ma 
 
 im 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 3 1924 091 167 621 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924091167621 
 
In compliance with current 
 copyright law, Cornell University 
 
 Library produced this 
 replacement volume on paper 
 that meets the ANSI Standard 
 
 Z39.48-1992 to replace the 
 irreparably deteriorated original. 
 
 2001 
 
BARNES LIBRARY 
 AWABEI. TAYLOR-HALL 
 
 THE 
 
 BARNES REFERENCE LIBRARY. 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 miffed <KL Barnes. 
 
 W*f 
 
BIBLICAL ESSAYS 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., 
 
 LORD BISHOP OP DURHAM. 
 
 PUBLISHED BT 
 THE TRUSTEES OF THE L1OBTF00T FUND. 
 
 Pontoon: 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YOBK. 
 
 1893 
 
 [All Bights reserved.] 
 
CambriSge : 
 
 FEINTED BY 0. J. OliAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT THB HHIVEBBITY PBEBB. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 A BOUT one- third of the present volume has already seen 
 -^*- the light. The opening essay ' On the Internal Evidence 
 for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St John's Gospel ' was 
 published in the ' Expositor ' in the early months of 1890, and 
 has been reprinted since; the essay 'On the Mission of Titus 
 to the Corinthians' appeared in the 'Journal of Sacred and 
 Classical Philology' nearly thirty years ago, while the ninth 
 essay ' On the Structure and Destination of the Epistle to the 
 Romans' consists of three famous articles contributed within 
 the years 1869 and 1871 to the 'Journal of Philology,' two by 
 Dr Lightfoot and one by Dr Hort. Beginning with a criticism 
 of M. Renan's theory that our present Epistle to the Romans 
 represents no less than four letters addressed to different 
 Churches, Dr Lightfoot proceeded to formulate a counter- 
 theory of an original letter (our complete Epistle) addressed 
 to the Church of Rome, and a shorter recension of a more 
 general character reissued by the Apostle at a later period and 
 intended for a wider circle of readers. This theory did not 
 commend itself to Dr Hort, and his criticism of Dr Lightfoot's 
 arguments and Dr Lightfoot's reply, which form the second and 
 third of the articles in question, are published herewith, while 
 for a restatement of Dr Hort's view the reader is referred to the 
 ' Notes on Selected Readings ' which form an appendix to the 
 Introduction to the edition of the New Testament edited by 
 
VI INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 Drs Westcott and Hort 1 . A singular pathos attaches to the 
 republication of these articles in the thought that he who so 
 recently gave his consent to their insertion in this volume, and 
 whose counsel was so reverently listened to by his co-trustees, 
 has been called to his rest, before the volume has passed into 
 circulation. 
 
 And the pathos of the situation is only increased as we turn 
 to the main part of the volume, to that which appears in print 
 for the first time. When in 1879 Dr Lightfoot was called 
 away from Cambridge to undertake the Bishopric of Durham, 
 apprehension was felt and expressed in many quarters that 
 the continual claims of diocesan engagements would seriously 
 impair his literary productiveness. How heroically he struggled 
 to belie this anticipation is well known. But the marvellous 
 steadfastness of purpose with which he devoted to Kterary 
 work every available moment which could be snatched 
 from official duties can be fully appreciated by those only who 
 had the privilege of watching the great bishop's life from day 
 to day. By sheer strength of will he completed the five 
 massive volumes on the Apostolic Fathers. But the issue of 
 commentaries on St Paul's Epistles was checked absolutely. 
 From time to time rumours were circulated that some par- 
 ticular commentary was in progress, nay more, in type and 
 within a measurable distance of publication ; but alas ! these 
 surmises were entirely devoid of foundation. The Bishop was 
 heard more than once to declare that, his edition of the Apostolic 
 Fathers finished, he hoped with what leisure he could secure in 
 two years to be able to bring out a commentary upon any one 
 of the Pauline Epistles on which he had lectured when at 
 Cambridge. But the necessary relief from pressure never 
 came, and after his death it was found, as had been anticipated 
 
 1 The New Testament in the original Greek (1881), vol. 2, Appendix, 
 pp. 100 sq. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE. VU 
 
 by those who knew his methods, that the notes on the New 
 Testament had remained untouched since the day when he left 
 Cambridge for Auckland Castle. There were moreover sad 
 gaps in the commentaries and in the introductory matter, 
 sketches of work which had never been filled in, and jottings 
 which needed the master-mind of the writer to interpret them 
 adequately. In accordance therefore with a report furnished 
 to the Trustees by Dr Hort, it was decided to abandon all 
 attempts to bring out a complete edition of any epistle on the 
 lines of the published commentaries, and instead to gather into 
 one volume such of the prolegomena as it was possible to pub- 
 lish, reserving for another volume selections from commentaries 
 on the text which appeared to be fullest and most valuable. 
 The present volume of ' Biblical Essays ' represents the first of 
 these undertakings. The contents can easily be assigned to 
 the places which they would have occupied had the Bishop 
 been able to complete his projected series of commentaries on 
 all the Pauline Epistles. The second and third essays on 
 St John's Gospel form part of a subject which, as he tells us 
 himself, he considered to have 'passed into other and better 
 hands,' and they would probably never have been published by 
 Dr Lightfoot himself. The next four essays were intended to 
 appear as excursuses in the Commentary on the Thessalonians ; 
 the three which follow would have supplied material for 
 introductions to the Epistles to the Corinthians, Romans and 
 Ephesians respectively, while the last two would have found a 
 place in an edition of the Pastoral Epistles. 
 
 To edit the writings of one who is no longer at hand to 
 explain and to correct must always present grave difficulties; 
 but when the material to be edited is to appear as the work of 
 a scholar of the widest reputation for learning and accuracy, to 
 venture upon the task is little short of presumption. In the 
 present instance the difficulty is enhanced by Dr Lightfoot's 
 
viii INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 method of work, to which the present Bishop of Durham draws 
 attention in his prefatory note to the posthumous edition of 
 St Clement of Rome. Possessed of a remarkably retentive 
 memory, he preferred to trust to outlines, rather than write 
 out in full what he intended to deliver in the lecture-room. 
 Accordingly, in those essays which are described as printed 
 from lecture-notes, it has been found necessary to frame into 
 sentences page after page which, in the original notes, exists 
 only in the briefest summary. It is inevitable therefore, that 
 in places the Bishop's meaning will have been obscurely ex- 
 pressed, if not entirely missed. That this inadequacy of 
 treatment is not more glaring is due to the kindness of those 
 who, in response to the appeal of the Trustees, have placed 
 their notes of Dr Lightfoot's professorial lectures at the dis- 
 posal of the editor. The cordial thanks of the Trustees are 
 tendered to the Rev. G. F. Browne, Canon of St Paul's, to 
 W. P. Tumbull, Esq., formerly Fellow of Trinity College and 
 now one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, to the Rev. 
 H. F. Gore-Booth, Rector of Sacred Trinity, Salford, for the loan 
 of their valuable notes ; and to the Rev. W. E. Barnes, Fellow 
 and Lecturer of St Peter's College, for kind assistance in 
 looking over the proof-sheets of the third essay. 
 
 As some of the lectures were delivered at Cambridge on 
 more than one occasion, it may be well to state that the date 
 placed at the end of each essay represents the year of delivery, 
 after which apparently no fresh material was added in the notes 
 in writing. 
 
 In conclusion, the Trustees desire to thank the officers and 
 
 workmen of the University Press for intelligent criticism and 
 
 for unfailing courtesy during the time that these sheets have 
 
 been passing through the press. 
 
 J. R. H. 
 
 Corpus Chbisti College, Cambridge. 
 July 15, 1893. 
 
Extract from the last Will and Testament of the late 
 Joseph Barber Lightfoot, Lord Bishop of Durham. 
 
 " I bequeath all my personal Estate not hereinbefore other- 
 " wise disposed of unto [my Executors] upon trust to pay and 
 "transfer the same unto the Trustees appointed by me under 
 " and by virtue of a certain Indenture of Settlement creating a 
 " Trust to be known by the name of ' The Lightfoot Fund for 
 ' the Diocese of Durham ' and bearing even date herewith but 
 "executed by me immediately before this my Will to be ad- 
 " ministered and dealt with by them upon the trusts for the 
 " purposes and in the manner prescribed by such Indenture of 
 " Settlement." 
 
 Extract from the Indenture of Settlement of ' the 
 Lightfoot Fund for the Diocese of Durham.' 
 
 "Whereas the Bishop is the Author of and is absolutely 
 " entitled to the Copyright in the several Works mentioned in 
 " the Schedule hereto, and for the purposes of these presents he 
 " has assigned or intends forthwith to assign the Copyright in 
 "all the said Works to the Trustees. Now the Bishop doth 
 "hereby declare and it is hereby agreed as follows: — 
 
 "The Trustees (which term shall hereinafter be taken to 
 "include the Trustees for the time being of these presents) 
 
X EXTRACT FROM BISHOP LIGHTFOOTS WILL. 
 
 " shall stand possessed of the said Works and of the Copyright 
 " therein respectively upon the trusts following (that is to say) 
 " upon trust to receive all moneys to arise from sales or other- 
 " wise from the said Works, and at their discretion from time 
 " to time to hring out new editions of the same Works or any 
 " of them, or to sell the copyright in the same or any of them, 
 " or otherwise to deal with the same respectively, it being the 
 " intention of these presents that the Trustees shall have and 
 " may exercise all such rights and powers in respect of the said 
 " Works and the copyright therein respectively, as they could 
 " or might have or exercise in relation thereto if they were the 
 "absolute beneficial owners thereof.... 
 
 " The Trustees shall from time to time, at such discretion as 
 " aforesaid, pay and apply the income of the Trust funds for or 
 "towards the erecting, rebuilding, repairing, purchasing, en- 
 dowing, supporting, or providing for any Churches, Chapels, 
 " Schools, Parsonages, and Stipends for Clergy, and other Spiri- 
 "tual Agents in connection with the Church of England and 
 " within the Diocese of Durham, and also for or towards such 
 " other purposes in connection with the said Church of England, 
 " and within the said Diocese, as the Trustees may in their ab- 
 " solute discretion think fit, provided always that any payment 
 " for erecting any building, or, in relation to any other works in 
 " connection with real estate, shall be exercised with due regard 
 " to the Law of Mortmain ; it being declared that nothing here- 
 " in shall be construed as intended to authorise any act contrary 
 " to any Statute or other Law.... 
 
 " In case the Bishop shall at any time assign to the Trustees 
 " any Works hereafter to be written or published by him, or 
 " any Copyrights, or any other property, such transfer shall be 
 " held to be made for the purposes of this Trust, and all the 
 
EXTBAOT FROM BISHOP LIGHTFOOT S WILL. XI 
 
 " provisions of this Deed shall apply to such property, subject 
 " nevertheless to any direction concerning the same which the 
 " Bishop may make in writing at the time of such transfer, and 
 " in case the Bishop shall at any time pay any money, or trans- 
 " fer any security, stock, or other like property to the Trustees, 
 " the same shall in like manner be held for the purposes of this 
 " Trust, subject to any such contemporaneous direction as afore- 
 " said, and any security, stock or property so transferred, being 
 " of a nature which can lawfully be held by the Trustees for the 
 " purposes of these presents, may be retained by the Trustees, 
 " although the same may not be one of the securities herein- 
 " after authorised. 
 
 " The Bishop of Durham and the Archdeacons of Durham 
 " and Auckland for the time being shall be ex-offido Trustees, 
 "and accordingly the Bishop and Archdeacons, parties hereto, 
 " and the succeeding Bishops and Archdeacons, shall cease to be 
 "Trustees on ceasing to hold their respective offices, and the 
 " number of the other Trustees may be increased, and the power 
 "of appointing Trustees in the place of Trustees other than 
 " Official Trustees, and of appointing extra Trustees, shall be 
 "exercised by Deed by the Trustees for the time being, pro- 
 " vided always that the number shall not at any time be less 
 " than five. 
 
 " The Trust premises shall be known by the name of ' The 
 " Lightfoot Fund for the Diocese of Durham.' " 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and 
 
 Genuineness op St John'b Gospel . . . 1 — 44 
 
 Reprinted from the ' Expositor ' of January, 
 February, March, 1890. 
 
 II. External Evidence for the Authenticity and 
 
 Genuineness of St John's Gospel . . . 45 — 122 
 
 Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
 III. Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and 
 
 Genuineness of St John's Gospel. . . . 123 — 193 
 Additional Notes 194 — 198 
 
 Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
 TV. St Paul's Preparation for the Ministry . . 199 — 211 
 Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
 V. The Chronology of St Paul's Life and Epistles. 213 — 233 
 Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
 VI. The Churches of Macedonia 235 — 250 
 
 Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
 VII. The Church of Thessalonica 251 — 269 
 
 Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 VIII. The Mission of Titus to the Corinthians . . 271—284 
 
 Reprinted from the ' Journal of Sacred and 
 Classical Philology,' Vol. n. p. 194 sq. (1855). 
 
 IX. The Structure and Destination op the Epistle 
 
 to the Romans 285 — 374 
 
 M. Renan's Theory op the Epistle to the Romans 287 — 320 
 
 Reprinted from the 'Journal of Philology,' 
 Vol. n. p. 264 sq. (1869). 
 
 On the End of the Epistle to the Romans. By 
 
 Dr Hort 321—351 
 
 Reprinted from the 'Journal of Philology,' 
 Vol. in. p. 51 sq. (1871). 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans 352 — 374 
 
 Reprinted from the 'Journal of Philology,' 
 Vol. in. p. 193 aq. (1871). 
 
 X. The Destination op the Epistle to the Ephesians 375 — 396 
 Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
 XI. The Date op the Pastoral Epistles . . . 397 — 410 
 
 Additional Note. . . .... 411 — 418 
 
 Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
 XII. St Paul's History after the close op the Acts . 419 — 437 
 Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
 Indices 439—459 
 
I. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY 
 AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
Reprinted from the 'Expositor' of January, February, March, 1890. 
 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY 
 AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
 1 1 iHIS lecture originally formed one of a series connected 
 -*- with Christian evidences, and delivered in St George's 
 Hall in 1871. The other lectures were published shortly 
 afterwards; but, not having been informed beforehand that 
 publication was expected, I withheld my own from the volume. 
 It seemed to me that in the course of a single lecture I could 
 only touch the fringes of a great subject, and that injustice 
 would be done by such imperfect treatment as alone time and 
 opportunity allowed. Moreover I was then, and for some terms 
 afterwards, engaged in lecturing on this Gospel at Cambridge, 
 and I entertained the hope that I might be able to deal with 
 the subject less inadequately if I gave myself more time. 
 Happily it passed into other and better hands, and I was 
 relieved from this care. 
 
 A rumour got abroad at the time, and has (I am informed) 
 been since repeated, that I did not allow the lecture to be 
 published, because I was dissatisfied with it. I was only 
 dissatisfied in the sense which I have already explained. It 
 could not be otherwise than unsatisfactory to bring forward 
 mere fragmentary evidence of an important conclusion, when 
 there was abundant proof in the background. The present 
 publication of the lecture is my answer to this rumour. I give 
 it after eighteen years exactly in the same form in which it 
 was originally written, with the exception of a few verbal 
 
 1—2 
 
4 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 alterations. Looking over it again after this long lapse of time, 
 I have nothing to withdraw. Additional study has only 
 strengthened my conviction that this narrative of St John 
 could not have been written by any one but an eye-witness. 
 As I have not dealt with the external evidence except for 
 the sake of supplying a statement of the position of antagonists, 
 the treatment suffers less than it would otherwise have done 
 from not being brought down to date. I have mentioned by 
 way of illustration two respects in which later discoveries had 
 falsified Baur's contentions. The last eighteen years would 
 supply several others. I will single out three: (1) The antago- 
 nists of the Ignatian Epistles are again put on their defence. 
 The arguments which were adduced against the genuineness of 
 these epistles will hold no longer. Ignatius has the testimony 
 of his friend and contemporary Polycarp, and Polycarp has the 
 testimony of his own personal disciple Irenaeus. The testimony 
 of Irenseus is denied by no one; the testimony of Polycarp 
 is only denied because it certifies to the Ignatian letters. 
 Before we are prepared to snap this chain of evidence rudely, 
 and to break with an uninterrupted tradition, we require far 
 stronger reasons than have been hitherto adduced. (2) Justin 
 Martyr wrote before or about the middle of the second century. 
 His use of the Fourth Gospel was at one time systematically 
 denied by the impugners of its apostolic authorship. Now it is 
 acknowledged almost universally, even by those who do not 
 allow that this evangelical narrative was written by St John 
 himself. (3) The Diatessaron of Tatian was written about A.D. 
 170, and consisted of a ' Harmony of Four Gospels.' Baur and 
 others contended that at all events St John was not one of the 
 four. Indeed how could it be ? For it had not been written, 
 or only recently written, at this time. The Diatessaron itself 
 has been discovered, and a commentary of Ephraem Syrus 
 upon it in Armenian has likewise been unearthed within the 
 last few years, both showing that it began with the opening 
 words of St John. 
 
 [1889.] 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 5 
 
 The fourth of our canonical gospels has been ascribed by 
 the tradition of the Church to St John the son of Zebedee, the 
 personal disciple of our Lord, and one of the twelve apostles. 
 Till within a century (I might almost say, till within a genera- 
 tion) of the present time, this has been the universal belief — 
 with one single and unimportant exception — of all ages, of all 
 churches, of all sects, of all individuals alike. 
 
 This unanimity is the more remarkable in the earlier ages 
 of the Church, because the language of this gospel has a very 
 intimate bearing on numberless theological controversies which 
 started up in the second, third, and fourth centuries of the 
 Christian era ; and it was therefore the direct interest of one 
 party or other to deny the apostolic authority, if they had any 
 ground for doing so. This happened not once or twice only, 
 but many times. It would be difficult to point to a single 
 heresy promulgated before the close of the fourth century, 
 which might not find some imaginary points of coincidence or 
 some real points of conflict — some relations whether of antago- 
 nism or of sympathy — with this gospel. This was equally true 
 of Montanism in the second century, and of Arianism in the 
 fourth. The Fourth Gospel would necessarily be among the 
 most important authorities — we might fairly say the most 
 important authority — in the settlement of the controversy, 
 both from the claims which it made as a product of the 
 beloved apostle himself, and from the striking representations 
 which it gives of our Lord's teaching. The defender or the 
 impugner of this or that theological opinion would have had a 
 direct interest in disproving its genuineness and denying its 
 authority. Can we question that this would have been done 
 again and again, if there had been any haze of doubt hanging 
 over its origin, if the antagonist could have found even a 
 primd fade ground for an attack ? 
 
 And this brings me to speak of that one exception to the 
 universal tradition to which I have already alluded. Once, and 
 once only, did the disputants in a theological controversy yield 
 to the temptation, strong though it must have been. A small, 
 
6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 unimportant, nameless sect— if indeed they were compact 
 enough to form a sect — in the latter half of the second century, 
 denied that the Gospel and the Apocalypse were written by St 
 John. These are the two canonical writings which especially 
 attribute the title of the Word of God, the Logos, to our Lord : 
 the one, in the opening verses, 'In the beginning was the 
 Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'; 
 the other, in the vision of Him who rides on the white horse, 
 whose garments are stained with blood, and whose name is 
 given as the ' Word of God.' To dispose of the doctrine they 
 discredited the writings. Epiphanius calls them Alogi, 'the 
 opponents of the Word,' or (as it might be translated, for it is 
 capable of a double meaning) ' the irrational ODes.' The name 
 is avowedly his own invention. Indeed they would scarcely 
 have acknowledged a title which had this double sense, and 
 could have been so easily turned against themselves. They 
 appear only to disappear. Beyond one or two casual allusions, 
 they are not mentioned ; they have no place in history. 
 
 This is just one of those exceptions which strengthen the 
 rule. What these Alogi did, numberless other sectaries and 
 heretics would doubtless have done, if there had been any 
 sufficient ground for the course. But even these Alogi lend no 
 countenance to the views of modern objectors. Modern critics 
 play off the Apocalypse against the Gospel, allowing the 
 genuineness of the former, and using it to impugn the genuine- 
 ness of the latter. Moreover there is the greatest difference 
 between the two. The modern antagonist places the composi- 
 tion of the Fourth Gospel in the middle or the latter half of the 
 second century ; these ancient heretics ascribed it to the early 
 heresiarch Cerinthus, who lived at the close of the first century, 
 and was a contemporary of St John. Living themselves in the 
 latter half of the second century, they knew (as their opponents 
 would have reminded them, if they had found it convenient to 
 forget the fact) that the Gospel was not a work of yesterday, 
 that it had already a long history, and that it went back at all 
 events to the latest years of the apostolic age; and in their 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 7 
 
 theory they were obliged to recognise this fact. I need hardly 
 say that the doctrine of the Person of Christ put forward in the 
 Gospel and the Apocalypse is diametrically opposed to the 
 teaching of Cerinthus, as every modern critic would allow. I 
 only allude to this fact, to show that these very persons, who 
 form the single exception to the unanimous tradition of all the 
 churches and all the sects alike, are our witnesses for the 
 antiquity of the Gospel (though not for its authenticity), and 
 therefore are witnesses against the modern impugners of its 
 genuineness. 
 
 With this exception, the early testimony to the authen- 
 ticity and genuineness of the Gospel is singularly varied. 
 It is a remarkable and an important fact, that the most 
 decisive and earliest testimony comes, not from Fathers of 
 the orthodox Church, but from heretical writers. I cannot 
 enter upon this question at length, for I did not undertake 
 this afternoon to speak of the external evidence; and I ask 
 you to bear in mind, that any inadequate and cursory 
 treatment necessarily does a great injustice to a subject 
 like this; for the ultimate effect of testimony must depend 
 on its fulness and variety. I only call attention to the fact 
 that within the last few years most valuable additions have 
 been made to this external testimony, and these from the 
 opposite extremes of the heretical scale. At the one extreme 
 we have Ebionism, which was the offspring of Judaizing ten- 
 dencies ; at the other, Gnosticism, which took its rise in Gentile 
 license of speculation and practice. Ebionism is represented by 
 a remarkable extant work belonging to the second century, 
 possibly to the first half of the second century, the Clementine 
 Homilies. The greater part of this work has long been known, 
 but until within the last few years the printed text was taken 
 from a MS. mutilated at the end ; so that of the twenty Homilies 
 the last half of the nineteenth and the whole of the twentieth 
 are wanting. These earlier Homilies contained more than one 
 reference to gospel history which could not well be referred to 
 any of the three first evangelists, and seemed certainly to have 
 
8 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 been taken from the fourth. Still the reference was not abso- 
 lutely certain, and the impugners of St John's Gospel availed 
 themselves of this doubt to deny the reference to this gospel. 
 At length, in the year 1853, Dressel published for the first 
 time, from a Vatican MS., the missing conclusion of these 
 Homilies; and this was found to contain a reference to the 
 incidents attending the healing of the man born blind, related 
 only by St John, and related in a way distinctly characteristic 
 of St John — a reference so distinct, that no one from that time 
 has attempted to deny or to dispute it. 
 
 So much for the testimony of Ebionism — of the Judaic 
 sects of early Christianity. But equally definite, and even 
 more full, is the testimony which recent discovery has brought 
 to light on the side of Gnosticism. Many of my hearers will 
 remember the interest which was excited a few years ago by 
 the publication of a lost treatise on heresies, which Bunsen and 
 others ascribed (and, as is now generally allowed, correctly 
 ascribed) to Hippolytus, in the earlier part of the third century. 
 This treatise contains large and frequent extracts from previous 
 Gnostic writers of diverse schools — Ophites, Basilideans, Valen- 
 tinians ; among them, from a work which Hippolytus quotes as 
 the production of Basilides himself, who flourished about A.D. 
 130-140. And in these extracts are abundant quotations from 
 the Gospel of St John. 
 
 I have put these two recent accessions to the external 
 testimony in favour of the Fourth Gospel side by side, because, 
 emanating from the most diverse quarters, they have a peculiar 
 value, as showing the extensive circulation and wide reception 
 of this gospel at a very early date ; and because also, having 
 been brought to light soon after its genuineness was for the 
 first time seriously impugned, they seem providentially destined 
 to furnish an answer to the objections of recent criticism. 
 
 If we ask ourselves why we attribute this or that ancient 
 writing to the author whose name it bears — why, for instance, 
 we accept this tragedy as a play of Sophocles, or that speech as 
 an oration of Demosthenes, — our answer will be, that it bears 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 9 
 
 the name of the author, and (bo far as we know) has always 
 been ascribed to him. In very many cases we know nothing, 
 or next to nothing, about the history of the writing in question. 
 In a few instances we are fortunate enough to find a reference 
 to it, or a quotation from it, in some author who lived a 
 century or two later. The cases are exceptionally rare when 
 there is an indisputable allusion in a contemporary, or nearly 
 contemporary, writer. For the most part, we accept the fact of 
 the authorship, because it comes to us on the authority of a 
 MS. or MSS. written several centuries after the presumed 
 author lived, supported in some cases by quotations in a late 
 lexicographer, or grammarian, or collection of extracts. 
 
 The external testimony in favour of St John's Gospel 
 reaches back much nearer to the writer's own time and is far 
 more extensive than can be produced in the case of most 
 classical writings of the same antiquity. From the character of 
 the work also, this testimony gains additional value ; for where 
 the contents of a book intimately affect the cherished beliefs 
 and the practical conduct of all who receive it, the universality 
 of its reception, amidst jarring creeds and conflicting tendencies, 
 is far more significant than if its contents are indifferent, making 
 no appeal to the religious convictions, and claiming no influence 
 over the life. We may be disposed to complain that the ex- 
 ternal testimony is not so absolutely and finally conclusive in 
 itself that no door is open for hesitation, that all must, despite 
 themselves, accept it, and that any investigation into the in- 
 ternal evidence is superfluous and vain. But this we have no 
 right to demand. If it is as great, and more than as great, as 
 would satisfy us in any other case, this should suffice us. In 
 all the most important matters which affect our interests in 
 this world and our hopes hereafter, God has left some place for 
 diversity of opinion, because He would not remove all oppor- 
 tunity of self-discipline. 
 
 If then the genuineness of this gospel is supported by 
 greater evidence than in ordinary cases we consider conclusive, 
 we approach the investigation of its internal character with a 
 
10 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 very strong presumption in its favour. The onus.probandi rests 
 with those who would impugn its genuineness, and nothing 
 short of the fullest and most decisive marks of spuriousness can 
 fairly he considered sufficient to counterbalance this evidence. 
 
 As I proceed, I hope to make it clear that, allowing then- 
 full weight to all the difficulties (and it would be foolish to 
 deny the existence of difficulties) in this gospel, still the internal 
 marks of authenticity and genuineness are so minute, so varied, 
 so circumstantial, and so unsuspicious, as to create an over- 
 whelming body of evidence in its favour. 
 
 But before entering upon this investigation, it may be 
 worth while to inquire whether the hypotheses suggested by 
 those who deny the genuineness of this gospel are themselves 
 free from all difficulties. For if it be a fact (as I believe it is) 
 that any alternative which has been proposed introduces greater 
 perplexities than those which it is intended to remove, we are 
 bound (irrespective of any positive arguments in its favour) to 
 fell back upon the account which is exposed to fewest objections, 
 and which at the same time is supported by a continuous and 
 universal tradition. 
 
 We may take our start from Baur's theory, for he was the 
 first to develop and systematize the attack on the genuineness 
 of the Fourth Gospel According to Baur it was written about 
 the year 170. The external testimony however is alone fatal to 
 this very late epoch; for, after all wresting of evidence and 
 post-dating of documents, it is impossible to deny that at this 
 time the gospel was, not only in existence, but also received far 
 and wide as a genuine document ; that it was not only quoted 
 occasionally, but had even been commented upon as the actual 
 work of St John. Consequently the tendency of later impugners 
 has been to push the date farther back, and to recede from the 
 extreme position of this, its most determined and ablest anta- 
 gonist. Hilgenfeld, who may be regarded as the successor of 
 Baur, and the present representative of the Tubingen school 
 (though it has no longer its headquarters at Tubingen), would 
 place its composition about the year 150 ; and Tayler, who a 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 11 
 
 few years ago (1867) reproduced the argument of Baur and 
 others in England, is disposed to assign it to about the same 
 date. With a strange inconsistency he suggests, towards the 
 close of his book, that its true author may have been John the 
 presbyter, though John the presbyter is stated by Papias (who 
 had conversed with this John, and from whom all the informa- 
 tion we possess respecting him is derived) to have been a 
 personal disciple of our Lord, and therefore could hardly have 
 been older than John the apostle, and certainly could not have 
 been living towards the middle of the second century. 
 
 This tendency to recede nearer and nearer to the evangelist's 
 own age shows that the pressure of facts has begun to tell on 
 the theories of antagonistic criticism, and we may look forward 
 to the time when it will be held discreditable to the reputation 
 of any critic for sobriety and judgment to assign to this gospel 
 any later date than the end of the first century, or the very 
 beginning of the second. 
 
 But meanwhile, let us take the earliest of these dates 
 (A.D. 150) as less encumbered with difficulties, and therefore 
 more favourable to the opponents of its genuineness, and ask 
 whether a gospel written at such a time would probably have 
 presented the phenomena which we actually find in the fourth 
 canonical gospel. We may interrogate alike its omissions and 
 its contents. On this hypothesis, how are we to account for 
 what it has left unsaid, and for what it has said ? 
 
 Certainly it must be regarded as a remarkable phenomenon, 
 that on many ecclesiastical questions which then agitated the 
 minds of Christians it is wholly silent, while to others it gives 
 no distinct and authoritative answer. Our Lord's teaching has 
 indeed its bearing on the controversies of the second century, as 
 on those of the fourth, or of the twelfth, or of the sixteenth, or 
 of the nineteenth : but, as in these latter instances, its lessons 
 are inferential rather than direct, they are elicited by painful 
 investigation, they are contained implicitly in our Lord's life 
 and person, they do not lie on the surface, nor do they offer 
 definite solutions of definite difficulties. 
 
12 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Take, for instance, the dispute concerning the episcopate. 
 Contrast the absolute silence of this gospel respecting this 
 institution with the declarations in the Epistles of Ignatius. A 
 modern defender of the episcopate will appeal to the commission 
 given to the apostles (John xx. 22, 23). I need not stop here to 
 inquire to what extent it favours his views. But obviously it 
 is quite insufficient by itself. It would serve almost equally 
 well for an apostolically ordained ministry of any kind, for a 
 presbyteral as for an episcopal succession. Is it possible that a 
 writer, composing a gospel at the very time when the authority 
 of this office had been called in question, if a supporter of the 
 power of the episcopate, would have resisted the temptation of 
 inserting something which would convey a sanction, if an 
 opponent, something which would convey a disparagement, of 
 this office, in our Lord's own name ? 
 
 Or, again : take the Gnostic theories of emanations. Any 
 one who has studied the history of the second century will 
 know how large a place they occupy in the theological disputes 
 of the day; what grotesque and varied forms they assume in the 
 speculations of different heretical teachers; what diverse 
 arguments, some valid, some fanciful, are urged against them 
 by orthodox writers. Would a forger have hesitated for a 
 moment to slay this many-headed hydra by one well-aimed 
 blow ? What can we suppose to have been the object of such a 
 forger, except to advance certain theological views ? And why 
 should he have let slip the very opportunity, which (we must 
 suppose) he was making for himself, of condemning the worst 
 forms of heresy from our Lord's own lips ? It is true that you and 
 I think we see (and doubtless think rightly), that the doctrine of 
 God the Word taught in St John's Gospel is the real answer to 
 the theological questionings which gave rise to all these theories 
 about aeons or emanations, and involves implicitly and indirectly 
 the refutation of all such theories. But it is only by more or 
 less abstruse reasoning that we arriv.e at this conclusion. The 
 early Gnostics did not see it so ; they used St John's Gospel, 
 and retained their theories notwithstanding. A forger would 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 13 
 
 have taken care to provide a direct refutation which it was 
 impossible to misunderstand. 
 
 Or, again : about the middle of the second century the great 
 controversy respecting the time of celebrating Easter was 
 beginning to lift up its head. For the latter half of this 
 century the feud raged, bursting out ever afresh and disturbing 
 the peace of the Church again and again, until it was finally 
 set at rest in the fourth century at the Council of Nicaea. Was 
 the festival of the Lord's resurrection to be celebrated always 
 on the same day of the week, the Sunday ? Or was it to be 
 guided by the time of the Jewish Passover, and thus to take 
 place on the same day of the month, irrespective of the day of 
 the week? Each community, each individual, took a side in 
 this controversy. Unimportant in itself, it seriously endangered 
 the existence of the Church. The daring adventurer who did 
 not hesitate to forge a whole gospel would certainly not be 
 deterred by any scruple from setting the matter at rest by a 
 few strokes of the pen. His narrative furnished more than one 
 favourable opportunity for interposing half a dozen decisive 
 words in our Lord's name: and yet he abstained. 
 
 Thus we might take in succession the distinctive eccle- 
 siastical controversies of the second century, and show how the 
 writer of the Fourth Gospel holds aloof from them all : certainly 
 a strange and almost incredible fact, if this writer lived about 
 the middle, or even in the latter half, of the century, and, as a 
 romancer, was not restrained by those obligations of fact which 
 fetter the truthful historian who is himself a contemporary of 
 the events recorded ! 
 
 But if the omissions of the writer are strange and unac- 
 countable on the assumption of the later date of the Gospel, the 
 actual contents present still greater difficulties on the same 
 hypothesis. In the interval between the age when the events 
 are recorded to have taken place and the age in which the 
 writer is supposed to have lived, a vast change had come over 
 the civilized world. In no period had the dislocation of Jewish 
 history been so complete. Two successive hurricanes had swept 
 
14 THE GOSPEL ACOOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 over the land and nation. The devastation of Titus had been 
 succeeded by the devastation of Hadrian. What the locust of 
 the first siege had left the cankerworm of the second had 
 devoured. National polity, religious worship, social institutions, 
 all were gone. The city had been razed, the land laid desolate, 
 the law and the ordinances proscribed, the people swept into 
 captivity or scattered over the face of the earth. ' Old things 
 had passed away ; all things had become new.' 
 
 Now let us place ourselves in the position of one who wrote 
 about the middle of the second century, after the later Koman 
 invasion had swept off the scanty gleanings of the past which 
 had been spared from the earlier. Let us ask how a romancer 
 so situated is to make himself acquainted with the incidents, 
 the localities, the buildings, the institutions, the modes of 
 thought and feeling, which belonged to this past age and (as 
 we may almost say) this bygone people. Let it be granted 
 that here and there he might stumble upon a historical fact, 
 that in one or two particulars he might reproduce a national 
 characteristic. More than this would be beyond his reach. 
 For, it will be borne in mind, he would be placed at a great 
 disadvantage, compared with a modern writer ; he would have 
 to reconstruct history without those various appliances, maps 
 and plates, chronological tables, books of travel, by which the 
 author of a historical novel is so largely assisted in the present 
 day. 
 
 And even if he had been furnished with all these aids, 
 would he have known how to use them? The uncritical 
 character of the apostolic age is a favourite commonplace with 
 those who impugn the genuineness of the canonical Scriptures, 
 or the trustworthiness of the evangelical narratives. I do not 
 deny that the age (compared with our own) was uncritical, 
 though very exaggerated language is often used on the subject. 
 But obviously this argument has a double edge. And the 
 keener of these two edges lies across the very throat of recent 
 negative criticism. For it requires a much higher flight of 
 critical genius to invent an extremely delicate fiction than to 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 15 
 
 detect it when invented. The age which could not expose a 
 coarse forgery was incapable of constructing a subtle historical 
 romance. This one thing I hope to make clear in the short 
 time that is allowed me this afternoon. The Fourth Gospel, if 
 a forgery, shows the most consummate skill on the part of the 
 forger ; it is (as we should say in modern phrase) thoroughly in 
 keeping. It is replete with historical and geographical details ; 
 it is interpenetrated with the Judaic spirit of the times ; its 
 delineations of character are remarkably subtle ; it is perfectly 
 natural in the progress of the events ; the allusions to incidents 
 or localities or modes of thought are introduced in an artless 
 and unconscious way, being closely interwoven with the texture 
 of the narrative ; while throughout, the author has exercised a 
 silence and a self-restraint about his assumed personality which 
 is without a parallel in ancient forgeries, and which deprives 
 his work of the only motive that, on the supposition of its 
 spuriousness, would account for his undertaking it at all. 
 
 In all these respects it forms a direct contrast to the known 
 forgeries of the apostolic or succeeding ages. I will only ask 
 my hearers who are acquainted with early apocryphal literature 
 to compare St John's Gospel with two very different and yet 
 equally characteristic products of the first and second centuries 
 of the Christian era — with the Protevangelivm, or Gospel of 
 the Infancy of Jesus, on the one hand, and with the Clementine 
 Homilies, on the other : the former, a vulgar daub dashed in by 
 a coarse hand in bright and startling colours; the other, a 
 subtle philosophical romance, elaborately drawn by an able and 
 skilful artist. But both the one and the other are obviously 
 artificial in all their traits, and utterly alien to the tone of 
 genuine history. 
 
 Such productions as these show what we might expect to 
 find in a gospel written at the middle or after the middle of the 
 second century. 
 
 If then my description of the Fourth Gospel is not over- 
 charged (and I will endeavour to substantiate it immediately), 
 the supposition that this gospel was written at this late epoch 
 
16 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 by a resident at Alexandria or at Ephesus will appear in the 
 highest degree incredible; and, whatever difficulties the tra- 
 ditional belief may involve, they are small indeed compared 
 with the improbabilities created by the only alternative hypo- 
 thesis. 
 
 I have already proved that the absence of certain topics in 
 this gospel seems fatal to its late authorship. I shall now 
 proceed to investigate those phenomena of its actual contents 
 which force us to the conclusion that it was written by a Jew 
 contemporary with and cognisant of the facts which he relates, 
 and more especially those indications which fix the authorship 
 on the Apostle St John. It is necessary however to premise by 
 way of caution, that exhaustive treatment is impossible in a 
 single lecture, and that I can only hope to indicate a line of 
 investigation which any one may follow out for himself. 
 
 First of all then, the writer was a Jew. This might be 
 inferred with a very high degree of probability from his Greek 
 style alone. It is not ungrammatical Greek, but it is distinctly 
 Greek of one long accustomed to think and speak through the 
 medium of another language. The Greek language is singularly 
 rich in its capabilities of syntactic construction, and it is also 
 well furnished with various connecting particles. The two 
 languages with which a Jew of Palestine would be most 
 familiar — the Hebrew, which was the language of the sacred 
 Scriptures, and the Aramaic, which was the medium of com- 
 munication in daily life — being closely allied to each other, 
 stand in direct contrast to the Greek in this respect. There is 
 comparative poverty of inflexions, and there is an extreme 
 paucity of connecting and relative particles. Hence in Hebrew 
 and Aramaic there is little or no syntax, properly so called. 
 
 Tested by his style then, the writer was a Jew. Of all the 
 New Testament writings the Fourth Gospel is the most 
 distinctly Hebraic in this respect. The Hebrew simplicity 
 of diction will at once strike the reader. There is an entire 
 absence of periods, for which the Greek language affords such 
 facility. The sentences are co-ordinated, not subordinated. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 17 
 
 The clauses are strung together, like beads on a string. The 
 very monotony of arrangement, though singularly impressive, 
 is wholly unlike the Greek style of the age. 
 
 More especially does the influence of the Hebrew appear in 
 the connecting particles. In this language the single connecting 
 particle 1 is used equally, whether co-ordination or opposition is 
 implied; in other words, it represents 'but' as well as "and/ 
 The Authorized Version does not adequately represent this 
 fact, for our translators have exercised considerable license in 
 varying the renderings: 'then,' 'moreover,' 'and,' 'but,' etc. 
 Now it is a noticeable fact, that in St John's Gospel the 
 capabilities of the Greek language in this respect are most 
 commonly neglected ; the writer falls back on the simple ' and ' 
 of Hebrew diction, using it even where we should expect to 
 find an adversative particle. Thus v. 39, 40, 'Ye search the 
 Scriptures, for in them )'e think that ye have eternal life : and 
 they are they which testify of Me: and ye will not come to 
 Me '; vii. 19, 'Did not Moses give you the law, and none of 
 you keepeth the law ? ' where our English version has inserted 
 an adversative particle to assist the sense, 'and yet'; vii. 30, 
 'Then they sought to take Him: and no man laid hands on 
 Him,' where the English version substitutes 'but no man'; 
 vii. 33, ' Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I 
 with you, and I go to Him that sent Me,' where again our 
 translators attempt to improve the sense by reading ' and then.' 
 And instances might be multiplied. 
 
 The Hebrew character of the diction moreover shows itself 
 in other ways: by the parallelism of the sentences, by the 
 repetition of the same words in different clauses, by the order 
 of the words, by the syntactical constructions, and by individual 
 expressions. Indeed so completely is this character maintained 
 throughout, that there is hardly a sentence which might not be 
 translated literally into Hebrew or Aramaic, without any 
 violence to the language or to the sense. 
 
 I might point also to the interpretation of Aramaic words, 
 as Cephas, Gabbatha, Golgotha, Messias, Rabboni, Siloam, 
 L. E. 2 
 
18 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Thomas, as indicating knowledge of this language. On such 
 isolated phenomena however no great stress can fairly be laid, 
 because such interpretations do not necessarily require an 
 extensive acquaintance with the language; and when the 
 whole cast and colouring of the diction can be put in evidence, 
 an individual word here and there is valueless in comparison. 
 
 There are however two examples of proper names in this 
 Gospel on which it may be worth while to remark; because 
 the original is obscured in our English Bibles by a false 
 reading in the Greek text used by our translators, and because 
 they afford incidentally somewhat strong testimony to the 
 writer's knowledge both of the language and of contemporary 
 facts. 
 
 The first of these is Iscariot. In the other three gospels 
 this name is attributed to the traitor apostle Judas alone. In 
 St John's Gospel also, as represented in the received text and 
 in our English version, this is the case. But if the more correct 
 readings be substituted, on the authority of the ancient copies, 
 we find it sometimes applied to Judas himself (xii. 4, xiii. 2, 
 xiv. 22), and sometimes to Judas' father Simon (e.g. vi 71, 
 'He spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot'; xiii. 26, 'He 
 giveth it to Judas the son of Simon Iscariot'). Now this 
 shows that the evangelist knew this not to be a proper name 
 strictly so called, but to describe the native place of the person, 
 ' the man of Kerioth,' and hence to be applicable to the father 
 and the son alike. 
 
 The other instance which I shall give, at first sight presents 
 a difficulty; but when further investigated it only adds fresh 
 testimony to the exact knowledge of the Fourth Evangelist. 
 In St Matthew, Simon Peter is called Bar-Jona (Matt. xvi. 17); 
 i.e. son of Jona (or Jonan or Jonas). Accordingly in the 
 received text of St John also he appears in not less than four 
 passages (i. 42, xxi. 15-17) as Simon son of Jona (or Jonan or 
 Jonas). But there can be no reasonable doubt that the correct 
 reading in all these four passages is ' Simon son of Joannes ' — 
 the Hebrew and Aramaic Johanan, the English John — and 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 19 
 
 that later transcribers have altered it to make it accord with 
 the form adopted by St Matthew. Here there is an apparent 
 discrepancy, which however disappears on examination ; for we 
 find that Jona or Jonan or Jonas is more than once used in the 
 LXX version of the Old Testament as a contracted form of the 
 name Johanan, Johannes, or John. Thus the statements of 
 the two evangelists are reconciled ; and we owe it to the special 
 knowledge derived from the Fourth Gospel that the full and 
 correct form is preserved. For, when we have once got this 
 key to the fact, we can no longer question that John was the 
 real name of Peter's father, since it throws great light on our 
 Lord's words in St Matthew. The ordinary name Jonah, which 
 was borne by the prophet, and which is generally supposed to 
 be the name of Simon's father, signifies 'a dove'; but the 
 name Johanan or John is 'the grace of God.' Hence the 
 Baptist is called not Zechariah, as his relatives thought natural, 
 but John, in accordance with the heavenly message (Luke i. 13), 
 because he was specially given to his parents by God's grace. 
 So too the call of St Peter (John i. 42) becomes full of meaning: 
 ' Thou art Simon the son of the grace of God ; thou shalt be 
 called Cephas'; and the final commission given to the same 
 apostle is doubly significant, when we interpret the thrice 
 repeated appeal as ' Simon son of God's grace, lovest thou Me ?' 
 for without this interpretation the studied repetition of his 
 patronymic seems somewhat meaningless. Bearing this fact in 
 mind, we turn to the passage of St Matthew (xvi. 17, 18) : ' Jesus 
 answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona 
 (son of the grace of God) : for flesh and blood hath not revealed 
 it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say 
 unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build 
 My Church.' His name and his surname alike are symbols and 
 foreshadowings of God's special favour to him in his call and 
 commission. This is only one of many instances in which the 
 authenticity of the statements of the Fourth Gospel is confirmed 
 by the fact that they incidentally explain what is otherwise un- 
 explained in the narrative of the synoptic evangelists. 
 
 2—2 
 
20 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Another evidence that the writer was acquainted with the 
 Hebrew language is furnished by the quotations from the Old 
 Testament. This evangelist, like St Paul, sometimes cites 
 from the current Greek version of the Seventy, and sometimes 
 translates directly from the Hebrew. When a writer, as is the 
 case in the Epistle to the Hebrews, quotes largely and quotes 
 uniformly from the LXX version, this is at least an indication 
 that he was not acquainted with the original ; and hence we 
 infer that the epistle just mentioned was not written by St 
 Paul, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, but by some disciple, a 
 Hellenistic Jew, thoroughly interpenetrated with the apostle's 
 mind and teaching, but ignorant of the language of his fore- 
 fathers. If on any occasion the quotations of a writer accord 
 with the original Hebrew against the LXX version, we have a 
 right to infer that he was acquainted with the sacred language, 
 was, in fact, a Hebrew or Aramaic-speaking Jew. Several 
 decisive examples might be produced, but one must suffice. 
 In xix. 37 is a quotation from Zechariah xii. 10, which in the 
 original is, 'They shall look upon Me whom they pierced.' 
 Accordingly it is given in St John, ' They shall look on Him 
 whom they pierced' (6-^ovrat eh ov if-eieevTqarav). But the 
 LXX rendering is, 'They shall gaze upon Me, because they 
 insulted' (eVt/SXe^roi/Tot w/oos fie, avff mv Karap^aavTo), 
 where the LXX translators had a different reading, 'KHEft for 
 ippn and where their Greek rendering has not a single word 
 in common with St John's text. 
 
 In xii. 40 again, the evangelist quotes Isaiah vL 10, 
 'Because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, 
 and hardened their heart ; that they should not see with their 
 eyes,' etc. Now this quotation is far from being verbally 
 exact; for in the Hebrew the sentence is imperative, 'Make 
 fat the heart of this people, and make heavy their ears, and 
 close their eyes, that they should not see with their eyes,' etc. 
 Yet, on the other hand, it does not contain any of the 
 characteristic renderings of the LXX ; and this is one distinct 
 proof that, however loosely quoted, it was derived, not from the 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 21 
 
 LXX, but from the original. For the LXX translators, taking 
 offence, as it would seem, at ascribing the hardening of the 
 heart to God's own agency, have thrown the sentence into a 
 passive form : ' The heart of this people was made fat, and with 
 their ears they heard heavily, and their eyes they closed,' etc., 
 so as to remove the difficulty. If therefore the evangelist had 
 derived the passage from the LXX, it is inconceivable that he 
 would have reintroduced the active form, thus wantonly reviving 
 a difficulty, unless he had the original before him. 
 
 I will only add one other example. In xiii. 18 occurs a 
 quotation from Psalm xlL 9 (xl. 10). Here the expression 
 which in the original signifies literally ' made great ' or ' made 
 high' his heel is correctly translated 'lifted up his heel' (eirfjpev 
 tt)v vrepvav avrov), as in the A.V. of the Psalms. The LXX 
 version however gives i/ieydXvvev 7rrepvio-fi6v, 'he multipbed 
 (or increased) tripping up with the heel,' or ' treachery,' which 
 has given rise to the paraphrastic rendering in our Prayer- 
 Book version, 'laid great wait for me.' Here again it is 
 obvious that the evangelist's quotation could not have been 
 derived from the LXX, but must have been rendered either 
 directly from the Hebrew, or (what for my purpose is equally 
 decisive) indirectly through some Chaldee Targum. 
 
 If therefore we had no other evidence than the language, 
 we might with confidence affirm that this gospel was not 
 written either by a Gentile or by a Hellenistic Christian, but 
 by a Hebrew accustomed to speak the language of his fathers. 
 This fact alone negatives more than one hypothesis which has 
 been broached of late years respecting its authorship, for it is 
 wholly inconsistent with the strictly Gentile origin which most 
 recent theories assign to it. But, though irreconcilable with 
 Gentile authorship, it is not wholly inconsistent with the later 
 date ; for we cannot pronounce it quite impossible that there 
 should be living in Asia Minor or in Egypt, in the middle 
 or after the middle of the second century, a Judaic Christian 
 familiar with the Hebrew or Aramaic language, however rare 
 such instances may have been. 
 
22 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Having thus established the fact that the writer was 
 neither a Gentile nor a Hellenist, but a Hebrew of the 
 Hebrews, we will proceed to inquire further whether he 
 evinces an acquaintance with the manners and feelings, and 
 also with the geography and history (more especially the 
 contemporary history) of Palestine, which so far as our know- 
 ledge goes (and in dealing with such questions we must not 
 advance one step beyond our knowledge) would be morally 
 impossible with even a Hebrew Christian at the supposed date, 
 long after the political existence of the nation had been 
 obliterated, and when the disorganization of Jewish society was 
 complete. 
 
 As I am obliged to compress my remarks within the space 
 of a single lecture, I cannot place the evidence fully before 
 you ; but my hope is, that I may indicate the lines of investi- 
 gation which will enable you to answer it more completely for 
 yourselves. I will only say, that we obtain from the Fourth 
 Gospel details at once fuller and more minute on all these 
 points than from the other three. Whether we turn to the 
 Messianic hopes of the chosen people, with all the attendant 
 circumstances with which imagination had invested this ex- 
 pected event, or to the mutual relations of Samaritans, Jews, 
 Galilseans, Romans, and the respective feelings, prejudices, 
 beliefs, customs of each, or to the topography as well of the 
 city and the temple as of the rural districts — the Lake of 
 Gennesaret, and the cornfields and mountain ridges of Shechem 
 — or to the contemporary history of the Jewish hierarchy and 
 the Herodian sovereignty, we are alike struck at every turn 
 with subtle and unsuspicious traces, betokening the familiarity 
 with which the writer moves amidst the ever-shifting scenes of 
 his wonderful narrative. 
 
 This minuteness of detail in the Fourth Evangelist is very 
 commonly overlooked, because our gaze is arrested by still 
 more important and unique features in this Gospel. The 
 striking character of our Lord's discourses as recorded in St 
 John — their length and sequence, their simplicity of language, 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 23 
 
 their fulness and depth of meaning — dazzles the eye of the 
 critic and blinds him to the historical aspects of the narrative. 
 Only by concentrating our view on these latter shall we realize 
 the truth that the evangelist is not floating in the clouds of 
 airy theological speculations, that though with his eye he peers 
 into the mysteries of the unseen, his foot is planted on the solid 
 ground of external fact ; that, in short, the incidents are not 
 invented as a framework for the doctrine, but that the doctrine 
 arises naturally out of, and derives its meaning from, the inci- 
 dents. 
 
 One example will serve at once to illustrate the double 
 characteristic of this Gospel, the accurate historical narrative of 
 facts which forms the basis of the Gospel, and the theological 
 teaching which is built as a superstructure upon this founda- 
 tion, and which the evangelist keeps, distinctly and persistently 
 in view in his selection and arrangement of the facts, and also 
 to introduce the investigation which I purpose instituting. 
 
 The narrative and the discourses alike are thoroughly 
 saturated with the Messianic ideas of the time. The Christ, 
 as expected by the Jews, is the one central figure round which 
 all the facts are grouped, the one main topic on which all the 
 conversations hinge. This is the more remarkable, because the 
 leading conception in the writer's own mind is not the Messiah, 
 but the Word, the Logos, — not the deliverance of Israel, but 
 the manifestation of God in the flesh. This main purpose is 
 flung out at the opening of the Gospel, and it is kept steadily 
 in view in the selection of materials throughout the work 
 But it does not once enter into the mind of the Jews, who are 
 wholly absorbed in the Messianic idea. Nay, the word Logos 
 does not once occur even on our Lord's own lips, though the 
 obvious motive of His teaching is to enforce this higher aspect 
 of Hir person, to which they were strangers. And I cannot 
 but think that this distinct separation is a remarkable testi- 
 mony to the credibility of the writer, who, however strongly 
 impressed with his mission as the teacher of a great theological 
 conception, nevertheless keeps it free from his narrative of 
 
24 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 facts ; though obviously there would be a very strong tempta- 
 tion to introduce it, a temptation which to a mere forger would 
 be irresistible. 
 
 The Messianic idea, for instance, is turned about on all 
 sides, and presented in every aspect. On this point we learn 
 very much more of contemporary Jewish opinion from the 
 Fourth Gospel than from the other three. At the commence- 
 ment and at the close of the narrative — in the preaching of the 
 Baptist and in the incidents of the Passion — it is equally 
 prominent. In Galilee (i. 41, 46, 49; vi. 15, 28, 30 sq.), in 
 Samaria (iv. 25, 29, 42), in Judaea (v. 39, 45 sq. ; vii. 26 sq., 
 40-43 ; viii. 30 sq. ; x. 24), it is the one standard theme of 
 conversation. Among friends, among foes, among neutrals 
 alike it is mooted and discussed. The person and character of 
 Jesus are tried by this standard. He is accepted or He is 
 rejected, as He fulfils or contradicts the received ideal of the 
 Messiah. 
 
 The accessories also of the Messiah's coming, as conceived 
 by the Jews, are brought out with a completeness beyond the 
 other gospels. I will only ask you, as an illustration of this, 
 to consider the discourse on the manna in the sixth chapter. 
 The key to the meaning of the conversation is the fact that the 
 Jews expected a miracle similar to the gift of manna in the 
 wilderness, as an accompaniment of the appearance of the 
 great deliverer. This expectation throws a flood of light on 
 the whole discourse. But the fact is not communicated in the 
 passage itself. There is only a bald, isolated statement, which 
 apparently is suggested by nothing, and itself fails to suggest 
 anything: 'Our fathers did eat manna in the wilderness.' 
 Then comes an aposiopesis. The inference is unexpressed. 
 The expectation, which explains all, is left to be inferred, 
 because it would be mentally supplied by men brought up 
 among the ideas of the time. We ourselves have to get it by 
 the aid of criticism and research from rabbinical authorities. 
 But, when we have grasped it, we can unlock the meaning of 
 the whole chapter. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 25 
 
 Connected with Messiah's coming are other conceptions on 
 which it may he worth while to dwell for a moment. One of 
 these is the appearance of a mysterious person called 'the 
 prophet.' This expectation arose out of the announcement in 
 Deuteronomy xviii. 15, 'The Lord thy God will raise up unto 
 thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me.' To this 
 anticipation we have allusions in not less than four places in St 
 John (i. 21, 25 ; vi. 14 ; vii. 40), in all of which ' the prophet ' is 
 mentioned, though in the three first the distinctness of the 
 expectation is blurred in the English version by the rendering 
 ' that prophet.' In all these passages the mention of ' the 
 prophet ' without any explanation is most natural on the lips of 
 contemporary Jews, whose minds were filled with the Messianic 
 conceptions of the times; while such language is extremely 
 unlikely to have been invented for them more than a century 
 after the date of the supposed occurrences. But the point 
 especially to be observed is, that the form which the conception 
 takes is strictly Jewish, and not Christian. Christian teachers 
 identified the prophet foretold by Moses with our Lord Himself, 
 and therefore with the Christ. This application of the prophecy 
 is made directly in St Peter's speech (Acts iii. 22), and infer- 
 entially in St Stephen's (Acts vii. 37); and later Christian 
 teachers followed in their steps. But these Jews in St John's 
 Gospel conceive ' the Christ ' and ' the prophet ' as two different 
 persons. If He is not ' the Christ/ they adopt the alternative 
 that He may be ' the prophet ' (i. 21, 25) ; if not ' the prophet,' 
 then ' the Christ ' (vii. 40). It is hardly conceivable to my mind 
 that a Christian writer, living in or after the middle of the 
 second century, calling on his imagination for facts, should have 
 divested himself so absolutely of the Christian idea and fallen 
 back on the Jewish. 
 
 But before I have done with ' the prophet,' there is yet one 
 more point worthy of notice. After the miracle of feeding the 
 five thousand, we are told that ' those men who had seen the 
 miracle that Jesus did said, This is of a truth the prophet that 
 should come into the world' (vi. 14). The connexion is not 
 
26 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 obvious, and the writer has not explained himself. Here again 
 the missing link is supplied by the Messianic conception of 
 the age. The prophet foretold was to be like Moses himself. 
 Hence it was inferred that there must be a parallel in the works 
 of the two. Hence a repetition of the gift of the manna— the 
 bread from heaven— might be expected. Was not this miracle 
 then the very fulfilment of their expectation ? Hence we read 
 that on the day following (after several incidents have inter- 
 vened, but with the miracle still fresh on their minds), they 
 seek Him out, and still try to elicit a definite answer from Him: 
 ' What sign showest thou then ? Our fathers did eat manna in 
 the desert.' Thus a casual and indistinct reference in one part 
 of the chapter is explained by an equally casual and indistinct 
 reference in another, and light emerges from darkness. 
 
 From the Messianic ideas I turn to the Jewish sects and the 
 Levitical hierarchy. 
 
 The Sadducees, with whom we are familiar in other gospels, 
 are not once mentioned by the Fourth Evangelist How are we 
 to account for this fact ? Have we here a discrepancy, or (if 
 not a discrepancy) at least an incongruity? Is there in St 
 John's picture an entire omission of that group which occupies 
 a prominent place on the canvas of the other evangelists, 
 especially of St Matthew? 
 
 The common connexion, when describing the adversaries of 
 our Lord, is 'the Pharisees and Sadducees' in the synoptic 
 evangelists, 'the chief priests and the Pharisees' in St John. 
 In the comparison of these phrases lies the solution. The high 
 priests at this time belonged to the sect of the Sadduceea How 
 this happened we do not know. It may be that their Roman 
 rulers favoured this party, as being more lukewarm than the 
 Pharisees in religious matters, and therefore less likely to give 
 trouble to the civil powers. At all events, the fact appears dis- 
 tinctly from more than one notice in the narrative of the Acts 
 (iv. 1, v. 17) ; and the same is stated in a passage of Josephus 
 (Ant. xx. 9. 1). Thus a real coincidence arises from an apparent 
 incongruity. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 27 
 
 But Josephus elsewhere (Ant. xviii. 1. 4) makes another 
 statement respecting the Pharisees, which throws great light on 
 the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist. He tells us that the 
 Sadducees were few in number, though of the highest rank ; 
 and that when they were in office, they were forced, even 
 against their will, to listen to the Pharisees, because otherwise 
 they would not be tolerated by the people. Now this is 
 precisely the order of events in St John. The Pharisees (with 
 one single exception) always take the initiative ; they are the 
 active opponents of our Lord, and the chief priests step in to 
 execute their will. 
 
 The single exception is remarkable. Once only we find 
 chief priests acting alone and acting promptly (xii. 10). They 
 form a plot for putting Lazarus to death. This was essentially 
 a Sadducees' question. It was necessary that a living witness 
 to the great truth, which the high-priestly party denied, should 
 be got rid of at all hazards. Hence they bestir themselves and 
 throw off their usual apathy ; just as, turning from the Gospels 
 to the Acts of the Apostles, they have taken the place of the 
 Pharisees as the foremost persecutors of the new faith, because 
 the resurrection from the dead was the cardinal topic of the 
 preaching of the apostles. 
 
 But there is one other notice of the Jewish historian with 
 which the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist presents a striking 
 but unsuspicious coincidence. We are somewhat startled with 
 the outburst of rudeness which marks the chief of the party on 
 one occasion (xi. 49, 50). ' One of them, Caiaphas, being high 
 priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, and 
 ye do not reflect that it is expedient for you that one man 
 should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not 
 perish.' As a comment on this, take the words of Josephus : 
 ' The behaviour of the Sadducees to one another is not a little 
 rude, and their intercourse with their peers is brusque, as 
 if addressing strangers ' (B. J. ii. 8. 14). 
 
 These coincidences need little comment. I will only add 
 that the Fourth Evangelist does not himself give us the key to 
 
28 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 the incidents, that the references have been gathered from three 
 different parts of Josephus, that the statements in the evangelist 
 are not embroideries on his narrative, but are woven into its 
 very texture; and that nevertheless all these several notices 
 dovetail together and create one harmonious whole, which bears 
 the very impress of strict historical truth. 
 
 After reviewing these coincidences, it will appear strange 
 that from the passage last quoted Baur derived what he 
 obviously considered to be one of his strongest arguments 
 against the authenticity of the Gospel Because the evangelist 
 three times speaks of Caiaphas as 'high priest that year' (xi. 
 49, 51 ; xviii. 13), he argues that the writer supposed the high 
 priesthood to be an annual office, and therefore could not have 
 been the Apostle John. 
 
 Now unless I have entirely misled you and myself, this is 
 incredible. You cannot imagine that one who shows an ac- 
 quaintance, not only with the language, but also with the 
 customs, feelings, history, topography of the race, even in their 
 minute details, should yet be ignorant of this most elementary 
 fact of Jewish institutions. Whether the Gospel is authentic or 
 whether it is not, such a supposition is equally incredible. If 
 the writing is a forgery, the forger was certainly highly informed 
 and extremely subtle ; he must have ransacked divers histories 
 for his facts; and yet here he is credited with a degree of 
 ignorance which a casual glance at a few pages of his Old 
 Testament or his Josephus would at once have served to 
 dissipate. Suppose a parallel case. Imagine one, who writing 
 (we will say) a historical work, shows a subtle appreciation of 
 political feeling in England, and a minute acquaintance with 
 English social institutions, and yet falls into the error of 
 supposing that the premier is elected annually by vote of the 
 people, or that the lord-mayoralty is a hereditary office tenable 
 for life. 
 
 If therefore this supposition is simply impossible, we must 
 explain the expression, ' high priest that year,' in some other 
 way. And the explanation seems to be this. The most im- 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 29 
 
 portant duty of the high priest was an annual function, the 
 sacrifice and intercession for the people on the great day of 
 atonement. * Once every year,' says the writer of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews (ix. 7), 'the high priest alone entereth into the 
 second tabernacle (the inner sanctuary), not without blood, 
 which he offereth for himself and for the errors of the people.' 
 The year of which the evangelist speaks was the year of all 
 years; 'the acceptable year of the Lord,' as it is elsewhere called; 
 the year in which the great sacrifice, the one atonement, was 
 made, the atonement which annulled once and for ever the 
 annual repetitions. It so happened that it was the duty of 
 Caiaphas, as high priest, to enter the holy of holies, and offer 
 the atonement for that year. The evangelist sees, if we may 
 use the phrase without irreverence, a dramatic propriety in the 
 fact that he of all men should make this declaration. By a 
 Divine irony he is made unconsciously to declare the truth, 
 proclaiming Jesus to be the great atoning sacrifice, and himself 
 to be instrumental in offering the victim. This irony of circum- 
 stances is illustrated in the case of Pilate, as in the case of 
 Caiaphas. The latter, the representative of the Jewish hierarchy, 
 pronounces Jesus the great atoning sacrifice; the former, the 
 representative of the civil power, pronounces Him as the 
 sovereign of the race, ' Behold your King ! ' The malignity of 
 Caiaphas and the sneer of Pilate alike bear witness to a higher 
 truth than they themselves consciously apprehend. 
 
 From the sects and the hierarchy we may turn to the city 
 and the temple. Here too we should do well to bear in mind 
 how largely we owe the distinctive features of the topography 
 and architecture with which we are familiar to the Fourth 
 Gospel Within the sacred precincts themselves the Porch of 
 Solomon, within the Holy City the pools of Bethsaida 1 and 
 Siloam, are brought before our eyes by this evangelist alone. 
 And when we pass outside of the walls, he is still our guide. 
 From him we trace the steps of the Lord and His disciples on 
 
 i 'Bethsaida ' or ' Bethzatha ' should probably be read in S. John v. 2 rather 
 than 'Bethesda.' 
 
30 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 that fatal night crossing the brook Kedron into the garden ; it 
 is he who, relating the last triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 
 specifies 'the branches of the palm trees' (the other evangelists 
 use general expressions, ' boughs of the trees/ or the like) — 
 ' the palm trees ' on which he had so often gazed, of which the 
 sight was still so fresh in his memory, which clothed the 
 eastern slopes of Olivet, and gave its name to the village of 
 Bethany, 'the house of dates.' How simple and natural the 
 definite articles are on the lips of an eye-witness I need not say. 
 How awkward they sound to later ears, and how little likely 
 to have been used by a later writer, unfamiliar with the scene 
 itself, we may infer from the fact that in our own version they 
 are suppressed, and the evangelist is made to say, ' they took 
 branches of palm trees.' 
 
 Moreover the familiarity of the Fourth Evangelist, not only 
 with the site and the buildings of the temple, but also with 
 the history, appears in a striking way from a casual allusion. 
 After the description of the cleansing of the temple by our Lord, 
 — a description which though brief is given with singular vivid- 
 ness of detail — the Jews ask for some sign, as the credential 
 which might justify this assumption of authority and right of 
 chastisement. His answer is, 'Pull down this temple, and in 
 three days I will build it up.' Their astonishment is expressed 
 in their reply, 'This temple has been forty-six years in building, 
 and wilt Thou raise it again in three days ? ' (ii. 19, 20). 
 
 Now I think it will be allowed that this mention of time is 
 quite undesigned. It has no appearance of artifice, it occurs 
 naturally in the course of conversation, and it is altogether free 
 from suspicion, as having been introduced to give a historical 
 colouring to a work of fiction. If so, let us examine its historical 
 bearing. 
 
 For this purpose it is necessary to follow two distinct lines 
 of chronological research. We have to investigate the history 
 of the building of the Herodian temple, and we have to ascertain 
 the dates of our Lord's life. 
 
 Now by comparison of several passages in Josephus, and 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 31 
 
 by the exercise of historical criticism upon them, we arrive at 
 the conclusion that Herod commenced his temple about A.U.C. 
 735, i.e. B.c. 18. It took many years in building, and was not 
 finally completed until A.u.c. 817, i.e. A.D. 64. Thus the works 
 were going on during the whole of the period comprised in the 
 New Testament history. If we add forty-six years to the date 
 of its commencement (a.u.c. 735) we are brought down to A.U.C. 
 781 or 782, i.e. A.D. 28 or 29. 
 
 The chronology of Herod's temple involves one considerable 
 effort of historical criticism. The chronology of our Lord's life 
 requires another. Into this question however I need not enter 
 in detail. It is sufficient to remind you that the common date 
 of the Christian era is now generally allowed to be a little wide 
 of the mark, and that our Lord's birth actually took place three 
 or four years before this era. The point to be observed here is, 
 that St Luke places the baptism of our Lord in or about the 
 fifteenth year of Tiberius, which comprised the interval between 
 the autumn of 781 and the autumn of 782. Now the occurrence 
 related by St John took place, as we may infer from his narra- 
 tive, in the first passover after the baptism ; that is, according 
 to St Luke's chronology probably at the passover of 782. 
 
 Thus we are brought to the same date by following two 
 lines of chronology; and we arrive at the fact that forty-six 
 years there or thereabouts had actually elapsed since the com- 
 mencement of Herod's building to this point in our Lord's 
 ministry. I am anxious not to speak with too great precision, 
 because the facts do not allow it. The exact number might 
 have been forty-five or forty-seven years, for fragments of years 
 may be reckoned in or not in our calculation, and the data are 
 not sufficiently exact to determine the date to a nicety. But, 
 after all allowance made for this margin of uncertainty, the 
 coincidence is sufficiently striking. 
 
 And now let us suppose the Gospel to have been written in 
 the middle of the second century, and ask ourselves what strong 
 improbabilities this hypothesis involves. 
 
 The writer must first have made himself acquainted with 
 
32 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 a number of facts connected with the temple of Herod. He 
 must not only have known that the temple was commenced in 
 a particular year, but also that it was still incomplete at the 
 time of our Lord's ministry. So far as we know, he could only 
 have got these facts from Josephus. Even Josephus however 
 does not state the actual date of the commencement of the 
 temple. It requires some patient research to arrive at this 
 date by a comparison of several passages. We have therefore to 
 suppose, first, that the forger of the Fourth Gospel went through 
 an elaborate critical investigation for the sake of ascertaining 
 the date. But, secondly, he must have made himself acquainted 
 with the chronology of the gospel history. At all events, he 
 must have ascertained the date of the commencement of our 
 Lord's ministry. The most favourable supposition is, that he 
 had before him the Gospel of St Luke, though he nowhere else 
 betrays the slightest acquaintance with this gospel. Here he 
 would find the date which he wanted, reckoned by the years of 
 the Eoman emperors. Thirdly, after arriving at these two 
 results by separate processes, he must combine them; thus 
 connecting the chronology of the Jewish kings with the 
 chronology of the Boman emperors, the chronology of the 
 temple erection with the chronology of our Lord's life. 
 
 When he has taken all these pains, and worked up the 
 subject so elaborately, he drops in the notice which has given 
 him so much trouble in an incidental and unobtrusive way. 
 It has no direct bearing on his history; it does not subserve 
 the purpose of his theology. It leads to nothing, proves 
 nothing. Certainly the art of concealing art was never exer- 
 cised in a more masterly way than here. And yet this waa an 
 age which perpetrated the most crude and bungling forgeries, 
 and is denounced by modern criticism for its utter incapacity of 
 criticism. 
 
 Nor, when we travel beyond the city and its suburbs, does 
 the writer's knowledge desert him. One instance must suffice ; 
 but it is, if I mistake not, so convincing, that it may well serve 
 in place of many. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 33 
 
 The country of the Samaritans lay between Judeea and 
 Galilee, so that a person journeying from the one region to 
 the other, unless he were prepared to make a detour, must 
 necessarily pass through it. This was the case with our Lord 
 and His Apostles, as related in the fourth chapter. The high- 
 road from Jerusalem passes through some very remarkable 
 scenery. The mountain ridges of Ebal and Gerizim run parallel 
 to each other from east to west, not many hundred feet apart, 
 thus inclosing a narrow valley between them. Eastward this 
 valley opens out into a plain, a rare phenomenon in this 
 country — ' one mass of corn unbroken by a boundary or hedge,' 
 as it is described by one who has seen it. Up the valley 
 westward, shut in between these mountain barriers, lies the 
 modern town of Nablus, the ancient Shechem. The road does 
 not enter the valley, but traverses the plain, running at right 
 angles to the gorge, and thus touching the eastern bases of the 
 mountain ridges as they fall down into the level ground. Here 
 at the mouth of the valley is a deep well, even now descending 
 ' to a depth of seventy feet or more,' and formerly, before it had 
 been partially filled with accumulated rubbish, we may well 
 believe deeper still. In the words of Dean Stanley: 
 
 "Of all the special localities of our Lord's life in Palestine, this is 
 almost the only one absolutely undisputed. By the edge of this well, in 
 the touching language of the ancient hymn, ' quaereus me sedisti lassus.' 
 Here on the great road through which ' He must needs go ' when ' He left 
 Judsea, and departed into Galilee,' He halted, as travellers still halt, in the 
 noon or evening of the spring day by the side of the well. Up that 
 passage through the valley His disciples ' went away into the city, 1 which 
 He did not enter. Down the same gorge came the woman to draw water, 
 according to the unchanged custom of the East. . . . Above them, as 
 they talked, rose ' this mountain ' of Gerizim, crowned by the temple, of 
 which vestiges still remain, where the fathers of the Samaritan sect 'said 
 men ought to worship.' . . . And round about them, as He and she 
 thus sate or stood by the well, spread far and wide the noble plain of 
 waving corn. It was still winter, or early spring, 'four months yet to the 
 harvest,' and the bright golden ears of those fields had not yet « whitened ' 
 their unbroken expanse of verdure. But as He gazed upon them, they 
 served to suggest the glorious vision of the distant harvest of the Gentile 
 world, which with each successive turn of the conversation unfolded itself 
 
 L. E. 3 
 
34 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN". 
 
 more and more distinctly before Him, as He sate (so we gather from the 
 narrative) absorbed in the opening prospect, silent amidst His silent and 
 astonished disciples.'' 
 
 The scrupulous accuracy of the geographical and archaeo- 
 logical details in St John's account of the conversation with the 
 Samaritan woman will have appeared already from this quo- 
 tation. I will only ask you to consider for a moment how 
 naturally they occur in the course of the narrative, so naturally 
 and so incidentally that without the researches of modern 
 travellers the allusions would be entirely lost to us. I think 
 that this consideration will leave but one alternative. Either 
 you have here written, as we are constantly reminded, in an 
 uncritical age and among an uncritical people, the most masterly 
 piece of romance- writing which the genius and learning of man 
 ever penned in any age ; or you have (what universal tradition 
 represents it to be) a genuine work of an eye-witness and 
 companion of our Lord. Which of these two suppositions does 
 less violence to historical probability I will leave to yourselves 
 to determine. 
 
 Follow then the narrative in detail An unknown Traveller 
 is sitting at the well. His garb, or His features, or His desti- 
 nation, show Him to be a Jew. A woman of the country comes 
 to draw water from the well, and He asks her to give Him to 
 drink. She is surprised that He, a Jew, is willing to talk so 
 freely to her, a Samaritan. And here I would remark that the 
 explanation which follows, ' For the Jews have no dealings with ' 
 (or rather, 'do not associate with') 'the Samaritans,' is the 
 evangelist's own, a fact obscured by the ordinary mode of 
 printing in our English Bibles. Hitherto, though the scene is 
 very natural and very real, there is nothing which a fairly 
 clever artist might not have invented. But from this point 
 onwards follow in rapid succession various historical and geo- 
 graphical allusions, various hints of individual character in the 
 woman, various aspects of Divine teaching on our Lord's part, 
 all closely interwoven together, each suggesting and suggested 
 by another, in such a manner as to preclude any hypothesis of 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 35 
 
 romance or forgery. ' Thou wouldest have asked, and I would 
 have given thee living water.' 'Sir, Thou hast nothing to 
 draw with, and the well is deep. . . . Art Thou greater 
 than our father Jacob ? ' And so the conversation proceeds, one 
 point suggesting the next in the most natural way. Take, for 
 instance, the reference to Gerizim. ' Sir, I perceive that Thou 
 art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain.' 
 Observe that there is no mention in the context of any mountain 
 in the neighbourhood ; that even here, where it is mentioned, 
 its name is not given : but suddenly the woman, partly to divert 
 the inconvenient tenour of the conversation, partly to satisfy 
 herself on one important point of difference between the 
 Samaritans and the Jews, avails herself of the newly found 
 prophet's presence, and, pointing to the over-hanging heights 
 of Gerizim, puts the question to Him. The mention of the 
 sacred mountain, like the mention of the depths of the well, 
 draws forth a new spiritual lesson. * Not in this mountain, nor 
 yet at Jerusalem. . . . God is a spirit.' The woman saith, 
 ' When Messias cometh, He will tell us all things.' Jesus saith, 
 ' I that speak unto thee am He.' 
 
 At this point the disciples approach from the valley, with 
 the provisions which they had purchased in the city, and rejoin 
 their Master. They are surprised to find Him so engaged. 
 Here again an error in the English version obscures the sense. 
 Their marvel was, not that He talked with the woman, but that 
 He talked with a woman. It was a rabbinical maxim, ' Let no 
 man talk with a woman in the street (in public), no, not with 
 his own wife.' The narrowness of His disciples was shocked 
 that He, their own rabbi, should be so wanting to Himself as 
 to disregard this recognised precept of morality. The narrator 
 assumes the knowledge with which he himself was so familiar. 
 
 So the conversation with the woman closes. With natural 
 eagerness she leaves her pitcher, and hurries back to the city 
 with her news. With natural exaggeration she reports there 
 that the stranger has told her all things that ever she did. 
 
 A conversation with the disciples follows, which is hardly 
 
 3—2 
 
36 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 less remarkable, but from which I must be content to select 
 one illustration only. I think that it must be allowed, that the 
 reference to the harvest is wholly free from suspicion, as regards 
 the manner of its introduction. It is unpremeditated, for it 
 cannot be severed from the previous part of the conversation, 
 out of which it arises. It is unobtrusive, for the passage itself 
 makes no attempt to explain the local allusion (which, without 
 the experience of modern travellers would escape notice): 
 'There are yet. four months, and then cometh the harvest. 
 Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the 
 fields ; for they are white already to harvest.' And yet, when 
 we once realize the scene, when in imagination our eye ranges 
 over that vast expanse of growing corn — so unusual in Palestine, 
 however familiar in corn-growing England — we are at once 
 struck with the truthfulness and the significance of this allusive 
 parable. 
 
 I have -thus endeavoured to show, by taking a few instances, 
 the accuracy of the writer's knowledge in all that relates to the 
 history, the geography, the institutions, the thoughts and 
 feelings of the Jews. If however we had found accuracy, 
 and nothing more, we might indeed have reasonably inferred 
 that the narrative was written by a Jew of the mother-country, 
 who lived in a very early age, before time and circumstance 
 had obliterated the traces of Palestine, as it existed in the first 
 century ; but we could not safely have gone beyond this. But 
 unless I have entirely deceived myself, the manner in which 
 this accurate knowledge betrays itself justifies the further 
 conclusion that we have before us the genuine narrative of 
 an eye-witness, who records the events just as they occurred 
 in natural sequence. 
 
 I have discussed the accuracy of the external allusions. Let 
 me now apply another test. The representation of character is 
 perhaps the most satisfactory criterion of a true narrative, as 
 applied to an age before romance-writing had been studied as 
 an art. 
 
 We are all familiar with the principal characters in the 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 37 
 
 Gospel history : Peter, John, Philip, Thomas, Pilate, the sisters 
 Mary and Martha, and several others which I might mention ; 
 each standing before us with an individuality, which seems to 
 place Him or her within the range of our own personal know- 
 ledge. Have we ever asked ourselves to which evangelist above 
 the rest we owe this personal acquaintance with the actors in 
 this great drama ? 
 
 When the question is once asked, the answer cannot be 
 doubtful. It is true indeed that we should have known 
 St Peter without the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist, 
 though he adds several minute points, which give additional 
 life to the portrait. It is true that Pilate is introduced to us 
 in the other Gospels, though without St John we should not 
 have been able to read his heart and character, his proud 
 Roman indifference and his cynical scorn. But, on the other 
 hand, take the case of Thomas. Of this Apostle nothing is 
 recorded in the other Evangelists, and yet he stands out before 
 us, not as a mere lay figure, on whose stiff, mechanical form the 
 artist may hang a moral precept or a doctrinal lesson by way of 
 drapery, but as a real, living, speaking man, at once doubtful 
 and eager, at once hesitating and devoted — sceptical, not 
 because his nature is cold and unsympathetic, but because 
 his intellect moves more cautiously than his heart, because the 
 momentous issues which belief involves bid him pause before 
 he closes with it; at one moment endeavouring to divert his 
 Master's purpose of going up to Jerusalem, where certain 
 destruction awaits him : at the next, ready to share the perils 
 with Him, ' Let us also go with Him' ; at one moment resisting 
 the testimony of direct eye-witnesses and faithful friends to his 
 Master's resurrection : at the next, overwhelmed by the evidence 
 of his senses, and expressing the depth of his conviction in the 
 earnest confession ' My Lord and my God.' 
 
 I must satisfy myself with one other example. The character 
 of the sisters Martha and Mary presents a striking contrast. 
 They are mentioned once only in the other Gospels, in the 
 familiar passage of St Luke, where they appear respectively as 
 
38 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 the practical, bustling housewife, who is busied about many- 
 things, and the devout, contemplative, absorbed disciple, who 
 chooses the one thing needful. In St John also this contrast 
 reappears ; but the characteristics of the two sisters are brought 
 out in a very subtle way. In St Luke the contrast is summed 
 up, as it were, in one definite incident; in St John it is de- 
 veloped gradually in the course of a continuous narrative. And 
 there is also another difference. In St Luke the contrast is 
 direct and trenchant, a contrast (one might almost say) of light 
 and darkness. But in St John the characters are shaded off, as 
 it were, into each other. Both alike are beloved by our Lord, 
 both alike send to Him for help, both alike express their faith 
 in His power, both alike show deep sorrow for their lost brother. 
 And yet, notwithstanding this, the difference of character is 
 perceptible throughout the narrative. It is Martha who, with 
 her restless activity, goes out to meet Jesus, while Mary remains 
 in the house weeping. It is Martha who holds a conversation 
 with Jesus, argues with Him, remonstrates with Him, and in 
 the very crisis of their grief shows her practical common sense 
 in deprecating the removal of the stone. It is Mary who goes 
 forth silently to meet Him, silently and tearfully, so that the 
 bystanders suppose her to be going to weep at her brother's 
 tomb ; who, when she sees Jesus, falls down at His feet ; who, 
 uttering the same words of faith in His power as Martha, does 
 not qualify them with the same reservation; who infects all 
 the bystanders with the intensity of her sorrow, and crushes 
 the human spirit of our Lord Himself with sympathetic grief. 
 
 And when we turn to the second occasion in which the two 
 sisters are introduced by St John, the contrast is still the same. 
 Martha is busied in the homely duties of hospitality towards 
 Jesus and her other guests ; but Mary brings her choicest and 
 most precious gift to bestow upon Him, at the same time 
 showing the depth of her humility and the abandonment of her 
 devotion by wiping His feet with her hair. 
 
 In all this narrative the Evangelist does not once direct 
 attention to the contrast between the two sisters. He simply 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 39 
 
 relates the events of which he was an eye-witness without a 
 comment. But the two were real, living persons, and therefore 
 the difference of character between them develops itself in 
 action. 
 
 I have shown hitherto that, whatever touchstone we apply, 
 the Fourth Gospel vindicates itself as a trustworthy narrative, 
 which could only have proceeded from a contemporary and an 
 eye-witness. But nothing has hitherto been adduced which 
 leads to the identification of the author as the Apostle St John. 
 Though sufficient has been said to vindicate the authenticity, 
 the genuineness is yet untouched. 
 
 It is said by those who deny its apostolic origin, that the 
 unknown author, living in the middle of the second century, 
 and wishing to gain a hearing for a modified gospel suited 
 to the wants of his age, dropped his own personality and 
 shielded himself under the name of St John the son of 
 Zebedee. 
 
 Is this a true representation of the fact? Is it not an 
 entire though unconscious misrepresentation? John is not 
 once mentioned by name throughout the twenty-one chapters 
 of this Gospel. James and John, the sons of Zebedee, occupy a 
 prominent place in all the other Evangelists. In this Fourth 
 Gospel alone neither brother's name occurs. The writer does 
 once, it is true, speak of the * sons of Zebedee ' ; but in this 
 passage, which occurs in the last chapter (xxi. 2), there is not 
 even the faintest hint of any connexion between the writer 
 himself and this pair of brothers. He mentions them in the 
 third person, as he might mention any character whom he had 
 occasion to introduce. 
 
 Now is not this wholly unlike the proceeding of a forger 
 who was simulating a false personality ? Would it not be 
 utterly irrational under these circumstances to make no 
 provision for the identification of the author, but to leave 
 everything to the chapter of accidents ? No discredit, indeed, 
 is thrown on the genuineness of a document by the fact that 
 
40 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 the author's name appears on the forefront. This is the case 
 with the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides ; it is the case 
 also with the Epistles of Paul and Peter and James, and with 
 the Apocalypse of John. But, on the supposition of forgery, it 
 was a matter of vital moment that the work should be accepted 
 as the genuine production of its pretended author. The two 
 instances of early Christian forgeries which I brought forward 
 in an earlier part of this lecture will suffice as illustrations. 
 The Gospel of the Infancy closes with a distinct declaration 
 that it was written by James. The Clementine Homilies affirm 
 the pretended authorship in the opening words, 'I Clement, 
 being a Boman citizen.' Even if our supposed forger could 
 have exercised this unusual self-restraint in suppressing the 
 simulated author's name, would he not have made it clear by 
 some allusion to his brother James, or to his father Zebedee, or 
 to his mother Salome ? The policy which he has adopted is as 
 suicidal as it is unexpected. 
 
 How then do we ascertain that it was written by John the 
 sou of Zebedee ? I answer, first of all, that it is traditionally 
 ascribed to him, as the Phcedo is ascribed to Plato, or the 
 Antigone to Sophocles ; and, secondly, that from a careful 
 examination of indirect allusions and casual notices, from a 
 comparison of things said and things unsaid, we arrive at the 
 same result by a process independent of external tradition. 
 But a forger could not have been satisfied with trusting to 
 either of these methods. External tradition was quite beyond 
 the reach of his control. In this particular case, as we shall see, 
 the critical investigation requisite is so subtle, and its subject- 
 matter lies so far below the surface, that a forger, even 
 supposing him capable of constructing the narrative, would 
 have defeated his own purpose by making such demands on his 
 readers. 
 
 For let us follow out this investigation. In the opening 
 chapter of the Gospel there is mention of a certain disciple 
 whose name is not given (i. 35, 37, 40). This anonymous 
 person (for it is a natural, though not a certain inference, that 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 41 
 
 the same is meant throughout) reappears again in the closing 
 scene before and after the passion, where he is distinguished as 
 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.' At length, but not till the 
 concluding verses of the Gospel, we are told that this anony- 
 mous disciple is himself the writer : ' This is the disciple which 
 testifieth of these things, and wrote these things.' 
 
 In accordance with this statement we find that those 
 particular scenes in which this anonymous disciple is recorded 
 as taking a part are related with peculiar minuteness and 
 vividness of detail. Such is the case, for instance, with the 
 notices of the Baptist and of the call of the earliest disciples. 
 Such again is the case with the conversation at the last supper, 
 with the scene over the fire in the hall of Caiaphas's house, 
 with certain other incidents connected with the crucifixion, and 
 with the scene on the Lake of Galilee after the resurrection. 
 
 Who then is this anonymous disciple ? On this point the 
 Gospel furnishes no information. We arrive at the identifica- 
 tion, partly by a process of exhaustion, partly by attention to 
 some casual incidents and expressions. 
 
 Comparing the accounts in the other Gospels, it seems safe 
 to assume that he was one of the inner circle of disciples. This 
 inner circle comprised the two pairs of brothers, Peter and 
 Andrew, James and John — if indeed Andrew deserves a place 
 here. Now he cannot have been Andrew, because Andrew 
 appears in company with him in the opening chapter ; nor can 
 he have been Peter, because we find him repeatedly associated 
 with Peter in the closing scenes. Again, James seems to be 
 excluded; for James fell an early martyr, and external and 
 internal evidence alike point to a later date for this Gospel. 
 Thus by a process of exhaustion we are brought to identify him 
 with John the son of Zebedee. 
 
 With this identification all the particulars agree. 
 
 First. He is called among the earliest disciples ; and from 
 his connexion with Andrew (L 40, 44) it may be inferred that 
 he was a native of Bethsaida in the neighbourhood. 
 
 Secondly. At the close of his Master's life, and after his 
 
42 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Master's resurrection, we find him especially associated with 
 Simon Peter. This position exactly suits John, who in the 
 earliest days of the Church takes his place by the side of Peter 
 in the championship of faith. 
 
 Thirdly. Unless the beloved disciple be John the son of 
 Zebedee, this person who occupies so prominent a place in the 
 account of the other Evangelists, and who stood in the fore- 
 most rank in the estimation of the early Church as a pillar 
 Apostle, does not once appear in the Fourth Gospel, except in 
 the one passage where 'the sons of Zebedee' are mentioned 
 and summarily dismissed in a mere enumeration of names. 
 Such a result is hardly credible. 
 
 Lastly. Whereas in the other Evangelists John the Baptist 
 is very frequently distinguished by the addition of this surname, 
 and always so distinguished where there is any possibility of 
 confusing him with the son of Zebedee, in this Gospel alone the 
 forerunner is never once called John the Baptist. To others 
 some distinguishing epithet seemed needed. To the son of 
 Zebedee there was only one famous John ; and therefore when 
 he had occasion to mention him, he naturally spoke of him as 
 John simply, without any addition. Is it conceivable, I would 
 ask, that any forger would have lost sight of himself so com- 
 pletely, and used natural language of John the son of Zebedee 
 with such success, as to observe this very minute and unob- 
 trusive indication of personality ? 
 
 I have addressed myself more directly to the theory of the 
 Tubingen school, either as propounded by Baur, or as modified 
 by later critics, which denies at once the historical character of 
 this Gospel and its apostolic authorship, and places it in the 
 middle or latter half of the second century. But there is an 
 intermediate position between rejecting its worth as a historic 
 record and accepting St John as its author, and this position 
 has been taken up by some. They suppose it to have been 
 composed by some disciple or disciples of St John from remi- 
 niscences of their master's teaching, and thus they are prepared 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 1. 43 
 
 to allow that it contains some historical matter which is valu- 
 able. You will have seen however that most of the arguments 
 adduced, though not all, are equally fatal to this hypothesis as 
 the other. The process by which, after establishing its authen- 
 ticity, we succeeded in identifying its author is, if I mistake 
 not, alone sufficient to overthrow this solution. Indeed this 
 theory is exposed to a double set of objections, and it has 
 nothing to recommend it. 
 
 I have already taken up more time than I had intended, and 
 yet I feel that very much has been left unsaid. But I venture 
 to hope that certain lines of investigation have been indicated, 
 which, if carefully and soberly followed out, can only lead to one 
 result. Whatever consequences may follow from it, we are com- 
 pelled on critical grounds to accept this Fourth Gospel as the 
 genuine work of John the son of Zebedee. 
 
 Some among my hearers perhaps may be disappointed that 
 I have not touched on some well-known difficulties, though 
 these have been grossly exaggerated. Some have to be satis- 
 factorily explained ; of others probable, or at least possible, 
 solutions have been given ; while others still remain on which 
 we are obliged to suspend judgment until some new light of 
 history is vouchsafed It is not from too much light, but from 
 too little light, that the historical credibility of this Gospel has 
 suffered. Each new discovery made, each old fact elucidated, 
 sets at rest some disputed question. If the main fact of the 
 genuineness be established, the special difficulties can well 
 afford to wait. 
 
 One word more, and I conclude. I have treated this as a 
 purely critical question, carefully eschewing any appeal to 
 Christian instincts. As a critical question I wish to take a 
 verdict upon it. But as I could not have you think that I am 
 blind to the theological issues directly or indirectly connected 
 with it, I will close with this brief confession of faith. I believe 
 from my heart that the truth which this Gospel more especially 
 enshrines — the truth that Jesus Christ is the very Word Incar- 
 
44 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 nate, the manifestation of the Father to mankind — is the one 
 lesson which, duly apprehended, will do more than all our feeble 
 efforts to purify and elevate human life here by imparting to it 
 hope and light and strength, the one study which alone can 
 fitly prepare us for a joyful immortality hereafter. 
 
 [1871.] 
 
ir. 
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY 
 AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
II. 
 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY 
 AND GENUINENESS OP ST JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
 FT1HE genuineness of St John's Gospel is the centre of the 
 -*- position of those who uphold the historical truth of the 
 record of our Lord Jesus Christ given us in the New Testament. 
 Hence the attacks of the opponents of revealed religion are con. 
 centrated upon it. So long however as it holds its ground, these 
 assaults must inevitably prove ineffective. The assailants are 
 of two kinds: (1) those who deny the miraculous element in 
 Christianity — Rationalists, (2) those who deny the distinctive 
 character of Christian doctrine — Unitarians. The Gospel con- 
 fronts both. It relates the most stupendous miracle in the 
 history of our Lord (short of the Incarnation and the Resurrec- 
 tion), the raising of Lazarus. Again, it enunciates in the most 
 express terms the Divinity, the Deity, of our Lord. And yet at 
 the same time it professes to have been written by the one man, 
 of all others, who had the greatest opportunities of knowing the 
 truth. The testimony of St Paul might conceivably be set 
 aside, as of one who was not an eye-witness. But here we 
 have, not an e/cTpm/ia 1 , not a personal disciple merely, not one 
 of the twelve only, but the one of the twelve — the Apostle who 
 leaned on his Master's bosom, who stood by his Master's cross, 
 who entered his Master's empty grave. If therefore the claim 
 of this Gospel to be the work of John the son of Zebedee be 
 true, if in other words the Fourth Gospel be genuine, the most 
 
 i l Cor. xv. 8. 
 
48 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 formidable, not to say an insuperable, obstacle stands in the way 
 of both classes of antagonists. Hence the persistence and the 
 ingenuity of the attacks; and hence also the necessity of a 
 thoroughness in the defence. No apology therefore is needed, 
 if the subject should seem dry and uninviting. 
 
 And details too are necessary. For the nature of the proof 
 is cumulative. Some points which I shall have to urge may 
 seem weak. The allusions to the Gospel in many cases are 
 uncertain or anonymous. But they must be taken pro tanto. 
 To borrow a mechanical simile, evidence for the authenticity of 
 a document is not like a chain, where the strength of the whole 
 is the strength of its weakest link. It is like the supports of a 
 building, where the strength is in the aggregate. One pillar 
 may be weak, or may fall ; but the superstructure will still 
 remain, for each instance is independent of the others. 
 
 Consequently, considerable mental effort is necessary in 
 order to keep in view all the elements of a cumulative proof. 
 We are apt to concentrate our attention on that which is last, 
 or that which is exceptional. If then the last argument stated 
 is weak, or if anywhere there is one argument exceptionally 
 weak, we may leap to the conclusion that the whole is weak. 
 This is manifestly a false mode of arguing, and we must con- 
 stantly be on our guard against its subtle influence. 
 
 Hence the necessity of keeping the whole in view. We 
 shall be occupied during the present term with the external 
 evidence. But the external evidence is not all. And in sum- 
 ming up in our own minds the results which we shall obtain, 
 we must not forget what lies beyond — what will occupy us 
 probably next term — the reinforcement of the internal evidence. 
 For the present however we shall confine ourselves to the 
 former. And we cannot help being struck at the outset by 
 the inadequacy of treatment which the question has met with 
 in the prolegomena of the majority of commentators. An 
 allusion to Theophilus, to Irenseus, to Eusebius, an apology, 
 somewhat lame, for the silence of Papias, and the whole 
 subject is briefly and summarily dismissed. Now the injury 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 49 
 
 done to the cause of revealed truth by this method of treat- 
 ment is very serious, and has resulted in an undue disparage- 
 ment of the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel. On this 
 point I cannot do better than quote so temperate and judicious 
 a writer as Mr Sanday, who, in his introduction to his work on 
 the Authorship and Historical Character of the Fowrth Gospel, 
 when stating his reasons for confining himself to the internal 
 evidence, writes as follows: 
 
 ' Several reasons seem to make this limitation of treatment desir- 
 able. The subject of the external evidence has been pretty well fought 
 out. The opposing parties are probably as near to an agreement as 
 they ever will be. It will hardly be an unfair statement of the case 
 for those who reject the Johannean authorship of the Gospel to say 
 that the external evidence is compatible with that supposition. And 
 on the other hand, we may equally say for those who accept the Johan- 
 nean authorship, that the external evidence would not be sufficient 
 alone to prove it. As it at present stands, the controversy may 
 be regarded as drawn ; and it is not likely that the position of 
 parties will be materially altered' (p. 3). 
 
 Now I hope to show that there is no deficiency of testimony 
 (considering the nature of the subject), that on the contrary 
 there is a vast body of evidence of various kinds, which cannot 
 be set aside ; that the result is a very powerful argument in 
 favour of the genuineness ; and that therefore, when we enter 
 upon the question of internal evidence, we shall enter upon it 
 with a very strong weight of evidence in support of St John's 
 authorship, which can only be counterbalanced by powerful con- 
 siderations on the other side. 
 
 But, before commencing the investigation, let us first see 
 what is the nature of the antagonism with which we have to 
 deal. The history of the controversy may be seen in Bleek 1 . 
 Briefly stated, the position of affairs ia this. The universal 
 reception of the Gospel as the work of St John (with the 
 exception of an obscure sect 8 ) up to the close of the last 
 century has been assailed in the early years of the present 
 
 1 Bleek Beitrage zur Evangelien- a The Alogi, on whom see below, 
 
 Kritik (1846). pp. 115 sq. 
 
 L. E. 4 
 
50 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 century by a series of writers, who unite in denying the 
 Johannine authorship, and place the date somewhere in the 
 middle or latter half of the second century. 
 
 I give the names of the principal exponents of the new view, 
 with the dates which they respectively assign for the author- 
 ship : — 
 
 Bretschneider ProbabUia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis Apos- 
 toli indole et origine Leipzig 1820. He expressed himself vaguely as to the 
 date, but apparently placed it at the beginning or middle of the second 
 century. After two years, in the preface to his Handbuch der Dogmatik 
 1822, he withdrew his conclusions, and declared his conviction that the 
 Johannine authorship was finally established 
 
 Lutzeiberoer Die kirchliche Tradition iiber den Apostel Johannes und 
 seine Schriften in ihrer Qrundlotigkeit naekgewiesen Leipzig 1840. He con- 
 siders that the Gospel was written near Edessa, about 135-140. 
 
 Baur first expressed his views on the Johannine question in the 
 Theologische Jahrbiicher Tubingen 1844. He fixes the date somewhere 
 about 160-170, and this is the view of the older Tubingen School 
 
 Hilgenfeld Das Evangdium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem 
 Lehrbegriff (1849). He considers that the Fourth Gospel took its rise 
 in the middle of the second century owing to the prevalence of the 
 Valentinian Gnosis. 
 
 Scholten, professor at Leyden, and head of the modern Dutch 
 negative school, in his work entitled Het Evangelie naar Johannes 
 (1864-6) places the writing of the Fourth Gospel in 150, but considers 
 that it was interpolated subsequently. In a later work De oudste getui- 
 genissen (1867) he throws the date back later still to 170. 
 
 Tayler, J. J. An attempt to ascertain the character of the Fourth 
 Gospel, especially in its relation to the Three First London 1867. In 
 reading this work we cannot fail to be struck with its evident sincerity ; 
 at the same time it exhibits singular deficiency in the enumeration of facts, 
 and looseness in the treatment of them. Taylor's conclusion is that the 
 Fourth Gospel was written after 135 and before 163 (p. 151). And yet (p. 
 155) he suggests that 'John the Presbyter' is the author of the book — 
 John the Presbyter, of whom we only know that he was a personal 
 disciple of our Lord. 
 
 Eeih Geschichte Jesu von Nazara (1867) ascribes the Fourth Gospel to 
 the reign of Trajan, a.d. 98-117. 
 
 Renan in the first edition of his Vie de Jesus (1863) considers that our 
 Fourth Gospel is based upon the genuine work of St John, but edited by his 
 disciples at the end of the first century. M. Renan's view has fluctuated 
 in subsequent editions of his book. 
 
 In reviewing this list of writers, we cannot fail to be struck 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 51 
 
 with two facte: (1) the variety of their opinions; (2) their 
 gradual retrogression from the extreme position taken up 
 at first. The pressure of facts has compelled them to ahandon 
 one position after another, and to approximate more and more 
 closely to the traditional view. 
 
 I. The Churches of Asia Minor. 
 
 Unless we are prepared to reject without a hearing all the 
 traditions of Christianity, we cannot refuse to believe that the 
 latest years of the Apostle St John were spent in the Roman 
 province of Asia and chiefly in Ephesus its capital. This 
 tradition is singularly full, consistent and well-authenticated 1 . 
 Here he gathered disciples about him, organized churches, 
 appointed bishops and presbyters. A whole chorus of voices 
 unite in bearing testimony to its truth. One who passed his 
 earlier life in these parts and had heard his aged master, a 
 disciple of St John himself, recount his personal reminiscences 
 of the great Apostle"; another, who held this very see of 
 Ephesus and writing less than a century after the Apostle's 
 death was linked with the past by a chain of relatives all 
 bishops in the Christian Church"; a third who also flourished 
 about the close of the century and numbered among his 
 teachers an old man from this very district* — are the principal, 
 because the most distinct, witnesses to a fact which is implied 
 in several other notices of earlier or contemporary writers. 
 
 As to the time at which St John left his original home 
 and settled in this new abode no direct account is preserved ; but 
 a very probable conjecture may be hazarded. The impending 
 
 1 Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39; sources of these quotations — Gaul, 
 
 Iren. ii. 22. 6, Fragm. 2 (p. 822 Stieren) Asia Minor, Alexandria, Rome, Car- 
 
 «tc. ; Polycrates in Ens. H. E. v. 24 ; thage, Syria — is worth noticing. 
 
 Apolloniusin Eus. H. E. v. 18; Clem. 2 Irenmus. 
 
 Alex. Quit div. salv. 42 (p. 958); cf. 3 Polycrates. 
 
 Can. Mur. (p. 17 ed. Tregelles), Tertull. * Clement of Alexandria. One of his 
 
 adv. Marc. iv. 5, Praetcr. Hoar. 82, teachers was an Ionian Greek (Strom. 
 
 Ancient Syriac Document* pp. 32, 34 1. 1. § 11 p. 322) ; see below, p. 92. 
 led. Cureton). The variety of the 
 
 4—2 
 
52 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 fall of the Holy City was the signal for the dispersion of the 
 followers of Christ. Ahout this same time the three other 
 great Apostles, St Peter, St Paul and St James, died a martyr's 
 death ; and on St John, the last surviving of the four great 
 pillars of the Church, devolved the work of developing the 
 theology of the Gospel and completing the organization of the 
 Church. It was not unnatural that at such a crisis he should 
 fix his residence in the centre of a large and growing Christian 
 community, which had been planted by the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles, and watered by the Apostle of the Circumcision 1 . 
 The missionary labours of St Paul and St Peter in Asia Minor 
 were confirmed and extended by the prolonged residence of 
 their younger contemporary. At all events such evidence as 
 we possess is favourable to this view of the date of St John's 
 settlement at Ephesus. Assuming that the Apocalypse is the 
 work of the beloved Apostle', and accepting the view which 
 assigns it to the close of Nero's reign or thereabouts, we find 
 him now for the first time in the immediate neighbourhood 
 of Asia Minor and in direct communication with Ephesus and 
 the neighbouring Churches. 
 
 St John however was not alone. Whether drawn thither 
 by the attraction of his presence or acting in pursuance of some 
 common agreement, the few surviving personal disciples of the 
 Lord would seem to have chosen Asia Minor as their permanent 
 abode, or at all events as their recognised headquarters. Here 
 at least we meet with the friend of St John's youth and perhaps 
 his fellow-townsman, Andrew of Bethsaida 5 , who with him had 
 first listened to John the Baptist and with him also had been 
 the earliest to recognise Jesus as the Christ 4 . Here too we 
 
 1 On the relation of the Apostles to indeed use it against the Gospel, it 
 
 the Ephesian Church see Theod. Mops, may be urged. 
 
 praef. in epist. ad Epheios. » See the aeoount in Anc. Syr. 
 
 a If the Apocalypse be conceded, the Documents, p. 26. 
 
 testimony is decisive. And as oppo- * Can. Mur. (revelatum Andreae ex 
 
 nents with very fewexceptions (Scholten apottolU), p. 17, edL TregeUeB, Anc. 
 
 is one) allow the genuineness, and Syr. Doc. pp. 82, 81. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 53 
 
 encounter Philip the Evangelist 1 with his daughters, and 
 perhaps also Philip of Bethsaida, the Apostle 5 . Here also was 
 settled the Apostle's namesake, John the Presbyter, also a 
 personal disciple of Jesus, and one Aristion, not otherwise 
 known to us 8 , who likewise had heard the Lord. And possibly 
 also other Apostles whose traditions Papias recorded, Matthew 
 and Thomas and James, may have had some connexion, tem- 
 porary or permanent, with this district. 
 
 Thus surrounded by the surviving disciples of the Lord, by 
 bishops and presbyters of his own appointment, and by the 
 pupils who gathered about him and looked to him for instruc- 
 tion, St John was the focus of a large and active society of 
 believers 4 . In this respect he holds a unique position among 
 the great teachers of the new faith. St Peter and St Paul 
 converted disciples and organized congregations ; St John alone 
 was the centre of a school. His life prolonged till the close of 
 the century, when the Church was firmly rooted and widely 
 extended, combined with his fixed abode in the centre of an 
 established community to give a certain definiteness to his 
 personal influence which would be wanting to the wider labours 
 of these strictly missionary preachers. Hence the notices of 
 St John have a more solid basis and claim greater attention 
 than stories relating to the other Apostles. 
 
 This fact is significant for the preservation of a tradition, 
 especially one so important as that of the authorship of the 
 Gospel. But there is another point, which increases the value 
 of the tradition itself, viz., the longevity of the principal 
 witnesses. Of St John himself we are told that he ' lived to 
 the times of Trajan .' His pupil Polycarp, who suffered martyr- 
 
 1 Papias in Ens. H. E. iii. 39 ; (condticipulis et epitcopit tuis) ; Epiph. 
 
 Polycrates in Eub. H. E. iii. 81, v. 24; li 6 (pp. 427, 8). 
 
 Cains in Ens. H. E. iii. 31; of. Clem. « Iren. ii. 22. 5. The date of Tra- 
 
 Alez. in Ens. H. E. iii. 30. jan's accession is a.d. 98. According to 
 
 » See my Colosria.ni, p. 45 sq. the ChroniconPaschale St John survived 
 
 3 Papias, I. e. till a.d. 104; see Clinton Fcut. Bom. i. 
 
 4 Iren. ii. 22. 6 ; Clem. Alex. Quit p. 87. 
 div. talv. 42 (p. 958), Can. Mur. I. c. 
 
54 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 dom a.d. 155 or 156 1 , speaks of himself at the time of his death 
 as having ' served Christ fourscore and six years V The expression 
 in the original may leave some doubt whether these eighty- six 
 years should be reckoned from his birth or from his conversion, 
 though the former would be the more natural interpretation. 
 But in any case he must have been born not later than A.D. 70. 
 And as Polycarp was the disciple of St John, so Irenseus was 
 the disciple of Polycarp. Again, of Pothinus bishop of Lyons 
 we are told 8 that he was more than ninety years old when he 
 suffered in the persecution of the Churches of Vienne and 
 Lyons (A.D. 177). The date of his birth therefore cannot be 
 later than A.D. 87. A later tradition* makes him a native of 
 Asia Minor ; and this would be a highly probable supposition, 
 even if unsupported by direct evidence. But whether an 
 Asiatic Greek or not, he must have been a lad when St John 
 died. And Irenseus was the successor of Pothinus in the see of 
 Lyons. Thus one KnTr only, and that a double one, connects 
 the life of the traditional author of the Fourth Gospel with 
 Irenseus who preserves the tradition in writing ; and two long 
 lives, St John and Polycarp, link the personal ministry of our 
 Lord with the latter half of the second century*. 
 
 Of the traditions of this school, Irenseus, who had been 
 
 1 [On the question of the date of stances in the text are thoroughly 
 
 Polyoarp's martyrdom see Apostolic substantiated, and can easily be paral- 
 
 Fathers, Part II. vol. x. pp. 646 so. leled. Thus three Lord Chancellors 
 
 (ed. 2).] sinoe the Beform Bill (Brougham, 
 
 • Mart. Polye. 9 dySoJKorra nal ?{ Lyndhurst and St Leonards) have lived 
 
 try txa $ov\eiwr airrif [see the note on to be 90. The longevity of the most dis- 
 
 the passage in Apostolic Fathers, Part languished German professors has been 
 
 II. vol. in. p. 379 (ed. 2)] ; of. Iren. iii. remarkable. Boeckh died at eighty-one, 
 
 3. 4 iriroXi yip vaptntwe koI irivv Humboldt at eighty-nine, Banke [and 
 
 ytipa\4os...iiafi7vp^<ras {&j\$e rod (Uov. Bollinger] at [ninety]. For the great age 
 
 8 Eus. H. E. v. 1. of the Jewish rabbi Hillel see Etheridge 
 
 4 See the references in Tillemont Jerm. and Tiber, p. 33. The simple life 
 Mimmra u. p. 343. of the early Christians had probably a 
 
 5 There was doubtless a tendenoy great deal to do with this ; see Southey 
 to exaggeration in this matter, e.g. in Life of Wesley u. pp. 273 sq., 284, (1868) 
 Christian Essene sources, where the and compare Josephus B. J. ii. 8. 10, 
 age of Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, who states that the Essenes often 
 is given as 120 years. But the in- lived iirip ixarbv (tt). 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 55 
 
 educated in Asia Minor, though his later life was spent in Gaul, 
 is the principal witness. He was a pupil of St John's personal 
 disciple Polycarp, whom he mentions more than once. He set 
 great store on these traditions as representing most truly the 
 primitive teaching of the Church, and appeals to them again 
 and again with confidence. On one occasion, writing to 
 Florinus, whom he had known in youth as a fellow-pupil of 
 Polycarp, but who in after years had taken up heretical views, 
 he urges that these are not the doctrines delivered to him, by 
 the elders, who were before them, who also associated with the 
 Apostles, and he appeals to his reminiscences of their common 
 master in this language : 
 
 1 1 distinctly remember (&iapvr]fwv€vo) the incidents of that time 
 better than events of recent occurrence ; for the lessons received in 
 childhood, growing with the growth of the soul, become identified 
 with it ; so that I can describe the very place in which the blessed 
 Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his 
 comings in, and his manner of life (j6v x a P aKT VP a T °v /3>ov) and his 
 personal appearance, and the discourses which he held before the 
 people ; and how he would describe his intercourse with John and 
 with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their 
 words. And what were the accounts he had heard from them about 
 the Lord, and about His miracles, and about His teaching, how 
 Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the 
 Word (rav avroirrav rrjs {arjs row Aoyov) used to give an account har- 
 monizing on all points with the Scriptures (wira av/i0a>va rats 
 ypatjxxis). To these (discourses) I used to listen at the time with 
 attention by God's mercy which was bestowed upon me, noting them 
 down, not on paper, but in my heart; and by the grace of God, I 
 constantly ruminate upon them faithfully (ywjcnW) 1 .' 
 
 As regards this whole extract it will suffice to notice (1) 
 the opportunities of the witness, (2) the thoroughness of the 
 evidence (irdvra av/ujxova rat? ypa^afc). In more than one 
 passage also of his great work he refers to the 'Church of 
 Ephesus", or to the elders who associated with John in Asia 
 
 It was not the object of Irenaeus to defend the authorship 
 of the Fourth Gospel, for his Valentinian antagonists not only 
 
 1 Eus. H. E. v. 20. * Iran. v. 33. 4. 
 
56 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 accepted it as genuine, but even set an exclusive value on it ; 
 and therefore any testimony to its authorship from the earlier 
 school of Asia Minor which may be gathered from his writings 
 is incidental. But any such testimony must have the highest 
 value. 
 
 1. It can hardly be doubted that THE ELDEBS whom 
 Irenaeus quotes, and quotes for the most part anonymously, 
 belonged to this school. Of Polycarp and Papias, of whom the 
 former is mentioned several times by him and the latter once 
 casually, this is certain. I shall endeavour immediately to 
 discriminate the several persons whom he thus quotes by the 
 topics on which they write or speak; but, before doing so, one 
 reference to such anonymous authority deserves attention, where 
 Irenaeus refers not to individual opinion, but to the collective 
 testimony of all the Elders who associated with St John 1 . It 
 relates to a question of chronology. His Valentinian adversaries 
 laid great stress on the number ' thirty.' Their celestial hier- 
 archy comprised thirty 330ns, and they appealed to the thirty 
 years' duration of our Lord's life. This computation of the 
 Gospel chronology they derived from the notices in St Luke, 
 interpreted by themselves*. At the commencement of His 
 ministry, they contended, He was entering upon His thirtieth 
 year, and His ministry itself lasted a twelvemonth, the 
 'acceptable year of the Lord' foretold by the Prophet. 
 Irenaeus in reply expresses his 'great astonishment' that 
 persons professing to understand the deep things of God 
 should have overlooked the commonest facts of the Gospel 
 narrative, and points to the three passovers recorded in 
 St John's Gospel during the term of our Lord's life (§ 3). 
 Independently of the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus 
 has an a priori reason why the Saviour must have lived more 
 than thirty years. He came to sanctify every time of life, 
 infancy, childhood, youth, declining age. It was therefore 
 
 1 Iren. ii. 22. tinians, whom Irenssua here opposes, 
 
 > On the chronology of the Valen- see Epiph. Haer. Ii. 20 (p. 450). 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 57 
 
 necessary that He should have passed the turn of middle 
 life. 'From thirty to forty,' he argues, 'a man is reckoned 
 young, but from his fortieth and fiftieth year he is already 
 declining into older age, which was the case with our Lord 
 when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders who 
 associated with John the disciple of the Lord testify that 
 John delivered his account. For he remained with them 
 (ireptifteivep ourot?) till the times of Trajan. Some of them 
 saw not only John but other disciples also, and heard these very 
 things from their own life (ab ipsis), and bear testimony to 
 such an account (de hwiusmodi relatione)' (§ 4). Irenaeus goes on 
 to argue that the same may be inferred from the language of our 
 Lord's Jewish opponents, who asked, 'Thou art not yet fifty 
 years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?' (John viii. 57). This 
 he contends, is properly said to one who had already lived 
 more than forty years, but had not yet reached his fiftieth year, 
 though not far off his fiftieth year (§ 6). 
 
 On this passage two points are to be remarked. (1) The 
 Valentinian chronology was derived from an obvious, though 
 not a necessary, interpretation of the synoptic narrative, more 
 especially of St Luke 1 , while, on the other hand, the Asiatic 
 reckoning, which Irenaeus maintains, was, or might have been, 
 founded on the Fourth Gospel, whereas it could not possibly 
 have been suggested or elicited from the first three indepen- 
 dently of the fourth, whether reconcilable with them or not 2 . 
 (2) Irenaeus does not commit the elders of the Asiatic School to 
 his own interpretation of the passage quoted from St John's 
 Gospel, nor to his own view that our Lord was close upon fifty 
 years old. He only asserts that the Gospel and the testimony 
 of all the elders together support the view that our Lord was 
 
 1 St Luke iii. 1, 23; iv. 19. ing to subject and treatment. Bat 
 
 3 St John is our authority for the still, though the Synoptic Gospels are 
 
 chronology of our Lord's ministry. consistent with a more lengthened 
 
 In the Synoptic Gospels it is highly ministry, they do not suggest it, and 
 
 probable that the sequence of events thus the argument given above, that a 
 
 is not strictly chronological, but that knowledge by the Elders of the Fourth 
 
 in places incidents are grouped accord- Gospel may be assumed, is justified. 
 
58 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 past middle life ; and the vagueness of his language at this 
 point may suggest the inference that he had their testimony 
 distinctly on his side as against the Valentinian chronology, but 
 that it did not go beyond this 1 . (3) So far as the chronology of 
 the Asiatic School is known from other sources, the statement 
 of Irenaeus is confirmed; for the Asiatic reckoning was dis- 
 tinctly based on the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. This is 
 the case with the duration of our Lord's ministry* as given by 
 Melito, and the time of the Crucifixion as given by Claudius 
 Apollinaris, to both which writers I shall have to refer hereafter*. 
 From this general notice of the Asiatic Elders I turn to the 
 opinions of individuals belonging to this school, as reported by 
 Irenaeus. As these opinions are given anonymously and scat- 
 tered throughout his work, we can only separate one authority 
 from another by considering the subject-matter and treatment. 
 
 * The argument from John viii. 67 
 is clearly Irensens' own, and is not 
 justified by the passage itself. And 
 this suggests the probability that mnoh 
 besidea is his. We cannot safely as- 
 sume that the a priori argument is 
 taken from the Elders, or that the term 
 of years was extended by them beyond 
 forty. Irensaus classes together evan- 
 gelium et omnes teniores. It is a legi- 
 timate assumption that the testimony 
 of the Elders went as far as the evan- 
 gelium and no further. 
 
 3 It may be interesting to consider 
 what was the term of our Lord's life. 
 The chief data are as follows: (a) 
 Matt. ii. 16, 22— the death of Herod 
 which occurred March b.o. 4, see Clin- 
 ton Fast. Hell, tub anno. Thus the 
 Nativity might have taken place in 
 the year b.o. 5 or b.c. 6. (6) Luke 
 Hi. 1, 23— our Lord's Baptism, and the 
 commencement of His ministry, stated 
 to have been 'in the fifteenth year of 
 the reign of Tiberius Ca>sar' when 
 our Lord was ' about thirty years old 
 (Corel b-Qv Tput/rorra).' As Sept. A.D. 
 
 28 was the beginning of the fifteenth 
 year of Tiberius, our Lord would be 
 32 or 33 years old, which does not 
 conflict with St Luke's statement, 
 (c) Matt, zzvii. 2 — the Passion under 
 Pontius Pilate. We learn from Jo- 
 sephns Ant. xvm. 4. 3 that Pilate was 
 sent to Borne by Vitelline to answer 
 oharges made against him, and that 
 before he arrived Tiberius had died, 
 and Caius (Caligula) had succeeded. 
 Now Tiberius died March a.d. 37. 
 Therefore the passover of the Passion 
 might have been as late as Easter a.d. 
 36, but could not be later. Thus it is 
 possible that our Lord did live to be 
 over forty years of age ; for we have 
 no right to assume that St John gives 
 all the passovers which occurred during 
 the ministry. On the whole, however, 
 a ministry of not more than three or 
 four years seems the more probable 
 view. 
 
 * See below, p. 72 sq. For the refer- 
 ences to Melito and Claudius Apolli- 
 naris see Bouth Rtliq. Sacr. I. pp. 121, 
 124, 160. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 59 
 
 This criterion of course may be fallacious ; and allowance must 
 be made for the possibility of separating one authority into two 
 or more, or again of counting two or more authorities as one. 
 But the argument will not be materially affected by allowance 
 made for errors which may occur on either side. Judging then 
 by the subject-matter, I find that the following authorities are 
 referred to : — 
 
 (1) A person quoted with great respect as * one better than 
 us ' [o Kpeio-atov r)fi&v (L praef. 2 sq., i. 13. 3) superior nobis (iii. 
 17. 4)], in another as ' the divine old man and herald of the 
 truth, the old man beloved of God (i. 15. 6).' Any one who will 
 compare these references together cannot hesitate, I think, to 
 see that they allude to one and the same person. He is a 
 writer, as may be inferred both from the manner and from the 
 subject of the references. His style is epigrammatic and tell- 
 ing, full of quaint metaphors and pointed sayings, and on one 
 occasion he runs off into iambic verse which is more vigorous 
 than rhythmical. The work which Irenaeus quotes is directed 
 against heresies of the magico-gnostic school, and more especi- 
 ally against Marcus. 
 
 (2) An ' Elder of a bygone generation ' (de antiquia presbyter) 
 a 'primitive character' (iv. 31. 1) an "elder and disciple of the 
 Apostles' (iv. 32. 1), or, as he is elsewhere more precisely de- 
 scribed, ' an elder who had heard from those who had seen the 
 Apostles and from those who had learnt ' \ph his qui didicerunt 
 L e. from personal disciples of the Lord (iv. 27. 1)]. Irenaeus 
 quotes at some length the opinion of this presbyter. From the 
 form of quotation it appears that he is relating oral discourses 
 (perhaps from his own lecture-notes), and not any written 
 treatise of this elder (audivi a quodam presbytero. Huiusmodi 
 quoque disputabat). The subject of these discourses is the re- 
 lation of the two covenants, and the Elder defends the Old 
 Testament Saints, describing the office of the patriarchs as 
 witnesses of Christ. 
 
60 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 (3) A single saying is quoted as from ' one of the ancients ' 
 (quidam ex veteribus ait), apparently from a written treatise, 
 that God cursed not Adam but the earth in (or through) his 
 works (iii. 23. 3). 
 
 (4) Irenaeus, in explaining the expression 'sons of God,' 
 ' sons of the devil,' refers to a distinction made by one of these 
 Elders. 'A son, as also one before us said {dixit, or 'has said,' e<fa 
 or etprjicev), is understood in two senses : one is a son according to 
 nature, because he is born a son, another is reputed a son 
 according to what he has been made, though there is a differ- 
 ence between the one who is born such, and the one who is 
 made such (iv. 41. 2).' 
 
 (5) Irenaeus twice refers to some writing or writings, in 
 which the opinions of ' the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles,' 
 on eschatological subjects are given. In one passage it is 
 declared that the Old Testament Saints have been transferred 
 to Paradise and there await the coming of the Lord (v. 5. 1). 
 The second, which is of considerable importance, runs as 
 follows : — 
 
 As the Elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed 
 worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy ' the 
 delight of paradise,' and others again shall possess the brightness of 
 the city (i. e. the New Jerusalem) ; for in every place the Saviour 
 shall be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see him. (They 
 say) moreover that this is the meaning of the distinction between the 
 habitation of them that bring forth a hundred-fold, and them that 
 bring forth sixty-fold, and them that bring forth thirty-fold ; of whom 
 the first shall be taken up into the heavens, and the second shall 
 dwell in paradise, and the third shall inherit the city ; and that there- 
 fore our Lord has said, ' In My Father's abode are many mansions ' 
 (St John xiv. 2) ; for all things are of God, Who giveth to all their 
 appropriate dwelling, according as His Word saith that allotment is 
 made unto all by the Father, according an each man is, or shall be, 
 worthy. And this is the banqueting-table, at which those are seated 
 who are called to the marriage and take part in the feast. The Elders, 
 the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the arrangement and 
 disposal of them that are saved, and that they advance by such stages, 
 and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 61 
 
 Father, the Son at length yielding His work to the Father, as it is 
 said also by the Apostle, 'For He must reign until He putteth all 
 enemies under His feet, etc.' (v. 36. 1, 2) 1 . 
 
 Of these five Elders (assuming them to be distinct persons) 
 no coincidence with St John's Gospel can be traced in notices of 
 the first and third. Of the first, indeed, though he is appealed 
 to four times, only epigrammatic sentences against his heretical 
 antagonists are adduced, and these naturally do not give room 
 for any quotations either from the Old Testament or the New. 
 The third is represented by a single short sentence relating to 
 Adam's transgression, which from its brevity admits of no such 
 reference. The remaining three, the second, fourth and fifth, 
 all present more or less distinct coincidences with St John's 
 Gospel. Of the second Irenaeus reports that he was wont to 
 say that the patriarchs and prophets gave thanks and gloried 
 in our salvation, where there is an obscure parallel to our Lord's 
 words in the Fourth Gospel, * Your father Abraham rejoiced to 
 see my day, and he saw it and was glad (John viii. 56).' The 
 fourth is adduced to explain an expression especially character- 
 istic of St John ' sons of the devil 8 .' It is not certain indeed 
 from the language of Irenaeus that this Elder actually used this 
 expression ; but it is at least more probable than not that the 
 distinction, which Irenaeus quotes, was quoted by this father i.e. 
 to explain the words ' sons of the devil.' I shall presently sug- 
 gest a probable source from which this reference is taken*. 
 And, lastly, the fifth Elder distinctly quotes and explains a 
 saying of our Lord peculiar to the Fourth Gospel (xiv. 2). I 
 shall have something to say shortly about the name of this Elder 
 also 4 . At present it is sufficient to remark two things: first, 
 
 1 The references in Irenseos to the which may represent either (<pr/ or 
 
 fire elders are as follows : (1) Iren. i. etfniKer) ; (5) v. 5. 1, v. 36. 1, 2 
 
 praef . 2, i. 13. 3, i. 15. 6, iii. 17. 4 (written : \tyowrw, \4yotnrir). 
 
 (written: ctfnjrcu, t<pt\, etruv, dixit); s See John viii. 44, 1 Joh. iii. 8, 
 
 (2) iv. 27. 1 sq., iv. 30. 1 sq., iv. 31. 1, 10; of. Acta xiii. 10. The expression 
 
 iv. 32. 1, v. 17. 4 (oral: audivi, dice- is peculiar to St John among the 
 
 bat, reficiebat not et dicebat, ditpu- Evangelists. 
 
 tabat, (<p-n); (3) iii 23. 3 (written: ' See below, p. 68. 
 
 ait); (4) iv. 41. 2 (doubtful: dixit, * See below, p. 67 sq. 
 
62 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 the form of the sentence shows that the quotation is given as 
 part of the Elder's own saying, and not of an after-comment of 
 Irenams; and, secondly, as Irenaeus uses the present tense 'the 
 elders say,' and yet the persons referred to belonged to a past 
 generation and were no longer living when he wrote, he must 
 be quoting from some written record, and therefore we cannot 
 suppose that he has unconsciously fused his own after-thought 
 with the original saying. 
 
 These references are anonymous. But Irenaeus likewise 
 mentions by name two of these Asiatic Elders who had conversed 
 with Apostles or personal disciples of the Lord, and of whom 
 something is also known from other sources, Polycarp and 
 Papias. 
 
 2. Of Polycarp and his reminiscences of St John, as 
 recounted by his own pupil Irenaeus, I have already spoken 1 . 
 It is worth while to observe in passing that in the single 
 sentence in which he describes the conversation of Polycarp, 
 he represents him as retailing lessons which he professed to 
 have learnt 'from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word (irapa 
 r&v avToirrcov t»75 Jo>ij5 tow A070V*)/ an expression characteristic 
 of the writings of St John and suggesting that Irenaeus' recollec- 
 tions of Polycarp were intimately connected with those writings. 
 Of the many letters which Polycarp himself wrote, as Irenaeus 
 (in Eus. H. E. v. 20) tells us, 'either to the neighbouring 
 Churches to confirm them, or to individual brethren, to ad- 
 monish or encourage them/ only one remains. The extant 
 Epistle to the Philippians was written after the death of 
 
 1 See above, p. 64 sq. tuijs. Possibly there is an accidental 
 
 1 See above, p. 55. We might be transposition in the text of Ireneeus 
 
 tempted to translate the passage 'from and we should read rov Afryov rip funji, 
 
 the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life of. Ign. Polyc. 6 tit rt/rijr ri}s aapubt 
 
 (cf. 1 Job. i. 1) ', bat the Greek order rbC xvplov (v. I. roS Kvplov rijt aapx6s). 
 
 makes this impossible. Moreover the But it matters little for our immediate 
 
 ^Kpression a&Ttnmis tou Aiyov occurs purpose. The personal use of i Afryoj 
 
 in Luke i. 2. On the other hand the is Johannine in either case. The 
 
 rendering 'from the eyewitnesses of Syriao translator has 'those who saw 
 
 the life (the earthly career) of the with their eyes the living Word.' 
 Word' would require roC plov for rqs 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 63 
 
 Ignatius, but so soon after that Polycarp had not yet heard 
 the particulars. It may therefore be placed about the year 
 AD. 110. The Epistle is not long and contains very few direct 
 references to the New Testament writings; but numerous 
 passages, more or less exactly quoted, are embedded in it. For 
 the most part they are taken from the Epistles, as more suited 
 to the hortatory and didactic character of the letter, and the 
 references to the Gospels are very few. With the Fourth 
 Gospel no distinct coincidence is found; but Polycarp was 
 evidently well acquainted with the First Epistle of St John, 
 for he writes (§ 7) ; ' Every one that confesseth not that Jesus 
 Christ has come in the flesh, is Antichrist 1 ; and whosoever 
 confesseth not the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil' 
 (1 Joh. iv. 3 compare 2 Joh. 7, and shortly after (§ 8)), 'but 
 He endured all for our sakes, that we might live through Him ' 
 (1 Joh. iv. 9). It will be shown hereafter that this First Epistle 
 was in all likelihood written at the same time with and attached 
 to the Gospel. At present I will assume that it proceeds from 
 the same author. There is a presumption therefore that the 
 Gospel also was known to this writer. At all events, the 
 quotations show that the writer of the Gospel flourished before 
 Polycarp wrote. And he is cited by this father, in the same way 
 in which our canonical writings, more especially the Epistles of 
 St Paul and St Peter, are cited. 
 
 3. Papias of Hierapolis was a contemporary and a friend 
 of Polycarp. Whether he was a personal disciple of the Apostle 
 St John, as asserted by Irenseus, or only of a namesake of the 
 Apostle, the presbyter John, as Eusebius supposes, I will not 
 stop to enquire*. It is certain that he lived on the confines of 
 
 1 iroi yip 8t a» /ai 6/jx\oyjj 'IijcroOr 33. 4). On the other hand Kusebins, 
 
 Xpurrbv br trapxl {\i)\v0fv<u inrtxpurrbs who mentions this statement of Iren- 
 
 itrri (§ 7). [On the genuineness of ffios, remarks; 'Yet Papias himself, 
 
 Polyearp's Epistle see Apottolic Fathers in the preface to his discourses cer- 
 
 (Part n), I. p. 578 sq. (ed. 2).] tainly does not declare that he himself 
 
 9 Irenseus speaks of Papias as 'a was a hearer and an eyewitness of 
 
 hearer of John' (luirvov 6kov<jH)i v. the holy Apostles, but he shows, by 
 
64 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 the apostolic age, that he was acquainted with the daughters 
 of Philip, and that he conversed with two personal disciples of 
 the Lord, Aristion and John. He wrote an ' Exposition of our 
 Lord's Oracles' in five books, which he illustrated by oral 
 traditions. Its date is somewhat uncertain, but on the whole 
 it would appear to have been written in his old age, towards 
 the middle of the second century, not before 130 to 140. Of 
 this work only the most meagre fragments remain ; but it is 
 distinctly stated by Eusebius, that he ' made use of testimonies 
 from the First (-irporeptvi) Epistle of John' (H. E. iii. 39) 1 . We 
 cannot indeed assume from this notice that he mentioned the 
 Apostle by name as the author, or that the quotations were 
 given as quotations (for Eusebius uses this same expression of 
 the quotations from St Peter in Polycarp, where St Peter is 
 not so mentioned and the passages are indirectly quoted) ; but 
 it is a fair inference from the procedure of Eusebius elsewhere 
 that the passages were obvious quotations (otherwise he would 
 not have noticed them), and that the coincidence was not so 
 slight as to be accidental, but clearer than the quotation from 
 St John in Polycarp's epistle, which Eusebius does not mention. 
 In carrying over the evidence from the Epistle to the Gospel, 
 the same remark will apply, as in Polycarp's case. 
 
 But great stress has been laid on the silence of Eusebius, 
 as though it were inconsistent with the supposition that Papias 
 was acquainted with the Gospel. The historian quotes a few 
 lines from Papias, preserving some traditions respecting the 
 Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark which he related on the 
 authority of John the presbyter, but says nothing about the 
 Fourth Gospel. And the negative argument appears stronger, 
 
 the language which he uses, that he mation whioh were oloeed to Eusebius. 
 
 received the matterB' of the faith from Still Eusebius mar have been right, 
 
 those who were his friends (If. E. iii. [See Ettayi <m Supernatural Reli- 
 
 39).' It is, however, not stated by gum p. 142 sq.] 
 
 Irenaeus that he derived his knowledge • Kixnrax 8' aM< naprvpUus dirt Tijt 
 
 from this preface, and from his fre- 'ha&vvov wporipat ivurroXijs, H. E. iii. 
 
 qaent intercourse with Polycarp Iren- 39. 
 teas doubtless had sources of infor- 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 65 
 
 when it is remembered that Eusebius elsewhere 1 declares his 
 intention of extracting from early writers such notices as bear 
 on the formation of the Canon. 
 
 Before accepting this hasty conclusion however, we must 
 answer two preliminary questions, the one following from the 
 other : (1) What is the practice of Eusebius elsewhere ? Does 
 he, or does he not, fulfil to the letter the intention thus expressed 
 relative to the Canon ? (2) If he does not, what principle of 
 selection, if any, does he follow here or elsewhere in omitting 
 or recording such notices ? 
 
 To the first of these questions the answer is decisive. The 
 Epistle of Clement besides many embedded quotations from 
 St Peter, St James, and St Paul, and a few from the Gospels 
 and Acts, refers by name to St Paul's First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians. Yet Eusebius says nothing of all this. He 
 mentions only its coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 (H. E. ill. 38). The Epistle of Polycarp again, besides the 
 references to the Gospels mentioned above, is replete with the 
 most obvious quotations from St Paul, and in two passages refers 
 to his Epistles by name (§§ 3, 11). But Eusebius omits all 
 mention of these and simply says ' he employs some testimonies 
 from the first Epistle of Peter,' not mentioning even the coinci- 
 dences with St John's first Epistle (H. E. iv. 14). His account 
 of Irenaeus is equally defective. Excepting one or two of the 
 Catholic Epistles, Irenaeus, as is well known, quotes by name 
 all the canonical books of the New Testament, and most of 
 them repeatedly ; yet Eusebius, after giving one passage con- 
 taining an account of the origin of the four Gospels, and another 
 referring to the Apocalypse, adds 'he makes mention also of 
 the First Epistle of John, adducing very many testimonies from 
 it, and in like manner of the First Epistle of Peter ' (H. E. v. 8). 
 If Irenaeus had been known to us only from the account of 
 Eusebius, it would doubtless have been inferred of him (as 
 even cautious writers have drawn this inference respecting 
 
 1 Ens. H. E. iii. 3. 
 L. E. 5 
 
66 THE GOSPEL ACOOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Papias), that he ignored or repudiated the Acts of the Apostles 
 and all St Paul's Epistles. 
 
 It will then be seen that the mere silence of Eusebius 
 justifies no such inference. And, when we come to enquire 
 the grounds on which he has omitted or recorded notices, I 
 think it is impossible altogether to acquit him of a certain 
 carelessness or caprice. Yet, so far as he is guided by any 
 principle, it appears to be this. The four Gospels, the Acts of 
 the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of St Paul were universally 
 allowed as canonical. He therefore records no references to, 
 or quotations from, these, except such as contain some interest- 
 ing tradition respecting their origin or history, as e.g. in Papias 
 the account of the Hebrew original of St Matthew or the 
 Petrine authority of St Mark. On the other hand the authority 
 of the Apocalypse and of the Epistle to the Hebrews was 
 doubted ; and the limits of the Catholic Epistles also (e.g. how 
 many Epistles of St John or St Peter should be received) were 
 an open question. On these points therefore he is more full ; 
 and, though the First Epistle of St John and the First Epistle of 
 St Peter were not themselves questioned, yet their relation to 
 the others leads him to note where they are quoted as authori- 
 tative 1 . There is no reason therefore to suppose that, though 
 Papias might have quoted the Gospel of St John a score of 
 times, Eusebius would have cared to note the fact, unless the 
 notices contained some interesting particulars respecting its 
 origin and history. 
 
 And in his account of Papias there is less completeness 
 than usual in repeating the traditions of his author. The five 
 books of the Eocposiiiona were largely interspersed with such 
 traditions, which it would have been tedious to reproduce in 
 full. The millennarian views of Papias were repulsive to 
 Eusebius ; and the historian's impatience is very evident when 
 he is dealing with this author. He mentions the fact that 
 
 1 But even this rule he fails to yet in his account of Papias Eusebius 
 observe strictly, e.g. we know that does not mention the Apocalypse at 
 Papias commented on the Apocalypse, all. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 67 
 
 Papias records ' other narratives of the aforesaid Aristion of our 
 Lord's discourses, and also traditions of the Elder John ' which 
 he does not repeat, and he contents himself with 'referring 
 (dvairifitjrtu) the studious readers (toi)? (ptXo/j.a8els) ' to the 
 book itself, professing to give what the exigencies of the case 
 demand and nothing more (dvwyicalax;) on this head (H. E. iii. 
 39) 1 . 
 
 But there is also positive evidence very strong, though not 
 absolutely conclusive, that Papias did quote from this Gospel. 
 I have already mentioned the reference in the Asiatic Elder 
 cited by Irenaeus to our Lord saying ' In My father's house are 
 many mansions '. If anyone will take the pains to read with 
 care from the thirty-third to the thirty-sixth chapter of the 
 fifth book of Irenaeus continuously, he can hardly fail (I think) 
 to arrive at the conclusion that the Elder in question is none 
 other than Papias. In the thirty-third chapter he gives a 
 passage from Papias, and in the thirty-fifth comes this passage 
 from 'the Elders/ with which we are immediately concerned. 
 That they are taken from the same book, appears in the highest 
 degree probable from the following considerations. (1) Both 
 passages treat of the future kingdom of Christ, and both regard 
 it from the same point of view, as a visible and external king- 
 dom, in which the enjoyments are enjoyments of the senses. 
 (2) The subject is continuous, the matter which intervenes 
 between the two quotations extending over some pages but all 
 having reference to the same topic. (3) The authority in the 
 first quotation is ' the Elders who saw John the disciple of the 
 Lord' (33 § 3); in the second 'the Elders' (36 § 1) simply, and 
 
 1 But why should he mention St it. Early references to a Gospel which 
 Matthew and St Mark, without St was universally acknowledged had no 
 John? The answer is probably as interest for anyone, unless they con- 
 follows. Papias related curious facts tained some curious or important fact, 
 of the two former. These are retailed. If we are at a loss to say why Eusebius 
 If Papias simply quoted the Gospel of singled out 1 Peter and 1 John in the 
 St John (whether he mentioned John's case of Papias, we are equally at a 
 name or not), or if he only related loss to say why he should single out 
 what was known to everyone, there is 1 Peter in the case of Polycarp, except 
 no reason why Eusebius should state on the theory given above. 
 
 5—2 
 
68 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 at the end ' the Elders, the disciples, of the Apostles ' (36 § 2). 
 At the close of the first quotation Irenseus adds, ' But these 
 things Papias also... testifies in writing in the fourth of his 
 books, for there are five books composed by him.' Papias 
 therefore reports the statements of these Elders as we know 
 from Eusebius that he did on several occasions, and there is no 
 difficulty about the authority in the first passage. But in the 
 second passage Irenaeus fails to explain whom he meant by 
 'the Elders,' unless they are the same who have been mentioned 
 shortly before. Only on this supposition is the reference plain. 
 (4) I have pointed out before 1 that the manner of quotation 
 obliges us to suppose that Irenaeus refers to a written document, 
 and not a mere oral tradition. This limits the possibilities of 
 the case : for (so far as we know) Polycarp and Papias are the 
 only writers who could satisfy the description. (5) The tenour 
 of the passage accords entirely with the known subject of 
 Papias' work, as described by its title ' Expositions of Oracles of 
 the Lord.' We have here one of these explanations*. 
 
 It seems fairly probable too, that not only our fifth Elder, 
 but the fourth also, must be identified with Papias. His ex- 
 planation of ' sonship ' would be framed to explain our Lord's 
 words addressed to the Jews : ' ye are of your father the devil.' 
 Gnostic dualists would interpret these words to mean that the 
 old covenant was directly opposed to the new, and was the 
 work of the evil principle. To meet this argument the Elder 
 makes the distinction between sons by nature and sons by 
 habit. In the latter sense only the Jews were sons of the 
 devil. The explanation at all events is a close parallel to an 
 extant fragment of Papias, where he explains that ' those who 
 practised a godly innocence were called children' by the early 
 Christians*. 
 
 1 See above, p. 61 sq. title of Papias' work. 
 
 1 It is onrioas that Eusebiua (H. E. 3 toi>s kot& ffebv ixaxlar cUrxowras 
 
 y. 8), describing the work of the Elder iraTSas tK&\ow, c&s «rai llarlas S17X01 
 
 whom Irenseus quotes, calls it unoon- /St/3\i<j> rp&np tUv KvpuutQy itiryfacm>. 
 
 seiously 4(rrr>/i<rus 6duv yptHp&v, an The eztraot is preserved in Maximns 
 
 expression almost identical with the Confessor's scholia to the work of 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS- 
 
 69 
 
 Lastly; in the few lines which Eusebius quotes from the 
 preface of Papias, it is worth observing, first, that the names 
 which he places at the head of the list of authorities are those 
 of the Apostles known to us from the Fourth Gospel and from 
 this alone, Andrew, Philip, Thomas 1 : and secondly, that he 
 speaks of ' the truth, itself*,' meaning our Lord, in accordance 
 with the characteristic phraseology of this Gospel*. 
 
 But indeed, though the evidence is late and confused, we 
 are not without direct testimony that Papias was acquainted 
 with this Gospel. ' The Gospel of John was revealed (mani/es- 
 tatum) and given to the Churches,' says an old Latin argument 
 to this Gospel*, ' by John while he still remained in the body, 
 as one named Papias, of Hierapolis, a beloved disciple of John, 
 related in his five books (or in his fifth book) of Expositions 5 '. 
 
 Dionysiua Areopagiticus de eecl. hier- 
 arch. c. 2, and is given in Booth 
 Reliq. Sac. i. p. 8, Fragm. 2. 
 
 1 Tf 'hvipiat t) rl Hirpos etirer rj rl 
 4(Xnrxos ij H 6u/«u (Papias in Ens. 
 H. E. iii. 29). Andrew, Peter and 
 Philip are mentioned together in St 
 John's Gospel as belonging to the 
 same place (John i. 44). Of Philip 
 nothing is recorded except in the 
 Fourth Gospel. The last remark ap- 
 plies also to Thomas. 
 
 2 inr abr9jt rr/s iXrfielas Ens. I. c; 
 cf. John v. 33, viii. 32, xiv. 6. 
 
 3 The story of the woman taken in 
 adultery (John vii. 53-viii. 11) may 
 also be an extract from Papias' work. 
 It is certain that it is an interpolation 
 where it stands. It is wanting in all 
 Greek hss. before the sixth century; 
 it was originally absent from all the 
 oldest versions — Latin, Syriac, Egyp- 
 tian, Gothic : it is not referred to, as 
 part of St John's Gospel, before the 
 latter half of the fourth century. It 
 is expressed in language quite foreign 
 to St John's style, and it interrupts 
 the tenour of his narrative. Eusebius 
 
 tells us that Papias 'relates also an 
 other story concerning a woman ac- 
 cused of many sins before the Lord' 
 and adds that it is 'contained in the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews.' It 
 may very well be an illustration given 
 by Papias of oar Lord's saying in John 
 viii. 15 'I judge no man.' [See Essays 
 on Supernatural Religion, p. 203.] 
 
 4 The argument is contained in a 
 Vatican ms. of the ninth century first 
 published by Cardinal Thomasius (Op. 
 i. p. 344). 
 
 5 The us. has in exotericU, id est, 
 in extremis quinque libris. Overbeck 
 in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. 
 Theol. x. p. 68 sq. (1867), contends 
 that some one had forged five ad- 
 ditional works in the name of Papias, 
 and had entitled them Exoterica, at- 
 taching them to the genuine books. 
 Hilgenfeld adopts this view. But it is 
 simpler to suppose that exegetieis 
 should be read for exotericis, and 
 externis (a gloss on exotericis) for 
 extremis. The passage then presents 
 no difficulties. [See Essays on Super- 
 natural Religion, p. 210 sq.] 
 
70 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 If the corruption of the context and the uncertainty of the 
 source of the statement forbid us to lay much stress upon it, 
 we are nevertheless not justified in setting it aside as wholly 
 valueless. 
 
 4. About the year 165 Polycarp suffered martyrdom at a 
 very advanced age. An account of the death of Polycarp is 
 extant in a letter of the Christians at Smyrna addressed 
 to a neighbouring Church at the time. In this document the 
 brethren draw a parallel between the sufferings of their 
 martyred friend and the Passion of the Lord, which is suggested 
 to them by some remarkable coincidences. 'Nearly all the 
 incidents which happened before his death,' it is said at the 
 outset, ' came to pass, that the Lord from heaven might exhibit 
 to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel ; for Polycarp 
 remained that he might be betrayed, just as the Lord did' (§ 1). 
 This account is the earliest instance of the type of hagiology 
 which sees the sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and imaged 
 in detail in the servants of Christ, of which in the middle 
 ages the lives of the great monastic founders St Francis and 
 St Dominic, of Anselm and of Becket, are an example, and 
 which has been unconsciously reproduced in more or less 
 distinct lineaments in the biographies of the Wesleyan heroes in 
 very recent times. This idea of literal conformity to the suffer- 
 ings of Christ runs through the letter. Some of the coincidences 
 are really striking, but in other cases the parallelism is more 
 or less artificial. The name of the convicting magistrate is 
 Herod (§ 6) ; the time of the martyrdom is the passover, 'the great 
 sabbath' (§ 21) ; Polycarp's conviction is obtained by a confession 
 elicited by torture from a youth in his employ, and thus he is 
 ' betrayed by them of his own household' (§ 6) ; he is put upon an 
 ass and so carried before the magistrate, and of course this is a 
 parallel to the triumphal entry at Jerusalem (§ 8) ; his pursuers 
 come on horseback and in arms as ' against a robber' (§ 7) ; 
 when he is apprehended, he prays ' The will of God be done' 
 (§ 7), and so forth. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 71 
 
 Mqst of these incidents have their parallels in the circum- 
 stances of the Passion as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, or 
 recorded by these in common with St 'John. This is natural ; for 
 they refer mainly to external incidents, in which the Synoptic 
 account is rich. But there are one or two exceptions. Thus 
 we are told, at the crisis of Polycarp's trial, that a voice came 
 from heaven, ' Be strong and play the man, Polycarp 1 . And the 
 speaker no one saw, but the voice those of our company that 
 were present heard' (§9). This corresponds to the voice which 
 St John records as speaking from heaven to our Lord, and as 
 imperfectly apprehended by the bystanders (John xii. 28, 29). 
 
 In §§ 5, 12 a change of circumstances brings with it 
 the fulfilment of his prophecy as to the manner of his death 
 (cf. John xii 33, xviii. 32). Again we are told, when the fire 
 would not ' consume the body of the Saint, his persecutors 
 * ordered an executioner (confector) to go up to him and thrust 
 a dagger into him. And when he had done this, there came 
 forth a dove and" a quantity of blood, so that it extinguished the 
 fire ; and all the multitude marvelled that there was so great a 
 difference between the unbelievers and the elect ' (§ 16). The 
 parallel to the incident recorded in St John's account (xix. 34) of 
 the crucifixion alone is obvious; and just as the Evangelist lays 
 stress on his own presence as an eyewitness of the scenes (xix. 35) 
 so also have these hagiologers done; * we saw a great marvel,' they 
 say, 'we to whom it was given to see ; and we were preserved that 
 we might relate it to the rest' (§ 15). And, lastly, as St John 
 emphasizes the fact that everything was fulfilled in the death of 
 Jesus (xix. 28, 30), so also they declare of Polycarp that ' every 
 word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been, and shall be, 
 accomplished' (§ 16). To these facts it should be added that 
 the dying prayer of Polycarp contains one or two coincidences 
 with the characteristic phraseology of the Fourth Gospel, such 
 
 1 The expression itself is probably question whether the words repurrepi. 
 from Dent. mi. 7, 23, Josh. i. 6, 7, 9. xal are genuine or not. 
 
 2 The parallel is not affected by the 
 
72 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 as 'the resurrection of life,' 'the true God' (§14; cf. John 
 v. 29, xvii. 3)\ 
 
 5. Of all the Asiatic school, exclusive of its great Gallic 
 representative, Melito of Sardis appears to have. been the 
 ablest. He possessed some slight knowledge at least of Oriental 
 tongues ; he had travelled to the East to obtain certain informa- 
 tion about the Old Testament Canon ; he was at once learned, 
 thoughtful and eloquent. He moreover won deep respect by 
 his ascetic earnestness. His writings were very various, 
 embracing alike questions of speculative theology, of scriptural 
 exegesis, of practical duty, of ecclesiastical order. 
 
 Those works, of whose date any record is preserved, appear 
 to have been written between the years 165-175. When 
 Polycrates of Ephesus wrote in the last decade of the century 
 he was no longer living ; and it may perhaps be inferred, from 
 the language there used of him*, that his death was not very 
 recent 8 . These facts will fix his epoch approximately. Though 
 he is not likely to have conversed with St John or other 
 personal disciples of the Lord, he belonged to the generation 
 immediately following, and must have had large opportunities of 
 intercourse with men like Polycarp and Papias; for he was a 
 flourishing and apparently an influential and prolific writer 
 about the time of their death. 
 
 Of his numerous works only a few fragments remain; but 
 these are quite sufficient to attest the influence of the Fourth 
 Gospel on his teaching and language. It has been already 
 mentioned*, 'that the chronology of the Saviour's life, adopted 
 
 1 Perhaps too the closing words of in Le Bas and Waddington's Voyage 
 
 § 16 irc\cu&0ri xcd reXaciid^fferai are a Archiologique etc.). Again we are in- 
 
 reminiscence of the TerAeorat of St formed that he addressed his Apo- 
 
 John six. 30. logy to M. Antoninus (A.D. 161-180). 
 
 9 See Polycrates in Ens. H. E. v. 24. From an extant fragment we learn 
 
 8 His treatise 'On the Paschal Fes- that L. Verus, the colleague of M. 
 
 tival,' he himself tells ns, was written Antoninus, was no longer living: this 
 
 while Sergius Paulus was proconsul of places the date after the spring of a.d. 
 
 Asia (a.d. 164-166; see Waddington 169. 
 
 Fa»u» det Provinces Atiatiques, p. 731 4 See above, p. 56 sq. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 73 
 
 in the Asiatic School, was derived from this Gospel. Of this 
 fact Melito is an illustration. Of our Lord he thus writes : 
 'Being at the same time both perfect God and perfect Man, 
 He convinced us of His two natures, of His Godhead through 
 His miracles in the three years after His baptism, and of His 
 manhood in the thirty years which passed before His baptism 1 .' 
 If the thirty years before the baptism are taken from St Luke, 
 the three years after the baptism cannot be derived from any 
 other canonical Gospel but St John. 
 
 The largest extant fragment is taken from his Apology to 
 M. Antoninus. In a treatise of this kind direct quotation is not 
 usual ; and accordingly we find no passage of either the Old or 
 the New Testament cited in Melito's work. But the language 
 and ideas are throughout coloured by the influence of the 
 Fourth Gospel 'Neither can any sight see Him, nor any thought 
 comprehend Him, nor any word express Him' (p. xxxix.)*. 
 ' Behold a light is given to us all, that in it we may see. They 
 dare to make an image of God, Whom they have not seen' 
 (p. xl.). ' What is God ? He that is Truth, and His Word is 
 Truth' (p. lxv.; cf. John xvii. 17). 'What then is Truth?' (cf. 
 John xviii. 38). 'If then a man adoreth that which is made 
 by hands, he adoreth not the Truth nor the Word of 
 Truth. But I have many things to say concerning this matter' 
 (p. xlv. ; cf. John viii. 26, xvi. 12). ' Wherefore I give thee 
 counsel, that thou know thyself and know God' (p. xlviL; 
 cf. John xvii. 3). ' Worship Him with thy whole heart ; 
 then will He grant thee to know His will' (p. xlviL; cf. 
 John vii. 17). 'To know God is Truth' (p. xlix.). 'To know 
 the true God' (ib.; cf. John xvii. 3). 'The word of Truth 
 reproacheth thee' (p. 1.). 'If thou canst not know God, at 
 least think that He is' (p. 1L). ' It is impossible for a mutable 
 creature to see the immutable' (p. Hi.; cf. John i. 18, 1 John 
 iv. 12). 'Then shall they who know not God, vanish away' 
 (p. lil). 'According as thou shalt have known God here, so 
 
 1 Quoted by Anastatiua of Sinai * The references are to Rtra's Spici- 
 (Migne P. G. xxxix. p. 228 sq.). leg. Solesm. I. 
 
74 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 will He know thee there' (p. liii.). ' We worship the only 
 God, Who is before all and above all ; and we worship also His 
 Christ, being God the Word from eternity' (p. lvi.). 
 
 In like manner in one of the homiletic fragments which 
 remain 1 , he speaks of our Lord as the 'Word of God and 
 begotten before the light, the Creator with the Father the 
 fashioner of man ; all things in all, the Son in the Father, God 
 in God, King unto all eternity" (p. lix.); and in another, 
 using the images of St John he says : ' He appeared as a lamb, 
 but He abode as a shepherd. He wanted food, in so far as He 
 was man, yet He ceaseth not, in so far as He is God, to give 
 food wherewith He feedeth the world" (p. Iviii.). 
 
 6. Claudius Apollinabis was a contemporary of Melito ; 
 the two being coupled together by Eusebius, Jerome and others. 
 He was a successor, if not the immediate successor, of Papias, as 
 bishop of Hierapolis. The ascertainable dates of his life are : (1) 
 He presented an apology to M. Antoninus, who died in a.d. 180. 
 (2) He mentioned the incident of the thundering legion, which 
 occurred A.D. 174. (3) Eusebius in his Chronicle seems to place 
 his accession to the episcopate a.d. 171*. (4) He ia no longer 
 living in the last decade of the century, when Serapion* alludes 
 to him (Eus. H. E. v. 19). 
 
 1 The fragment is extant in a 8yriac eaya on Supernatural Religion, pp. 
 
 version; it is given in Pitra's Spicileg. 232 sq., 236 sq.] 
 
 Solemn, n. p. lix. sq., in Oareton's s Cf. John i. 36, x. 1 sq. The so- 
 
 Spicileg. Syr. p. 63 sq., and in Otto called Glavis of Melito may contain a 
 
 Corp. Apol. Christ, p. 420. residuum of genuine matter, but as the 
 
 3 There is an Armenian extract amount of this is not ascertainable 
 (Spicileg. Solemn, i. p. 4), which gives with any degree of certainty, its evi- 
 this passage with some alterations and dence must be left out of the question, 
 a different commencement, assigning 4 See Clinton Fast. Rom. i. p. 167. 
 it to Irenaros. There is also a Syriao ■ Eusebius Chron. and Jerome place 
 abridgment of the Armenian. It is the accession of Serapion to the epis- 
 probable that Irenaeua introduced this copate in the eleventh year of Corn- 
 passage from Melito either anony- modus, i.e. a.d. 190 or 191 (Clinton, 
 mously or otherwise, into one of his I. p. 187), and he died apparently about 
 writings. Another Armenian fragment a.d. 203 (Clem. Alex, in Eus. H. B. 
 (Spicileg. Solesm. i. p. 1) gives as vi. 11), though Eusebius himself says 
 IrenasuB what is really an extract from a.d. 212. See Clinton, i. p. 211. 
 Papias quoted by Irensaus. [See E>- 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 75 
 
 Of several works known to have been written by this father, 
 the scanty fragments which remain occupy something less than 
 half an octavo page. They contain however two or three unde- 
 niable references to the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. Thus 
 Claudius speaks of our Lord as ' pierced in His holy side,' and 
 ' pouring forth from His side the two purifying elements, water 
 and blood, word and spirit' (Routh Reliq. Sac. I. p. 160, cf. John 
 xix. 34). Thus too, he says, that the 14th was the true Pass- 
 over of the Lord, the day on which He suffered, finding fault 
 with those who maintain He ate the Paschal lamb with His dis- 
 ciples on the 14th and was crucified on the 15th, on the ground 
 that 'according to their view the Gospels appear to be at 
 variance.' Thus he himself takes the Fourth Gospel as the 
 chronological standard, and interprets the others by it ; and here 
 again, as in the case of Melito, we have a confirmation of the 
 statement of Irenseus, that the reckoning of the Asiatic School 
 was founded thereupon or accorded therewith. It is only neces- 
 sary to add that his allusions to the Gospels seem to imply that 
 they had long been received as authoritative, but that the 
 discussions on the Paschal question had at length awakened 
 criticism, and started difficulties in harmonizing them which 
 hitherto had not been perceived. 
 
 7. POLTCBATES of Ephesus closes the list of authorities 
 belonging to the Asiatic School. In the last decade of the 
 second century he writes to Victor, Bishop of Borne (A.D. 190- 
 202), on the Paschal question ; and having occasion to mention 
 the practice of St John describes him in the language of the 
 Fourth Gospel, as the disciple that 'reclined on the bosom of 
 the Lord 1 .' Nothing hike this occurs in the other Gospels. It 
 must be borne in mind also that Polycrates states that seven of 
 
 1 6 irl t& arijOos tov Kvplov avarretrtiv i roi iirl t& <rry0os airrov ivareviiv, 
 
 (Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24), the where this resemblance is important, 
 
 very expression which occurs in John when coupled with the fact that Iren- 
 
 xiu. 25 ivavea-Civ ixetvot trl to arrfin sens and Polycrates were allied on the 
 
 toD 'IijiroO (the correct reading) ; oomp. question of the Paschal controversy. 
 Iren. iii. 1 'IwiWijs 6 /taSirriis rov Kvplov 
 
76 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 his relatives before him had been bishops; that he carefully 
 observes their traditions; and that he has 'gone diligently 
 through every holy scripture' (Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24). 
 
 8. But to complete the evidence, before passing away from 
 the Asiatic Church to her Gallic colony, let me direct attention 
 to one fact. MoNTANlSM, which took its rise about or soon 
 after the middle of the second century, was strictly an offspring 
 of the Christianity of Asia Minor. As might have been ex- 
 pected, the two main props on which it relied for support were 
 the two great writings ascribed to the Apostle St John. As its 
 picture of the earthly metropolis of Christ's kingdom, the New 
 Jerusalem, was drawn from the Apocalypse, so also the prophetic 
 mission of its founder was held to be the realisation of the 
 promise recorded in the Fourth Gospel of the Paraclete, Who 
 should lead the faithful into all truth. 
 
 On this subject I shall have more to say when I come to 
 discuss the extreme view, into which the more extravagant 
 opponents of Montanism were driven, of rejecting the writings 
 of St John wholly 1 . 
 
 II. The Churches of Gaul. 
 
 Intimately connected with the Churches of Asia Minor were 
 the Christian brotherhoods established in the south of Gaul. 
 The close alliance existing between these communities as early 
 as the middle of the second century of the Christian era is a 
 striking testimony to the power of the new faith in cementing 
 the bonds of union between far-distant peoples. As, centuries 
 before, the districts of Gaul lying on the seashore and along 
 the banks of the Rhine had been civilised by colonists from the 
 Greek peoples of Asia Minor, so now it would appear that these 
 regions were indebted to the same country for the higher know- 
 ledge of the Gospel. However this may be, the intercourse 
 between the two Churches during the second century was close 
 
 1 See below, pp. 115 sqq. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 77 
 
 and uninterrupted. More than one instance is recorded in 
 which they corresponded with each other on matters of common 
 or individual interest. On one occasion the Christians of Vienne 
 and Lyons write to their brethren in Phrygia and Asia, giving 
 them an account of the last hours of the martyrs who had 
 suffered under M. Aurelius, and among these are mentioned at 
 least two who were Asiatics by birth, Alexander, a physician 
 from Phrygia (§ 13), and Attalus of Pergamum (§ 17). On 
 another, the Gallican brotherhoods write to the same com- 
 munities to express their opinion on the recent heresies of 
 Montanus, Alcibiades, Theodotus, and others, an opinion which 
 Eusebius describes as 'circumspect and most orthodox' (Eus. 
 H. E. v. 3). This opinion was appended, he tells us, to a 
 collection of letters written severally by the martyrs from their 
 prisons, and addressed to the brethren in Phrygia and Asia 
 (Eus. l.c). 
 
 Though all these documents were known to Eusebius, 
 he has only preserved fragments (though very considerable 
 fragments) of the first mentioned (H. E. v. 1). Its date is fixed 
 as ad. 177. In this letter the Gospel of St John is once 
 distinctly quoted (§ 4), ' So was fulfilled the saying of our Lord, 
 " The time shall come, in which every one that killeth you shall 
 think to do service to God " (John xvi. 2) ' : while elsewhere its 
 language is indirectly borrowed. Thus one of the martyrs is 
 described as ' having the Comforter in himself, the Spirit, which 
 he showed in the fulness QirKijpdt/iarosi) of love, having been 
 well-pleased to lay down even his own life in defence of the 
 brethren (§ 3 ; cf. John xiv. 26, xv. 13) : for he was and is indeed 
 a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb whithersoever 
 He goeth ' (ib. ; Rev. xiv. 4) ; and another as being ' sprinkled 
 and strengthened from the heavenly fountain of the water of 
 life, that goeth forth from the body (vi/Swo?) of Christ' (§ 22; 
 cf. John iv. 14, vii. 38). 
 
 The persecution which was fatal to these martyrs placed 
 IREN-Etrs in the vacant see of Lyons. His testimony is im- 
 portant, not only because a close connexion existed between the 
 
78 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Churches of Gaul and Asia generally, but because he was 
 himself by birth and education an Asiatic. It is important 
 also for another reason. He was directly connected with the 
 Apostolic age by two remarkable instances of longevity 1 . Poly- 
 carp, his early instructor in his Asiatic home, declared himself 
 to have been ' eighty-six years in the Lord ' at the time of his 
 martyrdom. Pothinus, his immediate predecessor in the see of 
 Lyons, his late abode, was close upon ninety when he too died 
 under the hands of the persecutor. Polycarp was a disciple of 
 St John, and is said to have been placed by him in the see of 
 Smyrna. Pothinus was a growing boy when the Apostle died, 
 and it seems probable (though of this there is no direct evidence) 
 that he, like his successor at Lyons, was of Asiatic birth and 
 parentage. Irenseus, as we have seen, lays great stress on the 
 teaching of the former, which he professes to follow implicitly ; 
 and we may suppose with much probability that among the 
 anonymous presbyters whose authority he quotes as having 
 associated with the Apostles and their immediate successors 
 the latter held a prominent place. We are therefore greatly 
 interested in enquiring what language Irenseus holds with re- 
 spect to the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 The answer is decisive. He not only mentions or quotes 
 it many times, as the work of the beloved disciple, but gives 
 many particulars respecting it. He states in one place that it 
 was written at Ephesus (iii. 1. 1), in another that its object was 
 to counteract the heresies of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians 
 (iii. 11. 1). He uses it freely', not only to establish his own 
 position, but also to confute his Gnostic opponents. To them 
 and to him alike, as to the universal Church, it is a recognised 
 authority. In short, a Fourth Gospel is to Irenaeus not only a 
 historical fact, but a foreordained necessity. He ransacks heaven 
 and earth for reasons why the evangelical record should thus be 
 foursquared. In analogies from the physical world, in types 
 from Old Testament prophecy, in the successive developments of 
 
 1 See above, p. 53 sq. eighty times. 
 
 3 He quotes it between seventy and 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 79 
 
 God's revelation to men, he finds evidence that this number 
 alone is consonant with the Divine order of things (iii. 11. 8). 
 
 The extant work of Irenaeus on heresies, from which these 
 references are taken, was written during the episcopate of 
 Eleutherus 1 , who held the see of Borne from about A.D. 175 to 
 AD. 190. The exact date is of little or no importance. The point 
 to be kept in view is this ; that in youth he had lived in familiar 
 intercourse with Polycarp, and had heard his aged master speak 
 again and again of the Apostle St John, that he professed to 
 have a very vivid remembrance of those early days 2 , and that 
 on every occasion he appealed to the traditions of the Asiatic 
 School as authoritative in matters of Christian faith and 
 history. 
 
 Of his honesty and good faith I think no reasonable doubt 
 can be entertained. Eager partisanship may occasionally have 
 blinded his judgment as to the value of the evidence before 
 him. Close and searching criticism was not the characteristic 
 either of his age or of his class. A tradition may here and 
 there have been confused or exaggerated in the course of 
 transmission ; a metaphor translated into a fact ; a categorical 
 statement substituted for an individual opinion ; an early date 
 replaced by a later or conversely. Let all reasonable allowance 
 be made for these possibilities. The fact still remains, that he 
 firmly believed himself, and received as the tradition of St John's 
 personal disciples, that the Fourth Gospel was written by none 
 other than the beloved Apostle himself. On this point he does 
 not betray a shadow of a misgiving. 
 
 On reviewing the evidence of the Asiatic school, which thus 
 culminates in Irenaeus, we cannot fail to be struck with the 
 solidarity of the body through which it is transmitted. Polycarp 
 
 1 Eleutherus is mentioned as still Epiphanius, our authority for Theo- 
 living (Iren. iii. 3, 3). On the other dotion's date, is guilty of such start- 
 hand, a reference occurs to Theo- ling confusions in the passage (de pond. 
 dotion's version of the lxx (iii. 21, 1), etmeia. 16, 17) that his trustworthiness 
 and Theodotion's version is stated not is much discredited. [See Etsayi on 
 to have been published until the reign Supernatural Religion, p. 260.] 
 of Commodus (a.d. 182-190). But " See above, p. 55. 
 
80 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 and Papias, Melito and Claudius Apollinaris, Polycrates and 
 Irenaeus, the martyrs of Asia and the martyrs of Gaul, 
 are not isolated individuals, nor is church-membership their 
 only bond of union; but within the Church itself they 
 belong to a more or less compact community, of which the 
 members are in constant mutual intercourse, and consult and 
 advise each other on very diverse matters of interest. 
 
 This fact is a strong safeguard for the continuity of trans- 
 mission where a tradition so important is concerned : but in the 
 case before us the disputes of the age and country afford an 
 additional security. As soon as we bring the original theory of 
 the Tubingen school, which dated the Fourth Gospel about 
 AJ>. 170, or even the modified hypothesis of some recent 
 antagonists, which places it close upon the middle of the 
 second century, face to face with these controversies, we at 
 once see what enormous improbabilities are involved in either 
 supposition. The forgery (for professing, as it evidently does, 
 to emanate from the beloved disciple, the Fourth Gospel must 
 be called by this hard name, unless it be genuine), the forgery 
 is almost contemporary with, or even subsequent to, the rise of 
 Montanism and the first outburst of the Quartodeciman con- 
 troversy. It has a very direct bearing on Montanism, for it 
 supplies a basis for the prophetic theory of this sect ; and yet it 
 is received by Catholics and Montanists alike. It raises 
 questions connected with the celebration of Easter (though it 
 does not touch the main subject of dispute) ; and yet it is 
 accepted without misgiving equally by the Quartodecimans 
 and their "opponents. Yet, if the hypothesis were true, that it 
 first saw the light during the lifetime of the very generation 
 which was most actively engaged in both these controversies, 
 must we not believe that its authenticity would have been most 
 fiercely contested, and that the clearest traces of this contest 
 would have been stamped on the extant literature of the 
 period? 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 81 
 
 III. The Churches of Antioch. 
 
 1. From the Churches of Asia Minor and their Gallic 
 colonies it is natural to turn to the neighbouring and allied 
 Church of Antioch ; and here the apostolical father Ignatius 
 first claims attention. His testimony is the more important, 
 because he is historically connected with the two principal 
 Churches in which the influence of St John prevailed, Ephesus 
 and Smyrna The genuine Epistles of Ignatius were written 
 A.D. 110, very few years after the probable date of St John's 
 Gospel. They are brief, abrupt and epigrammatic, being 
 chiefly occupied with personal explanations and instructions. 
 An aged disciple on his way to martyrdom writes a few hurried 
 lines to the Christian congregations with whom he has been 
 brought into contact on his journey. Though they reflect the 
 teaching, and in many places echo the language, of the New 
 Testament — especially of St Paul — the letters contain only two 
 direct quotations, as such, from Holy Scripture 1 . 
 
 Under these circumstances it is sufficient if we are able to 
 trace the influence of the Fourth Gospel in individual thoughts 
 and phrases. Nor are such traces wanting. When in his 
 Epistle to the Fhiladelphians Ignatius writes (§ 7), 'The 
 Spirit is not deceived, being from God ; for it knoweth whence 
 it cometh and whither it goeth (olSev yap irodev epxerai teal 
 
 1 Magn. 12, Eph. 5. In Eph. 5, (of our Lord's baptism; cf. Matt. iii. 
 
 y£y pairrai yip * uTep7)<p&vois i 6cds dm- 15), Smyrn. 6 i x u P w " X W P ( ^ TW (cf . 
 
 TiWercu, the quotation may have been Matt. xix. 12), Polyc. 2 <f>p6vi/M>s ytvov 
 
 taken direct from Prov. iii. 34, bat the us 6 o<pis h rainy xal ixtpmos elaael us 
 
 substitution of & Qeis for i Kipua in- ii repurrepi (of. Matt. z. 16) ; (2) with 
 
 dines me to suppose that Ignatius got the Pauline Epistles : Eph. 10 itipcuoi rjj 
 
 it through 1 Pet. v. 5 or James iv. 6. rlara (of. Col. i. 23), ib. 16 o! oUo- 
 
 The same substitution is found in <f>Bbpoifiaoi\da.v 6eou ab Kk-qpovo/jL-fyrovaLv 
 
 Clem. Bom. 30. The following are (of. 1 Cor. vi. 9); and ib. 18 jroO trotf>6s; 
 
 the most striking coincidences in the iroO <rvfrnrn}; ; (cf. ICor. i. 20), Rom. 5 
 
 Ignatian Epistles (1) with the Gospel d\X' oi mpi. tovto deSiKalu/uu (cf. 1 Cor. 
 
 narrative : Eph. 14 tpavephv rb htvipov iv. 4), Polyc. 5 iyarSp ris avpfilovs, us 
 
 iirb toO Kapvou airrov (cf. Matt. iii. 33), i Ktpios rijv iKK\rirlar (cf. Eph. v. 29). 
 Smyrn. 1 tva Tr\rjpuOrj iraaa SiKaioaiv-q 
 
 L. E. 6 
 
82 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 •jtov virwyei), and it searcheth out the hidden things,' we 
 recognise at once our Lord's description of the Spirit in His 
 conversation with Nicodemus as related in John iii. 8. Other 
 reminiscences, not so obvious but equally real, of Johannine 
 language are traceable elsewhere. Thus the sentence, 'The 
 prince of this world is abolished' (Trail. 4) is an echo, almost a 
 repetition, of our Lord's language (John xii. 31, xvi. 11). Again, 
 the contrast of the 'corruptible food' with the 'bread of God, 
 which is the flesh of Christ and the draught of His blood,' (Rom. 
 7) is an adaptation of the characteristic discourse related in the 
 sixth chapter of the same Gospel. So too in other passages he 
 echoes the same expressions, ' the flesh of the Lord,' 'the blood 
 of Jesus Christ' (Trail. 8; cf. Philad. 4), 'the bread of God* 
 (Eph. 5). And elsewhere the coincidences with St John are 
 equally patent ; ' we ought so to receive him (the bishop), as 
 Him that sent him' (Eph. 6; cf. John xiii. 20); 'where the 
 shepherd is, there follow ye, as sheep, for many fair-seeming 
 wolves make captive those that run the race of God' (Philad. 2 ; 
 cf. John x. 4, 12); 'to Him alone (Christ) are committed the 
 hidden things of God, He Himself being the door of the Father' 
 (Philad. 9; cf. Johnx. 7); 'Jesus Christ, His Son, Who is His 
 Word, coming forth from silence, Who in all things pleased Him 
 that sent Him' (Magn. 8 ; cf. John vi. 38)\ 
 
 2. Following the succession of the Antiochene bishops we 
 
 1 The silence of Ignatius respecting made in the previous section to other 
 St John has been urged on the other Apostles with whom the Ephesian 
 side, especially in Rom. 4 (otfx "i Church was in harmony. Moreover, 
 Uirpot koX IlauXos StartUrffo/iai i/uv), Ignatius singles out St Paul on ao- 
 where, it is contended, the introdnc- count of the parallel to himself. The 
 tion of the names of St Peter and Ephesian converts had sheltered St 
 St Paul makes the omission of St Paul as he passed through; and now 
 John's name more remarkable. But Ignatius is passing through Ephesus 
 there is a good reason for this omis- on his way to martyrdom. Besides 
 Bion. Ignatius is addressing the Bo- these two passages no Apostle is men- 
 man Church, and therefore appeals to tioned by name in the Ignatian Epi- 
 the two Apostles to whose precepts sties, except St Peter in Smyrn. 3, 
 that Churoh had listened. Again in where there is a reference to an inci- 
 Eph. 12, where St Paul is again men- dent in our Lord's life, 
 tioned, reference has been already 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 83 
 
 arrive at Theophilus — the sixth bishop according to Eusebius 
 (H. E. iv. 20), the seventh according to Jerome (Ep. ad Algas. 
 quaest. 6), who commences his list of Antiochene bishops with 
 St Peter. In his extant Apologia ad Autotycwm, an un- 
 doubtedly genuine work, Theophilus quotes the beginning of 
 the Fourth Gospel and mentions St John as its author. The 
 passage runs as follows : ' whence the Holy Scriptures and all 
 the inspired men (irvevfiaTO<j>6poi) teach us, one of whom, John, 
 says, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
 God," showing that at the first God was alone, and the Word in 
 Him. Then he says, "And the Word was God. All things were 
 made through Him, and without Him was not anything made'" 
 (ad Autol. ii. 22). This direct and precise reference is the 
 more conspicuous, because it is the solitary instance in which 
 Theophilus quotes directly and by name any book of the New 
 Testament. To this undoubted quotation should be added the 
 following coincidences. ' How can one fail to notice the pangs 
 which women suffer in child-bearing, and after that they forget 
 their trouble?' (ad Autol. ii. 23 ; cf. John xvi. 21); 'A corn of 
 wheat, or of the other seeds, when it is cast into the earth, first 
 dieth and is dissolved, then it riseth and becometh an ear 
 (<rrd'xy<i) ' (ad Autol. i. 13). Here the language of Theophilus 
 combines expressions in John xii. 24 and 1 Cor. xv. 36, 37. 
 Lastly, in ad Autol. i. 14 occurs the following expression, 'Do 
 not therefore disbelieve, but bebeve,' a reminiscence of John 
 xx. 27, 'Be not faithless, but believing.' 
 
 The date of these notices may be fixed with tolerable 
 accuracy. Eusebius in his Chronicon gives A.D. 177 as the year 
 of Theophilus's death. But it is almost certain that he has 
 antedated the event by six or more years at the lowest compu- 
 tation. For in his Apology Theophilus mentions the death of 
 M. Aurelius, and he carries his chronological calculations down 
 to this epoch (iii. 28). These calculations indeed are confessedly 
 taken from Chryseros 'the nomenclator' (ii 27), a freedman 
 of Aurelius, who stopped at this point; but as the object of 
 Theophilus is to calculate the age of the world at the time 
 
 6—2 
 
84 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 when he writes, it is a tolerably safe conclusion that the third 
 book, in which these calculations occur, must date not long 
 after the death of the Stoic emperor, i.e. not long after 
 a.d. 180. The three books were written and despatched 
 separately, so that the first and second, in which the quota- 
 tions are found, may be placed a little earlier than the third 
 book. 
 
 Besides the direct evidence which the Apologia ad Autoly- 
 cum supplies to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Theophilus 
 is in another way an indirect witness to the wide acceptance 
 of four Gospels in the Canon of the New Testament. Jerome 
 speaks in more than one passage of a work of Theophilus, now 
 lost, which he calls his 'commentaries 1 .' In one reference indeed 
 he appears to throw doubt upon the authenticity of this work. 
 Speaking of Theophilus in Vir. Illustr. 25 he says, 'I have read 
 commentaries written in his name on the Gospel and on the 
 Proverbs of Solomon, which in my opinion do not appear to 
 agree with the elegance and style of the volumes mentioned 
 above' (i.e. the adAutolycwn and other works). But elsewhere 
 he quotes the work without the slightest misgiving. In the 
 preface to his own commentary on St Matthew's Gospel (in 
 Matth. praef. Op. vn. p. 7) he confesses ' to have read many 
 years before the commentaries on Matthew... of Theophilus, 
 bishop of the city of Antioch.' In his epistle to Algasia (Ep. 
 cxxL Op. I. p. 866), written in A.D. 407, he throws further light 
 upon the character of this lost writing. He speaks of it as a 
 harmony of the four Gospels and as a lasting monument of the 
 writer's genius (Theophilus... qui quattuor Evangelistarum in 
 
 1 The four books of commentarii, EpUt. lviii. § 5), and in Jerome (i. § 4, 
 extant in Latin and ascribed to Theo- p. 280 ; of. Jerome Comm. in Matt. 
 philus, cannot represent the genuine i. Op. vn. p. 12); and the work is 
 work alluded to by Jerome. The theo- evidently not a translation from the 
 logy is evidently post-Nioene; passages Greek, but originally written in Latin, 
 are found nearly word for word in Bee e.g. i.p. 283 apex ( = /cepo(o) autem 
 8. Ambrose (i. § 120, p. 295, ed. Otto j quatuor literas habens per evangelium 
 cf. Ambrose Comm. in Imc. iii. § 2), in quadruple! testamentum indicat no- 
 Cyprian (L § 153, p. 301; of. Cyprian vum. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 85 
 
 unum opus dicta compingens ingenii sui nobis monumenta 
 dimisit). It is needless to point out the importance and 
 significance of a harmony of the four Gospels constructed in 
 the second century, in its relation to the genuineness of 
 St John's Gospel, and to the Diatessaron of Tatian. 
 
 IV. The Churches of Palestine. 
 
 Contemporaneously with the Ignatian Epistles and the 
 treatise of Theophilus, we have the evidence of writers in the 
 neighbouring region of Palestine. 
 
 1. The date of the writings of Justin Martyr is of some 
 importance. The two Apologies were written in the reign of 
 Antoninus Pius, i.e. between July, 138, and March, 161. If we 
 can trust the present text, the first (the longer) Apology was 
 composed before M. Aurelius became Caesar, i.e. before a.d. 140. 
 Against this early date, however, it is urged (1) that L. Verus, 
 who is there styled epao-r^? iratZeiaf, was only ten years old 
 at this time ; (2) that Justin {Apol. i. 46) speaks of our Lord 
 as born 150 years before, (3) that Marcion is mentioned as 
 already influential {Apol. i. 26). I do not think that much 
 stress can be laid on these arguments. The expression ipaari) 1 ; 
 iraiSeia? was a very fit one to apply to an imperial boy, who 
 was, or was presumed to be, studious and intelligent, and to 
 whom owing to his youth no other compliment could be paid. 
 As regards the question of the chronology of our Lord's life, 
 if Justin followed the ordinary computation (which is probably 
 the case), he would place the Crucifixion in A.D. 29; and, 
 allowing about thirty-three years for the interval between the 
 Nativity and the Crucifixion, Justin's 150 years would bring 
 the date of the work to a.d. 146. The third objection, the 
 allusion to Marcion, is more difficult to meet, but the dates 
 of his life are very uncertain. Happily, however, we can escape 
 these difficulties altogether. By a very plausible emendation 
 (see Hort in the Jovmal of Philology, in. pp. 163, 165, 1857), 
 which reads icai icaiaapi for icaurapt. /cat in the opening words 
 
86 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 of the Apology 1 , M. Aurelius has already become Caesar before 
 the date of the work. If we accept this conjecture, the 
 passage itself affords no posterior limit except the martyrdom 
 of Justin, and the death of Antoninus Pius in A.D. 161. The 
 second Apology is a sort of appendix or postscript to the first, 
 written at the same time or soon after. 
 
 The Dialogue with Trypho was written after the longer 
 Apology, to which it contains a clear allusion 2 , and therefore 
 probably after both Apologies. It is represented as held at 
 Ephesus, where Justin had stayed (Eus. H. E. iv. 18). Justin's 
 testimony therefore becomes in some sense the testimony of 
 the Asiatic school. The time of the dialogue is stated to be 
 during the war of Barcochba 8 A.D. 132-135, i.e. when Polycarp 
 and Papias were scarcely advanced beyond middle age, and 
 while Melito and Apollinaris were yet young men. From the 
 allusion to the first Apology given above, it is evident that if we 
 accept the later date for the Apology, the dialogue cannot have 
 been published until several years after it actually took place. 
 
 Eusebius and others after him place Justin's martyrdom in 
 the reign of M. Aurelius, and the Paschal Chronicle fixes it at 
 A.D. 165*. On the other hand, Epiphanius 6 apparently and others 
 
 1 The Apology opens as follows: Dindorf) makes Justin thirty years at 
 
 AuroKpiropt Vtrtf ACKttp 'ASptavif "Avtu- the time of his martyrdom, whioh he 
 
 rhuf Efore/Se? ZqSairrq) Kafcrapi xal OiJij- places iirl 'PokjtwoD i)yep.&ms xal 'ASpi- 
 
 piovl/xtp vlif (piXotrSifHfi koI Aovxlif t<fx.\o- avov f3a<n\iws. The name Bastions is 
 
 a-6<povf KaUrapos <pi<rci vl$ xal E&re/SoOs too common at this period to give as 
 
 rfffjroiipv, ipturrjj rraitelat, k.t.\. Over muoh assistance, and the text of Epi- 
 
 and above the question of date in- phanins is so corrupt that we may 
 
 volved, it is unnatural to describe without hesitation read 'Avrumtvov for 
 
 Antoninus' titles in a descending scale 'ASptavoC in this passage, especially as 
 
 from Imperator to Caesar. a few lines lower down Epiphanias 
 
 9 oiSi yip iiriroO yimvt roG tiwv... speaks of Tatian as setting up his 
 
 Twds (ppovrlSa iroia6p.tvot, 4yypd<pus heretical school about the twelfth year 
 
 Kaitrapi wpotropMov ettrov ir\avatr9a.i of Antoninus (repl t6 Si»S4itarov (tos 
 
 airaus k.t.X. Dial. § 120. 'Kvrmlvov roO e&re/SoGs Kabrapos). He 
 
 3 (pvy&v rbv vvv yei>6i*evov ir<JX«/iov had already described Tatian as a 
 Dial. § 1. contemporary of Justin {<Twa.Kp.Ajfr 
 
 4 Eus. H. E. iv. 15 ; Ckron. Patch. 'lovtrrlvi?) who lapsed into heresy after 
 p. 481 sq. (ed. Bonn). Justin's death. 
 
 8 Epiphanius (391 a; ii. p. 411 ed. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 87 
 
 place it in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and, as far as we can 
 judge, before A.D. 150. If we adopt with Hort A.D. 149 as the 
 date (I. c. p. 180), and leave time for the Dialogue, we may place 
 the extant works of our author between A.D. 145-149. 
 
 We now turn to the evidence which Justin affords as to the 
 Fourth Gospel. He does not quote it by name, but he shows 
 more than one striking coincidence with its language. Thus 
 speaking of the sacrament of baptism he says (Apol. I. 61), 'For 
 Christ also said, " Unless ye be born again (avar/evvrjdfjre), ye 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven ", for that it is quite 
 impossible for those that are once born to enter into their 
 mother's womb is manifest to all' (cf. John iii. 3-5). If any 
 doubt could be entertained whence this saying was derived, it 
 will appear from a passage in the chapter immediately pre- 
 ceding (§ 60) that the Fourth Gospel was present to his mind. 
 Applying the incident of the brazen serpent as an image of the 
 Crucifixion, he reports Moses as erecting the serpent and saying, 
 'If ye look on this image (to3 tvitw rovrtp), and believe, ye 
 shall be saved in Him.' This is a very wide departure from 
 the account in Numbers (xxi. 7-9), where there is nothing 
 about a type or about the necessity of belief; but the writer 
 obviously had in his mind John iii. 14, 15, 'as Moses lifted up 
 the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be 
 lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him... should have 
 eternal life' 1 . Again, in the sixth chapter of the same Apology, 
 Justin says: 'The prophetic spirit we reverence and worship, 
 honouring (it) in reason and in truth,' where we are reminded of 
 John iv. 24. Speaking of the holy eucharist, ' We have been (or 
 were) taught (eBiSdxffijfiev),' he writes (§ 66), 'that the bread and 
 wine are both the flesh and the blood of that Jesus Who became 
 flesh/ an expression founded upon John vi. 54. ' For,' he adds, 
 'the Apostles, in the memoirs left by them, which are called 
 Gospels, have recorded that it was so enjoined on them ' etc. 
 This passage alone however would be far from conclusive. It 
 can only be taken to strengthen a position already established. 
 
 1 Compare the treatment of this incident in Dial. § 94. 
 
88 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 One other coincidence from the same work will suffice. Speak- 
 ing of the prophecy in Isaiah of the miraculous conception of 
 the Messiah, Justin remarks that God by the Spirit of prophecy 
 foretold what was incredible, ' so that, when it came to pass, it 
 might not be disbelieved, but might be believed from its having 
 been foretold ' (Apol. I. 33), where we are at once reminded of 
 John xiv. 29. 
 
 Turning now to the Dialogue with Trypho we find numerous 
 expressions, which cannot well be explained except on the 
 supposition that Jojrfi had the Fourth Gospel before him. 
 Our Lord is described as 'the only spotless and righteous 
 light, that was sent from God to men ' {Dial. 17 ; cf. John i. 9) ; 
 He is the ' only-begotten of the Father of the universe, His 
 Word and Power sprung in a special way (I8ia><;) from Him, as 
 we have learnt from the memoirs (doi diro twv airofivqfiovev- 
 fidTtov ift.ddofi.ev) ' (Dial. 105 ; cf. John i. 14). An allusion to 
 the imagery of Genesis xlix. 11 is explained of Christ because 
 ' His blood sprung not of man's seed, but of the will of God ' 
 (Dial. 63; cf. John i. 13). We are informed (Dial. 69) that 
 the Jews * dared to call Him a magician and a deceiver of the 
 people (\aoir\dvov),' where the last word seems to have been 
 suggested by John vii. 12 ' Nay, but he deceiveth the people 
 (•n-Xava rbv #%\oi>).' Speaking of himself and of his brother 
 Christians, Justin says, 'We are called, and are, the true 
 children of God, who keep His commandments (Dial. 123; 
 cf. John i. 12, 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2)' ; 'to us it is given both to hear, 
 and to be with, and to be saved through this Christ, and to 
 know all the things of the Father' (Dial. 121; cf. John xiv. 7); 
 •who are instructed in all the truth' (Dial. 39; c£ John xvL 
 13). 'He that knoweth not Him (i. e. Christ), knoweth not 
 the counsel of God, and he that insulteth and hateth Him, 
 manifestly hateth and insulteth Him that sent Him; and if 
 any man believeth not on Him, he believeth not the preaching 
 of the prophets, who announced the glad tidings of Him, and 
 preached them unto all ' (Dial. 136, a reminiscence of John v. 
 23, 45, 46). Again, in the description of John the Baptist 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 89 
 
 given in Dial. 88, an account which is chiefly taken from the 
 Synoptic Gospels, unmistakeable proofs are given of Justin's 
 acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel also. Thus the repudia- 
 tion of the Baptist's own claim to the Messiahship is closely 
 associated with the announcement of the presence of the 'one 
 stronger,' whose shoes John proclaims himself unworthy to 
 bear, in a way which presupposes Justin's knowledge of 
 John i. 19-27. Lastly, in Dial. 57 occurs an expression which 
 reminds us very forcibly of John vi. 31, ' Of the manna, on 
 which your fathers were nourished in the wilderness, the scrip- 
 ture saith, that they ate angels' food.' 
 
 A work of Justin earlier than any extant is his treatise 
 against Marcion. A few lines of this lost work are preserved in 
 Irenseus (iv. 6. 2). The passage is very short, not more than 
 half a dozen lines, and does not give much scope for quotations 
 from the New Testament, but in it occurs an expression 
 suggested by St John, 'The only-begotten Son came to us, 
 gathering up His own creation in Himself.' The latter part of 
 the clause is based on Ephes. L 10, the former on John i. 18. 
 
 2. We now turn from the master to the scholar, from 
 Justin Martyr to Tatian. The facts of Tatian's life are soon 
 told. An Assyrian by birth, as he himself distinctly says, and 
 a heathen, he exercised the profession of a sophist, in which 
 capacity he travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned 
 towards Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed 
 him greatly. He was converted, and became a disciple of Justin 
 Martyr, doubtless at Rome, and after the death of his master 
 appears to have remained some time in the metropolis teaching. 
 Subsequently he left Borne, and seems to have spent the 
 remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria and 
 the neighbouring countries. After Justin's death — how soon 
 after we do not know — his opinions underwent a change. He 
 separated himself from the Church, and espoused views closely 
 allied to those of the Encratites. When Irenseus wrote his 
 first book, Tatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from 
 the language of this father (Iren. L 28, 1); and this book must 
 
90 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 have been written before A.D. 190, and may have been written 
 as early as A.D. 178 1 . On the whole, we shall perhaps not be 
 far wrong if we place the period of his literary activity at about 
 A.D. 155-170'. 
 
 Of several writings of Tatian mentioned by the ancients, 
 only one has come down to us s , his Address to the Greeks, a 
 work composed before Tatian's separation from the Church, 
 apparently not long after the death of Justin. 
 
 This OraJtio ad Graecos is an Apology, addressed to Gentiles. 
 We do not therefore expect to find in it quotations from the 
 sacred books, with which Gentile readers would as a matter of 
 course have no acquaintance, and to which they would attribute 
 no authority. But the following passages place beyond the 
 reach of any reasonable doubt what was at least an a priori 
 presumption, that the pupil of Justin knew and accepted the 
 Fourth Gospel, to which his master's extant writings have 
 been shown to give testimony. 
 
 § 4. ' God is a Spirit (cf. John iv. 24).* 
 
 § 13. ' And this then is the saying (to elpiffievov), " The 
 darkness comprehendeth not (ov KaraXafjifidvei) the light" 
 (cf. John i. 5).' 
 
 § 19. ' Follow ye the only God. All things have been 
 made by.Him, and apart from Him hath been made no thing 
 (cf. John i. 3).' 
 
 These passages are conclusive, for they are characteristic 
 passages of the Fourth Gospel. There are other coincidences 
 with Johannine language, such as § 5 ' God was in the begin- 
 ning,' which, taken by themselves, cannot be pressed, but in the 
 
 1 See above, p. 79. Clement of Alex- 1888 by Ciasoa of Tatian's Diatessaron 
 
 andria Strom, i. 1. 11 (p. 322) men- in an Arabio version has set at rest for 
 
 tions an ' Assyrian ' as one of his earlier ever the question whether or no Tatian 
 
 teachers, and the identification of this knew the Fourth Gospel. The Dia- 
 
 Assyrian with Tatian is highly proba- tessaron is, as its name implies, a 
 
 ble; see below, p. 92. Harmony of the Four Gospels; and 
 
 1 [On the whole subjeot of Tatian as Dr Lightfoot had surmised, oonsists 
 
 see Essay on Supernatural Religion, of our four oanonical Gospels, and 
 
 p. 272 sq.J oommences with the opening words of 
 
 ' [The discovery and publication in St John's Gospel,] 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 91 
 
 light of the extracts given above are probably derived from the 
 same source. 
 
 V. The Church of Alexandria. 
 
 1. In all probability, the Epistle of Barnabas is to be con- 
 sidered the earliest piece of extant Christian literature, outside 
 the Canon, which emanates from Alexandria. Whoever is its 
 author — and it is noticeable that he nowhere claims to be the 
 Apostle Barnabas — in his general style and his interpretation of 
 the Old Testament, he represents Alexandrian thought. He 
 gives us moreover a picture of feuds between Jews and Chris- 
 tians, which is in keeping with what we know from other 
 sources of the character of the population of that great city. 
 For reasons which cannot be entered into here, but which bear 
 upon the interpretation of a passage in § 4, I am inclined to 
 place the date of the Epistle in the reign of Vespasian, after 
 that emperor's association with himself of his sons Titus and 
 Domitian in the supreme power (AJ). 70-79). In this case, it 
 was written before the Fourth Gospel ; we must therefore look 
 elsewhere for the evidence of which we are in search. We 
 shall find, if I mistake not, that the earliest quotations from 
 the Fourth Gospel (and these very important) which proceed 
 from Alexandria, are contained in the works of Gnostic writers, 
 as Basilides, Valentinus etc.; and these will be considered later 
 on 1 . At present we will confine ourselves to orthodox writings. 
 With one possible exception there is no orthodox literature 
 extant which comes from the Alexandrian Church between the 
 Epistle of Barnabas and the writings of Clement of Alexandria. 
 That exception is the latter part (§§ 11, 12) of the Epistle to 
 Diognetus. In our solitary authority for this Epistle, the 
 Strassburg MS., now no longer extant, the beginning of one 
 treatise and the conclusion of another have been accidentally 
 attached together so as to form in appearance one work. The 
 writer of the latter part is clearly an Alexandrian, and indulges 
 1 See below, p. 104 sq. 
 
92 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 in the allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament which are 
 characteristic of that school. He calls himself ' a disciple of the 
 Apostles and a teacher of the Gentiles.' The whole tone of 
 thought of the fragment is second-century. These indications 
 appear to point to Pantaenus, the master of Clement, and the 
 Apostle of the Indies (c. A.D. 180-210), as the author of the 
 treatise. The account given of him in Eusebius (H. E. v. 10) 
 would seem to imply that his journey to India 1 preceded his 
 appointment as head of the Catechetical school of Alexandria ; 
 and Anastatius of Sinai speaks of him as one of those early 
 exegetes, who understood all the narrative of the Hexaemeron 
 as referring to Christ and the Church, a view which harmonizes 
 in a remarkable degree with the allegorical interpretation of 
 the garden of Eden preserved in this fragment. 
 
 The influence of St John is very manifest in this treatise, 
 though there is no direct quotation from his Gospel. The 
 Word who is called 'the Life' (jJ for} § 12; cf. John i. 4), 
 ' who was from the beginning' (d air a.pyj\<i § 11 ; cf. John i. 2), 
 'through whom the Father is glorified' (oV ov Harijp Sot-dgerai 
 § 12; cf. John xiii. 31, xiv. 13), 'has revealed Himself to His 
 disciples (ol? e<pavepa><rev 6 Adyos (papevs § 11 ; cf. John ii. 11). 
 These and other coincidences with the Fourth Gospel, occurring 
 in a fragment which occupies less than two octavo pages, are 
 sufficient to indicate that the writer's mind was imbued with 
 Johannine teaching and phraseology. 
 
 2. Clement of Alexandria in his Stromateis" (i. 1. 11) 
 describes one of his instructors in Greece as ' the Ionian* (d fiev 
 
 1 Jerome Vir. III. 36, Ep. 70 (p. 428) enumerates his teachers as follows, 
 
 states that he was sent to India by giving the country in which he was 
 
 Demetrius (bishop of Alexandria a.d. their pupil, (1) in Greece, ' the Ionian,' 
 
 189-231). But Eusebius (£.c.) represents (2) in Magna Gracia, (a) one from 
 
 him as head of the catechetical school Casio-Syria, (6) another from Egypt, 
 
 ten years before the accession of Deme- (3) in the East, (a) one from Assyria, 
 
 trius. We must conclude that Jerome (b) another, in Palestine, a Hebrew, 
 
 places the visit to India too late. (4) in Alexandria, the last and greatest 
 
 1 The Stromateis was written a.d. i.e. Pantsenns. I am inolined to iden- 
 
 194 or 195 under Severus. Clement's tify 'the Ionian' with Melito. 
 other extant works are earlier. He 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 93 
 
 i-rrl t^s 'EWaSos 6 'Iwueo?), and places him first on the list of 
 his teachers, as though he were the earliest. 
 
 Thus he is connected with Asia Minor, and probably with 
 the school of St John. Consequently his testimony is of great 
 importance for our purpose. To Clement we owe several 
 traditions of St John 1 . He speaks 2 of a certain statement as 
 ' not occurring in the four Gospels handed down to us (ev toi? 
 irapaSeSofievois r\p.lv Terrapaiv evayyeXiots) but only in the 
 Gospel according to the Egyptians,' thus showing that in his 
 time the number of the Gospels was definitely fixed at four. 
 In another passage 3 he appeals to the tradition of the presbyters 
 of a former generation (irapdSoai? t<Sv avi/eaffev irpeo-fimipav) 
 as to the order in which the Gospels were written, saying that 
 after the other Gospels had been written, 'John, last of all, 
 observing that the external (bodily) facts (ra crtofiariKa) had 
 been set forth in the existing Gospels, at the urgent request of 
 his friends and by the divine guidance of the Spirit, composed 
 a spiritual Gospel {irvevfiaTiKov iroirjirai evayyeX,iov).' The 
 value of this tradition may be great or it may be small; but 
 his whole language bears testimony to the fact that the Gospel 
 of St John had long been recognised as authoritative, and that 
 traditions had grown up about it*. 
 
 3. Origen was born in A.D. 185, and began to teach at 
 eighteen. Of him it is sufficient to say that he wrote a com- 
 mentary on St John's Gospel, and that he betrays no knowledge 
 that the authenticity of the Gospel had ever been called in 
 question 5 . 
 
 1 e.g. the story of St John and the work only two short fragments survive, 
 young robber {Quia div. salv. 42, p. but Eusebius informs us (H. E. vi. 13) 
 958), quoted in Eua. H. E. iii. 23. that in it he mentioned 'the traditions 
 
 2 Strom, iii. 13, p. 553. which he had heard from the elders.' 
 
 3 Cited in Eus. H. E. vi. 14. This is another indirect link with the 
 
 4 In his book on the Paschal Fes- School of St John. 
 
 tival Clement makes the 14th the day " See Lucke, p. 78. His commen- 
 
 of the Crucifixion (Fragm. p. 1017 ed. tary on St John was written about the 
 
 Potter), thus following out the tra- year 222. In it he controverts Hera- 
 
 dition of the Asiatic School. Of this cleon. 
 
94 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 VI. The Chukches of Greece and Macedonia. 
 
 1. The extant remains belonging to this branch of the Church 
 in the second century are very slight indeed. In the few lines 
 of Dionysius of Corinth that survive, no quotation could have 
 been introduced naturally. Perhaps however the Epistle to 
 Diognetus §§ 1-10 may belong to this Church. It certainly 
 shows evidence of Hellenic culture both in diction and matter. 
 This however is a very slight presumption in favour of its 
 ascription to Greece proper ; and I only include it here because 
 some place must be found for a document which is undoubtedly 
 very early, and cannot well be assigned to a later date than the 
 middle of the second century 1 . 
 
 The Epistle is full of indications of the influence of 
 St John's writings. ' Christians dwell in the world, but are not 
 of the world (§ 6 ; cf. John xviL 11, 14, 16).' The doctrine of the 
 Word is drawn out fully in § 7. He is described as 'the 
 artificer and creator of the universe, by Whom God made the 
 heavens, by Whom He enclosed the sea in its proper bounds 
 (cf. John i. 3, Heb. i. 2)': 'God sent Him as saving.. .He sent 
 Him as loving and not as judging (cf. John iii. 17).' In a 
 later passage (§ 10), in language which is an echo of John iii. 16, 
 we are told, 'For God loved men... to whom He sent His only- 
 begotten Son, to whom He promised the kingdom in heaven 
 and will give it to those that love Him (cf. 1 John iv. 9).' 
 ' How then,' the writer goes on, ' shalt thou (worthily) love Him 
 that before loved thee so (cf. 1 John iv. 10, 11)?' 
 
 2. That Athenagoras should be considered a representa- 
 tive of the Church of Greece is evident from the heading of his 
 
 1 Westcott (Canon of the N. T. p. vlbv /SanXfo § 7), as illustrating the 
 
 88, ed. 4) places it c. a.d. 117, Bunsen Incarnation, may very well have been 
 
 (Hippolytut i. p. 170) a.d. 135. I am in- suggested by the adoption of M. Aure- 
 
 clined to date it somewhat later. The lius by Antoninus Pius in a.d. 147. 
 
 Diognetus addressed is not improbably On the other hand the simplicity of 
 
 the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, and the the theological teaching will not allow 
 
 reference to ' a King sending his us to bring the date down much later, 
 son as a King' (<it fituri\eis iripTtor 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 95 
 
 extant Apology, in which he describes himself as an 'Athenian.' 
 Thus the account of him given by Philippus Sidetes and pre- 
 served by Nicephorus Callistus 1 , which makes him the first 
 leader of the Catechetical school at Alexandria, must be 
 inaccurate. But Philip of Side, who lived in the fifth century 
 and was ordained deacon by Chrysostom, was a notoriously 
 pretentious and careless writer. For instance, in his short 
 account of Athenagoras he makes Pantsenus the pupil of 
 Clement, and asserts that Athenagoras' Apology was addressed 
 to Hadrian and Antoninus, whereas its title shows it to have 
 been dedicated to the emperors Aurelius and Commodus, and 
 therefore written after Commodus was associated in the govern- 
 ment (autumn of A.D. 176). From other indications it seems 
 possible to fix the date more precisely between the end of 
 AD. 176 and the end of AD. 177 2 . 
 
 The absence of all appeal to Holy Scripture, which is 
 characteristic of apologies addressed to the heathen, is noticeable 
 in Athenagoras also. But this does not prevent him from 
 exhibiting correspondences with the thought and teaching 
 of the Fourth Gospel. Thus God the Father ' hath made all 
 things by the Word that proceedeth from Him (Sta tow trap 
 avTov Aoyov § 4 ; cf. John i. 3).' Again, ' the Son of God is 
 (the) Word of the Father in form and in energy ; for of Him 
 and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son 
 being one, the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the 
 Son (§ 10 ; cf. John i. 3, xvii. 21 sq.).' ' To know God and the 
 Word that proceedeth from Him, what is the union of the Son 
 with the Father, what the communion {icoivcovia) of the Father 
 with the Son' is the Christian's life (§12; cf. John xvii. 3). 
 
 1 See Dodwell Dissert, in Iren. of the Christians of Vienne and Lyons 
 
 2 The flaSeta elp^yi) (§ 2) is only (a.d. 177) raises a difficulty. Athen- 
 applicable to the years 176 — 178 in agoras declares (§ 35) that no slaves 
 the reign of M. Aurelius. This peace had ever accused their Christian mas- 
 intervened between the close of the ters of the infamous crimes attributed 
 insurrection of Avidius Crassus and to them. This statement ceased to be 
 the outbreak of the Marcomannic War. true after the commencement of the 
 On the other hand to place the Apology persecution in question. 
 
 after the outbreak of the persecution 
 
96 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 The later Church of Greece proper is almost a blank as 
 regards any literary activity. 
 
 VII. The Chukch of Rome. 
 
 The genuine Epistle of Clement has been assigned with 
 great probability to A.D. 95 or 96, during the reign of Domitian, 
 when St John was still in banishment in the island of Patmos. 
 It was almost certainly composed before St John wrote his 
 Gospel. Accordingly, in this, the first contribution to Christian 
 extra-canonical literature which emanated from Rome, no 
 quotation from the Fourth Gospel is possible. 
 
 1. We therefore pass on to the Shepherd of Hermas, the 
 author of which is described in the Muratorian Canon, in a 
 well-known passage, to have composed his work during the 
 episcopate of his brother Pius (c. A.D. 141-156) in Rome 1 . It is 
 the earliest Christian allegory, written probably by a slave*, and 
 is noticeable for its absence of quotations from Holy Scripture. 
 This applies not merely to the New Testament but to the Old 
 Testament likewise. There are numerous passages which recall 
 the language of the psalms and prophetical books in the one 
 case, and of the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles — especially the 
 Epistle of St James — in the other, but the coincidences are 
 embedded in the narrative itself, and have to be carefully 
 disentangled from it. The only quotation which is avowedly 
 such, is taken from an apocryphal work, the book of Eldad and 
 Modad 8 . In spite however of this characteristic feature, the 
 treatise contains indications that the author was influenced by 
 the writings of St John. The very title The Shepherd recalls 
 the parable of the Good Shepherd in John x., and the sixth 
 Similitude is an elaboration of the metaphor employed in that 
 
 1 Sedente cathedra wbit Romae ee- probable that he came originally from 
 
 clesiae Pio epitcopo fratre eius. Can. Southern Greece. 
 
 Mutator, p. 58 sq. (ed. Tregelles). s 'Eyyiit Kipios rots brurrpc$oii4vou, 
 
 3 Vis. i. 1, unless indeed he is as- u>t y&ypairrai i» t$ 'EX5AJ koX MuSdr 
 
 suming a fictitious character. His Vis. ii. 3. 
 mention of Arcadia [Sim. ix.) makes it 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 97 
 
 parable. The same chapter in the Fourth Gospel affords a 
 more remarkable coincidence. In the ninth Similitude the Son 
 of God is called ' the Gate 1 ,' and it is added that ' no man can 
 enter into the kingdom of God otherwise than through the 
 name of His Son Who is beloved by Him (/Sim. ix. 12 ; 
 cf. John x. 9, xiv. 6).' In the same section the Son of God is 
 said to be ' begotten prior (•7rpoyevi<rrepo<i) to all His Creation, 
 so that He became TTin Father's adviser in His creation.' 
 These correspondences occurring together seem to indicate the 
 influence of the Fourth Gospel. Elsewhere St John's teaching 
 on ' the Truth' underlies Hennas' words as in Mand. iii., ' Love 
 the truth, and let nothing but truth proceed out of your mouth 
 . . .and thus shall the Lord, Who dwelleth in thee, be glorified, 
 for the Lord is true in every word, and with Him is no lie,' a 
 clear allusion to 1 John ii. 27. Lastly, another passage recalls 
 expressions in John x. 18, the Son 'having Himself cleansed 
 the sins of His people, showed them the paths of life, giving 
 them the law which He received from His Father (Sim. v. 6).' 
 
 2. The reasons for assigning the Muratorian Canon to 
 Borne are briefly as follows : (1) the mention of 'urbs', implying 
 that the writer was familiar with Borne and probably wrote at 
 Borne, (2) the translation of the work into Latin and its 
 preservation in the Western Church, (3) the fact that the 
 Canon which it presents is substantially the Canon of the 
 Western Church*, (4) the knowledge which the writer displays 
 of the Roman authorship of the Pastor of Hennas, (5) the 
 prominent position assigned to the Epistle to the Romans, 
 which he explains more fully than usual, promising an 
 exposition of the Epistle itself*. I will not discuss the 
 
 1 The word is $vpa in S t John, t<>\v refuse to allow the public reading of the 
 in Hennas ; bnt the passage in St Apocalypse of Peter, as though imply - 
 John is loosely quoted at least three ing that the majority accepted this 
 times by the early heretics given in work as canonical. 
 
 Hippolytus with jrtfXij instead of Bipa ; s Romania autem ordine (? ordinem) 
 
 and so also in the Clementine Homi- scripturarum sed et principium earum 
 
 lies ; see below, p. 114. esse Christum intimans prolizius scrip- 
 
 2 There is however an obscure allu- sit, de quibus singulis necesse est a 
 sion to some (quidam ex nostris) who nobis disputari. 
 
 L. E. 7 
 
98 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 question of the authorship of this interesting fragment. It 
 has heen assigned to Gaius, the Roman presbyter, to He- 
 gesippus, to Hippolytus. It was obviously written in Greek 
 originally, and Greek was for the first two centuries the 
 language of the Roman Church. The data for ascertaining the 
 age of the writing are two, (1) the notice of an event occurring 
 in the episcopate of Pius (A.D. 141-156) as having taken place 
 nuperrime temporibus nostris, (2) the mention in a passage 
 manifestly corrupt of Arsinous, Valentinus, Miltiades 1 , Basilides 
 and the founder of the Montanists. We have thus the inferior 
 and the superior limits within which the work is to be assigned ; 
 and, though the problem presents considerable difficulties, we 
 may provisionally place the date at A.D. 170 or thereabouts. 
 
 The fragment opens with an account of the Four Gospels. 
 It is mutilated at the beginning, and the description of 
 St Matthew's Gospel is wanting. This is the case too with the 
 notice of St Mark's Gospel, which is lost all but the conclusion 
 of the last sentence — ' at which however he was present and so 
 he set them down 4 .' But the account given of St Luke throws 
 light upon the writer's meaning. St Luke, he tells us, was 
 a physician who after the Ascension became a follower of 
 St Paul and compiled his Gospel in his own name. 'But 
 neither did he {nee ipse i.e. any more than St Mark) see the 
 Lord in the flesh,' that is to say, he was not an eyewitness, 
 'He wrote from hearsay {ex opinione ef dicorjs;).' The writer 
 then continues, ' The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John one 
 of the (personal) disciples (of Christ) {ex discipvlis e* tcoi» 
 Ha0r)T<Sv).' This expression is significant. St John's position 
 is here contrasted with that of St Mark and St Luke, who were 
 not eyewitnesses. The word /j.a0TjTT)<: implies a personal dis- 
 ciple of the Lord, and it is so used in Papias and Irenams 3 . 
 Moreover in this place it is peculiarly appropriate, inasmuch as 
 St John uses this expression of himself (John xviii. 15, 16, 
 
 1 For epeoulations as to Arsinous * Qnibustameninterfuitetitaposuit. 
 
 and Miltiades see Bunsen Anal.Anten. s Irensus always calls John & tou 
 i. p. 134 sq., and Credner Canon, p. 82. Kvptov ftaflijn}* ; e.g. above, p. 57. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 99 
 
 xix. 26, 27, xxi. 20, 23, 24) 1 ; and his example doubtless fixed 
 the usage of the Asiatic School. A little lower down, after 
 quoting 1 John i. 1, he draws attention to the fact that 
 St John ' not only claimed to have seen and heard' the Lord 
 (read non solum visorem se esse et auditorem), 'but to have 
 written all the marvels of the Lord in order (sed et scriptorem 
 omnium mirabilium Domini per ordinem profitetur).' This 
 statement is emphatic. As distinct from the arrangement of 
 events in the second and third (perhaps also in the first) Gospel, 
 the eyewitness is declared to preserve the true chronology. 
 
 The references to the writings of St John in the 
 Muratorian Canon are full and explicit. (1) The circum- 
 stances under which the Gospel was written are first described ; 
 (2) incidentally the opening words in the first Epistle are 
 quoted, 'What wonder then if John so boldly puts forward 
 each statement in his Epistle (in epistolis suis ral<s eviaroXai^) 
 also saying of himself, " What we have seen with our eyes and 
 heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things 
 we have written unto you"' ; (3) The mention of the number of 
 St Paul's Epistles introduces an allusion to the Apocalypse, 'for 
 John likewise in the Apocalypse, although he writes to seven 
 Churches, yet speaks to all.' (4) Next the Catholic Epistles are 
 discussed 3 , and we are told that 'two Epistles of the before- 
 mentioned John are considered canonical 4 ,' (5) lastly, the 
 Apocalypse is mentioned again in conjunction with the Apoca- 
 lypse of St Peter, and an unqualified testimony is given to its 
 acceptance in the Church. Thus there is a continuous chain of 
 
 1 See Westeott Carton, of the N. T. 8 There is evidently a lacuna in the 
 p. 211 (ed. 4). MS. hereabouts, for the First Epistle of 
 
 2 The plural is here probably used St Peter is not mentioned. 
 
 to describe one epistle. This is not 4 Superscript Iohannis duas (I. 
 
 uncommon, cf. the Epistle of Poly- duae) in catholics (I. catholicis) ha- 
 
 carp (§3); Euseb. H. E. vi. 1; vi. 43; bentur. The two Epistles meant are 
 
 Joseph. Ant. zii. 4. 10 ; and in classical probably the Second and Third Epistles, 
 
 writers Thuc. i. 132; iv. 50; viii. 51 ; the first being considered as a kind of 
 
 Polyb. v. 43. 5 etc. It is common in prologue to the Gospel, detached from 
 
 the iixx; cf. Esth. iii. 14; 1 Mace. v. the shorter pair, and treated with the 
 
 14, etc. See my Philippians, p. 140 sq. Gospel. 
 
 7—2 
 
100 THE GOSPEL ACOOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 notices, and the absence of the faintest hint to the contrary 
 renders it unquestionable that the same John is meant from 
 beginning to end as the author of the Gospel, of the First 
 Epistle, of the two shorter Epistles, and of the Apocalypse. 
 
 But is not the account of the Gospels in this fragment 
 founded upon Papias ? And if so, what account did Papias 
 give ? We have found that the Muratorian writer lays stress 
 on the secondary character of St Mark's account, with apparent 
 reference to his chronology. Papias also 1 informs us concerning 
 St Mark, that, though strictly accurate, he ' did not write in order 
 (ov fievroi rai-ei), for he was not himself a hearer or follower of 
 the Lord (ovre yap tf/covcre tow YLvpiov ovre irapi)Kokovdri<Tev 
 avT<S).' Again, we notice that the Muratorian writer quotes 
 from the First Epistle of St John in evidence. Papias likewise 
 does the same. We are not told with what object Papias 
 adduced this testimony from the Epistles ; but it is at least a 
 plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the 
 Muratorian writer. May it not then be inferred with some 
 degree of probability that the writer of the Muratorian Canon 
 borrowed in some degree from Papias ? The use of the term 
 ex discipulis seems to point to such a source of information. 
 
 3. It might have been unnecessary to carry the history of 
 the Canon in the Roman Church further; but doubts have been 
 thrown 3 of the view of Hippolytus upon this question. It 
 has been maintained that he shows no knowledge of the Gospel 
 as the work of St John. It would indeed have been marvellous 
 if Hippolytus, the pupil of Irenseus, and the friend of Origen, 
 both of whom bear such unmistakeable testimony to the recep- 
 tion of the Fourth Gospel, had entertained any doubts on this 
 subject. But the answer to the objection is evident. (1) When 
 Hippolytus expounds his own views, he is addressing heathens. 
 He therefore does not appeal to any scripture, because it would 
 not carry authority with his hearers. (2) It is perfectly evident 
 
 1 Papiaa in Eus. JET. E. iii. 39. character of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 67, 
 
 2 Tayler An attempt to ascertain the 77, 87. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 101 
 
 when he refers to the quotations from St John in Gnostic 
 writings 1 , that he and they alike received as authoritative the 
 documents which are quoted. (3) He does not mention hy 
 name St Matthew or St Luke. He mentions St Peter and St 
 James indeed, but without any connexion with their writings in 
 the New Testament. The only Pauline Epistles which he con- 
 nects with the name of St Paul are Romans, 2 Corinthians, 1 
 Timothy and perhaps Galatians 2 , though he quotes these and 
 most of the other Epistles of St Paul repeatedly. (4) In the 
 work against Noetus (§§ 12, 14. 15 etc.) and in a fragment 
 preserved by Lagarde (p. 52) he distinctly quotes the Fourth 
 Gospel and attributes it to 'John, the beloved disciple*.' (5) 
 Among the list of works ascribed to him on his statue is a 
 ' Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of St John.' The work 
 is lost, but there is reason to suppose that it was known to, and 
 used by, Epiphanius*. These reasons seem to me amply to 
 justify our claim to reckon Hippolytus among the witnesses for 
 the Johannine authorship. 
 
 Hippolytus is the last and most famous representative of the 
 Greek Church of Rome. Henceforward Rome becomes the 
 focus of Latin Christendom. 
 
 VIII. The Churches of Africa. 
 
 Meanwhile Latin Christianity has had its headquarters in 
 Africa and especially at Carthage. And it is here that we must 
 seek the opinion of the early Latin Church on the question of 
 the Canon. The Roman Church, Greek in nation and Latin in 
 soil, was the natural link between Greek and Latin Christendom. 
 Carthage and Africa were converted from Rome. The Canon 
 
 i See below, p. 105 sq. 30, ii. 19, iii. 6, 13 (twice and byname), 
 
 » Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians 31, ir. 34, v. 25 (twioe), 36, vi. 27, 36, 
 
 once only, 1 Timothy twice. 45, -riii. 12, x. 18, 30, xi. 35, 52, xiv. 6, 
 
 * The quotations are as follows: 8 sq. 12; xvi. 28, xix. 14, 37, xx. 1, 
 
 John i. 1 (by name), 1-3 (by name), 17. 
 
 10, 14, 18, 20, 29 (twice, once by name), * On this work see below, p. 118. 
 
102 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 of the African Church therefore may be supposed, in all the 
 more important points, to reproduce the Canon of the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 1. Tertullian is the first known writer of the African 
 Church; as to his own individual opinion on the authority of 
 the Fourth Gospel no doubt can be entertained. He quotes it 
 some two hundred times or more without the slightest mis- 
 giving. It is more important to trace the evidence, which his 
 language affords, to the traditional testimony to its use. Thus 
 in his treatise against Marcion (iv. 2, 5), after mentioning the 
 four Evangelists together by name, he appeals to the Churches 
 founded by St John and the succession of bishops derived from 
 St John, as evidence for the reception of the Gospels by the 
 Catholic Church. Making all allowance for his rhetoric, such 
 an appeal cannot be considered unmeaning. Of the Gospel of 
 St John especially he speaks (adv. Prax. § 5) as though it had 
 long worked itself into the phraseology and the teaching of 
 Christianity. 
 
 2. Another document, contemporary with, or rather earlier 
 than, Tertullian, the Acts of Martyrdom of SS. Perpetua 
 and Felicitas (Ruinart, p. 80 sq.) shows what deep hold the 
 writings of St John had taken on the African Church at this 
 time. At the outset, we meet in the preface with two obvious 
 coincidences with Johannine phraseology. The courage of the 
 martyrs is instanced as a proof of the power of God, ' Who 
 worketh always the works which He hath promised, for a 
 testimony to them that believe not, for a support to them that 
 believe' (quae repromisit non credentibus in testimonium, cre- 
 dentibus in benefieium — a reference to John x. 38). The passage 
 then proceeds, 'accordingly in our case too, that which we 
 have heard and handled declare we unto you also, brothers and 
 sons, that ye also may... recount the glory of God (et nos itaque 
 quod audivimu8 et contrectavimus annuntiamvs et vobis, fratres 
 et filioli, ut et vo8...rememoremini gloriae Domini)', an ex- 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 103 
 
 pression based upon the opening words of St John's First Epistle 1 . 
 Less stress can be laid on the fact that in her vision Perpetua 
 sees (§ 4) sitting in the midst of a garden hominem canum in 
 habitu Pastoris, for this favourite idea of Christ as the Good 
 Shepherd may have been derived from the Pastor of Hermas. 
 though its original source was doubtless John x. But towards 
 the close of the document occurs an allusion to the Fourth 
 Gospel, which is interesting because it is not apparent on the 
 surface. The only direct quotation from the New Testament 
 found in this martyrology runs as follows: 'But He who had 
 said, "Ask and ye shall receive" (qui dixerat Petite et accipietis), 
 gave (to the martyrs) at their prayer that form of death which 
 each had desired (§ 19).' Now, though the passage quoted 
 occurs in three of the four Gospels (Matt. vii. 7, Luke xi. 9, 
 John xvi. 24), yet the exact form in which it is couched 2 shows 
 that it was derived, not from the Synoptic narrative, but from 
 the Fourth Gospel. In short, with the exception of the Apoca- 
 lypse (e.g. especially § 12), there are no such coincidences with 
 any other part of the New Testament, as are afforded to the 
 language of the Fourth Evangelist. 
 
 The Montanist, or rather Montanizing*, tendencies of this 
 Martyrology bear testimony to its early date. Indeed, there is 
 every reason to believe that it was contemporary with the 
 events which it records. Tertullian refers to the document in 
 his de anima § 55, and the date usually assigned to this treatise 
 is c. A.D. 208. The date of the martyrdom of S. Perpetua and 
 her companions is fixed by a reference in the Martyrology itself 
 to the birthday of Geta Caesar 4 , thus placing it between A.D. 
 198, when Geta became Caesar, and A.D. 209, when he was 
 created Augustus. It is highly probable that the actual year 
 was AD. 202, during the persecution of Severus. 
 
 1 The passage quoted is probably alone alreuree xal X^>«r0e. 
 
 verse 3. Notice however the variation » The allusion to 'oheese' in § 4 
 
 quod audivimus et eontreotavimus for can, I think, hardly be taken to show 
 
 quod vidimus et audivimus. that the writer or the martyrs were 
 
 * St Matthew and St Luke have Artotyrites. 
 
 aheMt -cat Sonera, bfuv, St John * Natale tunc Getae Caesaris § 7. 
 
104 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 IX. The Churches of Syria. 
 
 There is no early Syrian writer of importance until Barde- 
 sanes. He flourished at the close of the second century, or at 
 the beginning of the third century, according as we consider the 
 emperor Antoninus mentioned in connexion with him (Epiph. i. 
 477 a, Eus. H. E. iv. 20, Jerome Vir. IU. etc.) to have been M. 
 Aurelius or Caracalla. Bardesanes was a voluminous writer, 
 but of the various works assigned to him only one has survived, 
 The Book of the Laws of Countries, which was discovered by 
 Cureton among the Nitrian MSS., and published by him in his 
 Spicilegium Syriacwm in 1855. When examined, however, this 
 treatise appears to have emanated from the disciples of Barde- 
 sanes rather than from Bardesanes himself, and its date is too 
 late to be of assistance in determining the tradition of the 
 Syrian Church on the question of the Fourth Gospel. Among 
 the Ancient Syriac Documents discovered by Cureton in 1848 
 and published in 1864, is one entitled The Doctrine of the 
 Apostles, in which Simon Peter is represented (Cureton I. c. p. 
 25) as quoting the promise of the Comforter in the language of 
 John xiv. 26 ; and in another document, The Doctrine of Simon 
 Cephas, the same quotation in a shorter form is again put into 
 St Peter's mouth (Cureton I. c. p. 36). But here again, the value 
 of this evidence is lessened by the uncertainty of the date which 
 is to be assigned to these ancient documents. 
 
 X. The Testimony of Heretical Writers. 
 
 We now pass from the evidence of orthodox writers to the 
 testimony of heretics, and when we begin to look into it we are 
 surprised at its extent and at its early date. The numerous 
 controversies which the early fathers held with the multiform 
 systems to which Christianity gave rise, has resulted in our 
 possessing, embedded in the works of the defenders of the faith, 
 large extracts from the writers who assailed it. This mine of 
 unorthodox literature has been largely increased by the acqui- 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 105 
 
 sition in recent years of Hippolytus' great work the Refutation 
 of all Heresies. From this newly-discovered work I shall draw 
 the greater part of the evidence which I hope to bring before 
 you. The evidence itself I shall state as briefly as I can. We 
 will begin with the Gnostics. 
 
 A. The Gnostics. 
 
 1. Simon Magus is credited with a work called The Oreat 
 Revelation (ij fieydkij airofyaaii), of which Hippolytus has pre- 
 served considerable extracts (Ref. vi. 9-18). There is however 
 reason to believe that the treatise was mainly written by his 
 disciples. In a quotation from this book given by Hippolytus 
 (I. c. vi. 9), where man is described as ' born of blood ' (toi> e£ 
 al/jtareav yeyevvrjfiivov), some have found an allusion to John i. 
 13 (pi ovk eg aiftaTfov . . .eyevvrfOTjaav). This seems to me very 
 doubtful. Indeed the book was probably composed somewhere 
 about the close of the first century, perhaps before the Gospel of 
 St John was written, or at least circulated. 
 
 2. The Ophites or Naassenes. This was a very early sect, 
 almost pre-Christian in its origin, which broke up into several 
 distinct branches, as it adopted diverse extraneous elements. 
 But its assimilative character makes it next to impossible for 
 us to separate the more ancient features of its teaching from 
 the more recent developments. Thus we have no means of 
 ascertaining the exact date of the writings quoted by Hippolytus. 
 But Hippolytus himself composed his Refutation some time 
 early in the third century 1 , and he intimates that when he 
 wrote the Ophite system was already on the wane. There is 
 good reason therefore for assigning an early period in the second 
 century for the document which he had before him. It abounds 
 with quotations from the Fourth Gospel. I will not weary you 
 
 1 The limits of date for the oompo- own death, which took place some- 
 
 sition are the death of Callistus a.d. where between a.d. 235 and 238 (Liber 
 
 220, of whom an account is given PontifiealU I. pp. 64, 145, Duchesne). 
 (Haer. ix. II sq.), and Hippolytus' 
 
106 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 by detailing them at length, but will content myself with giving 
 the references to the Gospel and to the pages in Duncker and 
 Schneidewin's edition (1859) of the Refutatio, merely premising 
 that the quotations are clear and explicit. 
 
 John i. 3. Refutatio 
 
 v. 8 (p. 150), v. 9 (166). 
 
 L9. 
 
 v. 9 (p. 172). 
 
 iii. 5. 
 
 v. 8 (p. 162). 
 
 iii. 6. 
 
 v. 7 (p. 148). 
 
 iv. 10, 14. 
 
 v. 9 (p. 172). 
 
 iv. 21. 
 
 v. 9 (p. 166). 
 
 v. 37. 
 
 v. 8 (p. 154). 
 
 vi. 44. 
 
 v. 8 (p. 158). 
 
 vi 53. 
 
 v. 8 (p. 152). 
 
 viii. 21. 
 
 v. 8 (p. 154). 
 
 x. 9. 
 
 v. 8 (p. 156). 
 
 xiii. 33. 
 
 v. 8 (p. 152). 
 
 There are also undoubted allusions to the marriage of Cana 
 in Galilee (John ii. 1-11 ; cf. Ref. v. 8 p. 152) and to the man 
 bom blind (John ix. 1 ; cf. Ref. v. 9 p. 172), which are evidently 
 taken from the same source. And this list might be enlarged 
 without difficulty. 
 
 3. The distinction between the Perat^e and the Naassenes 
 is not very clearly denned, and the two bodies seem to have 
 held many tenets in common ; but Hippolytus treats them as 
 separate sects, and it is evident therefore that he considered the 
 Peratse, as a body, to have a real and independent existence. I 
 tabulate as before the obvious quotations from the Fourth 
 Gospel, which occur in the account of them taken by Hippolytus 
 from one of their own documents. 
 
 John i. 1-4. Refutatio v. 16 (p. 194). 
 
 iii. 14. v. 16 (p. 192). 
 
 iii. 17. v. 12 (p. 178). 
 
 viii. 44. v. 17 (p. 196). 
 
 x. 7. v. 17 (p. 198). 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 107 
 
 4. We pass on to another Ophite sect, which is treated 
 next in order in the Refutatio — the Sethiani. As far as we 
 can judge from the extracts which Hippolytus gives us, the 
 formularies of this sect do not indulge in scriptural phraseology 
 to any great extent. But here again we meet with traces of 
 the use of St John's language, e.g. Ref. v. 19 (p. 206), where, 
 the Logos is said to have ' drunk the cup of the living water which 
 springeth up,' an expression which recalls John iv. 10, 14 ; and 
 Ref v. 21 (p. 212), where true believers are spoken of as those 
 ' who are born again of the Spirit, not of the flesh,' words which 
 remind us of John iii. 6. 
 
 5. Justinus, whom Hippolytus quotes as another Ophite 
 heresiarch, elaborated a system which combined heathen 
 mythology and the book of Genesis into a fantastic theory of 
 the universe. The Book of Baruch, from which Hippolytus 
 quotes, presents few correspondences with the New Testament, 
 but the same coincidence is found with John iv. 10, 14, which 
 we have noticed already ; and Jesus, as he leaves his body on 
 the cross, says to his mother Eden, 'Woman, thou hast to the 
 full thy son' (Tvvai, dire^eiv <rov rbv viov), words which, though 
 with a wholly different application, betray an acquaintance with 
 John xix. 26. 
 
 6. The evidence which the Ophite system affords can be 
 supplemented from the Pistis Sophia, one of the few 
 remains of the old Gnostic literature which have come down to 
 us. This work is preserved in a Coptic version. It is in four 
 books, the fourth probably by a different author, and containing 
 a simpler form of teaching than the other three. The date 
 usually assigned to the composition is the middle of the third 
 century. I give from Petermann's edition the correspondences 
 which it presents with the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 John i. 20. Pistis Sophia p. 9. 
 vii. 33. p. 11- 
 
 xii. 35. p. 11. 
 
 xiv. 3. p- 145. 
 
108 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 John xv. 15. Pistis Sophia p. 145. 
 
 xv. 19. pp. 8, 145. 
 
 xvii. 14, 16. pp. 8, 145. 
 
 xvii. 23. p. 145. 
 
 xvii. 25. pp. 120, 175. 
 
 The Johannine expression 'Verily, verily' ('A/*^k dprjv) 
 occurs very frequently (pp. 23, 55, 117, 197) in this treatise. 
 
 7. Basilides, Gnostic teacher of Alexandria, flourished in 
 the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138). He professed to have 
 been instructed by Glaucias, a follower of St Peter. Clement of 
 Alexandria, to whom we owe this information {Strom, vii. 17 
 p. 898), classes him in a loose way with those heretics ' who 
 arose about the times of Hadrian, and who reached until the 
 period of the elder Antoninus 1 .' Though Clement was interested 
 in placing his date as low as possible*, there is no serious 
 difference of opinion in this respect. Within a few years the 
 limit must lie. Now Hippolytus gives an abstract of a work, 
 or portion of a work, by Basilides ; and in it one or two passages 
 of St John are quoted and gnostically explained : ' And this,' 
 says he, ' is what is called in the Gospels, " That was the true 
 light that lighteth every man who cometh (or coming) into 
 the world"' (?Hvt6 <f>m<; to* <l\r)divov,b <f>a>Tl£ei iravra avBptoirov 
 epXopevov et? rov Kocryuov Ref. vii. 22 p. 360 ; cf. John i. 9). 
 And again: 'But that every thing,' says he, 'has its own 
 proper times (Kaipovs), the Saviour states explicitly, saying, 
 "My time is not yet come'" (oiira r/xei »J &pa pov Ref. vii. 27 
 p. 376 ; cf. John ii. 4). It is said, however, that these quotations 
 are taken not from Basilides himself, but from some other 
 Basilidean writer. But what are the fects ? The general form 
 in which the quotations are introduced — the word (p-qaiv — 
 cannot be urged as an argument one way or the other ; for the 
 expression is often used impersonally, and may mean 'he says' 
 
 1 Our chief authorities for the life xxiv. 1. (p. 68 o), Theodoret H. F. i. 2. 
 of Baeilides are Clem. I.e., Iren. i. 24, a He is contending that the Catholio 
 
 3 sq., Ens. H. E. iv. 7, Epiph. Haer. Church is older than the sects. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 109 
 
 or ' they say.' The question must be decided by an examination 
 of the passages themselves. Hippolytus begins by stating 
 (p. 356 1. 64), that Basilides and Isidore his son and disciple 
 declare that Matthew delivered to them certain secret truths 
 which he had heard from the Saviour. Then follows a series of 
 quotations, extending over many pages and ushered in (p. 356 
 1. 69) by (fyijaiv. This connecting particle is repeated again and 
 again, but it links together a continuous argument from which 
 it is patent that Hippolytus is quoting some one book and 
 some one representative of the school. When he comments on 
 the statements made, he occasionally speaks of his opponents in 
 the plural 1 , but the narrative quoted exhibits more than once the 
 writer's personality, e.g. '"I do not admit", says he' (ov Se^ofiai, 
 foo-lv p. 356 1. 79); '"By willed, I mean," says he* (to Se 
 i}0e\7)ae Xeyca, <f>i)aC p. 358 1. 97), clearly showing that the 
 writer was a single individual who delivered his opinions with 
 authority. Who then was this writer ? The answer is obvious. 
 None other than Basilides himself. No other name is 
 mentioned 2 by Hippolytus. After the first introduction Isidore 
 is tacitly dropped, and Basilides is treated as the solitary 
 antagonist. But it may be contended that this was a later 
 work written by a disciple in the name of Basilides. To this 
 contention we may reply, (1) that no such work was ever heard 
 of, (2) that Basilides differed herein from other heresiarchs, as 
 Simon Magus for example, in that his followers had no interest in 
 forging documents in his name. For unlike the Ophites and the 
 Valentinians, the Basilideans were not a large and spreading sect. 
 They soon dwindled away, leaving by a natural selection the 
 Ophites and Valentinians masters of the Gnostic field. On the 
 other hand, the abstract which Hippolytus gives shows the 
 influence of a master mind. Now it is known that Basilides 
 wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel 3 — a work which is 
 
 1 e.g. p. 356 U. 84, 86, p. 360 U. 45, toioSto B.), p. 364 1. 8 (Siifnp-ai yap 
 49, p."366 1. 36, p. 368 1. 69, p. 376 ivb B.), p. 366 1. 46 (B...Ma<ra<pel), cf. 
 1. 7, p. 378 1. 12. p. 366 L 47, p. 368 1. 50 etc. 
 
 2 e.g. p. 356 1. 85, p. 360 1. 27 s See Agrippa Castor in Eua. B. E. 
 (ipetya yap i B.), p. 362 1. 67 itoXe« t» iv, 7. 
 
110 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 quoted by Clement of Alexandria 1 , and which therefore was 
 very likely to be in the hands of Hippolytus. And part of the 
 abstract in Hippolytus is taken up with explaining what is 
 meant by the term 'the Gospel' 2 ; while the whole is closed 
 with the significant sentence, ' These then are the fables which 
 Basilides utters, who taught throughout Egypt, and such were 
 the fruits which he produced who was instructed in so great 
 wisdom (p. 378 1L 40 sq.).' And then Basilides is dismissed, 
 and Hippolytus goes on to combat his contemporary Saturninus*. 
 The extreme probability therefore that we have in the Refuta- 
 tion the very words of Basilides himself falls little short of 
 demonstration; and thus we have a passage from St John 
 quoted, as contained 'in the Gospels', by one outside the 
 Church who ranks in antiquity between Clement of Rome 
 and Polycarp 4 . 
 
 8. Valentinus came to Borne, we are told, in the episco- 
 pate of Hyginus (A.D. 138-141) and was in his full vigour in the 
 episcopate of Pius (c. A.D. 141-156)'. He professed to have 
 received his instruction from Theodas, a disciple of St Paul 8 . 
 Tertullian informs us 7 that he adopted the Canon of the New 
 Testament complete, and the fact that the whole phraseology of 
 the Valentinian system is built upon the opening verses of 
 St John's Gospel 8 is conclusive evidence that he recognised our 
 Fourth Evangelist. Indeed, we have Irenaeus' authority (iii. 11, 7) 
 for saying that the Valentinians especially affected the Gospel 
 of St John. But the matter is set at rest once for all by a 
 distinct quotation from St John (x. 8) which Hippolytus 
 records of him {Sta tovto, tyqai, \eyei 6 Xtonjp' Uavres oi 
 
 1 Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 12, 83 sq. 5 Irenseus iii. 4, 3. 
 
 <p. 599 sq.) « Clem. Alex. Strom. Tii. 17, p. 898. 
 
 3 e.g. p. 370 1. 97 sq., p. 372 11. 12 * Tert. de praescr. 38, si Valentinus 
 
 sq., 32, 37, 40, p. 378 1. 10 sq., and integro instnunento uti videtur, non 
 
 especially p. 376 1. 6 sq. callidiore ingenio quam Mansion manns 
 
 8 ravra ftiv cBn iara> a nal B. fuiffeta intulit veritati ; ot de carne Ckr. 19, 
 
 ...ZaropyetXos Si to aurax/ida-as rip B. Iren. iii. 14, 4. 
 a.t.X. Ref. vii. 27, p. 378 1. 40 sq. 8 irX/jpaifm, itoroyarljs, <pws, vkotos, 
 
 * See Westcott Canon of the N. T. XA705, Jvn}, dX?)0«a are Valentinian 
 
 p. 290, ed. 4. terms, so also is irapixKirros. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. Ill 
 
 •trpb ifiov iKrjkvOoTe? KKiirrat ical \y<rTaX elcri Ref. vi. 35 p. 284 
 1. 77 sq.). 
 
 9. The Valentinians were divided into two schools (1) 
 Western and (2) Eastern (Hipp. Ref. vi. 35 p. 286). Of the 
 Western Valentinians the most noticeable names are Heracleon, 
 Ptolemaeus and Marcus. Now HEBACLEON 1 wrote a commentary 
 on St John, which is quoted frequently by Origen 2 . Origen 
 informs us that Heracleon was reported to have been a familiar 
 friend of Valentinus (Comm. in Joan. Tom. II. § 8). The rise of 
 commentaries shows an advanced stage in the history of the 
 text of the Fourth Gospel. Ptoleileus, like Heracleon, was 
 a direct disciple of Valentinus. His letter to his sister Flora 
 is preserved in Epiphanius (Haer. xxxiii. 3 p. 216 sq.); and in it 
 John i. 3 is quoted (§ 3) as the statement of 6 airoa-ToKo's. Again, 
 in Iren. i. 8, 2 a Valentinian writer quotes John xii. 27 (tI ei-n-n 
 ovk olBd), and a little later on (§ 5) follows a direct quotation 
 from the same or another writer, commencing, 'John the 
 disciple of the Lord', and explaining from a Valentinian stand- 
 point the prologue of the Fourth Gospel. From the clause 
 added at the end of the section in the Latin version (et 
 Ptolemaeus quidem etc.) it appears that the anonymous writer 
 was Ptolemaeus. Marcus himself must have been of early 
 date, inasmuch as ' the Elder who lived before' Irenseus wrote 
 against him (Iren. L 15, 6). From the account which Irenaeus 
 preserves of him, he appears to have used our Four Gospels, 
 and the extracts from his teaching which survive in the works 
 of this father contain an illustration of the mystical number 
 ten, founded on a reference to the appearance of our Lord after 
 His resurrection * when Thomas was not present' (Iren. L 18, 3 ; 
 cf. John xx. 24). 
 
 It is doubtful whether Marcus should be included among 
 
 the Western, and not rather among the Eastern Valentinians. 
 
 Our information as regards these last is very scanty, but a ray 
 
 1 For bis date see Hilgenfeld Zeit- 3 He is also quoted by Clem. Alex. 
 schr. x. p. 75, and Westeott Canon Strom, it. 73, p. 595. 
 p. 299 sq. ed. 4. 
 
112 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 of light is thrown upon them by a collection of extracts ap- 
 pended to the works of Clement of Alexandria and according to 
 Bunsen (Analect. Antenic. p. 203) taken from the first book of 
 the Hypotyposeis. The collection is entitled e/e rwv QeoSorov 
 Kal T179 dvaToXiicfjs KaKoVftivi}? SiSacncaXlas Kara roixi OvaXev- 
 rivov 'xpovovi iiriTO/ial. It abounds in quotations from the 
 Fourth Gospel, explained in a Valentinian sense. I tabulate 
 the most striking, giving the pages from Potter's edition of 
 Clement : — 
 
 John i. 1. Clem. Alex. §§ 6, 18 pp. 968, 973. 
 
 i. 3. § 45 p. 979. 
 
 i. 4. §§ 6, 18 pp. 968, 973. 
 
 i. 9. § 41 p. 979. 
 
 i. 14, 18. § 6 p. 968. 
 
 ii. 16. § 9 p. 969. 
 
 iii. 8. § 17 p. 972. 
 
 iv. 24. § 17 p. 972. 
 
 viii 12. § 35 p. 978. 
 
 viii. 56. § 18 p. 973. 
 
 x. 7. § 26 p. 975. 
 
 xi. 25. § 6 p. 968. 
 
 xiv. 6. § 6 p. 968. 
 
 10. Marcion elaborated his system about A.D. 150. At first 
 he accepted all the Four Gospels (Tert. de carne Chr. §§ 2, 3), but 
 afterwards he became 'ultra-Pauline/rejecting all but mutilations 
 of the writings of St Luke and St Paul. The ground on which he 
 would reject the authority of the three 'pillar- Apostles 1 ' is 
 evident from Tertullian (adv. Marcion. v. 3), who tells us that he 
 appealed to St Paul's references in the Epistle to the Galatians 
 to certain false apostles who had perverted the Gospel of 
 Christ, and especially to St Peter, as not walking uprightly 
 after the truth of the Gospel. Thus he would consider them 
 plunged in the blackness of intellectual darkness and incapable 
 of imparting any teaching to a Gnostic like himself, while his 
 
 1 Galat. ii. 9 ot SoKodvrts ari\oi elixH. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 113 
 
 condemnation of the Fourth Gospel would be pointed by the 
 consideration that St John was an Apostle of the circumcision. 
 His silence therefore with respect to the Fourth Gospel 
 becomes an argument in favour of its genuineness; had 
 Marcion quoted it with approval, the fact would have been, 
 so far as it went, evidence against the Johannine authorship. 
 Apelles, his disciple, was certainly aware of its existence, for he 
 tells us 1 that after His resurrection our Lord showed His 
 disciples ' the marks of the nails and in (of) His side,' an inci- 
 dent which is mentioned by St John alone (xx. 25). 
 
 11. The BOCKIM doubted the reality of the Incarnation, 
 saying that our Lord's humanity was an appearance and 
 nothing more. Their language was founded upon St John's 
 phraseology — \6yos, /tovoyevfc, TrktjptB/xa occurring constantly 
 in their formularies (Hipp. Ref. viii. 9, 10, pp. 416, 418, 420). 
 John iii. 5, 6 is adduced in support of their opinions in a Docetic 
 document given us by Hippolytus {Ref. viii. 10 p. 422). 
 
 12. The Judaizing Christians in the primitive Church 
 separated off into two main divisions, according to the view that 
 they adopted of the obligation of the Mosaic Law. The Nazarenes, 
 while recognising the binding nature of the law upon themselves, 
 were in the main orthodox. On the other hand the Ebionites 
 considered the old dispensation permanent and for everyone, 
 and repudiated the authority and Apostleship of St Paul. In 
 considering the testimony which these two early Judaizing 
 sects afford to the Fourth Gospel, we are fortunate in being 
 able to appeal at first hand to extant works emanating from 
 representatives of both schools of thought. 
 
 The Clementine Homilies represent the views of Gnostic 
 Ebionism*. The exact date of the work is uncertain, but it 
 may be placed with confidence between A.D. 100 — 180. I am 
 myself inclined to fix it at c. A.D. 150. Formerly our know- 
 ledge of the treatise was derived from a manuscript mutilated 
 
 1 In Hipp. Ref. vii. 38, p. 410. my Galatiant, pp. 327 sq., 340 sq. 
 
 2 On the Clementine literature see [DiMertations, pp. 83 sq., 98 sq.] 
 
 L. E. 8 
 
114 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 at the end, and some alleged correspondences with the Fourth 
 Gospel, which it contained, were hotly disputed by the Tubingen 
 school, who made this document the keystone of their elaborate 
 theory of the alleged antagonism between St Paul and St Peter in 
 the early Church. In 1853, however, Dressel published the mis- 
 sing conclusion from a Vatican MS., and it was found to contain 
 an obvious allusion to the story of the man born blind 1 . From 
 that time the acquaintance of the Clementine writer with the 
 Fourth Gospel has not been denied. Though this passage in 
 the 19th homily is decisive, it may be of interest to give 
 other coincidences from the earlier portions of this work; e.g. 
 Clem. Horn. iii. 25 'He was a murderer and a liar' (<f>ovev<i yap 
 rjv koX ifrevo-Tr)!;, cf. John viii. 44); Clem. Horn. iii. 52 'I am 
 the gate ($ TrvXrf)" of life, he that entereth through me entereth 
 into life' (cf. John x. 27); ib. 'My sheep hear my voice' (cf. 
 John x. 9); Clem. Horn. xi. 26 'Verily I say unto you, except 
 ye be born again of living water in the name of the Father, 
 Son and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven' (cf. John iii. 5). 
 
 The book entitled the Testaments of the Twelve 
 Patriarchs is a product of Nazarene, as the Clementine 
 Homilies of Ebionite, Judaism. It was written after the 
 capture of Jerusalem by Titus, and probably before the 
 rebellion of Barcochba (A.D. 132 — 135) s . It professes to be a 
 prophecy of the Messiah, and it could not therefore without 
 loss of dramatic propriety quote from the Evangelical record, 
 
 1 66a> Kal SiSAviedkos iifiui> v-epl tow named by Origen (Horn, in Jos. xv. 6), 
 
 iK yefenjt irijpoO Kal avapxtyavrot rap' and probably was known to Tertullian 
 
 airov i(era[fav ipurriiaaaui] el oSroi (c. Marc. v. 1, Scorpiace 13), and (as I 
 
 fl\iaprev t) al yov& atfrou Iva rixpXbt believe) even earlier to Irenaras (Fragm. 
 
 yevvnei, ancKplvaro, Otfre oSrit ™ r(/i<*/>- 17, p. 836 sq. Stieren). Had it been 
 
 to> offre ol yoveit airou, AM tva St atfroO written after the suppression of Bar- 
 
 ipavcpwSjj ^ Sfoofut toO 8toD Clem. cochba's rebellion, it is next to im- 
 
 Hom. xix. § 22 ; cf. John ix. 2, 3. possible that no mention should have 
 
 a For viXri see above, p. 97. been made of an event so important 
 
 3 For the various dates assigned to to the Judaizing Christians as the 
 
 this work see on Qalatians, p. 320, second destruction of Jerusalem by 
 
 [Dissertations, p. 76]. It is directly Hadrian. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 115 
 
 but it contains many expressions which are characteristic of the 
 Fourth Gospel, as fiavor/evryt {Test. Benj. 9), 6 ajivos rov ®eov 
 (Test. Jos. 19, Benj. 3), 6 awrr/p rov xoo-fiov 1 (Test. Levi 14, 
 Benj. 3), ■q trrrfr) eh %<»rjv irdoi)<; aapKot (Test. Jvd. 24). Other 
 longer sentences are apparently due to the same source ; thus 
 Test. Levi 14 to c£&3? rov xoo-fiov to Soffev ev vpZv eh <f>ant,crp.6v 
 •jravTo? dvOpmirov (cf. John i. 9, viii. 12), ib. § 18 outo9 iroiijaei 
 k pier iv d\7)0eui<; iirl rr}<: 7^5 (cf. John v. 27); ib. Tore aryaX- 
 "kiaaercu "A/Spacr/i (cf. John viii. 56) ; Test. Jud. 20 to irvev/ia 
 tt)<} dXijOeiivs fiaprvpel irdvra teal xaTTjyopei iravrtuv (cf. John 
 xv. 26); Test. Benj. 9 eirl %v\ov v T fo0T)aeTai...Kal...e'o-Tai, 
 dva/3atva>v dird 7^5 eh ovpavov (cf. John iii. 13, 14, vi. 62). 
 
 Hitherto the voice of antiquity, whether uttered by the 
 early fathers of the Church or by those who stood outside her 
 pale, has been unanimous, as far as we can follow it, in testifying 
 to the genuineness and authenticity of the Fourth GospeL To 
 this universal tradition, however, there is one exception, and 
 one only, and we will conclude our examination of the external 
 evidence by a consideration of this solitary exception to the 
 chorus of universal attestation. 
 
 After speaking of Marcion's mutilation of the Canon, 
 Irenseus (iii 11, 9) goes on to mention 'others also, who, in 
 order that they may frustrate the gift of the Spirit, do not 
 admit that type of Church teaching (Mam speciem), which is in 
 accordance with St John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised 
 that He would send the Paraclete; but at one and the same 
 time reject both the Gospel and the spirit of prophecy. 
 Unhappy men in very truth, who desire false prophets to exist 
 (pseudo-prophetae — read pseudo-prophetas — quidem esse volunt), 
 but yet banish from the Church the grace of prophecy... 
 Accordingly they ought not to acknowledge the Apostle Paul 
 either... because he testifies to men and women prophesying in 
 the Church 2 .* 
 
 1 This expression occurs only in 8 A reference to 1 Cor. xi. 4, 5. 
 
 John iv. 42 and 1 John iv. 14. 
 
 8—2 
 
116 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Now from IreDseus' argument, of which I have given only a 
 part, it is clear (1) that these objectors repudiate the Gospel of 
 St John, because it contains a special promise of spiritual gifts, 
 (2) that they confess the existence of false prophets, and yet 
 deny the existence of a true prophecy, (3) hence, Irenaeus 
 argues, they are as unreasonable as those who refuse to associate 
 with the brethren for fear there should be hypocrites among 
 them, (4) on this ground they ought not only to reject the 
 Gospel of St John, but also the Epistles of St Paul, for St Paul 
 has spoken very emphatically about spiritual gifts, and recognises 
 both men and women as prophesying in the Church 1 . Irenaeus 
 goes on in the next chapter to show at great length that there 
 is a Spirit. 
 
 It is evident therefore that the persons spoken of are strong 
 anti-Montanists ; they took offence at the claims of the Monta- 
 nists to spiritual gifts, more especially at the prophesyings of 
 women. We must therefore read pseudo-prophetas in the 
 passage given above 2 . For Montanism was spiritualism con- 
 sidered as a reaction against formalism and intellectualism. 
 The Montanists laid great stress upon the writings of St John, 
 especially the Apocalypse, hence these opponents of Montanism 
 cut the knot by denying the authority of the Fourth Gospel 3 . 
 And they did more than this. Irenaeus speaks only of their 
 rejection of the Gospel of St John. He is dwelling only on 
 the Gospels ; and therefore he would naturally not say anything 
 
 1 See a similar argument used a- the martyrs 'while yet in bonds' to the 
 
 gainst these same persons by Epipha- brethren in Asia and Phrygia. At the 
 
 nius (li. 32 p. 106 ed. Oehler). same time the martyrs Bent Ireneus, 
 
 8 The alternative correction of Lficke then a presbyter, as their delegate 
 
 (p. 65) nolunt for volunt seems to inter- with letters of recommendation to 
 
 fere with the sense. Eleutherus, bishop of Borne (Eus. 
 
 3 Considerable light is thrown on H. E. v. 4) for the sake of conferring 
 
 Irennus' attitude upon this matter by with him on this same question, 
 
 the letter of the Gallican Churches to Irenseus therefore is not a strong 
 
 the Asiatic Churches quoted in Eus. anti-Montanist. He" mentions the 
 
 H. E. v. 3 on this very subject of pseudo-prophetae in another passage 
 
 Montanism. The letter is an attempt (Haer. iv. 33, 6) with, again, a prob- 
 
 at mediation ; it was written avowedly able reference to Montanism. 
 tlprlprp tmtKtv, and it was penned by 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 117 
 
 about their position with respect to other canonical books. It 
 appears however from other sources that they rejected also the 
 Apocalypse. For Epiphanius (who wrote after AD. 350) describes 
 a sect of heretics, whom he dubs *A\oyoi, or irrationalists. It is 
 a play on the word, for they rejected the testimony of John, who 
 taught the doctrine of the Logos. He says, 'I put upon 
 them this nickname; from henceforth they shall be so called, 
 and therefore, my beloved, let us give them this name' (Epiph. 
 Haer. li. 3). He seems to have succeeded in affixing this 
 opprobrious title upon them, for Augustine so calls them 
 afterwards (Haer. 30, Oehler L p. 202). Of these Alogi Epi- 
 phanius relates that they sprang up after the Cataphrygians, 
 and he evidently considers that they originated in the same 
 neighbourhood (I. c. esp. § 33). He begins by describing them 
 (§ 1) as eiriyeiot. 'material,' 'sensual,' in their views, and as 
 gainsaying the Holy Spirit and the wonderful sequence of the 
 Gospels (§ 16). He closes a full account of them with a passage 
 commencing (§ 35) ' And these not receiving the Holy Spirit 
 are convicted by the Spirit etc' Thus his account begins and 
 ends with an allusion to their attitude towards the doctrine o 
 the Holy Spirit, and his expressions are meaningless unless he 
 is describing an anti-Spiritualist, anti-Montanist movement. 
 We may therefore take it for granted that Irenaeus and 
 Epiphanius are referring to one and the same body of people. 
 Epiphanius goes on to say that they rejected the Gospel and 
 the Apocalypse, and attributed these writings to Cerinthus. 
 He supposes that they also rejected the Epistles of St John 
 likewise, 'for these,' he says, "agree in character with the 
 Gospel and the Apocalypse' (§ 34), but he evidently knows 
 nothing definite about this last point. 
 
 In every other respect the Alogi seem to have been orthodox 
 (Epiph. li. § 4 SoKova-i yap iea.1 airol ra t<ra y/uv iriareveiv 1 ). It 
 does not appear that they rejected the doctrine of St John's 
 Gospel. The silence of Epiphanius on this point is speaking, 
 i Compare Praedestinatus Haer. i. 30 omnia nobisoum sapiunt (Oehler i. 
 p. 243). 
 
118 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Certainly this energetic champion of orthodoxy does not detect 
 any mark of Ebionism in them. They may, however, have 
 repudiated the Johannine form under which the Divinity of our 
 Lord was taught, though even this is doubtful. 
 
 Very similar is the brief notice of the Alogi in Philastrius 
 (Oehler i. p. 61). He mentions those who reject both the 
 Gospel and the Apocalypse; but he seems to restrict to the 
 Apocalypse their attribution of the authorship to Cerinthus. 
 And this was perhaps really the case. For Dionysius of 
 Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii. 25, comp. iii. 28) speaks of some 
 before him who attributed this book to Cerinthus and the 
 Cerinthians, because they thought that they saw in it a gross 
 and material picture of an earthly kingdom of Christ. This 
 ascription would suit very well the fragment of Gaius written 
 against the Montanists and preserved in Eusebius (H. E. iii. 28), 
 and it is possible that Dionysius alludes to Gaius; but it is 
 strange that, if this was the view of Gaius, Eusebius should not 
 have told us so distinctly. Certainly Theodoret interpreted it 
 differently (Haer. Fab. ii. 3 ; see Kouth R. S. ii. 139). 
 
 But whence did Epiphanius draw his information ? We can 
 make a shrewd guess. Hippolytus of Portus wrote a book virkp 
 rov Kara 'laavvrjv evayyeXlov ical dfroKa\vyp , eco<i 1 - This fact is 
 recorded on his statue (Fabricius Hippol. pp. 36 sq., Bunsen 
 Hippol. I. p. 460). That this book was known in the East 
 appears from the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu (Assemani Bibl. Or. 
 III. p. 15), where it occurs in the list of Hippolytus' works as 
 Apologia pro Apocatypsi et Evangelio Ioannis Apostoli at 
 Evangelistae. It is probable also that this is the same work 
 of which the title is given by other writers, e.g. de Apocatypsi 
 (Jerome Vir. III. 61), wept diroica\v>few<: (Andreas of Cfflsarea 
 tn Apocal. Synops., Syncellus Ghron. p. 674 ed. Bonn). At all 
 events, Epiphanius is borrowing largely from some earlier writer'. 
 Here then and elsewhere Epiphanius may have consulted Hip- 
 
 1 See above, p. 101. and the pseudo-Tertullian on heresies 
 
 3 The common souroe underlying is an interesting problem, which can- 
 the works of Epiphanius, Philastrius not be entered upon here. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 119 
 
 polytus. Now twice in the immediate context (li. §§ 6, 7) is an 
 allusion to a Merinthus who is mentioned side by side with 
 Cerinthus; and from another passage 1 it is clear that Epiphanius 
 was uncertain whether they were not after all one and the 
 same person. The passage is interesting. ' Whether the same 
 Cerinthus was afterwards called Merinthus, or there was a sepa- 
 rate person by name Merinthus, a fellow- worker of his, is known 
 to God (alone).' Now Mjjpivffos means a 'noose,' and was 
 doubtless, as Fabricius shrewdly suggested (Cod. Apoc. iV. T. 
 344), nothing more nor less than an opprobrious nickname given 
 by an earlier writer, whose work was in Epiphanius' hands, and 
 who may have written thus 'Cerinthus, or had we not better 
 say Merinthus ' (d 8e Kr/pivdos ofrros, etre MrjptvOov Set Xeyeip), 
 and in this way misled his copyist. Such pleasantries were by 
 no means uncommon as applied to antagonists. Thus Demo- 
 critus is called by Epicurus Lenocritus (Zeller Stoics iii. 1 p. 
 429), Photinus of Pirmium in the Macrostich Skotinus 8 , Manes 
 (Maw)?) by Eusebius" and others Maneis (Maveh). This habit 
 of playing upon names is quite characteristic of Hippolytus. 
 Thus in his treatise against Noetus, he turns his antagonist's 
 name to ridicule, Noipro? ffq vo&v rrju aXijffeiav (c. Noet. 8), 
 and in his Refutation, when dealing with the Docetae, he plays 
 upon the words Boxeiv ' to seem ' and Bokoi ' a beam,' contending 
 that they are so named*, not because they 'seemed to be of 
 importance ' (Gal. ii. 6), but because of ' the beam in their eye ' 
 (Matt. viL 3). For these reasons we are tempted to infer that, 
 though Epiphanius claims for himself the invention of the term 
 Alogi, he may have borrowed the name and the account which 
 he gives from his more fanciful predecessor 5 - 
 
 1 Epiph. Haer. xxviii. 8, p. 1160. ionbr iv 64>0a\fi$ <t>epon4vT]i> SteXiyxofiev, 
 
 1 See Blight's Church HUtory (1860), Hipp. Sef. viii. 11. 
 
 p. 52, who gives instances from En- » Two additional sources of testi- 
 
 sebius H. E. v. 23, vi. 41, vii. 10, 31. mony have been omitted in the above 
 
 * See Bright I.e. and Cotelier Pair, account, viz. that (1) of heathen 
 
 Apott. i. p. 543. writers, (2) of Apocryphal doenments. 
 
 4 Ao/ottAs iavroOt rpo<riry6pemav, uv In the former class, CeUus (c. a.d. 150) 
 
 ov rb tioKftv etyai rip&f KarayooOfiev treats the Gospel of St John as a 
 
 /iaratfoiras, dXXA tV in ToaaAnp Vkqt record considered authoritative by the 
 
120 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 In looking back over the subject which has been occupying 
 us, we cannot fail to be struck with the variety and the fulness 
 of the evidence which has been adduced. Within the Catholic 
 Church that evidence springs in the first instance direct from 
 the fountain-head, the band of disciples which in Asia Minor 
 gathered round the person of the aged Apostle of Love. From 
 Polycarp and Papias it is handed down to the next link in the 
 chain in Irenaeus, the great scholar and traveller, whose life 
 is associated with three distinct and important Churches — 
 Churches in constant intercommunication — Asia Minor, Borne, 
 Gaul. These three great centres we are able to test by inde- 
 pendent extant documents, the Apology of Theophilus, the 
 
 Christians (Origen c. Celxum i. 67, ii. 
 18, z. 24). He speaks of Christians 
 calling our Lord airrSKayov (c. CeU. ii. 
 31), he refers to our Lord sitting 
 thirsty by Jacob's well (c. CeU. i. 70; 
 cf. John ir. 6), and to the piercing of 
 His side and the result (c. CeU. ii. 36 ; 
 cf . John six. 34). Therefore we con- 
 clude that by the middle of the second 
 century thiB Gospel was bo well known 
 amongst Christians that Celsus could 
 appeal to it as an accredited witness. 
 Again Ludan (o. A.D. 166 — 170), in his 
 account of Peregrinus Proteus (§ 11), 
 gives indications of acquaintanceship 
 with the Fourth Evangelist (see Zahn 
 Ignatius p. 593), and so does Amelius 
 in Eusebius Praep. Euang. xi. 19. 
 The last-named was a disciple of 
 Plotinus, and flourished c. a.d. 250. 
 Prominent in the latter class are 
 the Acta Pilati (given in Teschendorf 
 Evangelia Apocrypha), which form the 
 first sixteen chapters of the Evange- 
 lium Nicodemi, and appear not only in 
 Greek but in Coptic and in Latin. 
 This is a very early work, and in its 
 Latin form exists in a Vienna palim- 
 psest of the 5th or 6th century. There 
 is little doubt that it is the compo- 
 sition referred to by Justin Martyr 
 (Apol. i. 35, 48) and Tertullian (Apolo- 
 
 geticus 21), for it answers in all par- 
 ticulars to the books described by 
 these writers. Apocryphal Gospels are 
 notoriously liable to interpolations; 
 we cannot therefore lay much stress 
 upon the evidence in this case, but as 
 the document stands, with whatever 
 uncertainty hanging over it, the inci- 
 dents are again and again taken from 
 St John's Gospel. Lastly the Sibyllut 
 lends her voice to the general attesta- 
 tion. The eighth book of the Oracula 
 Sibyllina is the work of a Christian 
 who wrote during the reign of Anto- 
 ninus Pius (a.d. 138 — 161). Speaking 
 of the resurrection, the poet declares 
 that those shall rise with the risen 
 Lord 'who have washed away then- 
 former sins in the waters of the 
 eternal fount (mryijs), having been 
 born again from above (&»aycm)84»- 
 res avu0ev)...FoT the Lord will exhibit 
 Himself first to His own, in bodily 
 shape as He was before, and will show 
 them His hands and His feet and the 
 marks printed upon His limbs, four 
 in number, east and west, south and 
 north (xepir lv re xoelv t tnScitci T&r- 
 trapa rots IStois tx*v wijxMrra ix{\ca<nv 
 'AxToXiijn Siatv re, iittrqiiflplav re *a! 
 ipKTov (Orae. Sib. viii. 316 sq.; of. 
 John iii. 3, xx. 20). 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 2. 121 
 
 Muratorian Canon, the Letter of the Gallican Churches, and we 
 find an unhesitating response to our enquiry. We pass over to 
 other Churches of the East, to Palestine and Alexandria, to 
 Greece and Macedonia, with equally satisfactory results. We 
 cross the Mediterranean southwards to Carthage, and the earliest 
 extant writings of the Latin Church of Africa show unmistake- 
 able acquaintance with St John. And now we take a new 
 departure. We leave the apologists and fathers of the orthodox 
 Church, and we turn to the representatives of those multifarious 
 heresies whose rank growth seemed likely to stifle the infant 
 Church of the second century. And here we are startled at 
 once by the variety and the unanimity of the evidence presented. 
 Differing in almost every other particular, heterodoxy unites in 
 bearing testimony to St John's Gospel. Gnosticism, the out- 
 come of Gentile license of speculation and practice, Ebionism, 
 the offspring of Judaizing tendencies, Montanism, the expres- 
 sion of spiritual excitement — they all presuppose, and to some 
 extent build upon, the Fourth Gospel. Fresh discoveries, which 
 have added considerably to our stock of heretical treatises, have 
 only served to give new weight and force to this testimony. 
 Making every allowance for the possibility that in some cases 
 zealous disciples may have interpolated documents already 
 existing, or have perpetrated forgeries in their masters' names, 
 yet more than enough of unorthodox literature can be tested 
 to throw back the date of the general acceptance outside the 
 Church of St John's Gospel as genuine to a very early period in 
 the second century. The solitary exception to this chorus of 
 attestation is found to proceed from an insignificant sect, which, 
 having a special doctrine to inculcate, seeks to effect its end by 
 impugning the documents which strike at the root of its theory. 
 When we pass to the consideration of heathen writers in 
 the opponents of Christianity, or of Apocryphal literature, the 
 supplementary evidence which we are able to collect, though 
 necessarily scanty, still bears out the results to which our 
 previous investigations have already pointed us. 
 
 Lastly, so far from considering that the general subject is in 
 
122 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 any way exhausted, we rise from our review with the conscious- 
 ness that it has been most inadequately treated, and with the 
 confident persuasion, that a little more patient investigation 
 bestowed on the literature of the first two centuries of the 
 Christian era, as it has come down to us, would enable us to 
 add very materially indeed to the weight of external evidence 
 which with fresh force from year to year tends to the conviction 
 that this most divine of all divine books was indeed the work 
 of ' the disciple whom Jesus loved.' 
 
 [1867—1872.] 
 
III. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY 
 AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
III. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY 
 AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
 TN considering this question three points will be taken in 
 -■- succession. I shall endeavour to show: — 
 
 I. That the writer was intimately acquainted with the 
 language, customs, ideas, geography and history of Palestine at 
 the time which he describes. 
 
 Inference. He was not only a Jew, but a Palestinian Jew ; 
 not a Hellenist, but a Hebrew. And most probably too he was 
 a contemporary. For the double destruction of Jerusalem — 
 by Titus and by Hadrian — had caused a dislocation, a discon- 
 tinuity, in the history of the Jews, which it would be difficult 
 to bridge over by one writing after the occurrence of the second 
 of these events. 
 
 II. That the narrative bears on its face the credentials of 
 its authenticity. It is precise, circumstantial, natural in the 
 highest degree. 
 
 Inference. It is the work of an eyewitness. 
 
 IH. That it contains indications — the more convincing be- 
 cause they are unobtrusive — (a) that the author was the Apostle 
 St John ; (fi) that the book was written at the time and under 
 the circumstances, under which tradition reports it to have 
 been written, Le. at Ephesus, towards the close of the first 
 century after Christ. 
 
126 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 These, then, are the three stages in the argument : — 
 
 (1) The writer was a Hebrew, probably a contemporary. 
 
 (2) The writer was an eyewitness. 
 
 (3) The writer was St John (and as a subsidiary matter, 
 St John writing under peculiar circumstances). 
 
 L 
 
 The whiter was a Hebrew, pbobably a Contemporary. 
 
 The main heads of this division of the argument are as 
 follows :— 
 
 i. His knowledge of the Jewish language. 
 
 2. His knowledge of Jewish ideas, traditions, expectations, 
 modes of thought, etc. 
 
 3. His knowledge of external facts, the history, geography, 
 names and customs of the Jewish people. 
 
 1. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE JEWISH LANGUAGE. 
 
 This is shown (i) indirectly, by his own Greek style; (ii) 
 directly, by his interpretation of. Hebrew words and his quota- 
 tions from Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 (i) The writer's indirect knowledge of Hebrew shown by his 
 
 Greek style. 
 
 I spoke of the Jewish language ; but what is meant by this? 
 There are two languages with which a Palestinian Jew might 
 be familiar : — 
 
 (1) The Hebrew — the sacred language, the language of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 (2) The Aramaic — the colloquial language, the language 
 of common life. 
 
 He would necessarily know the second, not necessarily know 
 the first. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 127 
 
 The Hebrew of the New Testament is Aramaic. This is the 
 meaning of 'E^pato-rl in such passages as John v. 2 ; xix. 13, 17 ; 
 xx. 16. The forms quoted as Hebrew (Talitha cwmi, Mar an atha) 
 are Aramaic. This is no doubt the language of the inscription on 
 the cross (John xix. 20), and of St Paul's speech on the temple- 
 stairs (Acts xxi. 40). 
 
 It is a common error to suppose that Aramaic is a corrupt 
 form of Hebrew. This is quite wrong. The Shemitic family of 
 languages has three main languages, one of which — Arabic — 
 may be neglected for our purpose, leaving Hebrew and Aramaic. 
 Of these, Aramaic, the language of Aram (Syria) [the high- 
 land ?], has, as its dialects, Syriac, Chaldee, Assyrian (the 
 cuneiform inscriptions). On the other hand, Hebrew, the lan- 
 guage of Canaan [the low-lands ?], was originally the language 
 of Phoenicians and Canaanites, the people on the coast. 
 
 Which then was the language of the Jewish nation at the 
 beginning of the Christian era ? 
 
 Abraham comes from Ur of the Chaldees, and therefore 
 would naturally speak an Aramaic language. But he settles 
 in Palestine among the Canaanites, adopts a Canaanite language, 
 and speaks what we call Hebrew. Hence the incident in Gen. 
 xxxi. 47, 48. The ' heap of witness' is called by Laban ' Jegar- 
 Sahadutha,' by Jacob ' Galeed.' Thus the descendants of Terah 
 in the third generation speak two languages. The grandson 
 of Nahor retains his Aramaic, while the grandson of Abraham 
 has adopted Hebrew. This is what we should expect, and is an 
 incidental testimony to the credibility of the Mosaic narrative. 
 After the return from the Babylonian captivity the Jews 
 gradually merged their own Hebrew language in Aramaic, 
 but the name 'Hebrew' was transferred to the adopted language. 
 Thus the Jews returned apparently to what was the language 
 of their ancestors. How they came by this Aramaic — whether 
 it was the dialect of their Chaldean masters, or the dialect 
 of the people who overran their land during their absence, 
 or a mixture of both — we need not stop to enquire. 
 
 At the time of our Lord the natives of Palestine were 
 
128 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 bilingual ; they spoke Greek and Aramaic. At least this was 
 the case in a great part of the country, more especially in the 
 towns and populous districts, the centres of commerce 1 , such as 
 the lake of Galilee and Jerusalem. In this respect the Pales- 
 tinian Jew resembled a Welshman on the border-land, a Fleming 
 in the neighbourhood of the half-French towns of Flanders, a 
 Bohemian in Prague. 
 
 Now apply this to the case of the Apostle St John. John 
 was not a man of the lowest class socially. He was a native 
 of Bethsaida, and had connexions or friends in high quarters at 
 Jerusalem (xviii. 16). He would be able to understand and 
 speak Greek from his boyhood, possibly even to write it. But 
 he would think in Aramaic. Aramaic would mould the form 
 of his thoughts*. 
 
 Take the case of a person writing in a language which was 
 not the common language of his daily life, not his mother- tongue. 
 What would be the phenomena, which his style would present ? 
 The two parts of a language, in which a person writing in a 
 foreign tongue is apt to be at fault, are the vocabulary and the 
 syntax. As regards vocabulary, we should not expect great 
 luxuriance of words, a copious command of synonyms for 
 instance. In the matter of syntax, we should not look for a 
 mastery of complex and involved syntax, or of sustained and 
 elaborate periods. 
 
 Now apply this to the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 1. The Vocabulary. The words in this Gospel are very 
 few; probably much fewer than in any other portion of the 
 New Testament of the same length. 
 
 (a) We meet with constant repetition of the same 
 words: e.g. yivaxrKetv (57 times), Koafio<s (79 times), iri<ni,<s, 
 iriareveiv (99 times), fcojj, %rjv, gaxyiroieiu (55 times), fiaprvpia, 
 
 1 See Roberts, Dissertation* on the fellow townsmen Andrew and Philip, 
 
 Gospels, whose view however is per- is strictly in accordance with proba- 
 
 haps somewhat exaggerated. bilities. It is a significant fact that 
 
 1 The incident given in John xii. they both bear Greek names. 
 20 — 22, relating to his friends and 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 129 
 
 fiaprvpeiv (47 times); irpoftarov occurs in the tenth chapter 
 alone 15 times; xoa/iof occurs in the seventeenth chapter 
 alone 18 times 1 . 
 
 (6) We find not only the same words, but the same 
 phrases : e.g. epxeo-Oai, 6 ire/ttyas fte, diroa-riWetv, xara^aiveiv 
 €k (diro) tov ovpavov — all used of Christ's Incarnation, etc. 2 . 
 
 2. The Syntax. On the extreme simplicity of the Fourth 
 Gospel in this respect, I shall have to speak later. This charac- 
 teristic of the writer is well expressed by Heinsius, who describes 
 him thus, In sermone a<f>e\eia: in sensibus est {tyo?*. The 
 absence of periods is particularly noticeable, and is without a 
 parallel in the New Testament. 
 
 Thus much, generally, of one writing in another language 
 than his mother tongue. Now to come to the special case of 
 one accustomed to speak in a Shemitic tongue, and obliged to 
 write in an Aryan; of one familiar with (say) Aramaic, the 
 conversational, spoken language, and Hebrew, the sacred lan- 
 guage; but writing in Greek. Both these languages present 
 striking contrasts with Greek In these Shemitic tongues 
 there is little or no syntax. This is due partly to 
 
 (1) The absence of moods, inflexions, etc. 
 
 (2) The paucity of connecting particles. 
 
 On this last point, which is of special importance, one 
 example will suffice. 
 
 (1) Paucity of connecting particles. 
 
 The ) is used equally for opposition and for simple connexion; 
 in Hebrew and Aramaic it stands for 'but' as well as 'and.' 
 The extent of this use is best shown by the variety of particles 
 which are employed under it in the Authorised Version of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 Thus in Deut. i (taken at hap-hazard) 1 is translated 'so' 
 
 1 These calculations are based upon * See Luthardt I. p. 81 sq. 
 
 Luthardt Das Johanneuche Evangelium * Quoted by Luthardt I. p. 28. 
 
 i. p. 27 (1852). 
 
 L. E. 9 
 
130 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 w. 15, 43, 46; 'then' v. 29; *yet' v. 32; 'but' v. 40; and 
 with N?, ' notwithstanding' v. 26. 
 
 Again in 1 Kings xii. (again taken at hap-hazard) it is 
 rendered 'but' w. 8, 17, 22; 'so' vv. 12, 33; 'so when' v. 16; 
 'wherefore' vv. 15, 19; 'then' vv. 18, 25; 'whereupon' v. 28; 
 ' that' v. 3. There are thirty-three verses in this chapter, and 
 all the verses but w. 4, 23, 27 (i.e. thirty verses out of thirty- 
 three), begin with ). Of the remaining three, two are be- 
 ginnings of speeches, and therefore necessarily are asyndeta. 
 
 Indeed in the later Aramaic, Greek particles (dWd, Si, and 
 afterwards p&v) were deliberately introduced to supply the 
 deficiency 1 . 
 
 Consequently, in these languages sentences are not subordi- 
 nated, but coordinated ; ' hence,' as Winer describes it*, ' the very 
 limited use of conjunctions (in which classical Greek is so rich), 
 the uniformity in the use of the tenses, the want of the periodic 
 compactness which results from the fusion of several sentences 
 into one principal sentence, and along with this the sparing use 
 of participial constructions, so numerous and diversified in 
 classical Greek.' The result is an entire absence of periods, 
 producing a monotony of expression, which however is most 
 impressive. 
 
 The character of the Greek language was quite different. 
 Greek writers distinguished two styles : 
 
 (1) The periodic (Karetrrpafi/jUmj) ; 
 
 (2) The disjointed (Sigpq/ievii), or 'jointed' {elpofUvrj). 
 See Aristot. Bhet. iii. 9, rrjv \4£iv dvayicri elvai fj elpop£vi\v xal 
 t$ <Tvv8e<T/i<p fj,iav...rj ieaTearTpaft(UvTjv....7Uym Se elpofievrjv r) 
 ovSep e%ei re\o<i icaff avrtjv, dv fir) t6 irpayfia Xey6p.evov TeXeico- 
 6fi...Karecrrpap,pAvT) Se r) ev irepioSot?' Xeyo> Be treplohov Xeftv 
 expvaav dpxrjv ical reXevrfjv avrtjv Kaff avrtjv ical pJyeOo? 
 eiavvoirrov. 
 
 1 This strange look of partioles, trated likewise by Coptic 
 which seem to us indispensable to * Winer Grammar of N. T. Greek 
 
 express our simplest thoughts, is illus- p. 33 (Moulton's translation). 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 131 
 
 In the infancy of the language the earlier prose writers 
 Hecatseus and Herodotus exhibit the elpo/ievt) ; the later, when 
 a mastery over the language had been attained, the tcaTearpaft- 
 fievrj. Now, Hebrew and Aramaic do not lend themselves to 
 the Karearpafifiipr), the genius of the languages necessitating 
 the elpoftivrj. Hence, as a rule, the general simplicity of the 
 New Testament writers, who either spoke Aramaic, or derived 
 their materials from Aramaic sources. The exceptions are the 
 cases of those who commonly spoke Greek, and did not speak 
 Aramaic at all, as St Luke in the prologue to his Gospel (for 
 where he is using documents, the case is different), and the 
 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 This simple, jointed style, is seen in its extreme form in 
 St John. In fact, no greater contrast can be exhibited in this 
 respect than the prologue of St John when compared with the 
 prologue of St Luke. The sentences are strung together, where 
 they are not altogether asyndeta. There is no attempt at 
 periodicity. The ical takes the place of the ), and has almost as 
 wide a range, connecting together not only independent, but 
 dependent, and even opposite and contrasted clauses 1 . I give a 
 few examples of this : 
 
 John i. 1, 4, 5, 10, 14, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 34; ii. 1, 3, 4, 8, 
 12-16 ; iii. 11, 12, 13, 14 ; iv. 11, 40, 41 ; vi. 17 ; vii. 26, 28, 33, 
 34; ix. 18, 19; x. 3, 9, 12, 14-16, 22, 27, 28, 39-41; xiv. 23, 24; 
 xv. 6; xvL 22, 32; xvii. 1, 8, 10, 11 (six times in three lines); 
 xix. 34, 35. 
 
 For instances where ical introduces an opposition, with the 
 meaning of ' and yet,' ' nevertheless,' see John L 5, 10 ; iii. 10, 
 11, 19, 32 ; iv. 20 ; v. 40 ; vi. 70 ; vii. 4, 19, 26, 30 ; viii. 49, 55 ; 
 ix. 30, 34 etc. 
 
 A single instance would occur here and there in classical 
 Greek as in any other language; but it is the frequency of 
 occurrence in the Fourth Gospel which betrays the Hebneo- 
 Aramaic mould in which the diction is cast. 
 
 i See the references in Wilkii ClavU N. T. (ed. Grimm, 1868, $. v. ical p. 215). 
 
 9—2 
 
132 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 (2) Hebraic parallelism of sentences. 
 
 Instances of this characteristic can be found in almost every 
 part of the Fourth Gospel. The prologue especially presents a 
 succession of parallel clauses. I content myself with drawing 
 attention to some special phenomena of this parallelism. 
 
 (a) Repetition of words and phrases in parallel and op- 
 posed clauses, e.g. iii. 6 (to yeyevvTjpevov e« ttj? aapicbs adpl- 
 ianv Kal rb yeyevv7)p.evov iic rov irvevftaro<s irvev/id eo-riv); 
 iii. 31 (o wv etc rr}$ yr}<; e« t^? yrj<i eariv...6 Ik rov ovpavov 
 ipxofievos eirdvto rrdvrtov early) ; cf. vii. 6, 7, 8, viii. 14, 23, x. 
 18, xi. 9, 10 etc. etc. 
 
 (b) Repetition of words and phrases in parallel, but not 
 opposed clauses, e.g. ix. 21, 22 (tt«3? Se vvv /3\eirei ovk 
 oiSaftev, rj tk ijvoif-ev avrov tov? 6<pBa\fiov<i rj/ievi ovk oXhatiev); 
 xvii. 16 (e/c tow koo-iiov ovk elcrlv Kadia? eyi* ovk el/u £k tov 
 Koa-fiov) ; cf. xviii. 18, xix. 10 etc. etc. 
 
 (c) Strengthening of a statement by the negation of its 
 opposite, e.g. i. 3 {irdvra Si avrov iyivero Kal %<opt? ovtov 
 eyevero oi>8e hi) ; i 20 (a>fto\6yrjo-ei> Kal ovk TJpvtjo-aro) ; cf. iii. 
 18, x. 28, xi. 25, 26, xx. 27 etc. etc. 
 
 (3) Oriental definiteness of expression by the repetition of 
 the same word or phrase. 
 
 (a) Repetition of the name, instead of using a personal 
 pronoun, e.g. i. 43 sq. (evplo-Kei ®L\iir-rcov...Jjv Se 6 <t>tXt7r7ro? 
 ...evplo-Ket <&t\«nro? rov Na0avar)\...Kal elirev avru> NaOavar/X 
 ...Xeyet at/rtS 6 <J>t\t7rero?) ; cf. iii. 23 sq., xii. 21 sq. etc. etc. 
 
 (6) Repetition of the nominative pronoun, where the 
 Greek does not require it, e.g. i. 42 (o-w el "Zificov 6 vlos 'Icodvov, 
 av K\T)0jjari Ki)<]>a<;) ; cf. i. 25, 31, iv. 10, 19 etc. etc. 
 
 (c) Repetition of the noun, e.g. vii. 6 (o Kaipbs 6 eyto? 
 ovirto rrdpeariv, o Se Kaipbs 6 vfierepoi trdvrore eariv eroifio<s) ; 
 cf. vii. 8, 19, xii. 43, 47 etc. etc. 
 
 (d) Repetition of the verb, e.g. v. 17 (o rrarnp fiov ems 
 aprt epyd&rai, Kayi> ipydfafiai) ; cf. vi. 63, vii. 24, 28, viii. 
 53, x. 10, xiii 43 etc. etc. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 133 
 
 (e) Repetition of the same phrase in successive clauses, 
 e.g. iii. 31 (o <ov e* rrj? yr}? eVe T7/s 7^? earlv koX £k tt}? 7J75 
 Xa\eT) ; cf. viii. 14, 23, 24, x. 18, xi. 9 sq. eta etc. 
 
 (/) Taking up a word or expression from the preced- 
 ing sentence ; e.g. x. 11 (eya> el/it 6 iroi/j,i)v 6 icako?' 6 iroifirjv 6 
 KaXos ri)v -^vxv v avrov rlffrjaiv k.t.X.) ; cf. i. 1, iii. 32, 33, xvii. 
 2, 3 etc. etc. 
 
 (4) Preference of the direct over the oblique narrative in 
 relating the words of another. 
 
 In some instances these will be the precise words them- 
 selves ; in others only an approximation, and in this latter case 
 the direct narrative is only a different way of expressing what 
 we express by the oblique. Thus we find the narrator himself 
 relating the words or surmises of a crowd, where from the 
 nature of the case the exact words cannot be reproduced; or 
 we find persons referring back to their own words or the words 
 of another, and not always reproducing the exact expressions. 
 Examples of all these varieties are very common, see the 
 narrative of the Samaritan woman in ch. iv. (esp. w. 17, 27, 
 33); of the sick man healed in ch. v. (esp. vv. 11, 12); the 
 conversation in ch. vi (esp. vv. 41, 42) ; cf. viL 11 sq., 35, 36, 
 40 sq., viii. 22, ix. 8 sq., 23 sq., 40 sq., x. 20, 36, 41, xi. 31, 36, 
 37, xii. 19 sq. etc. etc. 
 
 (5) The arrangement of words in ike sentence, especially 
 the precedence of the verb, e.g. i. 40 — 47 (rjv , AvSpea<i...evpurK£i 
 ovro<s. . .rjyayev avT6v...ift/3\etya<s avrai. . .\eyei air$ 6 'Ivo-ov? 
 ...rjv Se 6 <^tKfinro<s...evplxTKet &£ki'mro<i...ical elirev avTtS 
 Na6avaT)\...\eyei avrm 6 <S>CKiinros...el&ev 'Iijo-ov?). This is 
 noticeably the case with the expression Xiyet avr$, e.g. iv. 
 7—26, xi. 34, 35, 39 sq. etc. etc. 
 
 (6) Other grammatical and lexical peculiarities. 
 
 (a) The superfluous pronoun (1) after a relative, repre- 
 senting the Heb. l&tt which is indeclinable, e.g. L 12 (otroi Se 
 e\a0ov avTOv, ZScoicev avroU); v. 38 (bv diriaretXev iiceivos 
 
134 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 tovtoj v/iets ov iriffreuere) ; c£ i 33, vii 38, xvii 2, xviii 9, 11 
 etc. etc. (2) after nouns or participles, e.g. i. 18 (jiovoyevi/s Oebs 
 6 <uv et? tov koKitov rov irarpo<t i/ceivos e^Tjy^aaro); v. 11 (o 
 irovqaa<s fie vyirj exeti/o; fioi ehrev *Apov rov KpafSarrov o~ov) ; 
 cf. vi 46, vii. 18, 38, x. 1, xiv. 21, 26, xv. 5, etc. etc. This con- 
 struction, it is true, occurs in classical Greek, but the point to 
 be noticed is the extreme frequency of the usage in the Fourth 
 Gospel. 
 
 (6) The characteristic Hebraism wa<i...ov (jiaj) occurs 
 three times in this gospel ; iii. 16, vi. 39, xii. 46. 
 
 (c) The frequent use of Xva in St John, especially as 
 the complement of a demonstrative pronoun, is probably to be 
 explained by the flexibility of the Aramaic *5. Instances are 
 i 27, iv. 34, vL 29, 40, viii. 56, xi. 50, xiii. 34, xv. 8, 12, 13, 17, 
 xvi. 7, 33, xvii. 3, 24 (see Winer § xliv. p. 425 ed. Moulton). 
 In every one of these passages a Greek would probably have 
 expressed himself differently. 
 
 (d) The use of avSpwiro? for tk, e.g. v. 7. Kvpie, 
 avQpwttov ovk ej£»), vii 22, 23 (eV a-aftftdrip irepiriftvere 
 avdpw/rov' el irepirofir/v \ctfif3dvet avOpanros /b.t.X.); cf. viii. 40, 
 ix. 16 etc. This represents a thoroughly characteristic use of 
 {?'& see Gesenius s. v. 
 
 (e) The transition from the dependent to the inde- 
 pendent clause, e.g. i. 32 (reOea/uu rb irvev/ia Karaf3aivov...Kal 
 e/ieivev eV avrov) ; cf. xi. 44 (Winer § lxiii p. 717 ed. Moulton). 
 This transition however appears in other New Testament 
 writers also, and cannot be pressed into an argument. 
 
 (/) The frequent recurrence of the expressions e« tov 
 al&va, especially with a negative, e.g, iv. 14, vi. 51, 58, viii 35, 
 51, 52, x. 26, xi 28, xii 34, xiii. 8, xiv. 16; and the use of 
 e'/t tov aldSvo? ix. 32. 
 
 (g) Other Hebraisms are: i 13 (ai'fidrcov), 15, 30 (irpah-os 
 (tov, cf. xv. 18), iii 29 (x a P9 X ai P ei )> ▼"■ 33, xii. 35, xiv. 19 
 (en futcpov, cf. xvi. 16, 17, 19), iv. 23 (tpxerai &pa koL vw 
 iarlv), xi. 4 (ovk eartv irpbs Qdvarov, cf. xvi 20), iv. 26, viii. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 135 
 
 24, 28, xiii. 19, xviii. 5, 6 (eyw el/u), x. 24 (la>? wore), xviii. 37 
 (<rv Xeyet?). 
 
 (7) Imagery, secondary senses of words etc. 
 
 This displays a thoroughly Hebrew, or at least Oriental, 
 colouring. The simple facts in life are used to convey deep 
 spiritual truths. Nature and history become signs (aijpeia) 
 of the heavenly and the eternal. Instances of this figurative 
 treatment are to be found in the Evangelist's use of the 
 following words and phrases ; aXqOeta i. 14, 17, iii. 21 ; 861-a i. 
 14, ii. 11, xii. 41 ; vSwp ?<Si/ iv. 10, 13 ; icoikla vii. 38 ; fawj v. 
 24; to fidvva vi. 31 ; aproi vi. 32; to ironjpiov xviii. 11; 
 irtyatBco, eXKvcrco xii. 32. 
 
 If the special Hebraisms, or Aramaisms, are few, this is 
 unimportant : for the whole casting of the sentences, the whole 
 colouring of the language, is Hebrew. 
 
 In short, it is the moat Hebraic book in the New Testament, 
 except perhaps the Apocalypse. The Greek is not ungramma- 
 tical Greek, but it is cast in a Hebrew mould. It is what 
 no native Greek would have written. As Grotius puts it, 
 Sermo Oraecus quidem, sed plane adumbratus ex Syriaco illius 
 saecvli (quoted in Lticke 1 1, p. 172). On the general accord of 
 recent writers on this point, see Sanday Authorship of the 
 Fourth Gospel, p. 28*. 
 
 On the other hand, there are no classicisms ; not a single 
 sentence, I believe, from first to last which suggests in the 
 smallest degree acquaintance with classical literature. 
 
 In this respect the writer presents a great contrast to 
 St Luke, and even to St Paul, e.g. Luke i. 1 sq.; 2 Cor. vi. 14 sq. 
 
 (ii) The writer's direct knowledge of Hebrew. 
 1. The quotations from the Old Testament. 
 The quotations are a valuable criterion of the position of a 
 writer. 
 
 1 Commentar liber da* Evangelium is purer than that of the Synoptiata. ' 
 dei Johatmet (1840). H purer in one sense, yet it is more 
 
 2 Mr Sanday (I. c.) says ' The Greek Hebraic. 
 
136 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 The quotations in St Paul show a knowledge of the Old 
 Testament in Hebrew. He frequently quotes the LXX, but in 
 other passages he is as plainly indebted to the original. On 
 the other hand, the quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 are all derived from the LXX. There are no distinct traces of 
 a knowledge of the original. 
 
 What are the facts in St John's case? 1 The quotations in 
 St John are not very numerous. Moreover they are often free 
 quotations; so free that we cannot say whether they were 
 taken from the Hebrew or the Greek. But there is a residuum 
 of passages, which are decisive, and certainly cannot have been 
 borrowed from the Greek. 
 
 (a) Passages certainly taken from the Hebrew. 
 
 (1) Zech. ix. 9 quoted in John xii. 14, 15 (see Turpie, 
 p. 222). 
 
 The quotation is loose. Two points are noticeable. St 
 John has 6 f3aai\evs <rov ep-^erai. The LXX 6 j3a<ri\evs 
 epyerai trot (but some edd. insert trov). The Heb. repre- 
 sents 6 /3a<ri'kev<; gov ep%eraC trot, as in Matth. xxi. 5. 
 
 The other point is more important. St John has ttwXov 
 Svov, which comes from the Hebrew, the LXX having irai\ov 
 viov, while St Matthew quotes the Hebrew still more literally, 
 ivi irwXov viov viro^vylov. 
 
 (2) Zech. xii 10 quoted in John xix. 37, o^rovrai eh bv 
 itjeieivTTio-av (Turpie, p. 131). 
 
 This agrees with the Heb. ' They shall look upon me whom 
 they have pierced.' But the LXX is quite different, xal iiri- 
 PXiyfrovrat 7r/»o? fik avff &v Karapyrftravro, i.e. they shall 
 look on me, because they have derided. The LXX evidently 
 read Ttp"\ for 1*1|TT, and this reading is actually found in some 
 MSS. of Kerinicott and de Rossi. The LXX has not a single 
 word in common with St John. 
 
 1 My investigation was made before 244 sq). I have derived mnch help 
 I Baw Bleek'g Beitrdge, and agrees from Turpie The Old Tettament in the 
 almost entirely with his results (p. New (1868). 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 137 
 
 On the reading *7X 'unto me' and V?N 'unto him,' which 
 is read by many MSS., see de Rossi ill. p. 217. Aquila, at 
 least, of the other versions, seems to point to this reading. He 
 renders avv $. The Evangelist however, if he had *7X, would 
 not unnaturally change the person from the first to the third to 
 suit the connexion. Comp. Apoc. i. 7. 
 
 (3) Ps. xl. 10 quoted in John xiii. 18 (Turpie, p. 55). 
 
 St John has 6 rpdtyatv fiov top aprou iirfjpev eir ifte rijv 
 irripvav avrov. The LXX 6 iadimv a prow; fiov ep.eyaK.vvev eir 
 ifik trre.pvuTfiov. 
 
 Here again there is hardly a word the same in the two 
 translations. St John's is evidently a loose quotation taken 
 from the Hebrew. The LXX translation has lost the meaning 
 
 in endeavouring to render 7*"UPl. St John gives the more 
 correct, though free, rendering. So Gesenius takes it (p. 266, 
 ed. 1829) ; but Perowne ad loc. seems to think either interpre- 
 tation admissible. 
 
 (4) Is. vi. 10 quoted in John xii. 40 (Turpie, p. 233). 
 It is a very free quotation. The LXX is quite different. 
 The point to be observed is the use of the active in St John 
 
 Terv<p\a>Kep avr&v toi)? 6<p0a\(iovs ical eirdiptacrev avr&v rrjv 
 Kaphiav. God Himself is represented as blinding, as hardening. 
 This points to the Hebrew, which has also the active. But 
 there it is imperative; and the change to the indicative is 
 intelligible. As Symmachus translates 1MH, JfiETl ifidpvve, 
 efivae, it is quite possible that St John translated the same words 
 Terv<p\a>icev, e-rrtopaxrev, perhaps from a mixture of Aramaic 
 with Hebrew forms. In the Syriac the imperative and 3rd 
 pers. pret. are the same. 
 
 On the other hand, the LXX has adopted a precise form of 
 the sentence, iiraxvv0ij 17 icapSia k.tX., evidently to get rid of a 
 doctrine which was a stumbling-block. Symmachus seems like- 
 wise to have surmounted the difficulty, though in another way. 
 
138 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 He takes JIT!! D^H as the nominative, 6 Xoo? ovto? to <Sra 
 ij3dpwev Kal row 6<f>0a\fjLOvs avrov epvcre k.tX. 
 
 Now it is quite inconceivable that the writer of the Fourth 
 Gospel, having only the LXX before him, should accidentally 
 have reconverted it, and thus reintroduced the perplexity. 
 The chances are a thousand-fold against it; and he would surely 
 have shrunk from it. 
 
 It is noticeable too, that the other New Testament writers 
 who quote the sentence (Matt. xiii. 14, 15 ; Acts xxviii. 26, 27), 
 quote it from the LXX. In Mark iv. 12, Luke viii. 10, this 
 part of the quotation is omitted. 
 
 (5) Is. liv. 13 quoted in John vi. 45 (Turpie, p. 198). 
 
 This is a doubtful case. The Hebrew has 'And all thy 
 sons (are) disciples of God/ St John xal ea-ovrat irdvTe<; SiSaxroi 
 ®eov. The LXX however attaches the sentence to what goes 
 before, ko.1 Tram-as roil? viov<i gov SiSaKToiis ®eov. St John 
 treats it as independent — so do the Targum, Ewald, Gesenius, 
 in interpreting the Hebrew. 
 
 These passages then, except perhaps the last (5), are 
 decisive. In no case could they be derived from the LXX. 
 
 But, it may be said, they came perhaps not from the original 
 Hebrew, but from a Targum. 
 
 This admission is sufficient for my purpose, which is to show 
 the direct acquaintance of the Evangelist with Hebrew writings. 
 
 (#) Passages which may have come from either the Hebrew 
 or the Beptuagint. 
 
 In many cases it is doubtful whether a quotation was taken 
 from the LXX or the Hebrew. 
 
 These instances divide themselves into three classes : — 
 
 (1) Where the Greek and Hebrew differ, but the quotation 
 is too loose to allow of any inference. Examples of this are : 
 
 (a) Deut. xix. 15 quoted in John viii. 17 (Turpie, p. 49). 
 
 Here the LXX inserts nrav ; but St John paraphrases the 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 139 
 
 whole sentence Svo avQpdnrtov r\ fiaprvpia. Thus the crucial 
 point of difference is evaded. 
 
 (/9) Exod. xii. 46 (Numb. ix. 12) quoted in John xix. 36 
 (Turpie, p. 31). 
 
 Here St John follows neither the Hebrew nor the LXX 
 But the passage intended to be quoted may be Ps. xxxiii. 21 ; 
 in which case the Hebrew and T,YY agree, and no inference 
 can be drawn. Or St John may have had all three passages 
 in his mind, and combined them in a loose way. 
 
 (2) Where the Greek and Hebrew agree, but the Greek 
 is the obvious, or an obvious, rendering of the Hebrew ; and no 
 conclusion can be drawn. Examples : 
 
 (a) Ps. xxxiv. (xxxv.) 19, lxviii. (Ixix.) 5 oi fttaovvrh 
 fie Seopedp. Comp. Ps. cviii. (cix.) 3, in John xv. 25 (Turpie, 
 p. 30). 
 
 (yS) Ps. Ixix. (lxviii) 10 quoted in John ii. 17 (Turpie, p. 
 29), where the Evangelist substitutes KaTtupdyerai for /care- 
 (payev. 
 
 (7) Ps. lxxxii. (lxxxi.) 6 quoted in John x. 34 (Turpie, 
 p. 4). 
 
 Or again, (3) The Greek and Hebrew agree, but the Greek 
 is not an obvious rendering. Yet the Evangelist's quotation is 
 not exact enough to warrant an inference. Examples : — 
 
 (a) Ps. lxxviii. (lxxvii.) 24 quoted in John vi. 31 (Turpie, 
 p. 60). 
 
 The use of aprov however here in St John seems to show 
 that he had the T.YY rendering in mind, for this is apparently 
 the only passage in the Old Testament where |JT is rendered 
 by dpro<{. 
 
 (£) Is. xl. 3 quoted in John i. 23 (Turpie, p. 219). 
 Yet evOvvare (St John) for eideiat iroieiTe (LXX) looks like 
 a direct derivation from the Hebrew, which has one word 1*TC*, 
 not two, in the original All the other Evangelists, have 
 eiffela? -iroiehe (Matt. iii. 3; Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4); and this 
 makes the probability stronger. 
 
140 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 (7) Passages almost certainly, or most probably, taken from 
 
 the LXX. 
 
 (1) Ps. xxi. 19 quoted in John xix. 24 (Turpie, p. 4). 
 The LXX is a literal translation of the Hebrew ; but the 
 
 probabilities are greatly against the Evangelist stumbling upon 
 the same rendering word for word, more especially the opposi- 
 tion of ifidna and lfiaTi<rfi6<s. 
 
 (2) Is. liii. 1 quoted in John xii. 38 (Turpie, p. 106). 
 Again the LXX is a literal rendering of the Hebrew, for 
 
 rivi as a rendering of *D"7^ can hardly be regarded as an 
 exception. But the probabilities are against the whole com- 
 bination of words being the same. 
 
 These are all the quotations from the Old Testament in 
 St John, and the result at which we arrive is as follows: — 
 The writer certainly derived several of his quotations from 
 the Hebrew, or from an Aramaic Targum, not from the 
 LXX. 
 
 On the other hand, he most probably took one or two from 
 the LXX, though the evidence for the LXX is not so decisive 
 as for the Hebrew. The majority of the passages prove nothing 
 either way. 
 
 2. The writer's interpretation of Hebrew words. 
 
 (a) Rabbi, Rabbouni, i. 38 ('Po/8/8ei, S \eyerai /ie0epftj]- 
 vevo/ievov AiSaaieaXe), xx. 16 (Taftfiovvel, b \eyercu AtSa<r/coXe). 
 The longer form is the more impressive, the higher title ; hence 
 it is peculiarly adapted to the solemnity of the circumstances 
 of Mary's recognition of the risen Lord. In this respect compare 
 Mark x. 51, where again the circumstances are exceptional. 
 These are the only two passages in the New Testament in 
 which the form occurs ; see Keim iii. p. 560, Buxtorf p. 2177 sq., 
 Levy p. 401. The omission by St John of the interpretation of 
 the pronoun ■ my master' is to be explained by the fact that it 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 141 
 
 had got attached to the word, as in Rabbi, and had ceased to 
 have any distinct force: just as, by the reverse principle, 6 
 Kvpios is rendered in Syriac 'our Lord.' 
 
 (6) Messias, i. 41 (evpij/ca/xev tov Meo-o-iav, o iariv 
 /tedepfiijveuofievov Xptoro?), iv. 25. The word does not occur in 
 the New Testament save in these two places. 
 
 (c) Cephas, i. 42 (Kr)<pti<!, o epfiifveverai Herpos). This 
 title is only used by John and St Paul. Elsewhere, when the 
 appellation is employed, the Greek form is preferred. 
 
 (d) Thomas, xx. 24, xxi. 2 (<da>fJM<;, 6 \eyo/ievo<; AtSv/uo? ). 
 Thus St John takes care to let us know that the familiar name 
 of this Apostle was merely a surname, ' twin.' There was an 
 early tradition in the Syrian Church that Thomas' real name 
 was Judas, e.g. Eus. H.E. i. 13 'Ioi/Sa? d /cat Oayta?, Acta 
 Thomae I. 'lovSa ©a>/*a tcS kcu AiBufup (ed. Tisch. p. 190), see 
 Assemani Bibl. Orient. I. pp. 100, 318, Cureton's Syriac Gospels 
 p. 1., Anc. Syr. Documents p. 32. In the Curetonian Syriac of 
 John xiv. 22 'Judas Thomas' is substituted for 'Judas, not 
 Iscariot.' As there were two other Apostles of this same name, 
 some distinction would be necessary ; and this we find was the 
 case, one being called Lebbseus, ' another Thomas, the third 
 Iscariot. 
 
 (e) Siloam, ix. 7 (eh ri\v KoXvft&qdpav tov 'ZiKtoap., o 
 ipfnjveverai 'AireoTaXftevos). The word occurs in Isaiah viii. 6 
 H/B' (A V. Shiloah), and signifies a ' conduit,' ' emissary,' 
 ' aqueduct,' from the root rpB' ' send,' which is used of water 
 in Ps. civ. 10, Ezek. xxxi. 4 (Gesenius p. 1415). DTPBTTTl'^ 
 occurs in the Talmud, meaning either *a conduit for irrigation' or 
 field needing artificial irrigation' (Buxtorf p. 2412 sq). Another 
 form Xy)\B (A. V. Siloah) is found as a proper name in Neh. iii. 
 15, if indeed the Masoretic pointing may be trusted. That 
 two forms should exist side by side is very conceivable, for the 
 word is not strictly speaking a proper name. In Greek the 
 forms vary : ItXoap. (LXX Luke xiii. 4, Josephus frequently), 
 SiXwas (Josephus elsewhere), %t\aa (Aquila, Synimachus, 
 
142 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Theodotion). The geographical and symbolical bearing of the 
 notice will be considered hereafter 1 . At present I am only 
 concerned with the etymology. This the Evangelist has 
 explained rightly. Two further points deserve attention. 
 He has given the correct meaning, notwithstanding that it is 
 somewhat obscured by the Greek form. Again he has added 
 the definite article 'the Siloam.' This is in accordance with 
 Jewish usage. In the Old Testament, and generally in the 
 Targums and the Kabbinic passages, as well as in St Luke I. c, 
 the definite article occurs. With this compare Acts ix. 35 ' the 
 Sharon' (t6v Xapaii'a). 
 
 (/) Golgotha, xix. 17 (el? top \eyo/j,evov KpavCov Toirop, 
 b \eyercu 'Efipalorl FoT^foda) ; cf. Matt, xxvii. 33, Mark xv. 22 
 (Luke xxiii. 33). As the interpretation occurs in the Synoptic 
 narrative also, no argument can be drawn from it. 
 
 (g) Gabbatha, xix. 13 («? rvtrov Xeyofievov h.i06o~rp<DTOv> 
 'E0palo-Tl Be YaPPada). Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. 28) tells us that 
 the pavements called lithostrota were first introduced by Sulla, 
 and that in the temple of Fortune at Prseneste one could be 
 seen in his day which Sulla had placed there. Again, Suetonius 
 (Jul. 46) states that Julius Caesar was accustomed to carry 
 tesselated pavements about with him for his own use in his 
 expeditions (in expeditionibus tesselata et sectilia pavimenta 
 circwm&vlisse). This last notice however does not help us 
 mucb, for evidently St John's account speaks of some fixed 
 locality. It shows, however, that such a flooring would seem 
 necessary for a Roman magistrate's tribunal. A fixed place at 
 Amathus was so called, Boeckh G. I. G. 2643 drrro tov 'Hpalov 
 
 60)9 TOV AldoCTptOTOV. 
 
 But what is the meaning of the Hebrew Gabbatha ? It is 
 commonly connected with 2J from ,*DJ or y^J 'to be high,' 
 meaning a 'prominence' or 'hill,' compare gibbus. The word 
 would then represent NnjJU; see Levy, I. p. 123, Lficke, Heng- 
 stenberg ad. loc, Keim iii. p. 365. This theory receives further 
 
 1 See below, p. 171. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 143 
 
 support from the fact that Josephus (Ant. v. 1. 29, vi. 4, 2 and 
 elsewhere) uses TafiaBd for Giheah, 'a hilL' And it is a very pos- 
 sible solution, for the Evangelist does not say that the Hebrew 
 represents the meaning of the Greek equivalent. But this 
 interpretation labours under the disadvantage that it does not 
 account for the doubling, of the #. Accordingly Ewald (Johom. 
 Schr. i. p. 408) suggests as the derivation y^X JDp ' to collect 
 together,' and thus the word would imply 'a mosaic' This 
 appears to me highly probable, for I find this word JJM used 
 of studding or inlaying with jewels or precious stones, e.g. 
 Ex. xxv. 7, of the jewels of the high-priest's ephod, and 
 Deut. xxxiii. 21, where the Targv/m Ben Uzziel has 'a place 
 inlaid (jDpO) with precious stones and jewels' ; see Levy s. v. 
 II. p. 342. Thus here again St John shows his intimate knowledge 
 of the derivation of an obscure Hebrew term. 
 
 (h) Iscariot. The phenomena which St John's Gospel 
 presents in the use of this name are somewhat remarkable. As 
 soon as the false readings are swept away which obscure the 
 true text, we find (1) that the designation is attached to the 
 father's name (vi. 71, xiii. 26) as well as to the son's (xii. 4, 
 xiii. 2, xiv. 22), (2) that in more than one place (xii 4, xiv. 22) 
 the definite article should precede the name. We gather there- 
 fore that the word is not strictly speaking a proper name at 
 all, but merely describes the native-place of the traitor. This 
 solution is suggested by St John's Gospel, but there is no hint 
 of it given by the Synoptists. Yet it is rendered highly probable 
 by other considerations also. The word 'la-Kapiwrrii is B>*X 
 JlVTp ' the man of Kerioth.' Now in 2 Sam. x. 6, 8 among the 
 mercenaries hired by the children of Ammon to attack David 
 are mentioned ' of Ishtob twelve thousand men,' or, as it almost 
 certainly should be rendered, 'of the men of Tob twelve 
 thousand men,' Tob being a district mentioned in Judges 
 xi. 3-5. This word becomes in Josephus Ant. vii. 6, 1 a proper 
 name, "Io-to/So?. The interpretation of Josephus may be right or 
 wrong ; but we are only concerned with the representation of 
 the Hebrew form in Greek; and, so far as it goes, it is an 
 
144 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 adequate illustration of the way in which nVTp E^N would 
 appear in a Greek dress. Again, the tradition of Judas' birth- 
 place is preserved in some MSS. of the New Testament. Thus 
 in Matt. x. 4, xxvi. 14 some old Latin MSS. have Carioth, 
 while other authorities have intermediate readings, Scarioth, 
 2/ea/3ta>7T75 ; in Mark iii. 19 the correct reading (K B C L) is 
 ia-Kaptaff, the termination not having been interfered with, 
 e has Cariotha, and there are other variations. In Mark xiv. 10 
 XBLC* have la-xapitod, while Io~Kapia>Ti)<t is found in A and 
 the majority of authorities. Here again Scarioth is read by 
 some Latin MSS. On the whole it seems probable that 
 'lffKaptw0 is consistently St Mark's form of the appellation. 
 In Luke vi. 16 \aicapuo9 is the right reading (KBL); on the 
 other hand in xxii. 3 lcricapuoTriv seems to be correct, though 
 here again the alternative form has supporters. St Luke 
 therefore appears to vary, and this we might expect from the 
 manner in which his Gospel was composed. Turning now to 
 St John's Gospel we find that D has airo Kapvtorov in four out 
 of the five verses in which the name occurs, and (followed by 
 three Latin MSS.) "Zicapimd in the fifth passage (vi. 71), where, 
 on the other hand, airo Kapvarov receives the support of N 1 69, 
 124, and of the margin of the Harclean Syriac. Thus the 
 trace of the original meaning of the word seems to linger in the 
 Western text of the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 KapitoB is the LXX rendering of JllHp. The word signi- 
 fies * cities,' i.e. a conjunction of small towns. Henoe it is of 
 frequent occurrence. Thus a place of the name was situated in 
 Moab (Jer. xlviii. 24, 41, Amos ii. 2, see Merx Arch. f. Wissensch. 
 Erf, der Alt. Test. p. 320), another in Judah (Joshua xv. 25). 
 This latter is perhaps the birth-place of Judas who, like 
 Perugino, Correggio, Veronese and others, has merged his per- 
 sonal name in that of his native town. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 145 
 
 i. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF JEWISH IDEAS, TRADITIONS, 
 EXPECTATIONS, MODES OF THOUGHT . 
 
 (i) The Messiah. Occasion has been taken elsewhere to point 
 out that, in the Fourth Gospel, 'the narrative and the dis- 
 courses alike are thoroughly saturated with the Messianic ideas 
 of the time 1 .' In discussing this subject attention was drawn 
 to two facts as especially worthy of notice : (1) that though the 
 writer's point of view is twofold, the Word as the theological, 
 the subjective, centre, no less than the Messiah as the his- 
 torical, the objective, centre, yet, with a true insight which is 
 the best evidence for his veracity, he keeps these two points of 
 view separate. The topic of our Lord's discourses with the 
 Jews is not the doctrine of the Logos, for which His auditors 
 would feel neither predilection nor interest, but the Messianic 
 expectation, in which they were thoroughly absorbed. (2) It 
 was shown that the Messianic conceptions are not the ideas as 
 corrected by the facts, but the ideas in their original form, not 
 yet spiritualised, but coarse and materialistic still, reflecting 
 the sentiments not of the second century but of the early years 
 of the first ; in a word, Jewish, not Christian. This Messianic 
 idea is turned about on all sides. We learn very much more 
 about it from the Fourth Gospel than from all the other three 
 Gospels together. This is a fact which we do not sufficiently 
 realise, and it is a characteristic, though an accidental, token to 
 this fact that the Hebrew equivalent for Xptaroi — the word 
 Meo-o-tas — is found only in this Gospel. The prevalence, nay, 
 the ubiquity, of the Messianic idea is the key to the motive of 
 the narrative. Does Jesus work a miracle ? It is a sign of His 
 Messianic office. Does He suffer an indignity ? It is fatal to 
 His claims as the triumphant King and Avenger of His people. 
 Does He utter an unpalatable truth, or a seemingly unpatriotic 
 sentiment? Such language is inconsistent with the office of 
 the long-expected Saviour of the Jewish nation. Does He 
 exhibit in His person the common associations and relationships 
 
 1 [See above, p. 23 aq., where this part of the argument is treated fully.] 
 
 r , 10 
 
146 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 of life? This again is not compatible with His Messianic 
 character. 
 
 Moreover, He is only one in a long line of claimants who 
 have arrogated to themselves this high office. Before Him 
 many thieves and robbers have entered into the fold by stealth 
 and violence (x. 8). This last passage has been attacked as 
 fatal to the authority of the Gospel, and this on two grounds. 
 First, we are told 1 that it is a thoroughly Gnostic sentiment, 
 directed against the lawgiver and the prophets. They are the 
 thieves and the robbers. Thus it is inconsistent not only with 
 our Lord's own position, but also with the position of St John 
 as a 'pillar-apostle' of the Circumcision. Secondly, we are 
 informed* that the statement is historically incorrect ; for as a 
 matter of fact we do not hear of false Messiahs before Christ. 
 I give this as a sample of the attacks which are made in certain 
 quarters upon the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel. In reply 
 it is sufficient to state (I) that the interpretation, which sees in 
 the thieves and robbers a reference to Moses and the prophets, 
 is quite untenable. It contradicts the whole teaching of the 
 Gospel. Our Lord constantly refers to the Old Testament 
 Scriptures as authoritative, and as foretelling Himself. Thus 
 Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, and he saw it and was 
 glad. The Jews are Abraham's seed, yet they seek to kill Him 
 (viii. 37, 56). Moses will accuse them to the Father ; for had 
 they believed Moses, they would have believed Christ, for 
 Moses wrote of Him (v. 45 sq.). And the Evangelist sees in the 
 persistent unbelief of the Jewish race a fulfilment of a prophecy 
 of Isaiah uttered when he saw Christ's glory and spake of Him 
 (xii. 37 sq.). The interpretation therefore may safely be dis- 
 missed. Curiously enough it is a view borrowed from Valentinus, 
 who states that ' all the prophets and the law spake from the 
 Demiurge, a foolish God, and were foolish themselves and 
 ignorant' (Hippol. Haer. vi. 35 p. 194), and then proceeds to 
 quote this passage: and it is echoed by the Manicheans 
 
 1 By Hilgenfeld. 2 By Baur and Soholten. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 147 
 
 (August, c. Faust, xvi. 12, vin. p. 288 F., 289 A.) and probably 
 by otber dualistic sects. Such at least would appear from 
 Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 17 pp. 366 sq. (ed. Potter). Further, the 
 consciousness of the misuse that was made of the text would 
 account for the omission of the words irpo i/iov by some 
 authorities 1 . (2) The expression need not necessarily be 
 confined to false Messiahs. 'Shepherds' are teachers (Jer. 
 xxiii. 1, Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 3), and thus the Scribes and Pharisees, 
 the leaders of religious thought, would naturally be included in 
 the category. In other passages our Lord refers to them as 
 robbers, as wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt. vii. 15), as devouring 
 widows' houses (Matt, xxiii. 14, Mark xii. 40, Luke xx. 47). 
 And the beginning of this corrupt state of teaching did not 
 synchronize with the time of our Lord's life upon earth. For 
 some generations past the whole tendency of religious education 
 had been thoroughly vicious'. 
 
 But after all there is no sufficient reason for denying the 
 appearance of false Messiahs before the Christian era. On the 
 contrary, everything points to the fact of such appearances. 
 And if these earlier false Messiahs do not come forward 
 so prominently in Josephus as those who flourished afterwards, 
 this is only what was to be expected; for they did not fall 
 within his own lifetime. Gamaliel, at all events, in his speech 
 as recorded by St Luke (Acts v. 35 sq.), mentions two of these 
 impostors, Theudas and Judas the Galilean, the latter of whom 
 is described as having revolted ' in the days of the taxing.' In 
 the case of the former, there is a well-known chronological 
 difficulty, Josephus (Ant. xx. 5. 1) speaking of a Theudas who 
 headed a rebellion in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus 
 after A.D. 44; but the occasion of the revolt of Judas the 
 Gaulanite is given by him in detail (Ant. xviii. 1. 1 sq.), and his 
 language shows evidently that the rising took a theocratic 
 
 1 The words are omitted in K*, in Chrysostom and Augustine, 
 most Latin mss., in the Syriao, Sahidio a See Ewald, Jahrb.der Bibl. Witten- 
 
 and Gothic versions, and by Cyril, tehaft ix. 43. 
 
 10—2 
 
148 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 character 1 . In another place Josephus, referring to the time 
 of the death of Herod the Great {Ant. xvii. 10. 8), tells us that 
 ' Judaea was infested with robbers {Xrjtmjpiwv 17 'lovSaia wXew? 
 fjv), and as the bands of the seditious found anyone to head 
 them, he was created a king at once, in order to do damage to 
 the community.' He mentions several of these adventurers by 
 name, beginning {Ant. xvii 10. 5) with Judas the son of a 
 certain Hezekiah, whom he calls the 'brigand-chief (o apw 
 Xyo-Ttjs). Now it is quite impossible to separate all these 
 uprisings from Messianic anticipations, even if the contrary 
 was not directly stated in some cases by the historian. For 
 the air was full of rumours, and echoes of the Messianic 
 expectations had penetrated as far as Rome, and found expres- 
 sion in the pages of Suetonius {Vesp. 4), and in the Fourth 
 Eclogue of Virgil. By some the Herod-family was looked to as 
 the embodiment of the national hope, Antipas (Vict. Ant. ap. 
 Cramer Cat. in Marc. p. 400), Agrippa (Philastrius Haer. 
 xxviii.), and Herod the Great (Epiphanius Haer. xx. p. 45) being 
 at different times regarded as the Messiah by their partisans 4 . 
 
 But it is not only the prevalence of the Messianic idea 
 exhibited in this Gospel, it is the minuteness and variety of 
 detail displayed which arrests our attention, and is so power- 
 ful a testimony to the authenticity of the narrative. This 
 phenomenon can be conveniently illustrated by the designations 
 which the Evangelist applies to the Messiah. I give some of 
 the most striking. 
 
 (a) The Lamb of Ood (i. 29, 36). The reference is to Isaiah 
 liii. 4, a passage which was commonly interpreted of the 
 Messiah, apparently before the Christian era (see Bishop 
 Harold Browne, Sermons* p. 92 sq.,and cf. Sanday, Authorship of 
 the Fourth Gospel p. 39 sq), and is interpreted of our Lord 
 directly by Philip the Evangelist (Acts viii. 32), and indirectly 
 
 1 Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1. 6 ffiwrimpw Dictionary of the Bible; and compare 
 
 Si toC iXevSipou (pas itrrtv avroit /i6i/oy Keim i. p. 244 sq. 
 iyyeiiiva. <cai Starirntv tA» Geii. foreiXij. » Messiah as foretold and expected 
 
 <pbatv. Cambridge (1862). 
 
 9 See the article Herodians in Smith's 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 149 
 
 by St Peter (1 Pet. i. 19). This idea of the lamb as typifying 
 the Messiah is not found in the other three Evangelists. It is 
 introduced however by St John naturally and without comment: 
 the meaning is only explained by recalling the Messianic 
 expectations of the time, and in fact is lost sight of by many 
 commentators. With the substitution of another Greek word 
 (apvu)v for &fi.vo<;) the same metaphor occurs in the Apocalypse 
 nearly thirty times. 
 
 (6) The Son of God, the King of Israel (i. 49). The 
 naturalness of this outburst on the part of Nathanael is 
 deserving of notice. The titles with which he hails the Messiah 
 are introduced in a way which is absolutely free from artifici- 
 ality. The first designation, the ' Son of God,' is derived from 
 Ps. ii. 7. It occurs again in the Fourth Gospel, i. 34, iii. 18, ix. 35 
 and especially xi. 27, in the last passage coupled expressly with 
 the title ' the Christ,' a combination which we find elsewhere 
 (Matt. xxvi. 63 in the mouth of the High Priest, and Matt. xvi. 
 16 in the confession of St Peter). Even when it stands 
 alone, as in Luke iv. 41, xxii. 70, it is at once recognised as 
 applying to the Christ. The second title, ' the King of Israel,' 
 is a favourite appellation in the Fourth Gospel (xii. 13, cf. xviii. 
 36, 37, xix. 3, 5, 12, 14, 19). As Mr Sanday appositely remarks 
 (Authorship of the Fourth Gospel p. 35), ' the phrase is especially 
 important, because it breathes those politico-theocratic hopes, 
 which, since the taking of Jerusalem, Christians, at least, if not 
 Jews, must have entirely laid aside. It belongs to the lowest 
 stratification of Christian ideas, before Christianity was separated 
 from Judaism; and there is but one generation of Christians, 
 to whom it would have any meaning.' 
 
 Other Messianic titles which are found in our Evangelist are 
 
 (c) He that is coming (6 epxoii^vo<i) vi. 14, xi. 27, cf. Matt. xi. 3, 
 Luke vii. 19, 20, derived from the well-known Messianic psalm 
 (Ps. cxviii.), which is quoted in this sense by all the four Evan- 
 gelists (Matt, xxiii. 39, Mark xi 9, Luke xiii. 35, John xii. 13) ; 
 
 (d) The Holy One of God (o ay to? rov ®eov) vi. 69, cf. Mark i. 
 24 and other passages ; (e) the Son of Man, i. 51 etc., the most 
 
150 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 familiar of all designations of the Christ, especially in St Luke's 
 Gospel ; (/) the Light, i. 7, 8, viii 12, xii. 46, cf. Luke ii. 32 ; an 
 idea found in Messianic passages like Is. ix. 2, xlii. 6, 7, Mai. iv. 
 2, 3, and expressly interpreted of Christ by the Talmud — 'Light 
 is the name of Messiah' (see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. p. 564 quoted 
 by Sanday, p. 152); (g) He that hath been sent (o aireaTaXfiivos), 
 ix. 7, where the interpretation of the name Siloam connects the 
 pool with Christ (see x. 36, xvii. 3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25 etc., cf. Is. lxi. 
 1) rather than with the man (see Wetstein ad loc), but where 
 the allusion to the title, so far from appearing on the surface, 
 is inserted in the most unobtrusive manner possible. These 
 instances show the perfect ease and familiarity with which the 
 writer of the Fourth Gospel moves among the Messianic expec- 
 tations and the national feelings of the period which he depicts. 
 
 (ii) The companions of the Messiah. Attention has been 
 drawn elsewhere* to the significant references to ' the prophet' 
 which occur in four places in St John (i. 21, 25, vi. 14, vii. 40). 
 It has been pointed out that the form which the conception 
 takes is strictly Jewish, not Christian. While Christian teachers 
 identified the prophet foretold by Moses (Deut. xviii. 15) with 
 our Lord Himself (Acts iii. 22, vii. 37, cf. John i. 46)*, the Jews 
 in St John's Gospel conceive of ' the Christ ' and ' the prophet ' 
 as two different persons. If He is not the Christ, they adopt 
 the alternative that He may be 'the prophet' (i. 21, 25); if 
 not ' the prophet,' then ' the Christ ' (vii. 40). But this brings 
 us to another point, which is worthy of consideration. Spring- 
 ing out of the phrase employed by Moses in the passage quoted 
 above (' a prophet like unto me ') came the Jewish idea of the 
 parallelism of the lawgiver and the Messiah. In part this idea 
 was justified by the prophecy, and finds its proper place in the 
 language of the New Testament. Thus, as the writer of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews shows, Moses and Christ are the two 
 
 1 See above, p. 26. 20, Clem. Seeogn. i. 43, Origen in 
 
 » This identification is a common- Johan. vi. 4, Eusebius Demonstr. 
 
 place in patristic writers, see Tertull. Evang. i. 7, p. 26 sq. (ed. Paris 1628). 
 adv. Marriott, iv. 22, Apott, Const, v. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 151 
 
 mediators of the two covenants (Heb. viii. 5, 6). Thus again, in 
 a well-known passage (1 Cor. x. 1 — 11), St Paul works out the 
 parallel in his record of the wanderings of the children of Israel. 
 The crossing of the Red Sea is a baptism by Moses. The rock 
 smitten in the wilderness is Christ. Thus again, St John in 
 the Apocalypse (xv. 3) sets in the mouth of the redeemed a 
 twofold song, ' the song of Moses the servant of God, and the 
 song of the Lamb.' And lastly, our Lord Himself instances 
 the action of Moses in lifting *up the serpent in the wilderness 
 as emblematic of Himself (John iii. 14). But the Rabbis 
 carried out the parallelism into the most minute details, so 
 that the career of the Messiah became in effect a reproduction 
 of the career of Moses. Of this belief adventurers, who wished 
 to pose as the Messiah, were not slow to take advantage. For 
 instance Theudas, to whom allusion has already been made 1 , 
 undertakes to divide the Jordan (Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 1), in imitation 
 probably as much of Moses as of Joshua and Elijah. Again, 
 other nameless adventurers, to whom Josephus makes reference 
 a little later on {Ant. xx. 8. 6), ' urged the multitude to follow 
 them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would 
 exhibit manifest wonders and signs that should be performed 
 by the providence of God (jcara rrjv tow ®eov irpovoiav). 
 Gfrbrer, who has worked out this subject in his Jahrhwndert 
 des Heils (ii. p. 318 sq), tells us that Micah vii. 15 was quoted 
 to prove that the passover was the time in which this mani- 
 festation of Messianic power should be exhibited. In fulfilment 
 of the prophecy of Zechariah (ix. 9), the King should appear 
 riding an ass (Gfrorer p. 339). The miracles which he was 
 expected to perform were to include the two mighty works of 
 his prototype, the smiting of the waters as suggested by 
 Zechariah (x. 11), and the giving of the manna. We have seen 
 how the first of these symbolical acts was promised by Theudas. 
 To the general expectation of the second miracle rabbinic 
 literature furnishes full and explicit testimony. Thus in 
 Coheleth Rdbba, 9 fol. 86. 4, we read Dixit P. Berachia nomine 
 
 1 See above, p. 147. 
 
152 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 R. Isaaci; qualis fuit redemptor primus, talis erit redemptor 
 ultimus....Sicut redemptor primus fecit descender e manna, ita 
 redemptor posterior faciet descendere manna. Again, in Shir 
 Rabba, fol. 16, Redemptor posterior revelabitur iis...et quonam 
 illos ducet? Sunt qui dicunt in desertum Judae, sunt qui 
 dicunt in desertum Sichoris et Ogi et descendere faciet pro iis 
 manna (see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. II. pp. 552, 557 ; cf. Shemoth 
 Rabba XXV.). In the light of these notices we can imagine the 
 ferment which would be occasioned by the feeding of the five 
 thousand, and we can now understand the full significance of 
 the challenge thrown out to Him on the part of the unbelieving 
 crowd, ' What dost thou work ? Our fathers did eat manna in 
 the wilderness (vi. 30, 31),' which in St John's narrative occurs 
 in so abrupt and unexplained a manner 1 . The key to the 
 understanding of the whole situation is an acquaintance with 
 the national expectation of the greater Moses. But this know- 
 ledge is not obtruded upon us by the Evangelist. It is tacitly 
 assumed. In fact, the meaning is unintelligible, except to one 
 who is brought up among the ideas of the time, or to one who, 
 like a modern critic, has made them his special study. 
 
 And so we might pass in review the various details of the 
 Messianic conception, and show how marvellously they correspond 
 with the account given so naturally and incidentally by the 
 Evangelist. The birth and generation of the Christ who, in 
 accordance with Micah v. 2, should be a descendant of David, 
 born in Bethlehem (vii. 42), and yet at the same time the 
 mystery and uncertainty of that birth (vii 27) based upon the 
 wellknown passage in Isaiah ' who shall declare His generation?' 
 (Is. liii. 8) s , the apparent discrepancies of the two accounts 
 being explained by the rabbis on the analogy of Moses who 
 was born and then hidden 8 ; His manifestation 'to Israel' 
 
 1 See this matter treated more fully fol. 6. 1) alleged that the Messiah had 
 
 above, p. 24. been born at Bethlehem a good while 
 
 8 See Sanday p. 146, GfrSrer, pp. before their own times but had been 
 
 203, 307, Wetstein and Lightfoot on snatched away. The same idea is 
 
 John vi. 27. found in Midrash Sair fol. 1, 16. 4 (on 
 
 * The Gemariata (Hieroi. Berachoth Canticles ii. 9) Caprea apparet et oc. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 153 
 
 (i. 31 a passage with which Sanday, p. 33, compares Luke i. 80 
 spoken of John the Baptist ; cf. xiv. 22, xvii. 6 sq), an event 
 which Jewish tradition decided would take place at the Passover 
 (Shemoth Rabb. xv. 150, Jerusalem Targum on Ex. xii. 42, 
 Mechilta on Ex. xii. 42, B. Bechai in Kad Hakkemach 49) 1 
 — doubtless another element in the excitement of the crowds 
 after the Feeding of the Five Thousand which took place at 
 Passover-tide (John vi. 2) ; lastly, His eternal continuance (xii. 
 34), a point much discussed among the rabbis 3 . 
 
 One of the accompaniments of the Messiah in Jewish antici- 
 pations was the return of the Shechinah, the symbol of that 
 visible divine presence, the loss of which after the captivity had 
 been so universally deplored This confident hope was based 
 on such prophecies as Ezekiel xxxviL 27, xliii. 7, Zechariah ii. 
 10 sq, viii. 3, Isaiah viii. 8, and on the language of Ecclesiasticus 
 xxiv. 8 sq ' He that created me caused my tabernacle to rest 
 {Karkiravae rr)v aicnjwqv fu>v), and said, Let thy dwelling be in 
 Jacob (iv 'Ia/ew/S leaTaa-Kijvoaaov). . .in the holy tabernacle I 
 served before him (iv a-KTjvij ayia eveoiriov avTov i\eiTovpyi)<Ta).' 
 It finds expression in more than one passage in the Apocalypse 
 (vii. 15, xiii. 6, xv. 5, xxi. 3). It remains however for St John 
 in his Gospel, in words which are replete with local colouring, to 
 point with a quiet triumph to the fulfilment of this expectation 
 in the person of Jesus Christ, 'The Word became flesh, and 
 tabernacled (eaKijvcaa-ev) among us, and we beheld His glory 
 
 cnltatur, apparet et occultatur. Sic postea nostrarnm frontium consecrati 
 
 redemp tor primus (Moses) apparoit et sunt. Hieron. Canon, in Matth. rv. 25. 
 
 fuit occnltatus, et tandem apparuit 6, Op. vn. 203 (ed. Vallarsi). For the 
 
 iterum...Sio redemptor posterior (Mes- Christian counterpart of this Jewish 
 
 sias) revelabitur iis atque iterum abs- expectation see Justin Dial. c-. Tryph. 
 
 condetur ab iis... In fine qnadraginta § 8, p. 34, § 110, p. 368 {ed. Otto), 
 quinque dierum revelabitur iterum iis * See these various speculations given 
 
 et descendere faciet pro iis manna. in Gfrorer pp. 252 sq, 296, 315 — 317. 
 
 1 And at midnight; Traditio Judae- The passages referred to by the multi- 
 
 orum est Christum media nocte ven- tude {ftpSt ■//Koia-afiey ix tov vbiwv) were 
 
 turum in similitudinem Aegyptii tern- probably Is. ix. 6, Dan. vii. 13, 14, 
 
 poris, quando Pascha celebratum est and the TargumB on these texts will 
 
 et exterminator venit et Dominus super repay study, 
 tabernacula transiit et sanguine agni 
 
154 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 (rrjv ho^av avrov), the glory as of the only-begotten from the 
 Father, full of grace and truth (L 14).' 
 
 (iii) The Messianic expectation among the Samaritans. 
 
 It has been denied 1 that the Samaritans had any Messianic 
 anticipations at all. But, firstly, they had the prophecy referred 
 to above (Deut. xviii. 15), which, as forming part of the Penta- 
 teuch, they would accept as authoritative. This was sufficient 
 in itself to suggest such expectations, and the fact that they were 
 under the same stimulating influences as the Jews, influences 
 arising from the political troubles of the times, would encourage 
 presentiments of a Deliverer. Secondly, as a matter of fact, 
 there is sufficient evidence to show that Messianic hopes were 
 as rife among them at the time of our Lord, as they are now at 
 the present day. Thus Josephus informs us (Ant. xviii. 4. 1) 
 that in the procuratorship of Pilate a disturbance arose among 
 the Samaritans in consequence of an impostor who ' bade them 
 assemble on Mount Gerizim ' under promise that he * would 
 show them the sacred vessels (Seif-eiv to Upa aicevrj) which 
 were buried there, because Moses had put them there.' All 
 this is distinctly Messianic in character, and has an obvious 
 reference to the narrative of 2 Maccabees (ii. 1 — 8), where 
 Jeremiah is related to have buried the tabernacle, the ark and 
 the altar of incense on the mountain ' where Moses climbed up 
 and saw the heritage of God,' and to have declared that the 
 secret of the hiding place should not be revealed 'until the 
 time that God should gather His people again together, and 
 receive them unto mercy.' And this view finds confirmation 
 from a passage in the Joma Babl. (fol. 526, quoted by Gfrorer 
 p. 350), and explains the reference in Apoc. ii. 17 to the 'hidden 
 manna/ which was one of the treasures contained in the ark 
 (Ex. xvi. 33, 34, Heb. ix. 4). These disturbances among the 
 Samaritans took place A.D. 34, 35, and are connected by Keim 
 (I. p. 518) with the preaching of John the Baptist. Further 
 light is thrown on these Samaritan aspirations in the Clementine 
 1 e.g. by the author of The Jema of History (1869). 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 155 
 
 Recognitions. Here Simon Magus and Dositheus are both 
 mentioned as Samaritans who professed themselves to be 
 Messiahs 1 , and the Samaritans are described as ' rightly looking 
 forward to one true Prophet in accordance with the foretelling 
 of Moses, but prevented by the perverse teaching of Dositheus 
 from believing that Jesus was He whom they expected (Recogn. 
 i. 54; cf. vii. 33).' For the later communications with the 
 Samaritans held by Scaliger, Ludolf, and de Sacy see Westcott, 
 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels p. 148. Petermann 
 likewise, who resided two months at Nablous, gives the results 
 of his visit and investigations in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. xiii. 
 p. 372 sq. All these authorities agree that the Samaritans 
 found their hopes upon the appearance of the prophet like unto 
 Moses. All agree too that they expect the discovery of the 
 furniture of the Sanctuary, e.g. the ark, the manna and the 
 tables of the commandments, a fact which leaves the interpre- 
 tation of the passage in Josephus beyond a doubt. With them 
 the Messiah is represented under two aspects, first as the 
 Hashab or Hathab (!UV1) the Converter, Bestorer, Buyer-back 
 (Westcott and Petermann I.e.), secondly as the El Muhdi the 
 Guide (Robinson, Biblical Researches n. 278 s ). Thus we see how 
 the confident aspirations placed by St John in the mouth of 
 the Samaritan woman, ' I know that Messias cometh, which is 
 called Christ ; when he is come, he will tell us all things ' 
 (iv. 25, cf. w. 29, 42), are not the invention of a later generation, 
 but reflect the contemporary national feelings of this interesting 
 people. 
 
 (iv) Jewish beliefs, and sentiments on other points, 
 (a) The relation of the Jews to Abraham exemplified in 
 John viii. 33 sq. is worthy of notice, as illustrating the writer's 
 acquaintance with the Jewish ideas of his time. The boast, 
 
 1 Recogn. ii. 7, Simon hic.gente Recogn. i. 54 magistrum suum (i.e. 
 
 Samaraeus...gloriaeacjactantiae supra Dositheum) velut Christum praedi- 
 
 omne genus hominum cupidus ita ut carunt; cf. Origen c. Cell. i. 57 (i. 
 
 ezcelsam virtutem...credi se velit et 372). 
 
 Christum putari (cf. Bom. ii. 22) ; a ed. 1867. 
 
156 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 ' We are Abraham's seed,' is an evidence of a justifiable pride of 
 birth (cf. v. 53), but the latter part of the sentence 'and we 
 have never been in bondage to any man' has given much 
 difficulty to the commentators. Certainly it is not what a 
 stranger would have said of the Jewish people. The opinion 
 felt by the Romans for the Jews is well expressed by Cicero, 
 who contemptuously classes together the Jews and the Syrians 
 as nations born to slavery (Judaeis el Syris nationibus natis 
 servituti, Cic. Prov. Cons. 5). And Apion casts in the teeth of 
 Josephus the fact that, so far from ruling the Gentiles, the 
 chosen people were as a fact subject to them (to /i^ apxeiv 
 SovKeveiv Se fidWov effpetrt Jos. c. Apion. ii. 11). Yet this 
 proud assertion of liberty is exactly what the Jews would make 
 on their own behalf, whatever wresting of facts might be 
 necessary to maintain it. The answer of Josephus to Apion 
 at the end of the section -is quite characteristic. ' At a time 
 when even the Egyptians,' he contends, ' were servants to the 
 Persians and the Macedonians, we (the Jews) enjoyed liberty, 
 and moreover had the dominion of the cities round about us 
 for about a hundred and twenty years, until Pompey the Great. 
 And when all nations were conquered by the Romans, who are 
 kings everywhere, our ancestors were the only people who 
 continued to be esteemed their allies and friends because of 
 their fidelity.' And in a certain sense the claim was true. 
 The national spirit of the Jews had never been thoroughly 
 enslaved. But externally it would appear to be the reverse of 
 the truth, and it is difficult to conceive how words such as the 
 Evangelist records could have found a place in a narrative 
 written in the middle of the second century, after the twofold 
 destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and by Hadrian had stamped 
 out the last spark of national liberty. 
 
 (6) The authority assigned to Moses is another graphic 
 touch which shows a minute acquaintance with Jewish thought 
 The assertion ' We are Moses' disciples ' (ix. 28) is illustrated 
 by Lightfoot (Eor. Heb. II. p. 572) from Joma fol. 4. 1., where the 
 same expression occurs, and the favourite title of Moses in 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 157 
 
 vogue among the Jews was 'Moses, our master' (quoted by 
 Scholtz on this verse). Associated with this idea is the 
 prestige which attached to the rabbinical schools. The 
 surprise expressed that our Lord should set up for a teacher 
 (vii. 15), the contemptuous disregard for the opinion of the 
 people (vii 49), the very form of address (2i) el 6 SiSaaicaKot 
 tov 'YapariX; iii. 10), which was apparently a formula of 
 remonstrance among the Jews 1 — all these features can be 
 readily illustrated from rabbinical literature. 
 
 (c) The jealousy and contempt with which the Palestinian 
 Jews viewed the Greek dispersion is strikingly evidenced by 
 the sarcastic comment of the Jews — 'Will he go unto the 
 dispersed among the Gentiles (M^ eh ryv Siacnropdv r&v 
 'EWr/vcov fiiWei iropeveadat), and teach the Gentiles ?' (vii. 35.) 
 Contemporary Jewish opinion drew a hard and fast line 
 between their brethren of the Babylonian dispersion, i.e. those 
 who preferred to remain in the land of their captivity, and the 
 Greek dispersion in Asia Minor, the result of the wholesale de- 
 portations of Seleucus Nicator and Antiochua Epiphanes. The 
 former were held in high honour. The land of Babylon was 
 considered to be as holy as that of Palestine (Rabbi Solomon in 
 Gittin fol. 2. i), and the descendants of the Jews there even 
 purer than those in Judaea itself (Kiddush foL 69. 2). Even 
 Gamaliel deigned to hold correspondence with the 'sons of 
 the Dispersion of Babylonia' (Frankel Monatsschrift, p. 413, 
 1853). Hence, as Lightfoot remarks (Hor. Heb. ad loc), ' for a 
 Palestine Jew to go to the Babylonish dispersion was to go to 
 a people and country equal, if not superior, to his own : but to 
 go to the dispersion among the Greeks was to go into unclean 
 regions, to an inferior race of Jews, and into nations most 
 heathenized.' 
 
 (d) Lastly (to confine ourselves to one further instance), 
 the question put to our Lord concerning the man born blind, 
 'Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was 
 
 1 See the story told in Lightfoot, from Ecliah Rabbathi, fol. 66. 2. 
 Hor. Heb. n. p. 534, of Eabbi Joshua 
 
158 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 born blind 1 ?' reflects with a faithful accuracy the popular 
 teaching of the day as regards the consequences of sin. It 
 was a received doctrine in the Jewish schools that physical 
 defect in children was the punishment of sin committed by 
 their parents ; and though the Jewish doctrine of metempsy- 
 chosis was confined to the souls of the righteous (Jos. B. J. ii. 
 12), and thus a man brought no taint of sins with him from his 
 previous existence, yet it is clear from many curious Rabbinic 
 passages which Lightfoot quotes (ad loc.) that even in the 
 womb the infant, from the moment of his first quickening, was 
 considered capable of incurring stain of sin. 
 
 3. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF EXTERNAL FACTS, THE 
 HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, NAMES AND CUSTOMS OF THE 
 JEWISH PEOPLE. 
 
 (i) The relations of the Jews with those around them. 
 
 (a) The Galileans. Owing to the fact that St John lays 
 special stress on the Judsean ministry, the references to the 
 Galileans in his Gospel are less numerous than in the Synoptic 
 narrative. But the notices, though few, are highly significant, 
 and the touches with which St John depicts them, singularly 
 vivid. Thus we cannot fail to observe the contempt which the 
 Jews of the metropolis display for them. ' Shall Christ come 
 out of Galilee?' 'Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet' (vii. 41, 
 52). ' Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth ?' 
 (i. 46). Such is the objection, which rises unpremeditatedly to 
 the lips of speakers, when the northern province is indicated as 
 the home of the Messiah. This disparagement of the Galileans 
 is reflected more than once in the rabbinic literature of the 
 period. ' Foolish Galilean ' seems to have been the inevitable 
 form of address when a Galilean appears as a character in a 
 dialogue'. This contempt arose in great measure from the 
 admixture of foreign blood in the Galilean people. The Sea of 
 
 1 John "• 2 - a e.g. see Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. 11. pp. 78, 64S. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 159 
 
 Galilee was an important commercial centre, and as a natural 
 consequence strangers — Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks and Romans 
 — settled in the district, and intermarried with the Jewish inhabi- 
 tants, to the prejudice of the race in the eyes of a strict Jew of 
 the capital (see Keim i. p. 309). The distinction thus in- 
 augurated by the taint of foreign blood was further emphasized 
 by a difference of pronunciation. The rough dialect of the 
 northerners, which was a subject of comment in the case of 
 St Peter (Mark xiv. 70), is a favourite theme likewise in 
 rabbinical writers 1 - Thus in one story 8 a Judsean professes 
 himself unable to distinguish between *1QJ< "a lamb,' "lOtf 
 ' wool,' "|D!1 ' wine ' and 1DM ' an ass,' as pronounced by a 
 Galilean when the latter wants to make a purchase, an illus- 
 tration which shows that the divergence consisted largely in a 
 careless confusion of gutturals on the part of the Galileans. 
 The bad name, from which the Galileans suffered generally, 
 seems to have attached itself more particularly to their city 
 Nazareth (John i. 46). Certainly the account which we have of 
 them from other passages in the Gospels (Luke iv. 16 — 29, 
 Matth. xiii. 54 — 58) conveys the impression that the Nazarenes 
 were a violent, unscrupulous, irreligious people. They may 
 therefore have fully justified their invidious reputation. That 
 this reputation was widespread appears from the irony in the 
 superscription on the cross, ' Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the 
 Jews,' (John xix. 19). We pass on to notice the Evangelist's 
 accurate knowledge of other traits in the Galilean character. 
 In John iv. 45 occurs a brief and incidental mention of the 
 welcome accorded to our Lord by the Galileans in consequence 
 of Hi.g doings at Jerusalem at the feast, ' for they also went to 
 the feast.' Now it is worthy of record that Josephus {Ant. xx. 
 6. 1) relates that serious troubles arose owing to collisions 
 between the Samaritans and the Galileans while the latter 
 were on their way to keep the feasts at Jerusalem*. The 
 
 1 See the instances given by Light- ' See my Galatians, p. 197 (ed. 6). 
 
 foot, n. p. 78 sq, and of. Fiirst Aram. ' This notice illustrates John iv. 4 
 
 Idiom. § IS. compared with Luke ix. 51 sq. 
 
160 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 natural turbulence of the Galileans, to which Josephus calls 
 attention 1 , was on these occasions aggravated by their intense 
 religious enthusiasm*. It is therefore quite what we should 
 expect when we find a reference in St Luke (xiii. 1) to certain 
 Galileans ' whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices/ 
 and the portrait which St John gives us of St Peter is, as Keim 
 truly observes (i. p. 315), of ' a genuine Galilean type.' 
 
 (b) The Romans. St John's consummate skill does not fail 
 him as he sketches the relations of the Jews with their Roman 
 masters. We notice on the one hand the cringing political defer- 
 ence exhibited in the words of the chief priests, ' The Romans 
 shall come and take away both our place and nation (xi. 48),' 
 'We have no king but Caesar (xix. 15),' 'If thou let this man 
 go, thou art not Caesar's friend (xix. 12);' on the other, the 
 religious horror of the pollution attaching to contact with the 
 Romans, which even at the height of their frenzied hatred of 
 their prisoner kept the Jews outside the judgment hall, ' lest 
 they should be defiled (xviii. 28).' He then proceeds to give 
 us details which reveal an accurate acquaintance with the 
 Roman customs and military arrangements of the time. Twice 
 over is reference made to ' the band ' (»; aireipa xviii. 3, 12), 
 once to 'the captain ' (o ^iX/ap^o? xviii. 12). Now, we learn 
 from Polybius 3 and Suidas 4 that aireipa and ^t\tap^o? were 
 technical terms, the recognised Greek renderings of cohors and 
 
 1 a-pAt ■Kaaa.v del iroXl/iov ireipav iv- expression xaXcmu shows that he is 
 
 rtaxov • fiix^ol re yip iic vrprliov k.t.\. merely giving the Latin equivalent 
 
 Jos. B. J. iii. 3. 2 ; of. Vit. 17 veuripuv (Kotpra) for the Greek expression 
 
 CTriBvfiovvTes Acl ■wpayp.&.rwv. (airelpa). A little later on (xi. 33. 1) 
 
 " Many of the false Messiahs were Polybius has again M rirrapas Koip- 
 
 Galileans, e.g. 'Iotffas 6 raXtXcuos (Aots t« • toOto A" tan aireipa, where Ca- 
 
 v. 37). saubon has struck out the last four 
 
 8 rptts 0-Telpas' tovto Si xaXeirat tA words, though they occur in all the 
 
 aivTaypa t&v irefi&v wapa 'Pw/iaiot! manuscripts. 
 
 Ko6pnt Polybius xi. 23. Sohweig- * Suidas (*. e.) states that x«Wopx« 
 
 hauser in his note [ad loc.) contends came into office at Borne three hun- 
 
 that ariTpa here means mampulus, and dred and fifteen years after the foun- 
 
 that the term cohort is applied to the dation of the city. This coincides 
 
 complement of three maniples; but with the institution of military tri- 
 
 Livy in the parallel passage (xxviii. 14) bunes with consular power at the 
 
 has ternit peditum eohcrtibus, and the close of the Decemvirate. . 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 161 
 
 tribunus respectively. Accordingly the use of the definite 
 article by St John in both cases, 'the cohort' 'the tribune 1 ,' 
 shows that he was aware of a fact, which we learn from 
 Josephus also (B. J. ii. 12. 1), that a Roman cohort was 
 quartered in the Turns Antonia at Jerusalem to prevent 
 disturbances at the great festivals 2 . A few years later we find 
 soldiers from this Roman garrison employed in rescuing St Paul 
 from the hands of the Jewish mob during the feast of the 
 Passover'. 
 
 Again, the scene of the Crucifixion furnishes St John with 
 another opportunity of showing his intimate knowledge of 
 Roman military customs. A quaternion (rerpdBiov Acts xii. 4) 
 of soldiers, as we learn from Vegetius and others 4 , was usually 
 employed as a watch on night duty, or for purpose of escort. 
 Now, it is noticeable that, when the other Evangelists speak 
 of the guard which attended at the Crucifixion, no number is 
 given. It is simply stated (Matt, xxvii. 35, Mark xv. 26, 
 Luke xxiii. 34), that the soldiers divided the Saviour's garments 
 among them. St John however gives the actual number. But 
 observe how incidentally the fact comes out. He makes no 
 mention of a quaternion : he merely says, ' Then the soldiers, 
 when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made 
 four parts, to every soldier a part.' The information is not 
 paraded in any way ; it is involved in the narrative. One more 
 
 1 On the other hand, though 'the the chief priests (Matt. xxvi. 5) as evi- 
 band' is mentioned by the Synoptists dence to these disturbances. 
 
 (Matt, xxvii. 27, Mark xv. 16) at a 8 Acts xxi. 31 sq, where again the 
 
 later stage in the proceedings, the same technical terms are nsed with 
 
 definite article, as used in the Fourth the definite article ivifh) <j>int t$ x'^'- 
 
 Evangelist, is more decisive. ipxv "?* <rirelpiis k.t.X. This account, 
 
 2 When Cumanus was procurator, like that in the Fourth Gospel, is pro- 
 the insolent conduct of a Eoman bably the narrative of an eye-witness, 
 soldier at the Passover resulted in a * De singulis centuriis quaterni equi- 
 riot (B. J. l.c, of. Ant. xx. 5. 3) in tes et quaterni pedites excubitum 
 which ten thousand (B. J. l.e., twenty nootibus faciunt, Vegetius de re mili- 
 thousand Ant. l.c.) Jews perished. tort iii. 8 ; cf. Philo in Flace. 13, n. p. 
 For the disturbances at the great 633 trrpandrniv rwh tup h> roti rerpajfoit 
 festivals see B. J. i. 4. 3. Whiston ^wXdxow /toff' iSiv eO/xiv, Polyb. vi. 33 
 instances the cautions procedure of t6 4>o\&Ka6i> ianv tic rerripur AvSpwe. 
 
 L. E. " 
 
162 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 instance, and I leave this part of the subject. ' The Jews,' we 
 read, ' besought Pilate that their legs might be broken.... Then 
 came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the 
 other which was crucified with Him (xix. 31, 32).* This again 
 is a detail added by St John, which a forger would not have 
 cared to risk. For crurifragiim formed no part of a cruci- 
 fixion. It was a separate punishment 1 , to which slaves could be 
 subjected at the caprice of their masters, and it was abolished 
 together with crucifixion at the command of Constantine 
 (Lipsius de Grace III. 14). But there is some reason to suppose 
 that it was used to hasten death in the case of Jewish criminals 
 (Lactant. Inst. iv. 26), in order that the ends of justice might not 
 be defeated by the Mosaic enactment which required the bodies to 
 be taken down on the day of execution (Deut. xxi. 23 quoted 
 by Tertull. adv. Judaeos 10). 
 
 (ii) The writer's acquaintance with Jewish Institutions. 
 
 1. The High-Priesthood. 
 
 The relative positions of Annas and Caiaphas at the time of 
 the Crucifixion have been a source of some perplexity. Annas 
 the high-priest had been deposed by Gratus the predecessor of 
 Pilate, and after intermediate appointments Gratus had nomi- 
 nated Caiaphas to the office. The date of Caiaphas' succession 
 is probably A.D. 25, one year before Pilate became procurator, 
 and he was deposed apparently about the passover of A.D. 37 ; 
 whereupon there followed a series of changes, as many as seven 
 high-priests holding office in the next ten years. These facts 
 we learn from a comparison of certain passages in Josephus 
 (esp. Ant. xviii. 2. 2 compared with xviii. 4. 3). Thus at the 
 time of our Lord's Passion Caiaphas was the actual high-priest, 
 while Annas had been high-priest a few years before. Turning 
 now to the New Testament, we find a certain vagueness in the 
 description of the two by the Synoptists, a vagueness due partly 
 
 1 See Plant. Arinar. ii. 4. 68, Paen. Aug. 67, Tib. 44, passages quoted with 
 iv. 2. 64, Sen. de Ira iii. 32; Suet, others by Lipsius de Cruce u. 14. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 163 
 
 to the wide use of the word dpxtepev<;, but not altogether 
 explained thereby. Thus, in his Gospel St Luke dates the first 
 year of our Lord's ministry eVl dpxiepeas "Avva xal Kcud<f>a 
 (Luke iii 2), but in the Acts he mentions as present at the 
 meeting of the Sanhedrin shortly after the day of Pentecost 
 "Avvas 6 dp%iepev<s ica\ K.at.d<pa$ (Acts iv. 6). He would seem 
 therefore either to have consulted documents which did not 
 recognise the validity of Caiaphas' appointment, or to have had 
 himself no very clear conception of the relative positions of the 
 two. The account in the Fourth Gospel is much more precise. 
 St John is aware that Caiaphas is the high-priest (xi. 49, xviiL 
 13, 24), but he assigns an important position to Annas also, 
 whom in some sense he recognises likewise as dpxiepevs (xviii. 
 15, 16, 19, 22) 1 . On these facts we may remark, first that this 
 unguarded, and to us unintelligible, way of speaking betokens 
 a genuine author, who does not feel the necessity of explain- 
 ing what to himself is a familiar fact. As was natural with one 
 who was 'known unto the high-priest' {yvaxrro^ tgI dp%iepet 
 xviii. 15, 16), he evidently has a very clear conception of the 
 relation of the two persons, though he has not definitely put it 
 on paper. Secondly, so far as we are able to test the accuracy 
 of his facts, they satisfy the test,Le. Caiaphas is the actual high- 
 priest. Thirdly, his account serves as a connecting link between 
 scattered and apparently divergent notices in the New Testa- 
 ment 2 . Yet this episode about Annas in the history of the 
 Passion is peculiar to St John*. 
 
 The use of 6 dpxiepeix; as applied to two different persons in 
 St John is admirably illustrated by a passage in Josephus 
 {Ant. xx. 9. 2). The high-priest Ananias (the Ananias of the 
 Acts) has been deposed, and Ishmael the son of Phabi has 
 succeeded {Ant xx. 8. 8). Ishmael again has been set aside, 
 and his place given to Joseph, surnamed Kabi (xx. 8. 11). 
 
 1 The A V.han taken unwarrantable » e.g. Matt. xxvi. 3, 67 compared 
 
 liberties with iiriareCKev in xviii. 24. with Acts iv. 6. 
 It should be ' sent him' not 'had sent » Keim's attempt (m. p. 322) to set 
 him.' The events are related in strict this episode of Annas aside is quite 
 chronological order. futile. 
 
 11—2 
 
164 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Shortly after, Joseph is deposed, and the office conferred upon 
 the younger Annas or Ananus, son of the Annas of the Gospels 
 (xx. 9. 1). A period of three months however witnesses the 
 fall of Ananus, and Jesus (Joshua) the son of Damnaeus is 
 appointed (ib.). In spite of this, however, after these four 
 changes in the high-priestly office, when Ananias reappears 
 upon the scene, he is still called 'the high-priest' (6 dpxiepevt 
 xx. 9. 2), and this title is applied to him, even as late as the 
 breaking out of the Judaic war (B. J. ii. 17. 6. 9), though in the 
 meantime there has been a fifth change 1 in the actual holder of 
 the high-priesthood. And this is not all. Ananias is desig- 
 nated 'the high-priest' in describing his dealings with the 
 actual high-priest even in the same sentence (Ant. xx. 9. 2 
 6 Se apx^pevi 'Avavtas icaff eKaurrqv k.t.\. rp> yctp xPVH-°- T(ov 
 iropuTTiicor iea0' rjfiepav yovv tov 'A\/3ivov KaX tov dpxiepia 
 ScipoK idepdirevev). This is at least as great an intermingling 
 of the use as in John xviii.; and is exactly of the same kind 2 - 
 Again, the passage in Josephus gives an example of the employ- 
 ment of the plural (p'l re dpxiepeT? ip-oia k.tX.), a sufficiently 
 striking phenomenon. All this is perfectly natural in Josephus, 
 a contemporary and eye-witness, perfectly natural also in the 
 Fourth Evangelist, supposing him to be a contemporary and 
 eye-witness; but incredible in a forger, who could not have 
 failed to betray himself by some slip when treading upon such 
 delicate ground. Lastly, the prominence assigned by Josephus 
 to Ananias is a parallel to the case of Annas in the Gospel 
 and the Acts. If we had only a chapter or two of Josephus 
 detached from the sequence of the narrative, and read of 
 ' Ananias the high-priest,' we should certainly suppose him to 
 have been the actual holder of the office at the time. It is 
 conceivable that some such mistaken inference has resulted in 
 
 1 Jesus the son of Gamaliel ap- may be considered doubtful. On the 
 
 pointed in place of Jesus the son of other hand Mr Sanday (p. 245) con- 
 
 Damnaus (Ant. zz. 9. 4). eiders the title to apply to Caiaphas 
 
 9 It is evident that the references in throughout, a view which compels him 
 
 vv. 18, 24 are to Caiaphas, those in to regard the aorist irdrreiKty in v. 
 
 vv. 19, 22 to Annas, while vv. 15, 16 24 as a pluperfect. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 165 
 
 the expression 'Annas the high-priest and Caiaphas' in Acts 
 iv. 6. Indeed it is quite possible that St Luke himself did not 
 know the precise facts, but had copied an authentic document, 
 in which an especially leading part had been assigned to 
 Annas 1 . 
 
 2. The Jewish Festivals. 
 
 We cannot fail to notice the large place which religious 
 festivals occupy in this Gospel. They are much more promi- 
 nent than in the Synoptic narrative. The main incidents are 
 connected with them, and this applies not merely to the 
 Passover, but to the other feasts likewise. 
 
 (a) The Feast of Tabernacles is described in John viL It 
 is introduced by a remarkable expression (ijv Be 6771)? 9 iopry 
 twv 'lovSaitov 77 <TKi)vomifila v. 2). 'The feast of the Jews' 
 was not in itself an unnatural way of designating the Feast of 
 Tabernacles. For it was called by the rabbis Jfi ' the festival 
 par excellence 2 ,' and Josephus (Ant. viii 4. 1) speaks of it as 
 'a feast of the utmost sanctity and importance among the 
 Hebrews' (Io/jt^? <r<p6Spa irapei rot? 'HftpaCot? ayuoTarT)<s xal 
 
 1 For the popular idea that the high- woman, on which see above, p. 35 ; 
 
 priest had a sort of inspiration (John (4) ii. 6, the purificatory rites on which 
 
 xL 51 'And this spake he not of him- see Lightfoot, ad loc. ; (5) marriage 
 
 self, but being high-priest that year he customs, especially 'the friend of the 
 
 prophesied ')comp. Josephus £.<7.iii. 8. bridegroom' (iii. 29), a metaphor in - 
 
 3 -rcpl Kf/Lata ivelpwv Ixaybs ■ . .alrrbs wv stirjot with meaning, but it is only 
 
 U petit, and Philo de Creat. Prims. § 8 (n. when we enter into the Jewish practice 
 
 p. 367) irpiis iX-iSacw Uptis tiBAs that this meaning comes out; (6) 
 
 ion. TpoQrffnp, the gift however being funeral ceremonies, especially the form 
 
 in both passages extended to the of the grave (xi. 38, 41), and the mode 
 
 priesthood generally. Other minor of burial (xii. 7, xix. 39, 40, xx. 1, 5, 
 
 references which 'show St John's ao- 7, 11), on which last point compare 
 
 qnaintance with Jewish rites and cus- Tacitus Ann. xvi. 6, where we read of 
 
 toms are (1) viii. 17, the necessity for Poppaea, a Jewish proselyte, 'corpus 
 
 two witnesses (cf. Deut. xvii. 6, xix. non igni abolitum, ut Bomanus mos ; 
 
 15, Matt, xviii. 16, 2 Cor. xiii. 1, Heb. sed regum extemorum consuetudine 
 
 x. 28, 1 John v. 7 sq); (2) viii. 44, the differtum odoribus conditur.' Most of 
 
 allusion to Cain (cf. 1 John iii 12): these passages are well illustrated from 
 
 the argument appealed to certain ideas rabbinical sources in Lightfoot 's Horae 
 
 prominent at the time which would Hebraicae. 
 
 not have occurred to any writer of a 3 See Smith's Dictionary of the 
 
 later date; (3) iv. 27, talking with a BibU, t. v. 
 
166 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 peyltrri)?). It was sufficiently prominent to attract the notice 
 of the heathen, as Plutarch (Symp. iv. 6, Op. Mor. p. 671 sq.), 
 who regards it as a sort of Dionysiac festival. Still, if the 
 words 77 hprrj r&v 'lovBaUov alone had been used, the Passover 
 would probably have been meant. Hence the words 17 o-ktjvo- 
 -irtyfia are added. A little later on (v. 37) St John speaks of 
 the ' last, the great day of the feast ' (iv 177 eax^ T !J V^Pf T V 
 neydky t!}<; iopTf}<s), language which may mean either the 
 last of the seven days, i.e. strictly speaking the last of the 
 feast, or the eighth day, the holy convocation, which followed 
 upon the seven. There seems however to have been no special 
 sanctity about the seventh day 1 . The first was apparently 
 much more important than the seventh. On the other hand it 
 is urged that the eighth day did not properly belong to the 
 feast, which lasted only seven days. But though the feast is 
 sometimes spoken of as a seven days' feast, and the eighth day 
 is not regarded (Deut. xvi. 13 sq., Ezek. xlv. 25), yet elsewhere 
 the eighth day is reckoned as part of the feast, and a special 
 prominence attached to it. This is the case in Numb. xxix. 35, 
 in Neh. viii. 18, in 2 Mace. x. 6 a , in Philo and Josephus* and in 
 Jewish writers generally 4 . I need not dwell upon the fact, 
 to which attention has been frequently drawn, that on this 
 occasion our Lord bases His discourse (vii. 37 sq., viii. 12 sq.) 
 upon the two most prominent features in the ceremonial of the 
 day, the pouring out of the water of Siloam upon the altar, and 
 the illumination of the city by flaming torches lighted in the 
 Temple area'. It will be sufficient to notice, first, that as in 
 
 1 Bnxtorf, Syn. Jud. xvi. p. 327, iieri) ioprrifv iyovras, Jos. Ant. iii. 10. 
 
 gives a certain prominence to it in his 4, and so a little lower down irla>T<u 
 
 description of the modern Jewish ce- Si iri vcwrit (pyov kutA tV dySinp' 
 
 lebrations of the tabernacles: see too ii/tipew. 
 Groddeke in Ugol. xvin. p. 534. * Succah iv. 4 (hymnus et gaudium 
 
 a per' cvippoavvr)! jj-yw iipjpas 6kt& ooto dies), iv. 9 (omnes ooto dies), v. 6 
 
 ffKitvu/idTuv Tphirov, 2 Maco. x. 6. (octavo die redibant ad sortes) ; of. 
 
 5 iirri !i 4)nipait irfHnp> brurfpayl- Gem. Hierot. in TJgol. xrai. p. 492. 
 ferot, xaXArat i$Miov ain-ift, o6k iKelmp » On the oeremonies of the eighth day 
 
 (is fooce p&vov TJjs ioprijs dXXA iraadv see esp. Ewald Alterth. p. 404. The 
 
 t&» inplw taut KcrnipiO/ifraftar, Philo people broke np their tents and re- 
 
 Septen. §24, p. 298 M.; i<f>' fi/Upat paired to the Temple. As the dwelling 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 167 
 
 our Lord's discourse, so in the ceremonial itself, the lighting of 
 the lamps followed the pouring out of the water, and was 
 intimately connected therewith ; secondly, that it took place in 
 the court of the women where the treasury (ya^otjyvXdxiov) 
 stood 1 , and where our Lord was speaking at the time (viii. 20). 
 Thus He would be able to point to the candelabra. Thirdly, 
 it is worthy of remark that Philo also incidentally connects the 
 same two images with the Feast of Tabernacles". 
 
 (6) The Feast of Dedication. This festival (to iyicalvia) is 
 mentioned by St John alone, and it is remarkable how thorough 
 and confident a knowledge of it is implied in his narrative. 
 Here, again, the mode in which it is introduced deserves notice, 
 'At that time the feast of dedication was held at Jerusalem' 
 (x. 22 eyevero Tore to, ey/calvta iv tow 'Iepo<ro\v/ioc<i). There 
 is no mention made, as in the case of other feasts (e.g. ii. 13, 
 iv. 45, v. 1, vii. 8), of going up to Jerusalem. For the iyxaCvia, 
 unlike the Passover, Tabernacles and Pentecost, might be 
 celebrated anywhere (see Lightfoot ad loo.). 'It was winter,' 
 we are told. Now the festival was held to commemorate the 
 purification and dedication of the altar and temple after pol- 
 lution by Antfochus Epiphanes B.C. 167. This event and the 
 institution of the annual festival are described in 1 Mace. iv. 
 36 sq., where Judas Maccabaeus directs that the commemoration 
 should take place ' from year to year by the space of eight days, 
 from the five and twentieth day of the month Chisleu (v. 59).' 
 Now the month Chisleu falls in November and December, 
 coinciding more nearly with December, and the Jewish winter 
 is reckoned to commence on the fifteenth of Chisleu. Hence 
 the notice of the season of the year in St John is strictly 
 accurate. Yet it is introduced quite incidentally, apparently to 
 
 in tents symbolized the wilderness life, * i/ pin yip Suauoo&viis iarlr ^ Ii 
 
 itself a deliverance from bondage, so iducias &p%1 re na.1 irijyi}, ml 4 M^" 
 
 the eighth day would be taken to Aaxlov <pur6s, ■>) Si (tkot-ovs avyyerfy, 
 
 signify the end of their wanderings Philo Septen. § 24, not as read in the 
 
 when they settled in the land of ordinary texts, but as given in Tisoh. 
 
 promise. Philonea. 
 1 See below, p. 169. 
 
168 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 explain the fact that Jesus was not teaching in the open air 
 but under cover. 'It was winter, and Jesus was walking in 
 the Temple in Solomon's porch.' 
 
 (c) The Feast of the Passover. Graphic touches which 
 illustrate St John's acquaintance with the details of this feast 
 are his references to the paschal victim (xix. 36), to the danger 
 of ceremonial pollution (xviii. 28), and to the Preparation 
 (irapaaicevri xix. 14, 31, 42), a term which he employs in 
 common with the Synoptists (Matt, xxvii. 62, Mark xv. 42, 
 Luke xxiii. 54), but, unlike St Matthew, uses twice without the 
 article, and in one case defines more accurately by the addition 
 of the words rov traa%a (xix. 14), implying that the term was 
 not restricted to the Passover 1 . Lastly, the parenthetical 
 remark on xix. 31, 'For the day of that sabbath was a high 
 day' (flv yap fieyaXr/ ■}) ■qp.ipa exeivov tov <ra/3/3a.Tov) points to 
 the special sanctity of the day as a double sabbath, the sabbath 
 alike of the week and of the festival, hebdomadal as well as 
 Paschal. 
 
 (iii) The Topography of Jerusalem. 
 
 From this review of the festivals we pass on to consider the 
 localities mentioned in the Fourth Gospel, merely premising 
 that the complete destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and 
 Hadrian would have gone far to obliterate traces of the actual 
 sites, and would thus have rendered the work of a subsequent 
 forger more than usually exposed to danger of errors. 
 
 (a) The Temple. We start with the Temple. Observe the 
 familiarity with which the Evangelist moves about among the 
 sacred precincts. He mentions the Porch of Solomon, ' the east 
 portico,' as Josephus describes it to us (Ant. xx. 9. 7), * on the 
 outer part of the Temple, lying in a deep valley with walls four 
 hundred cubits (long), built of square and very white stones ' 
 of enormous size. It was the work of Solomon, and was left 
 
 1 This was apparently the ease (Lightfoot, Bar. Heb. on Mark xt. 42). 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 169 
 
 untouched in Herod's restoration 1 . A covered portico of so 
 vast an extent was doubtless a favourite place of resort and 
 shelter in winter time, to which its eastern aspect, catching the 
 warmth of the morning sun, would not be a disadvantage, and 
 thus it was a natural scene for our Lord's teaching. Another 
 spot where our Lord is stated to have taught is the treasury, 
 the <ya£o<f>v\ciic iov (viii. 20). This word St John employs in 
 common with the Synoptists (Mark xii. 41 sq., Luke xxi. 1), but 
 with characteristic exactness, he gives us additional information. 
 The other Evangelists merely speak of casting money ' into the 
 treasury,' confining the term apparently to the corban-chests, 
 and this is probably the use in Josephus also, when he says 
 (Ant xix. 6. 1) that Herod Agrippa hung up a certain golden 
 chain which Caligula had given him 'within the temple-pre- 
 cincts over the treasury (virep rov rya£o(pv\aKiov).' St John 
 however shows that the expression was extended to embrace 
 the chamber in which the chests were placed. This chamber 
 was situated in the outer front of the Temple in the court of 
 the women. Thus it would be a frequented spot, since women 
 could penetrate no further, and St Luke (I. c.) calls special 
 attention to the crowd of people which passed to and fro (idewpei 
 mS? o oj(\o<i fidWet ^aKicbv et? r6 ya£o<pv\a/ciov). How 
 natural to take advantage of this concourse, and how significant 
 the addition ' and no man laid hands on him (viii. 20),' when we 
 recollect that the Sanhedrin held its meetings 11 hard by between 
 the court of the women and the inner court, within a stone's 
 throw of the speaker. 
 
 (6) The Watercourses of Jerusalem. 
 
 (1) Bethesda, Bethsaida, or Bethzatha (v. 2). The Evan- 
 gelist describes this as 'a pool near the sheep (gate)'' (eVi tjJ 
 wpo&aTiKJ) Ko\vfi0ri0pa). The * sheep gate ' is mentioned more 
 
 1 Herod's restoration of the Temple included in it. 
 was so complete, that it is unlikely > In a hall called Gazzith (Light- 
 that in the second century a distino- foot, i. p. 2005). 
 tion would have been preserved be- ' A. V. 'sheep market' 
 tween what was, and what was not, 
 
170 THE GOSPEL ACCOKDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 than once by Nehemiah (iii. 1, 32, xii. 39 17 irv\t) 17 "Keyo/ievy 
 TTpoftaTiKT]), but it is difficult to fix its exact position. It was 
 this uncertainty of locality, doubtless, which led to the omis- 
 sion of the words iiri t!j TrpoftaTiicr} in the Curetonian and 
 Peschito Syriac, and to the reading of the Codex Yaticanus iv 
 toi? 'lepoaoKvfiois irpofiaTitct) /co\v[t/3ri0pa, which understands 
 the two descriptions as defining one and the same spot. How- 
 ever it is clear that others also, besides the scribe of N, 
 explained irpofSwrucr) as an adjective describing KoKvfifiijdpa. 
 Thus Eusebius in his Onomasticon makes the following state- 
 ment : Hr)£a0a KoKvii^rjdpa h> 'lepovcrakrjp,, tJtk iarlv 17 irpo- 
 fiarucq 1 , and goes on to derive the name from the animal 
 sacrifices which used to take place there (-rrap' 8 koX irpofiaTucr) 
 Kakelrai Sia ra Ovftara). And this interpretation may have 
 produced the reading which we find in X. It is possible, how- 
 ever, that Eusebius may have got hold of the rabbinical word 
 niNtDinfl or N*D^n3 (Buxtorf p. 1796), which seems to mean 
 ' a bath,' unless indeed this word has come from irpo^wriKt), the 
 bath as well as the gate bearing the name. But it does not fol- 
 low that Eusebius and the Bordeaux Pilgrims were right in their 
 locality. Where then must we place the pool ? The question 
 would be answered if we could fix the position of the ' sheep 
 gate.' This however is only roughly possible. From the 
 notices in Nehemiah we draw the conclusion that the gate was 
 situated somewhere near the Temple, on the east side of the 
 city. The traditional site identifies it with St Stephen's gate, 
 north of the Temple area, but there is no sufficient ground for 
 
 1 He proceeds t4 iraXcuiv ithrt oroAs to which Eusebius draws attention is 
 
 (fcoucra' icai vw SeUvvrat. iv ran avrbdi mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrims 
 
 \lfu>tut SiSi/tou, cSp iKoripa. Ik tut kot' in their description : Interius vero 
 
 fros ieTw wAqpoGrcu, Baripa Hi irapa- oivitatis sunt pisoinae gem ellares, quin- 
 
 5<5£ w$ Te<t>ou>ty/Uvoi> Seticvwi rb OSup, que portious habentes, qnae appellan- 
 
 fXKos, «s <patn, (pipovaa rfflp rdXat tur Betsaida. Ibi aegri multornm 
 
 Ka$aipofUvuv iv ain-jj Ufxloiv. Jerome, annorum sanabantur: aquam an tern 
 
 knowing the locality better, says quae habent eae piscinae in modnm ooooini 
 
 vocabatur irpo^aniefi, Hier. de situ el turbatam, quoted by Wesseling, Itine- 
 
 nam. (op. in. p. 182 ed. Vallarsi). raria (1736), p. SS9. 
 The curious red colour of the waters 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 171 
 
 this ; and Robinson's conjecture (i. p. 342) that Bethesda is the 
 intermittent spring in the Upper Pool known as the ' Fountain 
 of the Virgin 1 ' at all events accords with the uninterpolated* 
 account of St John, which implies nothing miraculous in the 
 water itself, but describes what was evidently an intermittent 
 and medicinal, perhaps (from the allusions quoted above to the 
 redness of the water) a chalybeate spring. However we need 
 not pursue the enquiry further. Enough has been said to show 
 that from early times much uncertainty was felt as to the 
 actual site. What forger then would have ventured to intro- 
 duce, or if he introduced, to localise, so obscure and contested a 
 spot ? Who but one thoroughly familiar with the scene would 
 have been content to describe the position by so elliptical and 
 ambiguous a phrase as eirl nrg irpo^ariiey, employing an adjec- 
 tive without a qualifying noun, a phrase which, as we have 
 seen, has been interpreted to mean 'sheep market,' 'sheep gate,' 
 ' sheep pool'? The naturalness of this vague allusion is the 
 best guarantee for the authenticity of the narrative. 
 
 (2) Siloam (ix. 7). Attention has been drawn already 3 to 
 the derivation of this word, and the symbolical use which 
 St John makes of this derivation. The topographical question 
 however requires a separate treatment. Fortunately the situa- 
 tion, unlike that of Bethesda, can hardly be considered doubtful. 
 Siloam is frequently mentioned and described by Josepbus, and 
 the tradition of its position is tolerably continuous. It bears 
 the same name now, Silwdn, as in our Lord's time. It lies at 
 the mouth of the Tyropoeon valley, close to its junction with 
 the valley of Hinnom, and is fed by a stream issuing somewhere 
 from the heart of the rocks of Jerusalem. Its proximity to 
 Jerusalem is evidenced by the well-attested tradition that water 
 was brought from it for the libations customary at the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, and by the name which it gave to one of the gates 
 
 1 It was connected by an under- omit the words iK&exoiitvav ...voHiimn 
 
 ground passage with the pool of Si- (w. 3, 4), whioh are found in the 
 
 loam. Teztna Receptus. 
 
 3 Textual criticism compels us to > See above, pp. 141, 150. 
 
172 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 of Jerusalem, ' the water gate.' It was both a fountain and a 
 pool. The fountain (71-17717) is mentioned by Josephus (B. J. v. 
 12. 2), the pool or tank by Nehemiah (iii. 15, j"D"TS) and St John 
 (Ko\v(i/3rj0pa) 1 . The derivation of the name, which means an 
 ' aqueduct ' or ' conduit ' (from H/B' to send) seems to imply 
 that the Siloah properly so-called was not the pool, but the 
 stream which feeds it or which flows from it. The points on 
 which the Evangelist incidentally displays his exact knowledge 
 are two : first, he apparently places the pool near the Temple, 
 for it is improbable that a blind man would be sent on a long 
 journey ; secondly, he is aware of, and draws a lesson from, the 
 Hebrew meaning of the name, in which he sees a spiritual 
 significance. Long ago these very waters had been invested by 
 Isaiah (viii. 6) with a symbolical interpretation. The contrast 
 between the ' waters of Shiloah that go softly ' and the ' waters 
 of the River (ie. the Euphrates), strong and many ' typified the 
 contrast between Judah and Assyria, between the quiet dwelling 
 in Jerusalem under Jehovah and the overwhelming of a foreign 
 conquest. This idea of an indigenous stream, the possession of 
 the favoured people, ' the river, the streams whereof shall make 
 glad the city of God ' (Ps. xlvi. 4 ; cf. Isaiah xxxiii. 21), bespoke 
 the Messianic hope. It foretold the stream of running, 
 life-giving waters, which should issue from the temple-rock, 
 and revive the nationa It recalled and renewed the type of 
 the waters flowing from the rock smitten by Moses, which rock 
 was understood by St Paul to be the Christ (1 Cor. x. 4). Thus 
 St John seizes upon the current thought, and extends its 
 application. The Healer who sends the blind man is Himself 
 * the sentV 
 
 (3) Cedron (xviii. 1). This is undoubtedly the Kidron of 
 
 1 Isaiah (viii. 6) has simply n?B>fl 'D iiro rod 0eov irarpit atroO ire <rra\)Uvot ; 
 
 (LXX to OSap rou XiKui/i). Haer. xxxv. 3. So the ps.-Basil on 
 
 * Epiphanius rightly connects the Isaiah viii 6, rfs oZv i iireoraXp&os 
 
 two passages. After quoting Isaiah viii. teal i^otpifrl />iuy rj repl ov eCpip-at i 
 
 6, he oontinnes B Sup yip Xi\ua/i tan Ktf/uos drl<rr«X&> px ; Basil, op. 1. p. 
 
 SiSaffKoXla toO dire<rraX/i&ov ' rtt S' Or 536 A. 
 ttti ovtos dXX' 7 6 Kti/uot iifiuv 'IijiroCi, i 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 173 
 
 the Old Testament (2 Sam. xv. 23 etc.), and is mentioned by 
 St John alone of the Evangelists. The common text runs irepav 
 tov xetfidppov t&v KeBpmv (' the torrent of the Cedars '), and the 
 passage has a peculiar interest because it has furnished thetextfor 
 an elaborate attack upon the personality of the Evangelist. Baur 
 and Hilgenfeld after him (see Ewald Jahrbuch, vi. p. 118) have 
 pointed triumphantly to the undoubted fact that KiSpav is the 
 Hebrew word |1TTj5 'dark,' so called probably from its turbid 
 stream 1 , and have proceeded to argue that the Evangelist in his 
 ignorance has imagined it to be the genitive plural of KiSpoi 
 ' a cedar.' The writer therefore, they conclude, cannot have 
 been the Apostle St John, who, as a Jew, must have been 
 aware of the true derivation of the name. 
 
 Before admitting this conclusion, let us look the facts fairly 
 in the face. In Josephus the form KeSpcov occurs frequently 
 (B. J. v. 2. 3, v. 6. 1, v. 12. 2; Ant. vii. 1. 5, viii. 1. 5, 
 ix. 7. 3) used as a declinable noun. This is quite after Jose- 
 phus' manner in dealing with Hebrew substantives. In the 
 TiYX the expression o ■^eip.dppow KeSptov is employed with- 
 out an article, e.g. 2 Sam. xv. 23 (its second occurrence in 
 this verse); 2 Kings xxiii. 6, 12; 2 Chron. xv. 16, xxix. 16, 
 xxx. 14 ; Jer. xxxi 40. But in two passages it is found with 
 the plural article — 2 Sam. xv. 23 (on the first occurrence), and 
 1 Kings xv. 13 iv t<5 ^es/xappip t&v KiSpcov. This is the 
 reading of AB in both passages. Now it is quite clear that 
 the LXX translators did not mistake the meaning of the word. 
 Otherwise they could not have written, as they generally do, 6 
 Xeifidppovi KeSptov, a solecism on this supposition; but we 
 should have had in every case 6 x ei P ( * f PP 0V ' i r< * v KeSptov. 
 Therefore either there is a corruption in the best manuscripts 
 of the LXX, or o %ei/xappou? tSv KeSptov was considered a 
 legitimate Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase 'the 
 brook Kidron.' Turning now to the passage in St John, we 
 find that there is great uncertainty as to the actual reading, 
 authorities varying between rwv KiSptov, tov KiSpov and tov 
 
 i Compare Ps. cxx. 6 'the tents of Kedar' i.e. the dark-skinned folk. 
 
174 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 KeS/sow 1 , and that the preponderance of evidence is either for 
 rwp KeBpav or tov KeSpov. But the necessity for making a 
 selection suggests another view. What then is the probability ? 
 I believe the true account to be that the original reading was 
 tow KeSpcav; and this for two reasons. First, it is the interme- 
 diate reading, the reading which explains the other two, whereas 
 neither of the other two will explain either this or each other*. 
 Secondly, it is much more probable that tov KeSpov would be 
 changed into t&v KeSpcav and tow KeSpov, than conversely. 
 Indeed the converse change in either case is hardly conceivable, 
 the tendency being to assimilate terminations. And unless 
 t&v KeSpmv be a legitimate rendering of 'the brook Kidron,' 
 the corruption has taken place, and has still more completely 
 obliterated the original reading, in the T/3TY. This solution 
 was adopted by Griesbach and Lachmann, even before the dis- 
 covery of K, and recommends itself to Renan, Meyer and 
 Sanday. Tregelles gives it as an alternative. On the other 
 hand Teschendorf reads tov KeSpov. 
 
 But suppose t&v KeSpcav is after all, as Westcott considers, 
 the right reading, what then ? The Septuagint shows that it 
 was held to be an adequate rendering of the Hebrew YHIp 7HJ. 
 We must suppose therefore that it was the equivalent familiar 
 to Greek ears, and that St John writing to Greeks would not 
 hesitate to employ it. In confirmation of this view we may 
 notice the general tendency to assimilate Hebrew termina- 
 tions to Greek forms, which has coined the Greek plural ad/3- 
 /3ara out of the Hebrew noun tirOC as though adfiftaTov. 
 As KeSpcov was only used with xeip,appov<s, the change to the 
 genitive would be natural*. Again, the temptation to extract 
 
 1 BCL, with the bulk of the Greek of this test is the celebrated passage 
 
 manuscripts and the Gotbio Version, 1 Tim. iii. 16, where it is to be pre- 
 
 haye to* ntSpuv; AAS, the Vulgate ferred as accounting for both the vari- 
 
 and certain manuscripts (o, (e) f, g) of ants 0e&t and S. 
 
 the Old Latin, the Peschito and the » In Ps. lxxxii. 10 KAB read a> tu 
 
 Philoxenian Syriao and the Armenian x««"W> iccurur (xuraur A) anar- 
 
 have tov KcSpwv. throus, but some inferior manuscripts 
 
 3 A good instance of the application have twv kuhtuv. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 175 
 
 a Greek sense out of Hebrew names is exemplified in the deri- 
 vations given to Jerusalem and Essene 1 . If by an accident 
 there were any cedars in the valley, the adoption of this 
 Grecised form would be facilitated. 
 
 (c) Scenes illustrating our Lord's Passion. 
 
 Bethany is mentioned by the Synoptists in connexion with 
 the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mark xi. 1, Luke xix. 29), 
 with our Lord's retirement during Holy Week (Matt. xxi. 17, 
 Mark xi. 11, 12), especially the feast at the house of Simon the 
 leper (Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3 ; cf. John xii. 1), and with the 
 Ascension (Luke xxiv. 50). It occurs in St John's narrative 
 likewise as the scene of the raising of Lazarus (John xi. 1, 18), 
 and he exhibits his acquaintance with the place in a charac- 
 teristic way by mentioning that it was distant fifteen furlongs 
 from Jerusalem (xi 18, *Hv Se 3rj0avia eyyi)? r&v 'lepocroKvf&cav 
 <B9 dird VTaStcov SetcairipTe*). This statement exactly accords 
 with the account which a modern writer gives of its situation. 
 'We reached it in three-quarters of an hour from the Damascus 
 gate. This gives a distance of a little less than two Roman 
 miles from the eastern part of the city' (Robinson I. p. 431). 
 
 Qethsemane is not named in the Fourth Gospel, but this 
 does not prevent St John from adding to our stock of know- 
 ledge regarding the scene of the Agony, which he describes 
 more precisely than the Synoptists, calling it ' a garden ' (/ctJwo? 
 
 1 Job. B. J. vi. 10. 1, Sii. rouro tense. The Evangelist sometimes uses 
 Up6.aa.To rif 0&f vptaros koI rb Itpby the imperfect (xviii. 1, xix. 41, 42), 
 vpurros Setfifievos 'Icpo<r6\vtia rif ir6Xu> sometimes the present (v. 2), ocoasion- 
 Trpaarrydpevre, 26\u/m KaXoviUvrjr irpdre- ally both tenses together (iv. 6. 9). 
 pov, Philo quod omn. prob. 12, II. p. 457 Similarly St Luke uses the imperfect 
 "E<r<raXoi...Sui\iKTov AAqrur^t rapupt- (Luke iv. 29), and we may compare 
 /xoi bcUmrrm ; cf. § 13, p. 459, and Kinglake's Crimea m. pp. 88, 117, 118, 
 fragm. n. p. 632 (ed. Mangey). The 122, 286, which is unquestionably the 
 same tendency is to be seen in English narrative of one who was an eye- 
 in the forms Charterhouse, Barmouth witness of the events he relates, and 
 etc. who writes not half a century later, 
 
 2 No inference can be drawn as to but within a very few years of the 
 the date of the composition of the occurrences. 
 
 Gospel from the use of the imperfect 
 
176 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 xviii. 1) instead of simply 'an enclosure ' (xuptov Matt, xxvi. 36, 
 Mark xiv. 32), and defining its position as 'over the brook 
 Cedron.' Can we wonder if the events of that evening were 
 burnt into the memory of the beloved disciple in letters of fire? 
 Again, he alone of the Evangelists informs us that the 
 Crucifixion took place outside the city-walls (xix. 20). This 
 statement is thrown out quite naturally, and no point is made 
 of it, but it is borne out by the author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews (xiiL 11 sq.), who sees in it a deep moral lesson. 
 And no one denies that this Epistle was written at some time 
 or other in the first century after Christ. 
 
 (iv) The Topography of Palestine generally. 
 
 As far therefore as knowledge of the locality of the Holy 
 City is concerned, our author has ably stood the test applied 
 to him. Let us now take a wider sweep and investigate his 
 acquaintance with the geography of Palestine at large. 
 
 (a) Galilee. As is well known, the Fourth Evangelist 
 directs his attention chiefly to our Lord's ministry in Jeru- 
 salem. We do not therefore expect him to give us many fresh 
 details about the topography of Galilee. However he mentions 
 Cana in Galilee 1 (ii. 1, 11, iv. 46, xxi. 2), and he gives a new 
 designation to the Lake of Gennesareth, which he calls 'the sea 
 of Tiberias"' (vi. 1, xxi. 1). Again, in describing the events 
 which clustered round the Feeding of the Five Thousand, his 
 varying use of irepav 'on the other side,' now for the west, 
 now again for the east shore of the lake, bespeaks the eye- 
 
 1 Cana is named several times by is more closely allied to the represen- 
 
 Josephus (Vit. 16, B. J. i. 17. 5, Ant. tative in the Curetonian and Pesohito 
 
 jriii. 15. 1), but the references do not Katna, though the t is not represented, 
 throw much light on its position. » The oity of Tiberias also ooours 
 
 The traditional site is Kefr Ketma, (vi. 23). As it was built by Herod 
 
 about four miles north-east of Naza- Antipas (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2. 3, B. J. ii. 
 
 reth, and this identification is as 9. 1), it could hardly have given its 
 
 old as S. Willibald in the eighth cen- name to the lake aa early as the date 
 
 tury. Eobinson however prefers a of our Lord's ministry. The designa- 
 
 village, Kana el-Jelil, some five miles tion however ' sea of Tiberias' is found 
 
 further north, and the spelling of the in Josephus (B. J. iii. 3. 5), before St 
 
 name (with a Koph instead of a Caph) John wrote his Gospel. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 177 
 
 witness, who, as he records the miracle, fancies himself enacting 
 the scene once more, and speaks as if he were himself first here, 
 then there. 
 
 (b) Judaea. 
 
 (1) Ephraim. In xi 54 St John describes our Lord's 
 retirement ' into the country near the desert, into a city called 
 Ephraim' (etyyik 1-7)9 epij/iov, e« 'E<f>palfi Xeyofievr]v iroKiv). 
 This ' desert of Judah ' seems to mean the broad mountain 
 pasture lands near Jerusalem, which were sparsely inhabited, for 
 in the Gospel narrative 'the desert' (r; ept)fio<s) is generally 
 associated with 'the mountain district' (to opost). This city 
 Ephraim (or Ephrem) is noticed here only in the New Testa- 
 ment. But it is mentioned by Josephus (B. J. iv. 9. 9) in 
 connexion with the mountain district (jj opeivq) north of 
 Judaea, as a small fort (iroXi^viov) captured and garrisoned by 
 Vespasian when on his way westward to fight against Vitellius. 
 Josephus couples it with Bethel, and it is a coincidence that, 
 where it occurs in 2 Chron. xiii. 19, Bethel is named with it. 
 The two places were probably not far apart. Mr Robinson 
 (1. p. 447) identifies it with El-Tayibeh, some eight miles north 
 of Jerusalem. In the passage in the Chronicles referred to, 
 the Kthib has Ephron {yiSy, but the Qri Ephraim pJSJ?, 
 perhaps a dual form like Mizraim, the Upper and Lower Egypt. 
 It is mentioned also in the Talmud (Neubauer p. 155). The 
 Ephraim of St John must not be confused with the wood of 
 Ephraim of 2 Sam. xviii. 6, or the Ephraim of 2 Sam. xiii. 23, 
 both of which are spelt with an Aleph like the patriarch 
 Ephraim ; or with the district called Apherema in 1 Mace. xi. 
 34. Mr Robinson (I. c.) identifies it with Ophrah mflj? of 
 Benjamin (1 Sam. xiii. 17, Josh, xviii. 23). This may or may 
 not be the case 1 . The Qri of 2 Chron. I. c. and the passage in 
 
 1 It is noticeable that in the Codex ADUas iii &r& otujxIw k'; of. Hier. 
 
 Alexandrinus Etppai/j. is the LXX ren- Op. in. p. 203, who repeats the same 
 
 dering of the other Ophrah, the birth- statement. But if Mr Robinson's 
 
 place of Gideon, in Judges viii. 27, ix. 5. identification is correct, the Ephraim 
 
 Eus. Onom. *. v. says k<U ion ml vw of St John is the Aphra of Eus. Onom. 
 
 Kii/ai 'Eippalfi fttytmi irepl to Spin ». v. 
 
 L. E. 12 
 
178 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 Josephus are sufficient for my purpose. Whether the Qri be 
 the right reading or not, it shows that such a place existed just 
 in the region where, from St John's account, we should expect 
 it to be. 
 
 (2) Bethany (i. 28). This is certainly the correct reading 
 in this passage, and accordingly St John has been charged 1 
 with gross ignorance as not being aware that Bethany was near 
 Jerusalem. In the light of the accurate and minute acquaint- 
 ance with topography elsewhere displayed by the Apostle, such 
 an accusation is hardly worth the trouble of refutation. 
 
 We may however briefly reply, first, that the writer carefully 
 distinguished the two places, speaking of one as 'Bethany 
 beyond Jordan ' (i. 28), of the other as ' Bethany the town of 
 Mary and her sister Martha' (xi. 1); secondly, that he accu- 
 rately described the Bethany of chapter xi. as 'nigh unto 
 Jerusalem about fifteen furlongs off" '; thirdly, that if we assume 
 with most commentators the identification of Bethany beyond 
 Jordan with 'the place where John was at first baptizing' 
 (x. 40), our Lord is represented at the time as out of 
 Judaea (xi. 7, ayajfiev eh t^v 'lovSatav traXiv), as journeying 
 from the one Bethany to the other, a journey which occupies 
 three days (xi. 39, reraprato'} yap i<rri), which takes Him into 
 Judaea once more (xi. 7, ayw/iev et? rrjv 'lovSaiav trakiv), and 
 into danger from a position of security (xi. 8). Personally I 
 prefer to keep these scenes of St John's baptism distinct, and 
 to place the Bethany of chapter i. somewhere in the Upper 
 Jordan*. It was probably an obscure place. ' In any case,' as 
 Mr Sanday truly says (p. 45), ' the distinction between two 
 places having the same name is a mark of local knowledge 
 which is unlike fiction 4 .' 
 
 (3) jEnon near to Salim (iii. 23). Here again we are 
 
 1 By Paulus and Bolten ; Bee Liioke * In Mark viii. 22 there is a well- 
 
 i. p. 894. supported variant Bi;0ai'iav for Bq0- 
 
 " See above, p. 175. am Say, whioh may contain some under- 
 
 * This is the view of Dr Caspari, lying foundation of faot, pointing to a 
 
 quoted by Sanday, p. 46. Bethany in the north-east of Galilee. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 179 
 
 introduced by the Evangelist to fresh names. It is true that 
 in Joshua xv. 32 mention is made in the tribe of Judah of 
 pyi Orb® (Cod. A, SeXeei/*, A.V. 'Shilhim and Ain'); but 
 neither name corresponds exactly to the notice in St John. 
 Moreover the places mentioned in the Old Testament lie in the 
 arid country south of Judaea (see Grove in Smith's Dictionary 
 of the Bible, s. v. Salim). The most probable site of the 
 Salim of the Fourth Gospel is that assigned to it by Eusebius 
 and Jerome near the Jordan, eight Roman miles south of 
 Scythopolis. In Jerome's time it was called Salimias. A 
 Salim has been discovered by Van de Velde {Memoir p. 345 sq.) 
 exactly in this position, six English miles south of Beisan 
 (Bethshan), and two miles west of Jordan. The name Mnou 
 fully bears out St John's description of the place, 'there 
 was much water QrroWd vSara) there,' the plural noun indi- 
 cating ' many fountains ' or ' springs.' Evidently therefore 
 iEnon was not situated on the Jordan itself. 
 
 These last two notices are especially interesting as showing 
 how carefully the successive stages of John the Baptist's 
 preaching are brought out in the Fourth Gospel. We find 
 him first at the lower fords of Jericho 'beyond Jordan,' oirov 
 r\v ^latavvrfi to irp&Tov fiairri^aiv (x. 40; cf. Matt. iii. 1). We 
 meet with him next at Bethany (i. 28, AV. 'Bethabara') 
 'beyond Jordan,' probably at the upper fords. Lastly, his 
 headquarters are at ^Enon, near Salim (iii. 23). Thus we seem 
 able to trace his course northward, and the successive changes 
 of scene bear out what we gather from the more general 
 account with which St Luke supplies us. Though John's 
 native town is in the hill country of Judaea (Luke i. 39), yet 
 he is apprehended and put to death by Herod, the tetrarch of 
 Galilee (Luke iii. 19, 20), and therefore must, before his arrest, 
 have passed within Herod's jurisdiction. The minuteness of 
 detail which in the Fourth Gospel characterizes the episodes in 
 which John the Baptist takes part, becomes doubly significant 
 when we consider the great probability that John the Apostle 
 had been in his early days a disciple of the Baptist. 
 
 12—2 
 
180 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 II. 
 
 The Writer was an Eye-witness of the Events recorded. 
 
 In a striking passage in one of his works 1 Auguste Sabatier 
 draws attention to two characteristics of this Gospel which 
 run side by side : that though in its teaching it is the most 
 dogmatic, yet at the same time in its narrative it is the most 
 vivid of the Four Gospels. We are apt to forget this latter 
 point in the absorbing eagerness with which we fix our attention 
 upon the sublimity of the doctrines inculcated. Yet this vivid- 
 ness of description is the best guarantee for the conclusion that 
 the writer was not merely a Palestinian Jew, but an actual 
 eye-witness of the events which he records. We shall be 
 compelled to treat this part of our subject in a very cursory 
 and incomplete manner. 
 
 (i) The minuteness and exactness of detail which he exhibits. 
 
 Sometimes these minute notices stand more or less closely 
 in connexion with the progress of the story; sometimes they 
 are detached personal reminiscences which apparently struck 
 the writer at the time, and have dwelt in his memory since. 
 Such a reminiscence, introduced apropos of nothing, is the 
 incident recorded by St Mark (xiv. 51 sq.) of the young man 
 clad with the linen cloth, which has been generally interpreted 
 as an allusion to the history of the Evangelist himself. I shall 
 divide what I have to say on this subject under the following 
 heads : (1) Time, (2) Place, (3) Persons, (4) Incidents. 
 
 (1) Time. The chronology of our Lord's life can be 
 gathered from St John's Gospel alone. In the other Evange- 
 lists the incidents are often grouped together with little or no 
 reference to their chronology. This is especially the case with 
 St Luke, who, having neither been present himself at the events, 
 nor, like St Mark, especially attached to one who was himself 
 
 1 A. Sabatier, Ettai tur let source* de la vie de Ji»ut (1866), p. 34. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 181 
 
 present, is of the four the farthest removed from the position of 
 an eye-witness. The minute exactness of St John's chronology 
 shows itself most particularly in his record of the first (L 29, 
 35, 43, ii. 1) and of the last week (xii. 1, 12 etc.) of the narrative, 
 but it is present throughout (iv. 40, 43, vi. 22, vii. 14, 37, x. 22, 
 xi. 6, 17). It arises in great measure from the part which he 
 himself has in the drama. It extends even to the hour of the 
 day (i. 39, iv. 6, 52, xix. 14), or, if not the hour, the time 
 approximately (iii. 2, vi. 16, xiii. 30, xviii. 28, xx. 19, xxi. 3, 4). 
 
 (2) Place. We have had occasion already to allude to the 
 increased definiteness to be observed in the Fourth Gospel in 
 this respect 1 . All the incidents are referred to their locality. 
 Compare this feature with the other Gospels, e.g. St Luke's 
 account of Martha and Mary, Luke x. 38, ei? /cm/ir/v rivd, with 
 John xi. 1, a-Tro ^r}6avLa<; i/c rrjv lew/tr)? Maplas kcl\ Map0a? 
 T»j9 dSe\$i?i avrrji;. It runs through the whole narrative, e.g. 
 vi. 59, ev avva.'ywyf) SiSdcrxiov iv K.a<papvaovft, viii. 20, iv t<£ 
 tya^cxpvXaKLQ), x. 22, iv ru> iepm iv rfj crroa tov 1,oXofi&vov. 
 Notice the precision with which on two occasions the distance 
 of the boat from the shore is recorded, measured by the 
 practised eye of the fisherman, vi. 19, co? araSiov^ elicocri irevre tj 
 Tpid/covTa, xxi. 8, <»? dtro irif)(5>v Suucotriav, and for his greater 
 chronological accuracy contrast the Fourth Evangelist with 
 St Luke in the scenes of St Peter's denial (xviii. 15 sq.), 
 remembering that the narrator is ' the other disciple who was 
 known unto the high-priest,' himself a spectator throughout 
 the terrible tragedy. 
 
 In all these details we recognise the hand of the personal 
 disciple, and it would be strange indeed if an author with such 
 opportunities did not produce more exact and precise results 
 than one who, like St Luke, was the disciple of one who was not 
 even himself a personal disciple. 
 
 (3) Persons. Sayings, instead of being left vaguely general, 
 are attributed to the speakers by name, e.g. i. 41, 45, 46 
 
 1 See above, p. 168 sq. 
 
182 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8T JOHN. 
 
 (bis), 48, 49 of Andrew, Philip and Nathanael, vi. 7, 8 Andrew 
 and Philip, 68 Peter, xi. 16 Thomas, xii. 4 Judas Iscariot, 
 21 Andrew and Philip again, xiii. 8, 9 Peter, 24, 25 Peter and 
 John, 36, 37 Peter again, xiv. 8 Philip, 22 Judas not Iscariot, 
 xx. 25 sq. Thomas, xxi. 3 Peter, 7 Peter and John, 15 sq., 
 20 sq. Peter. This exactness is more noticeable when we have 
 an opportunity of comparing the incidents with the Synoptic 
 records, as in the miracle of the feeding of the Five Thousand, 
 where the objection on the part of the disciples is left general 
 (Mark vi. 37 Xiyovai) instead of being placed in the mouth of 
 Philip (John vi. 7), or the feast at Bethany, where the loving 
 ministrations of Mary (John xii. 3) are vaguely assigned to 
 'a woman' (Matt. xxvi. 7, Mark xiv. 3 yvvrj), and where the 
 expressed discontent of Judas (John xii. 4) is robbed of half its 
 force by being generalised (Matt. xxvi. 8 ol futdijrai, Mark xiv. 
 4 rives). Or again take the scene of the betrayal, where a 
 flood of light is thrown upon that part of the drama when we 
 learn from St John that it was St Peter (John xviii. 10) who 
 with characteristic impulsiveness drew his sword in his Master's 
 defence l . 
 
 (4) Incidents. The Fourth Evangelist acquaints us with 
 a number of details, which, though in some cases unimportant 
 in themselves, add greatly to the life-like character of his 
 portraiture of events. The six waterpots of water containing 
 two or three firkins apiece (ii. 6), the thirty and eight years 
 during which the man lying at the pool of Bethesda had been 
 afflicted (v. 5), the bag in which our Lord and His disciples 
 kept their common fund (xii. 6), the sop given to Judas 
 (xiii. 26), the three languages of the title on the cross (xix. 20)", 
 the four parts into which the tunic (y^irmv) and the cloak 
 (IfiaTta) were divided (xix. 23), the water and the blood which 
 issued from the Saviour's side (xix. 34), the weight of the 
 
 1 The Synoptista are perhaps de- afc-fir). The name of the servant 
 
 signed]; vague (Matt. xxvi. 61, eft Malohus is also given by St John. 
 
 tuiv Herb 'IijitoO, Mark xiv. 47, elt tQv » The corresponding notice in St 
 
 TapeaTTinirw, Luke xxii.' 60, eft th i( Luke xxiii. 88 is an interpolation. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 183 
 
 myrrh and aloes used for the embalming (xix. 39), the 
 orderly folding of the napkin which had been about 
 His head (xx. 7), and, in the last chapter, the side of the 
 ship on which the net was to be thrown (xxi. 6) and the 
 number of the fish which were drawn up (xxi. 11) — all these 
 are instances of the miniature painting which is noticeable in 
 this Gospel. What is the inference from all this ? Minuteness 
 is not in itself an evidence of authenticity. But taken in 
 conjunction with the other arguments which have been adduced, 
 this fact is important, pointing as it does to an author who, 
 as he wrote, had all the scenes clearly and vividly before his 
 eyes. 
 
 (ii) The naturalness of the record. 
 
 This is exhibited in two ways, (1) by the development of 
 the characters depicted, and (2) by the progress of the incidents 
 related. 
 
 (1) The characters. Some of these appear also in the Synop- 
 tic Gospels; others are new. Of the former class are Martha and 
 Mary, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Judas, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas ; 
 of the latter, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Nathanael, the woman 
 of Samaria, Nicodemus 1 . In the first group of instances we 
 have an opportunity of testing the Fourth Gospel by other 
 independent accounts. The Evangelist therefore must be found 
 true to his fellow-Evangelists. In the 'second group we have 
 no such external criterion to guide us ; but the Evangelist must 
 be found true to himself. We will select an example or two 
 from each of the two classes. 
 
 (a) St Peter. His character is sketched for us in clear 
 outlines in the Synoptic narrative. We cannot fail to notice 
 his eager, forward, impetuous nature. He is the self-constituted 
 spokesman of the disciples. His eagerness to learn, his curiosity, 
 his love of definiteness shows itself in the type of question 
 which from time to time he puts before his Master. He will 
 
 1 [The characters of Martha and in the first Essay (p. 37 sq.) ; they are 
 Mary and of Thomas are given above therefore omitted here.] 
 
184 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 know the precise point at which forgiveness ceases to he a duty 
 (* Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive 
 him?' Matt, xviii. 21); the exact reward which those who 
 follow Jesus should obtain (' Behold, we have forsaken all, and 
 followed thee; what shall we have therefore?' Matt. xix. 27). 
 He will have one mysterious parable explained (' Declare unto 
 us this parable' Matt. xv. 15), and he will know the exact 
 range of the application of another (' Lord, speakest thou this 
 parable unto us, or even to all?' Luke xii. 41). Notice his 
 eagerness to remark upon what is going on around him, 
 whether it be the evidence of Christ's power (' Master, behold, 
 the figtree which thou cursedst is withered away ' Mark xi. 21), 
 or the current of popular opinion ('All men seek for thee' 
 Mark i. 37). His impetuosity leads him on two occasions to 
 administer rebuke to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, either 
 alone (' Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, 
 Be it far from thee, Lord : this shall not be unto thee ' Matt, 
 xvi. 22), or with others (' Peter and they that were with Him 
 said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and 
 sayest thou, Who touched me?' Luke viii. 45). His eagerness 
 of faith and assurance is discernible throughout the whole 
 course of the Gospel narrative. It prompts his confession at 
 Caesarea Philippi (' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 
 God ' Matt. xvi. 16), his proposal on the Mount of Transfigura- 
 tion (' Lord, it is good for us to be here : if thou wilt, let us 
 make three tabernacles' Matt. xvii. 4), his confidence on the 
 Sea of Galilee (' Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on 
 the water ' Matt. xiv. 28), his protestation on the night of the 
 betrayal (' Though all men shall be offended because of thee, 
 yet will I never be offended ' Matt. xxvi. 33). After the arrest, 
 with a characteristic mixture of courage and of curiosity, he 
 follows Jesus into the high priest's palace 'to see the end' 
 (Matt. xxvi. 58). On the other side, we notice sudden revul- 
 sions of feeling, resulting, now in lack of faith (' Lord, save me ' 
 Matt. xiv. 30), now in lack of courage (the three denials 
 Matt. xxvi. 69 sq.), now again in unexpected self-abasement 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 185 
 
 ('Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord' Luke v. 8). 
 Accordingly we find our Lord in the Garden rebuking Peter 
 specially and by name (Matt. xxvi. 40, Mark xiv. 37), as though 
 implying that his actions had in the most signal way belied his 
 professions. 
 
 Such is St Peter's character as delineated in the Synoptic 
 Gospels. Before proceeding to test the record of the Fourth 
 Gospel, we must turn aside to notice a charge brought against 
 St John by M. Kenan {Vie de Jems p. xxviii. and p. 159) and 
 reiterated by other critics (e.g. Lampe in. p. 510). It is to the 
 effect that St John was jealous of St Peter's reputation and 
 endeavoured to undermine it in his Gospel. The charge is 
 false in every way. Compare St John's account of the third 
 denial (xviii. 27) with that of St Matthew (xxvi. 74) or of 
 St Mark (xiv. 71), the one Synoptist writing for the Jewish 
 Christians among whom St Peter was especially honoured, the 
 other 'the interpreter' of St Peter. Or again, remember that 
 the rebuke 'Get thee behind me, Satan,' is confined to St 
 Matthew (xvL 23) and St Mark (viii. 33), and is not recorded 
 by St John. These facts will show how gratuitous this offensive 
 insinuation is. On the other hand, another antagonistic critic 
 (Kostlin in Theol. Jakrb. for 1850-2, p. 293) has supposed 
 that the object of the twenty-first chapter is to glorify St Peter 
 and St Peter's see. Thus one criticism serves to neutralise the 
 other 1 . 
 
 We return to St Peter's character, as portrayed by St 
 John. It is in thorough accord with what we have already 
 gathered from the other Evangelists. His curiosity comes out 
 in the eager question with which he interrupts his Master's 
 discourse in the upper room 'Lord, whither goest thou?' 
 (xiii. 36), in the expedient by which he endeavours to obtain 
 through the medium of the beloved disciple the traitor's name 
 
 1 M. Benan accepts the latter criti- proves chap. zxi. (though probably 
 
 cism, bat supposes this last chapter to a postscript) to have been written by 
 
 be a later addition by some other hand, the author of chaps, i-zx. (see the 
 
 in which amends are made to St Peter. additional note at the end of this 
 
 Bat the internal evidence of style Essay). 
 
186 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 (xiii. 24 sq.), in the anxiety which he shows to learn his 
 brother apostle's destiny ('Lord, what shall this man do?' 
 xxi. 21). He will not rest content with dark forebodings and 
 mysterious intimations ; he will know the facts, and know them 
 definitely. Again, his ready profession of faith, which makes 
 him now the mouthpiece of the apostolic band ('Lord, to 
 whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life' 
 vi. 68), now the revealer of his own deepest heart-utterances 
 (' Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee ' 
 xxi. 17), is in perfect keeping with what the Synoptic narrative 
 has led us to expect. His impetuosity shines out in every 
 action which is recorded of him. In Gethsemane, without a 
 thought for the consequences, he draws his sword and smites 
 the high-priest's servant (xviii. 10 sq.) ; at the tomb, while the 
 younger disciple stands awestruck and uncertain, he enters in 
 without a moment's hesitation (xx. 6) ; at the sea of Galilee, he 
 plunges into the lake (xxi. 7), he drags the net to land (xxi. 11). 
 And the sudden revulsion of sentiment, of which such striking 
 examples are recorded in the first three Gospels, has its complete 
 parallel in an incident peculiar to the Fourth Evangelist — 
 the washing of the disciples' feet (' Thou shalt never wash my 
 feet.' ' Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head ' 
 xiii. 8, 9). 
 
 (6) Pontius Pilate. In the portraiture of the Roman pro- 
 curator there is much in common between the Synoptists and 
 St John. Thus in all we see the abstract love of justice, 
 inherent in a Roman magistrate, overborne by the desire of 
 securing popularity, natural to a provincial governor. But his 
 personal characteristics appear especially in the Fourth Gospel, 
 and it is not too much to say that we should not have appre- 
 hended his character as a whole without the light thrown upon 
 it from this fresh source of evidence. Here at last we get to 
 understand the man thoroughly in all the variety of his complex 
 nature — his desire to purchase public favour at the expense of 
 justice and yet his unwillingness to condemn Jesus, his cynical 
 contempt of the subject-people, his sarcasm, his scepticism and 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 187 
 
 yet his fear. It is only when, fresh from studying him in the 
 Fourth Gospel, we turn once more to the pages of the Synop- 
 tists, that his scorn for the Jews as a nation is clearly discerned. 
 However, when once we have found the clue, that scorn is 
 evident enough. It appears in the form of his questions ' Art 
 thou the King of the Jews?' (Matt, xxvii. 11), ' What will ye that 
 I should do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews V (Mark 
 xv. 12) 1 ; and especially in the title placed over the cross'. Ap- 
 parently he could not lose the opportunity of insulting the Jewish 
 rulers, whom he was obliged to gratify nevertheless. But when 
 we read St John's account, we see these lurid features of Pilate's 
 character emphasized and lighted up under the glow which 
 issues from the narrator's master-pen. With what persistency 
 does Pilate evince his desire to shirk the responsibility of 
 condemnation! 'Take ye him, and judge him according to 
 your law' (xviii. 31). Baffled here by the logic of facts, the 
 inability of the Jews to condemn to death, he tries another 
 loophole to escape from his dilemma. ' Ye have a custom, that 
 I should release unto you one at the passover ; will ye therefore 
 that I release unto you the King of the Jews ?' (xviii. 39). 
 Foiled again by the malignant hostility of the crowd, he seeks 
 to appeal to their pity by exhibiting his prisoner scourged and 
 mocked. In vain. He is met by the cry, 'Crucify him.' 
 Once more he would shift the responsibility on the shoulders of 
 the chief-priests, ' Take ye him and crucify him, for I find no 
 fault in him.' From the furious, raging mob he turns to meet 
 the calm, impassive countenance of Jesus Christ. The sight 
 only increases his perplexity. ' From henceforth Pilate sought 
 to release him.' The struggle is ended by the twice-repeated 
 name of Caesar (xix. 12), and the dread image thus called up 
 before his mind of the suspicious, vindictive emperor prevails 
 at last over his sense of justice and of awe. He tries one last 
 
 1 The scom iB lost in the form in contempt is found in St John's version, 
 
 which the question appears in St 'Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the 
 
 Matthew (xxvii. 22). Jews'; see above, p. 159. 
 
 5 Though here again the climax of 
 
188 THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 appeal, ' Behold, your KiDg,' and then delivers Him unto them 
 to be crucified. And if the wavering, vacillating temper of the 
 governor is drawn in clearer outline by St John than by the 
 Synoptists, no less is his cynicism, his sarcasm and unbelief 
 painted in deeper colours. ' Am I a Jew V (the English fails to 
 convey the withering scorn of the Greek original y^ri iyto 
 'IowSato? elm;), ' Ar* *h ou a King then?' (ovkovv fJa<riKei><i el 
 a i ; — we can imagine the intonation of the voice upon the final 
 word <rv, as Pilate amuseB himself with what he considered the 
 fanaticism of his prisoner), ' What is truth V And so the 
 conversation ends, Pilate no doubt thinking that he had had 
 the best of it, had secured the last word. Notice too how he 
 repeats the expression ' the King of the Jews,' harping on the 
 title which he knows to be offensive to his Jewish audience 
 (xviii. 39, xix. 14, 15, 19, 22). And the Roman soldiers catch 
 up the spirit of the Roman governor, who sets the fashion, and 
 cry, ' Hail, King of the Jews ' (xix. 3). 
 
 (c) Philip. Of the characters known only from St John's 
 Gospel the first in importance undoubtedly is Thomas; but 
 there are others, which the Evangelist, with a few masterly 
 touches, depicts for us, and which deserve more than a passing 
 notice. 
 
 There is in Philip a certain cautious, business-like way of 
 looking at things which bespeaks much circumspectness of 
 disposition. We remark this at once when we are introduced to 
 him in the first chapter (i. 43 sq.). Unlike Andrew and the name- 
 less disciple, he does not make the first advances himself; but 
 he is found and summoned by the Saviour. Yet when found, he 
 accepts the call without hesitation, and finds a new adherent 
 in his turn. But the mode in which he announces his discovery 
 to Nathanael is characteristic. He keeps back the name as 
 long as possible, and the place to the last word in the sentence, 
 for Nazareth would prejudice any cause. When Nathanael 
 demurs, he does not argue ; he simply bids him try, ' Come and 
 see.' Philip appears again upon the scene in the sixth chapter 
 on the occasion of the feeding of the five thousand. Again it is 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 189 
 
 Jesus who opens the conversation: 'Whence shall we buy 
 bread, that these may eat (v. 5) V The business question is put 
 to the business man. It is answered in a business spirit. He 
 makes the necessary calculation. ' Two hundred pennyworth of 
 bread is not sufficient for them that every one of them may 
 take a little.' But he does not reply to the question. It is 
 left for Andrew to suggest a remedy. We meet with him a 
 third time in the twelfth chapter, when certain Greeks come to 
 him with the request, ' Sir, we would see Jesus.' Here again he 
 does not take the initiative. He will not act without consulta- 
 tion. 'Philip cometh and telleth Andrew, and again Andrew 
 and Philip tell Jesus 1 .' It has been suggested that Philip was 
 the steward, the purveyor of the little company, that he 
 managed the commissariat; just as Judas was the treasurer, 
 the purser. Such a position at all events would suit his 
 business-like character. And it would account for strangers 
 (xii. 21) applying to him first, as they may have been brought 
 in contact with him in this capacity*. 
 
 (d) Andrew. In two places Andrew is associated with 
 Philip, and on both occasions he appears not merely in contact 
 with, but in contrast to, his brother- Apostle. He is as eager 
 and prompt as the other is slow and cautious. While Philip 
 is calculating the amount of bread required to feed the multi- 
 tude, Andrew has hit upon an expedient (vi. 8, 9). While 
 Philip cannot act alone in bringing the Greek strangers to 
 Christ, Andrew, as soon as he is consulted, goes with him 
 to tell Jesus. Thus he is quick alike to act and to speak. 
 It is this decision of character which made him the first to join 
 the Saviour himself, and the first to bring another to the 
 Saviour (i. 37, 40, 41). In short, he has much of his brother 
 Peter's eagerness, without that brother's tendency to grievous 
 falls. It is quite in accordance with this characteristic that 
 
 i John xii 20 22. (Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 4. 25, p. 522). 
 
 2 An early tradition identified him This would be in keeping with Philip's 
 
 with the disciple who requested that hesitating faith, 
 he might first go and bury his father 
 
190 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 we read in the Muratorian Canon that Andrew was the Apostle 
 to whom it was revealed that John should write his Gospel, 
 and that the revelation took place on the first night of the 
 three days' fast 1 . 
 
 (iii) The progress of events. 
 
 We cannot rise from the perusal of the characters as they 
 appear in the Fourth Gospel without the assurance that we 
 have been introduced to real, living persons, described by some 
 one who knew them well. Individuality is seen to be stamped 
 on every face. Exactly in the same way, as we mark the 
 progress of events gradually unfolded before us in the narrative, 
 our conviction becomes more and more settled that the guide 
 who conducts us has been an eyewitness of the incidents which 
 he records. In order to get the full effect of the extreme 
 naturalness of the description, we have only to read the his- 
 torical portions successively, and to remark how vivid is the 
 sequence of the narrative as it opens out from point to point. 
 Or we may take a conversation like that held in the fourth 
 chapter between our Lord and the woman of Samaria. We 
 notice, first of all, the development of the conviction in the 
 woman's mind. Starting with a contemptuous irony (v. 9), 
 she passes by gradual stages into a growing respect mingled 
 with curiosity (y. 11), then into wonder ripening into faith 
 (v. 15). The conversation now takes another turn. There is a 
 direct home-thrust at the vicious part of her character (v. 16). 
 This she disingenuously parries. Convinced by this time of her 
 questioner's spiritual insight, she attempts to divert into a 
 general theological channel the conversation which was taking 
 so inconvenient a turn (v. 19). Our Lord's answer contains a 
 tacit reproach (v. 24), but she still shows her unwillingness to 
 appropriate the lesson (v. 25), and quietly ignores all particular 
 
 1 Cohortantibus condiscipulis et epi- latum Andreae ex apostolis ut reoog- 
 
 acopis suis dixit [Iohaunes] Conieiu- nesoentibua ounotia Iohannes suo no- 
 
 nato mihi hodie tridutun, et quid mine ounota desoriberet. Canon Mura- 
 
 ouique fuerit revelatum alterutrom tor. p. 88 (ed. Tregelles). 
 nobis enarremus. Eadem noote rere- 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 191 
 
 allusions (v. 25). Observe secondly, that the spiritual teaching 
 of our Lord, which is so prominent throughout, arises naturally 
 out of the external incidents. The presence of the woman with 
 the pitcher at the well (v. 7) leads to the subject of the living 
 water ; the arrival of the disciples with provisions (w. 8, 27, 31) 
 to the reference to the spiritual food. In these two cases the 
 point of connexion is distinctly stated ; in others it is mentally 
 supplied by the recollection of the eye-witness. Thus the 
 mountain of Gerizim towering above them, and the expanse of 
 corn-fields stretched out at their feet, are each in turn taken 
 advantage of as opportunities for inculcating spiritual truths. 
 And the whole is woven together with a naturalness which 
 defies all separation of its component parts ; for the teaching 
 and the incident are the woof and the web of the fabric. 
 Thirdly, the amount of local and special knowledge contained 
 in the incident is both considerable and varied. As we glance 
 through the chapter, we notice that it demands a particular 
 acquaintance with the well of Jacob (v. 5), the relations of 
 Jews and Samaritans (v. 9), the depth of the well (v. 11), its 
 history (v. 12), the mountain and the worship on its summit 
 (v. 20), the social position of women (v. 27), the corn-fields and 
 the harvest-time (v. 35). And all this intimacy with places 
 and customs is not an excrescence merely, but an integral and 
 essential part of the narrative. You cannot remove it without 
 the whole structure falling to the ground 1 . 
 
 Or take the scene enacted in the Judgment Hall (xviii. 28 
 — xix. 16). Observe at the outset the unartificial, the unsyste- 
 matic, character of the narrative. The incidents are not grouped 
 according to subject, but related in sequence as they actually 
 occurred. Hence the history of St Peter's denials is interrupted 
 by other matters. The third denial interposes between the 
 mention of the transfer from Annas to Caiaphas, and the 
 transfer from Caiaphas to Pilate. On the other hand St Luke 
 (xxii. 54-G2) adds force to the episode by placing all three 
 denials together. With St John however dramatic propriety 
 i [This whole woident has been already treated above, p. 33 sq.] 
 
192 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 is sacrificed to chronological accuracy. Notice, in the second 
 place, the gaps in the narrative. Jesus is first examined before 
 Annas, then He is transferred to Caiaphas; but nothing is 
 recorded of what happened at this second examination. We 
 may perhaps infer from the sileuce of the Evangelist that he 
 was not an eye-witness of this part of the scene. Again, we 
 cannot fail to be struck by the introduction of certain incidents 
 which have no direct bearing on the history, but yet are not on 
 this account excluded. A moment's consideration will explain 
 their presence in the narrative. The fire of coals kindled in 
 the hall (xviii. 18), the goings in and goings out of Pilate (xviii. 
 29, 33, 38, xix. 4, 9, 13), notes of place and of time (xviii. 28, 
 xix. 14) — such would be just the kind of circumstances which 
 would impress themselves indelibly upon the memory of an 
 eye-witness, and would inevitably rise up again before him as, 
 years after, he recalled the memorable scene. Or consider the 
 respective attitudes of the chief-priests and of the Roman 
 governor. How natural the representation. On the one side, 
 the Jews, with their fear of ceremonial pollution (xviii. 28), 
 their appeals to the law (xviii. 30, xix. 7), their inability to 
 punish (xviii. 31), their affected loyalty (xix. 12, 15). On the 
 other, Pilate — that masterpiece of portrait-painting to which 
 attention has been drawn already. Surely, whether we examine 
 the details, or regard the picture as a whole, we are constrained 
 to admit that all this is something more than 'ben trovato' : 
 nay, we may say with confidence 'e vero.' And so we might 
 pass in review other incidents ; the calling of the disciples, the 
 marriage at Cana, the man at the pool of Befchesda, the scene 
 at Bethany and at the tomb of Lazarus, the washing of the 
 disciples' feet, the declaration of the betrayal — all these bear 
 stamped upon their face the impress of trustworthy and con- 
 temporaneous testimony. I will conclude this part of my 
 argument by an appeal presented from a somewhat different 
 quarter. The writer of the Fourth Gospel often distinguishes 
 the facts which he records from his commentary upon those facts, 
 made when an interval of time had thrown fresh light upon 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 193 
 
 their spiritual import. Is it Christ's prophetic language, 
 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up'? 
 We are told that 'when He was risen from the dead, His disciples 
 remembered that He had said this unto them ; and they be- 
 lieved the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said' (ii. 22). 
 Is it the mysterious utterance, 'He that believeth on me, as the 
 scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living 
 water'? The Evangelist's comment, made subsequent to the 
 Pentecostal gift, explains it of 'the Spirit which they that 
 believe on Him should receive ; for the Holy Ghost was not yet 
 given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified' (vii. 39). Is it 
 Christ's announcement of results to issue from His coming 
 exaltation, 'I, if I be lifted up, shall draw all men unto me'? 
 It is explained as ' signifying what death He should die ' (xii. 
 33). The prophecy of Caiaphas (xi. 51), the triumphal entry 
 into Jerusalem (xii. 16), Christ's appeal on behalf of His dis- 
 ciples in the moment of the betrayal (xviii. 9) — all form texts 
 for the conveyance of spiritual truths viewed from the stand- 
 point of the Evangelist's maturer experience. Some have 
 maintained that the commentary is wrong. I do not assert 
 this, nor do I allow it. But one thing at least is clear. If the 
 fact or the saying had been invented for the sake of the com- 
 ment, the fact or saying would in most instances have taken a 
 different form and the correspondence would have been made 
 more obvious. But the fact does not lead up to the comment, 
 for the simple reason that the fact was already there, in absolute 
 possession ; and as, in the light of a fuller and clearer know- 
 ledge, the Evangelist draws out its hidden meaning, he will not 
 venture to subserve the purpose of the application by diverging 
 one hair's-breadth from the exact letter of the record 1 . 
 
 1 [For the third section of this Essay, Zebedee, the reader is referred to the 
 The whiter was John the son of first Essay in this volume, p. 39 sq.] 
 
 L. E. 
 
 13 
 
194 THE GOSPEL ACCOKDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 A. On the twenty-first Chapter. 
 
 The Gospel was originally intended to end with the twentieth 
 chapter. The conclusion of the narrative is significant, 'Blessed 
 are they that have not seen, and yet have believed' (xx. 29, 
 ixaxapioi 01 fxr/ iSovrcs kol irio-TtuVavres), and the writer's own addition 
 (vv. 30, 31) is evidently the original close to the whole. The 
 twenty-first chapter therefore is an after-thought. This distinction 
 is no refinement of modern theorists ; it is as old as the time of 
 Tertullian'. But did it emanate from the same author or not? 
 Clearly yes. The style is essentially Johannine. There is the 
 same historic ovv, so characteristic of St John's narrative, and of 
 his alone (rv. 5, 6, 7 (bis), 9, 11, 15, 21, 23); the same comparative 
 absence in the narrative part of 8« (which is wrongly inserted by 
 the scribes in v. 12); the same tendency to place the verb first 
 (vv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23, 25), especially with Aeyet 
 (v. 15 sq.); the same abruptness of diction, the result of the 
 avoidance of connecting particles (vv. 3, 12, 13, 16, 17). Again 
 such sentences as vmiyai dXitvtLV . . .ipyip/xcOa Kail 77/uets crvv trot (v. 3), 
 Scire dpurrq<ra.T€...<ru tis el; (v. 12), axoAovdet /wi (v. 19), Kvpit, 
 ovtos 8e ti; (v. 21), tx iroo? ce; av /not dico\ov$ei (v. 22) etc. are 
 features which are familiar to us from previous chapters, and should 
 be compared with e.g. the narrative of i. 35 sq. or xx. 11 sq. We 
 find the same fondness for ckclcos (vv. 3, 7, 23), the same love of 
 definiteness, e.g. r<z Se£ta fiiprq (v. 6), airo w-q^wv 8taKoo*toiv (v. 8), 
 (kcltov ir€vnJKOVTa rpiiSv (v. 11), tovto tjStj rpiTov (v. 14), to which we 
 have already drawn attention; the same vivid painting (e.g. w. 
 7, 9 etc.), the same use of a parenthetic explanation (vv. 7, 8, with 
 which compare vi. 23). Favourite Johannine expressions are found, 
 as the doubled d/«?v (v. 18), which is peculiar to this Gospel, tovto 
 tlirtv cnjuaivw irotoi $avdr<a k.t.A.. (v. 19 ; cf. xii. 33, xviii. 32), Kat to 
 o\p<lpiov o/xol<us (v. 13 ; cf. vi. 11 djttoiW Ktxl (K T&v oxf/aplwv, which last 
 is a word only used by the Fourth Evangelist). We notice the 
 
 1 Ipsa quoque clausula evangelii He refers however in three places to 
 
 propter quid oonsignat haeo soripta, the twenty-first ohapter (see Bdnsch, 
 
 nisi Ut oredatis, inquit, Iesum Chris- p. 290). 
 turn filium Dei? Tert. adv. Prax. 25. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS — 3. 195 
 
 characteristic mode of designating places, rrjs tfaAa'eren/s tijs Ti/Sepia'Sos 
 (v. 1 ; cf. vi. 1), and of describing disciples, 'Thomas called Didymus' 
 (v. 2 ; cf. xi. 16), 'Nathanael from Cana of Galilee' (ib., his abode 
 specified as in the case of Philip xii. 21), 'Simon, son of John' 
 (v. 15 sq. ; cf. i. 42), ' the disciple whom Jesus loved ' (w. 7, 20 ; cf. 
 xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2) 1 . Again there is the suppression of the 
 author's own name, which would most certainly have been mentioned 
 by a continuator of the narrative. Lastly, the delineation of the 
 character of St Peter, and of his relation to St John, has all the 
 refinement of our Evangelist. This is the case in the two scenes in 
 which they appear in contact. The spiritual insight of St John 
 (v. 7) is matched by the impetuosity (w. 3, 7, 11) and the curiosity 
 (v. 21) of St Peter'. 
 
 Thus, though an after-thought, this chapter was certainly written 
 by the author of the Gospel. How soon after, it is impossible to 
 say ; but there is nothing in the style which requires us to postulate 
 more than a few weeks or a few days. As all the manuscripts 
 without exception contain the chapter, and there is no trace of its 
 ever having been wanting from any copies, the probable conclusion 
 is that it was added before the Gospel was actually published. 
 After the Gospel was written and submitted to his friends, the 
 Apostle may have heard that some misapprehension was abroad 
 respecting himself, or that some disappointment had been expressed 
 because no mention had been made of an incident which they had 
 heard him relate, and which would naturally be interesting to his 
 admirers. He may have then consented to add it as a postscript. 
 Apart from the identity of style, it is hardly likely that the chapter 
 was written after the Apostle's death, for in that case an event which 
 
 1 The Evangelist is fond of marking and i(erd<rai (v. 12). Any writing or 
 
 his characters by some striking circum- portion of a writing might be set aside 
 
 stance which serves as a label. Ex- on the same grounds. Thus, to take 
 
 amples are the designation of Nioo- ch. xx. 30, pin olr is a enraf \ey6pevm> 
 
 demns (xix. 39, vii. 50 from iii. 2), in St John, so is (3ip\toi>, so is ivilnrtov. 
 
 and of Caiaphas (xviii. 14 from xi. 49). Indeed the first and third phrases are 
 
 From a different spirit and with a rather characteristic of St Luke; but 
 
 different aim Carlyle exhibits the same the endeavour to press suoh arguments 
 
 tendency. would justly be scouted as fatal to all 
 
 1 Against such indications of iden- fair criticism. The chronological diffi- 
 
 tity of authorship, the objections com- cnlty of toOto 1fii\ rplTon (v. 14) re- 
 
 monly alleged (e.g. by Liicke) are mains unaffected by the question of 
 
 powerless, e.g. the use of new ex- authorship. 
 pressionB, as i<pavtpaatv 6i offrvi (v. 1) 
 
 13—2 
 
196 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 threw so much light upon our Lord's mysterious utterance respect- 
 ing the beloved disciple would scarcely have been passed over in 
 silence. 
 
 The question of the integrity of the last two verses of the 
 chapter is an issue which has to be treated separately. The twenty- 
 fourth verse is a confirmation or attestation of the truth of the 
 narrative on the part of his friends and disciples, and it bears out 
 the traditional account, given in the Muratorian Canon, of the 
 origin of the Fourth Gospel 1 The last verse is evidently a 
 scholium. Tischendorf declares that in the Sinaitic manuscript (X) 
 it is written in a different hand from the rest of the Gospel, by the 
 SiopOuinjs of the whole, and it is perhaps omitted in a valuable 
 cursive (63)*. However, as it occurs in all the other copies, and 
 
 1 See above, p. 190. 
 
 1 [Dr Owynn kindly supplies (Oct. 4, 
 1892) the following information re- 
 specting this manuscript. 'I think 
 there is no room for doubt that Cod. 63 
 has lost a leaf (or more) at the end, 
 and that it when complete contained 
 John xxi. 25. At first sight, one 
 might be led to form an opposite 
 opinion. For the last page of the us., 
 as it now is, is the last of a complete 
 quaternion, and in it the text ends nal 
 otSa/icv in d\-rj9ris iirriv $ uap \ rvpla 
 a&roO- (the last ten letters being 
 arranged in the middle of a new 
 line). The final stop looks like a 
 colon, but may be a period ; and one 
 might suppose that the scribe's reason 
 for placing rvpla airou thus, was 
 because his text was at an end. But 
 on looking through the ms., one would 
 find this supposition to be unfounded. 
 It frequently happens that he ends a 
 page with an incomplete line, longer 
 or shorter, not ranging with the pre- 
 vious lines, either at its beginning or 
 its end. Comparing the place with 
 the ends of the three preceding Gospels, 
 one finds a small bit of negative 
 evidence. Each of them has, after its 
 last word, the marks :— These do 
 not appear after rvpla airov. None 
 
 of them has any subscription, or even 
 TeAoc subjoined. 
 
 So much for the text; but when we 
 look at the surrounding scholia all 
 doubt is removed. The us. has in 
 every page a body of continuous 
 scholia, some half-dozen lines in the 
 top margin, a pretty long column (in 
 continuation) all down the outer mar- 
 gin, and six or eight more lines at the 
 foot. As the scholia proceed, the 
 scribe denotes change of subject com- 
 mented on, by a numeral letter (some- 
 times), and always by beginning the 
 new matter with a capital letter, in 
 red. The last two lines of these 
 scholia run as follows: Ifcrafav ra 
 yeypaupjva • A'TircflSoXutwj rovro <pr)<rb>- 
 in ttvpluv yap | 0av)iaTuv ra pita rpot 
 ■rlirriiv (sic) ical iperiir. Here you will 
 observe (1) that the scholium breaks 
 off in the middle of a sentence, shewing 
 that there ought to be another leaf: 
 (2) that this broken scholium referred 
 to verse 25, as is proved by the word 
 breppoXtKus, the fitpta Bat/iara being 
 the oWo iroXXd of St John. These 
 facts seem to settle the question'. 
 Compare Scrivener, Collatio Cod. Si- 
 nait. p. lix., 0. R. Gregory's prolego- 
 mena to Tisohendorf, N. T. (ed. 8) p 
 479.] 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 197 
 
 these come from very various sources, we may safely infer that, if 
 an addition, it was written by St John himself, or by one of his 
 immediate disciples. 
 
 B. On the conversational character of the Gospel. 
 
 The Fourth Gospel was addressed to an immediate circle of 
 hearers. In this respect it differs from the other three, St Luke's 
 Gospel approaching most nearly to it in this respect. But 
 Theophilus, if a real person, and not a nom de guerre, the type of a 
 God-loving or God-beloved Christian, soon disappears out of sight. 
 On the other hand, the Fourth Evangelist keeps his disciples before 
 his mind. He has to correct misapprehensions, to answer questions, 
 to guide and instruct a definite class of persons, and those persons 
 his immediate circle of acquaintance. Hence he assumes a know- 
 ledge of himself in the case of those for whom he writes. He does 
 not give his own name, because his hearers already know his 
 personal history. 
 
 For the most part however the reference to these disciples is 
 indirect. They are before the Evangelist, but he does not address 
 them in the second person. Instances of allusions to misapprehen- 
 sions or to questionings rife in those about him are L 41 'He was the 
 first to find' etc., iL 11 'This was the beginning of his miracles,' 
 iii. 24 ' John was not yet cast into prison,' iv. 54 ' This again was the 
 second miracle which Jesus did,' xviii. 13 'He (Annas) was father- 
 in-law to Caiaphas, who was high-priest of that year,' xix. 34 sq. 
 ' There came out water and blood.' Great stress is laid upon this 
 last point, doubtless in allusion to some symbolism which is not 
 explained, because they would understand it. So xxi. 14 'This was 
 now the third time that Jesus manifested Himself,' xxi. 23 'The saying 
 therefore went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should 
 not die. Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die ' etc. Thus 
 we find the Evangelist clearing up matters . which the current 
 tradition had left doubtful, or on which the popular mind wished to 
 be further informed. Through the main part of the narrative we 
 see these parenthetical additions, these conversational comments. 
 At length (xix. 35, xx. 31) there is a direct appeal to these 
 disciples, for whom the whole has been written. ' He knoweth that 
 he saith true, that ye might believe.' 'These things are written 
 that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; 
 and that believing ye might have life through His name.' 
 
198 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. 
 
 The Gospel however does not stand alone. Its connexion with 
 the First Epistle is both intimate and important. Its authenticity 
 and genuineness are still further confirmed by this consideration, 
 which brings out in clearer colours the circumstances under which 
 the Gospel was written, and sets more vividly before us the relation 
 of the Evangelist to his band of hearers. The Muratorian Canon 
 points to this connexion 1 . The close association of the two 
 Johannine writings warrants the inference that the author of the 
 Canon treated the First Epistle as an epilogue to the Gospel. And 
 this in fact is its true character. The Epistle was intended to be 
 circulated with the Gospel. This accounts for its abrupt commence- 
 ment, which is to be explained as a reference to the Gospel which in 
 one sense preceded it. This accounts likewise for the allusion to 
 the water and the blood (1 John v. 6 sq.) as the witnesses to the 
 reality of Christ's human nature, the counterpart of the statement 
 in the Gospel narrative (xix. 35). 
 
 The evidential value of all this cannot be over-estimated. It 
 presents us with a combination of circumstances which a forger 
 would not have had the ingenuity to invent ; nor, if he had 
 invented it, would he have commanded all the circumstances 
 necessary to carry out to a successful issue so stupendous an under- 
 taking. 
 
 [1867, 1868]. 
 1 See above, p. 99. 
 
IV. 
 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY. 
 
Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
IV. 
 
 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY. 
 
 OT Paul dates the commencement of his preparation for the 
 *>-' ministry as far back as the day of his birth. He describes 
 himself as set apart for the Gospel of God, set apart from his 
 mother's womb (Rom. i. 1, Gal. i. 15). In his social position, in 
 his intellectual training, in his religious creed — in all the 
 influences which wrought upon his childhood and youth — 
 there was a schooling which eminently adapted him to All the 
 part for which he was designed — to gather the Gentiles into 
 the fold of Christ, to preach the universality of the new 
 dispensation. This was especially his work — his Gospel. 
 
 And, when we come to piece together the notices preserved 
 of his early life, we find that this training was in itself very 
 remarkable, that it did in a way forecast his future destination, 
 furnishing him with a large store of varied experiences, idle 
 and unfruitful in Saul the Persecutor, but quickened suddenly 
 into life in Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, the Preacher to 
 the Gentiles, by the lightning flash which struck him on the 
 way to Damascus. 
 
 We are accustomed to look to three countries especially as 
 the great teachers of the modern world — Rome, Greece, Judaea. 
 Rome, the foremost of all nations in the science of government, 
 has handed down to us the principles of law and order. Greece, 
 setting before us her rich treasures of thought and imagina- 
 tion, has been a schoolmistress in art and literature. Above all, 
 from Palestine we have learnt our true relation to God, which 
 gives higher significance to art and literature and an eternal 
 
202 ST PAULS PBEPABATION 
 
 value to the principles of law and order. If Rome supplied the 
 bone and sinew to our colossal man, while Greece clothed him 
 with flesh and gave him grace and beauty, it was Judaea that 
 breathed the breath of life into him. Now all these three 
 influences were combined in the great Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 He was a citizen of Rome. His native place, Tarsus, was the 
 great university of Greece. He was brought up in the Jew's 
 religion in its most rigorous and most typical form. 
 
 We are accustomed to dwell solely on the Jewish education 
 of St Paul when considering his preparation for the ministry, 
 not only as the most important, but also as the most prominent 
 in the notices preserved of his early history. But the other 
 elements in his training must not be neglected. It is not 
 probable that one whose maxim it was to ' become all things to 
 all men,' whose nature was eminently sensitive and impressible, 
 could have failed to be moved by these powerful influences, and 
 the traces of their working are sufficiently distinct in his life and 
 writings. On the other hand, exaggeration must be avoided. 
 It would be a grave mistake to picture to ourselves the Apostle 
 as an active politician, or an erudite philosopher and man of 
 letters. The sphere of his thought was far different. His life 
 was far otherwise spent. But he must have received from his 
 political status as a Roman citizen and from his residence in the 
 heart of a great Greek University impressions which enlarged his 
 sympathies and his views, and thus, enabling him to enter more 
 deeply into the thoughts and strivings of others, and to contem- 
 plate the Gospel from different points of view, rendered him a 
 fitter instrument in the hands of God for the special work for 
 which he was destined. 
 
 1. Let us consider St Paul as a citizen of Rome. The 
 extension of the franchise was the keystone of the Roman 
 system 1 . By this means a connexion and sympathy was kept 
 up in the remotest parts of the Empire. The blood of the 
 political body thus circulated freely by veins and arteries 
 through the great heart of the republic to its extreme 
 
 1 Cio. pro Balb. 18 ; Beoker Handbuch der rSmitchen Alterthtimer n. (1), p. 91. 
 
FOR THE MINISTRY. 203 
 
 members, and any injury done to one limb was an injury 
 done to the whole. The metaphor which I have employed is 
 not my own : I am only expanding the image used by Cicero 1 
 to express these relations. To the Roman his citizenship was 
 his passport in distant lands, his talisman in seasons of difficulty 
 and danger. It shielded him alike from the caprice of muni- 
 cipal law and the injustice of local magistrates. In Syria, in 
 Asia, in Greece — wherever he went — he bore about with him 
 this safeguard of his liberties. How valuable such a protection 
 must have been to St Paul, how often he must have invoked its 
 aid in a life spent in travel and in the midst of enemies, we can 
 well imagine. He had never known what it was to be without 
 this citizenship, for he had been born a citizen of Rome 3 . It 
 procured him an honourable discharge from the prison at 
 Philippi 8 ; it loosed his fetters in the tower of Antonia 4 ; it 
 rescued him from the lawlessness of a zealot mob, and sped him 
 on his way under escort to Caesarea"; it transferred him from 
 the hearing of a provincial governor to the court of Caesar 
 himself*. As he lived, so he died — a citizen of Rome. It is 
 recorded that, while his brother- Apostle St Peter suffered the 
 punishment of a common malefactor on the cross, St Paul was 
 allowed to die by the sword, as the last recognition of his civic 
 rights conceded by the law, when everything besides had been 
 forfeited 7 . 
 
 In this way St Paul's position as a citizen must have been 
 of essential service in the spread of the Gospel. But this is 
 not exactly the point on which I wish to dwell. I am anxious 
 rather to point out that, having been so constantly in requisi- 
 tion, it must have impressed itself upon his mind with a 
 corresponding force. And thus he must have been led to 
 appreciate, as far as it was necessary for him to appreciate, the 
 position which Rome occupied as a teacher of the world. I 
 
 1 Cio. Verr. v. 67 ; Becker, n. (1), » Acts xxiii. 27. 
 
 p. 98. * Acts xxv. 12. 
 
 * Acts xxii. 28. 7 Tertull. Scorpiace § 15, de Praetcr. 
 8 Acts xvi. 37 sq. Heret. 86, etc. See Wieseler Chron. 
 
 * Acts xxii. 25 sq. p. 542. 
 
204 st paul's preparation 
 
 think there are very clear indications of this. It was no vulgar 
 pride or idle self-assertion, but a true political instinct, which 
 led St Paul to demand a practical apology from the magistrates 
 at Philippi. It is clear from his language on this occasion, as 
 on others, that he valued his position as a citizen of Rome. It 
 was something to be connected with that gigantic Empire, whose 
 presence he had felt everywhere, and which, in the restraints it 
 placed on the lawless opposition of his adversaries, presented 
 itself to him as a type and manifestation of that letting power 
 which keeps Antichrist in check till the last day (2 Thess. 
 
 ii. 7). 
 
 Nay, so strong is the impression left in his mind, that he 
 chooses the Roman franchise as the fittest image of the position 
 of the believer in his heavenly kingdom. I have already 
 referred to the language of Cicero in which he compares the 
 connexion of the different parts of the Roman empire by this 
 political tie to the circulation of the blood, language which 
 reminds us of the Apostle's own image of the Church as the 
 body knit together by its joints and ligatures (Col. ii. 19). 
 Another passage of the same writer suggests still more striking 
 points of comparison. ' I maintain it as a universal principle,' 
 says Cicero (pro Balbo c. 13), 'that there is no nation any- 
 where so hostile or disaffected to the Roman people, none so 
 united by ties of faith and friendship, that we are debarred 
 from admitting them to the right of citizens 1 .' What wonder 
 then if the Apostle saw a peculiar fitness in this image ? In the 
 guarantee it offered to individual freedom, in its independence 
 of circumstances of time and place, in its superiority over 
 inferior obligations, in the sympathy which it established 
 between all the members of the community, in the universality 
 of its application, lying as it did within the reach of all, far or 
 near, friend or foe — in all these points it expressed, as no other 
 earthly institution could do, the eternal relations of the king- 
 dom of Christ. Hence the language of St Paul, ' Our citizen- 
 ship is in heaven ' (Phil. iii. 20). ' Only perform your duties as 
 ' Becker u. (1), p. 93, note (18). 
 
FOR THE MINISTRY. 205 
 
 citizens in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ' (Phil. i. 27). 
 And in a third passage, where the image reappears, his 
 language seems to be coloured by the legal distinction of civea 
 and peregrini. ' Ye are no longer strangers and foreigners, but 
 fellow-citizens of the saints,' ovksti iare Ijipoi (the recognised 
 Greek equivalent of peregrini 1 ) xal irapoiicot,, dXka av/JLiroKlrai 
 r&v dyccav (Ephes. ii. 19). They were once peregrini, they 
 have been enrolled in the civitas coelitum. 
 
 All this shows the deep impression which the Roman 
 institutions had made on St Paul. And this being so, we 
 cannot be wrong in recognising here a special training for the 
 Apostleship of the Gentiles, opening out this wider view of 
 social life, and suggesting to him the true relation between the 
 ordinances of men and the Gospel of Christ. 
 
 2. But secondly, he was a native of Tarsus, the capital of 
 Cilicia, ' no mean city,' as he himself styles it'. We have it on 
 the authority of Strabo*, a contemporary of St Paul, that 
 Tarsus surpassed all other universities, such as Alexandria and 
 Athens, in the study of philosophy and educational literature 
 in general. ' Its great pre-eminence,' he adds, ' consists in this 
 that the men of learning here are all natives.' Accordingly he 
 and others 4 have made up a long catalogue of distinguished 
 men who flourished at Tarsus in the late autumn of Greek 
 learning : philosophers — of the Academy, of the Epicurean and 
 Stoic schools — poets, grammarians, physicians. At Tarsus, one 
 might say, you breathed the atmosphere of learning. How far 
 St Paul may have availed himself of these opportunities of 
 cultivating a knowledge of Greek literature, how much of his 
 boyhood and youth was spent here and how much at Jeru- 
 salem, we cannot say. His Jewish teacher Gamaliel, who was 
 distinguished for his liberality in this respect, would at least 
 have encouraged him not to neglect this culture. It has been 
 the tendency of recent writers to underrate St Paul's attain- 
 
 ' Plant. Rudetu, Prol. v. 2. 3 Strabo xiv. p. 673. 
 
 2 Acts xxi. 39, o6k iiriljpov r&ktut * Pauly BeaUEneyeU der class. Al- 
 
 ■iroMnp. terthilmer t.v. Tarsus. 
 
206 ST PAULS PBEPABATION 
 
 ments. The extravagant language of older writers has produced 
 a natural reaction. A treatise was even published 'On the 
 stupendous erudition of St Paul' 1 . Such exaggerations would 
 be ludicrous if they were not painful. The majesty of the 
 Gospel is not glorified by such means. St Paul's strength lay 
 in a widely-different direction. It was "not with enticing 
 words of wisdom or philosophy (ovk ev vbiOok <r<nj>ia<! Xoyots), 
 but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power' (1 Cor. ii. 4), 
 that he won his way. There is no ground for saying that 
 St Paul was a very erudite or highly-cultivated man. An 
 obvious maxim of practical life from Menander (1 Cor. xv. 33), 
 a religious sentiment of Cleanthes repeated by Aratus, himself 
 a native of Tarsus (Acts xvii. 28), a pungent satire of 
 Epimenides (Tit. i. 12), with possibly a passage here and 
 there which dimly reflects some classical writer, these are very 
 slender grounds on which to build the supposition of vast 
 learning. His style certainly does not conform to classical 
 models : his logic savours little of the dialectics of the schools. 
 But on the other hand he did get directly or indirectly from 
 contact with Greek thought and learning lessons far wider 
 and far more useful for his work than a perfect style or a 
 familiar acquaintance with the classical writers of antiquity. 
 Whoever will study carefully the picture of the gradual degra- 
 dation of the heathen world in the opening chapters to the 
 Romans, or, still better, the address to the philosophical 
 Athenians from the Areopagus, will see how thoroughly St 
 Paul entered into the moral and religious position of the 
 heathen world, and with what deep insight he traced its 
 relations, whether of contact or of contrast, with the great 
 message of which he was the bearer. These are only samples*. 
 If we recognise in such passages the voice of inspiration, in 
 union with that instinctive quickness of moral apprehension 
 which a tender love always inspires, we have still to look to 
 external influences to supply the material on which inspiration 
 
 i Schramm De Stupenda Eruditione 3 See Jowett The Epistles of St Paul 
 Pauli (1710). I. p. 352 sq. (1859). 
 
FOR THE MINISTRY. 207 
 
 might work. And foremost among these must be reckoned the 
 lessons derived from his residence in early life in the centre of 
 a great school — the greatest of its day — of Greek thought and 
 learning. 
 
 We are disposed indeed to think lightly of the literary 
 efforts of the Greeks at this late date: but though Greek 
 literature had now lost the freshness and beauty of the spring 
 and early summer of its existence, it had in the decline of its 
 autumn still a glory of its own. We must not forget that the 
 later schools of Greek philosophy exhibited a much greater 
 earnestness of moral purpose, whether for good or evil, and 
 achieved in consequence a much wider influence than the 
 earlier. And if later Greek literature was rather critical and 
 reproductive than original and imaginative, as the earlier had 
 been, this only rendered it a fitter handmaid for the diffusion 
 of the Gospel. It was required that the great Apostle of the 
 Gentiles should be able to understand the bearings of the 
 moral and religious life of Greece as expressed in her literature, 
 and this lesson he could learn more impartially and more fully 
 at Tarsus in the days of her decline, than at Athens in the 
 freshness of her glory. Greece in her old age was now summing 
 up, as it were, the experiences of her past life. 
 
 3. I have dwelt hitherto on the Gentile side of St Paul's 
 training. The most important feature in his education has 
 still to be considered. He was a Jew in the strictest sense of 
 the term. Let us take his account of himself. TrepiTopfj 
 OKTarjfiepos, iK yevovi 'I<rpaq\, $v\r}<; Tieviaftelp, 'E/fyato? ef 
 'E&paUov (Phil. iii. 5). 'I was not admitted to the privileges of 
 the covenant late in life, as a proselyte. I was circumcised on 
 the earliest day sanctioned by the law. I was not even the 
 son of proselyte parents, but of the race of Israel — Israel the 
 chosen of God. I was not descended from the rebellious 
 Ephraim, who had played fast and loose with the covenant, as 
 many Jews are, but from the select tribe of Benjamin, always 
 faithful to Jehovah.- I had no admixture of alien blood in my 
 veins, for my ancestors from first to last were Hebrews.' Thus 
 
208 ST PAULS PREPARATION 
 
 in respect of these four points, (1) the covenant, (2) race, 
 (3) tribe, (4) lineage, he was identified most closely and 
 narrowly with the chosen people of God. He includes himself 
 in the inmost circle of Judaism. 
 
 And not only this, but in sect, education and conduct 
 nothing was wanting to identify him fully with Jewish feeling 
 and Jewish life in its most rigid and trenchant form 1 . He was 
 a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. He had been instructed at 
 Jerusalem in the strictest principles of the law by Gamaliel, 
 one of the seven great doctors, 'the Beauty of the Law,' whom 
 all the Jews revered. He had carried out these principles with 
 the utmost zeal and devotion. He was surpassed by none. 
 
 And the lessons which he learnt in this way, and which 
 he could not have learnt so well in any other way, were two- 
 fold 
 
 First of all, there was the negative lesson of what the law 
 could not effect. He had borne in his own person the burden. 
 He had felt its galling pressure, striving earnestly, with all 
 the intensity of his nature, to meet its exactions. In propor- 
 tion as he increased his efforts, he had to confess his weakness 
 and inability. Who can read his pathetic description in the 
 Epistle to the Romans of the helplessness and despair of one 
 struggling under the weight of this load, without feeling that 
 the Apostle is drawing from his own personal experiences, that 
 these are the words not of a vague theorizer, but of a painful 
 sufferer. And here too it is important to observe the influence 
 of the sect to which he belonged Of the three great parties 
 who shared the empire of Jewish thought — the Essenes, the 
 Sadducees, the Pharisees — the last alone could teach him the 
 lesson in its completeness. On the Sadducee the law sat 
 loosely ; he could not entirely divest himself of it, for it was the 
 national badge, but he would wear it as lightly as he could. 
 The Essene indeed was a most strict observer of ordinances, but 
 the law was to him the starting-point of his mystical reveries, the 
 
 1 The chief passages relating to St 13, 14 ; Phil. iii. 5, 6 ; Acts xxii. 3, 
 Paul's Jewish experiences are GaL i. xxiii. 6, xxvi. 4, 6 ; 2 Oor. xi. 22. 
 
FOR THE MINISTRY. 209 
 
 foundation of an ascetic practice by which he hoped to extricate 
 the soul from the defilement of matter. Thus the Essenes 
 could abandon the law where it seemed to interfere with their 
 aspiration after purity, e.g. in sacrifice. To the Pharisee, on the 
 other hand, the law presented itself in a different light. He 
 regarded it as an end, as an absolute rule of conduct. He 
 respected it in and for itself. ' Fulfil the law and you shall live,' 
 was his motto. His vision did not extend beyond the law — 
 the law as laid down by Moses, and as enlarged and interpreted 
 by tradition. It was to him a compact strictly binding on 
 the contracting parties in its minutest details. And thus it 
 became to him, what it could scarcely have been to the Essene, 
 the means of righteousness {Sucaioavjnj ix vo/mov). This is just 
 the point which St Paul seizes upon as the important feature 
 of the law regarded as an instrument of training. It is in 
 contrast to, and in consequence of, it that he develops the 
 doctrine of grace, essentially the cardinal point in the Gospel 
 of the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
 But secondly, the positive influence which St Paul's Jewish 
 education exercised upon him was equally great and important. 
 Notwithstanding the opposition he met from his countrymen, 
 in spite of all the liberal and the awakened sympathies which 
 he derived from his work, despite the necessity of contending 
 daily and hourly for the freedom of the Gospel among 
 the Gentiles, he never ceased to be a Jew. From his 
 repeated denunciations against the Judaizers we are apt to 
 forget this feature in the Apostle's character until we are 
 startled to find by some passing allusion how deep-seated is this 
 feeling in his heart. The Apostle's whole nature was made up 
 of contrasts, and this was one. ' The strength of sin is the law,' 
 and 'the law is holy and righteous and good,' these two 
 maxims 1 he could hold together and repeat in one breath. The 
 most ardent patriot could not enlarge with greater pride on the 
 glories of the chosen race than he does in the Epistle to the 
 Bomans. His care for the poor in Judaea is a touching proof 
 i 1 Cor. xv. 56 ; Bom. vii. 12. 
 L. E. 14 
 
210 st paul's preparation 
 
 of the strength of this national feeling. His attendance at the 
 great annual festivals in Jerusalem is still more significant. ' I 
 must spend the coming feast at Jerusalem 1 ' (Aei fie irdvron; 
 ttjv eoprrjv rrjv ip^pfievrjv iroifj&ai et? 'lepoaoKvfia). This 
 language becomes the more striking when we remember that 
 he was then intending to open out a new field of missionary 
 labour in the far West, and was bidding perhaps his last farewell 
 to the Holy City, the joy of the whole earth. 
 
 And here again it is important to remark on his connexion 
 with the Pharisees. Whatever may have been their faults, they, 
 and they alone, entered into the religious feeling of the nation. 
 Hence their influence with the people. They were the true 
 historical link with the past, they represented the growing 
 consciousness of the chosen people, in the two all-essential 
 points in which it prepared the way for the Gospel — in their 
 belief in the immortality of the soul and in the cherished 
 expectation of the Messiah. In more senses than one they 
 sat in Moses' seat. The pure negativism of the Sadducee lent 
 no aid here. Even if he did entertain some faint Messianic 
 hopes, which is more than questionable, he deprived them of 
 all religious value by denying a future state. And so again 
 with the Essenes. Whatever importance we may attach to the 
 reveries of the mystic Essene recluse, as testifying to the 
 reality of a spiritual world, when all around was frozen and 
 stiffened into formalism, still in his isolation from the national 
 life of the Jews he lost that true historical instinct which was 
 the life-blood of the people, and with it the vivid anticipations of 
 the coming of Messiah. 
 
 It is not the spirit of the Sadducee, or of the Essene, but of 
 the Pharisee, the son of Pharisees, which breathes in these 
 glorious words, 'And now for the hope of the promise made by 
 God to our fathers I stand at the bar as a criminal, unto which 
 promise our twelve tribes, instantly ministering day and night, 
 
 1 Acts xviii. 21, cf. xx. 16. K St not affect the fact of his visit to Jeru- 
 Paul's words quoted above are to be salem at this orisis (Aots xviii. 22). 
 rejected as an interpolation, this does 
 
FOR THE MINISTRY. 211 
 
 hope to attain : for this hope I am accused, king Agrippa, by 
 Jews' (Acts xxvi. 6, 7). And whatever shadow of worldly policy- 
 may for a moment be supposed to have overclouded the 
 Apostle's conscience, as by his timely appeal he divided the 
 two rival sects on the question of the resurrection of the dead 1 , 
 still the appeal in itself was perfectly justifiable, because 
 perfectly true. His cause was the cause of the Pharisees, 
 while between them and the Sadducees a great gulf was 
 fixed. 
 
 I have thus traced the three threads which were in- 
 woven into the texture of the Apostle's mind, to strengthen 
 its fabric and so to prepare him for his great work. It may 
 be said indeed that when he is first brought before our notice, 
 he bears no traces of any other than Jewish influences. He is 
 a bigoted zealot, a narrow-minded persecutor. There is even 
 a strong contrast between the cautious liberality of Gamaliel the 
 master, and the persecuting rage of Saul the pupil. But is it not 
 a matter of common experience, that the lessons of youth often 
 lie for a time dormant and unnoticed, till they are suddenly 
 kindled into flame by some electric stroke from without ? The 
 miraculous appearance on the way to Damascus produced in 
 St Paul a change far greater indeed but analogous to that 
 which the more striking incidents of life have produced on 
 many another. It flashed a new light on vast stores of 
 experience laid up unconsciously in the past. It quickened 
 into energy influences long forgotten and seemingly dead. 
 The atoms of his nature assumed a fresh combination. The 
 lightning fused the Apostle's character and moulded it in a 
 new shape, and the knife of the torturer was forged into 
 the sword of the Spirit. 
 
 1 Acts xxiii. 6. 
 
 [1863.] 
 
 14—2 
 
V. 
 
 THE CHRONOLOGY OF ST PAUL'S LIFE AND 
 EPISTLES. 
 
Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
THE CHRONOLOGY OF ST PAUL'S LIFE AND 
 EPISTLES. 
 
 /"\N the subject, of the chronology of St Paul's life originality 
 ^^ is out of the question. Unless new documents are dis- 
 covered to throw fresh light upon the period, little or nothing 
 can be added to our present stock of knowledge. Recent 
 writers have treated the matter with a fulness which may be 
 considered exhaustive, and it only remains for those who are 
 later in the field to repeat and to sift the results at which their 
 predecessors have already arrived. 
 
 It may be as well to premise at the outset that as regards 
 the exact dates in St Paul's life absolute certainty is unattain- 
 able. An approximation to the truth is the most that we can 
 expect, but this approximation is all that is necessary for my 
 main object, which is to place his Epistles in connexion with 
 his life. This impossibility of arriving at definite chronological 
 results arises from the fact that there are very few points of 
 contact between the Acts of the Apostles and contemporary 
 history, and such points of contact as exist are of a vague 
 kind chronologically. Indeed there are only two events in 
 secular history which help us primarily in our search, though 
 there are other allusions of a more uncertain character which 
 can be appealed to as secondary and corroborative evidence. 
 The two events to which I refer are, (1) the death of Herod 
 Agrippa, (2) the procuratorship of Felix. We will proceed to 
 investigate them in turn. 
 
 1. The death of Herod Agrippa, which is recorded in 
 Acts xii. 23, is known to have fallen in 44 A.D. For Josephus 
 
216 THE CHRONOLOGY OF 
 
 says that at the time of his death he had already completed the 
 third year of his reign over the whole of Judaea (Ant. xix. 8. 2). 
 Now this dignity was conferred upon him by Claudius soon 
 after the commencement of that Emperor's reign, which took 
 place on January 24th, A.D. 41. He died after the Passover, for 
 it was during that festival that St Peter was imprisoned by him, 
 and soon after Herod left Jerusalem for the last time. Now 
 Herod's persecution of the Church and his subsequent death 
 are related by St Luke in connexion with St Paul's second visit 
 to Jerusalem. The account is inserted between the notices of 
 St Paul's journey thither and his return to Antioch. It must 
 not be assumed however that they exactly synchronized with that 
 visit. St Luke's language is indefinite, 'about that time,' and as his 
 object in digressing is to describe the state of the Church at 
 Jerusalem when St Paul arrived, the incidents which are then 
 interpolated in the narrative may be supposed to have happened 
 previously to that visit. In this case St Paul's second visit 
 to Jerusalem may be placed at the end of 44, or in 45. 
 
 St Paul's object in visiting Jerusalem on this occasion was 
 to carry relief to the Jews suffering from a dearth which extended 
 • over the whole land,' or, as others would translate, ' the whole 
 world' (e<f>' 3\iji» t^v oIkov/j-evtjv), and happened in the reign 
 of Claudius 1 . Unfortunately contemporaneous history does not 
 furnish us with the exact date of this dearth : but so far as we 
 can draw any conclusion, it is quite in accordance with the 
 result already obtained. We read of several famines occurring 
 at different times in different parts of the Roman Empire 
 during this reign, but of no general dearth. Among these, one 
 (and one only) is recorded as having happened in Judaea. 
 Whatever interpretation therefore is to be put upon the words 
 e<£' SXrju rriv olxovfievTjv, this must be the occasion in question, 
 as history supplies no other. 
 
 Now Josephus states 2 that this famine in Judaea fell in the 
 procuratorships of Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander. 
 Cuspius Fadus was appointed soon after the death of Herod 
 1 Ac*" *»• 28. s J b. Ant. xx. 5. 2. 
 
ST PAULS LIFE AND EPISTLES. 217 
 
 Agrippa, i.e. probably in 44, and Tiberius Alexander ceased to 
 be procurator about 48. During this period then (44-48) the 
 famine must have raged. Cuspius Fadus was still procurator 
 at the end of June 45, but the close of his office is uncertain. 
 If we suppose him to have been succeeded by Alexander in 46, 
 the famine may have broken out in 45, and spread over the 
 following year at least. 
 
 This date is further confirmed by another incident recorded 
 by Josephus 1 . Helena, Queen of Adiabene, having recently 
 embraced the Jewish religion, paid a visit to Jerusalem and, 
 finding the famine raging, purchased food for the sufferers. 
 This incident is inserted among events of 45, and the historian 
 immediately adds that about this time (tcara tovtov tov iccupov) 
 Fadus appeared in his province. It seems highly probable then 
 that the famine broke out in 45, and as the Christians of 
 Antioch had been prepared beforehand by the prophecyof Agabus, 
 and were ready with the means of relief, it may be presumed 
 that Paul and Barnabas would be sent to Jerusalem as soon as 
 the pressure began to be felt, i.e. in the year 45. 
 
 2. The date of the recall of Felix and the succession of 
 Festus to the procuratorship is not directly known, but may be 
 ascertained with a tolerable degree of accuracy. 
 
 Pentecost had already passed when St Paul was imprisoned 
 at Jerusalem 8 , and he remained in captivity two years before 
 Festus reached his province. Festus therefore did not arrive 
 before Pentecost. Again, at the great fast of the same year, 
 which fell in October, St Paul was as far as Crete on his way 
 to Borne. Festus therefore must have entered upon his pro- 
 curatorship between Pentecost and October, i.e. some time in 
 the summer or autumn of the year. We have now to deter- 
 mine this year. 
 
 The following considerations show that it could not well 
 have been earlier than A.D. 60 : — 
 
 (a) St Paul pleading before Felix (Acts xxiv. 10) says: 
 ' I know that thou hast been of many years (e/e iroW&v ir&v) a 
 1 Jos. Ant. xx. 2. 6, xx. S. 2. 2 Acta xx. 16, xxi. 27. 
 
218 THE CHBONOLOGY OF 
 
 judge unto this nation.' Now Felix entered upon his procura- 
 torship at the close of 52, and, if we allow between five and six 
 years for the period designated ttoXKo, %tt), this will give 58 as 
 the date of St Paul's imprisonment, and 60 as that of Felix' 
 recall. We can scarcely allow less, and on the other hand, con- 
 sidering the rapid succession of the procurators at this time, a 
 period of five or six years might fairly be considered a long term 
 of office. 
 
 (6) Nero came to the Imperial throne in October 54. Now 
 Josephus 1 mentions several incidents which happened during the 
 procuratorship of Felix subsequent to Nero's accession, and 
 these together must have occupied a considerable time. These 
 events include the death of Azizus, king of Emesa, the succession 
 of Aristobulus to the kingdom of Chalcis, and the readjustment 
 of the dominions of the younger Agrippa. They cover the period 
 of the 'great quarrel' between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants 
 of Csesarea, which was closed by the armed intervention of the 
 Roman procurator. Describing the jealousy which arose at 
 this time between Felix and the high priest Jonathan, and 
 which led to the assassination of Jonathan in the streets of 
 Jerusalem by the governor's order, Josephus speaks of the 
 reign of terror which, as the result of this dark deed, prevailed 
 at festival times from the bands of assassins, who infested the 
 capital, murdering their private enemies with impunity, even 
 inside the sacred precincts. He devotes two long chapters to 
 an account of the various robbers and impostors who flourished 
 during this period of Felix's procuratorship, beginning with 
 Eleazar, son of Dinseus, who was treacherously slain by Felix, 
 and culminating in the formidable insurrection of the Egyptian. 
 
 (c) This last-mentioned incident, the rebellion headed by 
 the Egyptian, is alluded to by Claudius Lysias (Acts xxi. 38), 
 on the occasion of St Paul's imprisonment, as having happened 
 some time before (71730 tovtiov raw rmeprnv). We may fairly 
 allow five or six years for the events which happened previously 
 (as enumerated in the last paragraph), for the duration of this 
 1 Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 1 — 8, B. J. ii. 13. 
 
ST PAULS LIFE AND EPISTLES. 219 
 
 rebellion itself, and for the period which elapsed; and this again 
 will bring the date of St Paul's imprisonment to AD. 58. 
 
 If this consideration leads to the year 60 as the earliest 
 probable date of the recall of Felix, there are other circumstances 
 which show that it cannot well have been later. 
 
 (1) Felix was the brother of Pallas, the notorious favourite 
 of the Emperor Claudius, and after he had been removed from 
 the procuratorship to make room for Festus, was only saved 
 from the clamours of the Jews by the intercession of his brother. 
 As Pallas was poisoned A.D. 62 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 65), Felix must 
 have been recalled before this. It might have been supposed that 
 this incident occurred before the removal of Pallas from power, 
 a.d. 55, related by Tacitus {Ann. xiii. 14), but the considerations 
 already adduced preclude this supposition. 
 
 (2) Again St Paul, after his arrival in Rome, preaches two 
 whole years unmolested (Acts xxviii. 30, 31). The great fire at 
 Rome broke out in July 64, and the persecution of the Christians 
 commenced immediately after. Thus the Apostle cannot have 
 arrived in Rome later than 62, and Felix must have been re- 
 called in the summer of 61 at the latest. 
 
 (3) But there are other considerations which lead to the 
 previous year 60 as the probable date of St Paul's arrival at 
 Rome, for in Acts xxviii. 16 his fellow-prisoners are given 
 up to the prefect of the praetorium (t& arpaToireSapxr)). Now 
 Burrus held the office of prefect alone, but after his death it 
 was shared by two, as had been the case also before his appoint- 
 ment. As the plural is generally U3ed in similar cases, the 
 singular here would seem to imply that there was but one 
 prefect at this time, i.e. that Burrus was still living. But Burrus 
 died early in the year 62 (in February at the latest) 1 , and St Paul 
 can scarcely have arrived in Rome before the end of March. 
 The great fast, which fell on the 10th of Tishri (corresponding 
 roughly to October), had already passed when the ship left 
 Lassea in Crete. The voyage thence to Malta occupied four- 
 teen days, and there they stayed three months, leaving for 
 
 1 Tao. Ann. xiv. 52. 
 
220 THE CHRONOLOGY OF 
 
 Puteoli by an Alexandrian vessel, that had wintered at Malta 
 (Acts xxviii. 11). The season at which the seas became navig- 
 able is stated by Vegetius 1 to be the sixth before the Ides 
 of March. For long voyages Pliny* places it at the vernal 
 equinox. Taking the earlier date we have to allow three 
 days for the stay at Syracuse, one for the delay at Rhegium, 
 two for the voyage thence to Puteoli, and seven for the stay at 
 Puteoli (Acts xxviii. 12 — 14). Besides this we have to account 
 for the voyages from Malta to Syracuse and from Syracuse to 
 Rhegium, with the journey from Puteoli to Rome, St Luke not 
 having stated the time occupied by these. If therefore Burrus 
 was still living when St Paul reached the metropolis, he must 
 have arrived in the preceding year 61, and Felix must have 
 been recalled in the summer of 60. 
 
 (4) This date is further borne out by another considera- 
 tion. Felix was succeeded by Festus, Festus by Albinus. Now 
 Albinus was already procurator at the Feast of Tabernacles A.D. 
 62. For the Jewish war broke out in 66, and Albinus was at 
 Jerusalem at the season of this festival four years before. How 
 long he had held office at that time we are ignorant. At most 
 however this would allow only a year and a quarter for the 
 procuratorship of Festus, supposing him to have entered on 
 his office in the summer of 61. But the number of incidents 
 which Josephus records as having taken place during his pro- 
 curatorship can scarcely be crowded into this short space of 
 time ; and we are thus led to the year 60 as the more probable 
 date of his appointment. 
 
 We have thus ascertained two fixed dates in the chronology 
 of St Paul's life — A.D. 45 for his second journey to Jerusalem 
 and A.D. 60 for his voyage to Rome. The former of these being 
 an isolated event in St Luke's narrative is of little value com- 
 paratively for our purpose ; but from the latter the whole of the 
 known chronology of St Paul's life is determined, by means 
 of the notices in the Acts of the sequence of events and the 
 
 1 Vegetiua de re militari iv. 89. a Pliny N. H. ii. 47. 
 
st Paul's life and epistles. 221 
 
 time occupied by them, together with occasional allusions in the 
 Epistles. 
 
 These notices in St Luke's narrative are much more exact in 
 the latter part of the history, commencing with the third 
 missionary journey, than in the former : and it will be seen from 
 the following table how the dates of the Apostle's life are 
 ascertained by a backward reckoning from the date of the 
 procuratorship of Festus. 
 
 A.D. 
 
 34. St Paul's conversion. 
 
 C£ Gal. i. 15 sq. Three years after his conversion he went up to 
 Jerusalem, for (1) the point of time is obviously his conversion, for 
 the argument depends on that, and (2) pcra rpta en; must mean 
 three whole years, or substantially so, for the preposition nera, to 
 say nothing of the argument, excludes the supposition of a Judaical 
 reckoning, by which a term of a little more than a year might be 
 so designated 1 . 
 
 He visits Arabia, and returns to Damascus (Gal. i. 17, Acts ix. 20-25, 
 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33). 
 
 37. First visit to Jerusalem (Acts ix. 26, Gal. i. 18). 
 
 Cf. Gal. ii. 1. Between the first and third visit to Jerusalem a period 
 of 14 years elapsed, for (1) the visit recorded in this passage of the 
 Galatians must be identified with the third of the Acts, (2) ita 
 dfKaTfcraapav erav must be reckoned from the first visit, not from the 
 date of the Apostle's conversion, because St Paul's object is to show how 
 long a period elapsed without his holding communication with the 
 Apostles of the Circumcision, (3) n-aXtv dvi^r/y refers back to the 
 previous visit. 
 
 37-44. To Csesarea and Tarsus, visit to Syria (Acts ix. 30, Gal. i. 21). 
 
 44. St Paul brought by Barnabas to Antioch. He stays there a year 
 (Acts xi. 26). 
 
 45. Second visit to Jerusalem with alms (Acts xi. 29, 30). 
 
 46. 47. At Antioch. 
 
 48. First Missionary Joueney (Acts xiiL 1-xiv. 26) with Barnabas. 
 He visits Cyprus, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and 
 returns to Antioch. 
 
 1 [In his commentary on the Gala- version in a.d. 36, and the first visit to 
 tiane, however, Dr Lightfoot adopts the Jerusalem in a.d. 38 ; see note on Gal. 
 Jewish reckoning, and places the oon- ii. 1, 2.] 
 
222 THE CHRONOLOGY OF 
 
 A.D. 
 
 51. Third visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas (Qal. ii. 1 sq., Acts xv. 1 sq.). 
 The Council of Jerusalem. 
 
 Returns to Antioch. The interview with Peter (Qal. ii. 11 sq.). 
 Second Missionary Journey (Acts xv. 36-xviii. 22) with Silas. 
 First visit to Qalatia. 
 
 52. Crosses into Europe. First visit to Philippi, Thessalonica, and 
 
 Corinth. 
 
 [1 Thessalonians.] 
 
 53. At Corinth. 
 
 [2 Thessalonians.] 
 
 54. (Spring) Leaves Corinth for Ephesus. 
 
 (Summer) Fourth visit to Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts xviii. 21, 22). 
 
 Returns to Antioch. 
 
 (Autumn) Third Mission art Jodrney (Acts xviii. 23-xxi. 15). 
 
 Second visit to Galatia (Acts xviii. 23, Gal. iv. 13-16). 
 
 To Ephesus again. 
 
 55. At Ephesus. 
 
 Second visit to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, 2). 
 
 56. At Ephesus. Sends a letter (now lost) to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 
 v. 9). 
 
 Reply from the Corinthians (1 Cor. vii. 1). 
 
 57. (Spring) At Ephesus. Mission of Timotheus to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 
 10-12, Acts xix. 22). 
 
 [1 Corinthians.] 
 First Mission of Titus to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 18). 
 St Paul leaves Ephesus, overtaking Timotheus (?). 
 Visits Troas and Macedonia. 
 Second visit to Philippi and Thessalonica. 
 (Autumn) Titus rejoins St Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6). 
 
 [2 Corinthians.] 
 Second Mission of Titus to Corinth. 
 (Winter) Third visit to Corinth (Acts xx. 2). 
 [Galatians '.] 
 
 58. (Spring) At Corinth. 
 
 [Romans.] 
 Third visit to Philippi ; meets the elders of Ephesus at Miletus. 
 (Summer) Fourth visit to Jerusalem : arrested and sent to Csssarea. 
 
 59. At Ceesarea. 
 
 60. (Autumn) Voyage to Rome, and shipwreck at Malta. 
 
 61. (Spring) Arrival at Rome. 
 
 1 The Epistle to the Galatians may of a.d. 58. 
 have been written in the early spring 
 
ST PAULS LIFE AND EPISTLES. 223 
 
 A.D. 
 
 62. (Spring) At Rome. 
 
 [Philippians.] 
 (Autumn) [Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon.] 
 
 63. (Spring) Release of St Paul. 
 
 St Luke's narrative mentions 'two whole years 1 (Acts xxviii. 30) as 
 the period of St Paul's sojourn at Rome. The notice implies a change 
 at the end of this period, hence we fix the release in the spring of 63. 
 
 63-66. First journey Eastward. 
 
 (?) He revisits Macedonia. Fourth visit to Philippi (raxcas (keiro/iai, 
 
 Phil. ii. 24). 
 
 (?) Revisits Asia and Phrygia. Visit to Colossae (Philemon 22). 
 
 Journey Westward. 
 
 (?) Founds the Church of Crete. 
 
 Visits Spain, Gaul (?) (2 Tim. iv. 10), and Dalmatia (?) (2 Tim. iv. 10). 
 
 Second journey Eastward. 
 
 Revisits Asia and Phrygia (2 Tim. i. 15 sq.). Visits Ephesus (1 Tim. 
 
 i. 3) ; here probably he encounters Alexander the coppersmith (1 Tim. 
 
 i. 20, 2 Tim. iv. 14). Leaves Timothy in charge of the Ephesian 
 
 Church. 
 
 67. Revisits Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3). Fifth visit to Philippi. 
 (?) Revisits Achaia (Athens and Corinth). 
 
 [1 Timothy.] 
 Visits (perhaps revisits) Crete, and leaves Titus in charge of the 
 Church there (Titus i. 5). Returns to Asia. 
 
 [Titus.] 
 Visits Miletus (2 Tim. iv. 20), sails to Troas (2 Tim. iv. 13), is at 
 Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 20) on his way to Nicopolis to winter (Tit. iii. 12). 
 (Autumn) Arrested (probably at Corinth) 1 , and carried to Rome. 
 Titus joins him there. 
 
 [2 Timothy.] 
 Timothy shares his imprisonment (Heb. xiii. 23). 
 68(?). (Spring) Martyrdom of St Paul (Jerome de vir. illustr. 5 'in 
 the fourteenth year of Nero ' 2 ). 
 
 June. Death of Nero. 
 
 The table of the events of St Paul's life given above has 
 been drawn up with the special object of presenting a record 
 of the Apostle's association with the Churches to which he wrote 
 
 1 Nero was in Greece from a.d. 66 to 3 Eusebius (Ohronicon) placeB it ' in 
 August a.d. 67 (Suet. Nero 19 sq. ; Job. the thirteenth year of Nero ' i.e. before 
 B. J. ii. 20. 1). Oct. 67. 
 
224 
 
 THE CHRONOLOGY OF 
 
 letters, and of the periods of his epistolary activity. It remains 
 for us now to consider in their mutual relations the letters 
 which have come down to us. 
 
 The Epistles of St Paul may be divided into four chrono- 
 logical groups, each group being separated from the next by an 
 interval of about five years, each group again corresponding to a 
 marked epoch in the Apostle's life, and representing a distinct 
 phase in his teaching. To make my meaning clear, I give the 
 scheme in a tabulated form : — 
 
 Pebiod 
 
 1. Second Missionary 
 Journey 
 
 Third Missionary 
 Journey 
 
 First Roman 
 Captivity 
 
 4. After the Release, 
 
 including the Second 
 
 Roman Captivity. 
 
 Epistles 
 
 Dates 
 
 1 and 2 
 Thessalonians 
 
 A.D. 52, 53 
 
 1 and 2 
 
 Corinthians 
 
 Qalatians 
 
 Romans 
 
 57,58 
 
 Philippians 
 Ephesians 
 Colossians 
 Philemon 
 
 62, 63 
 
 1 Timothy 
 
 Titus 
 
 2 Timothy 
 
 67,68 
 
 Characteristics 
 
 Christ the Judge 
 
 or 
 
 The Tribunal 
 
 Christ the Redeemer 
 
 or 
 
 The Cross 
 
 Christ the Word 
 
 or 
 
 The Throne 
 
 Church Organisation 
 
 or 
 The Congregation 
 
 These dates are in some cases approximate only. Thus 
 there is a possibility that 1 Thessalonians was written in 
 A.D. 51, and 2 Thessalonians in A.D. 52 ; a possibility also that 
 the Epistles of the First Roman Captivity should be antedated 
 a year throughout ; but upon the whole the above is the result 
 which falls in best with the chronology of St Paul's life as given 
 above ; and the phenomenon which this result presents throws 
 much light upon the way in which we should approach the 
 study of Holy Scripture as the vehicle of Divine revelation. 
 
 In every inspired writing there are two elements, the human 
 and the Divine, or, as it is sometimes expressed, the letter and 
 the spirit; and the different views held of the doctrine of 
 inspiration depend upon the prominence given to one or the 
 other of these elements, and the judgment formed of their 
 
st patjl's life and epistles. 225 
 
 mutual relations. Hence it will be seen that no conceivable shade 
 of opinion is excluded, and every attempt at classifying these 
 views must be more or less fallacious. But it will be sufficiently 
 exact for our present purpose roughly to assume a threefold 
 division in the attitude taken by writers on this question — in 
 the first of these the Divine element being too exclusively 
 considered, in the second this undue prominence being assigned 
 to the human agency, and in the third, and only adequate view 
 of inspiration, each of these elements being recognised in 
 its proper sphere and the two harmoniously combined. The 
 first of these views is irrational, the second is rationalistic, 
 the third alone is in accordance alike with the highest reason 
 and the fullest faith. 
 
 The irrational view — that which loses sight of the human 
 agency — is prior in time (I am speaking now of modem criti- 
 cism) to the rationalistic. It refuses to recognise any peculiar- 
 ities in the individual writer who is under the guidance of the 
 Spirit; it is insensible to any varieties in style, any differ- 
 ence in the method of treatment in different books of Holy 
 Scripture. It reduces the whole Bible to one uniform colour. 
 It is needless to say that such a view must fall at once before 
 the assaults of criticism. If this were all, it might be borne 
 patiently, but unhappily it has dragged down the tottering faith 
 of not a few in its fall. It may also be said that it is derogatory 
 to the majesty of God, that it has no support from analogy in 
 His workings elsewhere, and no' authority from Holy Scripture 
 itself. 
 
 This theory of inspiration provokes a reaction. The rational- 
 istic view is the natural consequence of its exaggerated form. 
 In this the human element is put so prominently forward that 
 the Divine is obscured. The Divine agencyis perhaps not actually 
 denied, but it is so virtually. By indefinitely extending the 
 action of inspiration, it is in fact rendered meaningless. It is 
 allowed that Moses and David, that St Paul and St John, were 
 inspired, but then the same privilege is claimed for Homer and 
 jEschylus, for Pythagoras and Plato. Now I should be the last 
 L. E. 15 
 
226 THE CHRONOLOGY OF 
 
 to deny that whatever is good, whatever is beautiful, whatever 
 is true in the heathen writers is derived from the primal source 
 of all beauty, truth and goodness. I have been taught — and I 
 fully believe it — that every good gift and every perfect gift 
 cometh from above. But practically there is such a vast diffe- 
 rence between the illumination of the apostle and prophet, and 
 the illumination of the philosopher and poet, that to call both 
 by the same term ' inspiration,' instead of tending to clear our 
 conceptions, does in fact leave a very erroneous impression on 
 our minds. Inspiration is thus emptied of its significance. 
 
 The true view is a mean between these extremes, or rather 
 it is a combination of the two. It recognises the element of 
 truth which each contains, adopting and uniting the elements. 
 And it recognises them too in all their fulness. It does not 
 assign less power to the Divine agency, nor does it ignore any 
 of the characteristics of the human instrument. The truth is 
 one, but it has many sides. One man is more fitted than 
 another by natural endowments to appreciate it from some 
 particular point of view. No man is capable of seeing it from 
 every side, else he becomes more than a man. The Holy Spirit 
 has chosen His instruments, as Christ chose His Apostles, for 
 their natural gifts, whether intellectual or spiritual, and has 
 inspired them for our instruction and guidance. But He has 
 not destroyed their individuality. Each with his special mes- 
 sage to deliver, they become fit instruments under Divine guid- 
 ance to develop a particular aspect of the truth, and we may 
 suppose, without presumption, that they had each their part 
 assigned them, according to their natural capabilities and acquire- 
 ments, in penning the volume of Holy Scripture, as we know 
 that they had in rearing the fabric of the Church. 
 
 To sum up and to apply what has been said. Inspiration is 
 not a mechanical power or a magical agency. It does not use 
 men merely as its instruments. It is a moral and spiritual 
 power. It does not transmute its agents: it moulds them. 
 Hence, as a natural result arising from the varied circumstances 
 and training of the inspired writers, it is not uniform. And, for 
 
ST PAULS LIFE AND EPISTLES. 227 
 
 a right appreciation of the lessons of Holy Scripture, three 
 stages in this absence of uniformity must be recognised. First, 
 there is a growth from age to age. From the Law we advance 
 to the prophets ; from the prophets to the Gospels. Thus in- 
 spiration is developed. Secondly, there is a diversity of inspira- 
 tion in different persons in the same age. One sacred writer, 
 St Paul, views the Gospel as the abrogation of the Law ; another, 
 St James, as its fulfilment. They are not contradictory, but 
 complementary the one to the other, for the Gospel is at once 
 the abrogation and the fulfilment of the Law. One Evangelist, 
 St John, dwells chiefly on the Eternal Sonship of the Saviour ; 
 another, St Luke, on His human tenderness and His sympathy 
 with our infirmities. They are both true, for He is very God 
 and very Man. Thus they have different functions to perform ; 
 their ofiice is to set forth the Gospel message from different 
 points of view, which are determined by their respective positions 
 and characters. Thirdly, there is a diversity in the same writer 
 in different stages in his career. When we apply this principle to 
 St Paul, we discover on examination that he exhibits a historical 
 development in his teaching. By the word 'development' is 
 meant, not that St Paul added to his doctrines, but that he 
 altered the lights in which he placed them, making one point 
 more prominent at one time than at another. The whole 
 doctrine is there from the first implicitly involved in the funda- 
 mental conception of the person of Christ, but the particular 
 aspects are brought into special prominence, as they are called out 
 at different times by the exigencies of external circumstances. 
 
 These external circumstances are twofold ; first, the varying 
 requirements of the Church at large, secondly, the altered con- 
 ditions of the Apostle's own life. These are the two forces through 
 which inspiration acts upon the development of St Paul's 
 teaching; and the progress in his case I have endeavoured 
 to express in the watchwords which I have attached above to 
 the four groups of Epistles—' The Tribunal,' ' The Cross,' ' The 
 Throne,' ' The Congregation.' 
 
 For the sake of convenience we will set aside the chrono- 
 
 15—2 
 
228 THE CHRONOLOGY OF 
 
 logical order, and consider, at the outset, the first and the fourth 
 group of his Epistles. The doctrine of the Epistles to the 
 Thessalonians throughout is the Second Advent, 'Christ the 
 Judge.' This is the one prominent idea which runs through 
 this pair of letters from end to end. Similarly, the purpose of 
 the Pastoral Epistles is ecclesiastical organization. In the light 
 of the external circumstances of the Church at the two periods 
 involved, the reasons for this striking difference between the two 
 groups are hardly less obvious than the fact of its existence. 
 
 It is only natural that the doctrine of the Second Advent 
 should occur early in the Pauline Epistles. And this for several 
 reasons. The Resurrection was the central point in the teach- 
 ing of the Twelve after the Day of Pentecost, and the Resur- 
 rection naturally suggested its necessary correlative, the Second 
 Coming of Christ. Again, the doctrine of the Second Advent 
 involved the doctrine of rewards for faithful service in the infancy 
 of the Church. When persecution was rife, the disciples would 
 need the necessary incentive to steadfastness under trial which 
 such a promise brought with it. Thirdly, the expectation of 
 the Second Advent implied the call to repentance, and therefore 
 found its natural place in the forefront of St Paul's early teach- 
 ing, just as the Baptist's cry 'Repent' preceded our Lord's 
 ministry. Thus, in his discourse on the Areopagus, St Paul, 
 after drawing attention to God's presence in nature, goes on to 
 point the moral of the special doctrine of revelation as repent- 
 ance resulting upon Christ's coming to judgment 1 . Lastly, 
 Messianic hopes had to be satisfied. Hitherto, externally every- 
 thing had ended in disappointment. The King had suffered a 
 malefactor's death ; and the Ascension, which followed upon the 
 triumph of the Resurrection, was, to Jewish Christians, if not a 
 negation, at least a deferring, of the promised kingdom of God. 
 Thus the Second Advent became the answer to Messianic 
 expectations. 
 
 And if the Second Advent furnished the natural theme for 
 St Paul's earliest Epistles, not less obvious is it why his latest 
 1 AotB xvii. 30, 31. 
 
st Paul's life and epistles. 229 
 
 utterances should have been devoted to the question of the 
 organization of the Church. A study of the history of the 
 Church at this period shows a growing restlessness both in 
 thought and action, synchronizing with the withdrawal of the 
 teachers most competent to check these disorders. Schisms and 
 heresies were starting into life within the fold, and meanwhile 
 the apostolate was dying out. Therefore a double necessity 
 was laid upon 'Paul the aged' to meet this danger by strengthen- 
 ing and developing the Church's system of government. If we 
 look at the Pastoral Epistles, we find no new doctrine inculcated. 
 The two notes which are struck again and again are (1) ' Hold 
 fast the tradition' (rrjv irapadr\Ki\v <f>v\a^ov 1 Tim. vi. 20, 2 Tim. 
 i. 14), and (2) ' Preserve order in the Church.' In short, this 
 group of Epistles constitutes St Paul's last will and testament, 
 in which he gives his final instructions for the maintenance and 
 continuity of the faith. 
 
 Thus the two letters to the Thessalonians and the Pastoral 
 Epistles may be entitled the preface and the postscript re- 
 spectively to the Pauline literature, its prologue and its 
 epilogue. We have now cleared the ground, and may pass 
 on to consider the second and third of the groups of Epistles, 
 which contain the main substance of the Apostle's doctrine. 
 And here a somewhat fuller explanation will be necessary. The 
 ancient Greek Fathers divided what we call by the general 
 name of 'Theology' into two distinct provinces, olxovofiia and 
 0eo\oyia. The first of these two terms points, as its deriva- 
 tion implies, to a Divine dispensation. The Church is, in effect, 
 the household (o ol/eos) of God, and q oUovofila is the plan by 
 which God rules His household. It is the means whereby 
 God ransoms from sin. It includes the dispensation of the 
 gifts and graces of the Spirit which form part of the Divine 
 ' household-stuff.' On the other hand, as understood by the 
 Fathers, fj deoXoyta directed itself to the contemplation of 
 Christ's Eternal Being — His relation to the Father and the Holy 
 Spirit before the worlds were made. It was in this technical 
 sense of the word that Gregory of Nazianzus and St John 
 
230 THE CHRONOLOGY OF 
 
 alike procured the title of 6 deoXoyo?. Thus the spheres in 
 which the two sciences move are different. The one centres 
 round the Incarnation and embraces all that flows therefrom; 
 the other, taking for its theme the Divine attributes of Christ, 
 pierces behind the Incarnation to the Eternal, Pre-existent Word. 
 This twofold division in the province of Theology has its counter- 
 part in the two groups of St Paul's Epistles with which we are 
 now concerned. The distinctive feature of the Epistles of the 
 Third Missionary Journey is the stress laid upon oUovo/iia ; on 
 the other hand, the Epistles of the First Roman Captivity deal 
 mainly with 0eo\oyia. I have therefore given as its leading 
 characteristic to the one group, ' the Cross,' to the other, ' the 
 Throne.' 
 
 Justification, Atonement, Sacrifice — the vast majority of 
 passages which bear upon these doctrines are to be found in the 
 Epistles of the second group. And if we turn to the circum- 
 stances of the Church at the period at which they were written, 
 the reason becomes obvious. This was the time of St Paul's 
 great conflict with Judaism on the one hand and Hellenism on 
 the other. The Cross of Christ contains the complete answer 
 to the error of both, to the formalism of the one and the anti- 
 nomianism of the other. 'Christ died for us' — here is the 
 reply to the legalism of the Jew, setting forth that the true 
 ground of Christian hope is faith, not works; "we must die 
 with Christ' — here is the reply to the license of the Greek, 
 exhibiting as it does the true motive of life. In short, there 
 is a work done for us, and a work done in us. The two must 
 not be separated. Christ's righteousness, so St Paul tells us, 
 cannot become our righteousness, unless we become one with 
 Christ, unless we live in Christ. It is this repose in Christ 
 which makes sin impossible. This is St Paul's doctrine. He 
 never sacrifices the one proposition to the other. When he 
 dwells on the truth ' Christ died for us,' he is ever mindful of 
 its correlative ' We must die with Christ,' i.e. die to self and to 
 sin. He never separates the religious belief from the moral 
 change. Nay, he cannot conceive of the two as separated. For 
 
st patjl's life and epistles. 231 
 
 faith in Christ is a moral as well as an intellectual state, and 
 with St Paul its moral aspect is in fact the more prominent of 
 the two. So that not 'justification by faith' so much as 'dying 
 and living with Christ ' ' oneness with Christ ' may be regarded 
 as the central point of his Gospel. This is the meaning of his 
 constantly repeated phrase ' in the Lord,' * in Christ ' (ev Kvpltp, 
 ev Xpurrtp) 1 , and this fact it is which, when once realised, makes 
 it impossible even to suspect an opposition between St Paul 
 and St James in their fundamental views, though the verbal 
 statement of them is at first sight different 2 . The two proposi- 
 tions of the antithesis contain the answer to the two fundamental 
 errors of the Jew and the Gentile. The Jewish error, which was 
 dogmatic, rested upon a false ground of hope. The Hellenic 
 error, which was practical, sprang from a false theory of life. 
 The Jewish convert said, 'We are saved by the works of the law.' 
 St Paul's answer is, * No : Christ died for us. A work has been 
 done for us by God; and we are saved by faith in Christ' 
 (meaning thereby, faith in Christ, with all that the idea conveys 
 with it). The Gentile convert said, ' We are no longer under 
 the works of the law. We are free to do as we like ; let us sin 
 that grace may abound.' ' No,' replies the Apostle, • we must 
 die with Christ ; Christ's work must be done in us.' Thus the 
 danger of the one was bondage; the danger of the other 
 license. These respective errors he meets separately in writing 
 to the Galatians and to the Corinthians. The watchword of 
 
 1 'Ev Kvply Bom. xiv. 14, xvi. 2, 8, Hence Lather's saying ' Sin, and sin 
 
 11,12,13,22; 1 Cor. iv. 17, vii. 22, 39, boldly,' though Luther himself was 
 
 ix. 1, 2, xi. 11, xv. 58, xvi. 19 ; 2 Cor. anything bnt antinomian. Mr M. 
 
 ii. 12 etc. ; iv Xpurrf Bom. iii. 24, vi. Arnold justly protests against this 
 
 11, 23, viii. 1, 2, 39, ix. 1, xii. S, xv. 17, perversion, this one-sided view, of St 
 
 xvi. 3, 7, 10; 1 Cor. i. 2, 4, 30, iii. 1, Paul's doctrine, and all its dangerous 
 
 iv. 10, 15, 17, xv. 18, 19, 31; 2 Cor. ii. consequences, dangerous to practice 
 
 17, v. 17, xii. 2, 19 etc and dangerous to belief, for it has 
 
 3 Some modem teachers however, done more than almost anything else 
 
 alleging his name, have forgotten the to repel the moral sense. On the 
 
 one proposition or the other. Taking other hand, Mr M. Arnold himself, it 
 
 justification by faith and by faith alone seems to me, has thrown the other 
 
 as their watchword, they have produced, proposition ' Christ died for us ' a little 
 
 as an extreme result, antinomianism. too much into the background. 
 
232 THE CHRONOLOGY OP 
 
 the one Epistle is 'liberty, not license'; of the other 'Not 
 license, but liberty,' though in neither is the antithetical pro- 
 position suppressed 1 . Finally in the Epistle to the Romans 
 the composite character of the Church which he addressed 
 compelled him to combine the two aspects, and to treat them in 
 a full exposition. 
 
 And side by side with the special questions which were 
 agitating the Church at large at this crisis of her history, must 
 be set the particular circumstances of the Apostle's life. This 
 was its most tumultuous period, a time of constant travel, of 
 bitter personal opposition, of ceaseless activities of every kind. 
 All this combined to fit him at this time to be the exponent of 
 this particular side of Gospel truth. 
 
 We turn to the third group of Epistles, and at once we 
 notice a change of subject-matter. The metaphysical, mystical, 
 contemplative aspects of the Gospel are brought out into special 
 prominence. In place of the lessons of soteriology and re- 
 demption which we meet with in the Epistles of the Third 
 Missionary Journey, Christ is exhibited as the Eternal Word, as 
 God manifest in the flesh*, and, as the corollary upon this 
 teaching, is set forth the union of the individual and the Church 
 with God through Christ 8 . Christ's reign in heaven, His pre- 
 existence, His omnipotence, form the Apostle's theme rather 
 than His life on earth, His humiliation, the example of His 
 perfect character. The Church militant is for the time lost in 
 the Church triumphant. As before, the secret of this change 
 of thought is to be found in the altered conditions of the 
 Apostle's life and the Church's needs. A lengthened term of 
 imprisonment, first at Csesarea, then at Rome, had succeeded 
 upon a period of bustling, strained activity. In God's good 
 
 1 Contrast generally Gal. ii. 15 sq corrective), ix. 19, 21, x. 14, 16, 23, 82, 
 
 (vv. 19, 20 supply the corrective), iii. 2, ii 3, xii 12, 27, 2 Cor. i. 5, iv. 10 12, 
 
 10 sq, v. 3—6, 11 {w. 13 sq, 16 sq v. 17—20 (v. 21 corrective), 
 corrective), vi. 14, with 1 Cor. v. 6, 7 » Cf. Eph. i. 10, 20-23, iii. 15, iv. 15, 
 
 (v. 7 ical yhp rb rdrxa corrective), vi. vi. 9 j Phil. ii. 6 sq ; Col. i. 15 sq, 
 
 9 sq (v. 11 corrective), 16 sq (». 20 ii. 9 sq, iii. 1, 4, eto. 
 corrective), vii. 19, 28, viii. 8, 9 (o. 11 a Cf. Phil. iii. 20 ; Eph. ii. 19, eto. 
 
ST PAULS LIFE AND EPISTLES. 233 
 
 providence St Paul was enjoying a season of uninterrupted rest, 
 which gave the opportunity for a contemplation of the highest 
 mysteries of the faith. The most tranquil period of his life 
 supervened upon the most tumultuous. The Epistle to the 
 Ephesians is the expression of the one period, the Second 
 Epistle to the Corinthians is the reflection of the other. But 
 the consideration that the Apostle's frame of mind at this time 
 would naturally lead him to the study of metaphysical specu- 
 lation must not blind us to the propriety of this study in 
 relation to the altered conditions of the Church. The foe from 
 which she had most to fear now was no longer Judaism or 
 Hellenism, but Orientalism, that mystic, theosophic speculation 
 with regard to angelic, intermediate beings between God and 
 man which was afterwards known as Gnosticism and reached 
 its climax in the fantastic systems of Basilides and Valentinus. 
 That this was the case is evident when we consider the character 
 of the heresy in the Colossian Church, against which St Paul 
 argues in his Epistle to that Church. In order therefore to 
 confront these false doctrines, it was necessary for the Apostle 
 to show that there was only one link between God and man, 
 Christ manifest in the flesh, and that there was no room for the 
 successive emanations, in the creation of which his opponents 
 delighted to indulge their elaborate fancy. 
 
 [1863.] 
 
VI. 
 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 
 
VI. 
 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 
 
 QT PAUL'S first visit to Macedonia was the dawn of a new 
 *^ era in the development of the Christian Church. The 
 incidents, which ushered it in, spoke significantly to himself 
 and his fellow-labourers ; and, in St Luke's record, they stand 
 out in bold relief. The entrance into Macedonia and the visit 
 to Rome are the two most important stages in the Apostle's 
 missionary life, as they are also the two most emphatic 
 passages in the historian's narrative — the one the opening 
 campaign of the Gospel in the West, the other its crowning 
 triumph. It is no surprise therefore that St Paul years after- 
 wards should speak of his labours in Macedonia, as 'the beginning 
 of the Gospel V though his missionary course was now half run. 
 The faith of Christ had, as it were, made a fresh start. 
 
 This portion of St Luke's narrative* is emphasized not by 
 any artifice of the writer, but by the progress of the incidents 
 themselves which all converge to one point. St Paul having 
 
 1 Phil. it. 15 iv ipxv T0 " e5«7- dtijXdoy . . .AWws Si... be correct, the 
 
 ycXlov. oomplexion of the incident will be 
 
 3 Acts xvi. 6-10 Aic\96vrcs Si t^v slightly, but not materially, altered. 
 
 $pvyi<u> ted Ya\aniciii> xupan, xwXv- Bat, thongh the preponderance of 
 
 6(vtcs inch toO ayiov irreinaros \a\7J<reu authority is considerably in its favour, 
 
 top \by<a> &> t% 'A<rf?, i\96vrtt (terra rljv it is open to suspicion as an attempt 
 
 Mucr(cu> t-relpafo* eh tt\v Bi0wUw vopev- to simplify the grammar of a sentence 
 
 89)nu koI o6k elturev atiro&s rd irrevfta rendered awkward by the aooumula- 
 
 'Iij<ro5 • rapeXOirres Si -rijc Mvclar tarl- tion of participles. 
 pT)<jav eft TpyaSa k.t.X. If the reading 
 
238 THE CHURCHES OP MACEDONIA. 
 
 passed through the country of Phrygia and Galatia is driven 
 forward under the divine guidance and in spite of his own 
 impulses towards the shores of the Hellespont. Attempting to 
 diverge on either side, he is checked and kept in the direct 
 path. He first looks wistfully towards the country lying on his 
 left, wishing to preach the Gospel in the populous district of 
 Proconsular Asia. 'The Holy Spirit forbids him' to do so. 
 He next turns his steps towards Bithynia situated on his right, 
 doubtless with the same purpose. This attempt is as futile as 
 the former. 'The Spirit of Jesus' will not permit it. Thus 
 hemmed in on either side, he has no choice but to go forward, 
 and so he arrives on the coast of the JSgaean. Here at length 
 the meaning of those strange hindrances, which had thwarted 
 his energetic purpose, becomes apparent God's providence has 
 destined him for a nobler mission-field. While at Troas gazing 
 on the sight of the opposite shores of Europe, he receives an 
 intimation which decides him. He sees a vision in the night. 
 A man of Macedonia stands before him and entreats him: 
 ' Come over and help us.' He considers this as an indication of 
 the will of God, and in obedience thereto he crosses the narrow 
 sea which separates Asia from Europe. 
 
 In this way St Luke forces upon our notice the importance 
 of this visit to Macedonia. When he comes to narrate the 
 visit itself, he does so with a greater minuteness of detail than 
 is usually found in his narrative. The incidents of St Paul's 
 preaching at Philippi especially, the first European town which 
 hears the truths of the Gospel from the lips of the Apostle, are 
 dwelt upon with singular fulness. Of these incidents the his- 
 torian was himself an eyewitness. He had but lately joined 
 St Paul's company for the first time, and the scenes, in which 
 he now moved, would naturally dwell in his memory with all 
 the force of fresh and unwonted experiences. But beyond this 
 personal reason we can scarcely doubt that the fulness of detail 
 in this part of his narrative is due also to the conviction in his 
 mind that this visit heralded a new and important era in the 
 history of the Christian Church. 
 
THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 239 
 
 It was not only that the Apostle had surmounted the sea- 
 barrier which separates two tracts of country bearing different 
 names, and conventionally regarded as distinct continents 1 . 
 The real significance of his journey lay in this, that it brought 
 him in contact with new interests, new associations and ideas, 
 or at least into closer contact with them than hitherto. He 
 now occupied the ground which from its geographical position 
 was the natural high road between the East and the West, and 
 was mixing with that people whose mission it had been to fuse 
 the whole civilised world, to bring the arts and intelligence of 
 Greece and the political capacities of Rome into alliance with 
 the nobler spiritual instincts and sublimer theological conceptions 
 of Asia. — above all, with the one specially revealed religion of 
 Palestine — and thus to pioneer the way for the Gospel. The 
 great Macedonian conqueror had appreciated the task which 
 its natural position imposed upon his country. He can have 
 been no mere selfish tyrant or vain profligate, who when advised 
 by the wisest philosopher of the day to treat the Greeks as free 
 subjects, the Orientals as slaves, repudiated the narrow counsels 
 of his teacher, declaring that he had been 'sent by God to 
 unite, pacify, and reconcile the whole world*.' This generous 
 sentiment of Alexander was an anticipation, however feeble, of 
 the work of that great Reconciler, who broke down the partition 
 walls between castes and nations 3 , and may well recal the loftier 
 utterance of St Paul, who proclaimed that there was now 
 'neither Greek nor Jew, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free,' 
 but all were ' one in Christ 4 .' And when again we read of the 
 
 1 It is interesting to observe that ijyt/ioviKm, rws Si f}appapois Searon- 
 'Europe' is never once mentioned in kus x/>u/«£i'oi'...d\Xa /combs tjkhv Bebdev 
 the New Testament, and that 'Asia* &piu>trrt}S ko.1 SiaXXarrip twv S\wv 
 denotes not the continent, but the voidfuv k.t.\. The whole passage is 
 Roman province. The words of the worth reading. 
 
 man in St Paul's vision are not 'Come s See Ephes. ii. 14, 15 ; and corn- 
 over into Europe,' but ' Come over pare the expressions iwoKaraWafru t4 
 into Macedonia,' Acts xvi. 9. rdvra Col. i. 20, and KaraXKayii k6<t- 
 
 2 Hut. de Alex. Fort. 1. § 6. Op. fum Bom. xi. 15. 
 
 Mot. p. 329 B 06 yi.p, iit ' ' ApujTtrrfrrp * Col. iii. 11, Gal. iii. 28. 
 
 awefiotiktvev aim?, rots /liv "EXXipw' 
 
240 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 
 
 taunts levelled at the Macedonian king by narrower-minded 
 Greeks, because he strove to conciliate the Oriental peoples 
 whom he had vanquished, by conforming to their dress and 
 habits as matters of indifference 1 , we seem to trace the shadow 
 of that large-hearted policy of the Apostle of the Gentiles, who 
 in a like spirit, but with a nobler aim, braved the fierce hatred 
 of his countrymen, consenting to be reviled as a subverter of 
 the laws and institutions of his fathers, and, himself a Jew, 
 became as a Greek to the Greeks that he might win them to 
 Christ 8 . 
 
 Alexander had not entertained this grand purpose in vain. 
 Though he died young, he had accomplished a vast task, the 
 importance of which to the future history of the world it is 
 scarcely possible to overrate. If he had not realised his project, 
 he had prepared the way for its realisation in a far higher sense 
 than he himself could have imagined. He had diffused the 
 literature and life, the habits and institutions, of Europe through 
 the East. He had made the language of Greece a common 
 instrument of communication throughout the civilised world. 
 Now, at length, the completion of his great design, though very 
 different, no doubt, from that which he himself had contemplated, 
 was drawing near. And as his country had borne the chief 
 part in preparing the way for this universal pacification of the 
 world, so now in turn she was herself to receive the earliest 
 and most striking earnest of its fulfilment. The tide, which 
 had once flowed eastward through Macedonia bearing with it 
 the civilisation of the West, was now rolled back through the 
 same channel, laden with a nobler treasure, by which Asia more 
 than discharged her debt of obligation to Europe. 
 
 Each successive station at which he halted might have 
 reminded the Apostle of the great services rendered by Mace- 
 donia as the pioneer of the GospeL The very names of the 
 
 1 See Plutarch 1. o. p. 329 C and us fiiv <t*\6<ro</>ot to?s dSux^/xxr x*>«- 
 
 p. 330 A "Ek tou Maxedovucov xai funs k.t.X. 
 
 UcpaiKov Tpoirou fiefuyn(rqii ™>d oroXV s 1 Cor. ix. 19 sq, Gal. ii. 14 sq. 
 i$6pci KaSairep 'EpaTcxrMrijr laropriKev 
 
THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 24] 
 
 places bore testimony to the part she had played in history. 
 The seaport whence he embarked on leaving the Asiatic shore 
 was surnamed, after the great conqueror of the East, Alexandria 
 Troas. In Philippi, the first European city which he visited, 
 was perpetuated the memory of the monarch, who, by organizing 
 the armies of Macedonia and establishing the supremacy of his 
 country over Greece, prepared the way for the vast projects of 
 Oriental conquest carried out by his greater son. The name of 
 the next town in which he planted the standard of the cross 
 spoke of a later stage in the progress of events. It recalled the 
 partition of Alexander's empire, having been founded by one of 
 his successors Cassander, in honour of his wife Thessalonica, the 
 half-sister of the conqueror himself. Whether St Paul, while 
 visiting these scenes, recalled the past glories of Macedonia, 
 whether he traced in this marvellous page of her history the 
 hand of God moulding the selfish counsels of men to His own 
 great purpose, it is vain to speculate ; but we may at least be 
 assured that he did in a measure forecast the future, and that 
 he felt, when he entered Macedonia, that the Gospel was on the 
 eve of some new and striking development. The divine voice, 
 which had first driven him coastward and then beckoned him 
 across the seas, was a significant token. The rapid and pro- 
 sperous voyage to the European shores seemed the presage of a 
 coming triumph 1 . The strange scenes, the new and varied 
 types of character which he encountered there, the contact 
 with purer forms of Western civilisation, the more direct 
 influence of Greek and Roman institutions — all these fresh 
 experiences crowding upon him spoke to him of more brilliant 
 victories yet to be achieved, of wider and fairer provinces to be 
 annexed to his Master's kingdom. All the incidents of this 
 epoch seem to assume vaster proportions, to be cast on a 
 grander scale. A success unparalleled in his previous career 
 
 1 Acts rvi. 11, cievSponfaapLev. The sion (Acta ix. 6). See Conybeare and 
 
 distance which on thin occasion seems Howson Life and Epittlet of St Paul 
 
 to have been accomplished in two p. 219 {ed. 1870). 
 days' voyage, took five on a later occa- 
 
 L.E. ' 16 
 
242 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 
 
 both in extent and durability crowns his preaching in the first 
 European city. A marvellous deliverance, a more signal 
 interposition in his behalf than any elsewhere recorded, 
 assures him of the protecting hand of God. The first visit to 
 Macedonia stands out in the Apostle's history as an eventful 
 epoch in a career singularly crowded with incidents and fertile 
 in results. 
 
 I propose to call attention to a few points bearing on the 
 history and character of the Macedonian Churches collectively. 
 They are so closely linked together in the circumstances of their 
 foundation, and present so many features in common, that it is 
 especially instructive to consider them together. 
 
 1. The three stations in Macedonia, which St Paul selected 
 for his missionary labours, are Philippi, Thessalonica and 
 Bercea. A glance at any good map of this country will show 
 at once the reasons which may have influenced this choice. 
 The whole region of Macedonia Proper exclusive of the Chalcidic 
 peninsula is divided by its natural barriers into three portions 
 corresponding respectively to the water-courses of the Strymon, 
 the Axius and the Haliacmon. Philippi stands on a tributary 
 of the Strymon ; Thessalonica, though planted on the banks of 
 another less considerable river, occupies the most important 
 position in the valley of the Axius ; while Bercea, lying more 
 inland, represents the third district watered by the Haliacmon 
 near to which it is situated. In the first Roman partition of 
 Macedonia — now long abandoned — these three towns had 
 belonged to distinct provinces called respectively Prima, 
 Secunda, and Tertia. Thus standing sufficiently wide apart 
 from each other and commanding three separate districts, they 
 recommended themselves to the Apostle by their geographical 
 position, as good missionary centres. 
 
 2. But he was guided also by another consideration. It 
 was necessary that there should be a sufficient Jewish population 
 in those towns which were marked out as the mother Churches 
 of their respective districts. Around the few believers of the 
 
THE CHURCHES OP MACEDONIA. 
 
 243 
 
 house of Israel, as a nucleus, the Gentile majority of the Church 
 must gather. All three places satisfied this condition. At 
 Philippi indeed there was no synagogue, but every Sabbath-day 
 the faithful Jews met together for prayer by the riverside 1 . 
 Their numbers appear to have been scanty, yet there was a 
 sufficient body of them to render it necessary for the Apostle to 
 warn his converts against 'the concision 2 / though in the ad- 
 monition he may have been thinking more of Rome than of 
 Philippi 3 . At Thessalonica, at all events, a synagogue existed 4 , 
 and the Jews play a prominent part in the narrative of the 
 Acts". This city appears to have been a favourite resort for 
 Jews in the middle ages, and a recent writer, who gives the 
 whole population as seventy thousand, sets down the Jewish 
 element at fifty thousand souls 6 . At Beroea also was a synagogue 7 , 
 and the conduct of the Jews there is highly commended by the 
 historian of the Acts 8 . 
 
 1 Acts xvi. 13, 16. The use of the 
 word irpoo-evxh here does not necessarily 
 imply a building. 
 
 2 Phil. iii. 2 /9X&rere r^v kototo- 
 
 3 [See Philippians, p. 52.] 
 
 4 Acts xvii. 1, 8rou tjv cvvayayri tuv 
 "lovSaluv. Textual criticism requires 
 the suppression of the article before 
 the word evrayaylj. 
 
 6 See esp. Acts xvii. 5 sq., 13 sq. 
 
 8 W. Gr. C. in Macmillan's Maga- 
 zine for Feb. 1863 (to. p. 313). 
 This is the highest estimate I have 
 seen, and I suspect some mistake in 
 the numbers. Other estimates are 
 given by Conybeare and Howson, 
 p. 250. 
 
 7 Acts xvii. 10 sq. 
 
 " If we are tempted to ask why St 
 Paul chose Philippi and Beroea rather 
 than Amphipolis or Pella for the scene 
 of his preaching, the true answer may 
 be somewhat of this kind. Philippi 
 was the first town which he reached. 
 He would naturally be anxious to 
 
 commence his missionary work at 
 once. An opportunity offered, and he 
 availed himself of it. Though there 
 was no regular synagogue here, there 
 was, as we have seen, a nucleus of 
 Jews, and in this respect Amphipolis 
 would offer no greater facilities, for 
 there certainly was no synagogue there. 
 Besides, even if Philippi was not the 
 chief town of the district, it was a 
 place of great importance, and would 
 command the Eastern districts better 
 than Amphipolis. 
 
 Beroea was probably chosen in pre- 
 ference to Pella on account of the 
 synagogue there. It is improbable 
 that there should have been syna- 
 gogues at both places. Besides this, 
 Pella was on the decline; see Dion 
 Chrysost. Or. xxxiii. (p. 460 ed. Emper. ), 
 vvv et tis StipxoiTo Il^XXai', oiJW tnjfieiov 
 H^erat iriXtws oiiiy Slx<t tov iroXiv 
 xipafiov ctvai auyreTpLfifiifoy i» rtp rinrif. 
 
 It seems a mistake to suppose that 
 St Paul went to Beroea as an out-of- 
 the-way town, a sort of hiding place, 
 
 16—2 
 
244 
 
 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 
 
 Alexander himself had shown great favour to the Jews, and 
 his successors in the Macedonian dynasties abroad seem to have 
 inherited his policy in this respect. The Syrian kings admitted 
 them to equal privileges with the Macedonians and Greeks 1 . 
 And the liberality of the Alexandrian princes' in this respect is 
 witnessed by the LXX. translation of the Scriptures, by the 
 building of the Temple at Leontopolis and by the large Jewish 
 population at Alexandria. There were occasional exceptions 
 indeed to this wise liberality, but on the whole it seems to have 
 remained the traditional policy of the successors of Alexander. 
 Both in Egypt and Syria the Romans left the Jews in posses- 
 sion of the privileges which they enjoyed. We may well suppose, 
 though we have no direct evidence, that the like spirit prevailed 
 at home, and that the Jews were at least protected, if they were 
 not encouraged, by the rulers of Macedonia. At all events, we 
 may gather from the New Testament history that at the time of 
 the Christian era they had settled there in considerable numbers, 
 
 as Alford seems to imply. Cicero says 
 of Piso, escaping from Thessalonica, 
 where he was pestered with com- 
 plaints, that he ' took refuge ' in Bercea, 
 'in oppidum devium Beroeam profu- 
 gisti' (in Fiaon. o. 36). Piso's course 
 would naturally have been along tho Eg- 
 natian road, and therefore to him it was 
 ' devium.' But Bercea was a most im- 
 portant city (see Luoian Asin. § 34 <?px<5- 
 ixeda els ir6\iv ttjs McuceSoWas ~B£potav 
 /KyiXt)!! ml iroXvcwSpwrov), and would 
 have been very ill-chosen as a lurking 
 place, since there was a Jewish syna- 
 gogue there, which doubtless kept up 
 constant communication with that of 
 TheBsalonica, as the result seems to 
 show. It also lay near the road that 
 he must ultimately take for Aohaia. 
 
 It is not probable that St Paul on 
 any subsequent occasion preached in 
 other Macedonian towns. In Romans 
 xv. 19 it is true he speaks of having 
 preached 'as far as Illyricum,' but if 
 his visit to Bercea may not be con- 
 
 sidered to justify the expression, the 
 Gospel may well have been spread 
 southward through the labours of his 
 companions Silas, Timotheus and Luke 
 between his first and second visits to 
 Macedonia. In the scanty fragments 
 of his Apology which survive, Melito, 
 addressing M. Antoninus, appeals to 
 the fact that his father wrote letters 
 to the people of Larissa, Thessalonica 
 and Athens forbidding them to molest 
 the Christians (6 Si warr/p <rou...r<us 
 »ro\«« irepl toC firiSiv vetMreplfav irepi 
 ■ilfwiy typaifiev iv oU xal irpos Aapur- 
 aalovs kcU irpbs Oe<nra\oviKeis xcd 'Aff-q- 
 valovs Kai irpos ndrras "EXX^as Melito 
 in Ens. H. E. iv. 26, 10, see Bouth S. S. 
 i. p. 112). The establishment of Chris- 
 tianity at Larissa is an interesting fact; 
 see below, p. 267. 
 
 1 See the curious illustration which 
 JosephuB gives (Ant. xii. 3, 1). 
 
 3 See Winer's article on the Jewish 
 Dispersion in his Bibl. RealwSrter- 
 buch, ii. p. 727 sq. (1847). 
 
THE CHTJBCHES OF MACEDONIA. 245 
 
 and that the synagogue organisation was established in full 
 force. The historical connexion of Macedonia with Syria and 
 Palestine was of some centuries standing, and the Syrian cities 
 of Edessa and Berrhoea, which had far outstripped their older 
 namesakes, not to mention the Palestinian town of Pella, testify 
 to the intimate relationship between the countries. 
 
 3. St Paul's communications with the Macedonian Churches 
 were very close and frequent. This was partly due to their 
 position on the high road between Asia on the one hand and 
 Greece and Borne on the other, partly to other causes. These 
 communications are of various kinds. Firstly, there are personal 
 visits made by the Apostle. During his second missionary 
 journey in the year 52 he founds the Macedonian Churches 1 . 
 Five years or so later, on his third missionary journey he visits 
 them twice, as he goes and again as he returns 2 . Another 
 interval of five years elapses, and again he seems to have paid 
 them another visit, immediately after his return from captivity, 
 in fulfilment of his declared intention 8 - Lastly, once, probably 
 more than once, we find him there again at the very close of 
 his life 4 . Secondly, we read of constant communications made 
 with the Macedonians through his disciples. When he departs 
 after his first visit, he leaves Silas and Timotheus behind 5 , and 
 possibly after joining him at Athens they were despatched 
 thither again 8 . But these are not the only companions dele- 
 gated to watch over the infant Churches of Macedonia. It 
 would appear that St Luke also remained at Philippi for a 
 period of five or six years'. On his third missionary journey 
 again the Apostle sends Timotheus and Erastus into Mace- 
 donia 8 . During the imprisonment at Rome, this intercourse is 
 of the most intimate character. The narrative of the Epistle 
 to the Philippians implies four journeys between Philippi and 
 
 i Acts xvi. 9-xvii. 15. 7 This is inferred from the fact that 
 
 2 Acts xix. 21, xx. 1, 3. the first person in the narrative is 
 
 3 Phil. ii. 24. dropped after Acts xvi. 17 and resumed 
 
 4 1 Tim. i. 3 ; cf . 2 Tim. iv. 13, 20. at ch. xx. 5. 
 
 5 Acts xvii. 14, 15, xviii. 5. 8 Acts xix. 22. 
 « 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, 6. 
 
246 THE CHUBCHES OP MACEDONIA. 
 
 the place of St Paul's captivity, before the writing of the letter 1 , 
 and mention is made of the Apostle's intention of despatching 
 Timotheus thither shortly'. And to this constant association, 
 sustained, as far as we can trace it, throughout St Paul's life, 
 must be added the frequent interchange of messages consequent 
 upon the contributions made by the Macedonian Churches both 
 towards the relief of the brethren in Judaea 3 , and towards the 
 Apostle's personal maintenance*. Thirdly, we find several 
 Macedonian Christians in more or less constant attendance upon 
 St Paul. These men are representative, and are taken from 
 the three Churches of Macedonia. Thessalonica sends Aris- 
 tarchus 5 , a Jewish convert, to endanger his life with the Apostle at 
 Ephesus and to share the captivity at Rome. Another Thessa- 
 lonian, Secundus 6 , is mentioned with Aristarchus as accompany- 
 ing the Apostle during his voyage to the Capital. On the same 
 occasion Bercea is represented by Sopater ' the son of Pyrrhus 7 ,' 
 the patronymic being added perhaps to distinguish him from 
 the Sosipater who sends his salutation to the Church of Rome 8 . 
 From Philippi comes Epaphroditus, whose sickness at Rome 
 aroused such a tender interest in the Church of which he formed 
 a member 9 . Another Macedonian, Gaius, is mentioned as St 
 Paul's companion in the tumult at Ephesus 10 , unless indeed (as 
 is possible, though hardly probable) he is to be identified with 
 
 1 [Aristarchus however may have hear in this passage, but the name 
 
 parted from the Apostle at Myra. is found in Macedonian inscriptions; 
 
 See Philippiam p. 37.] thus in Boeckh C. I. G. n. no. 1957 
 
 ' Phil. ii. 19. (Pydna) K<£<rjo» 2«oO»5oc. So in Thes- 
 
 ' 2 Cor. viii. 1 sq., ix. 2 sq. ' salonian inscriptions L. Pontius Secun- 
 
 4 Phil. iv. 15 sq.; 2 Cor. xi. 9. dus is the name of one of the politarchs 
 
 6 Aots xix. 29, xx. 4, xxvii. 2; Col. (Boeckh no. 1967), of. no. 1969 Oi&Krp 
 
 iv. 10; Philemon 24. His nationality koI ZexouvSos (where compare the name 
 
 appears from Col. iv. 11 where he is 'Valens' in Polycarp's Epistle to the 
 
 coupled with Mark and Jesus oalled Philippians § 11), no. 1988 [ZcKJouvfios, 
 
 Justus, as being 'of the circumcision.' no. 1988 b,'lov\la Sexoi!i'[So]...[S]«ow- 
 
 He was a constant oompanion of St Stuv. 
 
 Paul who calls him i <rvvaixn&\wT6s 7 Acts xx. 4 2iiiraT/>os IMppou Be- 
 
 ttov (Col. iv. 10). The name ocours pouuos. 
 
 in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum for 8 Bomans xvi. 21. 
 
 Aug. 4. » Phil. ii. 25 sq. 
 
 ' Acts xx. 4. Of Secundus we only w Aots xix. 29. 
 
THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 247 
 
 Epaphroditus 1 . Lastly, there is some reason for the supposition 
 that Demas*, whose desertion of the Apostle in his second 
 imprisonment contrasts so painfully with his faithful companion- 
 ship at an earlier period, hailed from Thessalonica 8 . 
 
 But the most permanent result of St Paul's intercourse with 
 the Macedonian Churches is embodied in the three letters which 
 have come down to us addressed by the Apostle to his converts 
 there. His two earliest Epistles — the two Epistles to the Thes- 
 salonians — were written to one Macedonian Church, a later 
 Epistle — the Epistle to the Fhilippians — to another. Nor are 
 we to suppose that these three extant letters exhaust the 
 Apostle's literary activity in the case of congregations in which 
 he took so special and so affectionate an interest. Even admit- 
 ting that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant us in 
 postulating a lost letter to the Philippians*, yet his language 
 in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians becomes meaningless 
 unless it presupposes more than one previous communication 
 with the Church of Thessalonica 6 . 
 
 The outward condition of the Macedonian Churches stands 
 fully revealed in the Pauline Epistles which survive to us. 
 They were baptized with the baptism of suffering, and this 
 suffering was the result both of poverty and of persecution 6 . 
 
 1 The two names are borne together deserted St Paul he went to Thessalo- 
 in an inscription of Thessalonica nica (2 Tim. iv. 10), probably home. 
 (Boeckh C.I.G. no. 1987 Tattp KXuSly The name Demetrius, of which Demas 
 'EwaQpoSelTt? [K]\wSLa QiKijudTiov t<? is a contract form, occurs twice among 
 [T&\rpui>i rb iWTJiia) . Origen in Bom. xvi. the list of politarchs of that city (Boeckh 
 23 states a tradition that the Gaius no. 1967). 
 
 there mentioned was a bishop of Thes- 3 To complete the list of Maee- 
 
 salonica. The Gaius however in ques- donian Christians we must add Jason 
 
 tion was a Corinthian. Theremayhow- (Acts xvii. 6 sq.). 
 
 ever have*een some confusion with the * [On the question of lost letters of 
 
 Gaius of Acts xix. 29. [On Epaphro- St Paul see Philippians p. 138 sq.] 
 
 ditus see Philippians pp. 61, 62.] 5 2 Thess. iii. 17 5 i<rriv <rr,>ieiov iv 
 
 2 On the name Demas see the refer- iraa-rj fr-urroXjr : cf. also 2 Thess. ii. 15. 
 ences in Meyer on Col. iv. 14, Lobeck • 2 Cor. viii. 2 iv iroXXij Soki^v 
 Pathol. 505; cf. Boeckh C. I. G. in. no. flXf^eus...^ mri. p&dovs irrwx«fa of the 
 3817 (Annas KolT&Cbs). Demas is men- Macedonian Churches. And yet there 
 tioned next to Aristarchus the Thes- must have been sufficient wealth both 
 salonian in Philemon 24, and when he at Philippi and at Thessalonica. Were 
 
248 
 
 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 
 
 There is no warning against the temptations of wealth, no en- 
 forcement of the duties of the rich, in the Epistles to the 
 Thessalonians or Philippians 1 . The former especiallyare addressed 
 as those who have to work for their living 3 . On the other hand, 
 the allusions to persecution undergone are prominent in all 
 three Epistles'. And side by side with the external dangers 
 which beset these infant communities we can discern the pre- 
 sence of a more subtle peril to which they were exposed from 
 the tendencies of their national character. The old Macedonian 
 spirit of independence showed itself in a factious self-as- 
 sertion, a contempt for authority, to which the Apostle is 
 constrained to draw attention with a significant and emphatic 
 iteration 4 . 
 
 But the better side also of the Macedonian character" made 
 
 the gold and silver mines at Fhilippi 
 [see Philippians p. 47] still worked? 
 
 1 The case is different in Polycarp's 
 Epistle to the Philippians. Probably 
 Christianity had by that time extended 
 to the wealthier classes ; see esp. §§ 4, 
 5,6. 
 
 2 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 7- 
 12. 
 
 3 Thessalonica (1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14, 
 iii. 2, 3, 4; 2 Thess. i. 4-7); Philippi 
 (Phil. i. 28-30). 
 
 * Of. 1 Thess. v. 12-14; 2 Thess. iii 
 6, 7, 11. 14. 
 
 » The Macedonians were to Greece 
 what the Piedmontese are to Italy, the 
 rnde highlanders speaking a mongrel 
 dialect, regarded with a proud but 
 impotent scorn by the pure bred Greeks, 
 but in the highest moral qualities far 
 their superiors, with a more genuine 
 love of freedom and a stubborn per- 
 severance. They were the one people 
 which made the power of Greece felt 
 throughout the world. On the Mace- 
 donian spirit of independence see especi- 
 ally Platte Gesch. Mac. i. 45. Platte's 
 summary of the Macedonian character 
 
 is very striking and accurate. They 
 appear to have had that peculiarly 
 English virtue of not knowing when 
 they were beaten. An excellent illus- 
 tration of this sturdy perseverance and 
 indomitable buoyanoy of character 
 which the Apostle commends (1 Thess. 
 i. 6) is the passage of Mommsen (History 
 of Rome Bk. in. ch. 8, Vol. ii. p. 229 
 Dickson's transl. 1868). 'In steadfast 
 resistance to the public enemy under 
 whatever name, in unshaken fidelity 
 towards their native oountry and their 
 hereditary government, and in per- 
 severing courage amidst the severest 
 trials, no nation in ancient history 
 bears so close a resemblance to the 
 Roman people as the Macedonians; 
 and the almost miraculous regenera- 
 tion of the state after the Gallic inva- 
 sion redounds to the imperishable 
 honour of its leaders and of the people 
 whom they led.' 
 
 A curious parallel to St Paul's lan- 
 guage occurs in Dion Chrysost. Or. 
 xxv. 'AXefditfpos [to6s Mcuce&Ws] eft 
 Tfy> Avian t£ayaytbv qua /teV irXovtriw- 
 t&tovs atrdyrujy aydptinrwy iiridei^ey dfia 
 
THE CHUBCHES OF MACEDONIA. 249 
 
 itself felt in the converts gained for Christianity from that 
 region. The Macedonian Churches are honorably distinguished 
 above all others by their fidelity to the Gospel and their affec- 
 tionate regard for St Paul himself. While the Church of 
 Corinth disgraced herself by gross moral delinquencies, while the 
 Galatians bartered the liberty of the Gospel for a narrow 
 formalism, while the believers of Ephesus drifted into the wild- 
 est speculative errors, no such stain attaches to the brethren of 
 Philippi and Thessalonica. It is to the Macedonian congrega- 
 tions that the Apostle ever turns for solace in the midst of his 
 severest trials and sufferings. Time seems not to have chilled 
 these feelings of mutual affection. The Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians was written about ten years after the Thessalonian letters. 
 It is the more surprising therefore that they should resemble 
 each other so strongly in tone. In both alike St Paul drops 
 his official title at the outset, not wishing to assert his Apostolic 
 authority where he could appeal to the higher motive of love. 
 In both he opens his letter with a heartfelt thanksgiving ex- 
 pressed in terms of highest commendation. In both Epistles 
 he speaks of his converts as his 'crown and joy 1 ' : in both he 
 appeals freely to his personal example : and in both he adopts 
 throughout the same tone of confidence and affection. In this 
 interval of ten years we meet with one notice of the Macedonian 
 Churches. It is conceived in terms of unmeasured praise. The 
 Macedonians had been called upon to contribute to the wants 
 of their poorer brethren in Judaea, who were suffering from 
 famine. They had responded nobly to the call. Deep-sunk in 
 poverty and sorely tried by persecution, they came forward 
 with eager joy and poured out the riches of their liberality, 
 straining their means to the utmost in order to relieve the 
 sufferers. ' They exceeded our expectations,' says the Apostle ; 
 'they gave themselves to the Lord, and to us by the will of 
 
 Si Trewxpcn-dTous, koI a/ui plr l<rxvpovs and the beginning of the second cen- 
 
 a/xa Si &<r$eveis, QvyaSas re Kcd final- tury a.d. 
 
 \tat rods adroit, oomp. 2 Cor. vi. 10. 1 1 Thess. ii. 19 ; Phil. iv. 1. 
 Dion flourished at the close of the first 
 
250 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 
 
 God 1 .' We may imagine that the people still retained some- 
 thing of those simpler habits and that sturdier character, which 
 triumphed over Greeks and Orientals in the days of Philip and 
 Alexander, and thus in the early warfare of the Christian Church 
 the Macedonian phalanx offered a successful resistance to the 
 assaults of an enemy, before which the lax and enervated ranks 
 of Asia and Achaia had yielded ignominiously. 
 
 1 2 Cor. viii. 1-5. 
 
 [1863.] 
 
VII. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 
 
Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
VII. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 
 
 rTlHE ancient name of Thessalonica » was Therme or Therma' 
 ■*• 'the hot-spring,' and there are still warm springs in the 
 neighbourhood, though not at Thessalonica itself. At the 
 time of the Persian invasion it was apparently only a small 
 town 4 , but it gradually grew in importance and appears 
 occasionally in history. It was at all events sufficiently 
 influential to give its name to the bay on which it stood 8 . 
 
 On the site of Therma, the city of Thessalonica 8 was 
 founded by Cassander. It was probably at the same time that 
 he rebuilt the city of Potidrea 7 . If so, the date of the 
 
 1 On the geography and antiquities 
 of Thessalonica, see Cousinery Voyage 
 dans la Macfdoine i. p. 23 sq. (1831); 
 Leake Northern Greece m. p. 235 sq. 
 (1835); Koch Comm. iib. den ersten 
 Brief an die Thessalonicher (1855) 
 Einleit. § 1, 2 ; Tafel Sistoria Thessa- 
 lonicae (Tubing. 1835) and de Thessa- 
 lonica dissertatio geographica (Berl. 
 1839) ; Poeooke Description of the East 
 n. (2) p. 148 sq. (1743) ; Belley Obser- 
 vations sur Vhistoire et sur les monu- 
 ments de la ville ThessaUmique ; Texier 
 Description de VAsie Mineure (1839- 
 49) ; and for its ecclesiastical history 
 Tezier Byzantine Church p. Ill sq. 
 (1864). I have not been able to in- 
 vestigate the work by Burgerhoudt de 
 coetus Christ. Thessalonicensis ortu 
 (1825), referred to by Koch, p. 8. 
 
 1 Machines (de Fals. Legat. §§ 31, 
 36) calls it Qipim, Herodotus (vii. 121, 
 123 etc.), Thucydides (i. 61, ii. 29) 
 and Scylax (Geog. Min. p. 26 ed. 
 Hudson) OipM- 
 
 ' See Tafel H. Th., p. 3, and Pooocke, 
 p. 149, quoted by Koch, p. 2. For the 
 name compare Grenides, 'Wells,' the 
 ancient name of Philippi. 
 
 * So Tafel (p. 13), but Herodotus 
 (vii. 127) speaks of it as a irSXts. 
 
 5 Herod, vii. 121. 
 
 " The Greek form is QeotraXovUri 
 (Steph. Byzant. s.v.), or -xela (Strabo 
 vii. § 10). 
 
 The name Thessalonica first occurs 
 in Polybius (zziii. 4. 4, 11. 2, ixix. 3. 
 
 7)- 
 7 Biod. Sic. six. 52. 
 
254 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 
 
 foundation of the new city was apparently about the year B.C. 
 315 \ Therma was named Thessalonica after Cassander's wife, 
 the daughter of Philip and half-sister of Alexander: Potidaea 
 he called Cassandreia * after his own name. Of the twin cities 
 Thessalonica was destined far to outstrip her rival 8 . 
 
 Its natural advantages were indeed great, both as regards 
 the sea and as regards the land. It was situated, as Pliny 
 describes it 4 , in the middle of the bend of the Thermaic gulf. 
 It had a good natural harbour, so excellent indeed that Xerxes, 
 when on his march against Greece, had chosen it as his naval 
 station B . Its dockyards are mentioned by Livy '. Nor did its 
 excellence as a military and commercial centre fall short of the 
 prominence which its situation as a seaport gave to it. It was 
 the key to the whole of Macedonia. It commanded by a 
 good land route the two levels — the level of the plain of the 
 Strymon on the one hand, and on the other the level of the con- 
 verging plains of the Axius, Haliacmon and Echedorus 7 . It was 
 likewise conveniently situated with respect to that excrescence 
 of Macedonia, the Chalcidic peninsula. For the purpose of 
 inter-communication with more distant centres its situation 
 was all that could be desired. The Via Egnatia 8 , that great 
 
 1 See Niebuhr Ethrwl. i. 293. salonica. All three are given in a pas- 
 
 » Cassandreia was probably his oapi- sage of Tzetzes quoted by Tafel (p. 5). 
 
 tal. Tafel (p. 8) quotes a coin K&can- 'Pliny N. H. iv. 10. 17 'medio 
 
 ipoy OeccAAoiMiKHC. Both however litoris flexus [sinus Thermaioi].' 
 
 attained great prominence; thus Livy 8 Herod, vii. 121. 
 
 slv. 30 says 'Secunda pars eeleberrimas ' Livy xliv. 10. In a moment of 
 
 urbes Thessalonicam et Oassandream despair Perseus had ordered them to 
 
 habet.' be burnt. Five centuries later Con- 
 
 8 Another account of the city is that stantine the Great, on the eve of his 
 
 it was founded by Philip to commemo- conflict with Licinius (a.d. 322), had 
 
 rate a victory over the Thessalians. the harbour enlarged for the reception 
 
 This does not deserve any credit. It of his fleet (Zosimus Hut. ii. 22). 
 
 appears first in Julian Orat. iii. about ' On the fertility of the Macedonian 
 
 seven centuries after the event, and it plain see Cousin6ry u. p. 5, Perrot in 
 
 is there given as a conjecture. In the Revue Archtologique (1860) n. p. 
 
 later writers it takes its place with the 49, and compare Appian Bell. Civ. 
 
 other account, e.g. Steph. Byzant. s.v. iv. p. 105, Athen. xv. p. 682 B. 
 
 A third story combines the two former. s On this great military road see a 
 
 It represents the city as founded by treatise of Tafel De via militari Roma- 
 
 Philip in honour of his daughter Thes- norum Egnatia (Tubing. 1837). 
 
THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 255 
 
 highroad between Italy and the East which spanned the 
 peninsula, passed through its walls — an advantage the full 
 force of which is appreciated only when we recollect that, 
 owing to the imperfect knowledge of navigation of the ancients, 
 communication by sea was at all times precarious, and at some 
 seasons of the year entirely closed. Such advantages fully 
 justified Cicero's description of its inhabitants as ' lying in the 
 lap ' of the Soman Empire '. 
 
 The city grew and flourished In Strabo's time, a genera- 
 tion or two before St Paul, it was the most populous of the 
 Macedonian cities a . A century later than the Apostle, Lucian 
 speaks to the same effect 3 . And in spite of invasion, misrule 
 and disaster, it has enjoyed from that time to this a continuous, 
 if comparative, prosperity ; fully bearing out Meletius' dictum 
 upon it ' So long as nature does not change, Thessalonica will 
 remain wealthy and fortunate 4 .' It narrowly escaped being 
 made the capital of the world 5 - At one time its population 
 seems to have risen above two hundred thousand. At present 
 it has fallen to about a third of that number. It still retains 
 its ancient name, corrupted in Turkish into Selanik, in vulgar 
 Greek into 2o\oi/t«i7, but the educated continue to call it, as of 
 old, ®e<rcra\ovLicr) ". 
 
 In illustration of the history of St Paul's labours in these 
 parts, two points deserve to be considered (1) its political 
 status, (2) its moral and religious condition. 
 
 1. The political importance of Thessalonica commences 
 with the decline of Greece. It was the capital of the second of 
 
 1 Cio. de prov. consul. 2 'Thes- Constantinople, Thessalonica is men- 
 
 salonioenaes positi in gremio imperii tioned by Cedrenus (p. 283), and Sar- 
 
 nostri.' Cicero resided at the place dica by Zonaras, as the intended 
 
 when in exile (pro Plane. 41). capital.' 
 
 * Strabo vii. 6. 4 yj vvv /tdXurra t&> • Leake m. p. 238. In the West it 
 
 iWar eiavipti. was called by the early German poets 
 
 3 Lucian Annul § 46 ii. p. 613 {ed. Salneck, Salonicia occurs in a twelfth 
 Hemsterhus.) irAews tup iv MeueeSoWp century Italian chronicle (Muratori 
 tjjs A«y<rnjt eefftraXowKTJs. Script, rer. Ital. vn. 876), but Sa- 
 
 4 Cousinery i. p. 24. lonichi is the name by which it is 
 Gibbon ch. xvii. (ii. p. 183, ed. now known in Western Europe: see 
 
 Bohn) ' Before the foundation of Koch Einl. p. 3. 
 
256 THE CHUECH OF THESSALONTCA. 
 
 the four districts in the first quadripartite division of Mace- 
 donia 1 . At a later re-arrangement of the province it would 
 seem to have been made the capital of Macedonia. 
 
 Its native poet Antipater about the time of the Christian 
 era a says of it 
 
 Sot fie, ©/MjtKtijs <ricv\i}<l>ope, ®e<r<raXoviK7}, 
 pijTrip fi iraai)<; iri/iyfre MaKqSovir)?. 
 
 On coins (though of a much later date) it is styled the 
 metropolis. In the civil wars it had the good fortune to take 
 the winning side, espousing the cause of Octavius and Antony 8 . 
 It would appear that it owed its privileges as a free city to the 
 services thus rendered to the future master of the world 4 . 
 
 Pliny speaks of it as liberae conditionis B , and there are coins 
 with the inscription Oecc&AoNiK6ioN eAeyOepiAC (or -pia) 8 - In 
 the enjoyment of this constitution we find it at the time of the 
 Acts. 
 
 Its chief magistrates are iroXtrdpxcu 7 , a word not known 
 elsewhere in classical literature, but the account of St Luke is 
 remarkably confirmed by an inscription still to be seen at 
 Thessalonica on an arch at the western end of the town 8 . The 
 Politarchs appear to have been seven in number 9 . There "is 
 
 1 Livy xlv. 18. Geographical Society, July 4, 1866, and 
 
 a Jacobs Anthol. Gr. ii. p. 98, no. a photograph of it produced. 
 
 xiv. » Not six, as stated by Tafel, p. 21, 
 
 s Appian Bell. Civ. iv. p. 118, followed by Dean Howson in Smith's 
 
 Plutarch Brutus 46. Brutus before Dictionary of Geography. The latter 
 
 Philippi appears to have held out to iscorrectinhisarticle'TheBsalonica'in 
 
 his soldiers the sacking of the city as Smith's Dictionary of the Bible and 
 
 an incentive to their valour in action. in his life of St Paul (p. 259). At 
 
 4 Tafel, p. 20. least there must have been seven, if 
 
 ' Pliny, N. H. iv. 10. 17. Boeokh's oopy of the inscription is 
 
 6 See Cousinery i. p. 28 and the reff. correct, but no two copies that I have 
 in Tafel, p. 20. Bee n agree. 
 
 7 Act8 xvii - 6. This inscription illustrates St Paul 
 
 8 The inscription is given in Boeckh and St Luke in other respects; first, 
 C. I. G. a. p. 53, no. 1967; Leake in the prominence given to women, a 
 hi. p. 236; Cousinery i. p. 27; Cony- fact noted elsewhere [see Philippiam, 
 beare and Howson (p. 268), and else- p. 54 sq.]; secondly, in the names, Se- 
 where. Quite recently a paper was oundus, Qaius, SoBipater, see above, 
 read on it by Mr Vaux before the Boyal p. 246. 
 
THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 257 
 
 mention also in this inscription of a steward (rafiia^) of the city, 
 and a gymnasiarch (yv/wao-iap^i;?) l . There was likewise a 
 popular assembly (S^/w?) 2 . The whole city then is essentially 
 Greek, not Roman as Philippi was. As a free city it was spared 
 the ignominy of a permanent Roman garrison within its 
 walls'. 
 
 2. The moral and religious condition of Thessalonica was 
 probably not worse than that of any ordinary Greek town, 
 perhaps better, for there was a more sterling moral basis in the 
 Macedonian character than in the Greek 4 . Still it would be 
 open to all the ordinary temptations of a Greek city and 
 especially of a Greek seaport. Against such St Paul had to 
 warn his converts both orally and by letter 5 . But no inference 
 of especial immorality in Thessalonica can be drawn from the 
 expressions which he employs. Scarcely a single Epistle of 
 St Paul is without similar warnings. 
 
 There was however one element of immorality in Thessa- 
 lonica which must not be passed over — of immorality which 
 shielded itself under the protection of religion — the worship of 
 the Cabiri, the mystic deities of Samothrace •- This worship 
 
 1 The date of the inscription ie un- it also twice in the analogous case of 
 
 certain. As read by Boeckh, it has Ephesus (Acts xix. 30, 33). 
 
 the name P. Flavius Sabinus, which, 3 See Dirksen Veriuehe zur Kritik 
 
 as he truly remarks, points to a date iv. p. 140 sq. (Lips. 1823). 
 
 not earlier than Vespasian. As read 4 The story in Lucian (Asinus § 49 
 
 by others, only the Sabinus remains. -56) has been put in evidence, as 
 
 Cousinery (j. p. 28) on very insuffi- showing a very low state of morals in 
 
 cient grounds assigns the arch to the Thessalonica. This is unfair, as Tafel 
 
 age of Augustus, supposing that it was justly remarks (p. 25). 
 
 erected to commemorate the battle of 5 1 Thess. iv. 3—6. 
 
 Philippi. Leake (ni. p. 236) considers * On the Cabiri see especially Lobeck 
 
 it to be later. The writer of the article Aglaoph. in. c. 5, p. 1202 sq. (and 
 
 in Macmillan's Magazine alluded to esp. p. 1256 sq., where he treats of 
 
 already (see above, p. 243) informs their worship in Macedonia), Creuzer's 
 
 me that it was his impression that the Symiolik und Mythologie m. p. 17- 
 
 inscription need not be part of the 36, p. 159 sq. (3rd ed.). The article 
 
 original arch. "» Paulv Re<^-Encyel. der elatt. Alter- 
 
 1 The word Btj/ios likewise occurs in thum. a. p. 2, by K. W. Miiller, con- 
 st Luke's narrative in reference to tainB an abstract of the opinions of 
 Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 5 itfrow ai- the principal writers on this subject. 
 rois vpoayayciv eh tAv S^fioy). He uses 
 
 L. E. 
 
 17 
 
258 
 
 THE CHURCH OF THESSAJLONICA. 
 
 had been patronised by Philip 1 , and by Alexander*. It is 
 especially identified with the Macedonians*, and more particu- 
 larly still with the Thessalonians '. About the time of St Paul 
 a political sanction was given to the worship — or rather, a 
 religious sanction to the political system as derived from the 
 worship — by deifying the Emperor as a Ka/8e*/»o? *. 
 
 To these Cabiric rites, in which gross immorality was 
 promoted under the name of religion, we may suppose that 
 St Paul alluded, when he deprecated any connexion between 
 his gospel and uncleanness 8 , a disclaimer which happily 
 would sound strange from the lips of a minister of any religious 
 denomination now, but which is quite intelligible in St Paul's 
 day, when read in the light of the foul orgies of the Cabiric 
 worship or of similar rites'. 
 
 1 Plut. Vit. Alex. o. 2. 
 3 Philostr. ii. 43. 94. 
 
 3 Laotant. Div. Inst. i. 15, Samma 
 veneratione coluerunt. . .Macedones Ca- 
 birum. 
 
 4 Firmicus de Err. Prof. Bel. o. 11, 
 Huno eundem Maoedonum colit stnlta 
 persuasio. Hie est Cabirue, oui Thes- 
 salonicenses quondam cruento [ore] 
 cruentis manibus supplioabant. Ca- 
 biric coins of Thessalonica are not in- 
 frequent (see Cousinery i. p. 28, PI. i.). 
 On the Cabiric games see Tafel, p. 24. 
 
 Cousinery supposes that this wor- 
 ship was not introduced into Thes- 
 salonica before the reign of Claudius, 
 on the very insufficient ground that 
 no Cabirio coins are found at an earlier 
 date (i. p. 35 sq.). It is in the highest 
 degree improbable that a worship which 
 is especially connected with the Greek 
 kings of Macedonia should not have 
 found its way into the principal city of 
 Macedonia earlier. 
 
 On less slender grounds still he finds 
 a temple of the Cabiri in an ancient 
 building still existing (I. c). 
 
 5 See the coins and esp. Cousinery 
 i. p. 38. 
 
 « 1 TheBS. ii. 3. 
 
 7 On the Jewish population of Thes- 
 salonica something has been said al- 
 ready; see above, p. 243. In the pre- 
 sent day the Jews are probably the 
 most numerous section of the inhabi- 
 tants. They have a quarter of their 
 own. Various estimates of their num- 
 bers are given (see Conybeare and 
 Howson, p. 383), the largest being that 
 of W. G. C. in Macmillan's Magazine 
 Feb. 1863, see above, p. 243. The 
 writer of the article informs me that 
 he heard it on the spot, on authority 
 that he cannot question. He adds 
 moreover that the Jews have an in- 
 terest in representing themselves as 
 fewer than they are, owing to the poll- 
 tax. Many of the Jews of modern 
 Thessalonica settled there in the fif- 
 teenth century, having been driven 
 out of Spain by the persecution in that 
 country, but they must have been in- 
 duced to settle there by the faot that 
 there was already a large Jewish popu- 
 lation. On the Babbinioal school at 
 Thessalonica see Milman History of 
 the Jews in. p. 419 (ed. 1866), and on the 
 whole question see Cousinery i. pp. 19, 
 49 ; Leake in. p. 249 sq. 
 
THE CHURCH OP THESSALONICA. 259 
 
 Fresh from the insults and sufferings he had undergone at 
 Philippi, but nothing daunted, he arrives at Thessalonica l . 
 With the Jews he commences his labours*. On the Sabbath 
 day he enters the synagogue. The details may be supplied 
 from the similar scene recorded as having taken place at an 
 earlier period in Antioch of Pisidia 3 . The law and the prophets 
 read, he is invited, we may suppose, by the rulers of the 
 synagogue to offer a word of exhortation. He avails himself of 
 the opportunity, and preaches, arguing from the Scriptures. 
 He sets himself to prove two things : (i) That it was ordained 
 that Messias should suffer ; (ii) that Jesus whom he preaches 
 is the Messias. For three successive Sabbath-days (eVt rpia 
 a-dfiftara*) he preaches". 
 
 Of his missionary labours in the course of the week St Luke 
 says nothing. We may supply the omission from his conduct at 
 Athens (Acts xvii. 17). He would appear in the market place, 
 engaging in conversation and trying to interest persons in his 
 message. The account of St Luke however is silent as to his 
 labours beyond the first three weeks of his stay. Had we merely 
 the historian's narrative we might have supposed that he only 
 stayed so long. It is plain however from the Epistles that the 
 length of his sojourn was much greater". At the close of these 
 three weeks we may suppose that he devoted himself more 
 exclusively to the heathen 7 . 
 
 1 1 These, ii. 2. found favour with the ruler of the 
 
 2 Acts xvii. 1 sq. synagogue, as at Corinth. Fromwhat- 
 
 3 Acts xiii. 15 ; and cf . Luke iv. 16 sq. ever cause, however, he was allowed to 
 
 4 It matters little whether we trans- repeat his message. 
 
 late <raj9/3ara ' weeks ' or ' sabbath-days.' 8 We gather this (1) from the success 
 
 The meaning is the same, viz. that for of his labours among the Gentiles; (2) 
 
 three weeks he repeated his preaching from the mention of the way in which 
 
 in the synagogue on the sabbath. he was engaged, especially his working 
 
 9 We may imagine him doing so, as 'day and night'; (3) from the notices 
 
 at the Fisidian Antioch, at the request given in Phil. iv. 16 of contributions 
 
 of some of the congregation who, inte- sent to him more than once (mraf kcU 
 
 rested in his teaching, thronged about Sis), 
 
 him as he left the synagogue (Acts 7 The incidents at the Pisidian An- 
 
 xiii. 42), and requested him to resume tioch are here again a parallel (Acts 
 
 his preaching; or he may even have xiii. 45,46). 
 
 17—2 
 
260 THE CHUBCH OF THESSALONTCA. 
 
 But meanwhile it was necessary that he should find means 
 of support. He did not wish to hinder the Thessalonians. 
 He did not wish to clog his message with the suspicion that 
 would attach to it, if he sought any return for his labours. He 
 would not appear to preach under ' a cloke of covetousness *.' 
 His wants were supplied in two ways, by the labours of his own 
 hands *, and by contributions received from Philippi ". 
 
 Meanwhile he preached zealously. He alludes more than 
 once to the subject of his preaching in the Epistles : and thus 
 we are enabled to supplement the notice in the Acts, already 
 alluded to, which refers mainly to his labours in the synagogue. 
 
 His preaching seems to have turned mainly upon one point 
 — the approaching judgment, the coming of Christ. They 
 had been invited at their conversion to await the Son of God 
 from heaven*. They were warned that He would come, as 
 a thief in the night*. At the same time they were told that 
 many things must happen first, that Antichrist must gather 
 strength, that 'the Restrainer' must be removed 6 . Around this 
 one doctrine thej Apostle's practical warnings and exhortations 
 had clustered. He warned them that they must suffer tribu- 
 lation', the tribulation which was to usher in the end of all 
 things, the persecution from the power of Antichrist. He bade 
 them abstain from impurity lest they should find vengeance in 
 the day of the Lord's coming 8 . He had charged them to walk 
 worthily of God who was calling them to His kingdom and glory*. 
 
 But the flood of new experiences, poured in upon them, 
 threatened to unsettle the foundations on which the social 
 structure was built. In the immediate presence of the great 
 
 1 1 Thess. ii. 5, rpoQAirei irXeocef Las. preceding note) ; cf. t4 iaTipq/ui 2 Cor. 
 
 a 1 Thess. ii. 5, 6, 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. xi. 9. 
 
 8. The notice in Acts xviii. 3 refers * 1 ThesB. i. 10. 
 
 indeed to another town and to a few » 1 Thess. v. 2, airol yhp djept/KJs 
 
 months later, but will show what the otSare. 
 
 nature of these labours was. • 2 Thess. ii. 6 sq. 
 
 * Phil. iv. 15-18. This however 7 1 Thess. iii. 4. 
 
 was not the main means of support, 8 1 Thess. iv. 6, 7. 
 
 and is not inconsistent with the Apo- » 1 Thess. ii. 12. 
 stle's language given above (see the 
 
THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 261 
 
 crisis which was to change all things, why should they attend 
 to the petty details, the common avocations, of daily life ? In 
 the flush of fresh and glorious hopes, was it right, was it possible, 
 to care for the things of this world ? There were some, doubt- 
 less, who honestly drew this inference from the Apostle's teaching. 
 There were many who, without examining their own motives, 
 would greedily seize hold of so lofty a pretext for shirking the 
 manifold responsibilities of their social position. This restless 
 and feverish spirit had appeared while the Apostle was still at 
 Thessalonica ; and he had set himself to counteract it. He 
 told them that their true ambition should be to keep quiet, to 
 attend to their business, to labour with their own hands 1 . The 
 bread of the Church was not for those who refused to work*. 
 Ldborare est ware is the true maxim of the Christian, be the 
 Advent far or near. 
 
 In such spirit the Apostle preached. Of the results of his 
 preaching we have ample evidence. ' His entrance in to them 
 was not in vain 3 .' They received the word in much affliction 
 with joy of the Holy Ghost*. The fame of their conversion 
 spread throughout Macedonia and Achaia, and ' in every place 5 .' 
 Among the Jews indeed his success appears not to have been 
 great 4 , yet among these two are mentioned by name, whose 
 faithful adherence to the Apostle is placed on record. Jason, 
 whose correct name was Jesus 7 , but who had assumed the 
 heathen name which most nearly resembled it, calls down the 
 wrath of his countrymen upon himself by entertaining the 
 Apostle while at Thessalonica. Aristarchus, another convert 
 from the Circumcision 8 , is his constant companion, suffering for 
 him at Ephesus, and apparently sharing his imprisonment at 
 
 1 1 Thees. iv. 12. 'IovBaluv, ireUrdtiatw. 
 
 3 2 Thess. iii. 10. 7 Of. Joseph. Ant. xii. 5. 1, 6 /uh ovv 
 
 3 1 Thess. ii. 1. 'Iri<roOs "l&awva iavrbv fieravofuurer ; of. 
 
 4 1 Thess. i. 6. also Aristo of Pella in Boath R. S. i. 
 3 1 Thess. i. 8. This is an indirect pp. 97, 107 ; and see the article by 
 
 testimony to the central position of B. F. W. in Smith's Diet, of the Bible 
 
 Thessalonica noticed above (p. 254). «. v. Jason. 
 • ActB zvii. 4, nvit # ainOm, i.e. ruv 8 Col. iv. 10, 11 ; see above, p. 246. 
 
262 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 
 
 Borne. With the proselytes and with the heathen his success 
 was greater 1 . It was from the last-mentioned however that the 
 vast majority of the new disciples were drawn 3 . They turned 
 from idols to serve the living and true God 3 . Among his 
 converts were many ladies of the first rank 4 . 
 
 These successes provoke the hatred of the Jews. They 
 enlist on their side the profligate idlers of the city, of which in 
 a seaport town there would he many, the lazzaroni of Thessa- 
 lonica 8 . They besiege the house of Jason, where Paul and his 
 companions were lodged, wanting to drag them before the 
 people, probably in the theatre'. Not finding them there, they 
 carry Jason and certain converts before the Politarchs. They 
 accuse them of high treason. They are setting up a rival to 
 the Roman Emperor, a king Jesus'. The main topic of the 
 Apostle's preaching had given the handle to their accusation. 
 He had, as we saw, laid great stress on the coming judgment, 
 on the kingdom of Christ. Ignoring or misapprehending his 
 true meaning, they represented him as setting up a temporal 
 kingdom 8 . 
 
 1 Acts zvii. 4, tup re atfiopivw \koX\ occurred had he been addressing Jews 
 
 EXXt/fui" irXijtfoi jroXtf. The received chiefly or proselytes, 
 
 text is tSiv re atfioiUvuv "EKkipiav 'of 3 1 Thess. i. 9. 
 
 devout Greeks ' ie. of Greek prose- * Acts zvii. 4. 
 
 lyteB (so also N). For this tSiv tc ■ Acts zvii. 5 'certain lewd fellows 
 
 ffffiofUvuv teal "EKKfyur is read by AD of the baser sort' (A.V.). This archaic 
 
 vulg. copt., but not by B, as Koch use of the word 'lewd,' as equivalent 
 
 states. This brings the account into to 'ignorant,' is not uncommon in 
 
 more direct agreement with the Ian- early English literature : ' the leude 
 
 guage of the Epistles ; and in its man, the grete olerke Shall stonde upon 
 
 favour may be urged (Eoch Einl. p. his owne werke ' Gower Con/. Am. I. 
 
 8) that (re/M/twoi elsewhere stands by 274; 'the lered and the lewed' Piers 
 
 itself (Acts zvii. 17) for proselytes. Ploughman's Vis. 2100, and other in- 
 
 Eoch refers to Burgerhoudt (p. 93) ; see stances given by W. A. Wright Bible 
 
 also Paley Harm Paul. p. 281. Word-booh, s.v. 
 
 3 This appears from the evidence of ' As in the riot at Ephesus, Acts 
 
 the Epistles. For (i) he addresses his zix. 29, 30, 31. 
 
 readers distinctly as having been con- 7 The exact parallel to John xiz. 12, 
 
 verted from idol-worship, 1 Thess. i. 9, 15 is worth noticing, 
 
 quoted below, cf. ii. 14, 16; (ii) he 8 This is rightly regarded as an 
 
 refrains from any direct allusion to undesigned coincidence of a striking 
 
 the 0. T., which would certainly have kind. The history supplies the ac. 
 
THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 263 
 
 The magistrates no less than the populace are alarmed at 
 these representations. They take securities from Jason and 
 the rest, as persons who had disturbed, or were suspected of 
 disturbing, the public peace. The Apostle had hitherto lain 
 concealed. Seeing that events had taken a turn so unfavour- 
 able to the continuance of his labours, he left Thessalonica in 
 company with Silas under cover of night. 
 
 These events occurred on St Paul's second missionary journey 
 — probably in the year 52. From Thessalonica he went to 
 Bercea. Thence he was driven out at the instigation of some 
 Jews from Thessalonica, who, hearing of his successes there, 
 followed him. From Bercea he went to Athens, and from 
 Athens to Corinth. As he does not seem to have remained 
 long at either of these intermediate places, it was not many 
 months — probably not many weeks — after he left Thessalonica 
 that he entered Corinth. 
 
 But meanwhile his anxiety for his Thessalonian disciples 
 was increasing daily 1 - He had made more than one unsuccessful 
 attempt to revisit them 3 . The storm of persecution was 
 gathering while he was yet at Thessalonica. He knew that he 
 had left to his new converts a heritage of suffering. He had 
 warned them of what awaited them. Would they yield to 
 persecution and renounce their allegiance 3 ? At length the 
 suspense became too terrible. He could no longer contain 
 himself 4 . He denied himself the services of Timothy, and des- 
 patched him — whether from Bercea or from Athens is uncertain 
 — to visit Thessalonica and report to him of the condition of his 
 new converts. 
 
 The Apostle is now at Corinth; Timothy returns. The 
 report of the Thessalonian Church is most favourable. Their 
 personal affection for the Apostle is as strong as ever; and 
 undaunted by persecution they had remained steadfast in the 
 
 count of the charges brought against 1 1 Thess. ii. 17. 
 
 him. The Epistles supply the matter " 1 Thess. ii. 18 euro! »cal Us. 
 
 of his preaching (see esp. 1 Thess. ii. 3 1 Thess. i. 6; ii. 14, 15; iii. 3, 5, 7. 
 
 12 ; 2 Thess. i. 5). The two coincide * 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, 5. 
 
 in a very remarkable way. 
 
264 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 
 
 faith and in deeds of love 1 . It was as new life to the Apostle 
 to hear these glad tidings'. In the first flush of joy and 
 gratitude he wrote to the Thessaloniana to encourage them to 
 persevere and to advise them on certain matters, where they 
 seemed to need his advice. This is the First Epistle to the Thes- 
 salonians. 
 
 For notwithstanding that Timothy's report was so cheering, 
 there were some points on which they required correction or 
 instruction. 
 
 These points were as follows : — 
 
 (1) The error, of which he had discerned the beginnings 
 while he was still in Thessalonica, and which he had striven to 
 check, had gained ground meanwhile. The very intensity of 
 their Christian faith, dwelling too exclusively on the day of the 
 Lord's coming, had been attended with evil consequences. A 
 practical inconvenience of some moment had arisen. In their 
 feverish expectation of this great crisis, some had been led to 
 neglect their ordinary business 8 . There was a spirit of restless- 
 ness manifest in the Thessalonian Church. The Apostle re- 
 bukes this. 
 
 (2) In connexion with the doctrine of the Lord's advent 
 another difficulty had arisen — not a practical one, but a theo- 
 retical one — which had troubled the minds of many. Certain 
 members of the Church had died, and there was great anxiety 
 lest they should be excluded from any share in the glories of 
 the Lord's advent 4 . The Apostle sets himself to quiet this 
 anxiety. 
 
 (3) An unhealthy state of feeling with regard to spiritual 
 gifts was manifesting itself. Like the Corinthians at a later 
 day 6 , they needed to be reminded of the superior value of 
 'prophesying,' compared with other gifts of the Spirit which 
 they exalted at its expense 8 . 
 
 1 1 TheBS. iii. 6; of. i. 5 sq. ; iv. 10. • 1 Thess. iy. 13-18. 
 
 * 1 Thess. iii. 8 vvr fu/w {clv 6/uis ' 1 Cor. xiv. 3, 4, 5, 22, 24. 
 <rr/JKcre. « 1 Thess. v. 19, 20. 
 
 * 1 Thess. iv. 11. 
 
THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 265 
 
 (4) There were symptoms of a tendency to despise law- 
 fully constituted authorities, and generally a spirit of unruliness 
 was showing itself — not unconnected, as I have already hinted, 
 with that independence of temper which was characteristic of 
 the Macedonians 1 . 
 
 (5) There was the danger, which they shared in common 
 with most Gentile Churches, of relapsing into their old heathen 
 profligacy*. Against this the Apostle offers a word in season. 
 We need not suppose, however, that Thessalonica was worse in 
 this respect than other Greek cities. 
 
 The letter was written partly to correct these errors, but 
 still more to express his satisfaction with his converts, and to 
 cheer them under persecution 3 . 
 
 Between the First and the Second Epistles no long interval 
 seems to have elapsed. Some information as to the state of the 
 Thessalonian Church has reached the Apostle meanwhile, by 
 what source it is not known. Some of the vicious tendencies, 
 which he had endeavoured to check, were still further developed. 
 And some misunderstanding as to his teaching had arisen. 
 
 To meet these he wrote the Second Epistle. The two 
 prominent points in the Epistle are as follows : — 
 
 (i) Misapprehension had spread as to the nearness of the 
 Advent. It was maintained that the Apostle had declared it to 
 be imminent 4 . 
 
 (ii) The restless and unruly spirit, which he had before 
 rebuked, was gaining ground". 
 
 At the same time, and not unconnected with these errors, 
 St Paul's personal relations with the Thessalonians had become 
 less satisfactory. His authority had been tampered with, and 
 an unauthorised use was made of his name. It is difficult to 
 ascertain the exact circumstances of the case from casual and 
 indirect allusions, and indeed we may perhaps infer from the 
 
 1 1 Thess. v. 12-14; see above, p. 3 1 Thess. ii. 14; iii. 2, 4. 
 
 248. ' 2 Thess. ii. 1 sq. 
 
 s 1 Thess. iv. 3-8. • 2 Thess. iii. 6-12. 
 
266 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 
 
 vagueness of the Apostle's own language that he himself was 
 not in possession of definite information ; but at all events his 
 suspicions were aroused. Designing men might misrepresent 
 his teaching in two ways, either by suppressing what he actually 
 had written or said, or by forging letters and in other ways 
 representing him as teaching what he had not taught. St 
 Paul's language hints in different places at both of these modes 
 of false dealing. He seems to have entertained suspicions of 
 this dishonesty even when he wrote the First Epistle. At the 
 close of that Epistle he binds the Thessalonians by a solemn 
 oath, ' in the name of the Lord,' to see that the Epistle is read 
 'to all the holy brethren' 1 — a charge unintelligible in itself, 
 and only to be explained by supposing some misgivings in the 
 Apostle's mind. Before the Second Epistle is written, his 
 suspicions seem to have been confirmed, for there are two 
 passages which allude to these misrepresentations of his teach- 
 ing. (1) In the first of these he tells them in vague language, 
 which may refer equally well to a false interpretation put upon 
 his own words in the First Epistle, or to a supplemental letter 
 forged in his name, ' not to be troubled either by spirit or by 
 word or by letter, as coming from us, as if the day of the Lord 
 were at hand.' They are not to be .deceived, he adds, by any 
 one, whatever means he employs (Kara fjui]Siva rpoirov, ii. 2, 3). 
 (2) In the second passage at the close of the Epistle he says, 
 ' The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is a token 
 in every Epistle: so I write' (iii. 17), evidently a precaution 
 against forgery'. 
 
 And not only so. If there were unscrupulous persons, who 
 tampered with his authority, there were also unruly ones who 
 denied it, or were disposed to deny it. St Paul asserts his office 
 
 1 1 Tbess. v. 27. /JdXou dji-doroXoi fifayfow yeyifuicav ' a 
 
 2 That such precautions were not niv i( atpovvrcs, a Si irpo<rrt8a>Tcf oh t6 
 unnecessary is proved by the complaint oval kcitcu. oi 6av/Murr6v Apa el «ol tw 
 of Dionysius of Corinth (in Eu9. H. E. xvpiaKwv jtaStovpyfjaai TiKes ^ri/S^SX^yrai 
 iv. 23, see Boath R. S. I. p. 181), iwur- ypatp&v, 6w6re xal ratj oi5 roioiiratt liri- 
 toXAj yip iSe\<pwv i,%iw(fo\vrav /ie pcfiovXciiicacn. 
 
 7pct</<cu typa<J/a. xai ratiras o! rod Sia- 
 
THE CHURCH OF THESJ3ALONICA. 267 
 
 much more strongly in this Epistle than in the former 1 . Yet 
 still these were but slight blemishes on a Church with which 
 generally the Apostle was thoroughly satisfied. The errors were 
 confined to a few, and had not assumed a virulent form. The 
 Apostle is bound to thank God for the exceeding growth of 
 their faith and the abundance of their love'. 
 
 The Thessalonian Church is now but a very few months old 
 — a little more than a year at most. From this time forward it 
 disappears from the Apostolic history. As regards the Churches 
 of Macedonia generally we have the Apostle's testimony to their 
 satisfactory condition, and we can well believe that the Thessa- 
 lonians were included in his commendation. But of Thessalonica 
 especially we know absolutely nothing. Even the name occurs 
 but twice in the New Testament at a later date 3 . One of these 
 passages refers to incidents within the period of its infancy 
 which I have already considered : in the other it occurs quite 
 incidently. Neither throws any light on its condition. 
 
 And this is true of its subsequent ecclesiastical history. 
 The Church of Thessalonica passes through a period of thick 
 darkness, from which it emerges at length in the fourth century. 
 So far as I know, there are but two notices of it during two 
 centuries and a half or more, and these are of the briefest and 
 most meagre character 4 . From Melito's Apology it appears that 
 the Emperor Antoninus Pius had written to the people of Thessa- 
 lonica, among other places, telling them to take no new steps 
 against the Christians 6 . This would seem to show an important 
 and a struggling Church at Thessalonica in the middle of the 
 second century. At the beginning of the next century, 
 Tertullian* couples it with Philippi as a Church where the 
 
 * 2 Thess. iii. 14, 15 ; cf. ii. 15, iii. 4. 5 Melito Apology, mSiv veumplfrtv 
 
 2 2 Thess. i. 3. T€ ft ^U"^ v Q- e - r! " lV X/motiovwv). The 
 
 3 Phil. iv. 16, 2 Tim. iv. 10. passage is given above, p. 244, from 
 
 * On the other hand Conybeare and Ens. H. E. iv. 26: it has escaped the 
 Howson (p. 250) speak of Thessalonica diligence of Tafel, pp. 9, 30. 
 
 ' boasting of a series of Christian annals « Tertull. de praescr. 36, ' apud quas 
 
 unbroken since the day of St Paul's ipsae authenticae literae eorum reoi- 
 arrival.' tentnr -' 
 
268 THE CHTJBCH OP THESSALONICA. 
 
 letters of the Apostles are read in the original. Of its early 
 bishops two are mentioned, Axistarchus in Bede's martyrology 1 , 
 and Gaius by Origen 8 , if this latter be not a confusion with 
 Gaius of Macedonia 3 . It could boast of a martyr in the Dio- 
 cletian persecution 4 , and the church raised in his honour, the 
 church of St Demetrius, now a mosque, is the most splendid in 
 Thessalonica'. Nor does Demetrius appear to stand alone, if 
 an epithet (<f>i\ofidpTvpe<:) applied to the congregation at large 
 be something more than a complimentary title". More than 
 once the names of its bishops appear on the records of eccles- 
 iastical councils, and at the Council of Sardica (a.d. 343) its 
 bishop Aetius claimed for the metropolis of the people of Thessa- 
 lonica the consideration due to its importance and its population'. 
 While the glories of Antioch and Alexandria gradually pale, 
 Thessalonica rises into splendour. In the fourth century Theo- 
 doret in a striking passage 8 points to the city as the greatest 
 and most populous in the district. Its resistance to the suc- 
 cessive attacks of the barbarian hordes — whether Goths or 
 
 1 On Aug. 4; see Le Qnien Or. Ckr. Soman. Vet.), by the Eastern Church 
 
 n- P- 27. on Oot. 26. His cult sprang rapidly 
 
 a Origen on Bom. xvi. 23 ; Bee above, into prominence in the fifth century. 
 
 P- 247. He received the title of pvpofiX&rqs 
 
 * Acts xix. 29. from the streams of holy oil, which 
 
 * The year of the martyrdom of were said to issue from his relics and 
 Demetrius must be fixed at a.d. 303 to cure diseases. 
 
 or 306, according as the Maximianus ° CouBine'ry i. p. 41, Leake in. p. 
 
 mentioned in the acts of his martyr- 242. 
 
 dom (Anastatius Bibliothecarius p. 88; "It occurs in an anonymous writer 
 
 Photius Biblioth. 255) is considered quoted by John of Thessalonica {Act. 
 
 to be Herculius or Galerius. Simeon Sanet. iv. 48, p. 121). A little lower 
 
 the Metaphrast (for Oct. 8, pp. 90, down, one saint, a virgin called Ma- 
 
 96) and an anonymous biographer of trona, is mentioned by name, 
 
 the sixth century call him Maximianus ' Canon, xvi. 'Actios Ma/anns etirev ■ 
 
 Herculius, but on the other hand he OAk iyvocire irola kcU rniMur, rvyxiva 
 
 is represented as having conquered ^ tmv OearnXopiKitay /iirrpiroXis k.t.X. 
 
 the Sarmatians, which was done, not (Mansi Condi, m. p. 17; of. Hefele 
 
 by Herculius, but by Galerius (Oros. Conciliengesch. i. p. 577). 
 
 Hut. vii. 25; see Cornelius Byeus » Theodoret H. E. v. 17, e«r<ra\o- 
 
 Aeta Sanctorum OctobrU iv. Brussels yfcij r&Ku i<rrl pcytoni Kal ToKvivBpu- 
 
 1780). Demetrius' festival is kept by iros. The whole passage is impor- 
 
 the Western Church on Oot. 8 (Martyrol. tant. 
 
THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 269 
 
 Sclavonians — and the noble share which it took in the con- 
 version to Christianity of each successive tribe of invaders won 
 for it the proud title of ' the orthodox city 1 .' 
 
 At present its population represents more fully the creed of 
 the adversaries of St Paul than the creed of St Paul himself — 
 the Jewish than the Christian faith. Only a minority of the 
 inhabitants are Christians 1 '. But the memory of the great 
 Apostle lives and is honoured by those who deny the truths 
 which he first taught within its walls. Two pretended relics 
 of St Paul the city possesses in two rival pulpits which stand 
 in two of the principal mosques, and contend for the honour of 
 having been the place from which the Gospel was first preached 
 by the Great Apostle of the Gentiles 3 . 
 
 1 This title was given to it by (a.d. 1430). 
 Cameniata in the tenth centaxy {rb 2 For a most interesting account of 
 ipBbboSiov oi/ttjc koX cZvcu koX 6vo/i&{e<r- Jewish life in those parts, and on the 
 Scu % 3). Tafel, who has studied the general relation of Judaism and Chris- 
 medieval history of the city with great tianity , see Benan Les Apotres p. 284 sq. 
 care, couples it with Constantinople [ed. 1866). On the present ecclesiasti- 
 as the twin bulwark of Eastern Chris- cal organization of the district see 
 tendom. Though frequently besieged, Leake m. p. 250. 
 the city was only captured three times, 3 Macmillan'e Magazine Feb. 1863 
 by the Saracens (a.d. 904), the Nor- pp. 314, 5. 
 mans (a.d. 1185), and finally the Turks 
 
 [1867.] 
 
VIII. 
 THE MISSION OF TITUS TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
Reprinted from the ' Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology,' 
 Vol. il p. 194 sq. (1855). 
 
VIII. 
 THE MISSION OF TITUS TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 fT^HE mission of Titus, which occupies so prominent a place 
 -*- in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, has been the 
 subject of much discussion with regard to its object and relation 
 to other communications of St Paul with the same Church, 
 especially the similar and almost contemporaneous mission of 
 Timotheus. The explanation here offered has not, as far as I 
 have seen, been anticipated : it is certainly not the view main- 
 tained by the most recent critics, English or German. At the 
 same time it seems so far to recommend itself by its simplicity, 
 and to offer so adequate a solution of all the difficulties which 
 the problem presents, that it can scarcely have failed to suggest 
 itself to the minds of others besides myself 1 . 
 
 But perhaps it may not be superfluous to say a few words 
 on the previous communications of St Paul with the Church 
 of Corinth, not only by way of introduction to my immediate 
 subject, but also because they offer considerable difficulties in 
 themselves. 
 
 1 This paper had been partly writ- results were obtained independently, 
 
 ten and the substance of the whole and, where they agree with those of 
 
 collected, before Mr Stanley's book ap- Mr Stanley, are worked out more fully 
 
 peared. It was no slight satisfaction than his plan admitted, 
 
 to me to find that with regard to one I have alluded several times to Mr 
 
 main point, the identification of the Stanley's book in my notes, chiefly 
 
 mission of Titus with that of the bre- where I have had occasion to differ from 
 
 thren mentioned in the First Epistle, him; but I would not be thought to dis- 
 
 the distingnished editor supports the parage so valuable a contribution to the 
 
 view here maintained. Though so far history of the apostolic times. I would 
 
 anticipated, I have ventured to send wish the same remark to apply to my 
 
 this paper to the press, because the mention of other distinguished names. 
 
 L. E. 
 
 18 
 
274 THE MISSION OF TITUS 
 
 It must have been some time during St Paul's three years' 
 
 residence at Ephesus (from A.D. 54 to 57), that he received 
 
 information of the critical state of the Corinthian Church, 
 
 which he had himself founded a few years earlier. His presence 
 
 seemed to be required, and he accordingly crossed the uEgaean, 
 
 and paid a short visit to the capital of Achaia, returning to 
 
 Ephesus to complete his missionary work there. This seems 
 
 to be the most probable account of St Paul's second visit to 
 
 Corinth, of which little more than the fact is recorded. For 
 
 though the circumstance is not noticed by St Luke, yet his 
 
 silence is easily accounted for, supposing it intentional, when we 
 
 reflect that his object was not to write a complete biography of 
 
 St Paul, but a history of the Christian Church, and that he has 
 
 accordingly selected out of his materials such facts onl)' as 
 
 throw light upon Christianity in all ages — representative facts, as 
 
 we might call them ; while on the other hand, if it be supposed 
 
 that he was unacquainted with the circumstance, this supposition 
 
 again is easily explained from the short duration of St Paul's stay 
 
 at Corinth, and the facility of intercourse between the two coasts 
 
 of the JSgaean. At all events, there are passages in the epistles 
 
 (e. g. 2 Cor. xii. 14 ; xiii. 1, 2) which seem inexplicable under 
 
 any other hypothesis, except that of a second visit — the difficulty 
 
 consisting not so much in the words themselves, as in their 
 
 relation to their context 1 It appeal's necessary therefore to 
 
 1 1 cannot think, foi instance, that quite out of place in this connexion, to 
 
 Mr Stanley's explanation of the context say nothing of the ambiguity of ex- 
 
 of 2 Cor. xii. 14, rph-ov tovto {toIixus piession. His interpretation of 2 Cor. 
 
 l\u tXffriv vpbs upas, on the ground of xiii. 1 in relation to its context is 
 
 the designed visit, is at all satisfactory. scarcely less objectionable. 
 
 And yet he calls attention to the oppo- At all events, admitting Mr Stanley's 
 
 sition between the tenses KarevdpKTpra explanations as possible, it must seem 
 
 and KaravapK^ca, which leads to the strange that the Apostle should twice 
 
 true solution, ' I have not been bur- have veiled his mention of his designed 
 
 densome to you... I am on the eve of visit under language which applies at 
 
 paying you a third visit, and I will not least as well (in 2 Cor. xiii. 1 rpirov 
 
 be burdensome,' i.e. I will observe the tovto (pxofxat, far better) to an aotual 
 
 same practice as on the two former visit, and in both oases have intro- 
 
 occasions. But the appeal to his pro- duced it in a manner whioh so rudely 
 
 jected visit as a proof of his affection interrupts the obvious train of thought, 
 
 (for this is Mr Stanley's explanation) is On the other hand, 1 Cor. xvi. 7 
 
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 275 
 
 abandon the opposite view, chiefly known to the English student 
 through the advocacy of Paley, who seeks to explain these pas- 
 sages on the ground of a visit designed, but never actually paid. 
 The Apostle's visit seems not to have been effectual in 
 checking the evils which called for his interference. It would 
 appear that the shameless profligacy, for which the city was 
 proverbial, had already found its way into the Christian com- 
 munity. He therefore wrote to the Corinthians, warning them 
 to shun the company of offenders in this kind. This letter, 
 which was probably brief and of no permanent interest to the 
 Christian Church, has not been preserved, and we only know 
 that it was written, from a passing allusion to it in a subsequent 
 epistle 1 — the First to the Corinthians in our Canon. It was 
 probably in this lost letter that he informed them of the design, 
 
 has been unjustifiably pressed into the 
 service. The words oi flAw yi.p units 
 dpri iv wap6Sip ISelv have been inter- 
 preted ' I will not now pay you a pass- 
 ing visit ; ' implying that he had done 
 so before, and, as St Paul on his first 
 visit to Achaia stayed eighteen months 
 (Acts xviii 11), necessarily alluding to 
 a second and shorter visit. Against 
 this Meyer alleges the order of the 
 words, and de Wette repeats this 
 argument. So far as I can see, the 
 order would admit this interpretation 
 well enough, and Wieseler (Ghron. p. 
 240) has a right to make use of the 
 passage in spite of this protest. The 
 real objection seems to be that the 
 natural, if not the necessary, antithe- 
 sis to i.fm ' just now ' (when used of 
 present time) is the future, and not 
 the past. On this ground I should 
 object to Mr Stanley's explanation, 
 ' now according to my present, as dis- 
 tinguished from my late intention.' 
 
 1 1 Cor. v. 9 "Erypaipa v/uy iv rj 
 iirtaroXy fiij avvava^dyvvadcu trbpvots : 
 but as undue weight has been assigned 
 to these words, as showing that a pre- 
 vious letter had been written, it will be 
 
 as well to see how far they favour such 
 a view. (1) No such conclusion can be 
 drawn from the aorist lypa\f/a. That 
 this word is frequently used in refer- 
 ence to the letter in which it occurs, 
 any concordance will show; I must 
 also confess myself unable to discern 
 the latent 'philosophical' objections 
 to its being bo employed, even at the 
 commencement of a letter (Davidson, 
 Introd. ii. p. 140, ed. 1) ; the grammar, 
 at all events, seems unexceptionable. 
 Cf. Martyr. Polyc. c. 1: iypi<//aiia> 
 vfiu/, &8e\tpol t Tct «xtA tovs fjuiprupfiffav- 
 ras, where the words occur immedi- 
 ately after the salutation. (2) It is 
 unnecessary to accumulate instances 
 to show that -q trurroXi) may refer to 
 the letter itself. (3) It has been found 
 difficult to explain the allusion by 
 anything which has preceded. This 
 difficulty must be allowed: verses 2, 
 6, 8, do not supply what is wanted : 
 but is it necessary to seek any refer- 
 ence beyond the passage itself? Would 
 it not be quite in accordance with this 
 epistolary usage of the aorist to look 
 for the explanation in the same sen- 
 tence, so that the correspondingEnglish 
 
 18—2 
 
276 THE MISSION OF TITUS 
 
 which he at this time entertained but was afterwards obliged to 
 abandon, of paying them a double visit, on his way to and return 
 from Macedonia (1 Cor. xvi. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 15). 
 
 How long an interval elapsed before St Paul again com- 
 municated with the Corinthian Christians, we cannot ascertain ; 
 but it was towards the close of his stay at Ephesus, that 
 he despatched Timotheus through Macedonia on his way to 
 Corinth, though apparently with some apprehensions that he 
 might not reach that city, and not long after addressed a second 
 letter to them — the First Epistle of our Canon. This he 
 placed in the hands of certain brethren, whom he expected to 
 arrive at Corinth a little before or at any rate not later than 
 Timotheus (1 Cor. xvi. 10-12), so that they might return 
 together, and rejoin the Apostle in company. Have we any 
 means of discovering who these brethren were ? 
 
 It seems more than probable in the first place, that Timotheus 
 never reached Corinth, but was detained in Macedonia so long, 
 that he had not advanced beyond this point, when he was over- 
 taken by St Paul on his way from Ephesus to Achaia. At all 
 events he must have been in St Paul's company when the 
 Second Epistle was written, as his name appears in the salutation, 
 and there are sufficient grounds for concluding that this Epistle 
 was sent from Macedonia. But there are numerous reasons for 
 
 to the words (ypatf/a iplv pd) erwava/uy- p. 35 sq.), but it is perhaps worth 
 
 waBat would be, 'I write to you not while observing how completely his 
 
 to keep company'? argument founded on 1 Pet. v. 12 SC 
 
 The only substantial argument in 6\lywv typafa, which he finds it neces- 
 
 favour of a previous letter seems to be sary to refer to a former and shorter 
 
 contained in the words h> ry irrurroXy, letter, is met by sueh passages as 
 
 which are quite superfluous in refer- Hebr. xiii. 22 Sii ppaxtar ftrArreiXa 
 
 ence to the First Epistle itself, and the i/uv, Ignatius ad Polyc. o. vii. (shorter 
 
 comparison with 2 Cor. vii. 8 makes Greek) St' 6>JLyuv i/ias ypafi/tdruv vape- 
 
 the allusion to a previous letter even (tdWa. For not only is the aorist 
 
 more evident. This argument appears used in both these passages in a way 
 
 to be insuperable. which M. Bunsen seems to think inad- 
 
 I suppose that the Ohev. Bunsen's missible, but the writers have also 
 'Bestoration' of the 'Former Epistle ventured to characterize their epistles 
 of Peter' will carry oonviotion to few as brief, though they considerably ex- 
 German and still fewer English minds ceed in length that to which he con- 
 (Hippol. i. p. 24, ed. 2, in Anal. Anten. i. siders suoh a term inappropriate. 
 
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 277 
 
 supposing that this was the limit of Timotheus' journey. In the 
 first place : St Paul himself in announcing this projected visit of 
 Timotheus to Corinth, has evidently some misgivings as to its 
 fulfilment, and consequently speaks of it as uncertain, eav Se e\0y 
 lifiodeo'i (1 Cor. xvi. 10). Probably he foresaw circumstances 
 which would detain his missionary on the way. Secondly, 
 Timotheus is represented in the Acts (xix. 22) as being sent 
 with Erastus into Macedonia, as if the sacred historian were not 
 aware of his journey being continued to Corinth. Thirdly : if 
 Timotheus had actually visited Corinth, he must have brought 
 back some information as to the state of the Church there ; and, 
 if he arrived, as was expected, subsequently to the receipt of the 
 First Epistle, he must also have been able to report on a subject 
 which lay nearest to the Apostle's heart — the manner in which 
 his letter was received by the Corinthian Christians. But we do 
 not find this to have been the case. For while in the Second 
 Epistle to the Corinthians St Paul dwells at great length on 
 information derived from another source — the epistle in fact 
 arising entirely out of this — there is not the slightest inkling of 
 any knowledge obtained through Timotheus on any subject 
 whatever. And fourthly, in one passage where St Paul is 
 enumerating visits recently paid to the Corinthians by the 
 Apostle himself or by his accredited messengers, the name of 
 Timotheus does not occur, though it could scarcely have been 
 passed over in such a connexion (2 Cor. xii. 17, 18). 
 
 For these reasons we may infer with extreme probability, 
 that Timotheus, finding it advisable to prolong his stay in 
 Macedonia, was prevented from carrying out his original inten- 
 tion of visiting Achaia, before he joined St Paul. For, though 
 each of these arguments separately is far from conclusive, they 
 seem when combined to form such a body of circumstantial 
 evidence, as fully to justify this verdict. Again, if this con- 
 clusion be admitted, it simplifies the problem, and the subsequent 
 communications of the Apostle with the Church of Corinth 
 become easily explicable. This consideration is of course not 
 without weight. 
 
278 THE MISSION OF TITUS 
 
 On the other hand attempts have been made to impugn 
 some of these arguments. It will be as well to dispose of these 
 before proceeding. 
 
 In answer to the second argument, it has been maintained 
 that the journey of Timotheus to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22) was 
 different from, and subsequent to, his mission to Corinth. If such 
 a method of reconciling the accounts can in any way be avoided, 
 it should not be resorted to. The philosopher's rule with 
 entities should be the historian's with facts. They should not 
 be unnecessarily multiplied. Here so far is there from being 
 any necessity, that it is not easy to account for these repeated 
 journeys, which moreover in some degree perplex the chro- 
 nology, there being a difficulty in compressing all the events 
 within the given time. 
 
 In the statement on which my third argument is based, I 
 am at issue with Wieseler (Chron. p. 58) in a matter of fact. 
 I can therefore only state the case and leave it for the judgment 
 of others. He argues thus. The language with which the 
 Epistle opens (i. 12 — ii. 11) was evidently prompted by St Paul's 
 distress at the opposition which his former letter had occasioned. 
 Now this language describes his state of mind before the arrival 
 of Titus. Therefore some other messenger must have reached 
 him meanwhile from Corinth. Who can this messenger have 
 been but Timotheus? With Wieseler's hypothesis as to the 
 composition of the Second Epistle, built upon the argument 
 here given, I have no concern. The argument itself too is 
 unexceptionable, if the premise be once allowed. But does not 
 his statement arise from an entire misconception? I believe 
 ordinary readers will discern no such traces of tidings received 
 before the arrival of Titus. They will read in the opening of 
 the Second Epistle nothing more than the vague apprehensions 
 and misgivings, which would naturally arise in the Apostle's mind 
 as to the manner in which a condemnatory letter, expressed in 
 such fearless and uncompromising language — written moreover 
 
 in much affliction and anguish of spirit (2 Cor. ii. 4) would be 
 
 received in a community where the most flagrant irregularities 
 
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 279 
 
 prevailed, and where his own apostolic authority was denied by 
 a considerable number, and perverted to factious purposes by 
 others. Surely the language would have been far different; his 
 fears would have been far more clearly defined, if he had actually 
 received tidings; especially if these tidings had been brought by 
 a messenger as trustworthy as Timotheus. 
 
 The fowrth argument has been answered on the supposition 
 that St Paul in 2 Cor. xii. 17, 18 is only speaking of those who 
 took part in the collection of alms, and that, as the mission of 
 Timotheus was quite independent of any such object, his name 
 is properly omitted. But where does it appear that the list of 
 names is so restricted? The word eir\eoveicTT)aev, judging from 
 the context, seems to refer rather to the abuse of the Corinthians' 
 hospitality, than to the gathering of the contributions. Meyer 
 again accounts for the omission of Timotheus' name on the 
 ground that only the most recent visits to Corinth are here 
 alluded to. Yet granting that his view is true, as probably it is, 
 still the visit of Timotheus must have preceded that of Titus 
 by a few weeks at most, and could not have been omitted on this 
 account. The same able critic even considers that any mention 
 at all of Timotheus in the third person would be quite out 
 of place, when his name is found in the superscription of the 
 letter (on 2 Cor. xii. 18, cf. EM. § 1) ; and Mr Alford urges the 
 same argument, though less strongly (Vol. n. Prol. p. 56). It is 
 a sufficient reply to Meyer to observe that, whether out of 
 place or not, it is what St Paul has done elsewhere (e.g. 1 
 Thess. iii. 3, 6), and what therefore he might be supposed to do 
 here. 
 
 On the other hand, the direct arguments which have been 
 employed by those who consider it improbable that Timotheus 
 should have abandoned his design, do not seem to have much 
 force. Mr Alford for instance considers the purpose of his 
 mission as stated in 1 Cor. iv. 17, to be 'too plain and precise to 
 be lightly given up.' That the mission should have been 
 entirely abandoned is certainly unlikely. That it should have 
 been transferred to other hands, when it was found incompatible 
 
280 THE MISSION OF TITUS 
 
 with the discharge of Timotheus' duties in Macedonia, so far 
 from being an improbable supposition, seems to commend itself 
 by its very probability. Again it is suggested by Meyer, and 
 here too Mr Alford endorses the suggestion, that the abandon- 
 ment of the intended journey of Timotheus would have furnished 
 another handle for the charge of fickleness against St Paul, and 
 that we should have found the charge rebutted in the Second 
 Epistle. This reason will probably not be considered of suffi- 
 cient weight to counterbalance the amount of evidence on 
 the other side. For if we take into account that the charge 
 would lie primarily at the door of Timotheus, and not of the 
 Apostle himself — that St Paul in announcing the design had 
 expressed some doubts as to the possibility of its fulfilment — that 
 the objects of the mission were not abandoned when it was 
 found impossible for Timotheus to carry them out — and lastly, 
 that the messengers sent by St Paul in his stead had a satis- 
 factory explanation to offer to the Corinthians of this change of 
 purpose — we can hardly suppose that the most captious of 
 St Paul's enemies would have thought it worth their while to 
 employ such a lame expedient to injure his credit. In short, 
 this case is no parallel at all to the circumstance of which his 
 opponents did avail themselves to bring him into disrepute 
 (2 Cor. i. 17). 
 
 On the whole then, so far from finding anything conflicting 
 in the evidence with regard to this mission of Timotheus, it 
 seems that, combining the hint of the possible abandonment of 
 the design in the First Epistle, the account of the journey to 
 Macedonia in the Acts, and the silence maintained with regard 
 to any visit to Corinth or any definite information received 
 thence through Timotheus in the Second Epistle, we discover an 
 • undesigned coincidence ' of a striking kind ; and that it is 
 therefore a fair and reasonable conclusion that the visit was 
 never paid. 
 
 By whom then was this mission fulfilled ? At the close of the 
 First Epistle (xvi. 11, 12) certain 'brethren' are mentioned, who 
 appear to have been the bearers of the letter, and whom St Paul 
 
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 281 
 
 expected to rejoin him in company with Timotheus. The Apostle 
 had urged Apollos to accompany this mission to Corinth (v. 12), 
 but he for reasons easily intelligible had declined, considering 
 that his visit would be unseasonable. Now there is no mention 
 of the names of these brethren in the First Epistle, but we find 
 St Paul subsequently after his departure from Ephesus at Troas 
 awaiting the return of Titus from Corinth with tidings of the 
 reception of his letter there (2 Cor. ii. 12), and falling in with 
 him at length in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6). From this we might 
 have supposed that Titus was alone. But from another allusion 
 to this mission in the Second Epistle we find he was accompanied 
 by a ' brother,' whose name is not given (2 Cor. xii. 18) \ What 
 more probable than that Titus and ' the brother ' accompanying 
 him of the Second Epistle, are ' the brethren ' of the First ? 
 
 But why is Titus not mentioned by name ? Might we not 
 rather ask, why he should be so mentioned ? His name never 
 occurs in the Acts. His influence on the interests of the Church 
 at large was probably not so great as that of Tychicus or 
 Trophimus, certainly not as that of Apollos or Timotheus. He 
 is brought into prominent notice in reference to the Churches of 
 Corinth and Crete in particular; but we should doubtless be 
 wrong in judging of his position in the Christian Church by the 
 special importance with which he is invested in regard to indi- 
 vidual communities. The fact that an Epistle of St Paul bears 
 his name leads us almost unconsciously to assign a rank to him 
 which he probably did not hold in the estimation of his con- 
 temporaries. Titus then does not appear to have had a church- 
 wide reputation at this time, and there is no reason to suppose 
 that he was known specially to the Christians at Corinth. If so, 
 the omission of his name presents no difficulty, and it is in 
 
 1 I am at a loss to discover why Mr rity, though I have not found any 
 
 Stanley says, ' This mission was com- confirmation), but this has evidently 
 
 posed of Titus and two other brethren ' arisen from a confusion with the sub- 
 
 (on 1 Cor. xvi. 12). The Syriac ver- sequent mission, mentioned 2 Cor. viii. 
 
 sion indeed in 2 Cor. xii. 18 reada the 16. Mr Stanley does not give his 
 
 plural 'the brethren' (I assume this reasons elsewhere (2 Cor. viii. 16; xii. 
 
 to be the case on Mr Stanley's autho- 18). 
 
282 THE MISSION OF TITUS 
 
 accordance with St Paul's manner to speak thus of his fellow- 
 labourers (2 Cor. viii. 18, 22). No doubt Titus' strength of 
 character was well known to the Apostle when he despatched 
 him upon this difficult mission, but it only approved itself to the 
 Corinthians during his stay among them ; and his earnestness 
 and devotion, while there, raised him so far above his colleague, 
 that St Paul in writing to the Corinthians subsequently speaks 
 in such a manner as to show that 'the brother' who accompanied 
 him had sunk by his side into comparative insignificance. 
 
 Titus then, we may suppose, had been selected by St Paul as 
 one of the bearers of the letter, that in the event of Timotheus 
 being unable to prosecute his mission to Corinth, it might be 
 fulfilled by one who would act in the same loving and devoted 
 spirit. But there is one link yet to be supplied. How did Titus 
 communicate with Timotheus? How was it known that Timo- 
 theus would be detained in Macedonia? Here we are left to 
 mere conjecture ; but it seems not improbable that Titus and 
 his companion took the less direct route to Achaia by way of 
 Macedonia. They certainly returned that way, and there was, 
 as far as we can see, no more reason for haste in the one case 
 than in the other. And if it was the apprehension of danger 
 which deterred them from crossing the open sea at that early 
 season of the year, they would have much more cause to enter- 
 tain such fears on their journey thither than on their return, when 
 the season was farther advanced. Probably the greater security 
 of the indirect route was thought to compensate for the ad- 
 vantage, in point of time, gained by sailing straight across the 
 iEgaean 1 ; while the opportunity of communicating with Timo- 
 theus would be an additional motive in influencing their choice. 
 
 If the view here taken be correct, it will overthrow all 
 Wieseler's chronological results with regard to the interval 
 
 1 The movements of St Paul in the and he went by way of Macedonia, 
 
 following spring throw some light on apparently on account of the early 
 
 this point. He had intended to Bail season of the year. He left Philippi 
 
 direct from Corinth to Syria. His de- /ierA tAs lf^pot run dftytuv (Acts xx. 
 
 parture however was hastened by the 6). Of. Conybeare and Howson, n. 
 
 discovery of a conspiracy against him, p. 206. 
 
TO THE CORINTHIANS. 283 
 
 between the writing of the First and Second Epistles. The facts 
 are few and lead to no satisfactory conclusion ; but as far as 
 they go, they do not conflict with anything I have advanced. 
 
 The data for determining the relative chronology of this 
 period are these; (1) St Paul stayed at Ephesus 'for a season' after 
 sending Timotheus into Macedonia {iiretrxev XP° V0V > Acts xix. 
 22). (2) Timotheus had left before the First Epistle was written 
 (1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10). (3) There is an allusion which makes 
 it not improbable that the First Epistle was written shortly 
 before Easter (1 Cor. v. 1, 8). (4) St Paul here declares his 
 intention of setting out to visit Corinth quickly (iv. 19). (5) 
 We also learn from the same source that he expected to stay at 
 Ephesus till Pentecost (xvi. 8) : and lastly (6) there is reason 
 to suppose that he was subsequently led to hasten his departure. 
 It is not evident indeed that his life was endangered by the 
 tumult at Ephesus 1 , but such an outbreak must have interfered 
 with his preaching, and rendered his further stay there useless. 
 At all events the language of St Luke places his departure in 
 immediate connexion with this disturbance, in such a manner 
 as scarcely to leave a doubt that it was determined by this 
 circumstance (Acts xix. 41 ; xx. 1). It is probable, therefore, 
 that he left before he had intended ; and this explains another 
 incident. We find St Paul, after his hurried departure from 
 Ephesus, expecting to meet Titus at Troas, and when he was 
 disappointed of this hope, advancing into Macedonia, where he 
 was ultimately joined by him. Wieseler (Ghron. p. 59) uses 
 
 1 Wieseler considers it necessary to persecution at Ephesus, which mast 
 
 bring Timotheus back from Macedonia have began before the departure of 
 
 to Ephesns, because the plural in 2 Cor. Timotheus, and may have been shared 
 
 i. 8 seems to show that he shared the by him. St Paul speaks in the First 
 
 danger with St Paul on the occasion Epistle of his many adversaries (xvi. 9), 
 
 of the outbreak. The question of the and compares his struggles at Ephesus 
 
 use of the plural is beset with difficul- to a contest with wild beasts in the 
 
 ties; but, waiving this, the language arena (iv. 32). It is strange that 
 
 of St Paul (extycus, kpapii6T)ii£v, i£- ietipio/jAxnira should ever have been 
 
 airopri$TjKu) must refer to something understood literally, when the same 
 
 more than the mere momentary danger image is used 1 Cor. iv. 9 <Js iiriBa- 
 
 arising from the uproar. St Paul seems various, Srt Biwrpov iy&rffftjfiei'. 
 to have been subjected to a continuous 
 
284 THE MISSION OF TITUS TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 this as an argument, that St Paul's departure cannot have 
 taken place much earlier than he had originally intended ; for 
 otherwise he could not have expected to find Titus so soon at the 
 place of meeting determined upon. This seems to be a mistake. 
 There is no reason for supposing that they had agreed to meet 
 at Troas. The true state of the case appears to be this. 
 St Paul had intended to await the return of Titus and his 
 colleague at Ephesus. Subsequently being obliged to hasten 
 his departure, he calculated they would have advanced as far as 
 Troas before they met. In this calculation he proved to be 
 wrong. 
 
 If this view be correct, the hurried departure from Ephesus 
 will obviously not affect the chronological question, which thus 
 assumes a very simple form. We have the period from the 
 writing of the First Epistle, shortly before Easter (if we may 
 lay so much stress on a doubtful allusion), till after the feast 
 of Pentecost, when St Paul expected to leave Ephesus, for the 
 double journey of Titus, to Corinth and back. I have supposed 
 that he went and returned by way of Macedonia. Even assuming 
 that he travelled from Macedonia to Achaia by land, the interval 
 is sufficiently great. Hug (Introd. n. p. 381) calculates the 
 single journey from Corinth to Ephesus at thirty-one days, but 
 then he allows a wide margin which is quite superfluous. But, 
 if it be thought that in this case more time would be required, 
 we may suppose that Titus took ship at some port of Macedonia 
 (Thessalonica for instance), as St Paul seems to have done on 
 one occasion on leaving Beroea (Acts xvii. 14; Wieseler's Ghron. 
 pp. 42, 43), and returned the same way. This would be a 
 considerable saving of time, and the perils of the open sea 
 would in great measure be avoided. 
 
 [1855.] 
 
IX. 
 
 THE STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION OF THE 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
A. 
 M. RENAN'S THEORY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Reprinted from the 'Journal of Philology? Vol. n. p. 264 sq. (1869). 
 
 B 
 
 ON THE END OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 By Dk HORT. 
 
 Reprinted from the ' Journal of Philology,' Vol. ill. p. 51 sq. (1871). 
 
 C. 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Reprinted from the 'Journal of Philology,' Vol. in. p. 193 sq. (1871). 
 
IX. 
 
 THE STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION OF THE 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 A. 
 
 TN the introduction to his recent volume on St Paul, M. Renan 
 ■*- has offered a novel theory to account for certain phenomena 
 connected with the Epistle to the Romans. If, for reasons which 
 I shall give hereafter, this theory seems to me to he unsatis- 
 factory, it is yet sufficiently ingenious and striking to claim a 
 fair discussion ; and, as the subject itself possesses great critical 
 interest independently of M. Renan's views, I gladly avail myself 
 of the opportunity to investigate it in detail. 
 
 The documentary facts which demand explanation, and 
 which have served as the foundation for several theories 
 more or less allied to that of M. Renan, are the following: 
 
 (1) In Rom. i. 7 one MS. (G) for rols ovaiv iv 'Twjjujj aya- 
 •7T7]toZ<; ®eov reads toIs ovcriv iv ayaTry ©eov ; while in i. 15 it 
 omits the words roh iv 'Pio/ty- Again the cursive 47 contains 
 the following marginal note on i. 7, to iv 'Pa>/tj7, ovre iv tt} 
 eih)<yr)creL ovre iv t& prjra fjuwifiovevei, where however it is not 
 clear to what authority the scribe refers, though apparently he 
 is speaking of some commentator. Moreover I seem to see 
 other traces of the omission (at least in i. 7), which hitherto 
 have not been recognised. Though Origen elsewhere quotes 
 the common reading (il. p. 301, IV. p. 287), and though it is 
 given as the text in Rufinus' translation of his commentary on 
 this very passage, yet the comment itself, even as disguised by 
 its Latin dress, still appears to me to indicate that Origen here 
 had before him a text in which the words iv 'Trifiy were omit- 
 ted ; ' Benedictio haec pacis et gratiae quam dat dilectis Dei ad 
 
288 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 quos scribit apostolus Paulus ' (IV. p. 467). The same inference 
 also, if I mistake not, is suggested by the language of the Am- 
 brosian Hilary ; ' Quamvis Romanis scribat, illis tamen scribere 
 se significat qui in caritate Dei sunt'; though here again the 
 text has ' qui sunt Romae dilectis Dei,' but with the important 
 various reading (in one MS.) of ' in caritate Dei ' for ' dilectis 
 Dei.' These, it will be remembered, are the two oldest extant 
 commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans. Still further ; I 
 am disposed to think that the reading iv dyd-Try ®eov (for 
 (vyairr)Tol<s ®eov), which is found in several other authorities, 
 has arisen out of a combination of the two readings -rot? ovaiv 
 iv 'Ptofiji dyairr)Tol<: ®eov and tok oJxrw hi dydirri ®eov, and 
 thus bears indirect testimony to a still wider diffusion of a 
 recension omitting the words ev 'Pw^jy. This reading occurs 
 in the Latin of D (the Greek is wanting), and in the two 
 oldest MSS. of the Vulgate. 
 
 (2) The ascription of praise, with which according to the 
 received text (xvi. 25-27) the epistle closes, occupies different 
 places in different copies. In N, B, C, D, f, Vulg., Pesh., Memph., 
 jEth., and in the commentaries of Origen, Hilary, and Pelagius, 
 it occurs at the end of the xvith chapter, as in the received 
 text ; in L, 37, 47, and by far the greater number of cursives, 
 in the Harclean Syriac, in the commentaries of Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, and others, and in Cyril of Alexandria, its place is 
 at the close of the xivth chapter: in A, P, 17, Arm. (MSS. and 
 Zohr.), it is found in both places ; while in F, G, it is omitted 
 in both (a blank space however being left in G between the 
 xivth and xvth chapters). This variation of position moreover 
 is at least as early as Origen, who commenting on xvi. 25-27 
 writes ; ' Caput hoc Marcion, a quo scripturae evangelicae atque 
 apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de hac epistola penitus abstulit ; et 
 non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco ubi scriptum est, Omne autem 
 quod non est ex fide, peccatum est (xiv. 23), usque ad finem 
 cuncta dissecuit. In aliis vero exemplaribus, id est in his quae 
 non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoc ipsum caput (i.e. xvi. 25-27) 
 diverse positum invenimus. In nonnullis etenim codicibus post 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 289 
 
 eum locum quern supra diximus, hoc est Omne autem quod non 
 est ex fide peccatum est, statim cohaerens habetur Ei autem 
 qui potens est vos confirmare. Alii vero codices in fine id, ut 
 nunc positum est, continent.' From this language we may 
 perhaps assume that the authorities for either position seemed 
 to Origen to be nearly evenly balanced. Whether in ' ut nunc 
 positum est ' he refers to the position which he himself adopts in 
 this commentary, or to the position which was most common in 
 his day, does not distinctly appear. He makes no mention of 
 any MSS. as having it in both places, or (except Marcion's 
 copies) of any as omitting it in both. St Jerome however 
 (on Ephes. iii. 5) speaks of this passage as occurring 'in 
 plerisque codicibus,' thus implying that it is omitted in 
 some; but he may have been deceived by not finding it in 
 the place where he expected to find it. 
 
 (3) As appears from the statement of Origen just quoted, 
 Marcion's recension of the epistle closed with the end of the 
 xivth chapter. Moreover Tertullian {adv. Marc. v. 14) refers 
 to tribunal Christi (xiv. 10) as occurring in clausula of the 
 epistle; but, as he is refuting Marcion, we might reasonably 
 suppose that he here takes Marcion's own copy and argues 
 from it. On the other hand, it does not appear that he himself 
 elsewhere quotes from the xvth or xvith chapters of the epistle, 
 though the omission may be accidental. Neither is there, so 
 far as I know, any reference to these last two chapters in 
 Irenaeus, but here also no stress can be laid on the omission, 
 as there was no special reason for his quoting them. Again, 
 Wetstein says, 'Codex Latinus habet capitula epistolae ad Boma- 
 nos 51, desinit autem in cap. xiv.', but later critics have not been 
 able to identify the MS. and thus to verify the statement. 
 
 To explain these documentary facts, as also to account for 
 certain phenomena in the closing chapters of the epistle itself, 
 various theories have from time to time been suggested, which 
 I shall here attempt to classify. 
 
 (i) Bauk, with characteristic boldness, denied the genuineness 
 of the last two chapters, or, in other words, accepted the recen- 
 L. e. 19 
 
290 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 sion of Marcion as preserving the original proportions of the 
 epistle (Pavlus p. 398 sq.). This solution does not take into 
 account all the facts stated. Thus, for instance, it passes over 
 in silence the omission of the words ev 'Fw/ty in one or more 
 copies. For this reason it must be rejected on the ground of 
 external criticism alone. But again, when we come to examine 
 the xvth and xvith chapters themselves, whatever may be our 
 conclusion as regards their destination, we are forced to recog- 
 nise their genuineness. M. Renan expresses his surprise ' qu'un 
 critique aussi habile que Baur se soit contente* d'une solution 
 aussi grossiere. Pourquoi un faussaire aurait-il invents de 
 si insignifiants details ? Pourquoi aurait-il ajoute" a l'ouvrage 
 sacre" un liste de noms propres ?' (p. lxxi. sq.) If the argument 
 is just, the surprise is hardly reasonable ; for in spite of his ac- 
 knowledged ability, Baur's prompt method elsewhere is entirely 
 consistent with the rejection of these chapters. But indeed we 
 need not rely on this negative argument derived from the in- 
 adequacy of the motive for such a forgery. The style and the 
 substance of the chapters afford conclusive testimony, that we 
 have here not only the thoughts, but the words, of the Apostle 
 himself. To this it must be added that the incidental notices, 
 of which Paley has made use to establish the time and place of 
 writing, hang together in a manner which would suppose not 
 only the most consummate skill, but also the most minute 
 knowledge, on the part of a forger. 
 
 From this solution which maintains the spuriousness of the 
 last two chapters, we pass to others which, ' accepting them 
 as genuine, assume their displacement to a greater or less 
 degree. And here we may subdivide, according as these 
 chapters are supposed to have been addressed wholly to the 
 Romans or partly (at least) to some other Church. 
 
 (ii) Among those who accept the Roman destination of 
 the whole, but assume some displacement, is Heumann 1 . He 
 
 1 The views of Heumann, Paulus, des Briefet an die RSmer 1833, as I 
 Griesbaoh, and Semler, are here given have had no opportunity of verifying 
 at second hand from Eeiohe ErkHrung the references. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 291 
 
 supposes that the original epistle comprised the first eleven 
 chapters, to which were added two postscripts, xvi. 1-24, and 
 xvi. 25-27. The intermediate matter (cc. xii-xv.) formed a 
 separate letter to the Romans written on account of some 
 intelligence received meanwhile from Rome. The two letters 
 were afterwards combined (but not by the Apostle himself), 
 in such a manner as to throw the postscript to the end. 
 
 In like manner Paulus (de Orig. Ep. ad Bom., Jena 1801) 
 offered another solution on the same basis. The xvth chapter 
 was a sort of supplementary letter, addressed to the enlightened. 
 The xvith chapter, written on a separate parchment, contained 
 recommendations of Phoebe the bearer of the letter to the 
 principal members of the Church, and instructions to her to 
 salute certain persons. Finding that there was space remaining 
 on this leaf, the Apostle availed himself of it to add some 
 directions to the presbyters. The doxology at the end belonged 
 originally to the general letter, but was afterwards displaced 
 when the several documents were put together. 
 
 Another hypothesis, which like the two last mentioned 
 supposes the epistle to consist of a number of Sibylline leaves 
 stitched together almost at random, is that of Geiesbach 
 (Gurce in Hist. Test. Gr. Epp. Paul. p. 45). He believes that 
 the original letter ended with xiv. 23, the parchment being 
 exhausted. The final doxology, xvi. 25-27, was attached on a 
 separate leaf. Another parchment contained the salutations 
 from certain friends of St Paul, with a benediction, xvi 21-24. 
 St Paul then found leisure to continue the subject, where he 
 had broken off, in a postscript (xv.), to which he added another 
 benediction. A fourth parchment contained the names of 
 the Roman Christians who were saluted, together with a 
 warning against intriguers; and here again a benediction was 
 appended. At a later date, when these various leaves were 
 attached together, different places were assigned to the doxo- 
 logy, and in some copies it was entirely omitted. 
 
 The three solutions last mentioned, while disintegrating the 
 epistle, assume that all the component parts were addressed to 
 
 19—2 
 
292 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the Roman Church. This is not the case with those which 
 follow. 
 
 (iii) Semler (Pcvraphr. 1769) supposes that the letter to 
 the Romans closed with the xivth chapter ; that the bearers of 
 the letter were charged to distribute copies to the leading 
 members of certain churches which they would visit on the 
 route ; and that an authoritative list of these persons (xvi.) was 
 given to them at the same time. To these persons, not to the 
 Roman Church, the xvth chapter was addressed. The bearers 
 would visit CenchresB, the residence of Phoebe, and Ephesus, 
 where Aquila was staying. The places where the others dwelt 
 are not mentioned by name, because they were well known to 
 the bearers. 
 
 Not very different is Eichhorn's hypothesis (JEM. Th. iii.). 
 The parchment destined for the original letter, he supposes, 
 ended with the xivth chapter. A separate leaf contained on 
 one side the final doxology, on the other the salutations and 
 benediction. This formed the whole of the letter as originally 
 conceived. But some time intervening before it was sent, the 
 Apostle added on a separate leaf (which was interposed) certain 
 warnings and personal explanations (xv.). The remainder of 
 the present epistle (xvi. 1-20) was not addressed to the 
 Romans, but was a letter of introduction for Phoebe, perhaps 
 intended for Corinth. Phoebe forgot to deliver it, and took it 
 with her to Rome. 
 
 From these complex theories, which hardly deserve credit 
 for ingenuity, it is a relief to turn to simpler solutions. Allow- 
 ing the xvth chapter to stand as part of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, several critics have separated the xvith chapter from 
 the rest, and assigned it to some other letter. Thus Schulz 
 (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 609) supposed it to be a portion of an 
 epistle written from Rome to Ephesus : and this view has been 
 recently adopted by Ewald (Sendschr. des Apostels Paulus p. 
 428 sq.), who however restricts the intrusive fragment to xvi. 
 3-20. On the other hand Schott (Isagoge p. 250 sq.) regards 
 the xvith chapter as a congeries of fragments written by the 
 
ITS STRUCTUKE AND DESTINATION. 
 
 293 
 
 Apostle from Corinth to some Christian community in Asia 
 Minor. 
 
 It will be seen at once that in this last class of solutions the 
 documentary facts are entirely neglected, the theories being 
 built on certain phenomena in the chapter itself. But indeed 
 the same charge lies, though in a less degree, against all the 
 solutions enumerated under the heads (ii) and (iii). No regard 
 at all is paid to the remarkable omission of the mention of Rome 
 in the opening verses ; and, as attempts to explain the textual 
 phenomena of the last two chapters, they are in most cases at 
 once superfluous and defective. At the same time they are 
 condemned by their highly artificial character. 
 
 I hope to show that M. Renan's theory also must be rejected, 
 both as involving strong improbabilities in itself, and as being 
 more complex than the phenomena demand. But, in so far as 
 it grapples fairly with the documentary facts, it has a higher 
 claim to attention than the others. 
 
 M. Renan then supposes that the so-called Epistle to the 
 Romans was a circular letter, of which several copies with 
 distinct and appropriate endings were sent to different churches, 
 the body of the letter being the same for all. One of these was 
 despatched to Rome, a second to Ephesus, a third to Thessa- 
 lonica, and a fourth to some unknown Church. Our epistle is 
 the work of a later editor, who had these four copies in his 
 hands, and combined all the endings so that nothing might be 
 lost. The following table will show what parts of our epistle 
 (according to M. Renan's view) belonged to each of these : 
 
 Romans. 
 
 Ephesians. 
 
 Thessaloniana. 
 
 Unknown Church. 
 
 i-xi. 
 
 i-xi. 
 
 i-xi. 
 
 i-xi. 
 
 
 xii, xiii, xiv. 
 
 xii, xiii, xiv. 
 
 xii, xiii, xiv. 
 
 IV. 
 
 xvi. 1-20. 
 
 xvi. 21-24. 
 
 xvi. 25-27. 
 
 In the last three some modification would be made also in the 
 
294 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 first chapter. The mention of Rome (vv. 7, 15) at all events 
 must have been expunged. 
 
 M. Kenan founds this theory of a quadripartite epistle on 
 the assumed fact that in the existing recension we meet with 
 four successive endings, xv. 33, xvi. 20, xvi. 24, xvi. 25-27. 
 His reasons for assigning the several portions to letters addressed 
 to the several churches above mentioned will appear in the 
 sequel. 
 
 The most convenient method of dealing with M. Kenan's 
 opinions will be first to consider the difficulties which he feels. 
 in the received view that the whole epistle was written to the 
 Romans and which oblige him to substitute another hypothesis, 
 and then to state the objections which lie against his own 
 theory. 
 
 The difficulties then, which M. Kenan proposes to remove 
 by his theory, are the following : 
 
 1. Certain phenomena in the body of the letter are per- 
 plexing, if it was written to the Romans. He selects as in- 
 stances, the passages ii. 16, xi. 13, xvi. 25. Of these he says 
 that they are ' only moderately adapted to the faithful of Rome, 
 and would amount to indiscretion if addressed to these last 
 alone ' (p. lxxiv.). This objection rests on the assumption that 
 the Roman Church consisted wholly of Jewish Christians ; an 
 assumption which I shall consider hereafter. At present I 
 would only remark that, inasmuch as the letter (on M. Renan's 
 hypothesis) was specialized by attaching an appropriate ending 
 and thus became to all intents and purposes an Epistle to the 
 Romans, it is difficult to see how the 'indiscretion' would be 
 affected by the fact that other copies with other endings were 
 despatched to other churches. 
 
 Again, M. Rcnan, building on the assumption already men- 
 tioned that the Roman Church must have been Judseo-Christian, 
 claims for his theory the merit of explaining ' the hesitation of 
 the best critics on the question whether the letter was addressed 
 to converted heathens or to Jewish Christians'; for on his hypo- 
 thesis ' the principal parts of the epistle would have been com- 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 295 
 
 posed to serve for several churches at once' (p. lxxiv.). The 
 answer to this argument is the same as to the former; and 
 to the same extent I must reserve what I have to say in 
 reply. 
 
 2. Moreover M. Renan thinks it surprising that St Paul 
 should have composed ' un morceau si capital/ ' having regard 
 solely to a church which he did not know and over which he 
 had not incontestable rights' (p. lxxiv.). Considering the general 
 and comprehensive character of the epistle, it seems to me 
 that the church of the metropolis would naturally be chosen 
 for such a purpose, and that the Apostle saw a distinct advant- 
 age in addressing such a letter to a community with which he 
 had no special relations, so that he would run no risk of 
 being diverted from his aim by any personal interests. 
 But to this subject again I shall have occasion to return 
 hereafter. 
 
 3. When he reaches the xiith, xiiith, and xivth chapters, 
 M. Renan sees many difficulties in supposing that St Paul can 
 have addressed such language to the Romans. He regards it 
 as a departure from the Apostle's principle 'Each on his own 
 ground' (p. lxiii.). He cannot understand that one who is so 
 unsparing towards those who ' build on other men's foundations ' 
 should himself give such bold counsel to a church which he 
 had not founded. He discovers a difference in tone between 
 these chapters and the xvth, which he supposes to be really 
 addressed to the Romans, and which seems to him to hold 
 gentler language. I am not sure that others would find out 
 this difference; but if any such exists, the Apostle's own 
 words supply the explanation. In xv. 15 he himself apologizes 
 for speaking to the Romans ' with over-boldness ' (To\fj.rjp6- 
 repop). But indeed, if this interference with the Roman 
 Christians be truly a violation of the Apostle's rule not to 
 build on another man's foundation, he has already violated 
 it in addressing to them a letter of instruction of which the 
 doctrinal portion is at least as peremptory as these special pre- 
 cepts, and he has expressed his intention of still further violating 
 
296 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 it by paying them a visit and by communicating to them some 
 spiritual gift (i. 11). This argument proves nothing, because it 
 proves too much. 
 
 4. The opening verses of the xvth chapter also occasion 
 some surprise to M. Benan on the common supposition as to 
 the integrity and destination of the letter. They seem to him 
 merely to repeat and to enfeeble what has gone before. ' It is 
 hardly supposable,' he says, 'that they occurred in the same 
 letter' with the foregoing chapters (pp. lxiv., 461). Moreover 
 * the verses 1-13 appear to be addressed to Judseo-Christians. 
 St Paul there makes concessions to Jewish ideas ' (pp. lxiv., 462). 
 These remarks seem to me to show a strange misapprehension 
 of the Apostle's drift. At the close of the preceding chapter he 
 has taught that in the matter of meats there must be mutual 
 concession and forbearance; that the man who can conscien- 
 tiously eat may do so, but that in so doing he must take care 
 not to scandalize his weaker brother. At the opening of the 
 xvth chapter he turns round and addresses, not Jewish Christ- 
 ians who were too scrupulous about such matters, but ultra- 
 Pauline Christians who were only too ready to go their own 
 way and to ignore the effects of their conduct on others ; ' But 
 it is the duty of us — the strong — to support the infirmities of 
 the weak and not to please ourselves.' A comparison with 1 
 Cor. viii. 1, Gal. vi. 1, Phil. iii. 15, where there is the same touch 
 of irony in St Paul's language, will show the force of 6<f>eiKofiev 
 Se fifieli oi Bvvarol, as addressed to the extravagant disciples 
 of liberty. I am somewhat confident therefore that most 
 persons who will read the xivth and xvth chapters con- 
 tinuously, bearing this in mind, will not only not agree 
 with M. Benan, but will find it difficult to believe that the 
 two did not occur in the same letter 1 . 
 
 Another argument, of which M. Renan makes use against 
 
 the Roman destination of these chapters, admits a still more 
 
 direct refutation : ' II s'y sert du verbe irapaxaXm, verbe d'une 
 
 nuance tres-mitige'e sans doute, mais qui est toujours le mot 
 
 1 'Ea ist unleugbar,' says de Wette, 'dass Cap. xv. 1-13 zu Cap. xiv. geh8rt.' 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 297 
 
 qu'il emploie quand il parle a ses disciples.' If this argument 
 is to have any force, it must mean that irapaKaKta is never 
 used by St Paul except to his disciples. If so, he has forgotten 
 that it occurs in xv. 30, irapaKa\<5 8e v/xas k.t.X., a passage 
 which on M. Renan's own showing was addressed to the Roman 
 Church. 
 
 It should be added that throughout his remarks on this 
 xvth chapter M. Renan is hampered by tfie hypothesis that the 
 Roman Church was Judaeo-Christian. In one passage indeed 
 he seems ready to make a concession, for he speaks of the 
 majority as Judseo-Christian (p. lxiv.); but this has no practical 
 influence on his argument. Yet surely the expression irpoa- 
 XafiftdveaOe a\Xjj\ow? (xv. 7), not less than the whole tenour 
 of the epistle, points to a mixed community of Jews and 
 Gentiles, in which it was the Apostle's aim to conciliate the 
 discordant elements. If the expression Christ a minister of the 
 Circumcision (xv. 8) points (as M. Renan justly infers) to Jewish 
 prepossessions among St Paul's readers, yet on the other hand 
 the Apostle's language a few verses below, xv. 15, 16, 'Remind- 
 ing you by the grace which was given to me by God that I 
 might be a minister of Christ Jesus wnto the Gentiles' shows 
 still more clearly that he looked upon the Roman Church as in 
 some sense Gentile, and therefore under his own jurisdiction. 
 
 -5. The objections which M. Renan brings against the 
 Roman destination of the xvith chapter are partly his own 
 and partly adopted from others. 
 
 The Apostle, he urges, concludes the xvth chapter with a 
 benediction and a final Amen. This therefore must be the 
 end of a letter, since St Paul never adds salutations after such 
 a close (p. lxv.). As he mentions the final Amen twice, it must 
 be supposed that he lays great stress on the occurrence of the 
 word here. We are therefore the more surprised that he has 
 not consulted the critical editions of the text. In this case 
 he would have found that dfir/v is omitted by Griesbach, and 
 placed in brackets by Lachmann and Tregelles. As the bias of 
 scribes is always in favour of inserting rather than omitting an 
 
298 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Amen in such cases, and as in this place it is wanting in some 
 good copies (though present in the majority), these editors 
 have justly regarded it with suspicion. Deprived of the Amen, 
 the passage has a very close parallel in Phil. iv. 9, ica\ 6 ®eo? 
 •n/s dpt)vr)<i ea-rai fteO' vfieav (comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Gal. vi. 16), 
 which occurs in the body of the letter. But indeed doxologies 
 and benedictions, with or without the accompanying Amen, are 
 very frequent in St Paul, in other places than at the close of 
 an epistle, as e.g. Rom. xi. 36, Gal. i. 5, Ephes. iii. 20, 21, 
 Phil. iv. 19, 20, 1 Thess. iii. 11-13, v. 23, 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17, 
 iii. 5, 1 Tim. i. 17, vi 16, 2 Tim. iv. 18 ; comp. Heb. xiii. 20, 
 21. In some cases these occur immediately before the saluta- 
 tions, as in the present passage. 
 
 6. In the salutations themselves M. Eenan finds the same 
 difficulties which have been a stumbling-block in the way of 
 others before him. He and they are surprised that St Paul 
 should salute so many persons in a church which he had not 
 visited, when he is so sparing of individual salutations in 
 writing to churches with which his relations are most close and 
 intimate. Let us ask in reply, What is the common experience 
 in such matters? Will not a man studiously refrain from 
 mentioning individual names where he is addressing a large 
 circle of friends, feeling that it is invidious to single out some 
 for special mention, where an exhaustive list is impossible ? On 
 the other hand, where only a limited number are known to him, 
 he can name all, and no offence is given. This in fact is exactly 
 what we find in St Paul. So far as the data are sufficient to 
 establish any rule, it may be said that the number of names 
 mentioned is in the inverse proportion to his familiarity with 
 the church to which he is writing. In the Epistles to the 
 Corinthians and Thessalonians no individuals are saluted. In 
 the Epistle to the Philippians again there are no salutations 
 properly so called, though a special warning is addressed to two 
 persons by name and a commission given to another. On the 
 other hand, in the Epistle to the Colossians, whom the Apostle 
 had never visited, certain persons are saluted by name. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 299 
 
 This preliminary difficulty therefore is no difficulty at all. 
 But — M. Renan proceeds — there is great improbability in sup- 
 posing that St Paul knew so many members of a church which 
 he had never visited, that he should have had such intimate 
 relations with several of them, and that he should be so well 
 acquainted with their circumstances. In the case of almost any 
 other church such a supposition would indeed be improbable. 
 But Home with its vast and ever-growing population of im- 
 migrants from the East, and especially from Syria and Palestine, 
 could not but contain a large number of residents known 
 directly or indirectly to one who had travelled so long and so 
 wide as St Paul. On this point let M. Renan himself be 
 witness ; ' By the side of the Apostles who attained celebrity,' 
 he writes, ' there was also another obscure apostolate, whose 
 agents were not dogmatists by profession, but which was only 
 the more efficacious on that account. The Jews of that time 
 were extremely nomadic. Tradesmen, domestic servants, small 
 craftsmen, they overran all the great towns on the coast (p. 96). 
 Rome was the rendezvous of all the Oriental religions, the port 
 of the Mediterranean with which the Syrians had the closest 
 relations. They arrived there in enormous bands. . . With them 
 disembarked troops of Greeks, of Asiatics, of Egyptians ' (p. 97). 
 
 But again, when he examines the names in detail, M. 
 Renan is more than ever convinced that these salutations were 
 not addressed to the Church of Rome. On the one hand he 
 cannot find in the list any names known to have belonged to 
 the Church of Rome at this time, and to substantiate this 
 assertion he refers to 2 Tim. iv. 24, which, with some little 
 ingenuity, he describes as a 'passage which has its historical 
 value, though the letter is apocryphal.' I too allow the historical 
 value of the passage (though, if I thought the letter apocryphal, 
 I should hardly venture to build an argument on it); but I 
 cannot see that the mention of four other names and only four 
 in an epistle written from Rome after an interval of several years 
 throws any discredit on this earlier list, as a catalogue of Roman 
 Christians. On the other hand M. Renan finds in the list 
 
300 THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 
 
 'several persons who assuredly never formed part' of the Roman 
 Church. Of these he singles out Aquila and Priscilla, remark- 
 ing that as 'every one knows,' 'only some months' (quelques 
 mois) elapsed between the writing of the First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Romans, and that, when the 
 former was written, they were still at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19). 
 Now it is just in a case like this that words should be carefully 
 chosen. Yet on M. Renan's own showing (and the fact can 
 hardly be disputed) the Epistle to the Romans was not des- 
 patched till the early part of the year 58 (see pp. 459, 498); 
 whereas the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written about 
 the same time or a little later in the preceding year (' probable- 
 ment a l'epoque meme de Paques,' are M. Renan's own words, 
 p. 383); so that by the 'some months' we must understand 
 ' at least ten months.' Elsewhere indeed (p. 6) he places even 
 the Second Epistle to the Corinthians in the year 56, thus 
 making a longer interval; but I presume that this is a slip 
 of the pen. Is there then any real difficulty in supposing that 
 they returned to Rome in this interval of a year more or less, 
 and that St Paul should have been made acquainted with their 
 return, seeing that his own travels meanwhile had lain mainly 
 on the route between Ephesus and Rome ? Aquila and Pris- 
 cilla appear first at Rome, then at Corinth, then at Ephesus 
 (Acts xviii. 2, 18, 19, 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19). All this M. Renan 
 admits. But he will not allow their return to Rome.* This 
 would be ' leur prater une vie par trop nomade.' Why, does not 
 M. Renan himself afterwards in a passage already quoted (p. 275) 
 describe the life of these itinerant Jewish artisans and traders 
 exactly in this way ? Does not the narrative of the Acts dis- 
 tinctly assign to this couple a ' nomadic ' life, which indeed was 
 the direct consequence of the peculiar trade which they plied ? 
 But 'to bring them back to Rome, without their sentence of 
 banishment being rescinded, on the very morrow of the day 
 (juste le lendemain du jour) when Paul had bidden them fare- 
 well at Ephesus,' this in M. Renan's opinion is to ' accumulate 
 improbabilities.' But how does he know that a special sentence 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 301 
 
 of banishment was pronounced against them individually or 
 that, if pronounced, it was not revoked ? On this point however 
 I will appeal to a witness, whose testimony ought to be con- 
 clusive, so far as M. Renan is concerned, and who (I confess) 
 seems to me to put the matter in the right light ; ' These ex- 
 pulsions ' (the writer is speaking of the edict of Claudius) ' were 
 never more than temporary and conditional. The flood, arrested 
 for a moment, always returned. The measure of Claudius had 
 in any case very little result ; for Josephus does not mention it. 
 and in the year 58 Borne had already a new Christian Church ' 
 (Saint Paul p. 111). But again, M. Renan, though he holds the 
 2nd Epistle to Timothy to be spurious, yet cannot refrain from 
 using it to increase the supposed difficulty, because in that 
 epistle Aquila and Priscilla appear again at Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 
 1.9). Is it at all improbable that after an interval of nearly ten 
 years they should again revisit this important city? They 
 were wanderers not only by the exigencies of their trade, but 
 also by the obligations of their missionary work. Why should 
 we deny them a rapidity of movement, which we are obliged 
 to concede to Timotheus, to Tychicus, to St Luke, to St Paul 
 himself ? 
 
 But ' this is not all. In ver. 5 St Paul salutes Epaenetus, the 
 first-born of Asia in Christ.' ' What !' exclaims M. Benan, ' had 
 all the Church of Ephesus assembled at Rome ?' Let us dis- 
 sect this sentence. This 'all' in plain language consists of 
 three persons. Of one, Epaenetus, we do not know that he 
 belonged to Ephesus, but only that he was a native of the 
 province. The other two belonged no more to Ephesus than 
 to Pontus, to Corinth, to Borne, though about a year before 
 this they happened to be residing in Ephesus. But once again, 
 is there any improbability in imagining two or three Asiatic 
 Christians resident or sojourning in Borne ? Does not M. Benan 
 himself speak of the ' troops of Asiatics ' that flocked thither ? 
 And history teaches that this language is not an exaggeration. 
 
 ' But,' M. Benan continues, ' the list of names which follows is 
 in like manner better suited to Ephesus than to Borne.' He 
 
302 THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 
 
 allows indeed that ' the earliest Church of Rome for the most 
 part spoke Greek': but he argues that in examining the Jewish 
 inscriptions in Rome 'Garrucci has found that the number of 
 Latin proper names was double the number of Greek names,' 
 whereas in this list * of twenty-four names, sixteen are Greek, 
 seven Latin, one Hebrew, so that the number of the Greek 
 names is more than double that of the Latin.' To this objec- 
 tion it would be a sufficient answer that St Paul's acquaintances 
 must necessarily have lain, not among the native Latin popula- 
 tion, but among the Greek and Oriental immigrants whom he 
 had crossed in his travels. But a little examination will show 
 that the argument is fallacious, even as applied to the Church 
 of Rome generally. A better test of its composition, than these 
 Jewish inscriptions, is the list of the Roman bishops in the first 
 two centuries. Analysing this list, we find that in a catalogue 
 of fifteen names (from Linus a.d. 67 ? to Callistus a.d. 219), 
 twelve are Greek, while three only (Clemens, Pius, Victor) are 
 Latin. After Callistus the proportions are about reversed ; the 
 Roman Church was becoming gradually Latinized and there is 
 a corresponding preponderance of Latin names. This fact illus- 
 trates the fallacy of M. Renan's comparison. Garrucci's Jewish 
 inscriptions (I am repeating M. Renan's own statement else- 
 where, p. 106, note 3) for the most part belong to a much later 
 date than St Paul's age. We should therefore expect to find in 
 these, as we find in the Christian lists at the same time, an 
 increase of the Latin names at the expense of the Greek. 
 
 But among these numerous Greek names, which thus 
 create a difficulty to M. Renan, he especially remarks on the 
 fact that 'the names of the masters of houses, Aristobulus 
 and Narcissus, are Greek also.' This remark seems to me 
 peculiarly unfortunate. It so happens that we know of two 
 great "chefs de maison' at Rome about this time, bearing 
 these very names. The former was a Jew, a member of the 
 Herodian family, and therefore among his slaves and depend- 
 ents the Apostle was most likely to have formed friendships; 
 nor is it an unimportant coincidence, as I have remarked else- 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 303 
 
 where 1 , that after the mention of the household of Aristobulus 
 the next person specified is one Herodion, whom St Paul calls 
 his kinsman and who therefore was a Jew by birth, while at 
 the same time his name seems to indicate a dependent position 
 in the family of this Jewish prince. Again in a foot-note M. 
 Kenan for some reason or other (probably thinking of his name- 
 sake, the writer on prodigies, who was a native of Tralles) singles 
 out Phlegm, as a name more suited to Ephesus than to Borne. 
 Even the Trallian Phlegon however, who was a freed man of 
 Hadrian, resided at Borne: and in fact the inscriptions show that 
 this name was by no means of rare occurrence in the metropolis 2 . 
 
 On this point therefore I cannot but think that M. Benan 
 is entirely wrong, though he can quote the authority of some 
 important critics on his side. How far I have succeeded, I am 
 not competent to say; but I seem to myself to have shown 
 elsewhere" that the names in this list are quite appropriate 
 on the hypothesis that the salutations were addressed to the 
 Bomans, and that on this supposition alone they present several 
 coincidences which go far to establish its truth. I am glad 
 also to be able to quote on my side the opinion of a writer whose 
 bias would certainly have led him to take a different view, 
 if he had shared M. Benan's difficulty. Baur, who goes so far 
 as to deny the genuineness of the last two chapters of the 
 epistle, explains the salutations by supposing that the forger 
 inserted ' a catalogue of those who were known at the time as 
 the notabilities of the oldest Boman Church ' (Patdus p. 414). 
 
 'So,' M. Benan concludes decisively, 'the verses Bom. xvi. 
 3-16 (containing the salutations) were not addressed to the 
 Church of Borne ; they were addressed to the Church of Ephe- 
 sus.' 'No more,' he continues, 'can the verses 17-20 have 
 been addressed to the Bomans.' The strength of his affirm- 
 ations seems at this point to be in the inverse proportion to the 
 
 1 See Philippiam p. 173, where I three inscriptions, where this name 
 have interpreted the expressions ol U occurs, dcmxi. 6, dcclix. 12, dccclvhi. 
 rSn> 'ApijTopo6\ov, ol ix tS>» Sap K i<raov 3, and all three are Boman. 
 
 to mean ArUtobuliani, Narciiiiam. 3 Philippiam, p. 169 sq. 
 
 2 The index to Grater gives only 
 
304 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 strength of his evidence. He appeals here again to the use of 
 the word irapaKaXS (ver. 17) — an argument demonstrably erro- 
 neous, even on his own showing, as I have already pointed out 
 (p. 296). He quotes the expression i<j> vfiiv %a,lpu>, which he 
 explains as 'the language of a master to his scholars,' not 
 remembering that St Paul uses a similar expression in writing 
 to the Colossians (ii. 5) whom he had never visited, and appar- 
 ently not entertaining any objection to the allied phrase ew^o- 
 pia-rm irepl travrtov vfitov (i. 8) as addressed to the Romans. 
 He remarks that St Paul knows the condition of the church he 
 addresses, and glories (se fait gloire) in its good reputation ; but 
 why should he not do all this in the case of Rome ? And thus 
 he infers 'il est la en famille.' Then by a rough and ready 
 method he argues that the verses could only be addressed to 
 the Corinthians or to the Ephesians ; and, as the epistle at the 
 close of which they occur was written at Corinth, they must 
 have been addressed to Ephesus. I seem to myself to have 
 shown that the reasons for questioning their Roman destination 
 are wholly insufficient to counteract the weight of external 
 evidence. But, I would ask, are there no difficulties in the 
 counter hypothesis that they were written to the Ephesians? 
 Why in this case have the personal allusions no points of coin- 
 cidence either with the narrative of St Paul's long residence at 
 Ephesus which terminated not a year before, or with his address 
 to the Ephesian elders which was held only a few months 
 afterwards ? Why again is there no mention of Tychicus or of 
 Trophimus, who were with St Paul at this time ? Of the 
 benediction, which closes the 20th verse and which M. Renan 
 takes to be the conclusion of the Ephesian letter, I shall have 
 something to say presently. 
 
 7. The next few verses also (vi. 21-24), containing saluta- 
 tions from divers persons in St Paul's company, 'cannot any 
 more than the preceding have formed part of an Epistle to the 
 Romans.' 'Why,' he exclaims, 'should all these people who 
 had never been at Rome, who were not known to the faithful 
 at Rome) salute these last ? What meaning could these names 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 305 
 
 of unknown persons have to the Church of Rome ?' As much 
 meaning, I would reply, as the names of the persons saluting 
 the Colossians could have to the Church of Colossse (Col. iv. 10 
 sq.). They might or they might not be known to the Roman 
 Church by name; personal acquaintance was not necessary to create 
 Christian sympathy; and, being about the Apostle at the time, 
 they might well pour out their hearts in this expression of good 
 wishes. What more natural for instance than that Gaius in 
 whose house St Paul was staying, and Tertius who acted as the 
 Apostle's amanuensis, should join in the salutation ? 
 
 But M. Renan goes on to remark, as an important fact, that 
 the names mentioned in these verses * are all names of Mace- 
 donians or of persons who might have known the Churches of 
 Macedonia.' Will this statement bear examination? Eight 
 names are mentioned in all. Of Tertius the amanuensis and 
 Quartus 'the brother' we know nothing. Of Lvcius also we 
 are equally ignorant, unless he be the Lucius of Cyrene men- 
 tioned Acts xiii. 1, in which case he is as likely to have had 
 relations with Rome as with Thessalonica. Timotheus, it is 
 true, was well known in Macedonia ; but as the constant com- 
 panion of the Apostle, his fame must have reached Rome also. 
 Erastus too, himself a Corinthian, had accompanied the Apostle 
 on a missionary visit to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22); but the des- 
 criptive addition, ' the steward of the city,' is much more appro- 
 priate, if addressed to those to whom his name was unknown or 
 scarcely known, than to those with whom he was personally 
 acquainted. Gaius of Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14) again (for he must 
 not be confused with Gaius of Macedonia, Acts xix. 29) had — so 
 far as we are aware — no personal relations with Macedonia. 
 Thus as regards six out of the eight persons sending salutations, 
 M. Renan's remark has no force. The remaining two, Jason 
 and Sosipater, were seemingly Macedonians. The former may 
 be identified with St Paul's host at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 5 
 sq. (though the name, as a Grecized form of Jesus or Joshua, is 
 common among Hellenist Jews at this date); and the latter is 
 most probably 'Sopater the son of Pyrrhus the Bercean,' who 
 L. E. 20 
 
306 THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 
 
 accompanied St Paul when he left Corinth on this occasion 1 and 
 was probably with him now. Both these however, as faithful 
 friends and constant attendants of the Apostle, might very well 
 append their salutations to his letter. On the other hand there 
 is no mention of Aristarchus and Secundus the Thessalonians, 
 who were with St Paul at this time (Acts xx. 4) a , as might have 
 been expected in a letter written to Thessalonica. 
 
 At this point again M. Renan calls attention to the benedic- 
 tion in xvi. 24 and adds, ' verse 24 is the conclusion of a letter. 
 The verses xvi. 21-24 may therefore be an end of a letter ad- 
 dressed to the Thessalonians.' He has failed to observe that 
 this benediction is wanting in the best critical editions, but to 
 this matter I shall have to revert presently. 
 
 8. Thus we have arrived at the close of M. Renan's third 
 epistle. His fourth is suggested by the documentary evidence. 
 As the final doxology, xvi. 25-27, is found in many copies at 
 the close of the xivth chapter, he concludes that it must have 
 occurred in this place in one of the four copies of the circular 
 letters which were welded together to form our recension. His 
 fourth epistle in fact coincides in limits with Baur's Epistle to 
 the Romans, though M. Renan himself supposes it to have been 
 addressed to some unknown church. How much nearer to 
 probability this part of his theory approaches than the rest, 
 I hope to show hereafter. 
 
 I have thus examined in detail M. Renan's objections to 
 the integrity of the letter, considered as addressed to the 
 Romans ; and, if I mistake not, have reduced them to very small 
 dimensions. Every complex historical fact involves some im- 
 probabilities, prior to evidence; and in this case such impro- 
 babilities as remain are not greater than we might reasonably 
 expect. On the other hand the direct documentary evidence is 
 
 1 Aots xx. 4, Xiiirarpos HAppov Be- that he wsb not the only person of the 
 
 pmatos, the correct reading. The very name about St Paul at this time, 
 
 fact however that St Luke takes Buoh » M. Renan himself makes them 
 
 pains to identify him, seems to show accompany him to Corinth (p. 458). 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 307 
 
 exceptionally strong here, as this epistle seems to have been 
 more widely known from the very earliest ages than any of 
 St Paul's letters, and therefore the probability of such a 
 manipulation as he supposes having occurred without leaving 
 any traces in the MSS. is correspondingly diminished. 
 
 This examination has also brought out incidentally the pos- 
 itive grounds on which M. Renan constructs his own theory, 
 and they have been severally considered. One point however 
 has been reserved. The quadripartite character of the closing 
 chapters of this epistle is a remarkable fact, if true, and indeed 
 may be regarded as the foundation of his theory. If it fails, 
 the theory must crumble and fall. I propose therefore to ask 
 whether the epistle has or has not these four distinct endings. 
 
 Inasmuch as the establishment of this fact is all important 
 to his theory, it is strange that M. Renan should not have 
 glanced beyond the received text, except to suggest (with what 
 bearing, it does not appear) a possible fifth ending ; ' Nous 
 arrivons done a ce singulier resultat que l'dpitre finit quatre 
 fois, et dans le Codex Alexandrinus cinq fois' (p. lxxi.; comp. 
 p. 461). 
 
 These four endings then (in the received text) are : 
 
 (1) xv. 33 6 he @eo? rfji eipr/vys fju-ra iravrwv vftmv. 
 dfju'jv. 
 
 (2) xvi. 20 r) %api<i rov Kvpiov rutwp 'lijo-ov Xpio-rov peff 
 vfiaiv. 
 
 (3) xvi 24 r) xapis rov Kvpiov f\p,&v 'lyo-ov Xpio-rov pera 
 irdvrmv v/iav. dpi) v. 
 
 (4) xvi. 25-27 rm he Svvafiiv<p...pAvp o~o<pq> ©e«3 Bid 'Irjo-ov 
 Xpio-rov, a fj S6£a eh tov<s ala>va<;. dfirjv. 
 
 Now the first of these has not the character of St Paul's 
 final benedictions at all. The drfv (this is a matter of little 
 moment) is, as I have pointed out already, open to grave sus- 
 picion (see p. 297). The form of the prayer has many parallels 
 in the body of the Apostle's letters, as I have also shown. But 
 
 20—2 
 
308 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the final benedictions in every other instance are framed on the 
 type of (2) or (3) r/ %a/>t9 k.t.\., consisting of more or fewer 
 words, but preserving this characteristic feature. Any one who 
 reads in succession the concluding benedictions of all St Paul's 
 epistles will, I think, feel the force of this argument. 
 
 The second and third do exhibit the character of final bene- 
 dictions. But here M. Renan has made an important oversight 1 . 
 The two editors, to whom we are indebted for the best texts, 
 Lachmann and Tregelles, omit the third. In fact a comparison 
 of the oldest uncials will show, that these two benedictions are 
 in reality the same, which occupies one or other place in the 
 better authorities, but which in later copies is sometimes in- 
 serted in both. Thus we have to make a choice between xvi. 
 20 and xvi. 24, but we cannot retain both. In this respect the 
 phenomena of this benediction present an exact parallel to those 
 which attend the position of the long doxology (xvi. 25-27), as 
 given above, p. 288. 
 
 The following is a conspectus of the facts relating to 
 this benediction. 
 
 xvi. 20 77 xapt9 tow Kvplov r\^S>v 'Iijaov [X/asoToO] fied' 
 
 vfjumv. 
 ins. N, A, B, C, rel., Orig. 
 om. D, F, G. 
 xvi. 24 r) ^apis tov Kvplov r/fiwv 'Irja-ov Xpurrov fiera 
 
 irainwv v/xtSi/. dfiijv. 
 om. N, A, B, C, Am., Fuld., Harl., Memph., Mth., Orig. 
 ins. D, F, G, (17), 37, 47, L, (P), Demid., Tol, (Syr. 
 
 Pesh.), Syr. Harcl., (Arm.), [om. jfiav, 37; om. 'Ii/o-oO 
 
 XpKTTOt), F, G]. 
 
 1 Perhaps 'oversight' is hardly the mainly depends on the position of 
 
 correct term, for he adds in a note, these benedictions, it is only the more 
 
 ' Sur Pincerti tude des manuscrits a strange that he should have accepted 
 
 propos de la place du verset 24, Toir the received text without examination, 
 
 Qriesbaoh, Nov. Tett. 11. p. 222.' But knowing that it was open to question, 
 here his curiosity ends. As his theory 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 309 
 
 As F, G, 37, L, Goth., omit xvi. 25-27, it becomes the end 
 
 of the epistle in these. 
 In 17, P, Syr. Pesh., Arm., it occurs after xvi. 25-27 [om. 
 
 tffiwv P]. 
 
 It will thus be seen that Lachmann and Tregelles are right 
 in placing this benediction at xvi. 20; and that it has been 
 transplanted thence into the later positions, whether at xvi. 24 
 or after xvi. 27, by editorial revision, with a view to restoring it 
 to what seemed to be its proper place. To this subject also I 
 shall have to revert again. 
 
 M. Eenan's fourth ending is different in character from the 
 others, being a doxology and not a benediction. I shall reserve 
 my explanation of it. 
 
 Thus then it will appear that the basis of M. Kenan's theory, 
 the quadripartite character of the epistle, has fallen away. But 
 before dismissing this theory, I must point out some objections 
 to which, even if it rested on more solid ground, it would be 
 exposed, and which might in themselves prove fatal to it. 
 
 (1) In our existing Epistle to the Romans the topics in 
 the last two chapters occur in the following order, (a) xv. 
 Special injunctions and explanations concerning the Apostle's 
 movements. (6) xvi. 1-20. A recommendation of the bearer 
 of the letter and several salutations to divers persons, with a 
 warning against divisions appended. (c) xvi 21-24. Salu- 
 tations from divers persons in St Paul's company, (d) A 
 doxology (xvi. 25-27). This sequence is natural. In fact the 
 topics follow each other in the same order in the Epistle to the 
 Colossians, which, as regards the concluding matter, is the most 
 complete of all the Apostle's letters. On the other hand all 
 M. Renan's four epistles are incomplete, and incomplete iu a 
 remarkable way. The first — to the Romans — contains personal 
 explanations without salutations to or from any one. The second 
 — to the Ephesians — contains no personal explanations but only 
 salutations to several brethren. The third — to the Thessalonians 
 — has neither the one nor the other, but only salutations from 
 several friends of the Apostle. Lastly, the fourth — to some 
 
310 THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 
 
 unknown Church — has none of the three but only a bare 
 doxology. We are required therefore to suppose that these 
 four copies were defective in such a way that, when they were 
 combined at some distance of time by a chance editor, they 
 fitted together exactly, each supplying what was lacking in the 
 rest, and all together forming a complete whole. 
 
 (2) But again; M. Eenan's theory, though contrasting in 
 this respect favourably with many of its predecessors, neverthe- 
 less fails to account for all the phenomena of the MSS. Thus, 
 whereas the reading preserved in G Tot? oiaiv ev diyairy @eov 
 obliterates the mention of any individual church, M. Renan's 
 theory supposes that in the several copies appropriate modifi- 
 cations were introduced to adapt them to particular churches. 
 In this case we should rather have expected traces of such a 
 reading as Tot? oiatv ev 'E<^6(7a) (or ev ®ea<raXovlKrj) wyairrjTok 
 ®eov, or at all events (as in the somewhat parallel case of the 
 canonical Epistle to the Ephesians) rois oiaiv ar/airrjTOK ®eov, 
 the space which was originally left for the name having disap- 
 peared in the course of transcription and the words closed in 
 upon the blank. On the other hand the substitution of ev dydirrf 
 for dyairyTols seems to have been made with a view to obviating 
 the necessity of mentioning any name. This suggests a solution 
 somewhat different from M. Renan's. 
 
 Again ; as regards the concluding chapters of the epistle, it 
 will be seen that the documentary facts point only to the fourth 
 of M. Renan's four copies, and give no indication whatever of 
 the other three. This fourth copy, as I hope to show, does 
 represent a truth, though the destination was not what 
 M. Renan supposes. 
 
 (3) M. Renan speaks with some vagueness about the body 
 of the letter. In one passage in his introduction (p. lxxiii.) he 
 seems to imply that the copy sent to the Romans consisted of 
 chapters i-xi., xv., exactly as we have them; for he mentions 
 ' modifications in the first half of the first chapter,' as intro- 
 duced into the three remaining copies. This I suppose to be his 
 meaning. But, if so, what becomes of half his objections to the 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 311. 
 
 received view? These are based on the assumption that the 
 Roman Church was Judaeo-Christian. Of the truth or false- 
 hood of this assumption I shall have something to say presently. 
 I would simply ask now, how it is reconcilable with the Epistle 
 to the Romans, as he leaves it. This is M. Renan's own state- 
 ment of the case ; ' Les passages de l'Epitre aux Romains qui 
 supposeraient (why not 'supposent'?) l'Eglise de Rome com- 
 pose'e pour la plus grande partie de paiens et de proselytes, 
 Rom. i. 6, 11, 13, vi. 14, 17 et suiv., vii. 1-6, xi. 13, 25, 28, 30, 
 xiv. 1 et suiv., xv. 7 et suiv., viennent de ce que les Romains 
 n etaient pas les uniques destinataires de l'Epitre en question. 
 Ces formules sont, du reste, si vagues que de bons critiques en 
 ont pu conclure, les uns que l'Epitre aux Romains a 6t6 ecrite a 
 des paiens convertis les autres qu'elle a 4te ecrite a des Judeo- 
 Chre'tiens' (p. 483). Yet M. Renan lets all these passages 
 remain in the copy sent to the Roman Church. It may be 
 inferred however from his language here that these passages 
 made a deeper impression upon him when he came to analyse 
 the epistle towards the close of his volume, than when he wrote 
 the introduction. For though he argues in the introduction on 
 the hypothesis of a strictly Judseo-Christian Church, and even 
 in this later passage speaks of it as 'en general compose'e 
 d'Ebionites et de Jud^o-Chr^tiens,' he yet adds here 'Elle 
 renfermait aussi cependant des proselytes et des paiens con- 
 vertis'; and altogether his language seems to betray a vague 
 misgiving that his theory is not very consistent with the 
 hypothesis on which it is built. 
 
 It was not my intention, when I commenced this paper, to 
 take up a merely negative position. As M. Renan has en- 
 deavoured fairly to grapple with the documentary facts, it is 
 only due to him, while rejecting his theory, to attempt to 
 suggest some other solution which shall account for them as 
 well or better, and shall not be open to the same objections. 
 
 The view that the Epistle to the Romans was early circu- 
 lated in a longer and a shorter form, i.e. both with and without 
 
312 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 the xivth and xvth chapters, is in some shape or other not new. 
 Bertholdt and others, for instance, explained the phenomena of 
 the different positions of the doxology by supposing that these 
 two chapters were omitted in the public lessons 1 . More recently 
 Mr Westcott (Vaughan's Romans, p. xvi) says, ' Whether it may 
 be possible that the epistle proceeded in two forms from the 
 Apostle's hands, the one closing with chap. xiv. and the doxology, 
 the other extended by the addition of the two last chapters after 
 the omission of the doxology, or whether any other more satis- 
 factory explanation can be offered of the phenomena of omission, 
 repetition, transposition, authenticity, must be left for further 
 investigation.' In an article on the epistle in Smith's Dictionary 
 of the Bible I myself adopted the theory of a twofold edition, and 
 further examination has confirmed me in this view. But the 
 subject has never, so far as I am aware, received that ' further 
 investigation ' which Mr Westcott desires, and in the hope that 
 I may be able to throw a little light on it, I venture now to 
 examine the question more closely. 
 
 But by way of preface it is necessary to say something about 
 the composition of the Church of Borne at this time, for (as we 
 have seen already) much depends on the view adopted in this re- 
 spect. M. Benan, in the passage quoted above (p. 311), offered 
 his own explanation of the fact that the ablest critics were 
 divided on the question whether the epistle was addressed to 
 Jewish or to Gentile Christians. Would not the more natural 
 explanation be that St Paul is here addressing a mixed church, 
 composed of both in equal or nearly equal parts, and that he 
 turns now to one, now to the other, as the tenour of his argument 
 demands ? Certainly the Gentile element is very strong ; and I 
 think few will agree with M. Renan, that such passages as i. 5, 
 6 ev iraaiv to« e6ve<riv...ev oh iorre /ecu vfieh, or i. 13 ev v/tiv 
 Ka8a><! kcl\ ev -rofoXowrot? edveatv, or xi. 13 vfi.lv \eyco rolf edvecriv 
 (with its whole context), or xv. 16 e/ravafiifivijo-Ktov v/iai Sid tt)v 
 X^ptv Tr)v Sodeladv fioi into tov ®eow et? to elvai fie \eirovpydv 
 
 1 This however is shown not to hare been the ease. See Beiehe, Comm. 
 Crit. p. 118. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 313 
 
 Xptorofl Irjaov eli rh edvt), are explained on the assumption 
 that the Roman Church was strictly Judaeo-Christian, together 
 with (what M. Renan very reluctantly concedes) a sprinkling of 
 Gentile Christians among them. St Paul, if I mistake not, 
 starts from the fact that the Roman Church stood on Gentile 
 ground, and that very large and perhaps preponderating num- 
 bers of its members were Gentiles. This is his justification for 
 writing to them, as the Apostle of the Gentiles. It never once 
 occurs to him, that he is intruding on the province of others. 
 Tet at the same time it is equally clear that a considerable 
 part of the argument is directed against Judaizing tendencies, 
 and occasionally he appeals directly to Jewish readers (ii. 17, 
 iii. 9, vii. 4 sq.). The inference from these two classes of facts 
 seems to be plain. 
 
 Nor is there any prior improbability in such a mixed 
 church. M. Renan insists that the Roman brotherhood must 
 have been founded and built up by emissaries from Palestine. 
 But why should the Christianity of Rome be due to Jerusalem 
 solely, and not also to Antioch and Corinth and Ephesus, with 
 which cities communication must have been even more frequent ? 
 Why at Rome alone should the Judaic element be all powerful, 
 and the Pauline insignificant ? 
 
 And, while the hypothesis of such a mixed church is pro- 
 bable in itself, it also harmonizes with the notices elsewhere. 
 St Paul's language to the Philippians implies that, when he 
 arrived at Rome, he found two parties of Christians there, the 
 one friendly to him, the other hostile, but both alike stimulated 
 to activity by his presence (Phil. i. 14-18). It may be truly 
 said also that this view is quite consistent with all the notices 
 of the Roman Church during the first two centuries of its exist- 
 ence, and that some of these seem to require it. 
 
 To this obvious inference from the Apostle's own language, 
 M. Renan can only oppose the testimony of one or two much 
 later writers. He refers especially to the commentator Hilary 
 (p. 483), whom he commends as ' fort au courant des traditions 
 de l'Eglise romaine' (p. 115). It may be granted that this 
 
314 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 writer has preserved more than one true tradition, but the mere 
 fact that he wrote quite three centuries after St Paul deprives 
 his statements of any value when they conflict with the natural 
 interpretation of the Apostle's language. And after all, is not 
 M. Renan mistaken in supposing that this writer here professes 
 to give a tradition ? His words are, ' Constat itaque temporibus 
 apostolorum Judaeos, propterea quod sub regno Romano age- 
 rent, Romae habitasse ; ex quibus hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt 
 Romanis ut Christum profitentes legem servarent; Romani 
 autem audita fama virtutum Christi faciles ad credendum fue- 
 runt, utpote prudentes : nee immerito prudentes, qui male in- 
 ducti statim correcti sunt et permanserunt in eo. Hi ergo ex 
 Judaeis, ut datur intelligi, credentes Christum non accipiebant 
 Deum esse de Deo, putantes uni Deo adversum; quamobrem 
 negat illos spiritualem Dei gratiam consecutos ac per hoc 
 confirmationem eis deesse' (Ambros. Op. II. app. 25). He ap- 
 pears to state as matter of history (' constat') only that there was 
 a large Jewish population in Rome. Beyond this his language 
 is apparently based on the interpretation of the epistle itself 
 ('datur intelligi'; comp. p. 30). He sees that a considerable 
 portion of the epistle is directed against Judaizing views, and 
 he therefore infers that the Judaizers were a very strong party 
 in the Roman Church. M. Renan again appeals to the Clemen- 
 tine Homilies, which he asserts confidently were written at 
 Rome, and which exhibit Ebionite views. The Roman origin 
 of this work seems to me more than doubtful ; but even if 
 granted, it does not prove his point, for the cautious disguise, 
 which the writer wears throughout, shows that he must have 
 belonged to a comparatively small minority. That there was 
 such a compact and active Judaizing minority in Rome in 
 the early ages, few probably would deny. On the other hand, 
 M. Renan omits to mention the one genuine document of 
 subapostolic times, which was issued in the name of the Roman 
 Church, and which may therefore reasonably be supposed to 
 represent the views of that church. The Epistle of Clement 
 exhibits no leaning to Judaism. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 315 
 
 To the Church of Rome then, as a mixed body of Jewish 
 and Gentile converts, the epistle was addressed. The destina- 
 tion of the letter was in harmony with its subject. Indeed it 
 may very reasonably be conjectured, that the subject in the 
 Apostle's mind was prior to the destination. To the Corin- 
 thians he had written rebuking the errors of Gentile licence. 
 To the Galatians he had denounced the deadening effects of 
 Judaic bondage. The letters to these churches had been 
 called forth by special emergencies, and this fact gave a special 
 direction to them. Thus the Apostle's mind for a year or more 
 had been led to dwell especially on the relation of these two 
 extremes separately to the doctrine of grace and liberty. It 
 would not unnaturally occur to him to treat them together in 
 a comprehensive maimer, and to show where Judaic and Gen- 
 tile feeling might find their true meeting point. This is. exactly 
 what he does in the Epistle to the Romans. Its aim from 
 beginning to end is conciliation — conciliation of claims, con- 
 ciliation of doctrine, conciliation of practice. The manner in 
 which the question of forbidden meats is treated in the xivth 
 chapter is only a special example of the motive which pervades 
 the whole work. The Apostle, it is true, had a personal reason 
 for writing to the Romans, as he contemplated visiting them 
 soon and wished to prepare them for his visit : but above all 
 this, there was singular propriety in addressing such an expo- 
 sition to the Church of the metropolis, composed, as we have 
 seen, in almost equal parts of the same two discordant elements 
 which he strove to combine. Thus the epistle, though not a 
 circular epistle itself, yet manifested the general and compre- 
 hensive character which might be expected in such. It is more 
 of a treatise than a letter. 
 
 This was our Epistle to the Romans. The shorter recen- 
 sion, in which the two last chapters were omitted, was, I 
 suppose, an after-thought, being an attempt to divest it of all 
 personal matter, and to make it available as a circular letter or 
 general treatise. So far, it was a carrying out of the spirit of 
 the original work. When and how this was done I shall en- 
 
316 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 deavour to make out; but by way of introduction I will set 
 side by side what I consider to have been the contents of these 
 two recensions respectively. 
 
 Epistle to the Romans. 
 i-xiv. 
 
 xv. 
 
 xvi. 1-23 
 [omitting the benediction 
 (xvi. 24), and the doxology 
 " (xvi. 25-27)]. 
 
 Abridged Recension. 
 i-xiv. 
 [Substituting rol<s oiatviv ar/a- 
 irg ®eo0 for tow oiatv iv 'Pa>- 
 firj wyavijroK ®eov in i. 5, and 
 omitting iv 'TeAfiy in i. 17]. 
 
 xvi. 25-27. 
 
 Of the abridged recension we have distinct traces in 
 Marcion's copy (though he omitted the doxology), in FG, 
 and less decidedly in other authorities; and some such hypo- 
 thesis alone will explain the varying positions of the doxology 
 in different MSS. 
 
 The MS. F is unfortunately defective in the first chapter, 
 but doubtless preserved here the same phenomena which we 
 find in G. These two MSS. are very closely allied, and must 
 have been copied mediately or immediately from the same 
 prototype. They themselves may probably be referred to the 
 ixth century, having belonged to two neighbouring Swiss monas- 
 teries, the one to Keichenau, the other to St Gall. Either their 
 common prototype, or a still earlier MS. from which it was 
 copied, must have preserved the abridged recension. The 
 space of about five lines, which is left blank between chapters 
 xiv. and xv. in G, would be about sufficient for the doxology 
 (xvi. 25-27), which however is omitted in both places. These 
 features in the MS. suggest that the copyist of an earlier MS., 
 . from which it has descended, transcribed a MS. of the abridged 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 317 
 
 recension till the end of chapter xiv., and then took up a MS. 
 of the original Epistle to the Romans to supply the lacking 
 matter, omitting however the doxology as inappropriate to 
 what had thus become the middle of the letter, and perhaps 
 intending to give it a place afterwards, but abandoning his 
 purpose. It is an instructive fact that in the allied MS. F 
 no space is left after ch. xiv., but the text is written con- 
 tinuously. 
 
 My reasons for supposing that the doxology (xvi. 25-27 of 
 the received text) belonged to the abridged recension and not 
 to the original epistle are the following: 
 
 (1) It has nothing in common with the usual endings 
 of St Paul's Epistles, which close with a benediction of the 
 type mentioned above (p. 307). 
 
 (2) On the other hand, such an abridged recension as I 
 have supposed, whether issued by the Apostle or by some later 
 editor, would hardly have been left to terminate abruptly with 
 irav 8e b ovk Ik irurreos, aftapria earCv. The addition of a 
 doxology, or of some equivalent, would seem necessary. 
 
 (3) If it had occurred at the end of the xivth chapter in 
 the original epistle, it would have been a violent interruption 
 of the sense, for the xvth chapter continues the thread of the 
 xivth, and there is nothing to call for such a thanksgiving. 
 On the other hand, if its position was at the end of the epistle, 
 the displacement to the close of the xivth is somewhat difficult 
 to explain. 
 
 (4) The difference of style between this doxology and the 
 rest of the epistle has often been noticed, and has led some 
 critics to question or deny its genuineness. The real fact is, 
 that though it does differ somewhat in thought and diction 
 from the epistles of this date, it has very strong affinities to 
 the later letters of the Apostle, as the following table will 
 show: 
 
318 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 
 
 ra> Be hvvafievq)... 
 
 Kara, to evayyiXiov fiov. . . 
 
 to Kijpvyfia 'Ir)<rov Xptoroi) Ka- 
 ra diroKa\v\}riv fivarripiov ypo- 
 vois alcovioK o-e<7tyrjfiivov(j)ave- 
 padevros Be vvv Bid re ypa<p&v 
 vpofyiyruc&v, Kar eirirayr)v rov 
 alaviov ®eov el? vnraKorfV rri- 
 <rrea>? el? irdvra ra edit) yvaspi- 
 
 ffdeVTO?. 
 
 rov alcoviov ®eov...fj.6v(p ao<f>w 
 ©6«3 Bid 'Irjaov Xptaroi) u> r) 
 Bo£a el? roils aldbva? \rmv alm- 
 va>v\. dixr'jv. 
 
 tg> Be Bvvafieva), Eph. ill. 20. 
 Kara rb evayyiXiov fiov (2 Tim. 
 ii. 8, but also Bom. ii 16). 
 Kara drroKaXv^riv eyvctplffdi) 
 ftot to /j,vaTijpLov . . .o erepat? 
 yeveai? ovk eyvtopLcrOri . ..co? vvv 
 a7reica\v(p0T) roi? dyioi? drro- 
 aroXoi? avrov KaX irpotprjrai? 
 iv rrvevp-ari, elvai rd edvrj k.t.X. 
 Eph. iiL 3, 5, 6. 
 tow fivarripiov rov diroKe/cpv/t- 
 fievov drrb r&v ald>va>v...iva 
 yvapiotfy vvv, Eph. ill. 9, 10. 
 rjv eirr)yyeiXaro... , irpb y(p6vo>v 
 alwvicov e<j>avepa>o~ev Be xaipoi? 
 IBioi? rov \6yov airov iv ict)- 
 pvyixari o emarevQ-qv iya> Kar 
 eirirayrjv rov <Ttorr)po? r)ficov 
 ®eov (comp. 1 Tim. i. 1), Tit. 
 i. 2, 3. 
 
 ttjv Boueurav. . .irpb jjjowk ala- 
 vieov, <pavepa>8eio~av Be vvv Sid 
 ri)? e-n-Kpaveia? k.t.X., 2 Tim. i. 
 9, 10. 
 
 t&> oe fiaaiXet r&v alwveav... 
 fiovcp [o-o(f><Z] <dew rifir) ical Boga 
 ei? rov? aldovas rmv alwvav. 
 dftrjv. 1 Tim. i. 17. 
 
 These facts seem to show that though written by the Apostle 
 it was not written at the same time with the letter itself 1 . 
 
 In order to account for all these data, I suggest the follow- 
 
 1 Dean Alford (Gf. T. in. Prol. p. 80) 
 points out the resemblance of this dox- 
 ology to the Pastoral Epistles, though 
 not to the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 and suggests that it was appended to 
 
 the epistle 'in later times by the 
 Apostle himself, as a thankful effusion 
 of his fervent mind.' This view seems 
 not to supply an adequate occasion for 
 the addition. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 319 
 
 ing hypothesis. At some later period of his life, not im- 
 probably during one of his sojourns in Rome, it occurred to the 
 Apostle to give to this letter a wider circulation. To this end 
 he made two changes in it ; he obliterated all mention of Rome 
 in the opening paragraphs by slight alterations ; and he cut off 
 the two last chapters containing personal matters, adding at 
 the same time a doxology as a termination to the whole. By 
 this ready method it was made available for general circulation, 
 and perhaps was circulated to prepare the way for a personal 
 visit in countries into which he had not yet penetrated (i. 11 
 sq.). The idea of a circular letter was not new to him ; for he 
 had already addressed one to the Churches of Asia. M. Renan 
 pertinently remarks that the First Epistle of St Peter makes 
 use chiefly of the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, ' c'est-a-dire des deux epitres qui sont des traite's 
 generaux, des catecheses ' (p. lxxii.). 
 
 Thus I believe that the last, and the last alone, of 
 M. Renan's four epistles represents a historical fact. It was 
 not however a special copy, as he supposes, addressed to some 
 individual church now unknown, but an adaptation of the 
 original epistle for general circulation. A copy of this fell into 
 the hands of Marcion, but (unless Rufinus in his translation has 
 misrepresented Origen's meaning) he removed the doxology, 
 as he well might have done with a doctrinal aim. Another 
 was the prototype of FG. All the phenomena relating to the 
 doxology arose from the combination of copies of this abridged 
 recension with copies of the original epistle in different ways. 
 The notice of Origen shows that such combinations took place 
 at a very early date. 
 
 One point still remains to be settled — relating however not 
 to the abridged recension, but to the original epistle. Where 
 are we to place the benediction which occurs (1) at xvi. 20, 
 (2) after xvi 23, whether before or after the doxology, or (3) 
 in both places, in different copies, as explained above (p. 308) ? 
 To this question the great preponderance of authority allows 
 but one answer. It must stand at xvi. 20, and must be 
 
320 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 omitted from the later place. If so, ver. 20 is the true close 
 of the epistle, and the salutations from the amanuensis and 
 other companions of St Paul were added irregularly as a sort 
 of postscript, as was very likely to have been done, considering 
 the circumstances under which St Paul's epistles were written. 
 The desire of later transcribers to get a proper close to the 
 letter would lead them to transplant to the end of these saluta- 
 tions the benediction of xvi. 20, with or without modification, 
 or to supply the defect with the doxology from the abridged 
 recension. Either expedient appears in different MSS., and in 
 some both are combined. 
 
By Dr Hort. 
 
 DR LIGHTFOOT in this Journal (n. 264 ff.) has demolished 
 M. Renan's ingenious theory about the composition of the 
 Epistle to the Romans, and along with it some others of inferior 
 merit. He proposes instead a simpler view, which one could 
 wish to believe true, so admirably does it harmonize the most 
 salient phenomena of the text, and so free is it from broad 
 historical improbability. A close examination however reveals 
 difficulties which I am constrained to think fatal. 
 
 Dr Iightfoot supposes that the letter originally addressed to 
 the Romans was our present epistle as it stands in the Received 
 Text and Authorized Version, wanting only the last four verses, 
 Le. the second Benediction (xvi. 24) and the Doxology (25-27) ; 
 but that at a later time St Paul himself ' made it available as 
 a circular letter or general treatise' by cutting off the last two 
 chapters, substituting the Doxology, and omitting the name of 
 Rome in i. 7, 15. The direct evidence lies in three chapters, 
 i. xiv. xvi., which I will consider separately and in inverse 
 order. 
 
 I. The apparently triple ending of xvi. in the Received 
 Text, when taken as a whole, rests on absurdly small and 
 worthless evidence, three or four obscure cursives and the 
 inferior MSS. of the Latin Vulgate : it is a mere jumble of the 
 Latin and the late Greek traditions, which owes its place in the 
 printed text to Erasmus 1 . If the Doxology be put out of 
 1 Hia account of his own proceed- the truth as it could be known at that 
 ing is intelligible, while his careless- date than it would be now. 'Hanc 
 nesB grossly misrepresents the evidence; partem usque ad Debemus autem qui- 
 indeed his statement is further from dam codices omnino non habent, qui- 
 
 L. E. 21 
 
322 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 sight, we are met by a still worse confusion of incongruous 
 traditions ; that is, the doubling of the Benediction (20 and 24). 
 The great mass of early authorities of various groups concur 
 in placing the Benediction at 20 only : so NABC 5 137 lat.vg 
 (best MSS.) memph aeth Orig.ruf. The pure 'Western' group 
 D*FG (with Sedulius and perhaps the Gothic version) places it 
 only at 24 1 , evidently from the feeling that it must be the close 
 of the epistle. Minor shiftings and other like freedoms taken 
 by the same group of authorities occur in almost every chapter 
 of St Paul: two whole verses 1 Cor. xiv. 34 f. are pushed 5 
 verses forward by DFG 93 and some Latin Fathers : compare 
 1 Cor. xv. 26. The scribes of the fourth century, bringing 
 together MSS. from different regions, here as in countless other 
 instances heaped up without omission whatever they found, and 
 so the Benediction was set down in both places. The compound 
 reading appears first in the Greek commentators of the fifth 
 century from the Syrian school, then in the Harclean Syriac 
 (A.D. 508-616): in extant MSS. it is found only in L (= J) of 
 the ninth century and the great mass of cursives. There is 
 however a similar combination in a few respectable authorities 
 who retain the Doxology and place the second Benediction 
 after it (P 17, the vulgar Syriac and the Armenian versions, 
 and the Ambrosian Hilary): and this implies the previous 
 existence of MSS. which simply transposed the Benediction to 
 their end of the epistle, as (D*)FG transposed it to theirs*. Thus 
 
 dam in fine adjioiunt epiatolae. Nob, readings generally, explains this sin- 
 
 quoniam id non videbatnr ad huno lo- gular collocation. D is not so purely 
 
 cum pertinere, semovimus in finem Western as FG: Sedulius combines 
 
 hujus epistolae' (note on xiv. 23 in ed. the Old with the Hieronymio Latin, 
 
 princeps of 1516). ' Haeo est pars quae In each case the Doxology must be a 
 
 in plerisque Graecorum codicibus non later accretion. The Gothio has the 
 
 additur, in nonnullis alio additur loco, Benediction at 24 and (in xvi.) no 
 
 sicut indicavimns, in quibusdam adji- Doxology: the extant fragments fail to 
 
 citur in fine. Id quod et nos feoimus, shew whether the Benediction was at 
 
 praesertim assentientibus Latinis ex- 20 likewise. 
 
 emplaribus' (note on xvi. 26 ff.). • if, as ia pro bable, the shifting of 
 
 > D* and Sedulius add the Doxology the Benediotion and the dropping of 
 
 after the Benediotion. The nature of the Doxology were simultaneous in the 
 
 both authorities, as evinced by their common source of D*FG Sed., P 17 eto. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 323 
 
 the historical relations of the authorities clearly shew that, be 
 the claims of the double Benediction as a ' harder reading' what 
 they may, it is as a matter of fact the last term in a series of 
 changes. 
 
 Thus far there is no reason to suppose that Dr Lightfoot 
 would dissent. He places the Benediction at 20 and there 
 alone, and gives what is doubtless the right explanation of the 
 order in saying that ' v. 20 is the true close of the epistle, and 
 the salutations from the amanuensis and other companions of 
 St Paul were added irregularly as a sort of postscript, as was 
 very likely to have been done, considering the circumstances 
 under which St Paul's epistles were written ' (p. 319). Whoever 
 will read the chapter through as far as 24 according to this 
 arrangement, will find everything straightforward and in- 
 telligible ; while the nature of the postscript is such as might 
 easily mislead a mechanical transcriber. The difficulty begins 
 when we go on to 25-27. Supposing however that we had no 
 evidence about these three verses except as to their presence or 
 absence in this place 1 , 1 do not see why we need hesitate to take 
 them as an ending to the postscript, just as 20 is the ending to 
 the epistle proper 2 . Having once made that fresh start to 
 introduce the salutations sent by present companions, St Paul 
 might gladly seize the opportunity to close the whole by a 
 solemn giving of glory to God, as his first ending had carried 
 grace to men. Compare xi. 36 in connexion with xL 32 and 
 the adjoining verses ; also v. 2 ; xv. 5, 6. Similar pauses of 
 adoration occur elsewhere in the epistle ; i. 25 ; (viii. 39 ;) ix. 
 5 ; xi. 36 ; xv. (13,) 33, where I believe 'Apr/p to be genuine : 
 
 differ merely in taking one step in- own, notwithstanding the first person 
 
 stead of two : the writer of their oom- nsed for the moment in 22 by Tertins 
 
 mon original was willing to transpose the amanuensis in sending his own 
 
 but not to omit. The two transpOBi- greeting. Otherwise & mrepyis \ju>v], 
 
 tions were however apparently inde- ol (ruyyei-eir ium before the mention of 
 
 pendent of each other. Tertius would not be intelligible. The 
 
 i Their total omission will be con- subsequent o (hot turn koX t?i AtcXqolu 
 
 sidered further on. is also the language of an apostle. 
 
 8 The postseriptis evidently StPaul's 
 
 21—2 
 
324 THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 
 
 and it is to be observed that, when St Paul's own salutations to 
 Christians at Rome were ended, he was not able to refrain (xvi. 
 17-20) from breaking out afresh into renewed exhortations to 
 mutual peace through willing obedience to the common Lord. 
 As he had gone back to the perils and hopes of the Church 
 after the one set of individual greetings, so we can imagine him 
 joyfully returning to the yet higher sphere of God's universal 
 purposes after the other set of individual greetings 1 . Nay the 
 parallelism between 17-20 and 25-27 is one of contrast as 
 well as likeness. The first passage gives vent to somewhat of 
 the anxious dread which lurks behind many a phrase of xv. 
 14-33, especially 30, 31. If these were St Paul's last words 
 to the Romans except the two sets of greetings and the Bene- 
 diction of 20 b, the epistle might have appeared to end in a 
 note of discord: at all events its exulting comprehensiveness 
 would have died back into the rebuke and controversy proper 
 for the Galatians. The sudden upward flight of the Doxology 
 seems therefore to be almost demanded, to swallow up not only 
 trivial individualities of salutation but also the temporary strifes 
 of the Church. 
 
 But it is said that the Doxology differs too much in style 
 from the rest of the epistle to form part of it. I used to 
 suspect that it might be the ending to one of the forms of the 
 encyclical epistle to the Ephesians, which was preserved from 
 being lost to the Canon by being appended to St Paul's longest 
 epistle. Dr Lightfoot (after Dean Alford) points out its resem- 
 blance to the Pastoral Epistles as well, and accordingly treats 
 it as marked by the Apostle's later style generally. Before 
 scrutinizing words and phrases, let us look at the subject. The 
 starting-point is doubly personal ; an anxiety about the stability 
 of the converts addressed, such as tinges the hopefulness of the 
 first and last words spoken to and about the Romans (i. 11 ; 
 
 ' Dr Lightfoot says (p. 317) that the tion of the type' i, x d/«t k.t.\. But 
 
 Doxology 'has nothing in common none of his other epistles have a post- 
 
 with the usual endings of St Paul's soript, following a benediction in that 
 
 Epistles, which close with a benedio- form already given. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 325 
 
 xvi. 17-20) ; and a bold lifting up of what friend and foe knew 
 as the distinctive ' Gospel ' of St Paul, (and that in its distinc- 
 tive form of 'preaching,' and with its distinctive appeal to 
 'faith,') such as marks the time of the conflict with Judaism 
 within the Church (i. 1, 5, 9, 16 ; xv. 16 ; x. 8, 14, 15). Here 
 the pronouns ' you ' and ' my ' face each other with an emphasis 
 which in such a context is hard to explain till we remember the 
 presaging instinct with which St Paul saw in the meeting 
 of himself and the Roman Christians, if indeed it was to be 
 vouchsafed, the pledge and turning-point of victory (i. 10 ff. ; 
 xv. 29-32 ; cf. Acts xix. 21 ; xxviii. 31). Then comes the idea 
 in which the Doxology culminates, the counsel of the far-seeing 
 God, the Ruler of ages or periods, by which the mystery kept 
 secret from ancient times is laid open in the Gospel for the 
 knowledge and faith of all nations. This idea no doubt per- 
 vades the Epistle to the Ephesians, though with considerable 
 enrichments. But is it foreign to St Paul's earlier thought? 
 The second chapter of 1 Corinthians at once shews that it was 
 not and explains why the fact is not obvious. St Paul is 
 dealing there with converts who were in danger from pride of 
 eloquence and wisdom (from i. 5 onward). For fear of this 
 danger, he says (ii. 1 ff.), he himself kept back all excellency of 
 speech or of wisdom when he came among them, and confined 
 himself to the bare preaching of the Cross as alone fitted to 
 their imperfect state. But for all that he desired them to know 
 that he too had in reserve a wisdom which he spoke among the 
 perfect. Its nature he briefly hints in words that closely 
 resemble our Doxology (' We speak a wisdom of God in a 
 mystery, that hidden wisdom which God fore-ordained before 
 the ages unto the glory of us' etc. ii 7), and then hastens to 
 explain that, even after being laid open, it demands a spiritual 
 power to discern it. The Churches to which he wrote about 
 this time, at Corinth, in Galatia, at Rome, were not in a state 
 to profit, by an extended exposition of a belief which yet was 
 strong in the Apostle's own mind, and so the traces of it in 
 the early period are few. Later it filled a larger space in his 
 
326 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 thoughts, it acquired new extensions and associations, and he 
 had occasion to write to Churches which by that time were 
 capable of receiving it. But it is not really absent even from 
 the Epistle to the Romans. Kindred thoughts find broken 
 and obscure utterance in viii. 18-30. The belief itself is the 
 hidden foundation of the three chapters (ix-xi.) in which God's 
 dealings with Jew and Gentile are expounded, and comes 
 perceptibly to light in their conclusion (xi. 33-36). Now it is 
 precisely in these chapters, as F. C. Baur {Pavlua 341 ff.) saw 
 long ago, that the main drift of the epistle is most distinctly 
 disclosed: all its various antitheses are so many subordinate 
 aspects of the relation of Jew and Gentile which in this seeming 
 episode is contemplated in its utmost generality as reaching 
 from the one end of history to the other. The whole epistle 
 could hardly have a fitter close than a Doxology embodying 
 the faith from which its central chapters proceed. Here at 
 last that faith might well be articulately expressed, though 
 a wise economy compelled it to be latent as long as the Apostle 
 was simply instructing the Romans. This Doxology is in fact 
 a connecting link between the epistle at large and the earlier 
 concentrated doxology of xi. 36. In both alike human sin and 
 hindrance are triumphantly put out of sight 1 : but here the 
 eternal operation of Him 'from Whom, through Whom, and 
 unto Whom are all things' is translated into the language of 
 history. 
 
 An examination of single phrases is attempted in the fol- 
 lowing table, which includes some less obvious coincidences 
 of thought 8 . 
 
 1 They could not be left out in the ' end of xi. should be maintained at 
 
 latter part of the Epistle, when St the final close of the Epistle. See 
 
 Paul's own position and the dangers p. 324. 
 
 of the Eomans had to be spoken of » References to the later epistles 
 
 (xv. 14-33; xvi.- 17-20). But for this are in []: the chief passages are 
 
 very reason it was the more necessary set out at length by Dr Lightfoot, p. 
 
 that the ground conquered at the 318. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 
 
 327 
 
 Tip Si Swa/jUvip 
 ifuis en/pll-M 
 
 Kari. to euayyi\i6i> 
 
 IU>V 
 
 ffov Xpurrov 
 
 Kard. 6.-jroK(i\vtpur 
 /ivo-njptov xp^'ois 
 alluvion ffcnytiiU- 
 you <pavepuBivTos 
 Si vvv 
 
 Sii re ypcupwv rpo- 
 
 IpTfTiKUV 
 
 icot iirnuyiiv 
 
 rod alwvLov Beov 
 
 els inraxofy trl- 
 areus 
 
 Bom. xiv. 4...<tttj«i i} TrlTrei' ffTaBr/trtrai Si, Svvaret yip 
 o tcvpios vrijo-ai abrbv. Aivafmt, Svvarbs, Swariw with an 
 infinitive are used of God Bom. iv. 21; xi. 23; 2 Cor. iz. 8; 
 (xiii. 3;) Gal.iii. 21; [2 Tim. i. 12: r£...o°vya/i6'4>...Eph.iii. 
 20.] Znpolfu in St Paul ia found elsewhere only Bom. i. 11 
 (ticnro0u> yip ISetv 6pLas...els to o^rqpixByvai bfms) and 4 times 
 in 1, 2 These. 'Standing fast' is a common phrase in 1, 
 2 Thess., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Bom.; though also found later: 
 'falling' is confined to 1 Cor., Bom. 
 
 So Bom. ii. 16 ; [2 Tim. ii. 8.] So also xari ro eiayyi\iov 
 Bom. xi. 28, for here as there the inclusion of the Gentiles 
 must be chiefly meant. (The ' stablishment ' of the Bomans 
 would presuppose the harmony of Jew and Gentile among 
 them.) In this light p.ou is illustrated by i. 1-6, 9, 16; 
 xv. 16. 
 
 Compare Bom. ii. 16; x. 8-12; xv. 5 f . ; 1 Cor. i. 21; 
 xii. 12 f. ; 2 Cor. i. 19 f.; Gal. iii. 26-29; [2 Tim. iv. 17; 
 Tit. i. 3: also 1 Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11.] The double 
 name appears to have special force in this oonnexion. 
 
 Bom. i. 16 f....tls aurniplcw ravrl rip ■nareiovn, 'lovSalip 
 re [irpuToi/] ical "EXXipu* Sutaioabvii yip 0co9 iv airy [sc. r$ 
 ebayyeXlip] iiroKaMrrerai in irlareas els rl<mv\: here the 
 historical Sucauurivji is a part of the p.wT-f)ptov : and so 
 iii. 21 vwl Si xvpl* vbpov Suuuoaivii Beov <ire<t>cwiparai, flap- 
 rvpovptevT] inrb rov vbpov xal ruv irpo<pi)rG>v, SiKaio<rtivTi Si 9eou 
 dia. vlareus ['Iijo-oO] Xpurrov els trivras robs rrtareiovras : 
 cf. Gal. iii. 22 f. Bom. xi. 25. ..rb pvoriipiov rovro...Sri 
 riipuo-is iirA /xipovs rip 'Iffpa^jX yiyovev oxpt ov rb irXijpwjta ruv 
 iBvuv eloi\BT), naX otrois tras 'lo-pa^K o-afffy-erai. 1 Cor. ii. 6, 
 7, 10 aoiplav Si Xo\oB/*e» tv rots re\elots...0eov <ro<plav iv 
 Huorijplip ri)V ivoKeKpvp.i*ivT)v, T)V irpoiipurev b debs rcpb ruv 
 aliavtav...' ijp.iv yip iweKd\vt//ev b Beds Sii toO wvebp-aros. 
 [Eph. iii. 3-11. Jlpo xpbvuv almvtw 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i 2.] 
 Bom. i. 2...ebayyi\iov Beov S TrpoertiyyelXaro Sii ruv vpo- 
 iprrruv abrov iv ypaipats iylats; iii. 21 (above); and ix-xi. 
 passim. 
 
 [1 Tim. i. 1; Tit. i. 3.] But the meaning is given by 
 Bom. i. 1, 5 Si' ou [sc. 'I. X.] i\dp\>ptev...iiroo-ToMiv els uiraKo^v 
 rio-reus iv irSaui rots tBveo-iv; x. 15; and the mere formula 
 KO.T iirirartv 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8. 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 7 (above); x. 11; cf. Bom. xi. 33-36. [1 Tim. 
 i. 17 rip p\un\et riSv aliivuv : also Eph. iii. 9, 11 ; Col. i. 26 ; 
 2 Tim. i. 9 ; Tit. i. 2.] 
 
 Verbatim in this connexion Bom. i. 6 (above). This 
 enlarged sense of 6tokoi), biraicovu, is confined to the early 
 epistles (Bom. vi. 17; x. 16; xv. 18 els vitokotiv iBvuv; 
 ? xvi. 19; 2 Thess. i. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 15; ? x. 5 f.). 
 
328 THE EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 
 
 els V&.VTO. to. tdvi) Bom. i. 5 above; xi. patsim; xv. pauim; xvi. 3 f. Tra- 
 
 yvwpiaBivTOt, p(fw is similarly UBed Rom. ix. 22 £ ; 1 Cor. xv. 1 ; ? Gal. 
 
 i, 11; as well as (often) in the later period. 
 
 yivif <ro(pi} 0eif Bom. ill. 29, 30 rj 'lovSalwr 6 dtbs p&vuv; oiyl xal idrQv; 
 
 val kiiX idvvv, etwep els i 9eos St k.t.X. [M6i>4> 6e$ 1 Tim. i. 
 17 a kindred passage, which early caused tuv aiilmwr to be 
 inserted here after rods aluvas, and in its torn received 
 aoipip hence in the fourth century: cf. 1 Tim. vi. 15; but 
 also Jud. 4, 25; John v. 44 etc.] So0/a is predicated of 
 God by St Paul with reference to the working out of a 
 distant purpose by unexpected means : so Bom. xi. 33 ; 
 1 Cor. i. 21, 1 30; ii. 7; [Eph. i. 8; iii. 10; Col. ii. 3.] 
 
 8ii 'IiproB XptoTov Bom. v. 1 f. ; xv. 6 f. ; Gal. i. 4 f.; [Eph. i. 5 f., 11-14; 
 
 If] 1 ii S6|o els to»j iii. 21 ; Col. i. 27 ; 1 Tim. i. 11, 17.] 
 
 Slums' ipdjv. 
 
 A minute examination of the passages briefly indicated in 
 this table will shew that the dominant thoughts of the Epistle, 
 — the thoughts which inspired its beginning (i. 1-17), its 
 primary close (xv. 6-33), and its three characteristic chapters 
 in which the old faith and revelation are invoked on behalf 
 of the new, — are precisely those expressed in the final Doxo- 
 logy ; and that the separate words and phrases of the Doxology 
 are for the most part what have already occurred in the 
 Epistle, while there are hardly any not to be found in epistles 
 of the same or an earlier period*. If this be so, the obvious 
 resemblances to parts of the later epistles lose all force as 
 evidence of date. The Doxology and 1 Cor. ii. 6-10, a passage 
 absolutely inseparable from its context, support each other 
 in shewing that St Paul's late teaching was his early belief; 
 while in each case there was an adequate motive for his ex- 
 ceptional transgression of the limits imposed on him by the 
 present imperfection of his converts. The condensed and 
 cumulative style, which he used more freely afterwards, arises 
 naturally from the compression of varied thoughts and facts 
 into a single idea in a single sentence under the impulse of 
 
 1 $ is probably an intrusion, not- of which is preserved in 1 Cor. ii. 7- 
 withstanding the presumption in favour x. 11. On the other hand iiramri) {vi- 
 ol an irregular construction. <rrews), both phrase and sense, is pecu- 
 
 " The only clear exception is x/>6eoi liar to the early epistles. 
 atoKtoi (2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i. 2), the idea 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 329 
 
 eager feeling. Eom. i. 1-7; iii. 21-26; 2 Thess. i. 3-10 
 offer a true analogy : what distinguishes them is their articula- 
 tion, which was hardly possible in a doxology. But we may go 
 further. As is the Epistle to the Romans itself in relation to 
 the monuments of St Paul's early teaching, gathering up, 
 harmonizing, concluding, such is the Doxology in relation to 
 the Epistle. It looks at once backwards and forwards. Spring- 
 ing from the keen sense of a present crisis, it gives old 
 watchwords of action a place in the dawning vision of thought 
 which the epistles from Rome were to expound, and anticipates 
 in its style as in its ideas the habitual mood of the time when 
 the crisis was victoriously ended, and the unity of the Church 
 secured. 
 
 II. The course thus far has been smooth, because the 
 chief textual difficulties have been out of sight. The end of 
 the fourteenth chapter is a point at which various phenomena 
 present themselves which nothing in the context would have 
 led us to expect. Some of them (a) on the surface mark only 
 an interruption of the Epistle. The Doxology is inserted 
 either (1) here alone or (2) both here and in xvi. In (3) a 
 single MS. G, one of the twin MSS. which alone omit the 
 Doxology altogether, an empty space is left here, occupying 
 half a line at the bottom of an otherwise full page and 5 lines 
 of the next page. Secondly (/3) the whole of the two following 
 chapters are supposed to have been omitted (1) by Marcion 
 (on the authority of Origen), (2) perhaps by Tertullian and 
 even Irenseus, and (3) in the capitulation of an unknown Latin 
 MS. mentioned by Wetstein. The variety of this evidence, if 
 it stands proof, is a strong argument in favour of any theory 
 which will account for all the particulars. 
 
 The testimony of Origen requires consideration first. We 
 have it only in the greatly abridged version of Rufinus, a 
 careless and licentious translator. This is not a passage with 
 which he is likely to have consciously tampered ; but there is 
 no certainty that the language is Origen's own. Characteristic 
 
330 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 terms of expression as well as ideas may be recognized through 
 Rufinus's Latin in almost every page ; but none such are con- 
 spicuous here: rather the sentences are short and simple for 
 Origen. The comment on the Doxology (after xvi. 23) begins 
 thus. "Caput hoc Marcion, a quo Scripturae Evangelicae 
 atque Apostolicae interpolatae sunt de hac epistola penitus 
 abstulit : et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco ubi scriptum est 
 ' Onme autem quod non ex fide peccatum est' [xiv. 23] usque 
 ad finem cuncta dissecuit. In aliis vero exemplaribus, id est 
 in his quae non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoc ipsum caput 
 diverse positum invenimus. In nonnullis etenim codicibus post 
 eum locum quem supra diximus, statim cohaerens habetur ' Ei 
 autem qui potens est vos confirmare.' Alii vero codices in fine 
 id ut hunc 1 est positum continent. Sed jam veniamus ad capi- 
 tuli ipsius explanationem." As the text stands, it asserts plainly 
 that Marcion removed from the Epistle both the Doxology and 
 xv. xvi ; and that of the MSS. unaffected by Marcion's pro- 
 ceeding some had the Doxology after xiv., some after xvi 
 
 So the passage has been universally understood. On the 
 other hand for many years I have had a strong impression 
 that the Benedictine text is wrong in three letters, and that 
 on the removal of this tiny corruption the whole interpretation 
 collapses. De la Rue's notes on this book often mention the 
 readings of a certain Paris MS. (Reg. 1639). Wherever I have 
 examined them, they have appeared usually to give the truest 
 text against all other known authorities, and very seldom to 
 be evidently wrong. In this place Reg. 1639 has in instead 
 of ab. If the preceding hoc is likewise altered to hie, and so 
 small a variation may easily have escaped notice, we get an 
 entirely new and, I venture to think, more probable statement. 
 Origen begins by saying merely that 'Marcion, the falsifier* 
 of the Gospels and [St Paul's] Epistles, removed this paragraph 
 
 1 [' hunc ' is a misprint for ' nuno.'] terpolate, but properly to give a spuri- 
 * Interpolo in anoient Latin, it will ous look of newness to old things, and 
 be remembered, does not mean to in- so generally to falsify. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 331 
 
 completely from the Epistle.' Then it appears to strike him 
 that some reader might know the Epistle in a copy which 
 had the Doxology at the end of xiv. (if not there alone), and 
 acquit Marcion as having at most only removed a superfluous 
 repetition 1 . He adds therefore explicitly 'And not only here 
 but also' at xiv. 23 'he cut away* everything quite to the 
 end.' Then, for fear the remark might not be understood 
 by those who knew the Doxology only in xvi, he explains 
 'But in other copies, that is in those which have not been 
 corrupted by Marcion, we have found this very paragraph 
 differently placed' etc. 
 
 Of these three statements the end of the second might be 
 thought a mere repetition of the first, according to the corrected 
 reading. But I think Origen wished to make it perfectly clear 
 that Marcion's offence, as he understood it, was no mere erasure 
 of an obnoxious phrase but utter excision of the entire para- 
 graph. Nor is it unlikely that the Greek original contained 
 intermediate digressive sentences which gave a resumptive 
 force to the repetition. No one, I presume, would seriously 
 find a difficulty in the words ' to the end ' as inappropriate to 
 the removal of the Doxology alone, in the case of MSS. in which 
 it had stood at xiv. 23: their correctness in reference to its 
 normal position would make them sufficiently descriptive for 
 
 1 Seasons will be given farther on DUsecuit 'would not be an unnatural 
 
 for suspecting that the MSS. here no- rendering of TrepUnoftv or possibly ire- 
 
 tioed by Origen had the Doxology in ptirefiev, either of which would mean 
 
 both places. At this point the differ- simply 'cut away.' Compare Epiph. 
 
 ence is without importance. Haer. 309 d oi5 iiimv 6i •rtfr ipxty i/ri- 
 
 3 This is not, it must be confessed, Te/tev [of St Luke's Gospel]..., dXX4 col 
 the natural meaning of the single word tou t4\ovs koL twv pjauv iroXXi irepd- 
 dUeecuit: but will the context on any Koifit tup -Hjs dXqdefas \&yav k.t.X. : and 
 view tolerate another? As regards the again dXXd nva airwy repiTipwuv, rtva 
 Doxology, abstulit is decisive. Is it Si iWouiaas Ke<pd\aia. In the first sen- 
 conceivable that Marcion only ' separat- tence, so closely resembling Bunnus's 
 ed ' xv. xvi. from the rest of the Epistle, in form, ivori/wio and irepiKinrru must 
 while still acknowledging their autho- be practically synonymous, for the 
 rity, whether he joined them to another preceding sentence describes the Gos- 
 epistle or not? or that such an opera- pel as Tc/HKaco/i/tli><»> dn-4 T?jr &pxw by 
 tion would be unrecorded? The diffi- Marcion. 
 oulty surely lies in the translation. 
 
332 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Origen's purpose. Hoc ipsum caput is perhaps a slightly 
 stronger phrase than we might have expected : how far it re- 
 presents the Greek, and, if supposed exact, how far a knowledge 
 of the unabridged context would explain it, we need not try to 
 conjecture : even as it stands, it has a certain force in* binding 
 together the first and second statements. 
 
 On the other hand the internal evidence for the truth 
 of the corrected reading is substantial. The order of the, 
 sentences, which Rufinus is not likely to have changed, 
 runs naturally upon this view. By the common reading Origen 
 keeps till last the only fact specially concerning the passage on 
 which he is commenting : his first two sentences might have 
 been written with equal force and appropriateness on any group 
 of verses in the two chapters. He begins with saying that 
 Marcion removed this paragraph, three verses, and then con- 
 demns, as an aggravation of the main offence, his removal of 
 59 verses, of which these three are nothing more than the end. 
 Why should he choose this particular place for the remark, if 
 Mansion's operation was really on that extensive scale ? Why 
 not mention it at the proper place, xiv. 23 ? It may be urged 
 that possibly he was forgetful there, as he is certainly silent 
 about the Doxology, but gladly repaired his omission when the 
 Doxology brought to mind by association the earlier critical 
 point in the Epistle. Certainly it might be so. But in that 
 case we should expect him to begin with the transposition of 
 his immediate text, and having so been carried to xiv. 23 to 
 append by way of digression an account of Marcion's proceeding 
 The reverse order, which we actually find, has no logical justifi- 
 cation on the common interpretation, unless Origen himself 
 saw in Marcion's supposed omission of xv. xvi. and in the trans- 
 position of the Doxology two facts connected by community of 
 origin. That however is a step in criticism which there is not 
 the slightest evidence that he took. He regarded Marcion's 
 omission, whatever its extent, as an original and unprecedented 
 act ; and be gives no hint that the transposition or repetition in 
 certain MSS. was a consequence of Marcion's mutilation: in 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 333 
 
 other words the two facts were in his eyes two independent 
 phenomena. How then came the one to suggest the other ? • If 
 Marcion omitted two chapters, the sole point of contact is xiv. 
 23; and thus the transposition, which alone forms a bridge 
 from xvi. 24 to xiv. 23, must have preceded the omission in 
 Origen's account. If on the other hand Marcion cut out only 
 what the scribes transposed, then no bridge is needed. The 
 first and the last sentences refer alike to the same subject, the 
 paragraph on which Origen is avowedly about to comment. 
 The second sentence refers partly to this place, partly to the 
 other ; and likewise serves to anticipate an erroneous criticism 
 of the first statement, which might occur to Origen's readers. 
 
 The commentary of Jerome on Eph. iii. 5 explains diffusely 
 how St Paul could say that 'the mystery of Christ in other 
 generations was not made known to the sons of men' notwith- 
 standing the language of the prophets. At the outset he 
 repudiates the doctrine juxta Montanum that the prophets 
 spoke in ecstasy, not knowing what they said. Three columns 
 further on he repeats ' Those who will have it that the prophets 
 understood not what they said, and spoke as it were in ecstasy, 
 bring to confirm their doctrine not only the present text, but 
 also that which is found [in the epistle] to the Romans in most 
 MSS., reading Now to Him, etc.' The inference is obvious, that 
 the writer had seen or heard of MSS. which did not contain the 
 Doxology. But who is the writer ? Jerome in his preface 
 tells us that he had partly followed the three books of Origen 
 on this Epistle. Comparison of the Greek fragments proves 
 how freely he drew on his great predecessor's ample stores; 
 and any one familiar with Origen's style will recognize it in 
 many places where the Greek is entirely lost. Throughout this 
 long disquisition Origen's hand cannot be mistaken, though 
 Jerome may have added or altered this or that sentence. The 
 controversy with Montanistic doctrine belongs moreover to the 
 third, not the fourth century'. The character of the MSS. 
 
 1 The dislike of the early Alexan- phecy' or inspiration is well known, 
 drians to the Montanist theory of 'pro- 
 
334 THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 
 
 hinted at as wanting the Doxology is sufficiently indicated 
 in the two sentences which follow the refutation of the Mon- 
 tanists. 'And in like manner it is to be observed that the 
 mystery of our faith cannot be revealed except through the 
 Prophetic Scriptures and the coming of Christ. Let those 
 therefore know who understand not the Prophets, and desire 
 not to know, protesting that they are content with the Gospel 
 alone' etc. This evident allusion to the Marcionists, the other 
 great sect which threatened the Church in Origen's days, sug- 
 gests the strong probability that the passages from his two 
 commentaries relate to the same subject. What he calls 
 'most MSS.' here are identical with 'those copies which have 
 not been corrupted by Marcion.' In the former case the 
 Doxology is said to have been omitted 1 : may we not infer, in 
 the absence of evidence to the contrary, that this and this alone 
 constituted Marcion's offence ? Whatever the argument might 
 be worth taken independently, it appears to me a striking 
 corroboration of the result obtained thus far. 
 
 Tertullian's language is ambiguous. After confuting Mar- 
 cion out of Galatians and 1, 2 Corinthians, he proceeds to 
 Romans (adv. Marc. v. 13). Henceforth, he says, he will touch 
 but briefly on what has come before him already, and pass over 
 altogether what has come before him frequently. He is tired 
 of arguing about the Law, and about God as a Judge, and so 
 an Avenger, and so a Creator. Yet he must point out the 
 plain references to justice and judgement which meet him at the 
 beginning of the Epistle (L 16 ff. ; ii. 2). It will be enough for 
 him, he declares, to prove his point from Marcion's negligences 
 and blindnesses, from the sayings which he left undisturbed". 
 
 1 The words are 'Qui volant Pro- logy been the mere conclusion of a 
 phetas etc. , cam praesenti testimonio large seotion omitted. 
 illud quoque quod ad Bomanos in pie- a He notices bat one omission by 
 risque codicibas invenitur ad eonfirma- Marcion in this epistle, that of o. ix. 
 tionem sui dogmatis trahunt, legentes The limits are not given, bat there is 
 Ei aulem' etc. They do not formally little room for doubt. Eight other 
 negative the omission of the two whole (short) omissions are recorded by E pi- 
 chapters ; bat other language would phanios, who professes to famish only 
 sorely have been ohosen had the Doxo- a selection (Hatr. 317 {.). It is singu- 
 
ITS STRUCTUBE AND DESTINATION. 335 
 
 He then runs over the Epistle in 5 pages, just half what he had 
 bestowed on the little epistle to the Galatians, passing over in 
 silence some long spaces of text containing appropriate matter, 
 as iii. 1-20 and x. 5-xi. 32. The ethical paragraph xii. 9-xiii. 
 10 tempts him to give examples of the anticipation of its 
 teaching in the Old Testament, and he concludes with insisting 
 on the harmony of Law and Gospel in inculcating love of neigh- 
 bours. There apparently he intended to stop, the doctrinal 
 part of the Epistle being ended, but his eye was caught by the 
 words 'judgement-seat of Christ' at xiv. 10. He therefore 
 adds (14 s. f.) rather awkwardly, with evident reference to what 
 he had said on the beginning of the Epistle 1 , 'Bene autem 
 quod et in clausula tribunal Christi' comminatur, utique 
 judtds et ultoris, utique creatoris, ilium certe constituens 
 promerendum quern intentat timendum, etiamsi alium praedi- 
 caret.' And then he proceeds to another epistle. The absence 
 of allusions to anything in xv. xvi. requires no explanation : it 
 is hard to see what could have been cited except xv. 4, 8, 18, 
 which are slight and contain nothing new in relation to Marcion, 
 and the Doxology, which all agree to have been omitted by 
 him. But in clausula certainly means 'in the close of the 
 Epistle,' and it is a natural inference that such a phrase would 
 not have been used if xv. xvi. had stood in Tertullian's MS., 
 whether that was his own or one of Marcion's recension. 
 Natural but not conclusive. The verse quoted is not in the 
 actual close on any view ; thirteen verses follow of xiv. But 
 the force of the word must be estimated by the context. 
 
 lar that Epiphanius should pass oyer Gospel, as ■f/KpariipUurrai fi-frre ipxw 
 the losa of three consecutive verses: txov M Te fisv, fvfyre riXos, IftaHov /Sc- 
 out his silence would be far more /fyu/ueVov bvb rdKKiiv (nyruy iiri%ei rhv 
 astounding if two whole chapters were rpiror. 
 
 missing. Nothing could be safely in- 1 So not long before he had said, not 
 
 ferred in any case from his employ- it is true of a book but of a passage 
 
 ment of the word &Kpm-i)pid£a as ap- (1 Cor. ix. 10-x. 11), 'Denique et in 
 
 plied to St Paul's epistles (not atrruv 3i clausula praefationi [apostolus] re- 
 
 ijKpamipiair iUvqiv o\ir/i8us tJ airov foil- spondet* (c. 7). 
 
 ovpylf 317 d) : his wide use of it is ma- * The true reading is rov 0eou, but 
 
 nifest when he says (311 v) that the confusion with 2 Cor. v. 10 was easy. 
 
336 THE EPISTLE TO THE KOMANS. 
 
 Antithesis to the beginning of the Epistle, not by any means 
 the very beginning but i. 16 ff., ii. 2, is the motive of the 
 remark. If xiv. 10 is included in a section of the Epistle, 
 however large, which can fairly be called in any sense its close, 
 the point of the remark is saved. Now Tertullian had to all 
 appearance virtually ended his comments at xiii. 10. What 
 follows to the end, with the partial exception of xv. 3 £, &-12, 
 is either hortatory or personal. The business of the Epistle, so 
 to speak, is over : to the eye of a rhetorician, accustomed to study 
 the members of a speech, the remainder would all constitute the 
 close. Tertullian uses the word more loosely still on another 
 occasion, again for the sake of an antithesis. To reinforce his 
 position that Christ's command to flee from city to city under 
 persecution became obsolete when the apostles went forth to 
 convert the Gentiles, he urges that St Paul, who at an early 
 time had consented to escape in a basket, in the close of his 
 ministry (in clausula officii) rebuked those who urged him not 
 to go up to Jerusalem lest he should suffer there (de Fuga in 
 Pers. 6). Yet this incident (Acts xxL 13) preceded the events 
 at Jerusalem, the two years' imprisonment at Csesarea, the 
 voyage and shipwreck, and the two years at Borne; to say 
 nothing of later occurrences not told in the Acts. 
 
 It remains true that Tertullian does not cite any words out 
 of xv. xvi. in other parts of his writings 1 : nor does Irenseus or 
 perhaps Cyprian'. Negative facts of this kind are by no means 
 to be contemned, but their value depends on the attendant 
 circumstances. Seventeen verses only of the two chapters 
 (xv. 1-13; xvi. 17-20) were likely to be quoted. Of these 
 Origen once quotes one (setting aside the commentary), 
 Clement three; while of others it so happens that Origen 
 quotes five, Clement three, besides the Doxology. 
 
 1 Sender and Oehler indicate 5 re- he means p. 283 (Ep. 65 § 3) 'neo 
 ferences to xv. 4, 14; xvi. 18 : but they ante se religioni sed ventri potina et 
 are imaginary. quaestui prof ana cupiditate tervisie'; 
 
 2 Fell's index givea only xvi. 18'ven- a very doubtful reference, 
 tri serviunt: E[pist.] 233.' Doubtless 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 337 
 
 Lastly Wetstein has a note at the end of xiv. : ' Codex 
 Latinus habet capitula epistolae ad Romanos 51, desinit autem 
 in caput xiv.; ex quo conficitur ista capitula ad editionem 
 Marcionis fuisse accommodata.' ' Later critics,' says Dr Light- 
 foot [p. 289], ' have not been able to identify the MS. and thus 
 to verify the statement.' Their failure however matters little. 
 The phenomenon here obscurely described is not peculiar to a 
 single MS. : it belongs to what was probably a widely current 
 Latin capitulation, found e.g. in the earliest (540-550) MSS. of 
 the Vulgate, the Amiatinus and the Fuldensis. The sections or 
 breves of Romans are 51, § 50 beginning at xiv. 15, and § 51 at 
 xv. 4. In the table of contents before the Epistle § 50 is headed 
 ' De periculo contristante [sic] fratrem suum esca sua, et quod 
 non sit regnum Dei esca et potus sed justitia et pax et gaudium 
 in Spiritu Sancto,' a fair description of the section ; and § 51 
 'De mysterio Domini ante passionem in silentio habito post 
 passionem vero ipsius revelato,' which in strictness applies 
 only to the Doxology 1 . If the marginal figures were lost, it 
 would be a natural inference that § 50 ended with xiv., that 
 § 51 consisted of the Doxology, and that xv. xvi. were absent 
 from the MS. on which the capitulation was originally formed. 
 But as on this view the table and the marginal figures con- 
 tradict each other, it seems hopeless to attempt to clear up the 
 confusion while the origin of the capitulation remains un- 
 known 3 - There is no Latin authority whatever for associating 
 the Doxology with xiv. 23 ; so that it would be rash to assume 
 the table of headings to be alone authentic, and the marginal 
 figures to have been inserted at xv. 4 by a misunderstanding. 
 Yet that is certainly a possible solution. Only it must be 
 
 1 Either Wetstein examined only the answer to ecclesiastical lessons. Other- 
 table of headings, or he overlooked wise one might have thought that the 
 the inconspicuous figuieB li. at xv. 4, Doxology was appended toxv. 13 or 33 
 a place where he would scarcely expect for public reading, and the rest of xv. 
 them. This is the sole point of differ- xvi. neglected. Some sections are de- 
 enee _ scribed only by their end, as others 
 
 * Internal evidence proves that the only by their beginning. 
 sections cannot, in their present form, 
 
 L. E. 
 
 22 
 
338 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 remembered that the table of headings, with all its obscurities, 
 would stand as the sole direct piece of evidence for the omission 
 of xv. xvi. by any authority. 
 
 One indirect testimony Dr Lightfoot finds in the space left 
 after xiv. 23 in the single MS. G, as noticed above (p. 329). His 
 inference [p. 316] is that ' the copyist of an earlier MS., from 
 which it has descended, transcribed a MS. of the abridged recen- 
 sion [i.e wanting xv. xvi.] till the end of chapter xiv., and then 
 took up a MS. of the original Epistle to the Romans to supply 
 the lacking matter, omitting however the doxology as inappro- 
 priate to what had thus become the middle of the letter, and 
 perhaps intending to give it a place afterwards, but abandoning 
 his purpose. It is an instructive fact that in the allied MS. F no 
 space is left after ch. xiv., but the text is written continuously.' 
 ' Either their common prototype 1 , or a still earlier MS. from 
 
 1 The above was written on the 
 assumption that F and Q were in- 
 dependently copied from the arche- 
 type, as all considerable writers on the 
 subject except Wetstein had laid down 
 on apparently sufficient grounds. A 
 query by Dr Westcott has recently in- 
 duced me to examine the matter anew, 
 and so led me to the conclusion that 
 the scribe of Q alone used the arche- 
 type, and that F is a copy of G. The 
 few verbal (not orthographical) varia- 
 tions of F that might have seemed to 
 preserve the readings of the archetype 
 crumble away on examination. P often 
 interchanges tyteis with ii/iets, not sel- 
 dom against all sense, and 6 times 
 alters inrb to curb : it omits the article 
 23 times, and perhaps once inserts it : 
 it omits other words 16 times, and 
 inserts them at most thrice (Bom. vii. 
 19 luurw as in 15 ; ix. 31, with a special 
 mark, Jiirato<n)ci;s as in the line above; 
 Gal. fin. dfi^v ; all from the Vulgate) : 
 and the remaining changes, I believe 
 fourteen, of which most are favoured by 
 the Vulgate, are all trivial and natural. 
 On the other hand FG agree in count- 
 
 less blunders, evidently such and not 
 traditional variants, which cannot all, 
 to say the least, be set down to the 
 archetype. Again the confusion of 
 spellings has its uniformities. To take 
 only the more frequent cases, P inces- 
 santly interchanges et), o o,tv, 8B[t); 
 in almost every line FG together inter- 
 change i «, e at, very rarely either MS. 
 separately; and I have failed to detect 
 any permutations approximately pecu- 
 liar to G. Misspellings of the pro- 
 miscuous sort swarm in PG together 
 and in P separately; in G separately 
 they are rare and always so simple as 
 to be within the capacity of the scribe 
 of F to correct. Preoisely the same 
 may be said of the divisions of words; 
 P is free from no outrageous portent 
 found in G, but has to answer for many 
 of its own. No one can believe that 
 two scribes independently arrived at 
 e.g. TloTvirovaiv ex«i tiyuacfu><ai tuv 
 \ayuv (both PG have a over -vov: P 
 further divides iyeur. envoy) for tfjrortf- 
 ■Kwaiv tye iyuurimtr A4yii>i/: and the 
 absence of division of words in the 
 archetype is proved by the numerous 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 
 
 339 
 
 which it was copied, must have preserved the abridged recen- 
 sion.' In other words (1) the scribe of G copied L-xiv. from 
 one MS. and xv. xvi. from another; and (2) the scribe of F 
 copied in like manner from the same two MSS., though he 
 left no mark of the transition from the one to the other. If 
 the first of these hypothetical facts were true, we ought surely 
 to find some evidence of it in the respective texts ; whereas the 
 closest study fails to detect a shadow of difference in the 
 character of the readings before and after the blank space. The 
 partial adherence of D excepted, this character is unique among 
 existing Greek MSS. : that it should prevail equally in two 
 MSS. accessible to the scribe of G is possible certainly, but not 
 likely ; and the hypothesis involves this further anomaly that 
 
 self-corrections of the scribe oi G, 
 where he haa added to the end of one 
 word the first letters of the next, seen 
 his error, and begun the second word 
 afresh with a space between. In these 
 cases he sometimes has forgotten to 
 put in the cancelling dots or line, and 
 then the writer of F confidingly tran- 
 scribes the whole. But usually he is 
 careful to follow only corrected read- 
 ings. In 1 Cor. xi. 31 f. dir6 translated 
 by a happens to be under the end of 
 iavrois in G; and the stroke or ac- 
 cent which, as usual in G, caps a looks 
 like a cancelling line to the final s: 
 hence F reads iaurbv though the verb is 
 8tcKplro/ui>. Other instances might be 
 given of the dependence of F on acci- 
 dents in G. The relations of the Latin 
 accompaniments (fg) are complicated, 
 but tend to the same result. The 
 body, so to speak, of g must have at 
 least a double origin, from a pure Old 
 Latin text and from one or more alter- 
 ed texts, either the true Vulgate or one 
 of the intermediate revised texts or 
 both. Where none of his materials 
 represented the Greek literally enough, 
 the scribe evidently devised new ren- 
 derings of words and still oftener 
 
 changed their order. This is shown 
 not only negatively by comparison with 
 the mixed and fragmentary yet fre- 
 quently copious evidence of all sorts 
 as to variations in Latin MSS. and 
 Fathers, but also positively by mistakes 
 arising from the wrongly divided Greek 
 words and the like. Sometimes g 
 offers two or more alternative render- 
 ings, either all traditional or part tra- 
 ditional part original. The body of f 
 is tolerably pure Vulgate, unequally 
 but always imperfectly assimilated to 
 the Greek with, I believe, the aid of 
 no document except g, all the elements 
 of which may be recognized. In 1 Cor. 
 a., singled out by Mr Scrivener for its 
 frequent departure from the Vulgate, 
 out of the 46 variants 23 agree with d 
 and 42 with g, while the remaining 4 
 consist of 2 blunders, one correction 
 of an obvious blunder, and one inter- 
 pretative change of tense. The con- 
 cordance of evidence so various seems 
 decisive against any claim of F to 
 represent the archetype where it differs 
 from G. Nothing however in the text 
 of this article is substantially affected 
 by the result except the sentences in 
 brackets. 
 
 22—2 
 
340 THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 
 
 the two originals, so singularly alike in the main, must have 
 differed on the capital point, the omission of xv. xvi. [When F 
 is taken into account, fresh embarrassments arise. Either the 
 scribe of F copied one MS. throughout or he did not. If he did 
 not, an exact repetition of the circumstances attending the 
 writing of G is demanded, without such evidence as the blank 
 is said to afford. If he did, what becomes of the primary 
 original of G ?] The blank may, I believe, be easily explained 
 by a simple process. The Greek text of F and G alike was 
 copied from a single archetype wanting only the Doxology. 
 [The scribe of F wrote down exactly what lay before him.] 
 The scribe of G on arriving at xiv. 23 remembered the Doxology 
 as occurring there in some other MS. that he had read (all 
 extant MSS. but 9 have it there, 4 older, 5 younger), held 
 faithfully to his archetype, but satisfied his conscience by 
 leaving a space which might be filled up hereafter if needful. 
 He did in fact only what the scribe of B had done four 
 centuries before, when he left a blank column for the supple- 
 ment to St Mark's Gospel (xvi. 9-20). It follows that FG 
 attest the omission of the Doxology alone, while the blank in G 
 vouches merely for the vulgar Greek text as it prevailed from 
 the fourth century onwards. 
 
 That reading of the vulgar text however remains to be 
 explained if possible, and remarkable without doubt it is. The 
 intrusion of the Doxology after xiv. 23 appears in two forms : 
 conjointly with its retention at the end in AP 5 17 1 , and some 
 Armenian MSS. : in this place alone in L (= J) and all Greek 
 cursives but 8 (or 10), some MSS. known to Origen (above, 
 p. 330), the Harclean Syriac and the Gothic 2 (with, it is said, 
 
 1 There ia » doubt about 2 or 3 presence of the Doxology after xiv. 
 
 others, and more -will probably be would make the gap exaotly equal in 
 
 found in due time : see also p. 341, note length to the adjoining leaves of the 
 
 1. The introduction at xiv. 23 by the Oodex Carolinus, which alone has pre- 
 
 second hand of the Latin text in the served the verses before and after, 
 
 trilingual 109 iB doubtless due to an The 4 existing leaves of this MS. shew 
 
 imperfect assimilation to the Greek. that xi. 33-xv. 13 was written on 8 
 
 8 The fragments of this version do leaves; and all the measures give the 
 
 not comprise xiv. 20-xv. 3. But the same length to a leaf within a line. 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 341 
 
 two other late and obscure versions), Chrysostom 1 and the 
 Greek commentators who follow him, and perhaps Cyril and 
 John of Damascus. Perplexities abound here. The first small 
 group is select" though not trustworthy: by the analogy of 
 other passages it indicates a reading of high antiquity, probably 
 current at Alexandria, but a correction. Origen's MSS. being 
 waived, the certain portion of the second group is practically 
 rubbish : that is, it contains no authority of the slightest value 
 hereabouts except as a rare adjunct to some primary authority 
 left nearly in solitude. That some MSS. known to Origen 
 should have attested a reading of the first group is exactly 
 what might have been expected: their association with the 
 second is passing strange. It suggests a doubt (more is not 
 permissible) whether Origen after all did not speak of those 
 MSS. which had the Doxology at xiv. 23 as having it also at the 
 end. Rufinus's clumsy scissors may easily have shorn off the 
 additional fact, especially as the antithesis became clearer in 
 consequence: on this view the words about Marcion's doings 
 ' not only here but also in that place etc' would have increased 
 force, though it must be allowed they do not require it. But 
 another difficulty remains. We might have supposed the 
 double position of the Doxology to be owing to the combination 
 of texts from two sets of MSS., each of which had it in a 
 different place and there alone; yet the character of the 
 authorities inverts this order. In cases like this it is ultimately 
 found safer to trust to the historical relations of the evidence 
 than to any speculations about probability. But indeed here 
 the only tolerable explanation that offers itself of the introduc- 
 tion of the Doxology at xiv. 23 in either group would point to 
 the first group as exhibiting the earlier form of corruption. 
 Changes in the Greek text of the New Testament, chiefly by 
 
 1 One Vatican MS. of Chrysostom that Chrysostom himself used only'.the 
 
 according to Mr Field (p. 547) has both vulgar Greek text, 
 
 text and commentary in both places, a Though inferior to 17, 5 is a cur- 
 
 and so might be added to the first sive of the first rank. 
 group. But internal evidence proves 
 
342 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 interpolation, arising from the modifications required for Church 
 lessons are common in MSS., though they have rarely found 
 their way into printed texts. The salutations in xvL might 
 easily he thought to disqualify the bulk of the chapter for public 
 reading 1 , especially at a time when but a few select lessons 
 were taken from the whole Epistle* : and yet some church, for 
 
 1 The Greek 'Knthalian' capitula- 
 tion found in divers MSS. (printed by 
 Mill N. T. 418 and elsewhere) has. for 
 the heading of its § 18 irepl [rijs] /u/n}- 
 fftws rijs XpioroO ave£ manias, of §19 jrepi 
 rys Xetrovpylas airrov rijs iv dvaroXp icaX 
 Siaa, and nothing after. These must 
 correspond to xv. 1-13, 14-33. It fol- 
 lows that xvi. (but not xv.) is omitted, 
 evidently because not publicly read in 
 some church. The latest sectional num- 
 ber (24) in P stands at xv. 14, doubt- 
 less for a similar reason. By a singular 
 coincidence § 18 of the Vatican capitu- 
 lation begins with xv. 1 as in the ' Eu- 
 thalian' capitulation: but they do not 
 coincide in the earlier chapters, and 
 the Vatican sections proceed to the 
 end, commencing § 19 at xv. 25, § 20 at 
 xv. 30, and §21 at xvi. 17. Fritzsche 
 (Rom. i. p. xlvii.) pleads that on the 
 same grounds we might argue the ex- 
 clusion of 1 Cor. xvi. from public read- 
 ing, since no trace of its contents 
 appears in the ' Euthalian ' capitulation 
 for that epistle. Why not ? The last 
 sectional numeral (20) in the margin 
 of P in 1 Cor. is at xv. 51. Thus again 
 both independent capitulations equally 
 agree with what the nature of the chap- 
 ter renders intrinsically likely. The 
 Capuan Lectionary in the Fulda MS. of 
 the Latin Vulgate takes no lesson from 
 Bom. xv. xvi. except xv. 8-14 (for the 
 Circumcision), and none from 1 Cor. 
 xii.-xvi. 
 
 2 DrLightfoot(p.312)referstoKeiche 
 as having shewn that xv. xvi. were 
 not omitted in public reading. Beiohe 
 depends on Fritzsche and after him 
 
 Meyer, who argue (1) that the profound 
 reverence of the early Christians must 
 have saved every letter of the N. T. 
 from being unheard in the churches; 
 (2) that the lectiouaries prove the whole 
 epistle to have been actually read. But 
 this continuous reading noted in the 
 lectionaries belongs only to the Daily 
 Lessons, which E. Banke (Herzog R. 
 E. xi. 376 ff.) shews to be of late date, 
 perhaps not earlier than the 12th cen- 
 tury. The ancient lessons for Sundays. 
 and Saturdays are all more or less 
 selected, continuous only in certain 
 definite cases. The existing Synaxa- 
 ria, valeant quantum, give Bom. xiv. 
 19-23 plus the Doxology as the lesson 
 (an appropriate one) for Saturday be- 
 fore ' Tyrophagus ' Sunday (Quinquage- 
 sima) : see the tables in Scrivener In- 
 trod. 72; Soholz N.T.ii. 459; Matthasi 
 Rom. xxiv. They have but two other 
 lessons from this part of Romans, xv. 
 1-7 for the 7th S. and xv. 30-33 for 
 the Saturday before the 10th S. after 
 Pentecost (Scrivener 69 f.; Scholz 458; 
 Matthffii ib.). All these arrangements 
 however are probably Constantinopo- 
 litan, and originally derived from the 
 'use' of Antioch. An Alexandrine 
 Table of Lessons is preserved in a 
 Vatican MS. (46 Paul, of Wetstein), 
 and has been edited by Zacagni Coll. 
 Mon. 712-722; but the first leaf, con- 
 taining from Easter to the 3rd S. after 
 Pentecost, is missing. In the part of 
 the year where Bomans is chiefly read, 
 xiii. 1-8, xv. 1-6, 13-19, 30-33 oc- 
 cur conseoutively ; but no other lesson 
 from this Epistle after xiv. 11 appears 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 
 
 343 
 
 instance that of Alexandria, may have been glad to rescue the 
 striking Doxology at the, end for congregational use by adding 
 it to some neighbouring lesson 1 . It could not well be used by 
 itself, even if it were longer : it craved to follow some passage 
 which in like manner craved a close. Many would find in the 
 benedictions at xv. 13, 33 a reason against appending the 
 Doxology in either place 2 , while it would make an impressive 
 termination to a lesson formed out of the latter verses of xiv. 
 which when alone have both a harsh 8 and an unfinished sound. 
 
 anywhere. A few scattered lessons 
 agree with those in the common Syn- 
 axaria, but the coincidences are such 
 as might easily be accidental: the 
 systems are independent throughout, 
 though partly analogous. Saturday 
 lessons are wanting, according to the 
 custom of the early Alexandrine and 
 Roman Churches (Socrat. v. 22), except 
 in Lent. But as it is the long eight- 
 week Lent of late Alexandrine usage, 
 comparison as to 'Tyrophagus' Satur- 
 day is out of the question. All the 
 Lenten Saturdays have in place of a 
 definite lesson the single obscure for- 
 mula 'Ek toO AirooriXou els aylovs : the 
 4 lessons els pvelas iyluv. Bom. v. 1-5 ; 
 viii. 28-34; Heb. x. 32-38; xi. 33-xii. 
 2, can hardly be meant, as Zacagni 
 seems to suppose; but the reference 
 may be to a Menologium, or Table of 
 Lessons for Holy-Days, not preserved 
 in the MS.: the common Synaxaria 
 have lessons from Hebrews on the 
 Saturdays of their Lent. ' Tyrophagus ' 
 Sunday is one of the days of coinci- 
 dence, the lesson being Bom. xiii. 11- 
 xiv. 4. In short nothing can be clearly 
 made out, except the prevalence of 
 variety of usage and the utmost free- 
 dom in the selection of lessons ; that 
 is, Fritzsche's and Meyer's arguments 
 are found to have no support from 
 facts. 
 
 1 The late Alexandrine lesson for St 
 Stephen's Day begins Acts vi. 8 and 
 
 ends vii. 60. As the other lessons are 
 all short, fhis must have been made 
 up of two passages, the speech being 
 omitted. A similar Old Latin lesson 
 for St Stephen's Day has been printed 
 by Ceriani (Mon. S. et P. i. n. 127 t), 
 combining vi. 8-vii. 2 with vii. 51-viii. 
 4. Banke in Herzog R. E. x. 81 notices 
 two Mozarabic lessons from Jeremiah, 
 one of which omits 13 verses in the 
 midst, and the other is a cento of 5 
 fragments. 
 
 2 Gabler in Griesbach Opusc. ii. p. 
 xxvi. 
 
 3 This is the ground taken by J. A. 
 Bengel (App. Grit. 340 Burk), to whom 
 we owe the first suggestion about Church 
 Lessons. He says 'Videntur Graeci, 
 ne lectio publica in severam sententiam 
 Quicquid non est ex fide peccatum eat 
 desineret, hanc ei clausulam attexuisse. 
 Couf. var. Matth. iii. 11.' His note on 
 the omission of iced irvpl in this last 
 place is worth quoting. 'Citra haeo 
 verba finierunt Graeci, v. gr. in Aug. 4 
 [the Lectionary numbered 24], lectio- 
 nem ecclesiasticam, ne tristis esset 
 clausula. Simili euphemismo et Ju- 
 daei post ultimum eumque severum 
 Iesaiae, Malachiae, Threnorum, et Ko- 
 heleth versum rescribere penultimum 
 solent: et Graeci nonnulli post ultimum 
 Malachiae versum ponunt antepenulti- 
 mum. Etiam in Byz. [86] t4\ds pri- 
 mum post haeo verba, deinde his erasis 
 ante, notatum est." 
 
344 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Scribes accustomed to hear it in that connexion in the public 
 lessons would half mechanically introduce it into the text of 
 St Paul, just as they seem to have introduced a liturgical 
 doxology after the Lord's Prayer into the text of St Matthew 
 (vi. 13). Then in the course of time it would be seen that St 
 Paul was not likely to have written the Doxology twice over in 
 the same epistle, and it would be struck out in one place or the 
 other ; while familiar use would override any effort of critical 
 judgement 1 , and so the Doxology would vanish from the end of 
 xvi., nothing in the context seeming to demand its retention. 
 Such I conceive is the history of the position which the 
 Doxology holds in the vulgar Greek text, a position which 
 it would probably retain in the Received Text and in the 
 popular versions of Europe but for the confused impulse which 
 led Erasmus in this instance to adhere to the Latin tradition. 
 
 III. In the two places of the first chapter (7, 15), where 
 the name of Borne is mentioned, it disappears in the single 
 MS. G. Some leaves are wanting at the beginning of F ; 
 doubtless if extant they would shew the same omission. At 
 the first passage there is a note in the margin of 47 to the 
 effect that 'he [or 'it': no nominative] mentions the phrase 
 iv 'PcofiT/ neither in the commentary nor in the text.' The 
 subject may be some unknown commentator, but is more 
 likely to be an ' ancient copy' of St Paul's Epistles which is 
 expressly cited in a similar marginal note on vi. 24 2 , and which 
 like 47 itself may have been provided with a marginal catena 
 or * commentary' 8 . Dr Lightfoot thinks he sees a trace of the 
 
 1 Yet ancient criticism, finding the * The reading there quoted from t» 
 
 Doxology between xiv. and xv., would waKaibv forty pcupov is both rare and ex- 
 
 probably see nothing to object to ; while cellent : the other marginal readings of 
 
 it would readily stumble at the ap- 47 are of no interest, nor is there I be- 
 
 parent violation of epistolary correct- lieve any other referenoe to another 
 
 ness in xvi. 25 ft. The influence of authority. Of. Griesbach Symb. Crit. 
 
 MSS. like FG may also have helped i. 165 ff. 
 
 to expel the final Doxology, while it » An uncial MS. with a catena, like 
 
 would be powerless to displace the g of St Luke, might be called 'the 
 
 same words where imbedded firmly ancient copy' in the 11th or 12th 
 
 in the text. oentury. 
 
ITS STBTJCTURE AND DESTINATION. 345 
 
 same omission in Origen's criticism as rendered by Rufinus, 
 notwithstanding the presence of Romae in the text. But the 
 context gives another turn to the language used. ' Benedictio 
 autem pacis et gratiae, quam dat dilectis Dei ad quos scribit 
 apostolus Paulus, puto quod non sit minor ea quae fuit bene- 
 dictio in Sem et in Japheth, quoniam per Spiritum impleta 
 est erga eos qui fuerant benedicti etc' 'Ad quos scribit' is 
 substituted for 'qui erant Romae' because the point is that 
 St Paul's benedictions had not less dignity and effect than the 
 sacred benedictions of the Old Testament ; as Origen proceeds 
 'Non ego his omnibus inferiorem duco hanc Apostoli bene- 
 dictionem, qua benedixit ecclesias Christi,' while any inference 
 from the generality of ' ecclesias' is precluded by the further 
 remark that 'haec Apostoli consuetudo scribendi non erga 
 omnes ab eo servatur ecclesias,' and by the classification which 
 follows. Still less can I recognize any sign of the omission in 
 the Ambrosian Hilary's words ' Quam vis Romanis scribat, illis 
 tamen scribere se significat, qui in caritate Dei sunt.' For he 
 goes on ' Qui sunt hi nisi qui de Dei filio recte sentiunt ? Isti 
 sancti sunt et vocati dicuntur: sub lege enim agentes 1 male 
 intelligunt Christum' etc. Every word becomes clear on com- 
 parison with a passage in the Prologue (25 AB) in which he 
 contrasts the 'Romani' with the Judaizers who were equally 
 at Rome (eV 'Yco/iy) : the meaning is that St Paul writes not 
 to all 'at Rome' indiscriminately, but to those at Rome who 
 were in caritate Dei.' The true text in full is iraaiv Tot? 
 ovtTuv ev 'Vwfijj arfairifTOK deov kKijtok asflois, A Western 
 correction (D* lat. [the Greek lost] G, the 2 best MSS. of the 
 Vulgate, apparently the Ambrosian Hilary, and perhaps Hilary 
 of Poitiers) substitutes ev dydvy 0eov for dyairijroK deov, doubt- 
 less on account of the /eXr/Toit following ('who... through the 
 love of God are called to be saints'). The result is that ENPflMH 
 and ENArATTHGY were left contiguous, each beginning with ev. 
 The loss of one or other out of a pair of such groups of letters 
 
 1 Not 'they agentes' bat 'they who agunt.' 
 
346 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 is common in MSS. of any form, and would be peculiarly liable 
 to occur in one written in columns of short lines, such as was 
 assuredly the archetype of FG 1 . These two MSS. have further 
 a trick of omitting words that do not appear necessary to the 
 sense, as might easily be the case with ev 'Ytoffg here when the 
 following words were changed : so et? aarrjplav i. 16 ; f) e* 
 
 i Hag pointed oat (EM. in N. T. i. 
 252 ff.) the evidence afforded by the 
 frequent capitals in G that it was copied 
 from a ' stichometrical ' MS. resembling 
 D, and perhaps older. In F many of 
 the capitals are wanting, and probably 
 even the scribe of G neglected a large 
 proportion. It has not however been 
 noticed, I believe, that the three equal 
 ohaBms in the Greek text common to 
 F and G measure for ns the contents 
 of each leaf of the archetype, about 
 20 lines of the ' Oxford Lloyd,' a con- 
 venient standard for reference. Now in 
 these three places (1 Cor. iii. 8-16 ; vi. 
 7-U; Col. ii. l-«) a leaf of D con- 
 tains on the average 24 lines of Lloyd, 
 Greek alone. If then the archetype of 
 FG had like D a Latin column, we 
 might form a fair impression of the 
 general appearance by catting off 2 
 lines from eaoh page of D. If there 
 was no Latin, each leaf of the arche- 
 type mast have contained rather less 
 than those of any extant Biblical MS. : 
 the nearest approach would be to the 
 purple and silver N (21 Lloyd lines) 
 and the peculiar Z (23), apparently 
 once a MS. of the same class. E of the 
 Acts has indeed but 12 Greek Lloyd 
 lines ; but there is the Latin in addi- 
 tion. One exception might have been 
 found in the lost archetype of a part of 
 C. A fortunate displacement of text 
 in the midst of a page of the Apooa- 
 lypse (x. 9, 10; vii. 17-viii. 4; xi. 8-12) 
 proves, on acourate measurement and 
 calculation, notwithstanding the loss 
 of the preceding leaf, that the arohe- 
 
 type hereabouts was made up of quires 
 of 8 sheets, with 12 Lloyd lines to a 
 leaf, while a leaf of C itself has 100 
 Lloyd lines. The outer sheet but one 
 of a quire must have been somehow 
 turned inside out before stitching, and 
 so the scribe of 0, copying on without 
 thought, interchanged vii. 17-viii. 4 
 and x. 10-xi. 3. Bat it is possible, 
 though unlikely, that the archetype of 
 C was bilingual: the Grseoo-thebaio 
 fragments of T have 21 Greek Lloyd 
 lines to a leaf, nearly double. The 
 great primary Eastern MSS. of the 4th 
 and 5th centuries, KABC (with 160, 
 148, 131, 100 Lloyd lines to a leaf 
 respectively), owe I believe their state- 
 ly appearance to the new impulse to 
 exhibit together the settled and com- 
 pleted Canon of Scripture. Before 
 Constantino the parohment copies were 
 in all likelihood small and portable. 
 Our two earliest MSS, K and B, seem 
 to represent the older period in the 
 narrowness of their columns, not in 
 the ample structure of their pages, 
 which may or may not have been 
 suggested by a partly opened papyrus 
 roll. During the time when most 
 variations arose, narrow columns were 
 assuredly general, to say the least. 
 The date when 'stichometry' proper 
 began is still unknown: the evidence 
 whioh refers it to the middle of the 
 6th century is most precarious. And 
 the example of E of the Acts shews 
 on how different scales stichometrical 
 arrangements might be made. 
 
ITS 8TBXTCTUBE AND DESTINATION. 347 
 
 (pvcrecos dicpofivffTia ii. 27 ; (ov -iravT<o<; iii. 9 ;) 'Irjtrov iii. 26 ; 
 /iovov iv. 16 ; o 6dvaro<i v. 12 ; (tow iiridv/iiaK avrov vi. 12 ;) 
 oTt ifiol t6 fcaicov irapaKeirai vii. 21 ; el 8e X/ot«rr6? iv v/uv 
 viii. 10; vio0e<riav viii. 23 ; &c. The omission in i. 7 might there- 
 fore be neglected without further thought but for the parallel 
 omission of rot? iv 'Vw/itj in i. 15, the name of Borne being 
 confined to these two passages in the Epistle. The coincidence 
 would certainly be noteworthy if it were sustained by other 
 documentary evidence, or if there were independent reasons for 
 believing a recension of the Epistle to have existed in which 
 the marks of a special destination were purposely obliterated. 
 There is no such reason apart from the supposed removal of 
 xv. xvi. : the hypothesis is suggested by the reading of G at 
 i. 7, 15. We may therefore be content to suspect that in these 
 two verses like causes produced like results. 
 
 All the phenomena of text alleged to prove a double 
 recension have now been examined. The enigmatical Latin 
 capitulation excepted, they have been found, if I mistake not, 
 to be more naturally explicable by other causes. This result 
 becomes clearer still when the hypothesis is examined as a 
 whole. The second recension, it will be remembered, was said 
 to consist of chapters i. to xiv., with the Doxology, and without 
 the two namings of Borne. How is it then that every autho- 
 rity, which supports, or may be thought to support, some part 
 of this combination, contradicts some other part ? For the 
 omission of xv. xvi. the one direct testimony, if such it be, is 
 that of Marcion : and yet the one incontrovertible fact about 
 him is that he omitted the Doxology. If G is to be added on 
 the strength of the blank space after xiv., yet again it leaves 
 out the Doxology. Once more there is no lack of authorities 
 of a sort for subjoining the Doxology to xiv. We may waive 
 the fact that they all retain xv. xvi. We cannot forget (1) that 
 they all make mention of Bome at i. 7, 15 ; and (2) that they 
 have no sort of genealogical affinity with the MS. that ignores 
 Bome, or with Marcion. In few words, the authorities, which 
 
348 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 as a matter of fact contain the rude outlines of the first 
 recension, supply the main data for constructing the second. 
 Meanwhile neither recension is represented in the great mass 
 of good authorities, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, or other, 
 on which the text of St Paul stands in ordinary cases. Both 
 recensions, as wholes, are purely conjectural. If Rome and the 
 transposed Benediction are set aside, the first recension is 
 vouched for by FG (standing for a single archetype) alone of 
 extant documents and by some traditional evidence. The 
 second recension can be reached only through a hypothetical 
 text which Marcion altered, and a hypothetical duplicate 
 original of G. 
 
 Such being the relations of the textual evidence, little re- 
 quires to be said on the intrinsic probability of the hypothesis. 
 There is nothing in it that we need hesitate to accept if only 
 the evidence were stronger. But it surely has not that kind of 
 verisimilitude which would raise the feeling that it cannot but 
 be true. The only analogous instance known to us is the 
 encyclical epistle addressed to the Ephesians and other neigh- 
 bouring churches. But that letter appears (1) to have been 
 sent simultaneously to its different recipients ; and (2) to have 
 been general in form in the first instance, not a special appeal 
 trimmed for general use. Analogy apart, it is difficult to 
 imagine St Paul deliberately cutting out in after years the 
 words that spoke of personal bonds to definite churches and 
 believers, and the passionate hopes and fears which they had 
 once called forth. If for any purpose he needed an impersonal 
 treatise on the old subjects, he would surely have written it 
 anew. Indeed the fitness of our Epistle, however altered, may 
 well be doubted. Its catholicity springs from the marvellous 
 balance that it holds between Jew and Gentile, which in its 
 turn rises historically out of the equal or almost equal combi- 
 nation of the two bodies in the metropolitan Church, as Dr 
 Lightfoot has justly insisted (p. 312 ff.). Is it probable that the 
 same characteristics would recur in the unlike ' countries into 
 which he had not yet penetrated' (p. 319) ? Even that single 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 349 
 
 point of connexion disappears when we recall the pregnant 
 paradox of his relation to the Romans, that, though he had not 
 seen them, he knew them so well. 
 
 The inverse theory of several critics, that the original letter 
 to the Romans ended with xiv. and, some add, with the 
 Doxology, and that St Paul afterwards appended xv. xvi., 
 escapes these difficulties to plunge into worse. Paley proves 
 convincingly that xv. can belong only to the time when the 
 body of the Epistle was written and can have been addressed 
 only to the Romans : and there is cogent evidence which he has 
 overlooked. Dr Lightfoot has shewn how much can fairly be 
 elicited from xvi to the same effect. The slight break more- 
 over after xiv. is onesided, and on the wrong side. The opening 
 words of xv. furnish a tolerable beginning: the last words of 
 xiv. make a very bad end, even when the Doxology is allowed 
 to follow. 
 
 When all is said, two facts have to be explained, the inser- 
 tion of the Doxology after xiv., and its omission. The former 
 has occupied us enough already : the latter now claims a few 
 words. If the view taken in this paper be right, the omitting 
 authorities are FG, Marcion, and certain MSS. twice noticed by 
 Origen, once distinctly and both times implicitly, as having 
 been corrupted by Marcion. The readings of D* and Sedulius, 
 mixed authorities substantially akin to FG, likewise imply 
 omission as antecedent. Origen accuses Marcion of wilful 
 omission : is the charge just ? There is analogy favourable to 
 either answer. It is now equally certain that Marcion some- 
 times mutilated the text of his favourite apostle, and that some 
 variations or omissions imputed to his pen were in fact simply 
 the readings which he found already in his MS. The reference 
 to « prophetic Scriptures' in v. 26 might conceivably annoy him, 
 though, as far as we know, he tolerated much of the same kind 
 that was less likely to please him. But the removal of four 
 words, an operation more in his manner, would have served 
 every purpose. Though copies of his Apostolicon were seemingly 
 current here and there in the Church, no extant document can 
 
350 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 be shewn to have been affected by any of his wilful alterations. 
 Indeed ' copies corrupted by Marcion' need mean to us no more 
 than ' copies agreeing in a certain reading with Mansion's copy ': 
 and Marcion's copy, prior to his own manipulations, appears by 
 various signs to have had much in common with the authorities 
 associated with him in the omission of the Doxology. On the 
 whole it is reasonably certain that the omission is his only as 
 having been transmitted by him, in other words that it is a 
 genuine ancient reading. 
 
 Genuine: but right or wrong? The question cannot be 
 answered off-hand. Not right merely because shewn to be as 
 old as the first quarter of the second century : not wrong merely 
 because the outward evidence for omission is small and at the 
 same time virtually responsible for many impossible readings. 
 Experience shews that authorities, rarely or never in the right 
 when they alter or add, are often in the right when they omit. 
 Such is preeminently the case with the Western group of which 
 DFG form an important section. Yet the omissions of DFG 
 without the accession of B, when examined together, are for the 
 most part suspicious. Thus on the whole authority is in favour 
 of the Doxology. Internal evidence is likewise not all on one 
 side. So considerable an omission might be expected to proceed 
 only from a strong and evident motive, such as cannot be 
 decisively recognized here. On the other hand the singular 
 and yet unobtrusive correspondence with those parts of the 
 letter which best reveal its purpose is an argument hardly 
 to be gainsayed without strong documentary testimony. Pure 
 accident is not to be rejected from the imaginable causes of the 
 loss. The last or outer column of a papyrus roll, the outer leaf 
 of a parchment book, would be subject to peculiar risks, as 
 every keeper of MSS. can avouch ; and it is probable that an 
 epistle as long as that to the Romans would often form a book 
 to itself in early times 1 . Nor again dare we assume that the 
 
 1 On the scale of the archetype of usually of coarse thiok parchment the 
 this epistle would oooupy 90 leaves. delicate thin yeUum of our great MSS 
 They would necessarily be small, and being a recognized mark of luxury 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 
 
 351 
 
 rash hands which shifted the Benediction would hesitate to let 
 go the Doxology, in their zeal to give the Epistle a correct 
 ending. Having once lost the vantage ground of possession 
 from whatever cause, the Doxology would not easily recover it. 
 Henceforth conservatism and criticism would be on the same 
 side. Presently, when the Doxology had found a home after the 
 fourteenth chapter, every motive for replacing it at the end of 
 the Epistle was gone. We cannot wonder that the evidence for 
 retaining it there, and leaving inviolate the continuity of the 
 fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, is exclusively ancient and 
 good 1 . 
 
 F. J. A. HOET. 
 
 and would thus form a sufficient vo- 
 lume. The variety of order in the 
 Pauline epistles in early times, of 
 which there is good evidence, would be 
 promoted by their separate use. On 
 this view the language used by Con- 
 stantino and Eusebius (V. Const, iv. 
 36 f.) about the new Imperial Bibles, 
 •sumptuously prepared,' with their 
 quires of 3 or 4 sheets, has more force : 
 Constan tine's word auiuiriov (=cor- 
 pui), the technical term for a combi- 
 nation of single works, doubtless ex- 
 presses the change from books and 
 groups of books to the full Canon. 
 
 1 Since this article has been in type, 
 Dr Lightfoot has kindly pointed out to 
 me an oversight in pp. 337 f ., 347. In 
 the Codex Fuldensis the table of head- 
 ings to Bomans agrees with that in the 
 Codex Amiatinns etc. only in the latter 
 part, as Banke himself observes, p. 
 xxiii. The first 23 headings belong 
 to a totally different capitulation, and 
 exhaust the Epistle down to xiv. 13. 
 Then follows No. 24 of the other table, 
 describing ix. 1-5; and so on. The 
 previous or peculiar headings have no 
 marks or divisions answering to them 
 in the text itself. The scribe evidently 
 saw that his tale of SI sections could 
 not be made up without borrowing 
 
 elsewhere, and he ventured to save 
 appearances at the cost of sense. Whe- 
 ther he had actually reached the end 
 of the first table or only saw it near at 
 hand, is less clear. The headings are 
 not so exactly desoriptive as to forbid 
 the inclusion of xiv. 14-23 in §23 ; and 
 thus it is certainly possible that we 
 have two complete and independent 
 Latin capitulations in which xv. xvi. 
 are omitted. More cannot be said till 
 ancient capitulations generally have 
 been properly investigated, and this 
 demands a wide examination of MSS. 
 Meanwhile it should be observed that 
 (1) the Fulda headings have no trace of 
 the Doxology ; and (2) they are loaded 
 with Augustinian or Anti-Pelagian 
 phraseology, and cannot therefore be 
 dated much before 400 at earliest. 
 
 The sectional numerals in P, I now 
 likewise see, may possibly once have 
 been continued after Bom. xv. 14; 1 . 
 Cor. xv. 51 : some numerals have faded 
 out of sight in almost every epistle, 
 and in Bom. i.-x. all have vanished; 
 of. Tisohendorf M.S.I, v. p. xiv. But 
 as the §1 of each epistle (10) except 
 1 Cor. begins after the salutation, 
 analogy favours the view taken above 
 (p. 342, n. 1). 
 
c. 
 
 IN the last number of this Journal (ill. p. 51 sq.) Mr Hort 
 criticised and condemned a theory which I had suggested 
 in the preceding number (a. p. 264 sq.) to account for certain 
 facts connected with the text of the Epistle to the Romans. 
 The facts, it will be remembered, were mainly these ; (1) One 
 or more ancient writers used a copy of the Epistle containing 
 only the first fourteen chapters, with or without the doxology 
 which in the common text stands at the close of the whole (xvi. 
 25-27). (2) In the existing copies this doxology appears some- 
 times at the end of the xivth chapter, sometimes at the end of 
 the xvith, sometimes in both places, while in some few in- 
 stances it is omitted altogether. (3) At least one text omits 
 iv 'Vcofiy in i. 7, 15. The theory, by which I sought to com- 
 bine and explain these facts, was this ; that St Paul at a later 
 period of his life reissued the Epistle in a shorter form with a 
 view to general circulation, omitting the last two chapters, 
 obliterating the mention of Home in the first chapter, and 
 adding the doxology, which was no part of the original Epistle. 
 Mr Hort impugns some of these assumed facts and explains 
 away others. Having done this, he attacks the theory itself, 
 and endeavours to show that it is untenable. 
 
 No one, who is really anxious to ascertain the truth, would 
 object to such a criticism as Mr Hort's, even though it should 
 lead to the rejection of a darling theory. I am especially 
 obliged to him for the thoroughness with which he has applied 
 the test of textual criticism to my hypothesis. And, if I ven- 
 ture, notwithstanding his arguments, to maintain that the facts 
 themselves are stubborn and in some respects even stronger 
 than I had supposed, and to uphold my theory as the most 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 353 
 
 probable explanation of the facts, until a better is suggested, I 
 trust that I am not blinded by partiality. At all events I will 
 give my reasons as briefly as possible, taking the facts first 
 and then proceeding to the theory. 
 
 I. The first and most important of the facts is the ex- 
 istence, in early times, of copies containing only fourteen 
 chapters. Of this the indications are various, and (as it seems 
 to me) conclusive. 
 
 (i) The statement of Origen respecting Marcion has been 
 ' universally understood,' as Mr Hort himself allows (p. 330), to 
 mean that this heretic struck out not only the paragraph con- 
 taining the doxology, but the two last chapters also; 'Caput 
 hoc \i.e. the paragraph containing the doxology] Marcion, a 
 quo Scripturae evangelicae atque apostolicae interpolatae sunt, 
 de hac epistola penitus abstulit; et non solum hoc, sed et 
 ab eo loco ubi scriptum est Omne autem quod non ex fide 
 peccatum est (xiv. 23) ad finem cuncta dissecuit. In aliis 
 vero exemplaribus, id est, in his quae non sunt a Marcione 
 temerata, hoc ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus.' An 
 universal understanding may be wrong, but most frequently it 
 is correct ; and I cannot doubt that this is the case here. Mr 
 Hort however adopts a reading of a Paris MS. (Reg. 1639) 
 which has ' in eo loco ' for ' ab eo loco,' and himself alters ' hoc ' 
 into 'hie.' Thus he makes Origen say that Marcion cut out 
 the doxology, not only at the end of the xivth chapter, but 
 also at the end of the Epistle. Now my reply to this is three- 
 fold ; (1) Though we may allow the general value of the read- 
 ings in this MS., whose date however is not earlier than about 
 the 12th century, yet its text is far from faultless, so that only 
 a slight presumption is raised in favour of a reading from the 
 fact of its being found there. In the present instance however 
 the reading ' in eo loco ' has no meaning, unless with Mr Hort 
 we likewise change hoc into hie — an alteration for which there 
 is no MS. authority. (2) Mr Hort's reading and interpretation 
 destroy the force of individual expressions in the context. 
 L. E. 23 
 
354 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 ' Usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit ' is natural enough when 
 applied to two whole chapters, but not to the doxology 
 alone; and again in 'hoc ipsum caput' the ipsum becomes 
 meaningless, unless it is contrasted with some other portion. 
 If the words be taken as they stand and interpreted in the 
 ordinary way, the sequence commends itself; 'Caput hoc... non 
 solum hoc sed...usqti£ ad finem cuncta. . .hoc ipsum caput'; but 
 it is entirely broken up if they are read and explained as 
 Mr Hort wishes. (3) One who reads continuously not only 
 the passage quoted above, but the whole paragraph of Origen as 
 given by Mr Hort (see p. 330) or by myself (p. 288), will 
 hardly fail, I think, to see how Mr Hort's interpretation 
 involves and confuses the natural order of the topics. 
 
 When again Mr Hort supposes the statement of Jerome 
 (on Ephes. iii. 5), that the doxology was found in plerisque codi- 
 cibus, to have been derived from Origen's commentary on the 
 same Epistle, I allow that this supposition is probable. But 
 I do not see that Mr Hort's view gains strength thereby. Com- 
 menting on Ephes. iii. 5, Origen would be concerned only with 
 the doxology in which ' the mystery ' is mentioned, and he would 
 be going out of his way, if he said anything about the omission 
 of the xvth and xvith chapters, with which he was not in any 
 way concerned. Moreover it must be observed that, when 
 there is a question of a various reading, Jerome sometimes 
 manipulates Origen's statements in such a manner as entirely 
 to disfigure their meaning. Such is the case for instance with 
 the opening verse of this very Epistle to the Ephesians, where 
 Origen, having before him a text which omitted eV 'E0«rg>, 
 interprets tok ofoiv in an entirely lucid though highly 
 artificial way, but Jerome, repeating his great predecessor's 
 comment, holds language which can hardly be called intel- 
 ligible. 
 
 As regards the statement of Tertullian, when arguing 
 against Mansion (v. 14), that the threat of the tribunal Christi 
 (Rom. xiv. 10) occurs tn clausula of the Epistle, I agree with 
 Mr Hort that the inference which supposes Tertullian to refer 
 
ITS STBTJCTURE AND DESTINATION. 355 
 
 to a copy of the Epistle wanting the xvth and xvith chapters, 
 though 'natural,' is not 'conclusive.' Let the fact that the 
 inference is natural have no more than its proper weight. 
 I should not have laid much stress on the expression, if it had 
 stood alone; but in connexion with Origen's account of Mar- 
 cion it cannot be overlooked. 
 
 (ii) For the negative argument that the last two chapters 
 are nowhere quoted by certain early writers I claim a supple- 
 mental value. More than this it does not deserve. The fact 
 however remains that neither Irenseus nor Tertullian nor 
 Cyprian (except in a very doubtful allusion) refers to them. I 
 will only add that this omission occurs in Western writers 1 , 
 whereas they are more than once quoted by Clement and 
 Origen. The importance of this fact will appear hereafter. 
 
 (iii) I owe it to Mr Hort's candour that my attention was 
 directed to the capitulations of the Latin Bibles, and the evi- 
 dence derived thence seems to me to strengthen my case enor- 
 mously. In my former article I had referred to Wetstein's 
 note : ' Codex Latinus habet capitula Epistolae ad Bomanos 51, 
 desinit autem in caput xiv. ; ex quo conncitur ista capitula ad 
 editionem Marcionis fuisse accommodata' ; and, misled with 
 others by his careless expression desinit (where desinunt would 
 have been clearer), I had naturally supposed that the MS. itself, 
 to which he refers, ended with the xivth chapter, and accord- 
 ingly remarked that ' later critics had not been able to identify 
 the MS. and thus verify the statement.' I have no doubt how- 
 ever that Mr Hort is right, and that Wetstein refers to such a 
 phenomenon as the Codex Amiatinus exhibits, where (though 
 the Epistle itself is complete) the capitulations end with the 
 end of the xivth chapter, there or thereabouts. I have since 
 
 1 The first distinct quotation by any may be trusted) cites nothing from 
 
 Western writer, so fax as I can dis- these two chapters but the doxology. 
 
 cover, occurs in Victorinus e. Arium The 'very doubtful reference' in Cy- 
 
 iii. p. 280 c, a treatise written about prian is given by Mr Hort, p. 836, 
 
 a.d. 365 — where xvi. 20 is quoted, note 2. 
 Even Hilary of Poitiers (if the index 
 
 23—2 
 
356 THE EPISTLE TO THE KOMANS. 
 
 been investigating the subject 1 ; and the results of this investi- 
 gation seem to be sufficiently important to justify my taking 
 up a few pages in recording them. 
 
 In fact, there is evidence of two distinct capitulations — both 
 ending with the xivth chapter — the first very widely spread, 
 the second only preserved in a single though very early MS. 
 
 Of the first of these, the Codex Amiatinus affords the oldest 
 and best example. In this MS. the table of contents prefixed 
 to the Epistle gives 51 sections, the 50th section being described 
 ' De periculo contristante fratrem suum esca sua, et quod non 
 sit regnum Dei esca et potus sed justitia et pax et gaudium in 
 Spiritu Sancto,' and the 51st and last 'De mysterio domini 
 ante passionem in silentio habito, post passionem vero ipsius 
 revelato.' Corresponding to these, the sections are marked in 
 the text, and agree with the descriptions in the table of con- 
 tents as far as the 50th. The 50th is marked as beginning at 
 xiv. 15, and here again the description is accurate; but the 
 5l8t commences with xv. 4, and has no connexion with the 
 description. The description of the 51st in fact corresponds 
 to the doxology (xvi. 25-27), and to nothing else in the re- 
 mainder of the Epistle. The natural inference therefore is, 
 that the capitulation was made for a copy of the Epistle, 
 containing only fourteen chapters and the doxology; and that 
 the scribe who first adapted it to a full copy with the sixteen 
 chapters, not finding anything corresponding to the 51st section 
 in the immediate context, extended the 50th section as far as 
 the subject allowed him and made the 51st section include 
 all the remainder of the Epistle. This solution, which Mr Hort 
 allows to be certainly possible, seems to me to commend itself 
 as in the highest degree probable. 
 
 This capitulation appears to have prevailed very widely. 
 It is found in not less than seven MSS. enumerated by Card. 
 
 1 After I saw Mr Hortfs article in non of the capitulations in the Oodex 
 
 type, I began to look into the matter; Fuldensis. To this oonyersation he 
 
 and, before it was finally struck off. I refers in a note appended to his article 
 
 mentioned the remarkable phenome- (p. 861). 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 357 
 
 Tommasi (Thomasii Op. I. p. 388 sq. ed. Vezzosi), and dating 
 from the age of Charles the Great downwards. It occurs again 
 in the British Museum MS. Add. 10,546, an Alcuinian copy, 
 generally called 'Charlemagne's Bible,' but really written in 
 one of the succeeding reigns; in the important MS. Harl. 1772 
 belonging to the 8th century; in the Oxford Bodleian MS. 
 Laud. Lot. 108 (E. 67) of the 9th century (in which however 
 the number is expanded from 51 to 67 by a subdivision of one 
 or more of the earlier sections) ; in the MS. B. 5. 2 of Trin. 
 Coll., Cambridge, belonging to the 11th or 12th century 1 ; and in 
 the Cambridge University MS. Ee. 1. 9 written apparently late 
 in the 13th century 1 . In Add. 10,546 the sections correspond 
 in number and position with those of the Amiatinus, but the 
 words are occasionally varied, e.g. de non contristando fratre for 
 de periculo contristante fratrem suum. In Sari. 1772 the 
 number of sections in the table of contents is reduced to 49 
 by combining §§ 43, 44, 45 in one section, while (except unim- 
 portant various readings) the words of the Amiatinus are 
 strictly followed. In the text however the whole 51 sections 
 are marked ; of these the first 49 correspond to those of the 
 Amiatinus, but the 50th commences not with the beginning 
 of xiv. 15 Si enim propter, but with the middle Noli cibo 
 (while on the margin in a later hand stands xlviiij. opposite 
 Si enim propter), and the 51st not with xv. 4 Quaecumque 
 enim, but with the middle of xiv. 22 Beatus qui (the Q of 
 Quaecumque being however illuminated). And again in Cambr. 
 Univ. Ee. 1. 9, where the number of sections is similarly re- 
 duced to 50, the beginning of the 50th and last section 'de 
 mysterio etc.' stands at xv. 1 Debemus autem nos, i.e. at the 
 precise point where it would have stood, if the MS. had con- 
 
 i In the older Trin. Coll MS. of * In the Cambr. Univ. MS. Ff. i. 40, 
 
 St Paul's Epistles B. 10. 5, of the 9th whieh came from the Library of Christ 
 
 century, the Epistle to the Bomans Church, Canterbury, and was written 
 
 and part of the First to the Corinthians probably early in the 13th century, 
 
 are wanting. The Amiatinian capita- though the Amiatinian capitulations 
 
 lations are given for the other Epi- are not given, I find this note 'Haeo 
 
 g y eB epistola capitula li. dicitur habuisse.' 
 
358 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 tained only the doxology after the xivth chapter. These 
 variations show the difficulty which was felt in adapting the 
 end of the imperfect capitulation to the complete Epistle: 
 and they answer any objection founded on the fact that in the 
 Amiatinus itself the last section does not commence at the 
 exact place in the text which the hypothesis seems to require. 
 
 In more than one MS. however, which I have examined, 
 this capitulation is completed. The British Museum MS. Add. 
 28,107 formerly belonged to the monastery of S. Remacle 
 at Stavelot, and was written in the year 1097, 'ipso eodem 
 anno quo versus hierusalem facta fuerat gentium plurimarum 
 profectio,' as is stated at the end. The capitulation to the 
 Epistle to the Romans gives 63 sections. Of these § 1-41 
 correspond with those of the Amiatinus; §§ 42, 43, 44, 45, 
 are formed out of § 42 of the latter subdivided ; and §§ 46-53 
 correspond to §§ 43-50 of the latter. Thus the heading of 
 § 53 is 'Periculum contristantis fratrem suum esca sua etc.' 
 There is nothing corresponding to § 51 of Amiatinus, which 
 comprises the doxology, but § 54 (xiv. 19) is ' Quae pacis sunt 
 sectanda et fratres propter escam minime judicandi,' and § 55 
 (xv. 4) ' De doctrina et consolatione scripturarum et quod una- 
 nimiter sit honorificandus deus et pater domini nostri jesu 
 christi'; while the last section of all (§ 63), beginning at 
 xvi. 21, runs ' Salutatio timothei et caeterorum etiam et ipsius 
 pauli qui epistolam in domino se scripsisse dicit.' The com- 
 piler was vigilant enough to see that the section ' de mysterio 
 etc.' of the capitulation before him did not correspond to any- 
 thing which followed, and therefore ejected it, and supplied 
 (though not very intelligently) the remaining sections which 
 were required to complete the Epistle. 
 
 Another complete capitulation, founded on the Amiatinian, 
 occurs in the British Museum MS., Beg. 1. E. viii, which be- 
 longed to Christ Church, Canterbury, and may have been 
 written about the middle of the tenth century. This capitu- 
 lation, which is very brief and very slovenly, comprises 29 
 sections. The last of these are as follows : 
 
ITS STBUCTUHE AND DESTINATION. 359 
 
 xxiiii. de redditione unicuique omnium debitors (sic). 
 
 zzv. de periculo oontristante fratrem esca sua. 
 
 xxvi. de mysterio domini ante passionem in silentio habitat {sic). 
 
 xxvii. post passionem domini ipsius mysterio revelatus. 
 
 xxviii. obsecratio pauli ad dominium at liberetur ab infidelibus. 
 
 xxix. salutatio pauli ad fratres. 
 
 The retention and subdivision of the section comprising 
 the doxology, where it has no meaning, is a curious pheno- 
 menon. 
 
 A third instance of completed capitulation is found in the 
 MS. B. 5. 1 of Trin. Coll., Cambridge, belonging to the 12th 
 century. Here the scribe has retained all the Amiatinian sec- 
 tions, including the doxology; but by combining two in the 
 earlier part, he reduces them to 50 in number. Thus the 49th 
 is ' de non contristando fratrem, etc.', and the 50th ' de mysterio 
 domini, etc.' To these he adds two new sections, which are 
 the same as those described in the last MS. : 
 
 li. obsecratio pauli ad dominum, etc. 
 lii. salutatio pauli ad fratres. 
 
 In the text the 49th section begins at xiv. 50, the 50th at xv. 4, 
 the 51st at xv. 30, and the 52nd at xvi. 1. The inequality of 
 scale in these superadded sections shows that they did not pro- 
 ceed from the same hand as the rest 1 . 
 
 These facts have been elicited by an examination of such 
 MSS. as came conveniently within my reach'. Doubtless a 
 wider investigation would produce more striking results. But 
 I have seen enough to convince me that the Amiatinian capitu- 
 
 1 The relation between the two MSS. which perhaps appears first in the Al- 
 
 l&st described is carious. For, while ouinian copies, 
 
 other indications would suggest that * My examination has not extended 
 
 the capitulations of Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. beyond the British Museum MSS. to 
 
 E. viii. were derived from those of the 11th century (inclusive), and the 
 
 Trin. B. S. 1, the former presents the MSS. in the Cambridge University and 
 
 older form of the Amiatinian 60th see- Trinity College Libraries. The infor 
 
 tion'deperioulo contristante fratrem,' mation respecting BodL Laud. Lot. 
 
 while the latter substitutes the amend- 108 1 owe to Mr Coxe, the Librarian, 
 ed form ' de non contristando fratrem,' 
 
360 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 lation, though originally framed, as will be seen hereafter, for a 
 short copy of the Old Latin, yet maintained its ground as a 
 common mode of dividing the Epistle, until it was at. length 
 superseded by the present division into 16 chapters in the latter 
 half of the 13th century. 
 
 The second capitulation, of which I spoke, is found in the 
 Codex Fuldensis which, like the Amiatinus, was written about 
 the middle of the 6th century. The sections in the text cor- 
 respond exactly with the Amiatinian. Not so in the table of 
 contents. Of the latter Banke remarks (Codex Fuldensis, p. 
 xxiii, 1868): 'Quae epistolae ad Eomanos praemissa sunt capitula 
 duabus in partibus constant, quarum altera (i.-xxiii.), totius 
 fere epistolae argumentum in se continens, per se ipsa stare 
 videtur, altera (xxiii.-li.) iis respondet quae iisdem sub numeris 
 in cod. Amiatino proferuntur.' The words which I have itali- 
 cised are not very exact. These 23 sections, which belong to 
 a different capitulation from the remainder, reach to about the 
 end of the fourteenth chapter, the last (§ xxiii.) being ' Quod 
 fideles dei non debeant invicem judicare cum unusquisq. secun- 
 dum regulas mandatorum ipse se debeat divino judicio praepa- 
 rare ut ante tribunal dei sine confusione possit operum suorum 
 praestare rationem.' The 24th Amiatinian section, which fol- 
 lows next, begins with ix. 1, so that six chapters (ix.-xiv.) are 
 included twice. The natural inference is that the scribe, re- 
 membering that the text contained 51 sections and seeing that 
 the table of contents gave less than half that number, applied 
 himself to another source, and completed the headings of the 
 remaining sections from the Amiatinian capitulation. Whether 
 the capitulation from which §§ i-xxiiL are taken contained the 
 doxology or not, must remain doubtful. The analogy of the 
 Amiatinian sections would suggest that it did. The 23 sum- 
 maries peculiar to the Fuldensis are very broad and general; 
 thus § xxii. • de mundanis potestatibus honorandis quia oportet 
 oboediri his quib. ad mundanum regumen dominus tribuit 
 potestate,' though including the whole of our 13th chapter, omits 
 to take account of the last half, w. 8-14; and in like manner 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 361 
 
 in § xxiii. the doxology may not have been thought worthy of 
 any special attention in this heading 1 . 
 
 Mr Hort indeed impugns the value of this Fuldensian capi- 
 tulation on the ground that the headings 'are loaded with 
 Augustinian or Anti-Pelagian phraseology, and cannot therefore 
 he dated much before 400 at earliest ' (p. 351, note). I have no 
 wish to deny that there is force in this argument ; which never- 
 theless does not seem to me conclusive. The strongest expres- 
 sions in this direction are 'pro fide romanorum...deo apostolus 
 gratias agit ut probetur fidem in deum muneris est divini,' and 
 'in Christo Jesu qui solus sic humana [humanam] naturam 
 recepit ut eum contagia veteris originis non tenerent.' The 
 African fathers were more or less Augustinian before Augus- 
 tine's time, and (so far as I can see) might have held such 
 language 3 . 
 
 On any showing however the Latin Bibles bear strong testi- 
 mony to the existence of the shorter form of this Epistle at an 
 early date. The alternative hypothesis, that these sections were 
 determined by the lessons read in Churches, is devoid alike of 
 evidence and of probability. With this single exception, the 
 Amiatinian capitulation in the New Testament includes, I 
 believe, the entire book in every case. It does not bear the 
 slightest trace of being intended for lectionary purposes. Nor 
 indeed is there any reason why the 15th chapter should be 
 excluded from the lessons; for it is much more fit for public 
 
 1 Besides the capitulations mention- In this last MS., though the table of 
 
 ed in the text, I have noticed one contents gives 18 chapters, the Epistle 
 
 other which is unconnected with either, itself is divided by marginal numbers 
 
 It contains 18 sections and inolndes into smaller sections, 125 in number. 
 
 the whole epistle. This capitulation ' e.g. Cyprian Ep. 64, says ' Seoun- 
 
 is found in : dam Adam caraaliter natus, contagium 
 
 (1) Brit. Mus. Add. 11,862, a MS. mortis antigwu prima nativitate con- 
 which belonged to the monastery of trarit.' Compare alBoTertnlLde^nim. 
 St Gall, and was written in the 9th 40, 41 ; and see Neander Hist, of 
 century. Christian Dogmas, i. p. 185 so,. (Eng. 
 
 (2) Brit. Mus. Add. 24,142 'Monas- Trans.). Augustine's own dogmatic 
 terii S. Huberti in Ardvenna,' sup- views on these points were enunciated 
 posed to have been written about a.d. before Pelagins took up the subject: 
 900. ib. p. 347 sq. 
 
362 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 reading than many sections elsewhere, which are retained. 
 Even the 16th chapter would be treated with exceptional rigour 
 on this showing, for in other epistles the paragraphs containing 
 the salutations are religiously recorded in the capitulation. 
 Moreover; the oldest evidence which we possess on the subject 
 exhibits lessons for Sundays and Festivals taken from the 15th 
 chapter ; and if so, a fortiori it would not be neglected in the 
 daily lessons, supposing (which seems improbable) that daily 
 lessons had been instituted at the time when this capitulation 
 was made. 
 
 When my attention was first directed to the Amiatinian 
 capitulation, I naturally inferred that it had belonged originally 
 to the Old Latin and was later adapted to the Vulgate. A fur- 
 ther examination has shown this inference to be correct. The 
 capitulation preserves at least one crucial reading of the Old 
 Latin. In § xlii. the words ' de tempore serviendo ' show that 
 its author for to> icvpL<p Sov\evoi>Te<s read t£ xaipS Sov\evovre<} 
 in xii. 11, a reading which Jerome especially quotes as con- 
 demning the Old Latin and justifying his own revision (JSpist. 
 28, Op. I. 133, ed. Vallarsi). 
 
 Thus, taking into account all the evidence, the statement of 
 Origen respecting Marcion (confirmed by the incidental expres- 
 sion of Tertullian), the absence of quotations in several early 
 fathers, and the capitulation (or capitulations) of the Latin 
 Bibles, we have testimony various, cumulative, and (as it seems 
 to me) irresistible, to the existence of shorter copies of the 
 Epistle containing only fourteen chapters with or without the 
 doxology in early times. Even though it be granted that 
 Mr Hort has given a possible explanation (I cannot allow that 
 his explanations are probable) of each of these facts singly on 
 a different hypothesis, still the convergence of so many inde- 
 pendent testimonies direct or indirect towards this one point 
 must be regarded, if I mistake not, as conclusive. 
 
 II. However the evidence does not end here. The fact 
 that in existing MSS. the doxology occurs in different places 
 (see p. 352) is very intimately connected with the fact or class 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 363 
 
 of facts considered under the first head. And here again I can- 
 not help remarking that my position has this great advantage 
 over Mr Hort's, that whereas I postulate only one unknown 
 fact to explain all or most of the phenomena, he is obliged 
 to postulate a distinct one to account for each several pheno- 
 menon in turn. 
 
 As regards the varying position of this doxology, Mr Hort's 
 explanation supposes the following stages. (1) The original 
 place was at the end of the Epistle. (2) It was afterwards 
 attached to xiv. 23 for reading in Church. (3) ' Scribes accus- 
 tomed to hear it in that connection in the public lessons would 
 half mechanically introduce it into the text of St Paul ' at this 
 place. (4) It would then be struck off from the end of the 
 Epistle, that the same doxology might not occur twice. Thus 
 we arrive at the vulgar Greek text, which has it at the end of 
 the xivth chapter only. 
 
 Now, waiving for the present the consideration of its origi- 
 nal position, I wish to point out two great improbabilities 
 involved in the other assumptions in this sequence. First. 
 There is no such obvious connexion between the paragraph at 
 the end of chapter xiv. and the doxology, as should lead to 
 their being connected together 1 , if separated in their original 
 position by two whole chapters, while on the other hand these 
 intervening chapters present material for more than one excel- 
 lent lesson. Bengel indeed suggests, as Mr Hort points out, 
 that the severa sententia dftaprla itrriv, with which chapter 
 xiv. closes, would be deemed unfit for the end of a lesson and 
 that this inauspicious termination was got rid of by tacking on 
 the doxology. But how much more easily would the difficulty 
 have been overcome by continuing the lesson a little further 
 
 1 In a note (p. 342) Mr Hort remarks and Constantinople and from which 
 
 that ' the Synaxaria, valeant quantum, the Synaxaria are taken, they would 
 
 give Bom. xiv. 19-23, pint the dozo- naturally read it here. I would add 
 
 logy as the lesson' for the Saturday that the Synaxaria (see Scrivener's 
 
 before Quinquagesima. Bat sinoe the Introduction, p. 68 sq.) present no 
 
 doxology occurs here in the vulgar parallel to the omission of two whole 
 
 Greek text which prevailed at Antiooh chapters. 
 
364 THE EPISTLE TO THE HOMANS. 
 
 and closing with the 2nd or 4th or 6th verse of the next 
 chapter. The instance which Mr Hort quotes (p. 343, note 1), 
 Acts vL 8-vii. 2 combined with vii. 51-viii. 4, as a lesson 
 for St Stephen's day, will hardly bear out his hypothesis, for 
 there the combination is naturally suggested by the subject. 
 Secondly. This solution requires us to believe that all the 
 three steps numbered (2), (3), (4), had taken place before 
 Origen's time, so that he can speak of some MSS. as having the 
 doxology in the one place and some in the other, without sus- 
 pecting how the variation had come to pass. This supposes 
 such an early development of the lectionary as (I believe) there 
 is no ground for assuming. 
 
 III. Lastly there are the phenomena in the first chapter to 
 be considered. Here the important fact is, that in one extant 
 MS. (G) certainly, and in another (F) probably, the mention 
 of Rome has been obliterated in two distinct passages. In L 7 
 Mr Hort explains the omission by the fact that ' a Western cor- 
 rection substitutes «» arfdirg ®eov for dyairijTots Qeov,' so that 
 the words would run eNptDMHeNArATTH, where the repetition of ev 
 might occasion the omission of one of the two clauses, especially 
 as the archetype of this MS. appears to have been written 
 stichometrically and each eV might commence a new line. Thus 
 the omission would be accidental. But apparently dissatisfied 
 with this solution he offers a second suggestion, that the omis- 
 sion was intentional ; for he adds, ' These two MSS. (F and G) 
 have further a trick of omitting words that do not appear neces- 
 sary to the sense,' and gives instances. The accidental omission 
 I could understand, but the intentional (thus explained) seems 
 hardly credible, for the words ev 'Pm/ijj are essential to an 
 Epistle to the Romans. Of the omission in i. 15 he gives no 
 direct explanation, except so far as it may be involved in the 
 words ' we may be content to suspect that in these two verses 
 like causes produced like results' (p. 347). I do not understand 
 this, unless by like causes is meant the desire in both cases to 
 obliterate a superfluous clause. I too maintain that ' like causes 
 produced like results,' but I cannot allow that the historical fact 
 
ITS STBTJCTUBE AND DESTINATION. 365 
 
 involved in the mention of Rome could be regarded as a super- 
 fluity in an Epistle to the Romans; and, if the omission was 
 intentional in both cases, it must have been (so far as I can see) 
 from the desire of obliterating the proper name, because the 
 proper name was no longer applicable. The hypothesis, that a 
 coincidence so remarkable as the omission of the same name 
 in two distinct passages could have been purely accidental, 
 seems to me to be the most improbable of all. 
 
 That the twin MSS. F, G, did not stand alone in this omis- 
 sion, appears from the marginal note in 47, on which Mr Hort 
 has some remarks, p. 344. Whether to these authorities we 
 should add the commentaries of Origen and the Ambrosian 
 Hilary, must remain uncertain. I certainly should not have 
 discovered the omission in them, if it had not occurred inde- 
 pendently, and I am not prepared to say that Mr Hort's 
 explanation (p. 345) of their language, is not right. At the same 
 time to my own mind the ' Benedictio quam dat dilectis Dei ad 
 quos scribit ' of Origen, and the ' Quamvis Romanis scribat, illis 
 tamen scribere se significat qui in caritate Dei sunt ' of Hilary, 
 still leave the same impression; but probably they will strike 
 others differently. 
 
 It will thus be. seen that Mr Hort denies some of my facts, 
 and impugns the significance of others. As the facts give him 
 no trouble, it follows that the hypothesis, which has no other 
 raison d'etre but to explain them, should not find favour with 
 him. But, if (as I think I have shown) the facts are even more 
 cogent than they appeared at first, being reinforced by the 
 Latin capitulations, an explanation is still demanded. I cannot 
 indeed say that my hypothesis is free from objections. But 
 a priori improbabilities could be detected by the keen eye 
 of criticism in the most certain events of history ; and a theory, 
 which is based on circumstantial evidence, cannot hope to 
 escape objection on this ground. But, if no other hypothesis 
 has been offered which does not involve more or greater im- 
 probabilities, and if some hypothesis is needed to account for 
 the facts, I must still venture to claim a hearing for my own. 
 
366 THE EPISTLE TO THE BOMANS. 
 
 In Mr Hort's criticism of the theory itself, as distinct from 
 the facts which evoked it, there are three points especially 
 which caJJl for a reply. 
 
 (i) I had assigned the doxology (xvL 25-27) to the 
 shorter recension of the Epistle, which I supposed to have been 
 issued by St Paul himself at a later date, and had produced 
 parallels to show that its style very closely resembles that of the 
 Apostle's later Epistles. Mr Hort himself considers it to have 
 been the termination of the original Epistle. His argument is 
 threefold: (a) that it is appropriate; (6) that St Paul at the 
 time entertained the ideas contained in it ; (c) that it presents 
 numberless close parallels of expression to the earlier Epistles. 
 
 (a) As regards its appropriateness, I entirely agree with 
 him. I cannot indeed assent to Baur's opinion which he adopts, 
 that the main drift of the Epistle is revealed in chapters ix.-xi. 
 The central idea, as I conceive it, is the comprehensive offer of 
 righteousness to Jews and Gentiles impartially, following on the 
 comprehensive failure of both alike before Christ's coming. 
 After this idea has been developed, the objection arises that, 
 however comprehensive may be the offer, the acceptance at all 
 events is partial and one-sided; that while the Gentiles seem 
 gladly to accept it, the Jews stand aloof; and that thus the 
 promises of the Old Testament appear to be nullified, and in- 
 deed reversed. It is to meet the objection which thus starts 
 up, that St Paul pierces the veil of the future and discerns the 
 gathering of the Jews into the same fold whither the Gentiles 
 have preceded them. Thus the result will be comprehensive, as 
 the offer has been comprehensive. But however fit a consum- 
 mation of the Apostle's teaching this prophetic announce- 
 ment may be, it does not in itself contain the nucleus of that 
 teaching. 
 
 To the whole body of the Epistle however, in which the 
 comprehensive failure, the comprehensive grace, the compre- 
 hensive acceptance, have been set forth in succession, the dox- 
 ology forms an eminently appropriate close. An outburst of 
 thanksgiving for the revelation of this 'mystery' of the im- 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 367 
 
 partial Fatherhood of God in Christ is the proper sequel to the 
 contents of the Epistle. This adaptation would not indeed he 
 easily reconcileahle with any other authorship than St Paul's ; 
 hut if written by him, whether written early or late, we should 
 expect it to he appropriate. 
 
 (6) And again I grant that its main idea — the impar- 
 tiality and universality of God's grace as a truth revealed in 
 Christ — was not foreign to St Paul's thoughts at this time, 
 though it assumed a much greater prominence afterwards. In- 
 deed it may be said that this idea necessarily flowed from his 
 commission as the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
 (c) But, as regards the expression of the idea, I join issue 
 with him. The general style seems to me to be cast essentially 
 in the mould of the later Epistles. The diffusive syntax of 
 the paragraph is exactly what we find, for instance, in the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians. And, when we come to individual 
 phrases, there is (if I mistake not) a very wide difference in 
 point of closeness between Mr Hort's parallels with the earlier 
 Epistles and mine with the later. Compare for example his 
 parallel of Rom. xiv. 4 with mine of Eph. iii. 20 for t<5 Swa- 
 fievtp, or of Bom. iii. 29, 30 with mine of 1 Tim. i. 17 for /i6vq> 
 ao<f>w ®e£. The only exceptions in favour of the earlier Epi- 
 stles occur exactly where on my hypothesis we should expect to 
 find them. The expression viraKoi) irunea><} is repeated in this 
 final doxology from the opening paragraph of the Epistle (L 5), 
 and the reference to the prophetic Scriptures also has a parallel 
 in the same paragraph (i. 2). On my hypothesis the opening 
 portion was read over and altered, when some years later the 
 Epistle was issued by the Apostle in this second and shorter 
 form ; and it was therefore natural that the thanksgiving which 
 was then appended, should embody not only thoughts but also 
 expressions taken from the commencement, thus binding toge- 
 ther the beginning and the end of the Epistle. 
 
 (ii) The character and condition of the text of the twin 
 MSS., F and G, is one of the points on which Mr Hort lays 
 most stress ; and certainly, if his account of my theory were 
 
368 THE EPISTLE TO THE KOMANS. 
 
 correct, I should find it difficult to answer him. Expressing 
 my hypothesis in his own words, he represents me as holding 
 (1) that ' the scribe of G copied i.-xiv. from one MS. and xv. 
 xvi., from another,' and (2) that ' the scribe of F copied in like 
 manner from the same two MSS., though he left no mark of the 
 transition from the one to the other' (p. 339). He then remarks 
 that ' If the first of these hypotheses were true we ought surely 
 to find some evidence of it in the respective texts; whereas 
 the closest study fails to detect a shadow of difference in the 
 character of the readings before and after the blank space'; 
 and that ' when F is taken into account, fresh embarrassments 
 arise.' But I did not for a moment contemplate the scribes of 
 F and G each of them copying directly from these two MSS., 
 containing respectively the shorter and the longer recension of 
 the Epistle. I was well aware that the phenomena of these 
 MSS. would not admit of such a supposition. And I venture 
 also to think that my language, which Mr Hort himself quotes 
 just before (p. 338), cannot be taken in this sense : ' The 
 copyist of an earlier MS., from which it [G] has descended, 
 transcribed a MS. of the abridged recension till the end of 
 chapter xiv., and then took up a MS. of the original Epistle to 
 the Romans'; ' Either their common prototype [L e. of F and G] 
 or a still earlier MS. from which it was copied, must have pre- 
 served the abridged recension.' This language was expressly 
 intended by me to leave open the question, as to the length of 
 the pedigree which connected F and G with the scribe who first 
 combined the two recensions ; and the idea of direct parentage, 
 which Mr Hort has imposed upon me, never once entered my 
 mind. Thus I left ample room for the development of the 
 peculiarities of F and G. Only I assumed that the retention of 
 the vacant space at the end of chapter xiv., which I took to 
 indicate the end of the Epistle in one of the two original MSS., 
 had survived this development. But though I still think that 
 (taking it in connexion with all the other textual phenomena 
 on which I dwelt) my account of this blank space is the most 
 probable, yet this is only a subsidiary support to my view, and 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 369 
 
 I could abandon it without any material injury to the main 
 hypothesis. 
 
 But let us enquire what Mr Hort's statement, that 'the 
 closest study fails to detect a shadow of difference in the cha- 
 racter of the readings before and after the blank ' (p. 339), really 
 amounts to, when considered in its bearing on my hypothesis. 
 
 The characteristics of F and G, which differentiate them 
 from what we may call the standard text of St Paul's Epistles, 
 as based on the coincidence of the best authorities, are twofold : 
 (1) Those which they exhibit in common with the Western 
 authorities, and more especially that type of Western authori- 
 ties which appears in the Old Latin Version; and (2) Those 
 which are peculiar to these two MSS. 
 
 To the first class, comprising those readings which must be 
 referred to the Western type, belong the most important, as 
 well as the most numerous, variations from the standard text, 
 whether in the first fourteen or in the last two chapters of the 
 Epistle. If the two MSS. (containing respectively the long 
 and the short form), from which on my hypothesis the text of 
 FG was ultimately derived, were both of them Western, as on 
 all accounts we might probably conclude that they were, then 
 we should expect to find these readings pervading the xvth 
 and xvith chapters, as well as the earlier part of the Epistle. 
 It is difficult to explain the origin and prevalence of the 
 Western type of text at all; but this difficulty was not 
 introduced by my hypothesis, nor do I see that it is increased 
 thereby. 
 
 Speaking of the peculiar features of F and G, Mr Eort says, 
 ' The partial adherence of D excepted, this character is unique 
 among existing Greek MSS.' On this statement I should wish 
 to make two remarks. (1) The expression partial seems to me 
 inadequately to express the degree of coincidence between D on 
 the one hand, and FG on the other. Certainly in the two last 
 chapters of this Epistle, with which we are mainly concerned, 
 by far the greater number of the important deviations from the 
 standard text are shared by D in common with FG. (2) These 
 L. E. 24 
 
37Q THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 three are the* only 1 three Greek warned MSS. which, whether on 
 external or internal grounds, can be assigned to the Western 
 family. Whatever distinctive features therefore they possess in 
 common, it is reasonable to set down to the Western type of 
 MSS. generally. The Old Latin Version (with the exception of 
 a few fragments) is only known to us through these same MSS., 
 which are bilingual; for other independent copies, which con- 
 tain a more or less pure Old Latin text, have not been collated : 
 and its phenomena entirely accord with this supposition. The 
 remaining source of evidence— the early patristic quotations- 
 does not offer any obstacle to this conclusion ; and indeed in the 
 last twp chapters of the Epistle, this evidence, as has been 
 mentioned, is entirely wanting. On the whole then, I think 
 it may be said that the coincidence of D with F and G repre- 
 sents very fairly the Western text. 
 
 The second class of readings, those peculiar to F and G, are 
 in the xvth and xvith chapters comparatively unimportant. 
 The divergences of these twin MSS. from D may be taken as 
 approximately representing their peculiarities, though in the 
 course of the analysis it will be seen that in many cases these 
 divergences are supported by other, and especially by Western, 
 authorities'. 
 
 These are as follows : 
 
 XV. 1 apcaKov [aparxetv] ; 3 ovk [ovx\ i 7 vitas [D* ipos, 'but D** vitas 
 with most authorities, including Western] ; 11 cirauware (TD nrauwa- 
 Taaav, but the Latin of D has Magnificate with many other authorities, 
 and the variation is easily explained in a quotation from the LXX] ; 
 13 irKrjpo(j>opT)(rm...iTa<Tr] x a P a Kal ttfP"l [D 7r\>)pei)<rai...7racnjr \ a P as Kat 
 
 1 I pass over E, which is now ao- was copied directly from G, deserves 
 
 knowledged (at least so far as regards consideration, and may prove true, 
 
 the Greek) to be a direct copy of D, though his arguments do not seem 
 
 and therefore to have no independent quite conclusive. So far as it has any 
 
 value. bearing on my hypothesis, it is rather 
 
 ' I have not recorded either the ao- favourable than otherwise. The con- 
 
 oidental errors of G when these have verse proposition, that G is copied from 
 
 been corrected at the time when the F, could not be maintained for a mo- 
 
 MS. was written, or the divergences of ment. 
 F from G. Mr Hort's view, that F 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 371 
 
 €tpr]vT)s, but B agrees with FG, inserting however ev before 770017. The Old 
 Latin has repleat...omni gaudio et pace]. 16 bja-ov Xpurrov [D Xpurrov 
 Iijo-ou, but the Latin of D has Jesu Okristi which also has the vast 
 preponderance of authority in its favour]. 18 6 Xpurros [om. <>]. 21 
 avayyekij [awryyeXi/]. 24 eXtrifa [D adds yap with the preponderance of 
 authorities, but the Latin of D omits it, and so do the Latin fathers]. 
 25 wv [mn] 26 WLaiaudovts \MaKtSov€s], 27 o0»Xcra( yap [om. yap, but 
 the Latin of D and Ambrosiaster have it] ; avrwv curiv [tura> avrav]. 28 
 ow apa [om. apa. The Latin of G is Hoc ergo igitwr ergo], vpat \yuav]. 
 29 ymoo-Km yap [D oida ie, but the Latin of D has sew enim, and other 
 authorities, especially Latin Fathers, have the same conjunction]. 30 vpoa- 
 cvxais [add intp e/iov, but several Latin authorities, including the Latin of 
 D, omit the words]. 31 irpootitieror [evirpoo-dcieros. The Latin of D is 
 acceptalis (sic)]. 32 ava^rvgu [ana^rv|a>]. 33 vpmv [add. apijv, but A and 
 others omit it]. 
 
 xvi. 1 vpuuv [ij/uw, but the Latin of D has vestram, and AF also have 
 vfuiv]. 2 TrapacrraTeis' [irpotrrant]. 3 aoTrao-0ai [amratracrdf. This blunder 
 recurs]. 8 A^urXurov [AfHrXiav, but the longer form occurs in the Latin 
 of D]. 10 ApioTo/SoXov [AptoTojSovXov, but the Latin of D has Aristoboli 
 and this form is found in B and elsewhere], 11 ovyytinj [D a-uyynn\v, but 
 corrected by a later hand]. 14 a<nra<rao-8t...ev itvpta om. with A. 15 lovviav 
 [D IovXiav, which is correct, but C* has Iovvmv]. OXvjziraSa [D OKvpitriav, 
 but Latin authorities, including the Latin of D itself, have Olympiada or 
 Olympiadem]. 17 irapanaXa [D* epara, but corrected. The rest have 
 irapaicaka]. irapa [D* Trcpt, but corrected]. 18 aipun [r<n Kvpta], dovXew- 
 aovo-Lv [dovXfvomrci']. 23 oXai al (KK\r)cricu [6\rjs ttjs eKKKifo-ias. The Latin 
 of DFG alike is universal ecclesue, which would cover both readings. 
 Another reading is o\jj 17 »icXi;irta. The jEth. is said to have oXat al 
 (kk\t)(Tuu with FG]. 24 om. Ljtrov Xpurrov. 
 
 This analysis of the readings in the last two chapters shows 
 two things : (1) That in almost every point even of minor im- 
 portance, in which the text of FG diverges from the correct 
 standard, it agrees with the Western text as exhibited by D or 
 by some other authority; and (2) that the exceptions, which 
 thus form the peculiarities of FG, are in almost every instance 
 trivial and are easily explained by carelessness or caprice in 
 copying. Hence it follows : first, that the scribe, who (on my 
 hypothesis) wrote the archetype of F and G, taking up an 
 average copy of the Western text to supply the xvth and xvith 
 chapters, would find a text substantially such as we actually 
 have here ; and secondly, that no long pedigree need have been 
 
 24—2 
 
372 THE EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. 
 
 interposed between this archetype and FG, in order to develope 
 the phenomena which they exhibit in these chapters ; but that 
 the intervention of a single scribe, or two at most, would ex- 
 plain everything. If so, the argument from the character of the 
 text cannot be considered a substantial objection to my view. 
 
 (iii) Mr Hort advances another argument against my hy- 
 pothesis based on the assumption that the textual phenomena 
 on which my theory is built are gathered together from incon- 
 gruous sources ; and he even goes so far as to ask, ' How is it 
 that every authority, which supports, or may be thought to 
 support, some part of this combination [Le. the Short Recen- 
 sion, involving (a) the omission of the word Borne in the first 
 chapter, (6) the omission of the xvth and xvith chapters, (c) the 
 presence of the doxology], contradicts some other part ? ' (p. 347). 
 
 To this statement I demur. I allow indeed that all these 
 phenomena do not coexist in any extant authority. If this had 
 been the case, I should not have had to frame a hypothesis, 
 for the existence of this Shorter Recension would have -been 
 an absolute fact. But that there is any contradiction in my 
 authorities, which prejudices the hypothesis, I cannot allow. 
 
 This attack has led me to marshal my troops to better 
 effect. I wish especially to call attention to the fact, that 
 the authorities, on which I chiefly rely, have for the most 
 part a close affinity to one another and that they belong to 
 the Western type. The Latin capitulations derived, as I have 
 shown, from the Old Version are essentially such. The copy 
 or copies, to which they refer, presented two (6, c) out of the 
 three phenomena, and (for anything we know) may have pre- 
 sented the third (a) also. The remarkable absence of quota- 
 tions from the last two chapters in the earlier Latin Fathers 
 points in the same direction. The MSS. FG, which are the 
 only indisputable vouchers for (a), are essentially Western. 
 Their relation to (6), (c), is a matter of dispute between Mr 
 Hort and myself; but the fact that there is a great break in G 
 at the end of the xivth chapter (however explained) cannot 
 but be held to favour my hypothesis to a greater or less 
 
ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 373 
 
 degree. The exception to the Western origin of the evidence 
 ia Marcion, who, being an Eastern, used a copy of this Epistle 
 in which the two last chapters including the doxology were 
 wanting. But even Marcion is known to have resided for 
 many years in Rome ; and if, during his sojourn in the West, 
 he fell in with a copy of the Short Recension, he might have 
 welcomed it gladly, as sparing him the superfluous use of his 
 scissors, which would be required to eliminate such passages as 
 xv. 8, 27. 
 
 Hitherto there is no incongruity in the sources from which 
 my data are taken. But the position of the doxology in the 
 several authorities still remains to be considered; and it is 
 evidently here that Mr Hort considers the main ' contradiction ' 
 to lie. Though ' there is no lack of authorities of a sort for 
 subjoining the doxology to xiv.,' he writes, yet ' they have no 
 sort of genealogical affinity with the MS. that ignores Rome, 
 or with Marcion.' Now to this I would reply that the capi- 
 tulations of the Latin Bibles certainly have this affinity, and 
 that (for all we know) the MSS. mentioned by Origen as placing 
 the doxology in this position may have had it also. On the 
 other hand his statement, so far as regards the extant MSS. and 
 the patristic authorities generally, which exhibit it at the end 
 of the xivth chapter, is indisputably true. They belong to the 
 great Antiochene or Constantinopolitan family, which though 
 by far the most numerous, is of inferior authority. On the con- 
 trary the place of the doxology in the extant Western authorities 
 is at the end of the xvith chapter. But, allowing the fact, I 
 cannot accept the inference. For suppose that a scribe had 
 before him copies of the two recensions (according to my hy- 
 pothesis), the one comprising the 14 chapters together with the 
 doxology, the other including all the 16 chapters but omitting 
 the doxology and ending with xvi. 23 Kovapros 6 dSeX^of. If 
 he set himself to combine the two so as to omit nothing, is it 
 not at least as likely that, when he arrived at the end of the 
 xivth chapter, he would reserve the doxology for the end of 
 the whole Epistle where it seemed to be required to finish 
 
374 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 off an abrupt conclusion, as that he would leave it at the end 
 of the xivth chapter? The same motive which led others 
 to transpose the benediction (17 x«fyu? k.t.X.), which properly 
 stands at xvi. 20, to xvi. 24, might even more easily induce 
 him to treat the doxology in a similar way, inasmuch as he 
 would still leave it at the end of the Epistle as he found it, 
 though the Epistle had been lengthened out by the two ad- 
 ditional chapters. Thus the fact that the Western authorities 
 place the doxology after ch. xvi. seems to me to prove nothing 
 as to the want of affinity between the several authorities for 
 my hypothesis. 
 
 But this investigation leads me to observe (and I think 
 the observation is pertinent) how entirely this Western cha- 
 racter of the authorities coincides with my hypothesis. I sug- 
 gested that 'at some later period of his life, not improbably 
 during one of his sojourns in Borne, it occurred to the Apostle 
 to give to this letter a wider circulation '; and that for this pur- 
 pose he made the alterations which resulted in the shorter 
 edition, so that it was rendered ' available for general circulation, 
 and perhaps was circulated to prepare the way for a personal 
 visit in countries into which he had not yet penetrated ' (p. 319). 
 This hypothetical change is made in the West and for the 
 West; and it cannot be considered a matter of indifference 
 that to this same region we owe the authorities which sug- 
 gested the hypothesis, though at the time when I propounded 
 it I did not see the full significance of this fact. 
 
 With these remarks I will leave the theory. For a reply 
 so thorough and so suggestive as Mr Hort's I can only feel 
 grateful. It has led me to consolidate the different elements 
 of my hypothesis, and, unless I am mistaken, to present a 
 stronger front to attack. From criticisms of inferior merit I 
 might have found less to dissent, but I certainly should have 
 found less to learn. 
 
 [1871.] 
 
X. 
 
 THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
X. 
 
 THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 TS the common designation of this Epistle correct or not? 
 ■*■ We are accustomed to style it an ' Epistle to the Ephesians.' 
 But was it really addressed to the Christians of Ephesus, either 
 solely or primarily ? This is not merely a curious question of 
 criticism, devoid of any ulterior interest. It has a very direct 
 bearing on the genuineness of the letter, and it is intimately 
 connected also with the scope and purpose of the writer. 
 
 Many facts converge from various quarters, which suggest an 
 answer unfavourable to the commonly received title of this 
 Epistle. 
 
 1. In the first place it is quite clear that in the early ages 
 of the Church a very large number of copies were in circulation, 
 in which the words 'in Ephesus' were omitted from the opening 
 verse. 
 
 (i) Origen [f A.D. 253], whose commentary on this 
 Epistle must have been written during the second quarter 
 of the third century, speaks in such a way as to show not 
 only that they were absent from the text which he himself 
 used, but that he was unaware of their existence in any copies 
 of the Epistle within his reach. His words are as follows : 
 
 " In the case of the Ephesians alone have I found the 
 expression 'to the saints that are' and I am led to ask, 
 
378 THE DESTINATION OF THE 
 
 unless the clause 'that are' is superfluous, what can be 
 meant by it? May it not be then, that as in Exodus He 
 who speaks to Moses declares His name to be ' Re that is ' 
 (or ' the Absolute Being '), so also they who partake of the 
 Absolute Being, themselves become existent, when they are 
 called as it were from not being into being : for, says the 
 same Paul, ' God chose out the things that are not, that they 
 might bring to nought the things that are,' etc. 1 " 
 The inference from this passage is inevitable. In the first 
 place, the interpretation itself tells its own tale. No one, seeing 
 the words iv 'E^eo-p immediately following, would have thought 
 of separating them from the preceding rot? ovaiv, thus abandon- 
 ing the obvious construction of the passage and having recourse 
 to a highly strained and unnatural explanation. In the second 
 place, Origen could not possibly have said that this statement is 
 made of the Ephesians alone, if he had read the words as they 
 stand in the common texts. In this case he would have found 
 several parallels in the Epistles of St Paul. He would have 
 found the Apostle, for instance, addressing 'all that are in Rome,' 
 ' the Church of God that is in Corinth/ ' all the saints that are 
 in the whole of Achaia,' ' all the saints in Christ Jesus that are 
 in PhilippiV But indeed the fact that the words ' in Ephesus * 
 
 1 Origen, 'Es-2 pbvwv 'E<pe<rlwv eOponev comp. Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 16, p. 
 
 xel/uvov t4 tois ayioU rots o5<rf Koi 807 Potter, Sn pb> leph. ii Semis, ira.pe~K- 
 
 pfrovpev, el nil irapiKxei irpoffKelfuvov to kci \£yeu> tA vvv. There is an allusion 
 
 tois iryuiis roit ovai, rl Bivarai aripuUveiv. to these words of Origen in the scholia 
 
 Spa. ovv el pAl uavep hi ry 'E£ 6S(p Svopa of Matthffii, 'Clpiyivris (is erl 'Ec^etrW 
 
 <p7\a\v tavrip i xPVfwlfap Mwret t6 i&>, xetpxvov rapi\Kov oterat, where the writer 
 
 oOrus ol iterexorres toO oVtos ylvovrai perhaps misunderstands and certainly 
 
 Srra, KaKoi/icvM olovd Ik toO /if/ e tvai obscures Origen's meaning. The refer- 
 
 ds to cTvm- ifcXQaro yip 6 Oebs t4 /it) ence is given in Besohe Comm. Grit. 
 
 Srra, <fn]irlr 6 aiJrot IlaOXot, ha tA Srra p. 104 note. 
 
 KaTopyfyrv k.t.X. Should the position * Bom. i. 7 irfow tois o5<ru> eV 'Pii/ip, 
 
 of t& be altered, rpoo-xelpievov t<ki ayuSs 1 Cor. i. 2 ry eiacXiiala toS 6eoB tJ 
 
 rb tois overt? At all events Origen's otfo-p eV KoplvSip, 2 Cor. i. 1 r«i aytoa 
 
 meaning seems to be 'unless toij oScrt watriy rots oScru> iv flXjj t% 'Ax<Ua, Phil, 
 
 attached to rots ayiots is redundant or i. 1 racw rolt 07(015 iv X/jiory 'Irjo-ou 
 
 superfluous.' For this sense of irapiK- rots oSnv iv $<Mmrwt . 
 uti, which is common in late writers, 
 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 379 
 
 are wanting in some very early copies leaves no doubt upon 
 this point. 
 
 The importance of this notice will be felt when it is re- 
 membered that Origen was the most learned and enquiring 
 of the fathers in all matters relating to the text of the Scriptures. 
 To him it was a subject of special study. 
 
 (ii) From the third century we pass to the fourth, 
 from Origen to Basil [f a.d. 379]. The testimony of this 
 father runs thus: 
 
 "Moreover, when writing to the Ephesians, as men 
 truly united with the Absolute Being through perfect 
 knowledge, he uses a peculiar expression and styles them 
 ' being! saying ' to the saints that are and faithful in Christ 
 Jesus' For so we learn from the statements of previous 
 writers; and we ourselves have found (this reading) in 
 those copies which are ancient 1 ." 
 
 Here it will be observed that Basil repeats the interpre- 
 tation of Origen, of whom he was a diligent student and to 
 whom doubtless he was indebted in this instance. When there- 
 fore he appeals to 'the statements of previous writers,' he 
 cannot be considered to add anything to the testimony of the 
 Alexandrian father. But the information, which he adds re- 
 specting the copies extant in his own day, is highly important. 
 He does not say that the words were wanting in some old 
 copies, or in many old copies ; but his statement is absolute. 
 He is not even content with saying ' in the old copies ' (ev roii 
 iraXaioK dvriypaxpois) ; but he expresses himself still more 
 strongly ' in those copies which are old ' (ev roi<s irdXaioK tc3i> 
 dvriypd<j>cov). Thus it appears that, while in the first half of 
 the third century Origen (if we may draw the inference from 
 his silence) was not acquainted with any manuscript which 
 
 1 Basil contr. Eun. ii. 19 (ed. Gam. /mow, elrtiv rots aylus rots o8« xal 
 
 I. p. 254) d\A4 koX rots 'E#e<r£ots iiri- irurrots iv Xpurr$ 'Ir/eoS. oBtu yip kbX oi 
 
 ariWav tin yvqalws tyuiifooit r$ ovti Si' rpb iipm/ TrapaSeSiiiccuri, koX ii/uis b> rots 
 
 frnyvtitreus, Suras airrobs IStafiiwuK tiro- raXtuots run ivnypdupuv eiip^Kafiey. 
 
380 THE DESTINATION OF THE 
 
 contained the words, Basil, writing more than a century later, 
 found them in some copies, but these were all recent. 
 
 (iii) The statements of these two fathers are in strict 
 accordance with the phenomena exhibited by extant documents. 
 Two Greek MSS. and two only, which contain this Epistle, 
 have any claim to be dated as far back as the fourth century 
 (they may not improbably be assigned to the earlier decades, 
 at least to the first half of this century) ; and in both these the 
 words ' in Ephesus ' are wanting. In the Codex SinaiHcus (K) 
 they were absent originally, but are supplied by the third hand. 
 In the Codex Vaticcmus (B) they have no place in the text, 
 but are supplied in the margin by a later corrector. The 
 testimony of these — the two most ancient uncials — is further 
 supported by another authority of weight. The second corrector 
 of the cursive 67 has marked the words iv 'E^eo-p as spurious. 
 The corrections by this hand have the highest value, having 
 been evidently made from some very early text. It may be 
 safely said that a reading in St Paul's Epistles which is sup- 
 ported by such a combination as X B 67** can never be 
 neglected, and almost always represents the original text. 
 
 (iv) To these facts it must be added that Marcion in his 
 Canon called this letter an Epistle to the Laodiceans 1 . The 
 obvious inference is, that at all events he did not read 'in 
 Ephesus' in his text. Whether he found other words sub- 
 stituted for these, I shall enquire hereafter*. The Canon of 
 Marcion, it will be remembered, must have been drawn up before 
 the middle of the second century*. 
 
 With these facts before us, it seems plain, that in the Greek 
 MSS. which were in circulation during the second and third 
 
 1 This fact about Marcion is derived be attached to the evidence of one who 
 
 from the passages in Tertullian given lived in a neighbouring province of 
 
 below (see p. 381 sq.). Aria Minor in the first half of the 
 
 a See below, p. 892. second oentury. Tertullian's assertion, 
 
 3 As the question is purely oritioal that he falsified the title (see below, 
 
 and has no bearing on the dootrinal p. 882), is unworthy of oredit, though 
 
 views of Marcion, his testimony is free no doubt uttered in good faith, 
 from suspicion; and due weight must 
 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 381 
 
 centuries, the omission of the words iv 'E<f>e<T(p was not the 
 exception, but the rule. The silence of Origen is confirmed by 
 the direct statement of Basil; and their joint testimony, suffi- 
 ciently strong in itself, is further strengthened by the phenomena 
 of the extant MSS. and by the belief of Marcion. On the other 
 hand, we have no direct evidence that a single Greek manu- 
 script during this period contained the words in question. The 
 recent manuscripts, to which Basil refers in the latter half 
 of the fourth century, are the earliest of which this can be 
 distinctly affirmed. On the other hand, the fact, to which I 
 shall advert presently, that the letter was commonly and per- 
 sistently styled the 'Epistle to the Ephesians' from the latter half 
 of the second century at least, suggests that the words occurred 
 in some manuscripts from a very early date, perhaps from the 
 Apostle's own age. But this is a critical inference, of which 
 there is no positive proof. 
 
 From the Greek manuscripts I turn to the Latin. The 
 original form of the Old Latin Version in the Pauline Epistles 
 can only be ascertained very imperfectly from the existing 
 copies. The three chief extant manuscripts of this Version of 
 St Paul's Epistles are bilingual The Latin stands in close 
 proximity to the Greek, being written either in a parallel 
 column as in DE, or over the words as in G. Under such 
 circumstances the Latin text would almost inevitably be made 
 to conform to the Greek in a case like the present, where the 
 omission would appear obvious. Moreover of these three manu- 
 scripts only one was written as early as the sixth century, and 
 the remaining two are as late as the ninth. For the original 
 form of the text therefore we must have recourse to the notices 
 and commentaries of the Latin Fathers. 
 
 (i) Of these the testimony of Tertullian, as the oldest, is the 
 
 most important. He refers twice to the title which this Epistle 
 
 bore in the Marcionite Canon. In the first passage he writes : 
 
 "I say nothing here about another Epistle which we 
 
 (Catholics) have with the heading 'to the Ephesmns,' but 
 
 the heretics ' to the Laodiceans.' " 
 
382 THE DESTINATION OP THE 
 
 In the second passage he is more explicit : 
 
 ' According to the true belief of the Church/ he writes, 
 'we hold this Epistle to have been despatched to the 
 Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans; but Marcion had to 
 falsify its title, wishing to make himself out a very- 
 diligent investigator. The question of titles however is 
 of no consequence; seeing that the Apostle wrote to all, 
 when he wrote to some 1 .' 
 
 It seems probable from the expressions here used, that the 
 words 'in Ephesus' were wanting in the copies used by the Latin 
 father. He speaks of Marcion s falsifying* the title; he appeals 
 to the received heading of the letter. He neither directly states, 
 nor indirectly hints, that anything in the letter itself contradicts 
 this hypothesis. His argument in fact seems to be this: "It 
 must be confessed that the letter itself does not say to whom 
 it was written ; but the Catholic Church has always regarded it 
 as addressed 'To the Ephesians.' It was therefore a wanton and 
 arbitrary proceeding of Marcion to give it another title ' To the 
 Laodiceans,' for the sake of gaining credit, as an enquiring 
 critic." 
 
 Thus strictly interpreted, the language of Tertullian refers 
 only to the title. This interpretation however is rendered un- 
 certain by the fact that Tertullian elsewhere uses the expres- 
 sions titulus and praescribere, not of the actual title or heading, 
 but of the opening words of an Epistle 8 . Still, as he appeals 
 
 i Tertullian adv. M arc. v. 11, ' Prae- s ' Interpolare ' is used loosely by 
 
 tereo hie et de alia epistula, quam nos Tertullian in the sense 'to corrupt or 
 
 ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, falsify' whether by omission, insertion, 
 
 haeretici vero (i.e. the Marcionites) ad or alteration, e.g. adv. Mare. v. 21, 
 
 Laodicenos;' ib.v. 17, 'Ecelesiae quidem ' Affectavit, opinor, etiam numerum 
 
 veritate epistulam istam ad Ephesios epistnlamm interpolare.' Mansion only 
 
 habemns emissam, non ad Laodicenos, aocepted ten epistles of St Paul as 
 
 Bed Marcion ei titulum aliquando inter- genuine. See also adv. Mare. iv. 1, 
 
 polare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligen- 'evangelium...quod interpolando suum 
 
 tissimus eiplorator. Nihil autem de fecit.' Cf. Anger Ueier den Laodicener- 
 
 titnlis interest, com ad omnes aposto- brief (Leipzig 1848), p. 41. 
 
 Ins Bcripserit, dura ad quosdam.' This " e.g. adv. Marc. v. 5, ' Praestruotio 
 
 treatise was written a.d. 207. superioris epistnlae ita dnxit, nt de 
 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 
 
 383 
 
 not to the ancient copies, but to the authority of the Church, 
 the inference is that he could not refute Marcion out of the 
 manuscripts of the Epistle which were in his hands 1 . 
 
 titulo ejus non retractaverim, certus et 
 alibi retractari enm posse, communem 
 scilicet et eundem in epistnlia omnibus, 
 quod non utique salutem praescribit 
 eis quibus scribit, sedgratiam etpacem.' 
 Generally however ' titulus ' is the head- 
 ing, the title, e.g. adv. Marc. iv. 2, 3, 
 de Pudic. 20 ; see Anger Laodic. p. 97. 
 1 Tertnllian's testimony to the iden- 
 tity of the Laodicean Epistle of Marcion 
 with the Ephesian Epistle of the Catho- 
 lic Church is positive and explicit; 
 and, if it had stood alone, would have 
 excited no suspicion. Two other wit- 
 nesses however appear, whose testi- 
 mony is scarcely reconcileable with 
 his statement. (1) About a generation 
 before Tertnllian's time, an anony- 
 mous writer of the Muratorian Canon 
 of Scripture, after enumerating the 
 Epistles of St Paul adds, 'Fertur 
 etiam ad Laudicenses alia ad Alexan- 
 drinos Fauli nomine finctae adhaeresem 
 Marcionis et alia plura quae in catho- 
 licam ecclesiam recipi non potest' 
 (Fragm. Mutator. Credner Gesch. des 
 N.T. Kanma, p. 148). If 'finctae' 
 refers to the Laodicean and Alexan- 
 drian Epistles mentioned just before, 
 we must suppose the writer to be in 
 error. He knew of an Epistle to the 
 Laodiceans in the Marcionite Canon, 
 but not being aware of its identity 
 with this EpiBtle to the Ephesians 
 assumed that it was an apocryphal 
 writing. But in this case no account 
 can be given of ' alia ad Alexandrinos,' 
 for no such Epistle is elsewhere men- 
 tioned as belonging to the Marcionite 
 Canon. Not without reason therefore, 
 considering that the fragment is a 
 blundering translation from a Greek 
 original, much mutilated in the course 
 of transcription, Credner (p. 160) sepa- 
 
 rates ' finctae ' from the preceding words. 
 The words will then mean: 'Besides 
 the Canonical Epistles, there is an 
 Epistle to the Laodiceans in circula- 
 tion, another to the Alexandrians, 
 both bearing the name of Paul ; others 
 again adapted to the heresy of Marcion, 
 etc.* The phrase 'finctae ad haeresem 
 Marcionis ' well describes the process 
 of mutilation and alteration, by which 
 Marcion shaped St Paul's Epistles to 
 his own views. In this case the Epistle 
 to the Laodiceans was probably some 
 apocryphal writing which has not sur- 
 vived. The allusion in Col. iv. 16 
 must have tempted more than one 
 heretical writer to forge an Epistle in 
 St Paul's name, as a means of gaining 
 Apostolic sanction for his own opinions. 
 (2) At the close of the fourth century, 
 Epiphanius (Haeres. xlii.) speaks of the 
 Marcionite Canon in a way which is 
 very perplexing. He says that Mar- 
 cion recognised ten Epistles of St Paul 
 (the Pastoral Epistles being of course 
 excluded), and mentions the Epistle to 
 the Ephesians in his enumeration of 
 these, p. 310, ed. Petav. He then adds 
 that he recognises also 'portions of the 
 so-calledEpistleto the Laodiceans ' (fx« 
 Si Kal tjjs irpis AaoSucias Xeyofibnis /Upi), 
 p. 310; of. p. 321, p. 374). Later on, he 
 gives several extracts from the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians (p. 371) identical with 
 our text, except that in one instance 
 Marcion omitted a few words (xpAs 
 ■rijn ywauca avrov Ephes. v. 31), and 
 one passage as from the Epistle to the 
 Laodiceans (p. 374), which also is found 
 in our Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephes. 
 iv, 5). Epiphanius is aware of this, for, 
 speaking of this last passage, he says 
 that Maroion did not adduce this 
 testimony from the Epistle to the 
 
384 THE DESTINATION OF THE 
 
 (ii) And this inference is supported by the interpretations 
 of the earlier Latin commentators, whose language seems to 
 show that the word Ephesi was wanting, or that its position 
 fluctuated in some Latin copies and thus betrayed its later 
 introduction. Thus Victorinus Afer [c. A.D. 360] writes : ' But 
 when he says these words " To the saints who are the faithful of 
 Ephesus," what does he add? "In Christ Jesus.'" 1 The im- 
 portance of this fact is not seriously diminished by the cir- 
 cumstance that immediately below he quotes the words as 
 they stand in the existing manuscripts 9 : because we meet with 
 numberless examples in which the commentator explains one 
 reading and the scribe gives another. The natural tendency of 
 the transcriber was to conform to the commonly received text. 
 In all such cases therefore a deviation has far higher value, 
 as evidence, than a coincidence. 
 
 (iii) I believe also that traces of a variation from the 
 common reading may be discerned in the next Latin commen- 
 tator in point of time, the Ambrosian Hilary. Here too the 
 text conforms to the common type ; but the commentary ignores 
 the word Ephesi altogether. It runs as follows : ' He writes 
 not only to the faithful, but also to the saints, to prove that 
 men are then truly faithful, if they are saints in Christ Jesus*.' 
 
 Ephesians, but from that to the Lao- St Paul's 'Epistle to the Laodiceans'; 
 
 dioeans, which is not contained in the and in ignoranoe assumed that the 
 
 Apostle's writings (oi yi.p fiofe t$ Epistle thus quoted was another, not 
 
 iKeavori.T(f Mapxlavt &*■& rip rpis "&<pe- contained in the Catholic Canon. 
 
 alms Ta&np> rty> /mprvplav \6yav, dXX4 i Victorinus quoted in Mai Script. 
 
 tjjs irpAt AooSik4m, -rijs /it) otarp A> t$ Vet. Nov. Coll. m. p. 87 (1828), 'Bed 
 
 i.Tro<nrb\if, p. 375). The explanation of haec cum dioit Sanctis qui sunt fidelibus 
 
 Epiphanius' language seems to be this. Ephesi, quid adjungitur? In Christo 
 
 Some of the later Maroionites aban- Jesu.' [On this commentator see Gala- 
 
 doned the title of the Epistle adopted tians p. 231.] 
 
 by their founder, and designated it ' Viotor. op. e. p. 88, 'Sanctis qui ran* 
 
 according to Catholic usage the Epistle Ephesi et fidelibus in Christo Jesu.' 
 
 to the Ephesians. In the copy of the ' Ambrosiaster Com. in Eph. i. 1 
 
 Marcionite drooroXiicdv used by Epi- (Migne P. L. xvn. p. 373), 'Non solum 
 
 phanius it was so designated (Anger fidelibus scribit.sed et sanotis: nttuno 
 
 Laodic. p. 41 sq.). At the same time vere fideles Bint, si fnerint sancti in 
 
 he found in some writings of Maroion, Christo Jesu.' 
 or of his followers, quotations from 
 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 385 
 
 It would almost seem as though this commentator (or some 
 earlier writer whose note he adopts) had in his mind the reading 
 tok ayiot? tow ovcrip ical ttco-tok, and that, like several modern 
 interpreters, he translated them ' the saints who are also faith- 
 ful.' If so, he can hardly have read Sanctis qui sunt Ephesi et 
 fidelibus in his Latin copy ; since this would have saved him 
 from the misinterpretation. Tfi« language however is not so 
 clear as to leave this inference free from doubt. 
 
 (iv) The only later Latin father whose language tends in 
 the same direction is Sedulius Scotus, who in the eighth or 
 ninth century compiled a commentary on St Paul's Epistles. 
 He writes : 
 
 ' To the saints. Not to all the Ephesians, but to those 
 who believe in Christ. And faiihful. All the saints are 
 faithful, but not all the faithful are saints etc. Who are 
 in Christ Jesus. There are many faithful who are not 
 faithful in Christ, etc 1 .' 
 
 No stress can be laid on the omission of Ephesi here, 
 because the inserted fragments of the text are more often dis- 
 continuous than not in this writer ; and indeed he omits the 
 corresponding names of places in other Epistles. But the 
 position of qui sunt is striking. It would seem as though some 
 transcriber, finding the reading Sanctis qui sunt et fidelibus in 
 Ghristo Jesu in his copy and stumbling at the order, had trans- 
 posed the words so as to read Sanctis et fidelibus qui sunt in 
 Christo Jesu. This altered reading may have been before 
 Sedulius, or some earlier writer whom he copies. 
 
 (v) On the other hand the note of St Jerome on the 
 passage suggests that some centuries before Sedulius Ephesi 
 was commonly read in the Latin copies. He writes : 
 
 'Some persons, with more ingenuity than is needed, 
 think that, according as it is said to Moses These things 
 
 1 Sedul. Scot Com. in Eph. i. 1 fideles stmt, non omnea fideles sanoti 
 
 (MigneP.-L.cm.p. 195), 'Sanctit. Non etc. Qui sunt in ChrUto Jesu. Plures 
 
 omnibus Ephesiis, sed his qui orednnt fideles sunt, sed non in Christo, etc.' 
 in Ghristo. Et fidelibus. Omnes sanoti 
 
 L. E. 25 
 
386 THE DESTINATION OF THE 
 
 shalt thou say to the children of Israel, He that is hath 
 sent me, so also those who are at Ephesus saints and faith- 
 ful are addressed under the title of (absolute) existence ; 
 that is to say, just as (they are called) holy after the Holy 
 One, righteous after the Righteous One, and wise after the 
 Wise One, so also they are designated Those that are after 
 Him that is. Others however take it simply, and think 
 that it is written not to those that are, but to those that 
 at Ephesus are saints and faithful V 
 
 This father has expressed himself in a hasty and obscure 
 manner. When he speaks of 'some persons,' he doubtless 
 alludes to Origen, to whose work he was largely indebted in 
 his own commentary on this Epistle. But it does not appear 
 clearly what view he took of Origen's explanation. In the 
 former part of this note he speaks only of a difference of inter- 
 pretation, not of reading ; and hence we might infer not only 
 that he had the words ' in Ephesus ' in his own text, but that 
 he was unaware of their omission in any copies, and therefore 
 did not see the difficulty with which Origen had to contend. 
 On the other hand the word scriptum in the closing sentence 
 seems to point to a difference of reading also. But he may 
 have used the word loosely and without any such intention. 
 On the whole it seems probable that he overlooked the omission. 
 Yet even then his language suggests that his Latin copy may 
 have had the words qui sunt Ephesi in some other than the 
 ordinary position. 
 
 (vi) The extant copies of all the other Versions, early as 
 well as late, contain the words in the text. The unanimity 
 however does not carry any great weight in the present instance. 
 Our existing manuscripts of these Versions are all far too late 
 
 1 Hieron. Com. in Eph. i. 1 (vh. p. patos: ut quomodo a Sanoto sanoti, a 
 
 646, ed. VaUarni), 'Quidam curiosius Justo justi.aSapieatesapienteB.itaab 
 
 quam necesse est pntant ex eo quod Eo qni est hi qui sunt appeUentur... 
 
 Moyai dictum sit Haee dice, JUiu AHi vero aimplieiter, non ad eos qni 
 
 Itrael, Qui at, jni.it me (Exod. iii. sint (td. sunt), sed qui Ephesi sanoti 
 
 14), etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt sanoti et fldeles sint soriptum arbitrantur.' 
 et fldeles essentiae vooabulo nunou- 
 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 387 
 
 to assure us of their original reading in a case where the 
 insertion would be irresistible to scribes. The contest between 
 the testimony of the earlier and that of the later Greek MSS., as 
 already stated, shows how little dependence can be placed on 
 any but the most ancient authorities under such circumstances. 
 The earliest extant manuscript of any of these Versions con- 
 taining this opening verse of the Ephesian letter, is at least 
 two centuries later than X B, to say nothing of the manu- 
 scripts consulted by Origen and Basil. 
 
 2. But if the diplomatic evidence throws considerable 
 doubt on the common designation of this Epistle, our sus- 
 picions are deepened when we examine the general character 
 and tone of the Epistle itself. 
 
 St Paul had spent a great part of three years at Ephesus. 
 He had 'gone about among them preaching the kingdom of 
 God V He had testified * both to Jews and to Greeks V ' He 
 had ceased not to warn every one day and night with tears *.' 
 On his last journey to Jerusalem he summoned the elders of 
 the city to meet him at Miletus. He poured forth his whole 
 heart to them in affectionate remembrances and earnest warn- 
 ings. Parting from him at length, ' they fell on his neck and 
 kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, 
 that they should see his face no more V 
 
 The interview at Miletus is a striking picture of St Paul's 
 intimate relations with the brethren of Ephesus. There was 
 no Church on which he spent more time and labour, none in 
 which he felt a warmer personal interest, none with which 
 fonder or more sacred memories were bound up. Might it not 
 be expected then that a letter written to the Church of Ephesus 
 would be full of personal reminiscences, that there would be a 
 marked individuality of character in it, that the Apostle would 
 pour out his heart to his converts, as a friend speaking to 
 friends? 
 
 1 Acts zx. 25. ' Acts xx. 31. 
 
 • Acts xx. 21. ' Acts xx. 37, 38. 
 
 25—2 
 
388 THE DESTINATION OF THE 
 
 The Epistle to the Ephesians does not answer these con- 
 ditions. Much stress indeed has been laid on the absence of 
 salutations to individual members of a Church so familiar to 
 him. To this argument there is a ready answer. In writing 
 to brotherhoods with whom he was most intimate, to the 
 Corinthians and Philippians, for instance, he sends no special 
 salutations: in writing to the Roman Church, which he had 
 never visited, he greets by name a large number of individual 
 members. The reason for this is obvious. In a community of 
 strangers it is easy to single out and enumerate friends. Where 
 all alike are known to us, it becomes irksome, if not invidious, 
 to select any for special salutations. 
 
 The absence of such salutations therefore is natural enough 
 in an Epistle to Ephesus. But the general character of the 
 Epistle admits of no explanation on this hypothesis. Of all 
 St Paul's letters it is the most general, the least personal. In 
 this respect it more nearly resembles the Epistle to the Romans 
 than any other 1 . Both alike partake of the character rather 
 of a formal treatise than of a familiar letter. Yet even the 
 Epistle to the Romans betrays deeper personal feeling, and 
 exhibits more distinct traces of individual relations and local 
 colouring. In writing to the Ephesians of their faith and 
 progress in the Gospel, he might be expected at all events to 
 allude to his own labours among them, their attachment to 
 him, the memories and experiences which they shared in 
 common 4 . Far different is his language. 'Having heard of 
 your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love towards all the 
 saints, I cease not to give thanks for you *.' ' For this cause I 
 Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles, if indeed 
 
 1 Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his before St Paul visited Ephesus, and so 
 
 usual penetration, discerns the likeness does Severianus (see Cramer's Catena) ; 
 
 of these two Epistles ' Scribit Ephesiis but not Theodoret, as De Wette asserts. 
 
 hanc epistolani beatus Paulus, eomodo Recent writers adduce it as an argu- 
 
 quo et Romania dudum seripserat quoa ment against the genuineness of the 
 
 necdum ante viderat ' (Argum. ad Epistle. Mr Burgon does not attempt 
 
 Bphet. i. p. 112 ed. Swete). an explanation of the faots. 
 
 1 Theod. Mops. I. e. is driven to " Eph. i. 15. 
 assert that the letter was written 
 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 389 
 
 ye were instructed in the dispensation of the grace of God 
 which was given me to you-ward V ' But ye did not so learn 
 Christ, if so be ye heard of him and were taught in him, as the 
 truth is in Jesus V All this is general and comprehensive, not 
 necessarily excluding personal intercourse with those he ad- 
 dresses, but still scarcely natural if addressed to his own 
 converts solely. It is strangely at variance with the language 
 in which he generally writes to his own children in the faith, 
 the Corinthians and Philippians, for instance. It even presents 
 a very striking contrast to the contemporaneous letter to the 
 Colossians, for whom he shows an intense personal interest, and 
 to whose special dangers and temptations he is fully alive, 
 though they had not seen his face in the flesh 8 . 
 
 3. Yet, though this Epistle so little fulfils our expectations 
 of what St Paul would have written to his converts, it is beyond 
 a question that the Early Church universally regarded it as an 
 Epistle to the Ephesians. It is distinctly referred to as such 
 by the writer of the Muratorian Canon, by Irenaeus, by Ter- 
 tullian, by Clement of Alexandria, even by Origen himself, in 
 whose text, as we have seen, there was no direct mention of 
 Ephesus*. Thus the tradition is carried back to the earlier 
 decades of the last half of the second century, and at the close 
 of that century, at least, the title seems to have been received 
 without question by the Catholic Church, so much so that, as 
 we have seen, TertuUian accused Marcion of forgery because he 
 denied it. Earlier than this we cannot trace the opinion, 
 unless the existing text of the Old Latin and the Syriac 
 Versions, which have the words ' in Ephesus ', may be put in 
 evidence e . 
 
 1 Eph. ill. 2. de praetcr. 36, de monogam. 5 ; Clem. 
 
 2 Eph. iv. 20, 21. Alex. Strom, iv. 65, p. 592, Paed. i. 18, 
 " Col. ii. 1. p. 108 ed. Potter; Origen cmtr. Celt. 
 4 The references are as follows : iii. 20 (xvtu. p. 273 ed. Lomm.). 
 
 Marat. Canon, p.l48«d. Credner; Iren. * Ignatius, writing in the first de- 
 
 Haer. i. 3. 1, 4, pp. 14, 16, i. 8. 4, p. 40, cade of the second century to the 
 
 T. 2. 36, p. 294 ed. Stieren ; Tert members of the Ephesiam Churoh, 
 
 adv. Marc. v. 17 (see above, p. 382), alludes to St Paul as 'making mention 
 
390 THE DESTINATION OF THE 
 
 4 Only one exception to this general belief daring 
 the earliest ages is on record. But this exception is most 
 important. I have mentioned before that Mansion con- 
 sidered it to be addressed to the Laodiceans. Now (1) Mar- 
 cion lived nearer to the times of the Apostles than any 
 of the Catholic writers above mentioned. (2) He was 
 moreover a native of Pontus, a neighbouring province of 
 Asia Minor, and therefore not unfavourably situated for 
 forming an opinion. And, (3), as the question has no theo- 
 logical bearing whatever, his opinion is free from all suspicion 
 of bias, and must be received with the respect due to so ancient 
 a writer. Did Mansion then maintain this opinion, as a tra- 
 dition received from others, or as a result arrived at by his own 
 independent criticism ? We have not sufficient information to 
 form any judgment on this point. If the former idea be correct, 
 this tradition is of the highest value : if the latter, as Tertullian 
 assumes, he may be supposed to have built an inference on the 
 mention of a Laodicean letter in CoL iv. 16. Anyhow it is Btill 
 clear that the destination of the Epistle was open to question, 
 for it is most unlikely that Marcion would have changed the 
 received title merely because he found an allusion elsewhere to 
 a Laodicean letter, if this title were hitherto undisputed, and if 
 the Epistle itself stated that it was addressed to the Church of 
 Ephesus. The former view is more probable in the infancy of 
 criticism. Criticism would only step in where history was 
 silent or confused. 
 
 5. But whether Mansion's opinion was founded independently 
 of the mention of a Laodicean Epistle in the letter to the 
 Colossians or not, this mention has undoubtedly a very impor- 
 tant bearing on the question. The Ephesian and Colossian letters 
 
 of them in every epistle' (Eph. § 12 sonal disciple of the Apostles as a 
 
 It ir ird<rn i*urro\% lu/rniertitt ifi&r). further witness to this tradition; bat 
 
 Attempts have been made to translate grammar forbids the interpretation. 
 
 h r&trg ArurroXg as though it were [See the note on the passage in Apotto- 
 
 i» trial) r V ArwroXfl 'throughout his lie Fathers Pt. 11. Vol. II. p. 65 ed. 2.] 
 epistle,' and thus to claim this per- 
 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 391 
 
 were written and despatched about the same time. Tychicus 
 seems to have been the bearer of both letters \ At all events 
 he is expected to visit the persons to whom they were addressed 
 about the time when they were delivered. Simultaneously 
 with these also a private letter was sent to Philemon, an 
 individual member of the Church of Laodicea or of Colossse. 
 Thus three letters were despatched at the same time. But in 
 the Epistle to the Colossians they are directed to exchange 
 letters with the Laodiceans. Are we then to add to the three 
 letters already mentioned a fourth letter no longer extant ? Or 
 is the Laodicean Epistle to be identified with one of these ? If 
 the latter alternative be adopted, it can only be our Epistle to 
 the Ephesians, for the letter to Philemon is addressed to an 
 individual Christian on a matter of strictly private interest, and 
 does not therefore answer to the designation. 
 
 Let us now combine the evidence gathered from these 
 various sources, and what is the result ? We must frame some 
 hypothesis which recognises our Epistle both as an Epistle to the 
 Laodiceans and an Epistle to the Ephesians, and yet neither 
 the one nor the other. It must moreover be sufficiently elastic 
 to adapt itself to the general tone in which the letter is 
 couched. 
 
 The required hypothesis is not far to seek. It was an 
 encyclical letter addressed to the Churches lying within a 
 certain area, which we may perhaps venture to define roughly 
 as coextensive with Proconsular Asia. On this supposition all 
 the varying forms of the opening salutation are fully explained. 
 The facts before us are these : — 
 
 (1) The words iv 'E^e'o-p were omitted in the old MSS. 
 
 (see above, p. 377 sq.). 
 
 (2) The general character of the Epistle is quite in- 
 
 capable of explanation, if it were written solely or 
 specially to the Ephesians (see above, p. 387 sq.). 
 
 1 Bph. vi. ai; Col. iv. 7. 
 
392 THE DESTINATION OF THE 
 
 (3) At the same time the Epistle was regarded from 
 
 very ancient times as an 'Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians,' and so it was entitled (see above, p. 389). 
 
 (4) Marcion, however, the earliest writer whose opinion 
 
 is known (except doubtfully and inferentially), 
 believed that it was written to the Laodiceans 
 (see above, p. 390). 
 
 (5) It is certain that St Paul despatched an Epistle to 
 
 Laodicea, at or about the same time that the 
 Epistle (so called) to the Ephesians reached its 
 destination (see above, p. 390 sq.). 
 
 We have to seek a theory which will account for and combine 
 all these facts, and that of Archbishop TJssher alone satisfies 
 these requirements. 
 
 (i) In the original letter a vacant space would be left after 
 the words 'To the saints that are.' In the copies made for 
 distribution the blank would be filled in with the names of the 
 individual Churches for which they were intended, 'in Ephesus/ 
 ' in Smyrna,' 'in Laodicea,' ' in Thyatira ' and so forth. In the 
 Church at large some copies would be circulated with the 
 vacant space. When these were again transcribed, the blank 
 would be disregarded, and the text closing in upon it would run 
 'To the saints that are and faithful brethren.' This explains 
 the reading of the texts of Origen and Basil, and of our two 
 best extant MSS. Not a few again would be circulated from 
 the metropolitan Church of Ephesus. Hence the received text 
 and the recognised title. Lastly a MS. would here and there 
 be found transcribed from the copy sent to some other Church. 
 A transcription from the Laodicean copy fell into Marcion's 
 hands and led to his designation, (ii) And in this way a 
 satisfactory account may be given of the notice in the Colossian 
 Epistle. The letter would be sent only to the mother Church 
 in each district, with the injunction to circulate it among the 
 lesser communities scattered throughout that district Laodicea 
 would be selected, as she is selected in the Apocalypse, as of 
 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 393 
 
 superior importance to either Hierapolis or Colossae, which lay 
 in her immediate neighbourhood \ 
 
 Moreover the hypothesis adopted fits in with the exact 
 terms of that notice. Two points are to be observed : (1) The 
 Epistle in question is called not the ' Epistle to the Laodiceans ', 
 but the 'Epistle from Laodicea.' The former designation 
 would not be very well suited to our Epistle : the latter 
 exactly describes it, for the Colossians got it from Laodicea. 
 (2) If St Paul had written directly and solely to the Laodiceans, 
 he would naturally have given his salutations to the Church of 
 Laodicea and to individual members of it in the letter addressed 
 to them. On the contrary we find him sending his saluta- 
 tions through the Colossians, not only to the Church of Laodicea 
 generally, but to Nymphas, who was certainly, and Archippus, 
 who was perhaps, a member of that Church (Col. iv. 15, 17). 
 (iii) Again, the entire absence of special allusions, with the sole 
 exception of the mention of Tychicus, has created much per- 
 plexity and suspicion. On the supposition adopted, both the 
 rule and the exception are satisfactorily explained. On the 
 one hand the encyclical character of the letter required that all 
 personal matters should be excluded. But at the same time, 
 with some of the Churches thus addressed St Paul was on 
 terms of affectionate intimacy. To such he must needs address 
 some words of special import. These were entrusted to the 
 bearer of the letter : * But that ye also may know my affairs, 
 how I do, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister 
 in the Lord, shall make known to you all things : whom I have 
 sent unto you for this very purpose, that ye may know our 
 affairs, and that he may comfort your hearts'*. The very 
 expression 'ye also' points to the encyclical character of the 
 letter. Private instructions, salutations to individuals, strictly 
 personal matters of all kinds would be reserved for him to 
 deliver. 
 
 I have suggested Proconsular Asia as the probable limit of 
 the district through which the Epistle was intended to be 
 1 See Colosriaiu, pp. 7, 8. * Eph. yi. 21, 22. 
 
394 THE DESTINATION OF THE 
 
 circulated. The seven Churches of the Apocalypse at once 
 occur to us, and St Paul's letter was probably destined for a 
 circle of readers not much wider nor much narrower than St 
 John's Revelation. The Apocalypse was written probably not 
 many years later, and by that time these Churches had passed 
 through many vicissitudes, had been proved by many trials, 
 had grown old and in some instances lukewarm in the faith. 
 It is most probable therefore that they were in existence when 
 St Paul wrote. During his residence of three years in Ephesus, 
 the knowledge of the Gospel through his influence, direct or 
 indirect, had spread throughout the neighbourhood. It had 
 certainly reached Laodicea, with her attendant satellites Hier- 
 apolis and Colossse, lying at the extreme verge of this Pleiad of 
 the Christian heavens, and the more central points of the con- 
 stellation would not have been passed over. There was little, if 
 any, exaggeration in the language of Demetrius when he said 
 ' not only at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul 
 hath persuaded and turned away much people \' During great 
 part of the secon|l century the Asiatic Churches are without 
 question the most energetic and lively members of Christ, 
 whether we regard their missionary zeal or their literary 
 activity. 
 
 What motive then may be supposed to have prompted St 
 Paul to write this letter ? A beloved disciple, Epaphras, had 
 brought tidings of the errors which threatened the safety of the 
 Christian brotherhood in his own native place, Colossse, in itself 
 a comparatively small and unimportant Church. At Colossse 
 the symptoms were so clear, that there was no mistaking the 
 form which the disease might assume. For these strongly 
 marked errors the Apostle prescribed. The true medicine was 
 found in the doctrine of the Person of Christ. In writing to 
 the Colossians therefore he applied this as a special remedy, 
 with a view to a special complaint'. But in the course of 
 writing, it would occur to him to set forth these grand truths 
 in a broader form and in their more general relations. This he 
 
 » Aots xi*. 26; of. v. 10. » See Colouian,, p. 41 sq. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 395 
 
 could do, if, while writing, he were free from any of the disturb- 
 ing forces which special local interests must exert upon him. 
 
 The Churches of Asia would offer themselves as fit recipients 
 for such an exposition. He was known personally to some of 
 these ; his influence had been felt by all. A trusty messenger 
 was at hand in Tychicus, a member of the Church of Ephesus, 
 the most important in the district, and himself a tried com- 
 panion and fellow-labourer of the Apostle. To these therefore 
 St Paul wrote a circular letter, for while speaking to all collect- 
 ively, he was not obliged to speak to any individually. He 
 thus felt himself free and unfettered At the same time, the 
 area chosen was not too large to prevent his adapting his 
 teaching to the wants of his hearers. A certain tone of feeling 
 pervaded all the Churches of Asia, a certain class of errors 
 would find a welcome among them. If false opinion did not 
 take exactly the same form at Ephesus or Thyatira or Smyrna, 
 for instance, as at Colossae, it would take a similar form. Thus 
 St Paul still dwells in this Epistle on the same class of truths 
 as in the Epistle to the Colossians. Only whereas in the 
 Colossians he combats error directly 1 , he here combats it 
 indirectly : whereas there he is special, distinct, personal, here 
 he speaks broadly and generally*. 
 
 Thus the Epistle to the Epheaians stands to the Epistle to 
 the Colossians in very much the same relation as the Romans 
 to the Galatians. The one is the general and systematic 
 exposition of the same truths which appear in a special bearing 
 
 1 On the oharaoter of the heresy of the subject of Christ the Logos in 
 
 which assailed the Colossian Church, CoL i. 15, ii. 9 with Eph. i. 22, or of 
 
 see Colotriant, p. 72 sq. the law of ordinances in Col. ii. 14 
 
 3 Besides this, St Paul has given to with Eph. ii. 14, 15, or again the 
 
 his teaching a new centre. In this practical lessons of the relations of 
 
 Epistle it revolves about the doctrine husbands and wives in Col. iii. 18, 19 
 
 of the Church. The same truths which with Eph. v. 25 sq., 32. The propriety 
 
 in the Epistle to the Colossians are of this new centre of teaching is obvious 
 
 advanced to combat a peouliar phase when we remember that it is addressed, 
 
 of false doctrine have here a place as not in a special letter to an individual 
 
 leading up to the doctrine of the Church, but in an encyclical to several 
 
 Church, e.g.* compare the treatment Churches. 
 
396 THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 in the other. For though the Roman is not strictly a circular 
 letter ', yet, being addressed to a very large and varied com- 
 munity, it was enabled to maintain this general character. 
 
 Thus the resemblances between the language of the Epistles 
 to the Ephesians and Colossians are explained. Analogous re- 
 semblances between expressions used to the Galatians and 
 Romans are not quite so close, but there the interval between 
 the two letters is longer 8 . 
 
 1 See above, p. 315. 1 Pet. i. 3. Eph. i. 3. 
 
 2 This hypothesis best explains the 
 relation between this letter and 1 Peter, 
 which, like it, is addressed to the 
 Churches of Asia Minor and obviously 
 makes use of the Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians. Compare the following pairs of 
 
 [1873.] 
 
 ii. 5. 
 
 ii 21, 22. 
 
 ii. 18 sq. 
 
 vi. 5. 
 
 iii. 1 sq. 
 
 v. 22. 
 
 iii. 7sq. 
 
 v. 25. 
 
 iii. 22. 
 
 i. 20, 21. 
 
 iv. 3. 
 
 ii, 2, iv. 17 
 
 etc. 
 
 etc. 
 
XI. 
 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
Printed from Lecture-notes. 
 
XL 
 
 THE DATE OP THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 rilHE date of the Pastoral Epistles has been more canvassed 
 -*- than perhaps any other point in the chronology of St Paul 1 . 
 While it has been generally acknowledged that the Second 
 Epistle to Timothy was the Apostle's dying strain, though even 
 this opinion has not been allowed to pass unchallenged', the 
 First Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus have occupied 
 almost every conceivable position in the systems of different 
 critics. This circumstance is in itself a sufficient proof of the 
 difficulties which beset the question, and might perhaps lead 
 us to despair of a solution. A little more careful examination, 
 however, tends to a more hopeful view. Taking into account 
 all the conditions of the problem — the internal character of the 
 Epistles themselves as regards style and teaching, no less than 
 the historical notices which they contain, whether relating to 
 the Church at large, or to personal matters — we arrive at this 
 simple result, that they cannot be placed within the compass of 
 the history contained in the Acts, and that they must have been 
 written after the other letters of the Apostle, towards the close 
 of his life. The later criticism, based on a deeper appreciation 
 of the style of the Pastoral Epistles, is obviously tending to 
 
 1 Various opinions respecting this rant of all recent English Theological 
 
 question will be found collected and works. 
 
 classified in C. W. Otto Die Oetchieht- ' For a list of these exceptions see 
 
 lichen Verhaltnute der Pcutoralbriefe Davidson Intr. iii. p. 52 ed. 1, and Otto, 
 
 etc. Leipz. 1860. The writer however, p. 16. 
 like most of his countrymen, is igno- 
 
400 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 this result, though there are still some important exceptions 1 , 
 and it may he safely predicted that the alternative of placing 
 them at the close of the Apostle's life, or of abandoning the 
 Pauline authorship, will be accepted by both impugners and 
 defenders alike, as common ground. 
 
 The two points, which we have to consider, are (1) The 
 style and intrinsic character of the Epistles themselves; (2) 
 The historical matter which they contain. 
 
 I. The style and intrinsic character of the 
 Pastoral Epistles. 
 
 Those who have examined St Paul's Epistles with reference 
 to their time of writing, will have observed a strong resem- 
 blance in style and character between the letters belonging to 
 the same chronological group, while at the same time a letter 
 of one group, placed by the side of a letter of another, though 
 betraying the strongest indications of the same mind, shows 
 marked and unmistakable differences. So strong does this 
 impression become on closer study, that the evidence of date 
 derived from style takes the first place in our minds, and when, 
 as in the case of the Galatian Epistle, the historical notices are 
 few and vague, we still feel an absolute certainty in a result 
 derived solely or chiefly from this source. This phenomenon 
 of a difference in a resemblance is much more clearly exhibited 
 in the Pastoral Epistles than in any other of St Paul's letters 2 . 
 With the resemblance I have no concern here. At present I 
 shall dwell simply on the differences, as a proof, first, that 
 they belong to the same period one with another, and secondly, 
 that they cannot have been contemporaneous with the other 
 Epistles of St PauL 
 
 These differences may be gathered up under the following 
 
 1 Such as Wieseler, Davidson and oritioism as retrograde. 
 Sohaff. The most recent ■writer, Otto, » Coleridge oalls them UavXoaSeU 
 
 is also an exeeption. I regard his (Table talk p. 268). 
 
THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 401 
 
 heads, (1) vocabulary, (2) syntax, (3) modes of thought and 
 teaching. 
 
 1. The Vocabulary. Words used in these Epistles alone, or with far 
 greater frequency in them. The following classification is more or less 
 artificial, but will assist in apprehending the character of these differences. 
 For convenience of reference the First and Second Epistles to Timothy and 
 the Epistle to Titus are designated by the letters a, b, c, respectively, the 
 number of occurrences, where more than one, being placed immediately 
 above each letter. 
 
 (a) A new set of terms to describe moral and religious states. 
 
 jScjSqXor 'profane' a s b. Not used elsewhere by St Paul, occurs in 
 
 Heb. xii. 16. 
 fvcrtfkia 'godliness' a 8 bc evov/Swr be cvo-tfithi a, thirteen times in 
 
 all, and not once elsewhere in St Paul's Epistles. 
 Katiap&s 'pure' a'b'c 2 (in four out of the six cases used of the 
 
 conscience) ; only once elsewhere (Bom. xiv. 20) in St PauL 
 ftaXor 'good' 'beautiful' 'aPWe*, twenty-four times in the Pastoral 
 
 Epistles, and only sixteen times elsewhere in St PauL 
 o-f/ivorqs 'gravity' a*c <nitv6s a*c irtfivos occurs Phil. iv. 8, and 
 
 nowhere else in the New Testament. 
 
 (6) A new set of terms relating to doctrine, many of them bringing 
 
 out the contrast between true and false doctrine. 
 »ida<rKa\ia 'teaching' a^c 4 , used most frequently objectively 
 
 'doctrine.' The word only occurs elsewhere in St Paul four 
 
 times, and then with its ordinary sense of the 'art of teaching.' 
 eVftnjo-eii, fgnjjww 'questionings' a*bc, not elsewhere in St Paul. 
 \oyopax la > -"" of ,oombftta of wordB ' ab » not elsewhere in 
 
 the New Testament. 
 vapaOrJKi, 'the deposit of the faith' ah*, not elsewhere in the New 
 
 Testament 
 tyjt, iyialnw 'sound' 'healthy' as applied to doctrine a^bV, not 
 
 elsewhere in St Paul, or in this sense in the New Testament. 
 
 Also the opposite mw a, here only in the New Testament. 
 
 (c) Certain formulse and maxims. 
 
 o-uvapripHreac Mnar ab». The word »iapaprip«T6ai only occurs 
 
 once elsewhere at all in St Paul. 
 x ip«, »«>,, <lp^ ab and perhaps c, contrasted with the earner 
 
 salutation \°P IS ""^ «W"J» 
 ir«<rr6tAXayoja s bc. Peculiar to this group. 
 
 (<*) Modes of speaking of God the Father, and Christ. 
 
 fioKaptos Btos a . 
 
 o-am/'p applied to God aW. 
 
 26 
 L. E. 
 
402 THE DATE OF THE PASTOBAL EPISTLES. 
 
 iv«j>6vtia in the sense of mtpovo-ia ab 3 c. 
 
 None of these are found elsewhere in St Paul. In 2 Thess. ii. 8 
 however there is tj iirtfpavtta rjjt irapovaias. 
 (e) Other expressions not falling under any of these classes. 
 apvturOai atAA 
 dtdjSoXor, 'false-accuser' abc. 
 bfanorrji 'master' a 2 bc, elsewhere in St Paul tevptot. 
 biaficficuoveBai irtpt Ttvos ac. 
 irapaiTttcrOai a 2 bc. 
 All these are peculiar to this group of Pauline Epistles. 
 
 2. The Syntax. 
 
 (a) It is stiffer and more regular than in the earlier Epistles, more 
 jointed and less flowing. The clauses are marshalled together, 
 and there is a tendency to parallelism. 
 e.g. 1 Tim. i. 9, ii. 1, 2, iii. 16, iv. 12, 13, 15, v. 10, vi. 9, 11, 12, 
 13, 15, 18; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12, iii. 1-8, 10-13, 16, iv. 2, 4, 6, 
 7 ; Tit. i. 7, 8, 9, ii. 7, 12, iiL 1-3. 
 
 (6) There is a greater sententiousness, an abruptness and positive- 
 ness of form. Imperative clauses are frequent. 
 e.g. 1 Tim. iv. 11, 16, 16, v. 7, 8, 22-25, vi. 2, 6, 11, 20; 2 Tim. 
 i. 13, 14, ii. 1, 3, 7, 8, 14, 19, 22, 23; iiL 1, 5, 12, 16. 
 
 3. The tone of thought manifest in these Epistles has a character of 
 
 its own. 
 
 (a) There is an increased tendency to the directly moral side of 
 duty. The Apostle's former preaching of faith and grace is 
 not lost sight of, but it occupies a much smaller space and 
 a less prominent position. Stress is laid upon good works 
 (1 Tim. ii. 10, v. 10, 25, vi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 21 ; Tit. L 16, iii 7, 
 14). In describing the Christian state the principles of 
 tvcrf/ijfia and aatppoavini stand forward. Long and frequent 
 lists of virtues are given, often descending into minute 
 details of practical life, (b) On the other hand, apparently 
 in contradiction to the characteristic just mentioned but not 
 really so, the Apostle dwells more on orthodoxy of belief in 
 comparison with his previous Epistles. There is more of the 
 doctrine of Christianity as a creed, and less as a life. Alto- 
 gether we may say that the teaching of the Pastoral Epistles 
 is more definite and positive, than that of the earlier letters. 
 There is more of detail in it, and less of principles. 
 
 These distinguishing features, it must be observed, are 
 found in all these three Epistles alike. It is an obvious and 
 
THE DATE OP THE PASTOBAL EPISTLES. 403 
 
 almost irresistible conclusion (i) that they must all three have 
 been written at or near the same time, (ii) that some consider- 
 able period must be interposed between them and the remain- 
 ing Epistles of St Paul. Now, no hypothesis framed on the 
 supposition that St Paul was not released, and that therefore 
 the Pastoral Epistles fall within the limits of time comprised in 
 the Acts, satisfies these conditions. Indeed it is impossible 
 that such an hypothesis could satisfy them; for the Second 
 Epistle to Timothy is generally allowed to have been written 
 from Borne at the very close of his life, while the First Epistle 
 to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were written when he was 
 at liberty, and supposing his first captivity to have terminated 
 fatally, this consideration alone interposes a period of four 
 years at least between them 1 . 
 
 Thus judging from the style and character of these Epistles 
 alone we are led to this very definite conclusion. 
 
 IL The historical notices. 
 
 These are of two kinds : those relating to (1) actual inci- 
 dents, affecting himself and his friends ; (2) the general condi- 
 tion of the Church. 
 
 L Historical incidents. 
 From the opening verses of the First Epistle to Timothy 
 
 1 Wieseler's hypothesis (Chron. p. private letters written to intimate 
 
 286), the most plausible of those con- friends, the Pastoral Epistles might 
 
 strncted on this supposition, arranges be supposed to have a character of 
 
 the Epistles in the order— Galatians, 1 their own. The peculiarities of style 
 
 Timothy, 1 Corinthians, Titus, 2 Corin- are for the most part not of a kind to 
 
 thians. Thus we get a series of Epistles be accounted for in this way, though 
 
 in which St Paul's styles alternate— for some of them might be so explained. 
 
 Oalatians, I Corinthians, 2 Corinth- And we have an instance of St Paul's 
 
 ians are closely allied to each other, familiar style at this earlier date in 
 
 and widely different from 1 Timothy the EpiBtle to Philemon, which has 
 
 and Titus. According to this hypo- none of the characteristic features of 
 
 thesis, 2 Timothy follows Titus after the Pastoral Epistles. Otto (p. 9) bas 
 
 an interval of five or six years, and quite failed to grasp the conditions of 
 
 with six Epistles of an entirely dif- the problem when he dismisses these 
 
 ferent style intervening. The difficulty considerations so summarily, 
 is not at all met by saying that as 
 
 26—2 
 
404 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLE8. 
 
 we learn that St Paul, when departing for Macedonia, had 
 charged Timothy to remain at Ephesus to superintend the 
 Church there 1 . There are only two visits to Ephesus recorded 
 in the Acts'. On the first of these, which was very brief, 
 St Paul scarcely did more than prepare the way for the 
 foundation of a Church, and it is excluded by the fact that 
 he was then travelling not to Macedonia but in a direction 
 the very opposite, viz. to Jerusalem*. On the second, he 
 remained at Ephesus for three years, and on departing did go 
 into Macedonia 4 : but the following reasons are decisive against 
 this being the visit in question, (i) He did not leave Timothy 
 in Ephesus, but sent him on to Macedonia", intending that he 
 should also go to Corinth*. That Timothy did actually reach 
 Corinth is improbable, but that he did not return to Ephesus 
 before St Paul left is clear: for St Paul joins him in Mace- 
 donia 7 and is accompanied by him to Corinth 8 , (ii) St Paul 
 had no such intention of revisiting Ephesus soon, as he declares 
 in this letter*. On the contrary, he was bound for Greece, 
 intending to sail thence direct to Jerusalem to pay his farewell 
 to the Holy city before visiting Borne and the West 10 . 
 
 This difficulty may indeed be got over by supposing that 
 St Paul may have paid a visit from Ephesus to Macedonia 
 during his three years' stay there — a visit unrecorded in the 
 Acts, as he is known from 2 Corinthians to have paid a visit 
 to Corinth likewise unrecorded". But this is an arbitrary 
 assumption, and two unsurmountable difficulties still remain: 
 (i) to account for the growth of the heresies in so short a time 
 during St Paul's actual presence at Ephesus; and (ii) to 
 reconcile the appearance of these heretics at Ephesus, as stated 
 in this Epistle, with the prediction to the Elders at Miletus 14 
 
 1 1 Tim. i. 3. a Ron,. ^ 2 i. 
 
 » Acts xviii. 19, and xix. 1. » 1 Tim. iii. 14. 
 
 • Acts xviii. 21. io Acts xix. 21. 
 
 *Aotsxix. 2L u This hypothesis is put in the best 
 
 * Acts xix. 22. form by Wieseler, I. c 
 
 • 1 Cor. W. 17, xvi. 10, 11. u Aots xx. 29 /««* r*r 40t#r uw. 
 
 * 2 Cor. i. 1. 
 
THE DATE OF THE PASTOKAL EPISTLES. 405 
 
 that they would appear hereafter, the fact being on this hypo- 
 thesis earlier than the prediction 1 . 
 
 The notices in the Epistle to Titus enhance the difficulty on 
 any such hypothesis. St Paul leaves Titus in Crete to organize 
 the Churches there'. There is no record in the Acts of any 
 such visit to Crete. We have also mention of a winter to be 
 spent in Nicopolis 3 — which Nicopolis is meant, I need not stay 
 to enquire at present. This also is passed over in silence in 
 the Acts. But not only are these incidents unrecorded ; there 
 is no place in the narrative of St Luke where we can inter- 
 polate them 4 . It has been suggested indeed that they must 
 be taken out of the long residence at Ephesus, extending over 
 from two to three years. That St Paul paid a brief visit to 
 Corinth during this period, unrecorded by St Luke, we are 
 forced to conclude by some incidental allusions in the Epistles 
 to the Corinthians. But if we add to this a visit to Macedonia, 
 as required by the First Epistle to Timothy, and then a 
 residence more or less prolonged in Crete, and a winter passed 
 at Nicopolis, as inferred from the Epistle to Titus, and make 
 allowance for the journeys to and fro, we have to assume a 
 prolonged absence from Ephesus which could not have been 
 unknown to St Luke, or, if known, passed over in silence, and 
 which would render St Paul's language to the Ephesian Elders 
 at Miletus" quite incorrect and inappropriate. It may be added 
 also that the projected mission of Artemas or Tychicus to 
 Crete*, or the expected visit of Zenas and Apollos and of 
 Titus himself, have no points of correspondence with the inci- 
 dents of St Luke's narrative — a remarkable circumstance if 
 they fell within the same range of time. 
 
 The notices in the Second Epistle to Timothy are still 
 more unaccountable. This Epistle, as is generally supposed, was 
 
 1 Futile attempts are made to meet m. p. 79 sq., Wieseler, p. 286 sq., Otto, 
 
 this difficulty in Hemsen, Paulas, and p. 357 sq. 
 
 Davidson in. p. 25. B Acts xx. 31 rpterlar riicm koI iiiUpa» 
 
 1 Tit. i. 5. 00* {rayci/tv povOtTuw. 
 
 * Tit. iii.. 12. * Tit. iii. 12. 
 
 4 For various shifts see Davidson * Tit. iii. 13. 
 
406 THE DATE Or THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 written while St Paul was a prisoner at Rome, and when his 
 captivity was soon to terminate in death. According to the 
 hypothesis which I am now considering, this was the same 
 captivity with which the history of the Acts closes. Thus he 
 had been a prisoner for more than four years, first at Caesarea, 
 then at Rome. The incidents therefore which occurred when 
 St Paul was in the East — the sojourn of Erastus at Corinth 1 , 
 and his leaving Trophimus ill at Miletus — must have happened 
 previously to this. Even if we suppose with some that it was 
 written at the beginning of his stay at Rome, there is still a 
 period of two or three years, yet he feels it necessary to inform 
 him by letter of these occurrences after so long a lapse of time. 
 Nay more, Timothy had been staying with the Apostle mean- 
 while at Rome 2 ; he was in fact with him during this very tour 
 in Greece and Asia Minor when, on the supposed hypothesis, 
 these incidents must have occurred. Why then should the 
 Apostle offer this information so superfluous and uncalled for ? 
 But indeed the incidents themselves militate against the hypo- 
 thesis. Erastus indeed might have remained at Corinth on 
 that occasion, for about him St Luke is silent. But Trophimus 
 was certainly not left at Miletus sick, for we find him with the 
 Apostle immediately afterwards at Jerusalem*. It is unneces- 
 sary to dwell on minor difficulties, such as his leaving the 
 cloak and books at Troas* so many years 5 . 
 
 This accumulation of historical contradictions is quite unsur- 
 mountable on the supposition of the earlier date of these Epis- 
 tles. De Wette's phrase of the ' historical unaccountableness' of 
 the Pastoral Epistles then becomes most appropriate. And if no 
 alternative remained, there would be an overwhelming difficulty 
 in accepting these writings as genuine. This historical difficulty 
 disappears, if we prolong St Paul's life beyond the period com- 
 prised in the Acts, and place the Pastorals at a later date. 
 
 1 2 Tim. iv. 20. » To escape this difficulty Hug and 
 
 1 Phil. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1; Philem. i. 1. Hemsen take Arikemr to mean 'they 
 
 » Aots xxi. 29. left' (see Davidson in. p. 68). Who 
 
 * 2 Tim. iv. 13. >they' are, is not dear. 
 
THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 407 
 
 ii. The condition of the Church. 
 
 Very exaggerated and unwarrantable views have been taken 
 of the notices in the Pastoral Epistles relating to the condition 
 of the Church, as indicating a later date, and this circumstance 
 may perhaps prejudice the consideration of them. But on the 
 other hand these Epistles leave on the mind the impression of 
 a definite and various organization, which must have taken 
 some time in forming, and of a progress and development of 
 opinion and action for good or evil, inconsistent with a very 
 early stage of the Church. This consideration becomes of 
 importance when we apply it to the particular case of the 
 Church of Ephesus. According to the hypothesis we have 
 been combating, the First Epistle to Timothy was written not 
 later than A.D. 57, before the close of St Paul's protracted stay 
 in that city. Now that stay was practically the foundation 
 of the Church there, for on his previous brief visit St Paul did 
 but break ground. Thus on this theory in the course of two or 
 three years the Church has attained this advanced development, 
 and what is more improbable still, false and heretical opinions 
 have grown up and spread before the Apostle's own eyes. 
 
 The three points which deserve considering in the condition 
 of the Church are (a) the ministry and in general the offices 
 connected with Church government, (b) the heresies, (c) the 
 traces of a Church literature. 
 
 (a) I do not lay any stress on the existence of the two 
 orders of presbyters and deacons, as a recognised institution. 
 Evidence is not wanting to show that these existed in some 
 Churches at least at a very early date 1 ; but the directions 
 given (1 Tim. iiL 1 sq., v. 17-21; Tit. L 7) imply that these 
 offices had assumed a very definite form, that serious irregu- 
 larities had crept into the ministry of the Church and that alto- 
 gether there had been long experience of the working of the 
 system. I would point particularly to the direction that the 
 presbyter must not be 'a novice, lest he be lifted up with pride*,' 
 
 1 Acts xi. 30, xiv. 23; Phil. i. 1. * 1 Tim. iii. 6. 
 
408 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 as savouring of a later date. Again the term -rrpeo-ftvripiov 1 
 implies that the office was consolidated. Provision is also 
 made for the maintenance of church officers'. Altogether the 
 tone of these injunctions is inconsistent with the very first 
 stage of the Church before carelessness and insincerity had 
 grown with the growth of its numbers. 
 
 Again, the systematic employment of women in offices 
 connected with the ministry is another proof of a later date. 
 We read of a deaconess of the Church of Cenchreas*, about the 
 time when on the hypothesis of the earlier date the First 
 Epistle to Timothy was written, but with this single exception 
 there is no distinct trace in the other Epistles of St Paul of 
 a special ministry of women. Here oh the contrary the 
 deaconesses are a recognised class of officials 4 . The diaconate of 
 women however would not create any serious difficulty. It is 
 more important to observe that ' the widows 5 ' also are spoken 
 of as a separate class, specially appointed (/caraXeyiaffto) with 
 functions of their own, and spoken of in such a way as to show 
 that the institution had been working for some time. 
 
 (b) The picture drawn by St Paul of the state of opinion in 
 theological matters tends to the same result — 'the endless fables 
 and genealogies/ 'the .questionings and battles of words/ 'the pro- 
 fane and vain babblings 6 .' The 'oppositions of science so called 7 ' 
 must have come to the surface after a long seething of specula- 
 tion, and betoken the conflict of various elements of philosophical 
 opinion with the Gospel, so that a considerable time is required 
 for their development. Again, if we compare these notices 
 in the Pastoral Epistles with those elsewhere, we arrive at the 
 same conclusion. In the Apostle's farewell address to the 
 Ephesian Elders at Miletus, these irregularities in the Church 
 
 1 1 Tim. iv. 14. « 1 Tim. iii. 11. 
 
 > 1 Tim. y. 17. On the other hand » 1 Tim. v. Bsq. 
 
 promotion from one offioe to another « 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 1, vi. 20; 2 Tim. 
 
 is not implied in 1 Tim. iii. 18, as ii. 16; of. also 2 Tim. ii. 28', iii. 18; 
 some have supposed (e.g. Blunt, , Tit. i. 10, iii. 9 sq. 
 
 Wordsworth). i i xi m> ^ 2 0. 
 
 8 Bom. xvi.,1. . 
 
THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 409 
 
 of Epheaua are an anticipation, a prophecy; here they are a 
 painful fact. Thirdly, comparing them wibh the phase of heresy 
 prevalent in these same regions of Asia Minor, as presented in 
 the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, we find that 
 though they have much in common, the latter are an advance 
 upon the former 1 . Whereas in the former no charge of immor- 
 ality is brought against the false teachers, but on the other 
 hand they are reproved for their strict asceticism, in the 
 Pastorals the heretical spirit is one of profligate, reckless 
 self-seeking. Without pressing the prophetical passages 9 , this 
 tendency is apparent enough 8 . Now this sequence is natural. 
 Loose and idle speculation, freedom from restraint in matters 
 of opinion, ultimately begets immorality of conduct, for it 
 throws off the sanctions of authority which kept it in check 
 But all this requires time. Lastly, .it should be observed that 
 the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles made a traffic of their 
 false doctrines. They found advantage in vending their wares 
 to foolish purchasers who in turn were interested in being 
 deceived*. Now all this militates against a very early date. 
 There is little chance of deceiving and nothing to be gained 
 by it, where all are poor and all honest alike. It is only later 
 that the theological adventurer has any chance and that, 
 having first deceived himself, he finds it worth his while to 
 deceive others 6 . 
 
 (c) We find here and there in the Pastoral Epistles traces 
 of a liturgical form, snatches of hymns, and fragments of creeds 
 or formularies. It will be sufficient to point out one or two 
 of these. They are to be distinguished by their balanced, 
 rhythmical form, as if framed to assist the memory and perhaps 
 to be sung. They are besides introduced in many cases by 
 
 1 On the relation of these two heresies * 1 Tim. vi. 5 voiufbrruv mpurp&r 
 
 see the additional note at the end of ibnu rjp> tief/hta* : 2 Tim. iii. 6 al%- 
 
 this Essay (p. 411 sq.). ^akwrlforra yvysuK&pt* acvupevftba 
 
 1 1 Tim. it. 1 sq. ; 2 Tim. iii. 1 sq., dfiajn-buf, iyh/ura tmBv/thut rouctKau. 
 
 iv. 3sq. • 2 Tim. iii. 13. 
 
 * See below, p. 415. 
 
410 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 the formula 'faithful is the saying/ Such are especially 
 2 Tim. iL 11 ei yhp avvaireddvopev, icai <rw$<ro(tev k.tX. and 
 1 Tim. iii. 16 8? e<f>apepd0rj iv aapicl k.t.X. Now we should 
 perhaps expect to trace the origin of a devotional and ecclesi- 
 astical literature back to the close of the Apostolic age, but not 
 much earlier. At first the oral teaching, the communion of 
 soul with soul, 'the spirit and not the letter/ was the para- 
 mount, as it always will be the most effectual, mode of 
 instruction ; but as the Apostles foresaw their speedy removal 
 from the scene of their labours, it is not unnatural that they 
 should have countenanced efforts of this kind, for the guidance 
 and instruction of the Churches after their death. It is worth 
 observing here, that outside the Pastoral Epistles there is no 
 distinct trace of a liturgical or devotional form of words in 
 St Paul's writings but one. Both the rule and the exception 
 are instructive. The rule shows the practice of the earlier 
 Apostolic age. The exception occurs in the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians 1 , probably the latest of St Paul's Epistles antecedent 
 to the Pastorals. It is therefore the first trace of the transition 
 to the fixed form and prepares the way naturally for the 
 phenomena of his latest group of letters. 
 
 [1862.] 
 
 1 Ephes. v. 14, Sii \4y€i' 'Eytipe expression 8iA \tya compare the later 
 
 i KadeiSuiy || ical dixiara Ik ray *« pdv || formula wurrbt i \6yos. 
 Kai iwt(paiaei aoi 6 Xpioris. With the 
 
THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 411 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE HEBESY COMBATED 
 IN THE PASTOBAL EPISTLES. 
 
 The form of heresy presented to us in the Pastoral Epistles has 
 been much canvassed. Some have recognised in it a Judaism of the 
 extreme Pharisaic type. To others, it has appeared in the directly 
 opposed form of strictly Gentile Gnosis. Some again have traced 
 one form of error in this group of Epistles, while others have 
 discovered as many as four distinct heresies. 
 
 It will be necessary to start from a careful examination of the 
 passages in which the false doctrine is alluded to. From the results 
 thus obtained, with the light thrown by the false teaching com- 
 bated in the Epistle to the Colossians and by the form of heresy 
 known to have prevailed in the age which followed upon the Apostles, 
 we are enabled to draw a tolerably vivid and consistent portrait of 
 this branch of false doctrine. 
 
 From the Pastoral Epistles themselves these five characteristics 
 of the heresy are elicited : — 
 
 (1) It was Jewish in its origin, promulgated chiefly by converts 
 from Judaism and maintaining the observance of the law as a 
 fundamental tenet. 
 
 Cf. 1 Tim. i. 7, 8 dcXovrcs c&oc vo/toStooo-KaXoi k.t.X., Tit. L 10 
 ttaiv yap iroXXol avmruraKTOi, /xaroioXoyot Kal <f>pevair<xTai, pAXurra oi 
 Ik t^s ir*piro/i.ijs, 14 /u.17 irpoarixaims "IawSaucois pvOois xal tvroXais 
 dvdpwnw, iii. 9 fitapds 81 fipnjoreis (cat ycvcaXoytas Kal iptv Kal /«zx<*s 
 vo/tucas irtpiurTaxro. 
 
 (2) It vaunted a superior knowledge (yv<3<ris) and busied itself 
 in idle speculations. Under this head the three points, on which 
 we may fix attention, are (a) its foolish and profane disputations 
 and combats of words, (6) fables, (c) genealogies. 
 
 Cf. 1 Tim. i. 4 irpoaixftv p&Oois Kal yeytoXoyiius dirtpdvrois curim 
 iK%ffrrKTas irap^owri fiaXXov $ outovofiiav Oeov rrjv iv itmjt«, 6 cf- 
 CTpamprav eis /tarcuoXoyuu', iv. 7 rows /St/fc/Xcws Kal ypatoSui pifOovs, 
 vi 4 POO-WV irtpl for/jaus Kal Xoyo/wixtas, 20, 21 iicrpeiro/uvos tos 
 jSt/JijXovs KeyoijmvuK koI avriBitras rys ^euSuvv/Mro yvoMTcws k.t.X., 2 
 Tim. ii. 14 /u} Xoyo/utxeif «r' oo8bxp/n<rtfiov, 16 tos jSqSjfXow Kcvo^wvias, 
 23 /upas Kal diraiSevrous £>/nj<r«s, iv. 4 dirb p.b> njs dXijOtias Tqv okoijv 
 ivovrphfiawTiv «ri 8k tovb pvOovs Iterpairqa-avrai, and Tit. iii. 9 already 
 
412 THE DATE OP THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 quoted. It would seem that in some cases at least this speculation, 
 assumed the form of denying the resurrection of the dead (2 Tim. u. 
 18). 
 
 (3) Its adherents practised mysterious or magical rites. They 
 are spoken of as wizards. 
 
 Of. 2 Tim. iii. 13 wavripoi avBptoiroi ko* yarqrts, to which perhaps 
 we may refer 1 Tim. iv. 1 irpoafxpvrvs irrev/iao-i irXaVois ical SiSao-- 
 KaXiais Sai/jiovtiov. 
 
 (4) There was a strongly ascetic tendency in their teaching. 
 Marriage was forbidden, and they distinguished between meats 
 clean and unclean. 
 
 Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 3 kuiAvoVtojv yo/tciv, airex«r#cu fSpupjiTuiV, 8 17 croa/xaroc^ 
 yvixvaa-ca irpos oXlyov etrriv (atpeXifto<:, Tit. i. 15 iravra KoBapa. tois 
 KaOapols k.t.A. 
 
 (5) In character they were corrupt, deceitful and selfseeking. 
 Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 2 Kticavo"rijpiaoyiev<i>v rrjv IZiav owei8iprti>, vL 5 
 
 Siairaparpifial &ic<p0apfj.€vwv avOpunruiv rbv vovv kcu airecrrepij/tievan' rf}s 
 aAqfctas, vo/i.l£6vtwv iropurphv cfvai rrjv cvaefituw, 2 Tim. iii. 6, 8 
 evSwovrts cis Tas oucias. . . dvOicrrayrai tt} aXrjOtiq. ayOpwroi KaX€<f>9app.€V(H 
 tov vow, a5oKi/xoi irepl tjJv irurrtv, iv. 3 Kara T«is tSiac iiri(fop.tas carrots 
 iirunopcwrowrur otSacrxaXovs Kvrfi6p.€voi ttjv axtnjv, Tit. i. 16 0coV 
 o/xoXoyoCo*iv tiStVat, tois 8c ipyots dpvovvrau, jSScXvktoi ovrcs xal airct- 
 $tit xai n-pos irav ipyov dyaOov dSoKi/iou 
 
 In this enumeration I have made two assumptions. First, that 
 all the passages refer to one and the same heresy. Now there is 
 nothing in the Epistles themselves from which to infer that distinct 
 forms were contemplated. The characteristic elements, which I have 
 elicited, do not refuse to combine, and, strange as the resulting 
 compound may appear to modern habits of thought, it was in one 
 guise or another a common phenomenon when Oriental mysticism 
 and Greek thought came in contact for the first time with the 
 ordinances of the law and the spiritual truths of the Gospel. On 
 the other hand, it would be anticipating history to regard the 
 heresy as having assumed a definite creed or a distinct organisation. 
 Floating speculation, vague theories, coalescing gradually to a 
 greater consistency and tending more or less in one direction — this, 
 and not more than this, we are at liberty to assume at the date of 
 the Pastoral Epistles. Indeed the phenomena do not justify more. 
 
 Secondly, I have drawn my deductions not less from the pro- 
 phetical warnings than from the historical statements. Whoever 
 will read these predictions in connexion with their context will see 
 
THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 413 
 
 that they are but a declaration of the inevitable consequences to 
 which the spiritual insight of the Apostle foresaw the irregularities 
 of the present would lead,. that in fact these irregularities were in 
 themselves the beginning of the end. 
 
 Now, combining these features together, we obtain a portrait of 
 an early phase of Jewish Gnosticism, very similar in character to, 
 but more advanced and definite than, that which appears in the 
 Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians. The later date appears in 
 the directions for dealing with the heretics, pointing to them as 
 recognisable enemies to be treated as such (e.g. Tit. iii. 10 atpcrucov 
 avOpurrrov. . . irapaiTov). 
 
 On a previous occasion' I devoted some time to the study of 
 the origin and character of Gnosticism ; it will therefore suffice to 
 recapitulate as briefly as possible some of the most important points 
 arrived at, as serving to explain the allusions in the Pastoral 
 Epistles. The three notes of Gnosticism were found to be (1) its 
 intellectual exclusiveness ; (2) certain speculative tenets chiefly 
 relating to the creation of the world and the existence of evil, 
 creation being " accounted for by the doctrine of emanations, the 
 existence of evil by postulating matter as an antagonistic principle 
 independent of God ; (3) as a practical consequence of these specula- 
 tions, a twofold and divergent result upon the ethical systems of 
 their advocates, either rigid asceticism, or unrestrained licence. I 
 proceeded to point out distinct traces of all these three characteristics 
 of Gnosticism in the heresy portrayed in the Epistle to the Colos- 
 sians. St Paul is there confronting false opinion itself ; he argues 
 against it directly, and opposes to it the truths of the Gospel. 
 Consequently from that Epistle we get a fuller conception of its 
 general principles and bearing. Here the case is different. St 
 Paul is writing to a friend, and instructing him to deal practically 
 with the question. No lengthy exposition is necessary, nor would 
 such be in place. It is from a single word here and there — a 
 descriptive epithet or attribute — that we gather the character of the 
 heresy in the Pastoral Epistles. But these notes are significant enough 
 when we get the key to their interpretation ; and with the light of 
 the Colossian Epistle thrown on the previous era and the light of the 
 heresiologists on the succeeding, we are at no loss to elucidate the 
 intermediate stage in the progress of the error. The heresy in both 
 cases has its root on the same ground, in Asia Minor, the fittest 
 meeting-point of Oriental mysticism, of Greek thought, of Judaism, 
 » See Colosriaru, p. 73 sq., esp. pp. 76—80. 
 
414 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 and of Christianity. It is evidently the same in most of its features, 
 though, as was natural, in the earlier Epistle the picture given us is 
 fuller, the canvas broader, but on the other hand, the individual 
 features of the landscape are less clearly marked. 
 
 1. With respect to the esoteric spirit, the intellectualism of 
 Gnosticism. 
 
 The phase of heresy in the Pastoral Epistles is an advance on 
 that exhibited in the Colossians. ' Knowledge ' is in the Colossian 
 Epistle a favourite word with the false teachers, a word constantly 
 on their lips ; but it has not yet become the watchword of the sect. 
 In these later Epistles, we find it as a distinct title, adopted by 
 them and vaunted as peculiarly their own (1 Tim. vi. 20 t^s <fi evSa- 
 vvfiov yviatrcan). We may compare also the antithesis between 
 knowledge and faith implied in 1 Tim. i. 4 amvcs {fc&jnpras vapi- 
 X<nxTi pakkov ^ oiKovo/uay 6tov rf(v iv irurrti. Perhaps the emphatic 
 declaration of the universality of the Gospel (1 Tim. ii 4-6) is a 
 protest against this intellectual aristocracy in religion. From this 
 intellectualism arose those questionings, vain-talkings and combats 
 of words, which the Apostle so frequently and so severely rebukes. 
 
 2. Again, in the speculative theories which characterize the 
 Gnostic system — especially as regards the doctrine of emanations — 
 we have an advance upon the yvukris of the Colossian Epistle. There 
 the emanation of angels, the mediation of superior essences, appears 
 in a vague, shadowy form (Col. ii. 18 Opija-KtCa tw ayycAwv). Here 
 it has assumed a definite shape. The ' genealogies ' are mentioned 
 twice over (1 Tim. i. 4, Tit. ill. 9), in the former passage with 
 the epithet 'endless' (dircpavrot). The term certainly does not 
 explain itself, but by the light of the later Gnostic systems it 
 becomes clear enough. It refers to the successive generations of 
 aeons, or emanations from the pleroma, which occupy so important a 
 place in the speculations, for instance, of the Ophites and Valentin- 
 ians. To the Apostle they are but tiresome pedigrees. To the 
 same feature in Gnosticism may be referred the expression 'fables' 
 or 'myths.' 25To term would better express the manner in which 
 the Gnostics embodied these speculations, representing them in the 
 concrete form of stories, as nobler teachers, like Plato, had done 
 before them. There may be a reference to these false mediators in 
 the emphatic declaration of the one, only mediator in 1 Tim. ii. 5 
 and perhaps also to the dualistic tendencies of the heresy in the 
 doxology of 1 Tim. L 17 (jv&vy 6t§). 
 
 These theories respecting the invisible world, proceeding from, or 
 
THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 415 
 
 at least fostered by, a love of the marvellous, found a practical 
 expression in mystic or magical rites, the common refuge of oriental 
 superstition. Hence the Apostle says that these heretics were 
 misled by 'doctrines of devils' (1 Tim. iv. 1), and calls them 
 "wizards,' ' enchanters' (2 Tim. iii. 13). 
 
 3. We saw that in the case of the Colossian heretics the doctrine 
 that matter was the source of evil led to the nobler of the two 
 extremes, a rigid asceticism. In this earlier stage there is no trace of 
 immorality. In the Pastoral Epistles, however, we find that we 
 are on the confines of a new development of Gnostic ethics. It is 
 true the ascetic theory still prevails. This asceticism, as in the case 
 of the Colossians, is partly based on the Mosaic law, partly indepen- 
 dent of, and contrary to, the spirit of Judaism. Of the former class 
 is the abstaining from meats (1 Tim. iv. 3), though doubtless it went 
 beyond the Mosaic distinction of meats clean and unclean ; of the 
 latter the prohibition of marriage (ib.), a tenet of many of the 
 Gnostic sects. Having debarred themselves from the lawful use of 
 God's creatures under the idea of keeping themselves clean from the 
 contamination of matter, they fell into vices of another kind. Avarice, 
 selfishness and deceit are their prevailing sins (see esp. 1 Tim, vi. 5). 
 
 But there are besides this traces, more or less distinct, of the 
 opposite extreme, deduced from the Gnostic principle — a reckless 
 sensuality, an indulgence in profligate habits themselves and a 
 pandering to the vices of others (Tit. i. 16, 2 Tim. iii. 6). The wild 
 and unbridled profligacy of some of the later Gnostic sects is a 
 constant theme of reproach with the writers of the Church. In the 
 Pastoral Epistles we discern only the first beginnings of this 
 tendency, which is spoken of as future rather than present, having 
 hitherto, it seems, manifested itself only in a few. 
 
 All the later Gnostic sects were essentially anti-Judaic ; but this 
 is not the case with the earlier forms of Gnosis. Arising as it did 
 from an oriental mysticism, it took up its sojourn first in Judaism 
 and Judaic Christendom, with which it came in contact first. But 
 it was only by violent wresting and distortion that the teaching of 
 the Old Testament could be brought into any sort of fellowship with 
 the Gnosis. The fundamental principle of the Old Testament, the 
 immediate and direct control of the supreme Lord over the material 
 world and over the affairs of men, was diametrically opposed to the 
 fundamental principle of Gnosticism, which was dualism in some 
 form or other. The whole spirit of the Mosaic legislation, the high 
 
416 THE DATE OF THE PASTOBAL EPISTLES. 
 
 honour in which marriage was held, especially, was a protest equally 
 against the asceticism and the unbridled profligacy of the two' 
 extremes of Gnostic practice. Thus Gnosticism soon found that it 
 was unequally yoked with Judaic Christianity, and betook itself to 
 a more congenial, or at least a less impracticable, companionship in' 
 Gentile Christendom. Here at all events it was not fettered by any 
 allegiance to the Mosaic dispensation. So it severed its connexion 
 with the Old Covenant, and assumed a position of direct antagonism 
 to Judaism. 
 
 But the earlier forms of Gnosticism are all, or nearly all, 
 Judaic. The uses which it made of Judaism were twofold — both of 
 them abuses. 
 
 (1) The narrative of the Old Testament, its antiquity and its 
 supernatural element, yielded a rich harvest for mystic application. 
 The real significance of this narrative, as the history of the progres- 
 sive dealings of God with man, was entirely lost sight of. 
 
 (2) The ordinances, especially with reference to clean and 
 unclean things, were made a starting-point for asceticism. It is 
 needless to say that in this their spirit was entirely misapprehended. 
 They were intended to serve as a disciplinary training. They were 
 perverted into a condemnation of God's creatures. 
 
 Speaking then of the hereHy of the later Epistles with reference 
 to its position in the Gnostic systems, we may call it Judaic Gnosti- 
 cism. Speaking of it with reference to its position as a phase of 
 Jewish thought, we may call it Essene Judaism. 
 
 Having thus drawn the portrait of this heresy, the infancy of 
 which we trace in the Epistles of the First Roman Captivity, and 
 the early childhood in the Pastoral letters, we are led to enquire 
 whether it corresponds to any form of error of which we have a 
 historical record. 
 
 The discovery of the treatise of Hippolytus on heresies has 
 thrown great light on this, as on many other points in early Church 
 History. First in the series of his heresies, before Simon Magus, 
 before Cerinthus, he places the Ophites or Naasenes, so called from 
 the fact that the serpent (o<£« BTU) was the symbol of their worship 
 (Hippol. Se/ut. v. 6, p. 132 ed. Duncker et Schneid. oi aiv icpcts koX 
 ■n-potrraTai rov SayftaTos ytyivr/vrai irpeiToi oi cttikAt^ot*! Naacnnpt^ tj; 
 "E^paiSi tfwvy ovridf wvopao-nivoi ' vaos Se o o<£« KaAetrat). His order is 
 generally chronological, interrupted now and then to keep the same 
 knot of heresies together. We may therefore assume that the 
 
THE DATE OE THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 41 1 
 
 origin of the Ophites was contemporaneous -with the Apostles. On 
 the other hand, in the documents of the sect, which he quotes 
 largely, we find citations from the Gospel of St John, and perhaps 
 traces of the influence of Gnostic speculations of the second century. 
 We must not therefore suppose that he presents the original form of 
 the heresy. It is evident that later accretions have gathered 
 about it. 
 
 Now as to this heresy we have the following facts from Hippoly- 
 tUS: 
 
 (1) It took its rise, or flourished chiefly, in Phrygia. It 
 delighted especially in the Phrygian rites of Cybele (p. 170 vape- 
 Spcvovcn tois \cyo/ieeoi« Mrjrpvs ptydkr/s /jLwrrqpwfs), and Phrygian 
 legends are referred to frequently in the books of the sect (e.g. p. 
 154 tovtov ®p^K« KopiPavra KaXovm kcu. ®po£v of *pvy £S irapairXyftTuai, 
 p 156 tovtov *pvy«s kcu Hdirav KoAoucrt, p. 160 ovto* ford rwv &pvy<2v 
 Kalaxapiros xaXctrat, p. 162 Xiyown Si avrdv fyvycs ko.1 x^-oepov ardxyv 
 TtOfpurp-evov, eta). 
 
 (2) It was Jewish. The name ' Naasene ' indicates this. The 
 Ophites professed to derive their Gnosis from James the Lord's 
 brother (p. 134 tovto iarC... rd K€tpdXaia d <prj<rl irapa&tSioieevai. 
 Mapi.dp.vrj rov 'IcuccdjSov tov KvpCov tov dStXtpov). Some of their 
 mystical formulae were derived from the Hebrew of the Old Testa- 
 ment (p. 150 KavXaxav cravAatrav ^ttjcrdp : cf. Is. xxviii. 10). 
 
 (3) They called themselves 'Gnostics.' Indeed Hippolytus 
 seems to imply that they were the first to assume that name (see 
 esp. p. 132 perd Si Ta.vra circKaXccrav lavrovs yvtocrrucovs <f>darKovres 
 povoi to /3d0r) yivukrKtiv : cf. p. 160 ol yvaurrucol TcAetot, p. 176 to 
 KtKpvppiva rfjs dyias 68ov yvwaiv KaAecros). 
 
 (4) They dealt largely in mystic rites. The mysteries of Osiris 
 (p. 142 1. 11), of the Assyrians (p. 140 L 90), of Samothrace 
 (p. 152 1. 80), of Eleusis (p. 146 1. 80, p. 162 1. 58), but especially, as 
 remarked before, of the Phrygian Cybele, all contributed their quota 
 to the Ophite system. We may believe that many of these were 
 incorporated at a later date into their system, to give a comprehen- 
 siveness and universality to it ; and that originally it dealt with the 
 Old Testament chiefly or solely, putting a mystical sense upon it. 
 Thus the Apostle might well refer to them the term yonp-ts. 
 
 (5) As the whole of Hippolytus' account shows, they taught by 
 myths (e.g. p. 134 SOev avrols ovros 6 pv8os). 
 
 (6) They forbad marriage (p. 170 irapayy&Xovaw dirfyeotiai cus 
 aTroK£Kop.p.€voi rfjg irpos ywauca opikias). 
 
 L.E. 27 
 
418 "THE DATE. OP THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 
 
 (7) They maintained that the resurrection.' was- a spiritual 
 resurrection, i.e. they said in other words that the resurrection was 
 past (p. 158 cfaAowToi i< r&v fimmcCuv ol V€Kpol Touttartv ck r<av 
 tru>[ta.ru>v tuv )(Oik<5v dvay€WT)OevT*s irvcvftarucoi ov aapKUCoi, and the 
 whole passage). 
 
 (8) Though, the genealogies referred to by St Paul are not so 
 distinctly traced in the Ophite system, as painted by Hippolytus, as 
 in later 'Gnostic sects, still there, are evidences of these. Compare 
 especially the hymn, which, as Hippolytus says, contains a summary 
 of all their mysteries (p. 174 yo/uK rjv yivucos tou iravms. 6 irpuros 
 yoos' o Si Sevrtpos r\v k.t.K.). And other accounts of the Ophites are 
 very full on this characteristic of the sect (cf. Neander Ch. Hist. ii. 
 p. 109 Engl, transl. ed. Torrey). 
 
 There is therefore sufficient correspondence between the two 
 systems to. enable us to conclude that the heresy combated by St 
 Paul in the Pastoral Epistles was identical with the heresy of the 
 Ophites, or at least partook largely of an Ophite character. 
 
 [1865.] 
 
XII. 
 
 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER THE CLOSE OF 
 THE ACTS. 
 
 27—2 
 
Printed from Lecture-notet. 
 
XII. 
 
 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER THE CLOSE OP 
 THE ACTS. 
 
 rilHE conclusion, at which we have arrived in the last section, 
 -*• assumes St Paul's release from his captivity at Rome. We 
 must suppose that he resumed his active missionary labours, 
 and that these were terminated by a second captivity ending in 
 his martyrdom, of which the Second Epistle to Timothy sounds 
 the knell. In the present section it will be my business, first, to 
 show that there are sufficient grounds independently for assuming 
 this release, and secondly, considering this as established, to sketch 
 out his movements by the help of the record in the Pastoral 
 Epistles. 
 
 I. Of this release, with the subsequent events, there is no 
 intimation in the New Testament beyond the notices in the 
 Pastoral Epistles which seem to demand it. In the memoir of 
 St Luke there is not the slightest intimation of the future. 
 The Epistles of the First Roman Captivity hover between hope 
 and fear, between anticipation of release and forebodings of 
 condemnation. They contain nothing which leads directly to 
 the result we are seeking. 
 
 One passage indeed has been adduced as conclusive against 
 a subsequent visit of St Paul to Ephesus; and as, by sur- 
 rendering this visit, we should be surrendering all the 
 advantages gained by the assumption of his release, and should 
 be thrown back upon our difficulties with respect to the 
 Pastoral Epistles, it is important to consider what is the value 
 
422 ST PAULS HISTORY AFTER 
 
 of this argument. St Paul in his farewell address to the 
 Ephesian Elders on the eve of the First Captivity, says 1 , ' And 
 now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone 
 preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more/ 
 This is supposed to be inconsistent with a later visit to 
 Ephesus, and pro tanto with his release from captivity. But in 
 no other province of history would it be allowable to convert a 
 presentiment, however strongly expressed, into a fact; and as 
 this is purely a personal matter, inspiration does not enter into 
 the question. A presumption might indeed have been founded 
 on this expression, if no intimation existed of a release; but the 
 notices in the Pastoral Epistles to the contrary are in them- 
 selves more than sufficient to set this presumption aside. Then 
 again,. in what infinite difficulties does this supposition involve 
 us ! To the Romans he says ; ' I will pass by you into Spain V 
 This however, it may be said, was before the conviction (or the 
 revelation) declared to the Ephesian elders had seized him. 
 What are we to say of the expressions scattered through the 
 Epistles of the First Captivity ? Why does he waver between 
 hope and fear, if the fatal result was certain ? Why does he 
 entreat the prayers of his converts for his release, if he knew 
 that release to be absolutely impossible? Writing to the 
 Philippians he says that he trusts in the Lord, that he himself 
 also will come shortly*. Nay, he even affirms positively that 
 he will be released. 'Having this confidence,' he says, 'I 
 know (tovto Treirotdw? olSa) that I shall abide and continue 
 with you all*.' Why is the olSa to be regarded as decisive in 
 the one case, and disregarded in the other ? But it may be 
 urged that the supposed revelation did not negative his release 
 in toto, that it is limited, that it referred only to his revisiting 
 these Churches of Asia Minor. To this too St Paul's own 
 language furnishes a reply. He bids Philemon 'prepare him a 
 lodging' at Colosses, he 'trusts that through their prayers he 
 
 1 Acts xz. 35 Kal vCx ISoi tyi> olta * Bom. it. 38. 
 
 Sn o£xM 6<j/e<r$e tA irpbaanrbv fu>v i/uit * Phil. U. 34. 
 
 rirrit. « PhU. i. 35. 
 
THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 423 
 
 shall be given unto them 11 ' — language which he could not have 
 held, if he had had a revelation to the contrary. And if here 
 again it be urged that he might have gone to Colossse without 
 revisiting the neighbouring Church of Ephesus, to this we 
 should reply, firstly, that when the inference from otSa is pared 
 down to these dimensions, we have obtained such a concession 
 as will explain the notices in the Pastoral Epistles, for, though 
 a visit to Ephesus is much more probable, a visit to the 
 neighbourhood would suffice; and secondly, that it will be felt 
 that so limited an inference is meaningless, and of course value- 
 less to those who refuse to allow the release of St Paul. 
 
 But though the New Testament, with the single exception 
 of the Pastoral Epistles, is silent about this release, it is most 
 satisfactorily established from external tradition. 
 
 Clement of Rome [f c. a.d. 96], a contemporary of the 
 Apostles, after mentioning several incidents in St Paul's life, 
 and saying that he had preached in the East and the West; 
 adds that he was ' a teacher of righteousness unto the whole 
 world', and, before his decease 'reached the furthest bounds of 
 the West and bore testimony before the ruling powers ' (iirl rd 
 repfut r>7? Sv<rea><i i\6d>v real {iaprvpij<ra$ eirl rwv tfyovfiivmp). 
 Considering that Clement was writing from Rome, and bearing 
 in mind the common significance of the expression 'the extreme 
 West' 9 at the time, as referring to the Pillars of Hercules', we 
 
 1 Philemon 22. rat rtpnovat ettat rrjt oUovfUrT)s...Ti 
 
 % For the expression, referring to ixpa, ib. (p. 170) frrcu> twl rur Kvplws \e- 
 
 the western extremity of Spain, the yopjvuv onflow robs rfjs otKoviUmp Spovs 
 
 pillars of Heroules.eomp. Strata ii. 1 (these references are . corrected from 
 
 (p. 67) Hpara Si airnp {.ttjs oUovtUriis) Credner's Kanon, p. 53), and see Stra- 
 
 rt&prt rpos Siati itiv rhs 'H/xucXeiow bo's whole account of. the western 
 
 (jrijXoj, iil 4 (p. 106) pJxpi rw &Kpw boundaries of the world and of. this 
 
 i-?j 'Ipriplas irep Sv<r/uKurepd tart., iii. coast of Spain. Similarly Veil. Patera. 
 
 1 (p. 187) rovrk (to Upbr ixparlipiop) i. 2, 'In ultimo Hispaniae tractu, in 
 
 iffTiTbSvrua!rra.Tovo&TijtE6p<bmitti6rt>r extreme nostri orbis termino.' 
 
 dXXi ml -rtp olkovittrn* irdaJitaTuuior ' ' * It is instructive to mention some 
 
 reparovrai yip inrb riir tvtir frdpuy ijf interpretations by which the force of 
 
 •Uovphv xpit S6av, niin rip E*/>ci- these words has been evaded: (1) 'to 
 
 ritt &Kpoa ko1 nut x/icSroi* rijt Aip&is, his extreme limit towards the west, 
 
 Hi. 6 (p. 169) Ar«S*| «ot4 rir rope&v (Baur Paulw der Apoit. p. 230, Scnen-' 
 
 ^wr, tok *ot4 r«» KiXrvr, vopXa*»± kel StudUn und Kritiken p. 71, Otto 
 
424 ST PAULS HISTORY AFTER 
 
 can scarcely be wrong in concluding that St Paul was released 
 from captivity and fulfilled his purpose, expressed years before, 
 of visiting Spain 1 . 
 
 It. might be urged indeed that Clement has here the 
 passage in the Epistle to the Romans in his. mind, and that he 
 assumes the intention was carried out. But seeing that at least 
 one of the facts mentioned in the context— the Apostle's seven 
 captivities (firrajHe Beafia <f>opicra<;) — is not recorded in the New 
 Testament, he. must be deriving his information from inde- 
 pendent sources, as indeed, living at Borne and having perhaps 
 known the Apostle personally, he was very competent to do. 
 And it may be argued further that this fact obliges us to prolong 
 the Apostle's labours beyond tbe captivity with which the Acts 
 
 2, Two generations, later, (c. A.D. 180), the anonymous 
 writer of the Muratobian Canon gives the following account 
 of the Acts of the Apostles. ' Luke comprises in detail in his 
 treatise addressed to the most excellent Theophilus the 
 incidents in the lives of. the Apostles of which he was an eye- 
 witness. ' As he does not mention either the martyrdom of 
 Peter, or the journey of Paul to Spain, it is clear that these took 
 place in his absence V 
 
 Pattoralbr.) taking the word snbjeo- geration, bat not as it stands. [See 
 tively, (2) 'the sunset of bis labours' 'the notes on the passage in Apostolic 
 (Renss Gwcfc. <ie» .W. T. Sefcrt/f. p. 124) Father; Pt. i. Vol. n. p. 30 ed. 2, 
 explaining metaphorically, (3) ' to the from wbjoh the above are expanded.] 
 boundary between the East and West' . 1 It has been urged (e.g. by David- 
 (Hilgenfeld Ap. V8t. p. 109, Schrader son Introd. n. p. 101 ed, 1) that 
 Paulus), (4) 'to the goal or centre of the Clement cannot have meant this, he- 
 west ' (Matthiea Po» toralbr.), (5) 'before cause in that oase Eusebius (H. E. iii 
 (4t4 for irl) the supreme power, of the 4) .would certainly have adduced the 
 west' (Wieseler Chron. der ap. %eitalt. passage, which he does .not. To. this 
 p. 533, followed by Sohaff History of the reply is twofold: (1) that all argu- 
 Apost. Gh. i. p. 400). Suoh attempts ments drawn from the silence of a 
 are a strong testimony to the plain writer are in the highest degree pre- 
 inference which follows from the pas- carious; and (2) that we are quite as 
 sage simply interpreted. Had the competent to judge what Clement 
 expression been M ri. rip/mra toO meant, as Eusebius was, 
 tiiritm, it might be explained (as * 'tuoaa obtime Theofile (J. optj- 
 Meyei proposes) as a rhetorical exag- mo Theophjlo) comprindit, quia (Z. 
 
THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 
 
 425 
 
 3. Eusebius speaks of St Paul's release and second visit to 
 Borne, which ended in his martyrdom, as a common report (Xdyo? 
 I^ei) 1 . It is true that he goes on to confirm this report by 
 a false interpretation of 2 Tim. iv. 16, explaining the two 
 apologies there mentioned of the Apostle's two captivities ; but 
 the worthlessness of his own comment does not affect the value 
 of the tradition on which it is founded, and which must be held 
 quite distinct 1 . 
 
 4. In his Epistle to Dracontius, Athanasius holds up for 
 imitation the earnestness of the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose 
 zeal prompted him ' to preach as far as Illyricum, and not to 
 hesitate to go even to Borne, nor to take ship for Spain, so that 
 the more he laboured the greater reward he might receive for 
 his labour 3 .' 
 
 5. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his second catechetical lecture 
 upon the Holy- Spirit, adduces as a witness of the power of the 
 Spirit St Paul's conversion, and his missionary labours, which 
 he names in. the following significant, order, Jerusalem, 
 Illyricum, Borne, Spain 4 . 
 
 quae) sab praesentia eras singula gere- 
 bantur siouti et semote paseionem 
 Petri evidenter declarat, sed et pro- 
 fectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam 
 proficiscentds, Fragm. Murat. (pp. 19, 
 40 ed. Tregelles Oxon. 1867; Westcott 
 HUt. of Canon pp. 517, 528 ed. 4). 
 The drift of the latter part of the 
 sentence seems to have been generally 
 misunderstood. I take 'semote' to be 
 opposed to 'sub praesentia eius,' in 
 the sense 'at a distance,' 'in his ab- 
 sence.' Other solutions, either in the 
 way of interpretation or of correction 
 of the text, may be found in Booth 
 R. S. p. 394, B onsen Anal. Antenic. x. 
 p. 125, Westcott p. 528, Credner Kaium 
 p. 141 (ed. 1860) and Wieseler Chron. 
 p. 586. 
 
 1 Ens. H. E. ii. 22, tot* pi* ov* 
 iroXoyijaipevo* a$0a irl rlp> roO Ki\piy- 
 pant Suucovlav \iyos (%a <rrel\av6au 
 to* irirroKor, Sevrepo* 8' (rifUvra r% 
 
 OUT'S *6\ii rif (car airb* Tc\eiw6rj*at 
 paprvply. 
 
 2 Meyer's inference (on Romans 
 Einl. § 1, p. 15) from Origen's silence 
 that he was ignorant of this release 
 is quite arbitrary. At least it did 
 not strike Eusebius so, who quotes 
 Origen in the following words: T( Set 
 ■rcpl Oai\ov \6ycw dir A ' Xepmra\i)p piyfi 
 rod '\WvpiKoO xcTXijpuiciiToj to eiay- 
 yf\u>* toC Xpurrav, xoi toTtpav ip t$ 
 'Pwpv irl TS4pu*ot pepapTvpr)K6rot ; 
 (H.E. iii. 1). 
 
 ' * Athanas. Ep. ad Dracont. § 4, I. 
 p. 265 ed. Bened. Jto roSro koX trrovtii 
 n> aylar (I. r$ aylif) pixf T0 ^ 'TK\v- 
 pucov Ki\pArni» koX pt\ &mu> prfii elt rV 
 "Siipti* &rt\8e!v, pi)6t elt rat Xravlas 
 avafjrjvai, fra foe* Komf roaovro* koI 
 roO Kirov to* pur0b* pel{0*a iro\&Py. 
 
 *■ Cyrill. Hier. Catech. xvii. pp. 276, 
 7,'dro "lepoaokipw* pi* ical ptxpi tov 
 'tWvputou ' TerXijpuKora to eiayyiKum' 
 
426 ST PAULS HISTORY AFTER 
 
 6. Epiphanius, in the account which he gives of the 
 succession of the episcopate at Borne, explains his theory of the 
 appointment of Linus, Cletus and Clement as bishops in the 
 lifetime of the Apostles Peter and Paul by the frequent journeys 
 which the Apostles had to take from Rome, and the impost 
 sibility of leaving the city without a bishop. 'For Paul/ he 
 says, ' even, went as far away as Spain, and Peter was frequently 
 superintending Pontus and Bithynia 1 .' 
 
 7. Jerome appeals to the testimony of older writers in 
 support of his statement of St Paul's release from his first 
 imprisonment, which was arranged in God's providence 'that so. 
 he might preach the gospel of Christ in the West also'.' 
 
 8. Theodore of Mopsuestia speaks in the plainest way 
 of St Paul's two visits to Rome in the reign of Nero. After 
 relating how he was sent as prisoner there on his appeal .from 
 Festus, he goes on to say that he was ' set free by the judgment 
 of Nero and ordered to depart in safety. But after stopping 
 two years at Borne, he departed thence and appears to have 
 preached to many the teaching of godliness. However, coming 
 a second time to Borne, while still stopping there, it happened 
 that by the sentence of Nero he was punished with death for 
 his preaching of godliness*.' The passage is somewhat obscure 
 owing to its survival in the Latin version only.. 
 
 9. When we come down to the time of Pelagius, we 
 find the release from the first imprisonment generally main- 
 
 Karrixfiaovra Si <oi tV fiaatXLSa 'P<£/tip> occidentis quoque partibus praedioa- 
 
 koI /i4xpt SiroWat rip> TpoBvplar toO ret'; of; Comm. in Amo» v. 8, 9 Vol. vi. 
 
 KtlpiyiMTOS (KTclvayra. p. 291. 
 
 1 Epiphan. Haer. xxvii. p. 107 ed. » Theod. Mops. Argum. in Sph. x. 
 
 Pet. i iikv yhp HavXof koX M t^i> 2to- p. 116 ed. Swete, 'Inde judioio Neronis 
 
 Wav iipiKveirai, Hh-pos Si roXXixa JUv- UbeiatuB, secams abire jussus est. 
 
 To» rt koX T&iOvrlcur hetrxi^iaTo. dnobus vero annis oommoratos Bo- 
 
 9 Hieron. de Eccles. Script. §5, Vol. mae, exinde egressns, maltis pietatis 
 
 ii. p. 828 ed. Vallarsi, 'Soiendom an- dootrinam praedioaBse visus est. se- 
 
 tem in prima satisfactione, neodnm oonda vero vioe Romam acoedens 
 
 Neronis imperio roborato, neo in tanta dam UIo adhuo moraretur, contigit 
 
 erompente seelera, quanta de eo nar- ut sententia Neronis ob praedioatio- 
 
 rant historiae, Paulum a Nerone di- nem pietatis oapite puniretur.' 
 missom, ut evangelium Ohristi in 
 
THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 427 
 
 tained. Commenting on the Apostle's request to Philemon ' to 
 prepare him a lodging,' he says : 'Here it is shown that on the 
 first occasion he was sent away from the city'; though of the 
 journey to Spain he speaks more doubtfully 1 . 
 
 10. Theodoret, commenting on the Apostle's expression of 
 confidence addressed to his Fhilippian converts that he would 
 abide and continue with them, remarks: 'and the prediction 
 was fulfilled ; for at first he escaped the wrath of Nero.' Then, 
 after quoting the passage in 2 Tim. iv. 16, 17, and appealing to 
 the last verses in the Acts, he continues: 'Thence (i.e. from 
 Borne) he departed to Spain, and carried the divine gospel to 
 the inhabitants of that part also, and so he returned, and was 
 then beheaded 3 .' Other references to his release and visit to 
 Spain are given below. 
 
 On the statements of Eusebius and later writers however no 
 stress should be laid. Even if it were clear that they relied on 
 some independent testimony, and did not found their belief on 
 deductions — in some cases erroneous deductions — from St 
 Paul's own language, they are too far removed from the time of 
 the events to be of any real value as guides. With Clement 
 and the author of the Muratorian fragment the case is different. 
 The former wrote from Rome, at a place where and at a time 
 when the memory of the Apostle's labours was fresh, and his 
 testimony is explicit, so far as relates to St Paul's preaching in 
 the West. The latter, though living at a later period, is a 
 witness of some importance, for he too was probably a Roman*, 
 and he distinctly attests the journey to Spain. Indeed, so irre- 
 
 1 Pelagius Comm. in Philemon v. 22, in Pi. oxvi. Vol. I. p. 1425, Dtrrepor 
 
 'hie ostenditor quia prima vice ait ex lUvroi ml rrp 'IroWot iwtfhi, koX els ras 
 
 urbe dimistras ' ; in Bom. xv. 24, ' utrum Sraytas IQUtro, xai toIi h r$ -reK&yei. 
 
 in Hispania fuerit in cert am habetar.' SumeifiAfatt r/jo-ots r^v ixpfKeiav x/xxn}- 
 
 ' Theodoret Comm. in Phil. i. 26, yeyxe: in 2 Tim. iv. 17, iroKoyuri- 
 
 VoL m. p. 451 ed. Sohulze, koX rf\os penes in Moot iQetOri Kal tAj Zraylas 
 
 if itQbfrfaau *Xa/Je- Jt^vye yap rb x/>fi- (carAajSe Kal els trepa. (0vri opaftuv -rip 
 
 ran roQ THipuvos rbv 8vfi6r... ixeWer Si rrjs StScurnaKtat Xapvr&Sa rporfyieyKe. 
 els rat Zravlas ire\$iiv, xal rb BeTov * His use of the expression 'ab 
 
 Kixeb/oa vpooeveyKiiv eiayy&ww brew- tube,' referring to Borne, shows this. 
 rj\0c, xal rbre rip m0a\4r drer/i^fli?: 
 
428 st Paul's history after 
 
 sistible has this evidence appeared to impartial critics, that the 
 release has been accepted as a fact by many writers who cannot 
 be suspected of any bias towards this result — by Hug, for 
 instance, who places the Pastoral Epistles earlier in St Paul's 
 life, and by Ewald, who denies their genuineness entirely. 
 
 But it has been urged that, though there is evidence for the 
 journey to Spain after the Apostle's release, there is none for 
 another visit to the East. This is true, if the notices in the 
 Pastorals themselves are not to be put in evidence; but even then, 
 how does the case stand ? St Paul, while still a prisoner but 
 anticipating his release, expresses his intention of visiting the 
 Philippians again, and writes to Philemon at Colossae to prepare 
 him a lodging. He does obtain his release. In the absence of 
 evidence either way, is it not more probable that he did fulfil 
 his intention of visiting Macedonia and Asia than the contrary? 
 
 II. Assuming then that St Paul was released from his first 
 captivity at Rome and resumed his missionary labours, we shall 
 have to sketch in the events which took place between this 
 date and his final imprisonment, from the notices in the 
 Pastoral Epistles, aided by such probabilities as circumstances 
 suggest. If an intelligible and reasonable account of St Paul's 
 doings during this interval can thus be given, we shall have 
 found a possible place for the Pastoral Epistles, and shall have 
 furnished an answer to objections raised from the point of view 
 of historical unaccountability ; and, in the absence of full and 
 direct information, nothing more than this hypothetical solution 
 can be expected. 
 
 Before entering into details, however, we must clear the 
 way by settling two main questions ; first, what was the 
 probable length of this interval ; and, secondly, supposing that 
 St Paul visited both East and West, in what order did he make 
 these journeys. 
 
 (1) According to the chronology I have adopted 1 , St Paul 
 arrived in Rome early in the year 61. The closing verses of 
 
 1 See above, pp. 217 sq,, 232. 
 
THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 429 
 
 the Acts speak of his remaining there without any change in 
 the circumstances of his captivity for two whole years 1 . This 
 brings us to the beginning of the year 63 at least. Here St 
 Luke's narrative ends abruptly ; so that we are without infor- 
 mation as to what occurred afterwards, but the natural inference 
 is that at the end of the two years there was a change in the 
 prisoner's condition — a change either for the better or for the 
 worse, but a change of some sort. Perhaps the most probable 
 supposition is that his trial came on then. If so, we may place 
 his release not later than the summer of 63, at all events it 
 must have taken place between that date and the summer of 
 the following year, for the great fire which broke out in July 64 
 was a signal for a fierce persecution of the Christians in Borne, 
 and a teacher of the hated religion so zealous and so distin- 
 guished could not have escaped the general fate, had he still 
 remained a prisoner. 
 
 The data for determining the close of the period are still 
 more vague. Ecclesiastical tradition fixes the martyrdom of 
 St Paul in Nero's reign, and this is probable in itself, for, 
 after the tyrant's death, the Romans were too much occupied 
 with their own political troubles to pay any attention to the 
 Christians, even supposing the succeeding emperors were 
 animated by the same bitter spirit. It cannot therefore have 
 been later than June 68, the date of Nero's death. Now, when 
 we examine the Pastoral Epistles with a view to obtaining 
 some result, opposing considerations present themselves. On 
 the one hand, their marked difference in style leads us to 
 prolong the interval between them and the earlier Epistles 
 as far as possible, while on the other hand the mention of 
 Timothy's youth is an ever-increasing difficulty as we postpone 
 the date of the letters addressed to him. On the whole, perhaps, 
 the later consideration must give place to the former. The 
 death of the Apostle will then be placed at the very close of 
 Nero's reign, and the Pastoral Epistles will have been written 
 in the year 67 or 68. 
 
 i Acts xxviii. 30, 31. 
 
430 st paul's history after 
 
 (2) Next, as to the order in which St Paul visited the 
 East and West. On the whole, it is probable that he went 
 eastward immediately after his release. It is true that he had 
 intended, when he first thought of visiting Rome, to proceed 
 thence westward to Spain 1 . But circumstances might have 
 occurred in the intervening period of about five years to alter 
 his purpose and determine him to revisit the troubled Churches 
 of Asia, before he entered on a new mission field in the far 
 West. Such is the impression left by his language to the 
 Fhilippians and to Philemon*. 
 
 But if it is probable that St Paul was in the East im- 
 mediately after his release, it is certain that he was there 
 towards the very close of his life. The notices of his transactions 
 in the East scattered through the Pastoral Epistles reach 
 continuously to the time of his second imprisonment at Borne, 
 which ended in his death. If this be so, the visit to Spain and 
 the West must have intervened between two visits to the East. 
 For these incidents there is ample time in the four or five years 
 which elapsed before his martyrdom. 
 
 We obtain then 
 
 (i) A visit to the East, probably brief, according with 
 his intention expressed to the Philippians and to Philemon, 
 (ii) The fulfilment . of his long-cherished purpose of 
 preaching in Spain and the West, 
 (iii) A return to the East. 
 
 Eastward then the Apostle hastens after his release. First 
 of all perhaps he revisited the Macedonian Churches, fulfilling 
 his promise to the Philippians. We may imagine him nex t 
 
 1 Bom. xv. 24, 28. if the Apostle had said, 'You may cer- 
 
 1 Phil. i. 24; Philem. v. 22. This tainly expect to see me. I shall my- 
 
 eonelasion however mast not be re- self observe what treatment Onesimas 
 
 garded as absolutely certain. It may has received from you.' With delicate 
 
 he that we should not press the raxtos tact, the Apostle's language, suggested 
 
 of Phil, ii. 24. And the injunction to by some slight misgiving, assumes the 
 
 Philemon to prepare him a lodging form of an appeal to Philemon's hos- 
 
 may point rather to the certainty than pitality and kindly feeling towards 
 
 to the nearness of the visit. It is as himself. 
 
THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 431 
 
 directing his steps towards the Churches of Asia and Phrygia. 
 The unhealthy tone, of religious speculation in these districts 
 needed correction. And to Colossse moreover he was drawn 
 by a personal motive. He was anxious to assure himself that 
 Onesimus was fully restored to his master's favour, and to carry 
 out his undertaking of staying with Philemon. We can scarcely 
 suppose that he left these regions without a brief visit to the 
 Church of Ephesus, which had occupied so much of his time 
 and thoughts ; and it is possible that some of the notices in the 
 Pastoral Epistles refer to incidents which occurred on this 
 occasion, though it is on the whole more probable that they 
 took place on a later visit. 
 
 We may conjecture also that, before he left the neighbour- 
 hood of the JEgaean, he laid the first foundations of a Church in 
 Crete. There, was in this island a large Jewish population 1 — 
 a circumstance which would press itself on the Apostle's 
 attention. Possibly also St Paul's anchorage there 3 on his 
 voyage to Borne may have been accompanied by incidents 
 which dwelt on his mind, and stimulated his desire to preach 
 the Gospel in Crete. At all events a few years later we find a 
 Christian Church established here, and, if its foundation is to 
 be attributed to St Paul, no occasion is more probable than 
 this of his first visit to the East after his release. 
 
 Having thus taken a rapid review of the Churches of the 
 East, the Apostle hastened to fulfil his long-postponed intention 
 of visiting the hitherto unexplored region of Spain. There 
 was a considerable Jewish population settled in many of the 
 towns on the Spanish coast', and the Apostle would make 
 this his starting-point. This course had many advantages in 
 itself, but a deeper principle of obligation commended it to the 
 mind of the Apostle, who seems to have held sacred the maxim, 
 ' To the Jew first, and then to the Gentile.' Whether St Paul 
 
 1 Philo. Leg. ad Gaium ii. p. 587 3 Acts xxvii. 7-12; rap. v. 9, Ua- 
 
 {ed. Mangey), ab (tiro* al Ijreipw. luaral vov Ii xptvw Itaya/o/Urov. 
 
 r&y 'Iov&ukQv d»w«fii- tlaiv 4XXA koX *■ See Eemond Auibreitung da Ju- 
 
 rl\ttav al SoKiiuSnarac, Etf^oca, Ktfirpoj, denthwm § 31. 
 
432 st Paul's histoey after 
 
 extended his labours in the West beyond the limits of Spain 
 must remain a matter of speculation. At the close of his life 
 we find him sending Crescens on a mission to Gaul — for so we 
 may perhaps understand by 'Galatia 1 ' — and if this interpretation 
 is correct, it would seem to imply some previous communication 
 with this region. It is highly probable indeed that, either on 
 his way to or from Rome, he should have visited the famous port 
 of Marseilles 9 , and having once set foot in Gaul, he would 
 naturally avail himself of the opportunity of furthering his 
 Master's cause. At all events, the Churches of Spain and Gaul 
 were founded at a very early date, so that Irenaeus appeals to 
 them' along with others, as witnesses of the primitive tradition 
 in matters of doctrine. On the other hand, had he remained 
 long either in Spain or Gaul, we should have expected to find 
 in those parts a more direct tradition of his visit 4 . 
 
 Moving eastward, perhaps passing through Borne, the 
 Apostle may possibly have visited Dalmatia, for with this 
 region again we find him in communication at the close of his 
 life". If so, he may have continued his journey along the 
 Adriatic coast to Epirus, so that, by wintering at Nicopolis on 
 a subsequent occasion*, he purposed renewing an intimacy 
 already formed, thus following out his general practice of 
 confirming the Churches of his founding. 
 
 We find the Apostle then in the East once more. The 
 slight fragmentary notices in the Pastoral Epistles may be 
 pieced together variously, so that any particular plan of his 
 journey must be more or less arbitrary. The object of framing 
 such a plan is to show that it is possible to give a consistent 
 and intelligible account of his movements, on the supposition of 
 
 1 2 Tim. iv.10; see Galatianspp. 3, * The journey to Britain most be 
 
 81. On Crescens see esp. Gerarius abandoned, as highly improbable, 
 
 Mogumt. Retp. p. 225, and on the early though maintained with a patriotio 
 
 Church in Gaul, Neander Ch. But. i. urgenoy by many able advocates (Stil- 
 
 p. 116 (Eng. tranal. by Torrey). lingfleet, Burgess, eto.); Bee the refer- 
 
 a See the interesting speculations of enoes in Soames Anglo-Saxon Church, 
 
 Blunt The First Three Centuries, p. p. 21 sq. (1844). 
 
 184 sq. (1861). » 2 Tim. iv. 10. 
 
 » Iren. Haer. i. 10. 2. « Tit. iii. 12. 
 
THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 433 
 
 his release ; and under the circumstances no more than this 
 can reasonably be demanded. The scheme which I shall give 
 differs from those generally adopted in assuming that the 
 winter which he purposed spending in Nicopolis was in fact 
 spent in Rome 1 . We may suppose that his abrupt arrest and 
 imprisonment frustrated his previous plans. In this way the 
 events are gathered within narrower limits of time; and, the 
 Pastoral Epistles being thus brought into closer chronological 
 connexion, the striking coincidences of thought and language 
 between them are the more easily explained. This arrangement 
 of the incidents seems to me slightly more probable than any 
 other, but I lay no stress on it. 
 
 Once in the East then, he would naturally revisit the 
 Churches of Fhrygia and Asia, which had caused him so much 
 anxiety. There he found that his gloomiest anticipations had 
 been realised. Grievous wolves had indeed entered the fold, 
 as he had predicted years before. His personal influence had 
 gone. 'All in Asia turned away from him 2 .' Phygellus and 
 Hermogenes are especially named among these timid or recreant 
 Christians. There was one bright exception however in 
 Onesiphorus, whose attentions — repeated afterwards when the 
 Apostle was a prisoner in Rome — are gratefully recorded*. 
 It was probably at Ephesus too and on this occasion that 
 St Paul encountered the opposition of Alexander the copper- 
 smith 4 . And this is perhaps the same Alexander whom, 
 together with Hymenaeus, the Apostle 'delivered unto Satan, 
 that they might learn not to blaspheme 5 .' If we are right in 
 assigning all these notices to this one occasion, it would seem 
 that the Apostle's residence was more or less prolonged. Alto- 
 gether the visit was one of bitter trial. It was evident that 
 the clouds were gathering about the Church, and that a period 
 of storm and tempest was imminent. 
 
 From Ephesus the Apostle turned northward into Mace- 
 
 1 Thus the winter of Titus iii. 12 3 2 Tim. i. 15-17; of. iv. 19. 
 becomes identical with that of 2 Tim. * 2 Tim. iv. 14. 
 
 iv. 21. " 1 Tim. i. 20. 
 
 2 2 Tim. i. 15 sq. 
 
 L. E. 28 
 
434 st paul's history after 
 
 donia. At the same time he left Timothy behind to preside 
 over the Church there in his absence 1 . He would gladly seek 
 consolation after these sad experiences in the affection of that 
 Philippian Church, of which he entertained the most tender 
 remembrance, and which more than once had relieved his 
 wants*. 
 
 What country St Paul visited next, we cannot say; it is 
 not unnatural to suppose that, following his old route, he would 
 turn towards the Churches of Achaia. Somewhere about this 
 time we may perhaps place the writing of the First Epistle to 
 Timothy. Its exact time and place cannot be ascertained, but 
 the following data should be observed. (1) It cannot have 
 been written very long after St Paul left Ephesus, as the whole 
 tenour of the Epistle shows. It betrays a nervous anxiety such 
 as might be expected from one who had recently delegated a 
 very arduous task to a young and inexperienced successor. Such 
 advice to have any value must be given at once, and indeed 
 the Apostle's ardent temperament would admit of no delay in 
 a matter so important. (2) It would seem to have been 
 written before the incidents occurred which St Paul relates to 
 Timothy in the Second Epistle 8 . When the letter was written, 
 St Paul hoped to revisit Ephesus soon, but foresaw that he 
 might possibly meet with some delays 4 . 
 
 About this time he also visited Crete. A hypothetical 
 account of the origin of this Church I have given already 8 . 
 Having been recently founded, its organization was still very 
 imperfect ; and, as St Paul himself could not stay to do all that 
 was needful, he left Titus behind him to complete his arrange- 
 ments there*. 
 
 From Crete we may suppose that he went to Asia Minor, 
 and somewhere about this time he directed a letter of advice 
 and exhortation to Titus. For ascertaining the time of writing 
 of the Epistle to Titus we have the following data. (1) As in 
 
 1 1 Tim. i. 8. «1 Tim. iii. 15. 
 
 "" See above, pp. 249, 260. » See above, p. 481. 
 
 3 e.g. iv. 9-18, 20. « Tit. i. 5. 
 
THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 435 
 
 the case of the First Epistle to Timothy, it cannot have been 
 written long after St Paul left Crete. (2) Tychicus was still 
 with him when he wrote ; and therefore it is before the point 
 of time noted in 2 Tim. iv. 12. (3) He has no forebodings of 
 his coming fate, for he purposes wintering at Nicopolis, not 
 expecting to have his movements constrained 1 . (4) On the 
 supposition that this winter is identical with that mentioned 
 in his Second Epistle, the year cannot have been far advanced 
 now. There is time for him to despatch a messenger to 
 Titus, for Titus to join him (at Corinth or Nicopolis) and 
 to leave him again for Dalmatia, for him to reach Borne 
 himself, for several incidents at Rome, e.g. his trial, etc., 
 for him to despatch a messenger from Rome to Timothy, 
 for Timothy to join him in Rome; all this before the 
 winter. 
 
 In this letter he tells Titus that he will send Artemas or 
 Tychicus — perhaps to act as his deputy — and bids him hasten 
 to join him at Nicopolis. He asks him to provide Zenas the 
 lawyer and Apollos with the necessaries for their journey*. 
 
 From this point onwards we can trace the Apostle's course 
 westward with some degree of continuity 8 . We find him at 
 Miletus, where he dropped Trophimus on account of illness*. 
 Hence perhaps he despatched Tychicus to Ephesus 5 . Miletus 
 was a convenient point from which to communicate with 
 Ephesus, as he had found it on a former occasion 6 , and we may 
 conjecture 'that, having abandoned his purpose of revisiting 
 Ephesus, he sent Tychicus to Timothy to inform him of this 7 . 
 From Miletus he sails northward to Troas, where he lodges 
 with Carpus 8 . What were the intermediate stages, we do not 
 know, but we next find him at Corinth, where he leaves Erastus 
 behind". He was now on his way to Nicopolis — probably the 
 
 i xit. iii. 12. phimns were 'Aaiavol; of. Acts xx. 4, 
 
 1 Tit. iii. 12, 13. ni. 29. 
 3 The journey is the reverse of that 8 Acts xx. 17. 
 
 in Acts xx. 13 sq. 7 1 Tim. iii. U. 
 
 * 2 Tim. iv. 20. 8 2 Tim. iv. 13. 
 
 5 2 Tim. iv. 12. Tychicus and Tro- 9 2 Tim. iv. 20. 
 
 28—2 
 
436 ST PAULS HISTORY AFTBB 
 
 city of that name in Epirus, where he purposed passing the 
 winter. Whether he reached Nicopolis or not must remain 
 uncertain. A probable, though a conjectural, account seems to 
 me this. While he was at Corinth, his old enemies, the Jews, 
 informed against him, as the leader of the hated sect of male- 
 factors, who had roused the indignation of Rome ; and on this 
 information he was seized and imprisoned and ultimately 
 carried to the Metropolis to await his trial 1 . 
 
 Meanwhile, finding his plan of wintering at Nicopolis 
 frustrated, he despatches his messenger — probably Artemas 3 , 
 since he had left Tychicus behind' — to Titus in Crete to join 
 him, not in Nicopolis, as he had intended, but either in Corinth 
 or in Borne itself, whither he was soon to be conveyed. At all 
 events Titus did join him at some point in his route 4 . 
 
 Arrived at Rome, the Apostle found himself almost deserted. 
 Onesiphorus, who lived in Ephesus", and whose kind services 
 the Apostle had experienced during his stay there, coming to 
 Rome sought him out and with some difficulty found him 8 . 
 But these friendly offices ceased with the departure of Onesi- 
 phorus. Of all his more intimate friends and companions in 
 travel Luke alone remained with him 7 . Titus had gone to 
 Dalmatia, Crescens to Gaul, probably despatched thither by the 
 Apostle on some missionary errand. Demas had forsaken him, 
 and gone to Thessalonica, probably his native place 8 . Certain 
 Christians of Rome, Eubulus, Pudens, Linus and Claudia, join 
 in the salutation, but these must have been comparative 
 strangers 9 . In this forlorn condition he writes his Second 
 Epistle to Timothy. He urges Timothy to join him as soon as 
 
 1 We know that Nero was in Greece * 2 Tim. iv. 10. 
 at this time, and that he was still 8 2 Tim. iv. 19. 
 there in August 67, though he was * 2 Tim. i. 17. 
 recalled to Rome towards the close of '2 Tim. iv. 9 sq. 
 the year by Helius (see Clinton Fasti 3 See above, p. 247. 
 
 Eomani i. p. 50). Perhaps the Em- » [On the supposed connexion of 
 
 peror himself sent the Apostle to the Pudens and Claudia with Britain see 
 
 capital- Apostolic Fatliere Pt. i. Clement of 
 
 2 Tit. iii. 12. Some i. p. 76 (1890)]. 
 8 2 Tim. iv. 12. 
 
THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 437 
 
 possible 1 , at all events to come before the winter sets in and 
 while the sea is yet navigable 2 . At the same time he charges 
 him to perform a commission at Troas : he had left his cloak 
 with some books and parchments, and he requests Timothy, as 
 he passes, to fetch these 9 . He evidently contemplates that 
 Timothy will follow the coast to Macedonia, and then take the 
 great Egnatian Road from Philippi to Dyrrachium and cross 
 over the straits thence to Italy. It was perhaps already late 
 in the season, and a voyage on the high seas was hazardous. 
 Timothy is to pick up Mark on the way and to bring him with 
 him 4 . Timothy appears to be still at Ephesus, for the Apostle 
 in this letter salutes the household of Onesiphorus, doubtless 
 resident there 5 ; he also salutes Aquila and Priscilla", and they 
 too seem to have had connexion with Ephesus 7 . 
 
 The legal proceedings have already commenced when the 
 Apostle writes. He has had his first hearing, and has a respite 
 for a time". But he is full of gloomy forebodings, or rather he 
 foresees but one termination to the trial. And here, with the 
 notes of his dying strain ringing in our ears, we take leave of 
 the Great Apostle. 
 
 [1862.] 
 
 1 2 Tim. iv. 9. himself seems to be absent (i. 17). 
 
 2 2 Tim. iv. 21. * 2 Tim. iv. 19. 
 » 2 Tim. iv. 13. 7 1 Cor. xvi. 19. 
 4 2 Tim. iv. 11. 8 2 Tim. iv. 16. 
 8 2 Tim. iv. 19, i. 16. Onesiphorus 
 
INDICES. 
 
T. INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 II. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 Genesis 
 
 xxxi 47, 48 
 
 PAGE 
 
 127 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 iii 34 
 
 PAGE 
 81 
 
 
 xlixll 
 
 88 
 
 Isaiah 
 
 vilO 
 
 20, 137 
 
 Exodus 
 
 xii 46 
 
 139 
 
 
 viii 6 
 
 172 
 
 
 xvi 33, 34 
 
 154 
 
 
 viii8 
 
 153 
 
 
 xxv 7 
 
 143 
 
 
 ix2 
 
 150 
 
 Numbers 
 
 is 12 
 
 139 
 
 
 ix6 
 
 153 
 
 
 xxix 35 
 
 166 
 
 
 xxxiii 21 
 
 172 
 
 Deuteronomy i 1 sq 
 
 129 
 
 
 xl3 
 
 139 
 
 
 xvi 13 sq 
 
 166 
 
 
 xiii 6, 7 
 
 150 
 
 
 xviii 15 25, 150, 154 
 
 
 liiil 
 
 140 
 
 
 xix 15 
 
 138 
 
 
 liii4 
 
 148 
 
 
 xxi23 
 
 162 
 
 
 UU8 
 
 152 
 
 
 xxxi7, 23 
 
 71 
 
 
 livl3 
 
 138 
 
 
 xxxiii21 
 
 143 
 
 
 lxil 
 
 150 
 
 Joshua 
 
 i 6, 7, 9 
 
 71 
 
 Jeremiah 
 
 xxiii 1 
 
 147 
 
 
 xv 25 
 
 144 
 
 
 xlviii 24, 41 
 
 144 
 
 
 xv 32 
 
 179 
 
 Ezekiel 
 
 xxxi 4 
 
 141 
 
 
 xviii 23 
 
 177 
 
 
 xxxiv 2, 3 
 
 147 
 
 Judges 
 
 xi3 
 
 143 
 
 
 xxxvii 27, xliii 7 153 
 
 1 Samuel 
 
 xiii 17 
 
 177 
 
 
 xlv 25 
 
 166 
 
 2 Samuel 
 
 x6, 8 
 
 143 
 
 Daniel 
 
 vii 13, 14 
 
 153 
 
 
 xiii 23 
 
 177 
 
 Amos 
 
 ii 2 
 
 144 
 
 
 xv 23 
 
 173 
 
 Micah 
 
 v2 
 
 152 
 
 
 xviii 6 
 
 177 
 
 
 vii 15 
 
 151 
 
 1 Kings 
 
 xii 1 sq 
 
 130 
 
 Zechariah 
 
 ii 10 sq 
 
 163 
 
 
 xv 13 
 
 173 
 
 
 viii 3 
 
 153 
 
 2 Chronicles 
 
 xiii 19 
 
 177 
 
 
 ix9 
 
 136, 151 
 
 Nehemiah 
 
 iii 1, 32 
 
 170 
 
 
 xll 
 
 151 
 
 
 iii 15 141 
 
 ,172 
 
 
 xii 10 
 
 20, 136 
 
 
 viiil8 
 
 166 
 
 Malachi 
 
 iv2, 3 
 
 150 
 
 
 xii 39 
 
 170 
 
 Ecclus. 
 
 xxi v 8 sq 
 
 153 
 
 Psalms 
 
 ii 7 
 
 149 
 
 1 Maccabees 
 
 iv59 
 
 167 
 
 
 xxi (xxii) 19 
 
 140 
 
 
 xi34 
 
 177 
 
 
 xxxiii (xxxiv) 21 
 
 139 
 
 2 Maccabees 
 
 ii lsq 
 
 154 
 
 
 xxxiv (xxxv) 19 
 
 139 
 
 
 x6 
 
 166 
 
 
 xl (xii) 10 21, 
 
 , 137 
 
 St Matthew 
 
 ii 16, 22 
 
 58 
 
 
 xlv (xlvi) 5 
 
 172 
 
 
 iii 1 
 
 179 
 
 
 lxviii (lxix) 5, 10 
 
 139 
 
 
 iii 3 
 
 139 
 
 
 lxxvii (lxxviii) 24 
 
 139 
 
 
 iii 15 
 
 81 
 
 
 Ixxxi (lxxxii) 6 
 Ixxxii (lxxxiii) 10 
 
 139 
 
 
 vii 7 
 
 103 
 
 
 174 
 
 
 vii 15 
 
 147 
 
 
 ctii (civ) 10 
 
 141 
 
 
 x4 
 
 144 
 
 
 cviii (cix) 3 
 
 139 
 
 
 x!6 
 
 81 
 
442 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 St Matthew zii 33 
 
 81 St Lake iii 4 
 
 139 
 
 xiii 14, 15 
 
 138 
 
 iii 19, 20 
 
 179 
 
 xiii 54 sq 
 
 159 
 
 iv 16 aq 
 
 159 
 
 xiv 28, 30 
 
 184 
 
 ivl9 
 
 57 
 
 xv 15 
 
 184 
 
 iv29 
 
 175 
 
 xvil6 
 
 149, 184 
 
 iv41 
 
 149 
 
 xvi 17, 18 
 
 18, 19 
 
 v8 
 
 185 
 
 xvi 22 
 
 184 
 
 vi 16, 71 
 
 144 
 
 xvi23 
 
 185 
 
 viiilO 
 
 138 
 
 xvii4 
 
 184 
 
 viii 45 
 
 184 
 
 xviii 21 
 
 184 
 
 be 51 sq 
 
 159 
 
 xixl2 
 
 81 
 
 x 38 sq 
 
 37, 181 
 
 xix27 
 
 184 
 
 xi9 
 
 103 
 
 xxi 5 
 
 136 
 
 xii41 
 
 184 
 
 xxiii 14 
 
 147 
 
 xiii 1 
 
 160 
 
 triii 39 
 
 149 
 
 xiii 4 
 
 141 
 
 xxvi 3 
 
 163 
 
 xiii 35 
 
 149 
 
 xxvi5 
 
 161- 
 
 xx 47 
 
 147 
 
 xxvi7, 8 
 
 182 
 
 xxi 1 
 
 169 
 
 xxvi 14 
 
 144 
 
 xxii 3 
 
 144 
 
 xxri 36 
 
 176 
 
 xxii 54 sq 
 
 191 
 
 xxri 33, 58, 
 
 69 184 
 
 xxii 70 
 
 149 
 
 xxri 55 
 
 70 
 
 xxiii 34 
 
 161 
 
 xxvi 63 
 
 149 
 
 xxiii 54 
 
 168 
 
 xxvi 40, 74 
 
 185 St John i 1 6, 23, 83, 101, 106, 112 
 
 xxvii 2 
 
 58 
 
 12 
 
 92, 106 
 
 xxvii 11, 22 
 
 187 
 
 i 3 83, 90, 94, 95, 96, 106, 
 
 xxvii 27, 35 
 
 161 
 
 
 111, 112, 132 
 
 xxvii 33 
 
 142 
 
 i4 
 
 92, 106, 112 
 
 xxvii 62 
 
 168 
 
 i5 
 
 90,131 
 
 St Mark i 3 
 
 139 
 
 17,8 
 
 160 
 
 i37 
 
 184 
 
 i 9 88, 106, 
 
 108, 112, 115 
 
 iii 19 
 
 144 
 
 ilO 
 
 101, 131 
 
 ivl2 
 
 138 
 
 il2 
 
 88,133 
 
 vi37 
 
 182 
 
 il3 
 
 88,105 
 
 viii22 
 
 178 
 
 il4 88, 
 
 101, 112, 154 
 
 viii33 
 
 185 
 
 i 18 73, 89, 
 
 , 101, 112, 134 
 
 x51 
 
 140 
 
 H9sq 
 
 89 
 
 xi9 
 
 149 
 
 i20 
 
 101, 107, 132 
 
 xi21 
 
 184 
 
 i 21, 25 
 
 25,150 
 
 xii40 
 
 147 
 
 i23 
 
 139 
 
 xu41 
 
 169 
 
 128 
 
 178, 179 
 
 xiv 4 
 
 182 
 
 i29 
 
 101, 148, 181 
 
 xiv32 
 
 176 
 
 131 
 
 153 
 
 xiv37 
 
 185 
 
 i 32 
 
 134 
 
 xiv 51 
 
 180 
 
 i34 
 
 149 
 
 xiv70 
 
 159 
 
 i36 
 
 74, 148, 194 
 
 xiv 71 
 
 185 
 
 137,40 
 
 40, 189 
 
 xv 12 
 
 187 
 
 i38 
 
 140 
 
 xv 16 
 
 161 
 
 i39 
 
 181 
 
 xv 22 
 
 142 
 
 i 40 aq 
 
 41, 133, 189 
 
 xv 26 
 
 161 
 
 i 41 24, 139, 181, 189, 197 
 
 xv 42 
 
 168 
 
 1 42 18, 19, 
 
 , 132, 141, 195 
 
 St Luke i 1 sq 
 
 55, 62, 135 
 
 143 
 
 132, 181, 187 
 
 i 13 
 
 19 
 
 144 
 
 41,69 
 
 i39 
 
 179 
 
 i 46 24, 160, 158, 159, 181 
 
 180 
 
 153 
 
 i49 
 
 24, 149, 182 
 
 u 32 
 
 150 
 
 ii 1 sq 
 
 106, 176, 181 
 
 iii 1,23 
 
 57,58 
 
 U4 
 
 108, 182 
 
 iii 2 
 
 163 
 
 ii 6 
 
 165, 182 
 
INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 443 
 
 St John 
 
 ull 
 ii 13 
 ii 16 
 U17 
 ii 19 sq 
 ii 22 
 iU2 
 iii 3 
 iii 5 
 Ui6 
 iii 8 
 iii 10, 11 
 iii 14, 15 
 
 101, 
 
 77, 
 
 iii 16 
 
 iii 17 
 
 iii 18 
 
 iii 23 
 
 iii 24 
 
 iii 29 
 
 iii 31 
 
 iv 1 sq 
 
 iv 4 
 
 iv6 
 
 iv9 
 
 ivlO 
 
 ivl4 
 
 iv 20 
 
 iv21 
 
 iv 24 
 
 iv25 
 
 iv27 
 
 iv34 
 
 iv40,43 
 
 iv42 
 
 iv45 
 
 iv46 
 
 iv52 
 
 iv54 
 
 vl 
 
 v2 
 
 v5 
 
 v7 
 
 vll 
 
 vl7 
 
 v23 
 
 v 25, 36 
 
 v27 
 
 y29 
 
 v33 
 
 v37 
 
 v38 
 
 v39 
 
 v40 
 
 v45 
 
 v46 
 
 vil 
 
 vi2 
 
 vi 5 sq 
 
 vi 7, 8, 9 
 
 PAGE 
 
 92, 176, 197 St John 
 
 167 
 
 112 
 
 139 
 
 30,101 
 
 193 
 
 195 
 
 87, 120 
 
 106, 114 
 
 106, 107, 132 
 
 82,112 
 
 131, 157 
 
 87, 106, 115, 
 
 151 
 
 94,134 
 
 94,106 
 
 149 
 
 178, 179 
 
 197 
 
 165 
 
 101, 132, 133 
 
 33 sq, 190 
 
 159 
 
 120, 175, 181 
 
 175 
 
 106, 107 
 
 106, 107, 134 
 
 131 
 
 106 
 
 87, 90, 112 
 
 24, 141, 155 
 
 165 
 
 101 
 
 181 
 
 24,115 
 
 159, 167 
 
 176 
 
 181 
 
 197 
 
 167 
 
 29, 169, 175 
 
 182 
 
 134 
 
 134 
 
 132 
 
 88 
 
 101 
 
 115 
 
 72 
 
 69 
 
 106 
 
 133 
 
 17,24 
 
 131 
 
 24, 88, 146 
 
 88 
 
 176, 195 
 
 153 
 
 189 
 
 182, 189 
 
 PAGE 
 
 vi 11 194 
 
 vi 14 25, 149, 150 
 
 vi 15 24 
 
 vi 16 181 
 
 vi 17 176 
 
 vi 19 181 
 
 vi 22 176, 181 
 
 vi 23 176, 194 
 
 vi 27 101 
 
 vi 28, 30 sq 24 
 vi 31 24, 26, 89, 139, 152 
 
 vi 35 82, 101 
 
 vi38 82 
 
 vi39 134 
 
 vi 44 106 
 
 vi 45 101, 138 
 
 vi 53 106 
 
 vi54 87 
 
 vi 59 181 
 
 vi 62 115 
 
 vi 68 182, 186 
 
 vi 69 149 
 
 vi 70 131 
 
 vi 71 18, 143 
 
 vii 2 sq 165 
 
 vii 6, 7 132 
 
 vii 8 132, 167 
 
 vii 12 88 
 
 vii 14 181 
 
 vii 15 157 
 
 vii 17 73 
 
 vii 19 17, 131 
 
 vii 22, 23 134 
 
 vii 26 sq 24, 152 
 
 vii 30, 33 17, 107 
 
 vii 35 157 
 
 vii 37 166, 181 
 
 vii 38 77 
 
 vii 39 193 
 
 vii 40 24, 25, 150 
 
 vii 41 158 
 
 vii 42 152 
 
 vii 49 157 
 
 vii 50 195 
 
 vii 52 158 
 
 vii 53 sq 69 
 viii 12 101, 112, 115, 150, 
 
 166 
 
 viii 14 132 
 
 viii 16 69 
 
 viii 17 138, 165 
 
 viii 20 167, 169, 181 
 
 viii 21 106 
 
 viii 26 73 
 
 viii 30 sq 24, 69, 155 
 viii 44 61,68,106,114, 
 
 165 
 viii 56 61,112,115,146 
 
 viii 57 57, 58 
 
 izl 106 
 
444 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 Si John 
 
 ix2 
 
 ix7 
 
 ix 21, 22 
 
 ix28 
 
 ix 32 
 
 ix35 
 
 x 1 sq 
 
 x7 
 
 x8 
 
 x9 
 
 xll 
 
 x 12 
 
 xl8 
 
 x22 
 
 x23 
 
 x24 
 
 x27 
 
 x30 
 
 x34 
 
 x36 
 
 x38 
 
 x40 
 
 PAGE 
 
 158 
 
 141, 171 
 
 132 
 
 166 
 
 131 
 
 149 
 
 74, 96, 103 
 
 82, 106, 112 
 
 110, 146 
 
 97, 106, 114 
 
 133 
 
 82 
 
 97, 101 
 
 167, 181 
 
 168 
 
 24 
 
 114 
 
 101 
 
 139 
 
 150 
 
 102 
 
 178, 179 
 
 St John 
 
 xi 1 sq 38, 175, 178, 181 
 
 xi 6 
 
 xi 7 
 
 xil6 
 
 xil7 
 
 xil8 
 
 xi25 
 
 xi27 
 
 xi 35 
 
 xi 38, 41 
 
 xi39 
 
 xi48 
 
 181 
 178 
 37, 182, 195 
 181 
 175 
 112 
 149 
 101 
 165 
 178 
 160 
 
 xi 49 sq 27, 28, 163, 195 
 
 xi51 
 xi52 
 xi54 
 xii 1 sq 
 xii3 
 xii 4 
 xii 6 
 xii 7 
 xii 10 
 xii 12 sq 
 xii 14, 15 
 xii 16 
 xii 20 sq 
 
 xii 24 
 xii 27 
 xii 28, 29 
 xii 31 
 xii 33 
 xii 34 
 xii 35 
 xii 38 
 xii 40 
 xii 41 
 xii 46 
 
 165, 193 
 
 101 
 
 177 
 
 38, 181 
 
 182 
 
 18, 148, 182 
 
 182 
 
 165 
 
 27 
 
 30, 149, 181 
 
 136 
 
 193 
 
 128, 182, 189, 
 
 195 
 
 83 
 
 111 
 
 71 
 
 82 
 
 71, 198, 194 
 
 153 
 
 107 
 
 140 
 
 20, 137 
 
 146 
 
 134, 160 
 
 xiii 2 
 
 xiii 8, 9 
 
 xiii 18 
 
 xiii 20 
 
 xiii 23 
 
 xiii 24 sq 
 
 xiii 25 
 
 xiii 26 
 
 xiii 30 
 
 xiii 31 
 
 xiii 33 
 
 xiii 36 
 
 xiv 2 
 
 xiv3 
 
 xiv6 
 
 xiv 7 
 
 xi v 8 sq 
 
 xiv 12 
 
 xiv 13 
 
 xiv 22 
 
 xiv 26 
 
 xiv 29 
 
 xv 13 
 
 xv 15, 19 
 
 xv 25 
 
 xvi2 
 
 xvill 
 
 xvi 12 
 
 xvil3 
 
 xvi 21 
 
 xvi 24 
 
 xvi 28 
 
 xvii 3 
 
 xvii 11, 14, 16 
 
 PAGE 
 
 18, 148 
 
 182, 186 
 
 21, 187 
 
 82 
 
 195 
 
 182, 186 
 
 75 
 
 18, 143, 182 
 
 181 
 
 92 
 
 106 
 
 182, 185 
 
 60, 61, 67 
 
 107 
 
 69, 97, 101, 112 
 
 88 
 
 101, 182 
 
 101 
 
 92 
 
 18, 143, 182 
 
 77,104 
 
 xvii 17 
 xvii 21 
 xvii 23, 25 
 xviii 1 
 xviii 3 
 xviii 9 
 xviii 10 
 xviii 12 
 xviii 13 
 xviii 14 
 
 88 
 
 77 
 
 108 
 
 139 
 
 77 
 
 82 
 
 73 
 
 88 
 
 83 
 
 103 
 
 101 
 
 72, 73, 95, 150 
 
 94, 108, 
 
 132 
 
 73 
 
 95, 150 
 
 108 
 
 172, 175, 176 
 160 
 193 
 182, 186 
 160 
 28, 163, 197 
 195 
 
 xviii 15 sq 98, 128, 163, 
 
 181 
 
 xviii 27 185 
 
 xviii 28 160, 168, 181, 
 
 191 
 
 xviii 31 
 xviii 32 
 xviii 36, 87 
 xviii 88 
 xviii 89 
 xix 8, 5 
 
 187 
 71, 194 
 149, 188 
 78, 188 
 187, 188 
 149, 188 
 
 xix 12 149, 160, 187, 262 
 
 xix 13 142 
 
 xix 14 29, 101, 149, 168, 
 
 181, 188 
 
INDEX OP PASSAGES. 
 
 445 
 
 St John 
 
 Aota 
 
 PAGE 
 
 xix 15 160, 188 
 
 xix 17 142 
 
 xix 19 149, 159, 187, 188 
 
 Aota 
 
 xix 
 xix 22 
 xix 23 
 xix 24 
 xix 26 
 xix 28 
 xix 30 
 xix 31, 32 
 
 xix 34 
 
 xix 35 
 xix 36 
 xix 37 
 
 176, 182 
 188 
 
 161, 182 
 140 
 
 99, 107, 195 
 71 
 71, 72 
 
 162, 168 
 
 71, 75, 120, 182, 
 197 
 71, 197, 198 
 139, 168 
 20, 101, 136 
 
 xix 39, 40 165, 183, 195 
 
 xix 42 168, 175 
 
 xx 1 101, 165 
 
 xx 2 195 
 
 xx 5 165 
 
 xx 6 186 
 
 xx 7 165, 183 
 
 xx 11 sq 165, 194 
 
 xx 16 140 
 
 xx 17 101 
 
 xx 19 181 
 
 xx 20 120 
 
 xx 22, 23 12 
 
 xx 24 111, 141 
 
 xx 25 sq 113, 182 
 
 xx 27 83 
 
 xx 28 37 
 
 xx 29 sq 194 
 
 xx 30 195 
 
 xx 31 197 
 xxi 1 sq 176, 194 sq 
 xxi 2 39, 141, 176 
 
 xxi 3, 4 181, 182 
 
 xxi 6 183 
 
 xxi 8 181 
 
 xxi 11 183, 186 
 
 xxi 14 197 
 
 xxi 15 sq 18, 182 
 
 xxi 17 186 
 xxi 20 sq 99, 182, 186 
 
 xxi 23 197 
 xxi 24 41, 99, 196 
 
 iii 22 25, 150 
 
 ivl 26 
 
 iv 6 163, 165 
 
 vl7 26 
 
 v 35 sq 147 
 
 ▼ 37 160 
 
 vii 37 25, 150 
 
 viii 32 148 
 
 ix35 142 
 
 xi 28 216 
 
 xi 30 407 
 
 xii 4 161 
 
 xii 23 
 xiii 1 
 xiii 10 
 
 xiii 15, 42 sq 
 xiv23 
 xvi 6 sq 
 xvi 9 sq 
 xvi 11 
 xvi 13, 16 
 xvi 17 
 xvi 37 
 xvii 1 
 xvii 4 
 xvii 5 sq 
 xvii 6 
 xvii 14, 15 
 xvii 17 
 xvii 28 
 xvii 30, 31 
 xviii 2 
 xviii 5 
 xviii 11 
 
 PAGE 
 
 215 
 
 305 
 
 61 
 
 259 
 
 407 
 
 237 
 
 239, 245 
 
 241 
 
 243 
 
 245 
 
 203 
 
 243, 259 
 
 261, 262 
 
 243, 257, 305 
 
 247, 256 
 
 245, 284 
 
 259, 262 
 
 206 
 
 300 
 245 
 275 
 
 xviii 19, 21 210, 300, 404 
 xviii 26 300 
 
 xix 1 404 
 
 xix 21 245, 325, 404 
 xix 22 245, 277, 278, 283, 
 305 
 xix 26 394 
 
 xix 29 246, 247, 262, 268 
 
 xix 30, 33 
 xix 41 
 xxi, 3 
 xx 4 
 xx 6 
 xx 13 sq 
 xx 16 
 xx 21 
 xx 25 
 xx 29 
 xx 31 
 xxi 13 
 xxi 27 
 xxi 29 
 xxi 31 sq 
 xxi 38 
 xxi 39 
 xxii 3 
 xxii 25, 28 
 xxiii 6 
 xxiii 27 
 xxiv 10 
 xxv 12 
 xxvi 4, 5 
 xxvi 6, 7 
 xxvii 2 
 xxvii 7sq 
 xxviii 11 sq 
 xxviii 26, 27 
 
 257 
 283 
 
 245, 283 
 
 246, 306 
 241, 282 
 
 435 
 
 210, 217 
 387 
 
 387, 422 
 404 
 
 387, 405 
 336 
 217 
 
 406, 435 
 161 
 
 218, 387 
 205 
 208 
 203 
 
 208, 211 
 203 
 217 
 203 
 208 
 211 
 246 
 431 
 220 
 138 
 
 xxviii 30, 31219,325,429 
 
446 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 Romans 
 
 PAGE 
 
 i 1 sq 828 sq 
 i 6, 13 812 
 
 i 7 287 sq, 310, 816, 
 344 sq, 364, 378 
 i 11 sq 296, 319, 325 
 i 15 287, 816, 364, 444 sq 
 
 i 25 
 ii 16 
 ii 17 
 
 iii 9 
 iii 21 sq 
 iii 24 
 vii 4 
 vii 12 
 viii 18 sq 
 ix5 
 xi 13 
 xil5 
 xi 21 sq 
 xi36 
 xiill 
 xivlO 
 xiv 14 
 xi v 20 
 
 323 
 294 
 313 
 313 
 329 
 231 
 313 
 
 326 
 323 
 294, 312 
 239 
 304 
 298, 323, 326 
 362 
 354 
 231 
 401 
 
 xiv 23 287 sq, 319, 329 sq, 
 340, 349 sq, 363 sq 
 xv 5, 6 297, 323 
 
 xv 15 295, 297, 324, 326 
 xv 16 297, 312, 324, 326 
 
 324 sq 
 
 244 
 
 422, 430 
 
 325 
 
 297 
 
 294, 307, 323 
 
 300 sq 
 
 1 Corinthians i 2 
 il4 
 i20 
 ii 1 sq 
 ii 4 
 iv4 
 iv9 
 ivl7 
 ivl9 
 v 6sq 
 v9 
 vl2 
 vi 9sq 
 vii 19 sq 
 viii 1 
 viii 8sq 
 ix 10 sq 
 
 xv 17 sq 
 xv 19 
 xv 24, 28 
 xv 29 sq 
 xv 30 
 xv 33 
 xvi 3sq 
 xvi 17 sq 
 xvi 20 307, 308, 319, 324 
 xvi 23 319 
 
 xvi 21 sq 246, 304, 404 
 xvi 24 307, 308 
 
 xvi 25 sq 288 sq, 317 sq, 
 317 sq, 326 sq, 866 sq 
 378 
 
 81 
 
 325, 328 
 
 206 
 
 81 
 
 QQO 
 
 279, 283, 404 
 283 
 232, 283 
 275 
 281 
 81, 232 
 232 
 296 
 232 
 335 
 
 1 Corinthians ix 19 sq 
 
 x lsq 
 x4 
 xll 
 x 14 sq 
 xi3 
 xi4, 5 
 xii 12 sq 
 xiv 3sq 
 xiv 34 sq 
 xv 25 
 xv 26 
 xv 32 
 xv 33 
 xv 36, 37 
 xv 66 
 xvi lsq 
 xvi 5 
 xvi 7 
 xvi 8, 9 
 xvi 10 sq 
 
 xvi 19 
 
 2 Corinthians i 1 
 
 i5 
 i8 
 
 il2sq 
 il5 
 il7 
 ii 4 
 ii 12 
 iv 10 sq 
 vlO 
 v 17 sq 
 vi 14 sq 
 vii 8 
 viii lsq 
 viii 16 
 viii 18, 22 
 ix 2sq 
 xi9 
 xi22 
 xii 14 
 xii 17, 18 
 xiiil, 2 
 xiiill 
 
 Galatians i 5 
 
 i 13, 14 
 i 15 sq 
 ii 6 
 U9 
 
 ii 15 sq 
 iii 2sq 
 iii 28 
 v 8sq 
 vii 
 vil4 
 vil6 
 
 Ephesians i 1 
 i3 
 
 FAOE 
 
 232, 240 
 151 
 172 
 328 
 232 
 232 
 115 
 232 
 264 
 322 
 61 
 322 
 283 
 206 
 83 
 209 
 342 
 276 
 274 
 283 
 
 276, 277, 280, 
 281, 283, 404 
 
 300,437 
 878,404 
 232 
 283 
 278 
 276 
 280 
 278 
 282 
 232 
 335 
 232 
 135 
 276 
 546, 247, 250 
 281 
 282 
 246 
 246, 260 
 208 
 274 
 
 277, 279, 281 
 
 274 
 298 
 298 
 208 
 221 
 119 
 112 
 282, 240 
 232 
 239 
 232 
 296 
 232 
 298 
 877 Bq 
 896 
 
INDEX OP PASSAGES. 
 
 447 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ephesiana i 10 89, 232 
 
 i 15 388 
 i20sq 232,395,396 
 
 ii 14, 15 239, 395 
 
 ii 21, 22 396 
 
 ii 19 205, 232 
 
 iii 2 389 
 
 iii 3 sq 318 
 
 iii 15 232 
 iii 20 298, 318, 327, 367 
 
 iv 15 232 
 
 iv 17 396 
 
 iv 20, 21 389 
 
 v 14 410 
 
 v 22 396 
 
 v 25 sq 395, 396 
 
 v29 81 
 
 vi5 396 
 
 vi9 232 
 
 vi 21 391, 393 
 
 Philippians i 1 378, 406, 407 
 
 i 14 sq 313 
 
 i24 430 
 
 i 25 422 
 
 i 27 205 
 
 ii 6 sq 232 
 
 ii 19 246 
 ii 24 245, 422, 430 
 
 ii25sq 246 
 
 iii 2 243 
 
 iii 5 207, 208 
 
 iii 15 296 
 
 iii 20 204, 232 
 
 ivl 249 
 
 iv 8 401 
 
 iv 9 298 
 iv 15 237, 246, 260 
 iv 16 259, 260, 267 
 
 iv 19, 20 298 
 
 Golossians i 1 406 
 
 i 15 sq 232, 395 
 
 i 20 239 
 
 i 23 81 
 
 ii 1 389 
 
 ii 9 sq 232, 395 
 
 ii 18 414 
 
 ii 19 204 
 
 iii 1 sq 232 
 
 iii 11 239 
 
 iii 18, 19 395 
 
 iv 7 391 
 iv 10, 11 246, 261. 305 
 
 iv 16 383 sq 
 
 1 Thessalonians i 6, 8 261, 263 
 
 i9 262 
 
 i 10 260 
 
 iii 261 
 
 u 2, 3 258, 259 
 
 u5sq 260 
 ii 12 sq 260, 262, 263, 265 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1 Thessalonians ii 19 249 
 
 iii 1 sq 245, 260, 263, 265 
 
 iii 4 260 
 
 iii 6 sq 264 sq, 279 
 
 iii 11 sq 298 
 
 iv 3 sq 257, 264, 265 
 
 iv 10 264 
 
 iv 11 248 
 
 iv 12 261 
 
 ivl3sq 264 
 
 v2 260 
 
 v 12 sq 248, 265 
 
 v 19, 20 264 
 
 v 23 298 
 
 v 27 266 
 
 2 Thessalonians i 3 sq 267, 329 
 
 i5 263 
 
 ii 2, 3 266 
 
 U7 204 
 
 ii 8 402 
 
 ii 15 247, 267 
 
 ii 16, 17 298 
 
 iii 4 267 
 
 iii 5 298 
 
 iii7sq 248,260,265 
 
 iii 10 261 
 
 iii 14, 15 267 
 
 iii 17 247, 266 
 
 1 Timothy i 3 245, 404 
 
 i4sq 328,408,411,414 
 i 17 298, 318, 367, 414 
 
 i 20 433 
 
 ii 4 sq 414 
 
 ii 10 402 
 
 iii 1 sq 407 
 
 iii 11, 13 408 
 
 iii 14 404, 435 
 
 iii 15 434 
 
 iii 16 174, 410 
 ivlsq 408, 409,412,415 
 
 iv 7 411 
 
 iv 9 sq 434 
 
 iv 14 408 
 
 v 3 sq 408 
 
 v 10, 25 402 
 
 v 17 sq 407, 408 
 
 vi4 411 
 
 vi 5 409, 412, 415 
 
 vi 16 298 
 
 vi 18 402 
 vi 20 229, 406, 411, 414 
 
 2 Timothy i 9, 10 318, 328 
 
 i 14 229 
 
 il5sq 433, 436 sq 
 
 ii 8 318 
 
 ii 11 410 
 
 ii 14 411 
 
 ii 16 406, 411 
 
 ii 21 402 
 
 ii 23 408 
 
448 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES. 
 
 2 Timothy 
 
 Titus 
 
 Philemon 
 Hebrews 
 
 iii 1 sq 
 iii 6, 13 
 iv3 
 iv4 
 iv 9sq 
 ivlO 
 iv 13, 20 
 
 ivl4 
 ivl8 
 ivl9 
 iv21 
 iv24 
 i 2, 3 
 i5 
 i6 
 i7 
 
 i 10, 14 
 il2 
 i 15, 16 
 . iii 7 
 iii 9 
 iii 10 
 iii 12, 13 
 iii 14 
 1 
 
 22 
 24 
 i2 
 
 viii 5, 6 
 ix4 
 ix7 
 
 PAGE 
 
 409 
 
 409, 412, 415 
 
 409, 412 
 
 411 
 
 435 sq 
 
 247, 267, 432 
 
 245, 406, 434, 
 
 435 
 
 433 
 
 298 
 
 301, 433 
 
 433 
 
 299 
 
 318, 328 
 
 405, 434 
 
 402 
 
 407 
 
 408, 411 
 
 206 
 
 402, 412, 415 
 
 402 
 
 408, 411, 414 
 
 413 
 
 405, 432, 435 sq 
 
 402 
 
 406 
 
 423, 430 
 
 246 
 
 94 
 
 151 
 
 154 
 
 29 
 
 Hebrews 
 
 James 
 1 Peter 
 
 1 John 
 
 2 John 
 
 Revelation 
 
 xu 16 
 
 xiii 11 
 
 xiii 20, 21 
 
 ziii 22 
 
 iv6 
 
 i3 
 
 il9 
 
 ii 5, 18 
 
 iii 1, 7, 22 
 
 iv3 
 
 v5 
 
 vl2 
 
 il 
 
 ii 27 
 
 nil, 2 
 
 iii 8, 10 
 
 iv3 
 
 iv9 
 
 iv 10, 11 
 
 ivl2 
 
 ivl4 
 
 v 6sq 
 
 7 
 
 i7 
 
 iil7 
 
 vii 15 
 
 xiii 6 
 
 xiv4 
 
 xv 3 
 
 xv 5 
 
 xixl3 
 
 xxi 3 
 
 PAGE 
 
 401 
 
 176 
 
 298 
 
 276 
 
 81 
 
 396 
 
 149 
 
 396 
 
 396 
 
 396 
 
 81 
 
 276 
 
 2, 99, 102 
 
 97 
 
 88 
 
 61 
 
 63 
 
 63, 94 
 
 94 
 
 73 
 
 115 
 
 198 
 
 63 
 
 137 
 
 154 
 
 153 
 
 153 
 
 77 
 
 150 
 
 153 
 
 6 
 
 153 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 'Abraham's seed,' 156 
 
 Acta Pilati ; date, 120; shows ac- 
 quaintance with the Fourth Gospel, 
 120 
 
 J3non, 178 sq 
 
 Africa, the Church of ; characteristics 
 of, 101; testimony to the Fourth 
 Gospel from, 101 sq 
 
 Albinus, 220 
 
 Alexander the coppersmith, 433 
 
 Alexander the Great; his work as a 
 reconciler of the world, 239 sq; 
 points of affinity with St Paul, 241, 
 254; his policy towards the Jews, 
 244 
 
 Alexander the physician, 77 
 
 Alexandria, the Church of ; its litera- 
 ture, 91 sq; its evidence for the 
 Fourth Gospel, 92 
 
 Alexandria Troas, 241 
 
 Alford, 279 sq, 318, 324 
 
 Alogi; their motive in rejecting the 
 Fourth Gospel, 5 sq, 49, 115 sq, 121, 
 its authorship according to, 6, 118; 
 rejected the Apocalypse also, 6, 117, 
 118; anti - Montanists, 116; the 
 name, 116 sq 
 
 Ambrosian Hilary; see Hilary the 
 Deacon 
 
 Amelias shows acquaintance with the 
 Fourth Gospel, 120 
 
 Amiatums, codex, 337, 351, 355 sq 
 
 Amphipolis, 243 
 
 Ananias the highpriest, 163 sq 
 
 Anastatius of Sinai, 92 
 
 Andrew (St) ; not the author of the 
 Fourth Gospel, 41 ; in Asia Minor, 
 52; character of, 128, 189; Papias 
 on, 69; the Muratorian Canon on, 
 190 
 
 Annas, the official life of, 162 
 
 Antioch, the Church of, testimony to 
 the Fourth Gospel from, 81 sq 
 
 L. E. 
 
 Antipater, poet of Thessalonioa, 256 
 
 Antoninus Pius, 86, 94, 244, 267 
 
 Apion, on the slavery of the Jews to 
 the Gentiles, 156 
 
 ' Apocalypse of Peter,' 97, 99 
 
 Apocalypse of St John ; why attacked 
 by the Alogi, 6, 117 ; probable date 
 of, 52; the Muratorian Canon on, 
 99 
 
 Apollinaris; date of, 74; testimony 
 to the Fourth Gospel from, 68, 75 
 
 Aquila and Priscilla, movements of, 
 300, 437 
 
 Aramaic, general characteristics of, 16, 
 127 sq 
 
 Arohetypes, characteristics of certain 
 lost, 346, 350 
 
 Arianism and the Fourth Gospel, 5 
 
 Aristarchus of Thessalonioa, 246, 261, 
 306; traditional bishop of Thessa- 
 lonioa, 268 
 
 Aristion, 53, 67 
 
 Aristobuliani, 302 sq 
 
 Arnold, Matthew, on the Pauline 
 doctrine of justification by faith, 
 231 
 
 Arsinous, 98 
 
 Artemas, 405, 435, 436 
 
 Asia Minor; the establishment of 
 Christianity in, 394 ; apostolic 
 letters written to, 393 sq, 396; 
 St John resident in, 51 ; the metro- 
 polis of Christianity, 51 ; testimony 
 of its Churches to the Fourth Gospel, 
 51 sq; their tradition as to the 
 chronology of our Lord's life, 56 sq, 
 58, 75, 93 ; see also Epherus 
 
 Athanasius (St), on St Paul's visit to 
 Spain, 425 
 
 Athenagoras; date and country of, 
 94 sq ; his Apology, 95 ; coincidences 
 with the Fourth Gospel in, 95 
 
 Attains of Pergamum, 77 
 
 29 
 
450 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Augiensis, codex ; its relation to codex 
 Boernerianus, 316, 388 sq, 867 sq ; 
 characteristics of these MSB, 839 sq, 
 369 aq ; of their arohe type, 846 > joint 
 divergences from oodex Bezae in 
 Bom. xt, xvi, 270 sq 
 
 Augustinian phraseology in capitula- 
 tions, evidence of date from, 351, 
 361 
 
 Aurelins, Marcus, 83, 85 sq, 94, 95, 
 104 
 
 Avidius Crassus, 95 
 
 dxpunipuifay, 335 
 
 dir«rra\ti&'os (4), of the Messiah, 150 
 
 apx'epevs (A), use of the word in Jose- 
 phus and in the N. T., 163 
 
 Bardesanes, 104 
 
 Bar-Jona, 18 sq 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of, date and country 
 of, 91 
 
 Basil (St), on the text of Eph. i. 1, 
 379 sq 
 
 Basilides; his date, 8, 98, 108; his 
 work on the Gospel, 109 ; extracts in 
 Hippolytus from, 8, 108 sq ; quotes 
 from the Fourth Gospel, 108; his 
 followers few, 109 
 
 Baur, 4, 10 sq, 28, 42, 60, 146, 173, 
 289, 303, 326, 366, 423 
 
 Bengel, 343, 363 
 
 Bercea; geographical importance of, 
 242; a Jewish centre, 243; not 
 chosen by St Paul as a hiding- 
 place, 244, 263; why preferred to 
 Fella, 243 
 
 Bertholdt, 312 
 
 Bethany, accurate description in the 
 Fourth Gospel of, 30, 175, 181 
 
 Bethany beyond Jordan, 178 
 
 Bethesda, 29, 169 sq 
 
 Bethlehem, as the birthplace of the 
 Messiah, 152 
 
 Bethsaida, the pool of, 29 
 
 Bethzatha, 29, 169 sq 
 
 Bezae, codex, its relation to F and G of 
 the Paulines, 339, 369 sq 
 
 Bleek, 49, 136 
 
 Boeckh, 247, 256 
 
 Boernerianus, codex; its relation to 
 codex Augiensis, 316, 338 sq, 867 sq; 
 characteristics of these MSS, 339 sq, 
 869 sq; of their arohetype, 846; 
 joint divergences from codex Bezsa 
 in Bom. xt, xvi, 370 sq 
 
 Book ofBarueh, 107 
 
 Bordeaux Pilgrims, on the pool of 
 Bethesda, 170 
 
 Bretsohneider, 50 
 
 Britain, not visited by St Paul, 432 
 
 Bunsen, 8, 94, 98, 112, 276 
 
 Burrus, 219 
 
 Cabirio worship ; at Thessalonioa, 257 
 sq; royal and imperial patronage 
 of, 258 
 
 Caiaphas ; tenure of office by, 28 sq, 
 162 ; his designation in the Fourth 
 Gospel, 195; passages there ex- 
 plained, 28 sq, 195 
 
 Cana, site of, 176 
 
 Capitulations; (1) used in certain 
 Vulgate MSS, 289, 387, 342; dis- 
 tinct forms of, 366 sq; one form 
 derived from the Old Latin, 862, 
 372; their connexion with leotion- 
 aries considered, 342, 361 sq; (2) 
 Greek ' Eu thalian ' capitulations, 
 342 
 
 Carlyle, 195 
 
 Cassandreia, 254 
 
 Cedron, 172 sq 
 
 Oelsus, reminiscences of the Fourth 
 Gospel in, 119 sq 
 
 Cephas, the name, 17, 19, 141 
 
 Ceriani, 343 
 
 Cerinthus; authorship of the Fourth 
 Gospel assigned to, 6, 118; his 
 niokname M^pu-ffoj, 119 
 
 Christian literature, first traces of, 
 409 sq 
 
 Christian ministry, as evidenced by 
 the Pastoral Epistles, 407 sq 
 
 Chronology ; of our Lord's life, 80 sq, 
 56 sq, 75, 85, 180 ; of St Paul's life 
 and epistles, 215 sq, 282 sq; of 
 Herod's restoration of the temple, 
 80 sq 
 
 ChryseroB, 83 
 
 Cicero ; his language on Roman citi- 
 zenship transferred by St Paul to 
 the Church, 202 sq, 204 sq; other 
 references to, 244, 255 
 
 Circular letters of St Paul, 319, 391 sq 
 
 Claudius Apollinaris ; see ApollinarU 
 
 clausula, as used in Tertullian, 289, 
 835, 386, 354 
 
 Clement of Alexandria; traditions 
 about St John in, 93; Valentinian 
 fragments in, 112 ; his teachers, 51, 
 
 Clement of Borne ; on the composition 
 of the Soman Church, 814 ; on the 
 release of St Paul, 423 sq, 427 
 
 Clementine Homilies; date, 113; its 
 testimony to the Fourth Gospel, 7, 
 118 sq; its contrasts to it, 15, 40; 
 on the composition of the Roman 
 Church, 814 
 
 Clementine Beoognitdons, on Samari- 
 tan Messianic expectations, 154 
 
 Coleridge, 400 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 451 
 
 Colossians, Epistle to the ; date and 
 circumstances of writing, 224, 232 
 sq ; compared with that to the 
 Ephesians, 232, 389, 395 sq ; salu- 
 tations to the Church of Laodicea 
 sent through the, 393; the heresy 
 attacked in, 233, 394 sq ; compared 
 with that oombated in the Pastoral 
 Epistles, 408 sq, 411, 413 sq 
 
 Constantino the Great, sumptuous 
 bibles ordered by, 346, 3S1 
 
 Conybeare and Howson, 256, 258, 267 
 
 Corinth, the Church of; missions of 
 Timotheus and Titus to, 273 sq ; an 
 unrecorded visit of St Paul to, 222, 
 274, 405 ; the chronology of St Paul's 
 Epistles to, 222 sq, 275 sq, 282 sq 
 
 Cousinery, 253 sq 
 
 Credner, 383 
 
 Crescens, 432, 436 
 
 Crete ; when Christianized, 431 ; visit 
 of St Paul to, 434; missions to, 
 405; Jews at, 431 
 
 Crucifixion ; time of the, 58, 73, 93 ; 
 place of lite, 175 
 
 orurifragium, 162 
 
 Cumanus, 161 
 
 Cnreton, 104 
 
 Cuspius Fadus, 216 
 
 Cyprian (St), probably does not quote 
 Bom. zv, zvi, 336, 355 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, on St Paul's visit 
 to Spain, 425 
 
 Davidson, 275, 400, 405, 424 
 
 de Wette, 275, 388, 406 
 
 Deaconesses and widows in the early 
 
 Church, 408 
 Demas; perhaps from Thessalonica, 
 
 247, 436; the name, 247 
 Demetrius, martyr of Thessalonica; 
 
 his colt and day, 268; his title 
 
 IxvpofSKfrnis, 268 
 Diatetsartm ; see Tatian 
 Diognetus, Epistle to ; date and locality 
 
 of its two parts, 91 sq, 94 ; each part 
 , presents coincidences with the Fourth 
 
 Gospel, 92, 94 
 Dion Chrysostom, 248 
 Dionysius of Corinth, 266 
 Dispersion, the Greek; despised by 
 
 Palestinian Jews, 157; not so the 
 
 Babylonian Dispersion, 157 
 DocetsB, and the Fourth Gospel, 113 
 Doctrine of St Paul's Epistles, de- 
 velopment of, 227 sq, 231, 315 sq, 
 
 324 sq, 402 
 Dressel, 8, 114 
 SuuTiropa {ij} t&v 'EW^cuv, 157 
 
 Ebionism, 7 
 
 Egnatian Boad, 254, 437 
 
 Eiohhorn, 292 
 
 Elders, quoted by Irenaaus ; belonged 
 to the Asiatio School, 56 ; appealed 
 to collectively, 56 sq ; and individu- 
 ally, 58 sq; an identification at- 
 tempted, 59 sq 
 
 Eleutherus of Borne, 116 
 
 Epaenetus at Borne, 301 
 
 Epaphras, 394 
 
 Epaphroditus, 246 
 
 Ephesians, Epistle to the; evidence 
 for the omission of b> 'E^cry, 377 
 sq ; a formal treatise rather than a 
 familiar letter, 387 sq ; yet regarded 
 by the early Church as addressed to 
 the Ephesians, 389 ; the exception, 
 Maroion, 390; conclusion, a cir- 
 cular letter to proconsular Asia, 390 
 sq ; motive of writing, 394 ; resem- 
 blances to the Epistle to the Bomans, 
 388, 395 sq ; comparisons and con- 
 trasts with the Epistle to the Colos- 
 sians, 232, 389, 395 sq; used in 1 
 Peter, 396; the first example of 
 Christian hymnology in, 410 
 
 Ephesus ; St John at, 51 ; St Paul at, 
 274 sq, 387 sq, 404 sq, 431, 433 ; 
 heretics at, 404, 409 sq ; as shown by 
 the Pastoral Epistles, 408 sq, 411 sq 
 
 Ephraim, site of, 177 
 
 Ephrem Syrus, commentary on Ta- 
 tian's Diatessaron by, 4 
 
 Epiphanius; on the name Alogi, 6, 
 116 sq ; indebted to Hippolytus, 118 ; 
 on Mansion's Epistle to the Laodi- 
 ceans, 383 ; to the Bomans, 334 ; on 
 St Paul's visit to Spain, 426; on 
 other points, 172 
 
 Episcopacy unnoticed in the Fourth 
 Gospel, 12 
 
 Erasmus, 321, 344 
 
 Erastus of Macedonia, 245, 305, 406 
 
 Essenes, longevity of the, 54 ; view of 
 Jewish law taken by the, 208 
 
 Eusebius; his practice in notices of 
 evidence for the Canon, 64 sq; on 
 Papias, 63, 66, 69 ; on the Letter of 
 the Gallican Churches, 77; on 
 Theophilus, 83 ; on Pantenus, 92 ; 
 on Bethzatha, 170; on St Paul's 
 release, 425 
 
 Ewald, 292, 428 
 
 'EPpaurrl, 127 
 
 typaipa, use of, 275 
 
 iv 'J&tpirt?, omission of the words in 
 Eph. i. 1, 377 sq 
 
 iv Kvplip, h XpurTqj, 231 
 
 iv 'YtSpTi, omission of the words in 
 Bom. i. 7, 15, 287 sq, 310, 316, 321, 
 344 sq, 364 
 
452 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 imcToXal, of a single letter, 99 
 ipxtpevos (i), a title of the Messiah, 
 149 
 
 Felix, date of the reoall of, 217 sq 
 
 Festivals, Jewish; disturbances at, 
 161 ; minute acquaintance displayed 
 in the Fourth Gospel of, 165 sq 
 
 Fegtus, 217 sq 
 
 Field, 341 
 
 Flatte, 248 
 
 Florinus, the letter to, 55 
 
 Fourth Gospel; the traditional view 
 of its authorship, 6,125; when first 
 impugned, 5; significance of this 
 unanimity, 5, 9 ; the most decisive 
 testimony from heretical writers, 7, 
 8, 104 sq, 120 sq; importance of 
 the truths which it embodies, 43 sq, 
 47 sq ; two classes of its assailants, 
 60 ; biographical sketch of some of 
 them, 50; their hypotheses con- 
 sidered, 10 sq ; compelled to throw 
 back the date, 11 ; External Evi- 
 dence for, 45 sq; cumulative cha- 
 racter of this evidence, 48; (1) 
 the Churches of Asia Minor, 51 sq, 
 (i) Elders quoted by Irenmus, 66 sq; 
 (ii) Polyoarp, 62 sq; (iii) Papias, 
 63 sq ; (iv) the Letter of the Smyr- 
 naans, 70 sq, (v) Melito of Sardis, 
 72 sq ; (vi) Claudius Apollinaris, 74 
 sq; (vii) Folyorates of Ephesus, 76; 
 (viii) Montanism, 76 ; (2) the Churches 
 of Gaul, 76 sq ; (i) the Letter of the 
 Qallican Churches, 77 ; (ii) Ireneeus, 
 77 sq ; (3) the Church of Antioch, 81 
 sq; (i) Ignatius, 81 sq; (ii) Theo- 
 philus, 83 sq; (4) the Churches of 
 Palestine, 85 sq ; (i) Justin Martyr, 
 85 sq; (ii) Tatian, 89 sq; (5) the 
 Church of Alexandria, 91 sq ; (l) the 
 Epistle to Diognetus (pt. 2), 91 sq ; 
 
 !ii) Clement of Alexandria, 92 sq; 
 iii) Origen, 93; (6) the Churches of 
 Greece and Macedonia, 94 sq; (i) 
 the Epistle to Diognetus (pt. 1), 94 ; 
 (ii) Athenagoras, 94 sq; (7) the 
 Church of Borne, 96 sq; (i) the Shep- 
 herd of Hennas, 96 sq; (ii) the 
 Muratorian Canon, 97 sq ; (hi) Hip- 
 polytus, 100 sq ; (8) the Churches of 
 Asia, 101 sq; (i) Tertullian, 102; 
 (ii) Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, 
 102 sq ; (9) the Churches of Syria, 
 104 ; (10) Heretical writers, 104 sq ; 
 (a) Gnostics, (i) Simon Magus, 105 ; 
 (ii) Ophites, 106 ; (iii) Perots, 106 ; 
 (iv) Sethiani, 107; (v) Justinus, 
 107; (vi) Pistis Sophia, 107; (vii) 
 Basilides,108sq; (vui) Valentinians, 
 
 110; (ix) Heraoleon, Ptolemseus, 
 Marcus, 111 sq; (x) Mansion, 112; 
 (b) Dooets), 113; (e) Judaizing 
 Christians, evidence of the Clementine 
 Homilies, the Testaments of the 
 Twelve Patriarchs, 113 sq ; counter 
 testimony of the Alogi considered, 5 
 sq, 49, 115 sq, 121; (11) Heathen 
 Writers, 119 sq; (12) Apocryphal 
 documents, 119 sq ; retrospect of the 
 External Evidence, 120 Bq ; Inteb- 
 nal Evidence for, 123 sq ; plan of 
 treatment of the subject, 125 ; i the 
 writer a Hebrew, probably a con- 
 temporary, 126 sq, (1) his knowledge 
 of the Hebrew language, (i) proved 
 indirectly by his Greek style, 16 sq, 
 126 sq; (a) paucity of connecting 
 particles, 17, 129 sq ; (b) parallelism 
 of sentences, 17, 132 ; (c) definite- 
 ness, 132; (d) preference of direct 
 narrative, 133; (e) arrangement, 
 133 ; (/) grammatical and lexioal 
 peculiarities, 133 ; [g) imagery, 135 ; 
 (ii) proved directly by his knowledge 
 of Hebrew, (a) quotations from the 
 O.T., 20 sq, 135 sq ; (6) interpretations 
 of Hebrew words, 17 sq, 140 sq ; (2) 
 his knowledge of Jewish ideas, etc ; 
 (i) the Messiah, 22, 23 sq, 145 sq; 
 and Messianic titles, 148 sq; (ii) 
 companions of the Messiah, 25 sq, 
 150 sq; (iii) Messianic expectation 
 among the Samaritans, 154 sq ; (iv) 
 Jewish beliefs, 155 sq ; (3) his know- 
 ledge of the history, geography etc. 
 of the Jews, (i) of their relations to 
 
 (a) the Galileans, 158 sq, (6) the 
 Bomans, 160 sq; (ii) of Jewish in- 
 stitutions (a) the high-priesthood, 
 162 sq ; an objection of Baur, 28 sq ; 
 
 (b) Jewish festivals, 165 sq ; (c) posi- 
 tion of the Sadducees, 26 sq; (iii) of 
 the topography of Jerusalem, 28 sq ; 
 (a) the temple, 168 sq ; its ohrono- 
 logy, 30 sq; (6) the watercourses, 
 169 sq; (c) scenes illustrating the 
 Passion, 176 sq; (iv) of the topo- 
 graphy of Palestine, 176 sq; the 
 scene of the interview with the 
 Samaritan woman, 33 sq; silence 
 on second-century controversies, 12 
 sq; oontrast with second-century 
 romances, 15 ; n the writer an eye- 
 witness of the events recorded, 180 
 sq ; (1) the minuteness of his details, 
 22 sq ; (a) time, 160 ; (6) place, 181 ; 
 
 (c) persons, 181; (d) inoidents, 182; 
 (2) the naturalness of his reoord, (i) 
 the oharaoters, 36 Bq, 183 sq; (a) St 
 Peter, 183 sq; (6) Pontius Pilate, 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 453 
 
 37, 186 sq; (c) St Philip, 188; (d) 
 St Andrew, 189 ; ie) the Samaritan 
 woman, 34 sq ; (/) St Thomas, 37 ; 
 (g) Martha and Mary, 37 sq ; (ii) the 
 progress of events, 190 sq; (a) in 
 the conversation with the Samaritan 
 woman, 190; (6) in the judgment- 
 hall, 191 ; (e) snbseqnent commen- 
 tary of the author on the facts 
 which he records, 192 sq; in the 
 writer John the son of Zebedee, 39 
 sq ; the last chapter an afterthought, 
 bat authentic, 194 sq ; the conversa- 
 tional charaoter of the Gospel, 197 
 sq 
 
 Fritzsohe, 342 
 
 Fuldensia, codex, 337, 342, 351, 356, 
 360 sq 
 
 Funeral and marriage customs in the 
 Fourth Gospel, 165 
 
 Gabbatha, the name, 17, 142 
 
 Gains of Corinth, 247, 305 
 
 Gains of Macedonia, 246; perhaps 
 the same as Epaphroditus, 247 ; the 
 name in Thessalonian inscriptions, 
 256 ; Origen's confusion as to, 247, 
 268 
 
 Gains, the Roman Presbyter, 98 
 
 Galileans, despised by the Jews of the 
 metropolis, 158 
 
 Gamaliel, 205, 208 
 
 Garrucci, 302 
 
 Gaul, the Churches of; early date of 
 their foundation, 432; founded by 
 the Churches of Asia Minor, 76; 
 correspondence between the two 
 bodies, 77 
 
 German professors, longevity of, 54 
 
 Gethsemane, 175 
 
 Gfrbrer, 151 sq 
 
 Golgotha, 142 
 
 Gnostic writings, testimony to the 
 Fourth Gospel from, 7 sq, 105 sq 
 
 Gnosticism; notes of, 413; form 
 attacked in the Epistle to the Colos- 
 sians, 233, 394 sq ; in the Pastoral 
 Epistles, 408, 411 sq; the Fourth 
 Gospel silent as to, 12, 146 sq 
 
 Greece as an educator of the world, 
 201, 205 sq 
 
 Greek philosophy, influence of late, 207 
 
 Griesbach, 291 
 
 Grotias, 135 
 
 Gwynn, 196 
 
 yafo<j>v\diaov, 169 
 
 Heathen writers, testimony to the 
 
 Fourth Gospel from, 119 
 Hebrew language, characteristics of 
 
 the, 16, 126 sq 
 
 Hegesippus, 98 
 
 Helena, Queen of Adiabene, 217 
 
 Hemsen, 405, 406 
 
 Heraaleon; a western Valentinian, 
 111 ; his commentary on St John's 
 Gospel, 111 
 
 Heretical writers; testimony to the 
 Fourth Gospel from, 7, 104 sq, 121 ; 
 recent evidence on this subject, 7 sq 
 
 Hennas, Shepherd of ; date and cha- 
 raoter of, 96 ; coincidences with the 
 Fourth Gospel in, 97 ; known to the 
 author of the Act* ofPerpetua, 103 
 
 Herod Agrippa I. ; date of his death, 
 215 sq ; considered the Messiah, 148 
 
 Herod Agrippa H., 218 
 
 Herod Antipas, Messianic hopes set 
 on, 148 
 
 Herod the Great; the restoration of 
 the temple by, 30 sq, 169 ; considered 
 the Messiah, 148 
 
 Herodes in the Acts of Martyrdom of 
 Polycarp, 70 
 
 Herodotus, 253, 254 
 
 Heumann, 290 
 
 High priest; his tenure of office in the 
 Fourth Gospel, 28 sq; relations of 
 Caiaphas and Annas, 162 sq ; Jewish 
 belief in the inspiration of toe, 165 
 
 Hilary the Deacon ; Bom. i. 7, 15 as 
 read by, 288, 345, 365 ; Eph. i. 1 as 
 read by, 384 ; on the composition of 
 the Soman Church, 313 sq 
 
 Hilgenfeld, 10, 50, 146, 173, 424 
 
 Hillel, great age of, 54 
 
 Hippolytus; importance of his Refu- 
 tation, 8, 105 sq; its date, 105; his 
 testimony to the Fourth Gospel, 
 100 sq ; perhaps Epiphanius' autho- 
 rity on the Alogi, 118; his use of 
 nicknames, 119; other references to, 
 97,98 
 
 •Holy One of God,' a title of the 
 Messiah, 149 
 
 Hort; on the date of Justin Martyr, 
 85, 87 ; on the Epistle to the Romans, 
 321 sq 
 
 Hug, 284, 346, 406, 428 
 
 Ignatian Epistles; date of, 81; coinci- 
 dences with the N.T. in, 81; with 
 the Fourth Gospel, 81 ; their silence 
 as to St John explained, 82; the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians alluded to 
 in, 389 sq 
 
 Inspiration; its twofold character, 
 224 sq ; its progress, 227 ", illustrated 
 by St Paul's Epistles, 227 sq 
 
 interpolare, in Tertullian, 330, 382 
 
 Irennus; his life, 77 sq; his impor- 
 tance as a depositary of tradition, 
 
 29—3 
 
454 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 4, 51, 54 sq, 77 sq; date of his work 
 on heresies, 79; his letter to Flori- 
 nus, o5 ; his testimony to the author- 
 ship of the Fourth Gospel incidental, 
 66; but full, 78; the elders quoted 
 by, see Elders; on Polyoarp, 55, 
 62 sq; on the Alogi, 115 sq; the 
 passage emended, 116; Eusebius' 
 treatment of his evidence, 65; no 
 reference to Bom. zv, zvi in, 289, 
 336, 355 
 
 Iscariot, the name, 18, 143 
 
 Isidore, 109 
 
 "Ioto/Sos, 143 
 
 James, the son of Zebedee, not the 
 author of the fourth Gospel, 41 
 
 James, the brother of our Lord, per- 
 haps connected with Asia Minor, 41 
 
 Jason of Macedonia, 247, 261 sq ; per- 
 haps the Jason of Bom. zvi. 21, 305 
 
 Jegar-Sahadutha, 127 
 
 Jerome; on Salim, 179; on St Paul's 
 release, 426; on Eph. i. 1, 385 sq; 
 on Eph. iii. 5, 333 sq; embodies 
 Origen, 338 sq, 354, 386; on Pan- 
 tenus, 92 
 
 Jerusalem; effeot of its destruction by 
 Titus on the Christian Church, 52; 
 bearing of its twofold destruction on 
 the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 
 13 sq, 125, 156 
 
 Jewish; law and national feeling from 
 the standpoint of Pharisees, Sad- 
 ducees and Essenes, 208 sq ; Messi- 
 anic hopes etc., 22 sq, 145 sq; 
 institutions, 162 sq 
 
 Jews; in Macedonia, 242 sq, 258, 269; 
 their .treatment under the Macedo- 
 nian Empire, 244; at Crete, 431; 
 in Spain, 431 ; in the early Boman 
 Church, 294 sq; oppose St Paul, 
 262; effeot of Claudius' ediot on, 301 
 
 John the Baptist; his designation in 
 the Fourth Gospel, 42; scenes of 
 his preaching, 179 
 
 John, the father of St Peter, 18 sq 
 
 John (St) ; his social status and edu- 
 cation, 128; settles in Asia Minor, 
 51; his companions there, 52 sq; 
 his longevity, 53; first founder of a 
 Christian School, 53 
 
 John (St), the First Epistle of, a pro- 
 logue to the Fourth Gospel, 63, 99, 198 
 
 John (St), the Second and Third 
 Epistles of, mentioned in the Mura- 
 torian Canon, 99 
 
 John the presbyter; date of, 11; the 
 Fourth Gospel assigned to, 11; in 
 Asia Minor, 53; Papias' oonnezion 
 with, 63 
 
 John of Thessalonica, 268 
 
 Jona, the name, 19 
 
 Josephus; on the Sadduoees, 27; on 
 Herod's restoration of the Temple, 
 30, 32 ; on the Essenes, 54 ; on the 
 recall of Pilate, 58 ; on pre-Christian 
 Messiahs, 147, 148, 151, 164; on 
 the famine in Judaea, 216; on the 
 visit of Helena, 217; on the pro- 
 curatorship of Felix, 218; his use of 
 the word ip%iepevs, 163 ; of the name 
 "IotoJSoi, 143; defends the Jews 
 against Apion, 156; mentions Cana, 
 176; andEphraim, 177 
 
 Judaizing Christians, 113 
 
 Judas, son of Hezekiah, 148 
 
 Judas the Gaulonite, a false Messiah, 
 147 
 
 Justification by Faith, not the central 
 point in St Paul's Gospel, 231 
 
 Justin Martyr; date of his writings, 
 85 sq; of his martyrdom, 86; his 
 treatise against Maroion, 89; nses 
 the Fourth Gospel, 4, 87 sq 
 
 Eedron, 30 
 
 Eeim, 60, 163 
 
 Eerioth, 144 
 
 'King of Israel,' a title of the Messiah, 
 
 149 
 Koch, 253 sq 
 Kostlin, 185 
 KtSpav, 172 sq 
 
 'Lamb of God,' a title of the Messiah, 
 148 
 
 Laodicea, importance of, 393, 394 
 
 Laodiceans, Epistle to the; in Mar- 
 cion's canon, on the evidence of 
 Tertullian, 380, 382 sq, 392; of 
 Epiphanius, 383; identical with the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, 391 sq; 
 the notice in the Muratorian Canon, 
 383; the reference in Col. iv. 16 
 considered, 390 sq, 393; forged 
 Epistles, 363 
 
 Larissa, Christianity established at, 
 244, 267 
 
 Lazarus, 27 
 
 Leake, 253 sq 
 
 Leotionaries ; their relation to capitu- 
 lations, 342, 361 sq; date of, 364 
 
 Letter of the Smyrrucam presents coin- 
 cidences with the Fourth Gospel, 
 70 sq 
 
 'Lewd,' the word, 262 
 
 'Light, the,' as a title of the Messiah. 
 160 
 
 Lightfoot, John, 152, 166, 158, 159, 
 165 
 
 lithostrata, 142 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 455 
 
 Logos-doctrine ; the central idea in 
 the Fourth Gospel, 23; yet never 
 obtruded into the narrative, 23 
 sq 
 
 Longevity of early witnesses to the 
 Fourth Gospel, considered and paral- 
 leled, 54 
 
 Lord Chanoellors, longevity of certain, 
 54 
 
 Luoian; acquainted with the Fourth 
 Gospel, 120; other references to, 
 244, 255, 257 
 
 Liicke, 116, 135, 195 
 
 Luke (St) ; the Muratorian Canon on, 
 98; his Greek style, 131, 135; his 
 vagueness as compared with the 
 Fourth Gospel, 163, 179, 181, 191; 
 his portraiture of Martha and Mary, 
 38, 181; his chronology of our Lord's 
 life, 31, 32, 180; adopted by the 
 Yalentinians, 56; his narrative of 
 the first missionary visit to Europe, 
 238; his residence at Philippi, 245 
 
 Luthardt, 129 
 
 Luther, 231 
 
 Liitzelberger, 50 
 
 Macedonia; its work for civilisation, 
 
 239 sq; its connexion with Syria 
 and Palestine, 245; character of 
 the inhabitants, 248 sq, 257; Jews 
 in, 242 sq, 258 
 
 Macedonia, the Churches of; their 
 foundation, 237; their importance, 
 238 sq; St Paul's choice of stations, 
 
 240 sq; his communications with, 
 245 sq; companions of the Apostle 
 from, 246, 305; outward condition 
 and dangers of, 247 sq; their affec- 
 tionate relations with St Paul, 249 
 sq; his last visits to, 430, 433 sq; 
 subsequent history of, 267 
 
 Manna, the giving of, associated with 
 the coining of the Messiah, 24, 26, 
 152, 155 
 
 Manuscripts; see Archetypes, Augien- 
 sis codex, Capitulation!, Lectiona- 
 ries, Menologia, Synaxaria, Vulgate 
 etc. 
 
 Mansion; his recension of the Epistle 
 to the Bomans, 288 sq, 316, 319, 
 329 sq, 347 sq, 353 sq; perhaps 
 misrepresented by Tertulhan, Origen 
 and Jerome, 331, 334 sq; the Epistle 
 to the Laodiceans in, 380, 381 sq, 
 392; importance and credibility of 
 his statement, 380, 382 sq, 390 sq; 
 his silence as to the Fourth Gospel 
 explained, 112 
 
 Marcus the Valentinian, coincidence 
 with the Fourth Gospel in, 111 
 
 Marriage and funeral customs in the 
 Fourth Gospel, 165 
 
 Martha and Mary, their characters as 
 drawn in the Fourth Gospel, 37 sq 
 
 Matrona, saint of Thessalonica, 268 
 
 Matthew (St), possible connexion with 
 Asia Minor of, 53 
 
 Matthies, 424 
 
 Maximus Confessor, 68 
 
 Melito; his travels and learning, 72; 
 date of his writings, 72; coinci- 
 dences with the Fourth Gospel in, 
 73 sq; chronology of our Lord's life 
 used by, 58, 73; tutor to Clement of 
 Alexandria, 92; Ireneeus indebted 
 to, 74; on Christianity at Larissa, 
 244,267 
 
 Menologia, 343, 361 sq 
 
 Merinthus, a nickname given by Hip- 
 polytus to Cerinthus, 119 
 
 Messiahs, false, antecedent as well as 
 subsequent to the birth of Christ, 
 146 sq 
 
 Messianic hopes and ideas; described 
 in the Fourth Gospel, 22 sq, 145 sq; 
 the keynote of that Gospel, 23 sq, 
 145 sq; Messianic titles applied to 
 Christ, 148 sq 
 
 Messias, the name, 17, 141 
 
 Meyer, 275, 279 sq, 342, 424, 425 
 
 Miltiades, 98 
 
 Mommsen, 248 
 
 Montanism; date of, 98; traceable in 
 the Acta of Perpetua, 103 ; dislike of 
 the Alexandrian fathers to, 333 ; no 
 allusion in the Fourth Gospel to, 5, 
 76, 80, 115 sq 
 
 Moses; as a type of Christ, 26, 150; 
 detailed parallelism in rabbinio 
 teaching, 151 sq; our Lord's atti- 
 tude towards, 146 ; Jewish reverence 
 for, 156 
 
 Muratorian Canon; place of writing, 
 97; authorship, 98; language, 98; 
 date, 98 ; its testimony to the synop- 
 tists, 98; to the Fourth Gospel, 
 99 sq, 121; on the circumstances of 
 the composition of the Fourth Gospel, 
 99, 196, 198; perhaps based on 
 Papias.lOO; the notice of the Epistle 
 to the Laodiceans in, 383 ; the pas- 
 sage explained, 383; on St Paul's 
 release, 424, 427 
 
 jKotfirnji, 57, 98 
 
 MfovJas, peculiar to the Fourth Gos- 
 pel, 145 
 
 Naassenes; see Ophites 
 
 Nablus, 33 
 
 Narcissiani, 302 sq 
 
 Navigation, ancient, when possible, 220 
 
456 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Nicknames, 119 
 
 Nicodemus, designation in the Fourth 
 
 Gospel of, 195 
 Nioophorus Oallistus, 95 
 NioopoUs, 405, 432, 433, 435 sq 
 
 Oehler, 336 
 
 Onesiphorns, 433, 436, 437 
 
 Ophites; date of, 105; a large seet, 
 109 ; quote the Fourth Gospel , 106 ; 
 their system compared with the 
 heresy attaoked in the Pastoral 
 Epistles, 416 sq 
 
 Origen; used the Fourth Gospel, 93; 
 used MSS omitting h 'E/pttry in Eph. 
 i. 1, 377 sq; the passage emended, 
 378; his testimony compared with 
 Basil's, 379 sq; his reading of Bom. 
 i. 7, 15, 287; on Gaius, 247, 268; 
 on Mansion's recension of the Bo- 
 mans, 288 sq, 318, 329 sq; Bufinus 
 as a translator of, 329, 345 ; a passage 
 emended, 330, 341, 353 sq; Jerome 
 incorporates his commentary, 333 sq, 
 354, 386; and disfigures it, 386 
 
 Otto, 399, 423 
 
 oUorofda and 8eo\oyla, 229 sq 
 
 Palestine, the Churches of, testimony 
 to the Fourth Gospel from, 85 sq 
 
 Paley, 275, 290, 349 
 
 Pallas, 219 
 
 Fantajnus ; date of his visit to India, 
 92,: 95; probable author of the end 
 of the Epistle to Diognetus, 92 
 
 Papias ; his history and writings, 63 sq ; 
 probably one of Ireneus' elders, 67 sq; 
 Eusebius' evidence considered, 64 sq, 
 68; Eusebius' antipathy to, 66; his 
 evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 67 ; 
 obligations of the Muratorian Canon 
 to, 100 ; other references to, 11, 51, 53 
 
 Pastoral Epistles ; the problem of their 
 authorship, 399 sq ; date and charac- 
 teristics of, 224, 228 sq, 429; occa- 
 sion and purpose, 434 sq, (1) style 
 and intrinsic character, 400 sq, (i) 
 vocabulary, 401; (ii) syntax, 402; 
 (iii) tone of thought, 402; (2) his- 
 torical notices, 403 sq, (i) actual 
 inoidents, 403 sq; (ii) condition of 
 the Churoh, 407 sq, (a) ministry, 
 407; (6) heresies, 408, (c) church 
 literature, 409 sq; the heresy com- 
 bated in, 411 sq 
 
 Paul (St); his preparation for the 
 ministry, 201 sq; as (1) a citizen of 
 Borne, 202 sq; (2) a native of a 
 Greek university-town, 205 sq; (3) a 
 Hebrew, 207 sq; twofold results of 
 his Hebrew training, 208 sq; of his 
 
 position as a Pharisee, 210 sq; his 
 intellectual power gauged, 206; his 
 love for the Jews continuous, 209; 
 ohronology of his life and Epistles, 
 215 sq, 428 sq; groups and leading 
 characteristics of his Epistles, 224 sq ; 
 justification by faith not the central 
 point in his Gospel, 231; impor- 
 tance of his first visit to Macedonia, 
 237 sq; his choice of missionary 
 stations there, 240 sq; area of his 
 preaching in Macedonia, 244; fre- 
 quent communications with the 
 Macedonian Churches, 245 sq; his 
 extant letters to them, 247; his 
 Macedonian companions, 246, 305; 
 affectionate relations with Mace- 
 donia, 249 ; at Thessalonica, 259 sq ; 
 topic of his preaching there, 260; 
 of his Epistles to the Thessalonians, 
 263 sq; at Ephesus, 274 sq, 387 sq, 
 404 sq; pays an unrecorded visit to 
 Corinth, 222, 274, 405 ; joins Titus 
 in Macedonia, 283; circumstances 
 and object of writing his Epistle to 
 the Bomans, 285 sq, 821 sq, 352 sq; 
 evidence for his release from cap- 
 tivity, 399, 403 sq; a counter argu- 
 ment disposed of, 421 sq; his release 
 supported by tradition, 423 sq; its 
 date, 429; his subsequent move- 
 ments, 428 sq; date of his martyr- 
 dom, 221, 429; see also Pauline 
 Epistles 
 
 Pauline Epistles; groups and charac- 
 teristics of, 224 sq; Wieseler's order 
 of, 403; circular, 319, 391 sq; lost, 
 275; forged, 383 
 
 Panlus, 178, 291, 405 
 
 Pelagius on St Paul's release, 426 
 
 Pella in the time of St Paul, 243 
 
 PerattB quote the Fourth Gospel, 106 
 
 Pericope adulterae, 69 
 
 Perpetua and Felicitas, Acts of; date 
 of, 103 ; bear testimony to Johannine 
 writings, 102 sq 
 
 Peter (St) ; his character in the Fourth ' 
 Gospel, 182, 183 sq; called son of 
 John, 18 sq ; the order of his denials, 
 191 
 
 Peter, First Epistle of; as restored by 
 Bunsen, 276 ; indebted to the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians, 396 
 
 Pharisees; contrasted with the Sad- 
 duoees in their attitude towards the 
 Jewish law, 208 sq ; in their patriot- 
 ism, 210 sq; effeot of their system 
 on St Paul, 208 sq 
 
 Philip the Apostle; in Asia Minor, 
 53; mentioned by Papias, 69; his 
 charaoter, 128, 188 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 457 
 
 Philip the Evangelist, in Asia Minor, S3 
 
 Philippi; its name, 241, 253; its geo- 
 graphical importance, 242; Jews at, 
 248; St Luke at, 245 ; gold-mines of, 
 248; social status of the Church 
 of, 248; see also Macedonia, the 
 Churches of 
 
 Philippus Sidetes, errors of, 95 
 
 Philo, 165, 167 
 
 Phlegon, 303 
 
 Phoebe in the theories as to the struc- 
 ture of the Epistle to the Romans, 
 291, 292 
 
 Pilate ; his character as drawn in the 
 Fourth Gospel, 37 sq, 186 sq; irony 
 of circumstances illustrated in his 
 case, 29 ; date of his recall, 58 
 
 Pistis Sophia, correspondences in the 
 Fourth Gospel with, 107 sq 
 
 Plutarch, 166 
 
 Pooooke, 253 sq 
 
 Poly carp; a pupil of St John, 53; his 
 great age, 54; his martyrdom, 79; 
 his testimony to the Ignatian Epis- 
 tles, 4; to the Johannine -writings, 
 62 sq; notice in Ireneeas of, 55, 
 62 sq; the Church of Philippi in 
 the time of, 248 
 
 Polycarp, Martyrdom of; see Letter of 
 the Smyrrueans 
 
 Polycrates, his testimony to the. Fourth 
 Gospel, 51, 75 
 
 Poppsa, funeral of, 165 
 
 Pothinus, great age of, 54 
 
 Procurators of Judaea, 68, 162, 216 sq 
 
 'Prophet, the'; in Messianic expecta- 
 tion, 25 ; by Jews distinguished from, 
 by Christians identified with the 
 Messiah, 25, 150 
 
 Protevangelium, 15, 40 
 
 Ptolemteus quotes the Fourth Gospel, 
 111 
 
 Public lections, 312, 342 sq 
 
 rdturipxiu, 256 
 
 r/w/farur^ (4), 169 sq 
 
 rtXi) and Bipa, 97, 114 
 
 Quartodeciman controversy unnoticed 
 in the Fourth Gospel, 13, 80 
 
 Quotations from the O. T.; in the 
 Fourth Gospel, 20 sq, 136 sq; in St 
 Paul's Epistles, 20; in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, 20 
 
 Rabbinic teaching on the Messiah, etc. 
 
 151 sq 
 Rabbouni, 17, 140 
 Banke, E., 342, 343, 360 
 Rationalists, importance of the Fourth 
 
 Gospel against, 47 
 Beiche, 312, 342 
 
 Renan ; his theory as to the Epistle to 
 the Romans, 287 sq; other references 
 to, 50, 174, 185, 269 
 
 Reuss, 423 
 
 Roberts, 128 
 
 Robinson, 171, 175, 176, 177 
 
 Roman ; citizenship, 202 sq ; military 
 terms and customs, 160 sq 
 
 Romances of the second century, 15 
 
 Romans, Epistle to the; phenomena 
 of the text, 288 sq; theories as to 
 its structure, 289 sq, 349; Renan's 
 theory of a quadripartite epistle, 
 293 sq; his arguments stated and 
 considered, 294 sq ; the four endings 
 tested by textual criticism, 307 sq, 
 321 sq, 329 sq; other objections 
 urged to Renan's view, 309 sq; 
 counter theory of a longer and a 
 shorter form, 311 sq, 321 ; supported 
 by the mixed character of the Roman 
 Church, 312 sq ; the Apostle's object 
 in writing the Epistle, 315 sq, 324 sq, 
 366sq; theabridgedrecensiontoform 
 a circular letter, 315 sq, 319 ; textual 
 evidence for the abridged recension, 
 316; Dr Hort's criticism of this 
 evidence, 329 sq ; recapitulation, the 
 evidence chiefly western, 272 sq; 
 the final doxology belongs to it, 317, 
 366 sq ; style of the final doxology, 
 317 sq, 324 sq, 347 sq, 367; its 
 purpose, according to Dr Hort, 324, 
 328 sq; the salutations, 298; the 
 whole theory criticised by Dr Hort, 
 348 sq; negative evidence against 
 the last two chapters, 289, 336, 355, 
 362 ; the evidence of capitulations, 
 337, 342, 355 sq; resemblance of 
 the epistle to the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, 388, 395 sq ; the epistle 
 a revelation of St Paul's personal 
 experiences, 208, 209 
 
 Rome, as an educator of the world, 
 201 
 
 Rome, Church of ; its composition in 
 the time of St Paul, 294, 296 sq, 
 311, 312 sq ; its literature, 96 sq ; 
 evidence for the Fourth Gospel sup- 
 plied by, 96 sq 
 
 Rufinus; as a translator of Origen, 
 288, 329, 345, 365 ; a passage emend- 
 ed by Dr Hort, 330, 341, 353 sq 
 
 Sabatier, A., 180 
 
 Sadducees ; composed the chief priests' 
 party in the time of our Lord, 26 sq ; 
 their contrasts with the Pharisees, 
 208 sq 
 
 Salutations ; in Pauline Epistles gene- 
 rally, 298, 388; in the Epistle to 
 
458 
 
 INDEX OP SUBJECTS. 
 
 the Romans, 299 sq ; these last not 
 applicable to the Chnioh at Ephesus, 
 300 sq ; no salutations in the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians, 388 
 
 Samaritan Messianio expectations, 164 
 
 Samaritan woman, incident of the ; as 
 a delineation of oharaoter, 190 ; as 
 an evidence of topographical accu- 
 racy, 33 sq, 191 
 
 Sanday, 49, 135, 148, 149, 164, 174, 
 178 
 
 Sohaff, 400, 424 
 
 Sohenkel, 423 
 
 Soholten, 50, 52, 146 
 
 Sohott, 292 
 
 Sohrader, 424 
 
 Schulz, 292 
 
 Secundus of Beroea, 246, 306; the 
 name, 256 
 
 Sednlius Scotns, on Eph. i. 1, 385 
 
 Sender, 292, 336 
 
 Serapion, 74 
 
 Sethiani, coincidences with the Fourth 
 Gospel in the writings of the, 107 
 
 Severianus, 388 
 
 Shechem, 33 
 
 Shechinah, its return expected with 
 the Messiah, 153 
 
 Sibylline Oracles show acquaintance 
 with the Fourth Gospel, 120 
 
 Silas in Macedonia, 245 
 
 Siloam ; the name, 17, 141 ; situation 
 of, 171 sq ; associated with the Feast 
 of Tabernacles, 166, 171 ; with Mes- 
 sianio expectations, 172 
 
 Simon Magus, the Qreat Revelation 
 ascribed to, 105 
 
 Sin, Jewish doctrine of transmitted, 
 157 sq 
 
 Solomon's Porch, 29, 168, 181 
 
 1 Son of God,' ' Son of Man,' Messianio 
 titles, 149 
 
 Sopater of Thessalonica, 246, 305; 
 perhaps not the Sosipater of Bom. 
 xvi. 21, 246, 305 ; the name, 256 
 
 Spain, St Paul's visit to, 423 sq 
 
 Stanley (Dean); his description of 
 Nablus, 33 ; his edition of the Epis- 
 tles to the Corinthians, 273 sq 
 
 Stiohometry in manuscripts, 346 
 
 Strabo ; on Tarsus, 205 ; on Thessa- 
 lonica, 255 
 
 Sufferings of Christ reflected in His 
 saints, 70 
 
 Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, great 
 age of, 54 
 
 Synaxaria, 342 sq, 363 
 
 Syria, the Church of, early literature 
 of, 104 
 
 tnretpa, 160 
 
 ffu/uinor, 351 
 
 Tafel, 253 sq 
 
 Tarsus, intellectual prominence of, 
 202, 205 sq 
 
 Tatian; his history, 89; his Diates- 
 saron, 4, 90; his other works, 90; 
 accepted the Fourth Gospel, 90 
 
 Tayler, 10, 50, 100 
 
 Temple; its restoration by Herod, 
 date, 30 sq ; and oharaoter, 169 ; 
 detailed knowledge in the Fourth 
 Gospel of, 169 
 
 Tertius, 305, 323 
 
 Tertullian ; quotes the Fourth Gospel, 
 102 ; on the ending of the Fourth 
 Gospel, 194 ; on Marcion's Epistle 
 to the Laodiceans, 380, 381 sq; did 
 he know Bom. xy, xvi? 289, 334 sq, 
 354 ; his use of clausula, 289, 335, 
 336, 354; of interpolare, 330, 382; 
 of titulus, 382 ; other references to, 
 267 
 
 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; 
 date and character of the work, 114 ; 
 its coincidences with the Fourth 
 Gospel, 114 
 
 Texier, 253 sq 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 388, 426 
 
 Theodoret, 427 
 
 Theodotion's version of the T.XX, date 
 of, 79 
 
 Theophilus; his date, 83; quotes the 
 Fourth Gospel by name, 83, 120; 
 his lost commentaries, 84; appa- 
 rently a harmony, 85 
 
 Therma ; see Thessalonica 
 
 Thessalonians, Epistles to the, occa- 
 sion and contents of the, 224 sq, 
 263 sq 
 
 Thessalonica ; the name, 241, 253 ; 
 situation and history of , 254 sq ; geo- 
 graphical importance of, 242, 254; 
 nearly made the capital of the world, 
 255 ; a large Jewish centre, 243, 258, 
 269 ; present condition of, 255, 269; 
 medieval and modern names of, 255 ; 
 inscriptions at, 256 sq ; St Paul at, 
 259 sq ; his teaching there, 260 ; its 
 effect, 261 ; subsequent history of 
 the Church, 267 sq; of the city, 
 268 
 
 Theudas ; date of his rebellion, 147 ; 
 its Messianio oharaoter, 151 
 
 Thomas (St) ; the name, 18, 141 ;. his 
 oharaoter as drawn in the Fourth 
 Gospel, 37; his connexion with 
 Asia Minor, 53 ; significance of his 
 mention by Papias, 69 
 
 Tiberias, 176 
 
 Timotheus ; his communications with 
 Macedonia, 245, 268, 276, 278 ; sent 
 to Corinth from Ephesus, 222, 273 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 459 
 
 sq, 404 ; bat failed to reach Corinth, 
 376 sq, 404; events in the subse- 
 quent history of, 404 sq 
 
 titnlus, 382 
 
 Titus ; sent to Corinth from Ephesus, 
 222, 273 sq; fulfils the abortive 
 mission of Timotheus, 280 sq ; his 
 mission identical with that of the 
 < brethren ' in 1 Cor., 280 ; why not 
 mentioned by name, 281 ; his status, 
 281 ; his route, 282 ; events in the 
 subsequent history of, 405 sq 
 
 Tradition, as evidence to authorship, 
 8,40 
 
 Trophimus ; his position in the apos- 
 tolio age, 281 ; his movements, 406, 
 435 
 
 Tubingen School, 10, 42, 80 ; see also 
 Saur, Hilgenfeld 
 
 Turpie, 136 sq 
 
 Tychious, 281, 391, 393, 395, 405, 435 
 
 $eo\oyla and olKovopla, 229 sq 
 
 Bypio/iaxe'v , 283 
 
 86pa and tiJXij, 97, 114 
 
 rtpim rrp Svtrews (tA), 423 
 
 TerpdStov, 161 
 
 Uncritical character of the apostolic 
 age; alleged, 14 sq; the argument 
 double-edged, 14, 32, 34 
 
 Unitarians and the Fourth Gospel, 47 
 Ussher, 392 
 
 Valentinians ; prominence of, 109; 
 schools of, 111 sq; opposed by 
 Irenseus, 55 ; used St Luke's chrono- 
 logy of our Lord's life, 56 sq ; quote 
 the Fourth Gospel, 110 
 
 Van de Velde, 179 
 
 Vegetans, 161, 220 
 
 Victorious Afer, 355, 384 
 
 Vienne and Lyons ; persecution at, 54, 
 77, 95 ; coincidences with the Fourth 
 Gospel in the record, 77, 121 
 
 Vulgate manuscripts ; capitulations 
 used in certain, 289, 337, 342, 351 ; 
 distinct forms of, 356 sq ; one form 
 derived from the Old Latin, 362, 
 372 ; connexion of these forms with 
 lectionaries considered, 342, 361 sq 
 
 Westcott, 94, 99, 155, 174, 312 
 Wetstein, a manuscript referred to by, 
 
 289, 337, 355 
 Wieseler, 275, 278, 282 sq, 400, 403 
 
 sq, 424 
 Winer, 130, 134, 244 
 Witnesses required by Jewish law, 165 
 
 Zacagni, 342 sq 
 
eamiriBgt: 
 
 FEINTED BY 0. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT THE UNIVBB8ITY PBE8S.