See other formats

Full text of "An introduction to the study of the New Testament, critical, exegetical, and theological"

LIBRARY 



TORONTO 



Shelf No. AS J 



Register No.. 



... isd . 



THE STUDY 

OF 

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



T.OXnOX : I lilXTKD 1!Y 

Sl OTTISWOOIH-: AND ( (>., MCW-STliEKT SQCAI5K 
AM) 1 AUMA.MKXT STKKKT 



AN INTRODUCTION 



TO THE 



STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 



CRITICAL, EXEGETICAL, AND THEOLOGICAL 



BY 

SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D.D. 

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE AND LL.D. 



SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND IMPROVED. 

IN TWO VOLUMES. 
VOL. I. 



LONDON : 
LONGMANS, GKEEN, AND CO. 

1882. 

All. rights reserved. 



PREFACE 



TO 



THE SECOND EDITION. 



SINCE the first edition appeared, the chief work on In 
troduction to the New Testament has been Hilgenfeld s 
Einleitung/ the outcome of many books and essays 
published by that indefatigable scholar. His Zeit- 
schrift also presents valuable critical investigations 
by the editor himself, Professor Holtzmann, and others, 
all tending to illustrate the Christian Scriptures. 

Mangold supplies useful additions to Bleek s l In 
troduction. Professor Reuss s recent publications on 
the New Testament are somewhat disappointing, savour 
ing as they do of the Yermittelungs-Theologie, and in 
fluenced to some extent by a reactionary spirit towards 
the Tubingen school. Though this school as repre 
sented by Baur and Schwegier has carried its specula 
tions too far, the important advance it has made in 
the criticism of the New Testament cannot be reversed. 
Modified it may be ; but its mark upon early Christian 
literature is deep and permanent. In correcting its 
excesses moderation must be carefully preserved, for 
examples of backwardism are usually weak. A few 
faults of the l Tendenz-Kritik leave its basis secure. 



VI PREFACE TO 

Most important is the Paulinismus of Pfleiderer, 
one of the acutest and ablest Germans ; while the ex 
cellent edition of De Wette on the Acts by Professor 
Overbeck, is a valuable addition to New Testament 
criticism. 

The German translation of Scholten s treatise on 
Luke s gospel appeared too late to be used ; the first 
volume of the present work having been already printed 
off. The view of the synoptics taken by that philo 
sophical scholar differs materially from the one which is 
given here. His discussion of the fourth gospel is 
more correct than his opinions about those of Mark 
and Luke. All that he writes, however, deserves the 
close attention of Biblical critics. 

A few years ago Supernatural Religion was pub 
lished anonymously, and excited much interest by the 
outspoken criticism pervading it. The learned work 
furnishes efficient aid to rational inquiry, and deserves 
to be studied by all lovers of free investigation. The 
assaults which were made upon minor details leave its 
main positions unharmed. 

The lives of Christ and St. Paul by Canon Farrar 
do little to advance the knowledge or criticism of the 
New Testament but are rather retrograde, by wrapping 
traditional views in rhetorical verbiage. It is matter 
of regret that the preacher s fine talents should be used 
in gilding opinions which scholars have abandoned ; 
or in dismissing the results of sound criticism with an 
easily-pronounced condemnation. 

The Speaker s Commentary takes its stand upon 
ideas that have passed out of the sphere of established 
criticism, and furnishes small help to an intelligent 



THE SECOND EDITION. Vll 

study of the Christian records. If orthodoxy be not 
still enthroned in high ecclesiastical quarters it looks as 
if it were, and receives official homage accordingly. 

Imperfect, however, as are all English commen 
taries of recent origin, they may do good, not only by 
various correct expositions which they cannot avoid 
giving, but by references to other views and valuable 
sources. Their appearance shows an increasing atten 
tion to the Scriptures. Even in them small concessions 
to critical results dribble out and will continue to do so 
till a full stream long fed by rivulets comes in with a 
force that cannot be resisted. The consummation too 
startling to be received at once is avoided and averted 
till the time arrives when it shall be thought no longer 
perilous to accept the gain. Meanwhile sticklers for 
the old count their numbers, and are content. 

In arranging the contents of the New Testament 
chronologically great care has been taken to arrive at 
their true dates. These can only be approached with 
more or less probability except that of the Kevelation, 
which belongs with certainty to the end of A.D. 68 or 
beginning of 69. The gospels and post- Pauline litera 
ture are attended with most difficulty ; and the inquirer 
is liable to be perplexed amid the conflicting opinions 
of critics about them. It is not given to the many to 
judge aright of internal evidence, which may be pushed 
unduly to the disparagement of the external. 

The present work has been revised throughout, and 
is much improved in the author s opinion. Few pages 
appear exactly in their original form ; and many new 
ones are substituted in place of the old. It is hoped 
that the changes both in substance and form will make 



viii PREFACE TO 

it worthier of acceptance. A book involving the la 
bour and thought of years is susceptible of continuous 
improvement. All that a critic can do is to give the 
processes through which results likely to abide the test 
of rational research have been reached. The conclu 
sions that bid fair to survive should be the aim of the 
inquirer. Opinions must not be stereotyped hastily if 
at all ; though it is common enough for men to stick 
to what is old and popular believing that departure 
from it is dangerous ; as if honest efforts to arrive at 
truth could be other than innocent. 

The author is well aware that a perfunctory con 
servatism is against the ideas which he has sometimes 
expressed that he might quietly follow the example of 
those who make silence cover a multitude of sins, the 
violation of conscience among them and that it is un 
palatable to gainsay the religious prepossessions of lay 
and clerical folk, who will rather turn and rend than lend 
an ear to the setter forth of unusual sentiments. But 
higher motives prompt the seeker after truth who can 
not hush the voice of the critical faculty within ; though 
abuse awaits him in a time of attachment to antiquated 
opinions. All he can do is to comfort himself with 
the thought that he is acting purely. 

The writer has tried to investigate again and again 
the New Testament records as impartially as he can ; 
and trusts he has not knowingly neglected any part of 
the evidence on which they rest, or underrated their 
true value. Christianity is an essential factor in the 
education of the human race, and deserves the most 
serious attention. Bound up with the eternal welfare 
of man, it supplies the purest incentives to that higher 



THE SECOND EDITION. ix 

life which is begun on earth and perfected in heaven. 
As the first three centuries witnessed its passage through 
various phases till it assumed a different aspect from 
the original one, or even from that in which Paul 
moulded it, the historian must study these shifting 
views and bring them out into day. The amalgamation 
of Petrine and Pauline tenets followed by Johannine 
ideas led up to a theological system which has domi 
nated succeeding times, with a current of Alexandrian 
philosophy running through it, leaving the forensic 
lo<>ic and Judaic atonement of Paulinism unchanged. 

o o 

Instead of the church being fitted by a long education 
to be the expositor of the true apostolic doctrine, it 
seceded from that doctrine and corrupted its simplicity ; 
so that the fathers of the third and fourth centuries, 
far from being genuine successors of the apostles in 
respect of theology, set forth a system inconsistent with 
theirs. The conflict of more than two centuries made 
the orthodox church a bad interpreter of apostolic doc 
trine, so that it is impossible to transfer the immediately 
ante-Nicene, or the Nicene creed itself in its main fea 
tures, to the time of Paul, without misreading his own 
statements. In dealing with the theological diversities 
of the first two centuries, the author has felt the diffi 
culty of the task. 

The need of the age is that rational interpretation 
of the New Testament which traces the spirit without 
slavery to the letter ; the essence as well as the form ; 
the characteristics of the human instruments through 
which the divine is revealed ; and shows them to the 
reader in their manifold aspect. But there seems little 
prospect of this amid the commentaries large and small 



X PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 

that issue from orthodox workshops with an ecclesias 
tical imprimatur on their front ; ruffling the surface of 
traditional opinion slightly, without satisfying the 
thoughtful or allaying their doubts. Too often do 
they and dogmatic systems gloss over the contrarieties 
and imperfections which are the unavoidable outcome 
of finite minds in various stages of man s history. 
Looking only at one of the factors which a divine 
revelation consists of the finite and external they 
neglect the subjective one which has every difference 
of degree belonging to the individual soul. And even 
this procedure is not usually followed ; the prudence 
of silence being a ready antidote to the arguments 
and conclusions of a liberal theology ; since it is easier 
to take no notice of opinions that disturb inherited 
belief, than to let in fresh light which may bewilder by 
its suddenness or frighten by its novelty. If the author 
has helped in any degree to forward a thorough exposi 
tion of the canonical Scriptures, he will not have 
laboured in vain. 

Before concluding, he has to express his best thanks 
to James Heywood, Esq., F.K.S., whose generous sym 
pathy in all efforts to promote freedom of opinion and 
religious progress, entitle him to the highest praise. 
Few have done so much to help on the cause of truth 
and justice. He has also to acknowledge his obligations 
to P. H. Lawrence, Esq., Q.C., for disinterested advice 
and timely aid. The volumes owe more to these friends 
than can be publicly expressed. 



EXTEACT FROM THE PREFACE 



TO 



THE FIRST EDITION. 



THE OBJECT of what is called an Introduction to tlie 
New Testament is well known. It should discuss all 
such questions affecting each book, as its age, author, 
object and aim, credibility, characteristics, integrity, 
contents. Preparatory to the work of a commentator, 
it often encroaches on his province. The present writer 
has admitted into this Introduction more interpretation 
than is usual in works of the same class, supposing that 
it will be generally acceptable ; and has omitted the 
critical part of that relating to the Greek text, which he 
has treated in another work. In discussing each ques 
tion he has tried to write as clearly as the nature of the 
subject will admit. Greek and Latin passages, as well 
as single phrases or words, are transferred to notes 
wherever it was possible to do so, the corresponding 
English being given in the text. He has not discussed 
opinions different from his own, except when their plau 
sibility or the influential names by which they are sup 
ported demanded notice. He hopes that intelligent 
laymen as well as critics will not find the book too 
scholastic to be studied with facility. The treatment 



xii EXTRACT FROM PREFACE TO 

is as brief as possible, excluding extraneous matter in 
order to save space and economise the reader s time. 
Nothing which appeared necessary to completeness is 
intentionally omitted. If the author s views be not 
always approved, inquiry will at least be stimulated. 
They are not put forward lightly, but after anxious 
thought. Difficult questions, on which the evidence is 
conflicting, had to be treated, and slender probabilities 
required to be weighed. In. these circumstances the 
author exercised his best judgment, reaching conclusions 
cautiously where acute scholars differ. Believing that 
his opinions will be generally admitted sooner or later, 
he sends them forth to the world, requesting a candid 
consideration on the part of the reader. The Bible, 
however, is a difficult book, and mistakes in explaining 
it can scarcely be avoided ; but impartial thinkers will 
judge these mistakes leniently. 

True critics regret to see that religion is often con 
founded with a system of theological dogmas. If the 
two things were clearly distinguished, as they ought to 
be, a cessation of that bitterness which theologians often 
show to one another might be reasonably expected. 
Not that a religion can exist apart from some theology. 
Still the amount of theology needed to constitute a re 
ligion may be indefinitely small. If men could see that 
the Spirit of God neither dwelt exclusively in apostles, 
nor rendered them infallible however highly gifted they 
may have been, the sacred records would be less dis 
torted, and different values would be assigned to the 
several parts of the volume according to their nature. 
When those records are held to be absolutely correct 
in all matters, whether historical or speculative, scien- 



THE FIUST EDITION, xiii 

tide or doctrinal, they acquire a supernatural and ficti 
tious pre-eminence similar to that which is conferred on 
the pope by the theory of papal infallibility ; they are 
called God s word throughout, which they never claim to 
be, and thus free inquiry into their credibility is at once 
checked or suppressed. God s word is in the Scriptures ; 
all Scripture is not the word of God. The writers were 
inspired in various degrees, and are therefore not all 
equally trustworthy guides to belief and conduct. In 
the Bible may be found all things necessary for our 
salvation ; it is an unwarrantable inference that it con 
tains nothing but what is thus needed for all. The 
Scriptures contain the highest truth ; but this fact is 
undisturbed by the possibility that they may contain 
some things which are not truth. The author has thus 
answered by anticipation all the questions which may 
fairly be addressed to a writer who undertakes to intro 
duce his readers to the study of the New Testament. 
Anything like a detailed confession of faith or a theo 
logical discussion would here be obviously out of place. 
It is unnecessary for him to draw out the meaning 
which he attaches to such terms as sacrifice, mediation, 
inspiration, revelation. If it be a meaning not accepted 
by certain schools, whether in the Church of England 
or other religious bodies, it is one for which a large 
array of great names may be cited, and which is 
strengthened by the authority of many among the pro- 
foundest of Christian thinkers. He would only remind 
the reader that the inquiry in which he is at present 
engaged is strictly confined to the ascertainment of 
facts : and the statements of the New Testament, not 
less than the subject of an original revelation, must, in 



xiv EXTRACT FROM PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. 

the words of Bishop Butler, be considered l as a common 
question of fact. 1 Hence he candidly acknowledges 
his conviction that all these statements, whether his 
torical or doctrinal, must be submitted to the ordinary 
rules of critical inquiry. 

In England a free current of religious thought has 
set in, which needs only to be guided with discretion to 
produce safe results. Opinions which would have ex 
cited bitter hostility not long ago, are now heard with 
calmness. The reputed authorship of books embraced 
in the canon is discussed and rejected without the idea 
that the inquiry is dangerous to the soul. Accredited 
teachers of religion may canvass the commonly received 
opinions about the writer of a gospel or epistle, without 
risking the loss of their position ; at least, clergymen of 
the Church of England may do so, enjoying a freedom 
favourable to the advancement of rational Christianity, 
under the protection of the highest civil tribunal. Of 
this most valuable privilege they are expected to avail 
themselves. 

1 Analogy, Part II, ch. ii. 2. 



LIST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 



AG1 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW .... . I. 305 

THE GOSPEL OF MARK . . . . . . . I. 533 

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN . . . II. 275 

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES . . II. 74 

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS . . . . I. 101 

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS . . I. 17 

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS . I. 49 

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS . I. 69 

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS . II. 195 

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS . I. 156 

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSI ANS . . II. 170 

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS I. 4 

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS I. 336 

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY II. 14 

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. II. 1 

THE EPISTLE TO TITUS II. 8 

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON . I. 149 

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS . I. 177 

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JAMES . I. 304 

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER . I. 501 

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER . . II. 438 

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN . . II. 231 

THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN . . . II. 254 

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE. . II. 264 

THE REVELATION . . I. 240 



CONTENTS 



OF 



THE FIRST VOLUME, 



I AGH 

INTRODUCTORY 1 



THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TIIESSALONIANS 

The Church at Thessalonica and date of the Epistle 
Immediate occasion and object Contents Authenticity 



THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 

Origin of the Church at Corinth Occasion of the Epistle 
Time and place of writing State of the Church when 
Paul wrote The Apostle s visits to the Corinthians 
before he wrote to them A lost Epistle addressed to 
them Authenticity Contents . . .17 



THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 

Account of the Apostle between the writing of the First 
and Second extant Epistles Effects of the First Epistle 
011 the Church at Corinth Occasion and Object Time 
and place Unity and integrity Diction and style 
Authenticity Contents . .49 

VOL. I. a 



xviii CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. 

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 

PAGB 

Introduction of Christianity among the Galatians Time 
and place at which the Letter was written The Apostle s 
adversaries in the Churches State of the Churches when 
visited by Paul a second time Composition of the Gala- 
tian Churches Authenticity Contents Relation of 
the Epistle to the Acts Interpretation of chap. iv. 
21-27; iii. 16 .. .... 69 

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 

Origin of the Church Composition of the Church when 
Paul wrote His object or design Time and place 
xluthenticity Integrity Language Contents Para 
graphs interpreted, chap, v. 12-19: vii. 7-25 . . 101 

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 

Person to whom the Letter was addressed Occasion of it 

Time and place Authenticity Contents . . .149 

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 

Some circumstances connected withPhilippi Authenticity 
Unity Number of Philippian Epistles Time and 
place State of the Church Occasion and object Pecu 
liarities in the commencement and conclusion Contents 15G 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 

Authorship not Pauline Time and place Persons ad 
dressed Language Occasion and object Contents 
Value of the Epistle 177 



THE REVELATION 

Authorship different from that of the fourth Gospel Time 
and place Class of writings it belongs to The Apostle s 
object General structure Contents Canonicity and 
value Schemes of interpretation Errors of Expositors 240 



CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. xix 

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 

TAC,K 

General observations on the collection . .302 

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 

The Jameses Authorship Persons addressed Place and 
time of writing Authenticity and canonicity Leading 
object Characteristics of the writer and his readers 
Language and style Contents ..... 304 

SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS 

Contents Authenticity Comparison of the Thessalonian 
Epistles with the Acts . . . . . . .336 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE GOSPELH 

Their mutual relation . . . . . . .352 

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 

Alleged writer Persons for whom intended Original 
language Apostolicity Analysis of contents Charac 
teristics Leading object Time of writing Style and 
diction Quotations from the Old Testament . .365 

GOSPEL OF LUKE 

The reputed author Preface Sources Relation to the 
Apostle Paul Authorship Analysis of contents Cha 
racteristics Relation to Marcion s Gospel Time and 
place Sources For whom written Language and style 
Census of Quirinius Integrity Quotations . . 424 

FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 

Notices of the alleged author Authenticity Time and 
place -Persons addressed Object General character, 
style, and diction Analysis of contents . . .501 



XX CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. 

THE GOSPEL OF MARK 

I AGE 

The person to whom attributed Relation of Mark to this 
Gospel Analysis of contents Relation of Mark to 
Matthew and Luke Characteristics Time and place 
of writing Integrity Persons for whom written, and 
the Evangelist s object Style and diction Quotations 
from the Old Testament 533 



INTBODUCTION 

TO 

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

BEFORE examining the parts of the New Testament 
separately, it may not be amiss to notice their general 
features, especially the nature of their teaching. The 
apostolic communications are characterised by unity 
and diversity. The data do not sanction a uniform 
scheme of dogma for Christ and all His followers, 
because the incipient theology of the apostolic age 
was developed in the following centuries with varying 
ability. 

Three moulds of doctrine are presented the Jewish 
Christian or Palestinian, the Pauline, and the Alexan 
drian ; their common basis being the character and 
work of Christ, which are presented in different lights. 
Absolute unity does not exist. The diversity arises 
from the writers different educations and idiosyncrasies, 
as well as the conflicts of early Christianity. In the 
texture and tone of the records we see the literary 
freedom which prevailed till the Gnostic heresy occa 
sioned a selection of Church literature. 

The types in question sometimes intermingle, while 

there are examples of neutrality refusing to be classified. 

The Pauline mould underwent changes after the apostle s 

death ; so that the post-Pauline epistles exhibit doc- 

VOL. i. B 



2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

trines developed out of his by progressive thought or 
speculative philosophy. The distinctness of the moulds 
should not be hastily exaggerated into antagonism, 
though some antagonism must be admitted ; and it is 
equally incorrect to convert substantial coincidence into 
a uniform system of doctrine, though the error has been 
committed by stiff orthodoxy under the influence of a 
peculiar theory of inspiration. The types are discernible 
because they are broad and characteristic, though they 
may even intersect one another in the same work. 
Refusing to be crushed into a single dogmatic creed, a 
due observation of them is essential to the interpretation 
of the New Testament. 

It is necessary to distinguish the teaching of Jesus 
from the conceptions which the apostles and evangelists 
had of it. His doctrine was ethical, introduced in the 
form of Old Testament Messianism refined and purified. 
As the Messianic idea contained the hope of a universal 
kingdom, the Founder s conception may have embraced 
the salvation of the human race. The final commission 
to baptise and make disciples of all nations throughout 
the world did not directly proceed from Him ; but it is 
in harmony with the aim of His teaching. 

The difficulty of knowing what He meant by the 
kingdom of heaven arises from the ambiguous and fluc 
tuating modes in which it is spoken of. There are 
passages which favour the opinion that He had the 
enthusiastic hope of setting up a wondrous kingdom 
upon earth during the lifetime of that generation, in 
which virtue and piety, associated with singular happi 
ness, should prevail without interruption after the 
punishment and subjugation of all evil agencies. But 
these may be interpreted figuratively, either as repre 
senting the victory of the Christian religion or as 
promises of future reward, though they are too definite 
to be easily explained in that fashion. Some resort for 
the solution to Jesus s mental development, which yields 
an insufficient explanation. Others suppose that He 



INTRODUCTORY. 3 

allowed many sensuous conceptions of His immediate 
disciples to remain ; or rather that He corrected them 
indirectly and inferentially by sayings which, though 
seemingly sanctioning carnal views, conveyed a spiritual 
meaning. Being misunderstood, however, by the dis 
ciples, such sayings took the crass shape they have in 
the synoptists. It is certain that expressions coloured 
with the Messianic notions of the Jews are attributed 
to Him which He did not utter. But the extent to 
which He held by the ancient religion of His nation 
cannot be known, because of the disconnected, imper 
fect, and later aspects which the sacred biographers have 
sometimes given to His discourses. In cases not a few, 
the reporters misapprehended His meaning. It is there 
fore unfair to delineate His character from the discourses 
and sayings indiscriminately which the evangelists put 
into His mouth. The genuine must be separated from 
the supposititious a difficult task, needing reverent 
discernment. If apostles and evangelists failed to 
apprehend the real import of His words, remote in 
quirers may do injustice to Him who spake as never 
man spake. 

The teaching of Jesus took the form of proverb, 
parable, allegory, symbolical transaction, all directly 
bearing upon the elevation of humanity. The ultimate 
object of His doctrine was to put men in a moral rela 
tion to God and one another, to purify the mental 
springs of action, in a word, to regenerate mankind. 
The Sermon on the mount, the most authentic summary 
of what He taught, penetrates to the innermost source 
of good, recognising a general principle in man which 
combines faith, love, and moral force, viz., Tightness of 
heart before God, or the single eye filling the whole body 
with light. The essential thing in His view involves 
the ultimate coincidence of religion and morality, a 
conception which was gradually evolved and not com 
pleted till after His death. 



INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 



THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA AXD DATE OF THE 
EPISTLE. 

THESSALONICA, on the site of the ancient Therma, was 
built at the mouth of the river Echedorus on the 
Thermaic gulf, and was so named by Cassander in 
honour of his wife. At the time of the Roman 
dominion it was large, populous, and wealthy, the 
metropolis of Macedonia, the seat of a Roman pro 
consul and quaestor. Many Jews resided there because 
of its favourable situation for trade. 

Paul visited it on his second missionary tour, in 
company with Silas, perhaps Timothy also, soon after 
he entered Europe, and found the usual synagogue of the 
Jews (Acts xvii. 1). Considerable success attended his 
preaching. It is true that some only of the Jews be 
lieved, but a great number of Greek proselytes, and 
many women of distinction, united themselves to him 
(xvii. 4). The body of the converts consisted of Gen 
tiles. A large church was gathered, to which few of 
Jewish extraction belonged, as we infer from 1 Thess. i. 9. 

The historian in the Acts speaks of the apostle 
resorting to the synagogue three Sabbath days, from 
which some conclude that he stayed at Thessalonica 
only three weeks. But the idea of a longer abode is 
favoured by Phil. iv. 16 and 1 Thess. ii. 9 : For even 
in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my neces 
sity. . . . For ye remember, brethren, our labour and 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSAL03SIANS. 5 

travail : for labouring night and day, because we would 
not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto 
you the gospel of God. It cannot be that these repeated 
supplies from Philippi belong to a later visit which 
Paul made to Thessalonica when he fled from Ephesus 
(Acts xxi. 1, etc.) as Olshausen supposes. They were 
sent to him in the beginning of the gospel, wlien lie departed 
from Macedonia (iv. 15) ; that is, when he published 
the gospel among the heathen, at the time of his leaving 
Macedonia ; which can only refer to his first visit to 
Thessalonica. It is likely that the unbelieving Jews 
drove him away from the synagogue to another place 
at the end of three weeks, so that he continued a little 
longer. Yet his stay was short, so that he could not 
instruct the believers fully in the doctrines and duties 
of Christianity. De Wette supposes, with great proba 
bility, that his preaching took in the main, an apocalyptic 
tendency ; that is, it turned on the coming of Christ as 
a sovereign, the leading ideas incorporated in his teaching 
being connected with that topic. The political charges 
of the Jews agree with this. Paul and his associates 
are accused of acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, 
and setting up another king, one Jesus (Acts xvii. 7). 
The envy and opposition of the Jews, as well as other 
circumstances, show that the minds of the Thessa- 
lonians had been forcibly impressed with the truth in 
question. 

Compelled to leave Thessalonica, Paul and Silas 
went to Beroea, whither Thessalonian Jews followed. It 
would also seem that Timothy, who had remained at 
Thessalonica, rejoined Paul at Bercea (comp. Acts xvii. 
10, 14 ; 2 Thess. i. 1). After the Jews had caused the 
apostle to leave Beroea, he was conducted to the sea, 
and sailed for Athens, accompanied by Timothy, pos 
sibly by Silas too. From the capital of Attica, Paul 
sent Timothy back to Thessalonica, whence he returned 
to- the apostle. Such is the account implied in the first 



6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

epistle to the Thessalonians. The statement of the Acts 
is different, and even contradictory in some particulars. 
Here Silas and Timothy remained behind when Paul 
went to Athens, his Beroean escort having orders to 
send them to him in Athens. The reunion, however, 
did not take place till the apostle was at Corinth 
(Acts xviL 14, 15 ; xviii. 5). 

After Paul had despatched his faithful friend to 
Thessalonica, he departed for Corinth, where he con 
tinued a considerable time. During this stay he thought 
much about the Thessalonians, and had great anxiety 
on their account ; but as soon as Timothy returned from 
his Macedonian journey with a favourable report, the 
apostle resolved to write an epistle. Hence the date is 
about A.D. 53 at Corinth. 

IMMEDIATE OCCASION AND OBJECT. 

The account of the church brought by Timothy gave 
rise to the epistle. The apostle learnt from his mes 
senger that the members had remained steadfast though 
exposed to persecution, and that their zeal had been an 
example to many. But some circumstances were less 
cheering. An enthusiastic expectation of Christ s im 
mediate return led to neglect of their worldly calling as 
well as to undue depreciation of prophecy. Hence their 
spiritual parent thought it needful to address a letter to 
them. The object he had in view was to encourage and 
admonish ; to encourage them in continued steadfast 
ness, and admonish them concerning things they ought 
to abandon. He confirms and comforts them, enjoining 
them to act differently in some respects, to be holy, 
diligent, and humble, walking worthy of their high 



calling. 



CONTENTS. 



The epistle may be divided into two parts, chaps. 
i. iii., and iv,, v. The first of these contains the free 



F1KST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 7 

utterances of the apostle s heart to the Thessalonian 
believers respecting their state, his reception among 
them, his affectionate solicitude on their behalf, and the 
joy he felt from the good report he had received. The 
second consists of various admonitions and exhortations 
relative to their moral condition, administers comfort 
about the fate of deceased friends at the coming of Christ, 
warns them to be always ready for that event, and con 
cludes with general counsels. 

1. After an introductory salutation, the writer speaks 
of his continued thanksgiving to God for the faith, love, 
and hope of the Christians at Thessalonica. He praises 
them for their prompt reception of the truth, though 
they were in circumstances of great trial, and speaks of 
the honour they had in sending forth the gospel into 
neighbouring countries. They forsook their idolatry so 
cheerfully as to be an example to others (i. 1 10). 

He reminds them of his first appearance at Thessa 
lonica, that he had been anxious solely for their spiritual 
welfare, supporting himself by the toil of his hands, and 
burthensome to none ; so that his conduct among them 
had been characterised by kindness, benevolence, and 
disinterested affection. He also reminds them of the 
counsels he had given respecting holiness. After this 
he praises God again for their willing reception of the 
gospel, and their steadfast endurance of all the persecu 
tions which had befallen them (ii. 1 16). 

The apostle utters his longing to see them again, 
remarking that he had attempted to return to them 
several times, but had been hindered. Meanwhile he 
had sent Timothy to establish and comfort them. By 
this faithful attendant he had received a pleasing account 
of their state, which was an unspeakable comfort amid 
all his discouragements ; and therefore he thanks God, 
beseeching Him to increase their faith and love (ii. 17 
iii. 13). 

2. Paul exhorts them to purity of conduct, brotherly 



8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

love, and a quiet, orderly pursuit of their daily avoca 
tions (iv. 1 12). Coming to eschatology, he instructs 
them respecting the resurrection of the dead at Christ s 
reappearance, showing that the deceased should riot be 
deprived of the blessings of Messiah s reign on earth, 
but be favoured with their Lord s immediate presence 
simultaneously with the living. As to the time of 
Christ s coming, he remarks that it will be sudden, so 
that they should be always prepared, awake and sober, 
as children of the day (iv. 13 v. 11). 

He counsels them to respect those who presided over 
them, and to be at peace among themselves ; to warn 
the disorderly, to comfort the feeble in faith, to be 
patient towards all ; to return nothing but good for 
evil ; to be ever contented and happy ; to be frequent 
in prayer and praise ; not to repress the spiritual gifts 
which some of them had received, nor to despise pro- 
phesyings as the offspring of enthusiasm, but to prove 
all the inspirations of the prophets, and retain only what 
is good. They are to abstain from all sin, and to 
practise universal righteousness, to which he subjoins 
the appro] xriate prayer that God would sanctify them 
body, soul, and spirit. In conclusion, he requests their 
prayers, sends his salutations, and solemnly adjures them 
to read the letter in public, which is succeeded by the 
usual benediction (v. 12. 28). 



AUTHENTICITY. 

Allusions to the epistle in the so-called apostolic 
fathers are indistinct, though several are given by Lard- 
ner and Kirchhofer. In the epistle of Clement of Rome 
(between 100 and 125) we read: We ought in all 
things to give thanks to Him (1 Thess. v. 18). l i Let 
our whole body therefore be saved in Christ Jesus (1 

1 O(/>i Xo/iey Kara rrdvra fv^apurretv avrca. Ep, ad Corinth, c. 38. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TIIESSALONIANS. <J 

Thess. v. 23). l These references are indistinct. In the 
epistles to Ignatius we find : Devote yourselves to un 
ceasing prayers (1 Thess. v. 17). 2 Pray also for 
other men without ceasing (v. 17). 3 The word un 
ceasing is absent from the Syriac in both places. 
Neither the seven Greek nor the three Syriac epistles can 
be reckoned authentic, the latter being an extract from the 
former. All are posterior to Ignatius himself, who was 
not thrown to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre at 
Rome by command of Trajan ; but suffered death at 
Antioch on December 20, A.D. 115. This rests upon the 
testimony of John Malalas, which Uhlhorn pronounces 
worthless. 4 In spite, however, of the ready assertion, 
it may not be so, even though an earlier testimony and a 
Syriac menologium seem to disagree, and are therefore 
paraded in opposition. Harnack admits that there is no 
certain knowledge about Ignatius having been brought 
to Rome. 5 He goes still farther in asserting that the 
tradition respecting the martyrdom under Trajan is im 
probable, bringing the epistles into the time of Hadrian 
or Atoninus Pius, but still preserving their authenticity 
with some hesitation. If he has succeeded in showing 
the insecurity of the common tradition, the authenticity 
of the epistles cannot be defended in the face of strong 
internal grounds against it. Zahn has failed to prove 
that the letters proceeded from Ignatius ; and Uhlhorn 
adds nothing of importance to his arguments. The 
letters were written after A.D. 150. 

Polycarp writes : Making intercession for all with 
out ceasing (v. 17) ; 6 Abstaining from all iniquity 
(v. 22)7 

1 2ooVcr$co ovv rj^wv o\ov TO awp-a V XpujTo) irjrrov. Ibid. 

2 Ilpoo-fvxms crxoAae dduiXfinTois. Ad Polycarp. i. 

3 Kat VTrep TWV ci\\a)V Se dv6pa>7rcov aStaXetTrrcoy Trpocrfvxfvde. Ad Ephes. 
C. 10. 

4 In Herzog s Real-Encyklopasdie, vol. vi. p. 692, new edition. 

5 Die Zeit dcs Ignatius, p. 67. 

5 *YjVTvyxavov(ras aSinXetVrcof nepl Traircoi/. Ad Philipp. C. 4. 
Tra cr?/? ot/a ar. Ibid. c. 2, 



10 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The authenticity is clearly attested by Irenaerus, 
Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. 

Irenseus writes : And on this account the apostle, 
explaining his own meaning, has set forth the perfect 
and spiritual man of salvation, speaking thus in the first 
epistle to the Thessalonians : " And may the God of 
peace sanctify you wholly, and your entire spirit, soul, 
and body be kept without complaint till the advent of 
the Lord Jesus Christ " (v. 23). 1 

Tertullian says : And therefore the majesty of tha 
Holy Spirit, which discerns such senses, suggests in the 
epistle to the Thessalonians itself : " But of the times 
and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write 
unto you ; for yourselves know perfectly that the day 
of the Lord will come as a thief in the night," &c. (v. 
1, &c.) 2 

Clement of Alexandria writes : This the blessed 
Paul plainly signified, saying : " When we might have 
been burdensome as apostles of Christ, we were gentle 
among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children " 
(ii. 7)." 

The epistle was in Marcion s canon. It is also in 
the old Latin and Syriac versions, as well as the Mura- 
torian fragment. 

The chief opponent of the epistle s authenticity is 
Baur, whose arguments are marked by his usual acute- 
ness, and are in substance the following. 

1 { Et propter hoc apostolus seipsum exponens, explanavit perfectum et 
spiritualem salutis hoininern, in prima epistola ad Thessalonicenses dicens 
sic: Deus autem pads sanctificet vos perfectos, et integer vester spiritus 
et anima et corpus sine querela in adventum Domini Jesu Christi servetur. 
Adv. Hccres. v. 6, i. 

2 Et ideo majestas Spiritus Sancti perspicax ejusmodi sensuum et in ipsa 
ad Thessalonicenses epistola suggerit: De teinporihus autem et temporum 
spatiis, fratres, non est necessitas scribendi vobis. Ipsi enim certissime 
scitis, quod dies Domini, quasi fur nocte, ita adveniet/ etc. De Resurrect. 

Carnis, c. 24. 

3 Tpvrd TOL a-afpea-Tara 6 paKaptos Tlav\os VTTC 0-77/177 i/aro, etTrcoi/- Swdfjifvoi 
ev ftapfi flvai cos XpiVrou aTrotrroXot, eyevrjflrjfjifv fjmoi fv /zeVeo v^iaij , a>s av 
Tpotybs 6a\7TT] TO eavTrjs TfKva. Pcedayoy. i. p. 88 (ed, Sylburg). 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 11 

1. Among all the Pauline letters, none is so far 
behind the rest in the nature and importance of its con 
tents. Not a single doctrinal idea is prominently 
adduced except that in iv. 13 18. The contents con 
sist of general instructions, admonitions, wishes, such 
as are merely subordinate and secondary in the Pauline 
epistles. The unimportant nature of the materials, the 
absence of special interests and of a reasonable motive 
for writing*, testify an un- Pauline origin. 

If the contents of the epistle correspond to the 
known circumstances and wants of the church at 
Thessalonica, provided they do not contradict ascer 
tained Pauline characteristics, the critic should be 
satisfied. Should the didactic and doctrinal element be 
overpowered by the hortatory, may not the relations 
between Paul and the church account for it ? We 
should look to historical circumstances for the origin 
and character of the letter, not to abstract considerations 
of Christian doctrine. Expectation of Christ s imme 
diate advent seems to have had a great effect on the 
church. Laying hold of their minds, it gave rise to 
various related questions, which furnished one reason at 
least for the apostle s writing. The topic does not 
indeed form the body of the letter, but it is no un 
important part of it. The apostle himself expected the 
speedy advent of Christ, as we learn from I Cor. xv. 
He had preached it to this Gentile community, and it 
had produced a great effect upon them. The state of 
the converts in relation to it was one cause of his writ 
ing ; and some of the general admonitions were 
prompted by the influence which the belief had upon 
their daily life. If the doctrinal element in the epistle 
recedes behind the practical, and if the latter takes the 
form of general exhortations, the departure from Paul s 
accustomed mode can only be attributed to the circum 
stances of the case. All the churches which the apostle 
planted, or wrote epistles to, were not alike. If they 



12 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

were not, why should his letters be cast in a uniform 
mould ? It may therefore be granted that the epistle 
is meagre compared with those addressed to the Romans 
or Galatians, without detriment to its authenticity. Can 
we expect the apostle to write such epistles as the 
Galatian and Roman ones to all other churches ? 

2. The chief contents of the letter are nothing but 
an enlarged explanation of the circumstances attending 
the conversion of the Thessalonians, which they them 
selves already knew, and which we know from the Acts 
of the Apostles. The author of the letter may either 
have drawn his materials direct from that book, or from 
another source. Thus, i. 4, etc., only tells how the 
apostle preached the gospel to them, and how they 
received it. In ii. 1 there is a more definite allusion to 
the circumstances in which the apostle had visited 
Thessalonica, and the way he had laboured among them ; 
iii. 1 relates what had taken place shortly before, which 
the Thessalonians already knew. There is through 
out a reference to things with which the readers were 
familiar, as the author himself shows by the recurring 
verb know (i. 4 ; ii. 1, 2, 9, 11 ; iii. 3, 4 ; iv. 2). 

It should be recollected that the history of the con 
version of the Thessalonians is only a part of the letter, 
not the substance of it ; that the writer s references to 
that event were meant to strengthen them in the faith ; 
that the appeal to what they knew already comes from 
one filled with the remembrance of his presence among 
them ; that the agreement of the account of their con 
version with that in the Acts is an argument for rather 
than against the Pauline authorship, especially as it is 
not literal, as though it originated in independent 
authorship. 

According to Hilgenfeld, iii. 1 6 is even out of har 
mony with Acts xvii. : how then can the latter be the 
source of the former ? Should harmony and discord 
ance form an equal argument against authenticity ? 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. ]3 

3. The passage ii. 14 16 is said by Baur to have 
an un-Pauline stamp. The language about the Jews is 
certainly stronger than that of the apostle elsewhere, 
and breathes a different spirit from the epistle to the 
Romans. Hatred of the human race is attributed to 
them. Does not his description of them suit their 
actual relation toward all who were not of their race ? 
They hindered the salvation of the Gentiles ; and the 
writer had just been treated most severely by his 
countrymen in Thessalonica and Beroea. They are 
denounced with a bitter indignation which may only 
have been momentary. But do not the words, l wrath 
has come upon them to the uttermost, show that in the 
political state of the Jews at that time the apostle 
clearly foresaw their future ruin ? From the process 
which had begun he divined their total destruction. 
The phraseology, i to speak to the Gentiles that they 
might be saved, at which Baur stumbles, un-Pauline 
as he says it is and borrowed from the Acts (xiv. 1 ; 
xvi. 6, 32 ; xviii. 9), is nearly analogous to 2 Cor. ii. 
17. The passage agrees confessedly with the Acts of 
the Apostles, from which source a source partly unhis- 
torical according to the critic in the place that supplies 
material for the present it is alleged to be taken. But 
it is far from clear that the Acts furnished it. 

4. The epistle contains plain reminiscences of other 
Pauline ones, especially of those to the Corinthians. In 
proof of this the critic gives i. 5 from 1 Cor. ii. 4 ; i. 6, 
from 1 Cor. xi. 1; ii. 4, etc., from 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 3, etc., 
ix. 15, etc., especially 2 Cor. ii. 17, v. 11. The expres 
sion covetousness, ii. 5, points to 2 Cor. vii. 2 ; might 
have been burdensome, ii. 6, would not be chargeable, ii. 9, 
point to 2 Cor. xi. 9 ; and ii. 7 to 1 Cor. iii. 2. In i. 8 
the phrase in every place your faith is spread abroad 
resembles Rom. i. 8. 

These similarities of thought and expression are too 
slender to show the dependence of one writer upon 



14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

another. The circumstances of the Corinthian and 
Thessalonian churches were not very dissimilar ; and 
the same author might employ the same thoughts and 
words in different epistles. The analogies are not 
marked enough to betray the hand of a copyist, and 
might be paralleled by similar ones in the epistles to 
the Galatians and Romans. 1 

5. How can it be said of a newly-founded church 
that they were patterns to all the believers in Macedonia 
and Achaia ; that the report of their having received 
the word of the Lord had gone forth to every place, so 
that people could relate of them that they had turned 
from idolatry to the true God (i. 7, etc.)? How could 
the apostle say, after so short a period, that he had the 
most earnest longing to see them personally again (ii. 
17 ; hi. 10)? How could the brotherly love of the 
Thessalonians, manifest to all the brethren in all Mace 
donia, be celebrated as a general virtue (iv. 9)? Were 
exhortations to a quiet life of labour, such as are given 
in iv. 11, 12, so necessary there ? These questions are 
asked by Baur. 

The answer to them depends on the right interpre 
tation of the passages, and the assumption of a date not 
too soon after the church was founded. They are com 
patible with a year s interval. 

6. The passage in iv. 14 18 respecting the resur 
rection of the dead, and the relation of the dead and 
living to the appearing of Christ, is pronounced un- 
Pauline by Baur ; who admits, however, that it coin 
cides with 1 Cor. xv. 52, though going far beyond it ; 
and that it could not be urged with effect if the authen 
ticity of the epistle were better established. 

The Corinthian passage and the present explain and 
supplement one another. It was only in the beginning 
of Christianity, and in an individual church, that the 

1 See Jowett On the Epistles to the Thessalonians, Romans, Galatians, 
etc., vol. i. p. 23, et seq. 



FIRST EPISTLE OF THE TIIESSALONIANS. 15 

destiny of the believers who died before the second 
advent could disturb the minds of surviving friends, as 
it did at Thessalonica. 1 

In opposition to the objections against authenticity, 
the internal evidence that the epistle is St. Paul s is 
very strong, as stated by Jowett with masterly ability. 

Too much importance is attached by Baur to 
uniformity of ideas and expressions as evidence of 
Pauline authorship. He takes four epistles unquestion 
ably authentic and forming a group by themselves, as 
the standard of measurement for groups of later and 
earlier origin. By this means little room is allowed for 
growth in the apostle s mind ; nor is there latitude for 
the influence of that wide variety of circumstances 
through which he passed, of the persevering opponents 
he had to encounter, or of the local diversities of peoples. 
Probably an expression of his own throws some light 
on the character of his preaching at different times. 
Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now 
henceforth know we him no more (2 Cor. v. 16). At 
one time he had carnal views of Christ. He expected 
his personal advent as near. So he preached to the 
Thessalonians, who had been much agitated by the 
expected event. That belief necessarily involved 
sensuous ideas respecting the nature of his kingdom, 
which was to be in some sort an earthly one. Further 
reflection aided by experience, led the apostle to more 
spiritual conceptions of Christ and his kingdom. For 
such development on the part of the apostle, Baur does 
not allow sufficient room. Yet nothing is more 
probable. The man who did so much to separate 
Christianity from the old religion and bring out its 
universal aspect who, finding it a spiritual offshoot of 
Judaism, raised it up into an absolute religion divested 
of Jewish swaddling-clothes, was surely a many-sided 
thinker, whose ideas enlarged with time, becoming purer 

1 See Baur s Paiilus, p. 480, etc. 



16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

and higher. Believing so, we are prepared to find in 
his earliest epistles other ideas and expressions than in 
his later less profound, less refined, not impregnated 
with the distinctive doctrines evolved out of his contest 
with Judaising Christians, but more elementary, and 
with a form less systematic. 

The first epistle to the Thessalonians cannot be com 
pared with the four subsequent and larger ones, in rich 
ness of thought or importance of contents. In it Paul 
does not appear on the elevated platform of his apostolic 
consciousness, which his struggle with Christian Judaism 
encroaching on the territory he had won over to the 
truth, called forth. The ideas expressed by righteous 
ness, justification, justify, the opposition of faith and 
works, the efficacy of Christ s death, reconciliation to 
God through the Mediator, and kindred doctrines which 
are the distinguishing features of his preaching, are 
absent. He speaks of one topic, the return of Christ, 
an event on which the hopes of Christians in the apo 
stolic time were centred. Round this animating subject 
the interest of the Thessalonians had gathered. All the 
amiability of the apostle s nature for a young church 
which needed the counsels of their spiritual father amid 
enthusiastic expectations and severe persecution, pre 
sents itself to the reader in an attractive light. He 
speaks against Jews as the great enemies of himself and 
the Thessalonians, not Judaising Christians as after 
wards, and foresees their utter destruction. The cross 
of Christ had not yet filled his soul, in opposition to 
works of law or deeds wrought in human strength; nor 
did the necessity of Christian emancipation from all 
Judaism stand out before him in its distinct reality. 
The progress of events developed these conceptions in 
full force ; they lay as yet in the background of his 
mind, waiting evolution. 



17 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 



ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 

CORINTH was situated on an isthmus between the JEgean 
and Ionian seas. It was the capital of Achaia, noted 
for the Isthmian games celebrated in its neighbourhood, 
and for its arts, wealth, and luxury. Cicero styles it 
the light of Greece. About the year 146 B.C. it was de 
stroyed by Mummius the Roman general. But Julius 
Cassar had it rebuilt, and peopled with colonists. Its 
favourable situation soon secured a nourishing com 
merce. The city rapidly regained its former splendour, 
in connection with former licentiousness. The gross 
worship of Yenus, who had a renowned temple in the 
place, furnished with a thousand impure priestesses, 
presents melancholy evidence of debasement ; notwith 
standing the schools of philosophy on which, to use the 
words of Aristides the rhetorician, one stumbled at every 
step. Hence Dion Chrysostom terms it a city, l the 
most licentious of all that are or have been. 1 

This city, the meeting-place of eastern and western 
commerce, was selected by Paul as the scene of his 
labours for a considerable period. The number and 
character of the inhabitants, added to the importance of 
the situation and the influx of strangers, made it desir 
able that Christanity should obtain a firm hold there. 
No station was more favourable to the diffusion of the 
new religion through the Roman empire. The apostle 
chose it as his sphere for eighteen months. Here he 

1 Corinthiaca Orrttio, xxxvii. p. 110, vol. ii. Ed. Reiske. 
VOL. I. C 



18 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

worked, in company with several associates, amid the 
opulence, luxury, vice, and learning of the idolatrous 
inhabitants. As usual, he encountered opposition from 
the Jews who had settled in it for the purposes of traffic. 
Yet even among them some leading persons believed, as 
Crispus and Sosthenes ; though the church consisted of 
Gentiles, chiefly belonging to the poorer class, not many 
of whom were wise, noble, or mighty. 

The apostle visited the city on his second missionary 
journey, after he left Athens. Here he found Aquila 
and his wife, who had lately arrived from Italy in con 
sequence of Claudius s decree against the Jews in Rome. 
Taking up his abode in the house of Aquila, he wrought 
at the same manual employment. Whether Aquila was 
a convert to Christianity before he came to Corinth, is 
not certain ; the expression, a certain Jew (Acts xviii. 
2) being indefinite, and marking perhaps the nation to 
which he belonged. If he were a believer in Chris 
tianity, his knowledge was imperfect, needing the en 
largement and correction which the apostle would 
supply. 

It is related in the Acts, according to the manner of 
the book, that Paul addressed himself first to the Jews 
at Corinth, preaching Christ in their synagogue on the 
Sabbath day. After Timothy and Silas arrived from 
Macedonia he became bolder, and testified more plainly 
that Jesus was the Messiah. This gave great offence to 
the unbelievers, who contradicted and blasphemed. He 
therefore turned to the Gentiles, and succeeded so well in 
leading them from error, that the Jews seized and dragged 
him before Gallio the Roman proconsul, accusing him 
of opposition to the law of Moses. But the humane 
governor refused to interfere in ecclesiastical matters. 
After this insurrection, the historian states that the 
apostle remained a good many days, then sailed to Syria 
with Aquila and Priscilla, leaving perhaps his faithful 
assistants, Timothy and Silas, in Corinth. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 10 



OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 

Soon after Paul s arrival at Ephesus a second time, 
from Galatia, he heard of various irregularities in the 
conduct of the converts at Corinth, and wrote an epistle, 
now lost, warning them against corrupt practices. 

During his abode in Ephesus, he had opportunities 
of hearing particulars about the state of the church he 
had left, and the reports were still unfavourable. Some 
members of Chloe s household, perhaps Apollos too, 
who seems to have removed from Corinth to Ephesus 
while the apostle abode in the latter place, gave him in 
formation respecting the distractions of the community. 
These representations led to the resolution of taking a 
journey through Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem, 
preparatory to which he had sent Timothy and Erastus 
into those parts, to forward the collection for the relief 
of the poor Christians at Jerusalem, and to rectify the 
irregularities of the Corinthian church. Meanwhile 
messengers arrived, Stephanas, Eortunatus, and Achai- 
cus, bringing a letter concerning various things, and 
asking different questions. By this means, he became 
acquainted with the contentions and disorders of the 
church, and was induced to write our first epistle, which 
was dictated perhaps to Sosthenes, and sent by the three 
messengers of the church. It was Paul s wish that 
Apollos should accompany the bearers, and use his en 
deavour to heal the distractions which had arisen but 
he refused to go. Timothy had been despatched before 
the epistle was written. Had he been with the apostle, 
he would probably have been specified in the salutation 
at the commencement. 

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 

The letter was written, as we have seen, from 
Ephesus. when Paul was there the second time, towards 



20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the close of his visit, and not long before Pentecost (1 
Cor. xvi. 8), A.D. 57. The subscription states that it 
was written from Philippi, the origin of which may be 
traced to an erroneous explanation of the words in xvi. 
5, i for I do pass through Macedonia/ which express no 
more than his determination to pass through it. MS. B., 
but a reviser not the first hand, has the correct state 
ment Ephesus in the subscription. 

Many have discovered an allusion to the time of 
year in which the epistle was written, in the words, 
know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole 
lump ? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be 
anew lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our 
passover was sacrificed for us ; therefore let us keep the 
feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of 
malice and wickedness ; but with the unleavened bread 
of sincerity and truth (v. 6 8). The metaphorical 
expressions in this passage are supposed to have been 
suggested by the near approach of the passover, when 
leaven was prohibited among the Jews. The apostle 
commences with a proverbial expression, meaning that 
as the smallest taint of sin had a tendency to spread 
through the mass, the Corinthian Christians should put 
away the old leaven of sin, that they might be holy ; 
for Christ the true passover lamb had been offered for 
them. It is probable that the passage was suggested by 
the near approach of the Jewish passover, though it may 
be explained without the allusion. This fixes the time 
of writing in the spring of A.D. 57. 

STATE OF THE CHURCH WHEN PAUL WROTE. 

A community of believers gathered from among the 
inhabitants of Corinth must have presented phenomena 
demanding special attention. Surrounded by prevailing 
immorality, it was difficult for them to realise the purity 
which Christianity requires. The piety of the believers 



FIRST KPISTLK TO THE CORINTHIANS. 21 

was less steady and consistent than it would have been, 
had their state before conversion been different. Their 
depraved nature continued to exert considerable power 
over their conduct ; and they were in great danger of 
relapsing into former practices. Christianity does not 
deliver the spirit at once from sinful excesses. It lays 
the axe to the root of the tree ; but repeated strokes are 
necessary to kill the luxuriant growth. Regeneration 
is not like a sudden or magic spell ; it is rather a pro 
cess ; for grace operates in accordance with the laws of 
our moral nature. The divine life is progressive and 
varied. We need not wonder, therefore, that the church 
at Corinth exhibited various disorders after Paul s de 
parture. Some, unable to resist temptations, relapsed 
into old excesses ; one had taken his stepmother to 
Avife ; and the majority exhibited a spirit of dissension 
arising out of individual preferences. Spiritual gifts 
were abused. The members were puffed up one against 
another. In the midst of these disagreeable things, the 
church wrote to their founder, informing him of their 
state, and asking his opinion on several points. He 
had heard from other quarters of their improprieties ; 
and we may imagine his deep solicitude. 

The greater part of the converts were Gentile Chris 
tians, as might have been expected and as the notices in 
the Acts respecting the ministry of Paul attest. The 
contents of the letters themselves show a predominant 
heathen element. But there were not wanting members 
that had come out of Judaism, or had imbibed Jewish 
ideas and prejudices, so that the apostle gave ad 
monitions to Jewish and Gentile Christians in their 
mutual relations, as he does to other churches. The 
Cephas party mentioned in i. 12, proves that Jewish 
Christians were present in the Church. It is true that 
the Judaising opponents of the apostle present a dif 
ferent aspect from the usual one. Their antagonism to 
Pauline Christianity did not proceed from the purely 



22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Jewish standpoint of circumcision. It had advanced to 
a more Christian stage, through tact or religious develop 
ment ; through the felt necessity of accommodation to 
the circumstances of a Greek people, whose prejudices 
might be more easily disarmed by a less Jewish type of 
opposition. The central point of attack was apostolic 
authority. This smoother form of Jewish opposition 
was more likely to find favour in a Greek -Christian 
Church, than the coarser and narrower type that cul 
minated in circumcision. 

1. With respect to parties in the church, it is im 
possible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. It is 
clear that there were classes who assumed the names of 
different leaders ; but it is exceedingly difficult to ascer 
tain their characteristic features, since the epistles them 
selves indicate little more than their existence. There 
is therefore a strong temptation to construct hypotheses 
respecting them out of imaginary or slender materials. 
Yet probable conjecture must be summoned to aid the 
enquiry. Hints in the epistles, historical circumstances, 
scattered statements, must be combined, to yield some 
light on the subject. 

The only passage in which the parties are clearly 
mentioned is 1 Cor. i. 12 : t Now this I say, that every 
one of you saith, I am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and 
I of Cephas ; and I of Christ. Other places supposed 
to indicate them are less definite. 

The first question that occurs is, How many parties 
are specified here ? Some answer three, supposing that 
the Christ party consisted of neutrals, who ranged them 
selves under no human head, but took Christ alone for 
their master ; simple-minded Christians, who remained 
steadfastly attached to Christ s teaching. Although 
this view is as old as Chrysostom, and claims support 
from 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23, where it is thought that the four 
parties are alluded to and that of Christ alone com 
mended, it is really baseless. The words- l and ye are 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 23 

Christ s allude to all the members ; and the additional 
clause l Christ is God s seems designedly to exclude 
any commendation of the Christ party. The phrase 
Christ Himself is subject to God cuts off the very basis of 
their pretensions ; not that the basis was wrong in idea, 
but because it was applied in a schisrnatical spirit. The 
context of i. 12 is adverse to the hypothesis, for the 
thirteenth verse speaks of the first three with disap 
proval, and since the Christ party is classed along with 
them, it is involved in the general censure. The form 
of the expression Is Christ divided, probably derived 
from and I of Christ, leads to the inference that they 
as well as the rest were exposed to the charge of rending 
Christ s spiritual body. 

Others answer that there were but two parties, 
properly speaking, in the Church, the Pauline and the 
Petrine. As the Pauline and Apollos Christians were 
substantially one, because both must have been Gentiles 
holding the same doctrines which Paul and Apollos 
preached ; it is thought that the Petrine and Christ 
party were substantially the same, both Jewish Chris 
tians but taking different names. This hypothesis may 
be called that of Baur, for though taken from Schmidt 
it received freshness from his ingenious illustration. 
The Christ party, as he supposes, were Jewish Chris 
tians, whose object was to undermine Paul s apostolic 
authority, and to engraft Judaism on Christianity. They 
called themselves after Cephas, the chief of the apostles. 
And to show that they were intimately connected with 
Christ through their teachers, they assumed the appella 
tion of Christ, indicating that they followed Christ s 
genuine apostles. They therefore cast indirect reproach 
on Paul, as not a true apostle ; and distinguished them 
selves from others as if they alone were true Christians. 
The state of the community they belonged to may have 
caused the Judaisers to keep their legal notions in the 



24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

background, and to insist on that aspect of them which 
detracted from Paul s authority. 1 

Various allusions in the epistle countenance this 
view. Thus the apostle writes in 2 Cor. x. 7 : If any 
man trust to himself that he is Christ s, let him of him 
self think this again, that as he is Christ s, even so are 
we Christ s. Here Paul defends his apostleship against 
opponents or Judaisers, who seem to have claimed a re 
lation to Christ which he had not. 

The objections advanced against this hypothesis by 
Neander and others can neither be refuted nor made 
good, because the epistles contain little knowledge on 
the subject. The objection that Christ was the assumed 
head, not a human leader, which the other three parties 
claimed, is nugatory. It has been asked, What was the 
use of the two appellations ? Was not one sufficient ? 
We are inclined to believe, that the Petrine and Christ 
party were subdivisions of one and the same class. 
Hilgenfeld supposes the difference between them to be 
in the fact that the Christ party were direct disciples of 
Christ, while the Petrines were merely disciples of the 
apostles ; and believes that he has removed the one 
weakness of the Baurian hypothesis in such fashion. By 
adding 1 the genuine school of Christ to that of the first 

o o 

apostles, he gets at the two divisions of Jewish Chris 
tians who depreciated Paul. 

It is needless to discus* the view of Olshausen and 
Guericke, that the Christ party consisted of philoso 
phical Christians or wisdom- seeking Greeks, who con 
structed for themselves a peculiar form of Christian 
doctrine modelled according to Greek ideas. Having a 
written gospel of their own, they rejected all apostolic 
traditions. In short, they were Gnostics, who saw no 
more than a higher Socrates in the Redeemer. The 
depreciation of human wisdom in the epistle is directed 
against them. The number of philosophic Christians 

1 Paulus der Apostel Jem Cliristi, pp. 261-332. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 25 

in the church must have been very small. There is no 
ground for assuming that the gospel had attracted the 
cultivated heathen at Corinth. As preached by the 
apostle there, it must have repelled the persons who 
boasted of their wisdom. Nor is it necessary to enter into 
Schenkel s view, which makes the distinguishing peculi 
arity of the party theosophic mysticism. They appealed, it is 
thought, to an inward revelation, as Paul appealed to 
immediate revelations of Christ, and so, placing them 
selves on the same level, assailed his apostolic authority. 1 
Rejecting apostolic tradition, and entering into commu 
nication with Christ by visions, they ascribed inspiration 
to themselves. The passages 1 Cor. ix. 1 ; 2 Cor. x. 7, 
xii. 1, etc., are supposed to find their explanation in 
this theosophic view. Though the hypothesis is adopted 
by De Wette, it is improbable. As to Ewald s notion 
of their being Christian Essenes who exalted Christ s 
celibacy into a rule of life, little can be said in its 
favour. Riickert, Meyer, and H of maim consider the 
party to have been orthodox, a hypothesis afterwards 
adopted by Neander. The enlargement of the parties 
from two to three gave rise to an earnest desire for 
union ; and therefore a fourth tendency originated, 
which assumed independence of all human authority, 
and set itself above the rest, The name of Christ was 
used to cover and commend it. Though this view has 
much plausibility, and agrees well with the supposition 
that the four parties are mentioned in the order of their 
origination (1 Cor. i. 12), it is liable to objection. In 
deed, it is easy to state difficulties in the way of any 
hypothesis that may be advanced. 

Referring the reader to Baur s masterly survey of 
the leading hypotheses respecting the Christ party we 
remark, that the sections may not have been distinctly 
marked. Perhaps they were not well-defined, with 
lines of doctrine dividing them the one from the other. 

1 De Ecdesia Corinthi primeevct. factionibus turbata. Basiliee, 1838. 



26 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

That they were distinguished in some way from each 
other, even in a doctrinal view, must be allowed ; but 
theological peculiarities were only one element in their 
discords. We cannot tell how far personal attachments 
and antipathies may have influenced them. 

The first idea occurring to the reader, is that the 
Christ party consisted of Jewish Christians. Those 
of Paul and Apollos were substantially one, and the last 
two should be regarded in the same light. By this 
means symmetry is introduced into the enumeration. 
But Riickert affirms, that a logical division of the 
members was not in the apostle s mind. 1 How does he 
know ? Both epistles show that opponents in the 
church questioned Paul s apostleship, and therefore he 
vindicates his claims. The Jewish Christians or 
Petrines did so ; and 2 Cor. x. 7 leads to the conclusion 
that the Christ party did the same. Nothing tangible 
favours the belief that the latter were theosophic Chris 
tians or spiritualising Gnostics who exalted human 
wisdom and laid claim to a deeper knowledge which 
specially united them to Christ ; that they inclined to 
merge the historical in the ideal Christ, and resolved 
Christianity into a spiritual essence. Such speculative 
or theosophic subjectivity could not have emerged 
among the members of the Corinthian church, who 
belonged to the humbler and poorer class. 

It is natural to suppose that the Corinthians who 
had been converted by Paul were most attached to his 
person, and believed in his apostolic authority. On the 
other hand, such as had been moved by Apollos, looked 
up to him with reverence. But Paul and Apollos 
preached the same truth, and their respective adherents 
did not differ in doctrinal opinions. Apollos was the 
more eloquent ; Paul the more learned at least in Jewish 
literature. The former was an Alexandrian Jew, tinged 
with the mode of interpretation applied to the Scriptures 

1 Dcr crslc Brief Pavli <m die Kormiher H. s. w. I. Bcilage, p. 436. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 27 

by the cultivated Jews of Egypt. This would naturally 
influence the manner in which he expounded Chris 
tianity, and suit the taste of Corinthians accustomed to 
Greek culture. He had also the advantage of succeed 
ing the apostle ; and people usually prefer the last 
speaker. From the twelfth verse of the first chapter to 
the end of the fourth, the apostle refers to the Pauline 
and Apollos-Christians ; the wisdom of the world, con 
trasted with the wisdom of God, pointing to the latter. 
The indirect polemics of the first four chapters, directed 
against the Apollos adherents, lead to the supposition 
that their head set forth the doctrines of Christianity in 
a theosophic, Alexandrian mould, or in a scientific form 
which challenged the attention of the cultivated. In 
his hands the new religion approached the wisdom pro 
pounded in schools of philosophy under the garb of 
artificial rhetoric. In proportion to the stress which 
the Apollos party laid upon science, the contrast between 
them and the Paulines would appear greater ; for the 
apostle had determined to know nothing among the 
Corinthians but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. His 
gospel was so simple that it seemed to indicate a defi 
ciency of culture ; whereas he had refrained on purpose 
from the attractive language of human wisdom. The 
Christ preached by Paul and Apollos was the same ; 
but the doctrine of the cross took a different form in 
their hands. 

The Cephas party consisted of Jewish Christians 
who did not refuse to associate with Gentile believers, 
and were therefore of a milder type than many of their 
brethren. Overstepping the exact boundary between 
Jewish and Gentile Christians, they still denied Paul s 
apostleship. Their great stumbling block was the death 
of Messiah on the cross, to which the apostle attached 
paramount importance ; for they connected Messiahship 
with Jesus s life and work rather than his death. 

The Christ party are mentioned but once in the first 



23 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

epistle, perhaps because they had not then appeared 
openly against Paul, as they soon did. They are 
referred to in the second epistle from the tenth to the 
twelfth chapters inclusive ; and all our knowledge of 
them must be drawn thence. They were adventitious 
brethren who had come from Jerusalem and speedily 
developed into decided opponents of Paul ; strict 
Judaisers, who vaunted their intimate connection with 
Christ. They are called apostles of Christ (2 Cor. xi. 
13), overmuch apostles (xi. 5, xii. 11), ministers of 
Christ (xi. 23), false apostles (xi. 13). These men 
attacked the apostle not only on the ground of his 
putting the essence of Christ s Messianic efficacy in the 
death on the cross, but also on the ground of his not 
belonging to the twelve, as he had not seen the Lord 
nor come into personal contact with Him. Against such 
presumptuous opponents, Paul asserts his official position 
in the strongest manner. Though they had come from 
Jerusalem with the sanction of James, and bearing 
letters of commendation, they had to be withstood much 
more than the Cephas party because they were rigider 
Judaisers. Paul charged them with preaching a differ 
ent gospel from his. At Jerusalem, James headed the 
extreme Jewish Christians, to whom Peter seemed too 
pliable. Whether they were a party within the church 
at Corinth like the rest, or rather a party by the side of 
the others, is not clear. They were, in a sense, foreign 
to Corinth ; and formed perhaps no integral portion of 
the community there. 1 

Some have doubted whether the parties in the 
church were distinguished from one another by doc 
trinal opinions, both because there is no necessary con 
nection between the existence of schisms and diversities 
of sentiments, and because the apostle condemns the 
schisms without reference to doctrinal errors. But 

1 See Holsten s Das Evangelium des Paulus, Teil 1, p. 191, etc. The 
recent literature on the party is given by this writer in a note. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 29 

though the Corinthians disputed about the comparative 
excellence of their teachers, the Petrine differed from 
the Pauline Christians in doctrinal views. Why the 
apostle refrains from assigning the errors he condemns, 
to the respective parties, cannot be discovered. Perhaps 
those errors could not be definitely distributed, but 
floated more or less among all a circumstance which 
suggests caution to the interpreter, lest he attempt to 
do what the writer himself has avoided. But we may 
arrive at probable conclusions respecting the inclination 
of the several parties to erroneous sentiments or prac 
tices noticed in the epistle. The spirit of the church 
was sensuous. Its standard of purity was low ; its 
members of a heterogeneous sort. Those who divide all 
professing Christians into regenerate and unregenerate, 
or who hold that a proper church should consist of the 
former alone, are discountenanced by the dubious 
character of the Corinthian believers, many of whom 
were as far from modern orthodoxy as from sanctity of 
life. The church was disorderly and unspiritual, its 
elements consisting of voluptuous Greeks of the lower 
class, with a minority of cultivated minds to which the 
new religion offered few attractions. When Christianity 
came into contact with the Greek mind, it had to make 
its way slowly through modes of thought alien to its 
genius, which were seconded, only too strongly, by a 
loose morality. Idealism and sensuousness presented 
an uncongenial front to the doctrine that true life comes 
only through faith in a crucified Messiah. 

In addition to the contentions of parties, other dis 
orders existed. 

2. Some had fallen into sins of uncleanness. That 
lewdness had become pretty general may be inferred 
from the words, It is reported commonly among you 
that there is fornication (v. 1), where the adverb com 
monly ! refers to the whole clause, intimating that 



30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

varieties of uncleanness, included in the generic term 
fornication, existed amongst the Corinthians. The 
writer then proceeds to notice an extreme case of im 
purity, viz., unnatural intercourse between a stepson 
and stepmother. Whether the case was one of marriage 
or concubinage is unimportant. The verb to have l 
is commonly applied to the former ; and that idea agrees 
best with v. 2, 3. Notwithstanding the scandalous 
nature of the act, the members of the church had not 
withdrawn from the society of the incestuous. The 
man may have pleaded the privilege of proselytes to 
Judaism that conversion abolished degrees of relation 
ship. The woman was probably a heathen. The apostle 
enjoins immediate exclusion from the church, and takes 
occasion to speak of other vices covetousness, idolatry, 
railing, drunkenness, extortion, which should be dealt 
with in the same manner. He exhorts his readers to 
have no intercourse with fornicators or persons guilty 
of notorious vices, but to disavow their deeds, lest sin 
should be countenanced in the eyes of the heathen. 

3. In their observance of the Lord s Supper, various 
abuses had crept into the practices of the Corinthian 
Christians. This feast consisted of two parts a pre 
paratory meal or love feast preceding the supper pro 
perly so called. To this love feast each brought meat 
and drink, of which all partook on an equal footing. 
The poor man shared the bounty of the rich, as if he 
had contributed his part of the meal ; and the brethren, 
rich and poor, masters and slaves, exhibited a spectacle 
of unity to the world. But when Christian love cooled, 
the love feasts lost their true character. Those who 
brought food with them ate and drank by themselves, 
apart from the members whom poverty prevented from 
contributing. The poor, in their hunger, were com 
pelled to look on ; while the rich brethren, having more 
than was necessary, indulged in excess. One was hungry 



FIRST KriSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 31 

and another was drunken. The meal degenerated into 
a private feast, and lost its proper significance. By such 
conduct the rich unfitted themselves for joining in the 
essential part of the transaction with spiritual discern 
ment. From whatever source the Gentile Christians 
borrowed their love feasts, such meals do not seem to 
have prevailed in the apostolic churches generally. The 
apostle did not forbid them, as some suppose, but wrote 
against their abuse. They are condemned as far as 
they ceased to promote Christian love, that is, as far as 
their original purpose was lost sight of. 

4. Another impropriety committed by the Corin 
thian Christians consisted in appeals to heathen tribu 
nals, showing that a generous confidence in the integrity 
of the brethren had given place to selfishness. It was 
customary for the Jews to decide disputes before tribunals 
of their own, a practice supposed to be based on Exodus 
xxi. I, 1 and transferred perhaps from the synagogue 
to the Christian church. To correct these unseemly 
disputes before civil magistrates, the apostle reasons 
with the Corinthians thus : If the saints are to judge 
the world and angels themselves, they are much more 
competent to decide the minor affairs of the present 
state. Legal disputes before heathens are censured as 
contrary to Christian love. 

5. Some of the believers doubted or denied the truth 
of the resurrection. These doubts sprang up in hen then 
soil. Gentile Christians belonging to the church enter 
tained them, basing their objections on the current 
doctrine of the resurrection which was opposed to Greek 
and Roman ideas. Men who had renounced the vul 
gar ideas about Elysium and Tartarus revolted from the 
teaching of the gospel concerning future existence, be 
cause it involved a return of the body to life upon the 
earth, a doctrine which arose in the bosom of later 

1 These are the judgments which thou slialt sot before them (the 
Jew*, not the Gentiles). 



32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

Judaism, and was transferred to primitive Christianity. 1 
Whether such scepticism arose from a philosophic ten 
dency, or was fostered by the prevailing sensuousness at 
Corinth, cannot be ascertained. In opposing it the 
apostle does not distinguish between resurrection and 
immortality. The number of persons who had these 
doubts seems to have been small. In refuting their 
notions, Paul begins with the cardinal fact of Christ s 
resurrection, and having proved its reality, adopts it as 
the basis of his reasoning, grounding the fact of the 
general resurrection upon it. He then adverts to the 
Jiow of the question, lessening the difficulty by stating 
that the resurrection body will be a spiritual, not a natu 
ral, organism. 

The apostle heard of these improprieties. We shall 
now advert to other topics, about which he had been 
asked by letter. 

6. The subject of celibacy was one that perplexed 
part of the Christian church at Corinth. It is not easy, 
however, to discover the precise point to which their 
question referred, because the writer touches on several 
things in his answer. He speaks first of marriage 
generally, recommending that state to all as one preven 
tive of fornication. At the same time, he prefers a single 
life for those who could purely bear it. He condemns 
separations and divorces, even though one of the parties 
be a heathen, as long as the unbeliever chooses to con 
tinue with the other. After a short digression, he turns 
to the unmarried, recommending them to remain single 
because of impending calamities ; and touches at the end 
on the marriage of widows. What then was the par 
ticular point of inquiry ? Was it, as Hofmann supposes, 
whether an unmarried man should entirely abstain from 
sexual contact with a woman ; or, as Hilgenfeld thinks, 

1 Cornp. 2 Maccabees vii. 9, 11, 14, 23, Like the author of the book of 
Daniel, the Maccabean writer limits the resurrection to pious Jews, appa 
rently excluding all Gentiles. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 83 

was the question whether it were not advisable that men 
generally, even the married, should not touch a woman ? 
The latter is more probable. The notion of attaching un 
due value to celibacy was an Essene one ; but the apostle, 
though inclined to that view, carefully limits it. 

It is difficult to discover the party among whom a 
preference for celibacy had appeared. The Pauline 
Christians may have overvalued celibacy, because Paul 
was unmarried. But even this is doubtful, because the 
adherents of Paul, in after times, never insisted on a 
single life. An ascetic spirit had appeared among the 
Corinthians, leading some to argue for celibacy as a 
state of peculiar virtue. This disposition showed it 
self early in the primitive churches and arose out of 
temperament. Perhaps it was fostered by the Christ 
party, and was of Palestinian origin. 

While treating of the marriage relation, the apostle 
lays down a general maxim which deserves particular 
notice. In whatever situation Christianity finds an in 
dividual, it does not interfere with his external relations, 
nor command him to start off abruptly from former pur 
suits. The existing order of society was outwardly un 
disturbed by the new religion. This is applied to the case 
of slaves. Primitive Christianity did not enjoin masters 
to set their slaves at liberty. It prepared them to be 
kind and benevolent towards that class. Slaves them 
selves were exhorted to submit patiently to the yoke. 
But Paul did not undervalue civil liberty. He advised 
every slave to avail himself of a legitimate opportunity 
to obtain his emancipation. If thou mayest be made 
free, use it rather. From this application of a general 
principle to the state of slaves, we infer that he looked 
upon the institution as uncongenial with the spirit of 
Christianity. 

7. Another question related to the duties of Chris 
tians respecting flesh previously offered to idols. Some 
Gentile converts not only ate without scruple meat sold 

VOL. r. D 



34 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

in the market, after it had been dedicated to idols, but 
partook of the feasts held in heathen temples, at which 
such flesh was set before the guests. This conduct gave 
offence to Jewish Christians, whose weak consciences 
naturally revolted at idolatry. 

In replying to the inquiry addressed to the apostle 
on this subject, he notices three points, as if three ques 
tions had been asked. Should a Christian eat the flesh 
of an animal offered in sacrifice to idols, after that flesh 
has been exposed for sale and purchased as food ? 
Should a Christian accept the invitation of a friend to 
partake of a feast held in a heathen temple ? Should a 
Christian go to a private entertainment and eat the flesh 
of animals dedicated to idols ? He replies to the first 
in the affirmative, mentioning, however, a limit to the 
exercise of Christian freedom. Care must be taken not 
to offend a weak brother, since an action harmless in 
itself ceases to be indifferent when it hurts the feelings 
or prejudices of a tender conscience. He answers the 
second in the negative, because every Christian present 
at idol-feasts makes himself a sharer in the idolatrous 
worship. As to the third, he allows a Christian to eat 
everything set before him at a private entertainment. 
But if any guest should say of a particular dish, this 
meat has been offered in sacrifice to an idol, the believer 
is exhorted to abstain, out of regard to the conscience 
of others. 

This topic relates to the Pauline and Petrine parties. 
The weak were the Jewish Christians, who had scruples 
of conscience about countenancing idolatry, and allowed 
their minds to be harassed with anxiety when there was 
no real ground for it. The Pauline Christians, on the 
other hand, entertaining correct notions of freedom, 
joined without scruple in festive entertainments where 
flesh left after sacrifices was used, and paid little regard 
to the uneasiness of the Petrine Christians. Very wisely 
does the apostle deal with the question by enforcing the 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 35 

law of love to modify things in themselves indifferent. 
That law binds the believer to act in accordance with 
the spiritual benefit of others. 

It would be unnecessary to mention the opinion of 
Meyer and Hofmann, that the weak are Gentile Christians, 
were it not that it derives support from the critical 
reading of Lachmann and Tischendorf, in viii. 7, with 
conscience until now of the idol, eat it as a thing offered 
to an idol, &C., 1 meaning that their conscience was 
transferred from their heathen state to their Christian 
one, in supposing that an idol was a real thing. 2 The 
reading, though attested by external evidence, is hardly 
placed beyond doubt ; and even if it were, it seems far 
fetched to restrict the phrase till now, to the noun alone 
that precedes it, instead of to the whole clause. 

8. Another subject referred to the apostle, was the 
demeanour of females in public meetings. Misapplying 
Christian liberty, females appeared unveiled in congre 
gations of worshippers composed of both sexes ; a prac 
tice adopted in imitation of the men, who, according to 
Greek custom, appeared with uncovered heads. This 
was an improper application of their privileges, as if 
they stood on a perfect equality with the male sex. 
They even prayed and prophesied in the public assem 
blies unveiled. The apostle condemns the custom of 
removing the veil in promiscuous meetings of wor 
shippers, as well as that of praying and prophesying in 
public ; though he reserves his denunciation of the 
latter to a subsequent occasion (xii. 34). He reminds 
woman of her subordination to man ; showing their 
true relation to one another and to Christ ; and indi 
cates that the tendency of the custom of appearing in 
public meetings with uncovered heads is immoral. 

9. The Corinthian church enjoyed a large measure 



1 rfj crvveiftrjcrei fois apn TOV ei^coXov, K.r.A. 

2 E.reyet. Ilandbuch iiber den erst en Brief an die KoriniJier, p. 170, 2nd 
edition. 

i) 2 



36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

of spiritual gifts. These were not equivalent to what 
are now called miraculous, but consisted hi the elevation 
of the natural faculties. The excitement produced 
upon susceptible spirits by a new religion in the apo 
stolic age was often extraordinary. But unworthy 
motives interfered with the exercise of spiritualised 
feelings ; and their exhibition was unedifying. In an 
ecstatic state, the Corinthians used words inarticulate, 
disconnected, confused, which conveyed little meaning 
to the hearer, because the speakers themselves were not 
conscious of a meaning. The charism did not consist 
in the ability to speak foreign languages, as has been 
often supposed, but in impassioned exclamations, and 
in obscure, incoherent outbursts of prayer. The gift 
was overrated by its possessors, and used for ostentation 
because it excited wonder in the hearers. 

The apostle enters into a minute consideration of the 
subject of charisms, pointing out their right use. Pro 
phesying is preferred to speaking in tongues, because it 
tends to edification. Love, however, is put above all 
gifts, because it regulates their exercise. 

10. The only other question of the Corinthian church 
relates to a collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, 
about which the apostle gives some directions. 



PAULS VISITS TO THE CORINTHIANS BEFORE HE WROTE 

TO THEM. 

It has been debated whether Paul visited Corinth 
once or twice before he wrote to the believers there. 
The Acts notice only one visit. The supposition of a 
second is derived from passages in the epistles them 
selves, from 2 Cor. xiii. 1,2; xii. 14 ; ii. 1 ; xii. 21 ; 
1 Cor. xvi. 7. As the two visits must have preceded 
the first epistle, because the second could not have 
happened between the first and second epistles, passages 
from both epistles are relevant, 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 37 

This is the third time I am coming to you. In the 
rnouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be 
established. I told you before, and foretel you, as if 
I were present, the second time ; and being absent now 
I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all 
other, that if I come again, I will not spare ( 2 Cor. 
xiii. 1, 2). These words plainly express the idea that 
the writer purposed to pay the readers a third visit. 

4 Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you ; 
for I seek yours, not you/ &c. (2 Cor. xii. 14). The 
meaning is the same as before. The apostle was ready 
to visit them the third time. The preceding context 
1 for what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, 
except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you ? 
Forgive me this wrong contains keen irony, and 
agrees best with the supposition that the writer had 
been at Corinth twice. The greater the number of his 
visits during which he had received no maintenance 
from the people, the severer his irony. 

2 Cor. ii. 1 is less explicit. i I determined this with 
myself, that I would not come again to you in heavi 
ness. The apostle had not gone to them in sorrow, as 
we learn from Acts xviii, 1 ; neither can it be said that 
he was humbled on the occasion of his first visit (xii. 21 ). 
A subsequent and sorrowful visit is therefore implied. 
For I will not see you now by the way ; but I trust to 
tarry a while with you, if the Lord permit ( 1 Cor. 
xvi. 7), These words intimate that his next visit would 
be of some length, compared with the passing one he 
had last paid. The first was nearly two years, and there 
fore he must have been again with them for a short time. 

But 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, presents an apparent objection 
to this view. And in this confidence I was minded to 
come unto you before, that ye might have a second 
benefit ; and to pass by you into Macedonia, and to 
come again out of Macedonia unto you, and of you to 
be brought on my way towards Judea. If two visits 



38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

to Corinth are presupposed elsewhere, why should he 
speak of one benefit conferred hy his personal presence ? 
Why not intimate two benefits, and so mention a third, 
1 that ye might have a third benefit ? This reasoning 
is plausible but not conclusive. To meet it, we need 
not assume, with Bleek, 1 after Chrysostom, that a second 
benefit is equivalent to a second joy. The apostle speaks 
of an intended journey, before the sending of his first 
epistle ; and the second benefit refers to his second 
presence with them, after returning from Macedonia, as 
is expressed in the sixteenth verse. It leaves out of 
account the apostle s first abode at Corinth, and alludes 
solely to his purpose of seeing the Corinthians, on his 
return from Macedonia, as well as on his way to it. 
This is better than to suppose that, during the apostle s 
residence at Corinth of eighteen months, he had gone 
into the neighbouring districts, and returned to Corinth, 
so that in one sense he had been there twice, in another 
only once ; in which case he could speak of another 
visit, either as the third or second. It is remarkable 
that Schott and Anger should defend an hypothesis so 
improbable. 

There are other difficulties against the assumption 
of an unnoticed visit to Corinth. If the state of the 
church was such as to give uneasiness to the apostle at 
the time of his visit, as is inferred from 2 Cor. xii. 21, 
ii. 1, it is not easy to understand how his first epistle 
could omit all mention of that visit, and of his efforts 
against the disorders he had then witnessed. If the 
church were not thus distracted, the interpretation of 
the passages referred to falls away ; and it is incompre 
hensible how the community could have speedily become 
so bad, since the visit must have preceded the first 
epistle by a very short interval. Ingenious as these 
suggestions of De Wette s are, 2 the testimony of plain 

1 In the Studien und Kritiken for 1830, p. 614, et seg. 

2 Einleitung, 132a, 6th ed. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 39 

words, in their natural acceptation, must not be aban 
doned on their account. 

In view of all that has been said in favour of the 
second visit by Bleek and Holsten, 1 we cannot but 
assent. There are difficulties in its way, which have 
been forcibly urged by Baur ; but they are not insuper 
able. Greater ones attend its rejection. 

At what place of the Acts it should be inserted, can 
only be conjectured. It is best to put it during the 
apostle s abode at Ephesus of nearly three years length 
(Acts xix.), as Schrader and others do. To put it 
elsewhere, in the year and a half s sojourn at Corinth, 
with Schott and Anger ; or in the interval between his 
first and second visit to Ephesus, as Neander conjec 
tures, is less probable. 



THE FIRST EXTANT EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, NOT 
THE FIRST WHICH THEY RECEIVED FROM THE APOSTLE. 

We have assumed that the present epistle was pre 
ceded by a lost one, on the basis of v. 9, I wrote unto 
you in the epistle] &c. These words are rendered either, 
I have written to you in this epistle, or, I wrote to 
you in that epistle. In the former case, they refer to 
the letter he was writing ; in the latter, to one he had 
written. We demur to the view that the aorist of the 
verb 2 may be translated here, * I have written. The 
only correct version of it is, i I wrote. Bishop Middle- 
ton 3 refers to various places where the article conveys 
the sense, the present epistle; but none is pertinent, 
because the expression in question occurs at the end of 
the writing. The letters in which the phrase appears 
are virtually finished. The epistle can only mean the 
present epistle when it is written, not when it is towards 

1 Das Evangelium des Paulus, Teil i. p. 187, &c. 

3 eypa\/m. 

3 The Doctrine of the Greek Article. Rose s ed. p. olM. 



40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the beginning. That the same phrase may mean a 
former epistle, is shown by 2 Cor. vii. 8. 

It is impossible to find the part to which the writer 
alludes, if the letter means that which he was then 
writing. The reference is neither anticipative, as Lard- 
ner and others suppose, nor is it to the verses immedi 
ately preceding. 1 No part of the context contains an 
injunction not to company with fornicators, for the 
whole exhibits no more than a general exhortation to 
purity, and an expectation, on the writer s part, that 
his readers should not delay to excommunicate the 
notorious offender. Supposing that the reference is to 
the second verse, or to the fifth, sixth, and seventh 
verses of the chapter, what is the use of the phrase in 
the epistle ? The general sense does not require it. 

The opinion that a lost epistle is referred to, which 
the words themselves justify, gave rise to two apocry 
phal ones : one purporting to proceed from the Corin 
thians, the other from St. Paul. They were published 
in Armenian, with a Latin translation by Wilkins ; 2 
and in the same year by Philipp Masson in Armenian 
and Latin ; 3 Fabricius also gave them in Latin and 
Greek, in the third part of his Codex Apocryphus 
N. 1Y They were inserted by Whiston in his collection 
of authentic records belonging to the Old and New 
Testament, in Latin, English, and Arabic, with a 
defence of their authenticity. 4 His two sons afterwards 
edited them in Armenian. Greek, and Latin, as an 
appendix to their edition of Moses Choronensis s his 
tory. 5 The best and most complete translation is that 



1 The aorist cypatya may stand for the present ypdcjxo ; but the New 
Testament usage of it in this way cannot be fairly shown. The nearest ap 
proach to it is the reference to a group of verses just completed, in 1 Cor. 
ix. 15; 1 John ii. 21, 26; v. 13. See Winer s Grammar of the Idiom of 
the New Testament, 40, p. 278, Thayer s translation. 

2 Amsterdam, 1715, 4to. 

3 Histoirc critique dc In RcpuUique des Lcttres, vol. x. p. 150, et seq. 

4 Partii. p. 585, &c., 1710. 

5 1736, 4to., London, p. 371, &c. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE COBINTHIANS. 41 

made by Father Aucher and Lord Byron, published in 
Moore s life of the latter. 1 The letters are manifest 
forgeries, not earlier than the eleventh century. It is 
strange that their authenticity should have found a 
second defender in Rinck, when Whiston s own sons 
hesitated to accept it. 

AUTHENTICITY. 

The authenticity of the first epistle to the Corin 
thians has not been called in question except by Bruno 
Bauer. Early Christian writers always assigned the 
work to Paul. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Poly- 
carp quote or allude to it, perhaps also Justin Martyr. 
The first writes : Take up the epistle of the blessed 
apostle Paul ; what did he first write to you in the 
beginning of the gospel ? Of a truth he wrote to you 
by the Spirit concerning himself, and Cephas and 
Apollos, because you had even then formed parties. 2 
Ignatius says : It is becoming, therefore, that in every 
way you should glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified 
you ; that in one obedience ye may be perfectly joined 
together in the same mind and in the same judgment, 
and may all speak the same thing of the same thing. 3 
And again : The cross, which is a stumbling-block to 
unbelievers, but to us salvation and eternal life. Where 
is the wise ? Where is the disputer ? Where is the 
boasting of them who are called prudent ? 4 Poly carp 

1 Vol. vi. pp. 274, 275. 

3 Ai>aXci/3ere TTJV 7rt(rro\r)V TOV p.a<apiov IlauXou TOV aTrooroXou. Ti 
rrpwTov vfjilv cv apxfl Tov fwayycXtov eypa^ev ; CTT aXrjdcias 7rvfvp,aTiK>s 

7TO~T(L\fV V/J-lv, TTfpl (IVTOV Tf, KOI ~K.rj(pa Tf } KOI ATToXXoj, dlO. TO Kdl TOT 

7rpoo-K\ia-is iifj.as Trerroirjo-dai. Ep. ad. Cor. c. 47. Comp. also 1 Cor. x. 24 
with ch. xlviii. ; xii. 12 with ch. xxxvii. ; xiii. with ch. xlix.; xv. 20 with 
ch. xxiv. ; ii. 9 with ch. xxxiv. 

J HpfTTOV OVV ((TTIV KaTCl TTCLVTll TpOTTOV 8od(LV lrj(rOVV XptOTOJ/ TOV 

$ot-a.(ravTa. V[j.as, Iva fv p.ia VTroTayf] rjTf KarT/prtcrfieVoi rc5 avrai i/oi Kal Trj 
yva)jj.r]- Kcl TO avTo Xeyrjre rravrfs 7Tfp\ TOV atrou, K.r.X. Ad Ephes. C. 2. 

4 "O frrTiv (TK(iv$a\nv Tols aTTtarot o if, rjfJ.lv 5e rrfOTrjpia, xai caf) 

rrov o-o(pos ; TTOV (rv^rjTrjs , nov Kav^r/ais T&V \t yo^itVcov vvvtTwv 5 A.d Ephes, c. 18- 



42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

has the following : Do we not know that the saints 
shall judge the world, as Paul teaches ? l Again : 
* Neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of 
themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of 
God, &c. 2 Justin Martyr writes : For Christ was the 
passover, who was afterwards sacrificed, &c. 3 Irengeus 
is the first author who expressly cites the epistle as 
Paul s : This also the apostle (Paul) manifestly shews 
in the epistle addressed to the Corinthians, saying : 
" Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be 
ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud," ; 
&c. 4 So too Athenagoras : l It is therefore manifest 
that, according to the apostle, this corruptible must put 
on incorruption. 5 Clement of Alexandria has : The 
blessed Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians has 
solved the question, when he writes thus : " Brethren, 
be not children in understanding," &e. 6 Tertullian 
has the following passage : i Paul, in the first epistle to 
the Corinthians, speaks of them who denied or doubted 
a resurrection. 7 It was also in Marcion s canon. 

ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. 

The epistle may be divided into four parts, viz. i. 
1-iv. 21 ; v. 1-xi. 1 ; xi. 2-xiv. 40 ; xv. xvi. 

1 "H OVK olo ap.cv, OTI ol ayiot TOV Koo-pov Kpivovo-iv ; Ad Philipp. C. 11. 

2 Kcu OVTC TTOpvoi, ovTf /ittActKot, ovTf dpcrevoKoiTai /3a<riAeiai> GeoO K\r)povo- 
/ar) crovcr iv, ovrf ol Trotovvres TO. arona. Ad Phllipp. C. 5. 

3 *Hv yap TO Trao-^a 6 Xpiords, 6 rv6e\s vo-repov. Dial, cum Try ph. p. 374, 
ed. Thirlby. 

4 Et hoc autem Apostolum in epistola quae est ad Corinthios mani- 
festissime ostendisse, dicentem : Nolo enim vos ignorare, fratres, quoniam 
patres nostri oinnes sub nube fueruntj &c. Adv. Hceres. iv. 273, p. 1059, 
ed. Migne. 

5 EvdrjXnv Travri TO XctTro/ift ov, OTI Set Kara TOV a7roo~To\ov, TO (pSapTov 
TOVTO Kal ^iao~Kf8ao~Tov fvdvo~ao~dai d<p6apo~iav ) ?va, K.T.\. De Resurrect. 
Mort. 18, p. 266, ed. Otto. 

6 2a<e <rrara yovv 6 fiaKapios IlavXoj a7rrj\\a^V f)pas TTJS r)Tr)o-(Q>s 
V TTJ TrpoTepa rrpos KopivQiovs eVtcrroX^, &8e TTW? ypd<f)o)V ASeX^)ot, ^JLTJ TraiSia 
yiveo-de rals <f>pfo-iv, K.T.\. Ptedctffog. i. p. 118, ed. Potter. 

7 Paulus in prima ad Corinthios notat negatores et dubitatores resur- 
rectionis. De Prescript. Hcereticorum, c. 33. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 43 

1. This section relates to the party divisions in the 
church, which the writer censures and endeavours to 
heal. 

After the usual salutation the apostle congratulates 
his readers on their reception of the gospel, accompanied 
with abundant gifts and graces. He beseeches them to 
be united in love, instead of being divided into con 
tending parties ; thanks God that he had furnished no 
ground for undue attachment to his person, since he 
had baptised very few, his chief object being to preach. 
The believers are warned against worldly wisdom, as 
opposed to the gospel where all true wisdom centres in 
the cross (i. 131). 

He describes how he had preached the crucified One 
among them, not according to the forms of learning or 
philosophy, but in unadorned simplicity, lest his success 
should seem due to human eloquence. The fleshly man 
cannot discern excellency or wisdom in such a theme ; 
to him it is foolishness : it is only he who has the Spirit 
of God and therefore spiritual discernment, that receives 
and comprehends it as the highest wisdom (ii.). 

The Corinthians had made so little progress in piety 
that the apostle could not address them as spiritual 
Christians. To this he attributes their aberrations and 
divisions ; for instead of attaching themselves solely to 
Christ, they had shown undue partiality to human in 
strumentality. But none other foundation can be laid 
than Christ himself, and every one must look to the 
nature of the materials which he builds up, lest the 
structure prove unable to stand the fiery test of the 
great day (iii.)- For himself, he was perfectly con 
vinced of his apostolic calling, and was comparatively 
indifferent to the opinions of men, from whom he had 
not sought the praise due to faithful stewards of the 
divine mysteries. The sufferings he had to endure were 
the true proof of his apostleship and disinterestedness. 
His self-denying labours are alluded to not for the pur- 



44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

pose of upbraiding his readers, but to show the disin 
terestedness required in preachers of the gospel. What 
ever instructors they had, he was their spiritual father; 
and he beseeches them to follow none other gospel than 
what they had received from his lips (iv.). 

2. The second part is occupied with matters that 
concerned the private rather than the public relations of 
the Corinthian converts, but not exclusively. 

The apostle condemns his readers for associating 
with an incestuous person, whom he commands them to 
expel from the church, and have no intercourse either 
with him or any immoral member (v.). He censures 
them for taking their disputes before heathen tribunals, 
instead of settling them by mutual arbitration. So far 
from bearing injuries patiently, they had injured others. 
But such practices must preclude admission into the 
kingdom of heaven. Though they had been great sinners 
in their heathen state, Christianity demands purity; and 
a believer s body must be holy, because it is the temple 
of the Holy Spirit (vi.). In the seventh chapter he 
answers the question that had been addressed to him 
respecting marriage, touching on various collateral 
topics not included perhaps in the letter. The subject 
of Christian liberty is next treated, with special reference 
to the use of flesh once dedicated to idols. Here he 
presents himself as an example to the Corinthians, 
whence they might perceive how he had abstained from 
lawful enjoyments, in order to recommend the gospel 
more effectually, by accommodation to the wants and 
even the prejudices, of others. He did not avail himself 
of his Christian liberty to the full extent ; he had not 
married ; he had taken from them no temporal support, 
but had laboured with his hands to supply his necessities 
(ix.). The melancholy effects of abusing freedom are 
shown in the history of the Israelites ; and the Corin 
thians are warned lest they too should be overtaken in 
a false security (x. 1-xi. 1). 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 45 

3. The third division treats of the public relations 
of Christians. 

Here the apostle condemns irregularities existino- 
among the Corinthians in the worship of God, such as 
the appearing of females in their assemblies, with un 
covered heads, whereas a becoming distinction should 
be observed between males and females in this par 
ticular, as a token of the latter s modesty and subjection 
(xi. 2-16). Abuses connected with the Lord s supper 
are also censured, the apostle expounding the mode of 
its institution as he had received it by revelation (1 7-34). 
He proceeds to consider the gift of tongues, and the 
relation it bears to similar gifts generally, affirming that 
every one who speaks in the spirit acknowledges Jesus 
to be the Lord that such confession proves him to 
have received the spirit who is manifested in various 
ways. All charisms have one object, the edification of 
the church. None should be preferred above another, 
since all are necessary ; just as the different members of 
the body have each an important function to perform 
(xii.). This unity of spiritual gifts, both in their origin 
and object, commends the great principle of love, which 
is above them all, and without which they are valueless. 
Here the writer graphically describes the nature of love, 
representing it, with faith and hope, as one of the three 
cardinal virtues, and preferring it even to them (xiii.). 
After this he speaks of the two gifts of tongues and pro 
phesying, showing that the former should not be exer 
cised indiscriminately, since it is useless unless accom 
panied with interpretation ; while the other is intelligible 
by itself (xiv. 133). Women are enjoined to be silent 
in churches ; and all things should be conducted with 
propriety and order in the public meetings of the saints 
(34-40). 

4. The fourth part relates to the resurrection, which 
some in the church denied ; and concludes with a few 
general directions. 



46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The fifteenth chapter discusses the doctrine of the 
resurrection, and asserts its necessary connection with 
the leading truths of Christianity. The apostle affirms 
the inseparable union between Christ s resurrection and 
that of believers. He rests his argument for a general 
resurrection on Christ s rising from the dead, showing 
with what intensity of belief he held the latter. All 
faith he holds to be vain, unless Christ rose from the 
dead. His reasoning is of the passionate, ardent kind 
so conspicuous in the epistle to the Romans, in which 
the heart controls the head. Whatever be thought of 
its collusiveness, it has its value to the Christian of 
every age, teaching him that intensity of conviction 
accompanied by supreme love to God and man, ennobles 
its subject. An illustration borrowed from the organism 
of plants, to prove that a resurrection of the body is 
consistent with reason and nature, so far from implying 
that the same body rises, indicates the reverse. And 
the three verses 39-41 imply that the same body will 
not appear again. The analogy of multiplied and varied 
organisations in nature shows diversity. The flesh of 
animals ; heavenly and earthly bodies ; the splendour 
of the sun, moon, and stars are different ; why should the 
resurrection body not follow analogy ? The distinction 
between the earthly and resurrection body is summed up 
in the phrases, psychical body, pneumatic body, which con 
vey no definite ideas to us. In the one, the psyche, i.e. 
animal life, is the predominant agent, and the pneuma is 
subordinate ; in the other, the pneuma, the spirit rules, 
and the psyche has ceased to be a principle. Perhaps the 
writer s idea was that the resurrection body is to be a 
new and higher form of the old one ; not an entirely new 
structure, but a renovated form of the old, divested of 
earthly materials and developed out of the present. Such 
is Liidemann s view ; though in comparing 1 Cor. xv. 36, 
&c., with 2 Cor. v. 4, he does not notice the discrepancy. 1 

1 See Die Anthropologie des Apostels Pautus, p. 149. 



FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 47 

It is also observable, that the death of Adam and of 
all mankind in him, is spoken of, not as the consequence 
of his sin, but of an earthly nature (xv. 44-47). On 
the contrary, Adam s sin is stated to be the cause of his 
death in the fifth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. 
Are these representations of the apostle consistent ? 
Fritz sche supposes they are not ; Meyer has a laboured 
note to show their harmony. It is one of the antino 
mies in Paul s writings, which must be allowed to stand 
side by side ; being connected with the wider antinomy 
which the apostle s doctrine presents respecting the change 
in man s nature ; for in the fifteenth chapter of the first 
epistle to the Corinthians, sin is supposed to have its 
origin in the psychological nature of man, in the mate 
rial styled his flesh ; whereas in the fifth chapter of the 
epistle to the Romans, Adam s sin is represented as the 
efficient cause of the principle of natural sinfulness. 
According to the former, Adam s sin produced no change 
in the moral nature of man ; according to the latter, a 
new principle of sinfulness came in by that very means. 
It is better not to attempt the reconciliation of the two 
than to do it and fail. We agree with Pfleiderer in 
thinking it exegeticalty impossible. 

The last chapter recommends the contribution for the 
poor at Jerusalem, informs them of the writer s intended 
journey to Corinth, subjoins admonitions, and concludes 
with some salutations (xvi.). 

The apostle, who had himself founded the Corinthian 
church, specially loved it, and nurtured it with uncom 
mon care. The relations between the spiritual father 
and his offspring were intimate and confidential. His 
experiences among these converts were diversified, his 
difficulties peculiar ; and the human side of his indi 
viduality is seen in what he writes to them more clearly 
than in any other epistle. His practical sagacity, 
spiritual insight, tact, and delicacy were called into 
exercise by the weighty problem to be solved the 



48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

planting of a new religion in Greek soil. Experiences 
among the people prepared him for dealing with them 
wisely, and for applying Christian principles to the full 
reality of concrete life. 

The epistles are unlike those to the Romans and Gala- 
tians. In the letter to the Galatians truth appears in its 
rougher elements, strength taking the place of fineness ; 
in that to the Romans it passes into the abstract domain 
of doctrinal propositions and contrasts ; it is seen here 
in the manifestations of actual life. The theology is 
ethical not doctrinal, entering into relations public and 
private, healing disorders, correcting mistakes, and fur 
nishing wholesome precepts. Nowhere is the many- 
sidedness of the apostle s mind so evident the breadth 
and largeness of view that touch topics of multifarious 
difficulty with masterly ability. The Spirit of God had 
endowed him beyond ordinary humanity, not in vain, as 
the letters to the Corinthians demonstrate. All his 
powers were needed for the successful solution of the 
problem, which the first church reared on the classic 
ground of ancient Greece presented ; nor did they fail 
to meet it successfully. 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 



ACCOUNT OF THE APOSTLE BETWEEN THE WRITING OF 
THE FIRST AND SECOND EXTANT EPISTLES. 

WE have assumed that Timothy did not go as far as 
Corinth, but returned from Macedonia to Ephesus 
without a report of the affairs at Corinth. There is 
no mention of his visiting Corinth in 2 Cor. xii. 18, 
although it might have been looked for there ; nor is 
it alluded to in Acts xix. 22. It is said, indeed, in 
explanation, that as Timothy is associated with the 
apostle in writing the epistle, a notice of his mission in 
the third person would have been inappropriate ; but 
Timothy is associated with Paul in the Philippian letter, 
which contains notices in the third person notwith 
standing (ii. 19). Nor can it be urged that some 
remark and apology would have appeared in this epistle, 
if the journey had been abandoned, as long as we are 
ignorant of the circumstances which induced Timothy 
to stop short of Corinth. No charge of fickleness could 
have been founded upon a journey carried out only in 
part ; at least against the apostle, as long as he had sent 
Timothy. If the messenger was disheartened, and feared 
to proceed to Corinth, or if he saw fit to return sooner 
than he had purposed, the sender could not be held 
responsible. All that Meyer suggests against the hypo 
thesis of an unfinished visit to Corinth is invalid. When 
the apostle found that his young friend returned with 
out the wished-for intelligence, he sent Titus (vii. 14, 

VOL. I. E 



50 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

15 ; xii. 17, 18), the object of whose mission is not 
stated. It is likely that the writer despatched his friend 
to observe and strengthen the effect which the first 
epistle made upon the church. Titus would be expected 
to bring back intelligence of the state of parties after 
the letter had been received, and of the general feeling 
towards the writer. 

Did he bear a letter on this occasion ? Bleek l 
assumes that he did, and some passages in the second 
extant epistle apparently countenance the idea : And 
I wrote this same unto you, lest when I came I should 
have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice ; 
having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of 
you all, &c. &c. (ii. 3, 4). Here Paul says that he 
wrote his reproof to the Corinthians respecting the 
incestuous person in a very painful state of mind, 
accompanied with many tears. The passage in the first 
epistle to the Corinthians, v. 1-8, is pronounced not 
strong enough to justify the inference of its being here 
alluded to, and therefore a lost letter must be assumed. 
The language is not sufficiently severe or painful ; 
neither is the topic of the incestuous man a prominent 
one in the first epistle. That the allusion to 1 Cor. v. 1, 
&c., is felt to be unsuitable appears from the fact that 
some critics connect the apostle s words in ii. 3, 4, with 
the 4th, 5th, and 6th chapters of the first epistle ; while 
Schrader connects them with the whole letter. This 
reasoning is inconclusive. The first verse of the 5th 
chapter of 1 Cor. must have caused pain to the writer 
and sorrow to the readers how much, can only be con 
ceived. The apostle says in 2 Cor. ii. 3, 4, that he had 
written to the Corinthians a reproof about the inces 
tuous person which had caused them grief, out of affec 
tion for them, that he might not have sorrow after his 
arrival. He did not wish to visit them personally while 

1 In the Studien und Kritiken for 1830, iii. p. 62o, et seq. ; repealed 
in his Einleituny, \\ 402, et seq. 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 51 

irregularities existed that must awaken painful feelings ; 
but had sent them a letter that they might repent, and 
so prepare for a joyful meeting. The 5th chapter of 
the first epistle to the Corinthians does contain reproofs, 
and to it the present passage may be suitably applied. 

Another place to which Bleek refers in justification 
of his opinion is 2 Cor. vii. 8-14. But nothing there 
requires the assumption of a lost letter ; neither the 
interpretation of the participle translated he that 
suffered wrong/ 1 nor of the phrase, our~ boasting, 
which I made before Titus. 2 The former does not 
mean Paid himself, but the father of the incestuous person ; 
while the latter, instead of signifying the praise given 
by Paul to Titus (in a letter now lost), means the 
commendation of the Corinthians in the presence of 
Titus before his departure. 

If it be thought strange that the apostle should have 
despatched Titus to Corinth during the critical circum 
stances of the church in that city without an epistle, it 
must be remembered that a long letter had been written 
shortly before ; and that the author had neither received 
an account of the mode in which it had been accepted, 
nor of the impression it had made. After so brief an 
interval it would have been precipitate to despatch 
another. 3 

These observations must suffice to indicate our dis 
sent from the view of Bleek, who has been followed by 
Credner, Neander, Ewald, Klopper, and Hilgenfeld. 
Hausrath finds the alleged lost epistle in a part of the 
present second one to the Corinthians (chapters x. xiii.), 
written before chapters i.-ix. By assuming an epistle 
in the interval we get more room for the circumstances 
implied in the second of the extant ones, especially for 
the culmination of the Judaising agitation in Corinth, 

1 6 a.8iK7]Q(is. 

3 See Riickert s Dei zwc.ite Brief Pauli an die Korintlter bearbeitet, 
p. 417, et seq. 

E2 



52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

which was overpowered by the firmness of the apostle. 
In like manner the apparent difficulty of referring 
2 Cor. ii. 5-8 and vii. 8-12 to the incestuous person, 
is more easily removed. But there is no necessity for 
the hypothesis ; while the allusion to Satan in 2 Cor. ii. 
11, points to 1 Cor. v. 5, where the incestuous man is 
the subject. 

After Titus left the apostle, a violent uproar arose at 
Ephesus. The success attending his preaching alarmed 
the selfishness of Demetrius, whose lucrative employ 
ment was to manufacture small models of the temple of 
Artemis. Perceiving that his craft was in danger, this 
artisan called his workmen together, and easily inflamed 
their minds against the man whose teaching brought 
the goddess into disrepute. In consequence of his repre 
sentations, the artificers ran tumultuously through the 
city, filling it with confusion. Seizing Aristarchus and 
Gaius, they hurried them away to the theatre. At 
length the populace drew forth Alexander from among 
the multitude ; the Jews also putting him forward, that 
he might exonerate them, by throwing blame on the 
Christians. But the people would not hear him when 
they understood that he was a Jew ; because Jews as 
well as Christians were considered enemies to the 
heathen gods. 

After the ignorant rabble had exhausted their fury, 
the recorder of the city addressed them, quieting their 
turbulence by reminding them of the illegality of their 
conduct and the hazard they ran of being called to 
account. So the meeting dispersed. 

EFFECTS OF THE FIRST EPISTLE ON THE CHURCH AT 
CORINTH, AND ITS STATE WHEN THE APOSTLE WROTE 
HIS SECOND EXTANT ONE. 

Leaving Ephesus, Paul proceeded to Troas, where 
he was disappointed in not meeting Titus, and repaired 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 63 

to Macedonia. Here the messenger returned from 
Corinth, with a report satisfactory in the main. The 
letter had produced a salutary impression on the church. 
The members generally had acknowledged Paul s autho 
rity, and evinced their readiness to obey his commands. 
They expressed regret on account of irregularities, and 
were anxious to be reconciled to their spiritual father. 
The incestuous person had been treated according to 
the will of the apostle ; for though the majority had 
not actually excommunicated him, they had recorded a 
sentence against him, agreeing with Paul s. The apostle 
expresses his satisfaction with their resolution, especially 
as the offender himself had become penitent ; and de 
clares that excommunication need not be carried out. 
On the contrary, he wishes them to confirm their love 
to the man by receiving him back to the communion of 
the church. The better portion of the people lamented 
their past conduct and wished for Paul s return. The 
intelligence communicated by Titus was so agreeable 
that the author exults in gratitude to God. Now 
thanks be unto God, which always causes us to triumph 
in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his know 
ledge by us in every place. But all were not reduced 
to this state of mind. Corruptions existed which could 
not be removed in a day. The love of party lingered 
among them. The disposition of the majority to sub 
mit to the apostle s decisions and welcome him back, 
was not universal. He had still opponents, who per 
severed in undermining his reputation ; and were, per 
haps, all the more inimical, in proportion as the majority 
acknowledged his rightful claims. This will account 
for the tone of self-defence in many portions of the 
letter, the warnings it contains, the severe language 
adopted. Even in the laudatory passages, side glances 
at detractors appear. While praising the many, those 
who continued to thwart him are seldom lost sight of. 
The insinuations derogatory to the writer, to which 



64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

he alludes in the way of refutation or self-defence, are 
these : 

(a.) He had said that he intended to proceed directly 
from Ephesus to Corinth, thence to Macedonia, and 
returning to Corinth, to stay till his departure for 
Jerusalem. The distracted state of the church induced 
him to change his purpose, because he was unwilling 
to treat them with severity. This alteration of plan his 
enemies turned to his disadvantage, charging him with 
fickleness, and inferring that his doctrine could be as 
little relied on as his promises. 

(b.) They also accused him of vain glory and osten 
tation, because he spoke of himself so much. They did 
not distinguish between the grace of God and the 
human instrument. 

((".) These opponents directed attention to the con- 
temptibleness of his person, contrasting the severity of 
his letters with the weakness of his body and worthless - 
ness of his speech. They intimated that he threatened 
what he could not and would not perform ; that how 
ever formidable when absent, he was real y timid. Being 
afraid to come, he preferred to threaten at a distance. 

(c?.) His opponents seem to have reproached him 
with preaching a mysterious veiled gospel, deficient in 
the simplicity of that proclaimed by the primitive 
apostles. He had said, we speak the wisdom of God 
in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom (1 Cor. ii. 7) ; 
which may have been taken as the foundation of their 
charge ; and he now writes in reply, l if our gospel be 
hid, it is hid in the perishing (2 Cor. iv. 3). 

(0.) One had come to Corinth with the sanction of 
some of the early apostles, preaching Ebionite Christianity 
in opposition to Paul (xi. 4). This new teacher led 
the apostle to afiirm, that he had equal authority with 
the super-apostles, and that he preached the same Jesus. 
We cannot agree with Ewald, Holtzmann, and Haus- 
rath in identifying the new teacher with one of the 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 55 

twelve apostles whom the Judaisers had invited to 
Corinth ; nor with such as understand the case hypo- 
thetically. 

Such are the principal charges combated in the 
second epistle. They may not have been advanced di 
rectly or openly. But they were made with persevering 
enmity. 

Who were the contumacious adversaries ? Were 
they the Christ party ? Probably they were, as may 
be inferred from chapter v. 12, 13 ; x. 7. 

OCCASION AND OBJECT. 

The preceding observations show the occasion on 
which the epistle was written. The writer s heart was 
moved with feelings of anxiety, fear, affection, distrust, 
and hope, from the time he had sent his first epistle, till 
Titus s return from Corinth with a report of the state 
of the church, favourable in some respects, unpleasant 
in others. His leading object was to establish his 
apostolic reputation, and to restore the erring to sub 
mission. 

The manner in which he tries to accomplish the end 
is shown by the outline of the letter. Making a dis 
tinction between the church generally and the dis 
turbers of its peace, he praises the former, as far as he 
could with truth ; for it was his endeavour to convince 
them of their faults, and win them to entire obedience. 
The latter he seeks to overpower. Beginning with an 
address to the church generally, so that he could speak 
in mild terms, he commends their manifestation of re 
pentance and obedience. Pra se is bestowed on the 
whole body ; no separation is made between the better 
and the more corrupt members. The writer expresses 
the same affection for all, and entertains good hopes of 
them. He proceeds to speak of himself, his life, suffer 
ings, labours, and hopes, presenting the picture of a 



56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

man deeply conscious of the importance of his office, 
and pursuing its duties with singular earnestness. The 
patriot, marked by the absence of vain glory, but by 
dignity and consciousness of divine power, attracts the 
reader s admiration. The description flows from a full 
heart, without the semblance of rhetorical arrangement. 
The only skill seen is the result of warm outpourings 
from a heart intensely alive to the cause of truth. 

Putting the less important part of the letter between 
the two leading divisions, the third exhibits an altered 
tone. Here the writer addresses his opponents, and 
triumphantly vindicates himself from all their asper 
sions. He threatens them severely with the exercise of 
his apostolic power, and invokes God to witness the 
purity of his motives. 



TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 

The epistle was written in Macedonia (ii. 13 ; vii. 5; 
ix. 2-4), at Philippi^ according to the subscription ; 
which place is also in the Vatican MS. (but not from 
the original writer), in the Peshito, in K. L., and many 
other copies. This is improbable, because he had 
travelled farther in Macedonia than the place where 
it is likely he landed, as he speaks of the progress 
which the churches of the province had made in further 
ing the collection for the poor (viii. 1, &c.). Besides, 
he had waited in vain for the arrival of Titus in Mace 
donia (vii. 5), and anxiety did not allow of a long stay 
in Philippi, since his object was to go to Corinth im 
mediately. Others, supposing Troas to have been its 
birth-place, appeal to 2 Cor. ii. 12 ; though the passage 
in its connection with the next verse, proves that Paul 
had left Troas. Nothing in the epistle favours one loca 
lity in Macedonia more than another. Some even 
think that it was not all written in one place, but at 
different times and localities on several journeys an 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 57 

opinion founded on a certain view of the letter as loose 
and disjointed. 

The exact time of writing cannot be determined. 
Perhaps it was soon after the first epistle, as various 
circumstances show ; among which we may reckon the 
allusion to Paul s great peril at Ephesus (2 Cor. i. 4- 
10), caused by Demetrius a fact which had happened 
recently. De Wette, however, disallows the reference 
of the passage to Acts xix. 23, &c., on the ground that 
his life was not then in imminent danger, thinking that, 
if Ephesus had been meant, he would have said so, 
instead of l in Asia. Others, as Riickert, have thought 
of a severe .sickness which the apostle had had, a hypo 
thesis favoured by some expressions but disagreeing 
with others. The treatment which Paul received in 
Ephesus, as far as it is described by the historian, seems 
insufficient to explain the strong language used towards 
the beginning of this epistle. It is therefore likely that 
something occurred which we do not know. Perhaps 
he had suffered bodily injuries in the streets of Ephesus, 
where he had been hunted and thrown down, as may be 
inferred from iv. 8-10 ; and still felt the effects of the 
violence to which he had been subjected. The language 
implies that his life had been in danger. The letter 
was composed towards the conclusion of the year in 
which the first was written, A.D. 57, some time before 
Paul s three months sojourn in Achaia. A year did 
not elapse between the two. The phrase a year ago 
is too indefinite to have that meaning (2 Cor. viii. 10). 
The bearers were Titus and two brethren, one of whom 
was chosen by the Macedonian churches to convey the 
contribution to Jerusalem. The brother, whose praise 
is in the gospel throughout the churches, is usually 
identified with Luke. Others suppose Silas or Silvanus; 
De Wette proposes Trophimus. It is likely that the 
brother was unknown to the Corinthians and subordinate 
to Titus, a circumstance which excludes Luke. 



58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The same uncertainty rests on the other companion 
of Titus, spoken of in the 8th chapter. He was pro 
bably Sosthenes, as Burton thinks. 1 



UNITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE. 

A few critics have entertained doubts about the 
integrity of the epistle, in consequence of various diffi 
culties. Three things have occasioned them, as stated 
by Schleiermacher. 2 

1st. There are opposite statements respecting Titus. 
Paul requests for him a good reception among the 
Corinthians (viii. 23, 24) ; but he asks again, Did 
Titus make a gain of you ? Walked we not in the 
same spirit ? Walked we not in the same steps ? (xii. 
18). This incongruity is easily removed. Titus had 
been already at Corinth, and xii. 18 refers to that visit. 
In viii. 23, 24, the writer asks for him a good reception 
again, when he should carry the present epistle to 
Corinth. 

2nd. There are opposite statements respecting the 
apostle himself, as if he were now for the first time 
011 the point of coming out of Macedonia (ix. 4), and 
again, as if he had been already at Corinth a second 
time (xii. 14 ; xiii. 1, 2), the latter of which cannot 
be reconciled with the narrative in the Acts. 

This has been already explained. 

3rd. A very different tone prevails at the beginning 
and end of the epistle. From being laudatory and 
mild, it becomes severe and harsh. 

It is a common opinion that the epistle is made up 
of separate pieces written at different times, and cannot 
be looked upon as a connected whole. There are phe 
nomena which countenance the prevailing critical view, 
such as the dissimilarity of the ninth chapter to what 

1 Theological Works, vol. iv. p. 84. 

Einleituny m s Neue Testament, pp. 154, 155. 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 59 

precedes, especially the peculiar commencement with the 
particle for, and the different tone of the last four 
chapters beginning with the words, Now I Paul my 
self. The disjointed character is noticeable enough ; 
though the hypotheses founded upon it by Semler and 
others may be inadmissible. The unity is not justified 
by its defenders, nor by the exposition which Rtickert 
gives. 

The transition from the ninth to the tenth chapter 
is abrupt, and the writer s tone changes. Hitherto the 
apostle had complimented his readers, expressing his 
satisfaction with their state. He had insinuated delicate 
flattery and gentle praise, mingled with some regret 
that he had perhaps been too severe. Now he assumes 
a different style of address and becomes severe, asserting 
his authority, making a scornful comparison of his 
labours with those of others, and launching immoderate 
recriminations. The Corinthians, who had been de 
scribed before as longing for the presence of their beloved 
teacher, are said to charge him with faults and feeble 
ness. In the one part of the letter, they are praised for 
their Christian virtues ; in the other, they are presented 
in different colours. This discrepancy between the con 
tents has exercised the ingenuity of interpreters and 
given rise to various hypotheses ; for the transition from 
praise to invective is striking and sudden. 

There is nothing to forbid the idea that an interval 
elapsed batween the composition of chapters i.-ix. and 
x. xiii., during which the apostle had received fresh in 
telligence leading him to adopt a different tone. And 
it is possible that what is now the second part of the 
letter was written a considerable time before the first, as 
Weisse and Hausrath suppose. If there be a want of 
coherence between other portions, as there is between 
the eighth and ninth chapters, owing to the fact that the 
whole was not composed at one and the same time, 
probably chapters x.-xiii. were separated by time from 



60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the rest. The only place at which an awkward break 
occurs is at vi. 14, where the connection is interrupted, 
being resumed at vii. 2. The paragraph (vi. 14-vii. 1) 
may be the addition of a later hand ; for it has all the 
appearance of an insertion. 

The unity of the epistle need not be unduly sacri 
ficed because of diversities, being explained by the 
state of the Corinthian church ; the majority of whose 
members were well disposed toward the apostle s person, 
while others were not. It is the latter who are 
specially addressed in chapters x.-xiii., and alluded to 
in the third person. One is singled out (x. 11) ; or 
the party is called some (x. 12). These had promoted 
discord in the church, and tried to undermine Paul s 
authority. After being assured of the attachment of the 
majority, the apostle directs his polemic against this 
minority, exposing their tendencies and vindicating his 
own work. There is reason for thinking them Ju- 
daisers. Believing that different parties are addressed 
in the discordant divisions of the epistle, it is only 
necessary for us to add, that the latter chapters (x.-xiii.) 
were appended to the others after a time. The whole 
letter in fact is made up of pieces written at intervals. 
The seventh chapter looks as though the epistle might 
have ended there ; the eighth is a sort of appendix to 
it ; and the ninth, resuming the subject of the eighth, 
begins with the remarkable word for. There are breaks 
enough to show that the writer was interrupted more 
than once, and added to what he had already written, 
out of varying knowledge and moods. Nor should his 
excited mind and suffering body be forgotten. The 
nervous subject of visions, whose fiery soul was stirred 
to its inmost depths by an accumulation of harassing 
circumstances, could not be a calm logician studying 
the proper connection between the parts of his letter. 
The relations between Paul and the Corinthian com 
munity had been disturbed by recent events, while he 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 61 

himself was suffering from bodily ailments ; so that he 
writes without general plan or method, giving expres 
sion to his ideas as they arise in fitful succession or with 
sudden impulse, irregular, yet characteristic withal. 

DICTION AND STYLE. 

The language of the epistle is severely criticised by 
Eichhorn and Emmerling. It cannot be denied, that 
the mode of writing is rugged and awkward, harsher, 
obscurer, and looser than in Paul s other writings. 
Parentheses and digressions intersect the narrative, and 
disturb its sequence. Sentences are broken off, without 
any apparent reason for the interruption ; and the tone 
is sometimes inflated. The epistle has not the ease or 
smoothness of the first. Examples may be seen in v. 
1-4, where there is a mixture of figures and some con 
fusion of idea. Other passages, as i. 3-7 ; x. 12-16, 
show a consciousness of obscurity in the mind of the 
writer, causing synonymous expressions, and prolixity 
without clearness. The sense of viii. 11 is obscure ; so 
much so, that an inversion of the clauses has been as 
sumed. Chap. vii. ver. 8 is awkwardly expressed, and 
the true meaning dark. In i. 11, the construction is 
doubtful and imperfect ; xi. 6 is difficult, because the 
words are not the same as in Phil. iv. 12. The case 
has been overstated by Eichhorn and Emmerling. But 
a careful reader sees enough to convince him that the 
style and diction are inferior to Paul s usual mode. 
Roughness, obscurity, looseness, careless constructions, 
are frequent. The haste with which the letter was 
written, and the intense emotions agitating the apostle s 
bosom, as he travelled from place to place in Macedonia, 
help to explain the phenomena. The ideas are worthy 
of the great apostle ; though they are clothed in a 
negligent garb. He never writes good Hellenistic 
Greek ; but he was capable of expressing his concep- 



02 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

tions in smooth and appropriate language. If he did not 
on this occasion, it arose from peculiar circumstances. 

Eiickert takes a very favourable view of the whole 
epistle, in structure, language, and adaptation to its 
object, pronouncing it a true masterpiece of rhe 
torical art ; a judgment which errs as much on one 
side as Eichhorn s does on the other. In like manner, 
Meyer speaks of the oratorical art conspicuous in 
the epistle, an expression liable to convey an erroneous 
idea, unless it be strictly defined ; for, in one sense, 
there is an absence of art. The rhetoric is powerful 
and sharp, but lias no studied arrangement. Without 
art, it produces all the impression, and more, of the 
best rhetoric fashioned after the most approved models. 
The letter is a spontaneous effusion, dictated in haste, 
unrevised ; often irregular ; uneven, inelegant ; some 
times inflated, yet having remarkable delicacy and 
propriety ; weighty, striking, severe. 

The two epistles to the Corinthians show the 
writer s peculiar personality. A fiery strength of soul 
tempered by tenderness, a sense of personal freedom 
and independence united to leniency for the weak, a 
religious spirit of manifold flexibility, deep, glowing, 
intense, bent upon one great object amid perils and 
painful necessitudes, sacrificing all for the furtherance 
of that object ; such characteristics are unique in the 
history of humanity. The epistles reveal the way in 
which he applied Christianity to the circumstances of 
ecclesiastical and social life, along with rules or sugges 
tions bearing many relations. 

AUTHENTICITY. 

The authenticity of the letter has not been questioned 
except by Bruno Bauer. It is confirmed by the con 
tents of the first epistle, and abundantly attested by 
early witnesses. 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 63 

Irena&us writes : Paul has plain 1 y said in the second 
to the Corinthians, " In whom the God of this world 
has blinded the minds of the unbelievers." 

Clement of Alexandria has the following : The 
apostle calls the common doctrine of the faith a savour 
of knowledge in the second to the Corinthians, for until 
this day the same veil remains, &c. 2 Again : Hence 
also Paul Ye have these promises, says he, dearly 
beloved ; let us cleanse our hearts from all nlthiiiess of 
the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of 
God. 3 

Tertullian writes : For indeed they suppose that 
the apostle Paul in the second of the Corinthians for 
gave the same fornicator who he had declared in the 
first ought to be delivered to Satan for the destruction 
of the flesh. 4 

Cyprian has the following : Likewise the blessed 
apostle Paul, full of the inspiration of the Lord, " Now 
he that minis tereth," says he, " seed to the sower, will 
both minister bread," &c. 5 



ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. 

The epistle may be divided into three parts : 1. i.-vii.; 



1 Quod autem dicimt, aperte Paulum in secunda ad Corinthios dixisse : 
" In quibus deus seculi hujus excsecayit mentes infidelium/ Adv. Hares. 
iii. 7, 1. 

2 Taura p.ev 7Tpl rrjs yv<aafa>s 6 aTrdcrroXos 1 TTJV 5e KOLVI-JV diSaarKaXiav 
TTJS TTierrfros 1 oa^v yvaxTftos e"pr)K(i> ev TTJ SfVTepq Trpbs Koptv6iovs,"A-Xpi yap 
rrjs o"f)iJ.fpov fjfjiepas, TO avro /<aXu^t/u,a, K.r.X. Stromata, iv. c. 16, p. 608, ed. 
Potter. 

3 "Odfv Kal 6 HavXns .... Taura? ovv (X fTf T ^ 
(frrjcrtv, dycnrrjToi- Kadapi.(T(t)/jL(i> eavrwi; ras KapSias OTTO iravrbs 

aapKos KOI rrvevparos, (7riT\ovvT(S ayi(i)crvvr)v fv (j)o(B(o Geou. Strom, iii. 
c. 11, p. 544, ed. Potter. 

4 Revera enini suapicantur, Paulum in secunda ad Corinthios eidem 
fornicatori veuiam dedisse, quern in prima dedendum Satanae in interitum 
carnis pronuntiarit, etc. De Pudicitta, c. 13. 

5 * Item beatus apostolus Paulus, dominicse inspirationis gratia plenum, 
" Qui administrat," inquit, etc. De opcre ct elwnfM. ix. p. 008, ed, Migne. 



64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The first contains the apostle s utterances respecting 
his personal fortunes, purposes, feelings, and desires 
during the interval between the former epistle and the 
present ; allusions to the long-expected and favourable 
accounts he had received of the believers by Titus, 
and assertion of the dignity of his apostolic office, with 
the disinterested manner in which he had fulfilled it 
among the Corinthians. 

The following paragraphs are contained in it: i. 3-14; 
15-24; ii. 1-11; 12-17; iii.; iv.-vi. 10 ; vi. 11-vii. 16. 

After the usual introduction, he thanks God for the 
consolation he had received in all his sufferings, and for 
the ability to comfort others in like circumstances ; 
which leads him to refer to the imminent danger from 
which he had been recently delivered, owing in part to 
their prayers. Such intercession he expected from 
them because of his good conscience (i. 1-14). He 
then defends himself against the charge of fickleness 
because he had altered his purpose of visiting them in 
person, assuring them that it was not from fear or ver 
satility of mind, but out of tenderness towards them 
(15-24). The mention of his desire not to give them 
pain brings up the subject of his former letter, with 
the case of the incestuous person. It was for this reason 
he wrote that epistle, with a troubled heart. Now he 
is satisfied with the discipline which the church had 
administered to the offender by his recommendation, 
and wishes the penitent to be restored (ii. 1-11). He 
proceeds to express his affection for them, and the 
anxiety he felt when he did not meet Titus at Troas, 
and travelled to Macedonia, hoping to find him there. 
But the intelligence he received at last was so welcome, 
that he breaks forth into an expression of praise to God 
who caused him always to triumph. In this manner he 
passes to himself (12-17). To obviate the suspicion of 
vain glory he appeals to what he had done at Corinth, 
but is careful to ascribe to God all the ability that 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. G5 

made him an efficient minister of the new covenant. 
This leads him to contrast the old with the new dispen 
sation, and to touch upon the blindness of the Jewish 
nation as though a veil were on their minds during the 
reading of the Old Testament (iii.). 

Returning to the frankness and freedom of his 
preaching, he states that he taught the whole truth 
without falsification, though it might not be received by 
all. He did not proclaim it with a view of exalting 
self, or with a mixture of selfish motives, but an 
nounced nothing except the pure light of the gospel, 
which God had made to shine in his heart. Conscious 
that he had been called to the apostolic work, he did not 
lose courage or confidence even amid sufferings ; but 
knowing the living power of Christ in him, he was 
supported amid exposures to death, as he looked forward 
to the future glory that swallows up the remembrance 
of these light afflictions. To that eternal state he had 
regard, else he could not have acted and suffered as lie 
did. But he knew that after laying aside the earthly 
body he should put on a new one received from heaven. 
With such hope, and remembering that all must stand 
before the judgment seat of Christ, he could appeal to 
the Corinthians in attestation of his fidelity. Animated 
by the love of Christ who died for all, the apostle did 
not live to himself but to the Saviour ; not attaching 
importance to the earthly conditions of men, nor enter 
taining carnal ideas of the Messiah any more. In 
Christ everything becomes new, by reconciliation to 
God ; and the commission to offer that reconciliation 
had been entrusted to the writer. As an ambassador 
for Christ, therefore, he beseeches his readers to be 
reconciled to God and become subjects of righteousness. 
Exhorting them not to restrain the grace of God as if 
they had received it in vain, he returns to himself in the 
duties of his office, stating that he had been very careful 
to give no offence, at all times, in all circumstances and 

VOL. I. F 



6G INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

places ; in prosperity and adversity ; in thought, word, 
and deed ; in good and bad report ; by life or death 
(iv.-vi. 10). 

To this pathetic address he subjoins various admo 
nitions, warning the readers against association with the 
idolatrous heathen, lest they should be seduced into sin. 
As he begins to speak of the intelligence brought by 
Titus, and the effects of his first letter, he says : Un 
derstand me aright ; ascribe no evil design to me in 
writing the former letter. I have given you no cause 
to think so by my apostolic conduct in relation to you. 7 
He had been uneasy till he heard of their repentance 
from Titus : then he was filled with joy. He was glad 
that his letter had affected them so much ; not that 
lie took any pleasure in reproving, but rejoiced in the 
repentance of the guilty. The result had been the 
very thing he had in view. He could therefore repeat 
his former glorying in the converts at Corinth, rejoicing 
that Titus himself had returned well pleased (vi. 11- 
vii. 16). 

2. In the second part, the writer encourages the 
Corinthians to complete the contribution they had be 
gun to make for the poor Christians in Judea ; for which 
purpose he had sent Titus and two others to promote 
the work. 

The apostle boasts of the liberal spirit displayed by 
the Macedonian churches, who had made a considerable 
contribution for the use of the poor believers in Judea, 
though in narrow circumstances themselves. He had 
desired Titus to call upon them to complete the work ; 
and hoped they would abound in liberality ; not that he 
commanded it, but showed that such conduct was con 
formable to the example of Christ, who denied himself 
for the good of mankind. And as they had begun to be 
generous a year ago, he hoped they would justify his 
good opinion of them. He did not mean that they 
should do all, and other churches nothing ; but that 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 67 

they should give according to their ability. He had 
sent Titus to finish the matter, because the latter had 
a tender concern for them ; and with him two brethren 
of tried principle, hoping that the Corinthians would 
justify his assertions in other churches respecting their 
liberality. In exhorting them to be generous, he re 
minds them that as they sowed in the present life, they 
might expect to reap hereafter ; and that their liberality 
would promote the honour of God as well as the ad 
vancement of Christianity (viii. ix.). 

3. He now assumes a severe tone towards the refrac 
tory enemies among them, asserts his apostolic power, 
exposes the false apostles who attempted to subvert his 
authority, and speaks reluctantly of his own merits, not 
from vain, glory but concern for their good. 

He beseeches the Corinthians not to compel him to use 
severity at his coming among them. Against his oppo 
nents he affirms, that Christ had armed him with autho 
rity, and that he should exercise it towards those who 
pretended that his letters only had weight, his bodily 
presence being mean and his speech contemptible, so 
that he durst not act or speak so boldly among them as 
his writing would indicate. He does not boast, as some 
of his enemies had done, of the fruits of other men s 
labours ; nor does he assume the credit of anything 
which he had not really done ; but hopes that through 
their instrumentality the kingdom of Christ would ex 
tend to surrounding regions. Far from praising him 
self on account of what had been done, he glories in the 
Lord alone (x. 1-18). 

He now asks their indulgence for venturing to boast 
of himself, which he does out of solicitude for them, 
lest they should become estranged from him by the 
representations of other teachers. He believes that 
he is not inferior to the extra-super apostles, an expres 
sion which refers to the primitive apostles, not to Paul s 
Judaic opponents in Corinth. Though unskilful in 



68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

oratory, he is not deficient in knowledge. They had 
had abundant opportunities of proving his character. 
He refers them to his laborious services in preaching the 
gospel gratuitously ; avowing his determination not to 
abandon that course, that his opponents might be de 
prived of a pretext for assigning unworthy motives. As 
for those adversaries, he charges them with deceitfulness, 
hypocrisy, and falsehood ; and while indulging again in 
boasting, he apologises for it. In claiming for himself 
qualifications and prerogatives equal to those of his 
enemies, he enumerates the perils he had suffered for 
the gospel s sake (xi). 

In the same boastful strain, visions and revelations 
are referred to, one in particular by way of example. 
But that ground is soon left and his infirmities dwelt 
upon. In excusing his boastful tone, he speaks of the 
signs he had wrought among them when he planted the 
truth in their midst ; and of his perfect disinterested 
ness. Not only did he act so himself, but his messengers 
followed the example, taking no temporal support from 
the Corinthians. All this he adduces, not so much from 
a wish to defend himself as for their edification. Afraid 
that their factions were not done away, he anticipates 
grief on account of vices retained by some (xii.). 

After telling them that he was about to visit them the 
third time, he announces the severe procedure he would 
follow at his coming. Since they wanted a proof of 
the power of Christ in him, they should find him able 
to give it. But he exhorts them to self-examination, 
hoping to be spared the necessity of severity. The letter 
concludes with a recommendation of unity, peace, and 
love ; and a comprehensive prayer is offered, that the 
grace of Christ, the love of God, and the communion of 
the Holy Spirit might be with them all (xiii.). 



69 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, 



INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE 
GALATIANS. 

GALATIA or Gallograecia was a province of Asia 
Minor, differing in extent at different times. It was 
peopled by Gauls or Celts, about 280 B.C., who, refusing 
to take part in the expedition of the main body against 
Greece, and joined by a portion of the repulsed army, 
pushed forward from Thrace, where they had settled for 
a time, to the Hellespont, crossed over to the opposite 
shore, and overran Asia Minor under their leaders 
Leonorius and Lutarius. They were invited by Nico- 
medes, king of Bithynia, to assist him against his brother, 
and were rewarded with a portion of his country. But 
they were not easily restrained from incursions on their 
neighbours, and their marauding expeditions became 
formidable. Princes followed the pernicious example 
of Nicomedes ; and few wars were undertaken without 
their co-operation. Their name became so terrible that 
the kings of Syria paid them tribute. At length they 
received an effectual check from Attains king of Per- 
gamus, who drove them back, confining them to the 
fertile plains between the Halys and the Sangarius. 
Here in ancient Phrygia they became incorporated with 
the original inhabitants and Greek settlers ; and were 
called Gallogra?ci or Grecian Gauls, by the Romans. 



70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

They appear to have retained their own language, cus 
toms, and institutions for a long time ; since Jerome, 
in the fourth century, says their tongue was nearly the 
same as that of the Treviri. Alon^ with their verna- 

o 

cular language they spoke Greek ; the latter being used 
in public inscriptions and monuments. In the year 
189 B.C. they were subjugated by the consul C. Manlius 
Vulso, and brought under the Roman yoke, but were 
still allowed to have their own princes, the last of whom, 
Amyntas, was murdered 26 B.C. ; when Augustus con 
verted Galatia into a Roman province, governed by a 
propr^tor. 1 

Galatia in the New Testament may be either Galatia 
proper, that comparatively small tract of land in the 
interior of Asia Minor, within which Attains confined 
the restless population ; or the larger kingdom of 
Amyntas, which was converted into a Roman province, 
including portions of Lycaonia and Pamphylia with 
Phrygia. Many critics have supported the opinion that 
the Galatians of the Roman province are intended by 
Luke, in which case Derbe and Lystra in Lycaonia, 
with Antioch in Pisidia, were Galatian cities. Iconium 
was not, 2 because the south-eastern part of Lycaonia 
did not belong to the Roman province, as Bottger 3 
supposes. It is therefore argued, that the Galatian 
churches consisted of Lycaonian and Pisidian^ Chris 
tians, the former chiefly in Derbe and Lystra, the latter 
in Antioch. But the New Testament does not seem 
to adopt the official appellation of Galatia, because 
Lycaonia is mentioned separately in the Acts of the 
Apostles, implying the use of Galatia proper (Acts xvi. 
1-6 ; xviii. 23). Derbe and Lystra are expressly called 
cities of Lycaonia (xiv. 6). The popular acceptation of 

1 Mynster s Kleine theologische Schriften, p. 51, et seq. 

2 See Riickert s Mayazin fur Exegese und Theoloyie des N. T. } erste 
LieferiiDg, pp. 97-1 12. 

3 Beitrage zur historisck-kritischen Einleituny in die Paulinischen Brief e f 
dritte Abtheilung, 1. 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 71 

Galatia is favoured by the parallel examples of Phrygia, 
Mysia, Pisidia in the Acts, which occur in their geo 
graphical not their political sense. Hence Galatia 
proper must be meant, not new Galatia or the more ex 
tended Roman province ; and its churches were chiefly 
in the leading towns, Ancyra, Tavium, Pessinus, and 
Gordium. Lystra, Derbe, Antioch in Pisidia are excluded. 
It has been disputed whether the Galatians were of 
pure Celtic or of Germanic origin. But if they spoke 
nearly the same language as the Treviri, they belonged 
to the latter stock. And the names of their leaders are 
German, Leonorius, Lutarius, Deiotarus, &c. It is true 
that the name Galatians is identical with Celti, 1 but this 
is not conclusive, on behalf of the people s Celtic origin, 
because the appellation originated at a time when the 
races north of the Alps were not accurately distin 
guished. 2 

The Gallic religion was sensuous and superstitious, 
consisting in rites and cruel ceremonies. The Phrygian 
worship of Cybele appealed to the senses and excited 
the passions of men. It is probable that the Galatians 
united the worship of Cybele with that of the Gallic 
deities. The commerce carried on in their chief towns 
drew a number of Jews thither, who, according to 
Josephus, enjoyed considerable privileges. These Jews 
were doubtless zealous in propagating their religion, and 
had made proselytes. 

The first time the apostle Paul visited Galatia was 
on his second missionary journey, as related in the Acts 
of the Apostles. Now when they had gone through 
out Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were for 
bidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, 
&c. The conversion of the Galatians took place on this 
occasion, since the Asia which the Apostle was forbidden 

1 TaXdrai, Ke Xrai. 

2 See Wieseler s Die deutsche Nationalitat dcr Klcinasiaiischen Galater, 
1877, 



72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

to preach in was not Asia Minor but proconsular Asia 
(Acts xvi. 6). When Paul set forth on his third mis 
sionary journey from Antioch, he came a second time 
to Galatia, as we infer from Acts xviii. 23. And after 
he had spent some time there (at Antioch) he departed, 
and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia 
in order, strengthening all the disciples. The word 
strengthening or confirming, implies that the inhabitants 
had been already converted. Thus two visits are dis 
tinctly marked. 

It is improbable that a journey prior to these two is 
intimated in Acts xiv. 6, though Koppe and others 
think so. The region that lieth round about does 
not mean Galatia, but the region about Derbe and 
Lystra, cities which are assigned to Lycaonia. We 
know indeed that Galatia, as a Roman province, in 
cluded parts of Lycaonia and Pisidia ; but there are 
good reasons for believing that the word Galatia was 
used by the sacred writers in its popular sense, not in 
the wider and official one. Nor does the language of 
Gal. ii. 13 imply that the Galatians were personally 
acquainted with Barnabas, or lead to the conclusion 
that they had received a visit from Paul and Barnabas 
together at the time referred to in Acts xiv. 6. Koppe 
refers to the fact that the object of Paul s second mis 
sionary journey, as noticed in Acts xv. 36 ; xvi. 4, 5, 
was to confirm, the churches ; but it is sufficient to reply 
that those whose faith was strengthened on that journey 
did not include the Galatians, the subject being changed 
at xvi. 6, where the Galatians are introduced. 



TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS 
WRITTEN. 

The letter has been put at two extremes of date. 
According to some, it was the first of Paul s ; according 
to others, the last. It stood first in Marcion s canon, as 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 73 

we learn from Tertullian, 1 but it is uncertain whether 
his list was arranged on the chronological principle. 
Tertullian s opinion seems to have been that it was not. 
In modern times, the view that it is the earliest Pauline 
writing has been held by respectable critics, including 
Michaelis and Koppe ; though no good argument can 
be adduced in its favour. The other extreme is that of 
Koehler and Schrader, the former of whom brings it 
down to A.D. 69, two years after Nero s death ; while 
the latter dates it A.D. 64, in the [one] Roman im 
prisonment. Intermediate dates are numerous. 

It was written after St. Paul s second visit to the 
Galatians, because there are intimations of his having 
been twice with them : Of the which I tell you before, 
as I have also told you in time past, that they which 
do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God 
(v. 21). The context shows that the second visit, not 
the first, is implied. Am I, therefore, become your 
enemy, because I tell you the truth ? (iv. 16) ; or 
rather, i Am I, therefore, hated by you, because I told 
you the truth ? on his second visit in all probability. 
Ye know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I 
preached the gospel unto you at the first (iv. 13). This 
language agrees best with a second visit, for the ex 
pression translated at the first* denotes properly, on 
the former of two occasions. The expression, indeed, 
may mean nothing more than a time antecedent to that 
in which Paul wrote, as Fritz sche and Usteri under 
stand it : but the former sense is the more probable. 
The apostle need not, and perhaps would not, have used 
the word at all, had he visited the Galatians but once 
before writing. These notices are not striking or deci 
sive proofs that the writer had made a second visit to 
his readers ; but they contain probable evidence of it. 

The churches of Galatia were founded A.D. 52, and 

1 Adv. Martian* v. 2, vol. i. p. 016, ed. Semler. 
a TO rrpoTfpov. 



74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

were revisited by the apostle in 55. Hence the epistle 
was written in or after the year A.D. 55. How long 
after ? Immediately, according to those critics who 
rely on the expression so soon, in i. 6. I marvel 
that ye are so soon changing from him that called you/ 
&c.; that is, shortly after his second visit. This inter 
pretation, however, is precarious, because the context 
seems to limit the expression to the time of their con 
version, not to that of his last leaving them. The 
change was speedy and unexpected. After embracing 
the gospel they soon fell away, and adopted opinions at 
variance with it. The phrase contributes little to a 
settlement of the date. 

After travelling through Galatia and Phrygia, where 
he confirmed the believers, the apostle repaired to 
Ephesus, where he abode nearly three years, and wrote 
the epistle after hearing of the Galatian apostasy. So 
many think. At what period of the Ephesian sojourn, 
at its commencement, middle, or close, must be matter 
of conjecture. In other words, the epistle may have 
been written A.D. 57, if it be dated at Ephesus. In 
confirmation of this place a passage in the first epistle 
to the Corinthians has been adduced. i Now concerning 
the collection for the saints, as I have given order to 
the churches of Galatia, even so do ye (xvi. 1). As 
this injunction respecting a collection is not in the 
Galatian epistle, Cappellus conjectured that the latter 
was written immediately before that to the Corinthians ; 
that Paul gave the bearer a verbal message about the 
money ; and that the injunction being fresh in his mind 
when he began the epistle to the Corinthians, gave rise 
to the allusion. As, therefore, the writing of the Gala 
tian letter was almost simultaneous with that of the 
first to the Corinthians, the place was the same viz. 
Ephesus. The argument is perhaps more ingenious 
than valid, because the apostle may have given directions 
about the collection when he last visited the Galatians. 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 75 

Some will think it more pertinent to compare various 
passages in the two epistles, showing the same ideas to 
have been in the writer s mind when composing them. 
In both he alludes to his infirmity in the flesh (Gal. iv. 
13 ; 1 Cor. ii. 3). The same proverb is quoted in Gal. 
v. 9 ; 1 Cor. v. 6. Gal. v. 6 ; vi. 15 may also be com 
pared with 1 Cor. vii. 19. But if similarities in idea 
and diction contribute to settle the date of an epistle, 
they are more numerous in relation to the second epistle 
to the Corinthians. Compare Gal. iii. 13 with 2 Cor. v. 
21 ; vi. 7 with 2 Cor. ix. 6 ; i. 6 with 2 Cor. xi. 4 ; vi. 
15 with 2 Cor. v. 17 ; iv. 17 with 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; i. 10 
with 2 Cor. v. 11 ; i. 9, v. 21 with 2 Cor. xiii. 2 ; iii. 3 
with 2 Cor. viii. 6. And several words are peculiar to 
the two Pauline epistles. 1 Professor Jowett has also 
pointed out the similarity of tone and feeling in them ; 2 
to which may be added the cognate manner of dealing 
with antagonists. The affinities in question bring the 
epistle nearer the second to the Corinthians than the 
first. In pursuance of the same method, a comparison 
of the Galatian with the Roman epistle furnishes a closer 
parallel. Both set forth the relation of the law to the 
gospel, showing the inefficacy of the former to confer 
righteousness. Justification by faith without the deeds 
of the law is their common theme, in opposition to a 
Judaising tendency. The following table of parallels 
shows the striking coincidences of thought and diction 
between the two. 

GALATTANS. KOMAN8. 

ii. 16. For by the works of the iii. 20. By the deeds of the law 

law shall no flesh be justified. there shall no flesh be justified in 

his sight. 

ii. 10. For I through the law vii. 4. Wherefore, my brethren, 

am dead to the law, that I might ye are also become dead to the law 
live unto God. by the body of Christ. 

1 drropclaflai) KCIVU>V, Kvpovv, rovvavriov, (pofiflcrdai, prjucos, Kareaflitiv 
metaphorically. 

2 The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thcssctloniam, Galatians, Romans, $c. 
vol. i. p. 243, 2nd ed. 



76 



INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



GA.LA.TIAN8. 

iii. 6. Even as Abraham be 
lieved God, and it was accounted to 
him for righteousness. 

iii. 7. They which are of faith, 
the same are the children of Abra 
ham. 

iii. 8. And the Scripture, fore 
seeing that God would justify the 
heathen through faith, preached 
before the gospel unto Abraham, 
saying, In thee shall all nations be 
blessed. 

iii. 9. So then, they which be 
of faith are blessed with faithful 
Abraham. 



iii. 10. For as many as are of 
the works of the law are under the 
curse, &c. 

iii. 11. But that no man is 
justified by the law in the sight of 
God it is evident, for the just shall 
live by faith. 

iii. 12. And the law is not of 
faith, but the man that doeth them 
shall live in them. 

iii. 15-18. 

iii. 22. But the Scripture hath 
concluded all under sin, that the 
promise by faith of Jesus Christ 
might be given to them that be 
lieve. 

iii. 27. As many of you as have 
been baptized into Christ have put 
on Christ. 

iii. 20. And if ye be Christ s, 
then are ye Abraham s seed, and 
heirs according to the promise. 

iv. 5, 6. To redeem them that 
were under the law, that we might 
receive the adoption of sons. And 
because je are sons God hath sent 
forth the spirit of his Son into 
your hearts crying, Abba, Father. 
Wherefore thou art no more a ser 
vant but a son ; and if a son, then 
an heir of God through Christ. 



ROMANS. 

iv. 3. Abraham believed God, 
and it was counted unto him for 
righteousness. 

iv. 11. That he might be the 
father of all them that believe. 

iv. 17, 18. As it is written, I 
have made thee a father of many 

nations So shall thy 

seed be. 



iv. 23, 24. Now it was not 
written for his sake alone .... 
but for us also, to whom it shall be 
imputed, if we believe that Jesus, 
&c. 

iv. 15. Because the law worketh 
wrath. 

iii. 21 ; i. 17. But now the 
righteousness of God without the 
law is manifested, being witnessed 
by the law and the prophets, &c. 

x. 5. For Moses describeth the 
righteousness which is of the law, 
that the man who doeth those 
things shall live in them. 

iv. 13, 14, 16. 

xi. 32. God hath concluded 
them all in unbelief, that he might 
have mercy upon all. 



vi. 3. Know ye not that so 
many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ, &c. 

ix. 8. The children of the pro 
mise are counted for the seed. 

viii. 14-17. For as many as 
are led by the Spirit of God, they 
are the sons of God. For ye have 
not received the spirit of bondage 
again to fear, but ye have received 
the spirit of adoption, whereby we 
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our 
spirit, that we are the children of 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 



77 



6ALATIANB. 



iv. 28. Now we, brethren, as 
Isaac was, are the children of the 
promise. 

v. 14. All the law is fulfilled 
in one word, even in this, Thou 
shalt love thy neighbour as thy 
self. 



v. 16. Walk in the Spirit, and 
ye shall not fulfil the lust of the 
flesh. 

v. 17. For the flesh lusteth 
against the Spirit and the Spirit 
against the flesh, and these are con 
trary the one to the other, so that 
ye cannot do the things that ye 
would. 

vi. 2. Bear ye one another s 
burdens. 



ROMANS. 

God: and if children, then heirs; 
heirs of God and joint heirs with 
Christ, &c. 

ix. 7. In Isaac shall thy seed 
be called. 

xiii. 8-10. He that loveth an 
other hath fulfilled the law . . . 
and if there be any other com 
mandment, it is briefly compre 
hended in this saying, namely, 
Thou shalt love thy neighbour aa 
thyself . . . love is the fulfil 
ment of the law. 

viii. 1. Who walk not after the 
flesh, but after the Spirit. 

vii. 13-25. With the mind I 
myself serve the law of God; but 
with the flesh the law of sin. 

vii. 15. What I would, that I 
do not, but what I hate, that I do. 

xv. 1. We that are strong ought 
to bear the infirmities of the weak. 



In addition to these coincidences of thought and ex 
pression, a number of words are peculiar to both Pauline 
epistles. 1 

We attach considerable weight to a parallelism so 
striking. Taking into consideration the similarity be 
tween the epistles to the Corinthians, especially the 
second, and the Galatian letter, with the more striking 
similarity of the latter to the epistle to the Romans, it 
is natural to place the Galatian letter between the two 
to the Corinthians and that addressed to the Romans ; 
nearer the last than the former two, because of the 
greater affinity. The same leading ideas occupied the 
apostle s mind, and are expressed in similar diction. 
But the epistles themselves scarcely indicate the order 
in which those to the Romans and Galatians followed 

1 Bacrraeii>, SovXeta, cXevdepovv, tf, Kara avdpunov Af yeo, Katfiot, paKapto-- 
/-tof, p.tdai, ol ra rotaCra jrpcio o ovTfs, 6<p(i\tTT]f } TrapaftaTrjs, nap 6 ; ri e rt 5 rt 



f-yfi r 



78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

one another. It is true that Bishop Lightfoot attempts 
to trace the order, first and second Corinthians, Gala- 
tians, Romans, in the history of Paul s personal suffer 
ings, and in the progress of his controversy with the 
Judaising opponents, 1 but with precarious success ; for, 
according to Baur, the progress of the conflict with the 
Judaisers is supposed to have passed its first stage in 
the Corinthian epistles, where the opposition is of a 
different nature from that which is indicated in the 
Galatian epistle. The first ground of attack, circum 
cision, is abandoned ; and the adversaries at Corinth 
proceed more methodically and with greater reflective 
ness, directing their attack against the apostle s person. 
This view is more plausible than Lightfoot s, and gives 
the order Galatians, Corinthians, Romans. But both 
methods of reasoning are precarious, especially the at 
tempt to trace the sequence of the epistles by means of 
Paul s personal sufferings or feelings. The tactics of the 
Judaisers were different, in different places. Apart from 
all this, Paul s moods varied, not merely according to his 
personal sufferings of which we know little, or accor 
ding to the opposition of Judaisers, but as the result of 
those innate promptings of which he was a sensitive 
subject, the passionate outbursts of sentiment, which 
took a general or specific shape without rule. 

There is no good reason for dating the epistle prior 
to the first and second to the Corinthians. On the 
contrary, it should be nearer to the Roman letter, which 
was written at Corinth during Paul s three months 
abode there. The same ideas are sketched in strong 
outline which the epistle to the Romans presents in a 
more systematic and polished form. The argument is 
the same ; the treatment different. This does not neces 
sarily imply its priority, because the state of the churches, 
their relative importance, and the diversified operations 
of the Judaisers in them, might account for the dif- 

1 Saint Paul s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 50, et seq. 2nd ed. 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 79 

ference. Hence we are not required to believe that the 
theme expanded in the apostle s mind with deliberation, 
till it swelled out into the great theological argument 
of the epistle to the Romans. Though briefer than the 
letter addressed to the church of the metropolis and less 
refined, the character of the persons may have caused 
all the difference. Yet it is probable that it preceded 
that to the Romans. An outline or sketch usually 
precedes a developed system. The rough draft of the 
great doctrine of justification by faith, presented in the 
Galatian epistle, is followed by the detailed description 
of it in the letter to the Romans. 

We date the Galatian letter at Corinth prior to the 
Roman one, i.e. A.D. 58, according to the opinion of 
Grotius, Pearson, and others. The only objection to so 
late a date is the expression I marvel that ye are so 
soon changing/ &c., i.e. so soon after your conversion, 
whereas they had embraced Christianity six years before. 
But the phrase is comparative, depending on the mea 
sure of the person who uses it. It may refer to time 
measured by the importance of a thing ; so that long 
and short vary according to the subjects about which 
they are employed. The Galatian apostasy was speedy, 
considering the labour bestowed on them by the apostle 
and their enthusiastic reception of his message. 

The subscription, from Rome, expresses a very an 
cient opinion, that of Theodoret and Jerome, of B**, 
K.P.L., and the two Syriac versions, tf, A., B*., C. have 
no place. The bearer of the letter is not known. 
Macknight fixes upon Titus, because as a Greek he was 
much interested in the doctrine established ; and also 
because, being present at the Jerusalem council, he could 
attest what took place there. Perhaps Titus would 
have been mentioned had he been the bearer ; for lie 
was of more note than Tychicus, the bearer of the 
Colossian epistle. 



80 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



THE APOSTLE S ADVERSARIES IN THE GALATIAN 
CHURCHES. 

It is probable that a few emissaries had been sent 
into Galatia who began the strong Judaising tendency, 
and soon gamed over converts that became influential 
Judaisers. One person, who was leader of the anti- 
pauline party, seems pointed at in v. 10, He that 
troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he 
be. 

It is difficult to tell who were the most active Ju 
daisers among the Galatians themselves. They may 
have been recent converts among the Gentile Christians 
to the sentiments of the party which had its principal 
seat in Palestine. If this be so, they had been per 
suaded to associate Judaism with their simple Christi 
anity, thinking both necessary to salvation. So Neander 
supposes, appealing to the passage in vi. 12, 13, As 
many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they 
constrain you to be circumcised, only lest they should 
suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither 
they themselves who are circumcised keep the law, but 
desire to have you circumcised that they may glory 
in your flesh. The word translated l they who are 
circumcised, 1 may either be the present participle or 
the perfect passive. Lachmann prefers the latter. The 
former or received reading deserves the preference. 
Neander, who adopts it, appears to think it decisive 
against the assumption that the agitators were circum 
cised Jews and for the interpretation that they were 
Gentiles who suffered themselves to be circumcised. The 
expression seems to us equally applicable to converted 
Jews or proselytes. 

Olshausen, again, supposes that the most influential 
seducers of the Galatian churches were Jews by birth, 

1 ol 7rcpLTfp.v6p.voi or ot rrfpiTeTp.rjfj.fvoi (vi. 13). 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 81 

who, after embracing Christianity, were easily induced 
to retain the essential part of their former faith. 

A third opinion is, that they were proselytes from 
among the heathen to Judaism before Christianity had 
been planted in the country, and having embraced the 
gospel, united their former with their new faith. 

We believe that they consisted not only of original 
members of the churches but of emissaries ; the latter 
being the chief promoters of the sudden change. 

In prosecuting their design to bring the Galatians 
under the yoke of the law, the false teachers indus 
triously circulated various calumnies against Paul. 
They attacked his apostleship, affirming that he had 
not been called immediately by Christ like the primitive 
apostles ; but that he received his commission from 
men. Neither had he been taught Christianity by the 
true apostles and therefore his knowledge was inferior 
to theirs. They asserted that, as Peter and his col 
leagues required the circumcision of Gentile converts, 
there was an inconsistency between them and Paul. 

These Judaisers did not labour in vain. The fickle 
Galatians soon changed. Many submitted to circum 
cision and were ready to keep the Jewish feasts. Thus 
the aspect of their Christianity altered, and their reli 
gion became an external thing, to the destruction of 
faith and inward purity. The apostle refutes all such 
errors, justifying himself with triumphant success, and 
openly asserting the independence of his gospel. The 
refuge of lies to which his enemies had recourse is swept 
away with a torrent of argument which places his 
doctrine and conduct in the broad lio;ht of ingenuous 
truth. 

The occasion of his writing is evident from these 
remarks. The apostasy of the converts, who had turned 
to the weak and beggarly elements of the law, was 
sufficient to call forth his reproofs. The fruit of his 
labours among them was being frustrated by injurious 

VOL, I. o 



82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

influences that needed to be withstood. They had to 
be brought back, if possible, to the simple truth they 
had forsaken to be taught again the first elements of 
Christianity, justification by faith without works. 



STATE OF THE CHURCHES WHEN VISITED EY PAUL A 
SECOND TIME. 

The state of the Galatian churches at the time of 
Paul s second visit, compared with that in which he 
had left them, can scarcely be ascertained. He may 
have found everything encouraging, because they had 
remained steadfast in the faith ; especially as the book of 
Acts says he confirmed the brethren, imprinting on their 
minds afresh the lessons he had taught before. But 
this cannot be a correct representation of their state. 
After his first visit, it is likely that the Judaisers were 
not idle. Attempts had been made, during his absence, 
to inculcate upon the converts the observan e of the 
Mosaic law. The germ, at least, of the errors into 
which they afterwards fell, had appeared. The apostle 
had seen the leaven which had been fermenting in his 
absence ; so that the state of the churches was neither 
sound nor satisfactory when he went a second time. 
Under the circumstances, he must have endeavoured to 
prevent the development of the principles which had 
taken root. Rebuking the perverse maxims of the 
false teachers, he exposed their corruption of the gospel, 
and put a stop for the time to the incipient apostasy of 
the converts. His presence allayed their doubts. But 
his reproofs, and earnest endeavours to eradicate the 
errors in question, had only a temporary effect. He 
had repressed without removing the evil ; and it broke 
forth again in a more aggravated form. 

This view is most consonant with such passages as 
i. 9 ; iv. 12, 18 ; v. 3-21, though they may also con 
sist with the assumption, that no defection had taken 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 83 

place at the time of his second visit. Yet it is difficult 
to believe, that the errorists did not make their appear 
ance among the converts for about two or three years. 
It is not likely that they would be inactive there so 
long ; or that their operations should not begin till 
after the apostle s second visit. In the absence of defi 
nite evidence to the contrary, it is natural to suppose 
that the Galatians had fallen away in the course of the 
first three years after their conversion. Bleek l assumes, 
that the apostle had just heard of the appearance of the 
Judaisers among the Galatians when he wrote, appealing 
to i. 6 ; iii. 1 ; v. 10 ; iv. 19, &c. If so, the parties 
had exercised no influence before Paul s second visit. 
But the passages are not decisive in favour of this 
opinion. 



COMPOSITION OF THE GALATIAN CHURCHES. 

The mass of those to whom the epistle is addressed, 
were Gentile converts, as is plain from iv. 8 : When 
ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by 
nature are no gods. Yet it is immediately added, that 
they turned again to the weak and beggarly elements 
of the law. Paul also employs arguments from the Old 
Testament and rabbinical modes of interpretation, in 
volving an acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures on 
the part of his readers. Were the churches then divided 
between Jews and Gentiles, so that the writer turns 
from the one to the other as his argument leads ? This 
can hardly be asserted in the face of iv. 8, 9, where the 
same persons in both verses are apparently Gentiles and 
Jews. No distinction is made between the case of the 
two classes respecting the obligation of circumcision, for 
it is said to all, i if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit 
you nothing. It must therefore be assumed that the 
Galatians were Gentiles, who had been proselytes to 

in das iic.xc Tt-stftmctif, p. 419. 



84 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Judaism before their conversion by Paul. According 
to this supposition, which is that of Mynster, Credner, 
and Jowett, there is no difficulty in explaining the 
inconsistency in different passages of the epistle, which 
speak as if the Galatians were both Gentiles and Jews ; 
or in accounting for their relapse into Judaism. Jewish 
teachers, who were there before and after Paul, could 
easily persuade the converts of the necessity of circum 
cision. The churches in Galatia consisted mainly of 
those who had passed through a phase of Judaism. 
Jews by descent were fewer, while the smallest number 
consisted of those who turned directly from Paganism 
to Christianity. The habits, prejudices, and education 
of the converts, made it a difficult task to win them to 
a pure faith. The outward and sensuous had great 
attraction for them. Their nature was of the fickle, 
passionate, enthusiastic type which passes from one 
form of religion to another, without laying deep hold of 
truth. Its magical tendencies were more allied to bodily 
excision than to faith ; and a religion of the letter was 
adapted to their semi-barbarous state. 

These observations preclude the necessity of ex 
amining the discordant views of those who hold that 
the Jewish element was in the Galatian churches at first, 
so that the minority at least were Jewish Christians 
while the majority were Gentiles ; and of those who 
think that the churches were originally Gentile, the 
Jewish element having come into them from without. 
The former accords best with the opinion that the 
Judaising direction had preceded the apostle s second 
visit. Others, however, suppose that the false teachers 
did not appear among the churches till after his second 
visit. 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 



AUTHENTICITY. 

The authenticity of the epistle has been admitted by 
all except Bruno Bauer, who imagines that it was com 
piled from those to the Romans and Corinthians. The 
contents and style bear the apostle s stamp. 

Lardner and others have found allusions to it in the 
apostolic fathers. Clement of Rome writes : i Christ 
our Lord gave his blood for us by the will of God, and 
his flesh for our flesh, and his spirit for our spirits 
(Gal. i. 4). 1 This reference is doubtful. Ignatius 
says : l Which bishop, I know, obtained the ministry 
for the public, not of himself, nor by men, nor out of 
vain glory, but by the love of God the Father and the 
Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. i. I). 2 The allusion here is 
uncertain. Polycarp writes : Knowing, then, that 
" God is not mocked," we ought to walk worthy both of 
his command, &c. 3 The epistle to Diognetus speaks of 
the observance of months and days (Gal. iv. 10 ). 4 

The Address to Greeks incorrectly attributed to 
Justin Martyr, uses these words : Be as I am, for I 
was as ye are 5 (Gal. iv. 12). Justin himself has no 
quotation from it. But he may have alluded to it where 
he quotes Deut. xxvii. 26, which he introduces, as Paul 
does, differently from the Greek and Hebrew. 6 

The first express testimony to the authenticity of 
the epistle, is given by fathers at the close of the second 
century and the first half of the third, by Irenams, 



1 To ui/Jia CWTOV eftaiKfV vnep j^Lteoi/ l^frouy Xpurrbs ft Kvpm<? rjfjiwv, ev 

Qfov, KOI TTJV ffdpKa vjrep TTJS vapKOS fjfj,a>v, Kai rrjv ^V^TJV vntp TCOV 
/jiwv. Ad Cor. cap. 49. 

2 *Ov fTriorKOTrov cyviov, ovK dtp* eavTov, ovdf 81 dv6pco7TO)i> KfKTtj(rdai rrjv 

) TTJV els TO KOLVOV avr]Kov(Tav . . . aXX ev dydrrr) Qfov Trarpos Kai 
Kvpiov irjcrov Xptcrrou. Ad Philad. C. 1. 

3 EtSoTej iwv OTL Qebs ov /ii;KT77pi erat, o0etXo/u.e^ o^t coy rr/s fvroXrjs K.r.A. 
Ad Philipp. c. 5. 

4 Bunsen s Anrrleat.a Antenictena, vol. i. pp. 110, 111. 

yiffade o)$- f yco, on K.ayu> rj^irjv cos v^nels. Ornt. ad Grcecos, C. 5. 
6 Dial, cum Tryph. ii. p. 345, ed. Tliirlby. 



86 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. The first 
writes : The apostle says in the epistle to the Galatians : 
" Of what use, then, is the law of works ? It was 
added until the seed should come to whom the promise 
was made," &c. (Gal. iii. 19). l Clement of Alexandria 
says : i Wherefore Paul also, writing to the Galatians, 
says : " My children, of whom I travail again until," 
&c. (Gal. iv. 19). 2 Tertullian s testimony is to this 
effect : But no more need "be said on this head, if it be 
the same Paul, who writing 1 to the Galatians, reckons 

O 

heresies among the works of the flesh, &c. 3 The 
epistle is in the Peshito, the old Latin version, and the 
Muratorian canon. 

The early heretics were also acquainted with the 
epistle, ascribing it to its true author. It was in Mar- 
cion s canon, though he is said to have omitted an im 
portant passage (iii. 6-9), and interpolated two words 
in another (ii. 5). Both charges are false, though Ter 
tullian makes them. 

Celsus says, that all the Christian sects, much as 
they may have hated one another, had perpetually in 
their mouths the words of Gal. vi. 14, The world is 
crucified unto me, and I unto the world. The Yalen- 
tinians wished to prove, by the same passage, that Paul 
attributed to the cross the virtue which they did. 4 

ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. 

The epistle may be divided into three parts : i. 1-ii. 
21 ; iii. iv. ; v. vi. The first is personal and apologetic ; 

1 l Sed et in ea quse est ad Galatas sic ait (apostolus) : " Quid ergo lex 
factorum? Posita est usque quo yeniat semen cui promissum est," &c. 
Adv. Hceres. iii. 72, p. 365, ed. Migne. 

2 Ato KOL IlavXos TaXdrais onaTeAXcflj (frijari TfKvia /zou, ovs TraXiv coSiVto, 
aXP is v K.T.\. Stromata, iii. p. 468, ed. Colon. 1688. 

3 Nee diutius de isto, si idem est Paulus, qui et alibi haereses inter 
carnalia crimina numerat, scrfbens ad Galatas, &c. De Prescript. Hceret. 
c. 6. 

4 Origen contra Celsum, v. 64. 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 87 

the second doctrinal, and the third practical. Each 
may be subdivided. 

1 . In maintaining the independent principle on which 
his apostolic calling rested, Paul states various particu 
lars in his life. He begins with asserting that he was 
not made an apostle by man, but by Jesus Christ and 
God the Father. He then salutes the churches in 
Galatia, reproves the fickleness of the converts, express 
ing astonishment at the sudden change in their belief, 
pronounces a strong anathema on any who should 
preach another gospel, and declares, in opposition to the 
Judaisers, that his object was not to please men. The 
gospel he preached was not of human origin nor con 
formed to human wisdom; it was received by immediate 
revelation. The independence of his apostleship on the 
elder apostles he shows negatively, by stating that he 
was already an apostle before he came into contact 
with them. When God revealed his son in him, he did 
not consult with any man, nor go up to Jerusalem to 
learn of the twelve, but went into Arabia and did not 
visit Jerusalem till after three years ; on ivhich occasion 
he saw none of the apostles except Peter and James, and 
remained only fifteen days ; too short a time to allow 
of his being instructed in Christian doctrine had he 
been previously ignorant of it. Still further, to prove 
that he had not been taught Christianity by the chief 
apostles, he asserts that he was a stranger to the Chris 
tians in Judea. The independence of his apostolic 
authority is also shown positively by his conceding no 
thing to the elder apostles when he came into contact with 
them, by the assertion of his rights and their recogni 
tion of them. On the occasion of his third journey to 
Jerusalem, he went with Barnabas and Titus, in conse 
quence of an express revelation. Having explained his 
gospel to Peter, James, and John privately, they ap 
proved. He did not yield to the demand to circumcise 
Titus ; and the twelve left him to follow his own course 



88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

without hindrance. The only thing proposed was, that 
collections should continue to be made in the churches 
for the use of the poor Christians in Judea (i.-ii. 10). 
In continuation of his argument respecting doctrinal 
independence, it is stated that he reprimanded Peter at 
Antioch, who through fear of the Judaisers acted so as 
to betray the liberty of Gentile converts. The sub 
stance of his language to Peter was that even such as 
were born Jews believed in Jesus Christ for justification, 
since with all their attachment to the law, they knew 
that no man could be justified by works. The believer 
by means of the law becomes dead to it, that he may be 
gin to live to God. He is crucified with Christ, and his 
life is a life of faith in the Son of God. The doctrine 
of justification by faith, so far from annulling the 
grace of God, establishes its necessity ; but if justifica 
tion be by the law, Christ died in vain (ii. 11-21). 

2. The position thus laid down, viz. that it is faith in 
Christ which justifies, not works of the law, is shown to 
be a fact of Christian consciousness, and also a truth 
inherent in the Old Testament, inasmuch as the sub 
stance of the old dispensation is the promise made to 
Abraham ; the law being essentially nothing but an 
appendix to that promise. The apostle appeals with 
confidence to the Galatians themselves, asking whether 
they had received the spirit by the law or the gospel. 
Beginning in the spirit, were they making an end in the 
flesh? Abraham himself was justified by faith not by 
the law; and righteousness belongs to all who by faith 
are his spiritual children. The law pronounces con 
demnation on all because it requires absolute obedience, 
which none can render. Christ in dying delivered men 
from the curse of the law, that the blessing promised to 
Abraham might come upon the Gentiles the blessing 
of the promised spirit (iii. 1-14). The writer pro 
ceeds to explain the essence of the law, in which he 
allows its subordination to the promise, and the relative 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 89 

significance which it Las in its intermediate position be 
tween the promise and faith. If a human covenant can 
not be broken, much less can God s promise made to 
Abraham and his seed. The law intervening between 
the promise and its fulfilment, could not prevent the 
latter. If it be asked, Of what use then is the law ? 
the answer is, it was added to convince of sin till the 
promised seed should come ; but it was firmly esta 
blished by angels not by God himself, and had a media 
tor. Now a mediator implies two persons, but there is 
no mediation in God : one is better than two : the dis 
pensation of mediation or the law is inferior to the pro 
mise of faith or the gospel. 1 This does not imply that 
the law is opposed to the gospel ; it was rather intended 
to prepare the way for it. It was a tutor leading men 
to Christ that they might be justified by faith. Under 
the gospel all are the sons of God by faith. There is 
no distinction between Jew and Greek. All are bound 
together in spiritual unity (iii. 15-29). Prior to the 
gospel both Jews and Gentiles were in bondage ; but 
now God has sent his Son to deliver such as were under 
the dominion of an outward religion that they might 
be adopted as sons. As a proof of this He has given 
them the spirit of his Son ; so that they are no longer 
in a state of bondage but heirs of God. He reminds 
the Galatians of their former idolatrous state, and of their 
present one, in which it would be preposterous for them 
to turn back to the weak and beggarly elements of 
Judaism. A sort of parenthetic or abrupt passage is 
thrown in here, expressing the painful feelings of the 
writer, his dejection and anger (iv. 1320). 

Speaking of himself, he exhorts them to be of the 
same mind with him. He is not referring to personal 
wrongs ; they had shown great attachment to him. 
Weak and sickly as he was, they received him as an 

1 See the ingenious explanation of iii. 19-25 by Liidemarm, in his An- 
thropoiogie ties apvstds Paiilus, pp. 179, 180. 



90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

angel of God. Was it possible that they could have 
become enemies, because he told them the truth ? The 
Judaisers desired to make proselytes of them, but their 
motives were bad, since they wished to shut them out 
from Christ. He remarks that zealous affection is a 
good principle in a good cause ; a principle which 
should be continued in his absence as well as presence ; 
expresses his great solicitude about them till they should 
be spiritually restored, and then changes his style. After 
the fragmentary passage noticed, he reverts to the Old 
Testament to show them that they did not rightly 
understand the law, and allegorises the two covenants. 
Sarah, Abraham s wife, with her son Isaac, represents 
the New Testament church, which is free ; Hagar, the 
bondwoman, with her son Ishmael, represents the Old 
Testament church. The latter must give place to the 
former. The law and the gospel are paralleled with the 
two children of Abraham (iii. iv.). 

3. The practical part of the epistle begins with the 
fifth chapter. 

The Galatians should remember their freedom under 
the new economy, and not allow themselves to be en 
tangled again with the yoke of bondage. He warns 
them against circumcision, declaring that if they sub 
mitted to it Christ would be of no avail to them, because 
the circumcised virtually engage to keep the whole law. 
Under the gospel circumcision and uncircumcision are 
alike valueless ; nothing but faith working by love 
avails. The Galatians had made a good beginning ; but 
they were not now what they once were. They had 
been drawn away by the leaven of false teachers. Still 
lie expresses a hope that they would not abandon them 
selves to errorists. As for himself, if he preached cir 
cumcision as he had been accused of doing, there could 
be no reason for the Jews persecuting him. In that 
case, they had no more to say against him. But the 
fact that he was still an object of persecution suffi- 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 01 

ciently attests that lie preached Christ s cross. In irony 
he adds, Would that they who trouble you would make 
themselves eunuchs, incapable of the privilege of cir 
cumcision! 

While adhering to the liberty of the gospel, Paul 
exhorts them not to abuse it. They were bound to 
love one another, and so to fulfil the law. By leading 
a life of conformity to the will of God, they would take 
the most eifectual method to suppress the sensual nature 
within them, and be released from the law as a system 
of outward observances. He then enumerates the works 
of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit, reminding them 
that Christ s true disciples have crucified their sinful 
nature and walk in the freedom of the divine life. 
Among various exhortations he recommends generosity 
to their instructors. Their duty was to do good to all 
men, especially to fellow- Christians. 

After saying that he was writing the epistle in large 
letters with his own hand, his anxiety for the Galatians 
breaks forth again, and he repeats in brief the substance 
of the whole. He tells them that the Judaisers, wish 
ing to have some outward thing to glory in, insisted on 
having them circumcised, only that they might not be 
persecuted because of the cross of Christ. They were 
inconsistent in observing some usages of the law and 
abandoning others ; wishing to glory in Jewish ordin 
ances, while Paul gloried in the cross of Christ. Pro 
nouncing peace on such as walked by the rule of the 
new creature, he desires in conclusion, that the Gala 
tians should give him no further trouble, since he 
carried about in his person the marks of sufferings 
endured for Christ. The letter closes with the usual 
benediction (v. vi.). 

Contrary to usage, the apostle wrote the epistle with 
his own hand, in characters large and ill- shaped. The 
reason of his writing it himself was not to prevent 
forgery, as OMiausen thinks, but to prove the extent 



92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

of his affection, because the false teachers had endea 
voured to alienate the Galatians from his person. 



RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ACTS. 

The Pauline authorship of the epistle has an impor 
tant bearing on the Acts of the Apostles. It presents 
Paul in a different light from the historian s so differ 
ent as to cast grave suspicions on the accuracy of the 
portrait in the Acts. The Paul of the epistle is not the 
Paul of Luke. The apostle of the Acts is an observer 
of the law, like Peter, James, and John. He looks 
upon circumcision leniently, allowing it under the 
gospel ; in the epistle, he opposes it as contrary to the 
genius of the gospel. It is possible to exaggerate the 
differences between the history and the epistle, in their 
portraiture of Paul ; but after all reasonable deduction, 
enough remains to show that he is not the same man in 
both. There is a general discrepancy, with minor points 
of agreement a variation of opinion and feeling that 
does injury to the apostle s character. His conceptions 
of Christianity were clear and decided, when he wrote 
the group of epistles, comprising those to the Corinthians, 
Komans, and Galatians ; they were hardly the same 
when he appears in the Acts. 

The relation between Paul and the original apostles 
is also presented differently in the two works. In the 
epistle, the doctrinal antagonism between the apostle of 
the Gentiles and the twelve, is too palpable to be denied. 
They are men in the first phase of Christianity Judaic 
Christians with narrow conceptions ; in the Acts they 
are more liberal, allowing Gentile Christians exemption 
from the law of Moses. In the epistle the relations be 
tween them and Paul are not harmonious. An uncompro 
mising advocate of a free Christianity and the abroga 
tion of the law, had little sympathy with their views. 
In the Acts there is a better understanding between the 
parties ; and their points of antagonism are softened. 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 93 

To reconcile these differences apologists have made 
a few unimportant concessions. But it is necessary to 
keep in view that Petrine Christianity was the first sta^e 
through which the new religion passed after its develop 
ment out of Judaism ; and Pauline Christianity was 
more comprehensive and freer. The essential point be 
tween them was the observance or non-observance of 
the law a principle of antagonism which had to be 
broken down. The manner in which Paul speaks of 
Peter, James, and John, in the Galatian epistle, is not 
cordial but depreciatory : Those who seemed to be 
somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter 
to me, &c.). This language is depreciatory of the 
twelve themselves, not of the extravagant claims set up 
for them by the Judaisers. Does not the apostle speak 
of a different gospel of the circumcision and uncircum- 
cision (ii. 2, 7) ; and of an opposition between himself 
and the twelve (conlrariwise, verse 7), which implied at 
least, that they left him to fight his own battle without 
help ? Great as was their authority, they did not assist 
him, but continued to preach the gospel of the circum 
cision. 

The statements which the apostle makes about him 
self immediately after his conversion, do not aoree with 
those of the Acts. So far from supplementing they 
mutually exclude one another. Expositors have tried 
to weave them into a consistent narrative, without 
success. The epistle gives the reader to understand 
that the apostle s immediate mission was to the Gentiles: 
4 to reveal his Son in me that I might preach him amono- 
the heathen (i. 16) ; but in the Acts, he preached at 
once to the Jews in the Damascene synagogues, and 
after that to those at Jerusalem (ix. 19-29). 

The Acts say that after many days spent in 
Damascus, during which he preached in the synagogues, 
he was compelled to flee to Jerusalem, where he was 
looked upon with suspicion by the believers till JJarna- 



94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

bas vouched for his sincerity and introduced him to the 
apostles ; so that he was supported in his preaching 
there, till the Jews compelled his departure and removal 
to Tarsus (ix. 19, &c.). The epistle says, that imme 
diately after his conversion he went to Arabia, returned 
thence to Damascus, and only visited Jerusalem after 
three years. There is no mention of the Arabian visit 
in the Acts ; nor is there any room for its insertion. 
As to the stay in Jerusalem, the Acts represent it as 
of some length, and imply that he preached the gospel 
there. He was with them (the apostles) coming in 
and going out, and he spake boldly in the name of the 
Lord Jesus (ix. 28, 29). The object of his visit as 
given in the epistle was different, and his stay shorter. 
It was to see Peter, with whom he abode but fifteen 
days ; neither did he see any other apostle there except 
James. He did not go therefore to preach the gospel, 
but simply to confer with Peter. It was about this 
time that the Acts speak of him as having shewed 
unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and through 
out all the coasts of JudeaJ that they should turn and 
repent (xxvi. 20) ; language which is contrary to his 
own statement that he was unknown by face long after 
to the churches of Judea in Christ (Gal. i. 22). The 
epistle demonstrates with sufficient clearness, that Paul 
did not preach to the Damascene Jews immediately on 
his conversion ; that he did not go to Jerusalem after 
he had to leave Damascus ; that he was not introduced 
there to the apostles by Barnabas ; that the Jews in 
the metropolis did not seek to kill him ; and that he 
did not go from Palestine to Tarsus ; but the opposite 
to all this is given in the Acts. The writer of the Acts 
may not have known the epistle, as some critics sup 
pose ; yet that circumstance does not account for the 
discrepancies in question. His leading motive induced 
him to describe Paul, not as the uncompromising preacher 
of the gospel to the Gentiles from the first, but as one 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 95 

wlio laboured to accommodate liis teaching to the Jews, 
till he was reluctantly forced to turn to the Gentiles. 
The subject will occupy us again, when we come to 
examine the Acts of the Apostles. 1 



INTERPRETATION. 

The points of resemblance and difference between 
the epistles to the Galatians and Romans are admir 
ably drawn out by Jowett. Both set forth the doc 
trine of justification by faith ; the universality of the 
gospel which makes no distinction between Jew or 
Greek, bond or free ; the nature of sin as transgression 
of the law and the spiritual union of the believer with 
Christ. They mention the observance of days and 
months, which is treated in the one as indifferent, in 
the other as hurtful ; contain exhortations against 
antinomianism ; the sonship of the gospel contrasted 
with the bondage of the Jewish economy ; and a sum 
mary of works of the flesh. The differences are these : 
the epistle to the Galatians is more personal ; that to 
the Romans resembles a treatise rather than a letter. 
The one treats circumcision as a question of practice ; 
the other of the law as a burden on the heart and con 
science. The argument of the one is fragmentary ; that 
of the other comprehensive and continuous, extending 
over all mankind and all time. The epistle to the Gala 
tians is an argument or expostulation with Judaismg 
opponents ; that to the Romans is an argument or dia 
logue with self, in which the opponent is only a shadow 
or idea, the old man of the apostle s own thoughts, 
not the Jewish Christian with whom he is in actual con 
flict. 

It is scarcely necessary to remark, that the term law 
as used in the epistles has a comprehensive sense, em 
bracing the moral and the ceremonial. Both indeed are 

1 See Part I. of the English Life of Jesus, p. xv. etc. 



96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

united, being but different forms of law, a finer and a 
grosser. The one or the other is prominent according to 
the context, and they were evidently undistinguished in 
the apostle s thoughts. He excludes every form of law 
from an inherent efficacy to impart salvation, whether 
in the shape of ceremonial observances or deeds of 
sanctity or refined morality. Salvation is by faith in 
Christ not by works of law. Faith justifies because it 
rests upon one who satisfied divine justice and fulfilled 
the claims of law, so that God looking upon the believer 
as one with Christ, imputes the righteousness of the 
head to the members of the spiritual body. Justifica 
tion is God s act, a forensic thing external to the be 
liever, followed by a subjective change in the latter. 
This is the way in which Paul thought out the subject. 
But a more rational one maybe given. In justification 
man becomes just and holy, that is, is raised up to a 
new life, because he believes that God is his loving 
Father in Christ Jesus, and acts accordingly. Works 
cannot be separated from faith. Indeed faith itself is 
in one sense a work an exercise of the soul belonging 
to man himself, the rational act of a rational creature, 
as Baxter correctly thought. Salvation is of grace ; 
yet man works out his salvation. In other words, God 
loves his creatures, and has made provision for their re 
demption ; man believes this, and shows his love to 
God by acting agreeably to His will. There are degrees 
of faith and love, that is, men are in a saved or justified 
state, variously. To draw a line between the saved and 
not saved is impossible. The classes of good and bad 
run into one another ; so that God alone, whose judg 
ments are pervaded by perfect love and justice, can dis 
tinguish them. 

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye 
not hear the law ? For it is written, that Abraham 
had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a 
free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 97 

born after the flesh ; but he of the freewoman was by 
promise. Which things are an allegory : for these are 
the two covenants ; the one from the mount Sinai, 
which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this 
Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jeru 
salem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the 
mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou 
barren, that bearest not ; break forth and cry, thou that 
travailest not : for the desolate hath many more children 
than she which hath an husband (iv. 21-27). 

This passage has an important bearing on the her- 
meneutics of the apostle Paul. That he sometimes 
adopted the rabbinical mode of interpretation cannot be 
questioned. He allegorises the Old Testament history, 
as the Jews of his time were wont to do. What is 
meant by allegorising it ? The following remarks will 
suffice for answer. 

1. Bishop Marsh argues 1 that Paul does not pro 
nounce the history itself an allegory, but merely de 
clares it allegorized. It is one thing to say that a history 
is allegorised ; it is another to say that it is allegory 
itself. Had the apostle meant that the history was an 
allegory, he need not have allegorised it. Paul treats 
the portion of history as an allegory, but does not 
thereby convert it into an allegory. He institutes the 
same comparison which we institute in an allegory ; 
but the subjects of the comparison do not acquire the 
same character with the subjects of an allegory. This 
reasoning is followed by Palfrey, who bluntly says that 
the rendering, which things are an allegory, repre 
sents Paul as saying precisely what he did not mean to 
say. 2 The argument is ingenious but nugatory, the 
common rendering being as good as the proposed one. 

1 Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, p. .354, et sea 
ed. 1828. 

~ The Relation between ,Tnd(iinm and Christ.innity , p. l?87. 
VOL, I. [f 



98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

There is no real difference between the two versions ; 
nor did the apostle make linguistic distinctions, as sug 
gested. He had not infidels in view ; and was not 
therefore obliged to tax his ingenuity. 

2. Scripture history may be interpreted allegorically 
in two ways. It may be used typically, in which case 
the historical sense is preserved ; or it may be employed 
in the genuine allegorical sense, excluding every other. 
Tholuck l argues that the apostle has applied here a 
typical sense, preserving the historical one. It is of 
little importance whether allegorised means applied as 
types, or not ; the real question is, Was the typical or 
allegorical sense intended by the writers of the Old 
Testament themselves ? A typical sense may be as 
fanciful as an allegorical one. It is an axiom of inter 
pretation, that no passage has more than one sense. If 
so, the typical sense is an imaginary one a mere appli 
cation of history to something which the original writer 
did not think of. We hold that the apostle has given 
a mystical meaning to the narrative of Abraham and 
his two sons, agreeably to the Jewish mode of allegoris 
ing. As a specimen of interpretation, this is fanciful 
and incorrect ; but it suited his purpose and readers. 
Tshmael had nothing to do with the law ; and it is 
arbitrary to bring him as well as Isaac into connection 
with it. To the apostle s mind objective and subjective 
were one. He treated the history as pure allegory with 
out an objective basis. Such exegesis was not peculiar 
to him. It was that of his time and contemporaries. 
The typical sense in which he understood the narrative 
did not conserve another ; it was the only one, accord 
ing to the apostle ; who looked upon the symbolical 
representation as the conveyancer of abstract truth, not 
of historical facts. 

In making these remarks, we do not deny that deeper 
meanings may lie hid under the Old Testament history, 

1 Das alte Testament im neuen Testament, p. 37, et seq. 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 99 

still less that Paul may be right, though the Jews were 
wrong, in allegorising. All that is asserted is, that the 
present passage is an example of arbitrary type. Into 
the wide question whether the Old Testament dispensa 
tion was a system of typical events and ordinances, we 
do not enter. Whatever answer be given to it, one 
thing cannot be denied, that fanciful interpretations of 
the Old Testament are met with in the New ; that senses 
never meant by the original writers are given ; and that 
the true meaning is occasionally misapprehended, or 
excluded by another. In such instances, it is not neces 
sary to affirm that the writers give wrong senses ; their 
interpretations have all the authority which the usage 
of the time gave them. 

Apologists try to blunt the edge of these facts in 
their bearing on the nature of the writer s inspiration 
by saying, that allegorical interpretations are used as 
illustrations rather than arguments ; forgetting that 
with Paul, there is no difference between the two. It 
is idle to descant on the alleged dogmatism which is 
said to set up the intellectual standard of our age as an 
infallible rule ; for we measure the logic of the apostle 
by acknowledged axioms of interpretation. Philosophy 
and exegesis are capable of judging allegory rightly, 
without claiming infallibility ; and it is only the men 
who maintain a plenary inspiration for the sacred 
authors an infallibility which the authors themselves 
never claim that conceal their imperfect reasonings. 

Our observations will be confirmed by another pas 
sage in the epistle (hi. 16), which runs thus : 

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but 
as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 

After saying that the promise was made to Abraham 
and his seed, an explanatory gloss is subjoined to 
strengthen the argument. Paul states that the words 
of the Old Testament were, to thy seed/ limiting the 

H -2 



100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

noun to one person, i.e. Christ, by using the singular 
not the plural number. The reasoning turns on the 
number of the noun, from which it has been concluded 
that the apostle believed in the verbal inspiration of the 
Old Testament. The plural of the Hebrew word, here 
rendered by a corresponding Greek one, could not have 
been used, because it only means crops of grain. 7 Hence 
it is superfluous to say that he did not employ the plural. 
Besides, the Hebrew word seed, and its Greek repre 
sentative, 1 are collective in the singular, denoting race 
or posterity ; whereas seed is limited by the apostle to 
one person, i.e. Christ. Here we have a rabbinical ex 
position. The Jews sometimes pressed the singular or 
plural in this fashion ; and explained the seed in Gen. 
iv. 25, of Messiah. The error, though a grammatical 
one, affects the theological interpretation. The seed of 
Abraham meant nothing else than the Jewish people ; 
and to give it another sense is contrary to exegesis. 
There is no secondary or typical sense apart from the 
historical one. If such be assumed, it is independent 
of the latter and rests on an imaginary basis. If it be 
evolved out of the latter, it is only by a spiritualising 
process that supersedes that which gives it birth. Al 
legorical interpretation sets aside the legitimate sense. 
In the present instance, the seed of Abraham assumes a 
meaning which springs out of the rabbinical education 
of the apostle. If any wish to see the efforts of an over 
strained anxiety to defend this apostolic midrash, let 
him read Tholuck s remarks. Apologists fall into pal 
pable blunders in upholding the accuracy of a rabbinical 
comment, and assert that his argument is independent of 
his philology, when the argument turns upon the philo 
logy, since the author infers that Christ alone is meant 
because the singular number of the noun seed is used. 
Grammar and philology control exposition. Theological, 
resolves itself into grammatical, interpretation. 



101 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 



ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH AT ROME. 

THE time at which the seed of the gospel was carried to 
Rome is unknown. That it had taken root there 
during the life of Christ is an idea which cannot be 
entertained, though it is sanctioned by the Clementine 
homilies. The Jewish population of the city was con 
siderable in the time of the apostles ; as we learn from 
Philo, Josephus, Dion Cassius, and others. When 
Pompey the Great conquered Judea, he sent large 
numbers of the inhabitants as prisoners to Rome to be 
sold for slaves. Under Augustus, the friend of Herod 
the Great, many of them were liberated and made 
Roman citizens, having a dwelling-place assigned them 
beyond the Tiber. The young colony rapidly increased 
under the fostering influence of the emperor ; for Jose 
phus states that more than 8,000 belonging to Rome 
joined an embassy of fifty deputies from Judea to 
second a petition to Augustus. 1 But they did not 
enjoy constant favour, since Sejanus had 4,000 trans 
ported to Sardinia ; and the remainder were ordered to 
depart from Italy on a certain day, unless they re 
nounced their religion. 2 With the fall of Sejanus the 
edict lost its significance ; and imperial favour returned 
to the Jews. In like manner Claudius banished them 
from Rome, A.D. 49 or 50 ; but many must have re- 

1 Antiy. xvn. ii. 1. - Tacit. Anncd. ii. 85. 



102 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

turned soon after. Dion Cassius testifies that Judaism 
continued to increase at Rome, in spite of all the re 
strictions and decrees issued against it. 1 

Were there Christians at Rome when Claudius s 
decree against the Jews was issued ? This point cannot 
be determined for want of definite historical testimony. 
The language of a passage in Suetonius bearing upon 
it is ambiguous. The emperor, it is said, banished the 
Jews from Rome, who were continually raising tumults, 
at the instigation of Chrestus/ 2 If these words refer to 
disputes between Jews and Christians, Christianity had 
already found its way into the Roman synagogue. The 
Romans mispronounced the name Christus, taking it to 
be the same as Chrestus, a Greek word ; and therefore 
Suetonius may have meant Jesus Christ. It is likely 
that the words of the Roman historian involve the 
existence of Christians at Rome in the time of Claudius. 
The preaching of Christ in the Roman synagogues was 
a constant source of disturbance, and led to the banish 
ment of the Jews from the city. 

A passage in the Acts respecting Aquila and Pris 
cilla is also indefinite in its bearing on the point. i And 
found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, 
lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because 
that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from 
Rome), and came unto them (xviii. 2). Some may 
suppose that Aquila was still a Jew, because he is so 
called, without a word to indicate his faith in Chris 
tianity. But Jewish Christians are styled so in Acts 
xxi. 39 ; xxii. 3. Nothing prevents the supposition 
that Aquila is called a Jew even after he had em 
braced Christianity, in order to distinguish his nation. 
If Aquila and Priscilla were already Christians, we can 
explain why Paul attached himself to them so soon. 
Similarity in faith and in occupation drew him to their 
abode rather than to that of other tent-makers at 

1 Histor. xxxvii, 17. 2 Claud, chap, xxv, 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 103 

Corinth. It is possible that he may have become a 
convert after leaving Rome, and before arriving at 
Corinth, but it is not probable ; and if he first made a 
profession of Christianity at the latter city, his altered 
sentiments were the result of Paul s teaching. On the 
whole, it is probable that Aquila and Priscilla Avere 
Christians before leaving Rome ; though the language 
of Acts xviii. 2 is not decisive in regard to it. The 
fact of their Christianity before Claudius s decree is not 
inconsistent with its being directed against the Jews, 
because the Romans did not distinguish between Jews 
and Jewish Christians ; their laws making no separa 
tion between the two religions. We agree with those 
who assume the existence of Christians at Rome when 
Claudius s edict was issued ; and reckon Aquila with 
his wife among the number. How long they were such 
cannot be known. It has been conjectured that Jews 
from Rome who were present at Jerusalem on the day 
of Pentecost, returned home with the seed of the new 
religion (Acts ii. 10) ; and that Jewish Christians, 
scattered abroad by the persecution arising after 
Stephen s death, may have found their way to the 
metropolis. The extraordinary influx of foreigners 
from all parts of the empire furnishes ground for be 
lieving that the gospel took early root in the imperial 
city. The constant intercourse between it and the 
provinces might make many acquainted with the new 
religion whose converts became so numerous. 

The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Peter was 
the founder and first bishop of the Christian community 
at Rome. The earliest documents which speak of him 
in Rome (or Babylon) are the first epistle of Peter, and 
the Clementine homilies, both composed in the last half 
of the second century. The latter work, written in the 
interest of Petrine as opposed to Pauline Christianity, 
makes him follow Simon Magus to Rome. The original 
sense of this Ebioiiite tradition was afterwards for- 



104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

gotten ; Simon being retained only as an arch-heretic, 
the father of all Gnostics. The Catholic Church, looking 
for its basis in Peter and Paul, made both apostles live 
and work together in Rome for several years. Justin 
Martyr places the arrival of Simon in Rome under 
Claudius ; and as Paul came in the reign of Nero, it 
was necessary to bring down Peter s arrival in Rome 
to the time of Nero, for the purpose of having the two 
in friendly co-operation. The harmonising of the dis 
cordant accounts was effected in different ways, which 
are seen in the work called the Preaching of Peter and 
in the Acts of Peter and Paul, both Catholic productions 
of the second century. The same conciliatory tendency 
presents itself in the writings of the early fathers, all of 
whom entertained the idea of one Catholic Church 
founded by the two prominent apostles, who represented 
the primitive and posterior forms of Christianity. It 
was natural that the true sense of the earliest tradition 
about Peter s antagonism to Paul, which appears in the 
Clementine homilies, should be supplanted by one 
originating in the interest of a newly developing Cath 
olic church. 1 

According to Dionysius of Corinth, in his epistle 
to the Corinthians, as Eusebius records, Peter and 
Paul were associated in founding the Roman church ; 2 
which agrees with Irenasus s testimony. 3 Clement of 
Alexandria says, that the apostle Peter came to 
Rome in the reign of Claudius to confront Simon 
Magus ; 4 with which agrees Eusebius s statement that 
he founded the church in the first year of Claudius 
(A.D. 41 or 42). 5 This early creation of Peter s apostolic 
agency at Rome was necessary for a twenty-five years 
episcopate. 6 The Liberian catalogue of Popes of the 

1 See Lipsius s Die Quellen der Romischen Petrussage, 1872. 

2 Ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 14. 

8 Chron. lib. ii. Opp. vol. i. p. 539, ed. Migne. 

* De Script. Eccles. c. i. 

* H. E. ii, 25. 6 Ap. Euseb. JL E. v.,8. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ItOMANS. 105 

year 354, founded on the older chronicle of Hippolytus 
till 234, makes Peter Bishop of Rome for twenty-five 
years, one month, and nine days. Hence Jerome states 
that he governed the church for twenty -five years ; and 
the belief became common. 

These patristic statements are refuted by the Xew 
Testament ; for 

(a.) Peter was still at Jerusalem when the so-called 
apostolic council was held there, about the twelfth year 
of Claudius s reign. 

(&.) In speaking of Paul s coming to Rome, the writer 
of the Acts never alludes to Peter, nor intimates that 
the church had such a founder. The brethren met him, 
and he spent two years with them. Is not this silence 
unfavourable to the opinion either that Peter had been 
or was there at the time ? 

(c.) The epistles supposed to be written by Paul 
during his imprisonment make no allusion to Peter. 
Neither does the latter send any salutation to the readers 
of those epistles. Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus are 
declared to be Paul s only fellow- workers in the king 
dom of God (Coloss. iv. 11). Epaphras, Luke, and the 
saints of Caesar s household are also mentioned. It is im 
possible that Peter could have been overlooked in the 
epistles, if he was at Rome when they were written, 
especially as the salutations of inferior persons are 
noticed ; and it is most improbable that he had been 
there before, since there is no hint of previous residence. 

(V.) Had the Roman believers enjoyed the teaching 
or episcopal superintendence of Peter, Paul, who declares 
that he had striven to preach the gospel where it had 
not been heard before, lest he should build on another s 
foundation, would not have been anxious to visit and 
instruct them. 

(e.) The epistle contains no salutation to Peter, and 
therefore he was not at Rome when it was written. 

These considerations disprove the ancient tradition 



106 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

that Peter was at Rome either in Claudius s reign, or 
before the writing of the letter. 

Learned members of the Roman Catholic Church 
have not all adopted the tradition in question ; for 
Feilmoser concludes that Peter could not have been in 
the imperial city sooner than a year before his death. 1 

It follows from these remarks, that Christianity was 
introduced into Rome as early at least as the middle of 
the first century, and that the original converts were 
Jewish Christians. The name of Jesus was first heard 
in the synagogue, and the church at its commencement 
was a Jewish Christian one. Heathenism had ceased to 
satisfy reflecting pagans, who longed for a purer wor 
ship and turned to the Jewish religion, so that ac 
cording to Seneca, in a fragment preserved by Augus 
tine, 2 the conquered gave laws to the conquerors. 
Juvenal too, in his sixth satire, ridicules the Jew-loving 
Romans. 

COMPOSITION OF THE CHURCH WHEN THE APOSTLE 
WROTE, 

Though the tradition of Peter s founding the church 
is unhistorical, a fact lies at the root of it, viz. that 
the church was originally Petrine or Jewish Christian. 
But during the eight or nine years of its existence till 
Paul s letter was written, a change may have passed 
over it. Gentiles may have associated themselves with 
it in such numbers as to exceed the primitive class and 
give it another character. Converts from Gentilism 
may have altered the prevailing type into a Gentile- 
Christian one. It is assumed that the edict of Clau 
dius had the effect of separating the Roman Christians 
as much as possible from all connection with the un 
believing synagogue, in order to escape the conse 
quences of it. But this and similar assumptions about 

1 Einleitung, p. 106, et seq. 2 De Cimtate Dei, lib. vii. c. 11. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 107 

the decree of the Emperor are precarious. It is im 
probable that all the Jewish Christians were expelled 
along with every Jew in Rome, leaving the church there 
to consist of converts from heathenism only. The 
mildness and humanity of Nero in the first five years 
of his reign would allow the mass of the expelled to 
return and resume their place in the community as 
Christians. But all reasoning about the changed rela 
tions of the Roman church in the interval between its 
founding and the receipt of the apostle s letter has no 
proper basis. The relative proportion of Jewish and 
Gentile converts can only be settled by the epistle itself. 
The constitution of the church when the apostle 
wrote is a subject of debate. The most probable 
opinion is that the Jewish Christian element largely 
preponderated ; though a contrary view is held by 
Hofmann, Tholuck, and Philippi. The church seems 
to have been large. Paul says, at least, that their faith 
was spoken of throughout the whole world, It is not 
necessary to assign a reason for the apostle omitting 
to mention elders and deacons. Perhaps these officers 
were not then among them ; or the writer s want of 
knowledge may account for his silence. We cannot 
tell whether there was a regularly organised church ; 
whether the believers met in one place ; or whether 
they gathered in separate localities. It is probable, 
however, that there was no definite organisation ; and 
that the believers met in different places ; in the house 
of Aquila and elsewhere. Whatever unity of belief and 
feeling existed among them, their outward organisation 
showed little compactness. The term church is not 
applied to them, nor are bishops and deacons spoken 
of, as in the Philippian epistle. But it is unsafe to 
argue from the absence of these expressions, respecting 
the existence or non-existence of a formal church. JS or 
can xiii. 11 be built upon in relation to the point, though 
Ewald thinks it may. Whatever may have been their 



108 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

external arrangements, the mutual spirit of the believers 
was not a model of love, if Jewish and Gentile Chris 
tians formed distinct portions of the one community ; 
for the narrowness of the one prevented cordial sym 
pathy with the other. 

How far the apostle was aware of their exact state 
is a question that cannot be answered. He had doubt 
less received accounts from converts who visited him in 
Greece and elsewhere ; but his knowledge must have 
been general, unless there was frequent intercourse be 
tween him and Christians in the metropolis. 

No light can be thrown upon the state of the church 
at Rome when the apostle wrote, by the conclusion of 
the Acts where his personal arrival in the city is men 
tioned, because that narrative is unhistorical. How 
could the leaders of the Jews be so ignorant of Chris 
tianity, when a numerous church existed near them 
with many Jewish converts belonging to it ? The 
community was not so insignificant as to elude their 
observation or excite their contempt. The Jews and 
Christians of the metropolis were too much identified in 
opposition to heathenism not to know one another. The 
epistle itself affords the only means of ascertaining the 
actual composition of the community, whether it was 
more Jewish or Gentile. That the mass of believers 
consisted of Gentile Christians has been inferred from 
several passages, chiefly the following : 

By whom we have received grace and apostleship 
for obedience to the faith among ail nations for his name, 
among whom, are ye also the called of Jesus Christ 
(i. 5, 6). Here the word rendered nations means Gen 
tiles generally ; and though it might be said of born 
Jews that they lived among the heathen at Rome, it is 
more agreeable to the language of the apostle to under 
stand him as saying that his readers were a part of the 
heathen to whom his apostleship referred. 

Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 109 

oftentimes I purposed to come unto you (but was let 
hitherto), that I might have some fruit among you also, 
even as among other Gentiles (i. 13). These words are 
more exact than the last in affirming that the commu 
nity was a Gentile one, composed of converts from 
heathenism. Mangold errs in confining the fruit which 
Paul wished to gather among them to the converting of 
Gentiles in Rome ; x it refers to activity among Roman 
Christians already converted. 

A third place, on which Tholuck 2 lays considerable 
stress, is in the 15th chapter. Nevertheless, brethren, 
I have written the more boldly unto you, in some sort 
as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is 
given to me of God, that I should be the minister of 
Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of 
God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be 
acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost (xv. 
15, 16). Here Paul announces himself the minister of 
Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, that the offering of the 
Gentiles might be acceptable to God. But the context 
does not necessarily limit the offering of the Gentiles to 
that of the Roman Christians. 

Other passages, such as xi. 13, 17-24, 28, 30, where 
the writer turns to the Gentile Roman Christians, are 
consistent with the assumption that the majority of the 
church was Jewish. Indeed the words of xi. 13, 1 
speak to you Gentiles, imply that they were a minority. 
The reasoning of the apostle throughout the epistle 
supposes Jewish readers acquainted with the laAv. This 
is conspicuous in chaps, ix. xi., inii. iv., and elsewhere. 
The general argument is unintelligible or at least irre 
levant, without an implied relation to Jewish modes of 
thought. How then are we to reconcile the two con 
flicting phenomena ? How bring together the plain 
statements in i. 13, where the Roman Christians are 



Der Jlomerbrief und dip Anftinye der ItoiniKC hf n Cretneiiide^ p. 82. 
Commrnfar zinu Ttricfe Ptmli an die RSitncr, Einleit. "2. 



110 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

called Gentiles, and in vii. 1, where the writer speaks to 
them i that know the law ? The explanation that the 
apostle turns to one class in the church in some parts 
of the epistle, and in other parts to another class, hardly 
meets the case. If we suppose with some critics, that 
the great majority of the church were Gentile Christians, 
the opinion does not harmonise with the general tone of 
the letter, or the knowledge of the law presupposed in 
the readers, unless those Gentile Christians were Jewish 
proselytes. And the testimony of a few passages is too 
plain to allow of the opinion that the church was for the 
most part Jewish Christian, unless that prevailing 
element in it consisted of native Jewish Christians and 
Jewish converts of Gentile extraction. Here is the 
solution of the difficulty proposed by Prof. Jowett. 
The Roman church appeared to be at once Jewish and 
Gentile ; Jewish in feeling, Gentile in origin. Jewish, 
because the apostle everywhere argues with them as 
Jews ; Gentile, because he expressly addresses them by 
name as such. 1 This is scarcely correct. The centre 
of the church was Jewish, to which a Gentile growth 
was added. The mass consisted of Jewish Christians ; 
but there was a considerable number of Gentiles. Whe 
ther the latter had passed through Judaism into Chris 
tianity, or directly from paganism to Christianity, can 
not be ascertained. It will always be a debateable point 
whether the majority consisted of Jewish or Gentile 
Christians ; there can be little doubt of the church s 
Jewish origin. We believe in the predominance of the 
Jewish Christian element, with a strong infusion of the 
Gentile Christian one. Beyschlag s plausible hypothesis 
that the church consisted of Jewish proselytes coincides 
with Jowett s ; but we cannot agree with it. Some 
parts of the letter presuppose the existence of two 
parties, between whom there was a degree of jealousy. 

1 St. Paul s Epistles to the Thessalom atw, Galatians, Romans, &c., 
vol. ii. p. 23, 2nd ed. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Ill 

The seeds of dissension lay in their doctrinal views. 
The Jew, after embracing Christianity, was still attached 
to the Mosaic law, and valued it too highly to renounce 
it at once. He sought salvation through Christ in con 
nection with the rites in which he had been nurtured. 
The Gentile Christian, despising Jewish partiality to 
outward forms, presumed, in his sense of freedom, to do 
things likely to offend the conscience of his less en 
lightened brother. Thus there was a constant tendency 
to separation between the parties. The elements of 
strife appeared in the Roman church when Paul wrote 
his epistle, but were less visible and marked than in the 
Galatian congregations. Various allusions in the closing 
chapters imply the existence of Judaic prejudices. The 
admonitions addressed to the weak and the strong in 
the 14th chapter refer to Jewish and Gentile Christians 
respectively. To what extent alienation between them 
had proceeded it is difficult to tell ; but it had produced 
no rupture. The parties were not yet strongly arrayed 
against one another. The pretensions of the Jewish 
Christians do not seem to have been arrogant against 
their Gentile brethren ; but though no breach had been 
effected, the one had deep-rooted scruples about the ad 
mission of the Gentiles to the full privileges of God s 
people. The question of circumcision had not separated 
them. Still there was the Jewish tendency on one 
hand, and the free spirit on the other ; the former, the 
more prominent and stronger. The apostle himself 
knew its stubbornness, for it lessened his authority and 
thwarted the genius of the gospel he preached. But he 
could treat it tenderly as well as firmly, because his 
love for his countrymen was strong, frequently bursting 
forth in the midst of an ti- Judaic reasonings and mode 
rating their vehemence. We see a constant conflict 
between his convictions and feelings : the former too 
deep to be changed, the latter too strong to be repressed, 
too ardent to be quenched even by opposition. 



112 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



THE APOSTLE S OBJECT OR DESIGN IN WRITING. 

The object of Paul in the present epistle may be 
represented in a light so general as either to exclude 
all references to the special relations of the church ; or 
to reduce their intrinsic value to comparative insignifi 
cance. This has been done by such critics as Olshausen, 
who suppose that the writer intended to set forth the 
essential truths of the gospel in their adaptation to 
sinful humanity to expound the plan of salvation as 
conferring equal blessings on all. According to the 
view in question, the cardinal doctrines of Christianity 
are inculcated in substance. The apostle s design was 
didactic and comprehensive, giving rise to an epistle 
of ampler range and profounder views than any other 
apostolic communication to a doctrinal treatise rather 
than a letter. This view of the epistle is maintained 
by many good critics, including De Wette and Reiche. 
But though the ground taken by the writer is general 
like his commission, there is reason for doubting the 
correctness of the opinion. In all other instances, the 
epistles arose out of certain circumstances in the state 
of the parties addressed, and the connection between 
them and the writer. Nor should the present be made 
an exception, especially as the letter itself is not un- 
coloured by the condition and feelings of those to whom 
it is directed. Analogy is against a general didactic 
object. The letter was suggested by the relations of 
the Roman community itself. It originated in the cir 
cumstances of the church ; and refers to the members 
of it more or less definitely. An object so general as 
that of an exposition of the gospel to the Roman con 
verts, savours of modern theology, rather than of the 
first century in which Christianity was not only appre 
hended very differently by different parties, especially 
by Jewish and Gentile Christians, but taught by 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 118 

apostles in a wider or narrower, a more liberal or more 
sectarian form, according to educational prepossessions 
or mental tendencies. Christian truth did not lie in 
the minds of the apostles as a complete whole which 
they had only to set forth in its absolute relations. It 
was progressively developed within them, becoming 
clearer to their consciousness according to subjective 
and objective conditions. They were men of a peculiar 
age, one characterised by rapid changes and revolu 
tionary ideas. They were in the midst of moving 
events ; extraordinary impulses without, and a divine 
spirit remarkably active, within. Hence they could not, 
like us moderns, give forth a wide scheme of doctrine, 
the result of calm reflection, as a perfect or complete 
synopsis for the future as well as the present. Their 
ideas were shaped by prevalent currents of thought, 
and came with the limitations created by local and 
temporary exigencies. 

The purpose of the apostle was not so wide as the 
writing of a theological compendium for the use of the 
Roman Christians either alone or with others. Baur 
makes it polemic. Believing that the Jewish Christians 
formed the chief part of the Roman church and that 
an anti-Pauline tendency had begun to develop itself 
early among them, he supposes that they took offence 
at the ministry of Paul because they saw it effective in 
bringing constantly increasing numbers into the king 
dom of Messiah, while Israel as a nation was excluded. 
They made objections, therefore, to the apostle s univer- 
salism. As long as the nation of Israel did not parti 
cipate in the grace of the gospel, they regarded the 
reception of the Gentiles as an abridgment of their 
prerogatives an injustice done to them a barrier to 
the promises given to Jehovah s people. Asserting 
that Christian salvation has only a particular bearing, 
they thought that the bestowment of grace depended on 
national privileges. The epistle was written to meet 

VOL. I. 1 



114 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

this state of feeling in the church ; and is therefore 
a justification of Paul s apostleship, called forth by 
Jewish antagonism. No friendly circumstances gave 
rise to it. It grew out of unfavourable views in a 
church where the Gentile Christians were nothing com 
pared with the Jewish believers. Hence the tone is 
polemic or at least apologetic. 1 

Agreeably to this hypothesis, Baur regards chapters 
ix.-xi. as the centre and nucleus of the entire epistle 
the essential portion which gave occasion to the whole. 

The opinion in question comes near the true view 
of the writer s object, but is hardly correct, because it 
implies too wide a separation between the Jewish and 
Gentile Christians in the Roman church ; pushing the 
influence as well as the pretensions of the former to 
excess by reducing the latter to an insignificant mini 
mum. It also overlooks some of the apostle s own 
declarations, especially those in the introduction to 
the letter (i. 1-17), and undervalues the first eight 
chapters. 

We cannot accept the view, either as the critic sets 
it forth, or in the modified form which Mangold gives 
it. 2 The occasion of writing was the particular state 
of the church at Rome. Certain special injunctions 
were not suggested by the possibility of disturbing 
influences within the church, nor by what the apostle 
had encountered in Galatia and Corinth, but by existing 
facts. Yet the tendency and tone are general, because 
the apostle s design was to explain and justify the 
gospel of universalism which he preached to the hea 
then, rather than his own apostleship. By this means 
he met the scruples of the Jewish Christians respecting 
the admission of the Gentiles to the same privileges 
with the Jews, and showed the inability of the law to 
bestow a righteousness attainable through faith alone. 

1 Paulus der Aposiel Jesu Christi, p. 341, et seq. 

2 Der Ronierbrief und die Anfanye der Romischen Getnemde, 1866. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 115 

The occasion was special ; the object general. Hence 
the letter was not meant for a compendium of evange 
lical doctrine, or a system of dogmatic theology. Neither 
is it a general summary of what Paul had written 
before, or a combination of the fragmentary teaching 
contained in other letters. It was written to establish 
the validity of his mission by developing the right 
eousness of God in connection with the cross of Christ. 
Through such doctrine he aims at forming the con 
sciousness of the Jewish Christians into the belief in 
one appointed way of uniting man with God one all- 
sufficient atonement effected by the sacrificial death of 
the Messiah fulfilling divine justice and introducing a 
new righteousness. The germs of ideas contained in 
preceding letters are fully developed. The apostle s 
tone is expository and indirectly polemic. The views 
of the Jewish Christians who formed the body of the 
church, their theocratic scruples respecting the Gentiles, 
their national prepossessions, are effectually combated, 
not by direct antagonism, but in the exposition and 
defence of the truth which he preached as the peculiar 
apostle of the Gentiles. Such procedure would further 
the spiritual life of the Christian body at Rome, and 
unite the parties in a common faith. 

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 

When the apostle wrote, he was about to go to Jeru 
salem to minister to the saints, with contributions from 
Macedonia and Achaia (xv. 25-27), which indicates his 
last abode in Achaia of three months duration (Acts 
xx. 3). He intended to pass from Achaia to Syria, in 
order to get to Jerusalem directly; but was compelled 
by the machinations of the Jews to take another way, 
back through Macedonia. This alteration of plan had not 
been made when he wrote, else he would have noticed 
it. We infer, therefore, that the epistle was composed 



110 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

before he set out again from Achaia. Corinth was the 
chief city ; and we may fix upon it as the place of his 
three months stay. That it was written there may be 
inferred from the fact, that Caius, an inhabitant of 
Corinth, sends a salutation to the Roman Christians. 
Erastus is also mentioned as steward of the city where 
the apostle wrote ; and we learn from 2 Tim. iv. 20, 
that he dwelt at Corinth. Phoebe, a deaconess of the 
church at Cenchrea, is also commended to the Romans; 
and Cenchrea was the port of Corinth. From the man 
ner in which she is introduced to the favourable regard 
of the Roman Christians, it is conjectured that she was 
the bearer of the letter, either alone or with others. It 
should be remembered, however, that these indications 
of time and place are drawn from the 16th chapter, the 
authenticity of which is very questionable. The epistle 
was written A.D. 58. 



AUTHENTICITY. 

The authenticity of the epistle has been called in 
question by Evanson and Bruno Bauer, but is amply 
attested, both by the most ancient witnesses and inter 
nal evidence. 

Clement of Rome writes : Casting off from us all 
unrighteousness and iniquity, covetousness, debates, ma 
lignities and deceits, whisperings and backbitings, hatred 
of God, pride and boasting, vain glory and ambition. 
For they that do such things are hateful to God ; and 
not only they that do them, but they also who have 
pleasure in them. (Compare Rom. i. 29-32.) 1 Com 
pare also Rom. iii. 29 with ch. xxx. ; xii. 5 with ch. 
xlvi. ; xiv. 1 with ch. xxxviii. 

1 aTTOpptyavTfS d(p* eavrwv navav ddiKiav KOL dvoplav, 7rXeoi>etW, epeis, 
KaKorjdeias re KOI SoXou?, ^idvpLcrpovs re Kal KaraXaXiay, Geoorvyiav, V7repr)(pa- 
viav re Koi d\aoveiav, Kevofto^iav re KOI dcpiXof-fviav. Tavra yap ot irpda a ovTfs 
l roo GeoS virdp\ovcriv ov [AOVOV 8f ol 7rpdcr(rovT(s avrd, dXXa KCU ot 
aiVoTs-. 1 Ep> ad Cor, C. xxxv. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 117 

Polycarp has the following : t And must all stand 
before the judgment- seat of Christ, and every one give 
an account for himself (Rom. xiv. 10). l 

Theophilus of Antioch (180) says : To them who 
by patient continuance in well-doing seek for immor 
tality, He will give eternal life, joy, peace, rest, and 
many good things, &c. ... But to the unbelieving and 
the despisers, and them that obey not the truth, but obey 
unrighteousness .... shall be wrath and indignation, 
tribulation and anguish (compare Rom. ii. 6-9). 2 In 
another place, Honour to whom honour, fear to whom 
fear, tribute to whom tribute ; to owe no man anything 
but only to love all men (Rom. xiii. 7, 8). 3 

In the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons 
( 180), occurs the following quotation : Showing indeed 
that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy 
to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in 
us (Rom. viii. 18). 4 

Irenaaus is the first who expressly quotes the epistle 
as Paul s : This same thing Paul has explained, writing 
to the Romans : "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, pre 
destinated to the gospel of God. which He promised by 
his prophets," &c. And again, writing to the Romans, he 
says of Israel, " Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as 
concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, 
blessed for evermore." 



fiei TrapcHTTrjvai ro> (3r)p,a.Ti rov XpioroG, KOI fK(io~Tov VTrep eavTov 
\6yov Sovvai. Ad Philipp. c. 6. 

2 Tols fJt-V Kaff VTTOfjiovrfV did epytiiv dyaBwv j^roucri rrjv d(p6apo-tav, 8a>prj(T- 
Tai farjv alcoviov, \apav, elprjvrjv, dmTraucrii , KOI 7r\rj0r} dya6u)v . . . roty 8e 
OTrurrots KOI KaTCtfppovrjTais, KOI OTret^oOo i rfj dXTy^eia, ireiOoiitvois fie rfj afit/c/a, 

ecrrai opyrj KOI dvpos, 6\l^is KOI orei/o^coptai. Ad Autolyc. lib. ii. 
p. 79, ed. Colon. 

3 TO) TT)V Tl/J,r)V, TTJV Tl\ir\V TO) TOV <^)O/3oV, TOV (f)oftoV TO) TOV <f)OpOl> f TOV 

(popov [jiijdevl /jir]8fv 6(pt\ftv ri povov TO dyaTTav rrdvras. Ad Autolyc. lib. iii. 
p. 126. 

4 OVTMS 7n8iKVv/j.Voi, on ovK atci TO. 7ra6rjfj.aTti TOV vvv Kciipoiij rrpbs TTJV 
/ji.\\ovo-av 86av dnoKaXvfpOrjvai ds rjp.as.-H. E. v. i. p. 7, ed Heinichen. 

5 Hoc ipsum interpretatus est Paul us scribens ad Romanes : Paulus 
apostolus Jesn Chrlsti, praedestinatus ad evangelium Dei, quod prornisit 



118 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Clement of Alexandria says : Behold therefore, says 
Paul, the goodness and severity of God/ &C. 1 And in 
another place : In like manner Paul writes in the epistle 
to the Romans : " How shall we who have died to sin, 
live any longer in it? " 2 

Tertullian says: But I will call Christ alone God, 
as the same apostle (Paul) does : of whom Christ came; 
who is, says he, God over all, blessed for ever. 3 

The internal character of the epistle and its historical 
allusions coincide with the external evidence, in proving 
it an authentic production of the apostle. It bears the 
marks of his vigorous mind; the language and style being 
remarkably characteristic. 



INTEGKITY. 

The authenticity of the doxology in xvi. 2527 has 
been questioned. 

The three verses are found at the end of the 16th 
chapter in tf, B., C., D., E., 16, 80, 137, 176, the d. e. f. 
of the old Latin, Peshito, Vulgate, Memphitic, Ethiopic ; 
in copies mentioned by Origen ; in Ambrosiaster, Pela- 
gius, and other Latin writers. 

They are put at the end of the 14th chapter in L. 
and the great majority of cursive MS 3., in most Greek 
lectionaries, the later Syriac, Armenian (in some MSS.), 
in copies mentioned by Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theo- 
doret, Theophylact, (Ecumenius, &c. 

per prophetas suos, etc. Et iterum ad Romanes scribens de Israel dieit, 
Quorum patres, et ex quibus Obristus secimdum carnem, qui est Deus super 
o nines benedictus in secula. Adv. If ceres, iii. 16. 3. 

1 iSe ovv f (prj&iv 6 HavXos, xP r ) a " r ^ Tr ) Ta *<" Qtrorofiiav Geoir eVi /uei> TOVS 
n-fo-ovras, K.T.\. Padagog. lib. i. p. 140, vol. i. ed. Potter. 

2 6/ioiW &e KOI 6 navXoy, fv TTJ rrpos Pw^aiovs eVtcrroX^ ypdfai- oirives 
aTreddvo/jiev Ty d/xapria, TTCOS ert fyarofjiev ev avrrj ; Stromctta, lib. iii. C. ii. vol. i. 
p. 544, ed. Potter. 

3 ( Solum autem Christum potero Deum dicere sicut idem apostolus : 
ex quibus Christus, qui est, inquit, Deus super omnia benedictus in aevum 
omne, Adv. Fraxcam, c. xiii. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 119 

They are found in both places in A., P., 5, 17, 109, 
lat. 37, and in MSS. of the Armenian version. 

They are wanting in F., G., and in copies alluded to 
by Jerome. Marcion too had not the verses ; but Origen 
states that he took away the last two chapters. 1 It has 
also been thought that Tertullian did not read the verses ; 
an opinion which is more than doubtful, for his citing 
xiv. 10 as being in the closing part (clausula) of the 
epistle is sufficiently correct. 2 

The preponderance of external testimony is in favour 
of the authenticity, and of the position at xvi. 25-27. 

Internal evidence leads another way, for 

1. A doxology at the end of an epistle is contrary 
to Paul s manner. 

2. The epistle had been already completed at the 
24th verse, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with 
you all. Amen, if that verse be authentic ; if not, at 
the 20th verse. 

3. It wants the simplicity of Paul s doxologies, being 
inflated, exaggerated, obscure, having irregular and 
awkward constructions. The combination of my 
gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ is un- Pauline 
and unsuitable. To stablish according to my gospel 
yields no good sense, and is contrary to the usage of the 
verb in the New Testament with a preposition, viz. to 
stablish in? And what is the meaning of establishing 
the Roman Christians, not only according to the gospel 
of the writer and the preaching of Jesus Christ, but also 

1 Caput hoc (xvi. 25-27) Marcion, a quo Scripturae evangelicse atque 
apostolicae interpolates sunt, de hac epistola penitus abstulit. Et non 
solum hoc sed et ah eo ubi scriptum est : quod non ex tide est, peccatum 
est (xv. 23) usque ad finena cuncta dissecuit. In aliis vero exemplaribus, 
id est, in iis quse non sunt a Marcione ternerata, hoc ipsum caput (xvi. 
25-27) diverse positum invenimus. In nonnullis etenim codicibus post 
eum locum quern supra diximus (xiv. 23) statim cohserens habetur: 
ei autem qui potens est vos confirmare. Alii codices vero in line conti 
nent. Comment, ad Rom. xvi. 25. 

2 Adv. Marcion. v. 13. 

3 o-Tr)pifiv eV; compare 1 Thess. iii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 17. 



120 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept 
secret since the world began ? The construction of the 
relative pronoun to whom be glory, &c. is ambiguous. 1 
If it be referred to Jesus Christ immediately preceding, 
the idea is contrary to Paul s usage, who never ascribes 
glory to the Son but to the Father. If it be referred 
to the only wise God, the doxology is left incomplete. 
The analogy of the same relative pronoun in Acts xxiv. 
6, used irregularly, does not hold good, because Paul is 
not the writer there. Besides, the expression by Jesus 
Christ 2 is unintelligible here ; and Meyer s explanation, 
* to God, who appears as the only wise One through 
Jesus Christ, is far-fetched. These are the phenomena 
in the three verses that strike the reader as peculiar. 
We admit that their tenor is Pauline, but that arises 
from the fact that the doxology is made up for the most 
part of expressions from the later Pauline literature. 
Thus, according to my gospel is from Rom. ii. 16 ; 
the revelation of the mystery, from Ephes. hi. 3 ; 
1 kept secret since the world began, but now is made 
manifest, is from 2 Tim. i. 9, 10 ; l according to the 
commandment of the everlasting God, from Titus i. 3 ; 
to all nations, for the obedience of faith, from Rom. i. 
5 ; c by Jesus Christ, from Rom. ii. 16 ; to the only 
wise God is either from 1 Tim. i. 17, where, however, 
the adjective wise is spurious ; or from Jude 25. The 
whole tone resembles in part the doxology in Heb. xiii. 
20, 21 ; 3 and the phraseology has a Gnosticising aspect. 
Such grounds render it probable that the passage is 
an addition to the epistle from a later hand. It is easy 
to assert that an interpolator would have avoided diffi 
culties and irregularities of construction, making all 
simple and complete ; but the assumption implies that 
he was able to write as well as if not better than Paul, 
which there is no reason for supposing. An officious 



1 co fj da, K.T.A. 2 Sitt l?7(Tou Xpiorou. 

3 !See Ileiuhe s Commentctrius Criticm in N. T, vol. i. p. 88, et seq. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 121 

compiler may be a bad composer. Unusual, awkward, 
and obscure phrases, put together in a brief compass, 
cannot favour identity of authorship with a composition 
which does not exhibit the same irregularity and harsh 
ness, unless it be supposed that the writer became 
suddenly careless, or was hurried and interrupted. 
Fritzsche, however, imagines that he had leisure enough ; l 
and makes the apostle dictate the doxology to an ama 
nuensis after he had read over the letter, or heard it 
read by another ; a suggestion which Mr. Moule im 
proves upon by supposing that the apostle s own hand 
added it. What Moule strangely calls a rapturous 
doxology is assigned, with all its irregularities of con 
struction, to Paul himself ; 2 which is doing him an in- 
justice. The apostle wrote better than that, as Tholuck 
rightly felt when suggesting great haste as the cause of 
such negligence. The so-called rapturous doxology is 
made up of ideas and phrases from other epistles, spe 
cially that of Jude. The defenders of the passage, of 
whom the ablest is Fritzsche, have not succeeded in clear 
ing away its difficulties of language and construction. 

The varying position shows a feeling of its unsuit- 
ableness at the end of the epistle where it was originally 
placed. It could not be transferred to the 15th chapter, 
which is formally concluded ; and therefore it was ap 
pended to the 14th, where the apostle speaks of the 
weak ; and the words to him that is of power to stablish 
you appropriately follow. Modern critics have also 
felt the singularity of its position at the end of the 
epistle and placed it at xiv. 23. Griesbach and Mat- 
thsei, Mill and Wetstein, take this view. I)e Wette 
himself admits that there is something remarkable in its 
isolated position at the end of the epistle, after a closing 
benediction ; but he has no other explanation to offer 
than Fritzsche s guess. 

1 Pauli ad Romanes Epistola, torn. i. pp. xxxviii-xlix, prolegom. 
" The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, p. 255. 



122 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The whole of the 1 6th chapter we take to be spurious 
The numerous persons mentioned in it as Paul s ac 
quaintances at Rome, though he had never been there, 
testify against it. It is true that there was consider 
able intercourse between the metropolis and the pro 
vinces, and that he had known several of the individuals 
in Asia Minor ; but these circumstances are insufficient 
to account for the long list of those saluted by name ; 
a list which shows obvious desire on the part of the 
writer to bring the apostle into close friendship with 
many of the persons named, and to enumerate their 
meritorious services to him. Andronicus, Junia, and 
Herodion are his kinsmen. Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, 
sending salutations, are also his kinsmen. Rufus s 
mother is termed Paul s, mother. Aquila and Priscilla 
laid down their necks for his life. Mary bestowed much 
labour on him. It is also said of Andronicus and Junia, 
that they were t of note among the apostles, and in 
Christ before him. All this savours of a Pauline 
Christian, who took an interest in pointing out the close 
relation which subsisted between Paul and the best- 
known members of the Roman Church. In the epistles 
written from Rome Paul does not mention the same 
individuals. Besides, Aquila and Priscilla were at 
Ephesus shortly before the writing of the epistle ; now 
they are at Rome ; and immediately after they reappear 
at Ephesus. Epenetus, the first fruits of Asia, is also 
specified as at Rome ; Andronicus and Junia are fellow- 
prisoners of his, at a time when he was not in prison. 

An attempt has been made to find, among the persons 
mentioned in the 16th chapter, the names of the mem 
bers of Ca3sar s household, who commend themselves 
to the brethren at Philippi in the Philippian epistle. In 
the columbaria or sepulchres described by the Marchese 
Campana and Canina, names of buried persons have 
been found identical with several in the chapter. Try- 
phoena, Philologus, Julia Amplias or Ampliatus, Ur- 



THE EPISTLE TO THE KOMANS. 123 

bana, Apelles, Junia, Rufus, Hermes, Hermas. The 
coincidence appears striking at first sight ; and it is 
possible that some of the names may point to the very 
persons specified by the apostle. But most of them 
were common from the time of Julius Cassar to that of 
Adrian. Julius and Rufus, Hermes and Hermas, Junia, 
Urbana, Ampliatus, Apelles, occur more than once in 
the inscriptions. Tryphcena and Philologus were rarer. 
Nothing can be built on this foundation. The au 
thenticity of the 16th chapter of the epistle to the 
Romans, or of the whole work, can hardly be strength 
ened by coincidences of names which are but possibly 
identical. We know that Christianity had spread ex 
tensively in Rome when Paul wrote to its adherents 
there ; but whether any of Caesar s household had em 
braced it at the time ; whether Tryphcena was attached 
to the service of Messalina because an inscription has 
Valeria Tryphoena, the former being the Gentile name 
of the empress ; and whether Philologus belonged to 
the palace because Livia is found in the same inscription 
as that which has his name, it is impossible to affirm. 1 

After the general terms, containing nothing charac 
teristic, in which heretics are spoken of (17-20), the 
severe and authoritative tone in the 19th and 20th 
verses gives colouring to the description, and contrasts 
with the mild language of the epistle. It is easy to say, 
that the errorists referred to had not caused divisions, 
but were only likely to do so ; that they were Jewish 
zealots outside the church different from the Judaisers 
pointed at in the 14th chapter ; but the language leaves 
another impression on the mind. l The God of peace 
shall bruise Satan (whose instruments these sectaries 
are) under your feet shortly, shows Judaisers already 
active and dangerous. 

There is much plausibility in Schulz s conjecture, 
that xvi. 120 was written from Rome to the Ephesians ; 

1 See Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, No. x. p. 57, el scy. 



124 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

and Ewald adopts it, thinking that xvi. 3-20 was in 
serted from a lost epistle to the Christians at Ephesus. 1 
This conjecture, however, does not solve the difficulties 
connected with the doxology. How is it that the 
epistle without xvi. 1-20 or 3-20 has no benediction, 
but terminates with a doxology, contrary to Paul s 
manner ; the 24th verse being a spurious interpolation ? 
That the whole chapter formed an original part of the 
Roman epistle, can scarcely be admitted by such as are 
alive to the internal difficulties in the way of that 
opinion, and the apologies made to meet them. 

The critic has only to look calmly at the number 
and quality of the guesses which the advocates of the 
16th chapter make in its favour, to strengthen his 
doubts of its authenticity. Renan supposes that the 
body of the epistle was sent not only to Rome but also 
to Ephesus, Thessalonica, perhaps to another place, 
with differing conclusions ; and that the contents of 
the 16th chapter formed the terminations of the letter 
as it was forwarded to the last three. The epistle is 
converted into a condensed summary of Paul s theo 
logical doctrine a body of divinity intended for most 
of the churches he had founded. 2 Though Canon 
Farrar pronounces this a simple and adequate solution, 
it appears to us both clumsy and improbable. 

One of the most sensible defenders of the 16th 
chapter says, that in the midst of multiplied engage 
ments and a short stay at Corinth, the apostle was 
several days, or even weeks, in writing the epistle ; that 
he paused first at xv. 33, intending to finish there ; 
that on the receipt of additional intelligence, with 
greeting of friends at Rome, he added xvi. ]-16 ; to 
which he subjoined the warnings and apparent con 
clusion in verses 1720 ; his definite statements here 
originating in recent information ; and finally, other 

1 Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus, p. 428. 

2 Saint Paul, pp. Ixxii, Ixxiii. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 125 

Christians at Corinth having visited the apostle, and 
desired him to express their salutations, he added 
another wish and prayer for the church (xvi. 24). The 
whole copy having been perused and corrected, the 
general doxology contained in verses 25-27 was sub 
joined. Nothing stands in the way of believing these 
things to be altogether probable/ says their simple- 
minded proposer ; to which criticism replies, a great 
deal. 

The Pauline origin of the loth chapter is capable 
of better support than that of the 16th. Yet a careful 
examination will probably lead to the rejection of it as 
well as the 16th. Baur s arguments have much weight ; 
and are adopted in the main by Lucht. Hilgenfeld and 
Schenkel s defences of both chapters as authentic con 
sist of feeble reasoning. The Pauline authorship is 
difficult of defence. 

A great part of the loth chapter refers to the Jewish 
Christians in the church, whose favour the writer seeks 
to conciliate, addressing them in a deprecatory and self- 
excusing style. The accumulated citations of Old 
Testament passages, which are evidently meant to quiet 
their scruples, are a repetition of ix. 2429. In short, 
the first part of the chapter (verses 1-13) is merely a 
feeble repetition of the ideas contained in the three that 
precede. 

We read in xv. 8, 9, Now I say that Jesus Christ 
was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, 
to confirm the promises made unto the fathers ; and 
that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy/ &c. 
Is it in harmony with Paul s method to call Jesus 
Christ a minister of the circumcision for the truth of 
God, &c. ? Hilgenfeld s endeavour to parallel and jus 
tify this language by xi. 17, &c., Galat. ii. 17, is 
singularly weak. In the 16th verse the writer speaks 
of himself as the minister l of Jesus Christ to the Gen- 

1 \eiTovpybs, a later term for ecclesiastical officers. k 



126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

tiles. Why is the name apostle avoided, though used 
at the beginning of the epistle? Is the hyperbolical 
language of the 19th verse, so that from Jerusalem, 
and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached 
the gospel of Christ ; or that of the 23rd verse, that 
the writer has no more space in the districts of his 
former agency, consistent with Paul s manner ? 

The 19th verse presupposes that the apostle began 
his preaching at Jerusalem and Judea ; but this was 
not the case according to the epistle to the Galatians ; 
though the Paul of the Acts adopts the latter view. 
Nor is the statement in the 20th verse, of the principle 
that Paul avoided preaching the gospel where it had 
been, already known, a correct expression of the apostle s 
fundamental rule of action, at least in the universal way 
enunciated ; else he would have not written to instruct 
the Romans. 

Again, a comparison of verses 24, 28, 29, with chap 
ter i. 1015, shows some incongruity. The former 
represent the apostle s purpose to visit the Roman 
Christians by the way, on his distant journey to Spain ; 
the latter convey the impression of his having them 
chiefly in view. The one passage describes the writer 
as wishing to pay the readers a passing visit ; the other, 
a visit meant for themselves, without reference to his 
ulterior main purpose. Some effort is required to 
harmonise both. Still farther, the author of the 15th 
chapter follows Paul s words in the first chapter (com 
pare 22, 23, with i. 11, 13), but diverges in verses 24, 
28, 29, by inserting the Spanish journey, to which he 
makes the Roman one subordinate. Paul s language 
in other epistles, is applied in the 27th verse in a way 
not justified by Gralat. ii. 10 ; 1 Cor. ix. 11 ; xvi. 1, &c. ; 
2 Cor. ix. 12, &c. It is more allied to xi. 15, &c., of 
the present epistle. In representing the Gentile Chris 
tians of Macedonia and Achaia as indebted to the saints 
at Jerusalem for spiritual things, there is some incon- 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 127 

gruity. That they should be indebted to the apostle 
of the Gentiles for true instruction, is obvious ; that 
their contributions to the poor in the metropolis of 
Judea should be given as a token of brotherly love, is 
natural ; but how did these poor saints communicate 
their spiritual things to the Gentile Christians in Mace 
donia and Achaia ? The last four verses of this chap 
ter present nothing un- Pauline, and probably closed the 
epistle, following xiv. 23. 

The lion -authenticity of the loth and 16th chap 
ters is favoured by the fact which Origen mentions 
about Marcion, viz. that he cut them off the epistle ; * 
meaning that they were not in copies which the reputed 
heretic had ; for the accusations of the fathers directed 
against Marcion cannot be accepted without drawbacks. 
What motive could he have had in the present instance 
for omitting the chapters ? His peculiar opinions had 
nothing to do with them. To cut them off would not 
have served his cause. In the time of Origen, there 
fore, some MSS. were without the chapters. Tertullian 
himself, with all his vituperation, does not specify falsi 
fication of the epistle as he would have termed it ; but 
contents himself with the vague assertion that Marcion 
made great pits in the epistle and abstracted from it 
whatever he wished. 2 Epiphanius, too, is silent about 
this corruption of the text. 3 Marcion transmitted no 
more than fourteen chapters to his disciples, either 
because his MS. had no more, or because he thought 
the last two unauthentic. Irenseus too ignores them ; 
for they are never quoted among his numerous references 
to the epistle. The addition took place early, because 
it is in all known MSS. except a Latin one mentioned 
by Wetstein. 

How these chapters got to be affixed to the epistle 

1 Comment, in Ep. ad Romanos. 

2 Adv. Marcion. v. 13. See Griesbach s Hist. text. Greed epist. Paulin. 
sect. 2, 5. 3 Hares. 52, vol. i. p. 318. Opp. Colon. 1G83. 



128 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

is hard to explain. Part of the 16th chapter (verses 
3-20) probably belonged at first to a letter addressed 
to the Ephesians. The rest of the chapters is made up 
of pieces, all of which may not have been written with 
one design, nor to supplement the writing with which 
they are now connected. Perhaps the loth chapter 
shows a tendency to limit Paul s ministry to certain 
districts ; reserving Home, Italy, and Gaul for another 
apostle. Room is made for Peter, the proper head of 
the church. In this way a catholicising element is 
early seen in the epistle. 1 

There is no foundation for the opinion that the 
writer intended his work for Christians generally, the 
dwelling-place being inserted by transcribers agreeably 
to the context or tradition. There is indeed a trace of 
this in G., which omits the words in Rome (i. 7) and 
i those in Rome (i. 15) ; but A., B., C., far older and 
better copies, have the inscription, to the Romans. 

THE LANGUAGE. 

Though it may seem strange, at first sight, that the 
epistle was not written in Latin, which was the language 
of the Romans, there is abundant proof of its Greek 
original. Latin was then the language of northern 
Africa, where the old Italic version or versions origi 
nated, of which revisions were soon made in parts of 
Italy distant from Rome, not in the metropolis itself. 
The note of the Syrian scholiast on the Peshito, that 
Paul wrote in Latin, is groundless. The Greek lan 
guage was understood and employed at Rome in the 
first century. The Jews residing there learned it by 
intercourse with the Greek -speaking inhabitants and 
with the Romans themselves, many of whom preferred 
it to the Latin. The oldest Jewish tombs of Rome have 
Greek inscriptions, as we learn from Aringhi. 2 Gentile 

1 Comp. Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift, 1874, p. 504, etc. 
- Roma snbtermnea, vol. i. p. 397, etc. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. JU9 

Christians generally understood Greek, as we infer from 
Martial, Tacitus, Juvenal, and Ovid. Dionysius of 
Corinth and Irenaeus wrote in Greek to the Roman 
Christians. Justin Martyr, who resided in Rome for a 
time, wrote his apologies to the Roman emperors in the 
same tongue. Clement and Hernias wrote in Greek. 
Of the names of the first twelve bishops of Rome, ten 
are Greek and only two Latin. The diffusion of the 
Greek language was greatly promoted by the multitudes 
of Greeks that flocked to the imperial city. The ma 
jority of slaves, mechanics, and artisans were of Greek 
origin ; and the Romans, addicted to foreign practices, 
were ready to adopt the language of the conquered. 
Hence Greek became the favourite tongue of the edu 
cated classes. It is also probable that Greeks formed 
part of the church ; though it would be hazardous to 
assert that the Gentile members were of foreign origin, 
not native Greeks. 

CONTENTS. 

The most general division of the epistle is into two 
parts, one doctrinal, the other practical ; the former 
embracing chapters i. xi., the latter xii. xvi. These 
again may be subdivided. 

1. CHAPS, i.-xi. 

(a) i. 1-v. (c) ix.-xi. 

(/>) vi.-viii. 

2. CHAPS, xn.-xvi. 

(a) xii. xiii. (r) xv. xvi. 

(b) xiv. 

Formal divisions cannot be looked for, because the 
parts run more or less into one another, and pauses are 
rare. The writer often goes back upon thoughts and 
develops them in a different way. The most marked 
pause is at the end of the 8th chapter. 
VOL, i. K 



130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

To the salutation the apostle subjoins a few intro 
ductory verses, in which he announces his calling by 
the Son of God, his gratitude for the faith of the Roman 
Christians, his continual remembrance of them in prayer, 
and his great desire to visit them personally for the 
purpose of imparting some spiritual gift that they 
may be established. The importance of the gospel 
he sets forth in emphatic terms, passing to the great 
theme of the epistle, justification by faith, in the 16th 
and 17th verses (i. 1-17). 

He proceeds to show that all men, Gentiles and 
Jews, are sinners, transgressors of the divine law, and 
exposed to the wrath of God ; and therefore they need 
the revelation of the righteousness which is of faith. 
He demonstrates the sinfulness of the Gentile world 
(i. 18-32), and affirms that the Jews are equally guilty 
(ii. 1-29), without distinctly denying their privileges. 
In consequence of this argument, in which Jew and 
Gentile are reduced to the same level by the require 
ments of the moral law, an objection might readily 
occur to the Jew. What profit is there in belonging 
to a divine economy ? Having advanced what seemed 
derogatory to Judaism, Paul softens the apparent seve 
rity of his statements, by pointing out the privileges 
and preferences of the Jews (iii. 1-8). After the 
digression, which interrupts the regular course of the 
argument, he resumes the line of thought, and sets 
forth the result which had been already announced to 
the Jews, as a subject of serious reflection, viz. that 
there is no difference between them and the Gentiles, 
since they had forfeited their privileges by unbelief. 
Both are alike guilty, as is shown by quotations from 
the Old Testament (iii. 9-20). 

Having proved that all need the salvation revealed 
in the law of righteousness, the apostle advances a 
righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ. 
Here he establishes a theme announced in the seven- 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 131 

teenth verse of the 1st chapter, justification by faith 
without the deeds of law. The Gentile is expressly 
included in the circle of the faithful ; and instead of the 
law being made void by the doctrine of free salvation, 
it is established (hi. 21-31). 

The question before asked, in reference to the Jew, is 
now put with relation to Abraham, What advantage had 
he, if Jew and Gentile are alike? Instead of directly 
answering it in the negative, Paul points out that the 
same righteousness by faith, without the works of the 
law, was communicated to him even before circumcision, 
that he might be the father of all believers, Jews or Gen 
tiles. After setting Abraham s faith in a striking light, 
the writer applies to all believers what is affirmed of him. 
The mind of the reader is turned from the fleshly to the 
spiritual Abraham, with whom the Gentile as well as 
the Jew may be associated through faith in Christ (iv. 
1-25). 

The in ward fruit of justification by faith is described 
in the first eleven verses of the 5th chapter. By it the 
believer obtains peace with God, a hope which enables 
him to glory in afflictions, and a consciousness of the 
divine love arising out of the thought that Christ died 
for him (v. 111). In illustrating this topic, he resumes 
the universal aspect of the plan of salvation already stated, 
in the persons of the first and second Adam. A stream 
of death and corruption had flown forth upon the 
human family from Adam. From Christ the second 
Adam proceeds a righteousness which sanctifies. All 
sinned. Death, the consequence of sin, reigned even 
over persons who had no positive or revealed law, as 
well as over those who transgressed a written one. 
Thus sin and death were universal. The salvation 
of Christ counterbalances the wide- was ting effects of 
Adam s one offence. It is even more beneficial than 
the other is destructive. Sentence was passed for one 
offence, involving condemnation ; whereas the free gift 

K 2 



132 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

has relation to many offences. Where sin abounded, 
grace abounds much more. The law could not obviate 
the consequences of sin, but awakened a sense of iniquity, 
nourishing the desire for a full redemption. Thus the 
fruits of salvation by faith are compared with the disas 
trous effects of sin, so as to present a remarkable con 
trast in favour of the first. The remedy is co-extensive 
with the disease and even exceeds it. This is illustrated 
by contrasts between Adam and Christ (v. 12-21). 

Having shown the righteousness that is of faith and 
the superabundance of grace in redemption, in the 
preceding chapter, he stops to meet an objection that 
might be taken to the doctrine on the ground of its 
tendency to encourage sin. Are we to continue in sin 
that grace may abound ? No ; for the Christian is dead 
to sin, the symbol of which state is baptism. United 
to Christ, the believer dies with him, and rises a^ain to 

o 

a new life. Sin has therefore no more dominion over 
him. He is not under the law, seeking justification by 
it, but under grace (vi. 1-14). The same argument is 
now put differently. We cannot sin, because by so 
doing we become the servants of sin. Christians are 
freed from the bondage of sin producing death, and 
have yielded themselves to the service of righteousness 
(vi. 15-23). 

The 6th chapter is directed against Christian anti- 
noruianism, as the third was intended to meet Jewish 
antmomianism. In both cases, error is exposed by taking 
away the externality of the foundation and showing the 
inward state or life. Neither privilege nor gift of grace 
can furnish a motive for acting in opposition to the true 
subjectivity in which the substance of the privilege and 
gift consists. 

The writer had said in the fourteenth verse, Sin 
shall not have dominion .over you ; for ye are not under 
the law, but under grace. To illustrate and enforce 
this, lie now compares the relation of the believer to 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 133 

the law, to the case of a wife who has lost her husband. 
As the widow is free from the law, and may marry 
again ; so the believer, freed from the law, is prepared 
to be affianced to Christ. Immediately after, the be 
liever is compared to the dead husband, and, like him, 
is freed from the law. The apostle means to express 
the same idea in vii. 1-7 as that which he had termed 
before a death unto sin ; he presents it now as a death to 
the law. 

Having mentioned in the fifth verse the sinful affec 
tions which the law excites, the writer explains and 
illustrates this at considerable length, showing the ope 
ration of law on the human heart. It is inefficacious 
to sanctify the soul, and is the occasion of bringing 
forth fruit unto death, unless there be a death to sin. 
But it is effectual in imparting the knowledge of sin, 
which is the first step to amendment. The purport of 
the passage vii. 725 is to assert the true nature of the 
law and vindicate it from the charge of sin. In doing 
so, the apostle shows the relation it bears to human 
nature. It produces uneasiness, conflict, disquietude of 
rnind. By its prohibitions it arouses the evil propen 
sities and aggravates human guilt. It does not develop 
a new life in union with Christ, nor give true peace of 
conscience. Yet it is not sinful but spiritual, because 
the better nature approves of it (vii. 7-25). 

It is wrong to take the 6th and 7th chapters, with 
Mangold, as a kind of episode intended to obviate pos 
sible misconceptions of v. 20. They belong to the first 
part of the epistle, which explains and justifies the gospel 
of righteousnes by faith, with relation to scruples about 
its moral effects. 

The apostle now describes the state into which the 
believer is brought after the combat has passed. He 
is removed from condemnation, and lives after the ten 
dency of his spiritual nature, not after the flesh (viii. 
1-15). By the spirit the Christian is made conscious of 



134 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

his adoption, and participation of the everlasting inheri 
tance provided. This inheritance far exceeds the suffer 
ings of the present life : all long and hope for it, and 
while cherishing such hope with steadfastness and con 
fidence in God. they cannot be brought to shame. Their 
heavenly Father has given them a pledge of all other 
blessings in his only-begotten Son, and they have nothing 
to fear, because nothing can separate them from the love 
of God (viii. 16-39). 

The 9th, 10th, and llth chapters are not. properly 
speaking, an appendix to the preceding part of the letter. 
Neither are they the centre and essence of the whole, as 
Baur supposes, but a subordinate portion. The theme 
is still the same. The writer justifies further the right 
eousness of faith, against the national misgivings of 
Jewish Christianity. The ancient people of God ap 
peared to be cast back by the free admission of the Gen 
tiles to the salvation of Messiah. This fact was a 
perplexing one, not only to the Jews but the apostle 
himself. He endeavours to explain it by the uncondi 
tional right of divine election and the blindness of the 
Jews themselves ; but adds a consolatory conclusion, 
that God has not wholly cast away his people : their 
fall, which is the occasion of salvation to the Gentiles, 
is only temporary. 

Having demonstrated the necessity, and described 
the plenitude of salvation by faith alone, the apostle 
might have concluded his argument. But the admission 
of the Gentiles is too important to be dismissed with 
brief notices. Feeling that a religion which insists on 
faith as necessary to salvation had not met with accep 
tance on the part of the Jews, who rejected it in the 
spirit of a proud exclusiveness, the apostle expresses his 
deep sorrow for their unbelief, and offers an explana 
tion of that divine arrangement, in accordance with 
which the body of the Jewish nation was excluded from 
the Christian covenant. God s promise to the seed of 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 185 

Abraham had not been frustrated by the rejection of 
the people, since there was a spiritual, as well as a 
fleshly heir. He had selected Isaac to the exclusion of 
Ishmael, and Jacob in preference to Esau. Nor is there 
injustice in God s choosing according to his own will. 
The principle of selection is founded on the divine 
sovereignty, in the exercise of which He dispenses his 
mercy as He pleases. There is no ground of objection 
to this doctrine, because of the uncontrollable necessity 
imposed on the creature s actions, when Jehovah dis 
plays his grace toward some, as He had done to those 
who were called, and his wrath towards others, as He 
had done towards the body of the Jewish nation 
(ix. 1-29). 

Having justified God in selecting some and rejecting 
others according to his good pleasure, and showed that 
the prophets themselves spoke of the rejection of the 
Jews and the admission of another people, he states 
that they were the authors of their own fall. While 
the Gentiles obtained justification, the Jews had not, 
because they sought it by works. In their zeal for 
legal righteousness, they overlooked the righteousness 
of faith. The writer then digresses to notice the objec 
tions of the Jews, and shows that they are disproved 
by their own prophets who foretold the rejection of the 
nation and admission of the Gentiles (ix. 30-x. 21). 
After explaining the divine procedure in rejecting the 
Jews and calling the Gentiles, the apostle subjoins cer 
tain considerations calculated to soothe the minds of his 
countrymen. God had not wholly cast off his people. 
He had graciously chosen a remnant to be partakers of 
salvation. Though the people are given up to their 
own obduracy as had been predicted in the Old Testa 
ment, even in their fall Jehovah had a purpose of mercy. 
So far from his design terminating in the nation s rejec 
tion, that very rejection was the means of conferring 
the privileges of the gospel on the Gentile world. And 



136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the Gentiles have no reason to cherish feelings of proud 
superiority relative to the Jews. After they are con 
verted, Israel will be saved. 

A patriotic feeling influences the apostle in saying 
that Israel will be saved, after all. It is the wish of his 
heart. He hopes that the fulness of the Gentiles may 
usher in the salvation of the Jewish nation. The sub 
ject is concluded with an ascription of praise to God, 
whose perfections are unsearchable and ways past find 
ing out ; who dispenses all blessings according to his will 
(xi. 136). It will be observed that the apostle ceases 
to direct his view to the Jewish Christians, and turns 
to the Gentile part of the church, at the llth verse of 
the llth chapter. The transition is informal but not 
the less noticeable. 

The practical or hortatory part of the epistle is con 
tained in chapters xii.-xv. Here the admonitions are 
partly general, referring to Christian life under all aspects, 
and partly adapted to the peculiar circumstances of 
the Koraan church. The 12th chapter enjoins personal 
holiness, unity, humility, and the Christian graces 
generally. The 13th commands subjection to the exist 
ing civil powers ; honesty ; mutual love enforced by 
the near approach of the day of the Lord. Here Jewish 
Christians are specially in view. Apprehension was 
felt lest they should continue to cherish the sentiments 
they held respecting heathen rulers before they became 
Christians, and be tempted to rebel against the govern 
ment. They submitted to the Roman yoke with un 
easiness. Looking at the oppression they had to endure 
under it, and contrasting their religion with the idolatry 
of the powers that crushed them, they were inclined to 
revolt against their rulers. These feelings they carried 
into the Christian religion. There is no evidence indeed, 
that the Jewish Christians of the church had become 
rebels against the reigning authorities, cruel though 
those authorities were ; but the writer was probably 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 137 

aware of manifestations of feeling which might prejudice 
the Christian cause. The subject was delicate and im 
portant. The apostle gives it a general bearing, so 
that the special circumstances which led to its introduc 
tion are liable to be forgotten in the universality of its 
aspect. His doctrine is passive obedience, one that 
cannot be adopted without harm to the progress of 
civilisation. Wicked rulers like Nero, usurpers like the 
first and third Napoleons, should be resisted or de 
throned. Civil liberty is opposed to passive obedience. 
But the times and causes of resistance to tyrants must 
be carefully considered. What was best for the Roman 
Christians under Nero, or what the writer inculcates as 
best generally, is unsuited to all times. Though 
primitive Christianity did not disturb the existing 
arrangements of civil society, it does not follow that its 
spirit allowed bad rulers to act unrestrained. 

Chapters xiv.-xv. 13 refer to the mutual treatment 
of the two classes in the church. Essenism had probably 
penetrated into the ecclesiastical life of the church. 1 
The weak were Jewish Christians who not only ob- 
. served sabbaths and feasts, but held such Ebionite 
principles as abstinence from flesh and wine. Their 
Christianity had an Essene colouring ; for such absti 
nence was practised by the Essenes ; but it was 
Ebionite too. No good reason exists for denying the 
ordinary Jewish Christianity, coloured as it may have 
been by Essenism of the majority in the church and re 
solving it into an extreme asceticism on the part of a 
few who were essentially christianised Essenes. This 
conversion of the weak into an extreme party among 
the Jewish Christians, leads to the assumption of an 
opposite extreme among the Gentile Christians, whose 
freedom was ultra- Pauline. The apostle refers, not to 
extremes, but merely to the two constituent elements of 

1 RilchVs AUkatMisehe Kirche, p. 232, et S >q. 2nd ed. 



138 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the church. Why should the Jewish Christian maj ority be 
separated by a mild form of the usual belief from a small 
party among them ; or the Gentile Christian minority 
be considered moderately Pauline in contradistinction 
from an extreme few who pushed their principles to 
excess ? The hypothesis, advocated though it be by 
Mangold and Ewald, is untenable. In relation to the 
two classes the apostle enforces the principle of charity. 
The strong and the weak were not to condemn one 
another, but to live in peace. The subject of mutual 
forbearance is resumed at the beginning of the 15th 
chapter, and receives a more general application to Jews 
and Gentiles, supported by quotations from the Old 
Testament. The writer adopts a milder tone, justifying 
former severity by his ministerial office, which leads 
him to speak of the success attending his labours, the 
wide sphere of his activity, especially in fields unoc 
cupied, and his long-projected journey to Rome after he 
had visited Jerusalem. In anticipation of the dangers 
and obstacles with which that journey was beset, he re 
quests the prayers of his readers, and concludes with a 
benediction (xv.). 

The 16th chapter contains a recommendation of 
Phebe, the bearer of the letter, various salutations, a 
warning against persons who caused dissensions, and an 
ascription of praise to God (xvi. 1-27). 

From this brief analysis it will appear that the 
apostle does not follow a determinate plan. The 
separate parts of the epistle are not elaborated in logical 
relation to the whole. The sequences and turns of 
thought, the phrases and connecting particles, result 
from no studied purpose. Systematic precision cannot 
be attributed to the work. There may have been a 
clearly defined outline in the writer s mind when he 
began, to which he adhered in the main ; but great free 
dom shows itself in details. Digressions occur ; sudden 
interruptions of the train of thought by subordinate 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. l. H) 

ideas ; parenthetic clauses ; x plays upon words. There 
are also repetitions. The apostle reverts to the same 
thoughts, and expresses them differently. Calm pro 
gression towards one conclusion is not his method ; re 
trogression marks his path as well. He breaks off the 
thread of discourse, and returns to it. He avoids saying 
directly what he had indirectly established, and intro 
duces the utterance of strong feeling instead. Con 
flicting emotions in his mind influence modes of expres 
sion ; and convictions are softened by motives of deli 
cacy or ardent love of the nation. Figurative language 
supplies the place of prosaic statement. Arguments 
and illustrations from the Old Testament are freely used. 
The prophets are quoted to show what they did not in 
tend. Their words are applied in a sense alien to the 
connection, or adapted by alteration to a particular pur 
pose. Important terms occur in shifting senses, and 
elude attempts to fasten them to the same ideas. They 
narrow and widen according to the will of the author 
or the exigencies of the places they occupy. Thus the 
words rendered law, creature, righteousness, justification, 
vary in sense even in the same context, refusing to 
speak the exact alphabet of theologians who disfigure 
revelation by throwing the sacred writers into one 
crucible and drawing out a harmonious system ; or by 
confining an author like Paul to a circle of ideas ex 
pressed in exact phraseology. Nothing can be more 
improper than to treat his language as though it were 
logically precise ; to build up doctrinal propositions on 
isolated sentences, or to make them polished stones in 
the structure of a creed. His thoughts and phraseology 
must be taken in their general breadth and bearing. 

1 Too many parentheses have been assumed by unskilful interpreters, 
of which v. 13-17 and ix. 3 are examples. The latter is peculiarly 
unfortunate ( for I myself did wish to be anathema from Christ ), as if 
the words referred to the time prior to Paul s conversion ; whereas 
Paul only expresses, in hyperbolical language, the affection he bore to 
his countrymen. 



140 INTRODUCTION TO TIIE NEW TESTAMENT, 

The forcible outpourings of an inspired mind, they can 
never cease to stimulate and instruct those who read ; 
but they cannot satisfy the speculative and philosophical. 
Christianity is for all, for the childlike and teachable 
more than the critical ; and the greatest expounder of 
it, after its Founder, will be better appreciated by the 
humble-minded learner than the philosopher. The 
truths on which Paul insists appeal to the moral in 
stincts of man, and while approved by the highest judg 
ment, fail to satisfy scientific processes of argument 
because they are for mankind in the aggregate, not an 
educated portion merely ; for humanity as it is, with 
its broad hopes and fears, its wants and weaknesses, 
rather than the select few who philosophise about pro 
blems remote from the uppermost necessities of the 
heart. 



PARAGRAPHS INTERPRETED. 

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the 
world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all 
men, for that all have sinned. (For until the law sin 
w r as in the world : but sin is not imputed when there is 
no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to 
Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the 
similitude of Adam s transgression, who is the figure of 
him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also 
is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many 
be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by 
grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded 
unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so 
is the gift : for the judgment was by one to condemna 
tion, but the free gift is of many offences unto justifica 
tion. For if by one man s offence death reigned by 
one ; much more they which receive abundance of 
grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in 
life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 141 

of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; 
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came 
upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one 
man s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the 
obedience of one shall many be made righteous (v. 
12-19). 

This passage has been minutely canvassed by con 
troversial theologians ; and has served as the foundation 
of current dogmas among polemics. It has been built 
upon with laborious skill, as if it contained important 
truth which it were unsafe to misapprehend or deny. 
We must restrict ourselves to the barest outline of its 
meaning, leaving the reader to fill it out for himself. 

The construction is irregular. There is no clause 
corresponding to i as by one man sin entered into the 
world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all 
men, for that all have sinned ; and the apodosis has to 
be supplied out of who is the figure of him that was 
to come (v. 14). The writer turns aside from the con 
struction at the beginning. 

Sin entered into the world by one man, i.e. by Adam ; 
and death by sin. Sin is here spoken of as a person. It 
does not mean what is called original sin. The entrance 
of sin into the world by Adam s act of transgression 
caused death, i.e. physical death. Whether such death 
solely, it is difficult to decide, because spiritual and 
physical death may be comprehended in the one word. 
The latter was predominant in the apostle s mind ; we 
cannot say that the former was altogether excluded. 

And so death passed upon all men, for that all sinned. 
In consequence of the connection between Adam s sin 
and death as cause and effect, death came upon all, in 
asmuch as all sinned. Does this language mean that 
all sinned in and, with Adam as their representative ? 
The reasoning of the apostle implies an affirmative 
answer to the question. The transgression of Adam 
was the transgression of all because of the mystical 



142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

identity of the race with their representative and head. 
The sin of the mass was involved in the sin of Adam. 

For until the law sin was in the world : but sin is not 
imputed when there is no law. 

This verse meets an objection arising from what the 
apostle had already asserted, where no law is, there is 
no transgression. How could all be sinners during the 
interval which elapsed from Adam to the giving of the 
Mosaic law, when there was no law ? Sin is not 
charged to men where there is no law. 

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even 
over them that had not sinned after the similitude of 
A dam s ti >ansgression . 

Notwithstanding this non-imputation of sin as per 
sonal guilt it still existed, as is proved by the fact that 
men died from Adam to Moses, even though they did 
not like Adam break a law distinctly promulgated. 

Who is the figure of him that was to come. The 
apostle institutes a comparison between Adam and 
Christ, representing them as type and antitype. The 
comparison is rather by way of contrast, for the object 
of it is to show that greater benefits have resulted from 
the work of Christ than evils from Adam s fall. The 
cases of the offence and the free gift are different. If 
many died through the fall of one, much more has the 
grace of God, and the gift by grace, coming through 
one man Jesus Christ, abounded to many. There is 
another contrast. The effects of the offence and of 
the free gift are condemnation and justification con 
demnation to many, arising from one man s offence ; 
justification, after many offences, by one man s right 
eousness. 

The eighteenth verse resumes the parallel begun at 
the twelfth, and puts the particulars of similarity and 
dissimilarity together. As by one offence judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation, so the free gift 
came upon all men to justification of life, by one sen- 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 143 

tence of justification. The all in the first case are the 
descendants of Adam ; so are they in the second, be 
cause the sentence of justification has been passed once 
for all, and brings eternal life to such as appropriate 
it. Its consequences are available for all, and become 
real as soon as believed. Many were made sinners by 
the disobedience of one man, and many shall be made 
righteous by the obedience of one. How this takes 
place is not explained. The writer wishes to inculcate 
the great truth, that the reign of grace exceeds the 
reign of sin. 

The apostle expresses an intimate connection be 
tween Adam and his posterity, by means of which 
Adam s sin and death caused the sin and death of his 
posterity. By one man many were made sinners/ 
Elsewhere, * In Adam all die. Whether he had a 
definite idea of this connection may be doubted, because 
he was intent on his parallel. Theologians however 
have put, or attempted to put, precision into his lan 
guage, by representing him as teaching that as all men 
sinned in and with Adam, the personal guilt of his 
sin is imputed to each one of his posterity. Such 
is the doctrine of original sin, deduced from the 
apostle s language. Sin is the act of a conscious being 
who has a perception of right and wrong ; and none 
can be rightly punished for another s sin, else the Judge 
of all the earth would act contrary to the moral sense 
He has implanted. If the language mean that Adam s 
sin was as truly the sin of every one of his posterity, as 
if it had been personally committed by him, principles 
are attributed to God at variance with his moral per- 
fectiors. The utmost that the apostle can mean is, that 
all were placed in the position of sinners, that their 
objective relation to God was determined at once and for 
ever by the sin of Adarn, so that they are under 
sentence of death from the first. He does not take 
into account the subjective moral condition of individual 



344 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

men ; but looks at them in the mass as comprehended 
in Adam, and brought into a new objective relation to 
God by their sin with the head. They are under sen 
tence of condemnation, in a state of alienation from 
God antecedently to any act of their own, as is shown 
by the universal reign of death the death even of 
infants. It agrees with the doctrine of Paul to say that 
all die penally because of Adam s sin which was also 
their sin ; but it disagrees with his language to say that 
every individual is subjected to guilt on account of 
Adam s transgression, because guilt is that state of a 
moral agent which results from his actual commission 
of a crime, knowing it to be such. 

In explaining these passages, it should never be for 
gotten that the language is that of a speculative man 
with a mind of mystic tendency ; that he adapted 
Jewish ideas to his Christian creed, and employed a 
phraseology expressive of his peculiar idiosyncrasy. He 
was not a western logician conducting a train of reason 
ing ; but a man of strong feeling drawing comparisons 
to set forth one or two ideas ; inexact in language, 
using single words without studied selection, and care 
less of construction or syntax. His doctrinal state 
ments should not be pressed into modern church creeds, 
apart from their surroundings or limitations. 

What shall we say then ? Is the law sin ? God 
forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law : for 
I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou 
shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the com 
mandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. 
For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive 
without the law once : but when the commandment 
came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, 
which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived 
me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and 
the commandment holy, and just, and good, Was then 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 145 

that which is good made death unto me ? God forbid. 
But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me 
by that which is good ; that sin by the commandment 
might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the 

D o 

law is spiritual : but I am carnal, sold under sin. For 
that which I do I allow not : for what I would, that do 
I not ; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that 
which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is 
good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that 
dwelleth in me. For I know, that in me, (that is, in my 
flesh,) dwelleth no good thing : for to will is present 
with me ; but how to perform that which is good I find 
not. For the good that I would I do not : but the evil 
which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would 
not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in 
me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, 
evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God 
after the inward man : But I see another law in my 
members, warring against the law of my mind, and 
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in 
my members. wretched man that I am ! who shall 
deliver me from the body of this death ? I thank God 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind 
I myself serve the law of God ; but with the flesh the 
law of sin (vii. 7-25). 

This paragraph is perplexing to interpreters. As the 
language of it is not consistent with itself, and opposite 
states of feeling are expressed in various clauses, com 
mentators have been at a loss about the general meaning. 
The leading question which arises on its perusal is : 
Does the apostle speak of a regenerate or unregenerate 
man? Before attempting an answer, it should be stated, 
that however the language may appear to change in the 
latter part, there is no good reason for dividing the para 
graph into two, and appropriating them to such different 
persons as the unregenerate and regenerate respectively. 

VOL. i. L 



146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Verses 7-14 and 15-25 refer to the same general state 
of mind. As to the main point, whether the unrenewed 
or renewed man is described, if a categorical answer 
be demanded, it must be given in favour of the former. 
But no light is thrown on the interpretation by restric 
ting the passage to one or the other ; and the phraseo 
logy affords satisfactory ground for neither. Both 
classes of commentators those who apply it to Chris 
tians and such as refer it to the unregenerate, are 
compelled to modify phrases which seem to stand in 
their way, as soon as they look at grammatical or 
linguistic considerations. Both are right and both 
wrong. The paragraph does not belong either to the 
unregenerate or to the regenerate alone, because, as 

o o 

Jowett truly says, Mankind are not divided into rege 
nerate and unregenerate, but are in a state of transition 
from one to the other, or too dead and unconscious to be 
included in either. The writer describes a conflict and 
progress in the soul, from its being awakened to a con 
sciousness of sin by the law, till its emancipation and 
victory spoken of in the commencement of the eighth 
chapter. There is no regular progression in the com 
bat. The stages are not described in exact gradation. 
Yet there is advancement notwithstanding. The soul s 
struggles become less violent as the power of sin grows 
weaker. The will gradually exercises more control 
over the knowledge and actions. 

The / is an ideal person rather than the apostle him 
self. As the nature is divided into flesh and spirit, the 
/ shifts from the one to the other or hovers between 
them. And as to the law spoken of, the writer had 
regard to the Mosaic law more than any other, though 
the law written in the heart was also in his thoughts. 

The state described is to some extent ideal. Few 
men pass through all its stages, though many pass 
through some of them. Deep consciousness of sin, with 
imperfect views of the love of God and of the moral 



THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 147 

law, will often produce a spiritual combat in strong 
minds. It was so with Luther. The experience of the 
apostle himself supplied some of the moods which he 
exhibits. The goodness of law, as well as its evil, are 
seen in the description. The condition is not a law-state, 
to use the phrase of the old divines ; nor is it what they 
call a gospel-state of mind. It is a mixed condition an 
incipient spirituality advancing to freedom and peace of 
conscience. The lower nature is checked by the higher; 
and though the will is enlightened, it does not uniformly 
carry out its determinations. Here as in other parts of 
the epistle, the writer uses the language of strong feel 
ing, and paints the phases of a mind conscious of sin in 
shifting colours, agreeably to the varying shades of light 
and darkness which pass over it. It is therefore incorrect 
to press his phraseology into the service of theological 
systems, as Augustine did against Pelagianism. The 
further it is kept from the crucible of controversialists, 
the more intelligible it becomes. Why should there be 
so great anxiety to make it suit either the regenerate or 
the unregenerate man, as if the states of mind charac 
teristic of each could be separated ? Is there no transition 
of the one into the other no blending of spiritual with 
mispiritual states of mind? Does not the flesh often 
get the better of the spirit in the Christian? Does not 
the spirit often control the flesh in him who is but half 
Christian in character and action ? 

It obscures the interpretation of vii. 7-25, to bring 
it into antithesis to viii. 1-17, as Tholuck does after 
Turretin. The two are not antagonistic, descriptive 
of non- Christian and Christian character respectively ; 
the latter is the ultimate issue of the former. The 
difference between them is one of time and degree, not 
of essence. The final triumph of the spirit over the 
flesh is the aim and end of the spiritual combat de 
scribed so vividly in vii. 725. The two complete the 
description of a state in which the awakened conscience, 



148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

struggling to get free from the trammels of guilt, suffers 
many reverses, but is at length released from the pain 
ful conflict, and has peace. The triumph is complete, 
but seldom realised in actual experience without recur 
ring struggles. 



THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 



THE PERSON TO WHOM THE EPISTLE WAS ADDRESSED. 

PHILEMON was a person of distinction in the church at 
Colossse, remarkable for his Christian activity and hos 
pitality. The position he occupied among the believers 
there is unknown. The apostle calls him his fellow- 
labourer, an appellation which has led many to suppose 
that he filled an office, either that of elder or deacon. 
The title does not necessarily indicate office. Ecclesi 
astical tradition makes him bishop at Colossae, and a 
martyr in Rome under Nero. According to Michaelis, 
his house was a spacious one, because a part of the 
Christian community assembled in it, and travelling 
Christians were entertained. Others suppose that his 
premises were not very extensive, because the apostle 
requested him to prepare a lodging in a hired house, 
where he might receive all that came to him. It is pro 
bable that he was a man of substance in the place. The 
nineteenth verse shows that he had been converted by 
Paul, perhaps at Ephesus, for there is no evidence that 
the apostle was ever at Colossae. Benson 1 argues that 
Philemon received the gospel from some of Paul s con 
verts or assistants such as Timothy or one of the persons 
mentioned in Coloss. iv. 10, &c. and in Philemon (verse 
23). His conversion would thus be owing to the apostle 
indirectly. But the expressions in the nineteenth verse 
are too strong for this. If some of the Colossians went 

1 Paraphrase on the Epistle to Philemon, p. 338. 



150 INTKODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

to Ephesus and heard Paul preach there, may not Phi 
lemon have been one of them ? 

Philemon had a church in his house, not consisting, 
as some suppose, of the members of his own family 
merely but of other believers. Along with him is men 
tioned Archippus, the same person spoken of in the 
epistle to the Colossians (iv. 17). Many think he was 
Philemon s son, and Apphia Philemon s wife. All seem 
to have been connected by family ties, or to have be 
longed to the little circle termed the church in the house ; 
else Apphia would not have been introduced into a 
private letter. Onesimus, Philemon s slave, has been 
metamorphosed by tradition into bishop of Beroea in 
Macedonia, and is said to have suffered martyrdom at 
Kome. Others identify him with Onesimus bishop of 
Ephesus, so that Ephesus becomes Philemon s place of 
abode. Such is Holtzm ami s opinion. But the Onesi 
mus of Ephesus was a different person from him who is 
spoken of in our epistle. 1 



OCCASION OF THE LETTEE. 

The slave Onesimus had run away from his master 
at ColossaB, fearing punishment for some crime or act of 
disobedience. It has been thought that he robbed Phi 
lemon (verses 1118). The eighteenth verse, in which 
the word translated icronged 2 is explained by the verb 
owes? may refer to theft, something taken from his master, 
but not necessarily so. Another opinion is, that he had 
been idle, and had run away to escape work ; in which 
case the loss of service is referred to in the 18th verse. 
The language appears to us to denote some act of theft. 

Having found Paul at Rome, he had been converted 
to the Christian faith. Perhaps he had known the 
apostle before. 

1 See lynut. ad Ephes, i. 0. 



THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 151 

It is unnecessary to suppose that Philemon was keen 
and obstinate in his resentments, to account for the 
solicitude shown by the apostle in the matter. As far 
as we can gather from the letter, his disposition was be 
nevolent. When Paul despatched Tychicus to Colossre, 
with a letter to the Christians there, he took the oppor 
tunity of sending Onesimus back to his master with the 
present one, recommending him to his confidence. 



TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 

The time and place of writing are determined by the 
epistles to the Colossians and Philippians. The apostle 
was a prisoner either at Cassarea or Rome. In favour 
of the former, Hilgenfeld refers to the request of the 
writer that a lodging should be prepared for him in 
Colossse, because he hoped for a speedy release ; that a 
date prior to A.D. 61 is implied, in which year Colossse 
was partially destroyed by an earthquake ; and that the 
mention of Epaphras, the writer s fellow-prisoner, of 
Mark who had a house in Jerusalem, of Aristarchus and 
Luke, who had accompanied Paul to Caesarea (Acts xx. 
4, 5), and afterwards to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2), suitCa3- 
sarea best. These considerations are not conclusive. If 
the apostle expected a speedy deliverance from captivity, 
why should he go to Phrygia rather than Rome to which 
place he was proceeding when detained at Ca3sarea? 
As to the earthquake, we do not know if Colossa3 suffered 
with Laodicea. Tacitus speaks of the latter alone. Eu- 
sebius indeed says that the Laodicean earthquake affected 
Hierapolis and Colossal ; but he puts it in the tenth 
year of Xero. There is no reason for disturbing the old 
opinion that Paul was prisoner at Rome when lie wrote 
this letter. Onesimus, who had charge of it, travelled 
with Tychicus. It should be dated A.D. 62, and was the 
first of those written in the Roman captivity. 



152 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, 



AUTHENTICITY. 

The authenticity was first questioned by Baur, whose 
ingenuity supplied several arguments in support of his 
opinion. He was followed by Holtzmann, who examines 
the epistle minutely, and discovers in it the use of the 
Colossian and Ephesian epistles, or rather a simultane- 
ousness of situation, expression and ideas belonging to 
the three epistles which brings the present one into the 
second century. His essay is more ingenious than con 



vincing. 1 



Supposed allusions to it in the Ignatian epistles must 
be omitted as irrelevant. The three places which Kirch- 
hofer quotes from the epistles to the Ephesians, Mag- 
nesians, and Polycarp are too remote to be trusted. 
The earliest writer who expressly alludes to it is Ter- 
tullian : This epistle alone has had an advantage from 
its brevity, for by that it has escaped the falsifying 
hands of Marcion. Nevertheless, I wonder that when 
he receives one epistle to one man, he should reject two 
to Timothy, and one to Titus, which treat of the govern 
ment of the church. 2 Here it is asserted that Marcion 
received it into his canon. 

It is in the Muratorian list. 3 

Origen speaks of it thus : Which Paul being aware 
of, in the epistle to Philemon said to Philemon about 
( hiesimus, &c. 4 Again: As Paul says to Philemon, "We 
have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the 
bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother." 5 

1 See Ililgenfeld s Zeifsckrift for 1873, p. 428, etc. 

2 Soli huic epistolae brevitas sua profuit, ttt falsarias manus Marcionis 
evaderet. Miror tamen cum ad unum hominem literas factas receperit, 
quid ad Timotheum duas, et imam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu compositas 
recusaverit. Adv. Marcion. v. 42. 

3 See Credner s Zur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 76. 

4 oVep Kal 6 TiavXos eVtcrrap.fi/oy, \eyev fv ry npbs 3>i\r)fJiova eirioroXfl r<p 
f J>iA^/xoi/t TTfpi rov *Qvr)criiJ.ov t K.T.\. Homil. in Jcrcm. 10. 

6 Sicut Paulus ad PhUemona dicit, Gaudium enim magnum habuinius, 



THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 163 

Elsewhere: Of Paul it was said to Philemon, "Being 
such an one as Paul the aged," since he was a young 
man when Stephen was stoned for the testimony of 
Christ, and he kept the garments of them that slew 
him. l 

Eusebius also includes it in the canon. 2 Jerome, 
commenting on the epistle, alludes to some who either 
rejected or made objections to it ; and in answering the 
objections affirms that it had been always received by 
all the churches. 3 

In the time of Jerome 4 there were some who did not 
receive it, asserting that it had been rejected by most of 
the ancients, which was a mistake. From the unimpor 
tant nature of its contents, these doubters supposed either 
that it did not proceed from Paul, or that he wrote it in 
his private, unapostolic capacity. 

According to Baur, the language is un-Pauline. A 
considerable number of expressions do not appear in 
Paul s writings, but only in the epistles of questionable 
authenticity, such as fellow -soldier (2) figuratively, oc 
curring in the pastoral epistles, to enjoin that ivhich is con 
venient (8), the aged (9), unprofitable, profitable (11), to 
receive (15), repay, owe (19), to have joy of (20), a 
lode/ing (22), the thrice repeated bowel?, a word, however, 
not un-Pauline. 5 It is also said, that the letter con 
tains improbabilities ; that it exhibits the beginning of 
a romance literature, like the Clementine homilies, the 
tendency of the romance being to show that what is lost 
on earth is gained in heaven. If we suppose that Paul 

et eonsolationem in charitate tua, quia viscera sanctorum requieverimt per 
te, frater. Comment, in Matt, tract. 34. 

1 De Paulo autera dictum eat ad Philemona, Hunc autem ut Paulus 
senex, cum esset adolescentulus quando Stephanus pro Christ! testimonio 
lapidabatur, et ipse vestimenta servabat interficientium eum. Ibid, tract. 33. 

2 Hist. Eccles. iii. c. "25. 

3 Comment, in Ep. ad Philcm. Opp. vol. iv. p. 442. 

4 Procem. Comment, in Ep. ad Philcm. 

TO dvrjKOV, 
, crou ovaifj.r 



154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

and Onesimus were previously acquainted, and that the 
latter went to the apostle when he began to repent of 
his flight, no room will be left for that peculiar coin 
cidence of accidental circumstances which Baur finds 
in the letter. 1 

Holtzmann assumes two interpolations proceeding 
from the author of that to the Ephesians, viz. verses 1, 
46, which is an improbable conjecture. 



CONTENTS. 

The apostle states the case of Onesimus to Philemon, 
and entreats him to receive his servant again, not as a 
slave but a Christian brother. The first three verses con 
tain the dedication and salutation. After this the writer 
thanks God for what he had heard of Philemon s faith 
and love towards the Lord Jesus and all saints, ex 
pressing his joy that he had behaved so generously to 
Christians ( 1-7 ) . The proper subj ect of the letter begins 
at the eighth verse, and is continued till the twenty-first. 
As an apostle, he might have enjoined Philemon to do 
what Christian principle required in respect to Onesimus ; 
but he rather chooses, as the aged prisoner of Christ, to 
beseech him to receive Onesimus, for though the latter 
had behaved improperly he was now a different person. 
Paul might have retained him to minister to himself, 
but would do nothing without Philemon s consent. 
Providence had made his departure the means of his 
reformation, that his master might receive him for ever, 
not as a slave but a brother. He therefore entreats 
Philemon to take him back, promising to pay or requite 
the master for any wrong the slave had done, should 
the former require it. But he is confident that the 
master will exceed the request (8-21). The last four 
verses are the conclusion, in which the writer desires 
Philemon to provide him a lodging, sends salutations 

1 Paulus der Apostel, pp. 475-480. 



THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 155 

from several fellow-labourers, and wishes his correspon 
dent the rich communication and continual presence of 
the favour of Jesus Christ. 

The nineteenth verse shows that the apostle wrote 
the letter himself, to make the effect certain. Bertholdt s 
inference from it, that the preceding portion did not 
proceed from the apostle s own hand, is incorrect. 

The letter is a friendly not a doctrinal one. It re 
lates to a private matter between Philemon and his 
slave. But though it is of little importance as a public 
document relating to Christian truth or history, it is 
not without use, because it serves as a practical com 
mentary on Coloss. iv. 6, putting Paul s character in a 
light which none other of his writings exhibits. The 
qualities which dictated its composition are eminently 
attractive. Dignity, generosity, prudence, friendship, 
affection, politeness, skilful address, purity, are apparent. 
Hence it has been called with great propriety, the 
polite epistle. True delicacy, fine address, consummate 
courtesy, nice strokes of rhetoric, make it a unique 
specimen of the epistolary style. It shows the perfect 
Christian gentleman. 

Doddridge has compared it to an epistle of Pliny 
supposed to have been written on a similar occasion, 
pronouncing it far superior as a human composition ; 
though antiquity furnishes no example of the epistolary 
style equal to that of the younger Pliny to Sabinian. 

The opinion advocated by Wieseler 1 and Thiersch 2 
that the epistle to the Laodiceans, mentioned in Coloss. 
iv. 16, is identical with the present one to Philemon, 
rests on mere assumptions such as, that our letter was 
not addressed to Philemon alone but also to Archippus ; 
and that both belonged to Laodicea. Nothing appears 
to us more certain than that they were members of the 
Christian community at Colossa}. 

1 Chronologic des aposfol. Zcitalt. u, s. iv., p. 452, ct scq. 
Versuch zur Herstdlwiy des historischcn Standpunkts u. s. w., p. 424, 
note 46. 



150 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 



SOME CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH PHILIPPI. 

PhiLiPPi belonged originally to Thrace, but was after 
wards reckoned to Macedonia. According to Diodorus 
Siculus the old name was Crenides, from numerous 
springs in its vicinity. It was situated on a rising ground 
about nine miles inland, north-west of its harbour Nea- 
polis. Philip, perceiving the importance of the situation, 
repaired and enlarged the town, fortifying it against the 
incursions of the Thracians, and from him it was called 
Philippi (B.C. 358). The battles fought near it are 
remarkable in history, especially the second. 

The writer of the Acts notices it thus : l which is 
the first place of the district, a city of Macedonia, a 
colony, words that give rise to considerable diversity 
of opinion. When Paulus ^milius conquered Perseus, 
he divided Macedonia into four parts or regions ; and 
Philippi was assigned to the first of them with Amphi- 
polis as its capital. The most natural interpretation is, 
the first Macedonian city at which one coming from 
proconsular Asia would arrive ; Neapolis belonging to 
Thrace, not to Macedonia, Thus the adjective ^rs^ re 
spects locality. But many refer it to political rank, trans 
lating a chief city of that part of Macedonia. 

The apostle Paul visited Philippi on his second 
missionary journey, accompanied by Silas, Timothy, and 
Luke ; and preached in a Jewish proseucha or temporary 
place of worship. But he suffered severe treatment at 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 157 

the hands of the selfish heathen and magistrates of the 
place, by whom he was imprisoned. After a short stay 
he left the city (Acts xvi.). During his absence, Luke, 
Timothy, Epaphroditus, and perhaps Clement, laboured 
to enlarge and strengthen the church he had founded. 
He visited it again on his third missionary tour. 
Whether this happened when he passed through Mace 
donia on his way to Greece, accompanied by Tychicus 
and Trophimus, is more than doubtful ; though some 
suppose that he even wrote there, at the time, the second 
epistle to the Corinthians. None but two visits can be 
made out with certainty (Acts xx.). 

Philippi was the first European town that received 
the gospel, the standard of divine truth being planted 
where contending armies had met. While historians 
of Rome will point to Philippi as the scene of a me 
morable struggle, and lament over the fallen Brutus 
the stern defender of his country s freedom, religious 
historians will prefer to speak of a spiritual victory 
achieved by Christianity. Brutus and Cassius, Augustus 
and Antony, vanish from the view of enlightened pa 
triotism before Paul and Silas, Luke and Epaphroditus, 
victors nobler far than blood-stained Romans at the 
head of armies. 

AUTHENTICITY. 

External testimonies in favour of the Pauline author 
ship are abundant and unanimous. Thus Polycarp 
writes to the Philippians : i For neither I nor any one 
like me, can reach the wisdom of the blessed and glo 
rious Paul .... who also, when absent, wrote to 
you letters, into which if ye look ye will be able to 
edify yourselves in the faith which has been given 
you. l 

1 ovre yap e yco, oure ci\\os O/JLOLOS e /zoi favvarai KaTaKoXovdrjcraL rfj crofyia 
TOV fjiaKapiov Kat i>8oov IlauXou, os K.a.1 dir<av vfj.lv fypatyev cirurroXas fls as- 
f av eyKVTTTrjTf, ^vvr/di ){Tf(T0f oiKo8ofj,c ia 0ai fls TI/V ftofa ia av Vfuv 7nVrti> ; K.r.X. 
Ep, ad Philipi>. o. iii. 



158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Again : But I have neither perceived nor heard any 
such thing in you, among whom the blessed Paul 
laboured, who are [praised] in the beginning of his 
epistle. For he glories in you in all the churches which 
alone knew God then. l 

Irenseus says : As Paul also says to the Philip - 
pians : "I am full, having received of Epaphroditus 
the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet 
smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well- pleasing to God." 2 

The following occurs in Clement of Alexandria : 
1 When Paul confesses of himself, " Not as though I 
had already attained, either were already perfect," 
&c. 3 

Tertullian writes : Of which (hope) being in sus 
pense himself, when he writes to the Philippians, " If 
by any means," says he, "I might attain to the resur 
rection of the dead : not as though I had already at 
tained, or were perfected." 

In the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, 
the following quotation occurs from the second chapter: 
who also were so far followers and imitators of Christ, 
" Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery 
to be equal with God," &c. 5 

In modern times the authenticity has been ques 
tioned. Schrader took exception to iii. 1-iv. 9. Baur and 

1 eyo) Se ovftev TOLOI/TO evoqcra eV v/juv ov8e ffKOVcra, eV ols KfKon uiKev o 
paKapios nav\os, (drives eWe eV apxfl T V S Tri<rro\f)s avrov ire pi vp,wv yap eV 
jrda-ais Tins fKK\Tjaiais Kair^arcu, a! ynoVai rare &fbi> 7reyva>Kicrav. Ep. ad 
Philipp. c. xi. 

2 Quern adrnod um et Paulus Philippensibus ait : Repletus sum, acceptis 
ab Epaphrodito quse a vobis missa sunt, odorem suavitatis, hostiam accep- 
tabilem, placentem Deo. Adv. Hares, iv. 18, 4, p. 1026, ed. Migne. 

3 avrov 6/j.o\oyovi>Tos TOV Hav\ov rrepl eavrov Ov% OTI rjSrj e Xa/3oz/, /c.r.X. 
Peedapog. lib. i. p. 107, D. See also Stramata, iv. p. 511 A. 

4 <Ad quam (justitiam) pendens et ipse, quum Philippensibus scribit, 
si qua, inquit, concurrain in resurrectionem quse est a mortuis; non quia 
jamaccepi, aut consummatus sum. De. Resurrect. Carnis, c. xxiii. 

5 01 KCIL firl TOCTOVTOV ^T/Xwrai KCU pifjirjTal Xptorov eyevovTn, bs fv /J-op(f>>j 
Qfov inrdpxoav ov% apTrayfJiov fjyijaaTO TO fiVut tVa Qfu>. Ap. Euseb. Hist. 
JEccles. v. 2. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 159 

Schwegler rejected the Pauline authorship of the whole, 
and were followed by Volkmar, F. Hitzig, and Hinsch. 

Let us glance at Baur s arguments. 

1. The epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas 
and expressions, which it appropriates and adopts with 
the necessary modification. This is specially observable 
in the obscure passage ii. 5-8 : Let this mind be in 
you which was also in Christ Jesus ; who, being in the 
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God ; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon 
him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness 
of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, he 
humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even 
the death of the cross. The sixth verse is so peculiar, 
that the critic thinks it intelligible solely on the sup 
position that the writer had the Gnostic doctrine before 
his eyes, according to which Sophia, the last of the asons, 
moved by the intensity of its desires to know the abso- 
solute One, attempted to get hold of that knowledge but 
failed, and fell from thepleroma into emptiness or kenoma. 
What Sophia thus wished to obtain is tantamount to 
the being equal with God an act of violence contrary to 
its nature, and a crime against the absolute Father. 
This is applied to Christ, of whom it is said that he did 
not act like Sophia. 

Here much depends on the true explanation of the 
passage. It would be out of place to enter at length on 
its discussion and canvass the different views taken of it. 
All that we can do is to intimate our opinion in the shortest 
way, Being in the form of God is nearly equivalent to 
the image of God, and an effulgence of his glory ; ex 
pressions in the epistles of other writers. i The being 
equal with God is the object of robbery or seizure. 1 
And the sense is, who existing in the form of God, a 
person consisting of heavenly spirit, a pre-existent being, 

1 We tal- e Aprraypos as equivalent to apnay^a, the thing to be seized. 
See Grimm in Ililprenfeld s Zcitschrift for 1873, p. 38, c. 



1GO INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

did not look upon equality with God as a thing to be 
grasped at, but emptied himself by laying aside the form 
of God and taking upon him the form of a servant. He 
did not grasp at something beyond and above what he 
had already, but did the very opposite in divesting him 
self of what he possessed. He gave up the divine 
dignity and assumed the condition of a servant in a 
body of flesh. The Philippians are exhorted to practise 
the duty of unselfish, self-sacrificing love by the high 
pattern of one who did not arrogantly catch at supreme 
sovereignty or equality with God, but abased himself 
by descending from his pre-existent state, or rather by 
veiling his personality in an earthly body even that of 
a slave. According to this interpretation, the contrast 
between what Christ would have done had he selfishly 
caught at equality with God is set over against what he 
actually did in emptying himself. Instead of aiming at 
absolute supremacy, that is, at equality with God, he 
did the very reverse. The passage is similar to 2 Co 
rinthians viii. 9, where Christ s possession of premun- 
dane dignity or glory is said to have been given up by 
his taking a form of flesh. It is the same thing which 
is freely surrendered here, viz. pre-existent, heavenly 
glory the form of God. The subordination of Christ 
to the Father is implied in the present passage, as it is 
in the other epistles of Paul ; and any interpretation 
which brings out of it a view in harmony with the creeds 
of the churches is unnatural. 1 

The Pauline idea of Christ, contained in his authentic 
epistles, supposes him to be the pre-existent, heavenly, 
ideal man, the medium of creation, the organ through 
whom the divine government is conducted, our Lord, 
the Son of God. His person consisted of pneuma and 
doxa : the former not identical with a human soul, which 
Paul s anthropology seems to have excluded ; the latter 

1 See, for example, the laboured notes of Bishop Lightfoot in his 
Commentary. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 161 

forming the substance of his body. When he appeared 
on earth, he laid aside the spiritual body and assumed 
an earthly or fleshly one. The transition was merely 
from one form of existence to another. Instead of re 
taining the heavenly body which was a substance out of 
the divine glory, he took an earthly body out of the 
substance of human flesh. In the body of light or 
glory he was in the form of God ; the body of flesh 
constituted the form of a servant. The apostle knew 
nothing of a supernatural generation, for he speaks of 
Christ as made of the seed of David according to the 
flesh. At the end of the world the dominion belonging 
to him as the Son is to be given up, that God may be 
all in all. His position and functions are to cease. He 
does not return to the same pre-existent state as before, 
but to the condition of other creatures to which he 
never properly belonged. Here is an incongruity which 
the fourth gospel avoids by representing the putting off 
of his glory as merely temporary, so that he returns to 
the full possession of the powers and functions he had 
before. According to Paul, he enters into a new con 
dition ; in the theology of the fourth gospel, he goes 
back to the original one, the pre-existent state having 
been merely interrupted. 

The peculiarity of this christology is the idea that 
the pre-existent glorious Christ, so far from grasping 
at a possession out of reach, humbled himself even to 
the ignominious death of the cross, becoming thereby 
an example of lowly-mindedness. The thing out of 
reach was equality with God, and the interpretations 
which assume that such was his rank before the humi 
liation are incorrect. The words form, likeness, fashion, 
being found, 1 properly understood, are not docetic ; and 
the whole passage, so far as it relates to the pre-exis- 
tence of Christ, harmonises with Pauline doctrine. The 
Philippian writer speaks of the premundane form of 



VOL. I. M 



162 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

existence, in which the Son did not clutch at equality 
with the Father, but condescended to assume the earthly 
form of a slave. Although therefore attempts have 
been made to represent the christology of the passage 
before us as different from Paul s, it is really the same ; 
and not Johannine, as some think. 1 The tenth and 
eleventh verses of the second chapter are also pro 
nounced Gnostic ; but they agree with Rom. viii. 34 ; 
xiv. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 24-26. The idea of hades, which 
lies in the last of the three categories (heavenly, 
earthly, subterranean beings), is not specifically Gnos 
tic, for it belongs to the New Testament (Luke xxiii. 
43, &c.). 

2. Baur alludes to the monotonous repetition of 
things already said ; and a certain poverty of thought 
the consciousness of which the author himself expresses 
by saying, * to write the same things to you, to me indeed 
is not grievous, but for you it is safe. This rests on a 
false interpretation. The apostle does not refer to things 
already said in the epistle, but either to a former letter 
he had addressed to them, or to what he told them 
when present. 

3. The epistle wants a definite object and character. 
This can hardly be, when Judaisers are alluded to, 
though, it must be allowed, incidentally. It contains 
indeed less speciality than other letters ; but it is not 
difficult to perceive an object which the writer had in 
view. If such object be general, it corresponds better 
to the nature of an affectionate letter prompted by the 
receipt of a gift from the Philippians. 

4. The same critic takes offence at what is stated 
about the progress of the gospel in i. 12 ; iv. 22, the 
key to which, as he thinks, is found in iv. 3, where 
Clement of Rome is mentioned, who was a relation of 
Domitian s, and made into a friend of Tiberius s by the 
Christians. Clement had to be glorified as a fellow- 

1 Oomp. Pfleiderer s Paulinismw, vol. i. p. 146, English version. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PIIILIPPIANS. JC3 

labourer with Paul, and connected with Caesar s house 
hold. The great advance of the gospel in Rome was 
associated with this person. But the Clement of the 
epistle is a Philippian Christian, and has nothing to 
do with the Roman one. Hence, the Petrine Clement 
does not appear here as a Pauline Christian, showing 
a tendency in the unknown writer to conciliate the 
Pauline and Petrine Christians. In like manner the 
women at variance, Euodia and Syntyche, are said to 
represent mystically parties rather than persons ; while 
the true yoke-fellow (iv. 3) is the apostle Peter, the 
syzygy of Paul. This is too ingenious to be adopted. 

5. Un- Pauline particulars are said to appear in the 
epithet dogs (iii. 2), who however are elsewhere called 
false apostles, deceitful workers, and Satan himself (2 
Cor. xi. 13, 14). The concision (iii. 2) is explained 
by the excision referred to in Gal. v. 12. The apostle, 
we allow, speaks severely of the Jewish Christians ; but 
he had already uttered as hard words of similar persons 
in the second epistle to the Corinthians, ii. 17 (chapters 
x. xiii.), as well as in that to the Galatians. His tone 
becomes calmer and more moderate after iii. 2, with the 
exception of iii. 19, till he leaves the subject at iv. 1. 

But is not the severe tone adopted at the beginning 
of the third chapter inconsistent with the mildness 
used in chapter i. 1518 ? How could the apostle 
rejoice in the fact of the Jewish Christians preaching 
Christ either in pretence or in truth, and afterwards 
denounce them as evil workers ? We reply, that he 
speaks of Judaisers in different places and in relation 
to different surroundings. In the first chapter they 
are in Rome, acting mainly upon the heathen popula 
tion there, so that he could look upon their endeavours 
to win over such to Christ with a degree of satisfaction. 
It was otherwise with a church he himself had founded 
and taught. Warning the Philippians against Judaising 
teachers who might undo his work among them, he em- 

M 2 



164 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

ploys language similar to that directed against the per 
sons who had marred the effect of his liberal doctrine 
in other Gentile churches. The Judaic Christians in 
Rome were otherwise circumstanced. Instead of directly 
thwarting the Pauline gospel, they might contribute to 
its final success by first bringing the ignorant heathen 
to an acquaintance with Christ, and an apprehension of 
his vicarious death, which the apostle himself had 
reached. Nor can we see that the contributions al 
luded to in iv. 1518 excite suspicion, as if they were 
meant to support a fictitious situation of the apostle. 
When Baur says that they disagree with 1 Cor. ix. 15, 
and are derived from 2 Cor. xi. 9, he overlooks the fact 
that Paul himself, in the latter passage, says he took 
contributions from other churches. 

These remarks must suffice as a reason for with 
holding assent from the view of Baur and Schwegler. 



UNITY. 

Stephen Le Moyne 1 supposed that the Philippian 
epistle was divided into two, which were written on 
different rolls. The one, being separated into two 
parts, was reckoned two. By this expedient he ex 
plains the plural letters in the third chapter of Poly carp s 
epistle. 

Schrader attacked the epistle s integrity, conjectur 
ing that chap. iii. 1-iv. 9 is an un-Pauline insertion. 

Heinrichs 2 thought that the epistle is composed 
of two letters one addressed to the whole church, 
consisting of i. 1 iii. 1, ending with in the Lord, 
together with iv. 21-23 ; the other, intended for the 
apostle s intimate friends only, beginning with, To 
write these same things, iii. 1, and ending with iv. 20. 
When the New Testament epistles were collected, the 

1 Varia Sacra, vol. ii. p. 332, &c. 

3 In the prolegomena to his Commentary, published in 1803. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PH1LIPPIANS. 165 

two are said to have received their present form and 
place. The same opinion, modified and corrected, was 
advanced by Paulus. 1 The words, finally, my breth 
ren, rejoice in the Lord/ appear to indicate a speedy 
termination, as the analogy of 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Ephes. 
vi. 10 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1, shows. Not that the verb 
rejoice 2 is necessarily valedictory, meaning farewell ; 
but that the adverbial expression rendered finally im 
plies a brief summing up of all that the author wishes 
to add. In 1 Thess. iv. 1, the same formula stands at 
a considerable distance from the end of the epistle, as if 
it belonged to the close of an important topic. Perhaps 
the original intention was to finish with the second 
chapter, but when Epaphroditus did not set out imme 
diately or additional information of the Judaisers was 
received, the author was moved to add a warning 
against corrupters of the truth. 



NUMBER OF PHILIPPIAN EPISTLES. 

Bleek and others think that the apostle wrote more 
than once to the Philippians, deducing that opinion from 
a few passages in the present letter. In iii. 18, For 
many walk, of whom I have told you often, i.e. in a 
former epistle. But the language may also refer to 
oral communications, as I)e Wette inclines to believe. 
Again, To write the same things to you (iii. 1) may 
mean, the same things which I told you in a prior letter. 
But it is capable of the sense, the same things which I 
previously taught when present ; or, it may refer to the 
repetition of the same thing in the present letter. The 
testimony of Polycarp has been adduced to strengthen 
the interpretation which supposes a former letter. In 
the third chapter of his epistle to the Philippians, that 
father speaks of Paul s epistles to them. But the 
plural may be used for the singular, and the use of 
1 See Krause s Opusculu, pp. 3-32. 



166 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the singular in the eleventh chapter of Polycarp may 
neutralise the plural of the third chapter. Yet the sin 
gular may refer to the more prominent of the epistles, 
i.e. the canonical one. Thus these passages afford no 
thing more than a presumption in favour of several 
epistles, without proving that Paul wrote more than 
one. 1 

TIME AND PLACE. 

It is obvious that the present epistle was written 
during the author s captivity at Rome, A.D. 62 or 63. 
The expression Csesar s household 7 (iv. 22) is pretty 
clear in favour of Rome. Herod could scarcely be 
called Caesar. Had Ca?sarea been meant, we should 
expect another phraseology. But the word prcetorium 
(i. 13) is referred to CaBsarea by Bottger, 2 since it is 
used of Herod s palace there, and is also applied to the 
residence belonging to the procurator of a Roman 
province (Matt, xxvii. 27 ; Mark xv. 16 ; John xviii. 
28-33, xix. 9). Here, however, it means the praetorian 
cohorts at Rome, who formed the imperial body-guard. 
Paul, or at least his fellow-prisoners, were delivered to 
the prefect of these cohorts. It has also been alleged 
that Acts xxiii. 35 compared with xxviii. 16 shows 
Paul to have been kept in the prcetorium at Cassarea, 
whereas in Rome he had his own hired house, and 
therefore the prcetorium points to Cresarea. But the 
word means the praetorian soldie:s rather than their 
camp. 

The letter was written after that to Philemon, when 
the time of imprisonment was near its end. A consider 
able period is supposed to have elapsed since his incar 
ceration, so that the good fruit of his ministry had be 
come apparent (i. 12-14) : But I would ye should 
understand, brethren, that the things which hap- 

1 See Light/foot on the Epistle to the Philippians, p. 136, etc. 

2 Beitraf/e zur historisch-kritischen Einleit. in die paulinische Briefe, 
Abtheilnng 2, p. 47, et seq. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PIJILIPPIANS. 167 

pened unto me have fallen out rather unto the further 
ance of the gospel ; so that my bonds in Christ are 
manifest in all the palace, and in all other places ; and 
many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by 
my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without 
fear. We know too fromii. 26 that Epaphroditus s com 
ing was not very recent. Four journeys in which he was 
concerned had taken place : his own arrival and return, 
with the report of his sickness conveyed to Philippi and 
back again to Rome. It would also appear that the 
apostle was almost alone. His friends had gone away, 
or been sent to different places, except Timothy. Even 
Luke seems to have been absent (i. 1 ; ii. 20, 21 ; 
iv. 22, compared with Coloss. iv. 14). In these cir 
cumstances, the apostle was not without hope of a 
speedy release. i But I trust in the Lord, that I also 
myself shall come shortly (ii. 24). And having this 
confidence, 1 know that I shall abide and continue with 
you all for your furtherance and joy of faith, that your 
rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me, 
by my coming to you again (25, 26). This hopeful 
language, however, is not uniform. Doubts mingled 
with trust, and therefore he writes, i According to my 
earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall be 
ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now 
also, Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it 
be by life or by death. Yea, and if I be offered upon 
the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice 
with you all (i. 20 ; ii. 17). 

It is impossible to find in the epistle indications of 
any alteration for the worse in the prisoner s outward 
condition. The content referred to in i. 30 is the oppo 
sition he encountered at Rome from the Jewish Chris 
tians opposition from which he was never exempt 
where they were. The first sorrow implied in ii. 27 can 
only be his captivity generally. Such as seek for an 
intensification of his captivity, or a change in his cir- 



168 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

cumstances, in these passages, search for what is not in 
them. The history of Nero s government also fails to 
prove a deterioration in Paul s situation. What though 
Burrus, the moderate praetorian prefect, died, and 
Tigellinus came into his place ; though Octavia were 
divorced, and Poppaea married to the emperor ; though 
Seneca lost his influence ? These public events would 
hardly affect a prisoner like Paul, of whom courtiers 
and generals, senators and empresses would scarcely 
think. It is therefore a mere conjecture, that after 
Burrus s death Paul was treated more severely, being 
removed from his house, put into the barrack of the 
praetorian guards, and threatened with death. Neither 
the present epistle nor the history of the time counte 
nances it. We admit that a tone of sadness appears in 
the letter ; but that tone is mingled with hopefulness. 
Do not these words, having this confidence, I know 
that I shall abide and continue with you for all your 
furtherance and joy of faith (i. 25), express the hope of 
a speedy release ? The epistle may be dated near the 
end of the Roman captivity, and shortly before the 
writer s death. It is his testament the last letter he 
wrote. For this reason a melancholy interest attaches 
to it. Soon after his hopes and fears of the future had 
found utterance, the noblest sacrifice which the world 
witnessed since that of the Master was freely oifered. 

The epistle was sent by Epaphroditus, perhaps one 
of the elders of the church, who had come to Rome 
with a pecuniary contribution. It was not the first 
occasion on which that church had expressed its grati 
tude in a similar way. The members had sent presents 
to the apostle twice before (Phil. iv. 15, 16). He had 
also partaken of their bounty at Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 9), 
though he declined to accept eleemosynary help from 
others. The Philippian messenger was seized with a 
dangerous illness, which may have arisen from the 
fatigue of his journey, or from his exertions at Rome in 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 169 

connection with evangelical work ; and the news of his 
malady had reached the church at Philippi, which made 
him very anxious to return. The apostle himself was 
desirous to send him back as soon as he had recovered. 
He was not dismissed, however, without an equivalent 
for their seasonable present. In return for so great 
kindness, Paul wrote the present letter to the believers 
at Philippi, full of ardent affection and of high esteem 
for their messenger. 

But how could the apostle be in want at the time he 
was relieved by the Philippians ? Was he neglected by 
the Christians at Rome? It is sufficient, in reply, to 
refer to his known practice, which was dictated by ex 
treme delicacy and dignity. He worked with his hands 
rather than be a burden to the churches. This he could 
not do, now that he was a prisoner. The Romans had 
not been his converts, and he would therefore regard 
himself as unentitled to maintenance from them. He 
had also enemies in the city, who would ascribe interested 
motives to him. 

STATE OF THE CHURCH. 

The Philippian church consisted of Gentile and 
Jewish Christians, almost entirely of the former ; and 
the members generally were not in affluent circum 
stances. That they were not numerous may be also 
inferred from the extent of the place. Philippi was the 
smallest city to which the apostle addressed a letter ; 
and its church was neither large nor flourishing. 

Some critics have supposed that the Christian society 
was divided into parties or factions, arising from the 
efforts of false teachers who insisted on the necessity of 
circumcision. Judaising Christians, it is thought, had 
insinuated themselves into it, sowing the seeds of dis 
union, so that there were two parties, a Jewish Christian 
and a Gentile Christian one. The passages appealed to 



170 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

for the existence of parties are iii. 1-8, 18, 19 ; and the 
admonitions in ii. 24, 12, 14 ; iv. 2, 5 ; iii. 2, &c., are 
supposed to intimate the same state. These are an 
insufficient foundation for the hypothesis. The 16th 
chapter of the Acts shows that there were Jews there, 
for they had a proseucha ; and the warning in iii. 2, 3, 
implies danger from Judaisers ; but there is no evidence 
that the latter had invaded the church or undermined 
the apostle s teaching. Paul applies a severe name to 
the Jewish Christians, dogs, who may have attempted to 
seduce some of the brethren ; he describes them as ene 
mies of the cross of Christ, more immoral than heretical ; 
but the Philippians were too steadfast to be drawn away. 
Though he had often warned them of danger, it does not 
appear from the epistle that they had so far forgotten 
his principles as to submit to legal observances or range 
themselves into factions. 

The existence of parties in the church has been dis 
proved by Schulz, 1 so that it is hardly necessary to do 
more than allude to the subject. How then were the 
Christians there exposed to sufferings and persecution, 
as \ve learn from i. 28-30? Were the adversaries of 
whom the writer tells them not to be afraid Judaising 
teachers? The context is unfavourable to this opinion. 
By the adversaries is meant all the unbelieving Jews 
and Gentiles with whom the Philippian converts came 
into contact the Jews and Gentiles who resisted the 
gospel. These Christians had endured a conflict 
similar to that which Paul had formerly sustained for 
expelling the demon from the divining damsel, and to 
his present opposition from Jews, Judaising teachers, 
and heathen magistrates. But the Philippians resisted 
their adversaries, and steadfastly adhered to the Pauline 
doctrine. 

There was a tendency in the Philippian character to 
vain glory and pride, as we infer from ii. 3, 4, 15 ; iv. 5. 

1 Die chrtatKche Gemeinde zu Philip^ em cxeyetischer Versuch, 1833. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 171 

Their very condition when the apostle addressed them, 
one of great promise and progress, would be likely to 
beget spiritual pride. 



OCCASION AND OBJECT. 

Epaphroditus s return gave rise to the letter. The 
object of it is to confirm the believers in the faith, and 
to encourage them in the Christian life. The writer s 
affection for them is tender and strong. He opens his 
heart and pours forth his hopes, desires, anxieties, his 
fervent wishes for their welfare, and gratitude for their 
kindness. The epistle is more subjective than any 
other of Paul s ; and richer in expressions of feeling. It 
has no doctrinal arguments or dialectic reasoning, no 
citations from the Old Testament or logical plan. His 
reasoning powers were not needed for confuting error 
among the Philippians ; and therefore the composition 
is less formal and consecutive ; less regular in structure 
and sequence. There are sudden digressions and breaks 
in the succession of ideas, especially towards the end. 
The intimacy subsisting between the writer and his 
readers furnished free scope for the effusions of his heart ; 
but amid pathos and gentleness he never loses apostolic 

dignity. 



PECULIARITIES IN THE COMMENCEMENT AND CONCLUSION. 

It is contrary to Paul s method to specify bishops 
and deacons in the general salutation. The reason may 
be because they had shown great zeal in procuring a 
money contribution for the apostle. It is also notice 
able that the members of the church are spoken of 
before the office-bearers, a precedence contrary to 
modern ideas, especially those of the clergy, who are 
apt to look on the people as an appendage to themselves. 
Several bishops are also referred to, which is an evidence 



172 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

of the epistle s early date, before hierarchical notions 
exalted one presbyter above the rest and assigned him 
a separate title. In the apostle s time presbyter and 
bishop were synonymous. The mention of bishops in 
the plural agrees with other notices. The church at 
Ephesus had its elders (Acts xx.). Whether all the 
apostolic churches had a plurality of pastors is un 
certain. They were not similarly organised ; nor is 
their constitution a model for modern churches. Eccle 
siastical arrangements belong to the department of ex 
pediency. 

The commencement does not mention Paul s apostle- 
ship. He associates Timothy with himself because 
the latter had been with him at Philippi ; both being 
termed bondmen of Jesus. His omission of the apostolic 
designation may be partly explained by a motive of de 
licacy. He avoided the use of a title which might sug 
gest a claim to the benefit he had received. Nor had he 
any reason for asserting his apostolic authority, since 
there were no factions in the church and no apostasy 
from the faith. False teachers had not there impugned 
his apostleship. Paul did not care for a title, as long as 
there was no cause for associating it with his name. He 
waived the higher for the lower appellation. 

Lardner observes, that the salutations in the con 
clusion of the epistle are singular, different from those 
of the other epistles written about the same time : i The 
brethren which are with me greet you ; all the saints 
salute you. We do not suppose the brethren to be 
Mark, Aristarchus, Jesus Justus, Demas, and Luke, who 
had joined the apostle at Rome ; nor Euodia, Syntyche, 
and Epaphroditus ; but rather those Christians who 
were in Paul s immediate circle at Rome, including per 
haps Timothy and other fellow-labourers. 

Persons belonging to Caesar s house are particularly 
mentioned as sending salutations ; Oassar s freedmen and 
domestics, servants in the palace. It is doubtful whether 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PHELIPPIANS. 173 

any of the emperor s relations are intended, for there is 
no evidence that his wife Poppaea was a Christian. 
Neither can Seneca and Lucan be included in the num 
ber. Probably the converts were chiefly Jewish slaves ; 
for Josephus states that he was introduced to Poppaea 
by a Jewish comedian. It would doubtless rejoice the 
Philippians to hear that Christianity had entered Caasar s 
palace, and encourage them to expect the prisoner s 
release. 

CONTENTS. 

This epistle is the shortest addressed to any church 
except the (spurious) second to the Thessalonians. The 
doctrinal and the practical are not separated, as in other 
Pauline letters, but are more or less blended throughout. 
It may be divided into six paragraphs : I. i. 1-11 ; II. 
i. 12-ii. 18 ; III. ii. 19-30 ; IV. iii. 1-iv. 1 ; V. iv. 2-9 : 
VI. iv. 10-23. 

I. The first part is historical, relating to the writer s 
condition at Rome. After the inscription and saluta 
tion, the apostle expresses his gratitude to God on behalf 
of the Philippians, his continual mention of them in 
prayer since they received the gospel, and his confident 
expectation that the work of peace in their hearts should 
be carried on to completion. He calls God to witness 
his deep-seated affection for them, praying that their 
love and knowledge might be still more abundant, and 
the fruits of their righteousness more manifest (i. 1-11). 

II. That the Philippian believers might not be dis 
couraged at what had befallen him, he tells them that 
God had overruled his imprisonment for good, making 
it subserve the advancement of the gospel. His bonds 
had become known in the prsetorium and throughout 
the city ; and several had been induced to preach the 
gospel more fearlessly by the example of his patient 
fortitude. Not that the motives of all who proclaimed 



174 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Christ crucified were pure, for some envied the apostle ; 
but as long as Christ was preached, Paul rejoiced. He 
expresses his confidence that the Redeemer should be 
magnified either by his life or death, though he thinks 
it more desirable that he should live a little longer, that 
he might meet them again joyfully. But whatever 
might be the issue of his present captivity, he exhorts 
them to lead a holy life, to be firmly united in one spirit, 
and not terrified by their enemies. In pathetic strains 
he beseeches them to cultivate mutual love, to avoid vain 
glory, and to be exceedingly humble in the estimate of 
their own attainments. To enforce the duty of humility 
the more impressively, he introduces the example of 
Christ, who left the glories of the heavenly state to live 
on earth a life of lowly obedience and suffering. Having 
referred to Christ s self-abnegation and consequent exal 
tation, he exhorts them to work out their salvation with 
fear, remembering that the divine energy was not in 
active within them ; to avoid murmurings in their suffer 
ings, and disputings for pre-eminence ; to be blameless 
and harmless ; and not only to hold fast, but to diffuse, 
the word of life, that he might rejoice in the day of 
Christ on their account (i. 12-ii. 18). 

III. He promises to send Timothy to them, speak 
ing of him as a disinterested, zealous, affectionate minister, 
whose excellence was well known. But he expects to 
be released soon , and to follow Timothy to Philippi. 
He then gives a reason for sending Epaphroditus in the 
meantime, mentioning the dangerous sickness of their 
messenger, his earnest longing to return, and the self- 
sacrificing fidelity with which he had laboured. Him 
he commends to their esteem, as a workman worthy of 
the highest honour (ii. 19-30). 

I Y . Understanding that there were Judaising teachers 
at Philippi, the apostle warns his readers against them, 
affirming that the true people of God are those who put 
no confidence in conformity to the law. Had this law 



THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 175 

furnished ground for glorying, he might boast of it ; for 
he was descended from Jewish parents, a rigid Pharisee, 
observing all legal requirements. But he was willing to 
forego these pretensions for Christ, while seeking justi 
fication by faith in his righteousness alone. His great 
object was to know the Saviour, to become experiment 
ally acquainted with Him in the efficacy of His resur 
rection, which produces a spiritual resurrection in man 
and prepares him for glory ; to endure like sufferings 
with Christ, and being united to Him, to attain to a 
blessed resurrection from sin. He proceeds to describe 
his Christian experience as progressive, because he aimed 
at higher attainments in the Christian life, and there 
fore exhorts them to follow his example by walking 
after the rule they had already observed. In contrast 
with his own aims and conduct he places the practices 
of the Judaisers, whom he describes as enemies of the 
true doctrine sensual, unclean, selfish. How unlike 
them was the apostle of the Gentiles with his citizen 
ship in heaven, who was always looking for the Saviour 
to raise him to a blessed immortality. The Philippiaiis, 
having the same faith and prospects, are therefore ex 
horted to stand fast in the Lord (hi. 1-iv. 1). 

V. Paul beseeches Euodia and Syntyche, two females 
in the church, to be reconciled ; entreats his true yoke 
fellow to assist several women in their labours, who had 
maintained the truth of the gospel along with himself 
and Clement ; and subjoins a few general precepts re 
lating to spiritual joy, moderation, and contentment. 
Virtue is recommended in the different forms in which 
the wisdom of ancient philosophers had presented it ; 
and as the Philippians had seen it embodied in himself, 
they are enjoined to practise it in its widest aspect (iv. 
2-9). 

VI. Pie thanks the believers for the signal proof of 
their kindness to him, but intimates with true delicacy 
and nobleness of soul, that he had learned to be contented 



176 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

in whatever circumstances lie might be placed ; prepared 
to suffer want if needful, or to have an abundance of 
the conveniences of life, with an equanimity of temper 
trained in the school of Christ. After stating that he 
was more pleased with their gift as an evidence of their 
Christianity than as a supply of his wants, he encourages 
them to expect an abundant fulfilment of their deeires 
from God the Father, to whom he ascribes all the glory. 
The epistle closes with salutations and the usual bene 
diction (iv. 10-23), 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 



AUTHORSHIP. 

THIS EPISTLE has been assigned to many authors. Some 
suppose that it was written by Clement of Rome. It is 
true that it agrees in many places with Clement s 
epistle to the Corinthians, even to verbal correspond 
ences ; l but this proves nothing as long as the latter s 
authenticity is doubtful. The writer of the letter 
which bears the name of Clement, borrowed from the 
treatise addressed to the Hebrews. He wrote in a 
practical spirit, in language unrhetorical and unperiodic; 
whereas a speculative character belongs to the epistle 
to the Hebrews an Alexandrian tone and colouring 
which the Clementine author could not have reached. 

Others think that it was composed by Barnabas the 
companion and friend of Paul, on the following 
grounds : 

(.) Tradition favours this opinion, as Tertullian 
shows. 2 It is also advocated by Zahn ; 3 but perhaps 
it does not rest ultimately on tradition but on internal 
evidence. 

(b.) The epistle contains traces of Alexandrian 

1 Compare ch. xxxvi. with Hebr. i. 3, etc. ; cli. xliii. with Hebr. iii. 2, 5; 
ch. xvii. with Hebr. iii. 2 ; ch. xxi. with Hebr. iv. 12 ; ch. xxvii. with Hebr. 
vi. 18 ; ch. ix. with Hebr. xi. 5, 7 ; ch. x. with Hebr. xi. 8, 9 ; ch. xii. with 
Hebr. xi. 33 ; ch. xlv. with Hebr. xi. 32-40 ; ch. xix. with Hebr. xii. 1,2; 
ch. Ivi. with Hebr. xii. 5. 

2 De Pudicifia, ch. xx. 

3 In the Real-Encyldopadie of Herzog and Plitt, vol. v. p. 008, etc. 

VOL. I. N 



178 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

gnosis. Barnabas was a Cyprian, and Cyprus was con 
nected with Alexandria in many ways. Perhaps he 
was himself there. This proves no more than that 
Barnabas might have been the author. 

(c.) He was a Levite, and therefore well acquainted 
with the temple worship. Not with the temple at 
Jerusalem, as Hebr. ix. 16 shows ; but lie may have 
been with that at Heliopolis, as Wieseler supposes. 1 

(d.) The epistle contains much that is Pauline, and 
much that is not, which suits a companion of Paul, and 
one who had some independence at the same time. But 
the remark would apply to others ; to Apollos better. 

(e.) The author does not put himself among the 
immediate hearers of Jesus (ii. 3) ; and we learn from 
Acts iv. 36, 37, that he was a disciple of the apostles, 
with which Tertullian agrees. This exegesis is un 
certain, because Clement and Eusebius class him among 
the seventy disciples. 

(/.) The readers of the epistle assisted the Chris 
tians at Jerusalem (vi. 10), which suits Barnabas and 
Paul (Gal. ii. 10). This presupposes nothing more 
than a Pauline church in Jerusalem. 

( t </.) The surname of Barnabas, son of exhortation, 
i.e. of animated prophetic discourse, accords with the ex 
pression, word of exhortation, in xiii. 22. But Paul 
was the spokesman, according to Acts xiv. 12. To this it 
has been answered that speaking and writing are different 
things, not necessarily coinciding in the same person. 

(A.) The position of the epistle in the Peshito or old 
Syriac version, favours the Barnabas authorship. The 
letter was not attributed to Paul, else it would not have 
been put after epistles addressed to private individuals 
such as Timothy and Titus. Because the framers of 
the Syrian canon received, besides Paul s thirteen 
epistles and that to the Hebrews, no more than the 
epistle of James, the first of Peter and the first of John, 

1 Eine Untersmhung iiber d. Hebr. Br. Erste Ilalfte, 1861. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 170 

it must be inferred that they assigned our epistle to a 
man who could rightfully claim the title of apostle, which 
Barnabas is called in the Acts. Besides, Barnabas and 
Paul founded the Syrian church at Antioch ; and there 
fore the former could no more be absent from their 
canon than the latter. Such is Wieselcr s reasoning ; 
but Bleek s still holds good on the other side. 1 

The epistle extant in Barnabas s name cannot be 
compared with ours, because it was not written by 
Paul s friend, and its authenticity is generally rejected. 
The hypothesis which makes Barnabas the author of 
the epistle to the Hebrews, has no conclusive argument 
in its favour. Against it is the fact that Barnabas s 
mission was to the Gentiles, according to Gal. ii. 9 ; 
which is not fairly met by Wieseler s assumption, that 
though he had been an esteemed member of the mother 
church (Acts iv. 36, 37 ; ix. 27 ; xv. 25) he could turn 
to the Gentile Christians, without necessarily leading us 
to infer from Gal. ii. 13 that he had afterwards fallen 
back to a Jewish Christian standpoint. 

Others think that Luke had a share in the writing; 

o 

of the epistle, either as translator, or as one that expressed 
Paul s ideas in Greek. This view is apparently men 
tioned by Origen ; and is advocated with variations by 
Hug, Ebrard, Von Dollinger, and Delitzsch. It rests 
on linguistic grounds mainly. A considerable number 
of words and phrases unknown to every other New^ 
Testament writer, are common to our epistle and Luke s 
writings. There are also many correspondent construc 
tions. The language of the epistle is tolerably pure. 
The coincident words and phrases are enumerated by 
Delitzsch 2 and Liinemann ; the latter giving them in a 
collected form. 3 Bat there are important differences of 
diction and periodic structure, which are opposed to 

1 Der Brief an die Jlebrcicr, erste Abtlieilung, p. 417, etc. 

2 Commentar zum Ilebraerbricf, p. 707. 

3 Da- Brief an die Ilelriier, Einleitun<r, p. 24, etc. Dritte Aufiage. 



180 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

sameness of authorship ; so much so, that the identity 
of the author of Luke s writings with the writer of the 

o 

epistle to the Colossians might be maintained with equal 
reason, on the ground of similarity of language between 
our epistle and the third gospel with the Acts. 1 It 
should also be remembered that Luke was a Gentile 
Christian (Coloss. iv. 14), while the epistle evidently 
proceeded from a Jew by birth, because it is cast in a 
Jewish mould. Jewish feelings and modes of thought 
pervade it in a manner which Luke s writings, showing 
a Hellenic character and culture, do not present. It is 
therefore improbable that Luke wrote the epistle, though 
the style of the latter half of the Acts comes near it ; 
the language of the gospel being more remote. Whether 
Luke was the sole author, as Grotius and Crell believed, 
or he that put Paul s ideas into a written form ; the 
hypothesis is untenable. 

To make the indirectly Pauline authorship more 
probable, an epilogue is assumed by Delitzsch, from 
xiii. 18 to the end. Ebrard s epilogue is from xiii. 22 
to the end. And it is asserted that Paul allowed the 
words of ii. 3 to remain, though he could not have 
written them. 

Against the hypothesis that Luke wrote under Paul s 
sanction, may be urged the fact that the doctrinal ideas 
and terminology are tolerably independent of the 
apostle ; for though they resemble him in some re 
spects, they differ materially in others. The supposed 
disciple and writer departed from the master so widely 
as to form characteristic views of his own. 

Another opinion is that Silvanus or Silas was the 
writer, which is baseless. 

A more prevalent view is that Paul was the author, 
and many arguments are adduced in its favour. Ex 
ternal and internal evidence have been summoned to 
support it. Let us examine the former. 

1 See Kostlin in Zeller s Theologische Jahrbiicher for 1854, p. 429. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 181 

I. The writings of the apostolic fathers are silent on 
this point. Though several of them show an acquain 
tance with the epistle, they never mention the author. 
Clement s letter to the Corinthians has many passages 
resembling some in ours, as is shown by the parallels 
which De Wette adduces. Quotations and allusions 
from Ignatius s epistles were collected by Lardner, and 
more recently by Forster ; l but the authenticity of the 
letters is more than doubtful. Neither is Polycarp a 
good witness for the Pauline authorship in question, 
because the passages in the fourth and twelfth chapters 
of his epistle, cited by Lardner, are too vague. Two 
places have been pointed out in the epistle of Barnabas; 
but they are indistinct and uncertain. 

The earliest testimony of the Western church, taking 
that phrase in a sense including Italy, Gaul, and pro 
consular Africa, is opposed to the Pauline origin. 
Irenajus (f 202) did not attribute it to Paul. This 
fact rests on the authority of Stephen Gobar, in the 
sixth century, in a passage preserved by Photius : 
Hippolytus and Irenrcus say that the epistle of Paul 
to the Hebrews is not his. 2 This accounts for the cir 
cumstance that Irenaeus does not employ it against the 
Gnostic sects, though it would have suited his purpose. 
Yet Eusebius states that Irenams was acquainted with 
the epistle and spoke of it, along with the Wisdom of 
Solomon, in a work now lost, quoting some passages 
from both. 3 Did Irenrcus put it on a level with the 
apocryphal book? It is probable that he used it in a 
subordinate way, because he did not think it to be 
Paul s. As to the fragment in which Irenocus is sup 
posed to quote Hebr. xiii. 15, as Paul s, its authenticity 
is more than doubtful. 4 

Hippolytus (about 200), said to have been a disciple 

1 The Apostolical Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 599, etc. 

2 BiUiotheca, Cod. 232. 3 Hist. Eccles. v, 2_G. 

4 See Irenseus s Works, edited by Stieren, vol. i. pp. .854, 855 ; and vol. ii. 
p. -381, etc., ed. 1853. 



182 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

of Irenrcus, had the same opinion of the epistle as his 
master s. 

Cains of Rome, at the close of the second and be 
ginning of the third century, held the same view, as 
we learn from Eusebius. 1 The author of the fragment 
on the canon published by Muratori, does not enume 
rate the epistle among Paul s. 2 We suppose that by the 
epistle to the Alexandrians forged in the name of 
Paul, he means that to the Hebrews ; as Credner, 
Volkmar, Kostlin, and Wieseler 3 after Semler believe. 

Novatian (250) never quotes or alludes to it, though 
in two treatises of his still extant, it would have been 
most suitable to his purpose. 

Tertullian (f 240), denying the Pauline authorship, 
ascribed the letter to Barnabas, relying, apparently, on 
a historical tradition current in proconsular Africa. 
Even when adducing a passage which the Montanists 
made use of (vi. 4, 5), he assigns the letter to Barnabas ; 4 
though his interest prompted him to attribute as much 
authority as he could to the epistle ; for the higher its 
authority, the greater the force of his argument derived 
from it. Had he known that the epistle was attributed 
to Paul by early tradition, he would surely have men 
tioned the circumstance. He states particulars favour 
able to its credit on the ground of Barnabas s author- 
ship ; but if he knew that the catholic Christians rejected 
or depreciated the letter, he would not have failed to 
charge them with it. It will not do to say, with Hug, 
that Tertullian took the epistle for what it was allowed 
to be by its enemies, and reasoned with such force as to 
make it, even on this ground, equal to Paul s epistles in 
value. He was not the man to adopt this course. 

1 Hist. Ecdes. vi. 20. 

* Fertur etiam ad Laudicenses, alia ad Alexandrines, Pauli nomine fincUe, 
ad hseresem Marcionis et alia plura, quse in catliolicain ecclesiam recipi non 
potest. Fel enim cum nielle misceri non congruit. 

3 See Wieseler s Erne Untersuchung ilber den Hebrcierbrief, p. 20, et se%. 

4 De Pudicitia, c. 20. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. IS;* 

Marcion (140) excluded tlie letter from his canon, 
for what reason we cannot discover. Having 1 a high 

O O 

regard for Paul, it is likely that he would have adopted 
the epistle had he thought it to be his. That he might 
have accepted it as part of his canon is evident from the 
fact that the Manicheans used the epistle. 1 

Cyprian (( 258) speaks of seven churches to which 
Paul wrote ; but does not mention the epistle to the 
Hebrews, or make any use of it. We infer therefore 
that he considered it mi- Pauline. He generally followed 
Tertullian. 

In several MSS. of the old Latin version, that to the 
Hebrews is separated from Paul s epistles. Thus in the 
codd. Claromontanus and Sangermanensis, it is divided 
from them by a general stichometry of Scripture. 
But it may be the epistle of Barnabas mentioned in the 
stichometry of the Clermont manuscript ; for the African 
church held the Barnabas authorship of the epistle to 
the Hebrews. In the cod. Boernerianus it is wanting. 

Victorinus of Pannonia (f 303) is on the same side 
of the question. In an extant fragment, he speaks, like 
Cyprian, of there being seven churches which Paul 
addressed. 2 If his commentary on the Apocalypse be 
authentic, he enumerates in it the seven churches, and 
speaks of epistles to individuals without any notice of 
the present one. Passages are repeatedly quoted from 
Paul s epistles ; none from that to the Hebrews. 

Thus the Pauline authorship was disowned in the West 
till the beginning of the fourth century a fact which it 
is difficult to account for except by supposing that there 
Avas no early tradition in Italy, Gaul, and proconsular 
Africa in favour of Paul s authorship. Hug s attempt 
to show that the opposition presented to the Montanists, 
who defended their usage respecting lapsed Christians 
not being received back into the church by Hebr. vi. 
4, 5, led to a denial of the Pauline origin, is unsuccess- 

1 Epiphaii. Hccrcs, Ixvi. c. 74, ~ DC Exhort. Martyr ii, c. U. 



184 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

ful. 1 Catholic Christians did not so readily renounce 
the authenticity of sacred writings as Hug s reasoning 
implies ; nor is there the least proof that Tertullian 
and Novatian attached the importance to Hebr. vi. 4, 5, 
which the critic assumes. 

Hilary of Poitiers (f 368) was the first writer in the 
West, as far as we know, who received the letter as 
Paul s. He was followed by Lucifer (f 370), Gaudentius 
(f410), Ambrose of Milan (fS97), and Philastrius 
of Brescia (387). But doubts still lingered. It is not 
quoted by Optatus of Milevis (370), by Phoebadius 
(359). and Vincent of Lerins (f 450), in Gaul ; nor by 
Zeno of Verona (f 380). Isidore of Seville (f 636) says 
that the authorship was considered doubtful by very 
many Latin Christians, because of the difference of style. 

Jerome (f 420) and Augustine (f 430) favoured the 
opinion that it was written by Paul ; and the authority 
of their names contributed to establish it in the West. 

The former quotes many passages from the epistle, 
calling it Paul s, or the apostle s, 2 He also refers to 
peculiarities distinguishing it from other writings of 
the same apostle, and gives some explanation of them. 3 
At other times, when mentioning or quoting the work 
he employs expressions of hesitation or doubt, such as, 
i if any one is willing to receive that epistle which has 
been written to the Hebrew?, under Paul s name ; 4 the 
epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, or whosesoever s you 
suppose it to be ; 5 Paul the apostle speaks, if any one 
admits the epistle to the Hebrews ; 6 whoever he be 
that wrote the epistle ; 7 the apostle Paul, or whatever 
other person wrote the epistle, &c. 8 

1 Einleitung in die Schriften clesneuen Testaments, zweiter Theil, pp. 412, 
413. Vierte Auflage. 

2 Ep. 66 ad Pammach* Adv. Jovinian. lib. i. 5. Ep. 3, 60 ad Heliodor. 
Comment, in Esaiam, c. 5, v. 24 ; c. 7, v. 14. In Jerem. c. 22, v. 1-5. In 
Zechar. c. 3, y. 6, 7. In Matt. c. 21, v. 39. In Gal. c. 4, v. 3. 

3 De Scrtptoribus Ecclesiastic, c. 5. 4 Comment, in Titum, c. 1, v. 5. 
6 Comment, in Titum, c. 2, v. 2. 6 In Ezech. c. 28, v. 11, et stq. 
2 In Amos, c. 8, v. 7, 8, 8 In Jercm* c. 31, v. 31, 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 185 

In alluding to the opinion of the Latin church, he 
says, that many doubt about Paul s authorship ; l that 
the Latin custom was not to receive it among the 
canonical scriptures ; 2 that all the Greeks admitted it, 
and some of the Latins ; 3 and that among the Romans 
even till his time, it was not reckoned Paul s. 4 The 
longest passage which this father has about it is in a 
letter to Dardanus, where he states that the epistle is 
received as the apostle Paul s, not only by the churches 
of the East, but on the other hand by all the Greek 
ecclesiastical writers ; though most ascribe it to Bar 
nabas or Clement ; and it makes no difference whose it 
is, since it belongs to an ecclesiastical man, and is read 
daily in the churches. But if the Latins do not com 
monly receive it among the canonical scriptures, the 
Greek churches do the same with the Apocalypse of 
John. We, however, receive both, not following the 
usage of the present time, but the authority of ancient 
writers, who for the most part quote both ; not as they 
are wont sometimes to quote apocryphal books as 
canonical. 5 Here there is an ambiguity in the words 
most ascribe it to Barnabas or Clement, but the sense 
seems to be most Greek writers/ We draw the fol 
lowing conclusions from Jerome s writings. 

O 

First. He believed that Paul did not write the letter, 
because in speaking of the Greeks he intimates his dis 
agreement with their opinion. 

1 Comment, in Matt. c. 26, v. 8, 9. 2 In Esaiam, c. 6, v. 2. 

3 Ep. 73, ad Evangdum. 4 De Script. Eccles. c. 59. 

5 Illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam quse inscribitur ad He- 
brrcos, uon solum ab ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis 
Gi teci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli apostoli suscipi, licet pleriquo earn 
vel Barnabae vel dementis arbitrentur; et nihil interesse, cujus sit, cum 
ecclesiastic! viri et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. Quodsi earn 
Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter scripturas canonicas, nee Graocorum 
Apocalypsin Johannis eadem libertate suscipiunt ; et tamen nos utraque 
suscipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem sedveterum scriptorum 
auctoritatem sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque abutuntur testimoniis non 
ut inter dum de apocryphis facere solent (quippe qui et gentiliuni litterarum 
rare utuntur exeniplis), sed quasi canonicis, 



186 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Secondly. Where his language is ambiguous, his 
caution about orthodoxy was the cause. Careful of his 
reputation he hesitated where free speaking might have 
damaged it. 

Thirdly. The great majority of the Latins did not 
receive the epistle as Paul s. Only some adopted it. 

Fourthly. He fully believed in its canonicity ; and 
probably held it to be Paul s indirectly. 1 

Fifthly. He alleges that most of the Greek writers 
who received it as Pauline did not ascribe it to him 
immediately but merely through Barnabas or Clement. 

Augustine s (f 430) sentiments are scarcely consis 
tent. In his commentary on the epistle to the Romans, 
he alludes to it as the apostles. In his treatise on 
Christian Doctrine, he specifies it as one of the fourteen 
Pauline epistles. He quotes it as the apostle s in his 
sermons. The decrees of several synods where his in 
fluence was considerable, have it after Paul s thirteen 
letters, as the synod of Hippo (393), and the third of Car 
thage (397) which attest its canonicity. In the fifth of 
Carthage (419), it is one of Paul s fourteen letters. In 
other works of his, 2 it is alluded to as Scripture. There 
are many places in which Augustine avoids giving an 
opinion about the author, employing indefinite phrases: 
as, the epistle which is written to the Hebrews ; 
which the majority say is Paul s, but some deny ; the 
epistle to the Hebrews ; which is inscribed to the 
Hebrews. Doubtless he reckoned it a part of the ca 
nonical Scriptures, induced to do so, as he affirms, by the 
authority of the oriental churches ; but it is doubtful 
whether he really believed it to be Paul s. In a passage 
in his work on Christian Doctrine, where he puts it 
among the other epistles of Paul, the context makes a 
distinction between canonical books, assigning greater 
weight to such as were received by all the catholic 

1 See Wieseler, Eine Untcrsuckuny ; u.s.w.,, p. 40, et seq. 

2 Enarrat. in Psalm. 130, 12 ; Contra Maximin. Arian. lib. ii. c. 25. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 187 

churches than to those adopted by fewer and less im 
portant churches. 1 It is not easy to account for the 
circumlocutory phrases he uses so often, except on the 
ground of his entertaining doubts about the author. In 
his later works he avoids quoting the epistle as Paul s. 
In his work on the City of God/ which occupied him 
fourteen years, he cites it often without naming the 
writer. And in his unfinished work on Julian, though 
the latter quotes the epistle as Paul s, Augustine calls 
it merely the epistle to the Hebrews. i One would 
think, says Lardner, that he studiously declines to 
call it Paul s. The result of all that Augustine has 
expressed on the subject is this : 

First He knew the fact that some Latin churches 
denied the Pauline origin of the epistle. 

Secondly. He himself sometimes quotes it as the 
apostle s and was inclined at one time to believe so. 

Thirdly. Oftener, and particularly in his later writ 
ings, he scruples to quote it as Paul s, having doubts 
about its Pauline origin not its canonicity. These 
doubts were either not strong enough to induce him to 
speak directly against the Pauline authorship, or he had 
not courage to contradict the opinion of the majority. 
He did not take the side of the minority openly, from 
want of conviction or from fear. 

Rufinus (410) naturally followed Jerome; and every 
writer of note in the West belonging to the fifth century, 
took the view ostensibly held by Jerome and Augus 
tine ; as Chromatius (f 410), Innocent of Rome (f 416), 
Paulinus (f 431), Cassian (f 450), Prosper (434), 
Eucherius (f 450), Salvian (f after 490), and Gelasius 
(f 394). Pelagius (425) wrote on Paul s thirteen 
epistles, not on that to the Hebrews. Yet he speaks of 
it as a work of the apostle. 

From the beginning of the fifth century, the Pauline 
authorship was generally acknowledged in the Latin 

1 De Doctr. Christ, ii. 12, 



188 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

church. But even after Jerome and Augustine, several 
commentators do not quote it, as Leo the Great (f 461), 
and Orosius (420). About the middle of the sixth 
century, no Latin commentary on it was known to 
Cassiodorus (470-564). 

At Alexandria the case respecting the epistle was 
different. Though Basilides (about 125) the Gnostic 
used the Pauline epistles, he rejected that to the He 
brews, because it did not proceed from an apostle of 
Christ. In the time of Basilides, it was received at 
Alexandria, but not as Paul s. Pantamus s testimony, 
inserted by Clement in his lost work Hypotypose$) has 
been preserved by Eusebius. 1 It is generally supposed 
that the blessed presbyter, whom Clement speaks of, 
is Pantaius, who obviates an objection to the Pauline 
authorship from the want of the name. Clement him 
self asserts (f 220), that Paul wrote the epistle in 
Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. 

In like manner, Origen (f 254) often employs it as 
a Pauline writing. One passage may suffice : And in 
the letter to the Hebrews, the same apostle says, etc. 2 
This distinguished father, knowing that individuals and 
churches questioned its Pauline composition, expresses 
his purpose to write a distinct discourse in proof of it, 
in a letter to Africanus. In other places he alludes to 
doubts respecting its Pauline authorship, as in his com 
ments on Matt, xxiii. 27. 

Eusebius (f 340) has preserved an extract from 
Origen s homilies on the epistle to the Hebrews, which 
gives a more exact account of the Alexandrian father s 
opinion respecting the origin of the work. Here we 
have Origen s mature judgment. The homilies were 
preached and published in the latter part of his life, 
when he was upwards of sixty years of age. The style 
of the epistle with the title " to the Hebrews " has not 

1 IL E. vi. 14. 

~ Kat eV rf) npos E/3pai oi/$ 6 avros HavXds (f)rj(nv. In Joann. torn. ii. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 189 

that rudeness of speech which belonged to the apostle 
who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in phra 
seology. But the epistle is purer Greek in the texture 
of its style, as every one will allow who is able to dis 
cern differences of style. Again he says, i the ideas of 
the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the ac 
knowledged writings of the apostle. Every one will con 
fess the truth of this who reads the apostle s writings 
attentively. Afterwards he adds : i I would say that 
the sentiments are the apostle s ; but the language and 
composition belong to some one who committed to 
writing what the apostle said, and reduced into a com 
mentary, as it were, the things spoken by his master. 
If then, any church receives this epistle as coming from 
Paul, let it be commended even for this ; for it is not 
without reason that the ancients have handed it down 
as Paul s. But who wrote (was the amanuensis of) the 
epistle, God alone knows certainly. The account that 
has come down to us is various ; some saying that 
Clement, who was bishop of Rome, wrote the epistle ; 
others that it was Luke who wrote the Gospel and the 
Acts. l From this passage we see : 

First. That different opinions about the writer of the 
letter were entertained in Origen s day ; doubts about 
the authorship being so common that he could allude to 

1 6 x a P aKT *)P rr/s Xe ^eco? rrjs TTpos c E/3paious- 7nyeypap,iJ.vrjs emcrToXrjs, OVK 
f X i T U * v Xoya> io~i(i>TiKov TOV tZTTOoroXov, 6/J.o\oyr](ravTOS eavTov I8id>rr}v elvai 
TU> Xdya), Tovre ort rfj (f>pdo~i, AXXa ecrTiv f) eViaroXj) o~vvdeo~i rrjs Xe ^fcos 
EXX^WKcorepa, nas 6 eTTterra/iei Off Kpivfiv (ppdo~fa>v dta(f)opds^ op-oXoyrjcrat av. 
TldXiv re av OTI ra vorj^ara T^S cnurToXfjs 6av/j.d<rid eVrt, KOI ov dfvTfpa TWV 
aTroo-roXiKcov 6[j.oXoyov[j.eva>v ypa/i/xarcoz/. Kai rouro av <rvp,(prj(rai elvai dXrjdes 
rras 6 Trpocre x^v rrj dvayvwarei rfj aTroo-roXi^. Tovrois peff erepa errKpepei 
\fyo)v Eya> Se dno^aivo/jifvos eOTOi/z av, OTI ra /j.fv vorj/jiara TOV drrocrToXov 
(Q-Tiv, rj de <ppdo~is Kal f] O"vv6e(ri$ dnofjivrjfj.ovfvo avTOs TIVOS TO. aTrooroXt/cci, xal 
wanrepel crxo\ioypa(j)rjo-avTos TO. elprjueva vrro TOV SiSao-KaXov. Et TLS ovv KK\T]- 
o~ia fX L T(lVTr ] v T *] v fTriO"TO\r}V uts Hav\ov, avTrj fuSoAci/ieira) Kal eVJ rourw ov 
yap eiKrj ol apx^loi avo pes cos Ha^Xou avTrjv irapadf Sco/cacrt TIS de 6 ypd\jsas Triv 
fTrLa"To\r)v, TO p.6v d\r]dcs Qfos oidfv f) Se els fjp.as (pdao-aaa loTOpia vno TIVO>V 
p.fv \fyovTMV, OTI K\r)nr)s 6 yevo/jievos eVwrKOTTOS Pa)p.aicov eypax^t TTJV eVt(rroXr}i/. 
VTTO Tiva>v 5e OTI Aovxas 6 ypd\jsas TO fvayyf\iov xal ray 7rpaet?. H.E. vi. 25. 



190 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

them in a popular discourse, without giving offence or 
raising suspicions, against himself. The words, i if any 
church receives it as Paul s, it is even to be commended 
on that account, imply that some had doubts of its 
Pauline authorship. The language is hypothetical ; and 
the inference, that only a few churches received the 
epistle as Paul s or that any church rejected it as his, 
cannot be rightly drawn from it. 

Secondly. Origen s own belief was, that while the 
sentiments of the epistle proceeded from the apostle, 
another wrote them down. This explains the apparent 
inconsistencies observable in his different works. He 
often cites it as Paul s without scruple or remark ; but 
in his homilies he says, God alone knows who wrote 
it. The expression who wrote the epistle, can only 
mean who put the thoughts into writing, who penned 
another s ideas. Such kind of writing some attributed to 
Clement of Rome, others to Luke ; but Origen gives no 
opinion. 1 

Thirdly. It is difficult to understand what he meant 
by the words, ancient men have handed it down to us 
as Paul s. He could not mean all the ancients, in 
cluding Christians in the East and West. Probably he 
refers to the ancient men of the Alexandrian church, 
i.e. to Pantasnus and Clement, with the generation de 
pendent upon them. 

Fourthly. There is little doubt that Origen speaks of 
current traditions which existed before his time ; and 
that their field was Alexandria. 

Origen, as we have just seen, believed that Paul was 
the author of the epistle, and accounted for the diversity 
of style between it and other Pauline writings by assum 
ing that some one penned the ideas with the apostle s 



1 Unless we make Origen stultify himself in the passage, TLS Se 6 
TTJV eVion-oXqi/, TO d\rj9es Geoy oldev must mean the scribe, rather than the 
proper author, for the preceding context states that this father believed 
the thoughts to be Paul s, the recording of them another s. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 191 

sanction or by bis direction. Tbe power of tradition 
was so strong that be could not reject Paul s participa 
tion in tbe letter ; yet his critical judgment could not 
reconcile the language with external testimony. Hence 
be assigned tbe thoughts to Paul, the diction to another. 

Dionysius (248), a disciple of Origen, ascribes tbe 
work to the apostle without hesitation, in bis epistle 
addressed to Fabius bishop of Antioch, and preserved 
by Eusebius. 1 Theognostus of Alexandria (A.D. 282) 
also assigns the epistle to Paul. So too Peter (300), 
Alexander (315), Hierax (about 300), Athanasius 
(f373), Theophilus (f412), Serapion (f358), Didymus 
(395), and Cyril of Alexandria (f444), employ the 
epistle, ascribing it to the apostle. The deacon Euthalius 
(460) again speaks of doubts, which he sets aside. The 
prevalent opinion of the Alexandrian church was in 
favour of the Pauline authorship. In accordance with 
it, the tenth place was usually given to the epistle, i.e. 
after the second to the Thessalonians. So it is in Atha 
nasius, the council of Laodicea, the Memphitic version, 
the author of the Synopsis of sacred Scripture, Eu 
thalius and Cyril. Nor was this position confined to 
the Alexandrian church ; other Greek fathers gave it 
the same place, as Theodoret and Epiphanius ; and the 
oldest Greek MSS., A., B., C., H., agree. 

Out of Egypt, in the Greek church, the current tra 
dition of authorship was the same. The council of 
Nicaea received the epistle as Paul s, which appears from 
a reply given by Eusebius in the name of the assembled 
bishops, where it is quoted as his. 2 

Justin Martyr (f!66) has several passages which 
show an acquaintance with the epistle. He writes, for 
example, This is he who, after the order of Melchizedek, 
is King of Salem, and everlasting priest of the Most 

1 //. E. vi. 41. 

2 Ka6a)s <fir](Ti Ktti o nauXoy TO (TKfvos Trjs fK\oyrj$ EjBpaiois ypadxav K.T.\ 
See Harduin, Ada Concilior, vol. i. p. 402. 



192 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

High. l Elsewhere, about to be both everlasting priest 
of God, and King, and Christ. 2 In another work he 
writes that Christ is called both Angel and Apostle? 
All that can be inferred from such statements is, that 
the epistle was current in the Christian circle to which 
Justin belonged. 

Eusebius of Cassarea quotes the letter very fre 
quently, especially in his commentary on the Psalms, 
and attributes it to the apostle, putting it among the 
fourteen and the Homologoumena. In the third book of 
his Ecclesiastical History he says expressly, Of Paul 
there are fourteen epistles, manifest and well known ; 
subjoining, yet there are some who reject that to the 
Hebrews, urging in favour of their opinion, that the 
church of the Romans denies it to be Paul s. 4 

In other places the historian speaks differently. Thus 
he writes : For Paul having addressed the Hebrews in 
their own tongue, some think the evangelist Luke 
others, Clement, translated the epistle, which last ap 
pears more probable, since there is a great resemblance 
between the style of the epistle of Clement and the 
epistle to the Hebrews, as well as between their senti 
ments. 5 This passage implies that the writer had an 
opinion like Origen s, viz. that Paul wrote in Hebrew, 
Clement translating into Greek. But a statement in his 

1 OVTOS fo~TLV 6 Kara TTJV rdiv MeX^to-eSeK /SacriXeuy SaX^p,, KOL alwvios 
lepevs YA//-/O-TOV virdpxcov. (Hebr. v. 9, 10 ; vi. 20 ; vii. 12.) Dial, cum 
Tryph. p. 379, ed. Thirlby. 

2 Kal aloiVLuv TOV Geou tepea, Koi /3ao-tXe a, Kal Xpioroi/ /^eAXozra yivecrOai. 
Ibid. p. 347. 

3 KOI ayyeXoy fie KaXeTrai KOL aVoVroXos 1 . Apol. i. C. 63, p. 172. Otto, ed. 3. 

4 TOV 5e IlauXou TrpoS^Xoi Kai crcupfls al SeKareVcrapes . "On ye p.rjv TLVCS 
T]$(Ti]K(icrt TTJV rrpos E/SpatoDS 1 , Trpos Tr}s Poifjiaioiv (KK\rj(TLas o)s p.r) TiavXov ovcrav 
avrrjv dvTi\eye(rdai (prjcravres, ov diKdiov dyvoelv. If. E. iii. 3. 

6 E/3patolS yap fiia rrjs Trarpiuv yX^rrrjs eyypdfpoos atfJuXrjKOTos TOV IlauXou, 

01 p.V TOV fvayyeXio-Trjv A.ov<av, ol Se TOV K\r)/JifVTa epW 

vevo-at \eyovo~i TTJV ypcKprjv 6 Kai p.d\\ov f ir) av d\r)6es TO> TOV opoiov TTJS 
(ppaa-ecoj ^apaxr^pa TYJV re TOV K\r)[j.evTos eiriOTO\r]V t Kal TTJV rrpbs Eftpaiovs 
OTroo fo^ eii/, KOI reo p.rj noppco ra eV exare poiy rois a~vyypdp.ij.acri vorjp,aTa Kadfo~Tavai. 
IL E. iii. 38. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 193 

commentary on the second Psalm is different, indicating 
that Paul wrote the epistle in Greek. Elsewhere, he 
alludes to it as a work belonging to the Antilegomena or 
disputed Scriptures, in the time of Clemens Alexan- 
drinus, because he says, that the latter, in his Stroma- 
teis, uses testimonies from the Antilegomena, the book 
called the Wisdom of Solomon, that of Jesus son of 
Sirach, the epistle to the Hebrews, Barnabas, Clement, 
and Jude. 

The general conclusion we draw from Eusebius s 
writings is, that he accepted the epistle as Paul s and 
used it as such. Nevertheless, says Lardner, l perhaps 
it may be questioned whether he was fully persuaded 
of it. 

The Pauline authorship was commonly held in the 
Greek church after Eusebius. Cyril of Jerusalem 
(f389), Gregory of Nazianzum (f 390), Basil the 
Great (f 379), the council of Laodicea (363), Gregory 
Nyssene (f after 394), Titus of Bostra (f 371), Epipha- 
nius (f 402), Chrysostom (f 407), Theodore of Mopsu- 
estia (f429), received it. And if the Iambic poem 
addressed to Seleucus be rightly assigned to Amphilo- 
chius of Iconium (f 394), he may be also quoted for the 
Pauline authorship. Gregory Thaumaturgus (f about 
270) ascribes it to Paul, quoting or referring to various 
passages, such as ii. 3, 4 ; iii. 1518. 

As to the Syrian church, the epistle is in the Peshito, 
but at the end of the Pauline epistles before the general 
ones. Delitzsch argues that it was put there because 
anonymous, not because it was thought to proceed from 
another than Paul. 1 But in that case it would rather 
have stood among the Pauline ones, between those to 
the Corinthians and Galatians, or after the Thessalonian 
ones, certainly before the pastoral epistles. The Peshito 
has it merely with the title, Epistle to the Hebrews. 

1 Ueber Verfasser und Loser des Ilebrderbriefs, in Rudelbach und G uericke s 
Zeitschrift, 1840, p. 510. 

VOL. I. O 



194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The later Syriac, which was dependent on the Greek, 
first gave it the title, * Epistle of Paul. After this, 
the Syrian church generally believed in the Pauline 
authorship. About the middle of the third century, the 
synod of Antioch ascribes it to the apostle. Jacob of 
Nisibis (325), and Ephrem (f 378), so quote it, as does 
Severian bishop of Gabala (401). Isaac bishop of 
Nineveh (f 550), and Ebed-Jesu (f 1318), reckon it 
the fourteenth of Paul s epistles. 

This brief summary of the patristic evidence need 
not be followed further. Those who wish to see it 
drawn out at length, are referred to Bleek, 1 from whom 
many succeeding critics have taken their lists of pas 



sages. 



The following is the result of external evidence on 
the subject. 

In the Western or Latin church, the epistle was not 
considered apostolic till the fourth century, when it first 
obtained a canonical position and was assigned to Paul. 
The causes which contributed to this change cannot be 
traced. Perhaps the ecclesiastical intercourse between 
the East and West, which began at the time, brought 
the sentiments of the former into the latter. Above all, 
the weight of two names, Jerome and Augustine, greatly 
influenced the formation of such an opinion. It has 
been conjectured that the Arian controversy, in which 
the epistle was useful to the orthodox cause, helped to 
establish its apostolicity. It may be also, that the study 
of Origen s writings had its influence. We know that 
Hilary and Ambrose, in particular, were familiar with 
them. 

In the Eastern or Greek church, tradition was early 
and uniformly in favour of the Pauline authorship. The 
Greek fathers, with few exceptions, believed that it pro 
ceeded from the apostle of the Gentiles. 

The early Syrians did not hold the Pauline author- 

1 Der Brief an die Hebraer, erste Abtheilung, viertes Kapitel, p. 81, et seq. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 195 

ship ; but the fathers of that church began to do so in 
the third century. 

Thus patristic evidence is divided and the testimonies 
conflicting. Taken in the mass, it favours the Pauline 
origin of the letter. Judged separately, especially in its 
earliest state, its voice is contrary. If the letter were 
written in Italy, the Italians must have known whether 
Paul wrote it or not ; and their rejection of it is, con 
sequently, a strong argument against its apostolic 
authorship. We rely more on the earliest testimony, 
which is against Paul s authorship, than on the later, 
and believe that the rejection of that authorship by the 
Latin church outweighs the opposite evidence. The 
letter was written either in Italy or at Alexandria ; so 
that the Westerns knew better who wrote it than the 
Asiatics. It tells against the Pauline origin that Pan- 
taenus was the first who held that opinion at Alexan 
dria. 

II. Having considered the external evidence bearing 
on Paul s authorship, we proceed to the internal. Here 
there is much to discountenance the idea that the apostle 
wrote the epistle. 

(a.) The want of a title or inscription strikes the 
reader. The name of the writer does not appear, con 
trary to Paul s method. As the Jewish Christians were 
prejudiced" against him, he must have appealed, if not 
to his apostleship, at least to the revelations he had re 
ceived, the purity of his motives, and his ardent love to 
his countrymen. Such things would have been most 
suitable had Paul wished to get a favourable hearing. 

At an early period, those who assumed the Pauline 
authorship endeavoured to account for the absence of 
the apostle s name by supposing, with Pantamus, that 
the writer, conscious of his mission to the Gentiles not 
the Jews, omitted his name through modesty ; or with 
Clemens Alexandrinus, that Paul avoided an inscrip 
tion lest he should offend the Hebrews who had preju- 



196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

dices against him Jerome gives the same explanation 
as Clement s ; which has been repeated till the present 
day. Plug adds another, viz. that the epistle is a dis 
course as far as the doxology in xiii. 12, rather than a 
letter ; and therefore a salutation with the apostle s 
name would have been unsuitable. None of the hypo 
theses is probable ; and the omission of the name at 
the commencement of the letter remains a strong pre 
sumption against the Pauline authorship, especially when 
it is remembered that Paul did not intrude into the 
sphere of activity occupied by others (2 Cor. x. 13 ; 
Rom. xv. 20). He was the apostle of the Gentiles, not 
of the Jews. 

(b.) The manner in which the Old Testament is 
quoted differs from the Pauline. The writer knows the 
Jewish Scriptures only in the Septuagint version, which 
is cited even where it has words added to the Hebrew 
text, as in i. 6 from Duteronomy xxxii. 43 ; and also 
where the meaning of the original is entirely deserted, 
as in x. 5-7. The author has a few trifling deviations 
from the Septuagint ; but neither in them nor in any 
other case, not even in x. 30, did he consult the He 
brew. On the other hand, where the Greek version de 
parts materially from the Hebrew text, Paul seldom 
follows it. Again, when the apostle quotes the LXX., 
his citations commonly agree with the Vatican text, 
whereas the epistle to the Hebrews uniformly follows 
the Alexandrian one. 1 

A separate examination of the citations justifies 
these remarks. Thus i. 7 is from the Septuagint ac 
cording to the Alexandrian copy, the original Hebrew 
meaning that God makes the winds his messengers and 
the lightnings his servants. But in the Greek rendering 
which our author follows, the sense becomes, He makes 
his angels winds and his servants flames of fire/ imply - 

1 Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebraer, erste Abtheilung, sections 79-83, 
pp, 338, 381. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 197 

ing that angels are changed into those elements by God 
to do his pleasure. 

The citation in i. 8, 9, from Psalm xlv. 6, 7, is also 
different in sense from the original, which is, thy God s 
or divine throne is for ever and ever, referring to a 
Hebrew king on the occasion of his marriage ; whereas 
the author of the epistle takes the nominative (God) as 
a vocative, and considers it an address to the Messiah. 

The quotation in i. 10-12, from Psalm cii. 25-27, 
also gives a different meaning from that of the original. 
The Hebrew words contain an address to Jehovah ; the 
writer of our epistle applies them directly to Christ, 
misled in all probability by the term Kvpte in the LXX., 
which was commonly applied to Christ in the time of 
the apostles. Paul would not have made the quotation 
as it is, applying the words directly to Christ, for the 
psalm is not Messianic. Jehovah is addressed in it ; 
and no Jew would have used it of the Messiah or of 
any one except the supreme being. The apostle Paul, 
educated under Gamaliel, could not have applied the 
psalm in such a way. In i. 5, v. 5, where words are 
quoted from the second psalm, they are looked upon as 
an address of God to the Son in his pre-existent state ; 
whereas Paul considers them as a formula conferring 
Messianic dignity on Christ at his resurrection (Acts 
xiii. 33). The former is farther from the Psalmist s 
meaning, which refers to a statute of Jehovah declared 
at the inauguration of a theocratic king. 

While these and other citations show how dependent 
the author was upon the Greek translation even where 
it misinterprets the original, they prove that Paul was 
not the writer. 

In alluding to the author s exegesis connected with 
Old Testament quotations, we do not forget that the 
writings of Paul present examples not wholly dissimi 
lar ; but the epistle before us has stranger and more 
numerous specimens, several of which could scarcely 



198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

have proceeded from the apostle. We freely alloiv that 
the latter spiritualises the Old Testament, allegorises 
historical accounts, modifies the original sense, and 
tries to make it prove what it cannot ; but with all his 
deviations from historico-grammatical interpretation, he 
does not present the peculiar instances of departure in 
ch. i. 5, 712 ; for he was guided by a sounder judg 
ment than that of the allegorising Alexandrian. 

Still further, none of the introductory formulas and 
quotations so common with Paul, such as, as it is 
written, for it is written, the Scripture saith, etc. etc., 
appears in our epistle. Neither are his rarer formulas 
used, David says, Moses says, Isaiah says. The epistle 
to the Hebrews refers its citations neither to Scripture 
nor to persons or authors, but to God or the Holy Spirit, 
with one exception (ii. 6). This is done even where the 
words in the original are spoken of God in the third 
person (Hebrews i. 6, 7, 8, etc.). In cases where the 
verb says has no nominative, God should be supplied, 
not Scripture. Only two exceptions occur, viz. ii. 6 
and xii. 21, where the indefinite one and Moses said 
occur. The former is without example elsewhere. To 
cite a well-known book like the Psalms with, some one in 
a certain place, is remarkable. The latter is inexact, 
because the words of Moses in Deut. ix. 19 are trans 
ferred to the time when the law was promulgated. We 
agree with Tholuck in thinking that some passages in 
the epistle contain reminiscences of Paul s writings, as 
x. 30, compared with Eom. xii. 19 ; and xii. 14, com 
pared with Rom. xii. IS. 1 

(c.) The writer betrays an imperfect knowledge of 
the tabernacle and the temple. He is even mistaken in 
some particulars ; a thing that could not be asserted of 
Paul, who lived in Jerusalem for a considerable time. 
In the 9th chapter, the Jewish tabernacle is divided 
into its two principal parts ; the first apartment and 

1 Commc iitar zum Briefe an die Hebrdcr, Einleitung, p. 46, 2nd ed. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 100 

the holy of holies. In specifying their furniture the 
author mentions, in the first, the candlestick, the table, 
and the shew-bread ; in the second, the golden altar of 
incense, with the ark of the covenant containing the pot 
of manna, Aaron s rod, and the tables of stone. 

The pot of manna and Aaron s rod are put in the 
ark of the covenant, which is opposed to 1 Kings viii. 9 ; 
2 Chron. v, 10, where it is expressly declared that the 
ark had nothing in it but two tables of stone. And the 
golden altar of incense is put in the holy of holies ; 
whereas it was in the first apartment, towards the veil 
that separated the one from the other. 

In the tabernacle, Aaron s rod and the pot of manna 
were before, not in the ark (Exod. xvi. 33 ; Numb, 
xvii. 10) ; with which both Josephus and Philo agree 
when they relate that the ark contained nothing but the 
tables of stone. But the later Eabbins, Levi ben 
Gerson and Abarbanel, have the same view as that in 
the epistle, so that the author may have followed a 
tradition different from the Scriptural one. The word 
translated altar of incense is ambiguous, and may mean 
censer. We prefer the former meaning, because it is 
sanctioned by the authority of Josephus and Philo. In 
either case, there is an error, since we learn from the 
Mishna that the censer was taken into the holy of holies 
by the high priest, not kept there. The whole passage 
shows, that though the writer had respect to the taber 
nacle, he transferred both divisions of it, with all the 
furniture, to the temple of his own day, which he 
believed to possess the ark, the pot of manna, and 
Aaron s rod. What belonged to the original tabernacle 
he supposed to have equally belonged to the temple of 
his time. The present tense used in the sixth verse 
(the priests enter in}, and in the seventh (offers}, along 
with the present -perfect (these things having been thus 
ordained, ix. 6), reads as if the arrangements of the 
tabernacle existed. Similarly, ignorance on the part of 



200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the writer appears in ix. 19, where it is a mistake to say 
that the blood of the sacrifices was mixed with water. 
The blood would have been vitiated by the addition of 
water, except in accidental cases. So also the statement 
that the tabernacle was sprinked with blood (ix. 21) is 
incorrect. It was sprinkled with oil, as we learn from 
the Old Testament. 

But it cannot be said that the writer has made a 
mistake about the high priest offering daily sacrifice, 
for vii. 27 does not sustain that position ; yet the 
adverbial daily is so vague, that the statement cannot 
be entirely j ustified by the references to Josephus, the 
Talmud, and Philo which Bleek advances. The author, 
thinking of the daily offerings of the priests, as well as 
the yearly sacrifice of atonement, uses language involv 
ing their amalgamation. 

(d.) According to ii. 3, the writer was not an apostle, 
but had received the gospel from ear-witnesses. How 
shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation ; which 
at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was 
confirmed unto us by them that heard him ? Here the 
readers are represented as belonging to the second 
Christian generation, because they had received the 
gospel from ear-witnesses and the first preachers. The 
author classes himself with the readers was confirmed 
unto us by them that heard him. 

The only way of escaping the force of this argument 
is to call in the aid of a rhetorical figure, 1 by which the 
writer includes himself among those he addresses. 
Such a mode of speaking does occur in the epistle, and 
in the Pauline letters. But Bleek rightly limits it to 
hortatory addresses, where an author may include him 
self with propriety among his readers, because the 
consciousness of moral infirmity is an attribute of 
universal humanity. Although therefore the context 
has, we ought to give heed, how shall we escape? the 

1 Called 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 201 

figure is dropped when a historical fact is expressed. 
It is difficult to see how Paul could forbear in that passage 
to remind the Jewish Christians that the Lord himself 
had worked and taught in their midst, had suffered 
before their eyes, and found the first witnesses of his 
resurrection and ascension among them. 

(.) The hermeneutical principles of the epistle differ 
from Paul s. In allegorising the Old Testament, the 
author goes much further than the apostle, who treats 
single passages in that way, as in Galat. iii. 16 and iv. 22, 
etc. ; the latter being the most conspicuous instance in his 
writings. Our author spiritualises the person of Mel- 
chizedek, whom he considers a type of the Son of God. 
The history of this priest in Genesis is viewed typically ; 
all that is said of him, down to the very name, and all 
that is not said of him, being significant. Such inter 
pretation reminds us of Philo and the Eabbins. 

Akin to allegorising is the play upon words, of 
which there is a notable example in the use of the Greek 
term translated covenant (ix. 1518), which has also the 
meaning of testament, and is used as the basis of an 
argument for the sacrificial death of Christ. 

(/. ) The doctrinal system of the epistle to the Hebrews, 
though based upon Paulinism, is worked out in a dif 
ferent way and assumes another form. The Alexandrine 
education of the writer shaped and modified the Pauline 
teaching which was the point of his departure. Though 
he has advanced in some respects beyond Paul, with 
independence and originality ; yet his conclusions are 
for the most part substantially the same. It was not 
his object to diverge from the Pauline doctrine, but to 
establish it, which he does in his own method. The 
view of Christianity and Judaism is determined by the 
Alexandrine conception of the supersensuous world 
which is prominent in Philo. When Christianity is 
identified with that abstract world of thought it receives 
a new form, and its blessings assume a peculiar aspect. 



202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The idea of transcendence enters into them. Christi 
anity is a transcendent reality because it is the arche 
typal world, the heavenly Jerusalem, of which believers 
are the citizens. Raised far above the earthly and tem 
poral, it is the heavenly and perfect world. But the 
perfect is something future, a thing that cannot now be 
actually possessed. Hence Christianity is identical with 
the future world. It is the world to come in point of time, 
as it is the heavenly world in respect to place, transcen 
dent therefore both in place and time. The present 
world or aeon was that which preceded Christianity ; the 
future world or scon is that of Christianity itself, which 
Christ came to inaugurate and open up. The two are 
metaphysically opposed to one another ; and as Christi 
anity is absolutely different from the earthly world, its 
blessings are the object of hope rather than a present posses 
sion. The Christian can only taste of its powers on earth, 
(a.) Judaism is a Levitical cult ; and both its tem 
porary and perpetual character its transience and un- 
changeableness lie in that fact. When it is changed, 
the law is changed with it. Priesthood is the primary, 
law the secondary thing ; the former determining the 
latter. Because priesthood is changed, the law must be 
changed, the one being subordinate to the other. When 
the incomplete priesthood is fulfilled, the law cannot 
continue, as it was a w^eak and profitless thing. The 
view taken by Paul is different. He considers Judaism 
as a law not as a priesthood ; a law which has to be 
fulfilled. The Pauline view of Judaism is subjective ; 
that of our epistle, objective. Paul shows that the law 
cannot bring man into a right relation to God because 
he is unable to fulfil it ; the writer of the epistle to the 
Hebrews, that the priestly arrangements in the Old 
Testament cannot effect reconciliation to God because of 
their defective character. According to Paul, the ground 
of Judaism being unsatisfactory does not lie in the law 
but in man s relation to it ; according to our author, the 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 203 

ground is in the constitution of Judaism itself. As 
Paul apprehended Judaism from the standpoint of the 
law, and the author of our epistle from that of its ritual, 
the} arrive at its abolition in different methods. Judaism 
was a shadow of which Christianity is the substance. 
As it was a copy of the heavenly sanctuary or Christi 
anity, the latter, being eternal, really preceded it. The 
essence was anticipated in the shadow. Hence its tem 
porary validity. Belonging to the earthly and perishing 
world, to the altov ouros, it was only a preparation for 
the perfect thing to come. Such is the view of our 
epistle. Paul looks upon Judaism as having been 
abolished by the death of Christ, who fulfilled the law 
and bore its curse on the cross. With him Judaism 
was not a copy of Christianity, but a legal institution 
opposed to it. 

The epistle announces, for the first time, the priest 
hood of Christ as typified by the high priesthood of the 
old covenant. The sacrifice he offers for sin is himself, 
so that he is both priest and victim. This is not Pau 
line; and it also clashes with the Old Testament idea of 
the Messiah, who is not a priest but a king. 

The relation between Jewish and Gentile Christians 
under the New Testament is also looked at differently 
by Paul and the writer of this epistle. The former 
does not make Jewish Christians the proper nucleus and 
body of the Church, but Gentile ones ; the latter, who 
never mentions Gentile Christians, must have considered 
Jewish believers the essential portion of the Church. 1 

(/3.) The christology of our epistle, though similar, 
advances beyond the Pauline, occupying an intermediate 
position between the Pauline and Johannine. Both 
Paul and our author represent Christ as pre-existent and 
superhuman ; but the latter gives him a higher rank in 
that he is an effulgence of the divine glory and an 
express image of the divine substance. His nature is 

1 See Riehm s Dcr Lehrbegrijf des Hebraerbriefs, p. 232, ct seq. 



204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the same as God s, and metaphysically connected with it. 
Omnipotence itself is ascribed to him when it is said 
that he upholds all things by the word of his power ; 
and the language descriptive of Jehovah (in Psalm cii.) 
is directly applied to him as though he were the eternal 
creator of the universe. Thus Christ s person is elevated 
into a cosmical principle, as in the epistle to the Colos- 
sians. He is not yet, however, the Logos of John. 
But he is a higher pre-existing being than in the epistles 
of Paul, for in the latter he is still a heavenly man, the 
archetype of humanity ; whereas in the former he is a 
purely divine being with an independent existence. 
According to Paul, he ultimately delivers up the do 
minion to the Father ; in the epistle to the Hebrews his 
dominion is everlasting. The view of Pfleiderer is highly 
probable, that the christological passage in i. 3 rests upon 
the description of sopliia or wisdom in the Alexandrine 
book of Wisdom (vii. 25-27) ; which describes it as the 
personified power of the Almighty. 1 

(y.) Reconciliation to God by the death of Christ is 
differently set forth. The apostle looks upon the Son as 
passive rather than active ; his sacrifice as a vicarious 
one, satisfying the justice of God and taking away the 
punishment of sin. In the epistle, Christ is an active 
high priest offering up himself. The death of the victim 
in the one case is connected with the removal of the 
divine wrath ; in the other, with the removal of the 
consciousness of guilt ; for by the offering up of Christ 
once for all the conscience is purified, disquieting fears 
cease, and the Christian enters into communion with 
God. The Pauline idea of the death is an expiatory 
sacrifice offered to the justice of God manifested in the 
law ; that of the epistle is a sacrifice of purification. In 
the former, the immediate effect is deliverance from 
deserved punishment and acceptance as righteous because 
of imputed righteousness ; in the latter, it is deliverance 

1 See Pfleiderer s Pau.linismus, vol. ii. p. Gl, English translation.. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. i>05 

from a guilty conscience. Thus reconciliation to God 
is differently apprehended by the two writers. 

The epistle does not connect the work of Christ with 
his death on the cross, but with his appearance in the 
heavenly sanctuary, where he discharges his priestly 
duties, interceding with the Father for his people. The 
proper efficacy of his priesthood does not begin till he is 
perfected. 

(8.) The Pauline contrast of faith and the law or the 
works of the law is foreign to our epistle. According to 
the apostle, faith is the inward appropriation of Christ s 
righteousness, a righteousness imputed to the believer 
through that medium. It rests on Christ as its object, 
especially on his death and resurrection. According to the 
epistle, the object of faith is the invisible world, viewed 
both as a reality and a future possession. Hope is an 
element of faith, not a consequence of it, as it is with Paul. 
Christ, instead of being the object of faith, has perfected 
it, brought it into full manifestation in himself, so as to 
be the guide of all who follow his steps. He is the 
perfect illustration of all that it is and expresses ; the 
great forerunner in the road of faith. The Pauline view 
is that faith puts the Christian into a mystical union 
with Christ. Believers live, die, rise with him. Christ 
is in them and they in Christ. The epistle sets forth 
Christ for us not in us ; Christ as our great example, 
the mediator of a new covenant, who having passed 
through sufferings and death into the heavenly sanctuary 
opened up full communion with God. He is the great 
high priest who is able to save unto the uttermost all 
that come unto God by him. 

The righteousness according to faith (xi.7) is also differ 
ent from the Pauline righteousness of faith (ep. to Romans 
ix. 80). The former is the state of mind which faith 
produces, that is righteousness of character. It is the 
consequence of faith. The latter is a thing imputed by 
God to the sinner and received by faith, in other words, 



206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

a divine gift. The one represents righteousness as a 
property inherent in the believer, manifested in his 
actions and sufferings, recognised by God ; the other 
looks upon it as a thing which God bestows. The 
epistle ignores the legal way in which Paul sets forth 
justification. Ideas and forms of expression resulting 
from the judicial standpoint of the apostle are dropped; 
and thoughts according with an Alexandrine standpoint 
are attached to his language. 

(e.) The Pauline idea that Christ is the first mem 
ber of a renewed humanity, the second Adam, is not in 
our epistle. On the other hand, he is called by the 
present writer i the apostle and high priest of our pro 
fession, epithets unknown to Paul. 

(.) The writer is silent as to the power which sin 
has over men according to Paul, making it impossible 
for them to fulfil the law ; with the misery and con 
demnation in which mankind are on that account. He 
never speaks of the power of the flesh over the spirit, 
or of the impossibility of performing works that justify; 
but rather proceeds on the principle of the freedom of 
the human will, and the divine reward of good conduct 
(xiii. 16 ; vi. 10). 

( 77 . ) The relation of the work of redemption to the devil 
is absent in Paul s teaching. In our epistle, Christ is 
said to have overcome him that had the power of death ; 
in other words, his redeeming efficacy freed men from one 
that wielded the power of bodily death. Death is the 
punishment of sin ; and man is continually subject to 
the fear of it. It is Satan who has the power of carry 
ing out the penalty ; and Christ in overcoming him 
freed man from the fear of death, or rather from the fear 
of the judgment that follows it. Paul views the death 
of Christ in its relation to the punitive justice of God ; 
the writer of the epistle, in relation to the devil who exe 
cutes it. Christ and the devil are two opposing powers. 
When the latter is vanquished by the death of the for- 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 207 

mer, man is liberated from the bondage of terror, his 
guilty conscience is purified ; in a word, he is redeemed. 1 

Paul does not represent Christ as the prince of 
death, but the god of this world. Sammael had simi 
lar power over death, according to the later Jews. 2 

(#.) The passage v. 7-9 is wholly unlike Paul s 
teaching. When and where were these prayers uttered ? 
They cannot be explained by the exclamation on the 
cross, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
me ? Nor are the utterances in the garden of Geth- 
semane exactly suitable, because l the strong crying and 
tears are absent from the gospel record. Were the 
prayers in question answered ? If they were, as the 
passage implies, his death is contrary to that. The 
answer, however, may have been in his being strength 
ened for the endurance of suffering. The passage is 
un-Pauline throughout, especially the statement that 
though he was a son he learned obedience by the things 
lie suffered, and was perfected. 

(i.) In vi. 2, the doctrine of the resurrection is put 
among the elementary principles of the gospel. This is 
opposed to Paul s teaching in the first epistle to the 
Corinthians, where great importance is attached to the 
doctrine. In vi. 4-6, the impossibility of restoring such 
as had lapsed after they had been baptized is a Novation 
tenet, which is out of harmony with Paul s general belief. 

Notwithstanding the diversities between the charac 
teristic doctrines of Paul and the writer of our epistle, 
the latter was a Pauline Christian, who had imbibed 
the liberalism of the great apostle and was acquainted 
with his letters ; for he has plain reminiscences of them. 
Passages corresponding to others in the epistles to the 
Romans and Corinthians present themselves to the eye of 
the reader. 3 Deuteronomy xxxii. 35 is quoted in the 

1 See Pfleiderer s Paulinismus, vol. ii. p. 78, English translation. 

2 See Buxtorf s Lexicon Chald. Talm. Rabbin, p. 1495. 

3 Comp. xi. 12 with Romans iv. 18 ; xii. 14 with Romans xii. 18, xiv. 10; 



208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

form which it has in the epistle to the Romans, not as in 
the Septuagint. Yet Paul and our author do not move 
entirely within the same circle of ideas. The latter 
develops those of the former from another point of 
view, and proceeds in an independent direction. He 
represents Alexandrine Paulinism, and exhibits great 
originality. His treatise, pervaded by the Philonian 
dualism of the supersensuous and sensuous worlds, pre 
sents the idea of transcendence not imminence. Hence 
the contrast between archetype and type, substance and 
shadow, the future and the present world, the heavenly 
and the earthly, the unchangeable and the transient, the 
real and the unreal ; between Judaism and Christianity. 

It is instructive to compare the epistle not only with 
Paul s writings but with the fourth gospel. Though it 
forms an intermediate link, its Alexandrine mould brings 
it nearer the latter. 

(//) It was early felt that the phraseology and style 
of the epistle are different from Paul s. Hence Clement 
thought that the work was translated. For the same 
reason Origen attributes the thoughts to Paul ; the 
dress they are clothed in, to another. This distinguished 
father, who was no mean judge of Greek as may be 
gathered from different parts of his writings, believed 
that the Greek of the epistle is better than Paul s, ap 
pealing to every judge ; and his opinion has been ratified 
by the most eminent scholars. 

Stuart collected a catalogue of Hebraisms to show 
what none disputes, that the language of the epistle is 
far from being classical. It is beside the mark to quote 
religious terms which have been transferred from the 
Old Testament into the theological language of every 
nation as well as into the Greek tongue. The dissen 
tients from Origeii s opinion should prove that the 

xiii. 1 with Romans xii. 10 ; xiii. 2 with Romans xii. 13 ; xiii. 20 with 
Romans xv. 33 ; v. 12 with 1 Cor. iii. 2 ; v. 14 with 1 Cor. ii. 6. See 
Iloltzmann in Hil<renfel<Ts Zeitschrift, ix. 4, etc. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 209 

author of the epistle to the Hebrews has employed 
Hebraistic expressions as symbols of ideas for which 
the Greek language has more appropriate words of its 
own. When this shall have been done from a lexical 
point of view, something effective will be accomplished ; 
till then, an industrious array of Hebraisms is useless. 
We do not maintain that the language of the epistle is 
free from Hebraisms, but that the diction is purer than 
Paul s. In respect to purity, it stands on a level with 
the latter half of the Acts, where many of the expres 
sions quoted by Stuart from the epistle to the Hebrews 
as Hebraisms are also found. Tried by his mode of 
procedure, any of Paul s epistles not only presents as 
many Hebraisms as that addressed to the Hebrews, but 
would exhibit far more if a parallel could be found 
among them, viz. a letter addressed solely to Jewish 
Christians and occupied with a description of the Jewish 
economy in relation to the Christian system. The sub 
ject itself might induce more Hebraisms than any 
treated by Paul ; yet the epistle has really fewer. 

All the grammatical Hebraisms in the epistle are 
these : the genitive of a substantive along with another 
substantive, in place of an adjective, as in i. 3 ; iv. 2 ; 
v. 13 ; vi. 1 ; and the undeclining of foreign names, 
as Aaron, vii. 11 ; ix. 4 ; Cherubim, ix. 5 ; Jericho, xi. 
30 ; Jerusalem, xii. 22. 

The following are all the examples of a lexical kind 
which occur : XoAe w applied to divine disclosures, i. 1 ; 
ii. 2 ; ix. 19 yeuojutcu 9avarov, ii. 9 cnrepfjia for pos 
terity, ii. 16; xi. 18 crapt; KO! cujjia for corporeity, ii. 14 
confidence, iii. 6; iv. 16; x. 19, 35 yapiv 
iv. 16 6/xoXoyia, faith professed, iii. 1 eu- 
Xoyia, blessing, vi. 7 ; xii. 17 TO ovofjia Qeov, a peri 
phrasis for God himself oiKTip^oi, x. 28 eyKaivi^tiv, 
ix. 18 ; x. 20 epya^ecr&u SiK(uoo-vvr]v, xi. 33 6\o0peva), 
xi. 28 6/ioXoyecz TIVI, xiii. 15 /o^a, promise, vi. 5 
e^ep^o/xcu e/c rrj? 6cr</>uo5, vii. 5 tSa^ Oavarov, xi. 5 
VOL. I. r 



210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



OV)( 7)VpL<TKTO, XI. 5 - jJir) 7TpO<TT0f)vaL OLVTOIS XdyOZ , Xii. 

19 nepiTraTeaj ez>, xiii. 9 Kapnos ^ctXeiav, xiii. 15 
0eoi), xiii. 21 KOTTTJ, overthrow, vii. 1 KapTros 
xii. 11. 

In a syntactical respect, we have the Hebraising 
constructions ctTrocrnjz cu 01770 instead of the genitive, 
iii. 12 \a\tiv iv for Sia, i. 1 o^vvfjii Kara TIVOS, vi. 13 
KaroLTTaveiv in trans, with 0,770, iv. 10 ; eu>ai ets ri, viii. 
10 iXacr/cecr&u ret? a/^apria? instead of TOV eoV, ii. 17. 

The following list of peculiarities is De Wette s, 
revised and sifted. 

Different formulas introductory to quotations : Xe yei, 
TO TTvev^a TO ayLov or 0eo? ; or merely Xeyet, 
ei, (frrjcrL, i. 5, 6, etc., 13; iii. 7, 15; iv. 3, 
4, etc., 7 ; v. 5, etc. ; vi. 14 ; vii. 14, 17, 21 ; viii. 5, 8, 
13 ; x. 5, 8, 9, 15, etc., 30 ; xi. 18 ; xii. 5, 20, 26. 
Paul has ytypaTrrai, Ka.9a)S yey/>ct77Tcu, r) ypafyj) Xeyet, 
lypd(J)rj, Kara TO yypa//yxeVoi>, 6 Xdyos 6 yeypa/ijueVos ; or 
MaiiJo-fjs ypdffrei, Ja/5lS Xeyet, 6 ^d/x,o? Xeyei and such 
like. Only Ephes. iv. 8, and v. 14, are like the epistle 
to the Hebrews. Rom. xv. 10 ; 2 Cor. vi. 2 ; Gal. iii. 
16, are somewhat similar. 

The characteristic expression applied to Christ by 
Paul is 6 Kvpios TI^V Irjcrovs Xpio-rd?, Xpto-rds J^croi)? 
6 Kvpios 07/xwz^, I^crov? Xptcrros 6 Kvpios TI^V ; but the 
epistle to the Hebrews has only the single appellations 
6 Jfyo-ou?, 6 Kvpios, Xpio-Tos ^IrjcTov^ X/HCTTos three 
times, and 6 Kvpios rjfjiajv i lrjo~ov<s once. The compound 
appellations are characteristic of Paul ; the single ones 
of the epistle to the Hebrews. It may be correct, as 
Stuart asserts, that those compound formulas occur but 
sixty -eight times in all the Pauline letters ; but even 
so, we naturally expect appellations compounded with 
Kvpios oftener than they appear in our epistle. It has only 
one such, while there are seventeen, at least, in the epistle 
to the Romans. Again, Jesus occurs seven times in our 
epistle ; whereas in that to the Romans, which is longer, 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. I ll 

it is found but twice ; and in the first epistle to the 
Corinthians once. These facts tell against the Pauline 
authorship. Apostle is applied to Christ, iii. 1 fJuo-OaiTo- 
Socria, ii. 2 ; x. 35 ; xi. 26 jjacrBbs in Paul 6/)/<:a>/z,o<Tia, 
vii. 20, 21 ai/x,aref9(v<Tia,ix. 22 oiKOvpevri /^e XXoucra, ii. 
5 ra [jic\XovTa dya$a, ix. 11; x. 1 ^troyov elmi, yiVe- 
crOai, iii. 1, 14 ; vi. 4 ; xii. 8 ; but Paul has KOWWOV, crvy- 
KOWMVOV ?P<U, KOIVMVCIV, crvyKOLVvvelv iKaOtcrev eV 
rov Opovov rrj? jneyaXaxruz^s e^ vi/n^Xois, i. 3 i 
eV Sefia roG Opovov rrjs jueyaXwcrwT?? e^ rot? ovpavols, 
viii. 1 e*> Sefia TOT) Opovov rov @eov, xii. 2 ; et> 
rot) @eo9, x. 12 ; in Coloss. iv Sefta rou Oeou /ca^ 
The writer of our epistle uses the verb KaOifa intransi 
tively ; whereas, with a similar context, Paul uses it 
transitively. The former says, Christ sat down on the 
right hand of the throne of the majesty, etc. etc.; 
whereas the apostle of the Gentiles says, God the 
Father seated him at his own right hand/ etc. rjyov- 
xiii. 7, 17, 24 KaKov)(o-6cu, xi. 37; xiii. 3 
i, xi. 25 Opovos TTJS fieyaXoxrvvrj^ viii. 
1 Opovos rijs ^aptros, iv. 16 TO Trvev^a rrjs ^aptro<? 
IvvppL&iv, x. 29 rov vlov rov eov KaraTrareiv, x. 29. 
Nouns feminine in 15 are numerous, as d^enyert?, vii. 18 ; 
ix. 26 ^era^ecTL?, vii. 12 ; xi. 5 ; xii. 27 Karairavo-^ 
iii. 11, 18 ; iv. 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, etc. etc. reXaow, ii. 10 ; 
v. 9; vii. 19, 28; ix. 9; x. 1, 14; xi. 40; xii. 23 
reXetaxris, vii. 11 XafJL/Bdveiv used in a peculiar way 
with the accusative, as Trtlpav, apx^v Xa/x /3dvcu>, xi. 29, 
36 ; ii. 3. It is irrelevant to heap together a number of 
accusatives with the same verb, in Paul s writings, as 
Stuart has done ; because in such instances the verb is 
not employed in the same manner. TrpovtpyzvOai ra> 
@ew, iv. 16 ; vii. 25 ; x. 1, 22 ; xi. 6. Kpdrruv in a 
peculiar sense, more excellent, i. 4 ; vi. 9 ; vii. 7, 19, 22; 
viii. 6 ; ix. 23 ; x. 34 ; xi. 16, 35, 40. One doubtful 
example of the adjective with the same meaning in 
Paul s thirteen epistles (1 Cor. xii. 31) leaves the fre- 



212 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

qnency of its peculiar usage in the epistle to the Hebrews 
untouched, ets TO Swpc/ces, vii. 3 ; x. 1, 12, 14 ei? TO 
7raj>TeXe s, vii. 25 SiaTrcwTos, ix. 6 ; xiii. 15 ; living God, 
living word, living way, iii. 12 ; ix. 14 ; x. 31 ; xii. 22 ; 
iv. 12 ; x. 20 Idvrrep, iii. 6, 14 ; vi. 3 the frequently 
occurring oOev, ocroi>, TOQ-OUTO, a^vvarov irapa after the 
comparative, i. 4 ; ix. 23 ; xi. 4 ; xii. 24 ; the frequent 
use of Trag in the singular. 

The opponents of the Pauline authorship do not now 
insist upon the number of words which are only found 
in the epistle to the Hebrews ; because, though there 
are 118 such, there are 230 in the first epistle to the 
Corinthians. The argument is valid only within 
certain limits. Such as were chosen to suit the rhetori 
cal character of the epistle, or arose out of the author s 
characteristic circle of ideas, are in point. 

Every reader feels that the style is unlike Paul s. 
The periods are regular and rounded ; the rhythm 
oratorical and smooth. The structure of sentences is 
more exact than the Pauline ; with less abruptness and 
vigour. Full-toned expressions, words of a poetical 
complexion, are abundant. Instead of the apostle s 
dialectic method, his fiery energy and impassioned 
style, we have the stately and polished eloquence of one 
who built up rhythmical periods. This oratorical 
character has influenced the choice of single words and 
phrases ; though it is not seen in them as much as in the 
conformation and succession of sentences. In the case 
of single words, it appears in the use of less common in 
preference to colloquial ones ; whose quality, not their 
number, gives them a voice against the Pauline author 
ship. Thus effulgence and express image (i. 3) are 
employed, instead of image of God-, and such full- 
toned poetical words as piarOawoSoarta for /ucrflds, peya- 
T? (not jue yeflos), opiccu/iocrta, ai/Aare/cxvcria, TroXu- 
/cat TroXvTpoVws, K.T.X. 
Greek particles are used in our epistle with greater 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 213 

copiousness and variety than in any of Paul s of equal 
length. Thus re usually followed by KOLL occurs nine 
teen times ; whereas in the epistle to the Romans, con 
taining three chapters more than ours, it appears but 
thirteen times ; and in first Corinthians only four times. 
It is remarkable how often yap is used, even where 
other conjunctions might have been more appropriate. 
The use of a\\d before a negative question is singular 
(iii. 16) ; no example of it occurring in the epistle to 
the Romans. So too the employment of elra in the 
progress of an argument (xii. 9), and of 777701; (ii. 16). 

The care observable in the conformation of sentences 
has been often noticed. The author studied euphony 
and rhetorical effect. This is exemplified in the first 
three verses of the epistle, where there is the music of 
poetry, with its stately dignity and full-toned utterance. 
Another example is conspicuous in vii. 4, where the 
position of the word patriarch, which Paul never uses, 
gives a fine effect to the sentence. Instances may also 
be seen in xii. 1, 2 ; vi. 4-6 ; v. 7-10 ; vii. 22 ; ix. 
11, 12. 

While the writer of our epistle abounds in participial 
constructions, he keeps them from embarrassing the 
simplicity and regularity of his periods, which they 
often do in Paul s epistles. 

We find the two correspondent clauses (protasis and 
apodosis) of a sentence which contribute to the rounding 
of periods. Compare ii. 2-4, 14, 15 ; ix. 13, 14. 
There are no anomalies (anacolutha) so frequent in 
Paul. Long parentheses, with shorter ones thrown 
into their midst as the impassioned spirit of the great 
apostle hurries forward piling clause on clause, do not 
turn the construction aside from the method of its com 
mencement. The sentences are not marked by inter 
ruptions, inversions, involutions. The calmness of the 
writer prevents such ruggedness. Bleek quotes a 
striking example from xii. 1824, where, though there 



214 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

is a long parenthesis enclosing a shorter, the thread of 
discourse is continued without departure from the right 
construction. Compare also vii. 20-22 ; v. 7-10 ; 
xii. 1,2. The only apparent exceptions are in ii. 9 and 
iii. 15. 

What is the conclusion to be drawn from style ? If 
the tone of the writer be elevated, rhetorical, polished, 
is it not unlike Paul s ? Let it be admitted that the 
apostle s style varies in his epistles ; the dissimilarity 
here observable is not explained by that ; because the 
diversity which appears in his writings is compatible 
with substantial unity. Let it also be admitted that 
Paul s relation to the Palestinian Christians differed 
from his relation to other believers, because he was not 
one of their teachers. Yet he did not found the 
Roman church ; and the style of the epistle addressed 
to it is very different from that of the present. The 
object he had in view and the subject discussed will not 
explain the elevated tone ; these did not need a loftier 
diction than the subjects of some Pauline epistles. The 
contents of the letter to the Romans demanded an 
equally oratorical style. If it be thought that because 
the epistle resembles a treatise on a great subject it 
should be dignified, calm, and solemn ; yet Paul s fire 
does not burst forth even in the hortatory part, where 
no trace of his characteristic manner appears. And is 
it not strange that the apostle should adopt a purer 
Greek and higher style of writing in an epistle ad 
dressed to Jewish Christians to readers who were the 
worst judges of good Greek ? Had they been culti 
vated Gentiles, an elegant tone would have been appro 
priate ; why po isli the diction and round the periods 
for the use of Jewish believers ? We are therefore 
brought to the conclusion, that the apostle Paul did not 
write the letter. 

A few expressions almost look as if the writer 
wished, to personate Paul. In xiii. 19 he desires his 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 215 

readers to pray that he may be restored to them ; and 
says that his brother Timothy having been set at liberty, 
he should come with him to see them (ver. 23). Bat 
they are too small to justify the opinion that the author 
puts himself in Paul s place. The main doctrine which 
runs through the epistle, the priesthood of Christ, puts 
Pauline authorship away. 

These arguments cannot be overthrown by attempts 
to find parallels between the language of this epistle and 
of those written by the apostle. De Groot l adduces a 
great array of passages in our epistle and the Pauline 
writings, where the same or synonymous words are 
employed ; or where the shade of thought is peculiar 
and homogeneous, though the language be somewhat 
different. With the same object, Forster has given 
lists of words in the Septuagint or apocrypha, which 
occur only in Paul s epistles and that to the Hebrews ; 
of words not in the Septuagint or apocrypha found only 
in the two classes of writings ; and of words occasion 
ally occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, but 
peculiar in the manner or frequency of their occurrence 
to the epistles compared. Other linguistic parallels are 
gathered by Stuart and Biesenthal. Such reasoning is 
delusive, because some similarity of ideas and diction is 
not denied. That similarity, however, is weakened by 
the fact that the internal relation of the epistle to the 
Pauline writings is scarcely so great as the likeness 
between it and Peter s first epistle. It is the diversity 
amid similarity which makes a different writer probable ; 
the characteristic conceptions and terminology indicat 
ing an independent author. The Christian who wrote 
our epistle, being familiar with Paul s writings, must 
necessarily present some agreement with the apostle ; 
as a distinct person living in another intellectual atmo 
sphere, he exhibits features not Pauline lines of thought 

1 Disputatio qua cpistvla ad Hebrccos cum Paulinis cpistolis comparatur. 
1820, 8vo. 



216 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

and modes of expression betraying an Alexandrian 
spiritualism. 

How then does the matter stand with regard to the 
Pauline authorship ? Is ecclesiastical tradition on the 
one side and internal evidence on the other ? Early 
tradition is divided on the subject, the West and East 
disagreeing. Oriental tradition itself is not unani 
mous before the fourth century ; nor did the Western 
unite in a Pauline authorship before the fifth. Internal 
evidence, combined with the early Western scepticism, 
outweighs the tradition of the Eastern church. If it be 
said that the very difficulties of style, phraseology, etc., 
presented by the epistle increase the force of the external 
testimony, since nothing but a thoroughly authentic 
tradition could have maintained itself against these diffi 
culties, we reply, that the difficulties changed the tra 
dition by compelling the writers who followed it to resort 
to an indirect Pauline authorship. So far from enhancing, 
they weaken the strength of the external evidence by the 
hypothesis that the thoughts are Paul s, the composition 
and language another s. 

The Pauline authorship has been given up by every 
scholar except Hofmann, whose conjectures about Paul 
being freed from his Roman captivity and going to 
Brundusium, whence he sent the letter to Antioch, 
will not be accepted. Another writer must be sought ; 
and here the sagacity of Luther in ascribing the author 
ship to A polios strikes every reader. 

This view, which accounts both for the similarity 
and dissimilarity of the doctrine to Paul s, harmonises 
all the phenomena of the epistle. Though Apollos was 
a friend of the apostle, he occupied so independent a 
position as to be made the head of a party in the Corin 
thian church. The allegorising character of the epistle, 
its typifi cation of the Old Testament, its familiarity 
with the Septuagint, its accord with Alexandrian philo 
sophy, suit Apollos. We see that the author s acquain- 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 217 

tance with the Old Testament was derived entirely from 
the Greek version, that he knew little of the Hebrew 
text, and that there is a great resemblance between his 
work and Philo s writings in reasoning, ideas, phrases 
and words. As Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew, an 
eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, he might 
well write the epistle. In any case, no Palestinian 
was so imperfectly acquainted with the arrangement 
of the temple ; none viewed the Old Testament insti 
tutions as shadowy emblems of Christianity ; disre 
garding the letter for the spirit, or rather extracting 
a hidden sense which set aside the original and his 
torical one. This Philonian method argues a style of 
thought moulded by Jewish -Alexandrian philosophy in 
the first century of our era. The writer either read 
Philo, or was imbued with the spirit of his teaching. 
The probability that Apollos wrote the epistle is not 
weakened by Delitzsch s assertion of the near relation 
ship which Paul s acknowledged letters bear to Philo s 
Alexandrianism ; 1 because that relationship is distant 
in comparison with ours. Neither is it set aside by the 
fact that Clement of Rome, writing to the Corinthians 
and using the epistle to the Hebrews, does not designate 
the latter as the production of their former teacher 
Apollos ; or by the silence of the ancient church with 
respect to the Apollos-hypothesis. 2 External evidence 
on this point cannot avail against internal grounds. If 
it did, we should believe that the apostle Paul was the 
writer, either directly in his own person, or through the 
medium of another ; a hypothesis which all good critics 
reject. 

It is not necessary to show how much of Philo s 
peculiar style and sentiment was owing to his Jewish, and 
how much to his Alexandrian, habits of thought. The 
advocates of the epistle s Alexandrian authorship should 

1 Commentar zum Briefe an die. Ilebriier, Einleit. pp. xxvi. xxvii. 

2 Wieseler s Eine Uutersuchuuf/, u. . w., p. 69. 



218 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

not be asked to do an impossible thing. It is sufficient 
for them to make it as probable as the nature of the case 
allows, that a Christian Jew of Alexandria was the 
author. We do not say that a Jew who had never left 
Palestine could not have written the epistle ; but we 
affirm that all evidence is clearly against that hypothesis, 
and in favour of an Alexandrian Jewish Christian. No 
Palestinian could be so ignorant as to say that the high 
priest went daily into the temple to offer sacrifice (vii. 
27), or that he stood daily ministering (x. 11) j 1 whereas 
Philo speaks of the high priest s daily ministrations. 2 

It is admitted that the typical mode of interpreta 
tion was not peculiar to Alexandrian Jews. Those of 
Palestine used it ; not, however, to the same extent or 
in the same manner. If a distinction were made between 
typical interpretation and allegorising, the former is 
more applicable to the Palestinian Jews ; the latter to 
Philo. Let it be allowed that Philo s allegories have to 
a great extent a different character from the typification 
of our epistle, though this assertion of Mynster s is 
questionable ; the method of the latter, the point of view 
from which its author surveys the old Testament, and 
the extent to which he allegorises the Jewish economy, 
resemble Philo more than a Palestinian. It is unreason 
able to look for an exact parallel between Philo s doc 
trine and that of our author, because the one was a Jew 
and the other a Christian. Mynster s statement too, 
approved though it be by Tholuck, that the spirit of 
Philo is as distant from the epistle s as heaven is from 
earth, is an exaggerated one. 3 Whatever limitations 
there be to the resemblance between the school of Philo 
and our author, no critic will deny that the likeness 

1 The various reading iepevs in the latter passage obviates the objection 
as far as it is founded on x. 11. 

3 evicts Se KOI Qvcrias reXooi Kaff 1 fKdcrrrjv f)p.epav. De speciall. legg. vol. ii. 
p. 321, ed. Mangey. 

3 Ueber den Vcrfasser des Hcbraerbriefs. Studien und Kritiken for 1820, 
p. 336. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 219 

exists to an extent which Palestinian Judaism docs not 
admit of. It is therefore unavailing on the part of 
Tholuck to quote Olshausen and Doepke for Palestinian 
exegesis, or Yon Coelln and Mynster about Philo, in order 
to break the force of the similarity between the method 
of the Alexandrian Jews as exemplified by Philo and 
that of the Palestinians. Though the line of demarcation 
between Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism was not so 
sharply marked then as it afterwards was between the 
latter and Rabbinism, both were distinguished by indi 
vidual features, indicating the presence or absence of a 
free breath proceeding from the Platonic philosophy. It 
is to be regretted that Frankel has thrown no light upon 
the subject in his two books on the Septuagint, though 
the title of one leads the reader to expect it. 1 

The question whether the writer used Philo s writ 
ings must be answered in the affirmative. Bleek has 
selected from Schulz and others twenty-two passages, 
which resemble parts of the epistle, in idea or expression, 
or in both ; and it is not easy to resist the impression 
that the correspondence is more than accidental. A 
perusal of them makes it probable that the author of 
our epistle had read Philo. Like the Alexandrian 
writer, he attaches symbolical notions and religious 
reflections to Old Testament expressions, and weaves 
special explanations of single points into the course of 
the general argument, so that the constructive character 
of the epistle bears a great resemblance to Philo s writ 
ings. The constant habit of appending ideas to history, 
the alternation of reflections of different kinds, the per 
petual returning from digressions into subordinate points 
to the general sequence of ideas, agrees with the manner 
of the Alexandrian Jew. 

The same idea is expressed with regard to the same 
promise made to Abraham, in vi. 13 and Philo, viz. 

1 Vorstudicn zu der Septuayinta, 1841 ; Uebcr den Enifluss dcr palas- 
tinischcn Excycse auf die alexandrinischc llennuneutik, 1851. 



220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

that God did not swear by another but by Himself. 1 
King of Salem is interpreted King of Peace, as in 
vii. 1, etc. ; 2 while the rare word rendered without 
mother (vii. 3), is in Philo. 3 

The statement, Moses was faithful in all his house 
(iii. 5), occurs in Philo, 4 in the very same words ; and 
the term translated brightness or effulgence 5 is 
a frequent Philonian one. So also the Alexandrian 
writer often speaks of the word of Grod having a cutting 
and dividing power, 6 similarly to iv. 12. 

The peculiar expression, i high priest of our pro 
fession, is Philonian ; 7 and the Father of spirits 
(xii. 9) refers to Philo s view of the soul s origin. The 
narrative respecting Moses refusing to be called the son 
of Pharaoh s daughter, and preferring the reproaches 
attaching to his people to the splendour of a court 
(xi. 24-26), is like Philo. 8 Philonian passages, i.e. 
such as are conceived and expressed similarly to Philo, 
are : iv. 13 ; v. 8, 13, 14 ; vi. 13, etc. ; vii. 7-26 ; 
ix. 7 ; x. 22, 23-29 ; xi. 1, 9-16, as may be seen 
in Carpzov s Sacred Exercitations on the epistle. 
The quotation in xiii. 5 is Philonian ; 9 xi. 4 and xiii. 
2 agree with passages in his writing. Indeed, the 
11 th chapter is contained in Philo, often in the same 
words. 10 

Against Apollos the fact has been adduced that 
no trace of his authorship occurs in the early 
Alexandrian church. But if we cannot go further 
back than Pantamus, the tradition of the Apollos 
authorship may have disappeared between A.D. 66 and 

1 Leg. Alkgor. vol. i. p. 127, ed. Mangey. 2 Ibid. p. 102. 

3 De Ebrietate, vol. i. p. 368. 4 Leg. Allcgor. pp. 128, 132. 

6 Quis rerum divinarum hares, vol. i. pp. 491, 492, 504, 506. 

7 De Somniis, vol. i. p. 654. Mangey, however, thinks the reading corrupt. 

8 De Vita Mosis, vol. ii. p. 84. 

9 De Confusione Linguarum, vol. i. p. 430. 
10 Hilgenfeld s Einleitung, p. 384. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 2i>l 

180. And the production may have been so eagerly 
welcomed by the Alexandrian Christians that an apo 
stolic source was found for it, the name of the obscure 
author being dropped. Its high value in the eyes of 
the Alexandrians, owing to its allegorising character, 
may have led them to the well-known name of Paul. 
The Pauline advocates are exposed to a stronger objec 
tion. Why did the early Roman church uniformly 
reject the Pauline authorship ? If the apostle wrote it 
towards the end of his captivity, the Christians at Rome 
must have known it. And if it were addressed from 
some other place to the Jewish Christians there, is it 
likely that no trace of the tradition would have existed 
early in the second century ? How is it that the entire 
western Church disallowed Paul s authorship ? 

It is also alleged against Apollos, that there is no 
trace of his name in connection with the epistle in 
ecclesiastical tradition. Clement, Barnabas, Luke are 
mentioned, not Apollos. This is a difficulty which 
cannot be solved for want of information. It may help, 
perhaps, to an explanation of it, that when the catholic 
Christians of the second century wished to form a list 
of the sacred books, and to get names for the anony 
mous ones, they would take those best known. Clement 
was a conspicuous man in the Roman church, the re 
puted author of an epistle ; Barnabas was Paul s com 
panion and an apostle ; Luke was an evangelist and 
associate of Paul. Apollos s name was not so conspi 
cuous as any of these ; nor was he intimately associated 
with Paul. He would therefore be passed over, while 
they were adopted by the early canon collectors. 



TIME AND TLACE OF WRITING. 

It is probable that the epistle was composed before 
the destruction of Jerusalem, because temple- worship is 
supposed to exist at the time. Every high priest ?.v 



222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices There are 

priests that offer gifts according to the law (viii. 3, 4). 
i The priests go always into the first tabernacle, accom 
plishing the service of God ; but into the second the high 
priest goes alone once every year, not without blood (ix. 
6, 7). The whole passage (ix.6-10) speaks of something 
still existing. As the high priest entereth into the holy 
place every year/ etc. (ix. 25). For the bodies of those 
beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the 
high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Where 
fore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with 
his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go 
forth, therefore, unto him without the camp, bearing his 
reproach (xiii. 11-13). That which decay eth and 
waxeth old is ready to vanish away (viii. 13). These 
statements agree best with the opinion that Jewish 
worship had not been abolished at its centre. From 
xiii. 23, 24, it appears that Timothy was no longer 
Paul s companion ; so that the notice of the apostle s 
imprisonment alludes to a period after his death, i.e. 
after A.D. 64. The Jewish insurrection against the 
Romans broke out in Judea and Alexandria A.D. 66 ; 
and there is no specific mention of it in the epistle. 
Yet the agitations and ferments that ushered in the 
Jewish war had begun, since signs of Christ s second 
coming were visible (x. 25) ; and the readers were ex 
posed to trials which exercised their patience (xii. 4, 5; 
xiii. 13). In view of all the circumstances, we con 
clude that the letter was probably written A.D. 66. As 
to the place, the closing verses are inconsistent with the 
supposition that Paul wrote it at the end of his Roman 
captivity, for xiii. 19 does not imply that he was de 
prived of liberty and hoped to be speedily restored to it ; 
nor do the words of xiii. 23 intimate that Timothy was 
his fellow-prisoner. On the contrary, the writer was not 
in Italy, as ive see from xiii. 24. They of Italy salute 
you is a phrase implying that the writer was not in 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 2^3 

that country. Had lie and the persons saluted been 
there, he would have said, they in Italy, according to 
the analogy of 1 Peter v. 13. Perhaps Italian Christians, 
who had fled from their country on the breaking out of 
Nero s persecution and taken refuge in the locality of 
the author, are indicated by the expression. The place 
where it originated was probably Alexandria. The 
Sinaitic MS. with C. has only the subscription, to the 
Hebrews; but A. adds from Rome, and K. from Italy. 

THE PERSONS TO WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED. 

A satisfactory conclusion respecting the readers for 
whom the work was originally designed cannot be 
reached. The title, to the Hebrews, which did not 
proceed from the author, though it is found in the 
oldest MSS., as K, A., B., K., does not contribute to 
the settlement of the question, because the New Testa 
ment use of Hebrew is simply an Israelite by nation 
and religion, a descendant of Abraham ; as Phil. iii. 5, 
and 2 Cor. xi. 22, attest. The attempt to restrict it to 
the Jews of Palestine, as distinguished from those 
dwelling in other countries, is more plausible than 
satisfactory. Our choice lies between two opinions, 
viz. that Jewish Christians in Palestine, especially at 
Jerusalem, were addressed ; or Jewish Christians at 
Alexandria. The former has always been the prevailing 
view and is supported by various arguments, the 
strongest of which are these : 

o 

1. The letter was written to Jewish Christians ex 
clusively. No reference occurs to other converts, a fact 
pointing to Palestine, in which alone the church con 
sisted of Jewish believers. 

The fact that the congregations in Palestine were 
unmixed with Gentile converts is liable to doubt, as 
Acts x. 44, 45 ; xi. 1, etc. ; xv. 7, etc., show. Besides, 
it is not correct that the readers are assumed to be 



224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

Jewish Christians exclusively, though they were not 
Gentile converts of a Judaising type, as Schlirer argues. 1 

2. Chap. xiii. ver. 12, states that Jesus suffered 
without the gate, which supposes the readers famili 
arity with Jerusalem. 

It was not necessary to live in Jerusalem to know 
that fact. 

3. Those addressed had been exposed to reproach 
and persecution (x. 32-34), showing that the author 
was thinking of the early time of the Christian church 
at Jerusalem, and especially the persecutions preceding 
and following Stephen s martyrdom. 

As the readers of the epistle must have been a second 
generation of Palestinian Christians and had not yet 
resisted unto blood, we cannot see with what propriety 
the writer could have alluded to persecutions which 
they did not themselves endure. 

On the other hand, serious difficulties lie in the way 
of this view. 

1. The epistle was written in Greek not Aramaean. 
The latter would have been more suitable to Jewish 
Christians in Jerusalem, being the medium of religious 
intercourse. The work is even composed in a more 
polished Greek, which would make it less appreciated 
by the mass of the church there. Besides, the author s 
knowledge of the Old Scriptures rests so exclusively 
upon the Septuagint, that he reasons on that basis 
where it departs entirely from the Hebrew, which he 
would hardly have ventured to do had he been writing 
to Palestinians. 

2. The writer reproaches his readers with ignorance 
of Christianity, considering the time that had elapsed 
since they became acquainted with it. This is unsuit 
able to a church, from which all the teachers of Chris 
tianity originally proceeded ; and is particularly out of 
place in the mouth of one who was not himself an 

1 Studien mid Kritiken for 1876, p, 776. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 225 

immediate disciple of Christ (ii. 3). A church which 
had men like James at its head, from which Silas and 
Mark proceeded, could not have been so weak in faith 
or lukewarm , as to be in danger of falling back into 
Judaism, between A.D. 60 and 70. 

3. The epistle speaks of a strong leaning, on the part 
of the readers, to the temple worship. They had a 
great desire to return to the Jewish hierarchy and the 
institutions connected with it. This is inapplicable to 
the Christian church at Jerusalem, in which, judging 
from Acts ii. 46 ; v. 42 ; xxi. 20-26, the native Jews 
adhered to the temple worship from the beginning. 
How could they be warned against apostasy from what 
they were attached to ? The strange doctrines of 
xiii. 9 refer to Mosaic institutions ; how could the 
Jewish worship be strange to the Christians at Jeru 
salem, who were not afraid of reproaches because they 
maintained an old custom sanctioned by the example of 
the apostles themselves ? It is clear from Acts xxi. 20, 
that the fanatical Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, as 
well as those out of Palestine, insisted upon circumcision 
and the observance of the old customs. 

4. The Christians in Judea were poor, and had re 
ceived contributions from churches abroad. This does 
not harmonise with the contents of the epistle, which 
warn the readers against covetousness (xiii. 5), recom 
mend liberality (xiii. 1, 2, 16), and praise them for 
beneficence (vi. 10). According to Wieseler. the last 
passage even affords a presumption of these very Chris 
tians having contributed to the collections made for the 
poor saints in Jerusalem. And he is right ; for the 
saints is a standing appellation of the Jerusalem Chris 
tians. Those who were called first by Christ and his 

apostles the earliest recipients of the divine word 

arc so styled by way of eminence. 

5. Considering the separation that took place between 
Paul and the Christians at Jerusalem, it is difficult to 

VOL, I. Q 



226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

understand how one standing in near relationship to 
Paul, and entertaining the same views as he did about 
the obligation of the law, could have been so closely 
allied to the church as xiii. 18, 19, implies, or sent to 
them greetings from the Italians, who were unknown 
to the Jerusalemite believers. 

These arguments are decisive against the hypothesis 
that the epistle was written to the Jewish Christians in 
Palestine, especially those at Jerusalem ; and Langen 1 
has done little to weaken them. 

What then can be said in favour of Alexandria ? 
Much more than for Palestine. But it is not certain 
that readers in Egypt were addressed. Many consider 
ations indeed seem to countenance that view ; yet they 
do not carry strong conviction to the mind. It is 
favourable to an Alexandrian circle of readers, that 
Greek was the language used in the synagogues there ; 
that the writer employs the Septuagint in its Alexan 
drian recension ; and that he even brings out of the 
Old Testament something not in it, but only in the 
Greek (xi. 21-28). The version had so great authority 
there, that the author could base his reasoning upon 
it notwithstanding incorrectnesses, and allegorise to 
readers accustomed to such interpretation. There is 
also a passage which is taken from the second book of 
the Maccabees (Hebrews xi. 35-37) ; a fact favouring 
Alexandria, for that book was written in Egypt. In 
deed the best commentary on xi. 32-34 is the fate of 
the Jews at Alexandria under Caligula, described by 
Philo in his work against Flaccus persecutions re 
peated in the year 40, according to the same author. 2 
Such scenes must have affected the Jewish Christians 
there in some degree. c They had not yet resisted unto 
blood, as the writer states. 3 The complexion of the 

1 Theoloff. Quartalschrift for 1863. 

2 De ler/atione ad Caium, in vol. ii. of Mangey s ed. 

3 See Kostlin on the Epistle, in the Tubingen Jahrbilcher for 1854, p. 
395, ct soq. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 227 

epistle would procure for it a ready acceptance among 
the Jewish Christians there. These considerations, 
however, apply to the personality of the writer as well 
as the locality of the readers. 

The chief argument relied upon in favour of Alex 
andrian readers is the description of the temple in vii. 
27 ; ix. 15 ; x. 11, which does not suit the structure 
in Jerusalem, but is said to agree with that in Leonto- 
polis. Thus in vii. 27, the high priest is represented as 
daily offering up sacrifice first, for his own sins, and 
then for the people s ; and in Philo the same official is 
said to offer prayers and sacrifices every day. But this 
writer does not assert that the high priest did so in the 
temple at Leontopolis, or in the most holy place of it. 
It is therefore impossible to show that the altar of in 
cense stood in the holy of holies in the Egyptian temple, 
on which the priest offered daily. The deviations of the 
epistle to the Hebrews from the arrangements of the 
temple at Jerusalem cannot be identified with the usages 
of that at Leontopolis. If it could be shown that the 
altar of incense stood there in the most holy place, and 
that the high priest presented a sin offering on it daily, 
the matter would be clearer ; but Philo does not help 
us to this. That the temple of Onias, though built 
after the model of that in Jerusalem, differed from it in 
various respects, may be inferred from the Talmud and 
Josephus ; but that the divergence of the copy from 
the original explains why the holy of holies, which was 
empty at Jerusalem, is said to have contained the ark, 
with the pot of manna, Aaron s rod, and the tables of 
stone the pot of manna and the rod being in the ark, 
not before it, and the altar of incense also being in the 
most holy place, not before it (ix. 4, 5) cannot be sus 
tained. All that can be said in explanation is, that the 
writer, instead of having solely in his mind the sin 
offering of the high priest on the great day of atonement, 
mixed up with it the daily sacrifices of the Levitical 

Q 2 



228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

priests, which might be done the more readily because 
the Mishna states that the high priest could do it as 
often as he pleased ; and Josephus, that he joined the 
ordinary priests in their work of sacrifice, on many 
occasions. Wieseler s arguments connecting vii. 27 ; 
ix. 1-5 ; x, 11, with the temple in Egypt, fail to carry 
conviction. The author s reasoning is not founded on 
the temple of Jerusalem, or that of Onias in Egypt, but 
on the original Mosaic institutions, which he holds to be 
imperfect shadows of things to come. He takes the 
tabernacle, which suited his purpose better than the 
temple, because it was an easier instrument for carrying 
out his allegorising details respecting the relation 
between the high priests of the Old and New Testa 
ments. Christ entered through the greater and more 
perfect tabernacle into the holy place. : What recom 
mends the view of the readers being Alexandrian as 
well as the author, is the improbability of Apollos ad 
dressing such an epistle to Jewish Christians elsewhere. 
How could they appreciate or understand his reasoning ? 
Could they follow his spiritualising of Judaism, or his 
spiritual coincidences of its organic arrangements with 
Christianity ? Even in Alexandria, the majority could 
scarcely apprehend the argument of the epistle, much 
less the Jewish believers elsewhere. The circumstances 
of the readers must therefore be considered as well as 
the writer, as also the contact between them implied in 
his conceptions of Christianity. 

The epistle of Barnabas, which is an Alexandrian 
prod action belonging to the second decade of the 
second century, confirms the view now given of the 
epistle to the Hebrews. Like the latter, it presents 
Paulinism in a developed state, and proceeds a step 
further in the path opened up by our letter. It 
takes the spiritual sense resulting from the law of 
typical interpretation as the abiding truth of the Old 

1 Kostliu, in the Tubingen Jahrb. for 1854, p. 423, etc. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 220 

Testament, so that the gnosis of Christianity emerges 
through the letter of the law into a new law ; and 
Christianity itself, having abolished the literal accep 
tation of the law, becomes the new law of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, having no yoke of necessity. The 
path opened up by the epistle to the Hebrews is 
followed out in Barnabas. 

If the view of those who deny the epistolary 
character of the work were correct, it would be un 
necessary to look for a definite circle of readers. 
But the title of epistle which Avas accorded to the 
production at an early period need not be discarded, 
for it is not without countenance in the hitter itself. 
Reuss s description of the epistle as 4 a, rhetorical 
essay upon the superiority of Christianity to Judaism 
with an epistolary appendix having no connection 
with the preceding part, is a needless refinement. 
The first epistle of John has 110 epistolary introduc 
tion, and is not less a letter on that account. There 
are also passages concerning the individual and con 
crete relations of a church (ii. 3 ; v. 11, 12 ; vi. 10 ; 
x. 25, 32-36 ; xii. 4). The writer sustained a well- 
known relation to his readers, whose state and cir 
cumstances he describes, blaming them severely for 
their want of progress, and exhorting to steadfastness. 
If it was not addressed to a single church, the epistle 
is unintelligible. Hence it cannot be considered a 
circular treatise intended for all Jewish Christians ; but 
only for those of a certain place, as the last chapter, 
where they are requested to pray for the writer that he 
may be restored to them, and to obey their teachers, 
shows. They are also informed that Timothy is re 
leased, from whom they might expect a visit along with 
the author. Salutations are sent to their presiding 
elders. These facts imply mutual acquaintance. Al 
though, therefore, the former part of the epistle is like 
a general dissertation intended for readers confined to 



230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

no particular district or country, the conclusion restricts 
its scope, and justifies in a measure the common title 
of a letter (xiii. 22). That it was addressed to the 
Jewish believers at Rome, as Holtzmann and Zahn try 
to show, is improbable. 1 The reasoning of the latter in 
favour of Roman Christians as the persons addressed 
must be rejected, since it is inconsistent with various 
parts of the epistle itself. That Jewish believers pre 
dominated in the church of the metropolis at the time, 
and were in danger of relapsing into their old religion, is 
unlikely. How could it also be said that they had not 
yet resisted unto blood, when the Neronian persecution 
was past ? Nor does the Alexandrian complexion of 
the epistle suit the character of the Roman believers. 
Even if the author were himself a Christian of that type, 
he must have adapted his address to the modes of 
thought peculiar to the readers. Neither Roman nor 
Italian Christians fulfil the requirements of the case ; 
and Wetstein s view, though supported by Zahn, must 
be abandoned. 2 The apostle Paul had taught at Rome 
not long before, fixing his conceptions of Christianity 
in the Christian church. Is it likely that Apollos would 
soon address the Jewish Christians of the place so 
differently ? If it be said that the Philonian nature of 
the work is due to the writer, not the readers, we ask, 
Would not Apollos, or any Pauline Christian, have 
given his instructions a form better adapted to the in 
telligence of his readers ? And is it probable, that after 
Paul s death and the Neronian persecution, a large 
church, consisting of Jewish Christians mainly, existed 
at Rome ? Were the influences of that capital likely to 
tempt them back to the old religion ? Did Judaism 
flourish there after the martyrdom of Paul and the 
Neronian persecution ? On the contrary, Christianity 

1 See Bunsen s Bibelwerk, Tol. viii. p. 532 ; Studien und Kritiken for 
1859, p. 297, etc. ; Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift, x. 1, etc. 
3 See Herzog s Encyklopddie, vol. v. p. 666, etc. 



THE EPISTLE TO TFIE HEBREWS. 231 

increased and prevailed ; the ancient religion proportion 
ally declining in the esteem of the cultivated. Jewish 
Christianity kept its ground long after ; but Judaism 
had little attraction for those who thought they had its 
essentials in the type of Christianity which took Peter 
for its representative. 



LANGUAGE. 

The epistle was written in Greek. The opinion that 
it was written in Hebrew is untenable, though advo 
cated by Michaelis and revived by Biesenthal. In 
favour of its being composed in Greek, we may refer to 
the style, which has the freedom and ease of an original, 
to the exclusive use of the Septuagint even in its mis 
takes, as at i. 6, and ii. 7, where the rendering of the 
Hebrew Eloliim (gods) by angel* is taken from the 
Greek, though the Hebrew word does not bear that 
sense ; to the paronomasias, which though possible in 
the case of a version, are improbable (v. 8 ; x. 38, 39 ; 
xi. 37 ; xiii. 14) ; and especially to the double meaning 
of Sia6TJKrj (covenant and testament) in ix. 1(5, 17, which 
the corresponding Hebrew word does not permit ; to 
the interpretation of the Hebrew terms Melchizedek and 
Salem (vii. 2) by corresponding Greek words ; and to 
the fact, that Greek terms appear Avhicli could only 
have been expressed in Hebrew or Aramaean by a 
circumlocution. 1 The sole argument of any weight on 
the opposite side is derived from the parties supposed 
to be addressed, Jewish Christians in Palestine, whose 
vernacular dialect was not Greek but Aram;van an 
argument which has no force against such as believe 
that the letter was addressed to the Jewish Christians 
at Alexandria. But even the Jewish Christians of 
Judea must have understood Greek between A.D. GO 
and 70. That tongue rapidly acquired currency among 

1 Compare i. 1,3; xii, 1,2; and in ii. 5, 8, the verb in 



232 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

all classes in Palestine, and encroached on the dialect of 
the Hebrews as the destruction of Jerusalem approached. 



OCCASION AND OBJECT. 

The immediate cause of the letter was the state of 
the Alexandrian Jews who had embraced Christianity 
and were in danger of apostatising. In consequence of 
the hazard they were in, the author addressed them, 
that they might be established in the faith. The rela 
tive claims of Judaism and Christianity had often 
engaged the attention of Paul. The writer shows the 
superiority of the one religion to the other in a con 
ciliatory tone. He does not attack the Jewish economy, 
but states its use and purport. According to him, it 
was typical. Why then should his readers go back to 
that which the new religion presented in a better form ? 
The Jewish Christians of Alexandria or at least the 
cultivated part of them, were more liable to return to 
Judaism because it had become philosophical and 
rationalistic in the hands of Philo. Letter had given 
place to spirit ; and allegory had explained away the 
objectionable parts of the Old Testament. The need 
of Christianity seemed less to those who had been born 
Jews, when they learned the hidden senses which their 
leading thinkers attached to institutions and ceremonies 
outwardly uninviting. In order to prevent their return 
to the old, the author of the epistle sets forth the new 
under the aspect of a priesthood, a spiritual priesthood, 
with a great high priest unchanging and eternal, ever 
living to intercede, and ever prevailing with his Father 
in heaven for the good of his people. Atoning power 
is centred in him who offered himself once for all, and 
entered into the true holy of holies as the author and 
finisher of faith. The old economy is in the new. It 
would therefore be folly in persons who had tasted the 
heavenly gift to fall back into a system which is defec- 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 233 

tive and transient. If the law completed nothing, and 
if Christianity introduced a better hope founded on a 
new priesthood, why renounce the satisfactory for the 
weak ? 



CONTENTS. 

The epistle has been variously divided, some sepa 
rating it into three leading parts, others into two. The 
latter is preferable, i.e. i. 1-x. 18 ; and x. 19-xiii. 25. 
The first portion is doctrinal, the second hortatory. 
Bleek objects to the twofold division as unsuitable, 
because the nature of the entire epistle is admonitory ; 
observing that the didactic statements of the one part 
are intersected by admonitions, and that the doctrinal 
and hortatory in the other are not separated. Yet the 
didactic element preponderates in i. 1-x. 18 ; the prac 
tical in x. 19 xiii. Without therefore meaning; to 

o 

intimate that the author himself had the division in his 
mind, the separation at x. 19 is the most convenient. 
From xiii. 18 to the end is a sort of appendix. 

1. To show the superiority of Christianity to 
Judaism, the writer begins with comparing Christ, the 
founder of the new economy, to the mediators of the 
old. As angels took part in the law s promulgation, 
and Moses was mediator between God and the Israelites, 
Christ is shown to be more exalted than both. He is 
the Son of God, the Creator of heaven and earth ; 
whereas angels worship him, and instead of being like 
him at the head of the kingdom, they are only minis 
tering spirits to the redeemed, employed in executing 
the commands of, a superior. To apply this argument, 
an admonition is subjoined respecting the greater atten 
tion due to the salvation announced by Christ. If 
neglect of the law given by the mediation of angels 
could not be tolerated with impunity, much less can 
disregard of the gospel. In prosecuting the proof of 



234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Christ s superiority to angels, he states that the future 
world or Christianity is not subjected to them but to 
the Son, as is proved by Psalm viii. But in asserting 
Christ s dominion, he feels that an objection might 
arise. We do not see yet all things put under him ; 
to obviate which he shows why Christ must take a 
lower station than the angels, and suffer death in it. 
His humiliation unto death was necessary, in fulfilment 
of the divine design to provide an atonement for sin, 
as he did not come to rescue and redeem angels but 
men (i. ii.). 

The author now compares Christ with Moses the 
executive head of the old dispensation, and his state 
ment takes the form of exhortation. Look to Christ, 
he says, who is faithful to God as Moses was, and yet 
far exalted above him. He was counted worthy of 
greater honour than Moses, as the founder of a com 
munity is greater than the community itself. Moses 
himself was a servant to the founder ; Christ was the 
Son. To this is annexed a warning against unbelief, 
drawn from the Israelites in the wilderness. Quoting 
Psalm xcv., he expatiates on the meaning of the pas 
sage, showing that the promised rest into which the 
Israelites could not enter because of unbelief, included 
a spiritual rest still future. We should therefore strive 
to enter into that rest ; for the word of God, especially 
its commination, has a living pow r er to seize on and 
judge the spirit (iii. 1 iv. 13). 

Having instituted a comparison between Christ and 
Moses, and gone off into a warning digression, he con 
siders the former as a high priest, as proposed at the 
commencement of the 3rd chapter. The proof that 
he is a high priest begins with a parallel. A human 
priest appointed for the service of men, partakes of the 
weaknesses of humanity, and is able to sympathise 
with erring men by entering into their feelings. As 
the earthly high priest is appointed by God, so is 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 2.% 

Christ. His office is not usurped any more than theirs. 
But the parallel is postponed, the writer introducing 
the old priestly king Melchizedek, instead of the Levi- 
tical high priest. Before he proceeds, however, to com 
pare Christ arid Melchizedek, he inserts a hortatory 
passage, complaining of his readers slow understand 
ing, and affirming that they needed instruction in first 
principles rather than the difficult truths alluded to. 
But he waives the discussion of elementary doctrine, 
and advances to the higher truths, justifying that 
course by the fact that it is impossible to restore the 
fallen. He thus warns them against apostatising to 
Judaism, moderating his tone in the end by expressing 
a wish that they would attain to the full assurance of 
hope. And to encourage them in this, the example 
of Abraham is adduced, to whom, as well as to all 
believers, the promise was confirmed by an oath 
(iv. 14-vi. 20). 

Returning to the point he had left, viz. the repre 
sentation of Christ s priesthood after the order of Mel 
chizedek, he shows its superiority to the Levitical. 
It is perpetual and above the Levitical, because Abra 
ham himself paid tithes to Melchizedek, the less being- 
blessed by the greater. In Abraham all his descendants 
may be considered as acknowledging Melchizedek s 
superiority. And if the priesthood be changed, the 
law tooTimst be changed. The difference of the Chris 
tian priesthood is exhibited in descent, and in the 
power of an endless office, as is testified in Psalm ex. 
The Mosaic law, which was abrogated, is contrasted with 
that introduced in its stead. The one was weak and 
unprofitable, the other introduced a better hope. The 
Levitical priests were made without an oath ; the new 
priesthood was appointed by an oath. The Levitical 
line was mortal ; Christ lives for ever. The Aaronic 
priests were sinful and must offer sacrifices both for 
themselves and the people ; Christ is unspotted, and 



236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

offered himself a sacrifice once for all. Christ is a high 

o 

priest of the heavenly sanctuary, whose service is 
superior in proportion as the covenant he established 
is better. God himself did not regard the first dispen 
sation as permanent or complete, but promised a better 
one, as is proved by the Old Testament (vii. 1 viii. 13). 
The author reverts to the comparison of the minis 
trations performed by the high priests under the old 
covenant and the head of the new, describing the sanc 
tuary with its apartments and furniture, the service of 
the priests, its symbolical use and unsatisfying nature. 
But Christ, the high priest of the new covenant, entered 
once for all into the heavenly sanctuary by means of his 
own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. If 
the blood and ashes of beasts had a purifying power, 
much more has the blood of Christ. If they conferred 
ceremonial purification, this purifies the conscience. 
Christ by his death became the founder of a new 
covenant, and abolished the guilt of sin for ever by the 
one sacrifice of himself. It was necessary that he 
should die, for every covenant is ratified by the death 
of a victim ; and accordingly the Mosaic covenant itself 
was confirmed by the shedding of blood. On the 
other hand, the sacrifice of the heavenly high priest is 
a superior ratification, because he appeared once to 
destroy sin, and will not appear again till he comes 
without sin. In continuation of the leading idea that 
Christ took away sin by the sacrifice of himself, the 
writer affirms that the sacrifices of the law, repeated 
yearly, could not give perfect peace of conscience, else 
they would not have been repeated ; and proves by 
Psalm xl., that whereas God takes no pleasure in sacri 
fice, He wills that we should be sanctified by the offer 
ing of Christ s body. Such sanctification agrees with 
a promise made respecting the new covenant in the 
book of Jeremiah, that no more sacrifices should be re 
quired (ix. 1-x. 18). 



TIIE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 237 

2. This portion consists of a great variety of ad 
monitions. 

The author exhorts his readers to appropriate the 
benefits of Christ s priesthood, and to beware of apo 
stasy, since heavy judgments would overtake such as by 
falling away despised the grace of God. He encourages 
them to return to their first love, by reminding them of 
their steadfastness after their conversion, which they 
should continue to exhibit. The characteristics of faith 
are briefly stated, with a long series of Old Testament 
saints exemplifying its power. It is a strong confidence 
in things hoped for, a conviction of things unseen. The 
examples of it are taken from the antediluvian period, 
from the patriarchal age till Moses, from the exodus till 
the occupation of Canaan, and from that time till the 
Maccabees. All these, however, did not realise the 
promised Messiah, while God provided something better 
for us, that they should not reach completeness without 
us. The last examples lead the writer to enjoin steadfast 
ness, while he refers his readers to them as well as to Christ 
himself. Chastisement is a salutary discipline, appointed 
by God for his children s good. He counsels peace 
with all ; dissuades from remissness, imparity, and sin 
ful inclination to forsake God. To the solemn warn 
ing against apostasy is prefixed a comparison of the 
way in which God showed Himself to the Israelites 
at the giving of the law, with the communion of the 
new covenant into which Christians have entered. Let 
believers therefore be thankful for the kingdom they 
have, serving God with reverence and fear (x. 19- 
xii. 29). 

A number of general exhortations follow. Indi 
vidual virtues are recommended, as brotherly love, 
hospitality, compassion, chastity, contentment with 
present things apart from covetousness. The readers 
should 1)0 steadfast in the Christian faith and worship, 
after the example of their departed teachers, avoiding 



238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Judaism, which is inconsistent with a share in Christ s 
redemption. After enjoining subjection to their pastors, 
the writer concludes with personal notices ; requests an 
interest in the prayers of his readers, hoping that he 
might be restored to them the sooner, and closes with a 
benediction ( xiii. ) . 

The value of this epistle has been variously esti 
mated. Extreme views, like that of Dr. John Owen, 
who asserts that l the world may as well want the sun 
as the Church this epistle/ are not worth mentioning. 
The work has influenced the subsequent current of 
Christian thought. Its doctrine of the divine Logos and 
Christ s high-priesthood were accepted and confirmed by 
later writers, as by Clement of Rome, 1 Polycarp of 
Smyrna, and the author of the Testaments of the twelve 
patriarchs. By applying Philo s idea of the Logos to 
the person, of Christ, his divinity was brought out much 
more than it is in Paul s epistles. Thus the union of 
Paulinism with the religious philosophy of Alexandria 
has been far-reaching in its effects. Yet Pauline reflec 
tiveness, though less objective than that of the epistle, 
is of higher value. The arguments are often weak, 
mere argumenta ad hominem, presupposing a Jewish 
taste for allegory. The circle of ideas in which the 
writer moves is too Judaic to commend itself to the 
acceptance of Christian readers. Thus when it is said 
that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham, be 
cause he was in the loins of his father when Melchi 
zedek met him ; that the rest promised to the Jews of 
old did not refer either to the rest which God is said to 
have taken on the seventh day of creation or to the pos 
session of Canaan, but to a spiritual rest in heaven ; that 
Psalm cii. 25-27 alludes to Christ, there styled Jehovah; 
that the patriarchs were led on by the desire of the hea 
venly Jerusalem ; that the vail separating the two apart 
ments of the temple typified the flesh of Christ ; that 
1 Comp. chapters xxxvi., Iviii. 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 239 

the heavenly sanctuary must be purified with better 
things than animal sacrifices, these and many other 
statements are peculiar to the writer. The view given 
of the old economy and its arrangements, as if they 
were foreshadows of Christianity, is a later one. In 
like manner, the continued efficacy of Christ s priest 
hood in heaven is an un- Pauline sentiment. The epistle 
has too much of the Alexandrian element to be of the 
high theological importance which belongs to the larger 
productions of Paul. A mixture of spiritualising Ju 
daism with distinctive Paulinism gives it a peculiar 
tendency which is sometimes deteriorating, though 
sometimes the reverse. The best portions are the prac 
tical and hortatory, i.e. from x. 19 to the end, where a 
pure and lofty spirit expresses itself in encouraging 
precepts. Promises cheer the mind of the believer ; 
hopes of a glorious reward encourage him. He may come 
boldly to the throne of grace and suffer joyfully, because 
his great high priest is in heaven, having been made 
perfect through sufferings. There is no continuing city 
here ; the Christian seeks one to come. Many such de 
clarations make the epistle most acceptable to the 
devout mind. Theoretical believers will not find it 
equally serviceable, though it may stimulate them to 
run the Christian race with zeal. 



240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



THE EEVELATION. 



AUTHORSHIP. 

THE title Apocalypse of John the divine is not in any 
old MS. The epithet was not given to the apostle till 
the Arian controversy in the fourth century ; when his 
authority was emphasised in opposition to the Arians 
who rejected the book. No title proceeded from the 
author himself. The uncial MSS. tf and C. have merely 
1 Apocalypse of John ; which is also in the subscrip 
tion of A. 

The prevailing opinion has been that John the 
apostle, the son of Zebedee, wrote the book of Revela 
tion. In favour of this view internal and external 
arguments are advanced, of which the following is a 
summary. 

1. External. 

Hengstenberg begins with Polycarp the apostle s 
disciple, who writes in the epistle to the Philippians : 
Let us therefore so serve him with fear and all rever 
ence, as he himself hath commanded, and as the apostles 
who have preached the gospel unto us, and the prophets 
who hare foretold the cominc/ of our Lord, being zealous of 
what is good, etc. 1 According to Hengstenberg, the pro 
phets are not personally different from the apostles ; John 

1 ovra>s ovv fiovAevo-oj/xei/ avrw fifTa <po(Bov KOI ndo-rjs fvXaftciaSj Ka0a>s 
avros eVerfiXaro, /cat ot evayyeXicrdp-fVoi rjfuv cnroaroXoi KOI ol irpo(pfJTat, ol 
TTpoKrjpv^avTff rr)V \(vcriv TOV Kvpiov l]iLtoV ^Xtorai Trepl TO KaAoi>, K.r.A. 
Chapter 6. 



THE REVELATION. 241 

in the Apocalypse being their representative. 1 But the 
Old Testament prophets are meant. 

The most ancient testimony for the authenticity of the 
Apocalypse comes indirectly. Two Cappadocian bishops, 
probably belonging to the fifth century, Andrew and 
Arethas, relate that Papias looked upon the book as in 
spired and credible? which was at that time tantamount 
to a belief of its apostolic origin. It is true that Papias 
does not speak of it as the work of John the apostle in 
express terms ; but his regarding it as of divine authority 
and credible comports best with the idea of its being 
written by none other. It has seemed singular that 
Eusebius omits the testimony of this early writer. But 
his silence is capable of an easy explanation. The his 
torian disliked Papias because of the millennarian views 
he held. The extravagant expectations of John the 
presbyter s hearer and his day were probably derived 
from oral tradition, in the opinion of Eusebius ; or if 
they were not, Dionysius of Alexandria had influenced 
the historian, leading him to doubt the authenticity of 
the book. One thing is clear, that Eusebius would not 
have omitted Papias s testimony about the author of 
the Revelation, had the latter expressed hesitation re 
specting it, which he probably did not ; for he belonged 
to a country where he had good opportunities of knowing 
the origin of the book as well as the presbyter John to 
whom Dionysius ascribes it. 

The testimony of Melito agrees with Papias s. Eu 
sebius says that he wrote a book * about the devil and 
the Apocalypse of John. 3 The fact that the bishop of 
Sardis, one of the cities to which an epistle is addressed 
in the introductory part of the Revelation, wrote on the 
book, goes far to prove its apostolicity. 

Justin Martyr is the earliest writer who expressly 

1 Die Offeribaruny des heiligen Johannes, vol. ii. 2, p. 98. 

2 6fO7rvfV(TTos and a^ioTncrros 1 . 3 II. E. iv. 26. 
VOL. I. K 



242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

attributes the work to John the apostle at Ephesus. 1 
Rettig tries to impugn the authenticity of the passage 
in Justin without effect. Eusebius states that Justin 
wrote his Dialogue or Disputation with Trypho, in 
which the passage about the Apocalypse occurs, at 
Ephesus, the first of the seven cities to which the author 
addressed an epistle (Rev. i. 11 ; ii. 1). In the circle 
within which he lived and acted, Justin knew of none 
other than the apostle as author. We conclude, there 
fore, that the opinion about John the presbyter s author 
ship had not originated before the middle of the second 
century. There is no reason for thinking that Justin 
rested on exegetical grounds rather than historical tra 
dition. The earliest Christian period relied on persons 
more than writings for the support of their faith. 

Not long after Justin, Apollonius, a presbyter at 
Ephesus, drew proofs from the Apocalypse against the 
Montanists, as Eusebius states. 2 The context of the 
passage in which the historian speaks of him leaves no 
room for doubt that Apollonius used the book as the 
apostle s. 

Irenaeus is also a witness for the apostolic origin 
of the Apocalypse, appealing to ancient MSS. for the 
genuineness of the number 666, as well as to persons 
who had seen the apostle John. 3 This testimony has 
great weight, because Irenreus must have learnt the 
truth about the writer in proconsular Asia before he 
went to Gaul. The seven churches would carefully 
preserve a document addressed to them. We do not 
see that the witness of Irenaeus is weakened by the fact 
that he was mistaken in dating the book at the end of 
Domitian s reign ; or because he accepted superstitious 
and absurd accounts of John from the presbyters who 
professed to have seen him. He probably derived the 
late date he assigns to the Apocalypse from a false in- 

1 Eialoff. c. 81, p. 294, ed. 3 Otto. 
2 Eusob. //. E. v. 18. 3 Advers. Hares, v. 30. 



THE REVELATION. 243 

terpretation of itself or from vague report. And as to the 
superstitious opinions of John received from the elders, 
they have nothing to do with the composition of a work 
like the present. 

The epistle of the churches of Lyons and Yienne 
given by Eusebius, 1 also presupposes the apostolic origin 
of the Apocalypse, so that from Asia Minor to Gaul 
the book is well attested as John s in the second century. 
Tertullian uses it as apostolic, 2 showing that Africa 
participated in the historical tradition that prevailed in 
other countries. The Muratorian list ascribes the work 
to John. 

The want of one witness at the beginning of the 
third century is suspicious at first sight, viz. the Syriac 
translation from which the Apocalypse is absent. Nor 
did tliis old version admit the book afterwards, though 
scholars in the Syriac church subsequently put it on a 
level with the rest of the New Testament. A later 
Syriac translation of the Apocalypse appeared, which 
was never thought to be equal in authority to the 
Peshito. It is true that Hug and others suppose the 
Peshito to have had the book at first ; but this is certainly 
incorrect. How then is its exclusion from this ancient 
version to be accounted for ? When the Peshito was 
made, perhaps the Apocalypse had not found its way to 
Edessa, the birth-place of the version. 

It is certain that Theophilus of Antioch, at the end 
of the second century, accepted the book as apostolic. 3 
In the same century the Alogi ascribed it to Cerinthus; 
and Caius of Eome, from opposition to Montanism, 
ventured to make the same statement, as a fragment of 
Proclus s preserved by Eusebius asserts : But Cerin 
thus, by means of revelations which he pretended to 
have been written by a great apostle, falsely introduces 
wonderful things to us, as if they were shown him by 

1 //. E. v. 1. 2 Contra Marcion. iii. 14. 3 Euseb. iv. 24. 



244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

angels/ etc. 1 This passage has given rise to discussion, 
some affirming that the revelations spoken of do not 
mean the present Apocalypse but forged revelations as a 
counterpart to it. We agree with Liicke in referring 
it to the former. 

Marcion and his followers excluded the book from 
their canon, and therefore rejected its apostolic author 
ship. This arose from their peculiar tenets. 

When we pass to the third century, the evidence for 
the apostolicity of the book is most favourable. Cle 
ment of Alexandria 2 ascribed it to John ; as did Ori- 
gen 3 notwithstanding his opposition to millennarianism. 
Cyprian, Lactantius, and Methodius were of the same 
opinion. Hippolytus probably wrote a commentary 
on the Apocalypse, directed against the Montanists. 
This is inferred from a statement of Ebedjesu respecting 
him : St. Hippolytus, martyr and bishop, composed 
a work concerning the dispensation .... and an apo 
logy for the Apocalypse and Gospel of John the apostle 
and evangelist. 4 

Critical doubts began with Dionysius of Alexandria, 
owing, as it would seem, to doctrinal disputes with the 
millennarian adherents of Nepos. This father ascribes 
the work to John the presbyter not the apostle. He 
bases his opinion on internal grounds, on style, lan 
guage, and characteristic peculiarities, arguing from the 
differences of the fourth gospel and first epistle general 
of John, that the same person could not have written 
the Apocalypse also. 5 Plis reasoning is valid on the 
assumption that the gospel and first epistle proceeded 
from the apostle, but it has no worth as an independent 



1 oXXa KOL Krjpivdos, 6 8C diroKaXv^fe cov a>s vrro aTrooroXou p,eyd\ov 
>, TfpctToXoyias fj/juv &s 8C dyyeXc&v aura) SeSety/xeVas 1 \^fvdop,fv 

K.T.X. Ap. Euseb. //. E. iii. 28. 

2 Strotnata, lib. vi. p. 667 ; and ii. p. 207. 

3 Ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 25 ; and Comment, in Jonnn. Opp. vol. iv. p. 17. 

4 Assemam BibKotheca Orientalis, vol. iii. part i. p. 15. 

5 H. E. vii. 24, 25. 



THE KEVEIATION. 245 

testimony, because it contradicts ecclesiastical tradition. 
When Dionysius appeals to some of his predecessors who 
rejected the book and thought it should be excluded 
from the canon, he could only have alluded to the few 
who looked upon it as the work of Cerinthus ; to Cains, 
the Alogi, and the antiinontanists generally. 

In the fourth century Eusebius l seems undecided 
about retaining or rejecting the Apocalypse. His op 
position to millennarianism, not less than the critical 
doubts of Dionysius, inclined him to the latter course. 
On the other hand, a constant and firm tradition was 
arrayed on behalf of apostolicity. The historian con 
jectures with Dionysius, that the writer may be John 
the presbyter ; but affirms that he will not refuse to 
put it among the acknowledged books, if cause for doing 
so should appear. 2 This wavering policy tells against 
his honesty as a historian ; since he might have cited 
older witnesses for the apostolic origin of the book had 
he been disposed. 

It is scarcely necessary to follow the series of ex 
ternal testimonies further than Eusebius. Later wit 
nesses belong to the history of the canon. Enough has 
been given to show that the apostolic origin of the 
Apocalypse is as well attested as that of any book in 
the New Testament. How can it be proved that Paul 
wrote the epistle to the Galatians for example, on the 
basis of external evidence, if it be denied that the 
apostle John wrote the closing book of the canon ? 
With the limited stock of early ecclesiastical literature 
that survives the wreck of time, we should despair of 
proving the authenticity of any New Testament book, 
if that of the Apocalypse be rejected. 

Let it not be urged that the patristic tradition is not 
unanimous, and that little weight attaches to the testi- 

O 

monies of the fathers because they are often discordant. 
The historical tradition relative to the Apocalypse seems 

1 H. E. iii. 25. 2 eiye 



246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

to have been interrupted only by doctrinal views. 
Had not Montanism and millennarianism appeared, we 
should have heard of no voice raised against John s 
authorship. We do not deny that the ecclesiastical 
writers of the first three centuries adopted vague tradi 
tions without inquiring whether they rested on a good 
foundation ; and that they were generally incapable of, 
if not disinclined to, critical investigation ; or that they 
followed their immediate predecessors, contented to 
glide down the ecclesiastical stream without examining 
the ground of their belief. There were noble excep 
tions ; and it is an undoubted fact, that from the middle 
of the second century, several distinguished fathers 
connected with the church in Asia Minor, who had ex 
cellent opportunities of knowing the prevailing tradi 
tion there, received the work as an authentic document 
of John s. Clement and Origen too, whose views did 
not agree with the book, received it as apostolic. The 
basis of the tradition cannot be explained away without 
violating historical evidence. 

2. Internal evidence. 

Does internal evidence coincide with the external as 
regards authorship ? In four places John calls himself 
the author (i. 1, 4, 9 : xxii. 8) ; sometimes without a 
predicate ; at other times, servant of Jems Christ ; or, 
your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the 
kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, in relation to his 
readers ; while in xxii. 9 he is styled by the angel a 
brother of the prophets. He presents himself in the 
character of a man well known to the Christian 
churches of proconsular Asia an influential personage, 
of whose divine mission they could have no doubt. 
The predicates attributed to him show a consciousness 
of dignity, yet a modesty withal, arising from a sense 
of the union subsisting among true Christians. Though 
he does not call himself an apostle, he is commanded to 
write what he had seen and to send it to the seven 



THE REVELATION. 247 

churches (i. 11). He is the prophet not apostle of the 
Messiah, in this instance. There was no apparent 
necessity for the writer to style himself an apostle ; the 
epithets accompanying the name sufficed to indicate his 
person. He was the direct witness of the Messiah, the 
announcer of the revelations of God, the prophet of 
the new covenant. He speaks of himself like Daniel, 
I John. He treats of the apostolic age, when Jewish 
ideas prevailed and the expectation of Messiah was 
fresh in the general mind. At the time he wrote, 
several apostles were living ; but none other could lay 
claim to the position and privileges which he asserts. 
A book bearing his name, and composed thirty years 
before his death, would have called forth a contradiction, 
because he knew that it would be taken for his ; and 
such contradiction would have reached us from the 
circle of his disciples, through Iremuus. Later asser 
tions of its non-apostolic authorship arose from doc 
trinal interests, not from historic tradition. 

Do the contents agree with the assumption that the 
book proceeds from an apostolic man ; or do they 
present phenomena inconsistent with John s known 
character and the time when he wrote ? To answer 
this question, we must take a general survey of the 
contents ; and they are certainly apostolic, chiefly the 
eschatology (doctrine of the last things) which is a 
prominent feature of the book. The idea of their 
Lord s speedy coming had made a deep impression upon 
the minds of the apostles. Like the Messiah in Daniel, 
he was to appear in the clouds of heaven with great 
power and glory. The near approach of this event was 
the animating and consolatory motive held forth in the 
apostolic epistles. It was present to the mind of Paul 
who proclaims Maran atha ; speaks of the Lord s 
coming with all his saints ; of Ins descending from 
heaven with the voice of the archangel and the trump 
of God ; who believes that the day of the Lord equiva- 



248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

lent to the day of Jesus Christ, that day, the day of re 
demption is at hand ; and that he should live to see it. 
The saints should then be judges of the world, and even 
of angels. Now Paul assures us that he received nothing 
from the other apostles, but that his ideas came from 
immediate revelation ; which shows that the eschato- 
logical element in Matthew s gospel and the Apocalypse 
was an essential part of primitive Christianity. Nor is 
it confined to Paul s epistles. It appears in the letter 
to the Hebrews ; Peter s epistles teach the same thing. 
The epistles of John express it also. James recommends 
patience till the coming of the Lord, which he declares 
to be near. And Jude proves from the existence of 
mockers, that it is the last time. The description of 
Christ s advent thus expected by the New Testament 
writers is developed in the 24th chapter of the first 
gospel ; where the sentiment of retribution appears in 
the form of a solemn judicial process preceded by great 
distress ; and the Messiah reveals himself in splendour, 
ushering in a new dispensation in which the faithful 
should be recompensed for their sufferings. These 
ideas are present in the Apocalypse, the main difference 
between it and other apostolic writings relating to the 
expected advent consisting in the wide interval which 
John puts between the manifestation of Messiah and 
the end of the world the space of a thousand years ; 
while they place the time of the Messianic kingdom 
close to the process of judgment. 

In like manner the christology of the Apocalypse con 
tains apostolic elements. The idea of Jesus the Messiah 
is, that he existed before the world ; that he is the 
highest spirit ; that by virtue of his Messianic nature 
he was like Jehovah from the beginning ; that he is the 
Alpha and Omega though created; and that he is an angel 
who received his Messiah-nature from the Father. Hence 
he is termed the beginning of the creation of God (iii. 
14) and the expression Son of God (ii. 18) refers to the 



THE REVELATION. 249 

divine sovereignty bestowed upon liim by the Father. 
The spiritual and potential perfections he possesses were 
bestowed upon him as a reward for his faithful and 
victorious career. He is the organ of communication 
between God and his people ; the i Word of God, not 
God the Word as in John i. 1. The name, Word of 
God/ has not a metaphysical sense as if it expressed 
the principle constituting the person of Christ ; nor does 
it imply an independent hypostasis proceeding from the 
substance of the Father like the Word of the fourth 
gospel, but rather a being possessing divine power and 
prerogatives received from the Father. The name is a 
preparatory step to the proper Logos-doctrine, to which 
the peculiarities of the Alexandrian Logos, pre-exist- 
ence and creative agency, could be easily attached. 
When he lias accomplished the purposes for which the 
government of the world was given into his hands, he 
resigns the power and kingdom to the Father and reigns 
under Him (xi. 15-17). This agrees to some extent 
with the Pauline christology, in which Christ is set forth 
as a typical man, one in whom pneuma was the essential 
principle, who existed before he was manifested to man 
kind, a being representing ideal humanity. 

The conception of antichrist also harmonises with 
apostolic times. The name of this power does not appear 
in the book, but the idea is found in a concrete form. 
The antichrist of the Revelation is a worldly prince, in 
whom the powers of evil are concentrated. Bearing the 
symbolical name of the beast, he is spoken of as a 
definite historical person ; and other hostile beast-forms 
are latent in him. He is the representative of heathen 
opposition to the kingdom of Messiah. In the second 
epistle to the Thessalonians the idea of antichrist 
appears in one of its early stages as the man of xin and 
the son of iierdition ; but the person or thing referred to 
is obscure. The Revelation presents the same idea when 
it implies a heathen impersonation of hostility to Chris- 



250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

tianity. One of the redactors of the canonical Matthew 
speaks of many antichrists ; for he has a warning against 
false Clirists or Messianic pretenders arising out of Ju 
daism (chapter xxiv.). Thus plurality is attached to 
the idea. The name antichrist occurs first in John s 
epistle, where a plurality of persons so called spring 
from the bosom of the Christian Church. When the 
proper humanity of Christ was denied, the hostile ele 
ment was found in the many antichrists of Gnosticism. 
The later New Testament writings find antichrist in 
false doctrine, neither in heathenism nor Judaism, nor 
in a single person representing them. False teachers or 
heretics are the antichrists of the Johannine epistles. 

Need we add, that the pneumatology of the Revelation 
agrees with that of the apostolic writings, and contains 
no later ideas than the Pauline? The power of the devil 
in relation to the kingdom of Christ is presented under 
the same aspect in the Apocalypse and Paul s epistles. 
Though the arch enemy of man was vanquished by 
Christ at his first advent, he was not subdued for ever ; 
the contest with him continues till the second advent. 
This prince of darkness has legions of spirits associated 
with himself ; and his conqueror the Messiah must 
therefore be King of kings and Lord of lords or, as it 
is expressed in the Colossian epistle, the head of all 
principality and power. 

As far as the individuality of John is reflected in 
the New Testament and tradition, it is in harmony with 
the contents of the Apocalypse. The sons of Zebedee 
were impetuous spirits, whose feelings led them easily 
into excess or revenge. They wished to call down fire 
from heaven to consume the inhabitants of a Samaritan 
village, and begged the chief places in the kingdom of 
heaven. John forbad one who presumed to cast out 
devils in the name of Jesus. He was a Boanerges or 
son of thunder, with a decided individuality, and an 
ardent disposition requiring checks. As far as he 



THE REVELATION. 251 

appears in the Acts and Pauline epistles, his mind is 
somewhat narrow, unemancipated from national pre 
judices. The Quartodecimans appealed to his Jewish 
practice about the passover ; while Polycrates of Ephe- 
sus states that he was a priest and wore the sacerdotal 
plate. 1 This agrees with priestly particulars in the 
seven epistles ; and if he were of a priestly family, 
which is not improbable, he might appropriate the 
sacerdotal insignia, representing himself as one initiated 
into the mysteries of Jesus. Asiatic tradition consi 
dered him as a mediator between Christ and the Church. 
He had the surname of the virgin (compare xiv. 4), and 
appeared as an ascetic who received divine communi 
cations. We cannot tell what subject chiefly occupied 
his mind while lie continued in Jerusalem. Perhaps 
he was tracing out the signs of the returning Messiah 
and looking for the great future at hand. But the dis 
solution of the bond existing between the Jews and 
Jewish Christians must have caused him to feel that the 
place was no longer a fit abode. He could have no 
further communion with the enemies of Christ, as the 
unbelieving Jews were considered. The very metro 
polis they prided in, with all its ancestral renown, was 
to be overthrown ; and a new kingdom of Israel brought 
down to earth. It was therefore time to depart. 

After removing to Asia Minor, he is described as 
indignantly contending against false teachers both 
Jewish and Gentile. Irenseus states from Polycarp, 
that the apostle, going into a bath on one occasion, dis 
covered Cerinthus there, and, leaping out of it, hasted 
away, saying he was afraid of the building falling upon 
him and crushing him with the heretic. These traits 
are faithfully reflected in the book before us, which 
betrays an impassioned spirit full of rage against the 
despisers of God and his anointed, with images of 

1 or f-ycvr iflr) iepfus TO ntraXov 7T(f)optKa)S.A.p. Eliseb. If. E. iii. 31. 



252 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

dragons, murder, blood and fire, vials of wrath. The 
souls of the martyrs invoke vengeance on their per 
secutors ; and all heaven is summoned to rejoice over 
the downfall of Babylon. 

In representing the apostle as retaining his old 
Judaic prepossessions, as one whose Christianity was of 
the original type, we are justified by the Apocalypse 
itself ; especially by the descriptions of the Asiatic 
churches, which contain polemic allusions to Paul and 
his teachings. Thus in the letter to the church at 
Ephesus we read : Thou hast tried them which say they 
are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars 
(ii. 2). The address of the church of Pergamos has : 
4 1 have a few things against thee, because thou hast 
there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught 
Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of 
Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit 
fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the 
doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate (ii. 
14, 15). These Nicolaitanes or Balaamites (for the 
names are identical) seem to have been Pauline Chris 
tians. The first epistle to the Corinthians shows that 
Paul allowed the use of meats offered in sacrifice to 
idols ; and the Acts, that the leading apostles at Jeru 
salem enjoined Gentile Christians to abstain from such 
food. But these followers of Paul pushed his liberalism 
to excess ; for the commission of fornication is also 
specified. They abused the doctrine of their alleged 
master, who, while he boldly proclaimed all things are 
lawful for me, was careful to enjoin virtuous conduct. 
In like manner, an anti-Pauline tendency is perceptible 
in the address to the church of Thyatira ; the greater 
part of whom carried the apostle s principles to excess, 
abusing the liberty allowed to Gentile converts. John 
still acknowledges the legal burden laid upon them, and 
tells them to hold it fast. 

Besides this anti- Pauline tendency observable in some 



THE REVELATION. 253 

of the letters to the churches a tendency natural in 
one of the primitive apostles there are allusions to the 
existence of antichristian principles in the churches of 
Smyrna, Philadelphia, and Pergamos. Paul is excluded 
from the foundation of the church ; and the twelve alone 
honoured with the insertion of their names in the foun 
dations of the wall round the holy city (xxi. 14). Even 
in the churches of Asia Minor which Paul had planted, 
and in some of which he laboured for a considerable 
time, a reaction had set in, through the presence and 
influence of John. His apostleship was never cordially 
allowed by the pillars of the church at Jerusalem, 
Peter, James, and John ; and the Apocalyptic writer 
consistently shows his hostility to the doctrine of entire 
freedom from the law of Moses which the apostle of the 
Gentiles was the first to proclaim. 

The writer s Judaistic position also stands out in the 
seventh chapter, where the elders, whose number is that of 
the twelve tribes, are a selected body representing the 
faithful Church of God on earth, and sit upon thrones 
immediately surrounding Jehovah s, as assessors with 
judicial functions. They are the elect, the first-fruits 
to God and the Lamb (vii. 4, 5 ; xii. 1 ; xxi. 12). On 
the other hand, the saved heathen, though a great mul 
titude, are farther from the Almighty s throne, and dis 
tinguished from the former (vii. 13). They are the 
crowd, an appendix as it were to the representatives of 
the faithful people. Thus complete equality is not 
assigned to Jews and Gentiles. Though both are ad 
mitted into the Messianic kingdom and new Jerusalem, 
the latter are put in the second rank. It is true that 
the 144,000 presented to view in vii. 1-9 ; xiv. 1-5 ; 
xv. 2-4 may be regarded as the whole multitude of 
Christians collected out of nations and peoples ; yet 
even there the universalism has a Judaising aspect, since 
the number of believers is classified according to the old 
division of the twelve tribes, and every Christian is put 



254 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

into one tribe or other. The title to the kingdom of 
God is bound up with such classification. When they 
become Christian the heathen are enrolled among the 
twelve tribes. Thus their formulising proves the apo 
stle s Judaistic view. 

The opinion just given of the difference between 
the 144,000 and the innumerable multitude appears the 
only tenable one, notwithstanding the argument of 
Hilgenfeld in proof of their identity. It would be an 
anomalous thing to specify the number of the sealed as 
144,000 and to add immediately the seer s vision of a 
multitude ivhich no man could number, if the two coin 
cided. Dusterdieck, Volkniar, and Krenkel rightly 
separate them. The 144,000 appear again, in xiv. 1, etc. 
without mention of the countless number of Gentile 
Christians. As primitive Christianity was developed 
out of Judaism, its victory assumes in the Apocalypse 
the outward form of a kingdom co-extensive with the 
world itself ; with Christ reigning in the royal city of 
Jerusalem ; no longer the old apostate Jerusalem which 
crucified the Lord and is called Sodom and Egypt on 
that account, but purified and transformed. Though a 
partiality for the Jews exists, and the twelve tribes re 
appear in the new Jerusalem in splendour and glory, the 
apocalyptist regards Christians as the only orthodox 
Jews, having the commandments of God and the testi 
mony of Jesus. They are an elect Jewish church which 
admits the heathen into their communion. The 
nationality of John had assumed a Christian form. 
Having abandoned empirical Judaism by teaching that 
the Judaism which embraced Christ was the only genuine 
one, he was a Jewish Christian of the early type. 

It is plain from xii. 1, etc. that John did not dream 
of the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem, so that 
he knew nothing of the prophecy contained in the 
twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew s gospel. On the 
contrary, he expects that Jerusalem will be preserved 



THE EEVELATION. 255 

with its temple, and that its inhabitants will be converted. 
Though spiritually called Sodom and G-omorrha, it is 
nevertheless the beloved city renewed and purged. 

These remarks prove the thorough incorrectness of 
Canon Farrar s assertion that i the essence of the teaching 
of both apostles (John and Paul) on all the most impor 
tant aspects of Christianity is almost exactly the same. l 
A first principle in the right apprehension of the New 
Testament is the wide distinction in the doctrinal 
teaching of the original apostles and Paul a distinction 
that remained throughout their lives. 

Two passages are quoted as adverse to apostolic 
authorship, viz. xviii. 20 and xxi. 14. In the former, 
the writer speaks of the holy apostles and prophets 
rejoicing over the fall of Babylon ; in the latter, of the 
names of the twelve apostles being inscribed on the 
foundations of the walls of new Jerusalem. It is argued 
that the apostle would not speak of the holy apostles. 
The right reading, ye saints, apostles, and prophets, 
dissipates the argument founded upon the passage. As 
to the latter, the language is not very different from that 
in 1 Cor. iii. 10, where Paul speaks of himself as a wise 
master-builder laying the foundation of the church at 
Corinth. Why then should not John speak of himself 
as one of the foundations ? Is it inconsistent with 
modesty ? If so, did not Zebedee s sons covet the two 
highest places in Christ s kingdom ? A comparison of 
Paul s own language in the epistles to the Corinthians 
and Galatians shows that he never lost the feeling of 
conscious dignity implied in the apostolic office, though 
he retained his Christian humility. And surely the 
consciousness of a like dignity was not less among the 
primitive apostles, as we infer from 2 Cor. xi. 5 ; xii. 
etc. Neither passage can shake belief in the apostolicity 
of the work. Another objection to the Johannine au 
thorship of the Apocalypse is founded upon the view 

1 Life and Work of 8t. Paul, vol. ii. p. 400. 



256 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

which the writer takes of Christ s person. Hoekstra and 
Scholten argue that a disciple in personal contact with 
the master could not have spoken of his divinity as he 
does, but only of his simple humanity. In answer to 
this we remark, that Christ is not described as God but 
i the beginning of the creation of God or the first 
created being (iii. 14). Agreeably to this, he appears 
by implication as an angel in various parts of the book. 
In the fourteenth chapter, immediately after he is por 
trayed as a lamb standing on mount Sion, another angel 
appears in the midst of heaven, etc., alluding to an angel 
mentioned before, that is, to the lamb. The chapter 
speaks of the lamb who is afterwards styled the Son of 
man being accompanied with six angels, he himself 
being the head or chief of them. The twenty-second 
chapter identifies the angel that showed John the holy 
city with Christ; for the description passes from his re 
presentative to the Messiah without distinction. The 
same that refuses John s worship and bids him not to 
seal the prophetic boo.k says forthwith, Behold I come 
quickly and my reward is with me, etc. etc. (xxii. 12). 
Thus the Apocalypse makes Christ the first created 
angel ; and if it was believed that angels appeared in 
the form of men, as we know they did from the book 
of Tobit, it is not improbable that John thought of the 
master he saw as an incarnation of the first-born angel. 

We may suppose that time changed the apostle s 
ideas respecting him whom he had formerly known, and 
given them a higher range. The disciples did not un 
derstand their master while he was on earth. Not till 
he was withdrawn did their thoughts take a new direc 
tion. Reflecting upon the wonderful one, they naturally 
exalted him ; assigning him a divine nature and rank. 
His person was idealised. The imaginative mind of 
John was specially prone to such views. Poetry ele 
vates and magnifies. 

It is almost unnecessary to remark, that the expres- 



THE REVELATION. 257 

sion throne of God and of the Lamb* (xxii. 1) does 
not involve the deity of Christ. The thrones of the 
Father and the Son are separated in iii. 21. 

The appellations Word of God and Alpha and Omega 
are consistent with a created being, as will be shown 
hereafter; so that the book presents no portrait of Christ 
which makes him truly God or uncreated. 

So far we have endeavoured to keep the evidence 
for apostolic authorship distinct from the fourth gospel. 
But they cannot be separated. Both works have long 
been current in the Church under the name of John ; 
and comparison is necessary to a full knowledge of 
either. Their authorship cannot be properly investi 
gated without such mutual references as will place general 
characteristics and individual points in a better light. 
It will not satisfy the demands of criticism to assume 
the non- authenticity of the gospel from the authenticity 
of the Apocalypse or the reverse, because respectable 
scholars still maintain identity of authorship. Having 
shown, as clearly as the nature of the question allows, that 
the one was composed by the son of Zebedee, it remains 
for the critic to bring into view resemblances and dis 
crepancies in proof of identity or diversity. 

The christology of the Apocalypse is apparently in 
unison with that of the gospel. The latter describes 
Jesus as the incarnate wisdom of God, and the former 
uses language of similar import (iii. 14, 20). His pre- 
existence is asserted in the gospel, as it is in Apoc. 
iii. 14. The appellation Word, distinctive of person, 
occurs only in the gospel, first epistle of John, and 
Apocalypse. 

Christ, or God, is often termed the true ; so in the 
gospel Christ is called the true lic/ht ; and God is the 
true God in the first epistle. 

In Apoc. ii. 17, Jesus promises believers the hidden 
manna ; in the gospel, he is tlic true I/read from heaven 
(vi. 32). 

VOL. I. S 



258 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Christ is often styled in our book, a lamb; an epithet 
applied to him nowhere except in the fourth gospel. 

In the Apocalypse, it is said of the Jews who reject 
Jesus, that they are not true Jews (iii. 9) ; so in the 
fourth gospel (viii. 39, 40). 

In ii. 1 1 a promise is made to him that overcometh 
that he shall not be hurt by the second death ; in the 
fourth gospel, it is said of him that keeps Jesus s word 
that he shall never see death (viii. 51). 

In xiv. 15 a call is addressed to the angel to thrust 
in his sickle and reap, because reaping-time is come 
and the harvest of the earth is ripe. In the gos )el, 
Jesus says to his disciples, Look on the fields ; for they 
are white already to harvest, iv. 35. 

The favourite expression to testify and testimony 1 of 
the gospel, in the sense of declaration respecting the 
Saviour, public profession and declaration of belief in 
him, is common in the Apocalypse. Compare gospel 
i. 7, 19 ; iii. 11, 32, 33 ; v. 31-36 ; viii. 13, 14; xviii. 37; 
xxi. 24. Epistle v. 9 thrice, 10, 11. Rev. i. 2, 9; vi. 9; 
xii. 11, 17 ; xix. 10 ; xx. 4 ; xxii. 18, 20. 

The use of to conquer 2 in the sense of overcoming 
the evil, opposition, and enmity of the world, with the 
implication of remaining faithful and active in the 
Christian cause, is peculiar to John and the Apocalypse. 
Gospel xvi. 33. Epistle ii. 13, 14 ; iv. 4 ; v. 4, 5. 
Apoc. ii. 7, 11, 17, 26 ; iii. 5, 12, 21 ; xii. 11 ; xiii. 7 ; 
xxi. 7. 

Countenance^ in the sense of human visage, is only 
found in gospel xi. 44, and Rev. i. 16. 

To keep the word* is frequent in John s gospel and 
epistle ; the same occurs in the Apocalypse. 

To tabernacle 5 is used in gospel i. 14, and Apoc. vii. 
15 ; xii. 12 ; xiii. 6 ; xxi. 3. 

co and p.apTvpi.a. 2 VIKO.V. 

TOV \oyov, 



5 (TKYjVOVV, 



THE REVELATION. 250 

To slay, 1 is employed in epistle iii. 12, twice; also in 
Rev. v. 6 ; vi. 4, 9, 12 ; xiii. 3, 8 ; xviii. 24. It is found 
nowhere else. 

To have part, 2 is used in gospel xiii. 8 ; and Apoc. 
xx. 6. 

To walk. with one? Gospel vi. G6 ; Apoc. iii. 4. 

Hereafter. 4 Gospel i. 52; xiii. 19 ; xiv. 7; Rev. xiv. 
13. Elsewhere only in Matthew. 

To labour? with the idea of fatigue. Rev. ii. 3; 
gospel iv. 6. 

To speak with one. 6 Gospel iv. 27; ix. 37; xiv. 30 ; 
Rev. i. 12 ; iv. 1 ; x. 8 ; xvii. 1 ; xxi. 9, 15 Not else 
where except once in Mark vi. 50. 

Heaven, 7 in the gospel and epistle, has almost always 
the article; less frequently elsewhere. The same remark 
applies to Christ. 8 

Lord, thou knowest, 9 Gospel xxi. 15-17 thrice; Rev. 
vii. 14. 

He answered, saying. Gospel i. 26; x. 33; Rev. vii. 
13. 

The frequent use of light, to enlighten, glory, to 
appear, 11 and the like, in a tropical sense, shows a 
similar colouring of style in the gospel, epistle, and 
Apocalypse. 

The comparison of Christ with a bridegroom in 
gospel iii. 29, should be placed by the side of Rev. 
xix. 7; xxi. 2; xxii. 17, chiefly on account of the dic 
tion. So of the water of life, Rev. xxi. G ; xxii. 17 ; 
and gospel iv. 10 ; vii. 37; of hungering and thirsting, 
Rev. vii. 1G ; gospel vi. 35. The image of cup for suf 
fering, trial (gospel xviii. 11) is very common in the 



7 ovpavos. 



cwrapTt, 
G XaXeiz> p.e rd 



:l Kvpie, (TV oidas. 10 tureKpidrj Xt 



8 2 



260 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Apocalypse. The image of Christ as a shepherd, gospel 
x. 1, appears in Rev. vii. 17. 

After these things^ for the most part as a mere for 
mula of transition, is a striking feature of resemblance 
between the Apocalypse and gospel, as gospel iii. 22; 
v. 1, 14; vi. 1; vii. 1; xiii. 7; xix. 38; xxi. 1. Apoc. 
i. 19 ; iv. 1 ; vii. 1, 9 ; ix. 12 ; xv. 5; xviii. 1; xix. 1; 
xx. 3. Luke employs the same formula but not so fre 
quently. 

The Apocalypse has often Hebrew words, with a 
Greek explanation. This is also done in the gospel, as 
Rev. iii. 14 ; ix. 11 ; xii. 9 ; xx. 2 ; xxii. 20 ; gospel 
i. 39, 42, 43 ; ix. 7 ; xix. 13, 17, and is not so frequent 
elsewhere. 

To write, followed by the preposition to, 2 before a 
noun signifying the object on which the writing is made, 
is peculiar to the Apocalypse and gospel. Apoc. i. 11 ; 
gospel viii. 6, 8. 

The doctrine of perseverance is common to both 
writings and is expressed in the same manner. Com 
pare Rev. iii. 12 ; epistle ii. 19 ; gospel vi. 37. 

The use of to signify 3 deserves notice. Gospel xii. 
33 ; xviii. 32 ; xxi. 19 ; Apoc. i. 1. 

The neuter gender is used to denote rational beings, 
in gospel vi. 37, 39 ; xvii. 2, 10. So creature* in Rev. 
v. 13 ; every* xxi. 27. 

John alone has given an account of piercing Jesus s 
side with a spear, to which he applies the prediction in 
Zech. xii. 10. Apoc. i. 7 exhibits the same Greek ver 
sion of the Hebrew as the gospel does. The version 
being a new one, not that of the Seventy, betrays the 
same hand in both. 

In Apoc. vii. 15, he that sits upon the throne is said 
to dwell among the saints ; an idea similar to that in the 
gospel xiv. 23, where the Father and Son are said to 

3 ypd(f)civ followed by tls, 



THE REVELATION. 261 

take up their abode with the believer. The same thought 
is in Apoc. iii. 20 ; xxi. 22 ; xxii. 5. 

The manner of writing in the Apocalypse, often re 
minds one of that in the fourth gospel and first epistle, 
where the same idea is expressed positively and 
negatively ; and there is a certain parallelism of thought 
and expression. 

More specimens of resemblance have been collected 
by Donker-Curtius, 1 Dannemann, 2 Kolthoff, 3 and 
Stuart 4 to prove identity of authorship. But the most 
striking and plausible have been given, and the reader 
must judge of their validity. Some are far-fetched. 
Stuart s list needs sifting, because he does not scruple to 
use the 21st chapter of the fourth gospel throughout, as if 
it were a genuine part of the work, though Liicke and 
others prove that it is not. It is easy to see the weakness 
of Stuart s reasoning when he asserts that John is 
familiar with the neuter noun lamb ; 6 whereas it occurs 
but once in the gospel, and that in the 21st chapter. In 
short, his examples sometimes fail to support his asser 
tions ; as under the head of Christ s omniscience p , where 
some irrelevant places are quoted from the gospel and 
Apocalypse. Yet after every reasonable deduction, 
enough remains to prove that the correspondences are 
not accidental ; they either betray the same author or 
show that the one was influenced by the ideas and lan 
guage of the other. The true explanation is the last. 
The later writer knew the earlier work and used it. 
Some expressions in the gospel remind the reader at 
once of similar ones in the Revelation ; but these 
specimens of borrowed accord are not important ; and 
detract little from the fundamental dissimilarity of the 

1 De Apocalypsi nb indole, doctrina et scribendi yenere Johannis npostoli 
non abhorrente, 1799. 

2 Wcr ist der Verfasser der Offenbarung Johannis? 1841. 

3 Apocalypsis Joanni apostolo vindicata, 1834. 

4 A Commentary on the Apocalypse, 2 vols. 1845, vol. i. 



262 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

two productions. Comparison brings out greater un- 
likeness than the opposite. It is even difficult to com 
pare them, because they are so different. Visions and 
revelations, angels and superhuman figures, dramatic 
scenes which usher in the dread coming of Christ to 
destroy his people s persecutors and establish the 
blessedness of the saints, are remote from glimpses of 
the incarnate word in his brief sojourn on earth, the 
AvorLl s hatred of its true light, its only life-giving power, 
its one access to God ; extremely remote from the theo 
logical discourses and sublime prayer of the only-be 
gotten Son. But the affinities, such as they are, need not 
be explained away, nor their full force attenuated. 

The internal relation of the two books to one 
another rather than their external form shows the 
side on which originality lies. The Apocalypse ex 
hibits a tendency akin to what is known as Chris 
tianity in its first stage, or Ebionitism ; whereas pro 
gression belongs to the gospel. The development of 
the religious conception commonly begins with the sen 
suous and concrete, which it seeks to spiritualise and 
make abstract. It needs no argument to prove that 
the ideas and expressions common to the two works 
have a more spiritual bearing in the gospel. The 
evangelist purposely adopts the apocalyptic forms even 
after their original signification had been laid aside. 
He wished his work to pass for that of the apostle. 

The most marked coincidence is apparently in the 
christology. Here three particulars bear considerable 
resemblance to the fourth gospel, viz. Christ s designa 
tion as the beginning of the creation of Gud j 1 the attri 
bution to him of the name JeJiovah and the appel 
lation, Word of God? The first implies his pre- exis 
tence. As it has parallels in the Pauline epistles, we 
think it hazardous, with Zeller, to regard the phrase as 
a mere honorary title rather than a doctrinal predicate. 

TTJS KTiaeaiS TOV Ofov. 2 6 Aoyos TO{/ Gcov. 



THE REVELATION. 2Q3 

Though it be obscure, it is best to take it in the sense 
of the first created being or the highest creature. But the 
fourth gospel makes the Logos or Word to have formed 
all things. Again, Jesus or the Messiah is expressly 
termed the Alpha and Omega, which is a periphrasis for 
Jehovah ; and the new name, which none knows but 
himself, is the unutterable name, the Shem hamphorash. 
The name does not imply that the nature of Jehovah 
belongs to Messiah. It is an old Rabbinic tradition, 1 
that the appellation Jehovah belongs to three things, the 
Messiah, the righteous, and Jerusalem ; which is proved 
by Jerem. xxiii. 6 ; Isai. xliii. 7; Ezek. xlviii. 35. The 
apocalyptist probably alludes to this tradition, because 
the faithful are represented as having the name of God 
and of the new Jerusalem, and the new name of Messiah 
written on their foreheads, which name is Jehovah. 
The angel Metatron 2 in Jewish doctrine is also called 
Jehovah ; showing that the title is given to creatures. 

The Messiah is called the Word of God in the Apoca 
lypse (xix. 13) ; in the gospel he is the Word abso 
lutely. The two phrases show a different theological 
standpoint ; the former savouring of Palestinian, the 
latter of Alexandrian, metaphysics. The one is the 
well-known Memra of Jehovah 3 so frequent in the Tar- 
gums ; the other resembles Philo s idea. 

Similarity of expression has led some critics to as 
sume greater agreement between the descriptions of 
Christ in the gospel and Apocalypse than really exists. 
The heavenly nature and pre-existence of Messiah was 
a later Jewish doctrine, which was gradually taken into 
the circle of Christian ideas and developed there. This 
doctrine appears first in the book of Daniel, i.e. between 
I 70-160 B.C. ; and reaches a higher stage in the gospel 
than in the Revelation. The most striking mutual term 

1 Sec Eisenmenger s EntdecJdcs Judenthum, vol. i. p. 449. 

2 Gfrcirer s Das Jahrhundcrt des Heils, vol. i. pp. 318, 319. 



204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

is that rendered pierce, 1 the new representative of a 
Hebrew verb 2 in Zech. xii. 10, which is applied in both 
to the piercing of the Saviour, and differs from the 
Scptuagint word. It is a precarious thing to found 
identity of authorship on the use of a mere term ; but 
its connexion is peculiar. We might conjecture, with 
Ewald, that the Septuagint had it at first ; but the 
assumption is hazardous. Nor does it remove the diffi 
culty felt by those who argue against identity of author 
ship, to say that Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotioii 
translate the Hebrew verb by this very apocalyptic one ; 
or that the evangelist refers to the piercing of Christ s 
side with a spear, whereas the apocalyptist alludes to 
his slaying generally the extreme manifestation of 
hostile belief. g 

On the other hand, the characteristic method in 
which the writer of the Apocalypse views beings, scenes, 
and objects, betrays a different person from the evange 
list. His intuitions are of another cast. The views of 
the one are sensuous ; of the other, spiritual and 
mystic. In the apocalyptist, fancy is creative and 
lively ; calmness prevails in the evangelist. The ob 
jective predominates in the one ; speculation, depth, 
gracious trust, a loving freedom of spirit, in the other. 
The one is introspective, looking at spiritual relations 
with a fine psychological organisation ; the other is of 
rougher mould, viewing things in concrete, plastic 
forms. Quiet contemplation has full scope in the 
evangelist ; mildness and love find utterance in affec 
tionate discourse. But the spirit of the apocalyptist is 
stern and vengeful. He issues cutting reproofs, calls to 
repentance, commands and threatens ; though there 
are rich and pregnant promises suited to the majesty of 
the book. According to the writer of the fourth gospel, 
happiness arises from faith in the Saviour on earth and 

1 KKCVTfO>. 2 "li-5/J- 

3 Diisterdieck, Handbuch iibcr die Offeiibaruny Jahannis, p. 110. 



THE REVELATION. 20/5 

therefore blessedness is a present possession ; according 
to the apocalyptist, the righteous pray for vengeance, 
and are restored to life in the first resurrection that they 
may reign with Christ a thousand years. The gospel 
presents an idealising, universalist tendency, which 
breaks away from the Judaic basis and sets the Ke- 
deemer s person, grace, and truth, over against Moses, 
proclaiming the former as the life and light of the world. 
In the Apocalypse, Christ is the conqueror of his 
enemies ; and his power is exhibited more than hi,-} 
grace. His coming to reign outwardly, rather than his 
spiritual abode in the heart, fills the mind of the seer. 
Besides, a sharp, definite, decisive tone appears in 
sentences short, unconnected, without internal pliancy. 
The evangelist s mode of writing has a circumstantiality 
foreign to the apocalyptist. It is difficult to make this 
argument palpable, because it rests in part on subjective 
tact and taste, so that its reality can be felt more easily 
than described. Based on a careful survey of the litera 
ture that passes under the name of John, it forces itself 
on the mind. As soon as one perceives the difference 
of the spiritual elements in which the evangelist and the 
apocalyptist move, their characteristic modes of appre 
hension and the views they take of religious phenomena, 
expressed in different styles and diction, he infers that 
the one cannot be identified with the other. Power and 
majesty, poetic energy and fancy, are hardly consistent 
with a philosophic idealism permeated and occasionally 
concealed by emotional tenderness. The fervour of the 
evangelist is not fiery ; it is subdued by love. A charm 
lies in his composition. He has refinement and philo 
sophical culture. A solemn grandeur and sensuous 
symbolism appear in the Apocalypse. Can any reader 
doubt that the long series of plagues preceding the com 
ing of the Lord, and introduced by demoniacal beings 
such as scorpion-like locusts or lion-headed horses, with 
fire smoke and brimstone issuing out of their mouths, 



206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

and strange riders upon them, is objective and artificial 
imagery foreign to the evangelist s idiosyncrasy ? 

These observations prepare the reader to find the 
doctrinal type of the book before us unlike that of the 
fourth gospel. In eschatology^ it has a first and second 
resurrection, a thing unknown to other parts of the 
New Testament. 1 In like manner, the idea of antichrist 
differs in the Apocalypse and first epistle of John. The 
antichrist of the former is a notable instrument of Satan; 
the antichrist of the latter is a plurality of persons who 
destroy Christianity from within. The term is applied 
to false teachers, and therefore antichrist is said to have 
already appeared. The antichrist of the apocalyptist is 
outside Christianity, a power that hates both Jews and 
Christians. 

The doctrine of redemption, as far as allusions to it 
enable us to judge, is more Jewish than it is in the 
gospel. It is represented by the strong Jewish figure 
of washing in blood ; but other terms belonging to it, 
such as, lamb, buy, called, freely, 2 resemble Paul. Early 
Christianity was strongly impregnated with Old Testa 
ment ideas of sacrifice and atonement which were more 
sensuous than spiritual ; and time was required for 
leavening it with purer conceptions. The love of God 
in sending his Son into the world to be the life and light 
of men, quickening in them that higher principle which 
sin debases, gradually broke through the ideas of pro 
pitiation inherited from their fathers by the Jewish 
Christians. 

Though the apocalyptist wrote in Greek, he followed 
Hebrew sources, especially the later prophets, Daniel, 
Ezekiel, Zechariah, fourth Esdras, the Ascension of 
Moses, and perhaps the book of Enoch. He is so 
thoroughly Judaic that there are examples of what was 
afterwards developed in a corrupt form under the name 

1 Luke xiv. 14 is no exception. See Meyer. 
~ dpviov, 



THE REVELATION. 07 

of Kabbala in Judaism, as in xiii. 18, where the mys 
terious number of the beast sounds like Gematria. The 
sacred number seven, which enters into the plan of the 
book as well as three, savours of Kabbalism. So does 
the description of the heavenly Jerusalem in the last two 
chapters. 

The view of angels, demon*, and spirits is also Jewish, 
unlike that of the fourth gospel. Seven spirits are said 
to be before the throne of the Almighty (i. 4), meaning 
the seven highest spirits ; an idea taken from the Zoro- 
astrian religion into the Jewish, as we see from Zecha- 
riah (iv. 2-10), but modified in the Hebrew conception, 
so that the seven spirits here represent the one Spirit of 
God. So intimately are these seven associated with the 
Supreme, that grace and peace are invoked from them. 
An angel interpreter waits upon John ; seven angels 
sound trumpets and the same number pour out vials 
full of the divine wrath ; an angel comes down from 
heaven ; an angel stands on the sea ; an angel has a 
book in his hand ; an angel takes up a great stone ; an 
angel of the waters appears. Liicke remarks correctly, 
that the fourth gospel employs angels on moral and 
spiritual errands only ; while the Apocalypse places 
them over the phenomena of nature. It is inappropriate 
to quote, as Stuart does, the angel at the pool of Be- 
thesda, in proof of the gospel representing angelic con 
trol over the material elements, because the passage is 
spurious. But Hengstenberg adduces the place, with 
out the least hint of its interpolation. This angelology, 
with a strong likeness to the apocalyptic Daniel and 
Enoch, plays an important part in the Revelation. We 
admit that the envelope of visions in which the author 
clothes his Messianic hopes required some spiritual 
machinery like that of angels ; but they are introduced 
so frequently, and the representations of them are so 
peculiar, as to show another idiosyncrasy than the 
evangelist s. The view of demons is also singular. 



208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Three unclean spirits issue from the mouths of the three 
confederate beasts ; and these are termed the spirits of 
demons, seducing the kings of the earth by bringing 
them to join the antichristian leader. In like manner, 
Satan is conspicuous in the Apocalypse; he is even 
chained and loosed again ; he is the great dragon, the 
arch-enemy of the faithful, the leader of other spirits ; 
with whom he is cast from heaven to earth, and is said 
to have accused the brethren before God continually. 
Some of these ideas resemble Pauline ones, but are un 
like anything in the fourth gospel. 

The language of the book is different from that of 
the fourth gospel. It departs materially from the usual 
Greek of the New Testament, presenting anomalies, in 
correctnesses, peculiar constructions, and awkward dis 
positions of words which have no parallel. These 
originate in Hebraism; the Greek being so moulded by 
Hebrew as to follow its constructions. The fact does 
not disagree with John s authorship, though in the Acts 
he is called an l unlearned and ignorant man (iv. 13) ; 
such epithets signifying no more than that he was a 
layman, destitute of Rabbinic learning. But the cir 
cumstances in which this opinion of the council was 
formed, deprive it of all weight. 

With respect to cases, the unusual licence is taken of 
discontinuing the genitive for a nominative, as in iii. 12; 
xiv. 12 ; x or the accusative for a nominative, as in xx 2. 2 
In vii. 9 the nominative is discontinued for the accusative. 3 

Greek usage is often violated in gender and number, 
as in vi. 9, 10; ix. 13, 14. 4 Neuters plural take plural 
verbs, xi. 18; xv. 4. The same nouns are both mas 
culine and feminine in iv. 3; x. 1; xiv. 19. 5 In xii. 5 
man child 6 is an imitation of a Hebrew phrase. 

1 TTJS KdLvrjs lepova-aXrjfji, rj KaTa/3aiVou<ra, K.r.X. rStv dytW ol 

2 TOV Spa/toj/ra, 6 o(f)is 6 dp^aios. 

3 6 xXor . . . eoTtorey . . . Trepi/Se/SXTj/ieVovs 1 . 

4 ras ^l/v^as . . . Xeyowes (pcovrjv . . . \eyovra. 

5 \rjvoff Ipis. 6 vibs apcrrjv for "IDt 



THE REVELATION. 2( ,9 

In regard to verbs, the apocalyptist uses the future 
like the Hebrew imperfect, in a frequentative sense, as 
at iv. 9-11. The participle stands for a finite tense in 
i. 16 ; while the present passes into the future in i. 7; 
or into the past, xii. 2-4. Future and past tenses are 
strangely mixed in xx. 7-10. 

In the syntax of nouns the plural stands regularly 
for the dual, as in xii. 14. l 

The genitive is always put after a noun to explain it, 
in the manner of an adjective ; and a number of geni 
tives are linked together at xvi. 19. 2 

Two nouns coupled by a conjunction have each its 
own suffix, as in vi. 11 ; 3 ix. 21. 

The repetition of a preposition with each connected 
genitive often occurs, xvi. 13. 4 

The genitive absolute seems wanting, unless there be 
an example in ix. 9, which is doubtful. 

The preposition in 5 is almost always prefixed to the 
dative of the instrument, as in vi. 8. 

The usage of the writer in prepositions and con 
junctions is altogether Hebraised. Thus we have the 
nominative after as* where another case should have 
stood, iv. 7. 7 This is from a Hebrew prefix. 8 

The verb to teach 9 is followed by a dative case, ii. 14, 
like the Hebrew ; 10 to avenge, vi. 10, 11 has a preposition 
with the genitive equivalent to Hebrew usage ; 12 and 
to follow with (vi. 8 13 ) is also Hebraic. Greek and 
Hebrew constructions are strangely intermingled in 
xvii. 4. 14 

These examples show that the language is so tho- 

1 $VO 7TTpVyfS. 

2 TO TroTrjpiov TOV olvov TOV 6vp.ov Trjs opyjjs TOV Qeov. 

3 of o-vv8ov\ot avTcov KOI of d8f\(pol avTcov. 

4 (K TOV o~TOfj.a.Tos TOV dpaKovTos KOI < TOV o~TO[j.aTos TOV drjpiov Kol etc TOV 

<TTOp,a.TOS TOV \lffV$OTTpO(priTOV. 

** V. COS. ~VU>V TrOOfTCOTTOI/ COS (I 

8 > y . .. 10 S "ivrn 11 



CDpO 13 aKo\ov0flv /icra, like 

\ TO. ditd0apTa. 



270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

roughly Hebraistic as to neglect the usual rules of 
Greek. It is grammatically irregular and syntactically 
harsh. Yet Winer says, The irregularities of govern 
ment and apposition which occur in the Revelation (es 
pecially in the descriptions of visions), and which from 
their number and nature give the style the impress of 
considerable harshness, are partly intended, and partly 
traceable to the writer s negligence. From a Greek 
point of view they may be explained as instances of 
anacoluthon, blending of two constructions, constructio 
ad sensum, variatio structures. In this light they should 
have been always considered, instead of being attributed 
to the ignorance of the writer, or even regarded as He 
braisms ; since most of them would be faulty in 
Hebrew, and in producing many of them, Hebrew could 
have had but an indirect influence. But with all his 
simplicity and oriental tone of diction, the author 
knows and observes well the rules of Greek syntax ; 
even in imitating Hebrew expressions he proceeds cau 
tiously. Besides, examples analogous to many of these 
roughnesses occur in the Septuagint, and even in Greek 
authors, though certainly not in so quick succession as 
in the Apocalypse. ] This language is apologetic to 
incorrectness. The same scholar attempts elsewhere to 
justify and parallel what cannot be done in the measure 
he proposes. 2 After all endeavours to find analogies to 
the linguistic peculiarities and departures from good 
Greek usage in the book before us, either in the New 
Testament or classical writers, anomalies of such nature 
and in such number present themselves, as separate the 
author from the evangelist. Hebrew-Greek like his is 
unique. 

The apologies offered by some critics for the writer s 
curious Greek are exemplified in Professor Stuart, who 
often misapprehends the true state of the question. Yet 

1 Grammatik, siebente Auflage, pp. 497-8. 

2 E.refjetischc Sfudien, i.- p. 154, et scq. 



THE REVELATION. 271 

he has to confess the uniqueness of expressions in the 
work, as in xxii. 2, where no parallel is forthcoming; l 
and in ii. 13, where he would drop a word out of the 
text. 2 Is not the Apocalypse/ he asks, the produc 
tion of an excited state of mind and of the most vivid 
feeling ? Is it not prophetic poetry! This reasoning ap 
plied to the Old Testament prophets would justify the ex 
pectation of frequent and peculiar Hebrew constructions 
in them. Do they not write the same kind of Hebrew 
as the historians and poets ? Does any one violate 
Hebrew construction extensively because he was in an 
excited state of mind ? We must not deprive the apo- 
calyptist of conscious calmness when he wrote. The 
very fact indeed of his writing in Greek and following 
Hebrew so much, is against the peculiarities he exhibits. 

The characteristic differences now stated between 
the apocalyptist and evangelist should be considered in 
their bearing on authorship. Perhaps some may still 
think them consistent with identity. But the argu 
ment is strong against it. Does not absence of the 
evangelist s characteristic expressions, or of such at least 
as suit apocalyptic ideas, betray another writer? Does 
not the new form of the evangelist s terms, and their 
new applications, show diversity? Thus the apoca 
lyptist uses a noun lamb, 3 which never occurs in the 
gospel ; the latter having the phrase Lamh of God. 4 " 
The verb overcome 5 is common to the two ; but a defi 
nite object accompanies it in the gospel, as the world, 
the evil one ; while the Revelation uses it absolutely. 
The gospel has one word for liar, 6 the Apocalypse a 
kindred but not identical one. 7 The latter has the noun 
Jerusalem 8 singular and indeclinable ; the former plural 
and declined. 9 Behold is written differently in the two. 10 

The phraseology of the apocalyptist is characterised 

fis CKdcrTOSi 2 os. 

4 6 dfivos TOV for. VIKCLV- 

7 
lpocr6\vfj.a. 



272 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

by such expressions as 17 oiKov/xeV^, oi /caroi/cowres eVt 
7779 y^s? 17 p<apTvpia I^croG, 6 [JidpTvs applied to Chri.st, 
rj ap^r] TTJS KTicrews TOV eou, 6 TT^COTOTOKO? rcui> reKpaiv, 

KpOLTtiV TO O^OjLCa, T7p SlSo/^J ; TTaVTOKpOiTtop, 6 ap^COV Tti)V 

/3acriXeW TT?<? yr?9, all foreign to the evangelist ; whereas 
the favourite ideas and expressions of the latter f] 
Troieiv TTJV aXrjOeiav, et^ai e/c TT}S aX^^etac, ^a)i^ 
6 /COCT/AOS, 6 Trovrjpos, 6 ap^a)v TOV KOQ-JJLOV TOVTOV, 

TO, TCKVOL TOV 0OV. K TOV @OV LVaLL Or yVV7]6rjVaL, TOL 

TOV StaySoXoi;, crfcorta and <ois contrasted, 
, 0eao~0aL and OtMpziv, lpyd,O~6ai, [Livtiv and 

TraXiv fca^w?, 8ofaecr$ai, and v\\fovo~6a.i, 
Trapprjo-ia, TTLcrTtvtw do not appear in the 
Apocalypse or very seldom. 

The diversities now given, doctrinal, theological, 
and linguistic, are explained by apologists consistently 
with one authorship. Doiiker-Curtius, Kolthoff, Dan- 
nemann, and Stuart try to find either the same or simi 
lar expressions in both, overlooking those which are 
characteristic ; or discover reasons for the diversities, 
which amount to three difference of subject, of age, 
and of mental state. 

The first of these has some weight. The Apoca 
lypse is a prophetic book in the main. It describes the 
future in poetic colours. Yet in the epistles to the seven 
churches which are of the same character with John s 
first epistle and should be a fair subject of comparison, 
diversity is more prominent than likeness. A different 
tone and style appear. The compositions are characteristi 
cally different. 

The argument of age urged by Olshausen and 
Guericke has little force. Written as they believe 
twenty years before the fourth gospel, the Revelation 
shows marks of inexperience in composition, as well as 
of an ardent temperament and youthful fire. It is like 
the first essay of one expressing his ideas in a language 
to which he was unaccustomed. But the author must 



THE REVELATION. 273 

have been about sixty years of age when he wrote, a 
time when inexperience and youthful fire are past ; and 
the language of the Apocalypse bears no evidence of a 
beginner s bungling attempt. On the contrary it has 
the marks of a consistent and settled usage of a defi 
nite type hardly consistent with the transformation in 
volved in the linguistic phenomena of the gospel. 1 
KolthofPs comparison of the earlier and later epistles of 
Paul shows that time is insufficient to account for the 
characteristic differences between the evangelist and 
apocalyptist. Nothing but the hypothesis of two per 
sons can explain them ; and the alleged analogy is 
beside the mark. 

Others find the chief cause of diversity in the phrase 
T was in the Spirit (i. 10). Thus Hengstenberg supposes 
that John was in an ecstatic state ; or at least in a pas 
sive or receptive condition of mind. The visions and 
their colouring wereyii m, says Ebrard ; Avhereas John s 
own reflectiveness appears in the fourth gospel. His 
mind was active in the one, passive in the other. We 
object to this assumption, because it deprives the author 
of consciousness and is contrary to the analogy of pro 
phecy. The Old Testament seers were never without 
consciousness even in their highest moments of inspi 
ration. Their own individuality appears, each retaining 
his characteristic peculiarities of conception and lan 
guage. Ezekiel and Zechariah had visions ; yet their 
own reflectiveness is manifest. So it was with the 
author of the Revelation, whom we must not convert 
into an unconscious machine controlled by the Spirit. 
Had he written down the visions at the time he received 
them, the idea that he was overpowered by the sub 
stance of tiie communications might appear more plau 
sible ; but the fact of their not being composed in Pat- 
mos shows that their present form proceeded from later 
reflection. 

1 See Liicke s Eirdeituny, p. GG4, 2nd ed. 
VOL. I. T 



274 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

We conclude that whatever deductions be made on 
the ground that the work is prophetic poetry not prose ; 
that the author was a younger man when he wrote the 
Apocalypse ; that the character of his inspiration was 
higher, his object different ; and that he should not be 
restricted to the same circle of ideas and language ; 
enough remains to show another than the evangelist. 
There are two idiosyncrasies, which minor coincidences 
do not neutralise. 

The weight of external evidence is in favour of apo 
stolic authorship. If therefore John wrote the Revela 
tion, he did not write the fourth gospel. Yet some of 
the ablest German scholars have doubted or denied 
John s authorship. Keim and Scholten necessarily 
reject it. Volkmar also conjectures, that it was written 
by a disciple of John. It is sufficient to refer to Kren- 
kel s refutation of Scholten and Keiin s extreme view. 

At the time of the Reformation, Erasmus intimated 
his suspicions, thinking it strange that one writing reve 
lations should repeat his name so carefully, I John, I 
John, as if he were drawing out a bond not a book, 
which is contrary both to the usage of other apostles 
and his own ; for in the gospel he speaks more modestly 
and never gives his name. When Paul is forced to 
speak of his visions, lie explains the thing in the person 
of another. Erasmus proceeds to say, that in the Greek 
copies he had seen, the title was of John the divine not 
John the evangelist ; and that the language is not a little 
different from that of the gospel and first epistle. 1 
Luther speaks more decidedly against the apostle s 
authorship. l More than one thing presents itself in 
this book, as a reason why I hold it to be neither apo 
stolic nor prophetic. First and most of all, that the 
prophets do not concern themselves with visions, but 
with prophecy, in clear, plain words, as Peter, Paul, 
and Christ in the gospel do ; for it belongs to the apo- 

1 Annotationcs in ApocalypsinJoannis, Novum Tcstamentum, ed. I, p. 625. 



THE REVELATION. 275 

stolic office, clearly and without image or vision to speak 
about Christ and his work. Moreover, there is no pro 
phet in the Old Testament, not to speak of the New, 
who is occupied with visions throughout ; so that I 
almost imagine to myself a fourth book of Esdras before 
me, and certainly can find no reason for believing that 
it was set forth by the Holy Spirit. Besides, it seems 
to me far too arrogant in him to enjoin it upon his 
readers to regard his own as of more importance than 
any other sacred book, and to threaten that if any one 
shall take aught away from it, God will take away from 
him his part in the book of life. Moreover, even were 
it a blessed thing to believe what is contained in it, no 
man knows what that is. The book is believed in (and 
is really just the same to us) as though we had it not ; 
and many nobler books exist for us to believe in. ... 
But let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him. 
My spirit cannot adapt itself to the production ; and this 
is reason enough for me that I should not highly esteem 
it, that Christ is neither thought of nor perceived in it; 
which is the great business of an apostle. 1 Though he 
used milder language afterwards, Luther never retracted 
his doubts. 

Zwingli would not accept passages in proof from the 
Apocalypse, because it is not a biblical book, i.e. a 
canonical one. CEcolampadius and Bucer seem to have 
had the same opinion. Carlstadt shared their doubts. 
Michaelis assigned reasons for the negative view. Many 
others have followed in the same path, including Liicke, 
Ewald, Neander, Bleek, De Wette, and Dtisterdieck. 
These deserve respect for their learning and integrity; 
nor should any critical opinion of theirs be dismissed 
summarily. De Wette s axiomatic principle is right, 
that if the apostle wrote the fourth gospel he did not 
write the Apocalypse. Believing therefore that he was 
not the author of the former, we hold that he wrote the 

1 Preface to the Revelation, 1522. 
T 2 



276 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

latter, especially as external evidence supports us. The 
critical sagacity of those who attribute both to John 
cannot be applauded. 

Credner, Bleek, and Ewald assign the book to John 
the presbyter a hypothesis contrary to external and 
supported by no internal evidence. No probability be 
longs to the hypothesis of Hitzig, that the author is 
John Mark from whom the second gospel proceeded ; 1 
his arguments being based on analogies of language and 
construction which are overpowered by weightier phe 
nomena. 

TIME AND PLACE. 

There is some difficulty in discovering the time and 
place of writing. The prevailing opinion has been that 
the book was composed A.D. 95 or 96 at Patmos, under 
Domitian ; or in the reign of Nerva his successor. This 
accords with the tradition that John was banished to 
Patmos towards the close of Domitian s reign, where he 
had the visions described in the book. The fact of his 
exile to Patmos is mentioned by Irenauis, Clement of 
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. 
Jrenrcus calls the emperor Domitian ; Clement and 
Origen style him the tyrant or king of the Romans. 
Epiphanius makes him Claudius ; the Syriac version of 
the Apocalypse, Nero ; with which Theophylact agrees. 
The author of the Synopsis concerning the Life and Death 
of the Prophets, Apostles, and Disciples of the Lord, said to 
be Dorotheus bishop of Tyre, calls him Trajan. The 
oldest form of the tradition is in Irenaeus, viz. that the 
apostle saw and wrote the visions towards the end of 
Domitian s reign, in Patmos, to which island he had 
been banished. Later writers made a distinction be 
tween the time of banishment and composition, referring 
the latter to Ephesus, after the emperor s death. The 

1 Ueber Johannes Marcus und seine Schriften, 1843. 



THE REVELATION. 277 

tradition is inconsistent with itself and will not stand 
criticism. Yet we cannot agree with those who think it 
unhistorical, and assign its origin to the words of i. 9. 
The expressions for the word of God/ for the testimony 
of Jesus Christ/ compared with their use in vi. 9 ; xii. 
11 ; xx. 4, imply banishment or persecution. 

In the absence of external evidence, internal consi 
derations come to our aid. The book shows that 
Jerusalem had not been destroyed ; if it had, the cata 
strophe could scarcely have been unnoticed. An event 
pregnant with momentous consequences to the cause of 
truth and the fortunes of the early Christians, would 
have been mentioned. There are distinct allusions to 
impending judgment. We see from xi. 114, that the 
holy city with the temple was not destroyed ; for it is 
there stated that a part of it should perish, while the 
temple is supposed to be still standing. Had both been 
destroyed, the fact would have been noticed. This is 
confirmed by xvii. 10 : And there are seven kings ; 
five are Mien, and one is, and the other is not yet come ; 
i.e. when the writer lived, five emperors had fallen, the 
sixth was reigning, and the other had not yet come. 
The series begins with Octavianus, so that Galba is the 
sixth, the king that is. The fallen ones are Octavi 
anus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero ; the seventh 
coming one means returning Nero, as appears from xiii. 
3, 14. Other critics begin the series with Julius Ca>sar, 
and make Nero the sixth. This is the view of Bertholdt 
and Kohler. Galba is then the seventh, and he reigned 
but seven months. This reckoning is faulty, since 
Julius Caesar was not an Augustus ; nor was it till 
Octavianus and his successors that the Romans ruled 
over Jerusalem. Others begin with Octavianus, but 
make the sixth Vespasian ; Otho, Galba, and Yitellius 
being passed over. It is arbitrary to omit these names. 
The most probable view is, that the book was composed 
under Galba after Nero s death ; and this agrees best 



278 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

with the words the beast that was, and is not, and yet 
is (xvii. 8). The phrase is not, shows that the person 
alluded to was no longer living. It cannot be referred to 
the future on the ground that the prophets employ the 
present for the future in predicting, though Stuart 
adopts that expedient. The author is not predicting, 
but simply explaining who the beast is. 

The early date, i.e. that soon after Nero, not the late 
one in Domitian s reign, is usually allowed at the present 
time. We fix it between June 9, A.D. 68, when Nero 
died, and January 15, A.D. 69, when Galba was 
murdered. But some conservative theologians, like 
Hengstenberg and Hofmann, cling to the Domitianic 
reign, which most English commentators adopt. 

The place where John wrote was Asia Minor, pro 
bably Ephesus itself. The visions were received in the 
barren island, and afterwards committed to writing at 
Ephesus, as is probable from the past tense of the verb 
in i. 9. This is favoured, among other circumstances, 
by the address of the epistles to the seven churches. 

The chief arguments adduced against an earlier date, 
such as the time of Galba or Nero, are the following : 

(a.) Nero s persecution did not extend to the pro 
vinces. 

Were it necessary to speak of the extent of Nero s 
persecution, we might refer to Tertullian, who mentions 
the laws 1 of Nero and Domitian against the Christians ; 
an expression, says Milman, 2 too distinct to pass for 
rhetoric, even in that passionate writer ; and to Orosius, 
who expressly testifies to its extension beyond Rome. 8 
But it cannot well be maintained that the Neronian per 
secution was other than partial. The examples of suf 
fering mentioned in the epistles to the seven churches of 

1 Commentaries. 

2 The History of Christianity, p. 188 note, ed. Murdock, New York. 

3 Komae Christianos suppliciis et mortibus aflecit, ac per omnes pro- 
vincias pari persecutione excruciari imperavit. Adversus Paganos, lib, 
vii. 7. 



THE REVELATION. 279 

Asia Minor do not need, for their explanation, the ex 
tension of such persecution to the provinces of the em 
pire. That a martyr called Antipas had suffered at 
Pergamos even in Nero s reign, need not excite surprise. 
Individual Christians may have suffered in the provinces 
even before Nero. Heathen magistrates, as well as Jews, 
were ready to put forth their enmity, even when im 
perial edicts forbad injury to the persons of Christians. 

(/>.) It is also said, that the Nicolaitans did not form 
a sect as early as A.D. 68 or 69, whereas they are spoken 
of as such. 

Irenseus mentions the Nicolaitans in his time, de 
riving the name from the deacon Nicolas (Acts, vi.), 
and referring the allusion in the Apocalypse to them. 
Other fathers adopt the same view, without troubling 
themselves about its incredibility. There is no proof 
that they were a sect ; or that Nicolas the proselyte of 
Antioch was its founder. The writer finds a resem 
blance between them and Balaam who taught the 
Israelites to eat things offered to idols and commit 
adultery. This parallel suggests the idea that they were 
Pauline Christians who carried the opinions of the 
apostle to excess antinoinians who abused the doctrine 
of free grace. Instead of being a heretical sect, they 
were Gentile Christians who probably constituted a con 
siderable part of the church in Pergamos. The name 
Nicolaitans is symbolical, being formed with reference 
to the word Balaam. It does not refer to the followers 
of one Nicolas, but to Paul and his disciples ; to whom 
the opprobrious names of Balaam, Nicolas, and Jezebel 
were applied, because he overcame and deluded the people, 
in the opinion of fanatical Jewish Christians. 1 

(c.) The condition of the seven churches shows that 
they had been founded a considerable time ; which dis 
agrees with an early date of the book. In answer to 

1 DJ/PS from DJ7 y?3 to swalloiu up or destroy the, people; NtKoA<uYai from 
VIKO.V \aov. 



280 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

this argument, it may be stated that the Ephesian 
church may have soon left its first love. It was planted 
before A.D. 61; and the ardour of converts is liable to 
cool quickly under trying circumstances. The patience 
for which they are commended refers, as the context 
shows, to the temptations from corrupting teachers, and 
the difficulties attendant on the faithful exercise of dis 
cipline in the church. The case of the church at 
Smyrna was similar. 

CLASS OF WHITINGS TO WHICH THE APOCALYPSE 
BELONGS. 

Pareus seems to have been the first who thought 
the book a prophetic drama. A similar opinion was 
afterwards held by Hartwig, who terms it a symbolical 
dramatic poem. The genius of Eichhorn elaborated 
this view with much ability ; so that the hypothesis of 
its being a regular dramatic poem is usually associated 
with his name. He makes the following divisions : the 
title i. 1-3 ; the prologue i. 4-iv. 22 ; the drama in 
three acts preceded by a prelude, iv. 1 xxii. 5. The 
prelude consists of iv. 1-viii. 5. The first act sets forth, 
in three scenes, the destruction of Jerusalem, the over 
turning of Judaism, and the Church s weak condition 
after that catastrophe (viii. 6-xii. 17). The second act 
represents the downfall of heathenism (xii. 18-xx. 10). 
The third act describes the heavenly Jerusalem de 
scending from heaven (xx. 11 xxii. 5). The epilogue 
contains a threefold address that of the angel, of Christ, 
and of John (xxii. 6-1 1). 1 This theory needs no con 
futation at the present day. It is ingenious but base 
less. Stuart calls the poem an epopee, a name as objec 
tionable as drama. 

1 Comnientanus in Apocalypsin Joannis, torn. i. p. 19, et seq. ; and 
Einleit. in das neueTestament, vol. ii. 190. p. 369, et seq. 



THE REVELATION. 281 



THE OBJECT FOR WHICH THE APOSTLE WROTE. 

The object of the writer was to set forth the imme 
diate coming of the Lord, in order to support his fellow - 
Christians under calamities already endured and still 
impending, to foster hope and discourage apostasy. The 
world had shown its opposition to the truth, and would 
exhibit still greater hostility. Hence believers in Christ 
were encouraged to look for His speedy reappearance, 
and to hold fast their profession. By steadfast ad 
herence to the gospel, the redeemed should receive the 
blessed reward which their Master had to bestow. The 
circumstances seemed sufficiently alarming. The misery 
of war, the terrors of frequent executions, the per 
plexities of political affairs, anxious hopes and fears of 
the future, had produced great excitement among the 
Christians, and especially such as had not attained to 
the spiritual views of Paul, in whose sight Judaism had 
become a thing of the past. The believers in Palestine 
and Jewish Christians generally looked for a great 
revolution, which, beginning with the purification of 
Jerusalem and the downfall of Rome, should issue in 
the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the 
judgment of the world, and the establishment of a 
Messianic kingdom. Their hopes were raised to the 
highest pitch. Christ indeed had come once but that 
event fell short of their desires. The humbleness of 
his person disappointed many who sighed for a more 
glorious manifestation. The heathen seemed to have 
concentrated their strength against the followers of the 
new religion. Calamities already endured looked as 
though they were the prelude to greater. The atmo 
sphere was lowering. Well might the disciples of Jesus 
tremble. Some had fallen away, needing repentance 
and return to their first love. The weak had yielded 
to temptation. Hence it was necessary to reprove as 



282 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

well as console, to censure as well as to encourage. The 
central idea of the book is the Lord s second coming, 
which constitutes its prophetic character. Christ will 
soon appear to destroy His enemies and reward His fol 
lowers in that new kingdom Avhich He is to establish. 

o 

The time is at hand, and therefore there is no cause for 
despair. The period of endurance is short. Such is 
the sum of the seer s writing. Nothing was better 
fitted to make John s readers steadfast in the faith. The 
great event that formed the consummation of their 
hopes, the expected redemption to which their weary 
souls turned for solace, was nigh. The suffering may 
have sorrowfully thought that they should not be able 
to stand the shock of their enemies ; but the writer 
points to the triumph of truth and righteousness. Ex 
alted honours, glorious rewards, await the Christian 
soldier who endures to the end. The patient believer 
shall receive a crown of victory, the Redeemer s appro 
val, everlasting happiness in Messiah s peaceful kingdom. 
With Him he shall reign continually. The book arose 
out of specific circumstances, and was meant to serve a 
definite object. When the lot of the apostle was cast 
in troublous times, what better theme could he have to 
strengthen and comfort his fellow-disciples than their 
Lord s speedy reappearance ? 

If the doctrinal idea which pervades the book be the 
coming of Christ to set up His kingdom, the catastrophe 
which was to usher in the event must necessarily be 
introduced. That kingdom is realised in the new Jeru 
salem, the conception of which is at once earthly and 
heavenly. Glorified earth is the heaven of the Apoca 
lypse. This is inferior to the kingdom of heaven an 
nounced by Jesus. The new Jerusalem is a resuscitation 
of the old gorgeously renovated and adorned ; showing 
that the seer could not divest himself of sensuous ideas. 
Heaven, according to him, is not a state beyond the pre 
sent earthly one in which complete happiness exists; it 



THE REVELATION. 283 

is another condition of the earthly. The present and 
future commingle in a picture painted on material 
ground. 

But what shall be said of the writer s belief in the 
immediate reappearance of Christ? Was he mistaken 
about the nearness of the event? History has proved 
that he was. I believe/ says an able lecturer on the 
book, that the time of which St. John wrote was at 
hand when he wrote. I as little suppose him to have 
been mistaken about its nearness, as I suppose him to 
have been a wilful deceiver. If this be correct, Christ s 
coming is apprehended in an unnatural and allegorical 
sense, for it is explained away into the events connected 
with the destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent 
triumph of Christianity ; whereas the writer of the 
Apocalypse attached the advent to that catastrophe. 
He did not suppose, any more than Paul, that the one 
was identical with the other, or that the coming of 
Christ was aught else than personal, for the pur 
pose of destroying his enemies, and setting up a new 
kingdom on earth. Far be it from us to entertain the 
idea that the sacred writer was a wilful deceiver. But 
it is not inconsistent with apostleship to believe, that 
he and the early disciples supposed the time of their 
Lord s return at hand. Paul s language in the first 
epistle to the Corinthians shows that he expected to be 
then alive. It was not till after the apostles, that Chris 
tians generally began to interpret the coming of the 
Lord spiritually; and that had an unfavourable influence 
on their judgment of the Revelation. Millennarians 
there still were who threw the predicted advent into the 
future ; but the higher prevailed over the carnal view. 
Primitive Christianity was developed by the spiritual 
consciousness of the Church ; and this development 
appears at its best stage in the fourth gospel, the genius 
of which is adverse to a second advent. 

The predictions of the book have been unfulfilled, 



284 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

neither is it likely that most of them await accomplish 
ment in the future. One thing is prominently expressed, 
the hope of the universal triumph of the Christian 
church, which may be accepted as a well-founded idea 
destined to be realised. But unfulfilled predictions need 
not be a stumbling-block to the reader, since they are 
not absent from other portions of the New Testament, 
as well as from the Old. As the pictures and ideas of 
the book proceed for the most part from the author s 
imagination, no objective things will put the element 
of foreknowledge into them. It is vain therefore to 
look for secular history in the Revelation. It contains 
neither a syllabus of the world s progress nor of the 
Roman empire. Neither is it a history of the Church 
itself ; a great event soon to happen is portrayed. The 
author s horizon is dim and limited. His glances at 
the immediate past are brief ; he does not dwell upon 
the present, but has respect to the near future where a 
mighty phenomenon filled the sphere of his vision 
the coming of the Lord Jesus, inaugurated by judg 
ments and catastrophes connected with the downfall of 
paganism. 

These remarks are sustained by the prologue and 
epilogue. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that 
hear the words of this prophecy ; for the time is at 
hand. The revelation of Jesus Christ which God 
gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which 
must shortly come to pass. He which testifieth these 
things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so 
come, Lord Jesus. 

GENERAL STRUCTURE. 

The work is disposed on a symmetrical but artificial 
plan, a knowledge of which is the safest guide to a right 
perception of the vision -drapery. Seven is the leading 
number throughout. There are seven spirits before the 



THE REVELATION. 285 

Father s throne, seven epistles to seven churches, seven 
stars, seven candlesticks, seven seals, seven eyes, seven 
horns, seven angels, seven trumpets, seven vials, seven 
heads on the beast, seven thunders. Subdivisions of 
this number are three and four. The phases of the 
future are three, seals, trumpets, and vials. The first 
four scenes in each of these are closely connected, being 
separated from the following by a concluding figure. 
The seventh trumpet brings the description of three 
enemies, the dragon, the beast with seven heads and ten 
horns, and another beast. The number seven is also 
subdivided into three and a half ; or a time, times, and 
half a time (xii. 14). Thus some numbers play an 
important part in the arrangement and determine the 
general method of the work. The interpreter must 
carefully distinguish between the normal and the sub 
ordinate. Stuart has made too much of this principle of 
numerosity as he terms it, without a proper discernment 
of the numbers. Instead of making three the most 
conspicuous in the author s plan, he should have made 
seven. Three and four are less prominent, being parts 
of seven. Ten and twelve do not belong to the general 
disposition. Zullig is right in assigning the cardinal 
number, 1 and his American accuser wrong;. 

o 
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. 

The apocalyptic picture consists of visions like those 
of Daniel. The descriptions, colours, symbols, figures, 
are taken from the Old Testament prophets, especially 
Zechariah, Ezekiel, and the author of Daniel s book. 
Fourth Esdras and the book of Enoch also supplied 
ideas. John lived in the Old Testament prophecies of 
a Messianic future. His originality lies in the combina 
tion of scattered views and the artificial construction 
of his book, out of which a patent unity rises. He 

1 Die Offetibaruny Johannis vollstimdiy erklart, Einleitung, p. 120, et seq. 



286 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

revises existing apocalyptic elements, expands the great 
Hebrew theocratic conception, adapting it to the pro 
gress of events, and forms all his materials, borrowed or 
otherwise, into a majestic whole vitalised by the breath 
of a fiery genius. 

The future is said to be written in a book with 
seven seals, which Christ alone could open ; and the 
seer is permitted to have a view of its contents. As 
the seals are successively broken, calamities befall the 
righteous, putting their fidelity to the test. After the 
sixth, the believing people are themselves sealed with 
the name of God, for security against subsequent danger. 
When the seventh is opened, seven angels with trumpets 
appear, announcing one after another various punish 
ments on the evil world. The seventh trumpet is 
followed by a description of the hellish powers that 
oppose Messiah, with the announcement of their de 
struction. This is succeeded by the final catastrophe, 
or the outpouring of the vials of divine wrath, and the 
decisive battle. Rome falls by the returning antichris- 
tian emperor, who falls in his turn before the Messiah ; 
the devil is chained for a thousand years, at the end of 
which he is let loose and besieges the holy city, but is 
cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. Then come 
the resurrection, the general judgment, and eternal 
blessedness in the new Jerusalem. The seals, trum 
pets, and vials, are successive phases in the develop 
ment of the great drama. Though parallel in some 
respects, they increase in intensity as they near the 
final catastrophe. 

We need scarcely say that the Messianic hopes of 
the seer were not fulfilled as his fancy projected them, 
though he did not utter them as mere poetry without 
belief in their realisation. The Jews in Jerusalem were 
not separated and purified, as John anticipated. All 
were destroyed, with the holy sanctuary and the city 
itself. Antichrist did not return from the East in the 



THE REVELATION. 287 

person of Nero, to devour and lay waste. Paganism 
indeed fell and Christianity triumphed ; but not so 
soon as represented, nor in that fashion. The first and 
second resurrections, with their associated events, did 
not happen. Nor did Christ come personally, destroy 
ing opposing powers in order to set up his everlasting 
kingdom. Yet He came again by his spirit. His 
religion conquered heathenism. Imperial Rome fell. 
The non-fulfilment of the seer s hopes in one direction 
arose from the fact that they were essentially Jewish 
Christian. Had they been of the purely evangelical 
type, they would have presented a different aspect. 
Without objective sensuousness or close imitations of 
Daniel s visions, they would have grasped the living 
power of religion as Jesus preached it when He was on 
earth, accompanied with the Spirit s operation on the 
hearts and lives of men. Above all, the universal love 
of God, that great motive power which regenerates 
mankind, would have filled John s soul. But in spite of 
the Judaic Christianity that runs through the book, 
and the forms which its descriptions borrow from 
surrounding circumstances, a few great ideas lie at 
the foundation. Stripping off the temporal and indi 
vidual characteristics that make up the body of it, we 
come to the apostle s inner conviction, that evil con 
centrates itself in new forms ; that the power of the 
world however strong, cannot reach the heart of 
religion, though it may damage its outworks ; and 
that good alone, trodden to the ground as it may 
be, shall ultimately triumph. 

The work may be divided into three parts, viz. the 
introduction consisting of i. iii. ; the body, made up 
of a series of visions, iv.-xxii. 5 ; and the epilogue, 
xxii. 6-21. 

1. This portion contains an inscription (i. 13) and 
dedication (i. 4-8), with the direct address, and letters 
to the seven churches of Asia. 



288 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

2. The body of the work may be divided into two 
parts : iv.-ix., and x.-xxii. 5. 

3. The epilogue contains four pieces, viz. the con 
clusion of the visions, xxii. 6-9 ; the close of the pro 
phecy, xxii. 10-17 ; the seer s final remarks, xxii. 18- 
20 ; and the end of the epistle, xxii. 21. 

As the early Christians believed that Christ would 
speedily come again, and associated with that event the 
destruction of his enemies, the prophet paints the over 
throw of heathenism identified with the Roman empire. 
That empire again is symbolised by its head Nero, who 
had recently fallen by his own hand. The story that 
Nero was not really dead, but had retired to the 
Euphrates, whence he should return with a Parthian 
army, is described here by a Christian poet. The be 
lief in Nero s survival was widespread among heathens 
and Jews. Dio Chrysostom speaks of it ; and the 
author of the Sibylline oracle v., or at least the Jewish 
parts of it, mentions him as returning from Parthia to 
which he had fled. So, too, the author of the fourth 
Sibylline oracle. The belief was prevalent in the latter 
half of the first century ; and it is difficult to imagine 
that it arose independently of the Revelation of John. 
Nero is antichrist ; Satanic antichrist opposed to Mes 
siah. This interpretation is at least as old as Commodian 
(A.D. 270). The Roman power is personified and em 
bodied in Nero, who should reappear in the character of 
antichrist. The great persecutor of the Christians at 
that particular crisis was readily identified with anti 
christ, because he elevated himself against Christ, and 
his cruelties had struck terror into the pious. Thus the 
Apocalypse exhibits the triumph of Christianity over 
paganism, which is tantamount to its universal victory. 
There is a gradual preparation for the catastrophe which 
ushers in the triumph. Dramatic scenes precede the 
consummation ; and the reader is led on, step by step, to 
the final issue. 



THE REVELATION. 289 

Chapters iv.-vi, refer to the book having seven seals 
which none but the Lamb could open. These seals are 
the signs of approaching judgment. After the seventh 
seal, the sounding of seven trumpets takes place, herald 
ing the advance of the judgment (vii.-ix.). 

The 10th chapter is a formal introduction to the 
following division or the second part (xii.-xxii.). The 
sounding of the seventh angel- trumpet is naturally ex 
pected, for with it the judgment really begins ; yet there 
is another delay instead. The scene shifts from heaven 
to earth. A mighty angel descends from heaven, 
terrifying all with the thunder of his voice (x. 1, &c.). 
The llth chapter forms an episode. Before the seventh 
trumpet, Jerusalem is warned, and exhorted to repent 
in time. Moses and Ellas, significant of the law and 
prophets, testify in blood as witnesses of the Lamb. 
The next vision describes the enemy of the Church, or 
the incipient execution of the judgment (xii.-xiii.), 
which is succeeded by the vision of the seven vials, 
that is, the wrathful judgment itself (xiv.-xvi.) issu 
ing in the fall of Babylon, or the final overthrow of 
heathenism (xvii.-xix.). The last vision relates to the 
New Jerusalem, the consummation and sequel of the 
judgment (xx.-xxii.). 

The first four seals are distinguished from the last 
three. The fifth checks the ardent hopes of the Chris 
tians, and puts back the time of the end for a little ; form 
ing an episode in which the souls of martyrs cry for 
vengeance on their heathen persecutors. After the sixth 
is opened, it appears that men have not long to wait, 
since the heathen rulers and magistrates flee from im 
pending retribution. Even then, however, dominion is 
not given to the saints. The scene shifts, and a new 
vision is interposed. Angels seal the people of God. 
At the opening of the seventh seal, the end is still de 
ferred. There is a short period of breathless expecta 
tion. The import of the last seal is unfolded by means 
VOL. r. u 



290 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

of the seven trumpets and seven vials, each bringing the 
final catastrophe nearer and nearer. This repeated post 
ponement of the end shows the deep feeling of the 
prophet and serves to keep expectation alive. 

A brief survey of some phenomena will throw light 
on the meaning of the book. 

1. It is difficult to discover a connection between 
the llth and 12th chapters. The 10th forms a tran 
sition to the second part of the work, and the llth 
intervenes. The little book mentioned in x. 1, is the 
same as the book in v. 1. It is a little book, because its 
contents are concentrated in a focus. What had hitherto 
been idea and vision to the prophet, now becomes histo 
rical and actual. The scene shifts from heaven to earth. 
Hence the seer says in xii. 18 (xiii. 1), I stood upon 
the sand of the sea ; L whereas he had been taken up 
to heaven at the commencement of the first part (iv. 1). 
The preparations for the impending event take place in 
heaven. When it is on the eve of accomplishment, 
earth is the theatre. 

2. The beast with seven heads and ten horns rising 
up out of the sea symbolises the Roman power. The 
seven heads are identical with the seven kings or em 
perors ; and the ten horns are the ten proconsuls, im 
perial vicegerents in the thirty provinces. The head, 
slain as it were, yet having its deadly wound healed, 
represents Nero. The dragon which gave power to the 
beast is Satan (xiii. 4). The same beast is depicted in 
xvii. 3 as scarlet-coloured, full of names of blasphemy. 
The woman on the beast is the great city Babylon or 
Rome, the metropolis of spiritual harlotry. The second 
beast, or the false prophet who helps the first beast, is a 
personification of heathen prophecy, including magic, 
astrology, auguries, omens, &c., supporting the idola 
trous paganism concentrated in Roman imperalism. It 

1 ca-Tadrjv as Tischendorf rightly reads; not eVrafy, which Lachmann 
has. 



THE REVELATION. 291 

is improbable to refer the false prophet to the Emperor 
Vespasian as Hildebrandt does ; and all but absurd to 
identify him with Paul, because the apostle recommends 
every soul to be subject to the reigning sovereign Nero, 
in the epistle to the Romans (xiii. 1, &c.). Yet Yolk- 
mar puts forth the conjecture. 

3. The number of the beast is said to be the number 
of a man, 666 (xiii. 18). This is made up of the numeral 
letters in Ccesar Nero. 1 A shorter form of Nero 2 would 
make 616, which is a very ancient reading for 666, as 
we learn from Irenseus. Objection has been made to 
this explanation, that the author writes in Greek not 
Hebrew ; but his style of thought is Hebrew. 

4. After the fourth angel sounds his trumpet, a three 
fold woe is announced in viii. 13. In ix. 12 it is said 
that the first woe, corresponding to the fifth trumpet 
sound, is past and that two more are to come. In xi. 
14 the second woe is past, i and behold the third woe 
cometh quickly. Yet the third woe is not mentioned 
afterwards. When or where did it come ? Hengsten- 
berg affirms, that the third woe and seventh trumpet- 
sound are in xi. 15-19 ; and explains the point arbi 
trarily. With Baur, 8 we find the third woe in xvi. 15, 
i Behold I come as a thief. 7 The Lord s sudden coming 
is identical with it. 

5. Some have thought that the llth chapter de 
scribes a catastrophe befalling Jerusalem, similar to that 
which afterwards happened to Rome. In this view, 
the fall of Judaism and the fall of heathenism are lead 
ing phenomena in the book. Accordingly Eichhorn, 
Heinrichs, and others suppose the general theme to be 
Christianity triumphing over Judaism as well as pagan 
ism. This is incorrect. What happens to Jerusalem is 
not a final catastrophe or total destruction, but a partial 

1 p = 100, D = 60, "1 = 200; 3 = 50, 1 = 200, 1 = 6, 3 = 50, i.e. p-|J IDp, 
making 660. 

2 1i: instead of pnj. 

3 Theologische Jahrbuchcr von Baur und Zeller, 3d. p. 441 , et seq. 

IT 2 



292 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

judgment or purifying process, which is only a subordi 
nate scene in the drama of preparatory phenomena. 
Jerusalem is not destroyed but preserved. The theo 
cratic seed is spared. Believing Judaism is still an object 
of the divine favour. The author, himself a Jew, with 
patriotic feelings which Christianity did not quench, 
supposes that the city and outer court of the temple 
should be trodden down by the heathen for three years 
and a half, a number taken down from Daniel ; but that 
the temple itself should be spared, with the worshippers 
in it, during that period. James the Just was there, 
and other Jewish Christians, praying for the salvation of 
the nation. This is very different from the fate of Rome, 
the persecuting and implacable enemy of the Christians, 
doomed to total destruction. Jerusalem should only 
suffer in part and for a season. The holy city should 
be spared, and the faithful inhabitants protected by 
Jehovah, while the unbelieving Jews should be de 
stroyed. A comparatively small portion of the city 
falls (the tenth), and only seven thousand of the inhabi 
tants ; the majority being saved by penitence. If the 
issue did not correspond to the hopes of the prophet we 
need not be surprised. Inspiration did not enable him 
to predict definite events, though his sympathies were 
right and true. The chapter should not be resolved 
into mere symbol, as it is by Eichhom and Stuart. 

6. The millennium, or thousand years reign of the 
saints, has given rise to much discussion. Among the 
New Testament writers, it is peculiar to the apocalyp- 
tist; though many Rabbins held it, as Gfrorer has shown. 1 
The common view of the early Christians was, that 
the righteous and wicked should rise, with a short time 
intervening, and be judged by Christ, John separates 
the two resurrections by a long interval. The so-called 
first resurrection, including Jews only, is in Daniel 
xii. 2, &c.; the separation of the two by a thousand years 

1 Das Jahrhundert des Heils, ii. p. 198, et seq., 210. 



THE REV ELATION. 293 

is peculiar to the Apocalypse writer. There is no trace 
of millennarianism in the fourth gospel, where Christ s 
judgment and condemnation appear to be taken spiritu 
ally. The chaining and loosing of Satan during the 
period and at the end of it respectively, together with 
the attack of the heathen powers on the followers of the 
Lamb, are also unique. Such ideas do not agree well 
with Christ s discourse in the 24th chapter of the first 
gospel ; nor are they in harmony with Paul s sentiments 
(1 Cor. xv. 23-28 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15-17). In Paul s 
doctrine no definite duration is assigned to the period 
between the appearing of Christ with the first resurrec 
tion w r hich is that of Christians, and the end with the 
resurrection of all, when He gives up the sovereignty to 
God. The time of Christ s visible government of the 
world until the end of all things is left indeterminate ; 
and it is characterised by unceasing war against hostile 
powers, and the conquering of them ; while the Apoca- 
lyptist regards it as the reign of undisturbed blessedness 
during which Christ and his saints are visibly united ; 
Satan being bound and powerless. The two writers 
agree in supposing an interval between the second 
advent and the end of the world, in other words between 
the first and second resurrections ; they differ not 
merely in Paul s silence as to the duration of that in 
terval, but in the way Christ exercises his sovereignty. 
The Pauline idea is that foes will war and be overcome ; 
the Apocalyptic, that there will be nothing but uninter 
rupted happiness. In giving expression to hopes and 
aspirations, the seer paints a subjective state for which no 
objective correspondence in the future should be looked 
for. That it is merely ideal, is apparent from certain, 
incongruities, such as the risen saints having their camp 
beside the earthly Jerusalem, and being attacked by 
heathen nations ; as well as from the existence of heathen 
enemies, after all the inhabitants of the earth are slain 
(xix.21). 



294 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

A millennium was not unknown to the Jewish 
Christians, to whom it came from the later Jews, who had 
speculated about the age of the world and its seven 
thousand years duration. The combination of Psalm 
xc. 4 with the seven days of creation led to the infer 
ence of seven thousand. It was natural to look for a 
happy period among the seven ; and some fixed upon 
the last. Thus the millennium of John is an offspring 
of the later Judaism. 1 

7. As to the period described in the last two 
chapters, that of the new heavens and new earth, 
most interpreters take it to be what is commonly called 
heaven ; while some, as Hammond, Hug, and Bush, 
think it alludes to a flourishing state of the Church on 
earth. These views are substantially one, since the re 
newed earth with the happiness of the saints upon it 
coincides with heaven in the writer s imagination. 
The ideas and imagery are taken from Isai. liv. 
11, 12 ; Ix. 3, 11 ; Ixv. 17-20 ; Ixvi. 22. The future 
renovation of the earth was a prevailing notion among 
the Jews, after their captivity in Babylon. In this 
case John drew from the Deutero-Isaiah and his own 
imagination. His ideal hopes are, that heaven and 
earth should become one in the future kingdom of 
Messiah. Heaven descends to earth, and earth becomes 
heaven. The holy Church in her triumphant state is 
the fulfilment of all that was associated with ancient 
Jerusalem in the Hebrew heart. She is depicted as 
God s dwelling-place, the sacred city, new Jerusalem, 
the chaste spouse of Christ, the Lamb s wife. This is the 
ultimate aim of all apocalyptic prophecy, the completion 
of the mystery of God. The picture which is mainly ideal, 
embodies the writer s conceptions of the consummation 
of the Christian Church, or in other words, the everlasting 

1 See Tanchmna, fol. 255, 1 ; Gemara Aboda Sara I. p. 65, ed. Edz. 
Sanhedrin, fol. 97. 2, 92. 1 ; Pesikta in Yalkut Shimoni II. fol, 56, c. 3> 
u. 359 ; Eisemnenger s Entdeckt. Jud. torn. n. pp. 652, 678, etc. 



THE REVELATION. 2t>5 

happiness of the righteous. To attempt to find parti 
culars corresponding to the figures employed would be 
to convert poetry into prose. The ideas of the seer 
should be left indefinite, else their beauty vanishes. No 
mystic meaning lies in the details of his picture. 
Elements expressive of magnificence and splendour are 
combined to give rhetorical beauty to the composition. 
A new Jerusalem symbolises a state of pure hap 
piness ; since Jewish ideas of earthly greatness and ex 
cellence were centred in the beloved city. A Jewish 
Christian such as John, cannot separate the glorious 
future of earth and heaven from the loved metropolis 
of his sires. 

8. The Apocalypse keeps to the Jewish Christian 
standpoint throughout. Jews and Gentiles are not 
merged in a common description of the saved ; they are 
distinguished from one another, an d the latter usually 
appear outside the Messianic kingdom. Even in the 
millennium, they are separate from the Judaic Chris 
tians ; and when the kingdom of God is completed, 
they are external (xx. 8 ; xxi. 24 ; xxii. 2). This is 
un- Pauline. Hilgenfeld also remarks that the author s 
Jewish Christianism is coloured with Essenism, because 
the court that is without the temple (xi. 2) containing 
the altar of burnt offering is consigned to destruction ; 
and the Essenes refrained from bloody sacrifices. The 
elect saints are also termed virgins not defiled with 
women (xiv. 4) ; and the Essenes attached great virtue 
to celibacy. The apostle himself was unmarried, accord 
ing to ancient tradition. 



CANONICITY AND VALUE. 

It is usually thought that the question of author 
ship affects canonicity and value. Yet the book may 
not have proceeded from an apostle and be equal in 
worth to any apostolic production. It is not of essen- 



296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

tial moment that the Revelation should be written by a 
son of Zebedee. Value does not depend on canonicity 
but contents. Degrees of excellence attach to the 
canonical writings. We are far from denying that 
authorship is of consequence ; but it is not of the 
highest. The man who composed the fourth gospel, 
and John the apostle, would necessarily write differently, 
because their mental development was unequal. Though 
inspired, their ideas and the mode of expressing them 
might still differ. Apostles themselves were not equally 
gifted. The Apocalypse is not of the same authority as 
if it had been written by Paul. Its -Judaic texture, the 
story respecting Nero coming back from the East with 
a Parthian army after he had taken away his own life, and 
the part which that emperor occupies in the apocalyptic 
prophecy generally, do not consist with Pauline senti 
ments. The inquirer feels that the more he examines 
the stronger is his belief that the book breathes another 
spirit than that of the fourth gospel, and disagrees with 
the Church s destination. The proper evangelical senti 
ment which we see in Matt. xxiv. 14, Horn. xi. 25, 
is in the background ; and the general tone clashes with 
Mark xiii. 32. The book has a lower standpoint than 
the Pauline epistles or the fourth gospel. Yet it has ex 
erted a great spiritual influence upon mankind. A 
certain moral expression running through its symbo 
lical descriptions tells with much power upon the suscep 
tible Christian. In moving and strengthening the soul, 
in bearing it upward to the throne of God amid suffer 
ing, sorrow, and persecution, in attracting its sympathies 
towards the faithful followers of the Lamb, and in ex 
citing aspirations which can only be realised in the new 
Jerusalem so gorgeously painted at the close, its pro 
phetic utterances have a singular value. The general 
strain is elevating. Alluring promises console the 
righteous ; awful warnings deter them from unfaithful 
ness to their vocation ; the Almighty s vengeance 



THE REVELATION. 297 

appals the wicked. The grandeur of the book urges 
the spirit forward in the difficult path of duty, with the 
hope of a glorious crown, a golden harp, celestial fruits, 
refreshing waters of the river of life ; the hope of living 
and reigning with Christ in perpetual blessedness. The 
lower place which the work occupies in sketching early 
Christianity is not seen till its various contents are 
examined. 

SCHEMES OF INTERPRETATION. 

Schemes of interpretation, preterist, continuous, and 
future, adopted by different commentators must be re 
jected, except the first. Expositors of the continuous 
and futurist class fall into the fatal error of converting 
apocalyptic poetry into historical prose, and of making 
all symbols significant. Nor are preterists free from 
blame. In applying their principle of interpretation 
they are sure to err, if they try to show that all was 
fulfilled in the immediate future ; or that the seer was 
infallibly guided in his prognostications and hopes. The 
apostle s standpoint should be correctly estimated. The 
mode in which the old prophets depicted the future 
should be known, not as if they were able to predict 
definite events succeeding one another, but as they saw 
dimly the things to which their enraptured spirits were 
carried forward, and painted them in ideal colours. 
Their own sentiments, hopes, desires, and fears, are 
elements in the pictures they draw pictures whose 
general outline alone should be considered real to them 
though it may not be so to us. 

ERRORS INTO WHICH EXPOSITORS HAVE FALLEN. 

To enumerate all the mistakes committed by inter 
preters would be impossible. We can only glance at 
a few. 

1. If the historic basis be abandoned, imagination 



298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

has ample range for extravagance. The author did not 
forego time and place ; elements that cannot safely be 
neglected. He states that the things must shortly come 
to pass, and that the time is at hand. These expressions 
are significant as to the period of the visions. The 
advent of Christ is announced to take place within a 
short time. One city is the theatre of sublime and 
terrible occurrences, Babylon built on seven hills, 
Rome, the representative of heathenism or antichristian 
idolatry. The judgment culminates in the catastrophe 
of Rome s downfall which is succeeded by the new 
Jerusalem. Historic personages of John s time appear. 
Seven Roman emperors are alluded to ; one in particular. 
Unless the expositor adhere to the historic present and 
immediate future of the seer, he will lose himself in 
endless conjecture. Jewish ideas of Messiah s advent 
should be known as well as Jewish Christian ones. The 
prophet stands in the historical circumstances of his own 
time, and describes the second advent in a series of 
dramatic visions. 

2. It is a fundamental mistake to look for a detailed 
history of the Church, or of leading events in the world s 
history that affect Christianity. Some find an epitome 
of the Church s history even in the epistles to the seven 
churches. Others find it in the remainder of the book ; 
others, in both together. Accordingly particular events 
are assigned to particular periods ; persons are specified, 
peoples characterised, and definite names assigned. In 
this fashion the vicissitudes through which the Chris 
tian religion has passed in the world are supposed to be 
sketched. The allegorising process by which such in 
terpretation is supported, cannot be repudiated too 
strongly. Though it has had able advocates, Vitringa, 
Mede, Faber, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Auberlen, and 
Hofmann, it is inconsistent with the scope of the 
Apocalypse and the analogy of prophecy. 

3. We should not look for a circumstance, event > 



THE REVELATION. 299 

person, or nation corresponding to the images of the 
seer. All the particular traits in this large work/ says 
Hug, are by no means significant. Many are intro 
duced only to enliven the representation, or are taken 
from the prophets and sacred books for the purpose ol 
ornament ; and no one who has any judgment in such 
matters, will deny that the work is extraordinarily rich 
and gorgeous for a production of Western origin. 1 
This plain principle has been systematically violated by 
most English commentators. Thus one of them, in 
explaining the language descriptive of the effect of the 
fifth angel-trumpet (ix. 1, &c.), pronounces the star 
fallen from heaven, Mohammed. The secret cave of 
Hera near Mecca, is the pit of the abyss whence the 
pestilential fumes and darkness issued. The key of the 
abyss was given him in contrast to the key of God in 
the Koran. The locusts to which the Saracens are 
compared are peculiarly Arabic, since the very name of 
the one suggests the other, both being similar in pro 
nunciation and radicals ! 2 If the absurdity of this 
method needs exposure, the reader has only to look 
farther at the hypotheses respecting the two witnesses 
in the llth chapter, which Ebrard reviving an old view 
refers to the law and the gospel ; and another has as 
sumed to be the Son and Spirit of God ; whereas the 
whole description shows them to be Moses and Elias. 
In like manner, the fourth vial being referred to the 
wars of the French revolution, the words power was 
given him to scorch men with fire (xvi. 8) allude to 
Napoleon, who employed artillery to an unprecedented 
extent, and inflicted fiery suffering both on his own 
nation and others. The men thus scorched blas 
phemed the name of God who had power over these 
plagues, and repented not to give him glory (xvi. 9), 
meaning that the suffering nations during that fearful 
period (1789-1809) did not renounce the papal apo- 

1 Fosdick s translation, p. 668. 2 n3"]8 and iny ! 



300 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

stasy for a purer faith ! Another expositor says, that 
the woman in the 12th chapter l represents the cove 
nant of redemption ; and the child to be brought forth, 
the righteousness provided by the covenant ; that is, 
the destined means of counteracting the power of the 
legal accuser or avenger the means of delivering the 
sinner from a yoke even worse than that of Egyptian 
bondage. 

4. The principle of synchronism has been largely 
adopted by interpreters since the days of Mede and 
Vitringa ; an explanation and defence of it being given 
in the clavis apocalyptica (apocalyptic key) of the for 
mer. A scheme so ingenious has been followed by the 
majority of English expositors. The same events, it is 
said, are represented by a succession of symbols, the 
symbols being varied while the things signified are the 
same. Instead of the book being continuously pro 
gressive, it is progressive and retrogressive throughout. 

The principle in question is connected with that in 
terpretation which finds an historical epitome in the 
book, and stands or falls with it. The series of visions 
is progressive ; but, as the events which the seer depicts 
are the same, the progression is prophetic. It is not a 
description of successive events, but an ideal picture 
with dramatic unfolding. 

5. As to the designations of time, those who take a 
day for a year cannot establish the truth of their opi 
nion. In prophecy, a day means a day as elsewhere, 
unless the time be indefinite ; as has been proved by 
Maitland and Stuart. But most numbers in the Reve 
lation should be taken indefinitely, because they are 
part of a poetic costume borrowed from the Old Testa 
ment. 

6. The peculiar exegesis which refers the book to 
heretics and sectaries, began in the thirteenth century ; 
and it was the Romish church which set the example 
of it. Innocent III., in rousing up the Crusade, said 



THE REVELATION. 301 

that the Saracens were the true antichrist, Mohammed 
the false prophet, and 666 years the duration of his 
power. As the church of Rome grew more corrupt, its 
opponents turned the descriptions of the book against 
it. The pope was identified with antichrist ; and Rome 
papal with the great whore of Babylon. 1 Since the 
Reformation, Protestants have generally found the 
papacy and its destruction, in the book. Antipapal exe 
gesis has as much foundation as Rome s antiheretic one. 

o 

Signor Pastorini applies the sounding of the fifth 
trumpet (ix. 1-11) to Luther, who renouncing his faith 
and vows, may be said to have fallen. When he opened 
the door of hell, there issued forth a thick smoke, or a 
strong spirit of seduction which had been hatched in 
hell. 2 A Protestant parallel to this absurd exposition 
applies the beast in chapters xiii., xvii. to the succession 
of popes. 

1 See Liicke, Eirdeitung, pp. 1005, 1006, 2nd ed. 

2 The General History of the Christian Church, chiefly deduced from the 
Apocalypse of St. John, p. 170, et seq. 5th ed. 1812. 



302 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 



A SERIES of epistles, distinct from Paul s, are called 
catholic. They form a peculiar collection, and are seven 
in number, the alleged writings of James, Peter, John, 
and Jude. The origin of the appellation catholic is not 
clear. 

An examination of patristic testimony respecting it 
leads to the following results : 

1. The term catholic meant no more at first than 
intended for a wide circle of readers. Its application to 
New Testament writings was early made by Papias and 
Poly carp to the first epistles of John and Peter ; dis 
tinguishing them from Paul s, which were commonly 
addressed to churches or individuals. Thus Clement of 
Alexandria speaks of the epistle of the apostles to the 
church at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 22-29) as a catholic 
epistle. 1 Apollonius relates of a Montanist called The- 
mison, that he composed a catholic epistle in imitation of 
the apostle (probably John). 2 Origen speaks of the 
epistle of Barnabas as a catholic epistle. 3 He also refers 
to Peter s catholic epistle, and repeatedly applies the 
same epithet to the first epistle of John. The epistle 
of Jude he designates in the same way, but only in 
passages where the Latin translation alone exists. Dio- 
nysius of Alexandria applies the same word to John s 
first epistle. 4 

2. It was probably in the last half of the third 

1 Stromata, iv. 15, p. 606, ed. Potter. 2 Ap. Eusek H. E. v. 18. 

3 Contra Celsum, i. 63. 4 Ap. Euseb. vii. 25. 



THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 303 

century that the epistles of Jude and James, the second 
of Peter, with the second and third of John, were added 
to the other three, forming with them one collection 
called catholic, because they were publicly read in the 
catholic Christian church. Eusebius does not use 
catholic as synonymous with canonical or apostolic, any 
more than his predecessors. 1 

After the time of Eusebius, when the seven were 
incorporated into the canon and put by the side of the 
Pauline collection, the appellation was gradually iden 
tified with canonical or apostolic, sooner in the Latin 
church than the Greek. Hence Junilius speaks of the 
seven as canonical, meaning apostolic? and Cassiodorus 
follows him. 3 Thus the error became rooted in the 
Latin church that the catholic epistles are canonical or 
apostolic. Some think that they find a trace of catholic 
becoming equivalent to canonical in the Muratorian 
fragment, but the text is too uncertain to warrant that 
conclusion. 4 

In the majority of ancient MSS. the catholic epistles 
follow the Acts of the Apostles, and precede those of 
Paul. Lachmami and Tischendorf arrange them so in 
their editions of the Greek Testament. The Sinaitic 
MS. has them immediately before the Revelation, which 
is the usual position. The first epistles of John and 
Peter obtained general recognition sooner than the 
rest. Papias had already received them. The letters 
of James and Jude, which were considered unapostolic 
at first and therefore uncanonical, were afterwards put 
with the others ; while the second and third of John 
formed an appendix to the rest. When the second of 
Peter was adopted, it could only be placed after the first, 
though its alleged authorship was doubted much longer 
than any of the seven, and has always raised suspicions. 

1 Hist. Eccles. iii. 3. 2 De Partibus Leyis Divince, i. G. 

3 De Institutione Divinarum Scripturarum, c. 8. 

4 Epistola sane Judas et superscriptio Johannis duas in catkolica haben- 
tur. To catholica, ecclesia may be supplied. Bunsen corrects it into catholicis. 



304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 



THE JAMESES. 

THREE PERSONS bearing the name of James are men 
tioned in the New Testament. 

First. James the son of Zebedee and brother of 
John, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa as related 
in the Acts, about A.D. 44. He is commonly styled the 
greater or elder. 

Secondly. James the son of Alpheus is mentioned 
(Matt. x. 3; Mark in. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13). 
Mark says that his mother s name was Mary (xv. 40), 
which Mary is said to be the wife of Cleophas in John 
xix. 25. Cleophas and Alpheus are probably identical; 
the former a Hebraising, the latter a Greek form of the 
same word. This James is usually styled the less, either 
because he was younger than the other, or less in 
stature. 

Thirdly. Another James is spoken of as the Lord s 
brother (Gal. i. 19 ; Josephus s Antiqq. xx. ch. ix. 1). 
The same is meant in 1 Cor. xv. 7. 

Some identify the last two, arguing that a narrative 
in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as quoted by 
flerome, represents James the Just, the Lord s brother, 
as present at the breaking of bread, after the resurrec 
tion ; that the superscription of the old apocryphal Gos 
pel of James assumes the same view; that Papias, 
Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theo- 
doret held their identity ; that only two of the name 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 305 

appear in the Acts ; that the James who occupies a 
prominent place in Jerusalem after the death of Zebe- 
dee s son, is not distinguished from the son of Alpheus ; 
that lie is not specified as one of the Lord s brethren in 
Acts i. 14 ; but on the contrary is reckoned among the 
apostles in Gal. i. 19, according to the most natural ex 
planation of the passage. These and other considera 
tions which have been urged, are not conclusive. They 
are weakened by the fact, that the identification of the 
two Jameses is usually accompanied by the belief that 
James was son of Mary, sister of Mary the mother of 
Jesus and wife of Cleophas, which is founded on John 
xix. 25, where Mary, wife of Cleophas, is apparently 
called a sister of the Virgin Mary. Perhaps, however, 
the construction does not require this. If four females 
instead of three are spoken of in the passage, the diffi 
culty of two sisters having the same name is removed ; 
and the sister of Jesus s mother is Salome, mother of 
Zebedee s children. In any case, the Greek word trans 
lated brother, should not be taken for cousin or relative 
(Gal. i. 19), as it is by those who identify James the 
Lord s brother with the son of Alpheus. 

Notwithstanding all that is urged by Lange l in fa 
vour of the two Jameses being identical, it is more 
probable that they were different persons. The earliest 
ecclesiastical writers separated them, commencing with 
Hegesippus, a native of Palestine. Eusebius, Gregory 
of Nyssa, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Clementines, 
and the majority of the fathers, held them to be different. 
In no catalogue of the apostles does James the son of 
Alpheus appear as the Lord s brother. It is true that 
we read in Gal. i. 19, other of the apostles saw I none, 
save James, the Lord s brother, words which appear to 
put James the Lord s brother among the apostles, and 
so to identify him with the son of Alpheus ; but this 
interpretation is not necessary, for the meaning may be, 

1 In Ifcrzof/s Ena/ldopiidie. 
VOL. I. X 



306 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

another of the apostles I did not see, except that, in 
addition to Peter, I saw James. l This version is pos 
sible, as Winer, Fritzsche, and others admit. 

Adopting, as we do, the diversity of the two Jameses 
in question, the Lord s brother was either full brother 
or half-brother to Jesus, for 

(a.) Such is the primary and natural signification 
of the Greek word rendered brother, corroborated by its 
usage in Josephus. No example of its extended applica 
tion to cousin or relative can be found in the New Testa 
ment. Appeal has been made to Matt. i. 11, where the 
term is said to mean uncle ; but that is doubtful. Nor 
can the fathers be quoted for examples of the wider 
sense, since it is very questionable whether the passages 
in Eusebius, 2 to which Kern and others refer, and one 
from Hegesippus in the same historian, 3 prove the ex 
tended use of the term. A wide sense like that of the 
corresponding Hebrew word is possible, but it is without 
precedent in the New Testament. 

(&.) The brethren of Jesus appear in close connection 
with his mother (Matt. xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3 ; John ii. 
12), so that it is natural to consider them her sons. 

(V.) These brothers did not believe on him (John vii. 
5), at a time when James son of Alpheus had been 
chosen an apostle. 

(d.) In Acts i. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5, the brethren are 
distinguished from the apostles. 

We believe, therefore, that the brethren of the Lord, 
James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, Judas, were Jesus s 
brothers, and that none of them was in the list of apo 
stles. They were not sons of Alpheus, consequently 
James the Lord s brother is a different person from 
James son of Alpheus. In what sense were the four, 
brothers of Jesus ? The account given by Epiphanius 
and Theophylact is, that Cleophas and Joseph were 

1 IJ.T) qualifies the whole sentence and not merely the word a7roo-roAa>i>. 
2 Hist. Eccles. ii. 4 ; iv. 5. 3 Ibid. iv. 22. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 307 

brothers. The former dying without issue, Joseph 
married his brother s widow and had children, agree 
ably to the Levitical law. James, the first-born, was 
hence called the son of Cleophas. This is improbable. 
Many have thought that the four were Joseph s sons by 
a former wife, an opinion drawn from apocryphal gospels, 
according to Jerome. It is most likely that the four 
brethren of Jesus were born after him, being the sons 
of Joseph and Mary. This agrees with the epithet first 
born applied to Jesus in Luke ii. 7. If he was the first 
born, Mary must have had other children. 

It has been objected, that our Lord, before expiring 
on the cross, committed his mother to the care of John 
the son of Zebedee. Had James been her son or even 
her stepson, it is alleged that Jesus would not have 
transferred the charge of his mother to one who did not 
sustain that relation. This argument derives its value 
from the implied assumption that the brethren had be 
come believers at the time ; if they continued to reject 
his Messiahship, it is not probable that she would have 
been entrusted to the care of any of them. Besides, the 
statement is hardly historical. 

There are various allusions to James the Lord s 
brother in the Acts of the Apostles and Paul s epistles 
(xii. 17 ; xv. 13 ; xxi. 18, &c. ; Gal. i. 19 ; ii. 9, 12 ; 
1 Cor. xv. 7). He occupied a high official station in 
the church of Jerusalem, being bishop there according 
to tradition. Whether his influence was due to age, 
personal character, or official position, it is impossible to 
determine. After the death of Festus the procurator, 
he suffered martyrdom in a tumult at the temple, as 
told by Josephus and Eusebius. The exact circum 
stances of his death cannot be ascertained, though Euse 
bius occupies with them a large part of one chapter in 
his history, quoting Hegesippus, Clement, and Josephus. 
His narrative has been suspected of falsification by 
Christian hands, perhaps without reason. Hegesippus s 

x 2 



308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

has fabulous materials, and does not agree well with 
Josephus s as to the time of James s martyrdom; though 
Hilgenfeld tries to make them concordant. One thing 
is well attested, viz. that James was stoned by the Jews 
in A.D. 62, according to Josephus, who places his death 
in the interval between the decease of the procurator 
Porcius Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus. 
Hegesippus s account as given by Eusebius is repeated 
by Jerome, Epiphanius, and Abdias. Augustine concurs. 
James was styled the just for his eminent virtue and 
ascetic life. 

Mistakes were made at an early period about James 
the Lord s brother. He was confounded with James 
the Greater by Irenams ; and with James the Less by 
Clement of Alexandria. But the Apostolic Constitutions 
separate him from the apostles. In modern times, 
AVieseler, 1 adopting the opinion of Clement, has laboured 
to show that James the son of Alpheus, not James the 
Lord s brother, was the head of the Jerusalem church. 
It is thought that an apostle should occupy a prominent 
position in ecclesiastical matters, instead of being ignored 
in the Acts. Tradition is against this opinion. If 
an apostle be wanted for the head of the church at 
Jerusalem, James the Less and James the Lord s brother 
should be identified. Those who separate them, as 
Wieseler does, and still make the former the promi 
nent one in the Acts, are obliged to distinguish the 
James of Gal. i. 19 from him of Gal. ii. 9-12. 2 We 
believe that three Jameses are spoken of in the New 
Testament ; not two, as those who identify the younger 
apostle with the Lord s brother suppose. And it 
is improbable that the persons called Jesus s brethren 
were so from Joseph s first marriage, so that Mary 
was not their mother. 3 

1 In the Siudien und Kritiken for 1842. 

2 See Bleek s Einleitung, p. 544. 

3 See Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift for 1880, p. 198, etc. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 309 

Various supposititious productions bear the name of 
James (the Lord s brother), such as the Protcvangdium 
Jacobi ; the Diamartyria appended to the first introduc 
tory letter in the Clementine Homilies ; and the Ana- 
bathmoi. These are Ebionite productions. 

AUTHORSHIP. 

James the Elder died too early to allow of the sup 
position that he wrote the epistle. Yet the subscription 
of the old Latin version published by Martianay and 
Sabatier (ff) assigns it to him. The subscriptions of 
the Peshito in the editions of Widmansted, Tremellius, 
and Trost, probably ascribe it to James the Less, though 
they have no more than the apostle James. It must either 
have been written by, or in the name of, James the 
Lord s brother, or James son of Alpheus. Most of 
the early fathers attribute it to the former ; but internal 
evidence must decide. 

1. The acquaintance which the epistle shows with 
Paul s epistles, especially those to the Romans and Gala- 
tians ; above all its polemic aspect towards the doctrine 
of justification by faith alone, assign it to a somewhat 
late period. 

2. The style of writing is too good for James, being 
pure, elevated, poetical, betraying the influence of Gre 
cian culture. We do not deny that he knew Greek, 
though he lived constantly at Jerusalem; indeed a pas 
sage in Hegesippus, where it is related that the Jews 
wished James to address the people at the passover, 
1 because all the tribes have come together, on account 
of the passover, with the Gentiles also, implies his ac 
quaintance with that language. 1 But all we know of 
him, makes it improbable that he could write such Greek 
as that of the epistle. The diction is remarkable for its 
vivid colouring, its felicitous selection of terms, its rhe- 

1 Ap. Eusel). //. E. ii. 23. 



310 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

torical character ; and could scarcely proceed from a 
Jewish Christian like James, who, presiding over the 
mother church at Jerusalem, thought and spoke in 
Aramsean. The good Greek of the epistle is strange, 
and cannot be explained by the assumption that James 
had grown up in a district entirely Grecised like Galilee. 
Its figurative style tells against him ; although an abrupt 
sententiousness is not wanting. 

3. As far as we know the character of James from 
the New Testament and Hegesippus, it is not in har 
mony with the epistle. He was a narrow, ascetic Jew 
ish Christian who would not have omitted allusion to 
circumcision and the ceremonial law. Herder indeed 
tries to show an agreement with the disposition and 
character of the Lord s brother ; but the whole letter 
harmonises badly with such authorship. 

4. The Jewish Christian standpoint of the writer is 
apparent. He calls Abraham our father, and appeals 
to the word of truth as the royal law, and the perfect 
law of liberty. He uses the word synagogue (ii. 2) not 
church ; and Epiphanius tells us that the Ebionites did 
the same. The moral deterioration of Christians is 
referred in part to the licence of Pauline doctrine which 
set them free from the law ; and the author asserts 
against it, justification by works. Hilgenfeld has 
rightly observed, that the legal Christianity advocated 
by James is coloured with Essene morality. The sen 
timents respecting swearing, riches, and trade coincide 
with those of the Essenes. The writer emphasises 
mercy, exhorts his readers to be swift to hear, slow to 
speak, and slow to wrath admonitions which agree 
with Josephus s description of the sect. The Orphic 
colouring which Hilgenfeld professes to see also, appeal 
ing to the admonition against much speaking and the 
evil produced by the tongue, to the word of truth 
(i. 18), the engrafted word (i. 21), and especially to the 
description of the tongue in iii. 6, is precarious. The 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 311 

writer s Ebionite point of view accounts for the fact 
that the essential doctrines of Christianity, such as 
atonement by the death of Christ, his resurrection, the 
influence of the Holy Spirit, &c., are absent. It has 
no christology, though Pfeiffer and Huther are anxious 
to find one in i. 1 ; neither are distinctive Christian doc 
trines implied in iv. 5, and v. 14, as the latter supposes. 
Had James written it, we should naturally expect some 
mention of Christ s resurrection. But no distinctive 
Christian doctrine appears, not even the fact that Jesus 
approved himself the Messiah by his death and resur 
rection. 

5. If the letter has respect to the doctrine taught 
by Paul, it can scarcely be James s. It is true that the 
bishop of Jerusalem was put to death by the Pharisees 
before Judaism received its death-blow in the destruction 
of the city; but the tendency of the epistle points to a 
time when there was some desire to bring the Pauline 
and Judaising parties nearer to one another. 

6. The letter is professedly addressed to all Jewish 
Christians out of Palestine. But were there churches 
composed of such members? All were made up of 
Jewish and Gentile believers ; the larger proportion 
being Gentiles. Churches were of a mixed character, 
except in Palestine. Wiesinger therefore may well ask, 
Where shall we look for the Jewish Christians out of 
Palestine which will satisfy the requirements of the 
epistle? a question not answered by a reference to Acts 
ii. 5-11; xi. 19, &c., because the passages are far from 
implying the extensive establishment of Jewish Chris 
tian churches immediately after Pentecost, even if the 
accounts were literally exact. The earliest history, so 
far from containing a clear trace of such churches 
widely scattered through the lands, disproves their 
multiplication. Does not another writer than James 
betray himself here, in addressing Jewish Christians 
alone, whereas they were so incorporated with Gentile 



312 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

ones in the churches that an epistle could not find 
them alone ? De Wette, however, understands i the 
twelve tribes scattered abroad/ to mean all Christians 
out of Palestine ; and thus removes the incongruity. 
And how did James become acquainted with the state 
and temptations of the Jewish Christians scattered 
through many lands and incorporated with many 
Gentile churches? Were they in the habit of visiting 
Jerusalem to keep the feasts, so that he could learn in 
that way ? Those in Syria, Cilicia, and the other parts adja 
cent may have gone up to the metropolis ; but this does 
not apply to the majority scattered through more dis 
tant lands. The bishop of the Jerusalem church could 
have got little definite information from the strangers 
visiting his city, comparatively few as they were. In 
any case, the writer does not convey the impression 
that his knowledge of their condition was minute or 
specific, for his language is general, such as a later 
author writing in his name would employ ; and his 
relation to them is never alluded to. The link between 
them, as far as the epistle shows, is a loose one. 

These observations are unfavourable to the compo 
sition of the letter by James the Just. And they dis 
agree equally with the authorship of James the Less. The 
writer does not style himself the Lord s brother ; neither 
does he call himself an apostle. Probably the Judaised 
Christianity of the epistle should not be carried into the 
second century and the circle of the Clementine Homi 
lies. That there are parallels between these homilies 
and our epistle, cannot be denied. 1 The origin and ob 
ject of the apocryphal production lead to points of 
resemblance. But there are marked differences also. 
Ingenious therefore as Schwegler s reasoning is, 2 it does 
not prove that the epistle was written in James s name 

1 A collection of them is given by Kern, Der Brief Jacobi, u. s. w., p. 
56, et scq. 

2 Scliwegler, Das nacliapostolisclie Zeitalter, vol. i. p. 13, et seq. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 313 

so lute as the second century. The production is a post- 
Pauline one, proceeding from a Jewish Christian or 
Ebionite. 



PEKSONS TO WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED. 

According to i. 1, the letter is directed to the twelve 
tribes which are scattered abroad/ i.e. to all the Jews 
out of Palestine ; that is, to such as had embraced 
Christianity, the spiritual Israel in their dispersion. 
The writer did not intend to address unbelieving Jews 
or unconverted as well as converted ones, but simply 
converts. This appears at the commencement, where 
the words, i the trying of your faith worketh patience, 
imply believers. So also, ii. 1, have not the faith of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect 
of persons. The seventh verse of the 2nd chapter 
points to the same conclusion : Do they not blaspheme 
that worthy name by the which ye are called? i.e. the 
name of Christ. 

It is inconclusive to argue that the letter was in 
tended for the unconverted as well as the converted Jews 
because there is only a general salutation at the beginning 
and no Christian benediction at the end. Nor is it 
correct to interpret the wars and fightings (iv. 110) of 
the mutinies of the Jews, especially the Zealots. Neither 
was the 3rd chapter intended for Jews, as well as Jew 
ish Christians. 

We cannot extend the sense of the expression the 
tAvelve tribes so far as to make it equivalent to the 
Israel of God in Gal. vi. 1G, i.e. to all Christians 
Jewish and Gentile, though the true Israel of God em 
brace them, because the use of the phrase twelve tribes is 
inexplicable if the writer intended all believers without 
distinction. The author makes no allusion to Gentile 
converts, nor to the relation between Jew and Gentile 
incorporated into one spiritual body. 



314 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

In answer to the questions, Were Jewish Christians 
out of Palestine numerous, at the time when the epistle 
was written? in what country or countries were they? 
were they scattered through many lands, or confined to 
a comparatively limited district? no specific information 
can be given. There is no authority for limiting the 
circle of readers, as some have done, to Syria, Cilicia, 
and the adjacent parts. It is also unwarrantable to 
include among them Jewish Christians in the Palestinian 
churches out of Jerusalem, as Huther is inclined to do. 
We abide by the view that the letter was professedly 
written for the benefit of all Jews out of Palestine who 
had embraced Christianity. 



PLACE AND TIME OF WRITING. 

Hug l has attempted to deduce the place of writing 
from certain internal marks, which, in his opinion, 
clearly point to Palestine. The author s native land 
was not far from the sea (i. 6 ; iii. 4), and was blessed 
with valuable productions, such as figs, oil, and wine 
(iii. 12). It was exposed to drought ; and productions 
were often scarce for want of rain (v. 17, 18). Sudden 
devastations of the vegetable kingdom were occasioned 
by a fiery wind (i. 11). The early and latter rains 
were familiar (v. 7). As these phenomena existed in 
many oriental countries they do not necessarily point to 
Palestine. There is great difficulty in ascertaining the 
time of writing, as is evident from the fact that some 
critics fix it so early as A.D. 44, others so late as the 
second century, and dates vary between these extremes. 
The following particulars bear upon this point. 

1. The destruction of Jerusalem, with which the 
early Christians identified Christ s second coming, was 
approaching (v. 7, 8) or at hand. 

1 Introduction by Fosdick, p. 587. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 315 

2. In ii. 7 there is an allusion to the name Christian. 
The disciples were called Christians for the first time at 
Antioch. This makes the date later than Acts xi. 26, 
or A.D. 44. 

3. In ii. 24, distinctions of places or seats in 
Christian churches, an ambitious love of pre-eminence 
in the meetings for worship, an unworthy partiality for 
the rich and a neglect of the poor, are inconsistent with 
an early period. Such outward arrangements and con 
veniences in places of worship imply a state of organi 
sation which did not exist for a considerable time after 
churches were formed ; an argument not disproved by 
the erroneous assumption that the places of meeting for 
Jewish Christians were then synagogues. The Greek 
word translated assembly (ii. 2) does not mean the place 
of meeting, but the congregation in the place. Nor is 
it like the freshness and zeal of recent conversion, that 
rich members should covet outward respect in regard to 
seats in congregations ; or that the poor should be 
treated with marked disfavour. Piety had greatly de 
generated where this spirit appeared. Amid the worldly 
views and arrangements which prevailed in these Chris 
tian assemblies, early Christian love had grown cold. 
We must therefore assume a time sufficient to allow of 
the existence of conveniences in buildings used for 
worship, of seats comfortable and otherwise, of a spirit 
of partiality and ambitious selfishness on the part of 
the rich. Though human nature is prone to deteriorate, 
the Jewish converts could scarcely have fallen so far 
from their first love soon after their adoption of Chris 
tianity. Years would be required for such declension. 
Should it be said that the deterioration is accounted for 
by the time between Peter s sermon at Pentecost and 
the date of the epistle, the plea is insufficient, because 
all the Jewish Christians out of Palestine are addressed; 
and a declension so universal is improbable. Had one 
or more churches degenerated, the assumption might be 



Sl(3 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

admitted ; but the fact of all being in the same circum 
stances is against the deterioration implied. 

In these remarks we assume that though the Jewish 
term synagogue denotes a Christian assembly or church, 
the use of it does not necessarily show an early period, 
because it may only imply the standpoint of the writer 
not an objective relation. Nothing can be inferred from 
it respecting Jewish Christians still meeting with their 
unbelieving brethren in the old synagogues a thing 
most improbable. We have also assumed, that the rich 
and poor who are mentioned were Christian. 

4. The author s argument about faith alone without 
works is inconsistent with an early date. In the time 
of Christ, a Pharisaic confidence in the law, apart from 
a holy life, was the besetting sin of the Jews. Had this 
given way when the epistle was composed? Either the 
controversy referred to in the 15th chapter of the Acts 
had not arisen ; or it had been settled. If it had not 
arisen, is it likely that confidence in the law, to the 
neglect of a pure life, had ceased? We believe not, else 
it must be assumed that such confidence was succeeded 
by reliance on exclusive purity of faith which the Jews 
carried over into Christianity ; an assumption totally 
baseless, because Paul afterwards combats reliance on 
the law. Thus a late date alone is correct, one pos 
terior to James himself. As the epistle contains no 
trace of a scrupulous observance of the Mosaic law on 
the part of the readers, the controversy respecting the 
continued obligation of the law, which Paul had carried 
to a successful issue, had produced its effect. To assert 
that it had not begun, or that the writer and his readers 
were agreed about the non-observance of the law, is to 
oppose all the testimony we have respecting James, who 
was an observer of the law moral and ceremonial, to the 
end of life. An early date disposes of the epistle s 
authenticity, as well as a late one. 

5. If the author has borrowed Pauline ideas and 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 317 

words, we have so far the evidence of a late date. The 
phrase transgressor of the law l is both in Rom. ii. 25, 27, 
and James ii. 11; the single term transgressor being 
used absolutely in Gal. ii. 18 and James ii. 9 ; to fulfil 
the law 2 occurs alike in Rom. ii. 27 and James ii. 8 ; 
doer of the law, hearer of the law, 3 are common to Rom. 
ii. 13 and James iv. 11, &c. &c. ; fruit of righteousness 4 is 
found in Phil. i. 11 and James iii. 18 ; be not deceived 5 
is in 1 Cor. vi. 9 ; xv. 33 ; Gal. vi. 7 ; and James i. 16 ; 
hit some one will say* is common to 1 Cor. xv. 35 and 
James ii. 18 ; the word rendered entire 1 is in 1 Thess. v. 
23 ; the term members 8 in James iii. 6 ; iv. 1, is frequent 
in Paul s epistles to the Romans and Corinthians ; the 
verb translated deceiving 9 in James i. 22 appears in 
Coloss. ii. 4 ; and the word of God is termed the perfect 
law of liberty (James i. 25), a phrase apparently derived 
from Paul s liberal ideas. The apostle of the Gentiles 
was the first to bring the idea of law over into the de 
partment of Christianity in connection with freedom of 
conscience ; and James applies it to the word of God 
because the transference had been made. It is true that 
Paul has always a polemic reference to the Mosaic law 
when he speaks of individual freedom, while such refer 
ence does not appear in James; but if the apostle of the 
Gentiles had already asserted that liberty with trium 
phant success, so that it could be considered an acknow 
ledged fact, James had no need to look at the Mosaic 
law polemically where he speaks of the perfect law of 
liberty ; the phrase implies a recognition of freedom 
from that law which every Christian enjoyed, and conse 
quently the priority of the Pauline ministry and 
writings which were the means of procuring that re 
cognition. The attempt of Bruckner 10 to show that the 



vopov. 2 VO/JLOV reXeii/. 

3 TroirjTrjs TOV VO/JLOV, aKpoaTTjS rov vofj.rw. Kapnos 8iKaio<rvvr)s. 

5 /LIT) Tr\avacr6t. 6 aXX epft TLS. 1 6\OK\r)pos. 

8 9 



10 



In I)e Wolfe s Jlcmdluch, iii. I, p. 200, ef wry. 



318 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

controversy between the claims of law and gospel had 
not arisen when the author wrote about the freedom of 
the Christian s law, is unsuccessful ; as is his whole 
endeavour to obliterate all marks of the present letter s 
dependence on Pauline conceptions. The impression 
which the coincidences we have given make on an un 
biassed mind, leads to the rejection of their independent 
origin. 

6. The doctrine of justification by faith alone, is 
presupposed and denied by James. Could he do so 
without having reference to Paul s exposition of it ? 
We suppose not, because the apostle of the Gentiles was 
the first to bring out its importance, and hold it up as 
the essence of the gospel. It is improbable that the 
w r riter of our epistle should have spoken of justification 
as he does, unless an exposition well known among 
the Christian churches had preceded. Not only did 
the expressions to be justified by faith, to be justified by 
works, justification by faith, justification by works, origi 
nate with Paul, but he evolved the idea of justification 
by faith, which cannot be considered a necessary element 
in the gospel of the primitive apostles. In other words, 
the doctrine was not the common property of Chris 
tianity from the day of Pentecost, or one which Peter 
might have taught had he been thrown into circum 
stances where its express assertion against error was 
necessary. Bruckner tries to fall back upon the for 
mulas of the doctrine as Pauline, not the thing itself-, but 
fails to show its extra-Pauline claim to be considered 
an integral part of the gospel. The doctrine and its 
formulas must go together ; and both are distinctively 
Pauline. Whatever be thought of his arguments, 
Huther is more consistent than Bruckner in denying 
all dependence of the epistle upon Pauline thought. 

It is unnecessary to show that the doctrine of justi 
fication by faith alone which Paul preached, and that of 
justification by works which James sets forth, are irre- 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 319 

concilable. The single statement, i Ye see how that 
by works a man is justified, and not by faith only/ 
ii. 24, proves their contrariety. Yet their conciliation 
has been attempted from Calvin s time till the present, 
either by assuming that Paul speaks of justification 
before God, James of justification before men ; l or that 
the latter refers to faith as his opponents understood it 
in the nineteenth verse ; and to his own view of it in 
the succeeding ones. According to this hypothesis, 
James means a theoretical belief which is not a prin 
ciple of moral conduct, a faith active in a sense, but not 
the main source of Christian practice. But it is plain 
that Paul speaks of faith being sufficient to justify 
without works, which James denies by saying that a 
man is not justified by faith only ; for that Abraham s 
works not only accompanied his faith but the two co 
operated in justification. The contradiction is not 
entirely obviated by Neander s observation that Paul 
looks at the objective-divine, the ground of election by 
God on which man s trust should rest ; James at the 
subjective-human, which, presupposing the Divine fact 
whence all proceeds, man must perform on his part. 2 
Nor is it removed by showing that James applies the 
same term to two distinct affections of the soul, the one 
passive, the other active, as long as it is admitted that 
the faith predicated of Abraham by both is a non-pas 
sive state of mind. However plausible Neander s 
exposition of the views given by James and Paul 
respectively concerning the justifying power of faith 
and works, it does not fully harmonise them. And if 
he has not succeeded in reconciling what is incapable of 
agreement, it may be assumed that others fail. It is 
easy to say that the truths which these two great 

1 Paulo esse gratuitam justitice imputationem apud Dei tribunal: 
Jacobo aiitern esse demonstrationem justitiae ab etfectis,idque apud homines. 
Calvin in Jacoli Ep. ii. 21. 

2 Geschichte der Pjlanzuny und Leitung, u. s. ui. zweyter Band, p. 864, 
vierte Auflage, 



320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

apostles were commissioned to teach were comple 
mentary and supplementary, but not contradictory of 
each other ; but the words, ye see then how that by 
works a man is justified and not by faith only/ plainly 
refute the dogmatic affirmation. On the other hand, 
the laboured attempts of Bishops Bull and O Brien, 
with the artificial subtleties of Bruckner, are repelled by 
common sense. 

The difference arises from the views of human 
nature peculiar to the two authors. While Paul attri 
butes reality only to the facts of consciousness, James 
assigns it to works that leave palpable marks on the 
outward world. The former emphasises the mental 
state, leaving its external manifestations out of account; 
the latter co-ordinates faith and works. To Paul, the 
ideal is the only real ; to James the noumenal and 
actual, the internal and external are separate ; a dualism 
which Paul commonly ignores. Semitic thought is re 
flected in James rather than Paul ; the latter shewing 
his mental characteristics in holding forth the spiritual 
consciousness with which faith is identical. While their 
idiosyncrasies create an important discrepancy, the later 
has also respect to the earlier writer, giving his view 
by wa y f contrast and check. 

The Pauline doctrine of justification by faith which 
had been abused by many, is combated in the epistle. 
James opposes the thing itself not its abuse. The 
dooroa was unacceptable to Jewish Christians, whose 
modes of thinking could not be readily reconciled to 
it. We know that it was subsequently perverted ; the 
apostle s view of faith being applied erroneously, to the 
detriment of practical religion. Such antinornianism 
was not of Jewish origin, but a Gnostic tendency, a 
speculative or ideal state of mind going beyond that of 
Paul. 

The anti-Paulinism of the passage in James implies 
that Paul s writings had been current for a considerable 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 321 

time. He himself had passed off the scene, without alie 
nating Jewish Christians from the observance of the law, 
or detaching them from the doctrine of works cooperat 
ing with faith. The Jewish standpoint of the writer is 
visible, notwithstanding his Christian spirit. 1 

7. It is probable that the example of Rahab in ii. 25, 
was taken from the epistle to the Hebrews, though 
Bleek supposes that it may have been handed down 
orally by Paul and his disciples. Other allusions to 
the epistle to the Hebrews are Abraham s sacrifice of 
Isaac, given here as an example of justification by 
works as opposed to justification by faith (James ii. 
21 and Hebrews xi. 17) ; and the emphasising of a 
dead faith over against dead works (ii. 26 and 
Hebrews vi. 1). The fruit of righteousness sown in 
peace is an echo of the peaceable fruit of righteous 
ness (iii. 18 and Hebrews xii. 11). These references 
imply the epistle s non-existence prior to A.D. 67. 

8. There are also allusions to the Revelation ; in i. 
12 to Revelation ii. 10 ; and in i. 18 to Revelation xiv. 
4 ; which reduce the date of the epistle to A.D. 69 at 
the earliest. 

9. The direction to send for the elders of the church, 
and their use of oil with the prayer of faith, savours of 
a post-apostolic time. The original function of the elders 
was government ; here another is given to them. The oil 
acquires a supernatural efficacy by virtue of their prayer, 
so as to cooperate in the cure of the diseased. The 
power of a natural remedy is exalted by the elders 
prayer. If there be not in this a trace of the magical 
and theurgic, the writer ascribes to the office-bearers 
a power not altogether identical with the primitive gift 
of healing that of converting prayer and oil into suc 
cessful remedial agents of body and soul. Besides, the 
office of eldership is separated from the members of the 
church, a thing which did not exist in primitive Cliris- 

1 See Holtzmann iii Sclienkel s TUbel-Lexicon, vol. iii. p. 183, etc, 

VOL. i. Y 



322 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

tianity ; and a cure of souls points to a later period simi 
lar to that implied in 1 Tim. v. 17. Spiritual functions 
belonged originally to all the members ; and the elders 
were to watch over general order and practice. Those 
afterwards called pastors and teachers had the guid 
ance of souls ; the office of elder was originally confined 
to the church s outward guidance. 

10. The passage v. 12 agrees with a text in the gos 
pel according to the Hebrews, which the Clementines 1 also 
use. But we can hardly suppose that it was taken from 
that gospel. Christ s words about swearing, as they are 
recorded in his sermon on the mount (Matt. v. 34-37), 
were handed down orally ; which accounts for their form 
being a little different in Matthew, James, the Clemen 
tines, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Neither can we 
believe that the resemblances of certain places to others 
in the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are free 
citations ; though they are so regarded by Theile and 
Schwegler. 2 The ethical tendency of the works accounts 
for the resemblances in question. There is no good 
reason for bringing down the origin of the epistle to 
the time of the apostolic fathers. 

11. The fact that the essential doctrines of Christi 
anity, the death of Christ, atonement by His blood, the 
influence of the Holy Spirit, recede into the background, 
as they do in the Clementines, does not show a post- 
apostolic origin, as Kern supposed. Hilgenfeld argues 
for a somewhat late date of the epistle from ii. 6-7, v. 6, 
because legal courts for trying Christians were not in 
stituted before Domitian (A.D. 81-96). The basis is 
too slender to support the conclusion. Formal legal 
courts authorised by the emperor need not be found in 
the passages. The most probable date appears to be 

1 iii. 55. 

2 Compare James i. 5 with Siracli xx. 15 ; i. 10 with Sirach ii. 9 ; i. 13 
with Sirach xv. 11 ; v. 1 with Wisdom v. 8 ; v. 6 with Wisdom ii. 20 
and Sirach xxxi. 22. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 323 

the end of A.D. 69 or TO, between the death of Paul and 
the destruction of Jerusalem. We agree with Grimm 
that it was not written before A.D. 69, but cannot with 
Blom assume A.D. 80 ; nor the reign of Domitian, with 
Hilgenfeld. 

AUTHENTICITY AND CANONICITY. 

Clement of Rome, Hermas, and Irenseus are cited 
in favour of the epistle. The first writes to the Corin 
thians : Abraham, called (God s) friend, was found 
faithful, in that he was obedient to the words of God. 
.... Through faith and hospitality, a son was given 
him in his old age ; and by obedience he offered him a 
sacrifice to God (compare James ii. 21-23). l 

Again : By faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot 
was saved (compare James ii. 25 and Hebr. xi. 31 ). 2 

The former passage makes it probable that Clement 
had read the epistle, the second is uncertain. Others 
quoted by Lardner and Kirchhofer are doubtful. 

It is also supposed that Hermas has alluded to our 
epistle at least in one place : For if ye resist him (the 
devil), he will flee from you with confusion (compare 
elames iv. 7). 3 This testimony is uncertain, because the 
saying was a current one. 

But although the passages in Hermas that appear to 
be reminiscences of our epistle are not decisive, it is 
very probable that the one was acquainted with the 
other, because their point of view is similar. Both look 
at Christianity in its ethical aspect, separate the rich 
and poor widely, and present no christology. 

Irenaeus seems to have known the epistle when he 
writes : Abraham believed God, and it was counted to 
him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of 
God (James ii. 23 ). 4 

1 Ad. Cor. c. 10. 2 Ibid. c. 12. 3 Mandat. xii. 5. 

4 * Ipse Abraham credidit Deo, et reputatum est illi ad 

justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est. Adv. Hceres. lib. iv. xvi. 2, p. 1016, 
ed. Migne. 

Y 2 



324 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

It will be observed, that none of these writers refers 
to the epistle as Scripture or canonical or written by 
James. Their evidence simply attests the existence of 
it when they wrote. 

The first writer who expressly mentions the writer is 
Origen : For though it be called faith, if it be without 
works it is dead, as we read in the epistle current as 
James s. 1 

The word here rendered curreni may indicate a doubt 
in Origen s mind whether James really wrote the epistle. 
In parts of his works which exist only in Rufinus s 
Latin version, 2 the letter is cited as the apostle James s, 
the brother of our Lord ; it is even styled the divine 
epistle of the apostle James ; but such expressions 
may be interpolated. 

Eusebius states that Clemens Alexandrinus made 
brief comments on all the catholic epistles ; 3 and Cassio- 
dorus says that he explained the canonical epistles, i.e. 
the first of Peter, the first and second of John, and the 
epistle of Jude. 4 It is improbable that he commented 
on all the catholic epistles. He has nowhere quoted or 
alluded to that of James. The fragments of Dionysius 
of Alexandria are too doubtful to be cited as his, though 
Hug uses them. 

Tertullian never mentions the epistle. The three 
passages given by Lardner and Kirchhofer, bearing 
some resemblance to parts of James, are insufficient 
to prove his use of it. And yet he employed the 
canonical books of the New Testament, even the short 
epistle to Philemon. In his Scorpiace, 5 after citing 

1 cav yap \eyrjrai /JLCV TT KTTLS, X W P^ S &* epycov rvyxavrj, VKpd lariv fj 
TOLavrrjj ws eV rfj (pepo/jLevrj la/cco/Sov eVtoroXTy aviyvut^v. Comment. inJoann. 
torn xix. (Opp. iv. p. 306). 

2 Commentary in Ep. ad Rom. lib. iv. Opp. iv. p. 535. Ibid. p. 536, 
lib. ix. p. 654. Horn. 3 in Psalm xxxvi. p. 671. Horn. 13 in Gen., 3 and 8 
in Exod., 2 in Levit. 

3 Hist. Ecdes. vi. 14. 

4 Imtitut. Divin. Scriptur. c. viii. Judee not Jacobi is the right read 
ing. 5 Cap. 8. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 325 

Peter, John, and Paul, he has nothing from James, 
though passages in his letter were appropriate. It is 
still more remarkable that he does not appeal to James, 
v. 16, in his treatise on prayer. He either knew 
nothing of the epistle ; or knowing, rejected it as un- 
canonical. The latter is the more probable. 

The Muratorian fragment on the canon passes over 
the epistle ; and the Pseud o- Clementine writings have 
110 trace of it. 

Eusebius puts it among the antilegomena. His 
words are : i But of the controverted, though well 
known (or approved) by many, are that called the 
epistle of James/ &C. 1 Elsewhere the historian writes : 
1 Thus far concerning James, who is said to be the 
author of the first of the seven epistles called catholic. 
It should be observed, however, that it is reckoned 
spurious : at least, not many of the ancients have 
mentioned it, &c. 2 

These w^ords of Eusebius will bear two meanings. 
They may express his own opinion about the epistle, 
viz. that it is spurious ; or they may represent the 
opinion of others in his day, viz. that it was commonly 
rejected. With Rufinus and others we adopt the latter 
view, chiefly because the historian quotes the epistle 
elsewhere as the holy apostle s, and Scripture, 3 
terms inconsistent with the idea of its spuriousness. 
Yet Eusebius uses the appellation apostle loosely; 
and does not attribute the same authority to our epistle 
as he does to those of Paul. 

Hippolytus appears to quote the epistle, but not 
as Scripture or James s : for judgment is without 

1 rcoi> 8 ayriXfyo/zeVo)i>j yvfopl^v 8 ovv o/zcos rols TroXXots, f) \eyofievr] 
laKoo/3ot> (f)epfrai KOI rj louSa. H. E. iii. 25. 

a rotavra Se TO. Kara TOV laKco/Soy, ov r) npa>Tr) rwv ovopa^ofjifvav KadoXiKwv 
eVioToXa)!/ clvat Xeyerai i(TTov de a>s voOfverai p,ev ov TroXAot yovv ra>i> 
TraXatcoi/ avrrjs efjivrj/jLovevaav, K.r.X. Ibid. ii. 23. 

3 Compare Comment, in Psalmos, Psalm c. Opp. vol. v. p. 1244, ed. 
Migne. 



320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

mercy to him that has not showed mercy (James ii. 
13). 1 

Jerome, acknowledged the authenticity : James, 
called the Lord s brother, surnamed the Just, wrote 
but one epistle, which is among the seven catholic 
ones ; which is also said to have been published by 
another in his name, though it has gradually obtained 
authority, in process of time. 2 

Theodore of Mopsuestia rejected it, as we learn from 
Leontius of Byzantium. 

The Peshito or old Syriac version has the epistle. 
Hence Ephrem speaks of it as written by James the 
Lord s brother. The canon of the Syrian church 
affords important evidence in favour of the epistle s 
authenticity. 

This summary of early testimony is not favourable 
to the canonical authority of our letter. Among the 
Greeks till the fourth century, its reception was not 
universal ; nor was it approved by many. Its credit 
afterwards increased, so that it was generally received 
as canonical in the fifth century. The Latin church 
took little notice of the epistle for some centuries. 
The synod of Carthage (A.D. 397), put it into the 
canon. The Latin as well as the Greek church made 
small use of the work till the fourth century, both 
being suspicious of its authenticity ; but the Syrian 
church received it early. 



LEADING OBJECT. 

The object of the writer is to admonish the readers, 
to censure the errors connected with their Christian life, 

1 rj yap Kpi(ris dviXeas eon ro> /AJ) TroiTjcravTi c\fos. Treatise concerning the 
End of the World and Antichrist, p. 122, ed. P. de Lagarde. 

2 Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus 

unam tantum scripsit epistolam, quse de septem catholicis est, quse et ipsa 
ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, licet paulatim tempore pro- 
cedente obtinuerit auctoritatem. Catal. Script. Eccles. c. 2. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 327 

and to console them in adverse circumstances. They 
were guilty of improprieties. Their faults needed recti 
fication, and they are reproved. They were exposed to 
outward trials and suffering from oppression. He ex 
horts them to be patient and steadfast, maintaining their 
trust in the divine word arnid discouragements. Thus 
his object was to reprove, comfort, exhort, and en 
courage. Aware of the general circumstances affecting 
them and the errors they had committed, he addresses 
them in a practical style. 

It is impossible to discover any definite cause which 
led the unknown author to write in James s name. Only 
one part of the epistle is polemic (ii. 14-26), while the 
rest is commonly corrective and conciliatory. Every 
thing personal and individual is absent from the letter, 
because James writing from Jerusalem to Christians 
scattered abroad, could have known little of them except 
in a general way. Doubtless the author s motive was 
good ; so that he speaks with authority to the brethren, 
reproving them for their woiidliness and exposing their 
faults. 



CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WRITER AND HIS READERS. 

The nature of the epistle is peculiar, forming a con 
trast to Paul s writings, since the author s standpoint 
is Jewish rather than Christian. The ideas are cast in 
a Jewish mould. The very name of Christ occurs but 
twice (i. 1 ; ii. 1), and His atonement is scarcely touched. 
We see little more than the threshold of the new system. 
It is the teaching of a Christian Jew, rather than of one 
who had reached a true apprehension of the essence of 
Christ s religion. The doctrinal development is im 
perfect. It is only necessary to read the entire epistle 
to perceive the truth of these remarks. In warning his 
readers against transgression of the law by partiality to 
individuals, the author adduces Jewish rather than 



328 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Christian motives (ii. 8-13). The greater part of the 
3rd chapter respecting the government of the tongue is 
of the same character, in which Christ s example is not 
once alluded to ; the illustrations being taken from 
objects in nature. The warning against uncharitable 
judgment does not refer to Christ, or to God who puts 
his Spirit in the hearts of believers, but to the law (iv. 
1012). He who judges his neighbour, judges the law. 
The exhortation to feel and act under constant remem 
brance of the dependence of our life on God, belongs to 
the same category (iv. 1317). He that knows good 
without doing it, is earnestly admonished to practise 
virtue and to avoid self- security, without reference to 
motives connected with redemption. Job and the pro 
phets are quoted as examples of patience, not Christ ; 
and the efficacy of prayer is proved by the instance of 
Elias, without allusion to the Redeemer s promise (v. 
17). The epistle is wound up after the same Jewish 
fashion ; though the opportunity of mentioning Christ, 
who gave himself a sacrifice for sin, presented itself 
naturally. 

The very method in which the author writes is He 
braistic. His sentences are short and weighty, like the 
proverbial sayings of the Jews. Their connection is 
feeble, one following another without a clear link of 
union. Even when a subject is treated more fully than 
usual, an epigrammatic sentence closes it (i. 5-8, 13-16, 
22-27 ; ii. 1-13, 14-26 ; iii. 1-5, 6-8, 13-18 ; iv. 1-10, 
13-17 ; v. 7-10). The author s mode of proof is by the 
law, and by examples occurring in the Old Testament. 

The phenomena of the epistle have been explained in 
two ways, on the assumption of its authenticity. With 
Neander and Messner some believe that James remained 
in the narrow circle of doctrinal ideas here unfolded, and 
that he could do little more than conduct his country 
men from the old dispensation to the new. Being a 
teacher of the Jewish rather than the Christian system, 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 329 

he was unable to instruct men in Christian knowledge. 
Others believe that James adapted his method of instruc 
tion to the persons addressed, because their knowledge 
was elementary and they could not bear advanced doc 
trines. Neither explanation accounts for the character 
of the epistle. The resemblance of many sentiments in 
the epistle to the sermon on the mount arises from the 
writer s Jewish Christian standpoint. A s the discourses 
of Jesus are ethical not dogmatic, representing a purified 
and enlarged Judaism, the sentiments and language of 
the letter approach them. By comparing James i. 5, 
6, with Matt. vii. 7, xxi. 22 ; ii. 5 with Matt. v. 3 ; ii. 
8 with Matt. xxii. 39 ; ii. 13 with Matt. vii. 1, 2 ; iii. 1 
with Matt, xxiii. 8-14 ; iii. 12 with Matt. vii. 16 ; iii. 
18 with Matt. v. 9 ; v. 12, 13, with Matt. v. 34-37, the 
agreement is readily perceived. The writer did not 
quote the written gospel of Matthew as a well-known 
document ; for no passage in the epistle exhibits a clear 
reference to it ; and the attempts to find such are unavail 
ing. The teachings of Christ were better known by oral 
tradition than written forms ; and the point of view taken 
by an Ebionite writer must be substantially like that 
embodied in the precepts of Christ ; an early, simple, 
practical, spiritualised Judaism, not the dogmatic Pau 
line system, which presents a later development of the 
old religion. 

In comparison with Paul s writings, the epistle is 
retrograde. Christianity would have been a different 
thing had it continued upon a platform like that of the 
Old Testament, or been developed along its lines. Com 
pared with Paulinism, the teaching is objective and prac 
tical, having none of the characteristics which the apostle 
derived from the depths of his own consciousness. It 
is ethical not doctrinal ; and deals with conduct rather 
than consciousness. Yet it has a value of its own ; 
and should not be depreciated in Luther s way. 

The picture of the Jewish Christians is not minute, 



330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

but consists of a few general strokes wanting specific 
colouring. Graphic as far as it extends, it is neither 
definite nor complete. The believers presented the fol 
lowing features : 

1. They had comfortable places of assembling for 
worship and presiding elders. Teaching was not yet 
restricted to the office-bearers, since many were eager to 
instruct their brethren (ii. 2, 6, 7 ; v. 14 ; iii. 1). 

2. They were commonly poor, though there were 
also several rich among them who were elated with their 
condition (i. 10, 11). 

3. They were oppressed in various ways by the rich. 
Under the weight of privations and persecutions, they 
were inclined to shield themselves from responsibility by 
pleading the power of outward temptations, which they 
ascribed to God s providence (i. 11-13 ; ii. 6 ; v. 8-11). 

4. In their assemblies they showed partiality to the 
rich on account of differences in worldly station, to the 
prejudice of Christian love (ii. 16, 813). 

5. Their hearts were not deeply penetrated by the 
power of religion. They were largely under the do 
minion of worldly lusts and inordinate desires. They 
showed violence of temper, sought to effect their object 
by contention, were envious, uncharitable, censorious ; 
and did not put that restraint on their language which pre 
vented swearing in ordinary conversation. Their hearts, 
in short, were too much set upon the world (i. 19-21 ; 
iii. 10-18 ; iv. ; v. 12). 

6. Besides violating the law of love, they overvalued 
faith to the neglect of works, contenting themselves 
with an assent to the truth of Christianity which left 
their hearts unchanged and produced no good fruits in 
the life (ii. 14-26). 

7. They were also too forward to assume the office 
of religious teachers, many pressing into that duty, who 
had no proper control over their tongue or right views 
of their responsibility (iii. 1, &c.). 



THE EPTSTLE OF JAMES. 331 



LANGUAGE AND STYLE. 

The epistle was not translated from an Aramaean 
original but was composed in Greek, and shows a good 
acquaintance with this language on the part of the 
author. The words employed are generally pure, se 
lect, and appropriate. The Hebraisms are few ; it is 
difficult to account for such purity of diction in one 
who resided at Jerusalem all his life, and did not take 
the free direction of Paul with regard to Christianity. 
Occasionally, however, there is an artificial air about 
the style, and an absence of that easy flow which be 
speaks a perfect mastery of language. Some expres 
sions are peculiar and unusual, as the term translated 
ways (i. 11) ; x the participle rendered of his own will 
(i. 18) ; 2 the phrase ichen ye fall into divers temptations 
(i. 2) ; 3 shadow of turning (i. 17) ; 4 he begat (i. 18 ). 5 
The most prominent feature of the author s style is its 
graphic liveliness and oratorical cast, exemplified in 
numerous comparisons and metaphors, the accumulation 
of predicates, verbs, and iiiterrogatives. There are even 
genuine poetical expressions, as in i. 14, &c.; iii. 5, &c.; 
v. 1, &c., where the imagery is luxuriant. The com 
position may be characterised as a whole by sententious- 
ness ; the diction by elegance and fitness. The hexa 
meter in i. 17, has nothing to do with the reading of 
Greek verses or the citation of Christian hymns ; the 
words flowed forth unconsciously, as sometimes happens 
to good prose writers. Our author was familiar with 
the Hebrew prophets ; and his manner, which is bold, 
aspiring and vigorous, resembles theirs. His denuncia 
tions are powerful, his strokes nervous and weighty, so 
that he even becomes sublime at times. 

Bishop Jebb adduces many examples of the paral- 



332 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

lelism characteristic of Hebrew poetry, and traces the 
train of thought with much ingenuity, representing 
James as a logician and poet together. 1 But these 
refined speculations have no proper basis ; the paral 
lelisms and logical connection being often imaginary. 
The epistle has a persuasive character, and the style 
is elevated ; but the poetical is not its prevailing feature, 
and the logical scarcely appears. 

ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. 

The letter does not -admit of formal division, being 
without plan or order. Hence the ideas are repeated. 
The writer passes rapidly from one topic to another, 
returning at intervals to his main purpose without 
logical connection. We divide the work into a suc 
cession of paragraphs, in the following manner : 

(a.) The inscription and salutation (verse 1). 

(&.) An exhortation to the readers to take joyfully 
their privations, sufferings, and poverty ; to be steadfast 
under them, and to aim at Christian perfection, even 
through such discipline (i. 24). 

(<?.) Placed in trying circumstances, they are ex 
horted to ask wisdom from God without doubting, firmly 
relying on his mercy (i. 5-8). 

(e?.) The joy referred to before in the midst of their 
trials, would be experienced in the state of their own 
minds, in their inward consciousness ; and they would 
receive the reward of steadfastness, after their trials, in 
a crown of life (i. 912). 

(<?.) Should privations and sufferings tempt to evil, 
the fault must not be imputed to God the Father of 
lights, the giver of all good gifts ; but to themselves and 
their sinful lusts (i. 13-18). 

(/.) He exhorts his readers to appreciate the word 
of God more and more ; and not only to hear, but to 
practise it (i. 19-27). 

1 Sacred Literature, etc. xiv. p. 27^3, et seq. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 333 

(</.) He censures them because of their partiality 
to the rich in their assemblies for worship, and their 
contempt for the poor, which is a violation of the great 
law of love ; a law he exhorts them to observe (ii. 1-13). 

(A.) As faith should not be without love, so it 
should not be without works, the author refuting the 
persons who alleged that they had faith while showing 
no evidence of it in the life, and supposing themselves 
justified by faith alone (ii. 14-26). 

(i.) A warning is now introduced against forward 
ness in assuming the office of religious teachers, since 
a great responsibility is incurred by every one who 
attempts to guide and instruct others. This leads the 
author to speak of the frequent abuse of the tongue. 
One should show his wisdom by meekness and hu 
mility, not by litigiousness. There is an earthly and a 
heavenly wisdom ; the former appearing where strife and 
envying are ; the latter, accompanied with purity and 
peace (ch. iii.). 

(j.) Evil passions are condemned as the source of 
contention and violence (iv. 13). 

(.) A solemn warning follows, and an exhortation 
to repentance addressed to the worldly-minded and sin 
ners (iv. 4-10). 

(/.) The writer condemns detraction and censorious- 
ness (iv. 11, 12). 

(m.) He censures forgetfulness of dependence on 
God, by showing the irreligious confidence in worldly 
undertakings displayed by many (iv. 1317). 

(ft.) Here is a threatening against the rich, who, 
abandoning themselves to every gratification, had de 
prived the innocent of the means of subsistence (v. 1-6). 

(0.) Christians suffering from the oppression of the 
rich are exhorted to patience, and comforted with the 
idea of the Lord s near approach (v. 7-11). 

(p.) We have a dissuasive against swearing in con 
versation (v. 12). 



334 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



Prayer is recommended in a variety of situa 
tions (v. 13-18). 

(r.) The epistle concludes with the importance and 
blessedness of endeavouring to reclaim an erring brother 
from the evil of his ways (v. 19, 20). 

There is no proper termination, but an abrupt and 
unusual ending without an apostolic benediction. 

Though the epistle occupies a place in the canon 
subordinate to the Pauline writings, it is full of valu 
able lessons. It breathes a healthy spirit, and presents 
views of life which are eminently Christian. All is re 
ferred to Grod, the great author and upholder of the 
world. Its practical tone is a preservative against the 
Pauline element in excess, or the antinomianism which 
relies on faith to the neglect of works. The precepts 
contain a sound morality, over against the doctrinal and 
speculative element for which Paul s epistles are quoted. 
A production which associates divine causality with the 
steadfastness of an active and pure life, may well rebuke 
the theoretical religion which relies on dogma for ac 
ceptance with God. 

Luther s judgment of its value is expressed with 
his usual energy. In comparison with the best books of 
the New Testament, it is a downright strawy epistle, is 
not an apostolic production, directly ascribes justification 
to works contrary to Paul and all other Scripture, makes 
no mention of the sufferings, resurrection, and Spirit 
of Christ, and throws one thing into another without 
order. 1 The result which the reformer arrives at is 
that the writer lived long after Peter and Paul. His 
spiritual instinct appears in some of these statements. 
He is right in saying that it is not evangelical from a 
Pauline point of view ; and that it contradicts the 

1 See Luther s Werke, xiv. pp. 105, 148, etc., ed. Walch. The longest 
statements are in the preface to James s epistle in the edition of the New 
Testament published in 1522. The epithet strawy epistle occurs in the 
preface to the edition of 1524. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 335 

apostle of tlie Gentiles in relation to the doctrine of 
justification. But it is a valuable letter notwithstand 
ing, because dogmatic does not constitute the essence of 
Christianity, which has an ethical side as important as 
the speculative. Doctrines are but opinions ethics are 
spirit and life. 



330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 



CONTENTS. 

THE second epistle to the Thessalonians may be divided 
into three parts : i. 3-12 ; ii. 117 ; iii. 118. 

1. After an introduction, the writer thanks God for 
the progress of the Thessalonian believers in faith and 
love, as well as their steadfastness amid persecution. He 
had often spoken of them in commendation, and assures 
them that though persecuted now, they should be re 
compensed at the coming of Christ, while their enemies 
would be overthrown. It was his continual prayer to 
God that they might persevere, and become complete 
in the Christian character that the name of the Lord 
might be glorified in them (i. 3-12). 

2. He warns them against the notion that the day 
of the Lord is just at hand, on which point they had 
been needlessly agitated ; and shows the groundlessness 
of their fears. The man of sin and son of perdition, 
was first to appear, and sit in the temple of God. 
Though the mystery of iniquity had begun to work, 
there was a restraining influence. After the removal 
of that barrier, antichrist would be revealed in all his 
ungodliness, to be signally destroyed. The apostle, 
however, thanks God that the Thessa onians had been 
chosen to salvation, admonishing them to stand fast by 
the instructions he had given, and praying that they 
might do so by divine help (ii.). 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 337 

3. He requests his readers to pray for him that 
he might be successful in spreading Christianity 
throughout the world, and be preserved from the malice 
of the wicked Jews. He again expresses his confidence 
in them, and good wishes on their behalf, annexing a 
command respecting the idle and disorderly, that the 
true believers should withdraw from their society. He 
reminds them of his own example, stating that he had 
worked with his hands for a subsistence among them, 
although he had power to require support. Should 
these persons not amend, he counsels the others to 
discountenance them, and use the most likely methods 
of bringing about repentance. The epistle concludes 
with a salutation written with his own hand, to 
serve as a mark of authenticity, distinguishing his 
letters from forgeries which are but vaguely referred to 
(in.). 

AUTHENTICITY. 

External evidence attests the letter s authenticity. 
Polycarp writes : Be ye also moderate in this, and do 
not count such as enemies, but call them back, as 
suffering and erring members (2 Thess. iii. 15). 1 

The epistle of Polycarp to the church at Philippi is 
not authentic, hence it must be used with discretion as 
evidence for the New Testament books. 

Justin Martyr seems to refer to it in these words : 
When also the man of apostasy, who, speaking great 
things against the Most High, shall dare to commit 
lawless deeds against us Christians on the earth/ etc. 2 
It must be admitted, however, that the reference of 
these words to the Thessalonian epistle is doubful. As 



1 vrj(f)fTf ovv K.CLI Vjj.e!s fv TOUTCO, /cat p,r) a>$ e%dpovs rfyflaOe TOVS TOIOVTOVS, 
aXX coy /Ae Xr/ naB-qra KOI ireTT\avr]^va avrovs avaKoXeio-df, Iva o\ov V/ACOI/ TO 
o-co/ia o-co^V/re. Ad Philipp. c. xi. 

2 orav Kal 6 Trjs anocTTaa-ias avSputiros, 6 <a\ ets TOV V^LCTTOV eaAAa XaXai^, 
fir\ TTJS yfjs civofia 1-0X^17077 els facis TOVS Xptcrrtai/ouf, K-r.X. Dial, cum Tryph* 
p. 371, cap. 110, p. 390, ed. 3 Otto. 

VOL. I. 7, 



338 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Justin never mentions Paul, nor quotes him expressly, 
but ascribes the honour of a mission to the Gentiles to 
the twelve apostles exclusively, he may not have known 
Paul s epistles, or may have ignored them if he did. 
The coincidences which Otto has pointed out between 
his language and that of the Pauline epistles are very 
uncertain. Probably he knew but ignored his letters, 
attributing no apostolic authority to them, after the 
example of the Jewish Christians. As to the agreement 
between Justin and Paul in their common quotations 
from the Septuagint, which has been adduced as evi 
dence of the influence of the latter upon the former, it 
is explained by the fact that the text of that version 
had been altered between the time of Paul and Justin 
after the Hebrew original and Paul s quotations. The 
Christians had been compelled to amend the version on 
account of their disputes with the Jews who found 
fault with it. 

Irenacus (177-192) writes : And again in the se 
cond epistle to the Thessalonians, speaking of antichrist, 
" And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the 
Lord Jesus Christ shall slay with the breath of his 
mouth, and destroy with the presence of his coming ; 
even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, 
with all power and signs and lying wonders." l 

Tertullian (f 220-240) has this language : And 
in the second epistle to the same persons he [Paul] 
writes with greater solicitude, " But I beseech you, bre 
thren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled," etc. 2 

1 ( Et iterum in secunda ad Thessalonicenses, de antichristo dicens, ait, 
" Et tune revelabitur iniquus quern Dominus Jesus Christus interficiet spiritu 
oris sui, et destruet prsesentia adventus sui, ilium cujus est adventus secun- 
dum operationera Satanse, in omni virtute et signis, et portentis mendacii." 
Adv. Hteres. iii. 7. 2. 

2 Et in secunda, pleniore sollicitudine ad eosdem, " Obsecro autem vos, 
fratres, per adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et congregationem nos- 
tram ad ilium, ne cito commoveammi animo, neque turbemini," etc. De 
Resurrect. Carnis, c. 24. 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 339 

Clement of Alexandria (f 220) writes : And the 
apostle says, " There is not in every man that know 
ledge. But pray ye that we may be delivered from 
unreasonable and wicked men, for all men have not 
faith." l 

It is also in the old Syriac (about 200), the old 
Latin (170), and the canon of Muratori (180). Mar- 
cion s list (about 140) had it. 

As far as external evidence goes, the epistle is well 
authenticated. Such evidence, however, does not reach 
back far enough to make it conclusive, and may be 
overbalanced by internal considerations. In the present 
case, internal evidence has been advanced against his 
torical tradition. Whether it be sufficient to negative 
the Pauline authorship of the letter, is subject to 
debate ; for testimony affects different minds in varying 
lights, and old beliefs are long-lived. 

1. The prominent and peculiar paragraph in chapter 
ii. 112 contains un- Pauline ideas, and cannot be har 
monised with the first letter which says that the second 
advent will be sudden and unexpected. The writer 
himself believes that he shall live to see it : We which 
are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord si i all 
not prevent, etc. (iv. 15). This belief is corrected in 
the second epistle, the Thessalonian converts being told 
that the event is not imminent, because it will be pre 
ceded both by the apostasy and the revelation of the 
man of sin. Things are interposed between the readers 
and the second advent to allay their excited feelings, 
and bring them back to the ordinary duties of life. 
The first epistle describes the time of the coming as 
uncertain, and without signs betokening its nearness. 
The second contains definite preluding signs. The first 
asserts the apostle s belief that he should see it himself; 

1 OVK i> TTttcri, (pr/crlv 6 aTroa ToXo?, f) yv&HTis 7rpocrf {>)(_( (r6e Se Iva pv(rdwp.fv 
(iTTO TWV ar( mu>v r.a\ novrjpwv avdpanraiv ov yap TTUVTCHV rj TriVrty. Stromata. 
v., vol. ii. p. 655, ed. Potter. 



340 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the second removes that belief to a distance. Whence 
this change within a short time ? The progress of events 
could not have caused it. Paul expressed the expecta 
tion of witnessing the second advent in the first epistle 
to the Corinthians (xv. 51). Did he write in the first 
epistle to the Thessalonians that he should be alive at 
the coming of the Lord, correct that belief soon after in 
the second epistle, and revert to his original idea in ad 
dressing the Corinthians ? The inconsistency cannot be 
explained by the fact that the writer s mind not being 
stereotyped was subject to change, particularly on such 
a subject as the second advent ; because the epistle, if 
authentic, was but little behind the former in point 
of time. A sudden change of this sort cannot be 
attributed to him ; especially as he afterwards enun 
ciated his first opinion. We are ready to admit develop 
ment in the mind of the apostle. But the subject of 
the second advent, though not of primary importance 
in his view, was too momentous to be tossed about in 
thought from immediateness to remoteness of occur 
rence. Nothing certain was known about it ; yet its 
nearness supplied a comfort to the spirits of Paul and 
the first Christians which could not have been easily re 
linquished. The expectation of surviving such an event 
must have been cherished by the ardent apostle of the 
Gentiles. The author also reminds his readers that he 
had told them before of the preparatory phenomena ; so 
that both his oral teaching and written words (ii. 1-12) 
clash with the statement of the first epistle. 

The man of sin, and the thing or person that checks, 
are peculiar and original. Such hindrances to the reali 
sation of the divine kingdom and the glorious manifesta 
tion of its Sovereign are absent from Paul s writings. 
Had they entered into his doctrinal teachings, we should 
have certainly expected them in places where the second 
advent and its concomitants are spoken of; especially 
in 1 Cor. xv. 23, etc. Yet he is silent about them 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 341 

there. They are not touched upon, explained, or modi 
fied by any subsequent statement. Genuine Pauline 
eschatology ignores the precursors which are prominent 
in the second epistle to the Thessalonians and it is said 
had formed part of the apostle s oral teaching. 

The interpretation of the man of sin or son of per 
dition as well as of the checking power is difficult. 
Probably the Roman empire is meant. Antichrist, or 
the man of sin, may be Nero ; and he that checks, a 
Roman emperor, such as Vespasian. This view is 
favoured by a comparison of the passage with the Re 
velation ; especially as the latter seems to have sug 
gested the portrait. According to the Revelation, the 
beast, that was, and is, and goeth into perdition, 1 is 
Nero ; in the Thessalonian epistle he is the son of perdi 
tion. The falling away is paralleled by the worship of the 
dragon and the beast described in the thirteenth chapter 
of the Revelation ; the self- exaltation and self-deification 
mentioned in the epistle find their type in the account 
of the beast who claims and accepts worship, in the 
same chapter. i The coming after the working of Satan 
with all power and signs and lying wonders is paral 
leled by the language of the Revelation in xix. 20 ; 
while the Lord who consumes the lawless one with the 
spirit of his mouth and the brightness of his coming, 
resembles him who slays with the two-edged sword pro 
ceeding out of his mouth, and whose eyes are like a 
flame of fire (Rev. i. 14-16). The correspondence of 
our epistle and the Revelation can hardly be mistaken. 
The man of sin, though depicted differently, is still 
identical. The description in the Revelation is scenic 
and dramatic ; while the author of the epistle combines 
the various traits, and gives his conception compact ex 
pression. But the phenomenon in both is still veiled. 
Had fifteen years elapsed between the times of the second 
epistle and the Apocalypse, it would have been clearer 
in the latter. Reuss speaks of the progress of events 



342 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

enabling the apostle John to designate antichrist by a 
proper name (xiii. 18) ;* but the mystery thrown 
around Nero in the Revelation is as great as it is in 
the epistle. The march of events did not remove the 
veil ; for the same personage appears in shaded outline 
on the political horizon. If Nero be the man of sin, 
and the reigning emperor the hindrance to his developed 
power, the writer drew his picture of him about the 
end of 69, when the report was commonly believed that 
he was in retirement among the Parthians, collecting an 
army. 

It has been thought that the passage is susceptible 
of an interpretation consistent with Pauline authorship. 
If Claudius be the withholder, as Hitzig ingeniously 
conjectures, 2 the apostle might have divined the future 
even in A.D. 52 or 53, and foreseen the iniquity hidden 
in Nero. The supposition, however, is scarcely admis 
sible. The early part of Nero s life and reign gave no 
indications of his subsequent wickedness ; and the 
apostle himself, writing to the Romans some years 
after, enjoins obedience to this very emperor (xiii. 
1, etc.). 

The difficulties of the paragraph before us have 
baffled many inquirers, and cannot be entirely removed 
by the most careful exegesis. The precise meaning of 
the language, sitting in the temple of God, the apostasy, 
the gathering to him,, the mystery of iniquity, etc., can only 
ba conjectured. How far the writer reflected the ideas 
of the time after Nero s death, and how far he drew 
from his own imagination, can only be guessed. In 
addition to the Revelation, it is probable that he had 
regard to the book of Daniel (xi. 36), whose fourth 
empire was referred to Rome, and where Antiochus 
typified antichrist. He may also have had respect to 
the gathering together of the elect mentioned in Mat- 



Les Epitres Paudiniennes, tome premier, p. G8. 
Qui claildit = 6 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 343 

tliew xxiv. 31, when he speaks of our gathering 
together unto him. But the Jewish Christian picture 
which the first gospel gives of the second advent and 
its concomitants is modified. The false Christs had 
already given place to the beast in the Revelation ; and 
one person usurps the place of God, lording it over the 
Christians. Though the second advent is painted in 
sensuous colours in the first epistle, the fact is not 
inconsistent with the early origin of that document ; 
but the event was gradually disengaged from the fea 
tures given it by Judaism in the mind of Paul. A 
political aspect of the Divine kingdom did not comport 
with his eschatological ideas. The sensuous traits 
would naturally decrease (comp. 1 Thess. with 1 Cor. 
xv.), and the closing scene of the world be dissociated 
from earthly empires, as though their power were an 
insignificant element. 

We believe that the language of our epistle points 
to a person not a thing. He that exalts himself above 
all who are worshipped, who sits in the temple of God 
showing himself that he is God, cannot be converted 
into a Christian heresy like Gnosticism. Yet Hilgenfeld 
explains the passage in that way, resolving the phrase 
to sit in the temple of God into to be enthroned in 
Christianity. 

The entire passage is unlike any that occurs in 
Paul s epistles. Though it is not impossible he might 
have written it, the improbability of its coming from 
him is great. The view taken of the kingdom of God 
is not the subjective one peculiar to the apostle, but is 
shaped after the Jewish theocracy, being realised in the 
manner of the Messianic reign which the Jews ex 
pected, instead of by the inward consciousness at 
taching itself to the death of Christ as the means of 
salvation. In 1 Cor. xv. the last enemy to be subdued 
is not antichrist but death ; while the second advent is 
not delayed by intervening obstacles, but is considered 



344 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

just at hand. The Roman empire is not a restraining 
power keeping back antichrist and with him the coming 
of Christ, as in the present epistle. 

The man of sin was to some extent an ideal per 
sonage of the first century, embodying varying con 
ceptions. He was the concentrated essence of that 
enmity to Christianity which appeared in different 
forms. The imagination of the early believers viewed 
the enmity as a person or as a thing ; either outside 
Christianity, as Judaism or heathenism ; or within the 
church, as false teachers, whose Gnostic views misre 
presented the true person of Christ. The antichristian 
power fluctuated between unity and plurality, according 
to the notions of different times. 

No being of gigantic intellect is prophetically de 
scribed. No system, Gnosticism, Judaism, Romanism, 
Protestantism, is shadowed forth. Preterist and futurist 
expounders of prophecy are equally mistaken in seeking 
the fulfilment of the passage in history, because it is 
not prophetic but apocalyptic, expressing notions on a 
subject that concerns neither faith nor duty notions 
having merely a historical interest so far as they relate 
to primitive Christianity emerging out of Judaism and 
assuming an independent position. The author speaks 
enigmatically, feeling that he had nothing definite to 
predict, and that it was dangerous to particularise the 
Roman empire. 

These remarks are consistent with the author s in 
spiration, though not with that view of it which assumes 
infallibility. His subj ectivity mingled with and formed 
his inspiration. We take the New Testament writers 
as guides to faith and practice generally, without adopt 
ing all that they propounded or believing that they knew 
the future. 

2. The idea of recompence in the kingdom of God 
for sufferings endured by the Thessalonians is scarcely 
Pauline. The apostle always teaches that future blessed- 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 345 

ness is the reward of free grace, irrespective of human 
desert or agency ; whereas the notion of worthiness is in 
troduced in ch. i. 4-7. The construction of the passage 
is somewhat difficult because the clauses are not logi 
cally connected ; but thus much is clear, viz. that recom- 
pence is attached to the conduct and endurance of the 
readers, in an un- Pauline way. 

Again, everlasting destruction is said to be the doom 
not only of the Gentiles who know not God, but of the 
Jews who obey not the gospel (i. 8, 9). Yet the epistle 
to the Romans expresses a hope that the mass of the 
Jews shall be saved. The final happiness of all Israel 
cheers the heart of their kinsman (xi. 25, 26). In i. 
11, Christian calling coincides with the recompence be 
stowed by God on His people in the day when Christ 
shall be revealed, and is presented as the goal of life. 
It is a thing reached or attained at last ; the consumma 
tion of spiritual life. The apostle, on the contrary, uni 
formly regards it as an initiatory step or introduction 
into the church of Christ. Instead of making it a goal, 
he speaks of it as the beginning of true life in God s 
kingdom. When vocation is referred to its author, it 
belongs to the Divine purpose ; when it is viewed as an 
element of individual life on earth, it is an act of initia 
tion into all Christian privileges. Chap. ii. 14 is Pauline; 
i. 11 is not. 

3. The number of peculiar phrases and of words 
occurring but once in the epistle, strengthens suspicion 
against its Pauline origin. In this respect it presents a 
contrast to the first. Paul writes simply -we give thanks 
here the corresponding phrase is, we are bound to give 
thanks, to which is added, at it is meet (comp. 1 Thess. 
1, 2, with 2 Thess. i. 3). Election to salvation is ex 
pressed by a different verb from that which Paul uses (ii. 
13). 1 To receive the love of the tru+h" 2 occurs instead of 
to receive the word (ii. 10, comp. 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 13). The 

, not K\cyfv6ai. ~ rrjv aydurfv TTJS d\i]0fias dfdcrdai. 



346 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

work of faith (i. 11) l is un- Pauline. Artificial phrases 
are, to be glorified in his saints, to be admired in all them, 
that believe, our testimony among you was believed (i. 10), 2 
to fulfil all the good pleasure of goodness (i. II), 3 in faith 
of the truth (ii. 13). 4 And is prefixed to for this reason, 
contrary to Paul s manner (ii. II). 5 

4. The salutation at the close, added by the apostle s 
hand as a token that the letter is authentic, looks as if a 
later writer wished to ward off objection, and to attest 
its Pauline origin. When the apostle appended a salu 
tation, he did it as a mark of his love, not for authenti 
cation. The expression in every epistle increases the 
difficulty of accepting the Pauline authorship ; for the 
apostle had written but one, the first to the Thessa- 
lonians. It may be, however, that some are lost. It 
may be, also, that forged ones had been circulated in 
Thessalonica ; and that the statement refers to them as if 
the writer would attest all that he should compose hence 
forward, with his own signature. Many think that the 
phrase nor by letter as from us (ii. 2) alludes to a 
supposititious epistle which the Thessalonians had re 
ceived. But it rather refers to a Pauline writing, not to 
the present first, but to one which has only been pre 
served in such parts of the present second as were re 
tained by the man who rewrote and altered it. The 
preceding phrase byword (Paul s oral instruction) 
makes it probable that i the letter as proceeding from 
us was an authentic one which the Thessalonians mis 
understood. 

One thing appears, viz. that this authentication by 
Paul himself implies a time when supposititious epistles 
were in circulation, and tokens of authenticity were 

1 epyov Trio-Teens. 

2 eV5oocr$f?i>at ev rots aylois avTov, davfJiaadrjifai V rraaiv rols 

TO paprvpiov 



3 7r\r)povv Trafrav evdoKiav dyadaxrvvrjs. 

4 nioTfi d\T)&fias. 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 347 

looked for a time posterior to the commencement of 
the apostle s letter- writing activity. 

5. The ideas are often borrowed or repeated from 
the first epistle. Perhaps this might be attributed to 
Paul himself, in a measure ; but scarcely so far or in 
such a way as is now done. The first two verses are 
verbally the same with parts of the preceding epistle. 
Faith and love, for which thanks are given to God, re 
appear in the same context but are intensified : your 
faith groweth exceedingly, 1 and love aboundeth (i. 3). 
2 Thess. ii. 13 repeats what had been said at i. 3, with 
the application of the words to the readers, brethren 
beloved of the Lord/ which Paul never uses. 2 Thess. 
iii. 8 repeats 1 Thess. ii. 9 ; and iii. 10, 12, is an expan 
sion of 1 Thess. iv. 11, 12. A considerable part of 
our epistle, by enlarging, modifying, and repeating its 
statements, recalls the first. 

Dependence on other Pauline epistles is observable. 
Thus iv. 14 follows 1 Cor. v. 9, 11, the peculiar phraseo 
logy being the same. Compare also 1 Cor. iv. 14. The 
Lord of peace (iii. 16), is taken from 1 Cor. xiv. 33 ; 2 
Cor. xiii. 11. In like manner, 2 Thess. ii. 2 is from Galat. 
i. 6 ; iii. 4 from Galat. v. 10 ; and iii. 13 from Galat. vi. 9. 

The particulars just enumerated raise suspicions 
against the authenticity of the letter, though they have 
been met by apologetic arguments that blunt their edge. 
It cannot be denied that genuine Pauline ideas as well 
as expressions are found in it. If it was not written by 
the apostle himself, it proceeded from a disciple. Per 
haps the greater part of the third chapter, with ii. 13 
17, came from Paul, for the admonitions bear the im 
press of his mind. We may suppose that the second 
epistle was retouched, and enlarged with new matter, 
especially with ch. ii. 1-12, by a Pauline Christian. 
If this be so, it may be called authentic, icith modifica 
tions. The purely Pauline basis has been wrought over, 
changed, and extended, the immediate occasion of which 



348 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

lay in another politico -religious atmosphere than that 
which gave rise to the first. The figure of antichrist 
embodied in a person had emerged. Jerusalem was soon 
to be destroyed, its temple profaned by heathenism. The 
personal advent of Christ, which the Thessalonians en 
thusiastically expected, had spoiled their lives by its 
delay, leading to neglect of daily duties. The portrait 
presented in the Revelation introduced corrective traits 
and preluding events into that which had filled the 
minds of believers during the life of Paul. Hence the 
writer adapts the letter to the new circumstances, telling 
the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord is not 
imminent, and that they should go about their proper 
work with patience. He exhorts them to wait, and to 
endure their sufferings with faith, for the end is not yet. 
The date is about A.D. 69. 

The second epistle has long been objected to on in 
ternal grounds. Schmidt led the way, and was followed 
by Kern, 1 whose arguments are still valid. Baur 
sharpened and enlarged them. 2 Hilgenfeld, 3 P. W. 
Schmidt, 4 Holtzmann, 5 Lipsius, 6 Weisse, 7 Van Manen, 8 
Hausrath, 9 and Pfleiderer 10 assent. Noack ll rejects both 
epistles, as do Van der Yries 12 and Yolkmar. 13 But the 
second has had its defenders, Reiche, Hofmann, Liine- 
maiin, Reuss, Jowett, and others, who are more success 
ful in vindicating its Pauline authorship on the ground 
of other parts than the paragraph relating to antichrist. 14 

1 In the Tubingen Zeitschrift for 1839, Heft ii. 

2 Pnulus der Apostel, u. s. w. t p. 480, etc. 

3 Zeitschrift, vol. v. p. 225, etc. 4 Protest anten Bibel, p. 821, etc. 

5 In Schenkel s Bibel-Lexicon, vol. v. p. 501, etc. 

6 Studien und Kritiken for 1854, p. 905, etc. 

7 Philosophische, Dogmatik, vol. i. p. 146. 

8 De Echtheid van Paulus brieven aan tie Thessalonicensen, 1865. 

9 Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, vol. ii. p. 600. 

10 Paulinismus, vol. i. p. 29, English translation. 

11 Ursprnng des Christcnthums, vol. ii. p. 313, etc. 

12 De beiden brieven aan de Thessalonicensen, 1865. 

13 Mose Prophetie und IRmmelf ain t, p. 114, etc. 

14 Canon Farrar says he has * carefully studied the arguments of Baur, 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 349 

COMPARISON OF THE THESSALONIAN EPISTLES WITH 
THE ACTS. 

It is not easy to bring the epistles into exact corre 
spondence with the Acts of the Apostles, neither is it 
important. The history of the latter may be supple 
mented and corrected by the notices of the former. 

1. The Thessalonian Christians are represented as 
Gentiles who had turned from idolatry. The church 
was therefore of heathen origin. In the Acts xvii. 4, 
we read that some of the Jews believed, and of the de 
vout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women 
not a few, language implying that Jewish proselytes 
and Jews formed the body of the church, even if the 
women were Gentiles, which we do not know. This 
discrepancy can only be removed by supposing the 
narrative in the Acts inexact. Incomplete knowledge 
on the part of the historian will not account for it. The 
difficulty is obviated by the reading in the Acts which 
inserts and before Greeks ( both of the devout and of 
the Greeks a great multitude ), but it is feebly sup* 
ported, though Lachmann adopts it. The MSS. A. and 
D. cannot outweigh B. and X. 

2. The persecutors of the Thessalonians were their 
fellow-countrymen, i.e Gentiles (1 ep. ii. 14), whereas 
in the Acts Jews were the active adversaries. The dis 
crepancy cannot be removed or lessened by assuming 
that fellow-countrymen might include many Hellenist 
Jews. It can only and properly mean pagans. Paley s 
solution, that though the opposition made to the gospel 
originated in the enmity of the Jews, the Gentiles carried 
it out, is not satisfactory though approved by De Wette. 

Kern, Van der Vaier, De Wette, Volkmar, Zeller, and the Tubingen school 
generally, which are so slight as to be scarcely deserving of serious refu 
tation. But De Wette maintained the authenticity of both epistles in 
all editions of his Introduction to the New Testament after the first and 
second, Van der Vaier is a Dutchman framed out of the Canon s imagina 
tion. 



350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. . 

3. The notices of Silas and Timothy in the Acts 
and the epistles are discordant. 

In the Acts, Paul and Silas are together at Thessa 
lonica, and were sent away by night to Beroea. No 
mention is made there of Timothy. From Beroea the 
apostle went to Athens ; but Timothy and Silas re 
mained. Those who conducted him to Athens carried 
back orders that the two companions should join him 
there. Nothing is said, however, about their going 
thither ; nor do they reappear with the apostle till he is 
at Corinth, to which place they came from Macedonia 
(Acts xviii. 5). 

The epistles inform us that Timothy and Silas were 
with Paul when he wrote (1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1). 
The first intimates that Paul thought it best to be left 
alone at Athens, and sent Timothy to Thessalonica. 
The we before thought it good means himself alone, 
not himself and Silas. Timothy returned with good 
news. 

It is not easy to harmonise these accounts except by 
assumptions. Thus it has been thought that Timothy, 
who had been left behind at Thessalonica, followed Paul 
and Silas to Beroea, and that he was sent back thence 
with the first letter. Paul went on to Athens, leaving 
Silas and Timothy at Beroea ; but though both had 
orders to follow him speedily to Athens, they were 
countermanded. The Acts do not favour the idea of 
Timothy s following the apostle to Athens ; for it is 
said that he and Silas were merely expected there, not 
that they actually came ; but the words of the first 
epistle at the beginning of the third chapter imply that 
Timothy when at Athens was sent back to Thessa 
lonica. 

The order of the epistles need not be discussed if the 
authenticity of the second be abandoned ; for it concerns 
those only who hold both to be Pauline. Grotius 
thought that the second or shorter was written first ; 



SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 351 

and others have entertained the same opinion. The 
arguments in favour of it are of some weight, as stated 
by Ewald and Baur. Those who maintain the full au 
thenticity of the second, have difficulty in doing so and 
conserving the traditional order at the same time. 



352 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE GOSPELS. 



MUTUAL RELATION. 

THOSE who compare the first three gospels cannot fail 
to perceive that they agree not only in the substance of 
what they relate but often in the diction itself. Amid 
minor diversities they harmonise with one another in 
contents. Numerous investigations have been made to 
explain the resemblances. 

The following hypotheses have been proposed to 
account for them. 

1. That the gospels were derived from a common 
written source or sources. 

2. That they were derived from oral tradition which 
had assumed a fixed form. 

3. That earlier gospels were used in the composition 
of the later. 

4. Some have combined the last two opinions, 
making a composite view out of them. 

It would be a waste of time to discuss these 
opinions at length. We can only indicate what is 
settled among the best critics. 

The first view has passed away, notwithstanding 
the amount of ingenuity expended in developing it by 
Eichhorn 1 and Marsh. It is clumsy, laboured, and 
inadequate. 

The second is also obsolete, in spite of Gieseler s 

1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. i. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE GOSPELS. 353 

able explanation. 1 Though it accounts for many resem 
blances and discordances in the gospels, it fails to ex 
plain their numerous verbal coincidences. The fixed 
form which it requires for the oral gospel must involve 
peculiar verbal agreements which would not be stereo 
typed. It does not meet the case, to say that the Jews 
preserved the sayings of their great teachers with strict 
accuracy ; for the circle of hearers in which the oral 
gospel is supposed to have been formed was wider, more 
miscellaneous, less intellectual than the class that trea 
sured up the sayings of the Jewish rabbis, not to speak 
of the manifoldness of the sayings of Jesus compared 
with the more easily retained and concise dicta of the 
former. Besides, the Jews did not rely on memory 
alone, but wrote down even in that age what they 
valued most. 

The third hypothesis is the only tenable one. We 
should not say that the evangelists recommended each 
other/ as Dr. H. Owen affirms ; nor is it a sufficient 
answer to the objection, i how came they not to avoid 
the many contradictions observable among them, that 
these are only seeming contradictions, which would dis 
appear were we fully acquainted with all the facts and 
circumstances. The evangelists used one another freely, 
having ulterior sources written and oral, which they 
employed according to the purpose that guided selec 
tion. It was not their intention to sift the documents 
at their disposal, to copy them literally, or to adhere to 
them slavishly Their scope was wider, following no 
exact rule ; and their passing from one source to ano 
ther should not be judged by a modern standard. A 
leading motive usually guided their procedure, and 
shaped the character of the narratives from whatever 
source they were drawn. Indifferent about perfect 
agreement, the avoidance of contradictions did not 

1 Historisch-kritischer Versuch ilber die Entstehung wid die fruhesten 
Schicksale der schrift lichen Evangelien, 1818. 
VOL. I. A A 



354 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

disturb them : they were intent on more important 
things. Those who think they refute our view by 
putting into juxta-position passages which agree 
verbally, diverge, return to verbal coincidence and 
so on, assume that they prove absurdity in a writer 
who, after taking a few words from his predecessor, 
gives a few that vary either because they come from 
another document or because of his own caprice, so that 
predecessors are used alternately in an interlacing 
fashion. But this is a caricature of the view, making 
the evangelists mechanical copyists, and leaving out of 
account the employment of additional documents, con 
scious freedom in dealing as well with the matter as 
the manner of each other s compositions, and espe 
cially the processes through which the gospels passed 
before they reached their present state under the hands 
of redactors. The synoptics as they now are, show 
the result, not the progress, of mutual derivation. 

Those who believe in the original independence of 
the evangelists that each wrote without seeing his 
predecessor s work have been fairly driven out of the 
field of criticism. One valid argument overthrows 
their belief, viz. the peculiar resemblance of Mark s 
gospel to that of Matthew. It is easy to allege that on 
the ground of one evangelist following another, no good 
reason can be given why each has here and there some 
thing peculiar to himself; why he occasionally speaks 
more definitely than another, more circumstantially, more 
chronologically, or more briefly. It is also easy to assert, 
that no good reason can be given why the diction of one 
should be altered by his successor for the worse, or 
changed without improvement, or rendered obscurer. 
Difficulties innumerable may be raised with respect to the 
abridging and adding processes of a later evangelist. Why 
did he act so and so, and not in a certain way suggested ? 

The question can be brought to a probable issue in 
one way only ; that is, by carefully examining and 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE GOSPELS. .355 

comparing the gospels as we have them. What do the 
phenomena themselves suggest ? Is the similarity in 
all cases of a nature to exclude the partial dependence 
of one writer on another ? Notwithstanding discrep 
ancies in matter and manner which intersect resem 
blances diversities interlacing the agreements in every 
variety the evidence is sufficient to show that the 
authors were not independent of one another. 

We rely on the coincidences between Mark and 
Matthew alone to prove that the former used the latter. 

It is less clear that Mark employed Matthew and 
Luke ; or that Luke followed Matthew and Mark. The 
priority of Luke to Mark is the more probable ; and 
therefore that Mark used the gospels of his two prede 
cessors. To reconcile contradictions with the view now 
taken is not difficult, if the individuality of the writers 
be allowed fair scope by the side of varying documents 
and oral tradition. 

The canonical gospels were composed out of written 
materials chiefly. Earlier documents, which afterwards 
disappeared, preceded and contributed to each. This 
applies not only to the first but to the second and third. 
But oral tradition must not be excluded ; though it 
formed a small element in the composition of each, be 
cause much of it had been incorporated into written 
collections when the canonical gospels appeared. 

It is satisfactory to perceive that good critics have 
ceased to regard harmonies, both Greek and English. 
Whatever use such works may have had once, their day 
is past. Laboured attempts to put every part of the gos 
pels into its right chronological place by transpositions, 
assumptions, violent distortions, so as to make a con 
sistent and successive narrative out of all, are useless. 
It is painful to see the efforts of their authors to remove 
contradictions, and to explain in a conciliatory spirit 
portions that are really intractable. While credit is due 
to Greswell and Robinson, the two ablest harmonists, 

A A. 2 



350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

for their attempts to construct works of this nature, 
their failure is apparent. As long as plenary inspira 
tion is attributed to the evangelists, it is the interest of 
its advocates to find pervading unity in the four gospels 
an unity inconsistent with positive or real discrep 
ancies. Those who decry harmonies while advocating 
plenary inspiration are inconsistent. Though they see 
that harmonists fail in many places, they do not help 
them to work out what is in the interests of their own 
belief. Their duty is to aid harmonising essays to the 
utmost, and not to take refuge in ignorance of all the 
circumstances of the case. It is timid policy to say, 
when a real contradiction stares the interpreter in the 
face, This could be satisfactorily cleared up, did we 
know all the circumstances. What is it but saying in 
effect, I have a shorter way of getting out of the diffi 
culties than the harmonists ? I admit the present in- 
explicability of passages, but hold that they are perfectly 
consistent if more light were thrown upon the circum 
stances, because inspiration excludes the contradiction 
of Scripture with itself. Perhaps also the text is cor 
rupt ; it should be altered, even against authority. 

The true corrective of harmonies is an honest expla 
nation of the gospels as the best textual criticism pre 
sents them. By fair exegesis, ingenious hypotheses of 
plenary or dynamical inspiration an inspiration 
combining the two elements of the human and divine 
in perfection appear at once as the inventions of apolo 
gists building imaginary castles without proper regard 
to the materials. The castles are built first ; and the 
stones are afterwards shaped with great labour, or with 
a capricious readiness that forces them into unsuitable 
positions. The four copies of the title on the cross are 
sufficient to overthrow the flimsy fabrics. 

The harmony subsisting between the first three 
gospels in matter and manner may be seen in the fol 
lowing sections and passages. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE GOSPELS. 357 



1. Matt. 


iii. 1-12. 


Mark i. 2-8. 


Luke iii. 1-18. 


2. 


iii. 13-17. 


i. 9-11. 


iii. 21, 22. 


3. 


iv. 1-11. 


i. 12, 13. 


iv. 1-13. 


4. 


iv. 12-17. 


i. 14, 15. 


iv. 14, 15. 


5. 


iv. 18-22. 


i. 16-20. 


v. 1-11. 


6. 


v. 15. 


iv. 21. 


viii. 16, & xi. 33. 


7- 


viii. 2-4. 


i. 40-45. 


v. 12-16. 


8. 


viii. 14-17. 


i. 29-34. 


iv. 38-41. 


9. 


viii. 23-27. 


iv. 36-41. 


viii. 22-25. 


10. 


viii. 28-34. 


v. 1-20. 


viii. 26-39. 


11. 


ix. 1-8. 


ii. 1-12. 


v. 17-26. 


12. 


ix.9. 


ii. 13, 14. 


v. 27, 28. 


13. 


ix. 10-17. 


ii. 15-22. 


v. 29-39. 


14. 


ix. 18-26. 


v. 22-43. 


viii. 41-56. 


15. 


x. 1. 


vi. 7. 


ix. i. 


16. 


x. 2-4. 


iii. 16-19. 


vi. 13-16. 


17. 


x. 5-14. 


vi. 8-11. 


ix. 2-5 


18. 


xii. 1-8. 


ii. 23-28. 


vi. 1-5. 


19. 


xii. 9-14. 


iii. 1-6. 


vi. 6-11. 


20. 


xii. 22-30. 


iii. 22-27. 


xi. 14-23. 


21. 


xii. 46-50. 


iii. 31-35. 


viii. 19-21. 


22. 


xiii. 1-23. 


iv. 1-25. 


viii. 4-15. 


23. 


xiv. 1, 2. 


vi. 14, 15. 


ix. 7, 8. 


24. 


xiv. 3, 4. 


vi. 17, 18. 


iii. 19, 20. 


25. 


xiv. 13-21. 


vi. 30-44. 


ix. 10-17. 


26. 


xvi. 13-28. 


viii. 27-ix. 1. 


ix. 18-27. 


27. 


xvii. 1-8. 


ix. 2-8. 


ix. 28-36. 


28. 


xvii. 14-18. 


ix. 14-27. 


ix. 37-43. 


29. 


xvii. 22, 23. 


ix. 30-32. 


ix. 43-45. 


30. 


xviii. 1-5. 


ix. 33-41. 


ix. 46-50. 


31. 


xix. 13-15. 


x. 13-16. 


xviii. 15-17. 


32. 


xix. 16-80. 


x. 17-31. 


xviii. 18-30. 


33. 


xx. 17-19. 


x. 32-34. 


xviii. 31-34. 


34. 


xx. 29-34. 


x. 46-52. 


xviii. 35-43. 


35. 


xxi. 1-9. 


xi. 1-10. 


xix. 29-38. 


36. 


xxi. 12, 13. 


xi. 15-17. 


xix. 45, 46. 


37. 


xxi. 23-27. 


xi. 27-33. 


xx. 1-8. 


38. 


xxi. 33-46. 


xii. 1-12. 


xx. 9-19. 


39. 


xxii. 15-22. 


xii. 18-17. 


xx. 20-26. 


40. 


xxii. 23-33. 


xii. 18-27. 


xx. 27-40. 


41. 


xxii. 41-46. 


xii. 35-37. 


xx. 41-44. 


42. 


xxiii. 1-14. 


xii. 38-40. 


xx. 45-47. 


43. 


xxiv. 1-36. 


xiii. 1-32. 


xxi. 5-33. 


44. 


xxvi. 1-5. 


xiv. 1, 2. 


xxii. 1, 2. 


45. 


xxvi. 14-16. 


xiv. 10, 11. 


xxii. 3-6. 


46. 


xxvi. 17-29. 


xiv. 12-25. 


xxii. 7-23. 


47. 


xxvi. 36-56. 


xiv. 32-52. 


xxii. 40-53. 


48. 


xxvi. 57, 58. 


xiv. 53, 54. 


xxii. 54, 55. 


49, 


xxvi. 69-75. 


xiv. 66-72. 


xxii. 56-71. 


50. 


xxvii. 1, 2. 


,, XV. 1. 


,. xxiii. 1. 



358 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

61. Matt, xxvii. 11, 23. Mark xv. 2-14. Luke xxiii. 2-23. 

52. xxvii. 26. xv. 15. xxiii. 24, 25. 

53. xxvii. 32. xv. 21. xxiii. 26. 

54. xxvii. 33. xv. 22. xxiii. 33. 

55. xxvii. 34-38. xv. 24-28. xxiii. 33, 34, 38. 
66. xxvii. 39-56. xv. 29-41. xxiii, 35-49, 

57. xxvii. 57-61. xv. 42-47. xxiii. 50-56. 

58. xxviii. 1-8. xvi. 1-8. xxiv. 1-9. 

The parallels now given from the three gospels will 
not appear the same in different lists, in consequence of 
the different views entertained of the principles that 
should underlie a harmony, and diversities of j udgment 
as to the mode of carrying out those principles. Hence 
the tables furnished by critics differ. 

Again, while the matter constituting the body of the 
three gospels is similar, there is great diversity in its 
arrangement. Exact chronological sequence is not in 
any of the writers. Matthew comes nearest it. In the 
arrangement of facts, Mark agrees more nearly with 
Luke than Matthew and is farther from the true order. 

There are sections common to two evangelists only, 
of which the following are all the cases possible. 

(a.) Sections and places common to Matthew and 
Mark : 

1. Matthew. x. 42. Mark. ix. 41. 

2. xiii. 34, 35. iv. 33, 34.. 

3. xiii. 64-58. vi. 2-6. 

4. xiv. 6-12. vi. 21-29. 

5. xiv. 22, 23. vi. 45, 46. 

6. xiv. 28-36. vi. 50-56. 

7. xv. 1-20. vii. 1-23. 

8. xv. 21-29. vii. 24-31. 

9. xv. 30-39. viii. 1-10. 

10. xvi. 1-4. viii. 11-13. 

11. xvi. 5-12. viii. 14-21. 

12. xvii. 9-13. ix. 9-13. 

13. xvii. 19-21. ix. 28, 29. 

14. , xviii. 6-9. ix. 42-48. 



15. 
16. 
17. 

18. 



xix. 1-9. x. 1-12. 

xx. 20-28. x. 35-45. 

xxi. 17-22. xi. 11-14, 19-26. 

xxii. 34-40. xii. 28-34. 



19. xxiv. 22-26. xiii. 20-23. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE GOSPELS. 359 

20. Matthew. xxvi. 6-13. Mark. xiv. 3-9. 



21. 


xxvi. 42-46, 48. 


>t 


xiv. 39-42, 44. 


22. 


xxvi. 59-68. 





xiv. 55-65. 


23. 


xxvii. 15-18. 


i) 


xv. 6-10. 


24. 


xxvii. 27-31. 





xv. 16-20. 


25. 


xxvii. 46-49. 





xv. 34-36. 


26. 


xxviii. 7. 





xvi. 7. 


(6.) Passages found in 


Mark and 


Luke only : 


1. Mark. 


i. 21-28. 


Luke. iv. 31-37. 


2. 


i. 35-39. 


a 


iv. 42-44. 


3. 


i. 45. 





v. 15, 16. 


4. 


ii. 4. 





v. 19. 


5. 


iii. 13-15. 


)t 


vi. 12, 13. 


6- 


iv. 21-25. 


n 


viii. 16-18. 


7. 


v. 4. 





viii. 27. 


8. 


v. 9, 10. 





viii. 30, 31. 


9. 


v. 29-33. 


)> 


viii. 45-47. 


10. 


v. 35-37. 


)t 


viii. 48-51. 


11. 


vi. 15, 16. 





ix. 8, 9. 


12. 


vi. 30, 31. 


)> 


ix. 10. 


13. 


viii. 38. 





ix. 26. 


14. 


ix. 38-40. 


)> 


ix. 49, 50. 


15. 


xi. 18. 





xix. 47, 48. 


16. 


xii. 41-44. 





xxi. 1-4. 


17. 


xiii. 9, 11. 


)> 


xxi. 12-15. 



(c.) Parallel passages found in Matthew and Luke 
only : 



1. 


Matthew. iv. 3-11. 


Luke. iv. 3-13. 


2. 


v. 1-12. 


vi. 20-23. 


3. 


v. 39-48. 


vi. 27-36 


4. 


v. 18. 


xvi. 17. 


5. 


v. 25, 26. 


xii. 58, 59. 


6. 


vi. 7-13. 


xi. 1-4. 


7. 


vi. 19-21. 


xii. 33, 34. 


8. 


vi. 22, 23. 


xi. 34-36, 


9. 


vi. 24. 


xvi. 13, 


10. 


vi. 25-33. 


xii. 22-31, 


11. 


vii. 1, 2, 3-5, 12, 


vi. 31, 37, 38, 41, 42, 




[16-20, 24-27. 


[44-49. 


12. 


viii. 5-13. 


vii. 1-10. 


13. 


viii. 19-22. 


ix. 57-60. 


14. 


ix. 37, 38. 


x. 2. 


15. 


x. 12, 13. 


x. 5, 6. 


16. 


x. 15. 


x. 12. 


17. 


x. 16. 


x. 3. 


18. 


i. 19, 20. 


xii. 11, 12. 


19. 


x. 24. 


vi. 40. 



360 



INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



20. Matthew. x. 20-83. 



21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 
30. 
31. 
32. 



x. 34, 35. 
xi. 2-19. 
xi. 21-23. 
xi. 25-27. 
xii. 23. 
xii. 38-42. 
xii. 43-45. 
xiii. 33. 
xviii. 12-14. 
xxiii. 37-39. 
xxiv. 45-51. 
xxv. 14-30. 



Luke. xii. 2-9. 

xii. 51-53. 

vii. 18-35. 

x. 13-15. 

x. 21, 22. 

xi. 14. 

xi. 16, 29-31, 

xi. 24-26. 

xiii. 20, 21. 

xv. 4-7. 

xiii. 34, 35. 

xii. 42-48. 

xix. 11-28. 



For verbal correspondences in three gospels, the fol 
lowing passages, selected from those just given, may 
serve : 



Matt. iii. 3. 


Mark. i. 3. 


Luke. iii. 4. 


iii. 11. 


i. 7. 


iii. 16. 


viii. 2-4. 


i. 40-44. 


v. 12-14. 


viii. 15. 


i. 31. 


iv. 39. 


ix. 2, 4-6. 


ii. 5, 8-10. 


v. 20, 22-24. 


ix. 15. 


ii. 20. 


v. 35. 


ix. 22. 


v. 34. 


viii. 48. 


ix. 24. 


v. 39. 


viii. 62. 


xii. 13. 


,, iii. 5. 


vi. 10. 


xiv. 19, 20. 


vi. 41-43. 


ix. 16, 17. 


xvi. 21. 


., vii. 31. 


ix. 22. 


xvi. 24-26. 


viii. 34-37. 


ix. 23-25. 


xvi. 28. 


ix. 1. 


ix. 27. 


xvii. 5. 


ix. 7. 


ix. 35. 


xvii. 17. 


ix. 19. 


ix. 41. 


xix. 29. 


x. 29. 


xviii. 29. 


xxi. 12, 13. 


xi. 15, 17. 


xix. 45, 46. 


xxi. 23. 


xi. 28. 


xx. 2. 


xxi. 25-27. 


xi. 30-33. 


xx. 4, 5, 6, 8. 


xxi. 42. 


xii. 10. 


xx. 17. 


xxii. 44. 


xii. 36. 


xx. 42, 43. 


xxiv. 6-9. 


xiii. 7-13. 


xxi. 9-17. 


xxiv. 19. 


xiii. 17. 


xxi. 23. 


xxiv. 30. 


xiii. 26. 


xxi. 27. 


xxiv. 35. 


xiii. 31. 


xxi. 33. 


xxvi. 29. 


xiv. 25. 


xxii. 18. 



Other verbal coincidences in the parallel sections and 
passages of the three gospels may be discovered besides 
the present. There are some very striking examples in 
such coincident passages, of verbal agreement between 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE GOSPELS. 361 

two of the evangelists, the third relating the same things 
in different words. None of these, however, has been 
adduced, because our object is to select verbal coinci 
dences between the three writers in sections or passages 
common to all. The verbal coincidences between two 
gospels alone are more frequent and striking. Take 
the following specimens in sections or passages common 
to two evangelists : 

Matthew. xiv. 22, 34. Mark. vi. 45, 53. 
xv. 7-10. vii. 6, 7, 14. 

xv. 26, 32. vii. 27 ; viii. 1, 2. 

xix. 5, 6. x. 7-9. 

xx. 22-28. x. 38-45. 

xxiv. 22. xiii. 20. 

Mark. i. 24, 25. Luke. iv. 34, 35. 

viii. 38. ix. 26. 

ix. 38, 40. ix. 49, 50. 

Matthew. v. 44. Luke. vi. 27, 28. 

vii. 5. vi. 42. 

viii. 8-10. vii. 6-9. 

viii. 20, 22. ix. 58, 60. 

xi. 3-11. vii. 19-28. 

xi. 16-19. vii. 31-35. 

xii. 41-45. xi. 24-26, 31, 32. 

xiii. 33. xiii. 20, 21. 

xxiii. 37, 38. xiii. 34, 35. 

xxiv. 46-50. xii. 43-46. 

Bishop Marsh pointed out the following phenomena 
connected with the verbal agreement of the gospels. 

1. The examples in which all three gospels verbally 
coincide are not very numerous ; and contain, in 
general, only one or two, or at most three sentences to 
gether. 

2. The examples of verbal agreement between Mat 
thew and Mark are very numerous. 

3. The examples of verbal agreement between Mark 
and Luke are not numerous, being but eight in all. 1 

4. The verbal coincidences are more numerous in 
reciting the words of Jesus, and in the reports of words 
spoken by others in connection with His language, than 

1 Marsh s Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 378, etc. 



362 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

in the narrative parts. This is admitted by Marsh, 
whose peculiar hypothesis does not account for it satis 
factorily. 1 Where the evangelists speak in their own 
person, verbal agreement can scarcely be termed rare, 
as it is by Norton. It appears, at least, to such an ex 
tent in the narrative parts of Mark as to show that the 
mind of the evangelist, imbued with the sentiments and 
language of Matthew, led him naturally into his prede 
cessor s ideas and expressions. 

If the synoptic text be divided into 124 sections, as 
it is by Keuss, forty- seven of them are common to the 
three. Twelve are in Matthew and Mark, two in Mat 
thew and Luke, six in Mark and Luke. Seventeen are 
in Matthew alone, two in Mark, and thirty-eight in 
Luke alone. 

5. It should also be observed, that the passages in 
which the words of others are repeated, bear a small 
proportion to the narrative parts. If, for example, the 
gospels be separated into two divisions, the one consist 
ing of the recital of others words, the second of the 
evangelists statements of facts, the extent of the latter 
will be much greater than that of the former. Mr. 
Norton, who carefully examined this subject, found the 
proportion of verbal coincidence in the narrative part of 
Matthew, compared with what exists in the other part, 
to be as one to more than two ; in Mark, as one to four ; 
and in Luke as one to ten. 2 

6. Verbal coincidences are also found in predictions 
from the Old Testament, though much seldomer than 
in the case just mentioned. This may be owing to the 
common use of the Septuagint version. 

As long as every part of the gospels is considered 
historical, no advance can be made toward ascertaining 

1 An illustration of the hypothesis proposed in the dissertation on the 
origin and composition of our three first canonical gospels. 

2 The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. cii ; ad 
ditional notes- 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE GOSPELS. 363 

their genetic origin or true characteristics. If they be 
assigned to the writers whose names they bear, internal 
evidence disproves it ; for it is plain that unhistorical 
materials are incorporated, the gradual growth of more 
than one generation after the apostles. When it is also 
affirmed by Norton, that the Christians of the first two 
centuries had as great reverence for the sacred books of 
our religion as Christians of the present day/ the state 
ment is unfounded. Certain it is, that Papias did not 
look upon them as canonical or authoritative, for he says, 
I did not think that things out of books profited me as 
much as those of the living and abiding voice, 1 imply 
ing that he set as high if not a higher value on oral 

O o O 

tradition in regard to the evangelical history as he did 
upon the gospels with which he was acquainted. So 
too Hegesippus (A.D. 170) places the orthodoxy of the 
Church in its attachment to the law, the prophets, and 
the Lord, without allusion to a standard of apostolic 
writings. 2 It is also incorrect to assert, that Justin re 
garded the gospels as entitled to equal reverence with 
the Jewish Scriptures. In quoting from the writings 
of apostles he never uses the phrases common in rela 
tion to the Old Testament, the Spirit says, 7 God speaks 
through them. It was not till towards the close of 
the second century, that the catholic Christians began 
to feel the necessity of elevating the four gospels which 
had attained general currency, to the dignity and autho 
rity of canonicity, and attributing to them a value 
already accorded to the Old Testament. Before A.D. 160 
there is no proof that Christians generally had great 
reverence for the first three gospels, or for the produc 
tions by which they were preceded and by whose aid 
they were written. 

The narratives consist of the real and the ideal the 
historical and mythic. No critic will deny that the 
time between the occurrences and the present gospels 

1 Apud Euseb. H.E. iii. 39. 2 Ibid. iv. 22. 



304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

was sufficient to allow of the growth of legends and 
the moulding power of fancy in connection with the 
original facts ; so that the real events and sayings are 
presented in forms more or less exaggerated, distorted, 
unreal ; or are buried beneath later creations. A mythic 
haze encompasses the person, life, and discourses of 
Jesus ; and sober criticism must set about the task of 
removing it reverently, respecting tradition without su- 
perstitiously adopting it. After this is done, there stands 
forth in colours more or less distinct, a person such as 
the world never saw before the living type of an ideal 
humanity, pure and perfect, destined to influence all 
times, to purify all people among whom His name is 
known, and to ennoble His followers by lifting them up 
to the measure of His stature. 

Tradition is the mother of fable. By admitting a 
traditional source of the gospel wholly or in part, its 
historical inaccuracy is allowed. If indeed the tradition 
existed only during the life of its authors, if it was fixed 
in writing before the first witnesses passed away, little 
time is left for mythic embellishment. But that position 
is critically untenable. External evidence does not prove 
it, and internal is adverse. Had we even the memoirs 
which Mark is said to have written down from Peter, 
or Matthew s Aramaic discourses, it is probable that the 
moulding influence of oral tradition would appear in 
them ; how much more in the present synoptics, which 
are the growth of successive recensions, the embodiment 
of varying traditions, Galilean and Judaic, apostolic and 
postapostolic. 



365 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 



ALLEGED WRITER. 

MATTHEW and Levi may have been different persons, 
though it is more probable that they were the same. 
The circumstances related by Mark and Luke respecting 
the call of Levi are so like those connected with the call 
of Matthew, that identity of person may be assumed. 
Perhaps after embracing Christianity and changing his 
mode of life, the apostle adopted a new name. Matthew, 
the son of Alphaeus, a native of Galilee, was summoned 
from his employment of publican at Capernaum to be a 
disciple of Jesus. Few particulars of his life are re 
corded. It is said that he left Palestine to preach the 
gospel in other countries, in Arabia Felix for example, 
part of which was called Ethiopia, and where there were 
many Jews. His ascetic manner of life noticed by 
Clement of Alexandria, rests on an apocryphal founda 
tion ; and the accounts of his death are uncertain. 
According to Heracleon he died a natural death ; but 
whether in Ethiopia, as Socrates affirms, or in Mace 
donia, according to Isidore of Seville, it is impossible to 
ascertain. The statement of Nicephorus that he suffered 
martyrdom is less probable. 

THE PERSONS FOR WHOM THE GOSPEL WAS INTENDED. 

It was universally believed in ancient times, that the 
first gospel was intended for the use of Jewish Chris- 



366 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

tians. The fact is affirmed by Irenaeus, Eusebius, 
Jerome, and others ; and internal evidence favours it. 
The original writer presupposes an acquaintance on the 
part of his readers with Judea, its geography, natural 
productions and local phenomena, which could only have 
been expected of Jews. They had the temple before 
their eyes, with its sacrificial arrangements. They were 
familiar with the customs of the Hebrews, and are sup 
posed to know the Mosaic law. The contents of the 
gospel, especially its citations from the Old Testament 
with their introductory formulas, attest the truth of our 
statement. Thus the evangelist writes that the institu 
tions of the law and the prophetic writings were signi 
ficant of things future till John appeared, with whom 
their fulfilment began (xi. 13-15). 



THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IN WHICH MATTHEW WROTE. 

Ancient testimony is unanimous in declaring that 
Matthew wrote in Hebrew, i.e. Aramasan or Syro-Chal- 
daic, the vernacular tongue of the Jews in Palestine at 
the time of Christ. 

Papias of Hierapolis, a hearer of John the elder, 
according to Eusebius, wrote a work entitled An Ex 
position of Oracles of the Lord ; l and extracts from 
it are preserved chiefly by Irenasus and Eusebius, which 
are valuable at the present day. The following one 
from its preface, is in Eusebius : But I will not scruple 
also to put along with my interpretations for your 
benefit whatsoever in time past I learned well from 
the elders and remembered well, guaranteeing their 
truth. For I did not, like the many, take pleasure 
in those who say much, but in those who teach the 
truth ; nor in those who record foreign commandments, 
but such as were given from the Lord to the faith, and 
are derived from the truth itself. But if any one came 

1 \oyitov KVpiciKwv cr)yr)tTis. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 367 

in my way who had been a follower of the elders, 
I inquired about the discourses of the elders what was 
said by Andrew, Peter or Philip, or by Thomas, James, 
John, Matthew or any other of the Lord s disciples ; 
and what Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the 
Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so much 
profit from books as from a living and abiding voice. 
Again : Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew 
dialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able. l 
Was Papias a credible witness ? Eusebius states 
concerning him, He appears to have been of very 
weak understanding. 2 This judgment rested on the 
fact that Papias understood certain parables of our Lord 
too literally, and entertained millennarian opinions, 
to which the historian was strongly opposed. Slender 
abilities do not vitiate the credibility of a witness, if he 
possess integrity of character. When Eusebius says 
of Papias elsewhere, * a man most eloquent in every 
respect and skilled in Scripture, 3 the words are probably 
spurious, since they are not in the St. Petersburg Syriac 
copy dated A.D. 462, nor in several Greek MSS. specified 
by Schwegler. Papias has given the source whence he 
derived his information respecting Matthew. It was 
John the elder ; for after the historian introduces a 
quotation from Papias relative to Mark and his gospel, 
beginning with and the presbyter said this/ he sub 
joins, such is the account of Papias respecting Mark. 
And of Matthew it has been said, Matthew composed, 
etc. It is scarcely probable that Eusebius would have 
written, these things have been said of Matthew, 4 had 
not the information given in the quotation from Papias 
immediately following been drawn from the same 
source with that contained in the preceding quotation. 

1 Mar$aioy ftez> ovv E/3paii StaAtKTO) ra Xdyia (TVvcypd\ls(iTO, 
avra <us TJV dwarbs eKaaros. Ap. Euseb. //. JE. iii. 39. 

2 <r(p68pa .... cr/JiiKpbs &v TOV vovv .... (fraive 

3 dvrjp TO. Travra Xoyicoraro? KCIL rfjs ypafprjs eldr)p.a)i>. 

4 TTtp\ tie TOV MarBaiov rnvr 



368 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The passage quoted above shows that Papias s 
work was an exposition or interpretation of the Lord s 
wades ; that he carefully collected oral traditions illus 
trative of his exposition, and that the elders who had 
come in contact with apostles were the principal source 
of those traditions. The main point is, the meaning of 
the Lord s oracles. Were they our written gospels, the 
canonical gospels of the present day ? To show that 
they were, examples have been adduced from the New 
Testament in proof that oracles is equivalent to scrip 
tures. But such instances are of no account in the 
present case, because most of them refer to the Old 
Testament ; which is not the point in question. Nor 
is the application of the title to the New Testament by 
writers belonging to the end of the second century and 
onwards of force, because the canonisation of the New 
Testament books was not made till the second half of 
the second century. The word logia was not employed 
till then as a synonym for Scripture. Hence the 
citation of passages from Irenoeus, Clement of Alex 
andria, Origen and Basil are irrelevant. 1 It is true that 
the epistle of Polycarp uses the expression i oracles of 
the Lord ; but his sense of it is uncertain and the 
authenticity of the epistle more than doubtful. Bar 
nabas, however, is cited as a valid proof for the opinion 
that a gospel like Matthew s could be quoted as scrip 
ture by Papias, because his epistle introduces a quota 
tion from Matthew s gospel by the formula as it is 
written ; and if it could be quoted as scripture by Bar 
nabas, it could surely be described as oracles when 
Papias wrote. In answer to this we observe, that the 
quotation in Barnabas was probably taken from 4 
Esdras viii. 3. As we have said elsewhere, even if the 
writer took the words from Matthew s gospel, it is 
possible that he used it is written with reference to 
their prototype in the Old Testament. Of such inter- 

1 Bishop Lightfoot, in Contomp. Review, vol. xxvi. pp. 400, 401. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 369 

changes examples occur in writers of the second century ; 
and it is the more probable that this is one from the 
fact that the author of 4 Esdras is elsewhere considered 
a prophet and referred to in the same way as Ezekiel. 
Barnabas s citation of a gospel as canonical is wholly 
improbable, since even Justin, thirty years after, never 
quotes the New Testament writings as scripture. The 
thing would be anomalous and opposed to the history 
of the first half of the second century. l If this be 
deemed unsatisfactory, the authoritative phrase, as it is 
written, probably belonged at first to a collection of 
Christ s sayings, of which several preceded the present 
gospels ; and was transferred thence to the gospels 
themselves. Thus the proof of the Lord s oracles 
in Papias as synonymous with Matthew s gospel, or of 
it along with other canonical ones, is without validity. 
What then were i the oracles of the Lord ? Ac 
cording to Schleiermacher, the phrase, l the oracles, 2 
denotes a collection of our Lord s remarkable sayings 
written in Hebrew, which were subsequently extended 
and explained by the addition of facts and circum 
stances belonging to time and place. The context of 
the passage in Eusebius shows this restriction of the 
word to the discourses of Christ and the explanation of 
rjpjjiTJvzvcre 3 to be incorrect. In speaking of Mark s gospel 
it is said that the evangelist did not write in regular 
order 4 " the things which were either spoken or done by 
Christ ; to which it is immediately subjoined, that Peter 
gave Mark such instruction as was necessary, but not a 
connected history of our Lord s oracles. Here the Lord s 
oracles, 5 is explained by the tilings spoken or done by 
Christ, both being used synonymously of the contents 
of Mark s gospel. On the other hand, the writer in 
speaking of Matthew says, He composed the oracles; 6 

1 The Canon of the Bible, pp. 121, 122, 3rd edition. * T a \oyta. 

3 Tjpp.i]VfV(T (explanation by enlargement). 4 ruet. 

5 ra KVptaxa \dyia. 

6 TU Xo ym vvvfypa^aro. The crvveypd^aro refers to the orvvTais pre- 
VOL. I. B B 



370 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Were these oracles written or oral ? The former 
undoubtedly. They were collections of the Lord s 
sayings. His discourses would naturally be the first 
thing committed to writing by his disciples and fol 
lowers, in whose eyes they had more value than his 
acts. These collections, which were necessarily imper 
fect and fragmentary, were used by the compilers of 
our present gospels in addition to oral tradition. When 
Papias tells us that Matthew wrote the logia, he means 
a work which contained the sayings and doings of Christ ; 
and as the former predominated, the name took its origin 
from the principal part. But how did each one translate 1 
the Aranucan log la of Matthew? The tense of the verb 
implies that the time was past when the Arama3an alone 
was current ; and that one Greek translation had super 
seded the necessity of individual attempts. This ver 
sion recognised by Papias had supplanted preceding 
recensions, so that it was no longer necessary to trans 
late the Hebrew to the best of one s abilities. The 
testimony of Papias cannot be accepted as valid regard 
ing the recognition of our Matthew in his own ai> e, 

O O O 

because it rests en the assumption that the recognised 
Greek translation of his time is identical with our 
canonical one. It is a bold step to make the Aramaean 
loyia of Matthew into our present Greek gospel through 
a single authorised translation made in the days of 
Papias. Does the Greek Matthew present the charac 
teristics of a translation ? It should do so, if it were a 
direct version from the Aramaean ; but it does not. 2 
When Papias preferred the living voice to books, it 

ceding- ; and ra \6yia also refers to Ac yta KvpiaKa. Peter did not recite the 
contents of Mark s Gospel wo-rrep o-vvra^iv TO>V KVfnaKiov TTOLOV^VOS XoyiW. 
Matthew, on the contrary, E/S/WSi fiiaXe /crw ra Xoyta 



2 The new interpretation of the KvpiaKa \6yia proposed by Volkmar, 
cannot be accepted, notwithstanding the confidence with which it is ad 
vanced. Geschichtstreuen Theoloyie, p. 47, and Der Urspruny unserer 
Evangelien, pp. 61, 134. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 371 

is natural to suppose that the latter included the 
oracles of the Lord. To say that they were not evan 
gelical records, but only ivorks commenting on such 
records, is an unwarrantable restriction of their range. 
The term books is general, pointing to all written 
records. We agree with the critics who take Papias s 
language to imply his preference of oral traditions, not 
only to written comments on the gospels, but to the 
logia themselves which he explained, and to which he 
added illustrations from oral sources. 

The next witness is Irenams who writes : Matthew 
among the Hebrews did also publish a gospel in writing, 
in their own language. l It has been said that Irenasus 
adopted this opinion from Papias, and he may have 
done so. He had certainly a high respect for Papias, 
and followed him in holding the doctrine of the millen 
nium. We do not know, however, whether he believed 
that Matthew wrote in Arama3an merely because Papias 
thought so. 

The third witness is Pantsenus, of whom Eusebius 
writes : Pantaenus is also said to have gone to the 
Indians, where it is reported he found the gospel of 
Matthew, which had been delivered to some in that 
country who had the knowledge of Christ before his 
arrival : to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, is 
said to have preached, and to have left with them that 
writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, and that it was 
preserved among them till the time in question. 2 The 
words of Jerome about Pantaenus are similar : Pan- 
fcenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve 
apostles, had preached in India the coming of our 

1 6 fj.tv $rj Mardalos ev rots E/Spotoif rfj i^ia SiaAe/oro) av^wv Kill ypafprjv 

v euayyeXt ou, K.r.A. Adv. Il&res. iii. 1. 

~ o lidvraivos Km ets "lv8ovs e\6flv Aeyerat evOa Aoyor fvpelv avrnv 
iirrav TTJV avrov Trapovcriav TO Kara MarQalov fvayytXiov 7T(if)d TICTIV in>- 
OV Xptorroi/ fTreyvwKoariv ois ~Bapdo\op.a1ov rwv oxrooroAcof eva 
Tf < |3pata>v ypdfj.p,acrt TIJV TOV Mardaiov KiiTaXfl-^tu ypacfarjv, i/i> KCU 
e(f rnv ^i\ov(vnv dvov. If. 11. \. 10. 



372 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Lord Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of Matthew 
which was written in Hebrew, and which also on his 
return to Alexandria he carried with him. l 

This testimony is important because it is independent 
of Papias. It is true that the account of Pantamus 
Sfoino* to India was a tradition, since Eusebius intro- 

o O 

duces it as such ; 2 but the historian himself appears to 
have thought it correct. Even if it were but a report 
that Pantams found the gospel of Matthew there, we 
are not at liberty to infer the falseness of it at once. 
As India means southern Arabia, the persons to whom 
Bartholomew preached were Jewish Christians unac 
quainted with Greek. Had Bartholomew made aversion 
from the Greek, it would have been into Arabic. We 
infer therefore, that he took with him the Aramaean 
gospel of Matthew. 

Eusebius gives Origen s testimony in these words : 
i The first was written by Matthew, once a publican, 
afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it 
to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew lan 
guage. 3 According to Harless, this opinion must be 
resolved into that of Irenaeus. But the most acute, 
and one of the most learned of the fathers, was not 
disposed to receive or adopt an opinion solely on Ire- 
nous s credit. It is true that Eusebius gives Origen s 
words with the introduction, as I have understood 
from tradition ; but that shows the prevalent belief of 
the age. The tradition which he adopted was general 
in his day. 

Eusebius himself says : For Matthew having first 

1 Pantsenns . . . . ubi [in India] reperit Bartholoraseum de duodeciin 
apostolis adventura domini nostri Jesus Christi juxta Matthaei evangelium 
prsedicasse, quod Hebraicis literis script uni revertens Alexandriam secum 
retulit. De Viris Illustr. c. 36. 

2 Ae yerat. 

a 7rpa>Toi> fjLfv yeypanrai TO Kara TOV TTOTC TfXwvrjv, varepov Be aTrdoroXoi/ 
Xptcrroi) Mar&uoPj ocdeScoKora CIVTO rot? OTTO lofSatcr/xoO TTKTTevcraari, 
KrLi EjSpai KoTs (rwrfTny^^vov. //. E. vi. 25. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 373 

preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to 
other people, delivered to them in their own language 
the gospel according to him/ etc. 1 

This testimony is valuable, and can hardly be merged 
in that of Papias. If the historian was opposed to 
millennarianism, and had but a poor opinion of Papias s 
abilities, it is not probable that he would have followed 
him in believing Aramaean to be the original language 
of Matthew s gospel. Had he dissented from the current 
belief of the age, he would not have written as he does ; 
for while he records, he often pronounces his own 
opinion. Hug affirms, that Eusebius gives a different 
view in another place. In his commentary on Psal. 
Ixxviii. 2, we find the words, l Instead of this " I will 
utter from the beginning/ 1 Matthew being a Hebrew, 
has used his own recession: "I will shout things hid 
from the foundation," 2 etc., which Hug interprets to 
mean, that Matthew, as one who was himself master of 
the Hebrew language, deserted the Septuagint render 
ing, and gave his own Greek translation/ implying that 
the apostle wrote in Greek. The term we have rendered 
recension 3 does indeed seem to mean interpretation ; and 
therefore the writer is inconsistent with himself ; but 
we need not expect consistency in the fathers. Eusebius 
forgot at the time the current tradition of the day and 
his own expressed opinion. That his real belief was 
given in his Ecclesiastical History, is confirmed by the 
fact that in another place 4 he ascribes a reading in Mat 
thew xxviii. 1 5 to the translator, adding that the evan- 



Mardaios p.ev yap TrpoTfpov "ElBpaiois K^pu^as 1 , o>9 e/zeXXe Kai e (p eTfpovs 
t, Trarpia) yXcorr?/ ypu<pf) napadovs TO /car ai>Tov cvayye\iov TO XfljTov TTJ 

UVTOV 7rapovo"/a, K.r.X. JT. _J. iii. 24. 

2 dvri rou (pdeyt-ofj-at dyr dp^^y, E/SpaTo? a>f 6 Mar^atoy oiKetq e/cSoVei 

Ke ^pr^rat, eiVcoz/- e peuop.ui /cexpv/i/xeVa OTTO /cura/SoX^y. Vol. v. pp. 904, 905 ? 

ed. Migne. 



1 Ad Marin. Qwest, ii. ftp. Mai Script. Vet. Nov. CoH. i. p. 64, etc. 
3 o\// TOV cr/3/3droi;. The present reading is n\|/-e ^e rraftftaTwv. 



374 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

gelist Matthew published the gospel in the Hebrew 
tongue. 

According to Jerome, the authentic gospel of Mat 
thew was written in Hebrew. Matthew, also called 
Levi, who from being a publican became an apostle, first 
wrote a gospel of Christ in Judea, in the Hebrew lan 
guage and letters, for the benefit of those of the circum 
cision who believed. Who afterwards translated it into 
Greek is uncertain. ] Thus Jerome believed that Mat 
thew wrote his gospel in Aramaean. In the same pas 
sage, lie states that the Nazarenes, who had a copy of 
the original in Pamphilus s library at Caesarea, allowed 
him to make a copy of it (describere). 

Elsewhere lie relates that he translated the gospel 
according to the Hebrews, which the Nazarenes and 
Ebionites used, into Greek and Latin. 2 

Does Jerome identify these two documents, the Ara 
maean original of Matthew and the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews ? Meyer supposes he does not, chiefly 
because Jerome affirms that he merely copied the former, 
and translated the latter. The Hebrew Matthew, he 
thinks, did not need translation, because in Jerome s 
time it had been already rendered both into Greek and 
Latin. But it is plain that the learned father did not 
mean to draw this distinction, because he says that both 
documents were in the hands of the Nazarenes. It was 
they who gave him permission to transcribe the Ara 
maean, and they were the people who, along with the 
Ebionites, used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 

But some say that though Jerome believed in the 
identity of the two documents at one time, he subse 
quently retracted the opinion, as is indicated by the use 
of the phrases, i which is called by most the authentic 

1 Matthseus qui et Levi, ex puMicano apostolus, primus in Judea propter 
eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, evangelium Christi Hebraicis literis 
vorlnsque eomposuit. Quod quis postea in Grsecum transtulerit, non satis 
certum est. De Viris lllustr. c. 3. 

* DC Viris niustr. c. ~. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. .375 

work of Matthew, as most think. 1 It has been 
thought that this language implies a strong suspieion in 
his mind, and that though he does not expressly avow 
a change, he does so virtually in attributing to the 
many or to most people what he himself once believed. 
We admit that the doubtful way in which he speaks 
about the identity of the two is found in writings pos 
terior to those in which that identity is implied ; for 
the phrase called by most the authentic work of Mat 
thew/ 2 is, in liis commentary on Matthew, written six 
years later than the treatise M)e Yiris Illustribus ; 
and the expression, as most think, 3 twenty-three years 
later, in his book against Pelagianism. Yet it is diffi 
cult to suppose that a scholar like Jerome, who had 
translated a document into Greek and Latin, could 
be so ignorant of its nature as to confound it with 
another work. The expressions on which his supposed 
change of belief is based, may be explained on other 
grounds. Additions had been made to the document 
by the persons in whose hands it was preserved, suffi 
cient to create a difficulty in the mind as to whether it 
really proceeded from an apostle. Though its contents 
agreed substantially with the Greek gospel, it exhibited 
deviations from it which could not be thought other 
than corruptions ; modifications and interpolations 
sometimes absurd, ridiculous, or apocryphal. Besides, 
the sect that used it had begun to be considered hereti 
cal by the great body of catholic Christians ; and Jerome 
was jealous of his fair name and unsullied orthodoxy. 
To his timid mind it may have appeared hazardous to 
identify the document peculiar to a sect with the authen 
tic Ararmean. Had he altered his opinion, he had every 
reason for saying so openly ; the fact that he speaks 
cautiously, is an indication that he did not in his heart 
retract a former view. 

1 Quod vocatur a plerisque Mattlisei authenticum ; ut plerique auturaant. 
; l V<K at.nr a plerisque Mattlieei authenticum. 3 Ut plerique autumant. 



370 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Passages from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
occur in the writings of Clement, Origen, Epiphanius, 
and Jerome, which do not throw much light on its 
original identity with the present Greek gospel, 1 because 
with considerable likeness there is also dissimilarity. 
The discrepancies consist, for the most part, of additions 
to the text of the Greek ; and are usually of an apocry 
phal character. The state of both, as far as we know it, 
consists with the fact of their original identity, but only 
on condition that the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
had been rendered into Greek ; that its text both in 
Aramaean and in Greek, as we know it from patristic 
citations, was of a later type than the canonical Greek 
facts which do not disprove the common origin of the 
Aramaean and present Greek. 

The fathers did not regard the Gospel according to 
the Hebrews as canonical, because it was almost peculiar 
to parties who were not Gentile Christians, because it 
had apocryphal passages, and because they had a Greek 
one which they received as canonical from its supposed 
connection with an apostle. Doubtless they thought 
that the Hebrew Christians had corrupted it. 

The original identity of the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews and the Aramaean Matthew would be dis 
proved, could it be shown that the former was written 
at first in Greek, and thence translated into Aramaean. 
But this has not been proved, though good critics, like 
Credner, Be Wette, and Bleek have made the attempt. 
One argument they allege is founded on Jerome s state 
ment, that Barabbas was interpreted in it, son of their 
master^ arising, as is alleged, from an error of the 
translator, who mistook the etymology of the Greek 

1 The existing fragments are given by Anger, in his Synopsis Evan- 
geliorum, with the corresponding passages of the canonical gospels, 1851 ; 
by Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift filr wissenschaftliche Theologie, for I860, 
p. 352, et seq., and his Novum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum, 
fasciculus iv. ; also by Mr. Nicholson, in his work entitled The Gospel ac 
cording to the Hebrews. 

~ Film* magi tit ri coriun. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 377 

word Barabbas, 1 and put for it the Aramaean, 2 son of 
their matter. 8 But the expression is only a witty ex 
planation of the proper name, importing that the Jews 
and Barabbas had one master and father, viz. Satan. 4 
Again, in speaking of John Baptist s food, it had wild 
honey, whose taste was like manna, or cakes made with 
honey and oil. 5 Hence it is inferred that the author 
of the Aramaean document used a Greek source in 
which he read cakes by mistake for locusts. 6 The 
introduction of the word arose from another cause. 
Whoever made the addition to wild honey, 7 by de 
scribing it whose taste was like manna, or cakes made 
with honey and oil, had regard to Numb. xi. 8, where 
it is applied to the manna ; and this description was 
annexed in Aramaean to the Aramaean of wild honey. 
The Greek translator of the copy which Epiphanius had, 
looking at the Septuagint version of Numb. xi. 8, found 
the words cake of oil, 8 and adopted them. The mistake 
was made by the translator of the Aramaean, and does 
not prove the Greek original of the Ebionite or Nazarene 
gospel. 

The hypothesis of the Greek original of the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews has the statements of the 
fathers, of Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome against 
it, which speak of a Hebrew original. It is also con 
tradicted by the early opinion that the Gospel of the 
Plebrews was identical with the Hebrew original of Mat 
thew. 

This chain of testimonies need not be followed 
further. Ancient witnesses are unanimous in favour of 
the opinion that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew. 

1 Bapa/3/3oy. 2 jnil "ll instead of JON "13 

3 Comment, in Matth. xxvii. 16. 

4 See Anger s Synopsis Evangeliorum MaUlicn, Marci, Luctc, etc. p. 275. 

5 p.\t aypioVj ov f) yevais f)i> rov fjuivva, o>? eyKp\s ev e Aui a) | see Irenasus, 
Adv. litres, xxix. 9. 

6 e-yKpi fify by mistake for aKpiftes. 



378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

They also attest the fact of its identity with the so- 
called Gospel of the Nazarenes. The slightest trace of 
an opposite tradition does not appear. The apostle 
wrote in Judea ; and the fathers who furnish traditional 
information respecting his Hebrew gospel lived for a 
time in that country, with the exception of Papias and 
Irenseus. Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius 
resided in the birthplace of the first gospel. Is it not 
strange therefore, that they found no trace of Matthew s 
writing in Greek instead of Hebrew ? Was it not the 
interest of the catholic Church to preserve the tradition 
of a Greek original, since it adopted the Greek alone 
as canonical ? When we consider that the original was 
in the hands of the Nazareiies and Ebionites, disfigured 
by additions, along with the prevalent opinion of the 
orthodox fathers that the Aramaean was Matthew s 
own, does it not appear unaccountable that the catholic 
Christians should never have adduced the hypothesis of 
a Greek original ? All their prepossessions would have 
contributed to prevent the true account disappearing, 
so that they could not even hint at the possibility of a 
Greek instead of an Aramaean, original. 

The advocates of a Greek original also reason in 
favour of that hypothesis, from the form of the quota 
tions. Bleek has put the case most skilfully with this 
object. According to him, the citations in the gospel 
are of two kinds, viz. those in which the evangelist 
gives pragmatic indications respecting the fulfilment of 
expressions in the Old Testament ; and those where 
passages are quoted or used in the course of the narra 
tive, as they occur in the discourses of persons who are 
introduced speaking. The latter are adduced according 
to the LXX, sometimes verbally, even in cases where 
the LXX depart from the Hebrew ; and sometimes with 
more freedom, but not in such a way as to lead to the 
supposition of the deviation being due to consultation 
of the Hebrew text. The former are adduced according 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 379 

to the writer s own translation from the Hebrew, de 
parting not merely from the words but a] so the sense of 
the LXX, whose expressions are seldom seen through 
the places. This class of citations certainly forms the 
nucleus of the gospel, because by far the greater part of 
the sayings of Jesus and others must have existed in the 
original Aramasan. If therefore they were conceived in 
Aramgean, why should they be given here in a form cor 
responding to that of the Greek version, even where it is 
contrary to the Hebrew text ? And if the translator 
took such liberty with the one class, why did he not do 
so with the other ? l 

The fact that the Messianic passages are everywhere 
cited after the Hebrew, is obviously favourable to the 
hypothesis of an Aramaean original. As to the class 
which follows the LXX rather than the Hebrew, the 
argument founded upon it against an Aramaean original 
would be of more weight, if the canonical Greek had 
been derived from Matthew s authentic gospel imme 
diately. But it is only the last redaction of successive 
translations or revisions, in all of which the origi 
nal was freely handled. Why these liberties were not 
indulged in the discourses and speeches, it is difficult to 
ascertain. But it is conceivable that they may have 
influenced the one more than the other, while a transla 
tion was being made. In the case of passages cited to 
show the fulfilment of prophecy, exactness is of con 
siderable moment, and therefore they are taken directly 
from the original. The reason for preserving such 
exactness ceases in the case of passages from the Old 
Testament introduced into discourses ; and therefore a 
translator might find it easier and well adapted to his 
object to employ the LXX. The difference of proce 
dure in the two cases, which is not however invariable, 
may be accounted for by the peculiarities of both. 

1 Bcitrayc zur Evanyelien-Krilik, pp. 57, 58. 



380 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Adherence to the original was more required in the one 
because it contained proof or argument. 

The prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine 
has been urged by Hug and his followers, as evidence 
of Matthew s writing in Greek. No valid argument 
has been adduced to show that Jesus and his apostles 
habitually spoke Greek instead of Syro-Chaldaic. Nor 
can it be shown that the latter dialect was supplanted 
by the former, among the Jews and Jewish Christians 
in Palestine, before the destruction of Jerusalem. All 
evidence goes to prove that the persons for whom 
Matthew wrote used Aramaean as their vernacular 
tongue. It is true that Greek was also employed in 
Judea at the time. But it did not prevail over the 
other. Josephus wrote his history of the Jewish war at 
first in Hebrew or Aramaean, which he calls native lan 
guage ; l and afterwards rendered it into Greek, which is 
termed "E\.\as yXwcrcra. 2 The latter he calls a foreign 
dialect, 3 in relation to himself and his countrymen. 
His Greek edition was intended for those who were 
under the Roman dominion, i.e. for Greeks and such 
others throughout the Roman dominion as used their 
language. The historian does not mean his Jewish 
brethren in Palestine, as the context shows. If then 
Josephus terms Syro-Chaldaic his native tongue as con 
trasted with Greek to which he applies a foreign dialect* 
which of the two would Matthew writing for the use of 
his countrymen naturally choose ? Even granting that 
the natives of Palestine were as familiar with Greek as 
they were with Aramaean, would he prefer a foreign 
dialect to a native one to that which was best fitted to 
procure a favourable hearing ? We do not deny that 
Greek circulated in Palestine in the age of Christ and 
the apostles. But there is abundant evidence to show 

1 ndrpios y\w<raa. 2 De Bello Judaico, Prooem. 

3 %vr) 8id\(KTos. Anf.iq. Prooem. 2. 



THE (K)SPEL OF MATTHEW. 381 

that Araniioan prevailed, as we infer from the fact that 
the Septuagint did not supersede the original Hebrew 
in popular estimation, in Palestine. When therefore it 
is considered that Matthew, as a Jew, wrote a gospel for 
the use of his brethren in Palestine, it is reasonable to 
conclude that he would employ the language for which 
they had a predilection. And this is attested by the 
early fathers. 

Diodati and Hug made great efforts to neutralise 
the arguments derived from Joseph s and others in 
favour of the prevalence of Aramaean in Palestine. 
Since their day others have taken up and repeated, but 
not improved their arguments, without shaking the 
evidence that Matthew wrote in Aramaean. If the early 
fathers who attest the fact were all mistaken or deceived 
in the matter, critics of the nineteenth century are very 
credulous in supposing that the apostle wrote a gospel 
at all. Early testimony to the effect that Matthew wrote 
a Greek gospel does not exist till the time of Apollinaris 
(about A.D. 180), who could have known nothing cer 
tain on the subject, and may have been far more readily 
mistaken than his predecessors who testified that Mat 
thew wrote in Hebrew. In fact the supporters of the 
hypothesis that the apostle wrote the present canonical 
gospel, are able to adduce no evidence in its favour ; 
and it is only by upholding the voice of all antiquity 
affirming that Matthew wrote a gospel in Aramaean, 
that any connection between him and the canonical 
Greek one can be asserted. In explaining away ancient 
evidence they set aside the fact that Matthew wrote a 
gospel at all. The critics who refer the canonical Greek 
in its present state to the apostle as its author, have no 
ground to stand upon. Near the end of the second 
century they can point to Apollinaris, who assigned it 
to Matthew ; but before that time, the evidence that the 
apostle wrote in Aramaean is unanimous. 

It is needless to notice other arguments, if they 



382 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

deserve that name, adduced by the advocates of a Greek 
original written by Matthew himself ; such as the 
existence of the old Syriac being made from the present 
Greek ; a work of supererogation, it is alleged, if an 
Aramaean original existed ; because the Peshito oriori- 

o o 

nated after the Greek had been accepted as a canonical 
production in Syria. The element of time annihilates 
this objection to an Aramaean original gospel, added to 
the fact that the canonical Greek is not a proper version 
at all. Equally nugatory is it to say with Credner, that 
the Greek original of the gospel is affirmed by its con 
tinual coincidence with the gospels of Mark and Luke, 
and admits of no explanation on the hypothesis of a 
translation from the Hebrew. The verbal correspond 
ences in question are owing to the use of Matthew s 
gospel by Mark and Luke ; but no critic argues that 
the present Greek gospel is a simple version. Though 
it is not an original it approaches the nature of one by 
the various forms through which it passed, from the 
time of its incipient derivation from the Aramaean. It 
is also irrelevant to affirm, with Olshausen, that, while 
all the fathers of the church assert that Matthew wrote 
in Hebrew, they make use of the Greek text universally 
as a genuine apostolic composition ; as if these writers, 
living so late, had any choice in the matter. They had 
not an opportunity of seeing the Aramaean, which, in 
their times, was in the hands of some Judaising Chris 
tians ; and had they been able to procure it, they could 
not have read it. The Greek alone was within their 
reach, which they accepted as Matthew s without any 
definite authority for the authorship. Tradition re 
garded it as such, and they fell in with it. As to Ols- 
hausen s other statements about the Greek being received 
by all parties, and no objections being made to it by the 
opponents of the catholic Church, the same answer 
suffices. Whatever opponents of the ChurcJi may mean, 
they could not advance objections to the Greek as long 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, 383 

as they were totally ignorant of the Hebrew gospel ; 
nor would it have been for their interest to do so. They 
accepted the tradition about the relation of the Greek to 
the apostle. The Nazarenes and Ebionites alone having, 
as they thought, the authentic work, used it more or 
less ; though they too, being uncritical, would hardly 
have objected to the indirectly apostolic origin of the 
Greek. 

The exact relationship of Matthew s to the Greek 
gospel that bears his name is uncertain. Jerome says, 
that the person who translated the Arama?an original 
was unknown. The apostle himself was not the trans 
lator ; the supposition that he published two works, one 
in Aramaean and another in Greek, is baseless. It is 
equally conjectural to assert that some of his friends or 
disciples rendered the Hebrew gospel into Greek with 
his sanction or approval. Were the latter hypothesis 
worth a moment s notice, the question might still be 
asked, What evidence exists for identifying the present 
Greek gospel with the version of the friend or disciple ? 
Should it be said that he composed the Greek gospel 
rather than translated, the assertion would be equally 
unfounded. Apologists have indulged in many assump 
tions which are often of the strangest sort : for example, 
that the Aramaean and Greek gospels existed for some 
time in their important parts as an oral tradition side by 
side ; that the Aramaean was the first committed to 
writing, circulating chiefly among the Jewish Christians 
in Palestine ; and that the Greek oral gospel, its 
counterpart, was afterwards put into a written form 
when the Hellenistic Jews felt the want of it. The 
latter was made in the time of the apostle, probably 
under his eye or even by himself ! 

There is no tangible evidence to connect the present 
gospel with the apostle Matthew. The oldest witness 
in favour of such relationship is a fragment from Apol- 
linaris bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 180), who says, that 



384 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the Quartodecimans, as they have been called, appealed 
to Matthew for their view of the paschal supper being 
on the fourteenth of Nisan, which can only mean that 
they referred to the present Greek gospel. 1 In what 
manner or from what cause, the canonical Greek came 
to be assigned to the apostle cannot be determined. The 
most probable reason is, that it bears some relationship 
to the authentic Aramaean ; not that of a version, since 
the marks of a version are wanting, but of a work 
founded upon the latter. It is unlikely that Jerome 
would have translated the Gospel of the Hebrews, which 
he identified with the Aramaean of Matthew, had the 
Greek canonical gospel which existed in his day been a 
simple version of the same original. Hence it is pro 
bable that the present Greek gospel was based upon the 
Aramaean, of Matthew, or in other words, the Gospel ac 
cording to the Hebrews. Having originated in the 
latter, the name of the apostle was transferred from the 
older to the more recent document, by those who had 
little if any knowledge of the process of derivation. 
The steps by which it arose out of the Aramaean are un 
known. Different translations had preceded it, enlarged 
more or less by traditional materials, just as the Ara 
maean itself received corrections in its transmission. 
Oral sayings, apocryphal narratives, mythic elements, 
furnished the final redactor with materials ; and he pro 
ceeded to put the whole into a shape which commended 
itself to the catholic Christians as far superior to the 
imperfect and fragmentary Greek gospels which preceded. 
The latter probably retained more of the character of 
versions, though indifferent ones ; versions that ceased 
to represent the original faithfully because of their 
looseness as well as their omissions and additions, 
while the former lost the nature of a version under the 
plastic hand of those who moulded it into its present 
form by removing several peculiarities and substitut- 

1 Chron, Pasch. Alex,, ed. Bonn, vol. i. p. 14. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 385 

ing more. In the absence of definite information, the 
critic must be contented with such presumptions. The 
canonical Greek is the outcome of preceding gospels re 
sembling it in substance, but neither so comprehensive 
nor so well digested. Ecclesiastical writers, who lived 
so long after the apostle s death that they could know 
nothing certain about Matthew s connection with the 
Greek gospel, were ready to receive it as his ; for they 
were uncritical enough to believe things which have not 
the support even of credible tradition. If, therefore, it 
be objected that there is no external evidence for various 
recensions or redactions of the first gospel, it may be 
said with equal truth that there is no external evidence 
to show that Matthew wrote it. Besides, the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews was one form of the canonical 
gospel, so that external evidence is not wholly wanting 
on behalf of one recension at least. We allow that the 
oracles, as Papias terms Matthew s composition, must 
have been a small record of what Jesus said and did ; 
that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, even in its 
early state, had departed from primitive simplicity, and 
was being added to or altered ; and that the canonical 
Greek, compared with it, is substantially another work. 
The majority of critics believe in some connection 
between the Gospel of the Hebrews and the present 
Greek Matthew, making it at least a document which 
the evangelist used in a Greek recension or version, 
One thing is certain, that it was highly esteemed and 
used by the early fathers Papias, Hegesippus, Clement 
of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, some of 
whom took it for the original Hebrew Matthew. It is 
impossible to tell its extent ; but we know from the 
stichometry of Nicephorus, that a Greek translation of 
it had 2,200 stichoi, the canonical Matthew having 2,500, 
and Mark 2,000.* Even Xicephorus does not put it 

1 Credner s Geschichte dcs N. T. Kanon, p. 242, et xry. 
VOL. I. C C 



380 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

among the apocryphal books of the New Testament, 
but among the Antilegomena, as Eusebius also does. 

APOSTOLICITY. 

The following phenomena in the gospel are adverse 
to its having been composed in its present state by an 
apostle and eyewitness, and therefore to its being an 
exact version of a gospel written by Matthew. 

1. It contains unhistorical and mythical elements. 
The most palpable example of this is in xxvii. 52, where 
we are told, that at the expiration of Jesus the graves were 
opened, and many bodies of the saints who slept arose, 
came out of their resting-places after the resurrection of 
their Lord, and even went into the holy city where they 
appeared to many. The apocryphal nature of this ac 
count is apparent. 

Again the narrative in xxvii. 62-G6, xxviii. 11-15, 
respecting the setting of a watch at the sepulchre, and 
the bribing of them, is historically improbable. The 
chief priests and Pharisees could not have known of 
Jesus saying that he would rise again after three days, 
because he did not foretell this in an intelligible way 
even to his disciples (xvi. 21). Had the women known 
of the watch being set at the sepulchre, they would not 
have confined their attention to the rolling away of the 
stone and the anointing of the body. And the conduct 
of the Sanhedrists is unaccountable in instructing the 
soldiers to spread a false report, instead of calling them 
to account for their delinquency. It is not likely that 
they would have acted towards Pilate as is represented ; 
or that he would have been satisfied with their repre 
sentation. Still farther, the legendary incidents con 
nected with the birth and infancy of Jesus point to a 
later time than that of Matthew. The star in the east 
guiding the wise men from afar to the house in which 
the babe was, the flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of 
the innocents in Bethlehem by Herod, are unhistorical. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 387 

The advent of the Messiah has an oriental colouring 
and mythic haze. 

2. Some things are put in a wrong order and are 
therefore chronologically incorrect. Thus the sermon 
on the mount, which is intended for an inaugural dis 
course, is placed too early. Its delivery not only before 
the immediate disciples of Jesus, biit a large multitude 
of people assembled to hear, implies that Jesus had exer 
cised his ministry for a considerable time and attracted 
the attention of the multitude to himself, so that their 
minds were prepared to some extent for a discourse of 
comprehensive morality. And the passages in it which 
imply that Jesus was the Messiah, v. 17 and vii. 21-24, 
are anticipative, as we infer from xvi. 17. To have 
announced himself as the Messiah so early would have 
been contrary to his cautious and gradual introduction 
of the idea, especially as the minds of his hearers were 
unsusceptible of it at the time. 

In like manner, the charge of Jesus to the twelve in 
x. 19, etc., is introduced too soon, the disciples being 
told that the Son of man should come again to set up 
his kingdom before they had gone over the cities of 
Israel. Thus his second advent is announced as just at 
hand. If the discourse here be not out of placs, it is 
inconsistent with xxiv. 14, where the second advent is 
spoken of as a much later event. Either supposition 
does not harmonise with the apostolic composition of x. 
19, etc., or its correct reporting. 

3. Things are related in a way which shows the 
mixture of later tradition. Thus the twenty-fourth 
chapter of Matthew speaks first of the destruction of 
Jerusalem ; and, from the twenty-ninth verse, of the 
coming of Messiah immediately after, which was not 
fulfilled. There is therefore some inaccuracy in report 
ing the discourse of Jesus on this occasion. In like 
manner, the signs and wonders preceding the destruc 
tion of Jerusalem do not correspond to facts. False 



383 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Messiahs did not appear then ; nor did any important 
wars take place, as is intimated in the sixth and seventh 
verses of the chapter. Kostlin, 1 in his successful 
attempt to disprove Baur s reference of the chapter to 
the time of Hadrian rather than the destruction of 
Jerusalem by Titus, has failed to show that all the 
traits described suit the latter period. 

4. Other particulars are wrongly narrated, as is the 
case with the miraculous feeding of the four thousand 
men in the wilderness very soon after a similar event. 
(Compare xv. 32-38 with xiv. 16-21.) One thing is 
doubled, as the facts are substantially the same, the 
minor circumstances alone being different. The dis^ 
ciples of Jesus who had witnessed the feeding of five 
thousand men so recently and under like conditions, 
would hardly have been so forgetful or thriftless as to 
ask, Whence should we have so much bread in the 
wilderness as to fill so great a multitude ? In like 
manner, the same transaction is repeated in xii. 22-30 
and ix. 32-34. The two passages are so similar that 
we must assume a double narrative of the same event. 
A similar repetition of the same thing appears in xvi. 1, 
where the event in xii. 38 is re-enacted. In the former 
place we are told that the Pharisees and Sadducees 
asked of Jesus a sign from heaven, when it is impro 
bable that two such opposite parties should have united 
in presenting the same demand. The Sadducees were 
persons not likely to join with the Pharisees either in 
this matter or others. 

Again, Jesus is represented as riding into Jerusalem 
on two animals, an ass and a colt, which has arisen from 
misunderstanding the prophecy referred to (xxi. 2, 7, 
compared with Zech. ix. 9). Nor is this the only 
instance in which the sense of a passage in the Hebrew 
Scriptures has been turned aside to make it apply to 

1 Der Tlrsprnny imd die Composition der synoptischen Evangelien t 
p. 1 L>, ft wq. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 389 

Jesus ; or in which the narrative has been modi lied to 
suit a supposed prediction. In Zechariah only one 
animal is alluded to, named in two parallel members, 1 
which is converted into two in xxi. 2, an ass and a colt 
with her ; a phrase excluding Meyer s idea that the and 
in xxi. 7, an ass and a colt/ is epexegetical (even). 

Again, in xii. 39, etc., the writer puts an erroneous 
interpretation of the disciples into the mouth of their 
master in the fortieth verse ; for the allusion to the 
resurrection of Jesus is foreign to the original connec 
tion as well as to the view with which the preceding 
and subsequent verses were spoken. Jesus did not 
mean that his resurrection was a sign to the generation 
then alive, but his preaching. This corresponds with the 
sign of Jonas the prophet to the Ninevites ; which was 
not his abode in the fish, according to Luke xi. 29-31. 

The words which Jesus addressed to the apostles 
after his resurrection (xxviii. 19, 20) savour of a later 
time. We learn from the Acts of the Apostles and the 
epistles that baptism was always into the name of Christ, 
or into Christ. Such seems to have been the early mode 
of initiation. When later reflection unfolded the rela 
tion of Christ to the Father and the Spirit, the formula 
into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 
arose. It is not original and could hardly have been 
prescribed by Jesus himself. 

From xxviii. 920 we see that every appearance of 
the risen Saviour to the disciples in Judea is excluded, 
and only one Galilean manifestation implied. This 
shows post-apostolicity, because such personal inter 
course with the disciples does not consist with the 
original idea of the resurrection and ascension being 
coincident, excluding an interval of time between them. 
The Galilean appearance, however, accords with the 
fact that the first gospel follows Galilean tradition in 
confining the ministry of Jesus to that land. 

1 TI En and Ty. 



390 INTKODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Again, the narrative of the temptation of Jesus 
assumes a historical shape, as if an outward and real 
occurrence were recorded. Though intended by the 
writer for history, it cannot be accepted as such. It is 
either ideal, or thoughts suggested to the mind of Jesus 
were transformed by later tradition into an actual ob 
jective history. In any case, the thing described did 
not happen as it is depicted. It may have a basis of 
fact ; the narration is certainly unapostolic. 

5. Some things partake of a character so marvellous 
as to exclude their apostolic description. So in xvii. 27, 
respecting the piece of money in a fish s mouth provided 
for tribute. The miracle seems to be unnecessary, since 
a stater might have been procured in the usual way. 
Nor did Jesus ever work a miracle for himself. Besides, 
it is not said that the piece of money was actually found 
in the mouth of the fish. The accomplishment is not 
noticed, as on other occasions. And while it is cer 
tainly possible that the piece of money may have been 
in the fish s mouth for cases of this sort have occurred 
it is not probable that the money would have been 
there ready for use rather than in the stomach. The 
miracle is gratuitous. 

Such are the surest evidences of non-apostolicity in 
the first gospel, and they are not the only ones that 
might be adduced ; others will appear in our subsequent 
analysis of the contents, to confirm the post-apostolicity 
of the present Greek gospel. In pursuance of the same 
object, some critics adduce particulars in the other gos 
pels disagreeing with the first ; but it is a precarious 
thing to insist upon them. The reasoning which gives 
the preference to the accounts of Mark, Luke, or John, 
and judges of parallel accounts in Matthew accordingly, 
is often liable to suspicion. We do not say that all 
particulars in the first gospel are more correct than 
those in the other synoptics ; but that many of them 
are. Sometimes the original tradition is preserved by 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 301 

Mark or Luke, when a later one is given by Matthew ; 
as in xxvii. 34, where the drink offered to Jesus is 
vinegar mingled with gall, which he would not drink be 
cause of its bitter taste ; whereas in Mark it was mingled 
with, myrrh, to produce intoxication and ease pain. The 
tradition respecting the gall is a later one derived from 
Psalm Ixix. 21, which converts the draught into a mani 
festation of enmity instead of compassion. l>ut such cases 
are comparatively few, and do not invalidate our general 
principle, which is strikingly exemplified in the twenty- 
eighth chapter of St. Matthew, where nothing is said of 
the mode in which Jesus was parted from his disciples, 
and it is only implied that he had gone to the Father. 
This idea was subsequently developed as we find it in 
other gospels. It is invalid to adduce the want of 
graphic description in one who was an eyewitness like 
Matthew. Picturesque delineation does not necessarily 
belong to an apostle. Vivid description is a talent which 
does not depend on an external call. And the nature of 
Matthew s occupation was unfavourable to vivid paint 
ing. We could not expect much of the picturesque 
from a collector of taxes. The graphic power of ac- 
comptants is usually feeble. At all events, natural talent 
is not changed but elevated by inspiration. If the writer 
had not the gift of picturesqueness before he became an 
apostle, he would not have it afterwards. 

As to the sources of the gospel, if it be true that 
Matthew wrote brief Aramaean oracles or discourses, he 
did not use written compilations, but drew from Gali 
lean traditions and actual knowledge. The case of the 

o 

person who put the Greek gospel into its present shape 
is different, lie had written sources more or less 
copious ; and Greek paraphrases of the original Ara- 
mivan. It is likely that lie consulted independent col 
lections of gospel facts, for in no other way can du 
plicates of the same thing be explained, the second of 
which could have been introduced only out of a written 



392 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

source, not from oral tradition. Thus the present 
gospel is based on the Aramaean document written by 
the apostle as well as on some smaller collections, along 
with unwritten tradition. There is no proof that the 
compilers used the primitive Mark-document, of which 
we shall speak immediately. It is by no means easy 
always to assign the respective portions to their 
respective sources ; though earlier and later, historical 
and unhistorical materials may be distinguished. The 
writers selected and added, not without a theological 
bias that shaped the materials, especially the Old Tes 
tament passages which are systematically turned aside 
from their original meaning to show Jesus as the 
Messiah. If these remarks be correct, Holtzmann s 
distribution of the gospel into two leading docu 
ments, the logia or primitive Matthew, the primitive 
Mark, and tradition, is conjectural ; with an unmis 
takable bias in favour of Mark s originality that does 
injustice to Matthew. 1 That there was a Greek col 
lection of discourses or sayings written by the apostle 
Matthew, is destitute of all historical basis. Ancient 
testimony is unanimous in favour of its being composed 
in Aramaean. One of the primary documents in Holtz 
mann s scheme of the mutual connection of the synop 
tics a Greek gospel by Matthew falls away. Nor 
is there the least probability that any Greek translation 
circulated as the acknowledged representative of the Ara 
maean logia. 

ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. 

The gospel may be divided into three parts, viz. 
the introductory history, chapters i.-iv ; the Messiah s 
ministry in Galilee, v. xviii. ; the conclusion of his work, 
and death at Jerusalem, xix.-xxviii. 

The first portion contains the genealogical register 
of Jesus and his birth in Bethlehem ; the circumstances 

1 Die synoptischcn Evainjclien. u. s. w., p. 169, et scq. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 303 

connected with his birth, such as the visit of the magi, 
the flight to Egypt, and the return to Nazareth. This 
is followed by the public appearance of John and the 
baptism of Jesus. The fourth chapter describes his 
temptation and entrance into public life. 

There is little doubt that the first two chapters 
always belonged to the present Greek gospel, since 
they are found in all unmutilated MSS. and ancient 
versions. The earliest fathers had them in their copies 
as part of the work. Irena?us, Clement of Alexandria, 
Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, attest their existence. So 
do the early heretics, Cerinthus and his followers, 
Celsus, and Porphyry. Their diction is of the same 
character with the rest of the gospel. The language 
and style are similar. But the question is, Were the 
chapters in the Aramaean logia of Matthew ? The 
portion was wanting in the Ebionite copy of the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, as Epiphanius testifies. Did 
the Ebionites cut it off because they denied the miracu 
lous conception of Jesus ? Epiphanius leads us to 
believe that they mutilated and corrupted the gospel ; 
and his testimony may pass for what it is worth. The 
same father, in saying of the Nazarenes that they had 
the gospel in its fullest form or entire in Hebrew, pro 
bably warrants us to conclude that their copy had these 
chapters ; and Jerome s comments on Habbak. iii. 3 
and Isai. xi. may justify the inference. But Epiphanius 
is an untrustworthy writer. As a matter of fact, his 
testimony respecting the commencement of the gospel 
of the Ebionites, which was only another and later 
recension of that according to the Hebrews with the 
third chapter of the present Greek, may be accepted. 
Pie says expressly of Ebion, that he declared Christ to 
be the son of Joseph and Mary, just as Cerinthus and 
Carpocrates did, on the ground of the same gospel. 
Origen d ; stinguishes two classes of Ebionites, one 
acknowledging Christ to be born of a virgin, the other 



394 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

not. Following internal evidence, we should be dis 
posed to say, that the chapters did not belong to the 
original logia. Their contents hang loosely together, 
and do not harmonise well. The supernatural birth 
hardly agrees with the genealogy ; and the latter ter 
minates in Joseph without expressing the direct con 
nection between him and Jesus. Though the writer 
intended to give the latter s genealogy, he breaks off 
abruptly, without specifying the proper link of con 
nection between him and Joseph. The evangelist seems 
to have adopted a written account, instead of composing 
the chapters out of oral tradition. If so, he altered 
the words of the sixteenth verse, to make suitable room 
for the introduction of the supernatural generation of 
Jesus ; severing, however, by that means the proper 
link of connection between the preceding and following 
parts. Of what use was it to trace the descent of Jesus 
from David and show his Messiah ship, if He had not a 
natural father ? Besides, the first two chapters are 
largely imbued with the traditional. The ideas ex 
pressed respecting the generation of Jesus Christ, the 
visit of the Magi, and the appearance of the miraculous 
star that guided them, the conduct of Herod towards 
them, the slaughter of the in%nts in Bethlehem, and 
the flight into Egypt, partake of the mythic, and sym 
bolise certain ideas. The supernatural conception is the 
legendary symbol of a spiritual nature superior to the 
characteristic type of humanity. It is improbable that 
an apostle would have set forth such relations as his 
torical. They are too early for his time. 

The 4th chapter, giving an account of the temptation, 
narrates it as an outward historical fact, for such expres 
sions as the devil taketh him up, the devil setteth him 
on a pinnacle of the temple, &c., imply nothing else. 
This is followed by a rapid outline of the proceedings 
of Jesus, that the author may come to the full history of 
the Messianic ministry. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 305 

The second division of the gospel begins with the 
sermon on the mount, which is a sort of programme of 
the Messianic kingdom founded by Jesus. This dis 
course is orderly and connected. The development is 
simple and the sequence natural. The essential con 
tents appear to be original and direct, leaving an im 
pression of freshness on the mind that cannot be mis 
taken. A pure ethical spirit, free from religious dog 
matism, breathes throughout ; showing that the truths 
taught came from the moral consciousness of one who 
had the loftiest, as well as the simplest, ideas of the ab 
solute, in practical ethics. Mosaism is lifted up into a 
spiritual essence ; the law inculcates a pure morality. 
The principles enunciated, unsu stained by argument or 
authority, and in the form of simple assertion, are left to 
stand self- supported, with a sublime confidence in the 
majesty of truth. Jesus appears as the reformer of the 
law, civilly it a higher significance than the Pharisaic or 

" o o o O 

even the original one. Without abolishing he subli- 

o o 

mates it. But though the substance of the discourse be 
original, it has received its form and position from a 
redactor, who has sometimes brought together utter 
ances of Jesus belonging to different times. The gene 
ral outline, including the commencement and conclusion, 
with the intervening succession of ideas, is genuine ; but 
cognate elements are introduced to expand and fill out 
the discourse. This view is supported by the fact, that 
Luke and Mark distribute in different places various sen 
tences in the connected sermon of the first gospel. It 
is also confirmed by the circumstance, that the discourse 
is wrought into a united whole, of which the parts and 
particulars are fitted into their places. Such elabora 
tion is adverse to the idea that the sermon is the same 
as when it was spoken. It is also confirmed by the 
circumstance that there is no proper connection between 
a few sentences here and there ; for example, at the 
eighteenth verse. In proportion as the sermon exhibits 



39G INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

plan and purpose, as a whole and in separate parts, 
does its originality cease to be immediate. It formed 
a considerable part of the discourses which Mat 
thew wrote ; but it is against probability that it was 
spoken exactly as we have it and at the commence 
ment of Jesus s ministry. Its true position is later, 
when the minds of the disciples were better prepared for 
spiritual truth. Luke places it later ; and though we 
cannot assign the preference to his record, either in form 
or originality, the time he assigns to it is nearer the 
truth. The sermon as the first gospel presents it is re 
latively not absolutely original. The extent, the regular 
development of ideas, the unity, the logical arrangement, 
especially in the first part, the palpable evidence of plan, 
show the influence of later reflection. The form is less 
original than the contents ; though some of these have 
been imported into the discourse out of other times and 
occasions. Thus the eighteenth and nineteenth verses 
of the 5th chapter are of later origin, since they disturb 
the connection and were never appealed to by the Judais- 
ing party, though authoritative in their favour. When 
Paulinism had weakened the claims of the law among 
Christians, those who adhered to the old Judaic Christ 
ianity attempted to make it more rigid, and put into 
authentic discourses remarks directed against Paulinism, 
as those in vii. 13-20. The twentieth and following 
verses of the fifth chapter show that Jesus had respect 
to the spiritual import of the law rather than its exter 
nal observance ; and that he could not have pronounced 
him to be great in the kingdom of heaven who con 
formed to the minutiae of legal and ceremonial obser 
vances. 1 Though the verses in question were not 
spoken by Jesus, they are in harmony with the Jewish 
Christian or primitive parts of the gospel. Matthew 
himself may have put them where they are. 

In like manner, the addition of in spirit to * the 

1 Strauss s Lcben Jcsu, p. 212. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 397 

poor in v. 3, is unauthentic on the lips of Jesus. Luke s 
report is right, and the Essene sentiment original. 
The three verses appended to the seven beatitules 
(v. 10-12) also belong to the evangelist, not to the 
speaker. Notwithstanding these and perhaps some other 
additions, the report of the sermon is substantially 
correct. 

This great discourse so fully recorded in Matthew s 
gospel is often depreciated, in spite of its author and 
excellence, by a class of divines. Thus one reckons it 
among the earthly things, not the heavenly, with which 
Christ commenced as he looked forward to the coming 
of the Comforter to complete what he had thus begun. 
The ethical character of the sermon does not suit the 
taste of dogmatic theologians, and they must therefore 
give it an inferior place. 1 

The sermon on the mount is followed by a series of 
miraculous works which Jesus performed in Galilee, 
viii., ix. 38. The cures related and the miracles per 
formed follow one another in rapid succession. After 
pronouncing a long discourse, the Saviour is represented 
as engaged almost entirely in wonderful cures, without 
distinct or considerable intervals of time. We cannot 
well resist the conclusion that the evangelist groups 
together a number of operations to make a portrait of 
Jesus s Messianic agency. That such was his object is 
perceptible from bodily and spiritual states of derange 
ment being equally represented as the subjects of cure ; 
from the calling of Matthew being inserted in the series ; 
from the brief forcible sayings in viii. 18-22 ; but espe 
cially from viii. 17, that it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our 
infirmities and bare our sicknesses. Jesus was to 
fulfil the Old Testament predictions respecting the 
Messiah s operations. The evangelist groups a series of 

1 See Dr. Plumptre s exposition of St. Matthew in the New Testament 
Commentary for Enylish Readers, by various writers, vol. i. p. 20. 



308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

facts which present Messiah in close contact with 
humanity, the Son of man compassionating the condi 
tion of his brethren and ministering to their wants. 
This gives another aspect of Jesus as the Messiah ; not 
so much the ethical reformer introducing a kingdom of 
righteousness, as a sympathising brother entering into 
the peculiar circumstances of men and raising them 
from wretchedness to comfort. That the section owes 
much to the writer can scarcely be doubted by those 
who compare it with the sermon on the mount, which 
also partakes of the grouping character belonging to the 
present portion, as well as the summary introduction of 
the sermon, and Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching 
in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the 
kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all 
manner of disease among the people/ etc. etc. (iv. 23- 
25). The summary owed its present place and charac 
ter to the evangelist s desire to get at once to the 
inaugural discourse of Jesus ; after which the general 
assertion is resolved into its details. The writer acts 
freely in setting the instances of the Messianic operation 
in rapid succession, that they may give a connected 
picture. He does not stay to specify times or places. 
The outward connection of the wonderful w r orks per 
formed evinces the reporter s subjectivity and reflection. 
A new section begins with the 10th chapter. After 
Jesus says in ix. 37, 38, l the harvest truly is plenteous, 
but the labourers few ; pray ye therefore the Lord of 
the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his 
harvest, the labourers are called and sent forth to the 
work, with a series of instructions respecting their con 
duct. The form of these instructions proceeds from the 
evangelist, since parts of them are not appropriate to 
the first mission of the apostles but are derived from a 
later period. This is plain from the sixteenth and 
folio win of verses. 

c 

The llth and 12th chapters open up the further and 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, ,>90 

wider progress of Jesns s ministry, especially the effects 
which it produced. Its results appear more marked, 
resolving themselves into adoption or recognition of his 
Messianic claims. The message of John the Baptist 
gives occasion not only to speak of the person and 
ministry of His forerunner, but of His own reception ; 
while he upbraids the cities in which he had wrought 
mighty works because of their unbelief. He expresses 
His union with the Father, in virtue of which he cheer 
fully acquiesces in all the divine arrangements ; and 
acknowledging that His mission would be believed in 
only by such as the Father had specially enlightened, 
he addresses a compassionate call to men to avail them 
selves of his aid. 

The 12th chapter represents Jesus in conflict with 
the Pharisees, and His severe language against them. 
The collision was caused by the disciples plucking ears 
of corn on the Sabbath, and also by the cure of a blind 
and dumb man, which the Pharisees attributed to 
Satanic agency. One thing in the chapter has naturally 
arrested the attention of critics, viz. the charge of Jesus 
to the multitudes not to make him known (12, 15, 16). 
In the midst of publicity, while he performed remark 
able cures openly and was in collision with the Phari 
sees, it is stated that he withdrew for the sake of 
privacy and enjoined the multitudes, who nevertheless 
followed him, not to speak of him and his deeds openly. 
The present is not the only place in the first gospel 
where such prohibition is recorded (see viii. 4 ; ix. 30). 
It is not so strange, however, at an earlier period, when 
he had not attained great publicity or been thrown into 
controversy with the Pharisees on account of his works. 
Here the prohibition is inappropriate. The evangelist 
himself appears to have felt so when he introduces 
a passage from Isai. xlii. 1-4, which lie applies to the 
Messiah, as if a leading feature of his character were 
calmness and noiselessness, the absence of ostentation, 



400 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the exhibition of a modest retirement, a quiet consola 
tion, which lodges in the minds of men with refreshing 
power. The inference is unavoidable that such prohibi 
tion on the part of Jesus was not uttered now, since it dis 
agrees with the context in which it stands. The evan 
gelist s adaptation of Isai. xlii. 14 to the Messiah is aside 
from the true sense of the passage ; though he must have 
looked upon the description as a Messianic criterion. 

The 13th chapter contains a group of parables, repre 
senting one aspect, the most attractive and influential, 
of the teaching of Jesus. Though the entire series is 
narrated as if spoken at one time, this is improbable. 
The parables were uttered on different occasions, and 
are unhistorically put into a connected group. The 
teaching of Jesus in Nazareth, recorded in xiii. 53-58, 
is identical with that of Luke iv. 16-30, though the 
latter places it too early. Chapters xiv.-xvii. contain 
a succession of events and circumstances, without any 
close connection. The narrative of Herod beheading 
John the Baptist ; the feeding of five thousand persons ; 
Jesus s walking on the sea ; his cures in the land of 
Grennesaret ; his conflict with the Pharisees, originating 
in the question about washing of hands ; his discourse 
to the disciples, showing that what they should be most 
anxious to shun is moral and spiritual, not ceremonial, 
impurity ; the interview with a Canaanitish woman ; 
the feeding of the four thousand, which is merely a du 
plicate of a preceding occurrence in xiv. 1721 ; the 
demand of the Pharisees for a sign, and the discourse 
respecting Sadducean and Pharisean leaven ; Peter s con 
fession, the transfiguration, the healing of a lunatic, and 
the narrative respecting the piece of money found in the 
mouth of a fish, constitute a loosely linked series. But 
the final catastrophe approaches. The opposition of the 
Pharisees and Sadducees becomes more intense, so that 
Jesus repeatedly announces his death and resurrection 
to the disciples (xvi. 21, etc. ; xvii. 22, etc.) 



THE GOSREL OF MATTHEW. 401 

The 19th chapter opens up a new epoch in the per 
sonal history of Jesus ; for he is represented as leaving 
Galilee for Judea. On this journey he came into colli 
sion with the Pharisees respecting divorce and celibacy, 
blessed little children, had a conversation with a rich 
youth, and spoke of the rewards awaiting those who 
made sacrifices for the kingdom of heaven s sake. To 
this is appended the parable of labourers in a vineyard, 
which is peculiar to the first gospel. The request of 
Zebedee s sons shows how inadequately the minds of the 
apostles were prepared for the Messianic kingdom. 
Approaching Jericho, he healed two blind men. 

The 21st chapter describes his entry into Jerusalem, 
the evangelist evidently knowing nothing of his stay in 
Bethany, his purification of the temple, and cursing of 
the fig-tree, which is unhistorical because contrary to 
the well-known character of the teacher. At the 
twenty- third verse of this chapter, a question of the 
Sanhedrists put to him respecting his authority, leads 
to three parables in which his opponents are aimed at, 
the breach between both becoming more open, sharp, 
and decided. The Pharisees put entangling questions ; 
their enmity increasing as their polemics are turned aside 
or recoil on their own heads with defeat. In the 23rd 
chapter, Jesus speaks openly against the scribes and 
Pharisees, a class of men who had lain in wait for him a 
considerable time. His denunciation of them is severe, 
characterised by a tone of stern displeasure, consistent 
only with the idea that he looked upon them as involved 
in hopeless and irreconcilable hostility to the gracious 
purposes of God. The chapter concludes with a vale 
dictory address to Jerusalem of the most mournful 
character. 

The 24th chapter contains a prediction of the de 
struction of Jerusalem, with the downfall of the Jewish 
state and Jesus s second coming immediately after. 
This eschatological discourse harmonises with the ser- 
YOL. r. D D 



402 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

mon on the mount in regard to freedom of composition. 
The writer s own subjectivity appears in it. That 
Jesus could not have spoken as he is represented, is ap 
parent from the way in which John writes in the 
Apocalypse respecting the fate of Jerusalem. For 
three years and a half the apostle predicts that the city 
should be trodden down by the Gentiles, but that the 
temple should be spared. The rest of the city is neither 
to be possessed nor destroyed by the heathen. It is im 
possible that the apostle John could have written thus, 
had he heard Jesus foretell such a catastrophe as is de 
scribed in the present chapter ; and therefore consider 
able scope must be allowed for the matter and method 
of the discourse here given. There is great difficulty in 
extracting the authentic nucleus from the surround 
ings. One thing is pretty clear, that not till after 
the catastrophe which befell Jerusalem a catastrophe 
which none of the early Christians foresaw did any 
of the synoptists seek to have it plainly foretold by 
the Saviour. 

The chapter before us raises a grave question. Did 
Jesus believe that he would return in a visible form 
to inaugurate his reign as Messiah ? His discourse 
here, and many other sayings reported by the synoptists, 
especially Matt. x. 23 ; xxiii. 36, 39 ; xxiv. 34 ; xxvi. 
64, contain an explicit prediction of his speedy return 
to preside at the judgment of mankind. Did he share 
the common Messianic belief of his time ? So Strauss, 
Keim, and even Weizsacker suppose, contrary, as we 
think, to the evidence of facts in the gospels themselves. 
He who transformed the contemporary Messianic ideas 
so radically, enunciating the spirituality and gradual 
growth of his kingdom, could not have apprehended his 
Messianic dignity under the crass form of current Ju 
daism. In speaking of the future, he used the figurative 
language of the Old Testament, and was misapprehended. 
To harmonise their Judaic hopes with the conviction 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 403 

that the crucified One was the Messiah, the disciples 
supposed he would return in a visible form to inaugurate 
his reign and judge mankind. The eschatological dis 
courses which connect the fall of Jerusalem, the destruc 
tion of the temple and the end of the world, have been 
falsified by history ; a fact which proves that Jesus did 
not utter them as they are. Doubtless they have been 
added to and revised after their original composition. 
Jewish ideas and expressions peculiar to the disciples or 
their followers are incorporated with them. This was 
owing to an imperfect apprehension of the imagery em 
ployed by Jesus, and also to the circumstances of the 
time immediately preceding the destruction of Jeru 
salem ; for details are drawn from the troublous events 
that ushered in that catastrophe. The only authentic 
parts seem to be xxiv. 86-44, xxv. 1-13, 14-30. The 
rest are of later origin. We believe that a Jewish 
Christian document is embodied in xxiv. 435 ; not, 
however, in its original form or extent. The language 
of an apocalyptic comment, not a correct report of what 
Jesus said, appears in the paragraph, which seems to 
have been written about A.D. 68. 

The opinion that Jesus did not predict his second 
coming in the crass way which the synoptists present, 
but in a spiritual form veiled under Jewish imagery, 
which his hearers did not rightly understand, is sub 
stantially that of Hase, Schenkel, Colani and Baur. But 
some difficulty attends it, because the expectation of the 
early church and of Paul himself does not agree (1 
Thessal. iv. 15). The sensuous view still prevailed. 

It is probable that the thing he foretold in connection 
with the overthrow of the theocracy was the initiation of 
his kingdom, that is, his spiritual advent. Foreseeing the 
destruction of Jerusalem and the desolation of its temple, 
he knew that the way was cleared for the victory of the 
new religion. The building up of the spiritual temple 
followed immediately upon the close of the theocratic 



404 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

age. If Jesus described the ideal Israel in prophetic 
and figurative language like that used in the books of 
Daniel and Enoch, his hearers may have readily misap 
prehended his meaning. The statements in xxiv. 30 
and xxvi. 64 are clearly unhistorical. The multitude 
prefer the letter to the spirit ; and are dazzled with 
highly coloured imagery. The inauguration of the new 
era with its reign of righteousness, outlined as it pro 
bably was in a few bold metaphors by the Messiah 
himself, took an external shape. 

Several parables follow, inculcating watchfulness and 
preparation for the approaching judgment ; that of the 
faithful and the wicked servants, of the ten virgins, of 
the talents, and a description of the Messianic judgment. 
The sufferings, death, and resurrection are described in 
the last three chapters. 

The concluding words of the gospel, containing a 
formal commission to the eleven to carry the glad tid 
ings of salvation to the heathen and to baptize, come 
from apostolic tradition interpreting the mind of Christ. 
Though he did not himself enjoin a universal mission 
and baptism a fact indirectly indicated by putting the 
command into the mouth of the risen Christ just before 
his ascension early Christian consciousness appre 
hended his will aright in enunciating the comprehensive 
principle. That the gospel should be preached to all 
nations and baptism be the introductory mode of ad 
mitting them into the Church, are precepts that truly 
reflect the spirit of Jesus s teaching. 

The general contents of the gospel seem to be his 
torical, and the course of events natural. Artificial 
combination on the part of the evangelist, or transpo 
sitions and transmutations, both chronological and ma 
terial, are not absent, but are scarcely a prominent fea 
ture. No doubt some portions are dislocated, and 
have riot their proper connection. But the usual suc 
cession appears probable. One thing strikes the reader, 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 405 

viz. the grouping together of discourses or parables 
which were delivered at different times. Thus the seven 
parables in the thirteenth chapter could not have been 
spoken in immediate succession and at the same time ; 
though the evangelist gives one to understand that they 
were. After depicting the ministry of Jesus in Galilee, 
the close of it in Judea is distinctly described. It is 
divided into two periods, a Galilean and a Judean one. 
Yet plausible objections have been made to the authen 
ticity of the contents, derived especially from the other 
three gospels. If Luke and Mark be considered inde 
pendent documents having an authority of their own, 
the originality of Matthew is lessened. Or if they 
deserve the preference where they deviate from Mat 
thew, the authenticity of the last is damaged. But this 
estimate cannot be approved. We believe that the first 
gospel being the oldest, is the principal source of the 
other synoptists. The critic should be cautious about 
setting the accounts of Luke and Mark above those of 
Matthew, or attacking the historical credibility of the 
first gospel by the help of the second and third. The 
only legitimate ground on which Matthew s gospel can 
be assailed is itself. The principle of grouping has in 
fluenced the character of the narration. What distin 
guishes the gospel most is its peculiar pragmatism or 
development. It has certainly mythical elements. As 
the traditional had sufficient time to mould and modify 
facts, before the canonical gospel was written, the his 
torical credibility of certain portions is impaired. Both 
form and substance are coloured with the legendary. 
Had we the original Aramaean discourses, some of the 
hazy element which soon gathered round the evan 
gelical materials would disappear. But even there 
perhaps it was not wanting. It is useless, however, to 
speak of what is irrecoverable. The present Greek 
gospel being a growth, and having been written above 
half a century after the events which it narrates, was 



406 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

affected by the influences of an uncritical age, as also by 
the convulsive changes and revolutions that shook the 
world of Jews and Gentiles, filling men s minds with 
fear. The only criterion we have for separating the 
genuine from the non -historical is the interpreter s 
critical sagacity. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL. 

1. There are two elements in the gospel, of distinct 
and opposite tendency, the Jewish Christian or primitive 
Ebionite one, which regarded the new religion as a re 
formed stage of the old, accepting the Messiahship of 
Jesus and the pure morality He proclaimed ; and a 
wider element which viewed the Gentile world as the 
soil of Christianity. The latter acquired predominance 
after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, when 
the field of the world was opened up to the new religion, 
and Judaism received its death-blow. These particu- 
larist and universal elements interlace one another ; 
evincing different writers and times ; so that the com 
posite gospel can only be apprehended after a careful 
survey of each. The authentic work of Matthew con 
sisted of Jewish Christian parts ; those with a liberal 
tendency were posterior. The ground-work was not 
left in its original state, but was subjected to revision. 
If we had the logia or the gospel according to the 
Hebrews in its first condition, the extent of such re 
vision would appear ; but fragments alone remain, 
and even they are valuable in indicating the changes 
which later hands made in the original document. 

The first revision was effected by the translator of 
the Aramaean work, who added various particulars ; 
the last belongs to the canonical evangelist himself. 
Bvetween the two, there may have been others ; for we 
cannot think that all the additions and changes proceeded 
from the final redactor. Hilgenfeld, who assumes no 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 407 

intermediate reviser between the old Greek gospel cog 
nate to that according to the Hebrews and the canonical 
evangelist, assigns much more to the latter than we can 
assent to. Thus he gives him the fourteenth verse of 
the twenty-fourth chapter : And this gospel of the 
Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness 
unto all nations ; words implying a later time than 
Hilgenfeld s date of the present gospel (A.D. 67) and a 
more enlarged mind than one that tolerated in the pre 
ceding context, i many false prophets shall arise, if 
these misleading teachers were Paulines as he supposes 
them to be. 

Though it is not easy to point out the authentic 
portions written by the apostle Matthew in Aramaaan, 
they are often perceptible. The other parts cannot be 
assigned to their respective revisers. All that can be 
done is to indicate such as belong to a time soon after 
the destruction of Jerusalem and those near the close of 
the first or the beginning of the second century. 

Examples are the best proofs of the gospel s com 
posite character. The sermon on the mount (v. 1-vii. 
12) was an important and prominent element in the 
primitive document. So were parts of the eschatological 
discourses in chapters xxiv., xxv. But ch. i. 18 
ii. 23 is an addition, though belonging to the apostolic 
time. Ch. xxviii. 18-20 is one of the latest parts, which 
cannot be put into the age of the apostles because it has 
an incipient Trinity. 

The Gentile Christian or Pauline part is often made 
to subserve the general purpose of showing that Jesus 
is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, and 
that the main incidents of his life are foreshadowed 
there. The revisers advanced views cannot be mistaken. 
Jesus is the Saviour not only of the Jews but of the 
Gentiles ; and the heathen world pays him its homage. 
The covenant people are to be rejected for their opposi 
tion to the Son of God. 



408 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

We shall illustrate these prominent characteristics 
of the gospel at greater length. 

(a.) The gospel has a more Jewish aspect than any 
other of the synoptics. This is not owing wholly to the 
Ararneean basis, for Jewish Christian revisers would 
naturally retain its primitive complexion in the ad 
ditions and changes they made. But it is unnecessary 
to attempt a separation of the elements belonging to the 
groundwork and those of which the Jewish Christian 
redactors were the authors. 

Jewish nationality is most observable in xv. 24, 
where Jesus says that he was sent only to the lost sheep 
of the house of Israel ; inx. 5, where the twelve apostles 
are forbidden to go among the Gentiles or the Sa 
maritans ; and in xix. 28, where the twelve are promised 
twelve thrones, on which to sit as assessors along with 
the Messiah, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The 
same tendency also appears in the genealogy that reaches 
up only to Abraham ; in the undue stress laid upon 
works of the law (xii. 3337 ; xix. 17) ; in the exag 
gerated sanctification of the sabbath (xxiv. 20) ; the 
pre-eminence given to Peter (x. 2 ; xvi. 17-19) ; 
Jesus s being styled King of the Jews (ii. 2) ; the local 
and temporal modifications of the second advent (x. 23 ; 
xvi. 28), and the eschatology generally which makes 
the end of Israel synchronous with that of the present 
world (xxiv. 3, 22 ; x. 23) ; the regeneration of the 
twelve tribes being the object of the present dispensa 
tion (xix. 28). A literally valid authority is also 
attributed to the law, under the new dispensation (v. 
18, 19). Its significance remains indissoluble ; Chris 
tianity being a genuine and purified form of Judaism. 

(6.) As Christianity came to be apprehended in its 
spirituality and extent, the phases through which the 
original document passed took off from its Judaism by 
wider views. Successive additions gave it greater 
breadth because Christians were gradually arriving at 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 409 

the conviction that the new religion was intended to 
embrace Gentiles as well as Jews, and to leaven man 
kind with higher principles than those embodied in the 
Old Testament. Hence the present Greek gospel em 
braces materials of different times and varying character, 
the separation of which is bound up with the credibility 
of the narratives. The original Gospel according to the 
Hebrews must itself have had some non-Judaistic ele 
ments, especially where Jesus is the speaker at a certain 
stage of his ministry, because he enunciated, after a 
time, a comprehensive religion amid the reserve he 
adopted. Even in its original form Christianity must 
have had a principle capable of enlargement. Paul had 
also preached to the Gentiles before the canonical gospel 
appeared, and had openly announced a divorce between 
the old and new religions. Most of the passages where 
the Gospel presents an ethical universalism belong to a 
later time, such as that in which we read of the elect 
being gathered together from the four quarters of heaven, 
the elect including Jews and Gentiles. But in xv. 21 
28, where the heathen woman is praised for her faith, 
the narrative is original. 

The comprehensive character of the gospel is ex 
emplified in xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19, even in opposition 
to the unbelieving people of promise (viii. 10-12, xx. 
1-16, xxii. 1-14). The history of the Canaanite 
woman exalts the heathen ; and Jesus declares that 
he did not find so great faith in Israel as among 
them (xv. 28, viii. 10). The curse that should come 
on the Jewish people (xxvii. 25) ; the threat that the 
Kingdom should be taken from them and given to the 
Gentiles (xxi. 43) ; the heathen s first salutation of 
Jesus cS King of the Jews (ii. 1112) ; the value 
attached to the moral and religious element of the law 
(xxii. 40, xxiii. 23), and the history of the birth of 
Jesus, counterbalance the particularistic element. The 
principles of the divine Kingdom are said to be unfolded 



410 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

in the natural way by gradual growth (xiii. 30-33) ; 
which is contrary to the passages that depict the closing 
scene of the present age as near, and inaugurated by the 
sudden appearance of the Redeemer in his glory (x. 23, 
xvi. 28, xxiv. 30). In some places, an ascetic influence 
appears (xix. 12) ; but mothers, the ascetic constraint 
is represented as adverse to evangelical freedom. Thus 
the Judaic basis is overshadowed by larger ideas. 
Ebionite Christianity which was only a development of 
Judaism receded before liberal conceptions ; and the 
distorted notions entertained of the Founder s person as 
well as of His teachings, tinged as they were with Judaic 
crassness, gave place to other beliefs. 

2. Another element in the first gospel is its fre 
quent allusion to passages in the Old Testament. The 
fulfilment of the Old in the New is never lost sight 
of. It is assumed that the Messianic person and cha 
racter of Jesus were shadowed forth in the Old Testa 
ment. Sometimes the citation is made for the sake of 
the history to which it is adapted. Thus in i. 22, we 
read that the birth of Jesus from a virgin took place in 
order that Isaiah s predictions in vii. 14 might be ful 
filled. Micah is said to have foretold his birth in Beth 
lehem, Matt. ii. 6. Jesus must fly into Egypt that 
Hosea xi. 1 might be accomplished. Here the history is 
accommodated to the nature of the citation. When 
Joseph returned from Egypt with the child and took up 
his abode in Nazareth, it was that the prophetic saying, 

He shall be called a Nazarene, might be fulfilled. 
The same reference to the Old Testament is prominent 
in the 27th chapter. The evangelist s standpoint is 
much more in the Old Testament than that of any other 
synoptist. The Messiahship of Jesus was an object 
present to his mind, giving rise to the adaptation of old 
prophecies and parallels to recent events. 

3. The arrangement of materials in the gospel is 
generally regular. Although time does not appear to 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 411 

have been a leading principle, it is commonly observed. 
This is observable from the fact that it is commonly 
noticed at what time or on what day an event happened 
or a discourse was held. Indications of time are either 
general, in those days (iii. 1) ; at that time (xi. 25 ; xii. 
1 ; xiv. 1) ; or special, such as in that day (xiii. 1 ; 
xviii. 1 ; xxii. 23) ; after six days (xvii. 1) ; while he 
spake these things (ix. 18 ; xii. 46) ; as they went out (ix. 
32) ; as they departed (xi. 7) ; when he was come into the 
temple (xxi. 23). To the latter belong the transition- 
phrases, when Jesus heard that John was delivered up 
(iv. 12) ; when he ivas come down from the mountain 
(viii. 1) ; when he entered into Capernaum (viii. 5) ; when 
he came into the house (viii. 14) ; passing thence, etc. etc. 
The usual particle of transition is then, 1 which occurs 
ninety times. Chronological arrangement is therefore 
the rule ; nor could any other gospel be taken as the 
basis of a harmony with so much propriety. The 
grouping together of various sayings and facts has 
interfered but little with the proper sequence ; so that 
arrangement according to subject-matter and to chrono 
logical succession, harmonise. Indeed the notices of 
time often interrupt the flow and thread of the narra 
tive, showing that they were an object of attention to 
the writer. Thus the story of the magi is introduced 
by the words, Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem 
of Judea, as though nothing had been said before about 
the birth of Jesus. The beginnings of sections have 
usually notices of time, often in connection with place. 
Hence we hold that the natural order is commonly 
observed. It must be admitted, however, that the proper 
succession is not attended to universally. But the ex 
ceptions prove the rule, so that Bishop Marsh, following 
Eichhorn, was right in preferring Matthew s order to 
Luke s or Mark s, though the basis on which he 
grounds it is the incautious statement that the apostle, 



412 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

being an eyewitness of the facts recorded, must have 
known the time in which each of them happened ; a 
statement applicable at most to the Aramaean ground 
work, but necessarily incorrect in relation to the cano 
nical gospel. 

LEADING OBJECT. 

The leading object of the final redactor has been 
anticipated in the preceding paragraph. It has been said 
that he was influenced by a Judaising tendency, which 
is correct in a certain sense. It was certainly not his 
intention to portray the kingly character of Christ ; 
nor is the tone throughout kingly and majestic, as 
has been said. The evangelist is as far as possible from 
looking at things in a grand, general aspect, indifferent 
to details ; or from sacrificing both time and place to 
groups of discourses, parables, or miracles. Simplicity 
is observable in the work, not grandeur, while time and 
place are sacrificed less than in the other synoptics. 

The general purport of the original work was to 
show that Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Jews. 
It had a didactic purpose, viz. to strengthen Jewish 
Christianity. Christ is set forth, not in opposition to 
the Mosaic law, but as establishing its legitimate claims 
and bringing out its true meaning. His doctrine is set 
above the Pharisaic apprehension of the law, not above 
its proper signification. This design appears in the 
quotations from the Old Testament, and in the turn 
given to parts of the old history that they may suit the 
life of Jesus. Former events are typical of later ones 
and repeated, such as the sojourn in Egypt, the exodus, 
and the Sinaitic legislation. It cannot be denied, there 
fore, that the historical narrative is sometimes shaped by 
a writer who regards the ministry of Jesus as meant 
for his own people. In conformity with this design, 
the discourses show a preference for what relates to the 
Jews and their law. The gospel exhibits a Christianity 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 413 

springing out of Judaism as a divine system testifying 
to the Messiah who should redeem his people. The 
work was not written at first in the interest of a Jewish 
Christian party distinct from Christians of a freer ten 
dency, but in their interest when they were themselves 
of the Church. It was meant for the use of the Jewish 
Christians generally, to promote their faith. The writer 
shows them that the Messiah had come, that the pro 
phetic Scriptures were fulfilled in Jesus, and that they 
should emancipate themselves from traditional interpre 
tations of the law. Jesus assumes an attitude of hos 
tility to the scribes and Pharisees, to the chief priests 
and Sadducees, confronting and refuting their traditions; 
but he never denounces the law itself. As the gospel 
is a growth, not a homogeneous composition, it is not 
pervaded by one tendency alone. Successive revisers 
widened it for a larger circle of readers ; and the final 
redactor interwove liberal among Ebionite statements, 
so that Pauline mingling with Petrine elements have 
modified the original Ebionism. 

TIME OF WRITING. 

The question as to the time when the gospel was 
written hardly admits of a definite answer, because of 
the way in which the work originated. Matthew wrote 
the substance in Aramaean ; that was translated into 
Greek, and received additions, modifications, and changes, 
till it took the present form, the Greek canonical gospel. 
Hence the indications of time, if such there be, are dif 
ferent. Some belong to the original and are therefore 
early ; others proceeding from revisers are late. A 
work which attained its present state by various steps 
cannot exhibit conclusive evidence of a single date. 

It is probable that Matthew wrote before the de 
struction of Jerusalem. Irenaeus testifies that the gospel 
originated after A.D. 60 and before A.D. 70, when Peter 



414 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

and Paul were preaching and founding the church in 
Kome. But Peter did not lay the foundation of the 
church in Rome ; for it had been planted nine or ten 
years before. Bishop Marsh thinks that the verb to 
found, 1 as used by Irenseus, means no more than to build 
up or confirm, not to lay the first foundation ; which 
is contrary to the obvious sense. The testimony of 
Irenreus is precarious. Though he belonged to the 
second century, and had better means of knowing the 
truth than succeeding writers, his statements must be 
judged by their inherent probability. He is so far cor 
rect as to make the apostle write after A.D. 60 and before 
the destruction of Jerusalem. Various parts of the 
gospel which presuppose the existence of the life of the 
people in Palestine (viii. 4 ; x. 23 ; xxiii. 2), etc., and 
of the temple-worship (v. 23; xvii. 24-27; xxiii. 16, 
etc., 21), agree with this. 

The 24th chapter has been appealed to more than 
any other part in determining the date of the gospel. 
But the exegetical difficulties belonging to it detract 
from the weight of its evidence. That the prophecy re 
ft rs to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus is clear, 
notwithstanding Baur s opinion. Three particulars are 
observable, the beginning of sorrows, the actual destruction 
of the city and temple, and the return of the Messiah in 
glory. The last is said to be soon after 2 the destruction 
of Jerusalem, which creates perplexity, especially in 
connection with the thirtieth verse. So does the word 
generation in the thirty-fourth verse, which must be 
referred to the contemporaries of Jesus ; not to a period 
of about 100 years, as Baur and others understand it. 
The general description shows that it was written at the 
commencement of the disasters which befell the Jewish 
nation and terminated in its downfall, i.e. between A.D. 
66 and 70. The section embracing verses 4-35, can 
hardly be earlier than A.D. 67. Amid the calamities 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 415 

connected with the destruction of the metropolis, the 
signs of the Messiah s coming here given, false Messiahs, 
earthquakes, disastrous wars, persecutions causing many 
Christians to apostatise, did not occur, but are pro 
jected backward from a later period. They are even put 
into the mouth of Jesus as predictions. 

There is an expression twice used in the gospel, until 
this day (xxvii. 8 ; xxviii. 15), implying a considerable 
interval between the event and its record ; how long it 
is impossible to tell, probably twenty years. 

In addition to other notices, some refer to xxiii. 35, 
identifying Zechariah there mentioned with Zechariah son 
of Baruch, who was slain in the temple about the time 
of the destruction of Jerusalem, as Josephus relates. 
But others, supposing that the true reading is what the 
gospel of the Hebrews had, Zacharias son of Joiada/ 
identify him with the Zechariah mentioned in the last 
book of the Jewish canon (2 Chronicles xxiv. 19-24). 

These and other internal marks do not fix the exact 
date of the present Greek gospel. The words of Papias 
imply that it was in circulation before he wrote, though 
he did not rely upon it, thinking that the Greek had 
almost suppressed the authentic Matthew, and therefore 
choosing to trust to oral tradition for i what Matthew 
said. The baptismal formula points to a late time, even 
to the beginning of the second century. And xvi. 18, 
19, probably indicate a later date than 67 A.D. ; for 
though the verses are of a strongly Jewish type, the 
word church, and the hyperbolical terms employed in 
giving the apostle Peter spiritual power, suggest a time 
when the Jewish Christians had witnessed the extensive 
growth of Paulinism and were embittered against it. 
The noun church which the Ebionites avoided, is trans 
ferred from Paulinism to Petrinism. It does not occur 
in the other gospels, and is employed in its posterior 
sense of the church universal. Cremcr s Lexicon inverts 
the right order of its meanings. In like manner xviii. 



416 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

17 and its context presuppose an ecclesiastical organi 
sation posterior to the overthrow of Judaism. 

If we could tell the precise dates of the epistles 
of Barnabas and Clemens Romanus, we come near the 
truth. The epistle of Clement does not recognise the 
existence of the gospel, as we see from its citations. If 
it were written, as Kostlin supposes, between A.D. 90 
and 96, the gospel would be later. But that date is not 
established ; as is evident from the fact that Volkmar 
makes it A.D. 125. The epistle of Barnabas clearly 
recognises the gospel s existence, 1 since there is an allu 
sion to Matt. xx. 16, in the fourth chapter ; but there 
is a peculiarity about this quotation which neutralises 
the evidence it would otherwise give. The epistle was 
written A.D. 119. The gospel may be dated about 
105 A.D. 

The place where the Aramaean appeared was Judea, 
where the Greek also originated. 

STYLE AND DICTION. 

The language of the gospel is more Hebraic than 
that of the other three, which accords with the fact of its 
ultimate derivation from an Arama3an original. 

1. The usual formula prefixed to passages cited from 
the Old Testament to prove the Messiahship of Jesus is, 
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord 
by the prophet (i. 22 ; ii. 15) ; which is usually abbre 
viated or varied in later chapters (ii. 17 ; iii. 3 ; iv. 14 ; 
viii. 17; xii. 17; xiii. 35 ; xxi. 4; xxvi. 56; xxvii. 9). 
The formula rovro Se o\ov ytyovzv Iva. K.T.\. is parti 
cularly deserving of notice (i. 22 ; xxi. 4 ; xxvi. 56). In 
these and similar citations, the expressions prjOeis, prjOev, 
Ippyjdrj (Sia) nineteen times, are peculiar to Matthew. 

2. The expression Son of David is applied to Jesus 
eight times. In Mark and Luke it is less frequent. 

1 Comp. c. v. with Matt. ix. 13, xxvi. 13; c. xix, with Matt. xix. 19. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 417 

3. Jerusalem is called the holy city and l the holy 
place (iv. 5 ; xxiv. 15 ; xxvii. 53). 

4. The phrase crwreXeia TOV aiai^os, end of the age 
or dispensation, occurs five times. The only other 
example of a similar phrase is in the epistle to the 
Hebrews (ix. 26). 

5. l Kingdom of heaven is a favourite expression 
of the gospel, as it occurs thirty- two times. The other 
synoptists have kingdom of God instead. The latter, 
however, occurs in Matt. xii. 28 ; xxi. 31, 43. 

6. Heavenly Father is used five times ; and Father 
in heaven, 7 sixteen times. 

7. KOLT ovap occurs six times. 

8. TTpocrep^ecr^at and iropevecrOai are used in the 
oriental manner, by way of expanding a discourse (iv. 
3 ; viii. 5, 19, 25 ; ix. 14, 20; xiii. 10, 27, 36, etc., ii. 9 ; 
ix. 13 ; xi. 4 ; xvii. 27, etc.). The former occurs fifty- 
one times ; but in Mark it is used only six times, and in 
Luke ten times. 

9. cr^dSpa is always put after a verb (ii. 10 ; xvii. 6, 
23 ; xviii. 31 ; xix. 25 ; xxvi. 22 ; xxvii. 54). It occurs 
but once in Mark and in Luke. 

10. Tore is the usual particle of transition. It occurs 
ninety-one times ; but only six times in Mark, and 
fourteen in Luke. 

11. fcal eycVcTo ore (vii. 28 ; xi. 1 ; xiii. 53 ; xix. 1 ; 
xxvi. 1). Luke has ore Se eycVero, /cat ore eyeVero. 

12. ews ov occurs seven times. Luke has oftener 
ews orov. 

13. 7roiLv a)?, wcrTrep, ctNTavTO)?, KOiOtos commonly 
with TTpocrerafei or the like (i. 24 ; vi. 2 ; xx. 5 ; xxi. 6 ; 
xxvi. 19 ; xxviii. 15). Luke employs Troitlv O/AOICJS 
and other expressions. 

14. rcu^os occurs six times. The other evangelists 
never use it, but either fjivrj^a or /^/xetoj/, the latter 
being also in Matthew. 

VOL. I. E E 



418 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

15. <rvp,/3ov\Lov Xafielv (xii. 14 ; xxii. 15 ; xxvii. 1, 
7; xxviii. 12). 

16. tSov after a genitive absolute occurs nine times. 
In introducing something new, /cat tSou is employed. 

17. Adverbs are usually put after the imperative. 
OUTWS is an exception. 

18. TrpocrKvvtiv takes the dative case ten times, the 
accusative but once. Mark also has the dative; Luke 
and John oftener the accusative. 

19. opvva) el? or eV is a Hebraism not used by the 
other evangelists. 

20. Xeyojz> frequently occurs without the dative of a 
person; vii. 21, is an exception. 

21. JepocrdXv/xa is always the name of Jerusalem, 
except in xxiii. 37. 

22. 6 Xeyd/xei os is a favourite expression in announc 
ing names or surnames, being used of Christ (i. 16 ; 
xxvii. 17, 22), of Matthew (ix. 9), of Peter (iv. 18 ; x. 
2), of Caiaphas (xxvi. 3), of Iscariot (xxvi. 14), and 
also of names of places (ii. 23 ; xxvi. 36 ; xxvii. 33). 

23. Now the birth of Jesus was thus (i. 18); 
now the names of the twelve apostles are these (x. 2), 
introduce sentences peculiar to the gospel. 

24. elTTtiv n Kara Tti os, v. 1 1 ; xii. 32. 

25. Matthew prefers adding of the people to t 1 e 
scribes or elders, ii. 4 ; xxi. 23 ; xxvi. 3, 47 ; xxvii. 1, to 
which there is some approach in ol irpwToi TOV \aov 
(Luke xix. 47), and TO Trpecr/BvTepLov TOV Xaov (Luke 
xxii. 66). 

26. efc TO oVo/m, x. 41, 42; xviii. 20; xxviii. 19. 
The other evangelists have eV and eVt. 

27. Trcts oVTts, vii. 24; x. 32; xix. 29. Luke has 
o?. 

28. oLKovo-o) for (XKOUO-O/ACU, xii. 19; xiii. 14, 15. 

29. fte x/H TTJS cnjiJiepov, xi. 23 ; xxviii. 15, and liws 
cr^jitepo^, xxvii. 8, peculiar to Matthew. 

30. OVTOS yap is peculiar to Matthew iii. 3 ; vii. 12 ; 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 419 



xi. 10. Luke has Kara ravra yap twice, and 
yap OVTOL once, while Mark has ets TOVTO yap ; but 
neither has euros yo-p- Similarly ovrws yap is peculiar 
to Matthew: ii. 5 ; iii. 15 ; v. 12. 

31. The preposition cbrd is a favourite with Matthew, 
even after verbs with which other New Testament 
writers connect e/c, as after tytipea-Oai (xiv. 2 ; xxvii. 
64; xxviii. 7), and SieyeipecrOai (i. 24). 

32. Verbs in evew are favourites with Matthew, as 

8eo"/xevtz^ 7 eTTiya/x/^peueiz , TrayiSeueu , ayya- 
, etc. 

33. ava^peiv occurs ten times ; in Mark but once, 
and only three times in the New Testament besides. 

34. IndvG) nine times. Mark has it but once ; Luke 
five times. 

35. ^ye/xw* ten times. Mark has it once and Luke 
twice. 

36. OTTWS eighteen times. In Mark twice, in Luke 
seven times. 

37. or way eiv twenty-four times. In Mark five times 
and in Luke seven. 

38. varepop seven times. Mark has it once and 
Luke twice. 

39. #poViju,o9 seven times. Luke has it twice. 

40. The following are peculiar to the gospel : a 
ayKicrrpov, cx$wo9, aljua St/cato^, ai^oppoeiv, 
aKjjLrfv, aKpi/Bovv, avapifid^eLVy avairios, avrfOov, a 

reiv, apyvpia (plural), aprt, Bap, fBao-avKjrri^, /5arro- 
XoyeT^, ^tacrr^s, Sa^eto^, 6 Selva, SeVya^, 
8iaXXaTTcr#ai, Stacra^et^, StS/ja^jLto^, Ste^oSo?, 



, eyw Kvpie, .6viK.6<$, etSea, ei 

e/x7ropia, e/^TrpTy^e^ 

, iTriKa6itLV, eVtcrTret/Dei^, epevyecrffai, ep 
, euSta, ewoet^, evvov^ 

^ee (vocative), ^ptcrrrfs, 9rfcravpoi (plural 
elsewhere only in Hebrews xi. 26), 6vp.ovcr9ai : twra, 

E J? 2 



420 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



7077775, KaraOefJiari^iv, Kara^avOdveiv, 

, /cdXacrts (elsewhere only in 1 John iv. 18), KOVCT- 
, KVJJLLVOV, Ka)va)\ft, /xeratpetz , 



vva-rdt^iv (also in 2 Peter ii. 3), oiKereia, 
ouSa/Aws, TraytSevet^, 7rapa#aXa<rcriO5, Trap- 
uet^, 7rapoiJLOiatf.lv, Trapovcria, 7ra/)oi//is, TreXayos (only in 
Acts xxvii. 5 besides), TrXarvs, TroXvXoyta, Trpaos, 77/305- 
(j>epeii> Swpoz/, Trpo^Odvew, 7Tvppatw, yoa/ca, 
crciyTJvr), ortiew, creX^^to^ecr^at, crirto-ros, orpvpva, 
crvvaLpt.iv Xdyo^, crvvdvTrjcrLS, crvvavdvcr0ai, 
rdXavTov, Ta<j>T], TeXcvTTy, rrjpovvTes a watch, 
, (frpdfeiv, <j)v\aKTTJpLOv, ^vreta, 



QUOTATIONS FEOM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

fi. 23 ..... Isaiah yii. 14. 

*ii. 6 ..... Micah v. i. 

fii. 15 ..... Hosea xi. 1. 

fii. 18 ..... Jeremiah xxxi. 15. 

*iii. 3 ..... Isaiah xl. 3, &c. 

*iv. 4 ..... Deuteronomy viii. 3 

*iv. 6 ..... Psalm xci. 11, 12. 

*iv. 7 ..... Deuteronomy vi. 16. 

*iv. 10 ..... Deuteronomy vi. 13. 

fiv. 15, 16 ..... Isaiah ix. 1, 2. 

*v. 5 ..... Psalm xxxvii. 11. 

*v. 21 ..... Exodus xx. 13. 

v. 27 ..... Exodus xx. 14. 

f*v. 31 ..... Deuteronomj xxiv. 1. 

t*v. 33 ..... Levit, xix. 12 ; Deut. xxiii. 23. 

*v. 38 ..... Exodus xxi. 24. 

*v. 43 ..... Leviticus xix. 18. 

viii. 4 ..... Leviticus xiv. 12. 

fviii. 17 ..... Isaiah liii. 4. 

*ix. 13 ..... Hosea vi. 6. 

x. 35, 36 ..... Micah vii. 6. 

xi. 5 ..... Isaiah xxxv. 5; xxix. 18. 

*xi. 10 ..... Malachi iii. 1. 

xi. 14 , . . . . Malachi iv. 5. 

xii. 3 ..... 1 Samuel xxi. 6. 

xii. 7 ..... Hosea vi. 6. 

fxii. 17-21 ..... Isaiah xlii. 1-4. 

1 Theoloyische Jah? bi<ch(>r, by Zeller, vol. ii. p. 445, et seq. 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 421 

xii. 40 Jonah i. 17. 

xii. 42 1 Kings x. 1. 

*xiii. 14, 15 .... Isaiah vi. 9. 

fxiii. 35 ..... Psalm Ixxviii. 2. 

*xv. 4 Exodus xx. 12, and xxi. 17. 

*xv. 8, 9 Isaiah xxix. 13. 

xvii. 2 Exodus xxxiv. 29. 

xvii. 11 Malachi iii. 1 ; iv. 5. 

xviii. 16 Deuteronomy xix. 15. 

xix. 4 ..... Genesis i. 27. 

*xix. 5 Genesis ii. 24. 

*xix. 7 ..... Deuteronomy xxiv. 1. 

*xix. 18 Exodus xx. 12, &c. 

xix. 19 ..... Leviticus xix. 18. 

fxxi. 5 Zechariah ix. 9. 

xxi. 9 Psalm cxviii. 25, 26. 

*xxi. 13 Isaiah Ivi. 7 ; Jeremiah vii. 11. 

*xxi. 16 Psalm viii. 3. 

*xxi. 42 Psalm cxviii. 22, 23. 

*xxii. 24 Deuteronomy xxv. "5. 

*xxii. 32 Exodus iii. 6, 16. 

*xxii. 37 Deuteronomy vi. 5. 

*xxii. 39 Leviticus xix. 18. 

*xxii. 44 . . . . . Psalm ex. 1. 

*xxiii. 38 Psalm Ixix. 25. 

*xxiii. 39 . , , . . Psalm cxviii. 26. 

*xxiv. 15; Daniel ix. 27. 

xxiv. 29 . . . . . Isaiah xiii. 10. 

*xxvi. 31 . ... Zechariah xiii. 7. 

xxvi. 64 . . . . . Daniel vii. 13. 

fxxvii. 9, 10 . . , Zechariah xi. 13. 

xxvii. 35 .... Psalm xxii. 19. 

xxvii. 43 .... Psalm xxii. 8. 

xxvii. 46 .... Psalm xxii. 1. 

The citations marked thus (f ) are of the first class 
referred to by Bleek, in which the evangelist indicates 
the fulfilment of Old Testament statements, and cites 
independently of the LXX from the Hebrew text ; 
departing in most instances not only from the words 
but the sense of the Greek version. Those marked 
thus (*) belong to the second class, in which the LXX 
are mostly followed, either verbally even where they 
deviate from the original as in iii. 3, xiii. 14, etc., or 
with a freedom which did not arise from consulting 
the Hebrew. 



422 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Three of the first class correspond exactly to the 
Hebrew text, viz. ii. 15 ; viii. 17 ; xiii. 35. Four refer 
mainly to the Hebrew, but show a partial influence of 
the LXX upon them ii. 18 ; iv. 15 ; xii. 17-21 ; xxi. 
5. One agrees with the Septuagint, i. 23. Few of 
the second class show any dependence on the Hebrew, 
xi. 10 corresponds to the original ; ii. 6 shows a pre 
dominating influence of the same ; and xxii. 24 exhibits 
a subordinate influence in the use of a verb. 

Some of the citations cannot be properly placed in 
either class, owing to their peculiarities or generality. 
This is not surprising in the case of those interwoven 
with the sermon on the mount, such as v. 31, 33, be 
cause they are not taken from the law but from Phari 
saic tradition. 

The citation from the prophets in ii. 23, seems to 
allude not only to Isai. xi. 1 but also to Jerem. xxiii. 5; 
xxxiii. 15 ; Zech. iii. 8 ; vi. 12. There is a double 
meaning in the epithet Nazarene, the sprout or branch 
and of Nazareth. The evangelist indulges in a Jewish 
midrash, which has a mystical sense beneath the obvious 
one. 

The canon of Bleek respecting the quotations does 
not hold good in all instances. It is not correct to say, 
that all those which result from the evangelist s own 
reflection are taken from the Hebrew ; neither is it true 
that such as are inserted into the context of the nar 
rative are uniformly from the Septuagint. i. 23 is an 
exception to the former, being from the LXX ; and xxii. 
24 an exception to the latter, being from the Hebrew, 
ii. 6, which has reference to the Hebrew, is also an excep 
tion to the rule. The influence of the Septuagint is not 
always absent from the citations of the original, though 
it is comparatively smalL But notwithstanding the 
exceptions taken to the classification by Ebrard and 
Delitzsch, it is substantially a sound one. In the first 



THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 423 

class, seven agree more or less closely with the Hebrew, 
and only two with the LXX ; in the second class, there 
are three gradational exceptions to derivation from the 
LXX, which is not surprising in a list more numerous 
than the first. 



424 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 



THE REPUTED AUTHOR. 

THE REPUTED author of the third gospel is Luke^ the 
name being an abbreviated form of Lukanus? in the 
same manner as Silas is formed from Silvanus. Paul 
mentions Luke the beloved physician, who is commonly 
identified with the evangelist ; at least, the fathers gene 
rally Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom identify them ; 
and most modern critics do the same. Some have even 
discovered indications of the writer s profession in the 
Gospel and Acts ; such as the expression a great fever, 
which Galen, uses (iv. 38) ; and a technical term 8 denot 
ing blindness (Acts xiii. 11), which is also employed by 
Galen. Other technical expressions have been dis 
covered, which are imaginary. The two are themselves 
doubtful. 

Little is known of Luke s history before he became 
associated with the apostle of the Gentiles. Lardner 
thinks he was a Jew, for two reasons, neither of which 
is satisfactory. It is more likely that be was a Gentile, 
if we may judge from Coloss. iv. 11, 14, where the 
writer, having saluted certain persons by name, adds 
that they were of the circumcision ; separating them 
from those mentioned afterwards, among whom is Luke. 
It has been assumed that he was a manumitted slave, 
probably because the Greeks and Romans were accus- 

1 \ovKas. 2 AOVKUVOS. 8 d^Xus. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 425 

tomed to educate some of their domestics in the science 
of medicine, and granted them freedom for services per 
formed. But the fact of Luke s being a physician, does 
not imply that he was a manumitted slave. 

Nothing is known of his native place, or of the 
locality in which he resided before he attached himself 
to Paul. Greswell conjectures that he was a native or 
inhabitant of Philippi ; others prefer Troas. According 
to Eusebius he was born in Antioch ; and this is con 
firmed by Augustine. As his name is a Greek one, he 
was probably a Greek ; and therefore the inhabitants of 
his native city were Greeks. 

Luke, as is generally believed, attached himself to 
Paul at Troas, while the latter was on his second mis 
sionary journey. We afterwards find him at Philippi. 
Towards the end of the apostle s third missionary tour, 
Luke was with him at Troas, Miletus, Tyre, Caesarea, 
Jerusalem. At Csesarea, where Paul was a prisoner, 
his faithful friend did not desert him ; for although he 
may not have accompanied him thither, he probably 
followed (Acts xxiv. 23), and was with him towards 
the close of his confinement. It is certain that he ac 
companied him to Rome. 

The latter part of Luke s life is involved in obscu 
rity ; and the accounts given of it by ecclesiastical 
writers are neither consistent nor probable. According 
to Epiphanius and others he was one of the 72 disciples, 
and preached in Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy and Macedonia. 
Theophylact makes him one of the two disciples who 
journeyed toEmmaus ; while Nicephorus speaks of him 
as a painter, who painted Christ and his mother. The 
Apostolic Constitutions mention his presence at Alex 
andria. Isidore of Seville relates that he died in the 
seventy -fourth year of his age, was buried in Bithynia, 
and that his bones were subsequently conveyed to Con 
stantinople. Some put him in the list of martyrs ; 
others say he died a natural death. 



426 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



PREFACE OF THE GOSPEL. 

Unlike the other evangelists Luke gives a preface 
from which we learn 

1. The qualifications which the author possessed for 
writing a gospel. He had traced up all things to their 
sources accurately. He had the gospels of many before 
him. In addition to these, he had an immediate oral 
tradition, as his predecessors had. Written and oral 
sources of the evangelical history were at his disposal. 
It is not indeed expressly stated in the proem, that 
Luke drew his materials from the gospels of the many, 
either wholly or in part ; but it is natural to suppose 
that he would employ them ; since they contained true 
and valuable matter. As he had traced up everything 
to its source, he starts from an earlier point than the 
other synoptists. 

2. The mode in which he proposes to write is stated, 
viz. in order. What kind of order ? Probably the chrono 
logical. Such order, however, he has not always fol 
lowed. If it is said that the adverb does not mean chrono 
logical order, but only a connected plan, an orderly ar 
rangement, not a chronological sequence of the matters 
narrated, this is refuted by the section ix. 51-xviii. 14, 
whose constituent parts betray no proper arrangement ; 
so that harmonists are obliged to distribute them among 
the transactions of different times and places, transfer 
ring them to conjectural positions from their having all 
the appearance of a disconnected collection. No plan 
can be discovered in the portions that make up the 

ection. If it be said that ix. 51-xviii. 14 was taken 
from a written document and simply inserted by the 
evangelist, that does not meet the case, because the 
section has no real relation to what is immediately 
before it ; neither has xviii. 15 any perceptible connec- 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 427 

tion with its preceding context. And if the evangelist 
had regard to any order he could hardly fail to see that 
x. 1-16 follows ix. 51, etc. awkwardly, because the 
seventy were instructed and sent out before Jesus s de 
parture to Jerusalem and the incidents in Samaria that 
preceded his arrival. These considerations compel us 
to abide by the natural meaning, involving as it does 
chronological sequence ; and to conclude that the gospel 
as it appears is not identical with that which the pre 
face-writer introduced. 

3. Many had attempted to fix in writing the oral 
evangelical tradition, before Luke. These evangelists 
had even drawn from persons who were eyewitnesses 
and ministers of the word/ i.e. apostles and disciples. 
Who they were is not specified. 

4. It has been generally supposed since the time of 
Origen, that blame is implied in the word translated 
taken in hand. But it is doubtful whether it involves 
censure ; though along with the context some dissatis 
faction with the writers may be conveyed. Notwith 
standing they derived their materials from c eyewit 
nesses and ministers of the word, and may therefore 
have been supposed to write, if not complete at least 
accurate and chronological gospels, this evangelist was 
not satisfied, but wishes to give Theophilus a truthful 
or credible gospel. 1 Hence the works of the many 
were not infallibly truthful or credible, in Luke s 
opinion. They are tacitly charged with failure, both in 
the contents and form of their gospels. 

5. The preface obviously implies that the evangelist 
was not an original eyewitness. Hence he was not of 
the seventy disciples. The author of the Dialogue de 
recta in Deum fide, is therefore mistaken in character 
ising Luke as one of them. 

Other deductions from the preface will be noticed 
hereafter. Meantime we observe in the writer of the 



428 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

third gospel a critical historian, who feels impelled to 
undertake a gospel which would represent apostolic 
tradition more faithfully than had been done before. 
Not satisfied with former digests, he proposes to pro 
duce a better, one reaching up to an earlier period, 
chronological and trustworthy. 

SOURCES. 

The gospel of Matthew certainly preceded that of 
Luke. It is therefore probable that the evangelist 
would use it. But a priori reasoning on the point is 
precarious. Internal evidence should be looked at. 
And such evidence shows that the first gospel was one 
source at least whence Luke drew his materials. The 
resemblance between certain portions of the respective 
documents could not have been accidental. It is so 
close and even verbal as to admit of but one explana 
tion, viz. that Luke used either Matthew, or a document 
which Matthew employed. It has been urged against 
the former hypothesis, that a writer acquainted with a 
genealogy in which Jesus is made to proceed from the 
royal line of David, could hardly have believed in the 
existence of a better one ; but it is not necessary to 
suppose that Luke thought he could furnish a better, 
much less that he was unacquainted with the genealogy 
given by Matthew, as Wittichen supposes. He may 
have thought of giving one more accordant with his 
view of Christianity. In the time of the third evange 
list, we suppose that the Logia- document had been sup 
planted by the first gospel, or that it no longer existed 
in its original state ; and it is surely improbable that he 
would employ it rather than the present Greek 
Matthew. Holtzmann and others would represent 
Luke as using the Logia -document after the present 
canonical Matthew had appeared, which is very unlikely, 
especially when we remember that it existed in a Greek 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 



429 



paraphrase enlarged and modified out of its Aramaean 
state. If we reflect that Luke had a variety of sources 
or gospels at his command, and that when he wrote the 
present gospel of Matthew existed, it is natural to think 
that he did not neglect either the Z^ a-document or the 
canonical Greek. The evidences of their employment 
are few, because he had many documents from which to 
draw his materials, and occupied a different standpoint 
from that of the first evangelist. If it be conceded that 
he used the principal source of Matthew s gospel, why 
should it be thought incredible that he employed the 
gospel itself, provided it had already appeared ? Ex 
amples of coincidence appear in Luke vii. 22, 23, com 
pared with Matt. xi. 4-6 ; vii. 28 with Matt. xi. 11 ; 
Luke iii. 7, 8, with Matt. iii. 7-9 ; Lukexi. 24-26, with 
Matt. xii. 43-45 ; Luke vii. 8-9 with Matt. viii. 9-10. 



MATTHEW. 

Jesus answered and said unto 
them, Go and show John again 
those things which ye do hear and 
see : The blind receive their sight, 
and the lame walk; the lepers are 
cleansed, and the deaf hear ; the 
dead are raised up, and the poor 
have the gospel preached to them. 

And blessed is he whosoever 
shall not be offended in me (xi. 4, 
5,6). 

Verily I say unto you, Among 
them that are born of women there 
hath not risen a greater than John 
the Baptist, but he that is least in 
the kingdom of heaven is greater 
than he (xi. 11). 

O generation of vipers, who hath 
warned you to flee from the wrath 
to come ? Bring forth therefore 
fruits meet for repentance. And 
think not to say within yourselves, 
We have Abraham to our father : 
for I say unto you, that God is able 
of these stones to raise up children 
unto Abraham (iii. 7-0). 



LUKE. 

Then Jesus answering said unto 
them, Go your way and tell John 
what things ye have seen and heard ; 
how that the blind see, the lame 
walk, the lepers are cleansed, the 
deaf hear, the dead are raised, to 
the poor the gospel is preached. 

And blessed is he whosoever 
shall not be offended in me (vii. 
22, 23). 

For I say unto you, Among those 
that are born of women there is not 
a greater prophet than John the 
Baptist ; but he that is least in the 
kingdom of God is greater than he 
(vii. 28). 

O generation of vipers, who hath 
warned you to flee from the wrath 
to come? Bring forth therefore 
fruits worthy of repentance ; and 
begin not to say within yourselves, 
We have Abraham to our father: 
for I say unto you, that God is able 
of these stones to raise up children 
unto Abraham (iii. 7, 8). 



430 



INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



MATTHEW. 

When the unclean spirit is gone 
out of a man, lie walketh through 
dry places, seeking rest, and fiudeth 
none. Then he saith, I will return 
into my house whence I came out ; 
and when he is come he findeth 
it empty, swept, and garnished. 
Then goeth he and taketh with 
himself seven other spirits more 
wicked than himself, and they enter 
in and dwell there : and the last 
state of that man is worse than the 
first (xii. 43-45). 

For I am a man under authority, 
having soldiers under me : and I 
say to this man, Go, and he goeth ; 
and to my servant, Do this, and he 
doeth it. When Jesus heard he 
marvelled, and said to them that 
followed, Verily I say unto you, I 
have not found so great faith, no 
not in Israel (viii. 9, 10). 



LUKE. 

When the unclean spirit is gone 
out of a man, he walketh through 
dry places, seeking rest ; and find 
ing none he saith, I will return 
into my house whence I came out ; 
and when he cometh, he findeth 
it swept and garnished. Then 
goeth he and taketh with himself 
seven other spirits more wicked 
than himself, and they enter in 
and dwell there : and the last 
state of that man is worse than the 
first (xi. 24-26). 

For I am a man set under au 
thority, having soldiers under me ; 
and I say to this man, Go, and he 
goeth, and to another Come, and 
he cometh; and to my servant, Do 
this, and he doeth it. When Jesus 
heard these things he marvelled at 
him, and turned him about and 
said to the people that followed 
him, I say unto you, I have not 
found so great faith, no not in 
Israel (vii. 8, 9). 



The use of the first gospel is confirmed by the dis 
courses and sayings recorded in Luke more than by the 
actions and events narrated. Though the divergencies 
are numerous in the distribution and plan, as well as in 
the matter itself, it is clear that the first gospel was em 
ployed directly by the writer of the third. Thus the 
sayings of Jesus in Luke vii. 31-35 are closely related 
to Matt. xi. 1619, the deviations being inconsiderable. 
So too Luke xii. compared with Matt. x. The deviation 
in xii. 3, whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be 
heard in the light, and that which ye have spoken in the 
ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the house-tops, 7 
finds its explanation in the fact that Christianity had 
already spread in Luke s time ; so that the secret doc 
trine taught by our Lord to his immediate disciples, re 
ferred to in Matt. x. 27, did not appear to suit the 
advanced state of religion. Luke s horizon is wider 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 431 

than that of the first evangelist who confines himself 
to the operations of the twelve. He looks at the ac 
complishment of the words of Jesus on an extended 
scale because the fact was before his eyes ; whereas 
Matthew s view is restricted. 

The first gospel was not the only source which Luke 
employed, as the word many in his proem suggests. 
He had Jewish documents besides. This is seen in 
the sermon on the mount. Blessed be ye poor ; for 
yours is the kingdom of God/ varies remarkably from 
Matthew s, i Blessed are the poor in spirit reminding 
one of James s expressions, l Hath not God chosen the 
poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs of the king 
dom which He hath promised to them that love Him ? 
Here Luke presents the original Essene expression. 
The words in xvii. 4 appear to be taken from the Gospel 
of the Hebrews ; and the history of the resurrection in the 
third gospel is closely related to that of the same docu 
ment. Both writers used the same source, or one took 
from the other. In whatever way tradition contributed 
to the materials of Luke, we see clearly that it was not 
the Galilean one which Matthew followed. Thus the 
two unimportant events noticed in xiii. 14, which 
happened at Jerusalem, betray a writer who was well 
acquainted with at least the former of them. And in 
the narrative of the resurrection, not a word is said of 
Jesus s appearance in Galilee, though Matt, xxviii. and 
1 Cor. xv. imply that he was seen there by many. On 
the contrary, the disciples were to wait at Jerusalem till 
the Spirit should be poured out (Luke xxiv. 49). 

It is difficult at the present day to determine the 
nature or number of the documents which Luke em 
ployed. Were they comprehensive works such as we 
now term gospels ; or were they small collections, de 
tached pieces of history ? The former opinion seems to 
us more probable ; though Ewald, who adopts it, assumes 
too many Gospels, Ebionite and Gnostic ones of different 



432 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

kinds. The subject does not admit of a satisfactory 
explanation. It may be inferred from a minute survey 
of the contents, that Luke employed the Gospel accord 
ing to the Hebrews in one of its early forms, and the so- 
called Gospel of St. Peter, from which he drew the 
greater part of his materials relating to the events and 
actions of Jesus s life. He had not much Galilean 
tradition at his command ; and therefore the ministry 
of Christ in northern Judea is rapidly surveyed with the 
aid of Matthew s gospel (hi. 23-ix. 50). The facts 
narrated relate more to southern Judea and Jerusalem. 
Among the sources of information which Luke em 
ployed, it has been thought that Josephus was one, both 
in his Antiquities and l History of the Jewish War. 
Some coincidences in expression have been pointed out 
by Holtzmann which appear at first sight to favour the 
idea. 1 But they are not sufficient to justify it, least of 
all in the gospel. And even the Acts do not support it, 
though the passage about Theudas bears some resem 
blance to the parallel narrative of the i Antiquities/ 
The mistakes of Luke about Quirinius and Theudas, 
with his appellation of Philip as tetrarch of Ituraea and 
Trachonitis, are against his consultation of Josephus s 
works. The Jewish historian would have obviated 
these and other errors. 

RELATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE PAUL. 

Luke was the companion of Paul, if not his spiritual 
son. Hence arose the opinion that the evangelist wrote 
his gospel under the superintending influence of the 
apostle an opinion that existed in the Church at an 
early period, and was handed down from one generation 
to another. It is not difficult to account for this indi 
rect derivation of the gospel from Paul. The early 
fathers appear to have considered apostolic origin in one 

1 See Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift for 1873, p. 85, etc. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 433 

form or other necessary to the reception of a work 
into the canon ; and the transition from a disciple of the 
apostle to the act of writing under apostolic inspection, 
was natural. Hence Luke s gospel was thought to con 
vey Paul s sentiments. 

The tradition respecting the connection between the 
third gospel and Paul is embodied in the following 
passages. The Muratorian fragment says : Luke the 
physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had 
taken him for a companion as being zealous of what 
was right, wrote in his own name according as it seemed 
good to him, etc. 1 Irerueus writes : And Luke, the 
companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel 
preached by him (Paul). 2 In another place: That 
Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer 

in the gospel is shown by himself, etc Thus, the 

apostles simply, and without envying any one, handed 
down to all those things which they themselves had 
learned from the Lord. So therefore Luke also, without 
envy to any one, has handed down to us those things which 
he had learned from them, as he testifies when he says, 
even as they delivered them unto us, who from the begin 
ning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." 3 

Tertullian says : l In the first place, we lay it down 
as a truth, that the evangelic Scriptures have for their 
authors the apostles, to whom the work of publishing 
the gospel was committed by the Lord himself. And 
if it have for authors apostolic men, they are not alone 

1 Lucas isle medicus post ascensum Christi, cum eum Paulus quasi ut 
juris studiosura secundum adsumsisset, nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit/ 
etc. 

3 Aov/cay $f aKoiXovdos HavXov TO VTT Kivov Krjpv(r(r6p,vov evayyeXtov 
fv /3t/3Aio> KdTcdeTo. Adv. Hceres. iii. 1, p. 845, ed. Migne. 

3 < Quoniam autem is Lucas inseparabilis fuit a Paulo, et cob perarius ejus 

in evangelic, ipse facit nmnifestum, etc Sic Apostoli simpliciter, et 

uemini invidentes, quas did cerant, ipsi a Domino, haec omnibus tradebaiit. 
Sic igitur et Lucas, nemini invidens, ea quae ab eis didicerat, tradidit nobis, 
sicut ipse testificatur, dicens : Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio 
contemplatores et ministri fueruut verbi. 1 Adv. Ilceres. iii. 14, 1, 2, pp. 
913-015, ed. Migiie. 

VOL. I. F F 



434 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

but with apostles and after apostles, since the preaching 
of the disciples might have been suspected of the charge 
of a desire of glory, if not supported by the authority 
of the masters, yea of Christ, who made the apostles 

masters Therefore if Luke s instructor himself 

(Paul) wished to have the authority of his predeces 
sors both for his faith and preaching, how much more 
may I desire for Luke s gospel, what was necessary for 
the gospel of his master. l 

In another place Tertulian has these words : i Luke s 
digest is usually ascribed to Paul. It is easy to take 
for the master s what the disciples have published. 2 

Origen writes : The third is that according to Luke, 
the gospel commended by Paul, etc. 3 

The historian Eusebius has : And Luke, who was a 
native of Antioch, and by profession a physician, a com 
panion of Paul for the most part, and who was not 
slightly acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has 
left us, in two books divinely inspired, proofs of the art 
of healing souls which he got from them. One of these 
is the gospel, which he professes to have written as they 
delivered it to him who from the beginning were eye 
witnesses and ministers of the word, with all of whom 
he says likewise he had been perfectly acquainted from 
the beginning. The other book is the Acts of the 
Apostles, which he composed not from what he had 
heard, but from what he had seen with his own eyes. 

1 < Constituimus imprimis evangelicuru instrumentum apostolos auctores 
habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit ini- 
positum; si et apostolicos non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis, et post 
apostolos, quoniam prsedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae 
studio, si non adsistat illi autoritas magistrorum, imo Ckristi, qui magistros 

apostolos fecit Igitur si ipse illuminator Lucae (Paulus) autoritateni 

antecessorum et fidei et prsedicationi suse optavit, quanto magis earn evan 
gelic Lucas expostulem, quse evangelio magistri ejus fuit necessaria ? Adv. 
Marcion. iv. 2. 

2 Nam et Lucae digest urn Paulo adscribere solent. Capit magistrorum 
videri quao discipuli promulgarint. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2. 

3 Km TpLTov TO Kara \ovKav TO VTTO Tlavhov fTratvovfjievov evayyeXtov. Ap. 
Euseb. H, E. vi. 25. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 435 

And it is said tliat Paul was accustomed to mention the 
gospel according to him, whenever in his epistles, speak 
ing as it were of some gospel of his own, he says, "ac 
cording to my gospel." l 

This language implies doubt of the current tradition. 

Ferome writes : Luke, a physician of Antioch, not 
unskilled in the Hebrew language, as his writings show, 
a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the constant com 
panion of his travels, wrote a gospel, of which the same 
Paul makes mention, saying, We have sent with him 
the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all 
the churches." . . . Some suppose that whenever Paul 
in his epistles makes use of the expression according to 
my gospel^ he means Luke s writing. It is also supposed 
that Luke did not learn his gospel from the apostle 
Paul only, who had not conversed with the Lord in the 
flesh, but also from other apostles, which he likewise 
declares in the beginning of his gospel, saying, " As 
they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning 
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." There 
fore he wrote the gospel as he heard it from others. 2 

The tradition before us rests on a precarious basis. 



1 AOVKO.S 8e TO p.ev yevos &>v TWV an AiTto^fias TTJV de eiria"rf)fM]v larpos* 
TO. TrXeltrra crvyyeyoi>a>s TO) HauXa), xai rots XoLnols Se ov Trapepycos TCOI> airo- 

oXcDj/ a>p.i\rjKa>$ r/y OTTO TOVTO)I> TrpocreKTrjo aTo ^v^u>i> dfpanevTiKTJs, cv dv&iv 
V7roei y/ittra Oeoirvfvo-Tois fcaraXeXoizre (3i(3\iois reo re evayyc\i(p o Kill 
^ai /j,apTvpTai Ka0a Trapfbocrav avroi ol aTrap^rjs avroVrat KOL VTrrjpeTai 
yevopevoi TOV Xoyov, ois KOI (pr/crlv eirdvo>6fv aira.cn TraprjKoXovdrjKevai K.al rals 
TU>V aTrocrroXcoi Trpd^ecrtv as ovKen $t aKoijs, o(p6a\p.ols $e avTols 7rapaXa/3a>j/ 
ro (paal 5e wy apa TOV ar avTov evayyeXiou fjLVTjfj.ovfVfiv 6 JlaCXo? 
, vmjviKa ws Trepl Idiov TIVOS evayycXiov ypdcpcov e Xeye, Kara TO evayycXiov 
[J.OV. H. E. iii. 4. 

2 Lucas, medicus AntiochensiSj ut ejus script a indicant, Graeci sermonis 
non ignarus fuit, sectator apostoli Pauli, et omnis peregrinationis ejus cornea. 
Scripsit evaugelium, de quo idem Paulus, Misinms, iuquit, cuin illo, fratrem 
cujus laus est in evangelio per onmes ecclesias ..... Quidam suspicantur 
quotiescunque in epistolis suis Paulus dicit, juxta evaugelium meum. de 
Lucse significare volumine ; et Lucam non solo ab apostolo Paulo didicisse 
evangelium, qui cum domino in carne non fuerat, sed et a caeteris apostolis. 
Quod ipse quoque in principle sui voluininis declarat, dicens: Sicut tradide- 
runt nobis qui a principle ipsi viderunt et ministri fuerunt sermonis. Igitur 
evangelium, sicut audierat, scripsit. De 77m Illustr. c. 7. 

F F 2 



43G INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

All that Tertullian says is, It is the custom to ascribe 
Luke s digest to Paul. The report arose from an in 
correct explanation of Romans ii. 16 where Paul uses 
the phrase, my gospel, i.e. my preaching. But the 
fathers, knowing that Luke had been Paul s companion, 
and supposing that a written gospel was meant, con 
cluded that the apostle had dictated Luke s. This is 
virtually acknowledged by Eusebius. 

Luke s preface says nothing about the Pauline origin 
or sanction of his gospel. He refers to eyewitnesses 
and others, to the primitive apostles themselves rather 
than Paul. All acquaintance on his part with Paul is 
ignored in the proem. He justifies his undertaking 
simply on the ground that others had preceded him in 
the same work, and that he had diligently investigated 
the traditions up to their source. The absence of all 
allusion to such a man as Paul, tells against the idea of 
the writer s dependence upon him ; for we can hardly 
suppose that he would have omitted a fact favourable to 
the credibility of his own document. It cannot be 
shown that Paul superintended the composition of the 
gospel, or that he dictated any part of it ; much less 
that he wrote it himself, as the anonymous Saxon con 
jectures. 1 The tradition, ancient as it is, lacks a his 
torical foundation. 

But w r hile rejecting the view of Paul s early connec 
tion with Luke as dictating or superintending his 
gospel, we admit that the work in question presents re 
markable coincidences with Paul s epistles in language 
and ideas which could not have been accidental. The 
writer must have known and used Pauline literature. 

The account of the last supper accords with that 
given in the llth chapter of the first epistle to the 
Corinthians ; the evangelist departing from Matthew in 
separating the Christian supper from the passover meal. 

1 Die Evanyelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasier und ihr Verhdltniss zu einander 
p. 251, ft $eq. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. jr>7 

And there is a Pauline diction in the lirst two chapters 
of the gospel, which resembles the epistle to the Romans, 
chapters ix.-xi. Almost all the characteristic terms of 
these chapters may be found in the introductory history 
and hymns of the gospel. 

The folio win 2f words are common to Luke and the 

o 

Pauline literature : 

wyvotiv ix. 45 ; Acts xiii. 27 ; xvii. 23. Used very 
often by Paul. dyoWecr0ai xiii. 24. With the ex 
ception of John xviii. 36, Paul is the only writer that 
uses the verb. aS^Xos xi. 44. Only in 1 Cor. xiv. 8 
besides. aSi/a a. aflzTelv vii. 30 ; x. 16. Used by Paul 
especially, and in similar combinations, Gal. ii. 21 ; 
iii. 15 ; 1 Thess. iv. 8. aivelv TOP &eov used by Luke 
seven times altogether. Twice in the epistle to the 
Romans. alcrOavto-Qai ix. 45, has its correlative at- 
cr07jcri$ in Phil. i. 9. ai^uHog xxi. 34, only in 1 
Thess. v. 3. aix/xaXa>Tieu> xxi. 24. Only in Paul, 
d/caracrracria xxi. 9. Only in Paul and James. dXXa ye 
xxiv. 21. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 2. aXX ovSe peculiar to 
Luke and Paul. aWy/o? xiv. 18, used in the same way 
in 1 Cor. vii. 37 ; in xxi. 23, used similarly 1 Cor. vii. 26 ; 
2 Cor. vi. 4 ; xii. 10 ; 1 Thess. iii. 7 ; but not elsewhere. 
dvatfiv xv. 24, 32 ; Rom. vii. 9 ; xiv. 9 ; and Revelation. 
cLvaKpivtiv xxiii. 14 and Acts ; ten times in 1 Cor. 
avakvtiv xii. 36 ; Phil. i. 23. avaXucrai ix. 54. Only 
in Gal. v. 15 ; and 2 Thess. ii. 8 besides. avaTrl^ireiv 
only in Luke, and Philem. 11. avO J &v i. 20; xii. 3 ; 
xix. 44 ; 2 Thess. ii. 10. avorjroi in the vocative xxiv. 
25. Only in Gal. iii. 1 besides. cu>oia vi. 11 ; 2 Tim. 
iii. 9. avTcnTTOKpivecrOaL xiv. 6. Only in Rom. ix. 20 
besides. cU TaTroSo/xa xiv. 12 ; occurring only in Rom. 
xi. 9. So too cb TaTroSowat xiv. 14. Only in Hebrews 
and Paul, d^rt/cei/xe^os xiii. 17 ; xxi. 15. Only in Paul 
besides. d^rtXa/>c/5a^cr^at i. 54; Acts; 1 Tim. vi. 2. 
GLTTO TOV vvv i. 48 iv. 10 ; xii. 52 ; xxii. 69 ; 2 Cor. 
v. 16. a?? atw^os i. 70; Acts; Coloss. i. 26; Ephes. 



438 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

iii. 9. d7reX7rieii> only in Luke vi. 35 and Eplies. iv. 
19. aTreiOrjs only in Luke i. 17 ; Acts ; and Paul. CLTTO- 
v. 2 ; xxi. 13. In Phil. i. 19 ; and John xxi. 9. 
of a person xvii. 30. Elsewhere only 
in 2 Thess. ii. 3, 6, 8. diroKaXvifjis ii. 32. Comp. 
Ephes. i. 17. d7ro/cei/xez>os xix. 20 ; Coloss. i. 5. cbroXo- 
yeicrOaL twice ; Acts ; only in Paul besides. a7roXvrpa>crts 
xxi. 28. Only in Paul and Hebrews. apKelcrOaL iii. 14 ; 
1 Tim. vi. 8. aporpiav only in xvii. 7 ; and 1 Cor. 
ix. 10. dcr(f)d\ia i. 4; Acts; 1 Thess v. 3. ao-omus 
xv. 13. Comp. dcrwria Ephes. v. 18; 1 Peter iv. 4. 
aT.viti,v iv. 20 ; xxii. 56 ; Acts ; twice besides in Paul. 
droTTog xxiii. 41 ; Acts ; 2 Thess. iii. 2. d^icrrd^cu ii. 37, 
etc. ; Acts ; Paul. d(d/3wg i. 74. Comp. Phil. i. 14 ; 

1 Cor. xvi. 10 ; Jucle 12. afypov in addressing another, 
xi. 40 ; xii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xv. 36. /Siwriicds xxi. 34 ; 1 Cor. 
vi. 3, 4. /3v0i^orOoLL v. 7 ; 1 Tim. vi. 9. Pe meaning 
at least, xi. 8. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 8. yz^wo-ts i. 77 ; xi. 52 ; 
often in Paul. Sevens i. 13; ii. 37; Acts; in almost 
all Paul s epistles. Troielo-dai Se^creig v. 33, is Pauline. 
SCKTOS iv. 19, 24 ; 2 Cor. vi. 2 ; Phil. iv. 18. Siay- 
ye\\ew ix. 60; Acts; Rom. ix. 17. Sicupeu/ xv. 12. 
Only in 1 Cor. xii. 11. SiaTropevto-QaL three times in 
the gospel ; Acts ; Rom. xv. 24. Siepprjveveiv xxiv. 27 ; 
Acts ; 1 Cor. Sifcaicofia i. 6 and Si/ccua>? xxiii. 41, both 
Pauline. The Pauline use of Sucaios is in xviii. 9 ; xx. 
20. Sia>KLv intransitive, xvii. 23 ; Phil. iii. 12. Sdy/^a 
ii. 1 ; Acts ; in Paul and the epistle to the Hebrews. 
Sowcu TOTTOV xiv. 9. Comp. Rom. xii. 19; Ephes. iv. 
27. Swdo-Trjs i. 52; Acts viii. 27; 1 Tim. vi. 15. 
iyKaKtiv xviii. 1, a Pauline word. i /cat xi. 8; and 
in Paul, ei fjitjn unless perhaps, ix. 13 ; 1 Cor. vii. 5 ; 

2 Cor. xiii. 5. eTSos iii. 22; ix. 29; in 2 Cor. and 
1 Thess. e/cSiK:eu> xviii. 3, 5 ; in Paul and the Reve 
lation. eVSucTjcris xviii. 7, 8 ; Acts ; in Paul ; Hebrews ; 
and 1 Peter besides. e fcStwAcei^ only in xi. 49 and 1 
Thess. ii. 15. e s K(euyii> xxi. 36 ; Acts. Only in Paul 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 409 



and Hebrews besides. et Sofos vii. 25 ; xiii. 1 7 ; and in 
Paul. eVSucracr$eu xxiv. 49 is a Pauline term, e fa- 
7rocrT\\iv only in the epistle to the Galatians, in addition 
to the gospel and Acts. l^ovBevtlv xviii. 9 ; xxiii. 11 ; 
in Paul eight or nine times. efovcrta rov cr/corov? 
xxii. 53. Only in Coloss. i. 13 besides, e fouo-ia^eu/ 
xxii. 25 ; 1 Cor. eTro.iveiv xvi. 8. Only in Paul besides. 
Trava7ravcr0ai x. 6 ; Rom. ii. 17. eTrt/xeXeLcr^at only 
in Luke and 1 Tim. 7ri<aiVetz> in Luke and Titus. 
epyacria xii. 58; Acts; Ephes. iv. 19. uayyeXieo-#at 
in an active sense in Luke and Paul, with a single ex 
ception in the latter. euyei>7? s xix. 12 ; Acts ; 1 Cor. 
i. 26. euSoKia with the sole exception of Matt. xi. 26, 
in Luke and Paul only, e^tcrraz/at three times in Paul, 
in addition to Luke. o>ypea> v. 10 ; 2 Tim. ii. 26. 
r) KCLI. Comp. Rom. ii. 15 ; iv. 9 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 6. r)p.pa 
Kvp(ov xvii. 24, a Pauline expression, ^cru^a^eif xiv. 
3; xxiii. 56; Acts; 1 Thess. iv. 11. ^et^ xxi. 25; 
1 Cor. xiii. 1. OVJJLOS -wrath iv. 28 ; Acts ; in Paul, 
Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. tSou yap only in 2 Cor. 
vii. 11 besides Luke. KaKovpyos xxiii. 32, 33, 39 ; 2 
Tim. ii. 9. Kardyeiv v. 11 ; Acts. Only in Rom. x. 
6 besides. KaTana-^yveiv xiii. 17, a Pauline expression, 
used besides only in 1 Peter ii. 6; iii. 16. KOLTOL^LOVV 
xx. 35 ; xxi. 36 ; Acts ; 2 Thess. i. 5. KaTapytlv xiii. 
7, a favourite word of Paul s. KarevOvveLv i. 79 ; in the 
epistles to the Thessalonians. KcaTe^eiv rov \6yov viii. 15. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 2. K-ar^prtcr/xeVo? vi. 40. Comp. 
Rom. ix. 22 ; 1 Cor. i. 10 ; KivSvvevtiv viii. 23 ; Acts ; 
1 Cor. xv. 30. Kparaiovcr0ai i. 80 ; ii. 40 ; twice in 
Paul. Kvpitveiv xxii. 25. Only in Paul besides. Xetr- 
ovpyla. i. 23 ; Paul, and the Hebrews. ptyaXvveiv to 
exalt, i. 46, 58 ; Acts ; in Phil., and 2 Cor. ILZVVVV ye 
xi. 28. Only in Paul besides. /xcraStSorat iii. 11. Only 
in Paul. z o/Ao? without the article, ii. 23, 24. Else 
where only in Paul. 

Luke begins a sentence with vvv, vvv 8e, ano rov vvv, 



440 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

etc. ; ii. 29 ; v. 10, etc., similarly to the Pauline vvv 
Se, vov\ Se. 6809 elprjvrjs i. 79. Comp. Rom. iii. 
17. oiKovofJiiaL and ot/co^Ojito? often in Luke and Paul, 
but nowhere else, except 1 Peter iv. 10. oTrracria in 
the gospel and Acts. Only in 2 Cor. xii. 1 besides. 
opitf.iv xxii. 22 ; Acts ; Rom. i. 4 ; Hebr. iv. 7. 6o-to- 
rrjs i. 75 ; Ephes. iv. 24. ov^l dXXa only in Paul 
besides the gospel. o^vviov iii. 14. Frequent in 
Paul. TravoTrXia xi. 22 ; Ephes. vi. 11, 13. Travovpyia 
xx. 23. Only in Paul besides. TraVrajs iv. 23 ; Acts. 
Only in Paul besides. Trarpia ii. 4 ; Acts ; Ephes. iii. 
15. Trapd used comparatively, iii. 13, etc., is especially 
Pauline. Comp. Rom. xii. 3. TrapaSetcro? xxiii. 43 ; 
2 Cor. xii. 4. Trapa/cX^o-t? ii. 25 ; vi. 24, Acts ; in 
Paul only besides. irXrjpovv applied to speech, words, 
or something spoken, with rot /o^/xara vii. 1 ; with rov 
\6yov Coloss. i. 25 ; with TO evayyeXiov Rom. xv. 19. 
TrXrjpofiopelv i. 1, a Pauline word. Trkovreiv eig nva 
xii. 21 ; Rom. x. 12. TTV^V^OL connected with 
is found only in the gospel, Acts, and Paul. 
Tevecrdai xix. 13, has its correlative irpay^areia 2 Tim. 
ii. 4. Trpdcro-tiv is employed by none of the synoptists 
except Luke. It is in John s gospel, and very often in 
the Pauline writings. TrpecrfivTys i. 18. Only in Paul 
besides. TrpocrSe^ecr^ai to receive kindly, xv. 2 ; Rom. 
xvi. 2 ; Phil. ii. 29. /caret Trpoo-ajTrov ii. 31 ; Acts ; is 
only Pauline. Trpoo-anrov Xaju,/3dVeu> xx. 21 ; Gal. ii. 6. 
TTVKVOL v. 33 ; Acts ; 1 Tim. v. 23. criyav only in Paul 
besides Luke. crKOTreiv xi. 35 ; in Paul only besides, 
a eXeous i. 78 ; Coloss. iii. 12 ; Phil. ii. 1. CTTTOV- 
vii. 4. Only in Paul besides. o-rpaTevofjievos 
for crrpariwr^g iii. 14 ; 2 Tim. ii. 4. o-vyKa9itf.iv xxii. 55 ; 
Ephes. ii. 6. crvy^XetW v. 6 ; in Paul alone, crvy^aipeiv 
only in Luke and Paul. <Tv/x7rapayiVecr#cu xxiii. 48 ; 
2 Tim. iv. 16. o-v^vecrOai viii. 7. The correlate crv/x- 
(frvTos is in Rom. vi. 5. crvvavTika^jBav^crOo^ x.40 ; Rom. 
viii. 2fi. o-vvtvOitw xv. 2; Acts. Onlvin Paul besides. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 441 

ii. 47. Comp. Ephes. iii. 4 ; Coloss. i. 9 ; 2 Tim. 
ii. 7. o-wevSoKelv xi. 48. Only in Paul, vvvvxq 
xxi. 25 ; 2 Cor. ii. 4. crw/xariKos iii. 22 ; Coloss. ii. 9 ; 
1 Tim. iv. 8. cra>T7?yo applied to God, i. 47; ii. 11. So 
in the pastoral epistles. cr&my/Hos only in Luke, Eplie- 
sians, and Titus, raftg only in Paul, Luke, and the 
epistle to the Hebrews. nOa/ai #eju,eOuoj> vi. 48 ; xiv. 
29. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10. TI S ovv vii. 42 ; xx. 15, 17, 
is Pauline, vibs with a substantive in the genitive, as 
mo9 elpTjvrjs x. 6 ; or TOV aia)vo<; rovrou, or rou (a>T09, 
xvi. 8 ; xx. 34 ; or 7779 dmcrrctcreajs xx. 36, like viol 
</>&rro9, or a,7rei$eia,9, Ephes. ii. 2 ; v. 6. re/ci/a <wro9, TCKVOL 
0/077)9, Ephes. VTroKpivecrOai xx. 20. Comp. <TVVVTTO- 
KpivecrOai Gal. ii. 13. vTra>7nd{f.iv xviii. 5. Only in 1 
Cor. ix. 27 besides. vcrTepr]p,a xxi. 4. A Pauline word. 
<j)i\dpyvpos xvi. 14 ; 2 Tim. iii. 2. ^iXoveiKia xxii. 24. 
The correlate <iXoVei/<:o9 1 Cor. xi. 16. (fropos xx. 22 ; 
xxiii. 2; Rom. xiii. 6, 7. (frpovrjcns i. 17; Ephes. i. 8. 
(frvXaKTi in the plural, only in Luke and 2 Cor. ^atpei^ 
ez x. 20. Only in Paul. yapitto-Oai only in Luke 
and Paul. X^P LV ^X eir xy ii- 9 ; in 1 and 2 Tim ; and 
the epistle to the Hebrews, yapirovv i. 28 ; Ephes. i. 6. 
The noun x^P 1 ^ ^ s more frequently used by Luke than 
the other evangelists, being a distinctive Pauline term. 
i//aXju,o9 only in Luke and Paul. 

Besides these linguistic similarities, there are various 
parallels consisting of ideas and words together, which 
unite Luke with the Pauline literature. 

LUKE. PAULINE. 

The gracious words which pro- Let your speech be always with 

ceeded out of his mouth (iv. 22). grace (Coloss. iv. 6). Let no corrupt 

word proceed out of your mouth 
but . . . that it may minister grace 
unto the hearers (Ephes. iv. 29). 

His word was with power (iv. My speech was in demonstration 

32). of the Spirit and of power (1 Cor. 

ii. 4). 

Your Father also is merciful The Father of mercies (2 Cor. i. 

(vi. -36). 3). By the mercies of God (Rom. 

xii. 1). 



442 



INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



LUKE. 

Can the blind lead the blind? 
(vi. 39). 

Laid the foundation (vi. 48). 

Bring forth fruit with patience 
(viii. 15). 

Is not come to destroy men s 
lives, but to save (ix. 56). 

Eat such things as are set before 
you (x. 8). 

Your names are written in 
heaven (x. 20). 

Thou hast hid these things from 
the wise and prudent, and hast re 
vealed them unto babes (x. 21). 



xi. 36. Same idea as in 

All things are clean unto you 
(xi. 41). 

I will send them prophets and 
apostles, and some of them they 
shall slay and persecute (xi. 49). 

Let your loins be girded about 
(xii. 35). 

Who then is a faithful steward 
(xii. 42). 

That men ought always to pray, 
and not to faint (xviii. 1). 



God forbid (xx. 16). 

This that is written, the stone 
which the builders rejected is be 
come the head of the corner. Who 
soever shall fall upon that stone 
shall be broken (xx. 17, 18). 

For all live unto him (xx. 38). 

In patience possess ye your souls 
(xxi. 19). 

Jerusalem shall be trodden down 
of the Gentiles till the times of 
the Gentiles be fulfilled (xxi. 24). 



PAULINE. 

And art confident that thou 
thyself art a guide of the blind 
(Rom. ii. 19). 

I have laid the foundation (1 
Cor. iii. 10). 

Being fruitful .... unto all 
patience (Ooloss. i. 10, 11). 

Hath given for edification, and 
not destruction (2 Cor. x. 8). 

Whatsoever is set before you, 
eat (1 Cor. x. 27). 

Whose names are in the book of 
life (Phil. iv. 3). 

I will destroy the wisdom of the 
wise, and will bring to nothing 
the understanding of the prudent 
(1 Cor. i. 19). God hath chosen 
the foolish things of the world to 
confound the wise (27th verse). 
Ephes. v. 13. 

Unto the pure all things are 
pure (Titus i. 15). 

Who both killed the Lord Jesus 
and their own prophets, and have 
persecuted us (1 Thess. ii. 15) 

Stand, therefore, having your 
loins girt about with truth (Ephes. 
vi. 14). 

Moreover, it is required in 
stewards, that a man be found 
faithful (1 Cor. iv. 2). 

W T herefore also we pray always 
(2 Thess. i. 11). Always labour 
ing fervently for you in prayers 
(Coloss. iv. 12). 

Rom. ix. 14; xi. 11. Gal. iii. 21. 
As it is written, Behold I lay a 
stumbling-stone and rock of offence 
(Rom. ix. 33). 



For whether we live, we live 
unto the Lord (Rom. xiv. 8). 

To them who by patient continu 
ance in well doing seek for glory, 
eternal life (Rom. ii. 7). 

Blindness is happened to Israel 
until the fulness of the Gentiles be 
come in (Rom. xi. 25). 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 443 

LUKE. PAULINE. 

Take heed to yourselves, lest at Sudden destruction cometh upon 

any time your hearts be over- them . . . therefore let us be sober 

charged with surfeiting and drunk- (1 Thess. v. 3-8). See Rom. xiii. 

enness, and that day come upon 11-14. 
you unawares (xxi. 34). 

Watch therefore, and pray al- Praying always with all prayer 

ways, that ye may be accounted and supplication, and watching 

worthy to escape all these things thereunto with all perseverance 

. . . and to stand before the Son and supplication (Ephes. vi. 18). 

of man (xxi. 36). Appear before the judgment-seat 

of Christ (2 Cor. v. 10). 

The full force of this comparison can be felt by those 
only who examine the original, observing the general 
style and structure of sentences, as well as the terms 
and ideas peculiar to both. The mind of the evangelist 
was impregnated with the views and phraseology of 
Paul, so that the Pauline letters furnish numerous 
affinities. 

AUTHOESHIP. 

The earliest apostolic fathers have no quotation from 
the gospel, nor any express allusion to it. In Clement s 
epistle to the Corinthians (chapter xiii.), a place re 
sembling Luke vi. 36-38 in some respects, differs from 
it and all the gospel parallels so much, that it seems to 
have been taken from tradition. Hernias contains no 
clear allusion to Luke s gospel ; and Papias does not 
seem to have been acquainted with it, since Eusebius 
never mentions the fact, which he would probably have 
done. Credner s attempt to show that Papias s language 
refers to Luke s preface is unsuccessful. The Ignatian 
epistles show no trace of acquaintance with our gospel. 
The epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians has one pas 
sage, 1 Remembering what the Lord has taught us, 
saying, "judge not, and ye shall not be judged ; for 
give, and ye shall be forgiven. Be ye merciful, and ye 
shall obtain mercy : for with the same measure that ye 

1 In chapter ii. 



444 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

mete withal it shall be measured to you again," in 
which both Matthew and Luke s gospels may have been 
used, the former more closely than the latter. 

Justin Martyr was familiar with the gospel of Luke, 
though he does not assign it to him. The following are the 
principal passages in which he has respect to the third 
gospel : But the power of God coming upon the virgin 
overshadowed her, and caused her to conceive, though 
still a virgin. Moreover the angel of God who was sent 
to the virgin, at that very time saluted her, saying, 
Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb by the Holy 
Ghost, and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the 
Son of the Highest ; and thou shalt call his name Jesus ; 
for he shall save his people from their sins. 1 Mary 
the virgin, when the angel Gabriel announced to her 
that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and 
the power of the Highest overshadow her, wherefore 
also that holy one born of her is the Son of God, 
answered : Be it unto me according to thy word. 2 
(Compare Luke i. 26-38.) 

The first taxing in Judea being then made in the 
time of Quirinius, Joseph had gone up from Nazareth 
where he dwelt, to Bethlehem, whence he was, to be 
taxed. For his descent was from the tribe of Judah 
inhabiting that country. 3 

1 The law and the prophets were till John the Bap- 



0ov eVeX^oCo-a rfj Trapdevco eiretrKiaarfV avrrjv KCU K.vo<popr)o-ai 
irapdevov ovarav TreTrotr/Ke Koi 6 aTrooraXeiy Se Trpbs avrfjv TTJV Trapdevov KCIT 
(Kelvo TOV Kaipov ayyeXoy Qfov ev^yyeXicroro avTrjv, CITTWV iSou o~u\\rj^(i 
ev yaorpi ex TrvevpaTos ayiov KCU Ter) vlov, KOI vlbs Y^fiarrov K\rjdr]o~fTai) KOI 
Ka\o~eis TO ovopa avrov irjcrovv avrbs yap <rcocrei TOV Xaov avTOV, K.r.X. 
ApoL i. 33. 

2 Mapia rj Trap^fVo?, eunyyeXt^o/xeVoi; avr^ TafBpirjX ayyeXov, on 7rvfvp.a 
Kvpiov eV avTrjv eVreXeucrerai, KOL dvvap.is Y^iOTOf eVicrKiacret CIVTTJV, dib KOL 
TO yevvto/jLevov e| avTtjs ayiov eVrii/ Yi6y 6eoC, airfK.piva.TO- TevoiTO aoi Kara 
TO prjpd crov. Dial. 100. 

3 aVoypuc^Tjs ovo~rjs V TTJ lovSata rore Trpcor^s errl Kvprjviov, avrj\rj\v6fi 
anb Na^fiper evQa op/cei, is Br/^Xce/t o6fv TJV, cnroyp<tyao-6ai dnb yap TIJS 
KaToiKovcrrjs TTJV yrjv K.fivr)v (pvXijs loi Sa TO yevos rjv. Dial. 78. See also 
Apol. i. 34 ; Luke ii. 2, etc. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 445 

tist ; henceforward the kingdom of heaven suffers 
violence and the violent take it by force. And if ye 
will receive him, this is Elias who was to conie. He 
that hath ears to hear let him hear. : (Luke xvi. 16, 
and Matt. xi. 13.) The first part is from Luke, the 
rest from Matthew. It is not uncommon in Justin to 
join the words of several evangelists. 

1 When a certain man came to him and said, " Good 
master," he answered and said, " There is none good 
save one, that is God, who created all things." 2 " Why 
callest thou me good ? One is good, my Father who is 
in heaven " 3 (Luke xviii. 19). 

The things which are impossible with men, are 
possible with God 4 (Luke xviii. 27). 

i Our Lord said, that they shall neither marry nor be 
given in marriage, but be equal to angels, being chil 
dren of God and of the resurrection 5 (Luke xx. 34, 
etc.). 

The apostles in the memoirs composed by them, 
which are called gospels, have related that Jesus thus 
commanded them ; that having taken bread and given 
thanks he said, Do this in remembrance of me ; this is 
my body : and that in like manner having taken the 
cup and given thanks, he said, This is my blood, and 
that he distributed to these alone 6 ( Luke xxii. 19, etc. ) . 



1 6 vdfj-os KOL ol TrpofprJTai ^XP 1 iwaWou TOV /3a7rrtorov e OTOV j3ao~i\eia 
ovpava>v ftidfT(u nal /Sioorat dp7rdov(riv avrrjv Km ft $e Aere 5euo-$at, 

fCTTiv HAi ay 6 p.e AAcoi ep^fcrOai. 6 e;^a>i> aira aKoueii , axouerco. Dial. 51. 

2 KOL Tvpoo~c\6ovTos avTUt TWOS KCU elrrovTOs, AiSacr/KaAe dyaBt, aTreKpiVaro 
, Ov&e\s dyadbs el p.r] p,ovos o Qeos 6 noirjiras ra Trairu. Apol. \. 16. 

3 T L jj.e At yetr dyadov] els (.VTLV dyaOos, 6 Trarrjp p.ov 6 ev roils ovpavols. 
Dial. 101. 

4 ra dfrvvara napa dv6pu>Trois dward ncipa Gea). Apol, i. 19. 

5 6 Kvpins f)fj.(i>v f?7Tv, "On ovre ya^a-ovaiv ovre ya^Bi icrovraL dAAa 
tcrayyeAoi erroi/rat, TKva TOV Qeov TTJS dvao~Tdo~ea>s OVTS. Dial. 81. 

6 01 yap aTTOoroAot cv rdis yevop-evots VTT avToav 7ro/xi ^o^fu^ia(rti , a 
icaAftrai euayye Aia, ourcos- Trape Sco/ca^ eVreraA^at avrois TOV l^croOv, Aa/3otTa 
apTov fv^npLcrTrjo-avTa finely TOVTO Troteire fls TTJV avafivrjcriv p.ov, TOVTO f crrt 

TO (TCO/ia p-OV KCll TO JTOTTlplOV OfJLOLUtS Aa/3oiTO Kill fV^apliTT7j(rat>T(l fl-TTflV 

Touro eVrt TO alp,d fj-ov, <al p.6vots ni Tols p.CTadovvai, Apol. i, GO. Compare 
also Dial. cli. 41 and 70. 



446 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The accounts which Justin gives of the prediction 
of Christ s sufferings and resurrection coincide very 
closely with Luke s in their phraseology, and in all 
the particulars where the other synoptists vary. They 
also contain what is peculiar to Luke, viz. that the 
sufferings were a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. 
Hence we infer that he used the third gospel. 1 

1 In the memoirs, which I say were composed by the 
apostles and those who followed them (it is written), 
that sweat like drops flowed down (Jesus) while pray 
ing and saying, Let this cup, if it be possible, pass from 
me 2 (Luke xxii. 44). While the last part of this 
passage refers to Matt. xxvi. 39, the former is certainly 
from Luke. 

The context states that Pilate sent Jesus bound, to 
Herod, a fact given in Luke alone, xxiii. 6, etc. Jesus 
as he gave up his spirit on the cross said, Father, into 
thy hands I commend my spirit 3 (Luke xxiii. 46). 

It is possible that some of these passages may have 
been taken from an apocryphal gospel, for it is highly 
probable that Justin used a document of that kind in 
addition to the synoptics, especially for his statements 
relative to the birth and infancy of Jesus ; but most of 
them show the direct use of Luke. His manner was to 
intermix quotations from several sources, and not to 
give the texts verbally. 

There is no doubt that Marcion had the gospel of 
Luke, which he adapted to his own ideas by arbitrary 
treatment. He lived before Justin, about A.D. 140 ; 
and is the earliest writer from whom we learn the ex 
istence of the gospel. 

1 See Dial. 70. 100. 51. 

2 ev Tols dnofj.vrjiJ.ovevp.ao iv a (py^i vnb TOJV anocrToXwv CIVTOV KU\ T>V 
fKeivois TTapaKO\ov6r]cra.vT(t>v o-WTTax0ai, on iSpws oxrel 6pofj.(3oi /corf^ftro, 
avTov ev%op,vov <al \eyovTos, Hapf\dfTu> et dvvaTov TO noTTjptov rouro. Dial, 
103. 

3 teal yap aTTO&tdovs TO nvevp-a eirl ra> oravpco ffTTf, HaTfp, els \e?pds o~ov 

O nvevp-d p.ov, Dial. 105, 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 447 

The Ebionite author of the Clementine Homilies 
(about A.D. 170) knew and used the gospel, as several 
passages show, especially one in Horn. xix. 2, compared 
with xi. 35, which shows that Luke x. 18 was the source. 
Another in ix. 22 is taken from Luke x. 20. Probably 
also a passage in Horn. iii. 15 was influenced by Luke 
x. 24, as well as by Matthew ; and another in iii. 30 by 
Luke ix. 5. In Horn. xvii. 5 there is a passage from 
Luke xviii. 68 ; while Horn. ii. 13 shows an acquaint 
ance with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. 
Credner l enumerates twenty-four places in which Luke 
was used by the Clementine author, but several are 
doubtful. 2 The first book of the Clementine Recogni 
tions also shows acquaintance with Luke. 

Whether Basilides and Valentinus used it is uncer 
tain ; for Hippolytus s Philosophumena refer to these 
heretics in a vague and general way. Their disciples 
unquestionably employed all the canonical gospels ; and 
Hippolytus seems to have quoted from them opinions 
which he ascribes to their leaders. Many expressions 
of the New Testament which Irengeus gives from the 
Yalentinians in his first book are taken from the third 
gospel. According to Agrippa Castor, Basilides com 
posed tw r enty-four books on the gospel* but that expres 
sion should not be identified with the four canonical 
gospels. It means Christian truth as Basilides sup 
posed it to have been handed down from the apostles ; 
and does not necessarily denote one or more written 
gospels. The passage in the Philosophumena, which 
is thought to prove Basilides s use of the third gospel, 
is in vii. 26, quoting Luke i. 35, but introduced by the 
usual he xaysf which has no definite subject, and may 
mean either Basilides or one of his school ; the latter 
most probably, as a wide induction of examples shows. 



i. pp. 284-330. 
See Zeller s Die Apostelyeschichte, p. 53, ft seq. 
els TO 



448 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The same passage in Luke is said to be cited by Valen- 
timis (vi. 35) 3 with the word he says in the introductory 
context, which points to one of the Valentinians, not to 
the head of the sect. 

Celsus seems to have known it, as he refers to the 
genealogy of Christ going up to Adam. 1 The place 
in which there is an allusion to two angels appearing at 
the grave of Jesus, may point either to Luke or John. 2 
Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 180) has the words of 
Luke xviii. 27 in his second book to Autolycus. 

The Muratorian fragment is the earliest work which 
expressly assigns the gospel to Luke (A.D. 170) ; and 
IrenaBus comes immediately after (A.D. 177-202). Cle 
ment of Alexandria adopts the same opinion, and the 
fathers generally follow it. Tertullian, however, ex 
presses himself vaguely on the point, in a way unlike his 
usually confident one. 3 

The testimonies we have adduced lead up to the year 
130, and show that the gospel existed in the circles 
where Marcion and Justin lived. But they do not tell 
us how widely it was known, what repute it had, or who 
its author was. It does not appear to have been much 
known out of Rome in their time ; nor was it preferred 
by them to an extra- canonical gospel or gospels which 
they employed along with it. Neither itself, nor those 
of Matthew and Mark in addition, were the exclusive 
source whence the earliest ecclesiastical writers drew 
their knowledge of gospel history. 

The work itself does not state that Luke wrote it, 
nor do the Acts of the Apostles. The desire to have 
a Pauline gospel fixed itself upon the third and attri 
buted it to Luke an inference drawn from the Acts, 
where it is said that the author of the account of Paul s 
journey was his companion, and accompanied him to 
Rome. That author was identified with Luke not 

1 Origen contra Celsum ii. 32. 2 Ibid. v. 52. 

3 Evangelium quod Lucre refertur. Adv. Marcion. iv. 4. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 449 

only because of the notices in Coloss. iv. 14, 2, Timothy 
iv. 11, but also the tradition that he was with the 
apostle in Rome. This identification, making the ice- 
document in the Acts proceed from Luke, led at once to 
his authorship of the whole work. And when he was 
chosen as the writer of the Acts, the conclusion that he 
wrote the gospel necessarily followed. We shall show 
hereafter, that Luke was not the author of the Acts, 
though the latter incorporated in his larger document 
parts of an itinerary made by Luke. The gospel and 
Acts proceeded from the same hand ; but it was not 
Luke s. 

ANALYSIS OF CONTEXTS. 

The gospel may be divided into five parts. 

1. Narrative of the birth and childhood of John the 
Baptist and of Jesus, i. 4 ii. 52. 

2. Circumstances preparatory to Christ s public mi 
nistry, iii. 1-iv. 13. 

3. His appearances in Galilee as the Messiah, iv. 14- 
ix. 50. 

4. Discourses and events in his last journey to Jeru 
salem, with his triumphal entry into the city, ix. 51 
xxi. 38. 

5. His apprehension, crucifixion, death, resurrection, 
and ascension, xxii. 1-xxiv. 53. 

After the preface, the evangelist gives the announce 
ment of the births of John and of Jesus (i. 5-38), 
with Mary s visit to Elizabeth, followed by John s birth 
and circumcision (i. 39-80). The supernatural genera 
tion, the angelic annunciation to Mary, with the pro 
phecies uttered by her and Elizabeth, the revelations 
from heaven made to the shepherds at night, the birth 
at Bethlehem instead of Nazareth, complete this intro 
ductory history, which, like the visit of the Magi 
guided by a miraculous star, is of mythic aspect and 
VOL. i. G G 



450 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

later growth, all tending to invest Jesus with Messianic 
dignity from his origin. The journey of Mary to 
Elizabeth and the circumstances connected with it, par 
take of the marvellous. Nor can this history of the 
birth and infancy be brought into harmony with Mat 
thew s gospel in several particulars. Thus 

Luke supposes that before the birth of Jesus, which 
took place only accidentally at Bethlehem, Joseph and 
Mary lived at Nazareth. On the contrary, Matthew 
supposes that Bethlehem was their place of abode ; 
for Joseph, but for the intervention of certain circum 
stances, would have returned to Judea after his flic-lit 

o 

into Egypt, to Bethlehem, not to Nazareth in Galilee. 
The birth at Bethlehem rests upon a precarious founda 
tion, because it originated in the view that the Messiah 
must spring from the city of David a view agreeing 
with Matthew s adaptation of Micah s prophecy. 

Nor is there room for the murder of the children 
in Bethlehem and the flight to Egypt in Luke s narra 
tive. The Magi must have been at Bethlehem, says 
the translator of Schleiermacher, before Jesus s pre 
sentation ; for not only does Luke make the parents re 
turn immediately after that ceremony to Nazareth, but, 
according to his statement of the whole transaction, 
there is not the slightest conceivable motive for a fresh 
prolonged stay in the strange town of Bethlehem. No 
ground for the supposition either of employment in 
Bethlehem, or of an intention to settle there, is afforded 
by Luke s narrative, or even consistent with it ; and all 
its vividness is destroyed, if we imagine that Joseph s 

return to Bethlehem was merely omitted The 

point must be allowed to be clear, when we take into the 
account that Joseph went to Bethlehem solely on 
account of the registry, how ill Mary was accommo 
dated there in her labour, and how reluctant they must 
have been to undergo the fatigue of a double journey. 
Now had the Magi arrived before the presentation, in 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 451 

that case, considering how near Bethlehem was to 
Jerusalem, intelligence would certainly have reached 
the former place of Herod s inquiries after the birth 
place of the Messiah, and that the Magi discovered it 
by the direction thence obtained. Moreover the Magi 
must have had the dream, which warned them against 
returning to Jerusalem, at Bethlehem, and it is much 
more probable that they related, than that they sup 
pressed it. Must not Joseph now, considering Herod s 
notorious character, have conceived suspicion from these 
circumstances, and abandoned the wholly needless jour 
ney to Jerusalem ? The flight into Egypt, therefore, is 
indeed very naturally connected with the visit of the 
Magi and the attention it excited. . . . but the journey 
to Jerusalem is inconsistent with it. l 

The next incident is the interesting one of Jesus 
teaching in the temple (ii. 41-52), when he was twelve 
years of age. 

The 3rd chapter begins with the preaching and bap 
tism of John, and proceeds to the baptism of Jesus, 
giving a genealogical register of the descent of Joseph. 
It is impossible for us at the present day to account 
for Luke s passing by the genealogy in Matthew and 
giving another so different. According to his preface he 
searched diligently and took an independent course. He 
may have followed a written pedigree or pedigrees which 
the Jewish Christians had compiled ; but without 
adopting it implicitly. Probably tradition and his OAvn 
research had a share in his genealogy of Joseph as well 
as an existing register. Wittichen and Scholten think 
that it was a later addition to the gospel an opinion 
for which there is no good basis. One thing is certain, 
that the Davidic descent of Jesus was commonly be 
lieved at the time, in conformity with the national 
Jewish idea that the Messiah was to be a descendant of 
David. When Luke wrote, an opinion was entertained 

1 Critical Esiwy on the Gospel of 8t. Liikr, translated, pp. 40, 47, 



452 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

that Joseph was only the putative father of Jesus, and 
therefore he throws in the clause as was supposed, in 
iii. 23. A higher origin is also ascribed to him in Mat 
thew. Yet both evangelists trace his birth to David 
through Joseph, as if he were Joseph s son by natural 
descent. The later view is appended to the early 
belief embodied in the original genealogies, with which 
indeed it does not agree. The tables are dominated by 
an apologetic interest in showing Jesus s Davidic de 
scent ; for the early Christians were desirous to assert his 
Messianic dignity in opposition to the Jews who denied 
it, and derived it from his Davidic origin ; Messiah and 
the son of I) arid being in th eir opinion equivalent. 
As the registers proceeded from a doctrinal rather than 
a historical motive, their artificial combinations and as 
sumptions puzzle the harmonists, who labour in vain to 
bring the two into agreement. All that they clearly 
convey is, that Jesus was the son of Joseph a testi 
mony prior in time to the belief of his supernatural 
birth. 

Two able critics who have attempted to reconcile these 
genealogies, AVieseler and Lord Arthur Hervey, illustrate 
these remarks. Their arbitrary suppositions, often 
opposite to the plain records, are evidence of entangle 
ment. Thus the latter concludes from the fact that 
a second genealogy is given (that of Luke), that the 
first gives Joseph s genealogy as legal successor to the 
throne of David ; the second, Joseph s private genealogy. 
Hence Matthew s is not Joseph s real paternal stem. 
If it were, there would be no room for another ! The 
absurdity of this is patent. The bishop asserts, without 
the least evidence, that Mary was first-cousin to her 
husband Joseph, so that, in point of fact though not 
in form, both genealogies are as much hers as her hus 
band s. 1 

The genealogy of Joseph, as given by Luke, is 

1 See Smith s Dictionary of f7ie Bible, vol. i. p. CGG. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 453 

different from, and in various points irreconcilable with, 
Matthew s. 

1. Luke says that Joseph was the son of Hell ; 
Matthew, that he was the son of Jacob. The former 
makes Salathiel the son of Neri ; the latter, of Jecho- 
nias. The two genealogies agree in the two names 
Salathiel and Zorobabel alone, between David and Joseph 
the husband of Mary ; the descent being traced through 
a different set of names. In Matthew, the line comes 
through Solomon and the known series of kings ; in 
Luke, through Nathan and a succession of unknown 
persons. Though the genealogies therefore agree from 
Abraham to David, they differ from the latter onward. 
How is the difficulty about Joseph s parentage removed? 
Many assume a levirate marriage, according to which 
Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal descent. This 
assumes that Heli and Jacob were only half-brothers, 
sons of the same mother but of different fathers. The 
same arrangement is called into requisition for the 
appearance of Salathiel and Zorobabel. There was a 
levirate marriage in the case of Salathiel s mother, so 
that Neri and Jechonias were half-brothers. Such com 
plicated machinery betrays a hopeless cause. Neither 
Matthew nor Luke hints that Joseph s father was other 
than his real one. Besides, it was contrary to Jewish 
custom to introduce the natural father into a legal 
genealogy. The legal father alone was adduced. 

Another method of bringing agreement into the 
genealogies is, to assume that Luke gives the descent of 
Mary, while Matthew gives Joseph s. To unite this 
with the text, it is proposed by some to supply the 
Greek article 1 accompanying Heli with the son in law of 
Heli, which is against the context. With this hypothesis 
is united another, that Mary was an heiress whose hus 
band must have been in her register. But it is very 
improbable that Mary was heir to property ; and if she 

1 rot" HXt. 



454 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

were, that the law recognising her claim to it was still 
in force. It should also be noticed, that the Davidic 
descent of Mary is improvable. In Luke i. 27, it is 
stated that Joseph (not Mary) was of the house of 
David ; which is repeated in ii. 4. Both evangelists 
give the descent of Joseph. The existence of the two 
registers shows the industrious efforts of the Jewish 
Christians in tracing the Davidic descent of Jesus, 
which it was difficult to do in face of the fact that he 
himself did not assume to be David s son, but simply 
the Son of man. The irreconcilable differences of the 
genealogies attest the embarrassment of their compilers, 
who were naturally anxious to find a royal lineage for 
the lowly Nazarene who claimed to be the Messiah ; 
since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, 
according to the Old Testament. But Jesus was an 
other Messiah than that of Jewish expectation, a 
different ideal of a great deliverer. 

The narrative of Jesus s temptation in the wil 
derness follows (iv. 1-13). After this He begins to 
preach in Galilee, at Nazareth in particular (14-30). 
The visit to Nazareth seems to be the same as that in 
Matt. xiii. 54, etc., and therefore Luke puts it too early. 
The twenty-third verse clearly implies that Jesus had 
already done great works in Capernaum ; so that Luke 
contradicts his previous statement. The object for 
which the evangelist introduced it at this place is to 
account for Jesus going to Capernaum (verse 31). At 
the latter place He healed a demoniac, Peter s mother- 
in-law, and other sick persons (31-44). 

The 5th chapter relates how Peter was called away 
from his occupation of fishing to be a disciple ; after 
which Jesus cures a leper and one sick of the palsy 
(verses 1-26). This is succeeded by Levi s call and 
what happened in his house (27-39). 

Passing over the cure of Jairus s daughter, of the 
woman with an issue of blood, two blind men and a 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 455 

dumb one, the sending out of the twelve, and the message 
of John from prison, which the first gospel has here, 
Luke relates the incident of the disciples plucking ears 
of corn on the sabbath, and the cure of the man who had 
a withered hand (vi. 1-11). At this point the selection 
of the twelve apostles is described, which is followed by 
an abridged and altered account of the sermon delivered 
on the mount, according to Matthew ; but in the present 
gospel on a plain (vi. 17). The report is fragmentary 
and loosely connected, though Holtzmann asserts the 
contrary. It is less original than Matthew s ; since it 
gives Jesus s words a moral bearing against the conduct 
of sinners generally, not against Jewish legality. The 
identity of the discourses reported by the two evangelists 
is generally acknowledged at the present day ; though it 
bears unfavourably on a certain view of inspiration. 1 

The 7th chapter contains the incident relating to the 
centurion at Capernaum, whose servant, though absent, 
was healed; the raising of the widow of Gain s son, the 
message of the Baptist to Jesus, and the anointing 
by a penitent woman. The woman is usually thought 
to be Mary Magdalene ; Luke himself, who introduces 
her immediately after (viii. 2), does not seem to have 
believed so. It is difficult to decide on the identity of 
the history respecting the woman who anointed Jesus 
in Luke s gospel with that in Matthew, xxvi. 6, etc.; 
Mark xiv. 3, etc.; John xii. 1, etc. If the two accounts 
be identical, Luke has modified and altered the circum 
stances of the case, connecting the woman s love as a 
manifestation of her faith, with the forgiveness of her 
sins. The main fact of the host being Simon, speaks for 
the sameness, and it is unlikely that the disciples would 
have blamed the woman for wasting her ointment ( Matt. 
xxvi. 8) if Jesus had already accepted unction from 
another woman. 

1 See Tlioluck s Ausfiihrliche Ausleyunff tier Bergprcdiyt Christi, Ein- 
leitunpr, 2, ]>. 17, etc., clritte Ausgabe. 



456 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The commencement of the 8th chapter consists of 
a summary notice of Jesus s ministry in Galilee re 
sembling that in iv. 14, 15. This is followed by 
mention of the women who waited upon Him and sup 
plied his wants (viii. 1-3). Jesus now propounds the 
parable of the sower (4-18). When his mother and 
brethren visit Him, Pie gives an enlarged and loving 
extension to mother and brethren (19-21). His stilling 
a storm on the lake is introduced without any chro 
nological note, just as the visit of His relations is. In 
Matthew s gospel both occupy different positions from 
those in Luke. Other miracles follow : the expulsion 
of devils from the Gadarene demoniac, the raising of 
Jairus s daughter, and the cure of the woman with a 
bloody flux (22-56). 

The 9th chapter narrates the sending forth of the 
twelve disciples, Herod s desire to see Jesus, the mi 
raculous feeding of five thousand people, the confession 
of Peter, the transfiguration, the healing of a lunatic, 
the prediction of Christ s own death, and the dispute of 
the disciples about precedence (1-50). According to 
Luke and Mark, the disciples did not strive with one 
another about rank in the kingdom of Messiah, as in 
Matthew, but about their individual position in the 
esteem of Jesus. The two verses 49 and 50, in which 
John asks of the Master whether he ought to have 
forbidden a person from following Jesus who had 
attempted to exorcise demons in his name, and the 
reply, are peculiar to Mark and Luke. The connection 
between the passage and what precedes it is obscure ; 
nor is Meyer s explanation satisfactory. The intro 
duction of it has the appearance of arbitrariness (ix. 
1-50). 

The evangelist, having rapidly passed over the Gali 
lean ministry of Jesus, giving only such parts of it as 
were most easily adapted to a Pauline tendency, intro 
duces a section which is more or less peculiar to himself. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 457 

In it he follows documents and forsakes Matthew s 
narrative. The insertion in question (ix. 51-xviii. 14) 
has given great trouble to harmonists. 

The narrative of Jesus s journey to Jerusalem com 
mences with His inhospitable treatment by the Samari 
tans, and His demands upon such as wished to become 
followers (516*2). He then sends out seventy disciples 
to work miracles and to preach, who return and tell of 
their success (x. 124). To these non-apostolic dis 
ciples Luke transfers the most honourable injunctions 
given to the twelve apostles in Matthew s gospel. Their 
mission on extra- Judaic ground comports with the Paul 
ine element pervading the gospel ; and the question of a 
lawyer about obtaining eternal life, leads to the parable 
of the Good Samaritan (25-37). Whether this inter 
view with the lawyer is the same as the later one of 
Matthew xxii. 35, etc., Mark xii. 28, etc., cannot be 
easily settled. The identity of Matthew and Mark s 
accounts is probable, but Luke s differs materially. Yet 
it is possible that all three are variations of one and 
the same tradition. The original incident may have 
been shaped in different forms by the evangelical 
tradition, as Strauss supposes. The entertainment 
in the house of Martha and Mary is introduced in 
definitely, without specification of place or time (x. 
38-42). 

At the request of his disciples, Jesus teaches them to 
pray, and that with earnest importunity (xi. 113), 
Matthew introduces the Lord s prayer into the sermon 
on the mount. Here it comes too late. As he was 
casting out a dumb spirit, he rebuked the Pharisees for 
their blasphemous imputation of his power to Beel 
zebub, blessed a certain woman who addressed him, 
preached to the people about unbelief, and reprehended 
the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers (14-54). The fact 
that His severe denunciations of the Pharisees in 37-54, 
were uttered at the table of a Pharisee, is unlikely. 



458 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Place and time are both unsuitable, and disagree with 
Matthew s representation. 

The 12th chapter contains a discourse or discourses 
addressed to the disciples, but with apostrophes to the 
people generally. It is a compilation, the matter essen 
tially original, the form proceeding from the evangelist 
himself, with the help of the first gospel. 

The 13th chapter begins with the story of the Gali 
leans murdered by Pilate in the temple, and the 
account of another occurrence in Siloam, upon which 
Jesus founds an exhortation to repentance. The pa 
rable of the barren fig-tree inculcates the same lesson 
(xiii. 1-9). This is followed by the cure of a dis 
eased woman on the sabbath (10-17), various parables 
descriptive of the kingdom of God (1821), with ex 
hortations to enter into it, and Herod s alleged lying 
in wait for Jesus. The last (31-35) is peculiar to 
Luke, and would lead to the supposition that Jesus 
was in Galilee or Pero?a ; whereas it follows from ix. 51, 
etc., that he was now in Judea. The lamentation over 
Jerusalem (34, 35) is not in its proper place here, as it 
is in Matthew xxiii. 37, etc. It belongs to the time suc 
ceeding Christ s entry into the metropolis. 

In the 14th chapter, Jesus cures a dropsical man on 
the sabbath, teaches humility by a parable, and re 
commends charity toward the poor (1-14). This is 
followed by the parable of the great supper (15-24), 
the claims of Jesus on His followers (25-35). showing 
that they must calculate well beforehand, lest they apo 
statise and become unprofitable like salt that has lost its 
savour (1535). 

The 15th chapter lias three parables illustrating the 
mercy of God toward penitent sinners. The first is that 
of the lost sheep ; the second, of the piece of silver ; the 
third of the prodigal son. These teach the extension 
of divine mercy to the Gentiles, in opposition to the 
narrow prejudices of the Jews. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 459 

The following chapter contains the parable of the 
unjust steward, in which a culpable trait is used as the 
instrument of instruction. Verses 10-13 follow the 
parable, not unnaturally. The hypocrisy of the covetous 
Pharisees is reproved (14, 15), and these words are 
added : The law and the prophets were until John ; 
since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached, and 
every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven 
and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail. 
Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another 
committeth adultery ; and whosoever marrieth her that 
is put aAvay from her husband committeth adultery 
which it is difficult, if not impossible, to connect with 
the preceding context. All attempts to link them on to 
the foregoing verses have been failures. One can only 
have recourse to Marcion s reading, one tittle of my 
u -ords to fail (instead of the law) ; and then the ad 
duced inviolability of the marriage tie exemplifies the 
assertion. The chapter concludes with the parable of 
the rich man and Lazarus, directed against the worldly 
who live in security and fail to make a proper use of 
their possessions, as is recommended at the close of the 
unjust steward s case. The first part of it has the Jewish 
Essene view of riches, liberality, and poverty (compare 
vi. 20, 24 ; xvi. 9), which appears in the gospel else 
where ; the last portion (2731) is the evangelist s addi 
tion or rather insertion, for the parable was taken from 
a written source. Olshausen s attempt to show the anti- 
pharisaic tendency of the latter parable is unsuccessful. 

The 17th chapter contains other discourses of Jesus, 
respecting occasions of offence, the power of faith and 
the unprofitableness of works (1-10). The cure often 
lepers is introduced in an unsuitable manner : And it 
came to pass as he went to Jerusalem that he passed 
through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. The object 
of the words in italics is plain, to account for a Sama 
ritan being found among the lepers. But the meaning 



460 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

is ambiguous ; and the formula of introduction does 
not agree well with ix. 51. The cure of the lepers is 
followed by discourses about the future appearing of 
the Son of man, and the nature of the kingdom of God 
(20-37). Two parables, that of the importunate widow 
(xviii. 18), and that of the Pharisee and publican 
(9-14), convey instructions of different kinds. The 
former is connected with the coming of Jesus, an event 
which was so important to His disciples as to stir them 
up to unceasing prayer, because of the recompence it 
would bring them. He should then avenge his elect 
speedily. The second parable belonged originally to a 
different context, for it has no natural connection with 
the preceding. 

At this point the extra- canonical sources used by 
Luke terminated ; at least, he leaves them here, falling 
back into the synoptic course of events. 

Children were brought to Christ that He might touch 
them (xviii. 15-17). This is folloAved by the narrative 
of the rich young man (18-27), having its parallels in 
Matthew and Mark. In answer to Peter s assertion 
that he and his fellow- apostles had forsaken all to follow 
Jesus, the Master assures him that they should be 
abundantly rewarded (28-30). He then foretells His 
own death (31-34), and restores sight to a blind man at 
Jericho (35-43). 

The 19th chapter narrates the conversion of Zaccheas 
the publican (1-10), the parable of the pounds which 
were entrusted to different persons, and the way in 
which they used them (11-28). This is followed by 
Jesus s triumphal entry into Jerusalem with His lamen 
tation over the city (29-44). He commences by purify 
ing the temple, driving out the buyers and sellers ; and 
though the chief priests and scribes wished to destroy 
Him, they were unable as yet to accomplish their pur 
pose (45-48). 

Christ replies to a question of the chief priests and 



THE GOSrEL OF LUKE. 461 

scribes respecting the source of His authority by asking 
the source of John s baptism (xx. 1-8) ; after which 
He declares the parable of the vineyard (9-18). He 
silences the spies of the Pharisees, who put Him an 
ensnaring question about tribute (19-26), and the Sad- 
ducees about the resurrection (2740). He calls their 
attention to the point how Christ can be the son of 
David (4144), and warns the disciples against the 
scribes (4547). 

The 21st chapter contains Christ s commendation 
of the poor widow for her contribution to the treasury, 
followed by a discourse about the destruction of Jeru 
salem and His future coming. The last shows a later 
modification of the tradition than Matthew s. Here the 
persecutions of Christ s followers are represented as oc 
curring before the wars and commotions mentioned, 
whereas in the first gospel they follow such disturbances 
(verse 12). 

The 22nd chapter describes the conspiracy of the 
chief priests and scribes against Jesus, and the trea 
chery of Judas Iscariot (16). This is followed by the 
preparations for eating the passover, and the meal itself, 
which He and his apostles partook of (7-38). At this 
supper Jesus speaks to them about ambition, because 
they disputed which should be accounted the greatest ; 
and assures Peter that his faith should not fail though 

o 

he might deny his Master thrice. The passage about 
the disputation of the disciples has no proper connec 
tion with its context. A similar fact had been already 
related by the evangelist (ix. 46) ; and we can scarcely 
resist the impression that if this be historical, its proper 
place is earlier. But it may have arisen from Matt. xx. 
20, etc. The words addressed to Peter (31-35) are re 
presented as spoken at the last supper, as in the fourth 
gospel ; in Matthew and Mark they are spoken on the 
way to Gethsemane. 

The exhortation to the disciples about their providing 



4G2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

for combat and danger, is peculiar to this evangelist 
(3538). Its connection with the context and its ori 
ginality can hardly be maintained, least of all by the 
method which Meyer proposes. The object of it is to 
account for the fact that Peter is subsequently in pos 
session of a sword at the time of Jesus s apprehension. 
The rest of the chapter contains the agony in Geth- 
semane, His capture, Peter s denial, Jesus s shameful 
treatment, and His appearance before the Sanhedrim 
(3966). The deviations from Matthew and Mark 
in the narration of these incidents are mostly for the 
worse. 

The account given by Luke of the last supper which 
Jesus partook of with his disciples, differs from that of 
Matthew and Mark in some important particulars. Jesus 
took a cup, as is said, and gave it to the apostles to dis 
tribute among themselves (xxii. 17). Of this first cup 
he did not partake himself, as is implied in the follow 
ing verse : I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, 
until the kinorlom of God shall come. After breaking 

O o 

the bread and giving it to His followers to eat, Jesus 
took the second cup, which belonged to the last supper 
properly so-called not to the passover meal, and gave it 
to those present. Thus Christ did not observe the 
passover meal at all, according to the law. The drink 
ing of wine by the master of the house was an essential 
part of the entertainment. Matthew s narrative plainly 
says that Christ did partake of the paschal meal ; and 
therefore Luke s account is not original. That it is de 
signedly so, accords with the general tenor and Pauline 
character of the gospel. In the eyes of the evangelist, 
Jesus s sufferings and death were of vital importance. 
Hence he prefixes an announcement of them to the 
narrative of the supper. And the words of the six 
teenth verse, in which Jesus expresses a refusal to 
eat the passover till it be fulfilled in the kingdom 
of God, indicate the close of His earthly course. The 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 403 

first cup which He gives to the disciples is merely 
symbolical ; and this passover (verse 15) is used in the 
Christian sense of a passover, 1 not in the legal, Jewish 
one. The whole transaction has received a symbolical 
and Christian aspect, excluding the proper Jewish rite, 
and showing the superiority of Christ to the law of 
Moses. 2 

It has been already remarked, that the institution of 
the supper as given by Luke has a close agreement 
with Paul s account in the first epistle to the Corin 
thians, xi. 23-26. The practical influence of the apostle 
of the Gentiles gradually shaped and fixed a liturgical 
formula followed by the evangelist in preference to the 
words of the institution in Matthew. The allusion to 
the future in Luke and Paul, this do in remembrance 
of me, is not in the other gospels and can scarcely be 
considered original. 

The 23rd chapter relates how Jesus was led before 
Pilate, who wished to set Him free and sent Him to 
Herod. The latter, with his men of war, set him at 
nought and mocked him ; after which He was remitted 
to Pilate (1-12). When Pilate had made several 
attempts to let Him go, he yielded to the persistent rage 
of the chief priests and rulers, and delivered Him up to 
execution. The blame is laid upon the Jews ; and 
Pilate the heathen ruler is all but exculpated, in accor 
dance with the Paulinism of the writer. Accordingly 
He was led away to the place of crucifixion, where two 
malefactors were waiting execution at the same time and 
in the same manner. The circumstances of his death 
are minutely related ; the account of the conduct of the 
malefactors supplementing and rectifying that given by 
Matthew. At the time of His death a preternatural 
darkness overshadowed the whole earth ; the centurion 
present glorified God ; the spectators became serious 



- See De Wette s Kvcyet. Ifamlbuck on Lake, pp. 145, 146, 3rd edit. 



464 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

(13-49). Joseph of Arimathea took down the body 
from the cross, and laid it in his new sepulchre 
(50-56). 

The last chapter narrates the resurrection of Jesus. 
The women that came to the sepulchre received the first 
intimation that he had risen from two angels, in conse 
quence of which they returned and told the eleven as 
well as the rest, w^ho were incredulous. Peter then ran 
to the grave, and seeing it empty, was amazed (1-12). 
He appeared for the first time to Peter, in accordance 
with 1 Cor. xv. 5 ; and afterwards to two disciples on 
their way to Emmaus (13-35). The latter narrative is 
peculiar to Luke and belongs to a different source from 
the preceding context. Perhaps it was meant as a set- 
off against the appearance to Peter alone ; as though 
the risen one had shown himself to those outside the 
apostolic circle. Mark gives a brief extract from the 
account. He then appeared to all the disciples in Jeru 
salem (3643). An address to them is loosely appended 
to the preceding context, which may or may not have 
been made on the same occasion (4449). Having led 
them out to Bethany, he blessed and was parted from 
them. 

The chapter contains much that is marvellous and 
inexplicable ; the angelic appearances to the women at 
the sepulcure, whose minds where in a peculiarly excited 
state ; the mode in which the body left the sepulchre ; 
the nature of that resurrection-body, Jesus s sudden dis 
appearance in it, though he showed his hands and feet 
as if it consisted of flesh and bones still. The ascension 
took place on the day he rose, without an interval of 
forty days as is related in the Acts of the Apostles. 
But Luke does not always mark distinctions of time, so 
that the forty days may be inserted at the fiftieth 
verse. Ordinary principles of interpretation applied to 
the chapter, fail to bring out any definite knowledge of 
its contents ; and the higher criticism itself must be 

* O 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 465 

contented with an idealising process. Conservative 
critics will attach importance to the letter of the evan 
gelic record, to the empty sepulchre, the difficulty of 
supposing mere visions in the mind of the disciples the 
second day after Jesus died, to the numerous witnesses 
for the bodily resurrection, and the probability of miracle 
here if at all. They will hesitate to forsake the old 
faith of the Church a step involving the serious as 
sumption that the apostles were deceived. Others more 
speculative but not less honest, will resolve the fact into 
a spiritual resurrection having the souls of the disciples 
for its theatre ; finding an explanation of that state of 
mind in the natural reaction necessarily following the 
first impression of the death of Jesus, psychologically 
possible. They will attribute visions of the risen Jesus, 
narrated in the gospels, to popular imagination, conceiv 
ing that the memoirs could not but depict him in a form 
more or less corporeal. Feeling the force of objections 
to the reanimation of a body, of the contradictory state 
ments of the evangelists, and the existence of a predis 
position to visions in the first Christian believers, they 
will hesitate to accept the literal. Christianity does not 
fall with the denial of the resurrection. A thing sur 
rounded with historial and other difficulties cannot be 
made a corner-stone in the edifice. 



CHARACTERISTICS. 

1. Compared with Matthew, Luke has fewer original 
traditions, and his representations are less historical. He 
handles the materials freely ; and his own reflectiveness 
appears more prominently. The discourses and facts are 
given in a shape not so primitive or faithful as they are 
in his predecessor. Thus the transfiguration of Jesus, 
which was a foretaste of his future glorification, is put 
too early. Instead of occupying its proper position in 
his life, as the culminating point of the revelation of 

VOL. I. H II 



40(5 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

himself to the disciples, it is inserted in the midst 
of teachings respecting the kingdom of God and the 
Messiahship of Jesus. It comes, therefore, when the 
minds of the apostles were wholly unprepared for the 
occurrence, or rather for what it was meant to signify. 
Only a small part of Jesus s ministry was past when it 
took place, according to Luke ; in Matthew that minis 
try was near its close ; so that the disciples must have 
been more susceptible of the lesson it was meant to in 
culcate and the future it foreshadowed. 

The narrative of the temptation in Luke is not so 
original as in Matthew. Instead of its succeeding acts 
forming a climax, the last being the strongest and most 
difficult, Luke gives the last place to the desire of Satan 
that Jesus should cast himself down from a pinnacle of 
the temple. Every word that proceedeth out of the 
mouth of God is altered into every word of God/ 
apparently to avoid anthropomorphism ; and the addi 
tion, for that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever 
I will I give it, indicates reflection on the extent of the 
devil s power. 

The sermon on the mount is also given in an incom 
plete and fragmentary form. Originality does not be 
long to it here, though it has still some genuine parts. 
Being adapted to a later age and having a more general 
tendency, it shows reflectiveness. Even in Matthew, it 
has undergone alterations and received additions. In 
Luke it is not a comprehensive ethical discourse, as it is 
in Matthew, but treats of the way in which sinners should 
act under reproaches and persecutions, and be consoled. 

In Luke xvii. 23 we see a modification of the corre 
sponding part of Matthew. The words And they shall 
say to you, See here, or, See there : go not after them 
nor follow them, are inappropriate in this context, and 
must have stood at first in a place where false Messiahs 
AY ere spoken of. In like manner the twenty-fifth verse 
interrupts the connection, being 1 a reminiscence of the 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 4.07 

disciples wrongly inserted by the evangelist. Luke in 
terprets the Greek word 1 in Matt. viii. G, etc., incorrectly 
by servant 2 (Luke vii. 2), for which reason he adds 
6 who was clear to him. But he allows the original 
word to remain in the seventh verse. There is no 
doubt that Matthew uses it for son (compare xvii. 18). 

But while it is the rule that Luke s gospel presents 
a record less original than Matthew s, it is not without 
examples of words uttered and actions performed more 
correctly reported than they are in the first gospel. 
Thus in xviii. 19 the phrase Why callest thou me good 
is original ; while Matthew s Why dost thou ask me 
concerning the good is a later modification. 

2. The evangelist s leading object was mediating and 
conciliatory. He wished to bring Judaism and Pauliii- 
ism together in the sphere of a comprehensive Christianity 
where the former would merge into the latter. In con 
formity with this purpose he describes the irreconcilable 
opposition between Jesus and his opponents, showing 
that Judaism was not the proper sphere in which his work 
could be realised. Jesus is not only the Jewish Messiah 
as he is in the first gospel, but the Redeemer of mankind 
(ii. 11 ; xxiv. 47) ; not merely the son of David but of 
God, bringing all men into a state of reconciliation to 
Him. The teaching of Jesus is not so much the leading 
theme of the evangelist, as His person and work. His 
manifestation as the Son of the Most High. The divinity 
of His person is connected with the divine origin and 
character of His work. He is an extraordinary being, 
working out a divine plan for the redemption of the 
human race, combating the higher spiritual world, ex 
pelling demons, and destroying the kingdom of Satan. 
The power of darkness, whose instruments are His 
Jewish opponents, is overthrown. It is this catholic 
tendency of the gospel that gives it a Pauline aspect, and 
has strengthened the belief of its author being a friend 



ii 2 



463 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

of the apostle. The writer conceives of Christ and 
Christianity in their relation to humanity, rather than 
to a particular people. Jewish exclusiveness disappears 
before a wider view of Jesus and his work ; and the Son 
of man, whom Matthew depicts as taking away infirmi 
ties and sicknesses, appears as one who came to seek and 
save the lost. Such purpose on the part of Luke 
accounts for most peculiarities in the selection and 
arrangement of the materials which make up the gos 
pel. It explains the nature of the work, not indeed by 
itself, but with the aid of written sources including 

o 

Matthew s and other gospels. 

3. A Pauline tendency in the gospel is apparent. 
In the time of the evangelist Christianity had over 
passed the narrow limits of Judaism, showing its ex 
pansive spirituality. The apostle Paul had changed its 
primitive Judaic character for a higher and more liberal 
one. Hence Luke indicates the spiritual nature of the 
kingdom of God (xvii. 20), even in describing its origin. 
That his views are more comprehensive than Matthew s, 
appears not only in what he narrates but in what he 
omits in the mode of his statements and the arrange 
ment of his materials. 

The right of the heathen to be received into the 
divine kingdom is always adduced. Thus Jesus came 
to seek and to save that which was lost (xix. 10). The 
genealogy is carried up to Adam, indicating that the 
human race had an interest in Christ, who is not said to 
be a king of the royal house of David, as in Matthew. 
This interest in the heathen appears in the prominence 
given to the Samaritans and the presence of Jews in 
their territory (ix. 52 ; xvii. 11). Jewish intolerance 
against that people is rebuked (ix. 55, 56); and they 
are placed in a favourable light over against the people 
of Israel (xvii. 11-19), even the priests and Levites. 
Seventy disciples were appointed, whose mission was to 
carry the gospel to the Gentiles, beyond the twelve 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 409 

tribes of Israel to whom the apostles were specially 
charged to announce it (x.). This enlargement of the 
apostolic circle exhibits a view which regards the 
heathen as the objects of Jesus s original care not less 
than the Jews, and therefore creates a special mission. 
Hence some instructions addressed to the twelve in 
Matthew are transferred to the seventy ; and others 
are omitted as those in Matt. x. 5, 6. The tendency 
to depreciate the twelve, in comparison with the seventy, 
is obvious in the ninth and tenth chapters ; complimen 
tary titles applied to the former in the first gospel re 
ceiving another and wider application. In like manner, 
the incident about Jesus paying tribute for the sup 
port of the temple- worship (Matt. xvii. 24-27), and the 
fact that saints rose from their graves at the death of 
Jesus and went into the holy city (xxvii. 5153), are left 
out. 

The same tendency is observable in the prominence 
given to free grace and mercy. Instead of the epithet 
perfect in the first gospel, which sounds like the phra 
seology of the law (v. 48), Luke has merciful (vi. 36) ; 
and in the parable of the prodigal son, the love of God 
towards sinners is depicted far in excess of the represen 
tation given by the first evangelist (Matt, xviii. 12-14). 
The same remark applies to the account of the woman 
who was a sinner (vii. 36-50), and to the narrative 
respecting Zaccheus (xix. 1-10), where the Paulme 
doctrine of grace is strongly set forth. The paragraph 
relating to the two malefactors (xxiii. 39-43), also 
shows the doctrine of justification by faith in opposition 
to works. What is said about the unprofitable servants 
(xvii. 10), as well as the subjective nature of the king 
dom of God (xvii. 20, 21), is of the same character. 
The institution of the last supper (xxii. 14-19) is con 
fessedly Pauline. And the appearances of the risen 
Saviour in Jerusalem show a dependence on 1 Cor. xv. 
1-7. The Paulme tendency can hardly be mistaken by 



470 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the reader of the gospel, especially if the work be care 
fully compared with that of Matthew. 

But the Pauline elements do not exclude passages 
of a different colour. Statements characteristically 
Jewish occur on several occasions, though they are 
subordinate and less numerous. The fact that the 
primitive Judaical representations are not effaced from 
the history are so far favourable to its originality. The 
evangelist s later views did not always mould authentic 
materials in a liberal way. But such fidelity has one 
disadvantage, that it leaves uncongenial elements in 
juxtaposition. To the original Jewish tradition belong 
the introductory history and account of the Temptation, 
the sayings condemning earthly riches and pronouncing 
the poor happy (vi. 20-25 ; xvi. 1926), the recom 
mending of deeds to procure a recompence (xvi. 9 ; 
xviii. 29, 30) ; the contrast of the present and future 
dispensations. 1 In like manner the perpetual duration 
of the law (xvi. 17), 2 and the future prospects pre 
sented to the disciples (xviii. 30), are Judaistic. So 
also the passages that recognise the law and the prophets 
(iv. 21; v. 14; xvi. 29-31; xvii. 14 ; xviii. 20; 
xxiii. 56 ; xxiv. 44), and the mild view of the old dis 
pensation (v. 39). 8 The presence of these Judaistic 
elements, so far from prejudicing the historical character 
of the gospel, attests it, because they show the Jewish 
Christian ground on which the narratives first stood. 
The opposite Pauline tendency affects the credibility 
unfavourably. Some of the primitive or Judaistic 
materials have an Essene colouring, especially those in 
which Christ is the speaker. This accords with the 
very probable belief of Essene influence upon his early 
training. Thus in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, 

1 6 ala)v OVTOS and 6 alav 6 epx^p-fvos or eKelvos, xvi. 8; xviii. 30; xx. 
34. 35. 

2 According to the usual reading. 

3 The last verse, however, is suspicious. It is wanting in Marcion, 
Eusebius, D. and MSS. of the old Latin version. 



THE GOSPEL OE LUKE. 471 

tlie former does not appear an unrighteous or wicked 
man, but merely rich the latter, a miserably poor man, 
whose virtues, if he had any, are unmentioned. The 
one is punished in Hades because of his riches in this 
world ; the other is re^^arded because of his poverty in 
the same. Such is the Essene idea conveyed in the 
parable itself ; and from it we have an indication of the 
speaker s education. Jn this gospel alone a woe is pro 
nounced on the rich, and a blessing on the poor ; and 
the phrase i unrighteous mammon suggests the idea of 
something unholy in riches. 

The twofold character of the materials to which we 
have now alluded is best seen in its contradictory aspect 
at xvi. 16, 17 : The law and the prophets were until 
John : since that time the kingdom of God is preached, 
and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for hea 
ven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. 
The sixteenth verse gives a Pauline view of the law, viz. 
that Mosaism ceased with the Baptist, which cannot be 
the original sentiment ; and yet the perpetuity of the law 
in all its minutiae is immediately subjoined. The words 
in Matthew, all the prophets and the law prophesied 
until John are more original. Luke s object was to 
bridge over the ground between Jewish and Gentile 
Christians, by the introduction of a moderate P animism. 

4. The evangelist has a considerable portion of new 
matter. Thus he has the parable of the two debtors 
(vii.), of the Good Samaritan (x.), of the friend going 
to another at night to borrow bread (xi.), the rich man 
who built large barns (xii.), of the barren fig-tree 
(xiii.), the lost piece of silver (xv.), the prodigal son 
(xv. ), the unjust steward (xvi.), the rich man and 
Lazarus (xvi.), the unjust judge (xviii.), and the Phari 
see and publican (xviii.). Pie records the miraculous 
draught of fishes (v.), the raising of the widow of Nain s 
son (vii.). the cure of a woman having a spirit of in 
firmity (xiii.), of a dropsical man (xiv.), of ten lepers 



472 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

(xvii.), the conversion of Zaccheus (xix.), the healing 
of Malchus s ear (xxii.), and the journey of two dis 
ciples to Emmaus (xxiv.). 

The first two chapters are also peculiar to him. 
Besides these larger portions, many smaller incidents 
and traits are given by him alone, such as the questions 
put by the people to John the Baptist and his answers 
(iii. 10-14), the anointing of Jesus by the woman (vii. 
3650), his weeping over Jerusalem (xix. 3944), the 
topic of Jesus s conversation with Moses and Elijah on 
the mount of transfiguration (ix. 2836), the assurance 
to Simon that his faith should not fail (xxii. 31, 32), 
the bloody sweat (44), the fact of Jesus being sent to 
Herod (xxiii. 7-12), his words addressed to the women 
that followed him when he was led away to crucifixion 
(27-31), and the penitent thief (40-43). We also owe 
to Luke those affecting words, so appropriate and 
beautiful, which Jesus uttered as he expired, Father, 
into thy hands I commend my spirit. The language 
which Matthew puts into his lips, My God, my God, 
why hast thou forsaken me ? may be original, as it 
agrees Avith the epistle to the Hebrews, v. 7 ; but that 
given by Luke seems entitled to equal credit. 

The principal omissions of Luke are Matt. xiv. 3 
xvi. 12 ; xix. 1-12 ; xxi. 1-16, 20-28 ; xxvi. 6-13. 

5. The part of Luke s gospel which is peculiar and 
in several respects embarrassing, is ix. 51-xviii. 14, 
commencing with Christ s preparation to depart from 
Galilee for Jerusalem, and ending before his arrival at 
Jericho. It is distinguished from the rest of the gospel, 
by its containing discourses rather than facts. The 
position which all the precepts, parables, and speeches 
here occupy, represents them as delivered in the interval 
between Christ s preparation to leave Galilee and his 
arrival at Jericho. Yet it is certain that some of the 
discourses and parables are put in a wrong place. Thus 
Jesus s lamentation over the fate of Jerusalem (xxiii. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 473 

34, 35), was uttered after his arrival there. Matthew 
says that it happened in the temple (xxiii. 37-39). The 
section begins with the announcement that Jesus is 
about to leave Galilee and go to Jerusalem through 
Samaria ; but from x. 25 and onward He is still in 
Galilee. In ix. 53 the Samaritans are said to have 
refused Him hospitality, because His face was set for 
Jerusalem ; yet this city was not the immediate, but 
remote object of His journey. The Galilean ministry 
of Jesus is presented in a different aspect by Luke from 
that of Matthew. The latter makes it proceed calmly 
in a natural order of development, till the time when 
the antagonism of His enemies had gathered strength to 
accomplish His death. Remote from the centre of 
Judaism, in a province of Palestine not much esteemed, 
Jesus is represented as actively engaged in His divine 
mission till the time had come that he should go to 
Jerusalem and meet the full force of Jewish enmity. 
Luke does not present the subject in this light. In 
stead of Jesus spending the greater part of His ministry 
in Galilee, the evangelist shortens His abode there to 
throw the main portion of that ministry into the jour 
ney which he took before suffering, dying, and rising 
again. Luke makes His death and resurrection the 
great end and object of His life. Hence this journey 
contains Jesus s chief conflicts with the Pharisees and 
scribes. The nearer he approaches Jerusalem, the more 
vehement and frequent do these conflicts become. Thus 
the materials are separated by Luke. The anti- Jewish 
side of Jesus s ministry is singled out and receives a 
more definite place by itself, instead of being thrown 
along with the general mass of the materials composing 
the evangelical history. How far the sources which 
Luke followed in these eight chapters contributed to 
their peculiar arrangement, it is impossible to know. 
One of them usually called a (jnomology, was probably 
a collection of discourses which had been gradually 



474 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

formed by accessions of new matter. Bishop Marsh 
has remarked, that throughout the whole of the long 
section (Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14) not one of the places in 
which parables and discourses were delivered is men 
tioned by name ; and that therefore the gnomology had 
the same iiidefiniteness. 1 It is doubtful, however, 
whether that was a principal cause of Luke s ignoring 
the time when many of the discourses were delivered. 
The indefinite way in which places are mentioned (ix. 
52 ; x. 38 ; xi. 1 ; xvii. 12) may be owing to the sub 
jectivity of the evangelist, or his wish to be consistent 
by not naming places and times that would clash with 
the commencement. One thing is certain that the 
writer was conscientious in altering the arrangement of 
the materials constituting the evangelical history rather 
than the materials themselves ; though such arrange 
ment disturbs symmetrical unity. The order of the 
first gospel is usually natural ; that of the third arti 
ficial, the result of the evangelist s Pauline ideas. 

6. Luke shows circumstantiality and exactness, in 
separating particulars and incidents which are grouped 
in Matthew. His pictorial power is considerable, es 
pecially in vii. 110 and viii. 4156 ; but it is not equal 
to Mark s, though superior to Matthew s. In general 
his narrative is loose and unconnected, one event suc 
ceeding another without definite mark of time or 
proper formula of transition. This does not look as if he 
intended to mark chronolgical succession. Indefinite 
expressions are frequent, such as and it came to pass 
when he was in a certain city (v. 12) ; and it came 
to pass on a certain day (v. 17) ; and it came to 
pass also on another sabbath (vi. 6) ; and one of the 
Pharisees desired him (vii. oG) ; now it came to pass 
on a certain day (viii. 22) ; now Herod the tetrareh 
heard of all, etc. (ix. 7) ; it came to pass, as lie was 
alone praying (ix. 18) ; then there arose a reasoning 

1 Translation of Michadis, vol. iii. part i. pp. 404, 405, 2nd ed. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 475 

among them (ix. 46) ; and it came to pass that as 
he was praying in a certain place (xi. 1) ; l and he 
was casting out a devil (xi. 14) ; and he was 
teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath 
(xiii. 10) ; l then said he (xiii. 18) ; and it came to 
pass as he went into the house of one of the chief Pha 
risees to eat bread on the sabbath day (xiv. 1) ; and 
there went great multitudes with him (xiv. 25) ; then 
drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to 
hear him (xv. 1) ; and he said also unto his disciples 
(xvi. 1) ; and when he was demanded of the Pharisees 
(xvii. 20) ; and it came to pass that on one of those 
days (xx. 1). This prominent feature attracts greater 
attention because of Luke s announcement to write 
everything in chronological succession. His sources 
did not furnish minute specifications of time, and he 
could not supply the deficiency. On the whole, the 
gospel is distinguished by its selection and arrangement 
of pre-existing materials, not by their thorough recast. 
They are modified, but not extensively. Instead of 
being moulded and melted afresh, they are exposed and 
distributed in a different way, without radical transfor 
mation. The tendency of the author does not reach a 
complete remodelling of the synoptic literature. His 
mediating spirit is that of the post- apostolic period, 
when strict Paulinism was diluted by concessions, and 
the sharp angles of opposing views had disappeared. 

RELATION BETWEEN THE GOSPEL AND THAT OF MARCION. 

The connection of Marcion with the present gospel 
has been a fruitful source of discussion. That early 
heretic, as he is called, looked upon Paul as the only 
genuine apostle, and the primitive ones as corrupters of 
evangelical truth. In conformity with his peculiar 
views, he rejected all parts of the New Testament, ex 
cept Paul s epistles. Discarding the gospels, lie had 
one of his own, which he held to be the evangelical re- 



476 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

cord used by Paul himself. The question is, What was 
Marcion s original gospel, sanctioned, as he affirmed, by 
Paul himself ? Was it an independent document, older 
than the canonical Luke and the basis of it ? This is 
the view upheld by Ritschl l and Baur 2 with great 
acuteness, and maintained with an amount of ingenuity 
which might have been more usefully applied. Was it 
the gospel of Luke, abridged and mutilated to suit his 
purpose ? Such is the opinion of Tertullian, Irenasus, 
Epiphanius, and the fathers generally, which Volkmar 3 
has proved with convincing arguments against Ritschl 
and Baur. The old opinion will not be seriously dis 
turbed again while the treatise of Volkmar exists. 
Doctrinal motives led the Gnostic heretic to alter and 
mutilate the third gospel. The Pauline type of doctrine 
harmonised best with Marcion s anti-Jewish gnosis. 

The use of Marcion s gospel now is to correct 
Luke s text, or to furnish at least some readings equal 
in value to those of ancient MSS. A few original ones 
may be collected from the fragments which remain. 
Thus in xi. 2, it is probable that his let thy Holy 
Spirit come is original, instead of l hallowed be thy 
name/ borrowed apparently from Matt. vi. 9. In x. 22, 
it is pretty certain that the original reading was ( no one 
knew 4 the Father, save the Son, etc. ; the present tense 
knoweth having got into the text from the use made of 
the aorist by the Gnostics. The same reading is im 
plied in Justin. 5 It is also in the Clementine Homilies, 6 
with a slight variation. According to Irenaaus, 7 the 
Marcosians had it. Clement and Origen use it in almost 
all their citations, and Tertullian has cognovit (knew). 8 

1 Das Evangelium Marcion s und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas. 
1846. 

2 Kritische Untersuchunyen iiber die kanonischen Evangelien, p. 397, 
et seq. 

3 Das Evangelium Marcion s. 1852. 4 lyi/co not yivwa-Kti. 

5 Apol. i. 63. Dial. 100. e xvii> 4 . xviii> 4? 13> 2 Q. 

7 Ado. Hares, i. 20. 3. 8 Ado. Marcion. ii. 27. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 477 

It is also highly probable that Marcion has preserved 
the original text in Luke xviii. 19, Why callest thou 
me good ? One is good, the Father/ l The same 
applies to v. 39, which verse was omitted by Marcion ; 
and the sense is better without it. In xvii. 2, it is 
doubtful whether the reading, it were good for him if 
he had not been born 2 be older than our present one. 
In xvi. 17, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass 
away, than for one tittle of my words to fall ; 8 the 
originality of the phrase in italics is advocated by Baur 
and Hilgenfeld, not only because they suit the context, 
but because Tertullian seems to admit them and does 
not accuse his opponent of altering the text. 

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 

"We have just seen that the gospel was prior to Mar 
cion, i.e. before A.D. 130. An old witness to the exis 
tence of it has been found in the New Testament itself, 
viz. 1 Tim. v. 18, where we read, i for the Scripture saith^ 
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. 
And, The labourer is worthy of his hire. The formula, 
The Scripture saith, marks the words as a quotation ; 
and the latter clause occurs only in Luke x. 7. The 
quotation does not carry the date of Luke up to the first 
century, nor beyond A.D. 110 ; for the first epistle to 
Timothy was not written by Paul. 

It was regarded at first as the document of a private 
man, which put forth no claims to apostolicity or public 
authority ; and Marcion introduced it into the circle of 
apostolic writings by using it as a primitive source of 
Pauline doctrine. 

The work itself exhibits evidence of appearing after 
the destruction of Jerusalem. The immediate coming 

o 

of the Son of man is not held forth. Thus when Mat- 



5 ri (or /xi?) p,f Xe yfre dyadov ; (Is fvTiv dya66s, 6 
~ \vo~iTf\el aiVco ei OVK yevf]6rj, 
3 T&V Aoycoi> juov pi(.iv Kfpaiav 



478 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

thew says, There be some standing here which shall 
not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming 
in his kingdom/ Luke has, till they see the kingdom 
of God. In Matthew, after Jesus had announced the 
impending destruction of Jerusalem, the apostles ask 
1 When shall these things be ? and what shall be the 
sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world ? but 
in Luke the apostles merely repeat the first question 
about the destruction of Jerusalem, What sign will there 
be when, these things (the destruction of Jerusalem) 
shall come to pass ? Matthew puts the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the second advent in close succession, 
immediately after the tribulation of those days, etc. ; 
while Luke writes, These things must first come to 
pass, but the end is not immediately! Before all these 
things they shall lay their hands on you and persecute 
you, etc. It is also observable, that whereas Matthew 
makes the second coming succeed the desecration of the 
temple as a part of the end, (xxiv. 14), Luke omits the 
words then shall the end come, putting And when ye 
shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know 
that the desolation thereof is nigh (xxi. 20). A careful 
comparison shows that Luke separates two events which 
Matthew puts closely together. The destruction of 
Jerusalem was already past. xxi. 24 implies that 
Jerusalem had been trodden down by the Gentiles, till 
iheir times should be fulfilled. Experience had shown 
that no alteration or improvement in the existing state 
of things could be expected soon after the Jewish state 
was dissolved ; but that the Roman yoke must be en 
dured for a while. When this evangelist wrote, the 
Christians had been exposed to persecution, which is 
put before the wars and rebellions, reversing the order 
of succession given by Matthew, and showing that the 
latter had not occurred, though the persecutions had. 
The writer indicates a date posterior to the destruction 
of Jerusalem by changing the succession of events. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 479 

These considerations, along with the gospel s posteri 
ority to that of Matthew, lead to the conclusion that it 
Avas not written before the beginning of the second cen 
tury, perhaps about A.D. 110. 

It is not easy to ascertain the birthplace of the 
document. Some phenomena favour Koine ; others, 
Asia Minor. The former is more probable. The writer 
supposes that his readers were not well acquainted with 
Palestine, as we see from i. 26 ; iv. 31 ; xxiv. 13. But 
his geographical explanations cease, when the narrative 
relates to Italy (Acts xxviii.). Hence it is likely that 
he wrote in Rome. Kostlin s attempt to fix upon 
Ephesus has been refuted by Zeller ; and the Achaia or 
Macedonia hypothesis of Hilgenfeld is as baseless as the 
Ca?sarean one of Michaelis and Tholuck. If the gospel 
was written at Rome, Marcion got his first knowledge 
of it there. 

SOURCES. 

Inquiry into the sources of Luke yields little profit. 
Beyond the very probable view that the evangelist used 
the canonical Matthew, and the Gospel according to the 
HebreAvs, there is much uncertainty. In ix. 51 xviii. 
14, it is likely that written documents were employed ; 
but it is impossible to ascertain their nature and number. 
The hypotheses of critics respecting Luke s sources are 
no more than guesses. Those of Scholten and Wittichen 
are untenable. Nor can Volkmar s be approved, though 
it seems a very simple thing to make Mark s the one 
source of Luke s gospel. Baur and Keim are nearer 
the truth ; Hilgenfeld, by associating Mark with Mat 
thew for the sources employed, is farther from it. 

FOK WHOM WRITTEN. 

The immediate purpose for which the evangelist 
wrote was the instruction of Theophilus, who must have 



480 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

been a Gentile, not a native or inhabitant of Palestine. 
The epithet translated most excellent prefixed to the 
name, has been thought to indicate rank, because it is 
assigned to Felix and Festus in the Acts. But it does 
not necessarily show that he was a man of eminence or 
authority. The word rather indicates the affectionate 
regard which the evangelist entertained for him. 1 The 
opinion that Theophilus lived in Italy, perhaps at Rome, 
has been favourably received. It is founded on his 
supposed acquaintance with the geography of Italy and 
Sicily, shown in Acts xxviii. And the fact that expla 
natory geographical remarks are wanting in the record 
of apostolic travels through Asia Minor, Macedonia, and 
Greece (Acts xiii. xvi.), while the historian hastens to 
the conclusion in the latter part of the book, is supposed 
to favour the same view. Little weight belongs to 
that sort of proof. That the evangelist had a Gentile 
or Gentiles in view, is apparent from the tenor of the 
gospel. Many of his explanations would have been un 
necessary for Jews, as the feast of unleavened bread 
drew nigh, which is called the passover* (xxii. 1); and 
at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is 
called the mount of Olives (xxi. 37); Capernaum, a city 
of Galilee (iv. 31); a city of Galilee named Nazareth 
(i. 26); l Arimathea, a city of the Jews (xxiii. 51); 
the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against 
Galilee 1 (viii. 26); Emmaus, which was f om Jerusalem 
about threescore furlongs (xxiv. 13). He also appears to 
give the Greek inscription over the cross. The genea 
logy of Jesus is traced up to Adam, the common parent 
of the human family ; while Matthew traces it to Abra 
ham. The reigns of Roman emperors are also employed 
for marking the date of Jesus s birth and John s preach 
ing. Again, while Matthew, referring to the Old Testa 
ment, speaks of what Moses said, or of that which was 
spoken by God, Luke refers to what is written. There 

1 It was not unusual to employ it as nearly synonymous with 0/Xraroy. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 481 

is, therefore, little doubt that the evangelist, himself a 
Gentile, wrote for Gentiles, as Origen long ago remarked. 
He meant to instruct Theophilus, that the friend might 
have a consecutive history on which he could rely. 

LANGUAGE AND STYLE. 

The diction of the evangelist is the same in substance 
as that of the other synoptists ; purer and less Hebraic, 
with the exception of the first two chapters. The pre 
face is remarkably pure, presenting a contrast not only 
to the 1st chapter, which has many Hebraisms, but in a 
less marked degree to the whole of the gospel. It has 
therefore been thought, that had the author been at 
liberty to follow his own inclination or judgment, the 
work would have been composed in more classical 
Greek. 

The three hymns in the 1st chapter, which are chiefly 
made up of passages from the Old Testament, are the 
most Hebraic ; next to them, the speeches incorporated 
in the narrative ; last of all, the narrative itself. The 
following are the leading peculiarities. 

1. eyeVero iv re?, i.e. D Hn with an infinitive fol 
lowing, occurs twenty-three times ; in Mark twice ; not 
in Matthew. The construction lv TO> with the infinitive 
occurs thirty-seven times in Luke ; in Matthew thrice. 

2. eyeVero &>s in designations of time, six times ; or 
o> without eyeVero, nine times. 

3. eyeWro Se or KOI eyeWro with KOL and KOL tSov, 
ii. 6-9 ; v. 12, 17, 18 ; viii. 40, 41 ; ix. 29, 30, 37-39 ; 
xiv. 1,2; xxiv. 4. 

4. The combination of a protasis (such as KOL iv T 
with an infinitive or KOL eyeVero) witli an apodosis be 
ginning with Kal is peculiar to Luke, ii. 27, 28 ; v. 1. 

5. Two substantives are united, the latter serving to 
explain the former. This is especially the case with 
dSi/aa, a word that does not occur in Matthew, but 

VOL. I. I I 



482 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

which is four times in Luke : xiii. 27 ; xvi. 8, 9 ; xviii. 6. 
Similar combinations are Paimo-pa /^eraz/otas in. 3 ; 
TTvevfJia SaifJiovLOv iv. 33. 

6. The frequent use of KapSia answering to nb is 
seen in such phrases as Siarripelv, o-ujn/SaXXew iv rfj 
KapSia, TiOecrOai iv rats /ca^Stais. 

7. t>i//icTT09, ]V U V, is applied to God five times. 
Mark has it once. 

8. ol/co?, meaning household, family, fV3, is peculiar 
to the third gospel and the Acts, though found in the 
epistles. 

9. 0,770 TOV vvv, nriVQ, occurs four times. 

10. vofjiiKOL is used six times for the customary 

, because more intelligible to Gentiles. 

11. eVtcrrar^s for pafifii, also six times, shows a 
like preference. 

12. oLTTTtw \v^yov or Trvp instead of KCLLZIV \v^yov^ 
four times ; not in Matthew or Mark. 

13. The sea of Galilee is called Xt/^, not 0aXacrcra, 
five times. 

14. TrapaXeXv/xeVos occurs twice (or once, according 
to another reading). Matthew and Mark have always 



15. The neuter participle with the article is fre 
quently employed instead of a substantive, as in ii. 27; 
iv. 16; viii. 34; xxii. 22; xxiv. 14. 

16. The infinitive with the genitive of the article, 
indicating design or result : i. 9, 57, 73 ; ii. 21, 27 ; v. 7 ; 
xii. 42 ; xxi. 22 ; xxii. 6, 31 ; xxiv. 16, 25, 29, twenty- 
five times in all. Mark has it once, and Matthew six 
times. 

17. The substantive verb with a participle is often 
used for the finite verb : i. 10, 20, 21, 22 ; ii. 26, 51 ; iv. 
16, 20, 31, 38, 44 ; v. 1, 11, 17, 18, 29 ; vi. 12 ; vii. 8 ; 
viii. 40 ; ix. 45, 53 ; xi. 14 ; xii. 52 ; xiii. 10, 11 ; xiv. 1 ; 
xv. 1 ; xvii. 35 ; xix. 47 ; xxi. 17, 24 ; xxiii. 12 ; xxiv. 
13, 32 ; forty-eight times in all. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 483 

18. The use of Se KOL for the sake of emphasis is 
frequent, as in ii. 4 ; iii. 9, etc. ; twenty-nine times alto 
gether. 

19. el Se /^ye occurs five times. Mark and John 
have only et Se ^77. 

20. The neuter article is put before interrogatory 
clauses : i. 62 ; ix. 46 ; xix. 48 ; xxii. 2, 4, 23, 24. 

21. The preposition crvv occurs very often, twenty- 
four times in the gospel, and fifty-one in the Acts. 
Matthew and Mark have /xera instead, or avoid the use 
of it. 

22. arevi&Lv followed by eis, or with the dative : iv. 
20 ; xxii. 56. Paul is the only other writer who has 
it twice, in the second epistle to the Corinthians. 

23. elirew TT/OOS is very frequent in the gospel. Xe yeiz; 
77/309 also occurs. So does XaXeii> Trpds. The first is 
used elsewhere only in the fourth gospel. The same 
construction is found with other verbs, as a7ro/<y)<j ecr#(u, 
aTrayye XXetz , crvt^reiv : \a\elv irepi, TWOS also occurs four 
times, which the other synoptists avoid. 

24. Participles are frequent, to give vividness to the 
narrative, as iSwz , dmo-ras, e yep^ecs, o-rpafais, eVtcrTpe / i//a5, 
crra^eis, eVicrTa?, ecrrwg, /caA cras, Trecrw^. Luke even 
puts two together without a copula, as ii. 36 ; iii. 23 ; 
iv. 20; v. 11, etc. 

25. The evangelist shows a preference for verbs 
compounded with Sta and eVi, as also for verbs com 
pounded with two prepositions, such as 



26. avrjp is used with substantives, as 
v. 8 ; xix. 7 ; and Trpo(f)TJTr)$ xxiv. 19. 

27. lepovo-akyjp, is commonly written ; 

which Mark and John alone have, being less frequent. 
lepovcraXijp, is but once in Matthew, xxiii. 37. 

28. x^/ 019 occurs eight times in the gospel ; in the 
Acts oftener. It is not in Matthew and Mark ; and in 
John only three times. 

I T 2 



484 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

29. evayyeXiojum often occurs. It is but once in 
Matthew ; never in Mark or John. 

30. vTroo-Tptfaiv occurs twenty-two times. In Mat 
thew it is not found ; and in Mark but once. 

31. tyicrTavaL is a favourite verb with the evangelist. 
It is not used in the other three gospels. 

32. Bi^p^eorOai is frequent in the gospel and the 
Acts. It occurs only twice in Matthew/ Mark, and 
John respectively. 

33. Trapa^prjiJia occurs very often. It is only twice 
in Matthew. 

34. ZVMTTIOV is twenty-one times in the gospel ; once 
in John, and not in Matthew or Mark. 

35. Luke in general is fond of words and expres 
sions indicative of fulness, such as TrX^p^s, TrXrjpoa), 
77X77 $o>, ir\r)0vva)j TrXrjpo^opeai, etc. 

36. eXeog occurs only in the neuter. Matthew uses 
it in the masculine. 

37. Luke uses anas frequently, though it seldom 
appears elsewhere. It occurs but nine times in the 
New Testament besides. 

38. Luke is partial to KOL aurog, as he uses it twenty- 
eight times. In Matthew it only occurs two or three 
times ; in Mark four or five times. KOL GLVTOI occurs 
thirteen times ; in Mark not at all, and in Matthew but 
twice. cd/ros 6 is used fourteen times by Luke, three 
times by Mark, and once by Matthew. 

39. KO! OUTOS five times. Only in Matt. xxvi. 71. 
Luke alone unites this pronoun with an interrogative 
or numeral without a connecting particle, as xvi. 2 ; 
xxiv. 26. He also puts on after TOVTO x. 11 ; xii. 39, 
which Matthew and Mark never do. In one case Iva 
follows the latter, i. 43. 

40. Luke is partial to the use of the infinitive with 
the article. Besides SLOL TO, which occurs much oftener 
than in Matthew and Mark, he has rrpo and perd with 
the infinitive. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 485 

41. TI S apa, TL a/aa, i. 66 ; viii. 25 ; xii. 42 ; xxii. 
23, also in the Acts. In Mark twice, and in Matthew 
four times. 

42. The form Sowcu, with the dative of a person 
and accusative of a thing, is often employed, as in i. 73, 
etc. 

43. loelv TO yeyovos ii. 15 ; viii. 34. Mark has 
yeyovos but once, and then in a different construction 
from Luke. 

44. jLtera Tavra often occurs, but is in neither Mat 
thew nor Mark. 

45. The word crrpa^eis eight times. Only twice in 
Matthew. 

46. 7To\\a erepa hi. 18 ; xxii. 65. 

47. Peculiar combinations with Kara. Thus Luke 
alone has Kara TO $05, or KOLTOL TO ei(u#o9, or KOLTOL TO 
tiQur^ivQv. Ka.ff r)iJipav five times. /car eros ii. 41. 
The preposition is also used with the genitive in a pecu 
liar way to denote place : iv. 14 ; xxiii. 5. 

48. The individualising expressions eis ra wra i. 
44 ; ix. 44 ; Iv rols MCT IV iv. 21 ; and ets ras d/coas 
vii. 1. 

49. Paraphrastic expressions with evpio-Ktiv v. 19 ; 
xix. 48 ; and e^iv TL TTOLCLV vii. 42 ; ix. 58 ; xi. 6 ; xii. 
17, 50 ; xiv. 14. 

50. Kal ore and KOL ws often introduce the protasis. 

51. The perfect participle of tcrr^/xt and its com 
pounds is never ecrr^/cws, but always ecrroj?. 

52. With respect to particles, p,ev ovv and re mark 
Luke s phraseology, though the latter occurs four times 
in Matthew, and once in Mark ; also Kal yap and loov 
yap. 

53. el? eWaaTo? peculiar to Luke. 

54. TO, Kept TWOS xxii. 37 ; xxiv. 19, 27 ; only in the 
epistles to the Philippians and Colossians besides. 

55. The interrogative rts av i. 62 ; vi. 11 ; ix. 46. 

56. voit^w with the accusative and infinitive after it. 



486 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

57. Luke often uses a plural relating to a preceding 
7r\7J0os, as xix. 37. 

58. Xa\ew> prjua i. 65 ; ii. 17, 50 ; only in Matt, xii. 
36. 

59. Of all the New Testament writers, Luke has 
oftenest the relative of attraction. There are examples 
in which the relative pronoun adapts its case to that 
of Tras immediately preceding : iii. 19 ; ix. 43 ; xix. 
37 ; xxiv. 25. 

60. Luke is fonder of the optative than others, in 
the indirect construction : i. 29, 62 ; iii. 15 ; vi. 11 ; ix. 
46 ; xv. 26 ; xviii. 36 ; xxii. 23. 

61. The name of the father without the article is 
put after Ovyar-qp i. 5 ; ii. 36 ; xiii. 16 ; xxiii. 28. This 
appears elsewhere only in citations : Matt. xxi. 5 ; John 
xii. 15 ; Hebr. xi. 24. 

62. Combinations with i^uepa, especially rj^epa TWV 
cra/B/BdTwv or TOV cra/B/3oiTov : iv. 16 ; xiii. 14, 16 ; xiv. 5. 

63. irplv TJ is connected with the conjunctive in ii. 
26 ; perhaps in xxii. 34. Elsewhere it is always fol 
lowed by the infinitive . 

64. No other evangelist speaks of the Trvev^a aywv 
as often as Luke, who has peculiar expressions along 
with it, such as TrXrjcrOfjvaL Tn evjuaTO? ayiov. 

65. Luke employs TO elp-qpevov in citations, where 
Matthew has TO p-qOfr : ii. 24 ; Acts ii. 16 ; xiii. 40. 
So also eipyjTai iv. 12. eiprjKev xxii. 13. Only Mat 
thew has elprjKO)*; xxvi. 75. 

66. Luke has vvv where Matthew has apn. The 
latter he never employs. 

67. ajji^oTepoi occurs six times, three times in the 
Acts. In Matthew three times. 

68. avaiptiv xxii. 2 ; xxiii. 32. Only once in Mat 
thew. 

69. avicTTaivai, especially the forms avecrrr], GivacrTds, 
etc., are much commoner in Luke than in the other 
evangelists. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 487 

70. aTras twenty times in the gospel alone, and 
nearly as many in the Acts. In Matthew and Mark 
three times each. 

71. axpi four times. Except Matt. xxiv. 38, the 
other evangelists have f^e^pt. 

72. (3oav three times, and once in a quotation. The 
other evangelists have it only in quotations. 

73. ppayiw except in Luke only once in John. 

74. Set. Luke uses it oftener than all the New Testa 
ment writers together, and especially with /xe, ii. 49, 
etc. 

75. Seo/Jitu, only in Matt. ix. 38 besides. 

76. Se^co-flac, fifteen times. In Matthew six, and in 
Mark three times. 

77. Swu/oiycw ii. 23 ; xxiv. 31, 32, 45. Only in 
Mark vii. 34, 35, besides. 

78. Staracro-ec^, only once in Matthew besides. 

79. Sto i. 35 ; vii. 7 ; and ten times in the Acts. 
Only once in Matthew, not in Mark. 

80. Sofaeiz> rov Qeov eight times. Twice in Mat 
thew, and once in Mark. 

81. eav iv. 41 ; xxii. 51. In the Acts eight times. 
Only once in Matthew. 

82. #09 three times. Once in John. 

83. eto-ayet^, only once in John, but frequent in 
Luke. Not in Matthew or Mark. 

84. dcr(f)pLv four times, and once in the Acts. 
Matthew has it once. 

85. eXm^eiz/ three times, in the Acts twice. Once 
in Matthew and once in John. 

86. Ivavrlov, only in Mark besides, ii. 12, where the 
reading is doubtful. 

87. IvOaSe xxiv. 41, and five times in the Acts. 
Elsewhere only in John iv. 15, 16. 

88. lva>7riov twenty times. Not in Matthew or Mark ; 
and only once in John. 



488 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

89. cgatyvy? ii. 13 ; ix. 39 ; the Acts. Only in 
Mark xiii. 36 besides. 

90. l7raipeiv six times. Once in Matthew, four 
times in John. 

91. 7riXaiJi/3avo-0ai five times. Once in Matthew, 
and once in Mark. 

92. iTrnriiTTeiv i. 12 ; xv. 20, eight times in the 
Acts. Not in Matthew. In Mark once. In John 
once. 

93. 7TLo-K7rT6a-9ai three times in the gospel, and 
three times in the Acts. Twice in Matthew, but in no 
other evangelist. 

o 

94. eros, a favourite word. Only once in Matthew, 
and twice in Mark. 

95. euayyeXiecr#cu ten times. Only once in Mat 
thew. 

96. euXoyeu riva ii. 34 ; vi. 28 ; ix. 16 ; xxiv. 50- 
53. Once in Matthew (?), and once in Mark. 

97. rjyeio-Oai xxii. 26. In the Acts, four times. 
Only in the citation Matt. ii. 6 besides. 

98. OavjidLv ITTL nvi four times. Once in Mark. 



99. IKWOS nine times. Eighteen times in the Acts. 
Three times each in Matthew and Mark. 

100. t/xarto-juto? twice, once in the Acts. Matt. 
xxvii. 35 ? 

101. KaOaipelv three times, and in the Acts three 
times. Twice in Mark. 

102. KOLTOLvoeiv four times. Once in Matthew. 

103. Kara^)L\eiv three times in the gospel, and once 
in the Acts. One in Matthew and Mark each. 

104. Koviopros twice in the gospel, and twice in the 
Acts. Once in Matthew. 

105. KTacrOai twice, in the Acts three times. Once 
in Matthew. 

106. \a.Tpev(Liv three times. Five times in the Acts. 
Once in Matthew in a quotation. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 489 

107. Xijuos four times. Once in Matthew, and once 
in Mark. 

108. oLKov^vrj three times. The Acts, five times ; 
Matthew, once. 

109. opOpos once in the gospel, and once in the 
Acts. In John viii. 2 ? 

110. 7re///7rea> frequent in Luke. Only once in Mark, 
and four times in Matthew. 

111. TrX^og, a favourite word, especially with trap 
TO before it. It occurs only in the singular. Mark iii. 
7,8. 

112. Troieiv TLVL 7i i. 25, 49 ; viii. 39. n^rd 
i. 58, 72 ; x. 37 ; the Acts. Such expressions as 

i. 51 ; \vTpMoriv i. 68 ; eXeos i. 72 ; x. 37 ; 
Li> xviii. 7, 8. 

113. TTpocrSoKav six times. Matthew, twice. 

114. Trpoa-TiOlvai often. Twice in Matthew, and 
twice in Mark. 

115. crvyKokeiv four times. Mark, once. 

116. crvXXaiJifidvtLv seven times. In Matthew and 
Mark once each. 

117. crvv)(iv six times. Once in Matthew. 

118. TVTTTCIV five times. Matthew twice. Mark 
once. 

119. vTrdpyeiv seven times in the gospel, and much 
oftener in the Acts ; but not in the other gospels. 

120. viToStiKvvvai three times in the gospel, and 
twice in the Acts. Matthew has it once. 

121. (f)v\dcra-LV six times. Once in Matthew and 
Mark each. 

122. xaXai> twice in the gospel, three times in the 
Acts. Once in Mark. 

123. Several Latin words are -used by the evangelist : 
^rjvdpiov vii. 41 ; Xeyewz/ viii. 30 ; (rovSdpiov xix. 20 ; 
dcrordpiov xii. 6 ; /xoStos xi. 33. 

124. The following are used by Luke alone among 
the evangelists : 



400 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



, dyaXXiacris, ay/caXi^, ctypa, dypaiAeiz , dyco- 
via, arjSia ( ?), alnov, at^aXwro?, dXXoye^s, d 
afjL^id&iv ( ?), d*>dyii>, d*>dyecr#ai to set sail, d 
d^d8etft9, dvdOrjfJia, dmiSeia, ava&jTelv, dvaKaOLttiv, ovd- 
XT?I//CS, di aTT^po?, dm7rpdcr<Teiz>(?), dz a.Trrucro-eiz (?), dt d- 
, d^ardcrcrecr^ai, ava<f)Oiivtcr6oiL, avafywtiv, 
, d^eVSe/cro?, d^evptcr/cei^, d^^o/xoXoyeicr^ai, d^- 

oXeiV, aVTlkejtLV, OiVTL- 

^ dvatrepov, OLLOVV, a 

v to tax, a 



d?ro- 



drro7T\vv.iv ( ?), d/Tropta, dTrocrroju-art^et^, a 
( ?), dTrort^cxcrcret^, d7roi//^etz^, ap?, dporpov, d 
dcrrpaTTTeLVj drcKvos, dre^t^et^, are/o, aroTros, 
avpiov, avcrTTjpos, Kara rd aura Troieiv, 



, fiapvveLv ( ?), rd ^SacrtXeta, ^8dros, 
, /Bov\r) TOV @eou, ySov^ds, /3paSus, fi 
to moisten, fiplfyos, ^wcrt/io?, ySucrcro?, 
yrjpas, yivecrOai avv TLVI, y^cDcrrd? known, Sa/cn;X(,oj>, 8a- 
ct^, Sevens, Secr/xet^ and rd e<T/xa, 



in addressing God 



, Stayoyyv^et^, Stayp^yopew, StaStScWi, Sta- 

taXetTret^, 8ta/x,apTupecr$(u, 
eti^, Sta^d^/xa, Staz^i /crepeve^ 
revea OoLL, Stacreteti^, Starapdcrcret^, 

, Sta^wpt^ecr^at, Sn7yi]O"t5, Sucrrd^at, Sticr- 
i/cacrT^?, StoSeuet^, Stem, Sdy/ua, SouX^, 
iKos, ey/<:d^T05, ey/cvos, eSac^c 
, e/c/cpe/xao-^at, IK\LTTLV, e/c/xdcrcret^, C 



, e^Se^ecr^at, et>eSpeu(j>, e 

^, e^atreicr^ai, efacrrpaTrrei^, ^5, eTrayyeXta, t 



, e77t/3t/3d^t^, eT 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 491 

eVicrm<TjU,ds, eTncr^veti^ eTTK/xy^etz , eTn^et/Det^, 
eTri^eeiz , al eprjfjiOL the wilderness, ecr$7^?, ecr^crt? (?)> 
ecrTrepa, eue/oyer^s, ev#ero<?, evXa/^s, evpi(TK6ii> yapiv, eurd- 



TO 

ia, Opaveiv, 0pop./Bo 

ia, iepaTeveLV, t/c^ag, ikacrKeorOai, tcrcog, /caSo?, Ka6e- 
teVat, /ca^oTrXt^ecr^at, /cavort, /ca/coupyo?, Kara- 
j^erd rtz^o?, /cara^Sacri?, /caraSeei^, /cara/cXetetz/, 
iviv, KaTaKoXovOeiv, KaTaKprj^vL^iv, /caraXt^a^et^, 
ueti^, /carafcXetet^, KaTacrvpeLV, KaTaonfiaTTtw, /cara- 



iov, /cXacris (TOT) aprou), K\LVL rj rjfjiepa, /cXt^tSio^, 
/cXtcrta, KOfjiL^iv actively, KOTrpua and /co 

/C0p05, KpCLLTToXri, fC^)aTt(TTO<?, KpaTOS, KpVTTTT), 

o?, Xetog, X^yoo?, Xt/x^, XvcrtreXet, XvTpovv, Xv 
t^et^, /la/cpds, /xacrrd?, juteyaXeta, jLteyaXetdr^?, /xe- 
Xicrcr609, /xeptcrTTyg, /xerewyc t^ecr^at, /xe 

a, /xoyis, ^o/otoScSacr/caXo?, ^dro?, dSe, oSeuet^, o 
oiKTipfJiaiv, OLKOVOIJLOS) oiK 

, 0^61805, oTrdre, OTTTOS, opet^d?, opOpi^ziv, 
, oucria, 6(/>/oi;5, oyeicrOai,, Trayt?, TratSeuet^, 77 770,19, 
, 7Ta^7T\r)OeL, TrapSo^eloi ^ Tr 

., TrapdSo^ov, Trapacretcr^at, 
, TrapaKVTrTtiv, 7rapaX(O5, irapaXvecrOai, TTOL- 
, TTCLpOevia, trapoLKeiv, Trarctz/, Trauecr^at, TTC- 
Trepieyeiv, Trepi&vvvcrOai, TrepiKpvTrTt.iv, 
7repiKVK\ovv, TrepLkdjJLTrtiv, TrepioiKtiv, Treptot/co?, Trepnr nr- 
, Trepicmao-Oai, irriyavov, TTiit^iv, mz a/aSioz , 

ret^, TrXv^et^, TTOIIJLVIOV, 
TTOTC sometimes, ever, Trpa/crwp, Trpeo-yS 

, TrpoSoTT??, TTpoKOTrrew, TTpo/xeXera^, TTponop- 



, TrpocrSoKLa, 7rpo<Tepyae<T#ai, 
eavroi?, Trpoo TTOieicrOai, Trpoo pifj ypvjJiL^ Trpocrijjaveiv, rrpov- 
Trap^et^, Trpo^epei^, 7rpO(/)^rt5, Trroetcr&u, Trrvcrcret^, TTU/C- 
5, prjy/xa, /)7j/xa plural, poja^ata, crctXos, o"tya^, crucepa, 



492 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



crirevTo?, crtTo/ierpto^, o-KaTrrew, o-Kiprav, crKop- 

cropds, cnrapyavovv, cr7r 
crreipa, crTijpi^iv, (TTpaTrjyo^ crrpaTia, 
cruyyeWia, (TuyAcaXuTrrei^, cruyKUTrreii , (TvyKvpia, crvKoi- 

ea, orvKO(j)avTLV, o~t>XXoyi ecr$ai, 
, avfJiTrapayivecrda^ cru/xTriTrre^, o-vfjiTrXrjpovv, 
a, orvva9poitf.lv, (rvvavTav, crvvapTrd^eiv, crvveivai, 
crvvoSia, crvvTvyyavew, crvo-TTOLpdrreiv^ CTOJTTJP 
and crojr^yota, ra^ews, ra^o?, reXetoi)^, reXeiwcrts, reXecr- 
(fropelv, rerpaTrXoi}?, TTpap^elv^ TpavfJia, rpvyav, Tpvyaiv^ 
Tpv(f)ij, Tvy-^dveiv^ Tvp/Bdecr0aL, vy/oog, vSpajiriKos, virdp- 
i Matthew has only ra vTrdpyovra, virepeK^vvecrOai, 
roSe^ecr&u, VTroXa/x^ai^eif, VTTOJJLOV^ VTTO- 
, uTToracrcreiz , vTro^oiptiv, ti//o5, (frd 



I^uke s diction is comparatively easy and correct. 
Awkward constructions such as are found in Matthew 
and Mark are generally avoided. Thus, instead of 

/3\7TT 0,770 TWZ ypa{JifJiaT(j}V TWV Oe\6vTO)^ Iv CTToXaiS 

7 r epi7raTLV Kal acTnacr [Jiovs Iv rats ay op at? (Mark 
xii. 38), Luke has ^I\OVVTO)V before 0,0-770,071 ous, which 
takes away the harshness. Again : for dvOpamos et/u 
T^TTO l^ovcriav e^ft)i> VTT* ejjiavTov o-rpariwras (Matt. viii. 
9) Luke has roo-o-o/.te^o? after efovcrtap, obviating the 
harshness and obscurity. Compare also the words of 
Matthew, TToVre? yop w? Trpo(f)rJTr)v e^ovcri rov lojdvvrjv 
(xxi. 26), which are not good Greek, with those of 
Luke : 6 Xaos . . . TreTretcr/xeVos S CTTW> latdvvrjv Trpo<f>TJTrjv 



The difference of style between the gospel and the 
Acts is perceptible, the advantage being on the side of 
the latter, where we find more ease, the result of practice. 
As the preface of the gospel is written in purer Greek 
than the gospel itself, there is a difference between the 
former and latter portions of the Acts those relating to 

1 See Zeller s Theoloyische Jahrbiicher, vol. ii. p. 450, et seq. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 493 

transactions not described by a companion of Paul, and 
such as were taken by tlie evangelist from the diary of 
a fellow-traveller of the apostle. 



THE TAXING OF QUIRINIUS, IN ITS BEARING ON THE 
DATE OF THE NATIVITY. 

And it came to pass in those days that there went 
out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world 
should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when 
Cyrenius was governor of Syria. And all went to be 
taxed, every one into his own city, etc. (ii. 1-3). 

Here we remark : 

1. That a general census, embracing the Roman em 
pire and commanded by Augustus, is referred to. Yet 
no contemporary historian mentions it. Dion Cassius, 
Suetonius, the Ancyra monument, allude to censuses of 
the Roman citizens, or to separate provincial valuations ; 
but a universal one is unknown. 

2. The census of Quirinius took place about ten years 
after the birth of Jesus, and eleven or twelve years after 
Archelaus was deposed. This appears from Josephus. 
Hence it could not have happened at the time of Jesus s 
birth. 

Two explanations are possible : either that the cen 
sus of Quirinius has been erroneously transferred to the 
period of Christ s birth ; or that there was a prior one un 
noticed by contemporary historians, to which Luke refers. 
Attempts to justify the account which the evangelist 
gives are not wanting. It has been supported in dif 
ferent ways, but they may all be reduced to two, viz. 
an explanation on the basis either of one census, or of 
two. 

(a.) Some undertake to explain the passage by the 
well-known census of Quirinius (A.D. 6 or 7). Admit 
ting that an edict was issued by Augustus in the days of 
Herod for a general registration of the Roman empire 



404 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

with a view to taxation, and assuming that it included 
Judea, they say that though Herod took measures for 
its execution, he prevented its actual accomplishment in 
the kingdom over which he reigned ; so that it was not 
carried into effect till after his death, i.e. after the de 
position of Archelaus and Quirinius s appointment over 
Syria. Agreeably to this, the words of Luke are trans 
lated, l This census, a first one, was completed (took 
effect) when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Stress 
is laid upon the two words first and was ; the former 
being emphasised along with the pronoun this, and the 
latter denoting, was carried into effect. The construction 
is unnatural ; the plain meaning being this first census 
took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria. A 
slight variation of the text turns the pronoun this into 
itself by the change of a spirit : l i the census itself first 
took effect; or, the first census itself took effect. The 
immediate context which describes the progress of the 
census is against this manipulation. The idea of a cen 
sus having begun without being completed till ten years 
after, is in itself highly improbable. So is Herod s con 
jectural retarding of it. 

Others translate, This census took place before Quiri 
nius was governor of Syria, rendering a superlative as 
a comparative. 2 That construction would require an in 
finitive, whereas a participle is used. It is affirmed, 
however, that the one stands for the other ; a supposi 
tion creating two peculiarities in the same sentence. 
The masters of Hellenistic Greek, "Winer, Fritzsche, 
and Buttmann, pronounce the construction impossible. 
Alleged instances of similar usage in John i. 15, 30, 
xv. 18, are not analogous, because the superlative is 
there coupled with a noun ; neither is the Septuagint 
example in Jeremiah xxix. 2, to the point, since it has 
a genitive absolute. The proposed construction is un- 
grammatical. 

r) for avr)]. 2 Trpatrr} for TTporepa. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 495 

(I.) Others undertake an explanation on the basis of 
a twofold governorship of Syria. Can this be histori 
cally maintained ? Many think so. In 1764 the frag 
ment of an inscription on a gravestone found near Tibur 
(Tivoli) l states that the person to whom it was dedicated 
was proconsul of Asia and twice governor of Syria and 
Phoenicia. 2 Although the name Quirinius does not 
appear in it, Sanclemente, Bergmann, Nipperdey, and 
Mommsen refer it to him ; but Zumpt believes that the 
person meant is Sextius Saturninus, 3 and Huschke, 
Agrippa. The difficulty lies in finding room for Quiri- 
nius s first proconsulship of Syria before Herod s death, 
which took place in the spring of 750 A.u.C. or 4 B.C. 
Yarus was appointed to that office in 748 ; was he soon 
displaced by Quirinius ? There is no evidence that he 
was. Various expedients are adopted in order to find 
Quirinius s administration of Syria a place at the time 
of Christ s birth. He subdued the Homonadenses in 
Cilicia ; and as Syria had been probably annexed to 
that country, he may have been proconsul of it. This 
is Mommsen s opinion ; 4 and Zumpt agrees with it. 

1 The editor of the Speaker s Commentary says that this stone was 
found in the Tiber ! 

2 Mommsen gives it thus : 

.... gem qua redacta inpot . . . 
Augusti populique Roman! senat .... 

supplicationes bin as ob res prosp 

ipsi ornamenta triumph 

proconsul Asiarn proviuciam op 

divi Augusti teruni Syriam et Ph .... 

i.e. regern qua redacta in potestatem Augusti populique Romani senatus 
supplicationes binas ob res prospere gestas et ipsi ornamenta triumphalia 
decrevit proconsul Asiam provinciam optinuit leg. divi Augusti iterum 
Syriam et Phoenician!. 

Should not iterum have come after Syriam et Phoenician!/ if a twofold 
proconsulship were meant ? Strauss thinks so. See Die Halben und die 
Ganzen, p. 70, etc.; and R. Hilgenfeld s article in the Zeitschrift of his 
father for 1880, p. 104, etc. 

3 See Commentationum epigraphicarum ad antiquitates Romanas perti/- 
nentium volumen alterum, 1854, pp. 73-150. 

4 Res yesttf dim Augusti, p. 121. 



496 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Or he may have been governor though absent ; l in 
other words, while Varus was still acting as proconsul, 
he was the nominated proconsul, though he had not gone 
abroad to enter upon his office in person. Such is 
Aberle s curious view. 2 Some who date Quirinius s 
appointment in 4 B.C. bring him back in 2 B.C., when he 
was selected as rector of Caius Caesar. Mr. Lewin does 
so. 3 Thus the first proconsulship occasions many 
hypotheses unsupported by history. The gap in Dion 
Cassius from 6 B.C. till 4 A.D., to which there is a corre 
sponding one in Josephus, can only be filled up by con 
jecture. We can follow Yarus s proconsulship of Syria 
till 4 B.C. ; all after is obscure. It is just in that year, 
however, that Zumpt makes Quirinius succeed him, but 
only for three years or less. This learned writer is too 
hasty in deriving the first proconsulship from Tacitus 
himself ; 4 for the historian does not say that when 
Quirinius was rector of Caius Cassar he was also gover 
nor of Syria. 

Though the double governorship could be proved, 
the difficulty of Quirinius s undertaking a census of 
Judea in his first term of office remains. Mommsen 
himself, who believes that Quirinius was proconsul of 
Syria 751, 752 A.U.C., asserts that a Roman census was 
not held twice in that country. Some apologists, con 
scious of the weak ground on which the first governor 
ship rests, are content to make him carry out the 
census in another capacity, as an extraordinary com 
missioner deputed for the purpose. They are met, 
however, by the objection, that a prudent emperor like 
Augustus would not have offered such indignity to 
Herod. 

Weitzsacker supposes that Luke may have known of 

1 < Magistratus eponymus. 

2 Theologische Quartalschrift for 1865, p. 103, etc. 

3 Fasti Sacri, p. 134. 

4 Das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 20-72. 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 497 

Quirinius s first proconsulship and transferred the census 
to it without the suspicion of a mistake. Perhaps the 
adjective first lends some countenance to this improb 
able hypothesis. 1 

On the whole question we observe : 

1. A census of the Roman empire including the 
provinces, instituted by Augustus, is unhistorical. He 
issued an edict to that effect three times during his 

o 

reign ; but it was limited to the Roman citizens alone, 
and was a census populi. 

2. A Roman census at the birth of Jesus must have 
been held when Herod was King of Judea. In countries 
not yet reduced to the form of Roman provinces but 
governed by recjes socii, the latter superintended a cen 
sus. It would have been an insult to issue such an 
edict, independently of their active concurrence. It 
has been conjectured, indeed, that Augustus may have 
done so when he was displeased with Herod ; and 
Josephus is appealed to for expressions which the em 
peror used in a letter addressed to him B.C. 7 ; 2 but 
these utterances of temporary anger did not affect the 
rank of Herod. The emperor being soon reconciled to 
him, he continued to be a rex socius, without losing that 
position. To account for the issuing of the decree or 
its enforcement, by the displeasure of Augustus with 
Herod, is purely conjectural. 

3. A census of the Roman empire before Judea was 
converted into a proper Roman province, which was in 
759 A.U.C., must have been conducted according to 
Roman usage, which did not require the parents of 
Jesus to travel from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem 
in Judea. Least of all was the personal appearance of 
females necessary. A Roman census was regulated by 
the place of abode. But Joseph did not live at Bethle 
hem, according to Luke. It has been said that the cen- 

1 See Schenkel s Bibel-Le.iicon, vol. v. p. 27. 2 Antiqq. xvi. 9. 3, 

VOL. I. K K 



498 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

sus was a Jewish one, and conducted in Jewish fashion, 
and therefore Joseph went to the place whence his family 
had sprung. Still this did not require Mary s presence. 
Should it be said that she was an heiress and had to 
appear on that account, all the evidence we have attests 
her poverty. 

4. The supposed census -taking by Quirinius at the 
birth of Christ, in any capacity but that of real gover 
nor of Syria, as legate of Caesar or extraordinary com 
missioner, does not consist with the plain language of the 
sacred writer. And that he was twice governor of the 
country cannot be shown. Saturninus seems to have 
been proconsul at the time. 

5. In Acts v. 37, Luke speaks of the taxing of Quiri 
nius. He knew the one transaction ; his cognisance of 
an earlier was vague ; or rather, he followed a confused 
tradition which threw back Quirinius s later government 
and taxing of Syria to an earlier time, as though 
something of the same nature had been done in that 
region before. 

6. Notwithstanding the great amount of learning 
brought to bear upon the subject, especially by Wieseler, 
Zumpt, Aberle, Kohler and others, all intent on warding 
off the charge of misstatement from the evangelist, it 
is impossible for a simple reader to avoid believing that 
Luke puts the census of Quirinius about ten years too 
early. This is not the only mistake in the writings of 
the same author. Explanations of the passage on the 
assumption of its agreement with the census of Quiri 
nius, A.D. 6 or 7, are forced or ungrammatical ; and 
that which adopts an earlier proconsulship with a con 
temporaneous census requires more historical confirma 
tion than has been produced. It is possible that while 
Luke speaks of the later one in Acts v. 7, he records 
the earlier one in the gospel ; but this is not probable. 
Why was the former followed by no resistance on the part 
of the Jews, as the latter was ? Did they tamely sub- 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 



499 



mit to it ? To put it in the time of Herod is all but 
impossible. Well does Keim say that the attempts of 
Hengstenberg. Gerlach, and Aberle to help the historical 
accuracy of Luke, are cuffs in the face of history. 



INTEGRITY. 

It was once thought that the first two chapters, with 
the exception of the preface, were not written by the 
evangelist. The only argument worth mentioning which 
was adduced against them is their absence from Mar- 
cion s gospel. But as Tertullian says that the same 
document wanted the 3rd chapter, and the 4th as far as 
the thirty -first verse, the argument proves too much. 
Besides, Marcion s gospel was a mutilated copy of 
Luke s. 



QUOTATIONS. 


These are : 




i. 17 . Mai. iv. 6. 


x. 27 . 


ii. 23 . 


Exod. xiii. 2. 




ii. 24 . 


Levit. xii. 8. 


xiii. 35 . 


iii. 4-6 . 


Isai. xl. 3-5. 


xviii. 20 


iv. 4 


Deut. viii. . 


xix. 46 . 


iv. 8 


Dent. vi. 13. 


xx. 17 . 


iv. 10, 11 


Psalm xc. 11, 12. 


xx. 28 . 


iv. 12 . 


Deut. vi. 16. 


xx. 37 . 


iv. 18, 19 


Isai. Ixi. 1, 2. 


xx. 42, 43 


vii. 27 . 


Mai. iii. 1. 


xxii. 37 . 


viii. 10 . 


Isai. vi. 9, 10. 


xxiii. 30 . 




xxiii. 46 . 



Deut. vi. 5 ; Levit, 

xix. 18. 

Psalm ex viii. 26. 
Exod. xx. 13-15. 
Isai. Ivi. 7. 
Psalm cxviii. 22. 
Deut. xxv. 5. 
Exod. iii, 6. 
Psalm ex. 1. 
Isai. liii. 12. 
Hosea x. 8. 
Psalm xxi. 5. 



The citations are few compared with those of Mat 
thew, which the character of the gospel sufficiently ac 
counts for. Almost all occur in the sayings of Christ 
and others ; nor is any made to prove the fulfilment of 
prophecy, which would have been useless for Gentile 
readers. All are from the Septuagint, with one excep 
tion, viz. vii. 27. Here Ritsclil is right in perceiving 

KK 2 



500 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

the dependence of Luke on Matthew, who has the cita 
tion in the same form. Holtzmann explains it by ar 
bitrarily assuming a difference of sources, as if Luke 
departed from his usual method in this instance, and 
followed another document. 



501 



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, 



NOTICES OF THE ALLEGED AUTHOR. 

ON THE western shore of the Sea of Galilee, at Caper 
naum, lived Andrew and Simon, fishermen, the sons of 
one Jonas. The former was attracted by the preaching 
of John the Baptist ; there is no evidence that Peter 
was his disciple. Andrew brought his brother to 
Jesus, who gave him the name Cephas or Peter, i.e. a 
rock. 

During the life and ministry of the Master, Peter 
occupied the most prominent position among the apostles 
and was honoured with many marks of his confidence. 
After the ascension, he appears again as the most con 
spicuous of the brethren. When the church at Jerusalem 
was scattered by persecution, he was sent with John to 
Samaria. But the metropolis was his usual place of 
abode. Having been delivered from prison, he probably 
left the city (Acts xii. 117) ; and it is not known 
whither he went, to Caesarea, Antioch, or Arabia. 
Wherever he was, there is little doubt of his preaching 
to the Jews. Subsequently we find him again in Jeru 
salem at the so-called council (Acts xv.), after which he 
visited Antioch, where he gave offence by refusing to 
eat with converted Gentiles and was openly rebuked by 
Paul. This is his last appearance in sacred history. 

It is clear that he was married (Luke iv. 38) ; and 
his house is mentioned in Matthew s gospel (viii. 14). 
Some suppose the Marcus of the first epistle to have 



502 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

been his son ; it is more probable that he was his spiri 
tual son and identical with Mark the evangelist. 

Ancient witnesses state that he visited Asia Minor, 
Corinth, and Rome. Origen and Eusebius refer to his 
activity in Asia Minor ; but obviously by inference from 
1 Peter i. 1. When Epiphanius and Jerome speak of 
him there with a degree of confidence as if it were his 
torically certain, little value belongs to their statement. 
Dionysius says that Peter was at Corinth ; but though 
the witness was himself bishop of the place about A.D. 
170, it is probable that the opinion was founded upon 
1 Cor. i. 12. More importance attaches to the tradition 
relating to his presence at Rome. 

Clement s epistle to the Corinthians speaks of 
Paul s martyrdom at Rome. 1 But it does not say that 
Peter came to Rome ; or that he died there as a martyr. 
Had it been known in the Roman church that Peter 
suffered death for the gospel s sake as well as Paul, the 
fact would surely have been mentioned along with the 
martyr-death of the latter. Its omission shows that the 
thing was unknown at Rome in the beginning of the 
second century. 

Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, says that the two 
apostles planted the church at Corinth ; and suffered 
maityrdom in Italy about the same time. 2 This is the 
first statement in which Rome claims for itself the rank 
of an apostolic church through the fiction of a Petro- 
Pauline origin. 

The document called ( The Preaching of Peter, 3 of 
the second century, quoted as authoritative by Heracleon 
and Clemens Alexandrinus, represents the two apostles 
as being together in Rome. 4 Lactantius cites it as 
speaking of their preaching there together. 5 

Iren^eus states that Peter and Paul preached together 
at Rome, and founded the church there. 6 

1 Chapter v. 3 Ap. Euseb. ii. 25. 

3 Ki]pvy^a IleTpov. 4 See Credner s Beitriige, p. 350. 

5 Institut, Divin. iv. 21, 6 Adv. Hceres. iii. ]. 



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 603 

Tertulliaii alludes to Peter s death at Rome ; * and the 
presbyter Caius refers to the graves of the apostles near 
the city, who established the Roman church. 2 The 
Clementine Homilies imply that Peter died at Rome, but 
do not state it ; all they say is, that he was there ; 3 and 
Origen relates that he was crucified with his head down 
ward. 4 Lactantius s testimony is to the same effect. 5 
Eusebius says that Paul was beheaded, and Peter cruci 
fied, there. 6 The testimony of John xxi. 19 agrees with 
this, implying that Peter suffered death by crucifixion. 
A tradition in Justin Martyr makes Simon Magus 
come to Rome in the reign of Claudius, where he 
received divine honours, and had a statue erected to 
him with a Latin inscription ; 7 and the Clementine 
Homilies assert that Peter followed to dispute with him. 
Eusebius states that Peter came to Rome in the reign 
of Claudius, A.D. 42, where he presided over the church 
twenty years, according to the Armenian text of his 
chronicle, or twenty-five according to Jerome s ver 
sion. 8 

These reports rest on no proper foundation. Justin 
made a mistake in deciphering the Latin inscription on 
Simon s supposed pillar. 9 Succeeding writers adopted 
Eusebius s account ; and as Peter and Paul are said to 
have died under Nero, it was inferred that the former 
visited Rome twice. 

Peter s first coming to Rome in Claudius s rekm 

o o 

must be rejected, since the epistles which Paul wrote 
from the city show that no apostle had been there before 
him. If he was ever there, it could not have been be 
fore A.D. 63. 

1 De Prescript. Hcereticorum, c. 36. 2 Ap. Euseb. ii. 25. 

3 See Die Clementinen, by Schliemann, p. 108. 

4 Ap. Euseb. iii. 1. 5 De Morte Persecut. c. 2. 
6 Hist. Eccles. ii. 25. 7 Apdoy. i. c. 26. 

8 Chrontcon, and Hist. Eccles. ii. 17. 

9 lie read Semoni sanyo or sanco, Simoni sancto ; whereas Semo sancus 
or sangus was a Sabine deity. A pillar with the inscription in question 
was dug up in 1574. 



504 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Is the authority for his Roman martyrdom suffi 
cient ? We think not. Dionysius s testimony, early 
as it is, deserves no credit, because it contains the 
false assertion that Peter and Paul founded the Corin 
thian church ; and Cams s appeal to their graves near 
the city is worthless. The statement of Irenaeus about 
the two apostles founding the Roman church is mani 
festly incorrect. How then did the tradition originate ? 
The Simon Magus legend of Ebionite origin, in which 
Peter is brought to Rome to vanquish the arch-heretic, 
or rather Paul himself described under that name, was 
the earliest record of his presence in the world s capital, 
if the Babylon of the first epistle of Peter, whence the 
writer dates it, be excepted. The legend runs through 
the Clementine literature, and its source belongs to the 
early part of the second century, as Lipsius shows. 
When the Catholic Church was being formed by the 
union of the Petrines and Paulines, the anti- Pauline 
origin of the legend was dropped out of sight, Simon 
was known only as the father of all heresy, and Paul 
was associated with Peter as his fellow- worker and 
fellow- sufferer in Rome. This companionship of the 
apostles is embodied in the Acts of Peter and Paid, which 
is cited by Clement of Alexandria as Peter s authentic 
production ; though Origen has a different opinion. The 
Catholic, was probably derived from the Ebionite, tra 
dition ; though Mangold and Hilgenfeld try to show 
its independence. 

The myth about Peter s coming to Rome in its ori 
ginal and anti- Pauline form must have originated soon 
after the Clementine epistle to the Corinthians. It ap 
peared in its Petro- Pauline transformation about or 
immediately before 140 A.D. The Catholic Church 
naturally adopted the latter, so that it became a general 
belief in the last quarter of the second century. But the 
Ebionites still adhered to the first form of the myth, in 
the interest of their party. Having originated with 



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETEK. 605 

them, they could not easily abandon it. But it has no 
historical foundation either in the New Testament or 
in authentic tradition. That Peter was in Rome before, 
with, or after Paul, is a thing unheard of in the litera 
ture of the first century. The Roman letter itself which 
goes by the name of Clement ignores it. It was an 
Ebionite fiction tending to glorify the acknowledged 
head of the party. 1 

After Peter had been brought to Rome, his martyr 
dom naturally followed. Paul laid down his life for 
the gospel ; Peter must do the same. The death of the 
latter is embellished with the peculiar feature that he 
was crucified with his head downward, at his own 
request, not thinking himself worthy to suffer in the 
same posture with his Master. The growth of tradition 
is illustrated by the fact, that the deaths of Paul and 
Peter are said to have taken place on the same day, and 
in the same year ; though the earliest writers merely 
say that they suffered about the same time. Jerome 
states that they were executed on the same day ; and 
though Augustine places a year between them, holding 
that they died on the same day of the month only, it 
came to be universally believed, after Pope Gelasius s 
time, that they suffered on the same day (June 29), in 
the same year. It was the interest of the Jewish 
Christians to put their leader by the side of Paul in 
preaching and suffering death. It was the interest of 
the Church at Rome in its increasing ascendancy to 
exalt Peter to its headship. This appears in the ap 
pendix to John s gospel, where the apostle is personally 
entrusted with the care of Christ s sheep (John xxi. 
15-17), at a time when the title of Roman bishop 
carried authority and not long before Irenasus could 
give a continuous list of the bishops after Peter. 

The basis of the tradition that Peter was at Rome 

1 See Zeller s Die Sage von Petrus, Vortrdge und Abhcwdlungen, zweite 
Sammlung, p, 215, etc. 



606 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

is weak. His presence there, instead of being a well- 
attested fact, can neither be proved nor made probable. 
It accords indeed with the Petrine Christianity of the 
first congregation in the city ; it is in harmony with 
the Jewish Christian majority composing it ; but these 
things are not bound up with the actual presence in the 
city. 

AUTHENTICITY. 

One of the earliest testimonies to the epistle s exis 
tence is the second of Peter (iii. 1). 

Polycarp knew and used it, as Eusebius relates, 1 and 
on comparing his epistle to the Philippians with ours, 
the allusions are more or less apparent. Thus in the 
1st chapter : l In whom, though ye see him not, ye 
believe, and believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable 
and full of glory (1 Peter i. 8). 2 Compare also chap, 
ii. with 1 Peter i. 13, 21 ; iii. 9 ; chap. v. with 1 Peter 
ii. 11 ; chap. vii. with iv. 7 ; chap. viii. with ii. 22-24 ; 
chap. x. with ii. 12. 

Eusebius says that Papias knew the epistle. 3 

Irenseus expressly quotes it. And Peter says in 
his epistle : " Whom not seeing ye love ; in whom, not 
seeing him now, ye have believed ; ye will rejoice with 
unspeakable j oy " (1 Peter i. 8 ) . 4 Elsewhere he writes : 
And on this account Peter says, that we have not 
freedom as a cloak of maliciousness, but for the trial 
and manifestation of faith (1 Peter ii. 16). 5 

Clement of Alexandria quotes it : And Peter in the 
1 H. E. iv. 14. 

8 els ov OVK idovT($ TTicrTfveTf, TTLCTfvovTes 5e ayciXXtacr^f X a PQ dveK\a\rjT(O 

K .U $f$oci(TfJiVr], K.T.X. 

3 H. E. iii. 39. 

4 Et Petrus ait in epistola sua : " Quern non videntes diligitis," inquit, 
"in quern nunc non videntes credidistis, gaudebitis gaudio iuenarrabili." 
Adv. Hceres. iv. 9. 2, p. 998, ed. Migne. 

5 Et propter hoc Petrus ait, " Non velamentum malitiae habere nos 
libertatem, sed ad probationem et rnanifestationem fidei. " Ibid. iv. 16. 5, 
p. 1019, ed. Migne. 



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 507 

epistle says the same/ 1 There are other allusions in 
this writer. 

In like manner Tertullian refers to our epistle : 
Peter says to the people of Pontus, " How great glory 
is it, if when ye are punished not for your faults, ye take 
it patiently ! For this is acceptable, and even here 
unto ye were called, " etc. (1 Peter ii. 20, 2 1). 2 Again : 
1 Peter had said that the king should be honoured 
(ii. 13). 3 

According to Eusebius, Origen called it an acknow 
ledged epistle. 4 The latter quotes it often. Thus on 
Psalm iii. : As Peter says in his catholic epistle, 
" Whereby he went and preached," etc. (1 Peter iii. 
19). 5 Again : And concerning the journey in spirit 
to prison in Peter s catholic epistle, " Being put to 
death," says he, " in the flesh, but quickened in the 
spirit." 6 Mayerhoff gives other passages in which 
Origen quotes the epistle. Eusebius puts it among the 
i acknowledged epistles ; and it was in the Peshito or 
old Syriac version as well as in the old Latin. Accord 
ing to Tjeenk-Willink, Justin Martyr used the epistle, 
but this is not certain. 

The letter of the church at Yienne and Lyons uses 
its language, but does not mention the writer : They 
humbled themselves under the mighty hand by which 
they are now highly exalted ( 1 Peter v. 6) . 7 The epistle 



1 Koi 6 Herpos fv rf) eVioroX^ ra opoia \eyei. Stromata, iii. p. 562, ed. 
Potter. 

2 l Petrus qmdem ad Ponticos : Quanta enim, inquit, gloria, si non ut 
delinquentes puniamini, sustinetis ! Haec enim gratia est, in hoc et vocati 
estis, etc. Scorpiac. c. xii. 

3 l Condixerat scilicet Petrus, regem quidem honorandum. Ibid. c. 14. 

4 fTri(TTO\rj 6p,o\oyovfJLvr). Hist. Eccles. vi. 25. 

5 Kara ra Xeyo/ze va fv rfj Ka6o\iKrj 7ricrro\f) napa rc5 Herpa) e i> o> 8e rols f 
K.T.X. Opp. vol. ii. p. 553, ed. Benedict. 

6 KOI nfpl TTJS fv (frvXaKTj TTOpclas /iera TTVev^aTOS ivapo. TO) IleVpa) ev TTJ 
Ka6o\LKf) fTTia-ToXfj QavciTu>6e\s yap, (prjai, faoTroirjdeis, /c.r.X. Ibid. vol. iv. 
p. 135. 

7 eranfivovv eavrovs vno TTJV Kpdraiav X ^P a ) v$ *!? iKav&s vvv flviv v\/^a)- 
. Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 2. 



608 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

to Diognetus applies the phrase to God, that He gave 
i the just for the unjust (1 Peter iii. 18). 1 

On the other hand, it is absent from the Muratorian 
canon, a fact which some critics have tried to supple 
ment or explain away by altering the existing text 
more or less arbitrarily. It was rejected by the Pau- 
licians, according to Petrus Siculus : i They do not 
admit the two catholic epistles of Peter chief of the 
apostles, being ill-affected towards him. 2 

According to Leontius of Byzantium, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia rejected the epistle. 3 

It was also rejected with the other catholic epistles, 
by Cosmas Indicopleustes. 

The authenticity of the epistle is well attested by 
external testimonies both ancient and numerous. 

Let us consider the internal evidence. 

The author was acquainted with several of Paul s 
epistles ; their ideas as well as expressions being in the 
work before us. Reminiscences of that to the Romans 
are most apparent. 

1 PETEK. 

Not fashioning yourselves accord- And be not conformed to this 

ing to the former lusts in your igno- world (Rom. xii. 2). 
ranee (i. 14). 

Who by him do believe in God, If we believe in him that raised 

that raised him up from the dead up Jesus our Lord from the dead 

(i. 21). (Rom. iv. 24). 

To offer up spiritual sacrifices, That ye present your bodies a 

acceptable to God, etc. (ii. 1, 2, 5). living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto 

God, which is your reasonable 
service (Rom. xii. 1). 

Behold, I lay in Sion a chief Behold, / lay in Sion a stumbling 

corner stone, elect, precious ; and stone and rock of offence, and who- 

he that believeth on him shall not soever believeth on him shall not 

be confounded. Unto you there- be ashamed (Rom. ix. 33). 
fore which believe he is precious, 
but unto them which be disobe- 

1 Bunsen s Analecta ante-Niceena, vol. i. p. 116. 

2 See Wetstein s N. Test. vol. ii. p. 681. 

3 Contra Nestorianos et JEutychianos, in Canisii Thesauro Monumentor. 
JEccles. et Hist. vol. i. p. 577, ed. Antwerp, 1725. 



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 



509 



1 PETEE. 

dient, the stone which the builders 
disallowed, the same is made the 
head of the corner, and a stone of 
stumbling and a rock of offence (ii. 
6,7). 

Which in time past were not a 
people, but are now the people of 
God ; which had not obtained mercy, 
but now have obtained mercy (ii. 
10). 



Submit yourselves to every or 
dinance of man, for the Lord s 
sake : whether it be to the king, 
as supreme ; or unto governors, as 
unto them that are sent by him 
for the punishment of evil doers, 
and for the praise of them that do 
well (ii. 13). 

As free, and not using your 
liberty as a cloak of maliciousness 
(ii. 16). 

That we being dead to sin, 
should live unto righteousness 
(ii. 24). 

Not rendering evil for evil (iii. 
9). 

As every man hath received the 
gift, even so minister the same one 
to another, as srood stewards of the 
manifold grace of God. If any 
man speak, let him speak as the 
oracles of God ; if any man minis 
ter, let him do it as of the ability 
which God giveth (iv. 10 11). 

And also a partaker of the glory 
that shall be revealed (v. 1). 

That the trial of your faith being 
much more precious than of gold 
which perisheth, though it be tried 
with fire, might be found unto praise 
and honour and glory at the appear 
ing of Jesus Christ (i. 7). 

Rejoice inasmuch as ye are par 
takers of Christ s sufferings ; that 
when his glory shall be revealed ye 



As he saith also in Osee, I will 
call them my people which were 
not my people ; and her beloved, 
which was not beloved. And it 
shall come to pass, that in the place 
where it was said unto them, Ye are 
not my people ; there shall they be 
called the children of the living God 
(Rom. ix. 25, 26). 

Let every soul be subject unto the 
higher powers. For there is no power 
but of God. ... Do that which is 
good, and thou shalt have praise of 
the same. . . for he is the minister 
of God, a revenger to execute wrath 
upon him that doeth evil (Rom. xiii. 
1-4). 

For, brethren, ye have been called 
unto liberty, only use not liberty 
for an occasion to the flesh (Gal. v. 
13). 

Being then made free from sin, 
ye became the servants of righteous 
ness (Tcom. vi. 18).. 

Kecvonpense to no man evil for 
evil (Rom. xii. 17). 

Having then gifts differing ac 
cording to the grace that is given to 
us, whether prophecy, let us pro 
phesy according to the proportion of 
faith ; or ministry, let us wait on our 
ministering, e*c. (Rom. xii. 6, 7). 



With the glory that shall be re 
vealed in us (Rom. viii. 18). 

To them who, by patient con 
tinuance in well doing, seek for glory 
and honour and immortality, eternal 
life, Glory, honour, and peace to every 
man that worketh good (Romans ii. 
7, 10). 

And if children, then heirs ; heirs 
of God and joint-heirs with Christ ; 
if so be that we suffer with him, that 



610 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

1 PETER. 

may be glad also with exceeding joy we may be also glorified together 

(iv. 13). (Romans viii. 17). 

Use hospitality one to another Distributing to the necessity of 

without grudging (iv. 9). saints ; given to hospitality (Rom. 

xii. 13). 

For the time past of our life may Let us walk honestly as in the 

suffice us to have wrought the will day ; not in rioting and drunkenness, 

of the Gentiles, when we walked in not in chambering and wantonness, 

lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, not in strife and envying (Romans 

revellings, banquetings and abornin- xiii. 13). 
able idolatries (iv. 3). 

Forasmuch then as Christ hath Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, 

suffered for us in the flesh, arm your- and make not provision for the flesh 

selves likewise with the same mind ; to fulfil the lusts thereof (Romans 

for he that hath suffered in the flesh xiii. 14). 
hath ceased from sin (iv. I). 1 

Be sober, be vigilant (v. 8). Let us watch and be sober (1 

Thess. v. 6). 

Greet ye one another with a kiss Greet ye one another with an 

of charity (v. 14). holy kiss (1 Cor. xvi. 20). 

No critical result is clearer than the dependence of 
the epistle on that to the Romans, which is so obvious 
in relation to the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of the 
latter, that the later writer is only a copyist of the other. 
The position has been thoroughly established by Holtz- 
mann and Seufert. 2 

The doctrine of the epistle is essentially Pauline. 
The author speaks of election and foreknowledge (i. 2 ; 
ii. 9) ; of recompence at the appearing of Jesus Christ, 
expressed by the word praise (i. 7), as in 1 Cor. iv. 5 ; 
of participation in the sufferings of Christ (iv. 13), as in 
Phil. iii. 10 ; compare 2 Cor. i. 5 ; of an inheritance 
(i. 4), as in Gal. iii. 18 ; of the abuse of liberty (ii. 16), 
as in Gal. v. 13 ; of divine calling (i. 15), which is a 
characteristic Pauline doctrine ; of moral obedience 
(i. 2, 14), as in Rom. vi. 16 ; xvi. 19 ; and instead of 
the obedience of faith (Rom. i. 5), Peter has the 
obedience of truth/ taken from the former. The word 

1 Comp. Holtzmann, in Schenkel s Sibel-Lexicon, vol. iv. pp. 496, 497. 

2 See Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift, 1874, p. 360, etc. 



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 511 

rendered hidden l is a Pauline one, to which wan is ap 
pended, taken from Rom. ii. 16. Instead of the hidden 
things of the heart (1 Cor. xiv. 25), Peter has the 
4 hidden man of the heart (hi. 4). The phrase in 
Christ (iii. 16 ; v. 10, 14) is also Pauline. The revela 
tion of Jesus Christ referring to his second coming (i. 7, 
13 ; iv. 13) is from 1 Cor. i. 7 . The consequence of 
sin being taken away by the death of Christ is Pauline, 
though not expressed in the same words, to die to sin, 
and live to righteousness (1 Peter ii. 24). Paul has to 
live to God? 

The general result to which these coincidences lead 
is, that the writer had read the epistle to the Romans 
and others, whose ideas and phraseology became incor 
porated with his religious consciousness. Pauline views 
of doctrine and duty formed and moulded his concep 
tions of Christianity ; while the phraseology in which 
they were clothed was partially accepted. The coinci 
dences are too striking to be denied, as in the case of 
iii. 8, etc. compared with Rom. xii. 10, etc., where the 
same virtues are enjoined. The order in which they are 
enumerated is different, but they are the same. Equally 
convincing is the similarity of ii. 13, etc. to Rom. xiii. 
1-4, where the same motive for subjection to the ruling 
powers appears. Even in a quotation from the Old 
Testament the agreement is remarkable. The citation 
in ii. 6, 7, and Rom. ix. 33, departs in both instances 
from the Septuagint and Hebrew. In him is added in 1 
Peter ii. 6 and Rom. ix. 33 ; and Isai. xxviii. 16 is not 
the only source used, but also viii. 14 ; the words stone 
of stumbling, and rock of offence, which are identical in 
the two epistles, being derived from the latter passage 
and not in the Septuagint form. 

Was Peter then a Pauline Christian ? Was he 



1 KpVTTTOS. 



7 See the Greek table in De Wette s Einleituny. The words in italics 
are the same in the original. 



512 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

dependent on Paul for leading ideas, formulas, and ex 
pressions ? Had he so little originality as to necessitate 
recourse to reminiscences of written epistles ? Early 
Christian literature is against the belief .that Peter was 
aught else than a Jewish Christian, who retained the 
primitive or Ebionite doctrine. All that we know of him 
negatives the idea that he developed into an enlarged be 
liever of the Pauline stamp. The early converts who ap 
pealed to him as their head set his authority against and 
above Paul s, considering the two apostles as antagonistic. 
This is shown not only by the canonical epistles of 
Paul, but more definitely by the Clementine Homilies. 
It is therefore improbable that Peter s sentiments be 
came Pauline, as the epistle presents them ; or that he 
possessed so little originality as to borrow largely from 
other writers. 

Some critics try to account for all Pauline similari 
ties of thought and diction in the epistle of Peter with 
out the use, direct or indirect, of prior epistles. Of 
these the most painstaking is Bruckner, l who treads 
closely in the steps of Mayerhoff But the effort is 
futile, since the advocates of the Petrine dependence 
neither represent it as absolute, nor deny diversity by 
the side of similarity. The coincidences are not of the 
nature of verbal transcription, but are reminiscences. 
Hence ideas and phrases borrowed from Paul may be 
and are sometimes put in a different connection or 
receive a different application. Besides, the author of 
the epistle, though imbued with Paulinism, was not 
without some independence or originality. He has 
features of his own, though they are not of a high 
order like Paul s features consisting in his practical 
mode of presenting the Pauline system divested of its 
angular projections and apparent hardness. Paulinism 
is modified and softened. There are e^en some devia- 

1 In the third edition of De Wette s Erkldrung der Briefe des Petrus, 
Judas und Jacobus, 1865, 



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 513 

tions from it ; or changes of view which point to a stage 
of development beyond the Pauline. The basis of the 
author s system is undoubtedly Pauline for Judaism 
is represented as a thing of the past, and the Christian 
church a new kingdom, a divine institution, founded on 
faith in the redemptive death of Christ but other 
aspects of Christianity are given which Paul does not 
express. 

Bruckner makes great use of a general Christian 
consciousness as the source of Petrine ideas and ex 
pressions, so that they may not be considered Pauline. 
Without denying the existence and influence of that 
common possession, we question the effect attributed 
to it, because Peter and Paul represented two sides 
of primitive Christianity, to w r hich a common Chris 
tian consciousness belonged but partially. The Ebion- 
ism of the one, and the universalism of the other, were 
not fused together while the two apostles lived ; though 
an approach had been made towards the absorption of 
the former in the latter. The influence of a general 
Christian consciousness was not far-reaching enough 
to become the fountain of the Pauline ideas in our 
epistle, at least in Peter s lifetime. 

The argument against authenticity founded on the 
dependence of Peter on Paul, is strengthened by the 
fact that James s letter has been used. The resem 
blances of certain passages in 1 Peter to others in the 
so-called epistle of James, are pretty obvious. The 
following are worthy of notice. 

JAMES. 1 PETEE. 

My brethren, count it all joy Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though 

when ye fall into diverse tempta- now for a season, if need be, ye are 

tions ; knowing this, that the trying in heaviness through manifold temp- 

of your faith worketh patience (i, tations, that the trial of your faith, 

2, 3). etc. etc., might be found unto praise 

etc. (i. 6, 7). 

Because as the flower of the For all flesh is as grass, and all 

grass he shall pass away. For the the glory of man as the flower of 

sun is no sooner risen with a burn- grass. The grass withereth, and 

VOL. I. L L 



514 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

JAMES. 1 PETER. 

ing heat, but it withereth the grass, the flower thereof falleth away (i. 

and the flower thereof falleth (i. 10, 24). 

11). 

Of his own will begat he us with Being born again .... by the 

the word of truth, etc. (i. 18). word of God, etc. (i. 23). 

Wherefore he saith, God re- For God resisteth the proud, and 

sisteth the proud, but giveth grace giveth grace to the humble. Humble 

unto the humble .... Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty 

yourselves in the sight of the Lord, hand of God, that he may exalt you 

and he shall lift you up (iv. 6, (v. 5 ; 6). 
10). 

He which converteth the sinner For charity shall cover the mul- 

from the error of his way shall titude of sins (iv. 8). 
save a soul from death, and shall 
hide a multitude of sins (v. 20). ] 

In these places there is not only a similarity of ideas, 
but of language. It is true that two of the passages 
are taken from the Proverbs, but it is unlikely that the 
coincidence was accidental, because the same conclusion 
is drawn from the citation in both, at least in James 
iv. 6 and 1 Peter v. 5. The similarity is so striking, 
that though it is possible to account for it without as 
suming that the one writer read the other s production, 
it is unlikely. In like manner, when Peter writes to 
the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, etc., that is, to 
Gentiles sojourning in the specified countries, he 
borrows the expressions of James i. 1, where the twelve 
tribes scattered abroad are addressed. In the latter 
place, the phraseology is appropriate, i the twelve tribes 
which are in the dispersion ; in the former it is hardly 
so, because the word dispersion (elect sojourners of the 
dispersion] is seemingly transferred from the twelve 
tribes to the Gentiles. The epistle of James preceded 
that of Peter, as far as we can judge from the coinci 
dence. 

This dependence of the epistle upon James must not 
be reversed, as it is by Bengel, Grimm, Blom, and W. 
Bruckner ; for it is pretty clear that the Peter who 

1 See the Greek table in Hug s Einlettuny, vol. ii. p. 460, 4th ed. 



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 515 

writes here is dependent on James. This is another 
peculiarity which detracts from Peter s supposed author 
ship. When his independence is encroached upon to a 
certain extent, he must be withdrawn from his tra 
ditional position. 

To neutralise the objection taken from Peter s depen 
dence on Paul and James, agreement between Peter and 
John is adduced. Being born again of incorruptible seed 
(i. 23) is like being born of God, whose seed remaineth 
in the believer (1 John hi. 9) ; the word purify is the 
same in i. 22, and 1 John hi. 3 ; to live to righteousness 
(ii. 24) rests on the same conception of righteousness 
as doing righteousness (1 John iii. 7) ; followers of that 
which is good (iii. 13) recurs in 3 John 11, connected 
with the doing of good ; the Christian church compared 
to a flock (v. 2) reminds one of John x. 16 ; xxi. 16 ; 
Christ is the just in iii. 18, and 1 John iii. 7 ; Christ is 
called a lamb in i. 19 and John i. 29. These resem 
blances appear to be no more than accidental, and are 
very different from the Pauline ones. It is therefore 
illogical to infer that the Pauline similarities prove 
nothing more than they, viz. Peter s independent 
authorship. 

Although the writings of John were not known to 
the author of our epistle, there is some affinity of ideas 
between them. The latter speaks strongly against Ju 
daism (ii. 7, etc.), just as John does (vi. 41-43 ; 60, 
etc. ; ix. 39, etc. ; xii. 37, etc.). Patience and steadfast 
ness in the midst of suffering are repeatedly inculcated, 
with reference to the example of Christ (i. 6 ; ii. 19, 
20 ; iii. 14, 17 ; iv. 1-12), etc. So in John xv. 18, etc. ; 
xvi. 1, etc.; 1 John iii. 13. He loves to refer to Isaiah, 
who announced beforehand the lamb of God (i. 19 ; 
ii. 4, 6, 9, 22, etc.), as John does, i. 23, 27 ; xii. 37. 
The Spirit of Christ dwelt in the prophets, enabling 
them to testify beforehand the sufferings of Christ, 
and the glory that should follow ; which agrees with 

LL 2 



516 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

John s saying that Esaias saw Christ s glory, and spake 
of him (xii. 41). In consequence of this approach to 
the characteristic spirit of John s writings, we must 
suppose that Paulinism was progressing towards its 
ultimate expression in the Johannine circle of ideas 
when our author wrote. This is confirmed by its re 
lationship to the epistle to the Hebrews, which is more 
apparent than any likeness it bears to John. The writer 
views Christianity as the complement of Judaism, Jeru 
salem being considered the centre of God s kingdom, 
and the gentiles in that kingdom outside the metropolis 
being the dispersion. Like the writer of the epistle 
to the Hebrews, Peter is disposed to find types in the 
Old Testament of things of the New, as in iii. 20, etc. 
Compare Hebr. xi. 7. The dignity of Christians is set 
forth in ancient formulas (ii. 5, 9, 10 ; iv. 14). The 
death of Christ in connection with the bearing of sin, is 
described in a manner nearer to that of the epistle to the 
Hebrews and John s gospel, than to Paul. Compare 
ii. 24 with Hebr. ix. 28 i. 2 with Hebr. xii. 24 ; ix. 
14 ; x. 22 iii. 18 with Hebr. ix. 26-28 iii. 21 with 
Hebr. ix. 24 and x. 19 ; ii. 11 with xi. 13. Christ 
is said to have appeared in these last times (i. 20), 
as in Hebr. i. 2. Thus the author was probably 
acquainted with the epistle to the Hebrews, and if 
that were so, we are carried beyond the lifetime of 
the apostle to a period when Alexandrian ideas were 
beginning to influence men s conceptions of Chris 
tianity in Palestine ; and Paulinism itself was pass 
ing on to its ultimate development in the Johannine 
type. The writer hardly stands midway between Paul 
and John, for the objective prevails over the subjective ; 
but he is between them in time, if not in character 
istics. 

A thorough comparison of the present epistle with 
those of Paul, James, and John, instead of furnishing 
a remarkable attestation to the one mind which per- 



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 517 

vades all Scripture as some allege, or to the one Spirit 
using the different faculties of men according to his will, 
is detrimental to the spiritual independence of the 
writers. We are unable to see with Holtzmann echoes 
of the Colossian epistle in the present one. The corre 
sponding passages, which he gives, are a precarious 
support to the opinion. 

As an offset to the epistle s dependence on Paul and 
James, its peculiarities have been carefully collected ; 
and those who tli nk that the writer was a Paulinist need 
not deny them. Some things are certainly peculiar ; 
such as the idea of angels desiring to look with cu