New Testament criticism; its history and results

WESTMINSTER HALL

VANCOUVER, B.C.

PRINCIPAL

W. R. TAYLOR

COLLECTION

1051

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM

ITS HISTORY AND RESULTS

THE BAIRD LECTURE 1911

NEW TESTAMENT
CRITICISM

ITS HISTORY AND RESULTS

j: A. M'CLYMONT, D.D. (£DIN.).

Author of " The New Testament and its Writers," " St. John" in the
" Century Bible," etc.

522978

25- S-S»

HODDER AND STOUGHTON

LONDON NEW YORK TORONTO

Printed in 1913

PREFACE.

THE Author desires to acknowledge the kind
assistance he has received from his friends,
the Rev. William Cruickshank, B.D., and the
Rev. R. S. Kemp, B.D., in the revision of
proof-sheets. He has also to thank Mr.
Cruickshank for drawing up the list of
kindred literature, published within the last
quarter of a century, which will be found in
the Appendix. Many of the books contained
in the list have been consulted by the Author-
in the preparation of these Lectures.

November, 1913.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

CHAPTEE I.

INTRODUCTORY

CHAPTER II.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM - - 39

CHAPTEE III.
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) 89

CHAPTEE IV.

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS (The Gospel; I, II, and

III John ; and the Eevelation) - - - 154

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTEB V.

PAGE

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND CONTEMPORARY
EPISTLES OF PAUL (I and II Thessalonians,
Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Romans,
Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Philip-
pians) - - 207

CHAPTER VI.

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES (I and II Timothy and
Titus), Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, and
Jude - ... - 290

CHAPTER I

INTEODUCTOEY

BIBLICAL Criticism has often been regarded
with suspicion by devout members of the
Church ; it has been denounced and deplored,
as if it were injurious to the interests of the
Christian religion. Even in this scientific age,
when everything else is subjected to the strict-
est examination, there are some who would
make an exception of the Scriptures, and who
look upon Criticism as an enemy of the faith.
But no such immunity can be granted, and
none should be sought by the defenders of the
faith. If it be guided by sound principles,
Criticism cannot injure the interests of truth ;
only error and falsehood have anything to fear
from its conclusions. It cannot be denied,
indeed, that its history has been marked by
many indiscretions and many blunders ; its
representatives have often seemed to forget

2 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

the momentous nature of the interests involved
in their inquiries, and to be more influenced
by the hope of winning distinction through
the originality of their speculations than by a
desire to advance the interests of the religion
they profess. This is especially true of the
nineteenth century,1 when ecclesiastical pre-
judice has been more than counterbalanced
by academic license, and veneration for received
opinions has given place to restless love of
novelty, the boldest theorist being too often
regarded as the most enlightened critic, whose
lead should be followed by all who desire to
keep abreast of the age. It must also be
admitted that great part of the labour spent
on the discussion of critical questions in con-
nexion with the study of the Bible has fre-

1 In a wider sense it has been said by Prof. Saintsbury :
"It has been the mission of the nineteenth century to
prove that everybody's work was written by somebody
else, and it will not be the most useless task of the
twentieth to betake itself to more profitable inquiries."
Speaking with reference to New Testament Criticism, Sir
Wm. M. Ramsay says : " We are no longer in the nineteenth
century with its negations, but in the twentieth century
with its growing power of insight and the power of belief
that springs therefzx>m,"

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 3

quently been of little use except to bring out
the scholarship and argumentative powers of
those who are engaged in theological pursuits,
the result of such inquiries being either to
bewilder the reader with conflicting theories,
or to concentrate attention unduly on minute
points of controversy which are of no real im-
portance. But, when all this is said, it still
remains true that there is a legitimate field
for Criticism in connexion with the Bible — in
other words, for the application of scientific
methods in the solution of its literary problems ;
and in the long-run such studies cannot fail to
advance the cause of righteousness and truth.
While tradition is never to be disregarded,
and is often to be treated with the greatest
respect, it can never be held to be an infallible
guide in the settlement of critical questions.
Such absolute authority cannot be conceded
to it even when the testimony of the Church
is unbroken, much less when it is divided.
No Protestant, no one acquainted with the
history of the Canon or with the wider history
of the Church, can accept the principle laid
down by Bishop Wordsworth when he says :
" If any book which the Church universal

4 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

propounds to us as scripture, be not scripture ;
if any book which she reads as the word of
God, be not the word of God, but the work of
an impostor, — then, with reverence be it said,
Christ's promise to His Church has failed, and
the Holy Spirit has not been given to guide
her into all truth." l

Although it was not till last century that
New Testament Criticism came prominently
into view, its history can be traced back to
the first century of the Christian era. There
is a sense in which it may be said to be older
than the New Testament itself. Before the
sacred volume came into existence, the vari-
ous writings of which it is composed had
for many years to submit to the judgment of
the Christian communities in which they cir-
culated, before they could be admitted to a
position of respect and honour in the Church
at large. If they bore the name of an apostle,
their authorship had to be established ; if they
made no such claim, they had to depend for a
favourable reception on the intrinsic value
and importance of their contents. All of them

1 Wordsworth's " Greek Testament ; The General
Epistles," p. 77.

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 5

had thus to go through a period of probation,
in common with many other writings which
competed with them for the confidence of the
Church ; and it was only because they com-
mended themselves to general approval that
the writings which we find in the New Testa-
ment gradually obtained a position of authority
similar to that which the Old Testament held
among the Jews.

In this respect the history of the New Testa-
ment may be contrasted with that of the
Koran. The sacred book of Islam was invested
from the first with the authority of Mahomet
himself, who claimed to have received its con-
tents by Divine revelation from heaven, and
imposed it on the faith and obedience of his
followers. On the other hand, with the excep-
tion of the recorded words of Christ Himself,
than which nothing could have been more
authoritative for the early Christians, the adop-
tion of the New Testament writings as a rule
of faith was the result of a gradual process,
being due to the estimate put upon the several
writings by Christians themselves as the result
of experience, rather than to any high claims
made for them by their authors, who never

6 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

dreamt of their productions being put on a
level with the Old Testament.

It was only by slow degrees that the in-
fluence of these writings spread from the
communities in which they originated, or to
which they were addressed, to the congrega-
tions of the Church at large. They were
found suitable for reading in the public services
of the Church ; they were quoted and appealed
to by the leaders of the Church when contend-
ing for the " tradition of the apostles " against
heresy and schism ; they were translated into
various languages to meet the wants of
Christians in different parts of the world ; and
in consequence of the use thus made of them
they tended more and more to acquire a sacred
character, and came to be regarded as a sup-
plement, and ultimately as a counterpart, to
the Old Testament. Some of them had to
wait for a considerable time before they gained
recognition in parts of the world where they
were little known, or where some heresy pre-
vailed which could not be reconciled with their
teaching ; but by the end of the second century
we find the idea of a New Testament fully
recognized by representative men in all parts

i.J OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 7

of the Church, with a consensus of opinion in
favour of the great majority of the writings
which have a place in our Canon. In the
Muratorian Fragment, as it is called, a rough
Latin translation of a Greek original which is
supposed to have been written by a Roman
ecclesiastic before the end of the second
century, we find an interesting statement re-
garding the books which were to be received
as authoritative, showing what a serious ques-
tion this was felt to be, and what care was
taken to exclude from the number even useful
and edifying books which could not claim any
kind of apostolic authority. At the same
time, so much freedom of opinion was per-
mitted on the subject, and there was so little
of an attempt on the part of the Catholic
Church to fix a definite Canon as an article
of the faith, that in some quarters we find
permission given for the public reading of
certain books which were not acknowledged as
authoritative ; and some of these books we find
included in several of the oldest manuscripts.
One of the most important witnesses on
the subject of the Canon is Eusebius, Bishop
of Gesarea, who lived in the early part of

8 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

the fourth century. No man was better ac-
quainted with the history of the Church, or in
a better position to know the views of his
contemporaries ; and he tells us that, while
opinion was divided regarding five of the
shorter Epistles, and, in some quarters, about
the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse
of John, the rest of the books which have
a place in the New Testament, and no others,
were unanimously accepted. As time went
on, even those writings which had been looked
upon as doubtful were regarded with increas-
ing favour, so that by the end of the fourth
century a collection of sacred books, identical
with our New Testament, was generally ac-
cepted by the Church at large, both in east
and west.1

For the next thousand years the history
of Biblical Criticism is almost entirely a his-
tory of interpretation dominated by tradition.
Being regarded as all alike Divine, the Scrip-
tures were too often treated as if they had little
or nothing in common with other literature,

1 Such a list is given in the Easter letter of Athanasius
(367 A.D.) and in the 39th Canon of the Council of
Carthage (397).

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 9

and every endeavour was made to find even
in their most casual and homely references a
meaning that would be worthy of their Divine
Author. It was in this way that the alle-
gorical method of interpretation, which has
played so great a part in the history of the
Bible, came into vogue. As might have been
expected, the Old Testament was the first to
suffer. The fanciful exegesis of the Jewish
Elders reappeared in the writings of the
Church Fathers, who exercised their ingenuity
in the attempt to justify the statements, and
spiritualize the teaching, of the Old Testament.
The idea of a progressive revelation was still
a great way off. There were some bold
thinkers in the Church who thought to get rid
of their difficulties in connexion with the Old
Testament by regarding it as the work of an
inferior Being, whom they called the Demiurge,
as the Creator of the physical universe ; but
most of the early theologians, abjuring this
and other Gnostic heresies, were content to
have recourse to the allegorical mode of inter-
pretation, availing themselves of it more or
less in their treatment both of the Old and
the New Testament. If the Gnostic views

10 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

had prevailed in the Church, they would soon
have destroyed the historic foundations of
the Christian faith ; and for that reason they
were discountenanced and condemned by the
ecclesiastical authorities, who insisted on the
reality of the evangelical facts, received by tra-
dition from the apostles, which were to be found
in the Gospels. Unfortunately, in the en-
deavour to counteract such heretical teaching,
they gave their imprimatur to a traditional
exegesis, that too often coloured the facts of
the Gospel with ideas of a mystical character
which the sacred writers had never intended
to convey. For illustrations of this tendency
we need only refer to the works of Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and
Origen, the last named representing the tend-
ency in its most highly developed form.

During the Middle Ages, when the Bible
fell into the hands of sacerdotal and monastic
Orders, the interpretation of Scripture became
more and more artificial, more and more
arbitrary. To the infallibility which had been
long claimed for Scripture itself there was
added a claim to infallibility on the part of its
authorized interpreters. Under the Papal

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 11

Supremacy this claim was enforced, the result
being that the laity were practically debarred
from the study of the Bible. Although the
Church of Rome never denied the authority of
Scripture, she practically nullified it by her
tradition, confining its use to a privileged class,
and preventing her members generally from
coming into direct contact with the living and
abiding truth which it enshrined.

But in the good providence of God the time
came when the barrier thus erected was to be
thrown down. For hundreds of years before
the Reformation, forces were at work, both in
Church and State, which tended to dispel the
darkness in which the Scriptures had been
shrouded, and to bring them out of their sacred
isolation into touch with the new knowledge
which men were everywhere acquiring. The
change was due partly to the revival of classical
learning, partly to the powerful stimulus given
to the intelligence of the laity by the discovery
of the New World. A spirit of inquiry was
awakened, and when the Reformers set the
Scriptures free from the bondage of ecclesiasti-
cal tradition and put them into the hands of the
people, they met one of the great needs of the

12 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

age. The advantage was specially great in
the case of the New Testament, as it was in
no sense the product of a priestly or a hermit
class, but represented the thought and experi-
ence of men who lived among their fellows,
and had for its chief subject the ministry of
one who was made like unto his brethren,
associating with them in their homes, their
streets, and their market-places, as well as in
their synagogues. It was an immense gain
for the right understanding of such a book
when it was set free for the study of all ranks
and classes ; but in course of time the exi-
gencies of the Protestant position tended to
impair this freedom. Disowning the authority
of the Church, the Reformers were tempted to
lay undue emphasis on the authority of Scrip-
ture and to claim for it something very like
infallibility. In theory both Luther and Calvin
held that the rightful claimant to authority in
opposition to the Church was not the Scriptures
but the Holy Spirit speaking through the
Scriptures — the true antithesis to Scripture
being the Tradition by which it had been
superseded in the Church of Rome, as the Old
Testament had been superseded by the teach-

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 13

ing of the scribes and Pharisees. But while
the Reformers repudiated the Romish super-
stition they fell into the ancient error of read-
ing into the Bible a great deal that was not
warranted either from a grammatical or histori-
cal point of view. Even Calvin, who professed
to adhere to the literal sense, and did so to
a much greater extent than any of his con-
temporaries, was so much under the influence
of dogmatic prepossessions as frequently to
pervert the true meaning of Scripture.

Still, with all its shortcomings, the Reforma-
tion was essentially a critical movement ; it was
based on the principle laid down by Paul,
" He that is spiritual judgeth all things, and
he himself is judged of no man " (I Cor. 2 15).
On this principle Luther argued for the ab-
solute necessity of private judgment in the
recognition of Divine truth.1 He held that

1 " The Romanists say. Yes, but how can we know what
is God's word and what is true or false ? We must learn
it from the Pope and the Councils. Very well, let them
decree and say what they will, still say I, Thou canst not
rest thy confidence thereon, nor satisfy thy conscience :
thou must thyself decide ; thy neck is at stake, thy life is
at stake. Therefore must God say to thee in thine heart :
This is God's word, else it is still undecided," (Disputa-
tion with Eck.)

14 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Scripture required no outward testimony, the
Gospel message being authenticated by the
Holy Spirit in the heart ; and everything else
in Scripture was to be judged by its relation
to the sovereign truth. In the application of
this test he was led to set special value on
certain books of the New Testament which
contained, as he said, the very marrow of the
Gospel, and to call in question the claims of
other books which seemed to be less evan-
gelical. " That which does not teach Christ is
not apostolic, though Peter or Paul should
have said it ; on the other hand, that which
preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if it
came from Judas, Annas, Herod, and Pilate."
Again : " The Church cannot give more author-
ity or force to a book than it has in itself. A
Council cannot make that to be scripture
which in its own nature is not scripture."
Luther's test was subjective and spiritual, but
without some regard to the testimony borne
to them by the early Church, it is difficult to
see how he could have justified the exclusive
attention which he paid to the books in the
Canon,

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 15

The same principle was laid down by Calvin,
though in a somewhat different form.1

1 " There are several in this pernicious error that the
Scripture has no more weight than is given to it by the
consent of the Church, as if the eternal and inviolable truth
of God were founded on the pleasure of men. For they,
showing contempt of the Holy Spirit, make this demand :
Who will certify to us that the Scriptures come from God ;
who will assure us that they have been preserved in their
entirety down to the present day ; and who will persuade
us that one book is to be received and another rejected, if
the Church is not our guarantee on all these matters?
Hence they conclude that it lies in the power of the Church
to determine what reverence we owe to the Scriptures, and
what book ought to be included among them. Thus these
blasphemers, wishing to exalt an unlimited tyranny under
cover of the Church, care not in what absurdity they in-
volve themselves and others, provided they can gain this
point among the simple that all things are in the power of
the Church. Now, if this be so, what would become of
the poor consciences that seek certain assurance of eternal
life, when they saw all the promises concerning it based
solely on the judgment of men ? ... If we wish to make
provision for consciences, so as to keep them from being
agitated in perpetual doubt, we must take the authority of
the Scriptures as higher than human reasoning or proofs
or conjectures. In other words, we must found it on the
inner witness of the Holy Spirit. . . . For granting that, in
their own majesty, there is sufficient ground for reverenc-
ing them, yet they begin truly to touch us when they are

16 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

From the authority of the Church Calvin
appealed to the testimony of the Holy Spirit
in the heart of the reader, as an all-sufficient
evidence of God's Word ; but in doing so he
made Scripture the sole outward standard,
leaving no room, in theory, for the authority
of tradition, and taking for granted that the
testimony of the Holy Spirit would always
prove the Bible to be the Word of God.
While Luther considered that there was room
for difference of opinion with regard to the
inspiration of certain books and portions of
books,1 Calvin regarded the whole Bible as a

sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Being then illum-
inated by His power, we believe, not on our own judg-
ment nor on the judgment of others, that the Scriptures
are from God ; but above all human judgment, we decide
beyond dispute that they were given us from the very
mouth of God, just as if with the eye we were contemplat-
ing in them the essence of God." (Institutes, Bk. I,
Chap, vii, from Reuss on The Cation, E. T., p. 294 f.)

1 Using a freedom of criticism which had been already
claimed by Erasmus on literary grounds. Luther put
Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse on a lower
level than the rest of the New Testament. Karlstadt went
farther, arranging the New Testament books in three
grades of merit, and attributing Second and Third John
not to the Apostle but to "John the Presbyter " — in which
he was followed by Hugo Grotius, the Arminian, in the,
next century.

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 17

homogeneous revelation, and did not hesitate
to appeal to any statement contained in it as
resting on Divine authority, although he held
independent opinions regarding the authorship
of certain books.1 Strictly speaking, he was
only entitled to claim authority and infalli-
bility for those parts of Scripture which could
be verified by the Christian conscience. But
the time was not yet ripe for such a discrimina-
tion between the essential and the non-essen-
tial ; and the practical needs of Protestantism
could only be met by maintaining and en-
hancing the authority of the traditional Bible
which had been acknowledged by the Western
Church for a thousand years.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries the critical efforts of the Reformers
were largely directed against the claims of the
Jewish Apocrypha, their object being to justify
its exclusion from the Canon in such a way as
not to prejudice the claims of the books which
were retained in the Protestant Canon.

At the same time, any critical treatment of
the canonical books was to a large extent pre-
cluded by the Confessions which now became

1 Hebrews, James, II Peter, and Jude.
2

18 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

general, embodying the settled opinions of the
Reformers, and forming the Protestant equi-
valent to the Decrees of the Council of Trent.1
When the Confessions gave a list, as many
of them did, of the books accepted as canonical,
the natural effect of this was to render almost
nominal the idea, so dear to the heart of the
Reformers, of applying a personal test to the
Scriptures. Their successors, instead of keep-
ing the Bible subject to the judgment of the
Spirit, tended to make an idol of it, claiming for
it absolute infallibility, or inerrancy, as it is
now called. This led to a theory of Verbal In-
spiration which culminated in the declaration
of the Helvetic Convention of 1675, that " the
Hebrew text, both as regards consonants and

1 These Decrees determined the Roman Catholic Canon
by giving full and final sanction to the collection of sacred
books which had been translated into Latin by Jerome
and was known as the Vulgate. The Decrees at the same
time stated that the Church " receives and venerates with
an equal piety and reverence the Traditions pertaining
both to faith and to morals, as proceeding from the mouth
of Christ, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved
in the Church Catholic by continuous succession." Ap-
pended to this decree is a catalogue of the books " which
the Synod thus receives."

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 19

as regards vowels — or, if not the vowel points
themselves, at least the significance of the
points — is divinely inspired." Perfection was
claimed for the form as well as for the sub-
stance, for the letter as well as for the spirit,
and it was accounted by some a heinous sin,
" blasphemy against the Holy Ghost " (to use
the language of the Wittenberg theologians), to
criticize the diction or style of the Greek
Testament. Even such a sensible and sober-
minded man as John Owen, the Puritan, main-
tained that "the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament were immediately and entirely
given out by God himself, His mind being in
them represented unto us without the least
intervening of such mediums and ways as were
capable of giving change or alteration to the
least iota or syllable." In accordance with
this view the sacred writers were often spoken
of as God's pen-men or amanuenses, as if He
were to be held responsible for every word
they committed to writing. It is only of recent
years that this view has been questioned by
the Churches. Yet it is difficult to understand
how it could ever have been held by any one
who had a thorough knowledge of the Scrip-

20 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

tures. That it was not the view of the Old
Testament taken by our Lord and His apostles
may be inferred from the manner in which they
quote its words. Out of two hundred and
seventy-five Old Testament quotations in the
New Testament there are only sixty-three
which agree exactly with the Hebrew ; in
thirty-seven cases the quotation is taken from
the Septuagint or Greek translation,1 where it
does not correctly render the Hebrew ; there
are seventy-six cases in which the correct
rendering in the Septuagint has been modified ;
and there are ninety-nine passages in which
the New Testament differs both from the
original Hebrew and the Septuagint.

If there are any utterances that we might
expect to be preserved verbatim et literatim, it
would surely be our Lord's discourses. But
we find that in reporting them the evange-
lists are far from adhering to the letter.
Their several reports frequently differ from
one another, reproducing the sayings in the
spirit, and not in the letter. This is the
case even as regards the Lord's Prayer, the

1 Begun in the third century B.C., but probably not
completed till about the beginning of the Christian era.

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 21

Beatitudes, and the words of institution of
the Lord's Supper. A similar variety is
found in the several records of events in the
history of our Lord and of His Church. The
accounts given in the Gospels differ so much
in matters of detail that it is almost impossible
to construct out of them a perfect harmony of
the life of Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles
there are sometimes more than one account of
the same incident, for example, the conversion
of Saul, and the vision of Peter at Joppa ; but
in such cases the accounts differ from one
another in a way that would have been im-
possible if the speakers and writers had been
under the influence of verbal inspiration.

Even if it had been otherwise, however,
even if the words of the speakers and writers
had been secured against the slightest inac-
curacy, it is difficult to see of what use this
would have been to Christendom, unless the
Greek or Hebrew text had been preserved
intact through all generations, and the trans-
lations into other languages had also been
kept free from error. Hence we can under-
stand John Owen's contention when he said
that " the notion that the Bible had not been

22 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

properly protected, bordered in his mind on
Atheism," as well as the claim which the West-
minster Confession makes for the original
Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek, that " being
immediately inspired by God, and by His
singular care and providence kept pure in all
ages, they are therefore authentical." l

The more closely we examine the Scriptures,
the more are we led to the conclusion that the
sacred writers were left to the free exercise of
their natural faculties, and that any influence
brought to bear upon them from above was
merely for the purpose of securing their effi-
ciency as witnesses to Divine truth. It is to this
we owe the striking variety in their writings
which is one of the great charms of the Bible,
but is quite incompatible with the literal ac-
curacy and verbal infallibility which many
people desiderate in a Divine revelation.
Most of us would like an infallible Bible if we

is one of the points of doctrine on which the
more liberal formula of subscription to the Confession of
Faith recently adopted by the Church of Scotland is fitted
to afford relief to tender consciences : "I hereby subscribe
the Confession of Faith, declaring that I accept it as the,
Confession of this Church, and that I believe the funda-
mental doctrines of the Christian faith contained therein."

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 23

could get it. It would save us so much trouble
and perplexity, affording unerring guidance on
every question. In this as in so many other
respects the Roman Catholic Church has taken
care to adapt her teaching to the cravings of
human nature. In a papal encyclical issued
by Pope Leo XIII we find it stated that
" those who maintain that an error is possible
in any genuine passage of the sacred writings
pervert the Catholic notions of inspiration and
make God the author of such error."

But the truth is, as Bishop Butler said long
ago in his " Analogy " : " We are in no sort
judges, by what methods, and in what pro-
portion, it were to be expected, that this
supernatural light and instruction would be
afforded us." The only question concerning
the authority of Scripture is " whether it be
what it claims to be ; not whether it be a book
of such sort, and so promulged, as weak men
are apt to fancy, a book containing a divine
revelation should. And therefore, neither ob-
scurity, nor seeming inaccuracy of style, nor
various readings, nor early disputes about the
authors of particular parts ; nor any other
things of the like kind, though they had been
much more considerable in degree than they

24 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

are, could overthrow the authority of the
Scripture ; unless the prophets, apostles, or
our Lord, had promised, that the book, contain-
ing the divine revelation, should be secure
from those things." If this reasoning be
sound, it is evident that instead of bringing to
the Scriptures a preconceived theory of in-
spiration we ought to study them humbly and
reverently, with the view of ascertaining their
real nature and characteristics. In other
words, we ought to form our theory of inspira-
tion by the method of induction. The result
of an impartial examination of the Bible is to
show that there is no such thing as Verbal
Inspiration in the sense of every word being
equally authoritative and equally Divine. In
some passages there is no sign of any super-
natural influence having been exerted on the
writer, his natural faculties being sufficient for
the task assigned to him, — as, for example, in
the compilation of historic facts such as were
collected by Luke ; while in other cases, where
a mysterious influence can be traced, it appears
to have varied greatly in the case of different
writers, and even in different compositions
of the same writer, rising to the greatest height

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 25

in those prophetic utterances in which the
writer or speaker is lifted above himself and
so overborne by the Divine Spirit as to bear
witness to Divine truth even against his own
inclination, under the influence of a will that is
stronger than his own, the will of the Eternal.
When we speak of the inspiration of the
Bible, therefore, it is well to remember that
we are not using an exact scientific expression,
but are merely describing the general char-
acter of the Scriptures as being in some sense
of Divine origin. Great mischief may be done
by claiming for the Bible more than it claims
for itself. The effect of making claims that
cannot be substantiated is to alienate thought-
ful and honest men, who are repelled by false
pretensions, especially when made in the sup-
posed interests of religion. Many a man's
faith has been weakened when he has found
the Bible not to be what his teachers repre-
sented it to be. On this subject the "judicious
Hooker " justifies the epithet so commonly
applied to him when he says: "Whatsoever
is spoken of God, or things appertaining to
God, otherwise than truth is, though it seem
an honour, it is an injury. And as incredible

26 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

praises given unto men do often abate and
impair the credit of their deserved commenda-
tion, so we must likewise take great heed, lest,
in attributing to Scripture more than it can
have, the incredibility of that do cause even
those things which it hath most abundantly
to be less reverently esteemed." Much to the
same effect is the caution given by Richard
Baxter in his " Catechising of Families " :
" The Scripture is like a man's body, where
some parts are but for the preservation of the
rest, and may be maimed without death : the
sense is the soul of the Scripture ; and the
letters but the body, or vehicle. The doctrine
of the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Decalogue,
Baptism and the Lord's Supper, is the vital
part, and Christianity itself."

It is remarkable how carefully those who
framed the Confessions and Articles of the
Reformed Churches have refrained from laying
down any definite theory of inspiration. In
the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of Eng-
land the term is not applied to Scripture at
all ; while the Westminster Confession, after
enumerating all the books of the Old and the
New Testament " under the name of Holy

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 27

Scripture, or the Word of God written," simply
adds : " all which are given by inspiration of
God, to be the rule of faith and life." It is
also remarkable that the word "inspiration"
which has figured so largely in theological con-
troversy, occurs only twice in the whole Bible,
once in the Old Testament (Job 32 8, A.V.),
and once in the New Testament (II Tim. 3 16,
A.V.) ; and in neither case is there any in-
dication of the nature or the limits of the
Divine influence exerted on the sacred writers.
A great deal of labour has been spent both by
Jewish and Christian writers in the attempt
to define in a scientific manner the various
degrees of inspiration which may be traced in
different parts of the Bible. But it is much
better at once to recognize the fact that the
operations of the Holy Spirit are beyond our
comprehension, whether they relate to the
intellect or to the heart, whether they tend to
illuminate the understanding or to sanctify the
soul. In either case the co-operation of the
Divine with the human is as inscrutable as the
union of divinity and humanity in the person
of Jesus Christ. It is quite beyond our power
to analyse the forces which have been at work,

28 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

though we can discern and appreciate their
result.1

The word " inspiration " is now so commonly
used in other connexions that it is too late to
contend for its exclusive application to Scrip-
ture. Even the " Word of God " is an expres-
sion which theoretically we have no right to
confine to Scripture. It is one thing to say
that Scripture contains the Word of God and
another thing to say that it is the Word of
God, although the distinction has not always
been recognized in the Reformed Churches.
In the fullest sense Jesus Christ alone is the
" Word of God." As John says : " In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was

1 Dr. Sanday offers a definition of biblical inspiration in
his article "Bible" in the ''Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics" : "If we were to try to sum up in a single word
the common property which runs through the whole Bible
and which, broadly speaking, may be said to distinguish it
from other literature of the kind, we might say that it con-
sists in the peculiar energy and intensity of the God-con-
sciousness apparent in the writers." The same tendency
that during the last half century has led commentators
to dwell more than formerly on the human side of our
Lord's life and ministry, has also shown itself in the greater
attention now paid by critics to the personal idiosyncrasies
and historical environment of those who committed the
Divine truths to writing.

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 29

with God, and the Word was God. . . . There
was the true light, which lighteth every man,
coming into the world. . . . And the Word
became flesh, and dwelt among us." We can
therefore understand what Ruskin meant when
he said that it is a grave heresy to call any
book, or collection of books, the Word of God.
" By that Word, or Voice, or Breath, or Spirit,
the heavens and earth and all the host of them,
were made ; and in it they exist. It is your
life ; and speaks to you always, so long as you
live nobly ; dies out of you as you refuse to
obey it ; leaves you to hear, and be slain by,
the word of an evil spirit, instead of it. It may
come to you in books, come to you in clouds,
come to you in the voices of men, come to you
in the stillness of deserts. You must be strong
in evil, if you have quenched it wholly ; very
desolate in this Christian land, if you have never
heard it at all." (" Fors Clavigera," 36 3.)

All that we are entitled to claim, or have
any need to claim, for the Bible is that it con-
tains the Word of God to a degree unequalled
in any other book or in any other literature.
In doing so, we may admit, with Luther,
regarding certain portions of Scripture, that

30 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

the gold and silver and precious stones are
mingled with wood and hay and stubble. Or
we may adopt the language of a learned divine
who took part in the composition of the Shorter
Catechism and was one of the clerks of the
Westminster Assembly : " The Scriptures them-
selves are rather a lanthorn than a light ; they
shine indeed, but it is alieno lumine ; it is not
their own but a borrowed light. ... It is a
light as it represents God unto us, who is the
original light. It transmits some rays, some
beams of the Divine nature ; but they are re-
fracted, or else we should not be able to behold
them. They lose much of their original lustre
by passing through this medium, and appear
not so glorious to us as they are in themselves.
They represent God's simplicity obliquated
and refracted by reason of many inadequate
conceptions ; God condescending to the weak-
ness of our capacity to speak to us in our own
dialect." (From a sermon by John Wallis.)

So many tributes have been paid, from many
different quarters, to the intrinsic value of the
Scriptures, that the question of inspiration is
not one about which we need be greatly con-
cerned at the present day. There are more

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 31

vital and pressing questions of a critical
nature, the chief of these being whether we
may rely on the historic truth of the Gospel
narrative and the Book of Acts, and whether
the Epistles were really written by the men
whose names they bear.

The Church demands, and has a right to
demand, that these questions be fairly con-
sidered, and that a decision be given in every
case according to the evidence adduced. If a
document be proved to be otherwise trust-
worthy, the mere fact that it bears witness to
the supernatural, whether in a physical or a
spiritual sense, cannot be allowed to invalidate
the evidence in its favour. The Church could
not consent to this without turning its back
on its own parentage, since all history shows
that it was founded on belief in the super-
natural. While ready to give due weight to
all that scholars and philosophers have to say,
the Christian community cannot give up the
right which belongs to it as a spiritual jury to
come to a verdict on all that pertains to the
essentials of the faith.

It seems now to be practically certain that
the literary criticism of the New Testament

32 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

will never of itself destroy the foundations of
the faith. No investigation of documentary
sources is ever likely to discredit the character
of the witnesses whose testimony is embodied
in our sacred books. But it is always open to
those who are sceptically inclined to explain
away such testimony by one means or another.
Behind all questions of criticism there lies a
region of mystery in which philosophical pre-
suppositions and personal predilections can
hardly fail to make their influence felt. In
this region new problems have recently pre-
sented themselves, arising out of the discovery
of a new world of Jewish thought in the form
of an apocalyptic literature of the last century
B.C. and the first century A.D., as well as from
the fuller recognition of various Gentile in-
fluences which are supposed to have contri-
buted to the religion of the primitive Church
as represented in the New Testament. It is
coming to be seen that the teaching of our
Lord and His apostles was not so exclusively
related to the Old Testament as was at one
time believed to be the case ; and we cannot
deny the possibility of their having been in-
fluenced in some degree by ideas derived from

T.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 33

other sources, which were current in the com-
munities whose intellectual life they shared.1
To trace such tributary sources of thought and
expression outside of the Old Testament comes
fairly within the scope of Historical Theology :
but the ultimate question for critics and for
theologians, as for all other human beings
who hear the Gospel, is whether that Gospel is
a unique and supernatural manifestation of
Divine love, to which there is nothing similar
and nothing parallel ; or whether it is only one
—the highest and best, it may be — of the
numberless forms of religion which have been
evolved in the course of human history. This
is a question which no examination or analysis
of the New Testament will ever be sufficient
to settle. We have a striking illustration of
this in the fact that recently a book was pub-
lished by a learned critic, entitled " Myth,
Magic, and Morals," which did away with the

1 According to Dr. Clemen in his " Primitive Christian-
ity and its Non-Jewish Sources " (1912), the influence of
such sources on the New Testament writers was very
slight, affecting the form and expression of their teaching,
rather than its substance. Prof. Kennedy, in his " St.
Paul and the Mystery- Keligions " (1913), comes to a
similar conclusion.

34 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

historical character of the Gospels and left as
little of the personality of Jesus Christ as the
most reckless of random magazine articles,
making him out to be an ideal creation of the
Apostle Paul. Yet the critical opinions of this
writer with regard to the date and authorship
of the New Testament books are as conserva-
tive as those of many who firmly believe both
in the humanity and the divinity of our Lord
Jesus Christ. This shows that no results of
criticism, however favourable to the traditional
view, can ever compel men to accept the Chris-
tian faith ; in the last resort their attitude to-
wards it will be determined, not by the intellect,
but by the conscience and the heart, operating
on the will. In this sense every man must
judge of the Gospel for himself, and is bound to
study the Scriptures for himself.

At the Eeformation, as we have said, the
people regained possession of the Bible. But
it was not long before they allowed it to fall
into the hands of specialists as before, — not
monks or priests, but academic theorists who
treated it as a theological text-book and left
too much out of account its human and homely
character. In "recent times, however, there

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 35

has been a strong reaction, and the discussion
of Biblical problems is now engaging the at-
tention of all classes of the people, especially
in Protestant lands. Handbooks dealing with
questions affecting the genuineness, authenti-
city, and exegesis of the Scriptures, have now
a wide circulation in forms more suitable for
popular use than at any previous time. In some
quarters, especially in Germany, such literature
is too often dominated by naturalistic theo-
ries regarding the origin of Christianity and
the person of the Saviour, with a tendency
to exalt the life of the nation above that of
the Church, and to merge theology in a philo-
sophy which can find no room for the super-
natural.

In these circumstances we can scarcely
wonder at the recent papal encyclical de-
nouncing Modernism, especially in view of
the fact that the more prominent Roman
Catholic critics, such as Tyrrell and Loisy,
like Renan in the previous generation, have
taken an extreme position on some of the
most vital questions involved. The conse-
quence is that the Church of Rome, which was
at one time less disposed to assert the infal-

36 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

libility of Scripture than Protestants, is now
claiming for it inspiration in the hardest and
most mechanical sense. Fearing that criticism
may undermine its whole dogmatic system, it
has set itself once more in opposition to the
principle of private judgment and to the rights
of the laity. In this, as in so many other re-
spects, it has departed widely from the spirit of
the primitive Church, in which there is little
or no trace of official or ecclesiastical domina-
tion in matters affecting the reception and in-
terpretation of the New Testament writings.

In this connexion it is interesting to find
that the result of recent research among the
papyri and other ancient memorials has been
to show that with very few exceptions the
books of the New Testament are written in
colloquial Greek, and were intended for the
use of the common people. This still further
justifies the Protestant position, and it is
fitted to exert a salutary influence on profes-
sional critics, checking any tendency to heart-
less pedantry, and bringing home the fact that
humanity and piety have even a more import-
ant part to play than learning and philosophy

i.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 37

in the just appreciation and the right use of
the New Testament.

As Professor Deissmann says : " The New
Testament is the people's book. When Luther,
therefore, took the New Testament from the
learned and gave it to the people, we can only
regard him as restoring what was the people's
own. And when at some tiny cottage window,
behind the fuchsias and geraniums, we see an
old dame bending over the open Testament,
there the old Book has found a place to which
by right of its nature it belongs. Or when a
Red Cross sister finds a New Testament in the
knapsack of a wounded Japanese, here too,
the surroundings are appropriate. . . . Time
has transformed the Book of the people into
the Book of Humanity."

But it is the Book of God as well as the
Book of Humanity, and for that reason it will
always maintain its supremacy as the Book of
Books. Thomas Carlyle said of it : " There
never was any book like the Bible and there
never will be another like it." That is a
verdict that will stand, not merely because of
the unparalleled influence which the Bible has

38 NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM [CHAP. i.

exerted and is still exerting as a moral and
intellectual force, but because it is the abiding
record and the true interpretation of a mani-
festation of God in human history, culminating
in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, that
can never be repeated while the world lasts.

CHAPTER II

TEXTUAL CEITICISM

THERE are two departments of New Testa-
ment Criticism, which are usually distinguished
as Higher and Lower, or as Historical and
Textual Criticism. While the former has to
do with questions affecting the authorship,
sources, and dates of composition of the sacred
writings, the aim of the latter is to determine
the ipsissima verba of the original documents
and remove any corruptions which may have
crept into the text. From a general point of
view the Higher Criticism is the more import-
ant, as it affects to a much greater extent the
credentials of the Christian faith. But it would
be a serious omission in such a course of
lectures as the present to ignore the part which
has been played by Textual Criticism since the
revival of Greek learning. It is a field of in-
quiry in which many difficult problems present

(39)

40 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

themselves ; and to the solution of these prob-
lems a vast amount of erudition, ability, and
industry has been devoted, not least by English
scholars.

Even if the results of Textual Criticism
merely affected the readings in individual
passages of Scripture, the labour of investiga-
tion would be well spent. But indirectly these
results have sometimes an important bear-
ing on questions of date and authorship, by
showing that the text had already become
deteriorated and must therefore have been
in existence for a considerable time. The im-
portance of Textual Criticism is enhanced at
the present day by the tendency of a certain
school of critics to undermine the historical
character of the Gospels and other books of
the New Testament by their ingenious theories
of interpolation.

The need for inquiry is primarily due to the
fact that the New Testament autographs have
all disappeared, and, so far as is known, have
all perished. This is only what might have been
expected, considering the fragile nature of the
material on which they were generally written.
That material was papyrus, translated by the

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 41

word " paper " in II John ver. 12, the only
passage in the New Testament in which the
word occurs.1

It was scarcely more durable than our
writing-paper, and in ordinary circumstances
could only have been preserved for many
centuries in a dry country like Egypt.2 During
the last thirty years many fragments of it have
come to light in that country, disinterred from
the rubbish heaps of buried towns and villages,
or imbedded in a material covered with plaster
which was used for mummy cases and in one
instance was found wrapped around entombed
crocodiles, whose bodies were also stuffed with
the same material. The oldest specimen was
found at Sakkara in 1893 and is dated 3580 B.C.

1 It was made from the pith of a plant which grew
in great abundance in the Nile and its marshes, and was
turned out in the form of sheets, from 3 to 9 inches wide,
which were glued together so as to form a roll, varying in
length according to the space required for the writing, but
scarcely ever more than 30 feet long. The writing was
arranged in narrow vertical columns, and, in using the
manuscript, the reader unrolled it with his right hand,
and rolled it up with his left.

2 The preservation of the papyri discovered at Her-
culaneum in the eighteenth century was due to the prox-
imity of Mount Vesuvius.

42 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Comparatively few of the fragments which
have been discovered relate to the New Testa-
ment, and any information these afford regard-
ing its text is of a very meagre character.
The oldest of them were discovered at Oxy-
rhynchus, and are usually assigned to the third
or fourth century. Two of them contain only
eighteen and thirty-two verses respectively, of
our first and fourth Gospels, but another has
about a third of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and is all the more precious because one of
our most ancient manuscripts is very defective
in that epistle. To the Biblical student the
chief value of the papyri lies in the information
they afford regarding the form and appearance
of the New Testament autographs and their
copies during the first three centuries, and the
characteristics of the language and literature
of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, when the
Old Testament was translated into Greek and
the New Testament writings (a little later)
came into existence. It is now apparent that
the language of the New Testament has much
more in common with the colloquial Greek of
the period than was formerly supposed to be
the case ; and the study of the papyri has

n.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 43

thrown considerable light on the orthography,
grammar, and vocabulary of the sacred writings.

Probably most of the New Testament papyri
were inscribed by private individuals, who
were not likely to copy with much precision,
and would be ready to make interesting addi-
tions to the text whenever they had any kind
of authority for doing so. Even in the cities
few of the Christians would be able to employ
professional scribes to make copies for them,
and there would not be such a large demand
for the sacred writings as to induce the book-
sellers to take an interest in their sale, as they
did in the case of some of the classical works.
In course of time, however, the demand in-
creased ; by the middle of the second century
there must have been thousands of copies in
circulation, and within a century afterwards
we find slaves put at the disposal of Origen for
the purpose of acting as scribes, their work
being revised by his friend and follower Pam-
philus, who used to carry about copies with
him for distribution.

In the fourth century papyrus began to be
superseded by vellum, which was not unknown
even in the first century, as we see from Paul's

44 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

reference to " parchments " in II Timothy 4 13,
which were probably manuscripts of the Old
Testament. About the same time as the
vellum began to come into general use for
the Christian writings, the roll gave place to
the book ; and in this and other respects more
attention began to be paid to the external
appearance of the Scriptures, largely owing to
the adoption of Christianity by the Roman
emperor.1

The copying of manuscripts soon became an
important industry both at episcopal sees and
in monasteries, and a great deal of art was
often expended on the work. Sometimes the
parchment used was of a purple colour, and
in some cases the lettering was executed in
gold and silver ink. The titles and initial

1 We read of Constantino giving an order to Eusebius,
Bishop of Caesarea, for fifty copies of a very fine quality,
suitable for use in the churches of his eastern capital.
Two of these appear to have survived to the present day,
the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which
probably emanated from Egypt. The latter was rescued
from oblivion nearly fifty years ago, having been found in
the monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai, by the
famous critic, Tischendorf, and now lies in the Library of
St. Petersburg. It is written on snow-white vellum, sup-
posed to have been made from the skins of antelopes.

H.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 45

lines were usually in red, and the initial letters
were beautifully ornamented. In one case
(Ev. 16) four different colours of ink were
used, the words of the evangelist being written
in green, those of Jesus in red, those of the
apostles in blue, and those of the enemies of
Jesus in black: By and by pictorial illustra-
tions were added, and the style of production
became so luxurious as to provoke the censure
of some of the monastic Orders. This led to
a reaction for a time, but the ornamental
style had again set in before the appearance
of the first printed Bible (in 1456), which was
also the first printed book. By that time
paper had come into general use. It first
made its appearance in Europe in the tenth
century, but the oldest Greek manuscript of
this material that has been preserved dates
only from the thirteenth century.

There are extant numerous manuscripts of
a later date than the sixth century, but the
only Greek manuscripts of an earlier date that
have come down to us, in addition to the
papyrus fragments, are the Codex Vaticanus
(B), at Rome, and the Codex Sinaiticus (N) at
St. Petersburg, both of the fourth century ;

46 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

the Codex Alexandrinus (A) in the British
Museum, and the Codex Ephraemi (C) at Paris,
both of the fifth century ; the Codex Bezae (D)
presented to Cambridge University by the
reformer in 1581, of the fifth or sixth cen-
tury ; l and a manuscript of the Gospels re-
cently discovered in Egypt and acquired by
an American named Freer, supposed to date
from the fourth century, which is to be known
as the Washington (W).

If it be asked what has become of the rest
of the manuscripts, it is not difficult to give an
answer. As regards papyri, their existence
would probably be confined during the first
two centuries to Alexandria and its neighbour-
hood, where the soil and climate would be too
damp to admit of their preservation, unless
special means were employed for the purpose.
This was very unlikely to be done, both be-
cause the material was too cheap to be worth
preserving, and because the improvements in
writing which were gradually introduced
rendered the later manuscripts more legible

1 The former date is preferred by Prof. Burkitt. See
his article, " The Date of Codex Bezae " in the Journal of
Theological Studies, Vol. III. (1901-2), pp. 501-13.

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 47

and therefore more valuable. As regards
manuscripts of a more substantial nature, we
know that many of them were destroyed in
the persecutions to which Christians were
subjected. Gildas, the historian, tells us that
in Britain great piles of . them were burned
during the persecutions of the third century ;
and in the Diocletian persecution in the be-
ginning of the next century immense numbers
were destroyed by imperial edict, many of
them having been given up to the authorities
by their owners to escape punishment.1 Great
havoc was also wrought on this and other
forms of church property in succeeding cent-
uries in connexion with the successive in-
vasions of the Roman Empire.

Notwithstanding all this, however, it is
estimated that there are about two thousand
five hundred different Greek manuscripts still
extant in whole or in part ; or, if we include

1 Eusebius, Bishop of Csesarea (who lived to see Christi-
anity adopted as the religion of the Empire), says : " With
mine own eyes I beheld the houses of prayer being plucked
down and razed to the ground, and the divine and sacred
Scriptures being consigned to the flames in the public
market-places."

48 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

lectionaries, about four thousand. In this re-
spect the New Testament is in a far superior
position not only to the Old Testament but to
almost all the classical works of antiquity.1
They fall into two classes, the Uncials
(numbering about 160, most of them frag-
ments), in which the characters are large and
written separately, and the Minuscules or
Cursives, dating from the eighth century,
when the running hand, which had been pre-
viously used in private correspondence only,
began to be adopted for literary purposes.
There is another kind of evidence, available

1 For example, of the plays of Sophocles there are about
a hundred manuscripts ; of ^Ischylus less than fifty ; of
Catullus there are only three ; of the Annals of Tacitus
only one complete ; and in each of these cases the earliest
manuscript is more than a thousand years later than the
original. A few of the ancient classics are represented by
hundreds of manuscripts, but in no case does any manu-
script come so near its original as the Codex Vaticanus
does. Papyri as early as the first century have been
recently discovered, containing some of the works of
Homer, Isocrates, and Aristotle ; but even this leaves a
longer interval between the composition and the date of
the earliest manuscript than is the case with the New
Testament.

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 49

to a very slight extent in the case of secular
literature, that comes to the aid of the Greek
manuscripts, and enables us to go back to an
early period in the history of the text. We re-
fer to the Versions, or translations of the New
Testament writings, ranging from the second
to the ninth century. Owing to the wide
prevalence of Greek throughout the Roman
Empire the need for such aids does not seem
to have been felt till near the close of the
second century, though oral translation in
church seems to have been in use long before
that time. Even as late as 200-230 A.D. we
find Greek freely employed by a Roman ec-
clesiastic, Hippolytus. But a little before
that time two versions appear to have come
into existence — a Syriac one in the East, and
a Latin one in the West, the latter occasioned
by the needs of the Church in Africa. The
Egyptian or Coptic version was probably more
than a century later, and was followed by the
Gothic and Armenian (the latter through the
Syriac) in the fourth century, the Georgian
and Ethiopic (both through the Syriac) in the
fifth century, and a number of others still
later, — the work of the missionary then, as

50 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

now, frequently calling for a translation of
the Scriptures into the vernacular.1

Although the oldest extant manuscripts of
versions date only from the fourth century,
they carry us back to the period in which the
version was produced, if we are sure that we
have the genuine text ; and our knowledge of
the date, and, to a certain extent, of the place
of its production, is a great help in determining
the value of the testimony borne by a version
to a particular reading, and its relation to
other authorities. There may sometimes be a
difference of opinion as to what its testimony
really is, owing to the want of exact correspon-
dence between its language and that of the
original ; but where the translation is of a
literal character — as it is, for example, in the
case of the old Latin version — the language of
the original in a disputed passage may be in-
ferred with a near approach to certainty.
Even the errors of the translator sometimes
indicate quite plainly what word he had before

1 It is estimated that there are about 8000 manuscripts
in Latin, and probably more than 1000 in the other
languages above mentioned. They are frequently bilingual,
having the Greek on one side and the version on the other.

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 51

him in the Greek ; while in a question of the
omission or insertion of a clause, an ordinary
version speaks as plainly as a manuscript in
the original. When the testimony of a version
is clear and unmistakable, its confirmation of
a reading may be more valuable, especially if
supported by another version, than if it were in
Greek, owing to the improbability of a passage
being corrupted in the same way in two, and
still less in three or more, different languages.
There is another kind of evidence that goes
back to a still earlier period than either manu-
scripts or versions, namely, the quotations from
the New Testament which are to be found in
the writings of early Christian writers usually
spoken of as the Church Fathers. Of these
writers there are nearly a hundred anterior
to the date of the earliest manuscript ; and
they sometimes expressly refer to the manu-
scripts in their hands and the various readings
to be found in them. The value of their
testimony, however, is much impaired by the
fact that having no concordance to consult,
and no division of the text into chapters and
verses, perhaps not even having a manuscript
beside them, they had frequently to quote

52 THK HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

from memory. The result is that their
citations cannot always be identified, much
less accepted as correct, especially when they
a IT brief — so brief that the writer did not think
it worth while to undo his roll, if he had one,
to reproduce the exact words. We have to
remember that the patristic writings, like the
Greek manuscripts and the versions, were
liable to corruption through the mistakes of
scribes, especially in the case of quotations
from Scripture, in which they would not feel
so much need to attend to what was before
them. But when there is reason to believe
that a passage contains a careful and accurate
quotation from Scripture, it bears witness to
the reading current in the writer's time and
country, and may afford valuable confirmation
of a reading found elsewhere, though little
reliance could be placed upon it if it stood
alone. In the matter of early and frequent
quotations, as in regard to manuscript au-
thorities, the New Testament books occupy
a better position than most of the ancient
classics.1 Towards the end of the second cen-

1 For example, the Annals of Tacitus, already referred
to, is not distinctly mentioned till the fifteenth century,

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 53

tury their contents are reproduced in great
abundance.

As the New Testament writings had origin-
ally little or no connexion with one another,
and, after their unity had begun to be re-
cognized, were too extensive to be conveniently
written on a single roll or codex, it was not
to be expected that they could be transmitted
through the hands of so many readers in dif-
ferent parts of the world, for fourteen centuries
before the invention of printing, without under-
going considerable alterations. As a matter
of fact, they had not been a century in existence
before many corruptions had crept into the
text, due partly to the imperfect way in which
the copying had been done by the Christians
themselves or by those whose services they
were able to engage at a rate suitable to their
humble means ; partly to the fact that the
sacred writings were not then treated with the
reverential care with which they were guarded
at a later period, when their authority was

although there is what may possibly be an allusion to
it in a work of the fifth century. Livy is not quoted for
a century, Thucydides for two centuries, after he wrote ;
while Herodotus is only quoted twice for two hundred
years after his death.

54 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

fully recognized by the Church ; and partly
also to the disappearance, through wear and
tear, of papyrus leaves or portions of leaves, and
the consequent attempts to fill up the gaps.
Alterations were sometimes deliberately made
for the purpose of improving the style, or to
harmonize passages, or with the intention of
correcting supposed errors in the text — a
practice which has often led to confusion. In
a few cases the object seems to have been to
strengthen a doctrinal position or to refute a
heresy ; and we know that several heretical
sects had a recension of certain books of the
Bible to suit their own views.1

A famous instance of corruption is found at
I John 5 7, which originated in the Vulgate
towards the close of the fourth century : " For
there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ;
and these three are one." The verse is only
found in Latin manuscripts until the fifteenth

1 They did not share the view expressed by Dr. Johnson
in conversation about Kennicott's edition of the Bible,
which it was hoped would be quite faithful : "I know not
any crime so great that a man could contrive to commit as
poisoning the sources of eternal truth."

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 55

century, when it appears for the first time in a
Greek manuscript. It seems to have been a
comment by Cyprian, and to have been ad-
mitted into the text by mistake. But it
obtained a permanent footing and was fre-
quently quoted as an argument for the doctrine
of the Trinity. It cannot for a moment be
defended, and is omitted as spurious in the
English Revised Version. Even in the seven-
teenth century it was denounced by Sir Isaac
Newton, and in the next century by Gibbon
and the great classical scholar Porson ; but
it found a defender in an archdeacon of the
Church of England (Travers), and to this day
it has never been repudiated by the Church of
Rome.

With the gradual unification of the Church
throughout the Roman empire and its recogni-
tion by Constantine as a national institution,
its sacred writings acquired a new importance
in the eyes of the community ; and their pub-
lication in a collective form, which was facili-
tated by the vellum codices coming into use,
afforded a new security for the preservation of
the text. Every precaution was taken by the
Church to prevent alterations or additions by

56 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

heretical writers, though there was still a
danger of accidental errors occurring in the
process of transcription, and of well-meant
additions being made through the inclusion of
marginal notes. Almost all the corruptions
known to us had made their appearance before
our great manuscripts were written, so that even
if a papyrus older than any extant manuscript
were yet to be discovered, its value as a witness
would depend upon its character and history,
which would have to be carefully investigated.
There is some reason to believe that a general
revision of the Greek text took place in the
beginning of the third century, and it is certain
that both Irenseus and Origen took a great
interest in textual questions. Origen, especi-
ally, perhaps the greatest Biblical scholar that
has ever lived, came across many perplexing
varieties of readings which he frequently dis-
cusses, telling us which reading is to be found
" in most manuscripts," in " the oldest manu-
scripts," or in "the best manuscripts." A
hundred and fifty years later we find Jerome
complaining that there were almost as many
texts as codices, although, in preparing the
Vulgate, he seems to have been very cautious

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 57

about departing from the text of the old Latin
version.

In these circumstances, we cannot be sur-
prised that the modern critic should find a
great amount of diversity in the texts of the ex-
tant manuscripts, and that he should often have
the greatest difficulty in deciding on the claims
of competing words and phrases. Although
the manuscripts are very seldom dated, their
age can generally be determined with more or
less accuracy from their style of penmanship,
punctuation, and arrangement. Generally
speaking, the older a manuscript is, the more
weight is to be attached to its testimony. Yet
the age of a manuscript is not an absolutely
safe criterion of its value, for it is quite pos-
sible that of two manuscripts dating from the
same century, one may have been copied
directly from a very pure and ancient source,
while the other may have a much less noble
pedigree and embody the faults of many ex-
emplars from which it has been successively
derived. It will readily be understood, there-
fore, that when the scholars of Western Chris-
tendom, soon after the Renaissance, took in
hand the preparation of an authentic text of

58 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

the New Testament, they entered upon a work
of very great difficulty — a work, indeed, of far
greater magnitude and complexity than they
had any conception of.

As might have been expected, the work has
been mainly done by Protestants. To them
it has seemed a more vital question than to
Roman Catholics, owing to the supreme im-
portance which they attach to Scripture,
rendering any uncertainty about its text a
much more serious thing for them than for
those who have Tradition to fall back upon.
In a sense the Roman Catholics were pre-
cluded from inquiry, as the Council of Trent
declared the Latin Vulgate l to be the
only authorized form of the Scriptures. But
scholarly instinct has sometimes asserted it-
self in spite of ecclesiastical prepossessions.
About the beginning of the seventeenth cen-

1 A recension of an earlier Latin version, prepared by
Jerome at the request of Pope Damasus, and published
383 A.D. The text approved by the Roman Catholic
Church is that of the edition authorized by Pope Clement
VIII in 1592, but a new edition is now in preparation by
a Commission of Benedictines appointed by Pope Pius X
in 1908. Quite recently a critical text of the Vulgate New
Testament has been published by the Clarendon Press
and the British and Foreign Bible Society.

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 59

tury Lucas of Bruges recognized that the true
text could only be determined by taking into
account all the three sources of information
already referred to. Nearly a century later
notable service was rendered to the cause of
historical criticism by Richard Simon, a French
Oratorian, who anticipated principles of Textual
Criticism which are now generally accepted.
He incurred the displeasure of his ecclesiasti-
cal superiors and had ultimately to leave the
Order. Two of his works were translated into
English in 1689 and 1692, which may be re-
garded as a sign of the interest already taken
in the movement in this country, due in large
measure to the gift in 1628 of the Alexandrine
manuscript of the whole Bible to Charles I
by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople,
and previously of Alexandria, where the manu-
script was found.

After the invention of printing, the first
edition of the Greek New Testament published
was that of Erasmus, which appeared in 1516
and was described as " ad Grsecam veritatem
. . . accurate recogniti," though he had done
the work very hurriedly and had consulted
very few manuscripts, none of them earlier

60 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

than the tenth century. In 1522 there ap-
peared the Complutensian Polyglot of the
Spanish Cardinal, Ximenes, the printing of
which had been begun eight years before. It
gave the text of the Greek New Testament
and the Latin Vulgate in parallel columns,
but, from a critical point of view, it had little
or no value, as the manuscripts used, although
described by the editor as " antiquissima et
emendatissima," were late and were used with-
out much skill. Almost the same may be
said of Stephen's " Regia " or third edition
(Estienne, Paris, 1550), though he made use of
two uncial manuscripts (Bezse and Claromon-
tanus) and thirteen cursives, and furnished an
" apparatus criticus " giving " varue lectiones "
in the margin.1 A few years later, Theodore
Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva, made a
contribution to the cause by publishing a
triglot edition of the New Testament, consist-
ing of Greek, Latin, and Syriac — with the
addition of Arabic in Acts and the Epistles

1 It is to Stephen we owe our division of Scripture into
verses. The division into chapters was the work of Stephen
Langton (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury) in the
thirteenth century.

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 61

to the Corinthians. A similar service was
rendered about the same time (1560-72) by
the " Antwerp Polyglot," edited by a Spanish
theologian. In 1624 the brothers Elzevir of
Leyden published an octavo edition, and in
1633 a revised form of it, containing the an-
nouncement : " Textum ergo habes nunc ab
omnibus receptum in quo nihil immutatum aut
corruptum damus." It was an empty boast,
for the text was virtually that of the fifth edition
of Erasmus, with the slight alteration made by
Beza. The name " Textus Receptus," however,
caught the public ear, and was extended in Eng-
land to Stephen's edition (of which our Author-
ized Version is a translation), though it was
even more defective than the Elzevir, being
practically the text of Erasmus's third edition,
improved in form by the division into chapters
and verses, as the second edition of the Elzevir
had been improved by the separation of sen-
tences into verses instead of their being num-
bered in the margin. The passages in which the
two texts differed from one another were less
than 300 in number ; and both alike represented
the traditional text which had been in use in
the Greek Church from the fourth century, and

62 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

is still to be found in numberless mediaeval
codices emanating from Constantinople and
the monasteries of Mount Athos. It is usually
called the Syrian or Antiochian text, and can
be clearly traced in the writings of Chrysostom,
who spent many years at Antioch before he
was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople.
This text may have been due to a deliberate
and systematic recension in the third or fourth
century, but, however this may be, it is in
many respects faulty, having many " conflate "
readings (formed by a combination of divergent
readings, supported by different authorities)
which do not represent the original Greek.
Under the name of the Textus Receptus, how-
ever, it gained such a hold on the confidence
and affection of the Protestant world, that for
more than two centuries it stood in the way
of any thorough revision, and was regarded as
the standard text by the British and Foreign
Bible Society, which circulated many millions
of copies of it in all parts of the world, until
the adoption of Prof. Nestle's text in 1904.

The first scholar in England to take up a
really critical attitude on this subject was
Brian Walton, an Episcopal divine, who, after

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 63

a chequered career, was appointed to the
See of Chester in 1660, on the restoration of
Charles II. In the previous year he had
brought out his " London Polyglot " in six
folio volumes, the first work ever published
by subscription in England.1 It was also the
first work in which the Alexandrine Codex was
consulted, as were also the Syriac, Ethiopic,
and Arabic versions, with the addition of the
Persian in the case of the Gospels. Investiga-
tion was continued by Bishop Fell of Oxford,2
who claimed to derive the text of his edition
of the New Testament (1675) from more
than a hundred manuscripts, including Codex
Laudianus of the Acts, which had been re-

1 It was originally published under the patronage of
Cromwell, but after the Restoration a new preface appeared
in which-the late Protector was styled " Maximus ille draco."

2 This is the same Bishop Fell whose name is familiar
to us in the well known lines,

I do not like thee, Dr. Fell,

The reason why, I cannot tell ;

But this I know, and know full well,

I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.

The dislike here expressed, however, had no reference to Dr.
Fell as a Biblical critic, but as an examiner in Christ Church,
Oxford, — the lines having been written by a student to
whom he had prescribed a difficult piece of Latin translation.

64 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

cently presented to the Bodleian Library by
Archbishop Laud, who had obtained it in
Germany.

Hitherto the results of textual criticism had
been rather of an unsettling character, ex-
citing in some quarters considerable suspicion
and distrust, not unlike that which the Higher
Criticism aroused in the nineteenth century.
When it became known, early in the eighteenth
century, as the result of the labours of John
Mill in collating manuscripts, versions, and
patristic quotations, that there were about
thirty thousand various readings in the New
Testament, the confidence of the public in
the Textus Receptus received a shock. While
Protestants were startled and perplexed, Ro-
man Catholics regarded the new results of
scholarly research as a proof that " the Pro-
testants had no assured principle for their
religion " (Richard Simon). To make matters
worse, the Deistic writers of the day claimed
the support of the new learning for their infidel
views, and affected to believe that it was all
over with the belief in a Divine revelation.
In Germany devout Protestants shared the
anxiety of their brethren in England. " More

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 65

than twenty years ago " (said Bengel, writing
in 1725), " before Mill appeared, at the very
beginning of my academic life, when I hap-
pened on an Oxford exemplar, I was greatly
distressed by the various readings, but all the
more was I driven to examine Scripture care-
fully, so far as my slender abilities would per-
mit, and afterwards, by God's grace, I got new
strength of heart" (Appar. Grit., 2nd ed. ;
1763). After a laborious examination of the
authorities within his reach, including the
manuscripts at Oxford and Paris, Mill pub-
lished an edition of the New Testament in 1707.
Its value lay not so much in the text, into
which he imported very few new readings,
being content to indicate them in the margin,
but in the prolegomena, of which Dr. Scrivener
says : " Though by this time too far behind the
present state of knowledge to bear reprinting,
they comprise a monument of learning such
as the world has seldom seen, and contain
much information the student will not even
now easily find elsewhere."

Mill's attempt to purify the text was not ap-
preciated as it deserved, but he found an able

defender in Dr. Bentley, the Master of Trinity

5

66 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

College, Cambridge, who believed in the possi-
bility of arriving at a nearer approach to the
original words of Scripture, and was the first to
realize fully the strong claim to consideration
of the more ancient manuscripts, while at the
same time alive to the importance of the early
versions and patristic writers. He lamented
that the same care had not been taken to re-
store the text of the New Testament as had
been bestowed on the classical works of anti-
quity. "The New Testament," he wrote,
" has been under a hard fate since the invention
of printing. . . . No heathen author has had
such ill fortune. Terence, Ovid, etc., for the
first century after printing, went about with
twenty thousand errors in them. But when
learned men undertook them, and from the
oldest manuscripts set out correct editions,
those errors fell and vanished. But if they
had kept to the first published text, and set
the various lections only in the margin, those
classical authors would be as clogged with
variations as Dr. Mill's Testament is."

In 1720 Bentley issued his " Proposals," set-
ting forth the principles on which he proposed
to amend the text of the New Testament, and

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 67

expressing the belief that as the result of his
investigations only about two hundred passages
would remain in which there would be any
room for doubt as to the words of the original.
He was disposed to attach great importance
to the Latin Vulgate, on the supposition that
it had been corrected by Jerome in the light
of the best Greek text of his day, and he be-
lieved (with a French critic Toinard, who
wrote somewhat earlier) that by a comparison
of the oldest Greek manuscripts with the Vul-
gate he would be able to reproduce the true
text, which he would find confirmed by the
Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Ethiopic versions.
But his proposed edition of the New Testament
never saw the light, partly, it is believed, ow-
ing to his finding that the results of collating
the Codex Vaticanus did not bear out his
theory to the same extent as the evidence of
the Codex Alexandrinus had done.

Another great name in the history of Text-
ual Criticism is that of a Lutheran minister
already mentioned, John Albert Bengel, who
devoted special attention to the manuscripts of
South Germany and brought out an edition of
the New Testament in 1734. The text, as he

68 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

stated, was to embody the marrow of approved
editions, but in the margin he gave a large
number of various readings arranged in five
grades of merit : (1) genuine ; (2) better than
the readings in the text ; (3) equal to the
readings in the text ; (4) inferior ; and (5)
not to be approved. His chief service con-
sisted in emphasizing the need for weigh-
ing manuscripts, not merely counting them ;
and in the introduction of a system for the
classification of manuscripts according to their
geographical connexion, dividing the extant
authorities into two classes, African and
Asiatic.

Contemporary with Bengel was another
learned commentator, Wetstein, who rendered
great service as a collator, examining more
than a hundred manuscripts, but without much
discrimination as to their age and value, and
without sufficient study of their mutual re-
lations. To him was due the introduction of
letters and numbers to designate manuscripts.
A little later, Prof. Semler of Halle developed
the idea of classification still further, distin-
guishing three classes, Alexandrian, Oriental,
and Western. Passing over the names of Har-

ii.] OP NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM

wood of London, Matthyei of Moscow, Alter
of Vienna, and Birch of Copenhagen, who were
all more or less distinguished in the work of
collating, we find the next distinct advance
made by Prof. Griesbach of Halle and Jena,
of whom it has been said by Dr. Hort : " What
Bengel had sketched tentatively was verified
and worked out with admirable patience,
sagacity, and candour by Griesbach, who was
equally great in independent investigation and
in his power of estimating the results arrived at
by others." Griesbach made a better use of the
critical materials which had now accumulated
than any of his contemporaries, though he
sometimes pressed his theory too far. He
based his classifications largely on the evidence
afforded by the versions as to geographical
connexion, dividing manuscripts into Western
and Alexandrian, and disregarding Bengel's
" Asiatic," which he called Constantinopolitan,
as being compiled out of the other two.1

1 About this time two Roman Catholic professors took
part in the controversy. The one was Hug of Freiburg,
who drew attention to the importance of patristic quota-
tions, as indicating both the time and place at which cer-
tain readings prevailed, and anticipated the conclusion
which has now been arrived at as to the prevalence of the

7d THK HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

The next great name is that of Carl Lach-
mann, Professor of Classical Philology in
Berlin, who was the first to discard entirely
the Textus Receptus, and to build up a text for
himself (1831) on the basis of the evidence
afforded by the best documentary witnesses.
Distinguishing between the Oriental and the
Occidental text, he was content to aim at the
recovery of the best fourth century text, and
for this purpose divided manuscripts into
African and Byzantine. He also laid down a
number of valuable rules or canons for deciding
between competing readings, as had been pre-
viously done by Griesbach, and, to some extent,
by Bengel. Lachmann's attempt to construct
a text for himself was only the first of many
similar experimants by subsequent critics, who
sought a still nearer approach to the original
by going behind the Vulgate and the oldest
Greek manuscripts to the versions and Church
Fathers of a still earlier date.

The latter half of the nineteenth century
was distinguished by the critical achievements

Western type of text ; the other was Scholz of Bonn, who
collected upwards of six hundred manuscripts, but collated
few of them, and was somewhat of a reactionary in his views.

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 71

of a number of eminent scholars, whose names
will always be associated with this branch of
theological inquiry. Most of them were Eng-
lishmen, but perhaps the greatest of them all
was Tischendorf, Professor of Theology at
Leipsic, who visited many lands and spent an
immense amount of labour in the attempt to
make himself acquainted with the best docu-
mentary authorities, particularly the oldest
Greek manuscripts — the libraries at Patmos
and Sinai engaging his special attention.
Tischendorf was a most voluminous writer
and editor as well as a careful and diligent
collator. The most valuable of his numerous
editions of the New Testament is the eighth
(Octava Critica Major), which was reissued
by Caspar Ren£ Gregory and Dr. Ezra Abbot
with prolegomena, forming a wonderful store
of all the knowledge then available on the sub-
ject. He also helped to develop the principles
of Textual Criticism, from a scientific point of
view, by subdividing Lachmann's classification
of manuscripts into Alexandrian and Latin,
Asiatic and Byzantine, and by laying down a
number of additional rules for appraising the
value of readings.

72 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Among his contemporaries, Tischendorf had
only one rival in this field of scholarship,
namely, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, who was
equal to him in ability and zeal, but less fortu-
nate in his discoveries and more cautious in
coming to conclusions. While Tischendorf
published more than twenty editions of the
New Testament in little more than thirty years,
Tregelles was content to issue one edition,
after twenty years' preparation for it. The
critical principles of the two men agreed in
the main, although they did not always arrive
at the same conclusions.

In contrast with them we may place Dr.
Scrivener, Prebendary of Exeter, and Dr.
Burgon of Chichester, who represented more
conservative tendencies. In his " Introduc-
tion to the Criticism of the New Testament "
Dr. Scrivener says : " All that can be inferred
from searching into the history of the sacred
text amounts to no more than this : that ex-
tensive variations, arising no doubt from the
wide circulation of the New Testament in
different regions and among nations of diverse
languages, subsisted from the earliest period
to which our records extend. Beyond this

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 73

point our investigations cannot be carried with-
out indulging in pleasant speculations which
may amuse the fancy but cannot inform the
sober judgment." Dean Burgon went still
further than this in depreciation of the study,
denouncing the attempt to improve the received
text by comparing it with ancient manuscripts.
The value of these manuscripts he was dis-
posed to estimate in the inverse ratio of their
antiquity, holding that it was in consequence
of their having been little esteemed and little
used that they had survived better and more
authentic texts. Such opinions can only be
held by those who believe that the very words
of scripture were not only dictated by the
Divine Spirit but have also been preserved by
Divine providence, — a theory of which most
men find a practical refutation in the fact that
various readings have been found in the text
of the New Testament as far back as testimony
carries us, and that it is even possible that
some of these readings may have been due to
amendments made upon later copies by the
sacred writers themselves. In the collation of
minuscules both Scrivener and Burgon did good
service, and the latter also made a notable

74 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

collection of patristic quotations from the
New Testament.

During the period to which we have just
referred, two events occurred in the English-
speaking world which showed how little sym-
pathy was felt by the leading Biblical scholars
with the opinions represented by Dean Burgon,
and at the same time marked the progress
which had been made in working out the
principles of a scientific Textual Criticism.
We refer to the* issue in 1881 of the Revised
English Version of the New Testament, pre-
pared by a Commission of British and Ameri-
can scholars, and the publication, in the same
year, of Westcott and Hort's " New Testament
in Greek," with its elaborate introduction on
the principles and methods of Textual Criticism.
While the main object of the Revision was
to correct errors in translation, the emendation
of the text was not overlooked. As the Re-
visers in their preface state : " A revision of
the Greek text was the necessary foundation
of our work ; but it did not fall within our
province to construct a continuous and com-
plete Greek text." One of the rules they laid
down was that the text to be adopted should

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 75

be " that for which the evidence is decidedly
preponderating," — a rule which could only
be faithfully carried out by an earnest
endeavour to arrive at a just verdict with
regard to every disputed reading, without
partiality and without prejudice. Accordingly
we find that nearly 6000 new readings were
adopted (mainly in accordance with Westcott
and Hort's text), notwithstanding the fact that
the Commission included Dr. Scrivener, the
most influential representative of the conserva-
tive school. The value of Westcott and Hort's
work lay chiefly in systematizing the results
previously arrived at, and in the further
development and application of the " genea-
logical " principle for the classification of the
authorities. Recognizing that any classifica-
tion is necessarily imperfect owing to the
mixture of texts which is to be found in almost
every manuscript, they hit upon the expedient
of grouping together the witnesses in favour
of any reading in question, and then appraising
the value of their united testimony by a series
of experiments in other disputed passages
where the true reading had been already
ascertained. This is called the " Internal

7" THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Evidence of Groups," just as the general char-
acter of an individual manuscript, when simi-
larly tested, comes under Internal Evidence of
Documents. It may be questioned whether
these principles and methods will ever be much
improved upon, but the conclusions derived
from their application are naturally subject to
revision.

Even those who cannot accept Westcott and
Hort's conclusions ought to admire the candour
and impartiality with which they have done
their work. It was charged against them and
the other Revisers by Canon Liddon that they
had treated the matter as a literary rather than
as a religious enterprise. In a sense this was
their merit. If they had been guided by
their feelings rather than by their judgment,
they would have retained a number of passages,
insufficiently attested, which had endeared
themselves to the heart of Christendom or had
rendered service as witnesses for doctrinal
truths. Of the former we have examples in
the first of the Seven Words from the Cross :
" Father, forgive them ; for they know not
what they do," and in the account of the
Saviour's agony in Gethsemane ; both of which

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 77

are excluded from the text by Westcott and
Hort, but are retained by the Revisers with a
marginal note, stating, in the one case, that some,
in the other, that many " ancient authorities
omit." The exclusion of these passages from
the text does not imply that they are not
authentic records. On the contrary, Westcott
and Hort express a conviction that they are
" the most precious remains of the evangelical
traditions, written or oral, which were rescued
from oblivion by the scribes of the second
century." l Another familiar expression which
the Revisers would fain have retained in the
text, if they could have honestly done so, is
the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer
in Matt. 6 13.2

1 The Jewish writer, Montefiore, therefore, in his recent
work on the Synoptic Gospels, in which he pays a high
tribute to the character and teaching of Jesus, is in
error when he infers from the exclusion of the First
Word from the cross that the noblest and most original
sayings ascribed to Jesus are not always authentic.

- Yet we find Dean Goulburn, in his Life of Dr. Burgon,
saying : " Are not these three passages alone — the record
of the agony, the record of the first saying on the cross,
and the Doxology of the Lord's Prayer — passages of such
value as to make it wrong and cruel to shake the faith of
ordinary Bible readers in them ? "

78 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Illustrations of the Revisers' readiness to
give up traditional evidence for the divinity
of Christ, when it formed no part of the original
text, are found in their substitution of 05 for
0eo9 in I Timothy 3 16, making the verse read,
" He who was manifested in the flesh," instead
of "God manifest in the flesh," and in the
omission of Acts 8 37, " and Philip said, If thou
believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God." They were even
willing to prefer a reading which implied
inaccuracy on the part of the Evangelist in
quoting from the Old Testament, e.g. in Mark
1 2, " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,"
instead of " As it is written in the prophets,"
—on the principle that it was more likely the
original was altered in order to correct the
mistake, than that the mistake had crept into
the text through the error of a copyist.

Since the publication of the Revisers' monu-
mental work several new editions of the
Greek New Testament have made their ap-
pearance, the most notable being " The Re-
sultant Greek Testament" (3rd edition, 1905),
by the late R. F. Weymouth, which repre-

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 79

sents the general consensus of former leading
editors ; and the more recent text of Prof.
Nestle of Matilbronn (7th edition, 1908), based
on a stricter selection of authorities, and
furnished with additional information of a
critical nature. A new edition of the text
used by the Revisers (Oxford, 1881), with a
fresh critical apparatus prepared by Prof.
Souter, has recently been published (1910).1

But finality in this field of labour has by no
means yet been attained. Much still requires
to be done, and much is being done, to secure
an accurate text of the different versions and
of the Church Fathers, and new manuscripts
are making their appearance which may throw
new light on disputed points. In 1882 a
palimpsest copy of the Gospels in Syriac was
obtained by Mrs. Lewis from the same convent
in which Tischendorf found the Codex Sinai-
ticus. The original writing, which had been
temporarily effaced, apparently in the eighth

1 The first volume of an elaborate work by Prof, von
Soden of Berlin, which undertakes to give the oldest
attainable form of the New Testament text, and has had
the advantage of a wider examination of minuscules than
any previous edition of the New Testament, was published
jn 1912,.

80 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

century, to make way for an entertaining
account of the lives of women saints, has been
in a great measure restored by means of a
chemical agent. It is believed to represent
an older form of the Syriac than even the
Curetonian manuscript, which was brought
from Egypt in 1842, and edited by Dr. W.
(Jureton, of the British Museum. Until that
time the Peshitta had been regarded as the
original form of the Syriac version, but it is
now supposed to have been the work of Eab-
bula, Bishop of Edessa in the fifth century,
and to have been introduced into the churches
of his diocese for the purpose of superseding
the Diatessdron of Tatian, which had been in
use there for more than two hundred years.

The Sinaitic Syriac contains several fresh
readings of an interesting nature. In Matthew
2 2, after the words " Where is he that is born
King of the Jews," it has the words " for we
have seen His star from the east," not " in the
east "—indicating that the rise of the fateful
star had been observed by the Chaldaean as.-
trologers. And in John 1 41 it says of Andrew :
" At dawn of day he findeth his own brother
and saith to him, We have found the Messiah."

nj OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 81

This is very likely to be the true reading,
7rpa)i in the Greek having been mistaken for
irpuTov owing to its being followed by rov.

But the testimony of this new manuscript
has still more important bearings of a general
nature. Agreeing, as it usually does, with the
Old Latin Version, it has materially altered
the balance of evidence with regard to the
value of the Western text, which Westcott
and Hort held in little esteem, and it has im-
parted a new interest to the chief representa-
tive of that text, Codex Bezae ; though, on
the other hand, an Armenian manuscript of
the Gospels, assigned to the tenth century,
which was discovered in 1891 by F. C. Cony-
beare, lends some support to Westcott and
Hort's high estimate of the Codex Vaticanus,
by a note which goes far to explain and justify
the blank left in that codex where the last
twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark are
usually found. The note consists of two
words inserted in the blank space, namely,
"The Presbyter Ariston's," from which we
may infer that the omitted passage was attri-
buted by the scribe to " Aristion," one of the
personal followers of the Lord, from whom

82 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Papias tells us that he had been in the habit
of collecting information to supplement the
written Word.1

That the Western text was the predominant
one in the second century is evident from the
oldest versions as well as from the writings of
the early Church Fathers ; but it is open to
question whether it represents a primitive
Greek text or was gradually formed by a series
of accretions. Another cognate question is,
Where did the Latin version originate, and
what were its historic relations to the Syriac
version ? The Western text is remarkable for
the number of its additions and interpolations,
especially in the Third Gospel and the Acts of
the Apostles, and it has been suggested that
the peculiar readings in these books may have
been derived from early Greek sources. An-
other characteristic of this text, especially in
Luke's works, is that it frequently offers an
alternative rendering of such a nature that it

1 There are two other forms of this supposititious passage,
one (shorter), for which the chief authority is Codex Regius
of the eighth century, and another (from which Jerome
quotes in his "Dialogue against the Pelagians") that is
found in no other Greek manuscript but the Washington
already mentioned.

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 83

is difficult to find a reason for rejecting either.
So much is this the case that Prof. Blass and
Sir William Ramsay are disposed to attribute
these variations to the issue of a second edition
of his works by Luke himself, the first edi-
tion of the Gospel, in the opinion of Blass,
having been prepared for Theophilus, and the
second edition for the Church in Rome ; while
in the case of Acts he supposes the order to
have been reversed.

Recently a new theory has been advanced
by Prof, von Soden, involving a new classi-
fication of manuscripts, for which he has also
invented a new notation. A leading feature
in this theory is that the Diatessaron of Tatian
was largely responsible for the corruption of
the Greek text of his day. Fresh problems are
thus always rising up. In their solution we
may hope that the ingenuity of critics will be
aided not only by a more exact presentation
of the evidence already known to exist, but
also by the discovery of fresh documents,
especially in the form of papyri, the search for
which is now being earnestly carried on. A
new factor in the situation is that all such
documentary evidence can now be rendered

84 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

widely available for examination by means of
photographic reproduction. Whatever happens,
there is no reason to expect that the integrity
of the text will ever be more seriously affected
than it is at present, but rather the reverse.
We may look forward to the future of Textual
Criticism with interest but without misgiving,
as our successors will probably be doing a
hundred years hence.

Absolute certainty on this subject will never
be attained. But meanwhile what shall we
say of the results of the studies and investiga-
tions which have been carried on for the last
three or four hundred years ? Instead of the
30,000 readings reckoned up by Mill, their
number is now estimated to be not far short
of 200,000, counting the same reading again
and again, as often as it occurs in a passage
where a. different reading is also found ; while
the number of different Greek manuscripts, in
which the New Testament is found in whole
or in part, has also been multiplied. The in-
crease of numbers need not alarm us, for in
the multitude of witnesses, as of counsellors,
there is safety. One advantage we derive is
that there is little or no need for conjectural

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 85

emendation, as there is in the case of the Old
Testament and the Apocryphal literature.
Moreover, the passages in which there are
textual difficulties are far less numerous than
in other ancient literature, and it may be con-
fidently asserted that even if all the words in
dispute were to be cut out of the New Testa-
ment, it would not affect a single doctrine of
the Christian faith or a single important fact
in the Gospel history. It was said by Dr.
JBentley, referring to the state of matters in
his day : " Make your thirty thousand as many
more, if numbers of copies can ever reach that
sum : all the better to a knowing and a serious
reader, who is thereby more richly furnished
to select that which he sees genuine. But even
put them into the hands of a knave or a fool,
and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd
choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any
one chapter, or so disguise Christianity but
that every feature of it will still be the same."
A hundred and fifty years later, we find West-
cott and Hort declaring that " the words still
subject to doubt only make up about one-
sixtieth of the whole New Testament," and
that " the amount of what can in any sense

86 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

be called substantial variation is but a small
part of the whole residuary variation, and can
hardly form more than a thousandth part of
the entire text."

In these circumstances, it may perhaps be
thought that the questions involved in Textual
Criticism are merely of an academic nature,
with little or no bearing on the practical in-
terests of the Christian religion, and that the
subject is scarcely worthy of the immense
amount of time and learned labour which has
been expended on it. This is by no means the
case, for even if the results were less important
than they are, the subject is one which could
not be neglected without reproach by any
Church which has in its service professors
of sacred learning and an educated ministry.
If the discovery of the North or the South
Pole is regarded by explorers as a worthy
object of ambition, for which they are will-
ing to make great sacrifices without having
the prospect of deriving any practical advan-
tage from it, we surely cannot but appreci-
ate and admire the zealous and painstaking
efforts of scholars to ascertain the very
words of Scripture. As Bengel says : " The

ii.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 87

smallest particle of gold is gold, but we must
not allow that to pass as gold which has not
been proved." Or, to quote the words of
a recent editor who rendered notable service
in this department (Dr. Nestle) : " Whoever
should conclude that New Testament criticism
has reached its goal, would greatly err. As
the archaeologist in Olympia or Delphi exhumes
the scattered temples, and essays to recombine
the fragments in their ancient splendour, so
much labour is still needed before all the
stones shall have been collected, and the
sanctuary of the New Testament writings re-
stored to its original form."

The following enumeration by Prof, von Soden of
tasks still to be accomplished (quoted by Prof. Souter
in his work on " The Text and Canon of the New
Testament ") will give the reader some idea of what
still remains to be done in this field of scholarship :
"An investigation of the history of the European
Latin pre-Hieronymian version, with the reconstruc-
tion of its original form as goal ; a collection as
critically sifted as possible of all patristic citations
in the Greek and Latin languages prior to the date
+ 325, but including Augustine's ; at the same time
the treatment of citations by translators of Greek
patristic works into Latin is to be tested ; a sys-

88 NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM [CHAP. n.

tematic investigation of all patristic citations in the
fourth century, to fix whether and how far the re-
censions have persisted in their original words
(vocabulary) ; monographs on single manuscripts or
groups of manuscripts, including the previous history
and the character of the therein reproduced text and
the history of the manuscript ; a restoration of the
archetype of the bilingual edition of Paul on the
basis of D.E.F.G., a task complete in itself and not
difficult nor tedious, which could be accomplished
by a university seminar for textual criticism in two
terms ; a fixing of the possible interworkings between
the Egyptian translations and Greek texts, specially
the H text, as also of the direct relations between the
Sahidic and Bohairic translations in their original
forms and their possible stages of development ; the
translation of Ulfilas, source and causes of its di-
vergences from K (after the manner of Odefoy,
" Das gotische Lukas-Evangelium," 1908) ; revision
of the Wordsworth- White text of Jerome, the estab-
lishment of the principles followed by Jerome in his
revision of the Old-Latin text, as also of the Greek
text consulted by him in connexion with this ; the
Greek texts behind the later Oriental translations,
so far as they are made directly from Greek (this has
as yet been fixed more or less exactly only for the
Armenian and the Ethiopic)."

CHAPTER III

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW >
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MAEK
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE
IN taking up in succession the different parts
of the New Testament and dealing shortly
with the various critical problems to which
they have given rise, we shall begin with the
Gospels, not because they stand first in the
New Testament, nor yet because they came
first in the order of publication, which we have
no reason to believe was the case, but because
they embody the earliest traditions of the
Christian Church, and contain the chief record
of the facts concerning the birth, death, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ, which lie at the

1 The titles prefixed to the several Books of the New
Testament, like the subscriptions appended to many of the
Epistles, formed no part of the original manuscripts, and
were the work of copyists.

(89)

90 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

foundation of our faith. We say the chief
record, for it must not be imagined that if we
lost the testimony of the four Gospels we
should be left altogether destitute of informa-
tion on this all-important subject. The Acts
of the Apostles and the Epistle to the He-
brews contain various references to Christ's
life and teaching ; and in the undisputed
Epistles of Paul, written within a generation
after the death of the Saviour, we find allusions
to His incarnation, His appointment of apostles,
His institution of preaching and of the Lord's
Supper, His betrayal and crucifixion, His re-
surrection and ascension, and the supreme
authority committed to His trust. It is not
too much to say that the study of these
Epistles gives one the impression that the
story of Christ's death and resurrection was
the chief theme of the great Apostle's preach-
ing— two passages of I Corinthians in particular
affording direct evidence of this (II23-27 and

15.")-

But while great value attaches to Paul's
letters in this as well as in other respects, the
Gospels will always be the most precious part
of Scripture in the estimation of the Church,

HI.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 91

and the authenticity of their contents will
always be the most important question with
which criticism can deal. Happily, as regards
the dates assigned to them by the most com-
petent critics, the Gospels now stand in a
much more favourable position than they did
fifty years ago, when, according to the widely
received views of the Tubingen school, they
were supposed to have come into existence in
the middle or end of the second century.
The change of opinion has been due partly to
the more thorough investigation of old evi-
dence, and partly to the discovery of fresh
documents. It never admitted of doubt that
in the last quarter of the second century the
four Gospels which we possess were widely
circulated in all parts of Christendom, being
used for public worship and for private read-
ing by innumerable Christians who regarded
them as the sacred depository of a Divine
revelation. But until lately many scholars
were disposed to doubt whether they could be
traced back in their present form to a much
earlier period. In particular it was questioned
whether the " memoirs of the apostles," fre-
quently referred to by Justin Martyr about the

02 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

middle of the second century, were identical
with our Gospels. But any reason there ever
was for such a doubt has been largely removed
by the testimony afforded by Tatian's "Dia-
tessaron," a work which was hardly known to
scholars in more than name till near the close
of last century. Tatian was a pupil of Justin,
and the title of his work naturally suggested
that it was intended to be a harmony of the
four Gospels. This was disputed, however,
until an Arabic translation of the work came to
light, and was published at Rome, along with
a Latin translation, in 1888, on the occasion
of the jubilee of Leo XIII. An examination
of these documents, along with an Armenian
and a Latin translation of a Syrian commentary
on Tatian's work by Ephrsem of Edessa (c.
A.D. 373), which had previously come to light,
has proved that the " Diatessaron " was un-
doubtedly a compilation from the four Gospels
which we possess. Another work from which
fresh testimony has been derived is " The Re-
futation of All Heresies " by Hippolytus, an
eminent Roman ecclesiastic, who wrote near
the end of the second century. A manuscript
of it was found on Mount Athos in 1842, and

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 93

was published in 1851. On examination it
was found to contain many quotations from
earlier Christian writers, chiefly heretics, in-
cluding Basilides, an eminent Gnostic who
wrote about A.D. 125. These quotations con-
tain many allusions to the Gospels and other
parts of the New Testament, and the allusions
are of such a nature as to imply that the
writings referred to held a position of authority
in the Church and were considered to be on a
level with the Old Testament Scriptures — a
position which it must have taken them a
considerable time to attain.

Again, in the " DidacheV' or Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, which was discovered in the
library of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem
at Constantinople in 1873, and is usually as-
signed to the beginning of the second century,
we find distinct echoes of expressions used in
our Gospels, especially in that of Matthew.
In this connexion mention may also be made
of the " Apology " of Aristides, an Athenian
philosopher (c. A.D. 140), which was discovered,
in the form of a Syrian translation, about
thirty years ago in St. Catherine's, Mount
Sinai. Being addressed to Gentiles resident

94 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

in Greece, who could not be expected to be
acquainted with Christian literature, it was not
likely to contain many quotations from Scrip-
ture, but we find in it allusions to the chief
facts of Christ's life, including His birth from
a Hebrew virgin and His ascension ; and it
appeals to the Gospel for confirmation of these
things.

There are other witnesses, of a still earlier
date, whose testimony is now much more
firmly established than it was half a century
ago. Among these are, in particular, Clem-
ent of Rome's " Epistle to the Corinthians,"
written about A.D. 95 ; the seven genuine
Epistles of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, writ-
ten about A.D. 115, while he was on his way
to suffer martyrdom at Rome ; and the Epistle
addressed to* the Philippians, probably within
a year afterwards, by Polycarp, Bishop of
Smyrna, a disciple of the Apostle John,—
all of which writings show unmistakable signs
of acquaintance with one or more of our
Gospels. To this we may add the evidence
afforded by the fragments of Papias's " Ex-
position of the Lord's Oracles," preserved by
Eusebius. The author of this work, who was

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 95

Bishop of Hierapolis about A.D. 135, had been
a friend of Polycarp and had a personal ac-
quaintance with a number of those who had
been disciples or hearers of the Lord.

All such testimony, before being accepted,
has been subjected to severe cross-examination
by those who are unfavourable to traditional
views. As an illustration of this we may
refer to the " Epistle of Barnabas," which is
preserved in full in the " Codex Sinaiticus "
and in one of the manuscripts discovered at
Constantinople in 1873. The work is usually
believed to date from the end of the first
century, and it contains in the fourth chapter
what seems to be a quotation from the Gospel
of Matthew, namely, " Many are called but
few chosen," preceded by the words, " as it is
written," which is the usual formula of quota-
tion from a canonical book. As long as the
work was known only through a Latin transla-
tion, it was permissible to suggest that the
words in question were an interpolation by a
translator familiar with our Gospel. This
was the line taken by a number of critics,
though Hilgenfeld, one of the leaders of the
Tubingen school, admitted that the words used

96 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

in the original might have been " as Jesus
said." When the Greek manuscript came to
light, as part of the " Codex Sinaiticus," in
1859, and the Latin translation was found
to be correct, it might have been expected
that there would be an end of the matter.
But instead of that, it was suggested that the
quotation might have been taken not from
Matthew's Gospel, but from the second Book
of Esdras, though the nearest approach to the
words in question that is to be found there is :
" Many are created but few shall be saved."
Another suggestion was that the quotation
might be from some apocryphal book now
lost, while one eminent critic tried to explain
away the formula of quotation as due to a
lapse of memory on the part of the writer,
who had forgotten where he saw the words.

In estimating the value of the testimony
which the Apostolic Fathers bear to the
Gospels, it should be remembered that while
all their extant writings put together hardly
exceed in length the first two of our Gospels,
they represent the faith of the Church in
many different centres widely distant from
one another, in Europe and Asia and perhaps

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 97

also in Africa ;. and, furthermore, that besides
frequently reproducing the language of the
Gospels they agree with them in the general
tenor of their teaching, — so much so that
Bishop Westcott has said with truth that " the
Gospel which the Fathers announce includes
all the articles of the ancient Creeds."

At this point reference may be made to
what are called the Apocryphal Gospels, a
fairly numerous class of writings which bear
in many cases the names of apostles. A col-
lection of them was published nearly a hundred
years ago, when an attempt was made to show
that they belonged to the same class as the
canonical Gospels, and to make out that they
had been suppressed in the interests of ortho-
doxy about the time of the Council of Nice.
This was generally felt to be an untenable
position, but for some time it was thought
by a certain school of critics that the Apo-
cryphal Gospels might be among the narra-
tives referred to in the preface of the Third
Gospel, and that their contents would be
found to illustrate the conflicting forces
which, according to the Tubingen theory, were
struggling for the mastery in the primitive

98 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Church ; while the canonical Gospels repre-
sented the resultant policy of compromise
which was generally adopted in the second
century. But fuller investigation has proved
that nearly all those extraneous writings show
signs of dependence on one or more of our
Gospels, and that they were composed either
to gratify curiosity with regard to topics little
dealt with in the canonical writings, such as
the early life of Jesus and of Mary His mother,
or to bolster up some heresy, generally of a
Gnostic character. Several of them were in
existence in the second century, and may con-
tain some authentic traditions not found in
our Gospels ; e.g., the Gospel according to the
Hebrews (assigned by some critics to the
end of the first century), of which fragments
have been preserved for us by Jerome ; the
Gospel of the Egyptians, to which the seven
sayings of our Lord discovered in Egypt about
twenty years ago may have belonged ; and the
Gospel of Peter, a considerable part of which
was discovered in Egypt in 1886. To the
second century may also be assigned the apo-
cryphal " Protevangelium " of James, which
deals with the early life of the mother of

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 99

Jesus and relates many incidents connected
with His birth.

Many works of a similar nature appeared in
the course of the next two centuries. Among
the books forbidden by the decree of Pope
Gelasius in the end of the fifth century was a
Gospel of Barnabas, and a few years ago there
was published an English translation of a work
bearing that title, which was found in an
Italian manuscript at Vienna, being appar-
ently the only copy of the work in existence.
It seems to have been the result of a mani-
pulation of the canonical Gospels in the in-
terests of Mohammedanism, and represents
Jesus as denying that He was the Messiah,
and as going up to heaven without dying on
the cross, the latter fate being reserved for
Judas. Missionaries found the work to be
a favourite subject of conversation among
Mohammedans in India and Persia, and they
urged its publication in order that its spurious
character might be exposed.

None of the Apocryphal Gospels seems
to have had an extensive circulation; and,
speaking generally, we may say that they
add nothing of value to our knowledge of

100 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

the Saviour's life and teaching, and in their
exaggeration and unreality present a striking
contrast to the simplicity and sincerity which
distinguish the evangelic records in the New
Testament.

The history of opinion with regard to
the Gospel of Marcion, which is sometimes
reckoned among the Apocryphal Gospels,
illustrates the trend of criticism, to which we
have referred. Marcion was bishop of Pontus
in Asia Minor in the early part of the second
century. He was one of the first of those
Christian idealists, as we may call them, who
attach little importance to the historical frame-
work of revelation or to the literal sense of
Scripture. Having an intense aversion to
Judaism he rejected the whole of the Old
Testament ; and of the New Testament he
accepted only ten Epistles of Paul and a
Gospel of his own compilation, setting thus an
example of eclecticism, which was followed by
many Gnostic sects, each desiring a Gospel to
suit its own views. It was evident long ago,
from the extensive quotations from Marcion's
Gospel which were to be found in the writings
of Tertullian, that it had much in common

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 101

with our Third Gospel. But those who looked
on the latter with suspicion were disposed to
regard it as a corrupt expansion of Marcion's
work, and therefore posterior to it in date.
The result of a more thorough investigation,
however, has been to prove to the satisfaction
even of extreme critics that the reverse is
the case, Marcion's work being nothing but a
mutilated edition of the Third Gospel. This
obviates what might have been a serious ob-
jection to the Lucan authorship of the latter,
and bridges over a considerable part of the
time anterior to Marcion which has to be
accounted for in tracing the history of the
book.

The three first Gospels, Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, have been known as the Synoptic
Gospels ever since Griesbach applied the name
to them more than a century ago (in contra-
distinction to the Fourth Gospel), because they
present us with a general view of the Saviour's
ministry in Galilee. At the same time, each
of them has distinct characteristics of its own,
which were early recognized and have been
frequently illustrated. As early as the second
century the four Gospels were supposed to be

102 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

symbolically represented by the four faces of
the cherubim described in Ezekiel 1 10, namely,
those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle (cf.
Rev. 4 7). Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine,
and Jerome had each a different way of ap-
plying the comparison, but Jerome's inter-
pretation, according to which Matthew is
identified with the man, Mark with the lion,
Luke with the ox, and John with the eagle, is
that which is now generally adopted in works
of art. Apart from symbolism, the First Gos-
pel may be described as Messianic, exhibit-
ing the life of Jesus, in word and deed, as a
fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, and
being thus specially adapted to the tastes and
needs of Jewish Christians ; the Second de-
picts Him in relation to the present rather
than to the past, and by its graphic picture
of His beneficent and victorious energy, was
fitted to commend Him to the Roman mind ;
the Third, written by a Greek, represents Him
as the destined Saviour of the whole human
race, including even the weak, the poor, the
despised ; while the Gospel of John, rising
superior to all three, carries the thoughts of
the reader into a higher region, where there is

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 103

neither past, present, nor future — the region of
eternity.

The three Synoptics, however, have so much
in common, and are so closely related to each
other, that it will be convenient to take, in the
first instance, a conjunct view of them. As
far back as the earliest traditions of the
Church extend, we find them attributed to the
men whose names they bear ; and until near
the close of the second century the only
thing that caused trouble was the apparent
want of harmony in some of their statements.
Origen, with his critical eye, could not fail to
see discrepancies, and met them by means
of allegorical interpretation. Chrysostom ar-
gued that, if the agreements of the Evan-
gelists were tokens of their veracity, their
disagreements acquitted them of collusion.
Augustine held the Second Gospel to be an
abbreviation of the First, and attributed di-
vergences to varying powers of memory and
the personal idiosyncrasies of the writers. In
later times, when the infallibility of Scripture
had become an established doctrine, all that
could be done was to devise ingenious re-
conciliations, and, when ingenuity failed, to

104 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

take refuge in confessions of human ignor-
ance.

But it was inevitable that in course of time
a bolder style of criticism should arise.

The first writer who made a serious attack
upon the credibility of the Gospels in this
country was Evanson, a clergyman of the
Church of England. He published a work in
1792, relating chiefly to the Four Gospels, in
which he charged them with containing " gross,
irreconcilable contradictions." In Germany,
a generation earlier, the honesty of the writers
had been challenged by Reimarus, the
" Wolfenbiittel Fragmentist," who died in 1768.
The fragment which created the greatest sen-
sation was entitled " The Aims of Jesus and
His Disciples." After being circulated anony-
mously in manuscript form, it was published
by Lessing (some years after the death of
E/eimarus), not because he agreed with it, but
in order to rouse the Church to a sense of its
danger and lead it to strengthen its defences.
According to Reimarus, the disciples knew
that the aim of Jesus was to prove Himself
the Messiah in a political sense, and it was
only when their hopes of a temporal kingdom

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 105

were blasted by His death upon the cross that
they were led, under the influence of the
eschatological ideas of the time, to invest His
person with a supernatural character and to
represent Him as having risen from the dead.
Reimarus wrote under the influence of a fierce
animosity against the Christian religion, and
the virulence of his attack on our Lord and
His apostles offended even those who were out
of sympathy with orthodox views, the conse-
quence being that for the next fifty years the
only opposition which those views had to en-
counter was of a very mild character, consist-
ing in an attempt to make out that a great
deal in the Gospel narratives which seemed to
imply miraculous occurrences could be other-
wise accounted for. This mode of interpre-
tation culminated in the fully developed ration-
alism of Paulus (1828), who explained away all
the miracles, except the Virgin birth — which
some modern theologians treat as an open ques-
tion. His explanations, which were intended to
preserve the good faith of the apostles and yet
reconcile the Gospel narrative with the laws
of Nature, were often very far-fetched and
extremely improbable. At the same time he

106 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

had the deepest reverence for the character of
Jesus. " The truly miraculous thing about
Jesus," he said in his preface, " is Himself, the
purity and serene holiness of His character,
which is, notwithstanding, genuinely human,
and adapted to the imitation and emulation of
mankind."

The next great landmark in the history of
Gospel Criticism was Strauss's Life of Jesus
(1835). Strauss tried to get rid of the miracu-
lous, not by rationalistic explanations, nor yet
by attributing fraud to the apostles, but by
making out the supernatural elements in the
narrative to be a mythological growth which
had gathered round the memory of Jesus,
under the influence of Messianic ideas derived
from the Old Testament. As a Hegelian,
Strauss regarded historic facts as of little
consequence, compared with the ideas em-
bodied in them. The idea of God-manhood
he held to be the abiding fruit of the life and
teaching of Jesus, over which criticism had no
power. In the application of his mythical
theory he subjected almost every incident to a
close examination, accepting or rejecting in
the most arbitrary fashion, reversing the

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 107

estimate of the rationalists as to the compara-
tive value of the Synoptics and the Fourth
Gospel, and holding the latter to be dominated
by the ideal Christ in the mind of the writer.
He thought the key to the life of Christ was
to be found in His eschatology, that is, in His
views with regard to the speedy end of the
world, which led Him to look for the realiza-
tion of His Messiahship through superhuman
agency.

Ever since Strauss 's time, the Gospels have
been subjected to severe examination, and
every means taken to test the historic reality
of the life of Jesus as depicted in the sacred
records. In this connexion one of the great
problems with which German critics have been
grappling during the last fifty years and more
has been to determine the real nature of the
Messiahship as conceived by Jesus and His
disciples, and to ascertain its relation to the
Old Testament on the one hand and to
Jewish apocalyptical literature on the other.

This is an interesting subject, but it cannot
be settled by literary criticism alone. Even
when the genuineness of a Gospel is admitted,
it is still open to question whether the

108 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

language which it attributes to the Saviour
was really His own or was put into His mouth
by His disciples under the influence of the
ideas current in -their day, and, if the former,
whether He intended the language to be
understood in a literal or in a metaphorical,
an absolute or a relative, sense. Hence there is
the greatest diversity of opinion on the subject
even among those who do not stand far apart
from each other on the question of authorship
and date. According to C. H. Weisse (1838),
followed by Holtzmann, Schenkel, and Weiz-
sacker, Jesus had no sympathy with the
apocalyptic visions of later Judaism, and, from
the beginning to the end of His ministry, His
ideal was spiritual and ethical — although views
and expectations of a different kind were at-
tributed to Him by His disciples after His
death. Colani (1864) regarded the eschato-
logical elements in the Gospel as due to in-
terpolation, and held that Jesus never aimed
at being other than a suffering Messiah. This
was the view of Volkmar also (1882), except
that he attributed the spurious elements to the
writer of the Gospel himself. Bruno Bauer
(1841) who, like Reimarus, combined an in-

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 109

tense hatred of Christianity with great critical
acumen, denied that any one had ever appeared
in Palestine claiming to be the Messiah, and
tried to make out that Jesus Christ was the
creation of the reflective consciousness of the
early Church (a favourite idea still with a
certain class of critics), and that this conscious-
ness found its best exponent in the Second
Gospel, which he regarded as a work of art by
a single writer. On the other hand, Keim had
no doubt that "a kingdom of God clothed
with material splendours " was an integral part
of the theology of Jesus, while in the Lives
of Jesus by Karl Hase, Beyschlag, and Ber-
nard Weiss, there is a reconciliation of the
two conflicting elements. E-enan (1862), who
treated the Gospels as legendary biographies,
and took just so much from each as served his
artistic and literary purposes, represented the
death of Jesus as no part of His Messianic
plan, but as forced on Him by circumstances,
while Ghillany (1863), in his "Theological
Letters to the Cultured Classes of the German
Nation," argued that the sacrificial death
which Jesus voluntarily incurred was intended
by Him to secure the immediate advent of

110 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

His kingdom as the Messiah. According to
Weiffenbach (1873), the resurrection of Jesus
was His second coming, though this was not
realized by His disciples.

In 1888 Baldensperger, a professor at Gies-
sen, wrote a book to prove that while there was
in the time of Jesus a fully formed Messianic
expectation, derived from the Book of Daniel
and the Similitudes of Enoch, Jesus Himself
had a double consciousness and a double con-
ception of the Kingdom of Heaven, one spiritual
and the other apocalyptical, the former, how-
ever, being the primary and essential one. On
the other hand, in 1892, Johannes Weiss
undertook to show that with Jesus the King-
dom of God was wholly future and supra-
mundane, His Messianic expectations being
altogether transcendental and apocalyptical—
a view which is also maintained by Schweitzer,1
who finds in the eschatology of Jesus a key to
His whole life and teaching, His soul being
filled with a consciousness of His Messianic
calling, not in a political but in a mystical

1 For fuller information on the whole subject see
Schweitzer's " Quest of the Historical Jesus " (Eng. tr.,
1910).

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 111

sense. Wrede and Bousset have recently
written on the other side, though from different
standpoints. The researches of Dillmann,
Hilgenfeld, Charles, and others, in the field of
Jewish apocalyptical literature, have created,
or accentuated, the problem rather than solved
it. But while we may never be able to say
with certainty how far Jesus shared the
eschatological ideas of His countrymen, the
records of His teaching to be found in the
New Testament yield us the assurance that to
Him were chiefly due the ethical qualities with
which these ideas soon became associated in
the Christian Church. These qualities were es-
sential, not accidental. Whatever expectations
our Saviour may have at any time entertained
regarding the end of the present world, there
is no trace in His teaching of a provisional
morality, an interims 'ethik, as German writers
call it. The principles He inculcated are in-
dependent of space and time. Because they
involve a change of character, they are only
to be realized in the world by slow degrees,
but in their own nature they are fitted to meet
the eternal wants of men, as moral and spiritual
beings. In these circumstances, any difficulty

112 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

or uncertainty we may feel regarding our
Saviour's utterances on the mysterious sub-
ject in question ought not to blind us to the
matchless wisdom of His teaching, the un-
approachable grandeur of His character, and
the incalculable influence for good which the
Christian religion has exerted, and is still
exerting, on the condition of the human race.
Turning to the more purely critical aspect of
the subject, we find that considerable progress
has been recently made in determining the
origin and date of the several Synoptics. To
modern critics it has been the similarities in
their language and arrangement, quite as much
as the differences between them, that have
seemed to call for explanation. For a long
time after they began to receive attention,
these similarities were supposed to be due to
the Evangelists' dependence on one another ;
and the chief question debated was as to the
relative priority of the Gospels. Some idea of
the diversity of opinion on this subject may be
formed from the fact that each of the following
orders of sequence in the production of the
Gospels has had its advocates among those who
believed in their inter-dependence, — (1), (2),

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 113

and (3) receiving the largest support : (1)
Matthew, Mark, Luke ; (2) Matthew, Luke,
Mark ; (3) Mark, Matthew, Luke ; (4) Mark,
Luke, Matthew ; (5) Luke, Matthew, Mark ;
(6) Luke, Mark, Matthew.

On the other hand, the literary independence
of the Evangelists has been maintained by a
certain school of critics who have found what
they believe to be a sufficient explanation of
the similarities in the supposition that the
Gospel story, before being committed to writing,
was circulated and handed down by means
of oral repetition, which is still the common
method of instruction in the East. This
theory, propounded by Gieseler about a hun-
dred years ago, has been strongly advocated
in Germany by Wetzel and K. Veit, in
Switzerland by Godet, in America by Norton,
and in this country by Dean Alford, Bishop
Westcott, Dr. Arthur Wright, and others. But
while oral transmission may account for
similarities within the compass of a single
passage suitable for repetition, it could hardly
have stereotyped the sequence of a series of
passages in which there was no natural con-
nexion between the events or the incidents

8

114 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

narrated, as is frequently the case in the
Synoptic Gospels. Moreover, there is no evi-
dence that such a uniform cycle of instruction,
embracing certain incidents and discourses
selected from the countless words and deeds of
Christ, was ever authorized by the apostles.
It is conceivable, indeed, that some of His
discourses, and a recital of the great facts of
redemption which centred in His birth, death,
and resurrection, may have been prescribed to
catechumens and evangelists to be committed
to memory ; but when we have to account for
the entire narrative common to the three
Gospels, and the whole of Christ's recorded
utterances, the theory of constant verbal
repetition is very difficult to entertain. So far
as we are acquainted with the preaching and
teaching of the apostles and their coadjutors,
it had nothing in common with a mechanical
presentation of facts and doctrines, but was
adapted on every occasion to the special wants
and capacities of the hearers. We are not
entitled to assume that in the primitive
Christian Church, which had received a revela-
tion that was not of the letter but of the
spirit, and was to wait for more than a

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 115

generation before it had any thought of
possessing a sacred volume of its own, there
would be anything resembling the slavish
and lifeless memorizing of the Koran by Mo-
hammedan students. If there had been an
elaborate course of lessons sanctioned by the
apostles (and nothing else would have secured
for the tradition anything like the uniformity
we find in the Synoptics), it would very soon
have been committed to writing for the
guidance of those who had to impart the in-
struction ; and, if it had emanated from Jerusa-
lem (Luke 24 47), it would have been drawn up
in Aramaic, the vernacular tongue, whereas
nothing but the use of a common Greek
tradition would account for the similarities
which we find in the Synoptic Gospels.

All that we have now said is quite consistent
with the fact that for some time after the
death of Christ the truths of the Gospel,
speaking generally, could only have existed in
an oral form. "It is nowadays an accepted
position that the oral tradition must be con-
sidered the ultimate basis of the entire
Gospel" (Holtzmann). Nevertheless, for the
reasons we have indicated, there has been a

116 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

growing conviction among critics for nearly
half a century that behind our Gospels we
must look for earlier documents on which they
were founded.

As early as 1716 Le Clerc appears to have
suggested the existence of such documents,
and in 1750 we find the same idea broached
by Michaelis. But the first to put forward a
definite theory on the subject was Lessing
(1778), who suggested that all the three
Synoptics were derived from the Aramaic
"Gospel of the Nazarenes" (the " Ur-evan-
gelium "), of which Matthew may have made
an abstract when he left Jerusalem to preach
to the Hellenists, his example being followed
by many others who translated the same
Gospel' to a greater or less extent into other
languages. The idea was further developed
by Eichhorn (1794), who held that the Synop-
tics were based on three different translations
and expansions of an Aramaic Gospel, probably
written by a disciple of one of the apostles
about A.D. 35, and that the authors of the
First and Third Gospels also made use of an-
other work containing a record of some of
Christ's discourses. The suspicion with which

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 117

such novel speculations were regarded was
deepened by the fact that Eichhorn assigned
to the canonical Gospels a very late date,
somewhere about the end of the second cen-
tury. The theory was wrought out in stiir
more detail by Bishop Marsh, the translator
of Michaelis, who convinced Eichhorn that a
Greek original must be presupposed, to ac-
count for the verbal similarities in the Synop-
tics,— a point which has been emphasized by
recent critics.

A new form of the theory was suggested by
Schleiermacher (1817), to which the name of
Diegesen-theorie was applied (from the Greek
word translated <; narrative" in Luke 1 l ).
Instead of one or two comprehensive but con-
cise documents he suggested that there had
probably been a number of separate leaflets
scattered among the Churches, as it was
" more natural to imagine many circumstantial
memorials of detached incidents than a single
connected but scanty narrative." The latter,
however, is the kind of primitive Gospel at
which E. A. Abbott and W. G. Eushbrooke
have arrived, as the result of falling back on
what they designate the " triple tradition/'

118 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

being the matter common to the three Gospels,
expressed somewhat differently in each. The
resultant corresponds much more closely to
Mark than to either Matthew or Luke, but it
is so defective that it cannot be regarded as a
complete outline of the original Gospel.

A marked contrast to such a solution of the
problem by the simple process of elimination
is afforded by the intricate theory of H.
Ewald, who thought he discovered the exis-
tence of nine different factors in his attempt
to trace the Gospels to their original sources.
A special form of the one-document theory is
associated with the names of Prof. Marshall
and Dr. Resch, who attribute the divergences
in the several Gospels to the variety of the
translations, by the several Evangelists, of the
original Gospel, which, according to Prof.
Marshall, was Aramaic, but, according to Dr.
Resch, Hebrew. Many plausible illustrations
of such variations have been adduced, but the
theory has not been confirmed by fuller in-
vestigations, and few believe that it is an ade-
quate explanation of the phenomena that have
to be accounted for.

One of the chief questions discussed by

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 119

modern critics in connexion with the Synoptic
problem has been as to whether Matthew or
Mark is more nearly related to the original
Gospel. The trend of opinion for nearly a
century has been in favour of Mark. This is
a reversal of the opinion held by Baur, the
founder of the Tubingen school, and by his
immediate followers. Like Griesbach, they
put Matthew first, holding it to be the ex-
ponent of the Palestinian or Petrine type of
early Christianity, with which they supposed
the original edition of Luke to have been in
conflict as the representative of Paulinism ;
while they regarded Mark as a compilation, of
a neutral character, from the two other Gos-
pels. Starting with the idea that they could
explain the relations of the Gospels as " some-
thing which grew up naturally, the working
out of a principle of inner development," Baur
and his followers were led by their love of
philosophical hypotheses, founded on what
they conceived to be the motives and move-
ments in the early Church, to disregard the
testimony of tradition in judging of the date
and authorship of the canonical writings, and
the consequence has been that most of their

120 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

negative conclusions have had to be modified
or abandoned by their successors. Nowhere
has this been more signally the case than in
their criticism of the Gospels, which is gener-
ally acknowledged to have proceeded on a
wrong principle, and to have led to very erron-
eous results, the dates now generally assigned
to the Gospels being more than half a century
earlier than those which they advocated.

It has only been after the most careful con-
sideration of early patristic testimony and the
most thorough examination of the text of
Scripture, that the " two documents theory "
has been generally adopted by scholars and
critics both at home and abroad. Among
early writers on the subject C. H. Weisse
(1838) made the nearest approach to the
modern form of the theory, which traces the
Synoptics to two principal sources, one a docu-
ment substantially identical with our Mark,
the other a collection of our Lord's sayings,
made by Matthew and composed originally in
Aramaic. More recently the theory has owed
much to the advocacy of H. J. Holtzmann and
B. Weiss in Germany, and of Dr. Sanday in
this country.

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 121

Before explaining the theory in detail it may
be well to quote the early testimonies which
have come down to us regarding the part taken
by Matthew and Mark in recording the
Saviour's life and teaching, and also to state a
little more in detail the internal relations of
the Synoptic Gospels to one another, which
the theory is meant to account for.

The chief witness both as regards Matthew
and Mark is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis
(c. 135) and author of an "Exposition of the
Lord's Oracles."

(1) With reference to Matthew Eusebius
quotes a statement of Papias in the following
terms :—

"Matthew compiled the Oracles (or Dis-
courses) l in the Hebrew dialect, and each

1 TO, Aoyta. There has been much controversy as to the
meaning of this expression. Whatever be its lexical
possibilities there has been a growing feeling that Schleier-
macher was right in holding that Papias was not referring
to the whole Gospel of Matthew, as known to us, but to a
collection of the sayings of Jesus. Recently it has been
suggested by Prof. Burkitt that the reference may be to a
collection of Messianic proof-texts, gathered from the Old
Testament, which occur so frequently in the First Gospel,
and the suggestion is accepted by Prof. Lake and Prof.
Gwatkin, But the series of sayings discovered at Oxy-

122 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

interpreted them as he was able " (H. K, III,
39). This is confirmed by Irena?us (III, 1),
who adds that Matthew published the Gospel
among the Jews " while Peter and Paul were
preaching at Rome and founding the Church
there. " Eusebius states that Matthew wrote it
when he was about to leave the Jews and preach
also to other nations, in order to " fill up the
void about to be made by his departure "
(H. E., Ill, 24) ; and he also quotes Origen
as stating that the Gospel was written by
Matthew and delivered in Hebrew to the
Jewish Christians (VI, 25).

(2) Regarding Mark the statement of Papias
as quoted by Eusebius is as follows : " This
also the elder (John) used to say : Mark
having become Peter's interpreter wrote
accurately whatever things he remembered
that were either said or done by Christ ; but
not in order.1 For he neither heard the Lord

rhynchus are an illustration of the former class of literature,
though the modern editor of these sayings had no special
authority for applying to them the title of Logia.

1 eV Ta£tj. The meaning of this expression, in a technical
or literary (as distinguished from a chronological) sense,
is brought out by F. H. Colson in an article in "The
Journal of Theological Studies" for October, 1912. Ac-

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 123

nor followed Him ; but subsequently, as I
said, attached himself to Peter, who used to
frame his teaching to me^et the wants of his
hearers, but not as making a connected
narrative of the Lord's oracles. So Mark
committed no error in thus writing down
particulars just as he remembered them ; for
he took heed to one thing, to omit none of
the things that he had heard, and to state no-
thing falsely in his account of them " (H. E.,
Ill, 39). This account receives confirmation
from Irenaeus, who tells us (III, 1) that what
Peter had preached was handed down in
written form by Mark at Home after the death
of Peter and Paul ; from Tertullian, who speaks
of the Gospel as Petrine ; and also from
Clement of Alexandria, who affirms, on the
tradition of a long line of presbyters, that
Mark wrote at the request of Peter's hearers
at Rome, without any interference on the
part of Peter himself (Eus., H. K, VI, 14).

cording to Mr. Colson, Mark's want of taxis, as compared
with Matthew, is seen in his abrupt beginning, his defective
ending, his emphasizing of trivial points and occasionally
dealing inadequately with important ones, his comparatively
rare introduction of set speeches, and his inferior grouping.

124 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

As regards the mutual relations of the
Synoptics, if we leave out of account the two
opening chapters of Matthew and Luke (where
each Gospel gives an independent account of
the birth and early life of Jesus), and part of
the closing chapter in each case, we find (1)
that these two Gospels coincide largely with
Mark both as regards the selection of incidents,
and the order in which they are recorded.
This is the case even when there is an infringe-
ment of the natural order, as in Matthew 14 \
Mark 6 M, Luke 9 7, and also where there is a
hiatus in the narrative. When Matthew and
Luke diverge from the order of Mark, they
rarely agree with one another. In other
words, it is Mark's order that generally pre-
vails. As regards diction, Matthew and Luke
bear a close resemblance to Mark in the
passages which they contain in common with
it, identical phrases being of frequent occur-
rence in the three Gospels, and the resem-
blance extending even to the use of such a
parenthetical clause as we find in Matthew 9 6,
Mark 2 10, and Luke 5 24. In parallel passages
Matthew and Luke occasionally coincide with
one another in expression (and even in minute

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 125

points of order), in opposition to Mark ; but,
as a rule, in expression (as in order) they agree
with Mark far more than with one another.
With all their similarities, however, the three
Gospels exhibit many striking divergencies.

(2) In addition to the general narrative in
which they coincide with Mark's Gospel (form-
ing what is called the " triple tradition "),
Matthew and Luke have a good deal of other
matter in common with each other (the " double
tradition "), consisting chiefly of sayings and
discourses of Christ,1 and in such cases they
exhibit a closer verbal similarity to each other,
amid occasional divergence, than is found any-
where else.

(3) While Mark contains very little that is
not found in Matthew or Luke,2 each of the
two latter Gospels has a considerable amount

1 Massed together in Matthew's Gospel in five different
sections (chaps. 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25), followed in each
case by a closing formula (7 2S, 11 \ 13 53, 19 1 and 26 l) ;
but appearing in Luke in the form of numerous fragments,
more or less condensed, at many different points in the
narrative.

2 Virtually confined to Mark 4 *«•*>, 7 31'37, and 8 22-26,
though some other items peculiar to Mark are to be found

in 8 17 f.; 933. 14 61f.,85. 15 44,

126 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

of matter peculiar to itself, in addition to the
introductory and closing passages already
mentioned, which are outside the range of
Mark's Gospel.1

The conclusions now generally accepted, and
the points on which there is still a difference
of opinion, may be summarized as follows : —

(1) The Gospel of Mark, in all probability
derived from Mark's notes or reminiscences of
Peter's preaching, is substantially the oldest
of our canonical Gospels ; and to it the authors
of the First and Third Gospels were mainly
indebted for their common outline of Christ's
ministry, as well as for their detailed accounts
of many individual incidents. The only alter-
native to this view is to suppose that the
striking similarities between the three Gospels
were due to extensive borrowing by Mark both
from Matthew and Luke ; but in that case the
Second Gospel could not have been the simple,
direct, forcible composition that it is, and its
language would not have been of so rude and
primitive a character.

1 It has to be kept in view that the last twelve verses of
the canonical Gospel of Mark formed no part of the
original text.

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 127

(2) In the compilation of our First and
Third Gospels another document was used, to
which critics have given the name " Q " (from
the German Quelle = Source), consisting chiefly
of sayings of Christ. While it is agreed that
the author of the First Gospel used this docu-
ment directly, some think that Luke may
have been indebted to it only indirectly,
through the medium of other documents with
similar contents (cf. Luke 1 x ff ). There
is general agreement that the writing in
question was the work of the Apostle Matthew,
composed in Hebrew (Aramaic), as stated by
Papias, but there are features in the language
of our Gospels which show that this document
must have been translated into Greek, before
it was used in their compilation. As it was
originally the work of Matthew, his name was
naturally given to the Gospel in which the
discourses of Jesus held the most prominent
place, especially as such a designation could
not be given to the Gospel of Luke which was
known to be published under different auspices.
It is generally felt, however, that the First
Gospel, as it stands, cannot be the work of
Matthew (whatever Papias may have thought),

128 THK HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

both because it cannot be regarded as a
translation, and because it is extremely im-
probable that one who was an apostle, as
Matthew was, and had been an eye-witness of
Christ's ministry, would have taken his in-
formation at second-hand from one who, like
Mark, had not been a personal disciple of
Jesus. It is generally believed that Q in-
cluded all that is contained both in Matthew
and Luke, but not in Mark, and that it may
also have been the source of some things that
are found in Matthew or in Luke alone. It
is supposed to have had some introductory and
connective matter, with an account of the Bap-
tism, the Temptation, and the healing of the
centurion's servant, but not to have had an
account of Christ's death and resurrection.1
Whether it is better represented in Matthew
or in Luke is a matter of controversy. If the
beautiful parables peculiar to Luke were
derived from Q, it is strange that the author
of the First Gospel did not appropriate more
of its teaching. On the whole, the probability
seems to be that in the Messianic teaching of

1 According to Harnack ; but Burkitt thinks Luke's ac-
count of the Passion may be traced to it.

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 129

the First Gospel we have the fullest represen-
tation of the contents of Matthew's work,1
while Luke seems to have broken it up into
fragments, making use only of such portions of
it as he could insert at a suitable place, in
accordance with the general design stated in
his preface. But in the opinion of Burkitt and
Holtzmann, Q is more faithfully represented
in Luke.

(3) Besides making use of Q and the Gospel
of Mark, both Luke and (to a less degree) the
author of the First Gospel must have been
indebted to other sources, oral or written, for
things peculiar to their Gospels in substance or
expression (including some of the finest speci-

Jgir J. C. Hawkins (H.S., p. 132) points out the
analogy between the five sections in Matthew, and various
five-fold arrangements in Jewish literature, and says : " It
is hard to believe that it is by accident that we find in
St. Matthew the five times repeated formula about Jesus
'ending' his sayings (728; II1; 12 53 ; 19 l ; 261)."
When we add to this that Papias wrote an " Exposition of
the Lord's Oracles (or Discourses) " in five Books, we see
that there is considerable reason for the view of W. W.
Holdsworth and others, that in the five sections of the First
Gospel, we have the very arrangement of the discourses
which was attributed to Matthew by Papias (o-vt/era^aro or

130 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

mens of our Lord's teaching in Luke), and
for information in both Gospels regarding the
birth and infancy of Jesus (where the style of
composition is of a very archaic character,
especially in Luke), and concerning the resur-
rection of Jesus.

(4) The coincidences between Matthew and
Luke, where they differ from Mark in the
triple tradition, have given rise to the idea that
they may have had in their hands another form
of Mark than that which we possess. With
some (Baur, Schleiermacher, Renan, Davidson,
Salmon, Holtzmann, Wendt) this Ur-Markus,
as it is called, means something very different
from our Second Gospel, whether larger or
smaller ; but others (e.g. Sanday and Schmiedel)
are of opinion that the change which took place
was slight and superficial, a mere revision
sufficient to account for the coincidences re-
ferred to, if we bear in mind the tendency to
assimilation in the process of transmission.1
According to Holdsworth, Mark brought out
three different editions of his Gospel, one in

1 Although Wellhausen believes in an Ur-Markus, he
thinks that the authors of our Matthew and Luke used the
Gospel of Mark in its present form — an opinion shared by
Wernle, Julicher, Burkitt,land Loisy.

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 131

Palestine, another in Egypt (for Jewish Chris-
tians) and another in Rome (for Gentiles),—
the first of these being embodied in Luke and
the second in Matthew, while the third forms
our canonical Mark. He holds that on this
theory the problem may be solved without sup-
posing Q to have contained anything but the
words spoken by our Lord as a Divine Teacher,
which might be fitly called "oracles." Others
get over the difficulty by supposing that Luke
was acquainted with our Gospel of Matthew
(Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Wendt, Halevy,
Soltau, Allen, Jtilicher), or that Mark (as
well as the authors of Matthew and Luke)
was acquainted with Q (B. Weiss, Jtilicher,
von Soden, Bousset, Barth, Loisy, Bacon,
Adeney).1

(5) Q is generally regarded as the oldest
Gospel record of which we have any know-
ledge. The words of Christ would naturally
be committed to writing before the facts of
His history, as the latter for a considerable time

1 Those who take this view, account for the sparing use
which Mark made of Q, by the fact that he did not wish
his work to compete with Q, which was already the ac-
knowledged authority with reference to our Lord's utter-
ances.

132 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

would be sufficiently attested by the personal
statements of those who had been eye-wit-
nesses of His ministry.

With regard to the authorship, date, and
character of the several Synoptic Gospels, the
following are the conclusions which seem to be
best supported and most generally accepted.

(1) While there is some difference of
opinion as to the history of the Gospel of Mark,
before it assumed its present form, there is now
general agreement that it is the earliest of the
Gospels that have come down to us. Not
many critics put it later than A.D. 70, and
according to Harnack it must have been
written by Mark during the sixth decade of
the first century at the latest. Its early date
is proved partly by the fact that it lies at the
foundation of Matthew and Luke, and partly
by its general style and diction and its freedom
from any signs of ecclesiastical policy or doc-
trinal bias. There is only one long discourse
in the book (chap. 13). It has reference to
the great event to which the early Christians
looked forward with intense longing for many
years, namely, the return of their Lord from
heaven, and some critics are inclined to think
that it may have had a circulation, in a separate

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 133

form, before being incorporated in the Gospel.
A number of critics, such as Wendling and
Bacon, have attempted to deal with the book
as some of the Old Testament writings have
been dealt with, by tracing it to earlier literary
sources. But the attempts have not been at-
tended with much success, and it may be
questioned whether any reliable results will
ever be attained by such abstruse speculations,
in which conjecture has to play so great a part.
As a whole, the Gospel has a unity about it
which proves its originality, and, in spite of its
defects from a literary or artistic point of view,
it gives the reader a wonderfully good idea
of the gradual development of the Saviour's
ministry and of the progressive course of events
which led to the tragic denouement in the cruci-
fixion. As Dr. Burkitt says : "In St. Mark
we are appreciably nearer to the actual scenes
of our Lord's life, to the course of events, than
in any other document which tells us of Him."
Similar testimony, from a different point of
view, is borne by Prof. Swete, when he says ;
" The freshness of its colouring, the simplicity
of its teaching, the absence of any indication
that Jerusalem had already fallen when it was

134 THK HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

written, seem to point to a date earlier than
the summer of A.D. 70." 1

According to a very early tradition, the
author derived his information very largely
from statements made by Peter in the course
of his preaching, and many parts of the nar-
rative bear the marks of being derived from
an eye-witness, having reference, in some cases,
to Peter's personal experience. A number of
things favourable to the Apostle, which are
found in other Gospels, are here conspicuous by
their absence, but he holds a prominent place
in the narrative, being the first person men-
tioned after the opening of the Ministry, and
being recognized throughout as the leader of
the Twelve. There can be no doubt that the
success of the book, and the place of honour
given to it as one of the four canonical
Gospels, was owing to the association of

1 Clement of Alexandria tells us that it was written
while Peter was still alive, but until recently this statement
was supposed to be at variance with the testimony of
Irenaeus. Dom J. Chapman, however, has shown that this
is a misunderstanding of Irenaeus's words. There is so
much uncertainty about the date of Peter's death, and
also of Paul's, that Clement's statement does not help
us much, and it is probably better to be content with an
approximate date, before the destruction of Jerusalem.

HI.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 135

Peter's name with that of its author. Mark
himself was in no sense a leader in the
Church,1 and his reputation was somewhat
sullied by what is recorded of him in Acts
13 13 (cf. 15 37-39 and Col. 4 10). There is no
reason to doubt the identity of this John
Mark with the Mark who is referred to in the
Epistles at a later time as a friend both of
Peter and of Paul. A comparison of the re-
lative passages is sufficient to prove this. As
a Jew who had Hellenistic relatives (Acts
4 * ; cf. Col. 4 10), and had travelled in Asia
Minor and elsewhere (Acts 13 f.), but was ap-
parently a native of Jerusalem (12 12>25), Mark
was well fitted to be Peter's interpreter. Al-
though Peter no doubt preached in Aramaic,
there is no reason to believe that Mark wrote
his Gospel in that language (Blass and Allen).
The occasional use of Aramaic expressions, in
the form of transliterations, is sufficiently ac-
counted for by the fact that Aramaic was
Mark's mother-tongue. That he wrote for the

1 The nature of his service to the Church may be in-
ferred from Acts 13 5, where he is described as Paul and
Barnabas's "minister'' (B.V. "attendant"), as well as
from Paul's commendation of him at a later period as
" useful to me for ministering " (II Tim. 4 n, R.V.).

136 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

benefit of Gentile Christians is evident not only
from the fact that he translates such expres-
sions for the reader, but also from his explain-
ing Jewish customs and beliefs, and from the
paucity of his allusions to the Old Testament.
His frequent use of Latin words and idioms
confirms the tradition that he was writing in
Rome, where we find him ministering to Paul's
comfort (Col. 4 u ; cf. Philemon, v. 24) and
associated, at another time, with Peter (I Pet.
5 u —" Babylon " being here probably a meta-
phorical name for Rome). An argument in
favour of this view will also be found on a
careful comparison of Mark 15 21 and Romans
16 13.

We find traces in patristic writings of an
early and widely received tradition that Mark
ultimately went to Egypt and founded the
catechetical school of Alexandria, where he is
said to have died a martyr's death. But
neither Clement nor Origen makes any mention
of this.

(2) In the case of our First Gospel the
tendency of recent criticism has been to follow
tradition only so far as to admit that most of
our Lord's discourses which it contains came
from the pen of Matthew, one of the Twelve,

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 137

who was previously known as Levi the publican.
At some time previous to the composition of
this Gospel, a collection of such discourses,
Papias tells us, had been drawn up by Matthew
in Hebrew, or rather in Aramaic. This work
no longer exists as a separate document, but
it is largely, if not entirely, represented in our
First Gospel, and also to some extent, directly
or indirectly, in the Gospel of Luke. According
to Harnack it may be assigned to the year 50
or even earlier,1 but Sir William Ramsay holds
it to have been written while Christ was still
living. " It gives us the view " (he says)
" which one of His disciples entertained of
Him and His teaching during His life-time."
Numberless attempts have been made to define
its limits and determine its contents. Harnack
thinks that it stopped short of the Last Week
of the ministry, and did not include the Last
Supper or the Passion and the Resurrection ;
while Archdeacon Allen holds that it consisted
of all the teaching of Christ to be found in
Matthew, except what is also found in Mark.

i According to Dr. Moffatt, it "reflects the faith and
mission and sufferings of the primitive Jewish Christian
Church of Palestine, long before the crisis of 70 A.D.
began to loom oh the horizon " (I.L.N.T., p. 203).

138 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

In any of its possible forms, however, the lost
source seems to have claimed for Jesus a
unique position in the Kingdom of God,
representing Him as the perfect Revealer of
the Father, the supreme Teacher, and the
final Judge.

The association of Matthew's name with
the Gospel is best accounted for by supposing
him to have been the author of this document.
After his conversion and call, his name is never
mentioned, except as one of the disciples who
were present in the upper room on the day
of the Ascension, and he did not attach him-
self to Jesus till some time after the Galilaean
ministry had begun. In these circumstances,
it is extremely improbable that he should
have been credited with the authorship of
what has been called " the most important
book in Christendom, the most important
book that ever was written," unless he had
had a considerable share in its production.1
On the other hand, it is worthy of notice
that although he held so insignificant a place
among the apostles, he was perhaps better

1 The only passages of the New Testament in which
Matthew is referred to are Matthew 9 9 f-> 10 3; Mark 2
i* «•• 3 18 ; Luke 5 27-29, 6 15 ; Acts 1 13.

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 139

fitted for the work of a recorder than any of
his colleagues, owing to the duties of the
calling in which he had been engaged before
he became a disciple.

Who it was that composed the Gospel in its
present form it is impossible to say. In all
probability he was a Hellenistic Jew with a
wide outlook, concerned, above everything,
with the vindication of the claims of Jesus as
the Messiah in whom the Old Testament
promises had been abundantly fulfilled,1 and
maintaining the essential validity of the Law
of Moses ; yet combining with these views a
full appreciation of the heart-searching teach-
ing of the Sermon on the Mount, and a strong
aversion to the religious pretensions of the
Pharisees. Burkitt describes him as " so to
speak, a Christian Rabbi," who adapted the
teaching of Jesus to the wants of the Christian
Church about 90-100 A.D. But Archdeacon
Allen thinks that it is just such a Gospel as
might have been drawn up at Antioch, about
the year 50, by an earnest Jewish Christian

1 To prove this he cites no fewer than sixty Old Testa-
ment prophecies. His Jewish sympathies are shown by
his use of the Old Testament in the Hebrew, not in the
Septuagint, in the quotations peculiar to his Gospel.

140 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

who believed that Gentiles were only to be
admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven on con-
dition of obedience to the Law, and who was
looking for a speedy return of the Saviour
to begin His reign upon the earth. Com-
paratively few critics, however, date the
Gospel before 70,1 although there is no con-
clusive evidence for a later date. If the
destruction of Jerusalem had already taken
place, it is strange that the writer should still
associate that calamity with the end of the
world — so closely, indeed, that it is scarcely
possible to distinguish between them (chap.
24). The baptismal formula (28 19 f ) is al-
leged to bear the stamp of a later period, but
the doctrine of the Trinity is equally involved
in the benediction at the close of II Corin-
thians ; while the reference to the Church in
chap. 16 18 fi has many parallels in the Epistles
of Paul, as well as in Acts 7 38 and 20 2S, and
is quite in harmony with the ecclesiastical
conceptions of the Jews. The majority of
critics favour a date between 70 and 90,
and some (Schmiedel and Pfleiderer) put
it as late as 130 or 140. Harnack in his

1 Among them are Bleek, Meyer, Keim, Godet, Jacquier,
Adeney, and Bartlet.

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 141

" Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels "
adheres to his former position and says : " I
could sooner convince myself that Matthew
was written before the destruction of Jerusalem
than believe that one decade elapsed after the
catastrophe before the book was written."

Whatever the date and authorship of the
Gospel may have been, it soon gained a far
stronger hold on the affections of the Church
at large, notwithstanding its Jewish colouring,
and was far more frequently quoted by early
patristic writers, than any of the other Gospels.
This was no doubt partly owing to the fact
that it combined narrative and discourse so
well, and gave such a full account of our
Lord's death and resurrection, partly also,
perhaps, owing to its being generally regarded
as the earliest of the Gospels. Its popularity
must have had the effect of throwing the
original Matthaean document into the shade,
the consequence being, apparently, that it soon
disappeared and was superseded in Ebionite
circles by the Gospel of the Nazarenes.1

1 The Gospel of Mark seems to have suffered from the
same cause, being comparatively little quoted by the Fathers

142 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

(3) Fifty years ago it was the fashion to deny
the genuineness of the Third Gospel and
of Acts as the works of Luke, and to regard
them as productions of the second century.
But there is a growing body of critical opinion
in favour of the Lucan authorship of both,
and with many scholars the chief question
now is as to the dates of their composition.
A majority, including even such conservative
critics as Zahn, B. Weiss, Sanday,and Plummer,
hold the Gospel to have been written after
A.D. 70, basing their opinion mainly on the
more definite form which Luke gives to our
Lord's prediction regarding the destruction of
Jerusalem, in chaps. 19 41~44 and 21 20'24, where
he substitutes the description of a besieged
city for " the abomination of desolation stand-
ing in the holy place," or " standing where he
ought not," which we find in the other Synop-
tics (Matt. 24 15, Mark 13 u, RV. ; cf. Dan.
9 27). Wellhausen and others hold that we
have evidently here (in Luke) a vatwiniam post
eventum ; but Harnack maintains that this is
not so, pointing out that Luke's description of

and made the subject of a Commentary apparently for the
first time (by Victor of Antioch) in the fifth or sixth century.

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 143

the catastrophe is after all a very natural and
obvious one. Neither does he see any evi-
dence of a later date in the opening statement
of the Gospel as to the many accounts of the
Christian faith which had been already drawn
up, and his verdict is that " it seems now to
be established beyond question that both
books of this great historical work were
written while St. Paul was still alive." In
support of this view he cites the names of
Hofmann, Thiersch, Wieseler, Resch, and
Blass, to which we may add those of Guericke,
Alford, Schaff, Gloag, Salmon, Jacquier, and
Koch. According to Harnack, the Gospel
must have been written at the very beginning
of the seventh decade, as it preceded Acts,
which he holds to have been written in A.D. 62.
It is strongly in favour of the Lucan author-
ship of this Gospel that it was used by Marcion
before the middle of the second century, and
it is difficult to understand how Luke's name
should ever have been given to it, unless he
was in some sense the author of it. The traces
of a medical habit of thought and expression,
which may be discerned here and there, are
also in favour of its being the work of " the be-

144 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

loved physician l ; " but as regards the evidence
as a whole we may refer to our chapter dealing
with Acts, as the two books must stand or
fall together.

While there is in Luke more of an attempt at
a historical arrangement of Q than in Matthew,
there is also a stronger tendency to tone down
expressions found in Mark which might seem to
be at variance with the reverence due to Christ,
and the respect due to His apostles. But there
is nothing inconsistent with the writer's purpose
as stated in the preface, namely, to supply
Theophilus, (apparently a man of rank), to
whom the book is dedicated, with trustworthy
information regarding the rise and spread of
Christianity. It is the work of a historian,
and exhibits signs of independence which
refute the Tubingen notion that the author
was a strong Paulinist.2 His tendency to
universalism, however, is often visible, and
comes out in the Saviour's genealogy, which
he traces back to " Adam the (son) of God."

1 Colossians 4 14. The only other passages in which
Luke is mentioned are II Timothy 4 n and Philemon v. 24.

2 " One of the most assured results of recent research is
that he was not a Paulinist masquerading as a historian "
(Dr. Moffatt).

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 146

Luke had no doubt consulted other written
sources besides Mark and the " Logia," and it is
not unlikely that he derived information from
Philip of Csesarea and his daughters during
Paul's imprisonment in that city, and perhaps
also from the mother of our Lord. According
to Dr. Burkitt, Luke's writings are character-
ized by " a tendency towards voluntary
poverty and a tendency towards asceticism,"
which appear not only -in his choice of material
for his Gospel, but also in his literal repre-
sentation of Christ's words of consolation for
the poor (e.g. cf. Matt. 5 3'6 and Luke 6 »*•).
His work is so comprehensive that, although it
embodies three-fourths of the Gospel of Mark,
nearly half of its contents is peculiar to itself.
The greater part of this is found in the ac-
count of our Lord's last journey to Jerusalem
(chaps. 9 51-18 u), and it has been suggested, as a
possible explanation of its absence from Mark's
Gospel, that, during most of the time referred
to, Peter may have been travelling through
Peraea, while Jesus was passing through
Samaria (Luke 51'56), till they met in "the
borders of Judaea " (Mark 10 l).

It will thus be seen that in view of its
10

146 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

results we have no reason to regret the attempt
which was made in the course of last century
to bring down our Gospels to a comparatively
late date, since it has been the means of stimu-
lating the defenders of the faith to set forth
the evidence in their favour in full force, and
thus reinstate them in the confidence of the
Church. Few will dispute the very moderate
assertion recently made by Prof. Menzies that
" there can be little doubt that the sources of
the Synoptic Gospels existed a decade or two
before A.D. 70." This leaves negative critics
with the difficult task of accounting for the
rise of the Gospels in the course of a genera-
tion after Christ's death, without admitting
the essential truth of the story embodied in
them, on which the faith of the Church was
founded.

It was said by Strauss, whose " Life of Jesus "
caused such a commotion in the Christian
world seventy or eighty years ago, that "it
would most unquestionably be an argument
of decisive weight for the credibility of the
biblical history, could it indeed be shown that
it was written by eye-witnesses or even by
persons nearly contemporaneous with the
events narrated " (I. p. 55, E.T.). But the

in.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 147

accumulation of evidence for the early date
of the Gospels has produced no appreciable
effect on the attitude of the critics to whom
we have referred.1 It is vain to expect that
any amount of evidence in the sphere of
criticism should ever prove an effectual
remedy for unbelief based on the repudiation
of the supernatural. The presence of that
element in the Gospel creates in some minds
as strong a prejudice against the acceptance
of the evangelic narrative in its integrity,
as the old prepossession in its favour, which
arose from the doctrine of verbal inspiration.
Owing to the ascendency of physical science,
a new dogma of incredibility has taken the
place of the old theory of infallibility — in spite

1 For example, Pfleiderer, while admitting that our
Second Gospel was the work of Mark, was unable to believe
that he had derived his information from Peter, as he
held it to be impossible that the Apostle, having been an
eye-witness of Christ's ministry, could have any miracles
to relate. In a similar spirit, even Weizsacker regarded it
as decisive against the traditional claim of the Fourth
Gospel, that it involves a belief that a primitive apostle,
familiar with Jesus, " should have come to regard and
represent his whole former experience as a life with the
incarnate Logos of God."

148 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

of the fact that some of the greatest authorities,
both in science and philosophy, admit that there
is no a priori impossibility in miracles, and that
our relation to Nature is beset with mystery. If
it be true that the churchman is eager to avail
himself of every possible support for the faith
once for all delivered to the saints, it is equally
true that those who abjure the supernatural are
constantly under temptation to invent some
theory of fabrication, or interpolation, or legend,
which may undermine the historical character
of such statements as they cannot accept.
And whereas there is no need for the Christian
apologist to vindicate all the miracles recorded
in the New Testament (Christ's resurrection
alone being a sufficient guarantee of the truth
of Christianity), any more than to prove the
genuineness and authenticity of every book in
the New Testament, the opponent of the super-
natural, on the other hand, is bound to get rid
of the miraculous in every form, no matter in
what part of the Scriptures it may make its
appearance.

It might have been thought that, as the
criticism of the Gospels affects the foundation
of the faith and touches the heart of our re-

ra.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 149

ligion, Christian writers would have been slow
to propagate opinions of a speculative character,
that are fatal not only to the Divine claims but
even to the historical reality of the Saviour. But
the spirit of doubt, when once aroused, some-
times gains a strange ascendency over some
minds, and imparts a fascination to views of a
revolutionary character. Hence we have re-
cently had the painful spectacle of ministers
of the Gospel viewing with complacency the
surrender of their faith not only in the Divinity
but even in the very humanity of their Lord,
and proclaiming to the world their readiness
to treat as a fable the sacred life which has
been the object of the Church's faith for
nineteen centuries. One can imagine the in-
dignation with which such conduct would
have been denounced by the apostles. But
in these days when faith is weak, and criticism
bold, such utterances do not cause much
astonishment, being only aggravated instances
of a destructive tendency that is widely prev-
alent. As an illustration of the length to
which criticism will sometimes go, we may
quote the following instance, mentioned in the
11 Expository Times " of October, 1910. In an

150 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

American magazine called " The Open Court "
a discussion, which lasted for more than a
year, was begun by an article from the pen of
the editor of the " Polychrome Bible," to prove
that Jesus, having been born, not in Bethlehem,
but in Nazareth of Galilee, at a time when the
inhabitants of Galilee were mostly Medians,
was probably a Median, and thus belonged to
the Aryan race. By and by an editorial ap-
peared in the same magazine disputing the
assumption that Jesus was born in Nazareth,
on the ground that there was no such town or
village at the time in question, and explaining
away the tradition by supposing the Nazarenes
to have been a mistake for Nazirites, the prob-
ability being that he was born in Capernaum.
Then another professor entered the field to
prove that Jesus was not born at all, that the
name " Jesus " was only a title, a Hebrew
form of the Greek Soter (Saviour), under
which the Jews found Zeus or Jupiter wor-
shipped by the Greeks. This did not end the
controversy, however, for yet another critic
came forward to maintain that Jesus was no
other than Buddha himself, clothed in Jewish
Messianic apparel.

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 151

In order to resolve the personality of Jesus
into a myth, all sorts of theories have been
advanced, based partly on natural phenomena,
partly on national or racial legends. So serious
is the view some take of the mischievous re-
sults which may arise from the circulation of
such literature, that a number of books have
been written for the very purpose of counter-
acting its influence and exposing the hollow-
ness of its reasoning.1

Even more dangerous, perhaps, because
more subtle, than such fantastic vagaries of
avowed unbelief is the tendency of some
critical writers within the pale of the Church
to represent the character and life of Jesus
depicted in the Gospels, as due to the reflective
consciousness of a subsequent age, without
whose imagination the portrait could never
have been painted. Did Jesus Christ create
the Church or did the Church create Him?
is a fundamental question, which can only be
answered in one way by those who believe

1 Such are " Jesus the Christ : Historical or Mythical ? "
by T. J. Thorburn, D.D., LL.D. ; "The Historicity of
Jesus," by S. J. Case, . Chicago ; " Der Geschichtliche
Jesus," by Prof. Clemen of Bonn; "The Truth about
Jesus," by Dr. Friedrich Loofs of Oberlin, U.S.A.

152 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Him to be a living, personal Saviour. If the
Gospel records be true, Jesus was the original
fountain of inspiration to His Church. The
heights of aspiration and achievement which
were reached by the Apostles and their con-
verts, were not the result of a gradual idealising
of the Saviour's figure after His departure, but
were due to the fuller realisation of the meaning
and purpose of words and deeds which were to
a large extent beyond the comprehension of
His followers at the time of their occurrence.
In other words, the early Church was not
mistaken when it worshipped Jesus as Divine,
and recognized Him to be " the author and
perfecter of (their) faith."

This chapter may be fitly closed with the
testimony of two of the greatest scholars
and most acute critics of our time, Prof.
Harnack of the University of Berlin, and the
late Dr. Salmon, head of Trinity College,
Dublin.

"Our knowledge of the history and the
teaching of our Lord," says Prof. Harnack,
" in their main features at least, depends upon
two authorities independent of one another,
yet composed at nearly the same time. Where

m.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 153

they agree their testimony is strong, and they
do agree often and on important points. On
the rock of their united testimony the assault
of destructive critical views, however neces-
sary these are to easily self-satisfied research,
will ever be shattered to pieces " (" The Sayings
of Jesus," p. 249).

The testimony of Dr. Salmon is no less em-
phatic. " The more I study the Gospels, the
more convinced I am that we have in them
contemporaneous history ; that is to say, that
we have in them the stories told of Jesus
immediately after His death, and which had
been circulated, and, as I am disposed to be-
lieve, put in writing, while He was yet alive.
... I cannot doubt that these writings present
us with the story as told in the very first
assemblies of Christians, by men who had been
personal disciples of Jesus ; nor do I think
that the account of any of our Lord's miracles
would have been very different if we could
have the report of it as published in a Jerusa-
lem newspaper next morning" ("The Human
Element in the Gospels/' pp. 8 and 274).

CHAPTER IV

THE JOHANNINE WEITINGS
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. JOHN

THERE are five books in the New Testament
attributed to the Apostle John, namely, the
Fourth Gospel, the three Epistles which bear
his name, and the book of "The Revelation."
Of these the Gospel is the most important ; in
the general estimation it is the most precious
of all the books in the New Testament.
Augustine said long ago : " John, the apostle,
not unworthily compared to the eagle in re-
spect of spiritual intelligence, hath taken a
higher flight and soared in his preaching much
more sublimely than the other three, and in
the lifting up thereof would have our hearts
lifted up too." Luther pronounced it " the
one tender right chief Gospel and infinitely
preferable to the other three." The late Dr.
Dale has told how it went right to the heart

of a Japanese reader : " The vision which

(154)

CHAP, iv.] NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 155

came to him while reading John's account of
our Lord's life and teaching was a vision from
another and diviner world ; he fell at the feet
of Christ exclaiming, ' My Lord and my God.' '
A modern German critic says : " Who would
not confess that in his sweet, unearthly picture
this evangelist has given us the true religious
import of the sacred life ? "

The writer last quoted does not believe the
book to have been written by John and can-
not accept it as historical. He is one of
many critics who hold that the value of the
book is independent of its authorship and of the
historical truth of its contents. This might
be a tenable position if the Gospel made no
claim to be historical and merely presented us
with an ideal picture. But it is different when
the writer expressly claims to have been an
eye-witness of the ministry of Jesus. He says :
" The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us
(and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only
begotten from the Father), full of grace and
truth " (1 14). In the beginning of the First
Epistle (which is generally admitted to be from
the same pen as the Gospel) he says : " That
which was from the beginning, that which we

156 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

have heard, that which we have seen with our
eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands
handled, concerning the Word of life (and the
life was manifested, and we have seen, and
bear witness, and declare unto you the life,
the eternal life, which was with the Father, and
was manifested unto us) ; that which we have
seen and heard declare we unto you also." In
harmony with this is the statement in the last
chapter of the Gospel, whether written by the
Apostle or, as seems more probable, added by
others : " This is the disciple which beareth
witness of these things, and wrote these things :
and we know that his witness is true " (21 24).
The context shows that the disciple here re-
ferred to is " the disciple whom Jesus loved,"
who appears in the Gospel under this name on
four occasions — at the last supper, at the cross,
at the empty tomb, and on the beach of the Sea
of Galilee, when he was the first of a company
of seven disciples to recognize the risen Lord
(13 23 ; 19 a6 f- ; 20 ™ ; 21 7'23).1 The claims thus
definitely made leave no room for a theory

1 19 3'~> also implies that the testimony in question was
given by an eye-witness, but whether it is the writer
that is referred to is open to question.

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 157

of pseudonymous authorship, in the sense of
an innocent assumption of a great historic
name. For the book is largely a narrative,
and the assertion that the author speaks from
personal knowledge is of vital importance, and
could not have been made with a good con-
science unless it had been well founded.
The question of authorship, therefore, is of
the greatest importance, and all the evidence
on the subject ought to be carefully considered.
The first writer, so far as is known to us,
who definitely quotes from this Gospel as the
work of " John," is Theophilus, Bishop of
Antioch, who had been brought up as a pagan
but was converted through the study of the
Bible. In a defence of Christianity addressed
to a pagan friend, Autolycus, about A.D. 180,
he says : "The Holy Scriptures teach us, and
all the inspired writers, one of whom, John,
says, In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God." In the "Muratorian
Fragment," a little earlier, the Gospel is as-
signed to John, " a disciple of the Lord," and
the following account of its origin is given :
" At the entreaties of his fellow-disciples and
his bishops, John said : Fast with me for three

158 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

days from this time, and whatsoever shall be
revealed to each of us (whether it be favour-
able to my writing or not) let us relate it to
one another. On the same night it was re-
vealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that
John should relate all things in his own name,
aided by the revision of all. . . . What wonder
is it then that John so constantly brings for-
ward Gospel phrases even in his epistles, saying
in his own person, What we have seen with
our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our
hands have handled, these things have we
written ? For so he professes that he was not
only an eye-witness, but also a hearer, and
moreover a historian of all the wonderful works
of the Lord."

We have a most important witness in
Irenseus, Bishop of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul,
who was born and brought up in Asia Minor
and had for his predecessor a man named
Pothinus, who died as a martyr about A.D. 177,
when he was ninety years of age. Irenaeus
had not the shadow of a doubt that the Fourth
Gospel was the work of the Apostle John-
regarding which, as he says, "all the disciples
associated with John, the disciple of the Lord

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 159

in Asia, bear witness " ; and he tells how John
lived in Ephesus till the time of Trajan. What
makes the evidence of Irenaeus particularly
valuable is the fact that in his youth he had
been brought into close personal contact with
Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, who
was for about forty years Bishop of Smyrna
(a few miles distant from Ephesus), and
suffered martyrdom in his eighty-sixth year,
about A.D. 155.

We have an interesting addition to this
statement of Irenaeus, in a reference by Ter-
tullian of Carthage, a few years later, to the
claim made by the Church at Smyrna that Poly-
carp had been appointed as their bishop by
the Apostle John. Elsewhere Tertullian says :
1 'John and Matthew form the faith within
us : among the companions of the Apostles
Luke and Mark renovate it." Another impor-
tant witness of about the same time is Clement
of Alexandria, a man of very wide reading and
great scholarship. In a short treatise of his
that has come down to us, entitled, " Who is
the rich man that shall be saved ? " he mentions
that " after the tyrant's death John returned
from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus." In

160 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Eusebius's " Church History " we find a repro-
duction of a passage in a lost work of Clement's
called " Outlines," giving an account of the
traditions of the Elders regarding the order in
which the four Gospels were written. This
is what is said about the Fourth Gospel :
" John, perceiving that what had reference to
the body was clearly set forth in the other
Gospels, and being encouraged by his familiar
friends, and urged by the Spirit, composed a
spiritual Gospel."

The Johannine authorship of the Fourth
Gospel and its singular worth were attested no
less strongly by Origen, Clement's famous suc-
cessor at Alexandria, who says : " We make
bold to say that of all the Scriptures the
Gospels are the firstfruits ; and the first-
fruits of the Gospels is that according to John,
the meaning whereof none can apprehend who
has not leaned upon the breast of Jesus, or
received, at the hands of Jesus, Mary to be
his mother too."

Eusebius represents the general tradition on
the subject when he says : " The three Gospels
previously written having come into general
circulation and also having been handed to

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 161

John, they say that he admitted them, giving
his testimony to their truth ; but alleging that
there was wanting in the narration the account
of the things done by Christ at the commence-
ment of His ministry. And this was the
truth ; for it is evident that the other three
evangelists only wrote the deeds of our Lord
for one year after the imprisonment of John
the Baptist, and intimated this in the very
beginning of their history. . . . One who
understands this can no longer think that the
Gospels are at variance with one another, in-
asmuch as the Gospel according to John con-
tains the first acts of Christ, while the others
give an account of the latter part of his life."
There is only one discordant note in the
testimony of the early Church on this subject.
It appears from statements made by Hippoly-
tus in his " E/efutation of all Heresies," and
by Epiphanius, a writer in the fourth century,
that in the latter part of the second century
there were some people who rejected the
Fourth Gospel, alleging that it was the work
of a Gnostic, Cerinthus, although, strange to
say, Irenseus tells us that it was the very ob-
ject of the Gospel to refute the errors of this

U

162 THF: HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

(Vrinthus, a purpose which it was well fitted
to serve by the emphasis which it laid on the
reality of the Incarnation. Epiphanius calls
these rejectors of the Gospel Alogi, that is,
deniers of the " Logos " or Word (the title given
to Christ in the prologue), though perhaps he
also meant the expression to be taken in
another sense, as a name for people devoid of
reason, — the same word in the singular neuter
being applied, in modern Greek, to a beast of
burden.

In opposition to the notion entertained by
this obscure sect, of whom only one supporter
can be named with any degree of probability,
namely, Caius of Rome, we have to consider
not only the weighty consensus of opinion above
mentioned, but also evidence derived from still
earlier writers, who appear to have been ac-
quainted with the contents of the book. We
find echoes of it in the writings of Ignatius,
who seems to have known it almost by heart,
and also, to some extent, in the "Didache."
It was used by several Gnostic writers who are
quoted by Hippolytus and Irenaeus, namely,
Basilides (A.D. 125), Valentinus (145), and his
friend and disciple Heracleon, who wrote §

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 163

commentary on it, from which it would appear
to have already held an assured position in the
Church. Eusebius tells us that Papias (c. 135),
Bishop of Hierapolis, about eighty miles from
Ephesus, quoted from the First Epistle of
John as authoritative, which Polycarp also did.
Justin Martyr (c. 155) appears in a number of
passages to use language derived from this
Gospel, and Tatian (c. 170) began his " Diates-
saron," or Harmony of the Four Gospels, with
its opening verse and drew largely from its con-
tents. In the " Clementine Homilies," which
are usually assigned to the latter part of the
second century, Lagarde found fifteen quota-
tions from this Gospel ; and, according to Ren-
del Harris, the lately recovered "Gospel of
Peter," which may also be dated in the second
century, shows a considerable acquaintance
with it. The testimony in its favour thus
reaches back to the beginning of the second
century, and it is therefore not surprising to
find that in the fourth century it was included
by Eusebius in the list of writings universally
acknowledged to be canonical.

One of the first to question the authority of
the book was the clergyman of the Church of

164 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

England already referred to in connection with
the synoptics (p. 104). He regarded the Fourth
Gospel as the work of a Christian Platonist of
the second century. In 1820 a more formidable
attack was made by Bretschneider in his "Prob-
abilia." Since that time its genuineness and
authenticity have been the subject of continual
controversy. On the one side, favouring the
traditional claims of the Gospel, but not ex-
cluding the possibility of John's having received
assistance in the work, we may reckon Schlei-
ermacher, Bleek, Godet, B. Weiss, Beyschlag,
Zahn, Barth, Feine, Jacquier, Westcott, Light-
foot, Milligan, Dods, Salmon, Reynolds, Wat-
kins, Sanday, Bernard, Swete, Stanton, Nicol,
Drummond, Askwith. On the other side are
ranged Baur, who regarded it as an ideal
picture of the Christ, intended to meet the
intellectual wants of the Church about 160-
170 A.D. ; Keim, who held it to be a theological
poem by a liberal Jewish Christian, probably
one of the Diaspora in Asia Minor, in the
reign of Trajan (110-117) ; Pfleiderer, who
pronounced it "a transparent allegorization
of religious and dogmatic conceptions," written
somewhere between A. P. 135 and 150 ; Matthew

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 165

Arnold, who regarded the author as a sincere
Christian, a man of literary talent and a
theologian, a Greek, not a fisherman of Gali-
lee ; Thoma, who attributed the Gospel to a
Jewish Christian of Alexandrian culture, liv-
ing at Ephesus about 134 ; Jtilicher, who
suggests from 100 to 125, and considers
that the one unassailable proposition is
that the author (100-125) was not " the
disciple whom Jesus loved " ; Schmiedel, who
holds that it was not written by the son
of Zebedee, or by an eye-witness or contem-
porary, but by a later writer, probably after
A.D. 132, under the influence of Alexandrian
and Gnostic ideas ; von Soden, who regards it
as the work (A.D. 110) of a devoted adherent
of the beloved disciple, who was the " Elder"
of Ephesus, but not the son of Zebedee. To
these we may add Hausrath, Scholten, Grill,
Wernle, Wrede, Scott, Reville, Loisy, and
others — of whom some make out the author
to have been a Gnostic, some an anti-Gnostic ;
according to some the Gospel was a polemic
against Judaism, according to others against a
heretical sect named after John the Baptist :
while some are content with the assertion
that the author was an unknown writer of the

166 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHA*.

second century, who composed the Gospel for
the purpose of putting before the Church his
view of Christ and Christianity.

There are a considerable number of critics
who are disposed to take a middle position,
not admitting that the Apostle was responsible
for the composition or publication of the
Gospel in its present form, but believing that
parts of it may be from his pen, or else that
he was one of the original sources from which
the writer derived his information, or his in-
spiration, if that expression be preferred.
Wendt, for example, thinks that the dis-
courses are based on a genuine document,
which may be classed with the two original
sources of the Synoptics, while Wellhausen
finds a Johannine nucleus in the narrative
portion.1 Kenan thought the history was prob-
ably derived from the Apostle John through

1 Many others (e.g. Delff, Spitta, Bousset, Schwartz)
seek to arrive at a Grundschrift by a process of disinte-
gration, but the view expressed even by such a radical
critic as Schmiedel still finds general favour : " In the
end we shall have to concur in the judgment of Strauss,
that the Fourth Gospel is, like the seamless coat, not to be
divided, but to be taken as it is." — E. Bi. ii. 2556.

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 167

one of his disciples. Holtzmann thinks that
though the Apostle did not write it, the book
may have owed much, perhaps its very exist-
ence, to his teaching and inspiration. Harnack
thinks all the Johannine writings were produced
about 80-110 by John the Presbyter (see pp.
186 ff.) with the aid of the Apostle's reminis-
cences ; while Bousset would attribute them
to a disciple of the Presbyter. In this cate-
gory may also be included Schiirer, Weiz-
sacher, Sabatier, Soltau, Dobschlitz, E. A.
Abbott, Briggs, Moffatt, and Bacon.

As regards the indications of the authorship
to be found in Scripture, it is quite true that
while the writer of the Gospel, as of the First
Epistle, claims to have been an eye-witness of
the Saviour's ministry, he nowhere expressly
identifies himself with the Apostle John. But
this is an inference which a careful reader can
hardly fail to draw, when he observes the
remarkable absence of John's name from the
Gospel narrative except in connexion with the
last meeting of the risen Christ with His
disciples, on which occasion John and his
brother are referred to as "the sons of
Zebedee " (John 21 l fl). The inference is con-

168 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

firmed when we take into account, further, that
on several occasions the part assigned to the
disciple whom Jesus loved, in relation to Peter,
is precisely such as we might have expected of
the Apostle John. We have another sign of
the author's identity with the Apostle in the
fact that, although generally exact in his mode
of designation, he always calls the Baptist
simply " John," without any mention of his
office, as if he knew no other John from whom
the Baptist had to be distinguished.

All this, as we have seen, is in harmony with
the tradition of the Church. What, then, is
to be said against accepting the Gospel as the
work of the Apostle ? Space will not permit
us to notice all the minute objections raised,
many of which have been so successfully
met that they are no longer advanced. We
shall only attempt to deal with the more im-
portant of the arguments still brought against
the Johannine authorship.

One of the chief objections is that the account
which the Gospel gives of the ministry of Jesus
differs in many respects from what is found in
the Synoptics. It lays the scene of the ministry
chiefly in Judaea, and extends it to a period of

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 169

about three years, during which Jesus is repre-
sented to have been present in Jerusalem at
five different feasts, including two Passovers,
whereas the Synoptics tell of only one visit to
Jerusalem, and seem to confine the ministry
within less than a single year.

But in reality there is no contradiction, no
absolute inconsistency, between the two ac-
counts. For, on the one hand, the Fourth
Gospel expressly recognizes two periods spent
by Jesus and His disciples in Galilee (4 43^4
and 6 l - 7 9), in addition to the short visit to
Cana and Capernaum recorded in the second
chapter ; while, on the other hand, the form of
expression used by Mark (1 u RV.), when he
states that " after that John was delivered up,
Jesus came into Galilee," like Matthew's state-
ment (4 12 RV.) that " when He (Jesus) heard
that John was delivered up, He withdrew
into Galilee," implies that He had been
somewhere else previous to the Baptist's im-
prisonment, which did not take place for a con-
siderable period after His baptism. If we
had only the Synoptics to guide us, we should
be apt to think that the active ministry of Jesus
did not begin till after John's imprisonment ;

170 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

but we have here apparently one of the cases
to which J. D. Michaelis refers, " where John
appears in a delicate manner to have corrected
the faults of his predecessors/' for in the
Fourth Gospel (3 22'24) we read, " After these
things came Jesus and his disciples into the
land of Judaea ; and there he tarried with
them, and baptized. And John also was bap-
tizing in ^Enon near to Salim, because there
was much water there : and they came, and
were baptized. For John was not yet cast
into prison." At the beginning of the next
chapter the true reason is given for departing
again into Galilee — " When therefore the Lord
knew how that the Pharisees had heard that
Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples
than John (although Jesus himself baptized
not, but his disciples), he left Judaea, and de-
parted again into Galilee." This account of
the ministry, as dating from the baptism of
Jesus, not from the imprisonment of John the
Baptist, is not only more probable in itself,
but is more in harmony with the reference
made to it by Peter when the apostles were
about to appoint a successor to Judas Iscariot
(Acts 1 ->l f<) : " Of the men therefore which have

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 171

companied with us all the time that the Lord
Jesus went in and went out among us, begin-
ning from the baptism of John, unto the day
that he was received up from us, of these must
one become a witness with us of his resurrec-
tion."

That Christ's ministry should have centred
in Judaea and Jerusalem was only to be ex-
pected, if He had a message for the whole
Jewish nation. Indeed, unless He had often
taught in the capital, it would be difficult to
understand His words of lamentation over
Jerusalem (Luke 19 42 R.V.), when He " wept
over it, saying, If thou hadst known in this
day, even thou, the things which belong unto
peace ! but now they are hid from thine eyes,"
or that other pathetic utterance recorded
both by Matthew (23 3T) and Luke (13 34), "O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the pro-
phets, and stoneth them that are sent unto
her ! how often would I have gathered thy
children together, even as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings, and ye would
not ! "

The same thing may be argued from other
points of view. It was incumbent on all Jews

172 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

to repair to Jerusalem three times a year to at-
tend the Feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and
Tabernacles, and it would have been strange
if Jesus had never gone up before His last
fatal visit, even if His ministry had been as
short as the Synoptic Gospels might lead us to
believe. There is a tendency in some quarters
to assume that the Synoptics are to be pre-
ferred to the Fourth Gospel where they do
not agree with it. But when it is remembered
that the author of the latter had the three
others in his hands, or at all events within his
reach, it will be seen that the reverse is the
view which we should naturally take, especially
having regard to the fact that tradition re-
presents the Apostle as having written with
the intention of supplying certain omissions
in the other Gospels, and with the conception
of a more orderly arrangement than Mark had
attempted in his Gospel, — the want of order
being, as Papias tells us, a feature which
" John " recognized in Mark's narrative, while
he admitted it to be nevertheless quite reliable
(cf. p. 122).

A good many critics are now beginning to
see that in one very important matter the

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 173

Fourth Gospel is right and the Synoptics
are wrong, namely, as to the date of the last
Supper, which, according to the latter, took
place on the evening of the Passover, but, ac-
cording to the former, on the preceding even-
ing (John 19 l4). Matthew and Mark give
evidence unwittingly in favour of John's view
when they represent it as part of the plot
formed by the priests and elders that it should
be carried out " not during the feast, lest a
tumult arise among the people " (Matt. 26 5
and Mark 14 2 R.V.) ; and Luke does the
same when he reports Jesus as saying : " With
desire I have desired to eat this passover with
you before I suffer : for I say unto you, I will
not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the king-
dom of God " (22 15 f- R. V.)- The wearing of a
sword, too, by one of the followers of Jesus
after they had partaken of the Supper, and
Simon of Gyrene's coming into the city from
the country on the day of the crucifixion, con-
firm the supposition that the Jewish Passover
had not yet been celebrated. If the Fourth
Gospel is right in this instance, it may also be
right when it puts the cleansing of the temple
at the beginning instead of the end of the

174 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

ministry. There could have been no more
fitting initiation of Christ's work as a messenger
of God, even apart from the assertion of His
claims as the Messiah ; and it seems far more
likely that the Synoptists, having no place in
their narrative for an earlier visit to Jerusalem,
should have included the incident in their ac-
count of the final conflicts in the temple,
than that the aged apostle or any other later
writer should have diverged so widely from
the narrative familiar to the Church, without
having reason to do so.

Exception has been taken to the omission of
our Saviour's baptism in the Fourth Gospel,
and also to the representation which it gives
of the Baptist's testimony to Jesus. But the
baptism is really implied in the narrative, and
we can understand how the testimony of the
Baptist, which was involved in a true concep-
tion of his office, required to be specially
emphasized when the last Gospel was written,
if it be true, as some hostile critics have
suggested, that there was still in Ephesus a
remnant of the party indicated in the Book
of Acts (1824ff-), who were disposed to call
themselves disciples of the Baptist rather than

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 175

of Christ (cf. 1 s). In the same way fault has
been found with the Gospel for omitting the
institution of the Lord's Supper and for intro-
ducing sacramental teaching in connexion with
the feeding of the multitude (John, chap. 6).
But there was no necessity to repeat what had
been sufficiently recorded by the three other
Evangelists ; and the discourse regarding the
bread of life helps us to understand how the
disciples could receive apparently without any
surprise or difficulty the mysterious announce-
ment, "This is my body."

Still stronger exception has been taken to
the story of the raising of Lazarus from the
dead, on the ground that there is no mention
of it in the Synoptics,1 and that there is no
room for it in their account of Christ's last
visit to Jerusalem. But, as regards the nature
of the miracle, the Synoptics tell us of two
other cases in which Jesus raised the dead to
life ; and, as to the order of events, their ac-
count is not always to be relied on. The

1 For example, Wernle says : " That the three Synoptists
mention not a syllable of this greatest of all the miracles of
Jesus, is enough, quite by itself, to destroy all faith iri th§
.Tohannine tradition,"

176 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

books are Gospels, not chronicles ; and, when
we look at the question from a higher than a
chronological standpoint, in the light of cause
and effect, we can see that the alarm which
was caused among the rulers by the public
excitement produced by this crowning miracle,
marked the crisis in the conflict which had
been going on all along between the faith of
the disciples and the unbelief of the Jews.
This was the view taken by Schleiermacher
more than fifty years ago : " The Johannine
representation of the way in which the crisis
of His fate was brought about is the only
clear one." And again : " I take it as estab-
lished that the Gospel of John is the narrative
of an eye-witness and forms an organic whole.
The first three Gospels are compilations formed
out of various narratives which had arisen
independently ; their discourses are composite
structures, and their presentation of the history
is such that one can form no idea of the
grouping of events."

Another thing which is a stumbling-block
to many critics is the marked difference be-
tween the style of our Saviour's teaching in
the Fourth Gospel and that which is met

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 177

with in the other three. In the Synoptics
Christ's utterances are generally of a popular
character, frequently taking the form of
parables, and relating to the laws and the
prospects of the Kingdom of Heaven, while in
this Gospel they are largely of a theological
nature, and take the form of arguments
addressed to the Jewish authorities regarding
Christ's claims. Modern critics make a good
deal of this objection, but they have not im-
proved much on Bretschneider, the first for-
midable opponent of the Gospel, who wrote as
follows nearly a hundred years ago :—

"Jesus, as pictured by the earlier Gospels,
never employs dialectic skill, the ambiguity of
artifice, a mystical style, whether he be speak-
ing, preaching or disputing ; on the contrary,
there is the utmost simplicity, clearness, a cer-
tain 'natural eloquence which owes far more
to the genius of the mind than to acquired art.
In the Fourth Gospel he disputes as the
dialectician, his speech is ambiguous, his style
mystical, he deals in obscurities, so much so
that even very learned people are quite in the
dark as to the real meaning of many of his

sayings. In the one case there are short and

12

178 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

pregnant utterances, parables so beautiful and
of such inward truth that they grip the atten-
tion and sink deep into the soul ; in the other
the parabolic style of teaching is practically
absent. In the one case the question turns
on conduct, on rules of life, the Mosaic law,
errors of the Jewish people ; in the other the
speaker is concerned with dogma, with meta-
physics, with his own divine nature and dig-
nity." With regard to the difference in the two
portraits of Jesus, Bretschneider says : " The
one has almost nothing to bring forward as to
his divine nature, and judging by his utter-
ances, will solely describe himself as endowed
with divine gifts, sent by God, Messiah ; as
for the other, he makes everything turn on
himself, pre-existence is claimed, one with God
he has shared the divine glory, he had come
down from heaven in all the fullness of divine
knowledge and might ; he is about to return
speedily to the throne on high."1

What is to be said in answer to this ? In
the first place, it is not to be supposed that
Jesus would be confined to one mode of address

1 These quotations from the Probabilia are taken from
H. L. Jackson's work on " The Fourth Gospel ".

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 179

or one style of argument. We might ex-
pect Him to adapt His teaching to the wants
and the capacities of the different classes of
hearers, as we know He did in dealing with
individuals. Dialectics which were suitable
for the trained ecclesiastics of Jerusalem
would have been quite out of place among the
unsophisticated people of Galilee, who knew
little of doctrinal theology. Yet nowhere in
the Fourth Gospel does Jesus utter any more
profound truth, or advance any higher claim,
than He does in words recorded in the eleventh
chapter of Matthew's Gospel, where we read :
"At that season Jesus answered and said,
I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and
earth, that thou didst hide these things from
the wise and understanding, and didst reveal
them unto babes : yea, Father, for so it was
welUpleasing in thy sight. All things have
been delivered unto me of my Father : and no
one knoweth the Son, save the Father ; neither
doth any know the Father, save the Son, and
he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal
him." And again : " Come unto me, all ye that
labour and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest."

180 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

If Jesus was more reticent regarding His
Messiahship in addressing the Galilean multi-
tude, it was doubtless because the flames of
insurrection would have been so easily kindled
there. But even in Judaea He did not press
His claims as the Messiah. Many of His
words and actions were eminently in keeping
with that office even as conceived by the Jewish
nation ; but He left every man to form his
own impressions on the subject, and even His
disciples did not realize the height of His
calling till after He rose from the dead. At
His first visit to Jerusalem He showed no
desire to take people into His confidence and
increase the number of His avowed followers,
but rather the reverse (John 2 23 fft). Even
towards the close of His ministry the Jewish
populace were so uncertain regarding the
nature of His claims that when He was in the
temple " the Jews came round about him, and
said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in
suspense ? If thou art the Christ, tell us
plainly " (John 10 24).

As regards His rebukes to the scribes and
the chief priests and Pharisees, it should not
be forgotten that the Synoptics attribute to

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 181

Him a tone of still greater severity in the
arguments and appeals which He addressed
to the same men a few days before His cruci-
fixion. If there had not been such previous
encounters as the Fourth Gospel records, it
would have been difficult to understand the
strong and deep-seated antagonism on the part
of the Jewish authorities, which made them so
bent on His destruction.

Such considerations as these may help to
meet the difficulty created by the striking
difference of style and treatment in the fourth
as compared with the three earlier Gospels.
But no explanation will be satisfactory which
leaves out of account the personal idiosyn-
crasies of the writer and the circumstances of
the age whose spiritual needs his book was
intended to meet — when the Christian Church
had completely broken with Judaism and was
threatened with many subtle forms of error
within its own pale. While we cannot doubt
that the words which the Evangelist puts into
our Lord's mouth are in essential harmony
with what He had said, it was inevitable that,
in giving his personal reminiscences of what
had taken place more than fifty years before,

182 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

and in recalling discourses of which no record
had been preserved, the Apostle's imagination
should come to the aid of his memory. It
would have been strange too, if, after having
passed through such a long and wonderful
experience, and writing, as he was doing, in
Ephesus, a meeting-place of Oriental mysti-
cism and Greek philosophy, he had not seen
in the Saviour's words deeper meanings and
wider implications than he could ever have
divined at the time they were uttered.

There is a point of view not yet referred to,
from which the surprising differences between
the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics may
be regarded as an evidence that the former
had apostolic authority behind it. Otherwise
how can we account for its gaining general
acceptance in all parts of the world, although
it came so much later than the other Gospels
and set forth views of Christ's life and teaching
so very different from those to which the
Church had been accustomed for a generation ?

The strength of this argument is much
enhanced when we find that closer examination
tends to explain away most of the apparent

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 183

inconsistencies, and at the same time brings
to light many confirmations of the author's
claim to personal knowledge of the incidents
and conversations he records.1 The narratives
are generally so true, in detail, to Jewish
opinion and practice at the period referred to,
and present traits of character, in those who
come upon the scene, so vividly and so consist-
ently, as to imply the possession of marvellous
literary genius on the part of the writer, unless
he had lived in Palestine in close association
with our Lord and His apostles, or derived his
information from some one who had done so.
Though he brings before us a great variety of
character in a variety of circumstances, and
is generally very precise in describing time

1 It is significant that the veteran critic, Dr. E. A.
Abbott, in the preface to his recently published Introduc-
tion to his work on "The Fourfold Gospel," says : " I find that
the Fourth Gospel, in spite of its poetic nature, is closer to
history than I had supposed. The study of it, and especi-
ally of those passages where it intervenes to explain ex-
pressions in Mark altered or omitted by Luke, appears to
me to throw new light on the words, acts, and purposes of
Christ, and to give increased weight to His claims on our
faith and worship."

184 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

and place and number and other particulars,
he has not been proved guilty of a single
anachronism. We have illustrations of his ac-
curacy in the details given of the first calling
of the disciples by the banks of the Jordan, of
Christ's examination in the presence of Annas
before His trial by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin,
of the crucifixion, of the conversation with
Pilate, and of the resurrection ; as well as in
the circumstantial account given of the healing
of the man born blind and the subsequent
inquiry, and of the conversations v which
our Lord held with Nathanael and with the
woman of Samaria. Not least remarkable is
the acquaintance the author shows with the
state of parties in Jerusalem, and the plans and
policy of the high court. This is not so sur-
prising, however, if he was indeed that " other
disciple " who accompanied Peter to the high
priest's palace, and, being known to the high
priest, used his influence to procure Peter's
admission. Of this supposition we have a
curious confirmation in the fact that it is the
author of the Fourth Gospel only who tells
us that the name of the high priest's ser-
vant whose ear was cut off was Malchus,

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 185

and that it was Peter who inflicted the
wound.1

Recently a disposition has been shown by a
number of critics to admit the claim of the
writer to be an eye-witness, and to identify
him with the disciple whom Jesus loved, but
not with the Apostle John. In particular, it
has been argued that John Mark fulfils all
the requirements of the case. As his mother
had a house in Jerusalem, he may be identified
with the disciple known to the high priest
(1815f*), through whose influence Peter was
admitted to the palace, as well as with the
disciple who was entrusted by Jesus at the
cross with the care of His mother and took
her in that same hour to his own home (19 26f>).
The acceptance of this theory is quite con-
sistent with the historicity of the book, but
there is nothing to support it in the early life
of John Mark so far as known to us, and it
would leave the Apostle John and his brother
in strange obscurity, considering the promi-
nence assigned to them in the Synoptics, and

1 For a fuller statement of the internal evidence the
author may refer to his Introduction to the volume on St.
John's Gospel in the " Century Bible."

186 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

•

the intimate way in which John is associated
with Peter not only there but also in the Book
of Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians.
Similar objections may be taken to other
theories which would identify " the disciple
whom Jesus loved " with some other John of
Jerusalem than the Apostle (as held by Delff,
von Dobschiitz, Burkitt, and others). On the
other hand, if we identify the disciple whom
Jesus loved with the Apostle John, we get a
harmonious picture of him, alike in relation
to his Master and his fellow-disciples (cf. Luke
22 8; John 1323, 20 3, and 21).

A more serious rival than John Mark is
" John the Presbyter," although the only evi-
dence for his existence is found in a passage
in the writings of Papias, which has been pre-
served by Eusebius. It reads as follows : " If
I met anywhere with one who had been a fol-
lower of the Elders, I used to inquire as to the
discourses of the Elders — what was said
by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by
Thomas, or James, or by John, or Matthew,
or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what
Aristion and the Elder John, disciples of
the Lord, say." From this Eusebius inferred

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 187

that there were two Johns at Ephesus, one the
Apostle, and the other known as John the
Presbyter, a contemporary of Papias. This
seems a natural interpretation of the pas-
sage, but the only confirmation of it that
Eusebius offers (on the authority of Dionysius
of Alexandria, who wrote in the previous
century) is that there were two tombs at
Ephesus associated with the name of John,
and that if the theory were accepted it would
admit of a separate author being assigned to
the Apocalypse, whose apostolic origin both
Eusebius and Dionysius were inclined to doubt.
This is really all the evidence that has been
adduced for the separate existence of John the
Presbyter (i.e. Elder). Against it is the fact
that none of the other writers previous to
Dionysius who were connected with Asia
Minor (in particular Justin, Irenaeus — with
whom we may associate Polycarp — and Poly-
crates), seems ever to have heard of any leader
of the Church in Asia Minor or elsewhere
bearing the name of John, except the Apostle.
In view of the fact that Justin and Irenaeus
were well acquainted with the writings of
Papias, we may be excused if we decline to

188 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

accept Eusebius's novel interpretation of the
words in question, especially as he had a liter-
ary motive for it, as indicated above. There
is really nothing to prevent us from identi-
fying the " Elder John, a disciple of the Lord,"
who is referred to in the closing part of the
statement as still alive when Papias used to
make his inquiries,1 with the "John" who,
in the preceding clause, is mentioned among
the apostles (" the Lord's disciples "), whose
sayings had been reported to him by men of
a former generation. This identification is the
more probable, as the writer of II and III
John assumes to himself the name of " the
elder " — the very title given to " John " by
Papias at the close of his statement, whereas
all that Peter claims for himself is that he is
" a fellow-elder" (I Peter v. I).2

If "John the Presbyter" was not the Apostle,
he must have been some one who could
speak with authority regarding the early his-

1 Supposed to have been made about the close of the
first century.

2 A careful and learned argument in support of this view
will be found in Dom J. Chapman's " John the Presbyter "
(1911).

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 189

tory of the Church, for Papias quotes else-
where his testimony regarding the authorship
and composition of the Gospel of Mark. If
the Fourth Gospel was his work, it may still
have been a trustworthy record, and the as-
sociation of the Apostle's name with the book
may have been due to a popular misapprehen-
sion. Prof. Harnack, however, is inclined to
think that it was the result of a deliberate
attempt to invest the Gospel with a fictitious
authority, although he accepts the tradition
that the Apostle spent his later years at
Ephesus. The supposition is one that does
little honour to the early Church and its
leaders. Such men as Polycarp and Irenseus
must have been poor guardians of the truth, if
they allowed themselves and others to be de-
ceived in a matter of such vital importance.

Of late there has been an increasing tendency
among negative critics to reject the tradition,
which was widely spread before the end of
the second century, as to the Apostle John's
residence in Ephesus. In support of this view
(which was first taken by Vogel in 1801 and
adopted by Keim) they cite a statement attri-
buted to Papias and Origen by Georgius

190 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Hamartolus, an obscure chronicler of the
ninth century, to the effect that John the
Apostle was put to death by the Jews, after
being recalled from Patmos to Ephesus in the
reign of Nero. Confirmation of this is alleged
to be found in a late manuscript of an epitom-
izer of Philip of Side, a chronicler of the fifth
century, where it is stated that John and James
were killed by the Jews. As regards Origen
it is found that Georgius was mistaken, and it
is not unlikely he misunderstood Papias also,
who may have been referring to John the
Baptist ; or Papias may have been misled, as
Clemen suggests, by the prediction referred to
below. If Papias really said that John was
put to death by Herod at the same time as his
brother, this is directly at variance with Acts
(chap. 12), and also with Galatians (2 9)
where John isjspoken of, at a later period, as
one of those " who were reputed to be pillars."
Moreover, if such a fact was recorded by
Papias, it is strange that none of the Chris-
tians of Asia Minor in succeeding generations
betrays any knowledge of it. Justin Martyr
and Irenaeus, who were well acquainted with
the country, and Polycrates, who was Bishop

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 191

of Ephesus c. 190, all speak with confidence of
the Apostle's connexion with Ephesus ; and the
same may be said of the writer of the Leucian
Acts of John (c. 150),1 Clement of Alexandria,
and Eusebius. Such positive testimony is not
to be set aside on account of the silence of
Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, and
Hegesippus.

In all probability the story about John's
martyrdom arose from the prevalent belief
that Jesus had predicted a similar death for
the two brothers, when He said to them, " Ye
shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of ;
and with the baptism that I am baptized withal
shall ye be baptized" (Mark 1038f-; cf. Matt.
20 20 f* A. V.). Indeed we know as a matter of
fact that from this cause several legends arose
regarding the fate of the two brothers.

Finally, if we wish to judge this Gospel
fairly, we ought always to bear in mind the
avowed purpose of the author, which is, that
his readers may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that believing they may

1 Corssen and Pfleiderer regard the Gospel as designed
to counteract the Docetic teaching of this apocryphal
book.

10-2 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

have life in His name — a very different object
from that of the Third Gospel, which is that
the reader may know the certainty of those
things wherein he has been instructed. The
key to this Gospel is found in the prologue,
where Divine revelation culminates in the in-
carnate Word. This idea dominates the mind
of the writer and stamps its character upon
the whole book. Believing, as he did, in the
continual presence of the Saviour through the
influence of the Holy Spirit, and reflecting on
the wonderful words and works which he still
treasured in his memory, the last and most
thoughtful of those who had enjoyed personal
intercourse with Him who was God manifest
in the flesh, was enabled to give to the sacred
life a more spiritual interpretation than the
earlier Evangelists had done, and has be-
queathed to the Church a Gospel which is as
remarkable for its simplicity of style as for
its sublimity of thought. When John wrote,
he beheld the ministry of Jesus with other
eyes, he understood His words in a higher and
fuller sense, than when he walked with Him
over the fields of Galilee or in the streets of
Jerusalem.

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 193

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

Lay simply and sufficiently exposed,

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

Fed through such years, familiar with such light,

Guarded and guided still to see and speak)

Of new significance and fresh result ;

What first were guessed as points I now knew stars,

And named them in the Gospel I have writ.

— BROWNING.

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN

This Epistle has very strong external evi-
dence in its favour, and is included by Euse-
bius among the Homologoumena. Internally it
presents a striking contrast, both in form and
substance, to the Epistles of Paul ; but, on
the other hand, in many of its features, it
bears a resemblance to the Fourth Gospel.
The resemblance is so close (closer, according
to Holtzmann, than between the Third Gospel
and the Acts) that the Epistle has been likened
to a postscript, or a pendant, or a covering
letter ; but perhaps it might be better de-
scribed as a counterpart, designed to show how
those great truths regarding God and man,
which in the Gospel are historically illustrated
in the person of Jesus Christ, ought to be

realized in the lives of His followers,

13

194 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

The genuineness of all the three Epistles of
John was denied by Joseph Scaliger more than
three hundred years ago, but the first serious
attack on this Epistle was made by F. C. Baur,
who rejected both it and the Gospel. Baur
held the Epistle to be an imitation of the
Gospel, and the majority of his followers
attribute the two compositions to different
authors, neither of whom they admit to be the
Apostle John, their chief reason for rejecting
the Epistle being that it differs so irreconcil-
ably from the Apocalypse, which they hold to
be genuine. A few of them accept the single
authorship of Gospel and Epistle, and others of
them admit that the author of the latter may
have had a hand in the revision of the Gospel,
when the twenty-first chapter was added. On
the other hand, almost all critics who admit
the apostolic authorship of the Gospel also
accept the Epistle, and regard the differences
which, amid all their similarity, may be
discerned between them, as sufficient to prove
their independence and refute Baur's theory
of imitation.

The ground on which the rejection of the
Epistle is usually based is that it contains

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 195

references to Gnostic heresies of the second
century. But the objection is met by point-
ing out that the Johannine authorship is
consistent with a very late date in the first
century, and that the passages in question
(2 22 f-, 4 2 f>, etc.) are quite intelligible on the
supposition that they refer to Docetic views,
which began to be held about this time, and
especially to the doctrinal vagaries associated
with the name of Cerinthus, who taught that
the Christ became united with Jesus only at
his baptism and left him at his passion.

Owing to the absence of a superscription
and greeting, and of some other features usu-
ally found in an epistle, I John has been
described as a " catholic homily, " which might
as fitly have been delivered to a Christian
audience as addressed to a Church in writing.
There is no indication to what Church or
Churches it was to be sent, but probably it
was more or less an encyclical intended for a
circle of Churches in the neighbourhood of
Ephesus, from which we may suppose it to
have emanated. The writer frequently ad-
dresses his readers in such terms of fatherly
affection as would well befit the aged Apostle.

196 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

His last words are, " Little children, keep
yourselves from idols" (A.V.)— an exhortation
specially appropriate at Ephesus, which was a
stronghold of idolatry.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN
THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN

The nature of these two short letters (which,
as Origen said, do not contain a hundred lines
between them) precludes any reasonable sus-
picion of their genuineness, as we can hardly
conceive of any object being served by associ-
ating them with the name of " the elder."
Their brevity and insignificance also account
for the scanty references to them in patristic
literature ; and when we consider their unsuit-
ableness for reading in church, owing to their
private and personal nature (which makes
them letters in the strictest sense), we cannot
wonder at their tardy recognition in parts of
the Church where their origin was little known.
It is very unlikely, indeed, that they would
ever have been preserved, if they had not been
invested with authority from the first in the
community or communities to which they were
addressed.

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 197

There is sufficient evidence to show that
before the end of the second century the
Second Epistle was known and acknowledged
as written by the Apostle John ; but the
Third Epistle was later in obtaining recogni-
tion. The two are so closely related, however,
that Jerome was justified in calling them twin
sisters. While he admitted the common
authorship of the First Epistle and the Fourth
Gospel, he attributed the Second and Third
Epistles to " John the Presbyter," whose
separate existence in Asia Minor was believed
in by Eusebius on the strength of the vague
statement made by Papias (cf. pp. 186 ff.). This
view is still taken by a considerable number
of scholars in modern times, but it is scarcely
likely to prevail, and the claims made for the
mysterious presbyter must be settled in some
other way. It is generally admitted that
the Second Epistle resembles the First both in
ideas and expressions, and there is so great
a family likeness in all three that they must
stand or fall together.

The title of " the elder " was one which the
writer could only fitly assume (cf. I Peter 5 x),
if he was the elder par excellence among the

198 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

hundreds of elders in Asia Minor at that time ;
and the use of it harmonizes with the quiet
tone of authority which runs through the
Epistles. Such a position the general tradi-
tion of the Church, from the earliest times, has
attributed to the Apostle John.

There has been much controversy as to
whether the Second Epistle is addressed to a
Church or to an individual, and, if to an
individual, whether we are to translate the
designation of the recipient (e/cXe/crr/ Kvpia)
by " the elect lady," or "the lady Eklekte," or
"the elect Kyria." The opinion held by
Jerome that a Church was referred to under
the figure of a lady and her children has been
recently gaining ground among all classes of
critics. Such a metaphor need not surprise
us when employed by a writer so fond of
symbolism as the author of the Fourth Gospel,
and it gives more dignity to the sentiments
and language of the Epistle. In particular it
suits better the closing message sent by "the
elder": "The children of thine elect sister
salute thee " —language which is intelligible
and natural when the message comes from the
members of a Church, but would be strangely

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 199

defective if the greeting came merely from the
sister's children and not from herself.

Probably the local destination of the two
letters was the same, II John being the previous
(or possibly the accompanying) communication
referred to in III John v. 9. The object of the
letters, however, was somewhat different, the
former being directed against heresy, while
the latter relates rather to the evils of schism.
Both illustrate the difficulties encountered by
those who were responsible for the govern-
ment and administration of the Church at that
early period of her history.

There is no means of determining the date
of the Epistles, or discovering who were their
recipients, beyond inferring that they were
composed in the last quarter of the first cen-
tury, and that they were in all probability
intended for Christians in Asia Minor.

THE REVELATION OF S. JOHN THE DIVINE

A few words still remain to be said with re-
gard to " The Revelation," otherwise called the
Apocalypse (the Unveiling). It is a book whose
origin, authorship, and interpretation have been
the subject of infinite controversy, beginning

200 THE HISTORY AND RKSl'LTs [CHAP.

in the second century and culminating in the
voluminous literature which has appeared on
the subject during the last hundred years.

The Apocalypse shared the fate of the Fourth
Gospel in being attributed by a heretical sect
in the latter half of the second century to Cer-
inthus, the chief Gnostic antagonist of the
Apostle John : but otherwise it held a secure
position in the Church, and is strongly attested
from an early period in the second century.
The first serious attack upon the Johannine
authorship was made in the third century
by Dionysius of Alexandria, who was chiefly
influenced by the marked difference between
the barbarous Greek of the Apocalypse and
the more correct grammar and better style of
the Gospel — an argument which has also led
not a few modern critics to conclude that
both could not have been written by the same
author.1 Dionysius thought the Apocalypse
might be the work, not of John Mark (though
he" mentions him in this connexion), but of a
John of Ephesus other than the Apostle, there

llu this question, however, the Hebraic features of
the Gospel, both in style and otherwise, must not be over-
looked.

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 201

being two tombs of John shown, as he says,
in that city. This view was favoured by
Eusebius and by the Eastern Church generally,
which was slow to admit the book into the
Canon. In the West, on the contrary, its
canonicity was hardly ever disputed till the
Reformation, when it was looked upon with
suspicion by Luther and Zwingli and some of
their followers, but its ecclesiastical authority
remained unimpaired. During the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries it was subjected to
increasing criticism.

In the middle of last century the prevailing
opinion among German critics was that John
the Presbyter, not John the Apostle, was the
author of the work, and this view is still held
by many scholars, including some of the most
eminent English critics. On the other hand,
Baur and his immediate followers maintained
the apostolic authorship and dated the publi-
cation of the work about A.D. 70. A number
of recent writers regard the use of the name
John in the opening of the book as a case
of pseudonymity, which was a common thing
in apocalyptic literature, and hold the epistles
to the seven Churches, with which the book

202 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

commences, to be a separate composition.
Zahn, on the other hand, attributes the whole
book to the Apostle, as Sir William Ramsay
also does. Briggs takes a similar view as re-
gards the epistles and a considerable part of
the remainder of the book, while Spitta be-
lieves it to be partly based on a Christian
apocalypse written about A.D. 60 by John
Mark, to whom Hitzig attributed the whole
book.

Dr. Swete is so impressed with the lin-
guistic difference between the Gospel and the
Apocalypse that he holds it to be " due to
personal character rather than to relative
familiarity with Greek," the latter being an
explanation which commended itself to many,
when it was supposed there had been an in-
terval of twenty or thirty years between the
composition of the two books. But Harnack,
on the strength of the deep, underlying simi-
larity of their thought, holds the two books to
have had the same author, whom he identifies
with John the Presbyter, while Ramsay and
Feine, on the same principle, attribute both
to the Apostle. In this connexion we have to
bear in mind the part that may have been

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 203

taken by amanuenses, as well as the peculiar-
ities of apocalyptic literature and the position
of a convict in Patmos.

The question of literary sources, and of re-
visions or interpolations, has of late received
much greater attention than that of the
personal authorship. In the investigations
and discussions which have been going on for
the last thirty years, various theories of com-
position have been advanced by Weizsacker,
Volter, Vischer, Spitta, J. Weiss, Wellhausen,
Gunkel, Bousset, and others. An important
point, suggested by Gunkel and admitted by
Bousset, is the likelihood of many elements in
the book having come from ancient Jewish
sources through a succession of traditions de-
rived from Babylonian. Persian, or Egyptian
sources.1 The composite nature of the book
may be inferred from the fact that some
passages (especially chapter 11) appear to have
been written while Jerusalem was still stand-
ing, while others imply that the period of tbe

1 In chapter 12. Gunkel finds a reflection of the birth
of Marduk, and Bousset of that of Horus ; while Dieterich
thinks he can trace in it a reminiscence of the birth of
Apollo.

204 THK HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

compulsory worship of Caesar had set in
(13 14 f-, etc.) ; as well as from the symptoms, in
some passages, of Jewish exclusiveness, and, in
others, of a broad missionary outlook (7 4"9).
That the book in its present form has a literary
unity about it cannot be denied ; l but it seems
equally certain that its author made use of
some earlier source or sources, Jewish or
Christian, — though, when it comes to details,
the critics are as hopelessly at variance on this
question as with respect to the authorship.

With regard to its interpretation, the moderns
have the credit of being the first to realize that
the key to its meaning is, partly at least, to be
found in contemporary events, and that its
relation to the Book of Daniel, as well as to
other apocalyptic literature which has recently
come to light, must not be left out of sight.
As to its occasion and date, it is now generally
agreed that in its present form it appeared, as
Iremeus informs us, towards the close of

1 Jiilicher says : " The uniformity of the book in lan-
guage, style, and tone must not be forgotten, and especially
the fact that the general plan — introduction, seven epistles,
three cycles of seven visions, Kingdom of the Messiah on
earth, end of the world, New Jerusalem, and finally the
literarj7 conclusion — is perfectly straightforward."

iv.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 205

the reign of Domitian, say A.D. 95, when the
persecution of the Christians had become so
much a matter of public policy that it would
have been dangerous for them to speak plainly
in matters affecting their relation to the State.
It is also agreed that the great theme of the
book is the heroic stand the members of the
Church were called upon to make against the
worship of the Emperor, which was then being
enforced by the Roman authorities, especially
in Asia Minor. It hardly admits of doubt that
the first beast rising out of the abyss is to be
identified with Nero, the " number of the
beast " (666) corresponding to his official de-
signation in Greek, and that the second beast
represents the provincial priesthood of Asia
Minor, while the seven heads and the ten horns
symbolize the power of the Roman Empire
looked at from different points of view. The
healing of the wounded head of the beast is to
be understood with reference to the expected
return from the underworld of Nero, as the
protagonist of evil, to wage war with Christ at
His second coming.

The Chiliastic, or literal and sensuous view
of the Thousand Years (20 - f ), which was

206 NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM [CHAP. iv.

held by Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hip-
polytus, and others, has given place to a more
spiritual interpretation, which leaves room for
many symbolic applications of the visions
and prophecies contained in the book, and
recognizes its fitness in all generations to
sustain the faith and courage of Christians
in times of danger and distress. As a modern
critic, who has departed widely from the tra-
ditional view of its authorship, has said : " The
book has its imperishable religious worth,
because of the energy of faith that finds ex-
pression in it and the splendid certainty of its
conviction that God's cause remains always
the best and is one with the cause of Jesus
Christ."

CHAPTER V

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND THE CON-
TEMPOEAEY EPISTLES OF PAUL

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

IT is from this book that we derive our chief
knowledge of the early history of the Church.
Probably no historical work has ever been
subjected to so severe examination from every
point of view ; but, generally speaking, the more
thoroughly it has been tested, where a test
could be applied, the more firmly has its
character been established as a faithful and
reliable account of the early history of the
Church, from the pen of a contemporary
writer.

Thex identity of its authorship with that of
the Third Gospel is admitted with practical
unanimity. It is implied in the opening state-
ment addressed to Theophilus, to whom " the
former treatise " had been dedicated, and it is

borne out by the general similarity in style and

(207)

208 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

character between the two books. Who the
author was, is another question. According
to the unanimous tradition of the Church he
was Luke, " the beloved physician," Paul's
travelling companion, who was with him during
his imprisonment at Rome (Col. 4 u, Philemon
v. 24). Even among negative critics there are
very few who deny that Luke had a hand in the
composition of the two books ; and as regards
Acts the only question is whether the whole
narrative or only part of it came from his pen.
Numberless theories have been proposed by
those who cannot believe that the whole book
was the work of Luke. These theories all rest
on the fact that in certain sections1 of the
book the writer employs the first person plural,
as if to indicate that he had been an eye-wit-
ness of what he records, whereas in the rest of
the book the ordinary style of a historian is
adopted. There are indeed a few critics who
would deny to Luke even the authorship of
this travel-diary, as it has been called, some of
them ascribing it to Titus, though there is no
evidence of his having accompanied Paul to
Rome or of his ever having been there at all ;
1 Acts 16 10 - 17 ; 20 5 - 21 18 ; 27 l - 28 l6.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 209

others to Timothy, though he is mentioned in
chap. 20 4 f< in such a way as to imply that
he was not the writer ; others to Silas (Sil-
vanus), though he also is mentioned in' the
diary, by name, a few verses after the writer
has made use of the first person plural (16 19).
Among the critics who admit Luke's con-
nexion with part of the narrative, there are a
considerable number who hold that the book
as a whole is a work of the second century.1
This was the view generally maintained
by the Tubingen school, who attributed the
composition to a Pauline Christian, de-
sirous to promote the interests of cathol-
icity by harmonizing the Petrine and
Pauline elements in the Church of the
second century. It is now generally acknow-
ledged, however, that the doctrinal differ-
ences in the Apostolic Church were greatly
exaggerated by Baur and his followers, and
that the policy of reconciliation had less to

1 E.g. Schwegler, Overbeck, Keim, Hausrath, David-
son, Pfleiderer, and Schmiedel. Yet, if the dedication be
genuine (1 1 ; cf . Luke 1 IA), the " We " passages, as they
are called, which imply that the writer was a contemporary
of Paul, would have put a second-century author in an
awkward position.

14

210 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

do with the production of the New Testament
books than they imagined. In the case of this
book in particular, Baur's theory has been
discredited by the most recent criticism, which
finds it to be comparatively free from doctrinal
bias and pronounces it to be generally trust-
worthy.

It is true that the miracles, which enter so
largely into the narrative, are still a stumbling-
block to many critics, and predispose them to
disparage the historical character of the book.
For this purpose some of them try to reduce
Luke's share in it to a minimum, and attribute
the book in its present form to a redactor of
the second century. The arguments for putting
this construction on it are of a very conjectural
and precarious nature. The chief reason al-
leged is that it betrays the influence of Josephus,
who wrote near the end of the first century.
But this alleged dependence is so uncertain
that it is denied by many of the most eminent
critics both in this country and in Germany,
such as Keuss, Schiirer, Zahn, Harnack,1

1 Harnack says : " Schiirer sums up as follows : Either
St. Luke had not read Josephus, or, if he had read him,

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 211

Bousset, Wellhausen, Salmon, Sanday, and
Plummer, while on the other side are ranged
Krenkel, Holtzmann, Schmiedel, Wendt, and
Burkitt. That there should be some coinci-
dences between two historians belonging to
the same century and dealing with the same or
similar topics, is not surprising. But how un-
safe it is to argue from such a phenomenon is
evident from the fact that nowhere is the
resemblance more noticeable than in the ac-
count of Paul's voyage and shipwreck, which
was certainly written long before the auto-
biography of Josephus, where we have an ac-
count of a similar experience.

Critics have fastened on one passage in
particular, not included in the travel- document,
which appears to them to show unmistakable
signs of being derived from Josephus, namely
Acts 5 36 f\ There Luke refers first to Theudas,
and afterwards to Judas of Galilee, as hav-
ing stirred up the Jews against the Roman
power by appeals to their Messianic hopes.
What seems to be a parallel passage is found
in the twentieth book of Josephus's " Anti-
he had forgotten what he had read. Schiirer here exactly
hits the mark."

212 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

quities," where the names of Theudas and
Judas the Gaulonite are also introduced,
with an interval of a few verses between them.
But if the writer in Acts got his information
from this passage, he must have read it with a
carelessness very unlike his usual habits. For
Josephus states plainly when the risings under
these two leaders took place ; the one under
Theudas, though mentioned first, being much
later in time than that under Judas the Gaul-
onite, and being some years subsequent to the
speech of Gamaliel in which the risings in ques-
tion are referred to. Such carelessness would
be all the more surprising as the writer in Acts
states the number of men who joined themselves
to Theudas, namely, about four hundred, a detail
not mentioned by Josephus, and gives quite a
different account of the insurrection from that
of Josephus. In these circumstances, the most
reasonable inference seems to be that there had
been two men bearing the name of Theudas
(quite a common name among the Jews), who
had at different times headed a revolt, though
it is also quite conceivable that Luke had
received an imperfect report of Gamaliel's
speech.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 213

There is a passage in the Gospel which is
also alleged to show the influence of Josephus,
namely, Luke 3 \ where Lysanias is mentioned
as the tetrarch of Abilene. It seems to be cer-
tain that at the time in question Lysanias
was dead, and, as Josephus (XX, chap. 7) refers
to Abilene as belonging to the tetrarchy of
Lysanias, it is held that this reference has
been the cause of the mistake in the Book of
Acts. But Sir William Ramsay has shown that
this is not a safe inference, as the tetrarchy
might still be called by the name of Lysanias
even after his death.

In this connexion it is worth noting, as
telling, so far, against the supposition of depen-
dence on Josephus in these two passages, that
there is every reason to regard the descrip-
tion of the death of Herod in Acts (12 21 ff>) as
independent of the account of it given by
Josephus (XIX, 8 2).

Another great argument against the Lucan
authorship is derived from an alleged incon-
sistency between Paul's relation to the Jewish
law in his Epistles and the more favourable
attitude attributed to him in Acts. Objection
is specially taken to the apparent want of

214 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

harmony between the account of his visit
to Jerusalem in the fifteenth chapter of Acts
and the allusion to it in the second chapter of
Galatians. Ramsay meets the difficulty by
identifying the visit in Galatians with that
referred to in the eleventh chapter of Acts,
while other critics find a sufficient explanation
in the fact that in Acts it is the public aspect
of the matter that is chiefly dealt with, whereas
in Galatians the Apostle is looking at it from
a private and personal point of view. Har-
nack also suggests that the inconsistency to
a great extent disappears if we adopt the
Western reading in the apostolic decree (Acts
15 20> 29), which omits the reference to " things
strangled," so that the prohibition would in-
clude only offences against the moral law,
namely, idolatry, murder (" blood "), and forni-
cation, all which Paul would be as ready to
condemn as any of the other apostles. But
this view has not met with much acceptance.

There are other passages which are said to
show the Apostle's character in a false and
unworthy light (especially 21 20ff-, 23 6, and 26 6).
But we would require to have a fuller know-
ledge of the circumstances in order to judge

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 215

of Paul's conduct, and we may maintain the
genuineness of the book without claiming in-
fallibility for its writer or perfection for the
Apostle.

Against all such problematic objections to
the Lucan authorship we have a great amount
of positive evidence in its favour.

In the first place, as regards external
evidence, there is no trace of its genuineness
ever having been challenged in any age or
country until the rise of modern criticism in
last century. It is not so frequently quoted by
early Christian writers as the Third Gospel,
and it seems to have taken longer to come
into general use, but that is only what might
have been expected, considering the nature of
its contents ; and the fact is of little conse-
quence if it be admitted that the two books
have a common author, the evidence in their
favour having then a cumulative force. In the
case of Acts we find traces of its language in
Clement of Home, in the Didache, in Ignatius,
in Polycarp ; and what is particularly signi-
ficant is that the apparent quotations are
taken from other parts of the book than those
in the travel-document of which we have

216 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

spoken. It also appears to have been used
by Justin Martyr (A.D. 155) and Tatian (170) ;
and it has a place in the two earliest versions.
But the internal evidence is still more
weighty and convincing. A careful analysis
of its language has shown that there are
seventeen words and phrases scattered through-
out the book that are found nowhere else in
the New Testament, and there are fifty-eight
words common to the Third Gospel and Acts
that are also found nowhere else in the New
Testament. Compared with its relation to the
two other Synoptics, Acts is found to have
much more in common with the Third Gospel,
as might have been expected if these two
books had the same author. After giving
figures to illustrate their verbal relations, Sir
John Hawkins asks : " Is it not utterly im-
probable that the language of the original
writer of the ' We '-Sections should have
chanced to have so very many more correspon-
dences with the language of the subsequent
compiler than with that of Matthew or Mark ? "
(" Horse Synoptics," p. 185).

To this we may add that while there is no
trace of any artificial dove-tailing of the diary

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 217

sections into other parts of the book, there
are cross-references here and there which be-
token a unity of plan and composition. For
example, in 6 5, Philip is introduced to us as
one of the seven men chosen to look after
the poor in Jerusalem ; then at 8 40 he is re-
presented as " preaching the gospel in all the
cities till he came to Csesarea " ; and then at
21 8, after the arrival of Paul and his party at
Caesarea, the historian says : " and entering
into the house of Philip the evangelist, who
was one of the seven, we abode with him."

Another strong argument for the unity and
the genuineness of Acts is afforded by the
medical language which occurs in all parts of
the book and also in the Third Gospel. This
feature was observed long ago by Wetstein and
Bengel, but it was reserved for Dr. Hobart in
his work on the " Medical Language of St.
Luke " to exhibit the evidence in its full
strength. The force of the argument is now
generally acknowledged both by British and
Continental writers, but it has not prevented
Dr. McGiffert from suggesting that the writer
may have been some other Luke than the com-
panion of Paul !

218 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAT.

Perhaps the most convincing of all the
arguments in favour of the traditional view is
to be found in the accuracy of the political
and topographical allusions occurring in all
parts of the book, and in the entire absence of
any such second-century colouring as we find
in the "Acts of Paul and Thecla" and the
"Clementine Homilies." We are largely in-
debted to Sir William Ramsay for this kind of
evidence, which is absolute and objective as
compared with the hypothetical and subjective
nature of the arguments generally brought
against the genuineness and authenticity of
the book. The correctness of the titles ap-
plied to the various rulers who come upon
the scene — the title of " proconsul " to Sergius
Paulus of Cyprus and Gallio of Corinth
(13 7 ; 18 12) ; that of " praetors " to the magis-
trates of Philippi (16 20 ff-) ; of " politarchs "
to those of Thessalonica (17 6) ; and of
" chief man " to the governor of Malta (28 7) —
no less than the precision with which Lystra
and Derbe (but not Iconium) are described as
" cities of Lycaonia " (14 6), all testify to the
character of the writer as a careful historian,
and betoken an acquaintance with the state

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 219

of things at the time referred to, which a
second-century writer would have been very
unlikely to possess.

In the account of Paul's voyage and ship-
wreck we have a remarkable illustration of
the writer's accuracy. For the discovery of
this evidence we are largely indebted to the
investigations of a Glasgow citizen, of last
century, James Smith, of Jordanhill, whose
" Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul " is an
acknowledged authority on the subject. Dr.
Breusing, Director of the " Seefahrtschule,"
Bremen, endorses Mr. Smith's testimony when
he says : " The most valuable nautical docu-
ment of antiquity which has come down to us
is the account of the voyage and shipwreck of
the Apostle Paul. Every one can see at a
glance that it could only have been composed
by an eye-witness."

It has often been pointed out that in Acts
there is no sign of acquaintance with any of
the Epistles of Paul, and this fact has some-
times been supposed to be prejudicial to the
claims of the former or the latter, as the case
may be. But rightly viewed it is favourable to
the genuineness of Acts. For we know that

220 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

towards the end of the first century the Epistles
of Paul, or some of them at least, were so
well known and so highly prized by the
Christian world that any one wishing to give
an account of the life and labours of the
Apostle would have been sure to consult
them and to betray his acquaintance with
them. But, if Acts was written, at a com-
paratively early period, by a man who had
become acquainted with the facts through
long and intimate association with Paul, we
can understand how there should be no
reference to the Epistles in his narrative.
Yet we find that there is a certain similarity
of thought and diction between the history
and the letters, such as we might have ex-
pected from the sympathy and fellowship
between the two writers ; and in the " unde-
signed coincidences," set forth by Paley in his
" Horae Paulinas," we have a proof that the
author of Acts had a thorough knowledge of
Paul's movements and circumstances. He is
scarcely less faithful and successful in the
account he gives of the part played by Peter
and Stephen, who represent the types of
Christian thought which prevailed before the

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 221

doctrinal aspects of the Gospel had been so
clearly recognized as they are in Paul's writings.
His indication, too, of the change which the re-
surrection of Jesus made on the attitude of the
Pharisees and the Sadducees towards His cause,
is another token of his fidelity and independence.
If there be still many things in the narrative
which we are unable to verify, we are war-
ranted in trusting the author in such cases,
both on account of his acknowledged merit as
a historian and because he had excellent
opportunities of getting information at first
hand, not only from the Apostle Paul (who
seems to have been very communicative regard-
ing his personal experiences — II Cor. 1 8'10 ; 121'9 ;
Gal. 1 and 2 ; Phil. 3 4 ff>), but from many others
who took part in the events which he records.
Such were John Mark (to whom Acts 12 may
have been largely due ; cf . Col. 4 10 and Philemon
v. 24) ; Barnabas (Acts 4 30) ; Philip the evangel-
ist (Acts 21 8 ff ) ; Mnason (Acts 21 lfi) ; Silas
(Acts 15 *2 ; 16 l9 ff-) ; Manaen, the foster-brother
of Herod the tetrarch (Acts 13 l) ; and James
the Lord's brother (Acts 15 13 ; 21 18)— with all
of whom Luke had been brought into personal
contact.

222 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

It has been suggested that the author of
Acts had the benefit of other documents ; and
this may not improbably have been the case,
as regards the early part of the narrative.
But there is no reason to doubt that Luke was
the author of the book as a whole. The minute
schemes of partition and redaction associated
with the names of Van Manen, Sorof, Spitta,
Hilgenfeld, J. Weiss, C. Clemen, and Jiingst
have met with little acceptance. In these
speculations the Tubingen theory lias been
reversed, for according to Baur the Book of
Acts derived its motive from the second cen-
tury, whereas according to the newer critics
its value lies in the early fragments which
have been pieced together by an unskilful
redactor. The more elaborate the theories of
compilation are, the greater demand they
make on our credulity, and it is no wonder
that the two critics who have gone farthest
in this direction are found accusing each other
of excessive ingenuity.

Whatever the author's sources may have
been, whether written or oral, he had evidently
throughout the whole book a clear and con-
sistent view of the gradual development of the

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 223

Church's life under the influence of Christ's
Spirit and the guidance of His providence.
To trace this course of development, and at
the same time to exhibit, in as favourable a
light as the truth would permit, the relations
of the Church to the Jewish religion on the
one hand and the imperial power of Rome on
the other, was the main object of the book.
The historical perspective is well preserved
throughout, and alike in the narration of
incidents concerning those who are otherwise
known to us, and in the report of their speeches,
there is a high degree of verisimilitude.

With regard to the date of composition,
there is still considerable divergence of view
among those who accept the Lucan authorship,
chiefly owing to difference of opinion about
the date of the Third Gospel, which was
written before Acts, as the preface to the latter
implies. Harnack has recently declared that
he sees no reason to believe that the Gospel
was written after A.D. 70, and he has come to
the conclusion that Acts was written at the
close of Paul's two years' imprisonment at
Rome. Those who date the Gospel after the
destruction of Jerusalem generally assign to

224 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Acts a date somewhere between 72 and 81
(e.g. Meyer, B. Weiss, Ramsay, Headlam), and
some are disposed to believe that Luke had in
view the preparation of a third "treatise"
for the completion of his subject. But in
reality there is no want of finish in the con-
cluding portion of Acts if it marks the close
of Paul's imprisonment as the result of his
acquittal. On the other hand, if he had
been condemned and had suffered martyrdom
(which was very unlikely to be the case, judg-
ing from the opinions expressed by Festus
and Agrippa (Acts 25 f.)), Luke's silence
would have been very disappointing, and un-
worthy of his character as a historian. As to
the date of publication, it seems very improb-
able that, if he had his travel-document in his
possession when he arrived at Rome, and had
acquired other materials during Paul's im-
prisonment at Caesarea and at other times after
joining Paul's company, he should have allowed
many years to pass before the publication of
his book. (Cf. pp. 291 ffi).

Those who hold Luke to be the author, but
feel constrained to admit his dependence oh
Josephus (e.g. Peake), fix on a date a few

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 225

years after the publication of Josephus's
"Antiquities " (A.D. 93). Those who reject the
Lucan authorship generally choose a date
somewhere between 100 and 150.

The main question is as to the historical
value of the book, and on this point we may
quote, in conclusion, the words of two eminent
critics who have done more to influence opinion
on this subject than any other writers in recent
times. Prof. Harnack, in spite of his prejudice
against the book on account of the prominence
it gives to the miraculous, says : " Judged
from almost every possible standpoint of
historical criticism, it is a solid, respectable,
and in many respects extraordinary work ;
and its author's courage is also extraordinary
—the courage with which he approaches
the task of describing the complicated history
of a religious movement still in process of
most active development." Sir William Ram-
say, who began his inquiry, as he tells us,
11 with the fixed idea that the work was essen-
tially a second century composition," says :
"Acts was written by a great historian, a
writer who set himself to record the facts as

they occurred, a strong partisan, indeed, but

15

220 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

raised above partiality by his perfect confidence
that he had only to describe the facts as they
occurred, in order to make the truth of Chris-
tianity and the honour of Paul apparent."

THE EPISTLES OF PAUL

There is reason to believe that all the thirteen
letters in the New Testament which purport to
be written by Paul, with the exception of the
Pastoral Epistles (I and II Timothy and Titus),
were accepted by the Church of the first cen-
tury as genuine writings of the Apostle. It is
certain that the ten Epistles in question were
included in the collection of writings accepted,
under the name of " Apostolicon," by the
Gnostic leader Marcion (about A.D. 140).
While he held nearly all of them to have
suffered from interpolation in the interests of
Judaism, he never raised a doubt, so far as we
are aware, of their being substantially the work
of Paul. That they were also accepted by his
contemporaries may be inferred from the
secure position which they occupied in the
general estimation of the Church thirty or
forty years later, when we find them all in-
cluded in the Muratorian Canon as Scriptures

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 227

read at public worship. It is incredible that
they could have owed this position to the
favour of such a notorious heretic as Marcion,
the " first-born son of Satan," who seceded
from the Church in Rome, and set up an or-
ganization of his own.

If we may assume that these Epistles were
generally acknowledged to be Paul's about
A.D. 140, we have only to compare them with
the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (from
A.D. 95 onwards), as well as with the pseud-
epigraphic writings of the same period, to be
satisfied that they could not have been the
productions of a post-apostolic writer who
had recourse to forgery in order to get a
favourable hearing from his contemporaries.
Carrying our thoughts back to a still earlier
period, when original members of the Churches
to which the Epistles were addressed were
still alive, we can realize how extremely diffi-
cult it would have been to palm off upon
these Churches, as letters of Paul, writings of
which they had never heard before, containing
numerous greetings and other personal refer-
ences, in which any mistake would have been
readily detected and been much commented on.

228 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

We know that several spurious writings were
put forth in Paul's name long after he was
dead, but they never obtained currency in the
communities to which they were addressed, any
acceptance which they met with being confined
to places far distant from their avowed des-
tination. This was the case with the Epistles
to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians, and
the Third Epistle to the Corinthians.

As regards those Pauline Epistles which
were contained in Marcion's "Apostolicon " and
found their way into the Canon, any difference
in the reception which they met with for a
time in different parts of the Church was due
not so much to the results of critical investiga-
tion as to local interest or doctrinal predilec-
tion, an epistle being held in less esteem where
it was little known or where its teaching was
unpalatable. Marcion professed to subject all
of them to critical examination, but he was
obsessed with the idea of an irreconcilable
antagonism between the Jewish and the Chris-
tian religion, and the only result of his labours
was to cut out what seemed to him to be in-
terpolations— a kind of criticism which has
frequently reappeared in modern times — and

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 2-29

to insert a few words here and there, usually
borrowed from some other Epistle, for the
purpose of bringing the passage into harmony
with his own conception of Paul's teaching.
While the text current in Marcion's time
cannot be said to have been altogether free
from corruption, yet the fact that the writings
of an apostle were as a rule highly prized by
the Churches to which they were addressed,
and were frequently communicated to other
Churches, long before any steps were taken to
collect them into one volume, renders it ex-
tremely improbable that in the course of their
history they should have suffered so many
serious alterations as Marcion supposed to have
taken place.

m

Though it was not till 1792 that any doubts
were raised as to the substantial genuineness
of the Epistles attributed to Paul, a few years
before (1786) J. S. Semler suggested that the
Epistles had been preserved, not in the form
in which they were originally written, but as
they were adapted for reading in church, and
the same writer had anticipated modern critics
by his theories of interpolation in the case of
Romans 15, 16, and II Corinthians 9 and 12, 13.

230 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

The first to call any of the Epistles seriously
in question was Evanson, in his work on the
Gospels already mentioned (p. 104), in which he
rejected Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians,
and threw doubt on Titus, Philippians, and
Philemon. He was answered in England
by Joseph Priestley (1792-3) and a Bampton
Lecturer (T. Falconer, 1810), but the con-
troversy on the subject was mainly carried on
in Germany. For many years adverse criticism
was confined to the Pastoral Epistles, I and II
Thessalonians, and Ephesians, led by J. E. C.
Schmidt (1798), Eichhorn (1804), Schleier-
macher (1807), Usteri (a Swiss theologian,
1824), de Wette (1826), F. C. Baur (1835), and
Kern (1839).

In 1845 Baur published his epoch-making
"Paulus," in which he aimed at a scientific
treatment of the literary and historical quest-
ions involved in the Acts of the Apostles and
the Pauline Epistles. Viewing the develop-
ment of the early Catholic Church from a
Hegelian standpoint, as the product of conflict-
ing forces represented by a Petrine or Jewish-
Christian party and a Pauline or Gentile-
Christian party, Baur arrived at the conclusion

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 231

that the only certainly genuine Epistles of
Paul were Galatians, I and II Corinthians, and
Romans, which seemed to bear the most dis-
tinct traces of the supposed antagonism. He
based his acceptance of them, however, on
somewhat different grounds when he said :
" They bear on themselves so incontestably
the character of Pauline originality that it is
not possible for critical doubt to be exercised
upon them with any show of reason." The
rest of the Epistles attributed to Paul he re-
garded as second-century productions of the
Pauline school, designed to reconcile antagon-
istic forces, and to promote the unity of the
Church in opposition to Gnosticism, which
threatened its very existence.

A few years later, Bruno Bauer, an anti-
supernaturalist, published his " Kritik der
Paulinischen Briefe" (1850-2), in which he
pronounced all the Pauline Epistles to be,
without exception, fabrications of the second
century (somewhere between A.D. 130 and 170),
their teaching being, in his opinion, for the
most part a creation of the Greek mind.
Bauer's views were repudiated by the Tubingen
school and made little impression at the time.

232 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

But what is virtually the same position has
been recently adopted by the radical school of
Dutch critics,1 who claim to be the true suc-
cessors to F. C. Baur, carrying out his principles
to their logical and ultimate consequences.
They reduce the external evidence to a mini-
mum, rejecting the Ignatian Epistles and bring-
ing Clement of Rome down from A.D. 95 to the
middle of the second century.

But the general current of opinion during the
last forty years has run in an opposite direction.
Even apart from the external evidence, it has
been felt that, in several of the Epistles re-
jected by Baur, the personality of the writer
is too strong and vivid, and too true to apostolic
times, to have been a creation of the second
century ; and, in consequence, there has been a
tendency to accept I Thessalonians, Philip-
pians, Colossians, Philemon, and, in some
quarters, even II Thessalonians and Ephesians,
and the Pastoral Epistles themselves, in addi-
tion to those acknowledged by Baur. This

1 Represented by Pierson, Naber, Loman, Volter, van
Manen, and (in a modified form) by Steck of Berne. Prom-
inent among their opponents in Holland were J. H:
Scholten (1882) and Baljon (1899), and, in Germany,
Heinrici (1886) and M. Bruckner (1890).

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 233

tendency has been most apparent in Great
Britain, where sympathy with the negative
views of the Tubingen school has been con-
fined to a small number of writers, represented
by S. Davidson and the author of " Super-
natural Religion." But even in Germany the
traditional views have been maintained by
some critics of the first rank, such as Th. Zahn
and B. Weiss, and in France by Godet, while
the prevailing tendency in both these countries
has been to qualify the negations of Baur,1
which are unreservedly accepted by hardly
any of those who inherited the traditions of his
school.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO
THE THESSALONIANS

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE
TO THE THESSALONIANS

Proceeding now to the consideration of in-
dividual Epistles, we shall begin with I and II
Thessalonians, as being probably the earliest
extant Epistles of Paul, though there are a
number of modern scholars who claim that

1 So Reuss, Ewald, Bleek, Mangold, Ritschl, Beyschlag,
Weizsacker, Harnack, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer.

234 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

position for Galatians. As regards the external
evidence in their favour, we find that by the
time of Irenaeus (A.D. 185) they were widely
and generally accepted as writings of Paul.
Forty years earlier, as we have seen, they had
a place in Marcion's " Apostolicon," and for
half a century before that time, we hear echoes
of their language in the writings of the Apos-
tolic Fathers. Notwithstanding this testimony
in their favour, they have both been called in
question in certain quarters.

The earliest writer to throw doubt on I
Thessalonians was Schrader, in 1836 ; and in
1845, as we have seen, it was rejected by Baur.
This verdict, however, has not been generally
adopted, for the Epistle is accepted by Hilgen-
feld, Lipsius, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Jtili-
cher, P. Schmidt, Schmiedel, von Soden, and a
host of more conservative critics. As McGif-
fert says : " Its authenticity, denied a couple
of generations ago by many scholars, is to-day
generally recognized, except by those who deny
the genuineness of all the Pauline Epistles"
(art. Thessalonians in E. Bi.).

Although in some respects different in char-
acter from all the other epistles which bear

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 235

Paul's name, I Thessalonians gives us such a
vivid representation of the Apostle and his con-
verts, revealing so much tenderness and sym-
pathy and devotion on the one side, and so
much simple faith and warm enthusiasm on
the other, that we feel it to be in the highest
degree improbable that it should have been a
fabrication produced after the Apostle's death.
Moreover, it is difficult to conceive any motive
the writer could have had for his forgery, and,
in particular, it seems unlikely that any later
writer, personating the Apostle, would have
attributed to him the belief that the Second
Coming would happen during his life-time,
when the expectation had already been falsi-
fied by his death, and the Church had become
reconciled to the mortality of its members
through the prospect of the resurrection.
The prominence given to this subject in the
Epistle has something corresponding to it in
Acts (17 3), but it was, no doubt, largely due
to the yearning in the hearts of the sorely tried
converts for the promised return of their Lord.
The manner, too, in which the primitive truths
of the Gospel are quietly assumed, without any
argument, is what we might have expected,

236 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

considering that the greater part of the Epistle
(chaps. 1-3) was intended (as is now acknow-
ledged by most critics) to vindicate the char-
acter of the Apostle under the attacks made
upon him by unbelieving Jews for having left
Thessalonica under stress of persecution,1 while
the remainder was designed to afford practical
guidance and encouragement to his converts
under the trials and temptations to which they
were exposed. The letter agrees in the main
with the narrative in Acts, but there is no
reason to believe that this is the result of de-
sign in either case, as the former (3 1"6) gives an
account of Timothy's movements which at first
sight seems to be at variance with the history
(18 1-5), and tells (1 7f, 2 6-10) of events which
must have occupied a longer time than the
period which a cursory reader of Acts would

1 Hence Paul's strong condemnation of the Jews in
2 io f.e The expression in 2 10 strongly resembles Test.
Levi 6 u, and is held by Schmiedel to be an interpolation
referring to the fall of Jerusalem. But it may be judicial
hardening and demoralization that is referred to. Accord-
ing to Zahn, von Soden, and others, the slanderers of the
Apostle were not Jews but Gentiles. But, if the latter •
took part in the calumny, the former were probably the
instigators.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 237

imagine the Apostle to have spent at Thessa-
lonica(171-10).1

While there is now general agreement
among scholars as to the genuineness of
I Thessalonians the same can hardly be
said of the Second Epistle, although it has
stronger external evidence in its favour, in-
cluding the apparent use of it by Polycarp.

Doubts were first raised in 1801, by J. E. C.
Schmidt, who finally rejected the Epistle
altogether. In 1839 Kern suggested that the
apocalyptic passage in 2 x-12 was the work of a
Paulinist, about 70-80 A.D., whose language is
to be interpreted in the light of the historic
situation, and that he compiled almost all the
rest of the Epistle from I Thessalonians, as a
setting for his eschatology. This view has
been adopted, with various modifications of
date and historic reference, by Baur, Weiz-
sacker, Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, Holtzmann,
Wrede, Hollmann, von Soden, Weinel, and
others ; while Hausrath, on the other hand,
holds the passage in question to be the genuine
apostolic nucleus of the Epistle.

1 Cf. Philippians 4 16 (on which see Frame on Thessa-
lonians, I.C.C., pp. 120 f.).

238 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

The genuineness of the Epistle, as a whole,
has been maintained by a still greater number
of scholars, including Llinemann, Lightfoot,
Jiilicher, Bornemann, Briggs, Zahn, B. Weiss,
Wendt, Charles, Vincent, Bacon, Askwith,
Wohlenberg, Lock, Findlay, Clemen, Vischer,
Wernle, Sabatier, Heinrici, Milligan, Bousset,
Drummond, von Dobschtitz, Harnack,1 Know-
ling, Motfatt, Deissmann, Feine.

The two points on which the controversy has
mainly turned have been : (1) the close depend-
ence of II Thessalonians on the First Epistle,
both as regards arrangement and language, and
(2) its strange eschatology.

(1) The literary dependence referred to is
certainly very remarkable, but it is as difficult
to account for it on any theory of forgery as
when we attribute the composition of both
letters to the Apostle with the assistance of
Silas and Timothy. The difficulty arises from
the fact that while, as Jiilicher says, " on the

1 Harnack supposes the Epistle to have been addressed
to the Jewish Christians at Thessalonica (to whom he finds
an allusion in a various reading of 2 13 — aTrapxyv, "first-
fruits," instead of aTr'dpx^, "from the beginning") ; while
the First was sent, perhaps a day or two before, to the
Gentile members, forming the main body of the Church.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 239

whole the style is so thoroughly Pauline that
we might indeed admire the forger who could
imitate it so ingeniously, " there is sometimes
so close a parallelism between the two Epistles
as to suggest that the author must have had
the First Epistle before him when he wrote the
Second. There is indeed nothing improbable
in the supposition that Paul may have retained
a rough draft of the former letter, and even if
we assume that his chief object in again writ-
ing to the Thessalonians was to correct their
misapprehensions about the Second Coming of
the Lord, he might quite well take the oppor-
tunity of reverting to other topics on which
they still required encouragement and exhorta-
tion, especially if the First Epistle had not been
received with so much deference as it ought
to have been (I. 5 2T ; II. 3 "J.1 In this light the
Second Epistle may almost be regarded as a
revised edition of the First, with the omission
of the first two or three chapters, which were
no longer needed to vindicate the personal
character and conduct of the Apostle in rela-

1 There are also expressions in the Epistle which favour
the supposition that the Apostle was replying to a letter
he had received from Thessalonica in answer to his First
Epistle (1 3, n ; 3 1*5).

240 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

tion to his converts. It may have been owing
to the readjustment thus rendered necessary
(whether it fell to the Apostle himself or to one
of his companions acting as his amanuensis or
secretary ; Rom. 16 a, I Cor. 16 21, Col. 4 18,
II Thess. 3 1T), that the Second Epistle is less
smooth and flowing than the First. If it is at
the same time more severe in tone, this may
have been due partly to the fact that the state
of the Church in Thessalonica was now less
satisfactory (II. 3) than when Timothy brought
back the good news of the faith and patience
of its members, and partly to the grievous
trials which beset the Apostle in Corinth, at
the hands of the Jews, about the time when the
Second Epistle would be written (Acts 18 5fL).
(2) As regards the second and more serious
objection taken to the Epistle on account of
its strange eschatology, recent researches by
Gunkel, Bousset, and Charles have shown that
the mysterious passage in question (2 1J2) can
have nothing to do with the growth of Gnostic
error, and is not to be explained either by
the Neronic legend (Nero-redimvus)^ as sug-

1 " The man of sin " has also been identified with such
different characters as Caligula, Mahomet, the Pope,

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 24l

gested by Kern, or by derivation from the
Book of Revelation (chap. 13) — where the
Roman Empire stands for all that is evil. The
real origin of the passage is to be found partly in
the apocalyptic teaching in the Book of Daniel
(11 36f- — referring to the character and career
of Antiochus Epiphanes) and other Jewish
writings, partly in the new ideas of " the last
times " current in the early Church, in which
"prophecy" had an important place, Silas
being himself a prophet (Acts 15 32). It con-
tains a veiled expression of the thoughts which
Paul and his company had been led to en-
tertain on a subject of supreme importance, on
which Jesus himself had uttered many solemn
warnings (Matt. 24), and on which the Apostle
John was yet to testify, though in a some-
what different sense (Rev. 1, 218, 41'3 etc.). It
was a subject confessedly mysterious, but Paul
was bound to recur to it, in view of the intense
interest it had excited among the Thessalonians,

Luther, Napoleon ; while " the one that restraineth '' has
been supposed by some to refer to the German Empire, to
Claudius, ior even to Paul himself, though it is now gener-
ally understood to refer to the Roman Government, which
had not yet begun to persecute the Christians.

16

242 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

and the misapprehensions and abuses to which
it was liable. In the present utterance, which
would be very difficult to account for if it
stood alone as the invention of a forger, but
may have been more intelligible to the Thessa-
lonians owing to the previous instruction they
had received on the subject (25), we can trace
the Apostle's reverence for Roman law and
order (" that which restraineth," v. 6), as well as
his despair of the Jewish Church (v. 3), whose
rulers were now filled with a fanatical hatred
of the Gospel and its preachers. It was this
aspect of Judaism that had recently forced
itself on his attention in Thessalonica, Beroea,
and Corinth (Acts 17 5« 13, 18 6, I Thess. 2 "-16,
II. 3 l f-). And when he pictures the great
enemy of Christianity as "the man of sin"
who was to sit in the temple of God, setting
himself forth as God, whose coming was to be
with all power and signs and lying wonders,
he conceives of him as the last and mightiest
representative of Jewish unbelief, whose as-
cendency would be a signal for the return of
the Lord in overwhelming power and glory.1

1 It is characteristic of apocalyptic literature that it
takes its cue from the signs of the time in which it is pro-

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 243

In these circumstances, the absence from the
Epistle of any reference to the controversies
about the observance of the Jewish law, which
had agitated the Churches of Syria and Asia
Minor through the influence of Jewish Chris-
tians, may be regarded as a token of genuine-
ness in the case of an Epistle addressed to
Macedonian Christians, who had been fiercely
persecuted by the unconverted Jews.

As regards the relation between the pro-
phecy in this Epistle concerning the Second
Coming and that in I Thessalonians, it has
often been pointed out that there is no incon-
sistency between the idea that the great event
would take place suddenly and the belief that
it would be preceded by certain signs. The
two ideas are combined in our Lord's great

duced. Hence, a few years after this Epistle was written,
when Christianity was proving too strong for its Jewish
adversaries, we find Paul looking forward to a complete
restoration of Israel (Rom. 11 26). At a later period, when
imperial persecution of the Christians and the deification
of the Emperor had set in, Rome appears as the embodi-
ment of evil in the Apocalypse of John ; while still later
in his Epistles the same Apostle finds the spirit of Anti-
christ in those who deny the reality of the Incarnation
(I John 2 18, 4 !-3).

244 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

prophecy on the subject (Matt. 24 29 ff-), where
the lesson is to watch, and, as Baur himself
admitted, either idea might be fitly emphasized
at the proper time.

With regard to some slight variations of ex-
pression in the two Epistles, and the unusual
emphasis laid by the Apostle on his signature
as a token of genuineness (3 17), they may be
viewed in such a way as to tell rather against
the supposition of forgery than for it. The
same may be said of the allusion to possible
deception by letter or otherwise, as the sug-
gestion was one which a forger would hardly
have cared to make, though it was natural
enough for the Apostle to speak about his
correspondence as he does in these Epistles,
if he was only now beginning to employ this
method of communicating with his converts.

A suggestion was made by Grotius long ago,
which commended itself to a number of notable
critics, including Ewald and Renan, that the
explanation of certain expressions and allusions
in I Thessalonians was to be found in the fact
that it was really of a later date than the so-
called II Thessalonians. But it is now gener-
ally felt that there is no sufficient reason to

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 245

reverse the traditional order of the two letters,
which can be traced back to the time of
Marcion, and has considerable internal evi-
dence in its favour.1

A recent writer (R. Scott, 1911) considers
that the Epistles are made up of two documents
drawn up by Timothy and Silas respectively,
the former being the author of I. 1-3, and II. 3,
the latter of I. 4, 5 and II. 1, 2, the whole hav-
ing been completed and edited by Timothy be-
tween A.D. 70 and 80. Spitta, on the other hand,
attributes the whole of II Thessalonians, except
3 17 fl, to Timothy, whom he holds to be the
speaker in 2 5 — although, in a few other pas-
sages in which the singular pronoun is employed

1 E.g., I. 5 27 throws light on II. 2 15 and 3 14- 17, as
I. 4 13-18 does on II. 2 l. Again II. 3 6 ff- indicates the in-
creasing gravity of the situation as compared with I. 4 u f- ;
while I. 2 17 and II. 1 3 f- show progress and improvement.
Moreover, I. 2 1T and 3 6 seem to exclude the supposition of
the Apostle's having had any communication with Thessa-
lonica since his first visit, except through Timothy on the
occasion referred to. It is possible Timothy may then have
brought back a letter with him from Thessalonica, which,
if we had it, would explain many of the expressions in the
First Epistle. Dr. Eendel Harris has actually attempted
to reproduce such a letter, though there is no evidence of
its ever having existed (Exp. V, viii. pp. 16 ff.).

246 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

(I. 3 5, 5 *\ II. 3 u), the words are evidently
Paul's. But while the partnership of Timothy
and Silas with Paul in these two Epistles, and
the influence they may have exerted as amanu-
enses, are not to be overlooked, the Pauline
characteristics of many passages are so ap-
parent, both in thought and feeling, as to put
out of court such ingenious theories as those
we have just mentioned.

As regards date and place of composition, it
follows from what has been already said that
both Epistles were written from Corinth when
Paul was residing there along with Silas and
Timothy. From an inscription recently dis-
covered at Delphi (Deissmann's " Paul," Ap-
pendix I) it appears that Gallic entered on his
office as proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18 12) in mid-
summer of A.D. 51, and as Paul had already been
eighteen months in Corinth before that time, and
the First Epistle appears to have been written
soon after his arrival, we may with great proba-
bility assign it to the early spring of 50, and
put the Second Epistle a month or two later.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.

This is one of the Epistles which the Tubingen
school admitted to be the work of Paul. Its

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 247

genuineness has been questioned by very few
critics, and by none of great repute. To most
scholars, indeed, the idea that such a fervent
outpouring of heart and mind could have been
produced by an unknown writer in the second
century seems too improbable to require refu-
tation. As Moffatt says (" I.L.N.T.," p. 107) :
" The hypothesis is no longer anything but a
curiosity of criticism, like Pere Jean Hardouin's
relegation of most of the classics to the
fourteenth century and Edwin Johnson's dis-
covery that the primitive Christian literature
was forged in the Renaissance and Reforma-
tion periods."

But while there is no reason to doubt that
the letter was written by Paul, the precise
date of its composition and the geographical
situation of the Churches to which it was
addressed, are questions which have given
rise to a voluminous literature, in the form
both of books and articles. The two questions
are closely connected, but it is the destination
of the Epistle that has excited the keenest
interest and the fullest controversy.

According to most New Testament critics
of the last century and a few of a more recent

248 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

date, such as Chase, Wendt, Schmiedel,
Jlilicher, Moffatt, von Dobschlitz, Deissmann,
Feine, the letter was intended for Churches
planted by Paul in North Galatia during his
second missionary journey (Acts 16 6) and re-
visited by him in his third journey (Acts 18 23).
But an increasing number of scholars, includ-
ing Renan, Sabatier, Hausrath, Weizsacker,
Pfleiderer, Zahn, von Soden, Ramsay, Sanday,
Kendall, McGiffert, Bacon, Askwith, regard the
letter as sent to the Churches of Pisidian Anti-
och, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which were
planted by Paul during his first missionary
journey (Acts 13 14 - 14 23) and were revisited
by him in his second journey (Acts 16 1'5). It
is now a well-established fact, for which we
are largely indebted to the researches and
writings of Sir William Ramsay, that the four
cities just mentioned lay within the Roman
province of Galatia, defined in A.D. 25, which
extended much farther south than the district
previously known as Galatia. Two of these
cities, Iconium and Antioch, lay in a part of the
country which was originally Phrygian, and
the other two, Lystra and Derbe, in a district
which was previously Lycaonian. The inhabi-

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 249

tants of all alike, as subjects of the Roman
Empire, were entitled to be called Galatians,
and this designation was. not only technically
correct, but also respectful to them and in har-
mony with the Apostle's taste for imperial no-
menclature (cf. " Asia" in I Cor. 16 19, " Achaia"
and " Macedonia" in Romans 15 26 and I Cor.
16 5, "Galatia" in I Cor. 16 l). Luke's
usage in Acts is different, but in neither of the
two passages which are alleged to refer to the
province of Galatia in its older and narrower
sense is the term " Galatia " used. In the one
case, the expression employed is "the Phrygian
and Galatic region" (16 6), in the other, "the
Galatic region and Phrygia" (18 23), both of
which can be interpreted without any reference
to North Galatia. In the latter passage the
Apostle is stated to have gone through all the
region in order, stablishing all the disciples,
but on the former occasion, when he is alleged
to have evangelized the cities of North
Galatia, there is no mention of his having
preached — to which we may add that nowhere
in the first century have we any evidence of the
existence of Christian communities in the part
of Galatia referred to. It is also strange that

250 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

in the Epistle (2 5) Paul should tell his Galatian
converts that in contending for spiritual free-
dom at the Jerusalem conference he had had
their interests in view, if at that time they had
never even heard the Gospel, as must have
been the case if Paul's earliest visit to them
is that recorded in Acts 16 6. This is an ob-
jection which holds good whether the confer-
ence, mentioned in Galatians, is to be identified
with Acts 11 30 or Acts 15.

Another point is that the allusion which the
Apostle makes to " an infirmity of the flesh,"
as the cause or occasion of his preaching the
Gospel to them at the first (Gal. 4 13), is difficult
to reconcile with his undertaking the long and
toilsome journey to North Galatia, if he had
no intention of engaging in missionary labour
there. It was not a place to which he would
have been likely to resort for health, whereas
the removal from the malarious region of
Pamphylia to the high lands of Pisidia would
be quite intelligible from that point of view.1

1 But T. W. Crafer (Expositor, October, 1913) suggests
that in Gal. 4 13 the Apostle may be referring to serious
injury done to his health by the stoning at Lystra,
rendering him for a time unfit to travel, and marring his
appearance.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 251

Moreover, if he did go to the cities of North
Galatia, it is difficult to see how by such a
route he should have /'come over against
Mysia " when he " assayed to go into Bithynia "
(Acts 16 7).

On the other hand, there are several con-
siderations, besides the argument from the
imperial sympathies of the Apostle, that may
be adduced in support of the South Galatian
theory. If the name "Galatians" does not
apply to the Christians of Antioch, Iconium,
Lystra, and Derbe, they are left without
any place in Paul's correspondence, except in
II Tim. 3 n, where there is a reference to the
persecutions which the Apostle had suffered
in their neighbourhood ; and they can have
taken no part in the collections made in Achaia
and Macedonia (II Cor. 9 l f ) and among " the
Churches of Galatia" (I Cor. 16 l) for the
poor saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15 26). This
would be the more surprising as " Gaius of
Derbe " and " Timothy of Lystra " are men-
tioned as among the deputies who had ac-
companied Paul on the way to Jerusalem to
present the joint offering, while we look in
vain for any representatives of North Galatia

252 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

among them (Acts 20 4). Again, if the Epistle
was addressed to the Christians in the four
cities referred to, we can see in the Apostle's
words in Galatians 6 17 : — " From henceforth let
no man trouble me : for I bear branded on my
body the marks of Jesus " —a reference to the
serious injuries he received "at Antioch, at
Iconium, at Lystra " (II Tim. 3 n) ; while the
repeated allusions to Barnabas in the Epistle,
especially the statement that " even Barnabas
was carried away with their dissimulation" (2 13),
acquire a special force and meaning if he had
been Paul's coadjutor in preaching the Gospel
to these Churches (Gal. 2 J> 9' 13 ; Acts 13 M).
To this we may add that the striking language
of the Apostle regarding the enthusiastic
reception he had met with from the Galatians,
when he first appeared among them as the
herald of the cross (Gal. 4 14), corresponds
well to what is recorded in Acts 14 n'28, and
especially to the cry of the people at Lystra :
" The gods are come down to us in the likeness
of men," when "they called Barnabas, Jupiter ;
and Paul, Mercury " ; while the charge of in-
consistency brought against the Apostle, as
implied in Galations 5 u, finds an apparent

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 253

justification in his circumcision of Timothy
" because of the Jews " (Acts 16 1"3).

Such are the main reasons which have led
the majority of recent critics and commenta-
tors to adopt the South Galatian theory.

The determination of the date and place of
composition is an even more difficult question,
on which many different views are held. The
difficulty is aggravated by the fact that there
is a difference of opinion as to the Apostle's
visit to Jerusalem referred to in Galatians 2 l ff ,
some scholars holding, with Ramsay, that it
is the visit recorded in Acts 11 30, while the
greater number adhere to the old view that
the Apostle is referring to what took place at
the Council of Jerusalem, of which an account
is given in Acts 15. But whichever of these
two opinions is correct, we have a more sure
indication of time in the fact that the Epistle
is written throughout in the name of Paul
alone, the only use of the plural being in 1 8 f>,
where he is reminding his converts of the way
in which the Gospel was first preached among
them. From this we may safely infer that it
was not written till after the separation be-
tween Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15 3(Uft), in

254 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

which case it was posterior to the Council
of Jerusalem. A number of recent critics
(Weber, Bartlet, McGiffert) agree with Calvin
and Beza in dating it from Antioch immedi-
ately after that event, but this view is only
tenable if we identify the Apostle's second
visit to the Galatian Churches, implied in
Galatians 4 13 (TO irporepov), with his renewed
intercourse with them during his first mission-
ary journey, when " they returned (from Derbe)
to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch."
Besides, it is hardly likely that Paul would
have sent a letter when he was about to visit
the Churches in person (Acts 15 36). This ob-
jection applies also in some measure to the
suggestion of Renan and Ramsay that the
Epistle may have been sent from Antioch in
the interval between the second and third
missionary journeys. On the whole, the prob-
ability seems to be either that it was written in
the course of the second tour (49-52 A.D.), after
the visit to the Galatians recorded in Acts 16 °,
from Macedonia (Hausrath), or Athens (Cle-
men), or Corinth (Zahn, Bacon, Rendall), or
else during the third tour (52-56), after the
visit mentioned in Acts 1823. Such a com-

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 255

paratively late date is necessarily assigned to
it by those who adhere to the North Galatian
theory, the general opinion among them being
that it was written at an early period in Paul's
long residence at Ephesus (say A.D. 53), while
some (e.g. Lightfoot) put it after the close of
that visit (55), when the Apostle was passing
through Macedonia or Greece (Acts 20 2), which
would explain the unusual form of salutation
from "all the brethren which are with me"
(Gal. 1 2). There is no inconsistency in sup-
posing that such a long time had elapsed since
his last visit to Galatia, if we take the expres-
sion in Galatians 1 6, namely " so soon" (R.V.
" so quickly "), as referring simply to the
rapidity and suddenness of the change which
(as the Apostle has just learned) had come
over their sentiments. Such a late date also
admits of the Epistle being placed between
II Corinthians and Romans, to both of which
it bears a strong resemblance — to the former
in general tone, to the latter in its mode of
reasoning and its form of expression. This is an
argument, however, which should not be pressed
too far, as we can hardly suppose that Paul's
teaching in his successive Epistles depended on

256 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

the development of his own theological views
rather than on the needs of those to whom
he was writing. According to Clemen, Gala-
tians was composed after Romans, not before it.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE
CORINTHIANS

This is an epistle whose genuineness has
been admitted, with practical unanimity, for
the last eighteen centuries and more. It is
the first of the New Testament writings that
is expressly referred to in early Christian
literature, being quoted by name in the Epistle
of Clement, which wras likewise addressed to
the Church at Corinth (c. A.D. 95). Within
thirty or forty years afterwards we find un-
mistakable allusions to it in the writings of
Poly carp (cf. his Epistle to Phil., chap. 11 2, and
I Cor. 6 2), and of Ignatius (whose letters are
deeply imbued with it), as well as of the
Gnostic leader Basilides.

Although it has come down to us under the
title of I Corinthians, it was evidently preceded
by another letter from Paul to the same
Church (I Cor. 5 9), warning members to be:
ware of associating with persons guilty of

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 257

immorality. Partly it was occasioned by un-
favourable reports which reached the Apostle
during his residence at Ephesus through mem-
bers "of the household of Chloe," who had
means of communication between Corinth and
Ephesus (I Cor. 1 u), partly it was an answer
to a letter of inquiry sent to the Apostle by
the Corinthian Church, apparently by the hands
of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (7 *,
16 17 f-). It affords a better indication of
the problems confronting the early Church
than any other Epistle in the New Testa-
ment.

Those who question its genuineness form an
insignificant minority, beginning with Bruno
Bauer in the middle of last century (whose
critical standpoint was determined by his phil-
osophy of Church History), and represented
in more recent times by the destructive Dutch
critics, Loman, Pierson, Naber, van Manen,
and Meyboom, as well as by Steck of Berne,
who hold the Epistle to be a conglomerate of
the second century, made up of fragments of
Jewish and Christian literature, and emanating
from Syria or Asia Minor. The arguments

they adduce are extremely arbitrary, and are

17

258 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

frequently at variance with the most surely
established results of criticism, especially as
regards the testimony afforded by the writings
of the Apostolic Fathers. The theory they
advance involves so many improbabilities, and
is based on so many fanciful conjectures, as to
make little impression on a candid and sober
judgment ; and things which to the ordinary
reader seem natural enough, such as the ac-
quaintance with the life and teaching of Jesus
Christ which the writer shows, are held to
be symptoms of production at a later period
when the Gospels were in general circula-
tion. In striking contrast to such precarious
arguments we may refer to Paley's cogent
reasoning in this connexion in his " Horse
Paulinse."

With regard to the date of the Epistle, there
is general agreement that it was written from
Ephesus in the spring of the last year that
Paul spent in that city (say A.D. 55), though
Ramsay and Godet would put it half a year,
and Kennedy and Jtilicher a year, earlier,
so as to afford a sufficient interval between
I and II Corinthians (I. 16 8 ff •, 5 6-8, Acts 19 2l> f ,
20lff ; cf. p. 264, note 1).

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 259

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE
CORINTHIANS

This epistle does not seem to have been so
well known in the early Church as I Corin-
thians, probably because it was not felt to be
of so much value and importance either to
those who received it or to the Church at
large ; and hence the external evidence in its
favour is much less abundant. Notwithstand-
ing this, however, it has been accepted by the
scholars of Christendom with almost as much
unanimity as the other, owing to its internal
character being sufficient of itself to forbid the
supposition of forgery, and to accredit it as a
genuine utterance of the heart and mind of Paul.

The case is different as regards its integrity,
which was first called in question by Semler
in 1767, followed by Weber in 1798 and
Hausrath in 1870 ; and of late the question
has been keenly debated in this country and
America, as well as on the continent of Europe.
There is such a difference between the relieved
and grateful feeling which pervades the earlier
and larger part of the Epistle, and the indigna-
tion which flashes out so often towards its

260 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

close, that the majority of recent critics (e.g.
Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Krenkel, Schmiedel,
McGiffert, Clemen, von Soden, Peake, Kendall,
Moffatt, Bacon, Lake, Kennedy) are disposed
to adopt the view suggested by Hausrath that
chaps. 10-13 10 (the " Vierkapitelbrief ") is an
interpolation, being in reality the letter, or
rather part of the letter, referred to in chaps.
2 and 7, regarding whose effect upon his con-
verts Paul had been so painfully anxious, until
Titus brought the good news which filled his
heart with gratitude and joy (2 12 ff>, 7 6 f').
The four chapters in question are much more
severe in their tone than I Corinthians, and
answer much better to the description of the
previous letter which is given in II Corinthians
2, a letter written, as the Apostle says : "out
of much affliction and anguish of heart, with
many tears " ; whereas, if they are regarded as
an integral part of II Corinthians, it is very
difficult to understand how the Apostle should
have changed his tone so suddenly at the be-
ginning of chap. 10 without any apparent cause.
Moreover, as Kennedy and others have shown,
a good case can be made out for the priority
of 10-13 10 to the preceding part of the Epistle,

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 261

by a careful comparison of the following pas-
sages : 2 3 and 13 10 ; 1 23 and 13 2 ; 2 9, 7 15 f-,
and 10 6 ; 3 \ 5 12, and 10-13 10 ; 1 23, 2 \ and
12 u, 13 2. To this we may add that the con-
fident appeal for contributions of money in
chaps. 8 and 9 would come with a better grace
after a reconciliation had been effected, than
in the course of a letter containing such in-
vective as we find in chaps. 10-13.

That the foregoing theory is not free from
objections has been shown by those who
identify the severe letter referred to in chapter
2 with I Corinthians (Sanday, Bernard, Denney,
Bleek, Weiss, Zahn, and others), as well as by
those who hold it to have been lost (Klopper,
Jiilicher, Weizsacker, Holsten, Bousset, Find-
lay, Kobertson, Lietzmann). The former
think that II Corinthians can be sufficiently
explained by reference to the state of things
disclosed in I Corinthians, but the majority of
modern expositors, while differing somewhat
as to the precise order of events and the
nature of the offence which provoked the
Apostle's anger, hold that II Corinthians is un-
intelligible unless we take into account an
intermediate letter to the Corinthians conveyed

262 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

to them by Titus (2 13, 7 G> 13' 14), as well as the
second visit of Paul to that city (12 u, 13 \ 2 l),
and the visits and reports of Timothy (I Cor.
16 10, II Cor. 1 l) and of Titus (II Cor. 12 18,
8 16~24). Few now hold with Holtzmann (see
H.D.B., I, p. 492) that the case of incest men-
tioned in I Corinthians 5 was still the subject of
dispute in II Corinthians, the general opinion
being that some fresh trouble had arisen deeply
affecting the Apostle personally, through some
gross insult which had been offered to himself
or to one of his coadjutors, probably Timothy
(I Cor. 16 10 f , II Cor. 1). This is the view
taken by Bleek, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald,
Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, Jlilicher, G-odet,
Clemen, and Robertson, while Krenkel sup-
poses a bitter quarrel to have taken place be-
tween two members of the Corinthian Church
(II Cor. 7 12). According to this view, II Corin-
thians must have been written after ample
reparation had been offered to the Apostle and
his authority had been fully restored, but
while he was still suffering from the recollec-
tion of the cruel and ungrateful treatment to
which he had been subjected.

Another passage in the Epistle is reckoned by

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 263

many to be an interpolation, namely, 6 u - 7 l.
It breaks the connexion between 6 13 and 7 2,
and it is held by a considerable number of
recent writers to be part of the early epistle
referred to by Paul in I Corinthians 5 9~13 (J.
Weiss, Hilgenfeld, Sabatier, von Dobschiitz,
von Soden, Franke, Bacon, Clemen, Whitelaw).1
This seems not improbable, but there is noth-
ing in the history or condition of the text, or
in the tradition of the Church, to bear out the
supposition. In any case there is no sufficient
reason to doubt (as R. Scott and a few German
critics do) that the verses in question were
written by Paul.

The same may be said with still greater
confidence regarding chapter 9, which Semler
thought to be a separate letter sent to the
Christians of Achaia — a conjecture which has
little to support it and has not found much
favour with modern critics.

There is reason to believe that the Epistle
was written by Paul (Timothy being as-
sociated with him in the opening salutation)
in the autumn of A.D. 55, from some place in

1 It has been pointed out that a similar conjunction of
two different letters has taken place in the transmission of
Cicero's correspondence.

264 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Macedonia, soon after he was joined by Titus
bringing news of the great change for the
better in the state of the Church at Corinth.
It was sent to Corinth by the hands of Titus
and two others (8 16~24), one of whom is gener-
ally identified with Luke (who was a brother
of Titus, according to Prof. Souter)— a com-
mission being at the same time given them to
see to the completion of the collection for the
poor at Jerusalem, with the inception of which
they had already been connected during the
previous year (8 6'n, 9 2, 12 17 f-).1

Note. — There are two short apocryphal
letters, one from the Corinthians to Paul,
the other from Paul to the Corinthians, which
formed part of the Armenian Canon, and are
found in two Latin manuscripts and in a Coptic
version of the Acts of Paul. The original was
probably written in Old Syriac towards the end
of the second century, in the course of the
struggle against Gnosticism, especially as re-
presented by the school of Bardesanes.

1 a-n-o 7T€pva-L (8 10, 9 2) should be translated "last
year," not " a year ago " (A.V.). This affects the date of
the Epistle, if we assume that it was not written before
October, when the Macedonian and Jewish New Year had
already begun.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 265

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE

EOMANS

Like the other Epistles of Paul accepted by
the Tubingen school, Romans has been called
in question by the extreme Dutch critics and
a few others, who hold it to be a compilation
by a Paulinist at the end of the first or the
beginning of the second century. They attach
no importance to the external evidence in its
favour prior to Marcion1 (who is the first
writer to refer to the Epistle by name as the
work of Paul), and base their rejection of it
on the signs which they think they can detect
in it of a composite and post-apostolic origin.2
Among the host of critics who have adopted
the traditional view that it was written by
Paul, there has been an immense amount of

1 In the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp,
Aristides, Basilides, etc. — to which we may add I Peter,
whose resemblance to Eomans in thought and diction is
so marked as to give the impression that its author must
have been acquainted with this Epistle. The same may
be said to some extent of Hebrews and possibly also of
James.

2 See van Manen's art. EOMANS in E. Bi. Vol. IV — also
an article on the subject by an American follower, W. B.
Smith, in the " Hibbert Journal '' for January, 1903, and
the reply to it by Schmiedel in the April number.

266 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

somewhat fruitless controversy (for which
F. C. Baur and his followers are mainly re-
sponsible) with regard to the origin and
nationality of the Christian community at
Rome, and as to the precise object the Apostle
had in view in sending to Rome such an
elaborate theological statement. The results
of the inquiry have not been at all adequate
to the labour expended on it, and we have
still to be content with a general view of the
situation. There is no reason to doubt that
there were both Jewish and Gentile Christians
at Rome, and nothing could have been more
characteristic of Paul, the Roman citizen and
the Apostle of the Gentiles, than to preface
his visit to the seat of empire with an epistle
such as this, fitted to vindicate his authority as
an apostle, and at the same time to exhibit
the religion of the cross in its true relations
both to the Jewish faith, which was strongly
represented in the metropolis, and to the pagan
religions, which were also to be found there
with their attendant idolatry and immorality.
He had now reached the culminating point in
his career, and in this communication we have
the ripest fruit of his philosophy as a Christian

v.] OP NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 267

and his experience as an apostle, providing
for the needs of a Church that was destined
to take a leading place in Christendom, and
laying a sure foundation, intellectually and
spiritually, for a fresh missionary campaign
in the West.

As regards authorship, the only serious differ-
ence of opinion has had reference to the
integrity of the Epistle in its present form.
Owing to a variety of circumstances l the two
last chapters have been regarded in many
quarters with suspicion, and a number of
critics with a taste for literary dissection have,
as the result of a microscopic examination of
the text, advocated the omission or re-arrange-
ment of some of the earlier passages, while
some of them have even thought they could
trace in it a conjunction of two different

1 The doxology in 16 25 ff- of our text — which is in
itself somewhat peculiar — is found in some manuscripts
at the end of chapter 14, in others at both these places,
and in others at neither. The benediction is in some
manuscripts found between verse 23 and verse 25 of
chapter 16 instead of at verse 20. The manuscript G,
both in Greek and Latin, omits " in Kome " at verse 7
and verse 15 of chapter 1. Moreover, there is reason to
believe that some manuscripts as early as the second
century omitted chapters 15 and 16 altogether.

268 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

epistles. In this way countless theories l have
been advanced to account for all the phenomena
presented by the Epistle, but much of the
evidence on which they are founded is of so
elusive and uncertain a character that no
reliable conclusion can be drawn from it, the
result being that up to the present time
opinion is hopelessly divided. This is especi-
ally the case as regards the question whether
the shorter recension, consisting of chaps. 1-
14 (with the addition of the doxology, 16 25 ffi),
which is known to have existed as early as
the second century, originated with Marcion,
or was drawn up by Paul himself for the
purpose of being despatched to a number
of Churches.

Equally uncertain is the idea suggested by
Keggermann in 1767, revived by Schultz in
1829, and now adopted by many, that most of
the sixteenth chapter, with its long list of sal-
utations and its recommendation of Phoebe
(who appears to have been the bearer of the

1 Associated with the names of Neumann, Semler,
Eichhorn, Baur, C. H. Weisse, Laurent, Renan, Straatman,
Volkmar, Scholten, Spitta, Volter, Lightfoot, Hort, Zahn,
Gifford, and others.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 269

letter), was intended for the Church at Ephesus.
The appearance of so many greetings in a letter
addressed to the Christians of a place which
Paul had never visited seems strange ; but
when we remember that the Apostle is usually
very sparing in singling out individuals for
special mention, when he is writing to a Church
whose membership is well known to him, the
occurrence of so many names in this instance
may be due to the fact that Paul mentions
every person of his acquaintance who had
been drawn to the metropolis from the great
centres of population in the East in which he
had laboured. Possibly it had been largely
through their influence that Christianity was
propagated at Rome, and, if so, nothing
could have been more natural than for the
Apostle to seek to enlist their interest in his
intended visit to the capital, and to associate
them with the Epistle which he was now
sending to the community of which they
formed part.

The greetings sent to Prisca and Aquila, and
to Epsenetus " the firstfruits of Asia" (16 3 ff-),
seem at first sight to favour the suggestion
that Ephesus may have been the destination

270 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

of the Epistle, but it has been shown by Light-
foot, followed by Sanday and Headlam, that
a careful examination of the names in chapter
16 is, on the whole, more favourable to Rome
than to any other city. Even as regards Prisca
and Aquila, their previous residence at Rome
(Acts 18 2), as well as their migration from
Corinth to Ephesus in connexion with Paul's
missionary labours (Acts 18 1S ff ), render it not
improbable that they had returned to E/ome,
partly for commercial purposes, and partly for
the furtherance of the Gospel.

With regard to the date, place, and occasion
of the Epistle, there is no room for doubt, if we
regard the Book of Acts as a trustworthy re-
cord, and accept Romans, with I and II Corin-
thians, as written by Paul. It was evidently
sent from Corinth during the three months
which Paul spent in that city 1 (at the end of
55 or the beginning of 56 A.D.), when he was
about to proceed to Jerusalem with the offer-
ing from the Churches of Macedonia and
Achaia for the relief of the poor brethren
in that city, and it was intended to pave the

i Acts 20 w, Romans 15 30 ff-, 16 L 2'. 28, I Corinthians
1 14, JI Timothy 4 *».

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 271

way for his intended visit to the Christians at
Rome.1

THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT

These are Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians,
and Philippians (Col. 4 3> 18 ; Philemon v. 9,
10, 13 ; Eph. 3 \ 4 l ; Phil. 1 *• 13' u- 1T ; cf. Acts
28 16*2°). There has been a difference of opinion
as to whether they were written during Paul's
imprisonment at Csesarea (56-58) or at Rome
(58-60). A number of eminent critics2 have
decided for Csesarea, especially as regards
Colossians, Philemon, and (in some cases)
Ephesians, but the prevailing opinion is in

1 Acts 19 21, 23 n, 24 17, Eomans 1 *-1*, 15 22 f- , I Cor-
inthians 16 l ff-, II Corinthians 8 l ff-, 9 ] ff- In this
connexion chapter II of Paley's " Horae Paulinse " is
worthy of study. It is remarkable that van Manen, in the
article above referred to, repeats the erroneous statement
of Evanson (1792) that there is no reference in the Book
of Acts to Paul's intended visit to Rome. It is worthy of
note that the Apostle's experience at Rome, as recorded in
Acts 28, was so very different from what he had expected
(Rom. 15 24) that we cannot suspect either Acts or Romans
to have borrowed from the other. Neither is there any-
thing in the Book of Acts to suggest any thought of the
intended visit to Spain, of which we read in Romans 15 24.

2 E.g. Paulus, D. Schultz, Reuss, Schenkel, Hausrath,
Hilgenfeld, Laurent, B. Weiss, Haupt-Meyer,

272 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

favour of Rome, and, as regards Philippians in
particular, it is now generally acknowledged
that internal evidence proves conclusively that
it emanated from the imperial city.1

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON

Nowhere is the conservative tendency of
modern criticism more evident than in the case
of Philemon and Colossians. Baur's rejection
of the short Epistle to Philemon was almost
entirely due to its close connexion with Colos-
sians and, through it, with Ephesians. He
tried to explain it away as " the embryo of a

1 (1) Rome was a much more likely place than Caesarea
for a runaway slave like Onesimus to seek refuge in
(Philemon w. 10 ff.). (2) " The whole praetorian guard,"
and " Caesar's household," point to the Roman capital,
(Phil. 1 13, 4 22). (3) Both Colossians and Philippians
are written in the name of Paul and Timothy, but there is
no mention of Timothy in the account of the Caesarean
imprisonment in the Book of Acts. (4) " Philip the
evangelist" had entertained Paul and his companions
"for many days" in his house in Caesarea (Acts 21 8 ff-),
yet he is never mentioned in any of these four Epistles.
(5) Paul's expectation to visit the Philippians "shortly"
(Phil. 2 24), if he wrote from Caesarea, would not be in
harmony with the intention he had already formed to visit
Rome (Acts 19 <J1), especially if he had made up his mind
to appeal unto Caesar.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 273

Christian romance," like the " Clementine Ke-
cognitions " of the second or third century.
Weizsacker held it to be an allegorical com-
position that was never intended to be taken
literally, and in proof of this he pointed to the
metaphorical character of the name Onesimus
(" Profitable ")— an argument which has been
met by the recent discovery of the name in a
papyrus dated A.D. 81, and of another slave's
name with a similar meaning, C/iresimus
(" Useful ") — in another papyrus. To this we
may add that if the story was meant to be an
allegory it would be apt to fail of its purpose,
because it leaves the reader in doubt as to the
liberation of the slave. According to Steck,
our Epistle is an imitation, by a writer towards
the middle of the second century, of a letter
written to a friend by the younger Pliny on a
somewhat similar occasion, about A.D. 135-140.
The resemblance had been pointed out by
Grotius long ago, but it lies mainly on the
surface, for in some respects the two writers
take quite a different attitude towards the
offending slave. Even if it were at all likely
that a Christian writer should have selected
such a model for his imitation, it is difficult to

18

274 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

understand how he could have succeeded in
getting his forgery admitted into Marcion's
Canon within a few years after its composition,
notwithstanding the trifling nature of its con-
tents from an ecclesiastical point of view—
which, we know, militated at a later time against
its reception in some parts of the Church.

The style of the Epistle is acknowledged by
an overwhelming majority of scholars to be
thoroughly Pauline, though its subject is
unique. " Few pages have so clear an accent
of truth — Paul alone, it would seem, could
have written this little masterpiece " (Benan).
" The fact that criticism has presumed to call
in question the genuineness of these harmless
lines shows that itself is not the genuine thing "
(Reuss). It is now generally felt that Baur's
maintenance of the spuriousness of this letter
to Philemon was one of his worst blunders.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE
COLOSSIANS

As we have already indicated, the Epistle
to Philemon would probably never have been
called in question but for its connexion with
Colossians. The connexion is such that, if

v.j OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 275

Philemon be genuine, Colossians must also be
the work of Paul, or it must be a forgery
suggested by the other and dependent on it.
The latter supposition is extremely improb-
able, since the letter to Philemon makes no
mention of Colossae and says nothing that
could have suggested the sending of a letter
to that city ; neither is there in it any mention
of Tychicus who is so prominent in Colossians
(4 7*9). On the other hand, Colossians makes
no reference to Philemon or to the peculiar
circumstances of Onesimus, who is described
as " the faithful and beloved brother, who is
one of you " (4 9). Archippus is indeed men-
tioned in both Epistles, but in Philemon he is
simply styled " our fellow-soldier," whereas
in Colossians we read : " And say to Archippus,
Take heed to the ministry which them hast re-
ceived in the Lord, that thou fulfil it " (4 17).
Epaphras is also mentioned in both Epistles,
but in the private letter he is simply referred
to as-" my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus," and
is one of those who salute Philemon, whereas
in Colossians he is represented as " a faithful
minister of Christ " who had laboured in
Colossse and its neighbourhood.

276 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

It is also worthy of note that the variations
in the salutations of the two Epistles are such
as we cannot imagine to have been resorted
to in the interests of forgery, e.g. the insertion
(4 ") of " Jesus, which is called Justus," one of
those "who are of the circumcision," who is
mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament,
and the curious remark following the name of
Mark, " If he come unto you, receive him "
(4 10). Altogether, as Dr. Sanday says, " Most
Englishmen will have a short and easy method
for deciding the genuineness of Colossians,
for it is inseparably bound up with the most
winning little letter to Philemon, which only
pedantry could think of doubting."

The first to assail this Epistle was Mayerhoff
(1838), who took exception to it partly because
of its want of likeness to other epistles known
to be the work of Paul, partly on account of
its apparent dependence on Ephesians, which
he accepted as genuine. This verdict was re-
versed by de Wette, who accepted Colossians
and rejected Ephesians, and in this he has been
followed by von Soden, who disproves the
alleged dependence of Colossians, and is only
doubtful of the genuineness of 1 1W0. It was

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 277

rejected by Hilgenfeld as a later production
designed against the Gnostic tendencies repre-
sented by Cerinthus ; by Schmiedel, who dated
it between A.D. 100 and 130, but failed to ex-
plain how it could have won the confidence of
the Church half a century after the death of
the Apostle ; and by Holsten and Weizsacker.
According to Holtzmann, working out an idea
of Hitzig's, and followed, in part, by Pflei-
derer, our Epistle is an expansion of a genuine
letter from Paul to the Colossians, prepared
by a Paulinist (A.D. 75-100), who had previously
used the same nucleus for the composition of
our Ephesians, from which he drew for the
enlargement of Colossians. A recent critic,
R. Scott, adopts a view suggested by Ewald,
that Timothy was the author of this Epistle.

The chief objection taken to the Pauline
authorship is based on the references which the
Epistle is alleged to contain to second century
Gnosticism. But we have the authority of
Jlilicher for saying that the false teachers in
question might as well have appeared in 60 as
in 120 A.D. On the whole, it would seem that
any symptoms of incipient Gnosticism which
can be traced in the Epistle are sufficiently

278 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

accounted for by the peculiar religious ten-
dencies which were prevalent among the Chris-
tians of Phrygia, who were in danger of falling
into a kind of Jewish (perhaps Essene) theo-
sophy, associated with asceticism, and tending
to an exaggerated spiritualism, connected in
some way with the worship of angels as re-
presenting the elements in Nature. It was in
the endeavour to combat these tendencies that
the Apostle was led to emphasize the su-
premacy of the Lord Jesus Christ over all those
heavenly beings, real or imaginary, which
threatened to draw away from Him the faith
and allegiance of the Christians at Colossee
(Col. 1 16 ff>). We have here a signal illustration
of the fact that the appearance of heresy in the
Church is frequently the occasion for a fuller
manifestation of the truth in the endeavour
to correct it. In this instance the Apostle's
teaching was only a fuller development of
principles which he had already laid down in
other Epistles, for we find essentially the
same claim made on behalf of Christ in
1 Corinthians 3 » 8 6, 15 24-28, and in Philippians
25'11, though in a somewhat different connexion.
Notwithstanding the apparent novelty of its

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 279

teaching, therefore, and the disappearance of
old watchwords, familiar to us in former
Epistles but now giving way to new expressions
suited to new forms of thought, the genuine-
ness of this Epistle is acknowledged by the
majority of critics, including Harnack, Blass,
Zahn, Clemen, Renan, Sabatier, Jacquier,
Jiilicher, with such English and American
scholars as Lightfoot, Salmon, Hort, Sanday,
Knowling, Moffatt, McGiffert, and Bacon.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE
EPHESIANS

This is one of the best-attested books in the
New Testament, having apparently been used
by some of the earliest Christian writers out-
side the Canon, such as Clement of Rome,
Ignatius, and Polycarp. Hence, as Abbott
(after Hort) says : " It is all but certain that
the Epistle already existed about A.D. 95, quite
certain that it existed about 110." Yet, on
internal grounds, it has been called in question
by a considerable number of critics, begin-
ning with Schleiermacher, who was disposed
to attribute it to Tychicus — the bearer appar-
ently of this letter (6 21 f ) as well as of Colos-

280 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

sians and Philemon (Col. 4 ™) — a conjecture
also favoured by Usteri and Kenan. De
Wette regarded it as a " verbose expansion "
of Colossians by a disciple of Paul — a view
combated by Liinemann, Meyer, and others.
Schwegler and Baur relegated both Ephesians
and Colossians to the middle of the second
century on account of supposed traces of
Gnosticism and Montanism ; in which they
were followed by Hilgenfeld, who differed,
however, in attributing the two Epistles to
different authors. According to Holtzmann
(as we have already mentioned when treating
Colossians), Ephesians was based on a genuine
letter of Paul to the Colossians about A.D. 75-
100, and the writer afterwards drew from the
former to enlarge the Colossian letter, a theory
which is not only too artificial to be true but
also fails to account for the disappearance of
the original letter, or to explain why the writer
of Ephesians should have borrowed from that
letter alone, while leaving out its most distinc-
tive message. Harnack and Jlilicher have
difficulty in accepting the Epistle on account
of expressions and ideas which seem to them
to be incompatible with a Pauline origin (e.g.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 281

2 20, 3 5, 4 7-u), but they admit that, as the
genuineness of Philemon helps to establish
that of Colossians, so the acceptance of the
latter should obviate the objections taken to
Ephesians on account of features which it
shares in common with Colossians. The simi-
larity between the two Epistles is greater than
exists between any other writings attributed
to Paul, half of Ephesians being full of
expressions found in Colossians. At the same
time, the parallelism is often marked by such
a freedom of style as to forbid the supposi-
tion of mechanical imitation where the likeness
is of a closer and more literal kind. This
freedom, and the frequent introduction of
words and phrases that are not found elsewhere
in Paul's writings or even in the New Testa-
ment, tell against the theory of forgery. Both
Epistles claim to be the work of Paul, and
the simplest and most natural supposition
seems to be that they were written within a
very short time of each other, the interval
being even shorter, and the consequent simi-
larity even greater, than between I and II
Thessalonians.

In rejecting this Epistle Baur laid stress on

282 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

the incongruity of its title "to the saints
which are at Ephesus " and its contents ; but
the objection loses its force when we regard
the Epistle as a circular letter to be sent to
various Churches in proconsular Asia, which
was fast becoming the leading province of
Christendom (cf. Rev. 1 *).1

1 This is the view now generally taken. Many critics
identify the Epistle with that referred to in Colossians 4 16,
where the Colossians are told to read also "the epistle
from Laodicea," and to send their own letter for perusal
by the Christians there ; Tychicus, the bearer of the letters,
having probably visited Laodicea on the way to Colossae,
bringing the circular letter " from Laodicea " with him,
after it had been read and perhaps copied there. In this
connexion it is noteworthy that Marcion refers to the
Epistle as addressed "to the Laodiceans." It is still
more significant that the words "in Ephesus" (1 l) are
wanting in the two oldest manuscripts (N and B), and
have also been struck out by correction in manuscript
67, and that they were also absent from the ancient manu-
scripts known to Basil in A.D. 360. Add to this that the
Epistle contains no personal salutations or allusions, and
that the benediction is in a more general form than usual
("Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith," 6 23) ;
while the Apostle's usual autograph is absent, perhaps
because copies of the letter had to be made out by the
messenger on the way or at the different places which
were to receive them. That the Epistle was not meant
exclusively for Ephesus is evident from a number of

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 283

In such a letter the warnings addressed to
the Colossian Church against the evils with
which it was specially threatened would
have been out of place, and are therefore
omitted, but the rest of Colossians is repro-
duced and amplified to illustrate and enforce
the unity of the Christian Church — a unity
which Paul realized to be far deeper and more
enduring than that of the great empire in
whose capital he lay a prisoner. It is the
most catholic of all his Epistles, representing
the Church universal to be the mystical body
of Christ, who is the centre of all life and the
source of all authority, in time and in eternity,
in this world and in that which is to come.
This is a great advance on the Apostle's teach-
ing in any previous letter ; but " the Church,"
" the Church of God," was a conception which
had long been familiar to him (1 Cor. 10 32,

passages which imply that the readers had no personal
acquaintance or connexion with Paul, though they may
have received the Gospel from some of his disciples
(1 i5-i9j 3 i-4? 4 i7-22f Col. 1 3'9). In these circumstances it
is easy to understand how the Epistle should have become
associated with the Church at Ephesus, as the leading
city of the province, at whose port Tychicus would have
to land in the prosecution of his journey.

284 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

12 28, 15 9 ; Gal. 1 13 ; Phil. 3 6 ; cf. Acts 20 28).
Although the Epistle is addressed to Gentile
Christians, Paul could not forget that there
were many converts from Judaism in the
province of Asia, and although the day of
conflict with Pharisaic intolerance within the
Church was over, he felt that it still remained
for him to do what he could to foster among
Christians everywhere, whether Jews or Gen-
tiles, a fuller sense of their union in Christ
through the Divine life which they all alike
derived from Him.1

In this connexion the combination of Jewish
patriotism with thankful and joyful acknow-
ledgment of the Divine wisdom and goodness
in the admission of the Gentiles to the cove-
nant of salvation, which is so characteristic of
this Epistle, could befit no one so well as
the Apostle of the Gentiles who was also a
Hebrew of the Hebrews. On the other hand,
there are occasional ideas and expressions in
the Epistle which we should not have expected
from Paul (2 20, 3 5, 4 7"n) ; and emphasis is also

1 Hence the appropriateness of the opening words of
the Epistle, as rendered by B. Weiss, " to the saints who
also believe in Jesus Christ."

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 285

laid on aspects of the Gospel revelation on
which he had not previously dwelt. But the
key to many of these ideas, which seem so
strange to us, is probably to be found in the
Jewish apocalyptic literature which dealt with
cosmological and eschatological problems, and
with which the Apostle was evidently familiar.1
It must also be remembered that though the
Epistle is unique, from a literary point of view,
among the writings attributed to Paul, its poetic
and lofty style of composition is only in keeping
with the sublime nature of its contents, winning
the admiration of thoughtful minds in all ages,
and leading Coleridge to describe it as "one
of the divinest compositions of man."

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE

PHILIPPIANS

This Epistle is very generally admitted to be
the work of Paul. The external evidence in
its favour is remarkably good, including a refer-
ence which Polycarp makes, in his Epistle to the
Philippians, to a letter they had received from
" the blessed and glorious Paul." It breathes
such a warm spirit of gratitude and affection,

1 According to Origen the quotation in 1 Cor. 2 9 is
from the Apocalypse of Elias.

286 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

and is at the same time so circumstantial in
many of its allusions, and so free from any sign
of doctrinal or ecclesiastical purpose on the
part of the writer, that any suspicion of forgery
is now generally abandoned.

Baur stated various objections to it, but
none of them is considered to have much
weight. Attributing its composition, as he
did, to a supposed policy of conciliation in the
second century, he found its pivot, as Light -
foot says,1 in the mention of Clement, a myth-
ical or almost mythical person, whom he
supposed to represent the union of the Petrine
and Pauline parties in the Church. Schwegler
then carried the theory a step farther and
declared that the two names, Euodia and
Syntyche, actually represent these two parties,
while the " true yokefellow " is Peter himself ;
then Volkmar, going still farther, held this
fact to be indicated by the very names Euodia,
or Rigktway, and Syntyche, or Consort, denoting
respectively the orthodoxy of the one party
and the incorporation of the other. Lastly
Hitzig, lamenting that interpreters of the New
Testament were not more thoroughly imbued

111 Essays on Supernatural Religion," p. 24.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 287

with the language and spirit of the Old Testa-
ment, maintained that these two names were
reproductions of the patriarchs, Asher and
Gad — their sex having been changed in the
transition from one language to another, and
that they represented the Greek and Eoman
elements in the Church, while the Epistle itself
was a plagiarism from the Agricola of Tacitus !
Among recent critics there are very few of
any eminence who deny the genuineness of the
Epistle, and it is significant that Holsten, who
is the chief of them, rejects it for other reasons
than those adduced by Baur, and assigns it, not
to the second century but to A.D. 70-80, soon
after the Apostle's death. Holsten's chief ob-
jection to the Epistle is that in some passages
its doctrine and expression are not quite
Pauline. But in most cases this objection can
be satisfactorily met, and Holsten's reasoning
has been aptly characterized by Paul Schmidt
as " New Testament hypercriticism," while
Schiirer says : " His arguments are so foolish
that one is sometimes tempted to put them
down as slips of the pen."

Among those who admit the Pauline author-
ship there is a growing tendency to place the

288 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Epistle last in the series to which it belongs.1
It was put first by Lightfoot and Hort on ac-
count of its likeness to Romans from a literary
point of view, and its freedom from any refer-
ence to the " incipient Gnosticism " dealt with
in Colossians and Ephesians, such as we might
have expected to find if it had been written
soon after these Epistles. But this argument
loses its force when we remember that " it was
not in Paul's way to send to Philippi an ela-
borate treatise against a subtle, speculative
heresy which had never affected that Church "
(Ramsay) ; and there are various circum-
stances alluded to in the Epistle which seem
to show that the two years mentioned in Acts
2830f- were now almost over (1 m8, 230, 412'14),
and that the long-delayed trial had begun,
preventing the Apostle from carrying on
missionary work in private as he had been
doing, and leading him to feel that his case
had reached a crisis (cf. Phil. 1 7, 2 23 f-). With
this agrees the fact that the valued fellow-
workers mentioned in Colossians 4 1(U4 were no
longer available for service (Phil. 2 19'21).

1 Hilgenf eld, Harnack, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Pflei-
derer, Jiilicher, Zahn, Vincent, Moffatt, Kennedy, Gibb, etc.

v.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 289

From 3 l L it has been inferred by a number
of critics (Liinemann, Ewald, Schenkel, Man-
gold), that this was not the first time Paul
had written to the Philippians, and it has also
been argued by Lemoyne (1685), Heinrichs,
Hausrath, Spitta, Volter, Clemen, and others,
that our Philippians is made up of several
letters, written in whole or in part by Paul.
The most plausible form of this theory finds a
genuine letter in chapters 1, 2, and another in
chapters 3, 4 ; each letter concluding, as usual,
with a number of personal references (2 19"30,
and 4). If this view be adopted, Hausrath and
Bacon are probably right in thinking that the
order of the two letters should be reversed (cf.
2 20 f-, and 4 2l f-). But the unity of the Epistle
is still maintained by most writers, and even van
Manen, who assigns it to about 125 A.D., admits
that there is no appearance of patchwork about
it. If the abrupt change in 3 l ft* requires ex-
planation, it may perhaps be found, as Ewald
and Keuss have suggested, in some fresh news
the Apostle had received of Jewish hypocrisy
and wickedness, which led him to write as he
has done in chapter 3, although he had no in-
tention of doing so when he began the Epistle.

19

CHAPTER VI

I AND II TIMOTHY AND TITUS; HEBEEWS ;
JAMES ; I AND II PETEK AND JUDE

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO
TIMOTHY

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE
TO TIMOTHY

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TITUS

IT is generally agreed that the Pastoral
Epistles (I and II Timothy, and Titus) cannot
be assigned to any period in the life of Paul
as recorded in the Book of Acts. The at-
tempts, recently made by J. V. Bartlet, W. E.
Bowen and others, to harmonize the statements
and allusions in them with the course of
events narrated by Luke are not regarded as
satisfactory,1 and if we were shut up to the

1 The latest statement of this position will be found in
an able and ingenious article by Prof. Bartlet in the " Ex-
positor " for April, 1913, in which he seeks to prove that
I Timothy and Titus were written soon after Paul's arrival

(290)

CHAP, vi.] NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 291

belief that Paul was never set free from the
imprisonment in which the Book of Acts leaves
him, we should be constrained to abandon the
idea that he ever wrote these Epistles.

But in point of fact there is much to be said
in favour of the supposition that Paul's appeal
to Caesar resulted in his acquittal, and that
he was thus enabled to resume his missionary
labours. Sir William Ramsay holds that such
a result was to be expected, having regard to
the Roman law and policy of the time ; and of
this we have some confirmation in the favour-
able opinion of the Apostle's case which was
expressed by Festus and Agrippa, when he
was brought up for trial at Caesarea (Acts 25
is, 25 . 26 31 f- ; 28 17'19). Paul himself seems to
have expected to be set free, if we may judge
from the hopeful way in which he expresses
himself in Philemon v. 22 and Phil. 2 23 f>, as
compared with II Timothy 4 6"8, where he
speaks as if his career were practically over.
There is another passage in II Timothy,
namely 4 1<W8, which seems to contain a reference

in Eome, say in the early summer of 60, and II Timothy
two years later, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and
Philippians having been composed in the interval.

292 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

to his acquittal and to the opportunity which
had thus been afforded him for an extension of
his apostolic work.

Tradition bears testimony to the same
effect. The First Epistle of Clement (c. A.D.
95) speaks of Paul having gone to " the
bound of the West,"-1 and the Muratorian
Fragment mentions that he went to Spain,
while Eusebius and Jerome seem to have no
doubt that he was set at liberty.3 On all these
grounds a considerable number of eminent

1 Against these statements no weight can be attached
to the presentiment expressed by Paul, some years before,
to the Ephesian elders at Miletus : " And now, behold, I
know that ye all, among whom I went about preaching the
kingdom, shall see my face no more " (Acts 20 25).

2 The words that follow : " And having borne witness
before the rulers he was thus released from the world and
went to the holy place " — might suggest Rome as the
Western limit referred to, if Clement had not been writing
from that city, where the expression would naturally refer
to Spain, especially as the Apostle had declared it to be
his intention to pay a visit to that country.

3 Several apocryphal works of the second century, viz.,
" Acts of Peter and John," " Acts of Peter," and " Acts of
Paul," imply that the Apostle was liberated and afterwards
suffered martyrdom in the Neronian persecution. But
the " Acts of Paul and Peter " assumes that his first trial
at Borne had a fatal termination,

VL] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 293

critics, including Harnack, Jacquier, Light-
foot, Salmon, Hort, Zahn, Spitta, Findlay, and
Bernard, regard the Apostle's liberation, if
not as an assured fact (Harnack), as highly
probable. On this hypothesis there is no
difficulty in finding room in the Apostle's sub-
sequent life (59-64) for the composition of these
Epistles and for the events which they imply
— I Timothy and Titus being assigned to the
period of his renewed activity, and II Timothy
to the later imprisonment at Rome, before
his martyrdom under Nero (64 A.D.).

As regards the external evidence for the
genuineness of the Epistles, it is generally
admitted that expressions derived from I and
II Timothy are to be found in the writings of
Polycarp, and, from all the three Epistles, in
the letters of Ignatius. Clement of Rome also
uses language apparently borrowed from the
Epistles, but in order to escape the force of
his testimony it has been suggested that the
writer of the Epistles may have been the
borrower, though he must have known that, in
putting into the mouth of the Apostle language
derived from so well known a writer as
Clement, he was running a great risk , of

THE HISTORY AND RESULTS

having his pseudonymity detected and his
letters condemned. The most serious defect
in the external evidence is that the Epistles
are not included in the Canon of Marcion,
but this is sufficiently accounted for by their
insistence on sound doctrine, which Marcion,
with his heretical views, could not be expected
to appreciate.1

As regards internal evidence, there are
several things which have excited the grave
suspicion of a great many critics. Origen
tells us of some people in his day who dared
to reject II Timothy on account of its quoting
from an apocryphal book about Jannes and
Jambres (II Tim. 3 8). But this objection does
not seem to have been widely felt, and the
only serious opposition to the Epistles which
we hear of in the early Church, was among a
few heretical teachers, such as Marcion,
Basilides, and Tatian (the last of whom ac-
cepted Titus only) ; and the three Epistles are

1 The fact of the Epistles being addressed not to
Churches but to individuals may have furnished Marcion
with an excuse for their omission. It is true that he in-
cluded Philemon in his Canon, but it is almost inseparable
from Colossians (which he admitted), and it comes last of
all in his list.

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 295

included by Eusebius in his list of books uni-
versally received.

It was not till the beginning of the nine-
teenth century that an attack was made upon
them by the Higher Criticism. In 1804
I Timothy was called in question by J. E. C.
Schmidt, and in 1807 Schleiermacher suggested
that it was based on II Timothy and Titus.
Suspicion gradually extended to the two latter
also, and in 1812 all three were declared
spurious by Eichhorn, followed by de Wette
and Schrader. In 1835 Baur pronounced them
to be productions of the second century (c.
150), designed to counteract the Gnostic teach-
ing of Marcion and others, to which he found
allusions in such passages as I Timothy 1 4 ;
4 3, 8 . 6 20 . Titus ! u f. . 3 9 A similar date was

adopted by Schwegler and Hilgenfeld ; but re-
cently the adherents of the anti-traditional
school have taken a different line, in view of
the Jewish character of the errors referred to
in I Timothy 1 4 and Titus 1 10t u, and on account
of the light thrown upon the " fables and end-
less genealogies " by Philo's work on the sub-
ject of Biblical Antiquities, and the Book of
Jubilees, which show that it is not emanations

296 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

of reons and angels that are referred to (as Baur
imagined) but allegorical interpretations of
Old Testament pedigrees. As for the " op-
positions of science falsely so called " (I Tim.
6 20), which Baur supposed to refer to the
antitheses (or contrasts) that Marcion had made
out between the Old and the New Testament
and had taken as a name for one of his books,
it is now generally agreed that this view is
untenable, the most probable explanation be-
ing that the oppositions referred to were the
rival decisions of Jewish Rabbis on minute
points of law, which gave rise to endless con-
troversy.

In these circumstances most of the critics
referred to find the milieu of the Epistles in
the end of the first, or the first quarter
of the second, century (Holtzmann, Jiilicher,
Pfleiderer, Beyschlag, Weizsacker, von So-
den). Among English scholars opinion is
divided, the genuineness of the Epistles being
maintained by Hort, Lightfoot, Salmon, San-
day, Findlay, Bernard, Lock, Ramsay, Know-
ling, Newport White, Shaw, Grierson (in
common with such continental critics as
Zahn, B. Weiss, Belser, Blass, and Riggenbach),

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 297

but denied, in a general sense, by S. Davidson,
McGiffert, Moffatt,1 Peake, Strachan, R. Scott,
and others, who (with the majority of foreign
critics) admit the genuineness of a few frag-
ments only, which are to be found in II Tim-
othy, especially 1 lf-15-18, 49-21, and in Titus.2

A great amount of industry and ingenuity
has been expended3 in the attempt to deter-
mine precisely the original documents, and

JIn the E.Bi. Dr. Moffatt declares this view to be
"one of the best established in New Testament research."
On the other hand, Canon Grierson in Hastings' most re-
cent D.B. says: "The general tendency of criticism may
be said to be towards establishing their genuineness."
In his recent volume in the I.T.L., Moffatt describes the
three Epistles as "pseudonymous compositions of a
Paulinist who wrote during the period of transition into
the neo- Catholic church of the second century, with the
aim of safeguarding the common Christianity of the age in
terms of the great Pauline tradition."

2 II Timothy is accepted in its entirety (without the two
others) by Neander, Bleek, Beuss, and Heinrici. Almost
every reader is struck with its earnestness and sincerity,
and the verisimilitude of many of its personal allusions,
especially in the last chapter, where many proper names
are introduced, both new and old.

3 By Holtzmann, Hitzig, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Lemme,
Harnack, Hesse, von Soden, Clemen, Krenkel, McGiffert,
Moffatt, Bacon, and others,— led by Credner (1836).

298 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

trace the process of expansion and adaptation
by which the Epistles reached their present
form l — but without much success, if we may
judge from the conflicting nature of the results.
The critics have taken great liberties with the
text, even II Timothy 4 9'21, which bears unmis-
takable tokens of genuineness, being cut up into
an earlier and a later fragment, in order to get
rid of its testimony to a second imprisonment
at Rome. The use of the knife has become
almost as fashionable in Biblical Criticism as
in medical surgery. But whereas in surgery
operations are not resorted to till the presence
of disease has been ascertained and located
on indubitable evidence, our Biblical patho-
logists have often no evidence to offer but their
own impressions of what the writer could,
would, or should have written, and they hardly
ever agree as to the specific operations that
are needed for the removal of extraneous
matter and the restoration of a sound text.

At the same time, it cannot be denied that
the marked difference in the diction, style,
reasoning, and subject-matter of these Epistles,

1 According to Harnack, the process went on till 150 A.D.,
chiefly 90-110, the date of the nuclei being 59-64.

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 299

as compared with the other writings of Paul,
creates for the critic a difficult problem, which
resolves itself into the question whether a suffi-
cient explanation of the difference can be found
in the special circumstances under which the
Apostle wrote, and the special purposes which
the Epistles were intended to serve.

The excessive number of new words and
phrases is itself a serious difficulty. The
number of such expressions is no less than 171,
averaging one for every verse and a half, which
is a much larger proportion than is found in any
of Paul's other Epistles. Some of them are
Latinisms, which may be attributed to his re-
cent Western association, and for the rest it has
to be remembered that the previous Epistles
reveal a gradual extension of the Apostle's
vocabulary, as he advanced in life and was
confronted with new problems in different parts
of the world. If the verbal peculiarities are
more numerous here than elsewhere, it is only
what might have been expected considering
that the Apostle was now engaged in a task
which he had not previously been called to
perform. It was not a task that was likely to
give rise to lofty flights of eloquence, such as

300 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

we find in some of Paul's earlier Epistles,
neither did it call for the exercise of the dia-
lectical powers which he possessed in a high
degree. The absence of his favourite Greek
particles, and the comparative smoothness of
the style, may reasonably be attributed to the
fact that he was not arguing, but giving practi-
cal directions with reference to the worship,
discipline, and government of the Church ; and
if the composition shows less spirit and freedom
than usual, we have to remember that the
writer was no longer possessed of the fire of
youth, but was now " Paul the aged," in a
fuller sense than when he used these words in
his letter to Philemon.1

One of the arguments for regarding the
Epistles as compilations made some time after
the Apostle's death is the want of logical
connexion sometimes observable in them, but
the force of the argument is broken by the fact
that Pauline words and phrases and ideas are

1 It is of course possible that the amanuensis may have
had a hand in the composition, and it has been suggested
that Luke (II Tim. 4 n) may have been the amanuensis,
or even the author. Grau thinks the Epistles may even
have been written by Timothy and Titus themselves.

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 301

to be found not only in the few passages which
are confessedly genuine, but in many other
places. This fact shows that, if the Epistles
weie not written by Paul himself, they must
have been produced by some one who desired
to pass for the Apostle. In that case how are
we to account for the fact that in many re-
spects he makes no attempt to preserve Paul's
obvious characteristics as a letter-writer ? The
same argument applies to the historical notes
he has introduced into the Epistles, which are
so difficult to reconcile with the Apostle's life
as recorded in Acts. Why has he not tried
to harmonize his inventions with the historical
data already familiar to readers of the New
Testament ?

It is alleged by many critics that the condi-
tion of the Church as reflected in these Epistles
shows a great advance on what we read of in
the earlier letters, both as regards organized
effort and fixity of doctrine, and that such an
advance could not have taken place in the
Apostle's lifetime. But it has to be remem-
bered that the Church was still in the full
flush of its youthful enthusiasm and energy,
which would naturally seek expression in new

302 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

forms of thought and action. Hitherto its life
and doctrine, in those parts of the world in
which Timothy and Titus were called to labour,
had been largely regulated and controlled by
the personal influence of Paul, and now that
his life^ was drawing to a close, he felt that the
time had come when it behoved him to see to
the preservation of the great truths of the
Gospel which he had laboured to establish
that they might be handed down as a precious
deposit to future generations, and also to se-
cure that suitable means were provided for
the carrying on of the work and worship of
the Church, after his guiding hand had been
withdrawn.

If it be true that the Epistles are a
compilation got up in the interests of an
ecclesiastical policy, it is strange that the
author did not put more of the genuine Pauline
remains into the First Epistle, which is much
more important, from an ecclesiastical point
of view, than II Timothy. It is also strange
that a compiler actuated by such a motive
should have so little to say about questions
of organization strictly so-called, taking for
granted the various officials and classes to

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 303

whom he refers, and directing all his efforts to
the maintenance of a high moral and religious
standard among those who are in any way
called to represent the Church.

As regards the inferences to be drawn from
the ecclesiastical situation disclosed in the
Epistles, we have a decisive proof that the
writer could not have belonged to the sub-
apostolic age, in the fact that there is here no
trace either of the monarchical episcopate to
which Ignatius, writing about A.D. 115, attaches
so much importance, or of the diocesan episco-
pate which made its appearance somewhat
later. As in Philippians (1 1), bishops and
deacons are still the two orders responsible
for the teaching and superintendence of the
Church ; and, as in the Book of Acts (20 17'
28), " bishop " and " presbyter " (or " elder ") are
convertible terms (I Tim. 1 5> 7 ; 3 1J ; 5 17'22 ;
Titus 1 5-9). The position held by Timothy at
Ephesus and by Titus at Crete was evidently
temporary ; they were acting as the Apostle's
delegates, commissioned to do a special work,
as they had done elsewhere on former occa-
sions.

There are a number of other objections of a

304 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

minor nature which have been taken to the
Pauline authorship of the Epistles. It is said,
for example, that the writer's attitude towards
Timothy, which would have been appropriate
enough in addressing a young and inexperienced
worker, is altogether out of place in the
case of a man like- Timothy, who had been
already about fifteen years in the mission field
(1 Tim. 1 12' 18 ; 2 7 ; 4 14 ; 5 22 ; 2 Tim. 1 3- 4- 6- u,
3 n'15). But age is relative, and the lapse of time
was not likely to make any difference on Paul's
view of Timothy as still " my true child in
faith." Timothy appears to have been neither
strong in body (I Tim. 5 23), nor self-reliant in
spirit ; and when we consider the great re-
sponsibilities which the Apostle was laying
upon him, we cannot wonder at the solemn ex-
hortations he addresses to him, almost in the
form of a last will and testament. Both in his
personal reminiscences and in his anxiety for
Timothy's future (II Tim. 4 1-18), Paul's lan-
guage is very natural in the circumstances ; and
the same may be said of his tone in address-
ing Titus, which is much less tender, because
he knows him to be quite competent for the
work entrusted to him, It has been well

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 305

said that such delicate variations form an
excellent proof of genuineness.

As regards the writer's assertion of his apos-
tolic authority, to which objection has also been
taken, some of the Jewish Christians may have
still been disposed to call in question Paul's
apostleship, and in any case there could be
no impropriety in his alluding to it, when he
was appointing two comparatively young men
to act as his deputies over such a wide area.

Again, it has been pointed out, as at variance
with Pauline usage, that the word " faith "
is occasionally employed in these Epistles in
an objective sense, to denote a system of
doctrine rather than a personal union with
Christ, while the word " righteousness," on the
other hand, is used to denote a personal virtue,
instead of expressing a theological abstraction.
But in both these cases the Apostle's language
was probably in keeping with the changing
usage of the Church, which was now realizing
the necessity of safeguarding the interests both
of Christian ethics as represented by righteous-
ness, and of Christian doctrine as embodied in
the creed.

There are other things in the Epistles
20

306 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP,

which are alleged to betray their non-
Pauline origin, such as the want of any ade-
quate occasion for a written communication,
as the Apostle could have found an oppor-
tunity to give oral instructions ; the want of
any due recognition of spiritual gifts to be
exercised by private members of the Church ;
the occurrence in the Epistles of proverbial
sayings already current in the Church, and of
apparent quotations from Christian hymns and
confessions (I Tim. 1 16 ; 316; 4 9; 6 12"16 ; II
Tim. 2 2- 8- n ; 4 x ; Titus 3 8) ; the repetition, in
II Timothy 46, of an illustration referring to
Paul's approaching death, which he had already
used in a similar sense in Philippians 2 17. But
it may be fairly said that hardly any of these
features presents any real difficulty, when con-
sidered in the light of all the circumstances.

Probably the authorship of the Epistles will
always remain a subject of controversy, but, by
whatever process they may have reached their
present form, we may well believe that they
represent the ripest fruits of Paul's experi-
ence as a preacher and as an administrator.
Though they make no fresh contribution to
Christian theology, they reconcile in a practical

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 307

form, under the name of " godliness " (an ex-
pression characteristic of the Epistles), the rival
interests of faith and works, of doctrine and
morality, and set before the office-bearers of
the Church an ideal of pastoral character and
duty, which has done much during the last
nineteen centuries to deepen their sense of
responsibility and keep them faithful to their
high calling.

Assuming that the Epistles were written by
Paul shortly before his death, we may date
them about A.D. 64.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE
HEBREWS

In our English Version this Epistle bears
the title " The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to
the Hebrews," but in the oldest manuscript of
which we have any knowledge, the only words
prefixed are, " To the Hebrews " ; and, unlike
all the other Epistles attributed to Paul, it
contains no intimation that it was either
authorized or penned by him. The first au-
thority whom we find attributing the writ-
ing to Paul is Pantaenus of Alexandria, who
accounted for its being anonymous by the

308 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

desire of the writer to avoid the appearance
of usurping the position of Apostle to the
Hebrews, which belonged to Christ himself.
Pantsenus's successor, Clement of Alexandria,
regarded it as probable that Paul had written
the original in Hebrew, which had been trans-
lated by Luke, and that the suppression of
Paul's name had been due to a fear of offend-
ing Hebrew prejudice. Origen, who evidently
shared the hesitation felt by his predecessors
at Alexandria in acknowledging the Pauline
authorship, suggested that the Epistle had
probably been composed by some one from
personal recollections of the Apostle's teaching,
and mentions that it was held by some to be
the work of Clement of Rome, and by others
of Luke. Notwithstanding the doubts thus
felt by some of those most competent to judge,
the Epistle was admitted into the Peshitta as
part of the Syriac Canon, and before the end of
the third century it was commonly regarded
by the Eastern Church as a genuine writing of
Paul.

In the West, on the other hand, notwith-
standing the use of the Epistle by Clement of
Rome in the first century (95-6), there is no

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 309

trace of its being acknowledged by any one as
canonical for a century and a half afterwards.
It had no place in Marcion's Canon, and is not
mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, unless
under the name of " ad Alexandrinos." We
do not find it in the Old Latin Version, and
its apostolic character was not acknowledged
by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, or Caius — three very
important witnesses in the second and third
century. It is true that Tertullian of Carthage
(c. A.D. 220) quotes it, but he attributes it, not
to Paul, but Barnabas ; and Cyprian (c. 250)
makes no use of it, notwithstanding the em-
phasis it lays on Christ's priestly character.
Eusebius mentions that the Epistle was ques-
tioned at Kome, on the ground that it was not
written by Paul. This continued to be the
case for some time afterwards, and it was not
till the beginning of the fifth century that the
Epistle came to be accepted by the whole
Church as the work of Paul, partly owing to
the high value set upon its teaching, and partly
through the deference which Jerome and
Augustine were disposed to pay to the senti-
ment and usage of the Eastern Church.

If the external testimonv to the Pauline

310 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

authorship is quite inadequate, the internal
evidence is still less favourable. Indeed, the
Epistle is so unlike the other writings attri-
buted to Paul, both as regards style and
diction (notwithstanding a few verbal coinci-
dences) ; it differs from them so much in its
mode of quotation from the Old Testament,
in which it invariably follows the Septuagint ;
and it looks at Judaism from such a different
point of view l (the priesthood of Christ, to
which it gives prominence, being almost en-
tirely absent from Paul's acknowledged writ-
ings), that the idea of its being in any sense a
production of the Apostle's is abandoned by
all who take an interest in New Testament
Criticism.

For a long time discussion has turned on
the comparative probability of other names
suggested, and the destination of the Epistle
has also engaged a considerable amount of
attention. A good many critics, beginning
with Roth, in 1836, and including more recently
Weizsacker, Schiirer, Pfleiderer, von Soden,

1 " The one abolishes the Law, the other transfigures
it. ..." The one was revolutionist, the other evolu-
tionist."— Menegoz.

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 311

Jlilicher, Wrede, Harnack, Feine, McGiffert,
Bacon, and Moffatt, are disposed to reject the
early and unanimous tradition that the Epistle
was addressed to Jewish Christians. But,
while it undoubtedly contains many things
equally suitable for Gentile and for Jewish
readers, in its main features it appears to have
been specially fitted to meet the intellectual
and spiritual needs of those who had been
converted from the Jewish to the Christian
faith. Its argument from first to last is built
upon the teaching of the Old Testament, it
takes for granted a deep and intelligent in-
terest, on the part of its readers, in the whole
Jewish ritual, and its allusions to " the fathers "
(1 x), "the seed of Abraham" (2 16), "the
people " (5 3 ; 7 u- 27 ; 13 12), and " the camp " (13
13), are such as we might expect if both writer
and readers were of the stock of Israel.
Although the title "To the Hebrews" is
probably nothing more than the supposition
of an ancient copyist, it expresses the view
which a perusal of the Epistle naturally pro-
duces on the reader, and the arguments to the
contrary which are drawn from a few iso-
lated passages (61 f> ; 3 12fh) are quite insufficient

312 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

to remove this general impression. The object
of the communication was to strengthen its
readers under the trials to which they were
exposed at the hands of their infatuated
fellow-countrymen as well as from other
sources. For this purpose they are reminded
of the heavenly inheritance to which they
have succeeded as followers of the risen and
exalted Christ, in whom the promises made to
their fathers will yet have a glorious fulfil-
ment, with which all the blessings of the Old
Testament dispensation are unworthy to be
compared. It appears that their early en-
thusiasm had grown cold, and that there had
been a serious declension in their spiritual
life ; but whether the danger which now
threatened them was that of relapsing into
Judaism (which is the view generally taken),
or of falling into unbelief and idolatry (Zahn,
von Soden, Jtilicher, G. Milligan, and others)
is not very clear (6 " ; 10 28 f ).

According to Reuss, Lipsius, Wrede, and
others, the Epistle was originally intended for
Hebrew Christians in general, and the last
chapter with its personal details was an
addition intended to give the composition an

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 313

epistolary complexion and adapt it to the case
of a particular Church or congregation. But
this view is refuted by the fact that the special
circumstances of the readers are referred to
not only in the concluding chapter but in

several places in the body of the Epistle (5 12 ;
6 9 f. . 1Q 32 ff. . 12 4) . and Qne of the problems

of Criticism is to determine to what Church in
particular the Epistle was addressed. Jerusa-
lem, Caesarea, Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria,
and Rome have all been suggested, and some-
thing can be said for each of them. In some
respects Jerusalem is the place where we can
imagine that Jewish Christians would be ex-
posed to the greatest trial of their faith, owing
to the fanatical rejection of the Gospel by the
majority of their countrymen, and the dis-
appointment of their own hopes of a speedy
return of the Saviour in His divine power and
glory.1 But there are references in the Epistle
(2 3 ; 5 12 ; 6 10 ; 10 34) which seem to be at
variance with this hypothesis ; and the em-
ployment of the Greek language, and constant
reference to the Septuagint, are regarded by

1 This is the view taken by Hort, Salmon, Westcott, and
Bruce.

314 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

many as proving that the Epistle could not
have been written by anyone likely to have
influence with the most conservative section
of the Jewish Christians in the metropolis.

Recently there has been a strong tendency
to identify the readers with the members of a
congregation at Rome (Rom. 16 5i 14> 15 ; cf.
Heb. 13 17 and 24), composed mainly of
Jewish Christians.1 This gives the most
natural interpretation to the words in 13 24,
" They of Italy salute you," as conveying
the greetings of Italian exiles to fellow-
Christians at Rome, and it also explains the
intended visit of Timothy, who was much con-
nected with Rome in his later years, and the
acquaintance with the Epistle shown by
Clement of Rome. In this connexion it is in-
teresting to learn from ancient inscriptions
that one of the synagogues in Rome bore the
name of the " Synagogue of the Hebrews.'

» 2

1 So Renan, Pfleiderer, Harnack, Zahn.

2 Prof. J. Dickie in an article in the " Expositor " for
April, 1913, has suggested that the homily may have
been addressed to a latitudinarian House-Church tinged
with Alexandrianism, whose interest, both in Judaism and
Christianity, was largely of a speculative nature, and that
the congregation may have died out, leaving no cherished

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 315

As regards authorship, there is little to be
said in favour of Clement (suggested by
Erasmus), even if we suppose the salutation to
have been sent from Ttaly and the Epistle to
have emanated from Rome. While there is
some resemblance between the two writers,
Hebrews is on a far higher level than we can
conceive the author of the Epistle of Clement
to have been capable of ; and, if he had been
the writer, his name would have been almost
sure to be preserved.

As regards Luke, the fact that he was a
Gentile (Col. 4 l4 and n) precludes the possi-
bility of his having been the author, notwith-
standing the linguistic similarities which have
been observed between this Epistle and his
acknowledged works in the New Testament.

A name which has the support, as we have
seen, of Tertullian of Carthage, who had some
connexion with Rome, is that of Barnabas.
From his associations as a Levite, his know-
ledge of Greek as a native of Cyprus, his de-
vout character, and his influence in the early
Church, we can readily imagine him to have

memories behind it, which would account for the want of
any reliable tradition regarding the history of the Epistle.

316 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

written such an epistle as this, especially if it
be true, as tradition affirms, that he had some
connexion with Alexandria, whose allegorical
mode of thought is reflected in the Epistle.
Against all this, however, we have to set the
facts that, so far as we know, Barnabas had
never any connexion with Rome, and that,
if the Epistle was addressed to a Church in
the East, his name as the author could scarcely
have fallen into oblivion.

One of the most plausible conjectures is
that which was favoured, if not originated, by
Luther, namely, that Apollos was the author.
The description given, in Acts 18 24'28, of this
remarkable man and his preaching — as a Jew,
an Alexandrian by race, a learned man,
mighty in the Scriptures, who powerfully con-
futed the Jews, shewing by the Scriptures
that Jesus was the Christ — would afford
strong confirmation of his authorship, if there
was any ancient tradition in its favour ; but
failing such tradition we can only claim for
the suggestion a high degree of probability.1

1 Prof. J. V. Bartlet, in an article in the " Expositor " for
June, 1913, argues that the Epistle was written by Apollos
from Rome to Jewish Christians in Ephesus c. 62 A.D.

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 317

Another interesting conjecture, originally
broached by Bleek, has recently been advo-
cated with great ability by Harnack (who was
at one time in favour of Barnabas), and has
been worked out by Rendel Harris. They
are of opinion that the Epistle was composed
by Priscilla and Aquila, two eminent bene-
factors of the Church, who gave their house
in Rome as a place of meeting for public wor-
ship (Rom. 16 3 ff), before they were banished
from that city by the edict of Claudius (Acts
18 2), and of whose distinguished zeal and
ability we have a proof in the fact that when
they heard Apollos speaking in the synagogue
at Ephesus, and perceived that he knew only
the baptism of John, " they took him unto
them, and expounded unto him the way of God
more carefully" (Acts 18 24 *). If Priscilla
had the chief hand in the composition — and it
is noticeable that on several occasions her
name precedes that of her husband — this
would account for the prominence given to
women (Deborah excepted) in the roll-call of
faith in the eleventh chapter, and it might
also explain how the authors' names had been
suppressed in deference to Paul's disapproval

318 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

of female teaching in the Church. If we may
suppose that Apollos collaborated with Pris-
cilla and Aquila it would render the theory
still more probable.1

According to Sir William Ramsay, the com-
munication was sent by Philip to the Judaizing
section of the Church in Jerusalem, as the
result of discussions held with Paul during his
imprisonment at Caesarea, the concluding
passage only having come from the Apostle's
pen. Even this slight reservation is not
approved by E. L. Hicks, who attributes the
whole composition to Philip, basing his argu-
ment chiefly on a comparison of the language
of the Epistle with that of Colossians and
Ephesians, which he also assigns to the period
of the imprisonment at Caesarea. But, besides
sharing in the defect common to almost all
the suggestions which have been mentioned,
namely, a want of external testimony of any
real value in their favour, this theory is
rendered unlikely by the fact that there is in
the Epistle little trace of the Pauline type of

xThe change from the plural to the singular in 13 18.f-
and in 13 23 may be due to the writer being associated
with others in the composition or sending of the Epistle.

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 319

doctrine, and it is also open to the objections,
already stated, to the idea that the Epistle was
addressed to Christians Jiving in Jerusalem.

The name of Silvanus (Silas) has also been
suggested. He was at one time a leader of
the primitive Church in Jerusalem (Acts 15 **),
and accompanied Paul on his second mission-
ary journey. Later he became a coadjutor of
Peter, acting as his amanuensis or secretary
in the writing of I Peter (5 12). We also find
him associated with Timothy in preaching
(II Cor. 1 19) and correspondence (I Thess. 1 1,
II Thess. 1 1). But beyond these general facts
no evidence can be adduced in support of
the theory, except the resemblance between
I Peter and Hebrews, which shows that there
was some degree of indebtedness on the one
side or the other. Peter himself has been
suggested on the strength of this resemblance,
but 2 8 b< gives the impression that the writer
had not been himself a hearer of Christ, and,
so far as we know, Peter had never come
under the influence of Alexandrian culture.

The date we are to assign to the Epistle
depends largely on the question whether the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus had already

320 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

taken place. While the first impression we re-
ceive from the reading of the Epistle is that the
Temple was still standing, it cannot be denied
that on closer examination certain passages,
which were supposed to warrant this conclu-
sion, are found to be capable of a different
interpretation, and that the ritual which the
writer had in view was that of the Tabernacle,
not of the Temple. But it is scarcely conceiv-
able that, if the Temple and its ritual had been
already swept away, no reference should have
been made by the writer to this crowning
proof of the transitory character of the Old
Testament dispensation, and that he should
still have ventured to ask with reference to
the appointed sacrifices (as if the answer would
confirm his argument), " Else would they not
have ceased to be offered ? " (10 2). Whether
there is a reference in 10 32 ff- to the Neronian
persecution has been much disputed. If there
be, the Epistle could not have been written
much before A.D. 70. It is more likely, how-
ever, that the reference is to the sufferings of
Christians in connexion with the expulsion qf
the Jews from Rome by Claudius, and in that
case the date of writing may be A.D. 64, or

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 321

even earlier. The year 66 is favoured by
Hilgenfeld, Llinemann, Schtirer, Weiss, Godet,
and Westcott. Others have in view the
persecution under Domitian, and prefer a date
between 81 and 96.

On the whole, it must be confessed that this
is one of the Books of the New Testament
regarding whose authorship and destination
Criticism has yielded comparatively little fruit.
We have still to say with Origen, " Who it was
that wrote the Epistle God only knows
certainly." But happily its value is to a great
extent independent of such questions, for it
speaks for itself from an exegetical point of
view, and no question of forgery is involved,
as no name is put forward. We may add
that this is one of the few compositions in the
New Testament whose beauty of style gave
promise of the literary culture that was one
day to be associated with Christianity.

THE GENERAL OR CATHOLIC EPISTLES l
These Epistles are seven in number, viz.,
James ; I and II Peter ; I, II, and III John ; and

1 In connexion with these writings the distinction be-
tween " letter "and " epistle " has been strongly emphasized

21

.322 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Jude. They have been known as the Catholic
Epistles from the end of the second century

by a number of recent writers. The Catholic Epistles
"are compositions addressed to Christians — one might
perhaps say the Church — in general. The catholicity of
the address implies, of course, a catholicity in the contents.
What the Church calls catholic we require only to call
epistle, and the unsolved enigma with which, according to
Overbeck, they present us, is brought nearer to a solution.
The special position of these 'letters,' which is indicated
by their having the attribute catholic instinctively applied
to them, is due precisely to their literary character;
catholic means in this connexion literary. The impossi-
bility of recognizing the ' letters ' of Peter, James, and
Jude, as real letters follows directly from the peculiarity in
the form of their address. . . . The only way by which
the letters could reach such ideal addresses was to have
them reproduced in numbers from the first. But that
means that they were literature. ... It is true, indeed,
that these Catholic Epistles are Christian literature : their
authors had no desire to enrich universal literature ; they
wrote their books for a definite circle of people with the
same views as themselves, that is, for Christians ; but
books they wrote. ... It also follows from their character
as epistles that the question of authenticity is not nearly
so important for them as for the Pauline letters. It is
allowable that in the epistle the personality of the writer
should be less prominent ; whether it is completely veiled,
as, for instance, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, or whether
it modestly hides itself behind some great name of the past,
as in other cases, does not matter ; considered in the light

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 323

onwards, to distinguish them from the Epistles
of Paul (including Hebrews), which were ad-
dressed to individual Churches and were attri-
buted to one Apostle only. They sometimes
fill a whole Greek manuscript ; in the case of
manuscripts comprising the whole New Testa-
ment, they either follow the order given in our
English Bible, or stand between Acts and the
Pauline Epistles.

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES
The first of these Epistles bears the super-
scription : " James, a servant of God and of the
Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which
are of the Dispersion, greeting." Opinion re-
garding its authorship is almost as divided now
as it was in the fourth century, when it was
placed by Eusebius among the Antilegomena or
" Disputed " Books of the New Testament.
The majority of continental critics regard it as
a work of the second or latter part of the first
century, rejecting the traditional authorship
of the book, partly on account of the want of
early testimony in its favour, partly because

of ancient literary practices, this is not only not strange,
hut in reality quite natural." — Deissmann's "Bible Studies,"
pp. 51, 52, 54.

324 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

they think they have detected in it features of
a post-apostolic character, and partly also be-
cause it seems to them improbable that a
Palestinian Jew of no great education should
have had such a good command of the Greek
language as is shown in this Epistle. Baur saw
in it what he called " a toned-down Jewish
Christianity," and assigned it to about A.D. 110.
Harnack puts it still later, regarding it as a
compilation (c. 170) of heterogeneous passages
taken from Christian homilies, which were
written between A.D. 120 and 140, based partly
on sayings of Jesus, partly on those of Jewish
and Gentile moralists. He finds in it the same
kind of degenerate Christianity that appears
in Clement, Hermas, Justin, and other writers
of the second century. Julicher holds part of
it to be of Jewish origin, and characterizes it
as " perhaps the least Christian book of the
New Testament." He regards it as a work
of the second quarter of the second century,
issued in the name of James, the Lord's brother,
in order to secure a wide circulation for it in
the Church.

According to Bruckner, the Epistle was
forged by an Essene at Rome in the latter half

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM: 325

of the second century. Pfleiderer, on the other
hand, regards it as a product of the "practical
Catholicism " which gained the ascendency in
the Church before the middle of the second
century. Spitta (like Massebieau) has pro-
pounded a theory according to which the
Epistle is a Christian adaptation of a Jewish
work of the first century, the only change
needed to restore it to its original form being
the deletion of a few words referring to Jesus
Christ at the beginning of the first and second
chapters. Von Soden, while regarding many
passages as of Jewish origin (especially 3 1J8 ;
4 u - 5 20), considers the Epistle as a whole to
have been addressed to Christians " of the third
or fourth generation " by a Jewish Christian
named James, who represents the eclectic and
ethical tendencies of the Dispersion. Hilgenf eld
believes it to have been written by an Eastern
Jewish Christian in the reign of Domitian (81-
96), while Weizsacker puts it somewhat earlier
(soon after 70), when the Palestinian Church
had begun to be Ebionitic in its tendencies,
and was preaching a Gospel of poverty.

On the other hand, the great majority of
critics in this country have maintained the

326 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

genuineness of the- Epistle l as the work of
James, who was for many years at the head of
the Church in Jerusalem (Mark 6 3 ; Acts
12 17 ; 21 18 ; Gal. 2 9). For this view a number
of foreign critics of eminence2 can also be
quoted ; but of recent years the tendency has
been in an opposite direction, not only on the
continent but also in America, and even, to
some extent, in our own country.3

Recently the Jacobean authorship has been
presented by two English scholars in a new
light. G. Currie Martin has suggested that
the Epistle is composed of short homilies by
James on certain sayings of Jesus which he
had preserved, and that they were only issued
in a collective form after his death. J. H.
Moulton is also of opinion that the Epistle
embodies sayings of Jesus not preserved else-
where, but thinks it was addressed by James
not to Christians but to Jews, and that this is

1 This may be attributed, partly at least, to the tendency
of British scholars to give a book credit for genuineness
till it is proved to be spurious.

- Including Neander, Mangold, Bleek, Kern, Ritschl,
Beyschlag, Weiss, P. Ewald, Lechler, Zahn.

3 For example, the traditional authorship is denied by
McGiffert, Bacon, Moff'att, and Peake.

vr.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM o27

the reason why it contains so little that is
distinctively Christian, except in two or three
passages which may have suffered from inter-
polation.

All are agreed that the external evidence
is comparatively weak. Apart from coinci-
dences with several other books of the New
Testament (which may be accounted for in
various ways), expressions derived from this
Epistle are to be found in Hernias, and per-
haps also in Clement, the " Didache," Irenseus,
and Tertullian. It was also included in the
Syriac and Old Latin versions. But it has no
place in the Muratorian Fragment, and no
trace of it is to be found in Hegesippus, to
whom we are indebted for an account of the
martyrdom of James, or in the spurious
" Clementine Homilies," which are addressed
to James as the highest dignitary in the
Church.1 Origen is the first to quote from the

1 Hegesippus tells us that immediately before the siege
of Jerusalem was commenced (A.D. 66), James was put to
death by the unbelieving Jews, who cast him down from a
pinnacle of the Temple, and that his monument still stood
by the side of the Temple (c. A.D. 160) with the inscription :
" He hath been a true witness both to Jews and Greeks that
Jesus is the Christ." There has been much controversy

328 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Epistle by name, and he does so in such a way
as to suggest that he felt some uncertainty as
to the authorship. But before the close of
the fourth century the claims of the Epistle to
a place in the Canon (like those of the four dis-
puted Catholic Epistles — II Peter, II and III
John, and Jude) were fully recognized by the
Church, at the Council held at Carthage in
397 A.D.

regarding the precise relationship in which James stood to
Jesus. There are three views on the subject, associated
with the names of Helvidius, Epiphanius, and Jerome re-
spectively. According to the first theory (the Helvidian),
James, like Joses, Judas, and Simon (Mark 6 3), were the
sons of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus, and therefore
his half-brothers ; according to the second (the Epiphanian),
they were the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and
therefore only the brothers of Jesus in a nominal sense ;
according to the third (Hieronymian) they were cousins
of Jesus, being sons of Clopas or Alphaeus, the husband
of Mary's sister (Matt. 27 56; Mark 15 40, 16 *; John 19
25. 27^ The first view is that which naturally occurs to
an unprejudiced reader of the passages in the New Testa-
ment bearing on the subject, and probably it would never
have been disputed but for its being at variance with the
perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord — a doctrine
which grew up in the second century under the fostering
influence of sentiment, and soon came to be generally
accepted in the Church.

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 329

Turning to internal evidence, we find it to
be of a very complex nature, lending support in
some respects to various theories, but not har-
monizing perfectly with any one of them. The
traditional view is not without difficulties,—
it is open to some objections ; but on the whole,
the evidence, external and internal, seems to
justify the belief that the early Church was
right in admitting this Epistle into the Canon,
and that it is not improbably the oldest book
in the New Testament.

The way in which the writer designates him-
self in the opening verse, " James, a servant
of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," is very
significant. One cannot fail to be struck with
the mingled simplicity and dignity of the ex-
pression. It would have been quite unsuitable
as a designation for any ordinary writer who
wished to make himself known to his readers.
On the other hand, a pretender wishing to pass
for James, the Lord's brother, would have
been sure to claim the dignity of the position
more plainly, whereas, if James himself was
the writer, he would feel that there was no
need for this, as there was no danger of his being
mistaken by the reader for any other person.

330 THK HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

In keeping with this is the habitual tone of
authority which runs through the Epistle, there
being fifty-four imperatives in one hundred and
eight verses. The writer addresses his message
11 to the twelve tribes which are of the Dis-
persion, greeting." This is his Jewish way of
describing the brethren at a distance from
Jerusalem, many of whom had been scattered
abroad by the persecution which broke out in
the Holy Land. The Epistle may have been
written when as yet there were comparatively
few converts from heathenism, and no congrega-
tions exclusively composed of Gentiles, Paul's
missionary journeys having not yet taken place.
Antioch had not become a centre of Gentile
Christianity, and Jerusalem was still the metro-
polis of the Christian, as well as of the Jewish,
world. In keeping with this destination of
the Epistle is the mention of " your synagogue ''
as the place of worship, and of " Abraham our
father " (2 2> 21) ; also the designation of God
by the Old Testament name of " the Lord of
Sabaoth " (5 4) ; and the prominence given to
the law and the unity of the Godhead (2 10> h').
Yet the Christian character of the Epistle is
unmistakable (1 '• 18 ; 2 T- 5- 7- 8 ; 3 1T etc.).

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 331

The early date of the Epistle may be inferred
from the meagreness of its Christian doctrine,
as well as from the simplicity of the ecclesias-
tical arrangements to which it refers — teachers
and elders being mentioned (3 l, 5 14), but no
bishops or deacons. Jesus Christ is acknow-
ledged as " the Lord of glory " (2 x), and there
is a reference to His second coming (5 7'9), but
there is no mention of His death, resurrection,
or ascension. The new birth is alluded to
(1 18), but not the work of the Holy Spirit ;
there is a commendation of " the royal law " of
love, as between man and man (2 8), but there
is no recognition of the redeeming love of God
in Christ Jesus.

The Epistle is replete with our Saviour's
teaching, not in such a form as to give the
impression that it is derived from the written
Gospels, but moulded and transformed, as we
might expect it to be, if the author was
drawing upon his recollections of what he had
heard during the Saviour's lifetime, before he
had learned to believe in Him as the Messiah.

There is no allusion to the destruction of
Jerusalem, and, what is still more significant,
no reference to the question of the obligatori-

332 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

ness of the Jewish law on Gentile converts,
which excited so much controversy for a time,
till it was practically settled at the Council of
Jerusalem, about c. 48 A.D. This is a strong
argument for dating the Epistle before the rise
of that controversy, and accordingly Prof.
Mayor and other advocates of the Jacobean
authorship suggest 45 A.D. as the most prob-
able date.

Tokens of the Palestinian origin .of the
Epistle have been discovered in the allusions
to natural phenomena (1 6' n ; 3 4' "• 12 ; 5 7),
and to the troubled state of society, when the
Jewish converts had to face the hatred and
oppression of the wealthy Sadducees and the
proud Pharisees.

With regard to the language in which the
Epistle is written, it has to be remembered
that James, like the other members of the
apostolic circle, was probably familiar with
the Greek tongue from his youth, and that
many of the members of the Church in Jerusa-
lem, over which he had presided for a consider-
able time, were Hellenists or Greek-speaking.
Jews, who used the Septuagint version of the
Old Testament — like those congregations in
Palestine and Syria and elsewhere, for whom

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 333

the Epistle was intended. Though the author
is more expert in the use of Greek than most
of the New Testament writers, his style
of composition bears a distinctly Hebraic
character, being abrupt and sententious, re-
minding one of the Book of Proverbs. More-
over, the diction employed bears a strong re-
semblance to the speech delivered by James
at the Council of Jerusalem, when he proposed
that a letter should be sent to the Gentile
converts regarding their relations to the laws
of Moses.1 There is some apparent opposition
between the teaching of this Epistle and Paul's
letters to the Romans and Galatians, with
regard to the comparative importance of faith
and works. This is owing to the fact that the
two writers look at the question from different
points of view, and there is no real inconsist-
ency between them. At the same time, it is
not unlikely that the warning which Paul
addresses in the fourth chapter of Romans to
those who pride themselves on their observance
of the Law, was intended to guard against

1 Yet Prof. Bacon ventures to say that " the notion of
James writing encyclicals before Paul has even begun to
write his epistles, is almost grotesque,"

334 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

abuse of the teaching in the Epistle of James
(2 14-26) with regard to the necessity of good
works. Others, however, who assign a late
date to the Epistle, allege that its teaching
was aimed against the extreme Paulinists
who perverted the Apostle's doctrine of grace,
and did not realize the need for showing their
faith by their works. There is a similar con-
flict of opinion as to how we are to account
for the connexion between this Epistle and
I Peter and Hebrews ; according as we as-
sign the priority to the former or to the two
latter, we determine to a large extent the
date and authorship of the Epistle.1

On these and other points there is room for
difference of opinion, but, on the whole, there
seems to be no sufficient reason to prefer any
of the various conflicting theories, which deny
the genuineness of the Epistle, to the traditional
view which regards it as marking an early
stage in the slow transition from Judaism to
Christianity, of which James "the Just,"
the acknowledged leader of the primitive

1 Prof. Bacon puts it rather strongly when he says that
" the indications of date by literary relationship are
really conclusive " against the traditional authorship,

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 335

Church in Jerusalem, was the most notable
example.

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER

This epistle was hardly ever called in question
until a comparatively recent time. It was in-
cluded by Eusebius among the Homologou-
mena, or books universally received, and
there is no trace of any objection having been
taken to it previous to that time. Strong
evidence in its favour is afforded by the Chris-
tian writers of the second century, from Poly-
carp onwards, and echoes of its language are
to be found in still earlier documents.1 Even
among modern critics the general opinion is
that it was composed by the Apostle Peter,2
though on the other side there are some well-
known names, such as Hausrath, Holtzmann,
Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Jlilicher, Harnack, von

1 Hermas, Didache, Clement. Eusebius says it was
used by Papias (c. A.D. 135). The author of II Peter (3 J)
speaks of his work as "the second epistle " written by him
to the same readers.

2 So Schleiermacher, Neander, Meyer, de Wette, Bleek,
Weiss, Salmon, Dods, Plumptre, Ramsay, Bartlet, Bigg,
Chase, Bennett,

336 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Soden, Schmiedel, and S. Davidson.1 Those
who deny the Petrine authorship differ a good
deal in their opinions as to the genesis of the
Epistle, some holding that it was occasioned
by the persecution under Domitian towards
the close of the first century (92-96), and
others connecting it with the rescript of
Trajan to Pliny, in A.D. 112. Harnack con-
siders it too Pauline (as Jiilicher also does) to
be the work of Peter, and regards 1 lf< and 5 12 ff-
as additions made c. 150-170 (perhaps by the
author of II Pet.) to an anonymous com-
position, of 63-93 A.D. McGiffert suggests
Barnabas as the writer (c. 90) ; von Soden,
Silvanus (c. 93-96) — to whom Zahn also at-
tributes the authorship (c. 50) under the
direction of Peter (I Pet. 5 12). Some of the
objections taken to the genuineness of the
book are similar to those brought against the
Epistle of James, such as the excellence of its
Greek — but with this Silvanus may have had
something to do — and the use of the Septuagint
in the quotations from the Old Testament.
The main arguments against it, however, are

!Moffatt wavers in his opinion, and calls the writing
" semi-pseudonymous,"

vj.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 337

its want of distinctively Petrine teaching, and
the advanced character of the persecutions to
which Christians appear to have been liable
when the Epistle was written.

According to the opening verse it was
addressed " to the elect who are sojourners of
the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia, and Bithynia." A few critics, such as
Weiss (following Origen and Eusebius), under-
stand this to be a description of the Jewish
Christians scattered throughout North-Western
Asia ; but the contents of the letter are in
some respects quite at variance with this
supposition (1 "• l8 ; 2 9 f • ; 4 2 f •), and the
great majority of writers take the words to
be a figurative description of the Christian
Churches in the districts referred to. This is
in harmony with the mode of expression em-
ployed by the writer when he says : " Beloved,
I beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to
abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against
the soul " (2 " ; cf. Heb. 11 13). On the same
principle, " Babylon," from which the Epistle
purports to be sent, is another name for Rome,1

1 " That this Epistle was written from Rome, I cannot
doubt. It is impregnated with Roman thought to a degree

22

:>;>8 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

as in the Apocalypse and elsewhere — the use
of such figurative language being a precaution
against persecution, in case the document
should fall into unfriendly hands. The prob-
ability seems to be that it was written from
Home shortly before Peter's death, which,
according to a well-supported tradition, took
place about A.D. 64, in connexion with the
persecution under Nero. If such was the
case, there is no reason to be astonished at
the large infusion of Pauline thoughts and ex-
pressions (borrowed especially from Romans,
Galatians, and Ephesians),1 or at the resem-
blance which the letter bears in some respects
to the Epistle of James.2 By the time referred
to, any feeling of antagonism between the
two apostles, had probably died away under
the mellowing influence of their advancing
years, being overruled by the logic of events in

beyond any other book in the Bible ; the relation to the
state and its officers forms an unusually large part of the
whole " (Eamsay).

1 Sieffert has suggested that Ephesians and I Peter may
have had the same author. But Weiss (with Kuhl) gives
the priority to I Peter, which he dates as early as A.D. '54.

- There are also verbal coincidences with the Johannine
writings and Hebrews.

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 339

the history of the Church, which called for unity
of action on the part of its leaders. We may
see a token of the growing harmony which
prevailed in the apostolic circle in the fact
that Mark, whom Paul speaks of in Philemon
(v. 24) as -his fellow-worker, and in II Tim.
(4 n) as " useful to me for ministering," is here
singled out for affectionate recognition by
Peter, who calls him " my son," and associates
him with himself in sending greetings to the
Churches (5 13) ; to which we may add that
the Silvanus whom Peter employed as an
amanuensis or secretary (5 12), was in all prob-
ability Paul's former coadjutor Silas, who
had laboured with him in Syria, Cilicia, and
Galatia (Acts, chaps. 15-18).

All this helps to explain the family likeness
which can be traced in many of the writings in
the New Testament, even when they bear the
names of different authors. By the seventh
decade of the first century the Church had be-
gun to realize its unity, and the apostles were
working hand in hand. It was not to be ex-
pected, therefore, that we should find in this
Epistle the distinctive views of the " apostle of
the circumcision," whom Paul withstood to the

:i4<» THE HISTORY AND RES! LTS [CHAP.

face, when he separated himself from the
Gentile converts for fear of offending the
narrow-minded Jewish Christians who had
come down to Antioch from Jerusalem (Gal. 2).
About fifteen years had passed since then,
and during that time we may be sure that
Peter must have learned much, for he was
singularly impressionable and open to new
influences. Apart from his intercourse or
correspondence with Paul, we cannot suppose
that his intimacy with John had ceased after
the conference in Jerusalem (Gal. 2 9), or that
he had failed to share in the intellectual and
spiritual progress which characterized that
apostle.

At the same time, there are some interesting
points of contact between this Epistle and the
language or experience of the apostle Peter,
as otherwise known to us.1 While it contains
few reminiscences of Christ's ministry, it is
significant that the writer speaks of himself as
" a witness of the sufferings of Christ." He
emphasizes Christ's meekness and patience as

1 Of. I Peter 1 *7, and Acts 10 34 f ; I Peter 5 *, and
Acts 20 28 ; I Peter 1 12, and Acts 2 4 ; I Peter 5 8, and
Luke 22 31.

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 341

an example to His followers under persecution,
and gives prominence to His resurrection as a
pledge of the glory that should be revealed.
The want of any personal reference to Paul
has been unfavourably commented on, but
very probably it may have been due to that
apostle's having left Rome after his liberation
from prison, perhaps to pay the visit to Spain
which he had long had in view.

To some critics it seems very unlikely that
Peter should have sent a circular letter to
Churches with which he had no personal con-
nexion. But the truth is that we know very
little about Peter's career after he disappears
from the pages of the Book of Acts. Tradi-
tion connects him with Syria, Asia Minor, Rome,
and Corinth ; and it is quite possible that in
Asia Minor he rendered more extensive service
than Paul ever did. The Churches which are
known to have been founded by Paul in that
part of the world are comparatively few, and
other agencies may have been at work there
for the propagation of the Gospel. It has
been suggested that Paul's quarrel with Mark
in Pamphylia, when the latter left Paul and
Barnabas and returned to Jerusalem, may

342 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

have had something to do with the rights and
interests of other missionaries in the field, and
the statement in Acts about the Holy Ghost
forbidding Paul and Silas to speak the word
in Asia, and about the Spirit of Jesus not
suffering them to go into Bithynia, admits of a
similar interpretation (Acts 16 6 f). In any
case, we can hardly believe that the arrange-
ment made many years before, by which Paul
and Barnabas should go unto the Gentiles and
the other apostles to the Jews (Gal. 2 9), was
very long or very strictly enforced, for we» find
Paul at a later time frequently addressing the
Jews in their synagogues, and, as time advanced
and the Church increased, it would become
more and more impracticable to carry out
such an agreement.

According to Schwegler, the object of the
Epistle was " that an exposition of the Pauline
doctrine might be put into the mouth of
Peter." But there is no sign of any such
dogmatic or partisan motive, the chief purpose
of the writer being apparently a desire to
encourage and comfort his readers under the
dangers and trials to which they were exposed
on account of their religion. If the writer

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 343

had been trying to personate Peter, and if con-
ciliation had been his object, he would have been
pretty sure to introduce a friendly allusion to
Paul, who was well known to have passed a
considerable time at Rome in his later years.

As regards the objection taken to the Epistle
on account of the alleged signs of a later date
in the references to persecution, Mommsen,
the great historian of Rome, takes a different
view of the matter ; and while it may be the
case, as Ramsay contends, that such expres-
sions as " being reproached for the name of
Christ " and " suffering as a Christian " (4 "• 16)
would be more appropriate in the reign of
Domitian, or even Trajan, than of Nero, there
are other expressions which correspond better
to an earlier time, when the treatment of
Christians depended a good deal on their own
character and conduct, and the mere profession
of Christianity was not of itself a punishable
offence (2 m5, 3 13-17, 4 14-17). No doubt, after
the example of cruelty set by Nero in the
murder of thousands of Christians on the
charge of setting fire to Rome, the name of
Christian would in fact, though not in law,
carry with it a certain amount of odium, and

344 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

expose the bearer of it to injurious treatment
at the hands of unbelievers. This would be
the case not only at Rome but also in the
provinces, where the authorities were only too
ready to follow the imperial lead in such a
case. Neither in this nor in any other question
raised by adverse criticism does there seem to
be any valid reason for giving up our belief in
the Petrine authorship, which comes to us
with the authority of the early Church, and
seems to meet the facts of the case much
better than any other theory of its origin
which has yet been suggested. Sir William
Ramsay is so impressed with its genuineness
that though he cannot assign it to an earlier
period than 80 A.D., and the traditional date of
Peter's death is about 64 A.D., he still believes
it to be the work of Peter at a later time, when
he was more than eighty years of age. Weiss,
on the other hand, who is equally convinced
of its genuineness, dates it as early as 54 A.D.

THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER ;
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE

These two epistles have been more ques-
tioned than any other books in the New Testa-

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 345

ment. II Peter, especially, is not only very
weak in external evidence but is also open to
serious objections on other grounds. Origen
is the first writer who mentions it by name,
and in doing so he expresses doubt about its
genuineness. It is found neither in the Mura-
torian Canon nor in the Peshitta, and the first
clear quotation from it is by Firmilian (c. 250),
though it shows many coincidences, in thought
and expression, with the earliest patristic
writers. It has much in common with the
Epistle of Jude, and a comparison of, the two
leads almost inevitably to the conclusion that
one is borrowed from the other. Opinion is
divided as to which is the original, but the
large majority of critics assign the priority to
Jude, both because II Peter often contains the
same things in an expanded form, and also be-
cause many of its expressions would be almost
unintelligible but for the light thrown on them
by the shorter Epistle.

With regard to the authorship of II Peter,
the writer distinctly claims to be the apostle
of that name, and describes the document as
the " second epistle " addressed by him to the

346 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

same readers (3 *). He also alludes as an eye-
witness to two well-known incidents in the life
of Christ in which Peter took a leading part
(1 u, cf. John 21 18 f- ; 1 16-18, cf. Mark 9 2-8).
The claim thus made is supported by the fact
that the Epistle bears subtle traces of Peter's
words and deeds as recorded in the Gospel of
Mark and the Acts of the Apostles, and ex-
hibits some marked similarities to I Peter — to
which we may add that it is far superior in
earnestness and force to any of the sub-apos-
tolic literature that has come down to us.

On the other hand, there is such a differ-
ence of style in the two compositions that
many critics cannot believe them to be the work
of the same writer. For example, while in
I Peter our Lord is usually called " Jesus
Christ," this name occurs only once in II Peter,
where the favourite designations are "our
Lord Jesus Christ," " our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ," " our God and Saviour Jesus
Christ," "Jesus our Lord." From a literary
point of view the style of II Peter, though
ambitious and showy, is much inferior to that
of the other, and the difference is the more
remarkable because the two epistles purport

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 347

to be addressed to the same readers. One
of the strongest arguments against apostolic
authorship is found in the reference to the
epistles of Paul (3 16), as if they were on the
same level as " the other scriptures," a position
which they did not fully attain till long after the
death of both Peter and Paul. Then, again,
the combination of " the holy prophets," " the
Lord and Saviour," and "your apostles," in
3 2 ; the paucity of allusions to the Old Testa-
ment ; the want of any reference to the sayings,
doings, or sufferings of Christ, except in the
two cases above mentioned (which may con-
ceivably have been introduced for the purpose
of authenticating the Epistle) ; the language
put into the mouths of mockers with reference
to the long delay of the Second Coming :
" Where is the promise of his coming ? For,
from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all
things continue as they were from the begin-
ning of the creation " ; the appropriation,
without any acknowledgment, of so large a
portion of another Epistle ; the absence of
personal greetings ; and, not least, the want
of any clear evidence of the use of the Epistle
by any Christian writer for 150 years after

348 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

Peter's death, have all been adduced as reasons
for denying the Petrine authorship.

In these circumstances, it is not surprising
that the view held by Eusebius, who placed
the Epistle in his list of Antilegomena or dis-
puted books, and at the same time indicated
that in his opinion the tradition in its favour
was insufficient to authenticate it, has been
adopted by the majority of modern critics.
Reuss speaks of its admission into the Canon
as the only positive mistake made by the
Church in its collection of sacred books, while
Jiilicher goes so far as to say that it "is not
only the latest document in the New Testa-
ment but also the least deserving of a place
in the canon," a statement, however, which is
not borne out by the general sentiment of
Christendom. Harnack dates it as late as
160-170. But while opinion in Germany is
generally unfavourable to the genuineness of
the Epistle, there are some scholars of eminence
who are confident that it was written by the
Apostle whose name it bears. In particular,
Zahn and Spitta hold it to be more thor-
oughly Petrine than I Peter, which they
believe to be largely the work of Silvanus

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM :U9

(I Pet. 5 12), the previous epistle of Peter, to
which he refers in II Peter 3 *, being supposed
to have disappeared at an early date. Like
Ktihl and Weiss, they hold it to have been
addressed to Jewish readers, and date it about
A.D. 63-65.

Among British scholars opinion used to be
in favour of the apostolic origin of the Epistle,
but the most recent critics, with the exception
of the writer on the subject in the I.C.C., are
disposed to assign it to the second century,
and to regard it as designed to counteract
antinomian tendencies of a more or less Gnostic
character. Some would connect it with the
so-called Apocalypse of Peter (with which it
has a good deal in common), and other writings
put forth in the Apostle's name about the
middle of the second century, while others
would give it a much earlier date, and see in
the evils which it so vehemently attacks such
shameful practices as those of the Nicolaitans
of Pergamum and Thyatira, referred to in
Kev. -2 13 f ' 19-22. The irreconcilable difference of
style in the two Epistles ascribed to Peter,
which has been the great stumbling-block from
the days of Jerome until now, can find no

350 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

better explanation than the one which that
great scholar suggested, namely, that the
apostle employed different interpreters in the
two cases, unless we prefer the view of Calvin
that it was the work of one of Peter's follow-
ers, who was carrying out his master's wishes,
and may have taken the opportunity of giving
a wider circulation to the warnings in the
Epistle of Jude, by embodying them in his
Epistle. It is in this foreign element that the
difference of style is most marked, and it has
been suggested, as another solution, that this
part of the Epistle was a later interpolation.

It must not be supposed that by giving up
the Petrine authorship we lose the benefit of
the Epistle. We may still say, with Calvin,
that " the majesty of the Spirit of Christ ex-
hibits itself in every part of it." It has also
to be remembered that there may never have
been a time in the history of the Church when
there was not uncertainty regarding the origin
of this book. In this respect modern readers
are no worse off than those who never heard
of the Higher Criticism.

It was an idea of Grotius that the words
" Peter . . . and apostle " (1 l) were an

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 351

interpolation, and that " the second epistle "
referred to (3 l) consisted of the first two
chapters, the name " Simon " at the head of
the Epistle representing Simeon, Bishop of
Jerusalem. According to Bunsen, the first
twelve verses and the concluding doxology
were the only genuine parts of the Epistle.

The Epistle of Jude stands on a different
footing. It has stronger testimony in its
favour, having a place in the Muratorian Canon
and being frequently mentioned by Christian
writers before the end of the second century.
We should doubtless have found it much
oftener quoted than it is, had it not been for its
brevity and its use of two apocryphal Jewish
works, namely, the "Assumption of Moses"
(Jude v. 9) and the " Book of Enoch " (Jude v.
14 f.), the latter of which is quoted by name.

With regard to the author, there are some
who identify him with Jude the Apostle
(" Judas the son of James," Luke 6 16), but
the reference which he makes to "the apostles
of our Lord Jesus Christ," in verses 17 and
18, as well as the fact that he does not himself
claim to be an apostle, render this conjecture
extremely improbable. Others think that it is

.i.V-' THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP

" Judas Barsabbas" of Acts 15 22 that is re-
ferred to, but the general opinion is that it is
Judas one of the Lord's brethren (Matt. 13 55,
I Cor. 9 5), whether we understand by that
description a younger son of Joseph and Mary
or a son of Joseph by a former wife — in either
case, a "brother of James," the head of the
Church at Jerusalem. The comparatively
obscure position of this Jude in the history of
the early Church (as of the others who bore
the same name), and the unpretending way in
which he is described as " a servant of Jesus
Christ/' though he might have claimed to be
the Lord's brother, forbid the supposition that
there was here any attempt to use a great
name for the purpose of imposing on the
reader. That one so closely related to Jesus
should have held a position of influence, if not
of authority, in the Church at Jerusalem or
elsewhere in Palestine, is only what might
have been expected ; and we can readily be-
lieve that this letter, although formally ad-
dressed " to them that are called, beloved in
God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ,''
was specially intended for some of the Churches
known to Jude, in which there had been an

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 353

outbreak of antinomiau license, such as is fore-
shadowed in the Pastoral Epistles and has
frequently occurred in the history of the
Church. From verse 3 it may be inferred
that the subject had been chosen by the
writer at the last moment, on hearing news
of some such perversion of the Gospel.

The author was evidently acquainted with
Paul's writings, and from this fact as well as
from the way in which he speaks of the per-
sonal teaching of the apostles as a thing of
the past in the experience of his readers, and
of faith in the second coming of Christ as on the
decline, many critics who accept the traditional
authorship assign a comparatively late date to
the Epistle (about 70-80), l while others date it
before A.D. 70, partly on account of its containing
no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem—
an event to which the writer might have been
expected to refer, as an awful instance of
Divine judgment, if it had already taken place.2

1 Ewald, Spitta, Zahn, Mayor, Sieffert, Bartlet, Eeuss,
Lumby, Bennett, etc.

- Bleek, Kirchhofer, Weiss, Stier, Salmond, Bigg, Chase.
But Hofmann and Zahn fancy there is a reference to this
event in verse 5.

23

354 THE HISTORY AND RESULTS [CHAP.

There are a considerable number of scholars,
however, who are of opinion that the character
of the Epistle, and the degenerate state of the
Church which it implies,1 betray an acquaint-
ance on the part of the author with the
libertine Gnosticism of the second century.
It shows what a wide divergence of opinion
there is on the subject, that, while Baur thought
the Epistle could not have been written till
late in the second century, E/enan put it as
early as A.D. 54, regarding it as a covert attack
on Paul's teaching. Baur's followers gener-
ally favour an earlier date in the second
century than he assigned to it. This is the
case also with Harnack (who dates it about
100-130, and suggests that the words "and
brother of James " may have been an inter- .
polation of a later date intended to give the
Epistle additional authority), McGiffert, S.
Davidson, and others, who hold the Epistle

1 For evidence that similar evils existed in apostolic
times cf. Revelation 2 H '•• 20 * ; Galatians 5 13 ; II Cor-
inthians 12 21. It has been suggested that in Jude v. 10
there is a reference to the Cainites, a Gnostic sect of the
second century, but if so, this would not be the only passage
of the New Testament in which Cain is mentioned as a
type of ungodliness (cf. Heb. 11 4, I John 3 u>).

vi.] OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 355

to be pseudonymous, the name of Jude having
been selected as a likely exponent for the
views expressed in it.

It appears from verse 18 that the
readers had enjoyed the personal teaching of
the apostles ; and from this fact, as well as
from the Jewish associations and traditions
which enter into the Epistle, we may infer that
it was intended for some part of Palestine or
Syria where " ungodly men " professing Chris-
tianity were turning the grace of God into
lasciviousness (verse 10). Jude attributes the
evil practices to false and heretical teaching,
and as a remedy he exhorts his readers to con-
tend earnestly for the faith once for all de-
livered unto the saints, and concludes with one
of the most beautiful doxologies in the New
Testament.

In closing our survey of the History and
Results of New Testament Criticism, there are
three things which it would be well to bear in
mind. (1) With regard to many of the questions
involved it is quite impossible to arrive at any-
thing like certainty. (2) Great learning is no
guarantee of sound judgment ; and the evidence

356 NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM [CHAP. vi.

of experts, in this as in other fields of inquiry,
must be carefully considered before their con-
clusions are accepted. (3) Infinitely more im-
portant than any opinion we may form regarding
the authorship, date, or text, of any book in the
New Testament, is the question : " What think
ye of the Christ ? " as revealed under various as-
pects both in the Old and the New Testament.
It is their testimony to Christ that gives the
Scriptures their chief value ; it is the revelation
of Christ that forms their inner bond of union.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following list of selected books, relating to New Testament
Criticism, which have been published within the last twenty-five
years, may be useful to those who wish to study the subject
more in detail.

Hastings : " Dictionary of the Bible." 5 vols.

" Dictionary of the Bible." 1 vol.

" Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels." 2 vols.
Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible."
" Encyclopaedia Biblica." 4 vols.
11 Encyc. Britannica," llth edit.
Murray's " Illustrated Bible Dictionary." 1 vol.
" Standard Bible Dictionary." 1 vol.
" Temple Bible Dictionary." 1 vol.
u International Critical Comm."
" Cambridge Greek Testament."
Expositor's "Greek Testament."
" Century Bible."
" Westminster Comm."

Abbot, E , Peabody, A. P., and Lightfoot J. B., " The Fourth

Gospel." London, 1892.
Abbott, E. A., " Notes on New Testament Criticism." London,

1907.

" The Fourfold Gospel." Cambridge, 1913.
Allen, W. C., and Grensted, L. W., " Introduction to the

Books of the New Testament." Edinburgh, 1913.
Askwith, E. H., " The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel."

London, 1910.

(357)

358 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bacon, B. \V., " An Introduction to the New Testament."

New York and London, 1900.
'• The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate." London,

1910.
" The Making of the New Testament " (Home University

Library). London and New York, 1913.
Ball, C. R., "Preliminary Studies in the Books of the New

Testament, in the probable order of their writing."

London, 1913.
Banks, J. S., "The Books of the New Testament." London,

1913.
Beet, J. A., " The New Testament ; its Authorship, Date, and

Worth : " Revised and Enlarged. London, 1912.
Bennett, W. H., and Adeney, W. F., " Biblical Introduction."

London, 1899.

"The Bible and Criticism " (The People's Books). Lon-
don, 1913.
Buckley, E. R., "An Introduction to the Synoptic Problem."

London, 1912.
Burkitt, F. C., "The Gospel History and its Transmission." :;

Edinburgh, 1911.
"The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus." Boston and

New York, 1910.
Burton, E. De Witt, "A Short Introduction to the Gospels. "

Chicago, 1904.
" Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem. "

(Chicago Decennial Publications.)
Carpenter, J. Estlin, <: The First Three Gospels : their Origin

and Relations. " :! London, 1904.
Chapman, J., "John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel."

Oxford, 1911.
Charles, R. H., "Studies on the Apocalypse." Edinburgh,

1913.
Chase, F. H., " The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the

Apostles " (Hulsean Lectures). London, 1902.
Clemen, C., " Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewish

Sources." Edinburgh, 1912.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 359

Coue, O., ''Gospel Criticism and Historical Christianity."

New York, 1891.
Conybaare, F. C., ''History of New Testament Criticism."

London, 1910.

Deissniann, A., " Light from the Ancient East. " 2 London, 1910.
"St. Paul; A Study in Social and Religious History."

London, 1912.
Dods, M. , "An Introduction to the New Testament. " 2 London,

1894.

" The Bible— its Origin and Nature." Edinburgh, 1905.
Drummond, J., " The Character and Authorship of the Fourth

Gospel." London and New York, 1904.
Einmet, C. E., "The Eschatological Question in the Gospels,

and other Studies in Recent New Testament Criticism."

Edinburgh, 1911.
Farrar, F. W., "The Bible— its Meaning and Supremacy."

London and New York, 1897.

Feine, P., " Einleitung in das Neue Testament." Leipzig, 1913.
Findlay, G. G., " The Epistles of Paul the Apostle." London,

1895.

Gloag, P. J., " Introduction to the Catholic Epistles." Edin-
burgh, 1887.
''Introduction to the Johannine Writings." Edinburgh,

1891.

" Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels." Edinburgh, 1895.
Godefc, F., "Introduction to the New Testament." 2 vols.

Edinburgh, 1889-94.
Green, A. V., "The Ephesian Canonical Writings." London,

1910.
Gregory, C. R., "Canon and Text of the New Testament."

Edinburgh, 1907.

" Einleitung in das Neue Testament." Leipzig, 1909.
Harnack, A., "Chronologic der altchristlichen Litteratur. "

Leipzig, 1897.

" Luke the Physician " (Crown Theological Library). Lon-
don and New York, 1907.
"The Sayings of Jesus" (Crown Theological Library).

London and New York, 1908.

:J»iO BIBLIOGRAPHY

" The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels " (Crown

Theological Library). London and New York, 1911.
Harris, J. Rendel, "Sidelights on New Testament Research."

London, 1908.

Hawkins, J. C., " Horse Synoptic*." 2 Oxford, 1909.
Headlam, A. C., "St. Paul and Christianity." London, 1913.
Holdsworth, W. W., " Gospel Origins : A Study in the Synoptic

Problem." London, 1913.

Holtzmann, O., "The Life of Jesus." London, 1904.
Horton, R. F., "The Growbh of the New Testament : A Study

of the Books in Order." London, 1913.
Jackson, H. L., " The Fourth Gospel and some recent German

Criticism." Cambridge, 1906.
Jacquier, E., " Histoire des Livres du Nouveau Testament." 4

vols. Paris, 1908-12.
James, J. D., "The Genuineness and Authorship of the

Pastoral Epistles." London, 1906.
Jiilicher, A., "An Introduction to the New Testament."

London, 1904.
Kenyon, F. G., "Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the

New Testament."2 London, 1912.
Knowling, R. J. , " The Witness of the Epistles. " London, 1892.

" The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ." London, 1905.
Lake, Kirsopp, " The Text of the Nevr Testament." London,

1908.
" The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul : their Motive and

Origin." London, 1911.
Lewis, Agnes Smith, "Light from the Sinai Palimpsest."

London, 1913.
Lightfoot, J. B., " Biblical Essays." London and New York,

1893.
McGifiert, A. C., "A History of Christianity in the Apostolic

Age." Edinburgh, 1897.
Martin, G. Currie, " The Books of the New Testament " (The

Century Bible Handbooks). London, 1909.
Menzies, A., " The Earliest Gospel." London, 1901.

' ' The Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians."
London, 1913.

BIBLIOGRAPHY o(U

Milligan, G., "The New Testament Documents" (Croall

Lectures). London, 1913.

" St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians." London, 1908.
Milligan, W., " Discussions on the Apocalypse. " London, 1893.
Mofiatt, J., "The Historical New Testament."- Edinburgh,

1901.
" An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. "

Edinburgh, 1911.
Moore, E. C., "The New Testament in the Christian Church."

New York and London, 1904.
Nash, H. S., " The History of the Higher Criticism of the New

Testament." New York and London, 1900.
Nicol, T., " The Four Gospels in the Earliest Church History "

(Baird Lectures). Edinburgh and London, 1908.
Peake, A. S., " A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. "

London, 1909.
" The Bible : Its Origin, its Significance, and its Abiding

Worth." London, 1913.
Petrie, W. M. Flinders, "The Growth of the Gospels, as shewn

by Structural Criticism." London, 1910.
Pfleiderer, O., "Christian Origins." London, 1906.
Plummer, A., "An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel

according to St. Matthew." London, 1909.
Pullan, L. , " The Books of the New Testament. " London, 1901.

" The Gospels." London, 1912.
Purves, G. T., "Christianity in the Apostolic Age. " London,

1900.
Ramsay, W. M., "The Church in the Roman Empire."

Tenth ed. London, 1913.

"St. Paul the Traveller." Twelfth ed. London, 1911.
"Pauline and Other Studies in Early Church History. '

Second ed. London, 1908.
"The First Christian Century." London, 1911. (And

other works).
Robinson, J. A, "The Historical Character of St. John's

Gospel." London, 1908.

"St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians." London, 1909.
" The Study of the Gospels." London, 1908.
23*

362 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ropes, J. i R , '• The Apostolic Age, in the Light of Modern

Criticism." London, 1906.
Salmon, G. , "A Historical Introduction to the Study of the

Books of the New Testament." 8 London, 1897.
Sanday, \V., " Inspiration" 3 (Bampton Lecture). London, 1896.
(and others), "Criticism of the New Testament " (St. Mar-
garet's Lectures). London, 1902.

" The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel." Oxford, 1905.
(Editor), "Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem. "

Oxford, 1911.

Schmiedel, P. W., " The Johannino Writings." London, 1908.
Schweitzer, A., " The Quest of the Historical Jesus." 3 London,

1911.

" Paul and his Interpreters." London, 1912.
Scott, E. F., " The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology."

Edinburgh, 1906.

Scott, R., " The Pauline Epistles." 2 Edinburgh, 1911.
Selwyn, B.C., " Th3 Oracles of the New Testament." London,

1912.

"St. Luke the Prophet." London, 1901.

Shaw, R. D., "The Pauline Epistles; Introductory and Ex-
pository Studies." 2 Edinburgh, 1904.
Simcox, W. H., "The Writers of the New Testament."

London, 1890.
Souter, A., "The Text and Canon of the New Testament."

London, 1913.
Stanton, V. H., "The Gospels as Historical Documents."

Cambridge, 1903-9.
Swete, H. B., "The Gospel according to St. Mark." 'J London,

1908.

"The Apocalypse of St. John."3 London, 1912.
(Editor), "Essays on some Biblical Questions of the Day."

London, 1909.
Vincent, M. R., "A History of the Textual Criticism of the

New Testament." New York and London, 1899.
Von Soden, H., "The History of Early Christian Literature."

London and New York, 1906.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 363

Warschauer, J., "What is the Bible? a Modern Survey."

London, 1911.
Weiss, B., "A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament."

2 vols. London, 1887.

"Genuineness of the Pauline Ep''btles." Chit ago, 1897.
Weiss, J. , " Paul and Jesus." London and New York, 1909.
Weizsacker, C. von, "The Apostolic Age of the Christian

Church." 2 vols. London, 1895.

Wendt, H. H., "The Gospel according to St. John." Edin-
burgh, 1902.
Wernle, P., "The Sources of our Knowledge of the Life of

Jesus." London, 1907.
Westcott, B. F., " Introduction to the Study of the Gospels." *

London, 1894.

" The Canon of the New Testament." 7 London, 18y6.
Wilson, J. M., " Studies in the Origins and Aims of the Four

Gospels." London, 1910.
"The Origin and Aims of the Acts of the Apostles."

London, 1912.
Worsley, F. W., "The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists."

Edinburgh, 1909.
Wrede, W., "Paul." London, 1907.

"The Origin of the New Testament." London and New

York, 1909.
Wright, A., " The Composition of the Four Gospels." London

and New York, 1890.

" Some New Testament Problems." London, 1898.
Zahn, T ., " Introduction to the New Testament." 3 vols. Edin-
burgh, 1909.

ABERDEEN : THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

to

T3 O

C -H
03 .p

rS *H
fl^ f .

5! «

-P

3 8

II

-P
•H

•H
PQ

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED