as those
clearly referred to in 1 Thess. ii. 2 (irpoTradovres teal vfipia--
Qevres ev ^tXtTTTTot?). That on this occasion Paul and
Silas were not only insulted, but also roughly handled,
is clear from Acts xvi. 22-24, 33, 37-38.

But this evidence may be left quite out of account ;
for if, as has been shown, dates previous to the spring
of 52 (Acts xvi. 1-5), and subsequent to Pentecost 58
(Acts xx. 16ff.), are precluded, and if the letter could
not have been written during the 2| or, reckoned from
the first arrival of Paul in Ephesus, the three years'
stay in that city, i.e. between Pentecost 54 and Pentecost
57 (Acts xviii. 19, xix. 1, 8-10, xx. 18, 31), then it must
have been written shortly after the events described in
Acts xvi. 22 fY. After Paul's second visit to the Churches
in Lycaonia during the summer of 52, and his preaching
tour through several parts of the province of Galatia,
where he had not been before (Acts xvi. 1-6, cf. second
preaching presupposed in Gal. iv. 13), at least several
months must have elapsed before Galatians was written.
Besides, it required time for the Judaisers to reach Galatia,
as they did in the interval, and for them to secure the
wide influence which they contrived to win, and for this
state of affairs to be reported to Paul, who had gone over
to Europe. Before the close of the year 52, Paul had
settled in Corinth for a stay of eighteen months (Acts
xviii. 11), lasting up to the summer of 54. Galatians
was written during this time, and more probably in the
first half of the period than in the second. A company of

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 197

believers was already gathered about Paul in the place
where he was staying (Gal. i. 2), but no one of these
appears to have been closely associated with the Galatian
Churches. If we were right in concluding (above, p. 170)
that Paul could not have addressed a letter to Churches in
Timothy's home (Acts xvi. 1), and to Churches which he
had visited in company with Silas some time before, and
warned against the Judaistic propaganda (Gal. v. 3,
i. 9), without sending greetings from both these persons,
so well known among the Galatians, if they were with
him at the time, then it follows that Galatians could not
have been written when Silas and Timothy were with
Paul in Corinth, when the two letters to the Thessa-
lonians were written in his own name and theirs. The
letter must be dated either before or after this time,
either while he was waiting for them in Corinth (Acts
xviii. 1-5), or after the two helpers had left Corinth
again, a period the length of which cannot be definitely
determined. The former is the more probable. At the
time of the first letter to the Thessalonians, shortly after
Timothy's arrival in Corinth (1 Thess. iii. 6), he had
already had occasion to learn from Christians, who did
not belong in Macedonia or Achaia, or anywhere in
Europe, that they were familiar with the organisation of
the Church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. i. 8 f . ; see below,
13). When Paul had been on the point of informing
them of the cheering successes in Macedonia, they had
replied that this was no news to them, or they had antici-
pated his account by expressions of joy at the triumph of
the gospel in Macedonia. The persons referred to must
have been Christians, who came to Paul in Corinth from
Asia, before the time indicated in Acts xviii. 5 and 1 Thess.
iii. 6. And they must have come directly by sea ; for
if they had come by the land route through Macedonia,
visiting the Churches in Philippi and Thessalonica which
lay on their way, Paul could not have related to the Thessa-

198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Ionian Church what these Christians from abroad had said
to him, in the manner that he does in 1 Thess. i. 8 f. If,
now, we ask where these Christians from Asia got their
information about the circumstances under which the
Church in Thessalonica was organised, the source could
not possibly have been any written communication of
Paul's ; on the contrary, Paul is agreeably surprised by
their voluntary expression of gratification at the entrance
of the gospel into Thessalonica, and tells the Christians
there about it in order to encourage them. So it must
have been another Christian who had witnessed the
progress of the gospel in Macedonia, and who at the same
time was intimately associated with the Churches in Asia
from which these Christians had come to Paul, who had
sent reports of the missionary work in Macedonia to these
Churches or to individual members of the same. What
more natural than to suppose that this person was
Timothy, who could hardly have failed to inform his
mother, in Lystra, and through her the Churches in
Galatia, what happened to him and his companions on
their missionary journey through Macedonia ? So these
Christians from outside of Europe, who, according to
1 Thess. i. 8 f., did not need to be informed by Paul about
the organisation of the Church in Thessalonica, because
they had already heard about it in detail, were none other
than the representatives of the Galatian Churches who
brought the report of the incursion of the Judaisers in
Galatia to Paul in Corinth (above, p. 169). In view of
the condition of things in Galatia, Paul did not dare wait,
so he sent the messengers from the Galatians home again
as quickly as he could with a letter written by his own
hand. When Silas and Timothy arrived, Galatians was
already written and sent.

If this putting together of very simple exegetical
observations is not altogether wrong, Galatians is the
earliest of Paul's letters that has come down to us. At

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 199

the time when it was written the marks of the blows
which he had received in Philippi, possibly some eight or
nine months before (Gal. vi. 17 ; 1 Thess. ii. 2), could
very well have been still visible. If the intercourse
between the Galatian Churches and Paul in Corinth took
place by sea, as seems to be the case, Galatians was
written some time after the opening of navigation, i.e.
after March in the year 53, not very long before the
arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth and the writing of
1 Thessalonians.

1. (P. 193.) As early as 370, Victorinns (Mai, Script, vet. n. Coll. iii.
2. 1) mentions as traditional the view that Galatians was written in
Ephesus at the time of Paul's ministry there. The old prologues affirm
the same (Cod.' Fuld. 248 ; Amiatin. 296 ; Card. Thomasius, Opp. i. 402, 421,
433, 451). In more recent times this has been the prevailing view among
those who understand by Galatia the country of Galatss, e.g. Hug, Einl. 3
ii. 351 ; Wieseler, ChronoL des apost. Zeitalters, 285 ; Komm. zum Gal. 541 ;
Hofmann, ii. 1. 1; Meyer-Sieffert, 24; Godet, Introd. i. 269. Confirmatory
evidence has been sought in the fact that, according to Jewish tradition,
the year from the autumn of 68 to the autumn of 69, and therefore
also the year 54-55, were Sabbatical years (Anger, Ratio Temporum, 38 ;
Wieseler, ChronoL Synapse, 204 ; Komm. zum Gal. 356, 542, cf. the summary
in Schiirer, i. 35 ff. [Eng. trans. I. i. 41-43]), and it has further been sup-
posed that this was referred to in Gal. iv. 10 (eviavTovs). But if this, the last
of the seasons there enumerated, had an actual significance for the readers
at that time, we should expect a more explicit emphasis upon it. Chrono-
logically, too, this supposition, if all its premises were valid, would still be
highly improbable. If the two and a quarter years, Acts xix. 8-10, ended
with Pentecost 57, Paul must have begun his stay in Ephesus somewhere
near the last of February 55. But since several months must have elapsed
between his arrival there (which followed directly upon his second visit to
the Galatian region, Acts xviii. 23) and the writing of Galatians, it appears
that the Sabbatical year ending in the autumn of 55 was already past when
the Epistle was sent. Moreover, it was half gone when Paul last visited the
Galatians without his noticing then any signs of Judaistic tendencies (see
p. 165 f. above). But it is exceedingly improbable that the Judaisers from
Jerusalem, arriving among the Galatians in the latter half of the Sabbatical
year, should have come out at once with the recommendation of the legal
provisions in this particular, and have succeeded with them before the
expiration of the year. We must note, besides, that the Sabbatical year in
any case was observed only in Palestine and the neighbouring districts, and
then not with the same exactness in all parts of the Holy Land (Mishna,
Shebiith vi. 1, ix. 2 ; cf. A. Geiger, Lesestiicke aus der Mischna, 75 f., 78 f.), a
fact which Clemen, ChronoL der paulin. Brief e, 204, presents with quite
arbitrary inadequacy. Of the representatives of the old idea of "Galatia,"

200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Gal. i. 2, Bleek (Elnl. 1862, S. 418) and Lightfoot (Galatians, 36-56)
assigned the Epistle to a period between 2 Cor. and Rom., both on account of
the affinity in thought between Gal. and Rom., and because of the great
difference between Gal. and 1 and 2 Thess. ; Gal., then, would have been
written in the three months Acts xx. 3, or on the journey through Macedonia
just before. Some, too, who have cut loose from the old assumption with
regard to the persons to whom the letter was sent, have been so impressed
with the idea of the development of Pauline thought as reflected in the
succession of the Epistles, as to suppose that they must even put Galatians
later than Romans. So, for example, Kiihn, NKZ, 1895, S. 156-162,
who thinks that Galatians was sent to the Lycaonian Churches during
the apostle's imprisonment in Csesarea. Clemen, too, in his altogether con-
fused Chronologic (205), puts Galatians after Romans, though he cannot tell
us where it was written (203). Kiihn (159) and Clemen (200 ff.) see con-
firmation in Gal. ii. 10, which they understand as a reference to the great
collection which Paul was only just ready to take to Jerusalem when Romans
was written (Rom. xv. 25 ff.). But as little as the obligation which Paul
assumed in the apostolic council, according to the tenor of Gal. ii. 10, looked
merely to the gathering of a single money collection in specified parts of the
Gentile Church, just so little did he appeal to one such collection as the
fulfilment of it. He can testify, rather, that he has been zealous and diligent
to meet the obligation assumed at the council, and this he could not say
unless immediately upon his return from Jerusalem, in Antioch, Syria,
Cilicia, and on his second missionary journey (Acts xv. 30-xvi. 5), he had
stirred up the existing Gentile Christian Churches to make these collections
and gifts. On the other hand, Gal. ii. 10 would be empty talk, if the
contribution which he took to Jerusalem about Pentecost 58 were the first
fruit of his ostensibly so zealous endeavour to carry out a pledge made some
six and a half years before. We need not here concern ourselves with the
question whether the Galatian and Asiatic Churches had any part in the great
collection of 58, which would seem from Rom. xv. 26, 2 Cor. viii.-ix., not to
have been the case, and which cannot be inferred from 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; Acts
xx. 4. Between 52 and 58 three or six contributions may have been sent to
Jerusalem from the Galatian Churches and others founded and guided by
Paul, just as gifts had already been sent before (Acts xi. 30). From Gal. ii.
10 we must conclude that a beginning had been made within the first year
after the apostolic council. Even Ramsay (Church in Roman Empire, 101)
seems to have been influenced to some extent by Lightfoot's discussion to put
Galatians as late as his historical and geographical data would permit, and
holds that the Epistle was written from Antioch in 55, at the beginning of
the third missionary journey (p. 168 ; Acts xviii. 22 f.). I merely ask how
Paul, who, according to Ramsay's interpretation of Acts xviii. 23 (see p. 190
above), was then on the point of visiting the Galatian Churches for the third
time, could have written iv. 20, or the letter as a whole, without alluding to
his impending visit. We shall never reach a chronological arrangement of
Paul's Epistles which will do justice to the indications of the letters them-
selves and to the notices in Acts, if we assume as our underlying premise
that Paul was a theological thinker and writer, who derived the essential
impulse to the composition of his letters, the choice of his teaching material,

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 201

and the particular manner of its treatment in the several Epistle?, from the
progress of his investigations. Rather was he a missionary, who was
determined not only in the composition of Epistles, but in the choice of
themes and treatment, by the aims of this his calling, and the requirements
of the Churches which he had founded and which were under his care.
Through long preparation, and longer missionary experience, he had arrived
at fixed and basal principles before he wrote the first of the letters which
have come down to us. The ideas of Galatians which reappear in Romans
must have become perfectly clear to him, at the latest, at the time of the con-
troversies described in Acts xv. and Gal. ii. 1-10. According to Gal. ii.
15-21, cf. i. 12-16 ; 2 Cor. iv. 6, v. 16 f.; Rom. vii. 6-viii. 2 ; Phil. iii. 5-12,
they were rooted in the very experiences which made him a Christian.
But in that conflict he must not only have become conscious of the contra-
diction between his Christianity and that of the Pharisaic Christians, he
must also have learned even then to develop from Scripture and from
Christian experience the arguments for his gospel and against legalistic
Christianity, and to use them as weapons in the debate. That he so uses
them in Galatians requires no explanation beyond the fact that these con-
troversies in Antioch and in Jerusalem already lay behind him, and that he
was now confronted by substantially the same opponents in Galatia. The
fact, too, that the ideas of justification by and through faith, together with
their contraries, drop into the background in Thessalonians and Corinthians,
and appear more prominently again in Romans and Philippians, shows
simply that Paul was not a stupid schoolmaster repeating his monotonous
formulas in season and out of season. The reason why the weapons, which
had already been tested more than once in combat, were brought out again
from his armoury when he wrote the letter to Rome, will become clear
enough in our examination of that Epistle. Occasional expressions like 1 Cor.
xv. 56 or 2 Cor. v. 21 show that the whole circle of thought which meets us
first in Galatians did not become unfamiliar to the apostle in the interim. If
it were admissible to interpret and explain the differences in teaching in the
several Epistles from the order of their composition instead of from the
variety of conditions in the Churches and in the historical occasion of the
letters, one might infer from a comparison of Gal. iv. 10 with Rom. xiv. 5 f.
that several years of inner development lay between Galatians and Romans,
and Col. ii. 16 would have to be set near Galatians in time but as far as
possible from Romans. Halmel, Uber rom. Recht im Gal. 1895, concludes
from the observation expressed in the title, together with the affinity between
the theological conceptions of Galatians and Romans, " that Galatians must
have been written in Rome or Italy, and in any case, therefore (sic), was not
far removed from Romans in point of time " (S. v and 30). Now, there was an
interval of more than three years between Romans, which was written from
Corinth at the beginning of the year 58, and Paul's arrival at the capital in
the spring of 61. As Halmel, further, does not insist on Rome at all, and
consequently, it would seem, does not insist that the letter was written
during Paul's two years' imprisonment there (Acts xxviii. 30), the possible
interval between Galatians and Romans seems to stretch out to five years or
more, that is, to some period after the expiration of the two years mentioned
in Acts xxviii. 30, when Paul no longer sojourned as a prisoner in Rome,

202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

but somewhere in Italy in freedom. And this, we are told, is proximity
in point of time ! If the introduction of provisions of Roman law "as
things quite well known" were really inconceivable outside of Rome and
Italy, it would not suffice to remove the author thither ; but, assuming that
he wished to be understood, it would be necessary first of all to look for
the readers also in Italy, instead of in Galatia. If, again, we are really
to presuppose in Galatians an acquaintance with Roman law specifically
(cf. ZKom. Gal. 160 ff., 191 ft'.), it is a sufficient explanation that Paul,
according to the tradition of Acts, which has never been assailed with
any sound objection, was born a civis Romanus, and that the principal
Churches of Galatia were located in Roman colonies (p. 191 above). Roman
citizens, who claimed the privileges of Roman law, were found everywhere
in the empire ; of., for example, Berl. dg. griech. Urk. Nos. 96, 15 ; 113.
3, 6 ; 327. 2 ; 361. ii. 19 ; and, moreover, Roman law had had everywhere
a transforming influence on the legal procedure of the edvrj ; cf. Strabo,
x. p. 484.

2. (P. 194.) Calvin, who reckoned the fourteen years of Gal. ii. 1 before
Paul's conversion, and identified the visit to Jerusalem there mentioned with
that of Acts xi. 30, assigned the composition of Galatians to a date before
the apostolic council (Komm. zu Gal. ii. 1-5, ed. Tholuck, 546). This pre-
supposes what Calvin does not expressly say, however that the Galatian
Churches were those situated in Lycaonia.

3. (P. 195.) The view that Galatians was written by Paul during his Roman
imprisonment first gained currency, somewhat late, in the Eastern Churches.
In the West, before Jerome's day, a very different view prevailed (above,
p. 199, note 1). Among the expositors of Galatians, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius,
Ephrem Syrus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia nowhere express themselves, to
the writer's knowledge, with regard to the time and place of the Epistle.
Chrysostom, not in his commentary on Galatians but in the introduction to
Romans, gives his opinion that Paul wrote Galatians before Romans, that is,
of course, like Romans, before his imprisonment (Montfaucon, ix. 427). Euse-
bius of Emesa (Cramer, Cat. vi. 67) seems to have been the first to find in
Gal. iv. 20 an indication of imprisonment. Jerome, who in the preparation
of his own commentary on Galatians made free use of Eusebius' and many
others (Prcef., Vail. vii. 370), borrowed from him this interpretation of iv. 20
(468), and again, on vi. 11 (529), alludes to the imprisonment of Paul at the
time of the Epistle, whereas on vi. 17 (534) he contents himself with a vague
reference to the recital of his sufl'erings, 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. Galatians was first
assigned to the Roman imprisonment by the pseudo-Euthalius (Zacagni, 624),
Theodoix-t (Noe??elt, 4), (Ecunienius (Hentenius, i. 713), and a number of
Greek, Syriac, and Coptic Bible MSS. Possibly the fact that Galatians was
not infrequently placed after Ephesians, that is, among the Epistles of the
imprisonment (GK, ii. 351, 358, 360), contributed to the perpetuation of the
error. Thus we see to what extent Halmel (30) is justified in calling this the
general opinion of the early Church, and that we are not dealing with a his-
torical tradition, but with the spread of an error which arose from a careless
reading of the Epistle.

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 203

13. THE OEIGIN OF THE CHUECH IN THESSA-
LONICA, AND THE COUKSE OF ITS HISTOEY
UNTIL THE COMPOSITION OF PAUL'S FIEST
EPISTLE TO THE CHUECH THEEE.

It must have been somewhere about September 52
when Paul, driven from Philippi, came directly to Tbessa-
lonica ( 1 Thess. ii. 2 ; Acts xvi. 1 9-xvii. 1 ) along with
Silvanus or Silas (n. 1), without stopping in Amphipolis
and Apollonia, which were situated upon the great military
road by which he travelled (Via Egnatia). His younger
helper, Timothy, who had been with him only during the
journey from Lystra (n. 2), and the author of the account,
who by the use of "we" in Acts xvi. 16-17 indicates his
presence, and in Acts xvi. 13 his participation in the
teaching activity of the missionaries, seem for the time
being to have been left behind in Philippi. Although
Timothy is not mentioned in connection with the flight
of Paul and Silvanus from Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 10),
and does not appear again until after Paul's departure
from Bercea (Acts xvii. 14), it is not to be inferred that
Timothy had no share in Paul's work at Thessalonica, nor
is it to be supposed that he journeyed from Philippi to
Bercea (or Berrhoea) without stopping on the way to visit
the newly made converts in Thessalonica. If it may be
regarded as certain that the "we" which runs through
both letters includes both the helpers mentioned in the
greeting with Paul as joint writers with him of the
Epistle, then Timothy is to be considered one of the
organisers of this Church (n. 3). After Paul's departure
from Philippi, he very soon followed him to Thessalonica
and thence to Bercea.

Before Byzantium became Constantinople, Thessalonica
was the largest city on the Balkan peninsula (n. 4), which,
together with the fact that it had a numerous Jewish
population, made it a suitable station for Paul's work ; and,

204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

had it not been that he was compelled to go, he would not
have left it so soon as he did. As it was, after three
weeks' preaching in the synagogue (n. 5), the Jewish
majority succeeded in stirring up the populace against the
missionaries to such an extent, that the latter were com-
pelled to conceal themselves ; and, after their host Jason
and several of the converts were brought before the city
authorities in their stead, and released only on bail, the
missionaries fled for refuge to Beroea.

The original Church in Thessalonica consisted of a
few Jews and a large number of Greeks, some of whom,
before they became Christians, had been adherents of the
synagogue. Among them were several women belonging
to the upper classes. Subsequent additions to the Church
seem to have been made exclusively from the Gentile
population (n. 6). That the attack upon the missionaries
and the persecution of the new converts immediately
following (Acts xvii. 5-9 ; 1 Thess. i. 6) emanated from
the Jews, is clear from 1 Thess. ii. 15 ; since, inasmuch as
Paul speaks here not of himself alone, but also of Silvanus
and Timothy, the reference is not to the threatening of
his life in Jerusalem (Acts ix. 29), but to his expulsion
from Thessalonica and Beroea. But inasmuch as the
Jews succeeded at once in arousing the populace against
the missionaries by charging them with teaching doc-
trines contrary to the State, which led the politarchs to
take precautionary measures oppressive to the Christians
(Acts xvii. 5-9), it is not surprising that Paul, in speaking
of the persecution which the Church had endured earlier,
and was still enduring (1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14, iii. 3 ; 2 Thess.
i. 4), does not make special mention of the fact that the
persecution was begun by the Jews. This oppressed con-
dition of the infant Church in Thessalonica made the
missionaries desirous of turning back immediately after
their departure (1 Thess. ii. 17f.), i.e. while they were
still in Beroea. Speaking for himself, Paul assures them

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 205

that he had made still a second attempt to carry out this
intention, but had been hindered as before by Satan.
This effort Paul must have made at the time when he was
alone in Athens, waiting for Silvanus and Timothy (Acts
xvii. 16). Here, however, the accounts in Acts do not
correspond entirely with Paul's statements. Although
Acts xvii. 15 gives the impression that Silvanus and
Timothy were to follow Paul to Athens as soon as they
could, there is no report of their arrival, which omission,
together with what is said in Acts xviii. 5, forces one to
the conclusion that these helpers remained for a consider-
able time longer in Macedonia, and did not join Paul
again until he had been at work in Corinth for some time
(n. 7). On the other hand, according to 1 Thess. iii. 1-6,
Silvanus and Timothy actually came to Athens as Paul
had instructed them to do (Acts xvii. 15), from which
point Paul and Silvanus sent Timothy back to Macedonia,
in particular to Thessalonica (n. 3). Shortly before the
composition of this letter, Timothy returned with cheering
news to Paul, or rather, since the " we " is retained in
1 Thess. iii. 6f., to Paul and Silvanus, whereupon this
letter was sent to the Church in Thessalonica in the name
of all three.

The letter must have been written in Corinth. Had it
been written in Athens, there would be something strange
even about the eV 'AOrjvais of iii. 1 (but cf. 1 Cor. xv. 32,
xvi. 8). Moreover, in i. 7 f . it seems to be presupposed
that the gospel had been preached with good success, not
in Athens alone, but in several places in Achaia, as it had
been preached earlier in Macedonia. But we have de-
finite proof for a later date, and so for Corinth as the place
of composition in the statement (i. 8f.) that the con-
version of the Thessalonians was known not only in
Macedonia (Beroea and possibly also Philippi) and Achaia
(Athens and Corinth), whither the news was brought by
those who preached the gospel in this region, but every-

206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

where (ev iravrl TOTTW, of. Rom. i. 8), so that it was un-
necessary for Paul to tell the story of the founding of the
Thessalonian Church, but was able to listen to expressions
of praise and joy at the entrance of the gospel into Thessa-
lonica (above, p. 197 f.). Since the contrast to Macedonia
and Achaia implies that the persons in question must have
been Christians from Asia, not only is it necessary to
suppose that the news of the successful preachino- of the
gospel in Thessalonica had reached the Christian Churches
in Asia, but it must also be assumed that Paul had had
occasion shortly before to converse with Christians from
Asia, and to learn from them the joy which had been
awakened in their home by his successes in Macedonia.
If Paul had received his information about the joyful
interest with which his missionary work in Macedonia was
followed only through letters from Galatia or Antioch in
Syria, he could not have written the words, ov povov ev rfj

MaiceSovia KOI ev rfj 'A^ata a\\a ev iravrl TOTT&) 1} TriaTts VJJLWV

T) 777)05 rov deov e%e\i]\v6ev. The expressions which follow
(\a\elv, a7rajje\\ovaiv) prove that the intercourse between
Paul and the representatives of the Churches outside of
Europe had been rather of the nature of a conversation, in
the course of which the latter had shown that they were
familiar with the story of the founding of the Church in
Thessalonica in all its details. We have seen above,
p. 197f., that in all probability these persons were the
ambassadors of the Galatian Churches. But whether this
was so or not, unless the most extraordinary circumstances
be assumed, the spread of the news of the organisation
of the Churches in Macedonia as far as the Churches in
Galatia or Syria, and the reporting of the impression
which this news made there back to Paul, who was travel-
ling in Europe, requires an interval of several months
between Paul's flight from Thessalonica and the com-
position of 1 Thessalonians. If, therefore, for chronological
reasons, we conclude that the letter was written in Corinth

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 207

and not in Athens, the use of the three names in the
greeting (i. 1) would indicate a time subsequent to the
event described in Acts xviii. 5, while 1 Thess. iii. 6,
shows that it was written immediately after this event.
Paul wrote Galatians before the arrival of the helpers in
Corinth, possibly in April or May 53 (above, p. 198) ;

1 Thessalonians after the reunion, possibly in June of the
same year.

1 . (P. 203.) The identity of Silas, Acts xv. 22, 27, 32 (34), 40, xvi. 19,
25, 29, xvii. 4, 10, 14, 15, xviii. 5, and Silvanus, 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 ;

2 Cor. i. 19 ; 1 Pet. v. 12, appears from the statements made by Paul, and
in Acts with regard to the second missionary journey. As to his double
name, above, p. 31 f. As Acts xvi. 37 presupposes that he, like Paul, possessed
Roman citizenship, he may have been one of the " Libertines " spoken of in
Acts vi. 9, above, p. 60 f. As a man of prominence in the Jerusalem Church
(xv. 22), of mature years, therefore, and besides prophetically gifted (xv. 32),
he was sent together with Judas Barsabbas to accompany Paul and Barnabas
to Antioch, in order to explain and confirm the decision of the apostolic
council by word of mouth (xv. 27, 32). This implies that Silas was, on the
one hand, a man who enjoyed the confidence of the mother Church ; and, on
the other hand, that he was also in sympathy with the progress of the
Gentile mission up to that time. Both things were important for Paul, and
probably decided him, after his break with Barnabas, to choose Silas of
Jerusalem as his companion on the second missionary journey (xv. 40),
instead of some one of the other teachers at Antioch (xiii. 1). Let it be
noted here that what is said of the dissuasion of the Spirit, Acts xvi. 6, 7
(also xvii. 15, according to Cod. D), is not to be referred to Paul as the
medium, for he used rather to receive such instructions in visions at night
(xvi. 9, xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 23, cf. xxii. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 1-4), but to
Silas (xv. 32, where nal avroi, like KOI avrovs, xv. 27, is to be taken by itself,
and separated from IT poffirai ovres by the punctuation so Blass ; only Judas
and Silas were prophets, not Barnabas and Paul). The account in Acts
xv. 30-34, partly because of the uncertainty of the text, is by no means
as clear as one could wish. First, the clause xv. 34a is to be recognised as
part of the earlier text, in the form efioe 8e T<U 2tXa f-m^elvai avrovs
(CD*) and irpos avrovs (correction in D), avrov (min. 13 = ev. 33, Gregory,
Prol. 469, 618), avrodi (3 min.), Hi (many MSS. of the Lat. Vulg. and
Copt., Sah. and margin of S 3 ) are to be regarded as alterations with a
view to an easier reading. The opinion given by the prophet Silas, in such
a way as not to exclude the action of the irvevpa, but rather to include it (cf.
xv. 28}, was that Judas and Silas should remain still longer in Antioch.
The clause povos 8e 'lovSas ewopevdr), vouched for only by D and some Latin
MSS., is then an amplifying gloss, to explain the fact that in what follows
there is mention only of Silas, and nothing of Judas' remaining there, whereas
the f'Soe applied to both men. The gloss, moreover, is clumsy enough, as it
should either have said, "Judas returned to Jerusalem notwithstanding," or

208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

else, " Silas alone, however, really remained in Antiocli." On the contrary,
the stubborn clause 34a, so original in form and substance, which had a wide-
spread and significant currency without the addition of 346, is not to be
understood as a gloss, reconciling the apparent contradiction between vv. 33
and 40. An emendator with this in view would have written simply, " But
Silas preferred (perhaps at Paul's request) to remain longer in Antioch."
34a, probably the original in both recensions, was in the one so amplified by
the addition of 34Z> that the reader learned to a certainty what became of
Judas and Silas, while in the other it was struck out on account of the
apparent contradiction between it and 33. It is possible, again, that a slip
of the eye from avrovs, 33, to airovs, 34a, was responsible for the omission, and
this Blass considers probable in spite of his preference for alrov in the
second passage. D illustrates the ease with which the omission might occur,
for there the clause in question forms a complete line, which ends in alrovs,
like the line preceding. If we admit 34o. to the text, we have an account
which is not exactly connected, but which involves no contradictions, xv.
33 does not say that Judas and Silas for their part took leave of the brethren
in Antioch and set out for Jerusalem, a statement which Luke would have
made outright (Luke viii. 38, 39 ; Acts iv. 21, 23, v. 40, 41, xiii. 3, 4,
xv. 30) and without dno T&V dSeX0wi/ (xxviii. 25, xv. 30), but only that the
Antiochians said they would not detain them longer. Silas gave a decisive
reply to the effect that he and Judas ought still to remain in Antioch, and
in consequence they did so remain, as Barnabas did in his time (xi. 22 ff.).
Thus the way is sufficiently paved for xv. 40, whereas if 34a were rejected it
would be hard to understand how the man who had just returned to Jeru-
salem should suddenly reappear at Antioch. The narrator could not have
omitted to state that Paul summoned him from Jerusalem. Even in that
case, to be sure, Luke would have left no room to doubt the identity of Silas,
xv. 40, with the Silas of xv. 22, 27, 32, 34. Zimmer's attempt (ZfKJV,
1881, S. 169-174, cf., per contra, Jiilicher, JbfPTh. 1882, S. 538-552) to
distinguish the Silas who assisted Paul on the second missionary journey
from the Jerusalem envoy of the same name, has no support whatever
in the only account we have of the latter. The hypothesis that Silas
( = Silvanus) is to be identified with Titus, suggested in the first instance
by Marcker (Titus Silvamis, 1864) and championed by Graf (Vierteljahrsschr.
f. englisch-iheol. Forschuny, ii. 1865, S. 373-394), cannot be rescued in
this fashion. Originating in a needless astonishment that Titus is not
mentioned in Acts, and an effort to justify Acts in the matter, the hypo-
thesis has simply created contradictions between Acts and Paul. Titus was
an uncircumcised Gentile, whom Paul took with him from Antioch to the
apostolic council (Gal. ii. 1, 3, cf. Acts xv. 2), and, of course, took back to
Antioch again. Silas, on the other hand, was sent to Antioch on the same
occasion by the mother Church. At that time, as for some time before, he
belonged to the Church in Jerusalem, for e' avruv and eV rots d8(\<pols, Acts
xv. 22, have no other antecedent than the immediately preceding mention of
those who sent him as " the apostles and the elders, with the whole Church,"
cf. xv. 4. He was a Jew, therefore, or at least a circumcised proselyte, cf.
Acts vi. 5. This is true also of Paul's helper, Silas = Silvanus, according to
Acts xvi. 3 (for otherwise his subsequent circumcision would have been

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 209

noticed as well as Timothy's) and xvi. 20. Silvanus, Paul's colleague in the
organisation of the Achaian Churches (2 Cor. i. 19, cf. Acts xviii. 5), cannot
be identical with the man who in the same Epistle is constantly and exclus-
ively spoken of as Titus (2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6-14, viii. 6, 16, 23, xii. 18),
who first became a co-labourer with Paul in his work with the Corinthians
(2 Cor. viii. 23), by his successful execution of the errand on which Paul had
sent him to Corinth in the interval between the first and second Epistles, up
to that time having known the Church only from Paul's laudatory accounts
of it (2 Cor. vii. 14).

2. (P. 203.) From Acts xvi. 1, Timothy's home seems to have been not at
Derbe, but at Lystra, the town last mentioned, and in KAB introduced with a
second els. It would be strange, too, if the name of his own home Church
were omitted from those in xvi. 2, or, if peculiar importance were attached to
the testimony of neighbouring Churches, that it should not be brought in as
a more emphatic confirmation of the opinion of the home Church. The
idea that he was from Derbe arose from the unnatural supposition that in
Acts xx. 4 Afppalos KOI was to be attached to the name after it, like Qeercra-
\oviK(<av 8e and 'Acriavol 8e, instead of to the one preceding, like Bepotaior,
the only parallel term (Wieseler, Chron. 26, " a Derbean also, Timothy " ;
for "there was also a Derbean with them, namely, Timothy"; K. Schmidt,
Apostelgeschichte, i. 42, " from Derbe ; Timothy besides," which in the first
place is linguistically inadmissible ; and, secondly, would tell us, contrary to
the translator's intent, that Gaius also was from Derbe). For this interpret-
ation one ought really to conjecture Aep/3aios de, as does Blass, following an
earlier precedent, so that Gaius would appear as a third Thessalonian with
Aristarchus and Secundus, and be identical with the Gaius of Acts xix. 29.
The present writer sees no necessity for this. It is true we have no right to
consider Paul's companions named in Acts xx. 4 as being, all of them, repre-
sentatives of the Churches which had taken part in the collection for Jerusalem
(2 Cor. viii. 19, 23 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 4). Aside from the fact that the provinces of
Asia and Galatia, which are represented in xx. 4, do not seem to have had any
part in this collection (above, p. 200 f.), it would be strange that no Corinthian
is mentioned here. But, apart from that supposition, we can easily conceive
that Luke meant that the men in whose company Paul was travelling to
Jerusalem should be viewed as representatives of the cities and districts from
which they came, and that he arranged their names and described them
accordingly. There were : 1. Sopater from Beroea (minusc. Sosipatros =
Rom. xvi. 21, both names found in Thessalonian inscriptions, Le Bas, ii., Nos.
1356, 1357) ; 2. Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica ; 3. Gaius from
Derbe (a different person, therefore, from the Macedonian of Acts xix. 29, as
well as from the Corinthian of 1 Cor. i. 14 and Rom. xvi. 23, but perhaps the
same as the Gaius addressed in 3 John 1) and Timothy (whose Lystran
extraction had been mentioned in xvi. 1, and is recalled here also by S 1 ),
both these men representing the province of Galatia (1 Cor. xvi. 1, above,
p. 191) ; 4. Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia (according
to D and Sah., and also S 3 margin, both from Ephesus, as appears in Trophi-
mus' case at least from Acts xxi. 29).

3. (Pp. 203, 205.) Although expositors down to Hofmann for the most part
paid little attention to the "we" in the Pauline Epistles, Laurent (ThStKr,

VOL. I. 14

210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

18GS, S. 159 ff., cf. his Neutest. Stud. 117) tried to maintain that in 1 and 2
Th ess. Paul referred to himself as "we" only when speaking in the con-
sciousness of his official position ; but as " I," on the other hand, when he
spoke " more personally, confidentially, as it were." On the contrary, we
must assert that there is not a passage in the Epistles where Paul uses this
we"="I" (least of all Rom. i. 5). As Paul in 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1,
introduces Silas and Timothy, co-founders of the Church, as joint authors
with himself of the Epistles, it goes without saying that when he proceeds
to the letter itself with " we," and not with " I," as in 1 Cor. i. 4 ; Gal. i. 6 ;
Phil. i. 3, he means that the two join with him in everything that he puts
in this form. If this holds true without question of the thanksgivings with
which both Epistles open, it is equally impossible to draw a line further on
beyond which the " we " is shrunk to an " I." So, too, an express explana-
tion of the " we " in 2 Cor. i. 19 would have been needless if Silas as well
as Timothy had been included in the "we" of vv. 1-14. On the other
hand, it was unnecessary in 1 Thess. iii. 1 f. to explain that the "we" was
confined to Paul and Silas, because it was plain from the statement itself
that when Timothy was to be sent away, Paul and Silas were the senders.
That the "we" is seriously meant becomes obvious in 1 Thess. ii. 18. Paul
can say of the three missionaries that after their departure from Thessalonica
it was their strong desire and earnest purpose to visit the city again : he
interrupts the plural with an e'yw p.ev TlavXos, because it is only of himself
that he can say that the purpose was entertained, not merely once but twice.
Putting forward the three missionaries as a single TVTTOS, 2 Thess. iii. 9 (cf.
Phil. iii. 17, i. 1, ii. 20), is as natural as the similar reference to the many
Thessalonians, 1 Thess. i. 7, according to the correct reading (cf. John xx. 25,
and irapdftfiyij.a, Thuc. iii. 57). Since the Church is represented as a single
family made up of many children, the corresponding relation of the three
missionaries to the Church can be compared to that of a nurse and again to
that of a father, 1 Thess. ii. 7, 11 ; but in this very passage we are reminded
by cos XptoroO nTToo-roAoi, ii. 7, that it is more than one person whose attitude
is described. That this title (aVdo-roXoi) was applicable also to Silas and
Timothy is unquestionable, see p. 107, n. 3. Moreover, it accords with the
nature of such descriptions of the attitude of a number of persons, that not
every individual statement is equally applicable to them all. It is of no
consequence, therefore, that we do not know whether Timothy and Silas
shared Paul's manual labour, or to what extent they did (1 Thess. ii. 9;
2 The?s. iii. 8). On the other hand, if one is speaking for others also, but is
himself the principal person, it is still permissible to let his own " I " take
the place now and then of the "we" (1 Thess. iii. 5, v. 27). Hofmann, NT,
i. 205 ft'., and Spitta, Z. Gesch. des Urchr. i. 115, 121, are hardly correct in
inferring from 1 Thess. iii. 5 that, after Paul and Silas together had de-
spatched Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica (iii. 2), Paul alone sent still
another messenger thither. To explain the singular in iii. 5, it is assumed
that in the meantime Silas also had left Paul ; but to what place was this
helper, who worked with Paul in Macedonia, in Athens, and afterward in
and about Corinth, likely to have gone from Athens at this time '1 One
could only conjecture a return to Macedonia, like Timothy's. In this case
there would be a double sending in addition to the mission of Timothy

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 211

(iii. 2), the sending of Silas, which is nowhere mentioned, and that of an
unnamed person supposedly referred to in iii. 5. But how could Paul have
been silent here regarding Silas' absence, even if the journey no one knows
in what direction had been one of indifference to the Thessaloriians ? His
absence would in any case have accentuated the painful sense of loneli-
ness (iii. 1), and in that very fact would have been an accentuation of the
feeling expressed in ^K(TI artymv, iii. 1, 5, and consequently a motive for
the despatch of still another messenger. And why should not Paul have
named the messenger, whether it were Silas, which would be the easiest
supposition, or some "quite subordinate person" (Spitta, 122)? As he was
plainly careful to recount every expression of his anxious love for the
Thessalonians since his departure from them, he would not only have men-
tioned Silas by name, if he were the messenger intended in iii. 5, but, in
view of his prominence, would have referred to him at least as particularly
as to Timothy (iii. 2). In the other event, however, the messenger could
only have been the bearer of a letter, and the failure to mention the letter
thus sent by him would be incomprehensible. The omission of the object
of eVe/Tv/fa, iii. 5, has no justification, unless it is to be supplied from iii. 1 f.
(to which the repetition of p.rjKen a-Teyav points every reader), and both
places refer to the same occurrence ; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 3 and viii. 18, 22. Other-
wise a iraXiv could hardly be omitted (Gal. i. 9), and Paul would have
marked the contrast with the unemphatic "we" of iii. If., not with Kayoi,
but with eyca IlaCXos (1 Thess. ii. 18 ; Col. i. 23, as opposed to the plural,
Col. i. 1-9, cf. 2 Cor. x. 1 ; Gal. v. 2 ; Philem. 19). <dya> finds its natural
explanation in a contrast with the persons addressed (cf. Phil. ii. 19, 28 ;
Eph. i. 15). Paul, as is said plainly enough in iii. 2 f., was greatly troubled
for fear that the Church in its distressed condition might not hold out
longer without the personal encouragement of its founders, and for that
very reason (iii. 5, 8ia rovrd) he himself could not endure it longer, and, as
remarked, sent Timothy to Thessalonica, in order not only to guard the
Church from the shaking of its faith, and of its confidence in its organisers
(iii. 2 f.), but also to obtain for his own part the satisfying assurance that the
Church had not succumbed to its temptations. This also opposed to view of
Wohlenberg, ZKom. 1&% Thess. 73.

4. (P. 203.) Tafel, De TJiess. eiusque Agro Dissertatio Qeographica, Berlin,
1839, in which the writer's earlier program, Historia Thessalonicce, Tubingen,
1835, is incorporated ; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 253-269. Formerly
Qeppr) (Herod, vii. 123-128 ; Thuc. i. 61), or Qepp.a (^Eschines, De Falsa Lega-
tione, 31. 36), rebuilt by Cassander about 315 B.C., and named Qevo-aXovlKr],
for his wife (also eeo-o-aAoin/ceia, Strabo, pp. 106, 330, Fragm. 21), after the
battle of Philippi civilas libera (Pliny, H. N. iv. 10. 36 ; for the coinage cf.
Tafel, p. xxix), hence Bov\r) KOI 8rjp.os (Le Bas, Inscr. 1359) and Trpodyeiv fls
TOV drifiov, Acts xvii. 5, cf. xix. 30, 33, residence of the governor of the pro-
vince of Macedonia, which after 4-1 A.D. was again separated from Achaia
and administered as a senatorial province by propraetors with the title of
proconsul (Marquardt, 2 i. 319). The title iroXirdpxcu, Acts xvii. 6, 8, though
otherwise unknown in literature, is splendidly attested for just this part of
Macedonia and especially for Thessalonica. The inscriptions bearing on
the matter have been very fully collated and thoroughly discussed by

212 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

E. De Witt Burton, A JTh. 1898, vol. ii. 598-632. Of the seventeen inscrip-
tions in which the term occurs, and two others in which it is restored
conjecturally, five or six are from Thessalonica, seven or eight from other
Macedonian cities, two from Philippopolis, one from Bithynia, one from
Bosphorus, and one from Egypt ( = nineteen in all). In addition, O.ryr.
Papyri, iv. 225, No. 745, of about the year 1 A.D. Of the inscriptions from
Thessalonica, one from the time of Augustus (Duchesne et Bayet, Mission nu
Mont Athos, 1876 separate reprint from Arch, des Miss. Sc., Ser. iii. vol. iii.
p. 11, No. 1) names five politarchs ; one of 143 A.D. (Le Bas, iii., No. 1359,
cf. Burton, 605-608) and one not dated (C. I. Gr. 1967, cf. Addenda, p. 990 =
Le Bas, No. 1357 ; Burton, 600, 607) mention six. Another of the year 46,
which mentions but two politarchs, probably belongs to Pella (Burton,
611-613). With regard to the population we have only general statements,
Strabo, 323 ; Lucian, Assin. 46 ; Theodoret, Hist. Ecd. v. 17. In the time
of the first emperors it surely cannot have been less than at present. About
1835 it was estimated at 80,000 ; Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, iii. 248,
considered 65,000 more exact. According to Th. Fischer in Kirchhof's
Lunderkunde von Europa, ii. 2. 180 (1893), estimates vary from 100,000 to
135,000, and the proportion of Jews is said to be nearly two-thirds. Cf.
Meyer's guide-book, Tiirkei und Griechenland (1888), 357, " population 100,000 ;
60,000 Jews." The unusual reading, 17 o-vi/aycoyij, Acts xvii. 1, would indicate
that the Jews of the whole district, perhaps even those at Amphipolis and
Apollonia, made the synagogue at Thessalonica their place of worship, and
maintained their connection with it. According to KABD, however (omit-
ting the article), it is merely stated that there was a Jewish synagogue at
Thessalonica, as at Beroea (xvii. 10), unlike Philippi (xvi. 13), Apollonia,
and Amphipolis. But, aside from this, the prominence of the Jews at Thes-
salonica is clear from Acts xvii. 4-9, 13.

5. (P. 204.) Acts xvii. 2, eVi cra/3/3ora rpia, cannot mean " on three
Sabbaths," as one might infer from the deceptive analogy of Acts iii. 1, iv. 5 ;
Luke x. 35, but " for three weeks," as Luke iv. 25 ; Acts xiii. 31, xvi. 18,
xviii. 20, xix. 8, 10, 3i, xxvii. 20. For a-a^arov and o-a/33ara = week, cf.
Luke xviii. 12, xxiv. 1 ; Acts xx. 7, and p. 19 above. If Paul's discourses
were confined to the Sabbaths, as at the beginning in Corinth (Acts xviii. 4,
cf. xiii. 42, 44), the statement would have had to be made more explicitly.
Meetings were also held in the synagogue on Monday and Thursday, the
usual fast-days (Schiirer, ii. 458, 490 [Eng. trans, n. ii. 83, 118] ; Ftvrsch. iii.
317). The synagogue was open at other times as well (Matt. vi. 2, 5), and
served as a meeting-place for unusual gatherings (Jos. Vita, 54). Nothing is
said here of any other hall to which Paul removed his lectures in consequence
of the opposition of the Jews (contrast Acts xviii. 7, xix. 9) ; so we are not to
suppose that his stay in Thessalonica was much extended beyond these three
weeks. The first remittance of money from Philippi to Thessalonica (Phil,
iv. 16) may have followed immediately upon Paul's enforced departure from
the former city, and the second two weeks later.

6. (P. 204.) Acts xvii. 4. According to T) (froXXoi T&V o-fj3o^eo)v KCII 'EXXiji'Wf
n\rj6os TTO\V KCLI yvvalKfs rS>y TrpatTtov OVK. oXi'yat a reading which, as regards
the K<U before 'EXX., is confirmed by A, Copt. Vulg.), the actual Gentiles, who
visited the synagogue only in exceptional circumstances and without breaking

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 213

with their heathen worship, would be distinguished from the <
(Acts xiii. 50, xvi. 14, xvii. 17, xviii. 7 ; cf. (f)of8ovp.evni rbv 6eov, Acts x. 2,
22, xiii. 16, 26), the Gentiles who, as " proselytes of the gate," regularly
attached themselves to the Jewish worship. The common text, r<av re <re/3o-
fj.i/u>v 'EXXr/i'tov, would be analogous to crf/So/jifuuiv Trpoo-jjXi'rwf, xiii. 43, without,
however, being quite synonymous. In any case, it is clear that among the
converts a small minority were Jews, and a large majority of Gentile birth.
Even more, therefore, than in the case of the Galatians (above, p. 166), Paul
was justified in regarding the Christians of Thessalonica as Gentile Chris-
tians ; cf. 1 Thess. i. 9. We must, nevertheless, notice here that along with
the contrast with former heathenism there appears also (i. 10) a contrast
with Judaism. If Jason (Acts xvii. 5-9) is the same as the Jason of Rom.
xvi. 21, which seems at once probable from the fact that Sosipater ( = Sopater,
Acts xx. 4), another Macedonian Christian, is there mentioned with him, he
too was of Jewish birth (ot o-uyyemy p.ov). According to Clement of Alex-
andria, he was identical with the Jason who represents Christianity over
against the Jew Papiscus in the dialogue of Ariston of Pella (Forsch. iii. 74,
iv. 309). Secundus and Aristarchus of Thessalonica were probably Gentiles
(Acts xx. 4, xix. 29, xxvii. 2 ; Philem. 24; Col. iv. 10) ; for Col. iv. 11 refers
only to Mark and Jesus Justus, not to Aristarchus ; cf. 27. The name
Secundus (Acts xx. 4) is abundantly attested in Thessalonica (C. I. Gr. 1967,
1969 ; JHSt. 1887, p. 367, No. 10 ; Heuzey et Daurnet, Macedoine, p. 280,
No. 113, 2fKrw!>8a). The occurrence of the name rai'os 'lovXios SfnovvSos in
Thessalonica (Duchesne et Bayet, Mission au mont Athos, p. 50, No. 78) gives
ground for the conjecture that the Secundus of Acts xx. 4 may be identified
with the Macedonian Gaius, who in Acts xix. 29 is similarly associated with
Aristarchus, and that in distinction from (Gaius) Secundus of Thessalonica
the other Gaius is designated as from Derbe (Cod. A, 6 Aepfiaios). Origen's
observation on Rom. xvi. 23 (Del. iv. 686) : "Fertur sane traditions maioruni,
quod hie Gaius (Rom. xvi. 23) primus episcopus fuerit Thessalonicensis
ecclesise," is probably an addition of the translator, Rufinus. It rests upon
an arbitrary identification of Gaius, Rom. xvi. 23, w r ith the Macedonian
Gaius, Acts xix. 29, whereas Origen himself more correctly compares Rom.
xvi. 23 and 1 Cor. i. 14. Demas also (2 Tim. iv. 10 ; Col. iv. 14 ; Philem.

24) was probably from Thessalonica. If Demas = Demetrius, we may note
that the name Demetrius frequently occurs in Thessalonica : C. I. Gr. 1967
(bis) ; JHSt. 1887, p. 360, No. 2 ; E. D. Burton, op. cit. 608, No. iv. Deme-
trius the martyr (c. 304) became patron of the city ; cf. Ada SS., Oct., iv.
50-209, and also Laurent in BZ, 1895, S. 420 ff. The continued existence
of a Thessaloniau Church is evidenced by the edict of Antoninus Pius of
which Melito speaks (Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 10). A certain Paraskene, who erected
a monument to her daughter Phoebe (cf. Rom. xvi. 1) at Thessalonica in 156,
was probably, to judge from her name, either Jewish or Christian ; cf.
Duchesne et Bayet, op. cit. 46, No. 65. Tertullian, Prcescr. xxxvi, mentions
Thessalonica among the cities in which, as he was convinced, the apostles'
letters to the respective Churches were still read from the autograph
originals, and their " cathedrae " were yet in use (GK, i. 652). A large stone
pulpit (anftcav, /Sfjfia), half of which stands in the court of the Church of St.
George and half in the court of St. Panteleemon's, is known to this day as

214 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

"St. Paul's pulpit," Bayet, op. cit. 249 ff. ; in Leake, iii. 243 ; and Ligktfoot,
Biblical Essays, 269, other accounts which do not altogether agree. The work
in question is of the early Byzantine period. The name CTTOVS aTroo-roXovs,
at the site of the ancient Pella, might more readily embody a genuine remi-
niscence ; that is, in case " the apostles" (1 Thess. ii. 6) went on from Thessa-
lonica, not by the direct road to Beroaa, which runs through swampy country
at the outset, but first by the Via Egnatia to Pella, whence a road branches
off to Beroea.

7. (P. '205.) The reading eW eVi rr\v Qakacraav, Acts xvii. 14 (cf. Luke
xxiv. 50), cannot, of course, mean "they brought him clear to the sea"
(Weiss, Textkrit. Unters. d. Apostelgesch. 210), for the sentence says nothing
about "bringing," and those who accompanied Paul from Bercta brought him
rather as far as Athens (xvii. 15). We are probably to read o>? with HLP.
Luke might also have written as eVi rr^s OaXda-o-rjs (cf. Polyb. v. 70. 3 and
12, and Kiihner-Gerth. i. 496), but it was not necessary if he really wrote wy.
Still uncertain which way he should turn, or perhaps, too, with the idea
of evading possible pursuers, Paul and his companions set out at first as if
they meant to go directly to the coast and take ship somewhere in the
neighbourhood of Methone. He went on by land, however, either to Dium
to take ship there, or all the way to Athens. The other recension, too,
which gives us dnf^delu eirl rfjv QciKacrcrav, does not exclude the meaning
which the insertion of iy expresses even more clearly ; for even this says
only that the Christians of Beroea dismissed Paul and the companions they
had provided for him (xvii. 15), with the intent and expectation that he
would go to the coast. But ver. 15 shows that the decision as to the route,
and even as to the destination, was reached not in Beroea, but only after the
travellers were on their way ; for otherwise there would have been no need
of new instructions to Timothy and Silas. This appears even more certainly
from the original reading, naprjhdfv 8e TTJ'J Qfcrfrahiai/ fKtoXvdt) yap els avrovs
KTjpvgat. TOV \6yov ; cf. xvi. 6, 7. Paul, then, originally intended to preach in
Thessaly also, and undertook to do so (cf. xvi. 7), a thing he could not have
thought of at all if he had gone from Bercea to Methone, and thence by sea
to Athens, without even approaching the Thessalian border. This word
TrapfKdflv (not TrapaTr\fvaai, xx. 16) seems rather to point to a land journey,
which avoided the larger places of Thessaly, or in the course of which, at
all events, there was no preaching in that region. The statement made by
the bishop of Servia to the traveller Leake (iii. 330), as an undoubted fact,
that Paul passed through there, is not altogether improbable. The adjust-
ment of the account in Acts to that in 1 Thess. may be variously conceived.
If Paul came alone from Athens to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1), and Silas and
Timothy came together from Macedonia to Corinth (Acts xviii. 5 ; 2 Cor. xi.
9), then Paul must have left Silas behind at Athens, as previously at Bercea,
and Silas, waiting in vain for Timothy, may on his own motion have gone
to Macedonia to meet him, and then, without having gone as far as Thessa-
lonica himself, have proceeded with Timothy to Corinth. Even if Timothy
had been alone in Macedonia, had returned from there to Athens and found
Silas waiting, and then had gone on with him to Corinth, there would be no
serious inaccuracy in Acts xviii. 5. In that case, what Timothy told to
Silas in Athens and to Paul in Corinth would be summed up together iu

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 215

1 Thess. iii. 6. Ephrem Syrus (according to an Armenian catena on Acts,
Venice, 1839, p. 310 ; cf. Harris, Four Lectures on the Western Text, 25, 47) had
a text of Acts xvii. 15 which made it possible for him to understand the
words irpbs avrov e^ea-av (which in D form a line by themselves, and so are
taken together) as referring to a journey made by Timothy and Silas to
Athens.

14. THE FIBST EPISTLE TO THE THESS ALONIANS.

The Epistle was written shortly after the arrival of
Timothy and Silvanus in Corinth (iii. 6), under the
stimulus of the good news which Timothy brought back
from Macedonia. The principal occasion of the letter
and its purpose we learn from its first division, which
forms a complete unit, concluded by a solemn benedic-
tion (iii. 11-13). As indicated by the introductory
\oi7r6v (iv. 1), the discussions which follow, and which are
not very closely connected in thought, constitute a series
of more incidental concluding remarks.

In the first division we have a review of the foundins;

of the Church by the preaching of the writers (i. 2-ii. 16),
and of everything which since their departure from Thessa-
louica had manifested their loving interest in the growth
of the Church and in the continuance of its pleasant
relations with its founders (ii. 17-iii. 5). In this review
a prominent place is given to statements about the per-
secutions which the readers had endured at the beginning,
and in the face of which they had since maintained their
faith (n. 1). It was mainly this that made the mission-
aries solicitous and anxious to return to Thessalonica (ii.
17), and which led, finally, to the sending of Timothy
thither (iii. 2f.). Now the tone which pervades these
statements is not predominantly that of consolation and
encouragement, but of apology. Of course it is for the
sake of encouraoino; the readers that attention is called

O O

to the fact that their brave endurance of persecution has
become an example to later converts in Macedonia and
Achaia (i. 7) ; and this same purpose is in view when it is

216 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

said that in so doing they have followed the example of
the Christians in Judea (ii. 14), on which account the
missionaries are proud of them, and filled with grateful
joy at their conduct (ii. 19 , i. 2f.). In the same way
the reminder that there is no reasonable hope of im-
provement in the situation (iii. 4), might be understood
as an attempt to keep the readers from growing impatient.
Taken, however, in connection with other statements, its
purpose seems rather to be that of self-defence on the
part of the writers. For example, in i. 5f., practically
at the beginning of the letter, they appeal in the same
way to their readers' knowledge of the manner in which
they had come among them, reminding them that, like the
Lord Himself, they had furnished the readers an example
of patience in enduring persecution. Especial attention
is called (ii. 2) to the insulting treatment to which they
had been subjected in Philippi, just before they came to
Thessalonica, and to the feeling of anxiety with which
they had to do their work even in Thessalonica (/ TTO\\M
dywvi). So that, if subsequently the readers had to en-
dure much at the hands of their fellow-citizens, they
certainly ought not to forget that the Jews, with whom
the chief responsibility for the unfortunate condition of
affairs in Thessalonica rested, had first driven the mission-
aries themselves from Thessalonica, and had persecuted
them to Beroea (ii. 14-16, cf. p. 204, line 22). This same
hostility on the part of the Jews to the preaching of
the gospel among the Gentiles, which was prompted by
their hatred, the missionaries were now encountering
in Corinth, as is shown by the change to the present
tense in ii. 1 5 f. , in the light of which passage also iii. 7
is to be understood. As a further indication of the
apologetic purpose of the Epistle, we have the statements
about the preaching and general conduct of the mission-
aries in Thessalonica, which manifestly are made in the
light of a different representation regarding that ministry.

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 217

They did not preach with empty words (i. 5), they did
not set forth mere human doctrine, but they preached the
word of God and the gospel of Christ (ii. 2, 9, 13, iii. 2),
and did it with the power, and confidence, and openness
which that word inspires in its true preachers (i. 5, ii. 2).
It is true that their preaching made certain demands of
the hearers (ii. 3, 17 TrapdK\r)o-is -r^av, cf. ii. 11), but they
were not those of the deceiver who flatters his hearers in
order that he may make himself personally acceptable to
them. They were not actuated by ambition, nor by any
other unworthy motive which might have led them to
employ improper means ; above everything else, they had
not been covetous (ii. 3-6). With the utmost effort they
had supported themselves by toiling with their own hands
(ii. 9), and their entire conduct had shown their complete
devotion to the w r ork with which they had been intrusted
by God, and proved their unselfish, even tender love for
those who heard their preaching (ii. 7-12). God as well
as the Church is witness to their blameless behaviour
(ii. 10, 5, cf. i. 4).

Now the Thessalonian Christians to whom Paul makes
this vigorous defence of himself and of his helpers, could
not have been the accusers in the case. The feeling which
the authors have concerning them is uniformly that of
gratitude (i. 2) ; and one of the items of good news which
Timothy had brought back a little while before, was the
information that the Thessalonians held those who had
laboured among them always in kindly remembrance, and
w r ere just as anxious to see Paul and Silvanus as the latter
were to see them (iii. 6). On the other hand, there is not
the slightest indication that these persons who were slan-
dering Paul and opposing his gospel were Christians from
abroad like those who had appeared in Galatia shortly
before. The accusations, therefore, must have been made
by the non- Christian neighbours of the Thessalonian
Christians. The husbands of the women converts be-

218 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

longing to the upper classes, who remained heathen (Acts
xvii. 4), and the relatives and former friends of the new
converts generally, may have represented to them that
they had been misled into a foolish superstition by self-
seeking and covetous adventurers, and in consequence
were compelled to encounter the ill-will of their neighbours
with all the unpleasant things that this involved, while
the men who had got them into this trouble had dis-
appeared at the right time to avoid all such consequences.
It is easy to see how the flight of the missionaries from
Thessalonica, the placing of Jason and other Christians
under bail (Acts xvii. 9), the sending of money from
Philippi to Thessalonica (Phil. iv. 16), and the hostility
to the Christians on the part of their fellow-citizens
(1 Thess. ii. 14), might all be used to give colour to such
a representation of matters. That this was actually the
case is directly indicated in iii. 3 ; for the anxiety which
led to the sending of Timothy was not caused so much
by the fear that the faith of the Church might be shaken
by persecution, as that individuals under the stress of
persecution might be coaxed away, i.e. led to speak
disparagingly of their own conversion (n. 2). This, of
course, must result in the shaking of their faith ; for if
the organisers of the Church were deceivers, then the
faith of the Thessaloiiians was vain. The tempter, who
was threatening to destroy the apostle's entire work in
Thessalonica (iii. 5), assumed not only the form of a
roaring lion (1 Pet. v. 8), but also that of a fawning dog
(Phil. iii. 2) and a hissing serpent (1 Cor. xi. 3). So
also iii. 6 shows that until Timothy's return Paul and
Silvauus were very anxious for fear lest the Church had
lost confidence in its founders, and lest its love for them
had grown cold. Perhaps it may seem strange that, after
having been thus reassured by Timothy on these and other
points, indeed, after having had his feeling changed to
one of joy, Paul should now review the entire previous

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 219

history of his relations to the Church so earnestly,
in such detail, and withal in a manner so apologetic.
But, in the first place, we know from experience that
when one has been weighed down for months by some
great care, how difficult it is to speak of it, particularly
if it be a delicate matter ; but once let the burden of
anxiety be relieved, and there comes a very strong desire
to give vent to one's pent-up feelings, and the recollections
of the agony through which one has passed are apt to be
mingled with expressions of joyful gratitude. In the
second place, it was not until Timothy's return that Paul
knew how much pressure was being brought to bear upon
the Thessalonian Christians, and how seriously he was
being slandered by their neighbours, so that up to this
time he had not been in a position to set the facts in a
clear light with definite reference to such slanders. In
the third place, the grateful joy and the profound satis-
faction for the present condition of the Church, so strongly
expressed in iii. 6 f . (i. 2, ii. 19f.), do not imply that
there was nothing more to be desired. The desire to
return to Thessalonica, which from the first had been
prompted by a feeling of solicitude for the Church, was
just as strong as ever (iii. 10, 11, cf. iii. 6). There were
still defects in their faith which Paul felt could not be
remedied except by his personal presence (iii. 10). In
the second division of the letter there are references to
moral deficiencies which from the coldly scholastic point
of view may seem inconsistent with the expressions of
exuberant joy which we find in the first division (i. 2,
ii. 19f., iii. 6, 9). But even in this first division the
steadfastness of the Church, which is the occasion of the
apostle's rejoicing, seems to be in need of fuller demon-
stration in the future (iii. 8), and, as indicated by the
elliptical tcaduTrep Kal ^/iei? et9 vfjids (iii. 12, cf. iii. G), the
desire expressed that the Lord may make the Christians
in Thessalonica abound yet more in love toward one

220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

another and toward all men, has some reference to the
relation between the Church and its founders. The
Church had proved itself much more steadfast than Paul
had dared to hope while he was waiting for news, though
the whispering of their neighbours had not left them
entirely unaffected ; Timothy had discovered more than
one shadow. It was not yet possible for Paul to say
definitely when he could return to Thessalonica, as the
Church and as he himself desired (iii. 6, 10 f.). In the
meantime, how much could happen in Thessalonica ! In
fact, was it not possible that this continued absence of
the person who had been chiefly instrumental in organ-
ising the Church might be the very thing calculated to
arouse further suspicions ? In view of all this, it is
entirely comprehensible that along with the exalted
expressions of joy in i. 2-iii. 13 there should appear
signs not only of the anxiety of the past months just
relieved, but also of solicitation for the future welfare of
the Church. The perfectly spontaneous expression of this
mingled feeling of joy and of anxiety was one of the best
means for strengthening any good tendencies in the
Church and for averting future danger. Certain specific
defects in religious thought and moral conduct about
which he had been informed by Timothy, Paul attempts
to remedy by the suggestions of chaps, iv., v. While on
the whole their conduct is recognised as altogether praise-
worthy (iv. 1, 9f., v. 11), there are a number of points
in which he urges progress, referring the readers re-
peatedly to the instructions he had given them at the
very first (iv. 1, 2, 6, 11). Warning against unchastity,
which was so common among their heathen neighbours
(iv. 3-5), is followed immediately by a similar warning
against covetousness and dishonesty in business, to which
persons living in a great commercial centre were parti-
cularly apt to be tempted (iv. 6). The commendation
of their generous brotherly love prepares the way for an

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 221

exhortation to improve their condition in money matters,
by living a quiet, thrifty life, which will not only enable
them to give more liberally (Eph. iv. 28), but which
will also make them more independent of their non-
Christian neighbours (iv. 9-12).

Now, inasmuch as the idleness against which these

' * >

exhortations are directed is a manifestation of a general
state of unrest (iv. 11, cf. 2 Thess. iii. 11 f.), and inasmuch
as this warning is followed immediately by eschatological
teachings (iv. 13-v. 11), we assume that under the influ-
ence of the idea that the end of the world was at hand
many were neglecting their daily duties (n. 3). Another
evidence of the expectancy with which the return of Jesus
was awaited, is seen in the peculiar way in which the
Church mourned for its departed members. This was due
to the opinion that those who had died before the par-
ousia would not immediately share the glory of the king-
dom as would those who lived to witness the Lord's
return. Although, the apostle argues, they should have
been saved from this error by their faith in the resurrec-
tion of Jesus from the dead, because it was not possible
that death should separate the Christian from Christ (iv.
14), all anxiety concerning the participation in the par-
ousia of those who have died in the faith he sets at rest
by a word of the Lord, i.e. a specific teaching consciously
based upon one of Jesus' prophetic utterances (iv. 15, n. 4).
In this definite form such teaching could not have been a
part of the missionary preaching. While on this point
Paul is inclined to enlarge upon what he had said before,
another question which was occupying attention in Thes-
salonica, namely, as to when the end should come, and the
length of time that must elapse before that event, he
holds to be superfluous (v. 1, cf. Acts i. 6 f . ) and without
practical value. For, he argues, it is one of the simplest
elements of the Christian preaching, that for those ab-
sorbed in a worldly life the coming of the day of the

222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Lord will be unexpected and sudden ; while, on the other
hand, the Christian, who lives in constant expectation of
the parousia, the time of which it was impossible to
determine by natural reckoning, will be always ready,
living always the kind of a life that is in keeping with
this future day of the Lord (v. 2-10). With the exhorta-
tion to mutual helpfulness in regard to this matter of the
parousia (v. 11), we have the transition to exhortations
relating to the general life of the Church, for which its
officers are primarily responsible (v. 12f.). There seems
to have been some insubordination, especially on the part
of those inclined to be idle (v. 14, rov$ drd/cravs, cf. iv. 8).
That there was not complete harmony among all the
members, seems to be implied by Paul's injunction that
all the brethren salute one another, and with a fraternal
kiss, and by his solemn command in the name of the
Lord that the letter be read to all the brethren (v. 26, 27).

1. (P. 215.) It is wrong to assume (as does Klopper, for example, in Der
Zweite Thess.-brief 14, 15) that the #An//-ei? spoken of in 1 Thess. belong simply
to the past, and, specifically, to the time of the founding of the Church, and
that a new outbreak of the once ended persecution constitutes the background
of 2 Thess. The emphasis upon the sufferings endured at the first acceptance
of the gospel (i. 6, ii. 13 f.) was a necessary consequence of the fact that just
these beginnings of the Church demanded an apologetic interpretation. That
the oppressed condition of the Church still continued after the departure of
the missionaries and at the time Timothy was sent, appears from the con-
nection of ii. 17 f. with what precedes and from iii. 3. An improvement in
this condition would hardly have been passed over in silence among the good
tidings which Timothy brought (iii. 6), nor would the receipt of news of
renewed persecution have been similarly ignored in 2 Thess. The way in
which the two/ioi^ of the Church is recalled, 1 Thess. i. 3, the occurrence of
the present eWpyen-cu, ii. 13, among the aorists both before and after, the ravrais
in iii. 3, the summing up of all the trials of the Church hitherto in the
present alg di/e'^eo-tfe and Tracr^ere, 2 Thess. i. 4 f ., all this shows, rather, that
the outward circumstances of the Church from its organisation to the sending
of the second Epistle were essentially unchanged. From the altered tone in
which they are spoken of in 2 Thess. i. 3-12, we can only, perhaps, infer that
they were growing worse from day to day.

2. (P. 218.) If the reading /^Se'i/a a-aivea-dai is beyond question in iii. 3,
there is also no occasion to abandon the oldest meaning of the word traivftv, in
current use from Homer's time down to the empire, namely, " to wag the tail
(of dogs)," with accusative of the person. The fawning upon one, thus indi-

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 223

cated, is often in contrast with barking and biting. For this usage, as well
as for the transference of it to human beings as subjects, cf. especially Polyb.
xvi. 24. 6; Artemid. Oiuirocr. ii. 11; Hercher, p. 99. 12-20. It also means
"to move," "to cause to yield," but not "to frighten" or "startle," but
rather "to entice to sin" (Leont. Neapol. Vita Sym. Sali, Migne, 93, col.
1724). The better Greek commentators (Chrys., Montfaucon, xi. 445 ; Sever.
Gabal. in Cramer, Cat. vi. 353 ; Theodorus, ed. Swete, ii. 17) all felt the neces-
sity of explaining the word, which seemed strange to them here, but they
missed the simple solution because they did not understand the historical
situation indicated in chap. ii. What is meant is illustrated to some degree
by passages like Ada Thwlce, x ; Mart. Polyc. ix ; Passio Perpet. v ; Ada
Carpi, 43, except that in these instances we are dealing with more or less
genuine expressions of natural sympathy, whereas aaivfiv denotes insidious
and crafty wheedling. Artemidorus, loc. cit., explains : dXXorpiot 8e nvves
(Taivovres p.fv SdXovy (cat fveSpas VTTO Trovrjpmv avftpatv rj yvvaintav crjjfj.aivov(Tii>.

3. (P. 221.) Hofmann, i. 230 f., rightly warns against exaggerations of
this matter of indolence. Spitta, Zur Gesch. des Urchr. i. 131 f., exaggerating
this in turn, rejects the explanation altogether, and infers from the connection
of iv. 11 f. with what precedes, that "fraternal fellowship, where those who
had property gladly shared of their means with those who had none, became
to not a few a temptation to an indolent, unoccupied life." Such a remark,
however, could not have been connected with the last preceding admonition
by teat, but would have been introduced in sharp antithesis to it: "Abound
still more in active brotherly love, but not so as to foster thereby the lazy
man's aversion to labour" ; or, " on the other hand, everyone who can work
must do his part, so as not to become a burden on the generosity of the
brethren." Certainly we must not conceive a fanatically excited expectation
of the approaching end of the world as the prevailing temper of the whole
local Church. The admonitions, iv. 3-7, v. 4-10, point to the existence of a
very different attitude toward the present world. Paul even has to warn
them against despising prophesyings and suppressing the prophetic spirit
which stirs within the Church (v. 19 f.). But in immediate proximity there
is also the caution not to accept such prophetic utterances without examina-
tion (v. 21).

4. (P. 221.) 1 Thess. iv. 15, fv\6ya> Kvplov, is to be understood, as regards
the significance of Xe'yeip or XaXeI ev TIVI, in accordance with 1 Cor. ii. 7, xiv.
6 ; Matt. xiii. 34 ; and for content, in accordance with 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25,
ix. 14, xi. 23. The teaching thus introduced need not, therefore, be a verbal
citation. If Sri in iv. 15 is a " because," as it probably is, the prophecy ascribed
to the Lord does not come till iv. 16. And if this saying goes beyond the
words of Jesus handed down to us in the Gospels, we recall that in other
particulars also, Paul's information was not confined within those limits
(Acts xx. 35; 1 Cor. xv. 5-7). We need not do more than mention the fact
that Steck, JlfPTh. 1883, S. 509-524, claimed to find the Xdyos- Kvptov in what
the angel Uriel says to Ezra (4 Esdr. iv. 1, v. 42) in answer to his question re-
garding the fate of those that do not live to see the end : " Corona; assimilabo
indicium meurn ; sicut non novissimorum tarditas, sic nee priorum velocitas."
If we bring the eschatological statements of 1 Thess. together, we shall find
their essential elements, and in part their phraseology, reappearing in the

224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Gospels and Acts. With v. 1 cf. Acts i. 7 (xpovoi al Kaipot) ; Matt. xxiv. 36 ;
Mark xiii. 32. With v. 2 cf. as K^TTTTJS ev WKTI, Matt. xxiv. 43 ; Luke
xii. 39 f. ; and for the expression in v. 4 cf. John xii. 35 also. With the
description of false security before the parousia and the surprise of it to
most, v. 3, cf. Matt. xxiv. 37-51 ; Luke xvii. 26-36. With atyvihos . . .
eK<jriryaunv, cf. Luke xxi. 34-36, eiria-Tr, f(p' vfj.as al(pvi8ios . . . fKfpvyf'tv ravra
iravra. With 17 o>8iv cf. Matt. xxiv. 8, 19; Mark xiii. 8, 17. With the
figurative representation of readiness and its opposite, v. 6f., cf. Matt. xxiv.
42, 49 (fitra TUV (jL(0v6i>To>v), xxv. 13 ; Mark xiii. 33-37 ; Luke xii. 35, 37, 45
(fifdvo-Kfa-Bai), xxi. 34, 36. With iv. 14-17 cf. the return of the Lord from
heaven, or in the clouds of heaven, and in the company of the angels, Matt.
xvi. 27, xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64 ; Mark viii. 38, xiii. 26, xiv. 62 ; Luke ix. 26,
xxi. 27 ; Acts i. 11 ; the gathering of the elect by angels with the loud sound
of the trumpet, Matt. xxiv. 31 ; Mark xiii. 27 (firurwdgai, cf. 1 Thess. iv. 17 ;
2 Thess. ii. 1 [rfjs-] rj^wv eVicrwaywy^r eV avrov). This is the presupposition
also of 1 Thess. iv. 14 (ei <rvv avTo>). Matt. xxiv. 31 ; Mark xiii. 27 refer
to those members of the Church who at the time of the parousia are living
scattered about upon earth (cf. Matt. xxiv. 22, 24 ; Mark xiii. 20, 22). That
the departed members, also, would share in the glory of the kingdom as it
should then be realised, is not, indeed, handed down to us in the immediate
context of these eschatological discourses, but is elsewhere abundantly
attested as Jesus' promise. When He intimated that some of His disciples
would witness His return (Matt. xvi. 28 ; Mark ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 27), it was
also implied that others of them would die before that time (cf. also Matt.
xx. 23 ; Mark x. 39; John xiii. 36, xxi. 18 f.). But all are to share in the
kingdom which appears in glory (Matt. xxvi. 29 ; Mark xiv. 25 ; Luke
xxii. 30), all who have not despised its invitation, or by their conduct sub-
sequently become unworthy of it (Matt. xxii. 9-14 ; Luke xiv. 12-24 ; John
xii. 26), and the O.T. righteous as well (Matt. viii. 11 ; Luke xiii. 28). That
the dead must be awakened at the end is self-evident, and is shown in many
ways (Matt. xxii. 23-32 ; Mark xii. 18-27 ; Luke xx. 27-38 ; John v. 25-29,
vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, xi. 24). Only, if the resurrection of the righteous dead is
generally set at the end of time, without being put, like the gathering of the
living on earth, in a closer connection with the parousia, it must still be con-
ceived as simultaneous with the parousia, since it is the condition of partici-
pation in the kingdom. Of the distinction in time between the resurrection
of believers and the general resurrection, which is attested in apostolic litera-
ture as a general Christian belief (1 Cor. xv. 23-28 ; Rev. xx. 4-6), and which
appears also in 1 Thess. iv. 16, we have at least a hint in Luke xiv. 14.

15. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE
THESSALONIANS.

This briefer letter, which, like the longer one that
stands just before it in the Canon, is addressed to the
Church in Thessalonica not in Paul's name alone, but in

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 225

the name also of Silvanus and Timothy (n. 1), shows
striking resemblance to the other in its general plan.
Here, as in the first letter, there is one principal section
(chaps, i., ii.) concluding with a solemn benediction (ii.
16f.). To this is attached a shorter section, which, as
indicated by the introductory TO \oirr6v (iii. 1, cf. I. iv. 1),
is made up of a series of more incidental remarks. In
this case the letter does not begin with a joyful expression
of thanks for the Church, but with the assurance that the
writers feel under obligation at all times to render such

thanks to God, even at times when, if they followed their
inclinations, they might express other emotions (i. 3).
How indicative this is of the situation of the writers when
they wrote, and of their feelings at the time, is shown by
the recurrence of the phrase at the end of the first section,
ii. 13. For the attentive reader the impression made by
this expression is still further strengthened by the ex-
planatory statement (/ca#<w? afyov eariv] that such constant
thanksgiving on the part of the writers is only appropriate
in view of the growth of the Church in faith and love,
especially in view of the patience they had shown in all
their persecutions and afflictions. About this patience
the writers do not need to be informed by others ; but,
having themselves been the founders of the Church, they
take occasion of their own accord, in their intercourse
with other Churches, to point with joyful pride to this
Church (i. 4). This patience, which the readers have
shown in enduring such constant sufferings, ought to be
a source of comfort also to themselves, inasmuch as it is
at once the token and the warrant that as believers they
shall have part in the glory of the kingdom of God at the
righteous judgment to be established at the return of Christ,
when their persecutors shall be given over to eternal de-
struction (i. 5-10). That the readers may be made more
and more ready for the decision of that great day, is the
constant prayer of the founders of the Church (i. 11, 12).
VOL. i. 15

226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

With these verses we have the transition to the teach-
ings of chap, ii., for the development of which the letter
seenis mainly to have been written. The Church needed
to be warned against the error of supposing that the day
of the Lord had already come or appeared. The disturb-
ance which existed in the Church was due partly to pro-
phetic utterances by its own members, partly to oral and
written statements in which this opinion had been falsely
represented as that of Paul and his helpers (ii. 2, n. 2).
Further deceptions in the same direction were to be feared
(ii. 3). This error Paul meets not by proclaiming a new
revelation, but by reminding his readers of the things
they had heard him say when he first preached the gospel
to them, things which, therefore, they ought not only to
know, but also to use as a means of defence against such
a misleading claim as this (ii. 5, 6, n. 3). This explains
why, in what is said later about the forms which the
unfolding of the closing events of the present age is to
assume, as also about the parousia of Christ and the union
of Christians with Him, the definite article is used (ii. 1,
cf. I. iv. 14-18), it being assumed that these terms were
familiar to the readers. " The Day of the Lord," Paul argues,
cannot have come already; for, according to what he had
said earlier, it could not come before " the falling away "
and the revelation of " the man of lawlessness," whom
Christ is to destroy at His second coming. Similarly, the
readers must have known what the power w r as which for
the present was restraining the " man of lawlessness," which
power had to be set aside before the " man of lawlessness "
could appear. Although Paul does not use these par-
ticular words, this " man of lawlessness " is described, on
the one hand, as an avriOeos whose hostility to all that is
called God, and to the worship of God, will reach the point
where he will declare himself to be God and take his
place in the temple of God, i.e. in the place where the
true God is worshipped, demanding such worship for

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 227

himself (ver. 4). He is described, on the other hand, as
dvTixpia-Tos. That this man of lawlessness was to be a
Satanic caricature of Christ, one infers from the occurrence
three times of the word airoKa\v<f)6>'ii>at (vv. 3, 6, 8), from
the description of his coming as a irapovtrla (ver. 9), and
from the contrast between his deceiving and destroying
activity, which is to be promoted by Satanic wonders, and
the saving power of the gospel (vv. 9-14). Very essential
elements in this picture, which is so clearly outlined, are
to be found in the prophecies of the Book of Daniel, in
the descriptions in 1 Maccabees of the attack made by
Antiochus Epiphanes upon the religion of the Jews and
upon their temple, and in the prophetic discourses of Jesus
(n. 4). But these sources could hardly have supplied
those teachings about the end of the world which, as we
have seen, Paul presented in essentially the same form as
that in which they are written here, when he first preached
the gospel in Thessalonica. Still less can we suppose that
this Christian statement of the doctrine which goes back
through the prophecy and life of Jesus to Daniel, first
appeared essentially as we have it here in some Jewish
apocalypse now lost, which Paul had read and believed
(n. 5). Only single features of the same could have been
derived from such a source. The combination of these
various elements, some of which may be found here and
there in earlier sources, into a new and vivid picture, and
the confidence with which the whole is presented, are quite
incomprehensible all the more so if it is Paul who is
speaking unless it be assumed that what was found in
the sources mentioned had been further developed by
Christian prophecy, and that Paul, who entertained a
high opinion of such prophecy, made use of it, and, after
testing it, adopted such parts of it into his preaching as
seemed to him to be of value (cf. 1 Thess. v. 21, n. 6).
In order, therefore, to comprehend Paul's words historic-
ally, and so to understand them clearly, we need to know

228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

what was spoken in the Churches by Silvanus, the prophet
who accompanied Paul on his journeys, and what gener-
ally was said by Christian prophets in the Churches during
the reign of the emperor Caligula (37-41) and Claudius
(41-54). For to this source is to be traced back Paul's
firm conviction that the last potentate hostile to God was
not only to desecrate the temple of God, but also to
establish himself there as the one to be worshipped.
Events which took place under Caligula, in whose reign
the prophet Agabus from Judea predicted in the Church at
Antioch the coming of a general famine, which occurred in
the reign of Claudius ( 11), led almost inevitably to the
development of prophecy of this kind (n. 7). Moreover,
Jesus had spoken repeatedly of tyevSoxpiaroi, although, so
far as we know, He kept these predictions distinct from
His prophecies about the final affliction to result from the
desecration of the holy place, so that nothing was more
natural than that the Church should expect the appearance
of a single false Christ, and that it should identify this
false Christ with a world-ruler hostile to God, who was to
desecrate the holy place, and bring the final affliction upon
the Church (n. 8). So then, in a word, when Paul describes
the avriOeo? as being also avrixpicnos, this identification is
not to be regarded as simply Paul's own opinion, but in the
light of 1 John ii. 18, iv. 3 is to be taken as the common
belief of the Church ; for, in using the name aim'x/jio-ro?,
which occurs here for the first time in the N.T., and only
here, John means to describe an individual who was to
appear in the future, not only hostile to the true Christ,
but also His rival, whose appearance was to mark the be-
ginning of the end of the world. But just as John, speak-
ing with this general expectation of the Church in view,
makes mention of a spirit of antichrist which is already
at work in the world, which expresses itself through men,
and of the numerous forerunners of the antichrist who
may also be called antichrists (1 John iv. 3, ii. 18-22;

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 229

2 John 7), so Paul speaks of a mystery of lawlessness
at work prior to the revelation or appearance of the man
of lawlessness (ii. 7). In this way he justifies and explains
his statement about the power which as yet restrains the
revelation and appearance of the "man of lawlessness."
The expression Kare^eiv would be inappropriate if the
object restrained were simply the lawless person who was
to appear in the future, and not rather the principle
which this person was eventually to embody, as it already
existed and was at work in the world in its impersonal
form. While the idea in Kare^ov and Kare^wv is not with-
out parallel in Daniel (n. 9), here it is so definitely repre-
sented as something which was known, consequently as
one of the elementary things taught in the early Christian
Church, that we must assume that this, too, was a thought
that had been developed by the Christian prophets of the
time. While the man of lawlessness is described through-
out as a person, being only once referred back to the
impersonal principle of which eventually he was to become
the embodiment, the restraining power is designated first
by a neuter form and then by a masculine, both, however,
being used to describe an existing thing. The restrain-
ing power is an impersonal something, which neverthe-
less has complete embodiment in personal form. From
the contrast with avopia, which is used three times to
characterise the "antichrist" (vv. 3, 7, 8), it is clear
that this restraining power was the system of laws then
in operation in the world, which for the present was
repressing the powers of lawlessness that had already
begun to work, and was keeping them from manifesting
themselves with full force, thus preventing the revelation
of the mystery, the appearance of lawlessness in personal
form, i.e., the restraining power is the Roman empire.
For its system of laws, which, in spite of the unrighteous-
ness and unprincipled character of individual represent-
atives, was magnificent, its strict administration of justice

230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

and its broad tolerance made the empire a TO Kare^ov, and
the emperor a 6" Kare^wv (n. 9). If this was really Paul's
view, it is a grave error to suppose that 6 Kare^wv is
meant to designate a particular emperor, i.e. the reigning
emperor, and if the Epistle was written prior to 54, the
emperor Claudius ; because the setting aside of the Kare^v
is the necessary precondition of the revelation of the man
of lawlessness only in so far as that involves at the same
time the setting aside of the Kare%ov. There is no evi-
dence, however, that Paul nor anyone else prominent
in the early Church associated the breaking up of the
empire and of the entire system of Roman government
with the death or deposition of any reigning emperor.
And this belief is less probable in view of the fact
that neither the personal character nor the govern-
ment of any of the emperors from Tiberius to Domitian
was such as to render them the particular champions
of that which made for moral order in the State
(n. 10).

The description which follows of the deceiving and
destructive influence of the man of lawlessness upon
unbelievers (ii. 9-12), determines the manner in which
the writers, passing now to the conclusion of the letter,
mention again, as they had done in i. 3, the duty which
they feel of giving thanks for the condition of the Church,
for the grace shown it in the past, and for its hopeful
future (ii. 13, 14). This is followed immediately by an
exhortation to hold fast the teachings and advice which
had been given them by oral instruction and by letter,
and by a benediction (ii. 15-17). Here the Epistle might
have been concluded, but some supplementary matter is
added. On account of the opposition which the writers
were encountering at the time from the unbelievers in the
place where they were working, more prominence is given
in this Epistle (but cf. I. v. 25) to the request for the
prayers of the Church, and they are asked for with more

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 231

feeling (iii. 1, 2). This request replaces for the time
being some command which had been given them earlier,
and which apparently he was on the point of mention-
ing in ii. 15. This renders necessary the transition in
iii. 4, 5, which would have been unnecessary directly after
ii. 15-17. In spite of the opposite example and the ex-
press advice of the missionaries, the disposition to unruly
idleness (I. iv. 11, v. 14) had developed in the case of
many members of the Church into a condition of chronic
disorderliness (iii. 6-11). While these individuals are
earnestly urged to resume their ordinary occupations
(iii. 12), at the same time the Church is advised to mark
those who disregard this exhortation of the letter and to
break off intercourse with them until they reform, but
not to give up the hope of helping them (iii. 14, 15, cf.
iii. 6). The special attention which Paul calls in this
letter to the fact that he had added the concluding bene-
diction by his own hand, and his affirmation in this
connection that the benediction by his own hand was
the sign by which the genuineness of every one of his
letters might be determined (iii. 17 f.), are explained by
the facts hinted at in ii. 2 (n. 2).

Assuming that both the Epistles to the Thessalonians
are genuine, there is no doubt (n. 11) that the shorter of
the two was written last. In I. i. 2 ff. he gives thanks for
the founding of the Church ; in II. i. 3 ff. for the entirely
gratifying character of its growth. Since there is no
indication in 2 Thess. of any intention, nor even of
any longing, on Paul's part, to return to Thessalonica,
the letter could not have been written in the interval
between the flight of the missionaries from Thessalonica

and the sending of Timothy back from Athens, nor
immediately after the arrival of Timothy in Corinth.
The latter date is impossible, because 1 Thess. was written
at that time (I. iii. 6); the former, because a letter with
the contents and in the spirit of 2 Thess. written at

232 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

practically the same time as 1 Thess. would prove all the
touching expressions in the first letter, I. ii. 17-iii. 5, of
desire to visit the Church again, to be insincere. More-
over, if 2 Thess. had been written first, Paul could hardly
have failed to mention it in 1 Thess. as a strong proof of
the interest which he and his helpers had in the welfare
of the Church. Furthermore, the fact that this strong
desire to revisit the Thessalonian Church continued, I. iii.
6-11, excludes the possibility of 2 Thess., in which there
is no evidence of any such desire, having been written at
an interval of only a few weeks from 1 Thess. There
was an interval of several months between them. And
during this time there seems to have been no direct
intercourse, either in person or by letter, between the
Church and its founders. II. iii. 14 has reference to
I. iv. 11 f., and the more indefinite reference of II. ii. 15
to instructions by letter is based on 1 Thess. (n. 12). Still
less probable is it that in the interval Paul or one of his
helpers had visited Thessalonica. In ii. 5, iii. 10, Paul
speaks of the occasion when he had been with them, but
without distinguishing different times when he had been
there. Developments had also taken place in the Church
which required time. Nothing is said of the slanders
which he had found it necessary to refute in 1 Thess., nor
is there any reference to the necessity of confirming the
confidence of the Church in its founders. There had been
time for information, not from Paul, to be sure, but from
the vicinity where he was, to reach Thessalonica by letter,
and for the news of the injurious effect of these com-
munications to come back to Paul (II. ii. 2, above, p. 226
and n. 2). Furthermore, from some source unknown to
us, he had received more recent news concerning the
condition of the Church (II. iii. 11). A number of
Churches seem already to have been organised in and
about Corinth (cf. 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Rom. xvi. 1), among which
it was possible for Paul and for Silvanus and Timothy to

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 233

spread the good reports about the Church in Thessalonica
(II. i. 4). What is suggested with regard to the opposi-
tion which was rendering the work in Corinth difficult
and hindering its progress (II. iii. 2), is confirmed by Acts
xviii. 6-17, in that this opposition is represented as
emanating from persons who, having been ottered the
choice between faith and unbelief, had refused to believe
the gospel, and if the hints of 1 Thess. also be taken into
account, from Jews (I. ii. 1G, iii. 7, above, p. 216, line 31).
But it is hardly likely that, after having been so de-
cisively repulsed by the proconsul (Acts xviii. 14-17),
the Jews could have interfered further with the growth
of the Christian Church in Corinth. The exceptionally
favoured situation of the Church, as regards its relation to
the authorities, disclosed in the Corinthian letters, was
a result of this favourable decision of Gallio ; so that
2 Thess. must be dated before Acts xviii. 12. There is no
hint of any immediate intention on Paul's part of chang-
ing his field of labour. When he went to Ephesus at the
beginning of summer 54, after 1 years of work in
Corinth (Acts xviii. 18), Silvanus and Timothy did not go
with him, indeed, they do not seem to have been in
Corinth at the time. But when 2 Thess. was written
they were still with him (i. 1). Without, of course,
attempting to speak with absolute certainty or with
perfect accuracy, we shall be in agreement with all the
statements and hints of the letters, and with the accounts
in Acts, if we distribute the three oldest Epistles of Paul
in the period of his residence in Corinth (Acts xviii. 11,
approximately from Nov. 52 to May 54) as follows : Gal.
somewhere about April 53, 1 Thess. in May or June,
2 Thess. in August or September of the same year.

1. (P. 225.) " I," designating Paul, is distinguished three times in 1 Tl
from " We," ii. 18, iii. 5, v. 27. In only one of these cases is the " I " further
explained by the addition of the name, ii. 18. The same distinction occurs
in 2 Thess., once without, ii. 5, once with the name, iii. 17. "While in I. ii. 18,
II. iii. 17 the addition of the name is natural because of the character of the

234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

statements made, in the three other passages it is assumed that the simple
" I " is suilicii-iit to designate Paul, who is named first in both the greetings,
and whose importance is far greater than that of his two helpers. Spitta's
hypothesis (111 ff.) that Timothy is meant by "I" in II. ii. 5 is untenable,
for the reason that this is the only case where " I," which occurs five times
altogether, three times where the proper name is omitted because superfluous,
is made to refer to Timothy. The unnaturaluess of the hypothesis is not
lessened by assuming that the contents of ii. 5 may have given a due as to
which one of the three writers of the letter it was who thus suddenly spoke
in his own name. In that case there was all the more reason why the
youngest of them should have added ey&> Ti/xotfeos-, and if, at the same time,
he was acting as Paul's amanuensis, 6 ypa-fyas rf]v eirivToXrjv (Rom. xvi. 22),
if he did not want the readers to think that Paul was speaking or Silvanus,
if what was said did not sound like the apostle until they finally convinced
themselves that the youngest of the three missionaries was so stupid as,
without previous notice and as a matter of course, to introduce himself in
such a way as to make him appear the principal one of the three ! Spitta
is not justified in supporting this hypothesis (125) by claiming that the
readers would distinguish the hand of Timothy, who wrote the letter, from
that of Paul in iii. 17 f., because, when this letter was written, Paul was
already in the habit of dictating, adding only a farewell greeting in his own
hand. Cf. above, p. 170. He does not say in iii. 17 that henceforth he will
do this, but that it is his custom in every ; letter. So, if Paul dictated
1 Thess., and, as is quite likely, dictated it to Timothy, then, according to
Spitta's theory, the reader must have concluded from the handwriting that
" I " in I. iii. 5, as distinguished from " I " in I. v. 27, referred to Timothy,
not to Paul. Similarly, the personal acquaintances of Tertius (Rom. xvi. 22)
among the Roman Christians must have concluded from his writing that he
was the person designated by " I " in Rom. i. 8-xvi. 21, and the real author of
Romans. According to Spitta, Timothy was not only the amanuensis to
whom Paul dictated 2 Thess., but the real author of the letter, which he
himself composed at the direction of Paul and Silvanus. This, he thinks,
enables us to explain its many variations from Paul's style and doctrine,
which have caused the letter to be suspected, particularly the Jewish apo-
calyptic views which Paul did not hold. Without correcting the composition
of his follower, or making him responsible for it, or even so much as hinting
that Timothy had a large share in its preparation (cf. 1 Pet. v. 12, 38), the
apostle, who was very much preoccupied at the time, subscribed his name to
this letter, which varied so much from his own writings both in style and
contents, just as if it had been his own (iii. 17) ! That was certainly the
best way in the world 1o perpetuate the fraud referred to in ii. 2.

2. (Pp. 226, 231, 232.) If Trvev^a, ii. 2, means, as it clearly does, the pro-
phetic spirit uttering itself in human speech (I. v. 19 f. ; Acts xiii. 2, 4, xx. 23,
xxi. 4, 11 ; Rev. ii. 7), then 8ia Aoyov does not stand alone in contrast to Sta
TTvevfjiaTos, but the whole clause taken altogether, p}re (D* p;S<r) fita Aoyou p;re
8C eVtaroA^s <os8C //i&>v, so that us 6Y fj^v is to be taken with Aoyou as well as
with eVio-roAJ)j, like T^WI/ in ii. 15. Oral as well as written reports had come
to Thessalonica, whicli made it appear that Paul and his helpers shared these
views. To us, who are not acquainted with the facts in the case, the

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 235

language of the passage leaves it somewhat doubtful (1) whether actually
false appeals to alleged statements of the apostle and to a letter forged
in his name are meant ; or (2) whether oral and written reports had
reached Thessalonica from the region where Paul was, which, because
they came from this region and without any fraudulent intention on the
part of those who gave them out, gave rise to the erroneous opinion that the
view which they represented had the authority of the apostle, or (3) whether
actual written and oral statements of Paul were so misinterpreted. In the
last mentioned case these statements would naturally be sought in 1 Thess.,
but this letter does not lend itself to such misinterpretation. It contains no
language such as that found in Jas. v. 3, 5, 8, 9 ; 1 John ii. 18. Moreover,
we should expect Paul to correct such misinterpretation (cf. 1 Cor. v. 9-11).
Finally, on this view it is impossible to explain iii. 17 as due to what is said
in ii. 2. The first of the three possible meanings mentioned explains best
the connection between these two passages. But it is to be observed that
there is no expression of anger at this insolent deceit. Furthermore, in this
case we should expect to read not <os 81' ?;/nc5i/, but eb? ^/zerepcoT/ or ws Trap'
(Cod. P., cf. Hippol. in Dan. iv. 21, ed. Bonwetsch, 236. 15, cas eg
), or, if the reference were to a letter, ? v<f)' rjiJ.u>v ypcxpfio-rjs. Moreover,
in this passage nothing is said about the origin of the oral and written state-
ments in question, but all we have is a protest against the inference that
they express the apostle's views. This agrees only with the second meaning
suggested. Since, however, Paul saw that all sorts of such deceptions might
develop in the future (ii. 3, Kara p;8<?i>a Tpdirov}, he took occasion to call
attention to the fact that only letters coming directly from him and specifically
subscribed by his own hand could be regarded as expressions of his opinion
(iii. 17). The rendering of evea-Tijuev, "is immediately at hand," or "is
beginning " (so still Schmiedel HK, ad loc.), should be abandoned, because
unsupported both by grammar and by usage. As is well known, the present
is called by the grammarians 6 eWorws xp vos > an( ^ i 11 business transactions
17 eVeorwcra rj^pa was the regular name of "this day," e.g. Berl. ay. Urk.
Nos. 394. 19 ; 415. 18, 30 ; 536. 6 ; 883. 3 ; 891 verso, line 15.

3. (P. 226.) The eVt, ii. 5, which does not occur in iii. 10, indicates nothing
as to the length of time that had elapsed since the Thessalonians had been
reminded of the things in question, cf. Luke xxiv. 6 ; Eom. v. 8 ; Heb. vii. 10.
It is only intended to emphasise the fact that these teachings were not an
afterthought, of which the readers were informed by a subsequent letter from
the apostle, or by Timothy at the time when he was sent back to Thessalonica,
but a part of the missionary preaching, and so an original part of the Christian
message. That the Thessalonians missed entirely the point of these teachings,
or immediately forgot them, is unlikely. When, therefore, notwithstanding
this message, many had fallen into the error opposed in ii. 2, the natural
supposition is that it had been represented to them that the man of lawless-
ness, who after the casting aside of all restraints was to set himself up as God,
had already come, doubtless in the person of Caligula. But if the "aiiti-
christ" made his appearance in Caligula (n. 7), then with Caligula's death
(Jan. 24, 41) began " the Day of the Lord," which naturally was not thought of
as a day of twelve or twenty-four hours' length, but as the epoch during which
constantly almost hourly the visible return of Christ was to be expected.

236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

If, now, Christian prophets declared Caligula to be the expected man of law-
lessness ; if Paul and his helpers saw in this figure of the recent past, whom
all remembered, a foreshadowing of the antichrist, and pointed to it as a
proof that the (jLvan'jpiov rrjs dvo/j.ias was already working ; and if, as was un-
doubtedly the case, the missionaries in Thessalonica spoke of the present as
the end of the age, as is everywhere done in the N.T. (1 Cor. x. 11 ; Jas. v.
3, 5, 8, 9 ; 1 John ii. 18 ; 1 Pet. i. 20 ; Heb. i. 1 ; Acts ii. 16 ff.), nothing is
more natural than the rise of such errors and delusions as Paul here opposes.
But there was no event corresponding to the prophesied falling away (below,
nn. 4, 9). If, moreover, the readers really knew from the earlier teaching
who and what the nart^v and the Kare^ov were, then they must understand
that the power which is keeping back the full manifestation of the man of
lawlessness is not yet set aside, but is still in active operation, so that the time
characterised by the reign of this power (vvv TO Kare'^oj/, ver. 6 ; 6 Kare'xcoi- npri,
ver. 7) continues, and the time of the " antichrist " has not yet come. Finally,
the detailed description of the activity of the lawless one, and, above all, the
fact that Paul refers to the destruction of the same by the returning Christ,
made it impossible to suppose that the antichrist was Caligula, or any other
person who had lived and disappeared. There is no philological reason
why vvv, ii. 6, cannot be connected with KUTCXOV, cf. John iv. 18 ; vvv ov
e'xfts, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 29 ; Xen. Cyrop. i. 4. 3, del TOVS irapovras ; Hell. ii.
1. 4, del 6 aKovun', especially numerous in designations of time, cf. Kuhner-
Gerth, i. 617; Winer, 561. 4; but also in numerous other cases, where, for
the sake of stronger emphasis, objects and other modifiers precede the par-
ticiple and its article (Epitaph. Avercii, i. 19, Forsch. v. 71, ravff 1 6 i-owv) or
the conjunction which governs the sentence, cf. A. Buttmann, 333 (Eng.
trans. 388). Even if we translate as if the reading were ra vvv, "As for
the present, ye know the power restraining," the logical necessity of connect-
ing vvv with KciTfxov still appears, (1) from the analogy of 6 KOT^WI/ apn
in ii. 7 ; (2) from the contrast running through the entire context of the
present (vvv, f/'8rj, /m), not to the past, when Paul was in Thessalonica, but
to the future revelation of the man of lawlessness ; and, finally, (3) from the
fact that the vvv gives no clear sense when taken with o'idare, from which,
moreover, it is unnaturally separated.

4. (P. 227.) With ii. 1 (eiria-vvayayv) cf. Matt. xxiv. 31 ; Mark xiii. 27 ;
1 Thess. iv. 14, 17, above, p. 223 f. With ii. 2 cf. Matt. xxiv. 6 ; Mark xiii. 7
(^r) dpofla-de) ; Luke xxi. 9. With ii. 3 cf. Matt. xxiv. 4, 23, 26 ; Mark xiii.
5, 21 ; Luke xxi. 8, xvii. 23. With f] dnoa-raa-ia, which appears partly to
precede the appearance of the " antichrist " (ver. 3), and partly to be the result
of the same (vv. 9-11), cf. for the first aspect Dan. viii. 12, 23, xi. 30, 32 ;
1 Mace. i. 15 (dTT((TTr)(rav OTTO SiadfiKrjs dyias) ; fur tin- second, 1 Mace. i. 41-f)3,
ii. 15 (ol KaravayKa^ovres Ttjv diroa-Taa-iav). Also jur the first aspect, Matt,
xxiv. 10-12, and for the second, Matt. xxiv. 21-24 ; Mark xiii. 19-21. With
6 ui>6po)Tros rijs di/op'ur, ver. 3 (NB, cf. among other authorities also Just. Dial.
xxxii; still rijs I'l/jLciprias has strong support), and 6 avopos, ver. 8, cf. Dan. vii. 25
(aAAoicoovu Kaipovg KOI v6p.ov), xi. 37 f. ; Matt. xxiv. 12 ; Didache, xvi. 4; Barn.
xv. 5. With ver. 4a (6 aim/ce^ei/ov o-<r/3no>ta) cf. Dan. vii. 7, 11, 20, 25, xi. 36
(LXX v\lsu>di](TTai iiri TTUVTO. 6eov t KOI eVi TOV 6fov, ru>v 0(o)i> t^fjAXa XaX^CTEt) ;
1 Mace. i. 24. No entire equivalent to ver. 46 is to be found in Dan. viii.

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 237

11-13, ix. 27, xi. 31, xii. 11 ; 1 Mace. i. 54-G1, iv. 38, 43-45, vi. 7 ; 2 Mace. vi.
1-7 ; Matt. xxiv. 15, still less Isa. xiv. 13 f. ; Ezek. xxviii. 2. In Mark xiii.
14, the ouly thing that would seem to indicate that the evangelist, lliought of
the " desolating abomination. " as a man who set up himself or his image in the
holy place, is the grammatically abnormal reading eW^Kora (NBL), if indeed
this reading be correct. The deification and self -deiii cation of the monarch
which reached a high point in Antiochus iv., the Btus eVt^ai/?;? (e.g. Jos. A at.
xii. 5. 5), did not come to the climax which is indicated in 2 Thess. ii. 4
until Caligula ; cf. below, 11. 7. With ver. 8 cf. Isa. xi. 4 (from which the
expression is borrowed); Dan. vii. 11, 26, viii. 25, xi. 45. With ver. 9 cf.
Dan. viii. 25 ; Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Mark xiii. 22. With ver. 11 cf. Isa. xix. 14 ;
Jer. iv. 11 (especially if the apocryphal form of this verse which Hippol.
de Antichr. 57 on Dan. iv. 49, quotes is ancient). In all these parallels it is
to be remembered that Paul was not confined to the Sept. version of Daniel,
much less to the translation of Daniel by Theodotian which was sometimes
used in the Church instead of the LXX. Hence, e.g., he might well have trans-
lated yvs Dan. viii. 12 (ix. 24) by airoa-racria, and D'jwa (viii. 23) by dn-ocrrarat.

5. (P. 227.) According to Spitta (139), Timothy, the alleged author of
2 Thess., here gives out as his own opinion what he learned from his source,
which was a Jewish apocalypse of the time of Caligula, of which apocalypses
Spitta has discovered no less than three (137 f., cf. also his Offenb. des Joh.
498). Such an apocalypse, he thinks, was among the " sacred writings," the
contents of which Timothy under the direction of Eunice " piously absorbed "
from his youth up (129, 139, cf. 2 Tim. i. 5, iii. 15). In this way he came
to have eschatological views which Paul did not share (above, n. 1), although
later in his life Paul directs him to those (TO) lepa ypd^ara which were
ypcxpri QeoTTvevo-Tos, points out that this is the right source from which
Timothy is to draw instruction both for himself and others (2 Tim. iii. 15 f.) ;
and, on the other hand, warns him against unholy and Jewish fables (1 Tim.
i. 4, iv. 7 ; 2 Tim. iv. 4 ; cf. Tit. i. 14).

6. (P. 227.) Paul never claimed to be a prophet, although he could boast
of having received revelations (2 Cor. xii. 1-4 ; Gal. i. 12-16, ii. 2), and did
declare that he had other charismata (1 Cor. xiv. 18 ; 2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Rom.
xv. 19). But from the very beginning of his ministry he had about him men
who in their own circles were regarded as prophets (Acts xi. 27, xiii. 1, 2, 4, xx.
23, xxi. 9-11. Thus, both at the time when the letters to the Thessalonians
were written and when the Church in Thessalonica was founded, he had with
him the prophet Silas (above, p. 207, n. 1). That in their preaching there
Paul and Silas emphasised strongly the kingship of Christ and hence the
eschatological elements in the gospel, is attested by Acts xvii. 17. The fact
that, so far as we know, none of the discourses of the Christian prophets was
written down, does not prove that they had no influence upon the develop-
ment of the beliefs of the Churches. How highly they were valued by Paul
appears from 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28 f., xiv. 1-39 ; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11 ; Rom.
xii. 6 ; 1 Thess. v. 20 ; 1 Tim. i. 18, iv. 1,14.

7. (P. 228.) For the decrees of Caligula relating to the Jews, cf. Schiircr,
i. 495-505 (Eng. trans. I. ii. 90-103) ; for the Jewish traditions, cf. Dereubourg,
Hist, de la Palestine, 207 ; for its influence in Christian circles, cf. the writer's
essay, ZjKW^ 1885, S. 511 f., also the writer's Ev. dcs 1'ttrus, 41 f. The priii-

238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

cipal event is the decree of Caligula of the winter of 39-40, in which he
ordered that a colossal statue of himself be set up in the temple at Jeru-
salem, which, notwithstanding long preparations, was never accomplished ;
cf. Pliilo, Ley. ad Cai. xxx. ; Jos. Ant. xviii. 8. 2 ; Bell. ii. 10. 1. Still this is
only the climax to Jews and to Christians most horrible climax of this
emperor's unlimited contempt for everything moral and religious, and his
mad self-deification (Suet. Caliy. xxii, " Hactenus quasi de principe, reliqua ut
de monstro narranda sunt," which occupies the narrative up to chap. Ix. ; Dio
Cassius, lix. 4, 26-28). H. Grotius (Annot. in NT, ed. Windheim, ii. 715 if.,
721 IF.) was the first definitely to connect this passage with Caius Caligula.

8. (P. 228.) \l/fv8oxP ia " ro <- is use( i i n ^ wo senses. For the wider meaning
any assumed authority over Israel cf. John x. 8 with reference to the past,
John v. 43 with reference to the future. For the stricter meaning any
deceptive counterpart of the returning Jesus Christ cf. Matt. xxiv. 5, 23 f. ;
Mark xiii. G, 21 f. ; cf. Luke xvii. 23.

9. (Pp. 229, 230.) For the analogues of Kare'^ai/ and Kartxov in Dan. x.-xii.,
cf. Hofmann, i. 319-326, also his Schriftbeweis, i. 330-335, iii. 671. Both the
words themselves and Paul's manifest didactic purpose indicate clearly that
the reference is not to those preservative forces which lie in the background of
national life operating in the spirit world, but to something that is manifest,
from the existence of which it is possible to discern that the "antichrist,"
and so " the day of our Lord," has not yet come. Neither does Hofmann
offer any adequate explanation of the interchange between Karix^v and
K.a.Tfx ov (NT, i. 326 ; Schriftbeweis, iii. 672). It is evident that the view
of the emperor and of the empire expressed in these words is in perfect
agreement wirti Rom. xiii. 1-7, and that it had then or afterward the cor-
roboration of Paul's own personal experience, cf. Acts xiii. 7-12, xvi. 35-39,
xviii. 12-17, xix. 31 (the asiarchs were the priestly representatives of the
imperial idea), xxi. 32-40, xxii. 24-30, xxiii. 16-30, xxiv. 22-26, xxv. 4-12,
16-27, xxvii. 3, xxviii. 16, 30 f. ; Phil. i. 13. The general friendly judgment
of the llornan State by Clemens Romanus, Melito, Irenseus, and others, does
not signify a falling away from Paulinism. This interpretation of 2 Thess.
ii. 6f. is the oldest that we have. We do not find it definitely stated by
Irenaeus, indeed, not until Hippol. in Dan. iv. 22 ; Tert. Resurr. xxiv. But the
general eschatological views of these writers, which agree in their main
features and many of their details, are evidence enough that the reference of
KaTfxov to the Roman empire was from the first common to them. The
empire must be rent in pieces before the "antichrist" can come (Iren.
v. 26. 1, 30. 2 ; Hippol. Antichr. 25, 27, 43, in Dan. iv. 5-6, 14 ; Tert.
Resurr. xxiv. Tertullian (loc. cit.) translates 2 Thess. ii. 6 f. " nunc quid teneat "
(al. " detineat "), and " qui nunc tenet", which makes it appear as if the
reference to the Romans in Irenseus by the phrases " qui nunc tenent "
(Iren. v. 30. 3) and " qui nunc regnant " were suggested by 2 Thess. ii. 6 f.,
if indeed in both passages the original reading was not ol vvv Kparovvres, as
in Hippol. de Antichr. 28, cf. 43, 50, in Dan. iv. 5, 9, 17 (ed. Bonwetsch,
pp. 196. 2, 206. 16, 228. 20 f.). This does not exclude the possibility of a
certain connection between the empire of the antichrist and the Roman
empire. Irenseus (v. 30. 3) declares it possible that the number 666 may
mean Aarelvos, and the empire of the antichrist may bear this name, although

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 239

he prefers the interpretation which makes it mean Tfirav, an old discarded
name which was borne by none of the Roman emperors. Hippolytus regards
the world-empire which hud existed since the time of Augustus as a Satanic
imitation of the world-rule of Christ (in Dan. iv. 9), and thinks that the
antichrist will return to the form of government existing under Augustus
(Antichr. 49). Accordingly, in clear distinction from Irenjeus, Hippolytus
prefers to all others that interpretation of the number 666 which makes it
mean Aartivos (Antichr. 50). On the other hand, Hippolytus agrees with his
master Irenseus in the opinion, which is certainly much older than either of
these writers, that the antichrist is to be a Jewish pseudo-Messiah of the
tribe of Dan (Iren. v. 30. 2, cf. v. 25. 4 ; Hippol. Antichr. 6, 14-15, 54-58,
in Dan. iv. 49 ; Theophil. Lai. in Evv. i. 29, iii. 7 ; Forsch. ii. 58, 71 ; ZfKJV,
1885, S. 570). It is probable that even Marcion interpreted 2 Thess. ii. as
referring to a pseudo- Messiah of the God of the Jews (Tert. c. Marc. v. 16 ;
GK, i. 589). In a peculiar form this idea is to be found in Ephrem (Comm.
in Epist. Pauli, 193 f.). The man of sin is a circumcised Jew of the tribe of
Judah, who sends his apostles or false prophets before him who bring about a
" falling away " (2 Thess. ii. 3), but when the man of sin himself comes he
does not connect himself with a sect, but appears in the holy Church, declar-
ing himself to be God. According to this interpretation, the power which
at the time of Paul was restraining his appearance was the continuance of
the Jewish temple and worship, and the fact that the conversion of the Gen-
tiles was not yet complete. The theory of a Jewish anti-Messiah, which,
mutatis mutandis, has been advocated even in modern times by many (e.g.
Schneckenburger, published by Bohmer, JbDTh. 1859, S. 405 ff. ; B. Weiss,
ThStKr. 1869, S. 22 ff. ; Spitta, Z. Gesch. d. Urchr. i. 140 ff.), is as difficult to
maintain as the theory that the man of lawlessness was a Roman emperor.
The latter theory does not agree with the opinion mentioned above held by
Paul and the ancient Church concerning the emperor and the empire.
Neither can it be maintained on the ground that the insane acts of the
emperor Caligula were really due to the conception which Paul and his
contemporaries had of the man of lawlessness. Still less does it follow
from the fact that in the conception of the man of lawlessness there are
certain parallelisms with Christ which were afterwards stereotyped in the
expression aim'xptfrros (not ^fvSd^pttrros), that Paul thought of him as a
\l/ev86xpicrTos of Jewish origin. Against this view (1) argues the fact that
the lawless one, following in the footsteps of Antiochus and Caligula, is to
desecrate the temple of God by idolatrous deification of himself. Even
assuming that "temple" is here used in a figurative sense, there is nothing
which connects this picture with the Christ-hostile Judaism of the apostolic
and post-apostolic periods. In general, it may be said that the antichrist as
here described by Paul, and the unbelieving Judaism as elsewhere depicted
by him, have no points in common. (2) According to Paul's view, the opposi-
tion of the majority of his nation to Christ had already reached its climax.
The wrath of God, which was to visit upon them outward punishment, had
already attained its object and would soon abate (1 Thess. ii. 16 ; see below,
16, n. 4). That inward judgment to which they are now exposed, namely,
the hardening of heart against the gospel, makes the Jewish nation during
the whole period of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles a fossil

240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

capable of practically no change. This state of things is to be ended not by
the revival and increase of hostility to Christ, but by the conversion of
Israel to Christ. This is not a passing fancy of Paul's in some moment
when his feelings were conciliatory, but is stated by him as a truth of
revelation in line with the prophecies of Jesus and based upon the O.T. as
he understood it (Rom. xi. 25-32). (3) The term avrixpi^ros, which is not
used by Paul, although in content ils meaning corresponds to Paul's descrip-
tion, does not by any means t justify the conception of a Jewish pseudo-
M>'-siah; for, in the thought of the apostle, Christ is not simply a Jewish
Messiah, but also the second Adam, who unites the whole world under His
headship as its Lord and King because He is the incarnation of that human
righteousness which conies from God. For that reason the man who repre-
sents the incarnation of all human lawlessness and of all human opposition
to God, and who with Satanic power subjects mankind under his sway, is a
caricature of Christ, an "antichrist," whatever his origin may be. The
dvofj.ia, from which his name is derived, exists naturally wherever sin exists
(1 John iii. 4), and so even among the Jews (Rom. ii. 23-27 ; Acts xxiii. 3 ;
Matt, xxiii. 28). But the characteristic of Jewish hostility to God and
Christ is neither lawlessness, nor idolatry, nor self-deification, but false zeal
for God and His law (Rom. ix. 31-x. 3 ; Gal. i. 13 f. ; Phil. iii. 6). On the
other hand, avopia is such a characteristic feature of heathen life and of sin
in the heathen world (Rom. ii. 12 ; 1 Cor. ix. 21 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14), that it is
necessary to think of the lawless one as springing out of the heathen world.
When in ii. 4 he is declared to be the foe of all religion, it does not follow
that he might not assume the forms of existing religions. On the contrary,
Caligula's attempt at self-deification connected itself with the emperor
cult, that of Antiochus with the worship of Zeus, and both these forerunners
of the antichrist undertook by force to identify these heathen cults with
that of the Jews, thereby destroying the latter. But even Christianity is
not free from lawlessness. Just as the confessors of Christ are not free from
avopia (1 Cor. vi. 7-20 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20-xiii. 2 ; Matt. vii. 23, xiii. 38-42), so
there are points of connection between the lawless one and the Church. On
the basis of the prophecies of Jesus (Matt. xxiv. 10-12, 24 ; cf. Luke xviii. 8),
and following the prophecies in Dan. and the history of Antiochus (above,
p. 236, n. 4), the Christian prophets announced a falling away within the
Church as one of the characteristics of the last days (1 Tim. iv. 1-4 ; 2 Tim.
iii. 1-5 ; Acts xx. 29-31 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1, iii. 4 ; Didache, xvi. 4), and both Paul
and John directed attention to the signs of the same in their own time
(1 Tim. i. 19, vi. 5 ; 2 Tim. ii. 16-18, iii. 5-9 ; 1 Cor. xi. 19 ; 1 John ii.
18-23, iv. 1-3). Of this character must be the falling away which in 2 Thess.
ii. 3 is referred to as something specifically known. It could not be some
sort of a political revolution, a revolt against the Roman authority established
by God, or a falling away on the part of the Jews from the law of their
fathers, since for Paul and the Christians of that age and of the ages follow-
ing, the holy people, who at the end of the days will have to endure in
increased measure what Israel suffered at the time of Antiochus, are not the
Jewish people who owed their obligations to Moses, but the Church of Jesus.
To what extent this falling away conditions the appearance of the antichrist
it is not possible to determine from Paul's brief reference to what had

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 241

been said about it in his earlier preaching. In view of the ex pepovs
irpo(j)r)T(voiJL(v in 1 Cor. xiii. 9, we have no right to assume that the elements
and fragments of Christian prophecy that here come to view formed in Paul's
mind a finished and completed picture.

10. (P. 230.) It is a noteworthy fact that, with the exception of Luke
ii. 1, iii. 1, Acts xi. 28, where mention of the emperor could not be avoided,
no name of an emperor is to be found in the N.T. Very little thought was
devoted to Tiberias or Caligula, Claudius or Nero, reference being made
simply to the emperor who was reigning at the time (Matt. xxii. 17-21 ; Mark
xii. 14-17; Luke xx. 22-25, xxiii. 2; John xix. 12, 15; Acts xvii. 7, xxv.
8-12, xxvi. 32, xxvii. 24, xxviii. 19 ; Phil. iv. 22 ; 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17). So we
have mentioned the government of the empire and its agents (Rom. xiii. 1-7 ;

1 Pet. ii. 13, 17) or different classes of kings (Matt. x. 18, xvii. 25 ; Luke xxii.
25 ; Acts iv. 26, ix. 15 ; 1 Tim. ii. 2, vi. 15 ; Rev. i. 5, vi. 15).

11. (P. 231.) Grotius (Ann. in NT, ed. Windheim, ii. 715 ff.), Ewald
(Sendschreiben des PI. 17 f.), Laurent (Nil. Studien, 49 ff.), on the presupposi-
tion that both Epistles are genuine, declare 2 Thess. to be the older of the two.
Baur reaches the same conclusion, on the assumption that both are spurious
(Paulus, ii. 368 f.). Grotius thinks that 2 Thess. was written as early as 38
A.D., before Paul visited Thessalonica, to certain Jewish Christians there.
Ewald and Laurent make Beroea the place of composition (Acts xvii. 10), and
think that it was written during the weeks immediately following the found-
ing of the Church. Here again reference must be made to II. i. 4 in addition
to what has been said above, p. 231. It is not a question here as in I. i. 8 f.
of personal contact of Paul and his helpers with Christians from outside
of Europe (above, p. 205 f.), but of reports spread by the missionaries in a
number of Churches where they had sojourned since their flight from Thessa-
lonica, or where they were sojourning at the time when the letter was written.
Hence they must have gone at least as far as Bercea and Athens and Corinth.
The language used would still seem unnatural if it referred simply to reports
made in the preaching that gathered congregations in Beroea, Athens, and
Corinth. The reference is to conditions in Churches already existing.
During the eighteen months of continuous " residence " in Corinth (Acts xviii.
11), Paul may have made an occasional visit to other Churches, but only to
such as that in the port town of Cenchrea (Rom. xvi. 1). This is not the case,
however, with Silvanus, and Timothy, in whose name II. i. 4 is also written.
The latter, upon his return from his mission in Thessalonica, certainly stopped
in Beroea and probably also in Athens, and so had opportunity to do what in
II. i. 4 is declared to have been done by all three missionaries. From II. iii.
17 it is not to be inferred that the Church had never before received a letter
signed by Paul's own hand. Notwithstanding the fact that the Corinthians
had previously received a letter from him (1 Cor. v. 9), he calls attention to
the concluding greeting in his own hand (xvi. 21) ; while the fact that in

2 Thess. iii. 17 he calls attention even more expressly to the form of his own
handwriting, stating in addition that it is the same in every letter, is fully
explained by the circumstance that henceforth the ending of the letter in his
own hand is to be regarded by the Church as a proof of genuineness. A
point in the tradition which tends to confirm the priority of 1 Thess. is the
fact that the two letters were not arranged in the Canon according to the

VOL. I. 1 6

242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

principle which came into use comparatively late and which is still in vogue,
namely, the determining of the order of the writings in accordance with their
respective lengths. They had their present order as early as the Canon of
Marcion, who knew nothing of the later principle of arrangement, from which
we may assume that they were always circulated in their present order.

1-2. (P. 232.) If II. iii. 14 stated simply the possibility that someone might
disregard the exhortation of iii. 6-13, the language would be different, reading
somewhat as follows : eav de TIS 011% inranovirrj TOVTOIS rols Xciyoir r^iuiv ; while,
apart from its character as a conditional sentence, it would be compared not
with I. v. 27, but with I. iv. 18. Paul refers to a definite passage in an earlier
letter (cf. 1 Cor. v. 9), I. iv. 11 f., and on the basis of reports received (II. iii.
11), declares that the exhortation of the letter is now actually being disre-
garded. The language in II. ii. 15 is less definite : "oral or written." Hence
it may refer to something in the letter in which it occurs. Since, however,
there are to be found in this letter no new instructions and directions supple-
menting the missionary preaching, such as I. iv. 13-18 certainly is, and pos-
sibly also such detached sentences as I. iv. 1-8, 11 f. ; v. 12-22 (cf. per contra
I. iv. 9, v. 1), II. ii. 15 also is to be taken as a reference to 1 Thess. In
particular does II. ii. 1, uTrep Trjs . . . i^wi/ firicrvvayoyiis eV avrov, sound like
a recollection of I. iv. 14, 17.

16. THE GENUINENESS OF THE FIBST THREE

EPISTLES.

These three Epistles, which, if written by Paul at
all, were all composed within a single year at intervals
of from one to three months (above, p. 233), are all
entitled to the benefit of the critical principles laid down
above (pp. 156-162). The difficulties which are always in
the way of getting forged letters of apostles into circulation
in Christian Churches (p. 159, paragr. 5) are enormously
increased in the case of 2 Thess., the genuineness
of which has been far more seriously questioned than
that of the other two letters, because of what is said
in the Epistle itself about possible or actual forgeries
(ii. 2, iii. 17). Remarks of this kind would at once call
for criticism on the part of the original readers, and it is
difficult to see how within thirty or forty years after Paul's
death the Thessalonian Church could have been made to
believe that this Epistle had been received from Paul
during his lifetime, unless it contained at least a fragment
that looked like an original document, and unless it were

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 243

signed in a peculiar hand in characters distinctly different
from those appearing in the body of the letter. In view
of what is said in 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17, it is quite out of
the question, not only for us modern readers, but also
for those readers from whom the letter passed into circu-
lation and for whom it was intended originally, to suppose
that 2 Thess. is a more or less harmless forgery " in
the spirit of Paul " ; simply because this passage raises
the question in the mind of every reader, no matter
how unsophisticated, whether it is a genuine writing of
Paul's that he has before him, or some document that has
been forged in a manner the boldness of which is un-
paralleled (n. 1). In addition to this, more traces are to
be found of 2 Thess. than of either 1 Thess. or Gal. in the
Church prior to the time of Marcion and outside of his
Apostolicon (n. 2).

The questions discussed in Galatians had less general
interest for the Church of the second century than had the
statements of eschatological doctrine and the practical
advice of 1 and 2 Thess. Only Marcion is an excep-
tion. After his fashion he values Galatians very highly,
and in testimony of this esteem places it first in his
collection of Pauline letters, calling it principialem
adversus Judaismum epistolam, and making it the start-
ing-point for his criticism of the entire tradition (Tert.
c. Marc. iv. 3, v. 2). So also the comprehensive critique
of the Pauline Epistles and of the entire N.T., begun by
Baur, started by assuming that Gal. was a source the
genuineness of which did not need to be proved in order
to show, on the basis of the clear and fundamental opposi-
tion between Jewish and Pauline Christianity which comes
out in this Epistle, that Acts and most of the Epistles
which bear Paul's name are the product of a biassed (ten-
denzios) attempt to tone down this opposition, and are
consequently spurious. Perhaps this is the chief reason
why, by the latest critical method popular in Holland,

244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

it is customary to begin with the discussion of Gal.
(n. 3).

The arguments advanced by these critics against the
genuineness of Gal., and by the critics of the older
school against that of 1 Thess. (n. 4), have made a
lasting impression only upon very few. Not so, how-
ever, in the case of 2 Thess. Assuming the genuine-
ness of both Gal. and 1 Thess., it must be admitted
that Paul was able, as occasion demanded, in the course
of a single year to write letters very different both in
thought and spirit. This renders all the more strik-
ing the resemblance in plan (above, p. 224 f.), thought,
and language of 1 and 2 Thess., which were written
with scarcely a longer interval than that between Gal.
and 1 Thess. There is only one very obvious differ-
ence, namely, 2 Thess. is far inferior to 1 Thess. in
freshness of emotion, in vividness of language, and in
the winsome expression of friendly fellow-feeling. It
is this difference principally, taken along with the fact
of the great similarity of the letters in plan and lan-
guage, that has given rise to the suspicion that someone
familiar with 1 Thess. used it as a model by which to
compose 2 Thess. Still this observation has less weight
critically than the similarity of the two letters. What
contrasts of feeling and expression do we find, for ex-
ample, in a single letter of Paul's like 2 Cor. ! 1 Thess.
was written under the immediate stimulus of the extremely
gratifying news brought by Timothy, which had revived
the apostle's spirits that had been so long depressed by
heavy cares. The news which led to the writing of
2 Thess. was less cheering. The exhortations of 1 Thess.
had been entirely disregarded by some, and had to be
repeated with severity (iii. 6-16). The teachings about
the parousia of Christ and the events connected with it
(ii. 5, 15), which he had recalled to their minds and
enlarged upon in 1 Thess., had not been effective in put-

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 245

ting a stop to certain misleading reports. Moreover,
means were being used for the circulation of these reports
which, to say the least, were hardly honourable (ii. 2, cf.
iii. 17). Of course, the steadfastness of the Church, in
spite of constant suffering (i. 3f.), was something to be
thankful for, though for Paul there was something de-
pressing in the thought that the only prospect of a change
in this condition of affairs was that offered by the hope
of the judgment connected with the return of Christ.
When one takes into consideration also the opposition
with which Paul had to contend in the place where he
was (iii. 2), and the missionary work in Corinth which
claimed his entire attention (iii. 1 ; Acts xviii. 5-17), it
it quite easy to understand the spirit and tone of this
letter. On the other hand, it is hardly likely that a
person forging such a letter would have put into Paul's
mouth twice a sentence like this : " We are under obliga-
tion at all times to give thanks for you " (i. 3, ii. 13, above,
p. 225), which is not to be found elsewhere in Paul's
letters, genuine or spurious (n. 5), instead of imitating
1 Thess. i. 2 and other similar sentences at the beginning
of Paul's letters (Rom. i. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 4 ; 2 Cor. i. 3 ;
Eph. i. 3, 15f.; Col. i. 3 ; Phil. i. 3; Philem. 4; 1 Tim.
i. 3). On the other hand, the similarity of the two
letters is quite natural in view of the fact that they were
written within a comparatively short time of each other to
the same Church, that conditions were such that it was
necessary in part to write about the same things (the
sufferings of the Church, eschatological questions, and un-
ruly idleness), and, finally, that there were definite reasons
for back references in 2 Thess. to the former letter (ii.
15, iii. 14). If the claim was being made in Thessa-
louica on the basis of oral and written communications
from the vicinity where Paul was, that Paul himself held
the opinion which in this letter he feels called upon to
pronounce absurd (ii. 2, above, p. 226), it is perfectly

246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

natural that he should recall what he had written to
the Church a few months before, and that in dictating

2 Thess. he should have in mind the argument and the
language of the former letter (n. 6).

Of course, 2 Thess. could not have been written by
Paul if 2 Thess. ii. 3-1 2 is based upon the legend of
the return of Nero as antichrist from Parthia or from
the dead, still less if it presupposes the description of
antichrist in Rev. xiii. and xvii. 8 (n. 7). The latter
assumption is purely arbitrary, because the most dis-
tinctive feature in Paul's description, which it is im-
possible to derive from Dan. or 1 Mace., and which
certainly cannot be referred to Matt, xxiv. 15, Mark
xiii. 14, namely, that the antichrist is to set himself up
in the temple of God and demand that he be worshipped,
is not to be found at all in Rev. On the contrary, it is
to be explained as a prophetic reflection of historical
events which took place in the reign of Caligula (above,
pp. 228, 237, n. 7). There is not the slightest suggestion
in ii. 3-12 of Nero's conduct nor attitude toward the
Roman Christians. If, as is at least doubtful, we really
have here a description of the miraculous return to life of
some historical personage (n. 8), this personage cannot
be Nero. For, so far as our knowledge goes, the idea that
Nero was to come back from the dead could not and did
not originate until through the lapse of time it was no
longer possible to retain the older notion that he was
hidden somewhere among the Parthians, i.e. the idea did
not originate until the beginning of the second century.
As a matter of fact, we know that it was not until 150
that the legend was adopted from the Jewish into the
Christian Sibyllines with some other material taken from
the Johannine apocalypse, and that it was not until the
third century that the legend secured wide circulation in
the Church (n. 9). But there is absolutely no trace in
2 Thess. of this older view, that Nero, who was still living

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 247

in the far East, was to reascend the imperial throne by the
help of the Parthians and by the general aid of the powers
of this world. Least probable of all is the supposition
that the rise of some pseudo-Nero, due to the influence
of this superstition, furnished the motive for the writing
of 2, Thess. (n. 10). The fact that elsewhere in his letters
Paul does not refer to the man of lawlessness, is no reason
for suspecting 2 Thess., unless a passage can be pointed
out elsewhere where he had the same occasion to refer to
him which according to 2 Thess. ii. 2 he has here. No
inconsistencies between the eschatological views set forth
here and those developed elsewhere in Paul's writings,
and no peculiarities of style, can be pointed out which
make improbable the identity of the authorship of this
Epistle and of the other Epistles of Paul (n. 11).

1. (P. 243.) While the majority of critics up to the time of Schmiedel,
HK, ii. 1, 12, are content merely to cite imperfect analogies, Weizsacker, 251,
admits that it " really is not easy to get over" 2 Thess. iii. 17, but makes not
the slightest attempt to remove the difficulties suggested above. As even Baur
admits, ii. 105, these words are of just the character to betray a forgery, not
only because so manifestly designed, but also because the motive for the
subscription in Paul's own hand is different from that in 1 Cor. xvi. 21 ;
Gal. vi. 11 (not really a comparable case, see above, p. 170 ; per contra, Col.
iv. 18). It is wrong to say that Paul did this always "in order to give his
readers direct proof of his affection for them" (Baur, ii. 105) ; in 1 Cor. xvi.
21 it is used to introduce an anathema. Even more arbitrary is the claim
that 2 Thess. iii. 17 is meant to explain this custom of Paul's. Confessedly
in all the realms of nature and of art, where distinctions are possible, a
phenomenon which recurs regularly under given conditions is a characteristic,
even when no reason is given for the distinction and no explanation of its
origin offered. Even if, as Weizsacker suggests, II. ii. 2 be a "hypothetical
explanation of the meaning of this genuine Epistle " (i.e. of 2 Thess.), that
does not make it any more credible that an interpolator should be so utterly
shortsighted as to lay himself open to criticism by referring so blindly to
alleged utterances of Paul's without any indication of their historical setting.
Hilgenfeld's theory, EinL 646, that II. ii. 2 was written in order to cast sus-
picion upon 1 Thess., which is genuine, while not so meaningless as Weiz-
siicker's statement, is not more credible. For (1) there is no reference here
to a spurious Pauline Epistle (above, p. 235) ; (2) this theory does not har-
monise with the fact that in II. ii. 15, iii. 14 (above, p. 232), 1 Thess. is re-
ferred to as a genuine Epistle ; (3) to cast suspicion upon a recognised work
of Paul's was the worst possible way in which to introduce a forgery which
had to establish its own claims.

248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

2. (P. 243.) For traces of Gal. in Clemens Rom. ('?), Ignatius (?), Polycarp,
Justin, cf. GK, i. 573 f., 828, n. 2. For traces of 2 Thess. and fainter traces
of 1 Thess. in the same authors, cf. GK, i. 575, 815, 826, n. 1.

3. (P. 244.) The attacks made heretofore on Gal. are of so little signifi-
cance that it is sufficient in a handbook like this merely to mention them,
above, p. 163, notes 5 and 6.

4. (P. 244.) Baur, ii. 94, in proof of his contention that in the originality
and importance of its contents 1 Thess. is inferior to all the other Pauline
letters, makes the statement that with the exception of iv. 13-18 " it does
not contain a single dogmatic idea of special importance." But what dog-
matic idea of special importance is to be found in 1 Cor. i.-xiv. or 2 Cor. i., ii.,
vi.-xiii. 1 Only when the apologetic purpose of the first main section of the
letter is denied (above, p. 215 f.), and the strong emotion which it reveals
ignored, is it found to contain simply superfluous reminders of things alreadj'
known. It is also wrong to affirm that the historical material is taken from
Acts (Baur, ii. 95, 97). On the contrary, the facts that come to light in
1 Thess. ii. 17-iii. 5 are new, and not always easy to reconcile with Acts
(above, pp. 204 f., 214 f .). Where their agreement is apparent (ii. 2 = Acts xvi.
22-40), there is no trace of the dependence of the one upon the other.
Kesemblances between 1 Thess. and 1 and 2 Cor. Baur felt to be particularly
open to suspicion (95 f., 342 ff.). So long as barren and ineffective words
continue to exist in the world, the contrast between Adyor and Sitva/jus is
natural (1 Thess. i. 5, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20) ; its occurrence in 1 Thess. is
certainly very inadequate proof for the statement that 1 Thess. " emphasises
the more general ideas that are to be found specifically applied in 1 Cor."
(343). This is not the case, for 1 The.ss. i. 5 has reference only to the
preaching in Thessalonica, while in 1 Cor. iv. 20 (cf. i. 18 ; Rom. i. 16) a
general proposition is in mind, and even in 1 Cor. ii. 4f. the method of
preaching in Corinth is brought under a general principle. The expressions
fv pdpei fivai (1 Thess. ii. 7), eVtjSaprjo-cu (ii. 9, cf. II. iii. 8), suggest 2 Cor.
xi. 9, xii. 16 ; but the resemblance is not verbal, consequently the words
are not copied from 2 Cor. Baur contends (345) that what we have here is
only a generalisation of what is said in 1 and 2 Cor. with reference to special
conditions in the Corinthian Church. But here again it is to be observed
that in 1 Cor. ix. 6-18 Paul speaks of his refusal to avail himself of that right
of the evangelist, of which he and Barnabas had regularly availed them-
selves ever since the beginning of the first missionary journey ; whereas in
1 Thess. ii. 7, 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 7-9, reference is had only to his conduct in
Thessalonica. Of like value with these observations are those of Holsten
(JbfPTh. 1877, S. 731), that in 1 Thess. i. 3 the Pauline trilogy "faith, hope,
and love" (1 Cor. xiii. 13) is confused with the trilogy of the Jewish Apoca-
lypse, ipya, KOITOS, vironovT] (ii. 2), and that the pseudo-Pai;l, who wrote this
letter, like the one who wrote Phil., did not venture to speak of Paul in the
greeting as an apostle. As if a forger, who depended for the acceptance of
his work upon readers who held the apostle and the genuine Epistles in high
regard, would not be tempted to imitate, even to outdo, the genuine letters
(Gal. i. 1 ; 1 and 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Rom. i. 1) in emphasising as strongly as possible
Paul's apostleship. Then this theory overlooks the emphatic Xpicrrov

in 1 Thess. ii. 7. Baur thought the chief objection to the letter

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 249

lay in its recognition of the Christian Church in Judea (ii. 14), notwithstand-
ing the fact that their Christian standing is fully admitted in Gal. i. 22-24
(cf. 2 Cor. viii. 13 f. ; Eom. xv. 27 ; indirectly also 1 Cor. xiv. 36). Had
Paul in this passage, as Baur thinks he ought to have done (97), said some-
thing about his participation in the persecution of the Jewish Christians on
the part of the Jews, it would be a stronger reason than anything Baur has
suggested for suspecting an imitation of 1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Gal. i. 13 ; since such
a reference would have been out of place in this connection, where the point
of comparison between the persecution of the Thessalonians and of the Jewish
Christians was the fact that by their Christian confession both had incurred
the bitter hatred of their own countrymen. It is possible to speak of the
vague polemic against the Jews (Baur, 97, 347) only when the fact is over-
looked that the persecution of the Thessalonians began with the attack of
the Jews upon the missionaries (above, p. 203 f.), and that shortly after the
arrival of Timothy and Silas in Corinth, i.e. about the time 1 Thess. was
written, Paul was compelled by the opposition of the Jews to separate him-
self from the synagogue (Acts xviii. 5 f.). Of course, the letter is spurious
if ii. 16 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as already past. But this is
so evident a blunder that even Baur (97, 369) does not venture to make the
forger directly responsible for it. The avenging wrath of God has reached
the rebellious nation, but the cloud has not yet broken. Having rejected
both the testimony of Jesus and of the apostles, Israel is fallen and rejected
(Rom. xi. 11-15), and the judgment of hardening has already been visited
upon them, which must and will soon show itself in judgment of a more
external character (Rom. xi. 7-10, cf. ix. 32 f.). There is no reference to
present internal conditions in Palestine, nor any indication of the banish-
ment of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius (as held by Paul
Schmidt, Der Erste Tliessaloniker- Brief, 87 ; cf. below, XI. [Chron. Survey]).
Only in a very young Church could the deaths which thinned their ranks be
felt to be irreconcilable with the word of life received by faith ; presumably
this would be felt most strongly in the case of the first deaths, cf. also 1 Cor.
xi. 30. Positive proof of the genuineness of the Epistle is to be found in
iv. 15-17 ; for no one ascribing a letter to Paul after his death could have
made him say more definitely here than in any passage in the unquestioned
letters of Paul that he himself expected to experience the parousia. More-
over, the particular kind of grief for the dead which appears in iv. 13 ff. is
inconceivable in a Church which for decades had been losing its members by
death one after the other. Consequently Baur (99, cf. 94) is wrong when, in
the eschatological teaching of the Epistle, iv. 13 ff., which has not even first
place among the discussions in the passage appended to the main section of
the Epistle, beginning with XOITTOV, iv. 1 (above, p. 220 f.), he discovers the
purpose which, after Paul's death, led to the composition of the entire letter.

5. (P. 245.) Even the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, ver. 3, repro-
duces the usual Pauline formula, GK, ii. 584 ; while the Third Epistle to the
Corinthians, ver. 2, ed. Vetter, p. 54, is dependent upon Gal. i. 6. On the
other hand, the nadus <igiuv ftrriv of 2 Thess. i. 3 has a parallel in Phil. i. 7.

G. (P. 246.) Ability to reproduce from memory what has been written or
spoken earlier, naturally varies greatly with different individuals. The questioii
recurs in connection with 1 Cor. v. 9-11 ; 2 Cor. i. 13, and all the references

250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

of 2 Cor. to 1 Cor. But to the author it seems unlikely that the letters of
Paul were sent to the Churches in the form in which they were written
down by the amanuensis from dictation. Generally it would be necessary to
revise the letter after it was dictated, and to prepare a new copy. This was
sent to its destination, while the original copy might remain for some time in
the hands of Paul or of his amanuensis. Cicero usually treated his letters
in this manner ; cf. H. Peter, "Der Brief in der rom. Literatur," 1901 (Abh.
der Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. phil. hist. Kl. xx. 30), S. 29 f., 35. Now, busy as Paul
was, and knowing as he did his emotional temperament, nothing was more
natural in the circumstances than for him to read over again the original
copy of 1 Thess., if he still had it, before dictating 2 Thess.

7. (P. 246.) Since Kern, TZJTh. 1839, ii. 145-214, and Baur, ii. 351-
364 (Baur asserts more positively than Kern the dependence of 2 Thess. on
Rev., which has since been generally accepted ; cf. Weizsacker, 503, and
Hilgenfeld, 647, who holds an entirely different view regarding the date and
purpose of 2 Thess. Schmiedel, however, HK, ii. 1. 43, holds that literary
dependence cannot be proved), since Kern and Baur, many have been
inclined to regard 2 Thess. ii. 3-12 as a reproduction of the popular supersti-
tion concerning Nero redivivus. Nero is held to be the "mystery of law-
lessness," active in the present, secretly preparing for his own return (Baur,
354, and Kern, 205, " the continued longing for this prince after his downfall,"
cf. Tac. Hist. i. 78). The Karex^v, on the other hand, is Vespasian (Kern,
200, " with his son Titus "), or Otho, or even Galba (Schmiedel, 43) ; in any
case " the emperor reigning at the time when the letter was written " (Baur,
355). This is the -n-pwrov -^tiiSos held in common by these critics and
numerous defenders of the Epistle's genuineness (e.g. Dollinger, Christent. u.
Kirche zur Zeit der Grundleyuny, 2te Aufl. 288). Since, in ii. 4, the existence
of the Temple at Jerusalem seems to be presupposed (Kern, 157, 207 ; P.
Schmidt, 119 ; Baur undecided on this point, 358), on this view 2 Thess.
must have been written between June 68 and August 70. According to
Baur (356), the occasion for the forgery was the appearance of the first pseudo-
Nero in 69 A.D. (see below, nn. 9, 10). In order to explain the address of
the forgery, Baur (357) assumes gratuitously that not only the provinces of
Achaia and Asia (Tac. Hist. ii. 8), but also Macedonia, were set in commotion
by this adventurer. Furthermore, the champions of this so-called historical
interpretation, which, according to Schmiedel (39), is the only scientific one,
pass over very lightly the fact that the pre-existence of the expected
antichrist is not by any means so clearly affirmed as in Rev. xvii. 8, 11. It
is impossible to find in 2 Thess. a single characteristic feature of the brief
history of the pseudo-Nero in question, nor of the real Nero (comparison of
Suet. Nero, Ivi, with 2 Thess. ii. 4, only serves to reveal the extremity to
which this theory is reduced), nor of the representative of the Nero redivivus
(n. 9) in the Sibylline books. It has not been shown how, after the pseudo-
Neronic movements were passed and before 120, to judge from the literature
of the time, when Gentiles and Jews alike looked only for a restoration of
the Neronic rule through political means, a Christian could have formed the
conceptions which are to be found in 2 Thess. This difficulty is somewhat
lessened by Hilgenfeld's suggestion that " in the end 2 Thess. proves to be a
short Pauline apocalypse written in the last years of Trajan's reign " (Einl.

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 251

642, old paragraphs). But this hypothesis is not advanced save as a con-
jecture (650). It is difficult to understand how Christians who, with the
emperor's approbation, were condemned to execution, and, according to
Hilgenfeld, led, by this constant persecution, to entertain false hopes con-
cerning the parousia, could come to regard Trajan not as the Nero rediviov*,
but as the narix^v (651) ; particularly so if, as is suggested by Hilgenfeld,
the Nero redivivus of this apocalypse is not the historical matricide or the
persecutor of the Christians, but the leader of the falling away of which
there were already signs in the Church in the current Gnosticism. With
this interpretation of the mystery of lawlessness is severed the one slender
thread by which 2 Thess. ii. 3-12 can possibly be connected with the
legends concerning Nero. Bahnsen (JbfPTh. 1880, S. 681-705) still feels it
necessary to retain the connection, although he too understands by the
mystery of lawlessness the rising Gnosticism as he finds it described in the
Pastoral Epistles. He, however, interprets the KOT^OV as the spiritual office,
and makes the narf^v refer either to one distinguished TTL<TKOTTOS, or the
fTria-KOTTos of the Ignatian Epistles, who occupied a position of authority over
the other eiri(FKOiroi=wpevftvTepoi. To such vagaries the theory of Kern is
preferable. P. Schmidt (127) endeavours to relieve the theory of a number
of fatal objections by assuming but without giving his reasons that ii. 26-12
and several expressions in chap. i. were introduced into the Epistle, which
is otherwise genuine, sometime between 68 and 70. Klopper justly remarks
(56) that nothing has caused more confusion in connection with the question
regarding the origin of 2 Thess. than its association with the person of Nero.
8. (P. 246.) With praiseworthy impartiality, Hofmann (i. 331-334, cf.
Schriftbeweis, ii. 2. 674) admits that, strange as it may seem to us, Paul does
conceive of the entrance of the lawless one into the world after the analogy of
the return of Christ from the other world, as a return from the dead. And
certainly the threefold occurrence of aTroKaXinrTea-dai (iii. 6, 8, cf. i. 7), followed
immediately by Trapovo-ia (viii. 9), used of the coming of Jesus and of the
lawless one, does give the coming of the antichrist the appearance of a carica-
ture of the parousia of Christ, preceding this latter event. But it is to be
observed that the meaning of nvarfipiov (7) is the same here as in other
passages (1 Cor. ii. 7, 10, xiv. 2, 6 ; Rom. xvi. 25 ; Eph. iii. 3-12 ; Col. i. 26 f. ;
1 Tim. iii. 16), there being an implied contrast to the aironaKinrTfa-Bai which
precedes and follows, and that the " mystery of lawlessness " means admitted
even by Hofmann (i. 329, 331) not the person of the lawless one, but the
increased spirit of lawlessness which is an active force even in the present.
Consequently it would seem as if it were this impersonal power which is now
concealed, but is to be revealed in the person of the lawless one. That the
passage speaks not of the revealing of this impersonal power, but of the man
of lawlessness, is sufficiently explained : (1) by the fact that the latter is
presented as a caricature of the returning Christ ; (2) by the fact that the
spirit of lawlessness assumed personal form for the first time not in the
"antichrist," but in all his forerunners (Antiochus, Caligula). In this way
the conception was reached of a pre-existence of the lawless one not purely
ideal. He, i.e. the personal dvofiia, has existed again and again, but, before
the complete development and revelation of his character, he is to be set
aside, that he may operate for a time only as an impersonal power, eventu-

252 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

ally finding his complete personal manifestation, and so, liis revelation in the
man of lawlessness whose appearance immediately precedes the parousia of
Christ. A partial analogy is to be found in the sayings about the coming
Elias, Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10-13, not all of which, however, indicate a personal
return (cf. Matt. xiv. 2, xvi. 14, but are to be understood in the sense of
John i. 21 ; Luke i. 17).

9. (P. 246.) Cf. the writer's essay, Nero der Antichrist, ZfKW, 1886,
S. 337-352, 393-405. Nero (born December 5, 37 ; died June 9, 68) him-
self believed, because of certain predictions, that he would lose his throne,
but rise to power again in the East, and live until his seventy-third year, i.e.
until 110 A.D. (Suet. Nero, xl). Up to about this time the popular belief
seems to have survived that he was still alive, and would regain his power
(Dio Chrys. Or. 21). This led to the rise of a pseudo-Nero, who established
himself on the island of Cythnus in 69 A.D., but was soon easily overpowered
and beheaded by Asprenas, who had been appointed governor of Galatia, and
stopped at the island on his way thither (Tac. Hist. ii. 8. 9 ; Dio Cass.
Ixiv. 9 ; Zonaras, xi. 15). A second pretender, Terentius Maximus by name,
appeared under Titus (79-81 Zonaras, 11. 18), if, indeed, he be not identical
with a third, who in 88 came near causing a Parthian war (Suet. Nero, Ivii ;
Tac. Hist. i. 2). The spread of this belief, which led to these political
uprisings among Hellenistic Jews of the time, is indicated by Sibyll. v.
137-178, 361-385 (71 A.D.) and Sibyll. iv. 117-139 (80 A.D.). It is not until we
come to the Sibyllines written between 120-125 (v. 28-34, 93-110, 214-227)
that we find the return of Nero represented as supernatural in character, and
himself described as an avrideos whom the Messiah is to destroy. About 150
this last prophecy was worked over in connection with others of earlier date
in Sibyll. v. by a Christian. About the same time, either by this Christian,
or by one of kindred mind (Sibyll. viii. 1-216), these conceptions were fused
with important features of the Johannine Apocalypse. Cf. also the picture
of the Antichrist, supplied with the features of Nero, Ascensio Isaice, chap,
iv. 2. The Sibyllines, which date from the first century, and with which alone
2 Thess. can be compared in point of time, reproduce simply the historical
picture of Nero, the matricide, the stage-hero who celebrated his own burn-
ing of Rome, and the builder of a canal through the isthmus of Corinth.
Though, in punishment of his own misdeeds, compelled to flee beyond the
Euphrates, the missing one is to return from Parthia with a great army as
a scourge to Rome. The Jewish conception of Nero during the first decades
after his death shows no trace of an antichrist and of a mysterious super-
natural being.

10. (P. 247.) Assuming that the Christians in Thessalonica were stirred
up by the appearance in 69 A.r>. of the pseudo-Nero whom they regarded as the
antichrist, though 2 Thess. ii. 2 assigns an entirely different reason, this
excitement must have been thoroughly allayed by his immediate downfall.
The opinion that the day of the Lord had already come because the anti-
christ had appeared, would then have disappeared of itself, for the reason that
the pretender perished miserably before he was able to extend his authority
over the little island of Cythnus, and to do anything that coiild establish his
character as the antichrist. The only conceivable effect of disillusionment
would be doubt as to the nearness of the parousia, or as to the truth of the

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 253

prophecies concerning the event. Furthermore, an author, sharing all the
essential presuppositions of his deluded readers, who desired to prevent a
recurrence of such deceptions and disillusionments, must have indicated the
signs by which a false Nero, or antichrist, might be distinguished from the
true one. But there is no trace of this antithesis in. the letter. On these
presuppositions reference to the Karex^v would be without point ; for, as each
new pseudo-Nero appeared, there was nothing to prevent the expectation that
he would replace the reigning emperor and remove all other hindrances to
his power.

11. (P. 247.) For example, P. Schmidt (111) and Schrniedel (HK, ii. 1. 9)
find a contradiction in the fact that in I. v. 1 the time of the parousia is left
undetermined, the Lord coming as a thief in the night ; whereas, according
to II. ii. 1-12, the approach of the parousia is indicated by numerous signs,
many of which are to be observed even in the present. But the same contradic-
tion can be said to exist between Matt. xxiv. 7-33 (Mark xiii. 9-29 ; Luke xxi.
10-31) and Matt. xxiv. 35-44 (Matt. xiii. 32-37 ; Luke xvii. 20-30, xxi. 34-36 ;
Acts i. 7), or between Rev. iii. 3, xvi. 15, and other parts of Rev. In reality
there is no contradiction, only the same difference that existed between Noah
and the men of his time. To those absorbed in the present earthly life the
day of the Lord will come as a snare and the Lord as a thief ; the disciples of
Jesus are to watch, be sober and ready in order that He may not so come
to them. They are to give heed to the signs of the times which portend the
end ; not to pay overmuch attention to those that are remote from the event,
but not to overlook those that are near. If they are to avoid the latter
mistake, they must know what those signs are to be ; if the former, they must
have a general idea of what is to happen before they appear. But since it is
fundamentally impossible to know when the end will come and when the
signs immediately preceding will appear, it is the part of wisdom as well as
the natural impulse of love to live in constant readiness for the approaching
end. The genuine prophecy of the apostolic age retains these fundamental
features of the eschatological teaching of Jesus (cf. Rev. xix. 10). So does
Paul. The impossibility of determining when the end would come (I. v. 1-3),
and the knowledge that the man of lawlessness had not yet appeared, and
could not appear until the existing government, the Roman empire, had
given place to a different order of things (II. ii. 3-7), did not prevent him
from believing that the parousia was near (I. iv. 17 ; cf., however, II. i. 5ff.),
though he does not assert this belief dogmatically (I. v. 10 ; cf. Rom. xiii.
11-14, xiv. 7-9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51 f.). On the other hand, his attention to exist-
ing signs of the coming end (II. i. 5, eVSety/*a, ii. 7a, fjdr) eWpyetT-at), and to
the events which had happened since he had become a Christian (above, p.
237, n. 7), saved him from an error such as he opposes in II. ii. 2, and from
making a prophecy which would be proved false by the next succession to the
throne at Rome. 2 Thess. i. 5-10 has been proved un-Pauline ; indeed, it is
said to breathe a spirit of revenge quite unchristian (Kern, 211, cautiously ;
more strongly stated, e.g., by Schmieclel). But of the general principle of the
retributive righteousness of God (Rom. ii. 2-10), Paul very often makes
severe application (Rom. iii. 8, xi. 9f., xvi. 20 ; 1 Cor. iii. 17, xvi. 22 ; 2 Cor.
xi. 15; Gal. i. 8, v. 10, 12 ; Phil. iii. 18 f.; 2 Tim. iv. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 16),
and in addressing those who were afflicted, with whom he does not identify

254 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

himself, he could without objection say things which would be more objection-
able if said by themselves. Without parallel in Paul's other writings is the
use of (cX^o-ir, in i. 11, in the sense not of a call to martyrdom (Hilgenfeld,
647), nor of the future glory (Klopper, 23), but of a forthcoming invitation
to enter into the possession and enjoyment of the promised glory. This
meaning is particularly clear, if we follow Hofmann's suggestion and connect
f'v rfi fjp-fpa (KelvT) with d^tcocr^. But Paul uses K^rjcris only once (Rom. xi.
29) of the call of the Israelitish nation which was involved in the call of
Abraham. In the first passage the meaning approaches that of 01 KfK\r}fj.evoi
in Matt. xxii. 3, 4, 8 ; Luke xiv. 17, 24 ; in the latter, that of KaXecrcu, Matt.
xxii. 3, the object of the verb being those long since called (cf. Matt. xxv. 34 ;
Rev. xix. 9). The usage in Rom. xi. 29 departs much farther from Paul's
customary usage than 2 Thess. i. 11 ; since the call of the gospel has much
more direct reference to the future glory of Christians (1 Thess. ii. 12, v. 23f.;
2 Thess. ii. 14 ; Eph. i. 18, iv. 4 ; Phil. iii. 14) than to the call of Abraham
and of Israel. It is claimed that the use of KU/HOS for God instead of
Christ (Hilgenfeld, 646), a use which occurs only in quotations from the O.T.
(1 Cor. i. 31), and in passages suggested by the O.T. (2 Cor. viii. 21 = Prov. iii.
4), that this use is un-Pauline. But in I. iii. 12, 6 xvpios, which occurs in a
context where the distinction is twice made between God the Father and
"our Lord Jesus" (I. iii. 11, 13), cannot mean Jesus in distinction from the
Father, but only the Lord who, according to the Christian conception,
has been revealed as " God and Father " and " our Lord Jesus." Hofmann
(i. 214) compares Rom. xiv. 1-12 (3 6 0f6s, 4-8 o Kvpios, 9 XptoTos), and the
usage is to be constantly observed where Paul makes O.T. passages refer to
Christ, when he knows as well as we do that the anarthrous Kvpios means
Jahveh and not Jesus, e.g. Rom. x. 9-15. Why should 6 Kvpios be understood
differently in II. iii. 3, 5 and I. iii. 12, especially in view of the numerous
resemblances between these passages, e.g. avrus 8e, I. iii. 11, II. ii. 16 ;
KUTfvdvvai, I. iii. 11, II. iii. 5 ; a-r^pi^ai, I. iii. 13, II. ii. 17, iii. 3 ? It is true
that Paul, who in II. i. 7-ii. 14 has constantly before him the Christ who is
to return in glory, when he comes to speak of God and Christ together in
II. ii. 16, places Christ's name first (in contrast to I. iii. 11), and that in II. i.
12 he calls Christ " our Lord and God " (cf. Rom. ix. 5 ; Tit. i. 3). It is also
true that in this Epistle 6 Kvpios occurs in combinations where analogy might
lead one to expect 6 deos (TTICTTOS ... 6 Kvpios, II. iii. 3, cf. per contra, I. v.
24 ; 1 Cor. i. 9, X. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 18 ; rjyaTrrjp.fi'Oi VTTO Kvpiov (al. rot) Kvpiov
and 6eo\>\ II. ii. 13, cf. per contra, I. i. 4 ; 6 Kvpios rtjs ipf]VTjs, II. iii. 16, cf.
per contra, I. v. 23 ; Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Phil. iv. 9 ; also
Heb. xiii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 33). This usage can be considered un-Pauline only
if, in striking contrast to other Christians of his time, Paul did not recognise
Christ as the Faithful One (2 Tim. ii. 13), the Redeemer through His love
(Gal. ii. 20 ; Rom. viii. 37 ; Eph. v. 2, 25), the Bringer of Peace (Eph. ii.
14-18 ; Col. iii. 15, with Phil. iv. 7 ; "peace from God and Christ" in the
greetings). It is evident, on the other hand, that a forger would not have re-
placed an expression like " The God of Peace," which occurs so frequently
in Paul's writings, by the unusual " The Lord of Peace." The same is true of
the use of eyKau^ao-^at between two eVs, in II. i. 4, instead of the single verb
which occurs more than thirty times in Paul's writings, and which a copyist

THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 255

of an early date thought ought to be inserted here. It is asserted also that
having used eeXearo in two passages of his letters (1 Cor. i. 27 f. ; Eph. i. 4),
Paul could not have written eiAaro in a third, II. ii. 13, although naturally
he is familiar with the word (Phil. i. 22), and although the word is excellently
chosen in this passage, where there is a contrast implied to the destruction of
unbelievers over whom the Christians have the advantage. f/ eVKjWi/eia,
which is not at all superfluous, along with rijs irapova-ias, but, like the
expression, "the breath of his mouth, "indicates the outward manifestation of
the coming of Christ (II. ii. 8, cf. i. 7-10), cannot be considered un-Pauline
simply because it is used in a similar connection in Tit. ii. 13 and elsewhere
with reference to the return of Christ, 1 Tim. vi. 14 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8. It is
quite without point to reject as un-Pauline the phrase OTTO rr)s 86r)s TJJS I<TXVOS
avrov, II. i. 9, from Isa. ii. 10, because used instead of Swa^eus avrov, which
it is alleged is the only expression Paul uses (cf. per contra, Eph. i. 19, vi. 10),
and the word fTricrwayuyfi, II. ii. 1 (cf. I. iv. 14, 17 ; Mark xiii. 27), for which
no genuine Pauline equivalent can be named. The difficult construction of
sentences in the first main division of the letter, amounting in several
passages (i. 10-12, ii. 3-9) to anacolutha, and the succession of short sentences
at the end (iii. 2&, with the contrast in iii. 3 ; the sentence, iii. 10 ; antithesis,
ii. 116 ; all from iii. 13 on), are signs of genuineness.

IV.

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL WITH
THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH.

17. THE EAKLY HISTORY OF THE CHUECH.

THE city of Corinth, which was destroyed and depopulated
by Mummius in the year 146 B.C., and rebuilt by Csesar
and made a Roman colony (" Laus Julia Corinthus "), was
the capital of the province of Achaia, which since the
year 27 B.C. had been separate from Macedonia, and which
in size corresponded practically to the modern kingdom of
Greece. Here resided regularly the propraetor, who had
the rank of proconsul. After its restoration Corinth
developed rapidly into a flourishing city, and at this time
was the principal city in the province in point of popula-
tion, industry, and commerce. The celebration there of
the Isthmian games made it a centre of Greek life in spite
of the mixed character of its population, though after its
restoration, as before, Corinth was a "city of Aphrodite"

(n. 1).

Paul came to Corinth from Athens in November 52
(Acts xviii. 1). As the result of eighteen months of labour
there, the Corinthian Church was organised. Of this
Church Paul declares himself to have 'been the sole founder
with an exclusiveness and an emphasis which would have
been out of place in the case of the Thessalonians, and
there is nothing in Acts nor in Paul's own writings which
calls for any dispute of his right to this position (n. 2).
If, as seems to be the case, there were already in existence

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 257

at this time a number of small Churches in the vicinity of
Corinth, there is no necessity for assuming that Paul
himself had taken an active part in their organisation.
More probably the same plan was adopted that was
followed later in Ephesus. While the apostle remained
in the capital and bent all his energies to kindle a central
flame of Christian life, sparks from this fire were scattered
in every direction through the province. In Corinth, as
in Ephesus, Paul's helpers did. valiant service in spreading
the gospel in localities which the apostle did not visit in
person.

The circumstances under which Paul came to Corinth
were peculiar. For whatever cause, whether on account of
the experience which he had had in Athens, or on account
of continued anxiety about the Thessalonian Church, he
was in an unusually discouraged state of mind when he
began his Corinthian work. As he himself intimates, it
was for this reason that in Corinth he confined himself so
strictly to the simple preaching of the cross, refusing more
than at other times and in other places to make the foolish-
ness of the gospel attractive to his hearers by the use of
rhetorical art and of learning (1 Cor. ii. 1-5 ; cf. Acts
xviii. 9). The manner in which he lived in Corinth was
also such as to foster this feeling. While in Athens, he
made no attempt to earn his living by working with his
own hands, a course of action which was natural in those
surroundings, and quite possible on account of contribu-
tions sent by the Macedonian Churches (Phil. iv. 15;
2 Cor. xi. 8f). As a result, he not only preached on the
Sabbath in the synagogue of the Jews and proselytes, but
also sought opportunities on week days to converse in the
public places with those who resorted thither. In Corinth,
on the other hand, after he obtained quarters in the house
of Aquila and Priscilla, the Jewish couple who from this
time on were associated with him closely and constantly,
he worked for wages during the week in their tent shop,

VOL. i. 17

258 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

so that his religious activity was confined to the Sabbath
and the synagogue (n. 3). The relief which came with
the good news brought by Timothy from Thessalonica
(1 Thess. iii. 6), and the encouragement which naturally
resulted from reunion with his two trusted helpers, stimu-
lated him to preach with greater energy, in consequence of
which the opposition of the Jews became more pronounced,
and Christian preaching was forbidden in the synagogue
(Acts xviii. 5-7). It was a triumph for Paul when
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and his entire family
were baptized by him, an example which was followed at
once by a considerable number of the Corinthians. In
this manner originated the Church, which continued to
assemble in the house of an uncircumcised proselyte
adjoining the synagogue. During the succeeding months
its membership was materially increased by the addition
of Gentiles from all classes (n. 4).

Having now succeeded in establishing a Church separ-
ate from the synagogue, Paul might have considered his
work in Corinth at an end. And he seems actually to
have had it in mind to leave Corinth at this time, lest
the continuation of the preaching should lead to further
outbreaks of fanaticism on the part of the Jews. But,
encouraged by a dream vision, he remained at this post
longer than at any of the mission stations where he had
worked heretofore. This period was not altogether with-
out opposition (2 Thess. iii. 2) ; but an attempt on the
part of the Jews to charge the apostle, before the proconsul
Gallio, with teaching a religion contrary to the laws of the
State, was frustrated by this statesman's ability to see at
once that it was a question of differences about Jewish
doctrine, and by his determination to have nothing to do
with such matters (n. 5). The Jews gave vent at once to
the indignation which they felt at this miscarriage of their
plans upon Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, before
the tribunal from which the accusers were driven by

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 259

Gallic, i.e. as the accusing party were leaving the judg-
ment-hall, doubtless because, as their spokesman, he had
not shown positiveness nor tact enough in presenting
their case. If this is the same Sosthenes who is men-
tioned in 1 Cor. i. 1, this painful experience probably
helped him to decide fully in favour of a cause which
previously he had not had the requisite hostility and
decision to prosecute (n. 6). As will be presently shown,
the development of the relation between the synagogue
and the Church was not yet at an end when Paul left
Corinth, at Pentecost 54, and went to Ephesus.

With this departure begins a period of three years
devoted mainly to the spread of Christianity in Ephesus
and the province of Asia (Acts xx. 31). It was toward
the end of this period that the first of the Corinthian
letters preserved to us was written. Plans had been
under consideration for some time for making a journey
in the near future to Corinth. This purpose was now on
the point of being carried out, since the route, by way of
Macedonia, and the time of departure, Pentecost, had been
already determined upon (1 Cor. iv. 18-21, xi. 34, xvi.
2-9). Timothy and, according to Acts xix. 22, a certain
Erastus, who apparently was the treasurer of the city of
Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23, cf. 2 Tim. iv. 20), had been sent
on by the same indirect route which Paul intended to take
(1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10). It is assumed that on account of
the indirectness of the route through Macedonia and the
commissions to the Churches there which they had to
fulfil, Timothy will arrive in Corinth somewhat later than
the letter, which has been sent directly by the sea route.
He therefore gives the Church certain instructions as to
how Timothy is to be received when he arrives (1 Cor.
xvi. 10). At the same time he makes request that
Timothy be sent back at once from Corinth to Ephesus,
where he plans to await his arrival. When the cause
which was keeping Paul in Ephesus until Pentecost (xvi.

260 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

9) is also taken into account, we must assume that the
letter was written from four to eight weeks before this
date. This makes it very probable that the figurative
language used in 1 Cor. v. 7 f. was suggested by the
Jewish passover, which was being celebrated about the
time when the letter was written (n. 7).

Of the things affecting the relation of the Church
to Paul which happened between his departure from
Corinth at Pentecost 54 and the composition of 1 Cor. at
Easter 57, there are some which without difficulty may be
determined. The immediate presupposition of 1 Cor.
is a letter from the Church to Paul (1 Cor. vii. 1),
From the apostle's expression of joy in xvi. 17 at the
arrival of Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (n. 8), who
in large measure made up to him for the deficiencies of
the Church toward him, and from the request that the
Church recognise these men and follow their advice (xvi.
15-18), we ascertain what did not need to be told the
readers, that these three Corinthians had come recently to
Ephesus and were now returning to Corinth. It is there-
fore very probable that they had brought the communica-
tion of the Church to Ephesus, and were about to take
Paul's answer back with them to Corinth. Assuming that
vii. 1 refers expressly to written opinions and questions
of the Church, it may be inferred from the formulae by
which the several topics are introduced in vii. 25 (-n-epl

Be rwv TrapdevatvY Vlii. 1 (vrept Be rwv elBcoXoOvrcav), xii. 1
(nepl Be TWV TrvevfiartKh)^, xvi. 1 (Kepi Be TT}<? \oyias), xvi.

12 ("Kepi Be 'ATTO\\W), which are similar to the formula of
vii. 1, only abbreviated, that all the discussions introduced
in this way, namely, chaps, vii., viii.-x., xii.-xiv., xvi.
1-12, are in reply to this communication of the Church.
This conclusion is confirmed by the observation that in
these connections Paul repeatedly states principles and
then proceeds at once to limit their application (vii. If.,
viii. 1, x. 23; cf. 18, n. 1). This is true even in the

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 261

case of the commendation in xi. 2, to which the following
context is only a contrast. Paul quotes these statements
from the letter of the Church, and appears for the time
being to give his assent to them, but only in order at once
to qualify them, xi. 16f. The expression used in xi. 34 is
natural only if the Church had asked some questions or
expressed some opinions about the celebration of the
Lord's Supper. Thus also chap. xi. is in answer to ques-
tions asked by the Church in their letter, which does not
exclude the possibility of Paul's having taken account
here (xi. 18), as in other passages after vii. 1, of separate
oral reports. But there are traces of the letter of the
Church even before vii. 1. The principle stated in x. 23,
of which Paul admits only the general truth, pointing out
its limitation as applied to the practical question in hand,
is to be found also at the beginning of vi. 12-20. So in
v. 9-13 he corrects a misinterpretation of instructions
which he had given the Church in an earlier letter, without
mentioning the source of his information or without any
suggestion of doubt as to the fact of the misinterpreta-
tion. Consequently this misinterpretation of his earlier
advice must have been found in the letter of the Church.
We have therefore to assume that, with the exception
of certain chapters and passages, the whole of 1 Cor.
is a reply to a letter of the Church which itself in turn
had been written with reference to an earlier letter of Paul
to the Corinthians, in fact was a direct answer to such
a letter. The chapters excepted are i.-iv., the occasion
and material for which were supplied by particular infor-
mation, probably oral, coming to him from the members
of the household of a certain Chloe (i. 11); the passages
are v. 1-8, possibly also vi. 1-11, and probably chap, xv.,
in which Paul seems to speak of his own initiative about
things that had happened in the Church, with regard to
which he had been definitely informed, though not by the
Church itself.

262 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

While this lost correspondence (n. 9) is to be dated
only a few \veeks or at most months before the writing
of 1 Cor., the coming of Apollos to Ephesus is to be
placed a few weeks or a few months after Paul's first
departure from Corinth. According to Acts xviii. 24 ff.,
Apollos (n. 10) was an Alexandrian Jew distinguished for
his Greek culture and rhetorical training (\6ytos), as well
as for his Jewish learning. Though when he came to
Ephesus he had not been baptized and so received into
the membership of the Christian Church, he not only
possessed a fairly accurate knowledge of the facts about
Jesus, but also entered into the synagogue in Ephesus
and taught with enthusiasm a form of Christianity which
was not current in the Church. This brought him into
contact with Aquila and Priscilla, who had come to
Ephesus with Paul, and who remained there during the
several months while Paul was absent on his journey to
Palestine and Antioch, attending the synagogue services
as Paul did when he first came to Ephesus (xviii. 19), and
for the first months after his return (xix. 8). After Apollos
had been instructed by this couple in the form of Christi-
anity taught in the Church, he was all the more anxious
to continue his preaching journey. So, when he came to
Corinth bearing letters of recommendation from Aquila
to the Christians there, it was not primarily in the role of
a teacher in the Christian Church, but as a missionary
preacher among the Jews in Corinth. And it was chiefly
through his success among this class that he contributed
materially to the growth of the Church (n. 11). This
does not, of course, preclude the possibility of Apollos'
having been a very acceptable teacher in the Christian
gatherings ; indeed, it is most natural to assume that it
made him more so. How long he remained in Corinth
we do not know. When 1 Cor. was written, he had
been for some time with Paul in Ephesus. But he had
not been forgotten in Corinth. From 1 Cor. xvi. 12

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 263

we learn that in their letter the Church had expressed to
Paul the desire that Apollos might return to Corinth.
Although he was strongly urged by Paul to comply with
this request and to go back with the messengers from the
Corinthian Church, for the time being Apollos steadfastly
refused to do so.

Some time after Apollos' appearance in Corinth, but
apparently a considerable time before the correspondence
with the Church which took place just before 1 Cor.
was written, the apostle himself had made a visit to
Corinth. No mention of this visit is made in Acts, which
gives very few details of the period of three years when
Paul was engaged chiefly in organising the Ephesian
Church, and which here as elsewhere omits all reference
to the intercourse which took place between Paul and
the Churches that had been already organised. Nor is
anything said about it in 1 Cor. (n. 12). On the
other hand, there are several passages in 2 Cor. where
it seems to be presupposed that Paul had been in
Corinth twice before the visit that he was now on the
eve of making (n. 13). If, now, as will be shown, it is
impossible to assume that the second visit took place in
the interval between 1 and 2 Cor., we must suppose that
prior to the correspondence of which we get information,
partly from the remains of it which we have and partly
from the testimony of 1 Cor., Paul had interrupted his
work in Ephesus by a visit to Corinth, which presumably
was short (n. 14). The impressions which he had received
on his visit were thoroughly depressing. He had been
humiliated to find that not a few of the members of the
Church which he had spent so much effort in organising
were living as unchastely as their heathen neighbours (2
Cor. xii. 21, ii. 1). He had exhorted them very earnestly,
but had refrained from employing disciplinary measures of
a severer kind (2 Cor. xiii. 2). He had given them instruc-
tions with reference to this matter in the letter of his

264 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9. The communication from the
Church, in which, among other things they had replied to
this letter of the apostle's, together with the numerous
oral reports that had recently come to him concerning the
condition of the Church and events that had taken place
(n. 15), had pressed the recollection of this short visit
into the background, and had created a condition of
affairs which called for the writing of 1 Corinthians.

1. (P. 256.) MARQUARDT, Rom. Staatsverw. 2 i. 321-333 ; MOMMSEN, Rom.
Gesch. 2 v. 234 ft".; BRANDIS in Pauly-Wissowa RE, i. 190 ff. From the days of
Augustus, Achaia was a senatorial province ; and again, after a temporary
union with Macedonia under Tiberius and Caius, it held this position at
the time of Claudius. It is with the period of Claudius that we are concerned.
Kegarding Corinth see CURTIS, Peloponmsos, ii. 514-556, 589-598. On
account of its former glory it was termed " lumen totius Grseciee " (Cic. pro
lege Manl. 5, cf. de Nat. Deor. iii. 38). This " bimaris Corinthus " (Hor. Od. i.
7. 2), on account of its location on the isthmus between the ports of Keyxpem
and S^oti/ovr on the Saronic Bay and Ae'^moi/ on the the Bay of Corinth,
soon reassumed its importance as a commercial centre for the trade between
Asia Minor and Italy (Strabo, p. 378 [here also the proverbial ov iravrbs dv8p6s
ts Kopivdov ea-B' 6 irXovs], 380 ; Aristides, Or. iii., Dindorf, i. 37). In view of
the dangers attending the voyage around Cape MaXe'ai and the difficulties
involved in transporting wares and ships via the " Diolkos," which crossed
the isthmus from Schrenus (Strabo, 335, 380 ; Plin. H. Nat. iv. 4. 10), there
were repeated attempts to cut a channel through the isthmus, the last of
these being made by the emperor Caligula (Suet. Calig. xxi ; Plin. i. 1). The
channel was nob completed until 1893. The management of the Isthmian
games (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 24-27), which had been transferred to Sicyon during the
time when Corinth was in ruins, was afterwards intrusted again to the latter
city (Pausan. ii. 2. 1). Among the sanctuaries in and near the city were
those of Isis, Serapis, and Melikertes (Pausan. ii. 1. 3, ii. 3, iv. 7). Like
Argos and Athens, Corinth was a residence place of Jews (Philo, Leg. ad Cai.
xxxvi, cf. Justin. Dial. i). It was an ambition of students also to see Corinth
(Epict. Diss. ii. 16. 32), although as an educational centre it was not to be
compared with Athens. Here near together lay the graves oi' the philosopher
Diogenes and of the famous courtesan Lais (Pausan. ii. 2. 4).

2. (P. 256.) Paul was the sole founder of the Corinthian Church, 1 Cor.
iii. 6-10, iv. 15, cf. ix. 2, xi. 23, xv. 1 ff. This is not contradicted by 2 Cor. i.
19 ; for 2 Cor. is not directed exclusively to the Church in Corinth, as in
1 Cor., but to the Christians of all Achaia (2 Cor. i. 1). There is conse-
quently to be considered as included in the address primarily both Corinth
and Athens, where Paul had tarried for some time with Timothy, in whose
name also 2 Cor. was written, and where he had also spent some time
with Silas (1 Thess. iii. 1-5, above, p. 205 f.). The broad term used (-n-dcnv,
6A-/) permits us, however, to include a number of places in the province

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 265

where there were Christians. According to the reading of Codex D, Acts
xviii. 27 would seem to indicate that immediately after the departure of Paul
there were several CKKX^CTICU in and near Corinth. According to 2 Thess. i. 4
(above, p. 241, n. 11), such eicKXrjcn'at existed as early as the middle of Paul's
sojourn in the city. But only at a somewhat later date (Rom. xvi. 1) is refer-
ence made to a particular eKKA^crm, namely, that at Cenchrea. From 2 Cor.
i. 19 we infer that Timothy and Silas, who, according to 1 Cor., could have
had no appreciable share in the founding of the local Corinthian Church,
laboured successfully in the vicinity of Corinth. Nor is this assertion con-
tradicted by Acts. Just as Paul had prosecuted his labours at Corinth for
some time before his assistants arrived (xviii. 1-4), so when he leaves Corinth
nothing is said about them (xviii. 18). Even after their arrival at Corinth,
allusion is made only to Paul (xviii. 5-17, cf. per contra, e.g. xvii. 1-15). It
does not follow because Timothy and Silas were with Paul when 1 and
2 Thess. were written, that they remained in Corinth continuously even for
several mouths. While Paul " dwelt " in Corinth alone for eighteen months
(Acts xviii. 11), Timothy and Silas were probably engaged in missionary
activities in the province, working from Corinth as a centre.

3. (P. 258.) Acts xviii. 1-4. Concerning the edict of Claudius, see 11.
The fact that Priscilla, or Prisca (according to the decisive testimony of Rom.
xvi. 3 ; 2 Tim. iv. 19 perhaps also 1 Cor. xvi. 19), is regularly mentioned along
with Aquila and more than once before him (Rom. xvi. 3 ; 2 Tim. iv. 19 ;
Acts xviii. 18, perhaps also xviii. 26), permits the supposition that she was
the more important of the two. Because Aquila (Acts xviii. 2) is designated
as a certain Jew of this name, and because Paul's introduction into his house-
hold is due merely to the fact : rja-av yap O-KTJVOTJ-OLOI rfj Ttx v Tl (xviii. 3), we
are not to imagine that they were already Christians, or had been previously
acquainted with Paul. Paul " found " Aquila in looking for lodgings and
opportunity for work. It is easy to understand why in such commercial
centres as Thessalonica (1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8) and Corinth (2 Cor. xi.
7-12, xii. 13-18 ; 1 Cor. iv. 12, ix. 4-18) Paul should not desire his mission-
ary activity to be looked upon as a money -making pursuit. On the other
hand, this humble character of his daily work was in keeping with the spirit
in which he came to Corinth. His occupation also was an eavrov raireivovv,
2 Cor. xi. 7.

4. (P. 258.) Paul himself baptized Crispus (Acts xviii. 8), and also a cer-
tain Gaius (1 Cor. i. 14). There is no good reason for doubting that the Crispus
mentioned in the two passages is the same person, nor for questioning the
accuracy of the statements concerning him (Heinrici, Comm. i. 1880, p. 10 ;
Holsten, Ev. des PL i. 186). In 1 Cor. Paul had no occasion to mention
his Jewish origin, or the fact that he was a ruler of the synagogue, or
even to refer to the time of his baptism. The objection that the representa-
tion of Acts xviii. 1-17 is constructed after the model of Rom. i. 16, ii. 9f.
is entirely without foundation. In Thessalonica and Bercea, Paul preached,
as a rule, only in the synagogue ; in Athens, both in the market-place and on
the streets ; in Corinth, first in the synagogue, then in a private house. Ill
Bercea, almost the whole Jewish populace, to which must be added certain
proselytes, especially women, seems to have accepted the gospel (Acts xvii.
10-12). On the other hand, in Thessalonica and Corinth the opposition of

266 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

the Jews was so pronounced that the first converts were almost all Gentiles.
Where, then, is the model that Luke is supposed to have followed in compos-
ing his narrative ? The argument that in Corinth the gospel found its first
believers in a Greek home, which Holsten, i. 187, makes from 1 Cor. xvi. 15,
is based primarily upon the incredible error that Greek names such as
Stephanas were borne by Greeks only and not by Jews (see above, p. 63, n.
10) ; and, secondly, on the further mistake of supposing that Stephanas was
a Corinthian. Since the household of Stephanas is termed dirapxr] TJ??
'Axatas (1 Cor. xvi. 15), and since Paul before coming to Corinth was not
unsuccessful in his preaching at Athens, which belonged to Achaia, Stephanas
must have been converted and baptized at Athens. This is not contradicted
by the fact that about the time 1 Cor. was written Crispus had come from
Corinth to Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 17), had won credit for himself by aid-
ing the collections in Corinth and Achaia for the Christians in Jerusalem
(1 Cor. xvi. 15, cf. xvi. 1 ; 2 Cor. ix. 2), and very probably at that time re-
sided in Corinth. The fact that Paul names Stephanas in such incidental
way in 1 Cor. i. 14 f . evidently bethinking himself of one whom he could
name in addition to Crispus and Gaius can be explained only on the ground
that Stephanas was not one of the early converts of Corinth, to say nothing
of his not being the arrapxri Kopivdov ; though at the time the Epistle was
written his relationship to the Corinthian Church was such that the failure
to mention him in 1 Cor. i. 14 f. would have seemed unbecoming. It is
obvious that the agreement reached by the Church at Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 9,
did not prevent Paul from beginning his preaching in the synagogues
wherever he had an opportunity to do so (cf. Skizzen, 70-76, and NKZ,
1894, S. 441 f.). That this was what he did in Corinth we should infer
from 1 Cor. i. 22-24, vii. 18, ix. 20, even were it not reported in Acts xviii.
with so many lifelike details, and consequently in a manner so worthy of
credence. Whether the Gaius mentioned along with Crispus, who, accord-
ing to Rom. xvi. 23, was a man of great hospitality, was a Jew or not we do
not know. Titus (al. Titius), or Justus, or Titus Justus (Acts xviii. 7), who
cannot be identified with the Titus of Gal. ii. 3 ; 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6-xii. 18
(Wieseler, Chronol. 204), if the correct chronology is followed, was a o-fftopevos,
i.e., according to the terminology of Acts (above, p. 212, n. 6), a Gentile hold-
ing allegiance to the synagogue, not a circumcised proselyte. Aquila and
Priscilla, Paul had no reason to mention in 1 Cor. i. 14 as they had perma-
nently left Corinth, Acts xviii. 26 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 19 ; Rom. xvi. 3. They cer-
tainly were won to the faith before Crispus, and must have been baptized not
later than the formation of the independent Church in Corinth. The " many
Corinthians " who were influenced to a decision by the baptism of Crispus,
Acts xviii. 8, must for this reason have belonged to those Hellenes who before
that time had been more or less closely allied with the synagogue, Acts
xviii. 4. This, however, does not hold of the Xao? iro\vs in ver. 10. At the
time when 1 Cor. was written (vi. 11, viii. 7, xii. 2), the congregation was
for the most part made up of native Gentiles, although later on Apollos was
successful in bringing some Jews into the Church (nn. 6, 11). From 1 Cor.
i. 26-31 we may infer that there were in the congregation several persons,
though not many, of higher rank and of more thorough education. With
regard to Erastus, see above, p. 259 (middle).

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 267

5. (P. 258.) Concerning Gallic, see XI. (Chron. Survey). It is not to lie
assumed that the Jews (Acts xviii. 13) accused Paul as a transgressor of the
Mosaic law ; for (1) there is wanting here any expression which would indi-
cate such to be the case, as in John xix. 7, xviii. 31 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 3. 4 (in the
contest between the Jews and the Samaritans before Ptolemy Philometer, Kara
TOVS Motva-f o>9 v6fj.ovs). (2) It is self-evident that the law to which the accuser
appeals is that by which the judge must decide the case. It was a principle
with the Jews that in legal process appeal might be made to Gentile as well
as to Jewish laws (Baba Kamma, 113a). (3) It is no objection that Gallic
says, ver. 15, rrepl v6p.ov TQV Kad' v^as. On the contrary, this pointed expression
implies that this was just the opposite of that law according to which Gallio
had to judge. In the accusation, which in ver. 13 is naturally presented in
a very much abbreviated form, the Jews must have argued that Christianity
was not to be identified with Judaism, which was tolerated by the Roman
law, but that it was rather to be treated as an apostasy from Jewish law and
faith. This was the basis of fact for Gallio's judgment. (4) It would have
been folly, of which even blind fanaticism would be incapable (C. Schmidt,
Apostelgeschichte, i. 533), to seek the defence of Jewish orthodoxy at the hands of
a proconsul, especially outside of Palestine, where the conditions were especi-
ally adverse to the success of such a plea. It would have been more clumsy still,
before a judge whose religion and worship were opposed to Mosaism, to accuse
Paul of teaching mankind (not Jews) to honour God in a manner contrary
to the Mosaic law. The real accusation of the Corinthian Jews was essentially
the same as that in Acts xvii. 7, cf. xvi. 21 ; Luke xxiii. 2 ; John xix. 15.

6. (P. 259.) If in Acts xviii. 17, whether we read irdvres (KAB) without
ol "E\\T)vfs (DEHLP), or the very slightly attested ol 'lovdaioi, we can under-
stand only the Jews who appeared before Gallio in great crowds (ver. 12,
6no6vna$6v). If the ring of Hellenes on the outside were meant, statement
to that effect would be necessary, and even then it would be impossible to
exclude the Jews from the irdvTes. If, as appears from xviii. 8, 17, and as
was customary (Schurer, ii. 439 [Eng. trans, n. ii. 65]), there was only one
ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, then Sosthenes was the successor of Crispus.
He is not to be distinguished from the Christian Sosthenes of 1 Cor. i. 1.
Paul does not usually mention the amanuensis to whom he dictates, especially
not in such a prominent place as the opening address (cf. Rom. xvi. 22). On
the other hand, Sosthenes is not to be looked upon as the joint writer with
him of the letter ; for, from i. 4 on, Paul speaks only in his own name. The
only addresses which are strictly comparable are Phil. i. 1, 3; Phileru. 1, 3, and
perhaps also Gal. i. 2. If, however, it carried weight with the Corinthians
to know that there was with Paul a Sosthenes who agreed with what was
said in the letter, this person must have been well known to them and
respected by them, a description which suits the former chief of the syna-
gogue in Corinth. If, later, he became a Christian, and we have no reason
to believe he did not, Apollos may have helped him from his attitude of
opposition to the gospel, which had already begun to waver, to a condi-
tion of actual faith (see n. 11). According to Eus. H. E. i. 12. 1 f., Clement
Alex, reckoned this Sosthenes among the seventy disciples. He clearly
distinguishes him from the Sosthenes of Acts xviii. 17, just as he attempts
to distinguish the Cephas of Gal. ii. 11, and also of 1 Cor. i. 12, from the

268 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Apostle Peter. Lipsius (Apocr. Apostelgesch. i. 201 ; Ergiinzungsheft, S. 3)
has been misled through the careless reading of Eus. H. E. i. 12 into stating
that the author's statement here and in Forsch. iii. 68, 148 is " simply
untrue." Eusebius writes : " It is said that to these (seventy disciples)
belonged also Sosthenes, who, together with Paul, wrote to the Corinthians.
And this narrative is found in the fifth book of the Hypotyposes of Clement,
in which he also says that "Cephas," etc. The "also" (eV % nal K^v)
proves that this assertion regarding Cephas was not the only thing that
Clement said, and that 17 lo-ropia refers to the preceding remark about
Sosthenes (cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 15. 2).

7. (P. 260.) Krenkel, Beitrage zur Gesch. u. den Briefen dts PL (1890,
1895-'), 233 if., opposes the dating of 1 Cor. at about the end of the
Ephesian activity of Paul, on the ground that an inference drawn from
the combination of statements in Acts, which he alleges are entirely unre-
liable, with those of 1 Cor. is not to be trusted. But the route taken by
Paul, according to Acts, namely, by way of Macedonia and Corinth to
Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21), is identical with that proposed in 1 Cor. xvi. 3-7.
Nor is there any contradiction in the fact that, according to Acts xix. 21
(cf. Rom. xv. 25), Paul looks upon Jerusalem quite definitely as his goal,
whereas in 1 Cor. xvi. 4 he seems to speak of it hypothetically ; for the con-
cluding clause in this latter passage not <rvv avrols Tropfvcrop.ai, but o-vv
tp.ol TTopevcrovTai shows that it is not a question whether Paul will go to
Jerusalem at all with the offering, but whether he will go in company with
the delegates of the Corinthians. It is pointed out that in Acts xix. 22
mention is made of Timothy's journey only to Macedonia, not to Corinth, and
that, on the other hand, it is not expressly stated in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 that
Timothy was to go to Corinth by way of Macedonia. But in the latter
passage this is the clear inference (above, p. 259). On the other hand, in
Acts, which does not touch at all upon the relations of Paul and the
Corinthian Church, there is no occasion to mention the final goal of Timothy's
journey. The mention in Acts xix. 22 (cf. Rom. xvi. 23) of the Corinthian
Erastus would make it seem, quite apart from 1 Cor., that the journey
was to be continued from Macedonia to Corinth. It is true that we are

not able to infer from 1 Cor. what actually took place after Timothy
was sent, but only Paul's intention at the time of his departure. This in-
tention is not only the same as that which, according to Acts xix. 21 f., xx. 1 f.,
Paul had had shortly before and at the time of his final departure from
Ephesus, but it excludes every thought of a return to his labours at Ephesus
after having paid his projected visit to Corinth. Had this been Paul's
intention, or had he even thought of it as a serious possibility, consideration
of the large opportunity afforded him of spreading the gospel in Ephesus,
and the many obstacles with which he had to contend in doing this, would
not have been sufficient reason for his remaining in Ephesus at least until
Pentecost, instead of leaving at once (xvi. 8, 9). At all events, Paul could
not have designated the limit of his stay by ews T^S 7revT>]Koo-T^s, if it had not
been self-evident that he was referring to the coming Pentecost. Inasmuch
as this reckoning follows the order of the Jewish festivals, he could not have
expressed himself very well in this way if the Jewish " Church year," the
Pentecost of which year was in question, had not yet begun, i.e. if the first

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 269

of Nisan were not already past, which agrees with the apparent suggestion
in 1 Cor. v. 8, that this Epistle was written about the time of "unleavened
bread" (14-21 Nisan). The period of six to seven weeks until Pentecost was
long enough to accomplish what is suggested in 1 Cor. xvi. 9, being twice as
long as the period required for the founding of the Church in Thessalonica
(above, p. 212, n. 5). If Timothy's return was delayed (xvi. 11), it is quite
possible that the period of Paul's further activity in Ephesus was extended.
All that Paul means to say is, that in view of conditions at Ephesus, he
could not bring himself to leave until Pentecost. Then there was before
him the journey through Macedonia, which evidently he did not think of as
one that would be executed hastily, since he admits that his proposed longer
sojourn at Corinth may consume the entire winter (xvi. 6). Not before the
following spring, i.e. about a year after the sending of 1 Cor., does he
think of travelling to Jerusalem. It is true that his further intention of
going from Jerusalem to Rome is mentioned only in Acts xix. 21. But
since 1 Cor. contains no contradictory suggestion, it is hypercritical to
question the historicity of the expression in direct discourse given in Acts
xix. 21. Instead of the inference from 1 Cor. xvi. 19 that all the Christians
of Ephesus assembled in the house of Aquila, whereas in a writing alleged
to be directed to Ephesus (Rom. xvi. 5, 14 f.) reference is made to three
house congregations (Krenkel, 234), the proper conclusion to be drawn from
the accompanying greeting from all the brethren is, that the congregation in
the house of Aquila formed only a part of the brotherhood at Ephesus, as
did the congregation in the house of Philemon (Philem. 2) at Colossae.

8. (P. 260.) Clem. 1 Cor. 65, TOVS 5e dTrfa~raXp.fvovs d<$> fjfjLuv KXavSiov
"E(f>r)j3ov Kai OvaXepiov Eircova (Tvv KOI ^oprovvdrca iv tiprjvrj pera xapds ev ra^et
dvmrep\l/aTe Trpos r/fids. If we take into consideration the distinct position
here accorded to Fortunatus, it becomes evident that he is not one of the
representatives of the Romans commissioned to the Corinthians, but merely
the one in whose company these are travelling to Corinth, and in all prob-
ability a Corinthian who made complaints at Rome concerning the disturbances
in the home Church (GGA, 1876, S. 1427 f. ; Lightfoot, S. Clem. ii. 187). If
the Fortunatus of 1 Cor. xvi. 17 was at that time (57A.D.) a young man of
thirty, he can easily be identical with the Fortunatus of 97 A.D., being one of
the presbyters of the Corinthian Church who was installed by the apostles,
and who had grown grey in its service (Clem. 1 Cor. xliv. 3-6 ; xlvii. 6 ;
liv. 2 ; Ivii. 1). If Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus are the bearers,

not only of the letter of the Corinthian Church to Paul, but also of 1 Cor.,
then they are the "brethren" in whose company Apollos might have gone
back to Corinth, 1 Cor. xvi. 12. The order of the words does not agree
with Hofmann's interpretation of the verse, according to which the Chris-
tians about Paul join with him in urging Apollos to undertake this
journey. Assuming, on the other hand, that the order of the words in
xvi. 11 does necessitate the reference of pera T<OV d8eX<o>i/ to the Christians
in whose company Paul will await the return of Timothy at Ephesus, they
cannot have been the three Corinthians who were not to await the return of
Timothy, but were to journey to Corinth at once (xvi. 12, vvv) with
1 Cor. in their keeping, and, in case Apollos could be persuaded to go
in company with him. Neither can they have been the collective Christian

270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

community at Ephesus (xvi. 20) ; they were rather those who were to travel
with Paul via Macedonia to Corinth (see below, 19, n. 6). The similarity
of the expression, ^era TWV aSeX^xuf, in xvi. 11, 12, does not justify us in
identifying the persons referred to in these passages. 6 d8eX<or or ot
d8(\(f)oi may designate very different persons, according to the context or
conditions previously known to the readers (cf. 2 Cor. viii. 18, 22, ix. 3, 5,
xi. 9, xii. 18 ; Eph. vi. 23).

9. (P. 262.) The references to the two early Epistles of Paul which are not
in the collection of his letters, 1 Cor. v. 9-11, vii. 1, led in the second century
to the fabrication of an Epistle from the Corinthians to Paul, and an answer
from Paul to the Corinthians, both of which were embodied in the Canon of
the Church of Edessa in the fourth century, bearing the common title, The
Third Epistle to the Corinthians. From the Syrians they reached the
Armenians and also some of the Latins. The best texts Armenian and
Latin, the former with a German translation are those of P. Vetter, Der
apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief (Tubinger Programm, Wien, 1894). Origin-
ally these pieces were a portion of the old Ada Pauli, as previously con-
jectured by the writer (GK, ii. 607, 611, 879), and as is now proved to be
the case by the Coptic fragments (C. Schmidt, NHJb. vii. 122 ; NKZ, 1897,
S. 937, n. 2) ; also Ada Pauli, ed. C. Schmidt, pp. 74-82.

10. (P. 262.) 'ATroAAco? (nominative),! Cor. iii. 5,22 (G incorrectly A 7roAAo>);
Acts xviii. 24 (D 'ATroAA&wos, of which the shorter form is a contraction,
N Copt. AneXXrjs) ; 'ATroAAco (genitive), 1 Cor. i. 12, iii. 4, xvi. 12 ; Berl. iirj.
Urk. 295. 7 ; 'ATroAAwrt (dative), 811. 1, cf. 449. 1 (with a correction see also
the address there ; on the other hand, Greek Pap. ed. Kenyon, ii. 333, No.
393, 'ATroAAw, dat.) ; 'AiroAAcS, ace. 1 Cor. iv. 6 (CDGLP, ATroAAwv K*AB*) ;
Acts xix. 1 poorly attested also ATroAAwi', K Copt. A^eAA^, D does not here
contain the name) ; Tit. iii. 13 (KH have ATroAAcoi/, G ATroXXwva). The
reading ATreAA^r seems to be of Egyptian origin (cf. besides K Copt., Ammonius
in Cramer's Catena in Ada, p. 311. 1, 7, 13, apparently also Didymus, ibid.
p. 309. 31, 312. 18), and goes back to the modest question of Origen (Delarue,
iv. 682), whether Apelles, Rom. xvi. 10, be not identical with Apollos, Acts
xviii. 24, as Didymus (loc. cit.) asserts. This was claimed also by those who
made Apelles = Apollos, a bishop of Corinth, In commenting upon Acts
xviii. 24, Blass suggests the Doric form 'AireXXwv for 'AfrdAAwi/. Though not
BO strongly attested as 'ATroAAcoi/ios, there is abundant proof of this abbreviated
form in Egypt, the home of the Apollos of Acts (see the indices of vols. i. ii.
iii. of the Berl. ag. Urk.). We find that even down to the present, German
scholars of distinction write the name of the man Apollo. This, as is well
known, is the Latin form of the name of the god, 'A7r6AAa>z', and it is there-
fore necessary in a text-book to warn against this mistake. Or shall we soon
read and hear Mino, rhinocero, etc. ?

11. (P. 261.) The scene of the public disputations, Acts xviii. 28 (S^oo-ia,
to which E alone adds nal nar' OIKOV), was certainly not the assembly of the
Christians, nor a public place, but the synagogue, in which Apollos held forth
at Corinth as he had done previously at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 26). The con-
nection between Acts xviii. 28 and 27 leaves no doubt that the advantage
of which Apollos proved himself to those who were already believers (or,
according to another text, to the congregations of Achaia) was due to his

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 271

frequent triumphs in these disputations with the Jews. The use of the
strong word 8iaKaTTj\fyxfro points likewise to actual results. From 1 Cor.
iii. 5 we learn specifically that part of the Christians who composed the
Church at the time of 1 Cor. owed their conversion to Apollos (eVioreuo-arf).
It is therefore wrong to interpret the figure in 1 Cor. iii. 6-8 to mean that
the special work of Apollos was the religious or intellectual training of those
who had already been converted by Paul. It is not the individual Christians
and their spiritual life, but the congregation in general, which constitutes the
dfov yfu>pyiov and Qtoii otKoSo/niy. According to 1 Cor. iii. 10-15, the activity
of those who, like Apollos, continued the work of Paul, consisted in adding
further material to the building, i.e. in winning men to the faith and
bringing them into the Church (cf. Eph. ii. 20-22 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5-7). According
to the original text of Acts xviii. 27, certain Corinthians stopping in Ephesus
heard Apollos preach and invited him to come to Corinth with them. This
was the beginning of the "Apollos party" in Corinth.

12. (P. 263.) Hofmann, ii. 2. 396 (comp. also Holsten, 189, 445), was
minded to find in 1 Cor. xvi. 7 reference to a former visit to Corinth. Were
this the case, however, we should expect not u/m, which does not mean " on
this occasion," but rather ird\iv (2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 21, xiii. 2), or, if it is decided
to associate the coming again with the present, apn TTO\IV (Gal. i. 9). Further-
more, the reason for this statement given in 76 would be somewhat tautological.
Finally, in its present context apn must mean " even now " in contrast with
a later point of time (John xiii. 7, 33, xvi. 12). There is no force in the
objection that Paul could speak in this way only if he were already on the
journey (Hofmann, 395), because, even in this case, I8e1v would still refer to
the future ; while, from the criticisms of the Atticists, we learn that apn was
very commonly employed to designate the immediate future (cf. Lobeck, ad
Phryn. 18 f.). What Paul says is this : He does not wish to visit Corinth
at once coming directly from Ephesus, which would permit him to stop at
Corinth only for a brief stay on his way into Macedonia. Then he gives as
his reason for this decision not to come now, his hope of a longer visit, which,
nevertheless, will have to be delayed (ver. 5), since, in any case, he must pro-
ceed soon to Macedonia.

13. (P. 263.) The testimony of 2 Cor. to a visit not mentioned in Acts is
denied by Grotius (ii. 488, 539-541, with the stereotyped evasion est et hie
trajectio), Reiche (Comm. Grit. i. 337 f.), Baur (i. 337-343), Hilgenfeld (Einl.
260, n. 2), Heinrici (ii. 9-13). But the only possible sense that can be given
to 2 Cor. xiii. 1 is that Paul, at the time when he was writing 2 Cor., was on
the point of coming to Corinth for the third time. In the light of this verse
xiii. 2 must be understood ; TO devrepov is to be taken with Trapuiv, vvv with
airuv, so that the TrpoeiprjKa must have taken place during the second visit.
Similarly xii. 14 and xii. 21 must be taken together. There is no grammati-
cal objection to taking rpirov with f\delv jrpbs vfj,as, and this is the only inter-
pretation that fits the context (cf. Krenkel, Beitrage, 185) ; for to say that
this was the third time that Paul was ready to come to Corinth, even if it were
possible, would be without point in connection with xii. 14. In order, with
good conscience, to separate eV Xinrrj from TraXiv (ii. 1), which Theodoret,
contrary to the word arrangement and Paul's linguistic usage (Krenkel, 202),
undertook to connect with tXddv, making it refer to Paul's return to

272 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Corinth, in some cursives the ird\iv was placed after e\den>, and in the
Coptic, which omits traXiv, after vpas. But in all the other MSS. it is clearly
stated that Paul had visited in Corinth once in sorrow, in fact, as the context
and the comparison xii. 21, xiii. 2, show, in sorrow for the Church's condition.
This can have no reference to the despondency with which Paul appeared
for the first time in Corinth (1 Cor. ii. 3), but must refer to the second visit,
of which we are speaking. Wrongly assuming that 2 Cor. x. 10 represents
the words of one of the Jewish Christians who had come to Corinth from
without (see per contra, below, 18, n. 8), Krenkel (210) finds in this passage
also definite reference to the second visit. If, however, the speaker is rather
a native Corinthian, his words may well represent the impression which Paul
made at the time of his first visit. If the second visit is also included, no
conclusion can be drawn regarding the time of the same.

14. (P. 264.) Krenkel, 154-174, thinks he proves that 1 Cor. itself excludes
the assumption of a second visit to Corinth prior to the time when 1 Cor. was
written. If this visit occurred in the first year of his work in Ephesus say
in the summer or fall of 55 or in the spring of 56 the argumentum e silentio
(n. 12) is particularly weak. We are unable to determine all that took place
in Corinth in the twelve or twenty months which elapsed between this time
and that of the writing of 1 Cor., and all the transactions between Paul and
the Church. But the character of the facts that do come to light in 1 Cor.,
the immediately preceding correspondence which has not been preserved to
us, and the reports concerning the factional differences, and various other
disorders in the Church (1 Cor. i. 11, xi. 18), make it clear that Paul has no
more occasion to speak of that visit. In the letter spoken of in 1 Cor. v. 9,
and in numerous other letters of which we know nothing, he may have
spoken of it. It is argued that there is no expressly stated distinction in
1 Cor. ii. 1-5, iii. 6-10, xv. 1 ff. between the first and second visits (as in
Gal. iv. 13) ; but this is true also of 2 Cor. i. 19, xi. 8 f. The only inference
to be drawn from all these passages is that, on his second visit to Corinth,
Paul did not carry on a missionary activity as he had done during his second
visit in the province of Galatia (above, p. 171, n. 2). This, however, would
need no explanation if Paul interrupted his fruitful missionary activity at
Ephesus for only a brief time in order to visit the Corinthian Church. The
instructions, exhortations, and discussions with the believers which took
place at that time do not come properly under the idea of an eVoiKoSo/mi>
(1 Cor. iii. 10-15, above, n. 11). To the view advanced first by Baronius
and most recently by Anger, de Temp, in Adis Ratione (73), that the second
visit to Corinth was only a return from a short excursion made during the
eighteen months of his residence there (Acts xviii. 11), the following objec-
tions may be made : (1) the use of the word fKadiatv (see above, p. 263 f.,
n. 2), to which there is nothing analogous in the report of his stay in
Ephesus ; (2) such a resumption of labours after a brief interruption could
not be classed as a second visit along with his first appearance in Corinth and
his last visit, which was months in preparation. Still less, since 2 Cor.
is addressed to the Christians of entire Achaia, could it be compared to a
journey to that region. Even more questionable is the suggestion of Neander
(Pflanzung und Leitung, 5te Auf. 320), that we read into Acts xix. 1 a journey
to Achaia.

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 273

15. (P. 263.) Since the persons who brought the Epistle of the Corinthians
were in entire harmony with Paul, at least at the time when they started back
to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 17, above, p. 260 f.), there is no doubt that of their own
accord, or in response to his questions, they reported many things to him
which were not in the communication of the Church. From them he may
have learned the facts touched upon in iv. 18, v. 1 ff., vi. 1 ff., xi. 18, xv. 12.
Inasmuch, however, as it was not from them but from those of the household
of Chloe that Paul learned of the strifes mentioned in i. 11-iv. 6, it is evident
that these " members of Chloe's family " must have reached Ephesus before
the bearers of the Epistle from the Church. On the other hand, the informa-
tion brought by the members of Chloe's family must have concerned events
which had just occurred ; for manifestly in i. 11 ff. Paul is speaking of the
conditions in question for the first time. This situation must have been as
yet unknown to him when he wrote his previous letter (v. 9), for otherwise
he would have discussed it, and from the tone of i. 11-iv. 6 it is evident that
he did not. Still less, then, could Paul have noticed these discords at the
time of his visit to Corinth. The only respect in which he compares the
impressions which he received on this second visit with those which he fears
he will receive when he comes again, is that of sorrow (2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 21).
He clearly distinguishes, however, between the unchastity which had caused
him sorrow then (II. xii. 21, xiii. 2), and the factional strifes which he fears
he shall now find (II. xii. 20).

18. THE CONDITION OF THE COEINTHIAN CHUECH
AT THE TIME WHEN FIKST COEINTHIANS WAS
WEITTEN.

In striking contrast to the situation of the Christians
in Thessalonica, the Church in Corinth was enjoying a
condition of undisturbed peace. There are a number of
things which account for this condition, e.g. the mixed
character of the population of a great commercial city,
where men are constantly coming and going from all parts
of the world, the great number of different religious cults
tolerated in Corinth, the impartiality in religious matters
of the proconsul in whose term of office the Church became
established (above, p. 267, n. 5), the social standing of
some of the members of the Church, and the prominent
place of others even in the government of the city (above,
pp. 258, 265 f., n. 4). But, as indicated by the ironical
comparison which the apostle makes between the situation
of the Corinthians, who were living in this world as if it

VOL. I. j 8

274 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

were the millennium (iv.8-13), and that of himself and
his fellow -missionaries, this condition of peace had been
secured at too great cost. The word of the Cross, the
sharp contrast which it implies to all natural wisdom
with the practical inferences therefrom (i. 17-31 ; Gal.
vi. 14), had not made an impression sufficiently deep.
They need to be reawakened to a sense of the fact that
they were a body of persons separated by faith and
baptism from the world about them, and from their
own past (i. 2, iii. 17, vi. 11). Members of the Church
were actually bringing suit against each other in heathen
courts (vi. 1-8). No scruples were felt about maintaining
friendly and social intercourse with the heathen (x. 27).
Many even went so far as to take part in festivities con-
nected with idolatrous worship, in the banquets held in
heathen temples (viii. 10, x. 21). Although this dangerous
approach to the worship of idols which had been so recently
abandoned was not approved by all, so that, as may be
inferred from the detail with which it was answered
(viii. 1-x. 33), the question was submitted to Paul in
the communication of the Church whether it was per-
missible to use meat that had been offered to idols, it
was the opinion of the majority, expressed in the com-
munication from the Church, that this liberal attitude
toward heathen worship was entirely justifiable. Because
every Christian knew that the heathen conception of the
gods was entirely false, it was argued, everyone was free
to consider everything associated with heathen worship
an adiaphoron so long as he did not engage in the worship
itself. Indeed, it was said, to act with this freedom was
an obligation, in fulfilling which an encouraging example
might be given to such of their fellow-Christians as were
still undeveloped in knowledge and in the sense of moral
freedom. By this it was hoped they might be raised to a
level with themselves (n. 1). Without disputing at all
the theoretical presupposition of this position, but rather

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 275

himself affirming repeatedly the nothingness of the gods
believed in and worshipped by the heathen (viii. 4, x. 19),
Paul combats such an employment of their Christian
knowledge and such a use of their Christian liberty.
The principle advocated by the Church, -jrdvra etfevTiv
(x. 23, cf. vi. 12), he holds, must be limited in two
directions. In the first place, not everything permissible
is advantageous to one's neighbour. Out of tender regard
for a fellow-Christian less developed than himself, particu-
larly for the sake of the conscience of such a person, the
Christian must stand ready to give up his undoubted
rights and liberties (viii. 1-3, 7-12), an example which
had been set by Paul himself in the conduct of his
ministry (viii. 13-ix. 22). In the second place, not
everything permissible is best for the Christian himself
the use of whose freedom is in question. Just as the
apostle for his own spiritual good foregoes many things
in themselves pleasant (ix. 23-27), so for their own sakes
the Corinthians ought to avoid dangerous contact with
heathen worship (n. 2). The history of Israel in the
wilderness proves by terrible example that wantonly to
long after the pleasures enjoyed in the old life before
conversion, to incline toward the use of heathen forms
of worship, and to indulge in the practice of heathen
unchastity, is to tempt God, and to bring down destruction
even upon the redeemed (x. 1-11). In order to correct
the spirit of false confidence with which many of the
Corinthians had been treading upon this slippery ground
(x. 12, 22), the apostle insists that, quite apart from the
question whether or not there is a Zeus or an Apollo, an
Aphrodite or an Isis, there are evil spirits which work in
connection with the worship of these so-called gods, to
whose influence everyone is exposed who has anything to
do with heathen worship, even though so indirectly as was
the case among the Corinthians (x. 15-21). From x. 13,
taken in connection with x. 14 (StoTrep), it appears that

276 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

the Church had argued that it was impossible to cut
themselves off entirely from contact with heathen life,
because it would only be to subject themselves to greater
temptations than it was possible for human powers to
endure (cf. Hofmann, ii. 2, 207, and the similar line of
thought in 2 Cor. vi. 14-18). Similarly, the casuistic
questions which Paul was required to answer in x. 25-30
were asked for the purpose of showing that in the inter-
course of daily life it was quite impossible to avoid eating
el8cD\60vra. This same principle, the necessary limita-
tions of which Paul here points out, the Church had
applied also to questions about sexual relations (vi. 12).
In view of the manner in which Paul replies, it is very
probable that the Church had represented the gratifica-
tion of sexual desire to be a natural function, like the
satisfaction of hunger, although we are no longer able
to determine how far the comparison was carried and
how much it was made to cover. Certain it is, however,
that the Church had not agreed with what Paul had
said on this subject. An exhortation in his previous
letter to refrain from intercourse with wicked persons,
particularly with unchaste persons, had been misunder-
stood, or, as Paul hints when making his transition to
this subject in v. 8, unfairly misconstrued. He was
represented as demanding an impossible avoidance of
all contact with immoral persons, whereas his exhorta-
tion was meant to apply only to immoral members of
the Church (v. 9-13). It was the general opinion in
Corinth that Paul, being himself unmarried, had been
too rigorous in his demands affectino- this side of the

o o

natural life. So in their letter the Church had taken
him to task for holding that entire abstinence from all
sexual intercourse was something to be commended.
Paul confesses this to be the principle upon which he
stands, and makes various applications of it (vii. 1, 8,
26-35, 40), but in such a way as to make it appear

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 277

that marriage is to be the rule, the right to remain
single being conditioned upon personal possession of the
charismata requisite thereto (vii. 2, 7, 9). At the same
time we learn that there were some in Corinth who
were opposed to the position taken by the majority, and
treated marriage contemptuously, possibly on the strength
of what Paul had said, recommending or even insisting
that married persons should refrain altogether from sexual
intercourse or even dissolve their marriage relation alto-
gether, particularly in cases where husbands remained
non-Christians ; also rejecting as sinful marriage subse-
quent to conversion, particularly the re - marriage of
widows (n. 3). Although Paul tells this minority
quietly and earnestly that marriage is a natural right
(vii. 3-5), reminding them of the command of Jesus
by which the marriage bond is declared to be inviolable
(vii. 10 ff.), against the majority, whose opinion was
expressed in the letter, he defends his point of view
not without some show of irritation. Where the case
is not covered by an express command of Jesus, while
not speaking with apostolic authority, he does speak as
one who has been given the grace to become a faithful
Christian (vii. 25). He thinks that he has the spirit of
God quite as much as this self-sufficient Church (vii. 40).

This feeling on the part of Paul was due as much as
anything else to the concrete case with the discussion of
which this second section of the letter (chaps, v. -vii.) begins.
He does not need to mention the source whence he had
derived this information ; for this case of one of their own
members who w r as living in incestuous relations, or in
relations of concubinage, with his father's wife, i.e. with
his step-mother, was talked of quite publicly, more openly
than was customary in such cases even among the heathen
(n. 4). The haughty manner in which the Church had
written the apostle, not about this particular case, to
be sure, but about kindred questions (v. 9ff., vi. 12ff.,

278 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

vii. 1 ff. ), and the general moral condition of the Church
(v. 6), show that there was no feeling of shame about the
matter, and that nothing had been done to remove the
scandal. As shown by the relation of v. 2, 13 to Deut.
xvii. 7, 12, xxiv. 7, the only atonement which Paul
deemed adequate was the extermination of the offender
at the hands of the Church. He had decided at once how
this requirement of God's law could be carried out con-
sistently with the nature of the Church of the new
covenant ; and since he could not, nor would not, act
alone in the matter, he communicated his view to the
Church, with the suggestion that they adopt it and unite
with their absent founder in carrying it out. The apostle
in Ephesus proposes that the Church in Corinth join with
him in the name of Jesus and in the confidence that Jesus'
miraculous power will be vouchsafed to them (cf. Matt,
xviii. 19f.), to constitute a court which shall deliver the
offender over to Satan in bodily death, in order that his
spirit may be saved in the day of judgment. It is not to
be an act of excommunication by the Church, but a judg-
ment of God, a miracle in answer to prayer, in which Paul
and the Church are to unite, and for which a definite day
and hour are to be arranged.

While the two sections chaps, v.-vii. and chaps, viii.-x.
show that the moral life and the moral judgment of
the Church were imperilled by lack of separation from
the customs and ideas of their heathen neighbours, from
chap, xv., particularly from the poetical quotation xv. 33,
we learn that in the case of some (xv. 12, 34, rti/e?), things
had reached the point where their judgment about matters
of faith was being formed under the influence of heathen
conceptions. As Paul's argument shows, the contention
of some of the Corinthians, " There is no resurrection of
the dead," was not intended to refer to the resurrection of
Christ. In this case, on account of Christ's exceptional
character and the close relation in time between His death

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 279

and resurrection, those denying the resurrection of the
dead would necessarily have had to make an exception
of this event of gospel history. What they did mean to
deny was only the Christian's hope of a future bodily
resurrection. But this denial was so radical in character,
and so fundamentally connected with the belief that the
bodily resurrection of the dead was impossible and incon-
ceivable, that Paul felt it necessary first of all to show
that the resurrection of Christ, denial of which was after
all involved in their premises (xv. 13, 16), was a fact
amply attested, and an essential element not only in
the gospel which Paul preached and upon which the
faith of the Corinthians was based, but of all the apostolic
preaching (xv. 1-11).

Another source of degeneracy was the unusually rich
endowment of the Church with ^ap/o^ara, especially with
various forms of inspired speech (n. 5). Not only did this
increase the feeling of self-importance on the part of the
Church as a whole, but the pride felt by individuals
because of their special gifts, and the preference for one
gift above another, produced discord and disorder in
public worship. The Church had asked particularly for
Paul's opinion about the so-called speaking with tongues
(n. 5). Here, too, as in the case of questions about
marriage and sacrifices made to idols, there was an oppos-
ing minority view, as is evidenced by the two principles
which Paul lays down at the beginning of his discussion
(chaps, xii.-xiv.). While to some the ecstatic and unin-
telligible utterances of those who spoke with tongues
seemed like the outbursts of enthusiasm heard in heathen
worship, and while in general these opposed the use of
tongues for fear of the utterances of blasphemies in con-
nection with it, the majority showed an abnormal, or, as
Paul expresses it in xiv. 20, a childish preference for
tongues, regarding this gift as the strongest possible proof
of the overwhelming power of the Spirit in the Church,

2 So INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

which feeling on their part was due to the associations of
heathen worship quite as much as were the exaggerated
fears of the minority (xii. 2). These fears Paul sets at
rest by the assurance that no one speaking by the Spirit
of God can call Jesus accursed. On the other hand, in
order to guard against an over-valuation of the gift of
tongues, he lays down the principle that even the simplest
confession of Jesus as Lord cannot be made without the
Holy Spirit. Exclusive preference for a single charisma,
no matter w r hich one it was, and the giving of prominence
to those possessing it, is contrary to the divine purpose in
bestowing a diversity of gifts, and is inconsistent with
the nature of the Church (xii. 4-30). The necessary con-
dition for the proper valuation of the different charismata
is the insight that it is in no sense these spiritual en-
dowments and extraordinary powers which in this world
bring human and even inanimate nature into the service
of the Church, that give men value and insure their
salvation, but only conformity of the heart to God, faith
in the gospel, and hope in everlasting life, and above
everything else love (xii. 31-xiii. 13). But love also
teaches the proper valuation and right use of the charis-
mata (xiv. 1-40). Judged by this standard, the prophet
who, while speaking to the Church with enthusiasm and
in the belief that he has a revelation, yet retains self-
consciousness and self-control, who is able also when
occasion offers to reach the heart and conscience even of
unbelievers who come into the Christian religious services,
stands infinitely higher than the person who speaks with
tongues, and in a state of ecstasy gives utterance to unin-
telligible prayers and praise. Because love does not seek
its own, but the good of its neighbour and the prosperity
of the whole Church, it supplies also the practical rules
regulating the use both of tongues and of prophecy in the
services of the Church. It was lack of discrimination in the
use of this talent which led even women, as the connection

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 281

shows, especially those who possessed the gift of glossolalia
(speaking with tongues) or of prophecy, to speak openly
in the public services of the Church (xiv. 33-35). Since
Paul discountenances this practice altogether, what is said
in xi. 3-16, where prayer and prophecy on the part of
women are spoken of as if entirely allowable, objection
being made only to the custom that had been introduced
in Corinth of allowing the women to remove their veils,
must refer to services held in private houses. It is quite
easy to see how the woman who was capable and felt
called upon to act as priestess or prophetess in her own
household, perhaps because her husband was not a Chris-
tian or not especially gifted, might feel that she ought to
bear witness to this equality between man and woman in
the eyes of men and of God, also by appearing in public
and speaking (n. 6).

Besides the arguments against this disposition on the
part of the women to be independent, suggested by the
nature of the subject in hand, Paul reminds the Corin-
thians twice that in permitting such practices they are
acting contrary to the custom of all the other Churches
(xi. 16, xiv. 33). Their conduct is such as would become
them if they were the oldest Church in existence, when
the fact that the gospel had gone out from them might
give them a certain authority in matters of custom in the
Church ; or if they were the only Church in the world, with
no need whatever to consult the judgment and practice of
other Churches (xiv. 36). This same thought is the con-
clusion also of the discussion about idolatrous sacrifices.
The Corinthians need to be careful, lest in deciding these
questions arbitrarily they offend Jews and Gentiles and
the Church of God, i.e. the entire community of Chris-
tians (x. 32, n. 7). Even more clearly than by the
passages cited and other hints less strong (iv. 17, vii.
17), the supreme contempt with which the Church seemed
to Paul to treat its relation to all the rest of the Church

282 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

is brought out in the greeting of the letter, in which at
the very start Paul endeavours to bring the readers to the
realisation that they constitute a society of persons called
to be saints not in and of themselves, but only as they
stand related to all other persons in the world who call
upon the name of Christ (n. 8). The same exaggerated
sense of independence which influenced individuals to
assert their personal views or preferences without regard
to anyone else, even at the cost of sacrificing order and
unity in the life and worship of the Church as a whole,
threatened also to sever its connection with all the rest of
the Church.

This danger was all the more imminent, because at
this time the Church was in peril of losing its respect for
the authority of its founder and its reverence for him.
This affected their relation to other Churches, because it
was Paul's personal influence, with the doctrinal traditions
and the rules regulating practical life which they had
received from him, that from the beginning constituted
the bond of union between them and the rest of the
Church (vii. 10, xi. 23, xv. 3, 11), particularly the
Churches in the Gentile world, which like themselves had
been organised by Paul, and of which also he was the
head (iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16, xiv. 33, xvi. 1, 19). Con-
sequently, when the apostle, moved by the insolent
manner in which he had been talked about and criticised
behind his back (iv. 3, 7, 19, ix. 3), and by the way in
which the Church had taken him to task in their com-
munication (v. 9 ff., above, p. 276), affirms very positively
his general authority as an apostle of recognised position
(i. 1, 17, ix. 1, xv. 10), and his special authority as the
organiser of the Corinthian Church (iii. 10, iv. 15,
ix. 2), far more is involved than his own honour or a
specific obligation of reverence on the part of the Church.

The existence of cliques in the Church, of which Paul
had learned recently (above, p. 273, n. 15), and on the

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 283

basis of which information he discusses at length the
question of factionalism at the very beginning of the letter
(i. 10-iv. 6 ; n. 9), must have imperilled both the pleasant
relations between the Church and its founder and its own
inner harmony. Nothing could be more erroneous than
to suppose that either in Paul's thought, or in fact, the
Church was divided into four factions or even sects.
One party is not set over against another, e.g. the pro-
fessed followers of Paul over against the followers of
Apollos, and the Cephas party over against the party of
Christ. But he is simply speaking of a deep-seated habit
which more or less all the Corinthians had, namely,
that the individual, without reference to others of like
opinion, called himself the personal follower of Paul, i.e.
he made Paul his hero, in contrast naturally to others
who affected a like relation to Apollos, Cephas, or Christ
(i. 12, iii. 4, 22, iv. 6). If a leader is at all essential to a
party, then, so far as we are able to ascertain, these alleged
parties in Corinth had no leaders. Certainly the men whom
individuals in Corinth professed to follow had no purpose
of being such leaders. Paul does not simply find fault
with those who were using his name as if that which
they were doing was only an exaggeration of something in
itself justifiable, or an awkward defence of his interests;
but, specifically, in connection with his own name, he
shows the foolishness and unchristlikeness of such talk,
thereby condemning in the severest terms the persons by
whom his name w r as so used (i. 13). That Apollos also
condemned the persons in Corinth who were using his name,
is very clear from iv. 6, xvi. 12, above, p. 262 f. It is self-
evident that Paul assumes that Christ cannot approve
what His apostle condemns, along with the other formulae
expressing this folly. The same is true with reference to
the relation of Peter to the followers of Cephas, as is espe-
cially evidenced by the fact that elsewhere Paul speaks
of him only in terms of respect (xv. 5, 11, ix. 5, iii. 22;

284 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Gal. ii. 6-9). Consequently the men whose followers
the Corinthians were fond of calling themselves had either
already disowned their admirers, or, Paul thinks, would
have done so had thev been asked about the matter.

It is impossible, therefore, to suppose that the question
here is one with reference to parties which relatively were
clearly denned. In this case the difference of opinion
which came out in the course of the letter regarding the
relation of the sexes, sacrifices to idols, speaking with
tongues, and the resurrection, would have to be referred
necessarily to one or another of the four alleged parties,
something quite impossible to do. If it were a question of
distinct parties, it is also hard to understand why, after
chap, v., Paul makes not the slightest reference to any of
the four watchwords. Still less can we suppose that the
reference is to sects which held their own religious
services, having separated themselves in this way from
the body of the Church. The communication which Paul
had received shortly before, to which 1 Cor. is the
apostle's answer, had been written, and the messengers
bearing it sent not by individual Christians in Corinth,
but by all the readers, i.e. by the Corinthian Church
(vii. 1, xvi. 17, above, p. 26 If.). The whole Church
was in the habit of assembling to celebrate the Lord's
Supper and for other religious services (x. 17, xi. 17-22,
xiv. 4, 5, 19, 23-25, 33f.). In view of disorders of all
kinds, and even of ff^lcrpara (xi. 18), in connection with
these services, it is probable, at least there is nothing in
what Paul says which excludes it, though he does not say
it in so many words, that those whose views were expressed
in the various watchwords sat together in groups. Only
upon this supposition and not by supposing that these
groups were formed purely on the basis of kinship or on
a social basis (xi. 22, 33) can we understand how the
apostle foresaw that inevitably the outcome of such
manifest divisions in the religious service, which was still

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 285

one, must eventually result in the formation of distinct
parties, and the breaking up of the Church into a number
of sects (xi. 19, aiJpeVets).

In a Church which had been founded by Paul there
was no occasion for anyone to affirm that he was a
follower of Paul with an emphasis implying opposition to
someone else, unless some other teacher had made an
impression in Corinth by which Paul was likely to be
overshadowed. That this teacher was Apollos, and that
it was his successful work as a teacher in Corinth (above,
p. 26 2 f.) that gave rise to the use of the two watchwords
first mentioned in i. 12, does not require proof. More-
over, from iii. 4-8, iv. 6 it appears that up to iv. 6 the
discussion is concerned mainlv with the differences between

the followers of Paul and of Apollos. What these differ-
ences were we ascertain from i. 176-iii. 2. The purpose
of the whole passage is to justify the way in which Paul
had preached in Corinth during the eighteen months of
his residence there (Acts xviii. 11) in the face of hostile
criticism, and to show that his preaching was free from
certain pretensions which were contrary to his principles.
Paul's statements could not well be more entirely misun-
derstood than by Hilgenfeld (Einl. 267), when he assumes
that Paul is here replying to the criticisms of Jewish
Christians, who represented his successes as due to the
use which he made of Greek culture, since it is not the
fact that he had refrained from the use of these means
which Paul proves. On the contrary, always simply
stating this fact or assuming it (i. 17, oi/tc ev <ro$(q \6<yov,
i. 23, ii. 1, 4, iii. 1 ; 2 Cor. xi. 6), he justifies his action at
length by setting forth his reasons and objects. Conse-
quently the objection which he is meeting must have been
to the effect that his preaching showed a lack of requisite
learning and of convincing eloquence. In reply to this
criticism, he develops the principles which he regarded as
rightly determining the method of preaching the gospel

286 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

in missionary fields, the method required by the nature of
the gospel. Both in its essential content, as presenting
the cross of Christ, and in its consequent character, as a
foolish preaching, missionary preaching and that is the
only commission that he has received from Christ is
inconsistent with the use of rhetoric and of other forms
of learning (i. 17-31). While Paul's refusal to use these
means in the presentation of his message, and his strict
confinement of himself to the essentials of the gospel, was
very natural in view of his state of mind when he came to
Corinth, it was nevertheless in keeping with the principles
which he regarded as regulative of the missionary preach-
ing (ii. 1-5). Nor does he omit to say that for those whose
self-denying faith has led to their salvation through the
gospel, this sharp distinction between the foolish gospel
and the natural mind both of Jews and of Greeks largely
disappears ; since for Christians Christ comes to be also
the only wisdom (i. 24, 30). He points out also that it is
not the office of Christian teachers to be continually
repeating the word of the cross to those who have been
converted and are of mature spiritual understanding, but
also to develop those conceptions of divine truth, which,
being fully realised in the glory of the world to come, will
bring the reconciliation of all contradictions in the nature
of things and of all differences between faith and reason
(ii. 6-12). But even if it were untrue that the things
which he taught them could not be set forth in the
categories of human culture, but from their nature de-
manded a method all their own (ii. 13), the immaturity of
his hearers made it impossible for Paul, while he was
engaged in organising the Church, to employ this method
of teaching (iii. 1 ). It is clear, therefore, that the differ-
ence between the followers of Paul and of Apollos was
not one affecting the essentials of the word of the cross
and of the " wisdom of God," any more than the differ-
ence between Paul and Apollos themselves, but only

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 287

involved the question as to how these should be presented,
and a difference of opinion as to the value of rhetoric and
logic in setting them forth. Many of the Corinthians
seem to have been so carried away by the brilliant dis-
courses of the eloquent Alexandrian, that thereafter the
unadorned preaching of the "plain" (2 Cor. xi. 6, t'Siom??)
Paul seemed in comparison very deficient. It was not
until it had been presented to them by Apollos' logic, so
they thought, that they had come to have a true under-
standing of Christianity. When Apollos was talked about
in this way, it is easy to see how some would regard such
remarks as disparaging to the founder of the Church, and
the less such persons approved of the method of Apollos,
the more earnest they would be in their championship of
Paul. Instead of all judging these two men at their real
value, in the light of what they had actually done for the
Church and in accordance with their respective gifts,
individuals formed their own estimates in accordance with
their own feelings, with the result that they vied with
each other in their championship of one or the other of
these two men (iv. 6). That they believed such champion-
ship gave them a better hold upon Christianity is indi-
cated by Paul's question, whether Christ is divided so that
they possess Him in greater or less degree according as
they follow one or the other of their teachers (i. 13).
Paul condemns their procedure, not only because it in-
volves presumption in the formation of their judgments,
but also because, in a manner inconsistent with the dignity
of a Christian, it involves submission to men who are no
rivals of God and of Christ in the work of redemption
and in the bestowment of pardon upon the individual
(i. 136, iii. 4-7, 22).

This condemnation applies also to those who called
themselves followers of Cephas. Inasmuch as it is im-
possible to suppose that at this time Peter had been in
Corinth in person (n. 10), we must assume that Christians

288 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

who had been converted through his influence, perhaps
also baptized by him (u. 11), but who in any case had
had personal relations with him, had come from their own
home to Corinth, and had increased the existing confusion
by their eya 8e K^a. This is confirmed by the conclusion
of the letter. As he is on the point of adding the part-
ing benediction in his own hand, Paul stops suddenly to
insert an anathema against everyone who does not love
the Lord (xvi. 22), before putting down the benediction
which he had already started to write. In this way he
means to indicate that the persons referred to are ex-
cluded from his greeting to the Church, and so from
the Church itself, to which he gives assurance of the grace
of Jesus and of his own love (xvi. 23f.). When to this
anathema he adds a significant phrase in the language of
the Palestinian Jews, it is clear that the persons whom he
has in mind are Christians who had come from Palestine
(n. 12). That iii. 16-20 is directed against the followers
of Peter, we must infer from the fact that the name of
Peter occurs again in iii. 22 along with those of Paul and
Apollos, in striking contrast to iii. 4-8, and in seeming
contradiction to the reference in iv. 6 to an earlier passage.
After speaking in iii. 10-15 of those who, like Apollos, with
good intentions, but in a way not altogether skilful, had
built upon the foundation of the Church in Corinth laid
by Paul, in iii. 16-20 Paul turns to those who, though
engaged upon the same structure, had done their work in
such a way that, in an outburst of anger, he feels con-
strained to call it not the building but the destroying of
the temple of God. He trusts, however, that God will
frustrate their evil designs and overwhelm them with
destruction.

It was impossible for anyone to boast with pride that
he was a follower of Peter in a Church founded by Paul,
without at the same time belittling Paul, the inevitable
result of which, especially where opposition already

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 289

existed between the admirers of Paul and of Apollos,
must have been an increase of the confusion and the in-
subordination to Paul of which there were already tokens
enough. These followers of Peter were responsible, at
least primarily, for the aspersions against which Paul
defends his apostolic dignity, even in i. 1, more clearly in
ix. 1-3, and in somewhat different tone in xv. 8-10. It
was argued that a man who had never seen the Lord
Jesus, the Kedeemer, in the flesh, could not rank as an
apostle in the full sense in which this title belonged to
Peter and to the other disciples whom Jesus Himself had
called and trained for their mission. But by placing
the appearance of Jesus, to which was due his conversion
and call, on the same level with the personal intercourse
between Jesus and His disciples (ix. 1), especially with
the appearances of the risen Lord to His disciples (xv.
5-8), Paul claims for himself the full apostolic title and
all the rights which belonged to the other apostles. In-
asmuch, however, as he aims to avoid any protracted
argument on this point with these opponents who had
come from abroad, simply insisting that the Corinthians
shall recognise him as their apostle (ix. 2, cf. iii. 10, iv.
15), he makes in this letter only a few pointed remarks
about these followers of Peter. One observes that Paul
knows more than he writes, and fears more than he knows.
Possibly he found it advisable, before saying any more, to
wait until he saw the effect of the threatening hint which
he makes in this letter, perhaps also until he was more
accurately informed as to what these persons were doing.
He does say more in 2 Cor. , and such parts of this
letter as bear upon this subject may be discussed here,
though there is no doubt that in the meantime not only
had Paul learned more about these persons, but also their
work in Corinth had assumed larger proportions. If the
followers of Peter mentioned in 1 Cor. were Jewish Chris-
tians who had come from Palestine, and were exert-

VOL. I. j

290 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

ing a very active and in Paul's judgment destructive
influence in and over the Church in Corinth, then they
can be no other than the persons against whom Paul
directs his attack in 2 Cor. ii. 17 if., v. 12, xi. 1-12, 18.
They had come to Corinth with letters of recommendation
from outside authorities (iii. 1 ), and on the basis of these
letters they claimed to possess authority at least equal to
that of Paul. They boasted the purity of their Judaism,
and made the Gentile Christians in Corinth feel the
superiority which this gave them (xi. 18-22); to which
Paul objects that the assumption of this air of superiority
on their part only shows that the advantages which they
claimed were merely external and borrowed, and not
based upon their consciousness of personal merit and
personal service (v. 12, cf. iii. 2). In preaching the word
of God, they employ all the tricks which the salesman uses
to get rid of his wares (ii. 17, cf. iv. 2, xi. 13, epydrat,
S6\ioi, cf. Phil. iii. 2). They were travelling preachers,
and had therefore the same formal right to call them-
selves apostles as Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy, and they
thought also the same right as Paul (cf. Skizzen, 53-65).
They accepted the hospitality of the Corinthian Church,
and took advantage of their position as evangelists to
claim support from their hearers. Paul's refusal to do so
they declared to be proof of lack of faith in his calling
and of want of love for the Church ; it was only a shrewd
device on his part, they said, to get the Church more
entirely under his control (xi. 7-12, xii. 13-18). These
facts make it very clear why he discusses this topic in
1 Cor. ix. 1-18 with a detail which, considering the
particular theme of 1 Cor. viii.-x., is out of all proportion.
He does it because even here in the first letter he has in
view these followers of Peter who refused to admit that he
had the same apostolic rights as the Twelve (1 Cor. ix. 1).
It is for this same reason that he makes special mention of
Cephas among the brethren and apostles of the Lord in

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 291

1 Cor. ix. 5. To a certain extent Paul recognises the
formal right of these wandering preachers to call them-
selves apostles, when with " foolish boasting " he com-
pares himself to them (2 Cor. xi. 2 Iff.), and calls them
"the very chief apostles" (xi. 5, xii. 11, cf. xi. 23, n. 13).
But he does not hesitate at all to express his real opinion
of them, comparing them to the serpent who deceived
Eve, and calling them false apostles and servants of
Satan, who make pretence of being apostles of Christ and
servants of righteousness (xi. 3, 13-15). It was because
their only purpose was to deceive that they made no
direct attack upon the gospel which Paul had brought to
Corinth. That they did not is proved absolutely by
the fact that, while these persons are condemned in the
strongest possible terms by Paul, there is not a single
passage in either of the letters in which he opposes or
warns his readers against " another gospel " (Gal. i. 6), or
even against doctrine inconsistent with the one gospel of
Christ (contrast with Col. ii. 6-8, 20-23 ; Eph. iv. 14 ;
Heb. xiii. 9). It was just because these teachers from
abroad had no Jesus and no gospel to preach other than
those which Paul had preached before them, and no Holy
Spirit to offer their hearers other than the one they had
received when the gospel was preached to them for the
first time, that it seemed to Paul so incomprehensible and
so uncalled for that the Corinthians should receive these
intruders, and allow themselves to be alienated from their
own apostle by their influence (2 Cor. xi. 4, n. 13). Paul
is certainly afraid that they may succeed in accomplishing
more, by their cunning devices depriving the Church
altogether of its simple and primitive Christian faith
(2 Cor. xi. 3). That, of course, would involve subsequent
corrupting of the gospel which the Corinthians had
believed (1 Cor. xv. 1). There could be no doubt as to
the direction which this falsification would take. By
boasting the purity of their Judaism (2 Cor. xi. 22), these

292 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

persons had made an impression upon the Gentile Chris-
tians which amounted virtually to moral influence over
them, and the Gentile Christians had allowed themselves
to be imposed upon by them (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 18f., above,
p. 265 f., n. 4). Hence to the apostle, who saw in the
indirectness and deceitfulness of these persons only proof
that their false Jewish ways had not been overcome by
the life-giving truth of the new covenant and by the
liberating spirit of Christ (2 Cor. ii. 14-iv. 6), it must
have seemed that the only possible outcome of the un-
healthy development of things in Corinth, which he was
striving to check, was a form of Christianity corrupted by
Jewish influences. But at the time when 2 Cor. was
written, and less so when 1 Cor. was written, there were
no positive indications that this was to be the outcome.

It is only from the way in which they are contrasted
with each other that we are able to understand the three
watchwords in which the names of Paul, of Apollos, and of
Cephas were misused ; the same is true of the fourth,
670) Be Xpia-Tov, which Paul condemns quite as much as he
does the others (1 Cor. i. 12). Since taken by itself no
fault can be found with the expression Xpiarov elvai, which
simply expresses the fact that to be a Christian means to
belong to Christ (1 Cor. iii. 23 ; 2 Cor. x. 7 ; Rom. viii. 9 ;
Mark ix. 41), what was to be condemned was the way
in which individuals claimed this prerogative of belong-
ing to Christ for themselves in opposition to the other
members of the Church, instead of endeavouring, as Paul
did, to impress upon the mind of the Church, so rent by
factions, the fact that they all belonged to Christ, and
that it was in the one indivisible Christ that they were
to find their own unity and at the same time the bond
between themselves and all other Christians (1 Cor. i.
2, 13, iii. 11, 23). Even if the Christ party had opposed
their e<yo) Be Xpurrov to the other watchwords, thinking
that thereby they raised themselves above the petty

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 293

squabbling of the rest, they could not have expressed
it in this way if they were endeavouring to defend the
authority which Paul and Apollos possessed through their
connection with the history of the Church, against the
misuse which was being made of their names and against
the despicable criticisms of the followers of Peter, as Paul
himself was doing, and as he insisted the Church ought to
do (1 Cor. iii. 5-iv. 5, ix. 1-6 ; 2 Cor. iii. 2 , v. 12, xii. 11).
As contrasted with the tendencies represented by the other
watchwords, the e'7<w $e Xpia-Tov represents a conscious and
studied indifference to all human authority, an insolent
ignoring on the part of those who used it of all depend-
ence for their Christian faith upon things historical. If,
now, it is clear from the way in which the Church expresses
itself in the letter to Paul and from the way in which
Paul addresses the Church in his reply, that the Corin-
thians had an exaggerated sense of their independence of
all authority, this watchword which some individuals were
using can only be taken as an extreme expression of this
feeling of independence to which the Church as a whole
was inclined. Just as the self-consciousness of the Church,
which was so inconsiderately expressed in their com-
munication to Paul, was based upon the exceptional en-
dowment of its members with natural and Christian gifts,
so it is impossible to conceive of anyone as saying eycu Be
Xpia-rov unless he were possessed of exceptional ability, or
thought that he was. If Paul charges the Church with
being conceited (v. 2, cf. viii. 1 f., xiii. 4), even more
emphatically does he accuse individuals of so being (iv.
18f.). It was presumptuous enough for individuals to
take sides with Apollos or Cephas against Paul, and vice
versd (iv. 6), but this was not to be compared with the
presumption of the individual who, from an exaggerated
sense of his own independent knowledge, met these
expressions of some particular human authority with the
assertion that he belonged to Christ. Consequently Paul

294 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

endeavours to bring not only the Church in general (xiv.
36), but also the individual who feels himself to be of
importance (iv. 7, xiv. 37), to the consciousness that every-
thing of which he boasts has been received from God
through other men.

This same relation between the Church as a whole,
which Paul addresses in his letter as "you," and the
individuals whom he singles out as leaders in this general
movement toward independence, we meet again in 2 Cor.
x. 1-11. Paul makes the return of the Church to a state
of entire obedience (x. 6) the condition of any action on
his part against individual revolters or evil-doers ; since
he cannot and will not proceed to discipline such indi-
viduals without the co-operation of the Church. If, now,
it be asked why as yet the Church had not resubmitted
itself entirely to Paul's authority, we have the following
answer : There was someone in the Church who believed
and boasted that he belonged to Christ, as if Paul could

**-s 7

not claim this same distinction for himself (x. 7), some-
one who was bold enough to talk about the apostle's
egotistical letters and his unimpressive personal appear-
ance (x. 10f., cf. x. 1). Just as we are unavoidably
reminded by the Xpia-rov elvai (x. 7), for which nothing in
this context calls, of the watchword in 1 Cor. i. 12, so we
must assume that the strongest expressions of insub-
ordination to Paul came from the Christ party (e.g.
1 Cor. iv. 18 ; 2 Cor. x. 9-11), and that to them more
than to anyone else was due the danger of a rupture
between the Church and its apostle, and so between the
Corinthian Church and the whole body of Christians.

The fact that there are no long sections in either
letter devoted especially to opposing the Christ followers,
is explained by the relation, pointed out above, of this
movement to the tendency of the Church as a whole.
Very probably it was one of the Christ party who was
entrusted by the Church with the preparation of the

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 295

communication sent to Paul. What Paul said in replying
to the Church he said primarily for the benefit of those
members of the Christ party who were so conscious of
their Christian knowledge and discernment with the free-
dom and independence which these involved.

It was high time that Paul should express his mind.
It was impossible for him to leave the settling of matters
in Corinth to Timothy, who possibly had left Ephesus
before the arrival of the latest oral and written reports
from Corinth, and who could not go to Corinth at once
on account of his errands in Macedonia (iv. 17, xvi. 10,
above, p. 259). Since, moreover, in spite of all possible
haste, the summer now beginning (above, p. 259 f.) might
end before his own arrival in Corinth (xvi. 5, iv. 19),
Paul saw that there was occasion to discuss thoroughly
in an extended letter not only the questions that had
been asked him by the Church, but also the unfortunate
condition of affairs of which he had been informed by
members of the household of Chloe and by the three
messengers of the Church. In this manner he hoped to
prepare the way for the visit which had been announced
some time before, and, so far as possible, to keep that
visit free from the painful necessity of discussing oft-hand
and orally the numerous aggravated and threatening
questions arising out of the conditions in the Church
(cf. also xvi. 2). He presented himself to the Church
rod in hand, but at the same time with all the love of a
father who would much prefer to forgive than to punish ;
it is for them to decide how he shall come to them
(iv. 21).

The agreement between the letter and the occasion
for it indicated in the letter itself is so entire, and, besides
this, the letter is so strikingly testified to by the letter of
the Romans to the Corinthians, written in the year 96,
that no reasonable doubt can be entertained as to the
genuineness and unity of the Epistle.

296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. (P. 274.) If, with Semler and Hofmann, we read 0180 p.ev, viii. 1, we
have only more definitely expressed what in any case is self-evident, namely,
that TrcivTfs yvuxnv f)(op.fv is a proposition which Paul simply accepts in
other words, his statement is nothing more than a quotation from the letter
sent him by the Church. Between this preliminary concession and viii. 7
there is no contradiction, particularly since here yvaxris has the article.
Even the " liberals," who boast about their knowledge, lack the right sort
of knowledge (viii. 1-3); while, on the other hand, those who are "weak"
lack that complete knowledge which everybody assumes they have, and
without which action such as theirs seems to be done against conscience.
Moreover, the unexampled use of oi/coSo/ielf, viii. 10, is explained only
on the supposition that Paul is ironical, flinging back at the Corinthians
their own expression, as if he meant to say : " Fine edification, this ! " (cf.
above, p. 260 f.). It may be that i. 4-7 also are expressions quoted by
Paul from the letter sent by the Church (cf. P. Ewald, NJljDTli. 1894, S.
198-205).

2. (P. 275.) In X. 14 the correct reading is (pevyere drro TTJS eifioAoAarpa'ar,
not (j)fvyTf TTJV et&uXoXarpeiai/ (cf. vi. 18). The latter, taken literally, would
be a superfluous exhortation ; and in any case an exaggerated characterisation
of what had actually taken place. From x. 15-22 it is clear that Paul had in
mind, primarily if not exclusively, participation in the sacred meals con-
nected with the idol sacrifices (cf. viii. 10, x. 7). So also 2 Cor. vi. 16, which
refers to nothing more nor less than an approach on the part of the
Corinthians toward idolatry occasioned by too intimate social connection
with their pagan environment.

3. (P. 277.) In vii. 3-6, 10-14, 27, 28a, 36, 38a, 39, Paul combats the false
ascetic tendency of a minority for whose errors the Church, in its letter,
evidently had made the example of Paul and occasional opinions expressed
by him responsible. This is proved by vii. 6, which, rightly understood,
cannot refer to the positive commands in ver. 2 or vv. 3-5a, but only the con-
cession (el p.r)Ti) in 56.

4. (P. 277.) The expression ywdina rov warpos, v. 1, would be inconceiv-
ably weak if by it were meant the man's own mother, not his stepmother,
cf. Lev. xviii. 8 contrasted with xviii. 7. So also Sanhedr. vii. 4 (cited by
Wetstein, ad loc.\ where it is likewise stated that it makes no difference
whether the father is still living or not. If 2 Cor. vii. 12 deals with the
same case, the father was still living. A marriage contracted between a man
and his stepmother, whether the father was living or not, was not admitted
as legal by Roman law, and so would not be recognised in Corinth. It is
clearly not such a marriage as this that is here described by e'xfiv ; neither,
on the other hand, is it a single lustful transgression, one adulterous act, but
the relation is that of concubinage (cf. John iv. 18). The stepmother had
evidently left the house of her husband and taken up her residence with her
stepson, at his request, who, for this reason, is described in v. 2 as 6 ru epyov
TOI/TO irpagas ; also in v. 3, particularly in view of certain aggravating circum-
stances unknown to us, as 6 ovras TOVTO Karfpyaau/jifvos ; and, in view of his
offence against the father, in vii. 12, as 6 dSiK//<rar (cf. 20, n. 6). Since Paul
makes no reference whatever to the guilt of the woman, who must also have
been involved in the transgression, it is probable that neither she nor her

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 297

husband were members of the Church. And so Paul follows the rule laid
down in 1 Cor. v. 12.

5. (P. 279.) It is a peculiar fact that thanks are given in i. 4-9 not for
the religious and moral condition of the Corinthian Christians, nor for the
practical proof of their faith in conduct and suffering (cf. per contra, 1 Thess.
i. 3 ; 2 Thess. i. 3, ii. 13 ; Eph. i. 15 ; Col. i. 4 ; Phil. i. 5), but simply
for their charismatic gifts, and it is specially worthy of note that in i. 5
speech of every kind is mentioned before knowledge (cf. the order of gifts,
xii. 8 ff., xiii. 1, 8, and the opposite order in 2 Cor. xi. 6). If from xiv. 37
it is clear that irvev^ariKos does not mean simply the person who has a
xdpiar/jLct, but, like irpo(f)i']Tr)s, the one who has a special ^apio-pa, and specifically,
as the context shows, the person with the gift of tongues who spoke " in the
spirit" in a higher degree than did the prophet and the teacher (xiv. 2,
14-19, 23), then the theme Trepl T&V TrvevpariKav, stated in xii. 1, does not
refer to spiritual gifts in general, but either to those who speak with tongues
(ol TrvevfjiaTiKoi), as in xiv. 37, or, as in xiv. 1, to the gift of tongues itself (TO
n-vevp-ariKo. distinguished from irpo(pr)Tfi>fiv), of which there were several
kinds.

6. (P. 281.) The principle advanced in the preaching, that no natural
or social distinctions were to be recognised in the Church (xii. 13), seems to
have been applied in Corinth to the question of slavery in a way not pleasing
to Paul. For it will be observed that in vii. 18-23, where marriage is dis-
cussed, the example of slavery is used as well as that of circumcision ; but it
is highly improbable that Paul would have expressed such decidedly though
briefly stated opinions about these two relationships in a purely theoretical
way, and without any practical occasion from conditions to be found in
Corinth. The slave is not to think his condition inconsistent with his Chris-
tianity ; on the other hand, he is not to think that in all circumstances he
must remain a slave (cf. Skizsen, 145, 348, A. 9-11).

7. (P. 281.) TT? eKucXqcna T. 6., x. 32, does not mean the local Church at
Corinth, but, as in xii. 28, the whole body of Christians ; for there is no
contrast here, as in xi. 22, between the individual members of the Church
residing in different homes some poor, others wealthy and the assembled
Church. Eather, in accordance with the general principle laid down in x.
31, is it the entire body of Corinthian Christians, who, in x. 32, are urged to
conduct themselves in such a way as not to offend the non-Christians among
whom they live, nor the larger Christian body of which they are only a part.
Otherwise we should read not TV eKuXrjcria T. 6., but rols dSfX</>otr, rols wrGcvetnv,
dXX^Xoiy, or something of the sort. The correctness of this interpretation
is confirmed also by such passages as xi. 16 (al eKK^criai T. #.), iv. 17, vii. 17,
xiv. 33, 36.

8. (P. 282.) The placing of ^yiacrp-evots ev Xp. 'I. right after deov, i. 2, in
BD*G is too original not to be genuine. If, however, we place these words
after Kopiv6a>, then the immediately following (cX^roTs dyiois seems to be a
needless repetition of essentially the same thought of the holiness belonging to
the Corinthians as members of the Church, unless the idea of " called saints "
goes with the following crvv TTUO-IV /crX. by which it is rounded out. In no
case can <rvv iraa-iv KT\., following the delusive analogy of 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Phil. i. 1,
be joined with T/J e'locX^cr/ a . . . I\optv6a> as a completion of the address; fur

298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

" all who call upon the name of Christ " is the broadest possible designation
for all who profess Christianity (Rom. x. 12 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22 ; Acts ix. 14, 21).
Nor can the necessary restriction be secured by connecting avT&v after TOTTW
with the remote K\T]TOIS ayiois . . . Kopivdiois instead of with rols (mKd\ov/j.t!vois
and taking a-vv iraviv KT\. to mean the worshippers in every locality belonging
to the Corinthians, i.e. in the cities belonging to Corinth. For TOKOS TWOS
does not mean the region belonging to one, but the place which one occupies ;
and, besides, the other cities of Achaia where there were Christians (Cenchrea,
Athens) did not belong to the Corinthians. Holsten's view (456) that " all
the worshippers of Christ in all their places" mean the Christians who had
migrated to Corinth from all possible places, requires no refutation. " The
Catholic idea" (Holsten, 453), which such distortions as this are intended
to explain away, characterises the letter throughout (above, p. 281). To
this point of view Paul commits himself personally when he adds KOL ^p.wv
(without re, following N*A*BD*G and the earlier translations). If avrS> nai
fipuv is certainly to be taken with TOTTW and is not a supplementary explana-
tion of the preceding r^av which no reader could surmise Paul says, using
a not unfamiliar form of expression (Rom. xvi. 13), that every place where
there are worshippers of Christ is his own and Sosthenes' place, i.e. they
feel themselves at home there. The Corinthians lack this genuinely catholic
or ecumenical sense.

9. (P. 283.) Rabiger (Krit. Untersuch. iiber den Inhalt der beiden Briefe an
die kor. Gemeinde, 2te Aufl. 1-50) gives a relatively complete summary of the
various views about party conditions in Corinth. Clement's view (1 Cor. xlvii.)
of the condition mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 12, 8ia TO KCU rore irpoo-K\io-fLs V/JLOS
TTfTTOirjcrdai, and immediately afterwards f) TrpocncAicris eKfivq . . . Trpoo-fK\!.6r]Tf
yap dnocrroXois jj.fp.apTvprjp.4vois KOL av8pl 8f8oKip.ao-fievcf> Trap' avrois, is more
correct than that of the majority of modern critics. Because Clement takes
no account of e'ydb 8e Xp. as occasionally Origen (Horn, ix in Ez., Delarue, iii.
388, but not torn. xiv. 1 in Mt. p. 616) and Adamantius (Dial, in Marc, i.,
Delarue, 809 ; Caspari, Anecd. 12) fail to do, Rabiger, 2, ascribes to him the
opinion that in Paul's time there were not four but three parties at Corinth,
" who, appealing to the respective teachings of Paul and of Peter and of
Apollos, opposed one another." In reply, it is to be observed (1) that the
opinion that these so-called parties were founded upon special teachings of
Paul, Peter, and Apollos is arbitrarily read into Clement's words, while it is
just the opposite view that we find in Paul's 1 Corinthians. (2) There is no
justification for saying that it would have been inappropriate for Clement,
who found no corresponding party in the Corinthian Church of his time,
mechanically to have repeated the fourth watchword. Certainly that does
not apply to Adamantius, whose purpose was to prove to the Marcionites that
men ought not, like them, to bear the name of a man (Marcion), but only the
name of Christ. (3) It is taken for granted that Trp6a-K\icris means "party,"
which is refuted by the description of all these varied ^poor/cXio-ei? by the
singular ?/ Trp6o-K\i<ris (Kfivrj (see just above). The term means rather an
inclination toward, preference for, attachment to individuals (Clement, 1 Cor.
xxi. 7, 1. 2 ; 1 Tim. v. 21). In contrast to the careful language of Clement
is the manner in which the elder Lightfoot (Horce hebr. ad 1 Cor. i. 12) and
Vitringa (Observ. sacra, ed. Jenens. 1725, pp. 799-812) and also Baur (i. 292 ft'.)

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 299

speak of a schisma in the later ecclesiastical sense of the word, and of four
sectce into which the congregation had been divided and which possibly held
their religious services in different places (Vitringa, 812). The very first
presupposition upon which a correct interpretation rests is the recognition
of the fact that the situation as disclosed in i. 12 is not a sort of /Lterao-x^a-
na-fios, iv. 6, as was taught by the Syrian Ephrern (Comm. in ep. Pauli, ed.
Mechith. 48), by Chrysost. (Moiitf. x. 16, iii. 138, 347), by Theodoret and
others ; in other words, that the names there mentioned are not mere dis-
guises for entirely different persons who were party leaders in Corinth.
This is an error which Beza was the first definitely to oppose (NT, 1582, ii.
93). As clearly proved by the Ae'yw Se TOVTO, which shows that the following
words are explanatory, by the earnest defence of Paul's manner of preaching
i. 17ff., and by the statement in iii. 4-8, there is no question that Paul and
Apollos, Peter and Christ, were the persons whose names were actually used
in Corinth as party watchwords. Furthermore, it is clear beyond question
that the term e'yob 8e X/HO-TOV was employed by certain Corinthians to distin-
guish their point of view from that of other members of the Church. Had
Paul desired in this formula to set his own standpoint over against the three
other views, and to recommend it to the Corinthians (as the older critics sug-
gested, especially Mayerhoff, Einl. in die petrin. Schriften, 1835, S. 81) in
opposition to the eKaaros vp&v Xe'yei, it would have been necessary for him to say,
e'yoj e Xe'yco vp.'iv, OTI Xpiorov ft/it, or more correctly, 6Yt lyxel? (fae'is) iravres
Xpurrov (are (eo-pfv), or di/ri TOV \f-yeiv upas (Jas. iv. 15) on Xpioroi) ea-pev.
Still more preposterous is the interpretation of Eabiger (76 f.), according to
which eycb 8e Xpioroi) is taken with each of the three other watchwords as a
sort of supplement : " I belong to Paul, but in belonging to Paul I belong to
Christ," etc. ; for, apart from the absolute grammatical impossibility of this
construction, the opinion that in these sentences we must seek the common
confession of movements in all other respects divergent, rests upon a mis-
understanding of enavTos \<fia>v, which here has its ordinary distributive force
(1 Cor. iii. 5, 8, 13, vii. 7, 17, xi. 21, xiv. 26, xv. 23, xvi. 2), and is to be
contrasted with TO avrb \4yrjTe trdvres (i. 10). Furthermore, the suggestion
that the Christ party might appeal to Paul himself in justification of their
watchword is without foundation ; for Paul never claimed the X/HOTOV
tlvai for himself as opposed to other Christians ; but, on the contrary, in
i. 2-10 he repeatedly speaks of " the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ " as the
unifying term which excludes all schism, and gathers together into one all
the Churches in the world and all members of the several Churches. This is
referred to again in iii. 23 and in 2 Cor. x. 7, where, opposing the Christ party,
Paul asserts that the Xpioroi) flvcu belongs to him as well as to them ; cf.
1 Cor. vii. 40, where there is the same contrast. Nor is any difficulty presented
by the first question in i. 13, for it is a question in spite of the absence of
fir], which is not absolutely necessary, and which is omitted here because of
the repetition of the same sound that would be caused by its insertion. Cer-
tainly it is not directed against the Christ followers alone (Baur, i. 326 ;
Hofmann, ii. 1, 18), but to them along with the rest. The members of the
Christ party were quite like the representatives of the other movements, who,
because of their attachment to Paul or Apollos or Cephas, thought themselves
in possession of a better Christianity than the others, possessing as it were a

300 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

larger portion of Christ ; but without denying that the others were Christians.
Only the watchword which the Christ party adopted was the most pre-
sumptuous of all, and expressed most strongly the opinion that they had an
incomparably greater interest in Christ than all the rest. It is exegetically
and historically impossible to suppose that the Christ party was composed
of Jewish Christians from Palestine, who either boasted that they had
heard the preaching of Jesus (Grotius, ii. 366 ; Thiersch, 141 ; Hilgenfeld,
265), or who, although essentially identical with the followers of Peter, called
themselves the Christ party, because those to whose authority they appealed,
namely, the older apostles and brothers of Jesus, had been called and
taught by Christ Himself as Paul had not been (Baur, ii. 296 ff.), or because
of their attachment to James the brother of the Lord (Weizsiicker, 277). The
latter suppositions rest upon the error that Paul is merely contrasting the
other party names with his own, and so is able to put side by side all manner
of watchwords even such as are practically synonymous in order to present
the confusion in the Church in a realistic way. But Paul does not say " the
one says this and the other that " ; on the contrary, he introduces the watch-
words in contrast to each other. In the mind of those who are here repre-
sented as speaking, the eyw fie Xpio-rov stands in just as sharp contrast to the
eyi 8e Kr)<j)a as it does to eyw 8e 'A.iro\\S>, and as the latter expression does to
the e'yw pev iWXou. It is a piece of purely arbitrary criticism to reduce the
tendencies expressed in the four watchwords to two fundamental groups, a
Gentile Christian and a Jewish Christian, which divisions would again fall
into two closely related groups, the followers of Paul and Apollos on the one
hand, and of Cephas and of Christ on the other, particularly in view of the
fact that Paul dwells at length only upon the alleged minor contrast between
the followers of Paul and Apollos. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible how
those who could boast only of their relationship to the personal disciples or
relatives of Jesus could on that basis ascribe to themselves a special relation-
ship to Christ. They had no advantages over any of the disciples of the per-
sonal disciples of Jesus in the world (Heb. ii. 3 ; 2 Pet. i. 16 ; 1 John i. 3),
certainly none over the party of Peter, from whom they desired to be distin-
guished, and whom at least they tried to outdo in boasting. Most fantastic
and unhistorical of all is the idea of a Jewish Christian party which refused
to acknowledge the authority of Peter only a party of that character could
describe itself as e'yw Be Xpioroi) in contrast to eyo> 8e Kr?$a. The Judaisers
in Galatia looked upon Peter, John, and James as being equally pillars of the
Church (Gal. ii. 9), and in spite of their high estimation of James the pseudo-
Clementine literature nevertheless chooses Peter as its hero. Finally, it
cannot be denied that the name of the Saviour, personal contact with whom
gave Peter and James an advantage over Paul and other preachers, was 'Irjo-ovs
not Xpioros (1 Cor. ix. 1, xi. 23 ; 1 Johniv. 3). For this reason we are not
to imagine that in 2 Cor. v. 16 Paul is referring to personal contact with
Jesus. Here, as indeed from ii. 14 onwards, Paul speaks of himself in such
a way as to include with himself Timothy (i. 1) and the others who had
laboured with him in a true Christian spirit, as opposed to the Petrine
followers who had come to Corinth bringing letters of recommendation (ii.
17-iii. l,v. 12). Not until vii. 3 does the "I" take the place of the "we."
If Paul says of himself and of his fellow-workers, first passionately and

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 301

then more soberly (v. ] 3), things that sound like self-praise, the Corinthians
must know that the fear of Christ before whose judgment-seat they must
give account and the love of Christ who died for all men are the standards
by which they judge and act toward all men, both those who are yet to be
converted and those who are Christians, and the standards also for their
judgment of themselves. To do the opposite would be an elSevai or a
yivaia-Kfiv Kara crdp/ca (v. 16). Both the order of the words and the context
make it clear that this latter expression means a human judgment determined
by one's inborn nature and natural powers (cf. i. 17, x. 2-4). Before God
brought Paul to a recognition and acceptance of the reconciliation in the
death of Christ, recreated him in Christ, and committed to him the pro-
clamation of the word of reconciliation, his judgment was the judgment of
man, i.e. Kara aapKa, because his estimation of Christ, of whom he had
heard and whom he was persecuting, was Kara a-dpKa. Since his conversion
and call his situation has been different. The contrast to the party of Peter
again suggested in v. 12 would clearly imply that the manner in which these
missionaries judged and treated people, and the manner in which they sought
to obtain favour among the Corinthians, proved that their estimation of men
was Kara a-apa, which in turn was due to the fact that they did not know
Christ as Paul had known Him since his conversion. It may not be pos-
sible to identify Kav^aadai fv TrpocrcoTrw (v. 12) with dvdpdnrovs fldtvai Kara
o-dpKo. (v. 16), nor can we assert that Paul makes the foolish affirmation that
followers of Peter are fanatical antagonists of Christ and of Christianity, as he
himself was before his conversion. Nevertheless, here as in iii. 4 ff., iv. 1 f.,
5 f., there comes to light Paul's opinion that the petty, secretive, selfish con-
duct of these persons was due to the fact that they had not, like the true
preachers of the gospel, experienced in themselves the renewing and liberat-
ing power of the revelation of God in Christ, but had retained their Jewish
nature. The principal source of the confusion which has obtained regard-
ing these parties is the utterly untenable theory that 2 Cor. x. 7 and sentences
in the immediate context are connected with the polemic against the false
apostles at whom xi. 1-12, 18 and even ii. 17-vi. 10 are directed. The latter
were wandering teachers who came to Corinth from abroad, bringing letters
of recommendation from the place whence they came, whom Paul every-
where distinguishes from the congregation. In 2 Cor. they are not once
included in a single " you " with the Corinthians. If they are identical with
the followers of Peter (see above, p. 288 f.), then they are included among the
Corinthian Christians addressed in 1 Cor. i. 12, but nevertheless in iii. 16-20
they are distinguished from the congregation which they are represented as
making the subject of their harmful work, and in xvi. 22 are expressly ex-
cluded from the Church to which Paul sends his greeting. On the other
hand, in 2 Cor. x. 1-11 Paul is dealing exclusively with the Church itself,
and that, too, in its corporate capacity as it was beginning again to subject
itself to his authority, without having gone far enough to lend him full sup-
port in the performance of the required act of discipline in the Church (x. 6).
It is impossible to assume that the individual to whom AoyiVo-#oj (x. 76) refers
belonged outside the circle to whom the /SXeVere (x. 7a) applies. Practically
the same charge which Paul refutes x. 9-11, in x. 1 is assumed to be generally
made throughout the Church. If the e-yw dc Xpia-rov in x. 7 refers to 1 Cor.

302 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

i. 12, then the members of the Christ party were not travelling teachers from
abroad, but had been members of the Corinthian Church ever since conversion.
Furthermore, one of the characteristics of a false apostle was lack of genuine
self-reliance (v. 12), and of that openness and boldness of which Paul boasts
in his own case and in that of all true servants of the new covenant (ii.
17-vi. 10). They make boasts after a fashion, but only superficially and con-
cerning mere externalities (v. 12, xi. 18, 22), especially about the authorities
from whom they have letters of introduction (iii. 1). Their weapons are
malice and hypocrisy (ii. 17, iv. 2, xi. 3, 13-15, cf. 1 Cor. iii. 19 f., above,
p. 288). How is it possible to identify these people with those in x. 7-11,
where we have pictured in strong, almost reckless language a self-conscious-
ness very blunt in its expression of itself, relying not upon foreign author-
ities nor upon external advantages, but upon its own attachment to Christ !
At any rate, the contest against these false apostles from abroad does not
begin, as in xi. 1, abruptly without any previous word of introduction. In
x. 12-18, especially x. 15 (Kav^u>p.evoi ev dXXorp/oiy KOTTOIS), there is a very clear
contrast to other missionaries. The polemic against the teachers from with-
out which extends to xii. 18 begins with the command that the Church pay
heed to what is before their eyes (x. 7). Between himself and his opponents
the Church shall decide from the known facts in the case, to which he pro-
ceeds immediately to call their attention particularly from xi. 7 on. But
before he begins the presentation of these facts, it occurs to him that in the
Church itself which he is challenging to an impartial consideration of the
respective claims of himself and the followers of Peter, there are persons who
boast of their indifference to the distinctions between the followers of Paul,
Apollos, and Peter, and treat with contempt any appeal whatever to the
authority of these persons, saying e'yw 8e Xpioro{i (above, p. 292 f.). Even this
prevented the proper adjustment of the matter. They accused Paul of de-
fending his personal honour, especially against the followers of Peter, in just
as perverted a way as did they, and of constantly sounding his own praises
in his Epistles (iii. 1, v. 12, x. 12, 18, xii. 19). For this reason Paul prefaces
his polemic against the party of Peter (xi. 1-xii. 18) with his apologetic
remarks addressed to the Christ party, x. 76-18. Kau^o-o/uat, x. 8, 13, refers
to the unavoidable self-praise beginning with xi. 1 (cf. xii. 1, f\fva-o^m
which follows). The rives ru>v eavrovs crvvi<TTav6vTu>v, x. 12, can refer to none
other than the followers of Peter ; and so throughout the entire polemic
against the followers of Peter (xi. 1-xii. 8) there are interspersed apologetic
remarks directed to the Christ party (xi. 1, 16-21, 30, xii. 1, 5f., 11, 19).
Hints of a defensive character directed against the Apollos followers occur
only incidentally (xi. 6). Inasmuch, however, as only a single ne noidcos eavrco
Xpurrov elvai is addressed in x. 7-1 1, whereas elsewhere the Church is addressed
in quite the same apologetic tone without any such distinction of indi-
viduals, we must conclude that the representatives of eyw Se Xpurrov, while
not numerous, had great influence in determining the attitude of the Church.
10. (P. 287.) The opinion of Dionysius, who was bishop of Corinth about
170 A.D., that Peter as well as Paul had part in the founding of the Churches in
Corinth and at Eome (Eus. H. E. ii. 25. 8), an opinion that may have been
shared also by Clement of Rome (GK, i. 806), probably grew up as an infer-
ence out of 1 Cor., from which source also (iii. 6 f.) Dionysius took the expres-

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 303

sions (frvTfvo-avTes, (frvTfia. Or it is possible that a later sojourn of Peter at
Corinth may have helped to give rise to the tradition. Only at the time
when 1 Cor. was written, and even before that time, such a visit would have
been impossible, because of the division of fields of labour made between
him and Paul (Gal. ii. 7-9 ; cf . Skizzcn, 72 f ., 90 f .). Additional evidence is
found in the complete silence not only of Acts, but also of 1 and 2 Corinthians.

11. (P. 288.) The question, "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"
(i. 13) is directed against those who laid great stress upon the importance of
being baptized by some one particular individual. In referring to himself as
an example in this question and in the discussion that follows, Paul does not
have in view particularly the followers of Peter, nor the two or three men in
Corinth whom he had actually baptized, e.g. Stephanas (i. 16, xvi. 15), of
whom he has nothing but good to say : for if these men had boasted of this
fact, Paul could not have expressed his gratification that this talk had no
application to himself because of the very few instances in which he had
performed the rite of baptism in Corinth. Rather does he complain that
his carefulness about this matter has been without effect. It is another case
of the ravra /ierecr^/iartcra fls epavrov of IV. 6. It is possible that Apollos
baptized his own converts (above, p. 270f., n. 11) ; but it is not likely that any
special importance would have been attached to baptism administered by
Apollos. He was a gifted teacher, but could not be considered an important
link in the spiritual succession. On the other hand, it goes without saying
that a decided impression would have been made at Corinth by a Christian
from Palestine who said, " No less a personage than Peter baptized me at
Pentecost or later" (cf. Hofmann, ii. 2. 21). The writer surmises that it was
with a thrust at Peter and the original apostles generally, whom Jesus had
actually sent to baptize (Matt, xxviii. 19 ; cf. John iv. 2), that Paul disavowed
this custom for himself (i. 17). Cf. ZKom. Matt. 716.

12. (P. 288.) If we make the component parts of ^apavaGa (xvi. 22), pa
and NHN, then the most natural translation is, " Our Lord has come " (not " is
coming," or "will come"). Thus: S 1 N^N po (according to the Nestorian
pronunciation Knx-, bibl. Ar. NHN Ezra v. 16, or nps Dan. vii. 22), and the
interpreters more or less familiar with Syriac : Chrysostom (Montf. x. 410,
6 Kvpios r^vv ?j\6ev) ; Jerome, Onomast., ed. Lagarde, 75. 24, venit as perfect ;
and Theodoret (Noesselt, 215), who remarks correctly that this is not Hebrew
but Syriac (cf. a scholion in Scrivener, Cod. Augiensis, p. 488), and who,
following the ancient Syriac usage, translates ps, 6 Kvpios, and Kvpie (e.g.
Matt. vii. 22, Ss), without fjfj.5}v, leaving the suffix = ^wv untranslated. Cf.
the three scholia in Wetstein, ad loc., 6 nvpios (with or without f]fi(av) r/\0(,
al. jrapayeyovf, al. rjntt. Linguistically this translation is entirely correct,
and was, moreover, known to a Latin interpreter of about the year 370 A.D.,
the so-called Ambrosiaster (Ambros. Opp., ed. Ben. ii. App. 170). It is also
accepted by Delitzsch (ZfLTh. 1877, S. 215 ; see also his Hebrew N.T., llth
ed., and Neubauer, Stud, bibl., Oxou. 1885, p. 57). For the incorrect trans-
lation, 6 K. f'pxfrat, Onomast. sacr., ed. Lagarde, 195. 65, and other impossible
interpretations, cf. Klostermann, Probleme im Aposteltext, 224 ff. Kloster-
mann's own interpretation NHK po " Our Lord is the token," stands or falls
with his bold exegesis of ver. 22a, " If one does not kiss the Lord Jesus,"
i.e. " If anyone refuse the fraternal kiss " (ver. 20), and more than this fails

304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

to harmonise with the later liturgical use of this formula (see below). This
is true likewise of Hof mann's interpretation nn:x ID " Lord art thou " (cf. Ps.
xvi. 2). Moreover, it is doubtful whether in Palestine the original n and the
final a in the pronoun were still pronounced. The most probable interpreta-
tion is that first suggested by Halevy (REJ, 1884, ix. p. 9), and afterwards
accepted by Bickell (ZfKTh. 1884, S. 403) and Noldeke (GGA, 1884, S. 1023 ;
cf. also Siegfried, ZfWTli. xxviii. 128, and Dalman, Gr. 2 152), namely, Nn nrip
" (our) Lord, come." The fuller form of the suffix -ana josna to be found in
Nabatean inscriptions dating from the reign of Aretas iv. (2 Cor. xi. 32),
and so from the time of Paul (G. I. Sem. ii. Nos. 199. 8, 201. 4, 206. 7, 208. 6,
209. 8), is just as likely to have been used by the apostle as the shorter form -an ;
while up, the common Syriac form of the imperative from Km, was current
among the Jews (cf. Dalman, Gr. 2 357), especially in combinations of words,
e.g. -in xn epxov KOL t'Se, John i. 46, and ycv KJI " come and hear" (cf. Levy,
Neuhebr. Lexicon, i. 184 ; Buxtorf, Lex. talmud. ralb. 248). So interpreted, the
formula is quite the equivalent of the epxov Kvpie 'Iqo-ov (S 2 yic" xno nn) ; cf.
Rev. xxii. 20 ; for it makes no difference in the sense whether the exclamation
precedes or follows (Ps. lix. 2, Ixxi. 4, 12 ; 2 Sam. xiv. 4, 9). This accounts
also for the occurrence of this formula at the close of the Eucharistic prayer
in Didache, x. 6 (Const. Ap. vii. 26), no matter whether this prayer which
immediately precedes the Amen be regarded as an invitation to the Lord to be
present with His people in the sacrament, or as a petition for His speedy return
to earth (cf. Forsch. iii. 294 ; Skizzen, 315, 318, 391). The Eucharistic prayers
of the Didache originated in a country where Greek and Aramaic were employed
side by side in the Christian communities (above, p. 12 f.), and where the word
" mountain " had come to be used quite in the sense of " field " ; in other words,
in Palestine (cf. Schulthess, Lex. Syropal. 73 ; Didache, ix. 4, eVai/co ri> opeW,
omitted in Const. Ap. vii. 25). If, as seems probable, the Didache itself was
prepared in Egypt for the use of Gentile Christian Churches, it follows that
these Palestinian prayers, and with them the words hosanna, maranatha, and
amen, must have become current far beyond the borders of Jewish Chris-
tianity in Palestine. It is a question, however, whether from this fact we
ought to infer that the word maranatha was known in the Greek Churches
founded by Paul from the very first. Here there was no occasion for the
introduction of Aramaic prayer words used in the very early Churches, such
as that afforded by the large Jewish population in Egypt (Philo, c. Place, vi,
about one million). Nor is there any evidence that maranatha, like such
words as amen, had a place in the liturgy of the Churches of Asia Minor and
Greece. The threat which a reader of the Church lessons on the island of
Salamis in the fourth or fifth century is said to have made against one who
used his grave contrary to his directions (C. /. Gr. No. 9303 = (7. I. Attic.
iii. 2, No. 3509), Aoyof 8a>r) ru $f<u KOI avadf^a IJTCO. papavaddv (sic), is very
manifestly borrowed from 1 Cor. xvi. 22, but without a clear understanding
of its sense. A similar use of the word is to be found in a Latin inscription
discovered at Poitiers and recorded by Le Blant (Nouveau recueil des insn:
chre't. de la'Gaule, p. 259, No. 247). In view of all this, there can be little
doubt that in quoting this fragment from the liturgy of the Palestinian
Church, Paul meant to make unmistakable his reference to certain Christians
from Palestine. This purpose would have been obscured had he added a

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 305

Greek translation (cf. per contra, Gal. iv. 6 ; Rom. viii. 15). The purport of
the words is quite in keeping with the Pauline spirit. When he thinks of
the disturbers of peace in the Church and its destroyers, of its unskilled
workers and hostile critics, his mind turns to the day of judgment (iii. 13-
20, iv. 5) : " Lord, come and put an end to all strife, and to all the activity
of hostile forces in Thy Church."

13. (P. 291.) In the conditional sentence, 2 Cor. xi. 4, what the writer
regards as really contrary to fact is put in the present (cf. Matt. xii. 26 ; Rom.
iv. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 17, xv. 13, 14, 16, 17 ; Gal. v. 11 ; Kuhner-Gerth, ii. 466 f.).
Although Paul does in one instance (Gal. i. 6) call the preaching of the
Judaising missionaries a erepoi/ tvayye\iov, he does not do it without imme-
diately correcting this perverted use of the name gospel (i. 7). It is certain
that there was not a second Holy Spirit whom the Corinthians could or must
receive through the new preachers, after they had received the real Holy
Spirit through the ministry of Paul. Still less was there another Jesus who
could be preached at Corinth, after the one Jesus who was the common sub-
ject of the Christian preaching had been heralded there and made the
foundation of the Church (1 Cor. iii. 11; 2 Cor. i. 19, iv. 5). Even if it
were conceivable in the light of Gal. i. 6 that Paul might contrast the Christ
preached by himself with the Christ preached by his opponents, calling the
latter a trepos Xpioror, he could not speak of a erepor, or a'AXo? 'Irjo-ovs, as the
subject of actual preaching, since there was no second or third Jesus, in
addition to Jesus of Nazareth, who could be preached. Furthermore, if the
three relative clauses here inserted were meant to characterise a false
gospel differing from the gospel of Paul and actually preached in Corinth,
then it would be necessary to read Trap' w eV-?;p^a/ii/, Trap' 6 e\dj3eTe . . .
f8eacrde (cf. Gal. i. 8 f.), and fjp.fls would probably be inserted in order to
express contrast to 6 ep^o/jevor. But as the clauses actually read they simply
mean that the Corinthians have already received all the essential truths that
a new missionary could bring them. Moreover, the apodosis of the sentence
shows that Paul is here stating a condition contrary to fact in the present
tense. If with BD* we read dvexevdf, then the sentence means that in this
case but only in this case are the Corinthians open to no censure in tolerat-
ing strange teachers among them (/caXcos Troielre dve^o^fvoL rov ep^o^fvov KT\.),
as they are in fact doing (xi. 19 f.). On the other hand, if we accept the more
common reading dvelxto-Qf, it can hardly be regarded as a simple imperfect,
merely descriptive of the attitude of the Corinthians heretofore ; because this
attitude toward the strange teachers continues to the present time (xi. 19 f.).
Rather is the imperfect to be taken in the sense of dvdxfadf av, there being
a transition from the first to the fourth form of the hypothetical sentence
(John viii. 39, without &v ; Luke xvii. 6, with av after a well accredited
with the present indicative ; cf. Winer, 42 ; Kuhner-Gerth, i. 215). This,
however, gives practically the same sense as ave^ta-de. But since the attitude
of the Corinthians toward the strange teachers is in Paul's judgment highly
censurable, in this instance, where it is actually represented as commendable,
the case must be purely hypothetical. The frequently suggested interpreta-
tion of KaXtas in a purely ironical sense, in reality expressing strong censure
(Mark vii. 9), is scarcely permissible, even from the point of view of style,
following as it does a conditional clause in no sense ironical. Nor is it more

VOL. I. 20

306 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

permissible from the point of view of the thought ; for, if someone in
Corinth were boasting about alleged spiritual benefits which he did not yet
posses.*, and were debating in his own mind whether he should allow them to
be bestowed upon himself, it would not be occasion either for ironv or censure.
No difficulty to the above interpretation of 2 Cor. xi. 4 is presented by its con-
nection with what precedes ; since it is not ver. 4 alone which is connected
with what precedes by yap, but rather the entire passage, xi. 4-xii. 18, is
introduced by yap, in order to explain more fully xi. 2-3. And this explana-
tion begins very properly with the concessive statement that the Corinthians
would not be blameworthy anyway, i.e. Paul would not need to be anxious
about them even if the case suggested in ver. 4 were actually true to fact.
To assume the possibility of such a case was just as reasonable as to ask the
questions in 1 Cor. i. 13 or 1 Cor. xiv. 36 ; for the Corinthians, in listening
so patiently to the strange teachers, and in permitting them to carry on their
work so long without any thought of separating themselves from Paul and his
gospel, were acting as if these teachers were actually imparting to them new
spiritual truths. The grammatical construction of the conditional sentence
forbids the assumption that the reference in this passage may be to some
possible future case, in which a certain newcomer, presumably one of the
original apostles, whose immediate coming the false apostles had announced,
is assumed to be engaged in preaching in Corinth (cf. Hausrath, Der Vierkapi-
telbrief des Paulus an die Kor. 19). It is impossible also to understand how
so important a matter could be referred to in a manner so incidental and
enigmatical. 'O fpxopfvos does not here mean the Great Expected One
(Matt. xi. 3), still less one who has already come, i.e. some influential per-
sonality who can be connected with the strange teachers who have appeared
in Corinth (cf. Ewald, Sendschreiben des Paulus, 225, 295, 298). On the con-
trary, it is used in a quite general sense (cf. Gal. v. 10, 6 rapda-o-uv vp.as ;
Eph. iv. 28, 6 K\eirT<ov ; also Bom. iv. 4 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 2 ff.). In order to
understand the passage, it is only necessary to assume that teachers from
without had appeared in Corinth (cf. Didache, xi. 1, 6s av ovv e\6uv St5a// ;
xi. 4, iras 8e aTrooToXor cpxopcvos irpos ip-as ; cf. xii. 1, 2). With this inter-
pretation is refuted also the opinion of Baur (i. 318) and Hilgenfeld (EM.
298), that ol virtp\iav an-ooroXoi (2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11) refers to the original
apostles. Even if it were possible to suppose that Paul, writing in opposi-
tion to the exaggeration of the authority of the original apostles on the part
of the followers of Peter, with the corresponding denial of his own apostolic
authority, might speak thus ironically of the original apostles, to which
Gal. ii. 6, 9 suggest a certain though entirely insufficient analogy, from the
connection of xi. 5 and xi. 4 it is certain that he had in mind the false
apostles and servants of Satan (xi. 13-15) who were active in Corinth at this
time. The same is true of xii. 11, particularly in view of the fact that here-
tofore Paul has not been comparing himself and engaging in discussion with
the original apostles, but only with strange teachers in Corinth (xi. 7-xii. 11).
Nor is there anything in this context which would indicate that these
persons relied on the authority of the apostles, and were exalting it at Paul's
expense.

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 307

19. SURVEY OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE

COKLNTHIANS.

Unless the close connection between 1 Cor. and 2 Cor.
be broken, either by the assumption that between the two
there belongs an Epistle of Paul to the same Church,
which is lost, or which must be searched for (n. 1), or by
the assumption of an intervening visit (n. 2), or by the
combination of these two hypotheses, 2 Cor. furnishes
information both regarding the immediate effect of 1 Cor.
and subsequent developments.

Timothy is mentioned in 2 Cor. as a joint writer with
Paul of the letter ; but the case is not parallel to that of
1 Cor. i. 1 (above, p. 267, n. 6), since Timothy was one of
Paul's helpers who had had an active part in the organisa-
tion of the Churches in Achaia (i. 19 ; above, p. 26 4 f., n. 2 ;
cf. 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1). This explains why, con-
trary to his usage in 1 Cor. i. 4, Paul employs the first
person plural from the very beginning of the letter, and
uses it quite uniformly up to ix. 15, never exchanging it
for the singular except for some good reason, and in only
one instance expressly stating who is included in the
"we," namely, when he refers to the pioneer preaching
of the gospel among the Christians of Achaia, in which
Silvanus as well as Timothy had taken part (i. 19). Con-
sequently, as is self-evident, throughout the letter, except
where the general nature of the statements made render
it clear that all Christians or all like-minded preachers
of the gospel are meant, the "we" includes primarily and
certainly Timothy and ^ Paul. This is true even of the
concluding section chaps, x.-xiii., where, notwithstanding
the fact that the introductory auro? Be eya JTaOXo? in-
dicates that what follows is an expression of Paul's own
opinion, in distinction from the joint communication of
Timothy and Paul that precedes, we have an occasional
substitution of " we " for " I " (n. 3).

308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Furthermore, it is to be observed that, unlike 1 Cor.,
2 Cor. is not intended exclusively for the Church in
Corinth, but also for all the other Christians throughout
the province of Achaia (above, p. 264 f., n. 2). But if it
were intended for the Corinthians only in the same way
that it is meant for the other Christians in Achaia, the
designation of the readers would certainly be different :
either we should have the different places where the letter
was to be read enumerated (cf. Kev. i. 4, 11 ; 1 Pet. i. 1),
or all the Churches would be spoken of together as those
of Achaia (Gal. i. 2 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 19 ; 2 Cor. viii. 1 ; Gal.
i. 22 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14). The language of the greeting
shows, therefore, that while the letter w T as intended
primarily for the Corinthians, it was applicable also,
either in whole or in part, to the other Christians in
Achaia, and was intended to be communicated to them.
In this respect the greeting is different from 1 Cor. i. 2
(above, 297 f., n. 8). Consequently, also, the address
Kopivdioi in vi. 11 is not to be understood after the
analogy of Phil. iv. 15, Gal. iii. 1, as if directed to all
the readers, but its occurrence here is due to the fact that
in some degree what precedes, and in particular what is
said from this point on, is applicable only to the Church
in Corinth. This same circumstance explains also the
mention of the city in i. 23, which, following the repeated
7T/305 v/jLas, &t iifjiwv, eV vp.lv, i. 15-19, is somewhat strange,
and, like KopivOioi, excepting the greeting of 1 Cor., which
does not need to be taken into account here, is quite
without parallel. The expressions in i. 15-19 mean "to,
through, and in Achaia"; what follows in i. 23 applies
only to the Corinthians.

There were, on the other hand, other things which
affected just as vitally the remaining Christians in Achaia,
particularly the matter of the collection spoken of in
chaps. viii.-ix., in which they had all had a part (ix. 2 ;
Rom. xv. 26). If Titus, who, let us assume, brought the

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 309

letter from Macedonia to Corinth (see below), journeyed by
way of Athens, he is likely at once to have made known
the contents of the communication which he bore to the
Christians in Athens and in other Christian centres in
Achaia en route ; since he could not well have passed
through these places without stopping to greet them.
And inasmuch as he was also personally to superintend
the collection in Achaia, he is not at all likely to have
left it for the Corinthian Church to see that the letter was
circulated among the Churches of Achaia, particularly
since viii. 16-24 contained recommendations and proofs
of the identity of Titus and his companions quite essential
for carrying on the collection. But it may be questioned
whether in these transactions Titus informed the other
Churches of the contents of the entire letter, which dealt
so largely with special conditions in Corinth, or only of
such sections as i. 1-22, viii. 1-ix. 15, xiii. 11-13.

The Epistle may be divided into three clearly defined
sections, chaps, i.-vii., viii.-ix., x.-xiii. The framework
of the first section consists of three fragments of an
account of the apostle's journey. While he was still in
the province of Asia, he and Timothy, w r ho was with him,
were threatened with what seemed certain death (i. 8-10,
n. 4). When he reached Troas and was minded to preach
the gospel there, a favourable opportunity having offered,
he found that he was not in a state of mind sufficiently
composed to do so, because he had not been met there by
Titus, whom he had sent to Corinth, and whose return he
awaited with the' utmost anxiety. In the hope of sooner
meeting him, he and Timothy left Troas at once and went
to Macedonia (ii. 12f.). After their arrival in Macedonia,
where this letter was written, and manifestly not very
long before its composition, Titus met him and cheered
his heart with good news from Corinth (vii. 5 f.).

The chronological as well as geographical arrangement
of the material is retained in the two following sections.

3io INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

In chaps, viii.-ix. Paul speaks of events that were taking
place at the time in the Macedonian Churches where he
was, particularly of a recent decision, a decision made
since the arrival of Titus. He tells the Corinthians what
they did not yet know, and what possibly had not been
decided upon when Titus left Corinth, namely, that of
their own accord the Macedonian Churches had decided to
help in the collection for the Christians in Jerusalem, a
collection which had been going on in Corinth now for a
year, in fact since before the sending of the communica-
tion to which Paul replied in 1 Cor. (n. 5). Moved by
the commendatory reports of Paul and Timothy about the
collections in Achaia, and without Paul's having ventured
to ask it, the poor Macedonians had at once gathered a
sum which, in view of their circumstances, was consider-
able (viii. 1-4, ix. 2). They had already selected one of
their own number to accompany Paul and Timothy on
their journey with the collection by way of Corinth to
Jerusalem (n. 6). The zeal of the Macedonians in this
matter, which had been dragging on in Corinth for such a
considerable time, and the news brought by Titus regarding
the condition of the offering there, led Paul to ask Titus to
return to Corinth, whence he had come only a short time
before, in company with the representative of the Mace-
donian Christians and another brother, perhaps the person
chosen by the Churches in Asia for this very purpose, in
order to complete the collection (viii. 6, 16-24, ix. 3-5).

All that we learn from the second part of the letter
(chaps, viii.-ix.) regarding Paul's anticipated visit is, that
he did not mean that it should be delayed much longer.
He does not intend to wait for the return of Titus and his
companions. The two representatives of the Churches
are to make the first part of the journey, which was
to be completed in company with Paul, somewhat earlier
than the apostle, and in company with Titus rather than
Paul himself. The three ,-ire sent ahead to Corinth to

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 311

announce his coming (ix. 5), and to deliver the letter in
the middle sections of which they had been commended
to the Christians of Achaia.

It is not until the third section (chaps, x.-xiii.) that
Paul speaks particularly of his own coming. The section
begins with a contrast between his anticipated presence
among the Corinthians and his absence from them up to
this time (x. 1-10), and concludes with the same thought
(xiii. 10). Once he expresses the hope of being able to
preach the gospel in the regions beyond Corinth (x. 16).
But the most important purpose of his coming is to
establish order in Corinth, which as yet has not been
fully restored (x. 6, xii. 14f., xiii. 1 f.). He fears that he
may find many of the old disorders and be compelled to
make use of harsh measures (x. 2, xii. 20 f., xiii. 7-9).
As he himself indicates at the close, the purpose of the
letter, which is sent from a distance in spite of the fact
that he expects to come himself so soon, is to spare him-
self the necessity of exercising with severity the authority
given him by the Lord (xiii. 10), and this is the special
purpose of chaps, x.-xiii. It is with this purpose in view
that he requests the whole Church to submit itself with
more entire obedience than it had done heretofore (x. 6),
and resents so decisively the arrogant criticisms of him-
self and of his letters which were still being made in
the Church, particularly by the Christ party (x. 1 f.,
vii.-xi., xiii. 3-6, above, p. 302). For the last time he
threatens those who live immoral lives, and who, in spite
of all exhortations, have not repented (xii. 21-xiii. 2).

The larger portion of this section is directed against
the teachers from abroad, who, as we have seen, were the
followers of Peter (above, pp. 289 f., 300 f.), and the
Church is requested no longer to permit these aliens to
carry on their pernicious work, which more than anything
else had caused the trouble and bitterness in the relations
between Paul and the Corinthians (xi. 1-xii. 18).

312 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Tradition makes the Epistle a unit ; and this pre-
liminary survey shows it to be such, with an order which
is both natural and logical. In spirit the reader follows
Paul from Ephesus through Troas to Macedonia (chaps,
i.-vii.); then he lingers with him for a moment in the
Churches of Macedonia (chaps, viii.-ix.) ; finally, he is led
to the consideration of conditions in the Church at Corinth
from the point of view of Paul's coming visit there. The
three sections of the letter treat respectively, the im-
mediate past with its misunderstandings and explanations,
the present with its practical problems, and the near
future with its anxieties.

1. (P. 307.) The theory that after Timothy's return from Corinth Paul
wrote a letter to the Corinthians which, he sent to them by Titus, a letter
now lost and supposedly referred to in 2 Cor. ii. 3, 9, vii. 8, was first put
forth and defended by Bleek (ThStKr. 1830, S. 625 ff.). This theory was
adopted, with, varying degrees of confidence, by Credner (Einl. i. 371),
Neander (Ausleg. der Kr. 272, 293 f.), Klopper (Untersuch. iiber den 2 Kr. 1869,
S. 24 ff.), by the same author in his Kommentar (1874, S. 42 ff.), and by
many others. According to Lisco (Die Entstehung des 2 Kr. 1896, S. 1),
there is beginning "to be a consensus criticus" (it were better perhaps
to say criticorum) on this point. Klopper admits (38 f.) that in 1 Cor.
xvi. 5-7 Paul lays before the Corinthians a new plan for his journey, the
plan which he was engaged in carrying out when 2 Cor. was written, as
contrasted to his original plan, which had already been put before them,
and which is described in 2 Cor. i. 15-16, and he (43) finds in I. xvi.
5-7 the announcement of " an early arrival in Corinth " ; though in this
passage, which, was written at least some weeks before Pentecost, Paul says
that he may possibly remain away until the beginning of winter, and in
any event will not come immediately (above, p. 268 f.). When now, on the
strength of this, there is posited a lost letter sent in the interval between

1 Cor. and 2 Cor., in which Paul "put off his visit and in general made
it dependent upon certain conditions" (43), thus accounting for the accusa-
tions against which he defends himself in II. i. 12 ff., it may be observed
that there is nothing to suggest that at the time of 2 Cor. there was any
doubt as to Paul's actually coming. There is nothing in 2 Cor. like I. iv. 18 ;
so that the charge which he meets in II. i. 17 has no reference to what he
had said in a very recent letter, nor to a recent change in the plan of his
journey, but to the original plan. Of course there was no occasion for this
charge until after Paul had declared that he would not follow this but another
plan. This he had done, however, with emphasis in I. xvi. 5-7, and when

2 Cor. was written this other plan had been practically carried out, with no
recognisable changes. The assumption that in the interval between the
writing of I. xvi. 5-7 and II. i. 12-ii. 2, Paul had expressed himself again

1'AUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 313

about the plan for his journey in a letter now lost, and in a manner essenti-
ally different from I. xvi. 5-7, and that the reference in II. ii. 3-9 is to this
lost letter, cannot be harmonised with the usual translation of II. ii. 3 TOVTO
at>ro = "even this." Nor does it gain support from the translation, "For this
very reason " (see below, 20, n. 5). Unless it be assumed that Paul paid a
visit to Corinth during the same interval, which changed the whole situation,
and by which also the plans that were in mind when 1 Cor. was written were
set aside, this hypothesis renders the entire defence in II. i. 15 ft 1 , meaningless.
Paul is accordingly represented as returning, after a temporary vacillation to
which expression had been given in the intervening letter, to the definite
plan stated in detail in I. xvi. 5-7. In other words, according to II. i. 15 ft'.,
this plan must have been given up temporarily, and taken up again. It
would then be necessary for him to distinguish not merely two, but at least
three, and if our interpretation of I. xvi. 5-7 (below, 20, and above, p. 268 f.)
be correct, four different stages in the development of this affair (1) the plan
and the promise to come immediately to Corinth from Ephesus by the direct
route (cf. I. iv. 18) ; (2) the opposite plan which is set forth in detail in I. xvi.
5-7, with reasons for the determination not to come immediately, but after an
interval by the longer route through Macedonia ; (3) the later communica-
tion to the Corinthians, of which there is no record, that plan No. 2 had been
given up, and that he had returned to plan No. 1 ; (4) the return to plan
No. 2, which, at the time when II. i.-ix. was written, had already been prac-
tically carried out. Sufficient refutation of this whole theory is the setting
forth of the actual situation (cf. 20). More than this is unnecessary
in regard to Hausrath's theory, that the lost letter sent between 1 and 2
Cor. is to be found in 2 Cor. x.-xiii. (Der Vierlcapitelbrief des Paulus an
die Kor. 1870). The avros Se ry<5> IlauXor, x. 1, it is claimed, shows that
what follows is an appendix of Paul's to an entirely unrelated letter, possibly
a letter to the Corinthians from the Church in Ephesus, or from the Church
associated with the house of Aquila in Ephesus (28). This theory rests upon
the claim that, while in chaps, i.-ix. Paul speaks in an "undisturbed, most
loving, and peaceful state of mind," addressing the Corinthians only in words
of appreciation, in chaps, x.-xiii., on the other hand, he defends himself and
his companions against the darkest suspicions in a violently polemic manner,
making against the Corinthians the most serious charges (S. 2-5). This
claim is refuted by the simple restatement of the situation ( 20). In detail,
while it is to be admitted that as a matter of fact the praise in viii. 7 is
more strongly expressed than the thanksgiving to God in I. i. 4 f., since
here, as in II. i. 24 (" For as regards faith ye stand "), in addition to know-
ledge and speech mention is made also of faith, yet it is to be observed that
there is the same appreciation in I. xv. 1 f. as is found in the earlier chaps,
of 2 Cor. Furthermore, in this same section (chaps, i.-ix.) boast is made
of the zeal of Paul and Timothy for the Church, and of the love in their
hearts which the Corinthians had called out, and which had been wakened
into new life by the attitude of the Corinthians toward them that had
recently come to light (II. vii. 7, 11). No mention is made, however, of the
love of the Corinthians for Paul. But this boast is made only in contrast
to their lack of zeal and of an attitude toward the collection which corre-
sponds to the love and praise of Paul. Although the apostle assures the

314 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

readers of his love, he does it in such a way as to make clear that this love
is not yet adequately requited by the readers (cf. vi. 11-13, vii. 3, xi. 11, xii.
15), and, in view uf their attitude toward certain mattery about which Paul
was very much concerned, not deserved. Moreover, it is not to be overlooked
that this appreciation of the Corinthians occurs in that portion of the letter
(chaps, viii.-ix.) which is addressed especially to the whole Church of Achaia
(above, p. 308). Hausrath gets his very dark picture of the condition of
affairs in chaps, x.-xiii. only by mixing up all of Paul's statements, com-
plaints, denials, and defences, irrespective of whether they were directed
against the Church, individual members of the Church, or teachers from
without, and then painting the whole with these dark colours. For example,
from xii. 16-18, Hausrath infers that the Church had accused Paul and his
messengers of dishonesty, deception, and fraud in the matter of the collection
(S. 4, 10, 18) ; but it is difficult to see why the same inference is not drawn
from vii. 2 (ovSeVa eVXeoveKT^cra/ifv), and why this passage, which is so much
more immediately connected with the frank discussion of the matter of the
collection in chaps, viii.-ix. than is xii. 16-18, is not treated as a gross con-
tradiction of the situation portrayed in chaps, i.-ix. In the second place, it
is to be observed that xii. 18 does not deal with the collection at all, but with
the first sending of Titus (viii. 6), which had nothing to do with the collec-
tion (see below, 20, n. 4). Chap. xii. 16 (cf. xi. 7-12, xii. 13-15) deals with
the apostle's personal conduct on the occasion of his two former visits, and
xii. 17 with all the persons who since the founding of the Church had come
to Corinth as Paul's messengers. The language of xii. 16 and the context
from xi. 7 on, prove that the accusations which are met in xii. 16 originated
with the followers of Peter, and that the latter were compelled to admit that
he had not been any expense to the Church, but, on the contrary, had com-
pletely renounced the right to be supported, which as a missionary he might
have claimed. The accusation (aXXa inrdp^av iravovpyos fidXw vpas eAa/Sov),
which stands in absolute contrast to the concession made in the w r ords ov KOTS-
ftdprjcra i/zas in xii. 16 (cf. xi. 9 ; 1 Thess. ii. 6, 9 ; 2 Thess. ii. 8), would be
pointless, if by the very same words the claim were made that Paul had
imposed upon the Corinthians the burden of collecting a sum of money, but
in doing eo had not acted openly, but with deceit. Grammatically and
logically, the accusation can only mean that the shrewd apostle, by refusing
all compensation for his labours, which seemed generous, but really showed
his lack of love for the Corinthians (xi. 11), had in another respect outwitted
them, since by this cunningly-devised means he had succeeded in making
them morally more dependent upon himself. Consequently Tr\(oi>fKT(lv is
manifestly to be taken in the same sense in xii. 17, 18 (vii. 2) ; for although
this word may have been chosen here because of Paul's refusal to accept com-
pensation, its meaning is by no means confined to fraud in money matters
(cf. ii. 11, and any lexicon). The light which this hypothesis throws upon
the obscurities of chaps, i.-ix. is as small as the foundations upon which it
stands are weak. Nor is there any hint in chaps, x.-xiii. regarding the
time of Paul's proposed visit to Corinth, to say nothing of the recalling of his
original plan. If these chapters were written by the apostle in Ephesue
before he started for Macedonia by way of Troas, this alleged four-chapter
letter furnished the Corinthians no occasion whatever for the complaints

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 315

which Paul answers in i. 12-ii. 2. When the latter passage was written, the
plan set forth in I. xvi. 5-7 had been practically carried out, and II. x.-xiii.
shows no hesitation as to this plan certainly no promise to do otherwise,
such as might have given the Corinthians cau?e for complaint. The only
strange thing is that in II. xii. 14, xiii. 1, Paul makes not the slightest
reference to the plan for his journey to Corinth, which is so emphatically
set forth in I. xvi. 5-7. The explanation is that at the time when II. i.-ix.
was written, which is also the time when II. x.-xiii. was written, this plan
had become fact, so that only references of a retrospective character, like
those in II. i. 15-ii. 2, could be made to it. Further, Hausrath's hypothesis
furnishes not the slightest help in explaining the treatment of the individual
case in II. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f., and the matter of the collection in chaps,
viii.-ix. ; for in chaps, x.-xiii. the matter of the collection is not once
touched upon ; and where sinners are mentioned, against whom Paul fears
it will be necessary for him to take strong measures when he comes (xii.
21-xiii. 10), there is no special reference to an individual case with which
II. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. can be connected. The reference in xii. 21-xiii. 10 is
to numerous offenders, whom Paul had threatened with punishment on the
occasion of his second visit (xiii. 2), which by Hausrath also is, placed before
1 Cor. But if the evil-doer of I. v. 1-13 was one of these offenders, then
Paul laid himself open to ridicule for speaking in I. v. 1-13 with so much
passion about a case with which he had long been familiar, and with which
he had dealt at the time of his last visit. How much the hypothesis is worth
Hausrath himself shows when he goes on to assume that the case of incest
and the matter of the collection were dealt with in a lost letter of the Church
of Ephesus to the Corinthians, to which Paul attached his private communi-
cation, chaps, x.-xiii. (28) ; for that is practically to confess that there is
not a single independent word in chaps, x.-xiii. on these subjects which
could have occasioned what is said in ii. 5-11, vii. 11 if., viii.-ix. Lisco
(Entstehung des 2 Kr. 1896, according to the preface written in 1886) under-
took to improve Hausrath's hypothesis by cutting out of this four-chapter
letter xii. 11-19, and inserting in its place vi. 14-vii. 1, a passage which
has often been felt to break the connection (see below, 20, n. 7), putting
xii. 11-19 in between vi. 13 and vii. 2, and by then assuming that i. 1-vi. 13,
xii. 11-19, vii. 2 f., ix. 1-15, xiii. 11-13 constitute a second letter, chaps,
vii. 4-viii. 24 a third. Several other attempts at division similar in
character have been made, which it seems superfluous to describe at length.
Cf. the comprehensive discussion by Hilgenfeld ZfWTh. xii. (1899), S. 1-19.
It only needs to be mentioned that Semler, who (ParapJir. in Epist. ad
Rom. 1769, p. 305 ff.) explained the greater part of Rom. xvi. as an appendix
to Rom., holding that it was meant originally for the Corinthians, in his
Paraphr. Epist. II. ad Corinth. (1776, pref. and pp. 238, 311-314, 321),
suggested that 2 Cor. be divided into the following three Epistles (1) the
Epistle which Paul sent by Titus on the occasion of the latter's second trip to
Corinth, chaps, i.-viii., xiii. 11-13 ; (2) an Epistle to the Christians in
Achaia, chap. ix. ; (3) an Epistle to the Corinthians which Paul wrote after
he had sent Titus the second time, i.e. after he had despatched (1), in conse-
quence of new reports from Corinth of an unfavourable kind, chaps, x. 1-
xiii. 10. It was this evidentlv that led Krenkcl to maintain that Paul wrote

316 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

this letter, x. 1-xiii. 10 (Semler's third letter), in Macedonia, after Titus
and his companions, who had delivered in Corinth the letter composed of
i. 1-ix. 15, xiii. 11-13 (practically Semler's first and second letters), had
returned to Paul in Macedonia with fresh and painful reports.

2. (P. 307.) Following the example of Ewald (Sendxchr. des Paulus, 216)
and of many others, Krenkel, with especially detailed proof (154-211, 377),
has recently advocated the placing of Paul's second visit in Corinth in the
interval between 1 and 2 Cor., making it immediately precede the alleged
intervening Epistle. The main proof of this position, namely, that this
visit could not have taken place before 1 Cor. was written, has already been
examined (above, p. 272, n. 14); likewise (above, p. 268, n. 7) the attempt
to push 1 Cor. back from the last months of Paul's stay in Ephesus to an
earlier time. Moreover, it will be shown in n. 5 that the Pentecost at which
Paul was about to leave Ephesus (I. xvi. 8) belongs in the same Julian year
(/)7) prior to the end of which 2 Cor. was written. It is possible that the
departure from Ephesus was delayed, because of the delay in the return
of Timothy (above, p. 269, n. 7) ; but it is just as likely to have been hastened
because of the uprising led by Demetrius. These possibilities do not need
to be taken into account here, so long as it is admitted that 1 Cor. was
written several weeks before Pentecost of the year (57), before the close of
which 2 Cor. was written (n. 5). Then in the interval between Pentecost
and the end of December it would be necessary to place the following events
(Krenkel, 377) : (1) a journey by Paul through Macedonia to Corinth, and
a troubled stay in the latter place ; (2) a return to Ephesus instead of the
projected visit to Jerusalem ; (3) the sending of Titus to Corinth with a
letter of Paul's uo\v lost, wherein announcement was made of his immediate
coming for a third visit ; (4) Paul's journey from Ephesus by way of Troas
to Macedonia, where he meets Titus, and shortly afterwards writes 2 Cor. i.-
ix., xiii. 11-13. Without taking into account at all the very clear connection
between 1 Cor. xvi. and 2 Cor. i., which does not permit the intervention of
a letter nor of a visit ( 20), it must be confessed that (1) and (4) in this
series give rise to the suspicion of being duplicates, due to the critic's
double vision; that (2) is extremely improbable; finally, that in the case
of (3) the alleged contents of the supposed letter do not harmonise with
2 Cor. ii. 3.

3. (P. 307.) From the fact that the " we " is retained in i. 3-12 it is to be
inferred, first of all, that Timothy shared the extreme danger which Paul
encountered while he was still in Asia. Assuming that the criticism which
is answered in i. 13 was occasioned by something that was said in a previous
letter, from the use of " we " it is not necessary to infer that Timothy was one
of the authors of the letter ; for the criticism is general, and has reference
to the ambiguity of Paul's utterances in his correspondence, while in replying
to this criticism Paul uses a present tense which indicates nothing as to time.
Since Paul was engaged in writing a letter at this very time in conjunction
with Timothy, as he had frequently clone be-fore, there was no reason why at
this particular point he should change to the singular. When he does so tem-
porarily in this immediate context (tkir'tfa $')> * fc ^ apparent that in expressing
this hope that there may never be any further misunderstanding between him
and the Church in the future, he has in mind thu misunderstanding and un-

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 317

favourable criticism of the changing plans for his journey, which he proposes
to discuss at greater length in i. 15 tf. Inasmuch as i. 15-ii. 11 deals with the
announcement and carrying out of plans of journeys and with communications
by letter in which Timothy had no part, Paul retains the singular in speaking
of himself, except in i. 19-22 (cf. iii. 2), which treats of the missionary preach-
ing in Achaia. In i. 23 with eyo> de which stands in contrast to the preced-
ing i-^els Paul returns to the discussion of personal matters already begun.
This singular is retained even in ii. 12 f., although, according to i. 8, Timothy
was with Paul either before or at the time of his departure from Ephesus, and
so certainly at the time of his sojourn in Troas ; changing again to the plural
in ii. 14 f., which, in spite of the general character of the statements, is to be
connected with the sojourn in Troas. However, in a very skilful way, the
apostle indicates that the responsibility for the sudden departure from Troas
rests not upon Timothy, whose movements are dependent upon his own, but
upon himself and his disturbed state of mind. With the exception of a single
e\iria> 8e in v. 11 (cf. i. 13, xiii. 6), the plural is retained up to vii. 2, i.e. up
to the point where Paul returns again to the matters already touched upon in
ii. 5-11, in which Timothy had no direct part (vii. 3-16). Since Timothy
accompanied Paul to Macedonia, and was with him when Titus met him
there, and naturally took a lively interest in the news which Titus brought,
so occasionally here also we find the " we " (vii. 5-7, 13). Once there is a
sudden change to " we " in a context where " I " predominates (vii. 14).
First of all, it was a comfort to Paul that the boasts which he had made to
Titus about the Corinthian Church had not proved false. Since, however, he
saw fit to compare the truthfulness of this praise with the truthfulness of all
that he had said to the Corinthians, i.e. of his first preaching, in which
Timothy had taken part (cf. i. 19). it was natural after this reference to the
first preaching of the gospel in Corinth (fXa\i]crafj.fv) to represent Timothy as
sharing with him the boasting before Titus (f) Kavxicns ij/icof), vii. 14 (cf.
ix. 3). This, of course, was possible only if Timothy was with Paul and
agreed with what he said when he talked with Titus about going to Corinth
(cf. Hof mann, ii. 3. 196). In chaps, viii.-ix. the " we " predominates, although
occasionally the " I " occurs (viii. 8, 10). The frequent interchange of the
pronouns in ix. 3-5 affords no reason for excluding Timothy from a single
" we." In chaps, x.-xiii. also the substitution of an occasional " we " for the
predominating "I" is not without significance. By x. 11 a, xi. 21a, we are
reminded that this discussion of the personal relation of Paul to the Church
and his opponents is nevertheless part of a letter of which Timothy is one of
the authors ; by x. 12-16 it is suggested that Timothy is one of Paul's mis-
sionary helpers, well known to the Corinthians, and will continue to be such.
From x. 26-v. 76, xi. 12, we learn that the criticisms against which he found
it necessary to defend himself were also to some extent urged against his
helpers; x. 6, 116, xiii. 4-9, show that Timothy was to accompany Paul to
Corinth in the near future. This is indicated also by viii. 19, where the
individual whom the Macedonian Churches had cho?en to accompany Paul on
his journey to Corinth and thence to Jerusalem is called a-vveK8rjfj.os IJ/KOV not
P.OV. Moreover, in some cases it is not impossible that what Paul says of him-
self and Timothy by the use of this plural may be applicable, also to one or
more of his other helpers. It is possible, e.g., that Aristarchus accompanied

3i8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

Paul aiid Timothy on the journey from Epliesus to Troas and Macedonia (see
u. 6).

4. (P. 309.) Since Troas is in the province of Asia, and since, moreover,
Paul never uses 'Aa-ia except to designate the entire province (above, p. 186 f.),
there is no contradiction as to locality between ii. 12 and i. 8. But it neces-
sarily follows from e\duv 8e ds rfjv TpwaSa that in i. 8 it is not Troas that is
meant, but either Epliesus or some point between Ephesus and Troas. The
reference in i. 8 is certainly not to the event hinted at in 1 Cor. xv. 32 ; for
at the time when 1 Cor. was written this was so well known to the readers,
that Paul was able to call it to mind by a single word which to us is obscure.
It must have been something that happened earlier. In the present case,
however, when 2 Cor. was written and this was certainly some months
after the event to which he refers, as is evident from the connection
between i. 8-11 and i. 3-7 Paul was still actuated by feelings of grateful joy
that he had been delivered out of extreme danger. Even though the Corin-
thians may in some way have become acquainted with the facts in the case, or
might learn the same from the person who brought 2 Cor., Paul never-
theless felt constrained himself to explain to them at the very outset the
terribleness of the danger to which he had been exposed. Clearly the event
must have taken place sometime between 1 and 2 Cor. It is not un-
natural to assume that the event in question is that described in Acts xix.
23-41. Hofmann's objection (ii. 3. 11), namely, that, according to Acts xix.
22, Timothy had left Ephesus several months before Paul, and so could not
have been with Paul at the time of Acts xix. 23 ff., as is presupposed in 2 Cor.
i. 8, is not decisive against this position. The account in Acts is not complete
at this point ; there is no record of the return of Timothy to Paul while he
was still in Asia, which we infer from 2 Cor. i. 8, and we are by no means
sure whether this return took place at the time indicated by Acts xx. 1, or in
the interval suggested by Acts xix. 226. It is, however, impossible to connect
2 Cor. i. 8 with Acts xix. 23 ff., for the reason that in the latter account there
is nothing to indicate that Paul's life was in serious danger. From the
danger immediately threatening he escaped (xix. 30). The favour of the
Asiarchs (xix. 31) would have protected him in a suit at law, such as the
town-clerk (ypa^arevs^ ver. 35) had in mind (xix. 38). But it did not come
to this. Paul was able to depart unmolested (xx. 1). Nor would the
apostle have regarded as especially terrible a death brought upon him because
of his effective preaching of the gospel in Ephesus ; although, as a matter of
fact, this could hardly have been the outcome of such a trial as that hinted at
(cf. Phil. i. 20-23, ii. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 6-8 ; Acts xx. 22-24). As Hofmann
suggests, it is more likely to have been the danger of drowning, possibly
during a stormy voyage from Ephesus to Troas (2 Cor. xi. 25). But if Paul
had left land behind, he could hardly have used the expression eV rr t 'Aaia.
Or he may have fallen into the hands of robbers, and have been saved from a
horrible death only through unexpected aid (2 Cor. xi. 26).

5. (P. 310.) In 2 Cor. viii. 10, Paul writes that the Corinthians had begun
their collection in the previous year (a-n-b irepvo-i), and in ix. 2 he says that,
recently he had boasted to the Macedonians that Achaia had been prepared
in regard to this matter ever since the preceding year. Now manifestly the
reference here cannot be to two entirely different facts, because the same ex-

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 319

pressiou is used in both instances to indicate the time (dirb irepvo-i), and there is
nothing in ix. 2 which suggests that Paul had made a mistake in thus boasting
about the Corinthians. Since it was this boasting which, according to ix. 2,
incited the Macedonians themselves to take part in the collection (cf. viii. 1-5),
the apostle may have made it before Titus' arrival. But this was the very time
when Paul was least likely to be optimistic about conditions in Corinth (ii.
13, vii. 5). He had not boasted that the collection in Corinth was all ready,
but simply that the Churches in Greece, unlike those in Macedonia, where no
preparations for a collection whatever had been made, were in a position to
send a collection to Jerusalem, and that these preparations to take the collec-
tion had been begun by them in the preceding year. This does not imply
that they had not progressed in the collection since that time, nor that they
had now completed it. The question naturally arises as to the method by
which the year is here reckoned. Was it after the ecclesiastical calendar of
the Jews, according to which the year begins with the first of Nisan, or the
spring equinox (Hofmann, ii. 3. 211), or the Macedonian calendar (Wieseler,
Chronol. 364), in which the year begins with the autumn equinox, and corre-
sponds to the Jewish civil calendar, or the Athenian, which corresponds to the
Olympian reckoning, and in which the year begins with the summer solstice
(Credner, Einl. i. 371 f.)? It is difficult to understand why use has never
been made of other calendars, e.g. the political year of the Romans, which
began with the first of January. This would have been especially appropriate
in this letter, since Corinth, the city to which it was to be sent, was a Roman
colony, founded by Julius Caesar ; and very possibly the letter itself was
written in Philippi, another Roman colony. But just because the Churches
here in question were scattered and made up of different nationalities, and
therefore were without any uniform calendar, it is not likely that Paul in
writing OTTO irtpvcri silently took for granted one of several possible ways of
reckoning the year. Quite apart from this, however, it would have been very
unnatural for Paul to say in this connection simply that the event in question
took place before the beginning of the last new year. In January or February
we never speak of the last Christmas as that of the preceding year, nor of the
vintage gathered in October preceding as that of last year. We use the
expressions, " in the preceding year," " last year," etc., only when the larger
part of twelve months has elapsed since the event to which reference is
made. Neither, on the other hand, do we employ these expressions when
considei'ably more than a year has elapsed. So the only conclusion to be
drawn from 2 Cor. viii. 10, ix. 2, is that about a year had elapsed between
the beginning of the collection in Achaia and the composition of 2 Cor.
A period of from three to six months is just as much excluded by the expres-
sion as a period of eighteen or more months. Now, from 1 Cor. xvi. 1 (above,
p. 260) we know that this matter had been touched upon in a letter from
the Corinthians to which 1 Cor. is the answer. It is probable that prior
to his departure from Ephesus, Stephanas (i. 16. 15 f., cf. Hofmann, ad loc.)
had been earnestly engaged in this work. Since, however, the Churches in
Greece, unlike those in Macedonia, had been stirred up to this service by Paul
himself (II. viii. 3-5), at the very latest this earnest request of the apostle's
must have been made in the letter of Paul's, now lost (I. v. 9), which preceded
the letter from the Church. Now, if 1 Cor, was written near the Easter

320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

festival (above, p. 258), then the collection in Corinth must have been
begun at the very latest in February of that same year, possibly several
months earlier. On the other hand, from Acts xx. 3-6 (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 6,
7rapaxft^aa-a>) we ascertain that Paul spent the three months that preceded
the opening of navigation in the year 58, roughly from the 10th of December
;">7 to the 10th of March 58, in Greece, and naturally part of it in Corinth.
Hence 2 Cor. must have been written before the end of the year 57.
Not very much of this year could have remained. For, while Paul sends
Titus and two other Christians on ahead, he does not expect them to return,
but treats them simply as his messengers, whom he will follow shortly
(II. ix. 5, x. 6, xii. 14, xiii. 1). If, then, 2 Cor. was written somewhere
about November 57, the Passover near which 1 Cor. was written must
have been that of 57 ; for if we assume that it was the Passover of 56,
then between 1 and 2 Cor. there would be an interval of nineteen months
(April 56 to November 57), and between the beginning of the collection
(which in this case would be at the latest February 56) and 2 Cor. an
interval of at least twenty-one months, which disagrees entirely with II. viii.
10, ix. 2.

6. (P. 310.) That the facts spoken of in viii. 1-5, the -rrapaKaXfo-ai TITOV
(viii. 6, cf. ix. 5), which grew out of the same, and the rfjv irapaK.\r)<Tiv e'Se'aro
(viii. 17) belong in the very recent past, is proved : (1) by the fact that Titus
could not possibly have returned to Paul until after the events described in
vii. 6-16 ; (2) just as certainly by the entire context, viii. 6-ix. 5, where, as is
usual in epistolary style, the aorists ft-rj\dev (viii. 17), irvveirep.'^afi.fv (viii.
18, 22), fTTffi-^a (ix. 3) indicate action contemporaneous with the sending of the
letter. Of Titus' companions on his second journey to Corinth, only the
person first described (viii. 18-21) is expressly said to have been chosen by
the Macedonian Churches to accompany Paul and Timothy on their journey
to Jerusalem with the collection. The tradition which identifies this person
with Luke is due to some scholar's interpretation of viii. 18. Luke was not a
Macedonian. It is more likely to have been Aristarchus (Hofmann, ad Joe.),
who was a Thessalonian (Acts xx. 4, see above, pp. 209 f., n. 2, 212 f., n. 6), who
had been with Paul for some time (Acts xix. 29, a-wfK8r]p.ovs = 2 Cor. viii. 19),
and who therefore had had opportunity to win commendation in a number of
Churches through the part which he took in the missionary work (2 Cor. viii.
18). As a matter of fact, Aristarchus did go with Paul to Jerusalem, and
accompanied him also to Rome (Acts xx. 4, xxvii. 2). Or it might have been
Sopatros or Sosipatros of Beroea, who a little later was with Paul in Corinth,
and accompanied him also to Jerusalem (above, p. 209). The second anony-
mous companion of Titus (viii. 22) is included with the first among the
tzTrdo-roXoi fKK\r)aiwv in viii. 23, and therefore, like him, must have been the
representative of a Church.or of a group of Churches. Only he was not from
Macedonia, and he had no connection with the matter of the collection ; for
in that case there is no reason why he should not be mentioned at once in viii.
18 along with Titus' other companion, since all that is said in viii. 18-22
would then apply equally to him. When we remember that it was Paul's
plan on this journey, which as originally projected was to lead him through
Macedonia to Corinth, and from Corinth to Palestine (Acts xix. 21, xx. 3), to
take with him representatives also of other Churches which have no share in

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 321

this collection (above, p. 209), we find ourselves shut up to a choice between
Gains of Derbe and one of the two men from Asia, Tychicus or Trophimus
(Acts xx. 4, xxi. 29, above, p. 209, n. 2). These, then, are the " brethren " with
whom, together with Timothy, after the return of the latter from Corinth,
Paul planned at the time when he wrote 1 Cor. xvi. 11 to start on his journey
to Macedonia, Greece, and thence to Jerusalem (above, p. 269 f., n. 8).

20. OCCASION, PUEPOSE, AND EFFECT OF THE
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE COEINTHIANS.

Answer to the much mooted question as to what took
place between the two extant letters to the Corinthians and
as to what in general are the historical presuppositions of
2 Cor., must be sought mainly from the first section of the
letter (chaps, i.-vii. ), which is retrospective, particularly
from what is said between the first and second of the
three historical notices (i. 12-ii. 11) that form the frame-
work of the first division of the Epistle, together with
what follows the third of these notices (vii. 5-16); since
what is said between the second and third of these re-
marks (ii. 14- vii. 1 or vii. 4) is of a more general
character, and much less closely connected with the his-
torical notices that precede and follow (n. 1). On the
other hand, what is said between the notice of the dangers
that threatened Paul's life at or shortly after his departure
from Ephesus (i. 8-11, above, p. 318, n. 4) and the notice
of his journey through Troas (ii. 12 f.), is evidently in-
serted at this point because it relates mainly to this
particular journey from Ephesus to Macedonia by way
of Troas, and to events closely associated with the same.

Mention of the prayers of the Corinthians, of which he
feels sure he shall have the benefit in all future dangers,

such as those he had encountered in Asia (i. 11), gives
him opportunity to call his conscience to witness that he
had acted always, particularly in his relation to the
Corinthians, simply and sincerely, not being governed by
a spirit of worldly cunning, but acting under the guidance
of the grace of God (ver. 12, n. 2). That the criticisms

VOL. I. 21

322 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

which Paul here answers, both that of insincerity and
that of acting in an unsanctified and wilful manner, were
actually current in Corinth, and had been made to the
apostle himself by the Church, either through Titus or in
a communication which Titus brought, is clear from the
apologetic explanation beginning at this point. From
the sentence, "We write nothing but what ye read or
indeed understand" (ver. 13), we infer that Paul had been
criticised for having written something in his letters or in
one of them which afterwards he wanted them to under-
stand in a sense opposed to the language, and impossible
for any ordinary reader to infer. We are reminded at
once of the misinterpretation of a passage in his first letter
(now lost) which Paul corrects in 1 Cor. v. 9-11 (above,
p. 261). That this is the case he had in mind is rendered
all the more certain, by the fact that the language in
which Paul corrects the misinterpretation in 1 Cor.
agrees exactly with the language of the criticism here
presupposed. In making this correction, he does not say,
" When I wrote the passage I meant it to be taken as
now explained, not as you understood it," but very
pointedly, " This and nothing else is what I wrote to
you " ; so that it was very natural for the Corinthians,
when they looked at the earlier communication again, and
found language which really admitted the construction
which Paul declared to be foolish and unfair, to retort,
" In his letters Paul writes what his readers cannot find
in them nor read out of them." So Paul gets back his
own criticism of their lack of elXixpiveia (1 Cor. v. 8, above,
p. 276), though, as the tone of his reply indicates, in a
manner entirely polite, perhaps even deferential, designed
less to criticise Paul than to justify themselves for having
formerly misunderstood him.

One misunderstanding was now cleared up. And
with the expression of the hope that hereafter so long as
he lives the Church will understand him, and understand

PAUL AND TMK CORINTHIAN CHURCH 323

him fully, he passes to the discussion of a second point
with regard to which there was disagreement between
himself and the Church. This disagreement concerned
the journey to Corinth, which had been announced long
before, and which was now being carried out in a way
different from that which he had originally intended and
announced. When, some time previously, just how long
is not indicated, Paul had intended, and, as the context
shows, promised the readers to come to Corinth sooner
than he was now actually doing, or to come to Corinth
before he went to Macedonia (n. 2), whither he had now
gone without having come to Corinth at all (cf. i. 23), he
made the promise in the confidence that the Corinthians
would understand and appreciate his reasons. He meant
then to arrange his plans so as to go directly from
Ephesus to Corinth and from Corinth to Macedonia,
whence he planned to return to Corinth and thence to
journey to Jerusalem. His thoughtful intention was by
paying them two visits to give the Corinthians not only
a single, but a twofold proof of his love ; for such, in any
case, his visit was to be regarded. Now, in view of the
criticism that in making his original plan, which was
never carried out, and informing his readers of it, Paul
had acted with fickleness (i. 17 a), it must be assumed
that it had become quite clear to the Corinthians, either
from Paul's evident intentions inferred from something he
had said or done, that this plan had been given up, and,
over and above this, the solemn assurance of i. 23-ii. 2
makes it clear beyond all question that in its last analysis
the dissatisfaction of the Church was caused by Paul's
continued absence from Corinth in other words, by the
fact that he had not carried out his original plan, but had
gone first to Macedonia, and kept putting oft* his arrival
in Corinth by the slowness of his movements. In reply,
Paul assures them that this failure to come to them,
which they thought showed a lack of love on hi.s part,

324 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

was due only to his desire to spare them. With reference
to the original plan, the carrying out of which would
have met their wishes, the only criticism they make is
that it was not well considered. If Paul were con-
scientious, they thought, he ought not to have made
such a plan unless he were sure he could carry it out ;
and he ought not to have aroused their expectations by
announcing it unless he were resolved to come at any
cost. Possibly, in connection with this charge of fickle-
ness in the matter of his earlier plan, the criticism was
also made, that in changing his plans he was influenced by
purely worldly designs and by motives of self-interest.
If, as seems probable from i. 12, this was actually the
case, the apostle gives the criticism an unexpected turn,
when he asks whether generally, in making plans, he i^
accustomed to act in so worldly a manner as to make his
yes and no in such matters absolute (n. 2). It is not the
making and subsequent alteration of his plans which, in
his judgment, would be a (3ov\eve?Qai Kara a-dpfca, but the
subsequent demand of the Corinthians that a promise
impossible of fulfilment be considered irrevocable, and
that a course decided upon be persisted in at all hazards.
In answer to the criticism that his promises were untrust-
worthy and ambiguous, he avers that what he and his
helpers had said to the Corinthians was by no means both
yes and no, but just as simple and straightforward as
their preaching of Christ in Corinth had been ; and as far
as any appearance of hesitancy on his part, dictated by
worldly or selfish motives, or any criticisms to that effect
are concerned, he calls God to witness, who makes him
steadfast and endows him with the Spirit as a pledge of
his future perfecting and as a seal of the genuineness of
his present motives. He calls upon God to witness to the
truth of his assurance that it was his considerate desire to
spare the Corinthians, which, up to this time, had kept
him away from Corinth. Even though remembering the

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 325

pain he had suffered in connection with an earlier visit
(above, p. 2631'.), he felt inclined to spare himself the
renewal of such sorrow ; it was, after all, the Church most
of all which he would spare sorrow, because he felt it his
duty to minister rather to their joy (i. 18-ii. 2).

It may be assumed that Paul is here answering com-
plaints of the Church which had been reported to him
orally by Titus, or which had been expressed in a letter
from the Church to Paul brought to him by Titus. The
latter is more probable, in view of the definite form these
complaints must have had, if we may judge by Paul's
reply. Their primary occasion, however, could not have
been the journey of Paul through Troas to Macedonia.
For Paul must have sent Titus to Corinth before this
journey was begun, since at the time when he set out he
was expecting to meet Titus in Troas, whither he was to
come from Corinth through Macedonia.

If, LLOW, we ask how the Corinthians learned about the
plan for the journey which Paul was now carrying out,
and which, judging from the fact that he defends it, must
have been well under way, nothing is more natural than
to assume that Titus, who left Paul before he began the
execution of this plan, informed the Corinthians of Paul's
purpose not to come to them directly by sea, but by the
longer route through Macedonia. But if, as was cer-
tainly the case, Titus was sent, and arrived later than
Fortunatus, Achaicus, and Stephanas, who were the
bearers of 1 Cor. (above, p. 260), he had nothing new to
say to the Corinthians about Paul's plans. For example,
this same plan which he was engaged in carrying out at
the time when 2 Cor. was written, Paul himself had set
forth in detail in 1 Cor. xvi. 5-7. Between this com-
munication by letter and the apologetic discussion of
2 Cor. i. 15-ii. 2 nothing intervened save the partial
carrying out of this plan, hence nothing had occurred in
this interim that could occasion the complaints about the

326 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

carelessness with which Paul made his plans, and the
arbitrariness with which he changed the plans that had
been already made and announced. The occasion for the
complaints answered in 2 Cor. i. 15-ii. 2 must be, there-
fore, in part things said in 1 Cor., in part things said
1 lefore 1 Cor. was written. That this is the case is proved
by a careful consideration of the manner in which Paul
speaks of his journey in 1 Cor. xvi. 5-9. He does it with
a detail and emphasis which is intelligible only if the
readers had other expectations at the time. He does not
stop with saying that he will come to Corinth after he
has passed through Macedonia, but adds, " For I do pass
through Macedonia." This last phrase does not add any
new thought, so that its purpose must be to strengthen the
preceding statement (present Biepxofwu of a future journey,
used with e'Xeuo-o/uu), and, by the position of the second
Maice&oviav, to emphasise strongly that this was the route
that he intended to take. Change of route involved also
a change in the time of his arrival and the length of his
stay in Corinth, and this contrast is expressed even more
strongly, both hi positive and negative form, than is that
between the two possible routes. He has made up his
mind not to visit them immediately (above, p. 271, n. 12),
which would necessitate his coming directly by sea in-
stead of through Macedonia, and that would mean only a
flying visit ; whereas, according to the plan he now lays
before them, while arriving considerably later, he hopes
to be able to pay them a much longer visit. From the
detail with which he speaks in ver. 6 and again in ver. 7 of
the greater length of his visit in Corinth if the new plan
is carried out, we see that he is making an effort to justify
his present plan. It shall be only for their advantage
that he does not now come directly by sea, but arrives
considerably later, coming by the longer route through
Macedonia. Therefore, at the time when 1 Cor. xvi. 5-7
was written, Paul must have been expected to arrive in

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 327

Corinth very shortly from Ephesus, directly by sea. For
such an expectation only the apostle himself could have
been responsible. Some time before 1 Cor. was written
he must have expressed this intention, the inference being
that he had done so in his earlier Epistle (1 Cor. v. 9).
Paul had all the more reason for fearing that the Church,
or those members of it who held an immediate visit to be
desirable, would be dissatisfied with the new plan which
he now laid before them, involving as it did further post-
ponement of his visit ; since there were some in Corinth
who interpreted his delay heretofore as due to cowardice,
and who expressed the opinion that he would never appear
in Corinth again (1 Cor. iv. 18); therefore the detail
with which he lays his newly-made plan before his readers,
in 1 Cor. xvi. 5-9, aiming to forestall such complaints.
It is now clear that the original plan, knowledge of which
is presupposed in I. xvi. 5-7, is the same as that which
he defends in II. i. 15-17 against the charge of having
been made without due care ; and also that the new plan
laid before the readers in I. xvi. 5-7 is identical with the
plan that had been practically carried out at the time when
2 Cor. was written, and which is defended in II. i. 15-ii. 2
against the charge of changeableness, of selfish arbitrari-
ness, and of inconsiderateness.

In spite of his careful precautions, the fears which he
had when writing I. xvi. 5-7 were realised. This com-
munication, and his subsequent journey by way of Troas to
Macedonia, had caused the dissatisfaction in Corinth which
in II. i. 12-ii. 2 Paul seeks to allay. This, taken along
with the fact that in spite of its general character II. i. 13
manifestly has special reference to the misunderstanding
discussed earlier in I. v. 9-11, and to the conclusion which
had there been reached concerning the matter (above, p.
322), proves those to be in error who assume a lost Epistle
between 1 and 2 Cor., especially those who suppose that a
visit took place between the writing of these two letters

328 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

(above, 19, n. 1, 2, p. 312 f.). The principal cause for the
origin of the first of these hypotheses is the observation that
the news from Corinth, which is presupposed in II. i.-vii.,
was not brought by Timothy, although from what is said
in I. iv. 17, xvi. 10 f., we should expect Timothy to report
to Paul the effect of 1 Cor., but by Titus, of whom no
mention is made in 1 Cor. If, now, as from II. i. 8
appears to be the case, Timothy was with Paul when he
started on his journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, and if,
as indicated by II. vii. 14, he was also with Paul at the
time when Titus was sent to Corinth (see above, p. 316 f.,
n. 3), it seems as if a situation had been created by the
sending and the return of Titus entirely different from
that produced by 1 Cor., which ended with the return of
Timothy to Paul. Inasmuch, now, as mention is made in
II. ii. 3, 9, vii. 8-12 of a letter of Paul's which had been
received in Corinth shortly before, the effect of which is
reported to Paul by Titus, it was very natural to assume
that this letter was not our 1 Cor., but a later Epistle of
Paul's which Titus had taken with him the first time he
went to Corinth. This assumption seems all the more
necessary, according as it is felt that what is said in II. ii.
3, 9, vii. 8-12, cannot be made to apply to 1 Cor. without
doing considerable violence to the language. In addition
to what has been said above in proof of the inseparable
connection between 1 and 2 Cor., the following is to be
remarked : From the fact that Timothy returned to Paul
before the latter's departure from Ephesus, it does not
follow that the expectations expressed in I. xvi. lOf. were
all realised. Indeed, the expectation that Timothy will
arrive in Corinth after the arrival of 1 Cor. is not uncon-
ditionally expressed (n. 3) ; so that it is not unlikely,
either that Timothy did not reach Corinth at all, but for
some reason unknown to us had occasion to return to
Paul in Ephesus directly from Macedonia ; or that, while
he did go to Corinth, he arrived and departed again before

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 329

1 Cor. reached its destination. In either case, Timothy
could not have brought Paul the news about the effect of
1 Cor., which Paul hoped he would bring. It was for this
reason, then, that immediately after Timothy's return he
despatched Titus, in company with another Christian, to
Corinth, in order that they might bring the news concern-
ing the effect of 1 Cor. which he awaited with so much
anxiety. That this was the purpose for which Titus was
sent we are justified in assuming, since nothing is said of
any other object, and since this assumption is in entire
harmony with all the hints concerning the result of the
journey (u. 4).

The whole question turns upon a letter of Paul's con-
cerning the effect of which upon the Church he was so
anxious before Titus' arrival, that for the time being
he regretted having written it (vii. 8). In these cir-
cumstances, it is not surprising that in Troas he was so
disturbed, when Titus failed to meet him there according
to expectations (ii. 13), as to be practically unable to
preach. That the letter in question is our 1 Cor. may
seem doubtful if ii. 3 be interpreted to mean that Paul
had actually written in that letter what is expressed in
the verses just preceding, namely, his determination not to
come at once to Corinth as he was expected to do, but to
remain away temporarily in order not to be in Corinth
a second time in sorrow (i. 23-ii. 2). For although the
plan he was now engaged in carrying out had been set
forth in I. xvi. 5-7, in contrast to the earlier plan which
would have brought him to Corinth by the direct route
and at once, in that presentation the essential point of the
statement in 2 Cor. expressly referred to by TOVTO avro is
lacking, namely, the motive here indicated for the change
in the plan of the journey (i. 23-ii. 2). There is, however,
nothing to prevent us from translating : " And I wrote
for this very purpose, that when I come, I may not have
sorrow from those who ought to give me joy ; (and I

330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

wrote) with confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of
you all " (n. 5). What has just been declared to have been
his reason and purpose in remaining away from Corinth,
or for changing the plan of his journey, is here assigned
as the reason and purpose for his writing. Instead of
making his visit at once according to the announcement,
he had sent the long letter, at the close of which he had
carefully explained that he was not coming to Corinth at
once, and why he had made the change.

The opinion that what Paul says in ii. 4 about his state
of mind when the letter in question was written, does not
harmonise with the quiet tone of 1 Cor., is not made more
intelligible by being repeated. With what tremendous
wrath against the alien destroyers of the Church (I. iii.
16ff., ix. 1, xvi. 22), against the scandalous members of
the same (v. 1-5), against the Church itself which was so
unruly and at the same time so self-conscious, and against
the noisy brawlers (iv. 7, 18-21, v. 2, viii. If., xi. 16,
xiv. 37 f.), does every line of the Epistle quiver! The
tone of the eloquent description in iv. 8-13 and of the
apostle's half ironical self-judgment in vii. 25, 40 is that of
bitterest agony. It required effort on the apostle's part to
reply as calmly as he did to the arrogant communication
which the Church had sent to him (above, pp. 277, 282).
But that is the very situation which brings tears to the
eyes of a man of deep feeling. Moreover, in entire
keeping with 1 Cor. is the necessity which he now
feels of protesting that in the communication in question
he had no deliberate intention of causing the Church pain
(II. ii. 4, cf. vii. 8-11). So far as we are able to judge
from letters which are extant, there is no other Church
whose open sores are so ruthlessly exposed as those of the
Corinthians (I. iii. 3, iv. 6-10, v. If., vi. 1-10, 18-20,
viii. 10-12, x. 20-22, xi. 17-30). When, after a deeply
humiliating discussion, he says that he did not write thus
in order to shame the Corinthians (iv. 14), manifestly the

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 331

effect is not less painful than in another passage, where he
says in so many words that his intention was to shame
them (vi. 5). The same is true also of the passage where
he introduces the discussion of all sorts of disorders and of
wilful violations of the custom of the Church, by the
commendatory remark that they follow his instructions
(xi. 2). There is not to be found throughout this entire
long letter a single real commendation of any feature of
the moral or religious life of the Church, and Paul was not
usually sparing of such commendations. The only thing
that he praises is what God has done for them (i. 2, 9,
26, iii. 6-10, 16, iv. 15, vi. 11, 20, xv. If.) and bestowed
upon them in the way of spiritual gifts (i. 4-7) (above,
pp. 279, 29 7 f., n. 5). In referring to a letter of this kind,
he had just as much occasion to protest that he had
not written it with any intention of causing the Corin-
thians pain, though it actually had this effect, as he had
the right to assure them that they ought rather to regard
it as a special token of his love (II. ii. 4, cf. vii. 8-11).
Incidentally we learn that disparaging remarks had been
made in Corinth to the effect that Paul praised himself
(II. iii. 1, v. 12, x. 12, cf. iv. 5) and defended himself
when there was no sufficient occasion for it (xii. 19).
For such strictures as these ample occasion was fur-
nished by 1 Cor. Quite in the manner of an accused
person he had questioned the competency of the tribunal
before which it seemed he was charged (I. iv. 1-5). In
another passage, of which there are reflections in II. iii.
1-3 (I. ix. 1-3), he had made a very concise defence
before his accusers and judges. He had justified at length
the way in which he had preached at Corinth, I. i. 18-
iii. 2, and defended single points in his judgments which
had been questioned, e.g. what he had said about the
happiness of the unmarried state, I. vii. (see above,
p. 276 f.). He had pictured eloquently the self-sacrifice
which his calling involved, I. iv. 9-13, xv. 32. Again

33? INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

and again he had commended his example to the Church,
I. iv. 16 f., viii. 13, ix. 26 f., x. 33, xi. 1. Not only had
he spoken emphatically of the validity of his apostleship
(I. i. 1, ix. 1), and of his relation to the Church as its sole
founder (iii. 6, 10, iv. 15), but he also claimed to have
fulfilled his office in Corinth in a manner both skilful and
faithful (iii. 10, iv. 4). What sort of reward and praise
he hoped one day to receive from the just Judge (iii. 8,
13, iv. 5, ix. 18) he left them to infer from his proud
assertion, that he laboured more abundantly than all the
other apostles (xv. 10).

But the serious demands which he made had also
tested severely the obedience of the Church (II. ii. 9),
especially what he had said in connection with the case of
incest (I. v. 1-13). Assuming that practically all that
happened between the two letters was the sending of
Titus, and his return with news from Corinth, this must be
the case referred to in II. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. There is no
reason why we should be surprised at the position which
Paul now takes, nor is there any justification for replacing
the data supplied by existing sources for the explanation
of these passages by conjectures which cannot be proved.
If the view of Paul's original demand set forth above
(p. 278) be correct, it is quite in keeping with the prin-
ciple of Church discipline clearly stated in II. x. 6. In
the first place, Paul must have waited for the Church to
concur in his previous judgment ; for only after this
agreement had been declared could the judgment be
executed by the joint action of Paul and the Church in
the manner that Paul had proposed in 1 Cor. But,
as a matter of fact, as appears from II. ii. 6-11, the
Church had referred the question back to Paul for his
further decision. And, indeed, the judgments of Paul
in 2 Cor. sound so much like answers to definite
communications and questions, that the conjecture forced
upon us earlier by i. 8-ii. 4 is fully confirmed, namely,

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 333

that the Corinthians had recently communicated with
Paul, not only orally through Titus, but also in a letter
which Titus brought to Paul. Paul's verdict, which
begins with the words, " Sufficient for this man is the
punishment decreed by the majority" (ii. 6, n. 6), pre-
supposes (l) that the offender had been definitely punished
either by word or by deed, and that Paul had been
informed of the fact ; (2) that this punishment had been
decreed not unanimously, but only by the decision of the
majority ; (3) that the Church had submitted to Paul for
his decision the question whether this punishment was
sufficient. This in turn presupposes (4) that the opinion
had been expressed in Corinth that the punishment was
by no means sufficient, or that Paul would not be satisfied
with it, or both. Paul at once declares the punishment
to be sufficient, not, however, in the sense that the
matter is thereby settled, but with the added remark
that the punishment is enough to enable the Church
now to show mercy to the evil-doer and uphold him
by their encouragement, lest he be entirely overcome by
his great sorrow. For the Church to forgive him, Paul
says, is not only permissible, but, in view of the harm
which may thereby be avoided, it becomes their duty.
There seems, therefore, to be sufficient reason for the
apostle's request that it be formally decided to show love
to the offender (ver. 8). But by the rowavrtov /j,d\\ov
this verdict of Paul is set in strong contrast to another
judgment, which went to the opposite extreme. Instead
of increasing the sentence already passed, they are to
lighten the same by formal decree, or otherwise to render
it less severe. Inasmuch as the judgment expressed at
the outset is opposed to the opinion that the punishment
already decreed is by no means sufficient, the Towavriov
fia\\ov renders it quite certain that this other view had
been submitted to the apostle by the Church for his
decision. This must have been the opinion of the minority,

334 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

since the punishment actually decreed represented the
mind of the majority. We learn at the same time that
the Church was uncertain whether Paul in turn would be
satisfied with what had been done ; for he finds it neces-
sary expressly to assure the Church that he concurs in the
act of forgiveness decided upon (ver. 10).

What this punishment was which had been decided
upon by the majority, naturally we are not able to
determine with entire certainty. Manifestly it was not
the punishment suggested by Paul in I. v. 3-5 ; since ( 1 )
the infliction of this punishment required Paul's co-opera-
tion in a manner which necessitated prearrangement, and
since (2) this punishment involved the death of the
offender ; so that there could have been no question about
a subsequent increase of penalty, or about Paul's satisfac-
tion with what had been done. More likely it was an
ordinary case of discipline according to the rules laid
down in I. v. 11 ; 2 Thess. iii. 14 f. The severer penalty
demanded by the minority, and which the Church thought
that Paul also might insist upon, can hardly have been
any other than that which Paul proposed in I. v. 3-5.
Consequently in the communication, to which Paul replies
in II. ii. 6-11, the Church must have asked him whether,
under the altered conditions, he still held to his original
judgment. Paul reverses his decision, and earnestly
requests that the punishment under which the offender
is at present suffering be lessened by formal decree, lest
he completely yield to despair. He was able to do
this without prejudice to the seriousness of the affair,
or to his own personal dignity. How strongly he felt
himself under obligation to take this position, is indicated
by ii. 11. He knows that nothing would please Satan
more than to see him, influenced by the motive of worldly
consistency which he had condemned in i. 17, stand by
his original judgment and proposal. All such suggestions
he rejects as cunning temptations of Satan to keep him

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 33$

from permitting clemency. The primary purpose of his
original judgment had been to save the soul of the
offender (I. v. 5). That purpose was now being accom-
plished without resort to the extreme measures he had at
first proposed ; the offender was deeply penitent. It
seems also that this person had done all in his power
to prove to the Church that he regretted his action, and,
in so far as this was possible, to atone for the wrong
which he had done to his father against whom primarily
the sin had been committed (n. 6). But if the severe
disciplinary measures adopted by the Church were en-
forced longer, or if they were increased, there was, Paul
now thought in the light of the news that had come to
him, extreme danger that the purpose of reforming the
offender and of saving his soul would be defeated alto-
gether. For if this person were wholly overcome by his
sorrow, he would fall into the hands of Satan, who, by
the suggestion that Paul ought persistently to stand by
his first decision, was endeavouring to lead even the apostle
astray. Paul gives up the means which he had previously
suggested, in order to secure the end which it was alto-
gether desirable to accomplish.

But more than this, what he had designed by his
earlier proposition to accomplish in the Church was in
large part accomplished, and promised soon to be entirely
realised. The only intention which can be directly in-
ferred from I. v. 1-13 is the intention to move the Church
to a more modest judgment of itself and a more rigorous
disciplining of its sinful members. When, now, in II.
ii. 9, vii. 12, Paul says that he wrote as he did in order to
prove whether the Church was ready to render entire
obedience, and to give it an opportunity to show an
earnest desire to please its founder, the statement can
only be regarded as an expression of his original intention
in the light of the accomplished result. From the stirring
description of the effect of the earlier letter, vii. 7-1-,

336 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

which clearly has its climax in the reference to the case
discussed earlier in ii. 5-11, we learn that now the Church
was deeply impressed with the magnitude of the offence
committed against Paul and in the sight of God, and that it
was not only exceedingly anxious to conciliate the apostle,
but had also visited its displeasure and punishment upon
the offender (vii. 11, n. 6). While as yet the majority
had not agreed to Paul's earlier proposal, they had never-
theless, in reporting the disciplinary measures proposed,
and in stating the manner in which the entire action had
been taken, practically resubmitted the whole case to him
for his opinion and decision (ii. 6-8). Finally, they had
endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to justify themselves in
this matter. Perhaps in his joy at what had been accom-
plished, Paul expresses himself a little extravagantly when
he writes, " In every way ye have shown yourselves to be
pure in this matter" (vii. 11, where the dvai is not to be
overlooked). Although this is not equivalent to the
statement that the Church had proved itself to be quite
without fault, it does show that Paul had been convinced
by the Church's explanation (a7ro\o7/a) for mere oral com-
munication through Titus could hardly be so designated-
that the situation was not just what he supposed it was
when he wrote I. v. 1. Essentially the case seems to
have been as Paul had heard it, and possibly there were
other members of the Church who knew of it besides those
who had given the information to Paul. But the matter
was not so generally known in the Church as Paul had
supposed, and the charge that the Church as a body had
shown more than heathen indifference with regard to a
case of flagrant immorality proved to be ungrounded.
No one could rejoice that it was so more than Paul, and
he would not have been the large-hearted man and the
sincere Christian that he was, had he stood stubbornly by
his first judgment and proposal. It would be inconsistent
with his dignity and our own to defend him, otherwise

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 337

than by a statement of the facts, against the unworthy
charge of endeavouring to cover up by false diplomacy
an alleged defeat which he is supposed to have suffered,
either by the failure of the miraculous punishment which
he had predicted, or by the defiant opposition of the
Church.

The greater his anxiety before the arrival of Titus
lest the effect of 1 Cor. should be the entire aliena-
tion of the Church, the more easily we are able to
understand the exuberant joy caused by Titus' tidings.
This does not, however, prevent him, in the first division
of the letter, which concludes with an extravagant ex-
pression of this joy, from taking very seriously and
answering very decidedly the complaints of the Church
that had reached him about the ambiguity of his letters
(i. 13), the un trustworthiness of his decisions, and the
lack of love which they thought was evidenced, both by
the change in the plan of his journey, and by the tone of
his earlier letter (i. 15-ii. 5, cf. vi. 12, vii. 3). Rejoicing
that his greatest anxiety is now finally relieved, Paul
looks forward to the future with confidence in the Church
(vii. 16). He hopes for a complete restoration of under-
standing and confidence (i. 13a). This involves the ad-
mission that this hope was yet far from being realised.
He must still ask the Corinthians not to close their hearts
to him (vi. 13), and to restore to him the place in their
midst which belonged to him (vii. 2). Between these
two requests stands the exhortation suggested in vi. 1
and introduced directly in vi. 11, that they avoid alto-
gether dangerous associations with the immoral practices
of their heathen neighbours, especially with idolatry, con-
fident that their Father will compensate them richly for
all the sacrifices which they make for His sake, and that
they endeavour also to live in holiness (vi. 14-vii. 1, n. 7).
Just as these exhortations are made in view of the special
case of heathen immorality, with regard to which Paul's

VOL. I. 22

338 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

mind had been set at rest by the news brought by Titus
and by the communication which the Church sent by him,
so it is certain that the happy turn which this matter had
taken was the principal reason why Paul was so joyful.
He is able now again with joyful confidence, with perfect
frankness, and with a heart full of love and with sympathy
for the entire Church, to exhort them and to make re-
quests of them. And there are still many things with
reference to which there is need for request and ex-
hortation.

This was the case with regard to the matter of the
collection, to which the second division of the letter is
devoted (chaps, viii.-ix.). The fact that we do not find
here the same mingling of strong expressions of joy and
of endeavours to secure beforehand entire understanding
between himself and his readers that characterises chaps.
i.-vii., is explained, partly by the different subject-matter
in the two sections, partly by the circumstance that in
the matter of the collection he is dealing not with the
Church in Corinth alone, but also with all the Christians
in Achaia (above, p. 308), who had no share in the con-
flicts between the Corinthians and Paul. Still the under-
lying tone is the same in this as in other parts of the
letter. His generous recognition of the willingness of the
Macedonians to make sacrifice, of the zeal of Titus, of the
merits of those who accompanied him, as well as of the
Christian virtues of the readers (viii. 7), and his mention
of the praiseworthy zeal with which the Corinthians had
begun the collection more than a year before (viii. 10,
ix. 2), all express indirectly his displeasure at the delay
and parsimony which the Corinthians had recently shown
in the matter. His various exhortations, that now this
matter be brought finally to a close, are pressed upon
them not so much by fault-finding, as by a statement of
urgent reasons.

Quite a different tone, however, pervades the third

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 339

division of the letter (chaps, x.-xiii.). Being an expression
of Paul's own personal feelings, it is distinguished from
the preceding sections, which were written also in
Timothy's name, by the introductory phrase, av-ros Be eV>,
x. 1 (cf. xii. 13 : also eyw, xii. 16, in like contrast to his
companions ; 670) pev IlavXos, 1 Thess. ii. 18). He has still
upon his heart a request affecting his personal relation to
the Church, which, he intimates, must be expressed in a
spirit of gentleness and mildness, because he is compelled
continually to restrain the anger which he feels when he
thinks of the followers of Peter, who are chiefly responsible
for the disturbed relation between the Church and its
founder, and who continue to keep this relation disturbed
(xi. 1-12, 18, above, p. 289 if.), and of the members of the
Christ party, who, assuming a superior air of neutrality,
are continually criticising him, his letters, his personal
appearance in Corinth, and his conflict with the foreign
teachers who were his rivals (x. 7-18, above, p. 292 f.).
While he everywhere distinguishes sharply between these
false apostles and members of the Church, calling the
former tempters and aliens (above, p. 287 f.), in the case
of those who boasted that they were followers of Christ
this was not possible. Therefore he blames the Church as
a body for the currency in their midst of the disrespectful
remarks of these people (x. Ib, 26, 9-10, 13a, 14a, xii.
19a, xiii. 3). Particularly does he find fault with the
Church for not having silenced and ejected the followers
of Peter, thereby compelling him to defend his own case
against these servants of Satan (xii. 11, v. 12). The
request which Paul has to make of the Church is sug-
gested in x. 1, but its full statement is postponed by the
interjection of his prayerful wish that he may be spared
the necessity of acting with severity when he comes to
them (x. 2, cf. xiii. 7-9 ; 1 Thess. iii. 10), and of the ex-
planations which follow (x. 3-6). Nor is this request
stated, except in incomplete form in x. 7 (especially if

340 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

is an imperative), xi. 1, 16, xiii. 5. But summing
up the impression as to its purpose which we get from
this entire section of the letter, this request may be stated
somewhat as follows : " See to it before I come that my
visit be mutually peaceful, pleasant, and profitable, by
repudiating the foreign teachers, by informing the haughty
members of the Christ party what is their proper place, and,
under threats of the severest discipline, by setting those right
who are living unchaste lives." The tone of this part of the
Epistle differs from that of chaps, i.-vii., in that Paul here
openly attacks the opponents, with whom it was impossible
to come to terms, reminding the Church in a connected
statement of their duty with reference to such persons.
This explains why his self-defence, which is continued
through this section, takes on uniformly a tone of irony,
which we do not discover in chaps, i.-vii. Naturally,
also, in chaps, i.-vii., where, after days of anxious care,
his unburdened heart first gives itself vent, there is
an overflowing expression of joy, acknowledgment, and
hope. On the contrary, in chaps, x.-xiii., where he
discusses grievances not yet adjusted, naturally a pro-
minent place is given to the expression of his displeasure
and anxiety, lest things should not turn out as he
wished. Taken as a whole, however, the picture of the
condition of the Church and of its relation to its founder
which we get from the third section of the letter, is
the same as that which we get from the first section.
Where there was occasion for demands such as are made
in vi. 14-vii. 1, there is place also for concern such as is
expressed in xii. 21, and for threats such as those in
xiii. 2. The complaints which Paul found it necessary
to reply to in i. 12-ii. 2 (above, p. 323 ff.) were not less
serious than those in x. 1 f. The incidental denial in
vii. 26 has the same value as the plain discussion of xii.
13-18. The demand at the same time that the Church
sound the praises of their own apostle in opposition to

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 341

the followers of Peter, thereby putting a stop to their
mischievous work and sparing the apostle the necessity
of commending, praising, and defending himself, which
recurs so frequently in xi. 4-xii. 19, is made also in v. 12
(cf. iii. 1). Only in this latter instance it is incidental,
which was appropriate in view of Paul's purpose to discuss
the matter by itself later. The hope which he expresses
in i. 136 is expressed in more general form in xiii. 6 (cf.
also v. 11). His assurance to them of his love, which
they had failed to appreciate, and his complaint because
of their failure to reciprocate it (xi. 11, xii. 14), not only
have a general resemblance in content to i. 15, 23, ii. 4,
vi. 11-13, but are expressed in similar language (xii. 15,

rrepia-a-orlpw; v/Jba<; aycnra), cf. ii. 4 ; dyaTrrjToi, vii. 1, xii. 19).

The request of vii. 2a could stand equally well at the
beginning of chap. xi. When in x. 6 expression is given
to the expectation that in the near future the Church will
return to a condition of entire obedience, it is practically
admitted that there are yet some things lacking, of
which he purposes now finally to speak. This involves
no contradiction to his joyful acknowledgment that, as a
result of 1 Cor., the Church had shown itself ready to
submit entirely to the apostle's judgment particularly
with regard to the case of incest (ii. 9, vii. 12, above,
p. 332 ff.). Nor is it inconsistent in any way with Titus'
praise that the entire Church had received him, the
messenger of the apostle, in a spirit of obedience, and
even of fear and trembling, i.e. as a lord and master
(vii. 15, cf. Eph. vi. 5). It is only an illustration of a
habit of the apostle's, which may be observed variously
both in his relation to men and to God, to begin by
giving utterance to praise, thanksgiving, and acknowledg-
ment for good received, and then to express the anxiety
and urgency which he still felt, in request, demand, and
complaint. And this was the wise way to proceed, if he
wanted to put right the affairs of a Church which a

342 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

few months before had apparently been inclined to
sever its relations with him and the Gentile Church
which he had been instrumental in oro-anisino;, but

O o'

which now, confessing its manifold faults, showed itself
eager to make its peace with its founder and to win
back his love, which it seemed to them they had all but
forfeited.

We have no definite information as to the reception
accorded by the Corinthians to this last message of Paul
on his way from Ephesus to Corinth. This deficiency is,
however, supplied by the facts. If in all essential respects
this letter did not accomplish its purpose (xiii. 10), parti-
cularly if the Church allowed the followers of Peter to
keep on with their work, it was impossible, after what had
taken place, for the life and death struggle between Paul
and the Corinthian Church to be kept up longer. And if
Paul had suffered defeat in this struggle, it would have led
necessarily to the separation of the Corinthian Church
from the Gentile Church. But no such separation took
place. Some forty years later the Roman Church felt
called upon, in consequence of a rebellion which, under
the leadership of a few gifted younger members, had
broken out in Corinth against the venerable head of the
Church, to interfere in the confused affairs of its sister
Church by sending it a weighty letter of exhortation.
Just as there were things in the situation which reminded
Clement, the author of this letter, of the existence of
cliques in the apostolic age, spoken of in 1 Cor. i.-iv.
(Clem. 1 Cor. xlvii.), so we in turn are able to discover in the
picture of the Corinthian Church, found in Clement's letter,
certain characteristics of that Church to be observed from
the Epistles of Paul. But between the troubles of the
year 57 and those of 95-97 there is no direct connection.
On the contrary, we learn that for a long time, to the joy
of the entire Church, the Corinthians had been living a
peaceful life, adorned with every Christian virtue (Clem.

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 343

i. 2-iii. 1), so that the revolution that had now broken
out seemed a breach with the entire past history of the
Church back to the days of Paul. Clement directs them
to take up again Paul's 1 Cor. (xlvii. 1), the Romans
feeling sure that they are at one with the Corinthians in
paying honour to Paul.

This condition was the fruit of the " weighty and
powerful letters" of the apostle (2 Cor. x. 10). Had Paul
been under necessity of securing his victory, which, accord-
ing to the witness of subsequent conditions, he certainly
did win, by personal encounter with his opponents and
with the Church which remained rebellious in spite of his
letters, it is not likely that all traces of such conflict
would have so completely disappeared. We learn of a
three months' sojourn of Paul in Greece, ending in the
spring of 58 (Acts xx. 2f.), but nothing is said of any
battles which he had to fight during that visit (n. 8). If
Romans was written during this period in Corinth, its
quiet tone and the careful working out of its elaborate
plan prove that for Paul this period was not one of
harassing struggle, but of recuperation and of preparation
for new work in the far West.

1. (P. 321.) "When in ii. 14-16, in contrast to the confession of the
weakness which prevented him from making use of the opportunities to
preach in Troas, Paul expresses his gratitude to God that in spite of such
weakness his presence and preaching has proved effective in every place,
naturally therefore in Troas also, this statement, like i. 18-22, is intended
to prevent a false generalisation and interpretation of his weakness. It also
furnishes a natural transition to the detailed contrast between the genuine
preachers of the gospel, of whom he is one, and the wandering Jewish
Christian teachers, who peddle the word of God (ii. 17-v. 21, see above,
p. 290, line 15 f.). Then from vi. 1 on the discussion returns again to affairs
in Corinth (see below, n. 7).

2. (Pp. 321, 323, 324.) In i. 12 the reading dn-Xdr^rt is to be preferred to
AyiorrjTi. Trporepov, without the article in i. 15, which was not understood by
numerous copyists (for this reason omitted in X* ; other MSS. read TO irporepov ;
K has r6 detrepoi>), is not to be taken with e^ovXoprjv, before which it would have
to stand, but with e'Xtfeti/. It thus emphasises the jrpbs vfj.as, if, indeed, originally
the Trportpov did not precede Iva instead of standing in its present position
Of the numerous interpretations of i. 17, that deserves the preference which

344 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

makes TO vai and TO ov the subjects, and vat, ov the predicates, because of
what follows in i. 18 (cf. Jas. v. 12). Even if there were an actual con-
tradiction to the latter passage, which in a general way is comparable with it,
it would be no objection to this interpretation of the present passage. As a
matter of fact, however, Paul is not disputing at all the truth of the general
rule that a Christian's Yes and No ought to be as reliable as his oath (cf. Matt,
v. 37). Indeed, in i. 18 f. he claims that he and his helpers follow this rule in
the exercise of their calling. Only he goes on to explain that the application
of this rule to plans for the future, the carrying out of which is dependent
upon the providence of God, would be a carnal misuse of the same. In
similar passages in his letters, indeed in passages more or less directly bear-
ing upon this very question, he makes abundant use of that pious tdv quite
in the sense of Jas. iv. 15, which excludes an unconditioned vai and ofl
from reference to actions that are to take place in the future (cf. 1 Cor.
iv. ]9, xvi. 4, 7; 2 Cor. ix. 4, xiii. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 15; Rom. i. 10, xv. 32
[Acts xviii. 21]).

3. (P. 328.) The distinction between tdv I. xvi. 10 (cf. Col. iv. 10), and
orav I. xvi. 2, 3, 5 (cf. II. x. 6), and as av I. xi. 34, is not to be overlooked.
Something is to be said in favour of the view of Lightfoot (Bibl. Essays,
p. 277, 1893), who remarks that possibly the reason why Acts xix. 22 speaks
of the sending of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia only is the fact that
Luke knew that Timothy went no farther than Macedonia. On the other
hand, the contention that if he did actually go to Corinth, Timothy would
have to be mentioned in II. xii. 17 f. is purely arbitrary; because Timothy
is one of the writers of this letter, so that if he went to Corinth, he is
included in the plural of xii. 17. To mention especially the sending of
Titus and the person who accompanied him from among a number of cases
of this kind was natural, because it was the latest instance (see the following
note).

4. (P. 329.) The reference in II. xii. 18 is not to the second sending of
Titus to Corinth, on which occasion he took with him 2 Cor., although this is
not precluded by the use of the aorist Trape/cdXecra (cf. viii. 6, 17, ix. 5, above,
p. 320, n. 6), but to Titus' earlier trip thither. (1) Mention is made here of
only one person who accompanied Titus, whereas on the second journey he
was accompanied by two other Christians (above, p. 320 f.), concerning both of
whom it is said, quite as much as it is said of Titus and in the same breath,
that they were sent by Paul and Timothy (viii. 18 and 22, crui/fTre'/^a/iei/ ;
ix. 3, eVf^a TOVS d8e\<povs), both of whom, moreover, are called drroo-roXoi
KK\r)(rtS>v (viii. 23). To regard the person whom Paul mentions second as
the principal person, in comparison with whom the first individual who is
incidentally mentioned (xii. 18) can be quite ignored, is just as arbitrary as to
identify rbv dSeX^oi/, xii. 18, with rot/ dSeX^oi/ ij/zwi/, viii. 22, rather than with
rbv dSeX^di', viii. 18, or any other Christian (cf. 1 Cor. i. 1, xvi. 12 ; Rom.
xvi. 23). Still this is done by Krenkel (351 ff.). (2) The questions in ver. 17
and ver. 186 prove that the reference is to a sending of Timothy which had
taken place in the past. Krenkel, who rightly accepts this as beyond
question (353 f.), tries to use it in support of his hypothesis that II. x.-xiii. is
a separate letter which was sent to Corinth later than II. i.-ix. But this is
possible only if it be maintained that the brother referred to in xii. 18 is

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 345

identical with the brother mentioned in viii. 22, which has been shown to be
quite impossible. In no other passage does Paul have occasion to mention the
fact that Titus was accompanied by another person on his first journey to
Corinth, since he does not elsewhere speak of the first sending of Timothy.
The utmost that can be concluded from the fact that no mention is made of
Titus' companion in the passage where the return of the latter is spoken of
(ii. 13, vii. 6-15), is that Titus started on the return journey from Corinth
without his companion. The purpose of the first sending cannot be inferred
from viii. 6, where the first and second sending are contrasted with each
other. If by that which Titus had begun on his first visit, and was to finish
on his second, Paul had understood the charity work of the collection (I.
xvi. 3), then he must have let TTJV ^fiptf either with or without TOVTTJV
preceding or following come immediately after irpoevrjp^aTo without ai,
unless he had chosen to bring out more clearly the identity of the object in
both cases by using 6 irpofvrjp^aTo KT\. Since, however, he describes the work
begun and to be completed by Titus first in a very general way as a work
directed to the Corinthians (ek vpas), and then by the use of xai contrasts
the work of charity in question with other things, it is clear that this is the
special undertaking which at this visit Titus is to carry on and bring to a
conclusion. What Titus had accomplished on his former visit, and what he
is to do on this occasion, are conceived of as the beginning and the end of a
comprehensive work, the general purpose of which is the restoration of
normal conditions in Corinth and of normal relations between the Church
and its founder. He had made a successful beginning of this on the occasion
of his first visit ; now he is to fill up the measure of his service by bringing to
a conclusion the troublesome matter of the collection (cf. Hofmann, ii. 3.
204 f.). Both the ai which precedes TTJV x- T - anc l the Ka>l which precedes
(TTiTf\f(TT) serve to contrast the purpose of the present coming with the
results of the first. Against the interpretation of the second KOI in the sense,
"Among other things this also," there are the following objections : (1) It
does not account for the peculiar structure of the sentence. (2) Throughout
the entire context as far as ix. 5 the matter of the collection is the only
reason and purpose given for sending Titus at this time. On the other
hand, when Paul comes to speak of the other things which he desired to see
accomplished (chaps, x.-xiii.), Titus drops out altogether ; since, as has
been shown, xii. 18 is only a reference to the earlier sending. When so
understood, KOI rr)v x- T - does not harmonise with eircrekiery. (3) Neither
does it harmonise with irpofvrjp^aro, with which also it would have to be
taken according to this construction ; for in the passage where Paul speaks of
the results of the first sending of Titus (vii. 6-15) there is no reference to the
collection. Neither does the reference in xii. 18 touch this matter (above,
p. 314 f., n. 1). Paul gives no hint that Titus brought him news regarding
the condition of the collection, to say nothing of a commission given to
Titus regarding this matter.

5. (P. 330.) Although Heinrici still argues with great detail for the possi-
bility of the view (ii. 23 f., 127 ff.) that eypa\^a, ii. 3, 4, also ii. 9, refer to the
words just written, or to all that precedes of the letter which Paul is now in
process of writing, it may be considered certain that an earlier letter is meant.
For the following reasons : (1) When referring to that which immediately

346 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

precedes, Paul is in the haliit of using the present, ypa^xa, Gal. i. 20 ; 1 Cor. iv.
14, xiv. 37 ; 1 Tim. iii. 14 (once, 2 Cor. xiii. 10, even with reference to the
entire letter here concluding) ; so also Xe'-yw, Rom. vi. 19 ; 1 Cor. vi. 5 (with
reference to vi. 4), vii. 6, 35 ; 2 Cor. vii. 3, viii. 8 ; Phil. iv. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 7 ;
Philem. 21; AaXo>, 1 Cor. ix. 8, xv. 34. Only in two instances, Philem. 19
and 1 Cor. ix. 15, does he use f'ypa\l/a, and there because he pictures to himself
vividly the impression which the words he has just written will make upon
his readers when they come to read what had been written some time before.
With these exceptions typa^a when used by Paul always refers either to a
letter which is just being concluded, Rom. xv. 15 (cf. xvi. 22 of the
amanuensis) ; Gal. vi. 11 ; Philem. 21, or to an earlier letter, 1 Cor. v. 9, 11
(cf. vii. 1 ; 2 Cor. vii. 12). (2) There would be no occasion whatever for the
assurance of ii. 4 with reference to the preceding portion of the letter. It
would not occur to anyone that what precedes was written to grieve the
Corinthians, for neither in what precedes ii. 4 nor in the chapters im-
mediately following is there a single severe or cold word, but only a warm-
hearted and carefully considered self-defence, in which among other criticisms
he answers that of want of love. (3) Without any question the same matter
is discussed in vii. 11 ff. as in ii. 5-11 ; hence the letter referred to in ii. 9
must be the same as that which in vii. 8 is spoken of as belonging to the past.
That, however, the eypa\J/-a in ii. 3, 4, 9 refers in all three cases to the same
letter, is proved by the very close sequence of thought in ii. 3-11. (4) It is
not Paul's manner to interrupt a discussion not yet finished in order to say
that in writing the letter he has shed many tears or sheds them now. It would
be more in keeping with his manner for him to write that the readers can
see how deeply he is moved, or in connection with some severe word to say
that he could not write this without tears (cf. Phil. iii. 18). If, however,
the reference in ii. 3, 4, 9 is to an earlier Epistle of Paul's, and, in particular,
the same Epistle which is spoken of in vii. 8, 12, then it is natural to infer
from the similarity of sentence structure in ii. 3 and ii. 9 that TOVTO O.VTO, ii. 3,
means the same as 8m TOVTO UVTO (I. iv. 17 K*AP), and is related in sense to
tls avTo TOVTO, 2 Cor. v. 5 ; Col. iv. 8 ; Eph. vi. 22 (Rom. ix. 17) ; cf. Erasmus
(Paraphr. in ep. Pauli, 1523, p. 150) ; Riickert and Hofmann, ad lor. This
construction is good Greek (Kiihner-Gerth, i. 310, A. 6 ; Winer, 21. 3, A. 2),
occurs without question in 2 Pet. i. 5, and would certainly have to be
admitted in the present passage even if it did not occur elsewhere in Paul's
writings. But this construction does occur in Phil. i. 6, where otherwise the
avTo would be meaningless. In order to any other interpretation, an instance
must be shown in which a Greek writer has expressed the object of his con-
viction or confident expectation in the accusative after ir{noi6a. Phil. i. 25
cannot be cited as a case in point ; since in this passage the TOVTO simply
prepares the way for the following ort, and belongs to oiSaby which the clause
is governed. It is correctly translated by Peshito, " And this I know con-
fidently." The same version translates 2 Cor. ii. 3 somewhat freely, but quite
correctly, " And (as to) my writing you, (so) is (it) this, in order that if I
come those may not cause me grief from whom I ought to have joy " ; in other
words, the reason and purpose of my coming was this. Even if TOVTO O.VTO,
which probably belongs before typatya (DG), with a vfj.lv inserted between it
and the verb, were the strongly emphasised object of fypatya, it certainly

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 347

would not imply a mysterious reference to something which was more
familiar to the readers than to ourselves (Meyer, Ewald, " The thing which is
known to you"; Klopper, "Something which causes grief"). At most it
could be only a resumption of the TOVTO of ii. 1. Then the subject of Paul's
earlier communication in his letter would be the determination not to come
to Corinth a second time in sorrow. But the context, i. 15-ii. 2, shows that
this determination was practically identical with the determination to come
to Corinth not at once by the direct route, but by the longer way through
Macedonia. On this construction of the passage, then, in the letter in
question Paul had expressed the same intention with regard to his coming to
Corinth that he had since carried out, which, moreover, leaving quite out of
account the reason for writing given in II. i. 23-ii. 2, he had set forth in
detail in I. xvi. 5-7. Since, now, in the same letter the very opposite deter-
mination could not have been expressed, namely, Paul's purpose to come to
Corinth at once and by the direct route, to assume, as, for example, Krenkel
does (377) that this statement did actually stand in the letter written in
the interval between 1 and 2 Cor. and at the same time to affirm that II.
ii. 3-9 has reference to this same letter, is to involve one's self in the most
glaring contradiction. But if what was said in this letter was simply a
repetition of the determination expressed in I. xvi. 5-7, only in different
words and with more detailed statement of the apostle's reasons, then
there was no point in his appeal to the letter supposed to have been
written in the interval. But now since "that very thing," which he
writes in II. ii. 1 is not to be found in 1 Cor., the TOVTO OVTO must be taken
adverbially.

6. (Pp. 333, 335, 336.) It is assumed by the present writer that OVK t^e
\f\vvr]Kfi>, ii. 5, is a question calling naturally for an affirmative answer ; con-
sequently that aXXd does not mean " but " (sonderri), but is equivalent to a
" nevertheless " (aber), which serves to introduce the following clauses, 56-6.
Further, it is assumed that OTTO fiepovs does not, as Hof mann contends, belong to
the main clause of the sentence beginning with a'XXn, but is a part of the sub-
ordinate sentence attracted out of its place on account of the strong emphasis,
as is so often the case before tva. " Nevertheless, in order not in a measure
to burden you all, I declare the penalty imposed by the majority to be suffi-
cient." The dno fiepovs is added, because a different judgment on Paul's part,
namely, the demand for the offender's severer punishment, would be a heavy
burden, especially upon the person himself, and might drive him to despair.
That, in turn, would be a burden to all the members of the Church ; not only
to the majority, who regarded the penalty that had been temporarily imposed
as sufficient, but to the minority, who, either because they feared the effect
of leniencv, or because they honoured Paul's judgment, felt that a severer
penalty ought to be imposed. This supposed obligation they could have
fulfilled only with bleeding hearts, and the wound would not be easily
healed. Instead of inavr] Paul writes IKUVOV, evidently under the influence
of the legal use of TO IKWOV (Acts xvii. 9 ; Mark xv. 15). There is a legal
colouring also to <vpovv (ii. 8, cf. Gal. iii. 15) and the expressions used in
vii. 11 f. oTroXoyia (cf. Phil. i. 7, 16 ; 2 Tim. iv. 16 ; Acts xxv. 8, 16,
xxvi. 1 f. ; Eom. ii. 15); exS/K^o-i?, 6 dSiKf)(ras, 6 d8iKT)6ds (Acts vii. 24-27;
1 Cor. vi. 7 f. ; Philem. IS) ; Trpny/zn (1 Cor. vi. 1 ; 1 Thoss. iv. 6). If

348 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

2 Cor. followed 1 Cor. without an intervening letter or a visit of Paul's, there
is no question that II. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. refers to the same case as I. v. The
language used points in the same direction, ris (II. ii. 5 ; I. v. 1) ; 6 TOLOVTOS
(II. ii. 6, 7 ; I. v. 5). Then 6 dSutrjOeis (vii. 12) cannot refer to Paul, which
would imply a strangely impersonal way of speaking, but to the offender's
father (above, p. 296, n. 4). Paul might have said that the Church had done
him wrong, in causing him the disgrace and the grief occasioned by the
occurrence of such a scandal in a Church which he had founded ; but he
could not have called it a violation of his rights, particularly since what the
offender had done had no relation whatever to Paul's own person. When,
now, Paul says that he discussed this matter in his letter, not in its relation
to the offender himself, nor in relation to the father whose rights had been
violated, this is quite in keeping with the manner in which the affair is
handled in I. v. Nothing is said in this passage about the father, who
evidently did not belong to the Church. Neither is the offender himself the
object of the discussion, but the Church in which, to its disgrace and injury,
an offence of this kind remains unatoned for, a fact, however, that does not
imply that Paul was indifferent to the fate of any individual member of the
Church. But, with regard to this individual, Paul had expressed only the
hope that by the judgment which destroyed his physical life his "spirit"
might be saved. What is said in vii. 12 must have been occasioned by com-
munications from the Church concerning the offender, who had repented,
and concerning the father, who possibly had been persuaded to be lenient or
even to forgive the offence. This was done in order to influence the apostle
to leniency. But Paul no longer needed such arguments (cf. ii. 10). In
their gratification at the favourable outcome of the matter, both as regards
father and son, the Church is not to overlook the fact that from the beginning
the apostle has been concerned about the attitude of the Church, which,
therefore, has been a matter of greater importance to him than the adjust-
ment of the legal relations between the father and son. Consequently also
his present joy does not concern these individuals, but the conduct of the
Church in this matter, and the restoration of the friendly relation to himself,
which had been disturbed by their earlier attitude in the affair (vii. 7-1 1).
Rightly recognising the fact that the matter here dealt with is one which
does at least have a legal side, but falsely assuming that the matters dealt
with in 1 Cor. have been pressed into the background by a long interval of
time and by the intervention of new and important transactions between
Paul and the Church, both by letter and in person, Krenkel (S. 306) con-
jectures that the occasion for ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. was a suit at law between
members of the Church (cf. I. vi. 1 ff.). Much more common is the assump-
tion that some member of the Church (Bleek, 1830, S. 629; Neander, 296,
347 ; Hilgenfeld, Einl. 284), or one of Paul's Judaising opponents, possibly
a member of the governing body of the Church (E\vald, S. 227), had publicly
offered him a grave insult, very likely on the occasion of his second visit in
Corinth, putting it in legal form (Weizsiicker, S. 298), and the Church had
failed to come earnestly to the insulted apostle's defence. According to this
last mentioned hypothesis, the insulted apostle was filled with wrath, and
what he was unable to accomplish in person, namely, the punishment of the
one who offered the insult by the very majority of the Church which had

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 349

indorsed him, he accomplished by means of the letter, now lost, which he
sent by Titus ! In the exposition of this view it is not accidental, but
fundamental for the theory (perhaps we should say destructive of it) that the
words, " The insulter " and " The insulted," which are taken from Luther's
translation, recur again and again as if this were, of course, the correct transla-
tion of 6 dSiKrjcras and 6 d&nrjdfis. Of course, the idea of injured reputation
comes under the general conception of dftiKe'iv ; but in Paul's writings, where
dSiKelv occurs eight times, dSuda twelve times, and throughout both the Old
and New Testaments, where these words (also aStKoy, dS/K^a) occur very
often, there is not a single instance where the words can be shown to have the
meaning, insult, libel, still less the narrower sense of slander. On the
contrary, its universal meaning is illegal action ; or where the verb has an
object (generally personal), the illegal injury of a person, or injuring of a
thing (Rev. ix. 4), cf. Aristot. Rhetor, i. 10, p. 1368, EOTOJ STJ TO dSiKtlv TO
jB\dnrfiv cKovra irapa rov VO/JLOV. If it were a matter of insult or abuse by
word or deed, Paul would write the words 6 \oiBopr)<ras and o \oi8opr)dfis ; or,
if he wanted to use a legal term in this passage, 6 vjSpivas and 6 vfipiudeis ; cf.
Meier-Schb'inann, Attischer Prozess, bearb. von Lipsius (1883-87), S. 394-402.
The prevailing misunderstanding of the passage is helped by the failure to
distinguish between the broader and narrower meaning of injuria, the latter
of which corresponds to the Greek dftiKflv, d8iKia, ddiK^fia. Cf. Theophilus,
Paraphr. instit. Just. iv. 4 end, OVK eaxri roi/s i/Sptcrray drifiuipfjTovs ol co/ioi.
f injuria Xe'yerat irav o p.rj Kara vopov ylixTat, quod non jure Jit ;
e Xeyerat contumelia a contemnendo, r)v ol "E\Xr)ves vftpiv Ka\ov<nv. Cf.
Scholionto Leo's Basilica, lib. Ix. tit. 21, 1, and Ulpian, Digest, xlvii. 10. 1 end.
The difficulty which one has in understanding how Paul, in such a deep expres-
sion of his feelings as this, which is thoroughly intense, and which is put in the
first person throughout, could in one instance designate himself by the third
person, 6 aSiK^aV, as if he were a stranger, would, of course, be removed if
we could assume that possibly Timothy is "the injured person" (thus
Beyschlag, ThStKr. 1871, S. 670). But this interpretation gives no logic-
ally possible connection between vii. 126 where Paul speaks not only of
himself, but includes at least Timothy and vii. 12c. If, with a view to
lessening the contradiction, it be said that the main reason for writing the
letter was not regard for the one who had been wronged, nor for the one
who had suffered the wrong (Krenkel, 299), it is nevertheless true that,
according to vii. 126, the real purpose of the letter was to give the Church
an opportunity to prove their zeal for Paul (and Timothy) ; and so, if " the
person injured were Paul himself or Timothy, he did, as a matter of fact,
in a very real sense, write on account of the dSinrjdeis. Moreover, this
hypothesis in all its forms stands in contradiction to ii. 5. If OVK e'/ne
XeXvTTTjKfv be taken as a statement of fact, then it is hypocrisy unworthy of
the apostle ; if it be taken as a question, it is incomparably foolish. Nor is
it easy to see how the Church could have succeeded in making itself appear
blameless in this matter (vii. 11).

7. (P. 337.) Frequent doubt has been expressed as to whether II. vi. 14-
vii. 1 was originally a part of the letter and as to its Pauline origin. Ewald
(282 f.) held that it was taken from the writings of one who belonged to the
apostolic circle at a somewhat later date. Hilgenfeld (287, A. 1) conjectured

350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

that it was taken from the letter mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9, a theory which
Francke (ThStKr. 1884, S. 544 ff.) undertook to prove. Krenkel rejoices
(332) that the fact that this section does not belong in 2 Cor. is coming more
and more to be recognised, and thinks that he discovers many similarities
to the language of the Epistle of Clement. The problem calls for a discus-
sion of the context. After the general discussion concerning the office of
preaching, to which he was led through opposition to the Jewish Christian
wandering teachers (ii. 17-iii. 1, v. 12), Paul, in vi. 1, returns again to the
discussion of the special conditions in the Corinthian Church, which, with
the exception of a few brief remarks (iii. 1-3, v. 11-13) seem to have been
lost sight of from ii. 14 on. He and his companions are not only com-
missioned to preach the gospel of reconciliation to the unconverted (v. 11-21),
but also to help the Churches already gathered through the preaching of the
gospel, in this instance those of Achaia here addressed, and in particular
those of Corinth (vi. 11), and to warn them lest they receive grace in vain
in the day of salvation (vi. 1-2, cf. i. 24). As was recognised even by Clement
(Strom, i. 4), and, as is clearly set forth by Hofmann (ii. 3. 166-174),
vi. 3-10, which has no grammatical connection with what precedes, is the
introduction to vi. 11, between which and what precedes there is undoubtedly
an anacoluthon. Conscious that his work and personal life among them
have been blameless, Paul (and Timothy) now 'opens his mouth unto them,'
i.e. he is about to tell them solemnly and frankly what he has in his heart
to say to them (cf. Matt. v. 2 ; Acts viii. 34, x. 34). And this is an exhorta-
tion like that in vi. 1, i.e. a warning against everything which might make
their acceptance of that redemptive grace by which Christians are dis-
tinguished from the still unregenerate world seem to be an illusion. The
remark that his heart as well as his mouth is open to the Corinthians and
the request that the readers open their hearts to him, as children ought to do
to their father (I. iv. 14), is a further introduction to the statement he is
about to make, occasioned by the distrust of the Church which has not
altogether disappeared. Now this statement, which has been led up to at
such length and in so many different ways, and which has been held back so
long, would be ridiculous if it were simply the two words ^cop^o-are jj^a?,
vii. 2a. That, however, would be the case if vi. 14-vii. 1 were to be set
aside as an interpolation, for, in what follows vii. 26-18 there is nothing
which corresponds to the promised 7rapdK\Tja-is. This is found in vi. 14-vii. 2a,
It is the demand that is found running through 1 Cor. that the Church
separate itself more entirely from the heathen immorality by which it was
surrounded. With vi. 16 cf. I. iii. 16, viii. 10, x. 20-22, xiv. 25 ; with
vi. 17 f. cf. I. x. 13 f., cf. above, p. 274 f., 296, n. 2. There is nothing peculiar
in the character of the words used, although frfpofryelv, peroxr], o-vpfjxavrjo-is,
BeXi'ap do not occur elsewhere in the writings of Paul nor in the N.T. The
passionate antithesis with which the section begins is quite in keeping with
the mood which is reflected in vi. 3-10, vii. 1-11, while the solemn words of
vi. 166-vii. 1 harmonise with the manner of the announcement in vi. 11.
These pressing exhortations have their own significance, but, in addition to
that, serve appropriately as the introduction to the matter discussed in
vii. 5-16, all the more so because the case of the man who had committed
incest, which had caused Paul so much anxiety, had now become a source of

PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 351

joy to him. Since, however, these exhortations did not touch at all Paul's
personal relation to the Church, the exhortation vii. 2, which is clearly
different from vi. 13, forms an appropriate transition to what follows.

8. (P. 343.) Although no representatives of the Corinthian Church are
mentioned as accompanying Paul to Jerusalem along with the representa-
tives of the Churches of Galatia, Asia, and Macedonia (Acts xx. 4, above,
p. 209, n. 2), in view of Rom. xv. 25-28 we may not assume that the collec-
tion in Achaia was not completed, and that Paul's efforts in this matter
(2 Cor. viii .-ix.) were fruitless.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

21. CONTENTS OF THE LETTER AND THE PEOGKESS

OF ITS THOUGHT.

THE Epistles of Paul, considered up to this point, have
been addressed to Churches, or groups of Churches, that
owed their Christianity to him. In this letter, however,
he turns his attention to a Church which was undoubtedly
founded without any co-operation from him or his helpers.
Though individual Christians living in Rome at the time
may have been personally, or even intimately, acquainted
with Paul, to the Church as a whole he was a stranger,
and to the large majority of the Roman Christians per-
sonally unknown. His first concern, therefore, was to
establish a connection between himself and the Church.
This explains why he begins with a salutation which is
more elaborate than in any other of his Epistles, and why
in this instance the part in which the author speaks of
himself is expanded into a lengthy complex of clauses
(i. 1-5), whereas, in other letters, either the characterisa-
tion of the readers (1 Cor. i. 2) or the contents of the
salutation (Gal. i. 3-5) is more fully developed. Paul
introduces himself to the Church, so to speak, not as if
they had never heard of him before, but still in such a
way that the Church can form some idea, from the very
way in which he characterises himself, as to the occasion
of the letter, and the grounds on which Paul based his
right to address them thus in a long Epistle. He is not

352

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 353

merely an individual engaged in the service of Christ like
all Christians, but also an apostle ; he is not merely one
of the numerous missionaries about whose call there may
be some question (above, p. 289 f.), but he owes his position
to a definite call from God, just as the readers owe their
Christian faith to a definite call of God. Although the
contrast with which he testifies to the genuineness of his
apostleship is not so strong here as in 1 Cor. i. 1, par-
ticularly Gal. i. 1, nevertheless the threefold repetition of
K\r)Tos (vv. 1, 6 f.) does show the same careful premedita-
tion as 1 Cor. i. 1 f. How anxious he is that the readers
shall realise the full import of this self-characterisation is
shown by the fulness with which he develops this par-
ticular idea, though it was familiar to every Christian of
that time. The fact that all which follows K\r)rb<; aTroaro-
Xo? in i. 16-5 is an expansion of this idea, proves that
Paul cannot here be saying anything of himself not
equally applicable to others who have been called to be
apostles. While in other places he speaks of his special
call to be the apostle to the Gentiles (xi. 13, xv. 16),
and so of his special gospel (ii. 16, xvi. 25), here he calls
the gospel, for the proclamation of which he has been
separated from all other avocations, a message of God.
This expression is employed here in the same sense in
which it and its synonyms are everywhere used, in dis-
tinct contrast to the conception of teaching, which is the
product of human reflection and which varies in each case
with the type of mind or the peculiar gifts of the preacher
(1 Thess. ii. 2, 8, 9, 13 ; 1 Cor. ii. 1-5; 2 Cor. ii. 17,
xi. 7). When he goes on to say, further, with reference to
this same gospel, that long before God had suffered this
message of His to enter the world He had promised the
sending of the same through the prophets, and that this
promise was recorded in the Holy Scriptures (i. 2, cf.
x. 15; Luke iv. 17-21); and when, further, the central
point of this gospel is declared to be the Son of God, who

VOL. i.

354 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

entered into a natural human life as a descendant of
David, and was appointed to become a Son of God in
power, and so to enter into a new and higher life of
which the Holy Spirit was the norm and the resurrection
the beginning, the points made are simply the close con-
nection between the gospel and the revelations, Scriptures
and history of the O.T. on the one hand, and the exalta-
tion of the Son of David, living in the flesh, to His present
glory (cf. Jas. ii. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 16), on the other. AVhen,
now, at this point with the mention of Christ he passes
again by a natural transition from the description of the
gospel to a direct characterisation of his apostolic calling
(i. 5), he includes himself at once with others to whom
what he here says of himself is equally applicable. Since
this letter was not written in conjunction with anyone
else, and since from i. 8-xvi. 23 or xvi. 25 Paul uses
the singular when speaking of himself, it is self-evident
that the plural in i. 5 is to be taken literally, as always in
Paul's writings (n. 1). Since, moreover, the only thought
expressed indicating any wider or narrower circle to which
Paul belonged is that of his apostolic calling, it was per-
fectly clear to his readers that he included with himself
other men who, like him, were K\r)Tol aTroo-roXoi (cf. x. 15,
xvi. 7). They could say with Paul, "Through Christ we
received grace as Christians, and a call as apostles to the
end that we might arouse obedience to the faith among
all peoples, to the glory of His name." The idea that
Paul is speaking here of his special commission as the
apostle to the Gentiles, has against it not only the con-
text of the salutation, as pointed out above, but also the
usage elsewhere of iravra ra edvrj (n. 2). The whole human
race with its national divisions, representing as it does
the utmost diversity, is the common, originally undivided
field in which the older apostles and Paul were appointed
to labour. Nor can it be claimed that in this passage
"all peoples" must mean the Gentiles, on the ground

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 355

that otherwise in i. 6 Paul would impart the trivial in-
formation to the Romans that they are a part of the
human race. Paul does not say that they are included
in the irav-ra -ra eOvr], but that they are the called of Jesus
Christ, a Church already gathered through the influence
of the gospel, in that region which is the appointed field
of labour for all the apostles. For this reason, neither
Paul nor any of the apostles, whose call is essentially
a call to preach the gospel, have any direct missionary
relation to the Eoman Christians. But this does not by
any means render the apostles indifferent to those who are
already converts. For, in the first place, existing Churches
are centres of the Christian faith (cf. Phil. ii. 15 f.), the
spreading of which is the distinctive function of the
apostles ; and, in the second place, the word of the
apostles has a right to special consideration among those
who are already believers (cf. xii. 3 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Eph.
ii. 20, iv. 11-16; 1 Pet. v. 1). Such consideration for
what he is about to write Paul seeks from all the Chris-
tians in Rome at the time whose character, not only as
children of God through grace, but also as those called
to be saints, i.e. as a Christian Church (cf. 1 Cor. i. 2),
he emphasises once more before adding his general salu-
tation (ver. 7).

The first thought expressed after this carefully weighed
greeting is that of gratitude to God for all the Roman
Christians, more particularly for the fact that their con-
version to the Christian faith has become known through-

out the whole world (i. 8, cf. xv. 19; 1 Thess. i. 8f.).
How much this means to Paul is evidenced by the solemn
assurance which follows, that in his private devotions,
which have relation to the gospel quite as much as his
outward activities, he remembers regularly also the Roman
Christians, making request in all his prayers that the way
may be finally opened for him, in the will of God, to
come to them (ver. 10). This thought he expands by

356 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

explaining that he has a longing desire to see them in
order to impart some spiritual gift from which he expects
the Roman Christians to be strengthened, or, as he im-
mediately adds by way of explanation and correction,
from which he expects them and himself to be mutually
encouraged by the faith that is in each (ver. 11 f., cf. xv.
24, xvi. 25).

Paul could not have spoken with greater precaution or
modesty of the result for which he hoped from this long
intended visit to Rome. Not only does he place the
Christians in Rome on the same level with the Churches
organised by himself (cf. 1 Thess. iii. 2, 13 ; Acts xv. 32,
xvi. 5, xviii. 23), but he guards expressly against giving
the impression that they alone are to be benefited by
the visit (cf. per contra, 2 Cor. i. 15 ; Phil. i. 24-26).
If he had said nothing further with reference to the
purpose of his projected visit, all that could be in-
ferred from his words would be that for Paul as a mis-
sionary the existence of a Christian Church in Rome, was
a matter of great importance ; that for a long time he had
had it in mind, in further pursuance of his missionary
plans, to come also to Rome, regarding which plans,
however, nothing more definite is said ; and, finally, that
the exchange of spiritual gifts which would take place
with the Roman Christians on that occasion would be
advantageous both to them and to him. But now he
mentions a second motive for his coming, using a phrase
which indicates the introduction of a new thought, namely,
his desire to obtain also in Rome some fruit, i.e. his hope
to preach the gospel with result also among the Roman
populace, the great mass of whom are unconverted.
Although he expresses himself very modestly with refer-
ence to the result for which he hopes from this contem-
plated missionary preaching (TWO, KapTrov), still this seems
to have been the chief purpose of the visit to the capital
which had been planned so long and so repeatedly post-

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 357

poned on account of some external hindrance ; for in
concluding this discussion with the words, " Such is the
willingness on my part to preach the gospel to you
(al. among you), i.e. to the people in Rome," he men-
tions only the missionary preaching as the object of his
coming, making no reference whatever to the hoped-for
effect of his visit upon the Roman Church (vv. 13-15,
n. 3). That he is just as willing to labour as a missionary
in Rome as he is conscious of his obligation to do so, is
proved by his declaration that he is not ashamed of the
gospel (ver. 16). The fact that until now he has remained
away from Rome is not, therefore, to be explained as due
to any lack of willingness on his part, nor this lack of
willino-ness as due in turn to his want of confidence in

the gospel.

In this way Paul prepares the way for statements
about the gospel which go far beyond any requirements
of the purpose manifest from, the connection with the pre-
cedino- context, and which are to be made the theme of more

O '

extended discussions. Paul does not hesitate to introduce
the gospel, this weak and foolish preaching (1 Cor. i. 17-
25), into the very centre of the world's culture, because
he has learned and experienced its essence to be what he
describes in i. 16f. It is a power of God unto salvation
for every one that believes, primarily for Jews and Greeks
(n. 4). The gospel is such a universal means of salvation,
upon the sole condition of faith, because in the same is
revealed a righteousness of God which results from faith,
and which has for its aim the creation of faith. This
is in accordance with the word of the prophet : " The
righteous shall attain to life as a result of faith " (Hab.
ii. 4 ; cf. Gal. iii. 11); since this prophecy contains the two
thouo-hts which are fundamental in the statement about

the gospel, namely, that only the righteous attain to
life, and that by no other means than through faith,
all that follows to viii. 39, or indeed to xi. 36, is in-

358 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

tended to make clear to the Romans this construction of
the gospel.

In the first section (i. 18-iii. 20) he proceeds to show
in proof of the first of the two propositions contained in
the citation, that the wrath of God is directed against all
unrighteousness and ungodliness of men, for which they
are responsible and inexcusable, throughout the course of
history (i. 18), as well as at the final judgment, when the
righteousness of God, concealed from the thoughtless by
the manifold proofs of God's goodness in creation, shall
be revealed as retributive righteousness (ii. 3-10).
Furthermore, in God's impartial determination of the
destiny of the individual soul there is no distinction
between Jew and Gentile (ii. 11-22). While the advan-
tage of beinor an Israelite, and thus of belon^ino- to the

* ' *? O O

people of God's revelation, is not to be denied, this cannot
in any way alter the fact that in the final judgment all
men must appear before God as liars and sinners worthy
of condemnation, for He is the only true and altogether
righteous one (iii. 1-8). Finally, even Christians are not
to imagine that they are exempted a priori from this
condemnation of a sinful race under God's wrath. On the
one hand, they are included in the scriptural judgment
already quoted concerning the universal sinfulness of men ;
and, on the other hand, they are aware that the proof
furnished by the history of Israel regarding the impos-
sibility of obtaining righteousness through the observance
of the law holds for the entire race (iii. 9-20).

Although from the course of the argument condem-
nation seems to be the inevitable end of the entire human
race, a second section (iii. 20-v. 11) is devoted primarily
to showing how the righteousness of God necessary to life
is restored in Christ, being proclaimed in the gospel which
requires faith, and how by faith it becomes the possession
of all Christian believers, Jews and Gentiles alike (iii. 20-
30). The objection that through the doctrine of justifica-

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 359

tion as here set forth Christians are in danger of falling
into antinomianisrn is disposed of very briefly (iii. 31).
On the other hand, the further objection that by accept-
in a- this doctrine Christians sever themselves from the

religion of the O.T., or, in other words, render entirely
external the unquestionable relation existing between
the Christian Church and Abraham, the progenitor of
the religious community under the O.T. dispensation, is
answered in great detail. Since, according to Gen. xv. 6,
the religious attitude of Abraham was, rather, essentially
similar to that of the Christian, the opposite conclusion
follows, namely, that the theocratic community of which
Abraham was the founder has its proper continuance in
Christianity, which embraces the circumcised and the un-
circumcised, but is self-consistent because it makes both
alike stand in the faith through which Abraham, being
yet uncircumcised, obtained his position of acceptance
with God, and his significance for the history of religion
(iv. 1-22, n. 5). Since, now, this exposition ends with
the reaffirmation of the original position that Christians
are justified by faith (iv. 23-25), upon it is very properly
based the assurance that Christians, being justified and
reconciled, are at peace with God, and in spite of all the
afflictions of the present may and should cherish the con-
fident hope of their future glory or final redemption (v.
1-11, n. 6).

Here the theme stated in i. 16f. seems to have been
developed to its logical conclusion ; since, from the pre-
ceding description of the origin and nature of the
Christian life, with the future consummation of the same
which this nature involves, it must be apparent that in
Christian experience the gospel, being a revelation of the
righteousness requisite to life, has proved itself to be a
saving power. Nevertheless, a third section (v. 12-viii. 39)
is added, closely connected with the one which precedes,
concluding with similar thoughts. Although the main

36o INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

statement beginning with Sta TOVTO in v. 12 is left un-
finished, and although even the comparative sentence
introduced into the main sentence immediately after the
latter is begun is not concluded, the progress of thought
can hardly be said to be obscure. As death, which was
brought into the world by Adam, more specifically by
Adam's sin, reigned over all Adam's descendants, so shall
the grace and the gift of God and of Christ, which had
their inception in history through Christ, more precisely
through Christ's one act of righteousness, reign in the
new humanity descended from Christ who is the second
Adam. Inasmuch as the Mosaic Law is described as
subordinate to the two world principles, Adam and Christ,
or sin and righteousness, or death and life (v. 20), it is
at once clear that the reign and supremacy of grace
under the Christian dispensation may not be limited, or,
rather, set aside, by the subordinate dominion of the law.
In proof of this last point, he calls attention to the fact
that in the very community where the law had served
only to increase sin, namely, in Israel, redemptive grace
had been revealed in its greatest fulness. This statement
is intended to guard against the possibility of grace being
looked upon as a makeshift, or as one means of salvation
among others, as might easily have been the case had
grace been manifested first to another people without
Israel's experiences with the law. The fact that Christ
appeared in Israel is assurance that grace may reign
wherever it is accepted.

The objection that if this doctrine of law and grace
be true, one needs only to continue in sin in order to
receive constantly new supplies of grace, Paul meets by
recalling the fact of the new birth connected with bap-
tism, which makes a sinful life on the part of the Christians
seem unnatural, furnishing the strongest motive for holi-
ness. It is just because Christians are not under law,
which in itself has no power to overcome sin, but under

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 361

grace, which in the resurrection of Christ and regeneration
of the Christian proves itself to be a life-giving power,
that they dare to hope for mastery over sin (vi. 1-14).
But from the experience of the readers not only is this
pernicious theory (vi. 1), but likewise the possibility of
any practical misuse on the part of the Christian of his
privileges under the gentle rule of grace, instead of under
the hard discipline of the law, easily refuted as due to
wrong inferences from the doctrine of justification ex-
pounded above. From being sinful and disobedient ser-
vants of God, as they were formerly, they have become
servants obedient from the heart, and are, therefore, no
longer slaves and mercenaries of sin, but slaves of
righteousness and soldiers of God. They have only to
recall their pre-Christian life, and the death which was
the inevitable issue of that life, and then to observe the
process of sanctification taking place in their present
Christian life, and to remember that eternal life is its
final goal, in order to lose all desire to sink back into
their former state (vi. 15-23, n. 7).

Moreover, Paul feels that it is incumbent upon him to
justify to his readers even the presupposition, namely, that
the Christian is no longer under the law, but under grace
(vii. 1-6), which in vi. 1-14 and vi. 15-23 is defended
against false inferences. From their acquaintance with
the law, the readers know that the Mosaic ordinances
have authority over a man only so long as he lives, which
implies that it has no power beyond death. Both these
phases of the truth are illustrated by a single appropriate
example, namely, the law of marriage, which unites two
human lives into one. In the case of the surviving party
when a marriage bond is annulled by death, we see that
death frees from the law. The illustration of the marriage

bond thus cited is used also as a figure in the application
of the principle stated in vii. 1 to the subject under dis-
cussion. Since Christ's obligation to the law ceased with

362 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

His death, and since Christians became subsequently
through baptism partakers of Christ's death, the same as
though they themselves had actually died (vi. 3, cf. Gal.
ii. 19, iv. 4f.), for them also obligation under the law as
a marriage bond is legally annulled, in order that they
may be united to the risen Christ in a new marriage union.
Not until they come into this new fellowship with Christ
are they able to attain to a true moral life permeated by
a new spirit ; whereas, on the other hand, while they lived
still under the law and served God according to the letter,
sinful desires awakened by the law held sway over their
bodies, and life under the law issued in death (n. 8).

Here again a conclusion seems to follow fatal to all
that has been said heretofore. If exemption from the law
and cessation from the life of sin go together, then we
seem driven to the blasphemous conclusion that the law
and sin are identical. This objection Paul answers in
vii. 7-viii. 11 chiefly from his own experience with the
law in his early life and now in his Christian life. This
experience he describes under the presupposition that
Christians who like himself have been brought up under
the law have had essentially the same experience. When
he became a Christian he continued to regard the law as
holy, righteous, and good ; and as a converted man his
will gave fullest assent to it. But in individual experi-
ence, as in the life of men generally (cf. iii. 20, iv. 15,
v. 20), the law has proved itself to be a power awakening
and developing latent sin, thereby deepening the know-
ledge of sin ; and even when the will gives assent to
the contents of the law, it is incapable of overcoming
sin. If, along with his lament due to doubt about his
moral capacity, there is a place in the Christian's life for
gratitude to God for His gift in Christ (vii. 24f.), this is
no effect which after all has been wrought by the law,
but the outcome of the liberating work of the Spirit,
begetting a new Christlike life in those who have been

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 363

born again. God's very act in sending the Son was
positive expression of His will that henceforth sin should
no more rule in the flesh ; and with Christ's coming was
begun the actual fulfilment of this divine purpose (viii. 3).
Through the Spirit received by the Christian from Christ
the ordinances of the law are fulfilled in their unity by
those who give themselves up to the control of this Spirit
instead of continuing under the power of their inborn
nature (viii. 4). Eventually, through the same Spirit the
body also, which is still subject to death, shall be quickened
(viii. 11). Finally, in language which soars higher and
higher as the climax is approached, the fact is proclaimed
that the sonship wrought in us by the life-giving Spirit
involves not only the obligation of a present walk ac-
cording to the Spirit, but warrants also the hope of future
glory, and supplies the power to overcome all the sufferings
of the present (viii. 12-39).

Thus the discussion of the supremacy of grace over all
who have been renewed by Christ (v. 12-viii. 39) leads to
the same conclusion as the discussion of the doctrine of
justification (iii. 21-v. 11), and the development of the
theme announced in i. 16 f. might be considered complete
if in the discussion up to this point Paul had taken
adequate account of Israel's special position of privilege,
at which he hinted in his statement of the theme, and
expressly admitted in iii. 1-3 (cf. ii. 25). When a Jewish
Christian like Paul is able to describe with constantly in-
creasing enthusiasm the glory of the redemption wrought
by Christ for the whole human race, affirming that in its
completion even inanimate nature is drawn into its sweep,
while he passes by with a single incidental remark (iii. 3),
the fact that by the vast majority of his own nation,
mediators of the divine revelation though they are (iii. 2,
v. 20), no benefits are enjoyed from this salvation, this
omission itself requires explanation. This is given in the
fourth section (ix. 1-xi. 35). After the song of thanks-

364 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

giving in viii. 31-39, it was most fitting for Paul to aver
with all solemnity that he speaks the absolute truth when
he says that in his heart he suffers unceasing pain because
of his unbelieving countrymen. To be sure, he does not
want this to be understood as implying that God did not
fulfil the promise which He made to Israel, or that the
unbelieving Jews have a right by reason of their origin,
and of such moral service as they may have rendered in
addition, to complain of the new course taken by history
with the entrance of the gospel (ix. 6 f.). From such
errors he is saved by his knowledge of O.T. history and
prophecy (ix. 76-29). But nevertheless it grieves him
exceedingly that while Gentiles, who are little concerned
about righteousness, are saved, Israel, with all its striving
after leo-al righteousness, obtains neither this righteousness

o o o

nor the righteousness of faith, stumbling at the very point
where they ought not to stumble, namely, the revelation
of God in Christ (ix. 30-33). But Paul is not satisfied
with merely lamenting the tragic fate of his nation.
Because of their earnest, albeit blind zeal, which led them
to resist the gospel, thereby giving the Gentiles their
present pre-eminence, he longs for their salvation, and
beseeches that it may be granted them by God (chap. x.).
That there can be no question of a permanent rejection of
Israel is proved by every conversion of individual Jews,
like Paul, and by the existence of a body of Jewish
Christians, numbering thousands (xi. 1-7 a, cf. ix. 27-29).
The hardening of Israel, which carries with it still other
judgments of a more external kind (xi. 76-10), is not an
end in itself, but designed, primarily, to enable the Gentiles
to obtain part in redemption. There is. hope that finally
the conversion of the Gentiles will react upon Israel, leading
to their salvation also (xi. llf. ). Paul calls the special
attention of the Gentile Christians at Rome to the fact
that, in fulfilling the specific work involved by his com-
mission as an apostle to the Gentiles, he does so always

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 365

with the additional purpose in view of arousing the jealousy
of his countrymen and of winning at least some of them,
and thus of preparing the way for the conversion of Israel,
with which event will come the end of the world (xi. 13-15,
cf. ver. 12, n. 9). Similarly, applicable only to Gentile
Christians is the warning against an overbearing attitude
toward the Jewish people in their present hardened state
(vv. 16-24), and the proclamation of the final redemption
of the whole of Israel as a truth of scriptural revelation
(vv. 25-32). The fourth section ends with an exclama-
tion of wonder at God's government of the world (vv.
32-36).

To the explanation of the nature of the gospel here
concluded Paul adds in a fifth section (xii. 1-xv. 13) a
comprehensive and well-arranged statement of how one
ought to walk in accordance with the same. Unlike what
immediately precedes, which is directed to the Gentile
Christians alone, what is here said is expressly addressed
to all the Christians in Kome (xii. 3). Compared with
similar parts of other letters, this section of Romans is
especially noticeable for its pressing exhortation to obedi-
ence to State authority, together with the fulfilment of all
the duties of citizenship (xiii. 1-7), and for the emphasis
which it lays much stronger than in Gal. v. 14 upon
the principle that active brotherly love is the true fulfil-
ment of the law (xiii. 8-10, cf. viii. 4). The exhortation
to live a sober and self-controlled life in view of the con-
stantly nearer approach of the day of Christ, and in the
care of the body to avoid everything that might arouse
the passions (xiii. 11-14), introduces at once the discus-
sion of a schism among the Roman Christians regarding
which Paul must have been well informed (xiv. 1-23).
There were Christians in Rome who from principle
avoided the use of meat, possibly also of wine (vv.
2, 20), claiming that such use was defiling (vv. 14,
30). This being their position, naturally they con-

366 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

denmed severely all other Christians who used the
customary foods without distinction, and were them-
selves in turn despised for their superstitious scruples
(vv. 3, 10). From the opinion of the vegetarians that
those who ate meat were not steadfast, but in danger of

stumbling (ver. 4), we infer that they looked upon their
own abstinence as a means of securing religious stead-
fastness, and commended it as such to others (cf. Heb.
xiii. 9). Although Paul rebukes the ascetics for their
bigoted judgment of others, declaring them to be weak
in faith, and takes his own stand with those strong in
faith, as regards the actual practice in the matter he goes
no further than to state that both practices are consistent
with the Christian profession, dealing at greatest length
with the obligation of those strong in faith to avoid
offending the conscience of their weaker brethren. They
are not to influence such either by their contemptuous
treatment of them, or by their challenging example to
act against their consciences (vv. 13-23, cf. 1 Cor. viii.
7-13). The ascetic party must, therefore, have been in
the minority. That they were native Jews is probable,
as evidenced by the use of the conceptions KOIVOS and
Ka6apo<; (vv. 14, 20), and made certain by the fact that
in correcting their judgment of those who eat meat Paul
argues that the use of meat is just as consistent with
Christianity, and just as much to be tolerated in the
Christian Church, as is the observance of certain days
(n. 10). This argument has weight only if the ascetics
claimed the unquestioned right to set apart on religious
grounds certain days, w r hich could have been none other
than the Jewish Sabbaths, feasts, and fasts. From the
fact that the ascetic party were Jews it does not follow
necessarily that those who ate meat were exclusively
Gentiles. They could equally well have been Jews, like
the apostle, who, in using the phrase " we who are strong,"
identifies himself w r ith those who used meat (xv. 1).

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 367

According to a reliable tradition, xiv. 23 was followed
immediately by xvi. 25-27 ( 22) ; but even if this were
not its original place, it is clear that after concluding the
discussion of the differences between the vegetarians and
those who ate meat, Paul must have passed to a more
general exhortation to preserve the unity of the Church
by mutual concessions. From the fact that in the
application of this exhortation to the readers united
thanksgiving is declared to be the goal toward which
they are to strive (xv. 6), and that in the explanation
which follows (vv. 8-12) the union of Israel and of
the Gentiles is proved from history and Scripture to
be the final goal of the course of redemption, one sees
that in these closing sentences of the fifth parenetic
section Paul's aim was to remove all differences be-
tween the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome by
which the unity of confession and of worship was
imperilled.

The sixth section (xv. 14-xvi. 24, or -xvi. 27) begins
with a retrospect of the letter itself, now nearing its
close. Paul corrects the possible impression which may
have been produced by the elaborateness of the letter and
its strenuous tone, that he regarded the Roman Christians
as in very special need of instruction. To him even it
had seemed a venture to direct such a letter to them.
Still this feeling was mitigated somewhat by the fact that
he discussed only certain phases of Christian truth, and
in doing so was always conscious of reminding them of
truths with which they were already familiar. He had
ventured to write them in the interest of his calling as
the apostle to the Gentiles. By reason of the wide
extent of the territory in which heretofore he had carried
on his work, it had happened that up to the present
he had found constantly new labours close at hand, and
so had been prevented from realising the desire which he
had often felt of coming to Rome (n. 11). And even

368 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

now, when he finds no more occasion in the regions lying
about the eastern part of the Mediterranean for the kind
of missionary work which he recognises as his special
work, namely, that of laying foundations, he cannot at
once visit Rome on his way to Spain, as he had longed to
do for many years, but must go first to Jerusalem to
deliver the collection gathered by the Christians in
Macedonia and Greece. Not until this business is fin-
ished will he go to Spain by way of Rome. So for the
present he requests the prayers of the Romans for his
protection against the dangers which threaten him at
the hands of unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem, and for a
favourable reception of the collection on the part of the
Christians there, in order that by the will of God he may
come to Rome in a joyful state of mind. Here the letter
returns to the point at which it began (i. 1-1 5), and is
temporarily concluded with a benediction (xv. 33). The
discussion of his projected missionary journeys and his
missionary plans, which is merely begun in i. 1-15, is
here completed. Now for the first time we understand
clearly Paul's statements at the beginning of the letter
about his desire to come to Rome, and the hints about the
hindrances which hitherto he had always encountered in
endeavouring to carry out this purpose (i. 10, 13a). In
pa