* Auen Cd heh eee NEN EEE wen He vo h HOME ere ty ὧν RN, . δὰ th ems 1 bony ahs etree Pilea HL TREE a re εἰ 4, yb Ped Nb Meh CEU VENA KL NAEAS Nek sr bea tage KU ER ER BEREIT oe ΡΜ ain ane νὴ Pe aioli : \ h Winkanıg, Y i ͵ " N . | Hatin anaes u yeh ἢ , } taint ; MEER δια Φ 2) hansedun Sangh, inks Harve N NE sae vis hc MaEn: 46050 mu des Awan re ord jr tard ΠΝ PEs μα a Shey ora TG 4 τον νὰν δὶ betes orten 1 4 τῷ boten eu pedas Meteo ΕΝ : ΡΩΝ ter ἜΝ αὐ} δε rd | tte ἐἰ εν εν ᾽ν re Da Ἵ ΝΣ i 4 * I i » . datvic He RI PR ΟΣ wer ἀρ. νος reif Waseca Wl ris js Ὁ} rit, Η ᾿ εἶτ τευ ς τυ deta, ἐν sr ὡς war Da te N uns 3 ghee οὐ ier ee itt ys + pier |, nn a ate tae -«» “εἴ, ΤΕΥ 4 FR Rhee th abe nn ten nn Lye a _. RE un. Sm ἢ ee: t ‘ ee 2 ol ee PL 5 Am mn . ἐγεϑέφενν ον aren IC: Pr ee a sseaute Ben s 9 HAAS, vr EN eine je Mt Died Mk ne AA bee are ind ἀεὶ ὁ ὦ ὁ ΠΡ 7 Ὁ wl a μὴ INTRODUCTION NEW TESTAMENT otk En ZAHN ABER PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS, ERLANGEN UNIVERSITY d TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION BY JOHN MOORE TROUT, WILLIAM ARNOT MATHER, LOUIS HODOUS, EDWARD STRONG WORCESTER, WILLIAM HOYT WORRELL, anD ROWLAND BACKUS DODGE FELLOWS AND SCHOLARS OF HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF MELANCTHON WILLIAMS JACOBUS HOSMER PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY ASSISTED BY CHARLES SNOW THAYER DIRECTOR OF THE CASE MEMORIAL LIBRARY THREE VOLUMES IN ONE SECOND EDITION REVISED NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 1917 \ pa ol Fi Ya „Riuo. Ὁ SLE Re Ἢ roman ΠΝ AUGET. 100% ΜΆΠΙΙΝ (α [ΟἿ᾽ MONTE ἘΔ) ΤῊ 8 dda ἃ phased AMAIVIOR un ata ον Te Aa RON TIAN BY Bias Un. ayuda | Ὗ ΤῊΝ τ EN ea eu ‘ava mir Mae and Bevioday’ era vortouniam ἢ # ‘ Park Katy Fler ἄν, ὁ EEE. ST : pen? Sie aang rated Pa. ΤῊΝ ἘΠ AUTHORS PREFACE, TO THE ENGLISH EDITION en I wave been asked by Professor Jacobus, who first suggested the plan for the translation into English of my Introduction to the New Testament, and to’ whose praiseworthy energy the carrying out of the plan is due, to prepare an Introduction for the English edition. This: affords me a welcome opportunity to express my hearty thanks, first of all to Professor Jacobus himself, and also to Dr. Thayer, his fellow Professor in the Hartford Theological Seminary, who has seen the entire work through the press, and to the younger theologians, by whom the first draft of the translation has been prepared, for the great sacrifice of time and labour required in:order to present this work to the English-speaking public in a form as complete as possible, and at the same time con- venient for use. What these difficulties are no one is in better position to appreciate than the author himself, who is responsible for the plan and the style which: render his work difficult’ to read—especially for foreigners—and to translate. Of these difficulties: 1 was very early reminded. I still recall, often with very mingled. feelings, the words with which E. Renan* once described my book on Ignatius of Antioch (1873): “ Quiconque aura le courage de lire ces 650 pages, écrites d’un style obscur et embarassé, possédera réellement les éléments pour résoudre la ques- 1 Journal des Savants (1874), p. 34. vi PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION tion; mais tout le travail du raisonnement et de la critique restera bien ἃ sa charge.” For this criticism, certainly not flattering, I have found a twofold consola- tion. Whoever attempts to answer definitely a question complex in character and long discussed without satis- factory results, and to prove in as thorough a manner as possible that his is the only possible answer, will certainly not succeed in writing an elegant romance such as the brilliant Frenchman’s Vie de Jesus. If, with a fair degree of completeness and accuracy, he succeeds in supplying the reader with the elements from which a correct judgment can be formed, he may reasonably crave some’ indulgence for “the obscure and confused style” which reflects the great variety of the material handled, and of the observations to be made. As regards criticism itself, this very Ignatian question is an instructive illus- tration of the fact that the wide currency of a critical view is no guarantee that this view will be permanently held. Even Renan admitted that my “ uncritical mono- graph” definitely disposed (définitivement écarté) of the hypothesis of W. Cureton, which was a favourite one in Germany also, that the genuine portion of the Ignatian literature consisted of the brief recension of only three Hpistles edited by Cureton himself from a Syriac transla- tion. Renan’s judgment on this point has proved correct. At the same time, his own new hypothesis, that’ only Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans and some sentences in the other Epistles are genuine, found scarcely any accept- ance; whereas to-day the genuineness of the seven Epistles, the attempt to prove which in 1875 was re- garded by the majority of critics as a youthful venture, and as evidence of a lack of critical judgment, is almost universally accepted. Such experiences are a plea for patience; they also strengthen the hope that patient work in the realm of early Christian literature will not be done in vain. PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION vii Likewise, in the literary criticism of the New Testa- ment the last forty years have witnessed at least the beginnings of a trend toward betterment. Unhealthy eccentricities in criticism have appeared, especially in the criticism of the Pauline Epistles, but at the same time sound tendencies have made themselves felt. One of these sounder tendencies I hold to be the greater appreciation of the tradition, without which it is impos- sible for any criticism to make an historical presentation. To be noted also is a modest realisation of the gaps in our knowledge which forbids us regarding all that seems strange to us, and especially what is unintelligible, as evidence against the genuineness of the documeni.:in question. To be noted further is an increasing distrust of a prior constructions of every kind, and more attention to material and personal details, which were inserted quite unconsciously on the part of the New Testament writers, but which are of inestimable value to us, because frequently they afford us a better insight than do leading ideas, into the connection between literary remains and the circum- stances and conditions under which they were produced. This development of the historical sense among theologians has redounded to the benefit of my Intro- duction. In one of the reviews of the first volume of the first edition (1897), the reviewer made the conjecture that owing to the great bulk of the work the circulation would not be wide. The conjecture has not proved true. The English translation of the third German edition now completed is to me an encouraging confirmation of the hope with which I ventured to dedicate the first edition to the University of Cambridge. I can only hope that the great and self-denying efforts which the translators have made may be rewarded by a corresponding influence of the work in the wide English-speaking world. THEODOR ZAHN. ERLANGEN, March 1909. fy "yon prac, HRRTOKE ACE Off: TORTE a ἢ ͵ weal wall οὐδ tor ατοϊοί τὸ serohtl, add Hr Jolt, ϑορϑί δα. hoveontin ms AIGOY, vr: dels FA klasdal. - inomıstied | hiswod. haan, ato Poon vileisögas, bomagqqane vad. ἐρτρίο δεν Ir Ana) odt je ac, og re alison X nt) ‚at cowloats dips hautyevied 16 sort Pueiiany ont scho lod .} cesindgbrgty: obnwor: if τ τἀριητί Bi diy doidiy.driogtinnyaoittbend, Hr fits f Montstreeotg, Inoigotecdhise ailam od Auerskhine wu 10h, ld we age edie. oitg2iloosmedbomye. #ivoale balom« act ὃ ateraaı ‚die Baileys eg ‚ahidsokndaide,, ay belie £ Fe" ‚ldigillataias i dala WUsinag aa busen ,,8 iso 5641:.}0, Beh: SHR Ophir dagegen, fi ἀρ μαβ αἰ gyi coat bi oe ec, Cy fo Meile har. bevel yaar oe ἀν ep, hotsoaning ow, ΓΤ edisdoly jisnozaog hasulsiund ww rap Gores 207 WOR addyto, Aisch aildgte,s Rabin re N ἘΠ᾿ ἀϑύρουν aausoad ver 0} plensldgreitaski, to oped τ ΦΗ͂Ι ‚ash autbeslıoh. fal alien noted ia, eur { jr Fo ld. seurhuugerso srl, a We ng THO ae boothong ptowygods dois vevtpboyeois il \ A ἂν Ihaikodend,n sultinto aansıg: agaloy sly δὶ tote ogo, Aovditonedy ait. oe beweberim ects ex Aig “ee suzloy sd, va) lo oe life Ist Popowo sa wn. MO ο βαμθοί πον il ahaa A Wera % IE aa How otis lovwi liad, φησί pul in Bi ‚bovorpsotuznd,aspionis | RUM \ohäwm ost; ΤΥ EEE ern τ | Far ais τὸ ν αὐ bing oa nee οὐδ i er νοδὰ ΜῊΝ oda wir a | ee a. Ze Powe. at stabs ἃ 5 ‚A ROT, porate EDITOR’S PREFACE ἢ Ever since the appearance of Dr. Zahn’s great work on New Testament Introduction, it has been evident that sooner or later its stores of critical investigation would have to be placed at the disposal of the English-reading world. The problems of New Testament study are too important to allow the results which this ‘renowned scholar’s years of scientific study have gathered into the two large volumes of his great book permanently to be locked up in a foreign language. To release this scholarship, however, was no easy undertaking. A thousand pages of closely printed matter, written in a style often most difficult to follow even in the text, and with notes too constantly abbreviated in the spirit of a scholar’s abundant knowledge of the facts, and too frequently confused with indistinct allusions to unfamiliar literature, presented a formidable task of translation, which any set of men might hesitate to attempt, and which was practically impossible for any individual. Notwithstanding, in the spring of 1900 a formal request was made of the author that certain Fellows of Hartford Theological Seminary, Mr. John M. Trout, Mr. Louis Hodous, and Mr. William A. Mather, should be allowed to take the work in hand. Permission was cordially granted them, and being then engaged in study abroad they entered upon the beginning of their work in the summer of that year. During the year 1X x EDITOR’S PREFACE several conferences were held with Professor Zahn, to whose helpful suggestions the translators are greatly indebted. It was fully expected that the larger part of the text would be translated before return to this country would necessitate such engagements in the active ministry as to restrict the time possible to be devoted to the task. Τὸ ἃ large extent this hope was realised; but the early de- parture to Foreign Mission service of Mr. Hodous and Mr. Mather, who had undertaken the preparation of the notes, left the burden of completing what had been begun practically with Mr. Trout. Upon his shoulders it has rested since that time, and to his faithful and patient efforts, carried on in the midst of pressing pulpit and pastoral cares, is due largely the successful accomplish- ment of the undertaking. To his aid in the translation of the notes there came at different times Mr. Rowland B. Dodge, Hartranft Prize Scholar of Hartford in 1905, Mr. Edward $. Worcester, William Thompson Fellow of Hartford for 1901-1903, and Mr. William H. Worrell, John 5. Welles Fellow of Hartford for 1906-1908, all of whom laboured with will- ing sacrifice of time in rendering service to the work. Along with them in translating, but particularly in the extra service of assisting the editor in his supervision of the translation and in the especially laborious care of the proofs, the aid of Professor Charles 8. Thayer of the Case Memorial Library of the Seminary has been invaluable. If, in spite of the necessarily scattered and interrupted character of the work which has been carried on through these years, the results are marked with accuracy and completeness, it has been due largely to him. From him has come also the General Index, which places the widely extended details of notice and of reference in the book at the immediate service of the reader. Associated with Professor Thayer in this work for one summer was Mr EDITOR’S PREFACE xi Worrell, and with Mr. Mather before his departure to his foreign field was Mr. Frederick B. Hartranft of the In- struction Corps of the Seminary ; while at various times the editor has had the help in reading proof of Mr. John J. Moment of the Class of 1906 and Mr. Alvin ©. Bacon and Mr. Watson Woodruff of the Class of 1907 of Hart- ford Seminary. It has been a long task, delayed by many and un- expected interruptions, not the least among which was the appearance of the third German edition after the first English volume was practically in print. The labour of correcting the whole translation to the details of all the changes and alterations which the tireless scholarship of the author had wrought into his book seemed beyond accomplishment; but it has been effected, and the work goes out in every detail a reproduction of the last German edition. The Editor cannot hope to have escaped altogether the faults rendered likely by such a diversified translating, carried on in such a broken way; but he has appreciated the fidelity and the enthusiasm of those who have worked with him, and he has believed that it would be no small service that could be rendered to the English-reading scholarship of his day if he could place at its command what this book has to offer of the masterly results of scientific research in a field the treasures of which are ever open to those whose work is patient and whose vision is clear. M. W. JACOBUS. HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, April 1909. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION — THE reception given to the English translation of Zahn’s monumental work has seemed to justify a second printing of it, particularly as in this re-presentation of its material opportunity would be afforded to correct typographical errors and faults in translation which reviewers of the First Edition had noticed and which had become evident to the Editor and his collaborators, Accordingly, with the help of Professor Thayer and Professor Worrell, now on the Faculty of the Seminary Foundation, the entire work has been gone over with patient care, for the elimination of all mistakes which in any way detracted from the usefulness of the First Edition. At the same time, through the use of selected paper the three volumes in which the work first appeared have been reduced to one, without change in paging or altera- tion in form. ΑἹ] references to the First Edition are therefore good for the Second Edition. Doubtless, perfection in typographical accuracy and fidelity of translation have not yet been fully attained ; but it is hoped that by this reviewing and compacting a greater serviceableness will be given this work, which must ever remain a storehouse of scientific research in the field of New Testament scholarship. M. W. JACOBUS. HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, June 1917\ CONTENTS OF VOL. 1. iene {. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS CONCERNING THE LANGUAGE AND ITS History es The Original Language of the Gospel § 2. The Greek Language among the Jews II. ΤῊΝ EPISTLE OF JAMES Mm un Um Um Um won DIAM pw . The Destination of the Letter indicated by the a: . The Cireumstances of the Readers The Personality of James . The Author’s Training and Habits of BRenehe . The External Evidence . Divergent Views . ; : ᾿ Ill. Toe TureE OLDest EPrIsTLEs or PAUL. NE $ 10. § 11 § 12 § 13. § 14. § 15. § 16. Preliminary Critical Remarks h The Historical Presuppositions and the on of the Epistle to the Galatians . Galatia and the Galatians . Time and Place of the Composition of the Epistle to the Galatians The Origin of the Church in ee and the En of its History until the Composition of Paul’s First Epistle to the Church there- The First Epistle to the Thessalonians . The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians The Genuineness of the First Three Epistles IV. ΤῊΝ CoRRESPONDENCE OF PAUL WITH THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH SIR § 18. § 19. The Early History of the Church The Cendition of the Corinthian Church at re ame when First Corinthians was written Survey of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians § 20. Occasion, Purpose, and Effect of the Second Epistle to ‘the: Gorin thians xiii - PAGR 101 110 123 136 152 152 164 173 193 203 215 224 242 256 256 273 307 32] xiv CONTENTS OF VOL. II. V. THE ErisTtLE ΤῸ THE RoMANS : 3 A A ὃ $ 21. Contents of the Letter and the Progress of its Thought $ 22. The Integrity of the Epistle to the Romans § 23. Constituency and Origin of the Roman Church 8 24. The Occasion of the Letter E VI. Tue LETTERS oF THE First RoMAN IMPRISONMENT § 25. Time and Place of the Composition of the Epistles to Philemon, the Colossians, and “ the Ephesians ” § 26. The Epistle to Philemon § 27. The Epistle to the Colossians : : ὃ 28, The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians ” § 29. The Genuineness of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians ; ἢ ΕἾΔΑ TE : + 8 80. The Historical Presuppositions and the Occasion of the Epistle to the Philippians 5 ὃ - 831. Paul’s Situation at the Time when Philippians was written > 5 : ς 3 8 32. The Genuineness of the Epistle to the Philippians CONTENTS OF VOL. I. — VII. Tar Last ΤΉΒΕΕ Eristues or Paun . . . . § 33. The Facts presupposed in the Second Epistle to Timothy E : ἔ : g ς § 34. The Facts attested by the First Epistle to Timothy . § 35. The Facts presupposed in the Epistle to Titus . 5 8 36. The End of Paul’s Life . . : § 37. The Genuineness of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus VIII. ΤῊΝ EristLes or Perer AND JUDE, AND THE EPISTLE ΤῸ THE HEBREWS : . . § 38. The Readers and the Author of the First Epistle of Peter—the Internal Evidence . § 39. Time and Place of the First Epistle of Peter § 40. The Genuineness of the First Epistle of Peter . PAGE 352 352 378 421 434 439 439 452 459 479 491 522 539 556 § 41. § 42. § 43. § 44. CONTENTS OF VOL. II. The Author and Readers of the Second Epistle of Peter according to the Letter’s own Testimony - - The Occasion of the Second Epistle of Peter Epistle of Jude The Genuineness of J ifs und’ the Two Hpistles of Peter - The Tradition concerning the Epistle 66 the ebremn : 8 45. 8 46. The Literary Form and the Historical Presuppositions : of the Epistle to the Hebrews . ; : 8 47. Readers, Date, and Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews IX. ΤῊΝ First THREE GosSPELS AND Acts. : : § 48. The Unwritten Gospel : § 49. The Common Tradition in the Church contort tite Origin of the Gospels . : : 8 50. History of the “Synoptic Problem”. . § 51. The Tradition regarding Mark and his Scunalss § 52. Title, Plan, and Conclusion of Mark’s Gospel . . $ 53. Comparison of Mark’s Gospel with the Tradition $ 54. The Tradition regarding Matthew and his Gospel 8 55. Contents, Plan and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel $ 56. Comparison of the Gospel of Matthew with the Tradi- tion regarding it Ἶ ; ; : 557. The Relation of Mark’s Gospel to the Gospel of Matthew b : : ADDENDUM . Ξ . . - : 2 XV FE CONTENTS OF VOL. TIL eee IX. Continued—Tue Writinas or LUKE § 58. The Tradition concerning Luke and hie \ Work. N § 59. The Twofold Recension of the Text of Acts § 60. Preface, Plan, and Purpose. of Luke’s Historical Work § 61. The Sources used by Luke : § 62. The Author of the Work attributed to ΠΗ one the Time of its Composition § 63. Retrospect and Forecast X: THE Wairrnas or JoHN .. ὁ . ‘ . 8 64. The Tradition § 65. The Testimony of the Fourth Gospel to its Author § 66. The Supplementary Chapter 8 67. The Relation of the Fourth Gospel ἴο the earlier Gospels § 68. Purpose and Method, GiMindtor and Readors of the Fourth Gospel § 69. Integrity, Date of Composition, and Ganuinéness of the Fourth Gospel § 70. The First Epistle of J obn. § 71. The Lesser Epistles of John § 72. The Nature, Structure, and Unity of Revelation « 73. The Condition of Affairs in the Church according to Revelation 1.-- 111. : : : : $ 74. The Author of Revelation : 8 75. Contemporary-Historical or Futurist Interpretation XI. CHRONOLOGICAL Survey . : = . . . = 4 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE INDEX ‘ PAGE 487 ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES | JbfPTh . JbPK JHSt. JPh JQR . JRAS IThSt LCBI . τᾶς. MBBA . MDPV . MGWJ MVG. NGWG . NHJb NJbfDTh NKZ. OLZ . — American Journal of Philology. American Journal of Semitie Languages and Literatures. American Journal of Theology. Altorientalische Forschungen. Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Biblische Zeitschrift. Christliche Welt. Expositor. Expository Times. Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. Göttingische Gelehrte Nachrichten. Journal of Biblical Literature. Jahrbücher der Biblischen Wissenschaft. Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie. Jahrbücher für Klassische Philologie. Jahrbücher für Protestantische Theologie. Jahrbuch der Kgl. Preussischen Kunstsammlungen. Journal of Hellenic Studies. Journal of Philology. Jewish Quarterly Review. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Journal of Theological Studies. Literarisches Centralblatt. Literarische Rundschau. Monatschrift der Berliner Akademie. Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palästina- Vereins. Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden- thums. Mittheilungen der Vorder-Asiatischen Gesellschaft. Nachrichten der Kéniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Neue Heidelberger Jahrbiicher. Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie. Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift. Orientalische Litteraturzeitung. xvii xviii ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES PEF . . . Palestine Exploration Fund. RB . . . Revue Biblique. REJ . . . Revue des Etudes Juives. RKZ. . . Reformirte Kirchenzeitung. SBAW . . Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften. SWAW . . Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften. ThJb. . . Theologische Jahrbücher. ThLb. . . Theologisches Litteraturblatt. ThLz. . . Theologische Literaturzeitung. Τῷ, TThQ, or\ Mipingen) Theologisch talschrif ThQSc \ g gische Quartalschrift. ThR . . . Theologische Rundschau. ThStKr . . Theologische Studien und Kritiken. ΤΠ = } Theologische Tijdschrift. ΤΌ... Texte und Untersuchungen. TZfTh . . Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie. WZfKM. . Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Zee pr | Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. ZfA . . . Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Verwandte (Gebiete. ZfATW . . Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. ZDMG . . Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. ZDPV . . Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. ZfATh . . Zeitschrift für Historische Theologie. ZIKG . . Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. ZfKTh . . Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie. an } Zeitschrift für Kirchliche Wissenschaft und Kirchliches Leben. ZiLTh . . Zeitschrift für Lutherische Theologie. Z{NTW . . Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. ZfThuK. . Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche. ZfWTh . . Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie. ABBREVIATIONS OTHER THAN FOR ΒΡ Big CIG or ClGr CIL:.ı: CISem Dalman Gr?. EB. Forsch. i—vii. 1. GAP . Grundriss EIDBISZ. HK i.-iv. Hoffmann Kühner-Blass . Kühner-Gerth . REVIEW TITLES --Ὁ..- --. Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine. Corpus Inseriptionum Greecarum. Corpus Inseriptionum Latinarum. Corpus Insceriptionum Semiticarum. Dalman, Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäjisch, 2te Aufl. 1905, Encyclopedia Biblica Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons und der Altkirchlichen Literatur, 1888-1892. Buhl, Geographie des Alten Palästina. Zahn, Gr. der Geschichte des Alt. Kanons, 2te Aufl. 1904 Hastings’ Dietionary of the Bible. Handkommentar zum N.T. von Holtzmann, Lipsius, etc., 2te resp. 3te Aufl. Die Hl. Schrift des N.T.’s Zusammenhängend Untersucht 1,-ἰ|1. 3 (2te Aufl.) ; iii.-xi., 1868-1886. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, 1 Teil, Elementar- u. Formenlehre, 3te Aufl. besorgt von Fr. Blass. Preceding, 2 Teil, Satzlehre, 3te Aufl. besorgt von Bernh, Gerth. Manuscript. New Testament. Old Testament. Real - Encyclopiidie für Protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3rd ed. Real-Eneyelopädie. Peshito. Philoxeniana (only for the four shorter Catholic Epistles and Revelation). Syriac Text of 'I'homas of Heraclea. Syrus Curetonianus. Syrus Hierosolymitanus. Syrus Sinaiticus. xx ABBREVIATIONS OTHER THAN REVIEW TITLES Schiirer . . . Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3 Aufl. i.-iii., 1898-1901 [English translation of 2nd ed., “The Jewish People in the Time of Christ ”]. Skizzen . . . Zahn, Sk. aus dem Leben der Alten Kirche, 2 Aufl. 1898. ΞΡ. . . . Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine. TU. . . . . Texte und Untersuchungen. ZKom. . . . Kommentar zum N.T. unter Mitwirkung von Bachmann, Ewald, Horn, Riggenbach, Seeberg, Wohlenberg, heraus- geg. von Th. Zahn, 1903. See also the bibliographies on pages 14, 58, vol. 1., and bibliographies of commentaries given throughout this work in connection with the discussions of the separate books of the N.T. The editors have attempted to make all other abbreviations full enough to be self-explanatory. CITATIONS. Passages in the O.T. are eited according to the figures of the Hebrew Text ; the O.T. Apocrypha, if not otherwise noted, according to the edition of Fritzsche, 1871; the witnesses for the N.T. text, except as noted above under S, according to Tischendorf-Gregory ; the Church Fathers according to the Vienna “Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum,” and “ Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte,” herausgeg. von der Berliner Akademie. Ir pe INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. Pe BES I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS CONCERNING THE LANGUAGE AND ITS HISTORY. 81. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE GOSPEL. THE gospel is older than the N.T. Between the time when Jesus proclaimed the coming of the rule of God in His kingdom and the emergence from His Church of the earliest document which has come down to us, possibly some two decades elapsed ; and some seventy years passed before the appearance of the last of the writings found in the N.T. collection. Even if the investigation of this oldest Christian literature should result in showing that no single part of it originated on the soil of Palestine, or within the Jewish Christianity of the first generation, we should still be unable, without some knowledge of the language in which Jesus taught, and in which the Apostles preached the gospel to the Jews in Palestine, to form a correct conception of the beginnings of Christian litera- ture. For, quite independent of the results of all literary eriticism, and especially of the answer to the question whether the N.T. writings were composed, as tradition VOL, 1. I 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT says they were, almost without exception by native Jews, and to no small extent by Palestinian Jews, the fact remains, that the Christian preaching began from Pales- tine, and that Jews who had no idea of giving up their nationality carried it beyond the limits of their land and nation. This statement, in which Paul (Rom. xv. 27), Luke (Acts xi. 19), and Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) agree, does not require further proof. It does, however, need to be explained why a religious movement, which had its roots in the Judaism of Palestine, produced very soon after it began a distinctive literature which has come down to us only in the Greek language. The first question that suggests itself concerns the language in which Jesus preached to the people and instructed His disciples (n. 1). Fortunately, in answering this question, we are not left wholly to our knowledge of the linguistic condition in Palestine in Jesus’ time,—a knowledge which is still very much in need of clarification and confirmation,—nor are we dependent upon inferences from examples of a similar character. For the Gospels themselves, particularly those which pass under the names of Mark and John, preserve for us not only single words used by Jesus,and those with whom He mingled, but also a number of short sayings of His in their original form. There can be no doubt that im introducing these foreign words into their Greek writings with Greek transla- tions frequently attached (n. 2), the evangelists were firmly convinced that they were reproducing what Jesus said in its original form, and that it was their duty to convey the same also to their readers, though most of these were acquainted only with Greek. Nor could they very well have been mistaken in this belief; for, leaving quite out of consideration the facts to be established later, that the second evangelist was a native of Jerusalem, and the fourth evangelist one of the twelve apostles, an error of this kind would have been possible only if these INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 3 Greek authors had been removed from Jesus and those who heard Him by a period of history during which, and by a region of country in which, on the one hand, the gospel was no longer preached in its original language, while, on the other hand, it had not yet come to be pro- pagated by the use of the Greek language. Only in these eireumstances could Greek Christians, who were entirely uninformed about the previous history of their faith, have taken for original what was in fact only a translation. But there were no such period and region as those suggested intervening between Jesus and our Gospels. A few years after Jesus’ death the gospel made its way directly from Jerusalem to the Greek population of Antioch. We possess, therefore, documentary evidence concern- ing the language used by Jesus. While no fragments of His preaching are preserved, all the utterances recorded are important, and were spoken at critical moments. Among these utterances are two expressions used by Jesus in prayer (Mark xiv. 36, xv. 34), one of which is a phrase taken from one of the psalms and used by Jesus in supplication during the agony of His death (Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34). From these passages we discover in what language Jesus pondered the words of the O.T. and communed with His God in prayer. As we learn from other passages, He used this same language when He healed the sick and called the dead to life among the people of Galilee (Mark v. 41, vii. 34). This must, there- fore, have been the laneuage in which Jesus preached to the people and taught His disciples. But all the sayings of Jesus, and of those among whom He moved, which are preserved to us in their original form, exhibit the same linguistie features. These features are not those of the Hebrew language, or of a confused mixture of Hebrew and some other language; but, with the exception of a few foreign words, more or less modified in form, they are 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT those of the Aramaic (n. 3) or Syriac tongue. For the use of the latter name there is as much historical justifica- tion as for the use of the former; since, during the centuries when this language was the dominant one in Palestine, it was very commonly called Syriac by the Jews and by those Christians who were so situated as to be familiar with the linguistic conditions of Palestine and the adjoining regions (n. 4). The only advantage in using the term Aramaic, instead of Syriac, to designate the language spoken by Jesus and by His immediate followers in the early Church, is the fact that we have become accustomed to employ the term Syriac exclusively with reference to the language of the Christian literature of the Syrian national Church, which began to be prepared. first in Edessa after the close of the second century. If we are inclined to the false notion that the language of Jesus was an uncultivated vernacular, a Jewish jargon, the terms Aramaic and Syriac may serve to remind us that we are dealing with a language which, during the five hundred years preceding the advent of Christianity, had gradually spread until it had become the dominant language of western Asia. And in spite of the rivalry with Greek that had existed since the time of Alexander, it maintained this position over wide regions until it was replaced by the Arabic of Islam. It was not without some reason that a Syrian of the sixth century A.D. called it the queen of languages (n. 5). Its reign was a long one. As early as 700 B.c. the Jerusalem court officials could propose to an Assyrian general that he carry on his negotiations with them in Aramaic, in order that the people standing by, who knew only Hebrew, might not understand what was said (Isa. xxxvi. 11; 2 Kings xvii. 26). Aramaic was the native language of neither party, but was employed as a medium of intercourse between powers speaking different languages, just as French 18 used now in negotiations between Russians and Italians. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 5 At the time of the Persian world-empire, Aramaic had already become the official language in which the royal government and the satraps of the western provinces main- tained communication with their polyglot subordinates, including those as far removed as Egypt (n. 6). From this time on Aramaic came more and more into use as a living vernacular, especially in districts where heretofore other Semitic languages had prevailed. Long before the time of Christ, the old “language of Canaan,” as the Israelites once called their own language (Isa. xix. 18),— because of the fact that it did not differ essentially from the languages of their nearest heathen neighbours,—had ceased to be the spoken language of Palestine and the adjoining regions. Phcenician was no longer spoken in Tyre and Sidon. While this old language continued to be spoken in Carthage, and, after the fall of the Carthaginian State, for centuries longer in the Roman provinces of North Africa, in its original home it had given place to Aramaic or Syriac (n. 7). In the old dwelling-places of the Edomites and the Moabites, and im the entire Nabatean kingdom, which stretched from the Elamitie eulf to the vicinity of Damascus, Aramaic was the dominating language, as is evident from numerous inscrip- tions (n. 7), in the time of Christ and of king Aretas tv., father-in-law of Herod Antipas (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 82), whose reign lasted from about 9 B.c. to 40 A.D. In the midst of Palestine dwelt the Samaritans, a mixed race, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, possibly from the beginning of their history. Nor was the little remnant of the Jewish nation that resettled in and about Jerusalem able to resist permanently this general development. Consequently, when the nation freed itself from its oppressors, and secured a larger degree of independence by the Maccabean revolt, the Jews had ceased to speak their own language. Of course, they did possess some- thing that the neighbouring peoples did not have, in the 6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT large body of literature which had come down to them from the times of their kings and prophets,—a sacred literature, to which they now clung as the charter of their national calling, and as the law of worship, of faith, and of civil life. This literature was collected, and new pro- phetical, historical, and poetical writings were δα δα in the old and sacred language. The introduction of Aramaic forms and words was more strenuously avoided than in the times before and during the Exile, just because of opposition to the inroads of the Aramaic spoken by all the tribes, in the midst of which the little Jewish com- munity had to maintain its existence. The hymns and set liturgical forms for use in the temple worship were taken from the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible was read and expounded to the people in the synagogues, and there soon grew up a distinct class of learned men who made it the subject of special study. In the case of a people whose individuality and con- tinued existence depended so much upon their religion, and whose religious life was so thoroughly conditioned by its hold upon its classical literature as was that of the Jewish people at the time of the second temple, the language in which this literature was written could not fall entirely into disuse. It not only survived in the sacred books and in inscriptions upon coins (n. 8), but strenuous efforts were also made to keep it in use as a spoken language. Jesus the son of Sirach, a resident of Jerusalem, wrote his book of proverbs in biblical Hebrew about 180 B.c., and his grandson in Egypt translated it into Greek after 132 2.0. Because it was the sacred language, the scholars gave it preference in their disputations, and as a medium for the presentation of their traditional lore. In order to adapt it to these purposes, by the construction of new forms and the introduction of foreign words (n. 9), they modified it into a learned language, the Modern Hebrew of the Mishnah. Of the uneducated multitude they spoke with INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 7 contempt (John vi. 49; Acts iv. 13), and called their language the ‘speech of the illiterate.” At a time when they themselves had to acquire the sacred language of the Scriptures artificially, they protested against the use, in their own learned circles at least, of the living language of daily intercourse (n. 10). But the effort was ineffective, since the firmness and authority with which it was made came too late. Long before the time of Christ this language which the scholars despised, the Sursi, as the Jews of the Holy Land were wont to call it (n. 4), had become the vernacular of Palestine and the adjoining regions on the east and north (n. 11). Like every other Semite who srew up in these regions, the Jew learned Aramaic as his native tongue before he could learn to read and write and to study the Hebrew Bible. The rule laid down by an : aged interpreter of the law, that fathers should teach their sons the sacred language first, only shows that the reverse was the general case. The daughters are expressly ex- empted from this requirement; nor did anyone expect them to learn Hebrew (n. 10). So that even in families which were zealous for the law the wives had no knowledge of Hebrew. At the time of Christ, Hebrew was, in the strict sense of the word, the native tongue of no Jew. ‘The small sections of country where the Jews lived together closely and in large numbers, were inter- spersed with and surrounded by other Aramaic-speaking peoples, Samaritans, Syrians, Hdomites, and Nabatzeans. Within these narrow limits, necessarily, the language was practically homogeneous. Without the aid of an inter- preter Jesus conversed with the Samaritan woman from Sychar and with other Samaritans (John iv. 7-43 ; Luke xvii. 16), also with the Syriac-speaking Phoenician woman (n. 7). Syrians serving in the Roman army understood every word of the table-talk engaged in by the Jews, who supposed that what they said was not understood by them (Jos. Bell. iv. 1. 5). Ww 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT This community of language, which can be proved, and which makes it permissible to speak of a vernacular, did not exclude very perceptible differences of dialect. These differences were necessarily all the greater since Aramaic had been but very little employed for literary purposes, and particularly since there was no common literature which brought the various Aramaic-speaking tribes and religious, communities together. From His dialect, the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well is able at once to recognise Jesus as a Jew (John iv. 9), and vice versd. Especially when spoken by Jews, Aramaic must have had a peculiar stamp. The Jewish people were so zealous in the practice of their religion, that a, large number of Hebrew expressions taken from the language of the Bible, from the eultus, and from the rabbis, must have been adopted into the language of daily life, and in the nature of the case these expressions were only partly Aramaieised. Just as the Modern Hebrew of the learned classes took on its peculiar form not without being strongly influenced by Aramaic, so it was impossible and not to be expected that Jews throughout the Orient, especially in Palestine, and most particularly in Jerusalem, the seat of national worship and the seat of rabbinie learning, should speak Aramaic without using some Hebraisms. The Jews themselves not infrequently called the Aramaic which they spoke Hebrew, at least they did so in their intercourse with Greeks and Romans in con- trasting their language with Greek (n. 12). It was not only their mother tongue, but also their national language, and those who retained it were called Hebrews in contrast to the Hellenists (§ 2). Inevitably, also, the various Aramaic dialects spoken by the non-Jewish part of the population in different districts had their influence upon the Aramaic spoken by the Jews living in these regions. As spoken, in Babylon, the language sounded different from what it did in Jerusalem; nor did all the Jews in INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 9 Palestine speak it in exactly the same way. The Galilean was easily recognised in Jerusalem by his pronunciation (n. 13). But these differences, which were not greater than those existing among the High German dialects still spoken (n. 14), must not cause us to overlook the common character of the Aramaic spoken by all ‘‘ Hebrews,” 1.6. by Oriental Jews who were not Hellenists. Especially to be rejected as wholly wrong is the notion , that at the time of Christ, Hebrew was spoken in Judea and Jerusalem, and Aramaic only in Galilee. According to Acts i. 19, the Aramaic name of the “field of blood” belonged to the language of Jerusalem Jews; and there were other places in and near Jerusalem which had Aramaic names, such as Bethesda (n. 15). On the occasion of the processions in connection with the feast of Tabernacles, and at the triumphal entry of Jesus, the Galilean pilgrims and the inhabitants of Jerusalem joined in shouting the Hebrew Hoshia-na in its Aramaicised form Oshanna (n. 3, p. 21). No difference is to be observed between Judea and Galilee in the use of the numerous Aramaic proper names which appear in use along with the old Hebrew names (n. 16). There were many Aramaic expressions, frequently employed and long current, that were in use by all ‘“‘ Hebrews,” among these some associated with religious thought and life, such as the title Messiah and the party name Pharisees (n. 17). When Josephus, a native of Jerusalem, and a scion of a priestly house, wrote his history of the Jewish War in the “language of his fathers,” ze. the language spoken in Jerusalem,—a history which was afterwards re-edited in Greek,—he did so in the belief that it would be intelligible to the Jews on the other side of the Tigris and in Arabia. But, as is quite clear from this intention of Josephus, and from the combined impression of all the statements which he makes relative to the matter, the language which he used was not that of the O.T. nor the learned language, of 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the rabbis, but the vernacular of Palestine, which was intelligible to all Jews not entirely estranged from the national life, regularly spoken by the “ Hebrews” proper, and used by them in correspondence. We have three official documents (n. 18) dealing with certain questions about the calendar and tithes, which were issued between the years 80 and 110 by Gamaliel—probably not the famous teacher of Paul (Acts v. 34, xxii. 3), but his no less distinguished grandson—in his own name and that of his colleagues, 2.e. of the highest court of the Jews in Jabne. One of these is directed to the brethren in Upper and Lower Galilee, a second to those in Upper and Lower Daroma, 1.6. Judea and South Palestine, and the third to the brethren of the Babylonian diaspora, to those of the diaspora in Media, to the Greek diaspora, and all the other exiles of Israel. ‘The account in which the three documents are incorporated is in Hebrew; the documents themselves are written in good Aramaic. In view of this fact, there can be no doubt that the document issued by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin—which was still in existenee— to the man who afterwards became the Apostle Paul, introducing him, and giving him authority among the Jews in Damascus (Acts xxi. 5), was also written in Aramaic. But if the most learned body of the nation found it advisable to use this language in its official deliverances, and if they made no distinction among their countrymen in Judea, in Galilee, and in the diaspora, then it necessarily follows that Josephus must have written his history of the Jewish War of 63-70 in the same language, since it was a work prepared for the rapid propagation of certain views. An account of this war in Hebrew would have made about the same impression on Josephus’ contemporaries, especially the Jews of Mesopotamia and Arabia, who were included among those whom the book was intended to reach (n. 12), that a history of the INTRODUCTORY REMARKS II Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 in the language of the Nibelungenlied would make upon modern Germans. In his ἘΠῚ before the Sanhedrin, had not the presence of the Roman commander necessitated the use of Greek (Acts xxii. 30-xxii. 10), Paul might have spoken Hebrew, at least with the expectation of being under- stood, only he would have created the impression of delivering a learned address, rather than of defending his life, which was in danger. To have spoken to the excited mob, which he addressed from the steps of the Roman barracks (Acts xxi, 40—xxii. 21), in the learned language of the time, or in the language of an Isaiah, would have been largely a waste of energy, if not a direct occasion for ridicule. The ἑβραὺς διάλεκτος (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), of which he made use, could have been no other than the Aramaic of common daily life. The fact that, in a, Hebrew work like the Mishnah, the sayings of those introduced as speaking are usually reported in Hebrew, is no more proof that these persons spoke Hebrew than our Gospels are evidence that Jesus spoke Greek. On the contrary, from the fact that this same Mishnah transmits in Aramaic single sayings of the Hillel who was born some thirty or fifty years earlier than Jesus, and of others of his contemporaries, it is natural to conclude that Aramaic was widely employed even in rabbinic circles (n. 19). By Jesus’ time Aramaie had come into use also in the synagogue services (n. 20). The story related of Gamaliel the elder, the teacher of Paul, how he ordered a targum, or Aramaic paraphrase of the Book of Job, to be buried, does not, of course, prove the existence at the time of such written translations of the law and prophets also, and still less does it prove that such translations were read in the synagogues in place of the sacred text, or along with it. This came later. But the existence of a targum of the Book of Job in the year 40 a.p. does ı2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT certainly prove that at this time the Hebrew Bible was unintelligible even to men who studied other parts of the ‚O.T. besides the biblical pericopes, parashas, and haphtarahs. Long before the preparation of the written targums which in part have come down to us, and which were made in order to explain to the people the biblical text, understood by them only imperfectly, use was made in the synagogues of oral translations into Aramaic. It is clear, further, that if it was to accomplish its purpose, the exposition and application, %.e. the sermon which followed, also must have been in Aramaic. This must have been true also of Jesus’ preaching in the synagogues, upon the mountains of Galilee, and in the courts of the temple at Jerusalem. i What we learn from extra-biblical sources concerning * linguistie conditions in Palestine at the time simply con- firms what we gather from the original testimony of the four Gospels. The language in which Jesus prayed and talked to the multitudes, and to His disciples, was used also in the Church gathered in Jerusalem shortly after His resurrection. This fact is so self-evident as hardly to call for direct proof. Still it is to be observed that the surname which, according to Acts iv. 36, was given by the apostles to Joseph of Cyprus very early in the history of the Church was Aramaic. Besides, the name assigned was not an ordinary one, but was chosen for a particular reason (n. 16). Expressions other than Greek, which we find employed from the very first in the worship of the Greek Churches, such as the Hebrew aunv, which was used without modification in prayer by Aramaic-speaking Jews, the Aramaicised form wcavva (n. 3, p. 21 f.), to which is to be added also aarmAovia (Rev. xix. 1-6, ef. Mark xiv. 26), were not adopted by the Gentile Christians from the Greek O.T., for not all of them are to be found there. Nor were they taken from the Hebrew Bible, which the Gentile Christians did not possess: they came rather with INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 13 the gospel from Jerusalem. The occurrence of the Aramaic expression wapavada in the Greek eucharistic prayers of the so-called Didache (x. 6) in very close connection with an apnv and an wcavva, indicates that these liturgical formule originated in a congregation which used Aramaic in its worship. This could have been none other than the congregation in Jerusalem, the Church in Palestine. Paul makes use of the same formula in a passage where he expressly excludes from his greeting to the Church certain strangers who were disturbing the peace of the Church in Corinth, and threatening to destroy the cordial relations between the Church and the apostle (1 Cor. xvi. 22). As we shall see later, the persons for whom this threatening hint was meant were Jewish Christians from Palestine (§ 18, n. 12). By using the language employed in the Church from which they came, the apostle meant to make clear to these men themselves and to the Greek-speaking Christians in Corinth whom he had in mind. The successors and heirs of the Jewish-Christian Church in Jerusalem, which ceased to exist after the time of Hadrian, were the Nazarites, who lived in the region east of the Jordan, and in some localities lying farther north in Syria, as Aleppo. As late as the fourth century they continued to cling to their national traditions. According to Epiphanius (Her. xxix. 7), they were well trained in the use of Hebrew, and, like the Jews, read the O.T. in the original; they were also familiar with the rabbinic traditions as far back as the time of Hadrian. But the only Gospel which they used, the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, was an Aramaic book, which is known to have been in existence from the middle of the second century (GK, ii. 648-672). Aramaic, consequently, was the language employed in their religious worship from the time of their enforced departure from Jerusalem before the middle of the second century. 14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT The bearing of these results upon the beginnings of Christian literature must be reserved until the separate writings are discussed. But before we proceed to that discussion, it is necessary to consider another language element of predominating importance in the wide field of the apostolie missionary labours, and of great importance also in Palestine. 1. (P. 2.) G. De Rosst, Della lingua propria di Cristo ὁ degli Ebrei nazionalt della Palestina da’ tempi de’ Maccabei, Parma, 1772. The lines here laid down were followed out by PFANNKUCHE in his article on the vernacular of Palestine in the time of Christ and the apostles in Eichhorn’s Allg. Bibl. der bibl. Literatur, viii. 3 (1798), 8. 365-480. ΟἿ, further, Fr. Deuırzsch, “ Uber die paläst. Volkssprache, welche Jesus und seine Jünger geredet haben,” in Saat auf Hoffnung, 1874, S. 195-215. With regard to later utterances of this scholar, in which he declared Hebrew rather than Aramaic to have been the original language of Matthew at least, see below, § 55. A. NEUBAUER, “On the dialects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ,” in Studia Biblica (vol. 1. of the Oxford Studia bibl. et ecclesiastica), 1885, pp. 39-74. MARSHALL, ‘ The Aramaic Gospel,” a long series of articles in the Haposttor, New Series, vols. ii.—viii. (1890-1893). A Meynr, Jesu Muttersprache. Das Galiltische Aramäisch in seiner Bedeutung für die Erklärung der Reden Jesu und der Evangelien Überhaupt, 1896. E. NESTLE, Philologica Sacra, Bemerkungen über die Urgestalt der Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte, 1896. G. DaLMAN, Die Worte Jesu mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen jüdischen Schrifttums und der aramäischen Sprache erörtert, Bd. i., Einleitung und wichtige Begriffe. Nebst Anhang : Messianische Texte, 1898 (Eng. trans. 1902). Of funda- mental importance from a philological standpoint is G. DALMAN, Grammatik des jüdisch-palüstinischen Aramäisch, 2te Aufl. 1905. Also by the same author, Aramiiische Dialektproben, Lesestücke zur Grammatik, ete., 1896. Lexica : J. Buxtorr, Lex. chaldaicum, talmudicum et rabbinicum, 1639; J. Levy, Neuhebr. und chald. Wörterbuch, 4 vols. 1876-1889 ; abid. Chalddisches Wörter- buch über die Targumim, 2 vols. 1876; M. JasıROWw, Dictionary of the Tar- gumim, the Talmud babli and yeruschalmi, 2 vols. 1886-1903. G. DALMAN, Aramidisch-neuhebriiisches Wörterbuch zu Taraum, Talmud und Midrasch, 1897- 1901. Though the rapid development of these studies is very gratifying, it is too soon to draw from them far-reaching conclusions as to the history and doctrine of the N.T. It is a bypath, and not a very alluring one at that, which leads from Wellhausen’s remarks upon the concept “Son of man” (Israelit. u. jtid. Geschichte, 1st ed. S. 312), quite correct as many of them are, to the development of these by A. Meyer (op. cit. 91 ff.), and from thence to Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (1896), and back to Wellhausen him- self (Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, vi. 187-215). Cf. Dalman, Worte Jesu, 8. 191-219 (Eng. trans. pp. 234-268); Fiebig, Der Menschensohn, 1901; ZKom. Matt. 346-356. 2. (P. 2.) Referring to words of Jesus, Mark v, 41, xv. 34, 6 ἐστιν μεθερμη: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 15 νευόμενον (cf. Matt. i. 23; Mark xv. 22; Acts iv. 36, xiii. 8; Mark iii. 17, vii. 11, 34, 6 ἐστιν (cf. Matt. xxvii. 46; Acts i. 19); in Mark xiv. 36 there is simply a juxtaposition of the Aramaic and Greek expressions (cf. Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6). John sometimes uses the same or similar formule, i. 38, 41, 42, ix. 7, xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2; sometimes he notes that a name used by him is Hebrew, without, however, adding a translation, v. 2; sometimes, after designating a place by its Greek name, he tells what it is called in Hebrew, xix. 13, 17. ν Rat 3. (P. 4.) Aramaic and Hebrew words and phrases, which Jesus is said in the Gospel to have used, are the following :—(1) Mark v. 41, raAıda coup (BLy) or coupe (AD, the Latins, S!, Aphraates, p. 65), to be written mp abe ; ef, Dalman, Gr.2 150, A. 6; 321, A. 1. The Greek variants make it doubtful whether the final 7, which in the Semitic character is to be written at any rate, was still audible. The statement of an anonymous onomasticon (ed. Lagarde, 199. 78), that coup is mase., κουμι fem., is grammatically correct, but is probably mere book-learning without regard to the actual pro- nuneiation. (2) Mark vii. 34, εφῴφαθα (so most authorities, εφῴεθα DNeLat., effeta Jerome, Onomast., ed. Lagarde, 64. 2), correctly taken by Mark (6 ἐστιν διανοίχθητι) and the Syrian translators (Ss Sh S! nnans) as a call in the mase. singular addressed to the deaf man, not as a call in the fem. plural—the ending being dropped—addressed to the ears, cf. Dalman, @r.? 278, A.1. (3) Mark xv. 34= Matt. xxvii. 46, In both passages the text has been trans- mitted in many varied forms, partly owing to a regard for the parallel passage. The original reading of Mark is perhaps eAwi ἐλωΐ λεμα (NCL, Napa BD, λιμα AKM, Acına HFG) σαβαχθανι (EFKL, Eus. Dem. x. 8. 14, oaßaxdaveı CGH, oaßarraveı N, ζαφθανει DLat., (aBapdaver B); that of Matthew is perhaps 7Acı 7Acı (instead of this Awı N, ελωεὶ B, both drawn from Mark) λεμα (NBL, λαμα D, λίμα or Anna most authorities) σαβαχθανι (al. -ve, DLat. ζαφθανει). Of the ancient Syrian translators (Se lacks both passages, Sh Mark xv. 34), Ss has in Mark ‘snpaw sınb nd πον, ae. exactly like the Syriac rendering of Ps, xxii. 1; it has the question in just the same form in Matthew also, S! likewise has it similarly in both Gospels, while Sh, on the contrary, has in Matt. xxvii. 46, n' npw ns; Ss and Sh have ὃν as the form of the address in Matthew (pp. 204, 211, only in the latter passage along with it being given the translation nb’s), S' has $x in both Gospels ; cf. the writer’s Das Evang. des Petrus, 1893, 8.38, 78. Epiphanius, Her. lxix. 68, Dindorf, iii. 221, ef. Ixix. 49, p. 196, remarks on Matt. xxvii. 46, that Jesus spoke the words ηλι, nc in Hebrew, following the original text of the psalm, but that He said what follows in Syriac. Lagarde, Gott. gel. Anz. 1882, 8. 329, pointed to this passage as proof of the systematic correction of even our most ancient MSS. which is only partially correct. As proof of the historical originality of Matthew’s x, a form which, while certainly Hebrew, was not unheard of in the Targum, is the fact that through this form the mis- understanding of the people (Matt. xxvii. 47-49 ; Mark xv. 35) becomes more intelligible ; ef. ZKom. Matt. 705, A. 86 (contrary to view held in first and second editions of the Einleitung). Mark, a native of Jerusalem, probably substituted ms, to which he was more accustomed, and which in style was more suitable in an otherwise Aramaic sentence. The obscure pronunciation eai instead of eAai, which was to have been expected, probably arose from 16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT dependence on the sound of the Hebrew elohim, elohai (cf. Dalman, @r.? 156, A. 1), customary in the living language of the Aramaic speaking Jews, On the other hand, the Western reading ¢ap@aver in both Gospels, which had found its way also into B in a still more corrupt form (see above), quite certainly points to scholarly knowledge and conscious consideration of the Hebrew text of the Psalms ; ef. Westcott-Hort, Appendix, 31. For evidently an a, which could easily have fallen out after Aewa or Aaya, is to be supplied ; so that a¢apdave, an entirely regular transliteration of the Hebrew ‘nary, is to be considered the original form of the reading. The fact, moreover, that D has Aapa in both Gospels (B only in Mark), discloses the effort to make the entire sentence Hebrew,—a result upon which Luther also ventured in both Gospels. We are in this matter not to be led astray by the fact that the mutilated text Caddaver was traced back to the Aramaic nayı by those ac- quainted with Syviae, and was translated, as in D (Mark xv. 34), by ὠνείδισάς pe (ef. also Dalman, Worte Jesu, 1. 43, A. 2 [ Eng. trans. 54, n. 1]). (4) Mark vii. 11, kopBav = δῶρον, in Matt. xv. 5 only the translation. In the eis τὸν κορβανᾶν (al, -Bovav, -Bava, -Bav) of Matt. xxvii. 6, where the high priests are speaking, and in Jos, Bell. ii. 9. 4, where, however, we should certainly read kopßaras, and not, with Niese, kopßovas,—the Aramaic stat, emphat. appears, In \nark vii. 11, where the word forms the predicate (ef. Jos. Ant. iv. 4. 4 ; ¢ Apion, i. 22), this form was at least not necessary ; hence Ss also in Mark vii. 11, Matt. xv. 5, is content with the stat. absol. jayp (Se S! xayp) ; on the other hand, in Matt. xxvii. 6, Ss S! have xsanp ma, Sh ssanpa. (5) Mark xiv. 36, d8Ba=6 πατήρ. This is its only occurrence in the Gospels, but it is found also in Rom, viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6, ef. ZKom. Gal. 204, and, with regard to Bar-abba, below, n. 16. Instead of this, Ss has here as in Matt. xxvi. 39 (πάτερ) "3ν, a form which S! pedantically enough places as a Syriac translation beside the exact transcription xax in Mark xiv. 36, and uses elsewhere for mdrep as well as for ὁ πατήρ intended as a vocative, Matt. xi, 25, 26, xxxvi. 39; Luke x. 21. The East Syrians considered ax better Syriac, while Sh has sax in Matt. xxvi. 39 ; Luke x. 21. Of. ZKom. Matt. 436, A. 40; Schlatter, Heimat uw. Sprache des 4 Evang. 54). (6) Mark iii. 17, Boaunpyes (al. -epyns, -epyes, min. 700 [al. 604], ed. Hoskier, Bavnpeyel, min. 565 [al. 473], ed, Belsheim, Bavnpeyes)= υἱοὶ βροντῆς. Ss wx na, so likewise S! with appended translation anyı na. Jerome on Dan. ii. 7, Vall. v. 625, and Onom., ed. Lagarde, 66. 9, demanded nothing less than a change of the text, which was alleged to be corrupt, into bane (or bene) reem. According to Kautzsch, Gr. des bibl. Aram. 9, the verb is not war, but 19% “to be angry” (Ss 8S! Matt. v. 22). The free translation in Mark is perhaps to be explained on the ground that viol ὀργῆς would be very liable to misunderstanding ; cf. Eph. ii. 3; Dalman, recently, @r.* 144, A. 2 ; 199, A. 3, prefers vn. The transeription, however, is remarkable. A superfluous a in Ἰωαχεβέδη (Jos. Ant. 11. 9. 4, ef. iii. 5. 3—moreover, the text here as transmitted is uncertain) will not explain the superfluous o in Boanerges. Delitzsch and Nöldeke, @ött. gel. Anz. 1884, 8. 1023, saw in this an attempt to reproduce a particular Galilean pronunciation; whereas Dalman, Worte Jesu, 39, A. 2 (ling. trans. 49, n. 2), would prefer to have either o or ἃ stricken out. (7) John i. 42, Knpas=6 Ilerpos ; inthe other Gospels only the translation. With regard to Paul’s usage, see below, ἃ 38, on 1 Pet. i. 1. Jerome, Onomast. 66. 14; 77,15, says: Syrum est; and rightly : for it is not 73, which INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 17 occurs only twice in the O.T. and then in the plural, but the very common Syriac word x5x2 (so Ss S' in John 1. 42, and the Syrians generally as the regular substitution for ἹΠέτρος, Sh xp). Instead of the translation ὁ Πέτρος we should have expected Πέτρος, or at best πέτρα, without the article (ef. Acts iv. 36); but John shows by this definite form that he felt the deter- minative force of the stat. emphat. Τὺ is established by Matt. xvi. 17 that Jesus gave this new name as a contrast to that which had been given ‚Simon at birth, as the son of his earthly father. Matthew has preserved the Aramaic form mv nz. According to this the father bore the name of the prophet Jonah, ef. Matt.:xii. 39-41 ; Luke xi, 29-32, which was common among Palestinian Jews even in later times (Levy, Newhebr. Lew. ii. 229, “name of many Amorites, especially in the Jerus. Gemara”). According to the correct text of John i. 42, xxi. 15-17, and two fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews (GK, ii. 693, 694, 712), his mame was rather John. The latter name is written in the OT. jjn\m, or when contracted m, eg. Neh. xii. 22=Ezra x.6; the former spelling as late as the coins of John Hyreanus (a. 135-105 ; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 76-80) and the Targum (e.g. 2 Chron. xvii. 15), in which occurs also the shorter form (eg. Jer. xl. 13). The ani. ᾿ Hebrew pronunciation is reproduced most exactly in Greek by Ἰωανὰν (2 Chron. xvii. 15; Ezra x. 6; Jer. xl. 13, xli. 11, ete,, iin LXX ; Luke iii. 27 ; along with which occur also here and there Ivavvav, Ioavva, Ιωναν, and in 2 Kings xxv. 23 in Cod. B the altogether incorrect leva) ; the next transliteration in the order of precision is Ἰωάνης, the form in the N.T. in Cod. B throughout, even where Tischendorf has not noted it, sometimes also in X Matt. xvi. 14, xvii. 1, 13; Cod.'L John 1, 32. In the Acts, D, which has the sharpened pronunciation everywhere in the Gospels, comes over to the side of B: Acts i. 5, 13, 22, ii. 1, 11, x..37, xiii, 24, 25, xix. 3, 4. Once, in iii. 4, D alone has this form. This spelling must be attributed to the older recension of Acts, and therefore to the author himself. Moreover, the corresponding female name is spelled Ἰωάνα by BD in Luke viii. 3, and by DL in Luke xxiv. 10. The wide diffusion of the form Ἰωάννης (cf. also um’ among the Syrians) cannot be due to a mere error of the Greek copyists, but implies that along with the old Hebrew forın there was also a sharpened pronunciation current in Palestine ; cf. Dalman, @r.2179, A.5. An analogous case is the name of the high priest 777 (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2. 1; Bell. v.12, 2 correctly Avavos), which we find in the N.T. (Luke iii. 2; John xviii. 13; Acts iv. 6) written Avvas almost without variants ; for this form certainly cannot be explained as arising froin a confusion of memory with the name myo (1 Sam. 1. 2; Luke ii. 86; Virg. Aen. iv. 9). (8) Matt. v. 22 paxa (BE and most authorities, paya N*D and the Latins) is classed with the Talmudic opprobrious term xp (stat. emph.), and this is explained as an abbreviation of ja. This is the view even of Dalman, Gr. 173, A. 2. The Syrians, who, without any hint that they were dealing with a foreign word, wrote xp (Ss Se Sh 551), seem with better right to have taken it for a Syriac word. Corresponding to the Hebrew pr (thin, lean, Gen. xli. 19) the word ‘has acquired among the Syrians the meaning “insignificant, despicable,” and among the Syriac speaking population about Antioch has been used as a derogatory form of addressing the lower classes, which has become almost meaningless, See, further, ZKom, Matt. 24. The μωρέ standing near it is Greek, VOL. I. 2 18 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of course. But since this Greek word occurs quite often in the form mn, op in the Midrash as an expression for “fool” (Neubauer, Athenwwm, 1881, ii. 779 ; Stud. Bibl., Oxford, 1885, p. 55; Krauss, Lehnwörter, i. 50, ii. 328), it follows that the Galileans, who otherwise spoke Aramaic, used this, like many another Greek word, in common life. (9) The Hebrew jpx, originally an adjective, but regularly an exclamation for the solemn confirmation of a prayer, a word of God, and the like. Usually in the LXX it is translated by γένοιτο, but sometimes (1 Chron. xvi. 36; Neh. v. 13) is transcribed as ἀμήν, and in this form was immediately introduced into the liturgical use of the Greek Churches, 1 Cor. xiv. 16; 2 Cor. i. 20. Even in the mouth of Jesus the single or double ἀμήν is an elliptical exclamation, like vai in Matt. xi. 9; Luke xi. 51, and is by no means an adverb modifying λέγω or the statement introduced by λέγω, that verb being on such a view a parenthetical nguam. The latter supposition is excluded by the simple fact that in many cases a ὅτι dependent upon λέγω follows. But a usage peculiar to the speech of Jesus is the ἀμήν, λέγω ὑμῖν (30 times in Matthew, 13 times in Mark, 6 times in Luke, 25 times with doubled ἀμήν in John) at the beginning of a saying which is neither in answer to a question nor in any way related to another saying as its solemn confirmation, as in Jer. xxvili. 6; 1 Kingsi. 36; Rev. v. 14. The usage in Rev. vii. 12, xix. 4, xxii. 20 is not essentially different from that of Jesus. With regard to Rev. iii. 14, see § 68, n. 8. Delitzsch (Zf{LTh. 1856, S. 422 f.) conjectured that the original form was xypx ἸΌΝ, the latter word being a contraction for 3x as. According to him, the Synoptists had given an exact translation, but John, in addition to this, and indeed quite after his manner, imitated the sound. The Babylonian Talmud was the only place where Delitzsch could find instances of the elision of the 7 in the case of contraction, and on this account Dalman, Gr.? 243, will not admit that it occurred in the speech of Jesus ; nevertheless, the con- jecture remains probable. (10) Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 9-13 μαμωνᾶς (μαμμωνας in N.T. is poorly attested ; in Church literature it is the prevalent form), poo Pirke Aboth ii. 12, Aram. smn, not infrequent, Levy, ii. 138 f., so also Ss Sc 51, xıoo» Sh, Luke xvi. 18. Jerome, Hp. xxii. 31 (cf. Ep. exxi. 6; ad Matth. vi. 24; Vall. vii. 36): “Nam gentili Syrorum lingua (Ep. 121: ‘Non Hebr&orum, sed Syrorum lingua’) Mammona divitise nuncupantur.” Ibid. Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 2. 86: “Mamona in lingua hebr&a divitie nuncupantur, non aurum, ut quidam putant.” Adam, Dial. c. Marc. (Lat. ed., Caspari, 37, effaced in the Greek text): “Mam- monam ... - pecuniam dieit gentili lingua,” which probably is to be traced back to Theophilus of Antioch, and refers to the Syriac spoken in the neigh- bourhood of that city, cf. ZKG, ix. 232f., 238f.; Iren. 111. 8. 1 (probably dependent upon Theophilus or Justin, or both): “Secundum Judaicam loquelam, qua et Samarite utuntur,” etc, ; August. de Serm. in Monte, ii. 14. 47, and Serm. 113 on Luke xvi. (cf. Quest. ev. ii. 34; Enarr. in Ps. lili. 2) distinguishes the “ Hebrew” mammona, the meaning of which he knew through Jerome, from the Punic mammon, which he knew through his own acquaintance with the language, and which he says means lucrum; cf. Schröder, Phönic. Sprache, 30. See also ZKom. Matt. 291, A. 6; concerning the doubtful etymology, cf. Nestle, EB, col. 2914; Dalman, PREH,® xii. 153, (11) σατανᾶς, in the Gospels and Acts, the authors of which regu- INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 19 larly use διάβολος (made current by the LXX), used only by Jesus (this is true of Acts xxvi. 18 also), the only.exceptions being Mark i. 13; Luke xxii. 3; John xiii. 27, and one'other passage (Acts v. 3), where it is used by Peter. It is used ordinarily by Paul also (2 Cor. xii, 7, Antiochian reading oarav, as in LXX 1 Kings xi. 14, 23). It is only in his later Epistles, from Eph. iv. 27(?) on, that it is sometimes replaced by διάβολος. The Aramaic form occurs as early as Sir. xxi. 27 (τὸν Sarava B* al. -vav); it is found in the Targum, even where it has no support in the original text ; it is used also in the Syriac Gospels, sometimes even for διάβολος, Sc Matt. iv. 1 ; Ss Luke iv. 2, 13; Ss Se John vi. 70; S! more seldom, eg. Matt. xiii. 39 ; Sh, on the other hand, regularly. (12) yéevva occurs outside of the Gospels (Matthew 7 times, Mark 3 times, Luke once) only once, Jas. iii. 6. The Hebrew om ; the pronunciation ge-hinnäm, from which the Hellenised form of the N.T. arose by dropping the m, is also that of the Targums and Talmuds. (13) τὸ πάσχα is used by Jesus in Matt. xxvi. 2, 17, 18; Mark xiv. 14; Luke xxii. 8, 11, 15. Still earlier than this, in the LXX (φασεκ in Chron. only), and hence used also by Philo and Josephus (also spelled φασκα repeatedly by the latter author, Ant. v. 1. 4, ix. 13, 3; Bell. ii. 1. 3) regularly in this Aramaicised form of the Hebrew nos. In Sh it is written sno» in Matt. xxvi. 2, 17, 18, Luke xxii. 8, and quite often, though the form xno» also occurs, Luke ii. 41. In Se Ss S! the form is xnxx. Among the Jews the pronunciation pascha must be older than pischa. (14) σάββατα, as regards its form, treated as the plural of σάββατον, and actually used with a plural meaning in Acts xvii. 2, perhaps also in Matt. xii. 5, 10, 12, Luke iv. 31, is, however, originally the sing. emphat. form xnav, and denotes: (a) a single Sabbath day, Matt. xii. 1, 11; Mark i. 21, ii. 23, iii. 2; ef. LXX very frequently, and perhaps even clearer instances in Jos. Ant.i. 1. 1, iii. 6. 6; Hor. Sat. i. 1. 69: “Hodie tricesima sabbata” ; hence also the expressions ὀψὲ σαββάτων, Matt. xxviii. 1, and ἡμέρα τῶν o., Luke iv. 16, xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5; Acts xiii. 14, xvi. 13, the latter phrase being used by Luke alone of the N.T. writers (in Mark vi. 2 it is an erroneous insertion of the Westerns) ; (b) the week, so at least in pia [τῶν] σαββάτων, Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1, 19; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. In Mark xvi. 9 this is changed into the un-Jewish πρώτη caßß., a form corresponding to x3wa ın the first day of the week, Sunday. Among the Jews also nav, xnaw, or contracted xaw, together with saw, had received the meaning of yay “week” (Levy, iv. 493, 506), Since even Josephus, in spite of his etymological learning, according to which σάββατα =dvaravois (Ant. i. 1.15; ¢ Ap. 11. 2. 11), uses ἑβδομάς, which properly denotes a group of seven, a week, also for the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath (Bell. i, 2.4, 7. 3, ii. 19.2; c. Ap. ii. 39; cf. 2 Mace. vi. 11), it is clear that the people generally had ceased to feel the distinction in derivation between’ naw, xnav, or rather the contracted form szy, and the word for “seven” yaw, xyay. Upon this supposition is explicable the signification given under (b). (15) Here the writer puts Βεελζεβούλ, a word cited by Jesus from the speech of His opponents as a term of reviling for Himself and for the devil as His ally (Matt. x. 25; Luke xi. 18), or put by the evangelists in the mouth of these opponents (Matt. xii. 24; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15), or adopted by Jesus Himself (Matt. xii. 27; Luke xi. 19), and even used in a 20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT good sense (Matt. x. 25). The Syrian translators (Ss Se 51, unfortunately Sk is wanting in all these passages) have everywhere put for it »21 >ya, %.e. the Exron god of flies, 2 Kings i. 2,6; and even a writer as early as Jerome was so convinced of the correctness of this interpretation, that, on the strength of it, he declared the reading Beelzebub, which is attested in no Greek MS., 'to be the only correct one (Onom. 66. 11-13), and through his Vulgate presented to the Latin Church this form now so general among us. Not a particle of proof has yet been found in the LXX, the remains of the other Greek versions, the Targum, or the Talmudie-rabbinie literature, which would support the view that the later Jews altered the name of this Ekron god so arbitrarily, or that they took any interest in him at all; such proof must first be forthcoming before we can rest satisfied with such a quid pro quo. Yet even recent writers like Kautzsch, 9; Dalman, @r.? 137; Graf v. Baudissin, PRE,’ ii. 514, content themselves with this explanation. To be sure, the thought of 521 to dung, 53: dung, ‘a: dunging, and the application of these words to idol-worship, which had become customary (Levy, i. 509f.), may have contributed to give the name Beelzebub an evil sense; but this name (and the only forms which have come down to us are BeeX (or Bee, or Be) -CeßovA) cannot be a transcription of zebel or zibbul, consequently the name must have been Sa Sys “Jord of the dwelling.” By the dwelling is meant naturally not that of God, the temple (1 Kings viii. 13), but the abode of the dead (Ps. xlix. 15), the stronghold of Hades, whence all the powers of destruction break forth (Matt. xvi. 18; Luke viii. 31; Rev. ix. 1-11, xx. 1-3). Jesus adopts the very word which His adversaries have used. When they call the devil a lord of the abode, they should at the same time consider that as such he has charge of an ordered household which he will not himself wantonly destroy, nor suffer to be plundered by others, so long as he can prevent it (Matt. xii. 25, 29). If they apply the name to Jesus Himself, He can appropriate it when reminding the disciples that He is the master of the house in which they form the household (Matt. x. 25). The first word of the compound name has the Aram. form, the second is Hebrew as well. Here belong also words which were spoken by those about Jesus, but as to which it is not expressly recorded that He used them Himself: (1) paßßi, "51, was the customary form with which the pupil addressed the teacher (John i. 38, translated by διδάσκαλε 8 times in John, 4 times in Matt., 3 times in Mark), and as such was referred to by Jesus Himself (Matt. xxiii. 7, 8; ef. John xiii. 13). Beside this, however, paßßovvi is used in addressing Jesus (Mark x. 51; John xx. 16)—both times with the variant reading ῥαββων εἰ. The pronunciation of ‘na “my lord and master,” may at that time have fluctuated between uw and o in the penult. The Jewish pronunciation ribbonv (Levy, iv. 416) probably belongs to a later period. Of. also ZKom. Matt. 643, A.70. Among the Syriac versions, Sh S! have retained this word in John xx. 16, S! has '» in Mark x. 51, Ss 20 in both passages, Se is wanting. (2) Meooias only in John i. 41, iv. 25, and then with the translation (6) Xpuords=Aramaic ἀπο, in the Targums, and especially among the Aramaic speaking Jews=nvien. The Syrians, without exception, have used for this word the Aramaic form, which everywhere in the N.T. is to be presupposed as the original of (6) Χριστός ; Sh alone, who elsewhere also has preserved Greek forms (e.g. oo’ Jesus), wrote w’op in John i. 41, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 21 iv. 25, and thus it was possible for him also, in slavish imitation of. the original, to add a translation, a thing which Ss Se S! declined, to do. The view of Lagarde (Verhältnis des deutschen Staats, etc., 1873, S. 293. Semitica, i. 50; Symmicta, ii. 92 ; Übersicht über die Bildung der Nomina, 1889, 5. 93-95 ; Register und Nachträge, 1891, S. 62, f.), that Meooias goes back to a ἈΠ, which, according to him, was originally Assyrian or Babylonian, later Nabatzan, 2.e. trans-Jordanic, and means “the repeatedly anointing one,” has justly met with no favour. It is beyond belief that the original meaning of the Aramaic word should have been misunderstood, not only by John, who was the first to transliterate it into Greek, and by all Greck speaking Christians, who called their Lord ὁ Χριστός even before, the year 43-44, during which the name Χριστιανοί arose in Antioch (§ 40, n. 9), but also by the Jews, who long since had used it in the sense. of “the anointed, the promised king” (e.g. also Onkelos, Gen. xlix. 10). The double oo for single ©, especially in the middle of a word, has analogies enough :; Αβεσσα, Cod. B, 1 Sam. xxvi. 6; Jos. Ant. xvii. 1.3; Αβεσσαλωμ, LXX 2 Sam, iii. 3, xiii. 1 ff., which also has some attestation in 1 Mace. xi. 70; Jos. Ant. vii, 1, 4; Ελισσαιος, Cod. A, without exception after 1 Kings xix. 16, attested pre- ponderantly in Jos. Ant. vill, 13. 7, and not inconsiderably in Luke iv. 27; Ιεσσαι, 1 Sam. xvi. 1ff.; Isa. xi. 1 (8 Ieoa.); Matt, i. 5f.; Luke iii, 32; som’ Dan. vi. 5 (al. 4), rendered by Jerome (Vall. v. 658) essaitha. If. all this should, be insuflicient to explain the form. Μεσσίας, we might regard as reproducing the original spelling the reading Meaias, in John i. 42, iv. 25, a reading the attestation of which can hardly be called slight. (9) Matt, xxi. 9,15; Mark xi. 9, 10; John xii. 13, wcavva; Ss Se (so far as they have these passages) and S! everywhere ssyzix,; on the contrary, Sh xayehn. Further- more, osanna oecurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews according to Jerome, Epist. xx. (GK, ii. 650, 694), it was early received into the liturgy of the Eucharist according to Didache x. 6, and it was shouted by the people in Jerusalem in the year 66 according to Hegesippus (Kus. H. E. ii. 28. 14), The original form of this, as is also shown by the context in the Gospels, is unquestionably the x3 aywin of Ps. exviii. 25. Whether he knew the whole psalm or not, every Jewish, child was familiar with these words, occurring as they did in the liturgy of the feast of Tabernacles,—a feast, moreover, which the palm branches would recall; ef. Delitzsch, Z/LTh, 1855, 8. 653 ff. The view proposed first, perhaps, by Merx in Hilgenfeld, NT extra cam. iv. 26, ed. ii. p. 25, and adopted by Siegfried, ZFWTh. 1884, S. 359, and others, according to which the original form was an Aramaic ΡΝ, “save us,” is in the first place opposed to all the tradition. The Greek translators, of Ps. exviii. 25 and the ancient commentators under- stood σῶσον δή ; cf. also Jerome, Onomast. 62. 29. Good proof must then be forthcoming before we can believe that Jews by misunderstanding the Biblical form found. here a suffix of the first person plural. Im the second place, the dative “to the son of David” (Matt. xxi. 9, 15) or “to the God of David” (Didache x. 6), excludes the possibility that those who thus hailed Jesus, or those who reported this, thought of an “us” as contained in the hosanna. In the third place, there is no verb ye in Aramaic at all, nor one related to this in derivation. The Hiph‘il of this Hebrew verb is rendered regularly in Targ. and Pesh. by pw. The Talmudic syvin as a name of the festal palm 22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT branch and (with oy) of the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, which passed over to the Syrians as a foreign word in the form νυν, and was made to apply to Palm Sunday (Payne Smith, Thes. s.v.), can certainly be nothing else than a shortened pronunciation of the Hebrew exelama- tion, a pronunciation reproduced exactly in the Gospels and in the liturgy of the Didache. To Aramaic-speaking Jews this pronunciation probably seemed an assimilation to their ordinary speech ; and when the East Syrians Ss Se S! replaced the initial » by x (Sh retained the Hebrew spelling with 1), this was simply a further Aramaicising of the foreign Hebrew word. An equally superficial and specious assimilation to the Aramaic is seen in the form Oshaya, the Babylonian Talmud’s spelling of the name which occurs as Hoshaya in the Palestinian Talmud (Levy, i. 48, 460), or in the variant spellings 738 and xpx, which occur in both Talmuds along with the form mn, a word derived from 37, and therefore Hebrew. By such a change hosanna became Aramaic to just about the same extent that Penston-trung is a German word. The same tendency, though in the reverse direction, is seen in the inscription on the sarcophagus of a Jewish princess, apparently from Adiabene (C. 7. Sem. ii. No. 156, see n. 12), in which the Aramaic word “queen” is written once in Syriac script correctly xn2sn, and once in the Hebrew square characters mn>bs, a form which appeared more Jewish. We cannot tell from Jerome’s report whether in the Gospel of the Hebrews the @cavva began with a 7 or an x, and it is still less possible to decide with how strong an aspiration the various members of the mixed multitude on that Palm Sunday shouted the first syllable of this word. 4. (Pp. 4,7.) Even translators as early as the LXX (and Theodotion) rendered n'2 in Dan. ii. 4, Ezra iv. 7 by συριστί (Vulg. syriace), 1.6. gave the name “Syriac” to the so-called Biblical Aramaic. The corresponding soo and pro jieb are the terms which the Palestinian rabbis apply both to the Biblical Aramaic and to the colloquial speech of their time, cf. Dalman, Gr.22 ; Levy, i. 168, ii. 529, iii. 495. According to Sotah, 495 (cf. Baba Kamma, 83a), Judah the “nasi,” the editor of the Mishnah, who lived in Palestine ec. 200, says: “What business has the Syriac language in the land of Israel? Let us have either the sacred tongue or the Greek, none other.” A rabbi, J oseph, living in Babylonia, recast this as follows: “What business has the Aramaic language in Babel? Let us have either the sacred tongue or the Persian, none other.” On the other hand, according to Jerus. Sotah vii. fol. 21e, Samuel bar-Nachman says in the name of rabbi Jochanan: “Let not the Syriac speech be of small account in thine eyes; for it is spoken in the Torah, the Nebiim, and the Kethubim,” which he then verifies by quoting Gen. xxxi. 47; Jer. x. 11; Dan. ii. 4; ef. the Midrash on Gen. xxxi. 47, translated into German by Wünsche, S. 364. Then follows in Jerus. Sotah vii. fol. 216 : “Jonathan of Bethgubrin (ü.e. a South Palestinian) saith: Four languages are adapted to be of service to the world, namely, the Greek for song, the Roman for war, the Syriac for lamentation, the Hebrew for oratory, and certain say: the Assyrian also for writing.” In Dial. eiii. Justin, who was born in the colony Flavia Neapolis in Samaria, calls the speech of the non-Greek inhabitants of Palestine ἡ Ἰουδαίων καὶ Σύρων φωνή, and distin- guishes it, so far as can be made out from the corrupt text, from ἡ Ἑβραίων φωνή. Eusebius of Cxesaren was bishop of a city, the non-Jewish inhabitants INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 23 and neighbours of which were called Syrians by Josephus, Vita, 11; Bell, ii. 18. 1f.,and he could not have remained ignorant of the language of the country. Moreover, he had acquired also some knowledge of Hebrew, prob- ably even in his early years under Dorotheus in Antioch (Eus. H. E. vii. 32. 2), and often showed it in his exegesis; yet he applied the name “Syriac” not only to the language of Edessa, from which he translated into Greek the legend of King Abgar (H.E. i. 13. 5, 20, iv. 30), but also to the vernacular of Palestine, into which the several parts of the Greek service had to be translated orally by interpreters in polyglot Churches, such as those at Jeru- salem and Scythopolis, for the benefit of those who did not understand Greek (Syr. text of the Book of the Martyrs of Palestine, ed. Cureton, p. 4; cf. the Latin and Greek excerpts published by Violet in TU, xiv. 4, S.7, 110), Justso Siwie peregrin. Itin. Hieros., ed. Geyer, 99, 14-24; Jerome, Epist. eviii, 30 ; Vita Hilarionis, ce. xxii. xxiil. (Vall. i. 723, ii. 25); Marci, Vita Porphyrii Gaz. (Bonn, 1895), pp. 55-57. What is meant is the language of the so-called Evan- geiarium Hierosolymitanum. Cf. in general Forsch. i. 18-44, 268-272, ii. 292-299 ; GK, i. 43, ii. 659f. Moreover, Eusebius has no hesitation in call- ing the mother tongne of the Galilean apostles Syriac: Demonstr. ev. iii. 7. 10, ἄνδρες τῇ Σύρων ἐντραφέντες μόνῃ φωνῇ, cf. iii. 4. 44; Theoph. syr., ed. Lee, iv. 6, v. 26, 46, partly also in Greek in Mai, Nova p. bibl. iv. 1. 118, 120. So Quest. ev. ad Steph. in Mai, 270 (probably words of the Julius Africanus who wrote at Nicopolis in Palestine a hundred years before Eusebius, Forsch. i. 40, n. 4, ὁ Ματθαῖος Σύρος ἀνήρ. In this sense Lucian, whose mother tongue was the Syriac spoken in Samosata (Forsch. ii. 297), called Jesus the well- known Syrian of Palestine, who is a good hand at healing demoniacs (Philo- pseudes, 16); and the Alexandrians derided the Jewish king Agrippa as a Syrian by hailing him as 7, a term about equivalent to monseigneur (Philo, ὁ. Flaccwm, vi. Mangey, ii. 522f.; ef. Dalman, Gr.? 152, A. 3). The “ five- tongued” Epiphanius (Jerome, c. Rufinus, iii. 6) was a Palestinian by birth, indeed, according to a not very trustworthy tradition, a Jew, and brought up by a rabbi (Opera, ed. Dindorf, v. p. vf.) ; but when he seeks to speak with precision (Her. lxix. 68, above, p. 15), he calls the Aramaic words spoken by Jesus on the cross “Syriac,” in distinction from the Hebrew words joined to them in Matt. xxvii. 46. Jerome in his explanation of the Hebrew names in the Bible regularly appends to the words and names in the N.T. which he regards as Aramaic the phrase Syrwm est (Onomastica, ed. Lagarde, 62. 19 ; 63, 3, 13; 64.27; 65.12; 66.14, 28; 67.27; 71.7; 73.24; 75.25), frequently with the further addition non hebreum (60. 18, 21, 25, 29; 61. 23; 63.17; cf. the passage concerning Mammonas above, p. 18, and the clear distinction between Hebrew and Syriac in Quest. hebr. in Gen., ed. Lagarde, 22. 11; 50.29). When the distinction between the Hebrew and the Aramaic form is insignificant, or one part of a compound word seems to admit of a Hebrew meaning, he expresses this also, though often rather unclearly. Onom. 60. 22: “* Barjona,’ filius columbe, syrum est pariter et hebr&um, ‘bar’ quippe lingua syra filius, et ‘yona’ coluraba utroque sermone dicitur”; cf. 65. 30f. ; 67. 22, 28; comm. in Matth. x. 13 (Vall. vii. 60; cf. the text-critical note appended): “Quod enim grace dicitur χαῖρε et latine ‘ave,’ hoc hebraico syroque sermone appellatur ‘Salom lagh (lach?’) sive ‘Salama lach’ id est “pan teewm’” ; comm. in Gal. ii. 11 (Vall. vii. 409): “Quod quam nos latine 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT et greece petram vocemus, Hebri et Syri propter lingus inter se vieiniam Cephan nuncupent.” On the other hand, Jerome when thinking of Dan. ii. 4 chose to call the Biblical Jewish Aramaic sermo chaldeus or chaldaicus (Pref. in Dan., Tob., Judith, ix. 1361, x. 2 f., 22), even though in his translation’ of Dan. ii.4 he had used syriace. This explains, then, the combination Syrorum et Chaldworum lingua inthe Prol. galeatus in libros Regum-(Vall. ix. 454), and the statement about the Gospel of the Hebrews (c. Pelagium, iii. 2 Valli it 782): “Chaldaico quidem syroque sermone, sed hebraieis literis seriptum est”; cf. GK, ii. 659 ff. Theodoret, who was acquainted with Syriac (ef. Forsch. 1: 39-43), recognised no distinctions of dialect within that language as it was spoken in Palestine, in Pheenicia, on the Euphrates, and in Edessa, but such as according to Judg. xii. 6 existed within ancient Israel (Opp., ed. Schulze, i. 337). To this may be added the opinion of a modern philologist (Sachau, on the Palmyrene tax. law of 137 a.p. in ZDM @, 1883, 5: 564: “ The language on no other monument isso closely related to Biblical Aramaic as'that in this Palmyrene tax inscription. ..... It is the language which: was spoken in Palestine at the time of the composition of Chronicles (#rca:200 B.C.) and of Daniel (167-166 B.c.), as'well'asat Palmyra in Hadrian’s time. . . It is the language of Christ and His contemporaries.” The ancient Syrian translators of the Gospels recognised their own tongue in the Aramaic. words and sentences written in Greek letters, and transcribed them in Syriac letters either altogether unchanged (Mark v. 41), or with merely a slight change of form (Mark xv. 34), so that it was’possible for them to dispense with almost all the remarks in the Gospels referring to translation. S!, who was later than Ss Se, was the first who quite often, e.g. Mark xiv. 36, John xx. 24; took the needless trouble of preserving for the Syrians these remarks so superfluous for them. 5. (P. 4.) The Treasure Cave (Syriac and German by Bezold, Germaw part, p. 29, also on the margin of the Syriae text) names as the original! language of mankind “the Syriac tongue, which is the Aramaic; for this tongue is the king (jv being mase.) of all tongues . . . for all tongues on: the earth have sprung from the Syriac, and commingled with it are all discourses in books.” Cf. the Syrian Tatian’s opinion of Greek, Oratio ad Grec. i.26, and the writer’s explanation of this, Forsch. i. 271 ἢ, 6. (P. 5.) Concerning Aramaie in the Persian period, cf. Néldeke, Die semitischen Sprachen, eine Skizze, 2te Aufl. 1899, 8.34. Among other proofs are the Aramaic inscriptions and papyri from Egypt beginning with 482 2.0. (C. I. Sem. ii. No. 122), Of. Ezra iv. 7. 7. (Pp. 5, 7.) The heathen woman fromthe region of Tyre and Sidon is called by Matthew (xv. 22), in accordance with his antique style (ef. ii. 204. γῆ Ἰσραήλ, and also the saying of Judah quoted above, p. 22, n. 4), a Canaanite woman ; ini Mark vii. 26 she is called, with reference to her heathen religion, Ἑλληνίς (see § 2, n. 2), to which, however, Συροφοινίκισσα is added in order to denote that she was a Pheenician by birth and a Syrian in speech,—certainly not in order to tell, superfluously enough, in what country Tyre (vii. 24) was situated ; ef. Lucian, Deor. concil. 4, where Συροφοίνιξ in contradistinction to Ἕλλην denotes those Pheenicians who spoke Syriac. The earliest writings in which Συροφοινίκη is found are those of Justin; he uses it when referring to an administrative measure which had been passed shortly before, but which INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 25 probably remained in force only temporarily, saying (Dial. lxxviii.) of the Damascus of his time as contrasted with that of the time of Christ’s birth: νῦν mpooveveunra τῇ Συροφοινίκῃ λεγομένῃ (cf. Spart. Hadrianus, 14, and Tertullian, ὁ. Mare. 111. 13, who 15: here dependent. upon Justin).. Arche- ologists fail to give this sentence due weight when they put the first estab- lishment of a province of this name as late as circa 194; see the summary in Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverw.? i. 423 f. Cf. also the inscriptions from the time of Aretas (Haritat) ıv. published by Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften (1885), Nos. 1-20, or Οἱ I. Sem. ii. No. 196 ff. Perhaps even as early as Nehemiah’s time Aramaic in various dialects was spoken in Moab and in Ashdod, so that the speech contrasted with the “Jews’ language” in Neh. xiii. 24 is essentially the same as that in Isa. xxxvi. 11. 8. (P. 6.) Even as late as the times of the Hasmonean princes, John Hyreanus (135-105 2.c.) and Aristobulus (105-104), the language on the coins is pure Hebrew (Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 76-83). ‘Moreover, when Alexander Jannzus (104-78) ventured to have stamped, not only coins with a Hebrew inscription, on which he designated himself as high priest, but also coins inscribed in Greek on the one side and in Semitic on the other, on which he assumed the title of king, he used in both cases a purely Hebrew expression (Madden, pp. 83-90). Even his Aramaicised name ‘xx is replaced by the original Hebrew forms jns or 753", more rarely jn. 9. (P. 6.) Aids to the elementary. study of the Modern Hebrew of the learned class: Geiger, Lehr- wnd Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah, 2 parts, 1845 ; Siegfried and Strack, Lehrbuch der neuhebräischen Sprache, 1884. Since the Greek ἰδιώτης, pronounced virın by the Jews, denotes the uncultured in contrast to the scholar, 1.6. to the scribe among the Jews (Acts iv. 13, ἀγράμ- paroı καὶ ἰδιῶται, cf. Artemid. iv. 59 -- ἀπαίδευτοι), via pw primarily forms the contrast to the “tongue of the learned” (m:n pwd) or the “tongue of our teachers.” When contrasted with the Aramaic vernacular, this learned tongue and the Biblical Hebrew were regarded as forming a single language ; so that the tongue of the “sacred language,” or “Sursi” (p. 22, n. 4), which is but another designation of the same language, came to be contrasted with the “sacred tongue” in like manner (Jerus. Sanhed. 25d, line 8). At other times, however, the “tongue of the learned” was in its turn distinguished from the “tongue of the Torah,” or Biblical Hebrew. 10. (P. 7.) We must not form our judgment of the actual relation between Hebrew and Aramaic even among learned circles from such dictatorial words as those of Judah the “nasi” (above, p. 22, n. 4). Among the good works by which a man earns eternal life, one is for an inhabitant of the land of Israel to speak the sacred tongue (Jerus. Shekalim iii. 476, line 2 from bottom), which shows. that this was no insignificant task. A very ancient commentary (Sifre, in Ugolini, Thes. xv. 581) emphasises the fact that Deut. x1. 19 speaks only of sons, not of daughters, and appends the remark of a rabbi, Jose ben Akiba (this should read probably Akabja, see Strack, Einl. in d. Talmud, 84): “Therefore it is said, When the boy begins to speak, the father should speak the sacred tongue with him and teach him the Torah. If he neglects this, he might as well have buried him.” A learned Jew in Palestine confessed to Origen that he did not trust himself to give the Hebrew names of things not mentioned anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, and that 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the most learned were in no better ease ; but he held that it was over hasty to make use of the Syriac tongue instead of the Hebrew in such cases (Orig. Kpist. ad Afric. vi. Delarue, i. 18). 11. (P. 7.) Josephus, who employs πάτριος γλῶσσα (Bell. v. 6. 3) and marpios (Bell. v.2. 1), uses also not infrequently and with propriety ἡ ἐπιχώριος γλῶσσα. According to him, Bell. iv. 3..5, the name of a certain Jew in. this language meant δορκάδος παῖς, “Son of the Gazelle” ; hence the Aramaic must have been xpay ap; cf. Acts ix. 36; Levy, ii, 134. Of. Bell. v..4. 2, ἐκλήθη δ᾽ ἐπιχωρίως Βεζεθᾶ τὸ νεόκτιστον μέρος ὃ μεθερμηνευόμενον ἑλλάδι γλώσσῃ καινὴ λέγοιτ᾽ ἂν πόλις. This name has been transmitted in very manifold forms herg and in ii. 15. 5; 19.4; v. 5.8; see below, n. 15. 12. (Pp. 8,10.) The Aramaie or Syriae (above, p. 4f.), spoken by the Jews of Palestine, is called &ßpaiori in John v. 2, xix. 13, 17; for whatever the decision as to the correct reading in v. 2, there are Aramaic word forms in all three passages (n. 15). It is most natural, then, to assume that the same was true of the title on the cross, xix. 20, The ἑβραϊστί in John xx. 16, if its genu- ineness may be considered established, refers to a late Hebrew form. Josephus, too, applies the term Hebrew to both Hebrew and Aramaic forms without distinction : Ant. iii. 10, 6, πεντηκοστή, ἣν "Eßpatoı ἀσαρθᾶ καλοῦσι, Heb. NYY, Aram. xpyy, a form which first occurs in this signification of Pentecost. Although the distinetion between Hebrew and Syriac must have been perfectly clear to him from the studies of his youth as well as from the O.T. (Ant. x. 1. 2, cf. iii, 7.2), he substitutes without ceremony Aramaic for Hebrew forms not only in σάββατα, πάσχα, where he had been preceded by the LXX (above, p. 18f.), but also on his own responsibility, as, e.g., when he says of the priests, Ant. iii, 7,1, obs xavavalas (better xaavalas) καλοῦσιν = δῆ; ch Siegfried, Z/A TW, 1883, 5. 50. If, according to him, ἀδώμα -- “red,” is Hebrew (Ant. ii. 1. 1), xayipas or dyipas, “lame” (Bell. v. 11. 5), can also be called Hebrew. The “tongue of the Hebrews,” in which a freed- man of King Agrippa I. announced to that monarch in Rome the death of Tiberius (Ant, xviii. 6. 10), can surely be none other than that from which the Alexandrians borrowed the derisive term Mari for the same Agrippa (above, p. 23). It is the πάτριος γλῶσσα οἱ the Jerusalemites (Bell. v. 6, 3); 9. 2; οἵ. ὁ. Apion. i. 9), to use which is termed ἑβραΐζειν (Bell. vi. 2.1). In this language Josephus had originally written his work upon the Jewish War, so that the Jews throughout the whole East might read it (Bell. 1, pro®m. 1f.). In that very passage he designates the readers for which this first draft was intended primarily as οἱ ἄνω Bapßapoı by way of contrast to the domain of Greek literature (§ 1); and it is not until § 2, where he speaks of them as dwelling in the remotest parts of Arabia and also in Parthia, Babylonia, and Adiabene, that he incidentally drops the hint that he really has in mind only his own people in those regions. But this im- plies also that the living language which he calls his πάτριος γλῶσσα (his mother tongue, as we would say) was in the main the common language of the whole territory deseribed. To be sure, king Izates of Adiabene, a con- vert to Judaism, sent five of his sons to Jerusalem in order that they might learn there the language and culture accurately (γλῶτταν τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν πάτριον, says Jos. Ant. xx. 8, 4); but all that follows from this is that a Syrian from Adiabene did not speak Aramaic quite 80 accurately as it was INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 27 spoken “among us” in Jerusalem, to use Josephus’ phrase. Upon the sarco- phagus of a princess, probably of this royal house, is a double Aramaic in- scription (C. I. Sem. ii. No, 156, ef. Schiirer, iii. 121 (lung. trans. 11. ii. 310, n. 287) ; above, p. 22, line 17). This, then, was the πάτριος γλῶσσα of Josephus, which not infrequently he calls Hebrew. The same term was used also by those Church Fathers whose knowledge of the facts cannot be denied, Kuse- bius, or perhaps Julius Africanus (above, p. 23), calls Matthew in the same breath a Syrian man and “a Hebrew as to his speech.” The same writer calls the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, which he had in his hands and from which he made intelligent excerpts, “the Gospel which among the Jews is in the Hebrew tongue” (Theoph. iv. 12). Jerome, who by copying this Gospel and by translating it twice had beeome thoroughly acquainted with it, and who has indicated with precision the character of its language (above, p. 23), calls it very frequently a Hebrew Gospel, or the Hebrew Matthew (@K, ii. 651 ff.). Moreover, the same Aramaic words and names in the N.T. which in the Onomasticon and elsewhere he declares to be not Hebrew, but Syriac, are yet called Hebrew by him quite frequently in other passages (above, p. 18, line 351. ; GK, ii. 660). Epiphanius, who, as was shown above, p. 15, line 38, was quite able to distinguish between Hebrew and Syriac, nevertheless in the same passage in which he expresses the distinction, and immediately before he does so (Her. Ixix. 68, Dind. iii. 221. 26), classes both languages under the concept of the ἑβραϊκὴ διάλεκτος. Likewise in Her, xxvi. 1 he reckons the Syriac sq “fire,” primarily as belonging to the Hebrew tongue, but adds immediately that it is not the “deep,” 1.6. ancient tongue of this name, in which the name for fire is quite different, but the Syriac dialect to which it bears this relation. Nevertheless he asserts else- where (Ancor. 2) that Bap is a Hebrew word. As late as 600 A.D. or there- abouts, Joannes Moschus used ¢Spaiori of the vernacular of Palestine (Prat. spir. 136, Migne, 87. 3000, in the old translation syriace). rom all of which it follows that in the whole realm of N.T. and ancient Church literature the word “ Hebrew” denotes the Aramaic tongue of the Oriental Jews quite as much as it does the original language of the O.T. and the learned language of the rabbis. 13. (P. 9.) According to the corrected text of Mark xiv. 70, the way in which Peter’s Galilean origin was discovered is not expressly stated, since Roman readers, for whom this Gospel was probably intended, were unae- quainted with linguistic conditions in Palestine; yet it is presupposed. And Matt. xxvi. 73 says explicitly, for the benefit of its Palestinian readers, καὶ yap ἡ λαλιά σὸυ δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ. This word is not like διάλεκτος in the ancient sense of that word (Acts ii. 6, 8); it denotes, not a grammatically and lexically separate language or dialect, but the manner of speaking (οἵ, also John viii. 43), and has reference to accent and pronunciation. Variations of this kind had existed from time immemorial (ef. Judg. xii. 6, and 'Theo- doret’s comment upon it, Schulze, i. 337). The anecdotes in which the Galilean “dialect” is ridiculed in the Talmud, especially Erubin, 535, concern the pronunciation of consonants of similar sound (Neubauer, 51; Dalman, Gr.” 57 ff.; for illustrations see Fischer in his revision of Winer’s Chald. Gram. 31 ff.). There is not a hint in the New Testament that Jesus caused any surprise in Jerusalem by His pronunciation, although, like Peter, He was 28 INTRODUETION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT looked. upon: askance,as an unlearned man (John vii. 15) and as a Galilean (John, vii. 41). With all due respect. for the learning and thoroughness with which of late Dalman has. been at pains to distinguish Judean, from Galilean Aramaic, one may question whether the separation of the. sources which underlies this work furnishes a sufliciently secure foundation for such'an undertaking, 14. (P. 9.) The Aramaic dialects. spoken by non-Jews (East Syriac, West Syriac, Nabatzan, Palmyrene), which exerted an. unavoidable influence upon the speech of Aramaic-speaking Jews also, are one language in spite of; their differences, as can. be seen clearly upon comparison with the High German dialects (Alemannic, Swabian, Bavarian, Franconian, etc.). Similarly a certain idea of the relation of, Hebrew to Aramaic may be gained by one not versed in those languages, if he contrasts High German with Low German, In both cases there is a correspondence between certain sibilants in the one language and: certain dentals in the other (High Ger. Zeit = Low Ger. Tid, lassen=ldten, beissen=biten, muss=möt ; in like manner, Heb. am gold= Aram, 277, ns rock=», nw Assyria=nx). The difference is much greater, however, in the case of Hebrew and Aramaic, for the reason that Aramaic has no article, and possesses only an imperfect substitute for it in its status emphatacus with termination in ὦ (me). 15. (P. 9.) In John v. 2 the name of the pool at, the sheep-gate, which the MSS. give in such various forms, is not indeed translated, as in ix, 7; yet the remark is made that it is a Hebrew word, which shows that the evangelist reflected upon its meaning. But there would be reason and, sense in his doing so only in case he wrote Βηθεσδα and meant this to be under- stood asınıon ma “ house of grace,” “mercy.” By a deed of gracious love, in imitation of His Father who is ever working (v. 17-21), and in spite of the Sabbath, Jesus gave true meaning to the name of the place, while His oppo- nents, who lacked the divine love (v. 42), accuse Him on account of this as a Sabbath-breaker, but for this very reason shut themselves out from the sphere of His quickening activity (v. 40). This reading, which is supported by the Greek MSS. (with the exception of D and the closely related XBL), was understood as above by the ancient Syrians (Sc Sh S!, Ss is wanting here), and was so transcribed. Concerning the variants in text, and the attempts, continued to the present time, to give other meanings to the names, see ZKom. Joh. (ad loc.). In any case, then, the name would be Aramaic. Likewise AxeAdaya (so most authorities, xo1 9pn S!, AreAdauax B, Αχελδαμαχ D, AreAdanar E), which according to Acts i. 19 belongs to the language of those in Jerusalem (S! “in the language of the place”), and in agreement with Matt. xxvii. 8 is translated χωρίον αἵματος. The first part of the compound name >pn, used in the Targums to translate the Heb. my, has no essentially identical Hebrew word corresponding to it. Klostermann, Probl. 1-8, refers the second pant to the Syriac 797 “to sleep,” and accordingly translates the word “field: of the dead.” But such an interpretation seems to have. in- sufficient grounds from an exegetical standpoint, cannot be regarded as corresponding to Palestinian usage, and even though the x at the end is probably genuine, cannot be established, on the strength of that. Dalman, @r.2 202, A. 3, cites as parallels Ἰωσήχ, Luke iii. 26, for Ὃν, the abbreviated Joseph, and Sepay for xyp. Taßßada, John xix. 13 (written also, though INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 25 less aceurately, Taßafa, Sh un, 8! amers:, Ss Se are wanting), is probably xp: (Neubauer, 56; Dalman, Gr., lte Aufl. 108, A. 1, but enn23 2te Aufl. 160, A. 4; Worte Jesu, 6 [Eng. trans. 7,n. 2]). Alongside of this the evangelist Puts λιθόστρωτος (or -ov), pavement, especially mosaic pavement; and though, indeed, he does not give it as the translation of Gabbatha, he remarks that the Jews in their language call this particular mosaic pave- ment in the pretorium at Jerusalem, or any pavement of that kind, “gabbatha” ; so that he must have in mind a derivation which explains this. He cannot, then, have been thinking of 73, «33 (mase.) “ridge,” “hillock,” or «723 “summit,” or of «enzi “baldness” (Dalman, Worte, 6 [Eng. trans, 7, n. 2]), but probably rather on 332 (to pick up, rake together straw, wood, vegetables, etc.), and substantive 7223, #22: (small sticks of wood and the like; examples in Jastrow, 204; Levy,i 291). The signification “parquet or mosaic fioor” would be natural enough. Τολγοθα, Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John xix. 17; in Sh ans, written exactly as in Targ. Onkelos Ez. xvi. 16, the stat. emph. of xb:yu “skull,” corresponding to the ‘Heb. rbsba, rendered easier of pronunciation in Greek by-omission of the ‘second +, and in Ss S! by omission of the first. | The localities near Jeru- ‘salem, Βηθῴφαγη, Matt.xxi. 1, Mark xi. 1 (ἢ), Luke xix. 29 (Sh x» wa, Ss 51 without «, written by the Jews also "se mz, literally “house of the unripe figs”), and Tefompaveı (-vı, -vn), Matt. xxvi. 36, Mark xiv. 32 (misunderstood by all the Syriac versions; it is sog nz, literally “ press of the oils”), are-by no means Hellenised by the appending of a termination, like so many names in Josephus, but are exact reproductions of Aramaic plurals in é, or i for in, and are treated as indeclinable; ci. Dalman, Gr.*.191. Moreover, Oghas, Jos. Bell. ii. 17. 9, v. 4. 2, is Aramaicised. Of course, in addition to these there remained in use time-honoured names such as τὸν Isa viii. 6.in LXX (ἐς also in Neh. in. 15); Luke xiii 4; John ix. 7, 11, Σεριωάμ or Σιλωάμ, prob- ably written by Josephus regularly Ξίλωά, so that he could decline it, Bell. v. 4.1.2. As for the name of the Holy City itself, the Jew, and especially the Palestinian Jew, save when he wished toadapt ittothe Greek by transiorming it into Ἱεροσόλυμα, probably never pronounced it otherwise than Yerushalem, and certainly im no case said Urishlem, the pronunciation in Edessa. 16. (Pp. 9,12.) No onomasticon of the N.T. can be given here, yet certain remarks ean be made which will be in part pertinent to later detailed investi- gations. We find old Hebrew names, such as Jacob, Johanan, Joseph, Judah, Simon, among Galileans as well as in Jerusalem and Judea. It may be that people in Jerusalem, like the historian Josephus, preferred the full form τον (Jos. Vita, 1; Bell. i procem. 1, Ἰώσηπος, like the patriarch, Ant. 1. 19. 7, the high priest Joseph Caiaphas, Ant. xviii 2.2; Joseph the son of Kami, Ant. xx. 1, 3; the father of Jesus, a Judean, in the N.T. invariably written Ἰωσήφ); and that, on the other hand, the abbreviated cr (Dalman, Gr.? 106, 175, A. 2) was more usual among the Galileans (Mark vi. 3, probably also Matt. xiii. 55,4 brother of Jesus, Mark xv. 40, 47; Matt. xxvii. 56 another; Jos. Βα, ῖν. τ, 4; 1,9, probably Ἰώσην should be read, a Jew in Gamala ; among the great rabbis “Jose the Galilean”; but there are many others also who were not Galileans zu the liste given by Strack, Einl. in d. Talmud, 77-93, about a dozen). The Heb. j52# is written Σίμων as early as Sir. 1 1; 1 Maec. ii. 3 (alternating with Συμεων, ii. 1, 65), and regularly so in Josephus and 30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the N.T., a form identical with a Greek name of even classical times (Pape- Benseler, Wörterbuch der griech. Eigennamen, s.v.; Fick - Bechtel, Griech. Personennamen, 251), and which, therefore, could not have sounded so strange to a Greek as Συμεών. This latter form was used regularly in the LXX, is the only form to be found in many passages in 1 Mace,, and was used sometimes by Josephus also, Ant. xii. 6. 1 (along with Σίμων) ; Bell. iv. 3.10; used in the N.T. of the old man in Luke ii. 25, 34; put in the mouth of James, Acts xv. 14, and used by Peter himself, 2 Pet. i. 1, with reference to Simon Peter; used of a teacher in Antioch, Acts xiii. 1; of the Israelitish tribe, Rev. vii. 7 ; and once in the genealogy, Luke iii. 30. This form sounded more ancient and more genuinely Jewish. The e init was an attempt to repro- duce the sound of the y, as in ’EA-e-d¢apos, and the v served the same purpose as in Συχέμ, Gen. xxxiv. 2, along with which occurs Σίκιμα, Gen. xxxiii. 18. In a family in Jerusalem the husband bore the Heb. name Chananyah, the wife the Arm. Shappira or Shafira (Acts v. 1). In the home in Bethany we find together names of most various kinds, viz. first o, which the Massoretes (Ex. xv. 20) intended should be read Miryam, but which seems to have been pro- nounced commonly Maryam in N.T. times, and even long before that; for the LXX everywhere has Μαριαμ; and Josephus, after his fashion of adding an ending so as to decline it in Greek, has everywhere Μαριάμη (probably it is to be spelled thus with a u throughout), only once Μαρία, Bell. vi. 3, 4 (Niese, vi. 201). The name of Jesus’ mother, as one might expect from the antiquated Hebraic style of the stories of the infancy, which are the only passages where that name occurs frequently (elsewhere only in Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Acts i. 14), is in the nominative (v. 1; Luke ii. 19), accusative (also Matt. i. 20), and vocative Μαριάμ; in the genitive, however, Μαρίας, in the dative once Μαρίᾳ (Acts i. 14), and once Μαριάμ (Luke ii. 5). Only once elsewhere do we find the latter form attested as the name of a Christian woman of the East (Rom. xvi. 6; see below, § 23, n. 1). All other Marys of the N.T., including her of Bethany, are always called Mapia. Cf. Barden- hewer, Bibl. Stud. i. 1. 1-17, especially also 9, n. 1,2. Second, the sister Martha bears an Aram. name which is quite common even in Talmudic literature (Zunz, Ges. Schr. ii. 14; Levy, ii. 234, 251), but which is not Hebrew at all, smn, “the lady”; cf. also Orig. c. Cels. v. 62; Epiph. Her. xix.2. Third, the brother has the ancient Heb. name ὃν in an abbreviated form then common, Adlap (-os), John xi. 1; cf. Luke xvi. 20; Jos. Bell. v. 18. 7; Jastrow, 72. It is also indicative of the language then in use that in the N.T. there are numerous patronymics beginning with Bar-, but not one beginning with the corresponding Heb. Ben-. In Josephus, indeed, except for Barnabazos, which was probably the Jewish way of writing the Persian Pharnabazos (Ant. xi. 6. 4), Bar- is altogether lacking also; but this is simply because he translates it by vids or παῖς, or else substitutes the genitive of the father’s name. The Simon whom he calls the son of Gioras, Bell. ii. 19. 2, 22.1, had, according to Dio Cass. Ixvi. 7; Tac. Hist. v. 12, the good Aram. name of sm a, 1.9. “son of the proselyte.” Like this Simon, most if not all the bearers of such patronymies probably possessed in addition personal names of their own ; see above, p. 16, concerning Simon Peter. This must have been the case with the many who were called Bar-abba, “son of the father” (0. 1. Sem. ii. No. 154, and the list of the Talmudic teachers in Strack’s Hint. in d, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 31 Talmud, 2te Aufl. S. 88, 90). Thus the name of the Bar-abba in Matt. xxvii. 16-26, Mark xv. 7-15, Luke xxiii. 18, John xviii. 40, was Jesus, according to very ancient tradition, which has been confirmed recently by the reading of Ss in Matt. xxvii. 16 (Forsch. i. 105, 108; GK, ii. 699; this treats also of the misinterpretation of the name traceable to the Gospel of the Hebrews to the effect that it meant “son of their teacher”). So the Barsabbas of Acts i. 23, who bore the particular name Joseph, and in addition to this the Latin cognomen Justus; so also the other Barsabbas of Acts xv. 22, whose par- ticular name was Judah. Aside from the cases, which are quite frequent, where the former person is confounded with Joseph Barnabas of Acts iv. 36 (GK, ii. 562), the reading in both passages of Acts, just as in Papias (Hus. H. E. iii. 39. 9), fluctuates between -σαββας and -caBas. The former reading suggests xavi(=xnaw Sabbath and week, see above, p. 19), to which Hitzig, Merx’ Archiv, i. 107, called attention (though he himself preferred xax host); the latter, x2p “the old man,” as Theodoret translated it even when a proper name (Hist. Rel. 2, Schulze, iii. 1119). Other instances in Dalman, @r.? 180, A.2. Opinions still differ widely about the second element of Bar-nabas also (Hitzig, op. cit. 106; Klostermann, Problenic, 8-14 ; Deissmann, Bibelstud. 177; Neue Bibelstud. 16; Dalman, Gr., Ite Aufl. 142, again differently 2te Aufl. 178; Worte Jesu, 32 (Eng. trans. 40 f.); Nestle, Phil. sacra, 19 f.), and the meaning of Bar-timai (Mark x. 46) has not been cleared up yet even by Nestle, Marginalien, 83-92. The evangelist, who here, con- trary to his custom, mentions by name a person healed by Jesus, plainly because he was known by this name in Christian circles (cf. Mark xv. 21 and Klostermann, Das Markusevangeliwm, 222, 292), does not show the slightest interest in the meaning of Timai. Otherwise he would have translated it. He might have contented himself with ὁ υἱὸς rod Τιμαίου, just as Ss does on the other hand with Bar-Timai, except for the simple reason that such an expression instead of an individual proper name would have been as strange to Greek readers in a prose narrative as it would have been natural to Jews or Syrians ; hence after the Greek words he puts the Aram. form with a Greek ending, thus making clear that this was a proper name or the ordinary substitute for such. Moreover, we do not know the particular name of the Apostle Βαρθολομαῖος (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 14; Acts 1. 13, Ss 81 prin na, Sh son 72, which may mean “son of Ptolemy,” but which can just as well go back to a Semitic name, Dalman, @r.?176. In the writings of the oldest Syrians, Aphraates, 65, and the translator of Eus. H. E. i. 12. 3, ii, 1.1, iii. 25. 6, 29. 4, 39. 10, the name Matthias, Acts i. 23, is supplanted by Thulmai). It is therefore very possible, indeed,—and a very simple putting of facts together makes it also probable,—that he was called Nadavanı =xin3 (John i. 46-50), an ancient Heb. name (Num. i. 8; 1 Chron. ii. 14, xv. 24, xxiv. 6; in later times, Ezra x. 22; Neh. xii. 36; also Jos. Ant. xx. 1, 2; Jerus. Hagiga, 77a, line 8 from bottom). If this name was rare in N.T. times, as seems probable, it is the more easily explained why Nathanael, like Barabba, Barnaba, Bartimai, was, as a rule, called by his father’s name or his surname. Σιλᾶς, also, Acts xv. 22 ff, is an Aram. name. Especially to be rejected is the idea that it is a contraction from Σιλουανός or Σιλβανός (so B in 1 Pet. v. 12), which would be rather Σιλουᾶς or Σιλβᾶς (Jos. Bell. vii, 8.1, a Φλαουιος Σίλβας, whose name, according to inscriptions and writers, is 32 INTRODUCTION TO THE ‚NEW TESTAMENT spelled now Silva, now Silvanus (see, Prosopayraphia, ii. 75, No. 243). If the names Silas and Silvanus in the N.T. denote the same person (see below, § 18, n. 1), it is one of the many cases in which a Jew bore, besides his name.in his native tongue, a Greek or Roman name of similar sound. It seems doubtful whether there was a Greek name Σίλας. The writer finds it only in 0. 1. Grecie sept. No. 1772. On the other hand, it is quite common among Syrians and Jews. It occurs in the form *w on an East Aramaic inscription as early as the fifth century B.c. (C. I. Sem. ii. No..101, there derived from sw) ; in the form xxv on a Palmyrene inscription cited by Dalman, Gr.? 157, A. δ᾽; several Rabbis with the name x>bw Jerus. Shabbath, 5a; Sanhed. 26a; Tosefta Berach. ii. 10; Midrash on Cant. viii. 10, and on Ruth ii. 18 ;. ef. also the proverb on Ruth 1.1 (trans. by Wünsche, S. 12). Σιλᾶς is written thus in Acts by S!. It is the name of a Jew from Babylonia, Jos. Bell. ii. 19.2, iii. 2. 1 f.; of other Jews, Ant. xiv. 3. 2, xviil. 6.7; Vita, 17, 53; οἵ ἃ Syrian in Emesa in the year 78 4.D., Le Bas-Waddington, iii. No. 2567, Sauovyépapos ὁ καὶ SevAas. But in seeking for the derivation of this Aramaic name we are not to think of ποῦ “to send,” with Jerome on Gal. i. 7 (Vall. vii. 374, and Onomast., Lagarde, 71. 16, 72.25 ; cf. also the Greeks in the same work, pp. 198. 61,199. 70), nor of nby Gen. x. 24; 1 Chron. i. 18,24 (LXX and Luke iii. 35 Sada), with Zimmer (JfPTh. 1881, 8. 723), but of >xw, “to ask, inquire.” 17. (P. 9.) Since names of parties, ike most names of peoples, are regu- larly used first in the plural and only after that in the singular, this reason alone should lead us to say that of Φαρισαῖοι is the stat. emphat. plur. x:w75= Heb. over, and not that Φαρισαῖος is the stat. emphat. sing. Wp=Vnan. This latter assumption is unlikely even. for grammatical reasons, since the numerous names in aios (Ayyaios, ᾿Αλφαῖος, Βαρθολομαῖος, Ζακχαῖος, Zeßedatos, Θαδδαῖος, Λεββαῖος, Ματθαῖος), and also thenational and local names ’Apınadatos, Γαλιλαῖος, Ιουδαῖος, Ναζωραῖος, are always based upon Heb. or Aram. forms which already have at least 7 and more often ai or ay as their final sound, so that the appended Greek ending is not ws, as Dalman, @r.? 157, A. 2, thinks, but os. On the other hand, a form based upon Perisha or Pherisha must have been Φαρισας, like Tuwpas from x3, Xayıpas fromınman (above, p. 26, n. 12; p. 30, line 45); ef. Messias, Kaiaphas, Kephas, Sabas, ete. Inasmuch, then, as no Greek form of the party name but Φαρισαῖοι is to be found, we must assume that the Jews of Palestine, among whom the name arose perhaps circa 150-130 ».c., never applied to the party either then or later any but the Aram. form of the name. Essentially the same is true of Σαδδουκαῖοι and Kavavaios (if in Matt. x. 4, Mark iii. 18 we are to read this latter word= ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), likewise of ᾿Ασιδαῖοι, which does not occur in the N.T. (1 Mace. ii. 42, vii. 13; 2 Mace. xiv. 6), and of the oft-quoted ’Ecroatoı. To be sure, in the Talmudic literature, which emanated from the circles of the former Pharisaic party, the name regularly has the Heb. form pene; but this is an affectation of antiquity which proves nothing when set over against such witnesses for the usage in the living language of the Pharisee Paul, the evangelists, and Josephus. Concerning the Aram. forms Μεσσίας, kopßaväs, xaavaia, ἀσαρθᾶ, πάσχα, σάββατα, which relate to the life of religion and worship, see above, pp. 18, 19, 20, 26. 18. (P. 10.) With regard to the three letters of Gamaliel, ef. Derenbourg, Hist. et géoyr. de la Palestine, 241-244. In Jerus. Sanhedrin i. 18d (the meaning INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 33 is essentially the same, though the order is different, in Jerus. Maaser sheni v. 56c and elsewhere), after some introductory words, it runs, literally trans- lated : “Rabban Gamliel said unto him (Johanan, the priest and secretary): Write to our brethren the sons of upper Doroma and to our brethren the sons of nether Daroma: May your peace increase. I make known unto you,” ete. The salutation x10’ panbv=n εἰρήνη ὑμῶν πληθυνθείη is repeated in all these letters, cf. 1 Pet. 1. 2; 2 Pet. i.2. It is only in the third letter that Gamaliel speaks of the elders (o1pr7), who had been mentioned also in the introduction, as joint authors with him of the resolution and decree. Dalman in Dialektproben, 3, gives a pointed text of this among other ancient documents. 19. (P. 11.) Aram. sayings of Hillel: Pirke Aboth i. 13, ii. 6. In Jerus. Sotah ix. 245 (cf. Jos. Ant. xiii. 10. 3) a supernatural voice which the high priest Johanan (John Hyreanus, 135-105 B.c.) heard, is given in Aramaic, and on the same page it is expressly said of a word which Rabbi Samuel the Less uttered when dying, that this was spoken in the Aramaic tongue. Cf. the Midrash on Cant. viii. 10, translated into German by Wiinsche, 188. 20. (P. 11.) With regard to the relation of Gamaliel the elder and the younger to the Targum of Job, see Derenbourg, 241, 243. Concerning oral translation in the synagogue, see for brief discussions Zunz, Die gottesdienst- lichen Vorträge der Juden, 2te Aufl. 9; Schürer, ii. 457 (Eng. trans. 11. ii. 81); König, Einl. in das Alte Testament, 99 ; more details in Hamburger, RE für Bibel und Talmud, ii. 1167-1174. Even if the rules of the Mishnah (Megillah iv. 4) had been in force as early as Jesus’ time, such a short pericope from the prophets as the single sentence which he read in Nazareth (Luke iv. 18-19; Isa. Lxi. 1-24) would have been read through in Hebrew without interruption on the part of the methurg'man (also thory’man=dragoman), or interpreter, and only after that was done would have been interpreted, either by the same person who had read it or by someone else. The narrator had no occasion to mention the latter proceeding, since it always took place. If Jesus omitted translating the text Himself, so long as He stood with the roll in His hand (Luke iv. 16), He probably combined the interpretation with the sermon, which He gave sitting (Luke iv.20). For later times, ef. Joel Miller, Masechet Sopherim Hinl. 24 ; Kommentar, 256. Naturally the meaning of John vii. 15 is not that Jesus had not learned to read and write (cf. the ancient apocryphon, John viii. 6), but that He had received no classical education, which, in the case of other men, was the presupposition of their public activity as teachers. Men wondered in Jerusalem as in Galilee (Luke iv. 22; Matt. xiii. 54; Mark vi. 2), though with very mixed feelings, at this gifted, self-taught man. There would have been no occasion for such wonder if His knowledge of the Seriptures had been as scanty as A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, 54 f., is disposed to represent it in view of the discourses in the Gospels, excluding the fourth and even such passages as Matt. iv. 1-12, xxiv. 15; Luke xxiv. 27. The question, “Where did He get this learning or technical knowledge?” we cannot answer by precise biographical statements. The narrative in Luke ii. 46 justifies the assumption that from youth up Jesus took advantage of every opportunity to acquire knowledge of the Seriptures with uncommon zeal. In the judgment of those who heard His discourses, and in the recollee- tion of His Church, He was not inferior in this respect to the teachers who had the regular rabbinical training, VOL. I. 3 34 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT $ 2. THE GREEK LANGUAGE AMONG THE JEWS (wn. 1) ~ That Greek was a cosmopolitan language at the time when the N.T. books were written, was due primarily, of course, to the rapid conquests of Alexander, and the long continued existence of the great empires of his successors ; but it can be fully understood only when due recogni- tion is given to the fact that the Romans, themselves nourished by Greek culture, united east and west in a world-empire. According to a law, the working of which may be observed in a variety of instances, great political changes work their effect upon language only gradually. In Gaul, e.g., complete change from the Celtic vernacular to Latin was not effected under the Roman emperors, but took place later under the Frankish kings. In the same way the Hellenisation of Asia Minor, which had been pre- pared for so long in advance, made its most rapid progress under the Roman rule, and the process was not concluded until the time of the Empire. Under the Seleucid and the Ptolemies the transformation of Syria and Egypt went on even more slowly than that of Asia Minor during the same period. In fact, Aramaic spread more widely and took deeper root during the period of the Diadochi than in the Persian period. It was not until now, indeed, that Aramaic became the common language of the “ Hebrews” and the vernacular of Palestine; and even so late as the Roman period it maintained its position as the distinct- ively national language through the whole of the Seleuci- dan empire. Before the Gates of Antioch, “the beautiful eity of the Greeks,’ as it is called in the fifth century by the Syrian poet Isaac, the common people continued to speak Syriac until the triumph of Islam. While the uneducated peasantry in general remained entirely un- acquainted with Greek, many of the inhabitants of the cities had some knowledge of the vernacular. The farther we go from the capital, the port cities, and the highways INTRODUCTORY REMARKS © 35 of commerce, the less disturbed do we find the sway of Aramaic and the more superficial the influence of Greek culture. Under the dominion of the Ptolemies and, afterward, of the Seleucid&, conditions in Palestine were somewhat different. In these times the Jewish community was like a small island which was not only girt about by Greek influence, but frequently also flooded by waves from the two great Greek powers between which it lay. The community was isolated from its countrymen in Galilee and Perea, and surrounded by a cirele of Gentile cities, some of which offered very little resistance to the inroads of the Greek language and culture, and others of which were founded or colonised for the very purpose of Hellenising the land. Names of Macedonian cities, such as Pella and Dion, east of the Jordan, recall the times of Alexander him- self, while names like Ptolemais (Accho) on the coast and Philadelphia in the east take us back to the reign of the Ptolemies. South and south-east from the Lake of Gennes- aret, the regions occupied by the non-Jewish cities, Hippus, Gadara, Scythopolis, and Pella, formed an organised district, which, in Mark v. 20, vii. 31, Matt. iv. 25, is called ἡ Aera- moms, from the fact that originally it was a confederation consisting of ten autonomous cities. In ancient Samaria, Alexander himself had settled Macedonian colonists ; and it was made still more a Gentile city, speaking the Greek language, by Herod the Great, who rebuilt it when it was falling into decay, calling it Sebaste, in honour of Augustus, and colonising it in part with discharged soldiers. Of similar character were the cities Antipatris (Acts xxii. 31) and Phasaélis, north of Jericho, both of which were founded by Herod. Of course, one must not be misled into the error of concluding, from the names of cities found in Greek authors, from inscriptions on coins, and from traces of Greek religious worship, that the Greek language was universally spoken in the cities mentioned and in others 36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT like them, e.g. in Uwsarea (Strato’s s fortress) on the coast and its environs. Unless it is further defined, the ex- pression πόλις ἑλληνίς cannot be taken to mean a city in which the Greek language is spoken ; because to the Jews, who had been exposed to the seductions and then to the threats and violence of Greek heathenism since the third century B.c., “ Hellenic” was synonymous with heathen (n. 2). Among the mhabitants of the cities so designated by Josephus there were strong Jewish minorities, and of the non-Jewish population the majority were “ Syrians” by birth and language. #.g., centuries later in the Christian era we tind large numbers of people in and about Gaza and Scythopolis who not only spoke Syriae, but who were even unacquainted with Greek. This was due not to a reaction from Greek conditions, but simply to a continuation of the conditions that existed before and during the time of Christ; and only because the old Semitic names of cities survived after they were given Greek names was it possible for these Greek names to be displaced again, as was done so largely in the centuries after Christ. In the thought of the Palestinian Jews, Greek remained a foreign language, or rather “the foreign language” (n. 3). But, in spite of this feeling, how profoundly were the Jews intluenced by it and by the culture which came with it, even as early as 170 B.c. ! High priests borrowed their names from the Greek legends, as in the case of a certain Jesus, who gave up his Hebrew name and called himself Jason ; and of a certain Menelaus, whose Hebrew name we do not know. It was upon this disposition and tendeney manifesting itself among the best classes in Jerusalem that Antiochus Epiphanes relied in his attempt to destroy Judaism. The Maccabean revolt showed that there was still vitality in the faith and institutions of the Jews, but nevertheless it was not possible longer for the Jews to keep themselves aloof from Hellenism. Men might fight for religious freedom INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 37 with prayer and sword, but the measure of political independence necessary for the maintenance of this religious freedom could not be won and retained without the use of diplomacy. The ambassadors of Judas Macca- beus who appeared in the Roman senate in the year 161 B.0. could not use in that place any other language than Greek. These enemies of the Greeks, whose fathers were still known by the Hebrew names Jochanan and Eleazar, were called Kupolemos and Jason, and the former was probably one of the first Jews to write Jewish history in Greek (n. 4). As evidenced by their coins, the Has- monean high priests, as they developed into worldly princes, allowed their government to become more and more Hellenised. The first of them, Aristobulus (105-104 B.c.), who styled himself a king, and who was known also as a Philhellene (Jos. Ant. xiii. 11. 3), calls himself on his coins simply “Juda the high priest.” In the case of his successor, Alexander Jannzeus (104-78 2.0.), part of the coins have only the Hebrew inseription, “ Jonathan the high priest,” while others are inscribed in Greek, “King Alexander,” having on the reverse side the words “ Jonathan the king” in Hebrew. From Herod the Great and his successors only Greek coins have come down to us. The founder of this foreign dynasty, which came into power by the favour of the Romans and through his own cunning and violence, made no concealment of the fact that he felt himself more a Greek than a Jew (Jos. Ant. xix. 7. 3). His first minister, Nicolaus of Damascus, was a Greek man of letters, and his court consisted of men of the same stamp. His sons he had educated in Rome. His army consisted largely of foreign mercenaries, Gauls, Germans, and Thracians, who would not have been at home in any other than a Greek command. In the theatres, amphitheatres, hippodromes, and all those heathen institutions established by Herod in and about 38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Jerusalem, in Jericho, and in all the cities of the land, predominantly Gentile, as Czesarea (n. 4), Greek was practically the only language spoken. If the Jewish tragic poet Hzekiel, whose old Hebrew name suggests that he was a native of Palestine rather than of Alex- andria, really wrote his poems for presentation on the stage, his use of Greek iambies would show that all his conceptions of the drama were Greek. Even the rabbis were of the opinion that Greek was the proper language for “Song” and all poetry intended for entertainment and amusement (above, p. 22, n. 4). The system estab- lished in 6 A.D., by which Judea and Samaria were put directly under Roman rule, and, with a brief interruption, governed by Roman procurators residing in Ceesarea until the fall of Jerusalem, far from checking further inroads oi the Greek language, tended rather to increase its influence. According to Josephus (6. Apron. 1. 9), he himself was the only man in the Roman army at the time of the Jewish War who understood the Jewish deserters. While the Herodian princes were Jews, at least to the extent that they understood the vernacular, the Roman _ officials, changing frequently as they did, never took the trouble to familiarise themselves with the language of the people. Here, as everywhere else in the East, they used Greek in their official relations. Many Latin names of objects may have been more commonly used in Palestine than pre- viously, and may have passed over into the vernacular as foreign words. Undoubtedly also, out of deference to the ruling nation, public notices were sometimes written in Latin as well as Greek (n. 5). But this had no more practical use in Palestine than did the Latin inscriptions upon monuments and milestones in Asia Minor and other lands in the Hast. Greek was the only language that could be used as a medium of communication among the different bodies of soldiers who maintained the Roman authority in Palestine, representing as they did such a INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 30 variety of nationalities (n. 6). Though the tax-gatherers and their subordinates may have been native Jews in the Roman districts (Luke xix. 2-9; Jos. Bell. ü. 14. 4) as well as in the domain of Herod Antipas (Mark i. 14; Matt. ix. 9), all their business intercourse with their superiors in Ceesarea had to be carried on in Greek. But foreign rule, which in one form or another had burdened the land of the Jews for centuries, was not the only agency by which Greek thought and life were intro- duced. Jerusalem was the metropolis of Judaism the world over, including the “ Greek diaspora.” Among the embassies who brought tithes and offerings to the temple at Jerusalem from all parts of the la and among the pilgrims who streamed thither of their own accord, especi- ally at the time of the great pilgrim feasts, there were not a few Jews who, during their long residence abroad, had entirely or largely forgotten their native tongue and ex- changed it for Greek. Among these pilorims there were also Greeks and Hellenised barbarians, who, though they had not espoused Judaism formally and fully by accepting the rite of circumcision, were nevertheless attracted by its faith and worship, and attended the temple services in so far as these were open to them (n. 7). There were also a great many Jews from outside Palestine who had come to re- side permanently in Jerusalem in order that they might be near the temple, and that they might end their days in the holy city, and be buried in the “land of Israel.” Those who had grown accustomed to use the Greek language found no occasion in Jerusalem to give it up: Jews of this sort were called “ Hellenists” in contrast to the ‘‘ Hebrews,” 7.e. those who remained in the land of their birth and retained the Aramaic vernacular (n. 8). This unwillingness on the part of the Hellenists to give up their language is the chief reason why they had their own synagogues in Jerusalem. Two such are fairly dis- tinguished in Acts vi. 9,— one whose adherents were 40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Hellenists from Alexandria, Cyrene, and Rome; the other made up of Jews from Asia Minor, especially from the provinces of Cilicia and Asia (n. 8). They would not have grouped themselves together in this way according to the countries from which they came, nor would they have been called Hellenists, if they had not insisted upon the retention in these synagogues at Jerusalem of the Greek form of worship and the Greek translation of the O. T., the Septuagint, to which they had become accustomed in the foreign lands in which they had made their homes. The Pharisees and rabbis could make no objection to this use of a foreign language, because these Hellenists, whose settlement in Jerusalem was due mainly to their genuine Jewish piety, were among the most zealous members of the community in the fulfilment of their religious and ceremonial obligations. The useless zeal of the rabbis for the sacred language was directed not against Greek, but against Aramaic as used by the common people (n. 9). Greek was spoken even in the more prominent rabbinic families; and the law at one time enacted, that sons should not be taught Greek, was one of those renunciations which betray the peculiar earnestness of the times and the anxiety to preserve everything essential to the national good. This leads to the consideration of the question, how far knowledge of Greek had spread among the middle and lower classes. That a considerable number of Palestinian Jews who came in contact with public life and were engaged in business generally belonged to these classes, is clear from the historical facts and conditions already mentioned. That this must have been the case becomes evident, when it is recalled how small the region was which was occupied more or less exclusively by Jews. It required only a day’s journey, or a little more, in almost any direction from Jerusalem, to reach cities where more Greek than Aramaic was spoken. And in Galilee especially INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 41 similar conditions must have existed all the way from Cxsarea on the coast to Caesarea Philippi, which are to be met anywhere to-day near the language boundaries, where numbers of people are to be found who, though otherwise uneducated, are able to make themselves fairly well understood in two languages. And it is hardly necessary to appeal to similar conditions in modern times to prove that the cosmopolitan language, without which no Jew belonging to the better social classes could get along, had everywhere an advantage over the Aramaic vernacular, which no Greek or Roman needed to take the trouble to learn. Representatives of the common people, like the apostles Andrew and Philip, must have been called by these Greek names in ordinary life ; otherwise the Hebrew names by which also they may have been known would somewhere crop out (n. 10). The Aramaic ver- nacular and the Hebrew used by the learned classes were full of words borrowed from the Greek, and included also the Latin terms with which the Jews in Palestine became familiar through contact with Greeks and with Greek- speaking officials, countrymen, and neighbours. In par- ticular, technical terms of a legal character were probably for the most part Greek, but in everyday life and social intercourse also objects and relations were very commonly designated by Greek and Latin words. By reason of the ability of the Jews to adopt these foreign words into their speech through various devices, and even to form new verbs, Semitic in form, from Greek substantives, the common people were not at all conscious that these new elements in the language were foreign. | Undoubtedly there were many such foreign words in the Aramaic spoken by Jesus. Words like συνέδριον, διαθήκη, mapa- κλητος, κύριε (AS address), δηνάριον, ἀσσάριον, κοδράντης, πανδοκεύς, πανδοκεῖον, Aeyewv, and many others which we find in the discourses of Jesus, are not translations made by the evangelists, but were spoken by Jesus Himself, 42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT modified as they would be by a Jew, the evangelists simply restoring the original sounds and characters (n. 11). \ Besides, Jesus and: His disciples must have been able when occasion required to reply in Greek when they were addressed in this language. Persons whe would hardly have been called Greeks if they had spoken Aramaic like the Jews, nevertheless make request directly of the two disciples with Greek names that they may see Jesus personally (John xii. 21). Of Pilate’s transactions with the representatives of the Sanhedrin who remained outside the pretorium, and with Jesus who was taken in- side the pretorium, we have different and comparatively full accounts. If, as certainly was the case, Greek was used in the first transaction, there could not fail to be some hint of the fact if, in the intercourse between Pilate and Jesus, they had difliculty in understanding each other, or if an interpreter had been necessary. While the com- mander of the Roman garrison was surprised because Paul, whom he took for an uneducated Egyptian, under- stood Greek, the populace were surprised when Paul addressed them in their native Aramaic (Acts xxi. 37- xxi. 2; cf. above, p. 11). Even before he began to speak an expectant stillness fell over the crowd. Had he spoken Greek, as the crowd expected he would, it would not have been altogether without point; he would have been understood not only by the pilgrims of the Greek diaspora who had come to the feast (xxi. 27), but also by many of the natives of Jerusalem. But it is easy to understand why attention increased when Paul addressed them in the vernacular as “brethren and fathers.” Even visiting Hellenists aud Hellenists settled in Jerusalem who. understood only with difficulty, some of them not at all, must have been touched sympathetically by this expression of genuine Israelitish thought and spirit. If only it be kept clearly in mind that Aramaic was the language ordinarily used by the Jews living within the INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 43 bounds of Palestine proper, one can hardly go too far m the assumption of a certain practical familiarity with Greek, not only in Galilee, but also in Jerusalem ; not only among the better elasses, but in the middle and lower ranks of society as well (n. 9, end). In this regard, the position of the early Church in Jerusalem was a peculiar one. According to the notices of Acts, which are the only sources we have, the member- ship of the Church from the start consisted predominantly of Hellenists (n. 8, 12). The first three thousand converts (Acts ii. 41) to gather about the personal disciples of Jesus, who were mainly Galileans, were not natives of Jerusalem and Palestine. From the names of their home countries one must infer that the language “in which most of them were born” was Greek. It is probable that the later accessions to the Church were largely from the native population, and that the Hellenists were already in the minority when they made complaint that their widows were not treated in the same way as the widows of the Hebrews (Acts vi. 1). But that they still constituted a considerable portion of the Church it is fair to infer from the fact that, of the seven men who as a result of this complaint were intrusted with the care of the funds for the widows and the poor, one was a proselyte from Antioch, and that no one of the seven has a Hebrew name. Though the Church was scattered after the death of Stephen, as soon as peace was restored, and the Church could reassemble in Jerusalem, many of the refugees came back; and then, as before, the Jerusalem Church was the mother Church of Christianity. And in this Church more than one language was and continued to be used. Of the fugitives who testified their faith wherever they went, and gathered the nuclei of new Churches, persons from Cyrene and Cyprus are distinguished as the most courageous (Acts xi. 19-21). The fact that it was in Antioch that they first ventured to preach the gospel to the Greeks as 44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT well as to the Hebrews, is proof that they themselves were Hellenists, or, to put it less strongly, Jews who were familiar with the Greek language. In the most important cities lying on the route from Jerusalem to Antioch, where primarily as a result of this dispersion Jewish Christian Churches were established, as in Czesarea (Acts vii. 40, x, 1 ff, xxi. 8), Ptolemais, and Tyre (xxi. 4-7), thoush the members were Jewish Christians, Greek was spoken quite as much as was Aramaie (Syriac). In the eities of Cyprus and in Antioch, Greek was universally used. So that, even before the beginning of Paul’s mis- N sionary work, Greek had a wide use in the Church, in spite of the fact that as yet its membership consisted almost entirely of native Jews. Nor is there any reason to assume, what is not suggested in the tradition, that at that time the Hebrews opposed this development, which had its origin in the nature of existing conditions, and which was destined to become more and more marked with the growth of the Church. People who boasted proudly that they were Hebrews (2 Cor. xi. 22) neverthe- less found shortly afterwards a fruitful field for their propaganda in the Greek Churches of Asia Minor and Greece. It was not until after the last strugeles with the Romans in 66-70, 116, and 133, that the Palestinian Jews made serious efforts to get rid of the Greek language (above, p. 40; below, n. 9). Likewise the strenuousness with which the Nazarite communities, described to us by Kpiphanius and Jerome, restricted themselves in life and worship to national customs and the national language (above, p. 13), is to be explained from circumstances con- nected with the final catastrophe in the history of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation. Their exile from the city was due to the enactments of Hadrian, who transformed Jerusalem into a heathen city, calling it Alia Capitolina. In order to retain their nationality, they tore themselves away from Jerusalem, thereby severing all INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 45 connection not only with the Gentile Christian Churches, but also with the Hellenistic branch of the Jewish Chris- tian Church. But in the apostolic age the Church in Jerusalem and throughout Palestine was comprised to such an extent of both Hellenists and Hebrews, and these were so closely united, that the only evidences in our sources of the existence of this difference of language are incidental references to the fact. It is clear that the leaders and teachers of the Palestinian Church were the ones who were most concerned with this condition of affairs. Men like James, who for at least twenty years presided over the bilingual mother Church, and Philip, residing permanently as he did in Ceesarea, the population of which was principally Gentile and half Greek, also the apostles Peter and John, who at first served both the Hellenists and the Hebrews in the Jerusalem Church as preachers and as ministers to the poor, and who laboured later as superintendents of the Churches scattered through- out the regions around Jerusalem, and as missionary preachers in Palestine and adjoining districts (Acts ii. 42, vi) 2) vill. 14-25, ix. 32—xi. 18, zii. 175; Gal: aie 11; 1 Cor. ix. 5),—no one of these could have fulfilled even the immediate duties involved by his office, to say nothing whatever of that extension of their apostolic work which they had in view outside of their own country and nation, without a good deal of readiness in speaking Greek. How much knowledge of Greek they had before they became disciples of Jesus and entered the service of the Church, how much ability they had for acquiring language, which ability may have differed in the individual cases, and whether they made special effort to perfect themselves in the language, we do not know. But the supposition that twenty or thirty years after Jesus’ death these men were still the purist ‘“ Hebrews,” unable to read a Greek book, to write a letter in Greek, or to address Greeks or Hellenists without the aid of an interpreter, has against 46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT it both the general conditions existing in Palestine at the time, and the peculiar position that these men occupied. Reference has already been made more than once: to the language conditions of the Jewish diaspora in the apostolic age. There is no doubt that the Jews in Egypt, where their number was estimated at a million, in Asia Minor, in the European provinces, and in Rome, used the Greek language in their daily intercourse and in their religious services, and that this was really the only lan- guage with which they were familiar, For proof we have only to remind ourselves of the Alexandrian trans- lation of the O.T., which from the legendary accounts of its origin is called the Septuagint ; of such pieces of writing as the preface with which the grandson of Jesus Sirach introduced the Greek translation which he had made of his grandfather's proverbs to the Jews in Eoypt; of an author like Philo of Alexandria, who considered himself a Greek in language and training, contrasting himself in this regard with the Hebrews; and of the inseriptions found upon Jewish tombs in Rome (n. 13). The Hellenisation of the “ diaspora of the Greeks,” which was now practically complete, and which had taken place in many cases with surprising rapidity, will seem less strange when we recall that the vast majority of Jewish emigrants did not leave the “land of Israel” until after Aramaic had displaced the old sacred language in Pales- tine. Certainly the Jews in Alexandria who translated the O.T. into Greek still retained a respectable linguistic knowledge of the original; but that their native tongue was not the Hebrew of the O.T., which they could read tolerably well, but Aramaic, which they found used also in several chapters of the O.T., is proved by their tran- scriptions of Hebrew technical terms and not a few trans- lations of single words. What was true of these scholars must have been much more true of the uneducated mass of the Jews in the diaspora. Their knowledge of Hebrew INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 47 was originally limited to their recollection of a number (certainly of many) of liturgical passages which they understood only imperfectly. By the second generation this knowledge was likely to have dwindled to a few Hebrew words such as are found upon Jewish gravestones, the inscriptions otherwise being in Greek. The Aramaic colloquial, which the first generation brought with them from Palestine, was all the more easily and completely exchanged by the second generation, born abroad, for the cosmopolitan Greek without which they could not get along, because even among Jews in the Kast, who used Aramaic as their regular language and continued to do so, it was not regarded with any special reverence (above, pp. 5 f., 22). Aramaic was not a sacred language through which the pious Jew could gain access to the sources of his religion, and it was only in the far Hast that it was a language of common intercourse. Now essentially the same causes which led to the substitution of Aramaic for Hebrew among the Jews in the Hast, produced the Hel- lenisation of the Jews in Egypt, Asia Minor, and Europe. But, owing to the active intercourse that was kept up be- tween the homeland and the Greek cities abroad, the return of Jews to Palestine (above, p. 39f.), and the constant migrations from Palestine abroad, the extent to which Jews in the diaspora forgot their native tongue and came to use Greek in its stead, naturally varied very much in individual cases. The Oriental Jew who settled in Ephesus or Rome may very quickly have mastered Greek enough for practical purposes, but he could not at once forget his native tongue, and it would not be easy for him to learn to think and pray in Greek. This came with the next generation. One of the seven synagogues in Rome, the existence of which has so far been proved from inserip- tions, was a synagogue of the Hebrews (n. 14). There can be little doubt that its adherents were Jews who had recently come from the East, and who in Kome were un- 48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT willing to give up the Hebrew O.T., the Aramaic orai translation and interpretation to which they had been accustomed in their synagogues at home. This synagogue of the Hebrews in Rome was the counterpart of the synagogues of the Hellenists in Jerusalem (above, p. 39 £.). One case of the retention of the national language in the diaspora, and one of great interest to us, is that of Paul the apostle. To think of him as a Hellenist con- tradicts not only what is said in Acts xxi. 40) χα 8 xxvi. 14, but also his own very clear testimony. Twice with emphasis he calls himself a Hebrew (2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5). He cannot have reference to his pure Jewish origin, since in both passages this is sufficiently described by other expressions (ef. Rom. xi. 1). Quite as little can he refer to the thoroughly Israelitish spirit or bent with which he grew up; Ἑβραῖος is never used in that sense, and in Phil. 111. 5f., Gal. i. 13 f., his strong Jewish bias is denoted by other expressions, particularly by the reminder that he belonged to the party of the Pharisees, The only possible meaning left is that of Acts vi. 1, where the word is used in contrast to the Hellenists. In the Philippian passage, Paul calls himself a Hebrew when contrasting himself to the wandering Jewish Christian teachers against whom he warns the Philippians; and in the Corinthian passage when comparing himself to the followers of Peter who had come to Corinth from Palestine. He is a Hebrew in the same sense that they are Hebrews. The language in which he threatens them (1 Cor. xvi. 22, above, p. 13) is his own mother-tongue, and therefore also the language in which he was accustomed to pray. This is perfectly clear from Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 15. The only word adequate for the expression of his consciousness of divine sonship, as this consciousness expresses itself in prayer be- fore God, is the Aramaic child-word abba. He could expect only a few Christians in Rome, and fewer still in Galatia, to understand really what this prayer-word meant; in INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 49 both passages he adds a Greek translation. This makes it all the more certain that when he wrote the abba it was not with his readers in mind, but because, without reflection on his part, that word welled up with irresistible force out of the depths of his own heart. But the anti- thesis in both the passages where he so emphatically speaks of himself as a Hebrew is to be explained by the fact that it was with Paul's case in view that his opponents, especially those in Corinth, were boasting that they were Hebrews. In general, the Palestinians were disposed to look a little askance at their countrymen in the Greek diaspora, and the chief point of difference was that of language. So it is easy to see how the followers of Peter in their narrowness may have cast reflections upon Paul, suggesting that he was born in Tarsus, and that his many years of travel in Greek lands had thrown him out of touch with genuine Israelitish life, thus at the same time emphasising the fact that they had come to Corinth directly from the native land of Israel and of Jesus, and spoke the same language that Jesus spoke. So then, far from contradicting the statement of Acts that Paul was born in Tarsus, the emphasis and antithesis with which Paul calls himself a Hebrew goes rather to confirm the statement that he was born in the Greek diaspora, and that on this account his Hebrew charecter could be called in question (n. 15). In the same way his designation of himself as βραϊος ἐξ “Ἑβραίων can be explained from the biographical notices of Acts. Inasmuch as he was brought to Jerusalem at an early age, there to be educated under Gamaliel for a rabbi (Acts xxii. 3), it was possible to explain the knowledge of Aramaic which he really did possess, and which could not be denied by anyone of his opponents, as one of the acquisitions of his student days in Jerusalem, while in reality he was the son of a Hellen- istic household. But this is not a true representation of the case. His Hebrew character was rather an inherit- VOL. I. 4 50 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ance from his fathers. Aramaic was the language spoken in his father’s house in Tarsus, the language in which his mother taught him to pray. There are other things also which confirm the opinion that his home was of this character. For one thing, his membership in the Phari- saic party was not merely in consequence of his training under the Pharisee Gamaliel, but an inheritance from his father and grandfather (n. 15). To be sure, Pharisees, like other Jews, sometimes made journeys abroad on various errands (e.g. Matt. xxiii. 15); but it is inconceiv- able that a Jewish family living in the Greek diaspora should continue for generations to count itself a member of the Pharisaic party... This party was kept up largely by its opposition to the party of the Sadducees, 2.e. the high priestly aristocracy and their following. The seat of both parties was Jerusalem, and individual members of either who went abroad must soon have lost their dis- tinctively Pharisaic or Sadducaic character. This shows that Pauls family had emigrated from Palestine only recently, and that it cherished zealously its connection with the home land. The first statement is supported by an apocryphal tradition (n. 16), the second by Acts. The father had given his son the old Hebrew name Saul (n. 16), and had sent him to Jerusalem in his boyhood to be in- structed by the most distinguished Pharisaic teacher of the time. He had a married sister living in Jerusalem, and her son saved the life of his uncle by disclosing to the Roman commandant a plot against the apostle’s life (Acts xxiil. 16-22). And later, in frequently interrupt- ing his widely extended missionary labours in Gentile lands by journeys to Jerusalem, Paul remained loyal, to the traditions of his family. It is very improbable that during the years of his residence at Jerusalem: the young Hebrew, Saul, attached, himself to the synagogue of the Hellenists from Cilicia and Asia (Acts vi. 9, above, p. 40; below, p. 60f.).. On the contrary, it may be considered INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 51 certain that under the instruction of Gamaliel he became a more confirmed Hebrew, and made his acquaintance with the Hebrew O.T. Certainly there is nothing in his letters to prove the contrary (n. 17). But even after full weight has been given to Paul’s own testimony that he was a Hebrew, to the statements of Acts which agree with this testimony, and to the apocryphal tradition, the mastery of language and the breadth of view disclosed in his letters are by no means fully explained. He does not write Greck as a person would who had acquired the language with effort late in life (n. 18). Although he makes no claims to be an orator (2 Cor. xi. 6; 1 Cor. i. 17), and pays little attention to the purity of his diction, he does know how to use the language with versatility and effect. Paul was a man whose heart was easily moved and often deeply stirred, and there is no emotion which he is not able to express to his readers, as occasion may require, by delicate sug- gestion, in sharp tones of bitter irony, or in a full stream of irresistible eloquence. The most uninteresting material, such as the tedious details about a collection, disagreeable facts involved in cases of discipline, or the rebellious suspicions of persons greatly his inferiors, he is able to treat in so broad a manner that the reader is amply repaid for his effort to understand them correctly, although the matters referred to are no longer of interest. And when one takes into consideration also the dialectical skill which Paul shows when he attempts to teach, to argue, or to refute objections, it must be admitted by unfriendly modern readers, as by his ancient opponents, that “ his letters are weighty and strong” (2 Cor. x. 10),—an estimate which is just as applicable to a short note like Philemon as it is to a lengthy Epistle like Romans. Paul had _ indeed a habit of frequently repeating certain words and phrases within a comparatively short passage, but this is not due to poverty of language; it is to be explained 52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT rather by his indifference to elegance of style. In short, taking into survey all his writings left to us, the wealth of his vocabulary and the versatility of his grammatical constructions are astonishing. In comparison with his letters, considered simply from a literary point of view, the Fourth Gospel is monotonous and the Epistle of James is barren. From the Epistles, from the narratives in Acts, and from the discourses which the latter puts into Paul’s mouth, we get uniformly the impression that ~Paul was a finely cultured man, thoroughly acquainted with the usages of Greek educated society. There is apparently no good reason for assuming, as some are fond of doing, that the knowledge of the poetical literature of the Greeks, of which there are traces here and there in the letters, was picked up from hearsay, and not derived from his own reading (n. 19). The manner in which he in- troduces the verse from Epimenides in Tit. i. 12 shows, better than would any mention of the poet by name, and οὗ the work from which the verse is taken, Paul’s familiarity with the traditions about this writer. It cannot be proved that the verse of the Attic comic poet, Menander, of which he makes use in 1 Cor. xy, 33, Was a widely used proverb. In Acts, Paul is represented as knowing that the poetical quotation which he uses in his speech on the Areopagus (Acts xvii. 28) occurred not simply in one poet, Aratus, but in essentially the same form in another, Cleanthes, ze. “in several poets,” and these poets of the Stoic school. | Whether he was familiar at all with the philosophical literature, and if 80 to what extent, it is difficult to say. Certainly he studied the Greek O.T. with far: more zeal than he did the heathen poets and philosophers. He is perfectly familiar with the LXX, and follows it in most of his quotations from the O.T. Indeed, he makes use of his knowledge of the Hebrew original so rarely that some have sone so far as to deny his acquaintance with it altogether (n. 17). INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 52 The question whence the Hebrew Saul derived all this wisdom it is not difficult to answer from the story of his life. Since his father could hardly have sent him to Jerusalem, to be educated in the principal school of the Pharisees, before he was twelve, and since also there is other evidence to show that he passed his childhood in Tarsus (n. 15), there is hardly any doubt that besides learning Aramaic at home he acquired at an early age a practical knowledge of Greek as it was spoken in the streets of his native city. He could not have failed to have occasion to use it even in Jerusalem. | During his first visit there after his conversion—a visit lasting: only fifteen days—he immediately had personal dealings with the Hellenists (Acts ix. 29), from which we may assume that even before the event which took place on the road to Damascus he had had relations with his Jewish country- men from Cilicia (Acts vi. 9), although he did not belong to their synagogue. Being a Hebrew who knew Greek, he occupied a mediating position between those Hebrews who understood little or no Greek and the Hellenists who understood little or no Aramaic. But the most important factor in the development of this culture of which we find Paul possessed, is the fact that between his conversion and the beginning of his Christian ministry he spent at least five years (38-43 A.D.) in his native city, Tarsus, before Barnabas brought him to Antioch to assist in the work there (see Chronological Survey, part xi. vol. Π1.). Since during this long period Paul was waiting for a new divine commission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts xxii. 21), undoubtedly he prepared himself for this: new work. He had received scholarly training along the lines of Judaism, and nothing was more natural than that he should pursue such studies in the literature of the Greeks, among whom he expected to labour in the future, as seemed best suited to fit him for this work. For this purpose Tarsus was admirably adapted (n. 20). It was a 54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT prominent centre for the study of philosophy and rhetoric, and the citizens of Tarsus, unlike those of Athens, Alex- andria, and other famous centres of learning, are praised for the very lively interest which they took in the sciences taught in their schools. Only rarely did students from abroad resort to Tarsus ; while, on the other hand, many of the native students, not satisfied with the opportunities afforded them in their own city, completed elsewhere the education begun at home. In Paul’s case Tarsus offered quite enough of literary information and stimulus to enable him to become a Greek to the Greeks, just as his rabbinie training received at home and in Jerusalem enabled him to be a Hebrew to the Hebrews (ef. 1 Cor. ix. 19-23). The purpose of this text-book does not call for a historical, grammatical, and lexical investigation of N.T. Greek. At the present time, researches relating direetly and indirectly to this subject are being so vigorously prosecuted, and consequently are in a condition so incom- plete, that I would not venture in a compendium like this to set forth any definite results. Still a few remarks may be in order, so that statements about the language made in connection with the separate writings may not seem entirely arbitrary. As is well known, after the time of Alexander the Great there grew up a popular Greek, which in distinction from the various dialects, spoken and literary, into which the Greek of classical times had separated, was called ἡ κοινή or ἡ ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος. This language, based upon the later Attic, was used in litera- ture and among the educated classes. The old dialects held their sway in the regions where they had been in use earlier ; but there grew up also, as an offshoot from the literary language, a language used in daily life, varying greatly in the different lands in which it was spoken, but nevertheless taking its place along with the common literary language as a medium of general intercourse. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 55 Only by artificial effort could its impure grammaticai forms and mixed vocabulary be kept out of literature permanently. With this end in view the Greek stylists and their docile pupils had been endeavouring, ever since the beginning of the Christian era, to restore the use of the language in its Attic purity. There were those, how- ever, more concerned about what they said than how they said it, who persisted in writing practically as they spoke. Such were the writers of the N.T. One principal cause for the continuous development of this living language after the time of Alexander, was the fact that of those speaking the Greek language there were ten non-Greeks to every genuine Greek, and of the former very many con- tinued to make more or less use of their native tongues. In Egypt and Syria, there were some who spoke a mixture of Greek and their own language in their inter- course with Greeks and Romans (μιξοβώρβαροι). Others spoke Greek and even wrote it when necessary, but in both cases with gross violations of grammatical usage (solecisms). Then there were Syrians whose Greek style was not inferior to that of any native-born Athenian, e.g., that of Lucian of Samosata, whose native tongue was Syriac. Between these extremes were almost as many intermediate stages as there were individual writers. There was never any language that could be called dis- tinctly Syrian or Egyptian Greek, although, just to the degree that Greek was a foreign language to the barbarian, the characteristics of his national language cropped out. This is true also in the case of the Jews. Certainly the manner in which they wrote Greek calls for special notice. For, althouch the Jewish Aramaic spoken at the time was not very different from the Aramaic spoken by Gentile Syrians, the effect of the O.T. literature and of the religious life inseparably connected with it was always to make the Jew look at things from a point of view dis- tinctly national, and so gives an unmistakable character to 56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT his Greek style. And this was particularly the case when he dealt with subjeets relating to his own history and religion. Even so we may not speak of the Greek written by Jews as if it were something uniform. For this reason the term dialectus hellenistica, which did not come into use until after the beginning of the seventeenth century, is not an adequate expression with which to describe the very complex facts in the case; and the number of different meanings which the word can have has given rise repeatedly to all sorts of misunderstandings (n. 21). The extremes of Jewish Greek are represented, on the one hand, by the LXX, including post-canonical books trans- lated from Hebrew or Aramaic, such as 1 Mace., Sirach, Psalms of Solomon, ete.; and, on the other, by the writings of Philo. The latter wrote the current literary language, and wrote it just as well as did Clement of Alexandria who was born in Athens. So also Josephus’ writings, thanks to the help of Greek correctors of whom he made use in editing his works, approach the κοινή of the educated classes. On the other hand, the Alexandrian translators in their effort to render literally the holy ori- ginal, used language which was altogether inadmissible, and indeed impossible, in the speech of common life. Still even they did not try the patience of their readers with such absurdities as those of Aquila in the Christian era, who, in order to reproduce the two meanings of the Hebrew NS, translated Gen. 1. 1, Ἔν κεφαλαίῳ ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν (Field, “εααρίω, 1. 7). Between these extremes, the Greek of the Alexandrian translators and that of Philo, were as many gradations of style as we find between the barbarous Greek of numerous inscrip- tions in Asia Minor and of various Egyptian papyri, and the Greek of the Syrian Lucian—with this difference, however, that in the case of Jewish literature it is possible to trace some little development. The language of the _. LXX must have exerted on the language of those whe INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 57 heard it from Sabbath to Sabbath a strong influence, com- parable to that of the Luther Bible upon the language of the German people. The sermon which followed the reading and the synagogue prayers based upon the Greek Bible could not have been in language wholly different from that Bible. It was not without reason that R. Simon spoke of le Grec de la synagogue. Moreover, it is self- evident that native-born “‘ Hebrews” who did not become acquainted with Greek until late in life would always have had to make an effort to think in Greek, and it is a question to what extent they really made such an effort. ἡ Ifa man like Paul, who was far more than a “ Hebrew,” continued to use Aramaic, even in his old age, when he wished to express his deepest emotions (above, p. 49), we must assume that the same was true of the disciples of Jesus. The use of the term “Jewish Greek” has some justification, though the idea may be exaggerated by association with the modern expression “ Jewish German.” Possibly there was a language actually spoken among Jews and Jewish Christians which with propriety could be so designated. But the writings which have been gathered up in the N.T. were all written under circumstances and conditions so complex, that the language of no one of them can properly be described by the single word Jewish Greek. And, on the other hand, there is no one of them, not even the two parts of the work of Luke, born a Gentile, the language of which is not consistent with the Jewish origin of every one of the N.T. writings. 1. (P. 34.) With regard to the penetration of the Greek culture and lan- guage into Judaism, ef. SCHÜRER, ii. 21-175, iii. 304-562 (Eng. trans. 11. 1. 11-148, τι. iii. 156-381). A bibliography of the extensive literature on the character of the Greek written by Jews on the diffusion of the knowledge of the Greek language in Palestine at the time of Jesus and similar facts, is given by SCHMIEDEL in his revision of Winer’s Grammatik des neutestament- lichen Sprachidioms (8th ed. part i. 1894), in the notes to $$ 2-4 and the addenda, p. xiii. f. Here belong also some works cited above, p. 14. Of more recent treatises may be mentioned: E. Haron, Essays in Bibl. Greek. Oxford, 1889; J. Vırkau, Btude sur le Grec du NT (2 parts), Paris, 1893, 58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 1896 ; DEıssmann, ‚Dibelstudien, Marburg, 1895 ; ibid., Neue Bibelstudien, 1897 (Eng. trans. of both, Edinburgh, 1901); ibid., “ Hellenistisches griechisch,” PRE,® vii. 627-639; KENNEDY, Sources of N.T. Greek; or, the Influence of the Septuagint on the Vocabulary of the N.T., Edinburgh, 1895 ; Brass, Gram- matik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 2te Aufl. 1902 (Eng. trans., London, 2nd ed. 1905); zbid., Philology of the Gospels, London, 1898. Cf. also the brief remarks of Schlatter, Geschichte Israels von Alexander bis Hadrian, 2te Aufl. 1906, 8S. 22-28 ; cbid., Sprache und Heimat des 4 Ev. 8. 7 ff. J. Voss, in his De septuaginta interpr. dissertationes, 1661, p. 76 ff. cc. xxiv, xxv, had con- tented himself simply with establishing the authority of the LXX by its use on the part of the apostles and the evangelists. But in his treatise, De Sibyllinis, Oxon. 1679, he went much further. He now made Christ Himself the witness for the authority of the LXX, p. 75 ff., believed that by Hel- lenists and Hebrews in Acts vi. 1 should be understood friends of Greek culture and genuine national Jews, p. 92 f., held that it was owing to a pre- conceived opinion that Christ and the apostles were supposed to have spoken Hebrew constantly and exclusively, p. 96, and in general unfolded a picture of the linguistic conditions of Palestine, according to which, except for a scanty knowledge of Hebrew among the learned (nor did he deny this wholly to Jesus, p. 94) and a mixed jargon of Syriac and Greek among the peasants, the ordinary language of everyone, Jesus included, was Greek. A hundred years later appeared D. Diopatt, J. C. Neapolitani de Christo Greece loquente dissertatio, Neap. 1767, against whom de Rossi wrote (above, p. 14), and a hundred years later still in a similar vein A. Ropuris, Discussions on the Gospel: I. On the Language employed by our Lord and His Disciples (ed. 2), Cambridge and London, 1864. Such exaggerations are refuted simply by the facts adduced in § 1. 2. (P.36.) 2 Mace. vi. 8, with reference to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, speaks of τὰς ἀστυγείτονας πόλεις EXAnvidas, along with this vi. 9, xi. 24 of τὰ ἕλληνικά as heathen religion and custom ; ef. iv. 10, ὁ ἑλληνικὸς χαρακτήρ ; iv. 13, ἑλληνισμὸς καὶ ἀλλοφυλισμός. Jos. Vita, 13, uses the term ἔλαιον ἑλληνικόν of oil prepared by Gentiles in distinction from that which was ceremonially clean ; cf. Ant. xii. 5. 1, 5, xv. 9.5. He designates Gadara, Hippos, Seythopolis, Gaza as πόλεις ἑλληνίδες (Bell. 11. 6. 3; Ant. xvii. 11. 4, ai ev τῇ Συρίᾳ δεκαπόλεις Over against πόλεις Ἰουδαίων, Vita 65, Niese 341, 349), meaning in every case simply that the majority of the inhabitants were non- Jews, and that the form of government was modelled after that of Greek communities. According to him, at the beginning of the Jewish War 20,000 Jews were slain by non-Jews in Ceesarea (Bell. ii. 18. 1), 13,000 in Seythopolis (ii. 18. 3), 2500 in Askalon, 2000 in Ptolemais (ii. 18.5). It was said of the Jews in Scythopolis (= Bethshan, Baishan) that in their pronunciation they interchanged certain Hebrew consonants (Levy, Lea. i. 224), hence they must have used “ Hebrew,” ae. Aramaic, frequently, to say the least, when speak- ing to one another and to their fellow-countrymen. Josephus, in a passage where he has in mind the distinction between heathen worship and Judaism, calls the non-Jews in Caesarea Hellenes, Bell. ii. 13. 7, 14. 4, but remarks at the same time, ii. 13. 7, that the Roman troops in Caesarea, which for the most part were levied in Syria, and hence were composed of Syrians by birth and language (see above, p. 7), were of the same race as these “ Hellener”; INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 59 indeed, he distinctly calls these non-Jews of Cxsarea Syrians in Ant. xx. 8. 7, 9; Bell. ii. 18. 1; Vita, 11; ef. above, pp. 22, 24,n.7. With regard to the survival of the Aramaic language in Scythopolis and Gaza in Christian times, see p. 22. The Greek names of many of the “Hellenic cities,” such as Gadara, have not been handed down with any certainty ; others, such as Abila, Gerasa, bear their Greek names only on coins and isolated in- scriptions. 3. (P. 36.) The subst. ıyb (related to the Heb. and Syr. verb ıy5 Ps. exiv. 1) when used alone denotes any foreign language, but in the Palestinian Talmud, in the passage about the four languages cited above, p. 22, and elsewhere (see Levy, ii. 515), it denotes without further modification the Greek tongue, so that the part. ıy> and subst. nyb (properly τα βάρβαρος, 1 Cor. xiv. 11) denote simply a Greek-speaking person. In intercourse with Greeks and in books intended for Greek readers, the Jews were obliged to reverse the proceedings and to call themselves and their fellow-countrymen, so far as these spoke Aramaic and were unacquainted with Greek, βάρβαροι (Jos. Bell. i. proem. 1). A native of Jerusalem like Josephus could not indeed attain to such a degree of self-effacement as the Alexandrian Philo, who reckons himself among the Greeks when he treats of the contrast between the Hebrew language and the Greek (De conf. ling. 26, ἔστι δὲ ὡς μὲν Ἑβραῖοι λέγουσι Φανουήλ, ὡς δὲ ἡμεῖς ἀποστροφὴ θεοῦ), and who highly praises among the merits of Augustus that he enlarged Greece by adding to it many Greeces, and that he thoroughly Hellenized the most important parts of the land of the Barbarians (Leg. ad Cai. xxi, ἀφελληνίσας). Yet even as early as Aristotle’s time there were fully Hellenised Jews (Jos..c. Apion. i. 22, “Ἑλληνικὸς οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ψυχῆ). Cf, on the other hand, Jos. e. Apion. i. 11, and quite frequently. 4. (Pp. 37, 38.) Concerning Eupolemos, see the statement in Schürer, iii. 351 f. (Eng. trans. 11. iii. 203f.). The identity of the historian with the one in 1 Mace. viii. 17 isopposed by Willrich, Juden u. Griechen, 1895, p. 157. The coins are found most conveniently classified in Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881. Concerning Herod’s troops, see Jos. Bell. i. 33. 9, 15. 6, 20. 3, 22. 2; Ant. xvii. 8. 2; concerning his military colonies, see Ant. xv. 8. 5, xvi. 5. 2 ; Bell. i. 21. 9. Concerning theatres, etc., in and near Jerusalem, see Ant. xv. 8.1; ef. Schürer, i. 387 f., ii. 46 (Eng. trans. 1. i. 482f., τι. 1. 32f.); in Jericho, Bell. i. 33. 6, 8; Ant. xvii. 6. 3, 5, 8. 2. Concerning the tragedian Ezekiel (Clem. Strom. i. 155; Eus. Prep. ix. 28; 29. 4-12), see in brief Schiirer, iii. 373 f. (Eng. trans. ır. 111. 225#.). 5. (P. 38.) An instance in point is the title on the eross, John xix. 20 (Luke xxiii. 38%). Mention is made of bilingual inscriptions from the times just before Christ in Askalon, Tyre, and Sidon, Jos. Ant. xiv. 10, 2, 3, 12. 5. The case is different, however, with the inscriptions, partly Latin and partly Greek, which were placed upon the stone wall separating the inner from the outer court of the temple, and which forbade every non-Jew to advance further on pain of death, Jos. Bell. v. 5. 2, vi. 2.4. The purpose here was a very practical one. The Latin inscriptions were to warn the Roman officials and soldiers. A Greek inscription of this kind was found in 1871, Survey of Western Palestine, vol. iii. (Jerusalem) 423. 6. (P. 39.) While an Alexander Jannzeus was willing to have Pisidians 60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT and Cilieians but no Syrians in his army of mercenaries (Jos. Bell. 1. 4. 3), the Roman garrison of Oxsarea, circa 66 A.D., consisted largely of native Syrians (Bell. ii. 13.7 ; cf. iv. 1. 5, above, n. 2). A cavalry troop of the Augustans is mentioned repeatedly (Bell. ii.12.5; Ant. xx. 6.1; cf. xix. 9. 2, according to which men of Cesarea also served in it). We are not accurately informed as to the composition of the infantry in Cesarea (5 cohorts, Ant. xix. 9. 2), in Jerusalem (John xviii. 3, 12; Acts xxi. 31f., xxii. 24 ff., xxiii. 17-33), and elsewhere. The name σπεῖρα Σεβαστή (cohors Augusta) in Acts xxvii. 1 gives no information as to the origin of the soldiers that served in it.. On the other hand, σπεῖρα ἡ καλουμένη ᾿Ιταλική, Acts x. 1, certainly denotes a band the nucleus of which consisted of Italian volunteers. Schürer’s argument, i. 462 f. (Eng. trans. 1. ii. 51-54), against the historicity of the statement that such a band was stationed in Caesarea at that time (perhaps circa 35-40) is based upon an unwarranted combination of data. The statement in Jos, Ant. xx. 8. 7, according to which in the year 66 not only the cavalry troop mentioned, but the whole Roman garrison of Czsarea, was made up largely of men from Ceesarea and Sebaste, cannot be maintained in view of the statement in Bell. il. 13. 7 (see above), and would prove nothing about the earlier time of Acts x. 1. 7. (P. 39.) Philo, who calls Jerusalem the μητρόπολις of all Jews on earth (c. Flace. vii ; Leg. ad Car. xxxvi), and who had visited it at least once himself (Fragm. in Eus. Prep. ev. viii. 14. 64, Mangey, ii. 646), speaks probably with- out exaggeration of the pilgrimages thither by Jews of all lands, de Mon. ii. 1, and of the bearing of tribute and gifts to that city, Mon. ii. 3; Leg. ad Car. xxiii, xxxi, xl; ef. Jos. Ant. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6. 2-7, xviii. 9. 1; Cicero, pro Flacco, xxviii. Turning to the N.T., we find in John xii. 20 certain Greeks ; in Acts viii. 27, an Ethiopian who apparently spoke Greek and read the Septuagint ; in Acts xxi. 27, Jews from the province of Asia. Vice versd, the central authority in Jerusalem, later in Jabne and Tiberias, kept in touch with all the Jews in foreign countries, and likewise with the διασπορὰ τῶν ᾿Ελλήνων, John vii. 35=p7 xmbı, as it is called in one of the letters of Gamaliel mentioned above, pp. 10, 33 (Jerus. Maas. sheni, 56c). 8. (Pp. 40, 43.) In Acts vi. 1 we find the division into "EAAnviorai and Ἑβραῖοι within the community of Christiansat Jerusalem ; in Actsix. 29, where the reading Ἕλληνας is not to be considered, Jews in Jerusalem hostile to Chris- tianity are called Ἑλληνισταί. S! was right in the main in translating Acts ix. 29, “with the Jews who understood Greek” ; Chrysostom was more exact in Hom. xiv on Acts vi. land in Hom. xxi on Acts ix. 29 (Montfaucon, ix. 111, 169). The same name would form a contrast to Ἰουδαῖοι in Acts xi. 20, if it were to be read there ; but for that very reason it is incredible that such is the reading. In Acts vi. 9 it is uncertain whether the author, in consideration of the fact that Außeprivov was a Latin word, prefixed to it τῶν λεγομένων, or whether we should read τῆς λεγομένης, which is supported by the most authorities. In the latter case it would be certain that two groups were meant to be dis- tinguished. In the former case also this is the only thing probable, for otherwise simply καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Kup. κτλ. would have been written instead of kai Kupikwv καὶ ᾿λλεξιανῶν. A synagogue of the Alexandrians in Jerusalem is mentioned also in the Jerus. Talmud (Megilla, 73d). Nothing seems more natural than that Cyrenians, like the Simon mentioned in Mark xy. 21, should INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 61 have connected themselves with this synagogue. Allied to them also were the Libertines, ¢.e. descendants of Jews who had been brought to Rome by Pompey as prisoners of war and sold as slaves, but who afterward had been manumitted and made Roman citizens (Philo, Leg. ad Caz. xxiii; Schiirer, iii. 84 (Eng. trans. 11. ii. 276). The thousands of Acts ii. 5 ff. also belong to the number of foreign Jews who had taken up residence in Jerusalem ; for karoı- κοῦντες, 1]. 5, 14, not to be confused with παροικοῦντες (Luke xxiv. 18), signifies that they were permanent residents of Jerusalem (iv. 16, vii. 4, ix. 35, xiii. 27). This interpretation is but confirmed by the use of the same word in ii. 9. With reference to the language in the midst of which they had grown up, the Jews from Mesopotamia, etc., are called “dwellers in Mesopotamia” instead of “ Mesopotamians,” so as not to weary by an uninterrupted series of names of nations. The idea that at this time their fixed abode was still Mesopotamia, etc., is a misunderstanding, and is excluded by vv. 5, 14. Moreover, ἐπι- δημεῖν (ver. 10), not to be confounded with παρεπιδημεῖν (1 Pet. i. 1, ii. 11, below, § 38, n. 4), denotes not a visit at a feast, but very commonly, as every lexicon shows, residence at home and return home, in contrast to a passing sojourn in a strange place. The attempt of Blass (NKZ, 1892, S. 826 ff.,-and in his Acta Apostolorum, Acts ii. 5) to omit the Ἰουδαῖοι in ii. 5 (following 8), and thus to transform the witnesses of the miracle at Pentecost into “‘God-fearing” Gentiles, 1.6. so-called proselytes of the gate, is to be rejected. In ver. 10 it is said expressly of the “Romans” that they were partly Jews, partly proselytes (i.e., according to the usage of the N.T., of Josephus, and of the Early Church, circumcised proselytes of righteousness) ; but this also implies that all the rest were Jews by birth, and that it was only among the Romans that there were also certain proselytes. Without a hint being given of a change in the circle of hearers, Peter addresses them in a body as Jews and Israelites (vv. 14, 22, 36, 39), as inhabitants of Jerusalem (vv. 14, 29, ev ywiv=in Jerusalem), as representatives of the Jewish people, among whom and upon whom Jesus had done His works (ver. 22), and who by the hand of the Gentiles had slain Him (ver. 23). For the author of Acts it would have been an insupportable thought that the hearers of the first preaching of the apostles should have been uncircumcised Gentiles (i. 6, 8, ii. 39, iii. 26, xill. 46, ete.). Further, it is not demonstrable that εὐλαβεῖς, ii. 5, ever denotes, like φοβούμενοι or σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν, proselytes of the second degree. ‘These Jews who had returned from a foreign land to the home of their fathers are called “ Romans, Parthians, Arabians,” ete., just as the Jew Aquila is called Movrikds, and the Jew Apollos ᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς τῷ γένει, Acts xviii. 2,24. It is not their parentage which is stated in ii. 5 (this would have been expressed by ἐκ παντὸς ἔθνους or γένους, Acts xv. 23; Rev. v. 9, vii. 9; Gal. 11. 15; Phil. iii. 5; Rom. ix. 24), but the fact that they had come from the most various lands; cf. with reference to ἔθνος, § 21, n. 2. They were therefore native Jews throughout, and only in the case of the Ronans is it remarked that there were also some proselytes among them. The only difficulty in this text arises from Ἰουδαίαν, ver. 9, for which Bentley, (Crit. sacra, ed. Ellies, p. 22) suggested Λυδίαν or Ιδουμαίαν, the present writer Ἰνδίαν. For one of the motives for their return hinted at above, p. 39, namely, the wish to be buried in the Holy Land, see the instances in Weber, System der altsynag. Theol. 64, 352; for other instances of high regard for 62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the Holy Land, 62 f., 192, 200 ff. All that has been said of the Hellenists in Jerusalem naturally has its exceptions; and it is also probable that Hellenist families in Jerusalem in the second and third generation again came to receive a Hebrew education. The family of the Boethusians, e.9, which came from Alexandria (Jos. Ant. xv. 9. 3), and from which five or six high priests arose during the last century of the temple, bears in: its male and female members nothing but Hebrew and Aramaic names: Simon, Joazar, Eleazar, Eljonai, Marjam (Jos. Bell. 1. 28.4; Ant. xvii. 4. 2), Martha (Mishnah, Jebam. vi. 4). See the list in Schürer, 11. 216-220 (Eng. trans. 11. i. 197-202). 9. (Pp. 40, 43.) For the preference of Greek to Aramaic on the part: of Judah the Nasi, see above, p. 22. In the portion of the Mishnah edited by him, Megillah i. 8, we read : “There is no difference between the (holy) writings (on the one hand) and the Thephilin and Mesusoth (on the other), except that the writings may be written in any desired language, whereas the Thephilin and Mesusoth may be written only in Assyrian” (1.6. Hebrew). Rabbi Simeon son of Gamaliel (the younger), says: “Also with reference to the writings, it has been permitted that they be written only in Greek.” Connected with this in Jerus. Megillah, 716, is the following: “Search was made, and it was found that the Torah cannot be translated satisfactorily into any language but Greek.” In the same passage it is stated that the Greek translation of the Bible by Aquila had met the approval of the most celebrated rabbis of his time (circa 100-130). The fact that this slavishly literal translation was preferred to the Septuagint as well as the origin of this translation itself, rests in part upon the opposition to Christianity. There were no objections to the use of Greek in worship. There was seen in this rather a fullilment of the prophecy in Gen. ix. 27 (Jerus. Megillah, 710), and by a play upon words Ps. xlv. 3 was applied to Aquila, the most accurate translator of the Torah into the language of Japhet (op. eit. 71c). Although in Ceesarea the so-called. Schema, the basal creed of Judaism (Deut. vi. 4-9, xi. 13-21; Num. xy. 37-41), was said in Greek, no serious objection was made to this (Jerus. Sotah, 210, moreover the Mishnah itself, Sotah vu. 1; Megillah ii. 1). According to the express testimony of rabbi Ishmael (Shekalim 111. 2), Greek letters were inscribed on the chests used for the offerings in the temple; while, according to Shekalim v. 3, certain tokens which served as receipts for gifts offered on the altar bore Aramaic inscriptions, ef. Joel, Blöcke in die Religionsgesch. ii. 1708. With reference to the Greek inscriptions of the Herodians in the Hauran (especially Waddington, No. 2329), cf. Schlatter, Gesch. Israels von Alexander bis Hadrian,? 8. 26, 317, and also Sifre on Deut. § 33 (Sprache und Heimat des 4 Ev. 8. 128), “Everbody runs to read a new διάταγμα (edict).” In Sotah ix. 14 we read: “In the war of Vespasian the crowns of the bridegrooms were forbidden, and the drums. In the war of Titus (?) the crowns of the brides were forbidden, nor was anyone allowed to teach his son Greek. In the last war the bride was forbidden to go about in the midst of the town in a sedan chair.” It is now probably universally recognised that instead of Titus we are rather to read Quietus, and hence to think of the Jewish revolt under Trajan, circa 116 (Schiirer, i. 667 [Eng. trans. τ. i. 9867). It is only of the ordinance which it was claimed arose in the last war, i.e. that of Hadrian, that the Mishnah says expressly that it was repealed INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 63 by the rabbis. But the prohibition with reference to the Greek language likewise failed to be maintained. In true rabbinic fashion, later writers used the letter of the ordinance, which speaks only of sons, not of daughters, in order to set it aside as far as possible. A rabbi Abbahu (circa 300) declares in the name of his teacher Johanan (died 279): “A man is permitted to teach his daughter Greek, since it is an ornament unto her” (Jerus. Shabbath, 7d ; Sotah, 240). To be sure, this Abbahu, who lived in Ceesarea, shows himself to an unusual degree to have been conformed to the world and open to Greek influences (Hamburger, RE, ii. 4-8; Levy, Verhandlungen der 33 Versamm. deutscher Phil. 1879, S. 81). The family of Gamaliel, which after the year 70 occupied an almost princely position for a number of generations, was pardoned for its diligent cultivation of Greek as a colloquial language just because of its social standing. Tradition is probably right in this particular, that the reaction against the adoption of the Greek language and culture is connected with the last spasmodic struggles of the nation to assert its in- dependence. Even from the historical accounts all signs of this are absent before the year 66. Josephus, born 37 Δ...) the son of an eminent priestly family, but not belonging to the aristocracy proper, had acquired, in addition to the rabbinic learning of which he could boast when only fourteen (Vita, 2; Ant. xx. 12), so great a knowledge of Greek in Jerusalem, that when twenty-six years old, without ever having been out of his country before, he could undertake a mission to Rome, and could mingle with the highest circles of society there, advocating his cause with zeal and success before the wife of Nero, Vita, 3. He also endeavoured to learn Greek from books, receiving instruction in grammar ; but he confesses that the use of his mother- tongue hindered him from acquiring a correct pronunciation of Greek. In preparing the Greek revision of his work on the Jewish War, and probably also in writing the Antiquities, he availed himself of the assistance of several Greek literati, c. Apion. i. 9. In Ant. xx. 12 he explains that his education was lacking on this side, because among his countrymen a knowledge of foreign languages was not highly prized. Such knowledge was in their eyes something vulgar, being easily attainable, not only by any free man, but also by every slave who hada liking for it. It was only knowledge of the Law and ability to explain the O.T., in which few accomplish anything, that gave one a reputation for learning. According to this, it is a mistake to think that a knowledge of Greek was limited to the aristocratic circles in Jerusalem, much less to the scholars. Many a merchant and artisan probably excelled famous rabbis in this respect. Among the women, knowledge of Greek was at any rate much more common than knowledge of the sacred language (see above in this note, also pp. 7, 25, n. 10). Nevertheless it was expedient that Titus, when seeking to induce the besieged Jews in Jerusalem to surrender, should have treated with them through an interpreter (Jos. Bell. vi. 6. 2), just as it was also perfectly natural that Josephus should have used his mother- tongue when commissioned by Titus to address them (v. 9. 2, vi. 2. 1). „10. (P. 41.) Among the apostles, only Andrew, whose father and brother bore Hebrew names, and Philip have Greek names. Every one of the seven names in Acts vi. 5, among which also the name Philip occurs (ef. viii. 5, xxi. 8), is Greek ; but this is explained by the occasion for the appointment of these. seven men. ‘ Hebrews” probably always had along with their 64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Greek names Hebrew or Aramaie names, like the later Hasmoneans Johanan- Hyrkanos, Juda-Aristobulos, Jannay-Alexandros, Salome- Alexandra. So a Nicodemus (Jewish Nakdimon), perhaps identical with the one men- tioned in John iii. 1, is said to have been called originally Bunay (Bab. Taanith, 20a). Latin names also were very common along with the Hebrew : Johanan-Mareus, Acts xii. 12, 25; Joseph-Barsaba-Justus, Acts i. 23; Jesus- Justus, Col. iv. 11 ; Shimon-Niger, Acts xiii. 1 ; Shila-Silvanus, above, p. 32, line 6. Even when we know only of the Latin name, as in the case of Niger, Jos. Bell. iv. 6. 1, Justus Julius Capellus or Capella and Crispus, Jos. Vita, 9, a Jewish name besides was probably not lacking. The Greek name Petrus (Phlegon, de Longevis, 3; in Josephus xviii. 6. 3 poorly attested for Πρῶτος) occurs even in the case of Palestinian Jews (Jerus. Moed Katon, 82d, line 9 from bottom), but belongs to the apostles only as a translation of the surname Kepha given him by Jesus, above, p. 16, ZKom. Matt. 537. 11. (P. 42.) Concerning foreign words from the Greek and Latin in Jewish literature : J. FÜRST, Glossariwm Greco-hebraicwm oder der griech. Wortschatz der jüdischen Midraschwerke, 1890 ; Krauss, Griech. u. lat. Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch u. Targum, 2 vols. 1898-1899 ; SCHÜRER, ii. 44-67 (Eng. trans. ır.i. 31-47), gives a selection from the Mishnah arranged according to subjects, and Daman, Gr.? 182 ff., presents from the grammatical point of view examples drawn from the literature claimed to be Palestinian Aramaic. Greek and Latin words probably used by Jesus are, συνέδριον, Matt. v. 22,x. 17; Mark xiii. 9; in the LXX nine times, also in Ps. Solomon iv. 1; 2 Mace. xiv. 5, Jewish j'77730 court of justice, especially the highest at Jerusalem ; also title of a tractate of the Mishnah. Whether we should include here ἀντίδικος, Matt. v. 25; Luke xii. 58, xviii. 3, which is quite common in the Midrash literature, but which does not seem to occur in the Talmud and Targum, is doubtful. On the other hand, there is little doubt that he used παράκλητος, John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7; 1 John ii. 1; Didache, v. 2, πλουσίων mapa- κλητοι, πενήτων ἄνομοι κριταί ; Clem. Quis dives, xxv, τὸν τῆς σῆς συνήγορον καὶ παράκλητον Ψυχῆς ; Heb. wdp1s Pirke Aboth iv. 11, “advocate.” Here, as in the Targum of Job xxxiil. 23, the word is used in opposition to mIwp=xkarn- yopos, or rather karnyop, Rev. xii. 10, a form which probably belonged to the Greek colloquial ; a similar form is συνήγωρ (Ξε συνήγορος), A330, which in Jewish literature forms the contrast to kategor much oftener than does peraklit, eg. Jerus. Joma, 44} ; ef. Krauss, BZ, 1893, 5. 526. Among the Jews the meaning of the more infrequent peraklit has: become broadened and is plainly treated as active=zapaxadav. In the Targum of Job xvi. 20, xxxiii. 23, the Aram. ΝΡ. corresponds to the Heb. pbs, which in both passages, even in xvi. 20, where it does not suit, the translator has taken in the sense of “interpreter, representative of another before a third party, mediator.” Two Jewish translators, Aquila and Theodotion, render Job xvi. 2, oni “comforters,” by παράκλητοι, where the LXX has παρακλήτορες and Sym- machus rapnyopoüvres (Field, Hexapla, ii. 30). Thus Philo, Opif. mundi, 6, | expresses the thought that God, without having been persuaded or exhorted thereto by anyone, bestowed the riches of His goodness upon His creatures, οὐδενὶ δὲ παρακλήτῳ---τίς yap ἢν ἕτερος---μόνῳ δὲ ἑαυτῷ χρησάμενος ὁ θεὸς ἔγνω κτλ. Less characteristic is Vita Mosis, tii. 14. Likewise Origen, de Orat. 10, | treats the παράκλητος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα in 1 John ii. 1 as active, among other | INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 65 things paraphrasing it συμπαρακαλῶν τοῖς παρακαλοῦσι. Originally the word was not construed actively, but such a meaning grammatically is by no means impossible. To the examples in Kühner-Blass, ii. 289, should be added λαλητός, “speaking, able to speak,” Iren. Fragm. xiv., Stieren, 833. Tertullian, who translates παρακαλεῖν by advocare, c. Marc. iv. 14, p. 191, παράκλησις by advocatio, Pud. xvii, and παράκλητος by advocatus, Praz. ix, found it necessary to form advocator, Mare. iv. 15, p. 193 ; Greeks, however, and Jews who used the foreign term παράκλητος, could dispense with the other form παρακλήτωρ found in the LXX. Jesus, who in John xiv. 16 applied the term to Himself primarily, had been up to that time not the advocate called to the aid of the disciples, but the teacher speaking to their hearts in the name of God, the interpreter through whom God spoke to them. After His departure this is the oflice of the Spirit, xiv. 26. On the other hand, it is the ascended Jesus who, in the name of the disciples and for their advantage appeals to the heart of God, intercedes for them, 1 John ii. 1. The extent to which the meaning of the word can vary is just the same in the N.T. as in Jewish writings, διαθήκη, Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, cf. xxii. 29, Acts iii. 25, διατίθεσθαι, of testamentary disposal, very common in the form *p’n™ or ‘pink, in the sense of a testamentary disposal of one’s property in the event of death, as distinguished from snp, a gift during one’s lifetime, Jerus. Pea, 17d ; on the other hand, διάθεμα, which was uncommon even among the Greeks, or the verb διεθέμην (according to Jasrrow, 294), which occurs in a saying of Simon the son of Gamaliel, was unintelligible to a later rabbi Joshua (Jerus. Baba Bathra, 16c, lines 17-19). κύριε as a form of address to a superior, Matt. vii. 21 f., xiii. 27, xxi. 30; John xiii. 13 f.; also the numerous cases where in the narrative Jesus is thus addressed. How common the Greek word was among the Jews is shown by the fact that yp is adduced as an example of the corrupt pronunciation of the Galileans, in whose mouth it became 3 (supposedly = xeipıe?), b. Erubin, 53); moreover, in b. Chullin, 139, we have even the doubling of 7, which goes to show that in Matt. vii. 21 we have not a translation, but merely a transcription. Outside of the Targums, which are acquainted also with op ὁ κύριος, and use it even of God (Levy, Targ. Wörterbuch, ii. 360; Dalman, Gr.? 186), we meet with mp almost exclusively, and that, too, in the vocative ; but this is explained by the fact that the form of address κύριε was more frequently to be heard than the other case forms, and was the first to become common among the Jews (cf. Monsieur and le Steur). In this it is like the Greek proper names, which as spoken by the Syrians were often in the vocative form (Nöldeke, Syr. Gr. § 144). However, what is found in the lexica under "v3 (also=xaipe, χαρά, or χάρις), Pp, Op, is still very much in need of sifting. πανδοχεύς, or more correctly πανδοκεύς, and mavdoreiov, Luke x. 34, 35, the former as 'pına (yet it also has the spelling of the latter in the Mishnah, Gittin viii. 9; Kidd. iv. 12), the latter as pans, ΡΣ, pI, were very common, as is especially evident from the further fact that even the feminine npin5=avdoxet’rpia oceurs not infrequently in the Mishnah (e.g. Jebam. xvi. 7), Targums, etc. δηνάριον, Matt. xviii. 28, xx; 2-13; Mark xii. 15; Luke vii. 41, x. 35, xx. 24, in the mouth of the disciples, Mark vi. 37, xiv. 5; John vi. 7, xii. 5. The transliteration 1329 is at least as common in the Mishnah as the Heb. equivalent m (examples in Schiirer, ii. 54, A. 162 [Eng. trans. τι. i. 39, n. 164]); in the Jerus. Talmud VOL. I. 5 66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (also xy in an Aram. context), Targ., and Mid. the proportion is probably about the same. Also ἀσσάριον, Matt. x. 29, Luke xii. 6, which as sox (75x) is very common in the Mishnah (Erubin vii. 10; Kidd. i, 1, etc.) and in all Jewish literature, was probably used by Jesus in this form ; probably also κοδράντης, Matt. v. 26, Latin quadrans in the form vun mp. It is not necessary to suppose that Mark of Jerusalem, who in xii. 42 writes for his Roman readers λεπτὰ δύο 6 ἐστι koöpdvrns, did not learn this last expression until he came to Rome, for we read almost exactly the same thing in Jerus. Kidd. 58d, Danmp mune ‘3. But, in any event, Luke, who in the parallel passages, xii. 59, xxi. 2, uses the purely Greek λεπτόν, which had not made its way into the Jewish vernacular at all, has not preserved for us, as Schiirer, ii. 55, A. 169 (Eng. trans. 11. i. 40, n. 171), thinks, the wording of the original written source used also by Matthew ; for this was written not in Greek, but in Aramaic. Elsewhere, also, Luke has substituted the genuine Greek word for the Latin term used by the Jews of Palestine ; thus φόρος, xx. 22 (xxiii. 2), instead of «nvoos, Matt. xxii. 17; Mark xii. 14 (Matt. xvii. 25, xxii. 19). How completely the latter word had become naturalised is seen from the fact that Dip, XD3p occurs mostly in the later and secondary sense of ‘ mulet, fine,” that a denominative verb dsp was in use, and that a Greek derivative form κήνσωμα, nor, which cannot be pointed out elsewhere, occurs (Krauss, Zehnwörter, ii, 534, 554). Aeyıov, λεγεών, Matt. xxvi. 53, cf. Mark v. 9, 15; Luke viii, 30, pr, plur. para and = maya. Levy in both his lexica maintains that this has a second meaning, “commander”: and on the basis of that A. Meyer makes bold: assertions concerning Mark v. 9, 15; but such a meaning is incredible at the outset, since the Romans had no title of an officer that was formed from legio. When the word denotes an individual, we must either alter m9 into und (legatus ; Fürst, Gloss. 130) or understand a soldier (miles legionarius ; Krauss, li. 305). A verb corresponding to dyyapevew in Matt. v. 41 (xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21; cf. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 37 ; DEIssMANN, Bibelst. 81 [Eng. trans. 86 £.]) has not been pointed out as yet in Jewish literature ; but the substantive ΝΉΣΩΝ Ξε ἀγγαρεία (Epiet. Diss. iv. 1. 79 ; Artemid. Oneiroer, v. 16) is very common, and the Jews appropriated dyyapevrns also, which shows that these words, though derived from the Persian (Herodot. viii. 98), did not become naturalised among the Jews until Hellenistic times, The people were for the most part not conscious that such words were foreign, as is shown by the remark of the linguist Epiphanius that povpvaé=fornaa= κάμινος, belonged to the vernacular of Palestine (Her. xxx, 12). The Latin furnus, or even furna, in the. form 823, "35, was common among both Jews and Syrians ; cf. Krauss, BZ, 1893, S. 524 ; Lehmwörter, i. 72, ii. 434, 12. (P. 43.) Concerning Acts ii. 5 ff., see above, p. 61. The half foreign character of the young Church in Jerusalem is confirmed by iv. 36 (Barnabas from Cyprus), vi. 1-5 (above, p. 63, n. 10), xi. 20 (Κύπριοι καὶ Κυρηναῖοι), XXi. 16 (Mnason, a diseiple from the early days of the Church, from Cyprus). Per- haps we may reckon with these the family of Simon of Cyrene (Mark xv. 21; Rom. xvi. 13; below, § 22). The further growth is given in iv. 4, without a statement of their origin; v. 16 mentions people from the towns in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; vi. 1 refers to the increase of the Church as oecasioning the complaint of the Hellenists, in so far as they seem to have been forced by it into the background ; vi. 7 speaks of many priests, or more INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 67 probably according to x*S! ὄχλος Ἰουδαίων, 1.6. Judeans, ef. Klosterinann, Probleme, 13 ; ef. the variants in. ὃ Mace. vi. 1 ; further, Pharisees are men- tioned xy. 5, i.e. certainly genuine ‘‘ Hebrews,” even if zeal for the law was common to all Jewish Christians in Palestine, whatever their origin or language, xxi. 20. What was said above, p. 44, of Caesarea, Ptolemais, and ‘Tyre, is probably not true of Damascus. Although belonging to the Decapolis, it had received no Greek name, but had, on the contrary, a large Jewish population ; according to Jos. Bell. ii. 20. 2, almost all the wives of the Gentiles were attached to Judaism, and in the war 10,500 Jewish men were slain in one day. The names Hananyah and Judah in Acts ix. 10f. are Hebrew. 13. (P. 46.) Concerning Philo asa Hellene, see above, p. 59,n.3. The question to what extent he and other Jews of the diaspora were acquainted with Hebrew (answered in very different ways, e.g., by Frankel, Vorstudien zur Septuaginta, S. xv. 45f., who denies him all such knowledge ; and by Siegfried, Philo, 142 ff.) may be allowed to remain unanswered all the more since the point at issue as between “Hebrews” and Hellenists is not a scholarly knowledge of Hebrew, but the practical use, either of Greek or of Aramaic, inaccurately called Hebrew (above, p. 46 f.). Philo, ¢. Flace. vi, states that the Jews in Alexandria and in Egypt, as far as the Ethiopian border, were no fewer than a hundred myriads (1,000,000). Among perhaps a hundred and fifty Jewish epitaphs from Rome, there are, according to A. Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, i. 58, only forty in Latin, the rest—indeed, all those dating from the first three centuries a.D.—are in Greek. It is only seldom that the word ‘ Peace,” or “In peace,” or “Peace upon Israel,” is added in the Hebrew language and character. See the list in Berliner, i. 71-92, which is convenient, even if not satisfactory in every respect. For Aramaic forms in the LXX, see above, Ὁ. 181. No. 13. Here belongs also yeıwpas for the Heb. "1 -Ξ- προσήλυτος, Ex. xii. 19; Isa. xiv. 1; cf. above, p. 30, line 45. The translation νικήσῃς in Ps. li. 6, ef. Rom. iii. 4, gives 'to the Heb. an (“to be pure”) the meaning of the Aram. xn (“toconquer”). Other examples in Frankel, 201. 14. (P. 47.) 0.1. G. No. 9909, also Schiirer, Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, 35, No. 8—epitaph of a certain Salome, daughter of Gadia, who bears the title of a πατὴρ συναγωγῆς Aißpeov="Eßpaiwv. Another epitaph, first brought to light by Derenbourg in Mélange Renier, 1887, p. 439, calls this same Gadia “ father of the Hebrews” (πατρὸς τῶν ‘EBpéwv). For the interpret- ation given in the text, ef. Schürer, ibid. 16 ; ibid. Gesch. ii. 46 (Eng. trans. τι, ii. 248); still more definitely Berliner, 104, who cites Neubauer also in support of this; while Derenbourg, who appeals to Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 6, ete,, tries to make out that the Hebrews in and about Rome were Samaritans. Gadia (Jastrow, 211, x72 ıı. ; Berliner, 55) and Salome were ordinary names among Palestinian Jews. 15. (Pp. 49, 50, 53.) With this and the following note, ef. the writer’s essay, “Zur Lebensgesch. des Paulus,” NKZ, 1904, 5. 23 ff. (among others against Mommsen, Z/NTW, 1901, S. 81 ff.) and 8. 189 ff.; also PRE,’ xv. 61-88. Acts xxii. 3 tells unequivocally in what sense Paul is called Ταρσεύς in xxi, 39, cf. ix. 11, 30, xi. 25. It was a needless supposition of Fabricius, Cod. apocr. NT, iii. 571, that on account of the tradition to be cited in n. 16 Jerome must have read in Acts xxii. 3 with Cod. A, γεγενημένος (simply 68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT “having been”). The contrast between the birthplace and the place of education was unmistakable. Starting with the fact that Paul was born in Tarsus, the Ebionite work entitled ἀναβαθμοὶ ᾿Ιακώβου (Epiph. Her. xxx. 16, 25) asserts that he was a Hellene on both his father’s and his mother’s side, Paul would not have called himself a eitizen of Tarsus if he and his father had not really possessed, in addition to the civitas Romana, municipal eitizen- ship in his native town (cf. a number of inscriptions in JHSt. 1889, p. 50ff., Nos. 12-20, Ῥωμαῖος καὶ Avddrns, and similar expressions). The fact that Paul spent the first part of his youth in another city than Jerusalem and among a population differing in race from him, is attested also in Acts xxvi. 4; for there is no doubt of the genuineness of the re (NABES!), and certainly not of the τὴν am’ ἀρχῆς, which Blass strikes out; and, moreover, ἐν τῷ ἔθνει μου cannot mean “among the Jewish people,” which m any case would be a singular mode of expression in an address to the Jew Agrippa (ef. per contra ἡμετέρα, ἡμῶν, xxvi. 5-7), but=ev τῇ πατρίδι pov. For this use of ἔθνος, cf. below, ὃ 21, n. 2. He says in this address that all the Jews know how from his youth up he has led a life of strict conformity to the law, and this, too, not merely as a result of his rabbinic training, but “from the beginning,” in his native city of Tarsus, as well as later in Jerusalem. This piety, inherited as it was and early instilled into him in the home before ever he sat at Gamaliel’s feet (cf. 2 Tim. i. 3), is defined more closely in xxvi. 5 as Pharisaic piety ; cf. Phil. iii. 5; Acts xxiii, 6, where we are certainly to read Φαρισαίων, not Bapıcaiov. For several generations the family had belonged to that party. Moreover, in Gal. i. 14 (τῶν πατρικῶν [not πατρῴων] μου παραδόύόσεων) Paul is thinking of his father, asin Gal. i. 15 of his mother ; and one can hardly avoid the conjecture that he uses the words ὁ ἀφορίσας με (Gal. i. 15), ἀφωρισμένος (Rom. 1. 1), as a play upon the name of the Pharisees,—a name which earlier he had borne with pride, but which now he can employ in an altogether different sense ; cf. Clem. Hom. xi. 28, τῶν Φαρισαίων . .. ol εἰσιν ἀφωρισμένοι. Cf. Orig. in Matt. serm. 20 (Delarue, iii. 843, cf. 835 f. 847). Epiph. Her. xvi. 1; Jerome, Interpr. hebr. nom. (Lagarde, Onom. 61. 20, 69. 6; also 204. 47). 16. (P. 50.) Jerome in Ep. ad Philem. 23 (Vall. vii. 762): “Quis sit Epaphras concaptivus Pauli, talem fabulam accepimus: Ajunt parentes apos- toli Pauli de Gyscalis regione fuisse Jude, et eos, quum tota provincia Romana vastaretur manu et dispergerentur in orbem Jud«i, in Tharsum urbem Cilicie fuisse translatos; parentum conditionem adolescentulum Paulum sequutum. Et sie posse stare illud quod de se ipse testatur ‘ Hebravi sunt,’ etc. (2 Cor. xi. 22), et rursum alibi * Hebraeus ex Hebreis’ (Phil. iii. 5), et cetera, quee illum Judeeum magis indicant quam Tharsensem.” Ibid.,Vir. Ill. v: “ Paulus apostolus ... de tribu Benjamin et oppido Jude Giscalis fuit, quo a Romanis capto cum parentibus suis Tarsum Cilieise commigravit.” From this latter passage the story passed over into Latin Bibles, cf. Card. Thomasius Opp., ed. Vezzosi, i. 382 (ea oppido Judee Egirgalis). The fact should not have been overlooked that the tradition which is given in full in the com- mentary on Philem. 23 (written A.D. 387) is essentially altered through care- less abbreviation in the later work, Vir. Ill. v. The tradition, in the only form in which it needs to be considered, does not say that Paul emigrated with his parents from Gischala to Tarsus, but means that his parents, on the INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 69 occasion of a capture of Gischala by the Romans, were (taken prisoners of war, and thus, perhaps having been sold as slaves, involuntarily) removed to Tarsus, and that Paul (inherited and) shared in his youth this condition of his parents. It surely goes without saying that Jerome learned about this fabula not through hearsay, but from an older commentary. Probably his source is Origen’s commentary on Philem., cf. GK, ii. 1002. Photius draws his similar statements (Quest. Amphil. 116, 117, Migne, 101, col. 688f.; per- haps also the further statements in Quest. 211, col. 965) from the same source, and by no means from the Greek translation of Jerome, Vir, Ill., though he often shows dependence upon this elsewhere (Forsch. ii. 8, 111, 35 ; Wentzel, Die griech. Übers. der viri ill. 1895, 5. 1 ff.), The τῷ Ῥωμαϊκῷ δόρατι of Photius, e.y., corresponds to the Romana manu of Jerome. Although the Coptic fragments of the Acts of Paul have furnished no verification, the supposition remains probable, that this legend, which was quite highly esteemed by Origen (GK, ii. 865f.) is the ultimate source of the tradition. The fabula of Jerome, hardly worthy of notice, is in keeping with his attitude toward apocryphal writings, which differed from Origen’s; and the Acts of Paul, which was written circa 170, represents its hero as a Hebrew. Prayers spoken in Hebrew are represented as being the apostle’s last words before his execution (Acta Petri, Pauli, etc., ed. Lipsius, p. 115; GA, ii. 875, 877). In any case this tradition, which does not contradict Acts, and yet cannot by any possibility have been derived from it, is too definite to have been invented. Hero Krenkel, Beiträge 2. Gesch. des Paulus, 8 ff., is right as against Hausrath, Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. 404; Schenkel’s Dibellex. iv. 408. The criticism of neither, however, is satisfactory, since both confuse the careless version in Var, il. v with the original tradition, and overtax our credulity by the assump- tion that there existed in Gischala until Jerome’s time a true (so Krenkel) or false (so Hausrath) tradition of this purport. The tradition that Paul’s parents lived in Gischala in Galilee (see Buhl, Geogr. Paldstinas, 233 ; Schürer, i. 616ff., ii. 445f. [Eng. trans. 1. ii. 226f., τι. 11. 70f.]) before they removed to Tarsus, where their son was born, is one that probably dates from the second century, is independent, and supplements the NT statements in a most satisfactory way. If the first person who recorded this tradition, very probably Jerome, regarded the taking of Gischala by the Romans in 67 A.D. (Jos. Bell. iv. 2. 1-5), ae. perhaps about the year of Paul’s death, as the occasion of the captivity of Paul’s parents, it was certainly a gross error on his part. But aside from the fact that we do not know this certainly, such an error on the part of this reporter would not prejudice much the essential truth of the tradition worked over by him. The event might very easily have taken place in the year 4 B.c., when Galilee suffered severely at the hands of the legions of Varus and his Arab auxiliaries; and among others the inhabitants of Sepphoris were made captives and slaves (Jos. Ant. xvii. 10.9; Bell. ii. 5.1; cf. the allusion in Keim, Gesch. Jesu, i. 318, A. 1[ Eng. trans, 11. 15,n.1]). Thestory thus corrected deserves credence for the added reason that in this way it becomes explicable why such a strict Pharisaic family should have come to Tarsus; they came to Tarsus, just as the original contingent of the Roman Jewish population came to Rome, in the condition of prisoners of war and then slaves. As the latter for the most part obtained their freedom and at the same time Roman citizen- 70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ship (above, p. 61), so Paul’s father must have done, and that, too, before Paul’s birth, for Paul was born a Roman citizen (Acts xxii. 25-28, cf. xvi. 378. xxill. 27). As such he must also have had a Roman prenomen, nomen, and cognomen in this general form: (Marcus Claudius) Paulus. In the inter- pretation of a hideous dream, Artemidorus says (Oneiroer. v. 91): “The slave receives at his emancipation three names instead of the one which he has borne hitherto, taking two names from the master who gives him his freedom. The view that Paul took this name in honour of his convert Sergius Paulus, was known even to Origen (com. in kom., preef., Delarue, iv. 460), was spread especially by Jerome (Vir. Jil. v ; ad Philem. 1, Vall. vii. 746 f.), and of late has been defended by Krenkel (18); but this view finds no support in Acts xiii. 9, where it is said simply that in addition to his Jewish name Saul, Paul bore the Roman name Paulus, the name which Luke uses thenceforth. Cf. Ἰανναῖον τὸν καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρον, Jos. Ant. xiii. 12.1; also Σίμων ὁ καὶ TIerpos (Alecandrin. Inschr. Bull. di arch. erist. 1865, p. 60). Concerning this formula in general, see the writer’s note on Ign. Eph. Inser., or Deissmann, Bibelst. 182 (Eng. trans. 313). It is still more improbable that the apostle exchanged the name Saul for Paul after his conversion ; for Luke applies the Hebrew name to him after that event as well as before it. It was natural that a Pharisee who, since his son was born a Roman citizen, had to give him Roman names, should have given him also a Heb. name, and that Paul should have ordinarily borne the latter name asa disciple of the rabbis and a persecutor of the Christians in Jerusalem, and on the other hand his Roman cognomen as a missionary to the Gentiles. The doubts of Krenkel (20 f.), that an orthodox Pharisee should have called his son after king Saul, the persecutor of David, are not suflicient’ to cast suspicion upon the statement of Acts. Many contemporaries of the apostle in Palestine were called Saul (Bell. ii. 17. 4, a relative of the house of Herod; Bell. ii, 18. 4, a prominent man in Scythopolis); Abba Shaul is a rabbinic authority of the second century (Strack, Hinl. in d. Talmud, 84) ; moreover, the female name Shaulah occurs in rabbinie circles (Levy, Neuhebr. Lex. iv. 491). The question whether the fathers who bestowed these names thought more of king Saul, who was by no means a monster, and who like Paul belonged to the tribe of Benjamin (Rom, xi. 1; Phil. iii. 5), or of the meaning of the word (“the one asked for”), need not be considered. Conjectures as to why the particular name Paul was chosen are to be found in a letter of Levy to Delitzsch, Z/L Th. 1877,8. 12. 17. (Pp. 51,52.) The question as to what extent Paul shows a knowledge of the Hebrew O.T. is in no wise settled by the work of KautzscH, De VTi locis @ Paulo apostolo allegatis, 1869, or of VOLLMER, Die alttest. Citate bei Paulus, 1895. At the same time, isolated remarks in reply, for which alone there would be room here, would not help in its solution. Cf, König, ThLb, 1896, No. 14. 18. (P.51.) E. Currius, Sitzungsber. der Berliner Akad. 1893, 5. 934: “Paul did not acquire Greek as a missionary acquires the language of the natives, in order to make himself understood by them as far as might be necessary, Paul did not acquire the language for missionary purposes at all, but grew up in it.” With the qualification made above in the text, this is correct. Blass, Gr. des neutest. Griech 5 5f. (Eng. trans. 2nd ed. 5), finds in Paul’s speech before Agrippa, which he regards as “very accurately repro- INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 71 duced,” signs that Paul was in a measure familiar with the finer Attic forms, and made use of them when before a select audience. 19. (P. 52.) Even in early times attention was paid to Paul’s quotations from profane literature, Clem. Strom. i. 59 (ef. Ped. τι. 50; Epiph. Her. xlii., ed. Pet. p. 362; Jerome, Ep. Ixx ad Magn. ; comm. in Gal. iv., Eph. v., Tit. 1. (Vall. i. 426, vii. 471, 647, 706); Socrat. H. E. iii. 16; pseudo-Euthalius (Zacagni, Mon. coll. i. 420, 543, 545, 558, 567). Concerning Tit. 1. 12, see below, § 35, n. 1. The verse from the Thais of Menander (Fragm. com. gr., ed. Meineke, iv. 132), or, according to the Church historian Socrates,’ from a tragedy of Euripides (cf. Clem. Strom. i. 59), which Paul appropriates in 1 Cor. xv. 33, is not, to be sure, quoted by him as the saying of a poet. But, on the other hand, we are not to conclude from the fact that the Pauline text as handed down is without the metrical form (χρήσθ᾽, as Lachmann printed it, instead of χρηστά, the form handed down), that Paul dietated the word in unmetrical form, and was not conscious that he was quoting poetry. Copyists have very frequently destroyed the metrical form of such quota- tions (e.g. Just. Apol. i. 39, γλῶσσα ὀμώμοκεν for γλῶσσ᾽ ὀμώμοχ᾽ in a verse of Euripides). In a sacred text, which was to be read in church, anything that would remind of a comedy would be disturbing rather than pleasing. Yet in later times verses from Menander were inscribed even on Christian tombstones (C. I. @. No. 3902r ; Ritter, De compos. tt. christ. 27 ; de Rossi, Inser. christ. ii. 1, procem. viil.). In Acts xvii. 28, where ποιητῶν is an addition to fit the facts which does not make its appearance until the second recension of the text, the idea expressed in any case is that several writers have said essentially the same thing. The quotation agrees literally with Aratus, Phat- nom. v.5; as also Acts xvii. 25 corresponds to the preceding sentence in Aratus, πάντη δὲ θεοῦ κεχρήμεθα πάντες. Cf. also the citation of the Jew, Aristobulos, in Eus. Prep. xiii. 12.6; but a quite similar thing is said by Cleanthes, Hymn. in Jovem, v. 4 (Mullach, Philos. gree. fragm. i. 150), ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν. Aratus of Soloi in Cilicia, whither his family probably moved from Tarsus, is thought to have composed his Phainomena in Athens (see in brief, Knaack in Pauly-Wissowa, RE, ii. 394); Cleanthes was for years a disciple of Zeno in Athens, and then head of the Stoic school there until his death. Paul could therefore reckon them both among the Athenian poets. Since both were Stoics, he could also say with reference to the Stoics present (xvii. 18), τινὲς τῶν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν. 20. (Ρ. 53.) With the statement in the text concerning Tarsus (above, p. 54), ef. Strabo, xiv. p. 673. That writer also mentions a considerable number of well-known Stoies and other philosophers also and of philologists who came from Tarsus. Cf. Lightfoot, Ep. to the Phil., 3rd ed. p. 301 ff., ibid. 308; Bibl. Essays, 205f. Concerning the time of waiting in Tarsus, ef. the Chronological Survey, Part ΧΙ, and also Skizzen, 67, 69. 21. (P. 56.) Jos. Scaniamr, who in his Animadv. in chron. Eusebii after the Thes. temp. 1606, p. 124, ed. 1658, p. 134, reproduced correctly the ancient interpretation (above, p. 60) of Ἑλληνισταί, Acts vi. 1, nowhere to my knowledge speaks of Hellenistic language. On the contrary, Jon. Drusius, Annot. in NT, 1612, on Acts vi. 1 (Critic? sacri, Frankf. 1696, tom. iv. 2193) writes : ‘“Higraca biblia in synagogis legebant et greece seiebant, peculiart dialecto utentes, quam hellenisticam vocant, cujus frequens mentio in his libris.” On the analogy of 72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT οἱ σοφισταί (sc. τέχνη, ἐπιστήμη), derived from ἡ σοφιστική, we might have had οἱ Ἑλληνισταί, formed from 7 ἑλληνιστικὴ διάλεκτος ; but such is not the case. Further, since Luke, who in the extant literature is the first writer and the only one for a long period to use this word, unquestionably understands by Ἑλληνισταί Jews, it did not seem unfitting to call the Greek used by such Jews Hellenistic. But this limitation of the concept lies merely in the his- torical setting here. In itself the word ‘EAAnvorai refers to all non-Hellenes who speak Greek or who in general have adopted Greek customs and ways of thinking. Indeed, the intrans. ἑλληνίζειν taken alone means simply “to speak Greek,” and in general “to appear as a Greek”; yet it lies in the nature of things that it is used only where there is a contrast to other languages (Luc. Philopseudes, 16, ἑλληνίζων ἢ Bapßapilov), and hence as a rule only of non-Greeks (Xenoph. Anab. vii.3.25 ; ARschines, c. Otesiph. 54 of Demosthenes with reference to his Scythian grandmother, βάρβαρος ἑλληνίξζων τῇ φωνῇ), just as ῥωμαΐζειν denotes Roman ways of thinking on the part of non- Romans (Jos. Bell. ii. 20. 3), and ἰουδαΐζειν Jewish manner of life on the part of non-Jews (Gal. ii. 14). Moreover, the transitive and occasionally passive ἑλληνίζειν (Thue. ii. 68; Jos. Ant. i. 6.1) and ἀφελληνίζειν (Philo, above, p. 59, n. 3) must everywhere mean simply to make Greek a person or thing that is not Greek; cf. “Germanise,” “ Anglicise,” and similar terms. So also ἑλληνισμός means, as a rule, Greek ways adopted by non-Greeks. We are not justified by such passages as2 Macc. iv. 13 (above, p- 58, n, 2, line 4) in limiting this concept to Greek language, culture, and customs only so far as they were appropriated by Jews; we must rather apply the term Hellenism to all the Greek culture spread abroad since Alexander’s time among the barbarian peoples, and thereby modified according to their individual peculiarities. On the same principle, dialectus hellenistica must denote all Greek spoken by barbarians (Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, Phrygians, Scythians) with its conse- quent modifications in each case. As a matter of fact, the term “Hellen- istic” has often been used in this sense, and, what is altogether confusing, the Hebraistic colouring of the Greek written by Jews has even been con- trasted with Hellenistic, and in the works written by Jews in Greek the Hebraisms as a rule have been distinguished as exceptions from the Hellen- istic used elsewhere in them. If a writer is unwilling to give up the un- fortunate concept of the dialectus or lingua hellenistica, he should state clearly in the preface to the work in which he is going to use the term whether he employs it in the narrow sense which Drusius gave it, or in the wider sense so common to-day, In the former case, Hebraisms would be just the char- acteristic marks of that peculiaris dialectus. In the latter case, the Greek written by Jews would be a variety within that species of Greek speech which people choose to call “Hellenistic.” Likewise this variety, in dis- tinction, say, from the Greek which Copts (Egyptians) wrote, would be recog- nised by its Hebrew or Aramaic colouring; for in proportion as Jews have been able to divest themselves of their national peculiarities in the use of the Greek, they have approached or fully adopted the common Greek, whether that was the cultured literary language or the vulgar colloquial of their time, 11. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. § 3. THE DESTINATION OF THE LETTER INDICATED BY THE GREETING. REGARDING the origin of this Epistle, there is no tradition whose certain age or apparent originality makes it of use as a guide in the investigation. Though the document itself is in the form of a letter, it contains very little which can be connected with events of which we have knowledge from other sources. With the exception of the author (i. 1), mention is made of no person living at the time when the letter was written ; nor is there notice of any historical event which had taken place in the im- mediate past, nor reference to any event that had hap- pened in the life of the author or of the readers (n. 1). Nothing is said which indicates the abode of the author or the place where the readers lived. Here, as in the case of all the N.T. Epistles, the address placed on the outside of the letter, and designed to assist the messenger in delivering it into the proper hands, has not been pre- served (n. 2)-** On the other hand, unlike some of the N.T. Epistles (1 John, Heb.), James does retain the salutation at the beginning of the letter, which in ancient literature contained both the address to the reader, as is customary in modern letters, and as a rule also the writer's signa- ture. Doubtless in many instances it happened that per- sons receiving letters did not know from whom they came until they opened them and saw the writer's name in the 73 74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT greeting. On the other hand, as a general rule, the address to the reader served no such practical purpose, but, like the greeting proper with which the superscription was gene- rally, concluded, it could be used to express in various ways the esteem in which the person addressed was held and the way in which the writer felt toward him. Con- sequently, in greetings of this kind, we generally find, in addition to the mention of the person addressed by name, and where necessary of his place of residence also, elements of a purely ideal character (n. 3). There are instances in the N.T. of greetings where the designation of the person addressed is altogether of this kind, as, in fact, is the case with Jas. 1. 1. Hopeless as the undertaking may seem in the absence of every other clue, we are compelled, provisionally at least, to seek a historical and geographical background for the letter by an exegetical discussion of the words ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ Siactopa. Taken alone, the words ai δώδεκα φυλαί can hardly mean anything but the Jewish people, and the Jewish people in their entirety (n. 4). But throughout the entire letter it is clearly presupposed, both by implication and by express statement (ii. 1), that the readers as a body accept Jesus as the Messiah. Even if this were not so, it hardly needs proof that what we have here is not an epistolary address to the entire Jewish nation (n. 5). Naturally, therefore, one looks to the accompanying ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ to supply the exacter definition which the conception requires. That this modi- fying phrase gives a characterisation of the’ readers’ situation which cannot be logically dispensed with, and which is by no means unimportant for the determination of the conception itself, is elear from the conditions existing in apostolic and post-apostolie times (n..6). At that time no one could say that the Jewish nation as such was living in ἃ dispersion, either as regards its condition or its location, nor is any such statement made. Ne THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 75 matter how largely the Jews were living outside of Pales- tine, and no matter how widely they were scattered, the nation retained its fatherland. Long after Jerusalem was destroyed, and even after the still more stringent measures adopted by Hadrian, Jews and Jewish Christians called Palestine “the land of Israel,” and so it is spoken of to-day (n. 7). Jews living abroad, such as Philo, for example, nevertheless considered Jerusalem, ‘“‘ where stood the temple of the Most High God,” their capital (e. Place. vii; Leg. ad Car. xxxvi). The high priests ruling in Jerusalem treated Palestine, with its land and people, as their domain (John xi. 48), and Jews living in Palestine were accustomed to speak of their countrymen living abroad as the diaspora among the Greeks (John vii. 35), as the exiles in Babylon and other lands, in contrast to themselves who lived in the land of their fathers and constituted the nation (n. 7). Consequently no author informed at all as to the facts could say that the Jewish nation was living in the diaspora. On the other hand, if it is assumed that someone hostile to the Jewish nation made use of this exaggerated and awkward expression (instead of some such phrase as ταῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην διεσπαρμέναις) in order to direct attention to the sorry plight into which the Jews had fallen, one is still at a loss to understand why he makes it include his Christian readers also, and how he could have omitted to indicate by a word the religious condition which distinguished his readers from Israel as a whole. These objections retain their full force also against the interpretation, often attempted, by which it is maintained that, so far as the words are concerned, James does address the Jews living outside of Palestine, but really means the Jewish Christians living outside of Palestine (n. 8). And besides, this construction stands in absolute contra- diction to the idea of the “ Twelve Tribes” which indicates specifically the Jewish people with special emphasis upon their entirety. The interpretation is right only in its 76 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT recognition of the fact that ταῖς ἐν τ. 8 is one of those appositives or attributes which complete the idea and at the same time express a contrast to another determination of it which might be possible, or which is assumed to be known (n. 6). Here the contrast is not between individual Jews, or single tribes of Israel, and the remaining Jews or tribes, but between the “ Twelve Tribes” which live in the dispersion, so constituting a homeless diaspora, and another “ Twelve Tribes” of which this is not true. It is only by such an assumption that we get a natural explanation of the omission of the usual τοῦ ‘Icpanr after ταῖς δ. φ. (n. 4). This phrase is replaced by one which, while on the one hand retaining the comparison with the Jewish people, on the other brings the object which it describes. into sharp contrast with the Jewish people. Unlike the twelve tribes who have Palestine for their native land, Jerusalem for their capital, and the temple as a centre of religious worship, the twelve tribes ad- dressed in the letter have no earthly fatherland, nor any capital upon earth, but always, no matter where they may be settled, live scattered in a strange world, like the Jewish exiles in Mesopotamia or Egypt. It is no new doctrine concerning a twofold Israel which James develops here; this would be entirely out of place in a greeting. He assumes that his readers are familiar with the general thought which he has in mind; and more than this, that the language which he uses to express the idea will be understood at once. It is not likely that he was mis- taken (n. 9). It is only for us moderns, before we have made a careful examination of the historical conditions under which the letter was written, that the greeting can have a double meaning. The expression, the twelve tribes in the diaspora, may mean either the entire body of Christians living at the time, the sense in which Peter and Paul use practically identical expressions, or it may mean the believing Israel, the entire body of Jewish THE EPISTLE OF JAMES oF Christians,—a sense in which Paul sometimes uses expres- sions of this kind. Between these two meanings the letter itself must decide. It is to be remembered, how- ever, that there was a time when such an alternative did not exist, because the believing Israel constituted the entire Church (n. 10). 1. (P. 73.) Some writers have thought that they found in Jas, v. 11 a reference to the death of Jesus as an event that had taken place before the eyes of the readers. This is the view of as late a writer as W. Schmidt, Lehrbegr. des Jakobus, 76. But since in the same verse 6 κύριος undoubtedly refers to God, κύριος without the article, occurring as it does just a few words before, cannot possibly mean Jesus. Where there is a distinction, it is in the reverse direction, κύριος meaning God, and 6 κύριος, Jesus (Jas. v. 8, 10, 14,15), If the death of Jesus is to be understood, then we-must-zemember that this was in no way witnessed by “the twelve tribes in the dispersion,” that no one at all saw the resurrection, and that only a few beheld the ascension. There is no intelligible reference to the patience of Jesus or to His blessed departure con- tained in rd τέλος. In fact, the juxtaposition of ὑπομονή and τέλος (cf. Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13; Jas. i. 4) makes it clear that what is meant is the end in keeping with Job’s patience and constancy, the end which God the Lord put to His testing of Job. On logical grounds the reading ἴδετε has much to commend it; and if this is the true reading, there should be a heavy mark of punctuation before it. It was so understood even by Greek commentators : Leontius, 6. Aphthardoe. et Nestor. 111. 13 ; Cramer, Cat. viii. 35. Among more recent writers, see Hofmann, ad loc. 2. (P. 73.) The salutations which stand at the head of most letters of antiquity preserved to us in literature are not to be confused with the address of the letter, the inscription written upon the outside of the sealed Epistle. ong the Agypt. Urkunden aus den Berliner Museen, which have been Min in parts since 1892, as in other colleetions of similar content, there are not a few letters, mostly of a business character and dating from the first century A.D., which illustrate this relation, and which are instructive in other ways also. No. 37 of the 15th Aug. 51 (ce. about contemporaneous — with James) has at the top of the enclosed letter Mvorapiov Στοτύητι τῷ ἰδίῳ πλεῖστα χαίρειν, and on the outside has the address Στοτόητε Λεσώνῃ eis τὴν νῆσον tr... No. 93, Πτολεμαις (sic) "ABov(rt) τῷ τιμιωτάτ(ῳ) πατρὶ πλί(εῖστα) χαίρειν, the outside address ᾿Αβοῦτι οὐετρανῷ x(aipeıw) (apa) IIroX(epaiov) υἱοῦ. Sometimes the address on the outside names also the place of destination : No. 423, eis Φιλαδελφίαν ᾿Επιμάχῳ ἀπὸ ᾿Ἀπίωνος υἱοῦ After this a still more precise direction to the bearer, introduced by ἀπόδος (“to be delivered at”). This form of the address is particularly common : Nos. 38, 164, 261, 332, 435, 523, 530, Oxyrhyn. Pap. ii. 293, No 293 of 27 a.p. Near as address and saluta- tion often stand to one another, yet these examples confirm the fact that there is a distinction—and that a self-evident one—between the two, the address being primarily a directiop for the bearer, though occasionally informing the receiver from whom the letter comes before he opens it, the salutation, on the 78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT other hand, being an address and greeting directed to the recipient of the letter. Chrysostom (Montfaucon, iii. 55) remarks that on receiving a letter one is not wont to read immediately what is within, ἀλλὰ πρότερον τὴν ἔξωθεν ἐπιγραφὴν ἐπερχόμεθα καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνης μανθάνομεν καὶ τὸν πέμψαντα καὶ τὸν ὀφείλοντα ὑποδέξασθαι. Since the address served its purely practical pur- pose at the moment of delivery, it is not to be wondered at that it fell away in the literary transmission of letters. Especially with more voluminous letters consisting of several sheets, in ancient as in modern times, the address, together with the enfolding sheet (envelope) on which it was written, in most cases probably was soon destroyed. The salutation, on the other hand, which in case of proper delivery of the letter served no practical end, and hence oceasionally could even be omitted altogether, was regularly transmitted in the literature together with the other essential and constituent: parts of the letter. Of the three letters in the Aristeas legend (Jos. Ant. xii. 2, 4-6), the first has only an address, the second and third have only a salutation. Of the three regular parts of ancient salutations (name of the writer of the letter in the nominative, name_of the recipient in the dative, and greeting), the third had among the Greeks from ancient times usually the form χαίρειν, the form employed in Jas. i, 1, but only twice elsewhere in the N .T., Acts XV. 23, xxiii. 26; cf. the six letters of king Philip (Zpistologr. gr., ed, Hercher, 461 ff.). The remark of Artemidorus, Oneiroer. iii, 44, ἴδιον yap πάσης ἐπι- στολῆς τὸ χαῖρε καὶ ἔρρωσο (cf. Acts xv. 28, 29), is not to be taken literally with reference to the opening salutation ; for unless the greeting took the form of a grammatically independent sentence, the writer’s designation of himself in the third person required, instead of the χαῖρε usual in oral address (seldom so in letters, Barn. Epist. ; Berl. ἂρ. Urk. 435, 821; Oxyrh, Pap. i. 189, No. 122; Faydm towns, p. 285, No. 129), the elliptical infinitive χαίρειν dependent on λέγει, εὔχεται understood (cf. 2 John 10, 11) and often strengthened by πλεῖστα, cf. Berl. dg. Urk. 37, 93, 623 ; Ign. ad Polye. (address) ; in the other letters of Ignatius except ad Phalad. there are Christian em- bellishments. Other Greek forms, such as εὖ πράττειν, preferred by Plato to χαίρειν, it is alleged, and employed in the pseudo-Platonic letters (Hercher, 492 ff., especially Ep. 3, p. 496; cf. Plato, Charmides, 164), and ὑγιαίνειν (Bal. dg. Urk. 775, 794), which writers as early as Pythagoras and Kpicurus are said to have used commonly (Lucian, de lapsu in salut. 4-6, cf. Pearson, Annot. in epist. Ign., ed. Smith, 6; Bernays, Lucian und die Kyniker, 3f., 88 £.), did not pass over into common Christian usage ; cf., however, Acts xv. 29, εὖ πράξετε, and 3 John 2, εὐοδοῦσθαι καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, also as early a passage as 2 Mace. i. 10. 3. (P. 74.) We find prosaic mention of place united to ideal elements in all Epistles addressed to local Churches, ö.e. in those of Paul except the private letters and Eph., also in Rev. i. 4; 1 Pet. ; Clem. 1 Cor. ; in the letters of Ignatius, of Polycarp, and of the Churches of Smyrna (Mart. Polye.) and of Lyons (Eus, H. #. v. 1. 8). Every external indication of the recipient, such as would have been necessary for the address of a letter, is lacking in Eph. i. 1 (§ 28, n. 4); 2 Pet. i. 1; Jude 1; 2 John 1, and probably also Rom. i. 7, 4. (Pp. 74,76.) Usually we find (τοῦ) Ἰσραήλ or words of similar meaning appended to ai δώδεκα φυλαί : Ex. xxiv. 4; Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30; Rev. xxi, 12; Protev. Jac. 1. 1; cf. Acts xxvi. 7, τὸ δωδεκάφυλον ἡμῶν ; Clem. 1 Cor, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 79 lv. 6, τὸ δωδεκάφυλον τοῦ Ἰσρ. ; Protev. Jac. 1. 3, τὴν ωδεκάφυλον τ. "lop. (see the variants in Tischendorf, p. 3; Thilo, Cod. ap. 166); Test. patr. Napht. 5, τὰ δώδεκα σκῆπτρα τοῦ lop. ; Clem. 1 Cor. xxxi. 4, τὸ δωδεκάσκηπτρον τοῦ “lap. ; Just. Dial. exxvi, ὑμῶν αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί. The context alone can render such an addition unnecessary, e.g. Ex. xxxix. 14; Sibyll. iii. 249. This is not practicable, however, at the beginning of a letter, especially of such a one as James, which at all events is not addressed to the Jewish people. Conse- quently Jas. i. 1 is distinguished from all the other passages cited by its lack of a genitive with ai 6. @. Further, it must be borne in mind that since the political separation of the Israelitish people and State, and especially since the return of but a fraction of the nation from the Exile, ai δώδεκα φ. τ. Ἴσρ. was synonymous with an emphatic πᾶσαι αἱ φ. τ. “lop. (Josh. xxiv. 1; Judg. xxi. 5-8) or πᾶς Ἰσραήλ (2 Chron. xxix. 24, cf. xxx. 1, 5 ; Rom. xi. 26), cf. Ezra vi. 17 or 1 Kings xviii. 31 with xiv. 21, or Ezek. xlvii. 13 with xlviii. 19, or Sir. xxxiii. 11 (συνάγαγε πάσας φυλὰς Ἰακώβ) with xliv. 23, or Rev. xxi. 12 with vii. 4. Over against the statement “All Israel (9x7 92) has a share in the future world” (Mishnah Sanhedrin x. 1), Rabbi Akiba declared : “ The ten tribes will not return,” in reply to which Rabbi Eliezer, plainly in de- pendence upon Isa. viii. 23-ix. 1, asserted that at last the light would arise again upon them also (Sanh. x. 3). It goes without saying that it would have been quite impossible for a Jew and Christian of ancient times to designate as the people of the twelve tribes a part of the Jewish people, such as the Jews of the diaspora ; and even if this were not self-evident, it would be proved most clearly by the Apocalypse of Baruch, written probably c. 80 A.D. Viewed from the standpoint of the time after the first destruction of Jerusalem, the nation divides itself into three parts: (1) the two and a half tribes of the former kingdom of Judah, which were deported to Babylon ; (2) the nine and a half tribes of the former northern kingdom, which were deported farther toward the north-east ; and (3) the few from all twelve tribes who remained behind among the ruins of Zion (Ixxvii. 1-19, Ixxviii. 1, Ixxx. 4f., ef. i. 2, Ixii. 5, Ixiii. 3, Ixiv. 5). Including these three divisions, Baruch writes, Ixxviii. 4: “Ecce colligati sumus nos omnes duodecim tribus uno vineulo.” On this point cf. the fantastic speculations about the lost ten, or nine and a half, tribes in 2 Esdr. xiii. 40 ff., and in the writings of the Christian Commodianus, Instr. ii. 1, Apol. 941-998, ed. Dombart. See also Zöckler, Bibl. und Kircheng. Studien, v. 74-114. 5. (P. 74.) This was the view of M. Baumgarten, Apostelgesch. ii. 2. 121. So far as the formal correctness of the exegesis of Jas. i. 1 is concerned, this is certainly to be preferred to the view of H. Grotius on Jas. i. 1 and of Credner, Einl. 595, that the letter is addressed to “Jews outside of Palestine” quite aside from their division into Christian and unbelieving Jews ; and’also to the view of Spitta, that the letter was written by a Jew and addressed to the Jews in the diaspora who had not been touched at all by Christianity as yet; seen. 8 and § 8. But what was said above in the text is a sufficient answer to Baumgarten as well. 6. (Pp. 74, 76.) The history of the interpretation of Jas. 1. 1 compels us to recall some rather trivial considerations. We must decide whether ταῖς ev τῇ διασπορᾷ belongs to that class of appositives and attributives which could be omitted without impairing the logical and grammatical completeness of the 80 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT concept, or whether we have here really a closer definition and limitation of the concept, a contrast being thus expressed to something else under the more general class to which the concept might be referred if it were not for this closer specification. Examples of the first kind are Jas. ii. 25, ἡ πόρνη, Matt. i. 6, τὸν βασιλέα ; Matt. xxi. 11, ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέθ; Acts xxiv. 5, πᾶσιν τοῖς Ιουδαίοις τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην (“all Jews” are nothing more nor less than “the Jews in the whole world”); Mark iv. 31, in like manner, πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Examples of the second kind are Rom. x. 5, τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου (cf. Phil. iii. 9); 2 Cor. i. 1, τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ ; Acts xi. 22, Xv. 23, τοῖς ἐξ ἐθνῶν, in contrast to the writers and their Jewish fellow be- lievers. In many cases, such as Gal. i. 22 (Is ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ in contrast to unbelieving Jewish communities ?), the decision may remain doubtful, but not so in Jas. i. 1. 7. (P. 75.) In the Pesachhagyadah (ed. D. Cassel, 5): “ Here this year, next year in the land of Israel.” So in Matt. ii. 20f., and very commonly in the Mishnah, e.g. Baba Kamma vii. 7; Jebamoth xvii. 7, and above, p. 22, π.. 4: Also in direct contrast to the diaspora in Babylonia, e.g. Bab. Sanhedr. 38a. Διασπορά, like the corresponding 9713, m>3, xmo3 (Levy, Neuhebr. Lex. i. 332, Jastrow, 221, 247), had originally the abstract meaning “act or state of dis- persion, banishment from home” (Jer. xv. 7; Dan. xii. 2; LXX Ps. Sol. ix. 2; Clem. Hom. iii. 44; so also 1 Pet. 1. 1, § 38, n. 5); it then came to mean “the territory in which the banished ones are dispersed” (Judith v. 19 § so also Jas, i. 1 and John vii. 35, since we should there read eis, not πρὸς τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ; cf. Paralip. Jeremie: Βαροὺχ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν ἐθνῶν, cited by Wetstein, i. 888, on John vii. 35, not to be found in Ceriani, Monum. v. 1-18) ; finally, it meant “the Jews dwelling in scattered communities outside the home land (Deut. xxviii. 25, Cod. B, ἔσῃ διασπορά; Isa. xlix. 6; 2 Mace, i. 27; Ps. Sol. viii. 34 f.), the same who in Gamaliel’s letters are called “sons of the diaspora,” above, pp. 10, 33. 8. (P. 75.) This was probably the meaning of Didymus (Migne, xxxix. 1749), “ Judzis seribit in dispersione constitutis,” with the note appended that this could be interpreted also of the spiritual Israel. Most significant is the way in which pseudo-Euthalius, in order to gain the desired meaning, improves upon the clumsy author (Zacagni, Coll. mon. i. 486), τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν δώδεκα φυλών διασπαρεῖσιν καὶ πιστεύσασιν eis τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν “I. Xp. Even apart from this additional assumption that they were Christian Jews, the mode of expression presupposed in James would be hardly more sensible than ex- pressions, say, like this; “that German nation which lives in America.” If he had been speaking of real Jews, James must have written τοῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ ᾿Ιουδαίοις or ἀδελφοῖς ; cf. 2 Mace. i. 1 (also i. 10), τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς τοῖς κατ᾽ Αἴγυπτον Ἰουδαίοις ; Apoe. Baruchi, Ixxviii. 2, “ fratribus in captivitatem abductis” ; see also the letters of Gamaliel, above, pp. 10,33. To this day the expression used by James as a rule is grossly misinterpreted : (1) αἱ δ. d.= “the Jewish people in its entirety” ; (2) as limited by ταῖς ev τ. 6. =the Jews dwelling outside of Palestine ; (3)=Christians, but only as determined from the contents of the Epistle. Cf. the commentaries of Kern, 79; Wiesinger, 49; Beyschlag, 43. This seems to be the view of Mayor also, who, in his introduction, ex., refers us to his comment on Jas. i. 1, p. 30, and in his comment on that passage refers to the introduction, without, in either place, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 81 going into a very thorough discussion of the concepts. Recently (1896) this position has been taken by Spitta with the greatest frankness, Zur Gesch. u. Literatur des Urchristentums, ii. 14, though he abandons the idea that either author or readers are Christians ; see below, § 8. 9. (P. 76.) Since this idea is important in several questions of N.T. intro- duction, its development must be set forth briefly here. Even the Baptist, gathering suggestions as he did from O.T. prophecies, conceived at least as possible a future race of Abraham, into which non-Jews would be received in place of unworthy Israelites (Matt. iii. 9 ; Luke iii.8). In the mouth of Jesus this thought became the prediction of a future actuality (Matt. viii. 11 ‘ig wsaig 9£.; Luke xiii. 28 f., xiv. 21f.; John x. 16, xii. 32, ef. xii. 20; also on the negative side, John viii. 33-40; Matt. xv. 13). Jesus spoke of this future fellowship as of another ἔθνος in contrast with the Jewish people led by the high priests and rabbis (Matt. xxi. 43). There is, of course, no need of proof to show that He meant His readers to understand by this, not some other par- ticular nation, the Greek, ¢.g., in which ease all non-Greeks, His own disciples at that time among the rest, would have been excluded from it, but rather the same people of God whom He elsewhere called His Church, and represented as a house to be built by Him (Matt. xvi. 18, xviii. 17). The thought that the Christian Church, composed of men of various nationalities, and based not on birth at all, but on faith in Jesus, was a new people of God, the true race of Abraham, or a spiritual Israel, was consequently implanted in His Church from the beginning, and was developed by it in manifold directions. Indeed, an instance of this is the frequent likening of Christ’s redemption of mankind or of His Church to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (1 Cor. v. 7, x. 1ff.; Rev. i. 5f.,v.9f.; 1 Pet. i. 15-20; Jude 5), a comparison which found expression also at every celebration of the Lord’s Supper, this feast serving as the antitype of the Passover meal. Paul especially developed the thought that the Church, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, was the legitimate continuation of the people of God which began with Abraham (Rom. 4 ; Gal. iii. 7-29; 1 Cor. x. 1) ; or, to put it in another way, that the Gentiles, who before were excluded from citizenship in Israel and from the sphere of saving revelation, were now, so far as they had become believers, incorporated into the holy people (Eph. ii. 11-22), or, like wild olive branches, were grafted into the good olive tree (Rom. xi. 17-24). While in these passages Paul represents Christianity as the continuation of the O.T. Church, being simply an enlargement of Israel through the reception of believing Gentiles, in other passages, written from a different point of view, the great schism which Jesus produced in His own nation finds its appropriate ex- pression. It is, after all, not the Jewish nation, but only a small fraction of it, which has united with the believing Gentiles to form a new people of God. In contrast to the Jewish people, the vastly greater part of which will have nothing to do with the gospel, and, like Ishmael, is begotten according to the flesh, since it is connected with Abraham only through bodily descent and other externalities. Christianity is like Isaac, who was begotten accord- ing to the promise, 1.6., according to the Spirit, but was persecuted by his brother (Gal. iv. 21-31). The thought that the Christian Church, in contrast to the Jewish people, is the spiritual Israel, is so usual with Paul, that he once tacitly presupposes it, and quite incidentally calls the Jewish people VOL. I. 82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT with its eultus “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. x. 18 ; cf. Buttmann, Neutest. Grammatik, 81 [Eng. trans. 92]). This spiritual Israel also has: its metropolis, which likewise can be termed Jerusalem. It lies, however, not in Palestine, but in heaven, where the ascended King of the spiritual Israel is enthroned (Gal. iv. 26, cf. Heb. xii. 22), There the members of the true Israel are enrolled, even while still living upon earth (Phil. iv. 3, cf. Luke x. 20) ; there is the proper seat of the commonwealth, of which they are citizens even here (Phil. iii, 20), and there they are received if they die before the return of the Lord (2 Tim. iv. 18). The reverse side of this view is that Christians here have no sure and abiding dwelling-place (Heb. xiii. 14) and no citizenship. Peter gave especial prominence to this idea, not only trans- ferring to the Gentile Churches all Israel’s titles of honour (1 Pet. ii. 9f., cf. 1. 15), but also likening their condition in the world to that of those Jews who are scattered abroad far from their native land, calling them sojourners in distinction from the citizens of the cities and lands in which they dwelt, or strangers who tarry only for a time, in contrast to those who live upon this earth as if they could remain here always (i. 1, 17, ii. 11; ef. § 38). It is to Peter that most of the later Church usage with regard to παροικεῖν, παροικία is related: Clem. 1 Cor. (address); 2 Cor. v.1,5; Polye. ad Phil. (address) ; Mart. Polye. (address) ; Dion. Corinth. in Eus. H. E. iv. 23.5 ; Epist. Lugd. in Kus. v. 1.3; Apollonius in Eus, v. 18.9; Irenzeus in Eus. v. 24, 14, Indeed, the connection is traceable even down to our attenuated use of “ parish.” More+ over, the concept of the διασπορά is further developed in Iren. i. 10. 1 (Svea map- μένη); ii. 11,8; Can. Mur. 77 (GK, ii. 7, 142). Hermas, Sim. ix. 17, in a manner quite characteristic of him and yet often misunderstood, applied the figure of the twelve tribes to.all mankind as the field of mission work and the source of the materials for the building of the Church ; ef. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 223-232. On the other hand, Hermas represents the Church as the true Israel, making Michael Israel’s guardian angel, the chief overseer of the Church, Sim. viii. 3. 3; ef. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 230 f., 264 f. But the thought of the spiritual Israel was developed in still another direction ; and here again we must look to the many-sided apostle. Inasmuch as Paul did not abandon his belief in the ideal continuance and future revival of his nation in its calling as leader in religious history, he was forced to inquire after a real ground and pledge of this belief. He found the answer in the fact that God, in accordance with the O.T. promise, has even yet left to His people a remnant in which the people as a people is preserved for this its calling (Rom. ix. 29). Every single Israelite who is converted to Christ is a practical proof of the fact that God has not cast off this people for ever ; and there are thousands of such Jews. The seven thousand of Elijah’s time is a typical expression for their numbers, but falls far below the reality (Rom. xi. 1-7, ef. Acts xxi, 20). These Jews who believe in Christ, who through the Spirit have received a circumcision of the heart, are the real Jews (Rom. ii. 29, ef. Phil. iii, 3), the “Israel of God,” which, when Christians in general are referred to, can be especially singled out as a narrower circle (Gal. vi. 16). Corresponding to this, the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham in its relation te Christianity is twofold ; he is the father of all believing Gentiles, but in an especial and more limited sense by reason of circumcision he is the father of Christian Jews (Rom, iv. 11 f.). Whether this thought is expressed also in THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 83 Rev. vii. 1-8 (xxi. 12) is not so easy to determine, There is no need of proof, however, to show that it must have been an exceedingly natural thought for every Christian of Jewish birth who was as lovingly attached to his people as were Paul and James. 10. (P. 77.) An essentially correct interpretation of the “address” is to be found in Thiersch, Die Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, 3te Aufl. 109; a more thorough demonstration is given by Hofmann, vii. 3. 8 ff., 159 ff. 8 4. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE READERS. There is no reason to doubt that the readers whom James addresses were, without exception, Christians. In ii, 1 they are exhorted to hold their faith in Christ without respect of persons; and there is nothing to indicate that this exhortation is intended for only a part of those to whom he is writing. The confession which James makes so frankly for himself at the very beginning of the letter (1. 1) is likewise their confession; the only question is whether they are willing to live in accordance with it. They have implanted in them the word of truth, by which God has begotten them and the author alike to a new life (1. 18, 21). How long they had been Christians, and through whose influence they had been converted, is not indicated. Even with the exact meaning of the salutation left undecided (§ 3, p. 76f.), it is yet clear from it that the letter was not intended for a single local Church, but for a large number of Churches, widely separated. Where the author speaks of elders of the Church, he does so only as an example, and means the elders of the particular Church where a case of serious illness, such as he has in mind, may occur (v. 14). If, as is perfectly possible, συναγωγὴ ὑμῶν in ii. 2 means a building and not the coming together of the congregation for worship, or the congregation as gathered from time to time for worship (n. 1), the omission of the article shows that a number of sech buildings belonged to the readers. As a matter of fact, the plural κριτήρια in 11. 6 indicates that in the region where the readers lived there were a number of tribunals, 84 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Some of the readers lived in eities, others in the country, Besides ΩΣ landowners and the day labourers in their employ (v. 1-6), there were merchants among them whose business ve them from city to city, often requir- ing a residence of a year or more (iv. 18-17). On the other hand, without assuming at all that James meant his reproofs to apply alike to all his readers, one does get from the letter the impression that the readers were a homogeneous body, representing about the same grade of Seen having similar tastes, and exposed to the same moral dangers. Theoretical knowledge of the way of aed vation is everywhere presupposed: (1. 18, 21, ai, 1, iv. 17), and no effort is made to instruct them further in this regard. Many of them boast their faith, make capital of their religious knowledge (ii. 14, iii. 13), ex- hibit a passionate zeal for teaching others, and give free rein to their tongues, even yielding bo nude curses in their anger at those who prove to be unteachable (i. 18 £, 26, ili, I-18, n. 2). In fact, among themselves they are more inclined to revile and curse than they are to help one another by prayer and loving admonition (iv. 11 f, v. 16, 19 f.). At the same time they are zealous in the fulfilment of formal religious duties (n, 3). There is no want of prayer, but an entire lack of the energy of faith and sincerity of motive, without which prayer works no outward effeet and brings no inward peace (1. 6-8, iv. 3, 8, cf. v. 15-18). The most serious defect which the author discovers, however, is the want of a proper corre- spondence between their conduet and the sa content of the word which they have heard and know (1. 22-25); the faith which they confess with their lips, they do not manifest in a life that evidences its truth and vitality (ii. 14-26); particularly do they fail in works of merey and love (i. 27, u 18, 15 f), in bridling the tong.e (1. 26, 1, 241), and in being patient in suffering (i. 8 £, 12, v. Wl) Many of those who boast. about their THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 85 faith could well be put to shame by the good conduct οἱ the confessor of another religion—doubtless a Jew. With good reason such a one might compare the dead faith of the Christian with the involuntary recognition of the existence of God by evil spirits (n. 4). The readers are constantly charged with prizing too highly the things of this world. Among those engaged in commerce. this tendency manifests itself in utter disregard of all religious restraint (iv. 13-17); those who are landowners rob their labourers without merey (v. 4-6); while such as have no property are full of vain longings for better conditions (iv. 2), and give way constantly to impatient sighs and complaints, not only against their oppressors (v. 7-11), but even against God (i. 13, iv. 7). This same spirit leads to contemptuous treatmont of the poor and cringing politeness toward the rich (ii. 1-9). The author brands them all “adulteresses,” unfaithful to their cove- nant vow to God, and forgetful that in and of itself the love of the world is enmity against God, and that the Spirit which God has sent to dwell in them is a Spirit of jealous love, whose presence precludes all division of the heart (iv. 4f.). They all need to be reminded of the transitoriness and worthlessness of the things which they overvalue (i. 10 f., iv. 14, v. 2f.), and to be made to feel the incomparably greater value of the things which God gives and promises to them as Christians (i) Whoa 21, 11, 5, iv. 6,v.7f.). A feeling of general discontent seems to have taken possession of the readers, as appears from the fact that immediately following the χαίρειν of the greeting, indeed with this very word, James begins his exhortation that they count it pure joy when they fall into all sorts of trials, and that they never on any account regard God as the author of the temptation to sin that may be involved in such trials (i. 2, 13)... The expression shows clearly that the author is not referring to some single great distress and danger which affects or threatens δ INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT all the readers, but to trials as varied as are their own separate conditions or personal aptitudes. According to 1. 9-11, one principal cause for the state of affairs described was the sharp distinction made between rich and poor. It is clear also from the same passage that these distinctions were made within the Church; for, in his exhortation to the readers, James urges that instead of complaining about the difficulties of his lot, and asking God’s help only in a half-hearted way, the Christian re- joice with a certain feeling of pride; if in humble cireum- stances, let him remember the high place that belongs to him as a child of God (i. 18); if he is rich, let him glory that in spite of wealth he is privileged to be reckoned among the poor and lowly to whom the grace of God is given (n. 5). In the same way the severe reproof which in v. 1-6 is administered to the rich for their luxurious living, and to landowners for their heartlessness, is meant for con- fessors of the Christian faith. In and of itself it is hardly conceivable that James should have directed such an earnest and such a practical reproof to non-Christians whom he knew it would never reach; in fact, such a supposition is ruled out altogether by the clear parallelism between the two paragraphs beginning with ἄγε νυν (iv. 13, v. 1); inasmuch as iv. 15 shows that the merchants of whom he is speaking (iv. 13-17) must have been mem- bers of the Church. Moreover, when it is recalled that v. 7-9 not only follows the reproof of the landowners, but is also a consequence of it (v. 7, μακροθυμήσατε οὖν), and when it is further remembered that the suffering which the readers are exhorted to endure with patience is the oppression of the field labourers just described, the brethren mentioned in v. 9 (μὴ στενάζετε κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων, ἀδελφοί) must have included the oppressors among the readers as well as the oppressed. James does not address the rich any more than the covetous merchants as brothers, but reserves this epithet until he comes te THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 87 speak words of comfort to the oppressed (v. 7). He calls the oppressed labourer “the righteous,” in contrast to his oppressor whom he calls a murderer (v. 6). This is a severe judgment, but it is in keeping with the entire character of the reproof, which is designed to awaken terror. Moreover, the exhortation to lament in view of the impending judgment, which we have in v. 1, is found also in iv. 9, where without any question the persons addressed are Christians, though they are called sinners, not brethren. And in a still earlier passage (iv. 2) the readers as a body are charged with committing murder through their contentions about worldly possessions. Of course, this is not to be taken literally, any more than the epithet μουχαλίδες in the immediate context (iv. 4) applies to a few of his women readers and not to all the readers. As the context shows, the expression is certainly em- ployed in the well-known figurative sense in which it is used in the O.T. and by Jesus (e.g. Matt. xii. 39). The strong expression in v. 6 is anticipated by what is said in v. 4. Because the landowners withhold or reduce the lawful wages of their harvesters while living themselves in luxury, they are held like unjust judges to have de- prived them of their rights, and like murderers to have taken their very life. The same strong comparison is to be found also in Sir. xxxi. 21 f. (al. xxxiv. 25), a book which seems to have been carefully read by James (§ 6, n. 10). These charges of murder and adultery were per- fectly intelligible to readers acquainted with the circum- stances here alluded to, and who knew how Jesus had interpreted the Decalogue. The reference in ii. 1-7 is different. Here a case is assumed in which two persons come into the place of assembly together, the one well dressed and prosperous, the other a poor man in soiled garments. Neither of them is described as a Christian. The author simply pictures the different way in which these two persons are 88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT received by the Christians as they assemble for worship. The one is politely shown to a comfortable place, while the other is told in a contemptuous manner to remain stand- ing, or to occupy one of the poorer seats. The description suits only such visitors at the Christian services, who are not members, or not yet members of the Church (n. 6). The readers are not reproved because they show prefer- ence to wealthy non-Christians over poor Christians, but simply because the poor man is mistreated on account of his poverty and shabby dress (ii. 6), while the rich man is treated with obsequious politeness for no other reason than his fine appearance. Such “respect of persons” is inconsistent with faith in the exalted and glorified Christ (ii. 1), as well as with God’s stated attitude toward the poor and the general conduct of the rich toward the Christian (11. 5-7). “Hath not God chosen those who are poor so far as this world is concerned and in the judgement of the world, to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He has promised to them that love Him ?” (n. 7). So God had actually treated the poor as a class since the days of Jesus. In every sense of the word the gospel had been preached to the poor. On the other hand, when he describes the rich as a class, James appeals to the daily experience of the readers. It is by the rich that they are oppressed and dragged before judgment- seats, and it is the rich who blaspheme that worthy name by which they are called. Both from the illustration with which this whole discussion is introduced (ii. 2), and from the reminder that God has chosen His Church chiefly from among the poor (ii. 6), it is entirely natural to suppose that the comparatively few rich persons in the Church are here left out of account. While these latter may have manifested more the spirit of the wealthy than of the Christian (i. 10, iv. 16, v. 1-6), making their poor fellow-Christians feel the superiority of their social position (καταδυναστεύουσιν), and while in isolated cases THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 89 contentions about property (iv. 1 ἢ, v. 4, 6) may have led them to prefer charges against their poorer brethren before secular magistrates (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 1 ff.), here, where the author is describing the treatment which Christians were accustomed to receive at the hands of wealthy men as a class, the description gets its colour not from the conduct of wealthy Christians, but of wealthy non-Chris- tians. Only of such could it be said that the chief reason why Christians should dislike and not honour them was the fact that they blasphemed the name of Jesus, which was borne not by themselves, but by the Christians (n. 8). Although there is no statement directly to that effect, it is easy to see how this blasphemy was uttered in connection with the civil processes, in which a malicious hint to the effect that the accused belonged to the sect of the Naza- renes or Christians must have prejudiced their case in the eyes of a non-Christian judge. If such was actually the case, no explanation is necessary why it is the rich non- Christians who are charged with such blasphemy. It is also easy to see how in common life men of wealth and position would be likely to express their contempt for the Nazarene and His poverty-stricken Church more frequently than would the poor (cf. John vu. 48 f.; Luke xvi. 14.— Acts iv.) 1,5, v.,47.—-Actsı 116; x1. 29; Gal. 11410; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Rom. xv. 25-31). That the readers were Jews is proved neither by ii. 21 (ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ; cf., however, Rom. iv. 1 ff; 1 Cor. x. 1; Clement, 1 Cor. xxxi. 2) nor by the greeting (above, p. 76f.); nor does it follow certainly from the use of συναγωγή (n. 1), and the employment of the expression “ Lord of Sabaoth” (v. 4) in a passage where even a Gentile Christian, if he were familiar with the Scriptures, would recognise an echo of Isa. v. 9. It is proved rather by the general impression which the letter gives of the character of its readers. Though its purpose throughout is practical, the letter contains no warning against idolatry > - 90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT and the evils associated with it (n. 9), nor against un- chastity, a subject dwelt upon at such length and with such emphasis in all letters written by Christians to Gentile Christians and Christians living among the Gentiles. Nothing is said which indicates the proximity of the readers to Gentiles and their contact with Gentile institutions. Furthermore, there is no mention of the relations of slaves to their masters,—relations, the signi- ficance of which was altogether different among Gentile Christians from what it was among Jews and Jewish Christians in Palestine. The non-Christians with whom the readers come in contact are Jews, not Gentiles. In ii. 18 f. this is self-evident (n. 5), and in i. 6 f. it is the only natural inference; since it is necessary to assume the peculiar relations existing between Jewish Christians in Palestine and their chief opponents in order to explain naturally why it is just the upper classes who profane the name of Jesus by their treatment of those who bear his name (see above). Moreover, the sins and weaknesses which James denounces are the very ones for which Jesus scourged His countrymen, particularly the Pharisees. What James wants his readers to get rid of are the remnants of inherited faults (n. 2 end). Among these are the superficial hearing of God’s word instead of that living of it which shows that it has been inwardly appropriated ; pious prattle and profession instead of the practice of what they believe (Jas. i. 19-26, 11. 14-26, ii. 13 ; ef. Matt. ‘vit: '21+27, xiii.) 19-22; -xv.'8, xxi. 28-31, xxiii. 3); the disposition to dogmatise and proselytise (Jas. 1.019£., iii. 1~18; ef Matt. vin 3-5, xv. 14,xxi 4, 15 fi; Rom. ii. 19-24); the failure to fulfil the real requirements of the law, mercy, love, and justice, while paying devotion to its letter (Jas. i. 26f., ii, 8-12, 15 ἢ, v. 4-6; cf. Matt. ΧΙ. 7, xv. 2-9, xxiii. 23-33; Mark xii. 40); the getting of wealth without any thought of God, with the im: possible attempt to divide their affections between God THE EPISTLE OF JAMES ΟἹ and earthly possessions (Jas. iv. 4, 13, v. 2; οἵ. Matt. vi. 19-24; Luke xu. 15-34, xvi. 13); the exercise of prayer without faith in God (Jas. i. 5-8, xm, 16 £., v. 16f; ef. Matt. vii. 7-11; Luke xi. 5-13, xviii. 1-8); the judging, slandering, and cursing of their neighbours (Jas. 111. 9, iv. 11f.; ef. Matt. v. 22, vii. 1); and the taking of oaths too lightly. The examples of oath formule in Jas. v. 12 are such as were in use among the Jews, not among the Greeks and Romans (n. 10); while the numerous: refer- ences to objects in nature are at least suited to conditions in Palestine (n. 11). If from what has been said above it is reasonably certain that the body of the readers to whom the letter was addressed were Jewish Christians living among their countrymen, this by no means precludes the possibility of there having been among them a number of native Gentiles and proselytes. Hofmann (vil. 3. 81-84, 159) held with good reason that there is reference to these in Jas. ii. 25; the lesson from Abraham’s example is developed to its completion and finally stated in 11. 24; then follows the example of the heathen woman Rahab, which neither substantiates what has been said before nor develops a new phase of the truth, and appears to be dragged in without purpose. It does have point, however, if referring to a number of Gentiles who had been received into the Jewish Christian Churches, and if designed to say: the example of Rahab has the same lesson for them that the history of Abraham has for his descendants. This being the case, we are able to determine when the letter was written, and to answer the question left un- answered above (p. 76f.). If by the twelve tribes in the dispersion James meant the entire Christian Church, then the letter must have been written at a time when as yet there were but few Gentile converts, and while these were still members of Churches which otherwise were composed of Jewish Christians, 1.6. before Paul’s missionary labours 92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT had resulted in the organisation of a number of Churches composed mainly of Gentile Christians, and before the Gentile Church began to develop along lines independent of the Jewish Christian Church. The same conelusion holds also if we assume that James intended by the expression to designate the Jewish Christian as the true Israel ; for in the membership of the Churches organised in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome, there was included among the Gentiles a considerable number of Jews who had accepted Christ. These James could not ignore when speaking of the twelve tribes in the dis- persion. Nor if his letter was meant for them could he have remained so entirely silent concerning the very peculiar position which they occupied in relation to the Gentile majorities in the Churches where they were; neither could he have ignored so completely all those questions arising out of this situation, which since the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas had agitated the minds of Jewish and Gentile Christians alike, and occupied the attention of leaders on both sides. If it be assumed that the letter was written after the time when a faction of the Jewish Church undertook to force the obser- vation of the Mosaic law upon the newly formed Gentile Church as a means and condition of the acceptance of the Gentiles with God, it is impossible, in view of the historical situation, to understand the entire silence of the letter about the question of the obligatoriness of the Mosaic law upon all Christians. Equally difficult οἵ explanation is the simple way in which the author speaks, on the one hand, of the word with its life-begetting power and of the law of liberty (i. 18-21, 25, il. 12); and, on the other hand, of justification by works (ii. 14-26), without in any way suggesting in contrast the bondage of the law. If, now, as is probable, the Gentile Christian Churches in Lycaonia were not organised before the year 50 or 51 (Chron. Survey, Part XI.), we have the latest date at which THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 93 James could have addressed his letter to the Church while it was still entirely Jewish, and confined to Palestine and the regions immediately adjoining. Only thus does the designation of the readers in Jas. i. 1 become perfectly clear. Although the idea expressed in this address can be traced back to the preaching of Jesus, and even to that of the Baptist (above, p. 81), the definite form which it here assumes, if it is to appear natural at all, must have some historical explanation. The Churches organised in various parts of Palestine and Syria prior to the year 50 were colonies of the mother Church in Jerusalem. Up to the time of Stephen’s death Jerusalem was practically the only centre which the Church had; by the persecution of 35 the Christians were driven from Jerusalem and scattered even beyond the bounds of Palestine, with the result that many of the ties which had bound them to the Jewish nation while they remained a part of it, were severed. Wherever these Christians went they became the nuclei of new Churches, and we know that they travelled as far as Cyprus and Antioch. The journey of Peter and John to Samaria (Acts viii. 14-24), the more extended journeys of Peter (Acts ix. 32-x1. 2), the sending of Bar- nabas to Antioch (Acts xi. 22), and the visits to this city of other Jewish Christians like Agabus and John Mark (xi 27, xu. 25), show that effort was made to hold the seattered members of the Church together. And this was the purpose for which the Epistle of James was written. Under these conditions, how natural that the feeling should grow that the Church was another people of God, chosen by God through Jesus, the true Israel! How natural also that existing conditions should suggest a term which should fittingly express the relation of the spiritual Israel both to the Jewish nation and to God’s heavenly kingdom (n. 12). So James did not employ an obscure allegory, which was arbitrarily invented by himself, and afterwards spun out by other authors, and applied in a 94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT different direction, but actual conditions in the Church at the time became of themselves a symbol perfectly in- telligible to James’ contemporaries who found themselves in this situation. ‘I. (Pp. 83,89.) According to N*BO, we should read in Jas. ii. 2, eis συναγωγήν without the article. For this reason, if for no other, we must reject the asser- tion that, in inconceivable contradiction to the salutation, the real destination of the Epistle is evidently “a single narrowly exclusive conventicle of Essene Jewish Christians” (Brückner, Chronol, Rethenfolge, 293). Further than this, ὑμῶν, following as it does an address to the readers which plainly charac- terises them as Christians, just as certainly excludes the view that what is referred to is a Jewish synagogue, which these Christians yet occasionally visit. Something regarding συναγωγή may be found in Harnack on Herm. Mand. xi. p. 115, and in.the writer's Forsch. ii. 164. It denotes originally, and in profane Greek usually, (1) the act of collecting and assembling the meeting, Ex. xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22; Deut. x. 4; Sir. xxxiv. 3; Ps. Sol. -xvii. 50 (cf. xvil. 48,'x. 8); of the meetings of Christians for worship, Ign. ad. Polyc,|iv..2 ;.Dionys. Al. quoted in Eus. H..E, vii. 11. 17, οἵ. 9.2. Also in a heathen inseription published by Foucart, Assoc. relig. 238, not a corpora- tion, but a “réunion en P’honneur de Zeus” ; (2) concretely : the assembled congregation, commonly for my Ex. xii. 3; Num. xiv. 7, 10, xvi. 19, not infrequently also for $32 Num, x. 7. As in our “meeting,” this second meaning cannot always be distinguished clearly from the first, eg. Acts xili. 43; Herm. Mand. xi. 9, of Christian Meetings: ὅταν ἔλθῃ... eis συναγωγὴν ἀνδρῶν δικαίων, and ibid. 88 9, 13, 14, three times more ; cf. also the Gnostic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, p- 56. 23, cf. p. 53. 17) and ἐπισυναγωγή, Heb.x.25. So probably is it to be understood in our passage, though it is not impossible that we have here the third meaning, namely, place of meeting, Matt. vi. 2, ὅ ; Luke iv. 16, vil. 5; John xviii. 20 ; Acts xviii, 4, 7, xxiv. 12. Whereas in these and other passages συναγωγή, without any modifying word, denotes Jewish meeting-places, the ὑμῶν here would seem to indicate that the Christians addressed had their own particular places of worship by themselves. An inscription of 318 a.p. (Le Bas- Waddington, iii. No. 2558) designates a building as συναγωγὴ Μαρκιωνιστῶν. It does not seem to me at all certain that the African Commodian, Instr. i. 24. 11, under- stands by synagoga a Christian church, (4) Even aside from the meeting at a particular place and time, it may mean in general the religious community, association of those with common interests, for my Ex. xii. 19, 47, xvi. 22; Num. xvi. 24 (the company of Korah); Ps. xxii. 17; for Sap Ex. xvi. 2,85 Num. xv. 15, xvi. 47 (al. xvii. 12); cf. 1 Mace. ii. 42 (ovvay. “Acıdaiwv), Vil. 12 (συναγ. γραμματέων). Quite early, however, συναγωγή was used as the specifie designation of the Jewish religious community in contrast to the Christian ἐκκλησία. We see this usage at least in process of formation in Rev. ii. 9, il. 9; Just. Dial. exxxiv (Λεία ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ἡ συναγωγή, Ῥαχὴλ δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡμῶν). We see it fully established in Commod. Instr. xxxix, 1-4; Apol. 253. Eusebius lays stress upon the fact that Jesus called His ( ‘hureh, not συναγωγή, but exkAnota (Theoph. syr. iv. 12). On the other hand, the Ebionites in East THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 95 Palestine called their Church community συναγωγή, and seem also to have retained the title ἀρχισυνάγωγοι (Epiph. Her. xxx. 18). The Evang. heros. translates ἐκκλησία in Matt. xvi. 18, xviii. 17 by anw”2, ce. συναγωγή (Forsch. i. 372, n. 1). The Christian compiler of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Benjamin, 11) terms the Church and the individual congregations of the Gentile Christians συναγωγή and συναγωγαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν. But we find the word sometimes used of the Christian Church and its individual con- gregations even where we may not assume a direct connection with Palestine and Judaism: Just. Dial. Ixiii; Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 14 (ras συναγωγάς, λεγομένας δὲ ἐκκλησίας ἁγίας) ; Iren. iii. 6. 1 (here in an interpretation of Ps. Ixxxii. 1); Iren. iv. 31. 1 and 2 (ai δύο ovv., the Jewish and the Christian, suggested by the story of Lot’s daughters), a combination like that of Vietorinus on Gal. iv. 24 (Mai, Script. vet. coll. iii. 2. 38), who, however, uses the opposite term: “ecclesiis Judeorum et Christianorum.” In the dis- cussion of our passage, we may leave out of account the common Greek usage under No. 1, and we should notice that James by no means avoids the word ἐκκλησία when he wishes to designate the Church as a corporate body (v. 14). When, then, he designates the Church assembly (or place of assembly) by συναγωγή instead of by ἐκκλησία (cf. per contra 1 Cor. xi. 18, xiv. 28, 35; 3 John 6; Diduche, iv 14), and this, too, not in a theological discussion or in rhetorical speech, but in the simple description of an external event, this may be considered good evidence that we are here on Jewish soil or near it. This view is confirmed by the Ebionites of Epiphanius, by the Evang. hieros., which arose in Palestine and exhibits many other Jewish expressions, and by the compiler of the Testaments, who, whether by nature or by design, wrote Greek just like a Jew (under No. 4). Hermas (under No. 2) shows by his speech that he is a Jew by birth or education (cf. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 485-497). It should also be noted that Justin was born in Palestine ; that Theophilus (under No. 4) and Ignatius (under No. 1) were bishops of the Syrian capital, and that the Marcionite “synagogue ” referred to was some miles south of Damascus. Cf. also Epist. Hadriani given in Vopiscus, Saturninus, viii. 2, “ Archisynagogus Judeorum . . . Christianorum presby- ter”; Lampridius, Alex. Sev. 6, “Syrum archisynagogum.” With regard to the failure to distinguish between Syrians and Jews, cf. Origen on Job xlii. 18 in Pitra, Analecta, i. 390f. 2. (Pp. 84, 90.) The continuity of thought in iii. 1-18 is unbroken, and this fact determines the meaning of particular sentences in it. The cursing, iii. 9, can hardly have reference to fellow-Christians, for in that case they would have been designated as such (cf. per contra, iv. 11); it refers rather to men whom the Christian, obtrusively desirous of being a teacher (iii. 1), would like to instruct and convert, so that James is calling to mind simply the dignity common to all men by virtue of their creation in the image of God. Moreover, in iii. 18-18, the matter under discussion is not, as it is from iv. 1 on, the behaviour of Christians one toward another, but rather the demeanour of the one who, lifted up by the consciousness of his own religious know- ledge, desires to teach others, and thus falls into a bitter, disputatious tone, failing, however, for that reason to achieve the desired result, namely, the righteousness of the person to be instructed (ef. i. 20). The mpairys, which is the proper disposition for the reception of the word, is the very attribute 96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which is indispensable in the teacher also (Matt. xi..29; 2 Tim. ii. 94 ἢ; 2 Cor. x. 1; Gal. vi. 1; 1 Pet. iii. 15, towards non-Christians ; Tit. iii, 2, “toward all men”; Ign. Trail. iii. 2; ad Polye. ii. 1). In all probability μὴ Ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας in iii. 14 is not an idle pleonasm, but (like Xenoph. Apol. Soer. 13, οὐ ψεύδομαι κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ) = καταψεύδεσθαί (τὴ τινος, “to make a lying statement about a thing or person ” (ef. Ign.„Trall. zus Herm. Vis. 1.1. 7; Jos. 6. Apion. ii. 10 beginning, 13 end; Ep. ad togn. iv. 3; Ep. Lugd.in Eus. H. E.v.1. 14; Hippol. Refut. vii. 20 in.; Eus. v. 28, 6 and 16; Plutarch. de Superst. 10 end). If this is so, the warning here is not simply against lying, but it is presupposed that the person in question is speaking about the truth, i.e. saving truth, but that in so doing he makes statements that are in contradiction to that very truth. On this view, κατακαυχᾶσθε also, which further is modified by κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, is not any boasting in general, but a boasting specifically with reference to the truth, a bragging about the truth, which, however, at the same time contra- dicts it. This untruthfulness is not, however, a theoretical departure from Christian doctrine, but is rather practical, consisting in the fact that one who claims to be a, knower and teacher of revealed. truth opposes himself to others, thereby showing a lack of the wisdom and gentleness which neces- sarily flow from the real possession of the truth. Jas. i. 20 bears upon this very point. At all events, the translation, “The wrath of man doeth not what is right before God,” sie Luther, is incorrect ; for (1) the connecting link between i: 17 and i, 18-25 is plainly the concept λόγος ἀληθείας. Consequently the subject treated in 1. 19f. cannot be talkativeness and passionateness in general, but, rather the evil disposition to teach others the word of God instead of allowing oneself to be instructed, thus becoming angry instead of waiting for God to give His blessing. (2) The thought involved in such a translation would require ὁ ὀργιζόμενος instead of ὀργή, if the passage were to be measurably clear. (3) Such a general statement would be very incorrect, for there is an anger which is righteous, (4) The evidently intended con- trast between ἀνδρός and θεοῦ does not, on this view, receive its proper emphasis. . We are not indeed to read with the later MSS. κατεργάζεται, yet neither is ἐργάζεται to be taken in the sense of ποιεῖ, a8 in Jas. 11. 9; Acts x. 35); Matt. vii. 23; rather, as in John vi. 27; 2 Cor. vii. 10, it has the meaning of κατεργάζεται (Jas. i. 3). The object of the verb is the thing produced. A man’s anger does not bring about God’s righteousness (οἵ. Matt. vi. 33, and below, § 7). This is a fruit which is sown in a peaceable spirit, and the growth and ripening of which must be waited for with patience (Jas. iii. 18). No man can come to believe that he himself can achieve righteousness through angry speech ; yet, on the other hand, nothing is more common than for heralds of the truth to imagine that they should convert their hearers by passionate zeal. It can be therefore only the latter error that James is opposing ; cf. Schneckenburger, Beiträge z. Einl. 199 ; Hofmann, vii. 3. 35. In Jas. i. 21 περισσεία is used unquestionably in the sense of περίσσευμα (Rom. ν. 17), and hence cannot mean excess (Matt. xii. 34) ; for a man should lay aside not only a certain excess of wickedness, but all wickedness. The only meaning possible is therefore “ residue, remainder ” (Mark viii. 8). The writer means the old hereditary faults which still cling even to those born of God,—the first-fruits of His creatures (i. 18),—in other THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 97 words, the evil Jewish nature, the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. xvi. 6-12, xv. 1-20). 3. (P. 84.) Jas.i.26 f., θρησκός θρησκεία, θρησκεύειν denotes ποῦ the pious disposition (εὐσέβεια, ὁσιότης, also θεοσέβεια, though this concept inclines towards θρησκεία ; cf. Seeberg, Forsch. v. 264£.), but the outwardly displayed religion, worship, ceremonies (Philo, Quod deterior, vii, Mang. i. 195, πεπλάνηται γὰρ καὶ οὗτος τῆς πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ὁδοῦ, θρησκείαν ἀντὶ ὁσιότητος ἡγούμενος καὶ δῶρα τῷ ἀδεκάστῳ διδούς ; ef. Wis. xi. 15, xiv. 16, 18, 27; Jos. Ant. ix. 13.3; Col. ii. 18, 23 ; Clem. 1 Cor. xlv. 7); so that it also comes to mean not infre- quently a publicly-professed religion together with its worship in distinction from other religions and forms of worship: Acts xxvi. 5; Ep. ad Diogn. i. ; Melito quoted in Eus. iv. 26. 75 Ep. Lugd. in Eus. v. 1. 63. 4. (Ὁ. 85.) The words in Jas. ii. 18, ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις, at any rate do not intro- duce an objection to the author’s preceding statements to be expected from one of the readers or from a like-minded Christian, as is the case in 1 Cor. xv. 35, ef. Rom. ix. 19, xi. 19; for the person speaking in ii. 18, 19 agrees with James in requiring works and in condemning faith without works ; and the people characterised in ii. 14-17 are the ones who are taken to task in ii. 18, 19 also. On the other hand, James cannot introduce himself, or a Christian who agrees with him, as speaking in this way (cf. Rom. x. 18, 19) ; for what reason would there be in introducing a third person, when that person has nothing to say which James himself could not say just as well? Further, it is hard to understand how James could assert of himself so confidently, even though in the disguise of a third person, that he, in distinction from the one addressed, had works to show ; ef. per contra, ili. 2. Then, too, it would be quite uncalled for on James’ part to defend himself against the charge that he lacked the faith of which the person addressed boasted. This charge is implied in the speaker’s offer through his works to prove his faith, thus called in question by his opponent. Finally, in recognising the formal orthodoxy of the Christians addressed, James could not possibly have limited their creed to their confession of monotheism. For these outwardly profess- ing Christians are not content simply to acknowledge the unity of God, which the devils also do, or even to bless God as their Lord and Father (iii. 9), which the devils do not do, they confess their faith in Christ (ii. 1). From all of which it follows that the ἐρεῖ τις of ii. 18 is not an empty and purposeless phrase ; rather there is thus introduced into the discussion between James and the ris of ii. 14 ἃ speaker who is represented as really a third person, and that, too, of another faith. But this third person must be a Jew, not a pagan ; for the speaker praises the Christian addressed, even if in a sareastie tone, for confessing monotheism, the fundamental dogma of Judaism. Not only is it evident that the Jewish Christians, following the example of Jesus (Mark xii. 29), held fast to the doctrinal content of the “Shema” from Deut. vi. 4-6, which every Israelite repeated morning and evening daily ; but there is also no reason to doubt that as persons “ zealous for the law” (Acts xxi. 20), they repeated it with their fellow-countrymen after their conversion as well as before it. Later Jewish Christians empha- sised the μοναρχικὴ θρησκεία 80 much, that the distinguishing mark of Chris- tianity came to be regarded as of less importance than the fundamental dogma common to Jews and Jewish Christians (Clem, Hom. vii. 12, v.28; VOL. 1. 7 98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Ep. Petri ad Jac. 1). But besides this, James would have defeated his own purpose if he had made the Jew introduced by him speak of the doctrinal difference between Judaism and Christianity. Lastly, as to the form of the introduction, it goes without saying that the Jew does not begin to speak until after ἐρεῖ ris, and hence that the ἀλλά is spoken by James himself. After giving his own judgment, he uses ἀλλά to introduce as something new and startling the doubly humiliating judgment of the Jew—aAXd, even with- out καί, being adapted to this purpose (ef. John xvi. 2; 2 Cor. vii. 11). That it is not James himself who is speaking in ii, 18, 19, follows also from the fact that in these sentences not a single thought from ii. 14-17 is developed further. It is not until ii. 20 that James begins to speak again, and resumes the thought of ii. 17. : The assumption of Spitta, Z. Gesch. u. Lit. ii. 79, that an objection of the man of faith without works, who has been attacked. by James, has fallen out after ἐρεῖ τις, and that James begins to answer this with σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, is not called for by the text, and for positive reasons is inadmissible. 5. (Pp. 86, 90.) Since ὁ ταπεινός and ὁ πλούσιος in i. 9f. form an antithesis, the former cannot be a lightly accented epithet of a merely explanatory char- acter (the brother, who by very reason of being a brother, is, as everybody knows, always poor likewise); it is rather within the class denoted by ὁ ἀδελφός (perhaps better without 6, following Cod. B) that the poor is contrasted with the rich. On the view that the rich non-Christian is contrasted with the poor Christian, the ground upon which the rich man should boast remains unclear. If ταπείνωσις denotes the exact opposite of ὕψος, 1.6. lack of moral and religious worth, or even lack of the riches of the rich man,—an interpret- ation which has no usage at all to support it,—then the same καυχάσθω, which is meant very seriously when used with its first subject, must, when used with the second, have the sense of a mocking challenge: “ Let the rich man boast; if he likes, in his baseness or his miserable riches.” Such a rendering is impossible, for the added reason that the argument which follows presupposes not an ironical challenge to sinful boasting, but an earnest exhortation to glory only in the possessions that endure. Nor indeed can ταπείνωσις denote the attitude of humility (cf. Jas. iv. 6-10; Sir. iii. 18), for to glory in this would be the worst kind of pride; it denotes rather, as might be expected from its position in antithesis to ὕψος, the rank and condition of lowliness (Luke i. 48 ; Phil, iii. 21). If the rich man is a Christian, of course he also possesses the exalted station of which the poor Christian should rest assured; but as it is fitting for the latter to emphasise just that side of his condition as a Christian which forms a con- trast to his outward situation, so likewise is it for the former (ef. 1 Cor. vii. 22 with reference to slaves and free). We need only recall Matt, xix, 23-26 ; Luke vi. 24, xvi. 14 f., 19-31, to see that the rich man is the very one who should be glad and thankful to belong among the confessors of Jesus, those who were called oi μικροί by Jesus Himself, and who are despised by the world. The reason added in i. 10b-11 is intended primarily to enforce the warning to the rich man implied in 10a, but it thus bears at the same time upon the positive exhortation, This reason agrees with the context ; for just as poverty is a temptation to the poor man, so are riches for the rich man. It is also very applicable to the Christian who is rich ; for since he THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 99 is rich, indeed since he is a man living in the flesh, he is actually like the fast fading flower; ef. Jas. iv. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 6-10, 17-19; Psi xe. 5f., cili, 15. 6. (P. 88.) We have evidence that Christian preaching was permitted temporarily in Jewish synagogues (Acts ix. 22, xviii. 4-6, xix. 8), and that Jewish Christians in Palestine visited the synagogues, the Jews on their part resorting to prohibitive measures in order to exclude them (cf. Derenbourg, Hist. et geogr. de la Palestine, 354 f.). The perfectly reasonable inference, then, is that the reverse was true, and that Christian services were visited by non- Christians. Quite aside from such an inference, however, we have direct proof in 1 Cor. xiv. 23-25 that this was the case. Whether this was done from a religious desire, or from curiosity, or even with hostile intent, is indifferent in ἘΝ supposed case. 7. (P. 88.) It will not do in Jas. ii. 5 to connect πλϑυδίοῦς κτλ. with τοὺς πτωχούς as its attribute ; for (1) ἃ δέ or ἀλλά would be necessary with πλουσίους ; (2) the men whom God has chosen are not rich in faith before and apart from their being thus chosen, and are certainly not heirs of the kingdom ; it is only through being chosen that they become so. Conse- quently what we have here is the good Greek usage of ἐκλέγεσθαι with a double accusative, the εἶναι (Eph. i. 4) not being necessary in such a con- struction, cf. Mayor, 79f. It stands to reason that James does not say here that all the poor and none of the rich find grace before God, any more than we may infer from Matt. xi. 25 that all uncultured people and none of superior culture attain to a knowledge of salvation. The self-evident mean- ing of general statements such as these, which briefly sum up a multitude of individual experiences (1 Cor. 1. 27 f.), is clearly expressed by Paul in 1 Cor. i. 26 (οὐ πολλοί). 8. (P. 89.) The blaspheming in Jas. ii. 7 is not an indirect dishénouding of the name of God or of Christ through the unworthy behavour of those who confess Him ; for (1) this could not well have been left unexpressed (ef. Eus. H. Ε. v. 1. 48, διὰ τῆς ἀναστροφῆς αὐτῶν βλασφημούντων τὴν ὅδόν) ; (2) the blasphemers must have been designated as themselves bearers of the name of Christ (ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς instead of ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ; cf. Herm. Sim. viii. 6); (3) such indirect blasphemy of God or of Christ is always expressed in the passive form elsewhere: Rom. ii, 24 (Isa. lii. 5); 1 Tim. vi. 1; Tit. ii.-5; 2'Pet. il. 2; Clem. 1 Cor. i. 1 (xlvii. 7); Clem. 2 Cor. xiii. 1-4; Ign. .Trall. viii. 2 ; Polye. ad Pll, x.2, “The honourable name,” judging simply from the O.T. parallels, from which the expression is borrowed (Isa. xliii. 7; Jer. xiv. 9, xy. 16; Amos ix. 12; ef, Acts xv. 17), can be none other than the name of God or of Christ. In what form the readers bore this name, whether as μαθηταὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (John vii. 3, xvill. 25; Acts iv. 13), or as Ναζωραῖοι (Acts xxiv. 5, following the usage Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος, Matt. xxvi. 71; John xvill. 5; Acts xxvi. 9; cf. GK, ii. 662f., n. 2, where there is reference also to the reviling of the Nazarenes on the part of the Jews), or as Χριστιανοί (Acts xi. 26, xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16; cf. Mark ix. 41), is as impossible to conclude from the expression used by James as to gather from the above O.T. passages in what form Israel bore Jehovah’s name. In this passage, which would lend itself most inappropriately to such a reference, there is no trace of any government persecution of the Christians because of their 100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT confession, as there is none in other passages (e.g. i. 2-12) where such refer- ence would be quite in place. 9. (P. 90.) In the matter of worship and similar topics, cf. Acts xv. 20, 29, xxi. 255,1 Cor. v. 10£., viii. 1-xi. 1, especially viii. 10, x. 7, 14-22; 2 Cor. vi..15;:Gal. v. 20; 1 John v.21; Rev. ii. 14, 20, xxi. 8, xxii. 15; Didache, iii. 4, ν. 1, vi. 3; Herm. Sim. ix. 21.3. Cf. also the reminder of the readers’ former worship, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 11, ΧΙ]. 2; 1 Thess. i. 9; Gal. iv. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Clem. 2 Cor. i. 6, iii. 1, xvii. 1, and the parallels, Col. iii. 5; Eph. v. 5; Herm. Mand. xi. 4; Polyc. ad Phil. xi. 2. In the matter of πορνεία, cf. Acts xv. 20, 29, xxi, 25; 1 Cor. v. 1-13, vi. 9-11, 13-20, vii. 2, 9, x. 8; 2 Cor. vil. 1, xii. 21; Gal. v. 13-21; a iv. 19, v. 8-14; Col. ii. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 3-5 ; 1 Tim. i. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 22, 111. 6; Rom.i. 94. 97, vi. 19-21, ΧΙ. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Rev. ii. 14, 20-24, xiv. 8, xvii. 1 ff., xix. 2, xxi. 8, xxii. 15; Didache, ii. 1, iii. 3, v. 1; Herm. Mand. iv! by Clon 2 Cor. iv. 3, viii. 6-ix. 4, xil. 5, xiv. 3-5; Pliny, ad Traj. xevi.7. On the other hand, James speaks in general only of worldly luxury, i. 27, iv. 1-4 (as to μοιχαλίδες, see above, p. 87), iv. 9, v. 1-3, 5. Perhaps in ii. 11 there is a testimony to the prevailing honourableness of the readers as regards the conjugal life. The command μὴ μοιχεύσῃς was generally observed, the command μὴ φονεύσῃς often through hard-heartedness transgressed, cf. iv. 2, v. 6. In the matter of the life among the Gentiles, cf. 1 Cor. v. 1, 10 ff., ix. 24, x. 32, xv. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 14-18; Eph. iv. 17ff.; 1 Pet. ii. 12-17, iv. 3ff.; Rom. xii. 2, xiii. 1-7; 3 John 7; Ign. Trall. iii. 2, viii. 2; Herm. Mand. x. 4; Sim. 1. 10, viii. 9.1. In the matter of slaves, ef. 1 Cor. vii. 21 f.; Eph. vi. 5-9; Col. 111; 22-iv. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 18-25; 1 Tim. vi. 1f.; Tit. ii Of. ; Philem. 10-21 ; Didache, iv. 10f.; Ign. ad Polye. iv. 3 (1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11); also the writer’s Skizzen, 93-115, especially 102, also 136 ff., 350, n. 17. 10. (P. 91.) For the form of oath, ef. Matt. v. 34-37, xxiii. 22, and in addition Lightfoot, Op. ii. 2, 93, 359 ; Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr. 1733, pp. 48, 202. It is characteristic of the Jewish, in distinction from the Gentile oath, that it avoids the name of God. In place of such a sacrilegious formula, Philo recommends swearing preferably by the Earth, Sun, Stars, Heaven, and the Universe entire (Leg. Spec. i, ed. Mangey, i ii. 271). 11. (Ὁ. 91) The scorching wind, i. 11 (Luke xii. 55), the early dnd the latter rain, v. 7 (providing ὑετόν be an essentially right completion of the passage, cf. Deut, xi. 14), fig, olive, and vine eulture (iii. 12) in addition to con- siderable agriculture (v. 4, 7), salt springs (iii. 12), unless in the obscure and most uncertainly traditioned text there be a reference to ἡ θάλασσα ἡ ἁλυκή--- the Dead Sea (Num. xxxiv. 3, 12 ; Deut. iii. 17; Josh. xv. 2,5; ef. Gen. xiv. 3; Ezek. xlvii. 9 ff.). On the other hand, we can understand the Mediterranean as the source of the conceptions in i. 6, iii. 4, without assuming that James, at the time he wrote, was resident in Joppa—a view that Hitzig at one time expressed ; ef. for additional points, Hug, Hin. 11.5 511. 12. (P. 93.) Acts viii. 1, πάντες διεσπάρησαν ; viii. 4, οἱ οὖν διασπαρέντες διῆλθον KTA.; Xi. 19, of μὲν οὖν διασπαρέντες διῆλθον ἕως... ’Avrioxeias. The connection of Jas. i. 1 with these facts I find first noticed by Georgius Syncellus, ad A. M. 5537, ed. Bonn, i. 623. Accordingly we are to consider as included in this greeting the communities in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES ΙΟΙ Acts viii. 1, 14, 25, 40, ix. 31, 32, 36, x. 34, xxi.8; Gal. 1. 22 ;.1 Thess. ii. 14; further, those at Ptolemais and Tyre, in Cyprus, and at Antioch, Acts xi. 1-26, xili. 1, xxi. 3, 7, and then the one at Damascus, where it would seem that, even before the death of Stephen, there were disciples, Acts ix. 2-25. In fact, the community which reassembled in Jerusalem after the persecution that followed Stephen’s death is not to be excluded. To be sure, without taking into account the half-Jewish Samaritans, Acts viii. 14, and such isolated cases as Acts vill. 27, x. 1-11, 18; cf. xv. 7, there were, even previous to the first mission tour, not a few Gentile Christians in Antioch, But supposing that they numbered into the hundreds, their proportion to the many myriads of Jewish Christians (Acts xxi. 20) was never more than 1 to 100, and the way in which James gives passing notice to this exceptional class (above, p. 91) and then pays no further attention to it, is in perfect keeping with the relations existing in the Church up to 50 A.D. § 5. THE PERSONALITY OF JAMES. The author introduces himself to his readers by the simple mention of his name, which was a very common one among the Jews, and by the modest designation of himself as a Christian (i. 1). The omission of all reference to the occasion for his writing is not explained entirely by the fact that what he writes is not a letter, but an address thrown into the form of a letter in order the more easily to reach his readers, who were widely scattered (n. 1). There is no indication as to the grounds on which James based his right to address his opinions in any form to the entire Church of his time with so much earnestness and with so little regard to personal feelings. The tone of the letter is not overbearing ; James calls his readers brethren, and reckons himself among them, not only when he is referring to their experience of divine grace (i. 18), but also when speaking of their moral weaknesses and actual failures (11. 2, 9). But he speaks as an older brother accustomed to receive attention from his brothers when he gives advice, and unquestioning obedience when he re- bukes them (n. 2). Who is this James whose authority is so widely ac- knowledged? The opinion that he was the Apostle James, the son of Zebedee, is of late origin, and was not very 102 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT generally held (n. 3). On account of the obvious connec- tion between the number of the apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel, one would expect that an apostle, in addressing the twelve tribes of the spiritual Israel, would indicate the fact, that he was one of the twelve apostles. Although James the son of Zebedee, who was executed very early in the history of the Church, in the year 44 (Acts xu. 2), was one of Jesus’ intimate disciples, there is no evidence that his position was so commanding as to render unnecessary any explanation on his part why he, and not one of the other apostles, should write his opinions to the entire Church. In Acts i.-xii. only Peter and John are prominent. Moreover, when this James is mentioned, he is always spoken of as one of the sons of Zebedee, or as a brother of John (Matt. iv. 21, x. 2, XV oly xx. 20, xxvii 37, xxvil. 565 Mark i. 19, di. 17; woi875 x. 35 5 Luke v.10; John xxi.'2; Acts xii 2)sor this relation is indicated by the context (Mark i. 29 ef. Badd ΠΕ τ τ ὑπ 419 68. 8.185, xub Bef nis 1 6-18) χ 9. Ὁ 6.1 Luke vi. 14, viii. 51, ix. 28, 54; Actsı. 18). What: has just been said argues also, and in some respects with even greater force, against the assumption that the letter was written sometime after the death of James the son of Zebedee by the Apostle James the son of Alphzeus ; unless this second James of the apostolic circle is artificially identified with a third person of the same name. Where the name of this second Apostle James actually occurs he is always. spoken of as the son of Alphzeus (Matt. x. 3; Mark i. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts 1. 13). On the other hand, in spite of the frequency of its occurrence, the name James is always deemed a suflicient designation of the James who at the latest from the year 44 on was the head of the Jerusalem Church and the leader of Jewish Christianity: Acts xi 17, xv. 13-21, xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 9—according to the correct reading, James is mentioned before Peter and John; Gal. i. 12. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 103 That, among the Christians of the apostolie age, there was one James distinguished above all his contemporaries of the same name is strongly attested by Jude 1. This is the James who, according to the tradition of the second century, was the first bishop of Jerusalem. Although the accounts of Hegesippus, Clement of Alex., and later authors are partly legendary, so much may be regarded as historical: this James never ceased to love his country- men and to pray for their conversion ; on account of his strict observance of the law and otherwise ascetic manner of life, and on account of his faithful attendance upon the temple worship, he was held in high esteem, even among non-Christian Jews, and, among other titles, bore that of “the Just.” Shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish War, probably at the time of the Passover in the year 66, because of his public confession of Jesus, he was hurled from the top of the temple by fanatical Jews, stoned, and finally clubbed to death (n. 4). In this account the subordination of the distinctively Christian to the Jewish elements in the description of James’ character impresses one as being original. It was just because of this dis- position of his that the orthodox rabbis and Pharisees tried to induce him openly to deny that Jesus was the Messiah. His unhesitating confession left no doubt as to where he stood. Similarly for the Ebionitie account which makes James the head of all the Churches centring in the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem, there must be some historical basis (n. 5). So long as the Church was composed only of congregations whose charter members had been mem- bers of the Jerusalem Church before they were scattered abroad by persecution, and before the missionary work among the Gentiles, which began from Antioch, made this city a new centre of church life independent of Jerusalem, the man at the head of the mother Church must have had authority throughout the entire Church. Until this independent movement developed, his name was a power 104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT even in Antioch, and could be used to intimidate even a man like Peter (Gal. ii. 12; regarding the time, cf. Chron. Survey, Part XI.). Such a position on the part of the writer is presupposed in this letter, which tradition has always ascribed to James, the head of the Jerusalem Church. Tradition is just as unanimous in identifying this “bishop” James with James “the brother of the Lord.” There is little doubt, therefore, that the writer of this letter is the James referred to by Paul in Gal. i. 19 (n. 6). As to the sense in which he was called a brother of the Lord, there has been difference of opinion ever since the beginning of the second century, and after the fourth century the question was warmly debated. But it is easy to see that it was dogmatic and esthetic rather than historical considerations which prevented a general accept- ance of the facts as stated in the Bible and in the earliest traditions of the Jerusalem Church. It is shown else- where (Forsch. vi. 328-363) that this James, his brother Jude (Jude 1), together with a Simon and a Joseph, all younger brothers of Jesus, were real sons of Joseph and Mary (Mark vi. 3; Matt. xiii. 55). After the death of their father they lived with their mother (Mark iii, 21, 31-35 j Matt. xii. 46-50; Luke viii. 19-21), without, however, keeping themselves entirely apart from their brother's public work. When Jesus selected Capernaum as the centre of His prophetic work in Galilee, His brothers removed thither with their mother (John ii. 12; cf. Matt. iv. 13); while their sisters, who were probably married, eontinued to reside in Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 56; Mark vi. 8). Still, Jesus’ brothers were never among His intimate disciples: We learn from John vii. 3-10 that six months before Jesus’ death His brothers did not believe in Him. But the words which this remark of the evangelist is intended to explain, bitter as they may seem, are very far from betraying in- difference, and certainly do not show any hostility. Since THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 105 Jesus’ influence on the people in Galilee was already on the wane, and the ranks of His faithful followers were orowing constantly thinner (John vi. 60-71), the brothers impatiently urge the Lord to go back now to Jerusalem, which He had avoided for a long time, and there at the centre of Jewish life, where He had won considerable following earlier (John ii. 23, iii. 22-iv. 3), to remoye all doubt, particularly their own doubt, regarding His high calling by there performing miracles such as He had been doing in Galilee since His withdrawal from Jerusalem. Jesus did not follow their suggestion, or, at least, He followed it in such a way as to teach them that they ought to accommodate their ideas to His. We are unable to trace accurately the development of their relation to Him. We only know that at the latest within a few days after the Resurrection they had decided for Jesus; for on the day of the Ascension we find them gathering for prayer with their mother and the apostles (Acts i. 14), and we have the record of a separate appearance of the risen Jesus to James, the brother of the Lord (n. 7). In the year 57, Paul mentions the brothers of the Lord and the apostles as being married missionaries. Jude was a married man, for tradition mentions his grandsons ; and this may have been true also of Joseph and Simon. Paul could hardly have meant to include James; for though the tradition has more to say about James than about any other of Jesus’ brothers, it makes no mention of descend- ants of his; only distant relatives are spoken of. The picture of James as a stern ascetic, so deeply impressed upon the memory of the early Church, favours the view that he remained unmarried. And then, according to all the evidence which we can gather-from the N.T. (Acts xy oe Xx a Gale 19,0, 0.012), from the tradition of the Church, and from the Ebionitic literature, James was a resident of Jerusalem, whereas the persons referred to in 1 Cor. ix. 5 were itinerant teachers. 106 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT In order thus to overshadow every contemporary of the same name in the early Church, from the death of James, the son of Zebedee, in 44 to the time of his own death in 66, James must have occupied a very prominent place in Jerusalem; and it is to be remembered that this list ineludes not only a certain James the Less (Mark xv. 40), but also the Apostle James, the son of Alpheeus. Whether the latter died undistinguished at an early date, or whether his influence was never widely exerted, we do not know, but the fact that his position in the early Church was an entirely subordinate one must simply be recognised. Just as the bare name Simon stands for Simon Cephas, even under circumstances where the Apostle Simon the Zealot seems to be present (Luke xxiv. 84; Acts xv. 14), so from 44 to 66 and long after- ward the name James was always understood as referring to the eldest of Jesus’ four brothers. 1. (P. 101.) As regards the authoritative tone in which the author speaks, there is a general resemblance between the Epistle of James and the com- munications of Jewish patriarchs (above, pp. 10, 33), the Easter letters of the Christian patriarch of Alexandria (GK, ii. 203), or even the Lenten pastoral letters of bishops in our own time. In these cases, ecclesiastical custom, or the recognised official character of the authors, is sufficient occasion for writing. On the other hand, compare the explanations or even apologies in Rom. i. 1-16, xv. 14 ff, ;.1.Cor. i. 11 ; 2 Cor. 11. 3, 9, iii. 1, vi. 11-13, vii. 8 ff., xi. 1ff., xiii. 10; Eph. iii. 3£.; Col. ii. 1-5 ; Phil. iii. 1 ; 1 θεν. 12; & Bet. 7, 12; Heb. xiii. 18, 22; Ign. Rom. iv. 3; Eph. xii. 1; Trall. iii. 3; Polye. ad Phil. td, ΕΠ: The only remains of early Christian literature which are comparable with James in this regard are the Johannine Epistles. 2. (P.101.) Change of tone is reflected in change of address. ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί; i. 16, 19, ii. 5 ; ἀδελφοί pov, i. 2, ii. 1, 14, iii. 1, v. 12, 19; ἀδελφοί, iv. 11,v.7,9,10. Until, finally, the name of brother is omitted altogether, iii. 13, iv. 1, 13, and the tone becomes that of severest rebuke, ii. 20, iv. 4, ν. 1. 3. (P.102.) The old Latin translation, the latest and best edition of which is that of J. Wordsworth (Stud. bibl. Oxontensia, i. 113-123), based on the only existing MS. (ninth or tenth century), has this note at the end, “explicit epistola Jacobi filii Zeebedei” (sic). A trace of this same view, for which Wordsworth in another passage, i. 144, probably by an oversight, makes Jerome responsible, is to be found in the confused lists of the twelve apostles and seyenty disciples known as those of Hippolytus and Dorotheus, where it is said of James the son of Zebedee, that he preached the gospel “to the twelve tribes of Israel in the diaspora.” Then either no other James is mentioned THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 107 among the apostles, while James the brother of the Lord is mentioned among the seventy diseiples without any suggestion that he wrote the letter (Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, ii. 122, 136; ef. Cave, Hist. lit. 1720, p. 107), or, without his being made the son of Alpheus, his name is found among the apostles between “Judas of James” and “'Thaddxus Judas” on the one hand, and Simon Zelotes and Matthew on the other (Lagarde, Const. ap. p. 283). In the first printed edition of the Syriac N.T. (ed. Widmanstad, Vienne, 1555), the following is found in Syriac on a title-page just before the Catholic Epistles: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we print three Epistles of James, Peter, and John, who were witnesses of our Lord’s revelation, when He was trans- figured before their eyes on Mount Tabor, and when they saw Moses and Elias, who talked with Him. Until it is proved that this statement is found in ancient MSS. the entire title must be regarded as the work of the Jacobite bishop Moses of Mardin, who furnished the MS. for the edition of 1555. Of an entirely different character is the frequent designation of the writer of the letter as an apostle. Thus at times he is so called by Eusebius (Montfaucon, Patr. coll. nova, 1. 247), in the sixth century MSS. of the Pesh. in Wright's Catal. of Syr. MSS. pp. 80, 81, 82, and in the Latin versions of Origen, cf. ed. Delarue, ii. 139, 158, 671 (“apostolus est qui dieit”), but never in the writings which are extant in Greek. This may be due to Jerome’s identification of the bishop James with James the son of Alpheus, or simply to the fact that in ancient times the apostolic title was quite freely used (cf. Skizzen, 341, τι. 12)—being given to the seventy disciples (Iren. ii. 21.2; Tert. ce. Marc: iv. 24 in.)—but especially to authors whose writings were regarded with more or less unanimity as belonging in the N.T., as Luke (Hippol. De Antichr. 56), Barnabas (Clem. Strom. ii. 31 and 35), Clement of Rome (Clem. Strom. iv. 105). In modern times the authorship of the Epistle by James the son of Zebedee has been defended by G. Jäger, Z/LTh. 1878, S. 420 ff. 4. (P. 103.) Cf. the treatise on “ Briider und Vettern Jesu,” Forsch. vi. 925-363. The title ὁ δίκαιος was given him not only by Christians, such as the redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews (GK, ii. 700, Frag. 18), Hegesippus (Eus. ii. 23.18, iv. 22. 4), Clement (Eus. ii. 1. 3f.); but, according to Hegesippus, by all from the time of Jesus (Eus. ii. 23. 4), particularly by the unbelieving Jews (Ens. ii. 23. 6, 15-17). Probably by the event which followed shortly after the death of James, Hegesippus did not understand the siege and capture of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), but the outbreak of the Jewish war under Vespasian in the spring of a.D. 67 (Eus. ii. 23. 18, καὶ εὐθὺς Οὐεσπασιανὸς πολιορκεῖ αὐτούς). A war which not only ended with the siege and capture of Jerusalem, but which in its previous conduct had been characterized mainly by the investment and capture of fortified places (Jotapata, Gamala, Tabor), might very appropriately be described as a πολιορκεῖν τοὺς ᾿ἸΙουδαίους ; cf. 2 Kings xvii. 4,5; Eus. H. ΗΕ. iv. δ. 2and 8 title; cf. also Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2039 of the entire Hadrian- itie war. This statement of Hegesippus is our only authority, since the passage in Josephus (Ant. xx. 9. 1) where it is said that “James the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ,” along with several others, was condemned to be stoned for breaking the law by a court appointed by the high priest Ananus, in the year 62, shows unmistakable signs of interpolation by a Christian hand. Besides’ this passage, which ‘is accurately quoted in H. E. ii. 23. 21, Eusebius cites another statement of Josephus (ii. 23. 20) which BY 108 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT represents the destruction of Jerusalem as a penalty for the killing of James, This statement is not to be found in any of the extant MSS. of Josephus, but is given in essentially the same form by Origen, c. Cels, i. 47 (ef. ii. 13), and is elsewhere referred by him to the Antiquities of J osephus (Com. in Mt. xiii. 55, ed. Delarue, iii. 463). Since Eusebius cites the passage in direct discourse, while Origen gives it only in indirect discourse, it is highly im- probable that Eusebius took it from Origen. More likely both read it in their Josephus, but not in the twentieth book of the Antiquities cited by Eusebius in the context, but in the Jewish War, in the fifth book of which something similar was found by later readers (Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 463). Origen, quoting from memory, made a slight mistake in citing his authority, as he does in making other quotations from Josephus (e.g. on Matt. xvii. 25; Del. iii. 805). This passage, which is not to be found in existing MSS. of the Jewish War, is even more open to suspicion than Ant. xx. 9, 1, which is extant. It is on the authority of the latter passage that the Chronicle of Eusebius fixes the date of James’ death (a. Abrah. 2077, in the redaction of Jerome 2078, i.e. 61 or 62 A.D.), while the date given in the Paschal Chronicle (ed. Bonn, i. 460), 69 A.D., is based upon the other apocryphal Josephus passage, or upon a wrong interpretation of the statement of Hegesippus. The statements of J erome, Vir, Til. ii (cf. xiii), which depend upon Eusebius and which are very confused, are worthless. While Jerome seems to think that the gravestone of James, erected on the spot where he was executed, beside the temple, remained there only until the time of Hadrian, Hegesippus, who did not write before 180, says, ἔτι αὐτοῦ ἡ στήλη μένει παρὰ τῷ ναῷ. Andreas Cretensis, who lived in Jerusalem in 680, says of James (Anal. Hieros. ed, P. Kerameus, i. 12), λαβόντες αὐτὸν ἔθαψαν ἐν τόπῳ καλουμένῳ Καλῷ πλησίον τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. In Jerome’s time (Vir. II. ii end) it was a matter of common belief that he was buried on the Mount of Olives. 5, (P. 103.) Ep. Petri ad Jac. 1 ; Clementis ad Jac. 1; cf. Skizzen, 64 £., 342, n. 17. Nothing is said in Acts concerning the beginning of the “ episcopate ” of James. Just as we learn in Acts xi. 30 without any previous notice of the existence of presbyters in Jerusalem, so in Acts xii, 17 we learn that “James and the brethren” means the entire Jerusalem Church, Though not an apostle, he stands in close relation to the presbyters (Acts xv, 6, 13, 22f.), and the latter are represented as gathering to him (Acts xxi. 18). Clement makes the vesting of James with the episcopate follow immediately upon the ascension (see Eus. ii, 1-3, and Forsch. iii. 73, 75, n. 1). Hegesip- pus says that James assumed the leadership of the Jerusalem Church, not like the bishops of other Churches who became the successors of the apostles who founded the Churches, on the death of the latter, but in conjunction with the apostles while these still remained for the most part in Palestine (Eus. ii, 23. 4, pera τῶν ἀποστόλων, not post apostolos, as in Jerome, Vir, Ill, li). More trustworthy seems the statement of Eusebius (ii. 1. 2), which probably rests back upon other passages in Hegesippus, that he became bishop after the death of Stephen. The changes in the organisation of the Jerusalem Church, which we observe from Acts xi. 30 on, were probably the result of the temporary dissolution of the Church in the year 35 (Acts viii. 1-4), not of the events recorded in Acts xii, As late as the fourth century, in Jerusalem was shown the seat in which James was accustomed to sit (Eus. vii. 19. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 109 32. 29). Gregorius Barhebr. (Chron. Ecel., ed, Abbeloos et Lamy, i. 62), who could not have derived his information from Eusebius, testifies that this was true in the time of the Antiochian Bishop Timeus (called by him Timothy), circa 270-280 A.D. While the principal reason for James’ promotion to a place of commanding influence may have been his personal integrity, there was another influence that helped to bring it about. After his death, Simeon, another relative of Jesus, was chosen bishop (Heges. ; see: Eus. iv. 22.4). The grandchildren of Judas the brother of Jesus were considered by non-Christians to be of the line of David, and until the time of Hadrian occupied prominent positions in the Palestinian Church (Heges. ; see Kus. iii, 20. 1-8, 32. 6, ef. iii. 11.12, 19). As late as the third century there were still kindred of Jesus in Palestine and outside who were honoured with the title δεσπόσυνοι (belonging to the family of the δεσπότης, 1.6. Christ. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4), and who boasted about their nobility (Africanus ; see Eus. i. 7. 11, 14). According to the same writer, they had spread from Nazareth and Kokaba throughout the world. According to the Syrian tradition, three successive bishops of Seleucia, in the third century,—the third a contemporary of Porphyrius, the opponent of Christianity,—were descendants of the carpenter Joseph (Greg. Barh. Chron. Eccl. ii. 22. ; Assemani, Bibl. Or. ii. 395). With these traditions compare the fact that after the destruction of the temple and of the high priesthood, which had always had a certain show of princely dignity (Acts xxiii. 5), the Jews called the Rabbi who, after seventy, stood at the head of the highest rabbinic school and court, a prince (se), regarded the office as hereditary, and laid emphasis upon the descent of Hillel and his posterity, from David on the maternal side. One is reminded also of the so-called exiliarch, the “head of the diaspora” in Babylon, and of the Jewish ethnarchs of Alexandria. James, and after him Simeon, was such a Nast of the Christian twelve tribes. So, when in Clem. Recogn. i. 68, James is called episcoporum princeps in contrast to Caiaphas, the princeps sacerdotum, it is not out of keeping with the view current in the earliest Jewish Christian Church. 6. (P. 104.) Ὁ; Wieseler’s hypothesis (ThStKr. 1842, 5. 80 ff., ef; his Kom. zum Galaterbrief, ad loc.), that the brother of Jesus mentioned in Gal. i. 19 was not an apostle, while the James referred to in Gal. ii. 9, 12 is James the son of Alphsus, scarcely requires refutation to-day. It would be easier, to believe that two different persons are referred to in Gal. i. 19 and Gal. ii. 9, 12, if in the former passage mention were made simply of a James, and then later of a James further distinguished as ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου. Gal. i. 19 deais with an event which took place while James the son of Zebedee was still alive, and in the connection it was natural to note that the James in question was not an apostle. On the other hand, the events mentioned in Gal. ii. 9, 12 took place subsequent to the death of the son of Zebedee. 7. (P. 105.) From 1 Cor. xv. 7 it is not clear whether the James referred to isan apostle or not. Nor is the statement of the Hebrew Gospel decisive ; for, on the one hand, it represents the James to whom the risen Christ appeared as the brother of Jesus, known as “ The Just » . but, on the other hand, it speaks of him as partaking of the Last Supper with Jesus, apparently regarding him as an apostle (Fragment 18, GK, ii. 700). This Gospel contradicts both Paul and the canonical Gospels when it speaks of the appearance as if it were the 110 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT very first that occurred in the early morning. According to 1 Cor. xv. 7, the appearance to James occurred toward the end of the forty days (Acts i. 3, xiii. 31), and so must have taken place in Galilee, where Jesus appeared to more than five hundred brethren before He appeared to James. There ig nothing to indi- cate that the brothers of Jesus were present at the Passover during which Jesus was put to death. John xix. 26f. is more easy to understand if they retained their critical attitude and at the time remained away from Jerusalem. Although the Hebrew Gospel varies from the true tradition at this point, it does not impress one as being a mere idle tale. Itis supported by 1 Cor. xv. 7. The saying of Jesus to James, “ My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the dead,” is beautiful. The vow of James which the say- ing presupposes, namely, that he will eat no more bread until he sees the Lord risen, is not only thoroughly Jewish (Acts xxiii, 14), but quite in keeping with the personal character of James, who was a Nazarite (Heges. ; see Rus. il. 23. 5), and there is no reason for questioning its historicity. The sentiment expressed insuch a vow is not unlike that of Thomas (John xx. 24-29, xi. 16). In the very unbelief there is a longing to behold what it is not yet possible to believe, ὃ 6. THE AUTHOR'S TRAINING AND HABITS OF THOUGHT. Better acquaintance is to be had with James from his own letter than from the scant remains we have of trust. worthy tradition. It is due quite as much to James’ way of looking at things as to the circumstances of the readers to whom he wrote, that he does not feel it necessary to develop the faith confessed by him and his readers (11, li. 1) in any of its theoretical aspects, but insists as strenuously as he can that they make their lives conform to the orthodox faith which they profess. That he had a profound and vital opinion concerning the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, is proved by incidental references to the glory of Christ (ii. 1), to sin and the deep roots which it has in human nature (1,01 4 diveollde ah 44), and to the power of God’s word, once rooted in the Christian’s heart, to create new life and to save. This word is a law of liberty, which the Christian can and ought to obey (i. 18,21, 25, n. 1). It is shown further by references to the Spirit which God has sent to dwell in the hearts of Christians (iv. 5), to the still greater THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 111 boon which Christians are finally to receive (iv. 6),— the heavenly kingdom to be ushered in with the parousia of the Lord, of which they are heirs, and to the new creation of which they, the children of God begotten by the word of His truth, are the first-fruits (1. 12, 18, 14, vy. 81) While a man’ like Paul, even in cases where the application of religious truth to life was direct, always sought to show the relation between the content of the Christian faith and its practical application by recalling the facts of the gospel history and showing the natural development of the practical application from these facts, James always begins at once with practical exhortation. He is not so much a teacher who develops the truth, as he is a preacher who speaks like a prophet (n. 2). A man of the logical type of mind and a teacher who had been trained in the schools could hardly have failed, im a discussion as elaborate as that in Jas. 1. 2-17, to make clear to the readers the distinction between the two ideas in the word πειρασμός. Nor would such a person have been likely to cite Gen. xv. 6 without stating in what sense he understood the reckoning of faith there spoken of to be righteousness, and without showing wherein this idea here expressed differed from his own conception of δικαιοῦσθαι. Without any extended discussion or argument, James shows that he has a vital grasp of the truth, in language which for foreibleness is without parallel in early Christian literature, excepting the discourses of Jesus. We have here the eloquence that comes from the heart and goes to the conscience, a kind which was never learned in a school of rhetoric. ‘The flow of words (n. 4) seems to be just as natural as the succession of ideas (n. 3). . Several words do not occur in literature before James. Whether some of these were coined by the author or whether all of them were in common use in the locality where he lived, we do not know. But it is very clear that the author [12 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT got his facility in the use of Greek, not in some rhetorical school, but from life. His language is comparatively free from gross mistakes, and even shows some feeling for the euphony and rhythm of the Greek tongue (n. 5). And yet on the whole how limited is his command οὗ this foreign language. In the entire Epistle there is scarcely one periodic sentence, the language used consisting for the most part of short sayings, questions, and exclamations. There is no good reason for denying that James wrote Greek by assuming that the letter was written originally in Aramaic (n. 6); nor is it right to make his inability to do so an argument against the historical character of the tradition concerning James. If the membership of the mother Church consisted from the beginning in large part of Hellenists who kept on using the Greek language after their settlement in Jerusalem (above, pp. 39 f., 42 f.), the same is likely also to have been the case in the Churches colonised from this centre. Then, besides the native Jews, who were called Hellenists, in Caesarea (Acts x.), certainly also in Ptolemais and Tyre (above, p. 44), there must have been added to the Church a number of Gentiles and prose- lytes, who had no more occasion after than before their conversion to familiarise themselves with the Jewish ver- nacular, Greek being the language of common intercourse in those cities; and in Antioch this number must have been very large. Now, if an author wanted to be under- stood by these Greeks and to reach the heart of these Hellenists, it was necessary to address them in Greek. And he could do so in the confidence that he would be understood by much the larger part of the “ Hebrews” living in this extended region. The latter were certainly to be found not only in Jerusalem, but also in Lydda, Joppa, Damascus, and elsewhere (above, p. 66, n. 12). But, writing from Jerusalem in the circumstances that he did, while not formally excluding the Christians near him from the address, he must have had these far less in mind THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 113 than the more remote Churches, ineluding those as far away as Antioch, who could not have the benefit of his oral instructions. We saw, moreover, that James took account of the Gentiles who were among his readers (above, p. 91). What was there, then, to prevent him from adapting the form of his letter to the large number of Hellenists among his readers by writing in a language which was certainly intelligible to all, and which it did not greatly inconvenience him to use? Even the greeting, i. 1, shows conscious adaptation to the habits of these Greeks and Hellenists ; for, without obscuring the sense at all, James could have used a Jewish greeting, as do Paul and. the other apostles, translating it into Greek and adapting it for Christian use (n. 7). To assume that from the position which James occu- pied in Jerusalem he would have had no opportunity to acquire the facility in the use of Greek which the author of this letter had, or that he lacked the ability to acquire it, is entirely arbitrary (above, p. 45). Assuming that the letter was written between 44 and 51, the author. had been from fifteen to twenty years a member, and for a number of years the official head, of this Jerusalem Church, which very early in its history had more Hellenists than Hebrews in its membership. As the head of this Church, James must have been familiar with the Greek O.T. (above, p. 40), so that it would be entirely natural in writing a Greek letter that he should make his quotations from the LXX (n. 8). Still the letter is not altogether without traces of the author’s familiarity with the original text. , James lives and moves in the atmosphere of the O.T. Besides the few instances where the O.T. is quoted directly (11. 8, 11, 23, iv. 5, 6) and specific references ‘to individuals and facts in the O.T. (ii. 21, 25, v. 10f.,.17/£), there are numerous passages where the author’s thought seems to flow unconsciously in the mould of O.T. language (i. 10,1. 7, ii. 9, v. 4,20). One of his quotations is VOL, I. 8 114 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT from a writing unknown to us (n. 9). While the Book of Proverbs, written by the Palestinian’ Jesus the son of Sirach, is not quoted, the letter does show familiarity with a number of his sayings (n. 10), though it would be going too far to say that there was any particular mental affinity between this author and James. On the other hand, there is a resemblance both in thought and in language between James’ letter and: the discourses of his brother Jesus which have come down to us, which is all the more natural if James was not directly under Jesus’ influence during the latter’s public ministry, and if the resemblance is due neither to artificial imitation of nor to conscious dependence upon the discourses of Jesus. There is not a single word ‘of Jesus’ quoted, much less anything from the Gospels. And yet, although none of the sayings of Jesus are reproduced in exactly the form in which they have come down’ to us, it is possible to fill the margin of the Kpistle’ with parallels of Jesus’ discourses which resemble James more closely in thought than’ the parallels from Jewish litera. ture, some of which are closer verbally (n. 11). Though James may have become acquainted with most of the words of Jesus preserved in the oral tradition of the Church by hearing them from others, still there were not a few of these sayings which he had heard from Jesus’ own lips, though often with doubt and disapproval (above, p. 104 ἢ). After he became a believer, what he learned from others and what he had heard himself fused together in his thought, and the impression of the personality of Jesus, under the influence of which he had been ever since his childhood, made the tradition so vital that it developed in him a Christian character which in the early Chureh made him seem all but superior to the apostles them- selves. | Unlike his brothers, he felt no call: to engage in mis- sionary work (1 Cor, ix. 5; above, p. 105). Here also the letter is in keeping with James’ character, for there is THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 115 very little of the gospel in it, ‘and of all the N.T. writings it is the one least adapted to give us an idea of the sort of preaching by which converts were made. It does, however, presuppose this preaching. ΤΌ is also in keeping with the description which we have of the character of James of Jerusalem, that his letter, while presupposing the Christian faith, pays little attention to forms of state- ment specifically Christian, and that its, teachings have the O.T. and Jewish stamp. If this were not the: case, we should have to deny that the Epistle was written by James, for he was a man who was looked upon as an authority by the Jews of his own time and by the Ebionites of a later period, such a man that, as he was being stoned, Jewish priests are said to have exclaimed, “Stop! what do ye? the Just is praying for you.” It was possible to be deceived into supposing that James’ Christian confession was only an adjunct of his Jewish piety, which could be cast off without changing his character. But this supposition proved to be mistaken (above, pp. 103, 107). 1. (P. 110.) From the connection of i. 18, 21, 22, 25 it appears that the law, whose continued contemplation and fulfilment is urged upon the readers, is identical with the word of truth, through which God has given them their religious life, making it thus an “implanted word,” or at least is included as an essential element in it. . Now, if 1018 self-evident that i. 18, 21 f. refer not to O.T. revelation but 'to the gospel of. Christ, it is also plain that i, 25, ii. 9-12, iv. 11f., refer not to the Mosaic law as such, but to the law contained in the gospel. When it is characterised, then, as a “perfect law,” the epithet is not loosely applied to divine law in general (Ps. xix. 8), but marks the law which is binding upon the newborn, and is implanted in them as a perfeet law in distinction from another which is imperfect. This distinction is mäde still clearer by. the added phrase, τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας. But since “freedom” is not regarded, in the common experience and usage of any age, asa natural attribute of “law,” but rather as its contradiction, it is plain that James meant his readers to feel in the very form of his expression (οἵ. Rom. ix. 30) the contrast between this law and another to which the phrase could not apply. There isa law of bondage, also, which for that very reason is imperfect.. By this can be meant no other than the Mosaic law, which was not implanted in the heart, but inscribed, on tables of stone (Jer. xxxi. 31-34; Heb. viii. 7-13; Rom. viii. 15; Acts xv. 10), and which, particularly im the hands of the Rabbis, had become a heavy yoke of slavery (Matt, xxiii. 4, [16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ef. xi. 29 £., xii. 7) ; while by the same treatment, on the other hand, it was reduced in fact and impoverished in spirit (Matt. v. 21-48, xv. 1-20). The law contained in the gospel demands not less, but more, than the Mosaic law as expounded by the Pharisees. At the very point, therefore, where James reminds his readers of the increased responsibility of Christians and the seriousness of the judgment which awaits them (ii. 12), he dwells once more upon the character of Christian law as a law of liberty. In this he is quite in accord with the preaching of Jesus. The fact that this new and perfect law of liberty includes commandments from the Decalogue also, and that special stress is laid (ii. 8-11) upon the law of love to one’s neighbour, which is likewise an O.T. command, is again in agreement with the preaching of Jesus, and with the teaching of Paulas well (Rom. ii, 23-27, viii. 4, xiii, 8-10; Gal. v. 14, vi. 2). When James calls the law of love a “royal law,” he cannot mean simply that it was given by a king, for that is true of all commands of God and Christ. Nor is there any usage to justify the inter- pretation, “a law royally superior to all. others, an all-inclusive law.” He means rather that it is a law for kings and not for slaves. In Philo, de creat. Princ. iv, Mangey, ii. 364, βασιλικὴ ὁδός denotes the manner of life and conduct which befits a king. It would seem that James was so understood by Clement, (Strom. vi. 164, vii. 73, cf. GK, i. 323; Mayor, 84)... How admirably this suits the context is apparent. The heirs of the kingdom (ii. 5), who are themselves kings (Rev. i. 6, v. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 9), ought to be ashamed to meet the rich with fawning politeness, offered under pretext of due brotherly love, and at the same time dishonour the poor. The reverse legalistic attitude accordingly is closely related to the idea expressed in eAev- Gepias. As a king’s sons, the disciples of Jesus are free, just as He Him- self was ; and if as members of the pre-Christian people of God they perform what is there required of them, they are still free nevertheless (Matt. xvii. 24-27). 2. (P. 111.) The distinction between διδάσκαλος and προφήτης is by no means absolute. In Acts xiii. 1 it is hardly permissible to arrange the various names under the two titles separately. By the transition to the first person plural in iii. 1, James intimates that he is one of the διδάσκαλοι in the broader sense. ‘But the difference between διδαχή and προφητεία was clearly felt in the life of the Church till well into the second century, ef. 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, 28, xiv. 6, 26; Eph. iv. 11 (ef. ii. 20, iii. 5); Herm. Mand. xi. ; Didache, x. 7; xi. 3, 7-12 ; xiii. 1-4, cf. Forsch. iii. 298-302 ; Ign. Philad. vii. Although 1 Cor. xiv. 3, 24f. deals with quite another distinction between prophecy and the gift of tongues, its characterisation of the prophetic type of discourse is of general validity, and is applicable to James. Andrew of Crete calls James a προφήτης (Anal. Hieros. ed. P. Kerameus, i. 3. 7,14. 3); and in referring to the Epistle, from which he makes extended extracts, he speaks repeatedly, of its prophetic style (iv. 31, v. 24, vii. 28). Luther did not, as is commonly said, call James “a straw Epistle” outright, but, contrasting it with John, Romans, Galatians, and 1 Peter, he wrote in 1522 what he did not reprint in later editions of his Bible : “ Therefore St. James’ Epistle is a right strawy Epistle as compared with them ; for it has no real gospel character” (Erlangen, ed. 63. 115). There is, nevertheless, both here and in the introduction to James and J ude (63. 156 ff.), ἃ degree of unfairness, whieh is as easily accounted for as it is re- THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 117 grettable. Cf., further, Kawerau, “Die Schicksale‘ des Jas. in‘ 16 Jahr- hundert.” (Z/K IV, 1889, 8. 359 ff.). 3. (Ρ. 111.) Χαίρειν, i. 1, is echoed immediately in πᾶσαν χαράν, the open- ing words of the first section, i. 2-18, which set forth and urge the right attitude toward the assaults of temptation. The special mention among God’s gifts of the regenerative word (i. 18) forms the transition to the second section, i. 19-27, which calls for the right acceptance of this word in heart and life. Care for widows and orphans, which is mentioned (i. 27) as an example of-the proper activity of the word, leads on to the reproof of a wrong attitude toward both rich and poor in the third section, 11. 1-13. The contrast between believing and doing, pointed out in the very beginning of this section, becomes the theme of the fourth section, ii. 14-26. As this passage censures the dead faith, which expresses itself in words and not in deeds (ii.'14, 16, 19), it is naturally followed by the fifth section, 111. 1-18, rebuking the tendency to instruct others (ef. i. 19), and pointing out the danger of sins of the tongue (ef. i. 26). In the description of true and false wisdom (iii. 13-18), James does not: lose sight of its immediate occasion (see above, p. 95f., n. 2); but the description becomes so comprehensive, and passes finally into so urgent a commendation: of peaceableness, that it brings to mind in contrast the many disputes among the readers, which are dealt with in the sith section, iv. 1-12. The desire for the betterment of external conditions, which is noted as the chief ground of these dissensions, appears most markedly among the merchants and the landowners, but also among the farm: hands, who complain against them. To these classes the seventh section, iv. 13-v. 12, with its three’ subdivisions, refers. Not only Job, however, but Elijah is an example to be considered. The Christian is not simply to endure in patience what is well-nigh unen- durable ; prayer offers to the individual and to the Church a means for the relief of earthly suffering and the cure of moral. hurt which transcends even the natural order. This is pointed out inthe eighth section, v:. 13-20. Thus, at the close, as at the beginning of his Epistle, James treats of earthly suffer- ing, patience, and prayer. 4. (P. 111.) Mayor, clii-cciv, presents a comprehensive examination’ of the language of James, and concludes, not improperly, that it contains fewer formal violations of good usage than any other N.T. book, except perhaps Hebrews. This is by no means to assert, however, that Paul had not far greater facility in the use of Greek, or that the style of James could be confused with that of a classical writer. There are only three periodic ‘sentences of any extent in the whole letter (ii. 2-4, 15-16, iv. 13-15). The first two are similarly arranged ; the third (and perhaps the second also) is not correetly carried out. The genitive absolute participle, the accusative with infinite, and the optative, are entirely lacking. ' The use of the particles is exceedingly limited, e.g. ἄν (iii. 4, v. 7, spurious; only iv. 4, ὃς ἐάν), μέν (only iii. 17; never μέν---δέ), ἄρα, ἐπεί, ὥστε, do not occur, iva appears but twice (i. 4, iv. 3). Rare words are aveXeos, ii, 13 (instead of ἀνελεήμων, LXX), altered to dvitews by the Antiochians ; ave- μίζεσθαι, 1. 6; ameipaoros, i. 13, of persons=untested, or above temptation (differently, Jos. Bell. Jud. v. 9. 3, vii. 8. 1), next again in Clem. Strom. vii. §§ 45, 70, Const. Ap. 11. 8, in an apocryphal citation ; ἀποσκίασμα, i. 17,—it is perhaps a matter of chance that this is not found till the later Church 118 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Fathers, for Plutarch has ἀποσκιασμός ; δαιμονιώδης, ii. 15, first reappearing in the Jewish Christian Symmachus, Ps. xci. 6, δίψυχος, 1. 8, iv. 8; Clem. 1 Gor. xi.ı2, also in an apocryphal citation, xxiii, 3, cf. Clem. 2 Cor. xi. 2 (διψυχεῖν and διψυχία some twenty times in Hermas) ; Opnoxds, i. 26, only’ in grammarians and lexicographers ; πολύσπλαγχνος, v. 11, recurring for the first time with its derivatives, Herm. Vis. ἵν. 8. δ; Sim. v.7.4 (cf. the writer's Hirt des Hermas, 330, 399, 487), and Clem. Quis Dives, xxxix ; προσωπὸ- λημπτεῖν, ii. 9 (together with the more common προσωπολημψία, ii. 1, ef. Rom. ii, 11; Col.iii. 25; Eph. vi. 9); χαλιναγωγεῖν, 1. 26, 111: 2, cf. Herm. Mand. xii, 1.1; Polye. ad Phil. v. 3; Lucian, Tyrannic, 4; χρυσοδακτύλιος, 11. 2, otherwise unknown. 5. (P. 112.) With regard also to paronomasia, alliteration, rhythm, ete. Mayor, excv ff., is well worth reading. In many passages he finds something of a “ Miltonie organtone,” and in others a volcanic fire glowing through the words. Τύ is still a question whether πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ wav δώρημα τέλειον, 1. 17, is an hexameter, known and quoted by James, as, for example, Ewald, Das Sendschr..an die Hebr. u. Jak. Rundschreiben, 190, and Mayor, 53, think probable, or one accidentally formed with a permissible use of the short final syllable of δόσις in the arsis. The analogy of Heb. xii. 13 (ef. Winer, § 68. 4) favours the latter view, as does the circumstance that the line contains only a subject and no predicate. The conjecture that it was a one line adage, “Every gift is good, and every present perfect,” in the same sense as “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” (H. Fischer, Philoloqus, 1891, p. 378), needlessly charges James with a decidedly ill-timed use of a somewhat flippant proverb. 6..(P. 112.) The almost forgotten hypothesis of an Aramaic original (Berthold, Hist. krit, Hinl. vi. 3033 ff.) has been revived by J. Wordsworth (Stud. Bibl. Oxon. i. 141-150). He does not base the theory upon an enumera- tion of errors and obscurities in the Greek text which would be explained by the reference to an Aramaic original, but on the Latin translation of the Cod. Corb., which presupposes, he says, a Greek original very different from the text otherwise transmitted. Then the existence of two Greek texts so divergent is to be explained on the ground that they are two independent versions of an. Aramaic original, and this in turn is confirmed by corre- spondences between the Latin Corb, and the Pesh. Now, these correspond- ences amount to no more than those between Corb. and other versions and Greek MSS. (ef. eg. Tischendorf on Jas. ii. 25), and would be significant only in case one could assert and prove that the Pesh. contained not a translation of James but the original. The only point which might demand attention, “ namely, the translation of ἱμάτια by res, Jas. v. 2, as an indication that the Syriac word used in the Pesh. was here the underlying term, is after all of no consequence; for, as Mayor, cevii, shows, Rufinus, Eus. ii. 23. 18, translates ἱμάτια in the same way. The originality of the Greek text’ is established not only by the lack of proof to the contrary, but by the unconstrained manner of the Epistle, which, if it. were not in the original language, would imply a mastery of the translator’s art unparalleled among the ancients. In i, 1, 2 the paronomasia between χαίρειν and χαρά, 80 essential to the thought, would (have to be ascribed to the translator. For nothing could have stood in an Aramaic original but the obv of the Pesh., which excludes the possi- THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 119 bility of assonance, and which, in connection with the usual N.T. salutation, would have been rendered by εἰρήνη, and not χαίρειν, by any ancient trans- lator ; see the following note. 7. (P. 113.) The Jews of the Hellenistic period considered the Gentile χαίρειν an equivalent for the Semitic salutation of peace; cf. Jerome, p. 23 above, n. 4. This appears even in the LXX, Isa. xlviii. 22, lvii. 21, cf. Luke i. 28 ; then at the opening of letters, not only those from Gentile rulers to Jews (ad. Est. viii. 13, Swete, 77°=vi. 1, Fritzsche, 62, 63 ; 1 Mace. x. 25, xi. 30), but also letters from Jewish high priests to Gentiles (1 Mace. xii. 6; Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 6, according to Aristeas). 2 Macc. 1. 1 shows a combination of Jewish and Greek forms in the intercourse between the Jews of Palestine and those of Egypt, first χαίρειν and then εἰρήνην ἀγαθήν (more skilfully in Barn. i. 1, χαίρετε. . . ev εἰρήνῃ). In the second letter, 2 Macc. i. 10, a thoroughly Greek expression, χαίρειν καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, see shape, p- 78, n. 2. The Semitic greeting, Dan. 111. 31, vi. 25 (ef. Ezra v. 7), which Gamaliel also uses (see above, p. 33, n. 18), is trans- lated by LXX and Theodotion pretty literally εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη, cf. 1 Pet. i.2; 2 Pet.i.2; Jude 2. εἰρήνη alone in closing, 1 Pet. v.14; 3 John 15, There are also strictly Jewish expansions, like that of ap. Baruchi, Ixxviii. 2, in the letter to the nine and a half tribes beyond the river (Ceriani, Monwmenta S. et Prof. v. 2. 168): p25 mm snow ax xom, ef. Gal. vi. 16; Jude 2, ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη. After χάρις, with its resemblance in sound to χαίρειν, had estab- lished itself in connection with εἰρήνη, ἔλεος might still be added, 1 Tim.i.2; 2 Tim, i. 2 (Tit. 1. 8.) ; 2 John 3. James contents himself with the simplest, because he knows that the more ceremonious greeting of the Israelite may degenerate into empty formality (cf. John xiv. 27), and that the Greek salutation, though not exactly the expression of a serious conception of life, may be lifted to a higher plane of thought. John, who incidentally assumes the customary use of yaipew in the spoken intercourse of Christians (2 John 10 f.), does not hesitate to appropriate the specifically Epicurean form, 3 John 2, ef. p. 78, τι. 2. Bengel, Gnomon on Acts xv. 23, “Non semper utuntur fideles formulis ardentissimis.” It is noteworthy that, except for the letter of a Gentile, Acts xxiii. 26, this χαίρειν occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in Acts Xv. 23, in a document sent at James’ suggestion to the Gentile Christians of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, Other resemblances between Acts xv. 13-29 and James have been noticed (Schneckenburger, Beiträge zur Einl. 209; Mayor, iv), 6.5. Acts xv. 13, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ ἀκούσατέ μου, cf. Jas. ii. 5; Acts xv. 17 (Amos ix. 12), eb’ ovs ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, cf. Jas. ii. 7; Acts xv. 29, ἐξ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτούς, cf. Jas. 1. 27, ἄσπιλον τηρεῖν ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου. Such similarities tend constantly to confirm the tradition, which ascribes the origin of both letters to the same period and the same circle. 8. (P. 113.) In Jas. ii. 23, Gen. xv. 6 is cited according to the LXX with the passive ἐλογίσθη, and not the active construction of the original. The connective δέ, which is well attested, also, in Rom. iv. 3, and recurs in Clem. 1 Cor. x. 6, Just. Dial. xeii, appears as early as Philo, de Mut. Nom. xxxiii, Mangey, i. 605, and then in the text of Lucian, ed. Lagarde. Lacking X and B for Gen. xv. 6, it is hard to say whether καί or δέ is original in the LXX. Jas. ii. 8= Ley. xix. 18, LXX ; but this could scarcely have been translated otherwise. One can hardly determine from Jas. ii, 11 the arrangement of the Decalogue to which James was accustomed. The order of the command- 120 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ments as James uses them is based upon their content (see above, p. 100, π΄ 9) un instead of οὐ, Ex. xx. 13 ff., was an amendment of style, ef. Luke xviii. 20, καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας, Jas. iii. 9, is derived from Gen. i. 26, LXX. Jas. iv. 6= Prov. iii. 34, but differs materially from the Hebrew, to which the substitution of Θεός for κύριος brings it no nearer. If we grant that Jas. i. 10f. is’manifestly based on Isa..xl. 6-8, ἄνθος χόρτου is an agreement with the LXX against the Hebrew (‘flower of the field ”). The same is true of Jas. v. 4, if Isa. v. 9 is, in the main at least, its foundation. But in one passage, at any rate, and perhaps two, the case is different. Jas. v. 20 (cf. 1 Pet. iv. 8) has affinities with the Masoretie text of Prov. x. 12, but none with the LXX. Jas. 11. 23, καὶ φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη, does not indeed purport to be part of the citation from Gen. xv. 6, but it is introduced as an undoubted fact, that is, as one to be found in the O.T. It is derived from the original of Isa. xli. 8; 2 Chron. xx. 7, whereas the LXX in both passages, in different forms, makes the one “loving” God into one “loved” by Him. Still the application of this term to Abraham need not necessarily be accounted for by personal acquaintance with the original text. James might also have learned it in the synagogue, like Philo, who, in quoting Gen. xviii. 17 (de Sobr: xi. ed. Mangey, i. 401) inserts after Abraham’s name τοῦ φίλου pov, to which there is nothing in the Hebrew to correspond. In another citation of the same passage (Leg. All. iii. 8 Μ. 1. 93) he has, instead of this, rod παιδός pov, like the LXX. The epithet occurs also in the Book of Jubülees (xix. 10, xxx. 21, ed. Rönsch, 24 f., 56 f., 420f.), which was probably written in Palestine in the first century. It is doubtful whether this term was in the thought of so early a writer as Apollonius Molon (circa 80 B.c., according to Schürer, iii. 402 [Eng. trans. 11. iii. 252]) when he explained the name Abraham etymologically as πατρὸς φίλος (Eus. Prep. ev. ix. 19. 2, cf. Hilgenfeld, Hinl. 542). τ Symmachus, at ἃ later period, translated Isa. xli. 8, τοῦ φίλου pou (Field, Hexapla, ii. 513), and seems then to have been followed by the Antiochian recension of the LXX (Holmes-Parsons on 2 Chron. xx.'7). 9. (P. 114.) The formula ἡ γραφὴ λέγει (without ὅτι, moreover), as well as the fragmentary and obscure form of the saying Jas. iv. 5, forbid the view of Hofmann, vii. 3.111 f.,and Mayor, 131, that this is simply a free combination of ΟἿ᾽. ideas: (Ex. xx. 5, xxix. 45; Deut: xxxii, 21; Isa. Ixiii. 10). The saying does indeed ally itself with that O.T. line of thought (cf. 1 Cor. x. 22; Rom. x. 19) of which μοιχαλίδες; iv. 4, is already just a suggestion, but in such a way that we recognise that it: must have been taken from a connection unknown to us. |“ Enviously (jealously) does that spirit long (love its object) which He (God) has made to dwell in us,” Spitta, 117-123, conjectures that the saying is taken from the Book of Eldad and Modad cited by Hermas, Vis. 11. 3.4... Resch, who does not 'considerit an anachronism that James should already quote gospels ‘as Seripture, is positive that we have here a citation from a Hebrew gospel (Agrapha, 256). It is to be hoped that Spitta’s proposition (118 f.) to connect πρὸς φθόνον with ἡ γραφὴ λέγει in the sense of περὶ tod POdvov(!) will not meet with approval. Kirn, ThStKr. 1904, 8. 127 ff., would read πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ef. Ps. xlii, 2 ; Eccles. xii. 7. The change of subject between ἐπιποθεῖ and κατῴκισεν need not surprise us in a quotation thus removed from its context. Otherwise we should not hesitate to read κατῴκησεν" with the Antiochians, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 121 10. (P. 114.) Jas. i. 5=Sir. xli. 22, μετὰ τὸ δοῦναι μὴ ὀνείδιζε, cf. xviii, 17, xx. 14, always of human beings. Jas. i..13f.=Sir. xv. 11-20. Jas. i. 19=Sir. iv. 29, μὴ γίνου ταχὺς (al. τραχὺς, θρασύς) ἐν γλώσσῃ cov (in contrast with slothfulness in. works); v. 11, γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου καὶ ev μακροθυμίᾳ φθέγγου amorpıoıw (and gentle in answering), cf. vi. 33-36. Jas i. 20 (p. 96 above)=Sir. i. 19 (al. 22), οὐ δυνήσεται θυμὸς ἄδικος. δικαιωθῆναι κτὰ., Jas. 1. 25=Sir. xiv. 28. Jas. ii. 1-6=Sir. x. 19-24 (22, ἀτιμάσαι πτωχόν Jas, 11. 6). Jas. iii. 2=Sir. xiv. 1, μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς οὐκ ὠλίσθησεν Ev στόματι αὐτοῦ ; cf. xxv. 8, xix. 16, Tis οὐχ ἥμαρτεν ἐν rn γλώσσῃ αὐτοῦ. Jas. iii. 9 (to be considered with its context)=Sir. xvii. 3, 4. Jas. v. 3=Sir. xxix. 10, 11 (ἀργύριον μὴ ioOjro .. . χρυσίον), οἵ, xii. 10. Jas. v. 4, 6=Sir. xxxi. (xxxiv.) 22f. (al. 25f.), cf. iv. 1-6. Jas. v. 13 ff.=Sir, xxxviii. 9-15. There is not enough material to determine whether James had read the Hebrew original of Sirach, or the Greek translation, or both. The parallels from Wisdom, and those from Philo diligently collected by Schneckenburger, Annotatio in Epic. Jac. 1832 (in his comments on the several passages) ; Siegfried, Philo, 310-814; Mayor, 1, are useful for illus- tration, but are by no means sufficient to show that James was acquainted with these writings. With regard to Philo, cf. Feine, Jakobusbrief, 142-146. Parallels from Greek philosophical literature, especially that of Stoicism (Mayor, Ixxix ff.), are even less pertinent. One might rather undertake to show that Epictetus had read James. Hilgenfeld, 539, A. 2, saw in Jas. iii. 6 (τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως) a “conclusive” proof that James was familiar with the conceptions of Orphic mysticism. In that case, as it was the progress of souls contemplated in the doctrine of metempsychosis which was spoken of in Orphic phraseology as κύκλος γενέσεως, and occasionally also (with a reference to the wheel of. Ixion) as τροχὸς γενέσεως (Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 798 ff.), we must suppose that James seized upon a phrase which he did not understand, without making the least use of the correspond- ing idea. But James uses γένεσις here just as in i, 23, and he compares human existence to a wheel, because he is thinking of it in its constant activity. The tongue, though itself a very unstable member (iii. 8), stands amid the members (καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν) as the centre of the body, and in relation to it may be likened to the hub or axle of a wheel which con- tinually revolves about it. Cf. in addition also the gloss:after Sir. xx. 30 (in Fritzsche on margin) ἀδέσποτος τροχηλάτης τῆς ἰδίας ζωῆς. It is remark- able that, in connection with the Orphic suggestions in James, no one has adduced also the line in Clem. Strom. v. 127, δαίμονες dv φρίσσουσιν (Jas. ii. 19), and the oracle of Apollo of Miletus in Lact. de Ira, xxiii, and the Egyptian incantations (Pap. mag. Lugd., ed. Dieterich, JbfKPh., Supplement, Bd. xvi. 800; Neue griech. Zauberpap., ed. Wessely, Denkschr. der Wiener Ak. xlii. 2. 65). i 11. (P. 114.) James’ affinity with the discourses of Jesus can be but imper- fectly indicated by means of figures. The less immediate parallels are placed in parentheses. Jas..i. 2= Matt. v. 12 (Luke vi. 28. is furtherremoved on account of ev ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ). Jas. 1. 4=Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13. Jas. 1.. 5 ἦν, 17= Matt. vii. 7 (αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται tpiv)-11, xxi. 21 (μὴ. diaxpiOjre)-22 (Luke xi. 9-13; Mark xi. 23). Jas. 1. 22-25= Matt. vii. 21-27; Luke: viv 46-49. Jas, i. 26f.= Mark xii. 40 (Matt. xii. 7, xv. 2-9, xxiii. 2-4, 23-26), 122 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 'TESTAMENT (Jas. ii. 1-4= Mark xii. 38 f. ; Matt. xxiii. 6-12.) © Jas. ii. 5= Luke wi. 20, 24, xl, 21; Matt. v. 3. (Jas. ii. 8, 10f.=Matt. v. 19 ff., xix. 18f., xxii. 868, with the synoptic parallels, and with reference to the conceptions ἐλευθερία and βασιλικός, p. 116, note 1, above.) Jas. ii. 13=Matt. v. 7, xviii. 23-37 ; Luke vi. 33. (Jas. iii. 1= Mark xii. 40, λήμψονται περισσότερον κρῖμα.) Jas. 111..10-12-- Το vi. 43-45. (Jas. iii. 18= Matt. v. 9.) Jas. iv. 4= Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13 ; and for μοιχαλίδες, Matt. xii. 39 ; Mark viii. 38. Jas. iv. 9 = Luke vi. 25. Jas. iv. 10=Matt. xxiii, 12 ; Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14. Jas. iv. l1=Matt. vii. 1; Luke vi. 37. Jas. iv. 12= Matt. x. 22. (Jas. iv. 17=Luke ΧΙ. 47.) Jas. v..2f.=Matt: vi. 19. (Jas. v.84.=Matt. xxiv. 33; Mark xiii. 29.) Jas. v. 12=Matt. v. 33-37, xxiii. 16-22. Jas. v. 17= Luke iv. 25 (with regard to the note of time, which is not to be traced directly to the O.T., cf. Hofmann, vii. 3. 148). The correspondence between Jas. v. 14 and Mark vi, 13 indicates a close connection with the earliest days of Christianity. We have nothing to do here with the sacramental use of oil in the ancient Church j James stands, like Jesus, on the soil of J udaism, cf. Spitta, 1441, Those sayings deserve special consideration, to which certain of James’ readers appealed in a way that he disapproved. Since προσωπολημπτεῖτε, Jas. ii. 9, maintains the connection with ii. 1, we are to infer from ii. 8 that to justify obsequiousness toward persons of prominence, in spite of their own generally hostile attitude, appeal was made to Ley. xix. 18, that is, of course, to its meaning as interpreted by Jesus, Matt. v. 43-47, according to whom: the command is not rightly fulfilled) till it includes love to enemies, In Jas, 11. 14 it is implied that the persons whom the writer would oppose fall back upon the proposition ἡ πίστις wou σώζει (σώσει, σέσωκεν) pe, cf. Matt. ix. 22; Mark v. 34, χ. δῶ; Luke vii. 50, viii. 48, 50, xvii. 19, xviii. 42 (viii. 12), It has been repeatedly pointed out that: those elements in James which remind us of the Gospels are closely related to Luke (Nösgen, ThStKr. 1880, 8.109; Feine, Vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lucas in Ev. u. der AG, 132; the same, Jakobusbrief, 70 ff., 133 f.), but it cannot be said that the points of contact with Luke outnumber those with Matthew. The only inference which: can be drawn is that Luke, even in what is peculiar to his Gospel, follows early Palestinian tradition. The same is true of the Fourth Gospel, for James presents noteworthy resemblances to this Gospel also ; ef. P. Ewald, Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, 58-68 ; Mayor, Ixxxiv. ff. Jas. i, 18= John iii. 3 [ἀποκυεῖν -- γεννᾶν, which even in John iii. 4 is applied primarily to the function of the mother ; βουληθείς, ef. Johw iii. 8, ὅπου θέλει, and the denial of any other θέλημα, John i. 13. ἄνωθεν καταβαῖνον, Jas. 1. 17, may also remind us of John iii. 3, 13 (vi. 33, 50), and λόγῳ ἀληθείας of John xvii. 17]. Jas. i. 25=John viii. 81 ἢν [Jesus’ word, or the truth contained in it, is the means of freedom to him who abides in it; add the blessing of the doer, John xiii. 17.] Resch, Agrapha, 131 ff., 255 ff., claims to have found extra-canonical sayings of Jesus in Jas, i. 12, 17, iv. 5, 6, 7, especially Jas. i..12, on account of the alleged formula of quotation, But as James left ἐπηγγείλατο without an expressed subject, and ὁ κύριος. OF κύριος OT 6 θεός was plainly inserted later by way of supplement, it is impossible to assume that Jesus, of whom, except for i. 1, he has ποῦ yet spoken, is the intended subject. Cf. rather Jas. ii. 5 and Zee. vi. 14 LXX,°6 στέφανος ἔσται τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν. The crown of life, like the erown of righteousness (2 Tim. iv. 8) and, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 123 the crown of glory (1 Pet. v. 4), is a general term for the reward of the persistent and victorious fighter. The assertion that, because this phrase appears also in Rev. ii. 10, James must have read the Apocalypse, or that he refers directly to the promise of Jesus found in that passage: (Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, 867), needs no further refutation. Brückner, who declares this to be unquestionable (Chronol. Reihenfolge der Briefe des NT, 989), adduces even more trivial resemblances. All we can say is that James and Revelation show a certain similarity in their point of view; cf. Spitta, Offenbarung des Johannes, 521; Feine, Jakobusbrief, 131, According ‚to Brückner, 291, and Pfleiderer, 867, James’ dependence on Hebrews is also indisputable, since Jas. ii. 21, 25=Heb. xi. 17, 31, and Jas. iii. 18=Heb. xii. 11; further parallels in Mayor, cii. According to Holtzmann (Z/WTh. 1882, S. 293), James more than once presents itself as a direct answer to Hebrews. Cf., further, M. Zimmer, “Das schriftstellerische Verhältnis des Jakobus zur paulin. Lit,” Z/WTh. 1893 (year 36, vol. ii.), 481-503 ; and agdin, on, the other hand, Feine, NJbfDTh. iii. 305-334, 411-434. On the Epistle’s relation to Romans and to 1 Peter, see $ 7. 8.7. THE, EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. Between the time of the composition of the letter, as determined in the preceding paragraphs, and the time when James came to be recognised generally as’a part of the’ N.T. Canon, there is an interval of more than three hundred years, ef. Grundriss,’ 8. 21, 48, 45, 53, 56, 61, 68, 70, and below nn. 4-6. The Latin Church did not receive it into its N.T. until after the middle of the fourth century, and then only gradually. The Churches in Mesopotamia and adjoining regions did not include any of the so-called Catholic Epistles in the Syriac Bible which they used. In the Peshito, James takes its place in the Canon for the first time along with 1 Peter and 1 John. The recollee- tion of this fact still survived in‘the time of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, against the authority of his own Church, the Greek Church of Antioch, went back to the original Syriac Canon, claiming that James and the other Catholic Epistles ought- not to be‘included in the Canon. The Alexandrian Church is the only one which, as far as the sources enuble us to determine, can be proved always to have included James in the Canon along with a number of other Catholic Epistles on a basis of equal authority with ı24° INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the rest. In the case of the Churches in Jerusalem and Antioch, this can be shown to be probable. All this is not so strange, if the fact is taken into consideration that the N.T. Canon was composed of the books coming down from the apostolic age which were adopted as lectionaries in the religious services of the Gentile-Christian Church, and. if it is admitted that James was addressed to the Church in the year 50, while its membership was still almost entirely Jewish. | That this is the right date for the composition of the letter, is confirmed by the clear traces of its influence upon the Christian writers of the period immediately following the year 50. Assuming that the letter reached Antioch while Paul and Barnabas were still engaged in teaching there, or during their first missionary journey, it is not likely that Paul would have failed, to read the letter of a man of such recognised authority as James. And, it can be proved that he had read it, with care... It has, of course, been very often claimed that Jas. ü. 14-26 was written in opposition to Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, or to counteract the degeneration of Christian, life resulting from teaching of this kind. But, in order, to maintain the first position, it is necessary to, assert, that James misunderstood Paul’s doctrine in, ἃ. way almost incredible, or that he perverted it wilfully, and then undertook to refute it by.a cowardly trick (n. 1). < But such a supposition contradicts the impression which every unprejudiced reader gets from the letter regarding the intellectual and moral, character of the author. What James opposes in 11. 14-26 is not a doctrine, but a religious profession which was unhealthy and not genuine. Equally untenable is the other assumption, that what 1s here said is directed against a practical abuse of Paul's doctrine of justification. It is a well-known fact that the _ effect of the gospel preaching in the apostolic age, as well as later, among those superficially affected by it, was to THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 125 produce moral apathy rather than to stimulate moral energy. All the apostles sounded a note of warning against it, or testified against it (Gal. v.13; 1 Pet. 1. 16 ; Jude 4; 2 Pet. i. 1 ff, ef. 1 John i. 6, ii. 4; Rev. ii. 14, 20-24; 1 Cor. vi. 9-20), defending Christianity against the charves made on this ground by non-Christians (Rom. iii. 8, ef. vi. 1). It is true that at different times Paul’s letters have been misinterpreted and misused (2 Pet. iii. 16), particularly by Valentinus and his school. That, however, these Gnostics paid little attention to the doctrine of justification by faith, is proved by the con- ceited way in which they despised those who were no more than believers. We know that Marcion, who pro- fessed to be a faithful disciple of Paul, combined with his fanatical hatred of the O.T. ethical views of an ascetic kind. But how could either the error of Valentinus or of Marcion have induced a man in his senses to write what we have in Jas. ii. 14-26? That neither Marcion nor any of the great Gnostic teachers could have taken such an attitude, goes without saying. The tendencies which they represented had nothing whatever to do with Paul’s doctrine of justification on the ground of faith; and, besides, it cannot be proved that it was Paul’s particular doctrine, and not the common Christian teaching about redemption by grace and the consequent freedom of the Christian, which was abused by thoughtless believers and slandered by non-Christians. Finally, what James opposes is not libertinism, but the moral indolence which went along with the consciousness of faith and of orthodox profession. According to James, his readers were con- victed of the worthlessness of their faith and: their confession not by the immorality of their living, but by their lack of good works. When he represents’ them as speaking (ii. 14), it is not a Pauline formula which he puts into their mouth; he makes them say, rather, that they have faith, meaning that their faith saves them, If 126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT this was based upon any formulayat all, it must have heen some such saying as the one used so. often by Jesus, “Thy faith hath saved thee” (above, p. 122, n. 11). Although, in view of what has been said, opposition to Paul’s. doctrine of justification, and opposition to any tendency. supporting itself by false appeals to Paul’s teaching, is out of the question, it is not to be denied that a relation exists between Jas. ii. 14-26 and Rom. iv: 1 ff, (n. 2). .The statement in Rom. iv. 2,'that Abraham was justified by works, thereby obtaining something of which he could boast, is introduced as the opinion of someone else. The statement contradicts Paul’s, conclusion that the; manner in which Christians obtain righteousness and life excludes all boasting (iii! 27). Or if Paul held ‚both views to: be correct, then Abraham must have had:-a religion. different from the Christian’s. But if this be the case, then the question is raised whether Paul and the readers who have agreed with him in. the. preceding exposition are not forced to admit that they are apostates from the religion of Abraham, and without any vital relation to him. Moreover, there 15. nothing in the ‚pre- ceding context which leads up to this statement, to the discussion of which the whole of chap.\iv. is devoted. It is not one of those apparent: conclusions from the pre; ceding discussion, which Paul so often introduces’ in order to: strengthen the position already developed. by refuting supposed inferences from it. Neither is 1ὖ ἃ familiar sentence taken from the O.T., for the statement is con- trasted emphatically with Scripture (iv. 3)... From what source, then, was: this proposition taken? In Jas. 11,21 we have the statement that. Abraham, was justified by works, and in ii: 23 the title of distinction which Abraham thereby obtained is given. In the same passage, Gen. xv.'6 is quoted just as it is in Rom. iv. 3, with’ the same text and at the same length (above, p. 119, n. 8). Paul does not dispute the application which James makes of Gen, χνυ 6, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 127 nor does he question directly James’ thesis. But from the Scripture passage which James had used incidentally, and left without definite explanation, he develops his own thesis, namely, that Abraham’s significance for the history of religion rests upon the fact that in the Genesis account his righteousness is reckoned as faith, and so his justifica- tion is on the ground of faith. ‘There is no conflict at all between Paul and James; Paul takes up the thought where James left it, and develops it further. The con- ception δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Rom. 1. 17, 111. 21, x. 8, cf. 2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. 11.9) did not originate with Paul. It goes back to Jesus (Matt. vi. 33), starting from his deserip- tion of the difference between true righteousness and the human) makeshift for it; the righteousness of the Pharisees. James uses: the same contrast (i. 20, above, p. 96). Paul merely puts emphasis upon the thought suggested in θεοῦ, and so develops a new idea. Is it merely by accident that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Rom, i. 17) occurs for the first time just after Paul has called the gospel a δύναμις εἰς σωτηρίαν (Rom. i. 16), and that it is just before he makes the statement that the word of the Christian pro- clamation is τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι (1. 21), that James speaks of the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (1. 20)? There is also a very close connection between Rom. v. 3f. and Jas. i. 2-4, especially if καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν be taken as a hortative. Not only is there exact verbal correspondence between Paul’s εἰδότες (Jas. γινώσκοντες) ὅτε ἡ θλῖψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται and Jas. i, 8, but the passage in Romans throws light upon. the meaning οἵ James’ somewhat obscure language. ‘I'he expression, “ways by which your faith is tested,” must certainly mean the same as “manifold trials,’ or, according to Paul, “ tribulations.” Finally, the question is raised in the mind of a thought- ful reader by Jas. i. 4, how the ὑπομονή is to persist to the end and to be made perfect. It was this that suggested to Paul the writing of Rom. v. 4 Even the word δοκιμή 128 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT is a reflection of James’ δοκίμιον. Anyone’s character may be described as tested or proved when the means of testing it are rightly and patiently endured: Further more, although the thoughts expressed in Rom. vii: 23; ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ κτλ., and Jas. iv. 1, ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρα- Τευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν, show differences, they are essentially the same, and neither of them is obvious. Now, if these parallels prove that Paul had James in mind when he wrote Romans, then it may be the more readily admitted that there are indications of a use of the same in other passages where the dependence cannot be: absolutely proved (n. 2). Altogether, a letter which. left ‚Paul unsatisfied with its conclusion about Abraham’s justification, and: which influenced him to take up the passage Gen. xv. 6 and discuss the subject. with far greater thoroughness (Rom. iv. 3-24) than he had done «heretofore (Gal. iii, 5-7), must have made a deep impression upon him. Butiit is important to bear in mind that Romans is the only one of Paul’s letters which shows traces. of James’ influence. 1 Peter was written in Rome, probably in the year 63 or 64 (§ 39). Granted that the resemblance between this letter and James is such as to necessitate the assumption that one of them depends upon the other, it is easy to see that throughout it is Peter who elaborates James’ short suggestions, expands his pithy sentences, and tones down the boldness and abruptness of his thought (n. 3). Chronologically, the next document which ‘shows clear traces of the influence of James is the letter, sent probably about the time of Domitian’s death (Sept. 96), from the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church, which, according to ancient and unanimous tradition, was written by Clement, the head of the Roman Church (n.'4). In the Shepherd, written during Clement's lifetime by Hermas, a lay member of the Roman Church, there are THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 129 a number of passages from James which are made, as it were, texts for extended remarks (n. 5). If we leave out of account those parts of the Church where James was early accepted into the Canon, and the later periods when James was commonly quoted, these are all the clear evidences which we have of the influence of the Epistle upon Christian literature (n. 6). Not only do these refer- ences to James in Romans, and its use in 1 Peter, confirm the conclusion already arrived at, that James was written in or before the year 50; but if the organisation of the Roman Church was due in no small measure to the in- fluence of Jewish Christians who came from Palestine and settled in Rome, and if during the first decades of its history its membership was composed largely of Jewish Christians ($ 23), then there is nothing strange about the fact that it is this series of writings prepared in Rome in the years 63-64 and 96-100 which betray acquaintance with James, and that ıt is in Romans that Paul refers to this Epistle. It was among the Christians there that he could assume acquaintance with James’ teaching, and he is wise in making the reference that he does to his Epistle. 1. (P. 124.) It is well understood that Paul developed and defended his doctrine that men are justified not by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ, in opposition to the Judaistic demand that the Gentiles should submit to circumcision, and with it to the whole Mosaic law, if they would become Christians in full standing, and partakers of salvation. For anyone who knew anything whatever of the great struggle of the decade 50-60, this position defined with historical precision the works of the law, to which Paul denied justifying efficacy. On the other hand, the faith to which Paul does ascribe this efficacy is more fully defined in his designation of it in his most polemic Epistle (Gal. v. 5, ef. Tit. iii. 8), as the faith which works itself out through love. All misunderstanding as to the ethical consequences of his teaching is precluded by his unconditional requirement of the observ- ance of God’s commands (1 Cor. vii. 19 ; cf. Rom. viii. 4) or the fulfilment of the law of Christ (Gal. vi. 2), by his insistence on the avoidance of all vicious life as a condition of blessedness (1 Cor. vi. 9 f.; Gal. v. 21; Rom. viii. 5-13), and by his expectation of a judgment awaiting Christians, when inquiry shall be made into their actual conduct (2 Cor. v. 10; Rom. ii. 6 ff., xiv. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 3-5). The faith, however, to which James denies saving efficacy is VOL. 1. 9 130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT not only not the faith which he praises elsewhere (i. 6, v. 13-18) as the vital strength of prayer, unfailing in its operation, and for which he elaims that its possessor is rich in the midst of outward poverty (ii. 5). To James’ mind the “empty” man (ii. 20, κενός, contrasted with πλούσιος, ii. 5, ef. Luke i. 58) is rather the man who says he has faith, while at the same time he has no works to show for it. It is true that James calls this inactive faith faith also, but only in the way in which the speaking of charitable sounding phrases is called love in 1 John iii. 18, that is to say, a love with word and tongue as over against love in deed and in truth. James neglects here, as in the similar instance in which the words πειρασμός, πειράζεσθαι denote very different things (i. 2-15, see p. 111 above), to distinguish with precision between true and false faith. But he is careful not to deny saving power to all faith, The question μὴ δύναται «rA., ii. 14, like the question τί τὸ ὄφελος, is dependent upon the particular conditions stated, as indeed αὐτόν for ἄνθρωπον shows. Moreover, he puts it beyond question that this λεγομένη πίστις has nothing in common with what he himself considers faith, further than the name. It is an intellectual conviction, which even the devils may possess. It is to true faith what sympathising words are to really helpful love (ii. 15 f.), what the corpse is to the body (ii. 17-26). Now, Just as this faith to which James denies all saving efficacy bears no resem- blance to that which Paul sets forth.as the condition and means of justifica- tion, so is it too with the works which James represents as the basis of justification and those works of law to which Paul denies any such value. The offering of Isaac and the reception of the spies by Rahab are anything but the fulfilment of legal requirements ; rather are they heroic acts of faith : and James expressly emphasises (ii. 22) the fact that faith was involved in them, and in them found its realisation. On the other hand, he makes not the slightest attempt to represent them ingeniously as works of law, by characterising them, for example, as the fulfilment of some exceptional com- mand of God, and thus the rendering of obedience. How could a man of sound intelligence imagine that ii. 14-26 was any refutation of Paul? Even the fact that James makes use of the very passage (Gen. xv. 6) with which Paul supports his doctrine of justification, is no proof that he was familiar with the latter’s treatment of it. On the contrary, it would then be incom- prehensible that James should not have made an attempt, at least, by a different exposition of the passage, to invalidate Paul’s very obvious deduc- tions. James gives no interpretation of the passage at all, but is satisfied to represent the fact to which it testifies as a presage of Abraham’s subsequent justification by his works, without so much as hinting what he understands by this imputation of faith as righteousness. We may conclude, however, from the context that James was not in the habit of designating this imputa- tion (which he himself adduces from Gen. xv. 6 without any modifying addition) as δικαιοῦσθαι. It was absolutely wrong to infer from the mere use Of δικαιοῦσθαι ἔκ twos by both James and Paul, that one was dependent upon the other. Neither of them invented the verb, and the prepositional connection is the most natural one ; cf. Matt. xii. 37, and similarly κρίνεσθαι, Rev. xx. 12 (Luke xix. 22). Certainly James conceives the good conduct, which he considers indispensable, as a fulfilment of law (i. 25, ii. 8-11, iv. 11f.). But, in the first place, Paul does so also, and, in the second place, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 131 James characterises the law he has in mind, in direet contrast to that given by Moses aud interpreted by the rabbis, as the law of liberty, the law im- planted in Christians in and with the gospel, to be fulfilled by them in kingly freedom (above, p. 115f.). How could a James, or a pseudo-James, imagine that to demand the fulfilment of such a law was to oppose Paul? To the question at issue between Paul and the Judaisers with regard to the attitude of Gentile Christians toward the Mosaic law, James does not devote a single word, even where he refers to the Gentiles among his readers (ii. 25, above, p. 91). As little does he touch upon the closely related question, how far Jewish Christians were under obligation to observe the Mosaic law, or were justified in so doing. The only passage which could possibly be referred to Jewish ceremonial (i. 26f., p. 97, n. 3) criticises all over- rating of ritual piety. To infer from this that this James, utterly unlike the James of history, was opposed to the continued participation of Jewish Christians in the temple services and to the Mosaic regulation of life, would be as preposterous as to ascribe a like attitude to Jesus on the ground of His denunciations of the Pharisees. Nor does it need to be proved that James could not have directed a polemic against the legal observance of the Jewish Christians in this indirect and casual way. For him and his readers it was a matter of course, and was assailed by no one, not even Paul. A polemic against those δοκοῦντες θρησκοὶ εἶναι is entirely consistent with legal observ- ance on one’s own part, cf. Matt. xxiii. 23, 111.15. If, as tradition tells us (above, p. 103), James’ manner of life was strictly, even exaggeratedly, legal, and he was himself, therefore, a θρησκός, this only gives the more weight to his warning against the over-estimation of θρησκεία, just as Paul’s argument against the over-estimation of the gift of tongues is emphasised by the fact of his own facility in that particular (1 Cor. xiv. 18). That the author of James was an enthusiast for the law of the same type as the Judaisers of Galatians, is certainly unthinkable ; but neither does the James of history occupy any such position. With regard to his attitude toward missionary work among the Gentiles, Paul (Gal. ii. 4, 9) distinguishes him as clearly from the false brethren whose proceedings made the action of the council necessary, as does the account in Acts xv. 13-29. Any reasonably careful exegesis of Acts xv. 21 shows that James sets aside effort for the ex- tension of the Mosaic law and of the legal manner of life as a task which has no claim upon him and the mother Church. Moiojs . . . τοὺς κηρύσσοντας αὐτὸν ἔχει does not mean simply κηρύσσεται, but calls for a corresponding clause in contrast, as in John v. 45, ἔστιν ὁ κατηγορῶν ὑμᾶς Μωῦσῆς, ef. John viii. 50. It is as unsafe to conclude from Gal. ii. 12 that James would have disapproved Peter’s participation in the meals of Gentile Christians (though Feine, ii. 89, is still of this opinion), as to hold Peter responsible for the conduct of his partisans at Corinth. The disinterested wording of the statement made by the elders gathered with James in Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 20, ὑπάρχουσιν, not ὑπάρχομεν), suggests that in their judgment the legalistie zeal of Jewish Christians was a one-sidedness which should be treated with forbearance, rather than that the speakers themselves oceupied that standpoint. Even in Hegesippus’ account there is no hint which might be interpreted as Judaistie in the historic sense of the word. 2. (Pp. 126, 128.) The present writer presupposes as the reading of Rom. 132 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT iv. 1f., τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; εὑρηκέναι ᾿Αβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα---εἰ yap’ ABpaap ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα--- ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρὸς θεόν; with v. Hengel, v. Hofmann, and others, I hold that ri οὖν ἐροῦμεν undoubtedly constitutes an independent question, as in vi. 1, vii. 7, ix. 14 (ef. iii. 5, vi. 15, viii. 31 ; 1 Cor. x. 19), and that, taken with the following question, which requires a negative answer, it yields this meaning: “ Are we, then, compelled by the foregoing discussion to adopt some such conclusion as follows?” The sense is not sub- stantially altered by the omission, with B, of εὑρηκέναι (to which supply “we” as subject). Klostermann, Korrekturen zur bisherigen Erklärung des leömerbriefs, 1881, S. 121, 129, made a decided advance in the interpretation of the pas- sage by pointing out the parenthesis indicated above, But the question whether Paul and his readers who followed him must now admit that Abraham was indeed their physical but not their spiritual ancestor, was’ pos- sible only in case the readers were, like the writer, actually sons of Abraham κατὰ σάρκα (see § 23 below). I agree with Spitta, 209-217, in the opinion that Paul has James in mind; but I fail to find any satisfactory evidence that Paul could have assumed such an attitude only toward a Jewish writing, and therefore that he knew James as the work not of a Christian, but of a Jew (210, 211, 217). The way in which James is referred to in Rom. iv. 2 pre- supposes that the readers, or many of them at least, knew and esteemed the authority which had put forward this proposition. How could Paul assume this in the case of an obscure Jew whose private composition had by chance come to his notice? Why does he avoid combating the statement outright as erroneous, and let it stand as in some measure valid, or at least uncontra- dicted, unsatisfactory as he regards it? In Rom. iii. 28, too, we can find no polemic against James, for James had by no means ascribed justifying efficacy to the ἔργα νόμου with which Paul was dealing. In spite of his acquaintance with James, Paul could, here as in Gal. ii. 15-21, express the conviction that a man becomes just through faith independently of works of law, as the out- come of the common, experience of all sincere Christians of Jewish origin. In so doing he by no means asserted that this thesis was continually on the lips of all Jewish Christians, a Peter or a James ; in that case he would have had no need to write Romans. He lays down his proposition in Rom. iii. 28 not as a generally recognised Christian doctrine, but as a conclusion reached by elaborate arguments and deductions. It is the conclusion at which he him- self has arrived, and every reader who has followed him with assent thus far must finally come to the same. It is the same “we” as in Rom. iii. 9, iv. 1, vi. 1,ete. According to this view, Rom. iv. 2, not iii. 28, is the point at which we may trace Paul’s reference to James. In addition to the passages already mentioned, compare Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 4 with Jas, iv. 11 ff. ; Rom. ii. 13, 21-29 with Jas. i. 22-25, ii. 9, ili. 1,,iv.;11 (ποιητὴς νόμου); Rom. viii. 2 ff. 15 with Jas, i, 25, ii. 12 (law of liberty); Rom. viii. 7, 8 with Jas. iv. 4-7 (ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ. . . τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ὑμῖν... ὑποτάγητε τῷ θεῷ); Rom. xii. 8 (6 μεταδιδοὺς ἐν ἁπλότητι) with Jas. i. 5. M. Zimmer (loc. cit.) and Mayor, xcii.-xev., give more than exhaustive lists of points of contact between James and the Pauline Epistles. Von Soden in his guarded treat: ment (Jb/PTh. 1884, S. 163) mentions as indications of the writer’s literary acquaintance with the Pauline letters, only Jas. i. 13=1 Cor. x. 13 (where however, ἀνθρώπινος has by no means a contrasted θεῖος), and Jas. ii. 5= THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 133 1 Cor. i. 27, in addition to passages from Romans. Spitta, 217-225, concludes that aside from Romans there are but few passages in Paul’s letters which could suggest any direct dependence upon James, but does not account for this marked difference between Romans and the other Pauline Epistles. 3. (P. 128.) Spitta (183-202) is the latest writer to maintain the de- pendence of 1 Peter upon James. Brückner, Z/WTh. 1874, S. 530 ff., Chronol. Reihenfolge, 60-66 ; Pfleiderer, 868, and others, have attempted to prove the converse. We may decide confidently for the first-mentioned view, if for no other reason than that the author of 1 Peter, in his attitude toward other N.T. books as well, particularly toward Romans and Ephesians, shows himself as one whose tendency is to appropriate the ideas of others without possessing any marked literary individuality of his own (see § 40 below). No one can deny that James has a consistent style, with a bold and even rugged character of its own. To come to details, a superficial comparison of 1 Pet. i. 6f. with Jas. i. 2-4 shows unmistakable similarities: 1. ἀγαλλιᾶσθε -- πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε; 2. λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς -εὅταν ποικίλοις περιπέσητε πειρασμοῖς ; 3. τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως. But while James, following Jesus’ example (Matt. v. 12; Luke vi. 22f.), calls upon those who suffer to regard their still continuing trials even now as a matter for rejoicing, 1 Peter, at least in the beginning (for contrast iv. 13a, 16), tones down the thought to this, that, over against the tribulations which seem now to have their right, there will be joy for the Christian at the Parousia. For the connection of ev 6 with ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ, the contrasted ἄρτι, and the comparison of i. 8 and iv. 130, make it certain that ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, i. 6 and ver. 8, have a future sense, even if it may not be permissible to construe ἀγαλλιᾶσθε directly as an Attic future = ἀγαλλιάσεσθε (cf. Schmiedel-Winer, Gramm. $ 13, A. 5; but also A. Buttmann, Ntl. Gramm. 8. 33 end [Eng. trans. p. 38]). Note, further, the difference in the use of τὸ δοκίμιον. James used it, as Paul also understood him to do (p. 128 above), in the sense of a means of testing (=dorıpeiov, cf. Orig. Exh. ad Mart. 6, ed. Berol. viii. 1, δοκίμιον οὖν καὶ ἐξεταστήριον τῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀγάπης νομιστέον ἡμῖν γεγονέναι τὸν ἑστηκότα fal. eveornköra] πειρασμόν). In] Peter, on the other hand, the word is treated as the neuter of the adjective doriwos=dörıpos (cf. Deissmann, N. Bibelst. 86-90 [Eng. trans. 259-262]), “the tested, genuine,” and so practically= δοκιμή, “approvedness.” But if 1 Peter is convicted here of dependence upon James, one cannot escape the feeling that James was before the writer’s thought from the very beginning. It is not that the word διασπορά, 1 Pet. i, 1, Jas. i. 1 is peculiarly significant, but the constant transfer to the Christian Churches of the characteristics of Israel, and especially of the Jews living in the diaspora (§ 38), seems like an amplification of the thought sug- gested in three words in Jas.i.1. The idea of being born of God (Jas. i. 18) reappears in more detail in 1 Pet. 1. 23-25, and in addition the passage Isa. xl. 6-8, which is only hinted at in Jas. i. 10f., is utilised here in more extended quotation. As Jas. (i. 19 ff.) follows the mention of new birth with the exhortation to attend repeatedly to the word whose quickening power has been thus experienced, so we find in 1 Peter. Cf. Jas. 1. 21, διὸ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν. .. τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι with 1 Pet. ii. 1, ἀποθέμενοι οὖν πᾶσαν. εἰς σωτηρίαν. "While James speaks of this constant need of receiving the word in terms which would apply equally well to the first acceptance of the gospel, 134 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Peter takes pains to bring out the distinetion by adding to James’ figure of birth through the word a reference to the readers as newborn babes, Even the admonition to put in practice that which has been heard (Jas. i, 22-25) follows soon enough, in 1 Pet. ii: 11ff. It is applied by Peter in substance only, with entire independence and in a way adapted to the circumstances of his Gentile readers, but there are echoes of James even here: 1 Pet. ii, 16, eXevdepoı=Jas. 1. 25, τῆς ἐλευθερίας ; 1 Pet. ii. 11, ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν Emı- θυμιῶν αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς -- 985. iv. 1, ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμών τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν. Prov. iii. 34 is cited in 1 Pet. v. 5 pre- cisely as it isin Jas. iv. 6 (ὁ θεός instead of κύριος, LXX); with itis connected (1 Pet. v. 6) the admonition to humility which follows more briefly in Jas. iv. 10, and finally in 1 Pet. v. 8, 9 the exhortation to resistance of the devil, which Jas. iv. 7 inserts between the quotation and the admonition just mentioned. Thus we have again quite a complex of ideas and expressions in which the two Epistles coincide. If Jas. v. 20 follows in the main the Hebrew text without regard to the LXX (above, p. 120), the similarity of 1 Pet. iv. 8 cannot be accidental, 1 Peter, however, which adopts from the original the ἀγάπη omitted by James, has again (as in i. 24) gone back directly to the O.T. passage suggested by James’ reference, and thus given a different turn to the thought. It is plain that the author of 1 Peter was well acquainted with James, and had read the letter reflectively. The fact that he often alters its antiquated—strictly speaking, its primitive Christian—style to the more developed modes of expression current in the Churches founded, and thus far trained, by Paul and his associates, does not justify Spitta’s argument (201) that he knew James only as a Jewish, not as a Christian, writing. The absence of all allusion to the section Jas. ii. 14-26 no more calls for explana- tion than does the fact that 1 Peter has no echo of the thundering rebukes addressed to the merchants (Jas. iv. 13-1 7) and the landowners (Jas. y. 1-6). It is perfectly evident that not everything that James had to say to. believers of his own race (e.g. v. 12) would apply to the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor, For these the section ii, 14-26 was quite useless; it could not be transformed into the language of the Pauline Churches without perverting it to its opposite, while the appropriation of it but in part could only have con- fused such readers, and frustrated the main object of the Epistle as set forth in 1 Pet. v. 12. 4. (P. 128.) Clem. 1 Cor. x. 1, ᾿Αβραὰμ 6 φίλος προσαγορευθεὶς πιστὸς εὑρέθη ἐν τῷ αὐτὸν ὑπήκοον γενέσθαι τοῖς ῥήμασιν τοῦ θεοῦ. 17. 2, ἐμαρτυρήθη δὲ μεγάλως ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ φίλος προσηγορεύθη τοῦ θεοῦ. The mere designation of Abraham as a “lover of God” would not show that Clement had read. Jas. ii, 23 (above, p. 120f.); but, like James, he speaks (twice, indeed) of the bestow- ment of this title as an historical event, and emphasises the proof of Abraham’s faith through acts of obedience (x. 1), while in the same connection (x. 7) he cites Gen. xy. 6 quite as it appears in Jas. ii. 23, and recalls similarly the offering of Isaac (x. 6). When Clem. xxx. 2, like Jas. iv. 6 and 1 Pet. v. 5, quotes Prov. iii. 34 with ὁ θεύς, instead of κύριος as in the LXX, there is, besides a dependence on James or 1 Peter, still a third possibility, namely, that in early times there may have been a text of. the LXX with ὁ θεός. That in reality Clement followed James appears from the fact that immediately after- ward in xxx, 3.he writes ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι, καὶ μὴ λόγοις ; and it is the more THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 135 certain that this goes back to Jas. ii. 21, 24, since there, too, works are con- trasted with a λέγειν, Jas. 11. 14, 16. The same contrast is drawn in Clem. xxxviil. 2 (ὁ σοφὸς ἐνδεικνύσθω τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐν λόγοις, GAN ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς) in a way which reminds us of Jas. iii. 13, cf, ii. 1ff. That an admirer of Paul acquainted with his Epistles should venture at all to speak of justification through works, could hardly be explained unless he were emboldened by another authority. Clement was aware, too, of the difference between Paul’s type of teaching and James’, for it cannot but appear that he was undertaking to reconcile the two when, shortly after the reference to James (xxx. 3), he attributes Abraham’s blessing to the fact that he exercised righteousness and fidelity through faith (xxxi. 2, cf. Jas. 11.22, ἡ mioıs συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ), then maintains that the devout of all ages have been justified not of themselves, but by the will of God ; not through their works, but through faith(xxxii.3f.); and, finally, in setting forth the necessity of works arrives at the formula (xxxiv.4): προτρέπεται οὖν ἡμᾶς πιστεύοντας ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, μὴ ἀργοὺς μηδὲ παρειμένους εἶναι ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν: Cf, Lightfoot, St. Clement, ii. 100. Similarly Clement combines the πίστει of Heb. xi. 31 with the ἐξ ἔργων of Jas. ii. 25 when he writes (xii. 1), διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώθη Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη. The like could be said of Clem. xlix. 5 (ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, ἀγάπη πάντα ἀνέχεται, πάντα μακροθυμεῖ κτλ.) as compared with Jas. v. 20 and 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 7, were it not that the word ἀγάπη points primarily to 1 Pet. iv. 8 (p.134above). But itis highly probable that Clement was influenced at the same time by Jas. v. 20 also, since in 1. 5 he mentions love, as James does, as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins for oneself. 5. (P. 129.) On Hermas and James, cf. Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, 1. 339 ; the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 396-409; GK, i. 962; Hofmann, vii. 3. 175f.; Taylor, JPh. xviii. 297 ff. As early as in one of the Greek catenz (Cramer, viii. 4), Herm. Mand. ix. is quoted in connection with Jas.i.6. The assertion often heard, that the proofs of the dependence of Hermas, upon James are not forthcoming, is valueless so long as one will not take the trouble to refute the thorough presentation of the actual facts, which cannot well be repeated here, and whose place, moreover, cannot be supplied by a table of citations (like that in Feine, 137). In answer to Pfleiderer’s verdict (868) that Hermas is the earlier of the two, it is quite sufficient to remark with Mayor (exliii.f.) that one might with as good right declare Quintus Smyrnzeus older than Homer, or any present-day sermon older than its text. 6. (P. 129.) We are probably to assume that James was known to Irenzeus (GK, i. 325); the Marcosians (Iren. i. 13. 6), whose leader belonged in Syria, and was principally active in Asia Minor (GK, i. 729, 759) ; Justin (@K, i. 576; Mayor, 1xi.), who became a Christian in Ephesus and wrote in Rome. It is possible, too, that the echoes of James found in the old sermon known as Clem, 2 Cor. are not all to be accounted for by the large dependence of the preacher on Clem. 1 Cor.and on Hermas, but are derived from an independent acquaint- ance with James. Clem. 2 Cor. iii. 4-iv. 3 is quite in James’ spirit. Further, ef. Clem. 2 Cor. xv. 1, xvi. 4, and ii. 5—7 with Jas. v.19f. In the case of xvi. 4, however, 1 Pet. iv. 8 and Clem. 1 Cor. xlix. 5 (see above, n. 4) come still closer. Of. also Clem. 2 Cor. xx.3 with Jas. v. 7. Mayor, liv.—lvi., gives a long list of correspondences between, Test. XII Patr. and James. Nothing is absolutely 136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT conclusive, and until greater certainty is attained with regard to the time and place of this book in its present form, more definite testimony, even, would be of little value. In the pseudo-Clementine literature, which esteems the bishop James so highly (above, pp. 103, 108 f. n. 5), we look for more points of contact with James than we find. Kern, 56-60, and Schwegler, i. 413, 424, have decidedly exaggerated the kinship of ideas which they maintain. Even Feine, too (81 f.), adduces parallels, which on closer examination show only the radical difference between James’ thinking and this Ebionitie tendency (see also § 8, n. 4). The chief points deserving consideration would perhaps be these: the modification of Matt. v. 37 in conformity with Jas. v. 12 in Clem. Hom. iii. 55, xix. 2—especially iii. 55 (ef. xvi. 13), the mention of those who say ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πειράζει, and appeal to the Bible for support, with which ef. Jas. i. 13. Further, in Hom. v. 5 it is said of the demons, that they, when exorcised by the names of the higher angels, φρίττοντες εἴκουσιν; cf. Jas. ii. 19 and p- 121, n. 10. Reminders of Jas. i. 18 may perhaps be found in Hom. ii. 52 Σ BLMT, of Adam, ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κειρῶν κυοφορηθείς. $ 8. DIVERGENT VIEWS. Of those who accept this as the letter of James the Just, there are always some who hold that he wrote it toward the end of his life, somewhere about the time of Paul's imprisonment in Rome (n. 1). But the chief ground on which this assumption rests, namely, James’ sup- posed polemic against Paul, or against an abuse of Pauline doctrine, is itself an untenable hypothesis (above, p. 125 f.); while, if it be held that the letter was addressed to the entire Church at a time when the Church was still almost entirely Jewish (above, p. 92), it is absolutely necessary to give up the hypothesis with the dating of the Epistle that it involves. Even granting that it is possible exe- getically to take Jas. i. 1 as an address to Jewish Christians outside of Palestine, there is no reasonable explanation of the entire absence of reference in the letter to the relation which in the year 60 many, in fact most, of these Jewish Christians sustained to their more numerous Gentile Christian neighbours and to. their Gentile surroundings. Equally inexplicable is the letter’s entire silence about the significance of the Mosaic law, a question which, if the testimony of the times can be trusted, was still agitating the minds of all affected by it THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 137 (n. 2). That all these great questions should be passed over in a letter written in the year 60, particularly in a letter in which the fulfilling of the law, and of the entire law, is repeatedly spoken of, and the proposition polemie- ally maintained that men are justified by works and not by faith alone, in which, moreover, there is shown a grasp of the readers’ practical situation, is historically impossible, to say nothing of the cowardice it would evidence on James’ part to ignore so completely the well- known author of the principles which he combats. In fact, it is impossible to explain how such Pauline watch- words and interpretations of particular passages of Scrip- ture (Gen. xv. 6) could come to exert such a dangerous influence among James’ immediate associates, among men who were zealous for the law (Acts xxi. 20; Gal. ii. 12), and in circles which mistrusted Paul, and sought every- where to arouse the same mistrust in others. If, on the other hand, contrary to his agreement with Paul (Gal. ii. 9), James presumed to warn Gentile Christian Churches quite outside his own acknowledged sphere of influence against misunderstanding or abuse of Pauline formule, he must at least have done so directly by a fundamental setting forth of the true doctrine, and not by a few incidental, furtive hints. Such a halting, weak, and cowardly polemic would be more comprehensible if it had come from someone who, unwilling in his own name to vouch for his convictions, preferred to assume deceptively the mask of James, long since dead. For this reason the majority of those who hold James to be the product of the post-Pauline develop- ment of the Church, admit frankly that it is pseud- epigraphic. The earlier Tiibingen school found in this letter a presentation of a toned-down Jewish Christianity, tending toward the Catholic Christianity of about 150. This presentation they understood to have grown out of the opposition to Paul’s doctrine of justifica- 138 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tion conceived as detrimental to practical Christianity (n. 3). But a Jewish Christianity of this sort is a phenomenon, the reality of which cannot be proved historically ; it is wholly imaginary, constructed from writings declared to be pseudonymous without any care- ful investigation of their historical character. The real Jewish Christianity of the post-apostolic age, the Jewish Christianity which, according to the testimony alike of Ignatius, Barnabas, and Justin, and of the Ebionitic literature, concerned itself about Paul and the general progress of the Church, never ceased to insist that Gentiles should observe the Jewish law, with allowances, to be sure, but always this particular law, and the Jewish manner of life determined by it. Nor did this Jewish Christianity ever cease to hate and to persecute Paul on the ground of his hostility to Jewish institutions, and on the ground that he taught men to disregard the law, at the same time ignoring his doctrine of justification, which was looked upon as a harmless theory. These objections hold also against the theory of Weizsiicker, who dates the letter after the death of James, assigning it to the time when the Church was leaving Jerusalem. He regards it as a product of Palestinian Jewish Christianity at the time when this had begun to develop in the direction of Ebionitism ; Jewish Christianity, ‘‘shut up against Gentile Christians,” “ with no course open but that of resignation,” takes up Paul’s teaching, adopts very essential ideas from it, and at the same time subjects its principal doctrine to “a mild, almost conciliatory criticism,” but nevertheless rejects it most decisively (n. 4). According to Pfleiderer (865-880), James has very close affinities with the Shep- herd of Hermas, both being products of the “ practical catholicism” of the post-Hadrianic age; it combats, the intellectualism of the Gnostics or Pneumatics (Jas. Π]. 5), the antinomianism of Marcion (iv. 11), and the tendency to worldliness on the part of the more well-to-do Chris- THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 139 tians. In view of the situation in the Roman Church, the condition of which he had primarily in view, but in view also of the general situation in the Church at large, to which the letter was addressed, the author condemns Paul himself with those who had fallen into all sorts of errors, ostensibly because of the emphasis they put upon the idea of faith and upon Paul’s doctrine of justification (above, p. 125£.). While Pfleiderer very quietly passes over all those facts, which, as we saw, point to the Church of Palestine and the adjoining regions as the home of author and readers, von Soden (HA, ui. 2. 160 ff.) con- tends there are things in the letter which indicate the Jewish origin of author or readers. There is thus great diversity of opinion as to the conditions actually presupposed by the letter; but all who believe that it could not have been written by the ᾿ distinguished James of Jerusalem are very generally agreed that it was meant to pass as his work. The perfectly artless way, however, in which the author introduces himself is very much against this assumption that the letter is a literary fiction. A later writer, passing himself off for James the Just, if he were like other writers of this kind whose work is preserved. in literature, would certainly have called himself the brother of the Lord, or the head of the Jerusalem Church, or have indicated in some way that he was the great contemporary of the apostles. He would have been all the more likely to do so, because there was more than one James of dis- tinction in the early Church (n. 5). Such a writer would never have begun his letter with an address so simple and so nearly like those used in secular literature, when he had before him apostolic writings of earlier date in which was a fixed model for the sort of greeting which might be appropriately used by. an apostle or by one of apostolic rank, In keeping also with the simple dignity of its beginning is the entire literary character of the letter, 140 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the peculiarity of its style, and the elear impression which it gives of the character of the writer. In the literature of the early Church, admitted to be pseudepigraphic, there is nothing that can be even remotely compared with James. And in cases where opinion is divided as to whether a writing is spurious or genuine, the character- istics mentioned always argue strongly in favour of genuineness. A class of pseudo-writers possessing origin- ality and genius, and able to write in a dignified, crisp, and pithy style, has never existed. Nor, as a rule— certainly not in the literature of the early Church—are these pseudo-writings without some discernible purpose, which explains why a particular röle is assumed. If, for the purpose of teaching or rebuking his contemporaries, someone found it advantageous to pass himself off as the distinguished James, then the end which he had in view must have been such that the personality of James, as the recollection was retained in the tradition, would have lent especial weight to what he said. But the con- tents of the Epistle are absolutely against this presup- position. It does not bring out a single one of those characteristics by which James is distinguished in history and legend; there is nothing to suggest the brother of the Lord, the first bishop of Jerusalem, the Israelite clinging with tenacious love to his people and to the temple, the strict observer of the law who was in high favour with the Judaistic party, and the ascetic, severe beyond what the law required of him. All that does appear is the strong personality of an earnest Christian who might have had these peculiarities. Moreover, ancient pseudepigraphie writings are never free from tell-tale anachronisms, things which can be avoided only through the aid of archzeological science, which at that time was unknown. No anachronisms have been discovered in James (n. 6). The thing which strikes one as peculiar about the Epistle is not the evidence of its late date, but THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 141 the absence of clear indication that the author and readers had drunk of the new wine of the gospel at all. This impression is at the basis of the hypothesis recently advanced by Spitta, which he thinks solves all the difficulties. | According to Spitta’s theory, James is a purely Jewish writing, dating from either the first century after or the first century before Christ, and given the superficial appearance of a Christian writing simply by the later addition of the phrases καὶ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (i. 1) and ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (ii. 1, n. 7). This letter has come down to us only through Christian channels, and in Christian circles has always passed as the work of a dis- tinguished Christian of the apostolic age. Moreover, according to the text of the letter as we have it, the author calls himself a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, indicating also that a belief in the same Lord Jesus or in His glorification is an essential part of his readers’ faith. For these reasons it has always been regarded as a product of Christian thought. If Spitta is right, it simply shows how little real progress the art of criticism has made in spite of its long history ; but when he (p. 8) calls the opinion which heretofore has prevailed a hypo- thesis built wpon rotten foundations, it only goes to show how far he himself is from standing upon the foundation of a criticism that is sound and just. Anyone trying to judge from the point of view of sound criticism can readily see that this new hypothesis, supported as it is by exegesis for which the word bold is mild, has not been worked out by its author into a clear, historically grounded view. If it were, how possibly could Spitta compare the work of this supposed Christian interpolator with the interpolations and verbal changes in Jewish writings known to have been introduced by Christian hands (p. 56)! Books like the Jewish Sibyllines, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Ascension of Isaxch, and many others which have been handled in this 142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT way, were originally written with a view ‘to deceiving the credulous. It was the honourable names of remote antiquity and of Israel's past that made these works inter- esting, and made them seem credible, first to Jews and then to Christians; and it was this that brought about their adaptation to the changed conditions and the differ- ent religious point of view of the Christian reader. No attempt was made to give them the appearance of Chris- tian writings, but the desien was, rather to make these supposed representatives of bygone ages and of different stages of religious development prophets of Christian truth. Or, take the case of a work by an author of dis- tinguished name, such as the author of the Jewish James is supposed to have been. The person who changed Josephus’ Antiquities so as to make it a witness for Christ, apparently inserting also the remark about the death of James, the brother of Jesus, was not foolhardy enough to attempt the making of the Jew Josephus over into a Christian. On the contrary, everything depended upon Josephus’ remaining a Jewish historian of the time of Jesus, whom by his insertion the interpolator designs to make an impartial witness of the wonderful greatness of Jesus. ‘The interpolator was careful to make Josephus retain his historical Jewish character. This manifest intention on his part is not affected in the least by the fact that he did not understand that character better, and that he was not able permanently to deceive persons trained in methods of historical criticism. The Latin writer who slipped the name Jesus into the place of the original Christ in the Jewish apocalypse known as the Fourth Book of Ezra (vii. 28), had no idea of making this alleged Ezra a disciple of Jesus in spite of the distin- guished name which he bore, and in spite of the ehron- ology; he simply meant to make a work which passed for that of the original Ezra still more beautiful and still more edifying to Christian readers, by putting into Ezra’s THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 143 mouth an unmistakable propheey conceming the Jesus whom the Christians accepted as Messiah. The procedure of the Christian interpolator of James would, however, have been just the reverse. For by the insertion of seven words he is assumed to have deceived the Christian world in all ages, learned as well as unlearned, concerning the religious character of James. Taking the work of a Jew named James, a person entirely undistinguished in history, and inserting these seven words, but leaving it otherwise unchanged, the interpolator leads every unsus- pecting reader to say at once, as a matter of course, “This was written by a Christian.” If the writing seemed to him to be good reading for Christians, as it was, why did he treat it in a manner different from the way in which the Proverbs of Jesus Sirach or the Wisdom of Solomon were treated in the early Church? If he felt it necessary to subject it to a Christian revision, why did he content himself with adding to it two Christian con- fessions which only serve to make its pre-Christian or un-Christian character all the more glaring? The work of this supposed interpolator is as inconceivable as it is unparalleled. Indeed, the character of the entire hypo- thesis may be judged from the fact that its author does not feel under any necessity whatever to tell us the motives for the interpolation, nor to indicate the con- ditions under which it was made. If Paul was acquainted with James when he wrote Romans in Corinth at the beginning of the year 58, and if Peter was familiar with the work when he wrote from Rome to Christians in Asia Minor in 63 or 64, at that time the letter must have been already widely circulated in the Church. But this makes it extremely improbable that a Christian interpolation made subsequently should have had the general acceptance in the Church which, from all we know of the history of James in the Chureh, must have been accorded it. Moreover, the manner in 144 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which Paul refers to James shows that it was known by him and by the Roman Christians of that time to be the work of a distinguished Christian teacher (above, p. 126 £.). But the assumption that this Christian interpolation was made as early as 50-60, during the lifetime of James of Jerusalem, and the supposition that even Paul was de- ceived by it, hardly requires refutation. Furthermore, the impression which we get of the Jewish writing and of its author after these seven words are stricken out, is in the highest degree fantastical. Without any apparent _ authority for doing so, a Jew addresses the entire Jewish nation, or, as Spitta understands the “address,” all the Jews in the dispersion, in the superior tones of fatherly advice and of prophetic condemnation. Possibly before the destruction of the temple this might have been done by a high priest in Jerusalem, or, after the year 70, by the recognised head of one of the schools, as Gamaliel the younger. Earlier than this, such a letter might have been sent in the name of the whole body of Jews in Palestine, represented by the Sanhedrin, through the autocratic head of this body (n. 8). But for a Jew named James, with no other credentials than the claim to be the servant of God, to have written such a letter, would have been to expose himself to ridicule. Generally, persons not in any recognised position of authority who felt called upon to preach to their fellow-countrymen in this way, preferred to suppress their own names entirely, and to write in the name of Solomon, or Enoch, or Ezra, or Baruch, or even of the Sibyl or Hystaspes. Moreover, it is an error to suppose that a letter with these contents could have been addressed by a Jew to his countrymen. To begin with, there were no twelve tribes in the dis- persion, so that the words ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ (i. 1) must also be a Christian interpolation (above, pp. 74f, 79). The idea of divine birth through the word of truth, 2.e. through the soul-saving word of divine revelation read THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 145 and preached in religious services (i. 18-21, n. 7), made its first appearance upon Christian soil. So also did the conception of a moral law, which, as distinguished: from the imperfect law that had been in force heretofore, is perfect; and in contrast to a law which compels and enslaves, is ἃ law of liberty; which, finally, in view especially of its principal commandment—love for one’s neighbour, is called a law for kings (i. 25, ii. 8, 12; above, p. 115f.).. Although it is true that quite independently of Christianity the Jews esteemed faith very highly, the thought that one may be rich in such faith even in this world, and an heir through faith of the promised kingdom of God, is a Christian thought (ii. 5). It needs also to be proved that, before Jesus’ time (Matt. v. 12), and inde- pendently of Him, a Jew could have exhorted his readers not only to endure suffering and temptation with patience and hope, but to discover in them as well a source of pure and proud rejoicing (Jas. i. 2, 9). But, what is most significant, the folly combated in Jas. ii. 14-26 of sup- posing that faith of itself, without being manifested or proved by works, can save, is a possibility only as the preaching of Jesus is presupposed ; while the careful proof of the proposition that a man is justified in consequence of works and not of faith alone, by which this folly is combated, would have been superfluous for Jewish readers. So, then, the entire result of this bold attempt to interpret James as the product of Judaism before it came into contact with the gospel, is simply to re-emphas- ize the thought how deeply this first piece of Christian literature is rooted in the soil out of which it sprang originally, namely, the Jewish Christian Church of Pales- tine. Its genuinely Israelitish character, and the absence from it of that ecclesiastical language with which we are so familiar, and which was a development out of the Pauline gospel, are the strongest possible proofs of the correctness of the interpretation which led us to assign the letter to VOL, I. Io 146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT a time prior to the apostolic, council, and. of the truthful- ness of the tradition which ascribes its composition to James of Jerusalem. 09 It was at the suggestion of this same James that the apostles and elders of the mother Church, gathered. in Jerusalem in the winter of 51-52, sent the communication preserved in Acts xv. 23-29 to the Gentile Christians in and about Antioch. It is of interest to note that the discourse of James, preserved in this passage, which re- sulted in the communication to the Churches, shows very striking resemblances to the letter which James had written in his own name only a few years—perhaps only a single year—before (above, p. 119, n. 7). Regarding the genuineness of this document, it will be necessary to inquire in connection with the question about the sources of Acts. All the other writings originating in the Pales- tinian Church and meant for this Church belong to a date considerably later, and take for granted the inde- pendent development of the Gentile Christian Church concerning which we get our information from the letters of the great apostle to the Gentiles (n. 9). | 1. (P. 196.) For example, Kern, Kommentar, 65 ff., 82 ff.; Wiesinger, 36 ff.; Feine, 57 ff., 89f. The last named, without entering on a discussion of the idea and wording of the salutation, claims that the Epistle was originally a discourse addressed by James to “the Palestinian Church ” (the local Church of Jerusalem, more properly), a homily which he afterwards allowed to eireu- late in the form\of ἃ, letter among “ the believing Jews of the dispersion,” or also among the mixed congregations, in Syria probably, composed of both Gentile and Jewish Christians (95, 97, 99). The local colour would thus be explained by the original destination of the document, and the alleged inap- propriateness of its “address” by its subsequent use. But how shall we ex- plain the thoughtless indolence which led James to set down his opinions in a form quite unsuited to the wider audience, or, if the homily was already in writing, to have it copied mechanically without adding a few words at least to indicate to the new readers that he was submitting to their consideration a discourse originally intended for quite different people? Other letters, indeed, were soon enough current beyond the circle to which they were first addressed, without the addition of a new heading (ef. Col. iv. 16 ; Polye, ad Phil, xiii, 2). But in this case we are asked to suppose that James confined his efforts in a new edition to the preparation of an address which, in its general terms, as Feine himself holds (97), did not correspond at all tc THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 147 the actual destination of the Epistle now in view, Compared with: this it would be almost preferable to accept Harnack’s bold hypothesis. (TU, ii, 2, 106-109), that in this, as in other general Epistles, the salutation is a false heading attached later, because the authority of the old writing could be maintained only by connecting it with the name of an apostle. Apart from the absence of positive proof of such a state of affairs, this conjecture must be set aside, first, because the celebrated James was not considered an apostle in the second century or for some time thereafter. In the second place, whoever sought to preserve or heighten the dignity of the Epistle by attaching the false heading, would either have pointed to the well-known James by describing him as the brother of the Lord, or bishop of Jerusalem, or the like, or else have assigned the authorship to one of the two apostles of that name, in which case he would have had to designate him as such. In the third place, the connection between χαίρειν, Jas. i. 1, and πᾶσαν χαράν, i. 2 (see p. 117, n. 3 above), shows that both greeting and text’ are from the same hand; cf. Spitta, Der zweite Brief d. Petrus, 26-30, 475. The attempt to evade this difficulty by declaring (Harnack, 108) that in this instance only the words Ἰάκωβος . . . δοῦλος are a later insertion, and what follows is genuine, cannot be justified by the bold assertion that a greeting which does not mention the writer’s name is just as complete as the opening of the Epistle of Barnabas or the Didache, which have no greeting at all. Harnack has recently (Chron. 485-491) declared the entire greeting to bea label attached towards the close of the second century, and the whole letter a compilation, prepared probably before 150, from various discourses of an unknown but “ vigorous” teacher. 2. (P. 137.) From the period following the apostolic council and the heated controversy in Galatia, indications of the continued friction between Jewish and Gentile Christianity in many various forms are to be found in such passages as 1 Cor. xvi. 22 (i, 12, iii. 16-23, ix. 1f., xv. 115 ef. § 18); 2 Cor. 1. 17-iv. 6, v. 11-16, xi. 1-xii. 13; Rom. ii. 11-iii. 8, iii. 29-viii. 17, xiv. l-xv., 13, xv. 25-33, xvi. 4; Col. ii. 6-111. 11, iv.10 f. ; Phil: i 14-18, ili. 2 ff.; 1 Tim. i. 3-11; Tit. i. 10, 14, iii. 9—Acts xxi. 18-26.—Ign. Magn. vili-x ; Philad. vi-ix ; Smyrn. i (cf. the writer’s Ignatius v. Ant. 359 ff.) ; Barn. ii. 6, iv. 6, ix.-x. 15 ; Just. Dial. xlvi-xlviii (GK, ii. 671); the Anabathmoi of James, Epiph. Her. xxx. 16=Clem. Recogn. i. 55-71, and the whole pseudo- Clementine literature. 3. (P. 138.) Baur, Paulus,? ii. 322-340 (all thought of genuineness already set aside on account of the writer’s familiarity with the Greek language and modes of thought, 335); Christentum der drei ersten Jahrh. 122 f. (somewhat earlier than the Pastoral Epistles). Schwegler, i. 418: “In any case it was not written earlier than the Clementine homilies” [which cannot be shown to have existed before the third century]. Schwegler’s remark (i. 437), that the view that James was not opposing Paul directly, but a misconception of the Pauline doctrine, was “in itself a most absurd hypothesis,” did not deter Baur from adopting that view in his presentation of the subject. 4, (P. 138.) A more definite impression than that outlined above cannot be gained from Weizsacker’s shifting and altogether inconclusive reasonings (Apost. Zeitalter, 364-369, 671). When we read that Jas. iii. 6 shows the writer's acquaintance with Greek literature, and that iii. 1 ff. warns “against 148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT all sorts of wisdom-teaching” (366), Hilgenfeld’s treatment of the passage (Hinl. 535 f.,539, n. 2, see p. 121 f. above) seems to be regarded as an adequate exegetical foundation. Yet Weizsäcker goes even beyond Hilgenfeld, in his claim (368) that not merely false wisdom is combated in Jas. iii, 1-13, but all striving after wisdom of any sort. It would be folly to argue against such wisdom as this, and useless to point to Jas. i. 5, iii. 17. It is alleged further (367), that James’ attitude toward rich and poor is Ebionitic, and presupposes that Ebionite modification of the first part of the Sermon on the Mount which, we are told, appears in Luke. Now the cardinal principle of Ebionism is (Clem. Hom. xv. 9) πᾶσι τὰ κτήματα ἁμαρτήματα, Whereas James follows Jesus (Matt. xiii. 22) in considering the cares of poverty no less a temptation than the deceitfulness of riches, and urges the wealthy Christian not to dispose of his goods, but to make his boast of lowliness (i. 2-11, see p. 86). In Jesus’ usage the conception of πτωχοί is derived, as we know, from Isa. lxi. 1 ; οἵ, Luke iv. 18, vii. 22 ; Matt. xi. 5; also Matt. v.3; Luke vi. 20, and accordingly, even without the explanatory τῷ πνεύματι, Matt. v. 3, it corresponds to the Hebrew omy, cf. ZKom. Matt.2 177 ff. Those who cannot see this should at least take account of the fact that the Ebionites saw fit to substitute πένητες, a word of quite different signification, for the scriptural πτωχοί, and then again, afterward, were obliged to guard by arbitrary addi- tions against too gross a misconception (Clem. Hom. xv. 10, ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν πιστοὺς πένητας ἐμακάρισεν). Again, we are told (366) that the Epistle has no “dedication,”—in spite of the opening greeting,—because “the address mentions only an ideal body like the one hundred and forty and four thousand of Rev.”! In this way the “address,” which may not be counted a “dedication,” is left without any explanation whatever; and, further, Weizsäcker overlooks the fundamental difference, that James addresses the twelve tribes of his people as his brethren, and discusses with no little thoroughness their social, moral, and religious condition, with which, of course, Rev. vii. 1-8 has nothing to do. Neither Weizsäcker nor Hilgen- feld, whose view is that the letter was written by an Eastern Jewish Christian in the reign of Domitian (540 f.), explains why the “facile” use of Greek (which, in their judgment, makes the composition of the letter by James impossible) should be more conceivable in the case of a Jewish Christian of Palestine in the episcopate of Simeon than it would be some twenty to forty years earlier, circa 45-50 A.D. 5. (P. 139.) We have a spurious letter of James (translated from the Armenian by Vetter, LR, 1896, 8. 259), which begins, “James, bishop of Jeru- salem, to Quadratus,” etc. ; ef. also Clement, ed. Lagarde, 3, Πέτρος Ἰακώβῳ τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ ἐπισκόπῳ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας κτλ. ; 6, Κλήμης Ἰακώβῳ τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ ἐπισκόπων ἐπισκόπῳ, διέποντι δὲ τὴν [ev (2)] Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἁγίαν Ἕβραίων ἐκκλησίαν κτὰλ., and the other recension (Patr. Ap., ed. Cotelerius-Clericus, 1724, i. 617), “Clemens Jacobo, fratri Domini et episcopo episcoporum,” ete. Cf. also the spurious letters of Paul, @K, ii. 584, 600, and the letter of John in the writer’s Acta Jo, Ixiii. 2. On the curious self-concealment of the author of Protevang. Jac. see GK, ii. 775. 6. (P. 140,) It is hardly necessary to say anything about the comfortably arranged meeting-places (ii. 2) and the Church organisation (v. 14) which, we are sometimes told, shows an advanced stage of development ; see Hofmann’s THE EPISTLE: OF JAMES 149 brief and excellent remarks, vii. 3. 157 f. In particular, the confidence with which healing efficacy is attributed to prayer, without leaving a place for the physician, as in the parallel passage Sir. xxxviii. 9-15, points to high antiquity. As to the use of oil, above, p. 122, π. 11. The opinion repeatedly expressed that such distressing conditions as James censures might indeed appear in Christian communities thirty, sixty, or one hundred, but not twenty years after Jesus’ death, cannot be historically substantiated. We have no right to think of the Jewish Christians, among whom even before 35 there were such murmurings as are reported in Acts vi. 1, and such occurrences as that described in Acts v, 1-11, as above all need of serious reproof, Certainly not, when perhaps only a few months after the composi- tion of this letter, men among them were asserting themselves to whom Paul denied all right to be in the Church (Gal. ii. 4), and whom James, disowned as unwarranted disturbers (Acts xv. 19, 24). If the errors which James rebukes are thoroughly Jewish (p. 90f.), then, as uneradicated vestiges of pre-Christian thinking, they are most comprehensible at an early period. Paul found, more practical. heathenism to correct in the newly founded Church at Corinth than the leaders of the post-apostolie time found in their Churches. The historical picture of the early Churches, whether of Jewish or of Gentile origin, becomes unintelligible only when the rebukes ad- ministered to individuals and for individual misdeeds are generalised, and we assume in preachers of such deep moral earnestness as James or Paul, Isaiah or Jesus, the equanimity of an ethical statistician. 7. (P. 141.) Spitta supports his hypothesis in a commentary on James (14-155), the value of which lies in its citation of parallels from Jewish, especially Jewish-Greek, literature, not in its interpretation of the text. The latter can be illustrated here in a few examples only, but in passages which are fundamental to the conception of the book as a Jewish product. With regard to the “address,” see above, pp. 73, 80, n. 8. Spitta understands i. 18 not of the new birth of the Christian, but of the creation of mankind (45). But that the creative word of God should be referred to as “a word of truth” instead of being characterised in accordance with the power which is shown in creation (cf. Heb. 1. 3; Wis. xviii. 15; Clem. 1 Cor. xxvii. 4; Herm. Vis. i. 3. 4), is hardly credible in itself, and is contrary to the usage both of the Old Testament, where the “word of truth,” signifies the revelation given to Israel (Ps. cxix. 43, cf. vv. 30, 86, 138, 142,160), and of the New (Eph. .1..18.; 2 Tim. 11. 15; John xvii. 17; οἵ, Clem. Hom. Epist. Petri, ii.). "The impossibility of this interpretation appears from the con- text, since the word spoken of in i. 18 must be identical, as Spitta himself recognises (48, 50), with that which is read and heard in public. worship, 1, 19-25. But the assertion that James tacitly identified this soul-saving word with the word of creation, is one which the exegete should not venture, unless the text somehow indicated this mistaken conception ; and even then the choice of phrase in i. 18 would be as unmeaning as it is unparalleled. In order to make it possible to refer ii. 14-26 to controversies within Judaism, and to prepare for that, conception of πίστις as Jewish orthodoxy, which in commenting on, iis, 14 (72) is put forward as a matter of course, we are asked to understand, the word in the same sense in i. 6, where it plainly denotes the spiritual attitude of the worshipper (ef. v. 15), against 150 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT whose lack of childlike trust in God even i. 5 is directed. For proof of the incredible we are pointed to i. 7, according to which the doubter also expects to receive something from God,—as if one who was certain that he should obtain nothing from God by prayer could be called a doubting petitioner, or would still pray at all. The very fact that he wavers between fear and hope, between desire and distrust, makes him a διακρινόμενος. With regard to ii. 14-26, exegetical agreement is practically out of the question, as Spitta (79) without sufticient reason assumes a lacuna’ at an important point (see p. 98 above). But he has not succeeded in finding in Jewish literature a single example of the view opposed by James, that faith saves of itself apart from works. Even in the passages from 4 Esdr. which he cites (75), which indeed have sometimes been taken as showing traces of contact with Christian thought, there is nothing in the least similar —not so much as an antithesis between works and faith. While Spitta' (54) explains τέλειος as an attribute of the law, i. 25, in contrast with the laws of heathen nations, he overlooks the contrast much more sharply emphasised by the very wording of the passage, which calls this law the law of freedom, and thinks he has accounted for this Christian idea as Jewish by referring to the well-known Stoic phrases about the wise and virtuous which are found in Philo, and to the saying of a certain rabbi Joshua of the third century after Christ in the Appendix to the Pirke Aboth vi. 2: “No one is free but him who devotes himself to the study of the Thorah.” So also does he fail to comprehend the use of the same term in ii. 12; for the idea that the law is there spoken of as a law of liberty because it puts forward no impossible requirements, and in order to represent the judgment as reasonable or lenient (70), is plainly at variance with the phraseology of ii. 13 (ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος κτλ.» ποῦ ἡ δέ, or, better, ἀλλά). Then, too, aside from the possibility of explaining the contents of James from the Jewish standpoint which he claims to have established in his commentary, Spitta holds that the seven words which mark the writer as a Christian may be recognised as disturbing interpolations. Though Christians are often enough referred to in the N.T. now as servants of God (1 Pet. ii. 16; Tit. i. 1; Rev. xix. 2) and now as servants of Christ (Gal. i. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 22; Rom. i. 1; Phil. i. 1 ; Rev. i. 1, ii. 20), the combination of the two terms in Jas. i. 1, being a solitary instance, is said to be suspicious. But if Paul and the author of Revelation used the two conceptions interchangeably, why might not James combine them, just as in 2 Pet. i. 1 we find the two titles servant and apostle of Christ united ? These latter Paul commonly uses by turns (Gal. i. 1, 1 Cor. i. 1 on the one hand, Phil. i. 1, Tit.i. 1 on the other), in combination but once (Rom. 1. 1), and even then in a form unlike that of 2 Peter. We see from 1 Cor. viii. 6 and Eph. iv. 5 f. how little fear the early Christians had that they might appear either to be serving two masters or obliged to choose between two, God and Christ. In faith, in worship, and in service, God and Christ for them were one. This finds striking grammatical illustration in 1 Thess. iii. 115° Rev. xxii. 3; and for the same reason 6 κύριος is not infrequently a title which stands above the distinction between God and Christ, 1 Thess. iii. 12; Rom. x. 9-15. Until examples are brought forward, we cannot believe that a Jew without office or honours would have ‘intro- duced himself to his readers as a “servant of God”; and no one will find THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 151 passages like Ezra v. 11, or the use of the formula “thy servant” in prayer, Ps. xix. 12, Luke ii. 29, at all comparable. In Spitta’s opinion (4f., cf. Vorrede, iv), the difficulty which ii. 1 has presented to expositors arises from the fact that the original text τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου τῆς δόξης (to be understood of God) has been obscured by the interpolation of ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (in the sense of 1 Cor. ii. 8). But how are we to conceive that an interpolator, whose important object was to make a Christian book out of a Jewish writing, which, according to Spitta, had already been read and highly esteemed by Paul and Peter, should have used no other means to that end than the introduction at one point of four words which make the passage “unique’-in early Christian literature, and at the other point of three words which constitute a crus interpretum, when it would have been child’s play to avoid both? Here, too, the difficulty of the text is an indication of its originality. Moreover, we cannot see why the words should not be trans- lated, as by the Peshito, Grotius, and Hofmann, “the faith in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” .For the order of words, cf. Jas. ili, 3 (τῶν ἵππων . στόματα) ; Acts iv. 33 (according to B and Chrysost., ἀπεδίδουν τὸ μαρτύριον ol ἀπόστολοι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ] τῆς ἀναστάσεως) ; and for πίστις τῆς δόξης, cf. εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης, 2 Cor. iv. 4; 1 Tim. 1.1] ; ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης, Col. i. 27. 8. (P. 144.) In addition to the writings of Gamaliel, which have been mentioned several times (p. 33, n. 18), cf. 2 Macc. i. 1 and 10; also a com- munication which the Jews of Jerusalem at) the time of Simon ben Shetach and king Alexander Jannai (104-78 B.c.) addressed to the Jewish community of Alexandria in order to bring about the return of Judah ben Tabai (reputed to be the Nasi of that period) who had fled thither, Jer. Chagigah, 77d; Sanhedrin, 23c; and in the same connection, Joel Müller, Briefe wm. Responsen in der vorgeondischen jüdischen Literatur, Berlin, 1886, S. 7, 21— a book in general well worth reading. See above also, p. 106, n. 1. 9. (P. 146.) The letters of recommendation, by means of which the Petrine’ party introduced themselves in Corinth (2 Cor. iii. 1), would be properly considered, if they were extant, among the literary products of Jewish Christianity. Of the documents which have been preserved, 2 Pet., Jude, and Matt. belong here, but probably not Heb. () IM. THE. THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL. § 9. PRELIMINARY CRITICAL REMARKS. Ir is impossible to investigate the letters commonly attributed to Paul without discussing a great many different: opinions. It seems best, therefore, in order to avoid repetition, to preface the investigation proper by a general survey of the history of the various attempts which have’ been made to criticise the Pauline letters cmb ig aa Ä As early as the year 150, Marcion (GK, i. 585-718, ii. 409-529), who held that Paul was the only one of those called apostles who really preached an uncorrupted gospel, found. the collection of Pauline letters in use) by the Church at that time to be in need of a thoroughgoing criticism. There is no hint, however, that Marcion’s view regarding the origin of any one of these letters differed from that of the Church, or that he regarded any one of them as wrongly attributed to Paul, or as an intentional forgery in Paul’s name. Besides the nine letters addressed to Churches, he included in his Apostolicon, or collection of Pauline letters, designed for use in the independent Church which he organised, the Epistle to Philemon. The Epistles to Timothy and to Titus were not in this collec- tion. Whether Marcion was familiar with them, and for some reason rejected them, is a disputed question. But we do know, from the form which he gave the ten letters that he did accept, as well as from the statements of his 152 THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 153 opponents, that he held the form of the Pauline letters current in the Church at that time and later to be the result of a systematic interpolation, Jewish in spirit, and made after the Church had been degenerated by Jewish influences. He undertook to restore the genuine text by cutting out a number of longer sections and shorter para- graphs, by the addition of a few sentences and words, most of which were taken from other passages of Paul’s letters, and by slightly emending the text in numerous places. Marcion was in possession neither of the sources nor of the historical information necessary for such a critical operation; nor did he profess to be. The only criterion which he used, and which sufficed for his Church several centuries afterwards, was his preconception ‘of what was genuinely Christian and so genuinely Pauline. It is readily seen how it was easier for the Church to refute Marcion’s criticism of the Pauline documents, lacking as it did all historical basis, than it was for it to get rid of the fundamental idea upon which this criticism was based, namely, the irreconcilable contradiction between Christianity and Judaism, —an idea which has sinee come to the front more than once in a variety of forms. What critical investigations of Paul’s letters were made by the early Church was not the result of historical or linguistic inquiry into the letters themselves, but simply of ‘the fact that. the differences in tradition and: opinion which had long existed in different parts of the Church ‘entered gradually into the consciousness of the Church at large. Thus from the third century we have such a’ process taking place with reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which ‚was regarded as) Pauline and canonical in some sections, but not by any means in all. So also in the fourth century a similar process took place with reference to Philemon, which was not included in the collection of Pauline letters used by ithe Syrian) Church (GK, ii. 997-1006)., Whether or not the appearance of spurious 154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Pauline letters, two of which are mentioned | in” the Muratori Canon, particularly whether the acceptance and subsequent rejection. of an apocryphal Third Epistle to the Corinthians in the Syrian Canon, occasioned critical dis- eussion, we do ποῦ know. Though in discussions of! this kind occasional. reference was made ‘to’ the style and contents of the) questionable letters, the discussion of such references belongs rather in the history of the’Canon than in a history of the theological investigation of the Pauline letters:; still more 80. the statement of the con- clusion with which the entire Church was finally satisfied. The tradition regarding the Pauline letters, which in its essential points existed even before Marcion’s time, which was substantially accepted by him, and which, after some question had been raised: with reference to a few ‘points, finally prevailed through the entire Church, remained prac- tically unquestioned up to the beginning of the last century. The question of the origin, sources, and trustworthiness of the Gospels had been heatedly discussed for decades before there was the least question about the genuineness of any of the Pauline Epistles. Doubts expressed by Evanson in his critique of the Gospels in 1792 made little impression (n. 2). «When, in 1807, Schleiermacher asserted with great positiveness that 1 Tim. was spurious, serious-minded people asked “ whether perhaps the whole was not a mete lysus ingenü, a game of wit and ingenuity, just to see how far critical Pyrrhonism could be carried and still retain a, semblance of truth” (n. 3). When, however, F. Chr. Baur, a man whom) no one could suspect of joking about things scientific, subjected all the extant Pauline letters to criticism in the light of his new and compre: hensive theory about the development of Christianity in the apostolic age, concluding that only Gal., 1 and 2 Cor.) and Rom, (excepting chaps. xv. and Xvi.) were genuine, the whole Pauline, question became one of the utmost importance (n.4). It was a great mistake on the part THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 155 of those who found that they could not follow Baur in his rejection of Pauline Epistles, or who could not accept his results regarding them all, that they raised no question about the genuineness of the Epistles which Baur did accept, although Baur and his followers never attempted any proof for their positive critical conclusions... Since no effort was made by critics to set forth the reasons which compelled historical investigators to accept some of Paul’s letters as genuine historical documents, or to show the scope of these reasons, we are not surprised when Bruno Bauer declares that: all the Pauline Epistles are spurious, written between the years 130 and 170; and when a later school of Dutch erities, working independently of Bauer, question and finally deny the genuineness of all the Pauline writings (n. 5). The. position of the critic is' not an enviable one, who, by denying the genuineness of all the documents associated with a distinguished name, and the essential trustworthiness of all the early traditions concerning these documents, deprives himself of a fixed and common standard by which he may test what seems doubtful. What is spurious can be tested only with reference to what is acknowledged to be authentic, and if criticism is to obtain any positive results, it must be based upon historical data acknowledged to be trustworthy. We need not inquire whether it is from this consideration primarily, or because of the irresistible impression that the character of the life portrayed in the Pauline letters is such as could not have been produced second-hand, that criticism of the sort which simply denies everything is not making headway at the present time. Consequently, at the present time all the more atten- tion is being paid to that type of criticism of which Marcion is still the best example. “When in doubt about any point, the critic satisfies his own mind by assuming an interpolation, and so. avoids depriving himself of the necessary basis for the critical process, as he would do if 156 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT he denied the’ genuineness of all his traditional sources and facts. Attempts: in this direction were’ made‘ by Herm. Weisse and F. Hitzig in Germany: More recently this method has been pursued chiefly in Holland (n. 6). ‘Another method followed by many is that suggested first by J. 8. Semler... Certain inequalities which are thought to, exist between different parts of the same letter, it is assumed, can be explained by supposing that when the» separate letters were first copied, or when they were gathered into a collection, either by oversight or intention, parts became dislocated and: confused, so that sections were) united in a single document which originally did not belong together. ' Inasmuch as we have not the means at our command for restoring the text of Paul's letters, and the N.T. text generally, so that every sentence and every word is established beyond all doubt, the process of text criticism is largely identical with the process, of the higher, literary, and historical criticism. The more important of the critical attempts made along these various lines we shall have occasion to notice in conhection with the investigation of the separate Epistles. Here a few considerations of ἃ more general character may be stated briefly. 1. The early date of all Paul’s Epistles, except that of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, is comprehensively and strongly attested by Marcion’s Apostolscon. That Marcion,, who withdrew from the Roman Church and became the head ofa separate organisation, probably in the year 144, did not himself write any one of the Pauline letters in his collection, is clear from the fact that, in the year 180, the Catholic Church accepted.all the ten docu- ments in Mareion’s Apostolicon as Pauline, and used them, in their religious services: Now it is simplyim- possible to suppose that any of these could have been borrowed from this “firstborn son of Satan” by a Church whose}, bishops and their faithful followers summarily THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 157 rejected Marcion’s teaching and treatment of the apostolic writings. The probability is that Marcion accepted these ten letters as Pauline from the Church in which he grew up, and, after making some changes in them, adopted them in his own Church. His acceptance of the Pauline origin of these letters, his criticism of single points in the tradition regarding them, e.g. regarding the traditional address of the Ephesian letter (§ 28), the belief which led him to make a new recension of the text, namely; that all the copies of the Pauline letters extant in his time con- tained a text which had been corrupted by the Church, finally his abandonment of the attempt to base his text recension on old and uncorrupted documents, all go to show that in 140-150 there was no suspicion in the Church of the recent date or sudden appearance of any of the Pauline letters. That these Epistles should have been written during Marcion’s lifetime, or after the year 110, is therefore out of the question. 2. A comparison of Marcion’s text of the Pauline letters with the text used in the Church, shows that Marcion found a number of readings which, in the course of the transmission of the text in the Church, have been re- placed by other readings. But, leaving this difference out of account, it is clear that in plan, general contents and compass, the Pauline letters which Marcion had before him were substantially the same as the letters which have come down to us. He found chaps. xv. and xvi. already a part of Rom., and chaps. 1.- χη]. of 2 Cor. form- ing a single letter. Hence it follows that all important changes in the order and structure of the letters must have been made before the year 110. 3. Difference of opinion still exists regarding the date of a great many early Christian writings, e.g., that of the letters of Ignatius, the Hpistle of Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache. Even a work which is so thoroughly attested, and which can be so definitely dated as Clement’s so-called First Epistle to the Corinthians, is sometimes brought down 158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to a later period. But, allowing for this uncertainty, we have still a sufficiently large number of Christian writings, admittedly belonging in the period between 90 and, 170, from which to form a definite idea as to the thoughts which were uppermost in the mind of the Church during this period, and the spiritual forces which were at work, Perhaps it would be too, much to say that this literature shows a general decline from the high standard of apostolic Christianity, especially from, the strikingly original teachings of Paul. But so much is clear, that there is nothing in the literature of 90-170 comparable in character to what we find in the letters of Paul accepted by Marcion, or to the ideas which these letters were meant to refute. How little this age was in a position even to understand Paul's thoughts, is quite as evident in the case of Marcion and of the school of Valentinus as in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the earlier apologists, such as Aristides and Justin. It is absurd to suppose that a Christian living in the year 100 or 130, with interests so different from those of his age, and so superior to his contemporaries in the compass:and depth of his thought, should. have given no expression to his ideas except under a false name, and in letters dated back into the past. The Pauline letters must therefore have been written prior to the period of transition between the first and second centuries. 4. Before a denial of the genuineness of this collection of letters, or of separate parts of the same, can command general assent, it must be shown to be made in agreement with the principles derived from a careful study of the literature of the early Christian Church, which is acknow- ledoed to be pseudepigraphic. |. Here we have, besides the apocryphal letters of Paul already mentioned, some other letters (n. 7), some fragments of the ancient “ Preaching of Peter,” the apostolic legends of the second and third centuries, and the pseudo-Clementine literature. ΑἹ] THE ‘THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 159 these are similar in character to the pseudo-Pauline litera- ture. The conclusion of an unbiassed comparison must always be, that even the least important and the most suspected of Paul’s letters show characteristics altogether the opposite of those in this literature, which, leave no intelligent reader in doubt as to its fictitious character. 5. It has not always been clearly realised what difh- culties are in the way, not so much of the composition of letters of this kind, as of their successful forgery and circulation. From 2 Thess. ii. 2; 111.17, it may be inferred that even in Paul’s lifetime, letters were put into circulation which were falsely attributed to him; but it is to be remembered at the same time that the forgery was almost immediately detected (§ 15). Then, as now, spurious letters, if written with any expectation of permanently deceiving people, could not be put into circulation until after the death of the alleged author and readers. With the exception of Philem., 1 and 2 Tim., and Tit., however, Paul’s letters are addressed to Churches which had a continuous life. Though there is proof enough of the fact, if it were necessary to adduce it (n. 8), it goes without saying that up to the close of the first century there were Christians living in Corinth and else- where who had been members of the Church during Paul’s lifetime. 1 confess that I cannot conceive how a letter, purporting to be Paul’s, and addressed to the Corinthians, the Thessalonians, the Philippians, or the Colossians, could have been actually written and put into circulation between the year 80 and the year 100, and yet have been received and accepted in these various localities. Then the older members of these Churches must have made themselves believe that the letter, which now came to light, had been sent to them by the apostle himself thirty or forty years before, and yet had been entirely lost sight of up to this time. Special difficulties arise from the occurrence in many 160 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of these letters of a great many significant personal refer ences (1 Cor. i. 14-16, xvi. 15-17 ; Col. iv. 9-17 5 Philem. ΤΕ. 10; Phil. i 25-80, ἵν: 2 ἢ. '189’Rom. 'xvil 15:99} Even if, as is extremely improbable and contrary to what is usual in pseudepigraphic literature, the forger was well enough acquainted with conditions in the several Churches to employ only names of‘ persons’ who were actually members of these Churches during Paul’s lifetime, and to assign them their proper röles, such very personal remarks, greetings, warning exhortations, and injunctions of | the apostle, which never reached’ the persons for whom they were intended, must have been read by these‘ persons, or if they were dead, then by their relatives, with the greatest interest and with no little astonishment. Every mistake which the writer made in these matters—and a person writing thus in Paul’s name could hardly have avoided making some— tended during the generation after Paul’s death to make the forged letter appear in the highest degree ridiculous, at least in the Church to which it was addressed, and so absolutely to preclude its accept- ance by such a Church. And as a matter of fact, so far as we know, this was actually the fate of the spurious letters put out in Paul’s name. And these spurious letters were certainly written later than the canonical letters of Paul, even assuming that the latter are spurious, at a time when one might expect the Churches to which these letters are alleged to have been sent by Paul to be more easily deceived. The third letter to the Corinthians never found acceptance in Corinth, but only in the far East, among the Syrians and Armenians. LHarly Chris- tians in Alexandria and Asia Minor seem never to have known anything about the spurious letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians. The first mention made of them is by a Roman writer, and in the case of the letter to the Alexandrians this is the only mention. ‘Such com- pilations could never be widely accepted, for the reason THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 161 that the Churches to which they are allesed to have been sent, and from which alone they could be success- fully circulated, never did and never could accept them. 6. The same reasons which make it improbable that the spurious letters to the Churches purporting to be from Paul were put into circulation between the time of the apostle’s death and the time of Marcion, argue just as strongly against the assumption that the letters which Paul did write to the Churches were materially altered during the same period. Such alterations are usually associated with the gathering up of Paul’s letters into a collection, and changes generally supposed to have been made in the text are explained as due to the fact that the letters were circulated only in the form of a collection. Such a hypothesis presupposes that up to the time when the letters were collected, and so passed into general circulation, they remained quite unnoticed and were not much copied. But this in turn, an assumption of itself, is improbable, and contrary to plain facts. That Paul’s letters made a profound impression at the time when they were written, and did not remain without influence until they were accepted by the Church as Holy Scripture, is clear from the N.T. itself. Besides Paul’s own hints (2 Cor. x. 9-11) and that of 2 Pet. iii. 15 f.,—a passage generally assigned to a much later date (§§ 42, 44),—we have as proof the fact that the author of 1 Peter, which was written in Rome, certainly before the close of the first century and probably in 63 or 64, had read Ephesians and Romans, and was influenced by them in the com- position of his own letter (§ 40). What is expressly enjoined in one case in Col. iv. 16 must have happened in other cases where there was no express direction, and Churches which were in communication with one another must have exchanged the apostle’s letters very soon after they were received. It is hardly likely that Paul’s letters VOL. I. II 162 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT created less interest than the hastily written Epistles of Ionatius to the Churches in Asia Minor, for which request was made of the bishop of Smyrna by the Church in Philippi shortly after the martyr passed through that eity (Pol. ad Phil. 13). Moreover, we know that in the post-apostolic age Churches made a great deal of any special relations they had had with particular apostles, and letters addressed to them were regarded as being of special importance (n. 8). An idea like this, which determined the whole development of the Church, could not have grown up suddenly, nor could it have been the immediate effect of the introduction of a collection of the letters of Paul or of any apostolic writings. If, as is more probable, the making and general circulating of such col- lections presuppose an interest in the apostles and the writings they left behind them, then there is no reason to doubt that before the collection was made, which Marcion found in existence, Paul’s letters to the Churches had been much copied and circulated. In particular, there is no reason to doubt that in the Churches which could boast that they had been the first to receive them, such letters were not forgotten. But in that case it is next to im- possible that in the process of gathering Paul’s letters to Churches into a collection, which afterwards passed into general circulation, material changes should have been made in the text. Such alterations must have been made before the letters began to be copied and circulated in this’ way; but at that stage in their history such alterations are not at all likely to have been made. In making these general statements, the purpose has been to establish a certain degree of confidence in the tradition according to which nine of the N.T. writings are letters of Paul addressed to different churches, and to create a general mistrust of attempts of one sort and another to replace this tradition by theories which do not themselves hang together. THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 163 1. (P. 152.) The present writer has discussed several aspects of the matter more fully in the Z/KWuKL, 1889, 5. 451-466, “Die Briefe des Paulus seit fünfzig Jahren im Feuer der Kritik.” 2. (P. 154.) E. Evanson (The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evidence of their Authenticity Examined, Ipswich, 1792,.—a work not to be found in Erlangen or Munich, but cited on the authority of Hesedamm,—ef. n. 6, p. 1) accepted of the Gospels only Luke, omitting chaps. i. and ii.; and of Paul’s letters rejected Rom., Eph., Col. as spurious, questioning also Titus, Phil., Philem. 3. (P. 154.) With regard to SCHLEIERMACHER, see below, $ 37, n. 1. The opinion quoted in the text was expressed by H. Pranck (and in the name of other scholars also), Bemerkungen über den ersten paulin. Brief an Tim., Göttingen 1808, S. 256. 4. (P. 154.) F. Cur. Baur (1792-1860) began his critical work on the N.T. with an essay on the Christ party in Corinth (TZfTh. 1831, S. 61ff.). A criticism of the Pastoral Epistles followed (1835, see 8 37, n. 1), and various essays which are to be regarded as preliminary studies for his Paulus (1845, 2nd ed. in 2 volumes, published by Zeller, 1866-1867). H. THIERSCH in his Versuch zur Herstellung des histor. Standpunkts Für die Kritik der ntl. Schriften, 1845, a work issued at about the same time, and still worth reading, could not, of course, take Baur’s Paulus into consideration, and touched upon the criticism of the Pauline Epistles only in his chapters on the heresies mentioned in the N.T. and on the Canon. J. Cur. K. v. Hormann, however (1810-1877), in his last and unfinished work, Die heilige Schrift NT’s zusammenhängend untersucht (i.-ii. 3, 1862-1866, 2nd ed. 1869- 1877 ; ili.—viii. 1868-1878 ; ix.-xi. published by Volck, 1881-1886), chose as the starting-point in his historical and exegetical investigations of the N ΕΣ primarily the Pauline Epistles, in opposition to Baur (i. 60). 5. (P. 155.) Br. Bauer, Kritik der paul. Briefe, 3 parts, 1850-1852 ; Christus u. die Césaren, der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem römischen Griechentum, 1877, S. 371 ff. Doubts of the authentieity of Galatians were expressed by A. Prerson in Holland, De Bergrede, etc., 1878, p. 99 ff. A.D. LoMAN, Questiones Pauline in ThTjd. 1882 ff., and R. STECK, Der Gal. nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst krit. Bemerkungen zur den paul. Hauptbriefen, 1888, followed with greater confidence and more detailed argument, with some dependence also on Bauer. In opposition to Steck, cf. J. GLOEL, Die jüngste Kritik des Gal. auf ihre Berechtigung geprüft, 1890, and the writer’s essay (S. 462-466), mentioned in n. 1 above. 6. (P. 156.) Cur. H. Weisse, Beiträge zur Kritik der paul. Briefe an die Gal., Röm., Phil., Kol., published by Sulze, 1867. F. Hırzıg, Zur Kritik paul. Briefe, 1870, belongs here also, on account of his hypothesis with regard to Col. and Eph. (S. 11-33, see § 29 below). The same Prerson who gave the first impulse in Holland to the denial of the genuineness of all the Pauline Epistles (n. 5), had at the time remarked on the possibility that their difficulties were to be ascribed to an interpolator. While Loman went further in the first-named path, Prerson, in collaboration with the philologist Naser, pursued the second: Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem NTi exemplts ulustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt A. Pierson et 5. A. Naber, 1886. The obscurities and contradictions of this account of the origin of the Epistles, 164 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT as based upon able Jewish writings appropriated and redacted by an ignorant Churchman, may be due in part to the fact that two different minds were at work in this critical effort, as well as (supposedly) in the writings with which it deals. Cf in opposition Kunnen, Verisimilia? ThTjd. 1886, S. 491-536, and the present writer’s essay (S. 458 ff.) mentioned in n. 1 above, Another work to be mentioned here is D. VOLTER’s Die Komposition der paul. Hauptbriefe, 1. Röm. u. Gal., 1890, in which a genuine Romans (i. 1a, 7, v. 6, 8-17, v. and vi., xii. and xiii., xv. 14-32, xvi. 21-23) is extracted from the shell of the traditional Epistle, which is held to have acquired its present form by a fivefold interpolation and the addition of a letter addressed to Ephesus, Rom. xvi. 1-20. Galatians, according to this critic, has suffered only minor interpolations ; but even so is the work not of Paul himself, but of a Paulinist of a later period. On Völter’s treatment of Philippians see § 32. C. CLEMEN, Die Einheitlichkeit der paul. Briefe an der Hand der bisher mit bezug auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und Kompilationshypothesen, 1894, gives an outline of all attempts in this direction. Worth reading, also, is the pseudonymous essay of an American theologian, Der Röm. beurteilt u. gevier- teilt, eine krit. Untersuchung von CARL HESEDAMM, 1890 [Romans Dissected, by E. D. M‘Realsham=Charles M. Mead]. 7. (P. 158.) With regard to spurious letters by James and to James, see above, p. 148, n. 5; spurious Pauline Epistles, GK, ii. 565-621. The principles referred to above the present writer has already developed, and supported by examples, in his Ignatius, 529 ff., especially 537-541; and to some extent, indeed, in his Hirt des Hermas, 70-98. 8. (Pp. 159, 162.) Clem. 1 Cor. xliv. 3-6, the presbyters appointed by the apostles at Corinth, some of them still living. Fortunatus, chap. Ixv.=1 Cor. xvi. 17, see ὃ 18, seems to have been one of these. On the relations of the several Churches to the apostles and on apostolic letters, see Clem. 1 Cor. xlvii.; and on chap. v. see § 36 below ; also Ign. Eph. xi. 2, xii. 2; Rom. iv. 3; Polye. ad Phil. 111. 2, xi. 3; ef. GK, i. 807, 811 ff., 839. § 10. THE HISTORICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS AND THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. Since it is impossible to determine beforehand what is understood by Γαλατία, to the Churches of which the letter is addressed (i. 2, iii. 1), the only thing to do is to gather from the letter itself what historical information it has to give with reference to the origin and early development of the Churches to which it was sent, the relation Paul sustained to these Churches, and the occasion which led to the composition of the letter. These Churches had been established by Paul’s own preaching (i. 8). From him they received the gospel THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 165 (i. 9). He recalls now with sorrow the labour he had bestowed upon them (iv. 11), and remembers with a feel- ing of sadness the joyful reception he had had among them when for the first time he came to them with the preaching of the gospel (iv. 13-15). He calls them his own children, with whom he is again, like a mother, in travail (iv. 19); speaking manifestly in the same sense in which, addressing another Church, he speaks of himself as their father who had begotten them (1 Cor. iv. 15). "This does not, of course, preclude the possibility of Paul’s having had the support of one or more helpers in his work among the Galatians (cf. 2 Cor. i. 19). That this was actually the case is proved by the plural εὐηγγελισάμεθα (1. 8, n. 1). When in iv. 13 f. Paul says that it was on account of physical illness that he first preached the gospel among the Galatians,—an illness that might have made him repul- sive to those who heard his preaching,—of course he does not mean to say that this was the primary motive of his preaching, but only that it was this circumstance that kept him in this region for a sufficient length of time to preach the gospel to these particular persons (n. 2). From this same passage we learn also that Paul after- wards revisited the Galatian region and preached the gospel there a second time. In those instances where Paul reminds the Galatians of something that he had said to them previously, there is no way of determining abso- lutely whether it is to be referred to the first or to the second visit. . On the first visit he must certainly have declared that scandalous living excluded one from the kingdom of God (v. 21, ef. 1 Cor. vi. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 2, 11; 2 Thess. iii. 10). But he preached the gospel also on his second visit, and so had occasion to re-emphasise this primary rule. It may not have been until his second visit to the Galatians that he had occasion to warn them against permitting themselves to be circumcised, and against preachers of a false gospel (n. 3). Even if he 166 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT did warn them on the second visit, the occasion for it could not have been the condition of the Galatian Churches, still less so if the warnings are to be referred back to the earlier visit; for the letter begins with a strong expression of surprise that the Galatians had turned away so quickly from the real and the only gospel of Christ, and had suffered themselves to be per- suaded by certain troublesome preachers to accept a cari- cature of the gospel. This introduction and the tone of the Epistle throughout show that shortly before writing Paul had been surprised by the report of the first appear- ance of these teachers, and of the rapid success of their work, Consequently they must have come among the Galatians in the interval between Paul’s second visit and the writing of this letter, and they must have been still ab work when he wrote. This latter point is proved by the use of present tenses in i. δ ἢ TV bee Throughout the letter these false teachers are distinguished from the memhers of the Churches addressed, and charged with being their seducers (ὦ “Foitliy ΧΗ 29-31, v. 7,10, 12, vi. 128). There is no hint anywhere that they belonged in the Galatian Churches (for this distine- tion ef. 1 Cor. xv. 12; Acts xx. 30 with Acts xx. 29). Paul does not resist them as if they were settled teachers, who as members of the Churches were doing things which to him seemed injurious, but he treats them as if they were preachers of a false gospel, 6. missionary preachers who dogged his steps and invaded the Churches which he founded. In the Galatian Churches, as in all the Pauline Churches of which we know anything, there were some native Jews, a necessary assumption if Gal. iii. 26-29 is to have a natural explanation. But he is writing with the large majority of the members in view, and with reference to the character which he himself had impressed upon them, so that he treats them throughout as Gentile Christians. Not only is this clear from single passages THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 167 such as iv. 8f., 11. 5 (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, cf. 11. 2, ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ; 11, 8, eis τὰ ἔθνη), 111. 29, v. 2, vi. 12, but it appears also from the character of the questions discussed throughout the letter. On the other hand, the preachers of what can only falsely be called a gospel are Jews, by birth, through circumcision, and in spirit (iv. 29-31, v. 12, vi. 12-17). The comparison which Paul makes in iv. 21-31 between his opponents and himself by contrasting the spiritual with the fleshly descendants of Abraham, referring to the earthly Jerusalem as the home or mother of the latter, and to the heavenly Jerusalem as the home or mother of the former, is very far-fetched, unless these Jewish Chris- tian missionaries had come into Galatia from this earthly Jerusalem. This supposition is favoured by what we know of similar disturbances in the Gentile Christian Churches (Acts xv. 1, 24; Gal. ii. 12; 2 Cor. ii. 1, § 18). As indicated by the plurals in i. 7, iv. 17, v. 12, vi. 12£., there were certainly a number of these missionaries who came to the Galatians, so that in all probability they had a prearranged plan, entering the various Churches simul- taneously, and doing their work in concert. That one of their number acted as a leader is not unlikely ; but there is no hint of it in the letter, and it certainly cannot be inferred from the one singular ὁ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς in v. 10, much less from the form of the questions in iii. 1, v. 7. From the first main dimsion of the Epistle, i. 11-11, 14, which is principally historical and apologetic in char- acter, we learn that these Jewish missionaries had criti- cised in an unkindly manner his missionary work and his life history since his conversion, hoping thereby to undermine the confidence of the Galatian Churches in their founder, and so to gain foothold for their own teaching, which they represented as a more perfect form of the gospel. They must have made it appear that immediately after his conversion Paul accepted a position quite subordinate, and entirely dependent upon the earlier 168 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT apostles, and also that at the so-called apostolic council he submitted to the decision of his superiors in Jerusalem. So, they argued, the independence with which Paul worked among the Gentiles was an unjustifiable preten- sion on his part, while the radical departure from the practices of Jewish Christians in Palestine, which Paul not only permitted in the Churches under his influence, but for which he himself was directly responsible, was nothing less than a degeneracy from Christianity as originally taught. It is implied in i. 10 that in his effort to please men, 1.6. to make the gospel palatable to the Gentiles, and to make as many converts as he could in his missionary work, Paul abridged the gospel in some of its essential points, and preached it to the Gentiles only in a mutilated form. What it was that Paul’s opponents wanted to substitute for his presentation of the gospel, essential parts of which they claimed Paul had left out, we learn from the second main division of the letter (ii. 15-iv. 11), in which Paul de- velops his own doctrine, and from certain portions of the third main division (iv. 12-vi. 18), which is largely hort- atory. They insisted that the Mosaic law, which they re- garded as God’s chief revelation, was to be for all time the rule of faith and practice in the Church of God. Therefore, if they were to be saved, Gentile Christians must submit to its demands. First of all they must be circumeised (v. 2, vi. 12f.); and, in order to become real Christians, sanctified and fully qualified members of the Church of Jesus, they must become proselytes of righteousness and accept Judaism. This was the position taken by those Pharisaie Jewish Christians from Palestine, the coming of whom to Antioch made necessary the apostolic council (Acts xv. 1,5; Gal. 11. 4). At the time when this letter was written, the persons holding similar views who had gone among the Galatians do not seem to have succeeded in inducing a single Gentile Christian to accept cireum- THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 169 cision, though they had made a deep impression. All the Churches seem to Paul to have been bewitched (iii. 1), and their prosperous growth interfered with (v. 7). All the Galatians have suffered themselves to be disturbed (1. 7, v. 10), and are even on the point of turning away from the only gospel of Christ (i. 6, iii. 3). Their con- fidence in Paul is shaken (iv. 12-20). The observance of Jewish holy days and feasts seems to have become quite general (iv. 9f.). Many, at least, were contemplat- ing further steps in the same direction (iv. 21). Although these foreign Judaisers were wise enough to assume a certain appearance of liberality by not demanding at once from the Gentile Christians a complete observance of the law, so that Paul himself was compelled to call attention to this inevitable consequence (v. 3), yet with regard to one point, namely, the necessity of being circum- cised, they made no concessions. The worst was to be feared. Since Paul does not seem anywhere to be uncertain with regard to the facts and conditions among the Galatians which are presupposed and discussed by him, it is hardly possible that his information was derived solely from private sources, letters and oral statements of individual Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 1. 11, xi. 18). On the other hand, also, nothing in the letter gives evi- dence that it is an answer to a writing sent to Paul in the name and by direction of the Churches, cf. ZKom. Gal. 8. It is much more probable that accredited repre- sentatives of the Galatian Churches had come to Paul to obtain a decision on the question, which had not yet been decided. Of them he could have inquired also concerning everything which they had not reported to him of their own accord. Otherwise he could not have written this Epistle without first asking for an explanation of the surprising things that were going on, or without express- ing doubt as to the truthfulness of the reports that had 170 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT come to him. The guestio fact between him and his readers is settled. Therefore, assuming the facts, he proceeds at once (1 6) to pass judgment upon them, beginning with a passionate remonstrance in which attack and defence are almost inseparably blended. Although, as we learn in this Epistle, he was even at that time in the habit of dictating his letters, this one was written entirely by his own hand, a fact to which he calls his readers’ atten- tion (vi. 11, n. 4). On this occasion, when he needed to throw the entire weight of his personality into the waver- ing balance, to address them through another seemed like erecting a barrier between himself and the hearts of the children for whom he had been in travail. And even when he wrote himself, words seemed wooden and unsuited to his purpose. Best of all would it be if he could be present in person and with the emotion of his voice win their half-estranged hearts back again to himself and to the truth for which he stood (iv. 20). It is necessary to assume that he was at such a distance from the Galatians that a journey to them in the near future was out of the question. Otherwise in this passage he must have stated in so many words that at the time a journey was out of the question, with the reasons why it was impossible. From what is said in other letters, one would at least expect him to say something about coming to them in the more remote future (1 Thess. ii. 17-iil. 11; 1 Cor. iv. 18-21, ΧΙ, 34, xvi. 2-73, 20Cor.tix,,4,, xe 2-16, it, (20s Phil. i. 24). How long a period had elapsed since his last visit we are not able to determine from the letter (n. 5), nor is there any indication as to the place where it was written, except that from i. 2f., and the entire absence of special greetings, it may be inferred that no one of the persons who assisted in the organisation of the Galatian Churches was with Paul at the time. In this letter his position is that of an advocate in a process affecting his own person and moving him deeply, and the fact that THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 171 Paul represents the letter as being from all those about him (i. 2) does no more than produce the impression that what he writes is correctly stated, according to the unani- mous judgment of all available persons capable of judging the matter. 1. (P. 165.) That “we,” i. 8 and i. 9 (where reference is had probably to two distinct incidents, $11), is to be taken literally, follows from the other- wise constant use of “I” throughout the Epistle. Special proof of this interpretation is afforded by ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω, which stands in immediate sequence to the plural in i. 9. In spite of the inclusion with him in the address of all the brethren in his company (i. 2),—which cannot be looked upon as a joint authorship,—Paul is the sole speaker throughout the Epistle, as in 1 Cor., in spite of the mention of Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1. 2. (P. 165.) It is not necessary to prove that δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός (iv. 13) cannot designate merely an accompanying situation, as though it read either δι᾽ ἀσθενείας or ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ σαρκός. The text will hardly support the hypothesis of Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. 1893, pp. 62-65 ; St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, 1896, pp. 92-97) that the apostle is here referring to an attack of fever to which he fell a victim in the heated regions of Pamphylia, and on account of which he felt constrained to travel northward to the cooler mountain region of Pisidian Antioch. An attack of malaria must certainly incapacitate one for strenuous exertions of any sort. But when one has recuperated to such a degree as to enable him to preach successfully as Paul did among the Galatians, his convalescence cannot make him an object of aversion, either natural or religious, as was the case with Paul in his first preaching in Galatia (iv. 13 f.). The reference here, as in 2 Cor. xii. 7-9, is rather to another malady, incurable in its nature, and reappearing from time to time. Against Ramsay, but especially in opposition to Krenkel’s assumption (epilepsy), see the medical opinion of Professor W. Herzog (RKZ, 1899, Nos. 10, 11), who thinks it most likely to have been “neurasthenie conditions in consequence of repeated over- exertions and an excessive strain upon the nerve system, combined with periodic nervous pains.” τὸ πρότερον (iv. 13), used as it is with a verb expressing definite action (aorist), cannot designate simply the past, as in John vi. 62, ix. 8, but involves, by way of comparison, a πάλιν or τὸ δεύτερον εὐαγγελίζεσθαι. At the same time, however, it can have no reference to the composition of Galatians so long as εὐαγγελίζεσθαι retains the meaning which it has throughout the N.T., namely, “ to bring the message of salvation to those who do not yet know it, or have not yet received it.” The objection that εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, in the strict sense of the term, could not be directed twice to the same persons, is without point, since Paul in Galatia addressed a number of persons, or rather of congregations—a large circle, in which some heard the gospel during his first and others during his second visit to the province. Even in a local congregation like that at Corinth, we find some who were brought to the faith by Paul and others after Paul’s departure by Apollos (1 Cor. iii. 5). 3. (Ὁ. 165.) madw in v. 3 implies contrast to a declaration of the truth here expressed made before the writing of the Epistle ; for in the Epistle itself 172 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT there is no expression of this truth before this passage. This is even cléarer in the case of ἄρτι πάλιν of 1. 9, especially since we find the plural προειρήκαμεν displaced by the immediately following singular λέγω. © Whom Paul includes with himself in i. 8, 9 depends upon a determination of the exact meaning of TaXaria (see § 11). It has been incorrectly inferred from iv. 16 (Wieseler, Sieffert, ad toc. ; Godet, Introd. 1. 270) that Paul was compelled to utter bitter truths or earnest warnings as early as his second visit to the Galatians,—a conclusion which led to the further assumption that by that time the Judaistic movement had already taken root among the Galatians. In iv. 15-20 Paul sketches his present relationship to the Galatians as con- trasted with his first contact with them described in vv. 13, 14, and again alluded to in the intermediate sentence of ver. 15. In reviewing the letter, which at this point would seem to have reached its conclusion, he discusses the existing state of affairs. The Galatians have forgotten with what enthusiasm they received him when he first came to them (ver. 15a), and how earnest was the expression of mutual love between himself and them as long and as often as he was in their midst (ver. 18). Instead of this now, they permit his opponents to court their favour (ver. 17). Paul, who as he writes feels again the birth throes which the conversion of the Galatians had cost him, stands pen in hand at a loss what to advise them, since he cannot now realise his desire to treat with them in person (vv. 19, 20). He seems now to be their enemy, because he writes them the truth. It is not to the point to say that the Galatians knew nothing of this enmity before reading the Epistle ; for with ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν yéyova—abdive—dropodpa Paul describes his present relation to them, as he himself feels it at this particular moment, and not as they look at it. ὥστε refers back beyond the parenthesis to the ques- tion: “Where is then that gratulation of yourselves?” The question has the force of a demonstrative referring to ὥστε (Kühner-Gerth, ii. 502). So thoroughly has their relationship to Paul been disturbed, that his fearless declaration of the truth in this letter has made him seem their enemy. This is the picture he presents to himself, while at the same time he is conscious of striving for their spiritual life with a maternal love. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 11, γέγονα ἄφρων. The present ἀληθεύων cannot possibly refer to the past of his second visit, as if Paul meant to say that he became their enemy on account of the censures uttered at that time; for it is connected with the present perfect, and follows the question ver. 15a, also in the present, upon which the clause introduced by ὥστε is dependent. Such reference Paul must have expressed by ἐγενόμην or ἐγενήθην (cf. Isa. Ixiii. 10, ἐστράφη αὐτοῖς eis €xOpav,—a passage which otherwise perhaps he had in mind). It would have been also necessary for him to distinguish this second sojourn from the first (τὸ πρότερον, ver. 13). Instead of this, he passes from the first visit (vv. 13, 14) directly to the present moment of his writing (vv. 15-20). 4. (Ρ. 170.) The Were πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί of vi. 11 is certainly not, with Jerome (Vallarsi, vii. 529) and Theodore (Swete, i. 107), to be confined in its reference to the immediately following eonelusion of the Epistle which Paul is supposed to have written in larger characters on account of its importance, or in order to show the fearless spirit with which it was written. Such a limitation would have been expressed as in 1 Cor. xvi. 21; 2 Thess. iii. 17; Col. iv. 18. Moreover, THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 173 the aorist ἔγραψα is never employed—at least in the N.T.—to refer te something which the author is about to write; rather does Paul look back upon the entire letter which is just being closed, cf. Rom. xv. 15, xvi. 22. In the same way we conclude from Philem. 19 that the apostle wrote all of this short letter with his own hand. Anyone accustomed to dictate, and not hindered from so doing by external circumstances, when he deviates from this course, does so because he desires to give to his writing the highest possible personal character. Cf. Ambrosius, Hp. i. 3 (ed. Ben. ii. 753 to the Emperor Gratian): “ Scripsisti tua totam epistolam manu, ut ipsi apices fidem tuam pietatemque loquerentur.” Herein lies the explanation of the πηλίκοις γράμμασιν in this instance. Hofmann, i. 2. 205, has not succeeded in justifying, from linguistic usage, his translation : “Such a large, explieit Epistle I have written to you.” Cf. per contra Acts xxiii. 25; 2 Pet. iii. 1, ἐπιστολήν ; Eph. iii. 3, ἐν ὀλίγῳ ; 1 Pet. v. 12, öl ὀλίγων ; Heb. xiii. 22, διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ; Eus. H. E.i. 7.1, 8¢ ἐπιστολῆς ᾿Αριστείδῃ γράφων περὶ KTA. 5 Ign. Rom, viii. 2, 80 ὀλίγων γραμμάτων αἰτοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, likewise ad Polyc. vii. 3 with παρεκάλεσα. In case the helplessness of the writer, which showed itself in the unusually large characters of his writing, was caused by Paul’s constant manual labour, or by his continuous bodily suffering, or by a recent injury, the reference to the roughly formed large letters, supplemented by τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί, was, at the same time, a proof of the self-sacrificing labour it had cost him to approach as near and as personally as possible to the readers, ef. ZKom. Gal. 277. 5. (P. 170.) It cannot by any means be inferred from i. 6 that only a brief period had elapsed since Paul’s last visit to Galatia—certainly not since the founding of the Galatian Churches, for only when a distinct point of time, from which the rapid introduction of an event is measured, is either distinctly expressed or implied in the statement, does ταχέως acquire the meaning “soon,” e.g. with ἔρχομαι; ἐλεύσομαι, in which the present moment of the statement is the point of time after which the coming is to follow promptly, without delay and at once (1 Cor. iv. 19; Phil. ii. 19, 24). It would not indeed be specially strange if Churches just established and consequently immature, or if Churches that had just been visited by their founder, allowed themselves to be estranged by false teachers ; but such a situation would become intelligible only if we were here reminded of the apostle’s last visit, and of the favourable state of affairs which he found. As a matter of fact, however, Paul represents himself as astonished and incensed at the situation, and says merely that the Galatians have so im- pulsively allowed themselves to be turned in a false direction, and that the Judaisers have needed but little time to secure such a dangerous influence over them. The original sense of ταχύς, ταχέως, ταχινός 18 frequently pre- served, 6.0. 2 Thess. ii. 2; Jas.i. 19; Mark ix. 39; John xx. 4; 2 Pet. ii. 1. $ 11. GALATIA AND THE GALATIANS (w. 1). In order to connect the statements and intimations of Galatians with what is said elsewhere about Paul, it is 174 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT necessary to decide what is meant by ἡ Γαλατία ini. 2 (ef. lil. 1), a question which comes up again in connection with 1 Cor. xvi. 1 and 1 Pet. i. 1 (n. 2). According to the older view, which distinguished scholars still hold, Galatia means the region about Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, which, after the incursions of Celtic warriors in the third century B.C., was called Γαλατία. By others, Γαλατία, in i. 2, is under- stood as referring to the Roman province of that name, which was organised in 25 Β. c., after the death of Amyntus, the last king of the Galatians, From the time of its establishment, the province, the boundaries of which fluctuated greatly, included besides the Galatian region the greater part of the region of Pisidia, Isauria, and Lycaonia, also a portion of eastern Phrygia, though the greater part of Phrygia belonged to the province of Asia. In Asia Minor, as elsewhere, the organisation and marking out of Roman provinces, though furnishing new names, did not by any means displace the old territorial designa- tions. Roman writers, such as the elder Pliny (died 79) and Tacitus (circa 115), also the geographer Ptolemy (circa 150), understood by Galatia the entire Roman province, which, besides other districts, included Galatia proper (n. 8). The question as to which usage is followed by Paul would not for so long a time have been given such conflicting answers, were it not for a tendency, on the one hand, to let Paul’s usage be determined by that of Acts, and, on the other, to interpret the statements of Acts in the light of the Pauline usage. There is all the less excuse for this confusion, since the name Γαλατία does not occur in Acts at all, while the meaning of the peculiar expression (ἡ) Γαλατικὴ χώρα, which is twice used by Luke (Acts xvi. 6, xvill. 23), can be determined only from the context of these passages and from Luke’s usage elsewhere. Now it is clear that, when speaking of Asia Minor and other distriets, Luke employs the old territorial names, whieh do not correspond at all with the divisions and names of THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 175 the Roman provinces, wlıereas Paul never uses any but the provincial name for distriets under Roman rule, and never employs territorial names which are not also names of Roman provinces (n. 4). So that the natural supposi- tion is that ἡ Γαλατία in Gal. 1. 2, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, means the Roman province of Galatia. And this judgment is but confirmed by the fact that in an Epistle written in Rome (8 39), in 1 Pet. 1 1, the name Galatia occurs in a list of names which otherwise consists entirely of names of Roman provinces (n. 3, end). Even admitting that by Galatia Paul could have meant the entire province of that name, some have had difficulty in understanding how the readers could be addressed as Galatians in iii. 1 when the majority of them were not Galatians at all, 1.6. of Celtic stock. But it is to be noticed that both Paul and Luke speak elsewhere of all the inhabitants of a given city or district without making ethnographical distinctions, 6.0). between Jews and Greeks, Romans and non-Romans ; thus, Corinthians (2 Cor. vi. 11), Philippians (Phil. iv. 15), Macedonians (2 Cor. ix. 2, 4; Acts xix. 29), Pontians (Acts xviii. 2), Asians (Acts xx. 4), Alexandrians (Acts xviii. 24), Romans (Acts ii. 10). To take a modern example, no one hesitates at all to call the inhabitants of the regions about Nuremberg and Würzburg Bavarians, although the original stock was Frankish, and although the political union of these people with peoples of Bava- rian stock is not much older than the political union of Lycaonians and Galatians in the province of Galatia at the time when this letter was written. The greater the diversity of nationality in a Christian community, the more natural it was in addressing them to designate them by the customary name of the political division where they lived, which was a neutral term. The question, what is meant by the name Galatia in Gal. i. 2? must be decided ultimately by a comparison οὗ, the historical facts involved in each of these views with 176 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the text of the letter itself. If by Galatia the Roman province is meant, then, of those addressed, the most important, if not the only, Churches are the four which were founded by Paul and Barnabas on Paul’s first mis- sionary journey, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (n. 5). Concerning the first preaching among the readers, mentioned in Gal. iv. 13, we should have a more detailed account in Acts xiii. 14-xiv. 23, and the second preaching of the gospel in Galatia, indirectly but certainly attested by Gal. iv. 13, would be evidenced in reference to these Churches by Acts xvi. 5. For as a result of the visit of Paul and Silas to the Churches founded in South Galatia during the first missionary journey (xvi. 1-5), these Churches were not only confirmed in the faith, but their membership was also increased. With these Churches Paul (Gal. i. 2) must have included also the other Churches which had been organised in other parts of the province in the interval preceding the writing of the letter ; provided there were such Churches in exist- ence at that time, and provided they were established by his preaching. But both are very doubtful. Certainly the second visit to South Galatia was followed at once by a tour through the regions of Phrygia and Galatia, which Paul had not succeeded in reaching on his first journey (Acts xvi. 6); and when it is said that this route was chosen because the Spirit forbade them to preach in Asia, this command did not hold for the regions through which in obedience to this direction they actually passed. It could be taken for granted, therefore, in spite of the silence of Acts, which in xvi. 6 mentions merely a journey of the missionaries through these regions, that Paul and Silas on this occasion preached in Phrygia and a portion of North Galatia; and that the disciples (not Churches, as in xv. 41, xvi. 5, ef. xiv. 23) whom Paul met on the third missionary journey to several places of the same regions (Acts xviii. 23) had been converted by the preach- THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 177 ing of Paul and Silas.on the second journey. But every- one feels the uncertainty of these combinations. And yet, if one connects the name Galatia with the northern portion of the province, the region inhabited by the Celtic tribes, the account of the founding of all the Churches addressed in Galatians must be read between the lines of Acts xvi. 6, and the second: visit must be identified with that. mentioned m Acts xviii. 23. But this in itself-is a serious objection to the latter hypothesis, We do not lay great stress upon the fact that,Gal. iv. 13 presupposes not only a second visit, but also a second preaching of the gospel in Galatia, and that, on the con- trary; in Acts xvill. 23 there is no more reference to a second, than in xvi. 6 to a first preaching in those regions. The thing that makes the hypothesis improb- able is especially the fact that, assuming it, the Churches in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and: Antioch in Pisidia, whose importance is evidenced by the account of their organisa- tion (Acts xiii, 14-xiv. 23; 2 Tim.i. 11), and by the fact that from them come several of Paul’s helpers (Acts xvi. 1, xx. 4), would be left with scarcely a trace of their subsequent development in the N.T. On the other hand, the Churches in the northern part of the province of Galatia, of whose founding we can read something between the lines of Acts, would have in Galatians, in the greeting of 1 Peter, and in the mention of 1 Cor. xvi. 1, witnesses of an ecclesiastical importance, of which the author of Acts could have had no idea whatever... Further- more, it would be strange if Jewish teachers from Palestine passed by such important cities as Iconium and Antioch, where there were Jewish synagogues (n. 6), and where there would certainly be some native Jews in the local Christian Churches, without starting a movement considerable enough to leave some traces of itself in our sources, and still more strange if they made their way to the more remote Galatian region, the Churches of which, according VOL. I. I2 {78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to intimations of Acts, were not important, in order tc oppose Paul’s gospel and influence. This hypothesis also involves difficulties as to the time and place of the com- position of Galatians, which disappear when the other hypothesis is accepted (8 12). Besides, it has against it Paul’s assurance (Gal. ii. 5) that, in the transactions of the so-called’ apostolic council in Jerusalem, he had in mind the readers addressed in Galatians, endeavouring to retain for them the truth and freedom of the gospel (n. 7); moreover, at the time when the events described in Acts xv. took place, the ‘winter of 51-52, Paul as yet had not even visited Galatia proper, the first indieation of such ἃ visit being that in Acts xvi. 6. This of itself is sufficient proof that the ‘Churches of Galatia,” to which the letter is addressed, were primarily at least the Churches of the southern part of the province of Galatia, which ‘were organised prior to the apostolie council on the first missionary journey. This hypothesis ($ 12) gets positive confirmation Fett a comparison of Galatians with the accounts in Acts, which under this presupposition are to be taken into ἘΠ ΤᾺ tion. If without question in Gal. i. 8 Paul is speaking primarily of the preaching of the gospel which led to the organisation of the Churches of Galatia, 1.6. to. the edayy- εἐλίζεσθαι τὸ πρότερον of iv. 13, then the helper to whose assistance he refers is Barnabas. In so far, however, as there is a reference to the second visit, on which occasion also the gospel was preached with good success, Silas is to be thought οὗ as the fellow-worker (Acts xv. 40-xvi. 6). Only Silas is referred to in Gal. i. 9, since on the first missionary journey which Paul made in company with Barnabas there would hardly have been as yet any occasion for warnings against a‘ false gospel, particularly against a gospel distorted by requirements of a legalistic kind (ef. Gal. v. 3). The condition of the Churches in the early stages of their development furnished no oceasion for such THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 179 warnings (above, p. 171. n. 3); while, on the other hand, it was perfectly natural that on the second journey, which he made in company with Silas, after the experiences which he had had in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts xv. 1-29; Gal. ii. 1-10) in the interval between the first and second visit to the province of Galatia, Paul should warn the newly organised Churches in Lycaonia against the false brethren and their legalistic Christianity. According to Acts xvi. 4, the missionaries communicated to the Churches of Lycaonia also the decisions of the apostolic council which were intended only for the Christians in Antioch in Syria and the neighbouring regions, who had been disturbed by the Judaisers (Acts xv. 23). In this way they were prepared for the attacks of the Judaisers, xvi. 5, which were to be expected. Similarly, the repeated reference to Barnabas by name (11. 1, 9, 13) is especially appropriate if Paul is here writing to Churches the most important of which were organised with Barnabas’ help. While, to be sure, rt does appear from 1 Cor. ix. 6, Col. iv. 10, that Barnabas was known as a distinguished missionary even in Churches which he had not visited in person, in both these cases there were special reasons for the mention of his name. In 1 Cor. ix.'6 he is mentioned because Paul wants to say that from the beginning of his missionary work, when he was associated with Barnabas, he had followed the principle under discussion ; while in Col. iv. 10 it is necessary because in commending Mark, who was entirely unknown to his readers, to the kindly reception of the Church, he has occasion to say that he is a relative of a distinguished missionary. In Gal. 1]. no special reasons of this character are discernible, and if the threefold mention of Barnabas is to be explained natur- ally, it must be assumed that Barnabas assisted in the organisation of the most important of the Churches which he was addressing. That in thinking over his first and second visits in Galatia, Paul should occasionally at least 180 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT think of his helpers Barnabas and Silas (i. 8f.), and at the same time consistently represent himself to be the organizer and head of the Galatian Churches (iv. 11-20, v. 2f., 21), is consistent with the accounts in Acts. Even on the first missionary journey which was made in com- pany with Barnabas, Paul was the spokesman and principal preacher (Acts xii. 16, xiv. 9, 12). In this connection attention is called to the noteworthy incident in Lystra (Acts xiv. 11-14), of which there is a reflection in Gal. iy. 14. While in their excitement at the case of miracu- lous healing, the Lycaonians thought they recognised in Barnabas Zeus; they took Paul, to whose preaching they listened, to be Hermes, the messenger and interpreter of the gods; so it is with deep emotion that Paul looks back to the day when they received him as ““a messenger of God”; indeed, as the son of God. This was, to be sure, only an outburst of naive popular superstition, which the missionaries repudiated with indignation ; but in the case of those who were afterwards taught and con- verted, this heathen superstition, in which their enthusiasm found expression at first, gave place to a feeling of grateful joy that not the gods of Olympus, but “the living God, who made heaven and earth,” had sent His “ messenger” to them, and that Christ Himself had visited them in the gospel which Paul preached. 1 Acts xvil. 16-34 gives an historical picture of the apostle to the Gentiles, which statement no one has as yet disproved, it is perfectly con- ceivable that Paul should see a connection between the worship which the Gentiles rendered to the unknown gods and their enthusiastie love for the God whom he preached (Acts xvii. 23), and for God’s messenger. Unless this coincidence between the hints in the letter and the account in Acts is a tantalising accident, it must be admitted that there is an echo of this same event also in Gal. 1. 8, where likewise Paul is looking back to the first preaching in Galatia, and where we have the. strange combination of THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 181 two ideas, in themselves quite foreign to each other, —“ we or an angel from heaven.” In the ancient legend of Thecla, which begins with the flight from Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xi. 50-xiv.1; Acta Thecle,i.), the impression which Paul made at that time upon the impressionable mind of one of the citizens of [conium is thus deseribed, evidently with the words of Galatians in mind: “ Now he seemed like a man, and again he had the face of an angel” (chap. 35 GK, ἢ. 904). Regarding the illness of Paul, which was the occasion of his first sojourn and so of his first preaching among the Galatians (iv. 13, above, p. 171, n. 2), there is no direct information in Acts. Perhaps, however, Paul’s statement offers some explanation of the unusual route chosen by the missionaries. The direction which they took from Perga to Antioch (Acts xiii. 14) would seem to indicate their intention of pressing their way from Antioch northward or westward into the valleys of the Lycus and of the Meander, where there were numerous cities, and of making their way thence to the large cities on the western coast of Asia Minor. When, instead of following out this plan, the missionaries turn toward the south-east from Antioch, returning shortly from this same point by the route over which they had come, though no statement is made as to the reasons for the change (cf. Acts xvi. 6-10), it may have been an attack of his malady that led Paul for the time being to give up the carrying out of this more extended plan. Naturally, to us, who are able only to infer the facts presupposed in the letter from allusions which Paul makes for the benefit of those who were already acquainted with them, much must remain obscure. But this itselt is the very strongest proof that we are not dealing with a literary fiction, but with a genuine letter, which had its occasion in circumstances connected with real life. One of the most obscure of these passages is v.11, and obscure 182 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT it will remain unless we are allowed to explain the letters of Paul. from Acts... It appears that the opponents of Paul had called the attention of the Galatians to the fact that even Paul, the man of progress, could, like the older apostles, when occasion, demanded, preach. circumcision, So, they areued, it would be no serious rupture with their past Christian experience, which had been formed) under Paul’s influence, if now the Galatians permitted them- selves to be circumcised. Basing their argument on Paul’s. conduct, the errorists could make it appear to the Galatians that Paul might be easily convinced, and in the end. allow the Galatians to be Judaised. How untrue this representation of his attitude was, Paul shows by pointing out that it was just because he was so unyielding of this point that he was hated and persecuted by the Judaisers (διώκομαι, v. 11, to be understood in the same sense in which the word is used in iv. 29). It was in opposition to insinuations of this character that in v. 2-4 he solemnly avowed that his judgment regarding the unreasonable, demands of the Judaisers was unalterable. It must have been some recent event, which had come within the observation of the Galatians, which enabled the Judaisers to represent with some show of plausibility that Paul could περιτομὴν Erı κηρύσσειν. This event is the one recorded in Acts xvi. 1-3, none other than the cir- cumeision, at Paul’s suggestion, of Timothy, a native of Lystra in the province of Galatia, whose father was a Gen- tile and whose mother was a Jewess. Soon after this event the Judaisers came to Galatia, and the Epistle is addressed to the churches named and intended in Acts xvi. 1-6. Assuming that this is the right reconstruction of the facts, the appearance of the Judaisers at this time is most natural. Their defeat at. the apostolic council did not discourage them permanently. It was only in Antioch and the Churches of which Antioch was the centre (Acts xv. 23) that they seem not to have ventured a second attack ; for what is narrated in Gal. ii. 11-14 probably took place earlier ($ xi.). When they learned that Paul THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 183 had gone over to Europe on his second missionary journey, and was kept there by the success of his work, they thought it an opportune time to attack the Churches in Galatia, which had been founded before the apostolic council, and in the absence of their founder to induce them to accept a legalistic form of Christianity. As soon as Paul heard of their move, he hastened to meet the threatening danger by sending this letter. 1. (P. 173.) On Galatia, cf. Purrot, De Galatia provincia Romana, 1867 ; also his Exploration de la Galatie, 1872, pp. 178-206 ; SIEFFERT, Calatien und seine ersten Uhristengemeinden, 1871; Marquarpr, Röm. Staatsverwaltung,? i, 358-365 ; Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor, 1890, pp. 252 ff., 375, 458, and his Church in the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. 1893, pp. 8-15, 25-111 ; see alson. 2. The view the present writer has taken of the destina- tion of the Epistle would justify him, if such justification were necessary, in leaving out of consideration the question, in any case so unimportant for the understanding of the letter, as to the nationality of the tribes which gave the district of Galatia its name, the Tectosages, Trocmi, and Tolistobogii. Their Germanic origin has been argued with unwearied zeal by WIESELER in his Komm. wm Gal. 8. 521-528, and in special monographs: Die deutsche Nationalität der kleinasiätischen Galater, 1877 ; Zur Geschichte der kleinas Gal. 1879 ; Untersuch. zur Geschichte und Religion der alten Germanen, 1881, 8. 1-51. Among those who have combated his theory are W. Grimm, ThStKr. 1876, S. 199-221, and HERTSBERG, iid. 1878, 5. 525-541. 2. (P. 174.) According to J. D. Michaelis, Einl., 4te Aufl, 1199, the view which is adopted above was first put forword by J. J. SCHMIDT, rector of Ilfeld, and was afterward defended by him against the criticisms of Michaelis. ange contributions made’ to the subject by Mynster, Kleinere Schriften, 1825, any, BÖTTGER, Beiträge, 1837, pt. iii. 1-5, and Suppl. 32-47, produced no par- ticu\g impression, nor did the agreement with the view by Tarerscn, Die Kirch., vm apost. Zeitalter (116 Aufl. 1852, 3te Aufl. 1879), 123. It was not till after tye appearance of Perrot’s works (see n. 1) that this view began to win more numerous adherents, as Renan, St. Paul, 1869, pp. 47-53, and Haus- RATH, Ntl. Zeitgesch. ii. (1872) 528 ff. In more recent times its most prominent advocate;has been Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, 8-15, 59-111; Stud. Bibl. δὲ Eccl. iv. (Oxford, 1896) 15-57, and A historical comm. on St. Paul’s Ep. to the Galatians, 1899. Cf. also V. Weber, Die Addressaten des Gal. Beweis der rein südgal. Theorie, 1900; J. Weiss, PRE,* x. 554 ff., and others. Of the representatives of the older view, according to which “Galatia” in the N.T. always denotes the country of the Galate, we may mention Wresever, Komm. zum Gal. 5304f. ; Licurroor, Galatians (4th ed.), 19; Hofmann, i. 149; Srerrerr (see n. 1), also in the revision of Meyer’s Ootementary, oth ed. 1899, S. 6-15 ; SCHÜRER, VORN: 1892, S. 460-4743; ZÖCKLER, ThStKr. 1895, 5. 51-102. v3 (Pp. 174, 175.) Pliny understands by “Galatia” the whole Roman 184 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT province, when he refers (Hist. Nat. v. 95) to Ide (Ὕδη), a city of eastern Lycaonia, as lying “in confinio Galati atque Cappadocie” ; again, when in v. 147 he assigns the Lycaonian ¢ities, Lystra and Thebasa (ef. v. 27. 95), to Galatia ; and when in the same passage he speaks of Galatia as bordering on the districts of Cabalia and Milyas, which at that time belonged to the province of Pamphylia. These were separated by some distance from the country of the Galate, whereas Galatia, in the meaning of Pliny and the Romans generally, and Pamphylia were actually'adjoining provinces. To them Tacitus refers, Hist. ii. 9, “Galatiam ac Pamphyliam provincias Calpurnio Asprenati re- gendas permiserat Galba.” That Galatia here does not mean the country of the Galatee proper, buti the whole of the province organised ὁ. 25 B.C., appears not merely from the fact that only on this assumption should we have a connected administrative district, but even from the word provincias itself, for the several districts of which provinces were composed were not themselves called proyinces. The same usage, therefore, must underlie Ann. xiii. 35, “habiti per Galatiam Cappadociamque dilectus” ; xv. 6, “ Galatarum Cappa- documque auxilia.” The assertion, repeated with strange persistency, that only those of Celtic birth, or residents of Galatia’ proper, could be termed Galate, and not all the inhabitants of the province called Galatia by Pliny and Tacitus, has already been refuted from the N.T., p: 175 above; οἵ. ZKom. Gal. 11. Ramsay discusses. this point fully and eonelusively, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., Oxford, 1896, pp. 26-38, and in his Hist. Comm. Ptolemy describes Asia Minor essentially and at the outset quite clearly in accordance with the Roman provincial divisions: (a) ν. 1. 1, Pontus-Bithynia. (in viii. 17. 1, Bithynia for brevity); (6) v. 2.1, ἡ ἰδία or ἡ ἰδίως καλουμένη OL 7 ἰδίως “Agia (cf. vill. 17., 1, 8), to which. belonged Greater Phrygia, with Eumeneia, Philomelion, and Hierapolis (v. 2. 22-26) ; (0) ν. 3, Lycia.y (d) ν. 4, Galatia, with which he reckons parts of Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Isauria, and among other cities Pisidian Antioch, § 11, and Lystra, § 19. Following another authority, he assigns the Antioch situated “in Pisidian Phyrgia’” to the province of Pamphylia, v. 5. 4, and Iconium and Derbe to Cappadocia, v. 6. 16 ff. The latter agrees with his statement regarding the orpatnyic of Cappadocia, which is somewhat obscure and at all events, depend of antiquated sources; cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog. 283 f., 310, 336... Fu eier: more, the inscriptions, rightly understood, confirm the usage. of 2 εἰ ΤᾺ, Tacitus, and Ptolemy. An honorary inscription set up in Iconium‘ 60 an imperial administrator of domains or revenue officer (ἐπίέροπος Καίσ P08) of the time of Claudius and Nero (C.J. Gr. 3991) designates his admin trative district as Ταλατικῆς ἐπαρχείας. The city of Iconium, whic} ; “having been made a Roman colony under Claudius (see below, n. 5), honoured. this official as its founder and benefactor, belonged to what they called simply the Galatie province (cf. Ramsay, Church, ete. 56; Marquardt, i. 364, n. 11), Provinces formed by the union, of two. districts originally separate might bear a double name, like Bithynia-Pontus (see the reference to Ptolemy above, and Marquardt, i. 351), as we have in Bavaria “ Schwaben and Neu- burg.” But, on the other hand, it is quite incredible that the name com: monly applied in official business to the great province which was erected out of the kingdom of Amyntas should haye consisted of an enumeration of all the districts which composed it.., Even if one concluded from afew THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 18; inscriptions dealing with Galatia, that official usage described the united province thus cireumstantially and reserved the term Galatia for the region of the Galata proper, that would be, in the first place, of no consequence to our inquiry; for Paul had even less occasion than Pliny, Tacitus, Ptolemy, and the municipality of Iconium in its inscription, to employ the legal style. And, in the second place, the reasoning itself is as incorrect as if we should undertake to determine our own official usage from the so-called great titles of our German rulers, which even in the official publication of laws are usually omitted altogether or abbreviated by an “etc.” An inscription (found in Pisidian Antioch and dating from the end of the first century) in honour of a certain Sospes—not Sollers—governor of Galatia (©. I. L. iii. No. 291, corrected Suppl. No. 6818), designates his administrative territory by niné names, beginning province. Gal. Pisid. Phryg. ete. (similarly in Suppl. No. 6819, except that Phryg. precedes Pisid.). If we read’ provinc(tarum), then Pisidia, Phrygia, and the rest, which at that time were not separate provinces, aré inaccurately so called, and this Sospes is represented as in charge of nine provinces at once. More probably we are to read in this as in similar inscriptions provinc(ie), which applies only to Galatie, while the eight following names are connected with it by apposition, to describe the great province as impressively as possible. In other inscriptions in which we are really to read provinciarum, e.g. on two ınilestones from Ancyra from the years 80 and 82 (C. I. L. Nos. 312, 318), the names’ of actual provinces come first, Galatie, Cappadocie, and not till afterward such districts as Pisidia and Lycaonia, which are already involved in the larger titles. We have further to consider those enumerations which would be unintelligible if we could not assume that by the term Galatia, as by’ Asia, all the sections belonging to these provinces were intended. When we read in C. 1. L. iii. No. 249 (Ancyra), the following, inter al., “proc. fam. glad. per Asiam. Bithyn. Galat. Cappad. Lyciam. Pamphyl. Cil. Cyprum. Pontum. Paflag.,” we are taken the rounds of all Asia Minor together with Cyprus. Consequently Lycaonia and Pisidia, which are not mentioned, must be included in Galatia, and Phrygia, also not mentioned, partly with Galatia and partly with Asia. This is true also in 1 Pet. i. 1. There all the Roman provinces of Asia Minor are enumerated with the exception of Lycia-Pamphylia, where there can hardly have been any Christians (Acts xiii. 13, xiv. 25), and of Cilicia, where Christianity seems to have been introduced not by Paul and his helpers, but from Antioch, so that from the beginning the’ Cilieian Churches were grouped ecclesiastically with those of Syria (Acts xv. 23, 41). As Phrygia and Mysia aré not explicitly named, the Phrygian Churches, Coldsse, Laodicea, Hierapolis (Col. i. 1, ii. 1), the Church at Troas (Acts xx. 6-12), and the six Churches besides Laodieea mentioned in Rev. i. 11, so far as they were in existence at the time of 1 Peter, were evidently included in Asia ; that is, the name was used in its Roman sense. The like holds true, then, of the word Galatia in the same passage (1 Pet. 1. 1); the term in- cludes Lycaonia and Pisidia also. Indeed, it would be impossible to conceive why Peter should exclude from his greeting the Churches of that region, belonging historically with the Churches’ of the province Asia, and take up instead of them the much less important Churches in Galatia proper. 4. (P.175.) Paul uses ᾿Αχαία, Rom: xv. 26; 1 Cor. xvi.15; 2 Cor. i. 1, ix. 2, 186 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT xi, 10; 1 Thess. i..7, 8, and Μακεδονία, 1 Cor. xvi.5 ; 2 Cor. i. 16, ii. 13, vii. 5, vili. 1, xi. 9 ; Rom. xv. 26; 1 Thess.i. 7£., iv. 10; Phil. iv. 15, evidently in the sense of the Roman provincial divisions. Along with τὸ Ἰλλυρικόν, Rom, xv. 19, we find in 2 Tim. iv. 10 the term Aadyaria also used by the Romans of that time ; cf. Marquardt, i. 299... Ἰουδαία, Gal. i. 22 ; 1 Thess, ii. 14; 2 Cor. 1. 16; Rom. xv. 31, is not used, as the first-named passages show, in contradistinction to Galilee, Samaria, and Perea, for there were Christians in these districts also (Acts vili. 5-25, ix. 31-xi. 1) whom Paul could not exclude. in this con- nection ; but he uses the term in the Roman sense = Palestine, οἵ, Tac, Hist. v. 9; Ptol. v. 16.1 on the one hand, and v.:16.16-9 on the other. Ἀραβία, Gal. i. 17, iv. 25, is a political term; it stands for the Nabatean kingdom of Aretas (2 Cor. xi. 32), which at that time was still independent of Rome: Syria and Cilicia, Gal. i. 21, were then politically united ; cf. Marquardt, i. 387. Of the divisions of Asia Minor, Paul names only ᾿Ασία, 1.Cor. xvi, 19; 2 Cor. i. 8; Rom. xvi..5 ; 2 Tim. i. 15; and Γαλατία, Gal. i, 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; and it is unlikely that he meant by these anything else than the Roman provinces so called, for the very reason that he mentions no districts of Asia, Minor whose names do not at the same time denote such provinces. This corresponds with the terminology of 1 Pet. 1, 1. (see the preceding note), and of Revelation ; for all the seven Churches of Asia (Rev.; i.4, 11), even the Phrygian city of Laodicea on the Lycus, were in the province of Asia... In the same way Polyerates of Ephesus in his. letter to Victor of Rome (Eus. H..E. v. 24. 2-5) uses Agia of the whole extent of the Roman province, ineluding Hierapolis, Eumeneia, and Laodicea. Luke, however, as.a rule expresses himself differently. Of course the Roman nomenclature is not unknown to him, and he uses it where it seems to him necessary or appro- priate ; but usually in his geographical references he follows the other usage, and employs the names of the several’ sections. So Ἰουδαία stands. (a) in Luke.i. 5 for the. whole country of the Jews, or Palestine, even without the πᾶσα, ὅλη, which he adds elsewhere to make sure that the term shall have its widest significance (Luke vi. 17, vil. 17, xxiii. 5; Acts|x. 37) 5 (Ὁ) in Luke iii. 1 for the territory governed by the Roman procurator, which in addition. to Judea proper included Samaria and the coast district. to. Czsarea and beyond ; (c) but otherwise regularly for Judea proper as distinguished from Galilee and Samaria, Luke ii. 4; Acts i. 8, viii. 1, ix. 31, xi.1,xii.19, Luke knows ’Ayaia, and uses the term to denote, the Roman province where refer- ence is) made to its prefect, Acts xviii. 12, and twice besides, xviii. 27, xix. 21, where he mentions journeys to Corinth, its capital city. ‚But. he ‚uses Ἕλλάς in xx. 2, and, according to the more ancient text of xvil, 15, probably Θεσσαλία, also, both of them. names which have no place in Paul’s nomen- clature. It is just so with regard to his references to, Asia Minor. True, it is of no moment that after Pamphylia he mentions. Lycia also (xxvii. 5, ef. ii. 10, xiii. 13, xiv. 24, χν, 38), and Pontus (ii. 9, cf. xviii. 2) as well as Bithynia (xvi. 7), for in each of, these. instances the official usage of the Romans also retained the names of the two sections which were united to form the pro- vince., But Luke also uses the names of smaller districts in Asia Minor which at that time did not constitute provinces, but were distributed among various Roman provinces of other names, namely, Lycaonia (xiv. 6, ef. xiv. 11), Pisidia (xiv. 24, cf. xiii, 14), Mysia (xvi. 7, 8), and Phrygia (ii. 10, xvi. THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 187 6, xviii. 23). Since he also speaks of Asia (ii. 9f., xvi. 6-8) along with Phrygia, Mysia, and Troas, and in the same connection, it follows that Asia, too, does not mean for him the whole Roman province of that name, ef. Winer, RW,’ i. 97; Wieseler, Chronol. 34. For at that time Mysia and the greater part of Phrygia belonged to the province of Asia, and the city of Troas was also situated in it. For the boundaries of the province of Asia, the Asia propria of Ptolemy (above, p. 184), see Waddington, Fastes des prov. Asiat. 25; Ramsay, Hist. geogr. 172, and the map in his Church in the Roman Empire.’ We are not dealing here, however, with a peculiarity of Luke. The Church at Lyons, intimately connected with the Churches of Asia Minor, writes in the year 177 (Kus. ἢ. E.v. 1.3), τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν καὶ Φρυγίαν . ἀδελφοῖς. So Tertullian, ὁ. Praxean, i, “ecclesiis, Asie et Phrygie.” Asia and Phrygia are here, as with Luke, mutually exclusive or supple- mentary terms, and Asia has a narrower meaning than in Roman official usage, It is the same region which Irenzus (Epist. ad Flor. in Eus. H. E. v. 20. 5, cf. Pausanias, 1. 4. 6) calls ἡ κάτω ᾿Ασία, that part of the province Asia which lay nearer the coast, in distinction from the parts which lay farther inland (Acts xix. 1, ra avorepıra μέρη ; ef. Acts xviii. 23; Clearchus in Jos. c, Ap. i. 22. 180, Niese ; Epiph. Her. xlv. 4, ev τοῖς ἀνωτάτω μέρεσιν). This more restricted use of the name corresponds to some extent with older boundaries (Marquardt, i. 334) and divisions (Plin. H. N. v. 27. 102), and to some extent also with Diocletian’s arrangement, which returned in so many particulars to older groupings (Marquardt, i. 348). Luke appears, however, to use the term consistently in its narrowest sense. At least there is no necessity of supposing that in Acts xix. 10 the Phrygian cities, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse (Col. ii. 1, iv. 13) are also intended, or of thinking of the entire province in Acts vi. 9, xix. 22, xx. 4, 16, 18, xxi. 27, xxiv. 18, xxvii. 2. Only in the mouth of Demetrius (xix. 26, 27) is it likely that the term, which is strengthened, moreover, by the addition of ὅλη: and πᾶσα (cf. Judea above), is used in its wider application. In Acts xvi. 6 this is quite excluded by the accompanying and contrasted Φρυγία. Both recen- sions (NABCE and D with the old versions against HLP) agree on the main point in the reading of xvi. 6f.: διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν . . . ἐλθόντες (OT γενόμενοι) δὲ κατὰ τὴν Μυσίαν. The article before Tax. (EHLP) is to be suspected as a simplification, and the reading Galatie (sic) regiones (cf. Acts vill. 1), preserved only in one Latin authority (Blass, ed. min. 53), seems to be an arbitrary substitution for an unusual expression. If we compare xviii. 23, διερχύμενος καθεξῆς τὴν Ῥαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν, it would seem that the construction of Φρυγίαν as an adjective (Lightfoot, Galatians, 22 ; Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, 78 ff.), which is quite im- possible there, is out of the question in xvi. 6. If the analogy of xv. 41, where the article before Κιλικίαν is of very doubtful authenticity to say the least, or of Luke v.17; Acts i. 8, ix. 31, or (to meet perfectly Ramsay’s requirement, Stud. Bibl. et Ecel., Oxford, 1896, p. 57) Luke iii. 1 (τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας ; cf. also. Winer, Gr. § 19. 3-5 [Eng. trans. pp. 126- 130]; A. Buttmann, Gr. 85 ff. [Eng. trans. p. 97 ff.]; Blass, Gr.? § 46. 11 [Eng. trans.” § 46. 117}, did not suflice to excuse the anarthrous Tad. x. in xvi. 6, one might find in it an expression of the idea that this through- journey did not touch everything that fell within the term Tad. x. from 188 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT beginning to end (καθεξῆς, xviii. 23), but only some “Galatian country ” among other regions. But the choice of the unusual geographical term can itself be explained naturally only on the ground ‘that Luke, in deliberate consideration of the usage by which the whole great province, including the Lycaonian cities, and the so-called Pisidian Antioch and other Phrygian cities, was styled ἡ Tadaria or ἡ Ταλατίκὴ ἐπαρχία, meant by Ταλατικὴ χώρα to indicate the country of the actual Galate, which was absolutely distinct from the districts of Phrygia and Lycaonia from which Paul came to it. The attempt of Renan, St. Paul, 52, and the still more ingenious attempt of Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, ‘77 ff., to interpret Luke’s Tax. x. as also referring to the Roman province, go to pieces first of all on the connection of the narrative. The journey was from Syrian Antioch first through Syrian and Cilician territory (xv. 41), but this only in passing. According to xv. 36 the first object was to visit the four Churches which had been founded in the three Lycaonian cities and Pisidian Antioch on the first missionary journey (xiii. 14-xiv. 23)... This visit is reported xvi. 1-5. The journey, proceeding from south-east to north-west, brought Paul first to Derbe and then to Lystra. Here the narrative pauses in order to relate something of Timothy, who lived there... That the journey was continued to Iconium and Antioch is not expressly stated, not even with regard to Iconium, which is mentioned in xvi. 2 for an incidental reason only. But in view of xv.'36 it goes without saying that Iconium and Antioch were not omitted, and that xvi. 4, 5 refers to all four cities and their Churches. Not: till the missionaries had reached Antioch, a meeting-place of the roads leading west and north, did the question arise whether they should continue their journey in a westerly direction, 1.6. to Asia, or northward. A revelation from ‘the Spirit” decided the question. The negative expression employed by the narrator shows that the intention and inclination of the missionaries them- selves had’ been to proceed, after the visitation of the four Churches,’ to “ Asia,” to the large cities on the coast,—Ephesus, Smyrna, ete.,—and to preach there, In this, however, they were hindered by the Spirit ; and this decision, according to the clear construction of the best-attested text, gives the reason why the missionaries now, instead of. journeying westward from Antioch toward Asia, turned northward rather, and proceeded through Phrygian territory, on which they had already entered just before reaching Antioch, and then through a part of Galatia proper, until they reached the borders of Bithynia. Thus the order of events and of the geographical terms shows clearly that by Pad. χώρα Luke did not mean the province of Galatia, within which the missionaries already were during their stay in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, but the country of the Galate. It is in vain that Ramsay (77 f.) undertakes to persuade us that xvi. 6a is to be carried back to the journey already described by its content, and to be understood in some such way as this: “On the tour of visitation described in xvi. 4 f.. they traversed a region which, with respect to its population, may be called Phrygian, and with respect to the Roman provincial divisions, Galatian.” In the first place, the account of the tour of visitation is entirely ‘finished in xvi. 1-5. In the second place, διῆλθον has for its temporal and logical presupposition the decision of the Spirit, which would be communicated only at the close of the visitation and as they were on the point of departure THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 18¢ from Pisidian Antioch, 1.6. διῆλθον can only refer to a farther journey which followed the completed tour of visitation. In the third place, as: has been shown, we are to understand by the cities of xvi. 4, 5 not only Ieconium and Antioch, to which if necessary Ramsay’s elaborate paraphrase of the simple words might be applied (see n. 5), but Lystra and Derbe as well. These, however, were not Phrygian but Lycaonian cities—particularly accord- ing to Luke’s own usage, Acts xiv. 6, 11. Further, according to Ramsay (76) we are to understand Acts xvi. 6b, 7a as stating: “The Spirit forbade their preaching in Asia, but by no means forbade travelling through ; accordingly they proceeded through a part of the province of Asia also: as far as Bithynia, but without preaching.” But, in the first place, it follows from Acts xx. 18, (cf. xix. 8-10, xx. 31) that before Paul’s first arrival in Ephesus (xviii. 19), and therefore before his first activity in Macedonia and Greece (xvi. 11—xviii. 17), he had not been in the region which Luke calls Asia at all. » Further- more, the unprejudiced reader finds in the text no suggestion of an antithesis between “preaching” and “travelling,” or of a journey through part. of “ Asia,” but sees only the contrast between the mutually exclusive geographical references. Because they may not preach, and consequently may not travel, in Asia, where they wished to go as missionaries, they go through Phrygia and through Galatian country, not forgetting, of course, that preaching was their commission. Since an intelligent narrator in such a connection would have made explicit reference to the contrary condition, we must assume that the missionaries, as they continued their journey from Antioch,. tried! to apply themselves to their vocation. The difficulties which Ramsay (81 ff.) urges against what is shown by Acts xvi. 6a to be the fact, namely, that Paul then passed through a part of the Galatian region preaching, rest upon the arbitrary assumption that when he set out from Pisidian Antioch or from Iconium he already had Bithynia in view as his objective, and that until he reached this goal he wished to refrain from preaching (84). In that case, certainly, he would have had no occasion to touch Galatian cities like Pessinus, the capital of the Tolistobogii, or the colony Germa. He would have gone more directly to Nicwa and Nicomedia by way of Cotiseum or by Nacoleia and Doryleum. But the second assumption has no foundation in the text, and the first contradicts the text. But the purpose to push forward into Bithynia was first conceived when Paul stood not far from its border, and at the same time at a point where another road struck off toward Mysia (xvi. 7). The phrase ἐπείραζον eis τὴν Βιθυνίαν πορεύεσθαι does not at all suggest that the missionaries had now attained a long-sought-for goal, but, on the contrary, rather that, having arrived at this point, they were trying to decide in which direction they should turn next. We do not know their route in detail; it may have been a zigzag course, as the hope of finding somewhere a favourable soil for their preaching drew them now this way and now that. A side trip into Galatia proper may have ended with a return to Phrygia, as on the first journey the side trip from Antioch (which was not originally intended) returned to that city (xiv. 21).. The summary account in xvi. 6-8, especially the union of Phrygia and the Galatiam country under one article, leaves the utmost freedom to faney. The present writer does not know what objection there would be te supposing that the missionaries, setting out from Amorium, say, under- 190 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT took to preach in Pessinus and Germa, and finding the conditions there unfavourable or their success small, turned to Doryleum, where, then, it was necessary to decide whether they should proceed to Bithynia or to Mysia. Again, Acts xviii. 23 raises difficulties not for us, but for Ramsay. Though he claims that in Acts xvi. 6 the vicinity of Iconium and Antioch is styled “the Phrygian and at the same time Galatian country,” he interprets (93) quite differently the double term in xviii. 23, which ex+ cept for the relative position of the two members is precisely similar. Here, he tells us, τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν by itself denotes the district so enigmatically referred to in xvi. 6, but with the addition of Derbe and Lystra; and Φρυγίαν, beside it, denotes the region usually so called, to which Paul betook himself after visiting the Churches which had been organised on the first journey. This of itself is a good deal to ask the exegete to believe ; but it ought besides to be shown, by examples or credible conjectures, that the southern part of the province of Galatia may conceiv- ably have been called ἡ TaX. x. (note the article), or why Luke, if he merely wished to say that at some point Paul passed through the province, did not write τὴν Ταλατίαν, to be sure, leaving the reader to guess what route he followed. Differing from his earlier view, Ramsay (Historical Comm. 209) finds the expression xviii. 23 only shorter than that in xvi. 6, and in’ spite of the arrangement of the words assures us that in xviii. 23 “the Phrygian region” is mentioned, But if, on the contrary, Luke here, too, meant by ἡ Tad. x. the northern part of the province, the country of the Galate,— Galatia, strictly speaking,—then it follows first from the order of the districts named that Paul on this occasion, as compared with xvi. 6, was travelling in quite a different direction, not from the south toward the north and north-east, but from east to west. Further, καθεξῆς indicates that he did not visit merely individual towns in the two districts as on the former journey, but that he traversed both quite extensively. Also the fact that there is no mention here of Churches, but only of disciples (see above, p. 176), does not agree well with the opinion that it has to do with a visit to the great Churches which Paul himself had established in the Southern part of the province. The expression πάντας τοὺς μαθητάς does not atiall allow one to think of a great number, but is to be explained by the number of the places where Paul met disciples. The ‘route this time may have been from the Cilician Gates by way of Tyana, Archelais, Ancyra, Pessinus, and on through northern Phrygia to Ephesus. The journey did not bring him (cf. Col. ii. 1) to the valley of the Lycus and the Meander, which would have been the natural way if he had occasion to go from Iconium and Antioch to Ephesus. The support which Ramsay (Stud. Bibl. et Ecel., Oxford, 16 ff.) finds for his view of Acts xviii. 23 ina homily of Asterius (Migne, xl. 294), which he claims as evidence of an old tradition, appears weak. Asterius’ homily, like an essay on Paul’s journeys falsely ascribed to Euthalius (Zacagni, Coll. mon. 426), took the Antioch of Acts xviii, 22 to be the Pisidian Antioch. Asterius, sharing this undoubtedly traditional error, is reminded, probably without looking up the references, of the narrative, Acts xiii. 14-xiv. 7, and then tacitly assumes Avkaoviav instead of Γαλατικὴν χώραν as the text of xviii. 23. Since Ramsay also (Historical Comm. 209 f., 314 ff.) is unable to adduce one satisfactory proof for his ever varying in- “THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 191 terpretation of (7) Tadarırf) χώρα, he has deprived himself of all right to lay stress upon the lack of examples elsewhere of this designation of the Galatian country proper, as a determining reason against this interpretation (namely, the country inhabited by Galatians). In itself, indeed, the expres- sion is anything but striking. Cf. eg. 1 Mace. viii. 8 (χώραν τὴν Ἰνδικήν); x. 38, xii. 25 ; Jos. Bell. iii. 3. 4 (ἡ Σαμαρεῖτις χώρα), and the innumerable instances, where an adjective formed from’ the name of a people with the ending -ccos in the feminine, designates the country inhabited by the people concerned, also without χώρα which is to be understood, as ἡ Κελτική, Ἰσαυρική, Ἰνδική, Περσική. ; 5. (Pp. 176, 177.) ANTIOCH, on Phrygian soil, near the border of Pisidia, hence ᾿Αντιόχεια πρὸς Πισιδίᾳ, Strabo, 557, 569,.577, less exactly ᾿Αὐτ. Πισιδίας, Ptol. v. 4. 11, or ’Avr. ἡ Πισιδία (υ.1. τῆς ᾿πισιδίας), Acts xiii. 14, now Yalowadi, the most important military. colony of Augustus in that region, founded probably in 6 B.C. (Marquardt, i. 365 ; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 398, 396, 391 ; Chrirch in Roman Empire, 25-27). Icontum, the most south-easterly city of Phrygia (Xen. Anab. 1: 2. 19), still called a Phrygian city about 160 by a Christian who was born there (Acta Justini, chap. iv. ed. Otto, ii. 3.274), and again a century later by bishop Firmilianus, who attended ‘a synod there (Cyprian, Ep. lxxv. 7), and distinguished from the Lycaonian cities in Acts xiv. 1, 6 also (ef. Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, 37 ff); was nevertheless commonly reckoned with Lycaonia (Cie. Ep. xv.4. 2; Strabo, 568 ;: Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 95), in fact was considered its chief city, a: Roman» colony under the emperor Claudius (contrary to Ramsay, Hist: Comm. 123, who dis- putes this, see ZKom. Gal. 13), and at that time attached to the province of Galatia (6. I. Gr. 3991, see p. 184 above). || "Lystra, a colony of Augustus, see Sterrett, The Wolfe Expedition, p. 142, No. 242 (by which the situation is determined also), p. 219, No. 3525 Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 332, 390, 398; Church in Roman Empire, 48. Dersx, probably near the modern Gudel- issia, between one and two days’ journey from Lystra, farther: west and nearer the Isaurian mountains than was formerly supposed, probably made a colony under Claudius, and named Claudio-Derbe, cf. Sterrett, 20ff.; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 336 ; Church in Roman Empire, 54, 69. All four of the cities, then, in which we are to look primarily for “the Churches of Galatia,” were half Roman cities ‘like Philippi andCorinth. ‘The more natural is it therefore that the “Roman » Paul (Acts xvi: 37) should address these Christians not as Lycaonians and Phrygians, but as Galatians, from the province to which they belonged.» When. we come toinquire whether these four Churches or the Ohristians of Galatia proper, who are not so much as called Churches in Acts xviii. 23, are the ἐκκλησίαι τῆς TaXarias referred to in (al. 1. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 1 Pet. i. 2) we must ‘further ‘take into consideration the fact that in the post-eanonical literature, also, the: Lycaoniam Churches ovcupy a much more prominent! place than the north Galatian. In the Theela legend we find Iconium, Lystra, Antioch, and perhaps, in the per- verted form Daphne, Derbe as well, GK, ii. 908. In the passage already mentioned, Oypr. Ep: Ixxv. 7, Firmilian says: “Quod totum nds)iam pridem in Teonio, qui Phrygiz locus est, eollecti in unum convenientibusiex Galatia et Gilidia et ceteris proximis ‘regionibus confirmavimus,” ete. As the reporter hiniself was bishop of Czsarea, Cappadocia was also represented in thé synod r92 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT in addition to the districts mentioned by name. . Iconium was a centre of ecclesiastical life. Contemporaries of Origen speak of a bishop Celsus of Iconium and a bishop Neon of Laranda (in Eus. H. #. vi. 19. 18) ;,a little later, Nicomas of Iconium is mentioned 88. a noted bishop, Eus. vii. 29. 2. On the other hand, Church history has little to say'of the cities in the Galatian region. We know from Eus. MH. E. v. 16. 4 that there was a Christian Church in Ancyra about 192 Α.Ὁ.. The next witness is the Synod of Ancyra in 314, at which Marcellus of Ancyra probably presided ; cf. the writer’s essay on Marcellus, 8f.; Hefele, Konztliengesch.2 i. 221; Stud. Bibl. et Kecl., Oxford, iii. 197, 211. Lequien, Oriens Christ. i. 489 ἔ,, could not Ἔ any bishop of Pessinus earlier than the fifth century. 6. (P. 177.) Furthermore, if the appearance of Judaisers in Fence presupposes the presence of Jews and Jewish Christians as a natural point of connection, we know from Acts xiii. 14-51, xiv. 19, that Antioch had. to all appearances.a prominent and influential body of Jews. In Iconium, too, there was a synagogue largely attended by Jews and God-fearing Gentiles (xiv. 1), and: in Lystra, the home of Timothy, who was of Jewish descent on his mother’s side, there were at least individual Jews (xvi. 1-3; 2 Tim. i. 5, iii. 15). On the other hand, even in rhetorical accounts, like that. of Philo, Leg. ad Cav. xxxvi, one hears nothing of Jews in the Galatian country. In Acts ii. 9-11, Galatia is not included, That Jews had gone to Ancyra isa pure conjecture of Scaliger’s in connection with Jos. Ant. xvi. 6. 2; and even if the conjecture were right, it would point to the Ancyra in the province of Asia, and not to the Galatian city of that name; cf. Mommsen, Res, Geste D. Aug. ed. 2, p.x; Waddington, Fustes des prov. Asiat. 102, whose con- jecture is Pergamus. An epitaph (C. I. Gr. No. 4129), which is possibly Jewish, and which was not found in the Galatian region, but near its western boundary, and another, discovered on the road between Germa and Pessinus, and probably from a somewhat later period (Bull. de Corresp. hellen. 1883, p.'24), do not prove that there were Jews in the Galatian region in the first century. Cf. ZKom. Gal. 13, A. 12. We are by no means to infer from Acts xiii. 43 that any considerable number of Jews in Antioch became adherents to Christianity, for it is not said that. the admonitions of the missionaries were accepted, by the Jews, who were at first favourably inclined toward them. According to xiii. 45-51, for which we are already prepared by xiii. 41, the contrary is more-probable.. In mii. 48f. it is only said of a number of Gentiles in and about Antioch that they really became believers and so continued... In Iconium it seems not to have been very different (xiv. 1-7), even if the success among the Jews was perhaps some- what greater there than in Antioch. From the reports concerning Lystra and Derbe, aside from the supplementary notice of Timothy’s Jewish mother (xvi. 1), and the intimation of an influence exercised upon the citizens of Lystra and Derbe by the Jews of Antioch and Iconium (xiv. 19), one receives nothing more than the impression that the missionaries were dealing with Gentiles, xiv. 6-18. The fact that Paul constantly deals with the readers of Galatians as Gentile Christians (see p. 166 f. above) is consequently no obstacle to the assumption that it was primarily these four Churches for which Galatians was intended. It is impossible to say with Wieseler (Komm. 533) that Paul in ii. 15 Ε΄, iii. 13, 23-25, iv. 3 groups himself and his readers together as THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL i193 Jewish Christians. The readers, the great majority of whom were of, Gentile origin, understood readily enough that in these passages Paul was associating with himself in a “we” not themselves, but others who like him were of Jewish birth. In ii. 15 this is perfectly clear from the context, ii. 11-14, even if one does not take ii. 15 ff. as a continuation of the address to Peter. In iii. 13, 14 the distinction between ἡμᾶς, to whom Paul belongs, and ra ἔθνη, to whom the readers belong, is unmistakable. So is the transition from the Jewish Christians in whose name) Paul speaks to the Gentile Christians whom he addresses, iii. 23-25 to iii, 26-29, and iv. 1-7-to iv. 8-11. Only it follows from the, otherwise superfluous πάντες, 111. 26, and ὅσοι, 111. 27, and especially from iii. 28, that there were also some of Jewish birth among the readers themselves ; for only on ‘this supposition could the idea that in Christianity distinctions between Jew and Gentile, like those between man and woman, or between slave and freeman, are ideally abolished, be expressed in the form of the direct address, “you all” (instead. of, we all, 2.6. we Jews and you Gentiles) “are one in Christ.” These four Churches were composed of a few full-born Jews, a number of proselytes of different grades (Acts xili. 43, xiv. 1, xvi. 1), and a much larger number of Gentiles, and they received through Paul the stamp of law-free Gentile Churches (ef. Acts xvi. 4). According to Galatians, the same was true of the Churches of Galatia. The two groups are identical. 7. (P. 178.) Hofmann, i. 93, thought it permissible to interpret ὑμᾶς, Gal. ii. 5, of the Gentile world not yet affected by the gospel ; Sieffert, finding this at variance with the text, understood Gentile Christians at large. But comparison with Eph. ii. 11 or Eph. iii. 1f., by which one or the other view is to be supported, shows that Paul would have indicated it by an apposi- tional phrase like ra ἔθνη if he meant to take the readers as representatives either of Gentile Christians at large or of the Gentile world. In the latter case one ought also to expect that he would have referred to the former status of his readers as a condition now past, as in Eph. 11. 11 f. (ποτὲ... τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ); 1 Cor. xii 2. Moreover, the translation “for you” cannot be defended ; the phrase presupposes, rather, that the readers had already received “the truth of the gospel.” The use of πρός is not more remarkable than in ἐπιμένειν πρός twa, Gal. i. 18; 1 Cor. xvi. 7, ef. Buttmann, Gram. 292 [Eng. trans. 339f.]. διαμένειν in such a connection only intimates with especial emphasis that the relation in which the true gospel had already stood to the Galatians was to continue uninterrupted for all time. ὃ 12. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. On the supposition that the Galatians addressed in this lettet are to be sought in the northern part of the province of that name and only there, the terminus a quo of the Epistle is fixed as the settlement of Paul in Ephesus at the beginning of the year./55 (Acts xix. 1). The VOL. I. 13 194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT second visit implied in Gal. iv. 13 will then be the one referred to in Acts xvill. 23; and even when the error is avoided of supposing that ταχέως in Gal. i. 6 implies that the danger which was threatening the Galatian Churches at the hands of the Judaisers, and which occasioned this letter, arose immediately after this second visit of Paul, much less immediately after the conversion of the Galatians, the advocate of this theory will be inclined to place the composition of the letter in the period of 24 years ending at Pentecost 57 (n. 1), during which Paul was at work in Ephesus (Acts xix. 8-10). But this time and place seem to be ruled out by the fact that in Gal. iv. 20 it is taken for granted that Paul is at such a distance from the readers that it is impossible for him to make a journey to them in the near future (above, p. 170). Yet at any time during the year it was quite possible to make the journey from Ephesus to Pessinus or Ancyra. Furthermore, if the letter was written in Ephesus, the expression in Gal. iv. 20, of a desire to visit them which could not be fulfilled, is very strange, in view of the fact that during this period Paul did visit the Church in Corinth (§ 17). If, on the other hand, it be accepted as proved that the letter was meant for the Churches in South Galatia which were founded on the first missionary journey, every reason for supposing that the letter was written in Ephesus between the beginning of the year 55 and Pentecost 57 disappears. Then the terminus a quo is the second visit to the Churches in Lycaonia (Acts xvi. 1-5) in the spring of 52. Any reference of the letter to an earlier date (n. 2) is at once precluded by the chrono- logical and historical data of Gal. i. 15-1. 10. The apostolic council, to which reference is made in Gal. ii. 1-10 (ef. Acts xv. 1-29), took place during the winter of 51-52. It was not until after this council that Paul and Silas set out upon the second missionary journey, and visited the Churches in Lycaonia a second time. Similarly the terminus ad quem of Galatians is the THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 195 beginning of Paul’s two imprisonments in Ceesarea and Rome (Pentecost 58), which together lasted for at least five years. The hypothesis that Galatians was written while Paul was a prisoner in Rome is of long standing (n. 3), but quite untenable. All the letters which Paul, wrote while in prison, or which he is supposed to have written in prison, disclose this fact unmistakably and in various ways (Col. iv. 3, 10, 18, cf. i. 24 ; Eph. iü. 1, iv.,1, vi..20 ; Philem. 1, 9, 10, 13, 22, 23; Phil. i. 7, 12-17, ef. ii. 23, iv 10H18 ποῦ Tim. 91) 85,165; 0 9, (ea E10, tv. 6-18). But in Galatians there is no hint that at the time of writing Paul’s free movements were hindered, or that. he was being persecuted by the civil authorities on account of his missionary activity. If he had been in prison at the time, he could hardly have failed to make some reference to the fact in the passage where he ex- presses his earnest wish, impossible of fulfilment, that. he might. be present among the Galatian Churches in person, and that they might hear his trembling voice (iv. 20). Nor, when speaking of his preaching as still being carried on, li. 2, v. 11, also 1. 8, 16, could he have remained entirely silent about his captivity had he been a prisoner. While, to be sure, heis being opposed, iv. 29, v. 11, his per- secutors are legal-minded Jewish Christians, and the means employed are not violence, but slanders and insinuations. When he does speak of bodily injuries inflicted upon him on account of his Christian faith or on account of his missionary activity (vi. 17), they are not referred to, as in the letters of his imprisonment, as something being en- dured at the time ; he simply mentions the marks of injuries received some time before, which he still bore and could show. In view of the infrequency of references of this kind in Paul's letters, it is very improbable that he is referring to the marks of ill-treatment which he had borne for years, such as an ineflaceable scar on his forehead, or the maim- ing of a limb caused by a stone thrown at the time when 196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT he was organising the Church in Galatia (Acts xiv. 19, cf. xiv. 5), or on some other occasion about which we are not definitely informed (2 Cor. xi. 23-25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32 2). The mention of the fact, τὰ στίγματα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω, and the peculiar expression used, are natural here only if the wounds, marks of which were still visible when Galatians was written, had been in- flieted not very long before. They are the same as those clearly referred to in 1 Thess. ii. 2 (προπαθόντες καὶ ὕβρισ- θέντες ἐν Φιλίπποις). That on this occasion Paul and Silas were not only insulted, but also roughly handled, is clear from Acts xvi. 22-24, 33, 37-38. But this evidence may be left quite out of account; for if, as has been shown, dates previous to the spring of 52 (Acts xvi. 1-5), and subsequent to Pentecost 58 (Acts xx. 16 ff.), are precluded, and if the letter could not have been written during the 24 or, reckoned from the first arrival of Paul in Ephesus, the three years’ stay in that city, 2.6. between Pentecost 54 and Pentecost 57 (Acts xvii. 19, xix. 1, 8-10, xx. 18, 31), then it must have been written shortly after the events described in Acts xvi. 22 ff. After Paul’s second visit to the Churches in Lycaonia during the summer of 52, and his preaching tour through several parts of the province of Galatia, where he had not been before (Acts xvi. 1-6, cf. second preaching presupposed in Gal. iv. 13), at least several months must have elapsed before Galatians was written. Besides, it required time for the Judaisers to reach Galatia, as they did in the interval, and for them to secure the wide influence which they contrived to win, and for this state of affairs to be reported to Paul, who had gone over to Europe. Before the close of the year 52, Paul had settled in Corinth for a stay of eighteen months (Acts xviii. 11), lasting up to the summer of 54. Galatians was written during this time, and more probably in the first half of the period than in the second. A company of THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 197 believers was already gathered about Paul in the place where he was staying (Gal. 1. 2), but no one of these appears to have been closely associated. with the Galatian Churches. If we were right in concluding (above, p. 170) that Paul could not have addressed a letter to Churches in Timothy’s home (Acts xvi, 1), and to Churches which he had visited in company with Silas some time before, and warned against the Judaistie propaganda (Gal. v. 3, i. 9), without sending greetings from both these persons, so well known among the Galatians, if they were with him at the time, then it follows that Galatians could not have been written when Silas and Timothy were with Paul in Corinth, when the two letters to the Thessa- lonians were written in his own name and theirs. The letter must be dated either before or after this time, either while he was waiting for them in Corinth (Acts xviii. 1-5), or after the two helpers had left Corinth again, a period the length of which cannot be definitely determined. The former is the more probable. At the time of the first letter to the Thessalonians, shortly after Timothy’s arrival in Corinth (1 Thess. ii. 6), he had already had, occasion to learn from Christians, who did not belong in Macedonia or Achaia, or anywhere in Europe, that they were familiar with the organisation of the Church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1. 8f.; see below, § 13). When Paul had been on the point of informing them of the cheering successes in Macedonia, they had replied that this was no news to them, or they had antici- pated his account by expressions of joy at the triumph of the gospel in Macedonia. The persons referred to must have been Christians, who came to Paul in Corinth, from Asia, before the time indicated in Acts xviii, 5 and 1 Thess. ii. 6. And they must have come directly by sea; for if they had come by the land route through Macedonia, visiting the Churches in Philippi and Thessalonica which lay on their way, Paul could not have related to the Thessa- 198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT lonian Church what these Christians from abroad had said to him, in the manner that he does in 1 Thess. 1. 8f. If, now, we ask where these Christians from Asia got their information about the circumstances under which the Church in Thessalonica was organised, the source could not possibly have been any written communication of Paul’s; on the contrary, Paul is agreeably surprised by their voluntary expression of gratification at the entrance of the gospel into Thessalonica, and tells the Christians there about it in order to encourage them. So it must have been another Christian who had witnessed the progress of the gospel in Macedonia, and who at the same time was intimately associated with the Churches in Asia from which these Christians had come to Paul, who had sent reports of the missionary work in Macedonia to these Churches or to individual members of the same. What more ‘natural than to suppose that this person was Timothy, who could hardly have failed to inform his mother, in Lystra, and through her the Churches in Galatia, what happened to him and his companions on their missionary journey through Macedonia? So these Christians from outside of Europe, who, according to 1 Thess. 1. 8 f., did not need to be informed by Paul about the organisation of the Church in Thessalonica, because they had already heard about it in detail, were none other than the representatives of the Galatian Churches who brought the report of the incursion of the Judaisers in Galatia to Paul in Corinth (above, p. 169). In view of the condition of things in Galatia, Paul did not dare wait, so he sent the messengers from the Galatians home again as quickly as he could with a letter written by his own hand. When Silas and Timothy arrived, Galatians was already written and sent. | If this putting together of very simple exegetical observations is not altogether wrong, Galatians is the earliest of Paul’s letters that has come down to us. At THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 199 the time when it was written the marks of the blows which he had received in Philippi, possibly some eight or nine months before (Gal. vi. 17; 1 Thess. ü. 2), could very well have been still visible. If the intercourse between the Galatian Churches and Paul in Corinth took place by sea, as seems to be the case, Galatians was written some time after the opening of navigation, 1.6. after March in the year 53, not very long before the arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth and the writing of 1 Thessalonians._ 1. (P. 193.) As early as 370, Victorinus (Mai, Script. vet. n. Coll. iii. 2. 1) mentions as traditional the view that Galatians was written in Ephesus at the time of Paul’s ministry there. The old prologues affirm the same (Cod. Fuld. 248; Amiatin. 296; Card. Thomasius, Opp. i. 402, 421, 433, 451). In more recent times this has been the prevailing view among those who understand by Galatia the country of Galate, eg. Hug, Einl.? ii. 351; Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, 285 ; Komm. zum Gal. 541; Hofmann, ii. 1.1; Meyer-Sieffert, 24; Godet, Introd. i. 269. Confirmatory evidence has been sought in the fact that, according to Jewish tradition, the year from the autumn of 68 to the autumn of 69, and: therefore also the year 54-55, were Sabbatical years (Anger, Ratio Temporum, 38; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, 204 ; Komm. zum Gal. 356, 542, cf. the summary in Schürer, i, 35 ff. [Eng. trans. 1. i. 41-43]), and it has further been sup- posed that this was referred to in Gal. iv. 10 (ἐνιαυτούς). But if this, the last of the seasons there enumerated, had an actual significance for the readers at that time, we should expect a more explicit emphasis upon it. Chrono- logically, too, this supposition, if all its premises were valid, would still be highly improbable. If the two and a quarter years, Acts xix. 8-10, ended with Pentecost 57, Paul must have begun his stay in Ephesus somewhere near the last of February 55. But since several months must have elapsed between his arrival there (which followed directly upon his second visit to the Galatian region, Acts xviii. 23) and the writing of Galatians, it appears that the Sabbatical year ending in the autumn of 55 was already past when the Epistle was sent. Moreover, it was half gone when Paul last visited the Galatians without his noticing then any signs of Judaistic tendencies (see Ῥ. 165f. above). But it is exceedingly improbable that the Judaisers from Jerusalem, arriving among the Galatians in the latter half of the Sabbatical year, should have come out at once with the recommendation of the legal provisions in this particular, and have succeeded with them before the expiration of the year. We must note, besides, that the Sabbatical year in any case was observed only in Palestine and the neighbouring districts, and then not with the same exactness in all parts of the Holy Land (Mishnah, Shebiith vi. 1, ix. 2; cf. A. Geiger, Lesestücke aus der Mischna, 75 f., 78 f.), a fact which Clemen, Chronol. der paulin. Briefe, 204, presents with quite arbitrary inadequacy. Of the representatives of the old idea of “ Galatia, 200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Gal. i: 2, Bleek (Hinl. 1862, S. 418) and Lightfoot (Galatians, 36-56) assigned the Epistle to a period between 2.Cor, and Rom., both on aecount of the aflinity in thought between Gal. and Rom., and because of the great difference between Gal. and 1 and 2 Thess.; Gal., then, would have been written in the three months Acts xx. 3, or on the journey through Macedonia just before. Some, too, who have cut loose from the old assumption with regard to the persons to whom the letter was sent, have been so impressed with the idea of the development of Pauline thought as reflected in’ the succession of the Epistles, as to suppose that they must even put Galatians later than. Romans. . So, for example, Kühn, NKZ, 1895, 8. 156-162, who thinks that Galatians was sent to the Lycaonian Churches during the apostle’s imprisonment in Caesarea. Clemen, too, in his all-confnusing Chronologie (205), puts Galatians after Romans, though he cannot tell us where it was written (203). Kühn (159) and Clemen (200ff.) see con- firmation in Gal. ii. 10, which they understand as a reference to the great collection which Paul was only just ready to take to Jerusalem when Romans was written (Rom. xv. 25 1f.). But as little as the obligation which Paul assumed in the apostolic council, according to the tenor of Gal. ii. 10, looked merely to the gathering of a single money collection in specified parts of the Gentile Church, just so little did he appeal to one such collection as the fulfilment of it. . He can testify, rather, that he has been zealous and diligent to meet the obligation assumed at the council, and this he could not say unless immediately upon his return from Jerusalem, in Antioch, Syria, Cilicia; and on his second missionary journey (Acts xv. 30-xvi. 5), he had stirred up the existing Gentile Christian Churches to make these collections and gifts. On the other hand, Gal. ii. 10 would be empty talk, if the contribution which he took to Jerusalem about Pentecost 58 were the first fruit of his ostensibly so zealous endeavour to carry out a pledge made some six and a half years before. We need not here concern ourselves with the question whether the Galatian and Asiatic Churches had any part in the great collection of 58, which would seem from Rom. xv. 26, 2 Cor. viii.-ix., not to have been the case, and which cannot be inferred from 1 Cor. xvi. 1; Acts xx. 4. Between 52 and 58 three or six contributions may have been sent to Jerusalem from! the Galatian Churches and others founded and guided by Paul, just as gifts had already been sent before (Acts xi. 30). From Gal. ii. 10 we must conclude that a beginning had been made within the first year after the apostolic council. Even Ramsay (Church in Roman Empire, 101) seems to have been influenced to some extent by Lightfoot’s diseussion to put Galatians as late as his historical and geographical data would permit, and holds that the Epistle was written from Antioch in 55, at the beginning of the third missionary journey (p.'168; Acts xviii. 22f.). I merely ask how Paul, who, according to Ramsay’s interpretation of Acts xviii, 23 (see p. 190 above), was then on the point of' visiting the Galatian Churches for the third time, could have written iv. 20, or the letter as a whole, without alluding to his impending visit. We shall never reach a chronological arrangement of Paul’s Epistles which will do justice to the indications of the letters them- selves and to the notices in Acts, if we assume as our underlying premise that Paul was a theological thinker and writer, who derived the essential impulse to the composition of his letters, the choice of his teaching material, THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 201 and the particular manner of its treatment in the several Epistles, from the progress of his investigations. Rather was he a missionary, who was determined not only in the composition of Epistles, but in the choice of themes and treatment, by the aims of this his calling, and the requirements of the Churches which he had founded and which were under his care. Through long preparation, and longer missionary experience, he had arrived at fixed and basal principles before he wrote the first of the letters which have come down to us. The ideas of Galatians which reappear in Romans must have become perfectly clear to him, at the latest, at the time of the con- troversies described in Acts xv. and Gal. ii. 1-10. According to Gal. ii. 15-21, ef. i. 12-16; 2 Cor. iv. 6, v. 16f.; Rom. vii. 6-viii. 2; Phil. iii. 5-12, they were rooted in the very experiences which made him a Christian. But in that conflict he must not only have become conscious of the contra- diction between his Christianity and that of the Pharisaic Christians, he must also have learned even then to develop from Scripture and from Christian experience the arguments for his gospel and against legalistic Christianity, and to use them as weapons in the debate. That he so uses them in Galatians requires no explanation beyond the fact that these con- troversies in Antioch and in Jerusalem already lay behind him, and that he was now confronted by substantially the same opponents in Galatia. The fact, too, that the ideas of justification by and through faith, together with their contraries, drop into the background in Thessalonians and Corinthians, and appear more prominently again in Romans and Philippians, shows simply that Paul was not a stupid schoolmaster repeating his monotonous formulas in season and out of season. The reason why the weapons, which had already been tested more than once in combat, were brought out again from his armoury when he wrote the letter to Rome, will become clear enough in our examination of that Epistle. Occasional expressions like 1 Cor. xv. 56 or 2 Cor. v. 21 show that the whole circle of thought which meets us first in Galatians did not become unfamiliar to the apostle in the interim. If it were admissible to interpret and explain the differences in teaching in the several Epistles from the order of their composition instead of from the variety of conditions in the Churches and in the historical occasion of the letters, one might infer from a comparison of Gal. iv. 10 with Rom. xiv. 5f. that several years of inner development lay between Galatians and Romans, and Col. ii. 16 would have to be set near Galatians in time but as far as possible from Romans. Halmel, Über rim. Recht im Gal. 1895, concludes from the observation expressed in the title, together with the affinity between the theological conceptions of Galatians and Romans, “that Galatians must have been written in Rome wr Italy, and in any case, therefore (sic), was not far removed from Romans in point of time” (S. v and 30). Now, there was an interval of more than three years between Romans, which was written from Corinth at the beginning of the year 58, and Paul’s arrival at the capital in the spring of 61. As Halmel, further, does not insist on Rome at all, and consequently, it would seem, does not insist that the letter was written during Paul’s two years’ imprisonment there (Acts xxviii. 30), the possible interval between Galatians and Romans seems to stretch out to five years or more, that is, to some period after the expiration of the two years mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, when Paul no longer sojourned as a prisoner in Rome, 202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT but somewhere in Italy in freedom. And this, we are told, is proximity in point of time! If the introduetion of provisions of Roman law “as things quite well known” were really inconceivable outside of Rome and Italy, it would not suffice to remove the author thither ; but, assuming that he wished to be understood, it would be necessary first of all to look for the readers also in Italy, instead of in Galatia. If, again, we are really to presuppose in Galatians an acquaintance with Roman law specifically (cf. ZKom. Gal. 160 ff., 191 ff.), it is a sufficient explanation that Paul, according to the tradition of Acts, which has never been assailed with any sound objection, was born a civis Romanus, and that the principal Churches of Galatia were located in Roman colonies (p. 191 above). Roman citizens, who claimed the privileges of Roman law, were found everywhere in the empire ; cf., for example, Berl. dg. griech. Urk. Nos. 96, 15; 113. 3, 6; 327. 2; 361. 11. 19; and, moreover, Roman law had had everywhere a transforming influence on the legal procedure of the ἔθνη; cf. Strabo, x. p. 484. 2. (P. 194.) Calvin, who reckoned the fourteen years of Gal. ii. 1 from Paul’s conversion, and identified the visit to Jerusalem there mentioned with that of Acts xi. 30, assigned the composition of Galatians to a date before the apostolic council (Com. in Gal. ii. 1-5, ed. Tholuck, 546). This pre- supposes—what Calvin does not expressly say, however—that the Galatian Churches were those situated in Lycaonia. 3. (P.195.) The view that Galatians was written by Paul during his Roman imprisonment first gained currency, somewhat late, in the Eastern Churches, In the West, before Jerome’s day, a very different view prevailed (above, p. 199, note 1). Among the expositors of Galatians, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Ephrem Syrus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia nowhere express themselves, to the present writer’s knowledge, with regard to the time and place of the Epistle. Chrysostom, not in his commentary on Galatians but in the introduction to Romans, gives his opinion that Paul wrote Galatians before Romans, that is, of course, like Romans, before his imprisonment (Montfaucon, ix. 427). Euse- bius of Emesa (Cramer, Cat. vi. 67) seems to have been the first to find in Gal. iv. 20 an indication of imprisonment. Jerome, who in the preparation of his own commentary on Galatians made free use of Eusebius’ and many others (Pref., Vall. vii. 370), borrowed from him this interpretation of iv. 20 (468), and again, on vi. 11 (529), alludes to the imprisonment of Paul at the time of the Epistle, whereas on vi. 17 (534) he contents himself with a vague reference to the recital of his sufferings, 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. Galatians was first assigned to the Roman imprisonment by the pseudo-Euthalius (Zacagni, 624), Theodoret (Noesselt, 4), CEeumenius (Hentenius, i. 713), and a number of Greek, Syriac, and Coptic Bible MSS. Possibly the fact that Galatians was not infrequently placed after Ephesians, that is, among the Epistles of the imprisonment (GK, ii. 351, 358, 360), contributed to the perpetuation of the error. Thus we see to what extent Halmel (30) is justified in calling this the general opinion of the early Church, and that we are not dealing with a his- torical tradition, but with the spread of an error which arose from a careless reading of the Epistle. THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 203 813. THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH IN THESSA- LONICA, AND THE COURSE OF ITS HISTORY UNTIL THE COMPOSITION OF, PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH THERE. It must have been somewhere about September 52 when Paul, driven from Philippi, came directly to Thessa- lonica (1 Thess. 11. 2; Acts xvi. 19-xvii. 1) along with Silvanus or Silas (n. 1), without stopping in Amphipolis and Apollonia, which were situated upon the great military road by which he travelled (Via Egnatia). His younger helper, Timothy, who had been with him only during the journey from Lystra (n. 2), and the author of the account, who by the use of “we” in Acts xvi. 16-17 indicates his presence, and in Acts xvi. 13 his participation in the teaching activity of the missionaries, seem for the time being to have been left behind in Philippi. Although Timothy is not mentioned in connection with the flight of Paul and Silvanus from Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 10), and does not appear again until after Paul’s departure from Bercea (Acts xvii. 14), it is not to be inferred that Timothy had no share in Paul’s work at Thessalonica, nor is it to be supposed that he journeyed from Philippi to Bercea (or Berrhcea) without stopping on the way to visit the newly made converts in Thessalonica. If it may be regarded as certain that the “we” which runs through both letters includes both the helpers mentioned in the greeting with Paul as joint writers with him of the Epistle, then Timothy is to be considered one of the organisers of this Church (n. 3). After Paul’s departure from Philippi, he very soon followed him to Thessalonica and thence to Bercea. Before Byzantium became Constantinople, Thessalonica was the largest city on the Balkan peninsula (n. 4), which, together with the fact that it had a numerous Jewish population, made it a suitable station for Paul’s work ; and, 204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT had it not been that he was compelled to go, he would not have left it so soon as he did. As it was, after three weeks’ preaching in the synagogue (n. 5), the Jewish majority succeeded in stirring up the populace against the missionaries to such an extent, that the latter were com- pelled to eonceal themselves; and, after their host Jason and several of the converts were brought before the city authorities in their stead, and veleased only on bail, the missionaries fled for refuge to Berova, The original Church in 'Thessalonica consisted ofa few Jews and a large number of Greeks, some of whom, before they became Christians, had been adherents of the: synagogue. Among them were several women belonging to the upper classes. Subsequent additions to the Chureh seem to have been made exclusively from the Gentile population (n. 6). That the attack upon the missionaries: and the persecution of the new converts immediately following (Acts xvii. 5-9; 1 Thess. i. 6) emanated from the Jews, is clear from 1 Thess. ii. 15; since, inasmuch as Paul speaks here not of himself alone, but also of Silvanus and Timothy, the reference is not to the threatening: of his life, in Jerusalem (Acts ix. 29), but to his expulsion from Thessalonica and Berea. But inasmuch as the Jews succeeded at once in arousing the populace against the missionaries by charging them with teaching doc-. trines contrary to the State, which led the politarehs to take precautionary measures oppressive to the Christians (Acts xvii, 5-9), it is not surprising that Paul, in speaking of the persecution which the Church had endured earlier, and was still enduring (1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14, iii. 8; 2 Thess, i. 4), does not make special mention of the fact that the persecution was begun by the Jews. This, oppressed | con- dition of the infant Church in Thessalonica made, the missionaries, desirous of turning back immediately after their departure (1 Thess. ii. 17f.), ee. while they were still in Berea. Speaking for himself, Paul assures them THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES ‘OF PAUL ‘205 that he had made still a second attempt to carry out this intention, but had been hindered as before by Satan. This effort Paul must have made at the time when he was alone in Athens, waiting for Silvanus and Timothy (Acts xvii. 16). Here, however, the accounts in Acts do not correspond entirely with Paul’s statements. Although Acts xvii. 15 gives the impression that Silvanus and Timothy were to follow Paul to Athens as soon as they could, there is no report of their arrival, which omission, together with what is said in Acts xvii. 5, forces one to ‘the conclusion that these helpers remained for a consider- able time longer in Macedonia, and did not join Paul again until he had been at work in Corinth for some time (n.7). On the other hand, according to 1 Thess. 111. 1-6, Silvanus and Timothy actually came to Athens as Paul had instructed 'them to do (Acts xvii. 15), from which point Paul and Silvanus sent Timothy back to Macedonia, in particular to Thessalonica (n. 3). Shortly before the composition of this letter, Timothy returned with cheering news to Paul, or rather, since the “ we” is retained in 1 Thess. ii. 6f., to Paul and Silvanus, whereupon this letter was sent to the Church in Thessalonica in the name of all three. The letter must have been written in Corinth. Had it been written in Athens, there would be something strange even about the ἐν ᾿Αθήναις of iii. 1 (but cf. 1 ον. χν. 32, xvi. 8). Moreover, in i. 7f. it seems to be presupposed that the gospel’ had been preached with good’ success, not in Athens alone, but in’ several places in Achaia, as it had been preached earlier in Macedonia. But we have de- finite proof for a later date, and so for Corinth as the place of composition in the statement (i. 8f.) that the con- version of the Thessalonians was known not only in Macedonia (Beroea and possibly also Philippi) and Achaia (Athens and Corinth), whither the news was brought by those who preached the gospel in this region,’ but every- 206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT where (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, cf. Rom. i. 8), so that it was un- necessary for Paul to tell the story of the founding of the Thessalonian Church, but was able to listen to expressions of praise and joy at the entrance of the gospel into Thessa- lonica (above, p. 197 f.). Since the contrast to Macedonia and Achaia implies that the persons in question must have been Christians from Asia, not only is it necessary to suppose that the news of the successful preaching of the gospel in Thessalonica had reached the Christian Churches in Asia, but it must also be assumed that Paul had had occasion shortly before to converse with Christians from Asia, and to learn from them the joy. which had been awakened in their home by his successes in Macedonia. If Paul had received his information about the joyful interest with which his missionary work in Macedonia was followed only through letters from Galatia or Antioch in Syria, he could not have written the words, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ ἀλλὰ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν. The expressions which follow (λαλεῖν, ἀπαγγέλλουσιν) prove that the intercourse between Paul and the representatives of the Churches outside of Europe had been rather of the nature of a conversation, in the course of which the latter had shown that they were familiar with the story of the founding of the Church in Thessalonica in all its details. We have seen above, p. 197 £., that in all probability these persons were the ambassadors of the Galatian Churches. But whether. this was so or not, unless the most extraordinary circumstances be assumed, the spread of the news of the organisation of the Churches in Macedonia as far as the Churches in Galatia or Syria, and the reporting of the impression which this news made there back to Paul, who was travel- ling in Europe, requires an interval of several months between Paul’s flieht from Thessalonica and the com- position of 1 Thessalonians. If, therefore, for chronological reasons, we conclude that the letter was written in Corinth THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 207 and not in Athens, the use of the three names in the greeting (i. 1) would indicate a time subsequent to the event described in Acts xvii. 5, while 1 Thess. iii, 6, shows that it was written immediately after this event. Paul wrote Galatians before the arrival of the helpers in Corinth, possibly in April or May 53 (above, p. 198); 1 Thessalonians after the reunion, possibly in June of the same year. 1. (P. 203.) The identity of Silas, Acts xv. 22, 27, 32 (34), 40, xvi. 19, 25, 29, xvii. 4, 10, 14, 15, xviii. 5, and Silvanus, 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1; 2 Cor.i. 19; 1 Pet. v. 12, appears from the statements made by Paul, and in Acts with regard to the second missionary journey. As to his double name, above, p. 31f. As Acts xvi. 37 presupposes that he, like Paul, possessed Roman citizenship, he may have been one of the “ Libertines” spoken of in Acts vi. 9, above, p. 60f. Asa man of prominence in the Jerusalem Church (xv. 22), of mature years, therefore, and besides prophetically gifted (xy. 32), he was sent together with Judas Barsabbas to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, in order to explain and confirm the decision of the apostolic council by word of mouth (xv. 27, 32). This implies that Silas was, on the one hand, a man who enjoyed the confidence of the mother Church ; and, on the other hand, that he was also in sympathy with the progress of the Gentile mission up to that time. Both things were important for Paul, and probably decided him, after his break with Barnabas, to choose Silas of Jerusalem as his companion on the second missionary journey (xv. 40), instead of some one of the other teachers at Antioch (xiii. 1). Let it be noted here that what is said of the dissuasion of the Spirit, Acts xvi. 6, 7 (also xvii. 15, according to Cod. D), is not to be referred to Paul as the medium, for he used rather to receive swch instructions in visions at night (xvi. 9, xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 23, cf. xxii. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 1-4), but to Silas (xv. 32, where καὶ αὐτοί, like καὶ αὐτούς, xv. 27, is to be taken by itself, and separated from προφῆται ὄντες by the punctuation—so Blass ; only Judas and Silas were prophets, not Barnabas and Paul). The account in Acts xv. 30-34, partly because of the uncertainty of the text, is by no means as clear as one could wish. First, the clause xv. 34a is to be recognised as part of the earlier text, in the form ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σιλᾷ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτούς (CD*) and πρὸς αὐτούς (correction in D), αὐτοῦ (min. 13=ev. 33, Gregory, Prol. 469, 618), αὐτόθι (3 min.), bi (many MSS. of the Lat. Vulg. and Copt., Sah. and margin of S*) are to be regarded as alterations with a view to an easier reading. The opinion given by the prophet Silas, in such a way as not to exclude the action of the πνεῦμα, but rather to include it (ef. xv. 28), was that Judas and Silas should remain still longer in Antioch. The clause μόνος de Ἰούδας ἐπορεύθη, vouched for only by D and some Latin MSS., is then an amplifying gloss, to explain the fact that in what follows there is mention only of Silas, and nothing of Judas’ remaining there, whereas the ἔδοξε applied to both men. The gloss, moreover, is clumsy enough, as it should either have said, “Judas returned to Jerusalem notwithstanding,” or 208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT else, “Silas alone, however, really remained in Antioch.” On. the, contrary, the stubborn clause 34a, so original in form and substance, which had. a wide- spread and significant currency without the addition of 34), is not to be understood as a gloss, reconciling the apparent contradiction between vv. 33 and 40, An emendator with this in view would have written simply, “But Silas preferred (perhaps at Paul’s request) to remain longer in Antioch,” 34a, probably the original in both recensions, was in the one so amplified by the addition of 34) that the reader learned to a certainty what became of Judas and Silas, while in the other it was struck out on account of: the apparent contradiction between it and 33. It is possible, again, that a slip of the eye from αὐτούς, 33, to αὐτούς, 34a, was responsible for the omission, and this Blass considers probable in spite of his preference for αὐτοῦ in the second passage. D illustrates the ease with which the omission might oceur, for there the clause in question forms'a complete line, which ends in αὐτούς, like the line preceding. If we admit 34a to the text, we have an account which is not exactly connected, but which involves no contradictions. ,, xv. 33 does not say that Judas and Silas for their part took leave of the brethren in Antioch and set out for Jerusalem, a statement which Luke would have made outright (Luke viii, 38, 39; Acts ἵν. 21, 23, v. 40, 41, xiii, 3, 4, xv. 30) and without ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν (xxviii. 25, xv. 30), but only that the Antiochians said they would not detain them longer. Silas gave a decisive veply to the eflect that he and Judas ought still to remain in Antioch, and in consequence they did so remain, as Barnabas did in his time (xi. 22 ff.). Thus the way is sufficiently paved for xv. 40, whereas if 34a were rejected) it would be hard: to understand how the man who had just returned to Jeru- salem should! ‘suddenly reappear at Antioch. The narrator could not have omitted to state that Paul summoned him from Jerusalem. Even in that ease, to be sure, Luke would have left no room to doubt the identity of Silas, xv. 40, with the Silas of xv. 22, 27, 32, 34. Zimmer's attempt (Z/KW, 1881, S. 169-174, ef., per contra, Jülicher,«JbfPTh. 1882, S. 538-552). to distinguish the Silas who assisted Paul on the second missionary journey from the Jerusalem envoy of the same name, has no support whatever in the only account we have of the latter. The hypothesis that Silas (=Silvanus) is to be identified with Titus, suggested in the first instance by Märcker (Titus Silvanus, 1864) and championed by Graf (Vierteljahrsschr. f. englisch-theol. Forschung, ii. 1865, S. 373-394), cannot be rescued, in this fashion. | Originating’ in ἃ heedless astonishment that Titus is, not mentioned in Acts, and an effort to justify Acts in the matter, the hypo- thesis has simply created contradictions between Acts and Paul. Titus was an uncircumcised Gentile, whom Paul. took with him from Antioch to the apostolic council (Gal. ii, 1,3, ef. Acts xv, 2), and, of course, took back to Antioch again. Silas, on the other hand, was sent to Antioch on the same oceasion' by the mother Church. At that time, as for some time before, he belonged to the Church in Jerusalem, for ἐξ αὐτῶν and ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, Acts xv. 22, have no other airtecedent than the immediately preceding mention of those who sent him as “the apostles and the elders, with the whole Chureh,” cf. xv. 4. He was a Jew, therefore, or at least a circumcised. proselytey ef. Acts vi..'5. This is true also of Pawl’s helper, Silas= Silvanus, according to Acts xvi. 3 (for otherwise his subsequent. eircumeision would have, been THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 209 noticed as well as Timothy’s) and xvi. 20. Silvanus, Paul’s colleague in the organisation of the Achaian Churches (2 Cor. i. 19, ef, Acts xviii. 5), cannot be identical with the man who in the same Epistle is constantly and exclus- ively spoken of as Titus (2 Cor. ii, 13, vii. 6-14, viii. 6, 16, 23, xii. 18), who first became a co-labourer with Paul in his work with the Corinthians (2 Cor. viii. 23), by his successful execution of the errand on which Paul had sent him to Corinth in the interval between the first and second Epistles, up to that time having known the Church only from Paul’s laudatory accounts of it (2 Vor. vii. 14). 2. (P.203.) From Acts xvi. 1, Timothy’s home seems to have been not at Derbe, but at Lystra, the town last mentioned, and in NAB introduced with a second eis. It would be strange, too, if the name of his own home Church were omitted from those in xvi. 2, or, if peculiar importance were attached to the testimony of neighbouring Churches, that it should not be brought in as a more emphatic confirmation of the opinion of the home Church. The idea that he was from Derbe arose from the unnatural supposition that in Acts xx. 4 AepBaios καί was to be attached to the name after it, like Θεσσα- λονικέων δέ and ᾿Ασιανοὶ δέ, instead of to the one preceding, like. Bepo.aios, the only parallel term (Wieseler, Chron. 26, “a Derbean also, Timothy” ; for “there was also a Derbean with them, namely, Timothy”; K. Schmidt, Apostelgeschichte, i. 42, “from Derbe ; Timothy besides,” which in the first place is linguistically inadmissible ; and, secondly, would tell us, contrary to the translator’s intent, that Gaius also was from Derbe). For this interpret- ation one ought really to conjecture Δερβαῖος δέ, as does Blass, following an earlier precedent, so that Gaius would appear as a third Thessalonian with Aristarchus and Secundus, and be identical with the Gaius of Acts xix. 29. The present writer sees no necessity for this. It is true we have no right to consider Paul’s companions named in Acts xx. 4 as being, all of them, repre- sentatives of the Churches which had taken part in the collection for Jerusalem (2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; 1 Cor. xvi. 4). Aside from the fact that the provinces of Asia and Galatia, which are represented in xx. 4, do not seem to have had any part in this collection (above, p. 200 f.), it would be strange that no Corinthian is mentioned here. But, apart from that supposition, we can easily conceive that Luke meant that the men in whose company Paul was travelling to Jerusalem should be viewed as representatives of the cities and districts from which they came, and that he arranged their names and described them accordingly. There were: 1. Sopater from Berea (minuse. Sosipatros= Rom. xvi. 21, both names found in Thessalonian inscriptions, Le Bas, ii., Nos. 1356, 1357) ; 2. Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica ; 3. Gaius from Derbe (a different person, therefore, from the Macedonian of Acts xix. 29, as well as from the Corinthian of 1 Cor. i. 14 and Rom. xvi. 23, but perhaps the same as the Gaius addressed in 3 John 1) and Timothy (whose Lystran extraction had been mentioned in xvi. 1, and is recalled here also by S!),— both these men representing the province of Galatia (1 Cor. xvi. 1, above, p- 191); 4. Tychieus and Trophimus from the province of Asia (according to D and Sah., and also S® margin, both from Ephesus, as appears in Trophi- mus’ case at least from Acts xxi. 29). 3. (Pp. 203, 205.) Although expositors down to Hofmann for the most part paid little attention to the “we” in the Pauline Epistles, Laurent (ThStKr. VOL. I. 14 210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 1868, S. 159 ff., ef. his Neutest. Stud. 117) tried to maintain that in 1 and 2 Thess. Paul referred to himself as “we” only when speaking in the con- sciousness of his official position; but as “I,” on the other hand, when he spoke “more personally, confidentially, as it were.” On the contrary, we must assert that there is not a passage in the Epistles where Paul uses this “we=1” (least of all Rom. i. 5). As Paul in 1 Thess. 1. 1; 2 Thess. 1. 1, introduces Silas and Timothy, co-founders of the Church, as joint authors with himself of the Epistles, it goes without saying that when he proceeds to the letter itself with “ we,” and not with “I,” as in 1 Cor. 1, 4; Gal. 1.6: Phil. i. 3, he means that the two join with him in everything that he puts in this form. If this holds true without question of the thanksgivings with which both Epistles open, it is equally impossible to draw a line further on beyond which the “we” is shrunk to an “I.” So, too, an express explana- tion of the “we” in 2 Cor. i. 19 would have been needless if Silas as well as Timothy had been included in the “we” of vy. 1-14. On the other hand, it was unnecessary in 1 Thess. iii. 1 f. to explain that the “we” was confined to Paul and Silas, because it was plain from. the statement itself that when Timothy was to be sent away, Paul and Silas were the senders. That the “we” is seriously meant becomes obvious in 1 Thess. ii. 18. Paul can say of the three missionaries that after their departure from Thessalonica it was their strong desire and earnest purpose to visit the city again : he interrupts the plural with an ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος, because it is only of himself that he can say that the purpose was entertained, not merely once but twice. Putting forward the three missionaries as a single τύπος, 2 Thess. iii. 9 (cf. Phil. iii. 17, i. 1, ii. 20), is as natural as the similar reference to the many Thessalonians, 1 Thess. i. 7, according to the correct reading (cf. John xx. 25, and παράδειγμα, Thue. iii. 57). Since the Church is represented as a single family made up of many children, the corresponding relation of the three missionaries to the Church can be compared to that of a nurse and again to that of a father, 1 Thess. ii. 7, 11; but in this very passage we are reminded by ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι, ii. 7, that it is more than one person whose attitude is described. That this title (ἀπόστολοι) was applicable also to Silas and Timothy is unquestionable, see p. 107, n. 3. Moreover, it accords with the nature of such descriptions of the attitude of a number of persons, that not every individual statement is equally applicable to them all. It is of no consequence, therefore, that. we do not, know whether Timothy and Silas shared Paul’s manual labour, or to what extent they did (1 ‘Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8). On the other hand, if one is speaking for others also, but is himself the principal person, it is still permissible to let his own “1” take the place now and then of the “we” (1 Thess. iii. 5, v.27). Hofmann, NT, i. 205 ff., and Spitta, Z. Gesch. des Urchr. i. 115, 121, are hardly correct. in inferring from 1 Thess. iii. 5 that, after Paul and Silas together had, de- spatched Timothy from Athens to, Thessalonica (iii. 2), Paul alone sent still another messenger thither. To explain the singular in 111. 5, it is assumed that in the meantime Silas also had left Paul; but to what place was this helper, who worked with Paul in Macedonia, in Athens, and afterward in and about Corinth, likely to have gone from Athens at this time?, One could only conjecture a return to Macedonia, like Timothy’s. In this case there would be a double sending in addition to the mission of Timothy THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 2ıı (iii. 2), —the sending of Silas, which is nowhere mentioned, and that of an unnamed person supposedly referred to in iii. 5. But how could Paul have been silent here regarding Silas’ absence, even if the journey—no one knows in what direction—had been one of indifference to the Thessalonians? His absence would in any case have accentuated the painful sense of loneli- ness (iii. 1), and in that very fact would have been an accentuation of the feeling expressed in μηκέτι στέγων, 11]. 1,5, and consequently a motive for the despatch of still another messenger. And why should not Paul have named the messenger, whether it were Silas, which would be the easiest supposition, or some “ quite subordinate person” (Spitta, 122)? As he was plainly careful to recount every expression of his anxious love for the Thessalonians since his departure from them, he would not only have men- tioned Silas by name, if he were the messenger intended in iii. 5, but, in view of his prominence, would have referred to him at least as particularly as to Timothy (111. 2). In the other event, however, the messenger could only have been the bearer of a letter, and the failure to mention the letter thus sent by him would be incomprehensible. The omission of the object of ἔπεμψα, iii. 5, has no justification, unless it is to be supplied from iii. 1 f. (to which the repetition of μηκέτι στέγων points every reader), and both places refer to the same occurrence ; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 3 and viii. 18, 22. Other- wise a πάλιν could hardly be omitted (Gal. i. 9), and Paul would have marked the contrast with the unemphatic “we” of iii. 1f., not with κἀγώ, but with ἐγὼ Παῦλος (1 Thess. ii. 18; Col. i. 23, as opposed to the plural, Col. i. 1-9, ef. 2 Cor. x. 1; Gal. v. 2; Philem. 19). κἀγώ finds its natural explanation in a contrast with the persons addressed (cf. Phil. ii. 19, 28 ; Eph. i. 15). Paul, as is said plainly enough in iii. 2 f., was greatly troubled for fear that the Church in its distressed condition might not hold out longer without the personal encouragement of its founders, and for that very reason (iii. 5, διὰ τοῦτο) he himself could not endure it longer, and, as remarked, sent Timothy to Thessalonica, in order not only to guard the Church from the shaking of its faith, and of its confidence in its organisers (iii. 2 f.), but also to obtain for his own part the satisfying assurance that the Church had not succumbed to its temptations. This also opposed to view of Wohlenberg, ZKom. 1 & 2 Thess. 73. 4. (P. 203.) Tafel, De Thess. erusque Agro Dissertatio Geographica, Berlin, 1839, in which the writer’s earlier program, Historia Thessalonice, Tübingen, 1835, is incorporated ; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 253-269. Formerly Θέρμη (Herod. vii. 123-128 ; Thue. i. 61), or Θέρμα (Eschines, De Falsa Lega- tione, 31. 36), rebuilt by Cassander about 315 B.c., and named Θεσσαλονίκη, for his wife (also Θεσσαλονίκεια, Strabo, pp. 106, 330, Fragm. 21), after the battle of Philippi civitas libera (Pliny, H. N. iv. 10.36 ; for the coinage cf. Tafel, p. xxix), hence βουλὴ καὶ δῆμος (Le Bas, Inscr. 1359) and προάγειν eis τὸν δῆμον, Acts xvii. 5, cf. xix. 30, 33, residence of the governor of the pro- vince of Macedonia, which after 44 A.D. was again separated from Achaia and administered as a senatorial province by propretors with the title of proconsul (Marquardt,? i. 319). The title πολιτάρχαι, Acts xvii. 6, 8, though otherwise unknown in literature, is splendidly attested for just this part of Macedonia and especially for Thessalonica. The inscriptions bearing on the matter have been very fully collated and thoroughly discussed by 2ı2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT E. De Witt Burton, AJTh. 1898, vol. 11. 598-632. Of the seventeen inserip- tions in which the term oceurs, and two others in which it is restored conjecturally, five or six are from Thessalonica, seven or eight from other Macedonian cities, two from Philippopolis, one from Bithynia, one, from Bosphorus, and one from ‚Egypt (=nineteen in all). In; addition, Oxyr. Papyri, iv. 225, No. 745, of about the year 1 A.p. Of the inscriptions from Thessalonica, one from the time of Augustus (Duchesne et Bayet, Mission au Mont Athos, 1876—separate reprint from Arch. des Miss. Sc., Ser. iii. vol. iii, p. 11, No. 1) names five politarchs ; one of 143 a.p. (Le Bas, iii., No. 1359; ef. Burton, 605-608) and one not dated (Ὁ. I. Gr. 1967, cf. Addenda, p, 990= Le Bas, No, 1357 ; Burton, 600, 607) mention six. Another of the year 46, which mentions but two politarchs, probably belongs to Pella (Burton, 611-613). With regard to the population we have only general statements, Strabo, 323; Lucian, Assin. 46; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. v.17. In the time of the first emperors it surely cannot have been less than at present. About 1835 it was estimated at 80,000; Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, iii. 248, considered 65,000 more exact. According to Th. Fischer in Kirchhof’s Länderkunde von Europa, li. 2. 180 (1893), estimates vary from 100,000 to 135,000, and the proportion of Jews is said to be, nearly two-thirds. Cf, Meyer’s guide-book, Türker und Griechenland (1888), 357, “ population 100,000 ; 60,000 Jews.” The unusual reading, ἡ συναγωγή, Acts xvii. 1, would indicate that the Jews of the whole district, perhaps even those at Amphipolis and Apollonia, made the synagogue at Thessalonica their place of worship, and maintained their connection with it. According to NABD, however (omit- ting the article), it is merely stated that there was a Jewish synagogue at Thessalonica, as at Bercea (xvii. 10), unlike Philippi (xvi. 13), Apollonia, and Amphipolis. But, aside from this, the prominence of the Jews at Thes- salonica is clear from Acts xvii. 4-9, 13. 5. (P. 204.) Acts xvii. 2, ἐπὶ σάββατα τρία, cannot mean “on three Sabbaths,” as one might infer from the deceptive analogy of Acts iii, 1, iv. 5; Luke x. 35, ,but “for three weeks,” as Luke iv. 25 ; Acts xiii. 31, xvi, 18, xvili, 20, xix. 8, 10, 34, xxvii. 20. For σάββατον and vaßßara= week, cf. Luke xviii. 12, xxiv. 1; Acts xx. 7, and p. 19 above. If Paul’s discourses were confined to the Sabbaths, as at the beginning in Corinth (Acts xviii. 4, ef, xiii. 42, 44), the statement, would have had to be made more explicitly. Meetings were also held in the synagogue on Monday and Thursday, the usual fast-days (Schürer, ii. 458, 490 [Eng. trans. τι. ii. 83, 118]; Forsch, 111. 317). The synagogue was open at other times as well (Matt. vi. 2, 5), and served as a meeting-place for unusual gatherings (Jos. Vita, 54). Nothing is said here of any other hall to which Paul removed his lectures in consequence of the opposition of the Jews (contrast Acts xviii. 7, xix. 9); so we are not to suppose that his stay in Thessalonica was much extended beyond these three weeks. The first remittance of money from Philippi to Thessalonica (Phil. iv. 16) may have followed immediately upon Paul’s enforced departure from the former city, and the second two weeks later. 6. (P. 204.) Acts xvii. 4. According to D (πολλοὶ τῶν σεβομένων καὶ Ἑλλήνων πλῆθος πολὺ καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν πρώτων οὐκ ὀλίγαι---ἃ reading which, as regards the καί before Ἕλλ., is confirmed by A, Copt, Vulg.), the actual Gentiles, who visited the synagogue only in exceptional circumstances and without breaking THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 213 with their heathen worship, would be distinguished from the veßonevoı (Acts xiii. 50, xvi. 14, xvii. 17, xviil.'7; cf. φοβούμενοι τὸν Bed», Acts x. 2, 22, xiii. 16, 26), the Gentiles who, as “proselytes of the gate,” regularly attached themselves to the Jewish worship. The common text, τῶν re weßo- μένων Ἑλλήνων, would be analogous to σεβομένων προσηλύτων, xiii. 43, without, however, being quite synonymous. ‘In any case, it is clear that among the converts a small minority were Jews, and a large majority of Gentile birth. Even more, therefore, than in the case of the Galatians (above, p. 166), Paul was justified in regarding the Christians of Thessalonica as Gentile Chris- tians ; ef. 1 Thess. i. 9. We must, nevertheless, notice here that along with the contrast with former heathenism there appears also (i. 10) a contrast with Judaism. If Jason (Acts xvii. 5-9) is the same as the Jason of Rom. xvi. 21, which seems at once probable from the fact that Sosipater (=Sopater, Acts xx, 4), another Macedonian Christian, is there mentioned with him, he too was of Jewish birth (of συγγενεῖς pov). According to Clement of Alex- andria, he was identical with the Jason who represents Christianity over against the Jew Papiscus in the dialogue of Ariston of Pella (Forsch. iii. 74, iv. 309). Secundus and Aristarchus of Thessalonica were probably Gentiles (Acts xx. 4, xix. 29, xxvii. 2; Philem. 24; Col. iv. 10); for Col. iv: 11 refers only to Mark and Jesus Justus, not to Aristarchus; ef. §27. The name Secundus (Acts xx. 4) is abundantly attested in Thessalonica (C. I. Gr. 1967, 1969 ; JHSt. 1887, p. 367, No. 10; Heuzey et Daumet, Macédoine, p. 280, No. 113, Sexodvda). The occurrence of the name Vdios Ἰούλιος Σεκοῦνδος in Thessalonica (Duchesne et Bayet, Mission au mont Athos, p.'50, No. 78) gives ground for the conjecture that the Secundus of Acts xx. 4 may be identified with the Macedonian Gaius, who in Acts xix. 29 is similarly associated with Aristarchus, and that in distinction from (Gaius) Secundus of Thessalonica the other Gaius is designated as from Derbe (Cod. A, 6 AepBaios). Origen’s observation on Rom. xvi. 23 (Del. iv. 686): “Fertur sane traditione maiorum, quod hie Gaius (Rom. xvi. 23) primus episcopus fuerit 'Thessalonicensis ecelesise,” is probably an addition of the translator, Rufinus. It rests upon an arbitrary identification of Gaius, Rom. xvi. 23, with the Macedonian Gaius, Acts xix. 29, whereas Origen himself more correctly compares Rom, xvi. 23 and 1 Cor. i. 14. Demas also (2 Tim. iv. 10; Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24) was probably from Thessalonica. If Demas=Demetrius, we may note that the name Demetrius frequently occurs in Thessaloniea: C. 1. Gr, 1967 (bis) ; JHSt. 1887, p. 360, No.2; E. D. Burton, op. cit. 608, No. iv. Deme- trius the martyr (c. 304) became patron of the city; cf. Acta SS., Oct., iv. 50-209, and also Laurent in BZ, 1895, S. 420ff. The continued existence of a Thessalonian Church is evidenced by the edict of Antoninus Pius of which Melito speaks (Eus. H. E. iv. 26.10). A certain Paraskeue, who erected a monument to her daughter Pheebe (cf. Rom. xvi. 1) at Thessalonica in 156, was probably, to judge from her name, either Jewish or Christian ; cf. Duchesne et Bayet, op. cit. 46, No. 65. Tertullian, Preeser. xxxvi, mentions Thessalonica among the cities in which, ashe was convinced, the apostles’ letters to the respective Churches were still read from the autograph originals, and their “cathedre” were yet in use (GK, i. 652). A large stone pulpit (ἄμβων, Bnpa), half of which stands in the court of the Church of St. George and half in the court of St. Panteleemon’s, is known to this day as 214 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT “St. Paul’s pulpit,” Bayet, op. cit. 249 ff. ; in Leake, iii. 243 ; and Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 269, obher accounts which do not altogether agree, The work in question is of the early Byzantine period, The name στοὺς ἀποστόλους, at the site of the ancient Pella, might more readily embody a genuine remi- niscence ; that is, in case “the apostles” (1 Thess. ii. 6) went on from Thessa- lonica, not by the direct road to Bercea, which runs through swampy country at the outset, but first by the Via Egnatia to Pella, whence a road branches off to Berea, 7. (Ὁ. 205.) The reading ἕως ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, Acts xvii. 14 (of. Luke xxiv. 50), cannot, of course, mean “they brought him clear to the sea” (Weiss, Textkrit. Unters. d. Apostelgesch. 210), for the sentence says nothing about ‘‘ bringing,” and those who accompanied Paul from Bercea brought him rather as far as Athens (xvii. 15). We are probably to read ὡς with HLP. Luke might also have written ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης (ef. Polyb. v. 70, 3 and 12, and Kühner-Gerth. i. 496), but it was not necessary if he really wrote ὡς, Still uncertain which way he should turn, or perhaps, too, with the idea of evading possible pursuers, Paul and his companions set out at first as if they meant to go directly to the coast and take ship somewhere in the neighbourhood of Methone. He went on by land, however, either to Dium to take ship there, or all the way to Athens. The other recension, too, which gives us ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, does not exclude the meaning which the insertion of ὡς expresses even more clearly ; for even this says only that the Christians of Berwa dismissed Paul and the companions they had provided for him (xvii. 15), with the intent and expectation that he would go to the coast. But ver. 15 shows that the decision as to the route, and even as to the destination, was reached not in Bercea, but only after the travellers were on their way ; for otherwise there would have been’ no need of new instructions to Timothy and Silas. This appears even more certainly from the original reading, παρῆλθεν δὲ τὴν Θεσσαλίαν ἐκωλύθη yap εἰς αὐτοὺς κηρύξαι τὸν λόγον ; οἷ. xvi. 6, 7. Paul, then, originally intended to preach in Thessaly also, and undertook to do so (cf. xvi. 7), a thing he could not have thought of atall if he had gone from Berwa to Methone, and thence by sea to Athens, without even approaching the Thessalian border. This word παρελθεῖν (not παραπλεῦσαι, xx. 16) seems rather to point to a land journey, which avoided the larger places of Thessaly, or in the course of which, at all events, there was no preaching in that region. The statement made by the bishop of Servia to the traveller Leake (iii. 330), as an undoubted fact, that Paul passed through there, is not altogether improbable. The adjust- ment of the account in Acts to that in 1 Thess. may be variously conceived. If Paul came alone from Athens to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1), and Silas and Timothy came together from Macedonia to Corinth (Acts xviii. 5; 2 Cor, xi. 9), then Paul must have left Silas behind at Athens, as previously at Berwa, and Silas, waiting in vain for 'Timothy, may on his own motion have gone to Macedonia to meet him, and then, without having gone as far as Thessa- lonica himself, have proceeded with Timothy to Corinth. Even if Timothy had been alone in Macedonia, had returned from there to Athens and found Silas waiting, and then had gone on with him to Corinth, there would be no serious inaceuraey in Acts xviii. 5. In that case, what Timothy told to Silas in Athens and to Paul in Corinth would be summed up together in THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 215 1 Thess. iii. 6, Ephrem Syrus (according to an Armenian catena on Acts, Venice, 1839, p. 310; ef. Harris, Fowr Lectures on the Western Text, 25, 47) had a text of Acts xvii. 15 which made it possible for him to understand the words πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐξήεσαν (which in D form a line by themselves, and so are taken together) as referring to a journey made by Timothy and Silas to Athens, 814, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. The Epistle was written shortly after the arrival of Timothy and Silvanus in Corinth (ii. 6), under the stimulus of the good news which Timothy brought back from Macedonia. The principal occasion of the letter and its purpose we learn from its first division, which forms a complete unit, concluded by a solemn benedic- tion (iii. 11-13). As indicated, by the introductory Aourrov (iv. 1), the discussions which follow, and which are not very closely connected in thought, constitute a series of more incidental concluding remarks. In the first division we have a review of the founding of the Church by the preaching of the writers (i. 2—ii. 16), and of everything which since their departure from Thessa- lonica had manifested their loving interest in the growth of the Church and in the continuance of its pleasant relations with its founders (ii. 17-111. 5). In this review a prominent place is given to statements about the per- secutions which the readers had endured at the beginning, and in the face of which they had since maintained their faith (n. 1). It was mainly this that made the mission- aries solicitous and anxious to return to Thessalonica (ii. 17 £.), and which led, finally, to the sending of Timothy thither (iii. 2f.). Now the tone which pervades these statements is not predominantly that of consolation and encouragement, but of apology. Of course it is for the sake of encouraging the readers that attention is called to the fact that their brave endurance of persecution has become an example to later converts in Macedonia and Achaia (i. 7); and this same purpose is in view when it is 216 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT said that in so doing they have followed the example ot the Christians in Judea (11. 14), on which account, the missionaries are proud of them, and filled with grateful joy at their conduct (i. 19f,1.2f). In the same way the reminder that there is no reasonable hope of im- provement in the situation (111. 4), might be understood as an attempt to keep the readers from growing impatient. Taken, however, in connection with other statements, its purpose seems rather to be that of self-defence on the part of the writers. For example, in 1. 5f., practically at the beginning of the letter, they appeal in the same way to their readers’ knowledge of the manner in which they had come among them, reminding them that, like the Lord Himself, they had furnished the readers an.example of patience in enduring persecution. special attention is called (ii. 2) to the insulting treatment to which they had been subjected in Philippi, just before they came to Thessalonica, and to the feeling of anxiety with which they had to do their work even in Thessalonica (ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι). So that, if subsequently the readers had to en- dure much at the hands of their fellow-citizens, they certainly ought not to forget that the Jews, with whom the chief responsibility for the unfortunate condition of affairs in Thessalonica rested, had first driven the mission- aries themselves from Thessalonica, and had persecuted them to Bercea (11. 14-16, cf. p. 204, line 22). This'same hostility on the part of the Jews to the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, which was prompted by their hatred, the missionaries were now encountering in Corinth, as is shown by the change to the present tense in il. 15f., in the light of which passage also 111. 7 is to be understood. As a further indication of the apologetic purpose of the Epistle, we have the statements about the preaching and general conduct of the mission- aries in Thessalonica, which manifestly are made in the light of a different representation regarding that ministry THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 215 They did not preach with empty words (i. 5), they did not set forth mere human doctrine, but they preached the word of God and the gospel of Christ (11. 2, 9, 13, π|. 2), and did it with the power, and confidence, and openness which that word inspires in its true preachers (1. 5, 11. 2). It is true that their preaching made certain demands of the shearers (ii. 3, ἡ παράκλησις ἡμῶν, cf. ii. 11), but they were not those of the deceiver who flatters his hearers in order that he may make himself personally acceptable to them. They were not actuated by ambition, nor by any other unworthy motive which might have led them to employ improper means; above everything else, they had not been covetous (11. 3-6). With the utmost effort they had supported themselves by toiling with their own hands (u. 9), and their entire conduct had shown their complete devotion to the work with which they had been intrusted by God, and proved their unselfish, even tender love for those who heard their preaching (11. 7-12). God as well as the Church is witness to their blameless behaviour (1. 10, 5, ef. 1. 4). Now the Thessalonian Christians to whom Paul makes this vigorous defence of himself and of his helpers, could not have been the accusers in the case. The feeling which the authors have concerning them is uniformly that of sratitude (1. 2); and one of the items of good news which Timothy had brought back a little while before, was the information that the Thessalonians held those who had laboured among them always in kindly remembrance, and were just as anxious to see Paul and Silvanus as the latter were to see them (111. 6). On the other hand, there is not the shghtest indication that these persons who were slan- dering Paul and opposing his gospel were Christians from abroad like those who had appeared in Galatia shortly before. The accusations, therefore, must have been made by the non-Christian neighbours of the Thessalonian Christians. The husbands of the women converts be: 218 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT longing to the upper classes, who remained heathen (Acts xvi. 4), and the relatives and former friends of the new converts generally, may have represented to them that they had been misled into a foolish superstition by self- seeking and covetous adventurers, and in consequence were compelled to encounter the ill-will of their neighbours with all the unpleasant things that this involved, while the men who had got them into this trouble had dis- appeared at the right time to avoid all such consequences. It is easy to see how the flight of the missionaries from Thessalonica, the placing of Jason and other Christians under bail (Acts xvii. 9), the sending of money from Philippi to Thessalonica (Phil. iv. 16), and the hostility to the Christians on the part of their fellow-citizens (1 Thess. ii. 14), might all be used to give colour to such a representation of matters. That this was actually the case is directly indicated in ji. 8; for the anxiety which led to the sending of Timothy was not caused so much by the fear that the faith of the Church might be shaken by persecution, as that individuals under the stress of persecution might be coaxed away, t.e. led to speak disparagingly of their own conversion (n. 2). This, of course, must result in the shaking of their faith; for, if the organisers of the Church were deceivers, then the faith of the Thessalonians was vain. The tempter, who was threatening to destroy the apostle’s entire work in Thessalonica (111, 5), assumed not only the form of a roaring lion (1 Pet. v. 8), but also that of a fawning dog (Phil. iii. 2) and a hissing serpent (1 Cor. xi. 3). So also 11, 6 shows that until Timothy’s return Paul and Silvanus were very anxious for fear lest the Church had lost confidence in its founders, and lest its love for them had grown cold. Perhaps it may seem strange that, after having been thus reassured by Timothy on these and other points,—indeed, after having had his feeling changed to one of joy,—Paul should now review the entire previous THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 2ic history of his relations to the Church so earnestly, in such detail, and withal in a manner so apologetic. But, in the first place, we know from experience that when one has been weighed down for months by some great care, how difficult it is to speak of it, particularly if it be a delicate matter; but once let the burden of anxiety be relieved, and there comes a very strong desire, to give vent to one’s pent-up feelings, and the recollections of the agony through which one has passed are apt to be mingled with expressions of joyful gratitude. In the second place, it was not until Timothy’s return that Paul knew how much pressure was being brought to bear upon the Thessalonian Christians, and how seriously he was being slandered by their neighbours, so that up to this time he had not been in a position to set the facts in a clear light with definite reference to such slanders., In the third place, the grateful joy and the profound satis- faction for the present condition of the Church, so strongly expressed in i. 6f. (1. 2, 1. 19}, do not imply that there was nothing more to be desired. ‘The desire to return to Thessalonica, which from the first had been prompted by a feeling of solicitude for the Church, was just as strong as ever (ii. 10, 11, ef. ii. 6). There were still defects in their faith which Paul felt could not be remedied except by his personal presence (iii. 10). In the second division of the letter there are references to moral deficiencies which from the coldly scholastic point of view may seem inconsistent with the expressions of exuberant joy which we find in the first division (i. 2, i, 19f., 1. 6, 9). But even in this first division the steadfastness of the Church, which is the occasion of the apostle’s rejoicing, seems to be in need of fuller demon- stration in the future (iii. 8), and, as indicated by the elliptical καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς eis ὑμᾶς (111. 12, cf. iii. 6), the desire expressed that the Lord may make the Christians in ‘Thessalonica abound yet more in love toward one 220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT another and toward all men, has some reference to the relation between the Church and its founders. The Church had proved itself much more steadfast than Paul had dared to hope while he was waiting for news, though the whispering of their neighbours had not left. them entirely unaffected ; Timothy had discovered more than one shadow. It was not yet possible for Paul to say definitely when he could return to Thessalonica, as the Church and as he himself desired (iii. 6, 10} In: the meantime, how much could happen in 'Thessalonica! In fact, was it not possible that this continued absence of the person who had been chiefly instrumental in organ- ising the Church might be the very thing calculated to arouse further suspicions? In‘ view of all this, it is entirely comprehensible that alone with the exalted expressions of joy in 1. 2-1. 13 there should appear signs not only of the anxiety of the past months just relieved, but also of solicitation for the future welfare of the Church. The perfectly spontaneous expression of this mingled feeling of joy and of anxiety was one of the best means for strengthening any good tendencies in the Church and for averting future danger. Certain specific defects in religious thought and moral conduct about which he had been informed by Timothy, Paul attempts to remedy by the suggestions of chaps. iv., v.. While on the whole their conduct is recognised as altogether praise- worthy (iv. 1,9 ἢ, v. 11), there are a number of points in which he urges progress, referring the readers re- peatedly to the instructions he had given them at the very first (iv. 1, 2, 6, 11). Warning against unchastity, which was so common among their heathen neighbours (iv. 3-5), is followed immediately by a similar warning against covetousness and dishonesty in business, to which persons living in a great commercial centre) were parti- cularly apt to be tempted (iv. 6) The commendation of their generous brotherly love prepares the way for an THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 221 exhortation to improve their condition in money matters, by living a quiet, thrifty life, which will not only enable them to give more liberally (Eph. iv. 28), but which will also make them more independent of their non- Christian neighbours (iv. 9-12). Now, inasmuch as the idleness against which these exhortations are directed is a manifestation of a general state of unrest (iv. 11, cf. 2 Thess. iii. 11 f.), and inasmuch as this warning is followed immediately by eschatological teachings (iv. 13-v. 11), we assume that under the influ- ence of the idea that the end of the world was at hand many were neglecting: their daily duties (n. 3), Another evidence of the expectancy with which the return of Jesus was awaited, is seen in the peculiar way in which the Church mourned for its departed members. This was due to the opinion that those who had died before the par- ousia would not immediately share the glory of the king- dom as would those who lived to witness the Lord’s return, Although, the apostle argues, they should have been saved from this error by their faith im the resurrec- tion of Jesus from the dead, because it was not possible that death should separate the Christian from Christ (iv. 14), all anxiety concerning the participation in the par- ousia of those who have died in the faith he sets at rest by a word of the Lord, 2.e. a specific teaching consciously based upon one of Jesus’ prophetic utterances (iv. 15, n. 4). In this definite form such teaching could not have been a part of the missionary preaching. While on this point Paul is inclined to enlarge upon what he had said before, another question which was occupying attention in Thes- salonica, namely, as to when the end should come, and the length of time that must elapse before that event, he holds to be superfluous (v. 1, cf, Acts i. 6f.) and without practical value. For, he argues, it is one of the simplest elements of the Christian preaching, that for those ab- sorbed in a worldly life the coming of the day of the 222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Lord will be unexpected and sudden ; while, on the other hand, the Christian, who lives in constant expectation of the parousia, the time of which it was impossible to determine by natural reckoning, will be always ready, living always the kind of a life that is in keeping with this future day of the Lord (v. 2-10). With the exhorta- tion to mutual helpfulness in regard to this matter of the parousia (v. 11), we have the transition to exhortations relating to the general life of the Church, for which its officers are primarily responsible (v. 12 f.). There seems to have been some insubordination, especially on the part of those inclined to be idle (v. 14, τοὺς ἀτάκτους, cf. iv. 8). That there was not complete harmony among all the members, seems to be implied by Paul’s injunction that all the brethren salute one another, and with a fraternal kiss, and by his solemn command in the name of the Lord that the letter be read to all the brethren (v. 26, 27). 1. (P. 215.) It is wrong to assume (as does Klöpper, for example, in Der Zweite Thess.-brief 14,15) that the θλίψεις spoken of in 1 'Thess, belong simply to the past, and, specifically, to the time of the founding of the Church, and that a new outbreak of the once ended persecution constitutes the background of 2 Thess. The emphasis upon the sufferings endured at the first acceptance of the gospel (i. 6, ii. 13 f.) was a necessary consequence of the fact that just these beginnings of the Church demanded an apologetic interpretation. That the oppressed condition of the Church still continued after the departure of the missionaries and at the time Timothy was sent, appears from the con- nection of ii. 17f. with what precedes and from iii. ὃ. An improvement in this condition would hardly have been passed over in silence among the good tidings which Timothy brought (iii. 6), nor would the receipt of news of renewed persecution have been similarly ignored in 2 'Thess, ‘The way in which the ὑπομονή of the Church is recalled, 1 Thess. i. 3, the occurrence of the present ἐνεργεῖται, ii, 13, among the aorists both before and after, the ταύταις in iii, 3, the summing up of all the trials of the Church hitherto in the present als ἀνέχεσθε and πάσχετε, 2 Thess. i. 4f.,—all this shows, rather, that the outward circumstances of the Church from its organisation to the sending of the second Epistle were essentially unchanged. From the altered tone in which they are spoken of in 2 Thess, i, 3-12, we can only, perhaps, infer that they were growing worse from day to day. 2. (Ὁ. 218.) If the reading μηδένα σαίνεσθαι is beyond question in iii, 3, there is also no occasion to abandon the oldest meaning of the word σαίνειν, in current use from Homer’s time down to the empire, namely, “to wag the tail (of dogs),” with accusative of the person. 'The fawning upon one, thus indi- THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 223 eated, is often in contrast with barking and biting. For this usage, as well as for the transference of it to human beings as subjects, cf. especially Polyb. xvi. 24.6; Artemid. Onevroer. ii. 11; Hercher, p. 99. 12-20. It also means “to move,” “to cause to yield,” but not “to frighten” or “startle,” but rather “to entice to sin” (Leont. Neapol. Vita Sym. Sali, Migne, 93, col. 1724). The better Greek commentators (Chrys., Montfaucon, xi. 445; Sever, Gabal. in Cramer, Cat. vi. 353 ; Theodorus, ed. Swete, ii. 17) all felt the neces- sity of explaining the word, which seemed strange to them here, but they missed the simple solution because they did not understand the historical situation indicated in chap. ii. What is meant is illustrated to some degree by passages like Acta Thecle, x; Mart. Polye. ix; Passio Perpet. v; Acta Carpi, 43, except that in these instances we are dealing with more or less genuine expressions of natural sympathy, whereas σαίνειν denotes insidious and crafty wheedling. Artemidorus, loc. cit., explains: ἀλλότριοι δὲ κύνες σαίνοντες μὲν δόλους Kal ἐνέδρας ὑπὸ πονηρῶν ἀνδρῶν ἢ γυναικῶν σημαίνουσιν. 3, (P. 221.) Hofmann, i. 230f., rightly warns against exaggerations of this matter of indolence. Spitta, Zwr Gesch. des Urchr. i. 131 ἔς, exaggerating this in turn, rejects the explanation altogether, and infers from the connection of iv. 11 f. with what precedes, that “fraternal fellowship, where those who had property gladly shared of their means with those who had none, became to not a few a temptation to an indolent, unoccupied life.” Such a remark, however, could not have been connected with the last preceding admonition by καί, but would have been introduced in sharp antithesis to it: “ Abound still more in active brotherly love, but not so as to foster thereby the lazy man’s aversion to labour”; or, “on the other hand, everyone who can work must do his part, so as not to become a burden on the generosity of the brethren.” Certainly we must not conceive a fanatically excited expectation of the approaching end of the world as the prevailing temper of the whole local Church. The admonitions, iv. 3-7, v. 4-10, point to the existence of a very different attitude toward the present world. Paul even has to warn them against despising prophesyings and suppressing the prophetic spirit which stirs within the Church (v. 19f.). But in immediate proximity there is also the caution not to accept such prophetic utterances without examina- tion (v. 21). 4. (P. 221.) 1 Thess. iv. 15, ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, is to be understood, as regards the significance of λέγειν or λαλεῖν ἔν τινι, in accordance with 1 Cor. ii. 7, xiv. 6; Matt. xiii. 34; and for content, in accordance with 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25, ix. 14, xi. 23. ‘The teaching thus introduced need not, therefore, be a verbal citation. If ὅτε ἴηι iv. 15 isa “ because,” as it probably is, the prophecy ascribed to the Lord does not come till iv. 16. And if this saying goes beyond the words of Jesus handed down to us in the Gospels, we recall that in other particulars also, Paul’s information was not confined within those limits (Acts xx. 35; 1 Cor. xv. 5-7). We need not do more than mention the fact that Steck, JbfP Th. 1883, 5, 509-524, claimed to find the λόγος κυρίου in what the angel Uriel says to Ezra (4 Esdr. iv. 1, ν. 42) in answer to his question re- garding the fate of those that do not live to see the end : “Coron assimilabo iudieium meum ; sicut non novissimorum tarditas, sic nec priorum velocitas.” If we bring the eschatological statements of 1 Thess. together, we shall find their essential elements, and in part their phraseology, reappearing in the 224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Gospels and Acts. With v. 1 ef. Acts i. 7 (χρόνοι καὶ καιροί) ; Matt. xxiv. 36 5 Mark xiii. 32. With v. 2 ef. ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί, Matt. xxiv. 435) Luke xii. 39f.; and for the expression in v. 4 ef. John xii. 35 also. ‘With the description of false security before the parousia and the surprise of it, to most, v. 3, ef. Matt. xxiv. 37-51; Luke xvii. 26-36. With αἰφνίδιος... ἐκφύγωσιν, cf. Luke xxi. 34-36, ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς αἰφνίδιος. . . ἐκφυγεῖν ταῦτα πάντα. With ἡ ὠδίν cf, Matt. xxiv. 8, 19; Mark xiii, 8, 17. With. the figurative representation of readiness and its opposite, v. 6f., οἵ, Matt, xxiv. 42, 49 (μετὰ τῶν μεθυόντων), xxv. 13; Mark xiii. 33-37; Luke xii. 35, 37, 45 (μεθύσκεσθαι), xxi. 34, 36.. With iv. 14-17 cf, the return of the Lord from heaven, or in the clouds of heaven, and in the company of the angels, Matt; xvi. 27, xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64; Mark viii. 38, xiii. 26, xiv. 62; Luke ix. 26, xxi. 27; Acts i. 11; the gathering of the elect by angels with the loud sound of the trumpet, Matt. xxiv. 31; Mark xiii. 27 (ἐπισυνάξαι, cf. 1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Thess. ii. 1 [τῆς] ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς em’ αὐτόν). This is the presupposition also of 1 Thess. iv. 14 (ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ). Matt. xxiv. 31; Mark xiii. 27 refer to those members of the Church who at the time of the parousia are living scattered about upon earth (cf. Matt. xxiv. 22, 24; Mark xiii, 20, 22). That the departed members, also, would share in the glory of the kingdom as it should then be realised, is not, indeed, handed down to us in the immediate context of these eschatological discourses, but is elsewhere abundantly attested as Jesus’ promise. When He intimated that some of His disciples would witness His return (Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27), it was also implied that others of them would die before that time (cf. also Matt. xx. 23; Mark x. 39; John. xiii, 36, xxi. 18f.). But all are to share in, the kingdom which appears in glory (Matt, xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25;, Luke xxii, 30),—all who have not despised its invitation, or by their conduct sub- sequently become unworthy of it (Matt, xxii. 9-14; Luke xiv. 12-24 ; John xii, 26), and the O.T. righteous as well (Matt. viii. 11; Luke xiii, 28), That the dead must be awakened at the end is self-evident, and is shown in, many ways (Matt. xxii. 23-32; Mark xii. 18-27; Luke xx. 27-38 ;, John v, 25-29, vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, xi. 24), Only, if the resurrection of the righteous dead) is generally set at the end of time, without being put, like the gathering of the living on earth, in a closer connection with the parousia, it must still be con- ceived as simultaneous with the parousia, since it is the condition of partici- pation in the kingdom. Of the distinction in time between the resurrection of believers and the general resurrection, which is attested in apostolic litera- ture as a general Christian belief (1 Cor. xv. 28-28 ; Rev. xx. 4-6), and which appears also in 1 Thess. iv. 16, we have at least a hint in Luke xiv. 14. § 15. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. This briefer letter, which, like the longer one that stands just before it in the Canon, is addressed to the Church in Thessalonica not in Paul’s name alone, but in THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 225 the name also of Silvanus and Timothy (n. 1), shows striking resemblance to the other in its general plan. Here, as in the first letter, there is one principal section (chaps. i., ii.) concluding with a solemn benediction (ii. 16f.). To this is attached a shorter section, which, as indicated by the introductory τὸ λοιπόν (iii. 1, cf. I. iv. 1), is made up of a series of more incidental remarks. [ἢ this case the letter does not begin with a joyful expression of thanks for the Church, but with the assurance that the writers feel under obligation at all times to render such thanks to God, even at times when, if they followed their inclinations, they might express other emotions (i. 3). How indicative this is of the situation of the writers when they wrote, and of their feelings at the time, is shown by the recurrence of the phrase at the end of the first section, ii, 13. For the attentive reader the impression made by this expression is still further strengthened by the explan- atory statement (1. 3, καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστιν) that such constant thanksgiving on the part of the writers is only appropriate in view of the growth of the Church in faith and love, especially in view of the patience they had shown in all their persecutions and afflictions. About this patience the writers do not need to be informed by others; but, having themselves been the founders of the Church, they take occasion of their own accord, in their intercourse with other Churches, to point with joyful pride to this Church (1. 4). This patience, which the readers have shown in enduring such constant sufferings, ought to be a source of comfort also to themselves, inasmuch as it is at once the token and the warrant that as believers they shall have part in the glory of the kmedom of God at the righteous judgement to be established at the return of Christ, when their persecutors shall be given over to eternal de- struction (1. 5-10). That the readers may be made more and more ready for the decision of that great day, is the constant prayer of the founders of the Church (i. 11, 12). VOL. I. 15 226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT With these verses we have the transition to the teach- ings of chap. ii., for the development of which the letter seems mainly to have been written. The Church needed to be warned against the error of supposing that the day of the Lord had already come or appeared. The disturb- ance which existed in the Church was due partly to pro- phetie utterances by its own members, partly to oral and written statements in which this opinion had been falsely represented as that of Paul and his helpers (ii. 2, π. 2). Further deceptions in the same direction were to be feared (ii. 3). This error Paul meets not by proclaiming a new revelation, but by reminding his readers of the things they had heard him say when he first preached the gospel to them,—things which, therefore, they ought not only to know, but also to use as a means of defence against such a misleading claim as this (u. 5, 6, n. 3). This explains why, in what is said later about the forms which the unfolding of the closing events of the present age is to assume, as also about the parousia of Christ and the union of Christians with Him, the definite article is used (i. 1, ef. I. iv. 14-18), it being assumed that these terms were familiar to the readers. “ The Day of the Lord,” Paul argues, cannot have come already; for, according to what he had said earlier, it could not come before “ the falling away 7 and the revelation of “the man of lawlessness,” whom Christ is to destroy at His second coming. Similarly, the readers must have known what the power was which for the present was restraining the “ man of lawlessness,” which power had to be set aside before the “ man of lawlessness ” could appear. Although Paul does not use these par- ticular words, this ‘man of lawlessness” is described, on the one hand, as an ἀντίθεος whose hostility to all that 15 called God, and to the worship of God, will reach the point where he will declare himself to be God and take his place in the temple of God, 1.6. in the place where the true God is worshipped, demanding such worship for THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 227 himself (ver. 4). He is described, on the other hand, as avriypıoros, That this man of lawlessness was to be a Satanic caricature of Christ, one infers from the occurrence three times of the word ἀποκαλυφθῆναι (vv. 3, 6, 8), from the description of his coming as a παρουσία (ver. 9), and from the contrast between his deceiving and destroying activity, which is to be promoted by Satanic wonders, and the saving power of the gospel (vv. 9-14). Very essential elements in this picture, which is so clearly outlined, are to be found in the prophecies of the Book of Daniel, in the descriptions in 1 Maccabees of the attack made by Antiochus Epiphanes upon the religion of the Jews and upon their temple, and in the prophetic discourses of Jesus (n. 4). But these sources could hardly have supplied those teachings about the end of the world which, as we have seen, Paul presented in essentially the same form as that in which they are written here, when he first preached the gospel in Thessalonica. Still less can we suppose that this Christian statement of the doctrine which goes back through the prophecy and life of Jesus to Daniel, first appeared essentially as we have it here in some Jewish apocalypse now lost, which Paul had read and believed (n. 5). Only single features of the same could have been derived from such a source. The combination of these various elements, some of which may be found here and there in earlier sources, into a new and vivid pieture, and the confidence with which the whole is presented, are quite incomprehensible—all the more so if it is Paul who is speaking—unless it be assumed that what was found in the sources mentioned had been further developed by Christian propheey, and that Paul, who entertained ἃ high opinion of such propheey, made use of it, and, after testing it, adopted such parts of it into his preaching as seemed to him to be of value (ef. 1 Thess. v. 21, n. 6). In order, therefore, to comprehend Paul’s words historie- ally, and so to understand them clearly, we need to know 228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT what was spoken in the Churches by Silvanus, the prophet who accompanied Paul on his journeys, and what gener- ally was said by Christian prophets in the Churches during the reign of the emperor Caligula (37-41) and Claudius (41-54). For to this source is to be traced back Paul’s firm conviction that the last potentate hostile to God was not only to desecrate the temple of God, but also to establish himself there as the one to be worshipped. Events which took place under Caligula, in whose reign the prophet Agabus from Judea predicted in the Church at Antioch the coming of a general famine, which occurred in the reign of Claudius (§ 11), led almost inevitably to the development of prophecy of this kind (n. 7). Moreover, Jesus had spoken repeatedly of ψευδόχριστοι, although, so far as we know, He kept these predictions distinet from His prophecies about the final affliction to result from the desecration of the holy place, so that nothing was more natural than that the Church should expect the appearance of a single false Christ, and that it should identify this false Christ with a world-ruler hostile to God, who was to desecrate the holy place, and bring the final affliction upon the Church (n. 8). So then, in a word, when Paul describes the ἀντίθεος as being also ἀντέχριστος, this identification is not to be regarded as simply Paul’s own opinion, but in the light of 1 John 11. 18, iv. 3 is to be taken as the common belief of the Church; for, in using the name ἀντέχριστος, which occurs here for the first time in the N.T., and only here, John means to describe an individual who was to appear in the future, not only hostile to the true Christ, but also His rival, whose appearance was to mark the be- ginning of the end of the world. But just as John, speak- ing with this general expectation of the Church in view, makes mention of a sperit of antichrist which is already at work in the world, which expresses itself through men, and of the numerous forerunners of the antichrist who may also be called antichrists (1 John iv. 3, ii, 18-22; THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 229 2 John 7), so Paul speaks of a mystery of lawlessness at work prior to the revelation or appearance of the man of lawlessness (1. 7). In this way he justifies and explains his statement about the power which as yet restrains the revelation and appearance of the “man of lawlessness.” The expression κατέχειν would be inappropriate if the object restrained were simply the lawless person who was to appear in the future, and not rather the principle which this person was eventually to embody, as it already existed and was at work in the world in its impersonal form. While the idea in κατέχον and κατέχων is not with- out parallel in Daniel (n. 9), here it is so definitely repre- sented as something which was known, consequently as one of the elementary things taught in the early Christian Church, that we must assume that this, too, was a thought that had been developed by the Christian prophets of the time. While the man of lawlessness is deseribed through- out as a person, being only once referred back to the impersonal principle of which eventually he was to become the embodiment, the restraining power is designated first by a neuter form and then by a masculine, both; however, being used to describe an existing thing. The restrain- ing power is an impersonal something, which neverthe- less has complete embodiment in personal form. From the contrast with ἀνομία, which is used three times to characterise the “antichrist” (vv. 8, 7, 8), it is clear that this restraining power was the system of laws then in operation in the world, which for the present was repressing the powers of lawlessness that had already begun to work, and was keeping them from manifesting themselves with full force, thus preventing the revelation of the mystery, the appearance of lawlessness in personal form, 1.¢., the restraining power is the Roman empire. For its system of laws, which, in spite of the unrighteous- ness and unprineipled character of individual represent- atives, was magnificent, its strict administration of justice 230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT and its broad tolerance made the empire a τὸ κατέχον, and the emperor a ὁ κατέχων (n. 9). If this was really Paul’s view, it is a grave error to suppose that ὁ κατέχων is meant to designate a particular emperor, 1.6. the reigning emperor, and if the Epistle was written prior to 54, the emperor Claudius ; because the setting aside of the κατέχων is the necessary precondition of the revelation of the man of lawlessness only in so far as that involves at the same time the setting aside of the κατέχον. There is no evi- dence, however, that Paul nor anyone else prominent in the early Church associated the breaking up of the empire and of the entire system of Roman government with the death or deposition of any reiening emperor. And this belief is less probable in view of the fact that neither the personal character nor the govern- ment of any of the emperors from Tiberius to Domitian was such as to render them the particular champions of that which made for moral order in the State (n. 10). The description which follows of the deceiving and destructive influence of the man of lawlessness upon unbelievers (ii. 9-12), determines the manner in which the writers, passing now to the conclusion of the letter, mention again, as they had done in i. 3, the duty which they feel of giving thanks for the condition of the Church, for the grace shown it in the past, and for its hopeful future (ii. 13, 14). This is followed immediately by an exhortation to hold fast the teachings and advice which had been given them by oral instruction and by letter, and by a benediction (ii. 15-17). Here the Epistle might have been concluded, but some supplementary matter is added. On account of the opposition which the writers were encountering at the time from the unbelievers in the place where they were working, more prominence is given in this Epistle (but ef. I. v. 25) to the request for the prayers of the Church, and they are asked for with more THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 231 feeling (iii. 1, 2). This request replaces for the time being some command which had been given them earlier, and which apparently he was on the point of mention- ing in ii. 15. This renders necessary the transition in iii. 4, 5, which would have been unnecessary directly after ii. 15-17. In spite of the opposite example and the ex- press advice of the missionaries, the disposition to unruly idleness (1. iv. 11, v. 14) had developed in the case of many members of the Church into a condition of chronic disorderliness (iii. 6-11). While these individuals are earnestly urged to resume their ordinary occupations (iii. 12), at the same time the Church is advised to mark those who disregard this exhortation of the letter and to break off intercourse with them until they reform, but not to give up the hope of helping them (111. 14, 15, ef. iii. 6). The special attention which Paul calls in this letter to the fact that he had added the concluding bene- diction by his own hand, and his affirmation in this connection that the benediction by his own hand was the sign by which the genuineness of every one of his letters might be determined (iii. 17 f.), are explained by the facts hinted at in 11. 2 (n. 2). Assuming that both the Epistles to the Thessalonians are genuine, there is no doubt (n. 11) that the shorter of the two was written last. In I. i. 2 ff. he gives thanks for the founding of the Church; in II. 1. 3 ff. for the entirely gratifying character of its growth. Since there is no indication in 2 Thess. of ‘any intention, nor even of any longing, on Paul’s part, to return to Thessalonica, the letter could not have been written in the interval between the flight of the missionaries from Thessalonica and the sending of Timothy back from Athens, nor immediately after the arrival of Timothy in Corinth. The latter date is impossible, because 1 Thess. was written at that time (I. iii. 6); the former, because a letter with the contents and in the spirit of 2 Thess. written at 232 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT practically the same time as 1 Thess. would’ prove all the touching expressions in the first letter, 1. 11. 17-111. 5, of desire to visit the Church again, to be insincere. More- over, if 2 Thess. had been written first, Paul could hardly have failed to mention it in 1 Thess. as a strong proof .of the interest which he and his helpers had in the welfare of the Church. Furthermore, the fact that this strong desire to revisit the Thessalonian Church continued, I. 11]. 6-11, excludes the possibility of 2 Thess., in which there is no evidence of any such desire, having been written at an interval of only a few weeks from 1 Thess. There was an interval of several months between them. | And during this time there seems to have been no direct intercourse, either in person or by. letter, between the Church and its founders. IL ii. 14 has: reference to I. iv. 11 f., and the more indefinite reference of II. ἢ. 15 to instructions by letter is based on 1 Thess. (n. 12). Still less probable is it that in the interval Paul or one of his helpers had visited Thessalonica. In ii. 5, Π|.. 10, Paul speaks of the occasion when he had been with them, but without distinguishing different times when he had been there. Developments had also taken place in the Church which required time. Nothing is said of the slanders which he had found it necessary to refute in 1 Thess., nor is there any reference to the necessity of confirming the confidence of the Church in its founders. ‘There had been time for information, not from Paul, to be sure, but from the vicinity where he was, to reach Thessalonica by letter, and for the news of the injurious effect of these com- munications to come back to Paul (Il. 11. 2, above, p. 226 and n. 2). Furthermore, from some source unknown to us, he had received more recent news concerning the condition of the Church (II. 11. 11). A number of Churches seem already to have been organised in and about Corinth (cf. 2 Cor. i. 1; Rom. xvi. 1), among which it was possible for Paul and for Silvanus and Timothy to THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 233 spread the good reports about the Church in Thessalonica (IL. i. 4). What is suggested with regard to the opposi- tion which was rendering the work in Corinth difficult and hindering its progress (IL. iii. 2), is confirmed by Acts xvill. 6-17, in that this opposition is represented as emanating from persons who, having been oflered the choice between faith and unbelief, had refused to believe the gospel, and if the hints of 1 Thess. also be taken into account, from Jews (I. ii. 16, 111. 7, above, p. 216, line 31). But it is hardly likely that, after having been so de- cisively repulsed by the proconsul (Acts xvi. 14-17), the Jews could have interfered further with the growth of the Christian Church in Corinth. The exceptionally favoured situation of the Church, as regards its relation to the authorities, disclosed in the Corinthian letters, was a result of this favourable decision of Gallio; so that 2 Thess. must be dated before Acts xviii. 12. There is no hint of any immediate intention on Paul’s part of chang- ing his field of labour. When he went to Ephesus at the beginning of summer 54, after 14 years of work in Corinth (Acts xviii. 18), Silvanus and Timothy did not go with him,—indeed, they do not seem to have been in Corinth at the time. But when 2 Thess. was written they were still with him (i. 1). Without, of course, attempting to speak with absolute certainty or with perfect accuracy, we shall be in agreement with all the statements and hints of the letters, and with the accounts in Acts, if we distribute the three oldest Epistles of Paul in the period of his residence in Corinth (Acts xviii. 11, approximately from Noy. 52 to May 54) as follows: Gal. somewhere about April 53, 1 Thess. in May or June, 2 Thess. in August or September of the same year. 1. (P. 225.) “I,” designating Paul, is distinguished three times in 1 Thess. from “ We,” ii. 18, iii. 5, v.27. In only one of these cases is the “I” further explained by the addition of the name, ii. 18.. The same distinction occurs in 2 Thess., once without, ii. 5, once with the name, iii. 17. While in I. ii. 18, II. iii. 17 the addition of the name is natural because of the character of the 234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT statements made, in the three other passages it is assumed that the ‚simple “I” is sufficient to designate Paul, who is named first in both the greetings, and whose importance is far greater than that of his two helpers. Spitta’s hypothesis (122 ff.) that Timothy is meant by “1” in II. ii. 5 is untenable, for the reason that this is the only case where “I,” which occurs five times altogether,—three times where the proper name is omitted because superfluous, —is made to refer to Timothy. The unnaturalness of the hypothesis is not lessened by assuming that the contents of ii. 5 may have given a clue as to which one of the three writers of the letter it was who thus suddenly spoke in his own name. In that case there was all the more reason why the youngest of them should have added ἐγὼ Τιμόθεος, and if, at the same time, he was acting as Paul’s amanuensis, ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν (Rom. xvi. 22), if he did not want the readers to think that Paul was speaking—or Silvanus, if what was said did not sound like the apostle—until they finally convinced themselves that the youngest of the three missionaries was so stupid as, without previous notice and as a matter of course, to introduce himself in such a way as to make him appear the principal one of the three! Spitta is not justified in supporting this hypothesis (125) by claiming that the readers would distinguish the hand of Timothy, who wrote the letter, from that of Paul in iii. 17 f., because, when this letter was written, Paul was already in the habit of dictating, adding only a farewell greeting in his own hand. Cf. above, p. 170. He does not say in iii. 17 that henceforth he will do this, but that it is his custom in every letter. So, if Paul dictated 1 Thess,, and, as is quite likely, dictated it to Timothy, then, according to Spitta’s theory, the reader must have concluded from the handwriting that “I” in I. iii. 5, as distinguished from “I” in I. v. 27, referred to Timothy, not to Paul. Similarly, the personal acquaintances of Tertius (Rom. xvi. 22) among the Roman Christians must have concluded from his writing that he was the person designated by “I” in Rom. i. 8-xvi. 21, and the real author of Romans. According to Spitta, Timothy was not only the amanuensis to whom Paul dictated 2 Thess., but the real author of the letter, which he himself composed at the direction of Paul and Silvanus. This, he thinks, enables us to explain its many variations from Paul’s style and doctrine, which have caused the letter to be suspected, particularly the Jewish apo- calyptic views which Paul did not hold. Without correcting the composition of his follower, or making him responsible for it, or even so much as hinting that Timothy had a large share in its preparation (cf. 1 Pet. v. 12, § 38), the apostle, who was very much preoccupied at the time, subscribed his name to this letter, which varied so much from his own writings both in style and contents, just as if it had been his own (iii. 17)! That was certainly the best way in the world to perpetuate the fraud referred to in ii. 2. 2. (Pp. 226, 231, 232.) If πνεῦμα, ii. 2, means the prophetic spirit utter- ing itself in human speech (I. v, 19f.; Acts xiii. 2, 4, xx. 23, xxi. 4,11; Rev. ii. 7), even then it is not alone διὰ λόγου that stands in contrast to διὰ πνεύματος, but the whole clause taken altogether, μήτε (D* μηδὲ) διὰ λόγου μήτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς de ἡμῶν, 80 that ὡς dv ἡμῶν is to be taken with λόγου as well as with ἐπιστολῆς, like ἡμῶν in ii. 15. Oral as well as written reports had come to Thessalonica, which made it appear that Paul and his helpers shared these views. To us, who are not acquainted with the facts in the case, the THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 235 language of the passage leaves it somewhat doubtful (1) whether actually false appeals to alleged statements of the apostle and to a letter forged in his name are meant; or (2) whether oral and written reports had reached Thessalonica from the region where Paul was, which, because they came from this region and without any fraudulent intention on the part of those who gave them out, gave rise to the erroneous opinion that the view which they represented had the authority of the apostle, or (3) whether actual written and oral statements of Paul were so misinterpreted. In the last mentioned case these statements would naturally be sought in 1 Thess., but this letter does not lend itself to such misinterpretation. It contains no language such as that found in Jas. v. 3, 5, 8,9; 1 John ii. 18. Moreover, we should expect Paul to correct such misinterpretation (ef. 1 Cor. v. 9-11). Finally, on this view it is impossible to explain iii. 17 as due to what is said in ii. 2. The first of the three possible meanings mentioned explains best the connection between these two passages. But it is to be observed that there is no expression of anger at this insolent deceit. Furthermore, in this case we should expect to read not ὡς dv ἡμῶν, but ὡς ἡμετέρων or ὡς map’ ἡμῶν (Cod, P., ef. Hippol. in Dan. iv. 21, ed. Bonwetsch, 236. 15, ὡς ἐξ ἡμῶν), or, if the reference were to a letter, ὡς id’ ἡμῶν γραφείσης. Moreover, in this passage nothing is said about the origin of the oral and written state- ments in question, but all we have is a protest against the inference that they express the apostle’s views. This agrees only with the second meaning suggested. Since, however, Paul saw that all sorts of such deceptions might develop in the future (ii. 3, κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον), he took occasion to call attention to the fact that only letters coming directly from him and specifically subscribed by his own hand could be regarded as expressions of his opinion (iii. 17). The rendering of ἐνέστηκεν, “is immediately at hand,” or “is beginning” (so still Schmiedel HK, ad loc.), should be abandoned, because unsupported both by grammar and by usages As is well known, the present is called by the grammarians 6 ἐνεστὼς χρόνος, and in business transactions ἡ ἐνεστῶσα ἡμέρα was the regular name of “this day,” eg. Berl. dg. Urk. Nos. 394. 19; 415. 18, 30 ; 536.6; 883.3; 891 verso, line 15. 3. (P. 226.) The ἔτι, ii. 5, which does not occur in iii. 10, indicates nothing as to the length of time that had elapsed since the Thessalonians had been reminded of the things in question, cf. Luke xxiv.6; Rom. v.8; Heb. vii. 10. It is only intended to emphasise the fact that these teachings were not an afterthought, of which the readers were informed by a subsequent letter from the apostle, or by Timothy at the time when he was sent back to Thessalonica, but a part of the missionary preaching, and so an original part of the Christian message. That the Thessalonians missed entirely the point of these teachings, or immediately forgot them, is unlikely. When, therefore, notwithstanding this message, many had fallen into the error opposed in ii. 2, the natural supposition is that it had been represented to them that the man of lawless- ness, who after the casting aside of all restraints was to set himself up as God, had already come, doubtless in the person of Caligula. But if the “anti- christ” made his appearance in Caligula (n. 7), then with Caligula’s death (Jan. 24, 41) began “the Day of the Lord,” which naturally was not thought of as a day of twelve or twenty-four hours’ length, but as the epoch during which constantly—almost hourly—the visible return of Christ was to be expected. 236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT If, now, Christian prophets declared Caligula to be the expected man of law- lessness; if Pauland his helpers saw in this figure of the recent past, whom all remembered, a foreshadowing of the antichrist, and pointed to it as'a proof that the μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας was already working ; and if, as was un- doubtedly the case, the missionaries in Thessalonica spoke of the present as the end of the age, as is everywhere done in the N.T. (1 Cor. x. 11; Jas. v. 3, 5, 8,9; 1 John ii. 18; 1 Pet. i. 20; Heb. i. 1; Acts ii, 16 ff.),—nothing is more natural than the rise of such errors and delusions as Paul here opposes. But there was no event corresponding to the prophesied falling away (below, nn. 4, 9). If, moreover, the readers really knew from the earlier teaching who and what the κατέχων and the κατέχον were, then they must understand that the power which is keeping back the full manifestation of the man of lawlessness isnot yet set aside, but is still in active operation, so that the time characterised by the reign of this power (viv τὸ κατέχον, ver.6; ὁ κατέχων. ἄρτι, ver. 7) continues, and the time of the “antichrist” has not yet come. Finally, the detailed description of the activity of the lawless one, and, above all, the fact that Paul refers to the destruction of the same by the returning Christ, made it impossible to suppose that the antichrist was Caligula, or any other person who had lived and disappeared. There is no philological reason why νῦν, ii. 6, cannot be connected with κατέχον, ef. John iv. 18; νῦν ὃν ἔχεις, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 29; Xen. Cyrop. i. 4. 3, dei τοὺς παρόντας ; Hell. ii. 1. 4, del ὁ ἀκούων, especially numerous in designations of time, ef. Kühner- Gerth, i. 617; Winer, 561. 4; but also in numerous other cases, where, for the sake of stronger emphasis, objects and other modifiers precede the par- ticiple and its article (Epitaph. Avercii, i. 19, Forsch. v. 71, ταῦθ᾽ ὁ νοῶν) or the conjunction which governs the sentence, cf. A. Buttmann, 333 (Eng. trans. 388). Even if we translate as if the reading were ra viv, “As for the present, ye know the power restraining,” the logical necessity of connect- ing νῦν with κατέχον still appears, (1) from the analogy of ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι in ii. 7; (2) from the contrast running through the entire context of the present (νῦν, ἤδη, ἄρτι), not to the past, when Paul was in Thessalonica, but to the future revelation of the man of lawlessness ; and, finally, (3) from the fact that the νῦν gives no clear sense when taken with οἴδατε, from which, moreover, it is unnaturally separated. 4, (P. 227.) With ii. 1 (ἐπισυναγωγῆς) cf. Matt. xxiv. 31; Mark xiii. 27; 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17, above, p. 223f. With ii. 2 ef. Matt. xxiv. 6; Mark xiii. 7 (μὴ Opoeiode); Luke xxi. 9. With ii. 3a ef. Matt. xxiv. 4, 23, 26; Mark xiii. 5, 21; Luke xxi. 8, xvii. 23. With ἡ ἀποστασία, which appears partly to precede the appearance of the “antichrist” (ver. 3), and partly to be the result of the same (vv. 9-11), ef. for the first aspect Dan. viii. 12, 23, xi. 30, 32; 1 Mace. i. 15 (ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ διαθήκης ἁγίας) ; for the second, 1 Mace. i. 41-53, ii. 15 (οἱ karavayralovres τήν ἀποστασίαν). Also for the first aspect, Matt. xxiv. 10-12, and for the second, Matt. xxiv. 21-24; Mark xiii. 19-21. With 6 ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ver. 3 (NB, cf. among other authorities also Just. Dial. xxxii; still τῆς ἁμαρτίας has strong support), and ὁ ἄνομος, ver. 8, cf. Dan. vil. 25 (ἀλλοιῶσαι καιροὺς καὶ νόμον), Xi. 37f.; Matt. xxiv. 12; Didache, xvi. 4; Barn. xv. 5. With ver. 4a (6 dvtixe(wevos—oéBacopa) ef. Dan. vii. 7, 11, 20, 25, xi. 36 (LXX ὑψωθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεόν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν, τῶν θεῶν ἔξαλλα λαλήσει) ; 1 Mace. i. 24. No entire equivalent to ver. 4b is to be found in Dan. viii. THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 237 11-13, ix. 27, xi. 31, ΧΙ]. 11; 1 Macc. i. 54-61, iv. 38, 43-45, vi. 7; 2 Mace. vi. 1-7 ; Matt. xxiv. 15, still less Isa. xiv. 13f.; Ezek. xxviii. 2. In Mark xiii! 14, the only thing that would seem to indicate that the evangelist thought of the “ desolating abomination” as aman who set up himself or his image in the holy place, is the grammatically abnormal reading ἑστηκότα (NBL), if indeed this reading be correct. The deification and self-deification of the monarch which reached a high point in Antiochus Iv., the θεὸς ἐπιφανής (6.0. Jos. Ant. xii. 5. δ), did not come to the climax which is indicated in 2 Thess. ii, 4 until Caligula; cf. below, n. 7. With ver. 8 cf. Isa. xi. 4 (from which the expression is borrowed); Dan. vii. 11, 26, viii. 25, xi. 45. With ver, 9 οἵ, Dan. vill. 25; Matt. xxiv. 24; Mark xiii. 22. With ver. 11 cf. Isa. xix. 14; Jer. iv. 11 (especially if the apocryphal form of this verse which Hippol. de Antichr. 57 on Dan. iv. 49, quotes is ancient). In all these parallels it is to be remembered that Paul was not confined to the Sept. version of Daniel, much less to the translation of Daniel by Theodotian which was sometimes used in the Church instead of the LXX. Hence, e.y., he might well have trans- lated yes Dan. viii. 12 (ix. 24) by ἀποστασία, and Dyws (viii. 23) by ἀποστάται. 5. (P. 227.) According to Spitta (139), Timothy, the alleged author of 2 Thess., here gives out as his own opinion what he learned from his source, which was a Jewish apocalypse of the time of Caligula, of which apocalypses Spitta has discovered no less than three (137 f., ef. also his Offenb. des Joh. 498). Such an apocalypse, he thinks, was among the “sacred writings,” the contents of which Timothy under the direction of Eunice “ piously absorbed” from his youth up (129, 139, cf. 2 Tim. i. 5, iii. 15). In this way he eame to have eschatological views which Paul did not share (above, n. 1), although later in his life Paul directs him to those (τὰ) ἱερὰ γράμματα which were γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, points out that this is the right source from which Timothy is to draw instruction both for himself and others (2 Tim. iii. 15 f.); and, on the other hand, warns him against ucholy and Jewish fables (1 Tim. i, 4,iv. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 4; cf. Tit. i. 14). 6. (P. 227.) Paul never claimed to be a prophet, although he could boast of having received revelations (2 Cor. xii, 1-4; Gal. i. 12-16, ii. 2), and did declare that he had other charismata (1 Cor. xiv. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Rom. xv. 19). But from the very beginning of his ministry he had about him men who in their own circles were regarded as prophets (Acts xi. 27, xiii. 1, 2,4, xx. 23, xxi. 9-11. Thus, both at the time when the letters to the Thessalonians were written and when the Church in Thessalonica was founded, he had with him the prophet Silas (above, p. 207, n. 1). That in their preaching there Paul and Silas emphasised strongly the kingship of Christ and hence the eschatological elements in the gospel, is attested by Acts xvii. 17. The fact that, so far as we know, none of the discourses of the Christian prophets was written down, does not prove that they had no influence upon the develop- ment of the beliefs of the Churches. How highly they were valued by Paul appears from 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28f., xiv. 1-39; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11; Rom. xii, 6; 1 Thess. v. 20; 1 Tim. 1. 18, iv. 1, 14. 7. (P. 228.) For the decrees of Caligula relating to the Jews, ef. Schiirer, 1. 495-506(Eng. trans. 1. ii, 90-103) ; for the Jewish traditions, ef. Derenbourg, Hist. de la Palestine, 207 ; for its influence in Christian circles, cf. the writer’s essay, Z/KW, 1885, S. 511 f., also the writer’s Ev. des Petrus, 41f. The prin- 238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT cipal event is the deeree of Caligula of the winter of 39-40, in which he ordered that a colossal statue of himself be set up in the temple at Jeru- salem, which, notwithstanding long preparations, was never accomplished ; cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cui. xxx.; Jos. Ant. xviii. 8.2; Bell.ii.10.1. Still this is only the climax—to Jews and to Christians most horrible climax—of this emperor’s unlimited contempt for everything moral and religious, and his mad self-deitication (Suet. Calig. xxii, “ Hactenus quasi de principe, reliqua ut de monstro narranda sunt,” which occupies the narrative up to chap. lx. ; Dio Cassius, lix. 4, 26-28). Η. Grotius (Annot. in NT, ed. Windheim, ii. 715 ff., 721 ff.) was the first definitely to connect this passage with Caius Caligula. 8. (P. 228.) ψευδόχριστοι 18 used in two senses, For the wider meaning— any assumed authority over Israel—ef. John x. 8 with reference to the past, John v. 43 with reference to the future. For the stricter meaning—any deceptive counterpart of the returning Jesus Christ—cf. Matt, xxiv. 5, 28 f. ; Mark xiii. 6, 21 f.; cf. Luke xvii. 23. 9. (Pp. 229, 230.) For the analogues of κατέχων and κατέχον in Dan. x.-xii., ef. Hofmann, i. 319-326, also his Schriftbeweis, i. 330-335, iii. 671. Both the words themselves and Paul’s manifest didactic purpose indicate clearly that the reference is not to those preservative forces which lie in the background of national life operating in the spirit world, but to something that is manifest, from the existence of which it is possible to discern that the ‘ antichrist,” and so “the day of our Lord,” has not yet come, Neither does Hofmann offer any adequate explanation of the interchange between κατέχων and κατέχον (NT, i. 326; Schriftbewers, iii. 672). It is evident that the view of the emperor and of the empire expressed in these words is in perfect agreement with Rom. xiii. 1-7, and that it had then or afterward the cor- roboration of Paul’s own personal experience, cf. Acts xiii. 7-12, xvi, 35-39, xviii. 12-17, xix. 31 (the asiarchs were the priestly representatives of the imperial idea), xxi. 32-40, xxii. 24-30, xxiii. 16-30, xxiv. 22-26, xxv. 4-12, 16-27, xxvii. 3, xxviil. 16, 30f.; Phil. i.13. The general friendly judgment of the Roman State by Clemens Romanus, Melito, Irenzeus, and others, does not signify a falling away from Paulinism. This interpretation of 2 Thess. ii. 6f. is the oldest that we have. Wedo not find it definitely stated by Irenzeus,—indeed, not until Hippol. in Dan. iv. 22; Tert. Resurr.xxiv. But the general eschatological views of these writers, which agree in their main features and many of their details, are evidence enough that the reference of κατέχον to the Roman empire was from the first common to them. The empire must be rent in pieces before the “antichrist” can come (Iren. v. 26. 1, 30.2; Hippol. Antichr. 25, 27, 43, in Dan. iv. 5-6, 14; Tert. Resurr. xxiv. Tertullian (loc. cit.) translates 2 Thess. ii. 6 f. “nune quid teneat ” (al. “detineat”), and “qui nune tenet”, which makes it appear as if the reference to the Romans in Ireneus by the phrases “qui nune tenent” (Iren. v. 30. 3) and “qui nune regnant” were suggested by 2 Thess. ii. 6£., if indeed in both passages the original reading was not οἱ νῦν κρατοῦντες, as in Hippol. de Antichr. 28, cf. 43, 50, in Dan. iv. 5, 9, 17 (ed. Bonwetsch, pp. 196. 2, 206. 16, 228. 20f.). This does not exclude the possibility of a certain connection between the empire of the antichrist and the Roman empire. Irenzus (v. 30. 3) declares it possible that the number 666 may mean Aareivos, and the empire of the antichrist may bear this name, although THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 239 he prefers the interpretation which makes it mean Teirav, an old discarded name which was borne by none of the Roman emperors. Hippolytus regards the world-empire which had existed since the time of Augustus as a Satanic imitation of the world-rule of Christ (in Dan. iv. 9), and thinks that the antichrist will return to the form of government existing under Augustus (Antichr. 49). Accordingly, in clear distinction from Irenzeus, Hippolytus prefers to all others that interpretation of the number 666 which makes it mean Aareivos (Antichr. 50). On the other hand, Hippolytus agrees with his master Iren&us in the opinion, which is certainly much older than either of these writers, that the antichrist is to be a Jewish pseudo-Messiah of the tribe of Dan (Iren. v. 30. 2, cf. v. 25.4; Hippol. Antichr. 6, 14-15, 54-58, in Dan. iv. 49 ; Theophil. Lat. in Evv. i. 29, 111.7 ; Forsch. ii. 58, 71; ZfKW, 1885, S. 570). It is probable that even Marcion interpreted 2 Thess. ii. as referring to a pseudo-Messiah of the God of the Jews (Tert. ¢. Marc. v. 16; GK, i. 589). Ina peculiar form this idea is to be found in Ephrem (Comm. in Epist. Pauli, 193 f.). The man of sin is a circumcised Jew of the tribe of Judah, who sends his apostles or false prophets before him who bring about a “falling away ” (2 Thess. ii. 3), but when the man of sin himself comes he does not connect himself with a sect, but appears in the holy Church, declar- ing himself to be God. According to this interpretation, the power which at the time of Paul was restraining his appearance was the continuance of the Jewish temple and worship, and the fact that the conversion of the Gen- tiles was not yet complete. The theory of a Jewish anti-Messiah, which, mutatis mutandis, has been advocated even in modern times by many (6.0. Schneckenburger, published by Böhmer, JbDTh. 1859, S. 405 ff. ; B. Weiss, ThStKr. 1869, S. 22 ff. ; Spitta, Z. Gesch. d. Urchr. i. 140 ff.), is as difficult to maintain as the theory that the man of lawlessness was a Roman emperor. The latter theory does not agree with the opinion mentioned above held by Paul and the ancient Church concerning ‘the emperor and the empire. Neither can it be maintained on the ground that the insane acts of the emperor Caligula were really due to the conception which Paul and his contemporaries had of the man of lawlessness. Still less does it follow from the fact that in the conception of the man of lawlessness there are certain parallelisms with Christ which were afterwards stereotyped in the expression ἀντίχριστος (not ψευδόχριστορ), that Paul thought of him as a ψευδόχριστος of Jewish origin. Against this view (1) argues the fact that the lawless one, following in the footsteps of Antiochus and Caligula, is to desecrate the temple of God by idolatrous deification of himself. Even assuming that “temple” is here used in a figurative sense, there is nothing which connects this picture with the Christ-hostile Judaism of the apostolic and post-apostolic periods. In general, it may be said that the antichrist as here described by Paul, and the unbelieving Judaism as elsewhere depicted by him, have no points in common. (2) According to Paul’s view, the opposi- tion of the majority of his nation to Christ had already reached its climax. The wrath of God, which was to visit upon them outward punishment, had already attained its object and would soon abate (1 Thess. ii. 165 see below, § 16, π. 4). That inward judgment to which they are now exposed, namely, the hardening of heart against the gospel, makes the Jewish nation during the whole period of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles a fossil 240 INTRODUCTION ΤΟ THE NEW TESTAMENT capable of practically no change. "This state of things is to be ended not by the revival and increase of hostility to Christ, but by the conversion, of Israel to Christ. This is not a passing fancy of Paul’s in some moment when his feelings were conciliatory, but is stated by him as a truth’ of revelation in line with the prophecies of Jesus and based upon the O,T, as he understood it (Rom. xi, 25-32). (3) The term avrixpıoros, which is not used by Paul, although in content its meaning corresponds to Paul’s deserip- tion, does not by any means justify the conception of a Jewish. pseudo- Messiah ; for, in the thought of the apostle, Christ is not simply a Jewish Messiah, but also the second Adam, who unites the whole world under His headship as its Lord and King because He is the incarnation of that human righteousness which comes from God. For that reason the man who repre- sents the incarnation of all human lawlessness and of all human opposition to God, and who with Satanic power subjects mankind under his sway, is ἃ caricature of Christ, an “antichrist,” whatever his origin may be. ; The ἀνομία, from which his name is derived, exists naturally wherever sin exists (1 John iii. 4), and so even among the Jews (Rom. ii. 23-27; Acts xxiii. 3); Matt. xxiii. 28). But the characteristic of Jewish hostility to God and Christ is neither lawlessness, nor idolatry, nor self-deification, but false zeal for God and His law (Rom. ix. 31-x. 3 ; Gal. 1. 18 f.; Phil. 1.6). On the other hand, ἀνομία is such a characteristic feature of heathen life and of sin in the heathen world (Rom. ii. 12; 1 Cor. ix. 21; 2 Cor. vi. 14), that it is necessary to think of the lawless one as springing out of the heathen world. When in ii. 4 he is declared to be the foe of all religion, it does not follow that he might not assume the forms of existing religions. On the contrary, Caligula’s attempt at self-deification connected itself with the emperor cult, that of Antiochus with the worship of Zeus, and both these forerunners of the antichrist undertook by force to identify these heathen cults) with that of the Jews, thereby destroying the latter. But even Christianity is not free from lawlessness. Just as the confessors of Christ are not free from ἀνομία (1 Cor. vi. 7-20; 2 Cor. xii. 20-xiii.2; Matt. vil. 23, xiii. 38-42), so there are points of connection between the lawless one and the Chureh. On the basis of the prophecies of Jesus (Matt. xxiv. 10-12, 24; cf. Luke xviii, 8), and following the prophecies in Dan. and the history of Antiochus (above, p. 236, n. 4), the Christian prophets announced a falling away within the Church as one of the characteristics of the last days (1 Tim. iv. 1-4; 2 Tim. iii. 1-5; Acts xx. 29-31; 2 Pet. ii. 1, iii. 4; Didache, xvi. 4), and both Paul and John directed attention to the signs of the same in their own time (1 Tim. i. 19, vi. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 16-18, iti, 5-9; 1 Cor. xi. 19; 1 John ii. 18-23, iv. 1-3). Of this character must be the falling away which in 2 'Thess. ii. 3 is referred to as something specifically known. It could not be some sort of a political revolution, a revolt against the Roman authority established by God, or a falling away on the part of the Jews from the law of their fathers, since for Paul and the Christians of that age and of the ages follow- ing, the holy people, who at the end of the days will have to endure in increased measure what Israel ‘suffered at the time of Antiochus, are not the Jewish people who owed their obligations to Moses, but the Church of Jesus. To what extent this falling away conditions the appearance of the antichrist it is not possible to determine from Paul’s, brief reference to what had THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 241 been said about it in his earlier preaching. In view of the ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν in 1 Cor. xiii. 9, we have no right to assume that the elements and fragments of Christian prophecy that here come to view formed in Paul’s mind a finished and completed picture. 10. (P. 230.) It is a noteworthy fact that, with the exception of Luke ii. 1, iii, 1, Acts xi. 28, where mention of the emperor could not be avoided, no name of an emperor is to be found in the N.T. Very little thought was devoted to Tiberias or Caligula, Claudius or Nero, reference being made simply to the emperor who was reigning at the time (Matt. xxii. 17-21; Mark xii. 14-17; Luke xx. 22-25, xxiii. 2; John xix. 12, 15; Acts xvii. 7, xxv. 8-12, xxvi. 34, xxvii. 24, xxviii. 19; Phil. iv. 22; 1 Pet. ii. 13,17). So are mentioned the government of the empire and its agents (Rom. xiii. 1-75 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17) or different classes of kings (Matt. x. 18, xvii. 25; Luke xxii, 25; Acts iv. 26, ix. 15; 1 Tim. ii. 2, vi. 15; Rev. i. 5, vi. 15). 11. (P. 231.) Grotius (Ann. in NT, ed. Windheim, ii. 715 ff.), Ewald (Sendschreiben des Pl. 17 f.), Laurent (ΝῊ. Studien, 49 ff.), on the presupposi- tion that both Epistles are genuine, declare 2 Thess. to be the older of the two. Baur reaches the same conclusion, on the assumption that both are spurious (Paulus, ii. 368f.). Grotius thinks that 2 Thess. was written as early as 38 A.D., before Paul visited Thessalonica, to certain Jewish Christians there. Ewald and Laurent make Bercea the place of composition (Acts xvii. 10), and think that it was written during the weeks immediately following the found- ing of the Church. Here again reference must be made to II. i. 4 in addition to what has been said above, p. 231. It is not a question here as in I. i. 8f. of personal contact of Paul and his helpers with Christians from outside of Europe (above, p. 205 f.), but of reports spread by the missionaries in a number of Churches where they had sojourned since their flight from Thessa- lonica, or where they were sojourning at the time when the letter was written. Hence they must have gone at least as far as Bercea and Athens and Corinth. The language used would still seem unnatural if it referred simply to reports made in the preaching that gathered congregations in Bercea, Athens, and Corinth. The reference is to conditions in Churches already existing. During the eighteen months of continuous “ residence” in Corinth (Acts xviii. 11), Paul may have made an occasional visit to other Churches, but only to such as that in the port town of Cenchrea (Rom. xvi. 1). This is not the case, however, with Silvanus, and Timothy, in whose name II, i. 4 is also written. The latter, upon his return from his mission in Thessalonica, certainly stopped in Bercea and probably also in Athens, and so had opportunity to do what in II. i, 4 is declared to have been done by all three missionaries. From II. iii. 17 it is not to be inferred that the Church had never before received a letter signed by Paul’s own hand. Notwithstanding the fact that the Corinthians had previously received a letter from him (1 Cor. v. 9), he calls attention to the concluding greeting in his own hand (xvi. 21); while the fact that in 2 Thess. iii. 17 he calls attention even more expressly to the form of his own handwriting, stating in addition that it is the same in every letter, is fully explained by the circumstance that henceforth the ending of the letter in his own hand is to be regarded by the Church as a proof of genuineness. A point in the tradition which tends to confirm the priority of 1 Thess. is the fact that the two letters were not arranged in the Canon according to the VOL. I. 16 242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT prineiple which came into use eomparatively late and which is still in vogue, namely, the determining of the order of the writings in accordance with their respective lengths. They had their present order as early as the Canon of Marcion, who knew nothing of the later principle of arrangement, from which we may assume that they were always circulated in their present order. 12. (P. 232.) If IL iii. 14 stated simply the possibility that someone might disregard the exhortation of iii. 6-13, the language would be different, reading somewhat as follows : ἐὰν δέ τις οὐχ ὑπακούσῃ τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις ἡμῶν ; While, apart from its character as a conditional sentence, it would be compared not with I. v. 27, but with I. iv. 18. Paul refers to a definite passage in an earlier letter (cf. 1 Cor. v. 9), I. iv. 11 f., and on the basis of reports received (IT. ii. 11), declares that the exhortation of the letter is now actually being disre- garded. The language in II. ii. 15 is less definite: “oral or written,” Hence it may refer to something in the letter in which it occurs. Since, however, there are to be found in this letter no new instructions and directions supple- menting the missionary preaching, such as I. iv. 13-18 certainly is, and pos- sibly also such detached sentences as I. iv. 1-8, 11f.; v. 12-22 (cf. per contra I. iv. 9, v. 1), Il. ii. 15 also is to be taken as a reference to 1 Thess. In particular does 11. ii. 1, ὑπὲρ τῆς . . . ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, sound like a recollection of I. iv. 14, 17. $ 16. THE GENUINENESS OF THE FIRST THREE EPISTLES. These three Epistles, which, if written by Paul at all, were all composed within a single year at intervals of from one to three months (above, p. 233), are all entitled to the benefit of the eritical prineiples laid down above (pp. 156-162). The difficulties which are always in the way of getting forged letters of apostles into circulation in Christian Churches (p. 159, paragr. 5) are enormously increased in the case of 2 Thess., the genuineness of which has been far more seriously questioned than that of the other two letters, because of what is said in the Epistle itself about possible or actual forgeries (ii. 2, ii. 17). Remarks of this kind would at once call for criticism on the part of the original readers, and it is difficult to see how within thirty or forty years after Paul’s death the Thessalonian Church could have been made to believe that this Epistle had been received from Paul during his lifetime, unless it contained at least a fragment that looked like an original document, and unless it were THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 243 signed in a peculiar hand in characters distinetly different from those appearing in the body of the letter. In view of what is said in 2 Thess. 11. 2, 111. 17, it is quite out of the question, not only for us modern readers, but all the more for those readers from whom the letter passed into circulation and for whom it was intended originally, to suppose that 2 Thess. is a more or less harmless fiction “in the spirit of Paul” ; simply because this passage raises the question in the mind of every reader, no matter how unsophisticated, whether it is a genuine writing of Paul’s that he has before him, or some document. that has been forged in a manner the boldness of which is un- paralleled (n. 1). In addition to this, more traces are to be found of 2 Thess. than of either 1 Thess. or Gal. in the Church prior to the time of Marcion and outside of his Apostolicon (n. 2). The questions discussed in Galatians had less general interest for the Church of the second century than had the statements of eschatological doctrine and the practical advice of 1 and 2 Thess. Only Marcion is an excep- tion. After his fashion he values Galatians very highly, and in testimony of this esteem places it first in his collection of Pauline letters, calling it principialem adversus Judaismum epistolam, and making it the start- ing-point for his criticism of the entire tradition (Tert. c. Mare, iv. 3, v. 2). So also the comprehensive critique of the Pauline Epistles and of the entire N.T., begun by Baur, started by assuming that Gal. was a source the genuineness of which did not need to be proved in order to show, on the basis of the clear and fundamental opposi- tion between Jewish and Pauline Christianity which comes out in this Epistle, that Acts and most of the Epistles which bear Paul’s name are the product of a biassed (ten- denzwös) attempt to tone down this opposition, and are consequently spurious. Perhaps this is the chief reason why, by the latest critical method popular in Holland, 244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT it is customary to begin with the discussion of Gal. (n. 3). The arguments advanced by these critics against the genuineness of Gal., and by the critics of the older school against that of 1 Thess. (n. 4), have made a lasting impression only upon very few. Not so, how- ever, in the case of 2 Thess. Assuming the genuine- ness of both Gal. and 1 Thess., it must be admitted that Paul was able, as occasion demanded, in the course of a single year to write letters very different both in thought and spirit. This renders all the more strik- ing the resemblance in plan (above, p. 224 f.), thought, and language of 1 and 2 Thess., which were written with scarcely a longer interval than that between Gal. and 1 Thess. There is only one very obvious differ- ence, namely, 2 Thess. is far inferior to 1 Thess. in freshness of emotion, in vividness of language, and in the winsome expression of friendly fellow-feeling. It is this difference principally, taken along with the fact of the great similarity of the letters in plan and lan- guage, that has given rise to the suspicion that someone familiar with 1 Thess. used it as a model by which to compose 2 Thess. Still this observation has less weight critically than the similarity of the two letters. What contrasts of feeling and expression do we find, for ex- ample, in a single letter of Paul’s like 2 Cor.! 1 Thess. was written under the immediate stimulus of the extremely gratifying news brought by Timothy, which had revived the apostle’s spirits that had been so long depressed by heavy cares. The news which led to the writing of 2 Thess. was less cheering. The exhortations of 1 Thess. had been entirely disregarded by some, and had to be repeated with severity (iii. 6-16). The teachings about the parousia of Christ and the events connected with it (ii. 5, 15), which he had recalled to their minds and enlarged upon in 1 Thess., had not been effective in put- THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 245: ting a stop to certain misleading reports. Moreover, means were being used for the circulation of these reports which, to say the least, were hardly honourable (ii. 2, ef. ii. 17). Of course, the steadfastness of the Church, in spite of constant suffering (i. 3f.), was something to be thankful for, though for Paul there was something de- pressing in the thought that the only prospect of a change in this condition of affairs was that offered by the hope of the judgment connected with the return of Christ. When one takes into consideration also the opposition with which Paul had to contend in the place where he was (iii. 2), and the missionary work in Corinth which claimed his entire attention (ii. 1; Acts xvi. 5-17), it it quite easy to understand the spirit and tone of this letter. On the other hand, it is hardly likely that a person forging such a letter would have put into Paul’s mouth twice a sentence like this: “ We are under obliga- tion at all times to give thanks to God for you” (i. 3, ii. 13, above, p. 225), which is not to be found elsewhere in Paul’s letters, genuine or spurious (n. 5), instead of imitating l Thess. i. 2 and other similar sentences at the beginning of Paul’s letters (Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. 1. 4; 2 Cor. i. 3; Kph. i. 345 f. ; Col. 1. 3; Phil. i. 3; Philem. 4; 2 Tim. i. 3). On the other hand, the similarity of the two letters is quite natural in view of the fact that they were written within a comparatively short time of each other to the same Church, that conditions were such that it was necessary in part to write about the same things (the sufferings of the Church, eschatological questions, and un- ruly idleness), and, finally, t that there were definite reasons for back references in 2 Thess. to the former letter (ii. 15, 1]. 14). If the claim was being made in Thessa- lonica on the basis of oral and written communications from the vicinity where Paul was, that Paul himself held the opinion which in this letter he feels called upon to pronounce absurd (ii. 2, above, p. 226), it is perfect 246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT natural that he should recall what he had written to the Church a few months before, and that in dictating 2 Thess. he should have in mind the argument and the language of the former letter (n. 6). Of course, 2 Thess. could not have been written by Paul if 2 Thess. ii. 3-12 is based upon the legend of the return of Nero as antichrist from Parthia or from the dead, still less if it presupposes the description of antichrist in Rev. xii. and xvii. 8 (n. 7). The latter assumption is purely arbitrary, because the most dis- tinctive feature in Paul’s description, which it is im- possible to derive from Dan. or 1 Mace, and which certainly cannot be referred to Matt. xxiv. 15, Mark xiii. 14, namely, that the antichrist is to set himself up in the temple of God and demand that he be worshipped, is not to be found at all in Rey. On the contrary, it is to be explained as a prophetic reflection of historical events which took place in the reign of Caligula (above, pp. 228, 237, n.7). There is not the slightest suggestion in 11. 3-12 of Nero’s conduct nor attitude toward the Roman Christians. If, as is at least doubtful, we really have here a description of the miraculous return to life of some historical personage (n. 8), this personage cannot be Nero. For, so far as our knowledge goes, the idea that Nero was to come back from the dead could not and did not originate until through the lapse of time it was no longer possible to retain the older notion that he was hidden somewhere among the Parthians, 1.6. the idea did not originate until the beginning of the second century. As a matter of fact, we know that it was not until 150 that the legend was adopted from the Jewish into the Christian Sibyllines with some other material taken from the Johannine apocalypse, and that it was not until the third century that the legend secured wide circulation in the Church (n. 9). But there is absolutely no trace in @&, Chess. of this older view, that Nero, who was still living THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 247 in the far East, was to reascend the ımperial throne by the help of the Parthians and by the general aid of the powers of this world. Least probable of all is the supposition that the rise of some pseudo-Nero, due to the influence of this superstition, furnished the motive for the writing of 2 Thess. (n. 10). The fact that elsewhere in his letters Paul does not refer to the man of lawlessness, is no reason for suspecting 2 Thess., unless a passage can be pointed out elsewhere where he had the same occasion to refer to him which according to 2 Thess. ii. 2 he has here. No inconsistencies between the eschatological views set forth here and those developed elsewhere in Paul's writings, and no peculiarities of style, can be pointed out which make improbable the identity of the authorship of this Epistle and of the other Epistles of Paul (n. 11). 1. (P. 243.) While the majority of critics up to the time of Schmiedel, HK, ii. 1, 12, are content merely to cite imperfect analogies, Weizsäcker, 251, admits that it “really is not easy to get over” 2 Thess. iii. 17, but makes not the slightest attempt to remove the difficulties suggested above. As even Baur admits, ii. 105, these words are of just the character to betray a forgery, not only because so manifestly designed, but also because the motive for the subscription in Paul’s own hand is different from that in 1 Cor. xvi. 21; Gal. vi. 11 (not really a comparable case, see above, p. 170; per contra, Col. iv. 18). It is wrong to say that Paul did this always “in order to give his readers direct proof of his affection for them” (Baur, ii. 105) ; in 1 Cor. xvi. 21 it is used to introduce an anathema. Even more arbitrary is the claim that 2 Thess. iii. 17 is meant to explain this custom of Paul’s. Confessedly in all the realms of nature and of art, where distinctions are possible, a phenomenon which recurs regularly under given conditions is a characteristic, even when no reason is given for the distinction and no explanation of its origin offered. Even if, as Weizsiicker suggests, II. ii. 2 be a “hypothetical explanation of the meaning of this genuine Epistle” (1.6. cf 2 Thess.), that does not make it any more credible that an interpolator should be so utterly shortsighted as to lay himself open to criticism by referring so blindly to alleged utterances of Paul’s without any indication of their historical setting. Hilgenfeld’s theory, Einl. 646, that II. ii. 2 was written in order to cast sus- pieion upon 1 Thess., which is genuine, while not so meaningless as Weiz- säcker’s statement, is not more credible. For (1) there is no reference here to a spurious Pauline Epistle (above, p. 235) ; (2) this theory does not har- monise with the faet that in II. ii. 15, iii. 14 (above, p. 232), 1 Thess. is re- ferred to as a genuine Epistle ; (3) to cast suspicion upon a recognised work of Paul’s was the worst possible way in which to introduce a forgery which had to establish its own claims. 248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 2. (P. 243.) For traces of Gal. in Clemens Rom. (?), Ignatius (?), Polycarp, Justin, cf. GK, 1. 573 f., 828, n. 2. For traces of 2 Thess. and fainter traces of 1 Thess. in the same authors, cf. GK, i. 575, 815, 826, n. 1. 3. (P. 244.) The attacks made heretofore on Gal. are of so little signifi- cance that it is sufficient in a handbook like this merely to mention them, above, p. 163, notes 5 and 6. 4. (P.224.) Baur, ii. 94, in proof of his contention that in the originality and importance of its contents 1 Thess. is inferior to all the other Pauline letters, makes the statement that with the exception of iv. 13-18 “it does not contain even a single dogmatic idea of special importance.” But what dogmatic idea of special importance is to be found in 1 Cor. i.-xiv., xvi., or 2 Cor. 1.) 11.) vi.-xiii.? Only when the apologetic purpose of the first main section of the letter is denied (above, p. 215f.), and the strong emotion which it reveals ignored, is it found to contain simply superfluous reminders of things already known. It is also wrong to affirm that the historical material is taken from Acts (Baur, ii. 95, 97). On the contrary, the facts that come to light in 1 Thess. ii. 17-iii. 5 are new, and not always easy to reconcile with Acts (above, pp. 204 f.,214f.). Where their agreement is apparent (ii. 2= Acts xvi. 22-40), there is no trace of the dependence of the one upon the other. Resemblances between 1 Thess. and 1 and 2 Cor. Baur felt to be particularly open to suspicion (95f., 342 ff.). So long as barren and ineffective words continue to exist in the world, the contrast between λόγος and δύναμις is natural (1 Thess. i. 5, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20); its occurrence in 1 Thess, is certainly very inadequate proof for the statement that 1 Thess. “ emphasises the more general ideas that are to be found specifically applied in 1 Cor.” (343). This is not the case, for 1 Thess. i. 5 has reference only to the preaching in Thessalonica, while in 1 Cor. iv. 20 (cf. i.18; Rom. i. 16) a general proposition is in mind, and even in 1 Cor. ii. 4f. the method of preaching in Corinth is brought under a general principle. The expressions ἐν βάρει εἶναι (1 Thess. ii. 7), ἐπιβαρῆσαι (ii. 9, cf. II. iii. 8), suggest 2 Cor. xi. 9, xii. 16; but the resemblance is not verbal, consequently the words are not copied from 2 Cor. Baur contends (345) that what we have here is only a generalisation of what is said in 1 and 2 Cor. with reference to special conditions in the Corinthian Church. But here again it is to.be observed that in 1 Cor. ix. 6-18 Paul speaks of his refusal to avail himself of that right of the evangelist, of which he and Barnabas had regularly availed them- selves ever since the beginning of the first missionary journey ; whereas in 1 Thess. ii. 7,9; 2 Thess. ili. 7-9, reference is had only to his conduct in Thessalonica. Of like value with these observations are those of Holsten (JbfP Th. 1877, S. 731), that in 1 Thess. i. 3 the Pauline trilogy “faith, hope, and love” (1 Cor. xiii. 18) is confused with the trilogy of the Jewish Apoca- lypse, ἔργα, κόπος, ὑπομονή (ii. 2), and that the pseudo-Paul, who wrote this letter, like the one who wrote Phil., did not venture to speak of Paul in the greeting as an apostle. As if a forger, who depended for the acceptance of his work upon readers who held the apostle and the genuine Epistles in high regard, would not be tempted to imitate, even to outdo, the genuine letters (Gal. i.1; land 2 Cor. 1. 1; Rom. i. 1) in emphasising as strongly as possible Paul’s apostleship. Then this theory overlooks the emphatic Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι in 1 Thess. ii. 7. Baur thought the chief objection to the letter THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 249 lay in its recognition of the Christian Church in Judea (ii. 14), notwithstand- ing the fact that their Christian standing is fully admitted in Gal. i. 22-24 (cf. 2 Cor. viii. 18 f.; Rom. xv. 27; indirectly also 1 Cor. xiv. 36). Had Paul in this passage, as Baur thinks he ought to have done (97), said some- thing about his participation in the persecution of the Jewish Christians on the part of the Jews, it would be a stronger reason than anything Baur has suggested for suspecting an imitation of 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 13; since such a reference would have been out of place in this connection, where the point of comparison between the persecution of the Thessalonians and of the Jewish Christians was the fact that by their Christian confession both had incurred the bitter hatred of their own countrymen. It is possible to speak of the vague polemic against the Jews (Baur, 97, 347) only when the fact is over- looked that the persecution of the Thessalonians began with the attack of the Jews upon the missionaries (above, p. 203f.), and that shortly after the arrival of Timothy and Silas in Corinth, .e. about the time 1 Thess. was written, Paul was compelled by the opposition of the Jews to separate him- self from the synagogue (Acts xviii. 5f.). Of course, the letter is spurious if ii. 16 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as already past. But this is so evident a blunder that even Baur (97, 369) does not venture to make the forger directly responsible for it. The avenging wrath of God has reached the rebellious nation, but the cloud has not yet broken. Having rejected both the testimony of Jesus and of the apostles, Israel is fallen and rejected (Rom. xi. 11-15), and the judgment of hardening has already been visited upon them, which must and will soon show itself in judgment of a more external character (Rom. xi. 7-10, ef. ix. 32f.). There is no reference to present internal conditions in Palestine, nor any indication of the banish- ment of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius (as held by Paul Schmidt, Der Erste Thessaloniker-Brief, 87 ; ef. below, XI. [Chron. Survey]). Only in a very young Church could the deaths which thinned their ranks be felt to be irreconcilable with the word of life received by faith ; presumably this would be felt most strongly in the case of the first deaths, cf. also 1 Cor. xi. 30. Positive proof of the genuineness of the Epistle is to be found in iv. 15-17; for no one ascribing a letter to Paul after his death could have made him say—more definitely here than in any passage in the unquestioned letters of Panl —that he himself expected to experience the parousia. More- over, the particular kind of grief for the dead which appears in iv. 13 ff. is inconceivable in a Church which for decades had been losing its members by death one after the other. Consequently Baur (99, ef. 94) is wrong when, in the eschatological teaching of the Epistle, iv. 13 ff., which has not even first place among the discussions in the passage appended to the main section of the Epistle, beginning with λοιπόν, iv. 1 (above, p. 220f.), he discovers the purpose which, after Paul’s death, led to the composition of the entire letter. 5. (P. 245.) Even the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, ver. 3, repro- duces the usual Pauline formula, @K, ii. 584; while the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, ver. 2, ed. Vetter, p. 54, is dependent upon Gal. i.6. On the other hand, the καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστιν of 2 Thess. i. 3 has a parallel in Phil. i. 7. 6. (P. 246.) Ability to reproduce from memory what has been written or spoken earlier, naturally varies greatly with different individuals, The question recurs in connection with 1 Cor. v. 9-11; 2 Cor. i. 13, and all the references 250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of 2 Cor.to 1 Cor. But to the author it seems unlikely that the letters of Paul were sent to the Churches in the form in which they were written down by the amanuensis from dictation, Generally it would be necessary to revise the letter after it was dictated, and to prepare a new copy. This waa sent to its destination, while the original copy might remain for some time in the hands of Paul or of his amanuensis. Cicero usually treated his letters in this manner ; cf. H. Peter, “Der Brief in der röm. Literatur,” 1901 (Abh. der Sächs. Ges. ἃ. Wiss. phil. hist. Kl. xx. 30), 8. 29f., 35. Now, busy as Paul was, and knowing as he did his emotional temperament, nothing was more natural in the circumstances than for him to read over again the original copy of 1 Thess., if he still had it, before dictating 2 Thess. 7. (P. 246.) Since Kern, TZfTh. 1839, ii. 145-214, and Baur, ii. 351- 364 (Baur asserts more positively than Kern the dependence of 2 Thess, on Rev., which has since been generally accepted; cf. Weizsicker, 503, and Hilgenfeld, 647, who holds an entirely different view regarding the date and purpose of 2 Thess. Schmiedel, however, HK, ii. 143, holds that literary dependence cannot be proved),—since Kern and Baur, many have been inclined to regard 2 Thess. ii. 3-12 as a reproduction of the popular supersti- tion concerning Nero redivivus. Nero is held to be the “mystery of law- lessness,” active in the present, secretly preparing for his own return (Baur, 354, and Kern, 205, “the continued longing for this prince after his downfall,” ef. Tac. Hist. i. 78). The κατέχων, on the other hand, is Vespasian (Kern, 200, “with his son Titus”), or Otho, or even Galba (Schmiedel, 43) ; in any case “the emperor reigning at the time when the letter was written ” (Baur, 355). This is the πρῶτον ψεῦδος held in common by these critics and numerous defenders of the Epistle’s genuineness (6.0. Dillinger, Christent. u. Kirche zur Zeit der Grundlegung, 2te Aufl. 288). Since, in ii. 4, the existence of the Temple at Jerusalem seems to be presupposed (Kern, 157, 207; P. Schmidt, 119; Baur undecided on this point, 358), on this view 2 Thess. must have been written between June 68 and August 70. According to Baur (356), the occasion for the forgery was the appearance of the first pseudo- Nero in 69 A.D. (see below, nn. 9, 10). In order to explain the address of the forgery, Baur (357) assumes gratuitously that not only the provinces of Achaia and Asia (Tac. Hist. ii. 8), but also Macedonia, were set in commotion by this adventurer. Furthermore, the champions of this so-called historical interpretation, which, according to Schmiedel (39), is the only scientific one, pass over very lightly the fact that the pre-existence of the expected antichrist is not by any means so clearly affirmed as in Rev. xvii. 8,11. It is impossible to find in 2 Thess. a single characteristic feature of the brief history of the pseudo-Nero in question, nor of the real Nero (comparison of Suet. Nero, lvi, with 2 Thess. ii. 4, only serves to reveal the extremity to which this theory is reduced), nor of the representative of the Nero redivivus (n. 9) in the Sibylline books. It has not been shown how, after the pseudo- Neronic movements were passed and before 120,—to judge from the literature of the time,—when Gentiles and Jews alike looked only for a restoration of the Neronic rule through political means, a Christian could have formed the conceptions which are to be found in 2 Thess, This difficulty is somewhat | lessened by Hilgenfeld’s suggestion that “in the end 2 Thess. proves to be a | short Pauline apocalypse written in the last years of Trajan’s reign” (Hinl. | THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 251 642, old paragraphs). But this hypothesis is not advanced save as a con jecture (650). It is difficult to understand how Christians who, with the emperor’s approbation, were condemned to execution, and, according te Hilgenfeld, led, by this constant persecution, to entertain false hopes con- cerning the parousia, could come to regard Trajan not as the Nero redivivus, but as the κατέχων (651) ; particularly so if, as is suggested by Hilgenfeld, the Nero redivivus of this apocalypse is not the historical matricide or the persecutor of the Christians, but the leader of the falling away of which there were already signs in the Church in the current Gnosticism. With this interpretation of the mystery of lawlessness is severed the one slender thread by which 2 Thess. ii. 3-12 can possibly be connected with the legends concerning Nero. Bahnsen (JbfPTh. 1880, S. 681-705) still feels it necessary to retain the connection, although he too understands by the mystery of lawlessness the rising Gnosticism as he finds it described in the Pastoral Epistles. He, however, interprets the κατέχον as the spiritual office, and makes the κατέχων refer either to one distinguished ἐπίσκοπος, or the ἐπίσκοπος of the Ignatian Epistles, who occupied a position of authority over the other ἐπίσκοποι-- πρεσβύτεροι. To such vagaries the theory of Kern is preferable. P. Schmidt (127) endeavours to relieve the theory of a number of fatal objections by assuming—but without giving his reasons—that ii. 2b-12 and several expressions in chap. i. were introduced into the Epistle, which is otherwise genuine, sometime between 68 and 70. Klöpper justly remarks (56) that nothing has caused more confusion in connection with the question regarding the origin of 2 Thess. than its association with the person of Nero. 8. (P. 246.) With praiseworthy impartiality, Hofmann (i. 331-334, ef. Schriftbeweis, ii. 2.674) admits that, strange as it may seem to us, Paul does conceive of the entrance of the lawless one into the world after the analogy of the return of Christ from the other world, as a return from the dead. And certainly the threefold occurrence of ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι (iii. 6, 8, cf. 1. 7), followed immediately by παρουσία (viii. 9), used of the coming of Jesus and of the lawless one, does give the coming of the antichrist the appearance of a carica- ture of the parousia of Christ, preceding this latter event. But it is to be observed that the meaning of μυστήριον (7) is the same here as in other passages (1 Cor. ii. 7, 10, xiv. 2,6; Rom. xvi. 25; Eph. iii. 3-12; Col. i. 26 f. ; 1 Tim. iii. 16), there being an implied contrast to the ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι which precedes and follows, and that the “ mystery of lawlessness” means—admitted even by Hofmann (i. 329, 331)—not the person of the lawless one, but the increased spirit of lawlessness which is an active force even in the present. Consequently it would seem as if it were this impersonal power which is now concealed, but is to be revealed in the person of the lawless one. That the passage speaks not of the revealing of this impersonal power, but of the man of lawlessness, is sufficiently explained: (1) by the fact that the latter is presented as a caricature of the returning Christ; (2) by the fact that the spirit of lawlessness assumed personal form for the first time not in the “antichrist,” but in all his forerunners (Antiochus, Caligula), In this way the conception was reached of a pre-existence of the lawless one not purely ideal. He, i.e. the personal ἀνομία, has existed again and again, but, before the complete development and revelation of his character, he is to be set aside, that he may operate for a time only as an impersonal power, eventu- 252 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ally finding his complete personal manifestation, and so, his revelation in the man of lawlessness whose appearance immediately precedes the parousia of Christ. A partial analogy is to be found in the sayings about the coming Elias, Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10-13, not all of which, however, indicate a personal return (cf. Matt. xiv. 2, xvi. 14, but are to be understood in the sense of John i. 21; Luke i. 17). 9. (P. 246.) Cf. the present writer’s essay, Nero der Antichrist, ZFKW, 1886, S. 337-352, 393-405. Nero (born December 5, 37 ; died June 9, 68) him- self believed, because of certain predictions, that he would lose his throne, but rise to power again in the East, and live until his seventy-third year, 2.e. until 110 a.p. (Suet. Nero, xl). Up to about this time the popular belief seems to have survived that he was still alive, and would regain his power (Dio Chrys. Or. 21). This led to the rise of a pseudo-Nero, who established himself on the island of Cythnus in 69 a.D., but was soon easily overpowered and beheaded by Asprenas, who had been appointed governor of Galatia, and stopped at the island on his way thither (Tac. Hist. ii. 8. 9; Dio Cass. lxiv. 9; Zonaras, xi. 15). A second pretender, Terentius Maximus by name, appeared under Titus (79-81 Zonaras, 11. 18), if, indeed, he be not identical with a third, who in 88 came near causing a Parthian war (Suet. Nero, lvii ; Tac. Hist. i. 2). The spread of this belief, which led to these political uprisings among Hellenistic Jews of the time, is indicated by Szbyll. v. 137-178, 361-385 (71 A.D.) and Szbyll. iv. 117-139 (80 A.D.). It is not until we come to the Sibyllines written between 120-125 (v. 28-34, 93-110, 214-227) that we find the return of Nero represented as supernatural in character, and himself described as an avrideos whom the Messiah is to destroy. About 150 this last prophecy was worked over in connection with others of earlier date in Sibyll. v. by a Christian. About the same time, either by this Christian, or by one of kindred mind (Sibyll. viii. 1-216), these conceptions were fused with important features of the Johannine Apocalypse. Cf. also the picture of the Antichrist, supplied with the features of Nero, Ascensio Isai, chap. iv. 2. The Sibyllines, which date from the first century, and with which alone 2 Thess. can be compared in point of time, reproduce simply the historical picture of Nero, the matricide, the stage-hero who celebrated his own burn- ing of Rome, and the builder of a canal through the isthmus of Corinth. Though, in punishment of his own misdeeds, compelled to flee beyond the Euphrates, the missing one is to return from Parthia with a great army as a scourge to Rome. The Jewish conception of Nero during the first decades after his death shows no trace of an antichrist and of a mysterious super- natural being. 10. (P. 247.) Assuming that the Christians in Thessalonica were stirred up by the appearance in 69 A.D. of the pseudo-Nero whom they regarded as the antichrist,—though 2 Thess. ii. 2 assigns an entirely different reason,—this excitement must have been thoroughly allayed by his immediate downfall. The opinion that the day of the Lord had already come because the anti- christ had appeared, would then have disappeared of itself, for the reason that the pretender perished miserably before he was able to extend his authority over the little island of Cythnus, and to do anything that could establish his character as the antichrist. The only conceivable effect of disillusionment would be doubt as to the nearness of the parousia, or as to the truth of the THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 253 prophecies concerning the event. Furthermore, an author, sharing all the essential presuppositions of his deluded readers, who desired to prevent a recurrence of such deceptions and disillusionments, must have indicated the signs by which a false Nero, or antichrist, might be distinguished from the true one. But there is no trace of this antithesis in the letter. On these presuppositions reference to the κατέχων would be without point; for, as each new pseudo-Nero appeared, there was nothing to prevent the expectation that he would replace the reigning emperor and remove all other hindrances to his power. 11. (P, 247.) For example, P. Schmidt (111) and Schmiedel (HK, ii. 1. 9) find a contradiction in the fact that in I. v. 1 the time of the parousia can not be determined, the Lord coming as a thief in the night; whereas, according to II. ii. 1-12, the approach of the parousia is indicated by numerous signs, many of which are to be observed even in the present. But the same contradic- tion can be said to exist between Matt. xxiv. 7-33 (Mark xiii. 9-29; Luke xxi. 10-31) and Matt. xxiv. 35-44 (Matt. xii. 32-37 ; Luke xvii. 20-30, xxi. 34-36 ; Acts i. 7), or between Rev. ili. 3, xvi. 15, and other parts of Rev. In reality there is no contradiction, only the same difference that existed between Noah and the men of his time. To those absorbed in the present earthly life the day of the Lord will come as a snare and the Lord as a thief ; the disciples of Jesus are to watch, be sober and ready in order that He may not so come to them. They are to give heed to the signs of the times which portend the end ; not to pay overmuch attention to those that are remote from the event, but not to overlook those that are near. If they are to avoid the latter mistake, they must know what those signs are to be ; if the former, they must have a general idea of what is to happen before they appear. But since it is fundamentally impossible to know when the end will come and when the signs immediately preceding will appear, it is the part of wisdom as well as the natural impulse of love to live in constant readiness for the approaching end. The genuine prophecy of the apostolic age retains these fundamental features of the eschatological teaching of Jesus (cf. Rev. xix. 10). So does Paul. The impossibility of determining when the end would come (I. v. 1-3), and the knowledge that the man of lawlessness had not yet appeared, and could not appear until the existing government, the Roman empire, had given place to a different order of things (II. ii. 3-7), did not prevent him from believing that the parousia was near (I. iv. 17 ; cf., however, II. i. 5 ff.), though he does not assert this belief dogmatically (I. v. 10 ; cf. Rom. xiii. 11-14, xiv. 7-9; 1 Cor. xv.51f.). On the other hand, his attention to exist- ing signs of the coming end (II. i. 5, ἔν δειγμα, ii. 7a, ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται), and to the events which had happened since he had become a Christian (above, p. 237, τι. 7), saved him from an error such as he opposes in II. ii, 2, and from making a prophecy which would be proved false by the next succession to the throne at Rome. 2 Thess. i. 5-10 has been proved un-Pauline ; indeed, it is said to breathe a spirit of revenge quite unchristian (Kern, 211, cautiously ; more strongly stated, e.g., by Schmiedel). But of the general principle of the retributive righteousness of God (Rom. ii. 2-10), Paul very often makes severe application (Rom. iii. 8, xi. 9f., xvi. 20; 1 Cor. iii. 17, xvi. 22 ;-2 Cor. xi. 15; Gal. i. 8, v. 10, 12; Phil. iii. 18f.; 2 Tim. iv. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 16), and in addressing those who were afflicted, with whom he does not identify 254 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT himself, he could without objection say things which would be more objection- able if said by themselves. Without parallel in Paul’s other writings is the use of κλῆσις, in i. 11, in the sense not of a call to martyrdom (Hilgenfeld, 647), nor of the future glory (Klopper, 23), but probably of a forthcoming in- vitation to enter into the possession and enjoyment of the promised glory. This meaning is particularly clear, if we follow Hofmann’s suggestion and connect ev τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ With ἀξιώσῃ. But Paul uses κλῆσις only once (Rom. xi. 29) of the call of the Israelitish nation which was involved in the call of Abraham. In the first passage the meaning approaches that of of κεκλημένοι in Matt. xxii. 3, 4,8; Luke xiv. 17, 24; in the latter, that of καλέσαι, Matt. xxli. 3, the object of the verb being those long since called (cf. Matt. xxv. 34; Rev. xix. 9). The usage in Rom. xi. 29 departs much farther from Paul’s customary usage than 2 Thess. i. 11; since the call of the gospel has much more direct reference to the future glory of Christians (1 Thess. ii. 12, v. 23f.; 2 Thess. ii. 14; Eph. i. 18, iv. 4; Phil. iii. 14) than to the call of Abraham and of Israel. It is claimed that the use of κύριος for God instead of Christ (Hilgenfeld, 646),—a use which occurs only in quotations from the O.T. (1 Cor. i. 31), and in passages suggested by the O.T. (2 Cor. viii. 21 = Prov. iii. 4),—that this use is un-Pauline. But in I. iii. 12, 6 κύριος, which occurs in a context where the distinction is twice made between God the Father and “our Lord Jesus” (I. iii. 11, 13), cannot mean Jesus in distinction from the Father, but only the Lord who, according to the Christian conception, has been revealed as “God and Father” and “our Lord Jesus.” Hofmann (i. 214) compares Rom. xiv. 1-12 (3 ὁ θεός, 4-8 ὁ κύριος, 9 Χριστός), and the usage is to be constantly observed where Paul makes O.T. passages refer to Christ, when he knows as well as we do that the anarthrous κύριος means Jahveh and not Jesus, e.g. Rom. x. 9-15. Why should ὁ κύριος be understood differently in II. iii. 3,5 and I. iii. 12, especially in view of the numerous resemblances between these passages, e.g. αὐτὸς δέ, I. iii. 11, II. ii. 16; κατευθύναι, 1. 111. 11, 11. iii. 5; στηρίξαι, 1. 111. 13, 11. ii. 17, ii. 3? It is true that Paul, who in II. i. 7-ii. 14 has constantly before him the Christ who is to return in glory, when he comes to speak of God and Christ together in II. ii. 16, places Christ’s name first (in contrast to I. iii. 11), and that in IT. 1. 12 he calls Christ “our Lord and God” (ef. Rom. ix. 5 ; Tit. 1. 3). It is also true that in this Epistle ὁ κύριος oceurs in combinations where analogy might lead one to expect ὁ θεός (πιστὸς. . . ὁ κύριος, 11. ili. 3, cf. per contra, 1. v. 24; 1 Cor. 1. 9, x. 13; 2 Cor. 1. 185 ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ κυρίου (al. τοῦ κυρίου and θεοῦ), II. ii. 13, cf. per contra, I. i. 4; 6 κύριος τῆς εἰρήνης, II. iii. 16, cf, per contra, 1. v. 23; Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. iv. 9; also Heb. xiii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 33). This usage can be considered un-Pauline only if, in striking eontrast to other Christians of his time, Paul did not recognise Christ as the Faithful One (2 Tim. 11. 13), the Redeemer through His love (Gal. ii. 20; Rom. viii. 37; Eph. v. 2, 25), the Bringer of Peace (Eph. ii. 14-18 ; Col. iii. 15, with Phil. iv. 7; “peace from God and Christ” in the greetings). It is evident, on the other hand, that a forger would not have re- placed an expression like “The God of Peace,” which occurs so frequently in Paul’s writings, by the unusual “ The Lord of Peace.” The same is true of the use of ἐγκαυχᾶσθαι between two €v’s, in IL. i. 4, instead of the single verb which occurs more than thirty times in Paul’s writings, and which a copyist THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 255 of an early date thought ought to be inserted here. It is asserted also that having used ἐξελέξατο in two passages of his letters (1 Cor. i.27f.; Eph.i. 4), Paul could not have written εἵλατο in a third, II. ii. 13, although naturally he is familiar with the word (Phil. i. 22), and although the word is excellently chosen in this passage, where there is a contrast implied to the destruction of unbelievers over whom the Christians have the advantage. ἡ ἐπιφάνεια, which is not at all superfluous, along with τῆς παρουσίας, but, like the expression, “the breath of his mouth,” indicates the outward manifestation of the coming of Christ (II. ii. 8, cf. i. 7-10), cannot be considered un- Pauline simply because it is used in a similar connection in Tit. ii. 13 and elsewhere with reference to the return of Christ, 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8. It is quite without point to reject as un-Pauline the phrase ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, 11. 1. 9, from Isa. ii. 10, because used instead of δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, which it is alleged is the only expression Paul uses (cf. per contra, Eph. i. 19, vi. 10), and the word eriovvayoyn, II. ii. 1 (ef. I. iv. 14,17; Mark xiii. 27), for which no genuine Pauline equivalent can be named. The difficult construction of sentences in the first main division of the letter, amounting in several passages (1. 10-12, ii. 3-9) to anacolutha, and the succession of short sentences at the end (iii. 25, with the contrast in iii. 3; the sentence, iii. 10; antithesis, ii. 110; all from ii. 13 on), are signs of genuineness. IV. THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL WITH THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH. $ 17. THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. THE city of Corinth, which was destroyed and depopulated by Mummius in the year 146 B.c., and rebuilt by Ceesar and made a Roman colony (‘ Laus Julia Corinthus”), was the capital of the province of Achaia, which since the year 27 B.c. had been separate from Macedonia, and which in size corresponded practically to the modern kingdom of. Greece. Here resided regularly the propreetor, who had the rank of proconsul. After its restoration Corinth developed rapidly into a flourishing city, and at this time was the principal city in the province in point of popula- tion, industry, and commerce. The celebration there of the Isthmian games made it a centre of Greek life in spite of the mixed character of its population, though after its restoration, as before, Corinth was a “city of Aphrodite” Cael): Paul came to Corinth from Athens in November 52 (Acts xvii. 1). As the result of eighteen months of labour there, the Corinthian Church was organised. Of this Church Paul declares himself to have been the sole founder with an exclusiveness and an emphasis which would have been out of place in the case of the Thessalonians, and there is nothing in Acts nor in Paul’s own writings which calls for any dispute of his right to this position (n. 2). If, as seems to be the case, there were already in existence 266 PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 257 at this time a number of small Churches in the vicinity of Corinth, there is no necessity for assuming that Paul himself had taken an active part in their organisation. More probably the same plan was adopted that was followed later in Ephesus. While the apostle remained in the capital and bent all his energies to kindle a central flame of Christian life, sparks from this fire were scattered in every direction through the province. In Corinth, as in Ephesus, Paul’s helpers did: valiant service in spreading the gospel in localities which the apostle did not visit in person. | ' The circumstances under which Paul came to Corinth were peculiar. for whatever cause, whether on account of the experience which he had had in Athens, or on account of continued anxiety about the Thessalonian Church, he was in an unusually discouraged state of mind when he began his Corinthian work.. As he himself intimates, it was for this reason that in Corinth he confined himself so strictly to the simple preaching of the cross, refusing more than at other times and in other places to make the foolish- ness of the gospel attractive to his hearers by the use of rhetorical art and of learning: (1 Cor. 11. 1-5; cf. Acts xvii. 9). The manner in which he lived in Corinth was also such as to foster this feeling. While in Athens, he made no attempt to earn his living by working with his own hands, a course of action which was natural in those surroundings, and quite possible on account of contribu- tions sent by the Macedonian Churches (Phil. iv. 15; 2 Cor. xi. 8f.). As a result, he not only preached on the Sabbath in the synagogue of the Jews and proselytes, but also sought opportunities on week days to converse in the public places with those who resorted thither. In Corinth, on the other hand, after he obtained quarters in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, the Jewish couple who from this time on were’ associated with him closely and constantly, he worked for wages during the week in their tent shop, MOL. I. 17 258 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT so that his religious activity was confined to the Sabbath and the synagogue (n. 3). The relief which came with the good news brought by Timothy from Thessalonica (1 Thess. iii. 6), and the encouragement which naturally resulted from reunion with his two trusted helpers, stimu- lated him to preach with greater energy, in consequence of which the opposition of the Jews became more pronounced, and Christian preaching was forbidden in the synagogue (Acts xviii. 5-7). It was a triumph for Paul when Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and his entire family were baptized by him, an example which was followed at once by a considerable number of the Corinthians. In this manner originated the Church, which continued to assemble in the house of an uncircumcised proselyte adjoining the synagogue. During the succeeding months its membership was materially increased by the addition of Gentiles from all classes (n. 4). Having now succeeded in establishing a Church separ- ate from the synagogue, Paul might have considered his work in Corinth at an end. And he seems actually to have had it in mind to leave Corinth at this time, lest the continuation of the preaching should lead to further outbreaks of fanaticism on the part of the Jews. But, encouraged by a vision, he remained at this post longer than at any of the mission stations where he had worked heretofore. This period was not altogether with- out opposition (2 Thess. i. 2); but an attempt on the part of the Jews to charge the apostle, before the proconsul Gallio, with teaching a religion contrary to the laws of the State, was frustrated by this statesman’s ability to see at once that it was a question of differences about Jewish doctrine, and by his determination to have nothing to do with such matters (n. 5). The Jews gave vent at once to the indignation which they felt at this miscarriage of their plans upon Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, before the tribunal from which the accusers were driven by PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH — 25¢ Gallio, 1.6. as the accusing party were leaving the judg- ment-hall, doubtless because, as their spokesman, he had not shown positiveness nor tact enough in presenting their case. If this is the same Sosthenes who is men- tioned in 1 Cor. i. 1, this painful experience probably helped him to decide fully in favour of a cause which previously he had not had the requisite hostility and decision to prosecute (n. 6). As will be presently shown, the development of the relation between the synagogue and the Church was not yet at an end when Paul left Corinth, at Pentecost 54, and went to Ephesus. With this departure begins a period of three years , devoted mainly to the spread of Christianity in Ephesus | and the province of Asia (Acts xx. 31). It was toward the end of this period that the first of the Corinthian letters preserved to us was written. Plans had been under consideration for some time for making a journey in the near future to Corinth. This purpose was now on the point of being carried out, since the route, by way of Macedonia, and the time of departure, Pentecost, had been already determined upon (1 Cor. iv. 18-21, xi. 34, xvi. 2-9). Timothy and, according to Acts xix. 22, a certain Erastus, who apparently was the treasurer of the city of Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23, ef. 2 Tim. iv. 20), had been sent on by the same indirect route which Paul intended to take (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10). It is assumed that on account of the indirectness of the route through Macedonia and the commissions to the Churches there which they had to fulfil, Timothy will arrive in Corinth somewhat later than the letter, which has been sent directly by the sea route. He therefore gives the Church certain instructions as to how Timothy is to be received when he arrives (1 Cor. xvi. 10). At the same time he makes request that Timothy be sent back at once from Corinth to Ephesus, where he plans to await his arrival. When the cause which was keeping Paul in Ephesus until Pentecost (xvi 260 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 9) is also taken into account, we must assume that the letter was written from four to eight weeks before this date. This makes it very probable that the figurative language used in 1 Cor. v. 7f. was suggested by the Jewish passover, which was being celebrated about the time when the letter was written (n. 7). Of the things affecting the relation of the Church to Paul which happened between his departure from Corinth at Pentecost 54 and the composition of 1 Cor. at Easter 57, there are some which without difficulty may be determined. The immediate presupposition of 1 Cor. is a letter from the Church to Paul (1 Cor. vii. 1). From the apostle’s expression of joy in xvi. 17 at the arrival of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (a. 8), who in large measure made up to him for the deficiencies of the Church toward him, and from the request that the Church recognise these men and follow their advice (xvi. 15-18), we ascertain what did not need to be told the readers, that these three Corinthians had come recently to Ephesus and were now returning to Corinth. [Ὁ is there- fore very probable that they had brought the communica- tion of the Church to Ephesus, and were about to take Paul’s answer back with them to Corinth. Assuming that vii. 1 refers expressly to written opinions and questions of the Church, it may be inferred from the formule by which the several topics are introduced in vil. 25 (zept δὲ τῶν παρθένων), Vill. 1 (περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων), zii. 1 (περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν), Xvi. 1 (περὶ δὲ τῆς λογίας), XVI. 12 (περὶ δὲ ᾿Απολλῶ), which are similar to the formula of vii. 1, only abbreviated, that all the discussions introduced in this way, namely, chaps. vii., vill.—x., xiL-xiv., XVI. 1-12, are in reply to this communication of the Church. This conclusion is confirmed by the observation that in these connections Paul repeatedly states principles and then proceeds at once to limit their application (vil 1f, vill. 1, x. 23; ef. § 18, n. 1). This is true even in the PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH δ6ι case of the commendation in xi. 2, to which the following context is only a contrast. Paul quotes these statements from the letter of the Church, and appears for the time being to give his assent to them, but only in order at once to qualify them, xi. 16f. The expression used in xi. 34 is natural only if the Church had asked some questions or expressed some opinions about the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Thus also chap. xi. is in answer to ques- tions asked by the Church in their letter, which does not exclude the possibility of Paul’s having taken account here (xi. 18), as in other passages after vil. 1, of separate oral reports. But there are traces of the letter of the Church even before vii. 1. The principle stated in x. 23, of which Paul admits only the general truth, pointing out its limitation as applied to the practical question in hand, is to be found also at the beginning of vi. 12-20. So in v. 9-13 he corrects a misinterpretation of instructions which he had given the Church in an earlier letter, without mentioning the source of his information or without any suggestion of doubt as to the fact of the misinterpreta- tion. Consequently this misinterpretation of his earlier advice must have been found in the letter of the Church. We have therefore to assume that, with the exception of certain chapters and passages, the whole of 1 Cor. is a reply to a letter of the Church which itself in turn had been written with reference to an earlier letter of Paul to the Corinthians, in fact was a direct answer to such a letter. The chapters excepted are i.-iv., the occasion and material for which were supplied by particular infor- mation, probably oral, coming to him from the members of the household of a certain Chloe (i. 11); the passages are v. 1-8, possibly also vi. 1-11, and probably chap. xv., in which Paul seems to speak of his own initiative about things that had happened in the Church, with regard to which he had been definitely informed, though not by the Church itself. 262 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT While this lost, correspondence (n. 9) is to be dated only a few weeks or at most months before the writing of 1 Cor., the coming of Apollos to Ephesus is to be placed a few weeks or a few months after Paul’s first departure from Corinth. According to Acts xviii. 24 ff, Apollos (n. 10) was an Alexandrian Jew distinguished for his Greek culture and rhetorical training (λόγιος), as well as for his Jewish learning. Though when he came to Ephesus he had not been baptized and so received into the membership of the Christian Church, he not only possessed a fairly accurate knowledge of the facts about Jesus, but also entered into the synagogue in Ephesus and taught with enthusiasm a form of Christianity which was not current in the Church. This brought him into contact with Aquila and Priscilla, who had come to Ephesus with Paul, and who remained there during the several months while Paul was absent on his journey to Palestine and Antioch, attending the synagogue services as Paul did when he first came to Ephesus (xviii. 19), and for the first months after his return (xix. 8). After Apollos had been instructed by this couple in the form of Christi- anity taught in the Church, he was all the more anxious to continue his preaching journey. So, when he came to Corinth bearing letters of recommendation from Aquila to the Christians there, it was not primarily in the röle of a teacher in the Christian Church, but as a missionary preacher among the Jews in Corinth. And it was chiefly through his success among this class that he contributed materially to the growth of the Church (n. 11). This does not, of course, preclude the possibility of Apollos’ having been a very acceptable teacher in the Christian gatherings ; indeed, it is most natural to assume that it made him more so. How long he remained in Corinth we do not know. When 1 Cor. was written, he had been for some time with Paul in Ephesus. But he had not been forgotten in Corinth. From 1 Cor. xvi. 12 PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 263 we learn that in their letter the Church had expressed to Paul the desire that Apollos might return to Corinth. Althoush he was strongly urged by Paul to comply with this request and to go back with the messengers from the Corinthian Church, for the time being Apollos steadfastly refused to do so. Some time after Apollos’ appearance in Corinth, but apparently a considerable time before the correspondence with the Church which took place just before 1 Cor. was written, the apostle himself had made a visit to Corinth. No mention of this visit 15 made in Acts, which gives very few details of the period of three years when Paul was engaged chiefly in organising the Ephesian Church, and which here as elsewhere omits all reference to the imtercourse which took place between Paul and the Churches that had been already organised. Nor is anything said about it in 1 Cor. (n. 12). On the other hand, there are several passages in 2 Cor. where it seems to be presupposed that Paul had been in Corinth twice before the visit that he was now on the eve of making (n. 13). If, now, as will be shown, it is impossible to assume that the second visit took place in the interval between 1 and 2 Cor., we must suppose that prior to the correspondence of which we get information, partly from the remains of it which we have and partly from the testimony of 1 Cor., Paul had interrupted his work in Ephesus by a visit to Corinth, which presumably was short (n. 14). The impressions which he had received on his visit were thoroughly depressing. He had been humiliated to find that not a few of the members of the Church which he had spent so much effort in organising were living as unchastely as their heathen neighbours (2 Cor. xii. 21, i, 1). He had exhorted them very earnestly, but had refrained from employing disciplinary measures of a severer kind (2 Cor. xiii. 2). He had given them instruc- tions with reference to this matter in the letter of his 264 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9. The eommunication from the Church, in which, among other things they had replied to this letter of the apostle’s, together with the numerous oral reports that had recently come to him concerning the condition of the Church and events that had taken place (n. 15), had pressed the recollection of this short visit into the background, and had created a condition of affairs which called for the writing of 1 Corinthians. 1. (P. 256.) MARQUARDT, Röm. Staatsverw.? i. 321-333 ; MOMMSEN, Rom. Gesch.? v. 234 ff.; BranDıs in Pauly-Wissowa RE, i. 190 ff. From the days of Augustus, Achaia’ was a senatorial province; and again, after a temporary union with Macedonia under Tiberius and Caius, it held this position at, the time of Claudius. It is with the period of Claudius that we are concerned. Regarding Corinth see Curris, Peloponnesos, ii. 514-556, 589-598. On account of its former glory it was termed “lumen totius Gracie” (Cie. pro lege Mamil. 5, cf. de Nat. Deor. iii. 38). This “ bimaris Corinthus ” (Hor. Od. i. 7..2), on account of its location on the isthmus between the ports of Keyxpeat and Σχοινοῦς on the Saronic Bay and Λέχαιον on the the Bay of Corinth, soon reassumed its importance as a commercial centre for the trade between Asia Minor and Italy (Strabo, p. 378 [here also the proverbial οὐ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐς Κύρινθόν ἐσθ᾽ ὁ πλοῦς], 380; Aristides, Or. iii., Dindorf, i. 37). In view of the dangers attending the voyage around Cape Madéa and the difficulties involved in transporting wares and ships via ‘the ““Diolkos,” which crossed the isthmus from Scheenus (Strabo, 335, 380; Plin. H. Nat. iv. 4. 10), there were repeated attempts to cut a channel through the isthmus, the last of these being made by the emperor Caligula (Suet. Calig. xxi; Plin. i. 1). The channel, was not completed until 1893. The management of the Isthmian games (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 24-27), which had been transferred to Sicyon during the time when Corinth was in ruins, was afterwards intrusted again to the latter city (Pausan. ii. 2. 1). Among the sanctuaries in and near the city were those of Isis, Serapis, and Melikertes (Pausan. ii. 1. 3, ii, 3, iv. 7). Like Argos and Athens, Corinth was a residence place of Jews (Philo, Leg. ad Cat. xxxvi, οἵ. Justin. Dial. i). It was an ambition of students also to see Corinth (Epict. Diss. ii. 16.32), although as an educational centre it! was not: to, be compared with Athens. Here near together lay the graves of the philosopher Diogenes and of the famous courtesan Lais (Pausan. ii, 2. 4). 2. (P. 256.) Paul was the sole founder of the Corinthian Church, 1 Cor. iii. 6-10, iv. 15, ef. ix. 2, xi. 23, xv. 14, This is not contradicted by 2,Cor: i} 19 ; for, 2 Cor. is not diverted exclusively to the Church in Corinth, as in 1 Cor., but to the Christians of all Achaia (2 Cor. i. 1). There is conse- quently to be considered as included in the address primarily both Corinth and Athens, where Paul had tarried for some time with Timothy, in whose name also 2 Cor. was written, and where he had also spent some time with Silas (1 Thess. iii. 1-5, above, p. 205f.). The broad term used (πᾶσιν, ὅλῃ) permits us, however, to include a number of places in the province PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 265 where there were Christians. According to the reading of Codex D, Acts xviii. 27 would seem to indicate that immediately after the departure of Paul there were several ἐκκλησίαι in and near Corinth. According to 2 Thess. i. 4 (above, p. 241, n. 11), such ἐκκλησίαι existed as early as the middle of Paul’s sojourn in the city. But only at a somewhat later date (Rom. xvi. 1) is refer- ence made to a particular ἐκκλησία, namely, that at Cenchrea. From 2 Cor. i. 19 we infer that Timothy and Silas, who, according to 1 Cor., could have had no appreciable share in the founding of the local Corinthian Church, laboured successfully in the vicinity of Corinth. Nor is this assertion con- tradicted by Acts. Just as Paul had prosecuted his labours at Corinth for some time before his assistants arrived (xviii. 1-4), so when he leaves Corinth nothing is said about them (xviii. 18). Even after their arrival at Corinth, allusion is made only to Paul (xviii. 5-17, cf. per contra, e.g. xvii. 1-15). It does not follow because Timothy and Silas were with Paul when 1 and 2 Thess. were written, that they remained in Corinth continuously even for several months. While Paul “dwelt” in Corinth alone for eighteen months (Acts xviii. 11), Timothy and Silas were probably engaged in missionary activities in the province, working from Corinth as a centre. 3. (P. 258.) Acts xvili. 1-4. Concerning the edict of Claudius, see § 11. The fact that Priscilla, or Prisca (according to the decisive testimony of Rom. xvi. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 19—perhaps also 1 Cor. xvi. 19), is regularly mentioned along with Aquila and more than once before him (Rom. xvi. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 19; Acts xviii. 18, perhaps also xviii. 26), permits the supposition that she was the more important of the two. Because Aquila (Acts xviii. 2) is designated as a certain Jew of this name, and because Paul’s introduction into his house- hold is due merely to the fact: ἦσαν yap σκηνοποιοὶ 7 τέχνῃ (xviii. 3), we are not to imagine that they were already Christians, or had heen: previously acquainted with Paul. Paul “found” Aquila in looking for lodgings and opportunity for work. It is easy to understand why in such commercial centres as Thessalonica (1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8) and Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 7-12, xii. 13-18 ; 1 Cor. iv. 12, ix. 4-18) Paul'should not desire his mission- ary activity to be looked upon as a money-making pursuit. On the other hand, this humble character of his daily work was in keeping with the spirit in which he came to Corinth. His occupation also was an &avröv rameivovv, 2 Cor. xi. 7. 4. (P. 258.) Paul himself baptized Crispus (Acts xviii. 8), and also a cer- tain Gaius (1 Cor. i. 14). There isno'good reason for doubting that the Crispus mentioned in the two passages is the same person, nor for questioning the accuracy of the statements concerning him (Heinrici, Comm. i. 1880, p. 10 ; Holsten, Ev. des Pl. i. 186). In 1 Cor. Paul had no occasion to mention his Jewish origin, or the fact that he was a ruler of the synagogue, or even to refer to the time of his baptism. The objection that the representa- tion of Acts xviii. 1-17 is constructed after the model of Rom. i. 16, ii. 9f. is entirely without foundation. In Thessalonica and Bercea, Paul preached, as arule, only in the synagogue; in Athens, both in the market-place and on the streets ; in Corinth, first in the synagogue, then in a private house. In Bercea, almost the whole Jewish populace, to which must be added certain proselytes, especially women, seems to have accepted the gospel (Acts. xvii. 10-12). On the other hand, in Thessalonica and Corinth the opposition of 266 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the Jews was so pronounced that the first converts were almost all Gentiles. Where, then, is the model that Luke is supposed to have followed in compos- ing his narrative? The argument that in Corinth the gospel found its first believers in a Greek home, which Holsten, i. 187, makes from 1 Cor. xvi. 15, is based primarily upon the incredible error that Greek names such as Stephanas were borne by Greeks only and not by Jews (see above, p. 63, n. 10); and, secondly, on the further mistake of supposing that Stephanas was a Corinthian. Since the household of Stephanas is termed ἀπαρχὴ τῆς *Ayaias (1 Cor. xvi. 15), and since Paul before coming to Corinth was not unsuccessful in his preaching at Athens, which belonged to Achaia, Stephanas must have been converted and baptized at Athens. This is not contradicted by the fact that about the time 1 Cor. was written Crispus had come from Corinth to Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 17), had won credit for himself by aid- ing the collections in Corinth and Achaia for the Christians in Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi. 15, cf. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. ix. 2),and very probably at that time re- sided in Corinth. The fact that Paul names Stephanas in such incidental way in 1 Cor. 1. 14f.—evidently bethinking himself of one whom he could name in addition to Crispus and Gaius—can be explained only on the ground that Stephanas was not one of the early converts of Corinth, to say nothing of his not being the ἀπαρχὴ Κορίνθου ; though at the time the Epistle was written his relationship to the Corinthian Church was such that the failure to mention him in 1 Cor. i. 14 f. would have seemed unbecoming. It is obvious that the agreement reached by the Church at Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 9, did not prevent Paul from beginning his preaching in the synagogues wherever he had an opportunity to do so (cf. Skizzen, 70-76, and NKZ, 1894, S. 441f.). That this was what he did in Corinth we should infer from 1 Cor. i. 22-24, vil. 18, ix. 20, even were it not reported in Acts xviii. with so many lifelike details, and consequently in a manner so worthy of credence. Whether the Gaius mentioned along with Crispus, who, accord- ing to Rom. xvi. 23, was a man of great hospitality, was a Jew or not we do not know. ‘Titus (al. Titius), or Justus, or Titus Justus (Acts xviii. 7), who cannot be identified with the Titus of Gal. ii. 3; 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6-xii. 18 (Wieseler, Chronol. 204), if the correct chronology is followed, was a σεβόμενος, i.e., according to the terminology of Acts (above, p. 212, τι. 6), a Gentile hold- ing allegiance to the synagogue, not a circumcised proselyte. Aquila and Priscilla, Paul had no reason to mention in 1 Cor. i. 14 as they had perma- nently left Corinth, Acts xviii. 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Rom. xvi. 3. They cer- tainly were won to the faith before Crispus, and must have been baptized not later than the formation of the independent Church in Corinth. The “many Corinthians ” who were influenced to a decision by the baptism of Crispus, Acts xviii. 8, must for this reason have belonged to those Hellenes who before that time had been more or less closely allied with the synagogue, Acts xviii. 4. This, however, does not hold of the λαὸς πολύς in ver. 10. At the time when 1 Cor. was written (vi. 11, viii. 7, xii. 2), the congregation was for the most part made up of native Gentiles, although later on Apollos was successful in bringing some Jews into the Church (nn. 6, 11). From 1 Cor. i. 26-31 we may infer that there were in the congregation several persons, though not many, of higher rank and of more thorough education. With regard to Erastus, see above, p. 259 (middle). PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 267 δ. (P. 258.) Concerning Gallio, see XI. (Chron. Survey). It is not to be assumed that the Jews (Acts xviii. 13) accused Paul as a transgressor of the Mosaic law; for (1) there is wanting here any expression which would indi- cate such to be the case, as in John xix. 7, xviii. 31; Jos. Ant. xiii. 3. 4 (in the contest between the Jews and the Samaritans before Ptolemy Philometor, cara τοὺς Μωυσέως νόμους). (2) It is self-evident that the law to which the accuser appeals is that by which the judge must decide the case. It was a principle with the Jews that in legal process appeal might be made to Gentile as well as to Jewish laws (Baba Kamma, 1130). (3) It is no objection that Gallio says, ver. 15, περὶ νόμου τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς. On the contrary, this pointed expression implies that this was just the opposite of that law according to which Gallio had to judge. In the aceusation, which in ver. 13 is naturally presented in a very much abbreviated form, the Jews must have argued that Christianity - was not to be identified with Judaism, which was tolerated by the Roman law, but that it was rather to be treated as an apostasy from Jewish law and faith. This was the basis of fact for Gallio’s judgment. (4) It would have been folly, of which even blind fanaticism would be incapable (C. Schmidt, Apostelyeschichte, i. 533), to seek the defence of Jewish orthodoxy at the hands of a proconsul, especially outside of Palestine, where the conditions were especi- ally adverse to the success of such a plea. It would have been more clumsy still, before a judge whose religion and worship were opposed to Mosaism, to accuse Paul of teaching mankind (not Jews) to honour God in a manner contrary to the Mosaiclaw. The real accusation of the Corinthian Jews was essentially the same as that in Acts xvii. 7, cf. xvi. 21; Luke xxiii. 2; John xix. 15. 6. (P. 259.) If in Acts xviii. 17, whether we read πάντες (RAB) without οἱ Ἕλληνες (DEHLP), or the very slightly attested oi ’Iousatoı, we can under- stand only the Jews who appeared before Gallio in great crowds (ver. 12, ὁμοθυμαδόν). If the ring of Hellenes on the outside were meant, statement to that effect would be necessary, and even then it would be impossible to exclude the Jews from the πάντες. If, as appears from xviii. 8, 17, and as was customary (Schiirer, 11. 439 [Eng. trans. 11. ii. 65]), there was only one ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, then Sosthenes was the successor of Crispus. He is not to be distinguished from the Christian Sosthenes of 1 Cor. i. 1. Paul does not usually mention the amanuensis to whom he dictates,—especially not in such a prominent place as the opening address (ef. Rom. xvi. 22). On the other hand, Sosthenes is not to be looked upon as the joint writer with him of the letter; for, from i. 4 on, Paul speaks only in hisown name. The only addresses which are strictly comparable are Phil. i. 1,3; Philem. 1, 3, and perhaps also Gal. 1, 2. If, however, it carried weight with the Corinthians to know that there was with Paul a Sosthenes who agreed with what was said in the letter, this person must have been well known to them and respected by them,—a description which suits the former chief of the syna- gogue in Corinth. If, later, he became a Christian, and we have no reason to believe he did not, Apollos may have helped him from his attitude of opposition to the gospel, which had already begun to waver, to a condi- tion of actual faith (seen. 11). According to Eus. H. E.i. 12. 1f., Clement Alex. reckoned this Sosthenes among the seventy disciples. He clearly distinguishes him from the Sosthenes of Acts xviii. 17, just as he attempts to distinguish the Cephas of Gal. ii. 11, and also of 1 Cor. i. 12, from the 268 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Apostle Peter. Lipsius (Apocr. Apostelgesch. 1. 201; Ergänzungsheft, S, 3) has been misled through the careless reading of Eus. H. H.i..12 into stating that the author’s statement here and in Forsch. 111. 68, 148 is “simply untrue.” Eusebius writes: “It is said that to these (seventy disciples) belonged also Sosthenes, who, together with Paul, wrote to the Corinthians. And this narrative is found in ‘the fifth book of the Hypotyposes of Clement, in which he also says that “Cephas,” etc. The “also” (ἐν % καὶ Knpav) proves that this assertion regarding Cephas was not ithe only thing that Clement said, and that ἡ ἱστορία refers to the preceding remark ‚about Sosthenes (cf. Eus. H. H. ii. 15. 2). 7. (P. 260.) Krenkel, Beiträge zur Gesch. u. den Briefen des Pl. (1890, 18952), 233 ff, opposes the dating of 1 Cor. at about the end of the Ephesian activity of Paul, on the ground that an inference drawn from the combination of statements in Acts, which he alleges are entirely unre- liable, with those of 1 Cor. is not to be trusted. But the route taken by Paul, according to Acts, namely, by way of Macedonia and Corinth to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21), is identical with that proposed in 1’Cor. xvi. 3-7. Nor is there any contradietion in the faet that, according to Acts xix. 21 (ef: Rom. xv. 25), Paul looks upon Jerusalem quite definitely as his goal, whereas in 1 Cor. xvi. 4 he seems to speak of it hypothetically ; for the con- cluding clause in this latter passage—not σὺν αὐτοῖς πορεύσομαι, but ody ἐμοὶ mopevoovra—shows that it is not a question whether Paul will go to Jerusalem at all with the offering, but whether he will go in company with’ the delegates of the Corinthians. It is pointed out that in Acts xix. 22 mention is made of Timothy’s journey only to Macedonia, not to Corinth, and that, on the other hand, it is not expressly stated in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 that Timothy was to go to Corinth by way of Macedonia. But in the: latter passage this is the clear inference (above, p. 259). On the other hand, in Acts, which does not touch at all upon the relations of Paul and the Corinthian Church, there is no occasion to mention the final goal.of Timothy’s journey.’ The mention in Acts xix. 22 (cf. Rom. xvi. 23) of the Corinthian Erastus would make it seem, quite apart from 1 Cor., that the journey was.to be’continued from Macedonia to Corinth. It is true that we are ποῦ able to infer from 1 Cor. what actually took place after Timothy was sent, but only Paul’s intention at the time of his departure. This in- tention is not only the same as that which, according to Acts xix. 21 f.,xx.1f., Paul had had shortly before and at the time of his final departure from Ephesus, but it excludes every thought of a return to his labours at Ephesus after having paid his projected visit to Corinth, Had this been Paul’s intention, or had he even thought of it as a serious possibility, consideration of the large opportunity afforded him of spreading the gospel in Ephesus, and the many obstacles with which he had to contend in doing this, would not have been sufficient reason for his remaining in Ephesus at least until Pentecost, instead of leaving at once (xvi. 8, 9). At all events, Paul could not have designated the limit of his stay by ἕως τῆς πεντηκοστῆς, if it had not been self-evident that he was referring to the coming Pentecost. | Inasmuch as this reckoning follows the order of the Jewish festivals, he could not have expressed himself very well in this way if the Jewish “Church year,” the Pentecost of which year was in question, had not yet begun, ze. if the first PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 269 of Nisan were not already past,—which agrees with the apparent suggestion in 1 Cor. v. 8, that this Epistle was written about the time of ‘ unleavened bread” (14-21 Nisan). ‘The period of six to seven weeks until Pentecost was long enough to accomplish what is suggested in 1 Cor, xvi. 9, being twice as long as the period required for the founding of the Church in Thhessalonica (above, p. 212, n, 5). If Timothy’s return was delayed (xvi. 11), ib is quite possible that the period of Paul’s further activity in Ephesus was extended. All that Paul means to say is, that in view of conditions at‘ Ephesus, he could not bring himself to leave until Pentecost. Then there was before him the journey through Macedonia, which evidently he did not think of as one that would be executed hastily, since he admits that his proposed longer sojourn at Corinth may consume the entire winter (xvi. 6). Not before the following spring, t.e. about a year after the sending of 1 Cor., does he think of travelling to Jerusalem. It is true that his further intention οἵ going from Jerusalem to Rome is mentioned only in Acts xix. 21. But since 1 Cor. contains no contradictory suggestion, it is idle to question the historicity of the expression in direct discourse given in Acts xix. 21. Instead of the inference from 1 Cor. xvi. 19 that all the Christians of Ephesus assembled in the house of Aquila, whereas in a writing alleged to be directed to Ephesus (Rom. xvi. 5, 14 f.) reference is made to three house congregations (Krenkel, 234), the proper conclusion to be drawn from the accompanying greeting from all the brethren is, that the congregation in the house of Aquila formed only a part of the brotherhood at Ephesus, as did the congregation in the house of Philemon (Philem, 2) ‘at, Colossee. 8. (P. 260.) Clem. 1 Cor. 65, τοὺς δὲ ἀπεσταλμένους ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν Κλαύδιον Ἔφηβον καὶ Οὐαλέριον Βίτωνα σὺν καὶ Φορτουνάτῳ ἐν εἰρήνῃ μετὰ χαρᾶς ev τάχεὶ ἀναπέμψατε πρὸς ἡμᾶς. If we take into consideration the distinct position here accorded to Fortunatus, it becomes evident that he is not one of the representatives of the Romans commissioned to the Corinthians, but merely the one in whose company these are travelling to Corinth, and in all prob: ability a Corinthian who made complaints at Rome concerning the disturbances in the home Church (GGA, 1876, 8. 1427 f. ; Lightfoot, 8. Clem. ii. 187). Τῇ the Fortunatus of 1 Cor, xvi. 17 was at that time (57 A.D.) a young man of thirty, he can easily be identical with the Fortunatus of 97 a.p., being one of the presbyters. of the Corinthian Church who was installed by the apostles, and who had grown grey in its service (Clem. 1 Cor. xliv. 3-6; xlvii. 6; liv. 2; lvii. 1). If Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus are the bearers, not only of the letter of the Corinthian Church to Paul, but also of 1 Cor., then they are the “brethren” in whose company Apollos might have gone back to Corinth, 1 Cor. xvi. 12. The order of the words does not agree with Hofmann’s interpretation of the verse, according to which the Chris- tians about Paul join with him in urging Apollos to undertake this journey. Assuming, on the other hand, that the order of the words in xvi. 11 does necessitate the reference of μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν to the Christians in whose company Paul will await the return of Timothy at Ephesus, they cannot have been the three Corinthians who were not to await the return of Timothy, but were to journey to Corinth at once (xvi. 12, viv) with 1 Cor, in their keeping, and, in case Apollos could be persuaded to go in company with him. Neither can they have been the collective Christian 270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT community ab Ephesus (xvi. 20) ; they were rather those who were to travel with Paul via Macedonia to Corinth (see below, $ 19,n.6). The similarity of the expression, μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν, in xvi. 11, 12, does not Justify us in identifying the persons referred to in these passages. ὁ ἀδελφός or of ἀδελφοί may designate very different persons, according to the context or conditions previously known to the readers (cf. 2 Cor. viii. 18, 22, ix. 3, 5, xi. 9, xii. 18; Eph. vi. 23). 9. (P. 262.) The references to the two early Epistles of Paul which are not in the collection of his letters, 1 Cor. v. 9-11, vii. 1, led in the second century to the fabrication of an Epistle from the Corinthians to Paul, and an answer from Paul to the Corinthians, both of which were embodied in the Canon of the Church of Edessa in the fourth century, bearing the common title, The Third Epistle to the Corinthians. From the Syrians they reached the Armenians and also some of the Latins. The best texts—Armenian and Latin, the former with a German translation—are those of P. Vetter, Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief (Tübinger Programm, Wien, 1894). Origin- ally these pieces were a portion of the old Acta Pauli, as previously con- jectured by the present writer (@K, ii. 607, 611, 879), and as is now proved to be the case by the Coptic fragments (©. Schmidt, NHJb. vii. 122; NKZ, 1897, S. 937, n. 2); also Acta Pauli, ed. C. Schmidt, pp. 74-82 10. (P. 262.) ᾿Απολλῶς (nominative), 1 Cor. iii. 5,22 (G incorrectly Απολλω); Acts xviii. 24 (Ὁ) ᾿Απολλώνιος, of which the shorter form is a contraction, N Copt. Απελλης) ; ᾿Απολλῶ (genitive), 1 Cor. i. 12, iii. 4, xvi. 12; Berl. tg. Urk. 295. 7; ᾿Απολλῶτι (dative), 811. 1, cf. 449. 1 (with a correction see also the address there ; on the other hand, Greek Pap. ed. Kenyon, ii. 333, No. 393, ᾿Απολλῶ, dat.) ; ᾿Απολλώ, acc. 1 Cor. iv. 6 (CDGLP, Απολλων N*AB*); Acts xix. 1 poorly attested also Απολλων, N Copt. ArmeAAnv, D does not here contain the name); Tit. iii. 13 (XH have AmoMMwv, G Απολλωνα). The reading AreAAns seems to be of Egyptian origin (cf. besides X Copt., Ammonius in Cramer’s Catenew in Acta, p. 311. 1, 7, 13, apparently also Didymus, ibid. p. 309. 31, 312. 18), and goes back to the modest question of Origen (Delarue, iv. 682), whether Apelles, Rom. xvi. 10, be not identical with Apollos, Acts xviii. 24, as Didymus (loc. cit.) asserts. This was claimed also by those who made Apelles=Apollos, a bishop of Corinth, In commenting upon Acts xvili. 24, Blass suggests the Doric form ᾿Απέλλων for ᾿Απόλλων. Though not so strongly attested as ᾿Απολλώνιος, there is abundant proof of this abbreviated form in Egypt, the home of the Apollos of Acts (see the indices of vols, i. ii, 111. of the Berl. dg. Urk.). We find that even down to the present, German scholars of distinction write the name of the man Apollo. This, as is well known, is the Latin form of the name of the god, ᾿Απόλλων, and it is there- fore necessary in a text-book to warn against this mistake. Or shall we soon read and hear Mino, rhinocero, ete. ? 11. (P. 261.) The scene of the public disputations, Acts xviii. 28 (δημοσίᾳ, to which E alone adds καὶ κατ᾽ οἶκον), was certainly not the assembly of the Christians, nor a public place, but the synagogue, in which Apollos held forth at Corinth as he had done previously at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 26). The con- nection between Acts xviii. 28 and 27 leaves no doubt that the advantage of which Apollos proved himself to those who were already believers (or, according to another text, to the congregations of Achaia) was due to his PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 271 frequent triumphs in these disputations with the Jews. The use of the strong word διακατηλέγχετο points likewise to actual results. From 1 Cor. iii. 5 we learn specifically that part of the Christians who composed the Church at the time of 1 Cor. owed their conversion to Apollos (ἐπιστεύσατε). It is therefore wrong to interpret the figure in 1 Cor. iii. 6-8 to mean that the special work of Apollos was the religious or intellectual training of those who had already been converted by Paul. It is not the individual Christians and their spiritual life, but the congregation in general, which constitutes the θεοῦ γεώργιον and θεοῦ oixodoun. According to 1 Cor. iii. 10-15, the activity of those who, like Apollos, continued the work of Paul, consisted in adding further material to the building, 7.e. in winning men to the faith and bringing them into the Church (cf. Eph. ii. 20-22 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5-7). According to the original text of Acts xviii. 27, certain Corinthians stopping in Ephesus heard Apollos preach and invited him to come to Corinth with them. This was the beginning of the “ Apollos party” in Corinth. 12. (P. 263.) Hofmann, ii. 2. 396 (comp. also Holsten, 189, 445), was minded to find in 1 Cor. xvi. 7 reference to a former visit to Corinth. Were this the case, however, we should expect not äprı, which does not mean “on this occasion,” but rather πάλιν (2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 21, xiii. 2), or, if it is decided to associate the coming again with the present, ἄρτι πάλιν (Gal.i. 9). Further- more, the reason for this statement given in 75 would be somewhat tautological. Finally, in its present context ἄρτι must mean “ even now” in contrast with a later point of time (John xiii. 7, 33, xvi. 12). There is no force in the objection that Paul could speak in this way only if he were already on the journey (Hofmann, 395), because, even in this case, ἰδεῖν would still refer to the future ; while, from the eriticisms of the Atticists, we learn that ἄρτι was very commonly employed to designate the immediate future (cf. Lobeck, ad Phryn. 18 f.). What Paul says is this: He does not wish to visit Corinth at once coming directly from Ephesus, which would permit him to stop at Corinth only for a brief stay on his way into Macedonia. Then he gives as his reason for this decision not to come now, his hope of a longer visit, which, nevertheless, will have to be delayed (ver. 5), since, in any case, he must pro- ceed soon to Macedonia. 13. (P. 263.) The testimony of 2 Cor. to a visit not mentioned in Acts is denied by Grotius (ii. 488, 539-541, with the stereotyped evasion est et hic trajectio), Reiche (Comm. Crit. i. 337 f.), Baur (i. 337-343), Hilgenfeld (Hinl. 260, n. 2), Heinrici (ii. 9-13 and elsewhere). But the only possible sense that can be given to 2 Cor. xiii. 1 is that Paul, at the time when he was writing 2 Cor., was on the point of coming to Corinth for the third time. In the light. of this verse xiii. 2 must be understood ; τὸ δεύτερον is to be taken with παρών, νῦν with drrov, so that the προείρηκα must have taken place during the second visit. Similarly xii. 14 and xii. 21 must be taken together. There is no gram- matical objection to taking τρίτον with ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, and this is the only interpretation that fits the context (cf. Krenkel, Beiträge, 185); for to say that this was the third time that Paul was ready to come to Corinth, even if it were possible, would be without point in connection with xii. 14. In order, with good conscience, to separate ev λύπῃ from πάλιν (ii. 1), which Theodoret, contrary to the word arrangement and Paul’s linguistic usage (Krenkel, 202), undertook to connect with ἐλθεῖν, making it refer to Paul’s return to 272 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT Corinth, in some eursives the πάλιν was placed after ἐλθεῖν, and in the Coptic, which omits πάλιν, after ὑμᾶς. . But in all the other MSS. it is clearly stated that Paul had visited in Corinth once in sorrow, in fact, as the context and the comparison xii. 21, xiii. 2, show, in sorrow for the Church’s condition. This can have no reference to the despondency with which Paul appeared for the first time in Corinth (1 Cor. ii. 3), but must refer to, the second visit, of which we are speaking. Wrongly assuming that 2 Cor. x. 10 represents the words of one of the Jewish Christians who had come! to Corinth from without (see per contra, below, § 18, n. 8), Krenkel (210) finds in this passage also definite reference to the second visit. If, however, the speaker is rather a native Corinthian, his words may well represent the impression which Paul made at the time of his first visit.. If the second visit is also included, no conclusion can be drawn regarding the time of the same. 14. (P. 264.) Krenkel, 154-174, thinks he proves that 1 Cor. itself excludes the assumption of a second visit to Corinth prior to the time when 1 Cor. was written. If this visit occurred in the first year of his work in Ephesus—say in the summer or fall of 55 or in the spring of 56—the aryumentum e silentio (n. 12) is particularly weak. We are unable to determine all that took place in Corinth in the twelve or twenty months which elapsed between this time and that of the writing of 1 Cor., and all the transactions between Paul and the Church. But the character of the facts that do come to light in 1 Cor,, the immediately preceding correspondence which has not been preserved to us, and the reports concerning the factional differences, and various other disorders in the Church (1 Cor. i. 11, xi. 18), make it clear that Paul has no more occasion to speak of that visit. In the letter spoken of in 1 Cor. v. 9, and in numerous other letters of which we know nothing, he. may have spoken of it. It is argued that there is no expressly stated distinction in 1 Cor. ii. 1-5, iii. 6-10, xv. 1 ff. between the first and second visits (as in Gal. iv. 13); but this is true also of 2 Cor. i. 19, xi. 8 f. The only inference to be drawn from all these passages is that, on his second visit to Corinth, Paul did not carry on a missionary activity as he had done during his second visit in the province of Galatia (above, p. 171, n. 2). This, however, would need no explanation if Paul interrupted his fruitful missionary activity at Ephesus for only a brief time in order to visit the Corinthian Church. The instructions, exhortations, and discussions with the believers which took place at that time do not come properly under the idea of an ἐποικοδομεῖν (1 Cor. iii. 10-15, above, n. 11). To the view advanced first by Baronius and most reeently by Anger, de Temp. in Actis Ratione (73), that the second visit to Corinth was only a return from a short excursion made during the eighteen months of his residence there (Acts xviii. 11), the following objec- tions may be made: (1) the use of the word ἐκάθισεν (see above, p. 263 f., n. 2), to which there is nothing analogous in the report of his stay in Ephesus; (2) such a resumption of labours after a brief interruption could not be classed as a second visit along with his-first appearance in Corinth and his last visit, which was months in preparation. Still less, since 2 Cor. is addressed to the Christians of entire Achaia, could it be compared toa journey to that region. Even more questionable is the suggestion of Neander (Pflanzamg und Leitung, 5te Auf. 320), that we read into Acts xix. 1 a journey to Achaia. PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 2573 15. (P. 263.) Since the persons who brought the Epistle of the Corinthians were in entire harmony with Paul, at least at the time when they started back to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 17, above, p. 260 f.), there is no doubt that of their own accord, or in response to his questions, they reported many things to him which were not in the communication of the Church. From them he may have learned the facts touched upon in iv. 18, v. 1 ff., vi. 1 ff., xi. 18, xv. 12, Inasmuch, however, as it was not from them but from those of the household of Chloe that Paul learned of the strifes mentioned in i. 11-iv. 6, it is evident that these “members of Chloe’s family” must have reached Ephesus before the bearers of the Epistle from the Church. On the other hand, the informa- tion brought by the members of Chloe’s family must have concerned events which had just occurred ; for manifestly in i. 11 ff. Paul is speaking of the conditions in question for the first time. This situation must have been as yet unknown to him when he wrote his previous letter (v. 9), for otherwise he would have discussed it, and from the tone of i. 11-iv. 6 it is evident that he did not. Still less, then, could Paul have noticed these discords at the time of his visit to Corinth. The only respect in which he compares the impressions which he received on this second visit with those which. he fears he will receive when he comes again, is that of sorrow (2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 21). He clearly distinguishes, however, between the unchastity which had caused him sorrow then (II. xii. 21, xiii. 2), and the factional strifes which he fears he shall now find (II. xii. 20). § 18. THE CONDITION OF THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH AT THE TIME WHEN FIRST CORINTHIANS WAS WRITTEN. In striking contrast to the situation of the Christians in Thessalonica, the Church in Corinth was enjoying a condition of undisturbed peace. There are a number of things which account for this condition, e.g. the mixed character of the population of a great commercial city, where men are constantly coming and going from all parts of the world, the great number of different religious cults tolerated in Corinth, the impartiality in religious matters of the proconsul in whose term of office the Church became established (above, p. 267, n. 5), the social standing of some of the members of the Church, and the prominent place of others even in the government of the city (above, pp. 258, 268 ἢ, n. 4). But, as indicated by the ironical comparison which the apostle makes between the situation of the Corinthians, who were living in this world as if it VOL. I. 18 274 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT were the millennium (iv.8-13), and that of himself and his fellow-missionaries, this condition of peace had been secured at too great cost. The word of the Cross, the sharp contrast which it implies to all natural wisdom with the practical inferences therefrom (1. 17-31; Gal. vi. 14), had not made an impression sufficiently deep. They need to be reawakened to a sense of the fact that they were a body of persons separated by faith and baptism from the world about them, and from their own past (i. 2, ili, 17, vi. 11). Members of the Church were actually bringing suit against each other in heathen courts (vi. 1-8). No scruples were felt about maintaining friendly and social intercourse with the heathen (x. 27). Many even went so far as to take part in festivities con- nected with idolatrous worship, in the banquets held in heathen temples (vill. 10, x. 21). Although this dangerous approach to the worship of idols which had been so recently abandoned was not approved by all, so that, as may be inferred from the detail with which it was answered (viii. 1-x. 33), the question was submitted to Paul in the communication of the Church whether it was per- missible to use meat that had been offered to idcls, it was the opinion of the majority, expressed in the communica- tion from the Church, that this liberal attitude toward heathen worship was entirely justifiable. Because every Christian knew that the heathen conception of the gods was entirely false, it was argued, everyone was free to con- sider everything associated with heathen worship a matter of indifference so long as he did not engage in the worship itself. Indeed, it was said, to act with this freedom was an obligation, in fulfilling which an encouraging example might be given to such of their fellow-Christians as were still undeveloped in knowledge and in the sense of moral freedom. By this it was hoped they might be raised to a level with themselves (n. 1). Without disputing at all the theoretical presupposition of this position, but rather PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 275 himself affirming repeatedly the nothingness of the gods believed in and worshipped by the heathen (viii. 4, x. 19), Paul combats such an employment of their Christian knowledge and such a use of their Christian liberty. The principle advocated by the Church, πάντα ἔξεστιν (x. 23, ef. vi. 12), he holds, must be limited in two directions. In the first place, not everything permissible is advantageous to one’s neighbour. Out of tender regard for a fellow-Christian less developed than himself, particu- larly for the sake of the conscience of such a person, the Christian must stand ready to give up his undoubted rights and liberties (viii. 1-3, 7-12), an example which had been set by Paul himself in the conduct of -his ministry (vill. 13-ix. 22). In the second place, not everything permissible is best for the Christian himself the use of whose freedom is in question. Just as the apostle for his own spiritual good foregoes many things in themselves pleasant (ix. 23-27), so for their own sakes the Corinthians ought to avoid dangerous contact with heathen worship (n. 2). The history of Israel in the wilderness proves by terrible example that wantonly to long after the pleasures enjoyed in the old life before conversion, to incline toward the use of heathen forms of worship, and to indulge in the practice of heathen unchastity, is to tempt God, and to bring down destruction even upon the redeemed (x. 1-11). In order to correct the spirit of false confidence with which many of the Corinthians had been treading upon this slippery ground (x. 12, 22), the apostle insists that, quite apart from the question whether or not there is a Zeus or an Apollo, an Aphrodite or an Isis, there are evil spirits whieh work in connection with the worship of these so-called gods, to whose influence everyone is exposed who has anything to do with heathen worship, even though so indirectly as was the case among the Corinthians (x. 15-21). From x. 13, taken in connection with x. 14 (διόπερ), it appears that 276 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the Church had argued that it was impossible to cut themselves off entirely from contact with heathen life, because it would only be to subject themselves to greater temptations than it was possible for human powers. to endure (cf. Hofmann, ii. 2, 207, and the similar line of thought in 2 Cor. vi. 14-18). Similarly, the casuistie questions which Paul was required to answer in x. 25-30 were asked for the purpose of showing that in the inter- course of daily life it was quite impossible to avoid eating εἰδωλόθυτα. This same principle, the necessary limita- tions of which Paul here points out, the Church had applied also to questions about sexual relations (vi. 12). In view of the manner in which Paul replies, it is very probable that the Church had represented the gratifica- tion of sexual desire to be a natural function, like the satisfaction of hunger, although we are no longer able to determine how far the comparison was carried and how much it was made to cover. Certain it is, however, that the Church had not agreed with what Paul had said on this subject. An exhortation in his previous letter to refrain from intercourse with wicked persons, particularly with unchaste persons, had been misunder- stood, or, as Paul hints when making his transition to this subject in v. 8, unfairly misconstrued. He was represented as demanding an impossible avoidance of all contact with immoral persons, whereas his exhorta- tion was meant to apply only to immoral members of the Church (v. 9-13). It was the general opinion in Corinth that Paul, being himself unmarried, had been too rigorous in his demands affecting this side of the natural life. So in their letter the Church had taken him to task for holding that entire abstinence from all sexual intercourse was something to be commended. Paul confesses this to be the principle upon which he stands, and makes various applications of it (vil. 1, 8, 26-35, 40), but in such a way as to make it appear PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 277 that marriage is to be the rule, the right to remain single being conditioned upon personal possession of the charismata requisite thereto (vü. 2,7, 9). At the same time we learn that there were some in Corinth who were opposed to the position taken by the majority, and treated marriage contemptuously, possibly on the strength of what Paul had said, recommending or even insisting that married persons should refrain altogether from sexual intercourse or even dissolve their marriage relation alto- gether, particularly in cases where husbands remained non-Christians; also rejecting as sinful marriage subse- quent to conversion, particularly the re - marriage "of widows (n. 3). Although Paul tells this minority quietly and earnestly that marriage is a natural right (vu. 3-5), reminding them of the command of Jesus by which the marriage bond is declared to be inviolable (vu. 10 ff), against the majority, whose opinion was expressed in the letter, he defends his point of view not without some show of irritation. Where the case is not covered by an express command of Jesus, while not speaking with apostolic authority, he does speak as one who has been given the grace to become a faithful Christian (vii. 25). He thinks that he has the spirit of God quite as much as this self-sufficient Church (vii. 40). .- This feeling on the part of Paul was due as much as anything else to the concrete case with the discussion of which this second section of the letter (chaps. v.-vii.) begins. He does not need to mention the source whence he had derived this information ; for this case of one of their own members who was living in incestuous relations, or in relations of concubinage, with his father’s wife, 1.6. with his step-mother, was talked of quite publicly, more openly than was customary in such cases even among the heathen (n. 4. The haughty manner in which the Church had written the apostle, not about this particular case, to be sure, but about kindred questions (v. 9 ff, vi. 12 ff, 278 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT vii. 1 ff.), and the general moral condition of the Church (v. 6), show that there was no feeling of shame about the matter, and that nothing had been done to remove the scandal. As shown by the relation of v. 2, 13 to Deut. Xvil. 7, 12, xxiv. 7, the only atonement which Paul deemed adequate was the removal of the offender from the Church by official condemnation to death. He had decided at once how this requirement of God’s law could be carried out consistently with the nature of the Church of the new -covenant; and since he could not, or would not, act alone in the matter, he communicated his view to the Church, with the suggestion that they adopt it and unite with their absent founder in carrying it out. The apostle in Ephesus proposes that the Church in Corinth join with him in the name of Jesus and in the confidence that Jesus’ miraculous power will be vouchsafed to them (cf. Matt. Xvill. 19 f.), to constitute a court which shall deliver the offender over to Satan in bodily death, in order that his spirit may be saved in the day of judgment. It is not to be an act of excommunication by the Church, but a judg- ment of God, a miracle in answer to prayer, in which Paul and the Church are to unite, and for which a definite day and hour are to be arranged. While the two sections chaps. v.—vil. and chaps. vill.—x. show that the moral life and the moral judgment of the Church were imperilled by lack of separation from the customs and ideas of their heathen neighbours, from chap. xv., particularly from the poetical quotation xy. 33, we learn that in the case of some (xv. 12, 34, τινές), things had reached the point where their judgment about matters of faith was being formed under the influence of heathen conceptions. As Paul’s argument shows, the contention of some of the Corinthians, “ There is no resurrection of the dead,” was not intended to refer to the resurrection of Christ. In this case; on account of Christ’s exceptional character and the close relation in time between His death PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 279 and resurrection, those denying the resurrection of the dead would necessarily have had to make an exception of this event of gospel history. What they did mean to deny was only the Christian's hope of a future bodily resurrection. But this denial was so radical in character, and so fundamentally connected with the belief that the bodily resurrection of the dead was impossible and incon- ceivable, that Paul felt it necessary first of all to show that the resurrection of Christ, denial of which was after all involved in their premises (xv. 13, 16), was a fact amply attested, and an essential element not only in, the gospel which Paul preached and upon. which the faith of the Corinthians was based, but of all the apostolic preaching (xv. 1-11). Another source of degeneracy was the unusually rich endowment of the Church with χαρίσματα, especially with various forms of inspired speech (n. 5)... Not only did this increase the feeling of self-importance on the part of the Church as a whole, but the pride felt by individuals because of their special gifts, and the preference for one gift above another, produced discord and disorder in public worship. The Church had asked particularly for Paul's opinion about the so-called speaking with tongues (n. 5). Here, too, as in the case of questions about marriage and sacrifices made to idols, there was an oppos- ing minority view, as is evidenced by the two. principles which Paul lays down at the beginning of his discussion (chaps. xii.—xiv.). While to some the ecstatic and unin- telligible utterances of those who spoke with tongues seemed like the outbursts of enthusiasm heard in heathen worship, and, while in general these opposed the use of tongues for fear of the utterances of blasphemies in con- nection with it, the majority showed an abnormal, or, as Paul expresses it in xiv. 20, ἃ childish preference for tongues, regarding this gift as the strongest possible proof of the overwhelming power of the Spirit in the Church, , 280 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which feeling on their part was due to the associations of heathen worship quite as much as were the exaggerated fears of the minority (xii. 2). These fears Paul sets at rest by the assurance that no one speaking by the Spirit of God can call Jesus accursed. On the other hand, in order to guard against an over-valuation of the gift of tongues, he lays down the principle that even the simplest confession of Jesus as Lord cannot be made without the Holy Spirit. Exelusive preference for a single charisma, no matter which one it was, and the giving of prominence to those possessing it, is contrary to the divine purpose in bestowing a diversity of gifts, and is inconsistent with the nature of the Church (xii. 4-30). The necessary con- dition for the proper valuation of the different charismata is the insight that it is in no sense these spiritual en- dowments and extraordinary powers which in this world bring human and even inanimate nature into the service of the Church, that give men value and insure their salvation, but only conformity of the heart to God, faith in the gospel, and hope in everlasting life, and above everything else love (xii. 3l-xii. 13). But love also teaches the proper valuation and right use of the charis- mata (xiv. 1-40). Judged by this standard, the prophet who, while speaking to the Church with enthusiasm and in the belief that he has a revelation, yet retains self- consciousness and self-control, who is able also when occasion offers to reach the heart and conscience even of unbelievers who come into the Christian religious services, stands infinitely higher than the person who speaks with tongues, and in a state of ecstasy gives utterance to unin- telligible prayers and praise. Because love does not seek its own, but the good of its neighbour and the prosperity of the whole Church, it supplies also the practical rules regulating the use both of tongues and of prophecy in the services of the Church. It was lack of discrimination in the use of this talent which led even women, as the connection PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 281 shows, especially those who possessed the gift of glossolalia (speaking with tongues) or of prophecy, to speak openly in the public services of the Church (xiv. 33-35). Since Paul discountenances this practice altogether, what is said in xi. 3-16, where prayer and prophecy on the part of women are spoken of as if entirely allowable, objection being made only to the custom that had been introduced in Corinth of allowing the women to remove their veils, must refer to services held in private houses. It is quite easy to see how the woman who was capable and felt called upon to act as priestess or prophetess in her own household, perhaps because her husband was not a Chris- tian or not especially gifted, might feel that she ought to bear witness to this equality between man and woman in the eyes of men and of God, also by appearing in public and speaking (n. 6). Besides the arguments against this disposition on the part of the women to be independent, suggested by the nature of the subject in hand, Paul reminds the Corin- thians twice that in permitting such practices they are acting contrary to the custom of all the other Churches (xi. 16, xiv. 33). Their conduct is such as would become them if they were the oldest Church in existence, when the fact that the gospel had gone out from them might give them a certain authority in matters of custom in the Church ; or if they were the only Church in the world, with no need whatever to consult the judgement and practice of other Churches (xiv. 36). This same thought is the con- clusion also of the discussion about idolatrous sacrifices. The Corinthians need to be careful, lest in deciding these questions arbitrarily they offend Jews and Gentiles and the Church of God, 1.6. the entire community of Chris- tians (x. 32, n. 7). Even more clearly than by the passages cited and other hints less strong (iv. 17, vii. 17), the supreme contempt with which the Church seemed to Paul to treat its relation to all the rest of the Church 282 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT is brought out in the greeting of the letter, in which at the very start Paul endeavours to bring the readers to the realisation that they constitute a society of persons called to be saints not in and of themselves, but only as they stand related to all other persons in the world who call upon the name of Christ (n. 8). The same exaggerated sense of independence which influenced individuals to assert their personal views or preferences without regard to anyone else, even at the cost of sacrificing order and unity in the life and worship of the Church as a whole, threatened also to sever its connection with all the rest of the Church. This danger was all the more imminent, because at this time the Church was in peril of losing its respect for the authority of its founder and its reverence for him. This affected their relation to other Churches, because it was Paul’s personal influence, with the doctrinal traditions and the rules regulating practical life which they had received from him, that from the beginning constituted the bond of union between them and the rest of the Church (vii. 10, xi. 28, xv. 8, 11), particularly the Churches in the Gentile world, which like themselves had been organised by Paul, and of which also he was the head (iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16, xiv. 33, xvi. 1, 19). Con- sequently, when the apostle, moved by the insolent manner in which he had been talked about and criticised behind his back (iv. 3, 7, 19, ix. 3), and by the way in which the Church had taken him to task in their com- munication (v. 9 ff., above, p. 276), affirms very positively his general authority as an apostle of recognised position (i. 1, 17, ix. 1, xv. 10), and his special authority as the organiser of the Corinthian Church (ii. 10, iv. 15, ix. 2), far more is involved than his own honour or a specific obligation of reverence on the part of the Church. The existence of cliques in the Chureh, of which Paul had learned recently (above, p. 273, n. 15), and on the PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 283 basis of which information he discusses at lenoth the question of factionalism at the very beginning of the letter (i. 10-iv. 6; n. 9), must have imperilled both the pleasant relations between the Church and its founder and its own inner harmony. Nothing could be more erroneous than to suppose that either in Paul’s thought, or in fact, the Church was divided into four factions or even sects. One party is not set over against another, e.g. the pro- fessed followers of Paul over against the followers of Apollos, and the Cephas party over against the party of Christ. But he is simply speaking of a deep-seated habit which more or less all the Corinthians had, namely, that the individual, without reference to others of like opinion, called himself the personal follower of Paul, «.e. he made Paul his hero, in contrast naturally to others who affected a like relation to Apollos, Cephas, or Christ (i. 12, i. 4, 22, iv. 6). If a leader is at all essential to a party, then, so far as we are able to ascertain, these alleged parties in Corinth had no leaders. Certainly the men whom individuals in Corinth professed to follow had no purpose of being such leaders. Paul does not simply find fault with those who were using his name as if that which they were doing was only an exaggeration of something in itself justifiable, or an awkward defence of his interests ; but, specifically, in connection with his own name, he shows the foolishness and unchristlikeness of such talk, thereby condemning in the severest terms the persons by whom his name was so used (i. 13). That Apollos also condemned the persons in Corinth who were using his name, is very clear from iv. 6, xvi. 12, above, p. 262f. It is self- evident that Paul assumes that Christ cannot approve what His apostle condemns, along with the other formule expressing this folly. The same is true with reference to the relation of Peter to the followers of Cephas, as is espe- cially evidenced by the fact that elsewhere Paul speaks of him only in terms of respect (xv. 5, 11, ix. 5, iii. 22; 234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Gal. ii. 6-9). Consequently the men whose followers the Corinthians were fond of calling themselves had either already disowned their admirers, or, Paul thinks, would have done so had they been asked about the matter. It is impossible, therefore, to suppose that the question here is one with reference to parties which relatively were clearly defined. In this case the difference of opinion which came out in the course of the letter regarding the relation of the sexes, sacrifices to idols, speaking with tongues, and the resurrection, would have to be referred necessarily to one or another of the four alleged parties, something quite impossible to do. If it were a question of distinct parties, it is also hard to understand why, after chap. v., Paul makes not the slightest reference to any of the four watchwords. Still less can we suppose that the reference is to sects which held their own religious services, having separated themselves in this way from the body of the Church. The communication which Paul had received shortly before, to which 1 Cor. is the apostle’s answer, had been written, and the messengers bearing it sent not by individual Christians in Corinth, but by all the readers, 1.6. by the Corinthian Church (vii. 1, xvi. 17f., above, p. 261f.). The whole Church was in the habit of assembling to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and for other religious services (x. 17, xi. 17-22, xiv. 4, 5, 19, 23-25, 33f.). In view of disorders of all kinds, and even of σχίσματα (xi. 18), in connection with these services, it is probable, at least there is nothing in what Paul says which excludes it, though he does not say it in so many words, that those whose views were expressed in the various watchwords sat together in groups. Only upon this supposition—and not by supposing that these groups were formed purely on the basis of kinship or on a social basis (xi. 22, 33)—can we understand how the apostle foresaw that inevitably the outcome of such manifest divisions in the religious service, which was still PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 285 one, must eventually result in the formation of distinct parties, and the breaking up of the Church into a number of sects (xi. 19, αἱρέσεις). In a Church which had been founded by Paul there was no occasion for anyone to affirm that he was a follower of Paul with an emphasis implying opposition to someone else, unless some other teacher had made an impression in Corinth by which Paul was likely to be overshadowed. That this teacher was Apollos, and that it was his successful work as a teacher in Corinth (above, p. 262 f.) that gave rise to the use of the two watchwords first mentioned in i. 12, does not require proof. More- over, from iii. 4-8, iv. 6 it appears that up to iv. 6 the diseussion is concerned mainly with the differences between the followers of Paul and of Apollos. What these differ- ences were we ascertain from 1. 17b-11. 2. The purpose of the whole passage is to justify the way in which Paul had preached in Corinth during the eighteen months of his residence there (Acts xviii. 11) in the face of hostile criticism, and to show that his preaching was free from certain pretensions which were contrary to his principles. Paul’s statements could not well be more entirely misun- derstood than by Hilgenfeld (inl. 267), when he assumes that Paul is here replying to the criticisms of Jewish Christians, who represented his successes as due to the use which he made of Greek culture, since it is not the fact that he had refrained from the use of these means which Paul proves. On the contrary, always simply stating this fact or assuming it (i. 17, οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, 1. 23, 1. 1, 4, ill. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 6), he justifies his action at length by setting forth his reasons and objects. Conse- quently the objection which he is meeting must have been to the effect that his preaching showed a lack of requisite learning and of convincing eloquence. In reply to this criticism, he develops the principles which he regarded as rightly determining the method of preaching the gospel 2 286 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT in missionary fields, the method required by the nature of the gospel. Both in its essential content, as presenting the cross of Christ, and in its consequent character, as a foolish preaching, missionary preaching—and that is the only commission that he has received from Christ—is inconsistent with the use of rhetoric and of other forms of learning (i. 17-31). While Paul’s refusal to use these means in the presentation of his message, and his strict confinement of himself to the essentials of the gospel, was very natural in view of his state of mind when he came to Corinth, it was nevertheless in keeping with the principles which he regarded as regulative of the missionary preach- ing (11..1--ὃ). Nor does he omit to say that for those whose self-denying faith has led to their salvation through the gospel, this sharp distinction between the foolish gospel and the natural mind both of Jews and of Greeks largely disappears ; since for Christians Christ comes to be also the only wisdom (i. 24, 30). He points out also that it is not the office of Christian teachers to be continually repeating the word of the cross to those who have been converted and are of mature spiritual understanding, but also to develop those conceptions of divine truth, which, being fully realised in the glory of the world to come, will bring the reconciliation of all contradictions in the nature of things and of all differences between faith and reason (ii. 6-12). But even if it were untrue that the things which he taught them could not be set forth in the categories of human culture, but from their nature de- manded a method all their own (ii. 13), the immaturity of his hearers made it impossible for Paul, while he was engaged in organising the Church, to employ this method of teaching (iii. 1 f.). It is clear, therefore, that the differ- ence between the followers of Paul and of Apollos was not one affecting the essentials of the word of the cross and of the “wisdom of God,” any more than the differ- ence between Paul and Apollos themselves, but only PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 287 involved the question as to how these should be presented, and a difference of opinion as to the value of rhetorie and logie in setting them forth. Many of the Corinthians seem to have been so carried away by the brilliant dis- courses of the eloquent Alexandrian, that thereafter the unadorned preaching of the “ plain” (2 Cor. xi. 6, ἰδιώτης) Paul seemed in comparison very deficient. It was not until it had been presented to them by Apollos’ logic, so they thought, that they had come to have a true under- standing of Christianity. When Apollos was talked about in this way, it is easy to see how some would regard such remarks as disparaging to the founder of the Church, and the less such persons approved of the method of Apollos, the more earnest they would be in their championship of Paul. Instead of all judging these two men at their real value, in the light of what they had actually done for the Church and in accordance with their respective gifts, individuals formed their own estimates in accordance with their own feelings, with the result that they vied with each other in their championship of one or the other of these two men (iv. 6): That they believed such champion- ship gave them a better hold upon Christianity is indi- cated by Paul’s question, whether Christ is divided so that they possess Him in greater or less degree according as they follow one or the other of their teachers (i. 13). Paul condemns their procedure, not only because it in- volves presumption in the formation of their judgments, but also because, in a manner inconsistent with the dignity of a Christian, it involves submission to men who are no rivals of God and of Christ in the work of redemption and in the bestowment of pardon upon the individual (i. 135, iii. 4-7, 22). / This condemnation applies also to those who called themselves followers of Cephas. Inasmuch as it is im- possible to suppose that at this time Peter had been in Corinth in person (n. 10), we must assume that Christians 283 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT who had been converted through his influence, perhaps also baptized by him (n. 11), but who in any case had had personal relations with him, had come from their own home to Corinth, and had increased the existing confusion by their ἐγὼ δὲ Knda. This is confirmed by the conclusion of the letter. As he is on the point of adding the part- ing benediction in his own hand, Paul stops suddenly to insert an anathema against everyone who does not love the Lord (xvi. 22), before putting down the benediction which he had already started to write. In this way he means to "indicate that the persons referred to are ex- cluded from his greeting to the Church, and so from the Church itself, to which he gives assurance of the grace of Jesus and of his own love (xvi. 23 1). When to this anathema he adds a significant phrase in the language of the Palestinian Jews, it is clear that the persons whom he has in mind are Christians who had come from Palestine (n. 12). That ii. 16-20 is directed against the followers of Peter, we must infer from the fact that the name of Peter occurs again in iii. 22 along with those of Paul and Apollos, in striking contrast to 11]. 4-8, and in seeming contradiction to the reference in iv. 6 to an earlier passage. After speaking in iii. 10-15 of those who, like Apollos, with good intentions, but in a way not altogether skilful, had built upon the foundation of the Church in Corinth laid by Paul, in iii. 16-20 Paul turns to those who, though engaged upon the same structure, had done their work in such a way that, in an outburst of anger, he feels con- strained to eall it not the building but the destroying of the temple of God. He trusts, however, that God will frustrate their evil designs and overwhelm them with destruction. It was impossible for anyone to boast with pride that he was a follower of Peter in a Church founded by Paul, without at the same time belittling Paul, the inevitable result of which, especially where opposition already PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 289 existed between the admirers of Paul and of Apollos, must have been an increase of the confusion and the in- subordination to Paul of which there were already tokens enough. These followers of Peter were responsible, at least primarily, for the aspersions against which Paul defends his apostolic dignity, even in 1. 1, more clearly in ix. 1-3, and in somewhat different tone in xv. 8-10. It was argued that a man who had never seen the Lord Jesus, the Redeemer, in the flesh, could not rank as an apostle in the full sense in which this title belonged to Peter and to the other disciples whom Jesus Himself had called and trained for their mission. But by placing the appearance of Jesus, to which was due his conversion and call, on the same level with the personal intercourse between Jesus and His disciples (ix. 1), especially with the appearances of the risen Lord to His disciples (xv. 5-8), Paul claims for himself the full apostolic title and all the rights which belonged to the other apostles. In- asmuch, however, as he aims to avoid any protracted argument on this point with these opponents who had come from abroad, simply insisting that the Corinthians shall recognise him as their apostle (ix. 2, ef. iii. 10, iv. 15), he makes in this letter only a few pointed remarks about these followers of Peter. One observes that Paul knows more than he writes, and fears more than he knows. Possibly he found it advisable, before saying any more, to wait until he saw the effect of the threatening hint which he makes in this letter, perhaps also until he was more accurately informed as to what these persons were doing. He does say more in 2 Cor., and such parts of this letter as bear upon this subject may be discussed here, though there is no doubt that in the meantime not only had Paul learned more about these persons, but also their work in Corinth had assumed larger proportions. If the followers of Peter mentioned in 1 Cor. were Jewish Chris- tians who had come from Palestine, and were exert- VOL. I. 19 290 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ing a very active and in Paul’s judgement destructive influence in and over the Church in Corinth, then they can be no other than the persons against whom Paul directs his attack in 2 Cor. 11. 17 ff., v. 12, χι. 1-12, 18. They had come to Corinth with letters of recommendation from outside authorities (iii. 1), and on the basis of these letters they claimed to possess authority at least equal to that of Paul. They boasted the purity of their Judaism, and made the Gentile Christians in Corinth feel the superiority which this gave them (xi. 18-22); to which Paul objects that the assumption of this air of superiority on their part only shows that the advantages which they claimed were merely external and borrowed, and not based upon their consciousness of personal merit and personal service (v. 12, ef. iii. 2). [ἢ preaching the word of God, they employ all the tricks which the salesman uses to get rid of his wares (i. 17, ef. iv. 2, xi. 13, ἐργάται δόλιοι, cf. Phil. ui. 2). They were travelling preachers, and had therefore the same formal right to call them- selves apostles as Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy, and they thought also the same right as Paul (cf. Skizzen, 53-65). They accepted the hospitality of the Corinthian Church, and took advantage of their position as evangelists to claim support from their hearers. Paul’s refusal to do so they declared to be proof of lack of faith in his calling and of want of love for the Church ; it was only a shrewd device on his part, they said, to get the Church more entirely under his control (xi. 7-12, xii. 13-18). These facts make it very clear why he discusses this topic in 1 Cor. ix. 1-18 with a detail which, considering the particular theme of 1 Cor. viii.—x., is out of all proportion. He does it because even here in the first letter he has in view these followers of Peter who refused to admit that he had the same apostolic rights as the Twelve (1 Cor. ix. 1). It is for this same reason that he makes special mention of Cephas among the brethren and apostles of the Lord m PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 291 1 Cor. ix. 5. To a certain extent Paul recognises the formal right of these wandering preachers to call them- selves apostles, when with “foolish boasting” he com- pares himself to them (2 Cor. xi. 21 f.), and calls them ‘“the: very chief apostles.” (xi. 5, xii. 11, ef, xi.'23, n. 13), But he does not hesitate at all to express his real opinion of them, comparing them to the serpent who deceived Eve, and calling them false apostles and servants. of Satan, who make pretence of being apostles of Christ and servants of righteousness (x1. 3, 13-15). It was because their only purpose was to deceive that they made no direct attack upon the gospel which Paul had brought to Corinth. That they did not is proved absolutely by the fact that, while these persons are condemned in the strongest possible terms by Paul, there is not a single passage in either of the letters in which he opposes or warns his readers against “‘ another gospel” (Gal. i. 6), or even against doctrine inconsistent with the one gospel of Christ (contrast with Col. ü. 6-8, 20-23; Eph. iv. 14; Heb. xii. 9). It was just because these teachers from abroad had no Jesus and no gospel to preach other than those which Paul had preached before them, and no Holy Spirit to offer their hearers other than the one they had received when the gospel was preached to them for the first time, that it seemed to Paul so incomprehensible and so uncalled for that the Corinthians should receive these intruders, and allow themselves to be alienated from their own apostle by their influence (2 Cor. xi. 4, n. 13). Paul is certainly afraid that they may succeed in accomplishing more, by their cunning devices depriving the Church altogether of its simple and primitive Christian faith (2 Cor. xi. 3). That, of course, would involve subsequent corrupting of the gospel which the Corinthians had believed (1 Cor. xv. 1). There could be no doubt as to the direction which this falsification would take. ΒΥ boasting the purity of their Judaism (2 Cor. xi. 22), these 292 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT persons had made an impression upon the Gentile Chris- tians which amounted virtually to moral influence over them, and the Gentile Christians had allowed themselves to be imposed upon by them (ef. 1 Cor. vii. 18 1, above, p. 265f, n. 4). Hence to the apostle, who saw in the indirectness and deceitfulness of these persons only proof that their false Jewish ways had not been overcome by the life-giving truth of the new covenant and by the liberating spirit of Christ (2 Cor. 11. 14-iv. 6), it must have seemed that the only possible outcome of the un- healthy development of things in Corinth, which he was striving to check, was a form of Christianity corrupted by Jewish influences. But at the time when 2 Cor. was written, and less so when 1 Cor. was written, there were no positive indications that this was to be the outcome. It is only from the way in which they are contrasted with each other that we are able to understand the three watchwords in which the names of Paul, of Apollos, and of Cephas were misused; the same is true of the fourth, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, which Paul condemns quite as much as he does the others (1 Cor. 1. 12). Since taken by itself no fault can be found with the expression Χριστοῦ εἶναι, which simply expresses the fact that to be a Christian means to belong to Christ (1 Cor. iii. 23; 2 Cor. x. 7; Rom. viii. 9; Mark ix. 41), what was to be condemned was the way in which individuals claimed this prerogative of belong- ing to Christ for themselves in opposition to the other members of the Church, instead of endeavouring, as Paul did, to impress upon the mind of the Church, so rent by factions, the fact that they all belonged to Christ, and that it was in the one indivisible Christ that they were to find their own unity and at the same time the bond between themselves and all other Christians (1 Cor. 1. 2, 13, iii. 11, 28). Even if the Christ party had opposed their ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ to the other watchwords, thinking that thereby they raised themselves above the petty PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 203 squabbling of the rest, they could not have expressed it in this way if they were endeavouring to defend the authority which Paul and Apollos possessed through their connection with the history of the Church, against the misuse which was being made of their names and against the despicable criticisms of the followers of Peter, as Paul himself was doing, and as he insisted the Church ought to do (1 Cor. iii. 5-iv. 5, ix. 1-6; 2 Cor. ii. 2f., ν. 12, xii. 11). As contrasted with the tendencies represented by the other watchwords, the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ represents a conscious and studied indifference to all human authority, an insolent ignoring on the part of those who used it of all depend- ence for their Christian faith upon things historical. If, now, it is clear from the way in which the Church expresses itself in the letter to Paul and from the way in which Paul addresses the Church in his reply, that the Corin- thians had an exaggerated sense of their independence of all authority, this watchword which some individuals were using can only be taken as an extreme expression of this feeling of independence to which the Church as a whole was inclined. Just as the self-consciousness of the Church, which was so inconsiderately expressed in their com- munication to Paul, was based upon the exceptional en- dowment of its members with natural and Christian gifts, so it is impossible to conceive of anyone as saying ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ unless he were possessed of exceptional ability, or thought that he was. If Paul charges the Church with being conceited (v. 2, ef. viii. 1f., xiii. 4), even more emphatically does he accuse individuals of so being (iv. 18f.). It was presumptuous enough for individuals to take sides with Apollos or Cephas against Paul, and vice versd (iv. 6), but this was not to be compared with the presumption of the individual who, from an exaggerated sense of his own independent knowledge, met these expressions of some particular human authority with the assertion that he belonged to Christ. Consequently Paul 294 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT endeavours to bring not only the Church in general (xiv. 36), but also the individual who feels himself to be of importance (iv. 7, xiv. 37), to the consciousness that every- thing of which he boasts has been received from God through other men. This same relation between the Church as a whole, which Paul addresses in his letter as “you,” and the individuals whom he singles'out as leaders in this general movement toward independence, we meet again in 2 Cor. x. 1-11. Paul makes the return of the Church to a state of entire obedience (x. 6) the condition of any action on his part against individual revolters or evil-doers ; since he cannot and will not proceed to discipline such indi- viduals without the co-operation of the Church. If, now, it be asked why as yet the Church had not resubmitted itself entirely to Paul’s authority, we have the following answer :—There was someone in the Church who believed and boasted that he belonged to Christ, as if Paul could not claim this same distinction for himself (x. 7), some- one who was bold enough to talk about the apostle’s egotistical letters and his unimpressive ‘personal appear- ance (x. 10f, ef. x. 1). Just as we are unavoidably reminded by the Χριστοῦ εἶναι (x. 7), for which nothing in this context calls, of the watchword in 1 Cor. 1. 12, so we must assume that the strongest expressions of insub- ordination to Paul came from the Christ‘ party (eg. 1 Cor. iv. 18; 2 Cor. x. 9-11), and that to them more than to anyone else was due the danger of a rupture between the Church and its apostle, and so between the Corinthian Church and the whole body of Christians. The fact that there are no long sections in either letter devoted especially to opposing the Christ followers, is explained by the relation, pointed out above, of this movement to the tendency of the Church as a whole. Very probably it was one of the Christ party who was entrusted by the Church with the preparation of the PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 295 communication sent to Paul. What Paul said in replying to the Church he said primarily for the benefit of those members of the Christ party who were 30 conscious of their Christian knowledge and discernment with the free- dom and independence which these involved. It was high time that Paul should express his mind. It was impossible for him to leave the settling of matters in Corinth to Timothy, who possibly had left Ephesus before the arrival of the latest oral and written reports from Corinth, and who could not go to Corinth at once on account of his errands in Macedonia (iv. 17, xvi. 10, above, p. 259). Since, moreover, in spite of all possible haste, the summer now beginning (above, p. 259 f.) might end before his own arrival in Corinth (xvi. 5, iv. 19), Paul saw that there was occasion to discuss thoroughly in an extended letter not only the questions that had been asked him by the Church, but also the unfortunate condition of affairs of which he had been informed by members of the household of Chloe and by the three messengers of the Church. In this manner he hoped to prepare the way for the visit which had been announced some time before, and, so far as possible, to keep that visit free from the painful necessity of discussing off-hand and orally the numerous aggravated and threatening questions arising out of the conditions in the Church (cf. also xvi. 2). He presented himself to the Church rod in hand, but at the same time with all the love of a father who would much prefer to forgive than to punish ; it is for them to decide how he shall come to them (iv. 21). The agreement between the letter and the occasion for it indicated in the letter itself is so entire, and, besides this, the letter is so strikingly testified to by the letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, written in the year 96, that no reasonable doubt can be entertained as to the genuineness and unity of the Epistle. 296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 1. (P. 274.) Τῇ, with Semler and Hofmann, we read οἶδα μέν, viii. 1, we have only more definitely expressed what in any case is self-evident, namely, that πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν is a proposition which Paul simply accepts—in other words, his statement is nothing more than a quotation from the letter sent him by the Church. Between this preliminary concession and vill. 7 there is no contradiction, particularly since here γνῶσις has the article. Even the “liberals,” who boast about their knowledge, lack the right sort of knowledge (viii. 1-3); while, on the other hand, those who are “weak” lack that complete knowledge which everybody assumes they have, and without which action such as theirs seems to be done against conscience, Moreover, the unexampled use of οἰκοδομεῖν, viii. 10, is explained only on the supposition that Paul is ironical, flinging back at the Corinthians their own expression, as if he meant to say: “Fine edification, this!” (cf. above, p. 260f.). It may be that i. 4-7 also are expressions quoted by Paul from the letter sent by the Church (cf. P. Ewald, NJbfDTh. 1894, 8. 198-205). 2. (P. 275.) Inx. 14 the correct reading is φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας, not φεύγετε τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν (cf. vi. 18). The latter, taken literally, would be a superfluous exhortation ; and in any case an exaggerated characterisation of what had actually taken place. From x. 15-22 it is clear that Paul had in mind, primarily if not exclusively, participation in the sacred meals con- nected with the idol sacrifices (cf. viii. 10, x. 7). So also 2 Cor. vi. 16, which refers to nothing more nor less than an approach on the part of the Corinthians toward idolatry occasioned by too intimate sccial connection with their pagan environment. 3. (P. 277.) In vii. 3-6, 10-14, 27a, 28a, 36, 38a, 39, Paul combats the false ascetic tendency of a minority for whose errors the Church, in its letter, evidently had made the example of Paul and occasional opinions expressed by him responsible. This is proved by vii. 6, which, rightly understood, cannot refer to the positive commands in ver. 2 or vv. 3-5a, but only the con- cession (εἰ μήτι) in 5b. 4. (P. 277.) The expression γυναῖκα τοῦ πατρύς, v. 1, would be inconeeiv- ably weak if by it were meant the man’s own mother, not his stepmother, cf. Lev. xviii. 8 contrasted with xviii. 7. So also Sanhedr. vii. 4 (cited by Wetstein, ad loc.), where it is likewise stated that it makes no difference whether the father is still living or not. If 2 Cor. vii. 12 deals with the same case, the father was still living. A marriage contracted between a man and his stepmother, whether the father was living or not, was not admitted as legal by Roman law, and so would not be recognised in Corinth. It is clearly not such a marriage as this that is here described by ἔχειν ; neither, on the other hand, is it a single lustful transgression, one adulterous act, but the relation is that of concubinage (cf. John iv. 18). The stepmother had evidently left the house of her husband and taken up her residence with her stepson, at his request, who, for this reason, is described in v. 2 as ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας ; also in v. 3, particularly in view of certain aggravating eircum- stances unknown to us, a8 ὁ οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενος ; and, in view of his offence against the father, in vii. 12, as ὁ ἀδικήσας (cf. § 20, n. 6). Since Paul makes no reference whatever to the guilt of the woman, who must also have been involved in the transgression, it is probable that neither she nor her PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 207 husband were members of the Church. And so Paul follows the rule laid down in 1 Cor. v. 12. 5. (P. 279.) Itis a peculiar fact that thanks are given in i. 4-9 not for the religious and moral condition of the Corinthian Christians, nor for the practical proof of their faith in conduct and suffering (cf. per contra, 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 3, ii. 13; Eph. 1. 15; Col. 1. 4; Phil. i, 5), but simply for their charismatic gifts, and it is specially worthy of note that in i. 5 speech of every kind is mentioned before knowledge (ef. the order of gifts, xii. 8 ff, xiii. 1, 8, and the opposite order in 2 Cor. xi. 6). If from xiv. 37 it is clear that πνευματικός does not mean simply the person who has a χάρισμα, but, like προφήτης, the one who has a special χάρισμα, and specifically, as the context shows, the person with the gift of tongues who spoke “in the spirit” in a higher degree than did the prophet and the teacher (xiv. 2, 14-19, 23), then the theme περὶ τῶν πνευματικῶν, stated in xii. 1, does not refer to spiritual gifts in general, but either to those who speak with tongues (οἱ πνευματικοί), a8 in xiv. 37, or, as in xiv. 1, to the gift of tongues itself (ra πνευματικά distinguished from προφητεύειν), of which there were several kinds. 6. (P. 281.) The principle advanced in the preaching, that no natural or social distinctions were to be recognised in the Church (xii. 13), seems to have been applied in Corinth to the question of slavery in a way not pleasing to Paul. For it will be observed that in vii. 18-23, where marriage is dis- cussed, the example of slavery is used as well as that of circumcision ; but it is highly improbable that Paul would have expressed such decidedly though briefly stated opinions about these two relationships in a purely theoretical way, and without any practical occasion from conditions to be found in Corinth. The slave is not to think his condition inconsistent with his Chris- tianity ; on the other hand, he is not to think that in all circumstances he must remain a slave (cf. Skizzen, 145, 348, A. 9-11). 7. (P. 281.) Τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ r. θ., x. 32, does not mean the local Church at Corinth, but, as in xii, 28, the whole body of Christians; for there is no contrast here, as in xi. 22, between the individual members of the Church residing in different homes—some poor, others wealthy—and the assembled Church. Rather, in accordance with the general principle laid down in x. 31, is it the entire body of Corinthian Christians, who, in x. 32, are urged to conduct themselves in such a way as not to offend the non-Christians among whom they live, nor the larger Christian body of which they are only a part. Otherwise we should read not τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τ. ., but τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν, ἀλλήλοις, or something of the sort. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed also by such passages as xi. 16 (ai ἐκκλησίαι τ. 0.), iv. 17, vii. 17, xiv. 33, 36. 8. (P. 282.) The placing of ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Xp. Ἰ. right after θεοῦ, i. 2, in BD*G is too original not to be genuine. If, however, we place these words after Κορίνθῳ, then the immediately following «Anrois ἁγίοις seems to be a needless repetition of essentially the same thought of the holiness belonging to the Corinthians as members of the Church, unless the idea of “called saints ” goes with the following σὺν πᾶσιν «rd. by which it is rounded out. In no case can σὺν πᾶσιν κτλ.» following the delusive analogy of 2 Cor. i. 1; Phil. i. 1, be joined with τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ... Κορίνθῳ as a completion of the address; for 298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT “all who call upon the name of Christ” is the broadest possible designation for all who profess Christianity (Rom. x. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 22; Acts ix. 14,21). Nor can the necessary restriction be secured by connecting αὐτῶν after τόπῳ with the remote κλητοῖς ἁγίοις... Κορινθίοις instead of with τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις and taking σὺν πᾶσιν κτλ. to mean the worshippers in every locality belonging to the Corinthians, 2.e. in the cities belonging to Corinth. For τόπος τινός does not mean the region belonging to one, but the place which one occupies ; and, besides, the other cities of Achaia where there were Christians (Cenchrea, Athens) did not beiong to the Corinthians. Holsten’s view (456) that “all the worshippers of Christ in all their places” mean the Christians who had migrated to Corinth from all possible places, requires no refutation. “The Catholic idea” (Holsten, 453), which such distortions as this are intended to explain away, characterises the letter throughout (above, p. 281). To this point of view Paul commits himself personally when he adds καὶ ἡμῶν (without re, following 8*A*BD*G and the earlier translations). If αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν is certainly to be taken with τόπῳ and is not a supplementary explana- tion of the preceding 76v»—which no reader could surmise—Paul says, using a not unfamiliar form of expression (Rom. xvi. 13), that every place where there are worshippers of Christ is his own and Sosthenes’ place, 1.6. they feel themselves at home there. The Corinthians lack this genuinely catholic or ecumenical sense. 9. (P. 283.) Räbiger (Krit. Untersuch. über den Inhalt der beiden Briefe an die kor. Gemeinde, 2te Aufl. 1-50) gives a relatively complete summary of the various views about party conditions in Corinth. Clement’s view (1 Cor. xlvii.) of the condition mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 12, διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε προσκλίσεις ὑμᾶς πεποιῆσθαι, and immediately afterwards ἡ πρόσκλισις ekeivn . . . προσεκλίθητε γὰρ ἀποστόλοις μεμαρτυρημένοις καὶ ἀνδρὶ δεδοκιμασμένῳ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, is more correct than that of the majority of modern crities. Because Clement takes no account of ἐγὼ δὲ Xp. as occasionally Origen (Hom. ix in Ez., Delarue, iii. 388, but not tom. xiv. 1 a Mt. p. 616) and Adamantius (Dial. in. Mare. i., Delarue, 809 ; Caspari, Anecd. 12) fail to do, Räbiger, 2, ascribes to him the opinion that in Paul’s time there were not four but three parties at Corinth, “who, appealing to the respective teachings of Paul and of Peter and of Apollos, opposed one another.” In reply, it is to be observed (1) that the opinion that these so-called parties were founded upon special teachings of Paul, Peter, and Apollos is arbitrarily read into Clement’s words, while it is just the opposite view that we find in Paul’s 1 Corinthians. (2) There is no justification for saying that it would have been inappropriate for Clement, who found no corresponding party in the Corinthian Church of his time, mechanically to have repeated the fourth watchword. Certainly that does not apply to Adamantius, whose purpose was to prove to the Marcionites that men ought not, like them, to bear the name of a man (Marcion), but only the name of Christ. (3) It is taken for granted that πρόσκλισις means “ party,” which is refuted by the description of all these varied προσκλίσεις by the singular ἡ πρόσκλισις ἐκείνη (see just above). The term means rather an inclination toward, preference for, attachment to individuals (Clement, 1 Cor. xxi. 7, 1.2; 1 Tim. v. 21). In contrast to the careful language of Clement is the manner in which the elder Lightfoot (Hore hebr. ad 1 Cor. i. 12) and Vitringa (Observ. sacre, ed. Jenens. 1725, pp. 799-812) and also Baur (i, 292 fF) PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 299 speak of a schisma in the later ecelesiastical sense of the word, and of four secte into which the congregation had been divided and which possibly held their religious services in different places (Vitringa, 812). The very first presupposition upon which a correct interpretation rests is the recognition of the fact that the situation as disclosed in i. 12 is not a sort of μετασχημα- τισμός, iv. 6, as was taught by the Syrian Ephrem (Comm. in ep. Pauli, ed. Mechith. 48), by Chrysost. (Montf. x. 16, iii. 138, 347), by Theodoret and others ; in other words, that the names there mentioned are not mere dis- guises for entirely different persons who were party leaders in Corinth. This is an error which Beza was the first definitely to oppose (NT, 1582, ii. 93). As clearly proved by the λέγω δὲ τοῦτο, which shows that the following words are explanatory, by the earnest defence of Paul’s manner of preaching i. 17 Εἰ, and by the statement in iii. 4-8, there is no question that Paul and Apollos, Peter and Christ, were the persons whose names were actually used in Corinth as party watchwords. Furthermore, it is clear beyond question that the term ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ was employed by certain Corinthians to distin- guish their point of view from that of other members of the Church. Had Paul desired in this formula to set his own standpoint over against the three other views, and to recommend it to the Corinthians (as the older critics sug- gested, especially Mayerhoff, Hinl. in die petrin. Schriften, 1835, 8. 81) in opposition to the ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει, it would have been necessary for him to say, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι Χριστοῦ εἰμι, or more correctly, ὅτι ὑμεῖς (ἡμεῖς) πάντες Χριστοῦ ἐστε (ἐσμεν), OF ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν ὑμᾶς (Jas. iv. 15) ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐσμεν. Still more preposterous is the interpretation of Räbiger (76 f.), according to which ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ is taken with each of the three other watchwords as a sort of supplement: “I belong to Paul, but in belonging to Paul I, for this reason, belong to Christ,” ete.; for, apart from the absolute grammatical impos- sibility of this construction, the opinion that in these sentences we must seek the common confession of movements in all other respects divergent, rests upon a misunderstanding of ἕκαστος ὑμῶν, which here has its ordinary distributive force (1 Cor. iii. 5, 8, 13, vii. 7, 17, xi. 21, xiv. 26, xv. 23, xvi. 2), and is to be contrasted with τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες (i. 10). Furthermore, the suggestion that the Christ party might appeal to Paul himself in justification of their watchword is without foundation ; for Paul never claimed the Χριστοῦ εἶναι for himself as opposed to other Christians; but, on the contrary, in i. 2-10 he repeatedly speaks of “the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ” as the unifying term which excludes all schism, and gathers together into one all the Churches in the world and all members of the several Churches. This is referred to again in 111. 23 and in 2 Cor. x. 7, where, opposing the Christ party, Paul asserts that the Χριστοῦ εἶναι belongs to him as well as to them ; οἵ. 1 Cor. vii. 40, where there is the same contrast. Nor is any difficulty presented by the first question in i. 18, for it is a question in spite of the absence of μή, Which is not absolutely necessary, and which is omitted here because of the repetition of the same sound that would be caused by its insertion. Cer- tainly it is not directed against the Christ followers alone (Baur, i. 326 ; Hofmann, ii. 1, 18), but to them along with the rest. The members of the Christ party were quite like the representatives of the other movements, who, because of their attachment to Paul or Apollos or Cephas, thought themselves in possession of a better Christianity than the others, possessing as it were a 300 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT larger portion of Christ ; but without denying that the others were Christians Only the watehword which the Christ party adopted was the most pre- sumptuous of all, and expressed most strongly the opinion that they had an incomparably greater interest in Christ than all the rest. It is exegetically and historically impossible to suppose that the Christ party was composed of Jewish Christians from Palestine, who either boasted that they had heard the preaching of Jesus (Grotius, ii. 366; Thiersch, 141; Hilgenfeld, 265), or who, although essentially identical with the followers of Peter, called themselves the Christ party, because those to whose authority they appealed, namely, the older apostles and brothers of Jesus, had been called and taught by Christ Himself as Paul had not been (Baur, ii. 296 ff.), or because of their attachment to James the brother of the Lord (Weizsäcker, 277). 'The latter suppositions rest upon the error that Paul is merely contrasting the other party names with his own, and so is able to put side by side all manner of watchwords—even such as are practically synonymous—in order to present the confusion in the Church in a realistic way. But Paul does not say “the one says this and the other that” ; on the contrary, he introduces the watch- words in contrast to each other. In the mind of those who are here repre- sented as speaking, the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ stands in just as sharp contrast to the ἐγὼ δὲ Kya as it does to ἐγὼ δὲ ᾿Απολλῶ, and as the latter expression does to the ἐγὼ μὲν Παύλου. It isa piece of purely arbitrary criticism to reduce the tendencies expressed in the four watchwords to two fundamental groups, a Gentile Christian and a Jewish Christian, which divisions would again fall into two closely related groups, the followers of Paul and Apollos on the one hand, and of Cephas and of Christ on the other,—particularly in view of the fact that Paul dwells at length only upon the alleged minor contrast between the followers of Paul and Apollos. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible how those who could boast only of their relationship to the personal disciples or relatives of Jesus could on that basis ascribe to themselves a special relation- ship to Christ. They had no advantages over any of the disciples of the per- sonal disciples of Jesus in the world (Heb. ii. 3; 2 Pet. 1. 16; 1 John i. 3), certainly none over the party of Peter, from whom they desired to be distin- guished, and whom at least they tried to outdo in boasting. Most fantastic and unhistorical of all is the idea of a Jewish Christian party which refused to acknowledge the authority of Peter—only a party of that character could describe itself as ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ in contrast to ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ. The Judaisers in Galatia looked upon Peter, John, and James as being equally pillars of the Church (Gal. ii. 9), and in spite of their high estimation of James the pseudo- Clementine literature nevertheless chooses Peter as its hero. Finally, it cannot be denied that the name of the Saviour, personal contact with whom gave Peter and James an advantage over Paul and other preachers, was Ἰησοῦς not Χριστός (1 Cor. ix. 1, xi. 23; 1 Johniv. 3). _ For this reason we are not to imagine that in 2 Cor. v.16 Paul is referring to personal contact with Jesus. Here, as indeed from ii. 14 onwards, Paul speaks of himself in such a way as to include with himself Timothy (i. 1) and the others who had laboured with him in a true Christian spirit, as opposed to the Petrine followers who had come to Corinth bringing letters of recommendation (ii. 17-iii. 1, v.12). Not until vii.3 does the “I” take the place of the “we.” If Paul says of himself and of his fellow-workers, first passionately and PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 301 then more soberly (v. 13), things that sound like self-praise, the Corinthians must know that the fear of Christ before whose judgment-seat they must give account and the love of Christ who died for all men are the standards by which they judge and act toward all men, both those who are yet to be converted and those who are Christians, and the standards also for their judgment of themselves. To do the opposite would be an εἰδέναι or a γινώσκειν κατὰ σάρκα (v. 16). Both the order of the words and the context make it clear that this latter expression means a human judgment determined by one’s inborn nature and natural powers (cf. i. 17, x. 2-4). Before God brought Paul to a recognition and acceptance of the reconciliation in the death of Christ, recreated him in Christ, and committed to him the pro- clamation of the word of reconciliation, his judgment was the judgment of man, 7.6. κατὰ σάρκα, because his estimation of Christ, of whom ‘he had heard and whom he was persecuting, was κατὰ σάρκα. Since his conversion and call his situation has been different. The contrast to the party of Peter again suggested in v. 12 would clearly imply that the manner in which these missionaries judged and treated people, and the manner in which they sought to obtain favour among the Corinthians, proved that their estimation of men was κατὰ σάρκα, which in turn was due to the fact that they did not know Christ as Paul had known Him since his conversion. It may not be pos- sible to identify καυχᾶσθαι ἐν προσώπῳ (v. 12) with ἀνθρώπους εἰδέναι κατὰ σάρκα (v. 16), nor can we assert that Paul makes the foolish affirmation that followers of Peter are fanatical antagonists of Christ and of Christianity, as he himself was before his conversion. Nevertheless, here as in iii. 4 ff., iv. 1f., 5f., there comes to light Paul’s opinion that the petty, secretive, selfish con- duct of these persons was due to the fact that they had not, like the true preachers of the gospel, experienced in themselves the renewing and liberat- ing power of the revelation of God in Christ, but had retained their Jewish nature. The principal source of the confusion which has obtained regard- ing these parties is the utterly untenable theory that 2 Cor. x. 7 and sentences in the immediate context are connected with the polemic against the false apostles at whom xi. 1-12, 18 and even ii. 17-vi. 10 are directed. The latter were wandering teachers who came to Corinth from abroad, bringing letters of recommendation from the place whence they came, whom Paul every- where distinguishes from the congregation. In 2 Cor. they are not once - included in asingle “you” with the Corinthians, If they are identical with the followers of Peter (see above, p. 288 f.), then they are included among the Corinthian Christians addressed in 1 Cor. i. 12, but nevertheless in iii. 16-20 they are distinguished from the congregation which they are represented as making the subject of their harmful work, and in xvi. 22 are expressly ex- cluded from the Church to which Paul sends his greeting. On the other hand, in 2 Cor. x. 1-11 Paul is dealing exclusively with the Church itself, and that, too, in its corporate capacity as it was beginning again to subject itself to his authority, without having gone far enough to lend him full sup- port in the performance of the required act of discipline in the Church (x. 6). It is impossible to assume that the individual to whom λογιζέσθω (x. 7b) refers belonged outside the circle to whom the βλέπετε (x. Ta) applies. Practically the same charge which Paul refutes x. 9-11, in x. 1 is assumed to be generally made throughout the Church. If the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ in x. 7 refers to 1 Cor, 302 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT i. 12, then the members of the Christ party were not travelling teachers from abroad, but had been members of the Corinthian Church ever since conversion. Furthermore, one of the characteristics of a false apostle was lack of genuine self-reliance (v. 12), and of that openness and boldness of which Paul boasts in his own case and in that of all true servants of the new covenant (ii. 17-vi. 10). They make boasts after a fashion, but only superficially and con- cerning mere externalities (v. 12, xi. 18, 22), especially about the authorities from whom they have letters of introduction (iii. 1). Their weapons are malice and hypocrisy (ii. 17, iv. 2, xi. 3, 13-15, cf. 1 Cor. iii. 19 f., above, p. 288). How is it possible to identify these people with those in x. 7-11, where we have pictured in strong, almost reckless language a self-conseious- ness very blunt in its expression of itself, relying not upon foreign author- ities nor upon external advantages, but upon its own attachment to Christ ! At any rate, the contest against. these false apostles from abroad does not begin, as in xi. 1, abruptly without any previous word of introduction. In x. 12-18, especially x. 15 (καυχώμενοι ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις κόποις), there is a very clear contrast to other missionaries. The polemic against the teachers from with- out which extends to xii. 18 begins with the command that the Church pay heed to what is before their eyes (x. 7). Between himself and his opponents the Church shall decide from the known facts in the case, to which he pro- ceeds immediately to call their attention—particularly from xi. 7 on. But before he begins the presentation of these facts, it oecurs to him that in the Church itself which he is challenging to an impartial consideration of the respective claims of himself and the followers of Peter, there are persons who boast of their indifference to the distinctions between the followers of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, and treat with contempt any appeal whatever to the authority of these persons, saying ἐγὼ de Χριστοῦ (above, p. 292 f.). Even this prevented the proper adjustment of the matter. They accused Paul of de- fending his personal honour, especially against the followers of Peter, in just as perverted a way as did they, and of constantly sounding his own praises in his Epistles (iii. 1, v. 12, x. 12, 18, xii. 19). For this reason Paul prefaces his polemic against the party of Peter (xi. 1-xii. 18) with his apologetie remarks addressed to the Christ party, x. 7b-18. καυχήσομαι, x. 8, 13, refers to the unavoidable self-praise beginning with xi. 1 (cf. xii. 1, ἐλεύσομαι which follows). The τινὲς τῶν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστανόντων, X. 12, can refer to none other than the followers of Peter; and so throughout the entire polemic against the followers of Peter (xi. 1-xii. 18) there are interspersed apologetic remarks directed to the Christ party (xi. 1, 16-21, 30, xii. 1, 5f. 11, 19). Hints of a defensive character directed against the Apollos followers occur only incidentally (xi. 6). Inasmuch, however, as only a single πεποιθὼς ἑαυτῷ Χριστοῦ εἶναι is addressed in x. 7-11, whereas elsewhere the Church is addressed in quite the same apologetic tone without any such distinction of indi- viduals, we must conclude that the representatives of ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, while not numerous, had great influence in determining the attitude of the Church. 10. (P. 287.) The opinion of Dionysius, who was bishop of Corinth about 170 A.D., that Peter as well as Paul had part in the founding of the Churches in Corinth and at Rome (Eus. H. E. ii. 25. 8),—an opinion that may have been shared also by Clement of Rome (GK, i. 806),—probably grew up as an infer- ence out of 1 Cor., from which source also (iii, 6 f.) Dionysius took the expres- PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 303 sions φυτεύσαντες, φυτεία. Or it is possible that a later sojourn of Peter at Corinth may have helped to give rise to the tradition. Only at the time when 1 Cor. was written, and even before that time, such a visit would have been impossible, because of the division of fields of labour made between him and Paul (Gal. ii. 7-9; cf. Skizzen, 72f., 90f.). Additional evidence is found in the complete silence not only of Acts, but also of 1 and 2 Corinthians. 11. (P. 288.) The question, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (i. 13) is directed against those who laid great stress upon the importance of being baptized by some one particular individual. In referring to himself as an example in this question and in the discussion that follows, Paul does not have in view particularly the followers of Peter, nor the two or three men in Corinth whom he had actually baptized, eg. Stephanas (i. 16, xvi. 15), of whom he has nothing but good to say: for if these men had boasted of this fact, Paul could not have expressed his gratification that this talk had no application to himself because of the very few instances in which he had performed the rite of baptism in Corinth. Rather does he complain that his carefulness about this matter has been without effect. It is another case of the ravra μετεσχημάτισα eis ἐμαυτόν of iv. 6. It is possible that Apollos baptized his own converts (above, p.270f., n. 11); but it is not likely that any special importance would have been attached to baptism administered by Apollos. He was a gifted teacher, but could not be considered an important link in the spiritual succession. On the other hand, it goes without saying that a decided impression would have been made at Corinth by a Christian from Palestine who said, “No less a personage than Peter baptized me at Pentecost or later” (ef. Hofmann, ii. 2. 21). The writer surmises that it was with a thrust at Peter and the original apostles generally, whom Jesus had actually sent to baptize (Matt. xxviii. 19; cf. John iv. 2), that Paul disavowed this custom for himself (i. 17). Cf. ZKom. Matt. 716. 12. (P. 288.) If we make the component parts of papavada (xvi. 22), pm and xnx, then the most natural translation is, “Our Lord has come” (not “18 coming,” or “will come”). Thus: S! xnx 2 (according to the Nestorian pronunciation xpx, bibl. Ar. ans Ezra v. 16, or apx Dan. vii. 22), and the interpreters more or less familiar with Syriac: Chrysostom (Montf. x. 410, ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἦλθεν) ; Jerome, Onomast., ed. Lagarde, 75. 24, venit as perfect ; and Theodoret (Noesselt, 215), who remarks correctly that this is not Hebrew but Syriac (cf. a scholion in Scrivener, Cod. Augiensis, p. 488), and who, following the ancient Syriac usage, translates 717, 6 κύριος, and κύριε (6.0. Matt. vil. 22, Ss), without ἡμῶν, leaving the suffix=juéry untranslated. Cf. the three scholia in Wetstein, ad loc., ὁ κύριος (with or without ἡμῶν) ἦλθε, al. mapayeyove, al. ἥκει. Linguistically this translation is entirely correct, and was, moreover, known to a Latin interpreter of about the year 370 a.p., the so-called Ambrosiaster (Ambros. Opp., ed. Ben. ii. App. 170). It is also accepted by Delitzsch (Z/LTh. 1877, S. 215; see also his Hebrew N.T., 11th ed., and Neubauer, Stud. bibl., Oxon. 1885, p. 57). For the incorrect trans- lation, 6 x. ἔρχεται, Onomast. sacr., ed. Lagarde, 195. 65, and other impossible interpretations, cf. Klostermann, Probleme im Aposteltext, 224 ff. Kloster- mann’s own interpretation xpx jw “Our Lord is the token,” stands or falls with his bold exegesis of ver. 22a, “If one does not kiss the Lord Jesus,” 1.6. “Tf anyone refuse the fraternal kiss” (ver. 20), and more than this fails 304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to harmonise with the later liturgical use of this formula (see below). This is true likewise of Hofmann’s interpretation anix 7p “Lord art thou” (cf. Ps. xvi. 2). Moreover, it is doubtful whether in Palestine the original n and the final ὦ in the pronoun were still pronounced. ‘The most probable interpreta- tion is that first suggested by Halévy (REJ, 1884, ix. p. 9), and afterwards accepted by Bickell (Z/KTh. 1884, S. 403) and Nöldeke (GGA, 1884, 5. 1023 ; cf. also Siegfried, Z/(W Th. xxviii. 128, and Dalman, Gr.? 152), namely, sn xp “(our) Lord, come.” The fuller form of the suffix -ana sının to be found in Nabatean inscriptions dating from the reign of Aretas rv. (2 Cor. xi. 32), and so from the time of Paul (0. I. Sem. ii. Nos. 199. 8, 201. 4, 206. 7, 208. 6, 209. 8), is just as likely to have been used by the apostle as the shorter form -an ; while xp, the common Syriac form of the imperative from xnx, was current among the Jews (cf. Dalman, @r.? 357), especially in combinations of words, e.g. π᾿ Xn=€pxov καὶ ἴδε; John i. 46, and νοῦ xn “come and hear” (cf. Levy, Neuhebr. Lexicon, i. 184 ; Buxtorf, Lex. talmud. rabb. 248). So interpreted, the formula is quite the equivalent of the ἔρχου κύριε ᾿Ιησοῦ (S? yw nn an); ef. Rev. xxii. 20; for it makes no difference in the sense whether the exclamation precedes or follows (Ps. lix. 2, Ixxi. 4, 12; 2 Sam. xiv. 4, 9). This accounts also for the occurrence of this formula at the close of the Eucharistie prayer in Didache, x. 6 (Const. Ap. vii. 26), no matter whether this prayer which immediately precedes the Amen be regarded as an invitation to the Lord to be present with His people in the sacrament, or as a petition for His speedy return to earth (cf. Forsch. iii. 294 ; Skizzen, 315, 318, 391). The Eucharistie prayers of the Didache originated in a country where Greek and Aramaic were employed side by side in the Christian communities (above, p. 12 f.), and where the word “mountain” had come to be used quite in the sense of “ field ” ; in other words, in Palestine (ef. Schulthess, Lex. Syropal. 73 ; Didache, ix. 4, ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων, omitted in Const. Ap. vil. 25). If, as seems probable, the Didache itself was prepared in Egypt for the use of Gentile Christian Churches, it follows that these Palestinian prayers, and with them the words hosanna, maranatha, and amen, must have become current far beyond the borders of Jewish Chris- tianity in Palestine. It is a question, however, whether from this fact we ought to infer that the word maranatha was known in the Greek Churches founded by Paul from the very first. Here there was no occasion for the introduction of Aramaic prayer words used in the very early Churches, such as that afforded by the large Jewish population in Egypt (Philo, ὁ. Flace. vi, about one million). Nor is there any evidence that maranatha, like such words as amen, had a place in the liturgy of the Churches of Asia Minor and Greece. The threat which a reader of the Church lessons on the island of Salamis in the fourth or fifth century is said to have made against one who used his grave contrary to his directions (C. I. Gr. No. 9303=(. I. Attie. iii. 2, No. 3509), λόγον δώῃ τῷ θεῷ. καὶ ἀνάθεμα ἤτω. papavabay (sic), is very manifestly borrowed from 1 Cor. xvi. 22, but without a clear understanding of its sense. A similar use of the word is to be found in a Latin inscription discovered at Poitiers and recorded by Le Blant (Nowveaw reeueil des unser. chret. de la Gaule, p. 259, No. 247). In view of all this, there can be little doubt that in quoting this fragment from the liturgy of the Palestinian Church, Paul meant to make unmistakable his reference to certain Christians from Palestine. This purpose would have been obscured had he added a PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 305 Greek translation (cf. per contra, Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 15). The purport of the words is quite in keeping with the Pauline spirit. When he thinks of the disturbers of peace in the Church and its destroyers, of its unskilled workers and hostile critics, his mind turns to the day of judgment (iii. 13- 20, iv. 5): “Lord, come and put an end to all strife, and to all the activity of hostile forces in Thy Church.” 13. (P. 291.) In the conditional sentence, 2 Cor. xi. 4, what the writer regards as really contrary to fact is put in the present (ef. Matt. xii. 26 ; Rom. iv. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 17, xv. 13, 14, 16,17; Gal. v.11; Kiihner-Gerth, 11. 466 f.). Although Paul does in one instance (Gal. i. 6) call the preaching of the Judaising missionaries a ἕτερον. εὐαγγέλιον, he does not do it without imme- diately correcting this perverted use of the name gospel (i. 7). It is certain that there was not a second Holy Spirit whom the Corinthians could or must receive through the new preachers, after they had received the real Holy Spirit through the ministry of Paul. Still less was there another Jesus who could be preached at Corinth, after the one Jesus who was the common sub- ject of the Christian preaching had been heralded there and made the foundation of the Church (1 Cor. iii. 11; 2 Cor. i. 19, iv. 5). Even if it were conceivable in the light of Gal. i. 6 that Paul might contrast the Christ preached by himself with the Christ preached by his opponents, calling the latter a ἕτερος Χριστός, he could not speak of a ἕτερος, or ἄλλος Ἰησοῦς, as the subject of actual preaching, since there was no second or third Jesus, in addition to Jesus of Nazareth, who could be preached. Furthermore, if the three relative clauses here inserted were meant to characterise a false gospel differing from the gospel of Paul and actually preached in Corinth, then it would be necessary to read map’ ὃν ἐκηρύξαμεν, map’ ὃ ἐλάβετε. ., ἐδέξασθε (ef. Gal. i. 8f.), and ἡμεῖς would probably be inserted in order to express contrast to 6 ἐρχύμενος. But as the clauses actually read they simply mean that the Corinthians have already received all the essential truths that a new missionary could bring them. Moreover, the apodosis of the sentence shows that Paul is here stating a condition contrary to fact in the present tense. If with BD* we read ἀνέχεσθε, then the sentence means that in this case—but only in this case—are the Corinthians open to no censure in tolerat- ing strange teachers among them (καλῶς ποιεῖτε ἀνεχόμενοι τοῦ ἐρχομένου KTA.), as they are in fact doing (xi. 19 f.). On the other hand, if we accept the more common reading ἀνείχεσθε, it can hardly be regarded as a simple imperfect, merely descriptive of the attitude of the Corinthians heretofore ; because this attitude toward the strange teachers continues to the present time (xi. 19 f.). Rather is the imperfect to be taken in the sense of ἀνείχεσθε ἄν, there being a transition from the first to the fourth form of the hypothetical sentence (John viii. 39, without av; Luke xvii. 6, with ἄν after a well accredited εἰ with the present indicative; cf. Winer, $ 42; Kühner-Gerth, i. 215). This, however, gives practically the same sense as ἀνέχεσθε. But since the attitude of the Corinthians toward the strange teachers is in Paul’s judgment highly censurable, in this instance, where it is actually represented as commendable, the case must be purely hypothetical. The frequently suggested interpreta- tion of καλῶς in a purely ironical sense, in reality expressing strong censure (Mark vii. 9), is scarcely permissible, even from the point of view of style, following as it does a conditional clause in no sense ironical. Nor is it more VOL. I. 20 306. INTRODUCPION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT permissible from the ‚point‘ of view of the thought; for, if someone in Corinth were boasting about alleged spiritual benefits which he did not, yet possess, and were debating in his own mind whether he should allow them to be bestowed upon himself, it would not be occasion either for irony or censure. No difficulty to the above interpretation of 2 Cor. xi. 4 is presented by its con- nection with what precedes; since it is not ver. 4 alone which is connected with what precedes by γάρ, but rather the entire passage, xi, 4-xii. 18, is introduced by yap, in order to explain more fully xi. 2-3. And this explana- tion begins very properly with the concessive statement that the Corinthians) would not be blameworthy anyway, 1.6. Paul would not need to be anxious about them even if the case suggested in ver..4 were actually true to fact. To assume the possibility of such a case was just as reasonable as to ask the questions in 1 Cor. i. 13 or 1 Cor. xiv. 36; for the Corinthians, in listening so patiently to the strange teachers, and in permitting them to carrylon their work so long without any thought of separating themselves from Paul and his gospel, were acting as if these teachers were actually imparting to them new spiritual truths. The grammatical construction of the conditional sentence forbids the assumption that the reference. in this passage may be to some possible future case, in which a certain newcomer, presumably one of the original apostles, whose immediate coming the false apostles had announced, is assumed to be engaged in preaching in Corinth (cf. Hausrath, Der Vierkapo- telbrief des Paulus an die Kor.19). It: is impossible also to understand, how so important a matter could be referred to in a manner so incidental and enigmatical. ‘O ἐρχύμενος does not here mean the Great, Expected One (Matt. xi. 3), still less one who has already come, 7.e. some influential per- sonality who can be connected with the strange teachers who have appeared in Corinth (cf. Ewald, Sendschreiben des Paulus, 225, 295, 298). On the, con- trary, it is used in a quite general sense (cf. Gal, v. 10, ὁ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς ; Eph. iv. 28, ὁ κλέπτων ; also Rom. iv. 4; 1 Cor. xiv. 2fl.). In order to understand the passage, it is only necessary to assume that teachers from without had appeared in Corinth: (cf. Didache, xi. 1, ὃς ἂν οὖν ἐλθὼν διδάξῃ; xi. 4, mas δὲ ἀπόστολος ἐρχύμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ; ef. xii. 1,2). With this inter- pretation is refuted also the opinion of Baur (i. 318) and Hilgenfeld (Hil. 298), that of ὑπερλίαν. ἀπόστολοι (2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11) refers to the original apostles. Even if it were possible to suppose that Paul, writing in opposi- tion to the exaggeration of the authority of the original apostles on the part of the followers of Peter, with the corresponding denial of his own apostolic authority, might speak thus ironically of the original apostles,—to which Gal. ii. 6, 9 suggest a certain though entirely insuflicient analogy,—from the connection of xi. 5 and xi.4 it is certain that he had in mind the false apostles and servants of Satan (xi: 13-15) who were active in Corinth at this time. The same is true of xii. 11, particularly in view of the fact that here- tofore Paul has not been comparing himself and engaging in discussion with the original apostles, but only with strange teachers in Corinth (xi. 7-xii. 11), Nor is there anything in this context which would indicate that, these persons relied on the authority of the apostles, and were exalting it at Paul’s expense. PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 307 § 19. SURVEY OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Unless the close connection between 1 Cor. and 2 Cor. be broken, either by the assumption that between the twe there belongs an Epistle of Paul to the same Church, which is lost, or which must be searched for (n. 1), or by the assumption of an intervening visit (n. 2), or by the eombination of these two hypotheses, 2 Cor. furnishes information both regarding the immediate effect of 1 Cor. and subsequent developments. Timothy is mentioned in 2 Cor. as a joint writer with Paul of the letter; but the case’is not parallel to that of 1 Cor. i. 1 (above, p. 267, n. 6), since Timothy was one of Paul’s helpers who had had an active part in the organisa- tion of the Churches in Achaia (i. 19; above, p. 264f., n. 2; ef. 1 Thess. i: 7; 2 Thess. i. 1). This explains why, con- trary to his usage in 1 Cor. 1. 4, Paul employs the first person plural from the very beginning of the letter, and uses it quite uniformly up to ix. 15, never exchanging it for the singular except for some good reason, and in only one instance expressly stating who is included in the “we,” namely, when he refers to the pioneer preaching of the gospel among the Christians of Achaia, in which Silvanus as well as Timothy had taken part (1. 19). Con- sequently, as is self-evident, throughout the letter, except where the general nature of the statements made render it clear that all Christians or all like-minded preachers of the gospel are meant, the “ we” includes primarily and certainly Timothy and Paul. This is true even of the concluding section chaps. x.-xill., where, notwithstanding the fact that the introductory αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος in- dicates that what follows is an expression of Paul’s own opinion, in distinction from the joint communication of Timothy and Paul that precedes, we have an occasional substitution of “we” for “1 (n. 3). 308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Furthermore, it is to be observed that, unlike 1 Cor., 2 Cor. is not intended exclusively for the Church in Corinth, but also for all the other Christians throughout the province of Achaia (above, p. 264f., n. 2). But if it were intended for the Corinthians only in the same way that it is meant for the other Christians in Achaia, the designation of the readers would certainly be different : either we should have the different places where the letter was to be read enumerated (cf. Rev. i. 4, 11; 1 Pet. 1. 1), or all the Churches would be spoken of together as those of Achaia (Gal. 1. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Cor. viii. 1; Gal. 1 22; 1 Thess. ii. 14). The language of the greeting shows, therefore, that while the letter was intended primarily for the Corinthians, it was applicable ‚also, either in whole or in part, to the other Christians in Achaia, and was intended to be communicated to them. In this respect the greeting is different from 1 Cor. i. 2 (above, 297 ἢ, n. 8). Consequently, also, the address Κορίνθιον in vi. 11 is not to be understood after. the analogy of Phil. iv. 15, Gal. iii. 1, as if directed to all the readers, but its occurrence here is due to the fact that in some degree what precedes, and in particular what is said from this point on, is applicable only to the Church in Corinth. This same circumstance explains also the mention of the city in 1. 23, which, following the repeated πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δι’ ὑμῶν, ἐν ὑμῖν, 1. 15-19, is somewhat strange, and, like Κορίνθιοι, excepting the greeting of 1 Cor., which does not need, to be taken into account here, is ‚quite without parallel. The expressions in 1, 15-19 mean “to, through, and in Achaia”; what follows in 1. 23 applies only to the Corinthians. There were, on the other hand, other things which affected just as vitally the remaining Christians in Achaia, particularly the matter of the collection spoken of in chaps. viil.-ix., in which they had all had a part (ix. 2; Rom. xv. 26). If Titus, who, let us assume, brought the PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 309 letter from Macedonia to Corinth (see below), journeyed by way of Athens, he is likely at once to have made known the contents of the communication which he bore to the Christians in Athens and in other Christian centres in Achaia en route; since he could not well have passed through. these places without stopping to greet. them. And inasmuch as he was also personally to superintend the collection in Achaia, he is not at all likely to have left it for the Corinthian Church to see that the letter was circulated among) the Churches of Achaia, particularly since vill. 16-24 contained recommendations ‘and, proofs of the identity of Titus and his companions quite essential for carrying on the collection. But it may be questioned whether in these transactions Titus informed the other Churches of the contents of the entire letter, which dealt so largely with special conditions in Corinth, or only of such sections as 1. 1-22, vil. 1-ix. 15, xi. 11+13. The Epistle may be divided into three clearly defined sections, chaps. 1.-vil., viil.-ix., x.-xui ‘The framework of the ‚first section consists of three fragmentsiof an account of the apostle’s journey.. While he was still:in the province of Asia, he:and Timothy, who was with him, were threatened with what seemed certain death (i..8=10, n. 4). When he reached Troas and was minded to preach the gospel there, a favourable opportunity having) offered, he found that he was not in a state of mind sufticiently composed to do so, because he had not been met there by Titus, whom he had sent to Corinth, and whose return he awaited with the utmost anxiety. In the hope of sooner meeting him, he and Timothy left Troas at-once and went to Macedonia (ii. 12 f.)... After their arrival:ini Macedonia, where this letter was written, and manifestly not very long before its composition, Titus met him» and cheered his heart with good news from Corinth (vii 5 f.). The chronological as well as geographical arrangement of the material is retained in the two following sections. 310 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT In chaps. viii.—ix. Paul speaks of events that were taking place at the time in the Macedonian Churches where he was, particularly of a recent decision, a decision made since the arrival of Titus. He tells the Corinthians what they did not yet know, and what possibly had not been decided upon when Titus left Corinth, namely, that of their own accord the Macedonian Churches had decided to help in the collection for the Christians in Jerusalem, a collection which had been going on in Corinth now for a year, in fact since before the sending of the communica- tion to which Paul replied in 1 Cor. (n. 5). Moved. by the commendatory reports of Paul and Timothy about the collections in Achaia, and without Paul’s having ventured to ask it (ix. 2, vill. 5), the poor Macedonians had at once gathered a sum which, in view of their circumstances, was considerable (viii. 1-4, ix. 2). They had already selected one of their own number to accompany Paul and Timothy on their journey with the collection by way of Corinth to Jerusalem (n. 6). The zeal of the Macedonians in this matter, which had been dragging on in Corinth for such a considerable time, and the news brought by Titus regarding the condition of the offering there, led Paul to ask Titus to return to Corinth, whence he had come only a short time before, in company with the representative of the Mace- donian Christians and another brother, perhaps the person chosen by the Churches in Asia for this very purpose, in order to complete the collection (viii. 6, 16-24, ix. 3-5). All that we learn from the second part of the letter (chaps. viii.-ix.) regarding Paul’s anticipated visit is, that he did not mean that it should be delayed much longer. He does not intend to wait for the return of Titus and his companions. The. two representatives of the Churches are to make the first part of the journey, which was to be completed in company with Paul, somewhat earlier than the apostle, and in company with Titus rather than Paul himself. The three are sent ahead to Corinth to PAUL AND’ ‘THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 311 announce his coming (ix. 5), and, to deliver the letter in the middle sections of which they had been commended to the Christians of Achaia. It is not until the therd section (chaps. x.—xill.) that Paul speaks particularly of his own coming. | The section begins with a contrast between his anticipated presence among the Corinthians and his absence from them up to this time (x. 1-10), and concludes with the same thought (xiii. 10). Once he expresses the hope of being able to preach the gospel in the regions beyond Corinth (x. 16). But the most important purpose of his coming is to establish order in Corinth, which as yet has ποῦ been fully restored (x. 6, xii. 14f, xiii. 1 f.). He fears that he may find many of the old disorders and be compelled to make use of harsh measures (x. 2, xii 20f., ΧΙ]. .71--9). As he himself indicates at the close, the purpose of the letter, which is sent from a distance in spite of the fact that he expects to come himself so soon, is to spare him- self the necessity of exercising with severity the authority given him by the Lord (xiii, 10), and this is the special purpose of chaps: x.-xiii. [Ὁ is with this purpose in view that he requests the whole Church to submit itself with more entire obedience than it had done heretofore (x. 6), and resents ‘so decisively the arrogant criticisms of him- self and of his letters which were still being made in the Church, particularly. by the Christ party (x. 1f, vii.-xi., xiii. 3-6, above, p. 302). For the last time he threatens those who live immoral lives, and who, in spite of all exhortations, have not repented (xii. 21-xiii. 2). The larger portion of this section is directed against the teachers from abroad, who, as we have seen, were the followers of Peter (above, pp. 289 f., 300 £.), and the Church is requested no longer to permit these aliens to carry on their pernicious work, which more than anything else had caused the trouble and bitterness in the relations between Paul and the Corinthians (xi. I-xii. 18). This third part of the letter is the last precursor of the apostle on the way to Corinth. 312 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Tradition makes the Epistle a unit; and this’ pre- liminary survey shows it to be such, with an order which is both natural and logical. In spirit the reader follows Paul from Ephesus through Troas to Macedonia (chaps. i.-vil.); then he lingers with him for a moment in the Churches of Macedonia (chaps. viii.-ix.) ; finally, he is led to the consideration of conditions in the Church at Corinth from the point of view of Paul’s coming visit there. The three ‘sections of the letter treat respectively, the im- mediate past with its misunderstandings and explanations, the present with its practical problems, and the near future with its anxieties. 1. (P. 307.) The theory that after Timothy’s return from Corinth Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians which he sent to them by Titus,—a letter now lost and supposedly referred to in 2 Cor. ii. 3, 9, vii. 8,—was first put forth and defended by Bleek (ThStKr. 1830, 8. 625 ff.). This theory was adopted, with varying degrees of confidence, by Credner (Einl. i. 371), Neander (Ausleg. der Kr. 272, 293 f.), Klöpper (Untersuch. über den 2 Kr. 1869, 3.24 ff), by the same author in his Kommentar (1874, 8. 42ff.), and by many others. According to Lisco (Die Entstehung des 2 Kr. 1896, S. 1), there is beginning “to be a consensus criticus” (it were better perhaps to say criticorum) on this point. Klöpper admits (38 f.) that in 1’ Cor. xvi. 5-7 Paul lays before the Corinthians a new plan for his journey; the plan which he was engaged in carrying out when 2 Cor. was written, as contrasted to his original plan, which had already been put before them, and which is described in 2 Cor. i. 15-16, and he (48) finds in I. xvi. 5-7 the announcement of “an, early arrival in Corinth”; though in this passage, which was written at least some weeks before Pentecost, Paul. says that he may possibly remain away until the beginning of winter, and in any event will not come immediately (above, p. 268f.). When now, on the strength of this, there is posited a lost letter sent in the interval between 1 Cor, and 2 Cor., in which Paul “put off his visit and in general made it dependent upon certain conditions” (43), thus accounting for the accusa- tions against which he defends himself in II. i. 12ff., it may be observed that there is nothing to suggest that at the time of 2 Cor. there was any doubt as to Paul’s actually coming. There is nothing in 2 Cor. like I. iv. 18; so that the charge which he meets in II. i. 17 has no reference to what he had said in a very recent letter, nor to ‘a recent change in the plan of, his journey, but to the original plan. Of course there was no occasion for this charge until after Paul had declared that he would not follow this but another plan. This he had done, however, with emphasis in I. xvi. 5-7, and when 2 Cor. was written this other plan had been practically carried out, with no recognisable changes. ‚The assumption that in the interval between the writing of I, xvi. 5-7 and II. i. 12-ii. 2, Paul had expressed himself again PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 413 about the plan for his journey in a letter now lost, and in a manner essenti ally different. from I. xvi. 5-7, and that the reference in 11. ii. 3-9 is to this lost letter, cannot be harmonised withthe usual translation of II. ii. 3—rodre avré= “even this.” Nor does it gain support from the translation, “For this very reason” (see below, § 20, n. 5). Unless it be assumed that Paul paid a visit to Corinth during the same interval, which changed the whole situation, and by which also the plans that were in mind when 1 Cor. was written were set aside, this hypothesis renders the entire defence in II. 1, 15 ff. meaningless. Paul is accordingly represented as returning, after a temporary vacillation to which expression had been given in the intervening letter, to the definite plan stated in detail in I. xvi. 5-7. In other words, according to II. i. 15 ff, this plan must have been given up temporarily, and taken up again. It would then be necessary for him to distinguish not merely two, but at least three, and if our interpretation of I. xvi. 5-7 (below, § 20, and above, p. 268 f.) be correct, four different stages in the development of this affair—(1) the plan and the promise to come immediately to Corinth from Ephesus by the direct route (ef. I. iv. 18) ; (2) the opposite plan which is set forth in detail in I. xvi. 5-7, with reasons for the determination not to come immediately, but after an interval by the longer route through Macedonia; (3) the later communica- tion to the Corinthians, of which there is no record, that plan No. 2 had been given up, and that he had. returned to plan No, 1 ; (4) the return to plan No. 2, which, at the time when II. i.-ix. was written, had already been prac- tically carried out. Sufficient refutation of this whole theory is the setting forth of the actual situation (cf. § 20). More than this is unnecessary in regard to Hausrath’s theory, that the lost letter sent. between 1 and 2 Cor. is to be found in 2 Cor. x.-xiii. (Der Vierkapitelbrief des Paulus an die Kor. 1870). The αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ ITaüXos, x. 1, it is claimed, shows that what follows is an appendix of Paul’s to an entirely unrelated letter, possibly a letter to the Corinthians from the Church in Ephesus, or from the Church associated with the house of Aquila in Ephesus (28). This theory rests upon the claim that, while in chaps. i.-ix. Paul speaks in an “undisturbed, most loving, and peaceful state of mind,” addressing the Corinthians only in words of appreciation, in chaps. x.-xüi., on the other hand, he defends himself and his companions against the darkest suspicions in a violently polemic manner, making against the Corinthians the most serious charges (S. 2-5). This claim is refuted by the simple restatement of the situation (§ 20). In detail, while it is to be admitted that as a matter of fact) the praise in viii. 7 is more strongly expressed than the thanksgiving to God in I. i. 4 £.,—since here, as in II. i, 24 (“ For as regards faith ye stand”), in addition to: know- ledge and speech mention is made also of faith,—yet it is to be observed that there is the same appreciation in I. xv. 1 f. as is found in the earlier chaps. of 2 Cor. Furthermore, in this same section (chaps. i.-ix.) boast is made of the zeal of Paul and Timothy for the Church, and of the love in their hearts which the Corinthians had called out, and which had been wakened into new life by the attitude of the Corinthians:toward them that, had recently come to light (II. vii. 7, 11). No mention is made, however, of the love of the Corinthians for ‚Paul... But this boast is made only in contrast to their lack of zeal and of an attitude toward the collection which corre- sponds to the love and praise of Paul. Although the apostle assures the 314 INTRODUCTION TO "THE NEW TESTAMENT readers of his love, he does it in such a way as to make clear that this love is not yet adequately requited by the readers (ef. vi. 11-13, vii. 3, xi. 11, xii. 15), and, in view of their attitude toward certain matters about which Paul was very much concerned, not deserved. | Moreover, it is not to be overlooked that this appreciation of the Corinthians occurs in that portion of the letter (chaps. viii.-ix.) which is addressed éspecially to the whole Church of Achaia (above, p. 308). Hausrath gets his very dark picture of the condition of affairs in chaps. x.-xiii. only by mixing up all of Paul’s statements, com- plaints, denials, and defences, irrespective of whether they were directed against the Church, individual members of the Church, or teachers from without, and then painting the whole with these dark colours. For example, from xii. 16-18, Hausrath infers that the Church had accused Paul and his messengers of dishonesty, deception, and fraud in the matter of the collection (S. 4, 10, 18); but it is difficult to see why the same inference 18. not: drawn froin vii. 2 (οὐδένα ἐπλεονεκτήσαμεν), and why this passage, which is so much more immediately connected with the frank discussion of the matter of the collection in chaps. vüi.-ix. than is xii. 16-18, isnot treated as a gross con- tradiction of the situation portrayed in chaps. i.-ix. In the second place, it is to be observed that xii. 18 does not deal with the collection at all, but with the first sending of Titus (viii. 6), which had nothing to do with the collec- tion (see below, ὃ 20, n. 4). Chap, xii. 16 (cf. xi. 7-12, xii. 13-15) deals with the apostle’s personal conduct on the occasion of his two former visits, and xii. 17 with all the persons who since the founding of the Church had come to Corinth as Paul’s messengers. The language of xii. 16 and the context from xi. 7 on, prove that the accusations which are met in xi. 16 originated with the followers of Peter, and that the latter were compelled to admit that he had not been any expense to the Church, but, on the contrary, had com- pletely renounced the right to be supported, which as a missionary he might have claimed. The accusation (ἀλλὰ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον), which stands in absolute contrast to the concession made in the words οὐ κατε- βάρησα ὑμᾶς in xii. 16 (ef. xi. 9; 1'Thess. ii. 6,9 ; 2 Thess. ii. 8), would be pointless, if by the very same words the claim were made that Paul had imposed upon the Corinthians the burden of collecting a sum of money, but in doing so had not acted openly, but with deceit. Grammatically and logically, the accusation can only mean that the shrewd apostle, by refusing all'compensation for his labours, which seemed generous, but really showed his lack of love for the Corinthians (xi. 11), had in another respect outwitted them, since. by this cunningly-devised means he had succeeded in making them morally more dependent upon himself. Consequently πλεονεκτεῖν is manifestly to be taken in the same sense in xii. 17, 18 (vii. 2); for although this word may have been chosen here because of Paul’s refusal to accept com- pensation, its meaning is by no means confined to fraud in money matters (cf, ii. 11; and’any lexicon). The light which this hypothesis throws. upon the obscurities of chaps. i.-ix. is’as small as the foundations upon which it stands are weak. Nor is there any hint in chaps. x.-xiii. regarding the time of Paul’s proposed visit to Corinth, to say nothing of the recalling of his original plan. If these chapters 'were written by the apostle in Ephesus before ‘he started) for’ Macedonia by way of Troas, this ‘alleged four-chapter letter'furnished the Corinthians’ no occasion whatever for the complaints PAUL AND ‘THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 31; which Paul answers in i.12-ii.2. When the latter passage was written, tha plan set forth in I. xvi. 5-7 had been practically carried out, and 11.x.-xiii. shows no hesitation as to this plan—certainly no promise to do otherwise, such as might have given the Corinthians cause for complaint. The-only strange thing is that in II. xii. 14, xii. 1, Paul makes not the slightest reference to the plan for his journey to Corinth, which is so emphatically set forth in I. xvi. 5-7. The explanation is that at the time when 11. i.-ix. was written, which is also the time when IL x.-xiii. was written, this plan had become fact, so that only references of a retrospective character, like those in II. i. 15-ii. 2, could be made to it. Further, Hausrath’s hypothesis furnishes not the slightest help in explaining the treatment.of the individual ease in Hi. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f., and the matter of the collection in chaps, viii—ix.; for in chaps. x.-xui. the matter of the collection is not. once touched upon; and where sinners are mentioned, against whom: Paul fears it will be necessary for him'to take strong measures when he comes (xii. 21-xiii. 10), there is no special reference to an individual case with which IL. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. can be connected. The reference in xii. 21—xiii. 10 is to numerous offenders, whom Paul had threatened with punishment on the occasion of his second visit (xiii. 2), which by Hausrath also is placed before 1 Cor. But if the evil-doer of I. v. 1-13 was one of these offenders, then Paul laid himself open to ridicule for speaking in I. v.1-13 with so much passion about a case with which he had long been familiar, and with which he had dealt at the time of his last visit. How much the hypothesis is worth Hausrath himself shows when: he goes on to assume that the case of incest and the matter of the collection were dealt with in a lost letter of the Church of Ephesus to the Corinthians, to which Paul attached his private communi- cation, chaps. x.-xiii. (28); for that is practically to confess that there is not a single independent word in chaps. x.—xiii. on these subjects) which could have occasioned what is said in 11. 5-11, vii. 11 ff., viii.-ix. Lisco (Entstehung des 2 Kr. 1896, according to the preface written in 1886) under- took to improve Hausrath’s hypothesis by cutting out of this four-chapter letter xii. 11-19, and inserting in its place vi. 14-vii. 1,-—a passage which has often been felt to break the connection (see below, § 20, n. 7),—putting xii. 11-19 in between vi.'13 and vii. 2, and by then assuming that i. 1-vi. 13, xii. 11-19, vii. 2 f., ix. 1-15, xiii. 11-13 constitute a second letter, chaps. vii. 4-viii. 24 a third. Several other attempts at division "similar in character have been made, which it seems superfluous to describe at length. Cf. the comprehensive diseussion by Hilgenfeld Z/WTh. xli. (1899), 5. 1-19. Tt only needs to be mentioned that Semler, who (Paraphr. ὧν Epist. ad Rom. 1769, p. 305 ff.) explained the greater part of Rom. xvi.as an appendix to’ Rom., holding that it was meant originally for the Corinthians, in his Paraphr.:Epist.. II. ad Corinth. (1776, pref. and pp. 238, 811-314, 321), suggested that 2 Cor. be divided into the following three Epistles—(1) the Epistle which Paul sent by Titus on the occasion of the latter’s second trip to Corinth, chaps. i.-viii., xiii. 11-13 ; (2) an Epistle to the Christians in Achaia, chap. ix. ; (3) an Epistle to the Corinthians which Paul wrote after he had sent Titus the second time, 1,6. after he had despatched (1), in conse- quence of new reports from Corinth of'an' unfavourable: kind, chaps. x. 1- xiii. 10, It was this evidently that led Krenkel to maintain that Paul wrote 316 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT this letter, x. 1-xiii. 10 (Semler’s third letter), in Macedonia, after Titus and his companions, who had delivered in Corinth the letter composed. of i, 1-ix. 15, xii. 11-13 (practically Semler’s first and second letters), "had returned to Paul in Macedonia with fresh and painful reports. 2. (P. 307.) Following the example of Ewald (Sendschr. des Paulus, 216) and of many others, Krenkel, with especially detailed proof (154-211, 377), has recently advocated the pldding of Paul’s second visit in Corinth in the interval between 1 and 2 Cor., making it immediately precede the alleged intervening Epistle. The main proof of this position, namely, that this visit could not have taken place before 1 Cor. was written, has already been examined (above, p. 272, n. 14); likewise (above, p. 268, n. 7) the attempt to push 1 Cor. back from the last months of Paul’s stay in Ephesus to an earlier time. Moreover, it will be shown in n. 5 that the Pentecost at which Paul was about to leave Ephesus (I. xvi. 8) belongs in the same Julian year (57) prior to the end of which 2 Cor. was written. It is possible that the departure from Ephesus was delayed, because of the delay in the return of Timothy (above, p. 269, n. 7); but it is just as likely to have been hastened because of the uprising led by Demetrius. 'Fhese possibilities do notineed to be taken into account here, so long as it is admitted that 1 Cor. was written several weeks before Pentecost.of the year (57), before the close οὗ which 2 Cor. was written (n. 5). Then in the interval between Peritecost and the end of December it would be necessary to place the following events (Krenkel, 377) :—(1) a journey by Paul through Macedonia to Corinth, and a troubled stay in the latter place; (2) a return to Ephesus instead of the projected visit to Jerusalem ; (3) the sending of Titus to Corinth with a letter of Paul’s now lost, wherein announcement was made of his immediate coming for a third visit; (4) Paul’s journey from Ephesus by way of Troas to Macedonia, where he meets Titus, and shortly afterwards writes 2 Cor. i.- ix., xiii. 11-13. Without taking into account at all the very clear connection between 1 Cor. xvi. and 2 Cor. i., which does not permit the intervention of a letter nor of a visit (§20), it must be confessed that (1) and (4) in this series give rise to the suspicion of being duplicates, due to the critic’s double vision ; that (2) is extremely improbable; finally, that. in the, ease of (3) ae alleged contents of the supposed letter do not harmonise |with 2 Cor. ii. 8. (Ρ. me ) From the fact that the “we” is retained in i.3-12 it is to’ be inferred, first of all, that Timothy shared the extreme danger which Paul encountered while fia was still in Asia. Assuming that the criticism which is answered in i. 13 was occasioned by something that was said in a previous letter, from the use of “we” it is not necessary to infer that Timothy was one of the authors of the letter; for the criticism is general, and has reference to the ambiguity of Paul’s utterances in his correspondence, while in.replying to this criticism Paul uses a present tense which indicates nothing as to. time. Since Paul was engaged in writing a letter at this very time in conjunction with Timothy, as he had frequently done before, there was no reason why at this particular point he should change to the singular. When he does so tem- porarily in this immediate context (ἐλπίζω δέ), it is apparent that in expressing this hope that there may never be any further misunderstanding between him and the Church in the future, he has in mind the misunderstanding and un- PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 317 favourable criticism of the changing plans for his journey, which he proposer to discuss at greater length in i. 15ff. Inasmuch as i. 15-ii. 11 deals with the announcement and carrying out of plans of journeys and with communications by letter in which Timothy had no part, Paul retains the singular in speaking of himself, except in i. 19-22 (cf. iii. 2), which treats of the missionary preach- ing in Achaia. In i, 23 with ἐγὼ öe—which stands in contrast to the preced- ing jpeis—Paul returns to the discussion of personal matters already begun. This singular is retained even in ii. 12 f., although, according to i. 8, Timothy was with Paul either before or at the time of his departure from Ephesus, and so certainly at the time of his sojourn in Troas ; changing again to the plural in ii, 14f., which, in spite of the general character of the statements, is to be connected with the sojourn in Troas. However, in a very skilful way, the apostle indicates that the responsibility for the sudden departure from Troas rests not upon Timothy, whose movements are dependent upon his own, but upon himself and his disturbed state of mind. With the exception of a single ἐλπίζω dein v.11 (cf. i. 13, xiii. 6), the plural is retained up to vii. 2, de. up to the point where Paul returns again to the matters already touched upon in ii. 5-11, in which Timothy had no direct part (vii. 3-16). Since Timothy accompanied Paul to Macedonia, and was with him when Titus met him there, and naturally took a lively interest in the news which Titus brought, so occasionally here also we find the “ we” (vii. 5-7, 13). Once there is a sudden change to “we” in a context where “I” predominates (vii. 14). First of all, it was a comfort to Paul that the boasts which he had made to Titus about the Corinthian Church had not proved false. Since, however, he saw fit to compare the truthfulness of this praise with the truthfulness of all that he had said to the Corinthians, 1.6. of his first preaching, in which Timothy had taken part (ef. i. 19), it was natural after this reference to the first preaching of the gospel in Corinth (ἐλαλήσαμεν) to represent Timothy as sharing with him the boasting before Titus (ἡ καύχησις ἡμῶν), vil. 14 (cf. ix. 3). This, of course, was possible only if Timothy was with Paul and agreed with what he said when he talked with Titus about going to Corinth (ef. Hofmann, ii. 3.196). In chaps. viii.-ix. the “ we” predominates, although occasionally the “I” occurs (viii. 8, 10). The frequent interchange of the pronouns in ix. 3-5 affords no reason for excluding Timothy from a single “we.” In chaps. x.-xiii. also the substitution of an occasional “ we” for the predominating “1” is not without significance. By x. 11a, xi. 21a, we are reminded that this discussion of the personal relation of Paul to the Church and his opponents is nevertheless part of a letter of which Timothy is one of the authors; by x. 12-16 it is suggested that Timothy is one of Paul’s mis- sionary helpers, well known to the Corinthians, and will continue to be such. From x. 2b-v. 7b, xi. 12, we learn that the criticisms against which he found it necessary to defend himself were also to some extent urged against his helpers; x. 6, 115, xiii. 4-9, show that Timothy was to accompany Paul to Corinth in the near future. This is indicated also by viii. 19, where the individual whom the Macedonian Churches had chosen to accompany Paul on his journey to Corinth and thence to Jerusalem is called συνέκδημος ἡμῶν not pod. Moreover, in some cases it is not impossible that what Paul says of him- self and Timothy by the use of this plural may be applicable also to one or more of his other helpers. It is possible, e.y., that Aristarchus accompanied 318 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT Paul and Timothy on the journey from Ephesus to Troas and Macedonia (see n. 6). 4. (P. 309.) Since Troas is in the province of Asia, and since, moreover, Paul never uses ᾿Ασία except to designate the entire province (above, p. 186 f.), there is no contradiction as to locality between ii. 12 and 1. 8. But it neces- sarily follows from ἐλθὼν δὲ eis τὴν Τρῳάδα that in i. 8 it is not Troas that is meant, but either Ephesus or some point between Ephesus and Troas. \The reference in i. 8 is certainly not to the event hinted at in 1 Cor. xv. 32; for at the time when 1 Cor. was written this was so well known to the readers, that Paul was able to call ib to mind by a single word which to us is obscure. It must have been something that happened earlier. In the present case, however, when 2 Cor. was written—and this was certainly some months after the event to which he refers, as is evident from the’ connection between i. 8-11 and i. 3-7—Paul was still actuated by feelings of grateful joy that he had been delivered out of extreme danger. Even though the Corin: thians may in some way have become acquainted with the facts in the case, or might learn the same from the person who brought 2 Cor., Paul never- theless felt constrained himself to explain to them at the very outset the terribleness of the danger to which he had been exposed. Clearly the event must have taken place sometime between 1 and 2 Cor. It is not un- natural to assume that the event in question is that described in Acts xix. 93-41. _Hofmann’s objection (ii. 3. 11), namely, that, according to Acts xix. 22, Timothy had left Ephesus several months before Paul, and so could not have been with Paul at the time of Acts xix. 23 ff., as is presupposed in 2 Cor. i. 8, is not decisive against this position. The account in Acts is not complete at this point ; there is no record of the return of Timothy to Paul while he was still in Asia, which we infer from 2 Cor. i. 8, and we are by no means sure whether this return took place at the time indicated by Acts xx. 1, or in the interval suggested by Acts xix. 22b. It is, however, impossible to connect 2 Cor. i. 8 with Acts xix. 23 ff., for the reason that in the latter account there is nothing to indicate that Paul’s life was in serious danger. From the danger immediately threatening he escaped (xix. 30). The favour of the Asiarchs (xix. 31) would have protected him in a suit at law, such as the town-clerk (γραμματεύς, ver. 35) had in mind (xix. 38). But it did not come to this. Paul was able to depart unmolested (xx. 1). . Nor would the apostle have regarded as especially terrible a death brought upon him because of his effective preaching of the gospel in Ephesus ; although, as a matter of fact, this could hardly have been the outcome of such a trial as that hinted at (cf. Phil. i, 20-23, ii. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 6-8; Acts xx. 22-24). As Hofmann suggests, it is more likely to have been the danger of drowning, possibly during a stormy voyage from Ephesus to Troas (2 Cor. xi. 25). But if Paul had left land behind, he could hardly have used the expression ev τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ. Or he may have fallen into the hands of robbers, and have been saved from ἃ horrible death only through unexpected aid (2 Cor. xi. 26). 5. (P. 310.) In 2 Cor. viii. 10, Paul writes that the Corinthians had begun their collection in the previous year (ἀπὸ πέρυσι), and in ix. 2 he says that recently he had boasted to the Macedonians that Achaia had been prepared in regard to this matter ever since the preceding year. Now manifestly the reference here cannot be to two entirely different facts, because the same ex- PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 319 pression is used in both instances to indicate the time (ἀπὸ epve.),and there is nothing in ix. 2 which suggests that Paul had made a mistake in thus boasting about the Corinthians. Since it was this boasting which, according to ix. 2, incited the Macedonians themselves to take part in the collection (cf. viii. 1-5), the apostle may have made it before Titus’ arrival, _ But this was the very time when Paul was least likely to be optimistic about conditions in Corinth (ii. 13, vii. 5). He had not boasted that the collection in Corinth was)all ready, but simply that the Churches in Greece, unlike those in Macedonia, where no preparations for a collection whatever had been made, were in a position to senda collection to Jerusalem, and that these preparations to take the collec- tion had been begun by them in the preceding year. This does not imply that they had not progressed in the collection since that time, nor that they had now completed it. The question naturally arises as to the method by which the year is here reckoned. Was it after the ecclesiastical calendar of the Jews, according to which the year begins with the first.of Nisan, or the spring equinox (Hofmann, ii. 3. 211), or the Macedonian calendar (Wieseler, Chronol. 364), in which the year begins with the autumn equinox, and corre-| sponds to the Jewish civil calendar, or the Athenian, which corresponds to the Olympian reckoning, and in which the year begins with the summer solstice (Oredner, Hinl. i. 371f.)% Τῦ is difficult to understand why use has never been made of other calendars, eg. the political year of the Romans, which began with the first of January, This would have been especially appropriate in this letter, since Corinth, the city to which it was to be sent, was a Roman colony, founded by Julius Cesar; and very possibly the, letter itself was written in Philippi, another Roman colony. but just because the Churches here in question were scattered and made up of different nationalities, and therefore were without any uniform calendar, it is not likely that Paul in writing ἀπὸ πέρυσι silently took for granted one of several possible ways of reckoning the year. Quite apart from this, however, it would have been very unnatural for Paul to say in this connection simply that the event in question took place before the beginning of the lastnew year. InJanuary or February we never speak of the last Christmas as that of the preceding year, nor of the vintage gathered in October preceding as that of last year. We use the expressions, “in the preceding year,” “ last year,” ete., only when the larger part of twelve months has elapsed since the event to which reference 15 made, Neither, on the other hand, do we employ these expressions when considerably more than a year has elapsed. So the only conclusion to be drawn from 2 Cor. viii. 10, ix. 2, is that about a year had elapsed between the beginning of the collection in Achaia and the composition of 2, Cor. A period of from three to six months is just as much excluded by the expres- sion as a period of eighteen or more months. Now, from 1 Cor, xvi. 1 (above, Ῥ. 260) we know that this matter had been touched upon. in a letter from the Corinthians to which 1, Cor. is the answer. It is probable that) prior to his departure from Ephesus, Stephanas (i. 16. 15f., cf. Hofmann, ad, loc.) had been earnestly engaged in this work. Since, however, the Churches in Greece, unlike those in Macedonia, had been stirred up to this service by Paul himself (II, viii. 3-5), at the very latest this earnest request of the apostle’s must have been made in the letter of Paul’s, now lost (I. v. 9), which preceded the letter from the Church. Now, if 1 Cor. was written near the Baster 320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT festival (above, p. 258), then the collection in Corinth must have beex begun at the very latest in February of that same year, possibly several months earlier. On the other hand, from Acts xx. 3-6 (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 6, παραχεὶμάσω) we ascertain that Paul spent the three months that preceded the opening of navigation in the year 58, roughly from the 10th of December 57 to the 10th of March 58, in Greece, and naturally part of it in Corinth, Hence 2 Cor. must have been written before the end of the year 57. Not very much of this year could have remained. For, while Paul sends Titus and two other Christians on ahead, he does not expect them to return, but treats them simply as his messengers, whom he will follow shortly (II. ix. 5, x. 6, xii. 14, xii. 1). If, then, 2 Cor. was written somewhere about November 57, the Passover near which 1 Cor. was written must have been that of 57; for if we assume that it was the Passover of 56, then between 1 and 2 Cor. there would be an interval of nineteen months (April 56 to November 57), and between the beginning of the collection (which in this case would be at the latest February 56) and 2 Cor. an interval of at least twenty-one months, which disagrees entirely with II. viii. 10, ix. 2. 6. (P. 310.) That the facts spoken of in viii.! 1-5, the παρακαλέσαι Τίτον (viii. 6, ef. ix. 5), which grew out of the same, and the τὴν παράκλησιν ἐδέξατο (viii. 17) belong in the very recent past, is proved: (1) by the fact that Titus could not possibly have returned to Paul until after the events described in vii. 6-16 ; (2) just as certainly by the entire context, viii. 6-ix. 5, where, as is usual in epistolary style, the aorists ἐξῆλθεν (vill. 17), συνεπέμψαμεν (vill. 18, 22), ἔπεμψα (ix. 3) indicate action contemporaneous with the sending of the letter. Of Titus’ companions on his second journey to Corinth, only the person first described (viii. 18-21) is expressly said to have been chosen by the Macedonian Churches to accompany Paul and Timothy on their journey to Jerusalem with the collection. The tradition which identifies this person with Luke is due to some scholar’s interpretation of viii. 18. Luke was nota Macedonian. It is more likely to have been Aristarchus (Hofmann, ad loc.), who was a Thessalonian (Acts xx. 4, see above, pp. 209f., n. 2, 212 f., n. 6), who had been with Paul for some time (Acts xix. 29, συνεκδήμους =2 Vor. viii. 19), and who therefore had had opportunity to win commendation in a number of Churches through the part which he took in the missionary work (2 Cor. viii. 18). As a matter of fact, Aristarchus did go with Paul to Jerusalem, and accompanied him also to Rome (Acts xx. 4, xxvii. 2). Or it might have been Sopatros or Sosipatros of Bercea, who a little later was with Paul in Corinth, and accompanied him also to Jerusalem (above, p. 209). "The second anony- mous companion of Titus (viii. 22) is included with the first among the ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν in viii. 23, and therefore, like him, must have been the representative of a Church or of a group of Churches. Only he was not from Macedonia, and he had no connection with the matter of the collection ; for in that case there is no reason why he should not be mentioned at once in viii. 18 along with Titus’ other companion, since all that is said in viii. 18-22 would then apply equally to him. When we remember that it was Paul’s plan on this journey, which as originally projeeted was to lead him through Macedonia to Corinth, and from Corinth to Palestine (Acts xix. 21, xx. 3), to take with him representatives also of other Churches which have no share in PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 22: this collection (above, p. 209), we find ourselves shut up to a choice between Gaius of Derbe and one of the two men from Asia, Tychieus or Trophimus (Acts xx. 4, xxi. 29, above, p. 209, n. 2). These, then, are the “ brethren ” with whom, together with Timothy, after the return of the latter from Corinth, Paul planned at the time when he wrote 1 Cor. xvi. 11 to start on his journey to Macedonia, Greece, and thence to Jerusalem (above, p. 269 f., n. 8). § 20. OCCASION, PURPOSE, AND EFFECT OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Answer to the much mooted question as to what took place between the two extant letters to the Corinthians and as to what in general are the historical presuppositions of 2 Cor., must be sought mainly from the first section of the letter (chaps. i.—vu.), which is retrospective, particularly from what is said between the first and second of the three historical notices (1. 12—11. 11) that form the frame- work of the first division of the Epistle, together with what follows the third of these notices (vii. 5-16); since what is said between the second and third of these re- marks (ii. 14-vii. 1 or vil. 4) is of a more general character, and much less closely connected with the his- torical notices that precede and follow (n. 1). On the other hand, what is said between the notice of the dangers that threatened Paul’s life at or shortly after his departure from Ephesus (1. 8-11, above, p. 318, n. 4) and the notice of his journey through Troas (ii. 12 f.), is evidently in- serted at this point because it relates mainly to this particular journey from Ephesus to Macedonia by way of Troas, and to events closely associated with the same. Mention of the prayers of the Corinthians, of which he feels sure he shall have the benefit in all future dangers, such as those he had encountered in Asia (i. 11), gives him opportunity to call his conscience to witness that he had acted always, particularly in his relation to the Corinthians, simply and sincerely, not being governed by a spirit of worldly cunning, but acting under the guidance of the grace of God (ver. 12, n. 2). That the criticisms VOL. I. 21 322 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which Paul here answers, both that of insincerity and that of acting_in an_unsanctified and wilful manner, were actually current in Corinth, and had been made to the apostle himself by the Church, either through Titus or in a communication which Titus brought, is clear from the apologetic explanation beginning at this point. From the sentence, “We write nothing but what ye read or indeed understand ” (ver. 13), we infer that Paul had been criticised for having written something in his letters or in one of them which afterwards he wanted them to under- stand in a sense opposed to the language, and impossible for any ordinary reader to infer. We are reminded at once of the misinterpretation of a passage in his first letter (now lost) which Paul corrects in 1 Cor. v. 9-11 (above, p. 261). That this is the case he had in mind is rendered all the more certain, by the fact that the language in which Paul corrects the misinterpretation in 1 Cor. agrees exactly with the language of the criticism here presupposed. In making this correction, he does not say, “When I wrote the passage I meant it to be taken as now explained, not as you understood it,” but very pointedly, “This and nothing else is what I wrote to you”; so that it was very natural for the Corinthians, when they looked at the earlier communication again, and found language which really admitted the construction which Paul declared to be foolish and unfair, to retort, “Tn his letters Paul writes what his readers cannot find in them nor read out of them.” So Paul gets back his own criticism of their lack of εἰλικρίνεια (1 Cor. v. 8, above, p. 276), though, as the tone of his reply indicates, in a manner entirely polite, perhaps even deferential, designed less to criticise Paul than to justify themselves for having formerly misunderstood him. One misunderstanding was now cleared up. And with the expression of the hope that hereafter so long as he lives the Church will understand him, and understand PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 323 him fully, he passes to the discussion of a second point with regard to which there was disagreement between himself and the Church. This disagreement concerned the journey to Corinth, which had been announced long before, and which was now being carried out in a way different from that which he had originally intended and announced. When, some time previously,—just how long is not indicated,—Paul had intended, and, as the context shows, promised the readers to come to Corinth sooner than he was now actually doing, or to come to Corinth before he went to Macedonia (n. 2), whither he had now gone without having come to Corinth at all (cf. 1. 23), he made the promise in the confidence that the Corinthians would understand and appreciate his reasons. He meant then to arrange his plans so as to go directly from Ephesus to Corinth and from Corinth to Macedonia, whence he planned to return to Corinth and thence to journey to Jerusalem. His thoughtful intention was by paying them two visits to give the Corinthians not only a single, but a twofold proof of his love; for such, in any case, his visit was to be regarded. Now, in view of the criticism that in making his original plan, which was never carried out, and informing his readers of it, Paul had acted with fickleness (i. 17a), it must be assumed that it had become quite clear to the Corinthians, either from Paul’s evident intentions inferred from something he had said or done, that this plan had been given up, and, over and above this, the solemn assurance of 1. 23-11. 2 makes it clear beyond all question that in its last analysis the dissatisfaction of the Church was caused by Paul’s continued absence from Corinth—in other words, by the fact that he had not carried out his original plan, but had gone first to Macedonia, and kept putting off his arrival in Corinth by the slowness of his movements. In reply, Paul assures them that this failure to come to them, which they thought showed a lack of love on his. part, 324 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT was due only to his desire to spare them. With reference to the original plan, the carrying out of which would have met their wishes, the only criticism they make is that it was not well considered. If Paul were con- scientious, they thought, he ought not to have made such a plan unless he were sure he could carry it out; and he ought not to have aroused their expectations by announcing it unless he were resolved to come at any cost. Possibly, in connection with this charge of fickle- ness in the matter of his earlier plan, the criticism was also made, that in changing his plans he was influenced by purely worldly designs and by motives of self-interest. If, as seems probable from i. 12, this was actually the case, the apostle gives the criticism an unexpected turn, when he asks whether generally, in making plans, he is accustomed to act in so worldly a manner as to make his yes and no in such matters absolute (n. 2). It is not the making and subsequent alteration of his plans which, in his judgment, would be a βουλεύεσθαι κατὰ σάρκα, but the subsequent demand of the Corinthians that a promise impossible of fulfilment be considered irrevocable, and that a course decided upon be persisted in at all hazards. In answer to the criticism that his promises were untrust- worthy and ambiguous, he avers that what he and his helpers had said to the Corinthians was by no means both yes and no, but just as simple and straightforward as their preaching of Christ in Corinth had been; and as far as any appearance of hesitancy on his part, dictated by worldly or selfish motives, or any criticisms to that effect are concerned, he calls God to witness, who makes him steadfast and endows him with the Spirit as a pledge of his future perfecting and as a seal of the genuineness of his present motives. He calls upon God to witness to the truth of his assurance that it was his considerate desire to spare the Corinthians, which, up to this time, had kept him away from Corinth. Even though remembering the PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 325 pain he had suffered in connection with an earlier visit (above, p. 263f.), he felt inclined to spare himself the renewal of such sorrow ; it was, after all, the Church most of all which he would spare sorrow, because he felt it his duty to minister rather to their joy (i. 18-11. 2). It may be assumed that Paul is here answering com- plaints of the Church which had been reported to him orally by Titus, or which had been expressed in a letter from the Church to Paul brousht to him by Titus. The latter is more probable, in view of the definite form these complaints must have had, if we may judge by Paul’s reply. Their primary occasion, however, could not have been the journey of Paul through Troas to Macedonia. For Paul must have sent Titus to Corinth before this journey was begun, since at the time when he set out he was expecting to meet Titus in Troas, whither he was to come from Corinth through Macedonia. If, now, we ask how the Corinthians learned about the plan for the journey which Paul was now carrying out, and which, judging from the fact that he defends it, must have been well under way, nothing is more natural than to assume that Titus, who left Paul before he began the execution of this plan, informed the Corinthians of Paul’s purpose not to come to them directly by sea, but by the longer route through Macedonia. But if, as was cer- tainly the case, Titus was sent, and arrived later than Fortunatus, Achaicus, and Stephanas, who were the bearers of 1 Cor. (above, p. 260), he had nothing new to say to the Corinthians about Paul’s plans. For example, this same plan which he was engaged in carrying out at the time when 2 Cor. was written, Paul himself had set forth in detail in 1 Cor. xvi. 5-7. Between this com- munication by letter and the apologetic discussion of 2 Cor. 1. 15-11. 2 nothing intervened save the partial carrying out of this plan, hence nothing had occurred in this interim that could occasion the complaints about the 326 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT carelessness with which Paul made his plans, and the arbitrariness with which he changed the plans that had been already made and announced. The occasion for the complaints answered in 2 Cor. i. 15-ii. 2 must be, there- fore, in part things said in 1 Cor., in part things said before 1 Cor. was written. That this is the case is proved by a careful consideration of the manner in which Paul speaks of his journey in 1 Cor. xvi. 5-9... He does it with a detail and emphasis which is intelligible only if the readers had other expectations at the time. He does not stop with saying that he will come to Corinth after he has passed through Macedonia, but adds, “For I do pass through Macedonia.” This last phrase does not add any new thought, so that its purpose must be to strengthen the preceding statement (present διέρχομαι of a future journey, used with ἐλεύσομαι), and, by the position of the second Μακεδονίαν, to emphasise strongly that this was the route that he intended to take. Change of route involved also a change in the time of his arrival and the length of his stay in Corinth, and this contrast is expressed even more strongly, both in positive and negative form, than is that between the two possible routes. He has made up his mind not to visit them immediately (above, p. 271, n. 12), which would necessitate his coming directly by sea in- stead of through Macedonia, and that would mean only a flying visit ; whereas, according to the plan he now lays before them, while arriving considerably later, he hopes to be able to pay them a much longer visit. From the detail with which he speaks in ver. 6 and again in ver. 7 of the greater length of his visit in Corinth if the new plan is carried out, we see that he is making an effort to justify his present plan. It shall be only for their advantage that he does not now come directly by sea, but arrives considerably later, coming by the longer route through Macedonia. Therefore, at the time when 1 Cor. xvi. 5-7 was written, Paul must have been expected to arrive in PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 327 Corinth very shortly from Ephesus, directly by sea. For such an expectation only the apostle himself could have been responsible. Some time before 1 Cor. was written he must have expressed this intention, the inference being that he had done so in his earlier Epistle (1 Cor, v. 9). Paul had all the more reason for fearing that the Church, or those members of it who held an immediate visit to be desirable, would be dissatisfied with the new plan which he now laid before them, involving as it did further post- ponement of his visit ; since there were some in Corinth who interpreted his delay heretofore as due to cowardice, and who expressed the opinion that he would never appear in Corinth again (1 Cor. iv. 18); therefore the detail with which he lays his newly-made plan before his readers, in 1 Cor. xvi. 5-9, aiming to forestall such complaints. It is now clear that the original plan, knowledge of which is presupposed in 1. xvi. 5-7, is the same as that which he defends in II. i. 15-17 against the charge of having been made without due care; and also that the new plan laid before the readers in I. xvi. 5-7 is identical with the plan that had been practically carried out at the time when 2 Cor. was written, and which is defended in II. 1. 15-11. 2 against the charge of changeableness, of selfish arbitrari- ness, and of inconsiderateness. In spite of his careful precautions, the fears which he had when writing I. xvi. 5-7 were realised. This com- munication, and his subsequent journey by way of Troas to Macedonia, had caused the dissatisfaction in Corinth which in IL. i, 12-11. 2 Paul seeks to allay. This, taken along with the fact that in spite of its general character II. i. 13 manifestly has special reference to the misunderstanding discussed earlier in I. v. 9-11, and to the conclusion which had there been reached concerning the matter (above, p. 322), proves those to be in error who assume a lost Epistle between 1 and 2 Cor., especially those who suppose that a visit took place between the writing of these two letters 323 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (above, § 19,n. 1, 2, p. 312f.). The principal cause for the origin of the first of these hypotheses is the observation that the news from Corinth, which is presupposed in II. i.-vii., was not brought by Timothy,—although from what is said in 1. iv. 17, xvi. 10 ἢ, we should expect Timothy to report to Paul the effect of 1 Cor.,—but by Titus, of whom no mention is made in 1 Cor. If, now, as from II. 1. 8 appears to be the case, Timothy was with Paul when he started on his journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, and if, as indicated by IL vu. 14, he was also with Paul at the time when Titus was sent to Corinth (see above, p. 316f., n. 3), it seems as if a situation had been created by the sending and the return of Titus entirely different from that produced by 1 Cor., which ended with the return of Timothy to Paul. Inasmuch, now, as mention is made in II. 1. 3, 9, vii. 8+12 of a letter of Paul’s which had been received in Corinth shortly before, the effect of which is reported to Paul by Titus, it was very natural to assume that this letter was not our 1 Cor., but a later Epistle of Paul’s which Titus had taken with him the first time he went to Corinth. This assumption seems all the more necessary, according as it is felt that what is said in II. ii. 3, 9, vil. 8-12, cannot be made to apply to 1 Cor. without doing considerable violence to the language. In addition to what has been said above in proof of the inseparable connection between 1 and 2 Cor., the following is to be remarked: From the fact that Timothy returned to Paul before the latter’s departure from Ephesus, it does ποῦ follow that the expectations expressed in I. xvi. 10 ἢ were all realised. Indeed, the expectation that Timothy will arrive in Corinth after the arrival of 1 Cor. is not uncon- ditionally expressed (n. 8); so that it is not unlikely, either that Timothy did not reach Corinth:at all, but for some reason unknown to us had occasion to return to Paul in Ephesus directly from Macedonia ; or that, while he did go to Corinth, he arrived and departed again before PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 4329 1 Cor. reached its destination. In either case, Timothy could not have brought Paul the news about the effeet of 1 Cor., which Paul hoped he would bring. It was for this reason, then, that immediately after Timothy’s return he despatched Titus, in company with another Christian, to Corinth, in order that they might bring the news concern- ing the effect of 1 Cor. which he awaited with so much anxiety. That this was the purpose for which Titus was sent we are justified in assuming, since nothing is said of any other object, and since this assumption is in entire harmony with all the hints concerning the result of the journey (n. 4). The whole question turns upon a letter of Paul’s con- cerning the effect of which upon the Church he was so anxious before Titus’ arrival, that for the time being he regretted having written it (vii. 8). In these cir- cumstances, it is not surprising that in Troas he was so disturbed, when Titus failed to meet him there according to expectations (ii. 13), as to be practically unable to preach. That the letter in question is our 1 Cor. may seem doubtful if ii. 3 be interpreted to mean that Paul had actually written in that letter what is expressed in the verses just preceding, namely, his determination not to come at once to Corinth as he was expected to do, but to remain away temporarily in order not to be in Corinth a second time in sorrow (i. 23-11. 2). For although the plan he was now engaged in carrying out had been set forth in I. xvi. 5-7, in contrast to the earlier plan which would have brought him to Corinth by the direct route and at once, in that presentation the essential point of the statement in 2 Cor. expressly referred to by τοῦτο αὐτό is lacking, namely, the motive here indicated for the change in the plan of the journey (i. 23-11: 2). There is, however, nothing to prevent us from translating: “And I wrote for this very purpose, that when I come, | may not have sorrow from those who ought to give me joy; (and I 330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT wrote) with confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy ot youall” (n. 5). What has just been declared to have been his reason and purpose in remaining away from Corinth, or for changing the plan of his journey, is here assigned as the reason and purpose for his writing. Instead of making his visit at once according to the announcement, he had sent the long letter, at the close of which he had carefully explained that he was not coming to Corinth at once, and why he had made the change. The opinion that what Paul says in ii. 4 about his state of mind when the letter in question was written, does not harmonise with the quiet tone of 1 Cor., is not made more intelligible by being repeated. With what tremendous wrath against the alien destroyers of the Church (I. i. 16 ff., ix. 1, xvi. 22), against the scandalous members of the same (v. 1-5), against the Church itself which was so unruly and at the same time so self-conscious, and against the noisy brawlers (iv. 7, 18-21, v. 2, vil. 1 ἢ, xi. 16, xiv. 37f.), does every line of the Epistle quiver! The tone of the eloquent description in iv. 8-13 and of the apostle’s half ironical self-judgment in vi. 25, 40 is that of bitterest agony. It required effort on the apostle’s part to reply as calmly as he did to the arrogant communication which the Church had sent to him (above, pp. 277, 282). But that is the very situation which brings tears to the eyes of a man of deep feeling. Moreover, in entire keeping with 1 Cor. is the necessity which he now feels of protesting that in the communication in question he had no deliberate intention of causing the Church pain (IL. ii. 4, ef. vii. 8-11). So far as we are able to judge from letters which are extant, there is no other Church whose open sores are so ruthlessly exposed as those of the Corinthians (I. ii. 3, iv. 6-10, v. Lf, vi. 1-10, 18-20, viii. 10-12, x. 20-22, xi. 17-30). When, after a deeply humiliating discussion, he says that he did not write thus in order to shame the Corinthians (iv. 14), manifestly the PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 331 effect is not less painful than in another passage, where he says in so many words that his intention was to shame them (vi. 5). The same is true also of the passage where he introduces the discussion of all sorts of disorders and of wilful violations of the custom of the Church, by the commendatory remark that they follow his instructions (xi. 2). There is not to be found throughout this entire long letter a single real commendation of any feature of the moral or religious life of the Church, and Paul was not usually sparing of such commendations. The only thing that he praises is what God has done for them (1. 2, 9, 26, 11. 6-10, 16, iv. 15, vi. 11, 20, xv. 1f.) and bestowed upon them in the way of spiritual gifts (1. 4-7) (above, pp. 279, 297f.,n. 5). In referring to a letter of this kind, he had just as much occasion to protest that he had not written it with any intention of causing the Corin- thians pain, though it actually had this effect, as he had the right to en that they ought rather to regard it as a special token of his love (II. ii. 4, ef. vii, 8-11). Incidentally we learn that disparaging remarks had been made in Corinth to the effect that Paul praised himself (Il. ui. 1, v. 12, x. 12, ef. iv. 5) and defended himself when there was no sufficient occasion for it (xi. 19). For such strictures as these ample occasion was fur- nished by 1 Cor. Quite in the manner of an accused person he had questioned the competency of the tribunal before which it seemed he was charged (I. iv. 1-5). In another passage, of which there are reflections in II. ii. 1-3 (I. ix. 1-3), he had made a very concise defence before his accusers and judges. He had justified at length the way in which he had preached at Corinth, I. i. 18- 111. 2, and defended single points in his judgments which had been questioned, e.g. what he had said about the happiness of the unmarried state, I. vii. (see above, Ρ. 276f.). He had pictured eloquently the self-sacrifice which his calling involved, I. iv. 9-13, xv. 32. Again 332 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT and again he had commended his example to the Church, I. iv. 16£., viii. 13, ix. 26f, x. 33, xi 1. Not ‘only had he spoken emphatically of the validity of his apostleship (I. i. 1,ix. 1), and of his relation to the Church as its sole founder (iii. 6, 10, iv. 15), but he also claimed to have fulfilled his office in Corinth in a manner both skilful and faithful (1. 10, iv. 4). What sort of reward and praise he hoped one day to receive from the just Judge (iii. 8, 13, iv. 5, ix. 18) he left them to infer from his proud assertion, that he laboured more abundantly than all the other apostles (xv. 10). But the serious demands which he made had also tested severely the obedience of the Church (Il. ii. 9), especially what he had said in connection with the case. of incest (I. v. 1-13). Assuming that practically all that happened between the two letters was the sending of Titus, and his return with news from Corinth, this must be the case referred to in II. ii. 5-11, viiell Ὁ There is no reason why we should be surprised at the position which Paul now takes, nor is there any justification for replacing the data supplied by existing sources for the explanation of these passages by conjectures which cannot be proved. If the view of Paul’s original demand set forth ahove (p. 278) be correct, it is quite in keeping with the prin- ciple of Church discipline clearly stated in IL x. 6. In the first place, Paul must have waited for the Church to concur in his previous judgment; for only after this agreement had been declared could the judgment be executed by the joint action of Paul and the Church in the manner that Paul had proposed in 1 Cor. But, as a matter of fact, as appears from II. ἢ. 6-11, the Church had referred the question back to Paul for his further decision. And, indeed, the judgments of Paul in’ 2 Cor. sound so much like answers to’ definite communications and questions, that the conjecture forced upon us earlier by 1. 8-ii. 4 is fully confirmed, namely, PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 333 that the Corinthians had recently communicated with Paul, not only orally through Titus, but also in a letter which Titus brought to Paul. Paul’s verdict, whieh begins with the words, “Sufficient for this man is the punishment decreed by the majority” (ii. 6, n. 6), pre- supposes (1) that the offender had been definitely punished either by word or by deed, and that Paul had been informed of the fact; (2) that this punishment had been decreed not unanimously, but only by the decision of the majority ; (3) that the Church had submitted to Paul for his decision the question whether this punishment was sufficient. This in turn presupposes (4) that the opinion had been expressed in Corinth that the punishment was by no means sufficient, or that Paul would not be satisfied with it, or both. Paul at once declares the punishment to be sufficient, not, however, in the sense that the matter is thereby settled, but with the added remark that the punishment is enough to enable the Church now to show mercy to the evil-doer and uphold him by their encouragement, lest he be entirely overcome by his great sorrow. For the Church to forgive him, Paul says, 1s not only permissible, but, in view of the harm which may thereby be avoided, it becomes their duty. There seems, therefore, to be sufficient reason for the apostle’s request that it be formally decided to show love to the offender (ver. 8). But by the τουναντίον μᾶλλον this verdict of Paul is set in strong contrast to another judgment, which went to the opposite extreme. Instead of increasing the sentence already passed, they are to lighten the same by formal decree, or otherwise to render it less severe. Inasmuch as the judgment expressed at the outset is opposed to the opinion that the punishment already decreed is by no means suflieient, the τουναντίον μᾶλλον renders it quite certain that this other view had been submitted to the apostle by the Church for his decision. This must have been the opinion of the minority, 334 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT since the punishment actually decreed represented the mind of the majority. We learn at the same time that the Church was uncertain whether Paul in turn would be satisfied with what had been done; for he finds it neces- sary expressly to assure the Church that he concurs in the act of forgiveness decided upon (ver. 10). What this punishment was which had been decided upon by the majority, naturally we are not able to determine with entire certainty. Manifestly it was not the punishment suggested by Paul in I. v. 3-5; since (1) the infliction of this punishment required Paul’s co-opera- tion in a manner which necessitated prearrangement, and since (2) this punishment involved the death of the offender ; so that there could have been no question about a subsequent increase of penalty, or about Paul’s satisfac- tion with what had been done. More likely it was an ordinary case of discipline according to the rules laid down in I. v. 11; 2 Thess. i. 14 The severer penalty demanded by the minority, and which the Church thought that Paul also might insist upon, can hardly have been any other than that which Paul proposed in I. v. 3-5. Consequently in the communication, to which Paul replies in II. ii. 6-11, the Church must have asked him whether, under the altered conditions, he still held to his original judgment. Paul reverses his decision, and earnestly requests that the punishment under which the offender is at present suffering be lessened by formal decree, lest he completely yield to despair. He was able to do this without prejudice to the seriousness of the affair, or to his own personal dignity. How strongly he felt himself under obligation to take this position, is indicated by ii 11. He knows that nothing would please Satan more than to see him, influenced by the motive of worldly consistency which he had condemned in i. 17, stand by his original judgment and proposal. All such suggestions he rejects as cunning temptations of Satan to keep him PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 335 from permitting clemency. The primary purpose of his original judgment had been to save the soul of the offender (I. v. 5). That purpose was now being accom- plished without resort to the extreme measures he had at first proposed; the offender was deeply penitent. It seems also that this person had done all in his power to prove to the Church that he regretted his action, and, in so far as this was possible, to atone for the wrong which he had done to his father against whom primarily the sin had been committed (n. 6). But if the severe disciplinary measures adopted by the Church were en- forced longer, or if they were increased, there was, Paul now thought in the light of the news that had come to him, extreme danger that the purpose of reforming the offender and of saving his soul would be defeated alto- gether. For if this person were wholly overcome by his sorrow, he would fall into the hands of Satan, who, by the suggestion that Paul ought persistently to stand by his first decision, was endeavouring to lead even the apostle astray. Paul gives up the means which he had previously suggested, in order to secure the end which it was alto- | gether desirable to accomplish. But more than this, what he had designed by his earlier proposition to accomplish in the Church was in large part accomplished, and promised soon to be entirely realised. The only intention which can be directly in- ferred from I. v. 1-13 is the intention to move the Church to a more modest judgment of itself and a more rigorous disciplining of its sinful members. When, now, in II. li. 9, vil. 12, Paul says that he wrote as he did in order to prove whether the Church was ready to render entire obedience, and to give it an opportunity to show an earnest desire to please its founder, the statement can only be regarded as an expression of his original intention in the light of the accomplished result. From the stirring description of the effect of the earlier letter, vii. 7-12, 336 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which clearly has its climax in the reference to the case discussed earlier in i1. 5-11, we learn that now the Church was deeply impressed with the magnitude of the offence committed against Paul and in the sight of God, and that it was not only exceedingly anxious to conciliate the apostle, but had also visited its displeasure and punishment upon the offender (vii. 11, n. 6). While as yet the majority had not agreed to Paul’s earlier proposal, they had never- theless, in reporting the disciplinary measures proposed, and in stating the manner in which the entire action had been taken, practically resubmitted the whole case to him for his opinion and decision (11. 6-8). Finally, they had endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to justify themselves in this matter. Perhaps in his joy at what had been accom- plished, Paul expresses himself a little extravagantly when he writes, “ In every way ye have shown yourselves to be pure in this matter” (vii. 11, where the eivaı is not to be overlooked). Although this is not equivalent to the statement that the Church had proved itself to be quite without fault, it does show that Paul had been convinced by the Church’s explanation (droAoyia)—for mere oral com- munication through Titus could hardly be so designated— that the situation was not just what he supposed it was when he wrote I. v. 1. Essentially the case seems to have been as Paul had heard it, and possibly there were other members of the Church who knew of it besides those who had given the information to Paul. But the matter was not so generally known in the Church as Paul had supposed, and the charge that the Church as a body had shown more than heathen indifference with regard to a case of flagrant immorality proved to be ungrounded. No one could rejoice that it was so more than Paul, and he would not have been the large-hearted man and the sincere Christian that he was, had he stood stubbornly by his first judgment and proposal. It would be inconsistent with his dignity and our own to defend him, otherwise PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 437 than by a statement of the facts, against the unworthy charge of endeavouring to cover up by false diplomacy an alleged defeat which he is supposed to have suffered, either by the failure of the miraculous punishment which he had predicted, or by the defiant opposition of the Church. The greater his anxiety before the arrival of Titus lest the effect of 1 Cor. should be the entire aliena- tion of the Church, the more easily we are able to understand the exuberant joy caused by Titus’ tidings. This does not, however, prevent him, in the first division of the letter, which concludes with an extravagant ex- pression of this joy, from taking very seriously and answering very decidedly the complaints of the Church that had reached him about the ambiguity of his letters (i. 13), the untrustworthiness of his decisions, and the lack of love which they thought was evidenced, both by the change in the plan of his journey, and by the tone of his earlier letter (i. 15-11. 5, ef. vi. 12, vii. 3). Rejoicing that his greatest anxiety is now finally relieved, Paul looks forward to the future with confidence in the Church (vii. 16). He hopes for a complete restoration of under- standing and confidence (i. 18). This involves. the ad- mission that this hope was yet far from being realised. He must still ask the Corinthians not to close their hearts to him (vi. 13), and to restore to him the place in their midst which belonged to him (vii. 2). Between these two requests stands the exhortation suggested in vi. 1 and introduced directly in vi. 11, that they avoid alto- gether dangerous associations with the immoral practices of their heathen neighbours, especially with idolatry, con- fident that their Father will compensate them richly for all the sacrifices which they make for His sake, and that they endeavour also to live in holiness (vi. 14-vii. 1, n. 7). Just as these exhortations are made in view of the special case of heathen immorality, with regard to which Paul's VOL. J 22 338 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT mind had been set at rest by the news brought by Titus and by the communication which the Church sent by him, so it is certain that the happy turn which this matter had taken was the prineipal reason why Paul was so joyful. He is able now again with joyful confidence, with perfect frankness, and with a heart full of love and with sympathy for the entire Church, to exhort them and to make re- quests of them. And there are still many things with reference to which there is need for request and ex- hortation. This was the case with regard to the matter of the collection, to which the second division of the letter is devoted (chaps. vui.—ix.). The fact that we do not find here the same mingling of strong expressions of joy and of endeavours to secure beforehand entire understanding between himself and his readers that characterises chaps. i.—vil., is explained, partly by the different subject-matter in the two sections, partly by the circumstance that in the matter of the collection he is dealing not with the Church in Corinth alone, but also with all the Christians in Achaia (above, p. 308), who had no share in the con- flicts between the Corinthians and Paul. Still the under- lying tone is the same in this as in other parts of the letter. His generous recognition of the willingness of the Macedonians to make sacrifice, of the zeal of Titus, of the merits of those who accompanied him, as well as of the Christian virtues of the readers (vii. 7), and his mention of the praiseworthy zeal with which the Corinthians had begun the collection more than a year before (viii. 10, ix. 2), all express indirectly his displeasure at the delay and parsimony which the Corinthians had recently shown in the matter. His various exhortations, that now this matter be brought finally to a close, are pressed upon them not so much by fault-finding, as by a statement of urgent reasons. (Juite a different tone, however, pervades the third PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 339 division of the letter (chaps. x.—xiii.). Being an expression of Paul’s own personal feelings, it is distinguished from the preceding sections, which were written also in Timothy’s name, by the introductory phrase, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγώ, x. 1 (ef. xii. 13: also ἐγώ, xii. 16, in like contrast to his companions ; ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος, 1 Thess. ii. 18). He has still upon his heart a request affecting his personal relation to the Church, which, he intimates, must be expressed in a spirit of gentleness and mildness, because he is compelled continually to restrain the anger which he feels when he thinks of the followers of Peter, who are chiefly responsible for the disturbed relation between the Church and. its founder, and who continue to keep this relation disturbed (xi. 1-12, 18, above, p. 289 ff.), and of the members of the Christ party, who, assuming a superior air of neutrality, are continually criticising him, his letters, his personal appearance in Corinth, and his conflict with the foreign teachers who were his rivals (x. 7-18, above, p. 292 f.). While he everywhere distinguishes sharply between these false apostles and members of the Church, calling the former tempters and aliens (above, p. 287 f.), in the case of those who boasted that they were followers of Christ this was not possible. Therefore he blames the Church as a body for the currency in their midst of the disrespectful remarks of these people (x. 1b, 2b, 9-10, 13a, 14a, xii. 19a, xiii. 3). Particularly does he find fault with the Church for not having silenced and ejected the followers of Peter, thereby compelling him to defend his own case against these servants of Satan (xi. 11, v. 12). The request which Paul has to make of the Church is sug- gested in x. 1, but its full statement is postponed. by the interjection of his prayerful wish that he may be spared the necessity of acting with severity when he comes to them (x. 2, ef. xin. 7-9; 1 Thess. iii. 10), and of the ex- planations which follow (x. 3-6). Nor is this request stated, except in incomplete form in x. 7 (especially if 340 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT βλέπετε is an imperative), xi. 1, 16, xii. 5. But summing up the impression as to its purpose which we get from this entire section of the letter, this request may be stated somewhat as follows: ‘See to it before I come that my visit be mutually peaceful, pleasant, and profitable, by repudiating the foreign teachers, by informing the haughty members of the Christ party what is their proper place, and, under threats of the severest discipline, by setting those right who are living unchaste lives.” The tone of this part of the Epistle differs from that of chaps. i.-vii., in that Paul here openly attacks the opponents, with whom it was impossible to come to terms, reminding the Church in a connected statement of their duty with reference to such persons. This explains why his self-defence, which is continued through this section, takes on uniformly a tone of irony, which we do not discover in chaps. 1—vi. Naturally, also, in chaps. i.-vii., where, after days of anxious care, his unburdened heart first gives itself vent, there is an overflowing expression of joy, acknowledgment, and hope. On the contrary, in chaps. x.-xil., where he discusses grievances not yet adjusted, naturally a pro- minent place is given to the expression of his displeasure and anxiety, lest things should not turn out as he wished. Taken as a whole, however, the picture of the condition of the Church and of its relation to its founder which we get from the third section of the letter, is the same as that which we get from the first section. Where there was occasion for demands such as are made in vi. 14-vii. 1, there is place also for concern such as is expressed in xii. 21, and for threats such as those in xiii. 2. The complaints which Paul found it necessary to reply to in i. 12-ti. 2 (above, p. 323 ff.) were not less serious than those in x. 1f. The incidental denial in vii. 2b has the same value as the plain discussion of xii. 13-18. The demand at the same time that the Church sound the praises of their own apostle in opposition te PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 441 the followers of Peter, thereby putting a stop to their mischievous work and sparing the apostle the necessity of commending, praising, and defending himself, which recurs so frequently in xi. 4-xii. 19, is made also in v. 12 (cf. iii. 1). Only in this latter instance it is incidental, which was appropriate in view of, Paul’s purpose to discuss the matter by itself later. The hope which he expresses in 1. 180 is expressed in more general form in xiii. 6 (cf. also v. 11). His assurance to them of his love, which they had failed to appreciate, and his complaint because of their failure to reciprocate it (xi. 11, xii. 14), not only have a general resemblance in content to 1. 15, 23, i. 4, vi. 11-13, but are expressed in similar language (xii. 15, περισσοτέρως ὑμᾶς ἀγαπῶ, cf. 11. 4; ἀγαπητοί, vil. 1, xil. 19). The request of vil. 2a could stand equally well at the beginning of chap. xi. When in x. 6 expression is given to the expectation that in the near future the Church will return to a condition of entire obedience, it is practically admitted that there are yet some things lacking, of which he purposes now finally to speak. This involves no contradiction to his joyful acknowledgment that, as a result of 1 Cor., the Church had shown itself ready to submit entirely to the apostle’s judgment — particularly Ὁ with regard to the case of incest (ii. 9, vii. 12, above, p. 332 ἢ). Nor is it inconsistent in any way with Titus’ praise that the entire Church had received him, the messenger of the apostle, in a spirit of obedience, and even of fear and trembling, 1.6. as a lord and master (vii. 15, cf. Eph. vi. 5). It is only an illustration of a habit of the apostle’s, which may be observed variously both m his relation to men and to God, to begin by giving utterance to praise, thanksgiving, and acknowledg- ment for good received, and then to express the anxiety and urgency which he still felt, in request, demand, and complaint. And this was the wise way to proceed, if he wanted to put, right the affairs of a Church which a 342 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT few months before had apparently been inclined ‘te sever its relations with him and the Gentile Church which he had been instrumental in organising, but which now, confessing its manifold faults, showed itself eager to make its peace with its founder and to win back his love, which it seemed to them they had all but forfeited. We have no definite information as to the reception accorded by the Corinthians to this last message of Paul on his way from Ephesus to Corinth. This deficiency is, however, supplied by the facts. If in all essential respects this letter did not accomplish its purpose (xiii. 10), parti- cularly if the Church allowed the followers of Peter to keep on with their work, it was impossible, after what had taken place, for the life and death struggle between Paul and the Corinthian Church to be kept up longer. And if Paul had suffered defeat in this struggle, it would have led necessarily to the separation of the Corinthian Church from the Gentile Church. But no such separation took place. Some forty years later the Roman Church felt called upon, in consequence of a rebellion which, under the leadership of a few gifted younger members, had broken out in Corinth against the venerable head of the Church, to interfere in the confused affairs of its sister Church by sending it a weighty letter of exhortation. Just as there were things in the situation which reminded Clement, the author of this letter, of the existence of cliques in the apostolic age, spoken of in 1 Cor. i-iv. (Clem. 1 Cor. xlvii.), so we in turn are able to discover in the picture of the Corinthian Church, found in Clement's letter, certain characteristics of that Church to be observed from the Epistles of Paul. But between the troubles of the year 57 and those of 95-97 there is no direct connection. On the contrary, we learn that for a long time, to the joy of the entire Church, the Corinthians had been living a peaceful life, adorned with every Christian virtue (Clem. PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 343 i, 2-iii. 1), so that the revolution that had now broken out seemed a breach with the entire past history of the Church back to the days of Paul. Clement directs them to take up again Paul’s 1 Cor. (xlvii. 1), the Romans feeling sure that they are at one with the Corinthians in paying honour to Paul. This condition was the fruit of the “weighty and powerful letters” of the apostle (2 Cor, x.10). Had Paul been under necessity of securing his victory, which, accord- ing to the witness of subsequent conditions, he certainly did win, by personal encounter with his opponents and with the Church which remained rebellious in spite of his letters, it is not likely that all traces of such conflict would have so completely disappeared. We learn of a three months’ sojourn of Paul in Greece, ending in the spring of 58 (Acts xx. 2f.), but nothing is said of any battles which he had to fight during that visit (n. 8). If Romans was written during this period in Corinth, its quiet tone and the careful working out of its elaborate plan prove that for Paul this period was not one of harassing struggle, but of recuperation and of preparation for new work in the far West. 1. (P. 321.) When in ii. 14-16, in contrast to the confession of the weakness which prevented him from making use of the opportunities to preach in Troas, Paul expresses his gratitude to God that in spite of such weakness his presence and preaching has proved effective in every place,— naturally therefore in Troas also,—this statement, like i. 18-22, is intended to prevent a false generalisation and interpretation of his weakness. It also furnishes a natural transition to the detailed contrast between the genuine preachers of the gospel, of whom he is one, and the wandering Jewish Christian teachers, who peddle the word of God (ii. 17-v. 21, see above, p- 290, line 15 f.). Then from vi. 1 on the discussion returns again to affairs in Corinth (see below, n. 7). 2. (Pp. 321, 323, 324.) In i. 12 the reading ἁπλότητι is to be preferred to ἁγιότητι. πρότερον, without the article in i. 15, which was not understood by numerous copyists (for this reason omitted in N*; other MSS. read τὸ πρότερον ; K has τὸ δεύτερον), is not to be taken with ἐβουλόμην, before which it would have to stand, but with ἐλθεῖν. It thus emphasises the πρὸς ὑμᾶς, if, indeed, originally the πρότερον did not precede iva instead of standing in its present position Of the numerous interpretations of i. 17, that deserves the preference which 344 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT makes τὸ ναί and τὸ οὔ the subjects, and vai, ov the predicates, because of what follows in i. 18 (ef. Jas. v. 12). Even if there were an actual con- tradietion to the latter passage, which in a general way is comparable with it, it would be no objection to this interpretation of the present passage. Asa matter of fact, however, Paul is not disputing at all the truth of the general rule that a Christian’s Yes and No ought to be as reliable as his oath (cf. Matt. v.37). Indeed, in i. 18 f. he claims that he and his helpers follow this rule in the exercise of their calling. Only he goes on to explain that the application of this rule to plans for the future, the carrying out of which is dependent upon the providence of God, would be a carnal misuse of the same. In similar passages in his letters, indeed in passages more or less directly bear- ing upon this very question, he makes abundant use of that pious ἐάν quite in the sense of Jas. iv. 15, which excludes an unconditioned vai and οὔ from reference to actions that are to take place in the future (ef. 1 Cor. iv. 19, xvi. 4, 7; 2 Cor. ix. 4, xili. 2; 1 Tim. 111. 15; Rom. i. 10, xv. 32 [Acts xviii. 21]). 3. (P. 328.) The distinction between ἐάν I. xvi. 10 (ef. Col. iv. 10), and ὅταν I. xvi. 2, 3, 5 (ef. 11. x. 6), and ὡς ἄν I. xi. 34, is not to be overlooked. Something is to be said in favour of the view of Lightfoot (bibl. Essays, p- 277, 1893), who remarks that possibly the reason why Acts xix. 22 speaks of the sending of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia only is the fact that Luke knew that Timothy went no farther than Macedonia. On the other hand, the contention that if he did actually go to Corinth, Timothy would have to be mentioned in II. xii. 17f. is purely arbitrary ; because Timothy is one of thc writers of this letter, so that if he went to Corinth, he is included in the plural of xii. 17. To mention especially the sending of Titus and the person who accompanied him from among a number of cases of this kind was natural, because it was the latest instance (see the following note). 4. (P. 329.) ‘The reference in II. xii. 18 is not to the second sending of Titus to Corinth, on which occasion he took with him 2 Cor., although this is not precluded by the use of the aorist παρεκάλεσα (cf. viil. 6, 17, ix. 5, above, p. 320, n. 6), but to Titus’ earlier trip thither. (1) Mention is made here of only one person who accompanied Titus, whereas on the second journey he was accompanied by two other Christians (above, p. 320f.), concerning both of whom it is said, quite as much as it is said of Titus and in the same breath, that they were sent by Paul and Timothy (viii. 18 and 22, συνεπέμψαμεν ; ix. 3, ἔπεμψα τοὺς ἀδελφούς), both of whom, moreover, are called ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν (vill. 23). To regard the person whom Paul mentions second as the principal person, in comparison with whom the first. individual who is incidentally mentioned (xii. 18) can be quite ignored, is just as arbitrary as to identify τὸν ἀδελφόν, xii. 18, with τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν, viii. 22, rather than with τὸν ἀδελφόν, viii. 18, or any other Christian (cf. 1 Cor. i. 1, xvi. 12; Rom, xvi. 23). Still this is done by Krenkel (351 ff.). (2) The questions in ver. 17 and ver. 18) prove that the reference is to a sending of Timothy which had taken place in the past. Krenkel, who rightly accepts this as beyond question (353 f.), tries to use it in support of his hypothesis that II. x.—xiii. is a separate letter which was sent to Corinth later than II. i.-ix. But this is possible only if it be maintained that the brother referred to in xii, 18 is PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 345 identical with the brother mentioned in viii. 22, which has been shown to be quite impossible. In no other passage does Paul have occasion to mention the fact that Titus was accompanied by another person on his first journey to Corinth, since he does not elsewhere speak of the first sending of Timothy. The utmost that can be concluded from the fact that no mention is made of Titus’ companion in the passage where the return of the latter is spoken of (ii. 18, vii. 6-15), is that Titus started on the return journey from Corinth without his companion, The purpose of the first sending cannot be inferred from viii. 6, where the first and second sending are contrasted with each other. If by that which Titus had begun on his first visit, and was to finish on his seeond, Paul had understood the charity work of the collection (I. xvi. 3), then he must have let rn» yapiv—either with or without ταὐτὴν preceding or following—come immediately after mpoevnpéaro without καί, unless he had chosen to bring out more clearly the identity of the object in both cases by using ὃ mpoevnp£aro κτλ. Since, however, he describes the work begun and to be completed by Titus first in a very general way as a work directed to the Corinthians (eis ὑμᾶς), and then by the use of καί contrasts the work of charity in question with other things, it is clear that this is the special undertaking which at this visit Titus is to carry on and bring toa conclusion. What Titus had accomplished on his former visit, and what he is to do on this occasion, are conceived of as the beginning and the end of a comprehensive work, the general purpose of which is the restoration of normal conditions in Corinth and of normal relations between the Church and its founder. He had made a successful beginning of this on the occasion of his first visit ; now he is to fill up the measure of his service by bringing to a conclusion the troublesome matter of the collection (cf. Hofmann, ii. 3. 204f.). Both the καί which precedes τὴν x. τ. and the καί which precedes ἐπιτελέσῃ serve to contrast the purpose of the present coming with the results of the first. Against the interpretation of the second kai in the sense, “Among other things this also,” there are the following objections: (1) It does not account for the peculiar structure of the sentence. (2) Throughout the entire context as far as ix. 5 the matter of the collection is the only reason and purpose given for sending Titus at this time. On the other hand, when Paul comes to speak of the other things which he desired to see accomplished (chaps. x.-xiii.), Titus drops out altogether; since, as has been shown, xii. 18 is only a reference to the earlier sending. When so understood, καὶ τὴν x: τ. does not harmonise with ἐπιτελέσῃ. (3) Neither does it harmonise with poevnp&aro, with which also it would have to be taken according to this construction ; for in the passage where Paul speaks of the results of the first sending of Titus (vii. 6-15) there is no reference to the collection, Neither does the reference in xii, 18 touch this matter (above, p- 814f., n. 1). Paul gives no hint that Titus brought him news regarding the condition of the collection, to say nothing of a commission given to Titus regarding this matter, 5. (P. 330.) Although Heinrici still argues with great detail for the possi- bility of the view (ii. 23 f., 127 ff.) that ἔγραψα, ii. 3, 4, also ii. 9, refer to the words just written, or to all that precedes of the letter which Paul is now in process of writing, it may be considered certain that an earlier letter is meant. For the following reasons: (1) When referring to that which immediately 346 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT precedes, Paul is in the habit of using the present, γράφω, Gal. i. 20 ; 1 Cor. iv. 14, xiv. 37; 1 Tim. iii. 14 (once, 2 Cor. xiii. 10, even with reference to the entire letter here concluding); so also λέγω, Rom. vi. 19; 1 Cor. vi. 5 (with reference to vi. 4), vii. 6, 35 ; 2 Cor. vii. 3, vill. 8; Phil. iv. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 7; Philem. 21; λαλῶ, 1 Cor. ix. 8, xv. 34. Only in two instances, Philem. 19 and 1 Cor. ix. 15, does he use ἔγραψα, and there because he pictures to himself vividly the impression which the words he has just written will make upon his readers when they come to read what had been written some time before. With these exceptions ἔγραψα when used by Paul always refers either to a letter which is just being concluded, Rom. xv. 15 (ef. xvi. 22 of the amanuensis) ; Gal. vi. 11; Philem. 21, or to an earlier letter, 1 Cor. v. 9, 11 (ef. vii. 1; 2 Cor. vii. 12). (2) There would be no occasion whatever for the assurance of ii. 4 with reference to the preceding portion of the letter. It would not occur to anyone that what precedes was written to grieve the Corinthians, for neither in what precedes ii. 4 nor in the chapters im- mediately following is there a single severe or cold word, but only a warm- hearted and carefully considered self-defence, in which among other criticisms he answers that of want of love. (3) Without any question the same matter is discussed in vil. 11 ff. as in ii. 5-11 ; hence the letter referred to in ii. 9 must be the same as that which in vii. 8 is spoken of as belonging to the past. That, however, the ἔγραψα in ii. 3, 4, 9 refers in all three cases to the same letter, is proved by the very close sequence of thought in ii. 3-11. (4) It is not Paul’s manner to interrupt a discussion not yet finished in order to say that in writing the letter he has shed many tears or sheds them now. It would be more in keeping with his manner for him to write that the readers can see how deeply he is moved, or in connection with some severe word to say that he could not write this. without tears (cf. Phil. iii. 18). If, however, the reference in ii. 3, 4, 9 is to an earlier Epistle of Paul’s, and, in particular, the same Epistle which is spoken of in vii. 8, 12, then it is natural to infer from the similarity of sentence structure in ii. 3 and ii. 9 that τοῦτο αὐτό, ii. 3, means the same as διὰ τοῦτο αὐτό (1. iv. 17 N*AP), and is related in sense to eis αὐτὸ τοῦτο, 2 Cor. v. 5; Col. iv. 8; Eph. vi. 22 (Rom. ix. 17); ef. Erasmus (Paraphr. in ep. Pauli, 1523, p. 150); Riickert and Hofmann, ad loc. This construction is good Greek (Kiihner-Gerth, i. 310, A.6; Winer, § 21.3, A. 2), occurs without question in 2 Pet. i. 5, and would certainly have to be admitted in the present passage even if it did not occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings. But this construction does occur in Phil. i. 6, where otherwise the αὐτό would be meaningless. In order to any other interpretation, an instance must be shown in which a Greek writer has expressed the object of his con- viction or confident expectation in the accusative after πέποιθα. Phil. 1. 25 cannot be cited as a case in point; since in this passage the τοῦτο simply prepares the way for the following ὅτι, and belongs to οἶδα by which the clause is governed. It is correctly translated by Peshito, “And this I know con- fidently.” The same version translates 2 Cor. ii. 3 somewhat freely, but quite correctly, “And (as to) my writing you, (so) is (it) this, in order that if I come those may not cause me grief from whom I ought to have joy” ; in other words, the reason and purpose of my coming was this. Even if τοῦτο αὐτό, which probably belongs before ἔγραψα (DG), with a ὑμῖν inserted between it and the verb, were the strongly emphasised object of ἔγραψα, it certainly PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 5447 would not imply a mysterious reference to something which’ was more familiar to the readers than to ourselves (Meyer, Ewald, “ The thing which is known to you”; Klöpper, “Something which causes grief”). At most it could be only a resumption of the τοῦτο of ii. 1. Then the subject of Paul’s earlier communication in his letter would be the determination not to come to Corinth a second time in sorrow. But the context, i. 15-ii. 2, shows that this determination was practically identical with the determination to come to Corinth not at once by the direct route, but by the longer way through Macedonia. On this construction of the passage, then, in the letter in question Paul had expressed the same intention with regard to his coming to Corinth that he had since carried out, which, moreover, leaving quite out of account the reason for writing given in II. i. 23-11. 2, he had set forth in detail in I. xvi. 5-7. Since, now, in the same letter the very opposite deter- mination could not have been expressed, namely, Paul’s purpose to come to Corinth at once and by the direct route, to assume, as, for example, Krenkel does (377) that this statement did actually stand in the letter written in the interval between 1 and 2 Cor. and at the same time to affirm that IT. ii. 3-9 has reference to this same letter, is to involve one’s self in the most glaring contradiction. But if what was said in this letter was simply a repetition of the determination expressed in I. xvi. 5-7, only in different words and with more detailed statement of the apostle’s reasons, then there was no point in his appeal to the letter supposed to have been written in the interval. But now since “that very thing,” which he writes in IT. ii. 1 is not to be found in 1 Cor., the τοῦτο αὐτό must be taken adverbially. 6. (Pp. 333, 335, 336.) It is assumed by the present writer that οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν, ii. 5, is a question calling naturally for an affirmative answer ; con- sequently that ἀλλά does not mean “but” (sondern), but is equivalent to a “nevertheless” (aber), which serves to introduce the following clauses, 5b-6. Further, it is assumed that ἀπὸ μέρους does not, as Hofmann contends, belong to the main clause of the sentence beginning with ἀλλά, but is a part of the sub- ordinate sentence attracted out of its place on account of the strong emphasis, as is so often the case before iva. ‘ Nevertheless, in order not in a measure to burden you all, I declare the penalty imposed by the majority to be suffi- cient.” The ἀπὸ μέρους is added, because a different judgment on Paul’s part, namely, the demand for the offender’s severer punishment, would be a heavy burden, especially upon the person himself, and might drive him to despair. That, in turn, would be a burden to all the members of the Church ; not only to the majority, who regarded the penalty that had been temporarily imposed as sufficient, but to the minority, who, either because they feared the effect of leniency, or because they honoured Paul’s judgment, felt that a severer penalty ought to be imposed. This supposed obligation they could have fulfilled only with bleeding hearts, and the wound would not be easily healed. Instead of ἱκανή Paul writes ἱκανόν, evidently under the influence of the legal use of τὸ ἱκανόν (Acts xvii. 9; Mark xv. 15). There is a legal colouring also to κυροῦν (ii. 8, cf. Gal. iii. 15) and the expressions used in vii. 11 f. ἀπολογία (cf. Phil. i. 7, 16; 2 Tim. iv. 16; Acts xxv. 8, 16, xxvi. 1 f.; Rom. ii. 15); ἐκδίκησις, ὁ ἀδικήσας, 6 ἀδικηθείς (Acts vii. 24-27; 1 Cor. vi. 7 f.; Philem. 18); πρᾶγμα (1 Cor. vi. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 6). "If 348 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 2 Cor. followed 1 Cor. without an intervening letter or a visit of Paul’s, there is no question that II. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. refers to the same case as I. v. The language used points in the same direction, ris (Il. 11. 5; I. v. 1); 6 τοιοῦτος (II. ii. 6, 7; I. v. 5). Then ὁ ἀδικηθείς (vii. 12) cannot refer to Paul, which would imply a strangely impersonal way of speaking, but to the offender’s father (above, p. 296, n. 4). Paul might have said that the Church had done him wrong, in causing him the disgrace and the grief occasioned by the occurrence of such a scandal in a Church which he had founded; but he could not have called it a violation of his rights, particularly since what the offender had done had no relation whatever to Paul’s own person, When, now, Paul says that he discussed this matter in his letter, not in its relation to the offender himself, nor in relation to the father whose rights had been violated, this is quite in keeping with the manner in which the affair is handled in I. v. Nothing is said in this passage about the father, who evidently did not belong to the Church. Neither is the offender himself the object of the discussion, but the Church in which, to its disgrace and injury, an offence of this kind remains unatoned for,—a fact, however, that does not imply that Paul was indifferent to the fate of any individual member of the Church. But, with regard to this individual, Paul had expressed only the hope that by the judgment which destroyed his physical life his “spirit” might be saved. What is said in vii. 12 must have been occasioned by com- munications from the Church concerning the offender, who had repented, and concerning the father, who possibly had been persuaded to be lenient or even to forgive the offence. This was done in order to influence the apostle to leniency. But Paul no longer needed such arguments (cf. ii. 10). In their gratification at the favourable outcome of the matter, both as regards father and son, the Church is not to overlook the fact that from the beginning the apostle has been concerned about the attitude of the Church, which, therefore, has been a matter of greater importance to him than the adjust- ment of the legal relations between the father and son. Consequently also his present joy does not concern these individuals, but the conduct of the Church in this matter, and the restoration of the friendly relation to himself, which had been disturbed by their earlier attitude in the affair (vii, 7-11). Rightly recognising the fact that the matter here dealt with is one which does at least have a legal side, but falsely assuming that the matters dealt with in 1 Cor. have been pressed into the background by a long interval of time and by the intervention of new and important transactions between Paul and the Church, both by letter and in person, Krenkel (S. 306) con- jectures that the occasion for ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. was a suit at law between members of the Church (cf. I. vi. 1 ff... Much more common is the assump- tion that some member of the Church (Bleek, 1830, S. 629; Neander, 296, 347; Hilgenfeld, Einl. 284), or one of Paul’s Judaising opponents, possibly a member of the governing body of the Church (Ewald, 8. 227), had publicly offered him a grave insult, very likely on the occasion of his second visit in Corinth, putting it in legal form (Weizsäcker, S. 298), and the Church had failed to come earnestly to the insulted apostle’s defence. According to this last mentioned hypothesis, the insulted apostle was filled with wrath, and what he was unable to accomplish in person, namely, the punishment of the one who offered the insult by the very majority of the Church which had PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 349 indorsed him, he accomplished by means of the letter, now lost, which. he sent by Titus! In the exposition of this view it is not accidental, but fundamental for the theory (perhaps we should say destructive of it) that the words, “The insulter” and “The insulted,” which are taken from, Luther’s translation, recur again and again as if this were, of course, the correct transla- tion of ὁ ἀδικήσας and ὁ ἀδίκηθείς. Of course, the idea of injured reputation comes under the general conception of ἀδικεῖν ; but in Paul’s writings, where ἀδικεῖν occurs eight times, ἀδικία twelve times, and throughout both the Old and New Testaments, where these words (also ἄδικος, ἀδίκημα) occur very often, there is not a single instance where the words can be shown to have the meaning, insult, libel, still less the narrower sense of slander. On the contrary, its universal meaning is illegal action; or where the verb has an object (generally personal), the illegal injury of a person, or injuring of a thing (Rev. ix. 4), ef. Aristot. Ehetor. i. 10, p. 1368, ἔστω δὴ τὸ ἀδικεῖν τὸ βλάπτειν ἑκόντα παρὰ τὸν νόμον. Τί it were a matter of insult or abuse by word or deed, Paul would write the words ὁ λοιδορήσας and ὁ λοιδορηθείς ; or, if he wanted to use a legal term in this passage, 6 ὑβρίσας and ὁ ὑβρισθείς ; οἵ. Meier-Schömann, Attischer Prozess, bearb. von Lipsius (1883-87), S. 394-402. The prevailing misunderstanding of the passage is helped by the failure to distinguish between the broader and narrower meaning of injuria, the latter of which corresponds to the Greek ἀδικεῖν, ἀδικία, ἀδίκημα. Cf. Theophilus, Paraphr. instit. Just. iv. 4 end, οὐκ ἐῶσι τοὺς ὑβριστὰς ἀτιμωρήτους οἱ νόμοι. Γενικῶς δὲ injuria λέγεται πᾶν ὃ μὴ κατὰ νόμον γίνεται, quod non jure fit ; ἀδικῶς δὲ λέγεται contumelia a contemmendo, ἣν οἱ “Ἕλληνες ὕβριν καλοῦσιν. Cf. Scholion to Leo’s Basilica, lib. 1χ. tit. 21, 1, and Ulpian, Digest. xlvii. 10, 1 end. The difficulty which one has in understanding how Paul, in such a deep expres- sion of his feelings as this, which is thoroughly intense, and which is put in the first person throughout, could in one instance designate himself by the third person, 6 adırndeis, as if he were a stranger, would, of course, be removed if we could assume that possibly Timothy is “the injured person” (thus Beyschlag, ThStKr. 1871, S. 670). But this interpretation gives no logic- ally possible connection between vii. 12)—where Paul speaks not only of himself, but includes at least Timothy—and vii. 12c. If, with a view. to lessening the contradiction, it be said that the main reason for writing the letter was not regard for the one who had been wronged, nor for the one who had suffered the wrong (Krenkel, 299), it is nevertheless. true that, according to vii. 12b, the real purpose of the letter was to give the Church an opportunity to prove their zeal for Paul (and Timothy); and so, if “the person injured” were Paul himself or Timothy, he did, as a matter of fact, in a very real sense, write on account of the aödırndeis. Moreover, this hypothesis in all its forms stands in contradiction to ii. 5. If οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν be taken as a statement of fact, then it is hypocrisy unworthy of the apostle ; if it be taken as a question, it is incomparably foolish. Nor is it easy to see how the Church could have succeeded in making itself appear blameless in this matter (vii. 11). 7. (P. 337.) Frequent doubt has been expressed as to whether II. vi. 14- vii. 1 was originally a part of the letter and as to its Pauline origin, Ewald (282 f.) held that it was taken from the writings of one who belonged to the apostolic circle at a somewhat later date. Hilgenfeld (287, A. 1) conjectured 350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that it was taken from the letter mentioned in 1 Cor. v..9,-a theory which Francke (ThStKr. 1884, 8.544 ff.) undertook to prove. Krenkel rejoices (332) that the fact that this section does not belong in 2 Cor. is coming more and more to be recognised, and thinks that he discovers many similarities to the language of the Epistle of Clement. 'The problem calls for a discus+ sion of the context. After the general discussion concerning the office of preaching, to which he was led through opposition to the Jewish Christian wandering teachers (ii. 17-iii. 1, v. 12), Paul, in vi. 1, returns again to the discussion of the special conditions in the Corinthian Church, which, with the exception of a few brief remarks (iii. 1-3, v. 11-13) seem to have been lost sight of from ii. 14 on. He and his companions are not only com- missioned to preach the gospel of reconciliation to the unconverted (v. 11-21), but also to help the Churches already gathered through the preaching of the gospel,—in this instance those of Achaia here addressed, and in particular those of Corinth (vi. 11),—and to warn them lest they receive grace in vain in the day of salvation (vi. 1-2, cf. i. 24). As was recognised even by Clement (Strom. i. 4), and, as is clearly set forth by Hofmann (ii. 3. 166-174), vi. 3-10, which has no grammatical connection with what: precedes, is the introduction to vi. 11, between which and what precedes there is undoubtedly an anacoluthon. Conscious that his work and personal life among them have been blameless, Paul (and Timothy) now ‘opens his mouth unto them,’ ie. he is about to tell them solemnly and frankly what he has in his heart to say to them (ef. Matt. v. 2; Acts viii. 34, x. 34). And this is an exhorta- tion like that in vi. 1, 1.6. a warning against everything which might make their acceptance of that redemptive grace by which Christians are dis- tinguished from the still unregenerate world seem to be an illusion, The remark that his heart as well as his mouth is open to the Corinthians, and the request that the readers open their hearts to him, as children ought to do to their father (I. iv. 14), is a further introduction to the statement he is about to make, occasioned by the distrust of the Church which has not altogether disappeared. Now this statement, which has been led up to at such length and in so many different ways, and which has been held back so long, would be ridiculous if it were simply the two words χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς, vii. 2a. That, however, would be the case if vi. 14-vii. 1 were to be set aside as an interpolation, for, in what follows vii. 2b-18 there is nothing which corresponds to the promised παράκλησις. This is found in vi. 14—vii. 2a. It is the demand that is found running through 1 Cor. that the Church separate itself more entirely from the heathen immorality by which it was surrounded. With vi. 16 cf. I. iii. 16, viii. 10, x. 20-22, xiv. 25; with vi. 17 f. cf. I. x. 13f., cf. above, p. 274f., 296,n. 2. There is nothing peculiar in the character of the words used, although ἑτεροζυγεῖν, μετοχή, συμφώνησις, Βελίαρ do not occur elsewhere in the writings of Paul nor in the N.T. The passionate antithesis with which the section begins is quite in keeping with the mood which is reflected in vi. 3-10, vii. 1-11, while the solemn words of vi. 16b-vii. 1 harmonise with the manner of the announcement in vi. 11. These pressing exhortations have their own significance, but, in addition to that, serve appropriately as the introduction to the matter discussed in vii. 5-16, all the more so because the case of the man who had committed incest, which had caused Paul so much anxiety, had now become a source of PAUL AND 'THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 351 joy te him. Since, however, these exhortations did not touch at all Paul’s personal relation to the Church, the exhortation vii. 2a, which is clearly different from vi. 13, forms an appropriate transition to what follows. 8. (P. 343.) Although no representatives of the Corinthian Church are mentioned as accompanying Paul to Jerusalem along with the representa- tives of the Churches of Galatia, Asia, and Macedonia (Acts xx. 4, above, p. 209, n. 2), in view of Rom. xv. 25-28 we may not assume that the collec- tion in Achaia was not completed, and that Paul’s efforts in this matter (2 Cor. viii.-ix.) were fruitless. V. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 8 21. CONTENTS OF THE LETTER AND THE PROGRESS OF ITS THOUGHT. Tue Epistles of Paul, considered up to this point, have been addressed to Churches, or groups of Churches, that owed their Christianity to him. In this letter, however, he turns his attention to a Church which was undoubtedly founded without any co-operation from him or his helpers. Though individual Christians living in Rome at the time may have been personally, or even intimately, acquainted with Paul, to the Church as a whole he was a stranger, and to the large majority of the Roman Christians per- sonally unknown. His first concern, therefore, was to establish a connection between himself and the Church. This explains why he begins with a salutation which is more elaborate than in any other of his Epistles, and why in this instance the part in which the author speaks of himself is expanded into a lengthy complex of clauses (i. 1-5), whereas, in other letters, either the characterisa- tion of the readers (1 Cor. i. 2) or the contents of the salutation (Gal. 1. 3-5) is more fully developed. Paul introduces himself to the Church, so to speak, not as if they had never heard of him before, but still in such a way that the Church can form some idea, from the very way in which he characterises himself, as to the occasion of the letter, and the grounds on which Paul based his right to address them thus in along Hpistle. He is not THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 353 merely an individual engaged in the service of Christ like all Christians, but also an apostle ; he is not merely one of the numerous missionaries about whose call there may be some question (above, p. 289 f.), but he owes his position to a definite call from God, just as the readers owe their Christian faith to a definite call of God. Although the contrast with which he testifies to the genuineness of his apostleship is not so strong here as in 1 Cor. 1. 1, par- ticularly Gal. i. 1, nevertheless the threefold repetition of κλητός (vv. 1, 6 f.) does show the same careful premedita- tion as 1 Cor. 1. 1 f. How anxious he is that the readers shall realise the full import of this self-characterisation is shown by the fulness with which he develops this par- ticular idea, though it was familiar to every Christian of that time. The fact that all which follows κλητὸς ἀπόστο- Aos in 1. 15-5 is an expansion of this idea, proves that Paul cannot here be saying anything of himself not equally applicable to others who have been called to be apostles. While in other places he speaks of his special call to be the apostle to the Gentiles (xi. 13, xv. 16), and so of his special gospel (ii. 16, xvi. 25), here he calls the gospel, for the proclamation of which he has been separated from all other avocations, a message of God. This expression is employed here in the same sense in which it and its synonyms are everywhere used, in dis- tinct contrast to the conception of teaching, which is the product of human reflection and which varies in each case with the type of mind or the peculiar gifts of the preacher (1 Thess. ii. 2, 8, 9, 13; 1 Cor. u. 1-5; 2 Cor. ii. 17, xi. 7). When he goes on to say, further, with reference to this same gospel, that long before God had suffered this message of His to enter the world He had promised the sending of the same through the prophets, and that this promise was recorded in the Holy Scriptures (i. 2, ef. x. 15; Luke iv. 17-21); and when, further, the central point of this gospel is declared to be the Son of God, who VOL. I. 28 354 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT entered into a natural human life as a descendant of David, and was appointed to become a Son of God in power, and so to enter into a new and higher life; of which the Holy Spirit was the norm and the resurrection the beginning, the points made are simply the close. con- nection between the gospel and the revelations, scriptures and history of the O.T. on the one hand, and the exalta- tion of the Son of David, living in the flesh, to His present glory (cf. Jas. ii. 1; 2 Pet. 1. 16), on the other. When; now, at this pomt with the mention of Christ he passes again by a natural transition from the description of the gospel to a direct characterisation of his apostolic calling (1. 5), he includes himself at once with others to whom what he here says of himself is equally applicable. Since this letter was not written in conjunction with anyone else, and since from 1. 8—xvi. 23 or xvi. 25 Paul: uses the singular when speaking of himself, it is self-evident that the plural in i. 5 is to be taken literally, as always in Paul’s writings (n. 1). Since, moreover, the only thought expressed indicating any wider or narrower circle to which Paul belonged is that of his apostolic calling, it was: per- fectly clear to his readers that he included with himself other men who, like him, were κλητοὶ ἀπόστολοι (cf. χ. 15, xvi. 7). They could say with Paul, “ Through Christ we received grace as Christians, and a call as apostles’ to ‘the end shat we might arouse obedience to the faith among all peoples, to the glory of His name.” The idea that Paul is speaking here of his special commission as the apostle to the Gentiles, has against it not only the con- text of the salutation, as pointed out above, but also the usage elsewhere of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (n. 2). The whole human race with its national divisions, representing as it does the utmost diversity, is the common, originally undivided field in which the older apostles and Paul were appointed to labour. Nor can it be claimed that in this passage “all peoples” must mean the Gentiles, on the ground THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 355 that otherwise in 1. 6 Paul would impart the trivial in- formation to the Romans that they are a part of the human race. Paul does not say that they are included in the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, but that they are the called of Jesus Christ, a Church already gathered through the influence of the gospel, in that region which is the appointed field of labour for all the apostles. For this reason, neither Paul nor any of the apostles, whose call is essentially a call to preach the gospel, have any direct missionary relation to the Roman Christians. But this does not by any means render the apostles indifferent to those who are already converts. For, in the first place, existing Churches are centres of the Christian faith (ef. Phil. ii. 15 f.), the spreading of which is the distinctive function of the apostles; and, in the second place, the word of the apostles has a right to special consideration among those who are already believers (cf. xii. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. 1, 20, iv. 11-16; 1 Pet. v. 1). Such consideration for what he is about to write Paul seeks from all the Chris- tians in Rome at the time whose character, not only as children of God through grace, but also as those called to be saints, 2.e. as a Christian Church (ef. 1 Cor. i. 2), he emphasises once more before adding his general salu- tation (ver. 7). The first thought expressed after this carefully weighed greeting is that of gratitude to God for all the Roman Christians, more particularly for the fact that their con- version to the Christian faith has become known through- out the whole world (i. 8, ef. xv. 19; 1 Thess. i. 8 f.). How much this means to Paul is evidenced by the solemn assurance which follows, that in his private devotions, which have relation to the gospel quite as much as his outward activities, he remembers recularly also the Roman Christians, making request in all his prayers that the way may be finally opened for him, in the will of God, to come to them (ver. 10). This thought he expands by 356 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT explaining that he has a longing desire to see them im _ order to impart some spiritual gift from which he expects the Roman Christians to be strengthened, or, as he im- mediately adds by way of explanation and correction, from which he expects them and himself to be mutually encouraged by the faith that is in each (ver. 11 f, ef. xv. 24, xvi. 25). Paul could not have spoken with greater precaution or Ἢ modesty of the result for which he hoped from this long intended visit to Rome. Not only does he place the Christians in Rome on the same level with the Churches organised by himself (cf. 1 Thess. iii. 2, 13; Acts xv. 32, xvi. 5, xvill. 23), but he guards expressly against giving the impression that they alone are to be benefited by the visit (cf. per contra, 2 Cor. i. 15; Phil. 1. 24-26). If he had said nothing further with reference to the purpose of his projected visit, all that could be im- ferred from his words would be that for Paul as a mis- sionary the existence of a Christian Church in Rome was a matter of great importance; that for a long time he had had it in mind, in further pursuance of his missionary plans, to come also to Rome, regarding which. plans, however, nothing more definite is er Br finally, that the exchange of spiritual gifts which would take place with the Roman Christians on that occasion would be advantageous both to them and to him. But now he mentions a second motive for his coming, using a phrase which indicates the introduction of a new thought, namely, his desire to obtain also in Rome some fruit, 2.e. his hope to preach the gospel with result also among the Roman populace, the great mass of whom. are ee eS Although he expresses himself very modestly with refer- ence to the result for which he hopes from this contem- plated missionary preaching (twa καρπόν), still this seems to have been the chief purpose of the visit to the capital which had been planned so long and so repeatedly post- THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 357 poned on account of some external hindrance; for in concluding this discussion with the words, “Such is the willingness on my part to preach the gospel to you (al. among you), 1.6. to the people in Rome,’ he men- tions only the missionary preaching as the object of his coming, making no reference whatever to the hoped-for effect of his visit upon the Roman Church (vv. 13-15, n. 3). That he is just as willing to labour as a missionary in Rome as he is conscious of his obligation to do so, is proved by his declaration that he is not ashamed of the gospel (ver. 16). The fact that until now he has remained away from Rome is not, therefore, to be explained as due to any lack of willingness on his part, nor this lack of willingness as due in turn to his want of confidence in the gospel. In this way Paul prepares the way for statements about the gospel which go far beyond any requirements of the purpose manifest from the connection with the pre- ceding context, and which are to be made the theme of more extended discussions. Paul does not hesitate to introduce the gospel, this weak and foolish preaching (1 Cor. 1. 17- 25), into the very. centre of the world’s culture, because he has learned and experienced its essence to: be what he describes ini. 16£. [Ὁ is. a power of God unto salvation for every one that believes, primarily for Jews and Greeks (nu. 4). he gospel is such a universal means of salvation, upon the sole condition of faith, because in the same is revealed a righteousness of God which, results from faith, and; which has for its aim the creation of faith. | This is In accordance with the word of the prophet: “ The righteous shall attain to life as a result of faith” (Hab. u. 4; cf, Gal. i. 11); since this prophecy contains the two thoughts which are fundamental in the statement about the gospel, namely, that only, the righteous attain to life, and that by, no other means than through faith, all that follows to vill, 39, or indeed to xi. 36, is in- 358 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tended to make clear to the Romans this construction of the gospel. In the first section (1. 18-1ii. 20) he proceeds to show in proof of the first of the two propositions contained in the citation, that the wrath of God is directed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men, for which they are responsible and inexcusable, throughout the course of history (i. 18), as well as at the final judgment, when the righteousness of God, concealed from the thoughtless by the manifold proofs of God’s goodness in creation, shall be revealed as retributive righteousness (i. 3-10). Furthermore, in God’s impartial determination of the destiny of the individual soul there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (11. 11-22). While the advan- tage of being an Israelite, and thus of belonging to the people of God’s revelation, is not to be denied, this cannot in any way alter the fact that in the final judgment all men must appear before God as liars and sinners worthy of condemnation, for He is the only true and altogether righteous one (iii. 1-8). Finally, even Christians are not to imagine that they are exempted a prior from this condemnation of a sinful race under God’s wrath. On the one hand, they are included in the scriptural judgment already quoted concerning the universal sinfulness of men ; and, on the other hand, they are aware that the proof furnished by the history of Israel regarding the impos- sibility of obtaining righteousness through the observance of the law holds for the entire race (iii. 9-20). Although from the ‘course of the argument condem- nation seems to be the inevitable end of the entire human race, a second section (111. 20-v. 11) is devoted primarily to showing how the righteousness of God necessary to life is restored in Christ, being proclaimed in the gospel which requires faith, and how by faith it becomes the possession of all Christian believers, Jews and Gentiles alike (iii. 20- 30). The objection that through the doctrine of justifica- THE EPISTLE TO ‘THE’ ROMANS 359 tion as here set forth Christians are in danger of falling into antinomianism is disposed of very briefly (iii. 31). On the other hand, the further objection that by accept- ine this doctrine Christians sever themselves from the relioion of the O.T., or, in other words, render entirely external the unquestionable relation existing between the Christian Church and Abraham, the progenitor of the religious community under the O.T. dispensation, is answered in ereat detail. Since, according to Gen. xv. 6, the religious attitude of Abraham was, rather, essentially similar to that of the Christian, the opposite conclusion follows, namely, that the theocratic community of which Abraham was the founder has its proper continuance in Christianity, which embraces the circumcised and the un- circumcised, but is self-consistent because it makes both alike stand in the faith through which Abraham, being yet uncircumcised, obtained his position of acceptance with God, and his significance for the history of religion (iv. 1-22, ἢ. 5). Since, now, this exposition ends with the reaffirmation of the original position that Christians are justified by faith (iv. 23-25), upon it is very properly based the assurance that Christians, being justified and reconciled, are at peace with God, and in spite of all the afflictions of the present may and should cherish the eon- fident hope of their future glory or final redemption (v. 1-11, n. 6). Here the theme stated in 1. 16 f. seems to have been developed to its logical conclusion ; since, from the pre- ceding description of the origin and nature of the Christian life, with the future consummation of the same which this nature involves, it must be apparent that in Christian experience the gospel, being a revelation of the righteousness requisite to life, has proved itself to be a saving power. Nevertheless, a third section (v. 12—viil. 39) is added, closely connected with the one which precedes, concluding with similar thoughts. Although the main 360 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT statement beginning with διὰ τοῦτο in v. 12 is left un finished, and although even the comparative sentence introduced into the main sentence immediately after the latter is begun is not concluded, the progress of thought can hardly be said to be obscure. As death, which was brought into the world by Adam, more specifically by Adam’s sin, reigned over all Adam’s descendants, so shall the grace and the gift of God and of Christ, which had. their inception in history through Christ, more precisely through Christ's one act of righteousness, reign in. the new humanity descended from Christ who is the second Adam. Inasmuch as the Mosaic Law is described as subordinate to the two world principles, Adam and Christ, or sin and righteousness, or death and life (v. 20), it is at once clear that the reign and supremacy of grace under the Christian dispensation may not be limited, or, rather, set aside, by the subordinate dominion of the law. In proof of this last point, he calls attention to the fact that in the very community where the law had served only to increase sin, namely, in Israel, redemptive grace had been revealed in its greatest fulness. This statement is intended to guard against the possibility of grace being looked upon as a makeshift, or as one means of salvation among others, as might easily have been the case had grace been manifested first to another people without Israel’s experiences with the law. The fact that Christ appeared in Israel is assurance that. grace. may. reign wherever it is accepted. The objection that if this doctrine of law and grace be true, one needs only to continue in sin in order to receive constantly new supplies of grace, Paul. meets, by recalling the fact of the new birth connected with bap- tism, which makes a sinful life on the part of the Christians seem unnatural, furnishing the strongest motive for holi- ness. It is just because Christians are not under, Jaw, which in itself has no power to overcome sin, but under THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 361 grace, which in the resurrection of Christ and regeneration of the Christian proves itself to be a life-giving power, that they dare to hope for mastery over sin (vi. 1-14). But from the experience of the readers not only is this pernicious theory (vi. 1), but likewise the possibility of any practical misuse on the part of the Christian of his privileges under the gentle rule of grace, instead of under the hard discipline of the law, easily refuted as due to wrong inferences from the doctrine of justification ex- pounded above. From being sinful and disobedient ser- vants of God, as they were formerly, they have become servants obedient from the heart, and are, therefore, no longer slaves and mercenaries of sin, but slaves of righteousness and soldiers of God. They have only to recall their pre-Christian life, and the death which was the inevitable issue of that life, and then to observe the process of sanctification taking place in their present Christian life, and to remember that eternal life is its final goal, in order to lose all desire to sink back into their former state (vi. 15-23, n. 7). Moreover, Paul feels that it is incumbent upon him to justify to his readers even the presupposition, namely, that the Christian is no longer under the law, but under grace (vii. 1-6), which in vi. 1-14 and) vi. 15-23 is defended against false inferences. From, their acquaintance with the law, the readers know that the Mosaic ordinances have authority over a man only so long as he lives, which implies that it has no power beyond death. Both these phases of the truth are illustrated by a single appropriate example, namely, the law of marriage, which unites two human lives into one. In the case of the surviving party when a marriage bond is annulled by death, we see that death frees from the law. The illustration of the marriage bond thus cited is used also as a figure in the application of the principle stated in vil. 1 to the subject under dis- cussion. Since Christ’s obligation to, the law ceased with 362 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT His death, and since Christians became subsequently through baptism partakers of Christ’s death, the same as though they themselves had actually died (vi. 3, ef. Gal. ii. 19, iv. 4f.), for them also obligation under the law as a marriage bond is lesally annulled, in order that they may be united to the risen Christ in a new marriage union. Not until they come into this new fellowship with Christ are they able to attain to a true moral life permeated by a new spirit; whereas, on the other hand, while they lived still under the law and served God according to the letter, sinful desires awakened by the law held sway over their bodies, and life under the law issued in death (n. 8). Here again a conclusion seems to follow fatal to all that has been said heretofore. If exemption from the law and cessation from the life of sin go together, then we seem driven to the blasphemous conclusion that the law and sin are identical. This objection Paul answers in vil. 7-vii. 11 chiefly from his own experience with the law in his early life'and now in his Christian life. This experience he describes: under the presupposition that Christians who’ like himself have been brought up under the law have had essentially the same experience.’ When he became a Christian he continued to regard the law as holy, righteous, and good; and as a converted man his will gave fullest assent to it. But in individual experi- ence, as in the life of men generally (cf. 11. 20, iv. 15, v. 20), the law has proved itself to be a power awakening and developing latent sin, thereby deepening the know- ledge of sin; and even when the will gives assent to the contents of the law, it is incapable of overcoming sin. If, along with his lament due to doubt about his moral capacity, there is a place in the Christian’s life for gratitude to God for His gift in Christ (vii. 24 f.), this is no effect which after all has been wrought by the law, but the outcome of the liberating work of the Spirit, begetting a new Christlike life in those who have been THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 363 born again. God’s very act in sending the Son was positive expression of His will that henceforth sin should no more rule in the flesh; and with Christ’s coming was begun the actual fulfilment of this divine purpose (viii. 3). Through the Spirit received by the Christian from Christ the ordinances of the law are fulfilled in their unity by those who give themselves up to the control of this Spirit instead of continuing under the power of their inborn nature (vill. 4). Eventually, through the same Spirit the body also, which is still subject to death, shall be quickened (vii. 11). Finally, in language which soars higher and higher as the climax is approached, the fact is proclaimed that the sonship wrought in us by the life-giving Spirit involves not only the obligation of a present walk ac- cording to the Spirit, but warrants also the hope of future glory, and supplies the power to overcome all the sufferings of the present (vii. 12-39). Thus the discussion of the supremacy of grace over all who have been renewed by Christ (v. 12—viii. 39) leads to the same conclusion as the discussion of the doctrine of justification (iii. 21-v. 11), and the development of the theme announced in i. 16 f. might be considered complete if in the discussion up to this point Paul had taken adequate account of Israel’s special position of privilege, at which he hinted in his statement of the theme, and expressly admitted in 111. 1-3 (cf. 1.25). When a Jewish Christian like Paul is able to describe with constantly in- creasing enthusiasm the glory of the redemption wrought by Christ for the whole human race, affirming that in its completion even inanimate nature is drawn into its sweep, while he passes by with a single incidental remark (iii. 3), the fact that by the vast majority of his own nation, mediators of the divine revelation though they are (iii. 2, v. 20), no benefits are enjoyed from this salvation, this omission itself requires explanation. ‘This is given in the fourth section (ix. 1-xi. 35). After the song of thanks- 364 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT giving in vill. 31-39, it was most fitting for Paul to aver with all solemnity that he speaks the absolute truth when he says that in his heart he suffers unceasing pain because of his unbelieving countrymen. To be sure, he does not want this to be understood as implying that God did not fulfil the promise which He made to Israel, or that the unbelieving Jews have a right by reason of their origin, and of such moral service as they may have rendered in addition, to complain of the new course taken. by history with the entrance of the gospel (ix. 6 f.). From such errors he is saved by his knowledge of O.T. history and propheey (ix. 70-29). . But nevertheless it grieves him exceedingly that while Gentiles, who are little concerned about righteousness, are saved, Israel, with all its striving after legal righteousness, obtains neither this righteousness nor the righteousness of faith, stumbling at the very point where they ought not to stumble, namely, the revelation of God, in Christ (ix. 30-33). But Paul is not satisfied with merely lamenting the tragic fate of his nation. Because of their earnest, albeit blind zeal, which led them to resist the gospel, thereby giving the Gentiles, their present, pre-eminence, he longs for their salvation, and beseeches that it may be granted them by God (chap.:x.). That there can be no question of a permanent rejection of Israel. is proved by every conversion of individual Jews, like Paul, and by: the existence of a body of Jewish Christians, numbering thousands (xi. 1-7a, cf. ix. 27-29). The hardening of Israel, which carries with it still other -judements of a more external kind (xi. 7b-10), is not an end in itself, but designed, primarily, to enable the Gentiles to obtain part in redemption. There is,hope that finally, the conversion of the Gentiles will react upon Israel,leading to their salvation also (xi. IL£f.). Paul calls the special attention of the Gentile Christians at Rome to, the fact that, in fulfilling the specific work involved by his com- mission as an apostle to the Gentiles, he does 50. always THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 365 with the additional purpose in view of arousing the jealousy of his countrymen and of winning at least some of them, and thus of preparing the way for the conversion of Israel, with which event will come the end of the world (x1. 13-15, cf. ver. 12, π. 9).. Similarly, applicable only to Gentile Christians is the warning against an overbearing attitude toward the Jewish people in their present hardened state (vv. 16-24), and the proclamation of the final redemption of the whole of Israel as a truth of scriptural revelation (vv. 25-32). The fourth section ends with an exclama- tion of wonder at God’s government of the world (vv. 32-36). To the explanation of the nature of the gospel here concluded Paul adds in a fifth section (xii. 1-xv. 13) a comprehensive and well-arranged statement of how one ought to walk in accordance with the same. Unlike what immediately precedes, which is directed to the Gentile Christians alone, what is here said is expressly addressed to all the Christians in Rome (xii. 3). Compared with similar parts of other letters, this section of Romans is especially noticeable for its pressing exhortation to obedi- ence to State authority, together with the fulfilment of all the duties of citizenship (sci 1-7), and for the emphasis which it lays~much stronger than in Gal. v. 14—upon the principle that active brotherly love is the true fulfil- ment of the law (xiii. 8-10, ef. vii. 4). The exhortation to live a sober and self-controlled life in view of the con- stantly nearer approach of the day of Christ, and in the care of the body to avoid everything that mischt arouse the passions (xiii. 11-14), introduces at once the discus- sion of a schism among the Roman Christians regarding which Paul must have been well informed (xiv. 1-23). There were Christians in Rome who from principle avoided the use of meat, possibly also of wine (vv. 2, 20), claiming that such use was defiling (vv. 14, 30). This being their position, naturally they con- 366 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT demned severely all other Christians who used the customary foods without distinetion, and were them- selves in turn despised for their superstitious scruples (vv. 3, 10). From the opinion of the vegetarians that those who ate meat were not steadfast, but in danger of stumbling (ver. 4), we infer that they looked upon their own abstinence as a means of securing religious stead- fastness, and commended it as such to others (cf. Heb. xiii. 9). Although Paul rebukes the ascetics for their bigoted judgment of others, declaring them to be weak in faith, and takes his own stand with those strong in faith, as regards the actual practice in the matter he goes no further than to state that both practices are consistent with the Christian profession, dealing at greatest length with the obligation of those strong in faith to avoid offending the conscience of their weaker brethren. They are not to influence such either by their contemptuous treatment of them, or by their challenging example to act against their consciences (vv. 13-23, cf. 1 Cor. viii. 7-13). The ascetic party must, therefore, have been in the minority. That they were native Jews is probable, as evidenced by the use of the conceptions κοινός and καθαρός (vv. 14, 20), and made certain by the fact that in correcting their judgment of those who eat meat Paul argues that the use of meat is just as consistent with Christianity, and just as much to be tolerated im the Christian Church, as is the observance of certain. days (n. 10). This argument has weight only if the ascetics claimed the unquestioned right to set apart on religious grounds certain days, which could have been none other than the Jewish Sabbaths, feasts, and fasts. From the fact that the ascetic party were Jews it does not follow necessarily that those who ate meat were exclusively Gentiles. They could equally well have been Jews, like the apostle, who, in using the phrase “ we who are strong,” identifies himself with those who used meat (xv. 1). THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 367 According to a reliable tradition, xiv. 23 was followed immediately by xvi. 25-27 (§ 22); but even if this were not its original place, it is clear that after concluding the discussion of the differences between the vegetarians and _ those who ate meat, Paul must have passed to a more general exhortation to preserve the unity of the Church by mutual concessions. From the fact that in the application of this exhortation to the readers united thanksgiving is declared to be the goal toward which they are to strive (xv. 6), and that in the explanation which follows (vv. 8-12) the union of Israel and of the Gentiles is proved from history and Scripture to be the final goal of the course of redemption, one sees that in these closing sentences of the fifth parenetic section Paul’s aim was to remove all differences be- tween the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome by which the unity of confession and of worship was imperilled. The sixth section (xv. 14-xvi. 24, or —xvi. 27) begins with a retrospect of the letter itself, now nearing its close. Paul corrects the possible impression which may have been produced by the elaborateness of the letter and its strenuous tone, that he regarded the Roman Christians as in very special need of instruction. To him even it had seemed a venture to direct such a letter to them. Still this feeling was mitigated somewhat by the fact that he discussed only certain phases of Christian truth, and in doing so was always conscious of reminding them of truths with which they were already familiar. He had ventured to write them in the interest of his calling as the apostle to the Gentiles. By reason of the wide extent of the territory in which heretofore he had carried on his work, it had happened that up to the present he had found constantly new labours close at hand, and so had been prevented from realising the desire which he had often felt of coming to Rome (n. 11). And even 368 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT now, when he finds no more occasion in the regions lying about the eastern part of the Mediterranean for the kind of missionary work which he recognises as his special work, namely, that of laying foundations, he cannot at once visit Rome on his way to Spain, as he had longed to do for many years, but must go first to Jerusalem to deliver the collection gathered by the: Christians in Macedonia and Greece. Not until this business is fin- ished will he go to Spain by way of Rome. So for the present he requests the prayers of the Romans for his protection against the dangers which threaten him at the hands of unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem, and for a favourable reception of the collection on the part of the Christians there, in order that by the will of God he may come to Rome in a joyful state of mind. Here the letter returns to the point at which it began (i. 1-15), and is temporarily concluded with a benediction (xv. 33). The discussion of his projected missionary journeys and his missionary plans, which is merely begun in i. 1-15, 15 here completed. Now for the first time we understand clearly Paul’s statements at the beginning of the letter about his desire to come to Rome, and the hints about the hindrances which hitherto he had always encountered in endeavouring to carry out this purpose (i. 10, 13a). In particular is it clear why he was unable at the beginning of the letter to announce his approaching visit, but had to be satisfied with merely expressing his earnest desire, his willingness, and his hope to come. Great emphasis is laid upon the significance of the circumstance which at this time compels him to postpone his visit still longer, and which justifies the composition of this elaborate letter, namely, the journey to Jerusalem with the col- lection. In this collection the Gentile Christian Churches founded by him fulfil an obligation of love and of grati- tude to the mother Church (xv. 25-27), and Paul hopes that this gift will be the means of producing similar THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 369 kindly feeling toward the Gentile Christians among the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem (xv. 31). What he said in 1. 11 about the purpose of his visit to Rome, and of the fruitful effect which he hoped to see resulting from his visit for the Roman Christians and for himself, is here repeated. He himself hopes to be quickened by his sojourn among the Roman Christians (xv. 24), and is in turn convinced that he will come to them in the fulness of Christian blessing (xv. 29). Since, however, he calls the quickening which he himself hopes to receive among the Roman Christians a “partial filling” (ver. 24), it is certain that he did not contemplate any protracted stay in Rome. This agrees with the modest way in which he spoke in i. 13 of the results which he hoped to obtain from his proposed missionary work in Rome; but just why this was the case is made clear now for the first time, by the repeated notice (vv. 15, 24, 28) that the real objective of his more extended missionary plans is Spain, and that Rome is only a stopping-place for the missionary pressing his way to the extreme West. The remembrances, greetings, and repeated parting wishes (chap. xvi.) require special investigation, there being more serious question as to their place in Romans than as regards any other part of the letter. 1, (P. 354.) Concerning Paul’s use of the first person plural, see above, p- 209, n. 3, p. 316, n. 3. The treatise of Dick, Der schriftstellerische Plural ber Paulus, 1900, heave’ in the very title the lack of a distinction between the true epistolary style and the usage of the literati. As is well known, the ancient form of the introductory greeting designated by their personal names the writer of the letter in the nominative and the recipient in the dative ; in other words, with entire objectivity as third persons. Paul follows this scheme essentially in all his writings, except that he makes the greeting proper a grammatically independent sentence expressive of his wishes toward them (cf. ZKom. Gal. 29 f., and above, p. 177,n.2). It appears, therefore, to be con- trary to literary style, when before the greeting, which is moulded after the Semitic form into an address to the recipient, ver. 7b, an J and thou, or a we and ye appear, as ver. 4, ἡμῶν ; ver. 5, ἐλάβομεν ; ver. 6, καὶ ὑμεῖς. So Gal. i. 2, ἐμοί ; 2 John 1, 3 John 1, Tit. i. 3 ἐγώ ; Philem. 2, σοῦ, more often ἡμῶν and nyiv, 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Thess.i. 1; 1 Tim.i,1; Philem. 1; 2 Pet.i.1; 2 John 2, VOL. I. 24 370 INTRODUCTION TO "THE NEW TESTAMENT This prominence of subjectivity, however, is not at all confined to the letters of the ΝΙΝ or the early Christian literature, Cf. eg. Berl. dgypt. Urk, No. 405. ὁ, ὁμογαστρίῳ pou ἀδελφῇ, Nos, 814. 1, 892. 1, and even in Cicero, Ep. ad Jomil. xvi. 1. In inscriptions also the same thing occurs nob infrequently, 2. (P. 354.) Like other Biblical writers, Paul applies the name (τὰ) ἔθνη to Gentile nations in contrast to Israel, and also, following the later Jewish usage (9 mas., mafom., Gentile), to individual Gentiles in contrast to Jews (Rom. ii. 14, iii, 29, ix. 24, 80, xi. 11-13, 25, xv. OF, 12, 16, 18, 27, xvi. 4). But since Israel also is an ἔθνος (John xi. 48-52, xviil, 85; Luke vil. 5, xxiii. 2 ; Acts x. 22, xxiv. 8, 10, 17, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 19; also a Ex, xix. 6, xxxili. 13; Deut. iv. 6; Isa. i. 4, iv. 2), πάντα τὰ ἔθνη could not well be used to denote the Gentile world excluding Israel, In Rom, xv. 11 (Ps. exvii. 1) the syn- onymous expression coupled with it (στάντες. of λαοί) shows rather thab the apostle’s meaning is mankind as it is divided into peoples, including Israel, and that the two parties which are distinguished in xv. 8-10 as περιτομή, Or Lads τοῦ Θεοῦ and ἔθνη, are here spoken of together. Lf it is perfectly plain that in Matt, xxviii, 19, Luke xxiv. 47, Israel is by no means excluded, but simply that the confining of missionary work to that nation is forbidden, ZKom. Matt. 714, A 9, why should the interpretation be different in Rom, i. 5, xvi. 26; Gal, iii, 8; 2 Tim, iv. 17; Matt, xxiv. 9, 14, xxv. 32 ; Mark xi. 17, xiii, 10% Moreover, in a speech to Gentiles who had heard nothing as yet of the choice of a people of God and of a special revelation to that people, it would be most inappropriate to say, Goll alle Heiden ihre eigenen Woge habe wandeln lassen (* God suffered all Gentiles to walk in their own ways”) (Acts xiv. 16), This translation of Luther’s would require the reading ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτῶν ὁδοῖς, and necessitate the placing of the words in an emphatie position. The meaning is rather that formerly, in contrast to the present preaching of the gospel to all mankind, God suffered the many nations which make up humanity to go their several ways; ef. Acts xvii, 24-80; Rom, in, 25, Even in the O,T. the term commonly includes Israel; ef. Jer, xxv, 15, 17-25. It is also a very significant fact that the LXX repeatedly uses τὰ λοιπὰ ἔθνη, Where the other modifying words do not make it quite clear that oan or osarrby is restricted to nations other than Israel, Deut, viii. 20, xvii. 14; 1 Sam, viii. 5. But the whole of mankind is just as much the field of labour for those apostles to whom the Son of David had given grace and apostleship while He lived in the flesh (Matt. v. 131, [xiit, 88], xxviii. 195 Luke xxiv. 47; Acts i. 8), as for Paul, who had been called by the ascended Son of God (Acts ix. 15, xxii, 15, xxvi. 175 1 Cor. i. 17-24, ix. 20°; ‘Col. i. 28). True, the original apostles had to begin their work with Israel and in Jerusalem (Matt. x. 5, 23; Luke xxiv, 47; Acts i. 4, 8, ii, 39), while Paul, on the other hand, was chiefly an apostle to the Gentiles. But this fact did not affect the universality of the apostleship of either, neither was it affected by the subsequent division of their field of labour (Gal. ii. 9, above, p. 266, line 28). Paul considers his mission to the Gentiles only one part of his calling, and indicates that even this has reference also to Israel (Rom, xi. 18 f.). But in his greeting to the Romans he does not speak as an apostle to the Yentiles, but simply as one called to be an apostle, with the same right to address them that Peter would have. He writes, not on the authority of his calling as an apostle of the Gentiles, but only in the interest of it (av. 15 i} THE KEPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 371 wee below, αὶ 24, n, 1), If Paul had wished to say that by origin the Roman Christiane belonged to the class indicated by πάντα ra ἔθνη, aecording to established usage he must have written ἐξ bv ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς, οἵ, Gal. ἡ, 15; Rom, ix. 6, 24, xi. 1; Phil iii, 5; Acts x. 45, xi, 2, xv. 28; Rev. ν, 9, vii. 4-9. Whathe really does say is that they are a Christian community within the bounds of the apostolic field of labour, Writers as carly as Ambrosi- aster and Chrysostom (x. 453) give the correct interpretation of the plural ἐλάβομεν, an do also Benge) and von Hengel, There is nothing im the greet, ing to justify the assumption that persons like Timothy are included in thin plural rather than the original apostles (Holmann, iii, 9, who cites xvi. 21). By those who had received an ἀττοστολή, the readers must have understood those who, like Paul, were κλητοὶ ἀπόστολοι, and only those (ef, i, 1). Buch a full title would not be appropriate to subordinate missionary helpers. 2, (2. 857.) Since ob θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, 1. 13 (ef, 1 Them, iv. 18; 1 Cor. xii, 1; Phil. i. 12), introduces either a new subject or anew phase of the same subject (more certainly even than if γάρ were used ; ch, 1 Cor. x. 15 Kom, κί, 26; 2 Cor. 1,8; Col, 11, I), and since ὅτι πολλάκις «δεῦρο contains nothing which has not been said before (Gi, 10 £.), it follows that the new point of view from which Paul here considers his journcy to Rome ig to be found in the new statement of hie purpose in coming, namely, iva τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ dv ὑμῖν. By this cannot be meant the effect of his coming upon the Roman Christians, which has been already described, 1, 11 £, but rather the successful winsionary work he hoped to accomplish among the Koman populace. ‘This, too, ia the only interpretation that accords with the term used (not to be confounded with καρπὸν ποιεῖν, φέρειν, καρττοφορεῖν), which denotes the results of labour (ef, Rom. vi, 21; Phil, i. 22; Matt, xxi, 34 ; John iv, 36) or, to put it more precisely, since an apostle, 7.0. a missionary, is here speaking, the results of preaching, which is represented under the figure of labour in a field or garden (1 Cor, 1, 6-9). Vaul’» intercourse with the Roman Christians (i, 11 1.) will not require labour on his part, but will bring him quickening (xv. 24), There is no emential change in the sense, if, with D*Gd g, Ambrowiaster, we read ob« olopa (instead of Air) δέ, which sounds more natural, and could have been easily displaced by the other reading which occurs #0 frequently in Paul’s writings, The dv ὑμῖν, 1, 12, is quite syn- onymous with dv “Ρώμῃ; just ae ἐξ ὑμῶν, Col. iv. 9, means “from Colon” (Onesimus was not a member of the Church there, but probably had lived in Colossi) ; πρὸν ὑμᾶς, Rom. i. 10, xv. 22, 24, 32, “to Rome”; and δι’ ὑμῶν, Rom. xv. 26; 2 Vor. i, 16, not directly through the midet of the assembled congregation in Rome or Corinth, but “through (via) Rome or Corinth.” That in this passage the readers are addressed not a» members of the Roman Oburch, but as representatives of the Roman populace, the vast majority of whom were as yet unconverted, appears—(1) from the fact that in 1, 15, where unquestionably the reference in to the same work as in 1, 13, the ὑμῖν in very clearly defined by the appositional τοῖς dv Ῥώμῃ. To state that the readers are in Rome would seem superfinous, vince up to this time it has always been presupposed, and according to the prevailing text of 1, 7 was also formally expressed (see below, # 22, n. 3). On the contrary, it would he very much in place to remark, “When I vay ὑμεῖς and ὑμῖν, I mean the people in Rome” The point is just as clear if we read dv ὑμῖν in 372 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT i, 15 as in i. 13 (so D* and several Latin MSS., also G with its copyist’s error ἐπ᾽ ὑμῖν, for which g substitutes in vobis). (2) The same conclusion follows from the meaning of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι. It is impossible longer to speak of preaching the gospel to those who are already κλητοὶ ἅγιοι (i. 6, 7). Against a perverted use of Gal. iv. 13 see above, p. 171,n.2. (3) It is evident also from the fact that in i. 13 ἐν ὑμῖν stands in contrast not to ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκκλησίαις (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 17, vii. 17, xiv. 33), but to ev τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν. Thus the readers are addressed as τὸ ἔθνος τῶν Ῥωμαίων. But that does not mean the Roman nation, even if it were possible to use such a term; nor yet the populus Romanus (δῆμος Ῥωμαίων, Just. Apol. i. [in the address]), the whole body of cives Romani, but the total population of Rome at that time, citizens and non-citizens, foreigners and natives, slaves and free men, consisting of all sorts of nationalities, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Celts, Syrians, and Jews,—an ἐπιτομὴ τῆς οἰκουμένης, as the rhetorician Polemo (in Galenus, ed. Kühn, xviii. 1. 347) called Rome. The sense of i. 13 would have been practically the same if Paul had written καὶ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, καθὼς καὶ ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς πόλεσιν. Cf. an imperial writ of the third century (Grenfell and Hunt, Faydm Towns, 120: ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἁπάσαις, ταῖς τε κατ᾽ Ἰταλίαν καὶ ταῖς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν ; further, Galenus, Anat. admin. i. 1, ed. Kühn, xix. 218, ev ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ δὲ καί τισιν ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν γενόμενος ; cf. Acts xxvi. 4 (above, p. 68, n. 15); also Acts ii. 5 (not ex, but ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους, above, p. 61); ef. further the contrast in Dio Cass. xxxvi. 41 (al. 24) between οἴκοι (in Rome) and ev τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (in the provinces, 7.6. among the subject peoples) ; liv. 30, ἡ ᾿Ασία τὸ €6vos=the province of Asia with all its motley population. Ramsay, Stud. Oxon. iv. 30, compares for this use of ἔθνος C. I. Gr. 2802 ; Le Bas-Waddington, No. 1219; Inscr. Brit. Mus. 487. The argument remains unchanged if we make καθώς begin a sentence running through and inclading ver. 14, a punctuation which has much to commend it (ef. Klostermann, Korrekturen, 4f.). Paul’s purpose through missionary preaching to achieve some results in Rome also is in keeping with the fact that among all other peoples and in all other parts of the world he feels himself a debtor both to Greeks and Barbarians, to the cultured and uncultured alike. Although the reference here is primarily to the regions in which Paul had laboured hitherto, where he had to deal now with Barbarians who spoke Lycaonian (Acts xiv. 11), now with Athenians trained in philosophy, sometimes with Jews, sometimes with Greeks, nevertheless in the comparison of Rome with these provinces there is an indirect reference to the peculiarly varied mixture of peoples in the imperial capital. Paul is thinking, however, not so much of the different nationalities represented in Rome, as of the different degrees of culture among the individuals to whom the gospel is to be brought. 4. (P. 357.) The omission of πρῶτον, i. 16, in BG and in Marcion (Tert. c. Marc. v.13; GK, ii. 515), proves merely that it was early found to be embarass- ing. Inii. 9, 10 there is no question as to the soundness of the text, and there is no conceivable reason why πρῶτον should have been introduced from these verses into i. 16. But, as Klostermann (Korrekturen, 14-24) was the first to point out, the common view, that Jews and Greeks (=Gentiles) here repre- sent the two divisions of mankind or Christendom comprehended in the phrase παντὶ τῷ mıorevovrı, is quite untenable. For, on this interpretation, the essential equality of Jew and Gentile and the Jew’s priority over the THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 373 Gentile are asserted in the same breath. The correet interpretation is that found in an ancient summary (Cod. Anvat., ed. Tischendorf, 240, e. iii.), which gathers up the contents of Rom. i. 13-17 in the words “de gentibus grecis ac barbaris et primatu Judzorum atque Grecorum.” The reasons for so interpreting the passage are—(1) Paul does not use Ἕλλην, ἑλληνικός κτλ. in the sense of “Gentile,” as did other Jews who wrote in Greek subsequent to the time of the Seleucid (above, p. 58, n. 2). 1 Cor. 1. 22 is applicable only to Greeks, not to all non-Jews. In Col. iii. 11 Seythians and Barbarians are mentioned with Greeks. There are other passages (Rom. iii. 9, x. 12; 1 Cor. x. 32, xii. 13; Gal. ii. 3, iii. 28) where it is uncertain whether the word is used in its proper national sense, or its derivative, religio-historical sense. But here the latter meaning is impossible, for, in the immediate context (i. 14), “Ἕλλην is used to denote not Gentile in contrast to Jew, but the Greek and the man of Greek culture, including the Hellenised Jew, the Hellenist (above, pp. 41, n. 8, 71, n. 21) in contrast to the Barbarian, 7.e. the man without Greek culture ; (2) an instance has yet to be cited where πρῶτον or a similar word inserted between ré—xai destroys the parity of the words connected by these particles. Even if the reading were πρῶτόν τε καί, it would not bear this interpretation. In Acts xxvi. 20 the preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem which afterward affected the whole country of Judea (cf. Acts ix. 27 f.; Gal. i. 22 f.; Rom. xv. 19) is treated as one composite whole and spoken of as the apostle’s first preaching, in contrast to his later preaching to the Gentiles, which was separated from his first ministry by an interval of several years. There is a passage in Eusebius (Eel. Proph. iii. 26, ed. Gaisford, p. 162) which may be considered parallel in spite of the difference between πρῶτον and πρότερον, and which weighs against the common interpretation of Rom.i. 16. Speaking of what the devil had done to Jerusalem through the instrumentality of the Roman legions, his agents, Eusebius says: πᾶσαν φθορὰν ἐνηργήσατο αὐτῷ τε πρότερον τῷ had καὶ τοῖς τὴν πόλιν ἐνοικοῦσι πολίταις, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τῷ ναῷ καὶ τῇ πάλαι συντελουμένῃ ἐν αὐτῷ λατρείᾳ ; (3) certainly in Rom. i.-ix. we do not find any development of the idea that the gospel is a power of God unto salvation in a higher degree or sooner in tlıe case of believing Jews than of believing Gentiles. On the contrary, up to x. 12 the whole argument is to show that, with respect to the divine judgment and in regard to the way of salvation, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. This statement is not invalidated by the mention of the privileges of Israel in iii. 1. Not until x. 19 (if πρῶτος be taken as a part of the preceding question—with Bentley, Critica Sacra, ed. Ellies, 30, and Hofmann, ad loc.) is mention made of the prior elaims of Israel to Christ’s redemption and the gospel, and their corre- sponding treatment at the hand of God. It is referred to again slightly in xv. 8f., but by this time the theme stated in i. 16 f. must have been quite forgotten by the readers. On the other hand, the thought would be more appropriate that, whereas the gospel exists, as it certainly does and ought, for all men, it is intended, however, primarily, or at least in the first instance, for the people of God’s revelation and for the world of Greek culture. In view of actual facts, this thought would not require further elucidation. As yet, the apostolic mission had not extended to the barbarous peoples beyond the bound of civilisation, but had been directed to Jews and Greeks, or at 374 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT least Hellenised peoples, of course without neglect of its duty toward indi vidual Barbarians in the Graeco-Roman world (Rom. i. 14), and without losing sight of its ultimate goal (Matt. xxviii. 19; Actsi.8; Rom. xi. 11-15, 25-32 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17). Consequently Paul does not go to the Parthians or the Ethio- pians, but, after having preached the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyrieum (Rom. xv. 19), he “must see Rome also” (Acts xix. 21). Jews and Greeks are prepared beyond the rest of mankind for the reception of the gospel, and for that very reason, too, are most responsible for their religions and moral attitude. This explains πρῶτον in ii. 9 f. as in i. 16. A δεύτερον and a τρίτον are not excluded but rather implied, so there is no contradiction of the complete universality of divine providence and revelation. 5. (P. 359.) Although the different views regarding iv. 1 f. (ef. above, p. 131 f., n. 2) and iv. 16-22 cannot be discussed here, it should be observed that two aspects of Abraham’s fatherhood are distinguished in iv. 11, 12 which in πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν, iv. 16, are combined. He is the father of uncircumcised believers (ver. 11), and more definitely by reason of circumcision he is father of those Jews who have not only been circumcised but also walk according to Abraham’s faith (ver. 12). The logical and stylistic incongruity of the article before στοιχοῦσιν is perhaps relieved by Hort’s conjecture (Append. 108) that we read καὶ αὐτοῖς instead of καὶ rots, the only reading that has come down to us. Or perhaps the τοῖς before oro (χοῦσιν) is due to an unconscious repetition on the part of the copyist. 6. (P. 359.) Since we are to read ἔχωμεν and not ἔχομεν in v. 1, and must accordingly construe καυχώμεθα, v. 2, 3, as subjunctive, the section v. 1-11 begins, it is true, in hortatory form. But this does not change its logical relation to what precedes, as indicated above, especially in view of the fact that from ver. 9 on the declarative form is resumed. The key to the inter- pretation of v. 12-21 is to be found in the word βασιλεύειν, which is five times repeated (v. 14, 17, 21, ef. also vi. 12, and κυριεύειν, vi. 14). 7. (P. 361.) The characteristics of this kingly rule are—(1) its absolute- ness ; (2) its independence of the will and conduct of those born under its sway. The latter applies especially to the line beginning with Adam, the former to that beginning with Christ. 8. (P. 362.) If ἁμαρτίας and ὑπακοῆς, vi. 16, cannot denote the two masters between whom choice must be made (which would require rather τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ and τῇ ὑπακοῇ), and if both are used attributively, it follows that the readers were always servants, and servants of God. The τῆς ἁμαρτίας in vi. 17 is also to be taken attributively, which the article does not forbid (ef. Luke xvi. 8, xvili. 6; 2 Cor. i. 8) ; for the thing contrasted with their former state is not the choice of a new master, but the fact that they have become obedient from the heart in their conversion to the gospel. The attracted clause eis ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον is to be expanded into eis τὸν τύπον διδαχῆς, ὃν παρεδόθητε, and the latter phrase further into ὅς παρεδόθη ὑμῖν (cf. Ewald and Hofmann, ad loc.; possibly also Philo, de Josepho, xvii, ἐν οἷς ἐπετράπησαν karmyopn@&vres). It is plain that language like this could be addressed only to Jewish Christians who, prior to their conversion, considered themselves servants of God (ef. viii. 15), but rendered their Master only an external or seeming obedience. Really at that time they were the slaves of sin, and did not become slaves of righteousness until their conversion. The change from the THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 375 contrast between obedient and disobedient servants of God in vv. 16, 17 tc the different contrast of vv. 18-23 is quite in keeping with Paul’s style (ef. also John viii. 33-34), as is also the change from the figure of slavery to that of military service in ver. 23 (cf. vi. 13); observe also that while ὀψώνια (=stipendia) denotes regular pay (ef. 1 Cor. ix. 7; Luke iii. 14), χάρισμα means an extraordinary largess (donativum) ; ef. Tertullian’s translation, De Resurr. xlvii, and pseud-Origenes, Tract., ed. Batiffol, p. 198. 5, “stipendia salutis . . . charismatum donativa.” It is perfectly clear that in vii. 1-6 Paul addresses the readers as if they, like himself, had lived under the law prior to their conversion and new birth. No rational man could possibly say this of native Gentiles. Neither could a Christian who had grown up in Judaism speak in this connection of native Gentile Christians in relation to himself as Paul does from vii. 4 (καρποφορήσωμεν) on. Consequently, for this reason if for no other the question of the nationality of the Roman Christians may be regarded as settled, for it is equally clear that Paul is not here addressing a part of his readers. Manifestly the fact that he addresses them as brethren in vii. 1 and again in vii. 4 is not an accident, since no address of this kind has been used since i. 13. He remembers that the great majority of these Christian brethren in Rome are of like origin with himself, and have stood in the same relation to the law. But there is nothing in the passage which justifies us in taking ἀδελφοί differ- ently from the way in which it is taken in i. 13, viii. 12, xii. 1, by making it refer simply to a part of the Roman Christians, who as yet have been addressed without distinction. Had Paul wished to direct to the Jewish members of the Church in contradistinction to the Gentiles the address which begins here, it would have been necessary for him to write ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω, τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου κατὰ σάρκα (cf. xi. 13, ix. 3), Or τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς ; or, if after he had written the ambiguous ἀδελφοί it occurred to him that the part of the Church which he was addressing needed to be more clearly distinguished, he could have added after ἀδελφοί, ὑμῖν γὰρ λέγω, τοῖς τὸν νόμον γινώσκουσιν. As the passage reads, Paul does not make a distinction between those of his readers who know the law and those who do not; but, as he appeals to their experiential knowledge concerning the length of time the law is valid, he simply reminds himself and all his readers that he is speaking in this letter to those who know the law. It is difficult to under- stand how Hofmann, iii. 261, in spite of his grammatically correet rendering of the words ἀδελφοὶ---λαλῶ, can still hold that Paul is addressing here only the Jewish portion of his readers, and that λαλῶ refers merely to what is said in vii. 1-6. This is logically impossible. Moreover, a less important but sufliciently valid objection is the fact that if Paul had intended thus to make the word refer to the statement that follows, it would have been necessary for him to write λέγω (I say) instead of λαλῶ (talk, speak), Rom. iii. 5, vi. 19, ix. 1, xi. 13, xii. 3; 1 Cor. vi. 5, vii. 6, 8, x. 15; 2 Cor. vi. 13, vii. 3, viii. 8, xi.21). Even where λέγω and λαλῶ occur together (Rom. iii. 19; 1 Cor. ix. 8) the distinction is not lost. 9. (P. 365.) A decision between the reading ὑμῖν δέ (NABP) and ὑμῖν yap (DGL) in xi. 13 is difficult, but it is not of much importance in determining the historical meaning of the passage, for evidently Paul is not thinking here of some characteristic of his readers suggested by what he is about to say (as 376 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT if, eg. he had said ἔθνεσι γὰρ λαλῶ ; ef. vii. 1, n. 7). The appositive ron ἔθνεσιν may be translated in one of two ways: “You who are Gentiles in distinction from other people”; or “You who are the Gentile members of this circle.” Both renderings are possible grammatically (cf. the similar ambiguity in Luke xviii. 13). But the emphatic position of ὑμῖν at the beginning of the sentence shows clearly that Paul is here distinguishing a special class among the readers who hitherto have been addressed as one body (cf. Rev. ii. 24; Luke xi. 42-53). 10. (P. 366.) Ifin xiv. 5 we read ὃς μὲν yap (R* ACP), it is even clearer than when ydp is omitted (BDG) that the contrast between observance and non- observance of certain days is intended only as an illustration. Moreover, according to the shorter and more correct reading in xiv. 6, only those who do observe days are mentioned and compared with those who eat meat and not those who make no distinction between days, which renders it evident that the illustration is intended to show the ascetic that the eating of meat to which he objects is just as much to be tolerated as the observance of certain days. From this it follows that the ascetics must have regarded the observ- ance of days as right beyond all question, and made it their own practice (cf. Skizzen, 177, 353, n. 13). From this we are not, however, to conclude with E. Riggenbach (ThStKr. 1893, S. 652 1.) that the question of the observ- ance of days was a subject of controversy between the weak and the strong parties in the Roman Church. Since the Mosaic law did not forbid to Israelites the use either of meat or of wine, these ascetics could not possibly have based their own practice and their demands upon their fellow-Christians on the doctrine that the law, particularly the Mosaic law, prohibiting the use of certain foods, was binding upon Christians. A connection with Essenism is the more unlikely, because the opinion which was first advanced by Jerome (adv. Jovin. ii. 14), that the Essenes abstained from the use of meat and wine, has very little to support it (ef. Lucius, Der Essenismus, 8.56; Schiirer, 11. 569 [Eng. trans. 11. ii.200]). Philo’s statement (Quod omnis prob. lib. xii, Mangey, 11. 457), that the Essenes do not sacrifice beasts, but purify their hearts, indicates nothing as to abstinence from the use of meat. But this statement is to be understood in the light of the more definite language of Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1. 5). Although in places the text of Josephus is not quite certain (Niese, ed. major on vol. iii. 143, 10), it is nevertheless clearly stated that in place of the sacrificial ritual in the Temple at Jerusalem from which they were excluded, the Essenes made the required sacrifices among themselves (ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν). Farther on we learn that they considered the preparation of the bread and other food to be a priestly function (iepeis de [χειροτονοῦσιν] ἐπὶ ποιήσει σίτου καὶ τών βρωμάτων), considered the house where they ate a temple, and looked upon their common meals as sacrificial feasts (Bell. ii. 8. 5). Had the food which was set before the members of the order by the cook (judyerpos—named along with the baker—Bell. ii. 8. 5) consisted solely of vegetables, it would have been necessary to state the fact explicitly, since the use of θυσίας ἐπιτελεῖν to denote the preparation of food most naturally suggests the slaughter of animals. It is also to be noted that according to Philo (Eus. Prep. viii. 11. 4, βοσκήματα ; ὃ 8, παντοδαπὰ θρέμματα) they engaged to a large extent in the raising of cattle in addition to agri- culture, Moreover, when it is said to their credit that they were always THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 377 temperate at their meals, and that only enough food and drink to satisfy hunger and thirst was set before them, the drinking of wine is presupposed (Jos. Bell. ii. 8.5). Their abhorrence of all food not prepared by themselves (Bell. ii. 8. 8 and 10) plainly refers not to particular kinds of food which they were forbidden to use, but to the method of its preparation (slaughter), which, in their eyes, assumed the character of worship. This feeling of the Essenes may be compared to the Jews’ detestation of “Hellenic oil” (Jos. Vita, 13), although they made abundant use of “clean” oil. If only absti- nence from the use of meat were under discussion in Rom, xiv., one might conclude that reference was intended to the School of the Sextii in Rome, under whose influence Seneca became a vegetarian in his youth (/'pist. eviü. 17-22). But since it is implied in xiv. 17, 21 that these ascetics abstained from wine also (cf. Col. ii. 16, ev πόσει), and since in xiv. 5 f. it is presupposed that they and possibly other Christians in Rome observed certain days on religious grounds, the probability is that the tendency in question had a Jewish source. Upon various occasions Jews were accustomed to abstain from meat and wine—that is to say, from whatever was physically stimulating or ministered merely to pleasure. Sometimes it took the place of a complete fast as a preparation for receiving revelations (4 Esdr. ix. 24-26, xii. 51) ; again, it was a way with the pious of expressing sorrow for some painful misfortune. According to Baba Bathra, 60b, after the destruction of the Temple (70 A.p.), the Pharisees resolved never again to taste of wine or meat, and only earnest effort prevented this custom from becoming general (cf. Delitzsch, Brief an d. Römer in d. Hebr. übersetzt u. aus Talmud u. Midrasch erläutert, 1870, S. 97). The Jewish Christians in Rome, like James in Jeru- salem (Eus. H. E. ii. 23. 5), may have practised such abstinence and urged it upon all Christians, either as a sign of sorrow for the unbelief of their people and for the approaching judgment upon Israel and Jerusalem (ef. 1 Thess. ii. 16; Rom. ix. 3), or in view of the near approach of the Parousia (ef. Rom. xiii. 11-14; 1 Thess. v. 4-8; Matt. xxiv. 37, 49, ix. 15, xi. 18 f.). 11. (P. 367.) Since διό, xv. 22, means “therefore,” not “thereby,” the hindrances in question could not have been formally stated in the preceding verses. Nor is the real cause which had kept Paul away to be sought in xv. 20 f.; for the reason that, if it was a matter of honour with Paul to preach only where Christ had not yet been preached, the number of places where he found it necessary to tarry would have been fewer, and rapid progress from the East to the West instead of being hindered would have been furthered. Hence διό refers to what precedes the description of the method of his mis- sionary work (vv. 20, 21), namely, to the statements concerning its import- ance and wide compass (vv. 155-19). Assuming that the rather late reading ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, xv. 23, is spurious, and that γάρ, xv. 24, is genuine, it follows that ὡς ἂν---Σπανίαν is dependent upon the preceding participial clause, and the sentence beginning with νυνὶ dé, ver. 23, but deprived of its proper conclusion by ἐλπίζω γὰρ---ἐμπλησθῶ, is taken up again by νυνὶ δέ in ver. 25. If this was written at the beginning of 58 a.p., the ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν, xv. 23 (which the reading ἱκανῶν, BC, is possibly meant to weaken somewhat), would imply that Paul’s mind was turning towards Rome earlier than might be inferred from 2 Cor. x. 16 and Acts xix. 21— perhaps as early as his first stay in Corinth (end of 52 until Pentecost 54) 378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Communications from his landlord concerning the conditions in Rome (Acts xvili. 2) may have moved him to this. The main difficulty that prevented the fulfilment of his desire was the work in Ephesus, which occupied him for three years altogether. After having sought in vain to reach the western coast of the province of Asia, before he crossed into Europe (Acts xvi. 6), and perhaps even on his first missionary journey (above, p. 181), Paul would not have been inclined to leave the East, nor could he have set out from Corinth for Italy and Spain without first having accomplished the preaching of the gospel in the province of Asia. But how Paul could write xv. 23 without having been in Alexandria must find its explanation in facts about which we can only make conjectures ; ef. Skizzen, 343, A. 32. § 22. THE INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. There are facts in the tradition of the text which are or seem calculated to arouse suspicion as to whether some parts of the received text belonged originally to the letter (n. 1). These facts are as follows :—(1) In the West as * in the East, and indeed in the East even before Origen, texts were in existence, which, though differing among themselves, agreed in that in all of them ἐν ‘Poun was wanting ini. 7 (n. 2). There is no more probability that these words belong to the original text than that ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ belongs to Eph. i. 1. But because of the general convic- tion, which in this case also was not disputed by Marcion, that the letter was intended for the Christians of Rome, ἐν Ῥώμῃ was inserted, only much earlier than the ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, in order that at once in the introductory greeting, as at the beginning of the other Church letters of Paul, this letter might have a clear designation of its recipients. This supposition would also not have any greater his- torical significance even were it proved by means of further documentary evidence to be beyond question. For in i. 15 the words τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ, which are lacking in only one of the witnesses for the reading of i. 7, here approved, are also for internal reasons indisputable. It is evident besides from i. 8-13 that Romans was addressed to a locally defined group of Christians, and from xv. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 376 22-32 that the residence of the readers lay on the road from the East to Spain. Only the one who confounds the introductory greeting with the general address can fail to feel the lack of definiteness of locality in the greeting (see above, p. 77 f.). (2) According to the testi- mony of Origen, when this testimony is mghtly under- stood, Marcion not only threw out entirely the so-called doxology, xvi. 25-27, but also mutilated all that followed xiv. 23 in the text commonly used by the Church (n. 3). Now, even if the interpretation of Origen’s testimony were correct, which makes Marcion throw out entirely not only xvi. 25-27 but xv. 1—xvi. 24 as well, it would not necessarily follow that Marcion’s recension was based upon a copy of the text current in the Church which concluded with xiv. 23; for we know that Mar- cion threw out, either altogether or in large part, whole chapters from the text of the Epistles which he found current, partly because they did not seem to him adapted for the edification of the Church, and partly because they were contradictory to his own views. If, on the other hand, the interpretation of Origen be correct, it is proof that Marcion had a copy of Romans which contained sections beyond xiv. 23 at least similar to our text of chaps. xv.—xvi., and that these were so objectionable to him that he struck out considerable portions of them. (3) The attempt has been made to connect with the facts mentioned under (1) and (2) certain doubtful traces of the circulation of a Latin text which in chaps. xv.—xvi. is supposed to have contained only the doxology (n. 4). (4) Even as early as Origen’s time there existed among the exemplars used in the Church the difference, that in some of them xvi. 25-27 stood between xiv. 23 and xv. 1, and in others at the end of the letter (n. 3). From the fact that Origen interprets the doxology as the conclu- sion of the letter, we may infer that this location was the one preferred in the circle to which he belonged. 380 0 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT When, however, he characterises this position ut nune est positum, he seems to imply that the older tradition was in favour of the position after xiv. 23. Since, how- ever, he considered it a matter of small importance, he merely expressed his opinion and refrained from all critical consideration of the question. The testimony of Origen does prove at least that the difference in the loca- tion of the doxology was not due in the first place to the systematic revision of the text (Lucian, Hesychius) which was made subsequent to Origen’s time, but that it goes back to the time of the unregulated growth of text-trans- mission, at-least back of the year 230. This fact renders our judgment regarding the original position of the doxology independent of the question as to the age of the existing sources for the text which have the deze in one or the other of these positions, and of the very diverse opinions regarding the value of these extant sources; for all of these are later than Origen. The question as to the original location of the doxology is essentially inde- pendent of the question whether it was written by Paul or added by someone else later. For whoever wrote it could not have left it doubtful where he intended it to be placed. Assuming that the doxology is an interpola- tion, there is a third possibility, namely, that the writer placed the doxology after xiv. 23, but that this was at the same time the conclusion of the letter, in addition to the other two, namely, that the doxology stood origin- ally either between xiv. 23 and xv. 1 or after xvi. 23 (24). This third possibility arises, however, only in case chaps. Xv.—xvi. are also questioned. The external evidence involved in the above problem is as follows :—I. Witnesses for the doxology between xiv. 23 and xv. 1: (1) Nonnulli codices known to Origen and regarded by him as witnesses of the original tradition, or at least of the tradition most prevalent in the earlier period; (2) the Antiochian recension of the THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 381 text, represented by L and most Greek cursives, by the liturgical tradition of the Greek Church, by the commen- tators of the Antiochian school, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and their successors, by the later Syriac (55), and by the Gothie translation (n. 5). (3) That this position of the doxology was once widely current also in the West, is evidenced (a) by an old Latin capitula which divides Romans into fifty-one chapters: chap. 1. begins with xiv. 15 and is followed immediately by chap. li, which began with xvi. 25-27, or consisted only of these verses (n. 4); (b) the copyist of the Greek and Latin bilingual G, who, without copying any part of the doxology itself, did, nevertheless, leave space enough for it after xiv. 23 (n. 6). To this is to be added still other evidence, that in the West also the position of the doxology at the end of the letter was not the only position (n. 5). (4) In favour of the location after xiv. 23, or partly favouring it, is the testi- mony of those MSS. which have the doxology twice (n. 7), after xiv. 23 and after xvi. 23 (24). 11. Witnesses for the doxology after xvi. 23 or xvi. 24: (1) the Alw codices of Origen, which represented the tradition preferred in his vicinity ; (2) the so-called best MSS. xBCD (regarding these see n. 6), also three or four cursives; (3) of the versions, the Coptic, Vulgate, and Peshito (n. 8); (4) of the commentators, Origen, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius (n. 4), Augustine (n. 4), Sedulius, and possibly also John of Damascus (n. 5). To this is to be added the partial testimony of MSS. which give the doxology twice (above, under I. 4). III. So far as we know, throughout the ~ entire ancient Church only in Marcion’s N.T. was the doxology wholly omitted, which fact is referred to in a notice by Jerome, the meaning of which is not clear (n. 9). The actual omission of the doxology in G [see under 1. 3 (b) above], and other facts which some have attempted to interpret in this way, cannot be taken as evidence of the existence in the ancient Church of a text without the 382 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT doxology. The single case where the doxology is omitted altogether, that of a Vulgate MS. of the ninth or tenth century, which has a mixed text, is to be explained as an isolated, but very natural result in the mixing οὗ Latin texts in which the position of the doxology varied (n. 6). This review shows only that the difference in the tradition, which existed before Origen’s time, was decided in and about Antioch and Constantinople in favour of the position of the doxology at the end of chap. xiv., by the rest of the Church in favour of the position at the end of chap. xvi. For us the question must be decided by the internal evidence, and this evidence is in favour of the opinion that originally the doxology stood after chap. xiv. For (1) while Paul not infrequently inferunds the course of a letter with a doxology ending with ἀμήν, he never concludes a letter in this manner, but always with a benediction ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου «ri. (n. 10). (2) If it is dificult to see how Paul could have written these weighty sentences, most intimately connected with the argument of the Epistle, after a long series of personal notices (xv. 14-xvi. 23), which as it grows longer shows constantly less and less connection with the theme of the letter, still less is it possible to conceive how in thus gathering up the thread of the discourse, broken so long before, he should have been suddenly so deeply moved as to be unable to conclude properly the sentence which he began. In view of this anacoluthon, the evidence for which is conclusive, it is doubtful whether originally xvi, 25-27 was a doxology at all (n. 11). (3) The subtle connection in thought between the doxology and the contents of both chap. xiv. and chap. xv. 1-13 makes it impossible to sup- pose that the doxology found its place so appropriately between xiv. 23 and xv. 1 by accident. Nor could it have been placed there by a reviser, who would look at the matter from a purely external point of view. However, THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 383 the position after chap. xiv. must be due to the writer of the doxology, and this is true whether the writer is the same as that of the letter or is to be distinguished from the latter (n. 12). (4) That the doxology did not stand originally at the end of chap. xvi. follows also from the fact, that it is hardly possible naturally to explain the confusion in the tradition of the text otherwise than by assuming that this confusion is due either to a later insertion of the doxology in chap. xvi. or later addition to the same (n. 13). (5) Assuming that the doxology stood originally at the end of the letter, there is no natural way in which to explain its transference to the position following xiv. 23 (n. 14). If, on the other hand, the doxology stood originally after xiv. 23, it is easier to see how in certain localities it came to be transferred to the end of the letter. Since in Origen’s time this transference had been generally accepted in his neighbourhood (above, p. 399f.), it is probable that it was made in the second century, 7.6. at a time when as yet’ a general freedom which later disappeared was allowed in the handling of apostolic texts. Furthermore, the change was made prob- ably in Alexandria. Because, beginning with Origen, the oldest witnesses for the position of the doxology at the end of the letter may be traced directly or indirectly to Egypt. And Alexandria was the point from which a text modified by critical reflection could spread most easily both toward the East and the West (n. 15). The text under discussion is of this character. The doxology seemed to disturb the close connection between xiv. 1—23 and xv. 1-13, and, after the analogy of Jude 24f.; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Pet. iv. 10£.; 2 Pet. iii. 18; Heb. xin. 20f, seemed to belong much more naturally at the end of the letter, for which reason it was transferred to this position. Or possibly criticism reached simply the negative conclu- sion that the doxology was not in its right place after xiv. 23, so that it was transferred to the end, in order 384 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that a portion of the text handed down by the tradition might not be altogether lost. ‘There are other instances where this has happened (n. 15 regarding John vii. 53- vill. 11); and the principle involved was openly avowed in the fourth century in connection with the discussion of critical questions (Eusebius, in Mai, Nova p. bibl. iv. 1. 255; GLK, ii. 913). Presupposing the genuineness of the doxology, the attempt has been made to trace the uncertainty regarding its position back to the time when the letter was written, and to explain the uncertainty partly in a mechanical way as due to the manner in which the letter was written, partly as due to intention on Paul’s part. Neither sup- position has any plausibility (n. 16). More is to be said for the suspicion roused by the varying position of the doxology as to its genuineness, or even as to the genuine- ness of the section, xv. 1-xvi. 24, standing between the two locations of the doxology, about which there has been a question ever since before Origen’s time. For, on either supposition, it is easy enough to explain the varying position of the doxology. If xv. 1-xvi. 24 is a later addition, the position of the doxology after xiv. 23 is easily explained by supposing that the new section was added, while the position of the doxology at the end of the letter only requires the supposition that in order to retain the old conclusion the new section was simply inserted between xiv. 23 and the doxology (cf. what is said regarding xvi. 24 in n. 13). On the other hand, supposing that everything else is genuine and that the doxology alone is a later addition, it is only necessary to imagine that in some cases the work of the interpolator, who, it is assumed, certainly inserted the doxology be- tween xiv. 23 and xv. 1, was simply copied, while in other cases, where the doxology seemed out of place in this location, or where, after comparison with other MSS., its position seemed suspicious, it was omitted here and THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 385 inserted ratlıer at the close of the letter, in order that no portion of the existing text might be lost. | Suspicion as to the genuineness of the doxology was proportionally increased according as the error was ac- cepted that in antiquity there were MSS. in the Church which did not have the doxology. Then, in addition, there were the objections, which were made to the contents of all that follows xiv. 23, so that up to the present time there are three opinions which have been maintained, supported in every case by inaccurate representation of the facts of the tradition: (1) that only the doxology is spurious (Reiche, Mangold); (2) that while xvi. 1-23 or parts of this section were written by Paul, it was intended for the Church in Ephesus (n. 20); (3) that all following xiv. 23 is a false enlargement of the original letter (Baur, n. 19). It is self-evident that the last hypothesis leaves unexplained the very ancient variations in the position of the doxology. It is equally plain also that the second view must be helped out by assuming peculiar accidents in connection with the preparation and transmission of Paul’s letters. If the preceding account of the tradition be correct, taken alone it furnishes positive support to no one of these negative views. Consequently, to secure acceptance, they must have all the stronger support from the internal evidence. Taking it for granted from what has been said above, that in the Bible used in the Church the doxology stood originally immediately after xiv. 23, the considerations which led to this conclusion are also for the most part strong arguments against the view that the doxology is spurious. The internal connections between the doxology and what precedes (xiv. 1-23) and follows (xv. 1-13), which have been already referred to (n. 12), show a subtleness of thought which one seeks for in vain in the whole body of ancient Christian literature proved to be the work of interpolators. The doxology re-echoes the VOL. I. 25 386 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT main thought of the letter; but for all that it is not made up of words or phrases taken from the preceding part of the Epistle or from other letters of Paul and patched together again, as is the case in the ancient pseudo-Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and Corinthians. On the contrary, thoughts which had influenced the author from the beginning of the letter are summed up again in’a manner independent and yet in entire conformity to the context of chap. xiv. and chap. xv. (n. 17). Further- more, the harshness of the expression, the anacoluthon in the construction of the sentence (n. 11), and the fulness and intensity of the thought are strong proofs of the genuineness of the doxology, unless it be shown that these qualities are characteristic of the compilations made by interpolators in the ancient Christian Church. All clear cases go to show only the contrary. Finally, no reason- able motive for the forgery has yet been discovered. If the forger found the letter concluding abruptly with xiv. 23, he would have met the necessity for a proper con- clusion to the letter by adding Paul’s usual benediction, e.g. a sentence like xvi. 24. At most he would have added only some blessings and greetings such as could be found at the close of almost any of Paul’s Epistles. On the other hand, if he found chap. xv. already a part of the letter, the same reasons which led at a very early date to the transference of the doxology from its position follow- ing xiv. 23, and which render it impossible to believe that it stood originally at the end of the letter, and was transferred later to the position after xiv. 23, would be conclusive arguments also against the supposition that the interpolator inserted it between chap. xiv. and chap. xv. Paul himself could not have concluded the letter either with xiv. 23 or xiv. 23+ xvi. 25-27. Nor would a simple benediction like xvi. 20 or xvi. 24, which might have been pushed out of its original place by the addition of THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 387 xv. 1-xvi. 20 (or —xvi. 23), have sufficed. ἔοι, leaving out of consideration the fact that elsewhere Paul is accustomed to prepare the way for the conclusion of his letters at considerable length (n. 10), in this instance there were special reasons why something needed to be added to chap. xiv. It is clear not only from the dis- cussions of chap. xiv., but also from the entire letter, that Paul was quite thoroughly informed concerning the con- ditions and feeling of the Roman Church. He must have had friends there who gave him this detailed information. Is it likely, then, that he would conclude the letter without a parting greeting to these friends? Such unfriendliness would be all the more unnatural in this instance, because here he is approaching a Church the majority of whom were unknown to him and he to them. If, as any careful investigation will show, Paul’s purpose in this letter was to establish a more intimate relation between himself and this Church, which up to the time had remained a total stranger to him, had he brought the letter to a close without emphasising, at least at the end, the personal relations which he undoubtedly had with individual Chris- tians in Rome, and so making evident the connecting ties already existing between himself and the Roman Church, he would have been neglecting the most obvious means of accomplishing this end. The surprise expressed now for more than a hundred years, that Paul should have had such an exceptionally large number of greetings to express and convey to the Church in a place that he had not yet visited, shows lack of careful observation. Not a single salutation or other communication intended for individual members is to be found at the close of letters addressed to the Churches founded by Paul at Thessalonica, Corinth, Philippi, and in Galatia. Similarly, the greetings from individuals in 1 Cor. xvi. 19f. and Phil. iv. 21f. are only those of persons of special importance to these Churches, and are, 388 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT moreover, addressed to the whole Church in Corinth and Philippi (n. 18). On the other hand, in the letter to the Church at Colosse, which Paul had not organised, and which he had never visited (Col. ii. 1), he conveys the greetings of six individuals (iv. 10-14), who, with the exception of Epaphras, were quite as unknown to the Church personally as was Paul himself. More than this, he requests the conveyance of a special greeting to an individual member of the Colossian Church; also to a member of the neighbouring Church of Laodicea, which likewise he had never visited (Col. iv. 15, 17), although at the same time he had despatched to a prominent Christian household in Colosse a private letter dealing exclusively with personal matters. Nor does he fail in this letter to the Church, which as yet was a total stranger to him, to make special mention of Onesimus, about whom the private letter despatched at the same time was written, and to remark expressly that Colossze was Onesimus’ home (Col. iv. 9), a fact which the readers themselves knew without being informed. He makes exactly the same remark about Epaphras (iv. 12), who, being the founder of the Church (i. 7), was certainly well enough known to all. Who does not see that all these personal references are due to Paul’s desire to make the Church feel that it is not such a stranger to him as it seems, and at the same time are indicative of an effort on his part to bring himself into closer touch with the Church where as yet he was really a stranger? This is exactly the case in Romans. Further- more, in Rom. i. 10-15 he had spoken of the desire which he had felt for a long time of coming to Rome. But in making this statement he had not said when or under what circumstances he hoped to come, nor explained why now he sent this long letter to Rome before carrying | out the plan which he had had in mind for so long. Inasmuch as he deemed the matter of sufficient import- ance to the Romans and to himself to be mentioned at THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 389 the very beginning of his letter, it is inconceivable that he should have brought the letter to a close without answer- ing questions which were suggested by his statements, and which must have been raised in the mind of every- one who read i. 8-15 with interest (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 18-21, xvi. 1-11). Im short, he must have concluded his letter with something at least closely resembling xv. 13-xvi. 24. If this passage is a later addition, it must have been slipped in in an underhand way in place of the original conclusion of the letter, the contents of which were similar to what is found here. And this substitution must have been made before Marcion’s time, since in his own recen- sion of the Epistle he adopted portions of Rom. xv.—xvi. from the text current in the Church (n. 3). Moreover, the substitution must have been made before any copies of the letter were put into circulation ; otherwise in the widely ramified tradition there could hardly fail to be some clear trace of a copy of Romans without chaps. xv.— xvi. The substitution must have been made in the archives of the Roman Church, or just as the letter was about to be issued, before any copies were made for general circulation. Those who believe that possible must make at least an effort to render it comprehensible and clear to others. They must also advance strong arguments to prove that chaps. xv.—xvi. were not originally a part of the letter. With regard to chap. xv., these arguments are such that the number convinced by them grows constantly fewer (n. 19). Similarly, the opinion that chap. xvi. like chap. xv. was intentionally added to Romans has scarcely any advocates left. More popular is the view that either wholly or in large part chap. xvi. was directed to Ephesus and became attached to Romans by accident (n. 20). This view was first suggested by the mention of Prisca (Priscilla) and Aquila and the Church in their house, and of Epzenetus, the first convert of Asia, whose name follows directly (xvi. 3-5, n. 21). 390 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT At Easter 57, Aquila and his wife were still in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19). If Paul wrote Romans in Corinth at the time indicated by Acts xx. 3 (information which, pre- supposing that Rom. xv., xvi. are genuine, we get also from Rom. xv. 25—xvi. 2), some ten or eleven months had elapsed since that time. Now, this Jewish couple, who were natives of Pontus, who had lived for a time in Rome, and who, after they were driven from Rome in the year 52, came to Corinth, had been closely associated with Paul ever since, and, as the circumstances of their removal to Ephesus show, had guided their movements altogether in accordance with his missionary plans (above, p. 262, 265, n. 3). It is consequently not at all impossible that when Paul turned his attention toward Rome and pre- pared to give up his work in Ephesus, this couple left Kphesus, very soon after the sending of 1 Corinthians, at about the same time that Paul did, and returned to Rome, where they had resided earlier, in order to prepare quarters for the apostle there as they had done previously in Ephesus. That Epeenetus should accompany them thither is not strange, in view of the fact that he was the first convert of Asia, and so probably owed his conversion to the zeal of this couple, not becoming acquainted with Paul until afterward. Through these old friends and companions, whom he mentions first among the Christians in Rome to be greeted, he may have received news from Rome more than once before Romans was written. More- over, what he says in praise of them would sound very strange in a letter to the Ephesian Church. For three years the Church which gathered for worship in Ephesus had seen them share Paul’s labours, and had witnessed their self-sacrifice on his behalf. If Paul desired to remind the Ephesians of this service (cf. Phil. iv. 3; 1 Cor. xvi. 15f.; 1 Thess. v. 12; cf, however, 2 Tim. i. 18), he must have called their attention to the services which they had rendered in Ephesus, instead of speaking, as he does, of THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 39) the gratitude felt toward them by all the Gentile Churches, Indeed, the use of this last expression to designate the Churches founded by Paul and his helpers and under his care, an expression not to be found in any of the letters directed to these Churches (cf., however, 1 Cor. iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16, xiv. 83; 2 Cor. vill. 18, xi 28, xiL013; 2 Thess. i. 4; Phil. iv. 15), can be understood only if this letter is intended for a Church outside this circle (cf. § 23). All the Gentile Churches are indebted to this Jewish couple. Like xv. 26-28, the statement im: xvi. 4: is designed to make the Romans realise that in those parts of the Church which were under Paul’s dominating influence Gentile and Jewish Christians were united to feah other by ties of self-sacrificing love and by a pious sense of gratitude. That these remarks are not only in harmony with xv. 1-13, but have also close relation to the general purpose of Romans (§ 24), is self-evident. It is with the same purpose in mind that in three passages Paul calls particular attention to the fact that the persons to be greeted (xvi. 7, 11), or sending greetings (xvi. 21), are countrymen of his (n. 22, also ὃ 23, n. 1). Not only does the language suggest ix. 3, but the purpose of these short notices is the same as that expressed. with so much in- tensity in ix. 1-5, x. 1f, xi. If, xiv. He wants. the Romans to know that he is anything but an apostate Jew without sympathy for his own unfortunate countrymen. The deeper his grief for the obdurate and unfortunate majority, of his countrymen, the profounder his joy for every brother after the flesh who has become also a brother after the Spirit. The further remark that Andro- nicus and Junius were honoured among the apostles, 1.6. in the mother Church, and that they became Christians before he did himself (n. 23), is also one of the trivial means which Paul uses to accomplish the great apologetic purpose of the letter, and is in so far evidence that these greetings were an original part of Romans. Rome is alse 392 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT suggested by Rom. xvi. 13. In this verse a certain Rufus and his mother are greeted, the latter of whom had at one time shown so much motherly kindness to Paul that he calls her his own mother. On the other hand, in a passage peculiar to Mark’s Gospel, Simon of Cyrene is called the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark xv. 21), which can hardly be explained otherwise than by the assumption that the sons of Simon were known to the first readers of Mark’s Gospel. Since, however, Mark’s Gospel was intended for Roman Christians, and since, according to the unanimous tradition, this Epistle was directed to Roman Christians, it cannot well be due to accident that in the former a Christian from Jerusalem named Rufus is mentioned as a person known to the readers, and that in the latter a Christian by the name of Rufus isgreeted. The close relation existing between Paul and the family, shows that this Rufus, with his mother, must have resided earlier in the East; ef. below, $ 53, especially also n. 5 of that section. Accepting these facts as conclusive evidence that the list of greetings was intended for persons in Rome, other names, which support this conclusion, deserve notice. The expressions τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αριστοβούλου and τοὺς ἐκ τῶν Ναρκίσσου τοὺς ὄντας ἐν κυρίῳ do not refer to Christian households (1 Cor. 1. 16, ΧῸΝ 15521 Timm. Hi LE) ΧΘῈΣ ef Wy Cori 10) u the Christian members of two larger circles mostly non- Christian (x. 11, n. 24). In all probability Aristobulus and Narcissus were two prominent men, some of whose slaves or freedmen had beeome Christians. Nareissus, the once all-powerful freedman of the emperor Claudius, died in Rome at the end of the year 54. Also an Aristobulus, a favourite of the emperor Claudius and brother of Herod Agrippa L, lived in Rome for a time at least during Claudius’ reign. Since the slaves of such distinguished households not infrequently retained the family name, even when they passed into the possession ofother masters THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 393 after the death of their own, probably we have to do here with the former slaves of this Aristobulus and Nareissus. This is rendered even more probable by the mention of the Jew Herodion (ver. 11), whose name indicates that he belonged to the household of the Herodian prince just mentioned. The fact that he is mentioned co-ordinately with the group of the Aristobuliani does not prevent him belonging to the same, any more than the mention of Epzenetus in ver. 5 prevents him from belonging to the Church in the house of Aquila. It has been shown further by Lightfoot from numerous inscriptions, that many of the names which occur in this chapter were more or less commonly used in the royal household in the first century, e.g. Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Tryphana, Tryphosa, Plilologus, Nereus (n. 24). Al- though as yet no one of these persons has been certainly identified, nevertheless the information gathered by Lightfoot, taken together with the fact that the Christian faith made its way at an early date into the royal house- hold in Rome, winning converts among the royal servants (Phil. iv. 22), does go far to confirm the belief that these greetings were intended for persons in Rome. At the same time the tradition of the Church, even where it has local colouring, is always under the suspicion of being dependent upon what is said in the N.T., and the material which up to the present time has been gathered from inscriptions and legends with a view to clearing up the question of the names in Rom. xvi. needs to be further tested and further confirmed before it can be utilised as proof in a text-book. Without recourse to this material, however, it may be regarded as proved that Rom. xvi. 1-16 was intended for persons in Rome, and that it was, therefore, an original part of the letter. To the unity of the Epistle, which in tradition has come down to us as a single letter, other objections have been made, without reference to the facts of the tradition concerning the text, 394 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT and based on exegetical discussions and internal criticism of the thought connection. These can be refuted only by a full and complete exposition of Romans, which at the proper time the present writer hopes to be able to pub- lish (n. 25). 1. (P. 378.) Regarding Rom. i. 7, W. B. Smith, JBL, 1901, pp. 1-21, and Harnack, Z/NTW, 1902, S. 83 ff., have written, following the present writer. From the literature on Rom. xv. 16, and the doxology in particular, the present writer calls special attention to SEMLER, Paraphrasis Ep. ad Rom. 1769, pp. 277-311; GRIESBACH, Opusc. Acad. ii. 62-66 ; REICHE, Comm. Crit. in Epist. Pauli, i. 88-120; Baur, Paulus,? i. 393-409; LiGHTFooT in the Journal of Philology, ii. (1869) p. 264f. ; iii. (1871) p. 193 f., which articles, together with Hort’s reply in the same journal, iii. 51f., will hereafter be cited as reprinted in Lightfoot’s Bibl. Essays (1893), pp. 284-374 ; MANGOLD, Der Rom. und. seine geschichtl. Voraussetzungen, 1884, 8. 44-166 ; LucHt, Uber die beiden letzten Kapitel des Rom. 1871; E. RıiGGEnBacH, NJbfDTh. 1892, 5. 498-605 ; 1894, S. 350-363, the latter treatise being cited here as Riggenb. ii. ; W. B. Smith, JBL, 1901, p. 129 ff. ; Spitta, Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Urchristent. 1Ππ| 10926 ii: 2. (P. 378.) Rom.i. 7 reads(1) in Gg πᾶσιν rots οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. χάρις κτλ. Many clues show that this text was in early times widely current. For (2) just the same text lay before Ambrosiaster (the Roman commentator, circa 370, ed. Ben. ii. App. p. 28). According to most MSS., the text preceding his comment is the ordinary reading of the Vulgate (“omnibus qui sunt Romer, dilectis dei, vocatis sanctis”) ; but a “Cod. Mich.” has, on the contrary, Rome in caritate dei (plainly without dilectis dei). This Vulgate text (with Rome and dilectis dei) was not that of Ambrosiaster, and even in Cod. Mich. Rome is an interpolation, as is shown by the exposition : “Quamvis Romanis scribat, illis tamen scribere se significat, qui in earitate dei sunt.” Farther on vocatis sanctis is utilised, but not dilectis dei. Hort, in opposition to Lightfoot in the latter’s Biblical Essays, p. 345, cf. 288, 365, has sought vainly to'weaken this argument. Ambr. does not set over against all the Christians in Rome those who are in the love of God, but he considers it noteworthy that Paul, when writing to the Romans, designates his readers not as Romans, but as persons in the love of God. (3) The Greek text of D begins with «Anrois ἁγίοις, but is to be restored to τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, following the Latin text (ἃ : “omnibus qui sunt Rome in cari- tate dei, vocatis sanctis”). In d a corrector of the eleventh century (d***) pointed, by means of a critical sign before in, to a correction on the margin, which is now torn off (Cod. Clarom. ed. Tischendorf, pp. xxv, 537). The cor- rector wished either to strike out in caritate dei, or in place of it to read dilectis dei, The former is the more probable, if one compares the text of E (the former S. Germanensis, now in St. Petersburg), which, according to a transcript furnished the present writer by C. R. Gregory, reads τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ KAnrois ἁγίοις. As is well known, E is a copy of D, a copy, however, of D made after that MS. had gone through the hands of its cor- rectors (Tischendorf, op. cit. xxv ; Gregory, Prolegomena, 423). Therefore ἐν THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 395 ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ after ev Ῥώμῃ, which was original in the lost text of D, has been removed by a corrector, and likewise from d. (4) The diffusion in the West of the uncorreeted text of Dd is attested by old MSS. of the Vulg. like Fuld. Amiat. (“omnibus qui sunt Rome in caritate [Amiat. dilectione] dei vocatis sanctis”). (5) Origen has the ordinary text, to be sure, in his Comm. in Jo. tom. xix. 5 (ed. Preuschen, p. 304, the citation tom. ii. 10, p. 64, is not in point), and in the Hom. in Num. (Delarue, ii. 301), preserved in Latin only. But in such matters dependence can be placed neither on the versions nor on such long quotations as that in John (tom. xix. 5), which Origen hardly could have copied single-handed from the Bible. The Comm. in Rom., which belongs to the last period of his life, gives us only his text of Rom. i. 1-7. According to the text preceding his exposition, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις was wanting, a lack which the exposition confirms (Delarue, iv. 467). Moreover, also, Origen could not have read the ἐν Ῥώμῃ which the text printed above contains. Although Origen doubted as little as Ambrosiaster that the letter was addressed to the Romans (iv. 468, 487, etc., cf. below in § 28 his view of Eph.), he says nothing at all of Rome in his exposition of the introductory greeting, but writes: “dilectis dei, ad quos scribit apostolus.” So his text ran πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, χάρις κτλ. (6) A scholion of the minuscule 47 reads, τὸ “ἐν Ῥώμῃ" οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει οὔτε ev τῷ ῥητῷ (in the text) μνημονεύει (Griesbach, Symb. Crit. ii. 15). In the first edition the present writer could refer this to Origen only conjecturally. Recently this conjecture has been established by the Mt. Athos MS. mentioned below in ἢ. 3. This MS., it is true, in spite of the assurance that its text of Rom. is drawn from Origen’s Commentary (v. ἃ. Goltz, S. 8), has ev “Ῥώμῃ in the text ; yet right here is the same scholion as in min. 47, except that rod replaces ro at the beginning (op. cit. 52 f., cf. ThLb. 1899, col. 179f.). There existed then in ancient times a Western (Nos. 1, 2) and an Eastern (Nos. 5, 6) text, which agreed in leaving out ev Ῥώμῃ. But they differ from one another in this, (a) that Nos. 1, 2 retained κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, while Nos. 5 (and 6?) rejected it; (b) that Nos. 1, 2 have ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ, No. 6 having ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ in its place. The texts classed under Nos. 3, 4, as well as that of Ambrosiaster’s Cod. Mich. (under No. 2) and of the translator Rufinus, or his editor (under No. 5), evidently present mixtures of the old text (without ev Ῥώμῃ) with the common text. There is no satisfactory explanation of a subsequent substitution of ἐν ἀγάπῃ for an original ev Ῥώμῃ. It was a firm belief of the early Church (Can. Mur. lines 47-59 ; Tert. c. Marc. v.17; Apolonius in Eus, H. E.v. 18.5; Ambrosiaster on Col. iv. 16, cf. GK, ii. 74 f.) that the letters of Paul were intended for the whole Church, in spite of their being addressed to definite localities ; but this belief has not produced the omission of the name of the place from the introductory greeting in any of the other letters. On the other hand, we have in Eph. i. 1 an example of how in antiquity the name of a place, originally lacking, has subsequently been inserted, and indeed on the basis of the still much older tradition that that letter was intended for the Church of Ephesus (see below, § 28). The same cause occasioned the insertion of an ἐν Ῥώμῃ in Rom. i. 7; for although Marcion disputed that Ephesians was intended for Ephesus, neither he nor anyone else has doubted that Romans was intended for Rome. Since, also, those who found no ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 1. 7, as Origen and Ambrosiaster, were convinced of this, it is 396 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT easy to understand that others wished to see this expressed in the intro- ductory greeting after the analogy of all other Church letters, finally also of Ephesians. To this especially led also the expression ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ κλητοῖς, unusual in the N.T. After the analogy of καλεῖν (κληθείς) with ἐν εἰρήνῃ, Ev χάριτι, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, ἐν ἐλπίδι, ev κυρίῳ (1 Cor. vii, 15, 22 ; Gal. i. 6; Eph. iv.4; 1 Thess. iv. 7), the originator of the text under consideration doubtless desired to join ev ἀγάπῃ with κλητοῖς, and understand it as follows, “all, who in (or by) God’s love are called to be saints” (cf. Rom. viii. 28). But how natural was the connection of τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ with the inopportune recollec- tion of τῇ οὔσῃ ev Κορίνθῳ, 1 Cor. 1. 2, and τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις, Phil. 1. 1. At first ἐν ρώμῃ may have been written alongside of ἐν ἀγάπῃ as a marginal gloss, then have been inserted in the text before ev ἀγάπῃ (so D originally and Amiat., Fuld.), and finally have fully displaced the ἐν ἀγάπῃ (so. the corrector of Dd and E). This appears to have been the history of the de- velopment of the text in the West. Also in the Greek Orient ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ, appearing in such an unusual connection, was the stumbling-block. | It was changed into ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, and κλητοῖς ἁγίοις was omitted, which ap- peared unnecessary alongside of κλητοὶ 'I. Xp. of ver. 6. Only Gg and Am- brosiaster have preserved the original text entirely unchanged (see Νο. 1). The question concerning τοῖς ἐν Ρώμῃ; i. 15, is entirely different from that concerning ev Ῥώμῃ, i. 7. Cod. Οὐ, which omits these words also, stands entirely isolated in this respect. The witnesses, which partly or fully con- firmed his text of i. 7, also Orig. and Ambrosiaster in their expositions, failed him in i. i5. Therefore, whoever questions the genuineness of τοῖς ev Ῥώμῃ (i. 15) must hold that these words were interpolated very much earlier than ἐν Ῥώμῃ, i. 7. It is, however, out of the question that a place of destination for the letter should have been missed earlier in i. 15 than in i. 7, and that an interpolation resulting therefrom should have spread more rapidly and universally than the ἐν Ῥώμῃ, i. 7. In none of the passages where πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δι’ ὑμῶν, Or ἐν ὑμῖν gives, an undoubted designation of the residence of the group of readers intended, so that Rome or Corinth could be substituted (Rom. xy. 22f., 28 f.; 1 Cor. xv, 5-7; 2 Cor. 1. 15f.,x..14£.), is such an in+ terpolation to be found. ‚On the other hand, the subsequent insertion of ἐν Ῥώμῃ, i. 7 has its exactly corresponding analogy in Eph. i. 1, and in the places of destination of the remaining introductory greetings of Pauline Church letters its fully satisfactory explanation. 3. (P. 379.) Orig. Comm. in Rom. Interpr. Rufino ad xvi, 24-27 (Delarue, iv. 687) : “Caput hoe Mareion, a quo scripture evangelice atque apostolicae interpolate sunt, de hac epistula penitus abstulit ; et non solum hoe, sed et, ab (al. in) eo loco, ubi seriptum 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, que non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoe ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus. In nonnullis etenim codicibus post eum locum, quem supra diximus, hoc est, ‘omne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est,’ statim coherens habetur, ‘ei autem, qui potens est vos con- firmare,’ Alii vero codices in fine id, ut nune est positum, continent. Sed jam veniamus ad capituli hujus (al. ipsius) explorationem.” A MS. of the tenth century (Cod. 184, B 64 of the St. Laura monastery on Mt. Athos), brought into prominent notice by E. v. d. Goltz (TU, N. F. ii. 4a, 1899), δ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 397 which gives a text of Rom. drawn directly from Origen’s commentary, con- firms the view that this Father read and exegeted the doxology at the end of the Epistle. Unfortunately, however, two scholia drawn from Or. upon xiv. 23 and xvi. 25 are quite erased except for the abbreviated name of Or. (Goltz, S. 60). Hort (in Lightfoot, Bibl. Ess. 330; NT, App. 112) preferred the reading of a Parisian cod. adduced by Delarue, in eo loco, which, according to Riggenb. ii. 359, is found also in Cod. 88 of the library of the monastery of St. Gall; and by the conjecture non solum lic (instead of hoc) he sought to bring out the meaning that Marcion elided the doxology not only after xiv. 23, but also after xvi. 23 (24). Among the arguments against this con- jecture and the opinion built upon it (cf. GK, ii. 519, also Lightfoot, 353), the following ought to suffice :—Even supposing Or. had known MSS. which had the doxology twice, after chap. xiv. as well as after chap. xvi. (so Hort, 341), a thing unattested and most improbable, and even if Or. had tacitly assumed that Marcion had found the doxology in both places, a thing still more incredible, one cannot believe that a man of Origen’s learning would take this remarkable way of expressing the simple thought that Marcion did away with the doxology altogether. Without changing hoc into Mc (here), we can see that the clause beginning with sed et treats not of the doxology again, but of chaps. xv., xvi., and that after this remark Or. returns again to the doxology (“hoc ipsum caput, capitulum hoc”). The reading of in (instead of ab) eo loco makes no essential change in the sense, since whatever Marcion is here represented as doing to the rest, usque ad finem indicates the extent of his emendation, If Or. wrote ev ἐκείνῳ τῷ τόπῳ, he was pointing out primarily the passage where Marcion began to use his knife, and not till later did he specify how far the devastation which he wrought extended. Just as caput hoc and (ab eo loco) usque ad finem ewncta form a contrast, so also do the new predicates penitus abstulit, and dissecwit. The doxology he had wholly discarded ; on the other hand, all that the MSS. of the Church give from xiv. 23 on to the end of the Epistle he had cut to pieces and mutilated by omis- sions (cf. Reiche, Comm. Crit. 1. 90, A. 7; Fr. Nitasch, ThStKr. 1860, 5. 285 ff., and the present writer’s GK, ii. 519f.). An attempt has often been made to take dissecwit in the sense of deseewit (amputavit), this, too, in the writings of a cultured Latin like Rufinus ; moreover, the St. Gall MS. gives as its reading the otherwise unsupported desecwit (Riggenbach, ii. 359); but such a meaning is incompatible with the structure of the sentence. “Et non solum hoc, sed et” presupposes in the original that elliptical οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ kal, to which a Latin translator (Rom. ix. 10, Vulg.), or a Latinising scribe (Cod. D, Rom. v. 3), very naturally would add a demonstrative : “not only did he do this which was just mentioned, but he also committed something other and different which is now to be mentioned.” Further than this, Tertullian’s words (c. Mare. v. 14 at the end, “bene autem quod et in clausula tribunal Christi comminatur,” cf. Rom. xiv. 10) cannot prove in opposition to Or. that Marcion closed his Rom. with xiv. 23, as the present writer thinks he has shown from Tertullian’s use of words (@K, ii. 521) more exactly than Hort (Bibl. Ess. 335). If it is unthinkable that Paul should have ended his letter at xiv. 23 without anything like a greeting, it is no less so that Marcion should have simply cut away all such material as he found there. He retained the personal references in Col. iv. quite fully, and accepted without change 398 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Philem.—a letter which consists almost entirely of such references, GK, ii 527, 529. On the contrary, he expunged all of Rom. iv. and 2 Cor. vii. 2-xi. 1, and all but a few sentences of Rom. ix. 1-xi. 32. But Rom. xv., xvi., in- cluding the doxology, also called for a free use of his knife. The appeal to the prophetic Scriptures, xvi. 26, xv. 2f., 9-12; the recognition of Israels prior rights, xv. 8; and the debt of the Gentile Church to Jewish Chris- tianity, xv. 27, xvi. 4, cf. also xvi. 7, were unbearable to him; while the names xvi. 5-15—meaningless to Churches of a later time—must have seemed to him superfluous. What le retained we have no means of finding out ; but there is nothing against the supposition that he worked up xv. 1-3a, 5-7, 14-24, 29-31a, 32, 33, and something from chap. xvi., into a tolerable whole. The present writer does not understand how Spitta, 8. 18f., without any attempt to refute the demonstration given above, can confidently repeat the old mistake that Marcion did not at all have the doxology any more than he had chaps. xv. and xvi. in his N.T. ; and then again, also on the basis of this statement, can venture the conjecture that he had found a text of the Church limited to chaps. i.-xiv. That this is due to an accidental mutila- tion of a copy is, to be sure, very “simply” explained by the insufficient analogy of the ending of Mark. 4. (Pp. 379, 381.) In very many Vulgate MSS. there is a list of chapters (so-called Brevis, also Capitula) belonging to Rom. which Wetstein, NT, ii. 91, was the first todeem worthy of notice, a notice, however, which was not exactly clear. Later, however, it was made use of for the critical question by Light- foot, Bibl. Ess. 289, 355-362 ; Hort, ibid. 337, 351; also NT., Appendix, p. 111; Corssen, Epist. Paulin. codd. greece et latine script. Spec. i. (1887) p. 21; Riggenbach, 531-558, ii. 350-363. It is found, eg. in the Amiatinus, ed. Tischendorf, 240 ; in six Roman MSS. cited by J. M. Thomasius (Opp., ed. Vezzosi), i. 388; in many English MSS. cited by Lightfoot, 357 ; and in others cited by Riggenbach, 532. This Capitulatio Amiatina, as, for the sake of brevity, it must be called here, is in the oldest dated Vulg. MS. (Fuldensis, ed. Ranke, 176-179) so combined with another that its chaps. 24-51 (be- ginning with Rom. ix. 1) are added directly to chaps. 1-23 of the other (which embrace Rom. i—xiv.). This naturally may be explained by saying that there was wanting in the exemplar of Fuld. a leaf which contained chaps. 1-23 of this Capit. Amiat., and that for this reason the copyist of Fuld. was induced to fill up the gap from another MS. with an altogether different Capit., taking chaps. 1-23 from this without noticing that in this mechanically combined Capit. Rom. ix.-xiv. occurred twice ; ef. Riggenbach, ii, 355. This is proved by the fact that Fuld. has the Capit. Amiat. through- out for the other Epistles, that in the very part of Rom. for which the other Capit. was used the chapter numerals of the Capit. Amiat. are in- serted in the text, and that in a list of Chureh leetions, p. 165, it follows not its own combined Capit., but the unmixed Capit. Amiat. This was present then in the exemplar of Fuld. originally, just as in the numerous MSS. mentioned. It lies also at the basis of an old concordance (Concordia, also Capitulatio, Uanones, Concordia canonum), consisting of a hundred and one titles not numbered ; one which Vezzosi (Thom. Opp. i. 489) edited from a Murbach MS. and which is extant in many Vulg. MSS. in a mutilated form only, that is to say, without the first forty-three titles (Amiat. p. 237; THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 399 Fuld. p. 173; in three MSS. in Thomasins, i. 384, and in many others; cf. Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. p. 209,n. 2. The first words “de unitate ecclesiz” =title 44 of the Murbach Concordance (Thomasius, i. 492). The high antiquity of the Capit. Amiat., which appears from the facts already adduced, is estab- lished by the Biblical text presupposed in it; this is not the Vulg., but a text earlier than Jerome’s time; cf. Lightfoot, 362; Riggenbach, 531-541. But the Capit. Amiat., which the present writer quotes according to Amiat. and Fuld.,ignoring slight orthographic variations, consists of fifty-one chapters, Chap. xlvi., according to the wording of the title and the specification in the text, includes Rom. xiii. 145 (“et carnis curam ne feceritis”) -xiv. 6; chap. xlvii., only Rom. xiv. 7-8; chap. xlviii., Rom. xiv. 9-13; chap. xlix., only Rom. xiy. 14; chap. 1. has the title, “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”; chap. li., “De mysterio domini ante passionem in silentio habito, post passionem vero ipsius revelato.” Cf. the like sequence in the Con- cordance quoted in Thomasius, i. 392. From this we cannot decide definitely whether chap. 1. included Rom. xiv. 15-23 or only xiv. 15-20; and whether chap. li. included simply the doxology, to which title 51 without doubt refers, or also something before and after. The chapter numerals in the text embarass us here, for it is not until Rom. xv. 4 that we find the numeral 51, and the doxology, to which alone reference is made in title 51, stands in the text of this Vulg. MS. not here, but at the close of the Epistle, and without chapter numeral. The only thing certain is that the Capit. Amiat. was pre- pared for an old Latin text of the Bible, in which xvi. 25-27 followed chap. xiv. immediately, and that whoever transferred it to Vulg. MSS. left the Capit. unchanged while allowing it to exert no influence upon his Biblical text. Since in this text the section to which title 51 refers was not to be found near at hand, the numeral 51 was put at xv. 4, apparently with the idea that xv. 4-13 contained something measurably corresponding to this title. In the lectionary of Fudd. p. 165, it is taken for granted that Rom. xv. 8 is contained in chap. li. Further, though the limits of the sections cannot be determined always with certainty from the wording of their titles, we cannot believe that the Capit. Amiat., which cut up Rom. xiv. into five chapters, 1 Cor. xvi. into seven, and 2 Tim. iy. into no less than eight, should have included Rom. xv., xvi. under the one title 51, which refers only to Rom. xvi. 25-27. It was consequently natural to conjecture that the Capit. Amiat. was intended for a Bible in which Rom. closed with chap. xiv + xvi. 25-27, so that of chaps. xv., xvi. only the doxology was included. Nevertheless it is exceedingly precarious to infer from what remains of the Capit. Amiat. that a Latin Rom., which contained only i. 1-xiv. 23+xvi. 25-27, existed and was more or less current. For (1) the significant diffusion of this Capit. Amiat. does not prove that it included only these fifty-one titles from the start. Even if the lists adduced by Lightfoot from English MSS., which are identical in the main with the Capit. Amiat., but include also chaps. xv., xvi., should prove to be nothing but later supplements, neither does this prove that the Capit. Amiat. is more than a fragment. 'The Concordance mentioned above is likewise only half preserved in the oldest and best MSS. (Fuld Amiat. and three MSS. in Thomasius), and thus far is fully known from just a single MS. Before Heb. in Fuld. is a Capit. consisting of 400 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT twelve headings, the last heading of which begins with Heb. ix. 11 (see the italic numerals in Ranke, 322. 12), so that Heb. x.-xiüi., and perhaps also a part of Heb. ix., remain unnoticed. This is also the case with Cod. Regina Suecie (Thomasius, i. 428), from which the numerals xi., xii., which have fallen out of Fuld. p. 312. 26, 28, must be supplied. The fact that the text ci Heb. in Fuld. is, besides, divided completely into one hundred and twenty-five chapters, and by a later hand again, as also in the Amiat., into thirty-nine chapters (Ranke, 492), makes the defect in the Capit., which prefaces the Epistle, and in the numerals in the text corresponding to it, all the more striking. So this Capit. also lay before the scribes of the oldest Vulg. MSS. in a mutilated form, and even yet is known in that form only. (2) Among the countless Latin Bibles, about the contents of which more or less is known, not one has been found so far which contains a Rom. consisting simply of i. 1-xiv. 23+xvi. 25-27. Since the same is true of the Greek MSS. and of all the versions, and since even Marcion accepted fragments of Rom. Xv., xvi. (above, p. 396f., n. 2), we have not a single sure trace of this shorter form of the Epistle. Some have thought that such a trace was found in the circumstance that Irenzeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian quote nothing from Rom. xv., xvi. How much this argumentum e silentio is worth can be seen in the case of Irensus, who quotes nothing from the following chapters of Paul’s letters :—1 Cor. xvi. ; 2 Cor. i., vi., viii—xi. (only a doubtful reference to ix., x. in iv. 25. 3); Col. iv. ; 1 Thess. :ii-iv.; 2 Thess. iii.; 1 Tim iii.—v. ; 2 Tim. iii. ; Tit. iii. If this incompleteness in his quotations cannot prove that these twenty chapters and Philem. besides were wanting in the N.T. of Irenzus, neither is his silence about Rom. xv., xvi. of any weight. As for Tertullian, there should be an end of making that in clausula, which refers to Rom. xiv. 10, c. Marcion, v. 14 (above, p. 397), apply to this argument ; for even if this should mean “at the end of Rom.” it would be- unimportant in determining Tertullian’s N.T., for everywhere in his ὁ. Marcion he argues on the basis of Marcion’s N.T., not his own, with only here and there a side glance at the Church Bible; cf. GK, 1. 601-606, ii. 453. Besides, Tertullian, de Fuga, 12 (“Quando Onesiphorus aut Aquila aut Stephanus hoc modo” by bribing the persecutors “eis” the apostles “in persecutione succurrerunt?”), has in mind plainly Rom. xvi. 4, the only passage from which we can gather that Aquila too, like Onesiphorus (2 Tim. i. 16-18) and Stephen (Acts vi.-vii.), had exposed himself to mortal danger. Other hints are less conclusive; ef. Rönsch, Das NT Tertullians, 350 ; Mangold, 36 ff. ; it is doubtful whether Cyprian, Epist. Ixv. 3 (“conprobantes, nec ante se religioni, sed ventri potius et questui profana religione servisse”), had Rom. xvi. 18 in his thought. Of other Latins who cite passages from Rom. xv., xvi., the present writer adduces pseudo-Cypr. de Singul. Cleric. pp. 181. 19, 212. 23 (chaps. xv. 2, xvi. 17); Hilary (Trin. iv. 8, Bened. p. 830), only the doxology ; Ambrose (Pref. in Ps. xxxvii., ed. Ben. i, 819) and Vietorinus (ec. Arium, iv. 17, Migne, 8, col. 1112) only Rom. xvi. 20; Priscillian, ed. Schepss, 92. 14 (chap. xv. 4); cf. the same author’s Canons and Sections, pp. 128, 129, 131, 135, 136, 140, 141, 170 ; August. Haposit. Preposit. Ex Epist. ad Rom., ed, Bass. iv. 1222 (without touching on the doxology); ὁ. Mawimin. Her. ii. 18, tom. x. 844, 845 (“in fine epistols sie loquitur”), then follows the doxology : Specul., ed. Weihrich, pp. 204. 8-208, 21 (chaps. xii. 1-xv. 7 continuous, THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 401 without doxology; then xv. 26, 27; further, xv. 30; finally, xvi. 17-19); Jerome often. Of the commentators, Pelagius (see the recast form of his commentary under the name of Jerome, Vall. xi. 3. 210, 216 f., and Zimmer, Pelagius, S. 310, 312) seems to have discussed the doxology, not after xiv. 23, but at the close of the letter, however, with xvi, 24 after xvi. 27, as his re- mark upon xvi. 24 (“hee est subscriptio manus ejus in omnibus epistolis,” etc.) shows, and is confirmed by the Würzburg excerpt in Zimmer, S. 64. Ambrosiaster also is important; for though elsewhere he notes differences between texts (GK, i. 34), he expounds Rom. xv., xvi., placing the doxology at the end, without any critical comment. Origen, too, who was once in Rome, knew only of the uncertain position of the doxology (see above, p. 396 f., n. 3). Of old quotations or allusions, aside from Jude 24 (see below, § 44, n. 13), the present writer instances the following: Ign. Eph. (address) (εὐχλογημένῃ . . . πληρώματι) appears to be founded upon Rom. xv. 29, cf. Trall. address ; ἐκκλίνειν, often applied in later times to heretics, was used by him also (Eph. vii. 1, in connection with the writer’s comment, Patres apost. ii. 11), and is drawn probably from Rom, xvi. 17. Clem. 2 Cor. xx. 5; Mart. Poluc. xx. 2, may have been imitations of Rom. xvi. 27. It is quite conceivable that the greeting occurring just there in Mart. Polyc., Ἑὐάρεστος 6 ypawas, received its form under the influence of Rom. xvi. 22. Of more weight are the Actus Petri cwm Simone, ed. Lipsius, p. 45. 4 (Quartus from Rom. xvi. 23), pp. 48. 7, 49. 15, ete. (Narcissus from Rom. xvi. 11), also p. 52. 27 from Rom. xvi. 20; from which we may conclude that this writer of legends at about 170 considered Rom. xvi. as an integral part of Rom. ; ef. GK, ii. 845, 855. We may add the citations in Clem. Alexandrinus (collected in Griesbach, Symb. ii. 493 f.), who quotes in Strom. v. 65, Rom. xv. 29 in loose connection with xvi. 25, and in Strom. iv. 9 the doxology, without stating more exactly their position in the Epistle. 5. (P. 381.) Of the uncials which give the Antioch recension in a pure state (KL), K has a gap between Rom. x. 18 and 1 Cor. vi. 13 (Gregory, Proll. 431). Alongside of L, Tischendorf, NT, ii. 442, 456, puts al (t.e. min.) Sere 200, item lectionaria. Indeed Hort (in Lightfoot, 340) can find only 8-10 min. which do not have the doxology after xiv. 23, and there alone. It signifies little that a Greek, who wrote the min. 66 (Harleian MS, 5552); Griesbach, Sym, ii. 166-188 ; Gregory, p. 656) in the sixteenth century, after Erasmus had published his N.T., remarks on xvi. 24: τέλος τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ὧδε ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ εἰς τέλος τοῦ ιδ΄ κεφαλαίου εὑρίσ- κεται (Griesb. ii. 180), Chrysostom (vol. ix, 718-756) and Theodoret (Noesselt, 146-162) seem to know nothing at all of another text. They see also a close connection in the sense between xvi. 25-27 and xiv. 23, and treat xvi, 24 as the end of the Epistle. Cf, the Catene (Cramer, iv. 490, 528), (Heumenius, and Theophylact (Migne, tom. 118, col. 604, 633; tom. 124, col. 533, 557). John of Damascus, on the contrary, who gives little more that an excerpt from Chrysostom, commented upon the doxology after xvi. 24. The scribe of our solitary MS. has on his own responsibility inserted the doxology in the sec- tion embracing xiv. 23b-xv. 7, for it receives no notice in the exposition there (ed, Lequien, ii. 54,59). Influenced by the Alexandrian tradition, Joh. Dam. has here broken loose from Chrysostom. It would be an odd counterpart to this if Cyril of Alexandria had followed the Antioch text; but this we cannot VOL, L 26 402 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT safely infer from the order of citations in Orat. I. de recta fide ad reginas (Aubert, v. 2, 118 f.; Rom. x., xvi. 25-27, xv. 8), for he returns straightway to Rom. iv. Inanother set of citations (op. cit. 59) the order is Rom. xiv. 10, xv. 13ff., xvi. 16, 20. The fragments of his commentary (Mai, Nova. p. bibl. iii. 1, 45) treat Rom. xiv. 6, 14, xv. 7, but not the doxology. Of the Gothic version there is preserved after Rom. xiv. 20 only xv. 3-13, xvi. 21-24, and the latter section servesas the close of the letter in a Cod. Ambrosianus which lacks xiv. 6-xvi. 20. Since this version rests in essentials upon a Greek text of Antiochian recension, it almost goes without saying that it admitted the doxology after xiv. 23, an assumption confirmed by the close of the Epistle, which has been preserved. Hort, in Lightfoot, 340, and Riggenbach, 550, by calculating the space necessary, have established the same point also in the ease of the Gothic and the parallel Latin text of the Cod. Carolinus at Wolfenbiittel, which contains, among other passages, xiv. 9-20 and xv. 3-13 (Tischend. Anecdota sacra et prof. 155-158 ; Bernhardt, Vulfila oder die goth. Bibel. xiii. £., 369, 372). The Cod. Carolinus is not a strong witness for the existence of an independent Latin text which had the doxology after xiv. 23. On the other hand, Riggenbach, 553 f., through calculation and conjecture, has made it quite certain that a Latin Bible at Monza (Riggenb. 532 ; Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. 189 f., 395), out of which all but a few leaves of Rom. x. 2-xv. 10 are torn, had the doxology after xiv. 23, the Epistle closing with xvi. 24. Moreover, there is nothing against our assuming that the exemplar of the Latin text g, as well as that of the Greek text G bound with it (see n. 6), had the doxology after xiv. 23. The Latin testimonies in n. 4 are also in point here. For the liturgie tradition of the Byzantine Church, ef. Scrivener, Introd.‘ i. 84 (Rom. xiv. 19-23 +4xvi. 25-27, lection for Sabbath before Quinquagesima). 6. (Pp. 381, 382.) Cod..G (ed. Matthei, 1791), written in the ninth century by an Irish monk in Switzerland, with a Latin interlinear version, leaves a third of page 18 v. blank, 2.e. between xiv. 23 (fol. 18 τ.) and xv. 1 (fol. 18 v.). Codex F, the Greek text of which is copied either from G or from the same exemplar, joins xv. 1 immediately to xiv. 23, and only in its Latin text (f) retains, in dependence on the Vulgate, xvi. 25-27 after xvi. 24, with which the whole letter closes in its Greek text just as in G. One thing is accordingly certain, that the exemplar of G did not have the doxology after xvi. 24; for why should a monk of the ninth century have refused to copy the verses which stand at this place in all Vulg. MSS. if he found them there also in his exemplar? The only thing open to question is what induced him to leave a blank space large enough for the doxology after xiv. 23. The simplest explanation is that he found it at this place, but on account of his trust in the Vulg., which has no doxology here, he hesitated to copy here a passage which seemed strange to him in this connection. Leaving a space sufficient for xvi. 25-27 is in any case a half-way proceeding, and so proof of a critical reflection, serious indeed, but not carried to a conclusion. But just such re- flection could be induced by the two factors mentioned, the existence of the doxology in the copyist’s exemplar at this point, and the self-evident ac- quaintance of a Western monk with the Latin Vulg. On the other hand, it is most improbable that his exemplar contained the doxology either after xiv. 23 or after xvi. 24, and that, as Hort still assumed (Lightf. Bibl. Ess. 340), the mere recollection of other Greek MSS. which placed it after xiv. 23 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 40% should have aroused in him strong critical suspicions. For (1) Greek MSS. were certainly such rarities in the monasteries of Switzerland in the ninth century that it is most improbable that a seribe should reflect upon the textual peculiarities of other Greek MSS. than that lying directly before him. (2) There was surely nothing in xiv. 23 to stir a Latin monk to special re- flection if the doxology was wanting here in his exemplar ; for neither in the Vulg. was he wont to read it at this point in the Epistle nor to hear it so read in public worship. The lack of the doxology could have impressed him only when he came to the end of the letter, since it appeared there in the Vulgate ; for which reason it was also attached there in the Latin text of F (f). (3) The hypothesis that, aside from the Marcionite Bibles (see above, n. 3, below, n. 9), there were Latin and Greek Bibles without the doxology, finds even less support than the assumption that there were Bibles with the doxology but without chaps. xv., xvi. (above, n. 4). Of the count- less Bible MSS. of all tongues, just one has been pointed out thus far which gives Rom. xiv.-xvi. complete except for the doxology. This is a MS. at Milan hailing from Bobbio in the ninth or tenth century (Ambros. E 26 infra; ef. Riggenbach, 556; Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. 138 f., 394). But what is more natural than that in mixed texts, to which class this MS. belongs, the variation of the exemplars with respect to the place of the doxology should finally result in some one instance in its complete disappearance? In the development from G, or the exemplar of G and F, to F we can see this process going on before our eyes. The effort has been made to wring from the Graeco-Latin Cod. D (See. vi.), which has the doxology after xvi. 24 and no gap between xiv. 23 and xv. 1, testimony to an older text without the doxology. While the text of D is divided throughout according to the sense into short lines, the doxology is written in lines considerably longer and repeatedly breaking off in the middle of a word, ed. Tischendorf, p. 92. Corssen (Speeim. ii. 27) concluded from this that the scribe of D, who with this exception copied throughout an exemplar divided into lines according to the sense, took the doxology from another MS. with lines not thus divided, the reason being that the chief exemplar did not contain the doxology at all, On the further assumption that G and F also go back to this chief exemplar of D, he holds that the absence of the doxology in G (F) can also be explained in the same way. Not to speak here of Corssen’s genealogy of MSS. in other respects, we have seen already that G’s attitude to the doxology definitely presupposes an exemplar in which the doxology stood after xiv. 23. But as for D, the form of the letter’s close, like the same phenomenon at the end of Eph., p. 327, demands another explanation. Such a one is given in GK, ii. 160; similarly Riggenbach, 577. The last four lines of Eph., too (from καὶ ἀγάπη, vi. 23, to ἀμήν, vi. 24), are written without reference to division according to sense. Moreover, while under all the other Epistles except the last (Philem., @K, ii. 160) the end of the pre- ceding Epistle and the beginning of the following are marked by three lines wider apart than usual, and by the words ἐπληρώθη ἄρχεται, there stand under Romans merely πρὸς Ρωμαίους in a single line, and under Eph. simply πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους, πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς in two lines. A glance at the requirements of space explains all. The scribe wished to begin a new Epistle always upon a new page. But there were cases where at the close of an Epistle a con- 404 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT sistent division according to the sense would have made a few words run over to a new page, or rather two pages, since it concerned the Latin text on the right hand page as well as the Greek on the left. So rather than leave so much parchment blank, he determined to adopt a style of writing not so wasteful of space, and in Eph. at least, to make the subscription shorter for the same reason, The four long lines of Eph. vi. 23f. would have made seven lines divided according to sense. There are twenty-one lines on a page, and since fifteen lines of text precede, the last of the (1 - 7) twenty-two lines and the subseription would not have found room on the page. By compressing seven lines into four, the scribe retained (15+4) nineteen lines of text and had two left for the subscription, which for this very reason he made shorter and more compact as before described. In the case of Rom. the ten (or including the “Amen,” eleven) lines written without reference to the sense, would have made perhaps seventeen or eighteen ordinary lines divided according to the sense, or including the preceding seven ordinary lines, twenty-four to twenty-five for the page. The scribe, therefore, when he came to a fitting break, gave up his diffuse way of writing, wrote the doxology in longer lines, and retained this more sparing method to theend. He thus obtained seventeen lines of text, without the Amen. By more fully utilising the space he could have found room not only for the decoration at the end, but also for a complete subscription as under the following Epistles, or at least like that under Eph. But not having formed any rules as yet in this the first Epistle of the collection, he preferred to be lavish with the space he had saved. Contrary to the rule he afterwards followed, he put the ἀμήν in a line by itself (18), and some distance below πρὸς Ῥωμαίους as line 19. The present writer paid no attention to this when he saw the MS., but is relying upon Tischendorf’s copy, p. 92, cf. pref. ix. Other isolated cases in which D’s so-called stichometric writing is awkwardly carried out, or even quite given up (p. 130. 10, where ἀδελφήν belongs to the next line, as also καί in 130. 13, and p. 134. 2-4), need another explanation, which Corssen, at any rate, has not found; ef. Riggenbach’s remarks in opposition to him, 575, and against Lucht, et al. 565-574. Tischendorf, Cod. Clarom. p. 550, noticed that a corrector of the seventh century (D**) found nothing in the doxology to correct ; and that another corrector (D***), a Greek, who in the ninth century supplied the whole MS. with accents and made some corrections, accented only the first four words of xvi. 25-27. Arguing from this, he was of the opinion that both doubted the genuineness of the doxology. The first difficulty was set at rest by the fact that the doxology in D has no mistake of grammar or spelling. The second is explained by assuming that this Greek of the ninth century consulted in his revision a Greek text which had the doxology after xiv. 28, like the great majority of Greek MSS. for centuries. He had nothing to guide him then after xvi. 24, and was unwilling to undertake the task of accenting the rest of the text proprio Marte. Whether at the same time he made critical conjectures as to the genuineness or relevancy of the doxology here, is of no importance to us, A Greek text without the doxology must be first discovered or its existence established on stronger grounds than those found hitherto. Concerning Treschov’s error, more often repeated years ago (Tentamen descr. codd. 1773, p. 55), that the doxology is altogether wanting in THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 405 five Vienna MSS., which really have it after xiv. 23, and concerning a similar mistake of Erasmus, cf. Reiche, 89, n. 3. 7. (P. 381.) The doxology follows chap. xiv. as well as chap. xvi. in AP, some Armenian MSS., and a few Greek minuse. (Paul, 5, 17, 37, of which No. 5 is especially noteworthy in putting Phil. immediately before Thess., a pro- ceeding very common in the West during the fourth century, GK, ii. 349). Hort’s view (in Lightfoot, op. eit. 341 ff.), that the doxology was used thus twice before it came to be placed after chap. xiv. alone, has all analogies against it, and, in addition, the oldest testimony, that of Origen, who knows simply the alternatives: “either after chap. xiv. or after chap. xvi.” (above, p- 396, n. 3). 8. (P. 381.) We know not how the doxology was arranged in the Syrians’ N.T. before its recasting in the Syriac Vulgate, the so-called Peshito. Aphraates cites nothing from Rom. xiv. and xvi., including the doxology, but only xv. 1 (Wright, 141). Ephrem in his commentary (ed. Lat. 43, 46) passes over the doxology in both places; but this signifies nothing, for he does the same with Rom. ii. 2-16, xv. 13-16, xvi. 1-12. And it is only the inexact translation of the Mechitharists which makes it appear as if Ephrem joins xv. 1 immediately to xiv. 23a, xiv. 23) being omitted. P. Vetter kindly informs the writer that the word rendered there in line 11 by subdit is the same as that rendered by dixit in line 8. According to the Armenian original, the chapter numeral belongs after manducat, line 10. After that the translation should run: “ Et ut arceat et (etiam) credentes (without ipsos), dixit ; ‘ Debemus inquit, nos qui potentes sumus,’ ” etc. 9. (P. 381.) Jerome in Eph. 111. 5 (vol. vii. 592): “ Qui volunt prophetas non intellexisse, que dixerint, et quasi in ecstasi loquutos, cum presenti testimonio (Eph. iii. 5) illud quoque, quod ad Romanos in plerisque eodieibus invenitur, ad confirmationem sui dogmatis trahunt legentes: ‘Ei autem qui potest vos roborare juxta evangelium meum et predicationem Jesu Christi secundum revelationem mysterii temporibus eternis taciti, manifestati autem nune per scripturas propheticas et adventum domini nostri Jesu Christi et reliqua’ (Rom. xvi. 25). Quibus breviter respondendum est, temporibus preteritis tacitum Christi fuisse mysterium non apud eos, qui illud futurum pollicebantur, sed apud universas gentes, quibus postea manifestatum est. Et paritur annotandum, quod sacramentum fidei nostre nisi per scripturas propheticas et adventum Christi non valeat revelari. Sciant igitur qui prophetas non intelligunt nec scire desiderant, asserentes, se tantum evangelio esse contentos, Christi neseire mysterium, quod temporibus eternis gentibus cunctis fuerit ignoratum.” That this was copied quite literally from Origen, Hort saw (Lightfoot, bibl. Ess. 333; Appendix, 113). The present writer thinks in GK, ii. 428f., he has pointed out and proved as well that this polemie of Origen is directed, not against Montanists, as Jerome seems to have understood it (cf. col. 589), nor yet confusedly, first against Montanists, then against Marcionites, as Hort assumed, but. exclusively against the latter, and against Marcionites indeed, who when disputing with the orthodox, appealed to a text (Rom. xvi. 25f.) which they did not receive at all them- selves. Now, when Origen speaks of the doxology as contained in most MSS., the MSS. without it, which he implies, must be simply those of the Marcion- ites, where the doxology was indeed lacking ; for among the Church MSS. 406 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Origen had found no variation with respect to the doxology but that of post tion, now alter xiv. 23 and now after xvi. 23 (above, p. 396 f., n. 3). 10. (Pp. 382, 387.) Doxologies in the course of Epistles, Rom. i, 25, ix. 5, xi. 36; Gal.i. 5; Eph. iii. 20 f.; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 16;:2 Tim. iv. 18; ef., further, 1 Pet. iv. 11,v. 11; Heb.xiii.20£. (A solemn wish with doxological close ; 22-24 personal matters; 25 benedietion). Im all these cases, and so also in Rom. xvi. 27, ἀμήν at the end of the doxology is attested by most or all sources (2 Cor. xi. 31 cannot be compared here) ; on the con- trary, it is very doubtful whether Paul closed a single Epistle or benediction with ἀμήν. Also in Gal. vi. 18 it is lacking in G, Ambrosiaster, and Vietor- inus. A doxology as the real end of an Epistle occurs in the N.T, only in 2 Pet. iii. 18; Jude 25. If we compare the other Epistles of Paul, we shall find no ground at all for wondering at the endings of the letter which it is alleged are heaped up in Rom. xv. 5, 13, 33, xvi. 20, xvi. 24 (xvi. 27). Gal. vi. 11 retrospect of the completed letter, vi. 16 blessing, vi. 18 benediction. In 1 Cor, the intimation of the coming benediction (xvi. 21) is followed, after an intervening remark of warning, by a double benediction (xvi. 23 f.). 1 Thess. iii. 11-13 blessing with well attested ἀμήν, and following λοιπόν (iv. 1), so that all that follows appears supplementary to the letter already virtually ended. But it is followed by v. 23 another blessing, 26 greetings, 27 remark about the letter, 28 benediction. Similarly 2 Thess. ii. 16 f. first closing blessing (iii. 1, τὸ λοιπόν), iii. 5 another blessing, iii. 16a third bless- ing, 16) benediction, 17 intimation of the last greeting, 18 actual benedic- tion. 2 Tim. iv. 18 closing doxology with Amen, 19-21 greetings with other information, 22 double benediction. 11. (Pp. 382, 386). The genuineness of 6, xvi. 27, can hardly be doubted ; for, in the first place, the remarkable incompleteness of the sentence was very easy to remedy ; and, secondly, the emendations which we find are most various. Some changed @ into αὐτῷ (P, Copt., min. 31, 54); others struck out ᾧ (B) or @ ἡ (min. 33, 72), or made from ᾧ ἡ an ein (min. 55 and scholion of min. 43). To the latter group belong also f (the Latin text of F, the Greek text of which lacks the doxology), and Rufinus as translator of Origen (iv. 687), who here at least has not rendered fairly Origen’s very peculiar text (GK, ii. 429, A. 2). S! treated the doxology very freely : “ But to God who can stablish you in [according to] my gospel, which was preached about [περί] Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the secret, which from eternal times was hidden, but in the present was revealed through prophetic Scriptures, and by command of the eternal God was made known to all nations for the purpose of obedience of the faith : to Him, who alone is wise, glory through Jesus Christ for the age of the ages. Amen.” Clement, Strom. v. 65, p. 685, and Origen, vol. i, 389, 488, iv. 104 f., 226, 257, always quote the doxology incompletely, without ver. 27. 12. (Pp. 383,385.) The asceties judged that their fellow-Christian of liberal views would not stand firm, but ran the risk of falling. Paul, however, assures them that he will surely be kept in his upright position, and that the Lord has the power to make him stand (xiv. 4). The liberals, on the other hand, who like Paul thought the ascetics weak, also despised them, and Paul warns them not to put in the way any stones over which these weak brethren might stumble (xiv. 18, 20f.). The τῷ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι, χνὶ. 25, refers THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 407 to both these things at once, Paul does not here utter a pious wish, but again reminds himself and the readers, as in ver. 4, with the similarly sound- ing words δυνατεῖ ὁ κύριος στῆσαι αὐτόν, of the power of God which is able to establish those who are in danger of unstable going, of stumbling or of falling; cf, also the expressions στήκει ἢ πίπτει, σταθήσεται, ver. 4; πρόσ- koppa ἢ σκάνδαλον, ver. 13; διὰ προσκόμματος... προσκόπτει, VV. 20, 21. He comforts himself with this power of God, both in regard to the liberals, who in the judgment of the ascetics are in danger of falling, and also in regard to the ascetics, concerning whom he has the fear, that they might be enticed by the inconsiderate behaviour of the strong to act contrary to the dictates of conscience, and thereby to fall in the most disastrous way. As Paul, ver. 10b, unites in a we the two parties addressed separately in ver. 10a (cf. vv. 18a, 19), so he can unite them both in ὑμᾶς, xvi, 25, after ver. 22, which refers to the liberals, and ver, 23, which refers to the ascetics. : What Spitta (S. 7f.) has to say against the present writer’s proof of this connection, is at least not founded on the error that ornpi¢ew means “ strengthen” ; it means rather “establish,” either at the outset so to place something that it remains firm, or to make more secure, to support, what is already standing, but might easily become unstable or fall. The contrast between falling and destructive temptation is found, e.g., 2 Pet. iii. 16.£. (ἀστήρικτοι---ἐκπεσεῖν τοῦ στηριγμοῦ) ; Luke xxii. 32, cf. Mark xiv. 27 ff.; 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; Rev. iii. 2, and the connection of στηρίζειν with the idea of standing, being stable, is unmis- takable (1 Thess. iii. 2, 8, 10; 1 Pet.v. 10, 12). Also Rom, 1. 11; Acts xviii. 23 (variant reading) the idea is not of strengthening the faith, but of stablishing the believers in upright bearing (cf. 2 Cor. i. 24). Here, however (xvi. 25), the question concerns a stablishing not in the πίστις τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Phil. i, 27), but in the ethical manifestation of faith (ef. 1 Thess. iii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 17). The connection with κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον «rd. suits only this inter- pretation. The Gospel of Paul and the preaching of Jesus Christ are not named as the means of producing and strengthening faith, but as the norm of conduct, and as the standard according to which God will stablish the Romans. His personal assurance in the matter of clean and unclean things, Paul emphasises strongly in xiy. 14; at the same time, however, he expresses the thought that in this he knew that he was of the same mind as the “ Lord Jesus.” He desires also here to give utterance to the two thoughts, namely, (1) that the ethical principles which he has developed in chap. xiv. correspond especially with what he himself—the Apostle of the Gentiles—has preached, and (2) that, moreover, also in the preaching of Jesus Himself the outlines of these principles had been drawn (cf. Matt. xv. 1-20). In confirmation of the fact that τὸ κήρυγμα I. Xp. does not mean the preaching about Christ, but the preaching and teaching of Jesus Himself, the following proofs are offered : (1) The comparison with Matt. xii, 41; 1 Cor. ii. 4, xv. 14; (2) the similarity of the genitive with εὐαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα demanded by the style ; (3) the use of the personal name ’Inaov before Χριστοῦ ; (4) the placing alongside of each other of the two ideas determined by the article—a position which excludes their identity (cf. below, $48,n. 2). By means of this, however, the passage xv. 1-3 following is prepared for in more than one way. The κατὰ Xp.’L., xv. 5, corre- sponds to the κατὰ τὸ κήρ. I, Xp. In xv. 8, 7, 8 there is presented as authori- tative example the Jesus Christ who lived on earth, renounced self-will, cared 408 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT for the needy, was calumniated by the ungodly of His own nation, and yet who all His life long served the people of the circumcision. In the διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς, however, the διακονία τοῦ Aöyov, the preaching, is alse included as an essential element. Moreover, the further reference to the prophetie writings (xvi. 26) agrees perfectly with xv. 4, 8-12; and the men- tion of the especial gospel of the apostle to the Gentiles and the thought that the mystery of salvation formerly kept secret is intended for all nations (xvi. 26) is an excellent preparation for xv. 8-13. Moreover, xv. 1-6 also bears upon the discussion of the relations existing between the Jewish and Gentile Christians ; as is especially shown by the comparison of ver. 4 f. with ver: 13, and the close connection between ver. 6 and vv. 9-10. There is here no further discussion of the especial opposition of the vegetarians to the eaters of meat, but much more general admonitions and wishes in relation to the restoration, through mutual concessions, of unity among all the Church mem- bers—a unity which showed itself also in worship. This duty holds good for the antagonism which obtained among the Roman Christians, mentioned in chap, xiv., moreover, also, for many other existing differences, and not least for the opposition of the Jewish to the Gentile born members of the Church, to the discussion of which the general sentences, xv. 1-3, form the transition. The δυνατοί among whom the Jewish Paul classes himself, ver. 1, are naturally not the Gentile Christians ; they are also, however, not identical with the anti-vegetarians in chap. xiv., who there are just as little called δυνατοί a8 the vegetarians ἀδύνατοι, and with whom Paul in chap. xiv. not once identifies himself by a we. The strong are rather those whom God, who has the power to do it, has stablished, according to Paul’s gospel and Jesus’ preaching (xvi. 25, cf. Tit. i. 9; 2 Cor. xii. 10; Phil. iv. 13), and who, like Paul, have risen above all such oppositions (ef. 1 Cor. ix. 19-23). Hofmann, who, following Griesbach, contended for the position of xvi. 25-27 after xiv. 23 as the original one (iii. 577), tried to make it out that the sentence begun with τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ, and resumed in μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ, xvi. 27, finds its regular continuation in xv. 1. No one could object to the construction of ὀφείλω with dative and following infin., ef. vili. 12, xiii.8; and perhaps even the δέ, xv. 1, which is undoubtedly genuine, could be justified grammatically. But stylistically considered, the result is a monstrous form of sentence. A more probable explanation, and one much more in keeping with Paul’s peculiar style, is that the sentence as he originally intended to construct it became weighted down by parenthetic remarks and, though he made an effort to carry the construction consistently through by taking up again the emphatic dative object, the doxology with its solemn “amen” forcing its way in afresh, drove the purpose from his mind. 13. (Pp. 383, 384.) After the prayer, xvi. 20a, all witnesses except DG (dg) and perhaps also Sedulius have ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ ned’ ὑμῶν (with- out ἀμήν). But the second benediction also, ἡ x. τ. x. nu. I. Xp. μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν (with or without ἀμήν) is quite overwhelmingly attested ; only it is written sometimes after xvi. 23 (as ver. 24; so DG, the Antioch recension [L, the majority of min., the Antioch commentators]; among versions the Goth. and $%, and many Vulg. MSS.), sometimes after xvi. 27 (so P,a few mim, $1, Armen., Ambrosiaster, and the true Pelagius, see above, p. 401, ἢ. 4). It is wanting altogether in SABC, a few min., Copt., and important Vulg. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 409 MSS., also probably in Origen’s text. On the strength of this, Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort have stricken it out as a doublet of xvi. 90, But (1) according to the great mass of evidence it differs from ver. 20 in giving a fuller designation of Christ and in inserting πάντων ; (2) the double form of the benediction (xvi. 20, 24), is vouched for by such manifold testimony, belonging to most widely differing portions of the Church, that it must go back to high antiquity ; (8) Paul would be departing from a settled custom if he closed a letter with greetings to or from individuals without a formal benediction ; on the other hand, he never objects to a double bene- diction (see above, n. 10). These benedictions may be essentially similar and bound together like a double “farewell” (1 Cor. xvi. 23, 24; Eph. vi. 23, 24; 2 Tim. iv. 22), or they may be separated by remarks of a different char- racter, 2 Thess. iii. 165, 18. In both 1 Cor. and Eph. he added a πάντων to the second and final benediction, exactly as in Rom. xvi. 24. Also in 2 Tim. iv. 22 the two benedictions, standing side by side, are related one to the other as the particular to the universal. Although, where Paul joins the second benediction immediately to the first, or lets it follow soon after- wards, he prefers not to repeat the same words; yet an explanation is un- necessary when, on the other hand, in Rom. xvi. 20 and xvi. 24, where many small items intervene, he shows no hesitation in repeating the customary benediction in essentially the same words. (4) Upon the twofold presup- position that the doxology belongs to the end of the letter, and that xvi. 24 is not genuine,—a presupposition which the textual critics whose views now prevail have not proved, but have simply laid down as axiomatic in discussing this question,—the transmission of the text of xvi. 20-27 remains inexplicable. Suppose that the need arose for a benediction at the end of the letter owing to the removal of the doxology from that point to an earlier „art of the letter, and that this need was met by making up xvi. 24 or by dlacing xvi. 20b after xvi. 23, how then are we to account for the fact that texts otherwise most various (DPS!, Arm., Ambrost., Pelag.) agree in having the doxology in chap. xvi. and right next to it, either before or after the benedietion, xvi. 24; and that most of them (all those named except D) retain xvi. 20b besides? (5) On the other hand, it is easy enough to explain the fact on the presupposition that the doxology stood originally after xiv. 23. When the doxology was moved to the close of the Epistle, sometimes it was simply added at the end (after xvi. 24, so D), sometimes it was inserted between xvi. 23 and xvi. 24, so as to retain the original ending (P, min. 17, 80, S!, Arm., Ambrost., Pelag.). ‘A third method, followed by some apparently as early as Origen’s time, was to treat the doxology as a sufficient substitute for the original ending (cf. Jude 24f.; 2 Pet. iii. 18), and to strike out xvi, 24, which was the easier, since essentially the same benediction was to be found in xvi. 20. In this latter opinion they agreed with those in the West who, even before the doxology was moved to the end, had stricken out xvi. 20 as superfluous alongside of xvi. 24 (G and perhaps the exemplar of D, see beginning of this note). Moreover, this misplacement had a corrupting influence upon the text of the doxology itself. The witnesses for the position after xiv. 23 (Antioch recen.) all have the simpler form εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, without τῶν αἰώνων, and those which have the doxology in both places (AP) prove an essential connection between the form of the text and its position by 410 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT giving the shorter form of the doxology after chap, xiv. and the longer (witk τῶν αἰώνων) after chap. xvi. In itself, the shorter form of the doxology is more likely to be the original one ; and this supposition is fully confirmed by such good witnesses as BC, which, in spite of the misplacement of the doxology, have retained its shorter form. The expansion of the doxology, then, which its position at the end of the letter invited, did not follow its misplacement immediately, or was not in all cases connected with this directly. But the group of witnesses which agree in giving the original teat of the doxology deserve, as in the discussion of its position also, the preference over that group the great majority of which give, together with the position at the close, the corrupted text. 14. (P. 383.) Bengel, Appar. Crit. (ed. 2) 340: “ Videntur Graeci, ne lectio publica in severam sententiam (xiv. 23) desineret, hanc ei clausulam attexuisse, ef. var. Matt. iii.11.” He means the omission in Matt. iii. 11 of καὶ πυρί. But how can that be compared to removing a significant section from its original position? How much more natural, with such an aim in view, to have con- tinued the lection to xv. 4 or xv. 7, or, if transposition of the text were once allowed to enter, to have put here a prayerful wish such as that in xv. 13, which accords with xiv. 17 and with xiv. 23 also! (through ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν). Hort (in Lightf. Bibl. Ess. 342) assumed that in ancient times Rom. xvi. was not read in worship, and that therefore the edifying doxology was joined to.a neighbouring lection. Since this does not explain the removal of the doxology from the end of chap, xvi., but only how it came to be joined to an earlier passage, Hort arrived at the untenable hypothesis mentioned above, p. 405, n. 7. Further, the omission of xvi. 1-24 in the liturgy would not explain why the doxology was put after xiv. 23 and not rather after or before xv. 13 or before xv. 33. That the prayerful wishes there would have been nc hindrance is seen from Phil. iv, 19 f, ; Heb. xiii. 20f.; 1 Pet. v.10. Thi explanation, then, could be considered only if it could be proved that chap xv. was also excluded from public reading in church. But the extant lec- tionaries give lections from chap. xv. (cf. Scrivener, Introd. i, 82) on the seventh Sunday after Pentecost, Rom. xv. 1-7; on the tenth Sabbath after Pentecost, Rom. xv. 30-33 ; also Rom. xv. 7-16 and xv. 8-12 on week-days, Zacagni, Coll. mon. 1. 587 ; ibid. p. 588, cf. p. 575 f., embracing the fifth lection of Euthalius, of which chaps. xviii., xix.= Rom. xv. 1-33. The lectionary in the Fuld., ed. Ranke, 165, includes Rom. xv. 8 ff. There may possibly have been before Origen’s time a lection system which excluded Rom. xv.-xvi.; but even so it certainly could not have had at that early date such a powerful influence upon the shaping of the text as to make the misplacement of the doxology, which it brought about, as is claimed, appear to Orig. the older form of the text. Also Riggenbach’s explanation, 603f, that the purpose was to make Rom. close with such a blessing as the other Epistles have, is unsatisfactory. This aim could have been attained much more simply by putting xvi. 24 after the doxology, or, if this verse did not then exist, after xvi. 20, just as in Phil. iv. 23 (cf. 20); Heb. xiii. 25 (cf. 21); 2 Tim, iv. 22 (cf. 18); 1 Pet. v. 14 (cf. 11) the benediction follows hard upon the doxology, and some important witnesses (above, n. 13) actually do place the benedic- tion immediately after the doxology, xvi. 25-27 in Rom. 15. (Pp. 383, 384.) As to the Peshito, back of which our search cannot go THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 411 (above, n. 8), we must remember that even before its final redaction the Syriac N.T. received influences from Alexandria; cf. GK, i. 386, 406, ii. 560, 564. The West became acquainted with Alexandrian textual criticism at the be- ginning of the fourth century through Pierius, “the younger Origen” (Jerome, Vir. Til. \xxvi.). The spacial separation of the two passages, xiv. 23 and xvi. 24 is much too great to be compared with transpositions like those in 1 Cor. xiv. 33-40, xv. 26, which probably arose in a merely mechanical way. More com- parable is the varying position of John vii. 53-viii. 11. But, firstly, this is a pericope which did not force its way into the N.T. until the fifth century. Secondly, it is indubitable that the scribe who first connected it with the Fourth Gospel put it where the Textus Receptus and the oldest MSS. have it, and that only later critical suspicions caused it to be placed after John xxi., or also after Luke xxi. In respect of age, even such changes as the insertion of ev ᾿Εφέσῳ, Eph. i. 1, cannot be compared, but rather the changing of the original text of Rom. i. 7 mentioned above, p. 394 f. The transposing of the doxology from its original position after xiv. 23 to the close of the letter was no longer new at the time of Origen; it goes back into the second century, to the time when the effort was made in various ways to frame a fitting close to the unfinished Gospel of Mark, when Tatian compiled his Diatessaron, and also handled Paul’s Epistles in bold fashion (Kus. H, E. iv. 29. 6), 16. (P. 384.) In order to explain the variant position of the doxology, and at the same time the alleged multiplicity of endings (xvi, 25-27, xv. 33, xvi. 20, xvi. 24), Griesbach, loc. cit., assumed that Paul, after finishing the letter proper, chaps. i.-xiv.—since the writing material for the purpose was used up—wrote (1) on a separate sheet the sentences intended for the close, xvi. 25-27, perhaps with xvi. 24; (2) again, on another sheet xvi. 21-23 or xvi. 21-24; then (3) on a third sheet chap. xv. as a postscript to i.-xiv.+xvi. 25-27, the need for which came to him as an afterthought; finally (4), again on a separate sheet xvi. 1-20. The sheets then, when copies were made of the Epistle, were arranged in various orders. Eichhorn, Einl. iii. 32, appropriated the essentials of this hypothesis ; so also Laurent, Ntl. Stud. S. 31, with the needful modification, however, of substituting “strips of papyrus” for “leaves of parchment” (cf. 2 John 12, χάρτης ; Birt, Buchwesen, S. 61f.). But opposed to this and every such hypothesis is the following :—(1) All the texts of Rom. as we know it in literature go back to just two archetypes, one of which placed the doxology after chap. xiv., the other after chap. xvi. But on this hypothesis either all the MSS. go back toa single orderly edited exemplar, the variant position of the doxology then remaining unexplained, or the “disjecta membra epistule” remained in the archive of the Roman Church unarranged, and copies were made of them as the need arose. In this case we must have met in the MSS. many different arrangements of chaps. xv., xvi., instead of just two, (2) It is hardly thinkable that Paul or his amanuensis Tertius (xvi. 22) should have failed. to take care, by gluing the papyrus leaves together, that the letter came to the readers in the form intended. Renan (St. Paul, 1869, pp. lxiii-lxxv) explained Rom. as a circular letter, which Paul himself had prepared in four copies— (1) For the Romans, chaps. i.-xi. 15 ; (2) for the Ephesians, chaps. i.-xiv.+ xvi. 1-20 (with some changes in chap. i.) ; (3) for the Thessalonians, chaps, i-Xiv.+xvi. 21-24 ; (4) for an unknown Church, chaps. i.-xiv.+xvi. 25-27, It is plain that even with some changes in chap. 1. (omission of ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 412 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT i. 7, 15, perhaps), Rom. i.-xi. is still far from being suited to the Ephesians and Thessalonians. There is hardly a sentence in i. 1-16 which is not affected in form and content by the reference to Rome and to Paul’s peculiar relation to the Christians there. Not to speak of the opening greeting (above, p. 352 f.), imagine i. 8-16a addressed to Macedonia, where shortly before writing Rom. Paul had spent weeks or months! But the thought of Rome suggests also the theme i. 17 f. and its whole development of this up to xi. 36. ΤῸ speak of the merest externals, what would the overwhelmingly Gentile Churches of Ephesus and Thessalonica think of chap. vii. 1-6, vill. 15, or even of vi. 16f, (above, p. 374f., n. 8)? But if the whole letter needed a complete recasting to adapt it to other Churches than that of Rome, where do we see traces of these various recensions from which our Rom. was compiled? Lightfoot (Bibl. Ess. 287-320), though he sought to refute Renan’s hypothesis, advanced a similar one, and maintained it in essentials (bid. 352-374) against Hort’s criticism (ibid. 321-351); Paul himself in later time, perhaps during his Roman imprisonment, transformed the letter originally addressed to the Roman Church, which included chaps. i.-xiv., xv. 1-xvi. 23, into an Epistle suited to a wider circle, by writing ev ἀγάπῃ in i. 7 for ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς, by striking out (rots) ev Ρώμῃ in i. 15, and further by cutting off xv. 1-xvi. 23, instead of which he framed a new ending for the Epistle, xvi. 25-27. But (1) we should expect least of all from Paul himself such a partial and external procedure by which the Epistle’s local reference would be merely a little obscured, not removed altogether (see above, against Renan). (2) Why should he have found xv. 1-13 less adapted to a larger circle of readers than i. 8-16 or xiv. 1-23? The relation of particular to universal which subsists between that section and these is just the opposite of that which Lightfoot seems to have presupposed. (3) Since Paul elsewhere seems to have had no objection to having a letter addressed to one Church read by another (Col. iv. 16), no motive can be found for this literary labour of the apostle so strange in itself. (4) The supports which Lightfoot thought he found in the text as transmitted are most decidedly weak. Marcion, even aside from the fact that he had none of the doxology, but did have parts of chaps. xv., xvi., could give absolutely no support to such a hypothesis on account of his treatment of the text (above, p. 396f.). Just as little can Cod. G and all the witnesses for the position of the doxology after xiv. 23; for there is not a hint that they go back to a text without xv. 1-xvi. 23. Finally, as for the variants of Rom. i. 7 and i. 15, it has been shown to be (above, p. 394 f.) extremely prob- able, that in the first passage ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ was the original text, which was changed into ev Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ only after a considerable circulation of the Epistle in the Church, therefore certainly a long time after the death of Paul. It has also been shown that the omission of the apparently unneces- sary τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ, i. 15, was only an arbitrary act, appearing only in isolated instances, and favoured by the original text of i. 7. j 17. (P. 386.) A particular chain of thought suggested before, in ii. 16, the statement that in Paul’s gospel the universality of God’s plan of salvation was manifested more clearly than before (ef. i. 16, iii. 29); but that this gospel of Paul is not his own peculiar teaching, but the one message of salvation in a particular historical form, is maintained in i. 1 by the designation of it as the gospel of God, and here by the co-ordination of it with the preaching of THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 413 Jesus. In xvi. 26, as in iii. 21, x. 11, the reference is to the inner connectior of this gospel with the O.T. ; i. 2, however (cf. x. 15 ; Luke iv. 17 ff.)—a verse that verbally resembles xvi. 26 much more closely than do iii. 21, x. 11, which are essentially related passages—seems rather to express the thought that God had promised long before that He would send forth such a message of salvation. If the words eis ὑπακοὴν πίστεως eis πάντα τὰ ἔθνη echo i. 5 almost exactly, cf. vi. 17, x. 16, xv. 18, xvi. 19; 2 Thess. i. 8, we should also note the variation which is just what might be expected in a compiler. The στηρίζειν of the Romans, which Paul hoped to accomplish by his visit (i. 11), he must for the present leave to God, since he cannot come to Rome immediately (xv. 23-33). That a blessing certified before, indeed, but still veiled, has been made known in the gospel (iii. 21, πεφανέρωται-- φανερωθέντος, Xvi. 26), and repeatedly unveils itself to the believing hearer (i. 17, ἀποκαλύπτεται --- Κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν, xvi. 25) was said before. But the correlate of these ideas is expressed not there, but only in xvi. 25 by μυστήριον, which only shows again that no pseudo-Paul is here copying the apostle. There the connection and the aim of the teaching involved the calling of this real blessing which is unveiled through the gospel, the righteousness of God. Here there was no occasion for it, and it sufficed to characterise the present as a time in which was revealed to all men what had been a dark secret tc former generations ; for in this past, which for many of the readers was not yet banished by the gospel, are rooted the wrongs and quarrels and the confused notions against which Paul had to fight in xiv. 1-23, xv. 1-13. We find μυστήριον not infrequently in the older and less disputed parts of Paul’s letters (Rom. xi. 25; 1 Cor, ii. 7, iv. 1, xiii, 2, xiv. 2, xv. 51; 2 Thess, ii. 7; cf, Phil. iv. 12); but its use as a formal designation of God’s plan of salvation is confined to the present passage and Eph. i. 9, iii. 4, 9, vi. 19; Col. i, 26f., ii. 2, iv. 3—very narrow limits, it must be admitted. Indeed, Eph. iii. 3-6 and Col. i, 26f., especially have a close resemblance to Rom. xvi. 25 f,, but there is nothing in this doxology which betrays borrowing from any of these passages. Besides, it requires no proof to see that, if Paul was indeed the author of Eph. and Col., the thought expressed in these Epistles, that the sharing of the Gentile world in salvation was long hidden or remained a secret, but was revealed in the gospel, could not have occurred to him for the first time some years after he wrote Romans. The expressions ἀπὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων (cf, πρὸ xp, ai., 2 Tim. i, 9; Tit, i, 2), kar ἐπιταγὴν... θεοῦ (cf. 1 Tim. i. 1; similarly Tit, i, 3), rod αἰωνίου θεοῦ (ef. 1 Tim, i. 17, τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων), have awakened suspicions from their similarity to passages in the Pastoral Epistles, But none of them is copied, least of all the last, and the individual elements have nothing peculiar about them. Paul employs αἰώνιος outside of the doxology and the Pastoral Epistles ten times; κατ᾽ emıraynv in 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8 (ef. 1 Cor. vii. 25), a common mode of speech, indeed, in such a connection (eg. κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν τῆς θεᾶς in a Phrygian inscription, JHSt. 1883, p. 388). These similarities can prove nothing alone ; and even if other evidence were forth- eoming, all that they could help to establish would be that Rom. xvi. 25-27 and the Pastoral Epistles were written by the same person. The case is not changed if by that person we understand Paul. On the contrary, it is absurd to claim that the same pseudo-Paul who forged the Pastoral Epistles inter- polated Romans. 414 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 18. (P. 388.) We find greetings from large groups of Christians to the collective body of readers in 1 Cor. xvi. 19f.; 2 Cor. xii. 12; ef. Tit. iii. 15; 1 Pet. v. 13; Heb. xiii. 24; together with more particular greetings, Phil. iv. 22; Rom. xvi. 16. Gal., Eph., 2 Thess., and 1 Tim. have no greetings at the end; in 1 Thess. v. 26 is simply a request to greet one another in Paul’s name, οἵ. Rom. xvi. 16a. The only case where individuals are addressed in the course of the letter is Phil. iv. 2f. Apart from the letters addressed to places which Paul had not yet seen, Rom. and Col. (see above, p. 388), greetings to individuals and from individuals oceur besides only in the private letters, Philem. 23 f.; 2 Tim. iv. 19-21. Even in the case of brief personal intercourse with a Church, there would be no end of greetings if the writer sought thus to express all the connections formed at that time. This is illustrated by formulas such as those in Ign. Smyrn. xiii; ad Polye. viii ἀσπάζομαι πάντας κατ᾽ ὄνομα and ἐξ ὀνόματος, cf. 3 John 15; Berl. dgypt. Urk. 27. 18, 93. 28, and often. For the same reason, Paul, in his letters to the Churches founded by him at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth, and in Galatia, avoids personal greetings at the close altogether. He would have done the same then probably in a letter to the Ephesians. 19. (Pp. 385, 389.) Baur (i. 394): “xv, 1-13 contains nothing which the apostle might not have said better in xii. 1f.” Answer: Paul said nothing similar in xii. 1 f. ; in xv. 1-13, for the very first time in the whole Epistle, he touches on the difference between the Jewish and the Gentile elements within the Church as an opposition which endangers unity of faith and worship, and which he exhorts both sides to put away. That there were Gentile Christians in Rome was seen before in xi. 13 ; but only the Gentile Christians were admonished in xi. 16 ff., not both parties in the Church ; and these were exhorted to a proper attitude, not toward the Jewish Christians, but toward unbelieving Jews. According to Baur 394f., Lucht 174 ff., concessions are made to the Jewish Christians in xv. 8f. which Paul never offers. But the historical fact that the personal activity of Christ did limit itself to Israel (γεγενῆσθαι), could not be denied by even a fanatical anti-Semite, to say nothing of Paul, who laid stress upon these very things, namely, that all revelations, including the last and greatest, were entrusted to this people and had taken place in Israel (iii. 2, v. 20); that Jesus in the whole sphere of His life was under the law, in order that first of all He might redeem them that were under the law, 7.e. the Israelites (Gal. iv. 4f., iii. 13; Rom. vii. 4); and that only in consequence of His death and the unbelief of Israel did salvation turn to the Gentiles (Gal. iii. 14 ; Rom. xi. 11-xv. 30). The appearance of Christ in Israel is, indeed, made the proof of God’s faithfulness in fulfilling His promises made to the patriarchs ; but so far is this from exclud- “ing the idea of grace, that promise and grace are rather correlated (Rom. iv. 13-16; Gal. iii. 17f.). Yet it is emphasised no less strongly in Rom. iii. 3, ix. 4-6, xi. 1 f., 27-29, that God in fulfilling His promises toward Israel has proved His faithfulness and will still prove it. Paul never taught that the Gentiles had an historical right to salvation similar to that of the Jews. It is therefore hard to see why he could not here, as in xi. 30, emphasise as characteristic of the Gentiles’ relation to salvation the fact that they owed this simply to the mercy of God. A concession to the Jewish Christians such as sets one thinking is to be found notin xv. 8f., but in xiv. 5; see 8 23, THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 415 Ineredible as it may seem, Baur (396, 399) gathered that Paul presupposed in i. 11 a lack on the Romans’ part of the “essentials of the deeper knowledge,” namely, the “ pneumatic,” which accordingly he must needs impart to them, On this view, to be sure, the words of approbation in xv. 14, and the apologetic remark a little farther on about his writing the letter, appear like a contradiction, In reality he expressed himself much more modestly with reference to the result of his coming visit in i. 11—where, moreover, there is no mention of the letter—than in xv. 29 (above, pp. 355f., 369). It is unquestion- ably true that it was a venture to write to the Romans, for Paul, who considered himself above all a missionary to the Gentiles, had no immediate connection with the Roman Church by virtue of his calling. But the attentive reader does not see this for the first time in xv. 15, it appears in the opening greet- ing, so diplomatically worded, and in the tone of the whole Epistle. No- where the tone of a teacher to his pupils, no use of νουθετεῖν (1 Cor. iv. 14; Col. i. 28; 1 Thess. v. 12, 14; Acts xx. 31), though this is allowable even among equal brethren (Col. iii. 16; 2 Thess. iii. 15; Rom. xv. 14), or of παραγγέλλειν (1 Cor. vii. 10, xi. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10, 12) and διατάσσεσθαι (1 Cor. vii. 17, xi. 34, xvi. 1); but everywhere the most considerate tone of one who wishes to come to an understanding with equals, and who exhorts them asa brother. The principle proclaimed in xv. 20 of preaching the gospel only where Christ has not yet been named, is held to be un-Pauline, indeed, even incompatible with the writing of a letter to the Romans. But (1) Paul says merely that he prides himself upon such pioneer work, and by no means that he regards every continuation of work begun by others as sin or folly. (2) This declaration corresponds with his actual pro- cedure since the outset of the first missionary journey. As in Corinth (1 Cor. iii. 10), so everywhere he laid the foundations ; and he expresses him- self quite similarly in 2 Cor. x. 15f. (3) Writing Rom. is no edayyeXileodaı, and so cannot be inconsistent with this principle. (4) Paul spoke most modestly in i. 13-15 of his missionary work in Rome (above, pp. 355 f., 369, 371). Anyone can see from Paul’s actual practice why he did not wish to make Rome a centre for his missionary preaching. Wherever there was a thriving Chureh, whether founded by himself or by others, his tarrying was never long, and his εὐαγγελίζεσθαι not great. But it was natural surely for Paul, restless missionary as he was, to tell what was the aim of his journey to the West, since he did not intend to accomplish much in Rome. What we miss in i. 13-15 we find in xv. 22-29, Rome was his stopping-place on the way to Spain. That a pseudo-Paul regarded Rome and Italy as the province of another apostle is a thoroughly groundless insinuation of Baur’s (398). Τῦ is all the more strange when we hear that this man’s views agreed with those of the author of Acts (398, 408), which, as we know, closes with a terse but lively deseription of a two years’ preaching activity of Paul in Rome, and says nothing of another apostle there. Baur (401) considered the Spanish journey “the most incredible thing told about the apostle’s life.” He failed to see that the possible unhistoricity of this tradition does not affect in the least the question whether the real Paul expressed such a purpose of going thither, while it is an almost insuperable obstacle to supposing that a pseudo-Paul— especially if belonging to the first century, see above, p. 388 f.—would have put such an utterance into the mouth of the apostle. This holds also against Lipsius, 416 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT HK, ii. 2, 86, 195 f., who rejected xv. 195, 205 (including ἀλλά, ver. 21), 23, 24 as interpolations, and in ver. 28 preferred to read ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς instead of ἀπελεύσομαι---Σπανίαν, though retaining the rest of chap, 15 as genuine. That Paul should speak of preaching in Jerusalem agrees with Acts xxvi. 20, ix. 26-29, and is not inconsistent with Gal.i. 17-24. Gal. does not mention the place of his εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, about which the Churches in Judea heard at the time when he betook himself from Palestine to Syria and Cilicia (Gal. i. 21-24). But since this news, as the form of expression shows (ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς more, ver. 23), spread from Jerusalem out into Palestine, the natural assumption is that during his fifteen days’ stay in the city he who before was known as a persecutor became known as a preacher of the gospel, cf. ZKom. Gal. 74f. Since his aim in Rom. xy. 19 is not to tell where he had preached first and where last, but to give the most widely separated regions of his activity hitherto, he does not mention Damascus, but Jerusalem and the borders of Illyricum. He does not say that he has preached in Illyricum ; for nothing compels us to understand μέχρι as inclusive rather than as ex- clusive, as, e.g. in Rom, v. 14; Phil. ii. 30. The Roman province of Illyricum bordered in the south on Macedonia and was separated from Achaia, to which also Epirus belonged, by a strip of land belonging to Macedonia (Marquardt, i, 297, 318f., 331). If Paul considered his task of preaching the gospel in Macedonia fulfilled when he had founded Churches in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Bercea, he had in so doing “fulfilled it as far as Illyricum.” This way of looking at it may seem extravagant, but it was the prevailing one in apostolic times, coming to light everywhere in the N.T., and lying at the basis of Paul’s missionary methods; cf. Skizzen, 76-82. Moreover, it is possible that immediately after writing 2 Cor. Paul may have set forth from Thessalonica or Bercea upon a short preaching tour, which brought him still nearer to the bounds of Illyrieum than he had come before... The vague ex- pression τὰ μέρη ἐκεῖνα, Acts xx. 2, allows freest play to our imagination. Also during the three months which he spent in Greece (Acts xx. 3), he may have made in connection with his visit to all the Churches “in the whole of Achaia” (2 Cor. i. 1, above, p. 264, n. 2), a preaching tour which led him beyond the border of Achaia, and near to the confines of Illyricum, perhaps to Apollonia or Dyrrhachium. The intention of making such a tour is possibly expressed in 2 Cor. x. 16. It would be after his return from this trip that he wrote Rom. in Corinth. If his fifteen days in Jerusalem (Gal. i, 18). seemed important enough to be mentioned here, his journey to the borders of Illyrieum need have lasted no longer. In short, the charge of historical improbability can be brought against Rom, xv. 19 only by those who regard the much abused Book of Acts as an exhaustive journal even when, as in xx. 1-2, it compresses the record of about ten months into four lines. And.whence did the alleged interpolator get the fact? 2 Tim. iv. 10 gives instead of Illyrieum the equivalent name Dalmatia, and makes Titus go thither, not Paul. 20. (Pp. 385, 389.) Semler, op. cit, 293, and Eichhorn, Hint.’ iii, 243, had expressed various doubts about Rome as the original destination of Rom, wvi.; but D. Schulz (ThStKr. 1829, S. 609-612) developed the arguments which have given great currency to the view that this chapter or great parts of it are fragments of a letter to the Chureb at Ephesus, Rom. xvi, 1-20 is THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 417 claimed for Ephesus by Reuss, Lipsius, and others, following) D. Schulz ; xvi. 3-20 by Ewald (Sendschr. des Pl. 428), Mangold, and others; and xvi. 1-6, 17-20 by Lucht. The whole “list of names,” which, according to ‚Lipsius, 86, should lead to this conclusion, reduces to 3 out of the 31 (6. if we count the names Aristobulus and Narcissus and. the larger groups in xvi. 5,10, 11, 14,15 as each a single person), namely, Aquila, Priscilla, and Epenetus. The first two, however, were at home in Pontus, Rome, and Corinth, as well as in Ephesus, see above, also p. 389f. Concerning 2:Tim. iv. 19, to which those at least who deny the genuineness of 2 Tim. cannot appeal, see §§ 33, 37. To hold that Paul knew personally all:those named or indicated in xvi. 3-15 would be a gratuitous assumption. He sends greetings to whole Churches which had never seen him and to individual members of them (Col, iv. 15, cf. ii. 1); and he directs greetings from himself or from his whole neighbourhood to the collective membership of Churches founded by him, without excepting those who had been added since his last stay, or who were personally unknown to the Christians of his neighbourhood (1 Cor. xvi. 19a, 20a; Phil. iv. 21 f. ; 1 Thess. v. 26). Consequently, also in Rom. xvi. 3-15 we can decide only from more particular statements whom of those greeted Paul knew personally. ‚This can be claimed more or less definitely only for the persons mentioned in, xvi. 3-9, 18. Those whom he knew had told him the names of these others whom he greets, and doubtless something about them also, With regard to particular ones, see below, nn. 21-24... Con- cerning xvi. 17-20, see § 23. 21. (P. 389.) The Antioch reading ’Ayaias, xvi. 5, is wholly untrustworthy, being introduced from 1 Cor. xvi. 15, which a thoughtless comparison of Rom. xvi. 3-5 with 1 Cor. xvi. 19 easily suggested: According to Acts xx. 31, cf. xix. 8-10, xx. 18, the time during which Aquila lived in Ephesus without Paul (Acts xviii. 21-xix. 1), lasted about nine months. It would bea curious assumption that he and his wife restricted their evangelistic work to the teaching of Apollos (Acts xviii. 26). It is very possible that Epznetus, like Paul, found employment as a fellow-craftsman in Aquila’s trade, or even was bought as a slave by Aquila in Ephesus, and that thus his conversion ‘wag brought about. We can comprehend why it was that a congregation gathered immediately in Aquila’s house in Rome as it had done in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19); for they doubtless needed a large shop in which to carry on their trade. The workmen engaged there, probably slaves of Aquila, must have formed the nucleus of the congregation. Probably all the persons mentioned as far as xvi. 10a belonged to Aquila’s household when he was in Ephesus, and so were known to Paul. All those named as far as xvi, 13 being apparently members of the congregation in Aquila’s house (§ 23, n. 1), those mentioned in xvi. 10)-13 would constitute the circle outside of the immediate household (xvi. 3-10«). 22. (P.391.) Taken by itself, συγγενής, xvi. 7, 11, 21, may indicate blood relationship (cf. Luke i. 36, 58, ii: 44, xiv. 12 ; John xviii, 26 ; Acts x. 24). But it is exceedingly improbable that’ Jason of Thessalonica, Sosipater of Beroa, cf. Acts xvii. 5-9, xx. 4, above, p. 209, and a certain Lucius (ver. 21), Macedonians sojourning in the neighbourhood of Paul at Corinth, also Herodion (ver. 11), Andronicus, and Junias (ver. 7), were all relatives of- Paul. Besides, the emphasising of the personal relationship would have no weight, the uniform VOL. I. 27 418 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT lack of partieularity in deseribing the various ties of kinship (Col. iv. 10; Acts xxiii. 16) would be singular, and the separation of the names of these relatives living in Rome (xvi. 7, 11) would be incomprehensible. The conjecture of Semler (Paraphr. epist. ad Rom. 302 ; ef. Laurent, Ntl. Stud. 33), that συγγεν εἷς means here fellow-countrymen of Paul from Cilicia or from the Synagogue of the Cilicians (Acts vi. 9) has still less to recommend it. It goes back rather, as in ix. 3, to yévos in the sense of nation (Gal. i. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 26; Phil. iii. 5; Acts xiii. 26). 23. (P. 391.) Rom. xvi. 7. Since Junius, Junia was an exceedingly common nomen in all grades of society (eg. €. I. L. vi. 20850-20919), it would be most natural to find here a woman, Junia. But since Junianus ‘is also not uncommon (C. 1. G. 4118; C. I. L. ii. 1359, iii. 4020, v. 3489 ; Orelli, 4141, following De Vit, Onom.—also in a Christian inscription), there is almost nothing in the way of assuming a contracted form ᾿Ιουνεᾶς from this masculine name. While the other statements, perhaps, would fit a married couple, the designation συναιχμαλώτους pov would refer more naturally to two men. Since Paul is not at present lying in prison, and, moreover, is not in the same place with these two people, this designation points even more clearly than συνεργούς pov to a community of life belonging to the past. They must have once shared an imprisonment of Paul. This Paul calls a captivity, just as in Col. iv. 10; Philem. 23, since all Christians are soldiers of Christ (2 Tim. ii. 3 f.; 1 Tim. i. 18; 1 Cor. ix. 7; 2 Cor. x. 3), and therefore, whenever they are imprisoned, are prisoners of war. The frequent figurative use of στρατιώτης and συστρατιώτης (Phil. 11. 25; Philem. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 3) does not commend but forbids Hofmann’s view, iii. 617, iv. 2. 147, that συναιχμάλωτος, like συστρατιώτης, expresses simply the fellowship of the Christian ‘state. Besides, on this view, Paul’s language, if it is to be understood at all naturally, would imply that the persons in question were “ captured from the world by Christ” at the same time as he, which was true of none of them. Cf. the writer’s article on “Paganus,” NKZ, x. (1899) 5. 38f. and “Zur Lebens- geschichte des Paulus,” Ν ΚΖ, xv. (1904) 5. 32 ff. If Andronicus and Junias were converted before Paul, whose conversion followed hard on the death of Stephen and the first spread of Christianity beyond Jerusalem, they must have belonged to the Jerusalem Church before 35 A.D. Consequently we are to understand by ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις : “ famed, mentioned with honour in the circle of the apostles,” and hardly, “eminent apostles.” The latter sense would be, in view of all that the N.T. tells us of the missionaries of that time, extravagant, to say the least. Oi ἀπόστολοι alone means, in Paul’s mouth, the original apostles (Gal. i. 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7). Since Paul had not been imprisoned in Jerusalem before he wrote Romans, we may assume that Andronicus and Junias belonged to those fugitives who came from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts xi. 19), that they were active in the mission there, and that sometime during the years 43-50, when we know practically nothing about Paul, they were cast into prison along with him; οἵ, ὦ. Cor. xi. 23; Clem. 1 Cor. v. 6. Paul may have become acquainted with them as early as his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (Gal. i. 18; Acts ix. 26), and it may have been in remembrance of experiences which he then had shared with these and others of that city now living in Rome that he mentioned Jerusalem instead of Damascus in xv. 19. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 419 24. (Pp. 392, 393). Regarding the names in xvi. 8-15, cf. Lightfoot, Philip- pians, ed. 3, pp. 171-175; Riggenbach, 509 ff. (1) Ampliatus (ver. 8; Ὁ and the Antioch recension have the contracted form ᾿Αμπλιᾶν), a “nomen servile” De Vit, Onomast.), occurring also in higher circles perhaps by the third century (Cod. Justin. v. 56. 2). A connection with the gens Claudia is attested by C. 1. L. vi. 14918, 15509, ef. also Claudia, 2 Tim. iv. 21; Phil. iv. 22, and below, § 33, n. 2. Under Urbanus, Lightfoot, p. 174, cites an inscription of the year 115 (Gruter, p. 1070, 1=C. I. L. vi. 44), which, in a list of freedmen employed in the imperial mint, gives Urbanus, Ampliatus next to each other, as here, xvi. 8-9. In 1880 a vault was discovered in the Catacomb of Domitilla, over the entrance to which the builder and first owner is indicated by Ampliati, and in the interior of which an Aurel. Ampliatus, plainly a descendant of the founder, has put up a monument to his wife ; ef. de Rossi, Bull. di archeol. erist. 1880, p. 171; 1881, p. 57 (1883, p. 121); 1886, p. 59 other Ampliati) ; Hasenclever, TofP TH. 1887, S. 499. If the grahiedlogists are right in assigning the bald of the vault and the inseription outside to the end of the first century, and the inseription inside to perhaps the middle of the second, it is probable that the builder of the tomb was the Ampliatus of Rom!’ xvi. 8 or a son of his. (2) Aristobulus (ver. 10). With regard to this man, mentioned in the text, p. 392, cf. Jos. Bell. li. 11.6; Ant. xviii. 5. 4, 8. 4, xx. 1.2. A mutilated Jewish inscription at Rome (Schürer, Gemeindeverf. der Juden in Rom. S. 17, 46, No: 36) probably refers to a Jew, Herodion (ver. 11) rather than to an otherwise unknown Synagogue of the Rhodians. (3) The Christians ex τῶν τοῦ Ναρκίσσου (ver. 11). Concerning the famous Narcissus, ef. Tac. Ann. xi. 29-38, xii. 1, xiii. 1; Suet. Claud. xxviii; Dio Cass. lx. 34. Inscriptions from Rome: C. I. L, vi. 15640= Muratori 1150. 4 “ Claudia Veneria Ti. Claudio Sp. F. Ser. Nareissiano Filio”;. Muratori 902. 5 (Narcissus and Narcissianus, freedmen of the Flavian imperial house, both names also from Pannonia, ©. I. L. iii. 3973) ; Orelli, 4387 ; ©. I. G.6441b, BaAXia Ναρκισσιανή ; ©. I. L. vi. 22871, Narcissias. The name Nareissus is not uncommon outside of Rome also ; but this cannot impair the significance of the fact that from the time of the famed Narcissus there were numerous Narcissiani in Rome, or weaken the inference that it is an entire group of these which is mentioned in Rom. xvi. 11. The Acts of Peter, which makes Narcissus a Roman presbyter (above, p. 401, n. 4 at the end), does not draw from local tradition, but thoughtlessly selects two names, Narcissus, who is by no means presupposed as’ still living in Rom. xvi. 11, and Qiiartas (ver. 23), who was to be found really in Corinth, and Ἢ them in Rome, simply because they are mentioned in Romans (GK, 11. 858). (4) Tryphena is naturally not the “queen” of that name in Pisidian Antioch, whom the Acts of Thecla connects with Paul (GK, ii. 906 f.). Yet the eireumstance that this historical personage was related to the emperor Claudius suggests the conjecture that the Tryphzna of Rom. xvi. 12 was a servant in the court of Claudius and then of Nero, especially since Tryphsena as well as the next name here, Tryphosa, occurs among women in service at the Claudian court (©. I. L. vi. 15241, 15280, 15622-15626 : ef. Lishtfoot, 174). Two ancient Christian inscriptions should also be mentioned, one from the Coemeterium of Priscilla’ (Bull. arch. crist. 1886, p. 48, No. 34, Tpvbo [v or woa] . . . Tpucbalırn]), the other from the Coemeterium of 420 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Hermes (Bull. 1894, p. 17, ostensibly from the first half of the second century. “Tryphonillam ... Aurelia Tryphsna parentes”). (5) Regarding Rufus, ver. 13, see above, p. 393, and § 53, n. 5. Of itself this very common name would suggest no special relations. It is found also among Roman Jews (Schürer, S. 36, No. 16, 17). (6) Phlegon, ef. ©. I. L. vi. 15202, “ Ti. Claudi Phlegontis Ti. Claudi Juliani Lib.” Moreover, the writer Phlegon, a freed- man of Hadrian’s, lived and wrote in Rome. (7) Patrobas= Patrobius, οἵ. Tac. Hist. i. 49, ii. 95; Suet. Galba, xx; 0, 1. L. vi. 15189, “ Ti. Claudio Patrobio,” ef. Gruter, 610. 3.. (8) Concerning Hermas (ver. 14), Origen (iv. 683) made the modest but worthless conjecture that he was identical with the Roman Christian Hermas, who, in the time of Clement; wrote the Shepherd ; cf. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 33. (9) Nereus and his sister (ver. 15). Nnpevs and Nnpeis, quite common names of slaves and manumitted persons, also of some in the service of the emperor, C. J. L. 111. 256, vi. 8598 (Domitia Nereis, wife of a freedman and secretary of the emperor). Light- foot, 174, cites from Acc. di Archeol. xi. 376, a Claudia Aug. L. Nereis, who was closely related to a mother and daughter Tryphena (ibid. xi. 375). Among the earliest Roman martyrs belong Nereus and Achilleus, valets of the Christian lady Domitilla, according to the Greek legends, but praetorians rather, according to the eulogy of bishop Damasus; cf. Achelis, Texte w. Unters. xi, 2. 44. . These traditions cannot have sprung from Rom. xvi. 15 ; for in that case the sister of Nereus would not be wanting in the legend, nor would the names associated with Nereus be all different from those in Rom. xvi. 25. (P. 394.) It is sufficient refutation of the involved interpolation hypothesis of Völter to have stated it in the light of its results (above, p. 164). On the presupposition that xvi. 3-20 was addressed to Ephesus, H. Sehultz (JbfDTh. 1876, S. 104-130) proposed ascribing xii. I-xv. 7 also to this letter, which he dated in, Paul’s later life. This supposed ‘ Eph.” had been welded upon the older Rom. (i. 1-xi, 36, xv. 7-xvi. 2, 24) by a redactor, slight changes being made at the points of juncture. Connecting with this theory, though denying that any parts of the letter were intended for Ephesus, Spitta (Z. Gesch. d. Urchrist. i, 16-30), and again with more detailed proof and many not unessential changes—“ Untersuchung über den Röm,,” op. cit. iii. 1 [1901] has sought to prove that Romans, as handed down to us, and already known to Marcion, was made out of two letters of Paul addressed to the Roman Church. The longer and earlier letter has been preserved essentially unchanged in i. 1-xi. 36, xv. 8-33, xvi. 21-27; and the shorter and later letter appears in xii. 1-xv. 7, xvi. 1-20, likewise com- plete, save for a salutation which had been omitted by the editor. It is supposed that this shorter letter was not written until after Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment and toward the end of his journey among the Eastern Churches,—a further activity attested by the Pastoral Epistles. This would date the letter probably in the beginning of 64 a.p. The longer letter, however, within the limits of which the shorter has been inserted, is a mixtum compositwm. Paul himself is supposed, to have worked over an earlier circular letter, which had been addressed soon after the apostolic council to the Jewish Christians, or to the mother Church. The original letter, which in i, 16b-xi. 10 is preserved in its essential content and word- THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 42) ing, was changed into a letter to the alleged Gentile Christian Church in Rome by prefixing i. 1-16a, by inserting iii. 1-8, vi. 12f., 15-23, xi. 11-36, and by adding xv. 8-33, xvi. 21-27. There were still other short sentences, which Spitta has culled out with more or less certainty, as additions of the editor or later readers, as eg. xi. 25 (iva μὴ---φρόνιμοι, cf. xii. 16), xiv. 5-60, xy. 7 (καθὼς θεοῦ); but these are inconvenient for the interpretation pre- supposed by him (S. 38 ff., 43, 50). Spitta also in his later and fuller treatise, which, to be sure, is not brief, has not given any adequate reason why an editor should have worked over two letters of Paul to the Romans into a single letter which must have been accomplished before the two original letters were circulated outside of Rome. By this theory the letters gain nothing in edification, and how much they lose in clearness and reasonable- ness would best be shown by Spitta’s argument for his hypothesis if it were tenable. Still worse must be the judgment which we would have to pass upon Paul if he worked over his alleged circular letter to the Jewish Chris- tians of Palestine into a letter to the Gentile Christians of Rome. Instead of sending the Romans a copy of the earlier letter, with a shorter note accompanying it, in which he would explain why he recommended them to read this communication, originally not intended for them, Paul sent them, without one word of explanation or excuse, a writing of motley patchwork, which in its essential content was entirely unsuited to the Roman Christians, whom, however, he is addressing (e.g. vii. 1-6). The other doubts concern- ing this, and the similar hypothesis (mentioned above, pp. 153f., 415 f.), are indeed not lessened but rather increased by the assertion (S. 6) that not one single letter of the N.T. “is preserved in its original form.” 8.29. CONSTITUENCY AND ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. In xi. 13, xv. 5-12 it is clearly stated that among the Christians in Rome, to whom, as a body, the letter is addressed, there were Gentiles as well as Jews. On the other hand, if all the Christians in Rome had been Jews, Paul would not have expressly characterised certain individuals to whom he sends greetings as countrymen of his (n. 1). At the same time, it is undeniable that in addressing the readers’ as a body Paul assumes that, like himself, they had lived under the law prior to their con- version (vi. 1-6, vili. 15, also vi. 16 ; see above, prs74ify, n. 8). This does not involve contradiction any more than when Paul addresses the Churches at Corinth and Thessa- lonica and in Galatia uniformly as Gentile Christian Churches, though from the beginning their membership 422 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT included a number of Jews and more’ proselytes (e.g 7 Cor. xi, 2, Gal iv. 8-1 Dhess..1..9) Ihe come: inference is, rather, that in Rome the Gentile Christians constituted a comparatively small minority, just as did the Jewish Christians in the other Churches mentioned. This is proved by the passage where Paul turns directly to his Gentile readers, for the first time calling attention ex- pressly to his special commission as the apostle to. the Gentiles (xi. 13). The way in which this transition is made (above, p. 375 f., n. 9) shows that Paul thought of the Church, which to this point he had addressed without dis- tinguishing the separate elements within it, as a body of native Jewish Christians. This conclusion is confirmed by the way in which from xi. 11 on (notably in xi. 13-32) he speaks of the now unbelieving Israel. This differs alto- gether from the tone of ix. 1-xi. 10, in which he defends himself against the appearance or the charge of heartless m- difference toward his unbelieving and unfortunate country- men (ix. 1-5, x. 1f.). At the same time, by disavowing motives to which his solemn affirmation of sympathy for Israel might be attributed, he protests against a false grief for Israel, such as might imperil faith in the gospel and the preparatory revelation in the O.T., a grief such as only native Jews were liable to feel. The remnant of the saved, predicted by the prophets, the “seven thousand” of the present time (ix. 29, xi. 4), are not to allow themselves to be misled by the obstinacy and misfortune of the majority of their countrymen. On the other hand, from xi. 13 on the Gentile Christians in Rome are warned against an attitude of arrogant contempt toward the unbelieving Israel, and against failing to recognise this nation’s importance, which will one day be made manifest. Moreover, the manner in which Paul strives to give expression to his own patriotic feeling, even in the personal notices of chap. xvi., is intelli- gible only on the supposition that he is speaking to Jewish Christians (above, pp. 391, 417, n. 22). ‘The same is true THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 423 with reference to what he says about the mutual exercise of love and gratitude between Jewish and Gentile Christians where his influence dominates (xv. 26-32, xvi. 3 f., above, pp. 368 ἢ, 391 ἢ). In the light of what is said in Gal. iv. 10, Col. ii. 16, if this were a Gentile Christian Church, Paul could not mention the observation of certain days as he does in Rom. xiv. 5 ἢ, as if the readers were perfectly justified in maintaining their customs without renouncing entirely principles tested by more than ten years of heated controversy. If, on the other hand, he is addressing a Church which is predominantly Jewish, in which the Gen- tile Christian minority is at least under the same obligation to submit themselves to the majority as the majority is under obligation to defer to them (οἴ, χν. 1-7), what is here said is only a statement of his view that of itself the Jewish manner of life is just as consistent with the Chris- tian faith as is that of the Gentiles (1 Cor. vii. 18-20, ix. 20 f.; Gal. ü. 14, v. 6), something Paul never denied. Had the Church been so predominantly Gentile that Paul could have assumed that it felt itself to be one with the Churches in the East founded by himself, he would have referred at once to its Gentile origin, and to himself as, the apostle of the Gentiles (cf. Eph. iii. 1). Instead. of. this, however, from 1, 1 on we observe he is very careful to base his right to address the Roman Christians on the broad foundation of the general apostleship which he shares with the older apostles. He also guards carefully against the implication that his special call to the Gentiles (xi, 13; xv. 15 f.) and his gospel (ii. 16, xvi. 25) prevent him from being considered a legitimate preacher of the one gospel of God, promised in the O.T., and first preached by Jesus (above, p. 353). Finally, he asks especially that his message be received by all the Christians in Rome (n. 2). Even the theme developed in i. 18-v. 11, the implications of which are followed out in v. 12—viii, 39, was suggested by his realisation of the difference between his readers’ 424 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT point of view and his own construction and presentatior of the gospel. Only on the theory that the letter was in- tended for Christians, who on account of their Jewish train- ing still found the complete recognition of this truth difficult, was it necessary to give such a fundamental development of the thought that the gospel is a power of God’ unto salvation for all men under the sole condition of faith. Nothing but the fact that his readers were Jews could have made it necessary for him to answer the objections that the gospel doctrine of justification was practical antinomianism (111. 31, compare vi. 1, 15), and broke the close connection between the Christian and the O.T. Church (iv. 1 ff., above, p. 359). Even leaving quite out of consideration the various passages where it is expressly stated that before their conversion the readers were dis- obedient servants (vi. 16 f.), filled with the spirit οὗ bondage (vil. 15), not becoming free from the bondage of the law until their conversion (vii. 1-6, above, p. 360 ἢ 374 f.), such teaching regarding the’ law as is found in chaps. vi.j} wi. (ef. iii. 20,°1iv. 15, viii 3 fi; x4) was applicable only to native Jews who for some reason, either by their own reflection or by the influence of the slanderous assaults of their unbelieving countrymen (iii. 8), doubted whether such an entire severance of their religious and moral life from the Mosaic law, as taught by Paul, was possible. The exhortations to live at peace with their non-Christian neighbours, and to fulfil con- scientiously all obligations to the State (xii. 17—xiii. 7), are fuller and more strenuous than in any other of Paul’s letters, which goes to confirm our’ belief that Paul is here addressing the Christian part of that Jewish population, which some years before had been driven from Romie by the Emperor Claudius on account of their incessant rioting. Many thoughts regarding law, faith, and justification similar to those in this Epistle are found also in Galatians. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 425 But even a superficial comparison of Romans with this or any other of Paul’s Epistles addressed to Gentile Christians, in which he antagonises the destructive in- fluence of hostile teachers and of a false gospel, will show that no part of Romans was occasioned by like conditions in Rome. Not only is the teaching under which the Romans became Christians unconditionally approved (vi. 17, xvi. 17), but also the faith of the Church at the time is recognised as normal (xv. 14, xvi. 19; ef. 1. 8, 12, xv. 24). This is not contradicted by the occasional reference which we find to the weakness of the flesh, we. an unripe condition of moral and religious life (vi. 19, cf. 1 Cor. iii. 1f.), to individual weakness of faith (xiv. 1), and indirectly to the lack of close harmony between the Jewish majority and the Gentile minority in the Church (xv. 1-13). Throughout the entire doc- trinal discussion of the letter there is not the slightest hint of apostasy, nor of reversion to a Jewish or Gentile manner of life, nor of any actually threatening danger that the readers would be deceived into accepting a false gospel. Nor can the injunction at the end of the letter (xvi. 17 f.), that the Church be on its guard against persons who stir up dissensions and create occasions of stumbling, who do not, as they pretend, serve Christ, but their own bellies, and who by their fine speeches, which have a pious and friendly sound, deceive the innocent, be taken as indicating any such condition of things. That in thus exhorting the Church Paul did not have in mind persons who were actually working at the time in Rome with success, is proved by the fact that in this very connection he says to the readers, emphatically, that their obedience has become known to all men, and that he rejoices over them; something that he could not say of all Churches (n. 3). Therefore the desire which he hopes to see fulfilled by this warning, namely, that through their experience they may become constantly wiser in 426 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT respect of the good, and remain free from the evil, has reference to the future. Accordingly, the statement: that God, who, desires peace in His Church, will quickly crush Satan under their feet, is made in view of the’ possibility that persons may come among them and disturb their peace, as had been done elsewhere (ef. 2 Cor. xi. 3). What led the apostle to insert in this peculiar place such an exhortation, designed to warn the readers against future dangers, is clear from xvi. 16. After greeting the differ- ent groups into which the Roman Church was divided without making any distinction among them, he enjoins them all to express their fellowship with one another by a holy kiss. That this fellowship, however, was wider than the bounds of the local Church, is proved by the addition of a greeting from all the Churches of Christ to the Roman Christians. Besides the Christians in Corinth and vicinity, among whom Paul was when he wrote (xvi. 1, 23), he was surrounded at the time by representatives of the Macedonian Churches, probably also of other Churches (xvi. 21, cf. xv. 26, above, p. 209). During the preceding years Paul had had a great deal of trouble in the Asiatic Churches, but especially in Corinth, with persons who dis- turbed the peace of the Church in one way and another. In both localities the Churches themselves had not rejected such persons with enough decision. How natural, there- fore, at this point, where he conveys greetings from these Churches, to warn the Romans against such teachers! But he describes them in such general terms that it is neces- sary to conclude also from the passage that at the time the false teachers and disturbers of the peace had not as yet appeared in Rome. For if they had, Paul could not have failed,,to specify their particular character. The Church had not yet become, involved in the conflict that was being waged between Paul and the Judaisers. The, ex- tremely cautious way in which Paul speaks when en- deavouring to secure an understanding between himself THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 427 and the Church, proves that while the majority were not hostile to him and his work, they did, nevertheless, feel him to be still a stranger, and regarded him not altogether without mistrust. This is explained, however, by the fact that the Church was made up largely of Jews, who were indebted for their Christianity neither to Paul nor to any of his helpers (n. 4). The Roman Church did not have a founder in the same sense as did the Church in Ephesus or Corinth (n. 5). If so, Paul could not have remained entirely silent regarding such a person when speaking of the teaching to which the readers owed their conversion (vi. 17, xvi. 17). The first trace which we have of the pre- sence of Christianity in Rome is the vague statement of Suetonius regarding the banishment of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius, which occurred probably in or shortly before the year 52 (n. 6). Since the Jews were banished by this decree only from Rome, not from Italy, many may have remained in the vicinity of the city. Others, like Aquila, left the country altogether, not, how- ever, before they had at least heard of Christ (above, p. 265, n. 3). Soon after the death of Claudius (Oct. 54) the Jews returned again to Rome in large numbers, and under Nero regained their old rights. It may have been in consequence of these disturbances under Claudius, for which the Jews were in danger of being deprived also of their rights of citizenship, that the Christians among the Jews who came back, and those who now migrated to. Rome for the first time, refused probably from the very outset to share the worship and the congregational fellowship, of the synagogues. If some such relations as existed for at least some months between the synagogue and the preaching of the gospel in Ephesus and Corinth had ex- isted also in Rome, there would certainly be some trace of it. Moreover, in spite of all the confusion and error about the distinction between what was Christian and what was 428 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Jewish in the year 64, the Christiana in Rome were known to the heathen population as a separate sect (Tae. Ann. xv. 44). ‘In’ Romans the Jewish slanderers are spoken of as outsiders under God’s condemnation (iii. 8), distinct from the ‘called of Jesus Christ” (i. 6). And although the majority of the latter were of Jewish birth, the Gentile minority in the Church did not feel that they were in any sense Jewish proselytes, for they needed to be warned against arrogantly despising the unbelieving Jew (xi. 13-32), and exhorted to accommodate them- selves to the Jewish Christians in a self-denying spirit (xv. 1-13). Among the Jews who during the three years prior to the composition of Romans returned to Rome or migrated thither were Christians from Palestine. Andronicus’ and Junias, Rufus and his mother, were not the only ones’ of this kind (above, pp. 392, 420, n. 24, No. 5). Paul nowhere says anything which implies that he is dealing with recent converts. Andronicus and Junias became Christians even before Paul (above, p. 418, n. 23); and in xiii. 11 it seems to be presupposed that the nucleus of the Church became believers at about the same time that Paul did, 1.6. in the early years of the Church’s growth. “However this may be, the fact that a considerable number of persons who earlier had been’ members of the Church in Palestine now belonged to the Church in Rome, explains the warmth of tone of xv. 25-32, which would have sounded strange ‘in & letter to a Church which had had no intimate relations either with the donors or with the receivers of the ¢ollee- tion here mentioned. From this point of view it is also very easy to understand why, in writing this letter, Paul should ‘have in mind and take notice of the Epistle of James, which was written some seven to ten years earlier to Christians in Palestine and adjacent regions (above, Ὁ. 128 f.). With the vigorous communication that was kept up between the Jews in Rome and in the home-land (n. 7), THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 426 it is not at all impossible that the gospel was introduced | in Rome, as it had been brought earlier to Antioch not with the aid of regular missionaries, but by Christians from Palestine who settled there, among whom, as among those who settled in Antioch, there were native Cyrenians (Acts xi. 20, xi. 1; Rom. xvi. 13; Mark xv. 21). Their Christian faith was proclaimed first to the Jewish popu- lation in Rome and gained here its first acceptance, with- out, however, involving the exclusion of proselytes and Gentiles from the Church thus formed. We may assume that after the complete separation of the Roman Christians from the synagogue, which at latest must have taken place at the time of the return of the Jews who had been expelled from the City, and at the time of the reconstrue- tion of the Christian Church about 54, the non-Jewish element began to increase in numbers and influence. Still, up to the time when Romans was written, the character of the Church had not yet essentially changed. It stood in closer relation to the Churches in Palestine than to those in Asia, Macedonia, and Greece. 1. (P. 421.) Of all the persons Paul greets he designates only three as Jews (xvi. 7, 11); but certainly we cannot conclude from this that the rest were Gentiles. Other epithets also, like συνεργός (vv. 3, 9), ἀγαπητός (vv. 5, 12), δόκιμος (ver. 10), and ἐκλεκτός (ver. 13), are not meant to be confined to the persons so designated. Of those whose names follow, we either know or in- fer to be Jews, though the first three are not so designated : Aquila, Priscilla (ver. 3), Mary (ver. 6, because of her Hebrew name Μαριάμ, so NDGL, or according to ABCP Mapiav), Andronicus and Junias (ver, 7, above; p: 415, n. 23 f.), Herodion (ver. 11, above, pp. 393, 419, n. 24), Rufus and his mother (above, p. 392). There are thus eight in all. But since, as these very examples remind us, Jews at that time quite commonly. bore Greek and Latin names, the majority of those greeted may have been Jews. Along with six Latin names (Aquila, Prisca, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Rufus, Julia, xvi, 3, 8, 9, 18, 15) and one Hebrew (ver, 6), we find (including Aristo- bulus and Narcissus, who are not themselves greeted, and Junias, in consideration of its Greek termination, see above, p. 418, n. 23) nineteen Greek names. Suet. Claudius, xv: “ Peregrinze conditionis homines vetuit usurpare Romana nomina, dumtaxat gentilicia.” Hxempt from this rule, as well as from its appended restriction, were the freedmen, the many Flavii, Claudii, Julii, who had been slaves of some member of one of these clans, or else were descended from such, ef. Pauly, RE, v. 675. Julia (ver. 15), as well as the Roman Christian Claudia (2 Tim. iv. 21), must have belonged 430 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to this class. The Church consisted for the most part of aliens, freedmen, or slaves of Greek and Oriental extraction, and especially of Jews. Twice, xvi. 14, 15, Paul strings together five names without repeating the ἀσπά- σασθε, aad associates with each group the other Christians especially con- nected. with them, though without naming individuals. Here, then, are two narrower circles within the Roman Church clearly distinguished, to which the congregation in Aquila’s house (ver. 5) should be added as a third ; cf. Hofmann, iii. 615. Like the Jews (n. 6), the Christians also assembled in various places in the capital, cf. Acta Justina, e. iii (Otto, ii. 270). Since Paul notices this grouping three times, and since we cannot think of Chris- tians quite isolated from their fellow-believers, the only natural assumption is that the persons mentioned in xvi. 5-13 all belonged to the congregation in Aquila’s house. This is probable, on independent grounds, in the case of the one first mentioned, Epznetus (above, pp. 389, 417, n. 21). .The two groups in xvi. 14, 15 are indicated merely by bare names ; all those to whom Paul is more closely bound, and whom he greets accordingly, belong to the congregation in the house of that pair who had been associated with him for so many years. Mary, too (ver. 6), must have come into closer touch with Paul previously somewhere in the Orient, if the reading ἡμᾶς instead of ὑμᾶς is right. In reality the former reading is to be commended not) only because of the position of Mary’s name among those of persons to whom Paul stood in close relationship, but also because eis ὑμᾶς or ἐν ὑμῖν would be so self-evident that it would have been left unwritten, as is twice the case in ver. 12. Cf. § 53, n. 5. 2. (P. 423.). The repetitions of πάντες, i. 7, 8, xii. 3, xv. 33, xvi. 24, might perhaps of itself express the simple wish, in view of the Rade Gikueron and separation of the Christians in the city (see preceding note), that the letter might be made known to them all, cf. 1 Thess. v. 27. It is more natural to think of the distinction between those personally known to Paul and strangers to him. But neither motive explains why πάντες is present in xvi. 15, yet absent in xvi. 14. More probably, considering the tone in which the letter opens, Paul presupposes that the Roman Christians, the great mass of whom were personally unknown to him, might think that, in so far as they were Jews, the apostle to the Gentiles did not concern them. An address to one of these who proudly calls himself a Jew, breaks in suddenly at ii. 17 and leads up to the description of the true Jew, who is spiritually circumcised, 1.8. who believes in Christ, ii. 29. It is not Paul’s way to picture to himself a Jew taken at random from those beyond the reach of his voice, and then to address him thus. He must have assumed rather that most of his readers, being Jews by birth, needed correction upon this point. Of. the address in the singular, viii. 2, ix. 19, xi. 17 (there the circle is narrowed by xi. 18), xiv. 4, 15; 1 Cor. iv. 7, viii. 10. Rom. ii. 1 cannot be compared because of its connection with what precedes. 3. (P. 425.) The forewarning, xvi. 17-20, has its counterpart in those which Paul gave the Galatians before he wrote Gal., and even before the Judaisers came to them, Gal. i. 9, v. 3, above, pp. 165, 179 f.; Phil. iti. 1 ff. is a like case. The opinion often expressed that xvi. 17-20 could have been addressed only to a Church very long known to Paul, whether at Ephesus or at Rome after Paul’s two years’ stay there, has the text against it. It is THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 431 only because the readers’ obedience to the faith has become known every- where that Paul knows about it, and finds occasion to express his joy over it (xvi. 19, just like i. 8, cf. Col. i. 9; Eph. 1. 15). If Paul had had a knowledge of them at first hand, we should have found some trace of it in this or the other parts which Spitta (above, p. 420 f.) assigns to a later letter to the Romans (ef., per contra, Phil. i. 27, 30, ii. 12). Besides, Paul does not speak of obedience to himself or his teaching, but to God and the teach- ing which they had received from others than himself (xvi. 17, 19, essentially like vi. 17). 4. (P. 427.) If the view of the composition and state of the Roman Church set forth above is as firmly grounded on the text of the Epistle as it seems to the present writer, opposing views need no detailed refutation. The so- called Ambrosiaster (circa 370) developed in his commentary (Ambrosius, Opp., ed. Bened. ii. Appendix, p. 25 in the Introduction, and upon i. 5, 8, 9, 11-16, xiv. 1, 23, xvi. 17) the following view :—Certain Jews living in Rome, who had come to believe in Christ, no one knows how, have preached to the essentially Gentile population of Rome a Christianity altogether fettered by Jewish legalism, and that, too, with speedy success. The founders of the Church are just like the Judaisers in Galatia, false apostles, and the Church gathered by them consists of Gentiles who have allowed themselves to be brought under the law, but lack the true knowledge of Christ and the “spiritual gift” (Rom. i. 11), which Paul wishes to impart to them. by his letter and his subsequent visit. Some few Christians, indeed, of "ἃ more enlightened sort, have come to Rome, as may be gathered from chaps. xiv. and xvi.; but they have not been able to change the character of the Church essentially. Paul does not declaim here as in Gal. against the Judaistic Christianity of the readers; he even commends their faith; but the ex- planation of this is that the Romans, not having yet learned the true gospel, cannot have fallen away from it, and so deserve a measure at least of praise for receiving with faith even a Christianity so extremely defective. The confirmatio, which Paul wishes to bring them (Rom. i. 11), is conversion to the true gospel. A brief summary of Rom. (Cod. Amiat. 240; Fuld. 179 ; Card. Thomassius, Opp. i. 391) expresses this view in the words: “Hi preventi sunt a falsis apostolis et sub nomine d. n. Jesu Christi in legem et prophetas erant inducti. Hos revocat apostolus ad veram evangelicam fidem.” According to a second view (Jerome in Gal. v. 2, Vallarsi, vii. 478 ; Argument. solius epist. ad Rom. Amvat. 235 ; Fuld. 171; Thom. 1. 388, the second Prolog. ; cf. the late Catholic Passio: Petri et Pauli, chaps. 5-10, ed. Lipsius, 122-128, also 188-193), the Church was composed of perhaps equal parts of Jews and Gentiles, and had been torn by fierce strife between the two parties. The aim of the Epistle would be, according to this summary : “His taliter altercantibus apostolus se medium interponens ita partium dirimit queestiones, ut neutrum eorum sua justitia salute meruisse: con- firmet.” An echo of this opinion is found in Hug, Einl.? ii. 398 ; his further remark, however, that the letter was addressed primarily to the Jewish Chris- tians (399), does not convey a clear idea. When Jerome in the preface of his commentary on Galatians (Vall. vii. 371) compared Gal. with Rom., and pointed out as a characteristic of Gal. that the readers had not come out of Judaism into the faith, he evidently followed an old authority, which had 432 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW. TESTAMENT more definitely recognized the Jewish Christian character of the Roman Church. Until Baur’s time, the commentators on Romans, whose number grew in the sixteenth century especially, considered its historical pre- suppositions hardly worth a thorough investigation ; and if in any. way they hinted at an opinion about the first readers of the Epistle, they started for the most part with the assumption that the apostle to the Gentiles was dealing with Gentiles in this letter likewise. But Baur (TZfTh. 1836, No. 3, S. 54; ThJb. xvi. 60, 184; Paulus,? i343) claimed that Rom., too, should be regarded as a letter occasioned “by special relations and needs”. and arising under the “imperative stress of eireum- stances” (Paulus, i. 349; cf. 346), and starting from chaps. ix.-xi. as the kernel of the whole, he arrived at this conclusion : “So fundamentally and radically has the apostle aimed to refute Jewish particularism, that it lies wholly uprooted before the consciousness of his time” (380). It is therefore after all not a letter of the missionary who has regard to the “special rela- tions and needs” of the Church addressed, but the systematic exposition of a writer who appeals to the consciousness of his time. Chaps. xv., xvi., which are peculiarly instructive as to “the special relations” under which the letter arose, are explained to be not genuine (393), and the opening greeting and the introduction, i. 8-16, where he constantly confounds the aimsiof the letter with those of the approaching visit to Rome, are dismissed with a few, re- marks, the exegetical worth of which is on a level with Ambrosiaster’s en- deavours ; cf.e.g. Baur, 396, 399 on Rom. i. 11 with Ambrosiaster, p. 29. Baur expressly appeals to Ambrosiaster as an ancient authority “for the Judaistic character of the Roman Church” (391). Baur concluded from the teaching of the Epistle that the Church was of this character, and inferred further on the same grounds that it consisted predominantly of those who were Jews by birth (869-372). Even after Mangold (Der Rm. und die Anfänge. der röm. Gemeinde, 1866, second enlarged ed. 1884) sought to prove by more careful exegetical and historical argument the overwhelming Jewish character of the Church, prominent exegetes have thought that they could still maintain that the Roman Church was for Paul “a Gentile Church like those of Thessalonica and Corinth, however many Jews might have belonged to it” (Hofmann, iii. 623). It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that those who are not exegetes, like Weizsäcker (408-424), should have returned to, this view, perhaps still combined with the hypothesis that Judaistic teachers were already busy trying to win the Church to their doctrine, and to cut off Paul’s approach by hatefully assailing his teaching (425). The leading proof of this, which Weizsäcker finds in iii. 8 (427), falls to the ground for the simple reason that Paul never indicates his single self by the plural (above, p. 209 f., n. 3, 316, n. 3). Cases like σροητιασάμεθα, 111. 9, and λογιζόμεθα, 111. 28, are not comparable; for in these he classes himself with the readers whose assent to his previous discussion he presupposes. But, since the connection of ideas in iii. 8 indicates a circle certainly no narrower, the ‘“‘ we” can be nothing less than the Christians whose theory and conduct are so slandered by the non-Christians,—plainly not by Gentiles, but. by Jews (as im rpoexo- μεθα, iii. 9 ; ef. iv. 1, 16, 24, v. 1-11, viii. 4-39). 5. (P. 427.) Regarding the alleged labours of Peter in Rome before the time of Rom., see below, § 39. The Roman Jews and proselytes also, who THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 433 became believers at Pentecost (Acts ii. 10f., 36-42), could not soon thereafter have become the first preachers of the gospel in Rome ; for they were not festival pilgrims, but persons who had settled in Jerusalem and belonged to the nucleus of the mother Church (see above, p. 61). We may more likely sift out as the kernel of fact in the romancing narrative in Clem. Recogn. i. 6-11, that Barnabas in very early times, perhaps shortly after his separation from Paul, had come as a preacher to Rome, where later we meet Mark his nephew, who had been his companion at that time (Col. iv. 10). To be sure, in the other recension of the same romance, Clem. Hom. i. 6-14, the first preacher in Rome is nameless, and Barnabas meets Clement for the first time in Alexandria. Itisa question, though, whether the rather widespread tradition of Barnabas’ sojourn in Rome, to which was added later the story of his preaching in Milan and other places in northern Italy, springs from the pseudo-Clementine fiction (so Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 2. 273), or whether the author of the Re- cognitions did not use an older tradition. The Cypriote monk Alexander, probably in the sixth century, who makes Barnabas go to Rome and then to Alexandria in the interval between Acts xi. 22 and xi. 25 (Encomium in Barn. chap. xx.; Acta SS. Jun. 11. 442), names as his general sources Clement of Alexandria and other old writings, chap. viii. p. 488), and for particulars appeals to traditions of the ancients (chap. xiii. p. 440, yépovres, marépes) ; nowhere does he appear to be dependent upon the Clement romance. Cf. Acta Petri, chap. iv. ; Acta Apost. Apocr., ed. Lipsius, i. 49. 9. 6. (P. 427.) Suet. Claudius, 25: “Judeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.” For the chronology see Part XI. vol. iii. Since Suetonius (Nero, xvi.) possessed a definite knowledge of the sect. of Christiani which was probably not less than that of Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44), it seems impossible that he should have understood by Chrestus the Founder of Christianity ; for in that case we must ascribe to him what is incredible enough, a belief that Christ was present in Rome in person. On the other hand, Xpyords and Χριστός then sounded alike as pronounced by many, and confusion between them and plays upon them were not lacking (Just. Ap. i.4; Theoph. ad Aut. i.1; Tert. Apol. iii; Lact. Inst. iv. 7.5); nor is it easy to see why a single disturber of the peace should be allowed to keep up his disturbance ; so that we may regard it as perhaps settled that tidings of Christ’s appearance in Palestine aroused fierce and long-continued quarrels among the Roman Jews, chaps. 1-lii. Suetonius did not understand the report that came to his ears. It is questionable whether the scholiast on Juven. Sat. iv. 115 (ed. Cramer, 145), refers to this expulsion of the Jews from the city: “Inter Judeos, qui ad Ariciam transierant, ex urbe missi.” According to Cicero, pro Flacco, xxviii, there must have been a considerable number of Jews in Italy even before his consulate (63 B.c.). At the time of this oration (59 B.c.) the Jews in Rome possessing citizenship were already a power in the popular assemblies. At all events, Philo, Leg. ad Cai. xxiii, speaks inexactly when he represents it as if the whole body of Jews in Rome consisted of prisoners of war who had been emancipated by the masters who had bought them, and thus had attained to citizenship. There is no stress to be laid upon the circumstance that Philo does not mention Pompey here (so A. Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rom. i. 6, τι. 1); for of what other Jewish captives could Philo have thought than those whom NOL, ἃ. 28 434 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Pompey, after his conquest of Jerusalem (63 2.c.), brought with him te Rome on the occasion of his triumphal procession (61 B.c.). His statement, inexact in any case, must be reduced to this, that the body of Jews in Rome received an important addition (61 B.c.) in the shape of captives. Under Augustus they dwelt for the most part on the right bank of the Tiber (Philo, loc. cit.). Later, we find them settled in other parts of the city also, with various synagogues, and with cemeteries outside the gates, cf. Schiirer, iii. 35, 44 (Eng. trans. 11. ii. 240, 247); Berliner, i. 105. Since of the synagogues in Rome, the existence of which has been established thus far by inscriptions, one was called the synagogue of the Hebrews (above, pp. 47 f., 67, n. 14), we may assume that those who belonged to the others be- came Hellenised early. In 4 Α.Ὁ. more than 8000 Jews in Rome attached themselves to a deputation from Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11. 1; Bell. ii. 6. 1); so that, reckoning all these as men, the Jewish population of Rome at that time amounted certainly to more than 30,000. A still larger figure can be inferred from the fact that Tiberius was able to draft 4000 men for military service from among the Jews in Rome (Jos. Ant. xvili. 3:5; Tae. Ann. ii. 85; Suet. Tiberius, xxxvi ; cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cavum, xxiv; Euseb. Chron. ann. Abr, 2050). There is something strange in the assertion of Porphyry; or of the heathen writers who cite him, about the lew Judeorum (occurring in August. Epist. cii. 8, ed. Goldbacher, p. 552. 2): “ Postea vero prorepsit etiam in fines Italos, sed post Casarem Gaium aut certe ipso imperante.” In spite of the express differentiation of the Christian and the Jewish re- ligion, is there confusion here as to the time when each found entrance into Italy ? 7. (P. 428.) Cicero, pro Flacco, xxviii; Philo, Leg. xxiii, p. 568; Jos. Vita, 3; Acts xxviii. 21; Berliner, 1. 30#f.). § 24. THE OCCASION OF THE LETTER. Paul was on the eve of the collection journey which he made in the spring of the year 58 from Corinth, by way of Macedonia to Jerusalem (xv. 25 ; cf. Acts xx. 3-6). The elaborate plan of the letter and its quiet tone pre- suppose that at the time when Paul wrote he was enjoy- ing comparative rest both of body and of mind. The excitement which, in spite of all his preparations, he had not been able to allay before his arrival in Corinth sometime in December of 57 (above, p. 338 ff), must have been already overcome. We may assume that the letter was written in Corinth, but not until toward the close of the three winter months that he spent in Greece, mostly at Corinth, 1.6. not before the beginning THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 435 of March 58. This season of the year, when navigation was beginning to open up, and this place—Corinth—are suggested by the commendation of Phoebe, a deaconess in the Church at Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, who was about to start on a journey to Rome (xvi. 1). The hospitable Gaius, with whom Paul was lodging when he wrote Rom. (xvi. 23), we look for and find in Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14). After the re-establishing of harmony in the Corinthian Church and the completing of the collection, Paul was in a position where, feeling that his work in the East was done, he could turn his thoughts to future undertakings, particularly to the preaching journey in the West which he had planned a number of years before (above, pp. 367 f., 377,n. 11). That this Epistle was written in connection with this plan would be manifest from the very fact that the bulk of its contents is placed between discussions of these plans (i. 8-16, xv. 15-32). But besides this proof, we have the fact that in the one passage where the com- position of the letter is referred to expressly, Paul says in so many words that he wrote it because of his calling as the apostle to the Gentiles and in the interest of the same (n. 1). It is not directly the function of an apostle to the Gentiles, especially as this function is described in xv. 16-21, to write letters at all, to say nothing of letters to Churches predominantly Jewish. As a missionary in general, and in particular a missionary to the Gentiles, even if he comes to Rome, he cannot carry on his specially commissioned work in the Roman Church which is already organised. In fact, it never occurred to him to express any such intentions (above, p. 355f.). Nevertheless, the reason for the composition of this letter was Paul’s calling, which made him a debtor to all unconverted Gentiles. To him, as a missionary planning now to leave the East in order to engage in work in the West, the existence of a Church in Rome which had been organised without his 436 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT help was a matter of the utmost significance (1. 9). For in the first place, his honour as an apostle commissioned to all peoples forbade him passing by the capital of the empire without exercising his office there, at least to some extent. Not only might such action make it appear as if he had no real confidence in the cause that he represented (i. 14-16); it would lower his own sense of the scope of his calling. In the second place, the geographical situation of the Roman Church made it the natural starting-point and centre of support for all further missionary work around the western end of the Mediterranean. Rome was destined to be the metropolis of the coming Church of the West (n. 2). The person who, like Paul, intended to do missionary work in Rome itself, even though only for a time, and who purposed to accomplish the organisation of Churches in Spain, Gaul, or Africa (1. 13-15, xv. 24, 28), had necessarily to be in entire harmony with the Roman Church. The material aid obviously suggested in xv. 24 (n. 3) was of small consequence compared with the moral support of the Roman Church, which was indispensable to the apostle of the West. Accompanied by their intelli- gent interest and upborne by their prayers, he desires now to go to Jerusalem (xv. 30) and later to Rome, and from Rome to Spain. Had the Roman Church been organised by Paul or by one of his helpers, and had it not subsequently become estranged from him, a brief notice of his forthcoming visit would have sufficed, particularly since Aquila and Priscilla had gone to Rome some time before (above, p. 389 f.). But, in view of the origin and character of the Roman Church, of which Paul had learned through the reports of his friends there, it seemed to him necessary to make himself perfectly understood by stating comprehensively his view of the gospel, thereby allaying the prejudices felt by most native Jewish Christians toward him and his missionary work, and guarding against future troubles. The pre- 4“ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 437 dominantly Jewish character of the Church, its close connection with the Church in Palestine, and its loca- tion at the centre of the world’s travel, made it just as easy for it to become a centre of the Judaistic pro- paganda, by which the apostle had been everywhere followed, as it was for it to become the centre of support for missionary work in the West, as Paul intended it should. To what extent the apostle by his letter succeeded in warding off this danger and in accomplishing his own purpose, we learn in part from later letters of his. In more than one respect the future turned out differently from what Paul desired, hoped, and expected at the time when he wrote Romans. He was, to be sure, delivered from the hands of “unbelievers in Judea” (xv. 31; Acts xxi. 32). He also came to Rome, and with joy (xv. 32; Acts xxvii. 15), and possibly went even to Spain. But his rescue at Pentecost 58 by the Roman guard from the fanaticism of the Jews in the temple was the beginning of a five years imprisonment. The appeal to Cesar, which he made before the procurator Festus in the summer of 60 at Czesarea, occasioned his transfer to Rome. Here he arrived in the spring of 61, remaining, according to Acts xxvill. 30, for two whole years, or until early summer of 63, before there was any change in his condition. Letters, in which Paul speaks of himself as a prisoner, must be considered from this point of view, whether he had written them in Cesarea or Rome, or in an entirely different period of imprisonment. 1. (P. 435.) Hofmann, iii. 623, appealing to i. 5, xv. 15f., remarks that Paul wrote this letter “in his capacity as Apostle to the Gentile world.” But i. 5 offers no grounds for this (above, p. 370, τι. 2), and the very essential distine- tion between διὰ τὴν χάριν, xv. 15, and διὰ τῆς χάριτος, Rom. xii. 3, or κατὰ τὴν χάριν, 1 Cor. iii. 10, Eph. iii. 7, is blurred by his ambiguous expression here, and is even quite disowned in his rendering, 613, “by virtue of which calling.” No more correct is Lightfoot’s translation, Bibl. Ess. 297, “by the grace.” As so often elsewhere, διά, c. acc., denotes that in consideration of which, and with a view to which something is done, whether this end be a thing (1 Cor. 438 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ix. 23; Matt.xv.3)or a person (Rom. iv.24; 1 Cor. iv.6; Mark ii. 27 ; Matt. xxiv. 22). Only in the sense in which one could speak of Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles in connection with the collection journey to Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 25-32), or in connection with his earlier journey to the Couneil of the Apostles (ii. 1-5), can it be said that Paul wrote Rom. in his capacity as Apostle to the Gentiles. 2. (P. 436.) Th. Schott (Der Römerbrief nach Endzweck und Gedankengang, 1858) opposed not only the unhistorical treatment of the Epistle by most of the commentators, but also that of Baur, which is historical only in appear- ance, and sought energetically to explain the peculiarity of the letter as due to the state of Paul’s missionary labour at the time of its composition. Not to speak of the superficial or quite mistaken explanations of individual passages bearing strongly upon the question of the composition of the Church (i. 5f. 5. 50, vi. 16f. 5. 263, vii. 1-6 S. 266-271, xv. 1-13 S. 313, nothing at all about πάλιν, vill. 15, or ὑμῖν δὲ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, xi. 13), the success could not be great, since Schott (60, 99, 101-117), without support in the letter or the other known historical circumstances, maintained that there was an essential difference between the mission in the East and that in the West, only the latter being a purely Gentile mission. 3. (Ὁ. 436.) Regarding προπεμφθῆναι, xv. 24, cf. 1 Cor. xvi.6, 11; 2 Cor. i. 16; but especially Tit. iii. 13f.; 3 John 6. As to the act itself, cf. also Ign. Smyrn. x. How essential it was for Paul as he pressed forward in his missionary work to leave the Churches behind him in good condition, is shown by 2 Cor. x. 15, v1. THE LETTERS OF THE FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT. § 25. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE EPISTLES TO PHILEMON, THE COLOSSIANS, AND “THE EPHESIANS.” Ir these letters were written by Paul, they were all despatched by him at the same time. Practically identical reference is made in both Eph. vi. 21, 22 and Col. iv. 7, 8 to the oral reports concerning Paul’s con- dition which Tychicus was to deliver to the readers of both letters. Im other words, the sending of Tychicus to the place where the readers were was contemporaneous with the sending of both letters. _Tychicus was their bearer. In Colosse additional reports concerning the condition of affairs where Paul was were to be made by Onesimus, whom Paul sent ‚with Tychicus on the journey. ‘This is all that is said in Col. iv. 9; it is not said that Tychicus and Onesimus would arrive in Colossze at the same time. From the fact that Onesimus is not mentioned in Eph. vi. 21f., it may be inferred that he was not to stop in the place, or places, to which Ephesians was directed, or that he was not to go there at all. The slave Onesimus, who had run away from his master, had fled to the place where Paul was in prison, and had been con- verted to the Christian faith by him. Paul sends him back to his master Philemon bearing a letter pertaining exclu- sively to this personal matter (Philem. 10-17). There is 439 440 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT no indication that Onesimus had any other commission, The only reason why he had occasion to supplement the oral reports of Tychicus, or to inform the Christians in Colossee of Paul’s condition before Tychicus’ arrival, was the fact that Colossz, whither the latter was bound with a letter to the local Church, was Onesimus’ home, and thus the place where Philemon lived (n. 1). So far as notices are given relative to Paul’s condition and surroundings, they are the same in all three letters. The following persons were with him :—(1) Timothy (Col. i. 1; Philem. 1), who accompanied him on his journey to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4), and who at the time of Philippians, which was certainly written in Rome, was there (i. 1, ii. 19). (2) Luke (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24), who, presup- posing that Luke is the author of the account in Acts xx. 5-xxi. 17, xxvii. 1-xxvili. 16, accompanied him from Philippi to Jerusalem, and later from Czesarea to Rome. (3) According to Acts xx. 4, xxvil. 2, with Paul was also Aristarchus of Thessalonica (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24), who appears to have been an earlier helper and companion of his, and who on the occasion of the insurrection of the silversmiths in Ephesus was deprived of his freedom, at least temporarily (Acts xix. 29). The designation which Paul uses in speaking of him, συναιχμάλωτος (Col. iv. 10), may have reference to these earlier experiences (above, p. 418, n. 23). Since Paul was never actually a prisoner of war, this expression, like συστρατιώτης (Phil. 11. 25; Philem. 2), must certainly be at least partially figurative, and its use may be explained by supposing that at the time when Colossians was written Aristarchus was voluntarily sharing the dwelling in which Paul was a prisoner; so that, since Paul was under military surveillance, his condi- tion, like the apostle’s, might be compared to that of an αἰχμάλωτος. The same would apply (4) to Epaphras (Philem. 23). A Colossian by birth (Col. iv. 12), he had laid the foundations of the local Churches (Col. LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 44! i. 6-8, iv. 12f.) in his native city, and apparently also in the neighbouring cities of Laodicea and Hierapolis, in the valley of the Lycus (n. 2). In so doing Epaphras had taken oceasion to inspire these Churches with a sense of reverence for Paul, and the main purpose of his journey to Paul in prison seems to have been to arouse the apostle’s active interest in the spiritual development of these Churches (Col. 1. 8f., iv. 12 f.). It appears that originally Epaphras had undertaken to preach the gospel in his native city either by Paul’s commission, or at least at his suggestion (n. 3), and it is probable that both Epaphras and his fellow-townsman Philemon became personally acquainted with Paul and Timothy during Paul’s three years’ residence in the province of Asia, and were converted by Paul in Ephesus. When Colossians was written, Epaphras does not appear to have contemplated an immediate return to his home. Instead of Epaphras, Paul seems to have sent back to Asia, and among other places to Colossee (Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7), (5) Tychieus, a native of the same province, who had accompanied Paul on his journey from Macedonia to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4), who seems also to have acted as Paul’s messenger to Ephesus on a later occasion (2 Tim. iv. 12). (6) Demas, whose greeting is sent along with that of Luke, without either praise or blame (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24), was perhaps a Thessalonian (2 Tim. iv. 10; above, p- 213, n. 6). Greetings are also sent from (7) Mark (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24) and (8) Jesus Justus (Col. iv. 11). From these greetings it is not to be inferred that those who sent them were personally known to the readers (cf. Rom. xvi. 165, 21-23). A local Church in which Paul had a deep interest (Col. 1. 8), and a household in this Church with which Paul stood in intimate relations, were also of interest to the helpers who were living more or less con- stantly in his companionship. To this circle Jesus Justus, who is not mentioned in Philem.: 24, does not seem to 442 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT have belonged ; nor would Mark, who has not appeared in company with Paul since the separation between him and Barnabas (in the year 52), be mentioned in Col. iv. 10 and Philem. 24, were it not that he planned to go shortly to Colosse. News of his coming and instructions as to his reception had reached the Colossian Church earlier, though from whom and through whom we do not know. Now again, in case of his coming, Mark is commended to the kindly reception of the Church. For this reason Mark, who is mentioned prominently in Col. iv. 10 and in Philem. 24, is spoken of, on the one hand, as the cousin of Barnabas, who was widely known, and, on the other hand, as being at that time friendly toward Paul and his preaching work, the purpose in both cases mani- festly being to commend him to the readers (n. 4). In this regard Mark and Jesus Justus (and that is why he is mentioned here) were different from the other missionaries of the circumcision who were about Paul. From the fact that he praises Mark and Jesus Justus because they and they alone of the circumcision were fellow-workers with him on behalf of the kingdom of God, and as such were a source of comfort to him, it is to be inferred that there were a number of native Jewish missionaries at work where Paul was, and that their method of work was not a source of gratification to him. Paul is in prison on account of the fulfiment of his office as apostle to the Gentiles (Eph. iu. 1, 13, iv. 1, vi. 20 ;./Col. i. 24, iv. 83 Philem. 1,9, 10, 13, 23).0 He feels that in suffering thus he may expect the sympathy and the prayers of his readers (Col. iv. 18; Philem. 22). Once at least he expresses the hope that through the prayers of his friends in Colossee he may be set at liberty and be able to visit Colosse at no distant day (Philem. 22, cf. Phil. i. 19). The prayer, however, which he most earnestly requests is not that he may be released, but that he may be able to preach the gospel where he is with LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 445 fitting cheerfulness and with good results (Eph. vi. 19 f. ; Col. iv. 3£. ; ef. also Philem. 10). No external hindrances seem to stand in the way of this preaching, and Paul speaks as if he intended to carıy it on for a long time to come. The question whether these letters were written in Ceesarea (Pentecost 58 to late summer 60) or in Rome (spring 61 to 63) can be decided only by a comparison of the situation at the time when they were written— which has just been described—-with the meagre accounts which we have of these two periods of Paul’s captivity (n. 5). At Ceesarea Paul was kept in chains in Herod’s pretorium under military guard; he was not harshly treated; his friends were allowed to visit him, and to provide him with whatever he wanted (Acts xxiii, 35, xxiv. 23, 27, xxvi. 29, 31). Of preaching activity, how- ever, during this imprisonment there is no hint in Acts. It is also very unlikely that Paul would have felt at liberty to preach in a city of Palestine, especially if the division of their respective fields of labour, agreed upon by Paul and the older apostles a little more than six years before he was arrested, was primarily a geographical division (above, p. 265f.). The contemporaneous missionary work of Paul and his helpers, Timothy, Luke, Aristarchus, Epaphras, Demas, possibly also Tychicus, and of numer- ous missionaries of Jewish birth, who, with the exception of Jesus Justus and Mark, were hostile to Paul, presup- poses a large city, which Cxsarea was not (n. 6). »In Ceesarea dwelt the evangelist Philip, with whom Paul and his companions had lodged shortly before his arrest (Acts xxi. 8-14). How could Paul have forgotten this worthy preacher, or how could he silently imply that he was a missionary hostile to himself? Yet this is what he does if Col. iv. 11 was written in Ceesarea. We learn more concerning this evangelistic work earried on parallel with Paul’s ministry and in opposition 444 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to himself—a work referred to in Col. iv. 11—in Philippians (i. 14-18), which was written in Rome. The origin and composition of the Roman Church (above, p. 421 ff.) offered an especially inviting field to the missionaries of the cir- cumcision. In Rome, Paul was not in prison, but lived in his own hired dwelling. He was under military guard, and carried a chain, but was otherwise so little restricted that for two whole years he received numerous visitors as he chose, and was able to carry on an important missionary work (n. 7). Moreover, what could have induced a run- away Colossian slave to go to Caesarea is not apparent. Since Onesimus was not a Christian at the time, and since, according to Philem. 11, 18, he had committed serious offences against his master, he is not likely to have gone for protection to Paul, a friend of his master’s. ‚ To Rome, however, streamed just such characters from all the provinces. In the metropolis, with its motley popula- tion, they were most secure. What brought Onesimus into contact with Paul in Rome we do not know (n. 8). Nor are we able from positive reports which we have from other sources to explain on what Paul based the hope, which is quite definitely expressed, of being set at liberty again (Philem. 22). The longer, however, the situation described in Acts xxviii. 30f. continued without the institution of a trial, the more probable it became that eventually he would be set at liberty for lack of evidence against him (Acts xxv. 25-27, xxvi. 31). In Caesarea, on the other hand, this was not to be thought of so long as Felix was in power, since Paul could not permit himself to offer the procurator a bribe (Acts xxiv. 16). Under Festus the use of this means was out of the question, and the appeal to Cesar cut off all prospect of an early release. But even in case of acquittal by Festus, for which possibly he might have hoped before he made his appeal, he could not very well have planned to make a journey to Phrygia. For a number of years he had been anxious to go to Rome (above, pp. 367f., 434 f.). According to Acts xxii. 11, LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 445 a revelation by night had confirmed anew his conviction that in spite of his arrest Rome was to be his next objec- tive point. It was under the influence of this idea that he made his appeal to Ceesar, and the appeal proves that two years’ imprisonment had not quenched the desire to go to Rome (Acts xxv. 11, 25, xxvii. 24). If, then, he had been set at liberty in Caesarea, he would have had no motive to go to Colossee instead of to Rome as he had planned. To be sure, by his preaching in Rome the goal of his desire was not fully attained. But it was in part and to a degree that surpassed all expectation. Instead of doing missionary work for a few weeks on his way to Spain, he was able to preach for two entire years in the capital with zeal and good results. Judged by the standard of work during his earlier years, when these two years in Rome drew toward their close, he had completed another important period of his life history. Almost five years had passed since he had taken leave of the Church in Asia for a long period, if not for ever (Acts xx. 25). It is not, therefore, strange that Paul felt it necessary before extending his missionary work in the West to visit again his Churches in the East, also to become acquainted with the Eastern Churches that had been organised without his help (Col. ii. 1). Whether this intention was carried out this is not the place to inquire. But there is not much doubt that these three letters were written in Rome dur- ing the two years mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30. As to their more exact dating, all that can be said is that they could not have been written at the very beginning of the period. News must have reached the East that Paul was able to carry on his work in Rome before helpers journeyed from this region to Rome to support him. Nothing is said which would indicate that any one of these helpers had just come to Rome; and although we do not know all that Tychicus was instructed to report orally, we may infer from the manner in which Paul 446 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT speaks of his imprisonment, his preaching activity, and his fellow-workers, that the readers had been for some time acquainted in a general way with the situation in which he was placed. Consequently, it is more probable that the letters were written in the second than in the first of the two years (n. 9). 1. (P. 440.) Since it was not until after his flight that Onesimus was con- verted through Paul (Philem. 10), and thus was not a member of the Church at Colosse, Col. iv. 9 must simply mean that Colosse was his ordinary home, past as well as future (above, p. 371, n. 3). It would have been altogether too meaningless for Paul to refer in this fashion to the mere circumstance of his possible birth in Colossze had he come later into possession of a master resident elsewhere. We must seek Philemon’s house in Coloss& then, where even in the fifth century men believed that they could still point it out (Theodoret in the introduct. to Philem., ed. Noesselt, p. 711). The identity of the destination of Col. and of the letter to the congregation in Philemon’s house follows from the mention of Archippus in both letters. According to Philem. 2, he must have belonged to Philemon’s household ; and if, as was shown, Philemon’s house, from which Onesimus ran away, stood in Colosse, that city was the home of Archippus also. It was a bold assertion of Theodore of Mops. (ed. Swete, i. 311), that we can infer from the wording of Col. iv. 17 that Archippus dwelt in Laodicea and performed some service in the Church there. Theodore in his exposition of Philem. does not mention the dwelling- place of that household at all, so that he probably held it to be Laodicea, in accordance with his remark upon Col. iv. 17; and Lightfoot (Colossians, ed. 2, pp. 244, 309), though he recognised that Philemon and Onesimus belonged to Colosse, felt compelled to agree with this view of Col. iv. 17. Archippus would then be at the same time a member of the Church in Philemon’s house in Colosse, and a servant of the neighbouring Church in Laodicea ! In reality, after greetings are sent to the Christians in Laodicea, Col. iv. 15, and a com- mission is entrusted to the Colossians with reference to that neighbouring city; iv. 16a, we are brought back again to Colosse by the direction that the letter from Laodicea be read also in Colosse. It is there alone that we must seek Archippus, for whom there is, in close connection with what precedes (iv. 17, καί), a reminder to be given by the Church to which he belongs. _Theodoret was quite right in rejecting Theodore’s view of Col. iv. 17. Moreover, the more particular statement that Archippus was the first bishop of Laodicea (Const. Ap. vii. 46) is worth as little as the other statements we find there, eg. that Philemon was bishop of Coloss®, and Onesimus of Bercea. An Archippus from Hierapolis in the legend of the miracle at Chon (Coloss:e) can hardly have anything to do with our Archippus, as Batiffol, Stud. patr. i. 38, conjectures ; for even according to the narrator himself this Archippus was only ten years old ninety years after the building of a Michael Chapel, which itself was built many years after the death of the apostles John and Philip (Narratio de miraculo Chonis patrato, ed. Bonnet, 1890, pp. 3. 8, 5. 6). Nor can we infer that Philemon dwelt elsewhere than in Colosse from LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 447 the fact that Paul had long been intimately acquainted with him and his family ($ 26), while the rest of the Colossian Church were still unknown to him (Col. ii. 1; see below, n. 3). In that case we should have to put Phile- mon’s home in an altogether different region ; for Paul had not yet been in Laodicea or Hierapolis either. Rather was the case the same with these Churches as with the Church at Rome (above, p. 416, n. 20). Paul does not regard acquaintance with some of the present members of a Church as acquaintance with the Church as a whole. Philemon, apparently a well-to- do householder at Colosse ($ 26), can very easily have become acquainted with Paul and have been converted through his labours during the apostle’s residence of almost three years in Ephesus, or if not then in some other part of the province. Whether or not the same is true of Apphia and Archippus we can- not tell. From the position of these two names between that of Philemon and the Church in his house (Philem. 2; cf., per contra, Rom. xvi. 5, above, p. 417, n. 21) so much only is certain : that they were members of his family, Apphia his wife probably, and Archippus his son. Philemon is called the συνεργός of Paul and Timothy, but Archippus their συστρατιώτης. The latter expres- sion seems to indicate an activity requiring more pains and self-denial—one more like that of Paul and his tried helper, ef. Phil. ii. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 7; 1 Tim.i.18. We cannot gather with certainty from the con- nection in Col. iv. 17 that it belonged to Archippus’ office to read letters and other writings in the meetings at Coloss& (cf. 1 Tim. iv. 13%), or to serve as intermediary in the intercourse with other Churches (Herm. V%s. ii. 4. 3). But that it was a service which affected the whole local Church, is plain from the fact that the reminder about this is contained not in the letter to Phile- mon and the congregation in his house, but in that to the Church of Colosse. Ambrosiaster’s imagination is a trifle too lively when he writes of Archippus: “ Post enim Epaphram, qui illos imbuit, hic accepit regendam eorum ecclesiam,” and when in the prologue he represents the false doctrine as intruding “ post preedicationem Epaphre sive Archippi.” But Hitzig, Zur Kritik paul. Briefe, 32, and Steck, JbfPTh. 1891, S. 564 ff., went much further astray when they found in Col. iv. 17 an “ insulting utterance,” a “sharp sting,” an “ unworthy insinuation,” which could not be believed of the apostle, the less so as he wrote Philem. 2 without chiding Archippus. According to this, all Paul’s exhortations which are not confirmed by a circumstantial statement of their occasion, would be insults. If such a one had occurred in Philem. 2, the eritics would have seen all the more in this a proof that Col. iv. 17 was falsely ascribed to Paul on the basis of Philem. 2. A conjecture like that of Hitzig, 32 (whom Steck follows), that a philosopher, Flavius Archippus, who was condemned to work in the mines by a proconsul Paulus (Plin. Ep. ad Traj. lviii-lx, Ixxx, Ixxxi), furnished occasion for the invention in Col. iv. 17, must be left to its fate. 2. (P. 441.) For history and geography see LiGHTFooT (op. cit.), 1-72; HENLE, Kolossä und der Brief des Paulus an die Kol. 1887 ; Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, 2 ed. 1893, pp. 465-480, with detailed map; «bid. Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, i. 1 (1895), pp. 32-121 (Laodicea and Hierapolis), 208-234 (Colosse) ; HUMANN, CICHORIUS, JUDEICH, and WINTER, Altertümer von Hierapolis, 1898. Κολοσσαί (so in the older writers, upon coins, and in the older MSS. of the N.T. ; Κολασσαί perhaps from the fifth century A.D. onwards) 448 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT was in Persian times one of the largest and richest cities of Phrygia (Herod. vil. 30; Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6). The cities founded in the time of the Seleucidez. Apamea (Ἀπάμεια Κιβωτός, formerly Κελαιναί) eastward and Laodicea (Λαοδί- κεια ἡ πρὸς τῷ AUK@ OF ἐπὶ Avk@) about nine miles west of Colosse, together with Hierapolis which lay about six miles north, outstripped the ancient Colossee (Strabo, xii. 576). Yet Laodicea did not rise to prominence until just before the time of Christ (Strabo, xii. 578, ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων πατέρων), and in Strabo’s time (he wrote 18-19 a.p.) Colosse still shared the prosperity of the neighbouring towns (Strabo, 589, πόλισμα, 576, does not mean neces- sarily “small town”), and; when Pliny (H. N. v. 41) reckons it as one of the oppida celeberrima of Phrygia, we need not understand him as referring simply to historical renown. The great commercial highway which led from Ephesus through the valley of the Meander, then through that of the Lycus to Apamea, and finally through the Cilician Gates to Tarsus and Syria, passed through both Coloss® and Laodicea (Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 35 ff.). But Lao- dicea had the advantage of being at the junction of several roads leading in all directions (Ramsay, Cities and Bishop. i. 1. 12, n.1). The chief source of its riches, to which reference is made also in Rev. iii. 17, was the trade in the jet-black wool produced in the Lycus valley, which was preferred even to that of Miletus (Strabo, 578). In addition to this was the wool-dyeing in- dustry of Hierapolis, favoured by the nature of the water there, which rivalled the scarlet and purple dyeing of other places (Strabo, 630). Laodicea was also the chief city of the district (conventus) of Cibyra, which belonged to the province of Asia (Plin. H. N. v. 105; cf. Marquardt, R. Staatsverw.? i, 341). Theodoret on Col. (ed. Noesselt, 472) calls it the Metropolis of Colossz. The Church of Laodicea, as being the most important of the three mentioned in Col. iv. 13, is the only one included under the seven Churches of the province addressed in Rev. (i. 11, iii. 14); and even in Col. ii. 1, ef. iv. 13, Laodicea seems to stand for Hierapolis too. A synod occasioned by the Easter disputes met in Laodicea circa 165-170 (Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 3, v. 24.5; ef. Forsch. iv. 266, v. 26). Yet Hierapolis itself remained famous in Church annals as the long-time home of the “apostle” or rather evangelist Philip and his daughters, and as the episcopal see of Papias and of Claudius Apollinaris (Hus. H. E. ii, 15. 2, iii, 31. 3-5, 36. 2, 39. 9, iv. 26. 1, v. 19. 2, 24. 2). On the other hand, Coloss& falls quite into the background in the tradition. The fortress Xévat, built probably under Justinian, about two miles south of Colosse, after- ward quite swallowed up that city (Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 80, 135, 429 ; Church in R. ΗΠ. 478). While a bishop of Coloss& still signs with that title the decrees of the Trullan Council of 692 (Harduin, Cone. iii. 1710), there appears at the second Nicene Council of 787 a bishop Dositheus, or Theodosius, of Colosse or Chonee (op. cit. iv. 280, 449 ; cf. 32, 120, 468). Thereafter the name Colosse disappears. The tradition is handed down merely that Chonz is the ancient Colosse, e.g. in the historian Nicetes of Chone (ed. Bonn. p. 230) in the thirteenth century. One of the earthquakes frequent in this region (Strabo, xii. 578, 579) may have helped to obliterate Coloss&. Only we may not, with Lightfoot, 71, think of this as happening in the third century. Theodoret, in his hypothesis to Philem. p. 711, thinks he knows that Philemon’s house is still standing in Coloss& in his day, and the continued existence of a bishopric of Colossz without any other name affixed proves the existence of the town LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 449 until 692 at least. Of the earthquakes about which we have information, only one could have any significance for the N.T. In 60 Α.Ὁ., according to Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 27, eodem anno; ef. chap. xx. Nerone IV. et Corn. Cosso coss., hence not, as we find it asserted more often, 61 A.D., to which the transition is not made until Ann. xiv. 29), Laodicea was severely damaged by an earthquake, but soon arose by its own resources and without government assistance, which probably had been rendered on a former occasion (Strabo, xii. 579). Un- questionably Eusebius has the same occurrence in mind when he states that in anno Abr. 2079 (63 A.D.), Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse were destroyed by an earthquake (Chron. ii. 154). For the Jewish Sibyllist, about 80 a.p., who knows the ground in Asia Minor, and. who speaks just like Tacitus of the destruction and rebuilding of Laodicea (Sib. iv. 107; cf. Z/KW, 1886, S. 37), thus attests indirectly that no like misfortune has again befallen the city between 60 and 80 a.p. Of more importance for us is it that even from the days of Antiochus the Great (Jos. Ant. xii. 3. 4) many Jews had been settling in this region. From the statement of Cicero, pro Flacco, xxviii, that Flaccus, 62 B.c., confiscated in the district of Laodicea Jewish temple tribute to the amount of more than twenty pounds of gold, and in that of Apamea almost a hundred pounds, it has been estimated that in the former district there were over 11,000 free Jewish men, and in the latter 55,000 (Lightfoot, 20; Henle, 53, A. 2). It is unknown, to be sure, how large these two districts were; cf. Ramsay, Cities and Bishop. i. 2. 667. In Hierapolis there was a well-organised Jewish community, οἵ. Altertiimer von Hier. 46, 96 (No. 69), 138 (No. 212), 174 (No. 342). The connection with Jerusalem was fostered, cf. also Acts ii. 10, xxi. 27. Czesar’s decrees of tolerance, issued at the instance of the high priest and prince Hyrcanus 11., benefited also the Jews of Laodicea (Jos. Ant. xiv. 10.20; ef. Schiirer, i. 348 [Eng. trans. 1. i. 382 f.], iii. 67 f. [Eng. trans. 11. ii. 225 f.]. From Jews of this region the fable spread that the Ararat upon which Noah’s ark (κιβωτός) grounded was near Apamea Kibotos : Orae. Sib. i. 261-267 ; Jul. Afric. Chron. (Routh, Rel. 5.3. ii. 243), and coins of the third century A.D. to be found in Eckhel, iii. 132-139; ef. Schürer, iii. 14f. (new matter, not in Eng. trans.) ; Ramsay, op. cit. 669-672. 3. (P. 441.) If in Col. i. 7 we read ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, which is very strongly attested (N*ABD*G, Ambrosiaster), and which has been subsequently altered in old MSS. like 8 and D into ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν as an easier reading, we are shut up to the conclusion that Epaphras is a servant of Christ among the Colossians for and in place of Paul and Timothy; cf. Philem. 13, ὑπὲρ σοῦ. The notion lying back of this is that properly Paul himself, as apostle of the Gentiles, and especially of the province (Acts xix. 10) to which Colosse belonged, would have been bound to preach in that city (Col. i. 25). It was a help to him and Timothy for Epaphras to undertake this work. It is not decisive against this interpretation that we have ἐστίν instead of ἐγένετο. Epaphras’ service of Christ in behalf of the Churches founded by him still continues; he prays for them constantly, actually toils for them (iv. 12f.), and has probably been begging Paul to interest himself in them, and to write them a letter of encouragement. Hence the present in i. 7 may be non-temporal, combining past and present. But the ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν seems natural only on the supposition that Epaphras preached in Colossz and its neighbourhood at the time when Paul and Timothy were VOL. I. 29 450 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT working in Ephesus at what they believed to be their task, namely, bringing the gospel to the province of Asia, which included Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis. The feeling of obligation to preach also in other cities of the province comes out, e.g. in 2 Cor. ii. 12f., and Acts xix. 10 does not exclude the supposition that Paul himself preached in other cities too; Acts xix. 26 may even seem to favour it. At all events, several Churches beside that of Ephesus sprang up in the province at this time (1 Cor. xvi. 19). That even then the gospel had penetrated as far as the Lycus valley is probable, though it cannot be proved from Acts xix. 10, 26; for aside from the possi- bility that the expression is hyperbolic, Luke uses “ Asia” in a very narrow sense, excluding the whole of Phrygia, and hence the Phrygian cities Colossz, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, which belonged to the province of Asia (above, p. 186). All that we can infer with complete certainty from Col. i. 4-9, ii. 1, is that Paul, whether on his second and third missionary journeys (above, pp. 188 ff.) or during his three years in Ephesus, had never come to Colosss or to that Phrygian section of the province of Asia at all. Theodoret (pp. 472, 483), differing from the older commentators (Ambrosiaster, Ephr. Syr., Chrys., Theod. Mops.), thought that Paul (11. 1) has joined with the Christians of Coloss® and Laodicea, whom he had seen, other Christians whom he had not seen. But the lack of all hint of a contrast (“not only—but also”) and the union without distinction in ii. 2 of the Churches indicated in ii. 1, are decisive against this view. Theodoret avoided the force of Col. i. 7 (ef. Eph. iv. 20) by assuming that the Colossians had heard from Epaphras simply of the progress of the gospel in the whole world (cf. i. θα). Perhaps also the Antiochian reading καθὼς καὶ ἐμάθετε, which Theodoret had before him, helped to weaken the sense of the sentence. 4. (P. 442.) For particulars about Mark see Part 1x. The designation “nephew of Barnabas” hardly looks like a title for distinguishing him from some other Mark of whom we know nothing, and it is more natural to assume that he was then unknown in Colosse and the neighbouring towns. On the contrary, they had heard of Barnabas, the older and more famous missionary (cf. also 1 Cor. ix. 6) and joint-founder of the Church in Pisidian Antioch, which was not so very far east of Colosse. The bare name of the next man mentioned, Jesus, characterises him as a Jew; his surname also, Justus, was common among Jews; cf. Jos. Vita, 9; Acts i. 23 (Joseph Barsabas Justus, confused apparently in the Acts of Paul, ed. Lipsius, p. 108. 14, p. 116. 12, not only with Barnabas, but also with Jesus Justus, GA, ii. 889), and many other examples from literature and inscriptions adduced in Lightfoot, 238... With Hofmann, iv. 2. 148, we may take ἐκ περιτομῆς οὗτοι μόνοι as parenthetic, which is most natural; or, with Bleek, we may consider that οὗτοι μόνοι was added as an afterthought to sharpen the expression. In any event the information here given is not simply that the men just named were Jews, which would be quite needless in the case of the last two, nor is it that these two or three men were Paul’s only effective and agreeable fellow- workers, for Epaphras, Luke, and Demas are also called συνεργοί, and two of them are strongly commended (Col. i. 7, iv. 12, 14; Philem. 23f.). We are shut up to the meaning given above, which had been accepted even by commentators who, like Lightfoot, failed to see the grammatical grounds for their correct exegesis, because they clung to the heavy punctuation after LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 45) wepirouns used before Lachmann’s time, But it also follows that none of the other συνεργοί then with Paul were Jews. To except Luke from this number (so Hofmann, iv. 2. 151; Scriftbeweis, ii. 2. 99) is impossible, for he was staying with Paul not only as physician (Col. iv. 14), but also as συνεργός (Philem. 24), and hence must have been mentioned in Col. iv. 11 if he had been a Jew. It is, if possible, still more certain that Epaphras, who is men- tioned immediately after iv. 11, was a Gentile. The contrary opinion of Jerome (in Philem. 23, Vallarsi, vii. 762) is based on an unfortunate com- bination of the designation συναιχμάλωτος with the ancient tradition that Paul’s family were carried away captive by the Romans at the taking of Giseala (above, p. 681f.). All that is open to question is, whether οἱ dvres . παρηγορία refers to Aristarchus also, as most critics say, or only to Mark and Jesus, as Hofmann holds. Grammatically, we cannot decide how far back the reference of the οὗτοι extends (cf. Acts xx. 5). But since Aristarchus’ relation to Paul and his work has been already sufliciently indicated | by συναιχμάλωτός μου, it seems unnatural to refer ver. 11 also to him. | The same principle holds in the distribution of epithets in Philem. 23 and 24. Besides, it would be strange for Paul now to assert expressly of such a tried helper that he was not a hindrance to him like others, but a furtherer of his work, and had therefore proved a comfort to him in the trouble which these others had caused. In Philem. 24, Mark, indeed, who was to come to Colossze shortly, is mentioned, but not Jesus Justus. It is possible to suppose that an original ᾿Ιησοῦς, as indicating him, has disappeared in the Ἰησοῦ of ver. 23, if it has not suggested, indeed, the whole phrase ev Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, which is exceedingly rare in combination with συναιχμάλωτος, συστρατιώτης, συνεργός μου. 5. (P. 443.) Among others, Reuss, Thiersch, and Weiss decide in favour of Cssarea as the place where Eph., Col., and Philem. were written; so, too, Hilgenfeld as far as regards Philem., the only one which he considers genuine. The ancient commentators, without exception, and most of the moderns, decide in favour of Rome. At all events, the disposition not to. let Paul rest altogether from letter-writing while in Cesarea is not pertinent here. Neither have we any letter dating from the three years which may lie between 2 Thess. and 1 Cor., and we know of just a single one, which Paul wrote toward the end of this time (1 Cor. v. 9). Paul may have written twenty letters in Cxesarea. One, of which we hear in 2 Pet. iii. 15, probably falls within this period. 6. (P. 443.) According to Jos. Bell ii. 18. 1, vii. 8.7 (ef. vii. 8.7, Niese, 362, “with women and children”), the Jewish population of Caesarea numbered over 20,000. Though the Gentiles were in the majority there (Bell. iii. 9. 1), the Jewish minority was so large that, until the time of Festus, they could think of claiming the town as Jewish (Ant. xx. 8. 7,9; Bell. ii. 13. 7). Csesarea certainly had no more than 60,000 inhabitants. 7. (P. 444.) Acts xxviii. 16, 20, 380. According to the ancient Acts of Paul, that apostle, though, to be sure, not until his arrival in Rome the second time, hired a barn outside the city (ed. Lipsius, 104. 4 ; ef. GK, ii. 889, and below, § 36, n. 10). At any rate, Acts xxviii. 16-31 implies no little attic chamber, but a roomy abode, cf. Acts xix. 9. 8. (P. 444). Lightfoot, 312, mentions ‘as possible occasions for the ae- 452 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT quaintance of Onesimus and Paul: a chance meeting with his fellow countryman Epaphras, destitution and hunger, remembrance of words of Paul which he had once heard in Philemon’s house, and pricks of conseience, He also cites Sallust, Catil. xxxvii, 5; Tac. Ann. xv. 44, to show that Rome was the great resort of the rabble. 9. (P. 446.) If the statements of Tacitus and of Eusebius (above, p. 449, line 2 ff.) refer to the same event, and if, as Tacitus says, Laodicea (with the neighbouring towns) recovered straightway from the earthquake of 60 A.D., the lack of any reference to this in letters sent from Rome to this region between the spring of 61 and 68—perhaps not till the autumn of 62, or during the winter of 62-63—is not remarkable. If Eusebius has the right date (63 A.D.), all that we need to assume is that Col. was written before the earthquake, or at least before news of it reached Rome. -In no case is there any reason to deny that Tychicus and Onesimus journeyed from Rome to Asia Minor somewhere about the autumn of 62. Then Paul would have thought of the spring of 63 when he wrote Philem. 22. § 26. THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. This is the only letter in the N.T. which gives us a glimpse into a Christian household of that time. The father, Philemon, was converted (ver. 19) through the influence of Paul, with whom he became acquainted prob- ably in Ephesus (above, p. 447). The wife and son were also Christians. While Archippus in some regular way served the Colossian Church (Col. iv. 17, p. 446 f, n. 1), his father, Philemon, appears to have assisted more generally in spreading the gospel in his vicinity, because of which service Paul calls him the fellow-worker of Timothy and himself (ver. 1). He must have been a well-to-do citizen of Coloss&, which was at that time a flourishing commercial city. His house served as the meeting-place for a part of the local Church (n. 1). He was in a position where he could show the loyalty of his love to his fellow-believers by a rather wide-reaching beneficence (ver. 5). Only recently he had offered new proof of this practical love to “the saints” (n. 2), of which Paul is able to think only with joyful gratitude. This liberality on the part of Philemon is emphasised so strongly because Paul is about to make a further LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 453 demand upon his generosity. His request concerns Onesimus, who, in addition to being unprofitable to his master (ver. 11), had run away, apparently stealing the money necessary for the journey (ver. 18). Now, how- ever, he has been converted through Paul’s ministry in Rome, and the apostle seeks to restore him to his Master’s house. This made it natural for him to direct the letter to the wife and son and the other Christians accustomed to gather there as well as to Philemon himself (ver. 2 f.), although elsewhere throughout the letter he addresses only the head of the house, with whom the deeision of the matter rested (n. 3). All that Paul asks in the letter is that Philemon receive in a kindly spirit the penitent refugee who had now become a fellow-believer with him. He does not ask this in any authoritative way, although he had a right to do so, but in a brotherly spirit (vv. 8-10), No question is raised as to Philemon’s right of possession in the future, recognition of which right pre- vented Paul from retaining Onesimus, to whom he had become attached, and who was peculiarly adapted to serve his personal needs (ver. 13 f.). This is a “ fleshly” bond which, far from being annulled by the fellowship “in the Lord” established by faith, is rather sanctified by it. This “fleshly” bond serves also to render their Christian fellowship more individual and hence more intimate (ver. 16). At the most, Paul no- more than hints his desire that Philemon give Onesimus his freedom, when he ex- presses the expectation that Philemon will do more than Paul requests (ver. 21). This expectation, however, is one with his hope that the letter may fully accomplish its purpose. For Paul by no means thinks that at once and of his own accord Philemon will receive the guilty slave with kindness, but uses every means in his power so to dispose him. At the very beginning, where he: praises Philemon for his generous brotherly love, by which Paul is encouraged to prefer his request, he does not fail to 454 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT intimate that he would like to see Philemon make still further progress in this direction (ver. 6, n. 2). The indignation which Philemon had felt at Onesimus’ conduct should be mitigated, among other things, by the con- sideration that now instead of a worthless he has a useful servant (vv. 11, 16). For the money which Philemon had lost through Onesimus’ unfaithfulness Paul makes himself personally responsible, this letter in his own hand being formal security for the debt (n. 4). Although, as the added remark indicates, Paul had no idea that Philemon would hold him strietly responsible for the payment of the sum in question, undoubtedly he did intend a humorous thrust at the weak side of this man, who possibly was liberal enough in large matters (vv. 5-7), but inclined to reckon closely in small affairs. Paul continues the same humorous vein, when he adds, “ Yes, my brother, | should like to profit at your expense” (n. 5). Some of the salt with which he seasons his own words (Col. iv. 6) he takes for granted in his readers. We observe the same humorous spirit in the request which Paul makes of Philemon, now to make ready for him quarters in his house, when, as a matter of fact, he was anticipating a protracted continuance of his preaching in Rome (Col. iv. 3£. ; Eph. vi. 19 f.), and had said nothing about an immediate journey to Asia in the two contem- poraneous letters. The apostle gives himself an invitation to visit the stern householder. It is as if he had said, “I shall find out shortly whether Onesimus, my ‘child’ (ver. 10), my ‘heart’ (ver. 12), my beloved brother, has been received by you in the way I requested.” The letter is a striking example of that unaffected art by which Paul was able to touch the heart so as to win to himself and his cause everyone not entirely devoid of feeling (n. 6). The humour of the letter does not lessen its earnestness, nor does its irony affect its warmth. It combines politeness and dignity, recognition of the LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 455 hard rights of this world with defence of the highest demands for the fuller exercise of Christian love. The fact that this letter has been declared spurious notwithstanding its wealth of original material (n. 7), and in spite of the lack of all support from tradition and the impossibility of discovering any sufficient motive for its forgery, deserves only to be mentioned (n. 8). 1. (P. 452.) The “congregation in Philemon’s house” (ver. 2) cannot be identical either with the ordinary household or with the local Church of Colosse. In the latter case the address of this letter and of Col. would be the same. Since Colossz at that time, though surpassed by Laodicea, was by no means decadent (above, p. 448), there is nothing improbable in the Christians’ meeting for worship in various houses, as was done in other still larger cities, Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19) and Rome (Rom. xvi. 5, above, p. 430, n. 1). This was the case also in the neighbouring city of Laodicea (Col. iv. 15). The reading αὐτῶν NACP, Copt. (see Lightfoot, 256) is thoughtlessly moulded after Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; the brethren in Laodicea must have had more than one house. The reading αὐτῆς, B, 67** presupposes that Νύμφαν, as Lachmann for this very reason wished to have it accented, indicates a woman. In the Coptic fragments of the old Acts of Paul (ed. C. Schmidt, p. 30. 19 ff., German trans. p. 54 ff.) a woman is called Nympha, who, together with her husband Hermocrates, had been baptized by Paul in Myrrha (Myra in Lycia). But Nympha is only a Doric form for νύμφη, and no more than this can it be shown elsewhere to be a personal name. Rather should we read Νυμφᾶν (=Nymphodorum, Nymphodotum, ete.), and then αὐτοῦ; with DG and the Antioch recension. The rarity of this masculine name ((. I. Att. iii. 1105, Nuvdas ; cf. C. I. G. 1290; Οἱ I. Lat. ii. 557, Nyphas?) occasioned the alteration. Likewise the σοῦ, in Philem. 2, which on other grounds seems peculiar, has been altered, now into αὐτῶν, to imitate Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 19 ; now into αὐτοῦ, from stylistic considerations. 2. (Pp. 452, 454.) In itself οἱ ἅγιοι, ver. 7 (ef. 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, 12), might mean the Jerusalem Christians (Hofmann) ; but this seems un- natural here so soon after πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι (ver. 5=all Christians). Besides, if Paul and Timothy had merely heard of a remittance of money to Jerusalem by Philemon, they would hardly have failed to say so (οἵ. ἀκούων, ver. 5 ; Eph. i. 15 ; Col. i. 4, 9 ; cf. per contra, Phil. iv. 10). The expression, as we have it here, gives the idea that Paul had himself recently perceived the love which Phile- mon had shown, and which was refreshing the saints. We might have had τῶν ἀδελφῶν here (1 Cor. xvi. 11, 12; 2 Cor. ix.3; 3 John 3). Philemon knew whom Paul meant. He may have aided with money Christians who were travelling from Asia to Rome, or he may have sent the money by them to help needy ones of his own land and faith in Rome ; see alson.3. According to the correct reading (ἀγάπην before πίστιν), ver. 5 treats of the love and faithfulness which Philemon shows with regard to the Lord Jesus (and) toward all saints. Consequently also the wish (ver. 6), which makes up the content of Paul’s prayers for Philemon (ver. 4), can only be that “ Philemon’s 456 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT faithful disposition to impart may become effectual by virtue of a knowledge of all the good which it lies in the power of Christians generally (ev ἡμῖν) or of him and his house (ev ὑμῖν), to do toward Christ.” 3. (P. 453.) Aside from the textually uncertain ὑμῖν, ver. 6, the plural address does not appear until ver. 22), and then again in ver. 25, which corresponds to the opening greeting, ver. 3. The reasons for its use are in all cases clear. The joint authorship of Timothy is revealed nowhere but in vv. 1, 2 (ἡμῶν) and again probably in ver. 7 (ἔσχομεν, D* Orig. iii. 889); Jerome vii. 754, from which the Antiochian ἔχομεν has arisen by assimilation to the present tenses before and after it, and ἔσχον by assimilation to the singulars around it. The aorist proves that a single experience of the most recent past is meant ; cf. Phil. iv. 10; 2 John 4; 3 John 3; Polye. ad Phil. i. 1, xi.,1; Forsch. iv. 250). In Col., too, Paul does not simply mention Timothy as one of those who send greetings, but makes him to a certain extent joint-author of the letter (Col. i. 1, 3, 9, hence ἐγὼ Παῦλος, 1. 23). But he has a particular reason for so doing in Philem., namely, Timothy’s personal acquaintance with Philemon—perhaps also the fact that the matter in question was of a somewhat legal nature. For signing a bond and for drawing up a recommendation for the runaway slave recourse was had to a second witness (2 Cor. xiii. 1). 4. (P. 454.) Concerning autograph writing, see above, p. 172, n. 4. It might be possible, indeed, that ver. 19a was a remark written in Paul’s own hand on the margin after the letter had been all dictated. In this case ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοί would connect with ver. 18 even more easily than if with Hofmann we take ver. 19a as a parenthesis. At all events the σοί after λέγω eannot be a thoroughly superfluous enclitic dative, governed by the verb, but must emphatically express just what Paul could indeed say, but will not say directly (ef. 2 Cor. ix. 4, also 2 Cor. ii. 5). The antithesis required is not, however, to be found in ver. 19a, but simply in the ἐμοί, ver. 18. Paul says ; “Charge it (not to Onesimus, but) to me,” but adds that he could properly say that Philemon should charge it to his own account, and for this reason that he owed Paul not only such trifling sums of money, but also his own self besides, z.e. every personal sacrifice. This somewhat strange thought rests perhaps on the notion that in Philemon’s account-book there was no page at all on which Paul was represented as debtor, and that, therefore, it was more natural to enter a little debt of Paul to him upon the page on which his many debts to Paul were registered. He would then quickly see that the balance in favour of Paul was hardly diminished by this little sum. 5. (P. 454.) In all likelihood the words in ver. 11, ἄχρηστος, εὔχρηστος, are suggested not so much by the vulgar pronunciation of Χριστός, Χριστιανός =xpnorös (Baur, Paulus, ii. 91), as by the meaning of the name ’Ovnotpos. Likewise it is hardly to be doubted that ὀναίμην, ver. 20, is a play upon the sound of the name. Cf. Ign. Eph.ii. 2, ὀναίμην ὑμῶν, at the end of an exhorta- tion to obey the bishop, whose name was Onesimus (bid. 1. 8, ii. 1). There are similar plays upon proper names in Theophilus, ad Autol. i. 1, Θεόφιλος---τὸ θεοφιλὲς ὄνομα rovro = Χριστιανός, Eusebius, H. E. iii. 27. 6, Ebion, the poor man; v. 24. 18, Irenzeus, the man of peace. Regarding Rev. iii. 1, see 8 73, n. 8. There are still other examples in Lightfoot, 340. Paul does not use the polished phrase in the usual sense, “May I have joy in thee,” but means it literally. LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 457 To confirm the demand hinted at in ver. 195, he openly avows (vai), and saya to the strict householder or the carefully calculating merchant, that he on his part would like to make a profit in the transaction with Philemon, instead of letting Philemon get the better of the bargain, as was his wont. 6. (P. 454.) Among the means which Paul uses to induce Philemon to comply with his request belongs also the way in which he refers to his present situation. Four times in this short letter he alludes to his imprisonment (vv. 1, 9, 10, 13), and in the very opening greeting he designates himself, in contrast with the other letters written at the same time, simply as Paul a prisoner of Christ Jesus. In ver. 9, to be sure, it would be unexceptionable grammatically to take τοιοῦτος---ὡς as correlatives—the view of the ancient Greek commentators (cf. Kühner-Gerth i. 413 A. 11 ; ii. 493. 4; πα Lightfoot). But in that case the present writer could see no reason for ὡς Παῦλος instead of οἷός εἰμι (cf. Acts xxvi. 29); for the name indicates no particular characteristic or situation. Moreover, τοιοῦτος requires no such correlative when all that is needed is to draw attention toa person’s character or situation which was known before (2 Cor. ii. 6 ; Hofmann, ad loc., compares appropriately, Odyssey, 16. 205). Philemon knows what sort of man Paul is and how eircumstanced, and as such Paul makes his plea for Onesimus. This τοιοῦτος, which thus points by im- plication to the character of the pleader in all its detail, is explained in the three appositives which follow ; for since πρεσβύτης has no article, it cannot be construed as in apposition simply to Παῦλος. He pleads, as Chrysostom (xi. 780) long ago rightly distinguished—(1) as Paul, the friend whom Philemon has known so long and so well; (2) as an old man; (3) as one who now also wears fetters for Christ’s sake. But neither the name, nor the great age, nor the imprisonment would show his right to command (ver. 8), in this matter at all events; they are rather intended to characterise the pleader as one whose plea cannot well be refused. Thus Paul here waives altogether his official dignity and the authority growing out of his services. Bentley’s conjecture (Crit. Sacra, ed. Ellies, p. 73), πρεσβευτής, which Hort, NT, Appendix, 136, adopted ; or Lightfoot’s proposal, in which Westcott, in distinction from his fellow-worker, acquiesced, to take πρεσβύτης, after all manner of doubtful analogies, in the sense of πρεσβευτής, sc. Χριστοῦ (cf. 2 Cor. v. 20; Eph. vi. 20), introduces a foreign element which would have been in place only in ver. 8, and even there would have required much clearer expression. The πρεσβύτης as such, and especially when he pleads, has primarily something touching about him; cf. Clem. Quis Div. xli (the plea of the gray-haired John to the erring youth); Passio Perp. v, vi (the gray hair of the father and the helplessness of the child combine to produce an effect). We do not know the year of Paul’s birth. If, according to the conjecture expressed above, p. 69, his parents were carried away from Palestine in 4 B.c.,—Paul, however, not being born until after they settled at Tarsus,— still his birth may have taken place in 1-5 a.p. Considering the part which he played in 35 a.p. (Acts vii. 58-viii. 3, ix. 2), he probably was then not a “youth” of twenty, but a young man of about thirty. Consequently in 62 a.p. he must have been at all events near the sixties. His wearing life and long imprisonment may have made him old beyond his years. It was all the more natural, then, to represent himself to his friend expressly as πρεσβύτης. 7. (P.455.) The circumstances and facts presupposed connect themselves in 458 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT no way with such of Paul’s Epistles as are held by most critics to be genuine or with Acts. The names alone would arouse suspicions in every critic, Philemon and Apphia occur nowhere else in the N.T. Onesimus‘ and Archippus are mentioned in Col. iv. 9, 17. But what is said about them in the one letter touches at no point what is said in the other; it is thus impossible that one of these two Epistles was invented on the basis of the other, or that both were forged by the same man. Some of the names have a local colouring, however. The present writer is unable, indeed, to verify for Phrygia by inscriptions from the time of the Czsars the ancient names Philemon and Archippus, or the later Epaphras (e.g. C. I. @. 2284; C. I. L. iv. 1384a, 1787, 1816, 1916, 1926, 1936, 2374, 2450, vi. 17174-17180, xv: 2542, contracted form for the very common Epaphroditus, which Ephr. Syr. p. 169 inserts in place of it). Yetcf. Philemon and Baucis in Ovid. Metam. viii. 631; also Aristoph. The Birds, 763. The name Onesimus, which was used especially for slaves, is to be found as often perhaps in Rome (C. I. L. vi. 28459-23484) and Pompeii (C. I. L. iv. 222, 1330, 1332, 2477a, 2777, 3163) as in Phyrgia and the bordering regions (C. I. G. 2743, 2840, 2932, 2933, 38275, t. w., 3859 ; Sterrett, Wolfe Exp., No. 366, line 108, No. 376, lines 32, 39 ; ef. Ign. Eph. i; Melito quoted in Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 13). On the other hand, Apphia is a Phrygian name, and has nothing to do with Appius, Appia. The spelling varies between Ardıa (C. I. 6. 2775b, 2782, 2835, 2837b, 2950, 3432, 3446 ; Ramsay, Cities and Bishop. i. 391, 470, Nos. 254, 309), Abdıa (C. 1. α΄. 3814, 4141; Le Bas-Waddington, iii. Nos: 799, 911; Ramsay, pp. 394, 473, 559, 662, Nos. 276, 324, 445, 624), and Acta (C. I. α΄. 2720, 3826; Wolfe Exp. Nos. 482). Likewise the diminutive form Ardıov (C. I. G. 2733, 2836; Ramsay, pp. 385, 391, 520, 525, Nos. 228, 254, 257, 361, 369) or Adıov (Le Bas-Waddington, No. 832). Derived feminine forms are Adduas (C. I. 6. 3697, 3983) and Απῴιας (see below), like Appias (=Appua, Forsch. v. 95, according to which also ©. J. @. 9916 should be read without emendation). Of especial interest to us are CU. I. G. vol. iii. p. 1168, No. 4380, & 3, ’Arcıadı . . . γένει Kodoo- onvn, and Wolfe Exp. No. 482, ’Ovnounos ᾿Αφίᾳ γυναικί. A legend of Titus mentions an Apphia healed by Paul in Damascus (James, Apocrypha A necd. i. 55). Outside of Phrygia and the neighbouring regions the name seems to be rare, ef. ©. I. L. v. 5380 (Como), ix. 290 (Bari: Apphiadis). The con- clusion that Onesimus became a diaconus Jerome drew simply from Philem. 13 (Epist. 1xxxii. 6, Vall. i. 516, ef. vii. 755, minister apostoli). The real Euthalius (Zacagni, Coll. mon. 528 ; ef. Ignatii Mart. MS. Vatic. chap. x. p. 314, 30 in the writer’s Ignatius von Antiochien) knew of a martyrdom of Onesimus, according to which he suffered death under an exarch Tertullus in Rome by having his legs broken. However, it does not pay to unravel the confused statements of martyrologies and legends (Acta SS. Febr. ii. 855-859, cf. Acta Xanthippe et Polyxene, cap. xxxviii, in James, Apocr. Anecd. i. 84). 8. (P. 455.) Baur, Paulus, ii. 88-94, brought forward essentially nothing against the genuineness of this Epistle except its close relation to Eph., Col., and Phil. (S. 89), which he rejected on other grounds. He rested satisfied with the possibility that it was the “embryo of a Christian work of fiction,” just as the pseudo-Clementine Homilies are really a Christian romance (S. 93). Weizsäcker rejects it as a “ production designed to illustrate a new doctrine of Christian living, and betraying its allegorical character in the very name LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 459 Onesimus,” as if the letter propounded a doetrine of the “usefulness” of a Christian slave, or of the “ profitableness” of running away. Concerning the names see nn. 5 and 7. Moreover, cf. Deissmann, Bibelst. 237 (Eng. trans. 44), “to a large extent doctrinaire want of taste.” Steck (Jb/PTh. 1891, 8. 571) takes offence, among other things, because this little note about a private matter has all the form of an epistle to a Church. He does not refute, or even consider the very simple explanations of the mention of Timothy, and of the household congregation (above, pp. 453, 456, n. 3). Moreover, without even reflecting that a knowledge of Latin literature was something very rare among the Greeks, Steck will have it (S. 576) that his pseudo-Paul drew in imitative fashion from Plin. Ep. ix. 21 (intercession for a freedman, cf. ix. 24), which Grotius, on Philem. 10 and 17, adduced as a parallel, and that he did this in the second quarter of the second century (ὃ. 582). Marcion forbids a later date for its composition ; for he “is believed to have known it” (S. 575), which is Steck’s incomparably delicate way of stating the fact that Marcion admitted it unchanged into his Apostolicum. Holtzmann (ZfWTh. 1873, S. 428-441) extended his view of Col. (see below, § 29) to include Philem. also. A genuine letter to Philemon was interpolated by the same man who interpolated Col. and forged Eph. The difliculty of the con- struction in vv. 4-6 (above, p. 455 f., nn. 2, 3), which Holtzmann exaggerates without even attempting an explanation of his own, is due, he holds, to the fact that vv. 4-6 (=Eph. i. 15-17) were inserted later. This, at least, seems to be the meaning of the discussion, S. 433-435, though according to S. 439, where it is remarked in favour of the genuineness of ver. 7, that that verse connects naturally with ver. 4, ver. 4 seems to pass for genuine. A motive for the interpolation, which certainly could not consist in making the text hard to understand, is not to be found ; nor is it explained what occa- sioned the remarkable position of ἀγάπη before πίστις (apparently no trace of this in Eph. i, 15), or the reference of ἐπίγνωσις to something altogether different from that in Eph. i. 17. The real parallel to this is to be found in Phil. 1. 91. Further, if the words, “ Timothy the brother,” and “ our fellow- worker,” and “ Archippus our fellow-soldier” were inserted in order to con- form Philem. to Col. (S. 437 f.), this very object needs a further object as a means to which it should serve. Now, according to Holtzmann, Col. iv. 15-17 was inserted there by the same editor who enriched Philem. by these additions ; so that the whole figure of Archippus is a creation of this inter- polator’s. But who will admit that he is satisfied with the statement (S. 438) that Archippus was invented simply as “a sort of personal connection between the situations in the two Epistles”? And why should not the alleged in- terpolator have rather taken pérsons whom he found in the letters, Jesus Justus, Col. iv. 11,and Apphia, Philem. 2, and, by carrying them over from one letter to the other, have used them to link the two Epistles together? “Nemo tam otiosus fertur stilo, ut materias habens fingat” (Tert. adv. Valent. v). § 27. THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. Simultaneously with the letter to the portion of the Colossian Church accustomed to gather at the house of 460 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Philemon, Paul despatches a communication to the Chureh as a whole. It is natural to assume that both letters reached their destination at the same time. This could have happened if this letter to the Church, like the letter to Philemon, was brought by Onesimus, who did not, like Tychicus, have commissions to carry out elsewhere, but was certainly directed by Paul to return to his master by the shortest route. Inasmuch as Paul directs the Church to see that this letter is read also in the Church at Laodicea (iv. 16), and since, moreover, in the passage where he passes from more general statements to the discussion of special conditions, Paul speaks of the Christians of Laodicea and Colosse together (ii. 1), the inference is natural that the letter was intended originally for both these neighbouring Churches. From the absence of a similar remark with reference to the Church in Hierapolis, which was in the same neigh- bourhood, and just as near as Laodicea and Colossee to the heart of Epaphras, the missionary of this region (iv. 13), it is supposable that. the special conditions and dangers which led Paul to send this letter to Colosse, and indirectly to Laodicea, were not yet present in Hierapolis, Paul was not personally acquainted with the Churches in the vicinity of Colosse any more than with the Colossian Church. itself. In fact, with the exception of individuals like Philemon and Epaphras, he was personally unknown to them all (i. 4, 8, 9, i. 1, 5). Nevertheless, he reckons them, as it were, in his apostolic diocese, for in organising them Epaphras had acted as his representative (i. v,"above, p, 449, n. 3). His vocation, and the suffer- ings which this vocation involves, are consequently on their behalf also (i. 24). They are objects of his thanks- giving and petition not merely in the sense in which all Christians are (i. 8, 9), but ‘he is solicitous for their welfare in the same way as Epaphras, their founder (i. 1 v. 12), LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 461 Since, now, he has been more definitely informed con- cerning these Churches by Epaphras, and had learned alse that they feel a “spiritual” love for him though he is personally unknown to them (i. 8), it would appear that the necessity for deepening this relation were sufficient occasion for a letter. Such an occasion might explain adequately the contents of Col. 1. 3, 4; but it does not explain’ why Paul did not address the letter to all the Christians in Coloss®, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, and perhaps also other cities in that region (ii. 1); or, if Colossze was the centre of this group of Churches, why he did not at least address the neighbourmg Churches and the principal Church together, using some such general expression in the salutation as that in 2 Cor. i. 1. And, as will be shown later, simultaneously with the letter to the local Church in Colossee and the letter to the Church in Philemon’s house, Paul despatched by Tychicus to this resion still a third Epistle, which was intended for more general circulation. There must have been special conditions, therefore, existing only in Colossee and to some extent also in Laodicea, which called for the writing of the Colossian letter. What these conditions were we learn in chap. i1., the special contents of which are led up to in various ways by chap. i. and echoed in chap. iii. In chap. i. Paul designated himself not only a διάκονος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (1. 23), 7.e. a missionary, but also a διάκονος τῆς ἐκκλησίας (i. 25), which is something quite different. When, in this connection, he speaks of the stewardship of God committed to him, he cannot mean his commission to preach the gospel, but only some calling that has refer- ence to the existing Church. More definitely stated, it is a commission to declare fully the word of God which the Church had received by faith, and, more specifically still, to declare fully the secret of God made known to the saints, and especially revealed in all its fulness to the Gentile Church (n. 1). This πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον, like the 462 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT first λαλεῖν τὸν λόγον, 2.6. the missionary preaching, is a making known of Christ, who in His person is this μυστήριον of God (i. 26-29, cf. i. 2). Still this is not the preaching of an unknown person, but primarily the, un- folding of the forces and norms of the moral life contained in the gospel which has been believed, and such, in- struction in varied knowledge as will bring the Christian personality to a well-rounded perfection. In view of the fact that Paul declares with emphasis here, and three times elsewhere, in the letter that this commission affects every- one,—naturally every Christian, and more specifically, according to ver. 27, every Gentile Christian (1. 28),—and that he makes every effort in his power to fulfil it (1. 29), it is evident that here, at the very outset, he is answering the criticism that he is satisfied to leave the Churches in his field of labour with only an imperfect declaration of the divine word; that he is not careful enough to instruct new converts in the full richness of Christian knowledge, and to guide them in the development toward Christian perfection; that, in relation to at least many of the Churches for which he is responsible, he shows a lament- able lack of concern in this matter. What he meant by these apologetic remarks, and what his object was in making them, Paul states very clearly in ii. 1-5, which is intended to explain what precedes (n. 2). He will have the Christians in Colossze and vicinity know that he has always recognised the obligation of Christian nurture in relation to all the Churches within his sphere of labour, and that, as is evidenced by his zealous effort in general, he is now very much concerned for them, to the end that their hearts may be strengthened through loving instruction received, and by their introduction to the full richness of Christian understanding, namely, the full knowledge of the secret of God, which is Christ. The expression used (ἀγῶνα ἔχω, ii. 1 = κοπιῷ ἀγωνιζόμενος, 1. 29, ef, iv. 12,13; 1 Tim. iv. 10) cannot properly be limited LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 4653 in meaning to prayer (i. 9). There are circumstances in which the person absent in body (ii. 5) cannot do much more than pray for the loved ones at a distance. But Paul has other means of showing that he is anxious to develop these far-distant Churches to the highest point of Christian knowledge and morality, e.g. by the present sending of Tychicus and the writing of the letters which Tychicus and Onesimus were to bring (iv. 8). From his remark in 11. 4 that he makes this statement in order that none of the Colossians may be deceived by persuasive words, we learn that effort had been made to induce the Church to believe that Paul did not concern himself about their Christian nurture. It does not require much imagination to conceive how the matter was put. There was no need to slander the apostle. All that was necessary was to point out how in the early years of his ministry he had no sooner founded a Church than he restlessly pressed forward to some new mission station, and how now for a number of years he had been in prison, first in Ceesarea, and now in the more distant Rome. We can see also how such remarks were well adapted to prepare the way for a doctrine which promised to lead beyond the crude beginnings of faith which had resulted from the preaching of Paul and of Paul’s disciple, Epaphras, to a deeper knowledge and a fuller sanctifica- tion. Paul opposes this teaching in ü. 8-23. The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from this series of warnings is that the false teachers, whose danger- ous influence Paul here opposes, had given the Colossian Christians regulations, more especially negative rules about food and drink, and commandments about the observa- tion of fasts, new moons, and Sabbaths (ii. 16, 20f.).. At the same time they criticised the Colossians for not having observed these regulations heretofore, declaring that if they persisted in their former way of living they could not attain blessedness nor indeed Christian per- 464 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT fection (n. 8). In opposition to this derogatory judgment of the Colossians’ Christianity, Paul assures them that in Christ, as He has been preached to them and received by them through faith, they possess all essential blessings (ii. 10), and that this Christ is at once the source and the foundation of a life well pleasing to God (ii. 6£.). .ΑἹ- though they do need the prayers and the care of the apostle and of his helpers in order to attain the fullest Christian knowledge and the highest moral culture (i. 9-11, 28£., il. 1-5), there is, on the other hand, no necessity that they be brought to this state of full know- ledge and true morality through doctrines entirely new to them. The very mention of the Sabbath proves that the representatives of this doctrine belonged to Judaism. And only by assuming that he is speaking in opposition to such representatives of the circumcision, is it possible to explain why Paul reminds these Colossian Christians, who had been converted from heathenism, that in baptism they have received a circumcision which in comparison with that of the Jews is much more comprehensive and more fundamentally sanctifying (11. 11-13, ef. i. 21). Similarly, what he says in ii. 14 about the setting aside through the death of Christ of the law as evidence of our guilt and as an accusation against us, and in 11. 17 of the ordinances of the law as being only the foreshadowing of the real blessings which have appeared in Christ, is manifestly directed against a Judaism which held firmly to the law. That the representatives of this propaganda were at the same time Christians, or pretended to be, is self-evident, otherwise they could never have come to exert a dangerous influence in a Gentile Christian Church. This is clear also from ii. 19. For only one who acknow- ledged Christ to be the head of the Church (i. 18) could be criticised for not retaining his connection with this head. Similarly, the criticisms of Paul, and of the defec- LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 465 tiveness of the Christianity of the Pauline Churches (above, p. 462 f.) to be inferred from ii. 1-5, presuppose the Chris- tian profession of the false teachers. They were Jewish Christians. But they did not teach simply the obligation of Gentile Christians to keep the Mosaic law. If, like the false teachers in Galatia, they had demanded of the Gentile Christians submission to the law, and the un- conditional acceptance of circumcision, it is certain that Paul would have fought this radical demand directly and fundamentally, instead of contenting himself as he does with the statement of certain incidental consequences of their principal demand, The emphasis which Paul lays upon the spiritual circumcision of the Gentile Christians (1. 11) is fully explained, and in its setting can only be explained on the assumption that the false teachers made the Gentile Christians feel the superiority of their Jewish training, religious and moral (Rom. ii. 17-29; 2 Cor. xl, 22)... Furthermore, the regulations which they laid upon the Gentile Christians and by which they criticised the manner in which the Gentile Christians had been living, were not simply the Mosaic commandments and restrictions (n. 4). The reference is rather to regulations which, though derived from the Mosaic law in their most essential parts, were less comprehensive than the law, while in other parts they were more elaborate. This was why Paul was able to call these δόγματα (ii. 20, Soypa- rigeode), commandments and teaching of men (ii. 22 after Isa. xxix. 13, cf. Matt. xv. 9), thereby distinguishing them from the δόγματα (ii. 14) of the revealed law, and in general to treat them with the contempt that he does in 11. 20-23. The means by which this doctrine of men works its treacherous effects is declared in ii, 8 to be philosophy. In the same passage also it is said that the traditions of men, which those who would lead them astray establish as a norm, have as their standard not Christ, but the VOL. 1. 3° 466 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT elements of the world (n. 5). Assuming in the light of i. 16-23 that by παράδοσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων In 111. 8 is meant a summary of moral-ascetic rules (ef. Mark Vil. 8-18» Matt. xvi?2=-6% 1 Cor xio2; 1 ΘΒ 3 Π|δ᾽ iii. 6), it follows that the false teachers must have based their demands for abstinence from certain foods and drinks upon some theory relative partly to the materials out of which they were composed, and by which their consisteney was maintained, and partly to the effects of these materials upon those who used them. Their regulations regarding abstinence they derived from their theory that even the life of the Christian was interwoven with that of nature, and that mental and spiritual life were dependent upon matter (il. 20). Only by asceti- eism, they argued, was it possible for the Christian to obtain the adequate freedom from matter and the forees by which matter is ruled. If these ascetic tendencies were like those common in antiquity, particularly if they resembled those with which Paul has to do in Rom. xiv., there can be little doubt that chief among the things for- bidden by the false teachers were meat and wine, the forms of nourishment which were the heartiest and which tended most to arouse the passions. A further element in their teaching is disclosed by the fact that, in the midst of his polemic against these teachers, Paul takes occasion to emphasise the truth that Christ is exalted above all spiritual powers (ii 10, ef. 1. 16), and by his ‘further statement that the God who has become manifest in Christ has stripped off from Himself the ruling spirits which hitherto had concealed Him from the gaze of men, and has openly shown as a conqueror would do in a triumphal procession that these spirits have been subdued and are subordinate to Him (ii. 15). It is evident that the false teachers claimed that the power of the spirit- princes, deified in the heathen world, continued to be exerted over Christians. Their harmful influence is not LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 467 limited to idolatrous worship (1 Cor. x. 14-22; 2 Cor. vi. 14f.), but the connection between them and matter in general, or the separate elements of matter, is so close that the Christian who lives in the world, particularly the Christian who lives in the unclean heathen world, is able to escape the destructive influence of these spirit-powers that rule over matter only by stern asceticism and merciless mortifying of the body (ii. 23). It was with this in view that Paul testified to the Colossians earlier in the letter (i. 12 f.) that through the call of the gospel, which they had accepted by faith, God had made them capable of sharing the heavenly inheritance of the Church, at the same time releasing them, as He did all Christians, from the dominion of the powers of darkness, and translating them into the kingdom of His beloved Son. Consequently what is said further with reference to Christ (i. 14-23) is not a speculative outburst, more or less relevant, but in every particular is determined by opposition to this un- wholesome teaching about sanctification and to the dual- istic view of the world underlying it, and is designed to remind the readers of the common principles of the Christian faith. Christians have no further need to redeem themselves, for in the forgiveness of sin bestowed upon them by Christ they have redemption (i. 14). Nor is there any world independent of Christ and of the God who finds His image in Christ, and who dwells in Him. The worlds of matter and of spirit alike are in Christ, the first- begotten of all creatures, and were created through Him and for Him (i, 15-17). True, this ideal relation estab- lished at creation is not yet entirely realised. But in the Chureh, which is the existing form of the kingdom of Christ, the risen Christ has now a body of which He is the sole head, and this is the hopeful beginning of the restoration of the world to harmony under His headship ' (i. 18). By the same death of Jesus on the cross through which the Gentiles, who once were strangers to God and 468 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT hostile to Him, have been brousht into relations of peace with Him (i. 21), all discord in the world has been funda- mentally overcome (i. 20). Consequently, in order to be holy in the sight of Christ, blameless and unaccused, Christians only need to hold fast without wavering their faith in the gospel which offers the hope of a final con- summation of all things (i. 22 f.).. Thus the statements of i. 12-23 are seen to be in harmony with the picture of the false teachers who had come among the Colossians, which we get from the clearer statements of chap. 11.; whereas to admit that the old interpretation is correct, according to which these teachers are represented in 11. 18 as worship- ping angels, would be to introduce into the picture an in- congruous element (n. 6). In the first place, it is hardly conceivable that Paul should have merely mentioned incidentally what to him and to every orthodox Jew and Christian of the apostolic age must have seemed a form of idolatry as being simply a hobby of these false teachers, instead of warning the Colossians against such idolatry. It is hard to see, moreover, how the charge of angel- worship could be associated with the charge of groundless vanity and worldly arrogance, without, at least, a hint that there was no connection between the two. Equally difh- cult to explain is the fact that when he comes to speak of this θρησκεία a second time (11. 23) the angels are not mentioned at all, but this supposed cult is simply charged with arbitrariness. Finally, in both passages θρησκεία. is very closely connected with ταπεινοφροσύνη, being depen- dent upon the same preposition. Naturally the meaning here cannot be that feeling of humility so highly praised by Paul (Col. iii. 12; Eph. iv. 2;:Phil. ü. 3; cf. Acts xx,19; Phil. ii. 8; Matt. xi. 29), but only an outward demeanour which could be associated with the worldly haughtiness of which these same persons are accused. The word is not used by Paul in this sense, and if taken by him from the sayings of the false teachers (n. 7), we should naturally LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 469 expect it to be qualified in some way, especially where he uses it for the first time, 1.6. we should expect τῶν ἀγγέλων to go with ταπεινοφροσύνῃ as well as with θρησκείᾳ, This is the most natural construction grammatically, for other- wise the ev would be repeated before θρησκείᾳ. Therefore the genitive τῶν ἀγγέλων stands in the same relation to both conceptions. But now if by ταπεινοφροσύνη τῶν ἀγγέλων can be meant such a demeanour as is adapted to or possible for angels, and for this reason is not adapted to men who have bodies, the same is true also of θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων. The former denotes self- mortification, the latter a form of devotion, a manner of living in which men endeavour as far as possible to imitate spirits, which neither eat nor drink (n. 7). Whoever undertakes to do this certainly attempts a dangerous feat and betrays an unreasonable vanity, because he undertakes what in the nature of man and the conditions of his life is impossible. Although these ascetic practices are supposed to honour God, as a matter of fact they honour no one; they simply serve to gratify that worldly pride in which they have their source (ii. 28, cf. 18). Jewish pride, heightened by an ascetic austerity, by means of manifold judgments, verdicts, prescriptions, and instructions, had made a moral impression upon the uncircumcised Christians in Colossee from which Paul endeavours to free them. It has already been shown that this purpose not only do- minates the discussions of chap. 11., but also determines the progress of thought in chap. i. in many ways, also the choice of language. It also dominates entirely the exhortations of iii, 1-17. In contrast with the misleading instructions regarding sanctification, against which the Church was warned in chap. ii., Paul now sets forth wherein genuine Christian sanctification consists. It is based not upon speculative investigation and arbitrary distinctions be- tween the material elements and forces in the world, but 470 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT upon fellowship with the Christ who has been raised from the deadand exalted to share with God dominion over the world (iti. 1-4). Inthe Christian life the significant thing is not the distinction between circumcised Jews and un- circumcised Greeks or barbarians, but a second birth or new creation constantly appropriated anew (111. 9-11). The readers must not permit themselves to be disturbed by out- side criticisms (ii. 16, 18), but are to let the peace-which comes from Christ have exclusive rule in their hearts, where He dwells, and allow all questions to be decided under its influence (iii. 15). If they give the word which comes from Christ: proper chance to unfold in all its richness, they will not need to be instructed from outside by worldly wisdom (ii. 8), but will be able adequately to instruct and to correct one another (iii. 16). And the consciousness of the ‘grace which they have experienced will produce not only proper feelings for the government of their intercourse among themselves (iii. 12-14), but also a sense of gratitude to God which will find joyful expression in inward thanks- giving and in all that they say and do’ (iii. 156, 160, 17). That in the exhortations which follow relative to mutual obligations within the home, by far the most space should be given to the discussion of the relation between slaves and their masters (iii. 22-iv. 1), is natural in view of the contents of the letter to Philemon which was sent simul- taneously with that to Colosse. But, taking the section (iii. 18-iv. 6) as a whole in its exhortation against all bit- terness, especially against everything that might cause bitterness (iii. 19, 21, iv. 1), its further reminder of the necessity of thanksgiving which is to be a part of every prayer (iv. 2), and its exhortation to the use of polite language in their intercourse with their non-Christian neighbours (iv. 6), there is presented the attractive picture of a joyful Christian life lived in the midst of an evil world, which contrasts favourably with the gloomy ascetic- ism which Paul has been combating in the earlier sections LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 471 of the letter. Between the tendency opposed in chap. ii, indeed throughout this entire Epistle,—and the Judaisers who once disturbed the Churches in the adjacent province of Galatia, or the followers of Peter who carried on their work in Corinth, there is no discoverable relation. There is nothing to indicate that the teachers who caused con- fusion in Colosse came from abroad. It is altogether improbable that members of the Jewish monastic order of the Essenes, who were settled in Palestine, would have come to Colossee (n. 8). False ascetic movements, such as Paul combats in Col. 11.,—movements quite independent of these orders,—are to be found among the Jewish Chris- tians in Rome (above, p. 366 f., 376) and the readers of Hebrews. Of the large Jewish population in the district of Laodicea (above, p. 448, n. 2), there were probably some who became members of the Christian Church in Colossz, and among these there may have been those who were ascetic in their tendencies, who had some philosophic training, and who were dissatisfied with the simple gospel preached by Epaphras, and with the resultant type of life among the Gentile Christians. Possibly there was an individual of some importance (n. 9) who started the whole movement that caused Epaphras so much trouble, and that it was this that influenced Paul to send a special letter to Coloss&, at the same time he despatched a cir- eular letter of a more general character to the larger group of Churches, of which this Church was one. 1, (P. 461.) The metaphor of οἰκονομία, οἰκονόμος is applied in 1 Cor. ix. 17 to the calling of the missionary preacher; on the contrary, it refers here, as in Tit. i. 7 (cf. 1 Tim. i. 4, 111. 4f., 15; Luke xii, 42; Matt. xvi. 19, xxv. 45) toa service to the Church. The two ideas are not distinguished in 1 Cor. iv. 1; Eph. iii. 2-9. The expression πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, i, 25, finds its analogy, so far as form is concerned, in Rom. xv. 19; 2 Tim. iv. 17. But there the fulness of the gospel or of the preaching which is attained, or is to be attained, refers to the extent of territory in which the gospel is to be preached. Here the matter in hand is not missionary preaching to the unconverted at all, but the word of God, as the “servant of the Church” should offer it to the members of the Church, and as these should constantly appropriate it (ef. iii, 16; Jas. i, 21; 1 Pet. ii. 2; 2 Pet. ii, 472 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 12; 1 Cor. ii. 6, xii. 8; 2 Tim. 11. 15, iv. 2). The antithesis to the ineom- pleteness which πληρῶσαι indicates is expressed also by the διδάσκειν ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, i. 28 (cf. ii. 2, iii. 16), and the moral aim of this complete intro- duction to the knowledge of Christianity was expressed before, 1..9 ἢ. 2. (P. 462.) Since Paul is not sending a treatise to the Colossian Church, but is writing them a letter, the present writer takes it as self-evident that the general statements in i. 25-29 are there for the sake of the particular statements In il. 1-5, and not vice versa. Naturally the connection! by means of γάρ does not hinder this interpretation, and the phrase θέλω ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι (1 Cor, xi. 3; Phil. 1. 12)=o00 θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν (Rom. 1. 13, xi. 25; 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 13), gives to the statement thus introduced a peculiar weight. ‘In ver. 2 συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ cannot mean “knit together in love” (cf. ii. 19; Eph. iv. 16); for (1) it would have to be taken at best as a result of the encouragement, which, however, is not permitted by the syntax of the sentence; (2) the conception of a loving union of the members of the Church is entirely foreign to the thought in the context; (3) we should not know what to do with the following καί, the genuineness of which is undoubted. Here, then, συμβιβάζειν with a personal object has no essentially different meaning from the common one, “to teach, advise” (Ex. iv. 12-15; Lev. x. 11; Isa. xl. 18, 14; ef. 1 Cor. ii. 16), and so “to induce” to a particular act or motion (Acts xix. 33). At the same time, the basic meaning of βιβάζειν, “to cause to go,” is brought out, so that συμβιβάζειν means “so to set one in motion that he shall choose and keep to a definite way, without turning to right or left” (cf. Ps. xxxii. 8). Hence also a goal may be mentioned (eis πᾶν πλοῦτος) to which one is directed, or a region into which he is led. καί must mean “also,” cf. Hofmann, iv. 2. 51. Since the mere assurance that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge were hidden in Christ, guards in no way against the danger of being misled by a speculation which ignored Christ, and since this misleading is not discussed at all until ver. 8, ver. 4 cannot refer to the subordinate clause in ver. 3, but to the main sentence, vv. 1, 2. In no other way can the progression in ver. 5 be explained. 3. (P. 464.) The reading in ii. 16, presupposed probably by the ancient Syrians (51, Ephr. Comm. in Epist. Pauli, Lat. ed. Mechith. p. 175), kıpvaro instead of κρινέτω, which Lagarde, Proph. Chaldaice, p. li, recommended, has against it not only the analogy of Rom. xiv. 3,4, 10, 13, but also the con- struction ev βρώσει instead οἵ περὶ βρώσεως κτλ. Moreover, karaßpaßeveıv, ver. 18, is also a sort of κρίνειν. It indicates originally, at any rate, like βραβεύειν (Col. iii. 15) and mapaßpaßeveıw (Plutarch, Mor. 535 C, the unfair decision of an umpire; Polyb. xxiv. 1.12, of any judge), an action of the Bpaßevs, Bpaßevrns, or ἀγωνοθέτης, and that, too, of a character unfavourable to the contestant. This word, which occurs very seldom in literature (Demosth. c. Midiam, p. 544; Eusthat. Schol. in Il. i. 402f., p. 98, ὡς οἱ παλαιοὶ λέγουσιν ; ibid. De Thessal. Capta, ed. Tafel, 277), and which Jerome wrongly considered a Cilician provincialism (Epist. exxi, Vall. i. 879), may have been used to denote various other relationships without much regard for its original meaning ; but we have no cause for assuming that such was the case here ; for Paul elsewhere, in using figures taken from the games, shows what a lively conception of these he had (1 Cor. ix. 24-27 ; Phil. iii LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 473 14; 2 Tim. ii. 5, iv. 7f.). Taking this word alone, we might conclude, quite consistently with this view, that Paul was here exhorting members of the Church not to allow themselves to be actually robbed of the blessedness set before them, for which as a prize they were wrestling or running (cf. Rev. iii. 11); for the umpire’s judgment decides whether or not the prize shall be received. But this interpretation is here excluded by the connection and by the nature of the question. In the spiritual contest God or Christ alone in reality confers the βραβεῖον (1 Cor. ix. 24; Phil. iii. 14), the στέφανος (1 Cor. ix. 25; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Jas. i. 12; Rev. ii. 10). Men who arrogate to them- selves the κρίνειν, βραβεύειν, καταβραβεύειν, and δογματίζειν, can, by pre- suming thus to deprive a contestant of his prize, render him in the highest degree discouraged, fearful—in general, confused. The Colossians should let no one treat them thus. 4. (P. 465.) The priests must abstain from wine and other intoxicants before serving in the sanctuary (Lev. x. 9), likewise the Nazarites as long as their vow lasted (Num. vi. 2-4) ; cf. Lukei. 15, and above, p. 376 on Rom. xiv. ; though general restrictions as to drink are not given in the Law. 5. (P. 466.) Although ra στοιχεῖα frequently denotes heavenly bodies, especially planets (cf. Valesius on Eus. H. H. iii. 31. 3; perhaps 2 Pet. iii. 10, certainly Just. Apol. ii. 5, ra οὐράνια στ. ; Dial. xxiii; Theoph. ad Autol. i. 4, 5, 6, 11. 15; Clem. Hom. x. 25), it cannot denote these in ii. 8,20; Gal. iv. 3, 9, because of the added τοῦ κόσμου. Further, it is not the observance of festivals, which, it is true, depends upon the course of the heavenly bodies, but the abstinence from certain kinds of food, a custom having nothing whatever to do with sun, moon, and stars, which is designated in ii. 20f. as incompatible with awedavere ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τ. x.,ii. 20f. : Paul under- stands by τὰ στοιχεῖα τ. «., nothing else but the κόσμος itself, and this as composed of manifold material elements. This is shown by the exchange of the one expression for the other in ii. 20 (ef. iii. 2), and confirmed by a comparison of this passage with Gal. vi. 14. Latterly the view has been constantly gaining ground that Paul means here and in Gal. iv. 3, 9 the elemental spirits, or particularly the spirits animating the heavenly. bodies (Klöpper, Kol. 360-389 ; Spitta, Zw. Petr. 260-270 ; Eveling, Paul. Angelol- ogte, 65-74, 92-96. Whom also Diels unfortunately followed in his otherwise so instructive writing, Elementum, 1899). But this meets an insuperable obstacle in the expression itself ; for while it is quite conceivable that “sub- stances, elements,” came to mean “bodies, heavenly bodies,” it is incredible that it should serve to indicate its opposite, the spirits animating the sub- stances or ruling the bodies. The confused late Christian Testament. of Solomon (Fabric. Cod. pseudep. vet. Test. 1047, cf. Eveling, 70 ; Schiirer, iii. 304 (Eng. trans. 11. iii. 154]), in which the evil spirits call themselves ra λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα (Col. ii. 8), οἱ κοσμοκράτοῥες τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (Eph. vi. 12), and also στοιχεῖα τοῦ κοσμοκράτορος τοῦ σκότους, is palpably, dependent upon misconstrued passages of the N.T., and for this reason alone cannot attest a usage which Paul may have followed. Cf. ZKom. Gal. 195 ff;, 208 f. From Col. ii. 15 and the other passages in which Paul speaksj,of (good or evil) spiritual powers (i. 13, 16, 20, ii. 10), it follows: simply that the false teachers ascribed to these a power to which Christians also were subject as inhabitants of the material world, in spite of their redemption through 474 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Christ. Since these false teachers were Jews, it becomes certain that-they regarded material nature as the spirits’ special province, and that therefore they viewed asceticism as a means of emancipation, not only from matter, but also from the power.of the spirits who ruled in it. The exegetical difficulties of ii. 10-15, which Hofmann was the first to handle, on the whole happily, can be touched upon here only lightly. The “better commentators,” (Klöpper, 422), among whom none of the Greeks from Origen down are reckoned, nor Lightfoot and. Hofmann—at whose head rather Ambrosiaster and Jerome are placed—are of the opinion that ἀπεκδύεσθαι, ii. 15; contrary to all usage (Col. iii. 9, 11. 11, ef. iii, 10-and ἐκδύεσθαι, ἐνδύεσθαι, δύεσθαι everywhere else), means here to strip from another his clothing or armour, to disarm him. This opinion, beyond all others, seems to the present writer an inexcusable caprice. God did not rob the spiritual powers of their clothing or their weapons, but stripped from Himself these spirits who were en- veloping Him as a garment or a mist, and were hiding Him from the sight of men. It was not, however, to Israel, but: to the Gentile world, that God was veiled by these spiritual powers, these λεγόμενοι. θεοί (1 Cor. viii. 5). It was in the Gentile world, then, that God put these away from Himself and. showed Himself in His true form to the Gentiles) who had been too blind to see Him, thus at the same time setting these sham. gods in’ their true light, while in Christ He celebrated a triumph over them, and bade them also march as captives behind Him. But this naturally did not happen at the crucifixion of Jesus; it came about through the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, attended as it was by signs and wonders (ef. e.g. Acts xvi. 16-18, xix. 11-20). Since Paul is seeking to guard a Gentile Church (cf. i. 21, 27, ii. 13a, 111. 5-7): against being led: astray, he begins and ends the exposition of the grace shown by God to mankind in and through Christ (ii. 11-15) with what has been experienced in the sphere of the Gentile world on the basis of the work of redemption accomplished in Israel. If in the midst of this he passes from the address to Gentile Christian readers to a statement about himself and those like him, which fits only Christians who have come out of Judaism, it is no digression. For the working of saving grace in the Gentile world depends upon what has happened in Israel. In fact, Paul says just this in ji. 14. He regards the law first as a bond or a bill of indictment testifying against the Jews, then as a wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. The law became the former, since Israel, on the one hand, by his solemn vow to keep the law (Ex. xxiv. 3; Deut. xxvi. 16-28, 69) had made it, as it were, a bond written or signed by his own hand (Luke xvi. 6; Philem. 19); but, on the other hand, Israel has not met the obligation thereby assumed, has not paid the sum of money thus recognised as due, and, moreover, has no prospect of ever being able to pay off the debt. This bond God has blotted out ; He has stricken out, as we would say, the statement of debit written thereon. But He has also taken the “ handwriting” itself out of the “midst” by nailing it to the cross. Paul distinguishes the bond itself from what stood written upon it and was blotted out by God, i.e. the law itself from the duties of Israel written in it, in so far as these, by being left undone, have come to indicate an equal number of debts of Israel. Quite separate from this significance of the law as a bond testifying against Israel, the law was in LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 4735 itself a dividing barrier, a hedge between Israel and the Gentile peoples (Eph. ii. 14). From this position which the law occupied in the midst of mankind, as was well known (hence ἐκ rod μέσου with the article), and from the earth altogether, on which it formed a dividing wall of partition, God has removed the law, nailing it to the cross of Christ. Beneath the cross Jews and Gentiles who believe on the Crucified now join hands, the barrier of the law not being able to sunder them any more (Col. i. 20, iii. 11; Eph. ii. 11-22). The division of the sentences causes difficulties. Probably Paul originally intended to say all that stands between ev 4, ii. 11, and ἐν αὐτῷ, ii. 15, in a single relative sentence. But on being developed this proved so rich that after συνηγέρθητε, ii. 12, three independent sen- tences arose (συνεζωοποίησεν --- prev — ἐδειγμάτισεν). The present‘ writer translates: “For in Him dwelleth the whole fulness of the Godhead in bodily fashion, and ye are filled (fully) in Him who is the head of all’ prin- eipality and power; in whom ye also were circumcised with a circumcision not performed by hand through the putting off of the fleshly body, through the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him im baptism, in which ye were also awakened with Him (shared in His resurrection). Through faith in the working of God, who awakened Him from the dead, hath He (God) made you also (Gentile Christians), who were dead by reason of your lapses and your fleshly uneireumeision, alive with Him (Christ). After He (God) in grace forgave us (Jewish Christians) all our lapses, by blotting out the bond (which testified) against us, which was opposed to us on account of the statutes, He took this itself (the bond) out of the midst, nailing it to the cross. After He (God) put away from Himself (as a garment) the lordships and authorities, He made an exhibition of them (set them before the gaze of all as that which they really are), while He led them in triumph openly in Him (in Christ).” 6. (P. 468.) The usual conception of Col. ii. 18, together with an exag- geration of the thought in Gal. iv. 8-10, first meets us in the Knpvypa Πέτρου, written perhaps as early as 100 (cf. GK, i. 823, ii. 822-832). According to Clement, Strom. vi. 41, Peter preached in this production as follows :—pmde κατὰ Ἰουδαίους σέβεσθε" καὶ yap ἐκεῖνοι, μόνοι οἰόμενοι τὸν θεὸν γινώσκειν, οὐκ ἐπίστανται, λατρεύοντες ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, μηνὶ καὶ σελήνῃ. καὶ ἐὰν μὴ σελήνη φανῇ, σάββατον οὐκ ἄγουσι τὸ λεγόμενον πρῶτον οὐδὲ νεομηνίαν ἄγουσιν οὔτε ἄζυμα οὔτε ἑορτὴν οὔτε μεγάλην ἡμέραν. ΑΥἱβ- tides, who says something similar in Apol. xiv. 4, is plainly dependent upon the Preaching of Peter (GK, ii. 823; Seeberg in Forsch. v. 216, 393). The Gnostic Heracleon (quoted in Orig. in Jo. xiii. 17) cites the passage in the Preaching of Peter. Celsus (in Orig. c. Celswm, i. 26, v. 6) charges the Jews with praying to the angels and also to the heavens ; but this charge probably rests simply upon a superficial knowledge of Aristides’ Apology (cf. Seeberg, Forsch. v. 233-237). Origen could reject this as a slander against Judaism that betrayed its own ignorance, not only on the basis of the O.T., but also in virtue of his wide and varied acquaintance with the Judaism of his time. He was right with respect to orthodox Judaism; cf. Hamburger, Realene. i. 507, who only should not have adduced as an exception to the rule Tob. iii. 26 (iii. 16f.), in which he adopted a senseless reading (see Fritzsche, Libri Apocr. p. 116 in the Apparatus), After Jesus had unreservedly 476 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT professed adherence to the strict monotheism of His people (Mark xii. 29 ; John xvii. 3; Matt. iv. 10), His true worshippers also, who had been brought up in Judaism, could but turn away from every act of adoration of the spirits subordinate to God (Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 8f.), and Paul in particular could not judge such worship otherwise than as idolatry (cf. Rom. i. 25 with Col. i. 16; further, 1 Cor. viii. 4-6). Even among the Essenes, who, on account of their alleged abstinence from flesh and wine (above, p. 376), have been cited so often to explain the tendency opposed in Col. ii., no such angel cultus can be proved to have existed. It may be, indeed, that their secrecy about angels’ names (Jos. Bell. ii. 8. 7) was connected with all sorts of speculation about the angels, and that their botanical and mineralogical investigations (Bell. ii. 8. 6). served speculative as well as medicinal ends. But how far this was from worship of the angels is seen from the fact that next to the name of God that of Moses was the most sacred (Bell. ii. 8. 9, 10). The Jewish Christian sects also, which seem related to Essenism, held fast to the exclusive worship of the one God. To know the angels’ names (Clem. Hom. iii. 36) may be a valuable esoteric’ science (ef. even Ign. Trall. v). But if we infer angelolatry from the statement of the Book of the Elkesaites (Hippol. Refut. ix. 15 ; Epiph. xxx. 17), that. among other things “the angels of prayer” also should be invoked as witnesses of baptism, we should infer from the same ritual that salt and oil were worshipped. Who- ever concludes from Just. Apol. i. 6, or from the representations of angels in the Shepherd of Hermas, that there was angelolatry in the Church, proves too much, and therefore nothing at all. So long as we take θρησκεία τῶν dyyAov as a θρησκεία which has the angels for its object, we must under- stand by it simply a cult devoted to the angels, and not also a speculative pursuit of the doctrine of angels or a superstitious veneration of them. It was an arbitrary weakening of the conception (cf. n. 7) when Chrysostom (Montfaucon, xi. 323, 372; cf. Severianus in Cramer's Catene, vii. 325) thought of a mediation of our intercourse with God through the angels, or when Theodore (ed. Swete, ii. 294) understood: an indirect veneration of them through observance of the law given by angels and the fear of the wrath of angels who watched over the observance of the law. Ephrem came to a view related essentially to these in that he took τῶν ἀγγέλων. as subjective genitive, but, in accordance with Syrian tradition, understood by the angels the priests, and here the Jewish priests (Comm. in ep. Pauli, p. 175, “Ne quis . . . seducat vos neque transmutet in legem angelorum, in doctrinam nimirum sacerdotum”; cf. p. 57 on 1 Cor. vi. 3; Carm. Nisib. xlii, 10; Aphraates, Hom. xxii, p. 432, under.appeal to Mal. ii. 7). The Latins, plainly at variance with the context, understood by superstitio or religio or cultura angelorum a direct or indirect deification of nature, not by Jews, but by Gentiles (Ambrosiaster, in Col. ii: 18; Augustine, Bpist. exlix. 27, ad Paul- inum). These explanations and the silence of the ancient writers against heresies concerning angelolatry in heretical circles (Epiphanius alone gives any hint of it. He mentions, Her. lx., a party of ᾿Αγγελικοί, but knows nothing more of them than their name) show that circa 360-400 no angel cult carried on by Christians which could be related to the error refuted in Col. ii., was known in wider circles. Theodoret on Col. ii. 18, p. 290 whom many moderns have followed (e.g. Lightfoot, 67, 71; Henle, 91), was LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 477 the first to seek to re-establish an historical connection between that error of apostolic times and the canons of the Council of Laodicea, circa 360 (GK, ii. 196). But certainly those decrees of this Couneil are not pertinent which forbid celebrating the Sabbath with Jews by resting from work (Can. 29), and receiving from Jews the presents which ‚they were accustomed to send during their feasts, in particular the mazzoth (Can. 37, 38). The question there was plainly not about an heretical tendency, a Judaistically coloured Christian doctrine or sect, but about real Jews. We see that the numerous Jews of that region (above, p. 448 f., n. 2) carried on intercourse with their Christian neighbours, and induced them to make concessions to Jewish customs, in very much the same way as they do it elsewhere in the twentieth century. The heretics, however, who are once classed with the Jews (Can. 37), but are elsewhere treated separately (Can. 6-10, 32-84), are anything but Judaists (Can. 7, 8). The command (Can. 35) not to forsake the regular church worship for meetings in places where angels are adored, which is condemned as “secret idolatry,’ concerns neither Jews nor heretics. Theodoret is probably right when he connects this command with the fact that in his time, about seventy to eighty years after the Synod of Laodicea, there existed in Phrygia and Pisidia, or particularly in Colosse and the neighbourhood, chapels of St. Michael. According to a legend (Narratio de miraculo Ohonis patrato, ed. M. Bonnet, 1890 ; Acta SS. Sept. viii. 41-48), the apostles John and Philip, on visiting this region, foretold future miracles by the archangel, which, according to this same legend, are said to have taken place there ; and, many years after their death, a heathen priest built a small chapel to Michael as a thank-offering for the healing of his daughter, which took place there. What was condemned as idolatry by the Council of Laodicea, and still later by Theodoret and Augustine (De Vera Relig. lv. 110 ; Conf. x. 42. 67), was soon appropriated, even by the Church. But this does not by any means place Timothy on the same footing with the member of the Church possessing special 32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT gifts for teaching and speaking, or with officials in the Church who exercised this office (v. 17). The fact that Timothy is to forbid false teachers to teach in their own way, presupposes that he exerted a determining influence over all that was taught in the public gatherings of the Church, and so over its entire worship. This is presup- posed in the textus receptus of 11. 1, where, although it is not said in so many words that Timothy has charge of the matter, Paul enjoins that prayers of various kinds be offered for all men, particularly for rulers. The very fact that this is said in a letter directed to Timothy makes Timothy responsible for the observance of this rule in all public worship. Neither the offering of prayer nor teaching is official, but every male member of the Church is privileged to exercise both functions. Only Timothy is to see to it that both are exercised in a correct manner (n. 4). Since Paul does not define Timothy’s duties in this letter, but simply reminds him of them, details are for the most part only indirectly and incident- ally given. In ii. 1-13 are set forth the qualifications which must be had by a bishop or deacon; 111. 1 brings before us the situation where one desires the office of bishop; iii. 10 speaks of the examination which must precede entrance into the office; from all which it is to be inferred that the rules here laid down are those to be observed in connection with the induction of these oflicials into office. Since, however, these rules are given in a letter to Timothy, who neither is nor will become a bishop or a deacon, it follows that Timothy’s influence was paramount with reference to these officials, and that he was to observe these rules in inducting them into office. Of Timothy’s part in the appointment and consecration of Church officials, which was certainly one of importance and responsibility, we learn only incidentally from the warning that he is not to lay hands on anyone in con- secration hastily or lightly (v. 22), which does not exclude THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 33 the co-operation of others, any more than the laying on οἵ Paul’s hands excluded those of the presbytery (iv. 14; 2 Tim. 1.6). Quite as incidentally we learn from v. 19-21 that among other functions Timothy was to act as judge over the presbyters, and to see to it, on the other hand, that those presbyters who filled their office worthily received the honour due them (v. 17 f.). Further, he was to have oversight over the Church’s care of widows, the reception of them into the fellowship, and the registering of those among them who were active in the service of the Church and deserving of special honour (v. 3-16). In short, there was no branch of Church life over which his authority did not extend ; he is not, however, one of the ἐπίσκοποι or πρεσβύτεροι, but he is over them. It is to be noted also that Timothy’s office was not limited to the local Church. Paul had asked him to continue in Ephesus, merely because he had expressed a desire to join Paul on his journey (1. 3, above, p. 27 £.), The request does not imply that Timothy was not to leave the limits of the eity, and that Paul’s instructions were to be carried out only in this one Church. We saw in connection with ii. 1-15 (cf. also n. 4) that Timothy was to put into operation in a number of Churches Paul’s principles with reference to pubhe prayer. This is still clearer in the instructions regarding the appoint- ment of bishops and deacons (iii. 1-13 ; ef. v. 22). Even if it be assumed that the time which these instructions were meant to cover (iii. 15, iv. 13), ae. the time before his own arrival in Ephesus, might be extended over two or three years, as Paul thought it might, they are altogether superfluous if intended to apply only to the local Ephesian Church. In so brief a time’ within one Church there could not possibly have been more than one or two occasions when the apostle’s regulations would have applied. It is quite possible, and the shorter the period the more probable it becomes, that during this interval there was no occasion in this Church—which had VOL. i: 3 34 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT been organised some time—for the appointment of new bishops and deacons, and that no ordinations took place. Consequently it must have been a large group of Churches, the direction and oversight of which were committed to Timothy, in residence at Ephesus, and among them prob- ably such as were in process of formation and therefore in need of ecclesiastical organisation (n. 5). Without any question, these were the Churches of the province of Asia (1 Cor. xvi. 19), of which Ephesus was the centre. That Paul felt himself responsible, as the founder of the Church in Ephesus, for the development of all the other Churches in the province, and for the oversight of the same, is abundantly proved by the first three letters of his im- prisonment, while from Col. i, 7 it is clear that even at this time he regarded Timothy, who had been his helper in the planting of Christianity in the province of Asia, as sharing his relation to this large group of Churches (vol. i. 449 f., n. 3). The position which Timothy occupied in Ephesus, as it is described in 1 Tim., cannot without doing the greatest violence to history be called that of a bishop (n. 6); for the office of bishop existed also where the one bishop, superior to the presbytery, represented the highest expres- sion of the common Church life. The office was for life, and confined to the local Church. This was particularly the case in Asia Minor, where, although as early as the time of Revelation and the letters of Ignatius, bishopries were numerous and closely adjacent, the office always retained its local character. On the other hand, Timothy’s position at the head of the Churches of Asia was due to the position which he occupied as Paul’s helper in missionary work, It was his part in the apostolic calling, as this calling involved the oversight of existing Churches. Timothy was acting as a temporary representative of Paul in his apostolic capacity at Ephesus, as he had done earlier in Corinth, and in Thessalonica and Philippi THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 35 (1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Thess. ii. 2f. ; Phil. ii. 19-23). His relation was not closer to one Church than to the other Churches of the province ; its rise and disappearance did not affect at all the organisation of the local congre- gations. Compared with 2 Tim., 1 Tim. contains few personal notices (n. 7). But the few that it does contain give the impression of genuineness. They show at least that Paul did not write the letter prior to his five years’ imprisonment in Ceesarea and Rome. | Since, however, Paul is at liberty, the letter and the events immediately preceding fall in the interval between the first and a second Roman im- prisonment, of which we learn in 2 Tim. The journey spoken of in i. 3 cannot, as Hug (Hinl.’ ii. 377) assumes, be identified with that of Acts xx. 1; for at that time Timothy had not been, as is assumed in 1 Tim. i. 8, for a considerable time in Ephesus, nor could Paul at that time have requested him to continue there, for Timothy had just returned to Hphesus from a journey to Macedonia and Corinth, and soon afterward accompanied Paul on this journey to Macedonia and Greece (2 Cor. ı. 1, 8, vil. 5; vol. 1. 316, n. 3). He was also with him on the return journey from Greece, through Macedonia, to Troas, Miletus, and Jerusalem (Acts xx. 5 ff). Even assuming that Timothy remained in Ephesus some time after Paul left, following later to Macedonia, or that he left the party, say at Troas (Acts xx. 5), and went to Ephesus to execute some commissions for the apostle, while Paul and the other members of the party did not stop at Ephesus (Acts xx. 16f.), neither mpoopeivas (i. 3), nor Paul's intention to come shortly to Ephesus (iii. 14), nor the tasks referred to in 1 Tim., agree with the representation of this journey which we have in Acts. For this reason it has been suggested that the letter, and the events presup- posed by it as immediately preceding, belong in the period of Paul’s labours in Ephesus, which covered approximately 36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT three years, more definitely, near the end of his stay there (n. 8). Then the journey referred to in 1 Tim. i. 8 would be the journey of Paul from Hphesus to Corinth not mentioned in Acts, but attested by 2 Cor. (vol. 1, 263, 271 f.), and from this passage we should have to assume that on that occasion Paul went to Corinth by way of Macedonia, But the assumption which this involves, namely, that after having himself been for some time in Ephesus, Paul left Timothy behind, charged with the tasks mentioned in 1 Tim. 1. 3f., has against it, as has been shown (above, p. 271), the language of the passage. Besides, there, is nothing to indicate that the prospective arrival of Paul in the place where Timothy remains (iii. 14, iv. 13), is a return of Paul to his place of residence after a temporary absence. It is also difficult to understand why Paul should have written Timothy a letter like 1 Tim., if in his capacity as Paul’s helper he was simply to carry on the work which he had seen the apostle do for some time past, when Paul had already had ample opportunity, and the most urgent occasion just before setting out on his journey, to give Timothy in- structions for the time during which he was to be absent. During this time Paul would have had no occasion to write Timothy except in answer to questions about, in- dividual cases that presented difliculty, of which, however, there is no suggestion. The instructions of the letter would be quite without point unless Paul assumed that Timothy would have to remain at his post in Ephesus alone for at least, several months. Adding to this the time that had elapsed since. the supposed departure, of Paul to Macedonia and Corinth, the interruption of Paul’s work in Ephesus caused by this journey is drawn, out to a length which renders the silence of Acts with refer- ence to it not. only very strange, but its representation of Paul’s work in Ephesus positively erroneous (xix. 8-10, xx. 18, 31). Moreover, the letter assumes the existence in THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 37 the province of Asia of a considerable group of Churches, some ot which at least had been in existence for some time. Since a newly baptized person is not to be made a bishop (i. 6), there must have been in Ephesus and vicinity a number of men who had been for some years members of the Church. But even as late as the third year after the beginning of missionary work in Ephesus there were no persons tested by a long period of Christian experience, but only neophytes. This would be even more true of the other cities of the province. Furthermore, at the time when this letter was written there were in these cities persons who had fallen away again from the faith (i. 19f., v. 15), and Timothy is informed anew that Paul has given these persons over to Satan (i. 20); hence it could not have happened while Timothy was in Ephesus, nor could Paul have been there at the time when this was done. Finally, it is hard to see how, in a Church so recently organised as that in Ephesus, and until very recently under the personal oversight of the apostle, the unprofitable teachers, whom Timothy is especially in- structed to oppose, could have secured such a footing ; or if, in spite of his influence, they had acquired so much power, how in the circumstances Paul could have left Ephesus. Then the assumption has against it the close connection between 1 Tim. and 2 Tim., which certainly could not have been written before 63. The relation of 1 Tim. to Titus is closer, and, as will be shown, this letter could not have been written before the same year. Between the three letters there is an affinity of language, a similarity of thought, and a likeness of errors combated, which prevents our referring any of them to a period much earlier than the others. Certainly this assumption cannot be maintained on the ground of Timothy’s youthful age, suggested by the statement that he is not to let anyone despise him on account of his youth (iy. 12), and by his apparent disposition to excuse himself from his duties on 38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT this ground (above, p. 29). Paul speaks of Timothy’s youth (2 Tim. 11. 22) in the very latest of his letters; and in any case, Timothy, who became Paul’s helper in missionary work in the year 52, was not in the year 64 necessarily more than thirty-five or forty years of age, and so still a ywvens, who on account of his immaturity might be regarded by himself and others as unsuited for the office in the Church. described above. His task. was really no easy one, especially if there were older men in the Churches, whether occupying official positions or not (roll); 1. (P. 27.) Otto, Geschichtl. Verh. der Pastoralbr. S. 48, followed by Kölling, Erster Br. an Tim. i. 207-221, translated 1 Tim. i. 3: “Just as (in accordance with the fact that) I exhorted thee in Ephesus (1.6. while I was staying there), to hold out (to stand fast), so do thou, when setting out on the journey to Macedonia, command certain persons not to cleave to strange teachers, nor to give heed to endless fables and genealogies.” The grain of truth in the elaborate discussions of these theologians is that in Paul’s writings καθώς does not have just the same meaning as simple as, ὥσπερ, so that, as has been admitted by others, in this respect passages like Gal. i. 9 are not altogether comparable. Paul points to the earlier request and exhortation which he had addressed to Timothy (cf. against Kölling, 211, with regard’ to παρακαλεῖν, Matt. vill. 34; Mark v. 17; Luke vin. 41; Acts xxvili. 14; 2 Cor. viii. 6) as the standard for what he has now to say to Timothy, and for what Timothy has now to do. For this very reason he reproduces not only this former request itself, but also its aim and real intention (iva παραγγείλῃ ς--ἐν πίστει) ; and the more detailed he makes this reproduction, the more natural it seems that with his tendency to anacolutha he should leave unexpressed the new request, which was to be expected grammatically, but which would have been of essentially similar content and of quite the same sense. The προσμένειν here (in distinction from the cases where it occurs in connection with a dative governed by the πρός, Matt. xy. 32; Acts xi. 23; 1 Tim. ν. 5) is used absolutely =“ to remain steadfastly, beyond the measure hitherto attained, still longer to persevere at one’s post” (Acts xviii. 18; Herodot. viii. 4). But this cannot in any way prevent us from connecting ev ᾿Εφέσῳ with it as the designation of the place where Timothy shall longer remain. The case is the same with the essentially synonymous ἐπιμένειν, which likewise occurs, sometimes with the dative (Rom. vi. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 16), sometimes without such completion of the idea, but with the most various determinations of the place (Acts xv. 34, xxi. 4, αὐτοῦ; 1 Cor. xvi. 8, ev Ἐφέσῳ ; 1 Cor. xvi. 7; Gal. i, 18, πρός τινα ; Acts xxviii. 14, map’ αὐτοῖς), the time (Acts x. 48, xxi. 10, xxviii. 12), or even the action in which one perseveres (Acts xii. 16 ; John viii. 7). The position of the words as imperatively demands that we connect ev Ἐφέσῳ with προσμένειν, THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 39 as it forbids our connecting it with παρεκάλεσα, Moreover, it is anıarbitrary assumption to claim that πορευόμενος must have stood before παρεκάλεσα, if the author’s purpose had been to couple it with that verb as an attendant circumstance. In consideration of passages like Acts xix. 9, it would be more natural to ask if Paul’s journey to Macedonia or departure thither, though in form it is mentioned as the attendant circumstance of παρεκάλεσα, did not in fact directly follow this exhortation. The position of these words, like the whole sentence structure, is unquestionably careless. It is only as an afterthought that Paul characterises the situation at that time by re- marking that he was then on a journey to Macedonia, when he requested Timothy, against the latter’s inclinations, to prolong his stay and his labour in Ephesus. 2. (P. 31.) The present γράφω, on the one hand (cf. per contra, Rom. xv..15; 1 Cor. ix. 15; Gal. vi..11;,Philem.,.19,,21,; vol. i, 472, n. 4, 345, n..5), and ταῦτα, on the other, forbid referring iii. 14 f. exclusively either to what precedes or to what follows. The instructions of i. 3-iii. 13, are followed in iv. 6-vi. 21 by others essentially similar. Here, as in 1 Cor, iv. 14, Paul stops in the middle of his letter to make a remark bearing upon the essential content of the whole Epistle. In both cases the remark is occasioned by what has just been said here, because the preceding instructions may have given the impression that Timothy must keep the post assigned him inter- minably, and that Paul had given up all thought of visiting him and releasing him. The σέ after δεῖ is abundantly attested (also Ephrem arm. 259%); and even if it is a gloss, it is a correct one. Elsewhere, dvaorpé- ῴφεσθαι, dvaorpobn may not differ essentially from περιπατεῖν, πολιτεύεσθαι (2 Cor. i. 12; Eph. ii. 3, iv. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 12); but the connection with ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ here suggests the idea of a manager or overseer engaged about the house, and moving hither and thither (cf. Heb. iii. 2-6; Zech. iii. 7; Ezek. xxii. 29f.; and for οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ, οἷ, τι. 3); for the member of the family as such (the private Church member) does not move about the house, but dwells, sits therein. 3. (P. 31.) The prohibition μηδὲ προσέχειν, i. 4, cannot apply to Timothy, for in that case we must have had μηδὲ προσέχῃς continuing the construction of ἵνα wapayyeiAns. No further proof is needed. Nor does it refer to the Church members as hearers, but rather, like μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, to the false teachers, as appears for the following reasons : (1) the very connection of the words compels us to take both warnings as addressed to the same per- sons, since there is no new dative object opposed to τισίν, (2) οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ, ver. 4, for which οἰκοδομήν and οἰκοδομίαν are ancient emendations intended to make an easier reading, indicates the exercise of the calling of an οἰκονόμος θεοῦ; (cf. Tit. i. 7; 1 Cor. iv. 1, ix. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 10; Eph. 111. 2; Col. i. 25; vol. 1. 471, n. 1; Ign. Eph. vi. 1); but this calling is. exercised not by the hearing, but by the teaching member of the Church. (3) In Tit. i. 14 the same thing is said of mischievous teachers, and in 1 Tim, vi. 3, προσέχεται, which is most certainly the correct reading (N*, Latini omnes, Ephrem arm. ? Theod. Mops. ?), has the same subject as ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ. 4. (Pp. 32,33.) In1 Tim. ii. 1 we should read παρακάλει with the Westerns (DG, Hil.; Ambrosiaster?), with whom the Sahidic also agrees, It was natural for the copyists, whose task it was to prepare a text adapted for the 40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT edifieation of the Church, to make the apostle himself address this exhorta- tion to the Church directly. Besides, a glance at ii. 8 (v. 14), where the verb indeed is not the same as παρακάλει; 11. 1, but has the same force and general meaning, would mislead them into writing παρακαλῶ. After the somewhat digressive remarks of i. 19-20, Paul in ii. 1 directs the thought back to i. 12 by means of παρακάλει οὖν, and then goes on to describe more in detail the commission given to Timothy, there expressed only in general terms. The teaching within the Church, with its practical application, consonant with the gospel, but by no means identical with it,—for this is what is meant by ἡ παραγγελία, i. 5, 18,—is recommended to his faithful care and diligent exer- eise. The instructions for guarding against false teachers, which have been given even earlier (i. 3f.), do not belong properly to this commission. The positive development of its details begins rather in ii. 1. The exhortation here is not to assiduous prayer in general, whether in the closet or in the family circle, or in public worship (1 Thess. v. 17; Col. iv. 2; Eph. vi. 18; Phil. iv. 6; Rom. xi. 12), but simply to prayer in the congregation assembled for worship, as is perfectly evident. For (1) the passive expression, “ Exhort therefore that above all prayers, ete., be offered for all men, for kings,” ete., shows that the regulation under discussion is a public one. (2) In a list: of things for which Christians should pray in private as well as in public, we should certainly expect to see mention of their own spiritual and ‘bodily welfare, and of the good of their fellow-believers. Here, however, we find merely directions to pray for all men, the vast majority of whom were still unconverted ; and for rulers, who at that time were still heathen ; together with elaborate reasons for such prayer. This can be explained only on the supposition that the prayer referred to was public. (3) In ii. 8 men are spoken of as those who offer this prayer, as'if this were self-evident ; con- sequently a kind of prayer must be referred to from which women were excluded, 1.6. praying aloud before the assembled congregation. For the silent prayer of the individual is plainly a right and a duty of the women just as much as of the men, and Paul had not the least intention of excluding the women even from praying aloud in family worship (1 Cor. xi. 5, ef. vii. 5). It is only in public worship that they are to be silent (1 Cor. xiv. 34-36), ὁ.6. neither leading in prayer nor teaching. The very same thing is enjoined here, ii. 11 f., in words which clearly recall 1 Cor. xiv. 35; and from this it follows again that in this whole context the reference is exclusively to Church worship. ‘The man who raises his hands in prayer before the congregation, and is selected to voice their prayer, must see to it that the hands which he thus stretches forth to God before the eyes of all are pure from all unclean, dishonourable, and violent deeds (Isa.i. 15 ; Jas. iv. 8; Clem. 1 Cor. xxix. 1; Jos. Bell. v. 9. 4 [Niese, 380, 403] ; Horace, Sat.i. 4. 68; and on ὅσιος, Tit. i. 8 ; Heb. vii. 26; Luke i. 75 ; @K, i. 102 f.), and that his heart is free from anger at the persecutions inflicted by the heathen, and from questionings as to the rightfulness of the civil order, a disposition which would choke sincere prayer for all men and for'the heathen rulers. The force of προσεύχεσθαι in ii. 8 grammatically cannot extend into ii. 9, since γυναῖκας has a predicate of its own, korpeiv ἑαυτάς. It does continue the sense logically, but only to this extent, that ii. 9-12q still treats of the congregation assembled for prayer. The women are not here asked to pray in like manner as the men ; else why THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 41 the diversity in the two commands, or why at all the separation of those praying into men and women ? Such a misunderstanding of the passage has led to the insertion of a spurious καί before γυναῖκας. Simple ὡσαύτως does not justify ascribing to the women the same function as to the men, indeed, not even a similar one. It merely places (otherwise than in iii. 8, 11) the commands to the women, which follow on the same plane, with those to the men. “In like manner also I desire that the women,” etc. Since this whole passage treats only of prayer before the assembled congregation, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ cannot include all the various places where a Christian can pray, as, e.g. the closet, the family living-room, and the meeting-place of the congrega- tion. Rather, as in 1 Cor. i. 2, 1 Thess. i. 8 (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 14), it means all the places where there are Christian congregations, and where Christian meetings for prayer are held. Paul will have these instructions carried out everywhere, in all congregations (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16, xiv. 33, 36). But why should Paul speak thus universally when requesting Timothy to look after this matter in the part of the Church entrusted to ‘his care? The only possible explanation is that this part of the Church embraced a number of places and local Churches. 5. (P. 34.) As an illustration, we may take, aside from Tit. i. 5, what Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives, xlii.) says of the apostle John: ἐπειδὴ yap τοῦ τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς ἸΤάτμου τῆς vnooV μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ THY Ἔφεσον, ἀπήει παρακαλούμενος καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ πλησιόχωρα τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὅπου μὲν ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, ὅπου δὲ ὅλας ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων, ὅπου δὲ κλήρῳ ἕνα γέ τινα κληρώσων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος σημαινομένων. 6. (P. 34.) The notion that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus was firmly established even as early as the time of Eusebius (H. E. iii. 4. 6). According to the worthless Acta Timothei (ed. Usener, 1877 ; cf. GGA, 1878, 5. 97-114; Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelyesch. ii. 2.373 ff. ; Ergiinzungsheft, 86), which was written probably about 400-500 a.p. under the name of the very venerable bishop Polycrates of Ephesus, Paul had consecrated Timothy as bishop during Nero’s reign on the occasion of a visit to Ephesus which they made in com- pany. Then, under Nerva, Timothy suffers a martyr’s death during a heathen festival, and while John is an exile on the island of Patmos ; and it is not until after this that John suffers the bishops of Asia to transfer the See of Ephesus to him. In Const. ap. vii. 46 nothing is said about the apostle John being a bishop, as is in accordance with the method there pursued ; but Paul conseerates Timothy as bishop of Ephesus, and (later) the apostle John consecrates another John to that office. The Johannine legends have altogether ignored Timothy’s labours in Ephesus, and even those of Paul. It is a later hand that has inserted in the prolix narrative of Prochorus the section about Paul, and about Timothy’s episcopate in Ephesus before John’s arrival in that city ; ef. the writer’s Acta Jo. 166f., xxxix. | With better dis- crimination the ancient commentators Ephrem, Theodorus, and Theodoret recognised in their prologues the exceptional character of Timothy’s position, e.g. Theodorus, ii. 67: “S. ap. Paulus beatum Timotheum Ephesi reliquit (per contra, above, p. 27), scilicet ut omnem peragrans Asiam universas quae illo (=illic) sunt ecclesias gubernaret.” The contents of the letter, however. seemed to him useful for every bishop of his time (p. 68). The Vita Pol ycarpi, chap. ii., a work ascribed to Pionius, states, as if on good authority, that a 42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT certain Stratzas, the first (according to Const. ap. vii. 46 the second) bishop ΟἹ Smyrna, was a brother of Timothy; cf. GGA, 1882, 8. 300. In 356 A.». the emperor Constantine had what were supposed to be the bones of Timothy brought from Ephesus to Constantinople, and deposited in the Church of the Apostles (Jerome, Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 195). Nevertheless Ephesus continued to be known as the city of John and of Timothy (Acts of the “Robber Synod” of 449 a.p., ed. Hoffmann, p. 81. 45). 7. (P. 35.) The Alexander in i. 20 may be identical with the one in 2 Tim. iv. 14, and hence to be found in Troas (above, p. 16 f.), in which case Hymenzus also must be somewhere in Asia at least (i. 20, cf. 2 Tim. il. 17) ; but it does not follow from this that Paul had been lately in Troas, or indeed in Asia at all, for Paul could carry out the παραδιδόναι τῷ σατανᾷ even when absent in the body (1 Cor. v. 3-5). We should need to assume, however, that Paul, if it was on the basis of reports that he had passed such a sentence, communicated the same in writing to the persons concerned or to the Chureh to which they belonged. This, then, must have been the cause of Alexander’s hostility to him when they met later in Troas (2 Tim. iv. 14; above, p. 21, n. 3). In any case the association of the names Alexander and Hymenzeus, which is lacking in 2 Tim. iv. 14 and is replaced by another combination in 2 Tim. ii. 17, is unfavourable to the supposition that one of the letters was forged in imitation of the other, or that. both were written by the same pseudo-Paul. One of the marks of individuality, which are not borrowed from the earlier letters of Paul at any rate, is found in v. 29. General truths, such as are elsewhere to be found (Rom. xii. 14, τοῖς Eph. v. 18), could have suggested sentences like those in iii. 8, iv. 4, 8, but not this medical advice. Paul may have obtained this from Luke, who in that case would agree with another physician of his time, Dioscorides (de Mat, Med. v. 11), as to the usefulness of wine, especially for the stomach. The lack of personal greetings, in which respect this letter is like those directed to the Churches of Achaia (2 Cor. xiii, 12) and of Asia (Eph. vi. 28), may perhaps be explained on the ground that Paul presupposes that Timothy will communicate the contents of this letter to all the Churches under his charge, He had difficulties to contend with, his authority needed strengthening (iy. 12); so, when occasion required, he could exhibit this letter and read it publicly. Indeed, discussions such as those in ii. 1-iii, 13 are put in such objective form that they seem originally intended for wide circulation. The closing greeting, vi. 21, would point to the same thing were the reading 7 χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν to be retained. Yet not only is μετὰ σοῦ likewise excellently attested, but even the texts without any benediction are worthy of attention in spite of the slight external evidence in their favour. Still more suspicious is the close of 2 Tim. (iv. 22), where after πνεύματός σου we find the following variants: (1) nothing at all (?); (2) ἡ x. μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ; (3) ἡ xX. μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ; (4) ἡ x: μετὰ σοῦ ; (5) ἔρρωσο ἐν εἰρήνῃ. 8. (P. 36.) Wieseler especially, Chron. 311 ff., sought to establish this hypothesis, following similar discussions by Mosheim and Schrader (Wieseler, 295 ff.). THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 43 $ 35. THE FACTS PRESUPPOSED IN THE EPISTLE TO-TIFUS From the first sentence which follows the elaborate and solemn greeting of the letter, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge,” we infer, first, that not long previous to this Paul and Titus had been together on the island ; secondly, that Paul had not been able at that time to effect such organisation of the Church as he had had in mind, the establishment of which was the chief purpose for which he had instructed Titus to remain there,—a task to which Titus was to devote himself for a con- siderable time (iii, 12). Whether Paul himself actually began the correction of the condition indicated by ra λείποντα, we do not know. At any rate, he here speaks of the appointment of elders in such a way as to imply that when he left Crete the Christians there were quite with- out Church organisation. The very resemblance between what follows (i. 6-9) concerning the qualifications for the office of headship in the Church, and similar instructions in 1 Tim., only serves to emphasise. the different circum- stances presupposed in the two cases. Nothing is here said of elders already appointed (1 Tim. v. 17-21), of a house of God over which the representative of the apostle is to exercise oversight (1 Tim. iii. 15), nor of Cretan Churches (cf. 1 Cor, xvi. 19); mention is made only of persons who had believed (iii. 8, 14, of ἡμέτεροι ; cf. Iren. v. 28. 4). Now, when we remember that in Thessalonica there were constituted officers of the Church (1 Thess. v. 12) after only three weeks of preaching (vol. i. 212, n. 5), and recall how promptly in other places the pioneer missionary preaching was followed by the appointment of elders (Acts xiv. 23), it is clear that Paul’s stay in Crete must have been very short, so that he had probably just 44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW "TESTAMENT been able to proclaim the gospel for the first time in some of the cities, leaving Titus to organise the Christians in these places into Churches. If it had been ‘Titus who some time prior to Paul’s coming had brought the gospel to Crete, and if it had been to Titus’ work that the Christians in Crete owed their conversion, we should expect that to be refered to rather than Paul’s own missionary preaching. We con- sequently infer that when Paul and Titus came to the island there were already Christians there, who may have received their faith through Christians who had come thither from Corinth or Athens. Since Paul himself was hindered by duties elsewhere from remaining for any length of time, he commissioned Titus in his stead to organise thoroughly the yet unarranged affairs of the Christians in Crete. It is taken for granted that, either because: of its geographical position or the source from which Christianity was received, Paul reckoned Crete within his apostolic jurisdiction, although politically Crete was connected with Cyrene, not with Achaia. So he had done with the Churches of inland Asia, which, without personal eo-operation on his part, had been organised through influences emanating from Ephesus (vol. 1. 449, n. 3). Paul had been long enough in Crete to form a definite conception of local conditions, and of the special dangers which threatened to hinder the vigorous develop- ment of Church life there. Tit. i. 10-16 does not read like an echo of reports which Titus had sent to Paul, but like instructions to Titus based upon personal observa- tion. Paul states his own impressions by quoting a verse from the Cretan poet Epimenides, in which the Cretan character is unfavourably judged, and expressly aflırms that Epimenides’ | testimony is true (n. 1). Here, as ın löphesus (above, p: 81 f.), he considers the chief hindrance to the vigorous growth and good order of the life of the Chureh to be certain persons who persist in teaching THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 45 doctrine which is unprofitable, unsound, and positively harmful. ‘The worst of these persons he represents to be those of Jewish origin (i. 10 ἢ, 14-16, iii, 9, n. 1). They resist sound doctrine (i. 9), are especially unruly (i, 10, 16), and by their teaching and disputation disturb the Christian households (i. 11, iii. 9). Some of them persist in maintaining their own views even to the point of creating schisms in the Church (iii. 10, ef. 1 Cor. xi. 19; vol. 1. 284 f.). Those who go as far as this, Titus, after repeated warnings, is to leave to themselves and to the judgment of their own conscience ; to the others he is to set forth strongly and sharply the wrongfulness of their action, and to silence them (i. 11, 13, ii: 15). The manner in which Paul speaks of these persons is very severe, and shows that he is greatly exasperated by them. From the character of the greeting which, at the close, il. 15, he asks Titus to convey—‘ Salute them that love us in faith (or in faithfulness)” —it is to be inferred that Paul himself had met with opposition among the Cretan Christians, and that by no means all of them had given him a kindly reception, or recognised his apostolic rights (cf. 3 John 9-10, 15). The fact that he here writes ἡμᾶς, thereby including Titus with himself, is fully explained by the assumption that Paul had not been in Crete except in company with Titus, who therefore had shared: the vicissitudes of Paul’s reception. The expression is even more natural if Titus continued to encounter the hostility of certain Christians after the apostle’s departure... We are led to the same conclusion by ii. 8, where, reversing the order, Paul includes himself with Titus. Here Titus is represented as a teacher both of the younger and older members of the Church. In. this capacity he is to be himself an example of good conduct; in fulfilling his office he is to be incorruptible and dignified, and what he teaches is.to be above all criticism. To this descrip- tion of Titus’ chief work is added the remark, “ That he 46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having ne evil thing to say of us.” Now, since non-Christians would have only the rarest opportunity to hear Titus’ preaching, it is manifest that no reference is here had to the opinions of those outside the Christian circle, wnlike ii. 5, 10, where the language is very different, and where reference is had to conduct that could be observed. Rather must these persons be the obstinate teachers (i. 9), who have no love for Paul and Titus (111. 15), whose method of teaching, mercenary, unsound, and condemned as it is by their own consciences (1. 11, 13, 15, iii. 11), is quite the opposite of that enjoined upon Titus. These teachers were inclined to speak evil of Paul and Titus, and actu- ally indulged in such talk. It is mainly because of this attitude of theirs toward Titus that Paul adds to his injunction that Titus speak, exhort, and reprove with all authority, the remark, “ Let no man despise thee,” 2.6. assume a contemptuous attitude toward him, as if he had said nothing, and had administered no reproof (ii. 15). The letter presupposes that the apostle had before him a written communication from Titus, in which the latter had informed him of the difficulties with which he had to contend in carrying out the instructions which had been given him, expressing at least doubt as to the possibility of carrying out the most important of them. Only on ‘the assumption that Paul is writing in reply to expressions of this kind on Titus’ part can the strongly emphasised τούτον χάριν, with which he begins, be explained (i. 5). This, and this primarily, was the purpose for which Paul had left Titus there. He is consequently not fulfilling his obligation if he is merely endeavouring to help the Christians there in his capacity as a teacher, and fails at the same time, on account of existing difficulties, to do anything appreciable in the way of organising the Churches. Just as definite a contrast is presupposed by the ἐγώ in the relative sentence, as by the τούτου χάριν, THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 47 otherwise it is quite without point (cf. vol. i, 526, in connection with Phil. 1. 3; ef. also similar sentences else- where without ἐγώ, 1 Tim. i. 3; 1 Thess. iv. 11; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, xi. 2, vii. 17). In opposition to what is said by those persons who create difficulties for Titus, either by denying his commission and capacity for organising the Church, or by giving him advice concerning the same contrary to instructions left him by the apostle; Paul lays emphasis upon the fact that he, the apostle, has given Titus instructions with reference to this matter which Titus is to carry out. The attentive reader observes a connection between this ἐγώ and the equally significant ἐγώ in 1. 3. It is this contrast, just coming to light in i. 5, and expressed in various ways throughout the letter, which explains why in the greeting of this letter Paul speaks of his calling with a detail and an emphasis not observable in 1 Tim. i. 1; 2 Tim. i. 1, and comparable only to Rom. i. 1-7. To be sure, he is no lord over other Christians and their faith (2 Cor. i. 24), but, like all Christians, a servant of God (ef. Rom. i. 1; vol. i. 352); indeed, without the faith which all the elect of God have (i. 1), and the faith which he has in common with Titus (i. 4), he would be nothing. But at the same time he is an apostle of Jesus Christ (i. 1), and so personally and in special measure, by divine commission, he is entrusted with the preaching of that eternal life which has been promised of old, but has now become manifest through the word of the gospel (i, 2f.). The same is to be said with reference to the commission given to Titus by Paul, and is to be borne in mind by the Christians among whom Titus is to carry out this commission. The letter is concluded by a benediction upon all the Christians in Titus’ vicinity, which benediction is preceded by a personal greeting to Paul’s friends in Crete, the ex- pectation being disclosed much more clearly than in either 1 Tim. or 2 Tim. (above, p. 42, n. 7 end) that Titus will 48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT communicate the contents of the letter to the Christians there. Titus’ position (n. 2) is practically the same as that of Timothy in Ephesus; with the difference already noted, that the problem in Crete was the primary organisation of the Church, whereas in Asia a group of Churches that had been already organised was placed under Timothy’s care, and only in exceptional cases, such as the organisation of a new Church, was he called upon to appoint officers (above, p. 34). This difference explains why Titus’ office was even more temporary than Timothy’s. ‘Titus had gone to Crete with Paul only a short time before, and he is to leave again, without any promise on Paul’s part to come back, and without the appointment of his suc- cessor. Paul does intend, however, to send to Crete a certain Artemas, of whom we have no other mention, or Tychicus, mentioned so often as the companion and messenger of Paul (Acts xx. 4; Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 12). As soon as one or the other of these men arrives Titus is to hasten at once to Paul, going to Nicopolis, where Paul plans to spend the winter (ii. 12, n. 3). This is the apostle’s intention. At the same time, from the fact that he does not set a definite date when Titus is to arrive in Nicopolis, apparently intending to summon him through Artemas or T'ychicus when he is ready, we infer that at the time of his writing Paul did not know just when he himself would reach Nieopolis. Possibly he intended to utilise the time of his sojourn there in extending his work, in verification of certain earlier statements of his about the extension of his mis- sionary work in this direction (Rom. xv. 19; vol. 1. 415 £.). It is also natural to suppose that the journey of Titus to Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv. 10) was made soon after a sojourn of Paul and Titus in the neighbouring pro- vinee of Epirus. Still, all that can positively be inferred from Tit. iii, 12 is that Paul intended to remain in THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 49 Nicopolis until the end of winter, and at the opening of navigation in March following to set out at once from this point upon a sea journey (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 6). The choice of Nicopolis as a point of departure shows that this journey was to be in a westward direction, and that its ultimate destination was Italy. In regard to a certain Zenas, a lawyer, and Apollos, who is so well known as to need no further designation, Paul makes request that Titus, with the help of the Cretan Christians, furnish>all they need for a journey and set them on their way (iu. 13 f., n. 4). If Paul had meant, as Chrysostom thought he did (xi. 729), that Titus was to send these men to him, he would certainly have said so. That they were with Titus prior to the arrival of this letter is unlikely, because in outlining Titus’ duties the presence of so distinguished a teacher as Apollos could not have been so entirely overlooked had he been on the island with Titus at the time. Nor is it clear why Paul should have requested the Christians in Crete to set Zenas and Apollos on their way, if they neither came from him nor were going to him, or to a place he had designated. In the last case the place would be named. Whence they came and their destination Titus would learn from the men themselves; all that we know is that they did not arrive after the letter reached its destination. The only natural assumption is the one pointed out by Theodorus (ii. 256), namely, that Zenas and Apollos were the bearers of the letter, and that the first stage of their journey took them from the place where Paul was to Crete, whence, replenished and set forward by Titus, they were to continue their journey to some destination unknown to us. From what is here said of Apollos, we infer that Paul already knew him personally, an acquaintanceship formed during the latter part of the apostle’s three years work in Ephesus. To the earlier part of this period belongs the Corinthian work of Apollos, whom VOL. II. 4 50 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Paul had not then come to know (Acts xviii. 24-xix. 1) In the spring of 57 Apollos was in Ephesus with Paul, and had been there for some time, being for the pre- sent unwilling to leave (1 Cor. xvi. 12). A journey of Apollos to Corinth is here certainly spoken of; and it is possible that some weeks after 1 Cor. was written, about the time that Paul left Ephesus to go to Macedonia (Acts xx. 1; 2 Cor. 1. 8, ἢ. 12 f.), Apollos also left and set out upon a journey to Corinth, which could have been made by way of Crete. Im this case, however, Paul must have written Titus during the months that he was in Mace- donia. But this is clearly impossible, since at this time Paul was planning to spend the winter, not im Nicopolis, but in Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 6), and in the following spring it was his purpose to journey, not from Nicopolis west- ward, but from Corinth to Jerusalem. Both projects were earried out practically as he had planned. Furthermore, during the period following the composition of 1 Cor., Titus was not in Crete, but in accordance with Paul’s instructions journeyed from Ephesus to Corinth, whence he went to meet Paul who was journeying slowly by way of Troas through Macedonia on his way to Corinth, join- ing him in Macedonia (2 Cor. u. 12 f., vil. 5-16; vol. i 326f.). Nor is there any more opportunity for the resi- dence of Paul in Crete, presupposed in Tit. i. 3, during the months immediately following the events described in 1 Cor. xvi. 1-9, than there is for the activity of Titus there, which followed Paul’s sojourn, Neither can room be made for the Cretan sojourn in the three months spent in Greece after Paul's departure from Ephesus (Acts xx. 3); for these were the closing months of the winter, the end of which he intended to await in Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 6). In these circumstances he could not have written Titus that he intended to spend the winter in Nicopolis ; and although, as we learn from Rom. xy. 25-32, his mind was turning toward the West at that time, he did not THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 51 plan to journey directly thither with the coming of spring but held to his original purpose of first visiting Jerusalem. From Acts xx. 3-xxi. 17 we know that this plan was actually carried out. Im order, therefore, to find a place in Paul’s career for Titus, and the facts upon which it is based prior to his long imprisonment, one must go back beyond the middle of the period of work in Ephesus, and assume that Paul stopped in Crete on the occasion of his flying journey from Ephesus to Corinth, about which Acts is silent, left Titus there, and wrote Titus some time after his return to Ephesus. If in addition to the assumption that Paul made this journey, which Acts does not men- tion, by way of Macedonia,—an assumption made in the supposed interest of 1 Tim. (above, p. 35 f.),—it be assumed that the apostle also touched in Crete, the journey becomes such an important part of the apostle’s life-history that the silence of Acts is almost unintelligible. Furthermore, it leaves quite unexplained Paul’s intention to spend the ensuing winter in Nicopolis ; for at that time the important work in Ephesus, covering as it did the whole province of Asia,—a work which, when 1 Cor. xvi. 8-11 was written, was nowhere near completion,—could have been scarcely more than begun. But it is altogether unlikely that long before actually leaving Ephesus Paul should have formed the definite plan of spending a winter or part of a winter in Nicopolis, making his way thence farther westward, On the other hand, it is very improb- able that the plans of which his mind was so full at the time of his correspondence with the Corinthians, and which were carried out at the beginning of 58, should have suddenly displaced the entirely different plans of which we learn in Titus. The collection, with which the journey to Jerusalem was intimately connected, was a matter of long standing, having been carried on for a considerable period before Paul left Ephesus (2 Cor. vii. 10, ix. 2; vol. i, 318 f.). Finally, it is to be 52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT noticed that the resemblance between 1 Tim. and Titus is so great that they must be classed together, both as regards language and thought, just as Ephesians and Colossians. If Paul wrote them at all, he must have written them within a short time of each other. The proof that Paul could not have written 1 Tim. until after he was liberated from his first Roman imprisonment (above, p. 35 f.) is valid also for Titus, and vice versa. If the latter was written in the interval between the first and second Roman imprisonments, then his short residence in Crete belongs in the same interval. On the journey from Ceesarea to Rome, Paul did not touch at Crete (Acts xxvii. 7-15), and Titus was not with him at that time (Acts xxvii. 2). Furthermore, the manner in which Paul speaks in Tit. i. 3 of his residence in Crete and of Titus’ commis- sion, precludes the possibility of the intervention of the two years spent in Rome, and of several months preceding and following these two years, between the sojourn of Paul and Titus in Crete and this Epistle. The letter gives us, therefore, two more stations of that journey in the eastern part of the empire which Paul made in the interval between Philippians and 2 Tim., namely, Crete and, at least prospectively, Nicopolis. 1. (P. 44.) Concerning Jews in Crete, ef. 1 Macc. xv. 23 (Gortyna) ; Acts ii. 11; Philo, Leg. ad Cai. xxxvi.; Jos. Ant. xvii. 12.1; Bell. ii. 7.1; Vita, 76 (his last wife an “aristocratic” Jewess from Crete); Soer. H. H, vii. 38 (concerning a pseudo-Moses, who led the Jews astray, καθ᾽ ἑκάστην τῆς νήσου πόλιν). Moreover, the legend that the Jews came originally from Crete, and that their name is derived from Mount Ida there (Tac. Hist. v. 2), would hardly have arisen if there had not been a considerable number of Jews on the island. Homer, Iliad, ii. 649, followed by many poets, calls Crete ἑκατόμ- rods ; and even though perhaps it may have become comparatively depopu- lated since the Roman occupation, its cities were not few (Strabo, p. 476; Ptol. iii. 17).. In the second century we hear of bishops in Gortyna and in Knossus (Eus. H. E. iv. 23. 5, 7). According to Jerome (vii. 706, ef, Soer. H. E. iii. 16), the verse quoted in Tit. i. 12 is to be found in a book entitled Περὶ Χρησμῶν, by Epimenides, a contemporary of Solon. In calling this poet, then, a prophet of the Cretans, Paul shows a knowledge of the tradition con- cerning him (Plato, Leg. p. 642 ; Plut. Solon, xii, ; Diog. Laert. i. 10. 109-115). Theodoret thought mistakenly that Paul was citing from Callimachus, who THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 53 was a native of Cyrene, not Crete, and who in his “Hymn to Zeus,” ver. 8, appropriated only the first half of Epimenides’ hexameter, namely, the charge of untruthfulness, a trait of the Cretans which had become proverbial (cf. Wettstein’s Sammlungen, ad loc.). Theodoret was misled by Chrysostom, who, while he names the right author Epimenides, quotes the words which in Callimachus follow ψεῦσται, ver. 8f., as if they came from Epimenides (xi. 744). Theodore is the first Father from whom we are able to ascertain clearly what is only hinted at in Chrysostom and Jerome, namely, that the heathen opponents of Christianity (Porphyry? Julian ?) inferred from this passage that Paul agreed with the poet in his defence of the eternal deity of Zeus against the lies of the Cretans, who thought that Zeus’ grave was on their island. Consequently these heathen writers, too, must have been thinking not of Epimenides, but of Callimachus, who did actually ap- propriate part of the older poet’s verse with this very end in view. And some of the Christian apologists and commentators have followed them. 2. (P. 48.) Titus is called bishop of Crete by Eus. H. E. iii. 4. 6; Ambrosiaster, p. 313, in his Prologue; Const. ap. vii. 46. More guarded and more nearly correct are Ephrem, 269 ; Theodorus, ii. 233, ef. p. 122; Theodoret, 698. With regard to mistaken identifications of Titus with Titius Justus and with Silvanus, see vol. i. 208, 266. Beside the state- ments in Gal. ii. 1-3; 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6-14, viii. 6, 16, 23, xii. 18; 2 Tim. iv. 10, we have no reliable testimony concerning Titus, except perhaps the assertion of Acta Thecle, cc. ii. iii., that he was staying with Onesiphorus in Iconium when Paul came thither for the first time. Possibly the Zeno mentioned there and called the son of Onesiphorus may be the Zenas of Tit. iii. 13. Concerning later fabulous tales, which are referred to a Vita Titi written by Zenas, cf. Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. part 2, 401 ff. ; also the passages of the Vita Titi published by M. R. James in JTAS. vi. 549 ff. (July 1905) are without historical value. 3. (P. 48.) Of the numerous cities which were named Nicopolis in commemoration of a victory, some must be excluded in a consideration of Tit. iii. 12 on account of their location, some on account of their late origin. (1) The Nicopolis in Armenia (Strabo, 555 ; Ptolem. viii. 17. 40) is ruled out on this ground, as also (2) the one in Egypt, near Alexandria (Jos. Bell. iv. 11. 5); (3) Emmaus in Palestine, not called Nieopolis until the third century ; (4) the one founded by Trajan on the Danube, which still retains the name ; and (5) another in the Heemus (Ptolem. iii. 11. 11, ef. Forbiger, iii. 750, A. 66, S. 753 ; Mommsen, Röm. Gesch. v. 282, who, however, identifies No. 4 with No. 5 ; C. 1. L. iii. p. 141). (6) Likewise the Nieopolis on the Nestus (Ptolem. iii. 11. 13) which was founded by Trajan (Forbiger, Pauly, RE, v. 637, under No. 2; Mommsen, op. cit. 281). This must have been the city meant by those writers who remarked, in commenting on Tit. iii. 12, that it lay in Thrace (Cramer, Cat. vii. 99). (7) A city of this name in Bithynia (Plin. H. N. v. 32. 150 ; Steph. Byz. sub verbo) offers no point of connection forany probable conjectures. (8) Similarly, the Nicopolis in the north-east corner of Cilicia (Strabo, 675 ; Ptolem. v. 8. 7) is not to be thought of ; for no reason can be conceived which could have induced Paul to spend the winter in this out of the way mountain town rather than in a large community like Antioch ; or, if rest were his aim, in his native city, Tarsus, or in some place from which he would have 54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT abundant opportunities to continue his journey in the spring. The only one remaining 15. (9) the Nicopolis founded by Augustus at the outlet of the Ambracian Gulf as a memorial of the victory at Actium, by far the most important and famous city of this name, and a generation later the chief scene of Epictetus’ labours as a teacher. Tacitus, Ann. ii. 53 (for the year 18), calls it urbem Achaie ; on the contrary, Epictetus, Diss. iii. 4. 1, speaks of an ἐπίτροπος ᾿Ηπείρου residing in Nicopolis and governing the land from thence ; ef. ©. I. @. No. 18135 (add. p. 983); C. I. L. iii. No. 536 (Ὁ) ; about the year 150, Ptolemy, iii. 14. 1, 15. 1, distinguishes Epirus, in which Nicopolis is situated (xiv. 5), from Achaia as a separate province. Our information as to these changing conditions is not very clear (Mommsen, op. cit. 234; Marquardt, i, 331). Jerome (Vall. vii. 686, 738) considered it self-evident that this Nicopolis was meant ; and even those who called it Nicopolis Macedonie (see Tischendorf’s apparatus on the subscription) could hardly have had another in mind ; for no other of the cities mentioned above was in Macedonia proper, not even No. 6. Jerome, 686, assumed mistakenly, with many Greeks and Syrians, that the letter was written from Nicopolis. Wieseler, Chron. 353, sought to prove, on the ground that Nicopolis belonged to Achaia, that Tit. iii, 12 is simply a more definite statement of the purpose expressed in 1 Cor. xvi. 6. But this is impossible, since 1 Cor. is addressed solely to the local Church at Corinth, and not, like 2 Cor., to all the Christians of Achaia. And even in 2 Cor. πρὸς ὑμᾶς would mean “to” or “in Corinth.” 4. (P. 49.) In itself, νομικός, 111. 13, cf. Luke vii. 30, x. 9 Ξε νομοδιδάσ- καλος, Luke v.17; Acts v. 34--ἰ γραμματεύς, Luke v. 21, vi. 7; 1 Cor. i. 20, could denote a rabbi (ef. Ambrosiaster, p. 317, “quia Zenas hujus professionis fuerat in synagoga, sic illum appellat”). But since the Jewish scribe who became a Christian by that very act separated himself from the rabbinic body, and since the retention of rabbinic methods and ways of thinking was any- thing but a recommendation in Paul’s eyes (1 Tim. i. 7), Zenas is here characterised not as legis (Mosaice) doctor, but as juris peritus. The word denotes not an office, but usually the practical lawyer, through whose assist- ance, e.g. a will is made (Epict. Diss. ii. 13. 6-8 ; Berl. dig. Urk. No. 326, vopuxds ‘Pwpaixds, No. 361, col, iii. 2, 15), or a lawsuit carried on (Artemid. Oneiroer, iv, 80, cf. iv. 33, νομικοὶ νομικὰ ἢ ἰατροὶ ἰατρικὰ. . . λέγουσιν). Plutarch (Sulla, 36) applies this name to the renowned jurist Mueius Scaevola. — mpo- πέμπειν means here, as elsewhere in the N.T., to speed the departing traveller on his way, whether he is just setting forth on his journey or is passing through the place. Occasionally this consisted simply in accompanying him a short distance (Acts xx. 38, xxi. 5); as a rule, however, and here also, if we may judge from what follows, it includes equipping him with all things needful for the journey, ef. 3 John 6 (Rom. xv. 24; 1 Cor, xvi. 6, 11), and is almost synonymous with ἐφοδιάζειν, Jos. Bell. ii. 7.15 Ant. xx. 2.5. For an illustration, cf, Acta Petri cum Simone, ed. Lipsius, 48. 1-18. § 36. THE END OF PAUL'S LIFE. If we were certain that Paul was put to death at the end of the Roman imprisonment. in which we find him THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 55 when he wrote Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Phil- ippians, it would be necessary to reject as forgeries the three letters which have been inappropriately called the Pastoral Epistles (n. 1). This belief, which has long been one of the principal grounds of objection to the genuineness of these Epistles, and which has been a source of insufferable violence done to the Epistles by those defending their genuineness, either wholly or in part, does not rest upon the foundation even of ancient, to say nothing of trust- worthy tradition. It is simply an hypothesis, which has strong historical evidence against it, and nothing in its favour (n. 2). An expectation of early release so definite as that expressed by Paul in Phil. 1. 19, 25, 11. 24, is not likely to have failed of fulfilment, since this expectation is based not upon desires, conjectures, and inferences, which, judging from Acts xxv. 18, 25, xxvi. 31f, xxvill. 15, 18, pointed in that direction from the first (ef. Philem. 22), but primarily upon the actual course of the trial, which after protracted delay had been actually begun. Moreover, it was not Paul’s personal opinion alone, but the judgment of all who followed the course of his trial, even of non-Christians, that it would shortly terminate in his release (vol. i. 540 ff.). For this reason we are not justified in comparing the repeated οἶδα of Philippians with the οὖδα which Paul used at Miletus shortly before he was arrested in Jerusalem (Acts xx. 25, 88) to declare his expectation that the elders and the Church in Ephesus would see his face no more (n. 3). It is to be observed, first of all, that we do not have here, as in Phil. i. 19, 25, 11. 24, Paul’s own language, but at most only a saying of the apostle’s as Luke, his companion, remembered it. But, leaving that out of account, the later “I know,” in which is expressed the hope of reunion with the Phil- ippian Christians and the Christians in the East generally, would quite annul the “ I know” spoken five years before, when reunion with the Christians in Ephesus seemed quite 56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT impossible. Then it must be remembered that in the prophetic utterances on the basis of which Paul made this statement, — being careful to note that it is only his personal conviction (xx. 25),—nothing is said of his death, but only of chains and persecution (Acts xx. 23, xxi. 11), and that Paul simply explains that he is ready, if neces- sary, even to die in Jerusalem, expressly stating, however, that he does not know what awaits him there (Acts xx. 22, 24, xxi. 13, cf. Rom. xv. 31). The expression of this indefinite feeling of Paul’s, accompanied by the acknowledgement that all is uncertainty, that possibly his life might end where on three different occasions later it was actually threatened (xxi. 31, xxiii. 12-15, xxv. 3), refers only to Jerusalem and Palestine. According to Acts, he was desirous of seeing Rome, and it did become later the scene of the labours for which he was rescued from all dangers (xix. 21, xxiii. 11, xxv. 10-12, xxvii. 24, xxviii. 5, 15, 30, 31); so that, in view of the con- nection in Acts, it is hardly likely that the author intended the passage in the 20th chapter of Acts (xx. 25) to bea prophecy of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome. By a more careful consideration of the text, the meaning of the ex- pression seems to be only that the personal intercourse, often broken off, but always taken up again, which had existed between Paul and the Eastern Churches up to the present time had at last reached its end, since Paul, in ease he should not lose his life in Jerusalem, purposed now to go to the West. But even assuming that when he left Miletus Paul was confident that he would never see the elders of Ephesus again, this is no reason for assuming that he never did. Paul never claimed to be able to pre- dict the future, and insisted particularly that statements of his with reference to his future plans should not be considered irrevocable (2 Cor. i. 15-17; vol. i. 344, n. 2). It is, of course, possible that Paul was deceived in his expectation of an early release, so confidently expressed THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 57 in Philippians ; but this is not at all likely, because of the facts upon which this expectation was based. Events en- tirely unforeseen must suddenly have given an unfavour- able turn to the trial, which, when Philippians was written, was as good as ended. The Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, which for nearly three years (from the hearing before Festus. in the latter part of the summer of 60 a.p. to the writing of Philippians, which did not take place until after the spring of 63) had made no effort to renew the charges against Paul before the imperial court (n. 4), are not likely to have done so after so long an interval, par- ticularly since under Albinus (62-64), Festus’ successor in the procuratorship, there were things enough in Jeru- salem to keep them occupied (cf. Schürer, i. 583 [Eng. trans. IL i. 188]). Moreover, after their experiences in Palestine (Acts xxiv.-xxvi.), the Sanhedrin could have entertained very little hope of accomplishing anything against Paul in Rome. The assumption that before the trial was entirely ended, the favourable outcome of which in the near future Paul expected when he was writing Philippians, the persecution of the Roman Christians under Nero broke out, and that Paul was one of the victims of the same, is improbable on chronological grounds. If Paul reached Rome in March or April of the year 61 (Part XI. vol. iii.), and if soon after the spring of the year 63 the trial began, which, according to Philippians, gave rise at once to confident expectations of a successful outcome, it is impossible to understand what could have protracted it until the summer, or rather the autumn, of the following year 64. Such, however, must have been the case if Paul was one of those Christians who, according to Tacitus’ account (Ann. xv. 44), were executed for the burning of Rome, since Nero did not accuse the Christians until he had availed himself of every other means of avert- ing from himself the suspicion of having burned the city. This accusation was probably not made before October 64 58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (n. 5). It is thus easily understood why those who feel that Paul’s execution must be associated with the whole- sale execution of Christians which took place in the latter part of the summer or in the autumn of the year 64, are inclined to date Paul’s arrival in Rome in the spring of 62, and the composition of Philippians at the beginning of the summer of 64 (see per contra, Part XI. vol. iii.). But the particular presupposition which is the main reason for a change of date, namely, that Paul was exe- cuted shortly after the writing of Philippians, and that he was one of a number of Christians to suffer martyrdom, and hence must have been put to death in the year 64, gets no certain support in ancient tradition. The only thing that can be directly inferred from Acts xxvii. 30 f. is that the author knew what it was that terminated the situa- tion which is there briefly described, and which he says lasted for two whole years. Why does he: fail to state what this was? Whether we assume that Acts xxvii. 30 f. is the conclusion of the work as Luke planned it, or whether he intended to complete the work in a third book, in either case—in the former case even more than in the latter—his silence about the event marking the close of the two years is inexplicable, if the trial whieh ended with the apostle’s execution occurred at this time. Neither the book nor the whole work could have had a more fitting close than the account of the martyrdom of the apostle upon whose history the attention of the reader has been kept constantly fixed from the thirteenth chapter ; and certainly a writer who was able in three lines to convey to the reader an idea of the great work which Paul did during two years in the eapital of the empire, was able just as briefly and just as skilfully to tell of the glorious ending of this work, and of the apostle’s career. The author could not leave the reader to guess this end, because after all the deliverances and consolations through which Paul had been brought to Rome (Acts xxi. 31-30, THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 5S xxii. 10—30, xxv. 3, xxvil. 24,42. 44, xxviii. 5, 15), and after the opinions expressed by the highest ofticials concerning the charges made by the Jews (Acts xxv. 2-8, 18-20, 26 f., xxvi. 81 ἢ, xxvii. 18), the death-sentence of Paul would be the last thing that the reader would expect. The only plausible inference to be drawn from the sudden breaking off of the narrative in Acts xxviii. 30f. is that these two years were followed by another period in Paul’s life his- tory and missionary work of such considerable length that it could not be treated in Luke’s second book without making this disproportionately long compared with the first. Now, even assuming that the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are spurious, they furnish important evidence that Paul’s life continued beyond the two years in Rome and beyond the time when Philippians was written ; for, as has been shown, they presuppose that after his acquittal by the imperial court at Rome, and after his liberation from his imprisonment in Rome, which had lasted until then, Paul visited his eastern Churches in Macedonia and Crete, Miletus and Troas, probably also in Corinth and Ephesus ; and, on the other hand, engaged in missionary work in regions lying westward from Rome, probably in Spain. If all this were told in the letters, or even clearly stated as information, we might assume that it was forged, either with a view to enlarging the history of Paul’s life or supplying the Epistles with a historic background. But, as a matter of fact, the most of these events and those of greatest importance are simply taken for granted, as we should expect them to be in genuine Epistles. What we are compelled to infer from incidental hints, and that rather vaguely, e.g. the fact that he was in prison when 2 Tim. was written, and how he came to be there; the missionary work carried on after he was set free from his first Imprisonment in regions hitherto unvisited by him ; what took him to Crete ; why he planned to go to Nieo- 60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT polis,—all this and much more must have been known to the readers, whose knowledge of the situation the author took for granted. If this author were Paul himself, then these letters are standards by which every other account of this period, inside the Canon and out of it, is to be judged, and any additional evidence is superfluous. If the author was a pseudo-Paul belonging to the period between the years 70 and 140,—the latest possible date for the composition of the letters, —the tradition of which he made use must have existed in such clear outlines and have been so generally known, that it required only the slightest reference and the most casual connections to recall to the readers’ minds the course of events and induce them to accept this forgery, which was based thus upon recognised historical facts. Evidence of the existence of such a tradition regarding the closing years of Paul’s life, covering the period after the close of Acts, but independent of the Pastoral Epistles, is furnished by the letter sent by the Roman Church to the Church in Corinth of which Clement of Rome is commonly regarded as the author (n. 6). | Since Clement's letter was written certainly not later than the year 96, and expressly mentions the apostles Paul and Peter as heroes and sufferers of the then living generation, it is evident that Clement and the Roman Church were not wholly dependent for their knowledge concerning the close of the apostle’s life upon written sources, which so far as we know were not yet in existence, but made use of trust- worthy oral traditions. An officer in the Roman Church in the year 96, who would certainly have been a man of years, would have been a younger contemporary of Paul's, and could recall the time when the apostle’s death took place. It is quite possible, as Irenaus testifies (iii. 3. 3), that Clement had had personal intercourse with Paul and Peter. Certainly he possessed independent information about Paul’s history, as is evidenced by his statement THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 61 that Paul was bound with chains seven times (n. 6). His other somewhat rhetorical statements in praise of the two apostles seem to take for granted acquaintance with the eventsin question on the part even of his younger readers. However, although not acquainted with the events, we of to-day may recognise the following points :—(1) Peter and Paul died in Rome as martyrs. (2) Paul had preached the gospel in the most western portion of the then known world, 1.6. in Spain. (3) As regards the order of events, Peter’s martyrdom seems to have preceded that of Paul; for, otherwise, the name of Paul would be mentioned first, since he is praised more at length, and with more high- sounding phrases, than is Peter, and seems to have been regarded by the author as the more important personality, either in general or in this particular regard. As the text stands, however, Paul’s name is inserted between that of Peter, of whom Clement says little, and the mention of a large number of Christian martyrs, men and women, whose sufferings are summarily referred to, without names (chap. vi.). Even if we did not know independently that Paul had not been in Spain prior to his imprisonment in Uxsarea and Rome, of which account is given in Acts, so that this journey, if it took place at all, must have followed his release from this imprisonment, and his martyrdom, if suffered in consequence of a judicial sentence, must have followed a second arrest after the Spanish journey,—in any case we should infer from the order of Clement’s sentences that Paul's Spanish journey took place at the very end of his life, and that he was arrested and brought before the authorities subsequent to the Spanish journey. Clement's general statement that these events happened within the memory of the generation living at the time when the letter was written (96 A.D.), agrees with the other traditions which place them in the reign of Nero; and this agreement is still further confirmed by the fact that from earliest times the impression could not be avoided that 62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the sufferings of Christian men and women in Rome, the story of which Clement relates immediately after the ae- count of the martyrdom of the two apostles, were the same as those described by Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44), and hinted at by Suetonius (Nero, xvi). The most that can be inferred from Clement’s statements is that the martyrdom of Peter aud of Paul, and the persecutions of the year 64, belong to the same period, and that is all that is affirmed by the earlier traditions (n. 8). Almost without exception, in this earlier tradition, the name of Peter precedes that of Paul, as in Clement, which would indicate that Peter's death preceded that of Paul; thus contradicting the view which arose after the middle of the fourth century, that the two apostles suffered martyrdom on the same day of the same year, the 29th of June. It can be shown that this story grew out of a Roman festival commemorative of the removal of the remains, or what were supposed to be the remains, of the two apostles to the Appian Way in the year 258 (n. 9); so that it can be left out of account in any attempt to determine the real date of the apostles’ death. The only thing which can be definitely concluded from the establishment of this festival in or near the year 258, is that up to the middle of the third century the Roman Church had no definite tradition regarding the exact date of the apostles’ martyrdom (n. 8). On the other hand, the memory of Paul’s journey to Spain lingered long (n. 7). In the Muratorian Canon Paul’s journey to Spain is put on exactly the same footing as the martyrdom, the circumstance that these two facts are not mentioned in Acts being adduced as proof that Luke confined his narrative in Acts to what he himself had experienced (n. 7). Although the fragmentist may be dependent, here as elsewhere, upon apocryphal accounts, he takes for granted that in the year 200 these two facts were commonly accepted in the eirele to which he belonged, i.e. in the Roman Church, or a Church closely associated THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 63 with the same. The Acts of Peter, which were certainly not written in Rome, and which embody Gnostic tendencies, are some thirty or forty years older. According to these legends, Paul, who had remained until then a prisoner in Rome, journeyed to Spain to preach the gospel there in consequence of a vision. During his absence in Spain, which did not cover a period of more than a year (ed. Lipsius, p. 46. 3), Peter came from Jerusalem to Rome, and after successful contests with Simon Magus was cruci- fied head downwards. Although in this account Peter’s departure from Jerusalem is set twelve years after the beginning of the apostolic preaching (p. 49. 22), Nero is declared to be the emperor in whose reign Peter worked and died in Rome (pp. 100. 15, 102. 2,103. 2). Likewise the martyrdom of Paul, which took place later than that of Peter, and which is referred to occasionally in these legends, is dated still in the reign of Nero (p. 46. 8). The testimony of the Acts of Paul, which show a catholie tendency, and are evidently of later date than Leucius’ Acts of Peter and John, is not so clear, and at this point the newly found Coptic fragments, which have been recently published, do not furnish any more light (n. 10). That as time went on the tradition concerning Paul’s liberation from his first protracted imprisonment, the resumption of his missionary work, and another arrest shortly before his execution, should gradually die out, is not to be wondered at. There was no connected account of these events which was regarded as trustworthy. In the West, confusion was caused especially by the Roman legend about the simultaneous martyrdom of Paul and Peter. This legend certainly made it difficult to find a place for so important a period of Paul’s career subsequent to the time when Philippians was written as was required by the tradition of the first and second centuries. The testimony of this earlier tradition is, however, quite independent of that which we have in the Epistles to 64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Timothy and Titus. The latter tell us of extended journeys which Paul made in the East (Crete, Macedonia, Miletus, Ephesus (?), Corinth (?), Nicopolis), after he was freed from his first imprisonment. There is only one passage which would indicate any considerable extension of Paul’s mis- sionary work at this time, namely, 2 Tim. iv. 17; and from this passage it must be inferred that Paul pressed westward from Rome in order to do missionary work. On the other hand, in the tradition traced from Clement to the Muratorian Canon nothing is said of a tour among the Churches in the East after Paul was released from his imprisonment, while the fact that after being set at liberty Paul preached in Spain—a fact which we learn from 2 Tim. iv. 16 f. only after careful interpretation and correct infer- ence—is clearly stated. Taken together, these two entirely independent witnesses furnish a trustworthy historical picture. Such a relation subsisting between documents which at latest must have been written at the beginning of the second century, and a tradition first vouched for by a witness living at the end of the first century, proves that both rest upon yet older foundations, namely, upon an account of the close of Paul’s life which was circulated in the decades immediately following his death. To suppose that this account was drawn from Rom. xv. 24, 28, rather than from fact, is unreasonable on several grounds, (1) No one could help but recognise that the hopes which Paul there expresses remained in large part unfulfilled. At that time Paul hoped in the following summer to journey from Palestine to Italy, and after a short stay in Rome to visit Spain. Instead, he reached Rome in the spring of the year 61 a prisoner, and remained there for years; so that no one would have felt tempted by Rom. xv. 24, 28 to invent the story of his subsequent visit to Spain. Only let it be remarked in passing that if the chapter in which this passage is found was appended to Romans in the interval between Paul’s death and THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 65 the time of Marcion (vol. i. 379 f.), the passage is strong proof that Paul did actually go to Spain, For, while it is perfectly natural for Paul himself to talk of plans and hopes which were never carried out nor realised, it is inconceivable that statements of this kind should be put into his mouth after his life had ended, without his having gone to Spain. (2) There is not the slightest sug- gestion in Rom, xv. which would occasion the invention of the later journeys in the Hast presupposed in the “ Pastoral Epistles.” If these journeys were invented on the strength of Phil. i. 25f., 1, 24, Philem. 22, we should find mentioned in the ‘ Pastoral Epistles” Philippi and Colossee, not Crete, Miletus, and Nicopolis. (3) It is inconceivable that Clement and the other younger con- temporaries of Paul, especially Romans of their generation, should have formed their conception of the last events in the apostle’s life from a very arbitrary interpretation of one or more passages in Paul’s Epistles, rather than from their own recollection of the events. In view of all this we are led to conclude that Paul was set at liberty by the imperial court, as he so confidently expected when he wrote Philippians, and not long after this letter was written visited the East again and preached the gospel in Spain, before he was arrested a second time in Rome and put to death. Regarding the order of these events we can do no more than make conjectures. The consideration suggested (vol. i. 547 f.) in favour of the view that Paul visited the Churches in the East in the summer of 63 shortly after he was released, preaching in Spain later, must give way before the stronger reasons which make the reverse order seem probable. The statements of 2 Tim. iv. 13, 20 would seem to be in the highest degree un- natural, if between the events there mentioned, namely, the sojourn of Paul in Miletus (Corinth?) and Troas and the writing of 2 Tim., there intervened not only the winter in Nicopolis (Tit. ui. 12), a second arrest in Rome, and VOL, II. 5 66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the journey of Onesiphorus to Rome (2 Tim. i. 16), but also missionary work in Spain, which must have occupied at least several months. Assuming, as we must from Phil. ii. 19-23 (vol. i. 547 £.), that when his trial was completed Paul did not leave Rome at once, but awaited the return of Timothy, whom he did not send to Philippi until his ease was deeided, at the very earliest he could not have gone to Spain until the autumn of the year 63. Possibly he did not reach his destination until the spring of the year 64. In neither case could the winter which he planned to spend in Nicopolis at the close of his extended journeys in the East (Tit. iii. 12) have been the winter of 63-64, hardly that of 64-65; for in the latter case it would be necessary to compress the missionary work in Spain and the tour of the Eastern Churches all into a single year, from autumn 64 to autumn 65, if indeed it be not necessary to crowd both these extended journeys, which lay in opposite directions and required much time for the fulfilment of their objects, into the summer of 64. If for this reason the winter spent in Nieopolis could not have been prior to 65-66, then the winter 66-67 is the earliest winter at the beyinning of which the imprisoned Paul could have hoped to have Timothy with him in Rome (2 Tim. iv. 21). If events happened as Paul ex- pected they would when he wrote his last letter, he was still alive at the beginning of the winter of 66-67, but suffered martyrdom not very long afterward. In accord- ance with the results of the preceding investigations, the following is suggested as the probable order in which the events following the imprisonment recorded in Acts took place. If Timothy returned to Rome from Philippi in the autumn of 63, Paul set out upon his journey to Spain either immediately or at latest in the spring of 64. If the statement of the Acts of Peter, that his work in Spain covered a year, be accepted, he left there at the earliest in the autumn of 64, or possibly in the spring of 65, in THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 67 order to carry out the other part of his plan—the promised visiting of his Eastern Churches. Whether he stopped in Rome, where in the autumn of 64 the Christians there suffered such severe persecution (above, p. 57 f.), or passed by Rome on his way to the East, going possibly to Apol- lonia and thence to Philippi by the Via Eenatia, no one knows. Nor can it be determined with any degree of probability in what order he reached the various points visited upon this last journey (Corinth (?), Crete, Mace- donia, Troas, Ephesus (?), Miletus). Since Timothy had been for some time in Ephesus when Paul made this journey in the summer of 65 (above, p- 57 f.), he apparently did not accompany him to Spain, but during this time was engaged in carrying out Paul’s commission in Ephesus. The winter of 65-66, or the end of it, Paul and Titus seem to have spent in Nicopolis. When Paul started in the spring of 66 from Nicopolis for Italy, Titus may have set out from the same point on his preaching tour in the neighbouring district. of Dalmatia. Paul’s second arrest after his return to Rome, the journey of Onesiphorus to Rome, and the writing of 2 Tim., belong in the summer of 66. Paul was beheaded on the Ostian Way not before the end of the year 66, but at the latest before the death of Nero (June 9th, 68). 1. (P. 55.) Aceording to Heydenreich, Pastoralbr. i. 7 (anno 1826), the name “ Pastoral Epistles” has been applied to the letters to Timothy and Titus “from the remotest times.” But the present writer cannot find the name in either Bengel, J. D. Michaelis, Semler, Schleiermacher (1807), or Planck (Bemerkungen über den 1 Tim. gegen Schleiermacher, 1808) ; on the contrary, it appears first in P. Anton, Exeget. Abh. der Pastoralbriefe S. Pauli, 2 Teile, Halle, 1753, 1755, then in Wegscheider, Der 1 Tim. 1810, S. vi; Eichhorn, Einl. iii. 315 (1812). In a measure it is appropriate for 1 Tim. and Tit., but not at all for 2 Tim. In the ancient Church, passages like 1 Tim. iii. 1-7 and Tit. i. 5-9 were read on the oceasion of the choice and ordination of bishops and elders (Polycarpi vita, by Pionius, xxii.; ef. the Jacobite liturgy in the Revue de ?Orient chretien, i. 2 [1896], p. 10). Bengel, in the Gnomon, on 1 Tim. i. 2 still follows the isagogies of the aneient Church (GK, ii. 75 tf.), and groups together rather the four letters which Paul addressed to individuals. 2. (P. 55.) In reference to the last events of Paul’s life, ef. especially 68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Hormann, NT, v. 3-17; Sprrra, Zur Gesch. u. Liter. des Urchristentums, i, 1- 108 ; STEINMETZ, Die zweite röm. Gefangenschaft des Ap. Paulus, 1897 ; also the remarks of RAnkE, Weltgesch. iii. 1. 191f.; Erpes, Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus und Petrus, 1899 (Texte τι. Unters., N. Folge, iv. 1), treats the Biblical accounts and those of the early Church in a manner so defective, high-handed, and superficial, that the present writer must here forego a refutation of his position. 3. (P. 55.) Acts xx. 25, 38 was turned to account by Baur long ago as an argument against a release from the first Roman imprisonment (Pastoral- briefe, 92 ff.). The emphasis here is not upon the contrast between what Paul does not know (xx. 22) and what he really knows, but between the vague suggestions of prophetic utterances (xx. 23) and what Paul himself (ἐγώ must not be overlooked) knows. He knows what his future relation to the Ephesians will be; he does not know what will befall him in Jerusalem. The former, then, must be independent of the latter, and οὐκέτε ἔψεσθε κτλ. holds good even if he loses neither freedom nor life in Jerusalem. Besides, this phrase does not mean that none of the elders of Ephesus will ever see him again; Paul makes this statement not of them, but of all the Christians of those regions among whom he had gone about during the last years. Now the prediction that none of these many Christians would ever see him again before his death would certainly not be put in the apostle’s mouth ex eventu; for Christians from Asia, eg. Tychicus, Epaphras, and Onesiphorus, did actually see Paul when a prisoner in Rome, Then οὐκέτι has not the same meaning as οὐ πάλιν, but implies that an end has now come to the personal intercourse which Paul has kept up for years, though not uninterruptedly, with the Christians of Ephesus and with the Churches of the province of Asia. At the same time nothing at all is said as to how long a time the negative shall retain its force, and the possibility is in no wise excluded that a time will come again when Paul will resume personal intercourse with the Churches of Asia. Cf. John xvi. 10 and xvi. 19. All that is said is that what has existed so long now terminates. It is a parting for a long time, but not necessarily for ever. 4, (P. 57.) According to Acts xxviii. 21, the Sanhedrin had done noth- ing to secure the co-operation of the Jews in Rome in its prosecution of Paul up to his arrival in that city. These Jews were ready enough at other times to lend a hand in affairs of this kind, cf. Jos. Ant. xvii. 11. 1; Bell. τὶ. 6.1; Vita, 3; Philo, Leg. ad Cat. xxiii, 5. (P. 58.) The conflagration began in the night of July 18-19, was extinguished six days later (July 24), but then broke out afresh and burned several days longer (Tac. Ann. xv. 38-41 ; Suet. Nero, xxxviii.; Bus, Chron, anno Abr, 2079, incendia mulia). Then followed, according to Tacitus’ de- scription, several things which must have taken time before the Christians were attacked (Tac. Ann. xv. 44), e.g. care for the homeless, beginning of the rebuilding, religious expiatory rites (ec. xlii-xliv. mid-year, ef. chap. xlv. “ interea,” chap. xlvi. “per idem tempus,” chap. xlvii. “fine anni”). All this, however, falls within the year 64. 6. (P. 60.) After recounting a number of Biblical examples of righteous men who had to suffer from the jealousy of the unrighteous, Clement writes, chap. v. 1: ἀλλ᾽ va τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑποδειγμάτων παυσώμεθα, ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 69 ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς" λάβωμεν τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα. 2. διὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον οἱ μέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι στύλοι ἐδιώχθησαν καὶ ἕως θανάτου ἤθλησαν. 3. λάβωμεν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῶν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἀποστόλους. 4. Πέτρον, ὃς διὰ ζῆλον ἄδικον οὐχ ἕνα οὐδὲ δύο ἀλλὰ πλείονας ὑπήνεγκεν πόνους, καὶ οὕτω μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης. 5. διὰ ζῆλον καὶ ἔριν Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ἔδειξεν. 6. ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φυγαδευθείς, λιθασθείς, κῆρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν. 7. δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, ὑπομονῆς γενύμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. With regard to this, we may remark; (1) The text here given, which, aside from slight changes of punctuation, follows Gebhardt-Harnack (cf. Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 25, and Spitta, Urchrist. i. 51, 57), is confirmed in all essentials by the Latin trans- lation since discovered, though it cannot be decided from the ostendit of the Latin translation whether we should read ἔδειξεν (Cod. ©), or ὑπέδειξεν, or possibly ἐπέδειξεν (cf. Clem. Alex. in Cramer’s Cat. vii. 426, and Euthalius, ed. Zacagni, 522, ἐπιδείξασθαι, in a similar connection). (2) Since in phrases like λαμβάνειν, ἔχειν, τιθέναι πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν (Polyb. ii. 35. 8; Epict. Diss. i. 16. 27, iv. 10. 31; Iren. iii. 3. 3), and in all similar expressions (ev χερσίν, πρὸ ποδῶν), the Greeks are not accustomed to append a possessive genitive of the personal pronoun, it is exceedingly improbable that Clement intended the ἡμῶν of 8 3 to be taken with ὀφθαλμῶν. Rather, he calls Peter and Paul “our good apostles”—the apostles of the Romans and likewise of the Corinthians, whom he is addressing (chap. xlvii. 3f.; Dion. Corinth., quoted in Eus. H.E. ii. 25. 8; Iren. iii. 1.1, 3. 2,3; GK, i. 806, A. 4), And he gives ἡμῶν an emphatic position before τοὺς... ἀποστόλους (cf. per contra, chap. xliv. 1, of ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν), because he wishes to single them out as the apostles who stood in closest relation to the Romans (and Corinthians). They are οἱ ἔγγιστα γενόμενοι ἀθληταί in the first place with regard to time (τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν), and also with regard to the place where they received the victors prize for their patience, namely, Rome. Likewise the ev ἡμῖν in chap. vi. 1 (cf. lv. 2) is meaningless, unless we are to understand Rome as the place where the Christian martyrs who followed Peter and Paul were put to death. If Clement is here bidding the readers picture to themselves the whole body of apostles, it is incomprehensible why he should say nothing of the execution of James the son of Zebedee (Acts xii. 2), of John’s exile, and of other sufferings of the apostles about which tradition gives us less certain knowledge, or at least why he should not indicate by a com- prehensive καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι that these are meant. The construction and interpretation given above of ἡμῶν τοὺς ἀποστόλους, and that alone, explains this silence. He is speaking only of the two apostles of whom, at the outset, he bade the readers think as “our good apostles,” (8) That Clement possessed information about Peter and Paul not derived from books is clear from his own historical position (above, p. 60), and is also confirmed by the ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας. It is hard to see why this number should point to the existence of a comprehensive written account from which it was taken (so Spitta, Urchrist. i. 51). Paul found occasion once, while writing, to express the repetition of similar experiences in numbers (2 Cor. xi. 24f.) ; 70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT but there is no reason why he may not have done the very same thing in orai narratives, and his friends likewise. At any rate, the statement is not drawn from sources preserved to us. Adding the five scourgings by the Jews (2 Cor. xi. 24) to the two imprisonments in Cxsarea and Rome does not give seven imprisonments, as Zeller, ThJb, 1848, S. 530, thought (cf. also Hilgenfeld, Clem. Ep. ed. 2, p. 90). With just as good reason the thrice repeated beating with rods (2 Cor. xi. 25) could be transformed into three imprisonments to help along such addition. In 1900, without any idea that Mommsen (Z4/NTIV, 1901, 8. 84, A. 1) would really work it out, the present writer published the suggestion, that the seven imprisonments of Clement were to be explained as due to the addition of πεντάκις and τρίς, at the same time assuming a confusion of seven and eight. Blass, Ν᾿ ΚΖ, 1895, 8. 721, elaims that these seven imprisonments are to be found in Acts, namely, (1) in Philippi (Acts xvi. 23) ; (2) in Jerusalem ; (3) in Caesarea under Felix ; (4) under Festus; (5) on the voyage ; (6) in Rome; and in addition to these (7) the second Roman imprisonment, from which 2 Tim. dates. But this cannot be even artificially done. Nos. 2-6 represent only a single period in which Paul bore chains continuously, except for very brief interruptions (Acts xxii. 30, and perhaps xxvii. 42-44), which Acts touches upon only lightly, or leaves altogether to conjecture. There is no basis either in the text of Acts or in the nature of the case for distinguishing Nos. 3, 4, 5. Nor is it correct to hold that Clement presupposed on the part of the Corinthians an acquaint- ance with these facts, which in its turn would imply that Acts was the common source of the knowledge then extant in Rome and Corinth. In this case Clement would have contented himself with a general statement about Paul’s imprisonments, as he has done in all the other particulars. The faet that he writes ἑπτάκις and not πολλάκις proves independent knowledge of Paul’s life history. According to 2 Cor. xi. 23 (ev φυλακαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως), Paul had suffered, even before his arrest in Jerusalem, several imprisonments of no trifling kind beside that in Philippi. If Clement regarded the confinement beginning in Jerusalem and ending in Rome as a single imprisonment, and if he knew of a second Roman imprisonment ending with death, there are still five left which Paul may have had in mind in 2 Cor. xi. 23. Of these we know only the one in Philippi (Acts xvi.). (4) The word μαρτυρεῖν in Clement does not by itself mean “to die a martyr’s death,” as it does not infrequently after the middle of the second century (Mart. Polye. xix. 1, ef. Lightfoot, op. cit, 26), but rather “to bear witness.” This is proved by the added phrase, ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, ὃ 7, which, since it designates no particular persons as the rulers at that time, cannot be intended to indicate the date, like ἐπὶ Κύρου βασιλέως, ἐπὶ Πεισιστράτου ἄρχοντος, or like ἐπὶ Tovriov Πιλάτου (ma@dvra or σταυρω- θέντα) in the Apostles’ Creed, Its meaning is rather coram magistratibus which does not suit the act of execution, but is appropriate enough in de- scribing a spoken testimony and confession (ef. 1 Tim, vi. 13). As far as this expression itself goes, it might include each and every confession which Paul had ever witnessed before any magistrates, whether in Philippi, Jerusalem, Csesarea, or Rome (so Hofmann, v. 71; Spitta, i. 57). The context, how- ever, makes it plain that Clement here has in mind the last confession of both apostles, the confession which resulted immediately in their execution. THE LAST THREE; EPISTLES OF PAUL 71 Even earlier, in $ 2, ἕως θανάτου does not mean “as long as they lived,” in which case it would stand before ἐδιώχθησαν, but characterises the death of the apostles as the culmination of sufferings undeserved but patiently endured, 2.e. as martyrdom (ef. Phil. ii. 8). Paul’s death is the theme of the very first sentence which treats of him (§ 5), and forms the closing thought in both of the sentences co-ordinated with this, §§ 6, 7. Further, in § 4 we have two parts: First, a summary reference to Peter’s sufferings ; second, an account of his entrance into glory. These parts are separated by οὕτως, which implies that the former is the presupposition of the latter. μαρτυρήσας, then, since it follows οὕτως, is so closely connected with the statement about Peter’s death that it is best to translate; “And so (at the end of a life of such suffering and because of it) did he, bearing witness, proceed to the well- deserved place of glory.” In the corresponding statement about Paul, indeed, while οὕτως, as before, brings to an end the description of his life, and indicates this life experience as the presupposition of his death, μαρτυρήσας precedes this adverb instead of following it. The “ testimony before the rulers” seems therefore to be viewed as an incident in the course of his life, not as a circumstance connected with his death. But (1) it is the very last incident in his life story. And (2) οὕτως necessarily refers in particular to that event in Paul’s previous life last mentioned : “So (£.e. not, therefore, without having first borne witness before the rulers) was he re- leased from the world.” (3) The meaning of μαρτυρήσας must be the same in $7asin$4. While (4) ἡγούμενοι is used of all persons who have a share in the government (Acts vii. 10; Clem. 1 Cor. xxxii. 2, xxxvii. 2; in Ixi. 1 the emperor himself is included, though in xxxvii. 3 he is mentioned separately), even within the community of the Church (Acts xv. 22; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24; Clem. 1 Cor. i. 3); where, however, as here, there is no definite specification, local or otherwise, οἱ ἡγούμενοι can refer only to the supreme authority in Rome (Clem, 1 Cor. Ixi. 1; Altertümer von Pergamum, viii. 2. 347, Inscription No. 356, and the inscription cited there from the Bull. de Vor. hellen. ix. 75). At the same time, if Clement had known of a personal meeting between Paul and Nero on the occasion of Paul’s second legal defence, he certainly would not have failed, when speaking of the magistrates with whom Paul as the accused had to do, to mention the emperor (cf. xxxvii. 3, li. 5, lv. 1; Mark xiii. 9; 1 Tim. ii. 2; 1 Pet. ii. 14, 17, but particularly Acts xxvii. 24). With reference to chap. vi., ef. the commentaries of Lightfoot and Harnack, and above, p. 60. It is true that τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσι... συνηθροίσθη πολὺ πλῆθος ἐκλεκτῶν means not only that these many, like the apostles, have died as martyrs or entered into blessedness, but also that this great multitude have joined them- selves to the apostles—have gathered about them (cf. 1 Kings xi. 24; 1 Mace. i. 55). This could be said all the more aptly of the victims of the Neronian persecution, if one of the two apostles, namely, Peter, was actually a victim of this persecution (§ 39); but even if this were not the case, it would be appropriate in a comprehensive retrospect like this if the death of Peter and of Paul only fell somewhere within the time of Nero. Just as for the German nation the years 1813-1815, with their triumphs, heroes, and victims, form the one epoch of the War of Liberation, although a period of peace divides this war into two unequal parts, so to the Christians of the year 96 the martyrdoms of 64-67 meant a single group of struggles and sufferings, upon 72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which a peace of thirty years had ensued. (5) Anyone who divides the then known world or the Roman world empire into East and West, as Clement does here, must necessarily assign Italy and Rome to the West ; for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas formed the natural boundary between the two parts of the empire, and were actually regarded as the boundary (Monu- mentum Ancyr. v. 31, ef. Mommsen, Res geste Augusti?, p. 118; ‘Treaty of Brundisium between Antony and Octavian, 40 B.c., in which Scondra [Seutari] was established as the boundary, Appian, Bell. civ. v. 64; Plut. Antonius, xxx.). Clement could have said, then, simply with reference to Paul’s preaching in Rome, that he had preached in the West as well as in the East (v. 6; ef. Ign. Rom. 11. 2; pseudo-Clement, ad Jac. i.; Jul. Afrie. Chron. ; Routh, Rel.2 v. 264. 7), and perhaps also, considering the rhetorical character of the passage, that Paul had taught the whole world righteous- ness (v. 7). But when Clement goes even beyond this last expression, and adds, plainly in order to define it more closely, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών, he evidently means that Paul carried his preaching beyond Rome, where Clement is writing, to the very limit of the western half of the then known world, or, in other words, to the westernmost boundary of the lands bordering the Mediterranean, i.e. to Spain. The boundary of the West is the Atlantic Ocean, cf. Appian, Bell. civ. v. 64, τὰ δὲ ἐς δύσιν τὸν Καίσαρα (ἔχειν) μέχρι ὠκεανοῦ. The situation of Gades is described by Vell. Patere. i. 2, as in ultimo Hispanie tractu, in extremo nostri orbis termino ; by Philostr. vita Apoll. v. 4, a8 κατὰ τὸ τῆς Εὐρώπης τέρμα. Cf. Strabo, pp. 67, 106, 137, 169, 170; Appian, procem. iii; Hispan. i.; Eus. v. Const. 1, 8. 2-4; Credner, Gesch. d. Kan. 53; Gams, Kirchengesch. Spaniens, i. 11-16; Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 30. Paul had come from the East, and so from this standpoint Clement could not possibly have called Rome the (as respects the East) limit of the West (so Hilgenfeld, Apost. Väter, 109) ; for τέρμα denotes, not the point or line where something begins, but the point or line where something ends ; ef. Polyb. xl. epil. 14, mapayeyovores ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα ὅλης τῆς mpayparelas=ro τέλος, opp. to ἀρχή ; Epiph. Her. xxix. 8, ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς βίβλου, Or in a geographical connection, Herod. vii. 54, ἐπὶ τέρμασι τοῖσι ἐκείνης (sc. τῆς Εὐρώπης), in contrast to the Hellespont, the crossing of which marked Xerxes’ first entrance into Europe. Besides, on Malta and in Puteoli, Paul was already in the West before he came to Rome. It is equally impossible for τὸ τέρμα to mean the goal of Paul’s life, or of the course set before him, so that τῆς δύσεως would merely signify that this goal was in the West, de. in Rome (essentially this view is held by Baur, Pastoralbr. 63 ; Paulus, i. 264 ; Hilgenfeld, Einl. 349 ; Otto, Gesch. Verh. der Pastoralbr. 167). Since it was unavoidable that every unbiassed reader would take the genitive with τὸ τέρμα as the designation of the territory of which it was the boundary, Clement must have expressed such a thought in other language, possibly by καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τοῦ βίου (τοῦ δρόμου) ἐλθών. Further, to take τῆς δύσεως attributively (=rö ἐν τῇ δύσει) would force upon us the absurd idea of a western, in contradistinction to an eastern, end of Paul’s life. Nor can it avail here to recall to mind the circus with its double meta ; for Clement must have said that the world is a circus, and that the second meta, the goal of the race, lies in the western part of this circus, if he wished to be under- stood, There is no better ground for the claim, which Lipsius seems to THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 73 have made up to the very end of his life (Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 1. 13 : alse Hesse, Hirtenbriefe, 247), that “the boundary of the West” must denote the same place as that in which Paul “bore witness before the rulers,” and in which he “ was released from the world.” In reaching the limit of the West, Paul did not necessarily reach at the same time the end of his life also. He may quite well have turned back, and, so far as this phrase is concerned, may have died in Jerusalem. The participles διδάξας, ἐλθών, μαρτυρήσας, just like the participles in § 6, describe what Paul did or suffered before his death, without placing the individual acts in any more definite relation to one another. 7. (P. 62.) Can. Mur. line 37, “sicuti et semote (-ta) passionem (-ne) Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem (-ne) Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis” ; ef. GK, ii. 6, 56 f., 141; Spitta, Urchrist. i. 60-64. - Con- cerning the Gnostic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, pp. 45-103), ef. GK, ii. 832-855. The approximate date of its composition can be determined only on the presupposition—which is hardly to be contested, however—that it is very intimately connected with the Acts of John, and was written, if not by the same author, then at least by one of similar views, and at the same time a fellow-worker ; such a view is supported both by the similarity of their content and by the general consensus of tradition; cf. GK, ii. 839 ff., 858, 860; James, Anecd. apocr. ii. (Texts and Studies, vol. v. Cambridge, 1897) pp. xxivf., 151f. The new fragments of the Acts of John, published partly in the book just cited, pp. 1-25, and partly by Bonnet (together with the earlier known passages in Acta Apost. apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 1, pp. 151-216), show, as in spite of many objections the present writer still maintains, that the alleged author “ Leucius” was a Valentinian, who, however, considered it advisable to speak the language of his school openly in only a few passages. The date of composition, then, is probably as deter- mined by the present writer, circa 160-170 A.D. (cf. GK, ii. 864; NKZ, 1899, S. 210-218). With regard to the probable dependence of the Can. Mur. upon the Acts of Peter and of John, see GK, ii. 36-38, 844, 862 f. According to the Acts of Peter, Paul’s release from his first imprisonment was not the result of a judicial decision, but the jailer, Quartus, who had become a Chris- tian, * permansit (read permisit) Paulo ut ubi vellet iret ab urbe” (Lipsius, 45. 6). Paul received the direction to go to Spain through a vision after having fasted three days (“ jejunans triduo,” 45. 8; cf. 63. 11, and Can. Mur. line 10). As soon as the Roman Christians besought Paul not to forget them and not to stay away long (“ut annum plus non abesset,” p. 46. 3), there came the voice from heaven with regard to Paul: “inter manus Neronis .. . sub oculis vestris consummabitur,” p. 46.8. Many accompanied him to the place of embarkation, and two youths sailed with him to Spain (p. 48. 8, 17). Reference is made to this journey also in a later passage (51. 26, “ Paulus profectus est in Spaniam,” ef. 45. 10, “qui in Spania sunt”; 45. 12, “ut proficisceretur ab urbe”; ef. Can. Mur. ]. 38); there is also an allusion to his return to Rome after Peter’s death (p. 100. 13). It should be added that at about the time of Paul’s journey to Spain, Timothy and Barnabas set forth from Rome for Philippi on a commission from Paul (p. 49. 9), which is elearly an elaboration of Phil. ii. 19. Concerning the Acts of Paul, see below, n. 10. This ancient tradition is confirmed also by the words ἐλθόντος 74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT eis τὴν Ῥώμην τοῦ ἁγίου Παύλου ἀπὸ τῶν Σπανιῶν (pp. 118. 3, 120. 12), at the beginning of the combined Acts of Peter and Paul, according to which both apostles die as martyrs on June 29th of the same year (Lipsius, 176. 5). Thie work has not only lost track of the original significance of the festival on that day, but proceeds to invent tales on the basis of a misinterpretation of the inseription, “ad catacumbas,” which the bishop Damasus caused to be put upon the common tomb of the two apostles (p. 174, see below, n. 9). It could not, therefore, have been written earlier than 400 A.D. Origen (quoted in Eus. A. E. iii. 1) deseribes Paul’s missionary activity in the apostle’s own words, Rom. xv. 19; but naturally it does not follow from this that he knew nothing of the journey to Spain, or that he gave no credence to the story. We might conclude with as much reason that Origen intended by this use of Rom. xv. 19 to give the lie to the statements in the N.T, about Paul’s preach- ingin Rome. Whether or not Origen refers to the Spanish journey in Hom. xiii. in Gen. (Delarue, ii. 95), as Spitta, i. 84, thinks, is not quite clear. Of the later writers who speak definitely of the journey to Spain may be mentioned : Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xvii. 26, probably in dependence upon Clement’s letter, with which he was acquainted ; ef. Cat. xviii. 9; Spitta, i. 55); Epiphanius (Her. xxvii. 6); Ephrem Syr. (Expos. ev. concord. 286, “ Paulus ab urbe Jeru- salem usque ad Hispaniam [predicavit]); Chrysostom, who had read the Acts of Paul several times and placed confidence in it (GK, ii. 886) (de laud. Pauli hom. vii. ; act. ap. hom. lv. ; 2 Tim. hom. x. ; epist. Hebr. hypoth., Montfaucon, ii. 516, ix. 414, xi, 724, xii. 2) ; Theodoret in Phil. i. 25 and 2 Tim. iv. 17. The Acta Xanthippe et Polyxene (Apocr. anecd., ed. James, 1893, i. 58-85), which, at the very outset, is clearly dependent upon the Gnostic Acts of Peter (Lipsius, 45. 10), makes Paul go from Rome to Spain and stay there several months at least, while Peter journeys from the East to Rome to thwart Simon Magus (James, op. cit. 75. 6). The groundlessness of the opinion that the tradition of the Spanish journey and of the second Roman imprisonment has arisen from Rom, xv. 24, 28, can be seen from the fact that important defenders of the view that Paul was twice imprisoned in Rome do not men- tion Spain at all, but merely speak in general of a resumption of missionary preaching in the interval between the two imprisonments; so Kus. H. E. ii. 22, 2 (see below, n. 8), the real Euthalius, circa 350, who reckoned the in- terval at ten years (Zacagni, 532), and Theodore (Swete, i. 116 f., 205 f., ii. 191, 231). Jerome also, who in the main follows Eus. H. E. ii. 22, only hints indefinitely at Spain in the words “in oceidentis partibus” (Vir. Il. v. ; ef. the Prologue in Thomasius, ed. Vezzosi, i. 382f.). In his commentary on Isa. viii, 23, ix. 1 (Vall. iv. 130), Jerome is not giving his own view, but is reporting in direct discourse the view of the Nazarenes, who saw a fulfilment of that prediction in Paul’s extended preaching activity (“in terminos gentitum et viam universi maris Christi evangelium splenduit”). If Jerome reports them correctly, these Jewish Christians, removed from the world as they were, certainly knew that Paul travelled as far as Spain. Jerome gives this as a matter of personal knowledge in his comment on Isa. xi. (p. 164, “ad Italiam quoque et, ut ipse seribit, ad Hispanias alienigenarum portatus est navibus). The “ ut ipse seribit” can refer only to Rom. xv. 24, 28, not to 2 Tim. iv. 17. Jerome says the same thing again, tract. de ps. 1xxxiii, (Anecd. Maredsol. iii, 2. 80) after giving a free rendering of Rom. xv, 19-21: “deinde THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 75 dicit, quod de urbe Roma) ierit (al. iturus sit) ad Hispaniam.” In his careless fashion he mistakes the expression of the purpose for an attestation of its execution. But this is occasioned and in a measure excused by the contrast to the Hcclesiasticw historia (p. 163), in which we are told of the journeys of other apostles to Persia, India, and Kthiopia, The tradition about the Spanish journey finds its starting-point in Paul’s own words. Concerning ὁ. Helvid. iv., see Spitta, i. 92, But Jerome (Vir. Ill. i., v.), by accepting the Roman tradition of the simultaneous martyrdom of the two apostles on June 29th of the same year (below, n. 9), helped to spread an error which, by its contradiction of the older tradition, must have had a con- fusing effect ; since it necessarily led to a lengthening of Peter’s stay in Rome in a way quite unhistorical ($ 39, n. 5), or to a shortening of the last part of Paul’s life in a manner equally disregardful of the facts, Particular] y those who, like Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 28, 29), connected the alleged simultane- ous martyrdom of the two apostles with the burning of Rome in 64, could hardly withstand this temptation. Furthermore, the Roman Church had a political interest in the matter ; for in the year 416 Innocent 1. (Epist. xxv. 2) denied that any beside priests ordained by Peter or his successors had founded Churches in Italy, Gaul, Spain, or Africa, or in Sicily and the other islands of the West ; and he formally challenged those who claimed that another apostle had founded the Church in any one of these provinces to prove this by written records. It is plain that Innocent knew of such claims, The Spanish Church could not take up his challenge ; its literature begins with the Biblical poems of Juvencus, 330 a.p. No more than the Churches of Gaul and Africa did it possess a tradition concerning its origin based on documents. Since Rome had spoken and Spain had made no reply, Gelasius in 495 could State as a fact that Paul had never carried out his purpose of going to Spain, using this statement in defence of changes in the papal policy (Zp. xxx. 11, ed. Thiel, i, 444 ; cf. the opinion of the same Gelasius as to the time when the two apostles died, below, n. 9). Consequently it is almost a matter of sur- prise that not only Spaniards, like Isidorus (de Ortu et Obitu Patrum, chap. Ixix,, ed. Arevalus, v. 181), but also Gregory of Rome (Moral. xxxi, 103), ventured to speak again of Paul’s journey to Spain as an historical fact. 8. (P. 62.) Dionystus of Corinth, in his letter to the Romans and the bishop then in office, Soter (about 166-174 ap. ; Eus. H, E. ii. 25. 8; cf. iv, 23. 9-12) writes in terms not exactly elegant : ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης νουθεσίας τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν γενηθεῖσαν Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Κορινθίων συνεκεράσατε" καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν Κύρινθον φυτεύσαντες ἡμᾶς ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν. The present writer trauslates the last sentence : “ For both of them, planting (or founding a Church) also in our eity of Corinth, taught us (Corinthians) in like fashion (in a similar manner, in mutual agree- ment and harmony) ; and in like fashion (in the same harmonious manner) they taught also in Italy in the same place, and suffered a martyr’s death at the same time.” The words φυτεία, Purevew refer to 1 Cor. iii. 6 fF. ; cf, Acta Petri, ed. Lipsius, 88. 19. . The better known fact, and the one generally admitted, seems to be that Peter and Paul were the founders of the Roman Church. His emphatic claim that the same two apostles founded the Church in Corinth is perhaps based only on 1 Cor. i. 12, iii, 22. The repeated ὁμοίως 76 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT must naturally have the same meaning in both sentences. Therefore ὁμόσε certainly cannot mean “labouring together, working hand in hand,” a possible translation in other connections. This thought would presuppose, indeed, that they laboured at the same time, but that has been expressed already by ὁμοίως. We must take it rather in its original local sense as a reinforcement of eis τὴν Ἰταλίαν, and, so far as Italy is an extended territory containing various places, as a closer definition of it. εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην might be substituted for it. With regard to the thrice repeated use of a phrase of direction to indicate place in which, cf. Mark i. 39, xiii. 10, xiv. 9; Acts xxiil. 11 ; 2 Cor. x. 16. Whether both apostles preached at the same time is not the question in regard to Rome any more than in regard to Corinth. Besides, only a very heedless reader could find in the words of Dionysius any reference to a journey of the two apostles to Rome in company ; cf. Spitta i. 82. It is their deaths which are said to have oceurred at about the same time, nothing more. IreN&us regards the time when Peter and Paul were ergab in preaching the gospel at Rome, and in founding and building up the Church there, as a continuous period, which serves him as a time for dating the Gospel of Matthew. In speaking of the writing of Mark, he also makes a combined reference to the death of the two apostles (iii. 1. 1, 3. 2, 3). If he assumed a long interval between these two deaths, both statements would be impossible. No more can be inferred from it, however, than from a remark about the time when Hegel (1818-1831) and Schleier- macher (1810-1834) were teaching in Berlin, followed by another, in which reference is made to the time “after the death of the two great teachers.” The statement in a work about Peter and Paul, falsely attributed to Symeon Metaphrastes (Acta SS. Jun. v. 411 ff. ; ef. Lipsius, Ap. AG. ii. 1. 8-11; 217- 227), deserves attention. The unknown author appeals to many ancient writ- ings, correctly, e.g. (414), to Justin and Irenzus with reference to the statue of Simon Magus in Rome; to Eusebius not quite precisely (422), since the citation comes through Euthalius, who is not mentioned ; incorrectly (423) to Caius, Zephyrinus, and Dionysius. He writes, p. 4230 : λέγουσι δέ τινες προλαβεῖν μὲν τὸν Πέτρον ἐνιαυτὸν Eva καὶ τὸ μακάριον ἐκεῖνο καὶ δεσποτικὸν δέξασθαι πάθος, τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν προβάτων προθέμενον, ἀκολουθῆσαι δὲ τούτῳ τὸν μέγαν ἀπόστολον Τ]ὰαῦλον, ὡς Ἰουστῖνος καὶ Εἰρηναῖός φησιν, ἐφ᾽ ὅλοις ἔτεσι πέντε τὰς συνάξεις καὶ τὰς ἀντιθέσεις mpd τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν ἀναλύσεως καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ποιουμένους, καίγε τούτοις ἐγὼ μᾶλλον πείθομαι. If we understand aright these words, which are misinterpreted by Erbes (64) in such ineredible fashion, Ireneeus is adduced, along with Justin, as a witness not only for the fact that Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome one year later than Peter, which reminds us of the one year between Paul’s first and second Roman imprisonments in the Acts of Peter (above, p. 73, line 12 from end), but also for the further fact that the period during which Peter and Paul laboured at laying foundations in Rome (Irenaeus’ assumption, as we have seen above) lasted full five years in all. If Paul came to Rome in the spring of 61, he must have been executed in the spring of 66, and Peter a year earlier, ö.e in the spring of 65, This ealeulation is not far astray from the probable dates, especially if we may take the one year as a round number for a year and several months, TerruLiran is the first writer of repute who expressly assigns Peter's erucifixion and Paul’s beheading to the time of Nero, who, according to THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 77 Apol. v., was the first perseeutor of the Christians (Scorp. xv.; cf. Marc iv. 5; Preser. xxxvi.; Apol. xxi., discipul without mention of names ; more: over, Bapt. iv., Peter baptizing in the Tiber ; Preser. xxxii., Clement ordained by Peter). Tertullian hints in Scorp. xv. that he derived these faets from writings, the trustworthiness of which is by no means universally recognised. The words “quae ubicumque jam legero pati disco” cannot relate to the instrumenta imperit and the vite Cesaruwm, to which he has previously referred the heretics who doubt the duty of martyrdom (Prodieus, Valentinus ; ef. Heracleon, as quoted in Clem. Strom. iv. 71); for such details about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul are to be found not in these writings, but in the Acts of Peter and Paul, in distinction from the absolutely trustworthy canonical Acta which he has previously cited. Concerning Caius, see the following note. Hıproryrus, who was acquainted with the Acts of Paul (Comm. in Dan. 111. 29 ; ef. Niceph. H. H. ii. 25; GK, ii. 880; Bonwetsch, Stud. zu εἰ. Komment. des Hipp. 1897, 8. 27), touches upon the last part of the apostles’ life but once, and then only to say that Simon Magus in Rome opposed “the apostles,” z.e. Paul and Peter (Refut. vi. 20). ORIGEN (quoted in Eus. 4. E. iii. 1) knows that Peter was crucified head down- wards in Rome, and that Paul likewise suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero. The author of the work de Rebaptismate, written in Cyprian’s name, had read in a book, which he entitles Predicatio Pauli—probably the Acts of Paul—of a meeting of Paul and Peter in Rome (Cypr. Opp., ed. Vindob. Append. 90; GA, ii. 881 ff. ; but also ThLb, 1899, col. 316). Lactantius, Inst. iv. 21 (GK, ii. 884) probably draws from the same book his account of the preaching in Rome, and of the execution of both apostles by Nero. With regard to the latter event, he speaks more precisely in de Mort. Persee. ii. ; “cumque jam Nero imperaret, Petrus Romam advenit. ... (Nero) Petrum cruci affixit et Paulum interfecit.” Peter, bishop of Alexandria, says the same thing, and emphasises the fact that both apostles died in the same city, without, however, expressing himself more definitely as to the time (Epist. Canon. chap. ix.; Routh, lel. 5.2 iv. 34). Eusepius, who, in A. E. ii. 25. 5, iii. 21. 1, 31. 1, puts Paul before Peter, nevertheless follows the usual order at other times when he is speaking of their martyrdom or their tombs in Rome: Demonstr. Evang. iii. 5. 65; Theoph. Syr. iv. 7 (see following n.); v. 31 (not correctly translated by Lee, p. 315; the proper rendering is: “ Moreover, Simon Peter was crucified in Rome head down: wards [κατὰ κεφαλῆς}, and Paul was put to death, and John was con: signed to an island”). Cf. also the translation by Gressmann, $. 241, 25. After he has followed Paul’s history up to the end of Acts, he continues (H. E. ii. 22. 2): τότε μὲν οὖν ἀπολογησάμενον αὖθις ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος διακονίαν λόγος ἔχει στείλασθαι τὸν ἀπόστολον, δεύτερον δ᾽ ἐπιβάντα τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει τῷ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τελειωθῆναι μαρτυρίῳ. On the occasion of this second Roman imprisonment he wrote 2 Tim., which confirms this tradition by its reference to the first defence, as a result of which he was rescued from the clutches of Nero, ete. In his Church History, Eusebius refrains from making any more definite chronological statement, except to say that Paul’s death, as well as Peter’s, falls in Nero’s reign; and Theodore went too far when he claimed (Swete, i. 115)—plainly relying upon the arrangement of the material in Eus. H, E. ii, 25, 26—that Paul was executed at the time when the Jewish 78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT War broke out. In his Chronicwm, also, Eusebius shows that he has no more exact tradition at his command. According to the Armenian version (Schoene, ii. 156), he remarks under anno Abrah. 2083 (67 A.D.) : “ Nero super omnia delicta primus persecutiones in Christianos excitavit, sub quo Petrus et Paulus apostoli Rome martyrium passi sunt.” Jerome in his rearrangement of this work under anno Abrah. 2084 (68 A.D.), instead of the italicised words, writes persecutionem ... in qua, and in Vir, Ill. i. and v., puts the death of both apostles in the fourteenth year of Nero, which in the Chronicum eoin- cides with anno Abrah. 2084; but this must have been through a misunder- standing, or a forcing of Eusebius’ very carefully chosen expression. The same must have been the case with the real Euthalius earlier, about 350 a.p., when, appealing to Eusebius’ Chronicwm (Zacagni, 529), he places the death of Paul in the thirteenth year of Nero (p. 532), anno Abrah. 2083. Perhaps also it was in this way that Epiph. Her. xxvii. 6 came to make the statement that both apostles died in the twelfth year of Nero. Eusebius himself knows no more than what he says, namely, that Peter and Paul died under Nero, and does not intend that 67 shall be regarded as the year in which both apostles died, as is proved also by his remark at the year preceding (anno A brah. 2082= 66 A.D,), that Linus succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome. It was onlv his way of looking at the history, according to which the slaying of the Christians was the climax of Nero’s crimes (Eus. H. E. ii. 25. 2-5), that caused him im his Chronicum to place the persecution of the Christians at the end of that emperor’s reign. And even so, by speaking of persecutiones in the plural, he also acknowledges that what he has in mind is not a single event confined to a definite year. He puts the burning of Rome under anno Abrah. 2079 =63 A.D. (Jerome, anno Abrah. 3080 -- 64 A.D), and mentions Paul’s death incidentally under anno Abrah.2083=67 A.p. But since he could not make out a definite year for Paul’s death, either from tradition or by an artificial computation of the bishops’ terms of office, which perhaps served in Peter’s case, he con- tented himself with jotting down under the heading, “ Nero the Persecutor of the Christians,” that Paul, as well as Peter, suffered martyrdom under this emperor. 9. (P. 62.) The earliest information concerning 29th June as “ Peter and Paul’s Day” is found in the Roman Depositio martyrum of the year 336 (Lib. Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, i. 11); “iii, Kal. Jul. Petri in Cata- eumbas et Pauli Ostense Tuseo et Basso cons.” (258 a.p.). Alongside of this confused statement of the calendar should be placed rightly the statement, in itself also but slightly illumining, of the so-called Martyrol. Hieron. (ed. Duchesne et de Rossi, Acta SS. Nov. tom. ii. part 1, p. [84]: “iii, Kal. Jul. Roma Via Aurelia, Natale sanctorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli, Petri in Vaticano, Pauli vero in via Ostensi, utrumque in Catacumbas, passi sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus.” This clearly distinguishes three places at which the 29th of June was celebrated as Nutale,—the commemoration-day of Peter and Paul, as martyrs (ef. the Depos. Mart.; “xviii. Kal. Octob. Cypriani Africa, Rome celebratur in Callisti”). The three places are the Vatican Basilica, as specially connected with Peter, the St. Paul’s Church on the voad to Ostia, as connected with Paul, and the cemetery, called ad Catavewmbas by the Church of St. Sebastian, on the Via Appia in memory of both apostles. A hymn bearing the name of Ambrosium (cf. Dreves, Ambros. als Vater des Kirchengesangs, 8. THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 79 139, No. 15. 7) gives evidence that the processions on 29th of June visited all three places. The year 258, indieated by the consuls named in the Depositio and in the Martyrol. Hieron. is, of course, not the time of the apostles’ death, or of their first interment, but, just as in both of the in- stances, in which the Depositio designates a definite year by naming the consuls (xiv Kal. Jun. und x Kal. Oct.), denotes the time of a later trans- ference of the bones of the martyrs. Consequently we may regard it as certain that in the year 258 and, indeed, on the 29th of June of this year, the bones of both apostles were placed ad Catacwmbas, and that this has been the reason for the celebration of that particular day. For the month in the date given cannot be separated from the year. The former comes first, and the year, separated from it, forms the end of the statement. This is the simple and necessary result of the fact that the Depositio and the Martyrol. Hieron. are festival calendars for all years. Through a metrical inscription of the Pope Damasus (366-384) we know that the alleged or actual remains of the apostle rested for a long time ad Catacwmbas (Damasi Epigr. 26, ed. Ihm, p. 31; ef. Liber Pontif., ed. Duchesne, pp. 84, 85, 212). This inscription and the buildings erected there by Damasus, as well as the continued cele- bration of the 29th of June ad Catacumbas, at a time when the bones of Peter had long rested in the Vatican, and those of Paul on the road to Ostia, prove that their temporary common interment ad Catacwmbas had left a deep impression. This interment cannot have been for a short period, and the question arises, When did it end? As evident fables are to be rejected, the statements of Liber Pontifi. (pp. 66, 67, 150) that Pope Cornelius (251-253 A.D.) transferred the bodies of the two apostles from ad Catacumbas to their final resting places on the Via Ostia and in the Vatican ; and the traditions in the Syriac Acts of Sharbil (Cureton, Anc. Docum. 61 f.) that this occurred under Pope Fabian (236-250 a.p.) are untrustworthy ; for, according to the reliable date of the Depositio, the interment ad Catacumbas did not take place until 258, under Pope Sixtus τι. Just as worthless is the statement of a letter of the Areopagite, translated into Syriac and other languages, about the discovery of the head of Paul during the papacy of Sixtus (Xystus), but according to a Latin version during that of Fabellius (!), Pitra, Analecta, iv. 245, 267, 270, cf. Salomo Bassor. trans. by Schönfelder, p. 79). Depending solely on a mis understanding of the inscription of Damasus (cf. V. Schultze, Archäol. Stud. S. 242 ff; Lightfoot, S. Clement, ii. 50), the author of the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul makes the fantastie statement that the bodies of the apostles were interred on the Via Appia immediately after their death, but pro- visionally only for a year and seven months, while a worthier burial place was being built (Acta apost. apocr., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, 1. 174, more accu- rately in the accompanying Latin text, cf. also the second Greek recension, p. 221, where one year and six months are given). More reliable seems the account of the ancient Itineraries, that the remains rested for forty years ad Catacumbas (de Rossi, Roma Sot. i. 180). Since forty is a round number, one might always add a few years more to 298 (258 and 40), and find here the tradition that at the beginning of the fourth century the bodies were removed, one to the Vatican, and the other to the Via Ostiensis. This at all events is pretty near the historical truth. On the other hand, the opinion of Erhes is not tenable (Die Todestage der Apostel. 118, von de Wall, Koma Sacra, So INTRODUCTION TO ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT S. 85 et al), namely, that at the time of the Depositio of 336, and also of the chronographer of 354, who introduced the Depositio into his collected work, the remains of Peter still rested ad Catacwmbas, while the bones of Paul had already been transferred to the Ostian road. This view depends solely on the uncorrected text of the Depositio, which at all events does not state this clearly. Moreover, it has against it not only the later text, according to which Constantine the Great had the bones of Peter interred in St. Peter’s at the Vatican, and those of Paul in St. Paul’s on the Via Ostiensis (Liber Pontif. pp. 78, 79, 176, 178, 193-195 ; de Rossi, Inscr. Christ. ii. 20, 21, 345 f.), but most of all the testimony of Eusebius (t+ circa 340). Besides the less clear statements of his Church History (ii. 25, 5, iii. 31. 1), what Eusebius has to say in his Theoph. written about 330-340, and preserved only in Syriac, should not always be overlooked (ef. Lightfoot, Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 333 ; Gressmann, TU, N. F. viii. 3; also Theoph. Griechische Christliche Schrifteller, Eusebius, 2te Hälfte, 3te Bd., ed. Gressmann, p. xx*). In iv. 7 of this work Eusebius relates of Peter (inaccurately translated by Lee in the English trans. p. 221, more correctly by Gressmann, 8. 170) ; “His memory among the Romans up to the present time is greater than that of those who lived earlier ; so that he was honoured also with a magnificent mausoleum outside the city, and countless multitudes from all over the Roman Empire hasten to it as toa great sanctuary and temple of God.” (Cf. Jerome, Vir. Til. i: “Sepultus Rome in Vaticano juxta viam triumphalem, totius orbis veneratione celebratur”). After some remarks about the writings of John and about his grave, Eusebius continues : “So in like manner the writings of the apostle Paul also are made known throughout the world and enlighten the souls of men; moreover, the martyr-character of his death, and the mausoleum over him, are extraordinarily and splendidly praised in the city of Rome until this day.” From this it is evident (1) that about 330-340 Peter and Paul were no longer resting together, 1.6. ad Catacwmbas, but each had his own particular memorial church in separate places. (2) Eusebius, who of course knew of the Basilica Petri at the Vatican, built by Constantine, can have meant nothing else than this by the memorial church which he so pompously described. He certainly could not have referred to the unpre- tentious tombs of both apostles on the Via Appia. Moreover, St. Peter’s at the Vatican stood “outside the city.” (3) Constantius, while he was ruling in the West (351-361), may have added so much to the adornment of St. Peter’s, built by his father, that he could pass for the finisher of the edifice ; it was, however, not at that date that the remains of Peter were interred in the Vatican basilica, but before the writing of the Theoph., in fact, according to the description of Eusebius, considerably earlier, therefore certainly before 330. Accordingly, the text of the Depositio is badly mutilated, and is to be corrected by other traditions; an et Pauli has fallen out after Petri, and similarly, by an ocular error—a mistake more casily explainable—a Petri in Vaticano has fallen out before et Pauli, and, further, an in via before Ostense. Moreover, even after such a restoration of the text, this statement of the calendar gives evidence of a misunderstanding of the tradition which it con- tains. It is quite impossible for the reader to see which of the facts stated concerns the date “June 29... under the consuls Tuseus and Bassus,” while the author himself seems no longer to have known it. At least the THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL δὶ chronographer of 354, who inserted the calendar of martyrs in his compila- tion, takes the 29th of June (naturally not of the year 258, but of the year 55) as the common date of the death of Peter and Paul, both in the catalogue of Roman bishops—the so-called Oatalogus Liberianus—and in the Fasti Consul. (Mommsen, Chron. minora, i. 57, 73). While the chronologists give varying dates for the year of the apostles’ death (Jerome, Vir. Ill. i. v., cf. above, p. 78, gave the year 68), yet since the middle of the fourth century at the latest there prevailed in Rome the tradition that both apostles died at the same time, ὁ.6. on the 29th of June in the same year. In the so-called Decretum Gelasii (Epist. pontif., ed. Thiel. i. 455), the opinion that Peter and Paul died at different times is condemned as heretical twaddle (sicut heretic garriunt). It is not impossible, though not demonstrable, that this part of the Decretum, as also others (GK, ii. 259-267), had been already discussed at a Roman Synod under Damasus. Once the 29th of June had become in the West the memorial day for both apostles, the older tradition, according to which Peter died a considerable time before Paul, could maintain itself only in a modest form by allowing that both indeed died on the 29th of June, but that Paul died a year later than Peter (here following ancient tradition, above, pp. 73, 76). So Prudentius (Peristeph. xii. 3-6, 11-24), and even in the sixth century, Gregory of Tours (Glor. Mart. i. 29), and the Roman deacon, Aratus, at the end of his metrical version of Acts (Migne, Ixviii. 246). Augustine assumes a rather critical attitude toward the Roman tradition in his sermons on “ Peter and Paul’s day” (Serm. cexev.-cexeix. ecclxxxi.), e.g. Serm. cexev. (ed. Bass. vii. 1197: “quamquam diversis diebus paterentur, unum erant. Preecessit Petrus, secutus est Paulus”), and Serm. ecelxxxi, (vii. 1508 : “Petri et Pauli apostolorum dies, in quo triumphalem coronam devicto diabolo meruerunt, quantum fides Romana testatur, hodiernus est . . . Sicut traditione patrwm cognitum memoria retinetur, non uno die passi sunt per ceeli spatia decurrente. Natalitio ergo Petri passus est Paulus ac per hoc ita singuli dies dati sunt duobus, ut nunc unus celebretur ambobus ”). Cf. also the pseudo-Augustinian Serm. οὖν. (Bass. xvi. 1209), and another given by Lipsius, Ap. AG. ii. part 1, 240, The celebration of the 29th of June arose from an event in the local church history of Rome, and for a long time also was confined to Rome. The true Euthalius, who belongs to the period before 390 (NKZ, 1904, S. .388 f.) knows of the celebration as one peculiar to Rome (Zacagni, Monum. coll. i. 522), and does not say, like the author of the Martyriwm, falsely ascribed to him (Zac. 536), that Paul suffered martyrdom on the 29th of June, but simply that the Romans celebrate his memory and his martyrdom annually on that day. Outside of Rome this Peter and Paul’s Day” was not widely observed. The Calendar of Martyrs, preserved in Syriac in a MS. of 412 (ed. Wright, p.1; Acta SS. Nov. ii. p. lii.), puts the martyrdom of both apostles on the 28th of December ; but this has no more significance than the assignment of the death of Stephen, the first martyr, to the 26th of December, and of James and J obn, the sons of Zebedee, to the 27th in the same calendar. In fact, there was no tradition concerning either the day or the year of the death of the two apostles, Also in Rome during the third century there existed no such tradition ; otherwise how could the interment of the remains of both apostles ad Catacumbas on the 29th of June 258 have become the only memorial day of the great VOL. II. 6 82 INTRODUCTION 'TO THE NEW TESTAMENT martyred apostles of Rome! The question where the alleged or actual bones of the apostles rested before the 29th of June 258, is of. less significance for our knowledge concerning the end of Paul’s life than for our criticism about Peter in Rome (§ 39). It receives the same answer whether we start from what was believed forty years before, or from what happened sixty to seventy years afterward. Since the interment beside the Via Appia was a late and temporary expedient, it seems almost self-evident that when, perhaps sixty years after their lodgment there, the apostles’ remains were again removed, it was that they might be buried, not at random, but in the places already hallowed by their memory, £.e. that they were brought back to the very places whence they were taken in 258. The final interment of Paul on the Via Ostiensis, and of Peter in the Vatican, attests the fact that it was believed that they were buried there originally. But we are led to the same conclusion by what the Roman Caius under the bishop Zephyrinus (199-217 a.D., ie. about forty to fifty years before the Depositio by the Via Appia) certifies in his dialogue with the Montanist Proclus (Eus. H. E. ii. 25. 7): ἐγὼ yap τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι" ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Barıkavov ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ᾿Ωστίαν, εὑρήσεις τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Im contrast te the authority of the apostles and their followers, to whose labours and graves in the province of Asia the Montanist had appealed (Kus. H. E. iii. 31. 4, ef. v. 24, 1-6, iii. 31. 3), the Roman names the authority of his Church, its apostles and their graves, which could still be pointed out. Eusebius, with- out hesitation, took τρόπαια to mean the graves and monuments of the apostles (H. H. ii. 25. 5f., iii. 31. 1); the later writers for the most part under- stood by it the places where they were executed (Hofmann, v. 10, vii. 1. 205 ; Lipsius, Ap. AG. ii. part 1, 21; Erbes, 68 ff.). Taken by itself, the word has neither of these meanings, but denotes a token commemorating some victory won, set up on the spot where the enemy was turned to flight—originally a bundle of captured weapons hung up on a tree or a pole (Pauly, RE, vi. 2165 f.). The memory, however, of the martyrs and other illustrious dead always clung about their graves. It was not the place where Polycarp was burned, but where he was buried, that was considered sacred (Mart. Polye. xvii. xviii. ; cf. the letter of Polyerates quoted in Eus. H. E. v. 24. 4, and Pionius, Vita Polycarpi, chap. xx., concerning the grave of Thraseas of Eumeneia at Smyrna). In particular cases it may have been actually true, or at least so preserved in people’s memory, that the place of death and that of burial coincided altogether or nearly so. John expires in the grave which he himself has ordered to be dug (Acta Joannis, ed. Zahn, 250). In Jerusalem, in Hegesippus’ time, there was pointed out, near what was once the temple, a pillar which marked the spot where James was said to have been slain and buried (Bus. H. E. ii. 23, 18 ; see vol. i, 108, n. 4). This may have been so also in the case of Peter and Paul. The Gnostic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, 100. 8) show the greatest indifference as to his burial, putting this sentiment in the mouth of Peter himself, and contain no statements at all about the place of his erucifixion and interment (pp. 90, 100). The same is true with refer- ence to Paul in the ancient Acts of Paul (pp. 112-117). Both writings lack every trace of Roman loeal tradition, and certainly arose in the Kast (GK, ii. 841, 890). But from all analogies it would seem clear that the tradition THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 83 in Rome during the second century about the death of Peter and Paul and their graves must have been connected with certain definite spots, even if this fact were not also attested by Caius about 210 and, indirectly, by the two later transferences of the remains. Previously, Erbes (Z/K@, vii. 33) assumed that suddenly in 258, perhaps as the result of a pretended revela- tion, the remains were found in some corner or other where up to that time they had lain negleeted and hidden. He has now himself given up this view (1899, S. 132), and claims that Paul lay buried on the Via Appia from the very first, and that Peter’s bones were likewise to be found there after about 200. But on this supposition the separation of the remains of the two apostles, who were so intimately connected in the tradition, and their removal from the Via Appia, where they had been honoured so long, to their separate tombs on the Via Ostiensis and in the Vatican, seems an act arbitrary in the extreme. The tradition that Peter was executed in the one place and Paul in the other, would not be a sufficient motive for such an act. The writer at least knows of no case in which the body of a martyr was sub- sequently removed from his grave to the place where he was executed. Rather those who separated the remains of Peter and Paul and buried them in places wide apart—and this was accomplished before Constantine’s death in 337— must have believed that they were restoring the original conditions. The interment ad Catacumbas, which must have arisen out of the necessities of the times, was from the first intended to be only a temporary entombment. In view of all this, we are probably to understand by the τρόπαια of Caius, as Eusebius did, the tokens marking the places where the two apostles were buried. Nevertheless, as in the case of James, these may very well have been regarded as marking at the same time the places of execution. That they were actually so regarded is attested by the later tradition, accord- ing to which both apostles were buried near to where they died; cf. with reference to Peter, Linus, Martyr. Petri, x. ed., Lipsius, 11. 16; the Catholic Acts of both apostles, 168. 8, 172. 13, 177. 1, 212. 12, 216. 15, 221. 6; cf. with reference to Paul the Mart. Pauli, likewise ascribed to Linus, 38. 21, 41. 10 (outside a gate of the city); the Catholic Acts of both apostles, 170. 3, 177. 1, 213. 6, 214. 8, 221. 8; cf. with reference to both, Lib. pontif. under Cornelius (Duchesne, i. 150). The tokens to which Caius refers need not have been monuments erected by Christians in the apostles’ honour ; such tokens could be any objects whatever which were supposed to date from the time of the events in question, e.g. a pillar, as that which marked the spot where James was killed and buried (Eus. ii. 23. 18), or a tree, as the myrtle on the grave of Thraseas at Smyrna (Pionius, Vita Polye. xx.), or the vine which grew on the spot where the blood of the martyr Philip fell to the earth (Acta apocr., ed. Tischendorf, 92, 94), or the plane-tree under which Simon Magus was supposed to have taught while in Rome (Hippol. refut. vi. 20). As a matter of fact we read in one of the recensions of the Catholie Acts of Peter and Paul (Lipsius, 214. 9), that Paul was executed near a cembra (stone-pine) or pine, and in both recensions that Peter was buried under a terebinth on the Vatican (pp. 172. 13, 216.15). The expressions ὑπὸ τὴν τερέβινθον and (214. 9) πλησίον τοῦ δένδρου τοῦ στροβίλου refer in each case to a well-kuown tree which can be seen αὖ ἃ distance, It is not impossible that this terebinth was the ancient oak on the Vatican, of 84 INTRODUCTION TO ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT which Pliny, H. N. xvi. 44, 237, gives an account; cf. Erbes, Z/K@, vii. 12 A.2. Concerning the genus pine, ef. Erbes, 1899, S. 92. 10. (P. 63.) The recovery and publication of the Coptic Fragments of the Acts of Paul (Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger Koptischen Papyrus Hs. Nr. 1 Herausgeg. von C. Schmidt, Uebersetzung, Untersuchungen und Kop- tischer Text, 1904) has given us much new information, corrected old mis- takes, and happily confirmed certain conjectures, though it has thrown no new light on the presentation of the close of Paul’s life which this legend contains. These Fragments have removed every doubt as to the fact that the Martyrdom of Paul, which has come down to us in the original Greek and in several translations as an independent writing (Lipsius, pp. 104-117; Schmidt, 8. 85-90) formed the concluding portion of the entire work. But we know now, no more than formerly, what immediately preceded this con- clusion, though this is the point of especial interest. The wholly arbitrary way in which that elder in the province of Asia, who around 170 to 190 wrote the Acts of Paul, made use of the material of Acts and the Pauline Epistles for his fabrication, renders uncertain every conjecture concerning the progress and content of his narrative where the text is in doubt. The Martyrdom which closes with the execution of the apostle begins with his arrival in Rome ; for it begins with the statement that Luke, who had come thither from Gaul, and Titus from Dalmatia were awaiting him, and the meeting with these friends had rejoiced and,enheartened him. From this it would seem to be out of the question that this should have been preceded by an account of any intercourse between Paul and the Roman Christians and of other important events following his arrival in the city. On the contrary, his expectant friends were in all probability the first ones whom he greeted. The only thing that could have preceded it is an account of his journey to Rome. At first Paul finds himself at liberty in the eity, and only after a lapse of some time is arrested together with many other Chris- tians. There is not the slightest intimation of a contemporaneous presence of Peter in Rome. Especially of any meeting of Paul and Peter, concerning which old authors always have something to say on the authority of the Acts of Paul (above, p. 77), not only is there no intimation, but there is really no room in this connection for stating it, The inference is conse- quently to be drawn that the Acts of Paul are here narrating a second arrival of Paul in Rome, having recorded in a previous passage an earlier presence and imprisonment of the apostle in the city, As the statement that Paul hired a barn and carried on there a successiul ministry of preach- ing (Lipsius, p. 104, 4 ff.), calls to mind Acts xxviii. 16, 30, so the statement regarding Titus and Luke suggests 2 Tim. iv. 10f. The friends, who at the time of an imprisonment of the apostle had gone to Gaul and Dalmatia (Luke instead of Crescens), had returned from these joarneys to Rome before the arrival of Paul, whose liberty of action was in no wise impaired. An earnest consideration is due the conjecture of M. R. James (JIThSt— January 1905, p. 244 ff.), who is the best informed scholar of the Christian apocryphal literature—that the Acts of Paul did not interpolate its fabrica- tions at all into the gaps of Luke’s Aets of the Apostles, but appended them to the canonical Acts, THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 85 $ 37. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS. The confident denial of the genuineness of these letters —which has been made now for several generations more positively than in the ease of any other Pauline Epistles (n. 1)-—has no support from tradition. The fact that Marcion did not include them in his collection does not prove that he was unacquainted with them: on the con- trary, according to tradition, he knew and rejected them, stating his reasons for so doing (GK, i. 834). Traces’ of their circulation in the Church before Marcion’s time are clearer than those which can be found for Romans and 2 Cor. A strong argument in favour of their genuine- ness is the large number of personal references which they contain,—references that can be explained neither as derived from other probable sources nor as growing out of the idea under the influence of which the letters might have been forged. This is especially true in the case of 2 Tim., least so in the case of 1 Tim. : although, comparing the letters as a whole with those which in the second century and later were attributed to Paul and: the other apostles, all three of them furnish proof of their own genuineness (n. 2). What was said above (p. 60 f.) in connection with the discussion concerning the historical value of the letters, even if spurious, about the way in which facts presupposed are handled in all three letters, especially in 2 Tim., also goes to prove their genuineness (n. 3). Historical facts which a forger finds it necessary or advantageous to invent he is wont to state clearly and expressly for the benefit of his reader, who, of course, cannot know these facts beforehand. F urthermore, these facts are generally borrowed from older sources which are genuine or supposed to be genuine, which in this case would have been the other Pauline Kpistles and Acts. Now the whole group of facts presupposed in these letters 86 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT carry us beyond the period dealt with in Acts and veri- fied by references in the earlier Epistles of Paul. More- over, these facts, which are new to us, are everywhere incidentally referred to in a manner intelligible only to readers already familiar with the actual situation. The majority of the persons introduced in these letters are not mentioned anywhere else in the N.T., nor in the post- apostolie literature not dependent upon these Epistles; as, for example, Hymenzeus, 1 Tim. i. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 17; Philetus, 2 Tim. 1. 17; Phygelus and Hermogenes, 2 Tim. i. 15; Lois and Eunice, 2 Tim. 1. 5; Onesiphorus and his house, 2 Tim. i. 16, iv. 19; Crescens, Carpus, Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, 2 Tim. iv. 10, 13, 21; Artemas and Zenas, Tit. ui. 12 f.; Alexander, 1 Tim. i. 20, 2 Tim. iv. 14. Even if the last named person could be identified with the Alexander mentioned in Acts xix. 33 (against this identification cf. above, p. 21, n. 3), this latter passage does not account for the reference in the Epistles to Timothy ; for the Alexander in Acts is described simply as a Jew, without any indication of the relation which he sus- tained to Paul and Christianity ; whereas in 1 and 2 Tim. he is represented as a Christian, hostile to Paul and his doctrine, fallen from the faith, put under the ban by the apostle, and not an ἀργυροκόπος, as we should expect if the passage were dependent upon Acts (Acts xix. 24), but a χαλκεύς (2 Tim. iv. 14). These sixteen new names are by no means mere names, the introduction of which can be explained by the necessity which the writer felt of giving his forgery the appearance of a genuine letter by putting in personal notices, a necessity, let it be said, which other writers who forged Apostolic Epistles in the second cen- tury seem hardly to have experienced (n. 2). They repre- sent real persons. Even though this may not be said of the Roman Christians, who in 2 Tim. iv. 21 send greet- ings, the fact that no one of their names is taken from tom, xvi. does argue in favour of their historicity. The THE LAST THREE: EPISTLES OF PAUL 87 diftieulty of gaining definite ideas from the statements about Onesiphorus (above, p. 20, n. 1), Lois and Eunice (p. 22, n. 4), Crescens (above, p. 11 f.), Hymenzeus and Philetus, Phygelus and Hermogenes, Alexander (above, p. 21, n. 8), Zenas (above, p. 54, n. 4), Carpus and the articles which Paul left with him (above, p. 16), is that which is natural in connection with such notices found in genuine letters belonging to the remote past. On the other hand, what is said is of such a character that it is difficult to believe it to be invented. This is true also of statements about the persons mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. A pseudo-Paul might have taken the name Demas (2 Tim. iv. 10) from Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; but what could have influenced him to set the conduct of Demas in such sharp and unfavourable contrast to that of Luke when he is mentioned in Colossians and Philemon along with Luke as one of Paul’s honoured helpers? What led him to associate Demas with Thessalonica? The forger might have been influenced by Eph. vi. 21 to speak of the send- ing of Tychicus to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12), 1.6. if the Epistle was already provided with the false title πρὸς ‘Edeciovs. But even if no account be taken of the fact that the whole of 2 Tim. introduces us to a period in Paul’s life considerably later than the composition of Ephesians, it would have been very much more natural for him to speak of the sending of Tychicus to Coloss&, and almost inevitably there would have been some trace of the influ- ence of Eph. vi. 21 f. or Col. iv. 7 f. ; but no such influence is discernible ; indeed, in Tit. 11. 12 we find Tychicus on his way to Crete with an unknown person named Artemas. To be sure, Apollos (Tit. iii. 13) was a distinguished name ; but there is not the slightest hint which would remind the reader of the well-known and thoroughly individual character of this person as he appears in 1 Cor. and Acts, while here, too, he appears in company with a person otherwise unknown, on a journey to Crete. From Acts xx. 88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 4, 15, xxi. 29, one might learn that Trophimus had once been at Miletus with Paul; but in order to invent the further statement that Paul had left him there sick (2 Tim. iv. 20), it would be necessary directly to contradict what is there said about him. That Erastus’ home was Corinth might be inferred from Rom. xvi. 23 (cf. xvi. 1); but any- one writing in dependence upon Rom. xvi. would not be likely to represent him as a traveller stopping in Corinth instead of continuing his journey beyond that point (2 Tim. iv. 20). These various statements are not derived from earlier writings which have come down to us, nor are they due to the influence of ideas which we can detect in the Epistles. Both Timothy (1 Thess. ΠῚ. 2; 1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10; Phil. ἢ. 19-23) and Titus (2 Cor. vii. 6-15, viii. 6, xii. 18) had occasionally performed functions as the apostle’s representatives in the Churches organised by Paul. Therefore it was not unnatural to conceive of them as having been temporarily at work in the same way in Churches other than those mentioned in the earlier Epistles, and to give literary currency to his wishes with reference to the organisation of Church life in the form of letters from Paul to them. But it is inconceivable that a pseudo-Paul, who with this purpose in view wrote these letters on the basis of the earlier Epistles, should have presented to the readers such a very unfavourable picture of Timothy, whom the real Paul praises so often and so highly (e.g. Phil. ii, 20-22). All the legendary tales of the ancient Church were lauda- tory in spirit, and all the unfavourable judgments which became current in the second century concerning persons mentioned with honour or praise are either due to ten- dencies opposed to the N.T. tradition and the tradition of the early Church, e.g. in Marcion and the pseudo-Clemen- tines, or are to be regarded as historical testimony of a kind that could not be invented, and of value because supple- menting our imperfect knowledge of these times and THE LAST THREE) EPISTLES' OF PAUL 89 personalities, e.g. the unfavourable stories about Nicolaus Now there can be no idea of any intention on the author’s part to present Timothy in an unfavourable light, since by the very act of addressing to him two letters of Paul he accords him special honour, and in spite of all the defects of his character which we discern in the Epistles, repre- sents him as being tenderly beloved by the apostle. Con- sequently this picture of Timothy and the letters in which it is found must be considered genuine. It is hard to understand how anyone can feel this critical argument weakened by the sentimental consideration that, if the Epistles to Timothy are accepted as genuine, the image of a saint is destroyed. At this point the question arises as to the purpose of the alleged forgery, which must be satisfactorily answered before anyone acquiesces in the judgment that the letters are spurious. The principal motives of the forger have been found in what is said in 1 Tim. and Titus concerning the regulation of the life of the Church and in all three letters in opposition to certain doctrinal errors. With reference to the first point, it is to be remarked at the outset that the pastoral office described above (pp. 29 ff., 43 f£), which Titus temporarily occupied in Crete and ‘Timothy in the province of Asia over large groups of Churches, is quite without parallel in the organised Church life of the post-apostolicage. It grew out of the unique and general relation of the apostolate to the establishment and oversight of the Churches, a function which these helpers of Paul exercised under his commission and as his tem- porary representatives. Now if, following the misleading precedent of interpretation in the ancient Church (above, p- 41, n. 6, and p. 53, n. 2), and influenced by certain im- perfect modern analogies, anyone is inclined to consider their position, that of a bishop, he ought at least to regard Timothy not as a bishop of Ephesus, but as a bishop of Asia, and Titus as a bishop of Crete ; and then perhaps it 90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT will be recalled that while there were bishops of Ephesus, Smyrna, and Laodicea in the province of Asia, and bishops of Gortyna and Knossus in Crete, there were never any bishops of Asia and of Crete. The local Churches of the post-apostolic and early catholic age were autonomous corporations ; the monarchical episcopate was the highest office in this local Church, and lasted for life. And so it remained up to a time prior to which the ‘Pastoral Epistles” must certainly have been written, when it became customary to look upon bishops as successors to the apostles, and more and more to regard as peculiarly theirs certain Church functions. Although the personal distinction of individual bishops like Ignatius and Polycarp, or the historical dignity of the Churches over which they presided, may have given them the moral right to reprove and to advise Churches other than their own, in the second century no bishop of Ephesus, or even of Rome, could have exercised in any Church save his own so much authority over the organisation, and so determina- tive an influence in regulating the details, of the Church life as that which Timothy and Titus were instructed to exercise over all the Churches scattered through wide regions; and, as a matter of fact, no bishop ever did assume such authority and influence. Therefore it is in- conceivable that between 70 and 170 a pseudo-Paul should have written 1 Tim. and Titus, in which the whole Church life of entire districts is represented as being under the determining influence of a form of personal government which in his time was not even in existence, and of the working of which, in the apostolic age, there is hardly the least suggestion in the rest of the N.T. Furthermore, with regard to offices in local Churches, there is not to be found anywhere in the Epistles an enumeration of the officials and a description of their functions, such as might give the impression that a definite number and order of officers is recommended or THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL ΟἹ introduced, over against another system then in vogues On the contrary, a fixed order is presupposed, and the qualifications are mentioned necessary for the election and installation of officers in the Church, also the qualities which these officers must show in performing their fune- tions. Consequently it is impossible to derive from the letters a definite answer to the question as to the number of officers in the Church, for this is always presupposed. If we had only 1 Tim. we might infer from 111. 1-13 that the officers of the Church were simply one ἐπίσκοπος and a number of διάκονοι. The error of this conception we should immediately discover, however, from the fact that in both apostolic and post-apostolic times, whenever these two titles are used comprehensively to denote the officers of the local Church, several ἐπίσκοποι as well as several διάκονοι are mentioned (n. 4). A form of government in which all the official service in the local Church was performed by one bishop and a number of deacons never existed. Moreover, in a different connection but in the same letter (v. 17-22), we learn of Church officials called πρεσβύτεροι. That there were several of these officers in every Church we would naturally assume, even if special mention were not made of those elders who devoted themselves to teaching (v. 17), and of the individual elder against whom a charge may be preferred (v. 19), and if we did not read in iv. 14 of the πρεσβυτέριον of Timothy’s home Church as a corporation acting as a unit. Evidently the name is derived from the office, for there could not be πρεσβύτεροι in the clear sense here intended, namely, “ruling elders,’ without a presbytery, any more than there could be senators without a senate (n. 5). Being members of the body which administered the affairs of the Church, the individual elders were officers in the Church. From the connection in which 1 Tim. v. 22 stands, there can be no doubt that when persons became members of the presbytery hands were laid upon 92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT them, and they were set apart to this position and work by the prayer of the Church, just as were other members of the Church who were appointed to perform special service and to occupy a special position in the Church. Consequently the only difference between them and the ἐπίσκοπος in 111. 1-7 is a difference of name; for the care of the Church which the latter is to exercise is described as προΐστασθαι, προστῆναι (111. 4 f.), as is also the office of the elders (v.17). The fact that the latter are not mentioned in the apparently complete list of the officers of the Church in ill, 1-13, can be explained only if the same persons were sometimes called πρεσβύτεροι, sometimes ἐπίσκοποι. The fact that in one place Paul calls them πρεσβύτεροι is explained by the circumstance that in the preceding context he has been exhorting Timothy to proper conduct in relation to the older members of the Church (n. 6). From among the πρεσβύτεραι (v. 2) special mention is made of the widows (v. 3-16); from the class πρεσβύτεροι, in the wider sense (v. 2), the προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι are distinguished (v. 17-19); so that he is thinking of their official position only as that which gives them a place of honour and determines the treatment they are to receive. On the other hand, where the special point under discussion is their office proper and the qualifications necessary in order to its assumption, they are very properly called ἐπίσκοποι and their office ἐπισκοπή (iii. 1f.). That this was really the relation subsisting between elders and bishops 18 positively proved by Tit. 1. 5-9; for no exegetical device can obscure the fact that in this Epistle the identity of ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος is taken for granted (n. 7). ‘Titus is to appoint elders in every city in Crete, 2.e. to provide the local Church with a presbytery. When, now, we find that the statement of qualifications necessary in order to the appointment of an elder is confirmed by a state- ment as to the requirements which are to be made of a bishop, it follows, not only that the elder was a bishop, but THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 92 also that there was no official with the title ἐπίσκοπος who stood at the head of the presbytery. It is the same sort of Church organisation which, according to Acts, existed in the Churches of Asia Minor in Paul’s lifetime ; accord- ing to the Epistle of Clement, in Rome and Corinth at the close of the first century; and, according to the Epistle of Polycarp, in Philippi as late as the beginning of the second century (n. 8). Now, however, from Revela- tion, the Epistles of Ignatius, and the tradition concerning the disciples of John, we learn that by the close of the first century the monarchical episcopate had been gener- ally introduced and firmly established in the Churches of Asia Minor, which was the destination of 1 Tim., and that after the middle of the second century this form of government became more and more common in the Churches of Europe. How could a pseudo-Paul, writing in the year 100 or 160 with a view to exerting some influence upon the system of Church organisation in his time, ignore so completely the Church life which he observed about him, and present Paul and his helpers so entirely in the dress and language of 50-70 in all that affected the essential forms of Church organisation 2 The aim on the forger’s part in this way to avoid all tell- tale anachronisms would directly contradict. his other purpose, namely, in Paul’s name to influence the Church of his own time ; while everyone acquainted with ancient literature, particularly the literature of the ancient Church, knows that a forger or fabricator of those times could not possibly have avoided anachronisms. No objection can be raised on the ground that in these letters alone Paul discusses specifically the arrangement of offices in the Church and the duties of chief officers and deacons, whereas in the other letters he limits himself to indefinite hints and incidental references (1 Thess. v. 12; L Cor. xii. 28, xvi. 15 f.; Rom. xii. 7f., xvi. 1 ; Gal. vi. 6; Eph. iv. 11; Col. iv: 17; Phil. 1. 1); for the reason that 94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT there are no other Epistles of Paul in which the external conditions are the same as in Titus and 1 Tim. Evenin 2 Tim. nothing is said about bishops, deacons, elders, and widows, nor about Timothy’s pastoral relation, he being represented simply as an evangelist, and as a sharer of the apostle’s preachmg and teaching office (above, pp. 5f., 291}. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that an in- terest in the official organisation of the Church, such as Paul himself did not feel, is a peculiarity of the author of the Pastoral Epistles. Effort to supply the Churches which had just come into existence in Crete with officers by the apostle’s express command (Tit. 1. 5)'may not be in accordance with certain fancies of constructive historians, but agrees perfectly with Acts (Acts xiv. 23; ef. n. 7), and with the Epistle of Clement (chaps. xlii. 4— xliii. 1, xliv. 1-3), the earliest sources which we have that deal with the development of the organisation of the Gentile Christian Churches, as well as with the fact that a few weeks, or at most a few months, after it came into existence, the Church in Thessalonica had officers charged with arduous duties (1 Thess. v. 12). According to the most probable interpretation of 1 Tim. ii. 11, female διάκονοι are mentioned; but this does not take us beyond Paul’s own time (Rom. xvi. 1). The obscurity to us of the instructions with regard to widows (1 Tim. v. 3-16), particularly their relation to the deaconesses, is due solely to the meagreness of the reports that have come down to us. » Two points are of critical importance—(1) The explicitness and exactness which in very marked degree distinguish these instructions from those concerning bishops and deacons (e.g. v. 9), show that the distine- tion given to certain widows in the Church is an arrangement not nearly so old nor so well established as the episcopate (oftice of presbyter) and diaconate. (2) No traces are found here of that development of this arrangement, testified to by Ignatius, by virtue of THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 95 which unmarried women were reckoned among the widows (n. 9). It would necessarily be a cause of suspicion if the conception of the spiritual office that appears in these letters were different, not only from Paul’s, but also from that of the N.T. generally. Such would be the case if a higher kind of morality were demanded of the ‘clergy ” than of ordinary Christians, e.g. if they were forbidden to marry a second time. This ancient interpretation of Tit. i. 6, 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12 is proved to be false by the fact that the μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ is simply one of the duties and virtues—the first mentioned—that become every Christian. A, writer with any other idea must have regarded the remarriage of widowers as an exceedingly heinous sin. But that our author did so regard. it is impossible to believe; since the re-marriage of widows, which has always been regarded as more objectionable than that of widowers, is not only declared allowable, in accordance with 1 Cor. vii. 39, but in the case of the younger widows it is even commended (1 Tim. v. 14); while in general the writer seems to look with favour upon the married life (1 Tim. 11. 15, iv. 3). The main question that Paul asks with reference to overseers and deacons seeking installation, and with reference to widows claiming special honour from the Church, is whether their married life has been, and is, pure, untainted by unlawful sexual intercourse (n. 10). Only when the rule is so interpreted is it possible to see the connection between it and the other requirements that follow and are directly connected with it, especially the requirement that before being installed as an officer in the Church a man must have proved himself efficient in managing his own house- hold and in bringing up his own children (Tit. i. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 4f.,.12; cf..v. 7, 10, 14). While these personal qualifications, without which no one may assume any oflice in the Church, are very care- 96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT fully enumerated, positively and negatively, the functions of the different officers are nowhere named, it being constantly assumed that they are known. Hence it could have been no part of the author's purpose to broaden the scope of their offices, to increase their authority, or to introduce any change whatever in the relation between the Church and its officers. The difference in this respect between these letters and the Epistles of Ignatius, and even those of Clement and Polycarp, is very marked. Any member of the Church may offer prayer in the public gatherings (above, 40, n. 4). Teaching is not limited to an office. This is evident as well from the whole impres- sion of the letters as from the teaching done by Titus and Timothy, who held no office in the local Church, but are engaged in teaching as representatives of Paul and sharers of his apostolie vocation, which included not only inissionary effort among those ‘who did not yet believe, but also the instruction and guidance of existing Churches. From the fact that women are forbidden to teach publicly in the congregation (1 Tim. ii. 12, above, p. 40 f.), while they are permitted, especially the older women, to teach other women by word and good example (Tit. ii. 3), it is to be inferred that every man had the right to engage in teaching. Only on this presupposition is it possible to understand what is said in 1 Tim. i. 3-7, vi. 3-5 about ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες, and in 2 Tim. 11]. 6-9, Tit. i. 10-14 about persons of a worse character. They are not blamed for teaching without having the proper authority to do 80. Consequently they are not official teachers who have made improper use of their office and are to be deposed, but simply members of the Church who, believing themselves to possess unusual insight and special ability to teach, have put themselves forward as teachers in the Churches and homes in a perverse or even injurious manner, whose activity Timothy is to forbid and Titus strenuously to oppose. The same conditions are here presupposed that THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 07 we observe in Jas. ni. 1; Rom. xu. 7; 1 Cor. xü.-xiv. ; Col. iii. 16. There is nothing said in 2 Tim. 11. 2 which would imply that teaching was an official function: It is true that among the elders officially appointed those who engage in the arduous work of speaking and teaching are especially mentioned, and with special warmth commended to the support of the Church (1 Tim. v. 17 f.; ef. Gal. vi. 6; 1 Cor. ix. 6-14). Because of the large number of teachers who do harm, special care is also to be exercised in choosing persons who are to be at the head of the Church ; they are to hold the true Christian doctrine, and must be able with sound doctrine to exhort the members of the Church and to controvert those who oppose it (Tit. i. 9). In this sense ability to teach is mentioned as one of the necessary qualifications of the head of a Church (SSaxrexos, 1 Tim. iii. 2; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 24). But it is to be observed that in the latter passages nothing is said about public addresses before the congregations, and from the one first quoted it is clear that an elder (1.6. a bishop) could exercise his office satisfactorily without teaching at all. That frequently the head of the Church should be also a teacher is certainly no innovation of the post-apostolic age (vol. 1. 465, with reference to Eph. iv. 11); it is rather the natural presupposition of the later development, when the heads of the Churches came to be also regularly its teachers (Clement, 2 Cor. xvii. 3-5 ; Just. Apol. i. 67). In addition to this quiet work of the teacher, an important role was still played in the life of the Chureh by prophecy. In the passages where Paul makes predic- tions concerning the future of the Church, he depends not upon written prophecies, nor upon some special revela- tion made to himself, but upon the prophetic spirit present in the Church and expressed in the utterances of indi- vidual prophets (1 Tim. iv. 1; ef. 2 Tim. iii. 1; below, p. 110). Propheey within the Church must have been the VOL. II. 7 98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT determinative influence in the selection of Timothy to assist the apostle in preaching and in his endowment with the necessary qualifications for the office (1 Tim. 1.18, iv. 14; above, .p..23; n..5).;.In 1 Tim. iv..14 this endowment is directly attributed to prophecy, the laying on of the hands of the presbytery being mentioned as a concurring circumstance, while in 2 Tim. i. 6 the laying on of the hands of the apostle himself is declared to be the means by which Timothy became possessed of the charisma, the use of which is the same as the exercise of his calling. The fact that in one instance the laying on of the apostle's hands is mentioned, in the other, of the hands of the presbytery, is due to the different point of view from which Timothy’s work in the Church is con- ceived in the two letters. Where Timothy is thought of as overseer and director of the life of the Church in the province of Asia, he is reminded of the fact that the officers of the Church to which he originally belonged had a part in calling him to service in the Church. But where he is thought of as an evangelist, having part in. the apostle’s preaching vocation, emphasis is given. to the laying on of the apostle’s hands. Between endowment by prophecy and endowment by the laying on of hands there is no more contradiction than between the fact that in one instance Paul, in the other the presbytery, laid hands upon Timothy. The author did not find the two contradictory ; why should we? We have the same repre- sentation in Acts xin, 2-4 (cf. Clement, 1 Cor. xhi. 4, above, p. 41, n. 5). It would be extremely arbitrary to declare the passages in a book which attribute to the Holy Spirit the installation of officers in the Church, or the appointment and commissioning of missionaries (Acts xx. 28, xiii. 4; cf. Ignatius, Philad. address), to be im con- tradietion to other passages in the same book whieh speak of the choice of officials by the Church (Acts vi. 5), or of the installation of such by missionaries engaged in organ: THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 99 ising Churches (Acts xiv. 23). Neither can it be argued that in 1 Tim. iv. 14, v. 22, 2 Tim. i. 6 the ordination was regarded as a sort of sacrament with magic effect, because the laying on of hands is used as an abbreviated technical expression without mention of the petition and the con- secrating prayer, which probably were always accompanied by the laying on of hands, symbolising the bestowment of the desired gifts, since in other passages the abbrevi- ated expression (Acts vill, 17-19, ix. 17, xix. 6; ef. Mark vi. 5, vill. 23, 25; Luke xi.13; Heb. vi. 2) is found as well as the longer one (Acts vi. 6, xii. 33; cf. xxviii. 8). From cases of this kind it can no more be inferred that magic powers were attributed to the laying on of hands, quite apart from prayer and faith, than it can be inferred from cases where only prayer is mentioned, without the laying on of hands (Acts i. 24; in cases of healing, Jas. v. 14; Acts ix. 40), that the latter was omitted. Evidence of the late date of these Epistles and one of the main motives for their composition have been found ın what is said in them about false teachers and false doctrines (n. 11). If one is to avoid making the spuri- ousness of the Kpistles—which is the point to be proved the presupposition of the argument, it is necessary at the outset to distinguish between what Paul says about certain phenomena existing at that time, and: phenomena which he expects to appear in the future ; also between persons who have forsaken the faith and have separated them- selves from the Church, or who have been expelledpand others who are still within the Church, but either teach in a manner positively harmful or countenance such teaching. In the nature of the case there are various points of connection between these groups, in partieulär the prophecy of future degeneracy is suggested by existing phenomena ; but this does not justify us in treating these distinctions as if they were merely negligible differences in the form of the presentation. The persons, the oppos- 100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ing of whose harmful activity is Timothy’s chief business in Ephesus (1 Tim. i. 3, n. 12, and above, p. 39, n. 3), are members of the Church, subjeet to its confession and discipline; for Timothy is not directed to warn the Churches under his care against them, but is to command them to refrain from teaching. What Paul says in de- scribing their work as teachers is manifestly designed not only to open Timothy’s eyes and convince him of the peril to which the Church is exposed through them, but to furnish him. with the truths by the presentation of which he is to influence them to leave off their harmful activity. These persons are not yet αἱρετικοί, v.e. they have not yet separated themselves from the worship and fellowship of the Church ; persons of this character are to be left to their fate (Tit. iii. 10; ef. 1 Cor. xi. 19). Only in case of persistence in their work, in spite of the repri- mand of Timothy or Titus, is it expected that they will con- tinue outside the organised Church what they are forbidden to carry on within the same. This conclusion, namely, that until now these persons had remained in the Church, follows not only from the fact that Timothy is to com- mand them to cease teaching, but also from the fact that individuals belonging to this party who had gone farther than the rest had been subjected to Church discipline by Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; ef., however, 1 Cor. v. 12). From Tit. i. 9 it appears, further, that the opposition to sound doe- trine by these persons was made within the sphere of the same Church life as that affected by the teaching and exhortation of the teaching bishop. For Titus to have sharply controverted and stopped the mouths (Tit. 1. 11, 13) of these persons would merely have exposed him to ridicule had they been non-Christians. Moreover, the pur- pose of this interference on Timothy’s part, namely, that the persons in question might become sound in the faith, very clearly takes it for granted that they in some degree possess the faith and have confessed it publicly (ef. Tit. THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL IOI i. 16). They are described as unbelievers (Tit. 1. 15), if not, indeed, as worse than unbelievers (1 Tim. v. 8), because they do not hold the true doctrine taught by Jesus and His Church, and, following the unhealthy ten- dencies of their minds, set forth things both foolish and worthless (1 Tim. vi. 3 f.; ef. Col. ii. 19; above, pp. 31 f,, 39, n. 8). The function of teaching had not yet come to be associated with a churchly office’ (above, p. 97); still there were διδάσκαλοι, persons who made teaching in the Church their chief business (Eph. iv. 11; 1 Cor. xu. 28 ἢ; Rom. xii. 7; Acts xiii. 1;/Didache xii. 15; cf. 2 Tim. ii, 2, iv. 2). Besides the apostles, upon whom there de- volved, in addition to preaching the gospel to unbelievers, the duty of teaching within the Church (1 Cor. 11. 6-1. 8, byes Coli BBigqh Dis 7 Bi μαι 58} Ly jo Actas 42), and Paul’s helpers, who had part in this work (above, pp. 31f., 46), such teachers were to be found both among the officers of the Church and outside of this circle (above, p. 97). But if these ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες had been elders or bishops there would certainly be some trace of it, either in the passages which discuss the ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, or in those dealing with the officers of the Church. Consequently these are to be sought among the “laity.” On the other hand, the teaching in question is not the deliverance of a single discourse (1 Cor. xiv. 26), but teaching work regularly practised, as is evidenced by the word ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν (n. 12). From 1 Tim. vi. 3-10 it is clear that these persons made a profession of teaching in the technical sense, for which they took compensation, realising con- siderable profit (n. 18). It is not simply their incidental purpose of profiting from their work, nor their overween- ing sense of superior knowledge of the Scriptures and of Christianity (1 Tim. vi. 4, 20, 1. 7), that Paul condemns, but he twice describes their commercial method of teach- ing as ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, which would imply, not that they 102 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT set forth a false doctrine differing from Christian doc- trine and the gospel of Paul, but that they worked like false teachers, played the réle of false teachers,—in other words, used abnormal and wrong methods (n. 12). This error would not, of course, be serious if it were only some defect of delivery, without reference to what they taught. That, however, their presentation of the fundamental truths of Christianity was not regarded by Paul as false and deceptive, is evident. Such an error, above all, would not be left unmentioned. Paul himself would surely have indicated the character of its contents, and have directly condemned it; still more would this have heen done by a pseudo-Paul, who in Paul’s name was endeavouring to check the spread of these false doctrines. These teachers are charged, rather, with paying attention to matters that sive rise to disputations and do not promote the exercise of his calling on the part of a steward of God (1 Tim. i. 4, above, p. 39, n.'3), whereas they should hold fast the sound words and teachings revealed by Jesus Himself, and the pious doctrine which has since existed in the Church (1 Tim. vi. 4). They are accused of an unwhole- some disposition to engage in disputes and strife of words (vi. 4), disputes just as profitless and worthless (Tit. ii. 9) as are the subjects to which they are fond of paying atten- tion. To be sure, they do discuss the law,—and only the Mosaic law can be meant,—claiming to be its correct inter- preters, on the ground of their fundamental acquaintance with it (1 Tim. i. 7). For this reason the discussions which usually followed in the wake of their teaching are called strifes about the law (Tit. ii. 9). But they make no attempt to set forth the moral purpose of law (1 Tim. i. 5), or to unfold its typical and prophetic signi- fieance, which, according to 1 Tim. i. 8 (ef. 2 Tim. iii, 15 £), they would be entirely right in doing; but they prefer rather to discuss unauthentieated fables and endless gene- alogies (1 Tim, i, 4; Tit. iii. 9), with Jewish (Tit. i. 14), THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 103 v profane, and old wives’ fables (1 Tim. iv. 7). To attempt to identify these μῦθοι and γενεαλογίαν with the fantastic speculations of the second century, particularly with the gradations of zons of the Gentile-Christian gnosis, as has been done, is much less natural than to suppose that men like Ireneeus and Tertullian in their contest with the Valentinians used phrases of Paul’s in describing his system (n. 14). Even if it were not expressly stated in Tit. i. 10 that the chief persons to be opposed were teachers of Jewish origin, and in Tit. 1. 14 that these persons occupied themselves with ’Iovdaikot μῦθοι, and in Tit. ii. 9 that they occasioned νομικαὶ μάχαι, all this, which is formally expressed in these passages would be clear from their claim to be νομοδιδάσκαλοι (1 Tim. 1. 7),—a designation elsewhere given to the rabbis (Luke v. 17; Acts v. 34; cf. Rom. ii. 17-23). Although some of these ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι may have been Gentiles by birth, who either had beeome Jewish proselytes before their conversion to Christianity, or had become acquainted with Judaism after they became members of the Church, there can be no doubt that the whole movement represented by the “false teachers” had its roots in Judaism, more specifically in rabbinie Judaism. Consequently the fables and gene- alogies which they were so fond of discussing can be no other than those discussed by Jewish scribes. These legendary traditions and endless genealogies were, in all yprobability, based upon the text of the Pentateuch, or, Isinee νόμος, from which νομοδιδάσκαλος is derived, signifies rthe entire O.T. (1 Cor. xiv. 21; John x. 34), upon the ‘text of the O.T. generally (n. 15). Even if the Pastoral ‘ Epistles are spurious, every word here used proves that ‘they have nothing to do with the gradations ‘of sons and syzygies of the gnostic systems. In’ contrast to the language of the ecclesiastical opponents of these teachings, who regarded them as blasphemous obscurations of the one true God, and shunned their authors as creators of 104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT idols (Iren. 1. 15. 6), all that is here said against the gene- alogies is that they are endless (1 Tim. i. 4) and foolish, as are also the disputations about them (2 Tim. ii, 23), and the wranglings about the law with which these dis- putations are connected in Tit. ui. 9. The fables, of which, according to 1 Tim. i. 4, the genealogies seem to have been a part, are not only described as Jewish (Tit. i. 14), which of itself would be nothing against them, but are also called βέβηλοι καὶ ypawdes ( 1 Tim. iv. 7). The latter is certainly an opprobrious term, but at the same time is proof ‚positive that the errors here under dis- cussion are not destructive in character; the former term, which is employed to describe all the teachings of the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. 11. 16), when used of things, is simply the opposite of ἱερός. While the orthodox teacher derives his truth from the ἱερὰ γράμματα (2 Tim. i. 15), which accordingly has to do only with things relating to the religious life and to salvation, and so is holy, these teachers handle profane subjects and set forth doctrines which, while they may have their starting- point in the Holy Scriptures, really lie quite outside the sacred sphere within which the orthodox teacher moves. Both teachers and doctrines are spoken of with a great deal of contempt. The knowledge of which they boast cannot properly be called such (1 Tim. vi. 20). In reality they know nothing of the things about which they speak, and do not understand the scope of their own claims (1 Tim. 1. 7, vi. 4), The very questions which they and their hearers discuss prove their lack of common sense and want of real culture (2 Tim. 11. 23). Their teaching is described as vain words (1 Tim. i. 6, ματαιολογία ; Tit. i, 10, ματαιολόγοι ; cf. Tit. 11.9, μάταιοι), words without meaning (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 16, κενοφωνίαι), and both directly and by contrast as worthless (Tit. i. 9, ἀνωφελεῖς ; cf, ὠφέλιμος, Tit. iii. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 160) It is called worthless because it contributes nothing to the THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 105 intelligent fulfilment of the Christian teacher’s office, giving rise only to fruitless investigations and strifes about words (1 Tim. 1. 4, vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 14, 23), More- over, Paul’s helpers are ee not to permit themselves to become involved in these useless and profane teachings, investigations, and disputations (1 Tim. iv. 7, vi. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 16; Tit. ii. 9). The very language in which these warnings are expressed, and the suggestions of the warning not to make their teaching a means of profit (1 Tim. vi. 5-11; ef. 2 Tim. ii. 4) as do these teachers, together with the exhortations rather to be zealous in the presentation of the real truth (1 Tim. 1. 18, iv. 6, vi. 2, 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1-15, 1. 14-iv. 5; Tit. 1.1, i. 1-8), prove that these warnings to Timothy and Titus are very seriously intended. In the mouth of a pseudo-Paul, whose purpose was in the name of the apostle to combat the known errorists of the second century, such language would be proof of the utmost stupidity, as it would be in the case of Paul himself, if he were dealing with teachers who denied any of the fundamentals of the faith of the Church. The same conclusion follows if we look at these pheno- mena from a side other than that indicated by their designation as μῦθοι and yeveadoyiaı. It stands to reason that persons who called themselves teachers of the law handled the legal contents of the Torah, and from 1 Tim. i, 8-11 it is clear that, contrary to the spirit of the gospel, they considered. certain requirements of the Mosaic law binding upon Christians. But if, after the manner of the Galatian Judaisers, they had made the observance of the Mosaic law, or even only of essential parts of it, a condition of salvation, thereby denying the gospel of Paul, neither Paul nor a pseudo-Paul could have passed it by, nor have spoken in the above manner of their absurd and profitless teaching. Nothing is said of circumcision, the Sabbath, or similar legal requirements. But from Tit. i. 14-16 we learn that they developed out 106 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of the law and on the basis of it all sorts of regulations concerning things “clean and unclean,” and from the deseription in this passage of these regulations as com- mandments of men (ef. Col. 1. 22; vol. 1. 465), we infer that they preseribed ascetie rules with reference to foods and the whole manner of living which went beyond the obligations of the Mosaic law. This conclusion is con- firmed by the manner in which this warning against pro- fane and old wives’ fables is coupled with the exhortation to prepare for a life of piety upon earth and for the glory of the life to come, not by bodily asceticism, but by a dis- eipline of the inner self (1 Tim. iv. 7-10); since Timothy is repeatedly warned himself not to follow the false tendencies of these persons, possibly we are to infer from 1 Tim. v. 23 (cf. Rom. xiv. 21) that they forbade the use of wine. While from what has been said these teachers seem not to have been of any great importance, at the same time Paul does not conceal either from himself or from his disciples the harm which they are doing in the Church, and the danger in which they themselves are involved. Being quarrelsome and dogmatic, it is ditheult to correct them; they are insubordinate and disobedient (Tit. i. 10, 16); puffed up by their imaginary knowledge, they resist the representatives of genuine Christianity (Tit. i. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 25). In Crete, particularly, Paul seems to have had unfortunate experiences with these persons (above, p. 45). And indeed ‘Timothy also is in- structed not to enter into discussion with them, but simply to command them to desist from their work (1 Tim. 1. 3, ef. iv. 11). However, in one passage, where evidently the same or similar persons are referred to (2 Tim. ii. 14-16, 24), Timothy is exhorted not to act unkindly in dealing with them, always bearing in mind the possibility of their conversion to true knowledge (2 Tim. ii. 25f). "Titus, on the other hand, is emphatically told to silence them, and to reprimand them sharply and authoritatively THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 107 (1. 11, 13, ef. ii. 15), and then if they withdraw from the Church, to whose diseipline they will not submit, after exhorting them once again, or at most twice, he is to leave them to their fate (iii. 10). Consequently the whole tendency of the movement must have been away from the Church. In proportion as they were prevented from teaching publicly in the assembles of the Church, they must have made an effort to mtroduce their ideas into homes; though it is to be observed that this feature of their work is mentioned in Tit. i. 11 and not in 1 Tim. Concerning 2 Tim. i. 6, see below, p. 114 f. Not only were these persons injurious to the Churches, but they themselves were in great danger. Paul considers their condition diseased (1 Tim. vi. 4; Tit. 1. 13), as proved chiefly by his regular designation of the true doctrine, which they do not hold, and which on that account is to be preached with all the greater zeal as sound (n. 16). Their spiritual life therefore is in peril, and, unless they are converted, they must remain the prey of Satan (2 Tim. u. 25f.). The harmful effects of their departure from the real truth and their capricious meddling with questions entirely secondary, morally unfruitful, and without re- ligious value, are already apparent in their moral life. While prescribing all sorts of ascetic rules for themselves and others, they are the victims of covetousness, and really deny the God whom they profess to know (1 Tim. vi. 3-10; Tit. 1. 13-16). Here again it is apparent that they did not teach an immoral doctrine of God, as did the “ Gnosties” according to the unanimous testimony of the Church of the time, but accepted, formally at least, the God of the common Christian faith. The question now arises as to the relation between these ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι and those who are described as having fallen from the faith and as being outside the Church. According to 1 Tim. vi. 21, some of those who belonged apparently to the party or the movement represented by the ἑτεροδιδάσ- τοῦ INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT καλοι had missed the mark with regard to the faith, and sc had gone astray, from which it is to be inferred incidentally that this was by no means true of them all. From the context of 1 Tim. vi. 3-10 it appears that those who had erred from the faith in consequence of their love of money belonged to the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλο. A certain connection seems to exist also between the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι described in, 1 Tim. i. 3-7 and the two men mentioned in 1. 20; for while the former have disregarded the great underlying principle of every commandment, namely, love, which pre- supposes a pure heart, a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith (cf. also Tit. i. 15), the class of whom Alexander and - Hymeneeus are mentioned as terrible examples have com- pletely abandoned or ‘thrown overboard” (Hofmann) a good conscience, in consequence of which their faith has suffered shipwreck... They had reached the point where they reviled that which was holy to the Christians, and Alexander at least, if he be the same as the Alexander spoken of in 2 Tim. iv. 14 (above, p. 21, π᾿ 3), had gone so far as openly to oppose the apostolic preaching. If Paul had) given them over to Satan for correction, he had not done so without communicating with the Church to which they belonged, and so not‘ without their excommunication from the same. ‘The blasphemous doctrines which they confessed may have been as various as the conduct by which they showed that they had renounced obedience to their own conscience. That the two cases were not entirely alike is evident from 2 Tim. ii. 17, where Hymen:eus’ name is not coupled with that of Alexander, but with that of a certain Philetus, it being declared that the two had proclaimed the doctrine that the resurrection was past already, and had secured some following. Here again things are said in the pre- ceding context which seem to connect these persons with the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (ii, 14-16); although both the lan- guage and the contents of the passage render impossible THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 105 the assumption (ef. Hofmann, vi. 257) that Hymenseus and Philetus are mentioned as examples of this group, so that everything is true of the latter which is said of the former. This identification is impossible, because in all the passages which have been considered (1 Tim. i. 3-20, vi. 10, 21), those who had openly fallen from the faith are distin- guished from the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι, and the latter are never accused of godlessness, blasphemy, and destructive errors, Besides, if this were the case, it would not be enough for the apostle to say that Timothy, in view of the anticipated progress of this godless teaching, is to proclaim the word of truth fearlessly and urgently, and not to occupy his attention with strifes about words and the unspiritual scholasticism of these teachers—poor weapons, indeed, agi.nst such serious errors! From the analogy of the other passages, we conclude that the relation between the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι and those who had openly fallen from the faith of the Church, some of whom, like Alexander, Hymenzeus, and Philetus, had already been excommuni- cated, was genetic. Not a few of these apostates must have come from the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι, and served to illus- trate the harmful character of this method of teaching, which overlooked and diverted attention from the funda- mentals of Christianity. It does not necessarily follow that Alexander, Hymenzsus, and Philetus were Jews by birth, for this was not uniformly the case with the érepo- διδάσκαλοι (above, pp. 44, 103). Connection with Judaism is, however, proved from extra-Biblical traditions. Accord- ing to these traditions, the doctrine in question, which, of course, never consisted solely of the bald contention that the resurrection is already past, existed in a twofold form. According to the one form of the doctrine, a man experi- enced a resurrection in his children. According to the other, the resurrection in which the Church believed meant the rise of the new man from the old in conversion and baptism (n. 17). As the authors and earliest representa- 110 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tives of the latter view, which seems to have been suggested by conceptions of Paul’s (Eph. u. 5f., iv. 23; Col. ii. 12£., ii. 1, 10), are mentioned the Antiochian proselyte Nicolaüs (Acts vi. 5), who seems eventually to have gained a following in the Churches of Asia Minor (Rev. ii. 6, 15), and the Samaritan Menander, a follower of Simon Magus, who was half-Jewish, had been cireum- cised, and lived in Antioch (Just. Apol. i. 26). The former view, which was suggested by Jewish expressions, such as “to awaken seed or children,” according to an early legend was disseminated by disloyal followers of Paul in the apostle’s lifetime. The cruder forms of the doctrine are probably the earliest, and nothing is more natural than to suppose that it was taught first by teachers of pure Jewish blood, and that the doctrine was given its more refined and spiritual form by half-Jews like Nicolaiis and Men- ander, whence it passed in this form into. the various systems of the Gentile Christian gnosis. That Paul expected these abnormal phenomena which existed in the Church of his time to affect the future, is evidenced not only by the way in which he expresses) his expectation that the doctrine of Hymenzeus and Philetus will spread like a gangrene, attacking other members of the Church, and that those who hold it will become more and more godless (2, Tim, ü. 16-18, ef. iii. 13), but also by the manner in which, on the basis of prophecy, he pre- dicts new facts, which, while they may and do have their prelude in the present, really belong to a future, indeed, to the final age. The τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι «Tr. in 1 Tim. iv. 1 is not quoted as scripture (Heb. iii. 7), neither is the tense used historical (Acts i. 16), from which it may be concluded, first of all, that Paul is referring to prophetic utterances which at the time this letter was written were still current in the Churches (ef, Acts xx. 23, xxl. 4, 12, xiii. 2, xvi. 6) We know how highly Paul prized such prophecies, and what definite expectations he THE LAST, THREE EPISTLES, OF, PAUL 111 based upon them (1 Thess. v. 19f.; 2 Thess. 1. 2; vol. i, 226 f.). He uses the indirect form of discourse, evidently because he wants to state in a few words what the pro- phets had said in numerous discourses. Still the ῥητῶς indicates that he intends to reproduce the special pro- phecy which he has in mind, just as explicitly and definitely as is possible in the case of predictions made at various times often only suggested, and, so far as we know, never written down. In this connection it is, of course, to be remembered that the fruitful source of all Christian prophecy was the prophetic testimony of Jesus Himself (Rev. xix. 10), and there is much here that reminds one of many recorded sayings of Jesus (Matt. vin; 15-23, xxiv. AL, 11f.,24;. GK, 1...545 ff) But what the Spirit said to the Churches at that time goes far beyond these sayings. At a later time, which does not necessarily mean the final age, but simply the future as distinguished from the present (cf. Acts xx, 29), many shall depart from the faith, because they give heed to seductive spirits and the teachings of daemons, who in hypocritical guise speak lies. Even though the correct meaning of the separate words and their proper connection be subject to doubt and debate, it is at least clear that not only the apostasy of numerous members of the Church, but also the appearance of the false teachers through whom this is to be brought about, is referred to the future ; for if the reference were to definite phenomena, which were known either because the prophecies in question had been heard before, or because the readers of the letter had learned of the facts through their own experience, or by having been previously informed of them, the articles could not possibly be omitted in describing these phenomena. Con- sequently it can be neither the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι nor the false teachers and blasphemers of 1 Tim. i. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 17 f. that are here referred to.. Furthermore, the terms used to describe these teachers who are to appear in the future are 12 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT not intended simply to express horror at the sinister and seductive power of these men (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 11; 1 John iv. 1-3, 6; 2 John 7), but are chosen in view of the character of their teaching (cf. Ign. Smyrn. ü.). By forbidding believers to marry on the ground that it is impure, and by forbidding the use of certain foods on the ground that they are evil and not intended. by God for use by pious men or by others, they act as if they were bodiless spirits endeavouring to realise in themselves and those whom they seek to win a type of spirituality contrary to nature. Although they may declare it neces- sary for Christians to be like angels (Luke xx. 86; Col. ii. - 18; vol. i. 466, 469), the prophetic spirit pronounces them deceptive spirits and lying demons. If it be re- carded as certain that these teachers and the doctrines attributed to them belong to the future, it follows that it must have been conditions in the Churches under Timothy’s care which influenced Paul or a pseudo-Paul to recall this prophecy, and to urge Timothy to preach truths that would counteract these false doctrines which were to appear in the future (1 Tim. iv. 4-6). From the fact that in the very next verse we have statements which apply to the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (iv. 7 f.), it is clear beyond question that it was the ascetic rules of these teachers, derived from the Mosaic law (above, p. 105), that occasioned the exhortation. The ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι did not forbid marriage nor declare that certain forms of food in customary use were of themselves objectionable and not fit to be used by Christians; this was to be done in the future by the deceiving spirits ; but these commandments of men with reference to the disciplining of the body (Tit. i. 14f.; 1 Tim. iv. 8) prepared the way for false doctrines which deny the fundamental laws of life established at the creation. In 2 Tim. iv. 3, without appeal to a definite prophecy, Paul speaks of a future time when men generally, includ- THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 113 ing thus at least numerous Christians, will not bear sound doctrine, 2.e. will find it too strict or too monotonous, and in their wanton desire for what is new and interesting will provide for themselves teachers after their own liking, finally closing their ears entirely to the truth and giving heed to fables. In view of this prospect, Timothy is to devote himself the more earnestly to preaching before the evil time comes (2 Tim. iv. 2-5); he is to see to it that there are others besides himself and after him who shall propagate sound doctrine (2 Tim. ii. 2). While it is not here stated in so many words that the beginnings of this very unsound development of ecclesiastical taste, so to speak, existed already in the present, it must have been the case ; for otherwise the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι in Ephesus and Crete would not have met with approval. In 2 Tim. iv. 4 the word translated fables has the article prefixed, so that it desig- nates the whole class of unauthenticated fables, includ- ing thus the rabbinie tales of which the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι made so much (1 Tim. i. 4; Tit. i. 14, iii. 9); while the recurrence here of the word “sound doctrine” proves that Paul had in mind their unsound methods and the morbid taste of numerous members of the Church who gave heed to them. Nevertheless Paul’s words are still prophetic, because he speaks of a future time when this perverted taste, now to be observed in isolated cases, shall become general in the Church, resulting in the in- creased number and more perverse character of these teachers. There is a third passage (2 Tim. iii. 1-5) written in the prophetic spirit relating less directly to harmful teachers and doctrines. In the last days, reads the pas- sage, shall come evil times. The future tense makes it impossible to assume that the reference is to the present Christian era, treated as the final age (Heb. 1.1; 1 Pet. i. 20; Jas. v. 3; 1 Cor. x. 11; Acts ii. 17). It can mean only the future which still lies before the persons for whom VOL. Il. 8 114 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the letter was intended—the time approaching, the end of the age (2 Pet. iii. 3). The thing that will make these times so evil and so hard for Christians to bear will be a widespread moral degeneracy. ‘The prediction is made with reference to men in general. But from the state- ment at the end of the passage that in these times men will love pleasure more than God, and that while retain- ing outwardly a form of godliness they will deny its power, it is clear that the persons referred to are members of the Church, showing that it is a general moral decline of Christianity that is here predicted, or rather that a prophecy to this effect is recalled to Timothy’s mind (ef. Matt. xxiv. 12, 38, 48f, xxv. 5; Luke xvi. 8; 2 Thess. ii. 3; vol. i. 240). Clearly this would not happen did there not exist in the present foreshadowines and ex- amples of such sham Christianity, which it is necessary for Timothy as a teacher rightly to judge and handle. Similarly, the sudden transition from the description of evil times to come and of the general character of the generation then living to the exhortation, “ From these persons turn away,” has its justification in the fact that he goes on to speak of persons now living who belong to the class of sham Christians just described (2 Tim. iii. 6-9). But these living sham Christians are described as teachers whose conduct bears a certain resemblance to that of the true teacher, just as the Egyptian sorcerers did to Moses, but who in reality, like those sorcerers, are opposed to the truth represented by the servant of God. Inasmuch as 2 Tim., unlike 1 Tim. and Titus, was not written with a definite group of Churches in view among which Paul’s helper was to work, neither ii. 6-9 nor iv. 3 (cf. ἢ. 14-16, 23) can be interpreted as referring exclusively to the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι in Ephesus and Crete. That, however, Paul had these and persons of a similar character in view there is no reason to doubt. Like the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (Tit. i. 11), the persons described in 2 ‘Tim. THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL ΓΕ teach from house to house, and neglect the moral aspects of Christian truth (1 Tim. 1. 5), persuading sinful women to become their disciples instead of exhorting them to repentance, and gratifying their idle curiosity by telling them all sorts of fables and Biblical curiosities. These persons in Tit. 1. 10 are condemned in practically the same terms as in 2 Tim. iu. 5 ; τετυφωμένοι, 2 Tim. 111. 4, is to be found also in 1 Tim. vi. 4; the expression ἄνθρωποι κατεφθαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν, 2 Tim. iii. 8, is almost exactly the same as that which is found in 1 Tim. vi. 5. The fact that Paul himself enters the realm of Jewish mythology in quoting the names of Jannes and Jambres only serves to strengthen the impression that he has principally in mind false teachers who were for the most part Jewish. This impression is not at all weakened by the fact that he assures Timothy for his encouragement that these sham Christian teachers will not be able to accomplish more, since their folly will soon become manifest to all Christians (1. 9); for the contrary remark in 2 Tim. ii. 16 apples not to the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι, but to the false doctrine of Hymenzus ; and wherever the former are mentioned they are spoken of slightingly, and described as foolish persons who, without much ceremony, are to be forbidden to carry on their work. Although individuals of evil character, both Christians and teachers, will wax worse and worse (2 Tim. 111. 13), the sham Christian teachers described in 2 Tim. 11. 6-9, who in their essential characteristics re- present the same class as the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι in Ephesus and Crete, have no future, no matter how much harm they may do in the present. On the other hand, the false doctrine mentioned in 2 Tim. 11. 17 f. was to have a future, while the false doctrine predicted by the prophetic spirit in 1 Tim. iv. 1-3 belonged wholly to the future. All this is in agreement with history only if these Epistles were written in the apostolic age. Nothing resembling the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι is to be found in the post-apostolic age. ı16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Cerinthus is out of the question, for his Judaism is only a learned myth (vol. i. 515, n. 4). The Naassenes, who, to be sure, according to Hippolytus’ description, adopted Jewish elements in their syncretistic system (n. 11), were anything but Jewish teachers of the law. From the letters of Ignatius we learn that in the year 110 wander- ing teachers of Jewish origin, with reference to whom Ignatius uses several phrases to be found in the Pastoral Epistles, were seeking entrance into the Churches of Asia Minor (vol. 1. 497, and below, n. 14). These, however, were real false teachers; they taught that the essen- tials of the Mosaic law were binding upon all Christians, as for example the law concerning the Sabbath. They denied the reality of Christ’s humanity, especially the reality of His death and resurrection, and of the resurrec- tion of Christians from the dead, none of which were tenets of the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (cf. Zahn, Ignatius, pp. 356-399). Neither does the picture of the Judaisers opposed in the Epistle of Barnabas, nor the Ebionism that appears in the pseudo-Clementine literature, show features resembling the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι of the Pastoral Epistles. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, the manner in which they make a business of teaching allies these teachers with the Petrine party in Corinth (vol. i. 288 f.), while their neglect of the essentials of Christianity and their emphasis upon ascetic rules based upon the Mosaic law connect them with the Jewish Christian teachers in Colosse (vol. i. 462). But in the Pastoral Epistles we have no appeal on the part of the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι to the authority of another apostle or of the mother Church; nor is any- thing said about philosophy and philosophical speculations concerning nature, while the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Colossians are silent about rabbinic myths, in- vestigations and disputations about genealogies, and specific legal requirements of the O.T. Furthermore, if the earlier Epistles of Paul really reflect conditions in the Church THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL Ll Uy at the time when they were written, the rise and spread in various directions, such as Ephesus and Crete—and, judging from the hints of 2 Tim., even more widely—of a form of a pious sounding doctrine assuming to be Chris- tian, but really representing the worst sort of rabbinism— of sufficient importance to be opposed as seriously and en- ergetically as it is in these Epistles—is a new phenomenon, to which Paul bears witness only in his last letters. For a pseudo-Paul in the post-apostolic age—when Christians of Jewish birth had become more and more exceptions in the Gentile Christian Church—to have invented a de- scription of and then vigorously to have opposed the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι, Who did not exist in his own age and who were without parallel in the earlier Epistles of Paul: would have been to expose himself to ridicule without apparent purpose or meaning. As has been shown above (p. 107 f., and n. 17), the ei heresy, which, according to 2 Tim. ii. 18, existed at the time, is represented by ancient accounts, the trustworthiness of which at this point can- not be questioned, as having existed in a twofold form even in the apostolic age. So far as we are able to trace its development, it originated in Jewish and semi-Jewish circles in Palestine (n. 17). The fact that this is not directly stated proves that what we have here is not the attempt of some later writer artificially to put himself and his readers back in the apostolic age; while the fact that it is assumed in 2 Tim. 11. 17 that this development will take place, and the fact that we are able to form an idea of its character only from the context, prove that the author did not live at a time when Gentile Christian Gnostics of different schools were actually proclaiming this or a similar doctrine. The fact that this prophecy was fulfilled, and that this doctrine did develop and spread, is no proof that it was not Paul who gave utterance to the same. The same is true with siren de to the prophecy concerning a future false teaching in 1 Tim. iv. 1-3 and 118 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the related passages, 2 Tim. iii. 1-5, iv. 3f., unless it be assumed as self-evident that Christian prophecy which began with Jesus and was developed in His Church never developed anything but phantasies. Marcion forbade the members of his Church to marry, and degraded the God of creation and His work. Ideas of this kind were de- veloped further by Encratism and Manicheism. That, however, a pseudo-Paul, who had lived through the ex- perience of Marcion’s activity, writing in the name of Paul and of the prophets of the early Christian Church, would have used only the language of 1 Tim. iy. 1-3 in opposing him, it is impossible to believe. Neither can we suppose that he would have found in certain doctrines of Jewish Christian teachers of the law (above, pp. 102 f., 105 f.) the antetype of Marcion’s anti-Jewish teaching, nor is it any more likely that in another passage he would have finally betrayed himself by the use of Marcion’s antitheses (n. 18). A comparison of the statements in these Epistles about various kinds of false doctrine, and of those portions of the same that deal with the organisation and officers of the Church with conditions actually existing in the Church, especially the Church of Asia Minor, at the beginning and during the course of the second century, proves just as clearly as does the external evidence that they must have been written at latest before the year 100. But they could not have been written during the first two decades after Paul’s death, because of the character of the references to persons, facts, and conditions in Paul’s lifetime and his own personal history, and because of the impossibility on this assumption of discovering a plausible motive for their forgery (above, p. 88 ff.). Consequently the claim that they are post-Pauline, and contain matter which is un-Pauline, is to be treated with the greatest suspicion. Passing by altogether or with the briefest men- tion what is manifestly foolish (n. 19), we must admit that THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 19 it is really a cause for suspieion if in 1 Tim. v. 18 we have cited as Scripture a gospel-saying to be found in exactly the same form in Luke x. 7, and with slight differences in Matt, x. 10, inasmuch as elsewhere Paul quotes the sayings of Jesus only from the oral tradition, and in 1 Cor. ix. 14 reproduces this same command of Jesus, but in a free rendering. specially is this suspicion justified in view of the fact that considerable time elapsed after the death of Paul before the Gospels came to be quoted as Scripture. But, assuming that a pseudo-Paul wanted to support the Mosaic regulation, which required a somewhat bold inter- pretation in order to render it applicable to the teachers (1 Cor. ix. 9), by adding a saying of Jesus’ which referred directly to Christian teachers and had greater authority, it would have been quite out of keeping with the custom of the second century for him to have quoted it without saying that it was a word of the Lord, and so smuggling it in, as it were, obscurely as a word of Scripture. It is very much more likely that the ἡ γραφὴ λέγει refers only to the passage from the law, and that the other is a proverb of which Jesus Himself made use. There are other sentences of Paul's which seem to be proverbs, although we have no means of proving that they are such (1 Cor. v. 6; Gal. v. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 10). In 1 Cor. xv. 32 f. only the scholar would recognise the verse from an Attic comedian which follows a quotation from Isa. (xxil. 13), with only two words intervening (vol. i. 71, n. 19). Without question we do find in these letters, and only in these letters, the unmistakable traces of a fixed baptismal formula (n. 20); but this is a cause for suspicion only if we know certainly that such a formula did not originate until after Paul’s death. But this is precisely what we do not know. It is also to be admitted that Paul does speak in these Epistles more frequently and more definitely than in the earlier letters, of orthodox teach- ing which was to be handed down from teacher to disciple, 120 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of a confession to be made publiely before the Church, of a form of words which the disciple when he teaches is to use as a summary of Christian truth, and of the truth em- braced in this doctrine as the norm of speech and conduct for all (2 Tim. 1. 13, ii. 2, 8, 14, iii. 10, 14; 1 Tim. i. 10, iv. 6, vi. 1, 3; Tit. 1. 9,11. 1,10). That this point of view was not altogether foreign to Paul is evident from Rom. vi. 17, xvi. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 17, xv. 1-3; Col. 1. 6f ; Eph. iv. 20f. That in the course of time this way of looking at things should be confirmed, and that it should come more and more to view in face of the growing tendency about him to teach perversely for gain and even to teach false doctrines, is perfectly conceivable, as is also his anxiety, in view of his approaching death, that there shall be faithful and able witnesses of the truth proclaimed by him among the Gentiles. Similarly can we understand the manner in which, in view of the perils that exist and still threaten, he comforts himself by recalling that immovableness which through her divine origin belongs to the Church as the pillar of the truth (1 Tim. iii. 15; 2 Tim. 11. 19). That the idea of the unity of the Church was not foreign to Paul nor a late development of his thought, has been shown in the discussion of Ephesians (vol. i. 503 f.). The fact that the form of Christianity and the teaching here dealt with are unhealthy, explains why orthodox teaching is so often spoken of in these Epistles as sound (above, p. 107, and n. 16). In proportion as the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι subordinated the moral aspects of Christianity to their rabbinic fancies and ascetic hobbies, it was natural that this side of Christianity should come strongly to view, and that its opposition to all immorality should be emphasised (1 Tim. i. 10, vi. 1; Tit. 1. 1-4), and that the whole doctrine of the Church based upon the gospel and faith in the same (cf. 1 Tim. i. 11-16; Tit. iii. 3-7) should be described as a single commandment (ἡ ἐντολή, 1 Tim. vi. 14; ἡ παραγγελία, 1 Tim. v.18, ef. iv.11). To call this un- Pauline THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 121 is to forget that Paul speaks of a law of Christ and of God which Christians are to fulfil (Gal. vi. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 21; ef. Rom. viii. 4), and also calls the gospel itself, which exeludes all boasting, a law of faith (Rom. ii. 27, 31), and speaks of faith and of its manifestation in the life as obedience (Rom. i. 5, vi. 16, xvi. 26). Nowhere in these Epistles do we find sentences that sound so “ un-Pauline” as 1 Cor. vii. 19, and which can be so readily mistaken as a fusion of genuine Pauline teaching with its opposite, as Gal. v. 6. Here full emphasis is laid upon the doctrine of redemp- tion and of justification not by works but by grace (Tit. ii. 11-14, iii. 4-7; 1 Tim. 1. 12-16, 11. 4-7 ; 2 Tim. 1. 9), while in addition we have the bold statement (1 Tim. 1. 9) that for the just man, and consequently for the sinner who has been made righteous by the mercy of the Saviour (1 Tim. i. 13-16), there is no law. With regard to that last refuge of so-called criticism, namely, the lineuistic character of the letters, it is to be remarked at the outset that a pseudo-Paul, by repeating and imitating Pauline expressions, would be sure to make mis- takes and so betray himself. The opposite is what we really find. Even the greetings, which would be most apt to be handled in this way, are thoroughly original, showing de- pendence neither upon earlier letters nor upon the common model (n. 21). Here also is to be observed the peculiarity of Paul’s style, by which he repeats within short range a characteristic word once used or a related word (vol. i. 516, n. 7), without prejudice to the fact that for one not a Greek he has command of an unusually large number of words and expressions (n. 21), which would tend rather to increase with time than to diminish. It is also to be ob- served that 1 Tim. and Titus were written within a short time of each other and for like reasons, and that 2 Tim. also is considerably closer to these letters both in time and purpose than it is to any of the Epistles that we have investigated. Consequently the fact that these ı22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT three letters have certain expressions in common which either are not found in the earlier Pauline Epistles at all, or occur only rarely, is no proof that they are spurious, but only goes to confirm the conclusion arrived at from the investigation of their contents, that they all belong to the same period in Paul’s life, and that the last. If it be admitted that the linguistic phenomena of the letters controvert altogether the efforts of numerous “apologists” to find a place for 1 Tim. and Titus in the earlier period of Paul’s life, then the “ critics” in their turn ought not to deny that 2 Tim. is different from the other two not only in content, but also linguistically. Such difference is very difficult to understand if all three are the work of a forger, but very easy to explain if they were written by Paul under the conditions which the letters themselves disclose. 1. (P. 85.) SCHLEIERMACHER was the first to deny positively the genn ineness of 1 Tim. (Uber den sogen. ersten Brief des Paulos an den Timotheos. Kritisches Sendschr. an Gass, 1807 ; Werke zur Theol. ii. 221-320), at the same time admitting the genuineness of 2 Tim. and of Tit. Baur (Die sogenann- ten Pastoralbr. des Ap. Pl. 1835) pronounced them all spurious. With many, who in other respects have not followed the critical paths which Baur struck out, this opinion has gained the weight of a dogma. A summary of the works in which this view is taken is given by HoLtzmann (Die Pastoralbriefe, krit. u. exeg. behandelt, 1880). At the outset the “critics” (eg. v. Soden, HK, iii. 1. 196) always make the assertion that “there is no place in Paul’s life for the situations presupposed ” in these letters, the worth of which assertion can be judged in the light of p. 54 ff. Not a few have made the attempt to find a genuine kernel in the letters, while at the same time rejecting the whole mass of enveloping material; in recent times, LEMME (Das echte Ermahnungsschreiben des Paulus an Tim. 1882) and Hxsse (Entstehung der ntl. Hirtenbriefe, 1889). The former made the attempt with 2 Tim., the latter with all three letters, the conelusion of the investigation being that a genuine letter to Titus lies at the basis of our Tit., and that at least the fragment of a genuine letter to Timothy is retained at the close of 2 Tim. In like fashion KRENKBL (Beiträge [1890], 395-468) thinks that he is able to distin- guish parts of three genuine letters, namely (1) a letter dating from the time of Acts xx. 1f., probably addressed to Titus while he was staying in Crete (=Tit. iii. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 20; Tit. iii. 13) ; (2) one dating from the imprison- ment in Cwsarea, probably to Timothy (=2 Tim. iv. 9-18); and (3) one written during the imprisonment in Rome to an assistant staying in Ephesus (=2 Tim. iv. 19, i. 16, 17, 18), iv. 21). Hypotheses of this kind, in whieh as THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 123 a rule only their inventors believe, could establish a claim to serious con sideration only if developed with an unusual degree of ingenuity and care But this we fail to find when, eg. we read that according to 2 Tim. ii, 14- iv. 5, Timothy, instead of hastening to Rome, as he is commanded to do in the genuine part (iv. 9, 21), is to labour officially in a circle of Churches as a resident successor of the apostles there (Lemme, 37); or that Paul main- tained a thoroughly negative attitude toward the religion of the O.T. (includ- ing that of Abraham, David, and Elijah ?), accepting only its scriptures (55) ; or when Krenkel, 421, seeks to support the essential historicity of the facts presupposed in Tit. by the assumption that Titus at the time of Acts xx. 1-3 went to Crete, possibly from Athens, while Paul turned aside to Corinth (ef. per contra, Tit. i. 5, ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ) ; or when the same critic (422) discovers in Acts xxvii. 7f. that Paul landed in Crete, but met no Christians there ; or when, further on (444), he explains the difference between 2 Tim. iv. 18 and Philem. 22—a sentence which, he alleges, was written shortly before—as due to a change of mood for which there was no real motive. 2. (Pp. 85, 86.) The Epistle to the Laodiceans (GK, ii. 584) and the Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians contain the name of no person belonging to the time when they purport to have been written except that of Paul; the Epistle of Peter to James (Clementina, ed. Lagarde, p. 3) none except those of Peter and James. It is only in the apocryphal Hpistle of the Corinthians to Paul (ed. Vetter, p. 52) that certain other names are to be found, namely, Stephanas, from 1 Cor. i. 16, xvi. 15-17, as bishop of Corinth, and among the members of the presbytery associated with him, in addition to two unknown persons, a Theophilus (Luke i. 3; Actsi. 1) and a Eubulus (2 Tim. iv. 21). Further, in association with the Simon of Acts viii., a Cleobios, an unfaithful disciple of the apostles, repeatedly mentioned in the literature of the second century, sometimes in connection with Simon, sometimes not (GK, ii. 596, n. 3); finally a Theonas, perhaps the Theodas who was known in the second century as a disciple of Paul (Vetter, p. 53, A. 1; Forsch. 111. 125). Only in the last of the four forged letters mentioned are to be found hints of definite historical situations (vv. 2,8); yet even here we have not independent fietion, but a component part of a larger narrative fietion, the old Acts of Paul. Moreover, this letter is composed on the basis of 1 Cor. vii. 1 quite as mechanically as Paul’s reply based on 1 Cor. v. 9, and the Epistle to the Laodiceans based on Col. iv. 16. Suffice it merely to mention later and more wretched inventions, such as a letter of John preserved by Prochorus (Acta Jo. p. 68; ef. GK, i. 217, A. 2), and the correspondence between Seneca and Paul, which are even poorer in quality. 3. (P. 85.) Ranke (Weltgesch. iii. 1. 191): “The widespread doubt as to the genuineness of the Epistles to Timothy is due to the fact that we possess no reliable information whatever concerning that epoch. Various circum- stances are mentioned which we are unable to place in relation to others about which we possess knowledge. But they are details of a minor char- acter, and who would be likely to have invented them ?” 4. (P. 91.) Phil. i. 1 of the single Church, σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις. Just so Clem. 1 Cor. xlii. 4; Herm. Sim. ix. 26. 2, 27. 2; cf. Vis. iii. 5.1; Didache, chap. xv., cf. Forsch. iii. 302-310. The single προεστώς over against the plurality of διάκονοι in Just. Apol. i. 65, 67, can prove nothing to the [124 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT contrary; for the διάκονος is here viewed as the leader of the worship, and such leading can hardly be performed by more than one at a time. 5. (P. 91.) Just as the πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ in Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 23; Acts iv. 8) form the πρεσβυτέριον (Acts xxii. 5) Or γερουσία (Acts v. 21), i.e. the great Sanhedrin, in the same way the πρεσβύτεροι τῆς ἐκκλησίας (Acts xx. 17; Jas. v. 14) everywhere make up a πρεσβυτέριον (Ign. Eph. ii. 2, iv. 1; in all twelve times). The name πρεσβύτερος among Jews and early Christians was not, any more than “senator” among the Romans, an official title, or more precisely, the designation of an official, but denoted member- ship in the senate which had the rule over the congregation. But for that very reason the πρεσβύτερος was assured of a share in the govern- ment of the congregation (κυβέρνησις, 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; ποιμένες, Eph. iv. 11; ποιμαίνειν, 1 Pet. v. 2f.; Acts xx. 28; 1 Cor. ix. 7; προΐστασθαι, 1 Thess. v. 12; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 17; Herm. Fis. ii. 4. 3; ἡγεῖσθαι, Acts xv. 22; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24; Clem. 1 Cor. i. 3, perhaps also Ixiii. 1; προηγεῖσθαι, Clem. 1 Cor. ii. 6; Herm. Vis. ii. 2. 6, iii. 9. 7), and an official character was lent to his actions in so far as he performed any functions whatever in his capacity as πρεσβύτερος. E. Kühl (Die Gemeindeordnung in den Pastoralbr. 1885) treated this subject with especial reference to Hatch’s hypotheses. Cf. also Zöckler, Bibl. u. kirchenhistor. Studien (1893), ii., “Diakonen und Evangelisten,” where ample notice is taken of the more recent literature; see especially S. 33-37, 63-71. 6. (P. 92.) One reason for the choice of the word ἐπίσκοπος instead of πρεσβύτερος (1 Tim. iii. 2) may be found in the locus communis immediately preceding (iii.1). The reading ἀνθρώπινος (instead of πιστός) ὁ λόγος, which was the only prevalent reading in the West until Jerome’s time, seems to the present writer so incapable of invention, and the change in uniformity with i. 15, iv. 9, 2 Tim. ii. 11, Tit. iii. 8, so comprehensible, that in spite of its incomplete attestation (Greek only in D*) he is compelled to conelude that it was the original reading. It was probably a proverb of rather broad signifi- cance and non-Christian origin (ef. Rom. vi. 19). Moreover, the use of the singular τὸν ἐπίσκοπον, which of itself is not peculiar (1 Cor. vii. 32-35, xiv. 2-4; 2 Cor. xii. 12, rod ἀποστόλου ; cf. also the change of number in 1 Tim. v. 1, 2 and v. 3-5), was particularly natural after the saying in iii. 1, in which the individual who desires an office is mentioned. In like manner the transition from τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους (Tit. i. 5) to τὸν ἐπίσκοπον (i. 7) is occa- sioned by the intervening εἴ τις (i. 6). 7. (Pp. 92, 94.) Baur (Pastoralbriefe, 80 f.), who admits that πρεσβύτερος and ἐπίσκοπος refer to the same office, argues that Tit. i. 5 means that in each of several cities a presbyter was to be appointed, who was called ἐπίσκοπος in relation to the individual Church, but πρεσβύτερος in relation to his colleagues in the other Churches. But herein are two claims that contradict the history. Churches with a single bishop which did not at the same time have a number of presbyters are as thoroughly unknown in the whole extent of the early Church (n. 4) as is a college of presbyters composed of the overseers of the various local congregations. But aside from this, the difficulty with this view is not so much that the two elements of the command, namely, “to appoint a man as ἐπίσκοπος of each single church,” and “thereby to make him member of the general presbytery of Crete,” are THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 125 not clearly expressed ; they are rather not expressed at all. The construc- tion necessitates such an interpretation here just as little as in Acts xiv. 23 (cf. per contra Matt. xxvii. 15, κατὰ δὲ ἑορτὴν ... ἕνα). It would be possible with Hofmann to take πρεσβυτέρους as a second predicate accusative, supply- ing the first accusative or direct object from i. 6; but considering the common oceurrence of combinations like καθιστάναι τύραννον (Herodot. v. 92 at the beginning; βασιλεῖς, Dan, ii. 21; κριτάς, 2 Chron. xix. 5, everywhere without a double accusative), and in view of the analogy of χειροτονεῖν (Acts xiv. 23; Ign. Smyrn. xi. 2), such an interpretation is not very probable. Of. Clem. 1 Cor. liv. 2, οἱ καθεσταμένοι πρεσβύτεροι. The early commentators without exception recognised the identity of presbyter and bishop in Phil. i. 1; Tit. i.7; 1 Tim. iii. 1-7 (Ambrosiaster on these passages ; Jerome, Vall. vii. 694f.; Theod. Mops. i. 199, ii. 118-126, 168f., 239). The Syrians (Ephrem, Comm. in Pauli Epist. 249, 269, and the Peshito) go so far as to translate ἐπίσκοπος and ἐπισκοπή in Tit. i. 7, 1 Tim. iii. 1f. by presbyter and presbyteratus. 8. (P. 93.) Acts xiv. 23, xx. 17,28 (which latter passage, Acts xx., treats only of the elders of Ephesus, and not, as Irenzeus (iii. 14.2) and Baur (83) interpreted it, of the bishops and presbyters of the western part of Asia Minor, where also the πρεσβύτεροι of the local Church, as Luke calls them, are called by Paul ἐπίσκοποι in view of their official work among the flock entrusted to them). Further, cf. 1 Pet. v. 1-4 (πρεσβύτεροι---ποιμαίνειν [in addition to this ἐπισκοπεῖν, according to the majority of the witnesses]— moluviov—apxımolumv=ii. 25, ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον). For Rome and Corinth, Clem. 1 Cor. 42, 4 (the first converts appointed by the apostles everywhere in town and country as ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι), xlii. 5 (foretold in Isa. Ix. 17), 40 (foreshadowed by priests and Levites, cf. xliii.), xliv. 1, 4 (ἐπισκοπή, the office of the foremost men); xliv. 3-6, xlvii. 6, liv. 2, vii. 1 (the super- intendents appointed by the apostles in Corinth, 1.6. the ἐπίσκοποι, yet πρεσβύτεροι for all that). Concerning the concurrent testimony of Hermas, cf. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 98ff.; with reference to Philippi, his Tgnatius, 297-301, 535 ; concerning the Didache, Forsch. iii. 302-310. As for the testimony of Acts, suspicions of its trustworthiness cannot influence our judgment in this matter; for the incidental and incomplete character of the statements on the subject excludes the possibility that the author was endeavouring to trace a definite official organisation of his time back to an apostolic foundation. 9. (P. 95.) With reference to widows, cf. the writer’s Ignatius, S. 333-337, 580-585 ; Uhlhorn, Die christl. Liebestitigkeit, i. 159 ff. 10. (P. 95.) The interpretation and practical application of Tit. i. 6, 1 Tim, iii. 2, 12, according to which the clergy, in distinction from the laity, are forbidden to marry a second time, is of early date, and was known to Tertullian, de Exhort. cast. vii. ; Monog. xii., who combated it with no little skill. The content of the prohibition, however, he understood in the same sense, and his object was simply to extend its application to all Christians. The Catholic interpretation and praxis are attested by Origen, Hom. xvii. in Luc, ; in Matt. hom. xiv. 22 (Delar. iii. 645, 953) ; Hippol. Refut. ix. 12; the so-called Apostolical Constitutions, xvi. 3 (Funk, Doctr. XII. apost. p. 60), according to the most likely interpretation ; Ambrosiaster, ed. Bened. pp. 126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 294, 295. Jerome, while rejecting what he terms Tertullian’s exaggeration likewise accepts this view (Vall. vii. 696 f.), as also Chrysostom (xi. 598 f., 605, 738), although both were acquainted with the correct exegesis, which before this had been supported by Ephrem, p. 249, and with especial positive- ness by Theodorus (ii. 99-106). Among moderns, ef. particularly Hofmann on Tit. i.6. Schleiermacher, who (191) recognised the correct interpretation of Tit. i. 6, would not admit that it held for the similar words in 1 Tim. iii. 2, since, as he claimed, such a meaning is impossible in v. 9, at least, and a uni- form interpretation is required throughout the same letter. If it is sufficiently established that Tit. i. 6 should be taken as a prohibition of all sexual inter- course out of wedlock, then the same interpretation holds also in 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. But these sentences are related to 1 Tim. v. 9 exactly as the two halves of 1 Cor. vii. 2 to each other; for the meaning of this latter passage is not only that men and women should as a rule be married, but also that each one, whether man or woman, should confine sexual intercourse to the consort; ef. 1 Thess. iv. 3; Eph. v. 22, 28, 33. The implied contrast is never a recognised and regulated bigamy, polygamy, or polyandry, but always sexual intercourse that is out of wedlock and adulterous. Not infrequently expressions are used for such intercourse which the ill-informed might under- stand as denoting a formal marriage relation (1 Cor. v. 1; John iv. 18, vol. i. p. 296, n. 4). The impossibility of referring the prohibition to a second marriage is, however, still more clear in 1 Tim. v. 9 than in the other passages, since this sentence stands in the closest proximity to the command that the younger widows should marry again (v. 14). 11. (Pp.99, 116.) Baur says (Pastoralbriefe, 10) : “In a word, we have before us in the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles the Gnostics of the second century, particularly the Marcionites” (see below, n. 18). Hilgenfeld (Einl. 748, 752), while agreeing with Baur in essentials, distinguishes, however, a double heresy, the Gentile Christian Gnosis, including that of Marcion, and a Jewish legalistic tendency, both of which, he holds, are opposed in 1 Tim. i. 3-11 as well as in Tit. i. 14, iii. 9. Mangold (Die Irrlehrer des Pastoralbr. 1856), partly in dependence upon Ritschl, who holds the false teachers of Tit. to be Therapeutz, i.e. degenerate Essenes, and partly following Credner, though he most warmly opposes that writer’s division of the false teachers in the Pastoral Epistles into four classes, undertakes to show that in all three Epistles, Essenism is attacked. In Tit. he thinks this party, who are seek- ing to force their teaching upon the Church, is still altogether outside of Christianity ; in 2 Tim., which was written earlier than 1 Tim., they are attempting a “fusion of their dogmas with Christian ideas,” to the support of which they are attempting to win over individual Christians (28) ; lastly, in 1 Tim. they are making a menacing assault upon the whole Church of Ephesus. Lightfoot (Bibl. Essays, 1893, pp. 408, 411-418, this part written as early as 1865) attempted to prove that the attack here is aimed against the party of the Naassenes described by Hippolytus, Refut. v. 6-11, or a party very closely related to this sect. Careful exegesis, in which regard Hofmann has rendered the greatest services here also, excludes all these and similar inter- pretations. Hort’s discussion (Judaistie Christianity, 1894, pp. 130-146), which exegetically closely follows B. Weiss, is the best thus far. 12. (Pp. 100, 101, 102.) Ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, formed from a word ἑτεροδιδάσ- THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 127 καλὸς (Eus. H. E. iii. 32. 8), which may have been already in use at that time or only made up for the oecasion,—it makes no difference which,—belongs to that numerous class of verbs derived from compound nouns or adjectives which “denote the existence in a state or the customary exercise of an activity” (Blass-Kühner, i. 2. 337 ; ef. S. 260). Examples in Paul’s writings are ἀγαθοεργεῖν, ἑτεροζυγεῖν, ξενοδοχεῖν, olkodeomoreiv, τεκνογονεῖν, τεκνο- τροφεῖν. There was no such verb as διδασκαλέω, which one MS. of Clem. Hom. ii. 15 gives, any more than ἐργέω, γονέω, dox&w. Furthermore, the analogy of νομοδιδάσκαλος (1 Tim. 1. 7), καλοδιδάσκαλος (Tit. 11. 3), ψευδοδιδάσκαλος (2 Pet. ii. 1), κακοδιδάσκαλος (κακοδιδασκαλεῖν, Clem. 2 Cor. x. 5; Sextus Emp. c. Rhet. xlii., even with acc. pers.), γεροντοδιδάσκαλος (Plato, Euthyd. 272), γραμματοδιδάσκαλος (Plut. Aleib. vii.), δουλοδιδάσκαλος (title of a comedy by Phereerates), ἱεροδιδάσκαλος (Dion. Halic. ii. 73), παιδοδιδάσκαλος, πορνοδιδάσ- καλος, χοροδιδάσκαλος «rA., proves beyond doubt that ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος is a teacher of the kind denoted by érepo-, and certainly not, as Otto, 45; Kölling, i. 254 ff. ; Hesse, 77, 125, tried to make out, “one who has another teacher.” The word ἑτεροδέσποτος, which, according to Kölling, 261, decides the matter, is not pertinent, since διδάσκαλος is a very common substantive, while δέσποτος, on the contrary, is no word at all. The rule which is given to justify this remarkable interpretation (Kölling, 254) is contradicted by the whole great class of so-called attributive compounds (Blass-Kiihner, i. 2. 312 f.), e.g. καλλιέλαιος, Rom. xi. 24; καλλίχθυς, κακόδουλος, karöpavrıs, γλυκύμηλον, παμβασιλεύς, παμμήτωρ, ἀρχιερεύς, πρωτόμαρτυς, to which also the word ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος belongs. Of the two chief meanings of ἕτερος (illustrated also in compounds, 4.4. ἑτερόφθαλμος, one-eyed; ἑτερόγλωσσος, speaking another tongue), naturally only the second is in place here. As in ἑτερύδοξος, ἐτεροδοξέω, érepodokia (Ign. Magn. viii. 1; Smyrn. vi. 2; Jos. Bell, ii. 8. 5), it may retain its primary significance of simple difference or divergence, whether from the standpoint of the speaker or from that of the person or thing spoken of; but quite commonly also may denote more specifically divergence from what is correct. A “teacher of a different kind,” a “teacher with divergent views” (Hofmann), is an abnormal, perverse teacher (cf. ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, Gal. i.6; 2 Cor. xi. 4). To exercise the functions, to perform the part, of such a teacher is ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν. To be sure, such activity cannot very well be carried on without ἑτέρως διδάσκειν, and often implies also ἕτερα or ἀλλότρια διδάσκειν. But the ecclesiastical use of the word in the sense of “to propound a false doctrine” (Ign. ad Pol. iii. 1; Eus. H. E. vii. 17. 4; ef. κακοδιδασκαλία, Ign. Philad. ii. 1; Hippol. Refut. ix. 8) was an inexact applica- tion of an expression perhaps coined by Paul himself. | Although we are not justified in referring every word in Tit. i. 10-16, iii. 9, or even iii. 9-11, to the same phenomenon which is characterised in 1 Tim. i. 3-11, vi. 3-10, but should rather assume that various sorts of people were to be found among the “many” in Tit. 1. 10, yet the repetition of the same or similar expressions admits of no doubt that in Tit. also Paul had in mind primarily ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες of the same kind as were then busy in Ephesus and its vicinity. And other sentences as well, 1 Tim. iv. 7, vi. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 14, 16a, 23, are through their similar terminology connected with these passages. 13. (P. 101.) According to well-known classical usage, ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι. 1 Tim. vi. 21, also points to the plying of the business of teaching as a pro- ı28 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT fession ; so likewise αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν, Tit. i. 11. The rule that the preacher of the gospel should also draw his support from this labour, which Paul had recognised as a principle in 1 Cor. ix. 6-14 (cf. Matt. x. 10; Luke x. 7), had been applied by the Petrine party to themselves, although they were not so much missionaries as teachers within existing Churches (vol. i. 290). Paul himself extends it to the presbyters, especially those who devote themselves to the calling of teachers, 1 Tim. v. 18; hence he could not oppose on principle the custom of these ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες of receiving remuneration, but, just as in 2 Cor. ii. 17, in opposition to the Petrine party, limited himself to reproving the sordid mind, the base greed of gain, with which they made use of their acknowledged right. 14. (Pp. 103, 116.) In comparison with the procedure of many modern critics, it seems pardonable that the ancient Catholic writers against heresy should have been fond of regarding without sharp discrimination the most various sayings in these and other Pauline Epistles as predictions of the false doctrines of their own times. Cf. Tert. Prescr. vi., “providerat jam tune spiritus sanctus,” ete., referring to Gal. i. 8; Irenzus in the title of his great work, ἔλεγχος καὶ avarpomn τῆς Wevdavipov γνώσεως, following 1 Tim. vi. 20 (ef. Iren. ii. 14. 7). 1 Tim. i. 4 and the related passages were especially favourite citations in connection with the Valentinian doctrine of ons, though they were taken not so much as specific predictions of this doctrine as general statements which could be applied to it (Iren. i. procem. 1; Tert. c. Val. iii.; Prescr. iii. xxxiii.). On the other hand, Ign. Myn. viii. uses language which suggests 1 Tim. i. 4, Tit. i. 14, iii. 9 of the Judaistie teachers of his time, without, however, mentioning yeveadoyia, The ancient commentators uniformly maintain the Jewish character of the “false teachers in the Pastoral Epistles,” suggest rabbinic fables, and are too much inclined to view these teachers as men of like opinions with the Judaists in Gal. ; Ambrosiaster, pp. 269, 314, 316; Jerome, Vall. vii. 710 f., 734 ff.; Pelagius (Jerome, Vall. xi.), pp. 405, 431f., 434; Ephrem, pp. 244, 251, 271, 275; Theodorus, ii. 70-74; Chrysost. xi. 551, 556, who, however, p. 552, refers incidentally also to Greek legends about the gods; Theodoret, p. 639, who yet cannot let the opportunity slip, p. 673, in commenting on 1 Tim. vi. 20, of bringing in also the Gnosties who sprang from Simon. 15. (P. 103.) Even in the N.T. we have examples of such rabbinic traditions, in part of a genealogical nature : Matt. i. 5, Rahab, the mother of Boaz; 2 Tim. iii. 8, the names of the Egyptian magicians ; Heb. xi. 37, the sawing asunder of Isaiah. All that the Jews called haggadah (agadah) belongs here. “ Haggadoth” can be translated by “legends,” hence in Greek by μῦθοι. But see Schürer, ii. 339, A 26 [Eng. trans. ı1. i. 339], who here accepts Bacher’s conclusions. What an important part of these “ haggadoth’” were the genealogies, the forefathers’ wives, whom the O.T. leaves nameless, or their sons and daughters, who are not enumerated with any completeness, is shown by the Book of Jubilees (e.g. iv. 8; ef. Dillmann in Ewald’s Buhl. Jahrb. iii. 79 f., 87; Ronsch, Buch der Jubil. 485-489). Ancient history, even among the Greeks, consisted of myths and genealogies (Polyb. ix. 1. 4, 2. 1; Diod. Sie. iv. 1, cited by Hort, p. 135); and this was all the more true in the case of the Jew, who had Genesis to build upon. Not a little of such history had found its way even to Hellenistie Jews like Philo and Justin THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 129 Martyr’s Trypho ; ef. Goldfahn (Just. M. und die Agada; Siegfried, Philo, 146). Philo calls the whole content of the Pentateuchal narrative which lies between the ereation of the world and the giving of the law τὸ γενεα- λογικόν (de vita Mos. ii. 8; elsewhere, however, he calls it τὸ ἱστορικόν, de prem. et pen. 1). Theodorus, ii. 72, cites, as a proof of the confusion of Jewish genealogies, the difference between the lists of Jesus’ ancestors in Matt. and in Luke. Jerome (Vall. vii. 735 f.) tells of a Jewish Christian in Rome who perplexed the simple by the display of his genealogical wisdom with regard to Matt. 1. and Luke iii. This was probably the proselyte Isaac, perhaps identieal with the Christian exegete known as “ Ambrosiaster” (ef. ThLb, 1899, No. 27; ZKom. Gal. 22f.; NKZ, 1905, S. 419-427). It is not at all impossible that even in Paul’s time Jewish Christians had set on foot endless discussions about Christ’s lineage, a matter which Paul also considered important (2 Tim. ii. 8; Rom. i. 3). 16..(Pp. 107; 120.) '1 Tim. i..10, vi. 3; Tit. iv 9, di. 15 2 Timi i. 18, iv. 3; ef. Tit. ii. 8, λόγος ὑγιής ; Tit. 1. 13, ii. 2, ὑγιαίνειν (Ev) τῇ πίστει. It is hardly necessary to recall that ὑγιαίνων, ὑγιής means simply “healthy ” (sanus), and not also “ wholesome ” (saluber). 17. (Pp. 109, 117.) According to Acta Thecle, xiv., Demas and Hermogenes (2 Tim. i. 15, iv. 10), who are here substituted for Hymenzeus and Philetus (above, p. 21; GK, i. 789, 11. 901 f.), say of Paul: καὶ ἡμεῖς σε διδάξομεν ἣν λέγει οὗτος ἀνάστασιν γίνεσθαι (al. γενέσθαι), ὅτι ἤδη γέγονεν, ἐφ᾽ ois ἔχομεν τέκνοις [καὶ ἀνιστάμεθα θεὸν ἐπεγνωκότες ἀληθῆ]. The words in brackets, which are essentially confirmed by the Coptic translation (Schmidt, S. 35. 24), but are wanting in two Lat. VSS. and one Syr. VS., and which were also lacking in the copy which Ambrosiaster read (Ambros. Opera, ii. App. p. 308 on 2 Tim. ii. 18), as shown by the construction, are a later addition. In addi- tion to Ambrosiaster, only the first explanation is ascribed to the persons mentioned in 2 Tim. ii. 17; Epiph. Her. xl. 8; Pelagius (Jerome, Vall. xi. 425 in connection with another allegorical interpretation modelled after ἘΚ. xxxvii.) ; Theodorus, ii. 209 ; Theodoret, p. 685. The second explanation, a hint of which Ephrem (p. 261) gives in connection with the same passage (“resurrectio . . . non corporum sed animarum,” cf. a Coptic fragment of the Acts of Paul, ed. Schmidt, p. 73. 15), is ascribed by Hippolytus (de resurr. ad Mammeam, Syriac in Pitra, Anal. iv. 61, German in Hippolyts klein. Schriften, ed. Achelis, S. 251) to Nicolaiis, from whom he thinks Hymenzus and Philetus and other Gnosties received it; a resurrection through con- version and baptism. Hippolytus ascribes similar opinions’ to the Naassenes (Refut. v. 8, p. 158). According to Irenzeus, i. 23. 5, Menander also taught a resurrection through baptism which makes one immortal ; cf. the hint in Just. Apol.i. 26; Iren. ii. 31. 2 of the Simonians and Carpocratians: “esse autem resurrectionem a mortuis agnitionem ejus, que ab eis dicitur, veritatis.” This is given more at length in Tert. Resurr. xix. In Preser. iii. the same writer, after citing 2 Tim. ii. 17, adds: “id de se Valentiniani asseverant.” Justin wrote against this doctrine of a merely spiritual resurrection (ed. Otto, ii. 211-249, especially p. 243 ; οἵ. Z/KG, viii. 1-37). The antiquity of this spiritual explanation of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection is attested by its dissemination in the most various cireles before 150, as well as by the σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν in the Apostles’ Creed; ef. the writer’s Das apostolische VOL. Il. 9 130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Symbolum, 96-100. How much older may be the first mentioned interpreta. tion of the doetrine quoted in 2 Tim. ii. 18? 18. (P. 118.) Baur (Pastoralbr. 26 f.) was the first to find in 1 Tim. vi. 20 a play upon the title of Marcion’s famous Antitheses. He also (15-18) understood the word νομοδιδάσκαλοι, 1 Tim. i. 7, of the Marcionites, hostile as they were to the Mosaic law, and took 1 Tim. i. 8 not as a concession, but rather as directed against them. Moreover, he found in the contests about the law, Tit. iii. 9, from which Titus is to refrain, the battles between the Marcionites and their opponents concerning the worth of the law, in which battles even the author himself had taken part. Not even the much abused Chureh Fathers ever contrived anything like this. Where Irenzeus (ii. 14. 7) applies 1 Tim. vi. 20 to Gnostics, he leaves out the words καὶ ἀντιθέσεις ; if he had applied it to Marcion, he would have exchanged γνῶσις for some other word, for that did not characterise Marcion in the least. Concerning Marcion’s work, The Antitheses, see GK, i. 596f. It is plain that the vopo- διδάσκαλοι, if they are meant in this passage too, did not, like Marcion, bring out contrarietates between the law and the gospel, but sought in rabbinical fashion to force their own way to knowledge, and to lead others thither through the mutually contradictory decisions of the “wise.” They cultivated the Halakah as well as the Haggadah; ef. Hort (op. cit. 140 ff.) ; Weber, Jüd. Theol. ὃ 24. _ 19. (P. 118.) Baur (126), Hilgenf. (Einl. 764, ef. Holtzmann, Pastoralbr. 269) thought that they could infer from.the plural βασιλεῖς, 1 Tim, ii. 2,— which oceurs in a similar connection also in Polye. Phil. xii. 3 (cf. per contra, 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17), and has led to a similar conclusion with respect to that letter, —that 1 Tim. was not written until the time of Antoninus, or not until after 137. In reply, it should first be remarked that a joint rule of two Augusti occurred for the first time in 161, and that, on the contrary, co-regencies, as that, e.g. in which Marcus Aurelius shared after 147, occurred repeatedly after the time of Augustus (Mommsen, R. Staatsrecht?, ii. 1089 ff., 1109 ff. ; Wieseler, Beiträge zur Würdigung der Evv. 186-196). Justin in the time of Antoninus Pius could speak of βασιλεῖς with reference to the co-regency of Marcus Aurelius (Apol. i. 14, 17), although there was only one αὐτοκράτωρ (Apol. i. 1, ii. 2); and this could have been done just as well under Augustus or Vespasian with reference to the co-regeney of Tiberius or of Titus. Further, it is arbitrary to take the anarthrous βασιλεῖς (“such as are kings”) as referring exclusively to the man or men who possessed supreme power in Rome at the time; for in N.T. times, in addition to the emperor, there was more than one bearer of the title of king who had significance for the Christians; ef. the closing sentence of Strabo’s Geography, xvii. 25. We can see from the N.T, what a part kings like Herod Agrippa 1. and τ᾿. and Aretas ıv. played in the history of the apostles (Acts xii. 1-22, xxv. 13-26, 32; 2 Cor. xi. 32). The extensive kingdom of Pontus, in which Christian Churches existed (1 Pet. i. 1), continued until 63 a.p., and a queen dowager, ‘Uryphena, a Thracian by birth, but belonging to the royal house of Pontus by marriage, is connected in ancient tradition with the earliest history of the Christians of Asia Minor (GK, ii. 906). Are we to suppose that the Christians were not permitted to pray for these kings, or that they did not reckon these among the βασιλεῖς and βασιλεύοντες (Matt. x. 18, xvii. 25; THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 131 Mark xiii. 9; Luke xxi. 12, xxii. 25; Acts ix. 15; Rev. i. 5; 1 Tim. vi. 15) or that all the books in which we read such things were written later than 137? But the plural can just as well be understood as denoting a class (ef. Matt. ii, 20). In the same sense Tatian (Oratio ad Gree. iii. 10) writes of βασιλεῖς and οἱ βασιλεῖς, without losing sight of the fact that only one was ὁ βασιλεύς (chap. iv.), Epictetus, probably under Trajan, speaks of καταφρονεῖν τῶν βασιλέων (Diss. i. 29. 9), although for the most part he represents the one emperor as ὁ τύραννος, and Galenus in addressing the one emperor says ὑμῶν τῶν βασιλέων (ed. Kühn, xiv. 659). As this apostolic precept then came to be applied in the changeful course of the political history, the actual result was that the Christians even in apostolic times as well as later prayed for the successive Roman emperors and other possessors of princely power on earth, though Paul himself need not have reflected particularly upon the co-existence and succession of power involved in βασιλεῖς. Of. for this co-existence Clem. 1 Cor. 1xi. 1, according to which the Roman Church prayed for a plurality of rulers to whom God had intrusted royal authority, and for the succession (Tert. Apol. xxx., “ precantes sumus semper pro omnibus imperatoribus”), which is followed, chap. xxxi., by the quotation from 1 Tim. 11, 2., Lightfoot cites still other examples, Lightf. Ign. Pol. i. 576. 20. (P. 119.) Traces of a baptismal creed, 1 Tim. vi. 12-16; 2 Tim. li. 2-8, iv. 1; ef. the writer’s Das apostol. Symbolum, 38-44 ; Haussleiter, Zur Vorgeschichte des ap. Glaubensbekenntnisses, 32-39. If ἴῃ 1 Tim. iii. 16 we read ὁμολογοῦμεν ὡς, according to Cod. 1), this verb (cf. vi. 12) might seem to point to a formulated confession, and it seems to the present writer certain that the clauses so introduced were not constructed by Paul off hand. However, the poetic strain in these words suggests more naturally a psalm than a baptismal confession. 21, (P. 121.) While the Epistle to the Laodiceans (GK, ii. 584) constructs its greeting from Gal. i. 1 and Phil. i. 2, and hence uses also the solemn Pauline form of the greeting proper (χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη κτλ.), we find the latter neither in 1 Tim. nor in 2 Tim., though in a measure at least it is retained in Tit. i. 4 (according to the better MSS.). On the contrary, in 1 Tim. 1. 2,2 Tim. i. 2, ἔλεος, which is never used by Paul at this point in his letters (cf., however, Gal. vi. 16; 2 John 3), is placed between xäpıs and εἰρήνη ; and, moreover, at this place in all three letters we find employed a mass of thoughts and words, some of which are not used by Paul at all, and others not in greetings. It is altogether incomprehensible that a forger should have taken the beginning and end of Rom. as his model in forming such a salutation as Holtzmann (116) claims with reference to Tit. i. 1-4. The diction is treated extensively enough by Holtzmann (Pastoralbr. 84-118), Kölling (i. 17-206); briefly and well by Hofmann (vi. 57 f., 211 ἢν, 320), Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays (401 ἢ.) ; ef. all the remarks above upon the diction of Eph. and Col. (366 ff.). With the fundamentally wrong opinion of Schleier- macher (77), who calls Paul a writer “ whose vocabulary is, as’is well known, so very limited,” cf. the opinion of E. Curtius, vol. i. 70, n. 18. In the first place, we find a correspondence to the usage of Paul of which examples were given, vol. i. 516, in those words used several times either in 1 Tim. and Tit. alone or in 2 Tim. only which do not oceur elsewhere in Paul, or at least not with the same signification. Here naturally we need not take into 132 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT account, even aside from the fact that they occur but once, ordinary designa- tions of persons and things of which Paul has not had occasion to speak else where, as μάμμη, 2 Tim. 1. 5; βιβλία, μεμβράνα, cbeAövns, χαλκεύς, 2 Tim. iv. 18 1. ; στόμαχος, 1 Tim. v. 23. (a) Among the words used more than once those peculiar to 2 Tim. are: κακοπαθεῖν and συγκακοπαθεῖν, 1. 8, ii. 3, 9, iv. 5 (cf. Jas. v. 10, 13); προκύπτειν, ii. 16, iii. 9, 13 (cf., however, Gal. i. 14); ἐπαισχύνεσθαι, ἀνεπαίσχυντος, i. 8, 12, 16, ii. 15 (Rom. i. 16 is the only other passage where it is used similarly) ; σωρεύω, ἐπισωρεύω, iii. 6, iv. 3; εὔχρηστος, ii. 21, iv. 11 (Philem. 11). (b) 1 Tim. and Tit. have in common, to begin with, certain expressions in the greeting: γνήσιον τέκνον ἐν πίστει and γνήσιον τέκνον κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν respectively (cf. Phil. ii. 20, 22, γνησίως . τέκνον), ἐλπίς, Kar’ ἐπιταγὴν (τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν) θεοῦ. The latter ex- pression occurs in just the same form in Rom. xvi. 26 (ef. 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8; Tit. ii. 15), a passage the Pauline authorship of which has been denied without good grounds (vol. i. 386 f.), and in which are still other resemblances to Tit. i. 2f., namely, χρόνοι αἰώνιοι (this also in 2 Tim. i. 9), bavepovv, κήρυγμα ; these recur also in 1 Tim. iii. 16, though only in part (μυστήριον. . . ἐφανερώθη... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). Furthermore, peculiar to 1 Tim. and Tit. are a multitude of attributes of the bishops and deacons who are to be appointed (Tit. i. 6-9; 1 Tim. iii. 1-13, and in related passages): ἀνέγκλητος, Tit. i. 6, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 10, for which, however, the very common word in Paul, averiAnrros, is substituted in 1 Tim. ili. 2, v. 7, vi. 14; further, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ (cf. also 1 Tim. v. 9, and above, p. 125); τέκνα ἔχων KTA., μὴ πάροινος, μὴ πλήκτης, φιλόξενος, νηφάλιος, 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 ; Tit. ii. 2; αἰσχροκερδής, 1 Tim. iii. 8; Tit. i. 7; σεμνός, σεμνότης, 1 Tim. ii. 2, iii. 4, viii. 11; Tit. ii. 2, 7 (but also in Phil. iv. 8); σώφρων, σωφρόνως, σωφρονίζειν, 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 8, ii. 2, 4, 5,12; only once in 2 Tim. i. 7, σωφρονισμός. εὐσέβεια oceurs nine times in 1 Tim. and Tit. (1 Tim. ii. 2, iii. 16, iv. 7, 8, vi. 3, 5, 6, 11; Tit. i. 1), in addition to εὐσεβεῖν, 1 Tim. v. 4; εὐσεβῶς, Tit. ii. 12, as over against a single εὐσέβεια and εὐσεβῶς in 2 Tim. iii. 5, 12. Certain terms applied to the perverse teachers are lacking in 2 Tim.: ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, 1 Tim. i. 3, vi. 3 (ef. καλοδιδάσκαλος, Tit. ii. 3) ; μῦθοι καὶ yeveadoyia, 1 Tim. i. 4; Tit. i. 14, iii. 9 (only μῦθοι alone in 2 Tim. iv. 4); προσέχειν, 1 Tim. i. 4, iii. 8, iv. 1, 13, vi. 3(middle voice). In addition to ἔργον ἀγαθόν, which is a common expression from the time of the older letters on (Rom. xiii. 3; 2 Cor. ix. 8; Eph. ii. 10; Phil. i. 6; Col. i. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 17), and which is to be found in all three letters (especially in the connec- tion πρὸς or eis πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, Tit. i. 16, iii. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 21, iii. 17); ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ, 1 Tim. v. 10; Col. i. 10 (ef. also 1 Tim. ii. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 18), we read καλὸν ἔργον (sing. and plur.) only in Tit. ii, 7, 14, iii. 8, 14; 1 Tim. iii. 1, v. 10, 25, vi. 18, never in 2 Tim. Just as Eph., written at the same period as Col., is, for this very reason, and because of the similarity of the subjects treated, most closely related in vocabulary to that Epistle, so, in like manner and for the same reasons, 1 Tim. is more closely related to Tit. than to any other Epistle of Paul, including 2 Tim. (ὁ) But it is also apparent that 2 Tim. has a certain similarity of diction, sometimes to 1 Tim. sometimes to Tit., and again to both letters. Here belongs, in the first place, what was remarked above under (b) concerning εὐσεβεῖν, σώφρων, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, καλὸν ἔργον is not used in 2 Tim., indeed, but it is nevertheless THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 1,33 worthy of note that καλός, which Paul used only sixteen times in all his other Epistles, occurs twenty-four times in these three small letters, and that, while it is used elsewhere by Paul only predicatively (Gal. iv. 8; 1 Cor. v. 6; Rom. vii. 16, cf. 1 Tim. i. 8, ii. 3, iv. 4) or substantively (Rom. vii. 18, 21; 2 Cor. xiii. 7), it occurs here twenty-one times as attribute, and that, too, also in 2 Tim. i. 14, ii. 3 (x. στρατιώτης, cf. 1 Tim. i. 18), iv. 7 (x. ἀγών, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 12). There should be mentioned, further, παρατίθεσθαι, παραθήκη, 1 Tim. i. 18, vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12, 14, ii. 2 (different in 1 Cor. x. 27) ; πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, with or without further addition, 1 Tim. i. 15 (concerning iii. 1 see above, p. 124, n. 6), iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 11 ; Tit. iii. 8 ; διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον κτλ.,) 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1 (cf. 1 Thess. iv. 6, also for the enforcing of a command). While διδαχή elsewhere (Rom. vi. 17, xvi. 17; 1 Cor. xiv. 6, 26 ; so also Tit. i. 9) denotes the subject-matter of the teaching given or the particular didactic discourse, it is used in 2 Tim. iv. 2 of the teaching function. On the other hand, διδασκαλία, which occurs in our letters fifteen times, in all the rest only four times, denotes not only, as in Rom. xii. 7, xv. 4, the teaching function or the act of instructing (1 Tim. iv. 13, 16, v. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16; Tit. ii. 7), but also, as in Col. ii. 22, Eph. iv. 14 (Ὁ), the content of the teaching given: Tit. ii. 1, 10; 1 Tim. i. 10, iv. 1, 6, vi. 1, 3, perhaps also Tit. i. 9; 2 Tim. iv. 3. Concerning “sound teaching” see above, p. 129, n. 16: To be mentioned also are βέβηλοι κενοφωνίαι, 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. 11. 16; Aoyopayia, -eiv, 1 Tim. vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 14; aoroxeiv, 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 18; τυφοῦσθαι, 1 Tim. iii. 6, vi. 4; 2 Tim. iii. 4; ἄνθρωποι κατεφθαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν, 2 Tim. i. 8, ef. 1 Tim. vi. 5; eis ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας (ἐλθεῖν), 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 25, iii. 7, ef. Tit. i. 1; 1 Tim. iv.3, where it should be remarked concerning ἐπίγνωσις in general that it is not until the Epistles of the imprisonment that it occurs with any frequency, namely, eight times in Eph., Col., Philem., Phil., elsewhere only in Rom. (three times). A development in diction seems unmistakable, and that, too, with reference to matters of belief. Paul represents Christ else- where also as σωτήρ (Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20), and speaks not only of a saving work on the part of God (1 Cor. i. 21, cf. 2 Tim. i. 9), but also of such a work on the part of Christ (Rom. v. 9, ef. 1 Tim. i. 15); nevertheless it is felt to be a different usage when now we find “our Saviour” as a regular designation, sometimes of Christ (Tit. i. 4, iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 10), sometimes of God (1 Tim. i. 1, ii. 3, iv. 10; Tit. i. 3, ii. 10, iii. 4), and once even “our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus” (Tit. ii. 13), A usage which has its analogy, perhaps, in 2 Thess. ii. 8, but which is new notwithstanding, is that here the future appearing of Christ, of which Paul has spoken elsewhere, indeed, by no means infrequently, is called regularly ἡ ἐπιφάνεια, Tit. ii. 13 ; 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8. The same is also used of the first appearance of Christ, 2 Tim. i. 10, ef. Tit. ii. 11, iii. 4. If the context in which this occurs twice should possibly point to the wording of an original form of the baptismal confession, the word ἐπιφάνεια could suggest to us the name and original meaning of the very ancient festival of Epiphany. vm. THE EPISTLES OF PETER AND JUDE, AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. $ 38. THE READERS AND THE AUTHOR OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER — THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. AccoRDING to 1 Pet. i. 1, this Epistle is addressed to Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. When it is observed that not a single one of the old geographical names is here mentioned which is not also the name of a Roman province, and when the fact is recalled that the province of Galatia included Lycaonia and those parts of Phrygia and Pisidia which did not belong to the province of Asia (vol. 1. 174f, 183 fn. 3), it becomes clear that the letter is intended for the whole of Asia Minor, with the exception of Cilicia (n. 1). Inasmuch as there were Christian Churches in Cilicia at a very early date (Acts xv. 23, 41; cf. Gal. 1. 21; Acts ix. 30, xi. 25), we must assume that they are not here overlooked ; but being more closely allied to the group of Churches centring in Syrian Antioch, are intentionally excluded from the group of Churches on the other side of the Taurus, all of which had a similar origin. It is perfectly evident that the letter has to do with the Christian Churches in the provinces mentioned, and not with individual Christians of a particular sort resident there, in addition to whom there may have been other Christians or Christian Churches in the same region. This 134 EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τς is conclusively proved by the parting benediction in v. 14; for here the readers are spoken of as all the Christians —naturally all the Christians in the provinces mentioned in i. 1. Cared for by their own presbyters, they are the flocks of Christ, the Chief Shepherd (v. 1-4), in Asia Minor. They are spoken of only in contrast either to their heathen neighbours (ii. 12, 15, 1. 1, 13-17, iv. 3f., 12f.), the whole Church upon earth (v. 9), or a single local Church outside of Asıa Minor (v. 13). This decides at once the question regarding the previous history of the readers and their national and ecclesiastical character ; for, from Acts (xii. 14—xiv. 25, xvi. 1-10, xviii. 19-xx. 38) and from Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon, we know through whose efforts mainly the Churches in the provinces of Galatia and Asia were founded (1 Cor. xvi. 1, 19), and what their character was from the beginning. According to the testimony of his own letters and of Acts, Paul was the missionary who, in the sense of Rom. xv. 20, 1 Cor. i. 10, 2 Cor. x. 15, laid the founda- tions of Christianity in all this region. In the cities to which he did not bring the gospel himself, it was preached by the friends and helpers who followed up his personal labours and acted as his representatives; and although these Churches were only thus indirectly founded by him- self, Paul reckoned them among the Churches committed to his special care. This view is presupposed in his letters to the Churches in the province of Asia which remained personally unacquainted with him (Ephesians, Colossians, also Philemon, cf. vol. i. p. 449, n. 3, 460), and in such expressions as are found in Rom. xv. 16-23, xvi. 4, 16: 2 Cor. xi. 28; 2 Tim. iv. 17 (ef. above, p. 11). The sup- position that Paul found in Ephesus or Iconium Christian Churches already organised or even individual Christians, or that Kpaphras discovered such in Colossee or in Laodicea, is contrary to the evidence of all existing sources of in- formation. As regards the province of Asia and its capital 136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT city, Ephesus, this is contradieted by the testimony of Acts xvii. 19, xix. 8, and also xix. 1-7. It was just because there was no Christian Church in Ephesus before Paul’s arrival, not even of the most elementary kind, that it was possible there, as in Alexandria (Acts xvii. 24 f.), for single confessors of Jesus to remain without Christian baptism and without any relation to the development of the Church (vol. 1. p. 262). It is just as certain also that the Churches in the pro- vinces of Asia and Galatia founded by Paul and his helpers were all Gentile Christian in character, notwithstanding the fact that they were always organised in connection with synagogues already existing, and in spite of the re- ception into their membership of numerous Jews. This is almost as strongly expressed in Acts (Acts xv. 3, 12, 19, xxi. 19), which records facts that might lead one to sup- pose that the Churches were partly Jewish, partly Gentile Christian in character, as by Paul himself (Gal. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 11-iii. 13). On the other hand, Paul does not deny that there were native Jews in the membership of these Gentile Christian Churches (vol. i. p. 192, n. 6). Regarding the founding of the Churches in Cappadocia, Pontus, and Bithynia, regions which Paul did not visit personally, we have no information. But it is probable that in these provinces, which, viewed from the direction of Jerusalem and Antioch, were only the Hinterland of the provinces of Galatia and Asia, the gospel was preached somewhat later, but under practically the same condi- tions, except that the proportion of Jews in the population was less, and consequently there were fewer of them in the membership of the Churches organised there than in Galatia and Asia, In view of the clear facts in the case, it is one of the most striking proofs of the lack of historical insight in the handling of the N.T. writings, that from the time of Origen on the view could gain ground in the Greek EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 137 Church that 1 Peter was directed to the Jewish Christians scattered in the provinces named (n. 2). It is even more strange that this view should find stubborn defenders to- day, though modified to the extent of holding that the letter was addressed by Peter to Jewish Christian Churches existing in Asia Minor before Paul began his missionary labours in that region (n. 3). Nothing could be further from the truth than to claim that the only argument against the assumption of the existence of such Jewish Christian Churches in Asia Minor before Paul’s labours began is the silence of Acts. As already indicated, we have to do here with the very explicit testimony both of Acts and of Paul’s letters. If Jewish Christian Churches existed in Galatia and Asia, especially in the larger cities where there were numerous Jews, 6.9. Pisidian Antioch and Iconium, Ephesus and the cities on the Lycus, before the gospel was preached in these places by Paul, Barnabas, Epaphras, and other co-labourers of theirs unknown to us, then the whole representation in Acts is not only incomplete, but positively false. In all these districts Paul finds only Jews and Gentiles who had never heard the gospel until they heard it from him, and who were constrained by his preaching to take a stand with reference to it. Even if the agreement in Gal. 1. 6-10 be still falsely interpreted to mean that Paul was compelled to give up all missionary work among persons of Jewish birth (cf. per contra, vol. 1. p. 265 f.), it is nevertheless impossible to explain the fact that repeatedly Paul begins his preaching in the syna- gogue,—indeed, in Ephesus he confined his work to the synagogue for the whole of three months (Acts xix. 8),— and, on the other hand, fails even to greet the Jewish Christian Churches in the same places, and makes no use of the foundation which in them was already laid. And who ‚were the missionaries who established Churches all the way to the coast of the Black Sea before the Christians in Antioch gained courage to send Paul and Barnabas out 138 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT into the world? (Acts xiii. 2). If, in view of 1 Pet. i. 12, it be suggested that this was done by persons from Cappa docia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia (Acts ii. 9 f.), who heard the preaching at Pentecost, it must be remem- bered that these hearers were not pilgrims to the feast, who, after the feast, returned to the lands of their birth, but Jews from abroad residing in Jerusalem (Acts i. 5, vi. 9, vol. i. 61), who became members of the Church in Jeru- salem. It is true that after the death of Stephen many of these Christians did attempt successfully to spread their faith outside of Palestine (Acts x1. 19 f.). The gospel, how- ever, was not carried beyond Antioch and Cyprus by their efforts, but, according to all existing accounts, by Paul and Barnabas. Moreover, what is to be done with Paul’s own testimony? It was “the Churches of Galatia” (Gal. i. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 1), not individual Christians in Galatia, who received the gospel from Paul, working sometimes in con- junction with Barnabas, sometimes with Silvanus (Gal. i. 8, iv. 13; vol. 1. p. 179), in quite the same way that the Church in Corinth received the gospel (Gal. 1. 9; ef. 1 Cor. xv. 1-8). Under the figure of the mother (Gal. iv. 19) is expressed, if possible, even more strongly than by the figure of the father (1 Cor. iv. 15), the fact that all the Churches in this province owed their origin to Paul. Where, then, are the Jewish Christian Churches, governed by their own presbyters (1 Pet. v. 1-4), which are supposed to have existed in the pro- vince before Paul’s coming? Similarly in Colossee and Laodicea, Epaphras brought the gospel not to individual Christians of a particular class or race, but to the Churches (Col. i. 1, 7, iv. 13, 16). Furthermore, when Paul mentions Epznetus (Rom. xvi. 5), he speaks of him not as a first-fruit of his personal labours in Asia, but as the first convert of this province; and from the connection in which he is spoken of, he must have become acquainted with the gospel in the house of Aquila, who EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 139 came to Ephesus for the first time along with Paul (vol L 417, n. 21). The terms that are here used to characterise the Chris. tian readers and Churches have been misunderstood from very early times, because of their relation to Israel and to Jewish conditions. This association is true of παρεπίδημοι (i. 1) and πάροικοι, which is joined with it (ii. 11; παροικία, i. 17), only to the extent that the combination occurs twice in the LXX (n. 4). In themselves the words are quite secular in character, as is abundantly evidenced by their use in literature and inscriptions. The first expression means the stranger who comes from a foreign land, and remains only temporarily in a given place of residence. In distinction from ἐπιδημεῖν (Acts ii. 10), it emphasises more definitely the merely temporary character of the residence. Πάροικος, on the other hand, which is practically synonymous with μέτοικος, more commonly used by the older writers, means the resident, that is to say, the stranger, who, as distinguished from the citizen, lives by the tolerance and under the protection of the State. It may also mean the tenant, as distinguished from the property holder and his family. With these words is joined as practically Synonymous ξένος (Eph. ii. 19: Heb. xi. 13). J. D. Michaelis (Einl. 1445 ff.) thought that the words were used to describe persons who before their conversion were Jewish proselytes. That this is not the case, and that no comparison is implied between the readers and such proselytes as regards their relation to Christianity, is evident from the simple fact that in the two passages in the LXX (Gen. xxiii, 4 ; Ps xxxix. 13> n. 4) where παρεπίδημος occurs—in both instances joined with πάροικος, as in 1 Pet. ii. 11—the reference is not to strangers living in Israel, but to the patriarchs living in strange countries, without fixed abode or permanent possessions, and to pious Israelites whose whole life was conceived after the pattern of the life of their ancestors, 140 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT It will be seen that even in the O.T. these two synonymous ideas are used to denote, on the one hand, the relation of the pious to God, and, on the other hand, their relation to earthly rights, possessions, and abode. In conscious imitation of this O.T. usage, as evidenced by Heb: xi. 13- 16, xiii. 14, there grew up the view, already discussed (vol. i. p. 81 f.), which comes to light in all the N.T. writings, that Christians, being citizens of a heavenly commonwealth, are strangers, residing only temporarily in this world, or residents, without rights of citizenship, remaining here only by the sufferance of the possessors and rulers of this world, While the Jews of the diaspora made every effort either to become citizens with full rights: in Gentile communities, or to secure legal recognition as a separate community (n. 4), Christians, even when they possessed landed property and rights of citizenship, regarded them- selves, nevertheless, as πάροικοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι, thereby bearing witness that they possessed and sought a father- land not to be found upon this earth (Heb. xi. 14-16). That these words are used in quite the same sense in 1 Peter is shown by ii. 11, where these particular char- acteristics of the readers are mentioned as a motive for a distinctive Christian, manner of life, as distinguished from that led by the heathen. It.is even more clearly demonstrated. by i. 17, where manifestly the whole earthly life of Christians is described as the time of their παροικία (cf. iv. 2; Gen. xlvii. 9). This also proves that the expressions are not at all meant to imply that the readers are persons living far from their earthly home, e.g. Jews dwelling outside of Palestine ; for then it would follow that they needed only to return to Palestine, in order to be exempt from all the moral obligations spoken of in i. 17, ii. 11... Furthermore, in i. 1 f., the language shows that the readers are strangers and sojourners in the world, not by reason of the external circumstances of their life, but because they have been chosen by God, ze. EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS ταὶ in accordance with His own original provision, and through conversion and baptism (1. 1f.). These words describe readers simply as Christians, and the names of the provinces that follow in the genitive might have been added directly, just as it is possible to say ai ἐκκλησίαι τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας (Gal. i. 22), in the sense of ai οὖσαι ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ (1 Thess. ii. 14). This connection is not interfered with by the intervening διασπορᾶς, which is used without the article, and so cannot possibly further describe the readers as those elect strangers, 1.6. Christians, who belong to the Jewish diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, ete. (n. 5). Rather does it serve to emphasise the thought expressed by maperiönuo: by adding the thought of Jas. i. 1, that as Christians the readers live scattered abroad like the Israelites after they were driven from the Holy Land. As indicated above (vol. 1. 93, 100, n. 12), this idea grew up originally out of very concrete conditions ; and so here Peter probably has in mind the actual conditions of his readers. It is, of course, possible in itself to conceive of all the Christians as dwelling together in one place like the Mormons on the Great Salt Lake, instead of scattered abroad in little groups over the wide world like oases in the desert or islands in the sea (Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 14). But at the beginning of a letter intended for a large number of Churches scattered over the whole of Asia Minor it was very natural to recall their actual condition, and this thought is very properly followed by the enumeration of all the provinces where these Churches were. But notwithstanding this fact, διασπορᾶς, like the preceding παρεπίδημοι, is used to describe the religious condition of the readers. For it will be observed, the thing contrasted with their present scattered condition is not the return of them all to an earthly home, but their gathering into the kingdom of Christ (Matt. xxiv. 31; Didache x.), when the Chief Shepherd shall appear (1 Pet. v. 4). Still, the fact that up to this time these 142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT small Churches had always existed scattered abroad over the wide world, outnumbered a hundred or even ἃ thousand times by the heathen who surrounded them, must have intensified the feeling that as Christians they were only strangers and sojourners in the world, as it would also tend to make them constantly mindful of the inheritance laid up for them in heaven (i. 4). In this manner the greeting opens the way for the main thoughts of the Epistle. But it contains nothing which can obscure the fact, firmly established by historical evidence, that the letter was directed to the Gentile Christian Churches in Asia Minor founded by Paul and his helpers. ‘This is confirmed in the further course of the letter itself, particularly by the manner in which character- istics of Israel are applied to the readers. Thus in u. 5, 9, in accordance with Ex. xix. 5f., Isa. xl. 20, they are called a royal priesthood, a chosen race, a holy people, God’s peculiar people. In ui, 10, by a free application of the words with which Hosea (ii. 1-3, 25) prophesies the restoration of Israel to the rank of God’s people, it is said of the readers that they who once were no people have become a people of God, that they who once were not the objects of the divine mercy have now experienced this merey (ii. 5-10). Nor is the fact concealed that they have obtained all this mercy and dignity because by faith they have followed the call of the gospel by which they have been summoned out of darkness into His marvellous light (ii. 9, efi. 12, 15, 22-25, ii. 2,7). In contrast to them stand not. the unbelieving majority of the Jewish people, but all who have heard the gospel and not accepted. it. They are not called the true people of God, or the spiritual Israel, in contrast to the Jewish people who have become unworthy of this name. On the contrary, the definite article is consistently avoided (cf. the opposite usage in Jas.i. 1; Gal. vi. 16; Phil. iii. 3), ce. without the implica- tion of any such contrast these exalted titles are applied EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 143 to them in just the same way in which James, Paul, and John speak of the rise of a people of God from among the Gentiles in Acts xv. 14; Gal. iii. 7, 29, iv. 28; Eph. ii. 11-22; Rev. v. 9f. They are not sons of Abraham and daughters of Sarah (which simply expresses the same thought with reference to women) by reason of birth, but have become such through their conversion and the character of their subsequent life (iii. 6). That the readers are Gentiles, is proved most decisively by the way in which the words of Hosea, referred to above, are used. Paul, who understood the words as a prophecy of the ultimate pardon of Israel, to be fulfilled at the last day (Rom: ix. 25, xi. 26-31),—frequently overlooked by the interpreters without any apparent necessity,—quotes the substance of the passage accurately. Peter, who only uses the language of the prophet to clothe his own thoughts, modifies the passage essentially to suit his purpose, using, in order to describe the readers before their conversion, the words οἱ πότε ov λαός instead of οὐ λαὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (Hos. ii. 1,.25; ef. 1. 9, ob λαός ov). Unlike the degenerate Israel, they were not deprived of the rank of the people of God after having once had it, but before their conversion were not yet a people at all. It was not until after they had received the gospel that the readers, who belonged to the most diverse races, Greeks and Barbarians, Phrygians, Celts, Scythians, became united into one people, in fact into a holy people of God (Col. iii. 11 ; Acts xiv. 11, xvii. 26). Having become such in consequence of the divine call, the obliga- tions devolving upon the people of God in the O.T. passed over to them (i. 15f.). But the contrast to the holy life, which they must now lead as Christians, is their former life in heathen immorality. This is indicated most clearly in iv. 2-4, where participation in immoral idol worship is mentioned last in the list of the vices to which they were addicted before their conversion. Moreover, there are unequivocal references to this same practice in i. 14, 18, 144 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT While it is true that hostility to Christ (Acts ii. 17 ; 1 Tim. i. 13) and the legalistic bias of the Jews, which made them so unfriendly to the gospel (Rom. x. 3), may be described as accompanied by ἄγνοια, it will be observed that neither of these attitudes is referred to in i. 14, but rather the sinful lusts in which the readers lived in the time of their ignorance (cf. u. 11, 24, iv. 1-4). This can mean only that ignorance of God and His will which characterised the Gentile in distinction from the Jew (1 Thess. iv. 5; 2 Thess. 1. 8; Gal. iv. 9; 1 Tim. ii. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 15; Acts xvii. 23, 30). Judged by the Christian standard, there were evil traditions even among the Jews (Matt. xv. 2, xvi. 6), with which it was necessary for Jews to break in order to become Christians (Gal. 1. 13 f.; Phil. mi. 7 ff.). But, in contrast to these, no Christian in ancient times was so foolish as to call the sinful life of heathenism (iv. 3), even when led by Jews, a vain manner of life handed down from their fathers (i. 18, more explicitly described in Eph. iv. 17 f.). The use of such an expression cannot be justified by assuming that a contemptuous judgment of the Jewish eultus and the Pharisaic manner of life is here expressed ; for of such ἃ judgment there is not the slightest suggestion throughout the entire letter. In contrast to the holy life which they are now required to live, stand rather the lusts of the flesh (i. 14, ii. 11). Furthermore, the clear com- parison of the redemption of the readers with that of Israel from Egypt, implying as it does a comparison of their former walk with the life of Israel while they were in heathen bondage, indicates that they have come from heathenism and not out of a life under the Mosaic law. Only by exegesis of the worst sort can it be made to appear from ii. 25 that such language could be used exclusively of Jews who had always been members of the household of God (n. 6). To the unbiassed judgment all the passages in the letter bearing upon the question as to the character of the readers only confirm what is certainly EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 145 known from history concerning the origin and character of the Christian Churches in Asia Minor. From this point of view alone is the expressed purpose of the letter intelligible. It is Peter’s intention to encourage his readers, and to confirm them by bearing witness to the fact that it is the true grace of God into which they have been brought bytheir conversion, and in which they have since stood (v. 12). The oppressed condition in which they were at the time is, of course, an additional reason why he writes to them. But nothing is anywhere said which would imply that the readers were in danger even under the stress of persecution of doubting the truth of their faith. Apart from this, the significant thing for them is the fact that it is Peter who bears witness to the genuineness of their state of grace. Inasmuch as there is no trustworthy tradition and not the slightest hint in the letter itself that Peter had had direct personal relations with these Christians, had ever been among them, or was personally known to individuals among them (n. 7), it could have been only his ecclesiastical position, known throughout the entire Christian world, and the character of the Churches in Asia Minor, equally well known, that gives his letter the significance which he indicates at the close. To them as Gentile Christians it is an encouragement, and tends to strengthen their faith, that the foremost amongst the apostles, the most distinguished apostle of the circumcision (Gal. 11. 7), bears such testimony to their Christian character. It is with this in view that he praises the word of the gospel which was preached to them, describing it as the means of a second birth, and as the living word of God, having the promise of eternal con- tinuance (1. 23-25). This explains also why he declares that the missionaries who brought this word to them preached the gospel in the spirit sent from heaven (i. 12), and finally his assurance that even the O.T. prophets, or rather the spirit of Christ dwelling in them, which, VOL. II. IO 146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT reaching out beyond the clear knowledge of the prophets themselves, made predictions concerning the grace that was to reach even to the readers,—a preliminary revelation, the recording of which by the prophets was not so much for their own benefit as for that of the readers (i. 10-12). If in this passage Peter had in mind only the contrast between the ancient prophets and Christians of the present (cf. Matt. xii. 17; Heb. i. 1, xi. 40), it is impossible to understand why he continued to address the readers, distinguishing them from himself instead of identifying them with himself and with all Christians by the use of “we” and “us.” The contrast here cannot be, as in i. 34a and 4b-9, that between the apostle and other eye- witnesses of the gospel history on the one hand, and Christians converted later through the gospel on the other (see below); since in the prophets there is no hint of any kind concerning this temporal distinction within the Church. On the contrary, Peter has in mind words like Isa. 11. 1-4, xlii. 1-12 (Matt. xü. 18-21), Isa. xlix. 6 (Acts xii. 47), and here expresses thoughts concerning the relation of O.T. prophecy to the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles such as are found in Rom. i. 2, xv. 4-13, xvi. 26; Eph. iii. 5-12. In introducing himself, the author uses the name given him by Jesus, and the official title received from Him (i. 1). He does not, however, use the original Aramaic form of the name, Kepha, but the Greek translation which was current among Gentile Christians (n. 8). He does not say much about himself, but what he does say is significant. When in v. 1, in addressing the πρεσβύτεροι, and pointing out his own relation to them, he calls himself συμπρεσ- βύτερος, this cannot mean that he like them is an old man; for although the contrast between πρεσβύτεροι and νεώτεροι (v. 1, 5) does suggest difference of age, the character of the exhortations addressed to both show that the πρεσβύτεροι are here viewed in their capacity EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 147 as heads of the Churches, to whom obedience is due, and who have the power to demand and to compel the same authoritatively, and for their own ends (ef. Tit. 1. 7; 1 Tim. iii. 3, 8), but who, if they are true shepherds, ought not so to do. In this calling Peter is their companion, only with the self-evident distinction that their exercise of the same is limited to the local Church, while that of Peter, being an apostle (i. 1), extends over the entire Church (v. 9). Attention is called to this distinctive position by the statement which the author here makes, that he was a witness, 1.6. an eye-witness, of the sufferings of Christ (n. 9). Here are only two strokes of the pen; but by the one we have sharply outlined the figure of the diseiple, who, with a few others, had been an eye-witness of the struggle in Gethsemane, and had seen Jesus bound and taken from one judge to another (Mark xiv. 33, 37, 47, 54; Luke xxii. 61; John xviii. 10-27); the other pictures the apostle, to whom especially Jesus had given the command to feed his sheep (John xxi. 15-17) and strengthen his brethren (Luke xxii. 32). Furthermore, no one but an eye-witness of the events recorded in the gospel history (Luke i. 2) could well describe the attitude and relation to Christ of persons in Asia Minor, converted after Jesus’ death, not only as that of faith without sight, but also as that of love for one whom they had never seen (i. 8). In the Epistles of Paul, of whose language we are so often reminded by 1 Peter, we seek in vain for similar expressions, even where it would have been most natural for one who could speak in this way to have done so (e.g. Gal. mi. 1; Eph. i. 13). This note is struck by only one other of the original apostles (John 1, 14, xix. 35, xx. 29; 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14). Finally, no one could speak of the resurrection of the Lord as the means of his regeneration (i. 3), except one who through the conviction of Jesus’ resurrection had been roused from the doubt into which he had been cast by the death of Jesus, to a new life of 148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT hope and faith. Peter does not speak in this way con cerning the readers, the instrument of whose regeneration is rather the living word of God (i. 23), but where he specially speaks of himself and those like himself, and before he passes to his address to the readers (i. 4b, n. 10). As has already been remarked, the writer of the letter had no share in the conversion of the readers, and there is nothing to indicate that there had been direct personal relations between himself and them. This impression is strengthened, especially by what is said in v. 12-14. Peter sends special greeting neither to an individual nor to a particular class among the readers, which is all the more striking when compared with the very different manner in which Paul writes to Churches not founded by himself (Rom. xvi. 3-16; Col. iv. 15-17; vol. 1. 387 f.). The only greetings which he sends are those from the local Church where he was, and from Mark, whom he calls his son, to all the readers. The latter is only a figurative way of saying that Mark, with whose family Peter had long been intimate (Acts xii. 12), had become a believer through Peter’s influence (cf. 1 Tim. i. 1; 2'Tim. i. 1; Tit.i.4; Philem. 10). In the same way, the Church in Babylon is not spoken of in a prosaic manner, but is personified, and in order to bring out its spiritual relation- ship to the readers, who are the elect of God (i. 1), is called fellow-elect (2 John 1, 13, n. 11). While this greeting does not necessitate at all the assumption of intimate relations between the Church in “Babylon” and the Churches in Asia Minor (cf. Rom. xvi. 16b; Phil. iv. 22; Gal. i. 2), such relations are presup- posed by the greeting from Mark. Now, since Mark did not accompany Paul on any of his three missionary journeys through Asia Minor,—having separated himself from the apostle at the beginning of the first journey, and not joining him again for a long time (Acts xiii. 13, xv. 38),— but in the year 62 or 63 did intend to make a journey EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 149 from Rome to Asia Minor (Col. iv. 10), this letter could not have been written until after Mark had carried out this intention, and so had come into personal contact with all, or some of the Churches of Asia Minor, or with indi- vidual members of them. On the other hand, Silvanus, who accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey, had become acquainted with many of the Churches in Asia Minor, and had helped in the building up, possibly also in the founding, of many of them (Acts xv. 40, xvi. 5; ef. Gal. iv. 13, vol. 1.p.178f.). For this reason Peter could describe Silvanus, through whom he addressed the readers in this letter, as a faithful, trustworthy brother, with the evident expectation that they would agree with him (v. 12). But what does he mean when he says—and the order of the words indicates a certain emphasis—“ By Silvanus, the faithful brother, as I account him, I have written to you briefly”? So far as the words themselves are con- cerned (n. 12), the expression γράφειν διά τινος might refer to the person who delivered the letter. But, in the first place, it strikes one as strange to find the bearer of the letter specifically mentioned, whereas in the other N.T. Epistles either the identity of the bearer is ποῦ disclosed at all, or is left to be inferred from indirect statements (Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 16-24; Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7). Furthermore, it is impossible to explain why Silvanus should be mentioned with so much emphasis in this passage as the bearer of the letter, and why the concurrence of the readers in the praise bestowed upon him should be expressly asked. If this is the meaning, the remark is in all respects without point; for if Silvanus delivered the letter as it was addressed, then the readers, when the letter was in their hands, no longer needed to be told that Peter had believed him possessed of the modest amount of trustworthiness requisite for this task before he sent him. If, contrary to all expectations, Silvanus failed to deliver the letter, then 150 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the written testimony at the end of the letter, of the writers confidence in Silvanus, which the latter was on the point of basely betraying, would be of value neither to the persons addressed, who in that case would not receive the letter, nor to Peter himself. It scarcely needs to be remarked that the statement is even more meaningless if Silvanus is here thought of as the amanuensis to whom Peter dictated his message; since Peter could not express his deliberate opinion as to the trustworthiness requisite for this task—and anything less than trustworthiness would imply a degree of deceit on the part of the amanuensis entirely incredible—without implying his suspicion as to the person in question; and if he had any suspicion he could satisfy himself by reading the letter through, while in a matter of this sort the readers could not have an opinion of any kind. The only alterna- tive that remains is the most natural one, namely, that Silvanus’ part in the composition was so important and so large that its performance required a considerable degree of trustworthiness. It is not Silvanus’ letter, written merely at Peter’s direction; for from beginning to end Peter is the one who speaks in the letter, without even formally mentioning Silvanus as a joint author, as Paul sometimes does (1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. 1. 1). In fact, to have done so would have tended to defeat the expressed purpose of the letter, namely, to be a testimony of the apostle of the circumcision to Gentile Christians (above, p.145f.). It purports to bea letter of Peter's; and such it is, except that Peter left its composition to Silvanus, because he regarded him as better fitted than himself, indeed as better fitted than anyone else, to express in an intelligible and effective manner the thoughts and feelings which Peter entertained toward the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor. Just as Peter believed that in the per- formance of this duty Silvanus would have the best interests of the readers in view, and would write with EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 151 appreciation of their needs, so he hopes that the readers, who have come to know Silvanus in part through his labours among them as a missionary preacher, will believe that he has faithfully reproduced Peter’s sentiments, and that he would not have written what he did in Peter’s name if he had known that this was not Peter’s mind. So, instead of making the distance between himself and the readers seem greater by speaking to them through another, Peter by this means introduces himself to them in the most effective way possible. All that we know of Silvanus from other sources, his prominent place among the officers and prophets of the mother Church, the duty which he performed in Antioch as their ambassador (Acts xy. 22-40), the favourable testimony to his character which we gather from Paul’s Epistles (2 Cor. 1. 19; ef. 1 and 2 Thess.), as well as the trustworthiness to which Peter bears testimony here, tends to justify the assump- tion that he would prove himself worthy of the confidence placed in him in the entrusting to him of the composition of this letter. We have no ὦ priori means of determining how comprehensive the conferences between Peter and Silvanus, which necessarily preceded the writing of such a letter, may have been. 1. (P. 134.) The omission from 1 Pet. i. 1 of the two small districts of Lyeia and Pamphylia, of whose Church history in early time we know practically nothing (Acts xiv. 25), will scarcely be accounted strange, especi- ally in view of the fact that, prior to 74 A.D., they were not permanently organised into an independent province (Marquardt, R. Staatsverw.? 1. 375 f.). On the other hand, it is peculiar that Pontus and Bithynia, which had been united in one province since 65 B.c. (Marquardt, 351), are separated as far as possible in this list. It is possible that this entire province is designated by the name “ Bithynia” (cf. Tac. Ann. i. 74, xvi. 18), and that Pontus stands for Pontus Polemoniacus, which was a principality until 63 Α.Ὁ. (Marquardt, 360). 111 Pet. was written in 63 (§ 39), account need not yet necessarily be taken of the union of this land with Galatia, which is also placed in the year 63. In any case, the order of the names is peculiar: starting from the north coast (Pontus), we go inland to Galatia, then eastward (Cappadocia), then westward (Asia), and, finally, in a northerly direction until we reach the shore of the Black Sea again. Bengel’s remark, “Quinque provincias nominat eo ordine, quo occurrebant scribenti ex oriente” (ef. v. 13), which has been [52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT accepted by Wetstein (ii. 698) and Niebuhr, following Bunsen (Anal. antenie. i. 134), does not explain the order nor even the name with which the list begins, since the person in Babylon faeing or journeying toward Asia Minor was nearer Cappadocia than Pontus. The differing order in the free repro- duction of Origen (see n. 2) has no more signilicance than the omission of Asia in N, of Bithynia in B, Pontus is mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. only in Acts it. 9, xviii. 2; in both cases as the home of Jews (cf. Philo, ad Cai.xxxvi.). Is it perhaps possible that Aquila and Priscilla, who were living in Asia Minor sometime after 1 Pet. was written (2 Tim. iv. 19), laboured on behalf of the gospel in their native Pontus? In these regions also it is natural to seek the Scythian Christians to whom reference is made in Col. iii. 11, who may have come hither in consequence of the commerce between the northern and southern shores of the Black Sea. Here, too, may have been found slaves who had wandered far from their homes. In 112, Pliny had to deal with persons (Ep. xevi. ad Traj.) who claimed that they had abandoned the Christian faith twenty years before. They may have become Christians many years earlier. The fact that, according to the testimony of Pliny, Christianity was widely spread in this region, is evidence that it was brought hither not very much later than it was preached in the province of Asia. For in the second century we have evidence of the existence of the episcopates of Sinope (Epiph. Her, xlii. 1) and Amastris (Eus, H. E. iv. 23. 6, v. 23. 2). 2. (P. 137.) Origen, quoted by Eus, iii. 1. 2, Πέτρος δὲ ev Πόντῳ x. Tan. x. Βιθ., Kammad. te καὶ “Agia κεκηρυχέναι τοῖς ἐκ διασπορᾶς (al. ev διασπορᾷ) Ἰουδαίοις ἔοικεν. Thus, indirectly, we have characterised the readers of the letter, whose title is here made use of. More directly and definitely by Eus. himself, iii. 4. 2, τοῖς ἐξ ‘EBpaiwy οὖσιν ἐν διασπορᾷ Πόντου--- Βιθυνίας γράφει. Cf. the prologue in Zacagni (Mon. coll. 492), Cramer (Cat. viii. 41), Matthei (Epist. cath. 44). Just as Eusebius (op. cit.) implies a contrast be- tween Peter’s work and the missionary labours of Paul among the Gentiles, so Didymus (Migne, 39, 1755; ef. the scholion in Mattheei, p. 196) treats it as an extension of his preaching among the Jews beyond the boundary of Palestine. In the West, at least at a later time, a more correct view pre- vailed, as is proved by the title of the letter (ad gentes), which, in spite of the original text, the person who translated Didymus into Latin, a contem- porary of Cassiodorus (ef. Forsch. iii. 11, 135), made the old Alexandrian employ in his comment on 1 Pet. ii. 9f. 3. (P. 137.) The view briefly described on p. 136 f. has been maintained mainly by B. Weiss (Der petrin. Lehrbegriff, 99 ff.) since 1855, and by many later writers. It is defended at great length by Kühl in the revision of Huther’s Kommentar über die Briefe Petri und Judae, 5te Aufl. 1887, 6te Aufl. 1897. 4. (Pp. 139, 140.) In Gen, xxiii. 4 aYin) 9, LXX πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος, We find Abraham among the children of Heth, and distinguished from the “people of the land,” who owned the ground. There is a retrospective reference to this position of the patriarchs also in Ps. xxxix. 13 (xxxvili. 12; cf. Gen, xlvii. 9; 1 Chron. xxix. 15). Here belong also Ley. xxv. 23, where the same combination of words (but LXX reads προσήλυτοι καὶ πάροικοι) 18 used to designate the Israelites in their own land in contrast to God, the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 153 real possessor of the land, and the passages where wäpoikos = 73, used of Israel in Egypt, or of Moses among the Midianites (Gen. xv. 13 ; Ex. ii. 22, xviii.3; Deut. xxiii. 8). Where 73 means the non-Israelite resident in Israel, LXX seldom (Deut. xiv. 21) renders it by πάροικος, which more often corre- sponds to 395 (frequently with μισθωτός, Ex. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 6, 40), but often by προσήλυτος (Ex. xx. 10; Lev. xxv. 35, 47), and even by the Aramaic γειώρας (Ex. xii. 19; Isa. xiv. 1; cf. Just. Dial. exxii., address), from which was derived the opprobrious term giaur, used in the Islamic period. It has yet to be proved that πάροικος was ever used in Christian or in post- Biblical Jewish literature in the sense of proselyte. Cf. further, vol. i. 82, and Lightfoot (St. Clement, ii. 5f.). The difference between the Christian and Jewish points of view is very clearly indicated by the Jewish inscriptions in Hierapolis (Altertéimer von Hierapolis, by Humann, ete., 1898, S. 138, No. 212, τῇ κατοικίᾳ τῶν Ev Ἱεραπόλει κατοικούντων ᾿Ιουδαίων). Here they formed a separate community (ὁ Ados τῶν Ἰουδαίων, S. 96, No. 69, 4-6), with their own eity hall and archives (No. 69, 7, No. 212, 6; ef. S. 174, No. 342). Cf. also Jos. Ant. xvi. 6, 7. It also deserves notice that the only parallel in the N.T. Epistles to the designation of the readers, entirely without the article, is to be found in 2 John 1 (ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ). This is not to be explained by assuming that there were other Christians to whom the same name might be applied, since in that case it would be sufficient to say τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ilovro (ef. Phil. i. 1), even if τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς had preceded. The real explanation is that the omission of the article serves here, as in 2 John 1, to emphasise more strongly the qualities mentioned, and to make more easily recognisable the figurative meaning of phrases used (cf. Jas. i. 18, ἀπαρχήν twa). Where the readers are called Christians in a literal sense, the article is not wanting, v. 14. 5. (P. 141.) It is taken for granted as certain that ἐκλεκτός in i. 1 is used in an attributive sense, as is always the case where the word stands in an attributive relation to another idea (1 Pet. ii. 4, 6,9; 1 Tim. v. 21; Ex. xiv. 7, xxx. 23; 2 Sam. viii. 8); and, on the other hand, that παρεπίδημοι is used substantively, as in ii. 11 and in the LXX, where it is used as a translation of a substantive (n. 4). Furthermore, it is assumed that ver. 2 is not dependent upon ἐκλεκτοῖς alone, but upon the whole phrase, exX. . . . diarmopäs, for otherwise (τοῖς) ἐκλ. would need immediately to precede κατὰ πρόγνωσιν. Consequently it is not simply change of residence that makes the readers παρεπίδημοι διασπορᾶς, but the Divine election and separation ; and this election, in turn, together with the position of the readers in the world and their attitude toward God, corresponding to a Divine purpose, is due to the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and has for its purpose a constant obedience (cf. i. 14, 22) and a continuously needful purification through the blood of Christ (cf. 1 John i. 7). Since, besides the Christians here addressed, there were very many others to whom thie ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι applied equally well, it is perfectly evident that if the purpose here were to distinguish these Christians from others, ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι would have to be followed by τοῖς ev τῇ διασπορᾷ, especially in view of the fact that it is without the article (cf. Jas. i. 1; vol. i. p. 79 f.,n, 6), or by τοῖς ἐκ τῆς διασπορᾶς, if the word be used in its concrete sense (“Jews scattered among the heathen”). In this case the connection of ver. 2 would be rendered at least very difficult, since what 154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT is said in this verse has no connection with the alleged membership of the readers in the Jewish diaspora, but relates solely to their Christian character. That the insertion of a simple local name, such as Πόντου κτὰ., does not preclude modification by clauses that follow, is proved by 1 Cor. i. 2; 1 Thess. i. 1. Consequently διασπορᾶς, like so many similar genitives in the N.T. (Jas. 1. 25, emAnopovns ; 1 Pet. i. 14, ὑπακοῆς ; Luke xviii. 6, τῆς ἀδικίας), is purely attributive=dveomappévors, and like ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις, applic- able to all Christians. 6. (P. 144.) Kühl claims that ἐπιστρέφεσθαι, in ii. 25 (which would apply also to the intransitive active, the sense of which is not essentially different), means in this passage, according to the predominant usage of the N.T., “to turn one’s self again to that which one has formerly been.” This mean- ing does not suit in those passages where the word is used of the conversion of the Gentiles (1 Thess. i. 9 ; Acts xi. 21, xiv. 15, xv. 19, xxvi. 18, 20; ἐπισ- τροφὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν, Acts xv. 3), which proves that this cannot possibly be the meaning of a word which is used alike of the conversion of Jews (Acts iii. 19, ix. 35; 2 Cor. iii. 16) and of the conversion of sinners generally (Jas. v. 16f.; Mark iv. 12; Luke i. 16f., xxii. 32). Nor is this meaning possible in passages like Matt. ix. 22 ; Mark v. 30, viii. 33 (ef. Matt. xvi. 33); Acts ix. 40, xvi. 18; Rev. i. 12; nor in Gal. iv. 9, where πάλιν would then be superfluous. The only passages remaining where ὑποστρέφειν (cf. the variant readings in Luke ii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 21) and ἀνακάμπτειν (Luke x. 6 = Matt. x. 13) are used in practically the same sense are Mark xiii. 16 ; Matt. x. 13, xii. 44; Luke viii. 55, xvii. 4; Acts xv. 36; but here there is no reference to conversion. The attempt to give the word this meaning is not any more successful if “bishop” be taken as referring to God, not to Christ, as is done by Kühl and Weiss, without any good reason (ef. per contra, v. 4). Then it has also to be assumed that God was the Shepherd and Bishop of the souls of alleged Jewish Christians in Asia Minor before they fell into a heathen manner of life (iv. 2-4), from which manner of life it is assumed they have now returned again to their God. In proof of this fantastic representation of the personal history of all the Christians in Asia Minor, —quite as unknown to Peter as to ourselves,—it is claimed that in speaking of their wanderings (πλανώμενοι, not πλανώμενα), Peter compares them to sheep, which implies that they have always belonged to the flock of God, ve. the people of Israel. But suppose that Peter not only compared them with sheep who had gone astray, but called them that in so many words, are we to assume that the sheep in Matt. xxv. 32 or John x. 16 are only Jews? In order to escape these interpreters, Peter ought to have called his readers swine or dogs (Matt. vii. 16, xv. 26). Possibly not even this would have sufficed, since in Phil. iii. 2 Jewish Christians are called dogs ! 7. (P. 145.) The sole source of the tradition that Peter laboured in Pontus and other provinces of Asia Minor is 1 Pet.i. 1. This is proved by the language of Origen (above, p. 152, n. 2), who refers to this work as only probable. Cf. what Origen says with the more definite but very brief remarks in Epiph. Her. xxvii. 6; Ephrem, Expos. ev. conc. 286. With regard to the other Syrians who refer to such work on Peter’s part, see $ 39,n. 3. Ina later recension of the Acts of Andrew (ed. Bonnet, 1895, pp. 9, 14, not in- cluded in the collected edition of the elide Acta apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet), EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τοῦ there is to be found a confirmation of an alleged journey of Peter and Andrew to Sinope: καθὼς αὐτὸς Πέτρος ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολῇ γράφει διεληλυθέναι Πόντον καὶ Γαλατίαν ; cf. Epiph. Mon., ed. Dressel, p. 45. So this story is not even a legend, to say nothing of a primitive legend (as affirmed by Lipsius, Die apokryph. Apostelges. ii. 1. 4), but is simply the fabrication of exegesis. 8. (P. 146.) John is the only one of the evangelists who preserves the original Κηφᾶς (John i. 42); but the fact that he adds immediately a trans- lation, and from this point on throughout the book—indeed, before this point — uses only Πέτρος (i. 40), shows that the readers were as unfamiliar with Κηφᾶς as they were with Μεσσίας (for Χριστός) or ῥαββί (for διδάσκαλος) ; cf. i. 38, 41. That this was true even more widely, is proved by the entire avoidance of Κηφᾶς in the Synoptics and in Acts even where the names of the disciples are given (Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14; especially peculiar is its omission in Matt. xvi. 16-18, where the Aramaic Bapıova is used). Paul’s constant use of Kedas in 1 Cor. (i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5) is explained by the fact that he has in mind the followers of Cephas from Palestine, of whose language we learn in 1 Cor. xvi. 22; vol. i. 288 ff. In Galatians the tradition wavers, and is also rendered uncertain by the fact that the versions give no sure support for the correct reading, inasmuch as the Syriac versions use Kepha everywhere, and the Latin as well as the Greek texts of the West almost without exception offer Petrus. If, as the present writer believes to be the case, Πέτρος is to be read in Gal. ii. 7, 8 (but in i. 18, 11. 9, 11, 14 Κηφᾶς, ZKom. Gal. 68) the very remarkable change in ii. 9 to the Aramaic form of the name, after the Greek form had been used twice in ii. 7-8, is very natur- ally explained by the fact that thereby, just as by the use of στῦλοι, Paul desires to give the form of speech used by the Judaistie teachers who had come to Galatia from Palestine. He then retains in ii. 11, 14 the form of the name used by these teachers, since he wishes to place in its proper light an incident which had been misrepresented by them in a hostile spirit. This motive also suits i. 18. Cf. in addition also § 41, n. 9. The fact that a number of ancient writers discover in several N.T. passages a Cephas distinct from Peter deserves mention only as a matter of curiosity : see Clemens Al. in Eus. H. E. i. 12.2. (Cephas is here held to be one of the seventy dis- ciples ; ef. Forsch. 111. 68, and above, vol. i. 267.) ; Aypost. Const. chap. i. (Doctr. XII. Apost., ed. Funk, p. 50); Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 421. Cf. Jerome in Gal. ii. (Vall. vii. 408). 9. (P. 147.) Modern usage (“to give testimony, witness for Christ,” and similar expressions) very easily obscures the meaning of biblical expressions which sound the same. Christ Himself would not be the faithful and true witness (Rev. i. 5, 111. 14) had not His revelation in the world of the truth of salvation been based upon His own immediate knowledge (John iii. 11, 32, v. 31, vili. 14, xviii. 37; 1 Tim. vi. 13). Seeing and testifying are insepar- able (Rev. i. 2; John 1. 34; 1 Johni. 2, iv. 14). The disciples of Jesus could not be His witnesses unless with their own eyes they had seen Him who lived on earth and died and rose again, and unless they had perceived through all their senses His entire manifestation of Himself (John xv. 27, xxi. 24; Acts i. 8, 21 f., 11. 32, iii. 15, v. 32, x. 39, 41; 1 John i. 1-3; 2 Pet. i. 16-18); nor could Paul, had he not seen and heard Him at least once (Acts xxii. 15, 156 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT xxvi. 16; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8, 15 ; and, on the other hand, cf. the distinetior made in Acts xiii. 31f.). With reference to Stephen, ef. Acts xxii. 20 with vii. 55. That Peter means in this striet sense to designate himself a witness of the sufferings, and so of the life of Jesus, is proved by the elause which follows, 6 καὶ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης κοινωνός, Which does not mean participation purely in thought or in speech, but in fact and in person, Although the suffering of Christians born later than the time of Christ may be called fellow-suffering with Him (Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 11f.; 2 Cor. i. 5), that does not of itself make anyone a witness of the sufferings of Christ. And even if it did, in the whole of 1 Pet. no trace is to be found of personal suffering on the part of Peter. If the participation in the glory of Christ for which Peter hopes, of which, according to Mark ix. 3-12, 2 Pet. i. 16-18, Luke xxiv. 34, John xxi. 2-23, 1 Cor. xv. 5, Acts x. 40f., he already had a foretaste, is to be construed as in correlated contrast to the statement that he was a witness of His sufferings, then this last statement must imply also that Peter was an eye-witness of the Passion of Jesus. 10. (P. 148.) That δὲ ἀναστάσεως κτλ., i. 3, is.to be taken with ζῶσαν instead of with avayevvnoas (thus Bengel, Hofmann), is extremely improbable. (1) ζῶν used attributively without the article cannot well be modified by an adverbial clause (cf. i. 23, ii. 4f.; John vii. 38; Acts vii. 38; Rom. xii. 1); (2) it would require, not διά with the genitive, but διά with the accusative (John vi. 57; Rom. viii. 10), or ἐξ ἀναστάσεως (John iii. 5; Rom.i.4; 2 Cor. xiii. 4). Of course, the interchange between “we” and “you,” which may be compared to the similar interchange in Eph. i. 3, 13, Gal. iii. 23-iv. 7, is not to be understood as implying an absolute contrast applicable without exception to every single sentence. That would imply, for example, that Peter and men like him had already ceased to believe without seeing (i. 8); or that their inheritance was no longer preserved in heaven, but had been already received by them on earth ; or that the readers had not been born again unto a living hope ; or that the resurrection of Christ had no significance for their regenera- tion (ef. per contra, 1 Pet. iii. 21). It will be noticed, however, that where Peter describes the Christian state from the point of view of himself, he expresses himself in accordance with his own experience, just as in speaking of the Chris- tian state of the readers he emphasises what is peculiar about their relation to the blessings of redemption in distinction from his own. That in i. 3, 4 he transfers himself vividly in imagination to the moment when he and his fellow- disciples were begotten again to a life of hope through the self-witness of the Risen Christ, is very clearly shown by the τετηρημένην ... εἰς ὑμᾶς ; since, if he merely intended to say here without reference to any specific point of time that all Christians would have to wait until the parousia in order to receive the inheritance which is laid up for them in heaven, it would have been necessary to use the expression τηρουμένην ὑμῖν, or rather ἡμῖν, But Peter is speaking from the point of view of the resurrection of Jesus. He and his fellow-disciples did not then immediately enter upon the possession of their inheritance (cf. Acts i. 6), but were quickened to a lively hope of the same, while the inheritance itself was deposited in heaven with Christ who had been raised to heaven (ef. Col. i. 12, iii. 2), where the inheritance had since been preserved. This took place, however, with a view to those who were to be called later, among whom the readers belonged. In order that EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 157 these might be called and converted, the first disciples had to be content with expectation and hope of the inheritance which was not to be received until afterward. 11. (Ρ. 148.) The interpretation of ἡ ev Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή to mean Peter’s wife, advanced, e.g. by Mill (Nov. Test. p. 718), and Bengel in his Gnomon, is not found, to the writer’s knowledge, in any aneient author. It ie true that Clemens Al. (Forsch. iii. 92, 102) understood by ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία, 2 John 1, “quandam Babyloniam Electam nomine,” a real woman named “ Eklekte,” although this does not prevent him from interpreting the phrase allegorically with reference to the Church. The fact that he places her in Babylon can hardly be explained otherwise than by assuming that he identifies this Eklekte, or her sister mentioned in 2 John 13, whose name likewise must have been Eklekte (if, indeed, τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς is not to be taken only as an appositive to σοῦ), with the Syneklekte of 1 Pet. v. 13. But of the opinion that she was the wife of Peter, of whom Clement relates stories elsewhere derived from apocryphal sources (Strom. vii. 63=Eus. H. E. i. 30.2; GK, ii. 828), the present writer finds no trace either in Clement or in any ancient writer. The Commentary of Didymus ends with 1 Pet. iv. An orator by the name of Chrysostom (Montfaucon, i. 821) is able to justify the contention that Peter had a wife only on the ground that mention is made in the Gospels of his mother-in-law. As a matter of fact, the opinion common in the early Church, that, according to Matt. xix. 27, Peter forsook even his wife (Orig. tom. xv. 21 in Matth. vol. iii. 683), and the consequent rejection of the interpretation of 1 Cor. ix. 5 to mean the wives of the apostles,—a view held by Clemens Al. Strom. iii. 53 (Jerome, c. Jovin. i. 26),—prevented the inter- pretation of 1 Pet. v. 13 to mean Peter’s wife. The first trace of this inter- pretation which the present writer finds is that in the somewhat confused account of Barhebrzeus concerning various opinions on 1 Pet. v. 13 and Acts xii. 12f. (ed. Klamroth, pp. 15, 29). On the other hand, the interpretation of the word to mean the Church of the place in question is represented by the insertion of ἐκκλησία before συνεκλεκτή in N, several cursives, Pesh. (“ The elect Church”), Vulg. (Heclesia que est in B. conelecta), Jerome (Vall. vi. 757), Cramer (Cat. viii. 82). That this is the correct interpretation is proved (1) by the fact that otherwise the relationship to Peter of the person sending greetings would have to be expressed, whereas the use of συν- to express the relation of the one sending greetings to those to whom the greetings are sent is entirely intelligible and sufficiently anticipated by i. 1 and ii. 9; (2) by the fact that a greeting from the wife of Peter te the whole Church of Asia Minor would presuppose a peculiar ecclesiastical importance on her part, which is all the more improbable because of the fact that Peter had had no direct relations with the readers ; (3) by the fact that there is no plausible way in which to explain the mention of the place where this woman was residing, which at that time could not have been the place of Peter’s residence. 12. (P.149.) Ignatius, Philad. xi.2; Smyrn. xii. 1, γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Bouppov, is, taken alone, quite as ambiguous as 1 Pet. v. 12. But from the analogy of Ignat. Rom. x. 1, γράφω ὑμῖν δι’ ᾿Εφεσίων, which manifestly describes the Ephesian Christians, among them Crocus (cf. Ign. “ph. ii. 1), who is men- tioned immediately in the same passage, as the forwarders and bearers of the letter, and of Polye. (ad Phil. xiv. 1), it is clear that Burrus also is simply 158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the bearer of the letter (cf. the writer’s Iynatius, 242 f., 262). So in the very common notes at the end of the Pauline Epistles, διὰ Φοίβης, ete. (Tischendorf, ii. 457, 568, etc.). On the other hand, it is clear that the same words can be used to describe the composition of a letter. Concerning the epistle which Clement wrote by commission and in the name of the Roman Church, with- out anywhere disclosing his own identity, Dionysius writes to the Romans (in Eus. H. E. iv. 23. 11): τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν (ἐπισ- roAnv ὑμῶν). Acts xv. 23 is ambiguous; for, while without any question Judas and Silas are deseribed as the bearers of the communication from the Jerusalem Church (xv. 22, 25-27, 30), it is possible that they were also commissioned by the assembly to prepare it. The expression γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν, and the fact that it is used independently along with πέμψαι (xv. 22, 25, 27), favour the latter view, which is also more in keeping with the character of the men and the commission given them. The analogous understanding of 1 Pet. v. 12 is anticipated by Jerome, who undertakes to explain the difference in style between 1 Pet. and 2 Pet. by assuming that he made use of different interpretes (Epist. exx. 11, ad Hedib.). Jerome makes no mention of Silvanus, nor does he think of a subsequent translation of letters written by Peter himself in a different language ; but of the writing of the letters by helpers having more linguistic ability than Peter, com- missioned by him, and in his name (cf. GK, ii. 881). In modern times a more or less strong influence upon the form and contents of 1 Pet. has been attri- buted to Silvanus by H. Ewald (Sieben Sendschreiben des NT, 1870, S. 3, 73), W. Grimm (ThStKr, 1872, S. 688 ff.), Spitta (Der 2 Pt. τι. Ju. 1885, S. 531). $ 39. TIME AND PLACE OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. The location of the Church from which greeting is sent to those in Asia Minor, and thus the locality where Peter was residing at the time, is described as Babylon. This does not appear to be intended as news, by which the readers are informed for the first time of Peter's place of residence. Such a communication would be without parallel in all other N.T. Epistles, and totally different in form from similar communications in other letters (n. 1). Assuming that the readers already know where Peter is staying, the name Babylon seems rather to be intended to deseribe the conditions by which he himself and the Church where he resides are surrounded. In v. 9 it was suggested that the whole Church throughout the world had to endure the same sufferings as the readers, So EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS ı1;5g here attention seems to be called to the fact that the small portion of the “brotherhood” from whom Peter sends greeting, and Peter himself, are in the capital of the empire, and so just as much strangers, far removed from the land of promise and the city whose true citizens are Christians, as the readers, who are so sorely in need of consolation (above, p. 140f.). If, also, we take into con- sideration the fact that the Church sending greetings is personified, being represented as the sister of the Churches in Asia (above, p.148), and that Mark is called the son of Peter only in a figurative sense, it follows, even on purely exegetical grounds, that it is Rome, the capital of the empire, which is called Babylon, the place of the writer’s residence. If the Babylon at the southern extremity of the Nile delta, or the ancient city of that name on the Euphrates, long destroyed (n. 2), be meant, it is impossible to explain how every trace of the tradition of the work of Peter on the Nile or the Euphrates could disappear from the Church as a whole, and, in particular, from the Churches of the lands in question. And this difficulty is increased by the fact that it is not a question of an accidental sojourn, but, as the names of two such prominent mission- aries as Silvanus and Mark along with that of Peter prove, of important missionary labours on the part of Peter in these countries. The Church in Alexandria and Egypt never attributed its founding to Peter, but always to Mark (§ 51, n. 8). And for centuries nothing was known in the tradition of the Syrian Church as to a residence of Peter in Babylon, until some scholars of the Middle Ages under- took to prove it from 1 Pet. v. 13 (n. 3). If there had existed such traditions as made possible the literal inter- pretation of the name Babylon, which was also the most natural one, the interpretation that makes 1 Pet. v. 13 refer to Rome—which came more and more to be accepted, and which can be traced back to the beginning of the second century—could certainly not have been universally 160 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT accepted ; in faet, could scarcely have arisen at all. The entire absence of such traditions makes it impossible to believe—more so, in case the letter is spurious, than if the letter is genuine—that the writer would lead his readers to suppose that he was in Egypt or Babylonia. On the contrary, even assuming that the letter is spurious, the age and general acceptance of the interpretation of 1 Pet. v. 13, which makes it refer to Rome, are proofs that Peter visited Rome. Rightful opposition to the extravagant claims which for more than a thousand years the Bishops of Rome have made on the basis of this fact, ought not so persistently to mislead Protestant scholars into the denial of the well-attested fact itself (n. 4). If, then, it be accepted as certain that 1 Peter was written in Rome, or purports to have been written there, the time of its composition is fixed within comparatively narrow limits. The story that Peter's Roman episcopate lasted from twenty to twenty-five years did not appear until after the beginning of the fourth century, and all the more ancient traditions affirm that Peter did not come to Rome until the time of Paul’s activity there ; while the few definite accounts which we have from the second century place the whole of Peter's residence and his martyrdom in the interval between Paul's first imprisonment in Rome and the second, which ended with his execution. To this are to be added all the indications that Peter was crucified late in the summer or in the autumn of the year 64 in the Vatican gardens, in order to satisfy the fury of Nero (n. 4). Moreover, with these ancient traditions agrees the negative testimony of the N.T. writings which cover this period. Leaving out of account Acts xxviii. 30 f., the silence of Paul concerning contemporaneous work in Rome on the part of Peter in the letters of the first Roman captivity, especially in passages like Col. iv. 10 f. and Phil. i. 14-18, would be inexplicable if Peter were preach- ing there at the time. It is even more inconceivable that EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 161 Peter, in a letter to the Churches in Asia Minor founded by Paul and his helpers, should send greetings from the Roman Church and from Mark, and say nothing about Paul, if Paul were living and working in the same com- munity. Even assuming that the letter was written shortly after the death of Paul, Peter's entire silence regarding him could not be explained as due to tender regard for the Christians of Asia Minor, who were in so much need of comfort in other respects, but would have to be regarded as an extremely unnatural thing, no matter whether the readers learned of the apostle’s death shortly before receiving Peter’s letter, or were informed of it for the first time by the person who brought the same. On the other hand, everything fits together naturally, provid- ing we follow the tradition, freed from later fictions. If Mark, who, up to the time when Colossians was written, was known in Colossee only by name as the cousin of Barnabas, journeyed from Rome to Asia Minor shortly after the sending of Colossians, sometime during the autumn of 62 or the spring of 63 (Col. iv. 10), such a relation of Mark to the Asian Churches would have been then estab- lished as is presupposed in 1 Pet. v. 13. It is at least possible that this journey of Mark in the East was extended to Jerusalem, his native city, and that he informed his “father,” Peter, of the condition of things in Rome. If Peter heard of the troubles which Jewish Christian preachers were making for Paul in Rome (vol. 1. 442, 543), and learned of Paul’s intention immediately after being liberated, as he expected to be, to go from Rome to the far West, it is possible that he felt called to go at once to the capital of the empire, now that Paul had left it. This was not in any sense a violation of the agreement made with Paul and Barnabas some twelve years before (vol. i. p. 266), since the Church in Rome from its beginning was anything but a Church founded by the este to the Gentiles, being composed largely of native VOL, II IT 162 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Jews, part of whom were ‚Jewish Christians from Palestine (vol. i. pp. 421-434). If Peter reached Rome, apparently in company with Mark, in the autumn of 63, or even as late as the spring of 64, Paul was no longer there. If Paul had undertaken a missionary journey to Spain of uncertain duration, it was all the more natural for Peter, following Pauls example, to assume the care of the Churches in Asia, as he does in writing 1 Peter. By making use of the assistance of Silvanus, whom many of the Christians addressed in the letter had come to know in his capacity as Paul's helper, he was able the more easily to strike the note that would find an echo in the hearts of the Christians in Asia Minor who had heen instructed by Paul and his helpers. When Paul found time again to visit the East, and long before he was imprisoned again in Rome and executed, Peter had suffered martydom in that city. Peter laboured there at most not more than a year, possibly only part of a year. Since there is nothing in 1 Peter to indicate that Peter had recently come to Rome, and since, on the other hand, his residence there seems to be already known to the readers when he writes, it is probable that the letter was not written until sometime in the course of the year 64, a few months before its author’s death. 1. (P. 158.) Paul always left it to the persons by whom his letters were dispatched to say from what point they brought his letters to the readers. Only in rare instances does he mention a city in such a way that his residence there can be inferred, e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 8. There is a certain hint in Rom. xvi. 1, cf. xvi. 28, which can easily be as misleading as 1 Thess. iii. 1. On the other hand, see Ign. Mayn. xv. ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς ᾿Εφέσιοι ἀπὸ Σμύρνης, ὅθεν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν ; cf. Eph. xxi. ; Trall. xii.; Rom.x.; Philad. xi, ; Smyrn. xii. 2. (P. 159.) Babylon in Egypt, situated between Memphis and Heliopolis, on the site which afterwards became Cairo, was a eity of no small importance (Strabo, xvii. p. 807), and is also occasionally mentioned in ecclesiastical literature : Athan. Hist. Artan ad mon. 72; Theodoret on Ezek. xl. (Schulze, ii. 929); Epiphanius (Mon., ed. Dressel, p. 6) goes so far as to call it τὴν μεγάλην Βαβυλῶν, Regarding the rapid decline of the ancient Babylon on the Euphrates, see the review in Pauly-Wissowa, RE, ii. 267911. Strabo (xvi. p. 738) applies to it the verse, “ The great city has become a wilderness”; Pliny says (H. N. vi. 122) : cetero (i.e, with the exception of the temple of Bel, which EPISTLES OF PETER. JUDE, AND HEBREWS 163 still remained) ad solitudinem redvit ; Pausanias says (viii. 33. 3; cf. i. 16. 3), speaking not with reference to his own time, but with reference to the time of the founding of Seleucia, that only the walls of Babylon were left. Of the Jews in Babylon, 1.6. in Babylonia (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cat. xxxi. 36), it is possible that some few found lodging among the ruins of the ancient city (Theodoret on Isa. xiii., Schulze, ii. 264) ; but the great majority of them dwelt in the neighbouring cities of Seleucia, Nehardea, and the villages (Jos. Ant. xviii. 9. 1-9). 3. (P. 159.) Probably Papias favoured the interpretation of Babylon which made it refer allegorically to Rome (GK, i. 888); for, according to Eus. H. EH. ii. 15, the story told by Clemens Alexandrinus in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes about the origin of Mark in Rome during the time when Peter was preaching there, is supported by the testimony of Papias (see below, §51,n.10). The further tradition given by Eusebius in the same passage, that Peter wrote 1 Pet. in Rome, and that Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13) is a figura- tive expression for Rome, cannot be traced back to Clement, a witness named before and alongside of Papias; for although in his comment on 1 Pet. v. 13 he takes advantage of the occurrence of the name of Mark in order to speak of the Roman origin of his Gospel, he says nothing about the place where 1 Pet. was written, either in this passage or anywhere else in his com- mentary. Indeed, elsewhere he identifies Babylon with the ancient city in the land of the “ Parthians” (Forsch. iii. 83, 95, 102, 72 f. ; above, p. 157, n. 11). It was therefore probably Papias who interpreted Babylon in 1 Pet. v. 13 to mean Rome, as Rufinus understood him to do. With this agrees the fact that Papias quotes passages from 1 Pet. (according to Eus. H. E.iii. 39. 16); that he places high value upon the Apocalypse, which might easily suggest such an interpretation of Babylon ; and, finally, the fact that he interpreted other biblical passages allegorically (Patr. apos., ed. minor, p. 74). This interpretation was from the first the prevailing one in the Church, and continued to be so ; οἵ. Jerome, Ver. Ill. viii. ; or Hilary (of Arles?) on 1 Pet. v. 13 (Spieil. Casin. iii. 1. 241, where we have also the purely allegorical in- terpretation in confusione gentium) ; Andreas on Rev. p. 76, καὶ ἡ πρεσβυτέρα de Ῥώμη Βαβυλὼν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ Ilérpov προσαγορεύεται ; Cramer, Cat. viii. 82; Schol. in Matt. pp. 80, 205; and Tischendorf. Similarly there does not exist any tradition worthy of credence concerning the residence of Peter on the Euphrates. That Clement was not familiar with any such tradition, is sufficiently proved by the fact that he says nothing about it in connection with 1 Pet. v. 13 and 2 John 1, 13 (above, p. 157). In the Acts of Philip, which were not written before 400, and which are absurd in character (Acta apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 2. 16. 7; cf. Forsch. vi. 18-24), it is related that Philip went to the land of the Parthians, and in a certain place (ἔν τινι πόλει) found Peter. If there were any connection between this story and 1 Pet. v. 13, it would be indicated by the use of the name Babylon. Nor is there any independent tradition behind the story ; for, in addition, Philip finds there John (op. cit. p. 162), who had just as little to do with the Parthians as did Philip himself. Cosmas Indicopleustes, who questioned the genuineness of the Catholic Epistles (@K, ii. 232), cites 1 Pet. v. 13 once (Montfaucon, Coll. nov. Patrwm, ii. 147f.), without so much as saying that it was written by Peter, making the reference apparently only in 164 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT order not to omit mention of the fact that there is in the N.T. an uncertain suggestion of an early spread of Christianity in Mesopotamia. He makes Thaddeus the missionary of Persia. According to the more ancient tradition, Thomas was the apostle to Parthia, to which territory Babylon belonged (Origen in Eus. H. E. iii. 1. 1; Clement, Recoyn. ix. 29; Ephr. Expos. ev. concord. 286; Rufin. H. E.i. 6; Socr. H. E.i. 19). This is not contradicted by the other tradition, likewise ancient, which makes Thomas the apostle of India ; indeed, there is a certain connection between the two, since in the latter at least the bones of Thomas, who died in India, are represented as being brought to Mesopotamia, or more specifically to Edessa (Acta Thome, Supplement, Cod. apocr., ed. Bonnet, 94. 10, 131. 18, 159. 15; Acta apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 2,286.11; Ephr. Curm. Nisib. xlii.; Chron. Edess. ce. xxxviil. Ixi., ed. Hallier, 61f., 103, 111; Rufin. H. E. ii. 5; also Chrysostom, Montf. xii. 237, makes reference to the same). On the other hand, neither are there traces of any tradition of Peter’s activity in Babylon among the interpreters of the Antiochian school, nor in the Syrian national Church. The “Teaching of Addai,” the essential parts of which were known to Eusebius (H. E. i. 13), makes Thomas the principal leader of missionary work in the East, who sent Addai, one of the seventy or seventy-two disciples, to Edessa (ed. Phillips, p. 5). On the other hand, it is Peter who sends the Epistles of Paul from Rome to the Syrian Christians (p. 46). This legend knows nothing of an Antiochian episcopate of Peter, but is familiar only with his Roman episcopate; for it is only through the mediation of Peter’s Roman colleague that Serapion of Antioch receives ordination as a bishop, an impri- matur which goes back ultimately to Peter. Among the places where Peter preached, Ephrem mentions besides Rome only the districts in Asia Minor mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 1 (Expos. ev. conc. 286 ; above, p. 154; ef. Hymn. ed. Lamy, i. 342, 712, Peter in Rome ; Carm. Nisib. lix. 2f.; Expos. ev. conc. 231, 237, crucified head downward). The Syriac “ Teaching of the Apostles,” of a somewhat late date, mentions Addai as the missionary of northern Mesopo- tamia, and his follower Aggai as the founder of the Churches in “the regions about Babylon” and in the lands lying farther east. On the other hand, according to this same account, Peter founded Churches in Antioch and the parts of Syria adjacent, in Pontus and other provinces of Asia Minor, before he went from Antioch to Rome, where, with Paul, he suffered martyrdom under Nero (Cureton, Ancient docwments, 33, 34, 35). It also quotes among the letters of the apostles, ‘‘ What Simon wrote from Rome ” (p. 32), .e. 1 Pet., and interprets Babylon to mean Rome, Cf. the note at the end of a MS of the sixth or seventh century (Wright, Catal. p. 82), “The end of the letter of the apostle Peter, written from Rome.” Similarly the confused views about Rome or Rhode, a daughter of Peter, of which Barhebraeus gives an account in connection with 1 Pet. v.13; Acts xii. 12, 13 (above, p. 157, n. 11), are to be traced back ultimately to the interpretation of Babylon to mean Rome. [Barhebreeus himself understands the “ Church,” which he read in the Syriac text of 1 Pet. v. 13 (above, p. 157), to mean “ The assembly of the apostles in Jerusalem”; and “Babylon” he takes as referring to the upper room, Acts i. 13, where he represents the Pentecostal miracle and many others to have taken place. Possibly with this view of Barhebraeus is to be connected the no less remarkable statement about 1 Pet. to be found in EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 165 Syncellus, ad A. M. 5540 (ed. Bonn, 627), ἄλλοι δὲ ἀπὸ Ἰόππης φασὶ γεγράφθαι, where there is an evident attempt to connect the letter with Acts ix. 36-x. 23.] The Syriac “Teaching of Simon Kepha” (Cureton, Ane. doc. 35-40) deals only with the twenty-five years of Peters labours in Rome. The Acta Maris (ed. Abbeloos, 1885, dated by the editor in the fifth or sixth century) speak of Peter in Rome (pp. 31, 35), and describe the founding of the Church in Babylonia by Mare (47 ff.) without any suggestion of earlier, perhaps fruit- less, preaching by the apostle in the same regions. George, bishop of the Arabians (translation by Ryssel, S. 58), writing in the eighth century, speaks of “ Peter and Paul in Antioch and Rome and the regions adjacent,” but says nothing more. Likewise Solomon of Bassora, writing in 1220 (transla- tion by Schönfelder, S. 77), says, “In Antioch one year, in Rome twenty- seven.” The only missionaries of Mesopotamia in general—particularly of Babylonia—known to Ebedjesu (Assemani, Bibl. or. iii. 2. 4) are Thomas, Bartholomew, Addai, and Mare. When, therefore, Amrus and Jeshujab (Assemani, iii. 2. 6f.; cf. also Abbeloos, p. 10) claim with express reference to 1 Pet. v. 13 that Peter also was in Babylon, it is perfectly clear that this is not Syrian tradition, but only a product of later erudition. Lipsius’ claim, based upon these quotations (Apokr. apostelgesch. ii. part 1. 3, n. 3, ii. part 2. 145), that from the first the Syrian Church was unanimous in its interpretation of 1 Pet. v. 13 to mean Babylon proper, and held the corre- sponding form of the tradition, is a strange perversion of the actual facts in the case, while his further conjecture that the tradition of Simon Peter’s presence in Babylon was supplanted by the tradition of the work of Simon Zelotes in these regions (ii. part 2. 146, Supplement, S. 32) is without founda- tion, because the latter tradition was just as much unknown among the Syrians as the former. It should be mentioned also that the pseudo-Moses of Chorene (Chron. ii. 33, translated by Lauer, 8. 94; A. Carriere, La légende @ Abgar, ete., 1895, p. 406), in his letter from Abgar to Nerseh in Babylon inserts a prophecy about the coming of Simon, 1.6. Peter, to Babylon. Erbes (Z/KG, 1901, S. 18 f.), who blindly follows Lipsius in respect of the Syrian tradition, feels the insufliciency of his evidence against the Roman sojourn of Peter, and takes refuge in the desperate assumption that by Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13) Jerusalem is to be understood. 4, (P. 160.) Among the martyrs whose murder is to be avenged by the overthrow of Babylon are to be found, according to Rev. xviii. 20 (cf. xvii. 6, xix. 2), also apostles. Now it is true that Babylon in Rev. is-not entirely synonymous with Rome, but is a metaphorical name for the imperial city in every age, especially in the last age. When, however, this book was written the imperial city was Rome. And if more than one apostle had not suffered martyrdom in Rome, then no apostles’ blood had been shed in the imperial city, and the sentence is meaningless. What other apostle’s name occurs so naturally in connection with Paul as that of Peter? Lipsius’ argument against this interpretation (A pokr. apostelgesch. ii. 1) requires no refutation. The series of witnesses for Peter’s presence in Rome, who mention him by name, begins with Clemens Romanus (above, 60, 68 ff.). The second witness is Ignatius; for although the thought that he was not in a position to give commandments to the Church like an apostle is expressed elsewhere (Thrall. iii. 3; ef. Eph. xi. 2-xii. 2), only in his letter to the Romans does he 166 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT use these words, οὐχ ὡς Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος ὑμῖν διατάσσομαι (iv. 3). Since, however, there is no suggestion of a letter from Peter to the Roman Church, Ignatius’ statement must mean that Peter had had to do with the Romans in person. In all probability the third witness is Papias (above, p. 163, and below, § 51, n. 10). As the fourth, the present writer, with greater con- fidence, mentions Marcion. By changing the text of Phil. 1. 15-18, especially by inserting the οὐδέν por διαφέρει of Gal. ii. 6, he forces the reader to his view that Paul is referring in this passage to Peter and his companions (GK, i. 592, A. 3, 648; ii. 528). In Marcion’s text, Col. iv. 11 and Phil. i. 15-18 were written on the same page, so that he also maintained that the persons referred to in the former passage were there called Jewish preachers in Rome by Paul, who could not have recognised them as his fellow- labourers. No one claims that Marcion was ignorant of the composition of Phil. in Rome, or that he denied it, so that he must have held that Peter was actively engaged as a preacher of the gospel in the vicinity of Paul while he was a prisoner in Rome. Connected with the testimony of Marcion is that of Dionysius of Corinth, Irensus, Canon Muratori (to the extent that it connects the Passio Petri with the departure of Paul from Rome to Spain), already discussed (above, p. 73 ff.), also that of Caius of Rome, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Petrus Alexandrinus, Lactantius, and all the later authors, including the Syrians, who made no effort to take Peter away from the Romans in order that they might claim him for them- selves (above, p. 163f.). There is to be added also the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus in two passages of his Hypotyposes mentioned above, p. 163, n. 3 (Lib. vi. fragments 15, 16; and on 1 Pet. v. 13, Forsch. iii. 72, 83, 95). This testimony is limited to the preaching of Peter in Rome and the origin of Mark, and contains no indication as to date. Of course, Eusebius’ appeal to the authority of Clement (H. E. ii. 15. 2) cannot be made to cover the whole narrative from ii. 13 on. Even that which immediately precedes the appeal to Clement in Eusebius’ account—leaving out of account the fact that he appeals at the same time to the authority of Papias—is only partly Clement’s, since it contradicts Clement’s own statements which have been accurately handed down to us (Forsch. iii. 72, A. 1, and below, § 51, nn. 8,9). In addition, we have also the legends belonging between 160 and 190, especially the Acts of Peter, a Gnostic document (above, p. 73f.). In all authors heretofore mentioned, when chronological data are given at all, it is no more than the general statement that the two apostles worked in Rome, and suffered martyrdom at about the same time ; while a few others, such as Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, aflirm that the apostles were put to death by Nero. In the Acts of Peter, on the other hand, we have the more definite statement that the whole Roman residence of Peter and his martyrdom fell in the one year which, according to this same document, intervened between the first and second Roman imprisonments of Paul, and was occupied by his Spanish journey (above, pp. 62-67, 73-84), This same representation of the matter comes to view in the Canon Muratori, since this does not bring together the martyrdom of the two apostles, but the Spanish journey of Paul and the martyrdom of Peter. The fact that the Acts of Peter place the whole of Peter’s Roman residence in the reign of Nero, and nevertheless make Peter leave Jerusalem for Rome twelve years after the beginning of the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 167 apostolic preaching (Lipsius, 49. 11), is not to be explained as due to an impossible chronological reckoning, but to the naive combining—quite in keeping with the fantastic character of this work of Leucius—of the prevailing tradition, according to which both Peter and Paul worked in Rome and were put to death under Nero, with a saying of Jesus which the author took from a much older work, namely, The Preaching of Peter (Clem. Strom. vi. 43 ; GK, ii. 821). The latter writing, which claims to be a work of Peter himself, while possibly containing a prophetic reference to the death of Peter, naturally contains no account of the same (GK, ii. 820-832). It is also to be observed that none of the writers mentioned considered Peter as bishop of Rome. Leaving out of account Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, who make no definite statements about the relation of Peter to the Roman Church, Dionysius (Hus. ii. 25. 8), Irenzeus (iii. 1. 1, 3. 2, 3), Caius (Hus. ii. 25. 7) speak of Peter and Paul as the missionary preachers through whom the Roman Church was founded. Linus and his successors on the Roman throne are not as bishops successors of Peter. Not Peter, but “the apostles,” gave Linus his episcopal office (Iren. iii. 3. 3). The Roman bishops were counted from Linus, who was reckoned as the first bishop; they were not designated first, second, third after Peter, but from the time of the apostles (ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων). The different reckoning to be found in Ireneus, i. 27. 1, iii. 4. 3, which presupposes that there wasa bishop preceding Linus, namely, Peter, isa falsification, inconsistent with the fundamental views of Irenzeus; and that it is an error is confirmed by text tradition. Even Epiphanius (Her. xxvii. 6), who makes use in this passage among other authorities of reports of Hegesippus (cf. Lightfoot, Clement, i. 328 f., cf., however, Forsch. vi. 260), mentions as the first of the Roman bishops not Peter, but “Peter and Paul,” beginning with these very clear words: ἐν Ῥώμῃ yap γεγόνασι πρῶτοι Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος ἀπόσ- τολοι καὶ ἐπίσκοποι. Even the ancient Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul make the two apostles simply preachers of the gospel in Rome, labouring hand in hand ; there is no suggestion that Peter oceupied the position of a bishop in Rome (GK, ii. 840). And the same is true even of the late re- censions of the legends, e.g. the so-called “ Linus,” and the combined Acts of Peter and Paul. Obscure, to say the least, is the indication of Peter’s bishopric in Rome to be derived from the fact that Tertullian makes Clement receive ordination from Peter alone (Preser. xxxii.; but ef. chap. xxxvi.). It is not until the middle of the third century that we find the Roman bishopric clearly represented as the cathedra Petri, e.g. in Cyprian (Epist. ly. 8, lix. 14), and in a sermon of practically the same date in Cyprian’s name by a Roman bishop, de Aleatoribus, chap. i., and in the fabricated letter of Clement to James (Clementina, ed. Lagarde, 6), which can hardly be of an earlier date. Leaving out of account the end of the Teaching of Addat (ed. Phillips, Syr. 52, Eng. 50), concerning which it may be questioned whether the conclusion belonged originally to this writing, the other parts of which are to be dated prior to Eusebius, Eusebius is the first known writer who states that Peter was bishop of the Roman Church for a definite number of years. But in the ecclesiastical history and in other works where he speaks of Peter in Rome (Demonstratio evang., de Theophania), he never calls him a bishop, and in speaking of the Roman bishops he always uses the ancient 168 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT mode of expression already mentioned (H. E. iii. 21.2). Nor does he say anything as to the time when Peter left Antioch and Euodius succeeded him there (iii, 22, 36. 2). The time of Peter’s arrival in Rome he indicates very indefinitely (ii. 14. 6 under Claudius) ; and this disagrees with the date given in the Chronicle, which was written earlier. All this goes to show that Eusebius placed no reliance whatever upon the dates given in the Chronicle, which, though definite, are self-contradictory. In the Chronicle (Armenian version), under the date anno Abrah. 2055 (a.p, 39)=the third year of Caius, he remarks that Peter came to Rome after the founding of the Church in Antioch, and lived there as head of the Church for twenty years ; but he does not make Euodius succeed Peter as bishop of Antioch until anno Abrah. 2058 (A.D. 42)=the second year of Claudius. Generally, the Roman episcopate of Peter is placed at “twenty-five years” instead of twenty ; so, 6... in the list of bishops in the Roman Chronicle of 354 (Catal. Liberianus in Duchesne, Lib. pont. i. 2). Incorporated in this Chronicle is a depositio martyrum (op. cit. p. 11), which shows that Peter’s induction into the office of bishop was celebrated on viii. Kal. Mart.; see also the Chronicle of Eusebius as revised by Jerome under the date anno Abrah. 2058 (A.D. 42)=second year of Claudius (cf. Vir. Ill. i.); also the Teaching of Addai and the majority of later catalogues (cf., however, Duchesne, Lib. pont. i. 16, 34, 39, 40). This is not the place in which to investigate the origin of the sacred number 25, which possibly may be only an expression in round numbers for “something more than twenty years.” It is perfectly evident, however, that Eusebius, who did not find and who does not give any definite tradition about the time of Peter’s death (above, p. 78 f.), did not get his twenty years by counting back from the year of Peter's death. On the other hand, from the ecclesiastical history we learn what it was that led him to assume this long residence of Peter in Rome, in contradiction to the universal testimony of the early Church and the indirect testimony of the N.T. From Justin (Apol. i. 26) and Irenzeus (i. 23. 1), Eusebius was acquainted with the tradition that Simon Magus came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and was there deified (H. E. ii. 13. 2-5). Now, the tradition that Simon came to Rome in the reign of Claudius can hardly be due toa misinterpretation of the inscription on a statue of the Sabine god, Semo Sancus, which stood on the island in the Tiber, a misinterpretation reproduced in Justin, Ireneus, Tertullian, and many later writers (see Otto on Just. Apol. i. 26; Ohler on Tert. A pol. xiii.), and which in different form is made use of in the ancient Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, 57. 24). Rather does the misinterpretation of the inscription presuppose the tradition about Simon. There is nothing about the inscrip- tion to suggest the time of Claudius (0. I. L. vi. 1, No. 567), and there is nothing in the account in Acts viii. which could suggest its dating in this reign. Furthermore, only if it were already known from other sources that Simon Magus was once in Rome, could it possibly occur to anyone that this statue and its inscription had reference to him, Consequently, it follows that before the middle of the second century it was generally believed in Rome that Simon lived there, and carried on his work under Claudius ; and the present writer knows no reason why this should not be regarded as a genuine tradition. Now, in the Acts of Peter (written between 160 and 170), EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τόρ a book which was much read in the East as well as in the West (GK, ii. 843-848), we have the account of numerous contests in Rome between Simon Magus and Peter, all of them connected more or less closely with Acts viii. (@K, ii. 854). To be sure, these contests are said to have taken place in the reign of Nero, while Paul was occupied with his Spanish journey ; but in this same story the tradition which connects Simon Magus with Claudius has apparently a certain connection with the anachronistic state- ment that these took place twelve years after the beginning of the apostolic preaching (above, p. 166, last line). With this tradition is to be connected the story (Acta Petri, pp. 48. 19 ff., 49. 21 ff.) that immediately after the first appearance of the Magician in Rome, Peter in Jerusalem received the divine command to go to Rome in order to combat him. Under the influence of this narrative, especially of the proofs there adduced of the divine guidance in the whole matter (Acta Petri, pp. 49. 17-31, 51. 25-31, 52. 17), Eusebius writes that shortly after the appearance of Simon Magus in Rome, while Claudius was still on the throne (H. E. ii. 14. 6, παρὰ πόδας γοῦν ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς Κλαυδίου βασιλείας), Divine Providence sent Peter to Rome to oppose him. When, on the other hand, the persecution of Christians by Nero was regarded as the climax of his atrocities, and in consequence of this the martyrdom of the two apostles was brought down toward the end of his reign (above, p. 78), Peter’s residence in Rome is made to cover more than a decade. Eusebius was not the only writer—perhaps he was not the first one—who was led by the Acts of Peter, through the combination of the tradition of Simon Magus’ residence in Rome under Claudius with the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome under Nero, to assume a long Roman episcopate of Peter. Once it had arisen and become current, the story lost all connection with its sources. Even in the Chronicle of the year 354 the twenty-five years’ episcopate is treated as an independent date, and incredibly enough is placed between 30 and 55 a.p., both in the list of bishops and in the Fasti Consulares (cf. Mommsen, Chron. min. i. 57, 73). The later Lib. pontyf. retains the twenty-five years, although it places both the arrival of Peter in Rome and his death in the reign of Nero, which covered only thirteen years (Duchesne, i. 50, 118). With regard to the manner of Peter’s death, in 2 Pet. i. 14 the expectation is expressed, based upon a prediction of Christ’s, that he will die a quick, 1.6. a sudden and violent, death. When John xxi. 18-23 was written, it must have been generally known that Peter was crucified prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. While Clement (ad Cor. v., see above, p. 68 ff.), Canon Muratori, and many other writers merely say that he died a martyr’s death, from Tertullian on there is frequent mention of his crucifixion in Rome (above, p. 76f.). It is not possible certainly to determine from Origen (c. Cels. ii. 14. ef. Kus. Chron. under anno A brah. 2048) whether this report had been heard by Phlegon, a manumitted slave of Hadrian’s. The legend that he was crucified head downward is evidently an invention of the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which date from about the year 170 (ed. Lipsius, p. 92 ff.),—an invention, however, which is accepted by Origen as true (Eus. H. E. iii. 1.2). The way is prepared for this story by the conversation between Peter, as he was fleeing from Rome, and Christ who appeared to him, in which Christ says first, εἰσέρχομαι eis τὴν Ῥώμην σταυρωθῆναι, and then vai, Ilerpe, πάλιν σταυροῦμαι (p. 88. 9, cf. GK, il. 846). The common source of this story and that of the crucifixion of 170 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Peter head downward is evidently the ambiguous saying of Christ which Origen (in Jo. tom. xx. 12) quotes from the Catholic Acts of Paul, ἄνωθεν (i.e. denuo, but also desuper) μέλλω σταυρωθῆναι. Since, for chronological and other reasons, it is unlikely that the author of the Acts of Peter made use of the Acts of Paul, it is probable that the author of the Gnostie Acts of Peter and the author of the Catholic Acts of Paul, who wrote not much later, took the story from an older source, probably the “ Preaching of Peter.” For the original meaning of the saying, which possibly had nothing whatever to do with the death of Peter, see GK, ii. 878. In view of these facts, it is alto- gether unlikely that the story of Peter’s crucifixion head downward is historical. On the other hand, there is no reason to call in question the Roman local tradition, firmly established by the year 210, and so certainly not due to a sudden new discovery or invention, that Paul was beheaded on the Via Ostiensis and Peter crucified near the Mons Vaticanus, and that both were buried near the places where they were executed (above, p. 81f.). Had there been an inclination to supply by invention what could not be certainly known,—in view of the connecting of Peter and Paul, which was quite universal from the time of Clemens Romanus,—it would have been natural to think of them as united in death and burial. On the Mons Vaticanus, in the Ager Vaticanus, were the gardens of Agrippina and Domitia, both of which became the property of Nero. According to Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44), it was in these extensive pleasure-grounds that the terrible executions of Christians took place in the year 64 (hortos swos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat), and among those sacrificed were also crucibus afiai. The agreement of this statement with the tradition about the manner and place of Peter’s death has all the more weight, because the tradition of the early Church shows no connection between the martyrdom of Peter and the burning of Rome, much less does it show affinities with the description of Tacitus. Only by taking chap. vi. of Clement’s letter in connection with chap. v. is it possible to infer any connection between the scenes described by Tacitus and the death of at least one of the apostles. 'To these considerations is to be added the fact that the entire Roman residence of Peter must fall in the interval between the first and second Roman imprisonments of Paul (above, p. 160 f.), 2.e. between the autumn of 63 and the autumn of 66. There is consequently nothing in the way of the assumption, made so natural by traditions which there is no reason to suspect, that Peter perished late in the summer of 64 as a victim of Nero’s attack upon the Christians in Rome. Baur (Christent. der drei ersten Jahrh. 2te Aufl. 86-93, 141-145 ; Paulus, 2te Aufl. 246-272) believed that the entire tradition of Peter’s residence in Rome, which has just been examined, could be explained from the pseudo-Clementine Romance and so refuted ; and this view has been taken up and further developed especially by Lipsius (Quellen der römischen Petrussage, 1872; JbPTh, 1876; Apocryph. A postelges. ii. part 1. 11, 28-69, 358-364 ; Supplement, 32-34). Since in this literature Simon Magus, with whom Simon Peter wages constant and successful contests, is only a mask for Paul, and not in any sense an historical person, the entire tradition about Peter in Rome is only the presentation in historical form of the thought that the Christianity preached in Rome by Paul was to be overcome by Jewish Christianity represented by Peter, or that it was to lose its detested peculiarities through union with its opposite. With regard to this view EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 171 the following brief remarks may be made :—(1) The pseudo-Clementine Romance was not known in the West until Rutinus translated one recen- sion of the same into Latin in 400 (ef. the same author’s Prefatio ad Gaudentium). Even Jerome (Vir. Ill. xv.), speaking with regard to this literature, is able only to repeat in a very inaccurate way what he had read in Eus. H.E. iii. 38. 5. It is entirely inconceivable that the entire tradition of the Western Church concerning Peter in Rome should rest upon an appropriation and an entire misunderstanding of the Ebionitie legend as to the identity of Simon Magus and Paul. (2) Peter’s presence and martyrdom in Rome were known to the Roman Church as early as the year 96 (above, pp. 61 f., 68 f.). The pseudo-Clementine Romance could not possibly have been written before 160, and in all probability originated in the course of the third century. (8) In both the existing recensions of the Romance it ends with the arrival of Peter in Antioch, whither Simon Magus had gone before him. That there was another recension of this Ebionitie legend, which included the work of Peter in Rome, and dealt with his contests with Simon Magus there, is merely a conjecture for which there is no proof. In the two existing recensions there are only two brief hints that in his preaching journeys Peter finally reached Rome (Hom. i. 16; Rec. i. 18, 74). Assuming that the letter of Clement to James is an integral part of the Homilies, this merely presupposes that Peter was a bishop in Rome, appointed Clement his successor, and died a martyr’s death after having borne testimony to Christ publicly before the emperor (Epist. Clem. ad Jac. i.). There is no suggestion that the Magician went to Rome and was there overcome by Peter. According to Hom. xx. 13-17, 22, the Magician did not go from Antioch to Rome, but fled to Judea in order to escape the officers of the Roman emperor. We have the same testimony in Rec. x. 55-59. Quite inconsistently with this statement in Rec. iii. 63-64, ef. ii. 9 (Hom. ii. 27 is only remotely parallel to the latter passage), we have references to the miracles, the deification, and the statue of Simon in Rome. But not even here do we find any statements about contests in Rome between him and Peter. (4) In the Ebionitie literature, Simon Magus was not always the mask for Paul. In those portions which show the marks of greatest age, Paul is sometimes combated in his own name (Epiph. Her. xxx. 16), sometimes opposed anonymously, being styled simply a “hostile man” (Rec. i. 70, 71; Epist. Petri ad Jac. chap, ii.); but he is distinguished from Simon Magus (Eee. 1. 72). Even in the Clementine Homilies, in which alone Simon Magus stands as a veiled representative of Paul (Hom. xvii. 13-19; ef. ii. 22, xi. 35, xvii. 5, xix. 22), Paul is not the only person whom he represents. Simon Magus has a history, and teaches a doctrine which certainly cannot be regarded as simply a caricature of the life and teaching of Paul (Hom. ii. 22-32, xviii. 6, 12; Rec. i. 72, ii. 5-15, 38f., 49 ff., iii. 47). On the contrary, there are essential points in which this picture of Simon Magus agrees with the statements of Justin (Apol. i. 26, ef. i. 56, ii. 15; Dial. cxx.), who was a Samaritan, and could have had no knowledge of the pseudo-Clementine Romance. The picture also has points of contact with the hints in Acts (viii. 9f.; cf. Klostermann, Probleme im 4posteltext, 15-21), which was written approximately a hundred years before the earliest possible date of the Clementine Romance. (5) The idea of 172 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT representing and combating Paul under the figure of Simon Magus—-which is carried out for the first time in the Homilies of Clement, but not as yet in other writings representiug the same tendeney—could not have arisen unless Simon Magus already stood for the type of religious teacher who was Christian in name but in reality was anti-Christian, and unless he was generally known in Catholic Christendom which this Ebionitie literature was designed to influence. (6) Even assuming that in Justin much that is un- historical is combined with the ancient, genuine tradition, and suspecting as much as we will, the alleged writings of Simon Magus (Hippol. Refut. iv. 51, vi. 9ff.; Jerome in Matt. xxiv. 5, Vall. vii. 193; Const. ap. vi. 16; Maruta, de synodo Nic., translated by Braun in Knöpfler’s Kirchengesch. Stud. iv. 3. 47), we must nevertheless admit that in the middle of the second century and long afterwards there existed a sect which bore Simon’s name, and which in a certain sense could claim te be Christian (Just. Ap. i. 26, speaking of Simon, Menander, and Marcion, πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ τούτων ὁρμώμενοι Χριστιανοὶ καλοῦνται). The first would have been impossible had Simon Magus existed only in imagination and in the partisan narratives of Ebionitic sects and writings. The second fact presupposes that the historical Simon Magus modified his original teaching, which was totally unchristian in character, through contact with Christianity and by the adoption of Christian elements, and that in this modified form it was promulgated by a party bearing his name. It is altogether likely that after his hypocritical conversion (Acts viii. 13-24) he taught the doctrine, the principal tenet of which is found in Iren. i. 23. 1. (7) The tradition concerning Simon Magus in Rome, which probably has some historical foundation (above, p. 168), as it appears in Justin, Irensus, and Tertullian, has no connection with the tradition con- cerning Peter and Paul in Rome; while, on the other hand, in Dionysius of Corinth, Irensus, Tertullian, and Lactantius (probably also in the ancient Acts of Paul, GK, ii, 884), the tradition about Peter and Paul appears without any connection with that about Simon Magus. ‘The first writer who to our knowledge combined these two traditions was the author of the Acts of Peter (circa 170 A.D.), who was ἃ fabricator though not a finished one. His com- bination of these two independent traditions was not due to the influence of the Ebionitie legend. (a) The romance through which we learn of this legend was not yet written ; (b) it contains no narrative about the contests in Rome between Simon Magus and Simon Peter; moreover, (6) the author of these Acts, who belonged to the school of Valentinus, was not at all likely to allow himself to be influenced by such a source. The attempt of Erbes (Z/KG, 1901, S. 1-47, 161-224) to prove that Peter never visited Rome, and that he was crucified not in Rome but in Jerusalem, gives no occasion for correcting or enlarging what was said above, pp. 68 f. and 162-172, nn. 2-4, It is sufliciently charaeterised by the manner in which Erbes agrees with the oldest witnesses. Concerning 1 Pet. v, 13, see above, p. 163, n. 3); with what Erbes (22 ff.) says concerning Clemens, Romanus, and Tgnatius, ef. above, pp. 68f., 165, n. 4. He does not think it worth while to take Rev. xviii. 20 (xvii. 6, xix. 2) and Mareion into consideration. On the other hand, we learn that neither Irenw#us nor the author of the Acts of Peter was ac- quainted with John xxi. (p. 165), and that the one hundred and fifty-three fishes (John xxi. 11), under the tacit presupposition of the Dionysian Era, EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS _ 173 refers to the year 153 A.p., in which year Anicetus and Polycarp in Rome came to an agreement concerning the tradition of Peter’s presence in that eity, pp. 10, 219. 8 40. THE GENUINENESS OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. The external evidence for the genuineness of the letter is strong; it is known and quoted as the work of the Apostle Peter by two men who were disciples of apostles, and also bishops of two of the Churches belonging to the group to which the letter purports to be addressed, Poly- carp of Smyrna and Papias of Hieropolis (n. 1). Polycarp was baptized probably in the year 69, some five years after the probable date of the composition of the Epistle (Forsch. vi. 94ff.). It is not at all likely that at this early date the Churches in Smyrna and Hieropolis could be deceived into accepting as an Epistle of Peter’s written in the year 64 a letter forged in his name in the year 100. As regards the character of the letter, we are unable to test it by comparison with writings of the same author regarding which there is no question. 2 Peter is one of the most suspected documents in the N.T.; and even if it should be proved genuine, its comparison with 1 Peter as regards point of view and style would not prove much, because of the important part that Silvanus took in the composition of 1 Peter, whereas in 2 Peter there is no evidence that the author made use of an amanuensis. While the discourses of Peter in Acts may faithfully reproduce his thought, and give a true picture of his manner of preaching, it is altogether unlikely that the form in which Luke reproduces them is derived from notes made at the time. But leaving out of account altogether the many changes which may have taken place in these discourses in the course of their transmission to Luke, and which may have been made by Luke himself in committing them to writing, and disregarding the influence which 174 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Silvanus may have had in determining the form of 1 Peter, there is all the difference in the world between discourses which Peter delivered in the early days of the Church to the populace and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, in the house of Cornelius at Ceesarea, or later in Jerusalem before the Apostolic Council, and a letter which he directed Silvanus to write from Rome to the Gentile Christian Churches in Asia Minor at a much later time, and in alto- gether different circumstances (ἢ. 2). All that can be claimed is that the impression of Peter’s religious attitude and ecclesiastical position, which we get from Acts and the Epistles of Paul, agrees perfectly with the manner in which he conceives his new task in 1 Peter. Here we find the same unhesitating recognition of the divinely blessed labours of the missionaries among the Gentiles, and of the equal Christian standing of Gentile Christians and Jewish members of the mother Church (Gal. 11. 7-10; Acts x. 47, xi. 17, xv. 7-11; ef. 1 Pet. i. 4-12, ii. 3-10, v. 12); the same concentration of the gospel message upon the death on the Cross, the Resurrection, and the Second Coming of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 3-5, 11; Acts ii. 23-36, 11. 13-26, iv. 10, v. 30 f., x. 39-42 ; cf. 1 Pet. 1. 3-7, 18-21, ü. 21-25, 111, 18, 21f.,iv. 1, 5, 18, v. 1, 4,10). Finally, we observe also the consciousness of preaching as an eye-witness about the closing scenes of Jesus’ life to others, who through this testimony are enabled to believe without having seen (Acts ii. 32, iii, 15, iv. 20, v. 32, x. 39-42; cf. 1 Pet. v. 1, i. 3, 8). But the modest reserve with which this consciousness is expressed in the letter (above, pp. 146, 155) is strong evidence against the suspicion that some later writer is here artificially and presumptuously assuming the röle of Peter. Nor would such a writer, after having assumed this röle, have again obscured the Petrine author- ship, in which he wanted his readers to believe, by remark- ing that the letter was actually written by Silvanus, a secretary (v. 12). What could have been the motive of EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 17; such a forgery? An “apology of Paulinism, written by a member of the Pauline party” at the time of the “ per- secution of the Church by Trajan, and intended for mem- bers of the Petrine party” (Schwegler, Baur, and others), would have been altogether superfluous in an age when generally throughout the Church Peter and Paul were looked upon as brothers closely united in their work (Clement, 1 Cor. v. 47; ἴσῃ. Rom. iv.). Possibly such an apology may have been needed by Jewish Christians in Palestine, but certainly not by the Churches in Asia Minor founded by Paul and his helpers. Consequently, if the writer had this or some similar purpose in view, he chose a very peculiar address for his letter. Just as strange are the means which he chooses to accomplish his end. Paul is not once mentioned by name, nor referred to in a way that would be intelligible, although 1. 12, 25, v. 12 offered the amplest opportunity for such reference. Not a word is said about the opposition of Paul to the Judaisers in Galatia, who claimed to be followers of James and Peter, or to the Cephas party in Corinth; and yet the readers, whose knowledge of Peter’s teaching, based as it was only upon verbal reports, must have been very indefinite, are to infer from certain resemblances to the Pauline Epistles that Peter has adopted the disputed teachings of Paul in order thereby to justify them ! The undeniable use of Pauline ideas in 1 Peter, when considered without prejudice, leads to an entirely different conclusion. It is in line with the relation of 1 Peter to James, already discussed (n. 3). The necessity of saying some word of encouragement to the Christians in Asia Minor, whose persecutions had recently grown very severe, recalled to the mind of Peter, or Silvanus, or of both, the letter of James, which some fifteen years before had been such a help to them as well as to other Christians, and which, as proved by Paul’s letter to the Romans (vol. 1. 127 f., 429), continued to be widely known. The result 176 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT was that a number of ideas and expressions found in James were reproduced in 1 Peter. A writer thoroughly original could not have permitted himself to follow so closely an older model. But from all that we know of Peter there is not the slightest reason to assume that he was original, in the sense that James or Paul or John was original. On the contrary, his nature was such as to make him susceptible to influences from withont; while the fact that he recovered so quickly from the errors into which this tendency led him, proves that in doing that which was good and wholesome he did not have to con- tend with a strongly biassed character. Similarly, a writer who was concerned to maintain a show or reputa- tion of originality would have avoided these quotations from another writer, or would have concealed them more. Peter, who in v. 12 shows himself so little concerned in this regard as to permit the readers to give Silvanus all the credit for this beautiful letter, was not bound by such considerations. The only thing which he was able to claim for himself and put to his own credit was the inten- tion of applying for the benefit of the readers what Silvanus wrote in his name, and what James and others before him had written. This inclination on his part is in no sense external, interfering with the natural flow of his own thoughts. The reader who is not familiar with the originals does not observe the influence which they have had upon the form of 1 Peter. The temper and tone of the whole is independent and fundamentally ditferent from James. That there is no question here of slavish imita- tion of single passages, or of dishonest plagiarism, is proved by the fact that earnest efforts have been made to reverse the relation and make James dependent upon 1 Peter. Exactly similar is the case of the undeniable agreement between 1 Peter and some of the Pauline letters. The only letters of Paul to which 1 Peter shows resemblance in thought and language are Romans and Ephesians EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 177 (n. 4). But this fact finds no satisfactory explanation, if we assume that some author of a later time simply happened to make Peter use Paul’s language. On the other hand, it is the most natural thing in the world, if this letter was actually written by Peter in Rome, in the year 64, with the assistance of Silvanus. When Peter went to Rome to fill up the gap made by the departure of Paul (above, p. 162), he must have had a very natural inclination to read the letter of Paul’s preserved in Rome in which the apostle had made his first effort to establish relations between himself and the Roman Church; and when he found himself called upon to address the Churches in Asia Minor, with which up to this time he had re- mained personally unacquainted, in a letter which was to bear testimony to the genuineness of the gospel brought to them by Paul and his helpers, and to the truth of their Christian profession, he was under necessity of making the instruction which they had previously received his starting-point, and of adopting the tone of Christian address to which they were accustomed. But where could he find a better model than in the letter which Paul had written two or three years before to the same group of Churches, or to a large number of the Churches of the same group, namely, those in the province of Asia? The existence of a copy of Ephesians in the year 64 at Rome, where Paul wrote the letter, need occasion no surprise, since Ephesians was a circular letter of which possibly a number of copies were prepared immediately after it was written, and so were preserved in Rome (cf., moreover, vol. 1. 249 f., n. 6). The dependence of 1 Peter upon Romans and Ephesians is proof of its genuineness ; since a pseudo-Peter, writing in the year 75 or in 110, would have had no occasion to imitate these particular letters of Paul. A pseudo-Peter of the time of Trajan would not probably have recognised the true character of Ephesians as a circular letter to the VOL. II. 12 178 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Churches in Asia (vol. i. p. 479 ff.), and he would have been far more likely to use Galatians than Romans, since his alleged compilation is designed to pose as a letter of Peter among the Churches of Galatia as well as those of other regions. If, on the other hand, it could be shown that the use of the name Babylon to designate Rome is explicable only if the writer is dependent upon Rey. xiv. 8, xvi. 19=xviil. 24, it would be a serious argument against the genuine- ness of the letter. But is it not possible that the relation is just the reverse? and, besides, what reason is there for supposing that such ideas arose and were spread simply through literary agencies? Just as the Jews called Rome and the Roman Empire Edom, and just as among Chris- tians Jerusalem and Zion were typical designations of their commonwealth, which centres in heaven and has its future upon earth (Gal. iv, 25f.; Heb. xii. 22, xu. 14; Rev. xxi. 2), so Babylon, which among Greeks and Romans was the proverbial type of a great luxurious city, under the influence of historical tradition and O.T. prophecy, came to be used by Jews and Christians as the figurative name for the capital of the world-empire which was hostile to the Church of God, though no one was able to say who had used it first (n. 5). The name did not originate either with Peter or John, both of whom assumed rather that their contemporaries and fellow-believers were familiar with the Babylon of the present. Moreover, there is nothing about the representation of the situation of Christiamty im the world at this time which renders impossible the composition of the letter im the last years of Peter's life... Very frequently has it been supposed that the letter represented conditions in the time of Trajan; but this assumption is due to a misunder- standing of the interchange of letters between Pliny and Trajan, as if no attempt had been made by the Roman government before the year 112 to suppress Christianity EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 179 (n. 6). It is due equally to a misunderstanding of the statements in 1 Peter relative to persecution. It is true that in 1 Peter we have a representation of the relation of Christians to their heathen environment different from that of the earlier Epistles of Paul, with the exception of 1 Thessalonians, which presupposes a temporary and local persecution of Christians in Thessalonica. While in Paul’s Epistles we do have suggestions of: hostility to Christians on the part of Jews (Jas. 1. 6f.; 1 Thess. ii. 14; vol. 1. 88 f.) and of Gentiles (Rom. xu. 14-21), there is also evidence that there were Churches of considerable importance which lived quite unmolested (1 Cor. iv. 8-10, viii. 10, x. 27, xv. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 14-16), and believed themselves able to get fair treatment: even in heathen courts (1 Cor. vi. 1-8). Consequently, when we read that practically the same sufferings to which Christians were then being exposed in Asia Minor had to be endured by Christians throughout the world (1 Pet. v. 9), an entirely new situation is presented. Indeed, the readers them- selves had not been accustomed to suffer in the way that they are now compelled to suffer (iv. 12). It is not a general experience of Christians—an experience they have always had—which is described in v. 8, but a present fact ; even now the devil is passing through the land like a lion roaring for his prey. The final consummation of things is at hand (iv. 7); the judgment begins (iv. 17). From beginning to end the letter is filled with references to a recent unfavourable change in the situation of Chris- tians, especially those in Asia (i. 6f., iii. 9-17, iv. 48, 12-19, v. 8-12). This impression is simply strengthened by the fact that in the later letters of Paul—in those’ that were written shortly before 1 Peter (64 A.n.) as well as in those that were written shortly after—there are various indications that the relations between Christians and their heathen neighbours were more strained than at the time when Romans and the Corinthian letters were written ; 180 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ef.| Col. iv. 5; Eph. iv. 27f.,, v. 15f, vi. 12; 1 Tim) iii. 6f. (in the last passage the best interpreters make ὁ διάβολος refer to the class of slanderers), vi. 1; Tit. ii, 5, 10. When we inquire what these sufferings on the part of Christians, which Peter felt it necessary to notice, actually were, we observe at the very outset that nowhere in the letter is there the slightest hint of bloody martyrdoms, nor even of imprisonment and the confiscation of property. Nor is anything said about judges before whom they were brought, acts of worship which they were commanded to perform, and recantations under the pressure of perse- eution. But we do find such hints in N.T. writings of a later date and in the oldest portions of the post- apostolic literature (n. 7). For this reason it is impos- sible to believe that 1 Peter was written at the time of the Johannine apocalypse and of the letter of Clement (90-100) Still less is it possible to believe that it was written about 110, at the time of the Ignatian letters and of Pliny’s Epistles. The attacks upon the Christians at the time of 1 Peter were various in character (i. 6); but they were due mainly to and consisted primarily of slan- derous and calumnious attacks upon them as Christians. They were insulted “for the name of Christ” (iv. 14). And, as is shown by what immediately follows (iv. 15), it was this in which their sufferings consisted primarily if not exclusively ; whenever a specific injury is mentioned which they suffered at the hands of the heathen, it is always of this character :---καταλαλεῖν (ji. 12, 11. 16), λοιδορεῖν (iii. 9), and ἐπηρεάζξειν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀνα- στροφήν (iii. 16); βλασφημεῖν (iv. 4), and ὀνειδίζειν (iv. 14). They are to silence their slanderers by their good conduet (ii. 15); they are to put them to shame (iii. 16); above all, they are not to answer reviling with reviling, but with blessing (iii. 9). The very first condition of a comfortable life is to refrain from evil and deceitful words (iii. 10). EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 181 Even in the passage where the suffering Christ is held up as an example especially to slaves, it is not said that He refused to use His power to defend Himself against violence (Matt. xxvi. 51-55, xxvii. 40-44; John xviii. 36; Heb. xii. 2f.); but that when He was reviled He reviled not again, and did not give vent to threatening words when He was compelled to suffer (11. 23). It is true that in this same connection, besides the reviling, suffering is mentioned which involved actual violence; but in the foreground of the pictures stands the reviling, to which one less patient would have replied with reviling and threats. As a concrete example of the unjust treatment which slaves, to whom these words are addressed, fre- quently had to endure at the hands of their heathen masters, cuffing, not reviling, is mentioned (ii. 20). Of course it goes without saying that a hostile feeling toward the sect of Christians that had become general would not be limited to insulting words. Every Christian had daily to expect actual injury (iil. 14, εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε; 11. 17, ei θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ); but, according to Peter’s opinion and exhortation, the Christian ought not to fear it (111. 13). The form and extent of this persecution we are able to infer only from casual hints. The designation κακοποιοί, which was slanderously appled to Christians, is quite general (ii, 12, i, 17, iv. 15, n. 8); and equally general is the exhortation to a virtuous walk among the heathen and to good works which is contrasted with it. But this is followed immediately by a special exhortation to silence the ignorance of these unreasonable slanderers by obedi- ence to the emperor and his officers (11. 13£. ; cf. Acts xvi. 21, xvu. 7), and by the exhortation to show to. all— naturally to all to whom it is due (Rom. xii. 7)—the honour which their position demands, without prejudice to their special love for their fellow-believers, and espe- cially to honour the emperor, without prejudice to their fear of God (ii, 17), all of which indicates that the Chris: ı82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tians were accused of a hostility to the State which had its source in their religion and in their close fellowship with one another. The fact that the discussion of the relation of Christians to the State is followed by a detailed discussion of the relation of slaves to their masters (11. 18-25), and of wives to their husbands (iii. 1-6), while the conduct of husbands to their wives is touched upon only briefly (iii. 7), and the character of the exhortations to slaves and wives (ef. especially tii. 1 ἢ with ii. 12), show that Christian slaves and wives were accused of insubordination to their heathen masters and husbands. Christians were looked upon as the enemies of social order generally. The inner freedom from all earthly conditions of which they boasted was regarded as a revolutionary spirit. Every fault observed in the conduct of individual Christians was laid to the charge of their peculiar views, so that their fine words about freedom and the service of God were regarded as cloaks for their hostility to social order and the State (ii. 16). - The inevitable result was the defaming of the name of Christ Himself, whom they confessed and after whom they were called (iv. 14, 16; n. 10). The same was true with reference to the impres- sion made by the earnest lives of the Christians, especially by their abstinence from heathen worship and the fes- tivities associated with it. Wonder at the peculiarities of the Christians led to the blaspheming of the things that they regarded as holy, and the source of their own sancti- fication (iv. 3-5). All the acts of the Christians, even when they were not known, were construed in accordance with their supposed views. They were looked upon as κακοποιοί in the broadest sense of the word. They were aceused of everything bad. In cases of serious crimes, like murder and theft, Christians would necessarily be the first to be suspected (iv. 15). The natural consequence was that they were accused of crimes, arrested, and brought before magistrates; and in the course of such EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 183 trials the fact that they belonged to the sect of Christians would be brought out, also the leading principles of their religion. Exhortations, like those which we read in Eph. iv. 28, Tit. n. 10, 1 Thess. iv. 6, compel us to assume that not all the members of the newly organised Gentile Christian Churches abstained from acts which were punishable before magistrates. Persons so accused and so punished suffered as thieves, deceivers, and similar char- acters. Peter urges and expects that as the regular out- come of such trials the readers shall prove that there is no ground for suspecting them of acts which are criminal or subject to punishment ; so that it shall appear that the only reason for suspicion against them, for their arrest, and for their unfair treatment by magistrates, is their Christian confession. In this case they suffered “as Christians,” and were partakers of the sufferings of Christ, the inno- cent Lord, who was reviled, accused, and executed (iv. 13 ; cf. u. 21, ii. 18), in the same sense that Paul was drug his five years of imprisonment (Col. 1. 24, iv. 3; Eph. ii. 1, 13, iv. 1, vi. 20; Philem: 1,9; Phil. 1. 7, 980) iii:010); although as a result of Paul’s trial “his bonds in Christ were made manifest” (Phil. i. 13); 2.6. the trial brought out the fact that he was innocent of the offences against public order of which he was accused, and that he was indicted, imprisoned, and brought before the tribunal simply because he confessed and preached the Christian faith. It is really impossible to see how anyone can discover in 1 Peter a persecution of the Christian con- fession carried on by the imperial government or by any civil authority. The persecution of the Christians originated not with the authorities, but with the populace ; and it consisted mainly of slanders and insults against the Christians, and blasphemous remarks about Christi- anity. In daily intercourse Christians were made to feel very strongly the hostility of their heathen neighbours ; in particular, Christian slaves suffered at the hands of their 184 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT masters. When investigations were made by the police or by the courts because of serious crimes, the general sus- picion of the criminal character of Christians, particularly of their hostile attitude toward the existing political and social order, put them in a bad position at the very outset. They were suspected first in connection with definite cases, and in the accusations which followed they were charged with general crimes and misdemeanours. If, in these trials, their religious confession and their brotherhood came up for discussion, it was nothing essentially different from what happened in their daily private intercourse with non-Christians. There was constant need for endeavour to remove this suspicion by setting forth the nature of Christian views. Christians must “be always ready with an answer for every one and before every one who de- manded of them a reason for their peculiar hope” (iii. 15). There is nothing in the language which implies inquiry by the police or officers of courts, but primarily only what happened in daily intercourse (cf. Col. iv. 6). But of course Peter’s exhortation and the rule which he lays down include also the cases where a Christian happened to be brought before a judge, and where, as was unavoid- able in view of popular feeling, the religion and morality of the Christians came under discussion. But, in Peter’s opinion, here, as in daily life, the proof of pure intentions and of moral conduct afforded by deeds was more weighty and more effective than an apology in words. In view of the contents of 1 Peter, it is impossible to believe that Christians were brought to trial and sentenced by magistrates to pay fines, or to undergo imprisonment, banishment, or execution, simply on account of their con- fession (n. 9). And in this the situation of the Christians at the time of 1 Peter is essentially different from that in which they found themselves after Nero’s attack upon the Roman Christians—presumably for the first time during the reign of Domitian, when the attitude of the imperial EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τὸς government and of the provincial authorities was alto- gether changed. On the other hand, the representation of popular feeling toward the Christians as recently having grown more hostile, which we find in 1 Peter— written at the beginning of the year 64 or shortly before—is definitely confirmed by the words of Tacitus, written late in the summer or during the autumn of the same year (Ann. xv. 44): “Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesi- tissimis peenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chris- tianos (or Chrestianos) appellabat.” The universal hatred which was heaped upon the Christians, and the opinion held by the vast majority of the populace that the Christians were a band of dangerous criminals, whose extermination would be for the good of the State and of society, a utzlitas publica, were not, according to Tacitus, the result, but the presupposition of Nero’s action against the Christians, on the charge that they were responsible for the burning of Rome in the autumn of 64. Even then the name Chris- tiant was the object of popular hatred and of every evil suspicion (n. 10). ‘This presupposition meets us as a simple fact also in 1 Peter. On the other hand, nothing is said in 1 Peter about the consequences of this popular feeling, such as were realised in Rome in the autumn of 64, not only in the execution of Christians, but their execution in large numbers and in a most gruesome manner. How is this omission to be explained, if the letter was written in 95 or 110 or even later? How inconceivable is the colourless description of the situation of Christians through- out the world in 1 Pet. v. 9, if this letter was written by Peter himself shortly after he had passed through the scenes of 64 in Rome upon the ground which had drunk the blood of saints and apostles (Rev. xvii. 6, xviii. 20, 24), or if it was written by some one in his name after his death !! 1. (P. 173.) For the chronology and historical position of Polycarp, cf. Forsch. vi. 1-157. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39. 16) says of Papias : κέχρηται δ᾽ αὐτὸς 1 See Addendum, p. 617. 186 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως, If ποῦ strietly proven, it has been shown highly probable (above, p. 168 ; οὗ also $ 51, n. 10) that Papias interpreted 1 Pet. v. 13 as referring to Rome, and used this passage in support of the tradition that Mark was written in Rome. In Eus. H. E. ἵν. 15. 9, it is said of the Philippian letter of Polycarp : κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. While 1 Pet, is not formally quoted in this letter, a number of passages in it show unmis- takable resemblance to the same. ΟἿ, the writers Iynatii et Polyc. epist. 1876, pp. 110-132; GA, 1.957 ἢ. In Polycarp, i. 2, after a peculiar expression taken from the speech of Peter in Acts ii. 24, the following words are found, which suggest 1 Pet.i. 8, 12: eis ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες πιστεύετε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ εἰς ἣν πολλοὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν εἰσελθεῖν, which makes it necessary to assume either a most singular coineidence, or that Polycarp knew that Acts ii. and 1 Pet. originated with the same man, namely, Peter. For the further testimony to 1 Pet. by Clemens Romanus, Hermas, Justin, Basilides, and the Valentinians, see GX, i. 576, 759, 773, 958. In this connection it may be observed that it is doubtful whether the citation from Justin, following that of Iren. v. 26. 2 in Cramer, Cat. viii. 82, really belongs to Justin or is an addition by the redactor of the catena, as is held by Otto, in his edition of Justin, Opp. ii. [3rd ed.] 254, n. 7. For the impossibility of making 2 Pet. ili. 1 refer to 1 Pet. see § 41. 2. (P. 174.) Worthy of notice, however, is the correspondence between 1 Pet.ii.7 and Acts iv. 11 (ef. Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10), and between 1 Pet. iv. 5 and Acts x. 42 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1). 3. (P. 175.) For the relation of 1 Pet. to James, see vol. i. 133f. The thought of Jas. i. 3 (vol. i. 127), which is correctly understood and freely re- produced by Paul (Rom. v. 4 f.), necessarily takes another and more modest place in 1 Pet. i. 7; since Peter, while he retains the word, gives it quite a different meaning (vol. i. 133). 4. (P. 177.) In favour of the conscious dependence of 1 Pet. upon Eph. is the fact that they begin with exactly the same words, εὐλογητὸς --- Χριστοῦ 6, followed by a participle,—a construction which does not occur in this or similar form in any other N.T. Epistle. The partieipial clause which follows is different, as is also the reason assigned for the thanksgiving. But the reference to the future κληρονομία, 1 Pet. i. 4, is found also in Eph., only farther from the beginning, i. 14; while the thought which immedi- ately follows Eph. i. 4f. (cf. i. 9, 11), namely, that of election through the divine foresight and predetermination, has been utilised already in 1 Pet. i. 1f. The exhortations to a Christian life, in contrast to the former heathen life of the readers, 1 Pet. i. 14-18, iv. 2 f., correspond to a whole series of expres- sions in Eph. : ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς -- ὡς τέκνα φωτύς, Eph. v. 8; ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν -- διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς, Eph. ἵν. 18 ; ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς = ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὺς αὐτῶν, Eph. iv. 17 ; μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις... βιῶσαι -- μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν «rA., Eph. iv. 17 ; οἰνοφλυγίαις . εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν τῆς ἀσωτίας dvayvamw = μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ph. ν. 18, Eph. ii. 11-22 differs greatly from 1 Pet. ii, 4-10 in the way in which the Gentiles are reminded of the fact that now, as Christians, they are entitled to all the rights and honours of the people of God. This renders all the more striking the fact that in both passages the figure used EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 187 is that of a building in which Christ is the corner-stone and Christians are the building stones. Paul develops the figure briefly at the end of the entire discussion; Peter makes a varied and detailed use of the same, in connection with various O.T. expressions, and also sayings of Jesus.. The building suggests the Lord of the building, who has chosen this particular stone for a corner-stone, and Himself has put it in place, after it had been rejected as worthless by the foolish master-builders. From the thought of the living character of the person of Christ, who is represented as the corner- stone, is argued the living character of the stones built upon this foundation, as well as the freedom of their attachment to Him. The comparison of the building with the temple suggests the thought of the priesthood and the offerings. The corner-stone is also the curb-stone (Prellstein), over which passers-by stumble. It would seem almost as if in 1 Pet. 11. 4-8 one were hearing the voice of a preacher making various applications of the figure suggested by his text, Eph. ii. 20-22. Nor is it strange that at the conclusion of both letters it is suggested that back of the men, through whose hostilities the readers are compelled to suffer, stands the devil, whom they are steadfastly to resist (1 Pet. v. 8f.; Eph. vi. 11-13). Other resemblances in thought and language, ¢.g. that between 1 Pet. iii. 21f. and Eph. i. 20-22, do not furnish positive proof, nevertheless they go to confirm the correctness of the observa- tion that Peter and Silvanus had Eph. before them. Whether, as Hofmann holds (vii. 1. 206), they intended to suggest to the readers directly the cireular letter which had been sent to them, is doubtful. The relation of 1 Pet. to Rom. is certainly quite different. While from the beginning to the end of 1 Pet! there are portions which are parallel. to Epb., with Rom. there are only scattered points of contact. Cf. in this connection Hofmann’s fine exposition (vii. 1. 207-212); on the other hand, the effect of Seufert’s exposition (Z/W Th, 1874, S. 360-388) is to evoke the dissent of every intelli- gent reader of 1 Pet., rather than to convince him of its dependence upon Rom. It is especially the hortatory portion of Rom. to which 1 Pet. shows numerous points of resemblance: Rom. xii. 2=1 Pet. 1. 14, μὴ συσχη- ματίζεσθαι, with substantially the same object in the dative ; Rom. xii. 17= 1 Pet. 111. 9, μηδενὶ (μὴ) ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ, in both instances stand- ing between an exhortation to humility and the advice to preserve peace with non-Christians, while in the immediate context in both passages stands the command that they bless their persecutors instead of reviling them again (Rom. xii. 14). Taken in connection with such clear resemblances, a certain weight is to be given also to similarities in the same chapter, which cannot be used as positive proof, such as the similar use of Aoyırös,—not to be found elsewhere in the N.T. or LXX,—Rom. xii. 1, 1 Pet. ii. 2, and the conception of offerings, in a figurative sense, made by Christians, Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 5. In relatively close proximity to these parallels, Rom. xiii. 1-7'and 1 Pet. ii. 13-17, occurs an exhortation with regard to civil authorities. The sense is not only the same, but several expressions are alike, e.g. the aim for which civil authorities exist is described thus: eis ἐκδίκησιν κακοποιῶν, ἔπαινον δὲ τῶν ἀγαθοποιῶν, 1 Pet. ii. 14--τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει καὶ ἕξεις ἔπαινον ἐξ αὐτῆς... θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι (Rom. xiii. 3f.). Notwithstanding, Peter’s thought strikes one as independent. While Paul emphasises the thought of the divine institution of the civil (88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT srder and the subservieney of the same to God, Peter represents it more broadly, describing it as πᾶσα ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις. By this he does not imply that the civil power was created and endowed with its functions by men, which would be contrary to the whole Jewish (Dan. ii. 37) and Christian (John xix. 11; 1 Clem. Ixi.) conception of the same, but means that govern- ment is an institution which belongs in the human realm and not in the domain of revelation. The adjective ἀνθρώπινος (Rom. vi. 19; 1 Tim. iii, 1 ; above, p. 124, n. 6) is not used in the sense of θνητός (c.g. in Rom. vi. 12), which suggests a conceivable motive for the conduct that Peter condemns,—a motive which he rejects,—so that the exhortation practically means, “ Be subject to the government, and do not think that you are released from this obligation because this is only a human institution.” But this word is meant to suggest to the readers that Christians are to honour and support everything that contributes to the maintenance of good order in human affairs, not less but more zealously than other people (cf. Rom. xii. 17 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4; Phil. iv. 8). The fact that Peter, writing from Rome, the seat of the imperial government, to provincial Christians who were governed by deputies sent from Rome, mentions not only the emperor, but also expressly the ἡγεμόνες sent by him into the provinces, while Paul, writing to Christians in Rome, speaks more generally of ἐξουσία, ἐξουσίαι, ἄρχοντες, is only another proof that we are not dealing with some man of letters who patterned what he wrote after more ancient models, but with Peter himself, who took account of the actual conditions under which he wrote. Cf. an imperial decree of the third century in Grenfell and Hunt, Faydm Towns, p. 120, τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν τοῖς κατ᾽ ἐπιτροπείας map’ ἐμοῦ ἀπεσταλμένοις. That Rom. ix. 32f. and 1 Pet. ii. 6, still more ii. 4-8, were not written independently of each other, is proved (1) by the fact that both apostles in quoting Isa. xxviii. 16 are practically agreed against the strongly variant reading of the LXX ; even the addition ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ (Rom. ix. 33, x. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 6) is certainly spurious in the LXX ; (2) from the fact that after the quotation of Isa. xxviii. 16, following a quotation from Ps, exviii. 22, in 1 Pet. ii. 7f. are added the words λίθος προσκόμματος καὶ πέτρα σκανδάλου, Which are taken from Isa. viii. 14, but vary greatly from the text of the LXX, and which Paul inserts in the quotation of Isa, xxviii. 16. Here also Peter does not copy Rom.; he is familiar with the prophetic text from his own reading, since in ii. 6 he gives the characteristics of the stone,—as also earlier in ii. 3, —passed over by Paul. But there remains in his memory also the form in which Paul had quoted the words of the prophet, and, following the cue suggested by Paul’s combination of Isa. xxviii. 16 and Isa. viii. 14, he adds also Ps. exviii. 22. The relation of 1 Pet. iv. 1 to Rom. vi. 7 shows just as clearly an acquaintance on the part of the later author with the older writing ; for the thought that death annuls man’s relationship to sin, which is only differently expressed in the two instances, is very boldly applied in both cases, first to the death of Christ and then as the ground of a moral obligation on the part of those who have been redeemed through His death. Similar relations do not exist between 1 Pet. and any other of Paul’s letters, Gal. iii. 23 and 1 Pet. i. δ, quoted by Hilgenfeld, Hind. 633, agree only in the use of the word φρουρεῖν. It would be more natural to compare the latter passage to Phil. iv. 7, which likewise would be to no purpose. 5. (P. 178.) Regarding the use of Edom for Rome, ef. Weber, Jüdische EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 189 Theol. § 81, 8; Schürer, iii. 236, A. 55 [Eng. trans. 11. iii. 99, n. 29]. Sc also in 4 Esdr. vi. 8f. In 4 Esdr. iii. 1f. (28, 31 in contrast to Zion) Babylon is certainly not the city on the Euphrates ; but if not Rome, at least the place which the writer knew to be the seat of the heathen power inflicting its burden upon Israel. Gutschmid, who held that the greater part of this book was written in 31 B.c., suggested Alexandria (Kl. Schriften, ii. 277). In spite of his evident interest for Egypt, the Jewish Sibyl of the years 71-73 claims to understand by Babylon Rome (Sibyll. v. 143, 159 ; cf. Z/KW, 1886, S. 39-45). Concerning Babylon-Rome in Rev. see below, $75,n. 2. Accord- ing to the Midrash on Cant. i. 6 (translated by Wünsche, S. 35, cf. Sanhedr. 21b; Shab. 566), Rome was called Romi-Bablon, because the clay out of which its first huts were built was mixed with water brought from the Euphrates. Paul does not use the word Babylon, but applies a prophecy concerning the departure of the exiles from Babylon (Isa. 111. 11; ef. xlviii. 20) to the separation of the Christians from the heathen world (2 Cor. vi. 17). For the proverbial meaning of Babylon among Greeks and Romans, see Pauly- Wissowa, RE, ii. 2667. 6. (P. 179.) The opinion that the rescript of Trajan to Pliny altered the legal status of the Christians—a view against which the present writer argues in an earlier work, Hirten des Hermas, 1868, S. 128f.—is beginning to give way to a better view. With the position there advanced agree Arnold, Stud. zur Gesch. d. plinian. Ohristenverfolgung, S. 27, 39, 42, 47; C.J. Neumann, D. röm. Staat u. die Kirche, i. 17, 22f.; Mommsen, HZ, 1890, 5. 395 f.; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 212, 215 f., 226, notwithstanding many differences. 7. (P. 180.) Without distinguishing between what refers to the immediate present in the several writings and what is said with reference to past events, the following forms of punishment may be cited : imprisonment and con- fiscation of property, Heb. x. 32-34; banishment, Rev. i. 9; Hermas, Sim. i. (cf. the writer’s Hirten des Hermas, S. 118-135) ; executions, Rev. ii. 13 (? see § 73, n. 3), vi. 9,11, xii. 11, xvii. 6, xvill. 20, 24, xix. 2, xx. 4; Heb. xiii. 7 (Ὁ); Clem., 1 Cor. v. vi.; Herm. Vis. iii. 2. 1; Sim. viü. 3. 6 f., ix. 28: 2-4. All these cases are prior to the time of the letters of Ignatius and Pliny. 8. (P. 181.) Κακοποιός, iv. 15, occurs in a list of offences of a more definite character, so that it is natural to take it in the more definite sense which maleficus (used to translate κακοποιός in Tert. Scorp. xii.and Cypr. Test. iti. 37) certainly came to have, =“ sorcerer, witch,” etc. Cf. the astrological term οἱ κακοποιοὶ τῶν ἀστέρων, Artemid. Oneir.iv.59; also Suet. Nero, xvi. “ Christiani genus hominum superstitionis nove et malefice.” The term is interpreted in this sense by Le Blant, Les pers. et les martyrs, 1893, p.62. But there is no cer- tain proof of the corresponding use of κακοποιός, and if this were the meaning, we should expect rather μάγος (Acts viii. 9-11, xiii. 8; Acta Thecle, cc. xv. xx.) or yöns (2 Tim. iii. 13 ; Orig. c. Cels. i. 6). Furthermore, the contrasted state- ments in 1 Pet. ii, 12, 14, iii. 17 show that the word was meant’ to be taken in an entirely general sense (cf. Mark iii. 4; Luke vi. 9; John xviii. 30 ; 3 John 11). The word appears to be weaker and not so definite as κακοῦργος, Luke xxiii. 32 f.; 2 Tim. ii. 9 (“transgressor,” often with the special sense “rogue,” “cheat”; cf. πανοῦργος). The list of misdeeds with which the Christians were charged is concluded almost immediately with a general expression, 190 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT With a new ὡς, as something of especial importance, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος is subsequently added. This word, which does not occur at; all in the earlier literature, and, only at a late date in ecclesiastical literature, and then not independently of 1 Pet., means one who acts as an overseer of things and persons that are foreign, 1.6. a person who assumes to exert a determining influence and guardianship over men and affairs which do not concern him. While the word is omitted from the text altogether by Peshito, Tert. Scorp. xii. translates it alieni speculator; but in the oldest Latin Bible (see Cypr. Test. iii. 37) it is translated curas alienas agens. E. Zeller (Sitawngsber. der berl. Ak. 1893, S. 129-132) calls attention to the fact that this criticism was lodged against the Cynic philosophers, who made it their business to be the overseers (κατάσκοποι, ἐπίσκοποι) of the rest of mankind. Cf. especially the famous description Epict. iii. 22, and the answer to the criticism which it contains, ὃ 97, οὐ yap τὰ ἀλλότρια πολυπραγμονεῖ (the Cynic) ὅταν ra ἀνθρώπινα ἐπισκοπῇ, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἴδια ; and, on the other hand, the confession of the philosopher in Hor. Sat. ii. 3.19, “aliena negotia euro, excursus propriis.” Like the Cynics, the Christians were criticised for their inordinate zeal for making converts, for their unsolicited concern about the souls of ‚others, and for their interference in the most intimate aflairs of the heart and the home. But while the Cynics held that they were under obliga- tion to exercise their preaching and pastoral office in the most decisive; authoritative, and defiant manner possible, only denying that in so doing they were meddling with things that did not concern them, the apostles (ef. also 1 Thess. iv. 11) condemn conduct which could be more or less justly described as ἀλλοτριοεπισκοπεῖν. Everywhere they exhort their followers in their inter- course with non-Christians to act with wisdom and modest reserve, to do good, and to suffer evil in silence (1 Pet. ii. 12, 18, 23, iii. 1, iv. 8-10, 15-17, v.65 1 Thess. iv. 12; Col.iv. 5 f.; Phil. iv. 8), which, of course, did not mean that when it was a question of witnessing to the truth this witness should not be given boldly. What 1 Pet. iv. 15 omits is almost as instructive as what it contains. There is no trace in 1 Pet. of the three famous charges of ddedrns or ἀσέβεια, of the eating of flesh of children, and of unchaste orgies in connection with Christian worship. The first charge was in vogue as early as the time of Domitian (Dio Cass. Ixvii. 14, Ixviii. 1), and was noticed by Pliny, since he required Christians who were accused to perform heathen acts of worship (Ep. ad Traj. xevi. 5). So also the second and possibly also the third charges came under his notice; inasmuch as, in the light of the confessions of persons who had been Christians, he describes their celebration of the sacrament in common as a “coire ad capiendum cibum, promiscum tamen et innoxium.” After the time of Justin there is constant reference to all three charges. 9. (P. 184.) The opinion that 1. Pet. presupposes a persecution of the Christians at the instigation of the civil authorities (maintained still by Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 279-302 ; Exp. 1893, pp. 285-296) is based primarily upon the words, ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, iv. 14, and ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (al. μέρει) roir@ and ὡς Χριστιανός, iv. 16. But ὀνειδίζεσθαι does not mean “To be accused before a court,” and πάσχειν taken alone does not mean “To suffer punishment in consequence of a judicial sentence,” still less “To be executed.” A person convicted as a thief or ἀλλοτριο» EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τοὶ ἐπίσκοπος would certainly not be punished with death. The exhortation “Tf anyone suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed,” would be very strange indeed, if this suffering were execution. When one is on the point of being executed, there are matters of deeper concern than whether one is ashamed of his position and confession, or proud of it. It is self-evident that God can be glorified in the name of Christ without sacrificing life (cf. Phil. i. 20), and there are classie instances which show that arrests and trials which end with acquittal can be regarded as suffering for Christ’s sake (see above, p. 183). But even granted that in iv. 16 the reference is to cases where Christians are executed as Christians, this is nothing essentially different from what happened in Rome in the year 64, Tac. Ann. xv. 44 ; for, according to Tacitus, with whom Suetonius (Nero, xvi.) and the Christian tradi- tions agree, this was not a case of the punishment of a few Christians along with other suspected persons, but those who bore the Christian name in Rome were accused, sought out, and executed, first as incendiaries, and then afterwards many of them merely on account of the misanthropy due to their religion. Quite in agreement with this description, the readers of 1 Pet. would then have been executed primarily as murderers and thieves; but where it was impossible to prove such charges, also as members of a dangerous society, ?.e. as bearers of the Christian name. It would then foreshadow what happened some months later in Rome on a larger scale. The uncertainty which Pliny desired cleared up (“nomen ipsum—aut flagitia coherentia”) has in a certain measure always existed, and has really never disappeared entirely, and is repeated in analogous cases even to-day. Were the Ar- menians massacred in 1895 and 1896 because of their nationality, or their Christian confession, or anarchistie intrigues? One is reminded also of the vacillations of the anti-Semitic movement of our own day. But, as has been shown (above, p. 184 f.), there is nothing which indicates that even indi- viduals who were Christians had up to this time suffered martyrdom, either in Asia Minor or in Rome, where the letter was written. This shows that the letter was written before July 64. It is true that the word ἀπολογία, iii. 15, does suggest a judicial process (Phil. i. 7,16; 2 Tim. iv. 16 ; cf. Ramsay, op. cit. pp. 280, 294), but it is employed in the N.T. (1 Cor. ix. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 11, xii, 19; Rom. ii, 15) as elsewhere in literature quite commonly with reference to other conditions, and the context (dei, παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι tpas λόγον) shows that it is used here in exactly the same sense as in Col. iv. 5f. (πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω. .. πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς Evi ἑκάστῳ ἀποκρίνεσθαι). Ramsay, who (op. cit. p. 281) discovers in iii. 15, and even in v. 8, the spying out of Christians by Roman officials at the behest of the authorities with a view to their judicial punishment, is far from doing justice to the text, when in the Expositor (1893, p. 288) he substitutes for the Roman officials, private inquisitors—delatores. 10. (Pp. 182,185.) To find in the use of the word Χριστιανός (1 Pet. iv. 16) an indication that the letter was written later than the year 64 is to contradict all existing sources, Christian and heathen. While Baur (Christentum und Kirche der 3 ersten Jahrh. 432) questions the aceount in Acts xi. 26 because of the genuinely Latin form of the name, and elaims that the name originated in Rome, but without calling in question the correctness of Tacitus’ statement in Ann. xy. 44 (“quos . .. vulgus Christianos appellabat”), that in 64 the 192 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT name was commonly used, Lipsius (Über den Ursprung und ältesten Gebrauch des Christennamens, Jena, 1873) endeavours to prove that the name is Greek in form, and probably originated in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century. From the historical point of view, the following brief remarks may be made with reference to Lipsius’ statements, which are confusing and too long to be considered in detail here :—(1) To begin with, there seems to be nothing whatever suspicious about the statement that in Antioch during the year 43-44, in consequence of the extraordinarily rapid growth of a Church consisting mainly of Gentile Christian converts, the Gentile populace came to apply to them the name Χριστιανοί (Acts xi. 26), for the reason that when Acts was written, even if this was as late as the year 110, this name was anything but a designation of honour of which its bearers were proud. On the other hand, the statement is rendered all the more trustworthy by the faet that, according to the original recension of the text, the narrator states immediately after xi. 27f. that he was a member of the Antiochian Church of that time. The date of the origin of this name given in Acts is possibly confirmed by the reference of Jas. ii. 7 (vol. i. p. 99,n. 8). The incidental use of the name by king Agrippa II. some fifteen years later (Acts xxvi. 28) does not impress one at all as if Luke were trying in this way to confirm the historical invention which he had introduced in an earlier passage. If this had been his purpose, there were passages in Acts xii.-xx. better suited for it. (2) To explain the clear statement of Tacitus as an anachronism is unreason- able and purely arbitrary. Tacitus is not here referring conditions prevailing in the time of Trajan to the time of Nero, but is describing the events of 64 in their true historical setting (ef. Ramsay, 229, 241). Why, if this were the case, did he not use appellat instead of appellabat? But his whole account hinges upon the words “quos vulgus Christianos appellabat” ; for, if the Christians were not known in Rome at that time as a society distinct from Jewish as well as heathen organisations, and if they were not designated by a special name, an intelligent man, who as a boy passed through the events of 64, could not relate that Nero accused the Christians. To this is to be added the testimony of Suetonius (Vero, xvi.), who describes the event from a different point: of view, but also places the name Christiani in the time of Nero. (3) After all has been said, the fact remains that an inscription found on a wall in Pompeii in the year 1862, which became illegible shortly afterwards, contained at least the letters HPISTIAN ; and the common use of the name Christian in Pompeii prior to the year 79, when the city was buried, is proved by 0.1. L. iv, No. 679 ; Tab. xvi. 2,3; cf. de Rossi, Bull. di arch. christ. 1864, pp. 69 ff, 92 ff, Prof. Sogliano, who is opposed to this interpretation, reports, in an open letter to Prof. Chiapelli (Giornale d'Italia of October 11, 1905), concerning an earthen lamp, with a monogram of Christ in the form of a cross, which was found on July 3, 1905, between the strata of ashes and of stone in a Pompeian villa, and, from its location, probably in the rooms of the slaves. More accurate proof of this statement must be left to the proper archeologists. (4) Since the Christians were compelled, probably as early as 64 (ef. Ramsay, 238, concerning the meaning of fatebantur in Tae. Ann. xv. 44), and from that time on with more and more frequency, to answer the question, “ Are you a Christian ?” it is easy to see how gradually the name came to be used within the Church itself. The first traces of this usage are EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 103 to be found in Ignatius (Rom. iii. 2; Magn. iv. ; more clearly ad Polye. vii. 3; Χριστιανισμός, in contrast to J udaism and heathendom, Magn. x. 3; Rom. iii. 3; Phil. vi. 1). It oceurs also in Justin. In contrast to this usage, in 1 Pet. iv. 16 it is employed in the original way, being used by heathen who condemned or persecuted the Christians, and occurs in no other sense. It is not necessary here to discuss the linguistic question whether the name as originally used among the heathen was incorrectly pronounced and written Χρηστιανός (thus cod. δὲ, Acts xi. 26, xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16 5 Suet. Claud. xxv. Chrestus ; Just. Apol. i. 4, 46, 49, ii. 6; Tert. Apol. iii.; Nat. 1. 3; Lact. Inst.i. 4; I. Gr. Sicil. et Ital., ed. Kaibel, Nos. 78, 754; C. I. Lat. x. No. 7173; ef. Blass, Hermes, 1895, S. 465). It is of special importance to distinguish between adjectives ending in ävos, anus, and the formation which we have before us here of adjectives in cavds from a name (of a person, city, or country). The first formation is Greek as well as Latin, though much more frequently used in Latin than in Greek. Here belong naturally ᾿Ασιανός (Thucyd. i. 6, 138), Σαρδιανός (Xenoph. Hellen. 111. 4. 21; Ionie Σαρδιηνός, Herod. i. 22), Τραλλιανός, Zovoravos, since in these cases the ı belongs to the stem. Conse- quently these words are not different from ᾿Αγκυρανός, and do not help in any way to explain formations in -savos. Just as little light is thrown upon the problem by the remarks of the older grammarians, who describe these and similar forms as τύπος τῶν ᾿Ασιανῶν (Lipsius, 13, A. 1), instead of which the modern grammarians remark more clearly, “The suffixes in avos, nvos, wos, are formed only from names of cities and countries lying outside of Greece” (Blass-Kühner, i. 2. 296)... But while these formations were used by the Attic writers of the best period, and to some extent were even borrowed by Latin writers (e.g. Asianus later than Asiaticus), adjectives in iänus derived from proper names are not a Greek, but a late Latin formation (Archiv f. lat. Lexikogr. i. 183). That they found their way from popular and provincial language into literature only gradually toward the end of the Republic, is illustrated by Gell. iii. 3. 10. While the learned Varro thinks that only Plautinus, and not Plautianus, ought to be derived from Plautus, he refers the fabule Plautiane to a comic writer, Plautius ; and it makes no special difference whether there was an obscure poet by the name of Plautius (Ritsehl, Parergon Plaut. 95) or not. This is confirmed by actual usage. While from names in 0, onis, Cicero constructs such forms as Milonianus, Pisonanus, Neronianus, Catonianus (ad Qu. fr. 11. 4 [6]. 5; also Catoninus, ad Fam. vii. 25, ef. Liv. xxiil. 38. 9, Varronianus), he avoids Cesarianus (since the true reading, ad Aff. xvi. 10, is Cesarinus), which is used by Auctor, Bell. Afric. 13 ; Nepos, Attic. 7—two writers whose style is said to be unrefined (Schwane, Röm. Lit., 5te Aufl. 8.384, 386). Cicero ventures once to construct the form Lepidianus (ad Att. xvi. 11. 8) from a noun in -us. Under the influence of false analogies from the older period (A¥mili-anus Pompet-anus), after the beginning of the imperial era these forms appear more and more frequently in literature; cf. Velleius Patere. ii. 72, 74, 76,78, Brutianus ; ii. 82, Crassianus ; Tac. Ann. ii. 8, Drusianus; Ann. i. 109, 57, 61, ii. 7, 15, 25, Varianus ; Ann. xiv. 15 (ef. Suet. Nero, xxv.; C. I. L. vi. Nos. 8640, 8648, 8649, 12874), Augustianus, also Augustalis (Ann. i. 15,54 ; 0. I. L. vi. Nos. 909, 910, 913), Augustanus (0. I. L. vi. No. 8651). Inasmuch as these forms originated in the provincial speech of the Romans, and since their adoption into litera- VOL. II. 13 194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ture was resisted by the stylists, it is possible that through the intercourse of daily life they became familiar to Greek-speaking Orientals before they made their appearance in literature. There is no occurrence of the same in Greek literature earlier than “Hpwé:avoi (Mark iii. 6, xii. 13 ; Matt. xxii. 16, and the names of heretical sects in Just. Dial. xxxv., ef. Apol. ii. 15 ?) ; but this does not prove that the word Χριστιανοί, which was of popular origin, was not used in Antioch as early as 44 a.p. (Acts 11. 26). A writer like Lucian (de Hist. conserib. 21) makes fun of the Atticists, who in their zeal to Hellenise everything Roman changed Tırıavös (which was possibly not formed from Titus, but from Titius) to Tıravıos. The less educated barbarians, Syrians, and Jews, who, through their intercourse with Roman officials and soldiers, must have taken over into their speech numerous Latin words and names, did not notice that Χριστιανός was not a genuine Greek word, and they did not concern themselves about this when they formed it. Regarding words borrowed from the Latin, see vol, i. p. 64f. Attention may also be called to Latin words used by Ignatius, a native of Antioch, in the year 110 ; ef. the writer’s Ignatius, ὃ. 530-533. § 41. THE AUTHOR AND READERS OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER ACCORDING TO THE LETTER’S OWN TESTIMONY. Whereas in his First Epistle Peter designates accurately the group of Churches which he is addressing (i. 1), and indicates in an unmistakable manner the place from which he writes (v. 13), in 2 Peter there are no geographical data whatever. The designation of the readers is extremely indefinite, even when compared to that of Jas. i. 1 (2 Pet. i. 1). In 1 Peter, aside from the mention of his name in the greeting, Peter lets his own person fall into the back- ground in a way that seems strange, and only in three places (i. 3, 8, v. 1) does he make even slight reference to his own relation to the person and history of Jesus (above, pp. 146-156). On the other hand, in 2 Peter the writer calls attention repeatedly and emphatically to what he alone, or in company with others, heard Jesus say, and to what he had seen with his own eyes of Jesus’ doings (i. 14, 16-18, alsoi. 3; see n. 10). In 1 Peter the apostle addresses the readers as one who is personally unknown to them, introduces himself to them, and in a sense lets him- self be represented by Silvanus, one of their missionaries EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τος (v. 12; above, pp.149, 175, 176); 2 Peter presupposes a relation between himself and the readers which was of long standing, and which is to be cultivated by continued intercourse until the death of the writer. To begin with what is relatively clear, Peter calls this his second letter in which he designs to stir up his readers to keep in remembrance the prophecies of the O.T., and the commandment which originated with the Lord and Saviour, and which has been brought to the readers by their apostles (i. 1, n. 1). This description of the purpose of the writer and the essential contents of his letter fits 2 Peter exactly. In the opening passage 1. 5-11 emphasis was laid upon the active exercise of all Christian virtues, especially in view of the promised kingdom of Christ (ver. 11); and even in 1. 4 attention was called to the great promises of Christ. Immediately after these exhortations to the practice of the Christian virtues in view of the coming of Christ, Peter speaks of his own obligation to keep the readers in remembrance of these things so long as he shall live, and of his earnest purpose shortly to fulfil this obligation again (1. 12-14),—all of which is in such entire agreement with what he says in in. 1 ff. con- cerning the purpose and essential contents of this and his former letter to the readers, as to make it certain that in writing the second passage he had the first in view. In both cases he calls his exhortations a διεγείρειν ἐν ὑπομνήσει (1. 13, iii. 1; οὗ ὑπομιμνήσκειν, 1. 12, with μνησθῆναι, iii. 2) and emphasises and justifies the designation of his exhorta- tions as mere reminders by recognising that the readers are already in possession of the truth (i. 12), or that their minds are pure (iii. 1; cf. Rom. xv. 14f.). The lack in 1. 12f. of any specifie description of the teachings, such as is found in ii. 2, is supplied by the περὶ τούτων (1. 12), which refers back to i. 5-11. And although in this passage the eternal kingdom of Christ is not expressly called a subject of O,'T. prophecy, at the end of the first 196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT section of the letter very explieit reference is made to the prophetic utterances, the trustworthiness, value, and intelligibility of which for Christians is dependent wholly upon the self-revelation of Jesus (1. 19-21). But in. 1f is in no sense to be taken as referring exclusively or even mainly to the preceding parts of this letter. In that case the absence of any reference to the whole of the second section of the Epistle (chap. i.) would be strange. Consequently what is said in ii. 3f., which follows iii. 2 without any break in the sentence, is part of the description of what Peter intended to say to his readers in this letter as well as of what he had said in the one that preceded. At the same time, the participial sentence, ii. 3f, together with the explanatory clauses that follow (iii. 5-7), mark the transition to a new re- minder and exhortation (11. 8-18), not previously discussed with the same definiteness in this letter, to which new passage the description in ii. 1f applies far more than to i. 5-21. For, not only is reference here made to the “Day of God” (ver. 12) predicted by the prophets, and to the new world which they also predicted (ver. 13), but the readers are very strongly reminded of their obligation to live in accordance with these expectations, 2.e. with the “command” applicable to Christians (vv. 11 f., 14f., 17 £.). Thus in iii. 1f Peter not only describes the preceding parts of the letter, but, as he clearly says, has in view all that remains to be written. He describes in substance at this particular point the meaning and the purpose of the letter : because now, after the long discussion in chap. iL, which does not come directly under the deseription of iii, 1f., he is taking up again the thought of 1. 5-21, intending once more to exhort his readers more strongly and indeed, after what has been said in chap. i1., more definitely to the holy life enjoined by the prospect of the prophesied end of the world. There was no more necessity of proving in detail that the last things which EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS το, are recalled to mind in what follows were predicted by the O.T. prophets, than there was of showing that the moral requirements made in this same final section were in keeping with the command of Jesus and the moral recommendations of the apostles. The mere fact that at the beginning of the third section (iti. 2) the writer says that the prophecies of the O.T. and the command of the apostles originating with Christ are what he desires to recall to the readers’ minds in this letter, shows that the admonitions which follow go back to these sources. More- over, in i. 191. he had strongly urged upon his readers’ attention prophetic prediction as this was confirmed and interpreted by the gospel history. If, then, the description of the essential contents and purpose of the two letters of Peter in iii. 1 f. suits 2 Peter, it follows that the earlier Epistle of Peter to the same readers, referred to in this passage, was essentially the same as 2 Peter in the points mentioned. This being so, it is impossible to suppose that Peter here refers to 1 Peter. For, while there are numerous exhortations to moral conduct in 1 Peter, these are nowhere referred to the com- mand of Jesus and the teaching given by the missionaries to this group of readers. Still less can it be said that 1 Peter is a reminder of prophetic utterances, more specifically of the end of the world, predicted by the prophets. There is only one passage where reference is made to the prophets (1 Pet. i. 10f.), and here they are represented as announcing beforehand the sufferings and glory of Christ, 2.e. the contents of the gospel; but where mention is made of the objects of the Christian hope, the day of judgment, and the glorification of the Church (1 Pet. i. 38-7, i) 12, iv. 13,17, v. 4,16, 10), there is no reference whatever to the O.T. prophets. The fact that since the fourth century our 2 Peter has followed our 1 Peter in most Bibles, cannot be used to support the claim that these are the two letters mentioned 198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT together in 2 Pet. iii. 1; for who can aftirm that Peter did not write twenty letters and send two or three letters to more than one group of Churches? From this description which covers both letters it follows that the earlier letter in question— which, however, was sent to the same readers —was not our 1 Peter, but a letter which has not come down to us. It is improbable, notwithstanding what is said in ii. 15, that 2 Peter, like our 1 Peter, was directed to the Gentile Christian Churches in Asia Minor. The urgent exhortation to live a life which shall be in harmony with the trustworthy prophecy of the Day of the Lord, of the end of the world, and of a new world, is concluded in i. 15 with an injunction to the readers, already intimated in 1. 9, to regard as their salvation the patience shown by the Lord Jesus in the deferment of His return. This injunction, which would be unintelligible apart from what is said in the passage at the conclusion of which it stands, and which, therefore, is not meant to be taken apart from i, 5-13, is now represented as being in harmony with what: Paul, the beloved brother of Peter and his readers, wrote to these same readers according to the measure of wisdom given him. The readers of 1 Peter were in large part at least identical with the readers of Ephesians (vol. i. p. 479 ff.). So long as it was maintained that the earlier letter of Peter mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 1 must be the letter which precedes 2 Peter in the Canon, unavoid- ably the letter of Paul referred to in 2 Pet. iii. 15 was connected with this same circular letter, namely, Ephesians (n. 2). But Ephesians does not agree with what, accord- ing to 2 Pet. iii. 15, Paul wrote in his letter directed to the readers of 2 Peter. What is said of all of Paul's letters (iii. 16, “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things”) might be justified by occa- sional. remarks of Paul bearing upon the subject here under discussion, but not the reference to a letter dealing EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 199 specifically with the same theme (iii. 15). The reference must be to a thoroughgoinge exposition of this subject, from which Paul’s specific teachings could be ascertained. The exhortations to a correct Christian life are throughout Ephesians based upon entirely different grounds (iv. 1, 20-25, v. 1-3, vi. 1-3, 8, 9), and the argument of the duty of sanctification, on the ground of the expectation of Christ’s second coming, is much less frequent in Ephesians (iv. 80, v. 5f.) than in other letters of Paul (1 Thess. v. 1-11; Rom. xii. 11-14; ef. 1 John iii. 3). It would be more natural to suppose that the reference is to Hebrews than to Ephesians, although in Hebrews reference is made to the promise which is certain, only delayed in its fulfil- ment, in order to exhort the readers not so much to a virtuous life, as to a steadfast maintenance of faith and confession, which is not possible without struggle against sin (Heb. iii. 7-iv. 13, x. 35-39, xii 1-17, 25-29). Τῇ only Paul had written Hebrews, or if the author of 2 Peter could have regarded Hebrews as a work of his! But this is impossible ($ 47); so that we are compelled to conclude that the letter of Paul mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 15 is in existence quite as little as Peter’s own earlier letter to the readers of 2 Peter mentioned in iii. 1. Moreover, we have no knowledge of the carrying out of the intentions expressed by the author in i. 12-15 (n. 3). When he gives assurance that in the future he will be always ready to recall to the readers’ minds such things as are to be found in the present letter, and goes on to explain that he feels this to be an obligation for the rest of his life,—all the more because he ὙΕΙ͂ partly through a revelation made by Christ to him, that he will die a sudden death (n. 3),—the language used can apply just as well to oral teachings as to future letters. Only, in case the reference were to oral teachings, we should expect the contrast between the present written and the later oral reminiscences to be expressed, or, if both were 200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT meant, we should expect a distinction to be made in this double form of teaching between the oral reminiscences which he would give when present and the written com- munications he would send when absent (n. 4). Apparently, therefore, Peter declares his intention of sending to the same readers in the future an occasional letter like this present one. To be clearly distinguished from this state- ment is what Peter says in the words that follow: “I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things (truths or teachings) to remem- brance” (n. 5). Only, if Peter had previously expressed the intention or hope of visiting the readers again and impressing upon them once more orally the truths in question, could this statement be taken to mean that Peter, in view of the fact that seripta litera manet, is not satisfied with oral teachings, but when he leaves the readers, or afterwards, will put such teachings in written form, so that they may be permanently remembered by them, or will see to it that others do it for him. Since, however, there is nothing anywhere in the context to suggest this contrast between oral teaching and its em- bodiment in written form, the only contrast possible is that between such written communications as the present letter, the earlier letter mentioned in iii. 1, and similar letters which Peter intends to write in the future on the one hand, and a more extensive literary work on the other. The former are off-hand products, and are expected to have only a temporary effect ; the latter is designed to be of permanent value. No light is thrown upon the contents of this proposed work by the sentences that follow, in which Peter merely substantiates his right and the right of others, whom he mentions along with himself, to per- form such literary work (vv. 16-18), but, at the same time, its character is indicated by the sentences that precede. The τούτων of ver. 15 resumes the περὶ τούτων of ver. 12, although the expression which intervenes“ the truth EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 201 which is with you (the readers)” (ef. Jas. 1. 21)—and the natural difference between letters of a merely temporary character and a book claiming to be of permanent value forbid limiting the contents of the latter to exactly the same topics as are discussed in 2 Peter. The work in question was clearly designed to be doctrinal in character like 2 Peter, not a historical work. Even if 2 Peter was written as late as 170, the Gospel of Mark cannot be the work in question ; for it was not until long after this date that the story originated according to which Peter com- missioned Mark to write his Gospel (n. 5); and even after this opinion had grown up, Peter could not be represented as expressing this intention in words applicable only to a religious treatise. A writing which might claim to be the product of the literary intention here expressed is not in existence, and so far as we know never existed. From the passages already considered it follows that Peter has stood for a long time in an official relation to the persons receiving this letter, which relation he feels himself under obligation to maintain until his death through instructions by letter, and after his death through a treatise designed especially for them, just as he has maintained it heretofore by a letter like 2 Peter. He had also brought them the gospel, not alone, to be sure, but in co-operation with other missionaries. For he can mean nothing less than this when he says of himself and of the companions whom he mentions along with himself, “ We have made known unto you the power and coming of Christ” (i. 16, n. 6). Even assuming that the δύναμις of Christ means only that power which Jesus obtained through His resurrection and exaltation, in contrast to the weakness in which He had previously lived and suffered (2 Cor. xiii. 4; Rom. 1. 4),—a view which has very little in its favour,—this sentence cannot be made to refer to the instruction of persons who are already believers con- cerning the exaltation to power and the coming of Christ 202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT —instruction which presupposes a previous preaching of the gospel—simply because there was and is no preaching of the gospel which does not make known to the hearers the resurrection, exaltation, and coming of Christ. All subsequent teaching can be only the recalling of these fundamentals of the gospel, or the indication of their consequences in the life or thought of believers. There- fore it is impossible to suppose that Peter is here referring to that earlier letter (iii. 1) and also to similar communica- tions to the same group of readers by his fellow-workers, or that he, in a manner so unclear as this, identifies the original preaching of the gospel with all later oral and written references to it. Our 1 Peter is quite out of the question ; since the gospel was not preached to Christians in Asia Minor by Peter, but by others from whom he dis- tinguishes himself (1 Pet. i. 12). Furthermore, there is no teaching in 1 Peter concerning the power and coming of Christ which begins with the gospel and develops the idea it contains. Those to whom 2 Peter is directed must be persons among whom Peter laboured as a missionary, 1.6. persons belonging to the circumcision. The language used to describe the gospel in i. 16 is applicable to it as it was preached in Israel—in other words, among the con- temporaries and countrymen of the Lord and His apostles, who were more or less familiar with the facts of the gospel history (Acts ii. 22, x. 37). They not only were externally acquainted with the historical appearance of Jesus, but also treated the same quite materialistically (cf. 2 Cor. v. 6); they therefore needed to have it made clear to them that in this weak man, who was denied, reviled, and put to death by His fellow-men, there dwelt a power which not only had found expression during His lifetime in wonderful miracles (Acts ii. 22, x. 38), but also had broken the bonds of death and raised Him to the throne of God (Acts ii. 24-35, 11. 15, iv. 2, 10, 38, v. 30), from whence He was to come again to finish His EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 203 work (Acts iii. 20, x. 42). It would seem as if at times the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles was con- fined to the word of the cross (1 Cor. 1. 17 ff, ii. 2); but in the preaching to Israelites who were contemporaries of Jesus emphasis was laid upon the resurrection of Jesus, the revelation of His power and His return. The faith of Jewish Christianity was faith in the glory of Jesus (Jas. ii. 1; ef. vol. i. p. 151, n. 7). It is also impossible to assume that Peter here identi- fies himself with Paul and his missionary helpers, such as Barnabas, Silvanus and Timothy, and connects his preach- ing with theirs. For, in the first place, Peter distinguishes, just as clearly as does Paul (Gal. 1. 17, it. 7-9; 1 Cor. xv. 11, ix. 5), between the missionaries to the Gentiles and the group to which he himself belonged (1 Pet. 1. 12); and although he calls Paul the beloved brother of himself and of the readers (2 Pet. iii. 15), he does not intimate in any way to them that Paul was one of their apostles (2 Pet. iii. 2). In the second place, in order to make this identification, it is necessary to assume, against the clear impression of the entire letter, that it was not directed to a definite, homogeneous group of readers, but to the whole body of Christians who owed their conversion to the apostolic preaching, to which also Paul, according to 11. 15, must on one occasion have addressed a letter. But even then the identification of Peter with Paul and his helpers in 1. 16 ff. is inconceivable; for the mission- aries to the Gentiles could not claim what Peter here claims for himself and his companions concerning their personal relation to the gospel history. This is the third reason which prevents us from identifying Peter’s work with that of Paul and his helpers. In preaching the gospel, Peter and his companions have not followed fables cunningly devised or artfully presented, but have preached as those who were eye-witnesses of the majesty of Jesus. Although Paul may have treated his experience near 204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Damascus as a substitute for the fact that he was not like the earlier apostles, a personal disciple of Jesus (1 Cor. ix. 1, ef. xv. 8), he could not affirm with reference to himself, nor could anyone say of him, that he preached the gospel as one who was an eye-witness of the self- revelation of Jesus which formed the content of the gospel. The comprehensive language which Peter uses is compar- able only with what personal disciples of Jesus elsewhere affirm with reference to themselves (John 1. 14, ef. mi 11, xix. 835; 1 John 1.1 ἢ, iv. 14; Acts x. 39-41) and with what Peter himself at least intimates in 1 Pet. i. 8, v. 1 (above, p. 147). » The group of preachers with which. Peter identifies himself is indicated by the reference to the particular experience on which he bases his claim that he and his companions have declared the power and return of Jésus to the readers as former witnesses of His majesty, i. 17 £. If it be certain that the event referred to is the trans- figuration on the mountain described in all three of the synoptic Gospels, then it is also to be assumed that the author of 2 Peter, like the evangelists, knew that the only eye-witnesses of this event were the three apostles, Peter, John, and his brother James (n. 6). Consequently these three are the preachers spoken of in i. 16, though, natur- ally, there is no exclusion in 1. 16 of other apostles who stood in essentially the same historical relation to Jesus. Just as Peter here identifies himself ‚with others of the twelve apostles by the use of “we,” so he does also in ii. 2, where he uses the expression of ἀπόστολοι ὑμῶν. “Your apostles” is not synonymous with “ The apostles,” but serves to distinguish from the entire class of men who may claim the apostolic name, those who have exercised the apostolic office among the readers here addressed, we. the missionaries to whom these Christians owe their con- version (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 2; Clem. 1 Cor. v.; ef. above, 69, n. 6). The expression implies a contrast to other EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE. AND HEBREWS 205 apostles who were not the apostles of the readers, and other Christians, to whom the apostles here intended were not apostles. It is thus quite impossible to suppose that the expression “ Your apostles” includes apostles who laboured in fields that were widely separated, much less can it include all the apostles without distinction. The suggestion that such language sounds strange on the part of one who himself belonged to the group of missionaries thus designated, is due to the misunderstanding of a mode of speech which is constantly being used, and which is sometimes extremely natural. On the other hand, to assume that the author does not identify himself with this group is to make i. 16 stand in glaring contradiction to ii. 2. This is sufficient to disprove the correctness of that interpretation of ii. 2, for which, in itself, there is no sufficient reason (n. 7). Taking these two passages together, it seems clear that 2 Peter was not directed toa single local Church, the origin of which was due to the preaching of Peter alone (ef. 1 Cor. 1. 10, iv. 15, ix. 2), but probably to a larger group of Christians, among whom Peter had laboured with other missionaries in the founding of Churches. Chap. iii. 2 alone is insufficient to prove that these were not Churches in Asia Minor, or any other region within the sphere of Gentile missions, but Churches within the sphere of Jewish missions, though this is established by the unavoidable connection between ii. 2 ἃπα 1. 106. The fact that later in the course of their hfe Peter and others of the twelve apostles engaged in missionary work among the Gentiles in Rome or in Asia Minor, does not justify, on the part of one speaking in their name, the use of such language as that in i. 16, to describe their relation to the Churches founded by Paul and his helpers, nor the distinction made in iii. 2 between them and other apostles who had no official relation to these Churches. Nor can the beginning of this letter be used in proof of this hypothesis, except by presupposing what 206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT cannot be proved, namely, that 2 Peter followed 1 Peter, and was intended as a second letter to the same group of readers. The statement of Peter in i. 1, that the readers, through the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, have obtained faith of like value with that of Peter and his companions (n. 8), might be taken as implying a contrast between the Jewish Christians, in whose name Peter here speaks, and the Gentile Christians, whom. he addresses ; since by making no distinction in this regard between Jews and Gentiles, God shows Himself a fair- minded and just judge (Acts x. 541, 47, xi 17f, xv. 8f.; Rom. 11. 11-29, i. 22-30, x. 12). If there were only something in the context to indicate a distinction between Jews and Gentiles within the Church! The author begins by calling himself by the name which he had always borne, using the form most distinctively Jewish, and then adds the surname which Jesus gave him in token of his position among the disciples, and his place in the future Church (n. 9). Quite in harmony with the use of these two names, he calls himself, from one point of view, a servant of Christ, and, from the other, an apostle of Christ. The former title is appropriate to Simeon of Bethsaida, who, with his brother Andrew and many others after them, when they believed on Jesus, accepted Him as their Lord. On the other hand, the apostolic title corresponds to Cephas or Peter, to whom the Lord, by the bestowment of this surname, held out the prospect of a special calling, to which he was appointed when the twelve apostles were chosen, and which was confirmed subse- quently more than once. But neither the position which Simeon occupies as the first of the personal disciples. of Jesus, nor the position which Cephas has as foremost among the apostles, prevents him from recognising that the faith to which the readers have been brought through his own and his companions’ preaching (1, 16) is of like EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 207 value with his own faith and that of his companions. The distinetion thus removed, or at least stripped of its religious significance, 1s simply that between personal disciples and apostles of Jesus, on the one hand, and, on the other, all those Christians who had not stood in such personal relation to Jesus, nor received the special calling corresponding to this personal relation, but had nevertheless been led, through the efforts of disciples and apostles, to believe on the Lord, who had bought them (ii, 1). The distinction is essentially the same as that between eye-witnesses of the majesty of Jesus and those to whom the eye-witnesses had brought the knowledge of it (i. 16; ef. John xix. 35, xx. 29,31; 1 John 1. 3). The same distinction is apparently expressed also in the sentences that follow, i. 8 f., which are not very clear, nor textually certain (n. 10). Here Peter identifies himself with the other disciples and apostles of Jesus, whom He called personally by the revelation of His glory, and by the demonstration of His moral power, to whom also through the knowledge of Himself He gave all that was needful for a true life and a pious conduct. He then contrasts himself and the other disciples and apostles with the readers to whom the Lord, through these disciples and apostles,—namely, through their preaching of the gospel, —has given very great promises, by virtue of which here- after they may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the perishable pleasures of this world. While it is true that this distinction between the personal disciples of Jesus and other Christians, who have not seen and heard Jesus, is sometimes expressed where the former are addressing Gentile Christians (1 Pet. 1. 8; 1 John 1. 1-4; John i. 14, xix. 35), exactly the same distinction existed within Jewish Christianity from the beginning of the apostolic preaching. Inasmuch, therefore, as there is not a single word in 2 Peter which suggests the Gentile character of the 208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT readers, and since it has also been shown that 2 Pet. iiil 1 cannot refer to 1 Peter nor 2 Pet. iii. 15 to Ephesians, the evidence of the statements in 2 Pet. i 16-18, which are in perfect agreement with i. 1-4 and iii. 2, retains its full force. The letter is shown to be a hortatory writing of Peter's to a large group of Churches, who owed their Christianity to the preaching of Peter and other men from among the twelve apostles and the personal disciples of Jesus. From this it follows that the readers were, for the most part, if not altogether, Jewish Christians, and that they are to be sought in Palestine and the regions adjoining, but not in the regions north and north-west of Antioch ; because until the death of Peter (64 A.D. ; above, ΠΡΟΙΘῚ Ἐ) the agreement of the year 52 (Gal. ii, 7-9 + ef Matt. x. 23) was kept by all the missionaries, one of whom the writer indicates himself to have been (i. 1-4, 16-18). It was probably in Palestine and the adjoining regions that the preaching journeys of Peter and his companions, referred to by Paul in the year 57 (1 Cor. ix. 5), were made. The journey of Peter to Rome at the very end of his life, and the composition in Rome of his letter to the Gentile Christian Churches of Asia Minor (above, p. 158 ff.), did not make him a missionary to the Gentiles, and did not bring him into such a relation as that expressed in 2 Peter with any Church outside the “Land of Israel.” In this entrance of Peter as an element in the life of the Gentile Christian Churches organised in Asia Minor by Gentile Christian missionaries, and as a factor in the development of the Roman Church, in the building of which Gentile Christian and Jewish Christian missionaries worked together, we have a foreshadowing— but only a foreshadowing—of the development which, at a date considerably later than the death of Peter and Paul, took men like John and Philip to Ephesus and Hierapolis. There is no means of determining more definitely the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 209 geographical position of the readers. The use of the Greek language is no objeetion to the supposition that Peter was intended for the whole circle to whom James also wrote in Greek. Nor does the use of the name “Simeon Petros” imply anything more (Acts xm. 1, xy. 14,n. 9). The reference to a letter of Paul’s to the same readers (iii. 15) does not help us, for the reason that this letter has not come down to us (above, p. 198f.). It is very natural to suppose that during the two years of enforced idleness in Cwsarea (from 58-60 A.D.), when his arrest put an end to the exercise of all personal influence among them, Paul took occasion to send some written word to the multitudes of believing Jews (Acts xxi. 20), on whose behalf he had made his last journey to Jeru- salem. Or it may have been a smaller group of Churches, mainly Jewish Christian, to which this lost letter of Paul’s and 2 Peter were directed, e.g. the Churches in Ptole- mais, Tyre, and Damascus, with which Paul was personally acquainted (Acts ix. 22-25, xx. 32713,0f. oxiod Yızy.08), and others in the regions indicated of whose history we know nothing. The time at which 2 Peter purports to have been written can be more aceurately determined than the loca- tion of the readers. Although it is not directly stated ini. 14 that Peter knows his death is near (n. 3), and although we do not know that this expectation was ful- filled, even if Peter entertained it, 1. 12-15 does convey the general impression that it is an aged man who is speaking. In iii. 16 mention is made not only of a letter of Paul’s to the readers of 2 Peter, but also of many other letters of his which had found some circulation and had been misunderstood. This could hardly have taken place before the year 60. Furthermore, the way in which the doubt as to the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning the end of the world is expressed (iii, 4; ef. § 42, n. 5), indicates the end of Peter’s lifetime. The first generation VOL. I. 14 210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of Christians is beginning to disappear. On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that Peter had reached Rome, the goal of his life-journey. It is natural to suppose that, if Peter had recently come to the capital of the world for the first time in his life, he would indicate in some way his residence there, as he does in 1 Pet. v. 13. On the other hand, he is not in the immediate vicinity of his readers. He has written them previously, expects to do so soon again, and anticipates the sending of frequent letters (above, p. 198 f.). He shows familiarity with ecclesiastical conditions and movements outside the world of the readers; indeed, he shows familiarity with the same within the sphere of Gentile Christianity. We should probably be able to locate the place where the letter was written more exactly, if we knew from what point and by what route Peter went to Rome sometime in the autumn of 63. It is natural to think of Antioch. Taking everything into consideration, and assuming for the time being that 2 Peter is genuine, we may date it somewhere between 60 and 63. ‘This makes it earlier than 1 Peter. 1. (P. 195.) In view of the character of what precedes and follows, the reference of iii. 1 f. to the entire Epistle yet unfinished—and in particular to the third section of the Epistle which begins at this point—is quite as certain as is the similar reference of ταῦτά σοι γράφω, 1 Tim. iii. 14 (see above, p. 39, n. 2); and here the ταύτην... ἐπιστολήν makes the reference more definite than the ambiguous ταῦτα in 1 Tim. iii. 14. That this description is meant to apply equally to the first Epistle, to which reference is here made, is proved by the use of ev ais instead of ev ἧ. The difficult expression τῆς τῶν ἀποσ- τόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος undoubtedly means the same as that which in ii. 21 is described as the holy commandment handed down to the Christians, or the same as διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, the title of the so-called Didache. In form the expression finds a parallel in Acts v. 32, if the correct reading there be αὐτοῦ μάρτυρες τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων (ef. Winer, Gr. § 30, 3, A. 3 [Eng. trans. § 30. 3, A. 3]), as the present writer believes to be the case. The expression is a harsh one, but even titles such a8 Ξενοφῶντος Σωκράτους ἀπομνημονεύματα are quite as inelegant (GK, i. 475, A. 2). In fact, the harsher the words (rod κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος), the more arbitrary it is to strike them out as a gloss; while to derive them from Jude 17 (Spitta, 224), where they are not found, is altogether impossible. _ No mistake has been made in the transmission of the text of the passage, since EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 211 the Syrians [“ The commandment of our Lord and Saviour, which” (sc. was communicated) “through the apostles”] were able to get over the difficulty only by a free translation, while the impossible combination of ὑμῶν with κυρίου, which occurs here as in the Sahidie, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions, is not made less difficult by the reading ἡμῶν instead of ὑμῶν---ἃ variant found only in a few cursives. In this connection it may be remarked that the historical investigation of 2 Pet. is rendered difficult, not only by the style, which is often obscure, but also by the text handed down, which is in an especially bad condition. Readings which could not have been invented and which are certainly original, such as the order of words in i. 17 preserved by B alone (below, n. 6), and passages which can hardly be understood without resort to conjecture, such as i. 20, will suffice as illustrations. Tischendorf’s apparatus in ed. viii. has been enlarged and corrected since its appearance, especially by Le Palimpseste de Fleury, ed. Berger, 1887, p. 41 f., and by Gwynn’s investigation of the ancient Syriac version, which was probably a part of the Philoxenian text, in Hermathena, vol. vii. 1890, pp. 281-314. This translation (called in Tischendorf, Syr. bodl.) is designated S? by the present writer (see list of abbreviations). One source of the corruption of the text was the comparison of readings in 2 Pet. with Jude. This, however, can be used to correct the text. Whether we hold 2 Pet. to be dependent upon Jude or the reverse, the one document is certainly a very ancient witness for the text of the other. If the correct reading in Jude 12 be ayarraıs, then it must be that Jude read dydras in 2 Pet. ii. 13, and that this, therefore, is the correct read- ing in the latter passage ; or, if 2 Pet. is dependent upon Jude, then it is hard to conceive how Peter could change the clear ἀγάπαις of Jude to ἀπάταις, which does not make as good sense. So in this case also the original reading in 2 Pet. ii. 13 seems to have been ayaraıs. 2. (P. 198.) Most modern interpreters take the letter of Paul’s mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 15 to be Eph.—with especial positiveness Hofmann (vii. 2. 113 ff.). Grotius (p. 1060) and Dietlein (Der zweite Petrusbrief, 229-235) think that Rom. is meant; the elder Lightfoot (Opp. ii. 109, 116) and Bengel in his Gnomon think that the reference is to Hebrews. The last hypothesis would be impossible, even if 2 Pet. had been written at a time when Heb. had come to be regarded by part of the Church as an ‘Epistle of Paul’s; because a pseudo-Peter who undertook to compose an Epistle of Peter to the Ἑβραῖοι, to whom Paul had previously written Heb., could not have been content with a salutation, not a word of which refers clearly to the Ἑβραῖοι, nor would he have ventured in iii. 1 to lead the readers to suppose that 2 Pet. was meant for the same readers as 1 Pet. The credit for having broken radically with exegetical traditions regarding the letter of Paul mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 15, and the letter of Peter mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 1 belongs to Spitta (221-227, 286-288). 3. (Pp. 199, 209.) As toi. 12-15, μελλήσω with the present infinitive is hardly to be taken, as in Matt. xxiv. 6, or as μέλλω with the future infinitive (Acts xxiv. 15, xxvii. 10), as a mere periphrasis for the future; butis intended to express the thought that the writer will be ready in the future, as often as necessity arises, to recall to the minds of the readers truths with which they are familiar, as he has done in the past, and as he does now throughout this entire letter. Copyists and translators, who knew nothing of the fulfilment 212 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of the promise here made, found the expression too strong, and changed it in some instances to οὐ μελλήσω (in the sense of “I will not hesitate ”—non differam, Palimps. Flor. and other Latin MSS), in other cases (the Antiochian recension and the Syriac versions) to οὐκ ἀμελήσω. The only other thing to be noted with regard to the variant readings is the fact that in ver. 15, besides N, the Armenian version and one cursive also S? read σπουδάζω (see Gwynn, op. it. 391). But this is an intentional alteration, designed to make it possible to connect the sentence with the letter which Peter was writing at the time. Even the σπουδάσατε of S? and a few cursives, if taken as an aorist used in the graphie sense, tends, on the one hand, to confirm the reading σπουδάσω against σπουδάζω, and, on the other hand, shows, as does also the latter read- ing, that copyists and translators could not bring themselves to read here again a promise of Peter’s which he seemed not to have fulfilled, What Peter says about his future literary plans is conceived altogether in the light of the end of his life. He refers to it three times in vy. 13, 14,15. Only in ver. 14 is there a definite view expressed regarding its manner or time. His knowledge concerning his death, while not based exclusively upon a revelation of Christ, is due in part to this; since it is inadmissible to take the «ai here as the pleonastic καί which is common with particles of eom- parison (so Hofmann, Spitta), for καθώς does not here introduce a comparison, but a determining authority. With regard to the question what or what kind of a revelation is meant, it is to be observed : (1) That Peter refers to this revelation of Christ quite incidentally, and only in order to confirm an expectation certain on other grounds. ΤΠ view of the fact that Peter was one of the missionaries who preached the gospel to the readers, and that there had been frequent intercourse between him and them, it is not likely that the readers were wholly unfamiliar with it, so that the reference is not to a communication from Christ which Peter had recently received. How great an interest these Christians who were intimately acquainted with Peter must have had in learning from him that the Lord had recently appeared to him in a vision, and made known to him that he was to die quickly, or soon, or suddenly! As a matter of fact, however, the simple expression used, ἐδήλωσέν μοι, does not indicate any such wonderful revelation. (2) Taken alone, raxıvos, like ταχύς, does not mean either “soon” or “sudden,” but “quick,” “rapid.” It may mean (a) the speedy termination of an action (John xx. 4; Jas. i. 19), and, taken in that sense here it would designate a quick death as contrasted with a death following long sickness, Since, how- ever, the whole future may be conceived as something coming, approaching the subject, and since the rapid completion of this conceived movement involves the early appearance of the coming event, (b) the adverbial expres- sions ταχέως, τάχιον, τάχιστα, ταχύ, ἐν τάχει, especially when used with futures and imperatives, frequently mean “soon, without delay” (cf. Luke xvi. 6, xviii. 2; Matt. v.25; 1 Cor. iv. 19; Phil. ii. 19, 24; 1 Tim, iii. 14; Heb. xiii. 19, 23). In all these cases the thing signified is not the quick termination of the action itself, writing, journeying, ete., but the immediate happening of the event in question. But (0) the approach of the future so conceived can itself be represented as a slow or rapid process, according as the future event is thought of as approaching gradually, or as coming with- out perceptible preparation and warning, like a bolt of lightning. So we get EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 2159 the meaning “sudden ” ; ef. Rev. ii. 16 (=iii. 3; 1 Thess. v. 2-4 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10) ; also Gal. i. 6; 2 Thess, ii. 2. It is in this sense that we say in the Litany, “Deliver us from evil and sudden death.” The first meaning (a) “quick” is not applicable here ; for, no matter whether he expects to die and be taken from his work by a death struggle lasting only a few minutes, or only after years of illness, this can hardly have any important influence upon his valuation and use of the time remaining until he is called upon to meet this quick or gradual death. The second meaning (Ὁ) “soon” suits better ; since the consciousness that only a short span of life remains, may make one zealous in the performance of his calling, and remind him of the necessity of providing for the time after his death. Cf. Ep. Clem. ad Jac. ii. (Clementina, ed, Lagarde, p. 6). Against this interpretation there are the following objec- tions: (1) This certain knowledge that he was soon to die Peter could have obtained only through a revelation from Christ made to him recently, unless recourse is had to the improbable supposition that Christ had told him long before just how many years he was to live. In neither of these cases could he refer as incidentally as he does to this revelation of Christ as something with which the readers are already familiar. (2) The use of the adjectives ταχύς and ταχινός in this sense is certainly rare. ταχὺς καρπός, Clem. 2 Cor. xx. 2, cited by Spitta (87), is not a clear illustration of this usage. (3) ταχινὴ ἀπώλεια (2 Pet. ii. 1), with which it is most natural to compare this passage, is manifestly used in the third sense (c) “sudden,” meaning a destruction coming unexpectedly—unprepared for by sinners (cf. 1 Thess. v. 3; Luke xvii. 27, xxi. 35 ; Mark xiii. 35 ; Matt. xxiv. 37-xxv. 13). It isnot a catastrophe coming soon, since there was no point of time from which this event could be reckoned. Good illustrations of this usage are the examples cited by Hof- mann (vii. 2. 29) from Thucyd. iv. 55. 1, πόλεμος ταχὺς καὶ ἀπροφύλακτος, and Eurip. Hipp. 1044, ταχὺς döns (“sudden death”). Anyone knowing and pondering the fact that he is to die a sudden death, will not in any given instance put off what he regards as his duty until another day which seems to him better adapted for its performance or which is more convenient ; rather, not knowing whether he may claim the next day as his, he will always be ready to do what the present day demands. But it was just this which Peter promised in ver. 12 with regard to the instruction of the readers during the remainder of his life. We have seen how the certainty with which Peter expected a sudden death is based only in part upon the revelation of Christ to him, or, to speak more accurately, how he finds this knowledge to be in harmony with the revelation of Christ, from which it is to be inferred that he believed this to be certain quite apart from the revelation, which is) practi- cally the same conviction Paul had as to the martyr’s death he was to die (see vol. i. p.546f.). Furthermore, it is not to be assumed that Christ had said to Peter in so many words what he here gives as his own conviction. In this case his conviction would rest entirely upon the words of Christ, and nothing could be said of Peter’s independent knowledge about the same thing. There is nothing, therefore, which prevents our taking the words of Jesus preserved in John xiii. 36 and xxi. 18f. as the foundation of 2 Pet.i. 14. The former saying contains no clear statement as to the manner of Peter’s death, but, in the light of later reflection upon it, Peter could say that it did mean some- thing more than that he was to die at some future time like other men, and, 214 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT like all other diseiples, through death to come into the presence of Jesus in heaven. If he came to feel that he was to die suddenly, then this word of Jesus must have been confirmation of the feeling; it could hardly mean to him anything else than that he, like Jesus, was to die a violent death. While it is true that sudden death is not always violent death, violent death, murder, or execution is always a sudden death, and stands in contrast to death which approaches gradually through sickness or old age. The other saying of Jesus, John xxi. 18, does convey primarily the idea that Peter, who is now young and impetuous, will become a helpless old man. But with this is connected the other thought that in his old age he shall fall into the hands of hostile men. The narrator of the story in John xxi. 19 takes the entire saying as a prophecy of Peter’s martyrdom, and, in one feature of the picture (ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου), he finds a reference to the definite manner of his death, namely, crucifixion. If this interpretation, like other interpretations of obscure pro- phetic utterances of Jesus (cf. John ii. 22, vii. 39, xii. 33), was not made until after the prophecy was fulfilled,—z.e. until after Peter’s crucifixion,—it does not follow that Peter and the others who heard Jesus say this word had no thoughts about the prophecy. The reference to violence which he was to suffer at the end of his life (ἄλλος ζώσει σε καὶ οἴσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις) was sufli- cient to enable Peter to say that his premonition of a violent death was confirmed by the Lord Himself, and at the same time to regard it as a second saying of this character (cf. John xiii. 36). Peter does not quote the word spoken by Christ to him, but says that his expectation is in accordance with a saying of Jesus. He describes the laying aside of his earthly tabernacle as sudden rather than violent, because the latter thought is appropriate in this context only as it is involved in the former. On the other hand, the language of Peter is extremely unnatural if the reference is to the legends already men- tioned (see above, p. 168f.). The saying of Jesus, ἄνωθεν μέλλω σταυροῦσθαι, quoted by Origen (tom. xx. 12 in Jo.) from the Acts of Paul, does not appear in this place to have reference to Peter at all; and, according to Origen’s interpretation, it does not refer to the physical crucifixion of a disciple. In the Gnostie Acts of Peter, however, this saying is made to refer to the crucifixion of Peter in Rome—and that in the double sense in which ἄνωθεν may be used (“again” and “from above”). In the crucifixion of Peter, Christ experienced His own crucifixion again; Peter was erncified head downwards (ed. Lipsius, 88, 92f.; GK, ii. 846, 853, A. 3, 878f.). Reference to this blunt μῦθος σεσοφισμένος is not in harmony with the delicate and modest recalling of the saying of Jesus in 2 Pet.i. 14. If this legend is based upon a saying of Jesus—specifically of the risen J esus—preserved in the more original form in the Acts of Paul (GK, ii. 879), in the first place it is, to say the least, extremely doubtful whether it refers to Peter. But if it does, and describes his future crucifixion, then, from the critical point of view, it can be regarded only as a fanciful development of John xxi. 18 f. Whereas the canonical account distinguishes between the mysterious saying of Jesus and the inter- pretation of the same made in the light of the event, this fanciful story, and the later tale of the Acts of Peter, put into the mouth of Jesus Himself a prophecy exactly suited to the subsequent events. However, it is not witha fable like this that 2 Pet. i. 14 shows affinity, but with the words of Jesus preserved in John xiii, 36, xxi. 18. EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 215 4. (P. 200.) With what has been said above, p. 199 f., ef. 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; 2 Cor. x. 10, xiii. 10; Phil. i. 27; Polye, ad Phil. iii. 2. 5. (Pp. 200, 201.) Michaelis (Einl. 1056), Schwegler, and others compare μετὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον, i. 15, with Iren. iii. 1.1: μετὰ de τὴν τούτων (i.e. of Peter and Paul) ἔξοδον Μᾶρκος ra ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν. See also 849. Inasmuch as the death of Peter is clearly spoken of in ver. 14, ἔξοδος in ver. 15 can be understood only as referring to him ; ef. Luke ix. 31; Heb. xiii. 7; Acta Jo. (ed. Bonnet, p. 184. 9), probably also Hermas, Vis. iii. 4.3. Nor is Irenzus’ meaning different in the passage cited. The strong emphasis of τὴν ἐμὴν €£., used instead of τὴν ἔξ. μου, is to be noticed. After Peter dies others will teach and write; but he desires that after his death it shall still be his voice that exhorts the readers. 6. (P. 201, 204.) With regard to i. 16 ff., it is to be borne in mind first of all that γνωρίζειν τινί τι means, “ To make known to one something that he has not known before.” This is its meaning even in 1 Cor. xv. 1, where, not without irony, Paul uses a certain contradictio in adjecto. Also in 1 Cor. xii. 3 and Gal. i. 11, truths and facts with which the readers could not have been wholly unacquainted are intentionally spoken of as if they were entirely unknown. The expression has the force of an emphatic od θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν or ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε. Furthermore, although παρουσία, like ἐπιφάνεια (see above, p- 133), can be used of the first as well as of the second coming of Christ (cf. Luke xii. 51 ; Heb. ix. 11), here, in accordance with the uniform usage of the N.T. (Matt. xxiv. 3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19, iii. 13, iv. 15, v.23; 2 Thess. ii. 1, 8; Jas. v. 7f.; 1 John ii. 28; cf. also 2 Pet. iii. 4, 12), it can refer only to the second coming, especially in view of the fact that otherwise it would have to precede δύναμις. But the interpretation of δύναμις as meaning the power manifested by Jesus while still upon the earth, is in keeping not only with the usage of the Gospels and of Acts in describing the miraculous work of Christ (Mark v. 30, vi. 2, 14, ix. 23; Luke iv. 14, 36, v. 17, xxiv. 19; Acts ii. 22, x. 38), but also with the usage of 2 Pet. itself (i. 3; seen. 10). There is no reason, however, why the conception should be limited to this power, and that power excluded which was shown by Jesus as He passed through death and resurrection to heavenly glory, which also will be fully manifested at His coming. It is just as arbitrary to limit ἐπόπται γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος either to the transfiguration upon the mountain, which is not mentioned until ver. 17, and then only in order to illustrate and confirm what has just been said (still advocated by Spitta, 97), or to the appearances of the risen Christ (as Hofmann, vii. 2.33). There is nothing in the expression itself which would limit it n this way ; since Jesus’ own μεγαλειότης comes to view, not only in these particular events, but in everything in which a θεῖα δύναμις of Jesus (i. 3) was expressed, or His ἰδία δόξα (i. 3) became manifest to those of His contemporaries who believed during His earthly life (John i. 14, ii. 11; ef. 2 Cor. iv. 6), in all those μεγαλεῖα τοῦ θεοῦ (Acts ii, 11) in which in and through Jesus God showed His μεγαλειότης (Luke ix. 43),—just as the glorification of God through Jesus is at the same time a glorification of Jesus (John xi. 4, 40, xii, 28, xiii. 31, xvii. 4, 10). The transfiguration upon the mountain and the appearances of the risen Christ are a part of these experiences of Peter and his fellow- diseiples ; but only when what they witnessed is conceived of in the entirely 216 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT general sense implied by the absence of every specification, does the term serve as an adequate contrast to μῦθοι σεσοφισμένοι, and a suitable description of those experiences on which the preaching of the apostles was based. Nor does the ἐκείνου necessarily refer to one “beyond us,” 1.6, to the exalted Christ (Hofmann), but applies equally well to Him who lived once here upon the earth (1 John ii. 6, iii. 5, 16), but now can be no more seen even by His own. In this rests the peculiar significance of those preachers of the gospel who, by reason of the fact that they saw and heard what Jesus did and said in His earthly life, were able to declare what had happened as well as what was to take place in the future (Johni. 14; 1Johni.1f.,iv.14; Acts x. 39-41). The interpretation of 1. 17f. is rendered difficult, but not made impossible, by the anacoluthon. If, as is certainly the case, vv. 175, 18 refer to the event described in Matt. xvii. 1-13, Mark ix. 2-13, Luke ix. 28-36, λαβὼν παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν cannot be taken in the sense in which Hofmann takes it, as referring to the glorification of Jesus completed at His resurrection (cf. 1 Pet. i, 21; John vii. 39, xiii. 32) ; for then there is no intelligible con- nection between this final glorification and the heavenly voice at the Transfiguration. Nor does the honour and glory received consist of the voice from heaven, which thought would necessarily be expressed by φερομένης, in the sense of an imperfect participle, instead of evexdeions. The only other meaning possible is the visible glorification of Jesus in the scene upon the mountain. The dazzling light, by which the disciples saw the countenance and garments of Jesus illumined, can be called glory and honour which Jesus received at that moment from the Father (cf. Luke ix. 39, εἶδον τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ), with just as much appropriateness as the saying in Ps. vill. 6 about the crowning of mankind with δόξα καὶ τιμή can be applied in Heb. ii. 9 (cf. iii. 3, v. 4 f.) to the earthly life of Jesus while He had death yet before Him. Spitta’s opinion (104, 496), that Peter, in contradiction to the Gospels, conceived the voice from heaven as preceding the visible transfiguration, cannot be justified from the text ; for even if the words be translated, “ After a voice sounded,” it is by no means certain that the genitive absolute is dependent upon the participle λαβών. It is rather like λαβών, dependent upon the principal clause of the sentence, which is left unexpressed. The latter is the more probable construction, for otherwise ἐνεχθείσης would certainly precede λαβών (cf. Heb. ix. 19). Furthermore, in the description of similar events, such as the appearance of the angels to the shepherds, the baptism of Jesus, the conversion of Paul, the visible phenomenon always precedes the audible. Why not here, as in the Gospels, without making Peter contradict these accounts? Nor does the present writer agree with Spitta when he claims that “ it is possible to determine with entire certainty” (Spitta, 106) the originally intended continuation of the sentence beginning with ver. 17, though he regards it as quite possible that Peter did intend to say practically what is found in ver, 18 without breaking the construction of the preceding verse. Possibly he meant to write διελέχθη ἡμῖν περὶ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, which is not expressly stated in the Gospels, but quite in harmony with Matt. xvii. 10-13; Mark ix. 11-13; cf. Matt. xvi, 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix.27; or he may have meant to write διεστείλατο (ἐνετείλατο) ἡμῖν, wa μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῦ πᾶσι γνωρίσωμεν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ, Which might be suggested by Matt. xvii. 9; Mark ix. 9f.; EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 217 Luke ix. 36. These conclusions of the sentence agree better with the contents of ver. 16 than do ἡμᾶς εἶχε σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντας ev τῷ ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ (Spitta) and other similar expressions, which, moreover, leave the break in the construction unexplained. On the other hand, it is perfectly conceivable that, having expressed with vivid realisation in an independent sentence (ver. 18) the important circumstance that he and his companions themselves had heard the voice and been witnesses of the whole scene, Peter might leave the intended principal clause of the sentence unexpressed. Whatever the grammatical form of the intended principal clause, the clause itself was not necessary in order to complete the sense ; for the thing of chief importance—correspond- ing to the ἐπόπται γενηθέντες of ver. 16, which is the chief point to be established—Peter has already expressed. In fact, neither this nor any other passage in 2 Pet. can be shown to contradict the view of the events on the mountain, given in the Gospels. In Matt. xvii. 5, Mark ix. 7, Luke ix. 35, it is said that the voice sounded from the cloud which afterwards overshadowed the scene ; in 2 Pet. it is said that it came from heaven ; but these two passages are related in the same way as the narrative in Acts i. 9 is related to the reminiscence of the same in Acts ii. 34. In the Gospel passages the fact that it is God who speaks appears only from the contents of the call; in 2 Pet.,on the other hand, God is also expressly called the “majestic glory,” ü.e. God in His majesty is declared to be the efficient cause of this revelation ; but this would not imply a contradiction, even if the thought were here expressed that God in this phenomenon of brightness, νεφέλη φωτεινή (Matt. xvii. 5), became visible (ef. Ex. xiii, 21, xiv. 24, xvi. 10, xxiv. 16). But there is no ground for even this assumption. The attri- bute μεγαλοπρεπής can be used with reference to the audible voice itself (Ps. xxix. 4), and the μεγαλοπρέπεια of God (Ps. exlv. 5, exi. 3; Clem. 1 Cor. lx. 1, Ixi. 1) or of His name (2 Mace. vil. 15 ; Clem. 1 Cor. xiv; cf. ix. 1, xix. 2, xlv. 7), also His δόξα (Rom. i. 23, vi. 4), or even the μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα (Clem. 1 Cor. ix. 2), are spoken of where there is no reference whatever to physical perceptibility. Further comparison with the Gospels brings out clearly the fact that the presentation by Peter is an independent one. Thus (1) the most interesting and remarkable features are omitted by Peter, e.g. the appearance of Moses and Elias, although, in view of the purpose expressed —to speak of the word of the prophets (i. 19 f.)—it was most natural to recall just these things. (2) The language of the heavenly call differs from the account given in all three of the synoptics in the following particulars :— (a) The omission of αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε at the close ; (Ὁ) the insertion of eis ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα, the only parallel to which is the ev ᾧ εὐδόκησα of Matt. xvii. 5; the ἐγώ of Peter is not found in any of the parallels (Matt. iii. 17, xii. 18, xvii. 5; Mark i. 11 ; Luke iii. 22) ; (c) most unparalleled of all is the order of words, 6 υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου οὗτός ἐστιν, witnessed only by Cod. B, but rightly adopted by Westeott-Hort. The τοιᾶσδε (not ταύτης) is apparently designed to indicate that Peter does not claim absolute accuracy in his reproduction of the words spoken from heaven. (3) The twice-repeated φωνὴ ἠνεχθεῖσα, vv. 17, 18, seems to presuppose ἃ φωνὴ ἠνέχθη in the underlying narrative, which, however, is not found in any of the Gospels (but cf. Acts ii. 2). (4) The fact that the place where the Transfiguration took place is here called τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἅγιον, but is not so designated in the Gospels, is explained by the fact that this 218 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT mountain was not in itself holy, but was made a holy mountain for Christians by the knowledge of what J esus, in company with His most trusted diseiples, experienced there. Consequently in the narrative, in which the point of view is before the event, it is called a high mountain (Matt., Mark), or a (neighbonring) mountain (Luke), but in the retrospect of the eye-witness it becomes the holy mountain. If, on the other hand, Peter meant to refer to a mountain which was already venerated by the readers as a holy place, and even visited by pilgrims, he would not have failed to mention it by name, or in some other way to indicate its geographical location ; for if at the time when 2 Pet. was written there was any holy mountain so venerated by Christians, there were other mountains—e.g. the Mount of Olives, from which the ascension took place—that had at least as much claim to this designation as the mount of transfiguration. But the term which Peter chooses, taken out of its connection, is far more applicable to Zion (Ps. ii. 6, iii. 5; Joel iv. 17; Zech. viii. 3; Dan. ix, 16-20; Acts vi. 13; Rev. xiv. 1), or Sinai (Ex. xix. 3; 1 Kings xix. 8) than to any mountain in Galilee. The ex- pression, therefore, is not due to the fame of the locality already established and expressed by use of the common name “ The holy mountain,” but grows out of associations of the event recalled. It is also to be observed that there is no ancient local tradition with regard to the place of the transfiguration. The tradition which makes Tabor the scene of this event is no older than that which places the temptation of Jesus upon the same mountain, and both traditions grew out of the almost identical designation of a mountain in Matt. iv. 8 and xvii. 2 (GK, ii. 690 f.). In the Gnostie Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, 67. 10), Peter speaks as follows in connection with a lesson just read from the book of the gospel (perhaps Mark ix. 2-13): “ Nune quod vobis lectum est, jam vobis exponam. Dominus noster volens me majestatem suam videre in monte sancto, videns autem luminis splendorem eius cum filiis Zebed:i, cecidi tamquam mortuus et oculos meos conclusi et vocem eius audivi talem, qualem referre non possum, qui me putavi exorbatum ab splendore eius ; et pusillum respirans dixi intra me : “Forsitan dominus meus voluit me hie adducere, ut me orbaret.’ Et dixi: ‘Et hee tua voluntas est, non contradico, domine,’ Et dans mihi manum elevavit me, et exsurgens iterum talem eum vidi, qualem capere potui.” The words majestatem (cf. Palimps. Flor. 2 Pet. i. 17, de mag nifica majestate, Vulg. a magnifica gloria) and in monte sancto, perhaps also vocem talem, are taken from 2 Pet. i.17f. In the Acts of John also (ed. Bonnet, p. 195. 8-11) the event is described briefly, in order to connect with it a related story purely fictitious in character. 7. (P. 205.) For the impersonal designation of the apostles by one who belonged to the apostolic body (iii. 2), ef. Eph. iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28; vol. i, p. 506 f, Every preacher or teacher is apt occasionally to say to his hearers or pupils, “ Your preachers or teachers,” without prefacing it with a “ we.” The aged preacher in Clem. 2 Cor. xvii. 3, 5, goes so far even as to employ a “we,” including himself and listeners, and then to contrast the two together with the presbyters who preached to his hearers, although he himself is now preaching to them. y 8. (P. 206.) The interpretation of πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κτλ.» i. 1, to mean “Faith in the righteousness,” ete., which led to the change of the reading in δὲ to els δικαιοσύνην, is to be rejected for the following reasons ; EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 219 (1) Such a description of the essential element in Christian faith is un- paralleled, and there is nothing in the rest of the letter that would oceasion such a description here. (2) δικαιοσύνῃ is without the artiele which would necessarily be used, if the reference were to a righteousness of Christ upon which the Christian based his hope of salvation. Moreover, such a righteous- ness would be more properly described as that of the man Jesus, than as the righteousness of “ our God and Saviour.” (3) There is a question about this construction of πίστις in all the N.T. passages where it is supposed to exist (Gal. iii. 26 ; Eph. i. 15 ; 2 Tim. ini. 15 ; cf. 1 Tim. i. 14; 2 Tim. i. 13). ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ is therefore to be taken with λαχοῦσιν. The assignment of human destinies has been made in righteousness (ef. Tit. iii. 5; Acts xvii. 31; Rev. xix, 11), and it is due to the righteous act of the Lord that those converted by the apostolic preaching, who have not seen nor heard Him, have come into the possession of a Christianity of no less value than that of the original disciples (cf. Cat., ed. Cramer, 85), eis τὸ ἴσον αὐτοὺς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἀναφέρων χάρισμα. 9. (Pp. 206, 209.) With regard to the use of Συμεών instead of Σίμων, see vol. i. p.29f. Leaving out of account the thoroughly Jewish character of the name, the use of this original name along with Πέτρος proves that the writer did not intend his letter for the same group of readers for whom the greeting in 1 Pet. i. 1 was meant. The Concordance shows how uncommon outside of Palestine was the use of Simon or Simeon to designate the apostle Peter, whether used in place of the latter name or along with it. Paul calls him only Peter, or, what is the same thing, Cephas, which corresponds to Peter's own usage in 1 Pet. i. 1 (above, p. 155). Mark calls him Simon until he is given a surname in iii. 16; from that point on only Peter is found in the narrative, which is all the more striking because Mark does not conceal the fact that Jesus called him Simon to the end (xiv. 37, λέγει τῷ Πέτρῳ Σίμων). Luke also calls him regularly Simon until he is given another name (vi. 14); then he uses just as regularly Peter in both books, even when he is addressed by Jesus, Luke xxii. 34 (alongside of Σίμων, xxii. 31; cf. Mark xiv. 37); Acts x. 13; although he lets us know that he was generally called Simon (Luke xxiv. 34), or Symeon (Acts xv. 14), by his companions in Jerusalem. Simon Peter occurs only once (Luke v. 8) ; “Simon with the surname Peter” is used in the Cornelius passages where Peter is thought of as being at a distance (Acts x. 5, 18, 32, xi. 13), though the simple designation Peter is found in the same narrative (fourteen times in the passage Acts x. 1-xi. 18, fifty-two times altogether in Acts). In John, Simon alone occurs only in i. 41, Simon son of John in i. 42, xxi. 15-17; from i. 40 on, Simon Peter is used seventeen times, from xiil. 8 on it is used interchangeably with Peter fifteen times. Except in address (xvii. 25, Simon ; xvi. 17, Simon Barjona), Matthew never uses Simon ; Simon with the surname Peter occurs only in the call and in the list of the apostles (iv. 18, x. 2), and on one other solemn occasion (xvi. 16) ; in all other cases Peter is used, occurring some twenty times. There is no means of determin- ing whether the person who translated this Gospel into Greek found uni- formly in his original Kepha, or in passages where he found Simon replaced it by Peter, which was more familiar to his Greek readers, With regard to the interchange of the Aramaic Kepha and the Greek Πέτρος, it may be said 220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that the latter once adopted as the translation was more natural to the Greek language. Just as Syrian translators and theological writers always wrote Kepha, so the N.T. writers used regularly Πέτρος. The former is found only once in the Gospels, John i. 42, where the writer, following an inclination which he often manifests, retains the original words of the saying which he is reproducing. All the cases where Paul writes Kepha are explained by the reference which he has to the “ Hebrews,” who, with appeals to the authority of Peter, were meddling with his affairs in Galatia and Corinth (above, p. 155, n. 8). 10, (P. 194, 207.) The present writer regards it as certain that ver. 3f. fol- lows ver. 2 without any break in the grammatical construction, as held by Lach- mann and by Spitta (27 f.), who has proved this to be the case particularly by a correct interpretation of Ign. ph. i., Rom. 1., Smyrn. i., Philad. i., correcting fundamentally the writer’s edition. He also holds that in ver. 2 τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ and similar words are to be omitted before rod x. ἡ. and rod κυρίου ἡμῶν, read with P, Vulg. (in the best MSS.), to which 5°, S%, Aug. Speeul. pp. 606. 16, 630. 1, and some cursives add simply Ἰησοῦ Xp. The same theme is dealt with here as in i. 8, ii. 20, iii. 18, namely, the knowledge of Christ. Therefore it is Christ who is referred to in i. 3, It is commonly held that in the N.T. only God, never Christ, is described as calling men; but that this claim is erroneous is evidenced not alone by Gal. i. 6 and 1 Pet. ii. 9, regarding which there may be difference of opinion, but by the expression κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Xp., Rom. i. 6, and passages like Matt. ix. 13; Mark ii. 17 ; Luke v. 32. So also the expression κλητὸς ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ, 1 Cor. i. 1, represents Christ as calling His disciples as well as sending them (1 Cor. i. 17), cf. ZKom. Gal. 43 f, If ver. 3f. is thus closely connected with ver, 1 f. the ἡμᾶς (and ἡμῖν) of ver, 3 cannot be taken other than as ἡμῖν, ver. 1, namely, as referring to the apostles and personal diseiples of Jesus, as distinguished from the Christians who were not called until they were called through their preaching. This dis- tinction is also expressly made in ver. 3. Whereas God or Christ calls all other Christians through the preachers of the gospel, He called the apostles by the manifestation of (His) own glory and virtue. It was particularly natural for an apostle, whom Jesus Himself in the most literal sense of the word had called (Matt. iv. 19-22; Mark i. 17, 20, ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς ; Matt, viii. 22, ix. 9; Mark ii. 14; Luke v. 10f., 27, ix. 57-62; John i. 39, 43), to speak of Jesus as the one who called men, and to emphasise the fact that Jesus had called him and his companions directly through His own personal act, through the demonstration of His own glory and moral power, in contrast to the fact that all other Christians owed their call to the preaching of weak men, even that of Peter bimself (i. 16). The words δόξα καὶ ἀρετή are intended to suggest the evidences of miraculous knowledge and power, which Jesus had shown at the time of these calls (John i. 42, 47-51 ; Luke v. 4), and the impression of His moral greatness (Luke v. 8; John i. 49), which rendered impossible or overcame any resistance on the part of the one who was called. Especially in the first word we have expressed the same view of Jesus, as He lived in intereourse with His diseiples upon earth, that is found in i. 16 (above, p. 215) and in the words immediately preceding in ver. 8, τῆς θείας δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ ; for it may be regarded as certain that the reference in these expressions is to the supernatural power which dwelt in the man J esus, and not to the power of God as the Creator and Ruler of the wniverse— EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 221 partieularly in view of the fact that in ver. 1 Jesus is called our God and Saviour, and of the fact that, according to the more probable reading, God the Father is not mentioned at all in ver. 2. The same Jesus who personally called the apostles, by reason of His own divine power and through the knowledge of Himself, to which He led them, also bestowed upon them all true blessings (ra πάντα, NA ; cf. Rom. vili. 32), especially the things necessary for the true life and pious conduct (Matt. xi. 25-30, xiii. 11-17, xvi. 16-19 ; Luke xxii. 28-35 ; John vi. 68f.). It is this personal experience (cf. John i. 16, xvii. 2f., 6-18) from which the apostle derives the authority and the courage to express the wish for the readers in ver. 2. To this he comes back in ver. 4. With regard to variant readings, which are numerous, those affecting the order of the words are not of any great importance ; for even if ἡμῖν (or ὑμῖν) belongs between τίμια and καὶ μέγιστα, it must be taken. with δεδώρηται (having here also the force of a middle—“ He hath bestowed ”). ὑμῖν does not have very strong MS. authority (AS?, cursive 68), but the following may be said in its favour: (1) in the use of the N.T. Epistles in public worship, ὑμεῖς, which excluded the reader and preacher, was much more easily and frequently changed to ἡμεῖς, or entirely left out, than the reverse (ef. iii. 2); (2) the sudden transition to an address to the readers in ver. 4b without the insertion of a καὶ ὑμεῖς is intolerable, unless in 4a the readers are already clearly contrasted with the ἡμῖν, ἡμᾶς of ver. 3, through the use of ὑμῖν. Moreover, 8’ ὧν does not refer back to δυνάμει καὶ ἀρετῇ, Which would require δὲ ἧς ; still less does it refer to πάντα, which is far removed from the relative; but it does refer to ἡμᾶς, ü.e. the apostles. Christ called the apostles in person, through whom, i.e. through whose preaching, He had bestowed upon the readers precious and very great promises. § 42, THE OCCASION OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. From i. 12-14 alone the impression might be gained that the only purpose which the writer had in this letter was to exhort now from a distance the readers to whom he had once preached the gospel, by sending them a letter intended to take the place of the oral instructions he would not fail to give them were he living among them. This he promises also to do occasionally in the future: That he had a more definite purpose than this, however, is evidenced, first of all, by the fact that the encourage- ment of the readers to a well-rounded moral life on the basis of their Christian faith (i. 5) and knowledge (i. 8, 12; ef. 1. 2, iii. 18) is so variously reinforced by the prospect of the completion of their salvation. Even in the restate- 222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ment of the apostolie preaching the fact is strongly emphasised that in this preaching the return of Christ was made known to the readers (1. 16), and that the Lord had bestowed upon them through His disciples great and precious promises (1. 4; above, p. 220). The purpose of this revelation of the gospel is declared to be that the readers may become partakers of the divine nature in the future world, in contrast to the destruction which follows the indulgence of pleasure in this world (i. 4). In view of this glorious prospect, they are to spare neither pains nor sacrifice to make their faith and knowledge fruitful in the exhibition of all Christian virtues, in order that finally they may experience in rich measure God’s generous kind- ness in that great day when it is decided whether entrance is to be had into the eternal kingdom of Christ, or destruction with the world and its pleasures (i, 5-11). Reference is made to this day again in i. 19, and the readers are exhorted to give heed, until this day comes, to the word of the O.T. prophets, which the self-revelation of Jesus has only served to make more trustworthy for the apostles and all Christians, and which has lost none of its usefulness. The same combination of the thought of moral obligation and the expectation of the end of the world meets us again in ili. 2, where the words of the prophets are connected with the commandment of Jesus handed down through the apostles, and is found also throughout iii, 10-18 (above, p. 196). There is also a polemical note to be observed in both chap. i, and chap. iii. The moral requirements of i. 5-8 are reinforced by the warning reference to those with whom these Christian virtues are not to be found, and concern- ing whom it must be denied that they have the Christian knowledge; since by their conduct they show that they have forgotten the purification from their former sins which they experienced in baptism (i. 9, n. 1). These terrible examples do not seem to have belonged to the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 223 circle of the readers; for although the readers are ex- horted to growth in virtuous living (i. 8, iii. 18; ef. i. 2) and to zeal in their own sanctification (i. 10), yet the fact that they are addressed as brothers in this particular passage and nowhere else in the letter, the even more fervent ἀγαπητοί of 11. 1, 8, 14, 17, and the whole of the remainder of the Epistle, make it evident that Peter had a good opinion of them and full confidence in them. They not only possess and know the truth, but they stand fast in it (i. 12; ef. i. 17). But among those who confess Christianity there are persons who have learned nothing, who are not firm in the truth, and who thus easily become the prey of error and seduction (ii. 16; ef. ii. 14). And these persons who lack the Christian virtues, and are therefore immoral in character, are not only evil examples to the readers (1. 9), but also a threatening danger, against whom the readers must be warned beforehand, in order that they may not be led astray by them and so fall from their own established position (11. 17). A third thing to be noticed is the apologetic tone in the restatement of the apostolic preaching in i. 16-18. This must be explained as due to opposition, either to a depreciatory judgment of the apostolic preaching, or to other teachers who actually followed invented stories, and did not, like the disciples of Jesus, speak of the things of Christianity from their own personal knowledge of Jesus’ self-revelation. The latter view is favoured by the em- phatic way in which Peter says of himself and his com- panions, that they are the persons who have heard with their own ears the heavenly testimony concerning Jesus (i. 18, ἡμεῖς, omitted ini. 16); the former view is supported by the emphasis with which he assures the readers that he and his fellow-apostles were called by Jesus Himself (i. 3 ; above, p. 220). Thus, in brief, almost every one of the more noticeable statements of chap. 1. points forward to the contents of 224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT chap. ii. and chap. i., and gets its full meaning in the light of these chapters. It is here that the occasion of the letter first comes clearly to view. After the mention of the O.T. prophets in 1. 19-21, Peter goes on to say in ii. 1-3 that, just as in Israel the true prophets opposed those who wrongly claimed this name, so also among the readers, teachers will appear who do not deserve the name,—teachers who will smuggle in destructive heresies, find numerous followers, and covetously, by means of cunningly invented words, get gain at the expense of the Churches to which the letter is addressed (n. 2). The comparison with the false prophets of the O.T. does not imply that the persons in question claimed to be prophets ; but just as the false prophets in the O.T. were resisted by the true prophets, so in N.T. times the divinely com- missioned teachers of the Church, that is to say, the apostles, oppose those who set themselves up as teachers, and affect the teachers’ appearance and name—an opposi- tion which we saw appearing earlier in 1. 16-18 (see above). Just as the O.T. prophets and the apostles go naturally together (iii. 2; οὗ 1. 16-21), without their vocations being in any sense the same, so the false prophets of the O.T. and the false teachers in the Church are associated with each other, . These false prophets originated in Israel itself: so the false teachers arise out of the Church, Once they knew the way of righteousness and the Lord Christ, and through this knowledge escaped the impuri- ties of the worldly life. They have been washed from their former sins by baptism, have submitted themselves to the holy commandment, and for a time have walked in the straight way of truth and righteousness. Now, how- ever, they have given up all this, and have become worse than they were before their conversion (11, 15, 20-22, i. 9); by their deeds they deny the Lord who bought them that they might be Ilis servants (ii. 2). In ehap. 1]. they are charged with various forms of immoral living, EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 225 especially unchastity (11. 10, 14, 18, 20). It is in this that they will find many followers, and so cause the Christian doctrine to be blasphemed (ii. 2). The reference to the trespass of the angels who before the Flood had sexual intercourse with women (ü. 4; Gen. vi. 1-4), and to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (ii. 6 f.; Gen. xix.), suggests the unnatural vices of which they were the slaves. In particular, they made the love-feasts an oceasion not only for gluttonous eating, but for seducing unsteadfast souls (11. 13f; n. 3). They preferred to use their seductive arts on those recently converted, who were not yet firmly grounded in the Christian life (ii. 14, 18). In doing this they claim to be teachers. of Christianity (ii. 1). They make of their teaching a prosperous business at the expense of the Churches: (ii. 3, 14). This is one of the points in which they resemble the heathen prophet Balaam (11. 15). The other point in which they are like him is in the evil counsel which Balaam gave, 1.6. the betrayal of the people of God into unchastity, for which he was responsible (n. 3). The cunningly chosen language by which they endeavour to deceive the Churches and to lead individuals astray (ii. 3 ; ef. Rom. xvi. 18), sounds like promises of freedom (ii. 19). This same unbridled indulgence of the passions which makes these persons themselves slaves of sin and destrue- tion they recommend to others, who heretofore have lived honourably, as the Christian freedom which they still lack (cf 1 Pet. ii. 16). Another indication of the character of their teaching is seen in the fact that they despise the ruling powers of the other world, and revile them without fear and trembling, even evil spirits against which angels themselves do not dare to utter a reviling and disparag- ing judgment (11. 10 ἢ, 18). While Peter accuses them of ignorance, or at least insufticient appreciation, of the evil spirits they blaspheme (ii, 12; cf. i. 9, iii, 16), they themselves boast a full familiarity with them (Rey. ii. 24), VOL. II. τς 226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which accounts for the confidence with which they speak so contemptuously of the devil and his servants, treating them as harmless beings. It is also to be observed that they mock the vain waiting of Christianity for the return of the Lord (ii. 3f.). For it is impossible to distinguish between the libertines of chap. ii. and those who make light of prophecy in chap. ui. The latter also are immoral in their lives, and from their immoral tendencies Peter explains their denial of the prophecy concerning the end of the world (ii. 3 £.); just as, on the other hand, he derives the obligation to sanctification from the well- grounded hope of the disappearance of this world and the coming of another in which righteousness dwells (iii. 10-14). In this same connection also he speaks once more of seduction on the part of wicked men, against whom he would have the readers forewarned (iii. 17). The combining of moral demands with the expectation of the end of the world, which comes to light in chap. i. and runs through the entire letter, is due to the fact that Peter designs to warn his readers against alleged teachers of Christianity, who unite immoral theories and practices with contempt for prophecy. So long as the discussion of this Epistle proceeded on the basis of the undemonstrable hypothesis that 2 Peter, like 1 Peter, was directed to the Gentile Christian Churches of Asia Minor, there remained the insuperable difficulty that, while the appearance of the false teachers and scoffers is prophesied to take place in the future (ii. 1-3, im. 3), and the readers are forewarned against them, ii. 17 (11. 10-22, ili, 4 ἢ, 9, ὥς τινες βραδυτῆτα yyodraı; cf. also i. 9, iii. 16), the same persons are de- scribed connectedly, accurately, and apparently from life in the present tense. The transition from the prophecy of future phenomena to the description of present condi- tions in 2 Tim. iii. 1-9 and other passages of the last Mpistles of Paul, is not really parallel with the present case EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 227 above, p. 1111} Even less satisfactory is the citation of such passages as Rey. xi. 4 ff. (Hofmann, vii. 2. 60). On the other hand, the explanation is simple, if it be recog- nised that 2 Peter was, or purported to be, directed to a sroup of Jewish Christian Churches between 60 and 63 (§ 41), in addition to which there existed a widely spread Gentile Christian Church. The writer distinguishes clearly between his readers who uniformly hold and steadfastly maintain a true faith, which they need only to assert and to put into general practice (1. 1, 5, 10, 12, i. 1, 17 f.), and the false teachers and the circles in which they exert their influence. The false teachers will not arise out of their midst (cf. Acts xx. 30; 1 Johnüi. 19; Rev. 11. 14-16, 20-23), but will come from without—appear among them, and seek to profit by them, and lead them astray (2 Pet. 1. 1-3; cf. Acts xx. 29). It is not their existence but their appearance that pertains to the future. The contrast is not between the loyal and genuine Christians among the readers, and others among them whose lives are un- christian and whose faith is wavering, as, for example, in Rev. ἢ. 24, ui, 4. Rather, the readers as a body, who are regarded as having been up to this time faithful, and as maintaining a correct faith and a true knowledge, are contrasted not only with the immoral persons and false teachers who will attack them in the future (iii, 17, i. 9), but also with another group of Christians, or Churches, in which conditions are to be observed that are as. yet foreign to the readers. This is shown with especial clear- ness by the transition from ii. 16 to 111. 17. Peter could not address the readers as a whole with an emphatic ὑμεῖς οὖν, nor speak of their ἴδιος στηρυγμός, if the persons previ- ously described (οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι) as perverting certain difficult passages in the Epistles of Paul to their own destruction, had belonged to their own circle. Paul once wrote a letter to the readers of 2 Peter (iii. 15; above, p. 199), which has not come down to us. ‚The 228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT numerous other letters of Paul, concerning which Peteı has knowledge (iii. 16), were addressed to other Churches, and, excepting only Romans of the letters known to us, to Gentile Christians. It was among Gentile Christians that they were read. Consequently it is here that we must seek the Christians who lacked adequate knowledge of Christianity, and requisite stability of moral or religious training, and who therefore wrested difficult single state- ments in the letters of Paul from their natural connection, perverted them, and applied them to life in a way that was harmful to themselves. It will be observed that this takes place in the present, not in the future, concerning which prophecies are made in ii, 1-3, and which is referred to in iii. 17 (προγινώ- oxovtes), These persons belong in the future only in relation to the readers, who are warned against them beforehand. The two adjectives in iii. 16, which are used with only one article, do not describe two distinct classes. As regards their moral condition, these same persons are portrayed in i. 17 by a single word, of ἄθεσμοι. But the expression ἀστήρικτοι suggests immediately 11. 14, where it is said that these false teachers prefer to entice unstead- fast souls. These unsteadfast souls are identical with those who in ii. 18, according to the correct reading, are called τοὺς ὀλύγως ἀποφεύγοντας, 1.6. persons who are just escaping the sinful life and its consequent destruction (ef. i. 4, il. 20), who are, in fact, only a few steps removed from it, and therefore possessed of thoughts and habits to a large extent such as held them before they became Christians, or, in ecclesiastical language, catechumens or neophytes (ef. 1 Cor. ii. 2 ἢ, v. 1, 6, vi. 1-20, xv. 33%. ; 2 Cor. vi. 14-18; 1 Tim. iii. 6). Thus ἀστήρικτοι refers more to the persons enticed by the false teachers than to the seducers themselves. Naturally the ἀστήρικτοι are also ἀμαθεῖς ; since, if they had learned what was correct, they would have been confirmed by the truth dwelling in EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 229 them, as were the readers of 2 Peter (i. 12, mi. 17). But when it is borne in mind that Peter does not charge those who allow themselves to be led astray by false teachers so much with ἀμαθία as with a lack of experience and con- firmation in Christianity (11. 14, 18), while, on the other hand, he uses various expressions for accusing the false teachers of an ignominious ignorance, a loss of their first knowledge of Christ, and a thoughtlessness about Chris- tian things (il. 12, 16, 20f., i. 5), it becomes apparent that it is especially for the latter that ἀμαθεῖς is in- tended, so that it quite appropriately precedes ἀστήρικτοι. Seducers and those enticed by them alike believe or pretend that in certain passages of Paul’s Epistles, and in other writings which they similarly misinterpret, they find support for their immoral teachings. In the same manner as in 111. 16, the present tenses in i. 10-22 describe existing phenomena with which Peter had become familiar elsewhere than among the readers. In particular, what Peter says in 11. 13 f. about the misuse of the Agape by the libertines is inappropriate to a prophecy intended to describe future phenomena in large outlines or in a symbolic form. It is especially inap- propriate to the prophecy of 2 Peter which deals with future phenomena among the readers of this Epistle. Moreover, according to the corrected text of 11. 13, these love-feasts, the name and holy purpose of which the libertines profane, are celebrated outside of the circle of the readers. Whether such feasts were common among the readers and called ayaraı, it is impossible to say (n. 3). Peter foresees and predicts that these teachers will find numerous followers in their immoral living, which implies that this was not yet the case (ii. 2). Since the region where they will gain this following is not named, and since this prediction is accompanied by another quite independent prediction that these teachers will make their 230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT appearance among the readers and endeavour to lead them astray (1. 1,8, i. 17), it follows that u. 2 refers te results in the same region where they have been active heretofore, ae. outside the circle of the readers, or, in other words, among Gentile Christians. Eventually also these persons will) brmg their arts to bear upon the spiritual children of Peter and the other immediate dis- ciples of Jesus. What the result will be is, to say the least, not clearly stated, not even in 11. 1 (αἱρέσεις). Peter makes every endeavour to prevent their gaining followers among his readers, and says simply that judgment upon them has long been impending and will not be delayed Of an altogether different character is the prediction of ii. 8. Here Peter himself is not directly the prophet. The manner in which the revelation of the end of the world is introduced (τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, 11]. 3; cf. i. 20; 2 Tim. im. 1; Rom. vi. 6; Jas. i. 3), shows that he does not intend to say here anything really new, but merely to remind the readers of the prophesied appear- ance of immoral scoffers, and of how they are to be answered, just as they are reminded of the commandment of Jesus and the prophecies of the O.T. prophets (ii. 2, n. 4). Here he appeals, just as Paul does (above, p. 111 ff), to prophecy, which was still current in the Church. Not altogether independently of traditional sayings of Jesus, this foretold a falling away, and moral degeneracy within the Church in the last days. Probably also prophecy declared, following again predictions of Jesus (Luke xvii. 26f.; Matt. xxiv. 37 ff.; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 20; 2 Pet. ἃ, 5, iii. 5), that, owing to the long time it would be necessary to wait for the parousia of the Lord (Matt. xxiv. 48, xxv. 5; Luke xii. 45), degenerate members of the Church, who were sunk in the life of the world, would go so far as to seoff at the promise. Prophecy declared this to be a sign of the last days; but Peter does not say that for EPISTLES OF PETER); JUDE, AND HEBREWS 231 him and the readers these are future days. In fact, inasmuch as he uses direct discourse in quoting the scoffers, —employing language which is apparently reproduced from life (111. 4, n. 5),—and imasmuch as he describes the ignorance to which this insolent language is due in the present tense (ii. 5), it is clear that he regards this pre- diction as already fulfilled in definite persons and events existing in the present. The time which to him is present is the last time (cf. 1 John ü. 18; Jas. v. 3, 7-9). But since, as has been shown (above, p. 226), these scoffers, whose scornful language concerning the parousia was only one of their characteristics, are not different from the libertines, we know also that Peter became acquainted with them among the Gentile Christian Churches outside the circle of his readers. That they, too, would make their way to the readers, he does not need to repeat. The earnest effort to guard his people against. the treacherous power of these particular ideas of the false teachers (ii. 8-13), shows that Peter did not expect the appearance among them of harmful ideas of every kind, but of false teachers of a definite character, who were both libertines and despisers of prophecy. This, however, does not exclude the possibility that those among whom they find entrance will appropriate in some cases one, in other instances the other side of their doctrine and, view of the world, and thus give rise to various movements or parties, all of which would be harmful (ü. 1). Although in this letter, as in the earlier one to which reference is made in iii. 1, Peter may have met a pressing need, and fulfilled his obligation to give to the Churches, to which he along with others once brought the gospel, the benefit of his fatherly instruction by writing to them now from a distance, at the same time the occasion for letters such as this and the earlier one like it, was the experiences he had recently had in Churches outside that were for the most part Gentile Christian. There he saw 232 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the representatives of a dangerous tendency gaining an influence both by teaching and example, —a tendeney which he, without being himself a prophet, but simply under the influence of prophecy as it existed in the Church, foresaw would increase in power and make its way into the Jewish Christian Church. Whether it is really Peter who utters this warning against such a movement, or someone in the second century, who, under the mask of Peter as a prophet, describes what had actually taken place since Peter’s time, cannot be decided until after the Epistle of Jude, which contains references to similar phenomena, has been in- vestigated. | 1. (P. 222.) Καθαρισμός, 1. 9, cannot mean, as Spitta supposes, continuous self-purification, for the reason that this has not been forgotten (λήθην λαβόντες) by the persons here described, but left off by them at the present time. Moreover, ra πάλαι ἁμαρτήματα (NAK, etc.) are not the sinful habits formed before their conversion and not yet entirely overcome, which might possibly be called παλαιαὶ ἁμαρτίαι (ef. 1 Cor. ν. 7; Rom. vi. 6, vii. 6; Eph. iv. 22), but their sins committed aforetime (Rom. iii. 25; Heb. ix. 15; cf. 1 Pet. i. 14, iv. 3; Eph. ii. 2; Justin, Apol.i. 61, τὰ προημαρτημένα ; Hermas, Vis. i. 3.1; Mand. iv. 3. 3; Sim. viii. 11. 3). Accordingly, καθαρισμός can mean only the purification from the guilt of sin, which Christians experience once for all (Mark i. 44; Heb. i. 3) when they are called and chosen (2 Pet. i. 10), and are cleansed in baptism (1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 26; 1 Pet. i. 2; Heb. x. 22; Acts xxii. 16). Also in 2 Pet. ii. 20-22, where the word xa@a- ρισμός is not found, the figurative λουσαμένη, ver. 22, refers to the washing of baptism, and the ἀποφυγόντες τὰ μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου, ver. 20, to the salvation from the curse of sin which takes place once for all and accompanies baptism. 2. (P. 224.) As in the case of ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος (above, p. 126f.), so in the case of ψευδοπροφήτης and ψευδοδιδάσκαλος (ii. 1), it is not permissible to separate the adjective from the verb (διδάσκειν, προφητεύειν), construing ψεῦδος, ψεύδη, as objects of the verbal idea, Analogies, such as ψευδάδελῴφος (Gal, ii. 4; 2 Cor. xi, 26), ψευδαπόστολος (2 Cor. xi. 13), ψευδόχριστος (Mark xiii. 22), absolutely determine the meaning. Even a ψευδομάρτυς is not so called because he makes false statements, but because he pretends to have seen or heard something which he has not seen or heard (Matt. xxvi. 60 ; cf. Acts vi. 11). The LXX does not read ψευδοπροφήτης in Isa. ix. 14 (“ The prophet who teaches lies”), but does use it in Jer. vi. 13, xxvii. 9, xxviil. 1, xxix. 1, 8, Zech. xiii. 2, where the original text has simply xj, the context making it clear that this title is wrongly borne. αἱρέσεις is here translated “separatist tendencies ἢ (Sonderrichtungen), with Hofmann, vii. 2. 46, in order by the use of this ambiguous term to leave it undecided whether the word EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 233 is here used in the sense of sects, parties, as in Acts v. 17, xv. 5, xxiv. 5, 14, 1 Cor. xi. 19, Gal. v. 20, or in the sense of a general view contrary to Chris- tianity, as possibly in Ign. Trall. vi. 1; Eph. vi. 2. In opposition to Spitta (120f.), it is to be remarked that αἵρεσις never means a single view or tenet along with which as many other tenets as one chooses: may be held (in the literature of the ancient Church even the entire system of a Marcion or of an Arius was regularly regarded as only a single heresy), and that in its Christian usage αἵρεσις is never a neutral idea which comes to have a bad sense only by the addition of some such word as arwAeas,—for the follow- ing reasons : (1) Ignatius is not the first to use this word in a bad sense as applying to conditions among Christians ; it is so used in 1 Cor. xi. 19 ; Gal. v. 20; Tit. iii. 10. (2) According to the view of the apostolic age and of the ancient Church,—and this is the basis of the ecclesiastical usage of the word,— the Christian was not at liberty arbitrarily to choose from among existing views and tendencies one that pleased him, but was bound to obey the gospel as the truth. With regard to the much-disputed construction of ii. 1, it may at the outset be considered certain that we cannot, with Spitta (123 ff.), take the words καὶ---ἀρνούμενοι, ἐπάγοντες----ἀπώλειαν as referring to the O.T. false prophets. After the important statement about the pseudo-Christian teachers, it stands to reason that, in order to refer back to the O.T. prophets, ἐκείνοι would be necessary. Further, there is nothing to explain the use of the present participles, ἀρνούμενοι, ἐπάγοντες, instead of the aorists, which the sense would require, nor to account for the break in the construction of the sentence, which in this case it would be necessary to assume. Consistency would require that also αὐτῶν (ver. 2) be taken to refer to the O.T. false prophets, and the πολλοί, who are at least similar to the spurious teachers of ver. 1,—so far as by Spitta’s own confession, 128, they teach in a harmful manner within the Church, ver. 3,—would be docile followers of the O.T. false prophets,—for this is the relation expressed by ἐξακολουθήσουσιν, ver. 2 (cf. i. 16, ii. 15),—and not that the O.T. false prophets were merely types of the immorality and the fate of these teachers. As a matter of fact, however, there is very little to be learned from the O.T. about the teaching and conduct of the false prophets, and nothing at all with regard to their final destiny. At the latter point the lack is not supplied by the threat of destruction in Deut. xiii. 2-6—a passage which Spitta thinks (126) Peter here had in mind ; indeed, throughout the description of phenomena within the Church, which is given us in 2 Pet. ii.-iii., there is no reference to the case under discussion in Deut. xiii. 2-6, namely, betrayal into idolatry by a false prophet. Balaam, whose followers the false Christians and teachers here referred to are declared to be (ii. 15), was not a false prophet from among the people (ii. 1), but a heathen. Neither in the LXX nor by Peter is he called a false prophet, but only a prophet who sinned and led others into sin. Of his end (Num. xxxi. 8) Peter makes no mention. If Peter had had a substantive at his command, such as ἀρνηταί or drapvnrai, and had used this or προδόται instead of ἀρνούμενοι, no one would find him obseure when he says: “ Among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall bring in destructive heresies, and deniers of the Lord that bought them, who bring upon themselves swift destruction ” (cf. the co-ordination of participles, substantives, and adjectives in Rom. i. 29-31). Just as ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι has dependent upon it the relative clause, so ἀρνούμενοι 234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT governs the qualifying participial phrase that follows it. But there are not two different classes of persons described, only a double characterisation of one and the same class; although, of course, it is possible that in some in- dividuals in this class teaching is more prominent, while the connection of others with the: movement is mainly through their feelings and manner of life. This was true of the “Scribes and Pharisees” (Matt. v. 20). Nor is there any reason to complain about the lack of logical order in the passage. We have the statement about the disciples whom these teachers will gain followed by the relative clause of ver. 2b, which is logically independent, and then the discourse returns in an entirely natural way to the principal sub- ject, namely, the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, the thought of whom is kept in mind by the use of αὐτῶν in ver. 2. In ver. 2, Peter speaks quite generally of a large following which these teachers will secure (πολλοί without ὑμῶν or ἐξ ὑμῶν); in ver. 3 he states how these same persons will endeavour to gain an entrance among the readers. | Nor does it seem to the writer to be to the point to talk as Spitta does (122 f.) about the “logical folly” of putting what was intended from the start to be the principal statement into the comparative sentence, os kat ἐν ὑμῖν κτλ. (ver. 1b); while the existence of false prophets in Israel, which is intended to be only an analogy, is expressed in the principal clause (ver. 1a). It is clear on any interpretation that not only in the words és— ἀπωλείας, but also in ii. 2-22, the subject under discussion is not the false prophets of the O.T., but the analogous phenomena within Christianity. It is known that the Greek language can add in the form of a relative clause a logically independent and even strongly emphatic statement, which we express more clearly by the use of “and” and a demonstrative sentence (ef. Rom. ii. 29, iii. 8; Gal. ii. 10; Acts xiii. 43, and all three of the relative clauses in 2 Pet. ii. 1-3; Kiihner-Gerth, 11. 433 f.; A. Buttmann, 243 [Eng. trans. 282f.]). So not infrequently ὡς or ὡς καί is equivalent to ‘and so” (cf. Kühner-Gerth, ii. 431, A. 4). The phrase “and so does Paul also in all his letters,” in 2 Pet. iii. 16, is an independent statement con- cerning which more is said below. After the statements in i. 19-20, especially the last sentence of which might seem to imply that all pro- phecy in the O.T. era was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it was quite natural to state definitely that there were also false prophets in Israel. This would be the case even if there were no intention of making further mention of them, but simply of preparing the way for the further statement that in the realm of Christian revelation, besides the apostles whose message was true, there are and will continue to be false teachers against whom the Churches must be on their guard. In the case of the “ prophetic word,” a safeguard against error is found in the fact that it is only the messages of the true prophets of olden time which are found in Scripture (γραφῆς, i. 20; οἵ, Rom. i. 2), not those of the false prophets against whom the true prophets had to contend. In the realm of Christian teaching this was not yet true at the time when 2 Pet. was written. A Christian literature, produced by the true witnesses of Christ, was only in process of formation (i. 12-15, iii. 15, 16). This made it all the more necessary to remind the readers, that as there were false prophets in Israel, so there are or will be also false teachers in the Christian Church. If all that follows the first mention of the ψευδουδιδάσκαλοι refers to these persons, 6 ἀγοράσας αὐτοὺς δεσπότης EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 235 naturally refers to Christ (ef. Jude 4, and the use of the word δεσποσύνοι ta designate the relatives of Jesus, a manner of speech common in Palestine, Eus. H. HE. i. 7. 14). For ἀγοράζειν, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23—the latter passage in its context. They are legally “Slaves of Christ” (ef. 2 Pet. i.1). 3. (Pp.225,229.) Bythe “ Way of Balaam,” as contrasted with the “Straight way ” (ii. 15), the “Way of truth” (ii. 2), and the “Way of righteousness” (ii. 21), must be meant all that is recorded concerning his deeds in Num. xxii. 5-xxiv. 25, including the evil counsel he gave in Num. xxxi. 16 (cf. xxv. 1 f., 18), which in Rey. ii. 14 is called the “ Teaching of Balaam” ; cf. Didymus in Jud. 11 (Migne, 39, 1816). But it is to be observed that while the people did come to the point where they worshipped the gods of the Moabites (Num. xxv. 2f., 5), it is always the unchastity connected with the feast that stands in the foreground (xxv. 1, 6-18, xxxi. 15f., especially in Jos. Ant. iv. 6. 6-13). Consequently in Rev. ii. 14, 20, also the reference is not to idolatry, but to participation in idolatrous feasts and unchastity. In 2 Pet. the analogy seems to be even more limited. The reference is neither to the attendance upon idolatrous feasts nor to idolatrous worship. On the contrary, it is the meals eaten by Christians in connection with their worship in which the followers of Balaam take part at least with unchaste thought and looks (so according to ii. 13 f., especially if the correct reading in this passage be ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις αὐτῶν, συνευωχούμενοι ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες KTA.). If ᾿ἀγάπαις is to be accepted as the correct reading of Jude 12 on account of the close relationship of the two Epistles, it may be regarded almost certainly as the correet reading in 2 Pet. ii. 13; for ἀπάταις, which is more strongly attested here than in Jude 12, does not have the appear- ance of being, and certainly is not, an isolated paronomasia for love-feasts, but is a change made by a copyist who thought that he was correcting an error; and this is so whether the word stood in the original which Jude had before him, or was an alteration made by the author of 2 Pet. of the aydraıs which he found in Jude ; see above, p. 211, ἢ. 1. Tischen- dorf’s apparatus is misleading, in that it says nothing about the ὑμῖν after συνευωχούμενοι. It is not found in the earliest translations of the Syrians (53), Egyptians (Sahidie Version, Woide-Ford, p. 213), and Latins (Speculum pseudo-Augustini, 640. 9 ; the pseudo-Cyprian de Singularitate clericorwm, 28 ; unfortunately this part of the Palimps. Flor. is wanting), and is to be omitted here as in Jude 12 on the ground that it is an addition made to ovvevo- xovpevor, being apparently required by the συν. In Jude 12 it is unnecessary after ev ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν; because in thought everyone supplies ὑμῖν. The consequence is that the reading is much less strongly attested than in 2 Pet. ii. 13. But here also it can be omitted as unnecessary, since συνευωχεῖσθαι does not always necessarily mean “To feast with others,” but can also signify, especially with a plural subject, “ To feast with one another”; cf. συσσιτεῖν, συσσιτία, τὰ συσσίτια, OF συμπίνειν παρά τινι, to take part in a symposium at the home of another (Xen. Cyrop. v. 2.28). This is the meaning here, and ὑμῖν does not harmonise with ταῖς ἀγάπαις αὐτῶν, although the two are con- nected in B. This addition once accepted into the text must have helped to give currency to the reading ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν, if, indeed, it did not pro- duce it. On the other hand, where ayaraıs was retained, αὐτῶν, which is undoubtedly genuine, was sometimes omitted, because it did not harmonise 236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT with ὑμῖν, as, e.g. in Cod. Amiat. of the Vulgate. Peter says concerning these false teachers, these “spots and blemishes” of Christianity, these “ Children of the curse”: “they revel at their love-feasts, hold their banquets or common carousals with eyes full of adulterous desire, and entice the unwary with hearts practised in covetousness and hardened by it.” Nothing is said which implies that unchastity itself was practised at these love- feasts. This enticement was not, as the accompanying characterisation shows, a direct temptation to impure actions, but a temptation to accept libertine principles (ef. ii. 3, 19). It would also be strange to speak only of lustful looks, and in a connection like this not so much as hint at what was worst in the conduct of these persons. But this leaves in full force the charge of sinful living, even of unnatural vices (above, p. 224f.). The love-feasts are not described as meals eaten in company by an entire Church, but as meals eaten by the libertines. From this passage alone it might be inferred that these meals and their name were an invention of these persons, and that Peter rejects both the thing and the name, as does Clemens Alexandrinus (Ped. ii. 88 4-7 ; Strom. iii. §§ 10, 11, vii. § 98). But this view is made impossible by Jude 12, and by ecclesiastical usage elsewhere from Ignatius on (cf. PRE,® 1,234 ff.). But we also learn from Ignatius that, as early as the beginning of the second century, the meals (love-feasts) which ended with the Eucharist were not always eaten by the whole Church together under the direction of the officers of the Church, but that certain persons who did not accept the common faith of the Church availed themselves of this freedom and held private love-feasts (ad Smyrneos, vii.-ix. ; ad Philadelphenos, iv. ; cf. the writer’s Iynatius, 342 f., 347 f., 363 f.). 4. (P. 230.) When iii. 3 is joined with iii. 1, 2, the possibility is not excluded that Peter had said something similar to iii, 3-7 in his. earlier letter. But even in that case, especially if the form of the earlier com- munication is to some extent here retained, Peter does not himself prophesy anything distinctly new. Spitta (228-233) goes too far when he claims that because what is said in 111, 3 ff. has no sufficient basis in the preceding portion of 2 Pet., the earlier Epistle of Peter must have been “ mainly eschatological in its contents,” containing a reference to the scoffers of the last age. The statement concerning the essential contents and purpose of the two letters applies to what follows as well as to what precedes (above, p. 210, n. 1); while the break in the construction, by the use of the nominative γινώσκοντες, which renders the clause more independent, makes it all the more impossible to infer from the connection of iii. 3 with the μνησθῆναι of ui, 2, by the use of the word γινώσκοντες, that iii. 3-4 or iii. 3-7 is a recapitulation either of the preceding parts of 2 Pet. or of Peter’s lost letter. μνησθῆναι introduces not an elaborate reminder of statements which have already been made, but an independent truth which needs to be impressed upon the readers’ minds, only not a truth which needs to be preached to them as something entirely new. Of. the parallel passages, above, p. 230. 5. (P. 231.) We should understand the actual language of the og iiien 5 in iii. 4 better if they were quoted more often. Spitta (233) is right in rejecting the suggestion of Bengel, Hofmann, and others, that αὐτοῦ expresses irreverence on the part of the persons speaking. In this regard the expression is not different from the ἐκεῖνος of the apostles (above, p. 215 f.) and the αὐτός of EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 237 the Pythagoreans (Scholium on Aristophanes, The Clouds, 195, ed. Dindorf, i.'196). These persons do speak contemptuously of the devil and his servants (ii. 10-12 ; above, p. 225 f.), besides indulging in other extravagant language (ii. 18); but it is altogether unlikely that these clever teachers of Christianity would have spoken disrespectfully of Christ, Himself, or of God. That, however, the reference is to Christ and not to God, becomes all the more certain if it be held that the persons here speaking are Gentile Christians. The question, “Where is the promise of its coming?” arose simply in connection with the parousia, concerning which Jesus had spoken in a manner implying that His contemporaries would experience it (Matt xxiv. 34; Mark xiii. 30; Luke xxi. 32; Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27). This determines also the meaning of οἱ πατέρες. Even if this word alone or with ἡμῶν can mean all the forebears of the persons speak- ing,—as, e.g. in the case of Jesus, the Israelites of the ancient dispensation (Heb. i. 1= Matt. xxiii. 30),—the idea that these could or were expected to experience the parousia of Jesus is entirely incongruous. Only the immediate ancestors of the scoffers, and the men of that generation,—naturally only those of them who were at the same time members of the Church to which Christ promised His parousia,—could have expected, and actually did expect, to live until the parousia. The difference between the view of Spitta, who thinks that this word should be limited to the actual fathers of the scoffers (237), and that of the others, who think that it refers to all the first generation of Christians, is negligible. The absence of a ἡμῶν, and the unlikelihood that the false teachers consisted exclusively of the children of Christian parents, which even in the second century would have been a rare coincidence, favour the latter view. The older generation, which expected to live to share in the parousia, has passed away, and still it does not come ; all remains as it was in former generations. In view of this fact, the younger generation throws the entire promise overboard. It would imply a strange misunder- standing of the natural use of language in all ages to claim that before such an expression as this could be used, the first Christian generation must have entirely disappeared. What Christian in the second century, writing a letter in Peter’s name, would not have known that the Apostle John, for example, outlived Peter, and have realised that Peter himself, in whose name he here speaks, was one of the πατέρες, all of whom are supposed to have died when 2 Pet. was written! As one after another of these ἀρχαῖοι μαθηταί (Acts xxi. 16) passed away without having had fulfilled the hope of living to see the parousia (Acts vii. 60, xii. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 6, xi. 30; 1 Thess. iv. 13), it was extremely natural to declare the entire expectation a dream. The expression used is an unnatural hyperbole only if the letter purports to have been written between the years 30 and 50. If, on the: other hand, it is to be referred to the years between 60 and 63, then an entire generation (from thirty to thirty-three years) had elapsed since Jesus had prophesied His parousia. This date is confirmed by the present passage. The diffi- culty arising from the fact that a double terminus a quo is given (ἀφ᾽ As... ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, cf. the repeated ἕως, Matt. v. 18), cannot be got rid of by assuming with Spitta (235) that the construction of the first ἀπό is pregnant (prior to which [sc. parousia], 1.6. “before the coming of which, the fathers fell asleep”). This is evident for the following reasons: (1) there are no 238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT really analogous examples in the N.T. (ef. also the writer’s Hirt des Hermas. 490) ; (2) aß’ ἧς (1 Mace. i. 11 ; Acts xxiv. 11; Hermas, Sim. viii. 1, 4, vi 6: ef. Acts xx. 18) is a frequent ellipsis for ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας (Col. i. 6, 9), or for ἀφ᾽ οὗ (Ex. v. 23; Josh. xiv. 10; Luke xiii. 25, xxiv. 21). Apart from the above consideration is also the fact (3) that γάρ following ἀφ᾽ ἧς would be impossible if it introduced a real relative clause, and if the phrase were not rather equivalent to am’ ἐκείνης (ἡμέρας) 7. The language used is very much compressed, but its meaning can hardly be mistaken: “Since the fathers fell asleep, (the expected world revolution has not taken place any more than during their lifetime, but) all remains (just as it was) from the beginning of the creation.” § 43. EPISTLE OF JUDE. The author of this Epistle introduces himself to the readers as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, but brother of James.” The order and connection of the two designa- tions which he adds to the name show that the second of these additions was not a term in common use, and it might seem as if it were necessary in order to distinguish this Jude from numerous other persons bearing the same name (n. 1). But even if ıt were necessary to make such distinction, that is not the purpose of the addition here. For if this were the meaning, ἀδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου, which in this case could hardly have the article omitted before it (ef. Mark ii. 17, ν. 37; John vi. 8; Acts xil.2; Gal. i. 19), would necessarily stand directly after the name, and could not be placed in such evident contrast to the preceding designation of the writer as a Christian by a de This contrast is very peculiar, since kinship with a Christian of whatever name does not stand in contrast to the relationship of service to Jesus, nor does the idea of kinship help to define the same (but ef. Tit. i. 1; above, p. 47). Even the earliest interpreters saw correctly that the one here speaking might have called himself a brother of some greater. person, but preferred to designate himself his servant, using the title brother ; thus set free, as it were, to indicate his relation- ship to James (n. 2). Jude was one of the brothers of the Lord, who, like Peter and other apostles, laboured in EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 230 the year 57 as preachers of the gospel in various places (1 Cor. ix. 5; Matt. xim. 55; Mark vi. 3; John vii. 3-8; Acts i. 14; vol. i. p: 105). If reference to a brother in- stead of a father, in order to distinguish one from a com- panion of the same name, is unusual, and presupposes oreat pre-eminence on the part of the brother in question, such pre-eminence obtains peculiarly in the present in- stance, where James is mentioned for an entirely different purpose. He can be no other than the distinguished James, who since the death of the son of Zebedee had been regularly called simply James (Acts ΧΙ]. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18; Gal. τ. 9, 12; 1 Cor. xv. 7), and who himself uses this name only at the beginning of his letter, not calling himself a brother of the Lord, as others called him (Gal. i. 19), but a servant of God and of Christ. Just as the absence of the apostolic title at the beginning of James, a letter addressed to the entire Church of the time, proves that the James who wrote it was not an apostle, so the similar omission at the beginning of Jude, which is also intended for a large circle of readers, proves that this Jude was not an apostle. This, if anywhere, was the appropriate place for such mention, and in the letters of Peter and Paul it regularly occurs here at the beginning. The conclusion thus drawn from Jude 1 is confirmed by Jude 17; for, although the mere mention of the apostles cannot of itself prove that the person speaking is not an apostle (above, p. 218, n. 7), nevertheless the solemn expression, “ The apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which is without parallel, would sound very unnatural if spoken by an apostle. In a passage which seems to resemble this (Eph. ii. 5), Paul, whose position was a peculiar one, does not identify himself with the apostles (vol. i. p. 506f.). And there is nothing to sug- gest that Jude was one of the personal disciples of Jesus, a fact so strongly emphasised by the writer of 2 Peter, and at least not concealed by the writer of 1 Peter. 240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Of the history of Jude's life we know practically nothing. From Matt. xiii.. 55, where he is mentioned last. among the brothers of Jesus, and from Mark vi. 3, where his name occupies the place next to the last, it may possibly be inferred that he is the youngest brother of Jesus, or at least one of the younger brothers. In their relation to Jesus the development of all the brothers seems to have been the same (John vii. 3-8 ; Acts i, 14), There is no need to repeat here what has been. said concerning James in this respect (vol. i. p. 105), While James, the unmarried ascetic, did not leave Jerusalem and the temple, and so is certainly not included’ among those mentioned in 1 Cor. ix. 5, Jude was one of the brothers of Jesus here mentioned, who, like Peter and other apostles, made preaching tours accompanied by their wives. Naturally, in the case of Jude as in the case of the older apostles, these tours were confined to the “cities of Israel” (Matt. x. 23; Gal. ἢ. 9; above, p. 208). If he was born several years later than Jesus, say somewhere near the tenth year of our era, he may have survived the destruction of Jerusalem a number of years. Hegesippus informs us that toward the end of the reign of Domitian, therefore about the year 95, two grandsons of Jude, who made their living by farming, were brought before the emperor charged with being descendants of David, and Christians. He says, moreover, that these charges were made by certain heretics. Ac- cording to the same writer, they afterwards occupied a prominent place in the Church of Palestine until some time in the reign of Trajan (98-117), as did also the aged Simeon, a cousin of Jesus and of their grandfather Jude, who is mentioned as the second bishop of Jerusalem (Bus. IH. E. wi. 19 f., 32. 5 f. ; ef. Forsch. vi, 238 ff.) The fact that Jude calls himself a brother of James shows that he is addressing Christians, among whom the latter was highly esteemed, or, if he was no longer living, among whom EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 24: his memory was sacredly revered. Especially, if the latter were the case, the manner in which Jude mentions him- self is natural. The lips of the leader so highly honoured in the Jewish Christian Church are sealed; a part of his duty, at least, is inherited by his brother, while another part falls to his cousin Simeon. Notwithstanding the meagreness of the edit con- cerning the intends of Jesus, it is to be assumed that Jude had not laboured outside of the Jewish Christian world. There are no indications of it in his letter, such as are so abundant in 1 Peter. The designation of the readers would apply to the entire Church, or to any particular part of it; but there is not a single word to indicate that Jude was under necessity of first intro- ducing himself to his readers, or of proving his right to address them. Like James, he addresses them as a teacher whom they are accustomed to hear. The verse immediately following (3) also shows that the relation in which the author stood to the readers was not created by this brief letter. He was already seriously) considering, or had actually begun, writing to them concerning their common salvation, when conditions arose which necessitated the sending of this letter (n. 3). The purpose of his present letter he declares to be a summons to contend for the faith delivered to the saints once for all,—a) description which corresponds to the contents of the Epistle. The fact that the readers’ faith was imperilled at this time, what it was that imperilled it, and why Jude thought it necessary to write this brief letter at once, are indicated in ver. 4, and the exhortation that follows in vv. 5-23. The manner in which the faith for which they are. to contend is characterised, indicates that this faith is not one thing to-day and another to-morrow, but a practically unalterable summary of religious convictions and teachings which has been communicated once for all to the Charehs either by its Lord and Master, or by the preachers of the VOL. Il. 16 242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT gospel (cf. Heb. xii. 7-9, 1.1, 1. 3). This implies that, for the purposes of this letter, it is not necessary to expound and establish this faith anew. On the other hand, it would seem as if the writing, the preparation of which Jude had'in mind when he received the information or made the observations which necessitated the prepara- tion of this letter, was meant to be more didactic in character and of greater scope than the present one,—if we may judge from the statement of its subject, which, it must be admitted, is very general (περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας). The mere fact that γράφειν ὑμῖν is used does not justify the assumption that this expression, like γράψαι ὑμῖν, refers to a letter. It does imply that the writing in question was intended for the readers, but beyond this it can refer to a work consisting of a number of parts quite as well as to a letter (cf. Luke 1. 3). The expression certainly does not permit us to assume that Jude was about to address to the readers a didactic communication for which there was no special occasion, when the cireum- stances arose which led him to give his communication a different and more specialised content than it would otherwise have had. Rather is this brief letter to be taken as a temporary substitute for the more extended writing which he was intending to dedicate to the readers. Whether Jude ever carried out his intention of writing such a work, temporarily interfered with, or completed the work already begun, we do not know, any more than we know whether Peter carried out the similar intention expressed in 2 Pet. i. 15 (above, p. 199f.). No writing has come down to us which eould pass as the writing of ‘Jude here referred to, or which might claim to be sucht a work. Seeing that Jude had had in mind for some time the composition of a doctrinal work for the benefit of the readers, and now felt constrained by the danger threaten- ing them to write this letter, it follows that he must have come in contact with them in his journeys as an evangelist EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 243 (1 Cor. ix. 5), and since then had kept them in mind. Consequently he had the information which seemed te him to necessitate the writing of a letter. Naturally, the readers themselves were in possession of the same facts. Nothing that Jude says implies that he is announcing new facts. On the contrary, assuming that the readers know what and whom he means, he characterises and condemns certain persons who have crept in among them and live in their midst (vv. 4, 12, 19). He calls them godless persons who pervert the grace of God into immorality, and deny the Christians’ only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (ver. 4). The first of these charges presupposes a teaching in which the fact that the Christians are under grace is used to justify an immoral life (n. 4). Since these persons claimed to be Christians, the latter charge must mean that they separated them- selves from Christ as Lord by their disobedience, denying Him, not in name, but in fact, by living a life inconsistent with the confession of Him (cf. Tit. 1. 16; 2 Pet. ἢ. 1; above, p. 224 f.). They are described with greater detail in vv. 10-13, 16, 18, 19. In the first place, it is everywhere assumed that they are outwardly members of the Church. They are like fruit trees in late autumn, when all the trees are bare; like good trees, they have had their spring, when possibly they bore blossoms, and a summer, when they could have borne fruit; but they have proved to be unfruitful, and the gardener has torn them up with their roots (ver. 12). If they have died twice, then once they must have been called from death to life (Eph. ii. 1, 5; Col. ii. 18; John v. 24), and have sunk back again into a state of death. They take part in the love-feasts of the readers as if they had a right to do so, and indeed this right cannot be contested outwardly on the ground that they are not members of the Church (ver. 12, ἢ. 5 at end). Nor does the fact that they create divisions, while 244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT lacking the Holy Spirit, and being still in bondage te their own natural life (ver. 19, n. 6), argue against the possibility of their, regarding themselves as members of the Church; it seems rather to indicate that. they con- sidered themselves pre-eminently men of. the Spirit, and made invidious distinctions between themselves and ordinary Christians, which of itself indicates their -sep- aratist tendencies. It is this second characteristic which is presupposed when among other things it is said that they are followers of Korah, who with two hundred and fifty prominent members of the congregation rebelled against the authorities and the leaders of Israel whom God had called, claiming that the entire congregation, including themselves, were holy as well as Aaron, and that God dwelt not simply with those who were in official position, but with all the members of the congregation (ver.. 11; cf. Num., xvi. 21, with, Num. xi. 16 f., 24-29; 1 Cor. xiv. 25). The comparison would be meaningless unless the libertines of whom Jude is speaking had shown themselves insubordinate to the heads of the Church, on the ground that the whole Church was holy and ‚in possession of the Spirit. Following the common. practice of demagogues in every age, under the guise of an appeal to the rights of all, they asserted their right to speak, notwithstanding the regularly constituted order of the Church, drawing comparisons between themselves, as representatives of public spirit, and the spiritless officers of the Church with the members of the Chureh who blindly followed their authority. Moreover, the words yoyyvoral μεμψίμοιροι, which are genuine only in ver, 16, but at an early date were either added to ver. 11. or inserted in ver. 12, being thus brought into direct con- nection with the name of Korah, serve in fact to recall the fact that Korah and. his company, dissatisfied with their subordinate position, murmured against Aaron, and against Moses also (Num. xvi. 11), all the more bitterly EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 24; because they chafed under the deprivations necessitated by their departure from Egypt (Num. xvi. 13f., xiv. 2, 27, 37; Ex. xvi. 2f., xvii. 3). For similar reasons the persons whom Jude describes are discontented murmurers who complain of their fate. Dissatisfied with the renuncia- tions which their Christian confession has compelled them to make, and with the position in the Churches which has fallen to their lot,—much lower than they feel they ought to have,—they complain against the heads of the Church (n. 5). Along with this murmuring, as in the case of Korah and his companions and wherever elsewhere in the Church similar conditions prevailed (cf. 1 Cor. x. 6, 10), there went a longing for the comforts of life enjoyed before redemption, and an actual falling back into the pre-Christian life. This is the third feature in the description of these persons. They walk according to their wicked lusts (vv. 16, 18). This is evident from the manner in which they conduct themselves at the love- feasts (ver. 12). Without any reverence for the sacred- ness of these meals, they treat them as banquets, and think only of securing for themselves the largest pos- sible share of food and drink. There is even less indi- cation than in 2 Pet. ii. 18 f. (above, p. 285) that they made these meals an occasion for the practice of unchastity. Indeed, that this was not the case is rendered certain by the fact that Jude speaks of the love-feasts of the readers (ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν, ver. 12); for he nowhere charges against them an intimacy with these wicked persons, or a participation in their sins. But the readers, who allow them to take part in their love-feasts, need to know that the persons who sit with them at the table of the Lord are polluted, and so take part in the love-feasts, not with pure hearts, but with unchaste feelings which are manifest in their. looks (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 14). Jude does charoe them with unnatural sins when he compares the punishment that awaits them with the punishment of the angels who 246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT committed sins of the flesh and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, describing the sins of these angels and cities much more clearly than is done in 2 Pet. ii. 4-10 (ver. 6f.), and says expressly that the false Christians who have crept in among the readers corrupt the flesh in the same manner (ver. 8). Ver. 23 also indicates the practice of unnatural vice. A fourth characteristic of these persons is their pre- sumptuous talk (ver. 16), not only against the authority and heads of the Church, but even against God (ver. 15). They also set aside what should be recognised by men as & power superior to themselves, and blaspheme exalted spirits (ver. 8),—a term which, it seems natural to suppose from the following verse, includes also evil spirits. Since this conduct of theirs is associated directly with their impurity, it is to be assumed that they endeavoured to justify their unchaste conduct by a theory about the harmless character of evil spirits, or even by contemptuous remarks about the good angels, out of regard to whom other Christians felt under obligation to conduct themselves with especial modesty (1 Cor. xi. 10). The fact that all real knowledge of the spirits which they blaspheme is denied (ver. 10; see above, p. 225 f.), and that their blas- phemies as well as their unchaste conduct are associated with visions and dreams (ver. 8), would indicate that they claimed to possess knowledge concerning the spirit world. From the single word ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι it is impossible to determine whether they claimed to have, through dream- visions, a deep insight into the spirit worlds, or whether Jude simply calls their confused ideas dreams. Even less certainly does this one word stamp them as false prophets; nor does the reference to Balaam (ver. 11) prove them to be such; for neither here nor in 2 Peter, nor in the O.T. is he called a false prophet (see above, p. 233). This reference serves rather to bring before us a fifth char- acteristic of these sinners. When it is said that for the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 247 sake of gain they gave themselves to the πλάνη of Balaam, the sin referred to cannot consist simply in expressions of their covetousness, but must be some activity in which for the sake of gain they engage with eagerness and all their strength. Since, now, in the O.T. Balaam is repre- sented not as a man who was led or fell into error, but as one who gave treacherous counsel and thereby led the members of the Chureh of God into unchastity (above, pp. 225, 235), πλάνη cannot be taken in a passive, but only in an active sense (n. 7). At the same time, it is not said that in giving themselves up to the practice of heathen unchastity, as in fact they had done, though not for the sake of reward, these libertines had fallen victims to the seduction of Balaam, or to any seduction that can be compared to Balaam’s counsel ; but Balaam himself is their prototype, both in his πλάνος and in his acceptance of reward. It follows, therefore, as indicated in ver. 4 (above, p. 233 f.), that these persons are teachers, who endeavour to lead the members of the Church astray, not simply by their bad example, for which they would receive no reward, but by an exposition of their libertine theories designed to induce them to adopt the same views and in- dulge in the same practices, for which teaching they accept compensation (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 3,14; above, p. 225; Tit. 1.11; 1 Tim. vi. 5; above, p. 101). The same situation is indi- cated in ver. 16. Their murmuring against the established order of the Church and its chosen leaders, and their pre- sumptuous words, in which not even the holy God and superhuman spirits are spared, and which are also made to serve the purposes of their immorality, are not confined to their own circle, but are flaunted before such as have not yet been betrayed. They prefer to talk to persons who are prominent and rich, because of the material benefit which will accrue to them if they are successful in con- vineing such members of the Church. That they had already succeeded in gaining some following among the 248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT readers through their teaching, is shown by the eonelusion of the letter. While it is true that here also, ver. 20 ff., the readers whom Jude expects to reach by his letter are distinguished from the false teachers just as sharply as at the beginning, still there are members of the Church who, in varying degrees, have yielded to temptation, and are commended to the pastoral care of the readers. There are some who doubt, who have not decisively rejected the pseudo-Christian teaching, but consider its pros and cons. These the readers are to convince of the folly of their hesitation, and of the untruth of the teaching so dangerous to them. There are also some who have been scathed by the fire of destruction, but can still be rescued. Finally, there are those who must be treated with mingled fear and sympathy; their unclean sins are to be hated and shunned carefully, but they themselves are to be shown that undeserved mercy which everyone himself hopes to receive at the hands of the Lord Christ in the day of judgement (vv. 21-23, n. 8). A sixth feature in the description of these seducers is the representation of their appearance in the present as the fulfilment of a prophecy long since uttered and written down. Immediately after the mention of their appearance among the readers as the pressing occasion for writing this letter, Jude goes on to say that these persons had long before been the subject of a writing in which this judgment was pointed out (ver. 4, n. 9) In view of the fact that in what follows mention is made of different cases of judgment in the O.T. typical of what awaits these persons (vv. 5-7), and that the words of Enoch about God’s final judgment upon all godless persons are quoted (ver. 14 f.), it is natural to consider the judg- ment to be deseribed in the following passage, as one long prophesied, especially since πάλαι suggests παλαιὰ διαθήκη and προγεγραμμένοι recalls such passages as Rom. xv. 4; Acts i. 16; 2 Pet. iii. 2. But this interpretation of τοῦτο EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 246 would be possible only if it were immediately followed by a statement as to the nature of the judgement that God was about to visit upon these persons. But this is not the case ; indeed, one searches the letter in vain for any direct state- ment of this kind. The cited cases of divine judgment, aetual and prophesied, are more suited to indicate the sinfulness of these’ unworthy Christians, whom God will certainly not leave unpunished, than to portray the judg- ment which eventually will overtake them. It is equally impossible to take τοῦτο as an introduction to Jude’s deseription of these persons in ver. 4b (n. 9). Tf, as is generally the case, τοῦτο refers to what precedes, Jude conceives the appearance of these persons in the Churches to which he is writing as a judgment, and more than that, a ‘judgment long since prophesied in some writing. Naturally it is not a judgment fulfilled upon them or by them, but a judgment upon the Churches in which they have appeared. Jude’s thought is the same as John’s when he represents the coming of Christ as bringing judg- ment into the world, although Christ Himself judges no one and is judged by no one (John ix. 39, iii. 19; but ef. i. 17, xii. 47), and Paul’s when he looks upon divisions into sects which he foresees, asa judgment appointed by God in the Church, in order to distinguish faithful Christians from the impure elements in its community (1 Cor. xi. 19). [Ὁ is unfortunate that such persons are constantly making their way mto new Churches, just as it is unfortunate that Christians are under necessity of being persecuted for their faith ; but, looked at from the divine point of view, both are parts of the judgment which begins at the house of God (1 Pet. iv. 17) before it is fulfilled in the world; it is one of the signs of the last times (1 John 11. 18). The readers are enabled the more easily to assume the right attitude toward this saddening fact, because Jude, taking for granted that he is recalling only what the readers already know, is able to say that 250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the godless persons who have come among them are those of whom it was long since prophesied in written form, not simply that they would come in general, but that they would creep in among Jude’s readers. One seeks in vain for such a prophecy in the Book of Enoch or in the O.T., because at the time when they were written no Christian Churches were as yet in existence. On the other hand, in 2 Pet. 11. 1-1ii. 4, we have a prophecy which exactly suits, namely, the announcement that false teachers, whose theory and practice exactly corresponds to those of the godless bearers of the Christian name in Jude, will appear among a certain group of Jewish Christian Churches. The narrative in which this is found shows verbal resemblances to Jude 4 at the very beginning, Assuming, then, that 2 Pet. 11. 1-11. 4 is not copied from an older document which Jude also had before him, it is clear that Jude is referring to 2 Peter, and that this Epistle is addressed to the same Jewish Christian Churches as 2 Peter. This conclusion is con- firmed by Jude 171. The readers are told to keep in remembrance the words of the apostles of Christ formerly spoken, namely, that “In the last time there shall be mockers walking according to their own ungodly lusts.” Perhaps the direct form of speech in which the apostolic prophecy is here reproduced does not absolutely exclude the possibility of repeated and varied prophecies being summed up in this statement (n. 10). But if this were the case, the expression would be unnatural. Moreover, it is just as impossible here to leave out of account the ὑμῖν as in 2 Pet. i. 16 and ii. 15. The reference is to words which the apostles addressed to the readers of Jude, and so also to the readers of 2 Peter. Accordingly, in ver. 4 it is assumed that the readers are familiar with a written prophecy of the entrance among the readers of the libertines which has now taken place. That such a prophecy, having reference to their conditions, was ad- EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 251 dressed to this group of readers is almost as self-evident as the fact that only a Christian could predict the appear- ance of false teachers among a definite group of Christian Churches. Furthermore, according to the connection of vv. 16-20, the mockers of ver. 18 are the same persons to whom, according to ver. 4, this written prophecy referred. Consequently the prophecy of ver. 4, only the general contents of which are here indicated, and the prophecy of ver. 18, which is verbally quoted, must have been con- tained in one and the same writing addressed to these Jewish Christian Churches. But in 2 Peter, the same Epistle which we recognise as the writing presupposed in ver. 4 (2 Pet. ü. 1-3), we find almost exactly the words quoted by Jude (ver. 18) from the same writing (2 Pet. iii. 3). Unless recourse is had to very artificial assump- tions ($ 44), here is positive proof that in ver. 18 and ver. 4 Jude refers to 2 Peter, in both instances as a writing addressed to the readers of his own letter, and in ver. 18 as the writing of an apostle. Against this con- clusion it cannot be argued that Jude attributes these prophetic words not to a single apostle, but to the apostles collectively. At most, a literal interpretation could here draw only the improbable conclusion that all the apostles had written a collective letter to the readers from which this quotation was made. In the very nature of the case, if he intended to use direct discourse, Jude could quote what the apostles had said to the readers on the point in question only as the saying of a. single apostle, naturally, of course, assuming that other apostles had said or written similar things to the readers about the same matter. It is this very presupposition which he expresses when he mentions the apostles, and not Peter alone, as the source of this prophecy. Although this expression, in and of itself, is entirely intelligible, it is all the more natural if Jude had 2 Peter before him; since in 2 Pet. ii, 3 Peter does not represent’ the prophecy 252 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT quoted by Jude as something new, expressed by him now for the first time, but, in marked distinetion from his own prediction in ii. 1, he simply reminds the readers of this prophecy as if it were something already known and expected (above, p. 230). One apostle, who had once written a letter to the same readers on related subjects, expressing himself in the same way as Peter, is mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 15. Even if Jude knew no more than we are able to infer from 2 Pet. ii. 3, 15, with this before him he could write as he does; for he does not speak as Peter does in 2 Pet. iii. 2 of the apostles of the readers, of whom Paul was not one (above, p. 202), but of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom Paul also was eounted one by the older apostles and the brothers of Jesus (Gal. ii. 9). Jude makes use also of the words of 2 Pet. iii 2 in introducing the quotation (μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων), but does not copy them; rather he alters the words and adapts them to his purpose. Neither in ver. 17 f. nor ver. 4 does he, like Peter, recall the prophecies of the O.T. and Christ’s commandment to the apostles, but only an apostolic prophecy. On the exegetical side this simple understanding of the situation cannot be obscured by the remark, often made, that πάλαι (ver. 4) refers back to the remote past. Taken in contrast to the recent appearance of the sinful Christians, it can express an interval of weeks and months just as well as of years and centuries (n. 11). How long a time elapsed between the prophecy in 2 Pet. ii, 1-3 and the fulfilment of the same which was the direct occasion for the composition of Jude, cannot be inferred from the word πάλαι, “long ago,” nor in general is it possible to determine it ; nevertheless, ver. 5 seems to in- dicate a time subsequent to the great judgment of the year 70. Jude begins his statement in ver. 5 by saying that he is recalling what the readers know ; and this is emphas- ised by appeal to the comprehensive knowledge which the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 253 readers already possess (cf. 1 John i. 20f., 27, and n. 12), all of which implies that he is not only citing facts known to the readers, but that he can also count upon their under- standing of brief or obscure hints. How necessary this preliminary remark was, is indicated by the history of the interpretation of the closely connected sentences in ver. 5 f., which Jude must have had particularly in view when he made the remark, since the connection of the third state- ment (ver. 7) is much more loose than that of the others. The first thing he recalled is this, namely, “that God, the Lord (this is the meaning of κύριος without the article), or (according to the reading which is probably original, see n. 12) that Jesus, after having saved a people out of Egypt, the second time destroyed them that believed not.” That a fact from the O.T. is here meant is doubt- ful; for then the order in which Jude cites his facts is very remarkable, since in such a case he would pass from the later books, of the Pentateuch or O.T. back to Gen, vi. and xix. (cf. the opposite order in Sir. xvi. 6-10)... Against this understanding of the reference is also the omission of the article before λαός (cf. Acts xv. 14; Tit. ii. 14; 1 Pet. 1. 9f.; but o λαός, Matt. ii. 4, iv. 23; John xi. 50, 52, xvii 14; Acts x. 2; 2 Pet. ü. 1; and ὁ λαὸς αὐτοῦ, Matt. 1. 21; Luke i. 68; Rom. xi. 1). But the most important reason for rejecting this interpretation is the impossibility of finding within the O.T. the familiar second instance in which God destroyed those who were redeemed from Egypt but remained unbelieving, in com- parison to a first instance, equally well known, in which He did the same thing; for that the cases were parallel is the natural presupposition, since otherwise it would be necessary to indicate the contrast in the divine action in the two cases (n. 12). The original readers readily under- stood that Jude was contrasting the judgment of the generation of Israel that came out of Heypt, who, with a few happy exceptions, perished in the wilderness for their 254 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT unbelief without having seen the land of promise (Num. xiv. 11-38; Deut. 1. 26, 32,1. 14-16; Ps. evil 24: 1 Cor. x. 5; Heb. iii. 10, 19), with another generation, which likewise, after having been redeemed as God’s people, was condemned and destroyed in punishment for its unbelief. Throughout the N.T., from the discourses of the Baptist to the visions of Revelation, we find expressed, indicated, or presupposed, the idea that Christ has accomplished a redemption comparable to the libera- tion of Israel from Egypt (n. 12). The object of this redemption is not the Jewish people, but nevertheless a people of God to whom the titles of Israel are applied (vol. 1. p. 82f.). In neither case, after the redemption of Israel out of Egypt and after the redemption by Christ, were the redeemed people of God destroyed, but the majority of those to whom redemption was offered— those who were called first of all to the acceptance of the redemption and the possession of the blessings which it assured, 2.6. the countrymen and contemporaries of Jesus, who refused to have faith in Him—were. con- demned for their unbelief. Jude could say that Jesus had visited this judgment upon the unbelieving mass of the Jewish people, because they had been judged by the testimony of Jesus which they rejected (John xu. 48, xv. 22, ix. 39; Matt. xii. 39-45, xiii. 14 f.; Luke xx. 18), and because the threatening prophecy of Jesus about the evil and adulterous generation had been fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (John 11. 19= Mark xiv. 58, xv. 29; Acts νἱ. 14; also Matt. xxi: 19, 41-43, xxii. 7, xxiii, 35-xxiv. 2; Luke xix. 41-44, xxi. 5, vi. 20-24, xxiii. 28-31). Jude, therefore, must have written after this event. Among Jewish Christian Churches especially, in whose minds the memory of this catastrophe was fresh, no misunderstanding was possible, and for them in particular was the judgment upon the unbelieving majority of their own people the most powerful EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 255 incentive to hold fast their faith, and to maintain it even against the temptation to which they had recently been subjected,—the temptation to accept a so-called Christianity, which really denied the only Lord of the Christians, and perverted into. heathen immorality the state of grace in which His redeemed servants stood. If Peter, who died in the year 64, toward the end of his life predicted to the same Christian Churches to which Jude is addressed, that teachers of an immoral type of Christianity, and persons with whom he had become acquainted outside their circle, who scoffed at the promise of the parousia, would appear among them; and if Jude believed, subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem, that, this prediction was fulfilled in the creeping in of dangerous men, whose theory and practice were alike vicious, in whom were to be discerned the essential features of the prophetic description of 2 Peter,—he could say that this . had been written concerning them long ago (ver. 4), and | that their coming had been foretold to the readers by the lips of apostles (ver. 17 f.). Assuming the year 75 as the approximate date for the composition of Jude,—since a date much later is made impossible by the little we know of the author's life history (above, p. 239 f.),—a period of from ten to fifteen years had elapsed since Peter had written 2 Peter to the same Churches. 1. (P. 238.) In the time of Jesus and the apostles are to be distinguished, (1) The apostle Judas, son of Simon, a man from Carioth (John vi. 71, xiii. 2, ete.); (2) the apostle Judas-Jacobi (son of a certain James, see Forsch. vi. 344f.), Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; John xiv. 22, probably to be identified with Lebbeus or Thaddeus, Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; (3) Judas [Jude], the son of Mary, brother of James, Joseph, Simon, several sisters, and Jesus (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Jude 1, ef. Matt. xii. 46; Mark iii. 31; John ii. 12, vil. 3-8; Acts 1. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5; Hegesippus in Eus. H. E.iii. 19, xx. 1-8, xxxii. 5); (4) Judas Barsabas, a man of prophetic gifts, and the respected representative sent by the mother Church to the Church in Antioch, Acts xv. 22-34, cf. vol. i. p. 31 (to be distinguished from Joseph Barsabas surnamed Justus, Acts i. 23; Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 9). Still another name ($ 44, n. 1) is that of Judas, the last Jewish Christian bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian (Eus. H. E. iv. 5. 3; Chron., anno Abrah. 2139 ; Epiph. 256 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Her. \xvi. 20), whom Schlatter (Der Chronograph aus! dem 10. Jahr, Antonins 1894, S. 25-37) declares to have been the author of a chronology which he thinks Eusebius (H. #. vi. 7) refers incorrectly to the time of Severus (ef. Forsch, vi. 283, 291 ff.). I 2. (P, 238.) Clem. Hypot. Lat. trans. (Forsch. iii. 83), “Judas, qui catholicam scripsit epistolam, frater filiorum Joseph exstans valde religiosus et cum sciret propinquitatem domini, non tamen dieit se ipsum fratrem eius esse, sed quid dixit? ‘Judas servus Jesu Christi, ut pote domini, frater autem Jacobi’ ; hoc enim verum,est : frater erat ex Joseph.” Clement holds to the view that the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph by an earlier wife. The pride of the relatives of Jesus, the δεσ πόσυνοι, in their family, of which Africanus reminds us (Eus. H. H. i. 7. 14), was a later development (ef. vol. i, p- 109). Of more modern writers, cf. Bengel on Jude 1, but especially Hofmann, vii, 2. 145f. The remarks of Spitta (300f.), which are opposed to the view here advocated, are based, if the present writer understands them correctly, upon the untenable view that the title “ Brother of James” is designed to establish the authority of the writer to send this letter of exhortation, having praetically the same meaning as ἀπόστολος de Ἰ. Xp. (Tit.i.1; cf. Rom.i.1). Even if we be disposed to look upon the honour paid to the relatives of Jesus as one of the characteristics of the Jewish Christian type of thought,—of a kind not altogether spiritual, and contrary to the thought of Christ (Matt. xii. 49),—we are not to suppose that the Churches of Palestine had so far lost their reason as to pay special honour to Jude because he was a brother of James, or to Simeon because he was James’ cousin, or, vice versa, to James because he was Jude’s brother. On the contrary, after they believed they were known in- dividually as “The brother of the Lord” (Gal. i. 19), and collectively as “Brethren of the Lord” (1 Cor. ix. 5; Acts i, 14); but they themselves make no use of this title in their Epistles. Here, as in Jas. i. 1, this negative conclusion is ‘the only one that could be properly drawn from the writer’s self-designation as a servant of Jesus Christ, even if it were not necessary in view of the chiastically constructed contrast between δοῦλος---ἀδελφὸς δέ and Ἰ. Xp. and Ἰάκωβος. 3. (P. 241.) There is scarcely any doubt about the meaning of ver. 3. With regard to ἔσχον, ef. vol. i. p. 456, 2.3. From περὶ τῆς x. ἡ. σωτηρίας we derive the impression that this is the central point or main subject of the proposed writing, since otherwise it would have to be further defined (ef. 1 Thess. v. 1; 1 John i. 1; 2 Pet. i, 12, iii. 16; Rom. i. 3). The strong ex- pression, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν, means more than the eager turning, over in one’s mind of an intention whieh, in the case of a writing, would imply meditation preparatory to composition. Peter had such’ an intention in mind when he wrote 2 Pet. i. 15, but by the use of the future σπουδάσω he indicates that this intention has yet to be zealously carried out; Jude was already engaged in the work. Cf, also Gal. ii. 10; 2 Pet. i. δ. By the ἅπαξ, ver. 3 (Heb. vi. 4), which is not essentially different in meaning from ἐφάπαξ (cf. 1 Pet. iii. 18 with Rom. vi. 10, or Heb. ix. 12 with ix. 26), it is clearly implied that a second παραδιδόναι is superfluous or inadmissible. ven in ver, 5, where ἅπαξ approaches the sense of in geueral” (überhaupt) (Hermas, Vis, 111, 3.4; Mand. iv. 4.1; Didymus, Lat, omnino=ära£, de Trin, i. 19, ef. ἁπαξαπλῶς), it is correlated with ὑπομνήσαι, in distinction from EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 357 διδάσκειν. τοῖς ἁγίοις without further (definition can only mean the whöle Church, or the Church of the Holy Land (vol. i. p. 455 f., n. 2). But since in the matter of faith the latter were not distinguished from the Gentile Christian Churches (ef. eg. Gal. i. 22-24; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 11; 1 Pet. v. 9, 12; 2 Pet. iii. 15f.), and since the Epistle shows no hostile feeling toward the Christianity of other Churches, it must mean the whole Church. The objections raised by Spitta (309) are to the present writer unintelligible, and Spitta’s opinion (416), that through a misreading of 2 Pet. ° ii. 21 (τοῖς ἁγίοις instead of αὐτοῖς ἁγίας), Jude, contrary to all known usage, understood “the saints” to mean the apostles, seems hardly to require re- futation. All Christians are here appropriately called saints (cf. 1 Pet. 1. 15f.) ; and this thought is somewhat emphasised by the relation of the word to the context, because in what follows the writer deals with persons who are or who have been reckoned among the “ saints,” and who, having received the same faith as the readers, have perverted it in a direction antagonistic both to the holiness of the Church and to its faith (ver. 20). 4. (Ὁ. 243.) Since mapewredvoav is used in ver. 4 as παρεισῆλθον in Gal. ii. 4 without any indieation of the’region where the false teachers had crept in, it is necessary in both instances to supply this from the context. In Galatians it is the Church in Antioch (ZKom. Gal. 86 f.) ; here it is the circle of the readers among whom they are now found, ver. 12, and also in the latter passage their entrance into the Church through a purely sham con- version and hypocritical baptism is not called a παρεισδῦναι. Their teaching is that rejected in Rom. vi. 1. 15; Gal. v. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 16; and referred to in Rom. vi. 12; 1 Cor. vi. 12 ff., but described at greatest length in 2 Pet. ii. (above, p. 224 f.). 5. (Pp. 243, 245.) Even Didymus on Jude 11 (Latin version) interprets the typical significance of Korah as above, p. 244 f. Cf. 1 Cor. x. 1-11. In address- ing the Church of Corinth, which was stirring up an insurrection against its founder, in 1 Cor. x. 10 Paul uses the words μὴ yoyyi¢ere, which are un- doubtedly suggested by Num. xvii. 6-14, and so are intended to reınind them of those complaints against the authorities which were instigated by Korah, and after his destruction were echoed throughout the entire congregation. Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 16, also cf. Heb. xiii. 17 with Heb. iii. 7-iv.11. The meaning of the comparison with Cain is more obscure. Being the first of three types, it may possibly express the more general thought that the false teachers are given over to unrighteousness ; since, as contrasted with the righteous Abel, Cain is an unrighteous man (Matt. xxiii. 35). With this possibly is connected the thought of 1 John iii. 12, 15, that they, on account of their “evil works,” are jealous of the righteous and their enemies, and are murderers of their own brothers. It is also possible that underlying the passage there is a traditional Jewish description of these “evil works” (cf. Siegfried, Philo, S. 150f.). Spitta (352), following the example of Sechneckenburger (Beiträge z. Hinl. 221), attaches great importance to the embellishment of Gen. iv. in the Jerusalem Targum i., which represents Cain as disputing with Abel, and saying, “ There is no judgment, and no judge, and no other world ; the righteous will receive no good reward, and vengeance will not be taken upon the ungodly.” This would suit perfectly the deseription in 2 Pet., but does not suit so well that in Jude, where no mention is made of the denial of the eschatologieal VOL. 1]. 17 258 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT hope which is especially noticeable in ver. 18, With regard to the text of ver. 12, see above, p. 235, on 2 Pet. ii. 13. Because in this instance dyäraıs ὑμῶν instead of dyaraıs αὐτῶν precedes, συν- in συνευωχούμενοι has a different force. The added ὑμῖν, which is poorly attested, is nevertheless correct in thought. There is much in favour of taking ἀφόβως with what follows, as in S* S®, and is done by Hofmann; for there is nothing inherently blameworthy about taking part in their feasts without fear. Nor can it hardly be the mere “feasting together” that is condemned, but rather the manner of their participation in the love-feasts, namely, the fact that they conduct themselves as σπιλάδες, which is clearly not here used in the sense of “rocks,” “cliffs,” but is intelligible only if taken as related etymologically and in sense to σπίλοι, 2 Pet. ii. 13 (“spots”), and, therefore, as equivalent to ἐσπιλωμέναι, Jude 23; μεμιασμένοι, as in Hesychius’ gloss (cf. Jude 8; Tit. i, 15; Rev. iii. 4, xiv. 4). Didymus (Lat.) reads qui in dilectionibus vestris maculatis (but read rather with Lücke maculati) coöpulantur. Of. Hofmann on vy. 12 and 23, This does not in any sense imply that they practised immorality at their love-feasts, but that they partook of them polluted by their unchastity, and wherever they went took with them the thoughts and passions corresponding to the character of their life. 6. (P. 244.) ᾿Αποδιορίζοντες, which is used in ver. 19 without the object, does not require the supplying of a single definite object any more than this is required when we speak of something that separates in distinction from something that unites. If διορίζειν is an emphatic ὁρίζειν, dmodiopitew is an emphatic ἀφορίζειν, and means a separation completely accomplished, The Pharisees, Gr. of ἀφωρισμένοι (see vol. i, p. 68), separated themselves from the wm ha arets and made sharp distinctions among the people of God, with- out withdrawing entirely from the people. These false teachers made even sharper distinctions, and created divisions along the lines of these distinctions, They ave aiperwxoi, Tit. iii, 10, In contrast to their practice stands the strong sense of unity in the Church, ver. 20f. The Holy Spirit unites (ver. 20); the ψυχικοί, who are without the Spirit, divide (ver. 19), in the first place by their presumptuous judgments, and then by conduct tending to destroy the fellowship of the Church, That they claimed in exceptional measure to possess the Spirit, asserting that they were πνευματικοί, as distinguished from ψυχικοί, is at least probable, The misuse of Pauline phrases among these persons (2 Pet. iii. 16) reminds one of 1 Cor, ii, 10-iii. 3. 7. (P. 247.) Πλάνη is clearly used in an active sense (“leading astray,” “seduction”) in 1 Thess. ii. 3 (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 8); 2 Thess. ii. 11 (cf. ver. 9, τέρατα ψεύδους); also in Matt. xxvii. 64. The deceiver of the people (6 πλάνος, xxvil. 63) led them astray so long as he lived (John vii. 12; Luke xxill, 2). His alleged resurrection will not increase the error of the people, but will make stronger and more injurious his power to lead them astray, Furthermore, ef. 1 John iv. 6 with 2 John 7; 1 Tim. iv. 1. In Eph. iv. 14 also the word can be taken only in an active sense, on account of the word with which it is connected, μεθοδία τῆς πλάνης, and the context, 8. (P. 248.) It is presupposed that in ver, 22f. Tischendorf’s eritical apparatus is very imperfect, but that he nevertheless gives the correct reading (cf, Spitta, 377 f.). The reading is the same as that given by Clement (Lat,) in connection with ver. 23 (Forsch, iii. 85); while, on the other hand, ver, 22, EPISTLES OF PFTER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 259 like so many other verses, is overlooked, this passage is carelessly quoted by Clement from memory in Strom. vi. 65. It is impossible for the present writer to escape the impression that Didache ii. 7 is dependent upon Jude 228. : οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ ods μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, obs δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. The third clause is the least accurate reproduction ; but the preceding, “thou shalt hate no man,” is in keeping with Jude’s thought, who, while he requires hatred of the sins of the wicked (cf. Rev. ii. 6), requires also mercy toward the persons themselves, 9. (Pp. 248, 249.) In opposition to Spitta’s contention (311 f.) that τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα = “this accusation,” is used to introduce the words ἀσεβεῖς. . . ἀρνούμενοι; it is sufficient to suggest (1) that this syntactical relation can be expressed only by a complete sentence either in direct discourse (1 Cor. vii. 29; Gal. iii. 2, 17), or with ὅτι (Rom. ii. 3, xi. 25; 1 Cor. xy. 50; 2 Thess. iii. 10), or by an infinitive sentence (Rom. xiv. 18; 1 Cor. vil. 26; 2 Cor. ji. 1; Eph. iv. 17); (2) that κρίμα is hardly anywhere used in the sense of accusation. Nor is Hofmann’s interpretation satisfactory, according to which τοῦτο refers to the judgment visited upon the intruders in the present ; for, although the sinner may be thought of as one who by his very act condemns himself (John iii. 18 f.; Gal. ii. 11), this is not stated either in what precedes or follows; so it is not a manifest fact to which rodro might refer, But Hofmann states what is correct and really self-evident when he says that τοῦτο refers to what precedes, namely, to παρεισέδυσαν. Furthermore, Spitta reads more into the passage than it contains when he (314 f., 383 f.) concludes, from the article with rpoyeypappévor, that acquaintance is here presupposed with a writing in which a still older prophecy, presumably from the O.T., is applied to the persons who now have crept in among the readers of Jude. Just as it is presupposed in John xi. 2 that the readers had heard or read of a woman who had anointed Jesus’ feet, and that the information is there imparted that the woman, whose name they had not heretofore known, was Mary of Bethany ; so Jude assumes that the readers know that it has been previously written or prophesied in an older writing that certain persons, who are libertines in theory and practice, will make their appearance among them. What he says now is this, namely, that the persons who shortly before have appeared among the readers are those whose appearance among them was prophesied in the older writing. But Jude’s reference is not to a commentary upon a prophecy, but to a writing whose prophecy is being fulfilled in the present, i.e. to 2 Pet. ii. 1-3, where we do not find an older prophecy applied to present phenomena, but where it is predicted that false teachers will come among the readers, Although not an independent sentence, the appositive clause expresses exactly the same thought as a sentence in the form οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ mpoyeypappévoe κτὰ., or something similar; cf. Matt. iii, 3, xi. 10; John i. 46 (1 John ii. 22). By the use of this form of expression in vv. 12 and 19 is preserved the identity of the persons of unchristian character who have appeared among the readers with certain persons already described, except that the relation of subject and object is the reverse of that in ver, 4, as required by the different connections of the two passages. The mockers, whose appearance in the last age is prophesied hy the apostles (ver. 18), are none other than the persons who, as the readers can daily observe, create divisions (ver. 19). In the same way, after a typical and typological char- 260 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT acterisation of them (ver. 10f.), Jude identifies the persons who in the pre sence of the readers take part in their love-feasts (ver. 12). Of an entirely different charaeter are the sentences in vv. 8, 10, 16, where the end sought is not the identification of figurative with actual persons, but where mention is made of different characteristies of the persons appearing among the readers, who have already been described with sufficient definiteness in ver. 4 (thus the use of οὗτοι). 10. (P. 250.) The language used in ver. 18 is not entirely ccmapatable with 1 Tim. iv. 1; for, although in this latter passage the ῥητῶς shows that the reproduction ‘of thought is intended to be as accurate as possible (see above, p. 111), örı, the formula of indirect discourse, which does not oceur before the words quoted in Jude 18, indicates that the quotation is not a formal citation. 11. (P. 252.) With πάλαι, Jude 4, cf. Mark xv. 44 (according to the pre- ponderance of evidence), also Soph. Philoct. 1030 =some hours before ; 2 Cor. xii. 19=since the time when Paul began to use the tone of self-defence, con- sequently somewhere about xi. 5, or possibly from the beginning of the letter (i. 12)—from the point of view of the readers and hearers of the letter about an hour before; 2 Pet. i. 9; Matt. xi. 21=within the lifetime of the men in question; Jos. Bell. iii. 8. 8, in contrast to ἄρτι, the time prior to the captivity which has just taken place, or, if we read οὐ maAaı=“not long ago.” = 12. (Pp. 253, 254). The peculiar εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα has given rise to numerous attempts to transpose ἅπαξ, and in some instances to its omission altogether ; also to change πάντα into πάντας (S?, but not in all MSS.), and into τοῦτο, which is more common. Here the apparatus of Tischendorf, which is not always without errors, and not very clear, is sufficient. It is more difficult to decide whether the correct reading is κύριος or Ἰησοῦς. ὋὉ θεός (without a preceding κύριος), which is badly attested by a careless quotation in Clement, Pred, iii. 44 (where λαόν also is arbitrarily put out of its place), S? and other unimportant witnesses, is out of the question, because it suits any interpre- tation, and is found as an addition to κύριος in Clement, Hypot. (Forsch. iii. 83). It is even less possible to assume with Spitta that the original reading was deös without the article, which is entirely unattested. Certainly the article which is placed before κύριος in the Antiochian recension (KL 38) is not original, because it has against it all the authorities which support both κύριος and Ἰησοῦς (for which ὁ Ἰησοῦς could have been written equally well), also the dominus deus (i.e. κύριος ὁ θεός) of Clement (Hypot. Lat. trans.), and because very frequently the article is inserted before the anarthrous κύριος (Matt. i. 22, ii. 15; Jas. iv. 10, v. 10). The only choice left is that between κύριος (N, perhaps ΟἹ and a Greek document attributed to Eph. Syr.) and Ἰησοῦς. The latter reading is attested by AB, 66** (= Paul. 67**), Sahidie, Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate versions; also by Origen (both in the text and scholion of the Cod, Laura 184, B 64, upon Mount Athos; see von der Goltz, Bine textkrit. Arbeit des zehnten baw. sechsten Jahrh. 1899, S. 51; ef. ThLb, 1899, No. 16), and by Jerome, Vall. ii. 270, vii. 413. This was also Didymuy reading, not only in his Latin commentary, ad loc., but also in de Trin. iii. 19, although the text, as we have it, reads κύριος Ἰησοῦς. That the correct reading, however, is Ἰησοῦς is proved by the fact that Jerome, vii. 412, is in verbal EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 261 agreement with Did. de Trin. Ἰούδας καθολικῶς γράφει (“Judas de omnibus generaliter . .. inquit”), so that Jerome in this passage of his commentary on Gal. must have copied from Didymus’ commentary on the same book, which, p. 370, he mentions as one of his sources. There are also certain considerations of fact which support the much more strongly attested Ἰησοῦς as against κύριος. The mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt is altogether strange and quite without parallel. The situation is not materially helped by assuming, as Jerome does, that Joshua is meant ; see contra Jov. i. 21 (Vall. ii. 270). This did not occur as a solution to the oldest interpreters, who substituted God for ’incods (Clement ; see above). Didymus (Migne, 39. 1813) and Jerome, in the passage where he copies Didymus (Vall. vii. 412), and apparently also Origen in the'seventh homily on Deut. (in the above quoted Athos MS.), use this passage to prove that it was Jesus Himself with whom the congregation in the O.T. had to do, a thought of very early date; cf, Just. Dial. exx., Ἰησοῦν τὸν καὶ τοὺς πατέρας ὑμῶν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγαγόντα. The name of Jesus did not prevent Didymus from making the sentence refer to the redemption of Israel from Egypt, without recourse to the impossible interpretation of the word to mean Joshua. Cf. also Cramer, Cat. vill. 155. 18, 157. 21, 158. 5-13, 161. 2. But whereas Clement understood correctly that Jude meant the judgment which came upon the Jewish people because of their failure to believe on Jesus (Forsch. iii. 83, 96), Didymus confines the meaning to the dying of Israelites in the wilderness ; ef. 1 Cor. x. 5; Heb. iii. 16-19. It hardly needs to be proved that the adverbial δεύτερον, τρίτον «rA, both with the article (Mark xiv. 41; John xxi. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 2) and without it (John iii. 4, xxi. 14, 16; Luke xxiii. 22; Rev. xix. 3; 2 Cor. xiii. 1), just as ἐκ δευτέρου (Matt. xxvi, 42; Mark xiv. 72; John ix, 24; Acts x. 15, xi. 9), shows that the action which it modifies is a repetition of an earlier action, no matter whether it is pre- viously intimated or not that this action has already once taken place. Accordingly it is also explained how in late Greek rpirov actually means τρίς, “thrice” (see the writer’s Acta Joannis, pp. 256, 258 sub voc.). What happens a second or third time has happened twice or thrice. Recently F. Maier, Bib. Z., 1904, 5. 392, has confidently claimed that τὸ δεύτερον here as also often elsewhere is by no means a numeral adverb, but=deinde, postea, or even ex contrario, This meaning, however, should in any case be proved by the actual usage of language and not by appeal to the Thesaurus of Stephanus, or to other exegetes ; for example, to Hofmann, who (vii. 2. 159-161) has left not the slightest doubt concerning his contrary opinion in this matter. The only question is with what τὸ δεύτερον is connected. Through the position of the words it is impossible that τὸ 6. is to be taken with πιστεύσαντας, as if the reading were τοὺς τὸ 6. un πιστεύσαντας. But also not with λαὸν . σώσας, for every intelligent author would have made this connection necessary for the reader by placing τὸ 6. before λαὸν or before σώσας. It belongs, therefore, to the principal verb ἀπώλεσεν... By this it is only in- directly said that also in the first instance on the part of many members of the nation which was to be saved, there existed unbelief to which that referred to in Jude is opposed as a similar second lack of faith ; and just as indirect is the statement that in the first instance as in the second (concern- ing which it is directly asserted) a deliverance of a nation out of Egypt had 262 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT preceded the judgment on its unbelieving members. Only if τὸ δ. preceded σώσας OT μὴ mier.—t.e. did not belong with ἀπώλεσεν--- could the meaning be, that in fact the presuppositions of the main statement, namely, the de- liverance of a nation or the unbelief of many of its members, were the same in both instances, but only in the second and not in the first could the divine action be an ἀπολέσαι. Even then the contrast would probably have been expressed ; cf. Heb. ix. 28, ἅπαξ---ἐκ δευτέρου (Ξετὸ δεύτερον ἐρχόμενος) ; 2 Cor. xiii. 2, eis τὸ πάλιν (1.6. ἐχθὼν τὸ τρίτον), οὐ φείσομαι (sc. ὡς τὸ πρό- τερον). The only question is whether Jesus is to be thought of as the author of the first—only indirectly expressed—ar@Aerev, which occurred in the wilderness, and so also indirectly of the first σώσας. In view of John xii. 41, 1 Cor. x. 4, 9 (τὸν Χριστόν in DGKL, Marcion ; Iren. iv. 27. 3; Clement, Ecl. proph. xlix, and the ancient versions), this cannot be declared to be im- possible. But from an exegetical point of view it is not possible. Since the action, with all its expressed presuppositions, is described only as a second one of its kind, the subjects in the two cases might be different ; so that τὸ δεύτερον is an abbreviated expression for the thought, “And this was the second time that this happened.” The comparison between the N.T. redemp- tion and that of Israel from Egypt is presupposed in John i. 29, 36, and more elearly in 1 Pet. 1, 15-21 (ii. 9; 2 Pet. ii. 1); 1 Cor. x. 1-11 (ef. v. 7f.; Tit. ii. 14); Rev. i. 5f.,v. Of, xv. 3. Jude just after the judgment upon Israel speaks in the same manner as Paul prior to 70 (1 Thess. ii. 16; Rom. xi. 9f.), merely alluding to the coming event. Above all, a comparison should be made with the typological expressions of Heb. in connection with the re- demption of the people of God, and the judgment which is to follow upon the unbelieving of the redeemed generation ; see below, ὃ 46, n. 6; ὃ 47, n. 9, with the amplifications belonging to them in the text. § 44. THE GENUINENESS OF JUDE AND THE TWO EPISTLES OF PETER (x. 1). The question with regard to the genuineness of two of these Epistles is very sharply defined. It is even more impossible in the case of 2 Peter than of James or 1 Peter, by the assumption of later additions or by modifying the greeting, to get out of the letter an old writing, the author of which is not responsible for the claims that meet us in the document. The manner in which the beginning of the letter is connected with the greeting by the construction of the sentence, the repeated and definite references to experiences of Peter and his fellow-apostles, which are in keeping with the name in the greeting and declared to be experiences of the author (2 Pet, 1, 3, 14, EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 263 16-18 ; above, pp. 194, 201-210, 215-221), make it clear beyond all question that the entire letter is meant to be represented as written by Peter. If the letter is spurious, it is not pseudepigraphie in the narrower sense of the word, but from beginning to end a forgery. In the same way, the author of Jude has not left us to guess which one of the many Jews and Jewish Christians of this name it was whom he represented himself to be; he introduces himself to his readers as the well-known brother of the still more distinguished James (above, p. 238f.). If this introduction should prove to be false, then certainly we have no right to suppose that some other Jude is the author; for the use of his own name on the part of a writer, in order to dispose of his wares under the mask of some older and more distinguished person of the same name, presupposes artificiality and boldness unparalleled in'pseudepigraphie literature. Until examples to the contrary have been found, we may assume as certain that a pseudo-Ezra, or pseudo-John, or pseudo- Hermas, or pseudo-Jude was not actually known as Ezra, or John, or Hermas, or Jude. As regards its place in the Canon of the Church, Jude is better attested than 2 Peter, and even than James. Although the Syrian Church, when it adopted some of the Catholic Epistles into its Canon, rejected Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John, these four letters being translated apparently for the first time by Philoxenus (died 508), Jude was accepted about the year 200 without any question in Alexandria, Rome, and North Africa. It is not necessary to investigate here the ques- tion to what extent the suspicions as to the genuineness of Jude and its place in the N.T. Canon, which developed later, led to its subsequent rejection in the Greek and Latin Churches. (On the other hand, there is no evidence that before the time of Origen, 2 Peter was accepted any- where in the Church as a writing of the same rank as 1 Peter. And throughout the whole of the fourth century 264 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT we meet at most widely separated points in the Churek very decided suspicion now of its genuineness, now of its place in the N.T. Canon. So long as it was presupposed that 2 Peter was addressed to the same Churches in Asia Minor as 1 Peter, the mere fact that the latter Epistle was early and very generally accepted was a strong point against the genuineness of 2 Peter; for what prevented those who first received this letter, which must have followed 1 Peter after a short interval, from circulating it just as early and just as widely as they did 1 Peter ? (n. 2). If, however, it be proved that 2 Peter was not sent to the same Churches as 1 Peter, but to the Jewish Christian Churches in Palestine or neighbouring regions, it follows as a natural result that, from the beginning and for a long period, the history of the circulation and canonisation of these two letters followed entirely different lines. Just as the Nazarenes of the fourth century, notwithstanding their favourable opinion regarding Paul, and agreement with what is said in 2 Pet. iii. 15, thought that his letters to the Gentile Christian Churches did not concern themselves (GA, ii. 669 δ); so, for a long time, the Gentile Church took little account of 2 Peter, which was addressed to Jewish Christians. They treated James in practically the same way. But, in the case of both these letters, a limited circulation and early acquaintance of individuals with them are to be distinguished from acceptance of the same by the Catholic Church as books to be read in religious services (n. 3). There are points of resemblance between 2 Peter and a whole series of writings dating from 90 to 130, namely, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Didache, and it is very natural to suppose that several pseudo-Petrine writings are related to 2 Peter (see below, pp. 270f., 273). In all these cases it cannot be so conclusively proved that 2 Peter is the source that no further objection is possible. Nor is this proof EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 265 necessary, if it be admitted that Jude quoted 2 Peter at the beginning and end of his letter as an apostolic writing composed several years before (above, p. 250 f.). One cannot but feel weary over the evasions by which the interpreters obscure the fact that not only in Jude 17 f., but also in Jude 4, an.older Christian writing—the same which in Jude 17 f. is called apostolic—is quoted, in which Jude found predicted what he saw being fulfilled at the time when he wrote his letter. Since we now have a writing, purporting to be Peter's, which contains exactly what Jude quotes from the apostolic document cited by him, and since, besides these two express references of Jude, there are so many parallels between Jude and 2 Peter as regards facts, thought, and language as to necessitate hier assumption of a literary relation between them, by the ordinary canons of criticism we should con- clude that Jude knew and prized 2 Peter as an apostolic writing, and made it the basis of parts of his letter. The very artificiality of the present prevailing view, which reverses the relation, and represents the author of 2 Peter as copying from Jude, often unintelligently, requires that its exegetical proof should be all the stronger (n. 4). Certainly the style of Jude, which, in comparison with the obscure and clumsy style of 2 Peter, is clearer and generally better, cannot be used to prove the priority of Jude; for what was there to hinder Jude from surpassing many of the original apostles in the use of the Greek language and in natural fluency of speech, as his brother James did ? Furthermore, it is only natural that in descriptions of actual and present phenomena, like those of Jude, the representation of the seducers should be more sharply outlined than in 2 Peter, which is so largely prophetic in character. /If 2 Peter is genuine, it clearly cannot be dependent üpon Jude; for, in the first place, Jude did not write until after the year 70, 2.6. after Peter’s death ; and, in the second place, in representing as a prediction 266 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the appearance among the readers of false teachers, when from Jude he knew that they had already made their appearance among the readers of this Epistle, the writer of 2 Peter would necessarily have indicated clearly the ditference between the historical presentation in his source and his own prophetic representation. He would. also have distinguished between the region where, according to Jude, the seducers were already at work, and the region where, according to 2 Peter, they were to appear in the future. But even assuming that 2 Peter is a forgery of the second century, and that Jude is a genuine writing of the late apostolic age, the view that the former is dependent upon the latter can be maintained only by a series of artificial hypotheses. If Jude 4, 17 ἢ has been correctly explained above (p. 250 f.), it is necessary to assume that the apostolic document which Jude quotes as his authority in both these passages was early lost, and that 2 Peter is a later caricature substituted for it. This lost apostolic writing must have resembled 2 Peter very closely. Like 2 Peter, it must have contained the prediction that persons who were libertines in theory and practice would appear as seducers among Jude’s readers (Jude 4; 2 Pet. ii. 1-3). In it must have been found also a prediction regarding the scoffers of the! last time, which is found in almost identical words in 2 Pet. iii. 3 and Jude 18, in the former without any definite indication as to its source, in the latter quoted as an apostolic word. The common assumption that the author of 2 Peter took these passages and all others parallel to Jude directly from this Epistle, is another hypothesis without any basis ; for what prevented the author of 2 Peter from copying them all from the lost apostolic document quoted by Jude? In this case 2 Peter is not an independent writing, but, in part at least, the recasting of an ancient writing known to Jude as the work of an apostle. There is no doubt that such a writing, EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 267 if it existed, bore the name of Peter, and had the form ot a letter, since there is no reason why the later editor should have modified his original in these two respects. There is usually no difficulty in assuming such recasting of older genuine writings. Why in this case should we assume that the ancient and genuine document attested by Jude disappeared altogether, and that later 2 Peter was written on the basis of hints and quotations in Jude? But even assuming that this older writing was actually lost or destroyed, which is improbable, the origin of 2 Peter still remains inexplicable (n. 5)./ To reconstruct at a later time, from hints in Jude and from imagination, a lost apostolic prophecy concerning future errors, which, according to Jude, was actually fulfilled in the apostolic age, would have been a task as purposeless as it was | difficult. It is much more conceivable that the old prophetic writing cited by Jude, and regarded by him as apostolic, was worked over in the light of more recent events to suit the spirit of the age, in order to make it more effective, and that in this way 2 Peter received all the peculiarities which have from the earliest times caused its genuineness to be questioned. But the other assumption, namely, that both Jude and 2 Peter are spurious products of the post-apostolie age, involves the most unlikely consequences. They could not have originated independently of each other; but neither could they have been written by the same author, nor by two different forgers working together. Anyone desiring to oppose a tendency which sprang up in the post-apostolie time, on the authority of an apostle, might very well have done so in the form of an apostolic letter, in which, as in 2 Peter, the appearance of certain false teachers and scoffers is predicted. But it is difficult to understand how one who had written such a letter, or someone working in conspiracy with him, could have forged Jude also, in which the prediction of Peter regarding the future would be 268 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT represented as having been almost immediately fulfilled Circumstances seemed rather to require a prediction, ie order that an apostle might be represented as prophetically condemning later phenomena in the life of the Church. It would be necessary to assume that the author of Jude regarded 2:Peter as genuine, and that the later forger was deceived by the older one. But even in this case it has yet to be explained why the person who thought that the prediction of 2 Peter was fulfilled in certain phenomena of his time used. a pseudonym in order to express this single fact, and further obscured the reference of his view to his own times by putting it into the mouth of Jude, the brother of James, who had long since died. Passing now from these considerations of a hypothetical nature to the examination of the genuineness of the letter, the very manner in which the writer designates himself in Jude 1 predisposes us in favour of the genuineness of this Epistle. , According to historical tradition, Jude, the brother of James, is a very obscure personality (above, p. 240f.) ; according to later tradition also, he was not an apostle, and.in the circle of the early Christian authers down to the year 200, his name does not once appear (see Eus. .. E. vi. 7)... What could have induced anyone desiring to defend the common Christian faith and Christian morality to repre- sent himself as Jude? Why was it necessary for him to assume any character atall? Nothing that he says requires any particular authority. He refers to certain unpleasant conditions in the present life of his readers ; describes them, and condemns them severely, but only in such a way as every earnest Christian was under necessity of doing. He declares that in these events of the present an apostolic prediction written years before is finding its fulfilment ; but this, again, could be recognised and expressed by any ordinary Christian under the same con- ditions., Nor does he claim any special authority. He does) not call himself an apostle, and intimates only in EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 269 a very modest way that he is the Jude known to the readers as one of the brothers of Jesus (above, pp. 238f.;256). A further proof of genuineness is the manner in which he refers to one or to a number of apostolic writings. What forger, who could have had no other purpose in suchoa reference than to strengthen the authority of his own writing, would have been content with such hints as we find in Jude 4, 17f.? Would he not have mentioned the apostle, or apostles, by name? If it be assumed that the letter is spurious, then the reference to another writing of the author, which was in the process of composition at the time this letter was written (ver. 3; above, pp. 241, 256), is wholly inexplicable. In case the letter is genuine, we have only to assume, either that the purpose of Jude there expressed, like so many other literary intentions, was never carried out, or that the writing contemplated at that time and later published, like so many other early Christian writings, has not come down to us (Luke i. 1; 1 Cor. v. 9, vii. 1). On the other hand, if the letter is spurious, it is necessary to assume that such a work of Jude regarding the Christian salvation existed at this time, and was generally known when this letter was written in Jude’s name. But there is no trace of such a didactic writing of Jude's (n. 6). If such a writing in Jude’s name did exist, it is wholly inexplicable why the author should speak of a writing which Jude intended to produce instead of the writing actually at hand. The fact that the author makes use of two pseudepigraphic writings bearing O.T. names, namely, the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch (n. 7), lessened for a time the ecclesiastical reputation of the Epistle ; but this is no reason why we should question its genuineness. Except for the references in Jude, we do not know how these two books and other writings of like character were regarded by the older apostles and the brothers of Jesus. Nevertheless, what we find in Jude would seem to indicate that several of these writings, 270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which do not stand the test of historical criticism, were regarded in this worthy circle as reliable witnesses of genuine tradition and true prophecy. It is, however, of eritical importance that Jude apparently did not use the newly discovered Greek translation, but the Hebrew or Aramaic original of the Book of Enoch (n. 7). Jude is, like his brother James, a Hebrew who is also able to handle the Greek language with comparative ease. After what has been said above, vol. i. pp. 45, 113, the fact that Jude and Peter, if he is the author of 2 Peter, used the Greek language in addressing Jewish Christians, does not require further explanation. The other things that have caused objections to Jude, namely, its description of the libertines, and the resemblance it bears in thought and language to the letters of Paul, apply equally to 2 Peter. Therefore they can be best discussed with reference to the two letters together, taking into account, of course, their mutual relations and their differences. If, on the one hand, it seems strange that a later author should write a letter in Jude’s name, it is, on the other, entirely comprehensible that the name of the chief of the apostles should be misused in the writing of a spurious letter. Perhaps as early as the beginning of the second century a κήρυγμα Πέτρου was ascribed to him, and toward the middle of the same century an evayyéuov κατὰ Πέτρον, in both of which writings Peter himself assumes the röle of author. The same is true of the ἀποκάλυψις Πέτρου, which is likewise old. Furthermore, in this same century, in the πράξεις Πέτρου, which are written from ἃ Gnostic point of view, Peter is made the hero of a whole series of apostolic legends. Apparently in the third cen- tury he is made the principal figure in the Clementine Romance (Homilies), which is written in an Ebionitic spirit; while at the beginning of the Greek recension of this Romance we find a letter from him to James (n. 8). In view of all this, the mere occurrence of Peter’s name in EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 271 an ancient writing is no proof of authorship. Further- more, the view taken above regarding the authorship of 1 Peter (p. 149 f.) deprives us of one of the chief means of determining the genuineness of 2 Peter. And yet it is with the comparison of these two letters that our criticism must begin. Notwithstanding the mention of Silvanus in 1 Pet. v. 12, 1 Peter was very early recognised and eir- culated as a genuine writing of the apostle. Anyone desiring to ascribe a second Church letter to Peter at a later date could not disregard the earlier and highly prized first Epistle. According to the traditional opinion, the author of 2 Peter actually made an explicit reference to 1 Peter. But we have seen that 2 Pet. ili. 1 does not refer to 1 Peter, and that 2 Peter does not, like 1 Peter, claim to be directed to the Gentile Christian Churches of Asia Minor, but to the Jewish Christian Churches of Pales- tine (pp. 194f., 201-209). This, so faras the present writer is able to see, is the conclusion of a perfectly sound exegesis, and the conclusion is confirmed by the fact that there are only a very few agreements in thought and language between 1 and 2 Peter (n. 9). On the other hand, there is something strikingly original about the author’s self-designation, Συμεὼν Πέτρος, which, so far as we know, is unheard of elsewhere in Petrine and pseudo- Petrine literature. The peculiar and often obscure style of 2 Peter is in itself a strong argument against the sus- picion that the letter was forged at a later time. The fact that 2 Peter is entirely independent of 1 Peter, the genuineness of which was widely accepted at a much earlier date, is still stronger proof of the genuineness of the former. Then the fact is to be considered that in 2 Pet. ui. 1 a letter of Peter is referred to which has not come down to us. Now it must be admitted that the reference in this place to a letter which never existed would be meaningless, and a fiction entirely opposed to the forger’s purpose, namely, to win the confidence of his 272 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT readers. Accordingly, those who deny the genuineness of 2 Peter must assume that the same pseudo-Peter, or one before him, wrote another pseudo-Petrine letter... But then it is necessary to explain why only the second of this pair of forged letters is preserved, although the author calls attention in 111. 1 to the fact that he has addressed an earlier letter to the same readers. In like manner, the announcement of Peter’s intention to leave to the readers a comprehensive and didactic writing (1.15 ; above, p. 200 f.) presents greater difhieulties than the opponents of the genuineness of 2 Peter seem to recognise. The only pur- pose which a forger could have had in such a reference would be to make his letter, which was as yet unknown, seem more genuine by connecting it with a recognised writing of Peter. But how incredible it is that he should assert merely his intention of composing such a writing, and not the fact that he had actually done so! And if he meant a writing in Peter’s name highly prized at the time, such, e.g. as the ancient κήρυγμα Πέτρου, how aimless it was on his part to omit all definite references to it ! But here again the assumption of genuineness removes all the difficulties, as in the case of the writing which Jude had planned but which has not come down to us (above, p. 269). The mere fact that Peter's letter, mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 1, has not been preserved, needs no more ex- planation than the fact that the letter of Paul’s spoken of in 1 Cor. v. 9 was not made a part of the collection of his Epistles. The preservation of 2 Peter alone may be due to the fact that it was only in this letter and not in the earlier one mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 1 that phenomena of Church life were discussed which appeared first. in the Gen- tile Christian Churches, and made their way thence into the Jewish Christian Churches (above, pp. 223 ff., 24211), as Peter predicts would be the case, and Jude testifies actually to have happened. For this reason 2 Peter and Jude had a certain value also for the Gentile Church, and EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 273 found some circulation there (above, p. 263 f.), while a hor- tatory letter written by the Apostle of the Circumcision to Churches belonging in the original sphere of his labours, which lacked such reference to the dangers threatening the whole Church, remained confined within this original circle. The fact that, so far as we know, the intention of Peter expressed in 2 Pet. i. 15 was never carried out, requires no special explanation. Yet it is hard not to think that the κήρυγμα Πέτρου was an invention suggested by 2 Pet. 1. 15, and intended to supply the gap in the apostolic literature which this reference indicated. In the same way the emphasis upon the parousia as an integral element of the Petrine preaching (2 Pet. i. 16), and the prophetic character of 2 Pet. 11.--111. probably supplied the impulse for the fabrication of the ἀποκάλυψις Πέτρου. So long as it was assumed that 1 Peter was written by the apostle’s own hand, and that 2 Peter was directed to the same readers as 1 Peter, the great difference between the two letters in thought and language was necessarily strong evidence against the genuineness of 2 Peter. ‘These two presuppositions proving to be wrong, however, this argument against 2 Peter falls to the sround. That a letter to the Gentile Christian Churches of Asia Minor, written by Silvanus at Peter’s request and in his name, would be different from a letter written by his own hand to Jewish Christian Churches who owed their Christian faith to him and his companions, is self- evident. In particular, it is clear that in the latter case he would necessarily betray an entirely different con- sciousness of his apostolic calling and official relation to the readers. While in the first letter he allows himself to be represented, and to a certain extent introduced, by a missionary prominent in the Churches of Asia Minor, in the second he speaks as the Apostle of the Circumcision to the flock over which Christ had made him shepherd (John xxi. 15-17; ef. x. 16). In speaking to these he VOL. II. 18 274 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT could say of himself what Paul said to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. ix. 2—and there was occasion for him to write in this way if, as we saw above (pp. 222f., 245), he had become acquainted with a party which had sprung up in the Gentile Christian Churches ; which spoke contemptu- ously of the simple Christians of the first generation and condemned the apostles.; which was already threaten- ing to bring this dangerous teaching also into the Jewish Churches. It is to be observed, however, that Peter does not defend and magnify his apostleship in anything like the severe and exalted tone of Paul (Gal. 1. lai 14; 1: Cor. 11. LO-iv. 2h,ax.01+6, xv. 10,5 2Cor. xırd=Ll;ızi. l—xil, 12, xii. 1-8, 10; cf. 2 Pet. i 1, 3, 16-18). From beginning to end the letter shows a brotherly spirit, and is in keeping with Christ’s exhortation to Peter in Luke xxii. 32. Anyone who regards the synoptic narrative of the transfiguration and the words of Jesus in John xiii. 36 ἢ, xxl 18-22, as unhistorical, must, of course, take exception to the reference in 2 Pet. 1..14, 16-18. But it must be remembered that when such prejudices, which in the last analysis are: dogmatic, are allowed to influence literary criticism, the latter ceases to be worthy of its name. On the contrary, the manifest independence of this self-testi- mony of Peter, when compared with the Gospel accounts (above, pp. 203, 211-218), is strong proof that it is not of late origin, certainly not so late as 150 or 170. | Besides, erities who are afraid of miracles need not be so seriously embarrassed in accepting 2 Peter as genuine ; because the feature of the synoptie account of the Transfiguration which appears most mythical, namely, the appearance of Moses and Elias, is omitted in 2 Peter. Of more importance are the difficulties caused by the statement about Paul and his letters in iii. 15f. The chief thing to be noticed here is the fact that Peter speaks of a single letter which Paul is represented as having once sent to the Jewish Christian readers of 2 Peter, and the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 275 fact. that the letter is not only wanting, but also that there is no other trace of its previous existence in the early Church (above, p. 198f.). Again, the assumption that 2 Peter is spurious, brings us face to face with the question, why again and again these persons writing in the name of Peter and Jude refer to writings, some of them already im existence and others in process of pre- paration, which no one else knows anything about? In reality, this appeal to a letter of Paul’s, no longer to be found, is also proof of the age and genuineness of 2 Peter (ef, above, pp. 266 f., 271). In recalling to the, readers’ minds a single letter of Paul’s with which. they are acquainted, Peter mentions also a large number of other Pauline letters which, as the whole context shows (above, pp: 198 £., 227 £.), were addressed not to them, but to other Christians. There is nothing to indicate that the readers were acquainted with these letters also, | Indeed, all that Peter says of them would seem to imply the contrary. He assures the readers, in the first place, that Paul in all his letters, whenever he speaks about the subject under discussion (λαλῶν, not λαλήσας), expresses himself in a similar way. Then Peter speaks of misinter- pretations of certain passages in these letters (n. 10), not by his own readers, but by the false teachers and their followers, previously described in his. letter, with whom he became acquainted in Gentile Christian circles (above, p- 227 f.). So far this statement contains nothing which precludes the possibility of Petrine authorship. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that from 60 to 64 A.D, many of Paul’s letters had spread beyond the single Churches to which they were severally directed and were circulated in the Gentile Christian Church. Signifi- cant proof that Peter had read such letters is found in the fact that not very long after the composition of 2 Peter, when he wrote to the Churches in Asia Minor by the hand of Silvanus, he made use of Romans and Ephesians (above, 276 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Ρ. 177). Moreover, Peter had urgent occasion to express himself in this way regarding Paul and his letters. For, if the libertines who had made their appearance among the Churches founded by Paul justified their teaching and practice by an appeal to certain expressions of Paul’s in his letters, they would have a very confusing effect upon the Jewish Christian Churches, if, as Peter expected, they made their way into these Churches in the near future. It was possible that the false teachers might be recom- mended to some Jewish Christians by their treacherous semblance of agreement with the great Apostle to the Gentiles, and this made their attempt at seduction all the more dangerous. In the case of the majority of Jewish Christians, however, such a connection would only serve to increase the feeling of mistrust toward the Apostle to the Gentiles which was not yet entirely overcome (Acts xxi. 20 ff.). According to 1 Pet. i. 12, v. 12, and all reliable testi- mony regarding Peter, he endeavoured just as earnestly as did Paul (Gal. i. 22-24, ii. 7-10; 1 Cor. xv. 11; 1 Thess. u. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 8-15; Rom. xv. 26-32) to promote harmony between the two branches of the Church and their respective leaders. Consequently he does not here call Paul simply his personal friend, but the beloved brother of himself and of his Jewish Christian readers (ef. Acts xxi. 20). For the same reason he reminds the readers of the letter which they had received from Paul, probably not long before (above, p. 209), and from which they can see that Paul and Peter are in agreement re- garding the great essentials of Christian faith and hope and Christian morality. With this end in view he assures them that the same fundamental principles are held by Paul in all his other letters, and that, consequently, the appeal of the false teachers to his authority is just as false as is the mistrust of Paul by many Jewish Christians, The only thing that causes difticulty is the fact that EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 277 the false teachers are also said to pervert “the other seriptures” (2 Pet. iii. 16). Since elsewhere in the N.T. αἱ γραφαί is used only to designate the sacred writings of that time, ue. the O.T. Seriptures, it might seem as if Peter included Paul’s letters among these sacred writings. This would seem to bring us down to the time of Irenzeus (n. 11). That this is a misunderstanding, however, is clearly proved by the fact that Peter here assumes a letter of Paul’s as known, which is not anywhere mentioned in the literature of the Church among the canonical or apocryphal letters of Paul. Consequently the writer of 2 Peter did not have before him a collection of Paul's letters which were in general circulation in the second century. Furthermore, we are reminded here of the well- known Greek usage of ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι, which permits the following substantival designation to be limited to the group of words which these terms introduce (n. 12). A corresponding use of λοιποί might be possible, although examples of such use are wanting. But the very fact that the remaining writings in question are compared with the letters of Paul, or rather with certain passages in his letters hard to understand, in a way purely incidental and without any modifying adjectives such as ἅγιος (Rom. i. 2), ἱερός (2 Tim. iii. 15), θεοπνευστός (2 Tim. ili. 16), προφητικός (Rom. xvi. 26), παλαιός (2 Cor. iii. 14), ἀρχαῖος (Luke ix. 8, 19), proves that αἱ γραφαί is not here used in its technical sense, namely, “a collection of sacred writings.” Among the Jews the technical use of 0%527= Bible did not pre- vent the application of the word 5p to all sorts of books and documents, as similarly among Greek-speaking Christians, the analogous technical use of ai γραφαί and τὰ γράμματα did not preclude the broader use of γραφή, γραφαί, and γράμματα (n. 12). The way in which the false teachers took obscure passages in Paul’s letters out of their context and misinterpreted them, was only illustrative of their use of books in general. Of course, 378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the reference is limited to books of a religious character. naturally such as would claim recognition among Chris- tian readers, either on account of the person who wrote them or of the use made of them in the service of the Church. Inasmuch as the libertines are nowhere represented as opposed in principle to the O.T., the sacred writings of the O.T. are not in any sense excluded, nor the apocryphal writings, such as Jude and Peter themselves read and used. We also do not know how large a body of Christian literature was already in existence by 60 or 64. As evidenced by 2 Peter and Jude in their time, some works had already been written, and others were projected, which have not come down to us, and in Luke 1. 1 there is a definite reference to such literature ; so that we are entirely free to assume that in the years 50-70 other teachers, such as Barnabas, Apollos, Silvanus, and Timothy, oceasionally prepared a didactic letter, or some other writing, out of which the false teachers took single passages and misinterpreted them, as in the case of Paul's letters. So, then, 2 Pet. iii. 15 f. contains nothing which takes us beyond the period of Peter’s life, while the mention of a letter of Paul’s, unknown to the Church in the post- apostolic age, is proof that 2 Peter was written in apostolic times. We know that single passages in Paul’s letters, and particularly passages dealing with the moral life and its relation to heathen immorality, were misunderstood even by the original receivers, and also interpreted unfairly (1 Cor. v. 9-13; 2 Cor. i. 13%; vol. 1. pp. 2697/9822). Furthermore, we saw that probably the libertines, whose entrance into the Jewish Christian Church was predicted by Peter and described by Jude after it had taken place, appropriated forms of speech such as Paul had used in 1 Cor. ii, 10-11. 2 (Jude 19; above p. 258,n. 6). Jude seems to have found it worth while to read Paul’s letters as Peter did. Alone with 2 Peter, which is formally quoted, he mentions the utterariees of other apostles which must EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 279 likewise have been addressed to his readers, since they are exhorted to remember the same (Jude 17; above, p. 252). The reference, therefore, cannot be to letters οἵ Paul’s addressed to Gentile Christian Churches or to indi- viduals in these Churches, as has been assumed on the basis of passages like 2 Tim. 11. 17 £., i. 1ff, iv. 3f It is very natural, however, to suppose that he means that letter of Paul’s which, according to 2 Pet. ii. 15, was directed to the same readers and was related in content to 2 Peter. If Jude read 2 Peter carefully, and ascertained from it Peter's high opinion of the wisdom of Paul in his letters, and that the false teachers misused numerous passages in other Pauline letters, it is not astonishing that he should endeavour to procure Paul’s letters, and that he should read them carefully. This was. all the more natural, in view of the fact that he felt it his duty to summon his readers to oppose the libertines who used as watchwords Pauline phrases which they misinterpreted. So he himself could appropriate the Pauline. distinction between ψυχικοί and πνευματικοί which was misused by the false teachers (Jude 19). There are also other resemblances to Paul’s letters which can hardly be regarded as accidental (n. 19). Neither Jude nor 2 Peter shows evidence of the use of literary works from the time after the destruction of Jerusalem (n. 14). Finally, the question arises as to the character of the false teachers described in both letters. There is no essential difference between the descriptions of 2 Peter and Jude (above, pp. 224 f., 243 ff.). Though the word ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι does not occur in Jude, the thing which the word designates is found (above, p. 247 f.). While Jude nowhere indicates that these intruders despised prophecy, —an omission which is especially striking, because what Jude leaves out in ver. 18 is found in the corresponding passage in:2 Pet. i. 3 f. which he cited,—the fact is not to be overlooked that in 2 Peter also this side of the false 280 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tendency depicted by Peter falls at once entirely inte the background, and that Peter goes on to speak of the rise of various tendencies which will result from the intrusion of the false teachers which he foresees (ii. 1; above, p. 232, π. 2). It is in harmony not only with this prediction, but also with universal experience, that the representatives of the movement with which Peter had become acquainted in the Gentile Christian Churches did not reveal their whole “system” at once upon their entrance into the Jewish Christian Churches in Jude’s time. They left untouched for the time being especi- ally the teachings about the Christian hope which were so deeply rooted in Jewish Christianity, and, in general, strove to introduce their theory and practice, less by direct attack upon the common faith than by clever misinterpretation of the doctrine of grace (Jude 4), by depreciating judg- ments of the apostles and the simple Church officials (above, pp. 228, 243), by currying favour with the richer and more educated members of the Church (Jude 16), and by making the most of the opportunities afforded by the love-feasts for social, and yet at the same time religious fellowship (Jude 12). It is not necessary to come down so late as the second century in order to find an illustration from other histori- cal sources of the kind of false teachers described in Jude and 2 Peter. The essential features of this movement are to be found as early as the year 57 im the Corinthian Church (vol. i. pp. 273 ff., 298 1). There a movement had temporarily gained a foothold which (1) advocated extremely dangerous principles with regard to sexual life, based upon the idea of the freedom of the Christian under the gospel (1 Cor. vi. 12-20), principles which were actually applied in the life of the Church. The Lord who had bought the Christians, that they might be His servants, was practically denied (1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; ef. 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4). From the hints in Romans, which was EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 281 written in Corinth in the year 58 (Rom. vi. 1 ff., 12, 14 ff.), we also learn that an effort was made to find a theoretical support for the continuance of heathen immorality in the doctrine of the Christian state of grace, as well as in the doctrine of freedom under the gospel. (2) The same movement in Corinth justified participation in the heathen cultus acts, on the ground that all Christians, as a matter of course, knew that the heathen conceptions about the gods were false, and that the demons, who in the view of Paul and all other Jewish Christians presided over the idol worship, and were dangerous to Christians, were as powerless and unreal as the gods of mythology (1 Cor. vii.-x.; cf. 2 Pet. ü. 10 ἢ; Jude 8-10). (3) Exalted by this feeling of superior knowledge, the representatives of this movement assumed an attitude of insubordination and irreverence toward the apostle Paul which he compares to the rebellion of Korah (above, p. 257 f., n. 5). The watchword ἐγὼ de Χριστοῦ represented an attitude of scorn toward all human authority in the Church (vol. 1. p. 294). (4) Those of the Corinthians who denied the most essential point in the Christian teaching regarding the future life, namely, the resurrection of the body (1 Cor. xv.), were probably representatives of the same tendency. The ex- pectation of the future kingdom of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 23-28), which is inseparable from belief in the resurrection, was also practically denied in Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 8; vol. i. p- 273 f.). (5) The libertines in Corinth are not described as professional teachers ; but just as they endeavoured to find a theoretical foundation for their practical views, so, being “strong.” spirits, they declared it to be their duty to bring the “ weak” to their point of view, and to impart to them the knowledge which brings freedom, and to build them up by their example (1 Cor. viii. 10; vol. 1. p. 296, n. 1). (6) One of the abuses of the common meals of the Church (these meals are not yet called ἀγάπαι), which ended in the celebration of the eucharist, was the fact that by many they 282 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT were degraded into occasions for revelling (1 Cor. xi 21 Ε, 34; cf. 2 Pet. 1. 13; Jude 12). Here also the separa- tive tendencies which threatened to destroy the unity of the Corinthian Church and its connection with the whole Church, came to view (1 Cor. σι. 18 f.; ef. Jude 19 ; vol. iv p. 284 f.). In short, all the elements of the prophetic pie- ture of the false teachers in 2 Peter, and of the historical description of Jude, are to be found in 1 Cormthians, except that in the latter case they have not yet reached the same stage of development. In Corinth the libertines misinterpreted the written instructions of Paul (1 Cor. v. 9 ff.) ; they apparently applied passages which Paul had actually spoken in a way contrary to his meaning (1 Cor. vi. 12, x. 23, viii 1, 4, x. 19); and they even boasted, when indulging in practices which Paul reproves, that they were following his instructions (1 Cor. xi. 2). All of these things are illustrations of 2 Pet. ui. 16. The only new feature is that Peter predicts that persons representing this tendency will appear among the Jewish Christian Churches as false teachers, and that Jude some ten years later testifies that this had actually happened. That these intruders are not charged, or at least not clearly charged, with participation in idolatrous sacrificial feasts, and with seducing others to such participation (above, p. 243 ff.), is not strange; for in Jewish Christian Churches such de- mands would have met with insurmountable opposition. Furthermore, the environment of these Churches would per- haps hardly have furnished opportunity for such practices, In view of the mention of Balaam’s name (2 Pet. ii. 15; Jude 11), it is at least possible that Peter and Jude knew that many persons representing this tendeney did ποῦ keep themselves aloof from idolatrous worship in their own home, 7.e. in Gentile lands, to the degree that Peter and Jude and Paul himself felt to be necessary. From Rev, ii. 2,6, 14 f., 20-25 we learn that between the years 90 and 95 representatives of a doctrine in which unchastity and EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 285 participation in idolatrous feasts were justified among other reasons by appeal to a deeper insight into the nature of evil spirits (Rev. ii. 24), sought entrance into the Churches of Ephesus, Pergamos, and Thyatira, and were partially successful. The occurrence of the name of Balaam in Rev. ii. 14 (ef. 2 Pet. ii. 15; Jude 11) of itself almost compels us to assume a connection between this teaching and what is deseribed in 2 Peter and Jude. The historical reports regarding the party and teaching of the Nicolaitans (Rev. ii. 6, 15) favour the assumption that in the last third of the first century they sent missionaries among the Jewish Christians in Palestine, as well as among the Gentile Christians in Ephesus (n. 15). While there were numer- ous parties and sects representing libertinistic theories and practices in the second and third centuries, there is none that so closely resembles the seducers described in 2 Peter and Jude as the libertinistic movement with which we become acquainted in 1 Corinthians, and as the Nicolaitans of whom we learn from hints in Revelation. 1. (P. 262.) The suspicions as to the genuineness and canonicity of 2 Pet. as of Jude current in the ancient Church were shared by the theologians. of the sixteenth century. Erasmus, who thought that the reference in 1 Pet. v. 12 was to a letter earlier than our 1 Pet., written by Silvanus, was of the opinion that the statement that 2 Pet. was a second (instead of a third) letter could be explained only on the assumption that 2 Pet. was spurious, or, like the earliest, the lost letter, was written by Silvanus at Peter’s direetion (Paraphr. in epist. can. Basil, 1521, fol. AP, cf. A* D?). Luther in the year 1524 (Erl. Ausg. Bd. 52, 5.271) quotes 2 Pet. iii. 15 as one of the passages, on the basis of which its composition by Peter might be questioned, in so far as it indicates “that this Epistle was written long after: those of Paul.” 2 Pet. iii. 9 was objectionable to him on doctrinal grounds; “Doch ists gläublich, sie [die Epistel] nichts deste minder des Apostels sei” (still, it is credible that it may be an epistle of the apostle). Calvin in his Argwmentum on 2 Pet. and on iii. 15 wavers between acceptance and rejection, but is inclined to believe that the letter was written by'a disciple of Peter at his direction. Grotius (on 2 Pet. i. 1, 14, 17, iii. 1, ed. Windheim, 11. 1038, 1042 [., 1053, 1060), who is of the opimion that 2 Pet. could not have been written until after the destruction of Jerusalem, divides the letter into two letters, chaps. i.-ii. and chap. iii., making iii. 1 refer to chaps. i. and ii. as a first letter. They were both written not by the apostle Simon Peter, but by Simeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Trajan (Ens. H. 1. iii. 32). In 284 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT order to establish his theory, Grotios omitted the words Πέτρος... . καὶ ἀπόστολος, 1 Pet. i. 1, and ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφός, 111. 15, on the ground that they are interpolations. He also conjectured that the heavenly voice in i. 17 was an interpolation, so that the holy mountain may be understood as referring to Zion, and the entire passage made to relate to John xii. 28. Accordingly, Grotius, p. 1117, explained the words ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου, Jude 1, as an interpolation, and declared this Epistle to be the work of the last Jewish Christian bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian (ὃ 43, n. 1). Herder (Briefe zweener Bruder Jesu, 1775, Opera, ed. by Suphan, vi. 471) regarded both letters as genuine, but could not understand how the opinion could be so long held that Jude is dependent upon 2 Pet., the opposite relation being so perfectly apparent (S. 529). On the other hand, Semler (Paraphrasis ep. Petri II. et Jude, 1784, in the preface of fol. d! and p. 167 f.) declared both letters to be pseudonymous forgeries of the second half of the second century ; Jude he held to be an epitome of 2 Pet. While J. D. Michaelis (Einl., 4te Auf. 1788, S. 1475 ff.) defends the genuineness of 2 Pet., and is inclined to assume that Jude is fabricated on the basis of 2 Pet. (S. 1516), Eichhorn (Einl. 1812, iii. S. 624-656) decides against the genuineness of 2 Pet., mainly on the ground of the dependence of 2 Pet. upon Jude, which he thinks was written perhaps before the year 70. And this is one of the main reasons for the wide currency of a similar view to-day. Among the moderns who advocate this view, special mention should be made of Mayerhoff (Hist. krit. Einl. in die petrinischen Schriften, 1835, S. 149-217) ; among those who defend the genuineness of 2 Pet., Weiss (see especially ThStKr, 1866, S. 255-308) ; Hofmann, NT, vii. 3 (1875) ; Spitta, Der 2 Br. des Pt. und des Ju. (1885). Nor have efforts been wanting since Grotius to find a genuine Epistle of Peter in 2 Pet. by removing additions to the letter that are not held to be original. Berthold (Hinl. 1819, S. 3157 ff.) declared chap. ii. to be an interpolation based upon Jude, holding chaps. i. and iii. to be an original letter of Peter’s. C. Ul- mann (Krit. Unters. des 2 Pt. 1821) accepted only chap. i. as the work of Peter. Gess, Dus apost. Zeugniss von Christi Person, 1879, ii. 2, 8. 412 ff, is in favour of striking out i. 20” (ὅτι raaa)—iii. 3° (γινώσκοντες) as an interpolation, 2. (P. 264.) In explaining the entirely different reception of 1 Pet. and 2 Pet. in the ancient Church, appeal cannot be made to the lost letters of Paul to the Corinthians (vol. i. pp. 261, 270, n. 9), to the Philippians (vol. i. p. 535 f.) and to the readers of 2 Pet. (above, p. 198 f.), nor to Peter’s own letter, referred to in 2 Pet. iii. 1 (above, p. 199 f.); for the reason that, so far as we know, these letters were very soon and for ever lost. On the other hand, 2 Pet. was preserved and eventually came to be everywhere accepted as a letter of Peter’s. The real question is why the general circulation and acceptance of 2 Pet. was so much later than that of 1 Pet. 3. (P. 264.) For traces of 2 Pet. and Jude in the literature of the early Church, and their relation to the canon, see GK, i, 310-321, 759, 959-961, ii. 819, 853; Grundriss, 20, 21f., 25 (A. 15), 42f., 58, 54f., 56, 60, 68f., 71. For the relation between 2 Pet. and Hermas cf. the writer’s work, Hirt des Hermas, 430-438 ; Hofmann, NT, vii. 3. 174 f.; Spitta, Der 2 Brief des Pet. 533f. While in this work Spitta recognised only a certain general relation- ship between the two writings in thought and language, later he came to feel that the large number of close resemblances between them indicated a EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 28: literary relationship (Z. @esch. u. Lit. des Urchrist. ii. 399-409). According to Spitta, however, Hermas is not dependent upon 2 Pet., but in the year 64 the apostle Peter read in Rome the apocalypse which was written in Rome in the year 50 by a Jew named Hermas, and which in the year 150 was worked over by the Christian Hermas, the brother of bishop Pius of Rome (Can. Muratori, lines 73-80 ; Spitta, 434), into the Shepherd, afterwards so widely read in the Church. Such a theory cannot be refuted in a passing remark. But a protest is entered against the assumption of the accidental coincidence by which the original writer and the editor have the same names, thereby making the tradition and the theory agree (cf. above, p. 263). 4, (P. 265.) Luther (in the year 1522, in the preface to James and Jude, Erl. Ausg. 63, S. 158) says: “No one can deny that the Epistle of St. Jude is an extract or a copy of St. Peter’s second Epistle, inasmuch as almost all the words of the two are the same.” The view here expressed in an exagger- ated form was held by Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Michaelis, and others without any more definite effort to establish it. Herder opposed it as the prevailing view of his time (above, p. 284). Eichhorn (Hinl. iii. 637, 642 ff.) reversed this relation, and after his time the majority of critics made it one of the chief grounds of objection to the genuineness of 2 Pet. This view finally became so general that it was accepted even by those who defended the genuineness of 2 Pet., as Hug, Einl.? ii. 556; Wiesinger, Der 2 Pt. 1862, S. 22ff8; Weiss, ThStKr, 1866, S. 256 ff, 300f.; finally, Fr. Maier, ΤΌ, 1905, S. 547-580 ; abid. in BbZ, 1904, S. 377 on Jude 4f., see above, p. 262, n. 12. Into the discussion of this relation the question whether it was in accordance with Peter’s dignity to follow closely the letter of Jude, who was not an apostle, should never have been allowed to enter, nor the conjecture that some pseudo-Peter objected to the apocryphal citations in Jude, and accordingly removed some of them and obliterated others. This presupposes a precise dogmatic distinction between what was canonical and what was apocryphal, which was not to be found throughout the entire second century, especially with reference to O.T. matters. Moreover, we cannot approve the efforts made on both sides to establish the dependence of one writer upon another, because of misunderstanding or clumsiness of expression. Jude is not copied from 2 Pet. ; neither is 2 Pet. a working over of Jude. The fact that Jude appealed to an apostolic prediction known to his readers, the beginning of the fulfilment of which he witnesses, made it natural for him to follow this prophecy in deseribing present realities. He did so, however, only so far as the fulfilment of the same can be actually discerned. 5. (P. 267.) It is impossible to conceive of 2 Pet. as being fabricated on the basis of Jude 4, 17f., in the same way that the so-called Third Epistle to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans were fabricated on the basis of 1 Cor. v. 9, vii. 1, and Col. iv. 16 (vol. 1. p. 270, n. 9, p. 488, n. 2): As a matter of fact, the analogy between the two cases is very slisht. (1) There is no direct reference in Jude to a writing of Peter’s, (2) The reference in Jude 4, 17 ἢ. would lead naturally to the fabrication of an apocalypse (above, pp. 270, 273) rather than toa letter in an apostle’s name. (3) 2 Pet. is too earnest and rich in thought to be due, like the letter to the Laodiceans entirely and 3 Cor. in part, to the mere desire to produce artificially at some later date the missing foundation in literature of a quotation found in some 286 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT apostolie writing. (4) How little attention was paid to these hints of Jude about other writings of the apostolic age is evidenced by the fact that the ancient interpreters either pass Jude 3, 4, 17 f. by altogether (Clem. Hypot.;; Didymus), or at most make Jude 17 refer to 2 Pet. and the Epistles of Paul (Cranier, Cat. viii. 168). So far as we know, a second, more detailed work of Jude was never written on the basis of Jude 3 (see above, p. 242). 6. (P. 269.) There is no high degree of probability in Spitta’s conjecture (404) that the writing which, according to ver. 3, Jude was about to prepare, was the same for the composition of which Peter made himself responsible in 2 Pet. i..15, without saying whether he would write it himself or commission someone else to do so. If Peter wrote in 63 or 64 and Jude in 75, then either Peter failed to keep his promise, or Jude was lax in carrying out his commission. The only thing indicated by the two passages is that the time had come when men in apostolic circles had begun to think about providing for the future by literary work ; ef. 1 John i. 4. 7. (Pp. 269, 270.) Below are placed in parallel columns (1) the text of Jude 14f. (Tisch. 8th ed.), with the omission of the first αὐτῶν after ἀσεβεῖς, whick is due to an error in printing (see Tischendorf’s apparatus for these verses, and Gregory, Proleyomena, 1285); (2) the Greek text of Enoch i. 9, edited first in 1892 by Bouriant (Mém. de la mission archéol. au Caire, ix. 1), follaw- ing the edition of Flemming and Radermacher, p. 20 (cf. Lods, L’éwangile.et Papocalypse de Pierre, p. 112; Charles, The Book of Enoch, 1893, p: 329): (3) an English translation of the Ethiopic Enoch, after the German of Flemming and Radermacher, which has been compared with Dillmann’s German translation (5. 1); (4) the fragment of the Latin Enoch (Pseudo- Cypr. ad Novat. 16, Cypr. ed. Hartel, Append. p. 67 ; ef. GK, ii. 797-801; Forsch. v. 158, 438 ; James, Apocr. anecd. 1. 146 ff.). ls Jupe 141. ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ, ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων καὶ ἐλέγξαι πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν σκληρῶν λόγων, ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. Erntoric Text. And lo! He has come [(Dill.) comes] with ten thousands of [(Dill.) with ten thousand] holy ones, to execute judgment upon them, and He will destroy the ungodly, and will reprove all flesh [(Al. and Dill.) will argue with all flesh) for all that which the sinners and (the) ungodly have wrought and committed [(Dill.) un- godly committed] against Hii, GREEK ENocH, ὅτι ἔρχεται σὺν ταῖς μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων, ἀπολέσει πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καὶ ἐλέγξει πᾶσαν σάρκα περὶ πάντων ἔργων τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν λόγων καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν κατελάλη- σαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. ‘ Kat Latin EnocH. Ecce venit cum multis milibus nun- ciorum suorum, facere «üudicium de omnibus et perdere omnes impios et arguere omnem carnem de omnibus factis impiorwm, que fecerunt impie, et de omnibus verbis impiis que de deo locuti sunt peccatores. EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 257 A number of different circumstances render difficult a definite judg- ment concerning this text. The original, which is commonly supposed to have been Hebrew or Aramaic, is lost (Schürer, iii. 203 ; [Eng. trans. τι. iii. pp. 69, 10]. The text of Jude is not by any means fixed, and it is quite possible that the text tradition of Jude was influenced by the Greek text of the Book of Enoch, which was current in the second and third centuries. Furthermore, we do not know when the Greek translation of Enoch, from which the Ethiopic and Latin were derived, was made. If it was made by a Christian after Jude was written, it is most likely that in this passage the translator was influenced by the quotation in Jude, just as copyists of the LXX were frequently influenced by N.T. quotations. If, on the other hand, the Greek translation was made by a Jew before Jude was written, Jude is hardly likely to have made use of the Greek version. The peculiar ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν, instead of ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται, which alone suits the passage, is a clumsy translation of the ambignous x3"n77 (cf. Isa. xxi. 9, Inti. 11; Jer. 1.41; Zech. ii. 14; Mal. iii. 19, and, per contra, Ezek. vii. 12) ; ev μυριάσιν is a Hebraism (Num. xx. 20; 1 Mace. i. 17; Luke xiv. 31), which could never have been written by anyone who had the Greek σὺν μυριάσιν before him. The agreement between Jude and the Greek Enoch in the choice of words is, however, closer than is usually found) between two independent translators (ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων, ἐλέγχειν, ἀσεβεῖς, ἀσεβεῖν, ἀσέβεια, σκληροὶ λόγοι), Which compels us to assume. that the Greek translator of Enoch was a Christian familiar with Hebrew, and therefore certainly a Jewish Christian, who, like so many Christians in later times, became interested in the book through Jude 14, and was under the in- fluence of the quite free citation of Jude when he translated the passage cited by Jude, which stood at the very beginning of his original. It is generally admitted by the Church Fathers that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch: Clement, Hypot, (Forsch. iii. 85, 97), “his verbis (sc. Judas) pro- phetam (not prophetiam) comprobat”; Tert. Cult. fem. i. 3, “Enoch apud Iudam apostolum testimonium possidet” (GK, i.120f.); Jerome, Vir. Il. iv. ; Comm. in Tit. Vall. vii. 708) ; August. Crit. xv. 23. 4, xviii. 38) ; Euthalius (Zacagni, 480, 485). This has been vigorously denied by Hofmann, vii. 2. 187, 205-211 (cf. his Schrafthewers, 1. 420-424), and Philippi (Das Buch Henoch, 1868, S. 138-152), who advance the theory that Jude’s only source was the oral traditions of the rabbis, and that the Book of Enoch that has come down to us was written by a Jewish Christian on the basis of Jude 14. Without claiming that the pre-Christian origin of the whole of the Book of Enoch is absolutely proved, it is possible entirely to reject this theory on the following grounds: (1) The fact that Jude uses direct discourse in quoting Hnoch indicates that he has it before him in written form. Although in the addresses in which the rabbis were accustomed to interpret and enlarge upon the O.T. narratives in the synagogue certain mythical elements, including the sayings and replies of the persons in the narratives, may have assumed a relatively stereotyped form, it is inconceivable that one who was not a disciple of the rabbis, but a brother of Jesusand a member of the first Christian Church, should for this reason have quoted a somewhat long saying of the patriarch Enoch in exactly the same way that men who held the same faith, and were contemporaries of his, were accustomed to quote the prophecies of 288 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Isaiah, as these were found in the O.T. Other references in the N.T. tc mythical additions to the O.T. history are confined to facts and names (Matt. i. 5; Acts vil. 22f., xiii, 20f.; Gal. iv. 29; 2 Tim. iii. 8; Heb. xi. 37). No one would compare the citation of the words of Jesus at a time when the gospel was as yet unwritten, but when numerous persons who had heard them were still living in the Church (§ 48), with the apparently verbal quotation of a prophecy supposed to have been spoken in patriarchal times. To deny that Jude 14f. is taken from Hnoch i. 9 is to deprive oneself also of the right to affirm that Jude 17f. is a quotation from 2 Pet. iii. 3 (above, p. 250f.). (2) If the Book of Enoch, or even the passage which is parallel to what is found in Jude, had been written on the basis of Jude 14f., it would be evidenced by an exact verbal quotation of Jude; whereas, as a matter of fact, Jude, following the example of the apostles and of the ancients generally, could reproduce his citation quite freely, notwithstanding the fact that he quoted it in direct discourse. And this freedom would be all the greater if he had before him the Hebrew Enoch, which he himself was under necessity of translating into Greek. If it be true that at least this part of the Book of Enoch was written in Hebrew and is of Jewish origin, then it is impossible to believe that its author borrowed from a Greek Christian writing. (3) Besides the almost verbal quotation, there are numerous other resemblances between Jude and Enoch. This is not confined to single quoted expressions such as σκληροὶ λόγοι (Enoch v. 4, xxvii. 2), ἕβδομος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδάμ (noch 1x. 8, xciii. 3), which recur in other parts of the book. It is to be particularly observed that the fall and punishment of the angels who before the Flood had intercourse with women (Jude 6 ; ef. ver. 7) is described in such a way that what is said could not have been derived from Gen. vi. 1-4 or 2 Pet. 11. 4. Jude’s source is rather, for the fall, Enoch vi., vii., ix. 7-9, xii. 4-6, xv. 3-xvi. 4; for the punishment, Enoch x. 11-14, xiv. 5-6, xviii. 14-xix. 2; ef. especially xii. 4 (also xv. 3), ἀπολιπόντες τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸν ὑψηλόν, and x. 12, δῆσον αὐτοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα γενεὰς εἰς τὰς νάπας τῆς γῆς μέχρι ἡμέρας κρίσεως αὐτῶν κτλ. Cf. Spitta, 324 ff., 360-367. It is not so easy to establish the correctness of the opinion of the Church Fathers that Jude 9 is related to the ἀνάληψις Moioéws, since the fragment of the Latin translation of this Jewish apoery- phal writing (Fritzsche, Libr. apoe. 700-730) is broken off before the burial of Moses is reached, and so contains nothing corresponding to the passage in Jude. But what reason is there for disbelieving the Fathers, who had the Greek text of this book, when they say that Jude quoted from it; ef. Clem. Hypot. (Forsch. iii. 84, 96 f.), “hic confirniat assumptionem Moysi”; Orig. de Prine. iii. 2.1; Didymus, Lat. trans. (Migne, 39. 1815) ; Euthalius (Zacagni, 480, 485). In particular, we are justified in assuming that there was some- thing in this book corresponding to the passage in Jude, by a quotation in Gellasius Cyzicus (Mansi, ii. 857; ef. Apollinaris in Nicephor. Cat. in octa- teuchum, i. 1313; Cramer, Cat. viii. 161, 163; Matthei, Epist. cathol. pp. 170, 238, 244). There is nothing in the parallel passage 2 Pet. ii. 10f. referring to the same event, and so no reference to the Asswmptio Mosis. Τὶ is uncertain whether Peter had in view Zech. iii. 2 (Hofmann, vii. 2. 65), the passage upon which the author of the Assumptio Mosis is supposed to have based the passage in his work used by Jude, or whether Peter thought of Enoch x. 4-8, 11-14, xii. d-xiii. 2 (Spitta, 170ff.), It is altogether likely EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 289 that in 2 Pet. ii. 4-11 use is made, not only of unwritten Jewish tradition, but of apocryphal books, such as Hnoch cited by Jude. 8. (Ὁ. 270.) With reference to the pseudo-Petrine writings, ef. GK, i. 199 f., 308-311, 758, 802, 11. 742-751, 810-855 ; Grundriss, 25. The Epistle of Peter to James (Clementina, ed. Lagarde, p. 3) cannot be regarded as a type of the pseudo-Petrine letters to Churches for the following reasons: (1) Τῦ is not a letter addressed to a Church. (2) It was written by a man who took a view of Peter antagonistic to that of biblical and) ecclesiastical tradition, whereas the view of the author of 2 Pet. is in direct accord with the same. (3) This: Epistle of Peter to James was certainly not written before the third century. The subordination of Peter to James, which is part of the funda- mental idea of this work, renders Peter’s apostolic consciousness less prominent (p. 4. 16, κύριέ pov). This is more strongly expressed in the Hpistle of Clement to James (Lagarde, 6. 12 ἢ). [ 9. (P. 271.) As to the resemblances between 1 Pet. and 2 Pet. in language and content, ef. Schott, 2 Petrusbrief, S. 167-188 ; Hofmann, vii. 128-139. In view of the fundamentally different character of the greetings of the two Epistles of Peter, both as regards the designation of the writer and of the readers, which precludes the possibility of intentional imitation, the corre- spondence in the greeting itself (ydpus—AnOvr Gein) is of no great significance ; since it is limited by the phrase which follows in 2 Pet. i. 2, and by the connection made by this phrase with the text that follows (above, p. 220). Moreover, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν (or ἡ εἰρήνη ὑμῶν) πληθυνθείη is a common Jewish formula (vol. i. p, 32, n. 18). It is found in a somewhat altered form in Jude 2,and in Clem. 1 Cor., and Polye. ad Phil.,—in the last two cases clearly influenced by 1 Pet. i.2;—and in the communication of the Smyrneans in. the year 155 (Martyr. Polye.), in this case closely following Jude 2. More worthy of notice is the fact that) both in 1 Pet. iii. 20 and 2 Pet. ii. 5 the number of those saved in the Flood is given as eight, though in Gen. vi. 18, vii. 7, 13, viii. 16, no number is mentioned. Moreover, that interpretation of 1 Pet. ii. 19 is in all probability correct, according to which a preaching of Christ at the time of the Flood is referred to, ae. a preaching through Noah, so that Noah is here represented as a preacher of righteousness, as in 2 Pet. ii. 5. In such a eonnection the fact that the deferment of the judgment is explained by the μακροθυμία of God in 1 Pet. 111. 20 and 2 Pet. iii. 9, ef. iii. 5 f,, deserves notice, although the thought is itself a’ very natural one (Rom. ii. 4). There are, moreover, a few words and phrases which in the whole N.T. are found only in 1 Pet. and 2 Pet. or practically nowhere else; apern, 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i. 3, is used as an attribute of God or Christ when represented as calling men (above, p. 220); also twice found in 2 Pet. 1, 5 of human virtue, and elsewhere only in Phil. iv. 8; ἄσπιλος καὶ ἄμωμος (or ἀμώμητος), 2 Pet. iii. 14, in reverse order in 1 Pet, i..19; σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, 1 Pet. iii, 21; ἀπόθεσις τοῦ σκηνώματος, 2 Pet. i. 14; ἐποπτεύειν, 1 Pet. 11, 12, 111. 2; ἐπόπται γενηθέντες, 2 Pet. i. 16. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 14, ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας, and 1 Pet. ἵν. 1, πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας ; also ψυχαί to designate persons, 1 Pet. iii. 20 (ii. 25) and 2 Pet. ii. 14, found elsewhere only in Rom. xiii, 1. It is also to be observed that certain ideas, which recur with special frequency in one of the letters, are found also in the other: ἀναστροφή six times in 1 Pet., twice in 2 Pet., elsewhere in the whole N.T. only) five times; ἀσέλγεια, 2 Pet. ii. 2, VOL. II. 19 290 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 7, 18; 1 Pet. iv. 3; ἐστηριγμένος, 2 Pet. i. 12; -ἀστήρικτος, ii. 14, iii. 16; στηριγμός, iii. 17; but also in 1 Pet. v. 10, στηρίξει. Notwithstanding such details, which may serve to suggest that, when Silvanus wrote 1 Pet. by Peter’s directions and in his name, he was influenced by Peter’s thought and language, we get from the letters the impression of a totally different style, which even in antiquity tended to make questionable the composition of 2 Pet. by the writer of 1 Pet. (Jerome, Vir. Ill. i.; ad Hedibiam, Ep. exx. 11). 10. (P. 275.) It may be accepted as certain that the correct reading in iii. 16 is ἐν ais (NAB, many cursives, S? 58), not ἐν ois (CKLP and the majority of eursives). Itisequally elear that we are to read πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς (ABC) without ταῖς inserted in X and the Antiochian recension. It makes an important difference in the sense. With the article the Epistles are repre- sented as a definite whole, and the statement made covers all parts of the collection without exception. With the article omitted the one letter of Paul’s known to the readers is contrasted with letters of all kinds which he has written. In other words, one may take any one of them he chooses and he will never find the libertine view, but everywhere the same moral earnestness. 11. (P. 277.) Cf. eg. Iren. ii. 30. 7: “universe clamant scripture, et Paulus autem testimonium perhibet”; ii. 28. 7, “et dominus manifeste dixit et reliquee demonstrant scripture.” 12. (P. 277.) For ἄλλοι in the above-mentioned sense (above, p. 277), ef. Kühner-Gerth i. 275. The Latins, French, and Italians also use this illogical form of speech (see Thiersch, Versuch. 423) ; ἕτεροι is used in the same way less frequently, Luke xxiii. 32; Thucyd. iv. 67.2; cf. also ἕτερος δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν, Matt. viii. 21, where the meaning is a second person who is already one of the disciples, in distinction from the first who was one of the scribes, and had just declared his readiness to become a disciple (viii. 19). An analogous use of λοιποί must first be pointed out and is extremely impro- bable, because this word does not, like ἄλλος, ἕτερος, carry with it the idea of distinctive difference. Unfortunately there is wanting the original of sentences as found in Orig. Lat. trans. (Delarue, iii. 877, 888 in Matt.) § 61, apostolos certerosque episcopos et doctores, § 72, Christi. . . ceterorumque discipulorum ejus. Cf. also the second quotation in n. 11, above. Even if λοιπά were genuine in Eph. iv. 17, it could not be cited as proof of this usage ; since the Gentile Christians are Gentiles, cf. Eph. iii. 1. That γραφή in its common sense does not occur in the N.T. is accidental. On the other hand, we find γράμματα, which in John vii. 15 undoubtedly means the ἱερὰ γράμματα (2 Tim. iii. 15) from which the Jewish γραμματεῖς derive their title, used of writings of the most diverse character (Luke xvi. 6, 7; Acts xxviii. 21), even of letters and characters (Gal. vi. 11). Cf. the frequent use of βιβλίον referring to other than sacred books along with ra λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων in the prologue of Sirach. For γραφή see 2 Chron, ii. 10; Neh. vii. 64; Dan. v. 7fl. ; 2 Mace. xiv. 27, 48; and in Christian Literature, Iren. iii. 6. 4, 17. 4; v. prologue (regularly he scriptura of Treneus’ own work) ; Clem. Strom. vi. 32 (προϊούσης τῆς γραφῆς followed immediately by κατὰ τὴν γραφήν, meaning “according to the Holy Scriptures”), Strom. vi. 181; Eus. H.E. ii. 11. 1 (τὴν περὶ τούτου παραθώμεθα τοῦ Ἰωσήπου γραφήν, ef. ii, 10. 1,2). Furthermore, 7 γραφή and ai γραφαί are never used in the Epistles of Peter of the Οὐ Τ᾽, the anarthrous γραφῆς in EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 291 2 Pet. i, 20 means “written” ; and ἐν γραφῇ, 1 Pet. ii. 6, which, according te NBA, is also without the article, signifies only “in a writing,” although. the reference is to a quotation from one of the prophets indirectly through Rom. ix. 33 (above, p. 188). 13. (P. 279.) Particularly striking is the resemblance between Jude 24 f. and Rom. xvi. 25, 27, τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι (in Rom. στηρίξαι, but Rom. xiv. 4, δυνατεῖ γὰρ ὁ κύριος στῆσαι αὐτόν)... μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν (Rom. μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ) διὰ ’I. Xp. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν δόξα (Rom. διὰ “I. Xp. ᾧ ἡ δόξα) . .. εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας (Rom. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων), ἀμήν. With regard to the genuineness and original location of Rom. xvi, 25-27, ef. vol. i. p. 879 ff. Cf. also Jude 20, ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς TH ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει, with Col. ii. 6 (Eph.ii.20; 1 Pet. ii. 5), ἐποικοδομούμενοι ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ βεβαιούμενοι τῇ πίστει ; also with Rom. xiv. 19, xv. 2, and all the passages where Paul uses the figure of building. See also Spitta, 389 ff., who discovers in of ἀποδιορίζοντες a reference to the lost letter of Paul’s (see above, pp. 252, 258, n. 6); but this view is hardly tenable. 14. (P. 279.) For the Asswmptio Mosis and the Book of Enoch in Jude, see above, p. 286 ff. Edw. Abbot (Zxpos. 1882, vol. iii. 49-63) endeavours to show that Jude and 2 Pet. are dependent upon the Antiquities of Josephus (completed in 94 B.c.); but cf. per contra, Salmon, Hist. Intro. to N.T. (1885) pp. 638-653. While F. W. Farrar holds to the view (Expos. 1888, vol. viii. 58-69) that 2 Pet. is not dependent upon Josephus, but that the reverse is the ease (cf, Expos. 1882, vol. iii. 401-423), Krenkel goes back to the other view, Jos. u. Lucas, 1894, S. 350. Single expressions such as τοῖς μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες (Jos. Ant. procem. iv., cf. 2 Pet. i. 16), ols ποιήσετε καλῶς μὴ προσέχοντες (Ant. xi. 12. 6, ef. 2 Pet. i. 19), πᾶσαν εἰσηνέγκατο σπουδήν (Ant. xx. 9. 2, cf. 2 Pet. i. 5; Jude 3; also (€. I. Gr. 2715a-b; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 278 [Eng. trans. p. 361 ff.]; Prologue to Sirach, προσενέγκασθαι σπουδήν) would have value as proof only if they were found in. similar contexts, which, however, is by no means the case. But that the writer of 2 Pet. studied the work of Josephus as a model of style and imitated it, is an assumption altogether absurd. When 2 Pet. ii. 5 calls Noah a δικαιοσύνης κήρυξ (ef. 1 Pet. iii. 19 ff, above, p. 289, τι. 9); and Jos. Ant. 1. 3. 1 declares that Noah, incensed by the sins of his contemporaries, preached repentance to them before the Flood ; and when we read in a Midrash on Gen. vi. 9 that Noah was a herald for God (Beresch. rabba, translated by Wünsche, 8. 129, cf. bab. Sanhedr. 108d), —the only thing proved is that, in the synagogues where Josephus and Peter went, it was customary to enlarge upon the O.T. history. Of a different character, however, are the statements of 2 Pet. ii. 15 (cf. i. 13f.) and Jude 11 when they accuse Balaam of covetousness, and the statement of Philo (Vita Mosis, i. 48) and Josephus (Ant. iv. 6, 5) when the one says and the other suggests that Balaam allowed himself to be tempted by bribes ; because the basis for all that is said is found in Num, xxii. 7, cf. xxii. 17£. Nor does the statement require any explanation when it is expressly said in 2 Pet. ti. 16 (ev ἀνθρώπου φωνὮ) and in Josephus (iv. 6. 3, φωνὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἀφεῖσα) that the ass spoke with a human voice, since that was what any child must say, if he meant to imply that the ass was understood by a man. It would be much more natural to assume that the writer of Rey. ii. 14 is dependent upon Jos, Ant. iv, 6.6 for the statement that Balaam gave evil counsel to 292 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Balak, which is not stated in Num. xxxi. 16, except for the fact that the same is found in Philo, Vita Mosis, i. 54. The form Βοσόρ for “ya, which is certainly the correct reading in 2 Pet. ii. 15, is not yet explained. It is taken neither from the LXX, which everywhere has Βεὼρ or Barwp, nor from Josephus nor Philo, who do not use the name at all. To assume an accidental error in the original MS., or in one of the ancient copies of 2 Pet., is less natural than to suppose that Peter made a mistake either through imperfect pronunciation or defective hearing. The Hebrew s is frequently imter- changed with the Aramaic y (ΝΡῚΝ Ξε γῈν earth), and so it was possible for a fisherman from Bethsaida, who heard Num. xxii. 2 ff. read in Hebrew in the synagogue and interpreted in Aramaic, to make the opposite mistake (ef. ©. B. Michaelis in Gesen. Thesaur. 227; Hofmann, vii. 2.74). The use of a slight vowel—a composite shewa, having the same sound as the full vowel pre- ceding—before or with y is not infrequent (Gesen. 977), and has a parallel in Boavnpyes (vol. i. p. 16). Cf. above, p. 287, regarding the relation of Jude to the Hebrew Enoch. ind: 15. (P. 283.) If the context of Rev. ii. 2 and ii. 6 shows that the false apostles who had come to Ephesus were wandering teachers, who spread the teaching of the Nicolaitans in the Churches of Asia Minor, this is one point of resemblance between them and the false teachers in 2 Pet. and Jude. If ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι, Jude 8, refers to visions (above, p. 246), it is natural to associate the same with the prophetess Jezebel, Rev. ii. 20, who favoured the Nicolaitan teaching. With regard to time, the statement of Hegesippus to the effect that heresy did not appear in the Palestinian Church until after the death of James (Eus. H. E. iv. 22. 5), notwithstanding the fact that his report is anything but clear, may be taken as indicating that 2 Pet., which predicts the near approach of this development, was written before this date, 7.0. before the year 66, and that Jude, which represents it as having taken place shortly before, was written some years later (ef. above, p. 246). If this be true, then light is thrown upon the report that the grandchildren of Jude were denounced by heretics (above, p.240). It was done out of revenge. The remark with which Clement (Strom. iii. 11) introduces an abbreviated quotation of Jude 8-16, namely, that Jude is here making predictions about the sect of Carpocratians and other similar parties, is to be placed in the same category with the similar statements of Irenmts and others with regard to the false teachers of the Pastoral Epistles (above, p. 128, τι. 14), or the claim of Epiphanius (Her, xxvi. 11) that the Holy Ghost through Jude referred to certain patties that existed in the fourth century. What led Clement to make the citation was the parallel between Jude 12 and the report of unseemly orgies in the love- feasts of the Carpocratians (Strom. iii, 10). This itself shows that’ the description in 2 Pet. and Jude does not suit this party ; for what is said in 2 Pet. ii. 13f., Jude 12, about abuses practised in connection with the love- feasts (above, pp. 236, 243 f.) is not to be compared with the reports which, according to Strom. iii. 2, Clement had heard concerning the Carpocratians, and with what Irensus declares to be hardly credible (i. 25. 5), namely, that a community of wives was actually in practice among them in eonnection with the love-feasts. Of the distinctive teachings of Carpocrates and of his son Epiphanes (Iren. i. 25. 1-6, 28.2; Clement, Strom. iii. 5-11, ef. iii. 25- 27; Hippol. Refut. vii. 32 ; Pseudo-Tert. ix. ; Philaster, xxxv. ; Epiph. Her. EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 293 xxvii.), there are no traces in 2 Pet. and Jude; (1) creation of the world by subordinate spirits, of whom the chief was the devil ; (2) the contention that Jesus was the son of Joseph ; (3) instead of emphasising the doctrine of grace and the freedom that went with it, they taught that every man must save himself, as Jesus did, by doing the will of the devil as enjoined in Matt. v. 25, and by undergoing all human experiences; for only in this way does the soul escape from the prison of the body and so from the rule of spirits, and only in this way is it kept from entering another body. (4) In the measure that they were able in this way to get the better of the spirits in the world, they attained the power to perform miracles like Jesus, and perhaps in greater degree than many of the apostles. It was for this reason that they practised magic arts... (5) Only faith and love have value; all external actions are indifferent. The imaginary distinction between good and evil, and between the ideas of ownership and theft, are due entirely to the prejudices of men and arbitrary laws, among which the decalogue is particularly ridiculous, because of the statement in Ex. xx. 17... Grotius’ identification of the false teachers of 2 Pet. and Jude with the Carpocra- tians cannot be accepted (ed. Windheim, ii. 1045, 1047, 1049, 1053, 1058, 1117, 1120). $ 45. THE TRADITION CONCERNING THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, The writing which, from the earliest times, has been transmitted as a letter “to the Hebrews” was, like 2 Peter and Jude, intended for Jewish Christians. » There are reasons for supposing that it was written about the same time as Jude, or somewhat later. This makes the investigation of Hebrews all the more in place at this point ; because, as we have seen from 2 Pet. 1. 12-15, Jude 3 (above, pp. 200 f., 241 f., 286, n. 6), this was a time when the apostles and other teachers of their circle felt. it necessary, in order to promote the undisturbed growth of the original Christian faith, not only to preach and write occasional letters, but also to prepare writings doctrinal in character. Hebrews is such a didactic writing, although in its form and content it is a letter directed to a definite group of readers. | Π Inasmuch as the letter has no greeting from which we can ascertain the name of the’ real or alleged author, and the character of the original readers, it seems advisable to 294 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT begin with a review of the tradition concerning both these points (n. 1). Even if the investigation of these questions should be without positive results, it would be worth while to free the historical investigation of the letter from the burden of false opinion. The fact that the tradition regarding the readers is not as clear, and regarding the author not so unanimous, as we could wish, is due merely to the absence of any greeting; for we must remember. that most of the ecclesiastical tradition regarding the writings of the N.T. is only the echo of the testimony of the documents regarding themselves; and this tradition is good or bad according as this self-testimony was correctly understood or not. | Nevertheless, the history of an Epistle like Ephesians shows us that even such traditions as had no support from the document itself became dominant in the Church at,.a, very early time (vol. i..p. 481ff.), As regards the age and unanimity of the tradition supporting it, the title πρὸς “Eßpaiovs stands on the same level with the title πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους. It is found not only in all the Greek MSS. and the versions, but there is not the slightest trace of evidence that Hebrews was ever known by another title in any part of the Church, or that any ancient eritie ever suggested another title on critical grounds, as Marcion did in the case of Ephesians. ‘The title ad Hebrwos was accepted by the Alexandrian theo- logians Pantzenus, Clement, and Origen, to whom the letter was transmitted as a writing of Paul, and as a part of the collection of Paul’s letters used in the Churches ; also by all the Eastern Churches of the subsequent period which held the same traditions as the Alexandrians, and even by the African Tertullian, to whom Hebrews was known only as a work of Barnabas, and whose native Church did not include Hebrews in its Canon. Moreover, when the historians Eusebius, Stephanus Gobarus, and Photius speak constantly of ἡ πρὸς “Eßpatovs ἐπιστολή in reports which are in other respects trustworthy, and EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 295 according to which Iren®us and Hippolytus knew and quoted Hebrews, though denying its composition by Paul (n. 9), it is presupposed that Ireneeus and Hippolytus called the document by the same name. Otherwise the historians would either not have spoken at all of Irenzeus’ and Hippolytus’ mention of Hebrews, or they would cer- tainly have given the different title of the letter employed by them, if from citations and other references this were clear. Thus, although there was the greatest diversity of opinion regarding the author and canonicity of Hebrews ᾿ at the close of the second century, Churches and writers were unanimous in accepting the title of the book. From the facts incidentally mentioned above, it would seem that the traditions concerning Hebrews reached Irenzeus, Panteenus, and Tertullian from very different sources, so that their common root must lie very far back. This renders it most questionable whether the common element in these traditions, which vary so much among themselves and thus are independent of one another, can be explained as due to a scribal error, or whether it is permissible to assume that Hebrews is really referred to under any other than the traditional title, e.g. under such titles as ad Alexandrinos or ad Laodicenos (n. 2). On the other hand, it is self-evident that the ‘title πρὸς ‘E8paiovs did not originate with the writer; nor, in this very brief form, which, however, is correct (n. 3), could it very well have originated with someone who merely copied the letter, or had numerous copies of it made for the purpose of circulation ; but it is probably due to the eir- cumstance that Hebrews was bound with other letters | variously directed, and so was»provided with a short title, in the same way as the other parts of the collection, in order that it might be more readily found and quoted. The exact date when the Epistle was given this title is even more impossible of determination than the time when the collection of the four Gospels or of the Pauline letters 296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT was made. Nevertheless, this one common element in all the traditions concerning Hebrews is of such antiquity that it is worth while to inquire as to the meaning of the title. Since it is clear to every reader that the letter is directed to Christians, only those instances throw light upon the meaning of the title in which the name ᾿Ε βραῖοι is applied to certain Christians in order to distinguish them from certain other Christians. This is done in two ways (n. 4). In Churches in which different languages were spoken, as, e.g. that in Jerusalem, the Jewish Chris- tians who retained the use of the mother-tongue, most of whom were born in Palestine and continued to reside there, were called Hebrews, in distinction from the Hellenistic Jewish Christians, who were born abroad and had adopted the Greek language (Acts vi. 1; vol. 1. pp. 39, 42f., 47f, 60, 678). This was a distinction within the Jewish nation due to historical developments much older than the Christian era, which simply continued to exist in that part of the nation which became Christian as well as in the part that remained non-Christian. Besides this, how- ever, all Christians within the Church who were Jews by birth were frequently called Hebrews, without reference to difference of language, owing to the fact that there was an aversion to calling them Jews (n. 4). The first meaning is inapplicable here; for no one could infer from Hebrews, which is written in Greek, that it was directed to Hebrew- speaking Jewish Christians and not to Hellenistic Jewish Christians. The opinion of Clement of Alexandria, that Hebrews was written by Paul in Hebrew and translated into Greek by someone else (n. 5), is palpably: a false inference from the title πρὸς ‘ES8paiovs, and. cannot be regarded as an authentic interpretation of this title, which at that time was possibly a hundred years old. The only other interpretation possible is that the title was intended to designate the readers as Jews by birth; and it is a question whether it is meant to signify more than this— EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 297 something that every reader ean infer from the letter itself. It is comparable to the title of 1 Peter, ad gentes, which originated in the West, and later became attached also to 2 Peter (GK, ii. 274 ; Forsch. iii. 100). The title of Hebrews contains no geographical statement such as we find in the titles of Paul’s letters, in the old Latin title of 1 Peter, ad Ponticos, and in a sense also in the Latin title of James, ad dispersos.. In particular, the error that this title taken alone indicates Palestine, cannot be too often contradicted. If Ἑβραῖοι be taken to mean those who retained the Hebrew language, there. were almost as many such in Mesopotamia as in Palestine, and there were persons of this character even in the Greek Diaspora, as in Tarsus and Rome (vol. i. p. 47 ff.).. Lf it be taken as a designation of Christians of Jewish origin, then there were considerable numbers of such, both in the apostolic time and certainly also at the time when this title originated, who were members of Churches in places widely differing, as Rome and Antioch, Asia Minor and Egypt. It is easy to understand how almost universally, so far as we know, ancient scholars sought the readers of Hebrews in Palestine; but this fact throws no light upon the original meaning of πρὸς "Eßpaiovs. In their own time it was only there and in the adjoining regions that entire churches of Christian Jews still existed; and, so far as they knew, this had always been the case (πη. 6). That, however, Hebrews was not intended for all, the Jewish Christians scattered throughout the world, but for a group of readers in a definite locality, is clear to every intelligent reader at least. from, Heb. xiii, 7-25. This does not imply that the author of the title πρὸς "EApaiovs himself understood it in the same way as later interpreters did. [Ὁ is possible that, he knew from the tradition: that Hebrews was intended for the Jewish portion of a large local or provincial Church outside of Palestine. But. it is also possible that in ignorance of the local destination 298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of the letter he gave Hebrews a title resembling in form the titles of other letters, while actually expressing only the self-evident fact that the persons addressed in the letter were Jewish Christians. | The Alexandrian Church, so far as we are able to go back into its early history, always regarded Hebrews as one of Paul’s writings. On the basis of this tradition, which was undisputed in his eirele, Panteenus undertook to explain why Paul did not introduce himself in this letter as in his other letters by name and as the apostle of the readers (n. 5). Clement does not question this tradition, for he handles the same problem as Pantzenus, solving it in ἃ way which’ necessarily presupposes the Pauline authorship of the Epistle. He also asserts this directly, and apparently without any doubt as to its truth, in numerous quotations from Hebrews, as well as in the two passages where he speaks of the beginnings of questionings about the tradition (n. 5). The idea that the Greek Hebrews was a translation, was, of course, an infer- ence from the title as it was understood at that time ; but why was not the same inference drawn regarding James, or why were not the conjectures regarding the translator of the Gospel of Matthew just as definite as those regarding the translator of Hebrews, especially in view of the faet that it was known from tradition in the case of Matthew that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew? ΝΥ δὴ Clement twice positively affirms that Luke is the trans- lator of Hebrews, and in this way explains the alleged similarity of style between Hebrews and Acts, we are not to infer that his assertion is based upon a tradition to this effect, but only that the observation of the great difference in style between Hebrews and Paul’s letters had given rise to doubts in the Alexandrian School about the local tradition. It was thought that criticism and tradition could be reconciled by assuming that the Greek Hebrews was a translation from Hebrew. It was natural to make EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 29g Luke the translator, because a close connection between the Gospel of Luke and the oral preaching of Paul was usually assumed ; moreover, resemblances in style between Hebrews and Acts seemed to corroborate this view. Whether also views of other Churches gave impulse to these scholarly efforts we do not know. But Origen’s judgment concerning Hebrews is evidently influenced by the difference of opinion which existed in the various parts of the Church regarding the authorship and canonicity of Hebrews (n. 7). He had learned that in certain quarters an unfavourable opinion was expressed regarding a Church like that in Alexandria, which had accepted Hebrews into its Canon as a letter of Paul’s; for, as the result of his eriticism, he concludes: a Church should be allowed to retain its good name, even when it holds such opinions regarding Hebrews, 2.6. it should not be condemned on this account as unscrupulous or without critical judement ; “for the men of the olden time did not without good reasons transmit Hebrews as a letter of Paul’s.” Inasmuch as he is protecting his native Church against unfair criticisms, he defends also its tradition ; but he does so with a full appreciation of the current objections to the same. Everyone who is capable of judging differences in style must admit that the Greek of Hebrews is better than that of the generally accepted letters of Paul, and that it does not show the lack in literary skill to which Paul in 2 Cor. xi. 6 confesses. Origen, however, did not find the reconciliation between the result of his observa- tion and the tradition of the Alexandrian Church, as did Clement, in the hypothesis that Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew and that a disciple of his translated it. He does not even mention this hypothesis, so confidently proposed by Clement; but, after a full discussion of the various views, which unfortunately is only incompletely preserved for us, he finally adopts as the most probable conclusion, that the apostle, 1.6. Paul, furnished the ideas, but a 300 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT disciple of his put them into the form of a letter according to his instructions... Therefore, Origen’s question is not who the translator was, but who wrote, the Epistle work- ing in the spirit and under the direction of his teacher Paul. Origen holds a definite answer to this question to be impossible—‘‘ God alone knows,” he says ;)yet he is not willing to pass by altogether the learned tradition that had come to him, in which now Clement of Rome and now Luke is made the author of the Epistle. [Ὁ would seem, then, as if Luke, whom Clement of Alexandria mentions.as the translator of Hebrews, was mentioned by others before the; time of Origen as its author. Besides him, however, Clement of Rome was mentioned in the same capacity. The numerous resemblances between Clement's letter to the Corinthians and Hebrews make the latter conjecture more natural than the supposition that. Luke was, the translator or author,of the letter, The only thing that can, be asserted with certainty is that Origen found both these names mentioned either in the oral or, written tradition. . Whether, the representatives of, these views called Clement οἵ, Rome or Luke the author of Hebrews in the limited sense in which Origen discussed the ques- tion concerning an author of the letter, associated with Paul in its production, or in, the fullest sense, of inde- pendent authorship, or like Clement of Alexandria called them authors in the sense of translators, we do not know (n. 5),, When Origen expressed his judgment, the Alex- andrian Church seems to have stood quite alone in the tradition of the Pauline source of Hebrews ; he defends a single Church holding this view (el τις. οὖν ἐκκλησία. κτλ.) against the judgment of the other Churches. | [Ὁ ‚cannot be shown that this opinion was held at that, time anywhere outside of Egypt, nor subsequently in any place not under the influence of Alexandrian scholars. In the | fourth cen; tury. we find it dominant throughout the Greek and Syrian Churches, as well as in the ‘Churches dependent, upon EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 301 them; the belated opposition of several Arians could not change this general opinion. The modifications in the Alexandrian tradition which Clement and Origen made when they accepted it were dropped; the tradition itself which they found and which Origen defended was adopted. Regarding the opinion which prevailed among the Greek Churches in Syria, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece in the time of Clement and Origen with reference to the origin of Hebrews, we have no direct information. In the West, Hebrews was not unknown from early times, but until after the middle of the fourth century it was excluded from the collection of Paul’s letters and from the N.T. in general (n. 8). This fact is of itself significant. A letter, which to all appearances was regarded as an important ancient didactic writing by Clement of Rome, Justin, who wrote in Rome, the younger Theodotus, a disciple of the Theodotus who came from Byzantium to Rome, Irenzeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, but which nevertheless was persistently excluded from the N.T. in Italy, North Africa, and Gaul, could not have passed as a work of Paul’s in these regions, since the objections to its reception into the collection of books read in the religious services which might be raised on the ground that it was intended for “the Hebrews,” could not have had more weight in Rome than in Alexandria. These objections must have been outweighed by the influence of Paul’s name, if it had been connected with it. ' Moreover, the Gospel of Matthew, which was originally designed for Jews and Jewish Christians, was accepted into’ the Canon of the entire Gentile Christian Church. We also have the testimony of persons who had access to the writings of Ireneeus and Hippolytus which are no longer extant, that both these teachers denied the Pauline author- ship of Hebrews (n. 9). On the part of Trenzeus this denial was probably only indirect, Hebrews being quoted 302 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT by him without mention of Paul’s name. Hippolytus, or the other hand, to all appearances protested formally against the appeal of the Theodotians to Hebrews as a work of Paul’s and as a part of Holy Scripture. If in this connection Hippolytus and Ivenzeus had mentioned some- one else as the author of Hebrews, the silence of three independent reports on this point (n. 9) would be incom- prehensible. It may be regarded as certain, therefore, that Hebrews as Lrenzeus and Hippolytus knew it was anonymous. There were, however, Churches in which Hebrews was transmitted as an epistle of Barnabas, [Ὁ is not a con- jecture or personal opinion that Tertullian expresses, as Jerome declares ( Vir. ZU. v.), but simply a reproduction of a current tradition, evidently just as found in the manu- seript before him, when he writes as follows (n. 10): “ Extat enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebreos, a deo satis auetorati viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiz tenore ... . (1 Cor, ix. 6); et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabe illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. ” From what has been stated above concerning the in- difference of the Western Church toward Hebrews, it is evident that Tertullian does not set forth in the passage cited the tradition and public opinion of the catholic Church of his African home, or of the Church of Rome. Tertullian himself proves this by the way in which he introduces the quotation. After giving proofs, taken from the apostolic writings, he eites, as something wholly super- fluous (ex redundantia), Heb, vi. 4-8, as evidence of some companion and disciple of the apostles. For the catholie clerzy of Rome and Africa, who controverted the Montanism of Tertullian, after the final separation of the Montanist Church, Hebrews was not a sacred writing to be used for proof texts, whereas they appealed to the Shepherd of Hermas for the principles of their lax discipline, EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 303 although both Catholic and Montanist Churches had ex- cluded it from the Bible (de Pudie, x.). As far as the West is concerned, the Churches in which Hebrews re- ceived greater consideration than the Shepherd, and in which it was handed down as a writing of Barnabas, could have been only the Montanist Churches. Since, how- ever, Montanism was introduced into the West from the province of Asia, there is the greatest probability that the tradition concerning Barnabas as the author of Hebrews originated there, and that it was not confined to the Montanist Churches of that region. This same tradition appears again in the Latin sermons, published by Batiffol (1900), which wrongly bear the name of Origen, In them it is set forth not as the conjecture of an individual scholar, but as a fact accepted in the preacher’s circle (n. 11). The discussion concerning the origin of these sermons is not yet settled, and will not come to an end without a new investigation, which fairly considers every particular. If the preacher is not Novatian, as the present writer, following others and along with them, thought he might claim, he must have belonged to a Novatian Church, and nothing is more probable than that the tradition of ‘Barnabas as author of Hebrews was handed down from the Montanists to the Novatians, as were the polemical use of Heb. vi. 4-8, and the high value placed upon the Epistle, things which we have long known. It appears, therefore, from the above discussion, that there existed, between the years 180 and 260, three . more or less widely. diffused opinions regarding the authorship of Hebrews which stood over against each other—(1) Paul (held by the Alexandrians, and perhaps the Theodotians in Rome); (2) Barnabas (held by the Montanist Tertullian, evidently already by the Phrygian Montanists and also by the catholic Churches of the pro vince of Asia, as well as by the Novatians); (3) some unknown person (Irenzus, Hi ppolytus, and probably. still 304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT other Catholics of the West). The common source of this threefold tradition can only be the third view (n. 12), for in each of the other two eases it is incomprehensible how a tradition originally associated with Hebrews, whether it were ascribed to Paul or to Barnabas, in the circles from which Irenzeus came, could have given way ‘to entire ignorance in regard to the matter. It is equally incom- prehensible how Βαρνάβα could arise from an original Παύλου, or vice versa. The history of early Christian literature offers elsewhere examples of how writings, originally anonymous in the tradition, were ascribed to definite authors on insufficient grounds (n. 13). The receivers of the letter certainly knew the name of the author; he himself indicates in Heb. xiii. 18-24 that he was known to them, and this knowledge would ‘surely be preserved for some time. But when Hebrews began to be circulated, it could no longer have existed in the place from which it was sent out into the Churches. Im view of the fact that, so far as we are aware, Hebrews was never known to any Church writer without the title πρὸς “Ἑβραίους (above, p. 295f.), it is probable that it was con- nected with the collection of Paul’s letters either from the beginning or through a later addition. It is therefore very easy to understand how in Alexandria the letter was attributed to Paul. The Πάυλου (ἐπιστολή) whieh it was necessary to supply with πρὸς Κορινθίους, πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους «tr. was also very naturally supplied with πρὸς ‘EBpaious, in the title of the appended anonymous writing (n. 13). The mention of Timothy (Heb. xiii. 23), the author's knowledge of the Scripture, the reading τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου συνεπαθήσατε (Heb. x. 34, n. 14), which, thongh certainly false, is perhaps very old, all tended to strengthen this view. If Hebrews was not appended to the Pauline letters until later, it is not surprising that the Churches which had received the original collection of Paul’s letters without Hebrews were afterwards unwilling to accept the anonym: EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 305 ous letter and to recognise it as a letter of Paul’s. The individuals into whose hands it came regarded it either as an anonymous writing from ancient apostolic times, or resorted to conjecture. If Paul did not write it, then it must have been written by seme other distinguished teacher of the apostolic age. Barnabas was such a man. It is possible that this assumption was furthered by the fact that an ancient document with many allegori- cal interpretations of O.T. legal regulations, our so-called Epistle of Barnabas, was circulated in the Oriental Churches under Barnabas’ name. One who was seeking for the author of Hebrews might be influenced by this document to ascribe Hebrews also to this Barnabas. This same development of the Barnabas idea is also conceivable in case Hebrews was a part of the original collection of Paul’s letters. Even if ἄλλου πρὸς Ἑβραίους was not in the title, the report could have been circulated with the collection that the document was not written by Paul, but was added to the collection of his letters because of its instructive and edifying character. In Alexandria this tradition disappeared, while in other regions it was pre- served, and resulted either in the separation of this letter from those of Paul, or in the conjecture that it was written by Barnabas. In brief, there is no tradition regarding the author of Hebrews which compares with the traditions regarding the authors of the other N.T. writings in age, unanimity, and an originality, hard to invent, 1. (P. 294.) For the canonical history of Heb. see GK, i. 283-302, 379, 577 ff., 759, 963-966, ii. 85, 160 ff., 169-171, 238, 275, 358-362, also PRES, vii. 492-506. 2. (P. 295.) Klostermann (Zur Theorie der bibl. W. erssagung und zur Char- acteristik des Hb, 1889, S. 55) conjectures that πρὸς "Eßpaiovs is an incorrect copy of πρὸς Bepvaiovs= Bepotaiovs, and holds that Apollos, who, according to Acts xviii. 27 f., laboured in Macedonia (Where is this statement found Ὁ) and Achaia, wrote this letter to the Church in Bercea, the original constituency of which, according to Acts xvii. 11, was certainly Jewish. A more natural supposition would be Berwa in Syria (Aleppo), which was the main centre of Jewish Christianity in the time of Jerome. Harnack, ZINTW, 1900, S. 21, had an idea of πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους as the original title. Semler (cited in VOL. Il. 20 306 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Oder’s Freie Untersuchung über d. Off. Joh. 1769, S. 29), followed later by Hug in his Hint.’ ii. 482 ; Wieseler, Chronol, 483 ff., Untersuch. über den Hb, 1861, i. 26 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Hinl. 104, 354, was the first to advance the view that Heb, was really the epistle ad Alexandrinos, which, according to Can. Mur, line 64, was fabricated like an epistle ad Laodicenos, under Paul’s name in the spirit of the Marcionite heresy. There were also many critics who believed that in Philaster the statement was to be found (Her. Ixxxix.) that in his time (380 to 390) Hebrews was quite generally regarded as a letter to the Laodiceans. This led to the further hypothesis that the words following the Epistle to Philemon at. the end of the Cod. Bern. of the Pauline letters, ad Laudicenses incipit epistola, πρὸς Λαουδακήσας ἄρχεται ἐπιστολή, are the title of Heb. which ought here to follow in the MS. This was the opinion of Credner (Einl. 560), Anger (Über den Laodicenerbr. 29), and Wieseler (Unters. i. 3411). The Epistle to the Laodiceans referred to in Can. Mur. and in Cod. Beern. is the apocryphal letter of this title which is still in existence. With regard to the Epistle to the Alexandrians, we know nothing definite or certain ; cf. GK, i. 277-283, ii. 82-88, 238, 566-592. 3. (P. 295.) For the meaning of titulus see vol. i. p. 488, n. 3. In the oldest MSS. (NABCK) the only words found in the title at the beginning or in the title at the end are πρὸς Ἑβραίους without ἐπιστολή, first L, and in the title also P, have this addition, and this is apparently all that Ter- tullian found, for he writes (de Pud. xx.) : extat et Barnabe titulus (not epistola) ad Hebreos. This title cannot be compared with those of writings which were circulated independently, such as Κλήμεντος (λόγος) mporpemrirös πρὸς Ἕλληνας or Τατιανοῦ λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας (Eus. H. E. vi. 13. 7). When titles of this kind are found in MSS. without λόγος, this is to be supplied from the title of a preceding writing by another author with a different address, e.g. in Eus. iv. 16. 7 from the preceding συγγράμματα. Different still is the case of Tarıavös ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ἕλληνας in Clem. Strom. i. ὃ 101. Moreover, comparison with all these titles is rendered impossible by the fact that they contain the name of the author, whereas the common source of the divergent titles Barnabe (titulus) ad Hebreos and Παύλου (ἐπιστολὴ) πρὸς “Ἑβραίους could not possibly have contained the name of an author. 4. (P. 296.) Ever since the time that the Jews began to call themselves Jews (Jer. xxxii. 12), they designated their race and their ancestors Hebrews (1) in a retrospective view of the patriarchal and ancient Israelitish period, particularly where there was occasion to mention Israelites from the point of view of those who were not Israelites. This is found even in Jeremiah, where reference is made toa Mosaie ordinance (Jer. xxxiv. 9, 14, along with the more modern ‘3, Jer. xxxii. 12, xxxiv. 9). Cf. also Philo (Vita Mos. i. 2, 4, 26, 27, 48, 50), where the term Hebrews is used along with Ἰουδαῖοι without any distinction of time (op. ett. i, 1, 2, 7, ii. 7), Josephus (Ant. i. 6, 2, 4, 5, 11. 5. 4, 9. 1 ff. ; Bell. iv. 8. 3, v. 9. 4), and the poet Ezekiel (in Eus, Prep, ix. 28f.), in reproductions of the ancient history, or occasional references to the same, For the same reason it is also found regularly in the Sibyllines, the alleged predictions of an ancient prophetess. The usage in Judith x. 12, xii. 11, xiv, 18; 2 Mate. vii. 31, xi, 13, is also archaic. The Jews are very seldom mentioned by Greek and Roman writers. Once Plutarch uses along with the regular ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (Apophtheym. regum, p. 184; Is. et Osir. 31, p. 363; Quest, EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 307 conv. iv. 4. 4, 5. 1, 2, pp. 669, 670), ra Ἑβραίων ἀπόρρητα, p. 671, in referenca to their ancient institutions; once Tac. Hist. v.2 has Hebracas terras (ef. Jos, Bell. v. 4. 3). The term is used more frequently by Pausanius of land and people without distinctions as to time, i. 5. 5, v. 5. 2, 7.4, vi. 24. 8, x. 12. 9. (2) The Jews regularly use Ἑβραῖοι (also ἑβραϊκός, EBpais, eBpaiori) when speaking of their language and literature ; ef. Philo, de Conf. Ling. xxvi. ; Migr. Abrah. iii, ; Vita Mos. ii. 6 (of the seventy translators) ; Somn. ii. 38 ; Congr. Erud. Gr, viii. ; Jos. Ant. i. 1. 1£., iii. 6. 7, x. 10.6. Of. the lexicons of Levy or Jastrow, for example, Jer. Baba Bathra, 17c, “ A Hebrew and a Greek wit- ness.” So the word came to be used in contrast to Hellenistic (see vol. i. pp. 39, 48 f., 67, n. 14). (3) While the Jews with pride called themselves Jews (Rom. ii. 17; 0.1. Gr. 9916, 9926 ; J HSt, 1891, p. 269; ef. Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rom. i. 72 ff., nr. 12, 81, 109), the name assumed a different signifi- cance to Christians, and even to Jewish Christians, after the majority of this people had rejected the gospel, and Ἰουδαΐσμός (Gal. 1. 13, 14; Ign. Magn. viii. 1, x. 35 Phil. vi. 1; Inscription from Portus given by Dérenbourg in Mel. Renier, 1887, p. 440) came to stand for a religion hostile to Christianity—a religion, acceptance of which made those who were not Jews Jews (Dio Cass. xxxvil. 17. 1). The time soon came when the term of Ἰουδαῖοι no longer sufficed to distinguish genuine from false Jews (Rom. ii. 28 f.; Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9), inasmuch as it was used for the nation which excluded the Christian Church from itself (1 Thess. ii. 14; 1 Cor. x.32; 2 Cor. xi. 24; Matt. xxviii. 15 ; John xiii. 33, xvill. 14, xx. 19; Acts xii. 3, xx. 3, xxi. 11, xxvi. 2). It is only very rarely and always with an evident purpose that Christian Israelites are called Jews by themselves and others ; ef. Gal. ii. 13-15; Acts x. 28, xxi. 39, xxii. 3 (in Acts xxi, 20 the text is uncertain, still more so in Acts vi. 7). Cf. also the comparatively late catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, ed. Lipsius, 122. The more favourite expression is of ἐκ περιτομῆς (Gal. ii. 12; Col. iv. 11; Tit. i. 10; Acts x. 45, xi. 2; ef. Phil. iii. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 18), or the simple statement of Jewish origin, ἐξ Ἰουδαίων (Rom. ix. 24 ; Just. Dial. xlvii. 48 ; ef. GK, ii. 671, A. 2). In the post-apostolic age (2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5; Acts vi. 1 cannot be cited in favour of this usage; ef. vol. i. p. 48), they were called also Ἑβραῖοι. Although in numerous instances the linguistic meaning of the word exerted a strong influence,—as, for example, in the case of the Aramaic- speaking Nazarenes and their Hebrew gospel, as it was apparently called by Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22. 7; cf. @K, ii. 643, 649 ff.),—in the vast majority of cases it indicates a contrast between Jews and non-Jews, without any reference to the contrast between Hebrews and Hellenists within the Jewish race itself, as in Acts vi. 1. When Clement (Ped. i. 34; Strom. i. 11), speak- ing of Paul and one of his own teachers, calls them Ἑβραῖοι ἀνέκαθεν or ἄνωθεν, or when Eusebius (H. E. i. 11. 9, ii. 4. 3, iv. 5. 2) uses the same expression with reference to Philo, Josephus, and the first bishops of Jeru- salem (cf. H. E. iv. 22.7, with regard to Hegesippus), the only thing indicated is their ancestral connection with the Jewish people and faith. Clement (Ped. i. 34) uses along with Ἑβραῖος, Ἰουδαῖος to designate their religion ; and Eusebius (H. E. iv. 5. 4) uses the same word interchangeably with ἐκ περιτομῆς. In speaking of the destination of Matt., Irenzeus uses once, iii. 1. 1, ev τοῖς "Eßpaiors, and in a second instance (Fragm. 29, ed. Stieren, P- 842) πρὸς Ἰουδαίους. Eusebius also calls the gospel, “which gave special 308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT joy to those of the Hebrews who accepted Christ” (H. E. iii. 25. 5), τὸ καθ ‘EBpaious εὐαγγέλιον, both in the passage here cited and elsewhere (iv. 22.7); occasionally also “The gospel which is among the Jews” (de Theophania syr. iv. 12). The most decisive proof is that furnished by the Ebionites, whose entire literature, so far as we know it (their gospel, the pseudo-Clementine writings, the translation of the O.T., and the commentary of Symmachus), was Greek, but who, notwithstanding, always called genuine Jews and Jewish Christians Hebrews (Clement, Epist. ad Jac. i,; Hom. i. 9, viii. 5, 6, 7, x. 26, xi. 35, xviii, 4; Recogn. i. 7, 32, v. 35), and who, according to Epiph. Her. xxx. 3, 13, occasionally spoke of their Greek gospel as a ἑβραϊκόν and καθ᾽ “Eßpaiovs εὐαγγέλιον. “ Hebrews” means here, as in Tert. Marc. iii, 12, Hebrei Christiani, Jewish Christians, 5. (Pp. 296, 298, 300.) Eus. A. E. vi. 14. 2 ff. (cf. Cramer, Cat. vii. 286; cf. Severianus, p. 115; Jn. Damase., ed. Lequien, ii. 258; Forsch. iii. 71, 149) gives the following account taken from the Hypotyposes of Clement: καὶ τὴν πρὸς "Eßpaiovs δὲ ἐπιστολὴν. Παύλου μὲν εἶναί φησι, γεγράφθαι δὲ Ἑβραίοις ἑβραϊκῇ φωνῇ, Δουκᾶν δὲ φιλοτίμως (510) αὐτὴν μεθερμηνεύσαντα ἐκδοῦναι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ὅθεν τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα εὑρίσκεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ταύτης τε τῆς ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῶν πράξεων" μὴ προγεγράφθαι δὲ τὸ ““ Παῦλος ἀπόστολος ᾽" εἰκότως" “Ἑβραίοις γάρ, φησιν, ἐπιστέλλων, πρόληψιν εἰληφόσι κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑποπτεύ- ουσιν αὐτόν, συνετῶς πάνυ οὐκ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἀπέτρεψεν αὐτοὺς τὸ ὄνομα θείς." Eira imoBas. ἐπιλέγει: ““Ἤδη. δέ, ὡς 6 μακάριος ἔλεγε πρεσβύτερος, ἐπεὶ ὁ κύριος ἀπόστολος ὧν τοῦ παντοκράτορος (Heb. iii. 1) ἀπεστάλη πρὸς Ἑβραίους, διὰ μετριότητα ὁ Παῦλος, ὡσὰν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἀπεστιλμένος, οὐκ ἐγγράφει ἑαυτὸν Ἑβραίων ἀπόστολον διά τε τὴν πρὸς τὸν κύριον τιμήν, διά τε τὸ ἐκ περιουσίας καὶ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις ἐπιστέλλειν, ἐθνῶν κήρυκα ὄντα καὶ ἀπόστολον." It may be regarded as certain that “The sainted presbyter” Pantznus is the principal teacher of Clement (ef. Forsch. iii. 157-161, 168-176), Clement expresses himself just as definitely in his comment on 1 Pet. v. 13. (Forsch, iii. 83) : “sieut Lucas quoque et actus apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur et Pauli ad Hebros interpretatus epistolam.” While Origen speaks of persons who called Luke not the translator, but the author of Heb., and of others who said the same of Clement of Rome (above, p. 299, and below, p. 309, n. 7), Eusebius (H. E. iii. 38. 2) changes this ἱστορία, as Origen calls it, into another, accord- ing to which some made Luke, others Clement of Rome, the translator of Heb. The latter assumption Eusebius considers particularly probable because of the resemblance in style and thought between Heb. and Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians (§ 3), although he does not deny that this relationship was due to the fact that Clement was dependent upon Heb. (§ 1). Jerome in his usual fashion mixes everything up (Für. Ill. v.; Ep. exxix. 3, ad Dardanum), Tertullian says that, Barnabas is the author of Heb. (see n. 3), while others attribute it to Luke or Clement of Rome. But the authorship of Clement is represented as affecting only the literary form, or as perhaps confined to a translation from the Hebrew. Philaster (Her. Ixxxix.) states that the oppo- nents of the Pauline authorship were divided in their opinion as to whether Barnabas, Clement, or Luke was the author (below, ἢ. 11), Ephrem (Comm. in Pauli epist., ed. Mekith. p. 200) reproduces the two opinions that Clement of Rome was the author and that he was the translator, without accepting either, Severianus of Gabala (Cramer, Cat. vii. 115), on the authority of EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 309 Eusebius, mentions Clement and Luke as possible translators. Theodorus, who rejected the idea of the intentional anonymous authorship of Heb., remarks incidentally that Timothy acted as Paul’s amanuensis (Cramer, vii. 113f.). Aecording to Theodoret, in Heb. xiii. 23, Timothy was only the messenger who delivered the letter. 6. (P. 297.) Pantznus (see preceding note) assumes it as self-evident that Heb. was directed to the same persons to whom Jesus preached, 1.6. the Jewish Christians of Palestine. This was also the view of Clement, who agrees with the opinion of his teacher, which he reports ; for it is only on this presupposition that Clement could assume as self-evident that Heb. was written in Hebrew, since he must have known that the Jews in Alex- andria, Rome, and other places were entirely Hellenistic. Ephrem asserts very positively, p. 201, that Heb. was written shortly before the destruc- tion of Jerusalem to the Christians of that city, the disciples of the original apostles who were probably still living there. He represents it as being a counterpart of the letter of the Jerusalem Church to the Gentile Christians in Antioch (Acts xv. 23). The same view is expressed by the genuine Euthalius (Zacagni, 526), only less definitely, when he represents Heb. as being an epistle to the Jewish Christian Churches mentioned in 1 Thess. ii. 14; by Chrysostom (Montfaucon, xii. 2, ποῦ δὲ οὖσιν ἐπέστελλεν ; ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις καὶ Παλαιστίνῃ), and Theodoret (Noesselt, 543). The pseudo- Euthalius (Zacagni, 668) thinks that Heb. was addressed to the whole body of Jewish Christians. 7. (P. 299.) According to Eusebius (H. E. vi. 25. 11-14), Origen in his homilies on Heb. says: “Ore ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πρὸς Ἑ βραίους ἐπι- γεγραμμένης ἐπιστολῆς οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ ἀποστόλου, ὁμολογή- σαντος ἑαυτὸν ἰδιώτην εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ, τουτέστι τῇ φράσει, ἀλλά ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως Ἑλληνικωτέρα, πᾶς 6 ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φράσέων (al. φράσεως) διαφορὰς ὁμολογήσαι ἄν: πάλιν τε αὖ ὅτι τὰ νοήματα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς θαυ- μάσιά ἐστι καὶ οὐ δεύτερα τῶν ἀποστολικῶν ὁμολογουμένων γραμμάτων, καὶ τοῦτο ἂν συμφήσαι εἶναι ἀληθὲς πᾶς ὁ προσέχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικῇ (Husebius here interrupts the narrative with the remark, τούτοις μεθ᾽ ἕτερα ἐπιφέρει λέγων). ᾿Εγὼ δὲ ἀποφαινύμενος εἴποιμ᾽ ἂν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀποστύλου ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνθεσις ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικὰ καὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολιογραφήσαντός Twos τὸ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου. Ἐ τις οὖν ἐκκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς Παύλου, αὕτη εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ" οὐ γὰρ εἰκῆ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι. τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν, ἡ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φθάσασα ἱστορία ὑπό τινων μὲν λεγόντων ὅτι Κλήμης ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος Ῥωμαίων ἔγραψε τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ὑπό τινων δὲ ὅτι Λουκᾶς 6 γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὰς πράξεις. This is copied inaccurately in Cramer, Cat. vii. 285f., but accurately and almost entire in a scholion in one of the Athos MSS. (von der Goltz, S. 85). For the interpretation see GK, i. 287, A. 1! To take αὕτη with ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολήν instead of with εἴ ris οὖν ἐκκλησία, as Hofmann suggests, v. 46, is impossible, both in view of the construction and of the sense. 8. (P. 301.) The Canon Muratori, which mentions by name and rejects two pseudo-Pauline letters, and takes account of differences in opinion con- cerning a writing of Peter’s and the Shepherd of Hermas, has nothing to say concerning Heb. The same is true also of the African canon, circa 360 310 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grundriss, 83). There are no citations from Heb. in Cyprian and contem poraries, in Optatus of Milevi and in the Acts of the Donatist controversy In Rome, furthermore, the number of Paul’s Epistles was limited to thirteen by Caius (circa 210), and Eusebius makes the statement, that even in his day the Roman Church, or many Romans, 7.e. Westerners, objected to Heb. as un- Pauline (H. E. iii. 3. 5, vi. 20). On the other hand, clear traces that Heb. was read with great esteem in Rome are first found in Clement of Rome and Hermas (GK, i. 963 f., also 577£. on Justin, and 295 ff. on Theodotus). Ad- ditional matter in nn. 9 and 11; also § 47, n. 7. 9. (Pp. 295, 301, 302.) Stephanus Gobarus says in the year 600 (see Photius, Bibl. 232) : ὅτι “Immodvutros καὶ Εἰρηναῖος τὴν πρὸς "Eßpaiovs ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου οὐκ ἐκείνου εἶναί φασι (whereas Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius reckon it among the Pauline letters). Photius says the same thing, Bibl. 121, about Hippolytus, the author of the work against the thirty-two heresies. Since Stephanus mentions Hippolytus before he does Irenzeus,—although the latter is older,—it is probable that his information about Irenzus is derived solely from a remark of Hippolytus with regard to Irenzus’ views concerning Heb. Evidently Hippolytus was the first who had occasion expressly to deny the Pauline authorship of Heb. in opposition to the Theodotians, while Irenzeus appears to have quoted Heb. without naming the author (Eus. H. E. v. 26 ; cf. GK, i. 296-298). 10. (P. 302.) Tert. de Pud.xx.; cf. GK, i. 290 ff. Inasmuch as there was no Latin Bible in Tertullian’s time, he must have had before him a Greek copy of Heb. with the title, Bapvaßa πρὸς "Eßpaiovs (ἐπιστολή). Merely oral traditions which are associated with the text of the books Tertul- lian is in the habit of reproducing in a different way, eg. with regard to the relation of Mark to Peter and of Luke to Paul, contra Marc. iv. 5, he uses the words ajirmatur adscribere solent. The attempt has been made incorrectly to discover the same tradition in the index of Cod. Clarom. of the letters of Paul, where, after the seven catholic Epistles, we have the words, Barnabe epist. ver. 850. This view is supported by Westcott, Ep. to the Hebrews, 1889, p- xxviii, with oyermuch emphasis upon the idea that the numbers suit Heb. better than the so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Cf. per contra, GK, ii. 169 f., 950 ff. 11. (P. 303.) Tractatus Origenis de libris ss. scripturarum, ed. Batiffol, Paris, 1900. Up to the present time the result of the discussion seems to be the conclu- sion that these twenty sermons are not the work of Origen, and that they are not translations from the Greek. The view that they were written hy Nova- tian is supported by Weyman (Archiv f. lat. Lexicographie, xi. 467, 545-576), Hausleiter (TALB, 1900, Nos, 14-16), Zahn (Ν ΚΖ, 1900, S. 348-360), Jordan (Die Theologie der neuentdeckten Predigten Novatians, 1902). Some of the ob- jections raised to this view demand earnest consideration. In Tract. 10, p. 108, between a saying of the beatus apestolus Paulus quoted from Rom. xii. 1, and a quotation from 1 Cor. iii. 16, is found the following : “Sed et Sanctissi- mus Barnabas, ‘Per ipsum offerimus,’ inquit, ‘deo laudis hostiam labiorum confitentium nomini eius’” ; οἵ, Heb. xiii. 15. According to Epiphanius (Her. lix. 2), Philaster (Her. Ixxxix. 3-8), Ambrose (de Penit. ii. 2), the Novatians, like Tertullian (de Pudit. xx.), used Heb, vi. 4-8 to justify their rejection of the “second repentance.” About the opinion of the Novatians of the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 311 fourth century concerning the author of Heb. there is no tradition, but it is probable that they also followed the Barnabas tradition, and that it was with reference to their opinion on this matter that Philaster wrote at the beginning of the chapter in which he deals with the misuse of Heb. by the Novatians : “Sunt alii, qui epistolam beati Pauli ad Hebr®os non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabe esse beati apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roms (Roma?) episcopi, alii autem Luce beatissimi evangeliste aiunt.” This was probably written somewhat earlier than the kindred statements of Jerome, Vir. IU. v., and much earlier than Jerome’s letter to Dardanus (above, p. 308, n.5; GA, ii. 234f.). Philaster does not copy Jerome, nor does he, like him, attribute the Barnabas tradition to an individual, namely, Tertullian, but to a party of his own day. Pacian, Epist. i. 2, mentions the Montanist Proculus (al. Proclus) as holding a position midway between Montanism and Novatianism. When now Caius of Rome, in his dialogue with Proclus, charges the Montanists with making new Holy Scriptures, and in this connection mentions the thirteen letters of Paul exclusive of Heb. (Eus. H. E. vi. 20), it is extremely probable that Proclus had quoted Heb. as Holy Scripture, which Caius and the other Catholics in Rome (Can. Mur. and Hippolytus) did not accept as such. But it does not in any sense follow that Proclus quoted Heb. as a work of Paul’s. It is much more probable that Proelus, like his admirer and fellow-Mon- tanist, Tertullian, regarded Barnabas as the author of Heb., and, like Ter- tullian, quoted this Epistle as an authority, only he gave it more weight than Tertullian did. 12. (P. 304.) The hypothesis of Fr. Overbeck (Zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1880, S. 1-70), according to which Heb. at the time of its canonising in Alexandria (160-170), and with a view to its being canonised, was artificially made an Epistle of Paul’s by the omission of the original greeting of the letter and the addition of Heb. xiii. 22-25, cannot be presented here with all the absurdities which it involves (ef. GK, i. 300f., A. 1). The main difficulty with it is its failure to explain how Irenzeus, Hippolytus, and the other Western writers, who did not like the Alexandrians, have Heb. in their Canon, and who were in general independent of Alexandria, came to lose the greeting. Neither does it explain the rise of the Barnabas tradition, which could originate only when and where the letter was received as anonym- ous, without any greeting and without any association with the name of Paul. Ifthe alleged original greeting contained the name of Barnabas, the desire on the part of the Alexandrians to canonise the letter was no reason why they should omit the greeting; since for a time in their Church they accepted as canonical the letter which by themselves, and afterwards in Christian literature, was attributed to Barnabas (GK, i. 347-350, ii. 159, 169 f., 948-953). Even if a less distinguished name had stood in the greet- ing, it is inconceivable that men who were willing to make Heb. an Epistle of Paul’s in an underhanded manner, and who were bold enough to set aside the greeting that stood in their way, and to insert a closing paragraph obscurely referring to Paul, should have lacked the courage and intelligence required by their undertaking to replace the original greeting with another which met their wishes. 13. (P. 304.) A parallel is found in the tradition concerning the so-called 312 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. For some reason this ancient sermon, preached probably in Corinth, became associated with the letter of the Roman Church to the Corinthians, which, according to tradition, was written by Clement. After the writings became associated, both the address, πρὸς Κορινθίους, and the author’s name, Κλήμεντος, were applied to the second writing also. As a result, in the time of Eusebius mention is made of a second epistle of Clement (A. E. iii. 38. 4), and in both Greek MSS. and in the Syriac version in which these two writings are found, the sermon had come to be called a second letter of Clement to the Corinthians. It is due simply to the fact that in the MSS. of certain spurious writings of Justin as they were handed down, there was added a τοῦ αὐτοῦ, which perhaps was at first supplied only in thought, but which is found written in the one existing MS., that the Epistle to Diognetus came to be regarded as a work of Justin’s (Otto, Just. opp.* ii, p. xiv). 14. (P. 304.) The reading decpios, Heb. x. 34, is supported by AD* 67** (a marginal reading of the Vindob. @r. theol. 302, which very often agrees with the uncials BM in which Heb. x. is wanting), Coptic, Vulgate, Armenian, versions S! S?, Ephr. Lat. trans. 229 (otherwise he would not have omitted this sentence, p. 201, in his discussion of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews). In fayour of the reading δεσμοῖς μου are NHLKP (also the scribe who cor- rected D, hence also E), most cursives, Clem. Strom. iv. 103; Orig. Exh. mart. 43 (but without pod); Theodoret in Heb. x. 34 and in Isa. v. 17 (Schulze, ii. 202, iii. 611) ; Cramer, Cat. vii. 241 ; pseudo-Euthalius (Zacagni, 670). Hofmann, v. 461f., is the last writer who vigorously defends the latter reading. The reading of Origen and of the Latin text Clarom. (vinculis eorum, referring to the οὕτως ἀναστρεφόμενοι mentioned in ver. 33) would seem to indicate that first δεσμίοις was changed to δεσμοῖς in a purely mechanical way, and the attempt was made later to make this reading clear by the addition of pod or αὐτῶν. The latter word was inserted from the text, without thought of supporting any theory of the letter’s origin, but the former word is suspiciously connected with the tradition of its Pauline authorship. Where this tradition prevailed the reading was accepted ; it may also have helped to confirm and to give currency to the tradition, if the reading was in existence before Clement's time; the pseudo-Euthalius, op. cit., uses this text as proof of the Pauline authorship of Heb. $ 46. THE LITERARY FORM AND THE HISTORICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, It is not only the lack of a greeting which makes the beginning of Hebrews seem more like an essay than an Epistle. In all the writings of the apostolic and post- apostolic age, whose epistolary character is indicated at once by the greeting, the sentences which follow the greeting are very different from those in Heb. i. 1-14, EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 1: In every case, even where a connected doctrinal exposition is intended and presented later in the course of the letter, the Hpistle begins with personal remarks often very closely connected with the greeting, These vary in character, consisting sometimes of an expression of the feeling of the author toward the readers; sometimes of a remark about the occasion of the letter, or the relation between the author and the readers; or it may be some request or admonition addressed to the readers (n. 1). The assumption that Hebrews originally had a greet- ing which was later intentionally removed (above, p. 311, n. 12), or accidentally lost, does not adequately explain the peculiarity of the letter’s beginning. If the beginning of Hebrews was ever intended to give the impression of a letter, much more than an opening greeting must have been lost. But in this case it is incomprehensible, and without analogy in the early Christian literature, that the didactic body of the letter, which has been preserved, should begin with a fully-rounded rhetorical sentence, which does not permit of logical or stylistic relation to something that preceded. Comparison may be made with Romans, if Rom. i. 1-15 (or =16a τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) had been lost; or the experiment may be tried of cutting out the introductory part of any letter of Paul’s which is pre- dominantly didactic, to see whether it is possible to obtain something comparable to the beginning of Hebrews. ‘The assumption that the beginning of Hebrews was intention- ally or accidentally mutilated, is just as untenable as the supposition that the same thing was done to 1 John, the introduction to which seems at first sight to resemble that of Hebrews. It will be observed at once, however, that while 1 John shows in a more distinct way an epistolary character at the beginning than Hebrews, in the further course of the letter and in the conclusion it is less so. The author of Hebrews describes his production as a short letter (xiii, 22, διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ὑμῖν), He charges 314 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the readers to greet their officers and all the Christians in their locality, and he conveys to them the greetings of the Christians from among whom he writes (xiii. 24). He expresses the hope that he may in the near future visit them, or rather return to those among whom he had formerly lived. In this journey he hopes to be accom- panied by Timothy, who has recently been released from imprisonment, if the latter can reach him in time (xiii. 19, 23). But even leaving out of account xiii. 18-24, Hebrews is not an essay, but, as the author himself says, an exhortation directed to the heart and conscience (xiii. 22, ἀδελφοί, ἀνέχεσθε τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως). The longer as well as the shorter theoretical discussions always end in practical exhortations (ii. 1-4, ii. 1-4, 16, v. 11-vi. 12, x. 19-39, xu. 1-xi. 17). Nor do these exhortations give the impression of being an appended moral. The intensity of their language and the detail with which they are frequently worked out, would seem to indicate that they express the main purpose of the letter to which even the most artificial and detailed discussions are subordinate. From the first exhortation to the readers in iii. 1 (ef. ii. 1-4) on, it becomes more and more evident that Hebrews is not an essay meant for whoever may chance to read it, but a letter addressed to a group of Christians living at a particular time in a definite locality. It is also apparent that they are living under practically the same conditions as before conversion; that they have been and are still exposed to the same inward and external perils; conse- quently that they are a homogeneous and harmonious body. Hebrews is really an Epistle in the same sense as the letters of Paul to particular Churches, but less than any one of these an Epistle designed for some specific occasion. Hebrews is accurately described by what Jude says regarding the didactie writing which he planned, and for which, on account of the pressing need, he temporarily substituted a short practical letter (Jude 3; above, p. 242 f.). EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 31; Of the extant writings next to 1 John, Hebrews most resembles James in point of style. But both James and 1 John omit all direct personal communications, and in- dicate at once in the salutation the distinction between their written address to a wide circle of readers and oral preaching in a local Church. The author of Hebrews, on the other hand, leaves it to the bearer of his letter to indicate to the readers for whom it was intended, that it is his word to them, 2.6. the word of their well-known teacher. Even without entering deeply into the content and the development of the thought of Hebrews, it is possible to gather from the letter much that throws light upon the character of the readers and the author. The N.T. pro- clamation of salvation which Jesus Himself, the great original Apostle, was the first to proclaim (iii. 1, ef. i. 1), was brought to the readers and writer alike by those who heard the preaching of Jesus, and had been confirmed among them by the accompanying witness of signs and wonders, by works of healing, and by manifold manifestations of the inspiring spirit (ii. 8f.). The author himself was not a personal disciple of Jesus, but owed his Christian faith to — the preaching of such disciples. The same must ‘also have been true of all his readers. They are represented as standing in exactly the same historical relation to Jesus and the apostles as the readers in 2 Pet. i. 16, iii. 2: cf. i 4 and Jude 17 Though the language shows points of resemblance to passages like 1 Cor. i. 6, 1 Thess. i. 5, a difference comes at once to view. It could not be said of Churches founded by Paul and his helpers that they received the gospel—the first announcement of salvation— from those who heard the preaching of Jesus, nor is this anywhere said by Paul or by Peter, where he speaks to such persons (1 Pet. i. 12, 23-25, ii. 25), or by John (1 John ii. 7, 24, iii. 11). On the other hand, among the readers there could not have been personal disciples of 316 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Jesus; or those who were such must have been so few ir number and so unimportant as to be left out of account. Those diseiples of Jesus who had brought the gospel to the readers no longer live among them. They have either gone elsewhere in the prosecution of their missionary labours, or they are no longer alive. The latter is certainly true of the men to whom primarily the readers owed their conversion (xiii. 7). In order to emphasise their obligation to the leaders, of whom they are to be mindful, these are described as those who spoke to them the word of God, which means simply that they brought the gospel to them and were instrumental in their conversion (ef. Phil. 1. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 16; Mark iv. 33 ; Acts iv. 29, vin. 25, xi. 19). When the readers are exhorted further to consider with admiration the end of their life and to imitate their faith, it is implied that the missionary preachers died as martyrs. The description of these deceased teachers as of ἡγούμενοι ὑμῶν is justified only if they occupied, at least temporarily, an official position in the Church to which the readers belonged (above, p. 124, n. 5). The same must have been true also of the author. From xii. 18f. (ef. xi. 23) it follows that prior to this time the author had lived among the readers, and hoped that his return in the near future would be a gain to them. Moreover, the general tone of the letter, and especially such passages as v. 12- vi. 3, vi. 9, xii. 4f., 12f., show that he was aceustomed to teach, and enjoyed a certain reputation as a teacher, not only among other Christians, but also among the readers. That he was one of their ἄνδρες ἡγούμενοι (Acts xv. 22) while he lived among them, and that he will resume this position, is conclusively proved by the transition (xiii. 17 ff.) which he makes from his exhortation that the readers obey their leaders and not render their pastoral work difficult, to the request for their prayer on his behalf, the avowal of his effort to live a blameless life, the expression of his hope through the intercession of the readers to be restored EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 313 to them, and, finally, the reminder that, while human teachers may come and go, Christians have always with them their great Shepherd, Jesus (n. 2). The unconditional recognition of the preaching and life of the apostles and disciples of Jesus, who brought the word of salvation to them, carries with it a similar recog- nition of the original religious life of these Christians. This is also expressed directly. The foundation of Chris- tian knowledge was rightly laid among them (vi. 1 1.) ; they have only to hold fast the confidence of their first faith (iii. 14); at present they are in a state of doubt and discontent, and in serious danger of falling away ; and everything that the author must lament in their condition, and must fear for them, is an indication of the relaxation of the religious energy which they had shown earlier and possessed from the beginning (cf. especially xu. 12). Pre- viously this energy had manifested itself in various ways. Its first fruit had been charity toward “ the saints,” which they displayed earlier and have not ceased to exercise even now (vi. 10). They must have distinguished them- selves in this matter above other Churches, since the author bases his confidence that after all his worst fears of their final apostasy will not be realised, on the righteousness. of God which will not permit Him to forget their labour and love in rendering this service to the saints in God’s name. The language used plainly indicates that this was not mutual aid among the readers themselves, nor the charity of the well-to-do toward the poor around them, nor even charity on the part of the whole body of readers to Chris- tians generally outside their circle. It can only mean that the readers had a prominent part in the great collection for the mother Church in Jerusalem which was begun in Antioch as early as 44, and had since been carried forward by the earnest and repeated efforts of Paul (n. 3). In the second place, the faith of the readers had been maintained considerably earlier in the face of severe persecution (x. 318 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 32-34,n. 4). It is an error to conclude, as has been often done, from xi. 4 that this persecution was bloodless ; for the reference in this passage is not to suffering for the sake of the Christian confession (Phil. i. 29 f.), nor, in general, to the struggle for the faith (Jude 3), but to the conflict of the believers with their own sins (cf. Heb. xii. 1; 1 Cor. ix. 25f.). This struggle does not, therefore, like that of x. 32, belong to the past, but extends throughout the whole earthly life. At the time when the letter was written the readers had grown weary in this struggle. They had not resisted “unto blood” the sin besetting them through manifold temptations, especially those arising through the hostility of persons not of their faith, and the necessity of life in the world (Heb. xu. 3, 5-11, ii. 18, iii. 13, iv. 15). Rather have they yielded to the same. On the other hand, in the great tribulation now long past (x. 32, ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε δὲ τὰς πρότερον ἡμέρας), they stood the test nobly. The fact that nothing is said of the taking of life, but only insults and oppressions, imprisonment and confiscation of property, are mentioned, does not justify the assumption that the persecution was a bloodless one. The author is not here giving a chapter of Church history in which the Church of a city or province is represented as a permanent corporate body outliving its individual mem- bers (n. 4), his object rather is to speak to the conscience of the Christians to whom he writes, by recalling the courage and willingness to make sacrifices which they once had manifested. Certainly they were not put to death at that time ; in which case the author could not write to them. Nevertheless they must have been in great distress, from which they escaped only with their lives. In their suffer- ings they presented to the world and the Church at the time a notable spectacle (θεατριξόμενοι, ef. 1 Cor. iv. 9). Furthermore, when they themselves escaped with life and liberty, they were not ashamed of the fellowship of those who fared worse (cf. 2 Tim. i. 8, 16f.), but visited and EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 319 comforted them in prison. When forcibly deprived of their possessions they gladly sacrificed them. A reference to those who had actually suffered as martyrs in the per- secution would have been out of place here, where the author's object is, not to make the sufferings and services of the survivors seem small by comparison with those of the martyrs, but to represent them as great as possible. It is natural to assume that the teachers who laid the foundations of the faith among them, whose martyrdom is referred to in xiii. 7 (above, p. 316), lost their lives in the same persecution. In all probability the μνημονεύετε in xi. 7 refers to the same event as the ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε in x. 32. The author’s remark, that the readers endured this great tribulation after they were enlightened (n. 5), 2.e. after their conversion, does not in any sense imply that the persecution took place immediately after their conversion. It is only intended to guard against the possible mis- understanding of the phrase “earlier days,” which might be made to refer to the time prior to their conversion. Whether this remark was occasioned by the peculiar character of the earlier history of these Christians remains to be considered later. It is perfectly clear that the author intends to speak only about what they suffered as Christians, though this was at a period considerably earlier. What is here indicated incidentally is expressly stated in v. 12, namely, that the readers have behind them a long Christian experience. Because of this fact one might expect that they would teach Christianity to others; but, as a matter of fact, they have grown so dull as to seem in need again of instruction in the most elementary principles of Christianity. This blame, like the praise in x. 32 ff., shows how incorrect it is to suppose that Hebrews was addressed to the second generation of a Chris- tian Church. In this case it would have been necessary to remind the readers not simply of their original confidence 320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT in the faith (11. 14), of their own earlier days (x. 32), of the spirit of sacrifice which they themselves manifested at that time, and of the long period that had elapsed since they were first instructed in the principles of Chris- tianity, but primarily of the faith, sufferings, and ripe knowledge of their deceased fathers (cf. 2 Pet. iii. 4) and mothers (2 Tim. i. 5). It is self-evident that in the interval between the first preaching of the gospel to the readers and the present, other Christians of their circle, as well as their apostles (xiii. 7), have died ; but in the main the same generation is still ving which had heard the gospe! from the lips of the disciples of Jesus (ii. 3; ef. n. 4). Besides these indefinite hints, which indicate the date of the Epistle only relatively, there is another, disputed, to be sure, which, rightly understood, fixes the time of the com- position of the letter absolutely (n. 6). The writer does not quote Ps. xev. 7b-11 as seripture in ii. 7-11 to prove some statement which precedes or follows, but he puts rather what he himself has to say to the readers into the language of the Psalm. This is indicated by the formula of introduction and the manifestly intentional alteration of the text of the Psalm. Furthermore, the words thus freely quoted from the Psalm are referred to the Holy Spirit by the parenthetical remark, καθὼς λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, not in order to say incidentally that they are taken from the Holy Seripture,—for this it was customary to use simpler formulee,—but in order to soften the harshness of the sudden transition from his own words in ii. 9 to those of God, as is also the case in Ps. xev. 9 (ef. x. 15). The warning which the Psalmist once uttered to his own generation, in view of the wanderings in the wilderness, the author utters anew to the Hebrews of his time. Since it is only in proportion as they hold fast the Christian hope to the end that Christians have a right to feel them- selves members of the household of God (iii. 6), the readers should not harden their hearts to-day when they hear EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 321 God’s voice, as was the case in the provocation in the day of testing in the wilderness, where their fathers saw and proved the works of God for forty years. It was because this generation, notwithstanding their experience, failed to acknowledge His ways that God’s wrath burned against them, and that He swore that they should not enter into the rest promised by God to His people. To us it may seem that the author is only recalling events from the history of Israel, just as the Psalmist, whose words he appropriates, did in his time. But if this were the case, it is surprising that he adds further exhortations (vv. 12-14) without expressly comparing the facts of O.T. history with the present, and without a formal application of them to the conditions of the readers, returning at the close to the thought of ver. 6. Not so with the readers who were familiar with the author’s typological mode of teaching. Although here as elsewhere (xiii. 13) he clothes his own thoughts in language borrowed from the description of conditions long past, which, taken literally, do not apply to the present, still he is not, like the Psalmist, speaking of that generation which came out of Egypt with Moses, but of this generation, namely, the generation to which he and his contemporaries belonged. To this evil generation of the Jewish people who hardened themselves against the Son of God (Matt. xi. 16, xii. 39-45, xxiii. 32-38, xxiv. | 34), and who for forty years (from 30-70 A.D.) witnessed God's redeeming work, first in the person of Jesus and then in the preaching of the apostles, accompanied as it was by miracles, and yet failed to acknowledge God’s ways, God has sworn in His wrath that they should have no part in the rest promised to the people of God. This does not apply to the readers, since they suffered themselves to be saved from this generation through the preaching in which they believed (Acts ii. 40). But they understood perfectly what was meant when the author, using the language of the Psalmist, called this unbelieving Israel VOL. II. 21 322 INTRODUCTION TO, THE NEW TESTAMENT their fathers (Heb. 11. 9), instead of employing the prosaic expression their “ brothers after the flesh” (Rom, ix, 3), or their “brothers and fathers” (Acts vii. 2). Those re- ferred to are the Jewish people from whom they descended, and the decisive acts in which the hatred of the Jewish people against the final revelation of God found expression were committed by persons no longer living. A second allegory (ii. 15-iv. 11) begins with what seems, to be a purely historical exposition of the passage from the Psalm, which previously the author had used to express his own thoughts. But this interpretation ends by showing how, in its typical significance, the history of the wanderings in the wilderness applies also to the present and the future (cf. 1 Cor. x. 1-11). . The entrance of God’s people into the Promised Land, from which the unbelieving contemporaries of Moses were excluded, was, according to the testimony of Ps. xev., still future in David’s time. It was the same in the author's time. It is not stated in,so many words that between David’s time and the present a second redemption of God’s people had taken place,—which was always considered the counterpart of the deliverance from Egypt (above, p. 262, n. 12), and which, like the latter, was connected with a promise. Nor is it expressly said that in Jesus Christ reappeared a more perfect antitype of Moses (Heb. iii. 2 f.), of Jesus, 2.e. of Joshua the son of Nun (iv. 8), and also of David (vil. 1-17). But both are taken for granted as known by the readers, and simply recalled by a mere suggestion (iv. 2). It is presupposed throughout the whole letter that the readers understood this reference, and saw in it an allusion to the fact that as at the time of the wandering in the wilderness, so now in their own time a separation had taken place between the majority of the Jewish people hardened by their unbelief and a minority who had believed (iv. 2f.; ef. vi. 18). It is also assamed that they understood that, while the Jews who had ac- cepted Christ, including the author and his readers (iv. 3, EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 323 vi. 18), are on the way toward the realisation of the promise, the wrathful oath of God has been fulfilled upon the rebellious majority (especially i. 19, iv. 6). The fact that such typological and allegorical treatment of the O.T, history and the corresponding changing picture of present events does not suit our occidental taste, does not alter the fact that it was much employed in the apostolic age (cf. Gal. iv. 21-31; 1 Cor, x. 1-11; 2 Cor. vi. 16-18; Rom. ix. 14-24, xi. 2-10, especially Jude 5; above, p. 260 £.). From Heb. iii. 7-ἰν. 11 we conclude that Hebrews was written after the year 70, and that both author and readers were of Jewish origin. The latter statement has been comparatively seldom disputed, but is questioned by some even to-day (n. 7). The title πρὸς “Εβραίους does not prove that the readers were native Jews; since, whatever the age of the title, it does not necessarily reflect a yet older tradition, but may be due solely to a misunderstanding of the letter itself (above, p. 295f.). Nor is it absolutely proved by the fact that the author calls the ancient Israelites his own and the readers’ fathers (1. 1, ii. 9), nor by the fact that he calls the Church whom Christ redeemed Abraham’s seed (ii. 16; cf. vi. 12-18). The former expression is found also in 1 Cor. x. 1; the latter, in Gal. iii. 7-29, iv. 21-31; Rom. iv. 11-18 (cf. vol. i. 81). And yet there is a difference between Hebrews and these thoughts of Paul’s and such statements as are found in Eph. 1. 18,11. 1-11. 12 ; Cold, ZLf.,..11f., Wt. 8-11,5,,1;Thess.4,.9%5 J; Cor. xii. 2; 1 Pet. ii. 10, ui. 6, iv. 3; for Hebrews does not contain a single sentence in which it is so much as intimated that the readers became members of God’s people who descended from Abraham, and heirs of the promise given to them and their forefathers, and how they became such. It follows, therefore, that they were the people of God through birth and training. If ii. 9 has been correctly interpreted, this is true beyond doubt. The difference 324 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT between the godly of the O.T. and the Christians whom the author addresses, or with whom he identifies him- self, is throughout only that between Past and Present (i. 1, xi. 2, 39f., xii. 23). It is nowhere said in early literature intended for Gentile Christians that God spoke to them directly through His Son (i. 1; n. 8). Although the author states plainly the significance of the work of redemption for all men (ii. 9, 15; ef. v. 9, ix. 26-28), still he views and discusses it so entirely from the point of view of the pre-Christian Jewish congregation, as almost to make it seem that he was limiting the atoning effect of the death of Jesus to the sins of Israel (ix. 15, xiii. 12; cf. Matt. 1. 21), and the significance of the New Covenant entirely to the people of the Old Covenant (viii. 6-13, x. 16f.). That both the readers and the author belong to the Jewish people is proved directly by xii. 13. After showing that the Christians cannot expect any material advantages from their acts of worship, because the one sacrifice upon which their salvation rests is of the nature of a sin-offering,—which, according to the law, must be burned without the camp,—and, after recalling how this idea is in keeping with the history of Jesus’ life, since He was crucified outside the gates of Jerusalem,—a criminal rejected by His people,—the author adds this exhortation, “ Let us therefore go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. For we have not here an abiding city, but we seek after the city which is to come” (n. 9). That this is figurative language is, of course, apparent ; since the camp in which the Israelites dwelt at the time of the wanderings in the desert has long since ceased to exist. Nor is it possible to supply in its place the city of Jerusalem, since in ver. 12, where Jerusalem is meant, the author does not name it, and nothing is said of a city. On the other hand, there was nothing to hinder him from naming the city instead of the camp in ver. 13. Moreover, there was no moral profit in journeying from the Holy City EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 32; to the place before the gates of the eity, partieularly since it certainly would not lead to Jesus, who was no longer to be found before the gates of Jerusalem. What we have is therefore a figurative expression in keeping with the symbolie language of the entire letter, meaning that the . readers were to renounce fellowship with the Jewish people who had rejected Jesus, to confess the erucified Jesus, and to take upon themselves all the ignominy that Jesus met at the hands of His countrymen. This demand is essen- tially the same as that in Matt. x. 24-39; Luke xiv. 26 f. ; John xii. 25f.; cf. Gal. vi. 14. But in its present form _ it was not applicable to Gentiles. These could be exhorted not to be ashamed of Christ and the gospel, or to imitate Jesus in bearing injustice (1 Pet. u. 21 ff), or to follow the example of Jewish Christians in enduring the hostility of their countrymen (1 Thess. 11. 14). But where they are urged to renounce race affiliations, it is in the form, “Come forth from Babylon” (2 Cor. vi. 17; ef. Isa. li. 11, xlvii. 20; Rev. xviii. 4; Jer. li. 6). The summons, on the other hand, to go forth without the camp of Israel, - presupposes that those exhorted have always dwelt there. It has been maintained that the Gentile origin of the readers is proved by the fact that their conversion in time past to the Christian faith is described as a turning from dead works, and as faith in God (vi.1; n.7). With reference to the second characterisation, it is not to be overlooked, in the first place, that the author elsewhere describes the same experience as believing in the gospel which they had heard (iv. 2 £.; ef. 11. 3), as a fleeing for refuge (vi. 18), as receiving the knowledge of the truth (x. 26), as a coming to the heavenly Jerusalem and to the blood of Jesus by which they were sanctified (xii. 22-24, x. 29). Furthermore, in the experience of the Israelites the time came, in connection with the gospel, when faith took the place of the law (Gal. iii. 23-25), which up to this time had dominated their religious life. This is faith in the 326 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ordinary sense, which is, primarily, faith in God (Mark xi. 22; John xiv. 1). So deeply had the emphasis which Jesus laid upon faith as the saving power impressed itself upon the Jewish Christians, that it gave rise to a false application of this truth which was opposed by James (ii. 14; vol. 1. p. 126). It cannot be proved that ἔργα νεκρά —-an expression occurring nowhere in the Bible except in Heb. vi. 1, ix. 14—means sinful conduct of every kind, in particular the sins of heathen life or even idolatry (n. 10). Universally, the opposite of dead is not pious or good, but living. Only those works are living which are ani- mated by faith and done under the influence of the life- giving Spirit. On the other hand, everything is dead, even the conduct which outwardly has the appearance of being pious, which lacks spirit and faith, and is therefore vain (cf. Jas. i. 26, μάταιος; Matt. xv. 9, μάτην). The author, who universally represents the O.T. cultus as of divine establishment, although incomplete, cannot any more than Paul or Jesus treat the conscientious observance of the law as dead works, from which it was necessary to turn to God (vi. 1) and to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus (ix. 14). But he could speak in this way of conduct / in accordance with the forms of legal piety, void of faith and without spiritual power. Those common human sins of which Jews and Gentiles alike must repent, and from which they must have their consciences cleansed, are mani- festly not excluded. But it was only among the Jews that these sins had become connected with the observance of a formal religion of such a character that the renunciation of sin could be called a renunciation of dead works (ef. Rom. vii. 4-6). In contrast to these dead works are those acts of worship (ix. 14)—for this is the meaning of λατρεία and Aarpevew in Hebrews (viii. 5, ix. 1, 6, 9, x. 2), as every- where else in the N.T. (1 John xvi. 2; Luke ii. 37; Rom. i. 9, 25, ix. 4, xii. 1)—which the Christians must render to EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 327. the living God throughout their whole life. This worship of the Christians is based upon the high-priestly work of Christ performed once for all, and consists in constant prayer and thanksgiving, in works of mercy, and, generally, in a life well-pleasing to God, bearing testimony of the gratitude for grace experienced (xii. 28, xiii. 15 f.). The work of Christ is everywhere contrasted with the sacri- ficial system of the O.T. and the whole Mosaic ceremonial law, being represented as a living service which was per- formed through the Spirit (vii. 16, 25, ix. 14, x. 20), which satisfies the deepest needs of heart and conscience, and which truly corresponds to the relations existing between men and God. While, on the one hand, in the same way true Christian conduct is deseribed in figures borrowed from the Mosaic sacrificial system (xii. 28, xill. 10, 15 f.), on the other it is represented as being the only form of religious service (ix. 14) in keeping with, faith in the living God and membership in the common- wealth of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (xii. 22), By the use of similar figures Paul also describes the Christian life to the Jewish Christians of Rome as a spiritual service, the offering of a living sacrifice (Rom. xii. 1; cf. Phil. iii. 3). Jesus condemned the legalistic piety of His fellow-countrymen as impious hypocrisy, and compared those who devoted themselves to this life to whited sepulchres, and, in contrast to the ceremonialism of the temple in Jerusalem or of Gerizim, He demanded a spiritual worship in keeping with the spiritual nature of God (Matt. xv. 7 ff, xxiii. 27; John iv. 20-24). In the same way Paul bids the Jewish Christians in Rome to consider that, while under the letter of the law, they brought forth fruit unto death, and reminds them that it was only through their conversion, new birth, and baptism that they were enabled to render a true and living service to God (Rom. vii. 6, vi. 11, 17). Now it was just as possible for the author of Hebrews as it was for Jesus and 328 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Paul to contrast the dead works in which the readers lived before conversion, while under the law, with the service consisting of spiritual sacrifices, which it is their duty as Christians now to render to the living God. In both these cases the characterisation is applicable only to those who were Jews by birth. = The Jewish character of the readers is also apparent from the contents of the entire letter, in so far as the epistle is designed to save the readers from deserting their Christian confession. Apostasy from Christianity is a personal matter, and it does not need to be said that it is for individuals that the author is always primarily con- cerned. (This explains the use of tis in i. 12, iv. 1, 11, ΧΙ. 15, 16.) These the others are not to leave to their fate, but they are to guard them from apostasy by ex- hortation and good example (x. 24f., xü. 13, 15; n. 11), in order that the evil may not increase (xi. 15). But it already had such a hold upon the entire Christian com- munity that the writer warns all the readers most earnestly against open and complete apostasy from the living God and from their Christian confession (ti. 3, 111. 7-iv. 2, vi, 4-8, x. 26-31, 35-39, xii. 17, 25), with frequent reference to the judgment of destruction that will inevitably follow such a course. The same condition of things also makes him lament their spiritual dulness (v. 11-vi. 2) and their religious and moral apathy (xii. 3-13), and leads him constantly to exhort them to hold fast their Christian confession (iii. 1, iv. 14, x. 23). They are especially exhorted to hold fast. their hope in the certain though . delayed fulfilment of the promises of God made to His people (iii. 6, 14, iv. 1-10, vi. 11-20, x. 35-39, xi. 40, xii. 26-28). There is scarcely a word of recognition of what was good in their conduct at the time (vi, 10, καὶ διακονοῦντες) to soften the severity of this judgment. They all lack that ideal power of faith which is illustrated by a long series of witnesses from the O.T. and by the perfect EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 329 example of Jesus (xi. 1-xii. 3), %e. a faith the essential quality of which is patient waiting for hoped-for blessings, and which finds in itself sufficient proof of invisible real- ities (xi. 1). It is for this reason that they find it so hard to bear the adversities arising from their Christian confession (xii. 4-11, xiii. 13; above, pp. 314 f., 324), so insignificant in comparison with what they endured in an earlier persecution (x. 32). This explains why, like their fathers in the wilderness, they make regretful comparisons between what they have lost and gained by the acceptance of the gospel (iv. 1; ef. iii. 7-iv. 10). In their disappoint- ment they are on the point of giving up, as did Esau for a mess of pottage, their birthright which belonged to them as Christians (xii. 23) for a mere temporary improvement in the conditions of their life (zii. 16). They are about ready to treat, what for the Christians must always be most sacred, the Son of God and His atoning blood as a common thing, and thereby to make themselves guilty of the sin of the murderers of Jesus (vi. 6, x. 29). They have not yet reached this extreme, but the dissatisfaction with which they have necessarily been seized, as their faith in the unseen blessings and the hope of future blessings has grown less and less, has come to affect their belief in the Redeemer Himself (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 19). They found it impossible permanently to regard Jesus, who died a common and ignominious death and then disappeared from the world, and whose promises have remained so long unfulfilled, either as God’s final and complete revelation, or as the Saviour from sin and death, or as the head of an eternal kingdom. It is necessary to show them that Jesus per- fectly fulfils for them all these three functions, if only they hold fast their faith and profession. The Son of God through whom God spoke His final word to them is the true apostle of God; since He surpasses in dignity, not only all the prophets from Moses on, but even the angels through whom the law was given (i. 1-ii. 4; cf. iii. 1-6, 330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT xii. 18-29). In order to cleanse the seed of Abraham and through them the entire race from sin, to save them from death and sustain them in all their weaknesses, He must enter fully into fellowship with human life, temptation, and mortality (ii. 5-18; ef. iv. 158). It was necessary at the close of such a human life, subject to temptation and weakness, for Him to offer His life to God, taking the place both of priest and sacrifice, and with His own blood to enter the Holy Place in the heavens, in order perfectly to perform the service which the high priest by his official acts had only incompletely foreshadowed, and in order, at the same time, to fulfil the promise of a priestly kingship and a royal priesthood (iv. 14—x. 18). From the material out of which these thoughts are developed, it is plain that the readers not only knew the law (Rom. vii. 1; vol. 1. 374 f), but that they were accustomed to measure everything of the nature of a Divine act or institution by the standard of the O.T., especially of the O.T. law. "This also proves that they were Jews by birth. The danger against which the writer endeavours to guard the readers is not a possible falling back into their pre-Christian state, 1.6. into a legalistic Judaism, or a Judaism in which the coming of the Messiah was expected. This idea is precluded by the elaborately developed com- parison with the Israelites who wandered in the desert (iii. 7-iv. 10), and the short but impressive allusion to Esau (xii. 16), and the expressions used to describe the threatened apostasy. It would be an apostasy from the living God, brought about by the deceitfulness of sin, consisting in a state of unbelief (ii. 12 f., x. 26); a falling of such as are now standing (vi. 6); a cowardly abandoning of all hope in the fulfilment of the Divine promise (x. 35-39 ; ef. iv. 9, vi. 12+20); a renunciation of the sacrifice which alone has atoning power, without hope and prospect of another (x. 26f.); a reviling and erucifying of the Son of God without hope of a better king (vi. 6, x. 29). If in spite EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 3251 of all this they still elung to their Jewish institutions, of which we cannot think apart from religion, what they possessed would be only a shadow of Judaism, a Judaism like that of Caiaphas and his companions (John xix. 15), | It is not a false belief, but unbelief, into which they are | in danger of sinking. All this makes it clear that the readers have not been misled, or are not in danger of being misled, by some false gospel, and by teachers of such a gospel. If this were the case we should certainly have a clear reference to such a danger, such as we find throughout Paul’s letters, and also in 2 Peter and Jude. It is not until toward the end of the letter, when the main discussion gives place to exhortations, the substance of which would be appropriate in a letter to any Christians whatsoever (xiii. 1-8), that we find this warning: “ Be not carried away by diverse and strange teachings, missing your goal; for it is good that the heart be established ” (n. 12). In expressing this thought the author suggests that this takes place by grace. Then follows the rejection of the erroneous view that steadfastness of heart is secured by the use of certain foods, from which, nevertheless, those accepting this doctrine have reaped no profit. This is all the data we have for determining what sort of doctrines are referred to. It is impossible to derive further material for determining the character of these teachings, or the specific teaching mentioned by way of example from the following section (xiii. 10-16: n. 9), which is both gram- matically and logically independent. As contrasted with the self-consistent word of God which their deceased apostles had brought to the readers, and the word of the one immortal Master Teacher, who still abides with them (xiii. 7 £.), these teachings are a motley assortment, and foreign to the nature of the Christian Church. This could not very well be said, especially to Jewish Christians, of the regulations of the Mosaic law, e.g. of the Mosaic prohibi- tions of the use of certain foods. Nor is it very probable 332 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that abstinence from these would be said to establish the heart. Still less does the description suit the religious meals, such as the Passover meal, or the saerificial meals following the peace-offerings. Taking part in the sacrificial ceremonies, against which it would certainly have been necessary to warn the readers, could not be called a, περυ- πατεῖν ἐν βρώμασιν, as has been claimed in the light of ix. 10. The language indicates rather a prescribed manner of life (n. 12). Now we know that Jewish Christians in Rome regarded abstinence from meat and wine as a means of imparting steadfastness to the Christian, and keeping him from falling (Rom. xiv. 4; cf. xiv. 13, 20, 21, xvi. 25; vol. i. p. 365 f.). In Colossze also such rules were recom- mended as indispensable means of sanctification where men lived in a heathen environment (Col. ii. 8-23 ; vol. i. p. 463 f.). Paul, also characterises such abstinence as incapable of accomplishing this end, and as generally unprofitable (1 Tim. iv. 1-8; Tit. 1. 15f.), while he describes the recommendation of such abstinence as foolish human commandments and laws (Col. ii. 6-8, 20-22). The description of such a manner of life by the positive expression ἐν βρώμασιν περιπατεῖν, which to some has seemed peculiar, has a parallel in Paul’s statement to the effect that ascetics in Rome are vegetarians (Rom. xiv. 2), in his holding up before them and their opponents the truth that eating and drinking do not constitute the essence of the kingdom of God (xiv. 17), and his warning to both not to injure a brother for the sake of food (Rom, xiy. 15, 20). Both the one who from principle abstained from certain foods and the one who used all without ques- tion (1 Cor. viii. 8) moved in the sphere of the βρώματα, It is evident, therefore, that an ascetic teaching of the character represented by Jewish Christians and Jewish Christian teachers in Rome, Colossee, Ephesus, and the island of Crete had made its appearance also among these Hebrews. With this conclusion agrees the exhortation EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 333 (xiii. 4) τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν, which does not mean that those in the married state are to regard it as holy,—this is not considered until the following sentence,—but that all, especially those who are unmarried and are inclined to despise marriage, are to honour this state. There were, therefore, those among the Hebrews who from principle despised the married life, and consequently all relations between the sexes. With the assumption that the readers of Hebrews are to be sought for in Jerusalem has always been connected the idea that they took part in the temple worship after as well as before their conversion, and that the author is endeavouring to separate them from it, or, if they were on the point of resuming it after having broken it off, to warn them against it. So deeply rooted was this idea, that there were scholars who believed that the readers, who were to be found in Alexandria, assumed a similar relation to the schismatie worship in the temple at Leontopolis (n. 13). With reference to the Christians in Jerusalem, we know that from the beginning until their flight from Jerusalem shortly before the destruction of the temple, under the leadership of their apostles and of James, they continued to participate in the temple worship, and gener- ally to observe the forms of the Jewish law. But if, in the opinion of the author, this constituted a forty years’ resistance of the will of God revealed through Jesus, he could not have praised the beginning of their faith and their earlier Christian life (iii. 14, vi. 10, x. 32f.). Nor could he have represented the teachers and leaders who left the impression of their personality upon them (xiii. 7, il, 3) as models of faith, but must have pictured them as warning examples of that stubborn self-will which clings to dead works and brings punishment upon itself. Naturally, on this hypothesis there could be no question of an actual or possible relapse of the readers into Jewish worship,—of which, to be sure, there is not the slightest 334 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT hint in the whole letter, —because the Christians in Jeru- salem had never ceased to take part in the temple services. The author is not dealing at all with the question as toe how the Christian confession was to be combined with temple worship, and how, generally, life under the law is to be judged,—a question which every Christian. before the destruction of Jerusalem had to meet, because of the existence of the Church there. If that had been his pur- pose, consistency with the theories developed by him would seem to demand that he condemn the whole atti- tude of the mother Church; and yet, in view of the position which Paul took toward the Church in Palestine, this would appear to. be historically impossible. Nor during the first decades after the destruction could. it be forgotten that until recently thousands of the Jewish Christians in Palestine had been zealous for the law (Acts xxi. 20), or were still so. If the author believed that this was no longer right, he must, in the first place, have demanded expressly that the readers cease from all observ- ance of the law, now that worship according to the law was made impossible by the destruction of the temple. But he does not refer to this fact, of so much importance in determining the attitude of the Palestinian Jewish Christians toward the law, nor does he make any such demand of them, not even in xiii. 13 (above, p. 324). In the second place, tf he did not wish to condemn the legalism of the mother Church and of the apostles, which he would have the readers give up, he must have excused it, either on the ground that it was a weakness, pardon- able in their time, or a peculiarity for which there were good reasons. In the third place, it would have been necessary for him to state that what was accepted as right by the entire Church prior to 70, and what was practised by an important part of the same, was now no longer to be recognised, and for the change of attitude he must have given reasons. The fact that none of these things are EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 335 found in Hebrews, and that none of these questions entered the author’s mind, proves that he did not have the mother Church in view, and that he is writing to Christians who prior to conversion had no connection with the Jewish sacrificial worship. Throughout the letter we find him speaking, not of a temple or system of worship existing in his time at Jerusalem or Leontopolis, but of the tabernacle and the worship appointed for it in the Pentateuch. It is by this that he and his readers are, to measure the service of Christ. Once he speaks of that system of worship, and the whole institution of which it was a part, as a thing of the past which was already doomed by Jeremiah’s time (viii. 7-1x. 10); but, as a rule, he uses the present tense, which in a theoretical discussion is most natural (n. 13). To conclude from this that the system of worship, mutatis mutandis, still existed, would be as wrong as to infer from xii, 11, 13 that when Hebrews was written the Jewish people did not dwell in towns and villages, but in tents. Here, however, we touch questions which cannot be answered from Hebrews alone. 1. (P. 313.) Paul, as well as Peter in 1 Pet. i. 3, begins his letters to the Churches regularly with an expression of thanks to God on behalf of the readers immediately after the opening greeting. An exception to his habit is afforded by Gal., where he uses an expression of indignation at what is happening among the readers. The expression of thanks in 2 Tim. i. 3 and Philem. 4 passes immediately into a description of his mood toward the recipients and an exhortation to them. Paul begins with similar expressions of feeling and of exhortation, but without any expression of thanks, in ΤῊ 1 ose lit.riap. ln Jas, 12 and im Pet. 1. .o-pi—im the, latter without making any grammatical separation—there is in close connection with the greeting, a transition to an exhortation of the readers (vol. i. 146, n. 1; above, p. 220, n. 10). Jude 3; 2John 4; 3 John 3 (for the greeting is not completed till ver. 2); Clem. 1 Cor.i.; Polyc. Phil. i. ; Ep. Smyrn. de mart. Polye. i., and all the letters of Ignatius, are begun with a statement of the circumstances which led to the writing of the letter. The Epistle of Barnabas, also, which begins by prefacing “ All hail!” a form of greeting absolutely divergent from what is customary, follows it by an address to the readers, and an expression of the feeling of the author toward them. 2. (P. 317.) Even without the καί before ἡμῶν, xiil. 18, attested by D* and its Latin translation and by Chrysostom, there arises the impression which is repeated above, p. 316f. The sudden transition from the plural of the 336 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT first person, xiii. 18 (cf. ii. 5, v. 11, vi. 9, 11)—elsewhere a common’ expression of the author’s—to the singular, xiii. 19 (cf. xi, 32, xiii, 22 f.), must have been caused by the fact that from ver. 17 on he considers himself to be one of those who watch over the spiritual welfare of the readers,—often with sighing, —and so, for that reason alone, he keeps the plural; but he also finds the “T” more natural, where he comes to speak of his outward circumstances and of his impending journey. Just as in xiii. 8 the eternally living and un- changeable Christ is presented as the immortal teacher in contrast to the preachers who pass away, so the Jesus who has been raised to heaven from the world of the dead is contrasted with the earthly readers and ministers who come and go, as the great Shepherd of the sheep, xiii. 20 (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 4; John x. 11-18), 2.6. as the ever-present regent and minister of His whole Church on earth. The author was and is still to a certain extent one of these. 3. (P. 317.) With vi. 10, διακονήσαντες τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ διακονοῦντες, ef. the expressions used with reference to the collections for the Jerusalem con- gregation, 2 Cor. vill. 4, ix. 1, τῆς διακονίας τῆς eis τοὺς ἁγίους ; ix. 12 (cf. also ver. 13), ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας ταύτης . . . τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν ἁγίων ; 1 Cor, xvi. 1, τῆς λογίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους, evidently also xvi. 15, εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς ; furthermore, Rom. xv. 26, κοινωνίαν τινὰ ποιήσασθαι εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων τῶν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ; XV. 31, ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ εὐπρόσδεκτος τοῖς ἁγίοις, perhaps also Rom. xii. 18, ταῖς χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων κοινωνοῦντες (on the contrary, not Philem. vv. 5-7; vol. i. p. 455, n. 2); also Acts xi. 29f., xii. 25, xxiv. 17; Gal. 11. 10; vol.i. p.310f. According to the usage well attested here, οἱ ἅγιοι, even without any geographical refer- ence, signifies the Christian community of the “ Holy City” (Matt. iv. 5, xxvii. 53; Rev. xi. 2, xxi. 2, 10, xxii. 19), without the words necessarily having ceased to signify the Christians generally in distinction from the non- Christians (1 Cor. vi. 1f.; Col. i. 12; Jude 3; Rev. xiii. 7), especially with πάντες (Eph. i. 15, iii. 18, vi. 18; 1 Cor. xiv. 33). This attribute would also not be wanting in Heb. vi. 10, if, in contrast to the mutual support of those addressed, the extension of their practical love to the whole of Christendom was to be praised ; cf. 1 Thess. iii. 12f.; Col. i. 5; Philem. 5. The ἅγιοι without an article in 1 Tim. v. 10 is not a parallel case. 4. (Pp. 318, 320.) Clemens Romanus, circa 96, includes in the address to his readers the Corinthians of the years 52-57 with the members of the “old Church of the Corinthians” of that time (1 Cor, xlvii., cf. chap. i.) ; similarly also Polycarp, circa 110, includes the Philippian Christians of his time with those of the time of Paul (Polye. Phil. xi. 3; cf. Forsch. iv. 251 ff.); while at the same time he very clearly distinguishes “the men of that time” from the people of the present. In this respect there is nothing to be compared with the expression of Heb., save the way in which Paul, without taking account of single deaths and new conversions, identifies the Christians who were converted by him at the founding of a congregation with the members of the same congregation at the time of writing the letter (1 Cor. ii. 1-5, iv. 15; 2 Cor. i. 19; Phil. iv. 10-16). 5. (P. 319.) Heb. x. 32-34. On the text of ver. 34 see above, p. 312, n. 14. Aside from the false δεσμοῖς μου instead of δεσμίοις the text is given by Clemens Alexandrinus exactly as by the modern textual critics. Accord. EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 337 ing to vi. 4 (cf. Eph. iii. 9; Just. Dial. exxii,, twice ; especially of baptism φωτισμός and φωτίζεσθαι, Apol. i. 61), φωτισθέντες signifies conversion to Christianity. But inasmuch as no ἄρτι (1 Thess. iii. 6; Matt. ix. 18>, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 2) or προσφάτως (Acts xviii. 2) accompanies it, it cannot have also the meaning of νεόφυτοι (1 Tim. iii. 6) or νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ (1 Cor. iii. 1). 6. (P, 320.) For the exegesis of Heb. iii. 7-19, very little can be re- marked here: (1) The stylistic ability of the writer forbids the hypothesis that the clause beginning with διό is not to be continued until ver, 12, so that all that is between would be a parenthesis, or that the clause introduced by διό has been left out altogether. The parenthetic insertion is limited to the words καθὼς λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, beyond which, just as with a parenthetical καθῶς γέγραπται, John vii. 38, Rom. iii. 4, xv. 3, 21, 1 Cor. i. 31, i, 9, the statement before begun—in this instance the statement begun by the author with 60—is resumed. The situation here is not essentially different from that in passages where a καθὼς γέγραπται and similar expres- sions. without a following citation are joined on tothe statement proper (Rom. ii. 24 ; John i. 23), or, where the author does not say at all that he is employing words from other writings, 1 Pet. i, 24, 11. 7, iü. 10-12; Rom. x. 6-8. (2) For this reason the author, contrary to his custom of using formal quotations, reproduces the O.T, text with conscious freedom. Without alluding to what is doubtful, he has, by the insertion of a διό, given the chronological reference to what precedes ; furthermore, by changing ἐκείνῃ after τῇ γενεᾷ to ταύτῃ, he has shown that he means not the Israelites of the Mosaic age, but a generation of the Jewish people much nearer him and his readers. The former change seems so much the more intentional from the fact that the author, in explaining the words of the psalm according to their original historical sense, restores also the original connection of the words (προσώχθισεν τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη, iii. 17). (3) If we recognise, e.g. with Bleek, Heb. ii. 436 ff., 440 ; Delitzsch, Komm. 119 £.; Grimm, ZfW Th, 1870, S. 31, that the author refers to the forty years since the death of J esus, which Hofmann, v..167, has called a venturesome exegesis, we must not conclude that the letter was written circa 70, and that the readers have had opportunity for forty years to contemplate the works of the N.T. redemption. The latter is impossible, because this is said not of the readers, but of their forefathers, 1,6. of the Jewish people ; the former, because the end of the forty years and the visible realisation of the Divine oath against the unbelieving, which was manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem, must have been behind the author, if he is supposed to have spoken in this sense, or in this double sense, of the forty years and of the exclusion of the unbelieving Jews on account of their forty years of unbelief, from the Sabbath rest of the people of God. It is unlikely that, among other notions of the old rabbis, the idea of a forty years’ duration of the days of the Messiah, depending in part on Ps. χουν. 10 (Bleek, ii. 439 ; Delitzsch, 119; Weber, Jüd. Theol., $ 82) should have been in the mind of the author ; for the “ days of the Son of Man” (Luke xvii, 22, οἵ, Heb. ν. 7) were terminated for him, on the one hand, by the death of Jesus ; on the other hand, they were still in the future, and in yet another sense endless (xiii. 8). But the utilisation of the forty years of Heb. iii. 9 for the chronology seems to the present writer to be much better justified by the character of Heb. as a whole and especially by the character of this section, VOL. 11. : 22 338 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ 'THE NEW TESTAMENT than when it is concluded from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Act 1 Scene 3, “’Tis since the earthquake now eleven years,” that this drama was written in the year 1591. 7. (Pp. 323, 325.) “ Epist. vulgo ad Hebreos inscriptam non ad Hebreos, sed ad Christianos genere gentiles et quidemad Ephesios datam esse demon- strare conatur,” E. M. Roeth, 1836. This thesis is maintained with character- istically confused and extravagant rabbinical learning, and with a profusion of new interpretations of N.T. passages (sixty-three of which are enumerated in a special index, 5. 265f.) ; cf. below, n. 10. Roeth, p. 256 f., was led to think of Ephesus by the words θέατρον, Acts xix. 29, and θεατριζόμενοι, Heb. x. 33. V. Soden (JbfPTh, 1884, S. 435 ff., 627 ff.) also contested the Jewish ‘nationality of the readers, and thought that Heb. could be understood as a circular letter to the preponderatingly Gentile Christian congregations of Italy, including those of Rome (especially S. 647-652). Cf. per contra, Grass, Ist der Hb. an Heidenchristen gerichtet? Petersburg, 1892. 8. (P. 324.) It follows from ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ev υἱῷ (i. 1) that the author and the readers, who as individuals have not heard the preaching of Jesus (ii. 3), belong to the people of the circumcision, whose servant Jesus was all through His ministry ; cf. Rom. xv. 8. God, or Christ, speaks to the heathen through the apostles. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 19f.; Eph. iii. 7; Rom. x. 12-15 ; also Clem. 1 Cor, xlii. 1. Christ is in a way the mouth by which God has spoken, and the word 'which He has caused to go forth into the world (Ign. Rom. viii. 2; Magn. viüi. 2) ; but the Gentile Christians of the old time do not say : “Christ has spoken to us.” He is to them always the Christ preached, and even the idea that He was the apostle sent of God into the world (Heb. iii. 1) is noticeably unobtrusive. 9. (Pp. 324, 331.) A fundamental condition of the correct exegesis of xiii. 10-16 is a recognition of the fact that the tabernacle must be of the same im- portance as the altar ; in other words, that it is not definitely stated that the Jewish priests, or indeed the Jews who cling fast to the Mosaic cultus, had no part in the Christian institution of salvation. Inasmuch as Christ is con- sidered here not as a priest officiating at the sanctuary (viii. 2), but simply as a sacrifice, only those Christians whose altar is concerned can be called of τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες, f.e. priests who there offer sacrifice (cf. ix. 14, xii. 28, xiii. 15 f.; Rom. xii: 1; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Rev. i. 6, v. 10, viii. 3). They are to bear in mind that they, in contrast to the O.T. priests who derived their support also from their altar (1 Cor. ix. 13), have no such advantage to expect from their cultus ; for the offering, upon which their whole relation to God is based, is like that of the Day of Atonement, from which no priest and no layman had anything to look for but forgiveness of sins (see above, p. 324). ‘The expression for the N.T. facts which are brought to mind, and for the demand which is based upon them, is borrowed, on the one hand, from the gospel story, and, on the other hand, from the Mosaic age and its institutions, and, in so far as the latter is the case, is quite as consciously anachronistic as xi. 26 is the ‘opposite. Moses bore the shame of Christ in tHat he renounced the honourable position among the Egyptians which he possessed from earliest childhood, and attached himself to his own people. The Hebrews of tlie present are to take upon themselves the shame of Christ, by renouncing their connection with the Jewish people, to whom they belong EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 339g by birth, and by their confession of the crucified Christ to take to themselves the same hatred and the same abuse which this people had heaped upon Jesus (cf. xii, 2f.; Rom. xv. 3). 10. (P. 326.) In the misinterpretation of Heb. v. 12-vi. 2, Roeth, 218- 239, has gone the furthest astray. By the λύγια τοῦ θεοῦ he understood the Messianic prophecies, while the whole revelation of the Word of God, including that of the N.T., is meant (cf. Heb. i, 1, ii. 8, iv. 2, vi. 5, xiii. 735 Rom. iii. 2), and found it inconceivable that those who were Jews by birth had first to be instructed in them. Cf. per contra, e.g. Matt. ix. 13, xii. 3-8, xxii, 29, 42 f.; Luke xxiv. 26f., 44 f.; John v. 46, xx: 9; Acts ii. 16-35, iii. 21-25, vil, 2-53, xiii. 16-39, xvii. 3, xxviii. 23. But, as far as the words ἔργα νεκρά are concerned, it is well known that the gods of the heathen, not in the N.T. to be sure, but elsewhere, are said at times to be dead (Ps. evi. 98 ; cf. exv. 4ff.; Wisd. Sol. xiii. 10; Didache vi. 3); and one is reminded of the instances in which God, in contrast to the idols, is called the Living God, 1 Thess. 1.9; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Acts xiv. 15. But He is also so called even where the contrast with unbelieving or legalising Judaism obtains or is obvious, Matt. xvi. 16; Rom. ix. 26; 2 Cor. iii. 3-11; cf. Matt, xxii. 32; Luke xx. 38 ; John vi. 57. In Heb. ix. 14, also, any thought of the λατρεία τῶν εἰδώλων is far from the intent of the passage, as the whole context shows. On the contrary, it is rather the O.T. λατρεία (ix. 1, 9, 21) that underlies the thought. Furthermore, in Heb. xii. 22 the heavenly Jerusalem is called a city of the Living God, not in contrast to Babylon or Rome, but to the earthly J erusalem, in which God no more reveals Himself as the Living One. In Heb. iii. 12, x. 31, 1 Tim. iii. 15, iv. 10, the contrast with false gods is as impossible as in Ps. xlii. 3. Besides, the condition of men who remain in heathendom and in heathen sinfulness of life may perhaps be characterised as spiritual. death (Col. ii. 13; Eph. ii. 1, 5, v. 14); but so also is the condition of the Jews who do not yet believe in Jesus (Matt. viii. 22, cf. xxiii. 27; John v. 24, 40, viii. 21, 52), and essentially the same is said of Jewish Christians in Rom. vi. 4-11 as is said of Gentile Christians in Col. ii.12f. But the former depraved life of Christians who had come from a state of heathendom is nowhere characterised as a dead or lifeless way of living, but always alluded to in other terms, 6.0. 1 Cor. vi. 9-11 ; Gal. vi. 16-21; Col. 11. 5 ff., v. 3-14; 1 Pet. i, 14-18, iv. 2-5. 11. (P.328.) The μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν: of Heb. x. 25 by way of contrast has both before it and after it, on the part of those who are still firm in faith, an exhorting and inciting of others who are in danger of falling away. It cannot be said, therefore, that in many cases the tendency toward falling away had already shown itself in the habit of neglect- ing to attend the Christian assembly. The contrast would then have been: “Neglect not the assembling of yourselves together, but visit the services of the congregation and listen there to words of exhortation.” This habit of neglecting attendance upon the gatherings shows itself much more in the case of those who perhaps would be in a position to strengthen the wavering and “to heal that which is lame” (xii. 13). Instead of fulfilling this duty and of taking the part of the weak (cf. Rom. xv. 1f.), they abandon the assembly to which they belong, and the brethren who meet there; for their action is called ἐγκαταλείπειν (2 Tim. iv. 10, 16; 2 Cor. iv. 9; Heb. xiii, 5), 340 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT in distinction from καταλείπειν. What they do is from lack of love and from ill-feeling toward those with whom they have to associate, and in a spirit against which the author himself has to be upon his guard in his relations with the readers (cf. v. 11-vi. 9),—a spirit which he holds to be possible in the case of their leaders also (xiii. 17). The result of this is that the purpose of ἑαυτῶν after τὴν ἐπισυναγωγήν---ἃ term which at all events is not the equivalent of ἡμῶν, or, in the sense of τινές, equal to a’ray—is not to aflirm that those Christians absent themselves from the Christian meetings, while they visit the Jewish synagogues, Those who had departed so far from the faith could not be called upon to exhort the others. The contrast to that assembly to which the Christians in question belong can lie only in other Christian assemblies of the same place ; as to these see below, 8 47. Further- more, ἐπισυναγωγή (2 Mace. ii. 7) means, at any rate, not the place of meeting, for which συναγωγή is the technical expression, nor perhaps the individual assembly (or as 2 Thess. ii. 1, the union in a passive sense), for which only the plural would be natural, but the assembled congregation (cf. vol. i. p. 94), to which ἐγκαταλείπειν is most appropriate. 12. (Pp. 331, 332.) Heb.xiii. 9. Luther’s otherwise masterful translation fails only in rendering the aorist ὠφελήθησαν incorrectly. Along with this the present περιπατοῦντες is, with 8*A D%*, to be retained—the idea being that there are at the present time people of this manner of life, though it has already become evident that they do not attain their purpose. In the N.T. περιπατεῖν is used of the daily manner of life thirty-two times in Paul’s writings, ten times in the letters of John (cf. Acts xxi. 21)—in fact, always in this sense in the N.T.—apart from the passages where it is used in its literal meaning. 13. (Pp. 333, 335.) In regard to the description in the present tense of the ceremonial acts prescribed in the Mosaic law, and all that is connected with them (Heb. v. 1-4, vii. 5, 8, 20, viii. 3-5, ix. 6-10, 22, x. 1-4, 8, 11, xiii. 11), it is to be noticed that (1) the same form of expression is quite commonly found in writings which, without any doubt, were written after the year 70. It is so in Josephus’ works, where he portrays the Mosaic institutions, Ant. iii. 7. 1 ff., 9. 1 ff.; indeed, it is so in his apology on behalf of Judaism (Contra Apion. ii, 23), where he even speaks in imperative futures and imperatives, as though the service of the high priest and the priests would continue still in time to come. So Clement, 1 Cor, xl. xli. ; Plutarch, Quest. conviv. iv. 6. 2, and the Talmud. (2) Pressing the use of the present tense would lead to the absurdities that the priests, according to ix. 6 f., still serve in the tabernacle, as they are described together with their utensils in ix. 1-5, and that the sin- offering of the Day of Atonement is still burnt before the tents in the wilder- ness (xiii. 11), and that Melchizedek still serves.as priest-king (vii. 3). (3) Preceding and together with these expressions in the present tense, occur in decisive passages, imperfeets and other forms which show that what is described as present really belongs to the past (ix. 1f., ii. 2), (4) From ix. 9, where an especially strong proof of the continuance of the temple cultus has been found, rather the contrary is to be concluded. Of course, much in this connection is yet in debate among commentators. But, according to the definite statements of ix. 2 f., 6f., the “ first tabernacle” of ix. 8 can only be the Holy Place in contrast to the Holy of Holies, and τὰ ἅγια means not EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 341 (contrary to the usage of ix. 2) the Holy of Holies, the entrance to which was by no means unknown or closed (ix. 7), but only the true sanctuary into which Jesus was the first to find and open the way (vi. 20, viii. 2, ix. 12, x. 19f.). The time when the approach to the true sanctuary was not yet known, because the Holy Place still existed (ix. 8), is for the author time past, because he knows and believes that Jesus has entered into that true sanctuary, that He has opened the way to it, and made it known (ix. 11f., x. 19f.). He calls this, for the Christians, past time ὁ καιρὸς 6 eveornkos from the stand- point of the Holy Spirit, who uses the legal cultus as a means of instruction, and in the sense of all the presents in ix. 6-9. This period of the legal cultus has its limits at the καιρὸς διορθώσεως (ix. 10). If, beyond all question, how- ever, this epoch has already begun through the high-priestly function of Christ, then the καιρός which, from the standpoint of the Holy Spirit who taught through Moses (ix. 9) was spoken of as present, has thereby reached its close. The Holy Place, or the division of the sanctuary by its separating curtain, is no more. To be sure, this is understood primarily in an ideal sense, 1.96. for the faith of the Christians. But the expression in ver. 8, especially the ἔτι which, according to vv. 10-12, has become for the Chris- tians an οὔκετι, must seem very unnatural to us, if in the author’s day a temple with that division into a Holy Place and a Holy of Holies, still existed. The hypothesis that the readers of Heb. were still connected with the temple of Leontopolis which Wieseler, Unters. ii. 81 ff.; ThStKr, 1867, S. 665 ff., has zealously defended, hardly finds a representative to-day. All the presupposi- tions upon which it is based are untenable, namely (1) that the readers had anything at all to do with any temple cultus ; (2) that the author describes, or has in mind, a Jewish temple and cultus, still existing somewhere in his day ; (3) that the alleged contradictions between the statements in Heb. re- garding the tabernacle and the arrangement of the temple in Jerusalem, find their solution in the supposition of a reference to the temple in, Leon- topolis, concerning whose interior arrangement and cultus we know very little (ef. the literature in Schiirer, iii. 99 [Eng. trans. τι. ii. 2877); (4) that in Philo, who never mentions this temple, but, on the contrary, looks upon the temple at Jerusalem as the only sanctuary of the Jewish people (de Mon. ii. 1-3, and in Eus. Prep. ev. viii. 14, 64), there should occur for the same reason—that he has in mind the temple in Leontopolis—departures from the ordinances of the Pentateuch and from the cultus at Jerusalem similar to those in Heb., ef. per contra, PRE® vii. 500f.; Grimm, Z/WTh, 1870, 8. 57-66, who, however, has misjudged the “literary carelessness” in Heb. vii. 27, ix. 4f., x. 11; on which ef. below, § 47, n. 14, § 47. READERS, DATE, AND AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. It is so clear from § 46 that Hebrews was not directed to the Church in Jerusalem shortly before or shortly after the year 70, that it is only necessary to summarise a 342 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT number of observations. (1) If Hebrews was written to the Church in Jerusalem shortly before or shortly after the year 70, the legalism practised by the Jewish Christians in Palestine, and particularly the participation of the mother Church, its teachers and leaders, in the temple worship, would not have been passed over so lightly, while at the same time they are so severely condemned, z.e. if the letter is supposed to answer the question as to how the Christian confession was to be combined with the cultus of the Jewish temple, which as a matter of fact it does not ask (above, p. 333f.). . (2) The very great poverty of the mother Church, which necessitated the frequent sending of money for its relief by Christian Churches abroad, proves that they could not have exercised charity to other Churches in the noteworthy way for which they are praised in vi. 10. On the other hand, it is clear that it was the mother Church which was so largely benefited by the charity of the readers of Hebrews (above, p. 337). (3) Until it was banished from Jerusalem, the mother Church had in its membership not a few persons who heard the preaching of Jesus. Consequently the Church could not be treated as one which owed its faith to the preaching of the disciples of Jesus (11. 4, xiii. 7; above, p. 315) (4) It could not be said of the Church in Jerusalem by way of reproof, that because of its age it ought to be capable of instructing others in the knowledge of “galwation and was under obligation to do the same, since in rich measure the Church had always done so (Acts viii. 4, xi. 19 ff). Even after Antioch became an independent centre of missionary effort among the Gentiles, missionaries continued to go from Jerusalem to Galatia, Corinth, and Rome (vol. i. pp. 167 f., 288 f., 442, 540); and Paul, who had reason enough to be dissatisfied with many of these wandering teachers, nevertheless regarded the Church in Jerusalem as the source of the gospel, to which the Gentile Church was under obligation out of grateful EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 343 love to send back their gifts (Rom. xv. 27; ef. per contra, 1 Cor. xiv. 36). (5) On the supposition that the letter is addressed to the Church in Jerusalem, it is necessary to assume that the persecution referred to in x. 32 ff. is that in which Stephen lost his life, and that in xiii. 7 reference is perhaps. made to Stephen, James the son of Zebedee, and James the brother of the Lord. But how is it possible to speak, as in x. 32, of these martyrdoms which took place in the years 35, 44, and 66 respectively, and of the accompanying sufferings of the Church (cf. Acts viii. 1-3, xi. 19, xu. 1-4; 1 Thess. ii. 14), as a single persecu- tion belonging to the comparatively remote past? If Hebrews were directed to the Church which reassembled in Jerusalem after the year, 70 under Simeon, the cousin of James, the temporary banishment of the Church from Jerusalem, and the sufferings which the. Christians un- doubtedly experienced in withdrawing “from the camp” of Israel, would be included, But a letter to this Church, written before the year 90, as was certainly the case with Hebrews (see below), must have taken cognisance of the events of the year 70, which affected so deeply the life of the Church. It would be more plausible to assume that Hebrews was addressed to a group of Jewish Christian Churches outside of Jerusalem, but in Palestine or the adjoining regions, possibly, the readers of 2 Peter and of Jude, who are partly identical with the readers of James (n. 1). But there is no suggestion in these letters of any dispositions or propensities existing in this Church from which. the state.of mind among the readers apparent in Hebrews could have developed, These Christians were threatened only by influences from. without coming from Gentile Christian circles; and the libertines, who also despised prophecy, seem not to have ventured to criticise it directly among Jewish Christians (above, p. 279 f.), Moreover, the first two reasons given above, against the supposition that 344 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Hebrews was intended for the mother Church, hold alse against its having been intended for any other Church in Palestine. The poverty, relief of which was laid as an obligation upon the liberality of the Gentile Christian Churches, could hardly have been confined to the city of Jerusalem (Acts xi. 29, τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ ἀδελφοῖς), and we have no knowledge that the Jewish Christian Churches south of Antioch took part in that collection. Only when it is assumed that Hebrews is addressed to Gentile Christian readers is it possible to suppose that it was meant for the Church in Ephesus (above, p. 338, n. 7). Others have assumed that it was intended for the Church in Antioch (n. 2). But, according to Acts xv. 1, 23, Gal. π. 1-14, this Church, even before the council. in Jerusalem, must have become so thoroughly Gentile in character, that the Jewish Christian minority had adopted both the morals and the views of the Gentile Christian majority. Judging from analogy, the Church in Bercea (above, p. 305, n. 2), like the other Churches in Macedonia, must have been at an early date one of the “Churches of the Gentiles” (Rom. xvi. 4, xv. 26f.). For a long time more favour was accorded the suggestion that the readers were to be sought in or near Alexandria (n. 3). When, however, the additional hypothesis that the readers were adherents of the temple at Leontopolis is rejected as being inconsistent with the contents of Hebrews (above, pp. 333, 341), this view has nothing left to support it. Of the history of the HKeyptian Church before the time of Panteenus and Clement we know practically nothing. It is possible that in the first century it contained larger Jewish Christian elements, and that influences from Palestine were stronger than we are able to discover from the later development (n. 4). But this conjecture remains only a bare possibility. On the other hand, the conjecture that Hebrews was EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 345 intended for Jewish Christians in Italy, or more specific- ally in Rome, can be said to be probable (n. 5). "The reasons which support this hypothesis are as follows : (1) It is possible if necessary to take the words in xiii. 24, ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, to mean that the author was at some point in Italy, and that only Italian Christians were about him, from all of whom he sends greeting to the readers. However, if this is the case, it is strange that he does not designate these Christians either as the brethren or saints about him, or as the Church of the place where he is staying (1 Pet. v. 13), but instead calls them persons from Italy, thus simply indicating their nationality. Such an expression would be natural only if, from among the Christians who are about him, the author distinguishes those from Italy. But this would presuppose that at the time both he and they were outside of Italy, and that these Christians from Italy were closely related to the readers, or that the readers had a special interest for those sending greeting because the latter were Italians (ef. Phil. iv. 22). This interest is most naturally explained if those to whom the greeting was sent were also Italians. They are greeted by their countrymen (n. 6). (2) At the beginning of the year 58, when Paul wrote to the Romans, the Church was made up of a large majority of native Jews and a small minority of Gentiles, so small that the whole Church could be uniformly addressed as a Jewish Christian Church (vol. 1. pp. 421-434). When this rela- tion between Jews and Gentiles was reversed we do not know. But we do know that while Paul was in prison in Rome, Jewish Christian missionaries of various kinds were at work in the city (Col. iv. 11; Phil. 1. 14 ff. ; vol. i. pp. 442, 540), and we may assume that these laboured espeei- ally for the conversion of their own countrymen. It is hardly likely that the large Jewish majority in the Roman Church was completely reversed before the year 80. It has been conjectured, not without reason, that Clement, 346 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the author of the letter of the Romans to the Corinthians about the year 96 was a Jew by birth; and this was even more probable in the case of Hermas, the contemporaneous author of the Shepherd (n. 7). Assuming as proved that these two Roman writers were familiar with James, and that Paul saw fit to take cognisance of this letter in Romans (vol. 1. 126 f£, 131 f.), more than ordinary import- ance attaches to the fact that beyond question Clement of Rome was familiar with Hebrews, and in all probability Hermas also (n. 7). A knowledge of James, which was addressed to Christians of Palestine and the neigh- bouring regions about the year 50, was brought to Rome by these Christians, who constituted the nucleus of the Roman Church (vol. 1. 126, 428 1). The exact acquaintance which Clement and Hermas have with Hebrews, which was written much later, and which was not accepted and circulated in Rome as an Epistle of Paul (above, p. 301 f.), is explained naturally only on the sup- position that Hebrews was first received by the Roman Christians. In the year 58 the Jewish majority of the Roman Church clung with fondness to their people, and were deeply grieved that the Jewish people, the majority of whom persisted in rejecting the gospel, were losing ground in Christendom just as they were declining nation- ally and politically. They were still open to many Jewish prejudices against the gospel. It was possible for the feelings which Paul contends against throughout the whole of Romans, especially those encountered in Rom. ix.—xi. 12, to subside, but they could also have developed to that degree of bitterness which we meet in Hebrews. As early as the year 58 there was a party among the Roman Christians who regarded abstinence from flesh and wine as necessary for steadfastness in the Christian life. We encounter exactly the same tendency again in Heb. xiii. 9 (above, p. 331 f.), while the related movement of which we are informed in Col. ii, 8-13 is based upon different ideas. EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 347 The view here advocated, namely, that Hebrews was in- tended for Roman Christians, is also supported by the fact that in Romans the Romans (vol. 1. p. 427), and in Hebrews the Hebrews (above, pp. 328 f., 339, n. 11), were not in any way associated in worship with the Jews in their localities. It also deserves notice that the use of the word ἡγούμενοι (Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24) to designate the heads of the con- gregation, which was not common among the Pauline Churches, was retained in Rome (above, p..124, n. 5). The use of the expression ἐπισυναγώγή τινων (Heb. x. 25) to designate the separate assembly of Christians, finds a parallel in the words used by the Roman Hermas (Mand. Xl. 9), συναγωγή ἀνδρῶν δικαίων (ef. vol. 1. 94). (3) What is suggested in Hebrews with regard to the history of its readers suits the Roman Christians. If the gospel was brought to Rome for the first time about the year 50 by Jewish Christians who came hither from Jerusalem (vol. 1. p. 428 f.), if these were followed in the succeeding decade by other Christians of the same nationality (Col. iv. 10 f.), and if, finally, Peter came to Rome as a missionary preacher, there is ample foundation for what is said. in Heb. 11. 8. The reference in Heb. xii. 7 is primarily to Peter, but also to Paul, and perhaps to others, of the numerous Roman teachers (Col. iv. 10£.; Phil. 1. »14 ff.) with whose end we are not acquainted. The days of severe persecution, which after their conversion the “ Hebrews” so bravely endured (x. 32-34), are the days of Nero. In view of the descriptions of Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) and of Clement (above, pp. 61 ἢ, 68 f.), and the echoes. of this persecution in Rey. xvii. 6, xvill. 20, 24, the expression used in Hebrews (x. 33, @earpıdöwevo.) is not too Strong, nor when rightly understood is it too weak (above, p. 318 f.). This hypothesis also explains why the writer remarks expressly that they endured this persecution after their conversion, thereby implying a contrast to other sufferings which they encountered before their conversion (above, 348 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT p. 319). Some twelve years before Nero’s persecution of the Christians, the Jews were driven from Rome by Claudius (vol. i. pp. 427 f., 433). Among these the Jews who subsequently became Christians, as Aquila, had suffered (Acts xviii. 2). Why should we stretch our imaginations in order to find a Church to which these allusions in Hebrews will apply, when in the events preceding the founding of the Roman Church and the history of the Church we can find the requisite facts. It is also very easy to understand how the members of the oldest Roman Church, because of their close relation with the Christian communities in Palestine (vol. i. p. 428 f.), exercised charity toward the poor Christians in Palestine without it being necessary for Paul to urge them (Rom. xii. 13, ef. xv. 25-32) to 46 80, and so deserved the praise accorded them in Heb. vi. 10. (4) If Heb. x. 25 has been correctly interpreted (above, p. 339 f.), it is necessary to seek the readers in a large city where the Christians were wont to assemble in several. places. Many of the readers are beginning to absent themselves from those places of worship which they had always been accustomed to attend, not because they intended to leave off attending Christian worship, and also not because they wished to attend the Jewish synagogues instead, but in order that they might visit some other Christian assembly in the same city where they could find greater edification. The author condemns this, because he thinks that those Christians whose religion is vital ought rather to stay at their post and strengthen and encourage their brothers who are weak in faith, and not to withdraw from’ them in discontent, leaving them to their fate in a loveless spirit, in order selfishly to connect themselves with another Christian congregation where they found more satisfaction. Hebrews was not directed to the entire Church of a large city. Were this the case, it would be difficult to explain the lack of a greet- ing if this were originally a part of the letter (above, EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 349 Ρ. 812 f.), and also the history of Hebrews in the Church, especially the ancient title πρὸς ᾿Εβραίους. According to the analogy of all N.T. and post-apostolic language (2 Cor. vio Lhgyl Lhess,- i) 152 Thess. 4,1; Phil. ἀν, 115 ;-Clem. 1 Cor, xlvii. 6; Ign. Eph. vii. 1, xi. 2; Magn. xv. ; Trall. xiii. ; Philad. xi.), and especially in keeping with the external titles of letters, the readers of Hebrews would have been described as the inhabitants of their city if they had been the only Christians in their locality. The same would have been true if these Hebrews had lived scattered over a whole country, but had constituted the whole body of Christians in the region (ef. Gal. 1. 2, 11. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Cor. 1. 1, vii. 1, ix. 2; Rom. xv. 26). The whole body of Christians in a province or large city could hardly have been so homogeneous as regards their condition of faith and their frame of mind as the readers of Hebrews are everywhere represented as being, especially in passages like v. 12 ff., xu. 4ff What differences Paul had to take into consideration in the Corinthian and Roman Churches! Nothing of this appears in Hebrews. That this undeni- able fact should be made an argument against the position that Hebrews was intended for a part of a Church (Grimm, ZFWTh, 1870, 8. 33; von Soden, JbfPTh, 1884, 8. 439), is one of the most incomprehensible things that have been said about Hebrews. The Roman Church as a whole must have been the principal starting-point for missionary, work in the West; at the time of Paul’s imprisonment there were inany members of the Church zealously engaged in missionary work ; in the year 96, in the letter of Clement, the Church takes an active part in adjusting the disturbed state of affairs in Corinth, with an apology for having delayed so long in the matter (Clem. 1 Cor. i. 1); finally, in the year 110, Ignatius praises the Church in this language (ad Rom. iii.): “ You have taught others ; but I desire that you keep yourself what asa teacher you have imparted to your pupils.” Such a Church as this could 350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT hardly at any time be reproved on the ground that its age ought to enable it to be a teacher of others (Heb. v. 12). The readers of Hebrews were a smaller group of persons who had been Christians for a long time, and who ‘con: stituted a part of the whole Church of a large city.) It was a congregation attached to some household, besides which there were in the same city one or several other similar household congregations. This conclusion is con- firmed by the injunction to the readers to greet’ all their officers and all the saints (xiii. 24). Since the πάντας which is used twice cannot be explained here as elsewhere to mean that they were to greet all as distinguished from certain individuals or a small group of persons (Gal. i. 2; 1 Cor. xvi) 20-24; 2 Cor. i: 1; Phil iv. 2152 Tim. ‘iv. 21; Ignatius, Smyrn. xiii. 2; ad Polye. viii. 2), the contrast must be that between the particular and the general, %.e. between the readers who are to convey the greeting and the whole Church whom they are to greet. Special significance attaches to the πάντας in xiii. 24, where the heads of the Church are mentioned a second time, in view of the fact that the leaders of the Church upon whom the pastoral care of the readers devolves are called simply ἡγούμενοι in xiii. 17 (ef. 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. v. 17; 1 Pet. v. 1). The readers, who constitute a separate emı- συναγωγή (x. 25), perhaps with their own officers (xii. 17), are, nevertheless, a part of the collective Church of the ereat city in which they live. ‘The history of the whole Church is their history also (vi. 10, x. 32 ff, xiii. 7), and its officers are theirs as well. Therefore the greeting is sent to all the officers and «ll the saints. It is difficult to find in the first century of Church life conditions which correspond more perfectly to these exegetical observations than the conditions of the Christians in Rome. Paul in his time distinguishes three groups in the Church there. In’ addi- tion to the Church in the house of Aquila to which all persons in close relation to Paul belonged (Rom. xvi. EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 351 3-13), there were a second and a third (ef. xvi. 14, 15; vol. i. p. 430, n. 1). Whether one of these, e.g. the one mentioned in xvi. 14, is identical with the readers of Hebrews, or whether in the interval between Romans and Hebrews new groups were formed in the Roman Church, we do not know. Neither are we informed as to how the separate ἐπισυναγωγαί were related to the whole Church. But it is not unlikely that Hebrews was direeted to a group of the Roman Christians consisting sea of Jews (n. 8). The terminus ad quem of Hebrews is determined by three facts: (1) the use of the letter by Clement of Rome (96 A.D.); (2) the mention of Timothy (xiii. 23); (3) the circumstanee that the author is dealing with readers who in the main belong to the first generation of Christians. Timothy, who was born about the year 25 (above, p. 37), may have lived until the end of the century. The char- acter of Clement's dependence indicates that Hebrews was written before 90. The terminus ad quem fixed by the third fact varies with the place in which the readers are sought. If this place be Rome, where Christians had lived since about the year 50 (vol. 1. p. 427), we are compelled to date the letter somewhat before 90. On the other hand, according to x. 32, a considerable time must have elapsed since the persecution of the year 64. If the pre- ceding interpretation of iii. 9 (above, p. 320 ff.) be correct, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple had certainly already taken place. In writing to Roman Christians, the author had even less occasion to refer more definitely to this event than did Jude, who wrote to readers so much nearer Jerusalem (n. 9). There was even less occasion if the event had taken place a number of years before. In this case also the fall of Jerusalem could make the Jewish Christians all the more doubtful about the entire Christian hope. It did indeed happen in fulfilment of a prophecy of Jesus; but where was the fulfilment of 352 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the accompanying promise of the second coming of Jesus which was so intimately connected in the thought of the early Church with the judgment upon Jerusalem? We shall not, be far wrong if we place the composition of Hebrews about the year 80. We shall be least successful in determining the origin of Hebrews. It is not necessary to refute the idea that some unknown person wrote Hebrews with the deceitful intention of passing it off as a work of Paul’s (n. 10). A writing which has always been anonymous in form (above, pp. 304 f., 812 f) cannot be also pseudonymous. The genuineness of the writing is proved fully by the sub- ordination of the author’s personality to his subject, by the earnestness of his purpose—apparent in every line—to save a definite body of readers, distinctive in character, from shipwreck, and by an eloquence born out of the depths of an inspired soul. Of the two names between which the inharmonious tradition of the second century gives us choice, those of Paul and Barnabas, the first is certainly to be rejected (n. 11). Aside from the fact that Hebrews was not written until after 70, 2.6. several years after Paul’s death, he could not have been its author. He could not be called one of the Christians who received the word of salvation from those who heard the preaching of Jesus (ii. 3). It is not a question here of mere external knowledge of the gospel history, of which Paul also had received the tradition from older Christians where he was not familiar with the facts, before his conversion, but the author is speaking of the, Word of God, preached with signs and wonders, implanted in the hearts of believing hearers, and bringing salvation—the word which Paul calls the gospel of God and of Christ (ef. Heb. iv. 2, vi. 5, xiii. 7). This, however, was not received by Paul from men, nor through human teachers (Gal. i. 12), but it had enlightened him like a stroke of lightning from heaven. The matter is also settled by Origen’s judgment, that the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 353 style of Hebrews precludes its Pauline authorship (above, p. 809). The fact that we have such a large number of Epistles from Paul’s hand, covering a period of some fifteen years, produced under the most varying conditions and in very different states of mind, and on this account showing the greatest variety in thought, in form, and in language, compels us to affirm positively that he could not have been the author of Hebrews, which in that case must have been written before 2 Tim. The author of Hebrews is no ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ (2 Cor. xi. 6), but a teacher rhetorically trained, who, notwithstanding all the earnestness of his concern for the salvation of his readers, nevertheless makes it a point to put his thoughts into artistie and rhythmical language, as appears from the very first sen- tence, 1. 1-4 (n. 12). It would be rash to affirm that the versatile Paul could not, if occasion demanded, have de- veloped the ideas peculiar to Hebrews. But if Paul is the author, it is incomprehensible that he should never have been led by the development of thought in Hebrews and by its contrasts to suggest the thoughts which dominated him to the end, namely, that men are justified and saved by faith and not by works of the law (cf. among other passages, Eph. 11. 8f.; Phil. ii. 9; 1 Tim. 1. 12-16; Tit. iu. 5-7), and that in Christianity all national differences lose their religious significance (ef. among other passages, Col. mi. 11; 1 Tim. ii. 4-7 ; Tit. 11. 11, ii, 4). Further- more, it is inconceivable that Paul, who mentions the Saviour more than 600 times in his Epistles, either as Christ, or Jesus Christ, or our Lord Jesus Christ, or simply the Lord,—only very rarely as Jesus (Rom. iii. 26, viii. IT; 2 Cor. iv. 10-14, xi. 4; Eph. iv. 21; 1 Thess. i. 10, iv. 14; cf. Rom. x. 9; 1 Cor. xii. 3), and never in his last letters, Philemon, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, —should in Hebrews suddenly change his usage and reoularly employ the simple name “ Jesus” (ii. 9, iii. 1, vi. 20, vii. 22, x. 19, xi. 2, 24, xiii. 12, ef. iv. 14)—‘ Jesus Christ” only three VOL. II. 23 354 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT times (x. 10, xiii. 8, 21)—more rarely simply “the Lord” (ii. 3, not in vii. 2, xii. 14), but never the full Pauline formula, “our Lord Jesus Christ” (not even in xiii. 20), Moreover, the use of the plural to designate the writer (ü.:5, iv. 13, v. 11, vi. 1, 8, 9, 11, zii. 18), which 18. re- placed by the singular only in xi 32, xii. 19, 22, is contrary, to Pauline usage (vol. 1. 171, n. 1, 209, n. 8, 316, n. 3). An author does not assume for one writing a usage which he never afterwards employs. The hypo- thesis that Paul is the writer of Hebrews is not only not supported by the tradition, but rendered impossible ; for although it is easy to understand how, in Alexandria, Hebrews, which was associated with Paul’s letters, was ascribed to him, it is dificult to understand how the tradition of Pauline authorship, if it was originally connected with Hebrews, could have been lost in most of the Churches, or indeed replaced by another name (above, p. 298 £.). . More can be said in favour of the Barnabas tradition (n. 13). In the first place, we know so little about Barnabas that we can form no exact conception of how he would have expressed himself as an author. We possess no writings of his by comparison with which his production of Hebrews might be disproved. It is not impossible that Barnabas, who entered the Church in Jerusalem before the year 35, who, as early as the year 38, enjoyed a certain distinction (Acts ix. 27), and was sent shortly afterward on an important mission to Antioch (Acts xi. 22), was still alive in the year 80, an old man of about fourscore years, although Hebrews does not give the impression of having been written by an old man. Just as Mark, his cousin and helper, in spite of early differences with Paul, worked hand in hand with him later (Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11), so it is possible that Barnabas may have been on the best of terms with Timothy, the disciple of Paul (Heb. xiii. 29). There are some traces of a tradition according EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 35; to which Barnabas once came to Rome (vol. i..432f.,n. 5). The fact that he soon showed himself inferior to Paul as a preacher (Acts xiv. 12) does not prove that he was not proficient in the use of language, although a Levite born in Cyprus and living in Jerusalem (Acts iv. 36 f.) is not likely to have possessed the very great rhetorical skill which the author of Hebrews shows. Ignorance of the ritual regulations of the temple at Jerusalem, which some think is apparent in a number of passages in Hebrews, would be neither more nor less surprising in the case of Barnabas than of Paul. This objection is not serious, however, for the simple reason that the author is speaking throughout the letter not of the contemporaneous worship in Jerusalem, but of the worship in the tabernacle which was prescribed in the law (n. 14); so that in any case the author can be charged only with lack of a technical know- ledge of the law. How much or how little of such know- ledge Barnabas possessed no one can say. On the other hand, it could hardly be explained how a man, who like Barnabas had been a prominent member of the mother Church, could have lost so fully from his mind its attitude toward the Jewish cultus and the ceremonial law (above, p. 334 £.) ; this would remain inexplicable, even if he were writing to Jewish Christians outside of Palestine. Although all of these comparisons of the little we know about: Barnabas with Hebrews do not absolutely exclude the possibility of ‘the hypothesis that this λόγος τῆς παρωκλήσεως (Heb. xiii. 22) was written by the υἱὸς παρακλήσεως (Acts iv. 36), yet it is improbable when the tradition is considered. If the tradition that makes Barnabas the author goes back to the time when the letter began to circulate, which must have been the case if it is true, it is impossible to explain its disappearance, especially in circles where Paul’s name was not allowed to take its place... We conclude, therefore, that the Barnabas authorship of the letter, like the Pauline, is unsupported by a real and genuine tradition, 356 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT but is an ancient hypothesis (above, p. 303f.). It is not likely that the future will ever take us beyond hypo- theses. The conjecture, probably first made by Luther, that Hebrews was written by Apollos, has, not without reason, always been regarded with favour (n. 15). The union of Greek rhetorical skill with Jewish knowledge of the Seriptures for which he was distinguished, and the fiery zeal with which he testified to his faith, particularly among his countrymen, both appear in Hebrews (Acts xvii. 24-28; vol. 1. 262f, 270f., 286£.). The faith in Jesus which Apollos brought with him from his native city of Alexandria to Ephesus, without having previously belonged to a Church whose members were baptized, he may have owed to persons who had been-led to believe through the preaching of Jesus Himself (n. 4), even before Pentecost, possibly while visiting the feast in Jerusalem. Apollos could have written Heb. ii. 3. What is said in xiii, 23 would be in harmony with his friendly relations with Paul (ef. Tit. ii. 13); also xii. 7, if Paul as well as Peter is referred to in this passage. Luther's hypothesis has a twofold advantage over all the others: (1) among the teachers of the apostolic time, so far as we are able to form a conception of them, there is no one whom our impression of the author of Hebrews suits better than Apollos; (2) in the little that we know of his history there is nothing directly opposed to the hypothesis. But the outcome of every thoughtful discussion of the origin of Hebrews is likely to be the same as Origen’s conelu- sion: τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, TO μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν, 1. (P. 348.) W. Grimm, Z/WTh, 1870, S. 19-77, who refutes (S. 46-53) the theory yet held by Bleek, Lünemann, Riehm, and others, that Heb, is intended for Jerusalem, still retained Palestine as the home of the readers, and suggested (S. 71) Jamnia as their residence, Westeott does not wish to dispute this, but contents himself with the supposition that it is a eongrega- tion in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (p. xlii). 2. (P. 344.) Böhme, Ep. ad Hebr. 1825, p. xxxii ff., held the Antiochian community to be the circle of readers of Heb. ; and Hofmann, v. 531 ff., with EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 357 the added supposition that Paul is the author, believed them to be the Jewish Christians of Antioch and vicinity. But the very fact that in Antioch as late as 63, at the time when Hofmann believes Heb. to have been written, the Jewish portion of the congregation was still separated from the Gentile portion, is, according to Acts xv. and Gal. ii., inconceivable That Timothy had any very close connection with Antioch is nowhere proved ; and that he, profiting by the opportunity offered by the journey of Acts xviii. 22, stayed there with Paul for any length of time (Hofmann, 532), is a theory incompatible with Acts xviii. 18. At the time of Paul’s leaving Corinth, Timothy was not with him, and we do not meet him again with Paul until very much later in Ephesus (Acts xix. 22; 1 Cor. iv. 17; cf. vol. i. 265, n. 2). 3. (P. 344.) The readers of Heb. were sought in Alexandria by Wieseler, Chron. 479 ff.; Unters. über den Heb., Heft ii. 1861; Köstlin, ThJb, 1854, S. 388 ff.; Ritschl, ThStKr, 1866, S. 89 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Hinl. 385 ff., and others. It is possible that the author was a native Alexandrian; but there is nothing to make it likely that he belonged by birth to the circle of the readers. It would not be possible, therefore, from the origin of the author to draw any conclusion as to the residence of the readers. Concerning the alleged reference to the temple at Leontopolis see above, p. 341. The attempt of Köstlin (ThJb 1854, 8. 395 ff.) to refer the οὕτως ἀναστρεφόμενοι, Heb. x. 33, to the sufferings of the non-Christian Jews of Alexandria under Caligula, is unsuccessful. Of. especially, Grimm, op. cit. 67 ff. 4. (P. 344.) If Apollos in 54 brought with him from his home in Alexandria a belief in Jesus which made him an ardent preacher of the gospel in the synagogue of Ephesus; and if, on the other hand, he knew nothing of the ecclesiastical baptism, and did not as yet possess the Christian knowledge which had developed in the Church (Acts xviii. 24-26 ; ef. xix. 1-7), then the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah must have spread to the Jews of Egypt independently of the organised Church, and perhaps before the rise of a Church in Jerusalem, 2.e. in the days of John the Baptist and of Jesus Himself. It is to these Jews that Mark in the first instance must have turned, if he is to be rightly considered the founder of the Alexandrian Church (Eus. H. E. ii. 16. 1 and 24), and Barnabas also if he went to Alexandria (Clem. Hom. i. 9-14; οἵ, vol. i. 482f., τι. 5). The Jewish population of Egypt is estimated at one million (Philo, contra Flaccwm, vi.) ; and the Samaritans, who wished to be reckoned as Jews (Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 6), were also represented there in large numbers (Jos. Ant. xii. 1). There was, as a matter of fact, in the neighbourhood of Arsinoé, a city which was either by them or after them named Samaria (The W. Flinders Petrie Papyrus, ed. Mahaffy, ii. 14, 88, 93, 94). Cf. Schiirer, iii. 19-25 (Eng. trans. 11. ii. 226-230). There was, consequently, no lack of material for Jewish Christian communities in Egypt. If the Didache was written in Egypt about 110 (vol. i. 304), we might conclude that there was a connection between the primitive Egyptian Church and that of Palestine. The very fact that there were originally twelve presbyters of Alexandria (Eutych. Alex., ed. Pococke, i. 331; ef. Clem. Hom. xi. 36; Recogn. vi. 15) might point in the same direction. Further evidence may be found in the traces of a knowledge of Jewish Christian Gospels, which appear in many of the fragments of apocryphal Gospels 358 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT found in recent years in Egypt (ThLb, 1897, col. 426, 480; NZK, 1900, 8. 361-370; 1905, S. 171-175). The present writer refrains from expressing any opinion concerning the Epistles of St. Anthony (especially Ep. 2 ad Arsinoitas, Migne, 40, col. 981). As a matter of fact, we have no certain knowledge of Jewish Christian communities in Egypt. 5. (P. 345.) | Wettstein was the first to think of Christians in Rome, Novum Testamentum, ii. 386 f.; and more recently Holtzmann, Kurz, and the present writer (PRE?, v. 666 ff. ; ed. 3, vii. 501f.). Erroneous notions concerning the composition of the Roman congregation have been the chief hindrance to the spread of this view. 6. (P. 345.) It should not be denied that expressions such as οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας, xili. 24 ; οἱ ἀπὸ Κιλικίας καὶ ᾿Ασίας, Acts vi. 9; ὁ ἀπὸ Nalaped, Matt. xxi. 11; John i. 46; Acts x. 38, denote origin, whether that of birth, or the place from which one has just arrived (cf. e.g. Acts xxi. 27; Matt. xv. 1, if οἱ is genuine here= Mark iii. 22, vii. 1), and that such a description of persons can only have arisen outside of the places where they were born, or where they customarily resided... This is not in any way altered by the transfer of the formula to other expressions than those of place, such as oi ἀπὸ τῆς erkAn- σίας, Acts ΧΙ]. 1; or οἱ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς and similar ones ; nor by the cases in which, by virtue of a sort of attraction (Kühner-Gerth. Gr. i. 546), the departure from a place is combined with the preceding residence in it, Acts x. 23, xvii. 13; cf. per contra, xvii. 11. As an instance of this is the case where a messenger sent from Sparta to Thessaly speaks in Herodotus, viii. 114 (ef. in connection also Polyb. v. 86.10) of Ἡρακλεῖδαι of ἀπὸ Σπαρτῆς. On the other hand, it must be admitted that a narrator, who as such is generally removed from the standpoint of the events narrated, might on occasion so express himself as to introduce a person by his title of origin, although at the time of writing the person is within his own place of residence. As the Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead is generally called the Lazarus of Bethany to distinguish him from others of that name, he is so called in John xi, 1, which, inasmuch as the narrative is centred at Lazarus’ own home, is a not very elegant form of expression. Still worse is the ἀσπάζονταίσε . . . πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ Φιλίππων, ὅθεν καὶ ἐπέστειλά σοι, Which the pseudo-Ignatius, circa 370 or 400, makes Ignatius in Philippi write (ad Her. viii.). It would be hard to point out anything of this sort in a real letter, even of a man of much less education than the author of Heb. The theory of a similar clumsiness of expression in Heb. xiii.24 would in no wise explain why the writer designates by their origin, or place of residence, those who are sending greetings, instead of characterising them as Christians of his vicinity (Gal. i. 2; Phil. iv. 21; Tit, iii. 15). If he wished, however, in a manner similar to 1 Cor. xvi. 19, Rom, xvi. 16, to extend, greetings, not expressly entrusted to him to deliver, in behalf of all the Christians of the country in which he was living, he would have written ai ἐκκλησίαι τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, or something similar. It will probably have to be granted, then—(1) that the author and the Italians who send greeting are outside of Italy.) (2) The Italians alone, of the Christians, of his vicinity, have commissioned him to extend greetings, because they most naturally have a greater interest in the readers who live in Italy. ) 7. (P. 340.) Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 205, holds Clement to be a Hellenistic EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 3595 Jew. The present writer attempted to prove the Jewish origin of the author of the Shepherd of Hermas in his Hirt des Heras, 485-497. Spitta, Urchrist. ii. 243-437, makes the greater part of the Shepherd the work of a Jew, Hermas, who had not yet become Christian. After attention had been called, even before Origen’s time, to the points of contact between Heb. and Olem. 1 Cor. (above, pp. 299 f., 308 f.), Eusebius noticed that the latter betrayed the borrowing from Heb. not only of thoughts, but also of words. “The fact is unmistakable,” writes Overbeck (Zur Gesch. d. Kanons, S. 3), “that this letter of Clement’s makes use of Heb. without acknowledgment, at times copying it outright.” For details, ef. @K, i. 963f. The. present writer attempted to demonstrate the dependence of the Shepherd upon Heb. in his Hirt des Hermas, 439-452, cf. Hofmann, v. 45. Spitta, ii. 412-414, allows nothing more than the possibility that the author of Heb. was acquainted with the original purely Jewish writing of the Shepherd. 8. (P. 351.) As the Roman Christians, since the time of Claudius, had been cut off from the fellowship of the synagogue (vol. i. 427), the division of the Roman Jews into a considerable number of synagogue congregations furnishes merely the analogy and not the basis for the division of the Roman Christian congregations into smaller circles, meeting at different places. Least of all is it to be imagined that one of those Jewish synagogue congregations, which during the first centuries remained such (vol. i. 47 f., 67, n. 14; 438 f., n. 6), had been transformed, at so early a period as the apostolic age, into a Christian congregation, and that the particular assembly to which the readers of Heb. belong, and which they are not to leave (x. 25; above, p. 339, n. 11), is one of these Jewish synagogues. Nestle’s question (ET, 1899, p. 422), whether the title πρὸς “Ἑβραίους might not be connected with the name of the συναγωγὴ "Eßpaiwv (vol. i. 67, n. 14), is on this account to be answered in the negative ; and all the more decidedly as the historical significance which Ἑβραῖοι had in the name of that synagogue was not applicable to the first recipients of Heb. (above, pp. 296, 306 f.). 9. (P. 351.) On Jude 5, where, not the destruction of Jerusalem or of the Temple, but, as in Heb. iii. 7-19, iv. 6, the ruin of the generation of the Jewish people which had sinned against Jesus is expressed, in a form borrowed from the history of Mosaic times, see above, pp. 253 f.,320f. If Jerusalem and the Temple were in ruins, the readers must have thought of this fact when they came to Heb. viii. 13, xii. 22, xiii. 14, as the Corinthians must have done in reading Clem. 1 Cor. vi. 4 (ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις πόλεις μεγάλας κατέσκαψεν καὶ ἔθνη μεγάλα ἐξερίζωσεν) ; and they must have understood the author’s reason for using in xiii. 13 παρεμβολῆς instead of πόλεως or πύλης, as he has it in xiii. 12. Jerusalem and its gates were no longer standing. If the readers found in xiii. 14 a contrast between the Christians, who had no end uring eity upon earth, and the Jews, who in Jerusalem still possessed’ one, it was only because they failed to take into account the fact that (1) this contrast would have had to be expressed at least by an emphatic ἡμεῖς ; (2) that a Christian, eirca 66-70, in view of the prophecy of Jesus and of the actual conditions, could not possibly have said, even indirectly, that Jerusalem was ἃ πόλις μένουσα. The Jews who have imagined this, through their unbelief, have lost the city, which they held to be enduring ; the Jewish Christians, through the faith in which they have followed their forefathers (xi. 10, 13-16), have won for them- 360 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT selves an eternal eity. That the author would have had to direet attention more clearly and strongly to the judgment of the year 70 than he does in iii. 7-19, iv. 6, ix. 8-12 (above, pp. 321 ff., 339 f.), xiii. 14, and that he would have had to use—particularly in viii. 13—the annihilation of the temple-cultus which had occurred as a most powerful argument for his position, instead of saying, from the standpoint of Jeremiah, that the end of the old covenant was near at hand, in that a new one was opposed to it by the prophets,—these and other similar challenges would be in place only if it had been necessary to combat a false devotion to the Temple and its cultus. But there is no trace of this in Heb. If a Jewish Christian addressing Jewish Christians, who viewed with a sad heart their ruin and the ruin of their people, had allowed “the brutal logic of facts” to speak more loudly and decisively, he would have been open to the reproach against which Paul guards himself in Rom. ae 1 ff. 10. (P. 352.) Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, ii. 304f., declares Heb. to be a pseudo-Pauline forgery. Baur, Christ. u. Kirche der drei ersten Jahrh. (2 Aufl.) 109, who viewed it as a product of Jewish Christianity, believed, however, that in xiii. 23 he had discovered the author’s fraudulent purpose to introduce “ his writing as one which had come from among the associates of Paul.” Köstlin wrote against Schwegler from within the circle of his own school, ThJb, 1853, S. 420 ff. ; 1854, S. 437, so that Overbeck also (S. 6) viewed the hypothesis of a fiction as permanently disposed of. 11. (P. 352.) Among those who more recently represent the theory of the Pauline authorship may be mentioned Hug, Einl.3 ii. 461-496 ; Hofmann, v. 42-52, 520-561 ; Biesenthal, Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Pl. an die Hebräer, 1878; Holtzheuer, Der Br. an die Ebriier, 1883. 12. (P. 353.) On the language and style of Heb., especially in comparison with the writings of Paul, ef. Seyffarth, De ep. ad Hebr. indole, 1821 ; Bleek, i. 315-338 ; Hofmann, v. 555-561. In regard to the rhythm, see Blass, ThStKr, 1902, Heft 3, also his “(Barnabas) Brief an die Hebr. Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen,” 1903. The idea of Hofmann that Paul, freed from a five years’ imprisonment, and awaiting the return of Timothy in an Italian port, must have had leisure to bestow a care in the execution of Heb. which is not his custom, is not obvious. Torn from an environment in Rome which had been familiar to him for two years past, and which was in no way oppressive, in the discomfort of a seaport city, where there could hardly have been a Christian community, and in the impatience of awaiting the arrival of Timothy, or a suitable chance of obtaining passage, Paul would have been much less in a position to bestow a conscious care upon his style than when, in the bosom of the reconciled Corinthian congregation, he wrote to the Romans ; or when from Rome, surrounded by friends and helpers, after‘ he had beeome aecustomed to the local eustoms, and previous to the opening of the exciting trial, he wrote the Col. and Eph. letters. A conscious effort to attain elegance of expression and a euphonious rounding out of clauses was contrary, in any case, to the character of Paul. Such an effort is also not to be aseribed to the real author. He who would write in the style in whieh Heb. is written, with such great care and such ardent desire to produce an effect upon the hearts and consciences of his readers or hearers,—and the “ readers” of that time were always for the most part hearers (Rev. i. 3),—to him such 8 ω» EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 361 style of writing must have become second nature; he could no longer do otherwise. Besides periods, everywhere grammatically transparent, sym- metrically formed, and rhythmically rounded (i. 1-4, ii. 2-4, v. 1-3, vi. 16-20 vii. 18-25, x. 19-25, xii. 1, 2), in the carrying out of which the author does not allow himself to be disturbed by lengthy citations (iii. 7 ff. ; above, p. 337)—besides these, alliterations and paranomasia are conspicuous (i. 1, moA-, moA-, maA-, mar-, προῷ ; 1]. 1, wep-, προσ-, map-; ii. 10, mav-, mav-, woX-, mad-; ν. 8, ἔμαθεν---ἔπαθεν ; Vii. 3, ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ; Xi. 4, πισ-, πλει-; map-, mpoo-). The hexameter, xii. 13, καὶ τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιήσατε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν, has evidently arisen by chance (cf. vol. i. 118, n. 5). According to NP (ποιεῖτε instead of ποιήσατε) it does not exist; but comparison with the original (Prov. iv. 26, ὀρθὰς rpoxıas ποίει σοῖς ποσίν) shows, nevertheless, the author’s sense of rhythm. The correct verdict of Origen (ἑλληνικωτέρα, above, p. 309) has been sadly exaggerated when, eg. Kurz, Komm. 8. 19, “praises” Heb. “for using a Greek idiom free from any sort of Semitic colouring.” Abso- lutely Semitic is the adjectival use of the genitive in Heb. ix. 5, Xepoußeiv δόξης, “glorious cherubs” (in which the Aramaic and therefore modern Hebrew form of the name is to be noticed, which the Antiochian recension has changed to the old Hebrew Χερουβίμ) ; 111. 12, καρδία ἀπιστίας ; xii. 15, ῥίζα πικρίας ; iv. 2, ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ; also iv. 16, ὁ θρόνος τῆς χάριτος. No Greek, not even a Philo, would have written em’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων, i. 1; ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, ν. 73 τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, i. 3; cf. per contra, Col. i. 20,22; Rom. vii. 24. ἧς τὸ τέλος eis καῦσιν, vi. 8, cf. Num. xxiv. 20, Ps. cix. 13, Isa. v. 5, is thoroughly Hebrew in conception, and still no part of a citation. The Hebraic ἐνώπιον with the genitive, iv. 13, xiii. 21, the pleonastic ἑαυτοῖς with ἔχειν, x. 34 (DKL), which badly applied pedantry has cancelled (P) or emended to ἑαυτούς (NAH) or to ev ἑαυτοῖς (min.), and other examples of the same sort, would not have been passed over by the stylists which a Josephus made use of. The complete correspondence with the LXX the author has in common with Paul; whether he had a knowledge of the Hebrew text also, and used it (ef. Hofmann, v. 522 f.), is as much a matter of dispute as in the case of Paul, and the proof of the theory that he had before him a different text of the LXX than Paul possessed (Bleek, i. 369-375, cf. per contra, Hofmann, v. 522 f.)—proof, which is presented in a manner far from convincing—is really of no importance, when, apart from this, it is certain that Paul is not the author. The opinion that Heb. is a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, was held at a very early date, but on very unsubstantial grounds (above, p. 298), and has been maintained, moreover, by Michaelis, Einl. 1356-1384, very learnedly, and by Biesenthal, S. 43 ff, very superficially. It seems unnecessary to refute it again. 13. (P. 354.) The theory which makes Barnabas the author has been defended most energetically by Weiseler. Without exactly advocating his aggerated presentation of the tradition in favour of Barnabas, Ritschl, Trike, 1866, S. 89, among others, has agreed with him. Recently also Blass in his edition, cited in n. 12, above, S. 9, with unsatisfactory proof from tradition. 14. (P. 355.) There has been a disposition to find, especially in vii. 27, an ignorance of the regulation of the cultus, in so far as it is held that the 362 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT passage indicates a daily offering of the twofold sacrifice for his own sins anc for the sins of the people as the duty of the high priest. No account is to be taken of x. 11, where ἱερεύς is better attested than ἀρχιερεύς, and indicates nothing as to a definite kind of sacrificial procedure. On the contrary, in vil. 27 the twofold offering of the high priest on the Day of Atonement is unmistakably referred to, concerning which a similar expression is used in v. 3, ix. 7, and of which it is said expressly in ix. 7 (cf. ix. 25, x. 1, 3) that the high priest has to offer it only once a year. It is therefore inconceivable that vii. 27 should mean that the high priest was bonnd to offer this sacrifice daily. To this yearly twofold sacrifice of the high priest corresponds what Jesus has done once for all in offering Himself as a sacrifice. The limiting of the rovro to the second part of the twofold sacrifice, which previously without repetition of the ὑπέρ is joined with the first part, is not per- missible, any more than limiting it to the first part of the sacrifice,—a proposition which, as a matter of fact, is advanced by A. Seeberg (NJb/DTh, iii. 367, 370). If it were intolerable to the author to think that Jesus, like the high priest, made offering also for Himself, he could not have brought out this point prominently three different times (v. 3, vii. 27, ix. 7); at best he could have called attention in passing to the fact that this part of the function of the high priest was not applicable to the sinless Jesus (iv. 15), 1.6. that in this respect the typical comparison was incom- plete. Instead of this, in v. 3 he lays the greater emphasis precisely upon the offering of the high priest in his own behalf, and shows in ver. 7f. that Jesus, in spite of His innate dignity, and in contrast to His present exaltation as heavenly priest-king, nevertheless in His earthly life did offer a sacrifice, which was evidence of His weakness, His fear of death, and His unreadiness for the dread experience, and which corresponds, there- fore, mutatis mutandis, to the yearly offering of the high priest for himself. In so doing the author can have in mind nothing but the struggle in prayer in Gethsemane, which he looks upon as the act of Jesus introductory to the function of high priest. In offering up His will in Gethsemane, His body upon the cross (x. 10), and His blood in the heavenly sanctuary (ix. 12), He offers Himself continually. If these three points are included in the ἑαυτὸν mporeveyras of vii. 27, it cannot be denied that Jesus had to make an offering for Himself, or for His own sins. It is denied only that He was under the necessity of making daily the offering which corresponds to the twofold offering of the high priest ; for this might seem necessary in so far as Christ has to discharge His function of high priest, not merely now and then, but continually (ii. 18, iv. 15 f., vii. 23-25, ix. 14), But this is not necessary, because Christ’s offering of Himself once for all, as distinguished from that which is accomplished by the typical service of the legal high priest, has secured an eternally valid atonement and redemption (vii. 27f., ix: 12, 26, x. 10). If the author, by his negation, in contradiction of his repeated and correct statement, wished to advance the erroneous assertion that the legal high priest was bound to offer the twofold sacrifice daily, he would have had to choose (1) another word-grouping, and write perhaps: οὐχ ὡς ol ἀρχιερεῖς καθ᾽ ἡμέραν Or οὐ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ὥσπερ ol ἀρχιερεῖς ἔχει ἀνάγκην κτλ, ; and (2) alter he had just designated Jesus in vii. 26 as the high priest, he would have had to characterise the O.T, high priests, in contrast to this true and perfect high EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 363 priest, as οἱ κατὰ νόμον ἀρχιερεῖς (vii. 16), or something similar. The phrase ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, unobtrusive because of its position and brevity (ef. per contra, iv. 10, ix. 25), opens the infinitive clause, which is dependent upon ἔχει ἀνάγκην, and serves merely to call to mind the fact that the action whose daily repetition is unnecessary for Jesus, inasmuch as He has completed it once for all, is precisely that which belongs to the office of high priest. Hofmann has already given what is essentially a correct interpretation of the passage. When one remembers that καθ᾽ ἡμέραν expresses proverbially the frequent and constant recurrence of a process, no matter whether it takes place once a day or three times a week (ef. 1 Cor. xv. 31 ; 2 Cor. xi. 28; Heb. iii. 18, x. 11), he will not easily understand why A. Seeberg, op. cit. 368, demands πάντοτε instead of the preceding explanation. If this demand were justified, it would have precisely the same value over against the new explanation, according to which the καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, which is excluded in spite of the position of the negation, is to be translated “in his daily recurring acts,” by which would be meant the intervention of Christ for His own people (S. 369f.). This, too, may be necessary a hundred times a day, if all the Christians on earth are to find help seasonably for their needs (iv. 16). But this new interpretation goes beyond most of the earlier ones in the obscurity of its assumed modes of expression (8. 368). In ix. 4 the error was dis- covered that the incense altar is made to stand in the Holy of Holies. χρυσοῦν θυμιαστήριον surely cannot refer to anything but this, which Symmachus and Theodotion (Ex. xxx. 1) as well as Philo (Rer. Div. Her. 46 ; Vita Mos. iii. 9) and Josephus (Ant. iii. 6. 8) regularly call by that name, though LXX, Ex. xxx. 1 and elsewhere regularly substitutes for it θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος ; neither can an incense pan, or a censer, be meant, for which, in Ezra viii. 11, 2 Chron. xxvi. 19, 4 Mace. vii. 11, and, according to one translator, Lev. x. 1, θυμιατήριον is used, but elsewhere πυρεῖον (Ex. xxvii. 3, xxviii. 3; Lev. x. 1, xvi. 12). The reference cannot be here to a vessel of secondary importance, which in the descriptions of the tabernacle is mentioned only incidentally among other vessels, and which is described, not as being of gold but of bronze, and which, furthermore, inasmuch as it was to be handled by the priests daily, every child must have known was not kept in the Holy of Holies—a place accessible only to the high priest, and to him but once a year. Even the consideration of a golden censer mentioned in the Mishna (Joma iv. 4), which was used only on the Day of Atonement by the high priest, could not lead the author astray ; for this was kept, as a matter of course, outside of the Holy of Holies (Joma vii. 4). If, however, the golden incense altar is meant, it could have been no more a matter of doubt to the author, according to Ex. xxx. 1-10, xl. 1-5, 22-27, Lev. xvi. 12, than to a Philo or a Josephus, that the incense altar, as well as the table and candle- stick, stood in the Holy Place. Furthermore, from the law, without any knowledge of the Jewish cultus of his time (Luke i. 8-23), he must have known that the service of the incense altar belonged to the daily duties of the priesthood (Ex. xxx. 7 f.; οἵ. Heb. ix. 6, x. 11), consequently that it did not stand in the Holy of Holies, which only the high priest entered once a year (Heb. ix. 7). Accordingly, in ix. 4 the special inclusion of the golden censer, or incense altar, within the Holy of Holies, cannot be what is affirmed,—a meaning which is not required by the expression (ἔχουσα; cf. ix. 1, x. 1, 35, 364 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT xiii, 10, and per contra, ἐν 7, ix. 2, 4),—but merely an ideal relation to it, δὲ in 1 Kings vi. 22, which corresponds to the service connected with the altar on the Day of Atonement; ef. Delitzsch, 356-360 ; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hb. 489 f.; Hofmann, 318 f. ; Westcott, 246 f. The author follows a tradition voiced in LXX, Ex. xvi. 23, and therefore followed by Philo (Congr. Braud. Gr. 18), when he makes in ix. 4 the manna jar to be of gold ; and it is upon the basis of the traditional exegesis of Ex. xvi. 34 and Num. xvii. 25 that he transfers the manna jar and the staff of Aaron to the arkof the covenant, a tradition whose age is rather corroborated than controverted by 1 Kings viii. 9. What, aside from this, has been actually believed, and the fictions that have been invented concerning the whereabouts of these articles and of the ark itself, do not concern us, since the author describes (ix. 1) here, as unequivo- eally as anywhere, the legal regulations of the O.T. cultus specified in the Thora, and does so without any regard for possible changes of a later day, or for a cultus existing in his time. 15. (P. 356.) Luther in the Vorrede aum Heb. of 1522 (Erl. Ausg., Bd. 63, $, 154 f.), by a comparison of Heb. ii. 3 and Gal. i. 1, 12, declared a Pauline origin of the Epistle to be out of the question, and maintained that it was the work of a disciple of the apostles, “ perhaps long afterward.” He called attention, furthermore, to the passages vi. 4-8, x. 26-31, xii. 17, as in their thought dogmatically questionable, closing his discussion with the words: “ But whoever wrote them is unknown, and wishes perhaps to remain unknown for a time.” In the Kérchenpostille (Bd. vii. S. 181) he calls their Pauline origina ‘credible delusion. They are not the work of St. Paul, for the reason that they have a diction much more ornamental than St. Paul elsewhere is accustomed to use, Some believe them to be St. Luke’s, some St. Apollos’, whom St. Luke praises” (Acts xviii, 24). Similarly, Enarr. in Gen. xlviii. 20 (Op. exeg. xi. 188): “ Auctor epist. ad Hebr. quisquis est, sive Paulus sive, ut ego arbitror, Apollo.” Finally, in a sermon of the year 1537 on 1 Cor. iii. 4f. (Bd, xviii. S. 181), he says, * This Apollo(s) was a man of great intelligence, the Epistle of the Hebrews is indeed his.” This hypothesis was recommended especially by Bleek (i. 423-430) and adopted by many ; also by Klostermann, who, op. cit. 47-51, aptly portrays the characteristics of the author. The conjectures of H. Ewald (Der Heb. S. 30), that the N.T. Apollos fell later into bad ways, and might be identical with the swindler Apollonius of 'Tyana, has no more value than the fanciful identification of the ΝΟ, Apollos with the martyr Apollonius, circa 180-185, in the title of his Acta (ed. Klette, S. 92). As proof of the Alexandrian origin of the author, which would be an‘ additional reason for ascribing the letter to Apollos, special emphasis has been laid upon the points of contact between Heb. and the writings of Philo. Parallels have been diligently collected by J. B. Carpzov, Sacra Exercit. in S. Pauli ep. ad Hebr. e Philone Alew., Helmstüdt, 1750 ; some also by Siegfried, Philo, 321-330. Intelligent discussions are to be found in Riehm, Lehrberg: des Heb. 855 fl., and briefly also in Hofmann, v. 530. There exists between Philo and. Heb. an occasionally apparent. similarity of expression and a common basis of rabbinical and rhetorical training. It remains unlikely, however, that such a gifted Christian as the author of Heb. would have found pleasure in such terribly tiresome writings ad those of the Alexandrian Jew ; cf. Michaelis, 1385. This has no bearing, of course, upon the origin of the EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 365 letter, which statement applies also to the incidental, points of contact between Heb. and the remaining writings of the N.T. The citation of Heb, x. 30, in its similar departure from LXX and from the original also, as in the case of Rom. xii. 19, is the foremost proof of the author’s knowledge of Pauline writings. And it is easily conceivable that, when the author wrote to the Christians in Rome, he had in mind Paul’s letter to the Romans. The rest that has been collected (Briickner, Chronol. Reihenfolge der ntl. Schriften, 1890, S. 239-241) is unimportant. The alleged undeniable dependence of 1) Pet, and Jas. upon Heb, (Brückner, 35-41, 291) would compel us to accept, the composition of Heb, before the year 50; and the alleged use, on the part of the author, of the Antiquities of Josephus, completed in the year 94 (Hitzig, Zur Krit. der paul. Briefe, S. 34-36), would bring us down to the year 100. The latter assertion does not seem to have found any favour even with Krenkel, who in his Josephus und Lucas, 1894, S. 345-353, would not otherwise have silently passed over the matter. As far as the relation to James is concerned, observations must be limited to the seemingly contradictory treatment of the sacrificing of Isaac and the deed of Rahab in Heb. xi. 17, 31 and Jas. ii. 21-25. To return to serious questions: the wholly original theory put forward by Luther, has the advantage over all others which have arisen in earlier and later times. Luke, whom Clemens Alexandrinus regarded as a translator, and others of about the same period, as a secretary under Paul’s direction (above, pp. 298, 308), was declared by Grotius in Preloguwum zum Heb. to be the independent author. Delitzsch also, in the course of his learned commentary and at its close (S. 701-707), has attempted to prove that Luke “ wrote” Heb. “by order and according to the directions of Paul.” Against Harnack’s conjecture, that Aquila and Priscilla wrote Heb., but that the larger portion of the same should be ascribed to the more capable Priscilla (ZfNTW, 1900, S. 16-41), the following is to be noted—(1) The variation between the we and the I of the author (above, p. 354) which Harnack ex- plains by stating that formally two persons are introduced as authors, but that in fact only one of the two wrote the letter, would by just this hypo- thesis be fully unintelligible. In case Aquila and Priscilla are the speakers in xiii. 18 (vi. 1-3, 9, 11, but then also ii. 5, iv. 13, v. 11), and, on the other hand, only one of them the speaker in xiii. 19, 22f., the readers of the letter could not guess whether Aquila or Priscilla wished to be considered the actual and only author of the letter, and which of the two, who everywhere else in the N.T. form an inseparable pair, was intending soon to visit them without the other consort. While the information is given that Timothy will travel in company with the author, there is lacking in xiii. 19, 22 f. the much more necessary information that Priscilla, whose name could not have been want- ing here (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. x. 1), was planning shortly without Aquila to visit the readers, and the explanation why this was so. (2) It is inconceivable that a Jewish artizan, and especially his wife, who, according to Acts xviii. 3, regularly shared the work of her husband, should have possessed a rhetorical culture, like that of which Heb. gives evidence. (3) This hypothesis explains no better at least than the Apollos-hypothesis the disappearance of the true tradition (in opposition to Harnack, 24, 32, 38). The prejudice against the thought that the röle of a Church teacher should fall to a woman as co-author of the letter, could at all events have led to 366 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the striking out of her name from the opening greeting, if indeed Hebrews ever had a greeting. If, however, an intentional omission of the “ Address” (above, pp. 311, n. 12, 312f.) is not to be considered as possible, as also Harnack seems to realise (16, 21), it is therefore not conceivable by what other means the names of both authors, or the name of Priscilla should have been “suppressed.” Memory cannot be controlled by force ; its gradual extinction is a process of nature. The latest hypotheses, according to which Aristion is said to be the author both of Mark xvi. 9-20 and of Heb. (Chapman, Revue. Bénéd. 1905, pp. 50-62) will scarcely need to be seriously controverted even when the promised proofs appear in full. A μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου, such as Aristion was, according to the evidence of his disciple Papias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 4, ef. Forsch. vi. 138 tf., 218 ff.) could not have written Heb. ii. 3 f. IX. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS. § 48. THE UNWRITTEN GOSPEL. THE writings investigated up to this point have been, without exception, letters. Some of these (Kphesians, James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews) were found not to be letters in the strict sense in which nearly all that we possess from Paul’s hand are, but gave the impression, rather, of a written sermon or of an essay. Still in every instance what the absent teacher wrote was intended for a definite circle of readers in the same locality, pre- dominantly of the same origin, and living under similar conditions. In these writings we found repeated reference to other Christian writings belonging to the same class. From Paul himself we learned of other letters of his, which have not come down to us, written to the Corinthians and Philippians, also of a letter which the Corinthian Church had sent to him (vol. 1. pp. 261, 524f.). In 2 Pet. iii. 15 we learned of a letter of Paul’s to the Jewish Christians in Palestine, which has not come down to us, and in 2 Pet. iii. 1 of an epistle of Peter’s to the same readers, now lost. Furthermore, it was clear from 2 Pet. ui. 16 that numerous letters of Paul’s were read outside the circle of readers for which they were originally intended, and that Peter himself had read not a few of these (above, pp. 198 ἢ, 209, 274f.). In agreement with this last state- ment is the fact that 1 Peter betrays familiarity on the part of its author with Romans and: Ephesians (above, 367 368 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT p.176 £.); while Jude and the author of Hebrews appear to have been acquainted with Romans (above, pp. 279, 291, 365, line 2 ff. Paul had read James when he wrote to the Romans, and he took cognisance in his letter of its peculiar teaching (vol. 1. 126 ἔ, 428 f). We saw that 1 Peter was likewise influenced by James (vol. 1. 133; ii, 186, n. 3). Jude appeals to the authority of 2 Peter, although he does not mention the author by name, but characterises him merely as an apostle (above, pp. 250 f., 266 f.). From what we learn in 2 Pet. 1. 13-15 and Jude 3 of the literary intentions of these two authors, we conclude that their writings were to be in part letters and in part more comprehensive didactic compositions, but that they were still to retain the essential character of letters (above, pp. 199 ἢ, 242). The question arises whether during this whole period there was no other form of Christian literature in exist- ence—in particular, whether what Jesus had “done and taught” (Acts i. 1) was committed to writing quite as little as the revelations of the prophetic spirits in the Churches. Jesus’ words and deeds certainly could not have been forgotten, and the existence of a comprehensive body of gospel literature is of itself sufficient proof that the recollection of both was fostered in many ways. Much that Jesus desired to be left unpublished during His earthly ministry His disciples were to proclaim in all the highways and upon the house-tops. What they had experienced in fellowship with Him they were to testify openly before the world (John xy. 27; Acts 1. 8, 22; Matt. x. 27; Acts x. 39, 42). His words, which are to outlast the world (Matt. xxiv. 35; Mark xiii. 31; Luke xxi. 33; John vi. 68), which taken separately are words of God, and which in their totality constitute God's Word (John xvii. 8, 14, 17),—partieularly His commands and prophecies,—they were not merely to lay up in their own hearts and to exemplify throughout their whole life (Mark iv. 20, xi. 23; Luke viii. 21; John viii, 31, 51, xiv. 18, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 369 21, 23, 26, xv. 7, 10, xvi. 4, 14 f.), but were to impart, to others also. And they were to do this because what Jesus says to them applies to all men (Mark xiu. 37 ; Matt. x. 27, xxviii. 20). In fact, without proclamation of the deeds, the sufferings, and the resurrection of Jesus the missionary preaching was impossible, and teaching within the Church necessitated that the sayings of Jesus be recalled. Nor could one of these functions ever be fulfilled without in some way involving the other. ‚So far as we are able to form a conception from Acts u.—x. of the missionary preaching among the Jews and Jewish prose- lytes in Palestine, it was possible during the first years, at least, to take for granted a certain familiarity with the gospel history. The preachers needed only to recall it in order to set it at once in its true light. But even when recalled in this way the principal events of Jesus’ public ministry as preacher and miracle-worker, from the days of the Baptist until the crucifixion, were brought out and made the basis of the testimony regarding His resurrec- tion and second coming (n. 1). Among the Jews of the diaspora and the Gentiles, however, not even acquaintance with the main features of the history of Jesus’ life could be presupposed. In the case of such hearers even these had to be imparted (n. 2). Here also the missionaries appear to have begun their historical account with the preaching and baptism of John (n. 1). Naturally the chief emphasis was laid upon the death on the cross and the resurrection, but the missionaries could not preach about these facts without making statements about Jesus’ place in the history of His people, His Davidie descent,— which was the presupposition of His appearance as the Messiah, —His submission to the Jewish law, His activity as a preacher of the kingdom of God, and an undaunted witness to the truth, — which brought upon Him the deadly hatred of His own people,—the truly human life which He lived in spite of all the halo of miracle gathered VOL. II. 24 370 INTRODUCTION TO "THE NEW TESTAMENT about it, and His sinlessness. Where one who had seen and heard Jesus appeared quite outside of Jewish eircles among the Greeks, and proclaimed the gospel to the latter, those who became converts must have been eager to learn the whole truth about Jesus’ life,—a desire which must have been satisfied by the missionaries (cf. 1 John 1. 1-4, iv. 14). Nor could the elementary regulations of Church life and religious worship be established in the newly founded Churches without reference to what Christ had prescribed and instituted. How far Paul went into the details of Jesus’ life and sayings in his missionary preach- ing we are unable to determine from the scanty hints of Acts and the references to it in his letters, which are always incidental (n. 3). That abandant details of this character were not wanting, is evident from the very necessity which every intelligent missionary must have felt who desired to arouse faith in the Founder of a religion and enthusiastic love for a Saviour on the part of hearers who had never heard of this person before. Furthermore, the expression “gospel of Christ,” so frequently used by Paul to charac- terise the gospel preached by him, rightly understood (n. 2), shows that Paul always remained conscious of the connection of all true preaching of the gospel with what Jesus Himself had preached and taught (Rom. xvi. 25). Though Paul’s position in this regard was not so favour- able as that of the personal disciples of Jesus, it isnot to he overlooked that, quite apart from his visits to Jeru- salem, which were always short, Paul from his conversion in 35 A.D. onwards frequently had intercourse, lasting for years, with earlier members of the mother Church. Thus, during his three years’ stay in Damascus, which was only temporarily interrupted by a journey into the dominion of Aretas, and the six or seven years when he was engaged in teaching in the Antiochian Church,—the nucleus of which consisted of refugees from Jerusalem,—there were THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 371 abundant opportunities of this kind. On his missionary journeys he was accompanied and supported in his preaching by persons who had been members of the mother Church in the early stages of its growth, at first by Barnabas and Mark, later by Silas, which arrangement was manifestly not accidental, but due to careful forethought. At the time of his Roman imprisonment also, we find him again in close relations with Mark, together with a certain Jesus Justus, who was his companionable fellow-labourer in missionary work (Col. iv. 10 f.); and again in his last imprisonment the personal ministrations of this native of Jerusalem seemed to him to be almost as indispensable as the books which he had left behind (2 Tim. iv. 11-13). It is clear, therefore, that the Churches founded by Paul and his helpers did not lack from the first opportunity and means of becoming acquainted with the history of Jesus’ life in its details, and their members could not have been like other men if they failed to make diligent use of this material. If, in the judgment of the greatest of the missionaries to the Gentiles, the missionary preaching was to continue to be the ‘“‘ gospel of Christ,” in spite of the changes effected in the gospel by the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus, and to retain a close relation to Jesus’ own preaching, the view held regarding the relation of instrue- tion within the Church to Jesus’ teaching must have been at least equally strict (n. 2). [Ὁ is “the word of Christ” Himself which is to be fully appropriated in the Church where it has found permanent lodgment, and to be repro- duced in various forms of teaching and in spiritual song (Col. iii. 16). It is the very “words of our Lord Jesus Christ” which are to be followed in all religious teaching and all sound discourse designed for the instruction of the Church (1 Tim. vi. 3). In the passage in which Paul boasts that at the time of the founding of the Ephesian Church he had preached the whole counsel of God without omissions, and that he had given them besides full instrue- 372 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tion how they ought to walk, he counts it a part of his work also that he exhorted them to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, one of which he quotes (Acts xx. 27, 35; ef. GA, i. 916,n. 1). Though unable to distinguish sharply between what was communicated originally with the missionary preaching and what was imparted later, we do, nevertheless, recognise that very early a con- siderable body of information concerning the history and sayings of Jesus had been circulated in Gentile Christian (n. 4) and Jewish Christian (n. 5) circles. Though, on account of the meagreness of the sources, no cautious investigator would venture an opinion as to what parts of the gospel tradition familiar to us were unknown in the Churches between 50 and 80, nevertheless it is clear that parts of the tradition then current in the Church were not embodied in the canonical Gospels (n. 4 under i. 8, 12 c,e, f, ii 1; n. 5 underi. 13). It is also to be noticed at this point that, judging from the facts disclosed by a comparison of our Gospels with the tradition which the other N.T. writings show to have been current in the Church, the claims of the first three Gospels to be an accurate or even full reproduction of the traditions con- cerning Jesus’ deeds and sayings current in the apostolic Church are no greater than those of the Fourth Gospel (n. 4 under i. 10, 11, it. 5; vol. 1,121 -f.). It is a peculiar though ‘tndéniable fact that, apart from the Gospels and the Gast sentence of Acts, which connects it with the Gospel, and with the single exception of 1 John i. 4 ($ 70)—and this is not altogether clear—there is nothing to, show throughout. the literature of the N.T. that the memory of Jesus’ life and words in the Church was aided by written records of the same. ‘‘ Remember the words of the Lord Jesus” (Acts xx. 85); “ Keep His word and testimony, His commandment and teaching, which ye have heard from the beginning” (e.g. 1 John ii. 5, 7); “ Remember the command of the Saviour trans- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 373 be and taught to you by your missionaries” (2 Pet. ili. 2, ii. 21; above, p. 210, n. 1): so we read everywhere. What the witnesses saw of His life and heard from His lips they preach to others, that they might come to believe and to love Him whom they had not seen and heard (1 John i. 1-3, 5, iv. 14; 2 Pet. 1. 16-18; Heb. i. 3; cf 1 Pet. i. 8,12, v. 1; above, p. 147f.). The great missionary to the Gentiles, who did not belong to the circle of Jesus’ dis- ciples, did not fail when occasion required to say to his converts in so many words, that he had delivered to them the account of Jesus’ life and words, when he preached to them, just as it had been handed down to him, the gospel on which their faith was founded. The tradition spread by Paul in his work as a missionary and organiser of Churches came from the Lord Himself, whose words and life were the theme of his preaching. Nevertheless he received his knowledge of both through men (n. 6) quite as much as the Churches to whom he brought it; and when he desires to substantiate the trustworthiness of this tradition, he does not appeal to a book or to several books whose credibility is acknowledged, but to the Twelve and the hundreds of witnesses still living (1 Cor: xv. 5=7). The opinion which arose in the third century, that where Paul speaks of “his gospel” he has a book in view, possibly Luke’s Gospel (n. 7), no longer requires refutation. Throughout the whole N.T., even in Rev. xiv. 6° and Mark i. 1, the word εὐαγγέλιον means the oral proclamation of God’s lait of salvation as made known and realised by Jesus; not until after the beginning of the second century do we find the word used to designate written records of the gospel history. But of the existence of such records, if we leave the Gospels out of account, there is no evidence whatever anywhere in the N.T. with the exception of Acts i. 1 mentioned above, and, if it be insisted, 1 John i. 4 Still, too much weight is not to be laid upon this fact. ~ In the first place, we must remember that in antiquity books 374 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT were much more frequently read by a single person to'a large body of hearers than in modern times, and in this wity were made known to many. Private reading was confined for the most part to the learned. It happened even in the realm of heathen literature that where one person gained his knowledge of a book by reading, often hundreds became acquainted with it through hearing, which was still more true on Christian soil in the Churches for whose use primarily the Gospels, like the other N.T. books, were written (n. 8). Therefore it is impossible, on the basis of the statements which represent the Christians of the apostolic age as receiving their information about Jesus’ words and deeds only through hearing, to conclude at once, and’ for the whole period covered by the N.T. documents, that the anagnost, 1.6. the lector, who read to them, was not one of those through whom they received this information.. In the second place, we still meet such formule as ““ remember the words of the Lord Jesus,” even when there is no longer any question not only as to the existence of the Gospels, but also as to their use in re- ligious worship (n. 9). And there are times even at present when the preacher makes use of the same ex- pression. The only thing that can be concluded from the preceding observations is that, during the lifetime of Paul and Peter, the beginnings of gospel literature which may have been in existence were without perceptible influence upon the life of the Church, and that, until toward the end of the first century, the gospel literature then existing, or in process of formation, was not regarded as the chief source from which the Church was to derive its knowledge of the words and deeds of Jesus--at least in regions where there were persons still living who had seen and heard Him. The tradition regarding the origin of our Gospels places them all later than the year 60. And this tradition niust ‘appear @ priori credible when it is borne in mind that in » later age the desire for trustworthy information THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 375 about Jesus, together with the circumstance that these four books were the only sources from which such infor- mation was to be had, must have produced a disposition to furnish these books, which came more and more to be treated as sacred original documents, with every possible guarantee of their trustworthiness, and to put back their composition as close as possible to the facts which they recorded. The Protevangelium of James, which was written before the middle of the second century, is repre- sented as having been written directly after the death of Herod, when Jesus was still a child (GA, u. 775), The apocryphal literature connected with the name of Pilate, the beginnings of which belong to the same period, pur- ports to be based upon an official report of Pilate con- temporaneous with Jesus’ trial and death, as shown by its ancient title (Justin, Apol. 1. 35, 48, τὰ ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου γενόμενα “Axta). The tradition regarding the origin of our Gospels, which goes back at least as far as the time when these apocryphal accounts were written, and puts the: first steps in their preparation thirty or more years after Jesus’ death, stamps it as essentially genuine. Independently of this, however, the tradition is confirmed by the silence of the other N.T. writings regarding the existence of a gospel literature. That this generation (from 30 to 60 A.n.), living as it did in con- stant expectation of Jesus’ return, should have taken little thought of the coming generations for whom the memory of the gospel history must be preserved, is less strange than that men should have felt so long that the necessities of the present could be met without written records of Jesus’ words and deeds. In comparison with the multitude of those who wished and had to know more of the details of Jesus’ earthly life, the number of original witnesses who could narrate what Jesus had said and done was none too great to begin with, and grew less with every decade. Moreover, must not the original witnesses themselves have 376 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT felt the necessity of giving their own memory the definite support which the recollection of a large number of sayings heard only once, and of a multitude of events differing in character and following in rapid succession, usually finds only in written records? The single express statement which we have about numerous writings treating of the gospel history, composed before at least a part of the gospel literature that has come down to us (Luke i. 1), contains no indication of the date when these writings began to make their appearance, nor is anything definite said about their purpose and character. Notes which were intended simply to meet the personal necessities of those who prepared them can be meant or at least in- cluded. The statement can cover also such books as Luke’s own Gospel, designed primarily for: individuals who desired fuller information concerning Jesus. The only thing that the negative testimony of the other N.T. writings does exclude is the possibility that the Gospels were regularly read in the religious services of the Christians before the death of Peter and Paul, and the possibility that they were employed as the basis for instruction in the Church. Accordingly we are free to use our imagination and to fill even the period before 60-70 with manifold beginnings and attempts in the direction of a gospel literature. However, it is to be remembered that the imagination has a place in historical science only in so far as it serves to set in a clear light the possibility and probability of the presuppositions which are demanded by the actual facts. Nor has the imagination any rights over against a tradition, be this as meagre as it may, until it is shown that the latter 15 without basis in faet, and therefore false. Finally, the imagination must guard itself carefully against postulates which have possible support only in the narrow experience of scholars whose vision is bounded by the four walls of a study. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 377 1. (P. 369.) Acts ii. 22, καθὼς αὐτοὶ οἴδατε ; X. 37, ὑμεῖς οἴδατε τὸ γενόμενον» ῥῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς Ιουδαίας. The apostolic testimony, strictly considered, begins with the fact of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts ii. 32-36, x. 40-43, Of. Luke xxiv. 18-21, Acts iii. 13b-15a, on the one hand, and Acts 111..186, 15b, iv: 2, 10, v. 30-32, 2 Pet. i. 16 [see above, p. 203 f.] on the other). That the preaching of conversion confined itself to the public ministry of Jesus, which in turn was connected with the work of John the Baptist, appears most clearly in Acts x. 37f., but alsoin ii. 22, and indirectly in 1. 22. The preaching among the dispersion was essentially the same in this respect (xiii. 23-25). .(! : 2. (Pp. 369, 371.) The difference between the preaching outside of Pale- stine and that in Palestine (see note 1) is well characterised (Acts xiii. 23-29). We get also an expressive phrase in τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (Acts xviii. 25, xxiii. 11, xxviii. 31), which does not differ in conception from the corresponding usage with reference to other persons (Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8; Phil. i. 27; ef. Luke vii. 3, 17, xix, 9, xxiv. 19). It is the events, circumstances, and his- torical conditions that have to do with Jesus which, in the missionary proclamation, naturally become the subject not of communication merely, but of a preaching which aims at conviction and of an instructional dis- cussion (Acts xviii. 25, xxviii. 23, viii, 12), forming thus an element, and a very essential element, in the εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ... περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (Rom. i. 1,3). Quite different from this designation of the gospel in terms of the centre about which it moves is the phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Gal, 1.7 ; Rom. i. 9. 16 (the reading in this instance not well supported), xv..19; 1 Cor. ix, 12, 18; 2 Cor. ii. 12, ix. 13, .%..14; Phil. i..27;.1 Thess. ii. 2. ef. 2 Thess. i. 8, The translation, “Evangelium von Christo” [Gospel about Christ], upon which Luther ventured only in Mark i. 1, Rom. i. 9, 16, but avoided everywhere else, is to be rejected—(1) because it is the construc- tion with περί which Paul uses (Rom, i. 3; cf. 1 John i. 1) to express the thought that Christ is the chief object of the Christian preaching (cf. 1 Cor. 16-23, (xve[125 2 Cor. i. 19, iv. 5, ixi. 4 5° Phil. 1. 16 5. Acts v.42,) viii. 35, ix. 20, xix. 18); (2) because the analogy of εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom. i. 1, xv. 16; 2 Cor. xi. 7; 1 Thess. ii; 2, ii..8, 9;.1 Pet. iv. 17), which cannot possibly mean the glad tidings of the existence or the attributes of God, is decisive against construing τοῦ Χριστοῦ in connection with εὐαγγέλιον as objective genitive, and for its construction «as subjective genitive. The gospel can be named from God as the original author and sender of this message of salvation; and also from Christ as its first herald in the: world. In Mark i. 1 this latter usage may be inferred directly from the opening (i. 14) of the narrative thus entitled, but:it also holds good in general for the simple reason that the gospel was first proclaimed by Jesus (Heb. ii. 3, iii..1 ; ef. 1. 1). The ‘ preaching of Jesus” Himself, to which Paul refers in Rom, xvi. 25, is the original form of the gospel, which no more ceases to be the gospel of Christ, because, after His departure, it is proclaimed by the apostles and other sinful men, than it ceases to be the gospel or word of God. (3) The same conclusion follows from the analogy of τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Cor. i. 6 (cf. 2 Tim. i, 8), which does not, and cannot grammatically, mean anything different from τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Oeod, 1 Cor. ii, 1; and, further, from the equivalence of ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου and τοῦ θεοῦ as a designation of the gospel (cf. Acts viii 378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 25, xiii. 48, 49, xv. 35, 36, xix. 20; 1 Thess, i. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 1, on the one hand, and Acts iv. 31, vi. 2, 7, vill, 14; 1 Cor. xiv. 36; 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2; Col. i. 25, on the other), where there can be no question that the gospel, like every revelation and proclamation similarly designated (Rom. ix. 6; Heb. iv. 12; Ps. xxxiii. 4; Hos. i. 1, iv. 1; Amos v. 1), can be called the word of God or of the Lord simply because in the last analysis God or the Lord is the speaker in it. (4) That every genitive of a person with εὐαγγέλιον is with Paul himself a subjective genitive (or genitivwm auctoris), is shown further by τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου (Rom. 11. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. 1: 8; οἵ. 1 Cor. ii. 4) or ἡμῶν (2 Cor. iv. 3; 1 Thess. i, 5; 2 Thess. ii. 14). When Paul, Rom. xvi. 25, sets τὸ κήρυγμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ beside this gospel of his as a second norm, the preaching of Jesus Himself and the truth which He preached are undoubtedly intended (ef. Matt. iv. 17; Mark i.14; Luke iv. 18 ; also vol. i.412,n. 17)... While the gospel of Paul and the preaching of Jesus can be mentioned side by side as two things to be historically distinguished, all true gospel, no matter who proclaims it or to whom it is proclaimed (Gal. ii. 7), falls in the category of the one indivisible εὐαγγέλιον Χριστοῦ (Gal. 1. 7, ZKom, Gal. 47f.)--the gospel of Christ as its author and its first herald. (5) The necessity of this interpretation becomes especially clear in 2 Thess. i. 8: τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, where the use of the proper name “Jesus” (cf. Acts xx. 35) shows that the apostle had in mind the historical appearance of the Lord as the pioneer preacher of the gospel. Nevertheless here, as in the passages where the εὐαγγέλιον Χριστοῦ is mentioned, the refer- ence is not directly, as in Rom. xvi. 25 (τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ) to the preaching of Jesus in the historic past, but to the one message of salvation brought into the world by the preaching ministry of Jesus, and afterwards further pro- claimed by His apostles and others. This message can be named from its historical origin and author, because on the lips of the apostles it is not essentially different from the message of the great First Apostle (Heb. iii. 1), the beginner of the preaching (Heb. ii.3). (6) In the same way, too, are we to understand ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Col. iii. 16, and the similar plural term, 1 Tim. vi. 3. It is evident that this can as little signify “the word about Christ” as can ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου, where it denotes the gospel (see under (3) above), or a single word of Jesus (Acts xx. 35; 1 Thess. iv. 15; cf. vol. i. p. 223,n. 4). It is rather the content of that which Jesus first proclaimed, and which has since lived on in the Christian community—gospel and com- mandment, promise and teaching. Where it is necessary to emphasise—as he must emphasise again and again—the application of Christ’s word to the life of the believers and the Churches, Paul calls it the commandment outright (1 Tim. i. 5, 18, vi. 14). In this he does not differ from the older apostles (1 John ii. 7, iii. 23, iv. 21; 2 Pet. iii. 2). He could not speak in this way, if he did not know as well as they that Jesus Himself had given this command or law (Gal. vi. 2, τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; ef. 1 Cor. vii. 10, 25, ix. 21) ; for men’s commands and doctrines have no weight in the Church of Christ (Col. ii. 22 ; Tit. i. 14). In view of all this, it should be self-evident—and may be mentioned here—that ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ in Rev. is primarily the testimony which Jesus Himself, the true witness (Rev. i. 5, iii: 14), gave during His life on earth (ef. John iii, 11, v.31, vii, 7, xviii. 37; 1 Tim. vi. 13). This funda- mental meaning occurs in Rev. xix. 10; in i 2 it is transferred to that which THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 379 the exalted Jesus testifies to the Churches through John. At the same time, this passage shows that that which God has spoken or Jesus has testified does not cease to be considered God’s word and Jesus’ testimony where it is repre- sented that, on this ground, a man acknowledges this word and testimony, and bears witness to it before others. Even when thus mediated by men (Rev. i. 9, xii. 17, xix. 10a, xx. 4; ef, vi. 9, ii. 13, xvii. 6) it is the testimony of Jesus, as it is the word of God, though elsewhere it is spoken of as the testimony of the men who hold it and confess it before the world (Rev. xii. 11). Just as one may not translate ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev. i. 9, xx. 4; ef. 1. 2), “the word or doctrine concerning God,” so μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ may not be rendered “the testimony concerning Jesus.” The derivation of all Christian preaching from the lips of Jesus Himself is very clearly affirmed in the Johannine Epistles (1 John i. 5; ef. i. 1, 3). The Christian teaching is’ the teaching of Christ Himself (2 John 9). The one all-inclusive command of God (1 John iii, 22-24, v. 2f.) is the command and word of Christ (ii. 3-8). 3. (P. 370.) We have examples of the missionary preaching among) the Jews of the dispersion, Acts xiii. 16-41, xxviii. 23-28, and a few hints, Acts xvii. 3, 7, 11, xviii. 5, 25, 28, xix. 8, 13.. We cannot form ‚a similar idea, of the preaching addressed to the heathen from Acts xiv. 15-17, xvii. 22-32, for these were occasional addresses called forth by peculiar circumstances, and followed the missionary preaching ; ef. Acts xiv. 9, xvii. 17. For Paul’s support by helpers from Jerusalem, cf. the writer’s Skizzen, 2te Aufl. $. 82-85. With regard to the content of Paul’s missionary preaching and the instructions connected with it, more light is to be had from the occasional, references in the Epistles, Gal. iii. 1; 1 Thess. i, 9f., ii. 12, iii. 4, iv. 1£,, 6, 11, v. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 5, 15, iii. 6, 10; 1 Cor. i. 6, 17-25, ii. 1-5, iii. 18, 10£, iv. 17, vi. 2f., Off, ix. 21f., xi. 2, 23-25, xv. 1-11; 2 Cor. i. 18-20 (ii. 14-iv. 6), v. Ὡς 18-21, xi. 2-5; Eph. ili, 4-12, iv. 20-24; Col. i. 5-7, 25-29, ii. 6f., iv. 3 1 Tim. 1. 12- 16, ii. 3-7 (iii. 15£.), vi. 3, 12-16; 2 Tim. i. 8-11, 13, ii. 8 dit. 10-17), than from Acts (see also Acts xvi. 21, xvii. 18). 4. (P. 372.) Paret, “ Paulus und Jesus,” JbfDTh, 1858, S. Lff.;,Keim, Gesch. Jesu, i. 35 ff. ; Roos, Die Briefe des Ap. Paulus wnd die Reden Jesu, 1887, where as an appendix, S. 250 ff,, the relation of the other N.T. writings to the Gospels is discussed. These questions, especially with reference to the Fourth Gospel, are treated with more suggestiveness and penetration, if sometimes a trifle boldly, by P, Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, 1890, 8. 57-97, 142-160. Cf. further Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902 ; Resch, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu, 1904. Here only a brief state- ment of the material can be given, first from the Pauline Epistles, and, further, not only from the discourses of Paul in Acts, but also from 1 Pet., which is addressed to a circle of Churches founded by Paul and his associ- ates, and from the Johannine Epistles and Rev., of which the same is true. Rom. and Heb. occupy a peculiar position, inasmuch as the former was addressed to the preponderantly Jewish Christian community in Rome, and the latter, some twenty years later, to a part of it consisting of Christians, who were Jews by birth. For the present purpose these also may be included here ;—I. Tak History or Jesus: (1) His Davidie descent, Rom. i. 3 (as an element in the missionary preaching, ef. Acts xiii, 22f., 32-37); 2 Tim, 11. 8. (as an element jin the Church confession, 380 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ef. the writer’s Das «post. Symb. 40, 42); Rom. xv. 12; Heb. vii. 14; Rev iii. 7, v. 5, xxii. 16. (2) His entrance into the common life of men, Gal. iv. 4 (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός Without mention of a human father, ef. the writer's Das Apost. Symb. 64); Rom. i. 3 (rod γενομένου... κατὰ σάρκα, for inter pretation see vol. 1. 338, n. 8), vili. 3.29; Phil. ii. 7; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Heb. ii. 9-18, iv. 15, v. 2, xii. 2f.; 1 John i. 1, iv. 2f.; 2 John 7. (8) His’ position under the law, Gal. iv. 4; presupposed, Gal. iii. 13; Rom. vii. 1,4; Eph. ii. 15; Col. ii. 14. (4) His baptism with water, 1 John v. 6ff., according to the most probable meaning of ὁ ἐλθὼν δὲ ὕδατος and οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον. On this occasion, though not only then, God testified concerning His Son (v. 10, 11). Referred to in John i. 33f., but narrated only in Matt. iii, 175 Marki. 11; Luke iii. 22. (5) His sinless life in obedience to God, Phil. ii. 7 ἢν; 2 Cor. v. 21; Rom. v.19; 1 Pet. ii. 22; 1 John ii. 6; Heb. iv. 15 (χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας), v. 8, vii. 26. (6) His preaching work in Israel, Rom. xv. 8, xvil 25; Eph. ii. 17 (with reference to the Gentile world, ef. John x. 16, xii. 32 ; Matt. viii. 11f.; Luke xiii. 29); Heb. i. 1 (see p. 338 above), ii. 3, iii. 1. (7) His institution of the Lord’s Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 23-25, with which Luke xxii. 19f. would correspond exactly, but for the omission of vv. 19-20 in accordance with the Western text. That this event occurred on the night in which Jesus fell into the power of His enemies, or was arrested (for no more than this is affirmed in παρεδίδετο, ef. Rom, iv. 25, viii. 32 ; Mark i. 14; Matt. iv. 12), accords with the ‘synoptic Gospels, which alone report the institution ; likewise the indication that it took place on the oceasion of the Passover Supper (xi. 24, 25, eis τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, twice strongly emphasised, ef, Ex. xii. 14; also x. 16, τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας). (8) The struggle in Gethsemane, Heb. v. 7 ἔν, see above, p. 362. If this passage is taken to refer to the prayer on the cross, we obtain, at least, no greater correspondence with the Gospels; for we read, it is true, in Matt. xxvii. 46, Mark xv. 34, that Jesus prayed with a loud voice in the words of the Psalm, and in Matt. xxvii. 50, Mark xv. 37, Luke xxiii. 46, that with His last breath He once more cried aloud ; but there is no mention of repeated, wrgent request, with strong crying and tears, for deliverance or protection from death. An independent tradition, therefore, must be represented here. If Epiph. Ancor. xxxi. was right in asserting that in the supposably uncorrected MSS. of Luke xxii. 44 the words about sweat like drops of blood were preceded by the statement that Jesus wept aloud (ἔκλαυσε), this reading, which is otherwise unsupported, must have crept into some MSS. of Luke from Heb. v. 7, or else from an apocryphal source. But Epiphanius’ appeal to Irenzeus, who is said to have cited this phrase, casts suspicion upon his whole account; for Iren. iii. 22.2 does indeed mention Jesus’ weeping before the bloody sweat, but derives it from John xi. 35; while Epiphanius, as so often, by reading carelessly what lay before him, has for the first time come upon the interesting fact of which he informs us as of something new. Massuet (see in Stieren, p. 543) has not succeeded in defending him against Petavius. (9) His trial before the Sanhedrin, Acts xiii. 27f. (ef. Matt. xxvi. 59f.; Mark xiv. 55f.; Luke xxii. 66ff.); 1 Pet. ii. 23 (ef. John xviii. 22f.; Matt. xxvi. 65 ff; Mark xiv, 63 ff, xv. 4f.). (10) His testimony before Pilate, Acts xiii. 28 ; 1 Tim, vi. 13 (John xviii. 37 corresponds most nearly, ef. Rev. i. 5, iii. 14). (11) His execution by the secular authorities, 1 Cor. ii. 8; the Jews the real murderers, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 381 1 Thess. ii. 15, who besought Pilate to put Him to death, Acts xiii. 28. Then the erueifixion (ef. John xviii. 32), 1 Cor. i. 17-23, ii. 2; Col. ii. 14; Phil. ii. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24, cf. Heb. vi. 6; in Jerusalem, Rev. xi. 8; more precisely, before the city gate, Heb. xiii. 12; shedding His blood, Rom. iii. 25, v.95; Eph. i. 7, 1. 13; Col. i. 20; 1 Pet. 1.02, 19; 1: John i. 7, vi'6; Rev. i. δ, v. 9; Heb. ix. 12, 14, x. 19, 29, xii. 24, xiii. 20 (recorded only in John xix. 34, and to be inferred from John xx. 20, 25, 27, but not from Luke xxiv. 39); removal from the cross, Acts xiii. 29 (by the Jews? cf. Gosp. of Peter vi. 21, also Matt. xxvii. 57 ff. ; Mark xv. 43 ff.; Luke xxiii. 50ff. ; John xix. 38 ff.); burial, 1 Cor. xv. 4; Acts xiii. 29, as an element in the missionary preaching—perhaps alluded to in Rom. vi. 4; sojourn in the abode of the dead, Eph. iv. 9; Heb. xiii. 20; Rev. i. 18 (also 1 Pet. iii. 19, iv. 62). (12) His resurrection, as an element in the missionary preaching, 1 Cor. xv. 3-20 ; Acts xiii, 30-37, xvii. 3, 18,31; and in Church confession, 2 Tim. ii. 8, ef. Rom. i. 4, iv. 24f.; Gal. 1. 1; Col i.185 1 Pet. i.3 (see p. 156 above), iii. 18,21; Heb. vi. 2, xiii. 20; Rev. i. 5, 18. Details brought out are (a) τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ, 1 Cor. v. 4; (b) appearances during a somewhat extended period, Acts xiii. 31, ef. i.3; 1 Cor. xv. 5-8; (c) an appearance to Peter—this as an item in the missionary preaching, which is not distinctly affirmed of the remaining instances, 1 Cor. xv. 5 (presupposed in Luke xxiv. 34, but narrated neither there nor elsewhere, nor referred to in Mark xvi. 9-13) ; (d) an appearance to the twelve apostles, 1 Cor. xv. 5 (probably identical with Luke xxiv. 36 ff. ; John xx. 19-23); (e) an appearance to more than 500 brethren at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6 (otherwise not reported); (f) an appearance to James, 1 Cor. xv. 7 (not recorded elsewhere in the N.T.; in the Gosp. of the Heb. set back to the morning of the resurrection day, GK, ii. 700); (g) an appearance to all the apostles, 1 Cor. xv. 7 (perhaps identical with Matt. xxviii. 16-20, or with Acts i. 2-8; Luke xxiv. 44-51). (13) His exaltation to heaven or the right hand of God, Rom. vill. 34 ; Eph. i. 20; Col. iii, 1; Phil. ii. 9; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. 111. 22; Heb. 1.3, iv. 14, vii. 26; Rev. v. 6, ii. 26f. (narrated only in Acts i. 9, implied Luke xxiv.5l, even according to the shorter text, cf. Acts i. 2; alluded to, John vi. 62, xx. 17). II. Worps or Jesus. (1) Acts xx. 35, πάντα ὑπέδειξα ὑμῖν, ὅτι οὕτως κοπιῶντας δεῖ ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι τῶν ἀσθενούντων μνημονεύειν τε τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶπεν" “ μακάριόν ἐστιν μᾶλλον διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν." All the variations from this fundamental reading (p. 372 f. above) can be reasonably accounted for ; thus τὸν λόγον in the Antiochian recension, and τοῦ λόγου in others (Sahidic and Vulgate versions, some min.), because only a single saying is cited. So also with the somewhat widespread form of the saying itself, “Blessed is the giver more than the receiver,” Peshito, and in indirect quotation, Ap. Const. iv. 3, Anast. Quest. 13, μακάριος, Cod. D (in the direct form), may be a trace of this alteration, so easily suggested by the recollection of the uniformly personal subjects of the Beatitudes. More important is the proposal of Lachmann and Blass to connect πάντα with what precedes. The Peshito has altered the whole construction by inserting a καὶ before πάντα and omitting ὅτι. It begins a new sentence with οὕτως, in which μνημονεύειν also’ depends upon de. A misunderstanding of the connection of this infinitive with ὑπέδειξα gave rise also to the alteration μνημονεύετε. Paul admonished the elders of his time to be mindful in the conduct of their office 382 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT not of this single saying only, but of all the words of Jesus (ef. 1 Tim. vi. 8), That these constitute a suitable standard for them in particular is shown by the citation of a single saying. It is not found in our Gospels. That Luke quoted it “from the Apostolic Constitutions” (see above) was a bit of naive; folly on the part of the pseudo-Euthalius (Zacagni, 420), which found currency as a marginal gloss. On the other hand, Clement, 1 Cor. ii. 1 (ἥδιον διδόντες ἢ λαμβάνοντες), may have known the saying from Acts, or indepen- dently of 10. (2) 1 Cor. vii. 10, τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ κύριος “ γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι .. . καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μὴ ἀφιέναι (ef. Matt. xix. 6; Mark x. 9, for the phrase, Luke xvi. 18, ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρός). ı The words which the present writer has omitted stand: outside the construction, and so do not belong to Jesus’ command. That a traditional saying of Jesus is intended is shown by the reverse expression, 1 Cor. vii. 12, τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς λέγω ἐγώ, οὐκ ὁ κύριος, and vii. 25, περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω.. We are still in the same position to-day with regard to the marriage of hitherto unmarried persons and of widows (vii. 39f.), and with regard to mixed marriages (vii. 12-16). Matt. xix. 10-12 also contains no com- mand. (3) 1 Cor. ix. 14, οὕτως καὶ 6 κύριος διέταξεν τοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον karayye- λουσιν ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (nv. Cf. Matt. x. 9-11; Luke x. 7f., for the phrase, Matt. xi. 1, διατάσσων τοῖς δώδεκα. 1 Tim. v. 18, ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ, corresponds more closely with the wording of Matt. x. 10, and exactly with that of Luke x. 7, but it is not quoted as a saying of Jesus, and only apparently as Biblieal ; ef. above, p. 118 ἢ. (4) 1 Cor. xi. 23-25, the words of Jesus at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, see above, under i. 7. (5) Here may be.added Col. ii. 11, ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as Paul calls the ecelesi- astical rite of baptism. This, of course, could not be described as the eircum- cision which Christ underwent (Luke ii. 21; Gal. iv. 4, cf. Rom. xv. 8), for this was just what was not to be imposed upon the Gentile Christians, but the cir- cumcision commanded by Christ in distinetion from that appointed by the law. Nor can τοῦ Χριστοῦ be regarded as a substitute for the adjective “ Christian,” —a term not yet found in the apostolic vorabulary,—for Paul uses the formula ev Χριστῷ in that sense; as in the construction with τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ete. (see above, p. 377f.), it can only be genitive of subject and author. So Eph. vy. 25f. ; Paul knows, consequently, a command of Jesus by which baptism was ordained in the Church. Such a command we find only im Matt. xxviii. 19 (cf. John iii. 22, iv. I). 1 Cor. i. 17 is not inconsistent with this, for Paul is not speaking there of preachers in general, nor of the twelve apostles, but declares for his own part that the command to baptize was not ineluded in his commission by Christ. To this declaration, indeed, he was impelled by those Jewish Christians who laid stress on the fact that they had been baptized by Peter (vol. i. 303, n. 11). Peter certainly was bidden to baptize, but not so Paul, according to all accounts, (6) 1 Thess. iv. 15, τούτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου «rr. Paul not only wishes to have the eschatological teaching which follows received as reverently as if it’ were a word of the Lord, but will have it understood as the Lord’s own word. | This by no means guarantees a verbal citation, but only a conscious dependence on reported sayings of Jesus. If what is thus introduced seems to close with iv. 18, this is simply because the teaching up to that point is chiefly occupied with the answer to the questions of doubt (iv. 13) ; in faet, it is only in v. 1-5 THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 383 that conscious dependence on the discourses of Jesus becomes unmistakable. The parallels have already been indicated in detail, vol. 1. 223, n. 4. Suggestions of Johannine character are also present, especially v. 4f., οὐκ ἐστὲ Ev σκότει, ἵνα ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς ὡς κλέπτης καταλάβῃ" πάντες yap ὑμεῖς υἱοὶ dards ἐστε, cf. John xii. 95 1, This completes the references to specific words of Jesus in the writings designated. There are other passages, e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 2, which imply a reference to Jesus’ words, though it cannot be directly proved. The profusion of thoughts and statements in the Epistles, especially. 1 John, which may have been influenced by words of Jesus living in the recollection of the writers and the Churches, cannot be indicated here. The fancies of Resch, who sees in 1 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 10, xi. 26, Eph. v. 14, 1 Tim. v. 18 formal citations from ἃ precanonical gospel (Ayrapha, 8. 162, 172, 178, 222), from which Paul is supposed to have drawn in many other passages also, have not become more worthy of belief through the more detailed elaborations in his later work, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu. As it is only in the second century, with Ignatius, Barnabas, and Justin, that we find it gradually becoming customary to quote from the Gospels used in the Churches with γέγραπται, it is self-evident that Paul cannot have referred to a Gospel when he used this or a similar formula. Cf. also Ewald, Hauptproblem, 143 f., 202-208 ; the writer’s GK, ii. 790 ff., and many other passages ; Ropes, Die Sprüche Jesu, 8. 8f., and the remarks there noted. 5. (P. 372.) Im the writings designed for the Jewish Christians of Pales- tine (aside from Matthew), James, 2 Pet., Jude, and in the corresponding discourses in Acts i. 15-xi. 18, we find references to the following gospel material :—I. Hisrortcan: (1) Davidie descent, Acts ii. 30, and, indirectly, Acts iv. 25-27. (2) “That Jesus was of Nazareth,” Acts ii. 22, iii. 6, iv. 10, vi. 14, x. 38, cf. xxiv. 5, xxvi.9. (3) The continued intercourse of Jesus with His disciples, and His public ministry from (ἀπό) or after (wera) the baptism by John, Acts i. 22, x. 37. In addition to His preaching (Acts x. 36), His miraculous work is also particularly emphasised, and viewed as a result of His anointing with the Spirit and power, x. 38, ii. 22 (ef. iv. 27; and for δύναμις, δόξα, ἀρετή, 2 Pet. i. 3, 16; above, p. 220, line 11 from end); the baptism of Jesus is to be recalled in this connection. Galilee is mentioned as the first field of this activity, x. 37, but “His deeds in Judea and Jerusalem” are also spoken of, x. 39, ef. 37. (4) The prediction of Jesus regarding the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem, and that in the form in which it is given, John ii. 19, and only assumed in Matt. xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40, Mark xiv. 58, xv. 29, evidently underlies Acts vi. 14 ; cf. also Jude 5 ; see above, p. 254. (5) The call and choice of the apostles by Jesus’ Himself, 2 Pet. i. 3; see above, p- 220f.; presupposed, Acts i. 17. (6) The Transfiguration on the mount, 2 Pet. i. 16-18, see above, p. 215 ff. (7) Jesus’ prediction of the martyrdom of Peter, 2 Pet. i. 14, see above, p. 212f. (8) The treachery of Judas, Acts i. 16 ff., with peculiar details. (9) The crucifixion of Jesus, as the act of the Jewish nation, especially its rulers, who used the Gentile Pilate as a tool, Acts ii. 23, 111. 13, 17, iv. 10f., v. 30, vii. 52. (10) The choice between Jesus and Barabbas before Pilate, Acts iii. 13 f. (11) Herod’s partieipa- tion, Acts iv. 27. (12) The resurrection’ from the grave, Acts ii. 24-32, iii. 13, 15, iv. 2, 10, v. 30, and that, too, on the third day, x. 40. (13) The appearances of the risen Christ, with whom the apostles ate and drank, 384 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Acts x. 41 (ef. i. 4%); this is not actually stated in the Gospels, as Luke xxiv. 41-43. speaks only of Jesus’ eating before the disciples, and John xxi. 12f. only of the disciples’ eating before Jesus. It is on the ground of these appearances that they are witnesses to His resurrection, Acts: ii. 32, iii. 15, v. 32. (14) The exaltation to heaven, Acts ii. 33-36, iii. 21, v. 31. II. Worps oF JESUS are not explicitly cited. With regard to the echoes of them in James, see vol. i. 114, 121 f. That the apostles, in particular, trans- mitted the commands of Jesus also is shown 2 Pet. iii. 2, see above, p. 210. With regard to the reference to John xiii. 36, xxi. 18f. in 2 Pet. 1. 14, see above, p. 214. From Acts x. 42 it seems that the apostles were commissioned by the risen Christ to testify to the nation that Jesus was the divinely appointed judge of the living and the dead (cf. 2 Pet.i. 16, παρουσίαν ; i. 4, ἐπαγγέλματα ; ill. 9, ἐπαγγελία). 6. (P. 373.) The chief passages to indicate the form in which the gospel tidings were transmitted are 1 Cor. xv. 1-3 (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε---παρέδωκα yap ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον) and 1 Cor, xi. 23 (ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν). From these it appears (1) that the παραδιδόναι of the apostle with regard to the gospel facts was included in the εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, as was an oral communication, like this εὐαγγελίζεσθαι and every other παραδιδόναι in the planting of the faith, Cf. on παραδιδόναι, παράδοσις, and the corresponding παραλαμβάνειν, 1 Cor. xi, 2; 1 Thess. ii. 2, 8 (μεταδοῦναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), il. 13 (παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς map’ ἡμῶν), i. 4, iv. 1 (mapeAdßere παρ᾽ ἡμῶν), iv. 2 (ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν), iv. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 5, 111. 6 (τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν) ; cf. also the distinction between the later written communication and the earlier oral, 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 14; further, Rom. vi. 17 (vol. i. 374); Gal. i. 9; Col. ii. 6; Phil. iv. 9. It appears (2) that the earlier παραλαβεῖν. on Paul’s part was like the subsequent παραλαβεῖν of the Corinthians, that is, the hearing of oral παράδοσις ; and (3) that, without prejudice to the correctness of Gal. i, 12, 16, which has todo not with the external details of the gospel history, but with the truth of redemption and the knowledge of Christ (ef, above, p. 352, on Heb. ii. 3), Paul obtained his acquaintance with the individual historical facts (ra περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, see above, p. 377, n. 2), as the Corinthians did, from the narrations of others who knew them before him, and not through any extraordinary revelations from God or Christ, whether once, at his conversion (Gal, i. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 6), or oftener, subsequently (2 Cor, xii. 1 ff.). For, apart from the absurdity of sueh a superfluous revelation, a communica- tion and instruction received directly from the Lord would necessarily have been expressed by παρέλαβον παρὰ rod κυρίου (cf. 1 Thess, ii, 13, iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 13, ii. 2, iti, 14; Gal. i. 12; John i. 41,) vi. 45, vii. 51, viii. 26, 40, xv. 15; Acts xx. 24). By ἀπὸ ‘rod κυρίου (which) is unquestionably the correct, reading in 1 Cor. xi. 23 against D, which alone has παρά, and G, which alone has θεοῦ) Paul means to say neither more nor less than that the tradition which he brought, the Corinthians from three to five years before, and of which he now reminds them, is not only identical with that which he himself received after his conversion some twenty-two years earlier, but descended from Jesus Himself to him, or, to, put it otherwise, can be traced back to Jesus Himself, with whose acts and words on the night before His death we have here to do. Who were. the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 48: human media of transmission between Jesus and Paul may be gathered from the story of Paul’s life (Acts ix. 17-30, xi. 25-30, xiii. 1; Gal. i. 17-ii. 14). 7. (P. 373.) Marcion probably wrote τὸ εὐαγγέλιον without μοῦ in Rom. ii. 16 (@K, ii. 516), and his disciples in the time of Origen and the centuries following did not emphasise this pov, but the singular in Rom. ii. 16 and the assertion of the oneness of the gospel in Gal. i. 6-8, in order thus to lodge a complaint against the Church, which had not one Gospel, but several (tom. v. 7 in Jo., ed. Preuschen, p. 104. 24; Adamantius, Dial. c. Marc. ed. Bakhuyzen, p. 10 f. ; Chrysost. in Gal. i.6f., Montf. x. 667). In these passages they thought of a book, and in their dispute with the Catholics now and then asserted, on this ground, that Paul was the author of their Marcionitic Gospel, after their claim that Christ Himself had written it had been disproved (Dial. 808 ; Caspari, Anec. p. 11 f.). Marcion himself was not responsible for this. On the other hand, Origen was already acquainted with the application of 2 Cor. viii. 18 to Luke as evangelist as an accepted and traditional inter- pretation (Hom. I. in Luc. : “ Unde et ab apostolo merito collaudatur dicente ‘cuius laus in evangelio est per omnes ecclesias.’ Hoc enim de nullo alio dicitur et nisi de Luca dictum traditur.” This is the proper punctuation, and not traditur, as introduction of the following citation from Luke i. 3; Delarue, iii. 933). This tradition is continued by Ephrem, Comm. in Ep. Pauli, 103 ; Jerome, Vir. Ill. vii. ; Pref. Comm. in Matth. ; Comm. in Ep. ad Philem. 24. Origen, too, does not dispute the right of the Mareionites to refer Rom. ii. 16 to a book (see above), and has no scruple in calling the Book of Luke “the Gospel praised by Paul” (in Eus. A. E. vi. 25. 6). Eusebius (H. E. iii. 4. 8) reports it as a common opinion that wherever Paul says κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν pov, he means the Gospel of Luke. Cf. GK, i. 156, n. 3, 619, 655. This would apply to Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25, 2 Tim. ii. 8, and logically also to τὸ evay- γέλιον ἡμῶν, 2 Cor. iv. 3; 1 Thess. i.5 ; 2 Thess. 11. 14 ; and this seems to have been Ephrem’s opinion (ThLb, 1893, col. 471). The absurdities to which one would thus be led even in Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25, hardly need to be stated. The idea that the missionaries immediately after their oral preaching handed the Gospels to their believing hearers may fit the time of Trajan, of which Eus. H. E. iii. 37. 2, speaks. To carry it back into the time of Paul and Peter is an anachronism. On the other hand, what is said of Bartholomew’s bringing the Gospel of Matthew into India or South Arabia may be true (§ 54, n. 7). 8. (P. 374.) Fora contrast of the one reading the book in the assembly and the many hearers, ef. Rev. i. 3. In 1 Tim. iv. 13, also, ἀνάγνωσις is not to be understood of private study, but of the public reading to the congregation which was included in the teacher’s duty. The exhortation and other forms of teaching followed the reading (Luke iv. 20; Acts xiii. 15; Just. Apol. i. 67). Reading aloud in a circle of friends was a preliminary to publication, Plin, Epist. i. 13, ii. 19, iii. 7. 5, 18. 4, v. 3. 7-11, 12 (al. 13), 17, vi. 15, vil. 17. 7, viii. 12; Tac. de Orat. 9; Luc. Hist. Conscr. 9. A public read- ing, at which those interested gathered in large numbers, often served also to bring into more general notice books already published; cf. August. Retract. ii. 58. 9. (P. 374.) Clem. 1 Cor. xiii. 1, μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ; ef. xlvi. 7 ; Polye. ad Phil. ii. 3, cf. @X,i. 841; Orig. Exhort. Mart. 7, μνημον- VOL. II. 25 386 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT εὐτέον τοῦ διδάξαντος, “᾿ ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω" ; Vita Polyc. xxiv. 31, ed. Duchesne, pp. 30, 36. But the Christians are also expressly “reminded” of the contents of the O.T. Scriptures, with which they were well acquainted, Clem, 1 Cor, liüi. 1. 8 49. THE COMMON TRADITION IN THE CHURCH REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. The history of the Canon shows that by 130 at the latest our four Gospels were read in the Church services throughout the extent of the ‘Catholic Church” of that time (Ign. Smyrn. viii. 2). A definite opinion regarding the composition of these books by particular authors was equally common, as was also apparently a judgment regarding the time when they were written. We begin at once with a statement of this general tradition, and an estimate of its worth. I. In the period between 180 and 220, Matthew and John, who were apostles, and Mark and Luke, disciples of apostles, were everywhere regarded as the authors of the four books which, even as early as 150, were commonly called Gospels (Just. Apol. i. 66, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια). The occasional designation of the Gospels briefly as writings of the apostles, and of the evangelists as apostles (e.g. Iren. iii, 11.9; GK, i. 154 ff.), is explained, so far as it requires any explanation at all, in the first place, by the fact that later writers, influenced partly by the analogous usage in the N.T., employed the title apostle, not only for the Twelve and Paul, but also to designate their helpers in preaching, as Barnabas, Luke, and others (Forsch. vi. 6-8). In the second place, it is explained by the fact that even the Gospels written by Mark and Luke were associated more or less intimately with their teachers, Peter and Paul (see below). It was only this tradition of the Church regarding the composition of the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which at that time found embodiment in the Greek MSS., and soon afterwards also in the MSS. of the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 387 Latin translation, even in the titles, 1.6. the superseriptions, the subseriptions and column-headings of the separate Gospels,—the original form of which in all probability was κατὰ Mar@aiov, κατὰ Μᾶρκον, ete. (n. 1). To be sure, the Manichean Faustus, who referred this κατὰ Ματθαῖον, ete., to the authors of the Gospels themselves, found in it, at the same time, the admission that the Gospels were not written by the apostles and followers of the apostles, but composed later by unknown persons, on the basis of alleged traditions, from the apostles and their disciples (n. 2). This opinion has been very commonly circulated up to the present time, only with the difference that it is no longer the evangelists themselves, but the Church gathering and eirculating the Gospels, which is made to say in this peculiar -way that the Gospels were not written by the four persons named, but by others writing in their spirit and under their names. The absurdity of this view is perfectly apparent. For, in the first place, the oldest witnesses for the κατὰ Maz@aiov, namely, Ireneus, Clement, and the author of the Muratori fragment (n. 3), state as explicitly as do Origen and all the other later authors, that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels bearing their respective names. In the second place, the Church teachers of this period had received, and trans- mitted as trustworthy, the tradition that the ultimate source of Mark’s Gospel was Peter’s oral preaching ($ 51), and it was a very common supposition that a similar relation existed between Luke’s Gospel and Paul. After this tradition regarding Mark’s Gospel, which reaches back to the first century, had become general, a title intended to designate not the author of the Gospel, but the person who was its guarantee and final security, could only have read εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Πέτρον, not κατὰ Μᾶρκον. In the same way, «ara Παῦλον would have taken the place of κατὰ Aovräv. Nor, on the other hand, is this «ara Mardatov a book-title in the usual sense in which the term is used, 388 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT t.e. to designate simply the name of the author, but is to be explained, especially in its original form, without εὐαγγέλιον, from the peculiar character of these books and their place in the Church. Sayings of Jesus were cited generally with the formula, “ The Lord says” or “said,” or “ The Lord says in the Gospel,” or “ It is written in the Gospel,” or “The Gospel says.” The name used in the apostolic age to designate the oral preaching of salvation was transferred to the documents in which later genera- tions possessed this preaching, without any distinction being made between the separate books in which the one and only gospel of Christ was found. Indeed, the singular τὸ εὐαγγέλιον was probably used before the plural τὰ εὐαγγέλια as a general designation of all such writings. It was not until later that εὐαγγέλιον came to be used of a single writing of this character, and εὐαγγέλια to denote a number of them. When, however, it became necessary to say on what authority the claim was made that the Lord had spoken this or that single word in the Gospel, or that the Gospel testified this or that fact, following common usage, the expression was employed: “ According to Matthew, the Lord said”; “ According to John, on one occasion Jesus changed water into wine”; “The Gospel testifies, according to Mark, that Jesus was asleep in the ship upon a pillow.” The apostolic conception of the uniqueness of the Gospel—a thought which the Church could not give up to the Marcionites (above, p. 385, n. 7) —produced necessarily in the Church the conception of the inseparable unity of the four Gospels. This idea explains not only these formul® of citation, which were in use early, and which continued current also in the centuries that followed, but also such titles as κατὰ Mar- θαῖον κτλ. These last presuppose, as a general title of the collection of Gospel writings, εὐαγγέλιον, in exactly the same way that πρὸς ‘Pwpaiovs presupposed that the single writing so entitled was part of a collection of Παύλον ἐπιστολαί. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 389 Leaving out of account the denial of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, made at a comparatively late date, circa 170, by the Alogi, who declared it to be the work of the heretic Cerinthus, the tradition of the Church embodied in the titles of the Gospels was contradicted by no one in the second century, whether members of the Church or heretics. Justin calls the Gospels regularly ‘memoirs of the apostles,” and remarks incidentally in connection with the account of Jesus’ baptism, “ The apostles of this our Christ (or His apostles, v.e. apostles of this our Christ) themselves have written this” (Dial. lxxxviii.) ; and on one occasion, when quoting something a parallel to which is to be found only in Luke xxu. 44, 1.6. in a Gospel written by a disciple of one of the apostles, he uses the more exact expression, “It is written in the memoirs which I claim were composed by the apostles and by their disciples” (τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων, Dial. cii.). When we take into consideration also that in two other passages, where Justin introduces material peculiar to Luke’s writings, he is careful not to say unconditionally that the Gospels were written by the apostles (Apol. i. 33, οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα Ta περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ’I.Xp.; Dial. ev., ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνημονευμάτων ἐμάθομεν), it is practically certain that, like [renzeus and all the later authors, Justin distinguishes between Gospels written by apostles and Gospels which originated from their disciples; and that he knew the third Gospel to be a work of the latter kind, which did not, however, prevent him from speaking generally of the “memoirs of the apostles” (GK, i. 476, 478 ff, 497). Even the Gnostics, the disciples of Valentinus and Marcion, never ascribed the Gospels used in the Church to any other authors than those to whom they were ascribed by the Church itself. The preparation of a collection of Gospel traditions, under the title Hvangelium Veritatis, by Valentinus or his disciples (Iren. ii. 11. 9; GK, 1. 748 ff.), implied a certain criticism of the Gospels used by 390 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the Church. They claim that in their common form the Gospels do not contain the full truth concerning Jesus and without knowledge of the secret tradition, their reports, which are contradietory in many points, cannot be cor- rectly understood. Nevertheless, the Valentinians cite and comment upon the Gospels used in the Church as apostolic writings (GK, 1. 732 ἢ, 741 f, 744, n. 1). The Acts of Peter, written circa 170 by a member of the Valentinian school, or by a man in close touch with it (above, p. 73, n. 7), represent the book of the Gospel read in the Church assembly to be an apostolic work in the composition of which Peter also seems to have had a part. John xxi. 25 and 1 John i. 1-4 are adduced to show the need of interpretation and enlargement ; but still no fault is found with the book directly, much less is it aseribed to less notable and later authors (Acta Petri, ed. Lipsius, p. 66 f.; GK, ii. 848, n. 2, 849 ff), Others went further than the Valentinians in their criticism of the Gospels used by the Church, and claimed that much of a Jewish legalistic character was to be found in them. Still, they did not attack the tradition regarding their origin, but charged the apostles, whom they also accepted as authors of the Gospels, with having combined those elements that did not belong in the Gospel with the words of Jesus ; and this was explained to be due to Jewish prejudices, by which they were still influenced, and to the misunderstanding of Jesus’ manner of teaching, which was to a large extent accommo- dative (n. 4). Marcion, the boldest of these erities, who did not hesitate to criticise the tradition of the Church in other points, including literary matters (vol. i. p. 481), left the Gospels unassailed as regards their authorship. According to him, the apostles, who were of Jewish origin themselves, went so far as to deliberately falsify the Gospel in the books which they wrote, and this evil work was completed by others of kindred spirit through the insertion of later interpolations (GA, i, 591-594, 656-680). It THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 391 cannot here be pointed out in detail how Marcion critieised the separate Gospels. The important remnants of his own Gospel extant show very clearly the thoroughgoing criticism which he thought necessary in the case of Luke’s Gospel (GK, i. 680-718, 1. 455-494). He was thoroughly dis- satisfied, not only with the details of this Gospel, which he could have cut out as later interpolation,—just as he had removed similar elements from the Pauline letters,—but with its whole plan and spirit as well, and so necessarily with its author. It is not, therefore, surprising that, in the single passage of Paul’s letters (Col. iv. 14; Marcion rejected 2 Timothy altogether) where Luke is mentioned in a significant manner, he cut out the words ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός, which expressed the author's esteem of Luke ; so that Luke was left in this passage, as in Philemon 24, without any distinguishing characterisation, in the suspicious company of the ill-famed Demas (GK, i. 665, 705 f., ii. 528). Unless we are disposed to assume a very singular coincidence in explanation of this omission, it proves that Marcion knew Luke’s Gospel, which he made the principal basis of his own Gospel, to be the work of Luke, the disciple of Paul, and that, far from attempting to dispute this tradition, he calumniated Luke, whom he, too, recognised to be the author of the Gospel current in the Church under his name. An oral tradition which was accepted so early and so universally by friend and foe alike as was the tradition that the Gospels used by the Church were written by the Apostles Matthew and John, and by Mark and Luke, the disciples of the apostles, hardly needs in support of itself a documentary tradition, which was later doubted. The rise of this tradition from actual facts adequate to explain its origin is all the more necessary, because there is nothing in the books themselves which would necessarily have given rise to the unanimous tradition regarding their authors. In the case of the Gospels which pass under the name of Matthew and Mark, the personality of the authors 392 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT is nowhere betrayed by the use of an “I.” In Matt. ix. 9, x. 3, the name of the apostle to whom the first Gospel is ascribed occurs, but without any hint of the author's special interest in this apostle. The names of Mark, Luke, and John are not found at all in the books bearing their respective names. From the preface to the third Gospel and the “we” which occurs in several passages of Acts, it possibly could be inferred that this work in two parts was written by the disciple of an apostle, and by a man who was for a time a companion of Paul. But there is nothing in the work to lead one to suppose that the author was Luke rather than Titus. From several passages of the Fourth Gospel it is possible to infer that its author belonged to the apostolic circle; but, judging from our present knowledge of exegesis in the ancient Church, the cleverest scholar of that time could not have guessed that the author was John and not James the son of Zebedee, or Alphzeus, or Bartholomew, or Simon Zelotes. It follows, therefore, that the tradition associated with the four Gospels from the time when they began to circulate, which was not once attacked during the entire period from 70-170 even by hostile critics, of whom these books had no lack even at this early date, is based not upon learned conjectures, but upon facts which at that time were incontrovertible. II. Origen claims to have learned as tradition that the four Gospels of the Church were written in the order in which we are accustomed to find them in our Bibles (n. 5). In order to estimate properly this tradition and other statements which possibly could seem to us ambiguous, it must be borne in mind that in the ancient Church the separate parts of the collection of Gospels were arranged in various orders, and that until the third century the Holy Seriptures were not written in book form in our sense of the word book, 7.e. in the form of a codex which could contain a large number of writings, but in rolls which were THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 393 of limited though for the most part of quite uniform size. Books of the average compass of our Gospels, Acts, and Revelation required each a roll. The only way in which it was possible to indicate externally that a number of such writings belonged together was by placing the rolls belonging together in one holder or the same drawer of a bookease (n. 6). At the time, when this method was in use there could be no question about the order of the Gospels. The transition began to be made from the roll to the codex in Origen’s lifetime, and it is probable that he himself saw codices in which all four Gospels were written. But the order in which he found them seems to have been that which prevailed in Egypt for a long time, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke. Neither this nor any other arrangement could have had influence upon the tradition stated above regarding the order in which the Gospels were written, or upon the statements of writers before Origen’s time, because the codex did not come into general use until during the course of the third century, and then only gradually. What Origen gives as a tradition, without any thought of a divergent view, is expressed also by Irenzus and the author of the Muratorian fragment without the least indication of uncertainty (n. 7). It continued to » be the prevalent view in antiquity (n. 8), and it was this more than anything else which brought it about, that the arrangement of the Gospels familiar to us displaced more and more the other arrangements in the East from the beginning of the fourth century on, and after Jerome also in the West. But Ivenzeus makes further statements of a more definite character (n. 7). According to him, the time when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome, and engaged in laying the foundations of the Church there, Matthew, who lived among the Hebrews, issued a gospel writing in their language. After the death of the two apostles, Mark, the follower and interpreter of Peter, delivered to the Church in written form what Peter had 394 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT preached. Irenzeus makes Luke’s Gospel follow that of Mark, but without more exact indication of the time when it was written. So, with reference to the Fourth Gospel, he says merely that John issued the same after the appear- ance of the other Gospels, during his residence in Ephesus. According to Irenzeus idea of the chronology (above, p. 76), the Hebrew Matthew appeared between 61-66, Mark not long after 66 or 67, and Luke somewhat later ; while John, who, according to Irenzeus (v. 30. 3), wrote Revelation toward the end of Domitian’s reign (died 96), and was still alive in the first years of Trajan’s reign, 98-117 (Iren. ii. 22. 5, ui. 3. 4), must have composed his Gospel some- time between 75 and 95. It is to be noticed, further, that Irenzeus had read Papias’ work (v. 33. 4), which contained notices regarding the origin of Matthew and Mark, and, according to a doubtful report, also of John. | With refer- ence to Mark, Papias preserved a statement of his teacher, John, whom Irenzeus held to be the apostle of this name, in which Mark is represented as having reproduced faith- fully in his Gospel his recollections of Peter's narratives ($51). This statement seems to exclude the possibility that Mark wrote his Gospel in the vicinity where his teacher Peter was staying, or it seems to presuppose that Peter was no longer alive when Mark wrote. Since Irenseus uses, among other expressions of the teacher of Papias, the same peculiar phrase which the latter employed to express the relation in which Mark stood to Peter (ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου), it is perfectly clear that Ireneeus was aware that. his view regarding the time of the composition of Mark’s Gospel was in agreement not only with that of Papias, but also with that of his teacher John the presbyter, who, according to Irenzeus, was the apostle John. This is to be kept well in mind in considering a statement of Clement of Alexandria, which appears to be directly to the contrary (n. 9). Clement claims to have received from his teachers the tradition that the Gospels containing a genealogy of Christ were written THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 395 before the others. Inasmuch as Clement reports, also ir the same connection, that John wrote last, with the incom- pleteness or one-sided character of the other Gospels in view, his chronology agrees with the only other tradition handed down in making Matthew write first and John last. But his report varies from the other tradition—if his short statement is to be taken literally—in represent- ing not only Matthew, but also Luke, which likewise has a chronology, to have been written earlier than Mark, which lacks such a chronology. In line with this variation would be the supposition that Clement, following some older source, placed the composition of Mark in the life- time of Peter, and not, as Irenzeus, after the death of Peter and Paul. This last difference would not be very consider- able, since, according to the older tradition, Peter’s stay in Rome was very brief, lasting at longest only a year (above, p. 165 ff.; above, pp. 68-84); and, on the other hand, Ireneeus manifestly means to say that Mark issued his Gospel soon after the death of Peter and Paul. Following Clement, Mark would have to be dated in 63 or 64, while, according to Irenzeus, it was written somewhere about 67. Inasmuch, also, as the tradition concerning the time and circumstances in which Luke’s Gospel was written was not so definite as that concerning Mark, the opinion that Luke was written before Mark could have been merely an inference from the close of Acts. If it was assumed, as is still done by numerous scholars, that Luke wrote Acts immediately after the close of the two years (Acts xxviil. 30),—which would imply that his Gospel was written somewhat earlier,—and if the fact was also considered that Luke makes no note of Peter’s residence in Rome at the time, or if it was known from the tradition that Peter did not come to Rome until after Paul’s departure from the city (above, p. 165 f.), the conclusion must have been drawn that Luke wrote earlier than Mark, ».e. if the latter wrote his Gospel in Rome under Peter’s supervision. But closer 396 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT serutiny of Clement’s own words shows that he knows and says nothing of the completion of Mark’s Gospel in Peter’s lifetime (§ 51). In any case, Clement’s isolated statement, which seems to say that Luke was written before Mark, must give way before the tradition which represents the two Gospels as having been written in the order Mark— Luke, not only because the witness for the latter view is incomparably stronger, but also because Clement’s view might have been the result of critical reflection, which is inconceivable in the case of the opposing tradition. Learned hypotheses, however, no matter how old they may be, do not deserve the name of tradition; all that they show is the greater or less degree of intelligence possessed by those by whom they are made, regarding which it is not the purpose of this text-book to judge. 1. (P. 387.) Cod. B has as titles of the four Gospels and as headings of the columns simply κατα Μαθθαιον xrX.; 80 also δὲ in the headings of the columns, but in the subseriptions of Mark, Luke, John evayyehwov κατα Μαρκον κτλ. In the uncials the latter is the rule, only sometimes evayyeAıov is written once instead of twice in succession, e.g. Cod. D, ed. Scrivener, p. 262, evayyelıov kat Aovkav επληρωθη" apyera κατ papxov. So also in the Latin MSS. That the Latins did not originate their secundum Mattheum, but took it at first hand from the Greek MSS., is shown by the Greek form cata Marcwm, Lucam, ete., in the MSS. of the Old Latin version, Cyprian, Firmicus Maternus, Lucifer, Priscillian (GK, i. 164, n. 5; also the true Victorinus of Pettau, cf. Haussleiter in 7h LB, 1895, S. 194; Marius Victorinus, contra Arianos, iv. 4, 8, 18, see note 3 below ; Jerome, in Gal. iv. 4, Vall. vii. 449 ; Onomast., ed. Lagarde, p. 99. 23). The same is true of the Egyptian versions. The Syrians, on the other hand, in all forms of their translation of the Gospel have simply “of Matthew” instead of “according to Matthew.” Tertullian also, who did not as yet have a Latin Gospel, avoided xara, secundum. 2. (P. 387.) Faustus, in August. contra Faustum, xxxii. 2, appeals to the criticism which the Catholics also apply to the Mosaic law, and then in- quires: “Solius filii putatis testamentum non potuisse corrumpi, solum non habere aliquid, quod in se debeat improbari? Presertim quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat nec ab eius apostolis, sed longo post tempore a quibusdam incerti nominis viris, qui ne sibi non haberetur fides scribentibus, que nescirent, partim apostolorum nomina, partim eorwm, qui apostolos secuti viderentur, scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt, adseverantes secundum 408 se soripsisse que scripserint. Quo magis mihi videntur injuria gravi affecisse discipulos Christi, quia que dissona idem et repugnantia seriberent, ea referrent ad ipsos et secundum eos hac scribere se profiterentur evangelia, que tantis sint referta erroribus, tantis contrarietatibus narrationum simul THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 397 ac sententiarum, ut nec sibi prorsus nec inter se ipsa conveniant.” Quite similarly again xxxiil. 3. The replies of Augustine, especially xxxii. 16, 19, 21, 22, xxxiii. 6-8, are also worth reading. Even Lagarde (Mitteilungen, iv. 109) could write: “The Gospels in the earliest sources bear the title, Gospels according to Matthew, ete.; except in the interpolated MSS., then, they are not given out as Gospels of Matthew,” etc. It is not surprising that Jews like Hamburger, Jesus von Nazareth, 1895, S. 8, go still further in the same direction. 3. (P. 387.) Iren. i. 26. 2, 27. 2, iii. 11. 7, 8, 9, 14. 4; Clem. Ped. i. 38; Strom. i. 145, 147; Quis Diw. v; Hypotyp. on 1 Pet. v.13; 1 John i.1; Can. Mur. line 2 (GK, ii. δ. 21f., 140). For the old formulas of citation, ef. GK, i. 162f. On those in which the original significance of the κατὰ M. still appears (GK, i. 167, note 2), ef. also Victor. contra Arianos, iv. 18, “Idem (se. Christus) tamen, ut ostenderet suam preesentiam semper, κατὰ Ματθαῖον sic loquitur” (Matt. xxviii. 19f. follows); ¢bid. iv. 4, “colligamus igitur κατὰ Ἰωάννην dictum” (John iv. 24 follows). Also iv. 8, “in evangelio κατὰ Ἰωάννην " (Migne, viii. 1115, 1119, 1126). With regard to the conception of the unity of the Gospels, cf. GK, 1. 161 ff., 185 f., 477-481, 842-848, ii. 21 f., 32f., 40f. In all transferences of this εὐαγγέλιον κατά, followed by name of a person, to other gospels, as κατὰ Πέτρον (Orig. tom. x. 17 in Matt.; Serapion in Eus. H. E. vi. 12), κατὰ τοὺς δώδεκα, κατὰ Θωμᾶν, Βασιλείδην, Ματθίαν (Orig. Hom. 1 in Lucam, GK, ii. 627), these names denote the supposed writers, not the authorities standing behind them. 4. (P. 390.) Iren. iii. 2. 2, “apostolos enim admiscuisse ea, que sunt legalia, salvatoris verbis”; iii. 12. 12, “apostolos quidem adhuc que sunt Judezorum sentientes annuntiasse evangelium,” have to do formally and primarily with the oral preaching and tradition ; but, as the context of both passages shows (iii. 2. 1 before the words quoted, and iii. 12. 12 after), the intention is to show the object of the criticism directed against the Gospels by the heretics, and its justification from their standpoint. When Ireneus (iii. 1. 1) maintains, in opposition to this criticism, that the apostles did not preach and write the Gospel till after the resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit, he too connects the composition of the Gospels immediately with the oral preaching. 5. (P. 392.) Eus. H. E. vi. 25. 3, says of Origen : ἐν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν eis τὸ κατὰ Mardatov (al. add. εὐαγγέλιον), τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φυλάττων κανόνα, μόνα τέσσαρα εἰδέναι εὐαγγέλια μαρτύρεται ὧδέ πως γράφων" ‘Qs ἐν παραδόσει μαθὼν περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἀναντίρρητά ἐστιν ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ κατὰ τόν ποτε τελώνην, ὕστερον δὲ ἀπόστολον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ματθαῖον, ἐκδεδωκότα αὐτὸ τοῖς ἀπὸ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύσασι, γράμμασιν ἑβραϊκοῖς συντεταγμένον" δεύτερον δὲ τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον, ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ, ποιήσαντα, ὃν καὶ υἱὸν ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ διὰ τούτων ὡμολόγησε φάσκων : “ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου." καὶ τρίτον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, τὸ ὑπὸ Παύλου ἐπαινούμενον εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν πεποιηκότα' ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην. Cf. Origen’s introduction to the Homilies on Luke in Latin and Greek, GK, ii. 625, 627 ; also tom. vi. 17 in Jo., ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Ματθαίου, ὃς καὶ παραδέδοται πρῶτος τῶν λοιπῶν τοῖς “Ἑβραίοις ἐκδεδωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς πιστεύουσιν. Cf. tom. i. 6; as ἀπαρχὴ τῶν εὐαγγελίων, John 398 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT is written not first but last (ef. i. 2), and before it Matt., Mark, Luke write in the order named. 6. (P. 393.) With regard to roll and codex, see @K, i. 60-83 ; v. Schultze in Greifswalder Studien, 1895, S. 149-158. For the order of the Gospels in the codices, ef. GK, ii. 364-375 ; for those especially in Egypt, and for Origen’s, ef. ii. 371 ff., 1014. 7. (P. 393.) Iren. iii. 1. 1; in Greek, Eus. H. E. v. 8. 2: ‘O μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτῳ καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγ- γελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων pai θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον Μᾶρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσύμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν. Καὶ Λουκᾶς δέ, ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ κατέθετο. Ἔπειτα ᾿Ιωάννης, ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσών, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ τῆς ᾿Ασίας διατρίβων. The differences between this Greek text οἵ Eusebius and the Latin version of Ireneus are unimportant. The Ita Mattheus attaching to the preceding context (οὕτως ὁ Ματθαῖος with or without μέν and δή), Eusebius has not unnaturally changed. The Latin translator, on the other hand, has omitted the καί before γραφήν, which is contrasted with the oral preaching of the apostles (cf. GK, ii. 22, n.1). When later compilers (Cramer, Cat. i. 263, 264), following Irenzeus or Eusebius’ quotation from Irenzus, spoke of the time of the composition of Mark as pera Ματθαῖον or μετὰ τὴν τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγελίου ἔκδοσιν, they were right. Very far from right, however, is the attempt to correct in accordance with this the text of Irenzus (see Eus. Hist. Eccles. ed. Heinichen, v. 8. 2, S. 198). The only reading which has been handed down, τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον, without mention of any place or locality which they left (ef. on the other hand, Ps. exiv. 1; Sir.xl.1; Heb. iii. 16), can only denote the death of Peter and Paul, ef. Luke ix. 31; 2 Pet. i. 15 (see above, p. 215, n. 5); Wis. iii. 2, vii.6; Philo, de Carit. iv.; Epist. Lugd. in Eus. H. E.v. 1. 36. It is the same as ἔξοδος τοῦ βίου. Just. Dial. ev., or τοῦ (nv, Jos. Ant. iv. 8.2 (189), or ἔκβασις τῆς ἀναστροφῆς, Heb. xiii. 7, or ἀνάλυσις, which also needs no nearer definition, 2 Tim. iv. 6 (ef. Phil. i. 23; Luke ii. 29 =the Modern Hebrew mus). E, Grabe, on Iren. iii. 1. 1 holds that the departure of Peter and Paul from Rome is meant ; but, in the first place, the simple ἔξοδος could not be so understood by any reader (cf. Can. Mur. line 38, profectio Pauli ab urbe in Spaniam, Acts xviii. 1, iv. 15); and, second, so far as we know, Peter never left Rome at all after he had once entered the city (see above, p. 165ff.). For Paul, too, the period of his preaching in Rome, though it was not uninterrupted, came to its final close in his second imprisonment and execution, and not in a departure from the city (above, p. 66), Of other misinterpretations of the passage the present writer would mention only that of A. Camerlynck, St. Irenee et le Canon du NT, Louvain, 1896, pp. 27-31. In Camerlynck’s opinion the words τοῦ Πέτρου---ἐκκλησίαν cannot denote the time of composition of Matt., because this construction would require an adverb (p. 31). What adverb we are not told: probably ἔτι, which Camerlynck gratuitously introduces into his paraphrase of the preceding words (Matthieu encore en Judee, p. 30, which would be ἔτι ὧν ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις). By ἔξοδος he would understand the departure of Peter and Paul to preach in the whole world, instead of which Irenwus mentioned the preaching in Rome by way of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 399 example! Whereas (tandis que, not pendant que) Peter and Paul preached the gospel in Rome, 1.6. in the wide world, Matthew remained at home and wrote a book ; and after they had set out, no one knows where, Mark did the same thing. Few will agree with the conclusion, Cette explication nous paralt tres logique. Occasion for such fancies can hardly be found in the circum- stance that Clement puts the composition of Mark a little earlier than Irenzeus (see above, p. 394 and n. 9), or that Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), in a very inexact reproduction of statements by Papias and Clement, adopts the latter’s view of the composition of Mark during Peter’s lifetime, and seems to assign it to the time of Claudius along with the fable of Peter’s contest with Simon Magus (cf. above, p. 168f.). Eusebius, who was conscientious enough to report faithfully traditions concerning the chronological order of the Gospels from Clement (H. E. vi. 14. 5) and Origen (vi. 25. 3ff.), which were appar- ently or actually contradictory, also reproduced exactly the testimony of Irenzeus as to the composition of Mark after the death of Peter and Paul (H. E. v. 8. 3), though Clement’s view appealed to him more strongly (ii. 15, v. 14. 6). Moreover, Irenzeus’ intention in iii. 1. 1 of giving the chrono- logical order is so evident from the indications of time in connection with Matt., Mark, and John (ἔπειτα), that his other enumerations cannot be counted against it. The order in 11]. 9. 1-11. 6, Matt., Luke, Mark, John, which is repeated in iii. 11. 7, is occasioned by the desire to emphasise the two Gospels in which Jesus’ affirmative attitude towards the O.T. is most apparent. The order in iii. 11. 8, John, Luke, Matt., Mark, depends on the arrangement of the apocalyptic symbols. The distribution of the four animal figures of Ezek. i. 5, 10 and Rev. iv. 6f., which Irenzeus did not invent, but found as a tradition, has of itself nothing to do with the chronological order of the Gospels, nor with their arrangement in the codex ; cf. Forsch. ii. 257-275, iii, 222 ἵν; v. Schultze, Greifswalder Studien, S. 158. The two oldest and commonest arrangements are—(1) Matt.=man, Mark=eagle, Luke=ox, John=lion (so Irenzeus and the true Victorinus of Pettau; cf. Haussleiter, ThLB, 1895, Col. 194) ; (2) Matt.=man, Mark=lion, Luke=ox, John=eagle (so Theophilus Lat., Epiphanius, Jerome). 8. (Ρ. 393.) The chronological succession of the Gospels given by Irenzus without any notice of divergent opinions, and by Origen as an old tradition (see above, p. 397 f.), is clearly indicated in Can. Mur. lines 1-16, in spite of the incompleteness of its beginning (GK, ii. 14ff.); also Eus. H. E. iii. 24. 6f.; Epiphan. Her. li. 4 (Mardaios πρῶτος ἄρχεται εὐαγγελίζεσθαι). 6 (εὐθὺς δὲ μετὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον ἀκόλουθος γενόμενος ὁ Μᾶρκος τῷ ἁγίῳ Πέτρῳ ev Ῥώμῃ ἐπιτρέπεται τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐκθέσθαι καὶ γράψας ἀποστέλλεται ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Πέτρου εἰς τὴν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων χώραν). 7 (Luke wrote an account of mis- interpretations of Mark), xii. 19 (finally, John, when more than ninety years old). Further, Jerome, Praf. Comm. in Matth., Vall. vii.3fl.; ef. Ver. Ill. ii. ; Ephrem, Expos. ev. Conc. p. 286; Chrysost. Hom. 4 i Matth., Montfaucon, vii. 46; August. Cons. Evv. i, 2. That John was the last to write is involved in every tradition that has specially to do with the Fourth Gospel. The remark of Tertullian (contra Mare. iv. 2), that the disciples of the apostles among the evangelists wrote “cum apostolis et post apostolos,” and the further words, “ex apostolis Joannes et Matthzeus, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus,” express no particular opinion as to the chronological order of the Gospels, or 400 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT at most only the presupposition, which no one in the aneient Church disputed, that the earliest Evangelist was an apostle, not a pupil of the apostles. The old Latin prologues to the Gospels also give the order, Matt., Mark, Luke, John; Prol. in Luc. (N.T. Lat., ed. Wordsworth, i. 269): “Qui cum iam descripta essent evangelia per Mattheum quidem in Judea, per Marcum autem in Italia, sancto instigante spiritu in Achaix partibus hoe seripsit evangelium, significans etiam ipse, ante alia esse descripta.” The improbable opinion of Corssen (Monarchianische Prologe, 1896, S. 37), that the same writer in his prologue to Mark represents that Gospel as written after Luke, rests upon two misunderstandings. The words (Wordsworth, i. 172) “ perfecti evangelii opus intrans et a baptismo domini deum predicare inchoans” evidently refer to Mark i. 9ff. in distinction from “initio evangelice preedicationis,” Mark i. 1ff. The complete Gospel comes first through Christ, in distinction from the Forerunner, whose preaching Mark has termed the beginning of the Gospel. And when it is said of the physical birth, that Mark saw it in prioribus and therefore did not think it worth while to narrate it again, it is very arbitrary to supply evangelüis (sc. Matt. and Luke). The phrase prob- ably stands for the common ἐν τοῖς mpd τούτων, cf. for example, Orig. tom. ii. 1, in Jo. where to be sure but a single tomus has preceded, or ev rois ἔμπροσθεν, or similar expressions. The author of the prologues, which are hardly so old as Corssen would have them, had before him the codex in which Matt. i. stands before Mark i.; and he had not forgotten that accord- ing to his express statement Matt. indeed, but not Luke, was written before Mark. 9. (P. 394.) Eusebius, H. E. vi. 14. 5 (Forsch. iii. 72), quotes from the Hypotyp.: αὖθις δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὁ Κλήμης βιβλίοις περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν εὐαγγελίων παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων τέθειται, τοῦτον ἔχουσαν τὸν τρόπον" “ΠΡρογεγράφθαι ἔλεγον (al. ἔλεγεν) τῶν εὐαγγελίων τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας." The less supported reading, ἔλεγον, which has the presbyters for its subject, and in tense is quite in accord with the way in which Clement usually speaks of his teachers (Forsch. iii. 161, A. 1), is to be preferred to ἔλεγεν, instead of which one would sooner expect ἔφη, as indeed one MS. has it, or φησίν, or nothing at all. For τάξις ef. the old chapter title of Eus. H. E. iii. 24, and the writing of Galenus (ed. Kühn, xix. 49), περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν ἰδίων βιβλίων ; ef. GK, ii. 365, A. 5. Clement means an historical account of the composition of the writings, observing the chronological order. If, in consideration of the general currency of the tradition that the order was Matt., Mark, Luke, John (n. 8), one may assume that it was known to Clement’s teachers and to himself, it is noteworthy that their divergent state- ment is given without any hint of its opposition to the common view. It is not impossible, then, that the presbyters simply meant that Matt. was written before Mark and Luke before John. $ 50. HISTORY OF THE “SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.” Whoever reads the first three Gospels in order for the first time, with a fair degree of attention, must have been reminded constantly, in going through the second THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 401 and third, that he had read essentially the same narratives and discourses once or twice before, partly in the same order, and in language which in all cases was very similar, and often exactly the same. Since the authors themselves say nothing of the sources and helps of which they made use, and since, further, the ancient tradition contains no notice of the use of the work of one evangelist by another, we have the so-called “Synoptic Problem,” a problem which has been in existence ever since the Gospels were read alongside. of each other. The facts have been very often represented to the eye by editions of the text designed to show the similarities and variations of the first three, or of all four Gospels (n. 1). ΑΒ early as the third century, a certain Ammonius, of whom nothing more definite is known, prepared an edition of Matthew in which the sections of the other Gospels agreeing more or less closely with Matthew were arranged alongside of the Matthew text, which was given in full, Ammonius gave his work the same title—Diatessaron—which the Syrian Tatian used earlier in the second century for his work, though this was of an entirely different character, being, in fact, a Gospel history compiled from the words of the four Gospels: τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον. Eusebius speaks highly of the careful scholarship of Ammonius’ Diatessaron, but felt the breaking up of the text of all the Gospels, except Matthew, into small fragments to be a defect. This led him to invent a new method, which left the text of the Gospels intact, but which divided it into small sections (κεφάλαια, περικοπαί), successively numbered in each Gospel. Then through tables preceding the text, in which the numbers of the corresponding sections were arranged together (κανόνες), and to which references were made by means of figures written in red on the margin of the text, the reader was enabled easily to find the parallels to any passage in any one of the Gospels (n. 1). In spite of the widespread use of this arrangement of the text in VOL, IL. 26 402 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the Greek, Syrian, and Latin Churches, the problem under discussion was scarcely realised by the scholars of the ancient Church. The thing which caused surprise was not the similarity of the Gospels in form, but the differ- ences which existed between their contents. Attempts were made to explain and to harmonise these differences, especially where such harmonisation was demanded by ecclesiastical, dogmatic, or even apologetic interests (n. 2). With reference to the origin of the Gospels, no information was sought beyond that furnished by the scanty reports of the oldest traditions. It was only because the tradition reported that John wrote his Gospel later than the other evangelists, with their books in view and for the purpose of supplementing them, that this fact was recalled occasion- ally in connection with the discussion of single points, regarding which the accounts of the Gospels differed. Only in very isolated cases do we find similar expressions regarding a conscious relation of the other evangelists to their predecessors, made, of course, on the basis of the generally accepted view that the Gospels originated in the order in which they are arranged in our N.T. (n. 3). This was the case with Augustine, who was the first to be led, by the observation of similarities of language in the Gospels, to what was at least the beginning of a definite view regarding the origin of this phenomenon. He thought it could be proved that Mark was consciously dependent upon Matthew, which in part he repeated word for word, in part reproduced in abbreviated form (n. 4). The matter was not pursued further, either in the Middle Ages or at the time of the Reformation, either by the harmonists of the orthodox period or by the pioneers of a critical history of the N.T. Τὸ seems to have required the great revolution in the entire way of thinking about Christianity and its original documents, which began with the middle of the eighteenth century, to produce an appre- ciation of the problem presented by the similarities and THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 403 differences of the first three Gospels. In what follows. the principal attempts made at its solution are deseribed briefly. | 1. 6. E. Lessing was led, by the strife which the publieation of the Wolfenbüttel fragments produced, to propound what was really a “new hypothesis” concerning the manner in which the synoptie Gospels originated (n. 5). Starting with the fact that the earliest Christians were called Nazarenes (Acts xxiv. 5),—a name retained by the Jewish Christians of Bercea until Jerome’s time,—and the various names which the Gospel, or rather the Gospels, of the Jewish Christians bore in the confused reports of the Church Fathers, he conjectured that the root of the entire Gospel literature, the original Gospel, was the Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes, the kernel of which originated in the time immediately following Jesus’ death, and which underwent a number of changes in the early Christian period. By means of a bold interpretation of Eusebius’ account of the origin of Matthew (H. E. τ. 24. 6), Less- ing arrived at the conclusion that when Matthew left Palestine to preach among the Greeks or Hellenists, he made an abstract of the original Aramaic Gospel in Greek for the benefit of his new hearers, which abstract is our canonical Matthew. That Matthew’s name was trans- ferred to the original also should not be considered surprising. By a similar handling of Papias’ testimony (§ 54), it was made to appear that numerous individuals translated excerpts from this original Gospel into Greek, just as Matthew had done, always from their own points of view and for different purposes. Among these translators belong the many writers of Luke i. 1,—in particular, Luke himself, and Mark also. “In a word, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are nothing but translations, partly different, partly the same, of the so-called original Hebrew Matthew, which each made as best he could” (Lessing, § 50). We possess only two Gospels,—a Gospel of the flesh ἴῃ ἃ 404 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT threefold Greek recension, and a Gospel of the spirit, that according to John. This unelaborated thought of Lessing contained suggestions which were bound to develop. | While Lessing left it to the reader to apply his hypothesis for the explanation of the varied way in which the Gospels agree at one point and then differ from each other again, J. G. Eichhorn in Göttingen (n. 6) reversed the method, beginning with the fact that in forty-four sections the three synoptic Gospels are in essential agreement, in content, form, compass, and point of view. This is not to be explained on the supposition that one Gospel was used in the composition of another, but only on the hypothesis that all are dependent upon a common source. This source he declared to be an Aramaic Gospel, written as early as the year 35 by a disciple of one of the apostles, containing a biography of Jesus which covered the time from the appearance of the Baptist to the resurrection. During the decades which followed, this Gospel was frequently recast, enlarged, and abbreviated, first in Aramaic and then also in Greek. The Gospels which originated in this manner between 35 and 60—practically countless in number— constitute in their manifold combinations the sources from which were drawn the Gospels accepted by the Church, as well as the various Gospels used by Jewish Christians and Gentile Christian heretics, Justin’s citations, and Tatian’s Diatessaron. On this point Eichhorn accepted in the main the tradition regarding the origin of the Gospels in use by the Church. It was, in fact, through this tradition that he came to suppose, in opposition to it, that the Greek trans- lator of the Aramaic Matthew, compiled as it was by the apostle Matthew from a number of sources, modified the same by important additions of his own, some. thirty-five in number, smaller and greater, e.g. chaps. 1-1, which he prefixed to the Gospel. | The artificiality of Eiehhorn’s hypothesis, and the impossibility of proving the numerous accessory hypotheses upon which it was based, led inevit- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS: AND ACTS os ably to attempts in the opposite direction. It was not Eichhorn’s hypothesis, but Lessing’s idea, which Eichhorn appropriated without acknowledgment, that continued to live, and that was revived later (see below, No. 7). 2. In 1783 and later, J. J. Griesbach, working in the spirit of Lessing’s genuine historical method, and in con- scious agreement with him,—in fact, differing from him only in his results,—and in strong opposition to Eichhorn and his followers, advanced a hypothesis the simplicity of which seemed especially to commend it (n. 7). | According to this view, the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek from his own acquaintance with the facts, and with- out the use of earlier sources; Luke composed his on the basis of his investigations of the oral tradition still un- crystallised, and with the help of Matthew ; Mark’s Gospel was made up of excerpts from Luke and Matthew. Mark’s own additions—in all not more than twenty-four verses— show that in his home in Jerusalem he had heard much of the history, related with more vividness and in greater detail than he found in the narratives of Matthew, which he made the basis of his work, or in Luke, which he em- ployed as a help. He designed his book to serve as a handy compendium of the Gospel history for readers un- acquainted with Jewish conditions and views, and without interest in much that Matthew had recorded. The tradi- tion, according to which a close relation exists between Mark’s Gospel and the discourses of Peter, is a conjecture, and simply an invention of Papias.. Also the opinion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew is an improbable conjecture, since even Mark had a Greek Matthew before him. While the tradition regarding the authors of the Gospels is to be preferred to all modern hypotheses, all the reports of the ancient Church which go further, and purport to give an account of the origin of the Gospels, are worthless fables. 3. At about the same time G. Chr. Storr and G. Herder declared Mark to be the oldest of the extant Gospels (n. 8) 406 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Starting with the name “Gospel,” which as a matter ot fact no one of our evangelists gave his own work, but which was applied by the Church to the Gospels in the second century, Herder postulated as the common basis of the entire gospel literature a Gospel existing at first in an unwritten form, which was, nevertheless, quite thoroughly fixed. In content it was limited to a definite series of narratives and discourses, covering the period from the baptism of John to the ascension of Jesus (Acts i. 1 f., 22), and was a compendium of the historical content of the missionary preaching intended especially for the guidance of the missionary preachers of the second order, the evan- gelists, or ‘‘ ministers of the word” (Luke i. 2). This Gospel, which originated in Palestine between 35 and 40, and which was thought out and, so to speak, composed in Aramaic, was communicated orally to the helpers engaged in preaching, of whom Mark was one, but committed by them to writing for their own convenience, and probably at once. In this way a multitude of private writings arose. Several decades later Mark published his copy, essentially unchanged, probably in Rome, and accordingly reproduces for us in a Greek form, but nevertheless faith fully, the original unwritten Gospel which originated under the eyes of Peter, James, and John. In 60, or somewhat later, a fuller Gospel in Aramaic was prepared in Palestine on the same basis, and was immediately pub- lished. In. modified form this Gospel survived in the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, and in ‘the Greek Matthew, which was not written until after 70. | Finally, Luke, who wrote his historical work not for the Church, but for an individual belonging to the upper classes, used this elaborate Aramaic Gospel, which was afterwards recast in the Greek Matthew as an auxiliary souree. He also used, in addition, the outline of the apostolic preaching which he had had in hand for the twenty years that he had been engaged in assisting with the preaching work, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 407 and also the information which he had gathered from per- sons who had heard and seen Jesus. While Herder left it undecided whether any one of the three Synoptists had in hand the work of the other two, Storr, who was gifted with less imagination than Herder, confined himself strictly to given data, and explained the similarities among the Gospels on the supposition that the two later evangelists used the work of the earlier one. According to his view, the Gospel of Mark, which was drawn chiefly from Peter’s narratives, was written in Jerusalem at a very early date, before Mark became engaged in foreign missionary work. This oldest Gospel the apostle Matthew did not hesitate to make the basis of his own Gospel, which otherwise was based upon independent knowledge of the facts, and was written from a peculiar point of view. Mark was worked over also by Luke, who, however, was unacquainted with Matthew. Later, Chr. G. Wilke (1838), Bruno Bauer (1841), and G. Volkmar (1870) undertook to prove that Mark was the original Gospel, but in a sense differing entirely from that of Herder and Storr (n. 9). Although Wilke left the tradition entirely untested, and made no attempt whatever to explain and thereby to remove its errors, and. although he omitted all discussion of the leading thoughts of the separate Gospels and of the historical conditions under which they were written, he believed that in his volu- minous work he had established for all time, from the agreements and variations of the texts of the synoptic Gospels, the fact that our Mark is the original Gospel, except for a number of interpolations, part of which ‘he believed could still be removed by the application of commonly accepted critical principles. This original Gospel was worked over in an arbitrary way in Matthew and Luke, supplemented by the addition of later legends and adapted to serve particular ends. The agreements between Matthew and Luke in passages not derived 408 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT from Mark is to be explained on the ground that, in addition to his prineipal source Mark, Matthew also used Luke. 4. Fully recoonising that the solution of the synoptic problem is to be sought through a study of the documents in their historical connection, but at the same time making the tradition of the ancient Church regarding the origin of the Gospels and the order in which they were written his starting-point, J. L. Hug (n. 10) undertook to show that Mark had in his possession and made use of Matthew. The same was true of Luke in relation to Mark and Matthew, while John had and used all three Synoptics. In all cases the sources employed were supplemented and corrected by independent information. Regarding the sources used by Matthew, there is no necessity of inquir- ing; only it was natural that a person so accustomed to writing, as was the tax-collector Matthew, should have noted down at a very early date the discourses and sayings of the Master to aid him in his own work as a teacher, and also that he should have made use of these collections of his own in the elaboration of his Gospel, traces of which are actually to be found in it (Zinl.® i. 179). Whether and to what extent Luke used others of the writings which he mentions in Luke i. 1, and the oral tradition in addition to Matthew and Mark, we are no longer able to determine (op. cit. 8. 186). Hug accepts the tradition as correct’ at every point, with the exception that he holds the unanimous tradition of antiquity by which Matthew is represented as having been written in Hebrew to be a scholastic fable. 5. Opposed to Eichhorn’s hypothesis of an original written Gospel which originated early in the apostolie age, is that’ of J. €. L. Gieseler (n. 11), which makes the common basis of all three Synoptics, as well as of numerous apocryphal Gospels of the second century, an original Gospel which was entirely oral. The silence of the other THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 409 N.T. writings and of the oldest post-apostolie literature regarding the use of written Gospels, the way in which the words and deeds of Jesus are introduced in this litera- ture, further, the fact that comparatively little writing was done in the apostolic age (S. 35, 60 ff.), and the simple character of the culture possessed by the early Christians in Palestine, render it impossible that records of the Gospel should have been made so soon, also that such documents, after they originated privately, should have been circulated so widely and have had so much influence in the Church. Material for the construction of Gospels was drawn from the oral tradition until within the second century ; still more in the apostolic age was the tradition fixed enough to make the use of written helps seem unnecessary. Entirely without design, frequent repetition produced a fixed form of the narrative and an outline of the Gospel history from the appearance of the Baptist on, in which the most important events and sayings were reproduced with the greatest uniformity by all narrators and teachers. The history of the liturgy and of the creed, which were unwritten for so long, anecdotes from the history of the ancient Church, and analogies from the history of heathen religions and of Jewish Rabbinism, should enable us moderns to form a conception of the tenacity of memory which, under condi- tions of ancient culture, characterised groups of like-minded men, especially in cases where the sayings were regarded as sacred, and where the things recalled were of an his- torical nature. When the Gospel passed from Palestine to the Greeks, it necessarily took on a Greek form, but continued oral. Though so flexible that the order, em- phasis, and application could be changed according to varying necessities, this Gospel was still able, in spite of all these modifications, to survive in its original stereo- typed form. Here belong, e.g. among other things, passages quoted freely from the O.T. Comparison of 1 Pet. ii. 6 f. with Rom. ix. 88 proves that the recurrence 410 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of such eitations in several different writings is not to be explained by supposing that one is dependent upon another, or both of the extant writings upon an original now lost (p. 260, n. 12). It is easy to see that this and many other of Gieseler’s proofs are inconclusive; but for all that it is not to be denied that Geiseler made a more serious attempt than did Herder to treat the problem from a thoroughly historical point of view, and that he called attention to facts which deserve more consideration than the doubtful speculations of a critique which does not get beyond counting words, and which does not have even a perverted historical sense. G. Wetzel (n. 11) called his theory an improvement upon Gieseler’s “tradition- hypothesis.” Unlike Gieseler, who accepted the tradition regarding the origin of the Gospels, Wetzel rejected it altogether ; and without any attempt to explain its origin he replaced it with the following imaginary picture. The necessity came to be felt in the mother Church of giving the Hellenists (Acts vi. 1) who came to Jerusalem from outside Palestine, and who were therefore unfamiliar with the Gospel history, regular instruction in the same. This task was entrusted to the former tax-collector, Matthew, who was especially proficient in Greek. After this in- struction had been continued for years, it took on a fixed form, which was partly memorised by the hearers, and finally was committed to writing by not a few of them. In this way the numerous books of Luke i. 1 origin- ated, of which three have been preserved to us. This explains the agreements among the Gospels; the differ- ences, on the other hand, are exactly such as exist at the present time among the notes made of academic lectures. Even the most industrious student at times absents himself from lectures, and not every student com- prehends with entire correctness what he hears. Recently, K. Veit (n. 11), who rejects Wetzel’s “improvement,” has supplemented Gieseler’s hypothesis. in several points THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 411: Thus, he brings the analogy of rabbinic methods of teach- ing to bear with greater definiteness upon the problem as to how the disciples were taught by Jesus Himself, and how the apostles and other missionary preachers and the teachers in the local Church instructed the new converts. Further, he attempts to show, through numerous examples, how the tradition-hypothesis can be applied, not without trenchant critical remarks about current criticism of the Gospels. 6. Fr. Schleiermacher’s analysis of Luke (n. 12) was not planned to answer the whole question regarding the origin and relation of the synoptic Gospels, though this work is based upon a complete view of the problem. [0 made little impression, for the simple reason that Schleier- macher’s fundamental idea, which involved a discussion also of Acts, was only incompletely worked out in this first publication upon the subject, and because the exposition. of the general theory from the detailed observations, and even a discussion of the same in relation to Luke’s preface, was for the time being postponed, According to Schleier- macher, the bond of connection among the Gospels—the basis and the beginning of the entire Gospel literature— was neither an oral nor a written Gospel, nor the use of earlier Gospels in the composition of later ones, but a large number of short written narratives. Schleiermacher’s new interpretation of Papias’ testimony regarding Matthew and Mark had more effect. That up to the year 1832 no one had doubted that Papias meant our Matthew and Mark, Schleiermacher found incomprehensible. ΑἸ] that Papias knew of Matthew was a collection of Jesus’ sayings which Matthew wrote down in Hebrew. Papias’ says nothing of a translation of Matthew’s Gospel into Greek, but speaks only of a number of recensions of this collec- tion of sayings,—the Aöyıa, so celebrated later. One of these recensions is preserved in our Matthew, and others, as for example the different Gospels used by the Jewish 412 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Christians, are known to some extent from several reports of the Church Fathers. Of Matthew, chaps. v.-vii., x., xiii, 1-52, xviil. 23-25 belong to the collection of say- ings. Besides these chapters, there are other scattered fragments not so easy to separate from their context. Nor was Papias acquainted with our Mark, which does not suit his description, but with a writing of Mark much less complete, and showing much less order. This writing of Mark was worked over by a later hand into our Mark, apparently also by another hand into the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Thus Schleiermacher discovered an original Matthew and an original Mark, which opened the way for new combinations for the solution of the synoptic problem. 7. After the question raised by D. F. Strauss’ Leben Jesu (1835-36) as to whether the whole body of tradi- tions gathered in our Gospels was essentially mythical or historical; had awakened wide theological interest, F. Chr. Baur (n. 13), dissatisfied with the dogmatism of Strauss as well as of his opponents, also with the “ quantitative method” of Wilke, and all attempts to solve the problem in an artificial manner, undertook ‘to conceive the relation of the Gospels to one another as something which grew up naturally, the working out of a principle of inner development.” So long as the relation of the narrative to the consciousness of the narrators—the dominating idea, the tendenz of each one of the Gospels— is not made clear, “the discussion remains vague and un- certain.” Baur began with the Fourth Gospel, which pre- supposed the historical material of the Synoptists, but which nevertheless was subordinated and accommodated to the new conception of Christ as the eternal Logos by the selection of such parts of the same as were suited to the author's purpose. From John he proceeded to: the consideration of Luke, which was certainly older than John. Luke was edited, according to Baur, about 150, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 413 on the basis of an original Luke written in the spirit of Paul and retained by Marcion in his Church. Matthew was also used in its preparation, against which Gospel the original Luke was also supposed to have polemicised—the purpose of the redaction being to remove the sharp op- position between the extreme Paulinism of Marcion and the surviving Jewish construction of the Gospel, so far as this was possible from the point of view of a modified Paulinism. The only sources employed by, Mark, who proceeds from the opposite, originally Judaistic point of view, and who represents less a harmonising tendency than the disposition to remain actually neutral with reference to the great conflicting tendencies of the apostolic age, were Matthew and Luke, or the original Luke. The small amount of new material which Mark introduces, and the numerous small additions which he scatters here and there throughout his book, are merely amplifications, and have no historical value, being due partly to the author’s mis- understanding of his predecessors, and being partly in- ventions of the author, intended to create the impression of independent knowledge. Of the canonical Gospels, Matthew is the most original. It presents a picture of Christianity as it existed while still under the dominance of national ideas, which is the original form of Christianity as it emerged from Judaism. But the Gospel itself appears not to have been edited until during the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian, between 130 and 134, and is the result of a long process of literary development, the single steps of which can no longer be distinguished. The immediate predecessor of Matthew was a Hebrew Gospel which the Church tradition ascribed to the apostle Matthew, and which in a great variety of forms and under changing names was the only Gospel in existence until toward the middle of the second century. To use a short inaccurate expression, this was the (Gospel of the Hebrews. Like Schwegler, Baur declined to refer the particularistie Jewish 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT features of Matthew to the Hebrew Gospel, and to assign the words and narratives universal in tone to the redactor of the Gospel, on the ground that even the Hebrew Gospel may have contained “purer elements” and because’ the principle by which “the apparently disparate elements ‘of Matthew” could be united was to be found in early Christianity itself (Unters. der kan. Evv. 8. 578 f., 613 ff). Hilgenfeld, on the other hand, undertook to distineuish in our Matthew an original apostolic document written in a thoroughly Jewish spirit, which he supposes to have been worked over in a more universalistic spirit by a Hellenist, apparently in Egypt, after the year 70 (n. 13). At first Hilgenfeld rejected the ancient tradition of ἃ Hebrew Matthew as purely legendary, holding even the original document to have been a Greek work, which was the basis also of the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews. Later, however, he became convinced of the original character of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which he then made the real original Gospel. While Mark, which Baur treated so contemptuously, is, to be sure, wholly dependent upon the Greek Matthew, it is nevertheless to be restored to its old place between the Greek Matthew and Luke. This is also the opinion of C. Holsten, who abandoned all effort to determine more exactly the character of the document at the basis of the canonical Matthew, which he also assumed, and attempted to explain the origin of the synoptic Gospels from the conflicting dogmatic tendencies of the apostolic age (n. 13). 8. Without any knowledge of Wilke’s work, which appeared at about the same time, Chr. H. Weisse (n. 14), who was influenced by Strauss’ Leben Jesu to make a new investigation of the sources of the Gospel history, under took to show that our Mark is none other than the work commented upon by Papias and the presbyter John. Though at this particular point Weisse rejects entirely Schleiermacher’s interpretation of Papias’ testimony, and THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 415 does not leave uncriticised his interpretation of what Papias says regarding Matthew, he appropriates, never- theless, the essential result of Schleiermacher’s critique, namely, his discovery of the collection of Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic from Matthew's hand. From these two original works Luke, the disciple of Paul, compiled his Gospel without’ much independent knowledge of the tradition, while somewhat later the Greek redactor of the original Matthew enlarged the collection of sayings into our Matthew by the use of material borrowed from Mark. After the number of those accepting the originality of Mark and its priority to Matthew had become greater, and after A. Ritschl had broken with his master Baur, in his view of the Gospels, as in other points, and gone over to the Mark hypothesis, H. J. Holtzmann, following up this hypothesis, was courageous enough to describe minutely the sources from which the synoptic Gospels are supposed to have been put together,—their character and compass,— and also to attempt practically a verbal restoration of the same (n. 14). One of the original documents at the basis of all three Gospels, employed by each of the evangelists without the knowledge that the others had used it, is pre- served in our Mark in practically complete form and throughout in its proper order. This we may call the original Mark: since the only changes which the author made in his original was to abbreviate the same at the beginning, i. 1-13, and at certain other points, and to omit certain passages, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the account of the centurion (Luke vi. 20-vii. 10) after Mark iii. 19 (no one knows why), and, because of its objec- tionable character, the narrative found in John vn. 53—viil. 11, which Hitzig places after Mark xu. 17. Also a large part of the material peculiar to Mark, which is not great, is taken from the original Mark—particularly the accounts of healing, Mark vii. 31-37, viii. 22-26, but also many of the little details which enliven Mark’s narratives. Unless INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT interpreted too strictly, Papias’ testimony regarding Mark suits this original Mark in a general way. Also what Papias says of a collection of sayings by Matthew meets the requirement of the hypothesis, and gives a show of appropriateness to the expression Adya, chosen to desig- nate the second principal source, the use of which on the part of Matthew and Luke is supposed to explain agree- ments between these two Gospels which are not. due to their common dependence upon the original Mark. This remarkable book contained only a number of the dis- courses, for the most part the shorter discourses, of Jesus, Moreover, these discourses, part of which were provided with titles and short historical introductions, belonged ex- clusively to the later Galilean ministry, and were subse- quent to the call of Matthew, and the choosing of the apostles (Holtzmann, Synopt. Hvv. 1863, 8. 252, ef. 8. 8651}. But the very first long discourse, which is sup- posed to have followed the choosing of the apostles in the original Mark, was wanting in the Matthew Logia. In contrast to the original Mark, this did not begin with the testimony of the Baptist concerning Jesus, but with his doubting question (Luke vii. 18-35 ; Matt. xi. 2-19), and ended with a series of parables; at the very close stood probably the saying which we find in Matt. xiii, 52. As in the case of the earlier Galilean ministry, so from the period, of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem and the Passion the author preserves no sayings. He is extremely careful in other respects, also, not to repeat anything already con- tained in the original Mark. Although we are able to form a much better idea of the arrangement and original wording of the Logia from Luke than from Matthew, still, without exception, the apostolic Church transferred Matthew's name from the Logia, of which he was the author, not to Luke’s Gospel, but to Matthew. Material in Matthew and Luke, derived neither from the Logia nor from the original Mark, was produced for the most part THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 417 by the evangelists themselves, being either put into writing by them for the first time from the oral tradition, as Matt. xvii. 24-27, or worked over on the basis of older and shorter documents—as the genealogies and several parts of the Sermon on the Mount—or pure invention—as the sending out of the Seventy (Luke x. 1), which Luke fabricated because he did not want the same commission, which he found in both his sources, to be addressed twice to the same hearers. These are the main features of the hypothesis. Later modifications of details by Holtzmann himself, Weizsäcker, and others cannot be presented here. 9. Finally, the independent view of B. Weiss, which, during an entire generation, its author, with great persist- ence, has worked out in all its details, deserves notice (n. 15). The original Gospel, so vainly sought since Eichhorn, is a book written by the apostle Matthew in Aramaic, but very soon translated into Greek. Though consisting for the most part of discourses and sayings of Jesus, naturally with the indispensable historical setting, this document contained also a considerable number of narrative pieces, even groups of such, and so in its original form was a work very much like our Gospels, covering the period from the appearance of the Baptist to the beginning of the history of the Passion, concluding somewhere about Matt. xxvi. 2-13. The question arises at once why the history of the Passion, where, so far as we can see, the narratives in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are related to each other in essentially the same way as in the preceding parts of the history, should have been omitted from the original apostolic document. Practically the only answer which Weiss gives to this question is the statement that a presentation of the Passion history, differing so radically from that of the Fourth Gospel as do all three synoptic accounts, could not have originated from an apostle. The original document, already translated into Greek, was one of the sources used by Mark; the others were the oral VOL, II, 27 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT narratives of Peter. The author of the canonical Matthew used as sources the original Gospel and Mark. Mark had therefore always the choice between two apostolic author- ities, one written, the other oral; whereas the author of the canonical Matthew must select between the statements of an apostolic document and the work of a disciple of one of the apostles. The reason for this entire theory is the observation that sometimes Matthew, sometimes Mark, gives the impression of the greater originality ; for this is supposed to be explained by assuming that in some cases Matthew preserved the original apostolic document more faithfully than Mark, while in other instances he followed Mark’s account. Finally, Luke, who knew nothing of the canonical Matthew, and who, therefore, could not possibly have used the same, made copious use of the original apostolic document in addition to Mark, which he made the basis of his Gospel, and another source, probably written, which can no longer be distinguished with exact- ness. Particularly in vi. 20—viii. 8, and ix. 51—xvin. 14; large sections of the original documents were adopted by Luke; and, so far as we are able to make comparisons with . Matthew, these are reproduced for the most part in a more original form. Up to the present time no one of the investigations of the synoptic problem can be said to have produced results which ‘have been generally accepted, or that can lay well- grounded claims to such acceptance. In one point only is there agreement, namely, that it is impossible to set forth the history of the origin of the first three Gospels in a satisfactory manner on the basis of reliable reports and trustworthy observations ; that, rather, gaps remain in our knowledge based upon these two classes of data, which must be filled up by conjecture. There is no hope that the question as to which one of the conjectures made here- tofore or to appear in the future comes nearest to the truth will be decided by a new display of cleverness on THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 419 the part of representatives of one of these hypotheses in working it out in detail, so that it shall appear to all capable judges to be the simplest solution of the problem. On the other hand, there is no reason to despair of a solution, at least not on the part of one convinced of these two sets of given facts, which can be ascertained without the help of hypotheses, namely, (1) that the tradition regarding the origin of the Gospels goes back to the time of their origin, (2) that the three books in our possession are as yet far from being adequately under- stood and estimated. With reference to the tradition, the boldest of the critics, with a few unhappy exceptions, have shown enough historical sense to seek support for their hypotheses in the oldest notices regarding the origin of the Gospels, though, to be sure, for the most part selecting arbitrarily what suited their own purposes. Thanks also to fortunate discoveries and the investigations stimulated by such discoveries, we are in possession of more thorough knowledge of the Gospel literature of the second century than was possible for Lessing and Herder, Schleiermacher and Baur, Credner and Bleek. We really know more than did these investigators about Marcion’s Gospel, Tatian’s Diatessaron, the Gospel “according to the Hebrews,” and the Gospel “ according to Peter.” Nevertheless, it is true that many critics do not seem to have kept abreast. of the advances in knowledge indicated above. Besides, very often it has not been appreciated that the tradition is either to be accepted as a whole, or the error of such parts of the same as do not deserve acceptance plausibly shown. With reference to the second point mentioned above, namely, the proper valuation of the Gospels as literary products, it is true that serviceable work in this direction has been done. But little use has been made of these results in the investigation of the origin of the Gospels, because of a one-sided tendency in this investigation to make conjectures regarding the sources supposed to be at 420 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT . the basis of the Gospels, without adequate knowledge of the characteristics of each separate Gospel. On the other hand, the method of a comparative interpretation of the general content of the synoptic Gospels—a method em- ployed in the earlier period by Calvin and Gerhard, and among the pioneers of the new criticism of the Gospels used and recommended especially by Griesbach, and absolutely demanded by Wilke—had a positively harmful effeet with reference to this question, tending especially to confuse and to bewilder those beginning the investigation for the first time. How is it possible to understand an author when he is interrupted after every third word! How «an one writ- ing be compared with another when each is not known by itself as its author intended, and consequently not under- stood in its details! Irenzeus speaks of teachers who read to their hearers from unwritten books, and ealls such a procedure “making ropes out of sand” (i. 8. 1). In our time we have commentaries on books, the existence of which, to express the matter mildly, can be proved only by means of conjecture. 1. (P. 401.) In connection with Burgon’s pioneer investigation in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, 1871, pp. 126-131, 295-312, the writer has carefully discussed the Diatessaron of Ammonius, Forsch. i. 31-34, ef. S. 1, 99, 101-104, 293; ThLb, 1896, S. 3f. Cf. also Schmidtke, Die Evv. eines alten Uncialcodex, 1903, S. xxxii. ff. The only direct source of our knowledge of the work of Ammonius is Eusebius’ introduction to his edition of the four Gospels—an introduction composed in the form of a letter to Carpianus, and arranged according to the method developed in the Gospels themselves. This is printed in many editions of the N.T., eg. the Tischendorf-Gregory edition, Prol. p. 145. The κανόνες, arranged by Eus.—i.e. catalogues, tabular statements (Grundriss, 6f.), are ten in number; the first embraces the sections which are common to all four Gospels, 2-4 those which, are contained in three Gospels, 5-9 those contained in two Gospels, and 10, in four subdivisions, those which are found in but one Gospel. The κεφάλαια or περικοπαί (Eusebius uses both expressions), which were long mistakenly called sectiones Ammoniane, are 355 in Matt., 233 in Mark (later inereased to 241 or 242 in consideration of the spurious additions), 342 in Luke, and 232 in John, in all 1162—a number which is given also by Epiphanius in his Ancorites, chap. 1., and Cesarius in his Dialogue, i. 39; cf. Gregory, 143. Eusebius reckoned 74 sections which were found in all the Gospels, 111 only in Matt., Mark, Luke; 22 in Matt., Luke, John; 25 in Matt, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 421 Mark, John ; 82 only in Matt., Luke ; 47 only in Matt., Mark ; 7 in Matt. John; 13 in Mark, Luke; 21 in Luke, John; 62 in Matt.; 19 in Mark. 72 in Luke; 96 in John alone. The so-ealled Gospel harmonies, at the head of which stands Tatian’s Syriac Diatessaron, were primarily for eccles- iastical use, and not for scholarly purposes, like the works of Ammonius and Eusebius ; ef. PRE?, v. 653-661. That of J. Clericus, however (Harmonia Evangeliorum, Amstelod. 1699, reprinted without the Greek text, Lyon, not Leyden, 1700), forms a transition to the synopses, in so far as it prints the text of the four Gospels in parallel columns. The real beginning in this direction was made by J. Griesbach, Synopsis Evangeliorum Matth. Marc. Luc. 1776, which was intended to serve as a basis for exegetical lectures on these three Gospels, which were then called synoptic Gospels. Among many subsequent works should be mentioned the Synopsis Evangelica of Tischendorf, first published in 1851, in which the entire text of the fourth Gospel is again included ; that of Anger (1851), which takes from John only the few real parallels to the text of the first three Gospels, and is, moreover, distinguished by a wealth of citations and parallels from the apocryphal and patristic literature of the second century (a book which deserves as do few to be reissued, with such alterations and extensions as time demands); and, finally, the handsomely printed Synopticon, An Exposition of the Common Matter of the Synoptic Gospels, by W. G. Rushbrooke, London, 1880, and a supplementary volume (without mention of the year) with appendices—(a) The Double Tradition of St. Matthew and St. Luke ; (b) The Single Tradition of Matthew ; (c) The Single Tradition of Luke. Finally, A. Wright, The Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, with various readings and critical notes, 2nd ed., London, 1903. 2. (P. 402.) Famous examples of the harmonistics of the ancient Church are the discussions of the Last Supper in the Easter controversies about 190 ; Africanus’ letter to Aristides on the genealogies of Matt. and Luke ; Eusebius’ work, de Evangeliorum διαφωνίᾳ (Jerome, Vir. Ill. Ixxxi.; Eus. Quest. ad Stephamum, ad Marinum) ; the unfortunate attempts of Epiphanius in many places in his writings, especially in his article on the Alogi (Her. li.) ; and Augustine, de Consensu Evangeliorum. 3. (P. 402.) When Eusebius remarks that one evangelist supplements another (e.g. in a Syriac fragment in Mai, Nova P. Bibl. iv. 1. 279 : “ What Matthew omitted and did not say Luke relates, and what the latter does not tell the former does”; cf. pp. 229, 265 f.), he simply states the actual condi- tions, not the conscious procedure of the evangelists. Epiphanius does speak of the supplementing of each Gospel by the one following, but it is the Spirit which “compels” the writers to all their work, and to this connection with their predecessors (Her. li. 7, 12, cf. 6). Chrysostom, who emphasises the chronological succession of the Gospels, is the first to explain the brevity of Mark as designed in view of the already extant, fuller, and in many ways exhaustive presentation of Matt., though he gives it also as an additional reason that Mark depended on Peter, a man of few words, while Luke reproduced the fuller current of Paul’s speech (Hom. iv. in Matt., Mont. vii. 46). He has no thought of an actual use of the earlier Gospel in the composition of the later ; on the contrary, he finds the little discrepancies between them a valuable proof that they were not written according to some 422 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT questionable agreement, but that each evangelist told the simple truth to the best of his knowledge (Hom. i. p. 5f.), Augustine (de Consensu Ev. i. 2. 4) goes further: “ Et quamvis singuli suum quemdam narrandi ordinem tenuisse videantur, non tamen unusquisque eorum velut alterius precedentis ignarus voluisse scribere reperitur vel ignorata pretermisisse, que scripsisse alius invenitur, sed sicut unicuique inspiratum est, non superfluam cooperationem sui laboris adiunxit. Nam Matthaus suscepisse intelligitur incarnationem domini secundum stirpem regiam et pleraque secundum hominum preesentem vitam facta et dicta eius. Marcus eum subsecutus tamquam pedissequus et breviator eius videtur. Cum solo quippe Joanne nihil dixit, solus ipse perpauca, cum solo Luca pauciora, cum Mattheo vero plurima, et multa pene totidem atque ipsis verbis, sive cum solo, sive cum ceteris consonante (al. -ter). Lucas autem, etc. §5: Non autem habuit tamquam breviatorem coniunctum Lucas, sicut Marcum Matthzeus. Et hoc fortasse non sine aliquo sacramento,” etc. With regard to Matt., Mark, Luke (iii. 4. 13): “Tres igitur isti eandem rem ita narraverunt, sicut etiam unus homo ter posset cum aliquanta veritate, nulla tamen adversitate.” Mark’s close connection with Matt. is often further mentioned, eg. iii. 4. 11. For the understanding of this work (written about 400) it is essential to bear in mind that, as Burkitt has shown (The Old Latin and the Itala, 1896, pp. 59, 72-78; ef. ThLb, 1897, col. 374), Augustine had before him Jerome’s revision of the text of the Gospels, which was furnished with the Eusebian canons and sections. This arrangement of the Gospels, introduced by Jerome among the Latins, was plainly used by Augustine in his harmonistie work, as in Books um. and ım. he compares Matt. with the parallels by means of the double figures noted upon it and Canons i.-vii., and then in Book ΤΥ. goes through the portions peculiar to each Gospel according to Canon x. When he says of Mark (see above), cum solo Joanne nihil dixit, it is not the result of study, but simply of the fact that in Canons v.-ix. Eusebius provided for all possible combinations of two Gospels except Mark-John. Also, the remarks which follow were written with reference to the canons of Eusebius, or rather to a codex of the Gospels in the Vulgate, which lay open before him, and at the beginning of which he found Jerome’s letter to Damasus and the canons which it explained. This very circumstance is a new proof that Augustine used the Vulgate as the basis of his de Consensu Evangeliorum. 4. (P. 402.) Calvin in the argument of his commentary on the harmony of the synoptic Gospels (ed. Tholuck, i. p. 6), besides an incorrect statement about Jerome and an unfair judgment of Eusebius, delivers, quite without proof, his own opinion that Mark never saw Matt. and that Luke never saw Matt. or Mark. Much sounder was the judgment of H. Grotius, who wrote of the title of Matt. (ed. Windheim, i. 13); “Sicut autem Marcus usus est Matthzi Ebrao, ni fallor, codice, ita Marci libro Graco usus mihi videtur, quisquis is fuit, Matthei Grecus interpres.” On this R. Simon (Hist. du Teate du NT, 1689, p. 108) remarked that only conjectures were possible. 5. (P. 403.) Lessing, Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als bloss menschliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet, 1778; first published 1784 in Theol. Nachlass. Werke, ed. Lachmann-Maltzahn, xi. 2. 121-140. 6. (Ρ. 404.) Eichhorn first developed his view in 1794 in the Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, v. 759ff., then in amended form in his THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACIS 423 Einleitung, i. 1804, 2te Aufl. 1820. In the latter was included a defence against hypotheses which had appeared meanwhile. Aside from the arti- ficiality and pettiness of the treatment, which contrasts strongly with the broad conception of Lessing’s sketch, one is painfully impressed by two particulars—first, the statement of the advantage of “this discovery of the original Gospel ”in the “simplification of Christian doctrine for which German theology has been so earnestly striving for fifty years” (Einl. 2te Aufl. i. 445) ; and, secondly, an absolute silence with regard to Lessing, from whom Eichhorn derived the best of his material. After Herder (Vom Erlöser der Menschen, 1796, S. 174) had explained the true state of the case, it was not so much in order to herald Eichhorn as the founder of modern Gospel criticism, as to lament, with Herder, that Lessing did not work out his hypothesis himself. 7. (P. 405.) J. J. Griesbach first set forth his view briefly at the end of the Jena Easter Program for 1783 (Griesbachii Opusc. Acad., ed. Gabler, ii. 241-256: “Inquisitio in fontes, unde evangeliste suas de resurrectione domini narrationes hauserint”), and then developed it in detail in two Programs, 1789 and 1790: “ Commentatio, qua Marci ev. totum e Matthei et Luc» commentariis decerptum esse monstratur.” A revision, with a defence against criticisms which had been made meanwhile, appeared in Velthusen, Kuinoel, Ruperti, Comm. Theol. i. (1794), and was reprinted in Gabler, op. cit. 358-425. For his attitude toward Lessing, cf. S. 425. 8. (P. 405.) G. Herder, Vom Erlöser der Menschen nach den drei ersten Evv. 1796, 4 Abschnitt, S. 149-233 ; with more detail and definiteness in Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland nach Johannes’ Ev. 1797, 5. 303-416 (Herder’s Werke, ed. Suphan, xix. S. 194-225, 260 f., 380-424). The theory is presented in brilliant and yet shifting lights, which make a brief and accurate restatement difficult. For instance, it is not clear how Herder could decide so positively against an original writing no longer extant (xix. 417), and yet hold that the primarily oral evangelium commune was at once written down by many, if only for private use (xix. 205, 207 f., 394f., 408f.). He seems also not to have determined definitely in his own mind what part was to be assigned to Matthew in the first writing of the original Hebrew Gospel, or of the later Palestinian Gospel, written about 60, which underlay the Greek Matt. and even the last form of our present Matt. (xix. 205, 401). The later discussion no longer speaks of the original unwritten Gospel as a “sacred epic,” as does the earlier (199—in distinction from myth, 2 Pet. i. 16), nor of the evangelists, whose narrations are in part oral, as rhapsodists (214, 217). Herder’s protest against the idea of an “apostolic gospel-oflice” in Jerusalem (209f.), and much of what he says of the character of the individual Gospels, is excellent. G. Chr. Storr (1746-1805), Ueber den Zweck der ev. Geschichte und der Briefe des Johannes, 1786 ; De Fonte Evv. Mat. et Luc. 1794. F. Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Marcus wnd seine Schriften, 1843, should be named here rather than among those mentioned in note 9. Without attempting to solve the synoptic pro- blem, he undertook the defence of Mark against the unfavourable criticism which began with Griesbach, and by means of the supposition that 2 Cor. viii. 18 refers to Mark as the author of a Gospel, and that 1 Cor. vii. 10 presents a citation of Mark x. 1-12, was able to maintain that Mark had already begun to be circulated in 57 a.p., from which it then followed 424 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT naturally that it served as a source for Matt. and Luke (37-62, 167-173) The chief object of the book was to show that John Mark was the writer not only of the Gospel, but of Rev. also. 9. (P. 407.) Chr. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist oder exeg.-krit. Untersuchung über das Verwandschaftsverhältnis der drei ersten νυ. 1838. The number of those who have had the patience to read through this large book—almost 700 pages in extent—is probably not great. In its lack of historical perspective and vital ideas, as well as in its crude and self-sufficient spirit, which Wilke first introduced into the Gospel inquiry, it has not been without successors. Its only service is its opposition to Gieseler’s hypothesis (26-152). The short sections peculiar to Mark which he wished to excise as later interpolations (672 ff. ; cf. 323 ff., 463 ff., 552 f.) are for the most part the very ones which show us the individuality of Mark. Others are set aside in the most violent fashion. In Mark i. 13 the words πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ are an inter- polation from Luke iv. 2 and not proper to Mark; the interpolators were “clever enough,” however, to write the Markan σατανᾶς instead of the Lucan (e.g. 12) διάβολος (664 f.). “We give our hand and seal for all eternity that our result is correct” (684). Thus Wilke thought “to win the applause of impartial investigators of truth,” which he states (694) to be the object of his work. Bruno Bauer, Kritik der ev. Geschichte, Bde. i.-iii. 1841-42, 2te Aufl. 1846. G. Volkmar, Die Evv. oder Marcus und die Synopse, 1870, and a supple- ment with continuous paging, Die kanon. Synoptiker in Uebersicht mit Randglossen und das Geschichtliche vom Leben Jesu, 1876. ‘The Gospel books are allegorical narrative elaborations of the one Gospel of Jesus and the apostles” (S. vii). The chronological summary (viii) is quite convenient: (1) Mark, circa 73; (2) Genealogus Hebreorum, circa 80; (3) perhaps Evangelium Pauperum, Essenorum, cirea 80; (4) Luke, circa 100; (5) Matt. (the last of the Synoptists, as shown by Wilke, S. xi), circa 110 ; (6) Gospel of Peter, circa 130; (7) Marcion, 138 ; (8) Gospel of the Nazarenes according to the Twelve Apostles, circa 150 ; (9) Gospel of the Logos according to John, circa 155 ; (10) Gospel of the Egyptians, 160-170. On the other hand, Primitive Matt., Primitive Mark, Primitive Luke, Book of Maxims, ete,, are mere fancies. 10. (P. 408.) J. L. Hug (1765-1846), after an uncompleted first attempt which the present writer knows only from the preface of 1808, published his Einleitung entire in that year, 3te Aufl. 1826, on the Gospels, ii. 1-248. 11. (P. 408, 410.) J. ©. L. Gieseler, Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und die frühesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Eve. 1818 ; substantially published in 1817 in Keil and Tzschirner’s Analekten, vol. iii, To illustrate the evangelists’ accuracy of memory, Gieseler adduces (105 f:) Plato, Phedrus, p. 380; Cesar, Bell. Gall. vi. 14 (the Druids and their pupils); August. Doctr. Christ. i. 4 (St. Anthony) ; Gregor. Magn. Dial. iv. 14. He also calls to mind (60) the Rabbinic method of teaching before the writing of the Mishnah ; ef. Schürer, ii. 321-325, (Eng. trans.) ii. 1. 323-326. On the possibility of the oral perpetuation of whole books, ef. also Spiegel in ZDMG, ix. 178 ff. Wilke’s criticism (see note 9 above) appealed particularly to the Johannine parallels of the synoptic Gospels (John vi. 1-21, xii. 1=xiii. 30, xviii, 1-xx, 23), but also to the materials peculiar to John, which show that neither in the choice of materials nor in the form of their presentation had any such fixed and uniform type of narration been developed among the apostles as a com- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 4325 parison of the three synoptie Gospels on the supposition of their mutual independence would indicate to be their common basis. The Gospel frag- ments in Paul (1 Cor. xv. 3-7 and xi. 23-25 compared with the corrected text of Luke xxii. 15-20 and with Matt. xxvi. 26-29, Mark xiv. 22-25) afford similar evidence (see above, p. 380 ff.). Wilke was also right in observing (119) that from Papias’ comments on the discourses of Peter (Eus. H.E. iii, 39. 15) one obtains a very different idea of the Gospel narratives of an apostle from that involved in an unwritten primitive Gospel. G. Wetzel, Die synoptischen Evv. eine Darstellung und Prüfung der wichtigsten über die Entstehung derselben aufgetretenen Hypothesen mit selbständigem Versuch zur Lösung der symopt. Evangelienfrage, 1883. K. Veit, Die synopt. Parallelen und ein alter Versuch threr Enträtselung mit neuer Begründung ; two parts in one volume, 1897, Part I. the text arranged in an interlinear. synopsis, Part m. an elucidation of the synoptic parallels. 12. (P. 411.) Fr. Schleiermacher, Ueber die Schriften des Lucas, ein krit. Versuch, first part (only), 1817; Werke, Zur Theol. vol. ii. 1-220. . Schleier- macher began with Hugand Eichhorn, who, in his opinion, admirably refuted each other ; before concluding he also noticed Gieseler’s work in its earliest form (note 11). He left uncertain especially whether and how far Luke found the single narratives already combined in larger groups, and so used collections which came into existence before our Gospels (S. 13=10). In the lectures on introduction, also (Werke, Zur Theol. iii. 233, 239), we are left in the dark as to how these detached fragments and the incomplete collections arising from them were related to the ‘‘combining Gospels,” of which, accord- ing to his prologue, Luke must already have known several. More im- portant is “ Ueber die Zeugnisse des Papias von unsern beiden ersten Evv.,” ThStKr, 1832, 8. 735-768; Werke, Zur Theol. ii. 361-392. 13. (P.412,414.) F.Chr. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanon. Evv., thr Verhältnis zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung, 1847 ; Das Marcusev. nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter, 1851 ; Christentum und Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2te Aufl. S. 23 ff., 73ff. In several respects Baur depended on the preliminary work of his pupils, such as Schwegler, Nachapostol. Zeit- alter, 1846; A. Ritschl, Das Ev. Marcions und das kanon. Lucasev. 1846, and various dissertations by E. Zeller. Following Baur, Hilgenfeld (Die Evv. nach ihrer Entstehung und ‘geschichtlichen Bedeutung, 1854) sought to lessen the emphasis on the ecclesiastical and dogmatic tendency of the Gospels, and to push their origin further back, the document underlying Matt. about 50-60 (S. 115), our Matt. about 70-80 (103), Mark shortly before 100 (148), Luke about 100-110 (224). The discussions in which he developed and _ partly modified his view are indicated in his Hinl. 462. While Dr. Fr. Strauss in his new Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk, 1864, S. 98 ff., and Th. Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, i. 1867, S. 44-103, agreed substantially with Baur’s view and Griesbach’s conclusion with regard to Mark, Hilgenfeld did Mark more justice, and also recognised the traditional account in so far as he allowed that Mark was written in Rome “under the influence of Petrine tradition,” and even held it possible that, if Mark was still living at the time when the Gospel named for him was written (in the early part of Domitian’s reign, say 81-85, Hinl. 517), he was, not perhaps its author, but its author’s sponsor (Einl. 518). C. Holsten, Die drei ursprünglichen, noch ungeschriebenen 426 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Ew. Zur synopt. Frage, 1883 ; Die synopt. νυ. nach der Form ihres Inhalts, 1885, again undertook to explain the dissimilarity of the first three Gospels wholly on the basis of the dogmatic principles which dominated the apostolic time, and their agreement in material and form on the theory that Mark remodelled Matt. and that Luke worked over Matt. and Mark together. The three forms of the unwritten Gospel are: (1) the Jewish-Christian, which Peter preached until he lapsed into Judaism, a.p. 52-53 ; (2) that of Paul; (3) the anti- Pauline Gospel of the Judaisers. Our Matt. corresponds throughout with the first. Only Matt. v. 17-19 comes of a Judaising spirit foreign to that of Matt., perhaps from a Greek adaptation of the Aöyıa of which Papias speaks, or from the original Gospel of Matt. or Gospel of the Hebrews, which was written at the time when Judaism was dominant in Jerusalem (53-70 a.p.), perhaps as early as 55, and apparently by the apostle Matthew (op. cit. 1883, 5. 63, A. 2; 1885, S. 174 ff). How and where the original Petrine Gospel maintained its existence after Peter’s own lapse, so as to be revived after the destruction of the temple and reduced to writing in our Matt.; how the fertile author of this much more anti-J udaistic than anti-Pauline book could commit the folly of putting crass Judaism and the bluntest condemnation of lawless Paulinism in the mouth of Jesus, in only one passage, to be sure, but so significant a passage as v. 17-19; how the name of Matthew became affixed to a Gospel which with respect to the discourses of Jesus stands in sharp contrast to Matthew’s Judaistic collection, and betrays its dependence on such a source in but one passage ; how as early as 100 not this Petrine Matt. but Mark was connected with Peter,—these and other questions are not even raised. Matt. would be unacceptable to the Gentile Christian Churches, which would not abandon Paul’s Gospel. To leave room for this, Mark is composed about 80 from the material of Matt. In place of the legal Sermon on the Mount appears the διδαχὴ καινή, Mark i. 27, ae. the Gospel of Paul, while ix. 30-32 betrays the opinion that by their failure to understand Jesus’ death on the cross the first apostles were hampered in any complete understanding of the Gospel as a whole. At the beginning of the second century, when, through the simultaneous use of Matt.and Mark, Jewish Christian as well as Pauline ideas had struck root in the Churches, Paulinism had weakened, and circumstances called for the union of all Christians, a typical representative of these conditions worked Matt. and Mark into one, making use also of the oral tradition, which was not yet quite spent. This is the origin of Luke. 14, (P. 414,415.) The more important works referred to under No, 8 above (p. 414 f.)are : Chr. H. Weisse, Die ev. Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bear- beitet, 2 Bde. 1838 ; Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwirtigem Stadium, 1856. A. Ritschl, “Ueber den gegenwärtigen Stand der Kritik der synopt. Evv.” in the Theol. Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1851, S. 481-538. H.J. Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evv., ihr Ursprung wnd geschichtlicher Charakter, 1863 ; he also pursued the subject in a number of later essays, and gave a convenient summary in his Hand-Commentar’, 1. 1892, S.1-13. C. Weizsiicker, Untersuch- ungen über die ev. Geschichte, ihre Quellen und den Gany ihrer Entwicklung, 1864. In independent acceptance of the “two source theory,” Wendling, Urmarkus, Versuch einer Wiederherstellung der ältesten Mitteilungen über das Leben Jesu, 1905, has recently undertaken an analysis of Mark according to THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 427 which three elements are to be clearly distinguished: (1) M!=a collection of sayings of Jesus in a brief but distinct narrative setting, beginning with i. 9, 16 (ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Naf. τ. Tadv\aias καὶ παράγων κτλ.) and ending with xv. 34, 37 (καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ Spa ὁ ᾿Ιησοὺῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν) (2) M?=narratives of miracles of Jesus in extended description, which is in part highly poetical, beginning with i. 4, closing with xvi. 8; (3) additions of the editing evangelist, e.g. i. 1-3, 14, 15, iii. 6-30, iv. 10-25, etc., naturally also xiii, 3-27. 15. (P. 417.) B. Weiss first developed his view in ThStKr, 1861, S. 29 ff., “Zur Entstehungsgesch. der drei synopt. Evv.”; JbfDTh, 1864, S. 49 ff. “Die Redestücke des apostolischen Mt.”; vbid. 1865, S. 319, “Die Erzäh- lungsstücke des apostolischen Mt.”; then in his commentaries: Das Marcusev. und seine synopt. Parallelen, 1872; Das Matthäusev. und seine Lucas- Parallelen, 1876, and in his comprehensive works, e.g. in his Einl.® 1897, S. 453-560. $ 51. THE TRADITION REGARDING MARK AND HIS GOSPEL. John, with the surname Mark (n. 1), was the child of a Christian household in Jerusalem. In this home a large body of Christians were gathered for prayer at the time of the Passover—probably on the night of the Pass- over feast in the year 44 (Acts xii. 12). Since Mark’s mother, Mary, is mentioned as the owner of this house, it may be regarded as certain that his father, whose name we do not know, was no longer living. Mark must have been grown up at the time and a member of the Church, since Paul and Barnabas, who visited Jerusalem shortly afterward, took him with them to Antioch, evidently with the intention of making use of his services in their work (Acts xii. 25). According to the usage of the apostolic age, the characterisation, “my son,” employed by Peter some twenty years later (1 Pet. v. 13), can hardly mean anything else than that Mark was converted through Peter's influence, and possibly also baptized by him (n. 2). With this agrees the express statement of Papias, that Mark did not hear the Lord’s preaching, nor accompany Him as a disciple, but that he sustained a relation of this kind only to Peter (see below in text, and n. 14). This 428 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT proves that the view which appeared in the fourth century, according to which Mark was one of the Seventy (Luke x. 1),is a fable (n. 3). If the statement which Paul makes incidentally, to the effect that Mark was a cousin of Bar- nabas (Col. iv. 10), is to be taken to mean that they were cousins on their fathers’ side, Mark, like Barnabas, was a Levite (Acts iv. 36), and, from this point of view, there would be nothing to prevent us from accepting the ancient tradition that Mark cut off his thumb in order to make himself ineligible to priestly service. The nickname “stump fingered,” given Mark on this account, was com- monly known at the beginning of the third century in Rome, where we should most naturally expect to find genuine traditions concerning Mark (n. 4). In this same quarter, according to the most probable emendation and interpretation of the beginning of the Canon Muratori, we meet the report that Mark had become acquainted with a number of the facts recorded by him through personal experience, though in general he had not heard Jesus’ words nor witnessed his deeds (n. 5). The Frag- mentist adds that Mark also presented these facts as he learned them. When we reflect how slightly noticeable the traces of first-hand knowledge in Mark really are,—if indeed they exist at all,—further, how late and with how much uncertainty it came to be suspected that the author was concealed in xiv. 51 (n. 6), and, finally, how little inclination and capability the commentators of the ancient Church showed in following up hints of this character in the N.T., it must be regarded as extremely improbable that the definite statement of the Fragmentist is the result of clever exegesis. It is far more likely to have been a reproduction of a tradition still current in Rome about the year 200. | And, then, what is there to prevent the gon of a Christian household in Jerusalem, who, in 44, was perhaps thirty or thirty-five years of age, from having witnessed some of the scenes in Jesus’ life in the year 30, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 429 without his having been at the time one of those: who heard and believed Jesus’ preaching’ According. to another tradition (n. 7), the beginnings and development of which are as yet only imperfectly cleared up, Jesus celebrated His last Passover with His disciples (Mark xiv. 14) in the home of Mark and his mother (Acts xi. 12), where also the apostles were gathered with the women on the day of the ascension (Acts i. 13), and where the Spirit was poured out (Acts 11. 2). Without any legendary help concerning the place where these events occurred, this combination might have been made by a comparison of the texts, beginning with Acts xii. 12 and going backwards in the accounts. But this furnishes no occasion for suspecting the tradition of the Canon Muratori or the interpretation of Mark xiv. 51 ἢ, which identifies the individual there mentioned. with the evangelist. [ἢ the stories about the house of Mark the latter is occasion- ally identified with the person referred to in xiv. 13, but not with the youth in Mark xiv. 51 (n. 7). If Mark came to Antioch in 44 with his cousin Bar- nabas and Paul, and if they took him along on their first missionary journey perhaps in the year 50 (Acts xiii. 5), we may assume that he helped them during the intervening years in their work as missionary preachers and teachers in the Church of Antioch (Acts xi. 26, xiii. 1), just as he did on the first missionary journey. He is not mentioned in Acts xii. 1 among the teachers and prophets of the Antiochian Church, nor is he characterised in ΧΙ]. 5 as a preacher of the gospel having the same rank as Paul and Barnabas, but as one helping these two missionaries in their preaching in a comparatively subordinate position. He had a part in the work of missionary preaching (Acts xv. 38; Philem. 24), but as a servant of the missionaries, who “took him with them” (Acts xv. 37f.). The repre- sentation of Mark’s relation to the missionaries in Acts differs manifestly from the manner in which the part 430 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT taken in Paul’s preaching by Silvanus and other helpers is described in Acts xvi. 6, 10, 13, 82, xvii. 4,2 Cor. i, 19; 1 Thess. 1. 5 ff. On the other hand, it is in very striking agreement with what Paul says of Mark shortly before his own death, ἔστιν γάρ μοι εὔχρηστος eis διακονίαν (2 Tim. iv. 11, above, p. 371). The best way in which to explain this peculiar relation is to suppose that Mark, the spiritual son of Peter, and the son of a Christian house- hold in Jerusalem in which a part of the mother Church was accustomed to assemble, could supply something which Paul lacked and which Barnabas, who left Jerusalem and entered the foreign missionary work much earlier than Mark, did not possess in the same measure, namely, a treasure of narratives from the lips of Peter and of other disciples of Jesus, who were accustomed to come and go in his mother’s house. This knowledge of the details of the Gospel history (τῶν περὶ τοῦ ’Inood, above, p. 377, n. 2) must have been an invaluable help to the missionaries. Mark was better suited to be their ὑπηρέτης than were others, but appears to have lacked the dash and courage for the prosecution of the missionary work. When it was decided to press forward from Cyprus into Asia Minor, he separated himself from the missionaries and returned to his mother in Jerusalem (Acts xi. 13), apparently from Paphos. A year later, however, we find him again in Antioch, though it is not indicated who it was that induced him to return thither (Acts xv. 37-39). Here a separation took place between Paul and Barnabas on Mark’s account, Paul holding that his conduct on the first journey showed him to be unfitted for missionary service, and construing Barnabas’ milder judgment in the case as due to his partiality for his cousin. In consequence, Paul took Silas and went to Asia Minor, while Barnabas and Mark returned to Cyprus, Barnabas’ home. Here we lose trace of them; in fact, we do not hear of Barnabas again (vol. i, 433, n. 5). In the year 62 or 63, Mark appears THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 431 again in Rome as one of the two Jewish missionaries, the method of whose work gave the apostle joy, in contrast to that of the other Jewish missionaries there (Col. iv. 10; vol. 1. 450, n. 4). Paul is able to count him among his fellow-workers in Rome (Philem. 24). All traces of a strained relation between the two men has vanished. Since Mark had planned for some time to travel to the Fast, and on the occasion of this journey to visit also the interior of Asia Minor, Paul had commended him to the kindly reception of the readers of Colossians, to whom Mark had remained personally unknown, even before the letter was despatched in which the commendation is re peated (Col. iv. 10). We have no reason to doubt that Mark actually made this journey. A year or two later he is again in Rome along with Peter (1 Pet. v. 13). The fact that, with the exception of the greeting from the whole Roman Church to the Christians in Asia Minor, Mark’s is the only greeting which Peter sends, proves that in the interval between his two residences in Rome, Mark had become acquainted with at least part of the Churches in Asia Minor. Whether he made his second journey to Rome in company with Peter, and whether he left Rome again after Peter’s death in consequence of the Neronian persecution, we do not know; but that he did both it is only natural to conjecture (above, p. 161 f.). At all events he was again in the East, apparently in Asia Minor, in 66, when Paul wrote his last letter to Timothy, in which he commissioned him to bring Mark with him to Rome, thinking that he could make further use of his services, even in his present condition (2 Tim. iv. 11). The tradi- tion, according to which Mark preached the gospel in Egypt and became the first bishop of Alexandria, is ancient and very little contradicted, so that it is to be given a certain amount of eredence ; though its date and cireum- stances cannot be determined with exactness (n. 8). In two passages of his Hypotyposes which are mutually 432 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT supplementary, Clement of Alexandria gives us an account of the origin of Mark’s Gospel with numerous details, which he had learned, probably, from one of his teachers (n. 9). Although one of these reports is only a Latin translation and the other is preserved only in indirect discourse, still they suffice to show the inaccuracy of an account of Eusebius (n. 10) for which the latter quotes the authority of Clement and also of Papias. According to Clement, during the time that Peter was engaged in publicly preaching the gospel in Rome, persons of eques- trian rank belonging to the royal court, who had heard Peter's preaching, requested Mark to write down what Peter had spoken, inasmuch as he had been associated with Peter from an early date, and therefore had his discourses in memory, in order that they too might impress the same upon their memories, and when the Gospel was completed to give the same over to those who had made this request of him. When Peter learned of this he neither hindered nor encouraged Mark in the undertaking. Notwithstand- ing this attitude of Peter, Mark complied with the request and wrote his Gospel, following Peter's narratives. On the other hand, according to Eusebius’ presentation, Peter learned of the matter through a special revelation, where- upon he expressed his gratification at the zeal of those with whose wishes Mark complied, and, finally, approved of the Gospel after its completion, formally appointing it to be read in the Churches (n. 10), In contrast to this account of Eusebius, that of Clement is especially notice- able, on account of the very indifferent attitude which it makes Peter take toward the committing of his Gospel to writing by Mark. Eusebius’ presentation belongs to the time when the word “ Gospel” suggested at once a book, and when no effort was spared to exalt the authority of the written word ; whereas Clement’s account is in harmony with the spirit of an age when the unwritten form of the Gospel was dominant, and when the beginnings of a written THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 433 Gospel in existence at the time were scarcely noticed ($ 48). Further, according to Clement, Peter’s judgment did not have reference to the book after its completion, but to Mark’s work in its inception. Even if it were possible grammatie- ally to take Clement’s account to mean that Peter did not learn of the matter until after Mark had written his Gospel and placed it in the hands of those who had requested its composition (n. 9), what is said of Peter’s attitude is en- tirely against this construction of the passage. After a book has been composed and published it is possible to commend or to blame the person responsible, but not to hinder (κωλύειν) or encourage him (προτρέπεσθαι). What Peter noticed or learned from others were the transactions between those who heard his preaching and his disciple Mark leading up to the composition of a Gospel by Mark, and besides this, at most, the inception of the work by Mark. Then it was possible for Peter either to forbid the writing of such a book, or to add his request to that of his hearers and encourage Mark to compose a Gospel. He did neither, but let things take their own course. So understood, this account is not in irreconcilable contradiction with the statement of Irenzeus, that Mark published or gave his Gospel to the Church after the death of Peter and of Paul (pp. 393 f, 398, n. 7). Although the expression which Irenzeus uses with reference to Mark (τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν mapa- δέδωκεν) does not indicate so clearly as what he says about Matthew (γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν evayyediov) and John (ἐξέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), the publication of the completed Gospel, still this is in every respect the most natural way in which to understand his words. It may therefore very well be the case that Mark was requested to write his Gospel during Peter's stay in Rome, which possibly did not cover an entire year, and actually began the prepara- tion of the work during this time, and that he did not complete it until three years later, or, if the book was VOL. II. 23 434 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT never finished (§ 52), that he did not decide until then te publish it, ze, did not direct or allow the multiplication of copies for wider circulation. Irenzeus does not say expressly that Mark was written in Rome, but he takes for granted that this fact is known; for only on this pre- supposition can we understand why he sets its date after the death of the two apostles who laboured in Rome. At any rate, the tradition that Mark was written in Rome is not an invention of Clement or of his authorities. Evi- dently Papias had already borne witness to this fact (above, p. 163, and below, n. 10). This, for good reasons, was accepted generally (n. 11). The same is true of the connection between Mark’s Gospel and the narratives of Peter. The earliest witnesses for this connection are not Irenzeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, and later authors (n. 11), but, as will be shown immediately, it is attested as early as the close of the first century. Moreover, it is misleading to judge of this relation from short, incidental references, which because of their fragmentary character are easily misunderstood, instead of from the oldest accounts concerning it. What Clement says is not to the effect that Mark wrote down the sermons which Peter preached in Rome; any attentive hearer, who was able to write, could have done that equally as well as Mark. The reason why the request was made of Mark especially was rather because, unlike the Romans, who had become followers of Peter only recently, he had been his disciple for a long time, de. at a much earlier period had been associated with him, and had had abundant opportunity to hear and have impressed upon his memory Peter’s narratives. "This account is not, therefore, in any way contradictory of Mark’s personal history, according to which from 44 on he was constantly in the company of Paul or Barnabas, and, so far as we know, was not again in the constant companionship of Peter until 63 or 64 in Rome. In spite of this separation, he was and continued to be a “son ” of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 435 Peter, as it is quite possible that for a decade prior to his entrance upon foreign missionary service he had heard Peter’s narratives and addresses in his mother’s house (Acts zu. 12-17 5 ef. 1. 42, 46, v. 42). When he was privileged, two decades later, to rejoin Peter in Rome, all these recollections of his earlier years must have been re- newed, and of this experience his presentation of the Gospel facts must show traces, if the narrative was written in Rome at that time. The designation of the Gospel speeifi- cally as the Gospel of Peter, to be found as early as the time of Justin (n. 12), and employed by numerous writers of Tertullian’s time, was an abbreviated expression for this relation of Mark’s Gospel to Peter’s preaching and narra- tives. This form of expression did not, however, become established in the usage of the Church, and disagrees entirely with the oldest testimony concerning Mark, namely, that of Papias and of his teacher John, or simply “the Presbyter,’ as Papias calls him in the passage where he reproduces his opinion concerning Mark. The question, so long disputed, as to the identity of the presbyter John—whether he is the apostle John, as Irenzeus thought, or, as Eusebius claims to have discovered, a person bearing the same name, but to be distinguished from the apostle John—cannot be decided here in this incidental connection (n. 13). Every reader of Papias’ fragments, and everyone acquainted with the other traditions regarding the apostle, the author, and the teacher John, may be asked to give unconditional assent to the following statements : (1) Until toward the close of the first century there was living in Ephesus a John, who had attained an extreme old age, and who enjoyed the greatest distinction in the Church of the province of Asia, exercising a decisive influence upon its development. (2) Prominent among the personal dis- ciples of the same were Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, who likewise lived to a very great age, and was put to death by burning on the 23rd of February 155 ; and 436 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who lived at least until Hadrian’s time (117-138), and who apparently in his extreme old age, somewhere about the year 125, wrote his work, entitled λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις, in five volumes. (3) According to the unanimous tradition— whether this be biographical, having relation to his disciples; or of a literary and historical character, dealing with writings attributed to him ; or legendary, concerning his own person, —this teacher of Polycarp and of Papias was the only person bearing the name of John who, during the last decades of the first century, was in any way distinguished in the Churches of Asia Minor. Eusebius attempted to prove that, in addition to the apostle and evangelist John, whom with all the older tradition he identifies with the John of Ephesus and the teacher of Polycarp, there lived in Asia Minor a presbyter John, who was not an apostle, but the teacher of Papias. However, he went only half way with his criticism. The single John of Ephesus, whom the tradition knows, cannot be divided into two : the teacher of Polycarp cannot be separated from the teacher of Papias. Whether, on the other hand, the one John of Ephesus was one of the twelve apostles, 2.e. the son of Zebedee, or whether, in consequence of the similarity of name, he had been confused with him by the entire tradition before Eusebius’ time, cannot be decided merely by the interpre- tation of a fragment of Papias’ preface. The tradition of the Church concerning John of Ephesus is always open to different. interpretations, so that it must be left out of consideration, and the question decided primarily from the testimony of the writings themselves which are ascribed to this John (Part X.). (4) Asis shown by the very first men- tion of his name in Papias’ preface (ὁ πρεσβύτερος ᾿Ιωάννης, Bus. H. 45. iii. 39. 4; twice repeated by Eusebius in this form, §§ 7, 14, not ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ πρεσβύτερος), and still more elearly in Papias’ statement concerning Mark (καὶ τοῦτο ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε), the John to whom Papias refers was so THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 437 commonly called “ the elder” among his disciples that this expression, used as a title of honour for the aged teacher, could at times be employed instead of his own name. This fact is confirmed by the greetings of 2 John and 3 John; and the case is entirely analogous to that of Clement of Alex- andria, who was in the habit of citing one of his teachers— all of whom were dead, and whom he designates collectively as “the Elders”—simply as ὁ πρεσβύτερος or ὁ μακάριος πρεσβύτερος, without name or other definite designation. (5) The John of Papias, like a certain Aristion whom Papias mentions in the preface together with John, and who is frequently cited with him in the course of the work as authority for various traditions (op. cit. §§ 4, 7, 14), was a μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου. As is self-evident, this expression does not mean “a Christian” or “a true Christian,” but a personal disciple of Jesus. This is made clear beyond all doubt by the context; for immediately preceding is a list of names, beginning with Andrew and ending with Matthew, the whole concluding with the words 4 τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν. This is the only interpretation which corresponds to the usage of the second century. The reason why Papias does not call even Andrew and Peter apostles, is the fact that their significance for him— namely, their confirmation of the Gospel tradition as those who had heard and seen Jesus—had nothing to do with their apostolic office; for him, Aristion, who was not one of the apostles, was just as important a witness as the apostle Thomas, or indeed more so, since Papias had had no opportunity to see or hear Thomas, as he had Aristion. His point of view is that of one seeking trustworthy tradition concerning Jesus ; consequently he makes no dis- tinction between those who were apostles and those who were not apostles, but designates those who had seen and heard Jesus μαθηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου or πρεσβύτεροι respectively, according as he thinks of them in relation to Jesus or in relation to himself and the generation in which he lived. 438 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT The individual in question is therefore a Palestinian Jewish Christian settled in Asia Minor, and called John— in other words, according to the unanimous tradition of the second century, the apostle John, whose statements Papias cites in numerous passages of his work, partly as he heard them from John’s own lips, partly as they had come to him through other disciples of his. One of these citations made by Papias reads as follows : “ This also the Presbyter said (or, was accustomed to say), ‘Mark, who was (or, who became) an interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done, though this was not (set forth) in order’” (n. 14). Not only the formula with which the words of the Presbyter are introduced (καὶ τοῦτο ὁ πρεσ- βύτερος ἔλεγε), but also the way in which the Presbyter introduces Mark’s name (Μᾶρκος μέν), shows that in the preceding account by Papias there were other sayings of the Presbyter, which while dealing with related topies, having reference possibly to earlier records of Jesus’ sayings, did not concern Mark in particular. He is intro- duced in contrast to what precedes. The understanding of the concise opinion of the Presbyter is rendered some- what easier by the explanatory remarks which Papias adds directly after his teacher's words. These would be of still greater use to us if Eusebius had copied also the passage preceding the citation from the Presbyter, to which Papias refers expressly in this passage. Papias says as follows: “ He (Mark) neither heard the Lord nor followed Him (as a disciple); but later, as remarked (he heard and followed) Peter, who constructed the dis- courses which he used in teaching as necessity required, but not as he would have done in preparing a written account of the Lord’s sayings. So, then, Mark made no mistake when he wrote down some things as he remem- bered them, since he was concerned only for one thing, namely, to omit nothing that he had heard, and not THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 4365 to say anything in his account that was false” It is elear from the words of John, as well as from the explanation which Papias adds, that unfavourable opinions had been expressed concerning Mark’s book in the cirele to which Papias and John belonged. Only the purpose to counteract such opinions enables us to understand John’s ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν and Papias’ οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν. What had been particularly noticed in John’s vicinity, what John himself admitted in the words οὐ μέντοι τάξει, and what Papias apologised for at lenoth, was the lack of order. Variation from the order of another Gospel cannot be here meant; for in this case the point of criticism and defence would have to be the contradiction between Mark and the recognised authority of another evangelist, and not want of order in general, more specifically, as Papias’ apology shows even more clearly than John’s statement,—want of an order such as might be expected in the case of one who had been a witness of Jesus’ words and deeds. The John who spoke with his disciples concerning Mark was such an αὐτόπτης καὶ αὐτήκοος. Whether or not at this time he himself had already written a Gospel, or wrote one later, his disciples at all events were accustomed to hear his narrative con- cerning Jesus’ words and deeds. Judged by this standard, Mark’s book seemed to them to lack plan, and to present things out of their proper chronological order. That a personal disciple of Jesus, in speaking of the correct order of Jesus’ words and deeds, could mean no other order than that in which he remembered them, is self-evident. If a book were the standard by which a man of letters, ancient or modern, judges another book for himself and his readers, he could not fail to cite such a work, whether it was his own or that of another. The lack in Mark’s Gospel, which John and Papias both admit, they explain and condone by pointing out that Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a disciple of Peter; on this account he was 440 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT not able to narrate what he himself had seen and heard, but was bound by Peter's discourses, which from their very nature were not adapted to give a connected and chronological view of Jesus’ work as a teacher, consisting as they did always merely of separate stories, intended, as the case might be, for instruction or edification. Even though we do not possess the preceding section of Papias’ work, to which he refers in ὡς ἔφην, and in which he had spoken, probably, of the origin of Mark’s Gospel in Rome (n. 10), we see that Papias is not thinking here of Mark’s relation to Peter as that of a missionary helper, but as that of a disciple under the instruction of his master, as shown by the fact that he does not speak of Peter’s preaching, but of the discourses delivered by him in teaching. The memory upon which Mark draws goes back to his youth. He owes it to the relation in which he stood to Peter prior to his entrance upon foreign missionary work, a relation the existence of which we infer from 1 Pet. v. 13 and from Acts xii. 12-17, and which is noticed also in Clement’s account (above, p. 431) Now Papias does not say that Mark wrote down Peter's oral Gospel word for word, as might possibly be inferred from Irenzeus, Clement, Origen, and Eusebius by a prejudiced interpretation of their statements (above, p. 398; below, n. 11). According to Papias, the responsi- bility of authorship is entirely Mark’s; and this responsi- bility he is able to bear, if only unreasonable demands be not made of him, and if it be borne in mind that he was not a disciple of Jesus, but only a disciple of Peter. Papias expressly limits the dependence of Mark’s Gospel upon the discourses of Peter to some portions of the Gospel. Papias’ judgment, οὐδὲν ἥμαρτε Μᾶρκος, οὕτως ἔνια γράψας, ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν, has been interpreted to mean that he is attempting to defend Mark against the charge of having reported only part of the Gospel history in his THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 441 book; but this has against it not only the wording of the passage which emphasises odrws—ostand not ἔνια, but com- „ mon sense as well. At the time when John xx. 30, xxi). 25 was written, or shortly afterward, and in the circle of Papias, who, dissatisfied with the information supplied by the Gospel literature already in existence, was con- stantly searching for traditions that were as yet unwritten, the eriticism of a single Gospel on the ground that it was incomplete would have been laughed out of court. What Papias defends is the method of Mark’s presentation. It is not the account of one who saw and heard Jesus, but that of a disciple of one of the apostles, dependent upon the discourses of one who was an apostle and an original witness. More than this, the discourses upon which he was dependent were not designed to give an historical survey of Jesus’ life, but were intended for an entirely different purpose. With reference to these is to be judged also the one purpose which, in positive and negative form, Papias indicates Mark to have had in view. Under similar circumstances an unscrupulous author might have yielded to the temptation to add to the discourses which he heard all sorts of invention of his own, with a view to rendering the stories more interesting or pleasing, or in order to remove also single features which might make an unfavourable impression. Mark did neither, but repro- duced Peter’s discourses, naturally in so far as he recorded them at all, accurately, without leaving anything out or making additions of his own. Incidentally, however, we learn that in Papias’ opinion this close dependence upon Peter's narratives was to be noticed in some passages of Mark’s Gospel. | This observation is of a character exactly similar to that of the Canon Muratori (above, p. 428 f.), to the effect that here and there in Mark’s account there are passages which might lead one to suppose that he narrated as an eye-witness of certain events, which he had experi- enced. When Papias claims that Mark was not a disciple 442 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of Jesus, but a disciple of Peter, he does not deny this „ gbservation and claim of the Fragmentist ; quite as little “does Papias’ opinion that in numerous passages Mark appears to be dependent upon the discourses delivered by Peter in teaching invalidate the observation of later eritics that he is largely dependent upon an older docu- ment containing an account of the Gospel history. © In the light of Papias’ full explanation is to be understood also the statement of his teacher John, which is so brief as to be enigmatical. According to John also, Mark drew upon his memory, and in his opinion, as in Papias’, this must have been his recollection of Peter's narratives. When John praises the accuracy of all that Mark remembered of what he had heard Peter say, and when in his closing sentence Papias declares with reference to this accuracy that Mark was careful not to omit or arbitrarily to change anything that he heard, their words do not in turn imply that Mark’s book contained nothing else than reproductions of Peter's narratives. On the contrary, John hints that where this source of memory failed him Mark’s presenta- tion actually shows want of accuracy. For this very reason he fails to reproduce exactly the order of events in the Gospel history. John does not mention expressly whose the account was in dependence upon which Mark wrote his accurate narratives, which would be incompre- hensible, if he had not thought that this point was clear to his followers from the words ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος. This very omission on John’s part is of itself decisive proof that the expression does not mean that on Peter’s mission- ary tours Mark acted as his interpreter, a misunderstanding which comes to light in a half uncertain way for the first time in Jerome, who is the only writer in antiquity to advocate the view (n. 12 end). Furthermore, if this were the meaning of the words, it would be incomprehensible that Papias, in his comparatively full explanation of the words of his teacher, should not refer in any way to this THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 443 office of Mark, or say anything about the language in which Peter taught, and the na into le Mark translated the words of Peter, either orally or in writing, but that he should speak only of the close connection between Peter's narratives and Mark’s account of the same, and of Mark’s relation of discipleship to Peter as explaining this close connection. The same is true of all those who after Papias’ time repeat John’s expression (ἑρμηνευτής, interpres), namely, Irenzeus, Tertullian, and Jerome (above, p. 398, and below, n. 12). Equally note- worthy is the fact that Clement, Origen, and also Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for John’s testimony, never say anything about Mark’s being Peter's interpreter, and especially when speaking of the dependence of Mark’s Gospel upon Peter, they avoid the word ἑρμηνευτής ; and, on the other hand, always emphasise the one fact that Mark’s relation to Peter was that of a disciple (n. 12). Ancient scholars were safe against this error, because they knew that, except for his work among the ‘ Hebrews” ‘in Palestine, Peter, like Paul, needed only the Greek language in all the places to which the ancient tradition represents him to have gone—Palestine, Antioch, and Rome. Inas- much as he was proficient in this language, they knew also that he did not need an interpreter, which was actually the case (vol. 1. pp. 34-72, 112 f.; above, p. 112). Even though Mark, who had lived since the year 44, where Greek was the dominant language, may have acquired greater readiness in the use of the Greek idiom than Peter, — of which, however, his Gospel in comparison with 2 Peter shows no evidence, —the idea that Mark performed ‘the office of an interpreter, translating Peter’s Aramaic dis- courses into Greek, or what is still more impossible, his Greek sermons into Latin, cannot be held by anyone having any knowledge at all of language conditions in the apostolic age. For this reason, therefore, this view is not to be attributed to the presbyter John. With his disciples, 444 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT who did not need to be informed by him, to begin with, what language Peter used in Antioch and Rome, or what the personal relation was in which Mark stood to Peter, John could speak of Mark’s reproduction of Peter’s narra- tives figuratively, and say that it was by virtue of the composition of his book he became Peter’s interpreter (n. 15). To those who had not heard Peter tell the story concerning Jesus, he supplies these narratives. Herein lay the strength of Mark’s Gospel, but likewise its pardonable weakness. Of greater weight even than this estimate of Mark’s writing by a disciple of Jesus is the fact that, between the years 75 and 100, a book dealing with the words and deeds of Jesus, and written by a disciple of Peter, was in existence in the province of Asia, and had attracted the attention of Christians in that region. This is attested also by other facts. Our Fourth Gospel, which originated in this same region, and which is assigned by the unanim- ous tradition to John of Ephesus, shows clear traces of its author’s acquaintance with Mark (§ 66). Furthermore, there is a credible tradition that Mark was the favourite Gospel of the school of Cerinthus, who lived in Ephesus in John’s old age (n. 16). Finally, it is self-evident that there was no doubt in Papias’ mind as to the identity of Mark’s book, of which he had heard his teacher speak, with the one used in the Church of Asia Minor at the time when he wrote (125 A.D. or somewhat later). Papias’ testi- mony and the wide circulation which the above-mentioned facts show that Mark had among the Christians in and about Hphesus even before the close of the first century, exclude the possibility that in the interval between the days of John and the time when his opinion was recorded by his diseiple Papias, Mark had been recast into what was practically another book, and the original edition replaced by this modified form of the Gospel after the former had en already widely circulated without this change having THE FIRST THREE: GOSPELS AND ACTS 445 been noticed. John’s judgment has reference, therefore, to the canonical Mark. 1. (P. 427.) Acts xii. 12, Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου Μάρκου, ef. xii. 25, xv. 37, might mean that at the time of the composition of Acts, and in the eirele for which Acts was written, Mark regularly bore this Roman preenomen as a cognomen, while at the time of the events here related, and especially in Jerusalem, he was known only as John. In Acts xiii. 5, 13 the Hebrew name corresponding to that early period would be retained, while in Philem. 24, Col. iv. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 11, 1 Pet. v. 13, the Roman name is used which was given him later, and was the only one current among the Gentile Christians. But as ἐπικληθέντα has the weight of evidence in Acts xii, 25, the present in xii. 12, xv. 37 cannot be pressed, but is to be regarded as an imperfect parti- ciple. Moreover, the name Mark is too unimportant to receive later an additional name, as in Acts iv. 36. John, then, doubtless bore a Latin name along with his Hebrew name from the beginning, like Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus (Acts i. 23), Jesus—Justus (Col. iv. 11), Silas—Silvanus (vol. i. 31f., 207 f.), Saul—Paul (vol. i. 69f.). The attempts to distinguish two Marks in the N.T. hardly need refutation in these days; οἵ, Schanz’ Kom. über Mk. 8. 2. 2. (P. 427.) 1 Pet. v. 13, Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός pou; ef. 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i.2; Tit.i. 4; Philem. 10 ; 1 Cor. iv. 15, 17. 3. (P. 428.) Adamantius, Dial. contr. Marcion (ed. Bakhuyzen, p. 10, written circa 300-313; ZfKG, ix. 238), in opposition to the Marcionites, includes Mark and Luke among the seventy or seventy-two disciples. So Epiph. Her. xx. 4 (with Justus, Barnabas, Apelles, Rufus, Niger); with reference to Mark, in particular, ef. Her. li. 6, with the further embellish- ment that Mark was one of those disciples who, according to John vi. 66, deserted the Master, but was afterwards reconverted by Peter. 4. (P. 428.) Hippol. Refut. vii. 30, says, in an argument against Marcion : τούτους (τοὺς λόγους) οὔτε Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος οὔτε Μᾶρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν---τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται--- ἀλλὰ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς. It is ποῦ a sufficient explanation of the designation of Mark as Κολοβοδάκτυλος to say that by its use Hippolytus indicated the incompleteness of Mark’s gospel,—the lack of an introductory history and a proper ending,—and at the same time accounting for the mutilated gospel of Mareion. This is the view of Duncker and Schneidewin «ad loc., who also accept a biographical tradition concerning the meaning of the epithet ; also of Bartlet (JThS, 1904, Oct. pp. 121-124) in the sense that this passage of Hippolytus was the source of the later legends. Hippolytus assumed that the Gospel of Mark was, like Paul, an authority on which Marcion relied, and so held, mistakenly, that Marcion’s Gospel, which depends on Luke, was an adaptation of Mark. So it is not the fact that Marcion, as Wordsworth is inclined to suppose (N.T. Lat. sec. ed. Hieron. i. 173), once called Mark stump- fingered, in order to characterise him as indolent or cowardly ; on the contrary, Hippolytus gives him this title, as he gives Paul the title of apostle, as an honour. ‘he incidental way in which this is done presupposes about 230 in Rome a general acquaintance with this epithet of Mark’s. This may be read in the old prologue to Mark (Wordsworth, M.T. Lat. sec. ed. 8S. Hier- 446 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT onymi, i, 171; Corssen, Monarchianische Prologue, 1896, S, 91.): “Marcus evangelista dei et Petri in baptismate filius atque in divino sermone dis- eipulus, sacerdotium in Israhel agens, secundum carnem Levita, conversus ad fidem Christi evangelium, in. Italia scripsit . . .” (p. 172 1... “ Denique amputasse sibi post fidem pollicem dieitur, ut sacerdotio reprobus haberetur, sed tantum consentiens fidei praedestinate (Corssen, S. 10, 16, preedestinata) potuit electio, ut nec sic in opere verbi perderet, quod prius.meruerat, in genere; nam Alexandriz episcopus fuit.” According to the Targum on Ps, exxxyil. 4, to which Nestle calls attention Z/NTW, 1903, S. 347, the Levites, tore off their thumbs with their teeth, and said : “How shall we sing a hymn of thanksgiving to Yahweh on foreign soil.” The thumb and especially that on the right hand (Ps. exxxvii. 5) is as essential for playing the accompani+ ment of a hymn on a harp or zither (Ps. exxxvii. 2; 1 Sam. xvi. 23 ; 1 Kings x, 12; Jos. Ant. vii. 12. 3), as is the tongue for singing. Both.duties were laid upon the Levites. Moreover, ef. the story of the hermit Ammonius (Hist. Laus. ed. Butler, p. 33), who cut off his left ear in order that, in accordance with the Jewish law, he might incapacitate himself for the office of bishop. The account about Mark, which is found in essentially the same form in Arabic MSS. (ZDMG, viii. 586, xiii. 475) is not incredible, Har- nack’s appeal (ΖΗ͂Ν ΤΊΓ, 1902, 8. 165 ἢ.) to ἱερέων Acts vi. 7 (see vol. 1. p. 66, n. 12), which is textualiy doubtful, signifies little. It is, moreover, possible that κολοβοδάκτυλος was originally applied as an epithet to Mark, because of a congenital shortness of the fingers or a finger, which was noticeable, and then later was explained as referring to an intentional mutilation. The matter is thus represented in an old MS. of the Vulgate in Toledo (Words- worth, p. 171): ‘Marcus, qui et colobodactilus est nominatus, ideo quod a cetera (ad ceteram) corporis proceritatem digitos minores habuisset.” ΟἿ, concerning James “the less” and Barsabbas Justus “with the flatfoot,” Forsch. vi. 345 f., 349 f. 5. (P. 428.) The only words which remain of the account of Mark in Can. Mur. (line 1, “quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit”) express the idea above mentioned, if we read [ali]quibus (GK, ii. δ, 15-18, 140). . Even without assuming that the words used (line 6) with reference to Luke, “ dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne,” compare him with Mark and not with Paul (cf. per contra, GK, ii. 30), we may infer that the Fragmentist knew the older tradition, according to which Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, and conclude from tamen that he repeated it, and maintained, on the other hand, “ali- quibus tamen interfuit,” 6. (Ὁ. 428.) With regard to the fleeing youth, Mark xiv. δ] f., various opinions were current even in early times, (1) Some would see in him the apostle John. So, without any justification, Ambrose (on Ps. xxxvi., ed. Bened,,i, 801) and Peter Chrysologus (Sermo, 78, 150, 170, Migne, 52, col. 421, 600, 645). That this view originated on Greek soil is evident from the opposition of an anonymous writer in the Catena Patr. Grac., ed. Possinus, p. 327. Epiph. Her. lxxviii. 13, in a more precise reference, shows that he was acquainted with this view, and accepted it as correct as a matter of course. The lack of clearness in his statement, however, led to a misunder- standing as early as the Middle Ages, and also in the first edition of this Introduction, namely, that he identified the fleeing youth with James, the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 447 Lord’s brother. His meaning is rather that James, who is said to have worn only linen clothing, is to be compared in this particular with the sons of Zebedee; and he appeals to Mark xiv. 51 for support, assuming as well known that the youth there mentioned was one of these latter; cf. Forsch. vi. 231. This cannot be an original tradition, for it is plain that the young man is not one of the circle of apostles. At the same time the view, in this form, can hardly have arisen through mistaken exegesis; for the old tradition that John was the youngest of the apostles (cf. the writes Acta Jo. CXXVili., exxxiv.; also Theod. Mops. In Ev. Jo., ed. Chabot, pp. 3, 15), and a combination of this tradition with the word νεανίσκος, is not a sufficient explanation. On the contrary, we cannot avoid the conjecture that the evangelist John Mark has here been confused with the evangelist and apostle John, as has happened in other cases also (see note 7 below). (2) The. original tradition, which is found in Epiphanius and Ambrose, but obscured by this confusion, presents the view that John Mark, who did not belong to the Apostolic circle, was the fleeing youth. The same is presupposed in Can. Mur. (see above, note 5)... It is instructive to notice, in this connection, that the Cyprian monk Alexander, of the sixth century, who had access to many old books, in his encomium on Barnabas (Acta SS. Jun. tom. ii. 440, § 13), gives it as an old tradition that Mark was the man with the pitcher of water, Mark xiv. 13, whereas the monk Epiphanius (ed. Dressel, p. 36) states that in the opinion of many the master of the house, Matt. xxvi. 18, was the apostle John. (3) The idea that the young man was James the Just, the Lord’s brother, is mentioned. by Theophylact and Euthymius (Migne, 123, col. 657 ; 129, col. 693), and rests, as is particularly plain in Theophylact’s case, simply on the misunderstanding of Epiphanius of which we have already spoken. (4) According to Cat. ın Ev. sec. Marcum, ed. Possinus, p. 326, Victor of Antioch commented on Mark xiv. 51: ἴσως ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης, ἐν 7) τὸ πάσχα ἔφαγον, καὶ οὐδὲν ξένον. Casaubon, Exerc. ad Baronii Ann. (1663), p. 524, made use of this statement, and argued from the young man’s singular costume that he must have risen from his bed, comparing appropriately Dionys. Alex. in Eus. H. E. vi. 40. 7: μένων ἐπὶ τῆς εὐνῆς, fs ἤμην γυμνὸς ἐν τῷ λινῷ ἐσθήματι, τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν ἐσθῆτα παρακειμένην αὐτοῖς dpeyov. Of. Herodotus, ii. 95, ἢν μὲν ἐν ἱματίῳ ἐνειλιξάμενος evön (sc. ὁ ἀνὴρ) ἢ σινδόνι. 7. (P. 429.) The complicated tradition concerning the house mentioned in Acts xii. 12 is carefully investigated in the article on “ Die DormitioS. Virginis und das Haus des Johannes Markus” in the NKZ, 1899, 8. 377-429 (also published separately, Leipzig, 1899). According to Epiphanius, De Mens. et Pond. 14, a small Christian church stood in the time of Hadrian on the plot of ground before what is now the Zion Gate, a portion of which was presented by the Sultan to Emperor William 11.; and transferred by him to the German Catholics on October 31, 1898. On its site a larger church was built, probably about 340, which Cyril, about 348, called “the church of the apostles in the upper city” (Catech. xvi. 4), but which by the end of the same century was usually known as ἡ ἁγία Σιών. According to numerous testimonies from the period 380-420, this was regarded as the place, (1) of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the cenaculwm (Mark xiv. 14-25), (2) of the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts ii. 2), (8) of the appearances of the risen Christ in Jerusalem (John xx. 19-28; Luke xxiv. 36 ff.), (4) of the gathering 448 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT in Acts i. 13f., and also (5) as the regular meeting-place of the primitive Church under its first bishop, James. Not till the pilgrim Theodosius, about 525 (Itin. Hieros., ed. Geyer, p. 141. 7, “ipse fuit domus sancti Marei evan- geliste”), and the monk Alexander, several decades later (Ensom. in Barn. §§ 12, 13; see the preceding note), do we find the identification of the “Holy Zion” with the house of Mary the mother of Mark (Acts xii. 12), but it appears then not as a conjecture, but as an unquestioned tradition. Only after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 was the opinion gradually, and at first quite timidly, advanced among the patriarchs and festival preachers of Jerusalem, that the “Holy Zion” was rather the house of the apostle John, in which he received his adoptive mother, Mary the mother of Jesus (John xix. 26). Apart, too, from the disagreement of older traditions with regard to the dwelling of the mother of Jesus and the house in which she died, it is clear that after 614 the evangelist and apostle John and his adoptive mother began to displace the evangelist John Mark and his own mother. 8. (P. 431.) Eusebius, A. E. ii. 16, notices as a report that Mark was a preacher in Egypt of the Gospel which he had already committed to writing (according to ii. 15, in Rome), and the first to found Churches in Alexandria. Cf. Jerome, Vir. Il. viii. In Chron. ad anno Abrah. 2057, Eusebius also refrains from calling him bishop outright, though he begins the succession in that city with Mark (anno Abrah. 2077; H. E.ii. 24). Nothing more than this is affirmed by Theophilus in John Malalas, lib. x. p. 252, ed. Bonn., who is perhaps no other than the old Antiochian bishop and apologete about 180 (cf. Forsch. ii. 6 £., iii. 58 f.). According to Eusebius, Theoph. iv. 6, ed. Gressmann, p. 20 Greek, p. 174 according to Syriac; ef. the Hypothesis of Victor or of Cyril in Combefis, Auet. Noviss. i. 436 ; Cramer, Cat. in Matt..et Marc. p. 265 ; as well as Epiph. Her. li. 6, Nicetas in Combetis, op. cit. 431, and others, Peter sent Mark as his substitute from Rome to Egypt. The tradition which brings him to Alexandria without touching Rome sounds still less historical (Acta Barnabe, xxvi., ed. Tisch. 73; Acta Marci, Migne, 115, col. 164f.; the Armenian Bibles, ef. Conybeare in Exp. 1895, Dee., p. 419). 9. (P. 432, 433.) Clem. Hypotyp. on 1 Pet. v. 13 (Forsch. iii. 82 f.; this portion is unfortunately lacking in the Troyes MS.) : “Marcus, Petri sectator, predicante Petro evangelium palam Rome coram quibusdam Cesareanis equitibus et multa Christi testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis, ut possent que dicebantur memorize commendare, scripsit ex his que Petro dicta sunt evangelium quod secundum Marcum vocitatur.” In immediate connection with the words from Eusebius, H. E. vi. 14. 5, transeribed above, p. 400, note 9 (7.6. if ἔλεγον is admitted as the correct reading, and we have a statement of the presbyters put by Clement and not first by Eusebius into oratio obliqua), we read further: τὸ δὲ κατὰ Μᾶρκον (sc. εὐαγγέλιον) ταύτην ἐσχηκέναι τὴν oiKo- voniav' τοῦ Πετροῦ δημοσίᾳ ἐν Ῥώμῃ κηρύξαντος τὸν λόγον καὶ πνεύματι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐξειπόντος, τοὺς παρόντας πολλοὺς ὄντας παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μᾶρκον, ὡσὰν ἀκολουθήσαντα αὐτῷ πόρρωθεν καὶ μεμνημένον τῶν λεχθέντων, ἀναγράψαι τὰ εἰρημένα, ποιήσαντα δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ" ὅπερ ἐπιγνόντα τὸν Πέτρον προτρεπτικῶς (Vales. conj. προφανῶς) μήτε κολῦσαι μήτε προτρέψασθαι. πόρρωθεν is, of course, to be wnderstood temporally, not spatially (Rufinus, olim. ; Niceph. Call. ἐκ πολλοῦ) ; πάλαι or ἄνωθεν might THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 449 be substituted for it. The words ποιήσαντα to αὐτοῦ, which Rufinus omitted are to be construed as subordinate to παρακαλέσαι, and not as a co-ordinate statement of the reporter. Aside from the logical grounds stated above, pp. 432 f., the latter construction is inadmissible, because we ought in that case to have τὸν δὲ Μᾶρκον or τοῦτον δὲ ποιήσαντα, and instead of the pre- sent τοῖς δεομένοις, something like τοῖς παρακαλέσασιν': αὐτόν. The Cweswream (Καισαριάνοι, Epic. Diss. i. 19. 19, iii: 24. 117, iv. 13.22, or καισάρειοι, Dio Cass. 1χ 14. 1, 16. 2, 17. 5, 31. 2, Ixix. 7. 4) are not in themselves eqiites also (cf. per contra, Dio Cass. 1xxviii. 18. 2: οὐχ ὅτι δοῦλοι καὶ ἐξελεύθεῤοι Kal Καισάρειοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱππεῖς, βουλευταί Te καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων). But many of these court attendants were raised to equestrian rank. Onejis reminded of Phik iv. 22; Act. Pauli, ed. Lipsius, 105. 8 (vol. i. p. 550,m. 1). According to the Acts of Peter, that apostle had to do with much more distinguished company ; ed. Lipsius, 54. 33, 73. 33, 84. 15, 86. 2. But»aside from this, we are not to think that Clement derived his account from the Acts of Peter, however natural the conjecture may be in some ways. In the Hypotyposes Clement cites the Acts of John (Forsch. iii 87, 97), which are from the same hand as the Acts of Peter (above, p..73, note 7), and the cool attitude toward the written Gospel which the Peter of the legend. assumes (ed. Lipsius, p. 66f.; GK, ii, 849) would fit im with Peter’s hesitancy with regard to Mark’s undertaking in Clement’s story. But in. the legend the Gospel which the Roman Christians read is already in, existence when Peter comes to Rome, and in the unbroken progress of the narrative, from his arrival in Rome to his death, there is no mention of the origin of a Gospel nor of the person of Mark. | 10. (Pp.432, 434,440.) In connection with the account of Peter’s contestwith Simon Magus in Rome, Eus. in H. E. ii. 15 (Forsch. iii. 72) writes: Τοσοῦτο δ᾽ ἐπέλαμψεν ταῖς τῶν ἀκροατῶν τοῦ Πέτρου διανοίαις εὐσεβείας φέγγος, ὡς μὴ τῇ εἰσάπαξ ἱκανῶς ἔχειν ἀρκεῖσθαι ἀκοῇ, μηδὲ τῇ ἀγράφῳ τοῦ θείου κηρύγματος διδασκαλίᾳ, παρακλήσεσι. δὲ παντοίαις Μᾶρκον, οὗ τὸ. εὐαγγέλιον φέρεται, ἀκόλ- ovdov ὄντα Πέτρου, λιπαρῆσαι, ὡς ἂν καὶ διὰ γραφῆς ὑπόμνημα τῆς διὰ λόγου παραδοθείσης αὐτοῖς καταλείψοι διδασκαλίας, μὴ πρότερόν τε ἀνεῖναι ἢ κατερ- γάσασθαι τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ ταύτῃ αἰτίους γενέσθαι τῆς τοῦ λεγομένου κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγελίου γραφῆς. Tvovra δὲ τὸ πραχθέν. φασι τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀποκαλύψαν- Tos αὐτῷ τοῦ πνεύματος ἡσθῆναι τῇ τῶν ἀνδρῶν προθυμίᾳ κυρῶσαί τε τὴν γραφὴν εἰς ἔντευξιν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Κλήμης ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων παρατέθειται τὴν ἱστορίαν" συνεπιμαρτυρεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Ἱεραπολίτης ἐπίσκοπος ὀνόματι Παπίας, τοῦ δὲ Μάρκου μνημονεύειν τὸν Πέτρον ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῇ, ἣν καὶ συντάξαι φασὶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς Ῥώμης, σημαίνειν τε τοῦτ αὐτόν, τὴν πόλιν τροπι- κώτερον Βαβυλῶνα προσειπόντα διὰ τούτων᾽ “ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν. Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος 6 vids μου. Rufinus translates the last sentence: “Simile dat testimonium etiam Hieropolites episcopus nomine Papias, qui et hoe dieit, quod Petrus in prima epistola, sua, quam de urbe Roma scripsit, meminerit Marci, in qua tropice Romam Babyloniam nominarit.” Eusebius did not, write very clearly here ; but probably Rufinus was right in supposing that everything that follows Papias’ name was taken by Eusebius from Papias, for this cannot be discovered in Clement (see above, 163 n. 3). The supposition that the words KAnuns—Harias form a parenthesis, alter which) the report continues, and that φασίν following συντάξαι, is a resumption of VOL. II. 29 450 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the first φασίν after πραχθέν, has against it : (1) that there is then no reason why Eusebius broke off his account which was almost finished with an appeal to his two witnesses, instead of placing this appeal at the end of the entire report. (2) That in this case Eusebius would surely have used the second φασίν immediately after he had resumed the account, perhaps after μνημονεύειν, and not in a relative sentence dependent upon it. It therefore remains probable, that following Papias, who gave the tradition in connection with 1 Pet. v. 13, and explained it by a figurative interpretation of the name Babylon, Eusebius reported that this letter which was often cited by him (Eus. H. £. iii, 39.16) had been written in Rome. Furthermore, in the same connection he probably in all essentials confirmed (eminaprupei) the account of Clement, also concerning the origin of Mark’s Gospel in Rome. Papias,in his testimony with reference to Mark, which has been preserved for us in its general meaning (see below, n. 14) refers to an earlier passage of his work, in which he had already expressed himself concerning the relation of Mark’s Gospel to the addresses of Peter. Consequently in that passage which in its wording has not been preserved, he probably stated what according to Hus. ii. 15 he in all probability said concerning 1 Pet. v. 13 and the Roman origin of Mark’s Gospel. That Eusebius does not repeat the account of Clementi unchanged is shown not only by a comparison with Clement’s own words (above, πὶ 9), but also in the phraseology of Eusebius himself ; for at the point where his account begins to go beyond Clement (γνόντα de τὸ πραχθέν . ἀποκαλύψαντος κτλ.) he introduces a formula (φασί) which points to an uncertain tradition ; and, furthermore, he does not make Clement respons- ible for all the details which are given (as, for example, in ii. 23. 19, iii. 19), but merely in a very general expression says that he included the ἱστορία in question in his Hypotyposes. Eusebius’ unhistorical account was repeated, and in some respects still further exaggerated, eg. Jerome (Vor. JU. viii.) : “Quod cum Petrus audisset, probavit et ecclesiis legendum sua auctoritate edidit”; Alexander Mon. Fneum. Barnabe, cap. xx. (Acta SS, Jun. ii. 443). In Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i. 50, 118) the influence of Peter on the Gospel of Mark and on the ecclesiastical use of the Gospels in general appears still more noteworthy. 11. (P. 434.) Rome is named as the place of composition by Papias (sce preceding note), and in addition to him Clement Alex. expressly (n. 9), Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), Epiph. (Her. li. 6; see above, p. 400), Jerome (Vir. IU. viii.), Ephrem Syr. (Expos. Ev. Conc. p. 286, ef. Forsch. i. 54f.; Prol. Lat. in Ev. Marci (N.T. Lat., ed. Wordsworth, i. 171, “evangelium in. Italia seripsit ”); Alexander Mon. op. cit. cap. xx. p. 443. The statement of Chry- sostom (Hom. i. in Matt., Montf. vii. 7), that Mark wrote his Gospel in Egypt at the request of hearers there, stands quite alone. The fable that he wrote the Gospel in Latin appears first in Ephrem, Expos. Hv. Cone. p. 286, and elsewhere among the Syrians also, e.g. Wright, Catal. p. 70; in a Peshito MS. of the 6th century ; among the Armenians, Forsch. v. 149; also in several Greek minuseules (Tischendorf, i. 410); later in the West; defended by 3aronius, Annales, anno 45, xli. 12. (Pp. 435, 442,443.) After Papias, the first witness to be considered for the relation of Mark to the preaching of Peter is Justin, Dial. evi: καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον, ἕνα τῶν ἀποστύλων, καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 451 ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τοῦ καὶ ἄλλους δύο ἀδελ. φοὺς υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου ὄντας, μετωνομακέναι ὀνόματι τοῦ Βοανεργές, ὅ ἐστιν υἱοὶ βροντῆς κτλ. According to Justin’s regular usage, αὐτοῦ cannot refer to Yhrist, but only to Peter, ef. GK, 1. 510 ff. ; and, further on in this note, the phraseology of Eusebius, Dem. iii. 5.89, 95. Mark iii. 16 f. is the basis of the statement. Connected with this is the representation in the Acts of Peter, according to which Peter was associated with other apostles in the composi- tion of the Gospel book (see above, p. 390). Iren. iti. 1. 1 follows (see above, p. 398), ef. iii. 10. 6: “Quapropter et Marcus, interpres et sectator Petri, initium evangelice conscriptionis fecit sic, ‘Initium evangelii Jesu Christi,’” ete. Further, Clemens Alexandrinus (see above, p. 449); Tertullian, contra Mare. iv. 5: *Licet et Mareus quod edidit (se. evangelium) Petri affirmetur, enius interpres Marcus; nam et Luce digestum Paulo adseribere solent.” Origen in Eus. vi. 25. 5 (p. 397, above) : δεύτερον δὲ τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον, ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ ποιήσαντα. Out of this, later writers like pseudo-Athanasius, Synops. (Montf. ii. 202), made a ὑπαγορεύειν =to dictate. Further, Victor- inus of Pettau (circa 300), according to the original text of his cominentary (Haussleiter, ThLb, 1895, eol. 194): “ Marcus interpres Petri ea que in munere docebat commemoratus conseripsit, sed non ordine.” He had read Papias therefore, for Eusebius’ Ohurch History was not yet written. | Husebius, H. E. iii. 24. 14, refers to the information from Clement and Papias, which he had already given and elaborated somewhat (ii. 15 ; see above, p. 449, n. 10). Quite definite also is Dem. Ev. iii. 5. 89: τούτου Μᾶρκος γνώριμός καὶ φοιτητὴς γεγονὼς ἀπομνημονεῦσαι λέγεται τὰς τοῦ Πέτρου περὶ τῶν πράξεων τοῦ Ἰησοῦ διαλέξεις ; οἷ. §§ 91-94, 95: Μᾶρκος μὲν ταῦτα γράφει, Πέτρος δὲ ταῦτα περὶ ἑαυτοῦ μαρτυρεῖ" πάντα γὰρ τὰ παρὰ Μάρῤκῳ τῶν Πέτρου διαλέξεων εἶναι λέγεται ἀπομνημονεύματα. Similarly in Theophamia Syr. v. 40. Only hints exist in Epiphanius, Her. h. 6; Chrysostom, Hom. i. im Matt. Jerome, Vir. Ill. i.: “Sed et evangelium iuxta Marcum, qui auditor eius et interpres fuit, huius (se. Petri) dieitur.” A statement regarding the pseudo-Petrine writings follows, as the first of which stands the Gospel of Peter, ef. Vir. Ill. viii.: “Mareus, discipulus et interpres Petri iuxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, rogatus Rome a fratribus breve seripsit evan- gelium.” As to what follows, cf. p. 450, above, n. 10. | Further, ef. Jerome, Ep. Iii. 9, exx. 11 (of Paul: “Habebat ergo Titum interpretem, sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cuius evangelium Petro narrante et illo seribente compositum est”). With regard to the equivocal use of the term vnterpres in the latter passage, ef. GK, i. 881f. It is very significant that im the only place where Eusebius uses the expression “ Marcus evangelista, Petri inter- pres” (Chron. ad anno Abrah. 2057), there is no reference to his activity in Peter’s company, for it is his independent activity in Egypt which is ‘re- ported. Eusebius has no thought of an interpreter’s service rendered to Peter. Mark became his interpreter by writing the Gospel, and also by preaching as his representative in Egypt. See below, n. 15. 13. (P. 435.) What the present writer maintained and attempted to prove in a somewhat youthful essay on Papias of Hierapolis (ThStKr, 1866, S. 649-696 ; 1867, S. 539-542), and occasionally in other connections (Der Hirt des Hermas, 8. vi-x ; Acta Joannis, pp. eliv-elxxii ; Forsch. iii. 157 ff. ; GK, i. 155, 800, ii. 33), with regard to Papias’ “ presbyter” named John, he 452 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT has again set forth briefly in an essay on “Apostel und Apostelschüler in der Provinz Asien” (Forsch. vi. 1-224, especially 112-147), in a wider con- nection and, he hopes, in a more convineing way. This hypothesis does not at, all suit Mommsen, who (Z/NTIV, 1902, S. 156 ff.) is of the opinion that Eusebius, controverted Irenweus “in his thorough way.” Also dissatisfied with Harnack’s and Corssen’s interpretations, he strikes out (on the basis of the Syriac Version) κυρίου μαθηταί, the inconvenient characterisation of both of Papias’ teachers, against all Greek MSS., as also against the testimony of Jerome (Ver. Ill. xviii.) and of Rufinus (who only freely and wrongly trans- lates the words by ceterique discipuli). Concerning the essays by Τὸν Schwartz, see below, ὃ 64, n. 2. To what has been said in the text (p. 4861.) the present writer will add here but three, remarks—(1) the use of οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, Which we find in Papias, is the same in form as that which occurs in Irenzus,and Clement, and occasionally also in Origen and Hippo- lytus. The term, which of itself may denote the men of the distant past (Heb. xi, 2, οἱ mpeoBvrepor=i, 1, of πατέρες -- Matt. v. 21, οἱ ἀρχαῖοι), comes to signify the teachers of the next preceding generation only when the speaker characterises those to whom he applies it as his own personal instructors. The succeeding generation calls them the old men or the fathers when their ranks begin to, be thinned, and also after they have altogether given place to the younger. Jn concreto, of course, they are very different persons, accord- ing to the period of the respective speakers, (2) That the πρεσβύτεροι, from whom Papias claims personally to have received, much information, were themselves personal disciples of Jesus, not only follows from the fact that he calls his teachers, Aristion and John, disciples of the Lord,—just as he does the apostles Andrew, Peter, Thomas, etc.,—but is at once evident to every sound sense of interpretation from the disposition of his sentence: εἰ δέ mou καὶ παρηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον λόγους" τί ᾿Ανδρέας ἢ ri, Πέτρος εἶπεν, ἢ τί Φίλιππος ἢ τί Θωμᾶς ἢ Ἰάκωβος ἢ τί Ἰωάννης ἢ Ματθαῖος. ἤ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν, ἅ τε ’Apıorlov καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης (al. οἱ) τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταί, λέγουσιν. The indireet question (τί εἶπεν) and the co-ordinate relative clause (ἅ τε---λέγουσεν) explain τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Aöyovs. The text was so understood by the early and entirely competent translators, the Syrian about 350, Rufinus about 400, and Jerome (Vir. Ill. xviii.). But the classical witness for the correctness of this inter- pretation is Eusebius himself, who disputes it. In order to show, that Papias was not himself a disciple of the apostles, he says (§ 7);, “ Papias acknowledges that he received the words of the apostles from their diseiples (τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λόγους παρὰ τῶν αὐτοῖς παρακολουθηκύτων), but claims that he was a hearer οἵ Aristion and the presbyter John.” That is, he substitutes τοὺς τῶν, ἀποστόλων λόγους for the τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λόγους οἵ Papias, and αὐτοῖς referring back to τῶν ἀποστόλων, for the, τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις of Papias, Thus Eusebius suppresses the obvious, ἴδοι that Papias spoke first of such traditions as he received from the presbyters directly (or from the apostles, as Eusebius puts it)—déoa more mapa τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς €uabov—hetore saying that he also inquired concerning the words of the presbyters (“apostles”) in case he fell in with, others who like him had been their disciples. (3) The mention of a presbyter and disciple of Jesus named John between James and Matthew, and again a THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 453 presbyter and disciple of Jesus named ‚John after Aristion, on which Eusebiue based his self-contradictory interpretation, is indeed remarkable. The conjecture suggested by Renan (L’Antechrist, 1873, p. 562) and ingeniously argued by Haussleiter (7hLb, 1896, col. 467), that the words ἢ ri Ἰωάννης in the enumeration of apostles were interpolated in the text of Papias before Eusebius’ time, is venturesome and inadmissible since it is needless, The questions which Papias at the time of his investigations in the course of his earlier years was accustomed at every opportunity to ask (ἀνέκρινον) of visit- ing disciples of the apostles fall into two classes, which are distinguished even in the formation of the sentence. The inquiries, ri εἶπεν, he asked of such as had lived in Palestine for a long time and had had there opportunity to hear many apostles and other disciples of Jesus: the inquiries, ἅ re λέγουσιν, he made of such, like Papias himself, as had had for a time intercourse with the disciples of Jesus, then living in the province of Asia, or also still had intercourse with them, while it was denied him. The apostle Jolin belonged to both groups of the disciples of Jesus, whose words Papias wished to ascertain from their own disciples. This accounts for the double mention of the name. There remains only a certain clumsiness, rhetorically con- sidered, on Papias’ part. 14. (P. 438.) After Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39. 14) has referred the reader to Papias’ work for other traditions of Aristion and John the presbyter, he continues: ἀναγκαίως viv προσθήσομεν ταῖς προεκτεθείσαις αὐτοῦ φωναῖς παράδοσιν, ἣν περὶ Μάρκου τοῦ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον γεγραφύότος ἐκτέθειται διὰ τούτων ‘Kai τοῦθ᾽ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν: Μᾶρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (al. Χριστοῦ) ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσε τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δὲ ὡς ἔφην Πέτρῳ, ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων (al. λόγων). ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτε Μᾶρκος, οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν" ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσε παρα- λιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου. Only the words Μᾶρκος pev . . . πραχθέντα constitute the state- ment of the presbyter John: what follows (at once distinguished by its fulness from the enigmatical conciseness of the preceding sentence) is from Papias. ὡς ἔφην is decisive on this point. That Eugebius, in his quotation from Papias’ book, transcribed these words also, although he does not give his readers the earlier passage to which they refer, simply testifies to the faithfulness of his copy. One need not even call to his support the fact that ii. 15 in all probability alludes to the earlier passage in Papias to which Papias himself here refers (see above, p. 449f.,n.10). On the other hand, it is inconceivable that Papias, who did not have a book by John before him, but drew upon his recollection of John’s oral instructions, should have set down a portion of what the presbyter John said about Mark, and should have sought to characterise it as a fragment of some record by a parenthetic ὡς ἔφην. How one can assert, in view of the concluding words of Eusebius (not, “This was the presbyter John’s opinion of Mark, according to Papias,” but, “This is what Papias reports about Mark”), that he took all of what he transcribes to be the language of the presbyter, the present writer does not understand (Link, ThStKr, 1896, S. 414). The ἔλεγε which introduces the 454 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT words of the presbyter (not εἶπε or ἔλεξε) shows that Papias is ποῦ giving a stenographic report of a discourse delivered at some time by John, but that, from his recollection of his conversations with his teacher, he means to report fully what John wsed to say about Mark as he had occasion. It is the more certain that this is the meaning of the imperfect here, since no long address follows and no situation is being described. Cf. Kühner-Gerth, i. 143 f.; Blass, N.T. Gr. § 57. 5 (Eng. trans. § 57.5); more specially a remark of Birt (Das antike Buchwesen, 483 ; GK, i. 872; and, in general, the whole discussion, 871-889), which is largely dependent on Klostermann, Das Mar- cusev. 1867,—by far the most important work on this Gospel,—326-336. 15. (P. 444.) The right interpretation of &punveurns Πέτρου γενόμενος which almost alone found favour in the early Church (above, pp. 442 f., 450 f., n. 12) is represented by Michaelis, Ein!. 1052; Fritzsche, Ev. Marci, xxvi; Thiersch, Versuch, 181; Klostermann, 329, with whom the present writer expressed his agreement ; @K, i. 878-882. The older view, again contended for by Th. Mandel, in opposition to the present writer, Vorgeschichte der öffentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu, 1892, S. 325-332, namely, that Mark, as Peter’s interpreter in Rome, translated his sermons into Latin, rests upon untenable premises which cannot be indicated here in passing. What had this office of interpreter on the part of Mark, which lasted for only a few months, to do with his Gospel, concerning which “the presbyter John” speaks? This also has weight against the view of Schlatter (Die Kirche von Jerusalem vom J. 70-130, s. 52) that Mark in Jerusalem, 1.6. before the year 44, interpreted into Greek the Aramaic discourses of Peter for the Hellenistic portion of the Jerusalem Church. To the opposition to the writer’s view by A. Link, ThStKr, 1896, S. 405-436, it may be briefly replied : (1) Since John, using ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος Without the article, does not say that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, but that he was or became an interpreter, Link’s remark (410) that Mark was by no means the only channel of acquaintance with the narratives of Peter, and hence could not be called Peter’s interpreter outright in the sense which the present writer maintained, is little to the point. John’s statement leaves room for ten other interpreters besides Mark, and also for the fact that in numberless instances Peter spoke in public without the help of any interpreter whatever, One hesitates to refer to such passages as Eph. iii. 7; Col. i, 23, 25; Gal. iv. 16. (2) The remark (411) that on the writer’s interpretation the words in question, “become perfectly useless and meaningless,” seems of no greater value. For without them the following ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν hangs in the air, as no man could guess what or whom Mark remembered in his writing. He might just as well have been a disciple of Jesus, the lack of order (τάξις) would remain unexcused, and the praise which accompanies the admission of this deficiency would be unjustified. Even if one adopts (as does Link, 414) the impossible construction which makes Papias’ added explanation the words of John, John’s first complete sentence is still meaningless without ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος rightly understood. (3) As to the claim that the words in question, on the writer's interpretation, should follow the main proposition (413), he must decline to discuss the point with a scholar who thinks it neces- sary (413, note 1) to inform him that in Acts i, 24 (προσευξάμενοι εἶπαν) the praying is indicated as the medium of the saying! See examples in Kühner- Gerth, i. 197 £., 199, n. 8, and Blass, § 58. 4 (Eng. trans. § 58. 4). (4) When, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 455 in GK, i. 879, the writer questioned whether Mark of Jerusalem would have been a suitable interpreter for the Galilean Peter, he intended, of course, that everyone acquainted with the subject should recall that a knowledge of Greek was at least as general, and probably much more general, in Galilee, with its large non-Jewish population, than in Jerusalem and Judea. To be confuted with the information (Link, 419) that the differ- ences between the Aramaic dialect of Galilee and that of Judea were in- significant, is something of a surprise. (5) The idea that Mark accompanied Peter as interpreter on all his missionary journeys (418, 426 ff.) is inconsistent with the little that we know. Until about the year 63, Peter was, so far as we know (pp. 165-172, above), a preacher of the circumcision in the Holy Land and the neighbouring regions, and certainly went no farther than Antioch, and there only on a visit. Mark, on the other hand, after 44, was a missionary helper in the company, first, of Paul and Barnabas, then of Bar- nabas alone, and then again of Paul; and it is highly improbable that he was ever long in Peter’s company before 63, when Peter came to Rome. The expressions παρηκολουθηκώς τινι (Papias in Eus. iii. 39. 15, in relation to Jesus or Peter; cf. xxxix. 4, 7; Just. Dial. ciii.), or ἀκολουθήσας τινι (Clement in Eus. vi. 14. 6, p. 448, above), or ἀκόλουθός τινος (Kus. ii, 15, p. 449, above), or ἀκόλουθος γενόμενός τινι (Epiph. Her. li, 6)=sectator (Iren. iii, 1. 1, 10, 6; Clem. (Latin trans.), p. 448, above), denote, not a travelling companion but a disciple, who has for some time enjoyed the instruction of a teacher and lived in familiar intercourse with him, and are occasionally replaced by μαθητής (Iren. iii. 1. 1; Chrysost. Hom. i. in Matt.), akovorns (Iren. v. 33. 4), γνώριμος καὶ φοιτητὴς γεγονώς (Bus. Dem. iii. 5. 89), and similar expressions. But when such a disciple imparts the instructions of his teacher to others, he becomes his interpreter, because through him the absent or departed teacher addresses those who would otherwise not hear or understand him. This conception, which is presented by the real signification of the word (Xenophon, Anab. ii. 3. 17, ἔλεγε πρῶτος Τισσαφέρνης dv ἑρμηνέως), is everywhere adhered to, whether the term is applied to the disciple who hands on the instruction of his teacher, to the poet in relation to the Muse, or the prophet in relation to the Pythia or to Apollo, or to Hermes the messenger and interpreter of the gods, or, as among us, to the musical performer, the actor, and the reciter in relation to the composer and the poet (GK, i. 878 ff.). (6) What Clement, Strom. vii. 106, says of the founders of sects who appeared in the post-apos- tolic time is undoubtedly instructive: καθάπερ ὁ Βασιλείδης, κἂν Τλαυκίαν ἐπιγράφηται διδάσκαλον, ὡς αὐχοῦσιν αὐτοί, τὸν Πέτρου ἑρμηνέα: ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Οὐαλεντῖνον Θεοδᾷ διακηκοέναι φέρουσιν, γνώριμος δὲ οὗτος γεγόνει Παύλου. With regard to the text, cf. Forsch. iii. 125. When Link (432) claims, in opposition to the present writer, that Glaukias is called the interpreter of Peter, not by the Basilidians but by Clement, this also must be considered an error; for after κἂν ἐπιγράφηται, which already shows that Basilides claimed Glaukias as his teacher in order to recommend his doctrines, ὡς αὐχοῦσιν αὐτοί would be quite redundant, if it referred to the same rela- tion. The phrase serves, therefore, to introduce the following τὸν Πέτρου ἑρμηνέα. Moreover, Clement does not omit to show by αὐτοί, which other- wise would be meaningless, that they do indeed boast that this Glaukias was the or an interpreter of Peter, but that he for his part by no means cares to 456 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW “TESTAMENT guarantee the claim. Mark, too, is never so designated by Clement (p. 448, above). The Παύλου γνώριμος of the Valentinians with reference to Theodas (Forsch. iii. 122-126) corresponds to the ἑρμηνεύς of the Basilidians ‘regard- ing Glaukias. Now it is evident that both these alleged disciples of the apostles are brought forward as bearers of a secret tradition, and that’ this can be brought into rational connection with Glaukias’ possible service as interpreter to Peter, even less readily than the composition of a Gospel can be connected with Mark’s supposed service in a similar capacity. Here too, then, ἑρμηνεύς is figuratively meant. It cannot be an accident, however, that the term is applied to the medium of the secret tradition between Petér and Basilides, and not to Theodas who stands similarly between Paul and Valentinus. In the school of Basilides, as in that of Valentinus, there was a peculiar Gospel (GK, ii. 748, 771). Neither was ascribed to an apostle, but each school believed that it could appeal to a disciple of Peter, or a disciple of Paul, as the transmitter of Gospel narratives, just as well as the Church could. Theodas 'eorresponded to Luke, and Glaukias to Mark. ‘The Basilidians, who boasted that their Glaukias was the or an interpreter of Peter, knew the Church tradition of Mark’s relation to Peter, and imitated it. In another way this was done about 150 a.p. by the author and ad- ınirer of the εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Térpov, in which Peter does not use an inter- preter, but speaks in his own person (Grundriss, S. 30 f.). en 16. (P. 444.) Iren. iii. 11. 7: “Qui autem Jesum separant a Christo, et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est preferentes evangelium, cum amore veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt.” Comparing i. 26. 1 (ef. iii. 11. 15 vol. 1. 515, n. 4), there can be no doubt that the Cerinthians are meant ; and it is obvious why they preferred the Gospel of Mark, which begins with the baptism. The misunderstandings which have been occasioned by Epiphanius, Her. xxviii. 5, xxx. 3, and Philaster, Her. xxxvi., who in this instance depends on Epiphanius, require no discussion here’ (cf. @K, ii. 730 ; Hümpel, De Errore Christolog. in Epist. Jo., 1897, p. 68 ff.). 8 52. TITLE, PLAN, AND CONCLUSION OF MARK’S GOSPEL. Fon The words ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (τ: 1), with which the author of the Gospel according to Mark begins his book, are of such a charaeter that they must have given rise to the attempt, even at a very early date, to construe them as the subject or predicate of a sentence concluded in vy, 2-3, or, if ver. 2 was taken parenthet- ically, in ver. 3, or, in case the whole of vv. 2-3 was treated as a parenthesis, in ver. 4. The very number of such attempts to construe the words argues against them THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 457 all. Further, while it must be admitted that the Greek of the Gospel is far from elassical, it must nevertheless be regarded as improbable that an author, who in the rest of his book does not show any inclination to write periodic sentences, should, without any apparent necessity, begin the same with such an ambiguous and at best extremely clumsy construction. A decisive argument against all - these attempts is the fact that they are based upon the impossible presupposition that εὐωγγέλιον can be used to desionate the Gospel history, and that not in the sense of “a recording or accounting” of the facts (historia), but of “recorded facts” (res geste). The baptism and preach- ing of John the Baptist might possibly be treated as the beginning of the gospel history in the latter sense, namely, as the first one of the facts which it was the business of the Gospel, ze. the Christian preaching, to report and to proclaim (Acts x. 37, xii. 24; cf. § 48). But it could never be considered the beginning of the proclamation of those facts. But the latter is the only sense in which εὐαγγέλιον was used in the apostolic age. It may therefore be considered as certain that the first five words of the Gospel are to be taken independ- ently, and to be treated as a title prefixed to the book by the author; since to suppose that Mark meant to say, “Herewith I begin the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” involves a whole tangle of anachronisms. It is a well-known fact that among the Latins, the Greeks, and the Syrians, it was a habit among the scribes of the Middle Ages to mark the transition from one document to another in the same codex by inserting ἐτελέσθη or ἐπληρώθη (explicit) and ἄρχεται (incipit) before or after the customary title (n. 2). That in this case the ἄρχεται or ἀρχή, which means the same thing, was not the author’s own statement, requires no proof. Leaving out of account the fact that these formule are not found in the oldest MSS. extant, they presuppose the binding together of separate writings in 458 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT one codex. In the present case, however, it is not a question of the particular way in which a copyist indieated the fact that a new book was, begun at a certain point, but, if we may accept the unanimous tradition, we are dealing with words which were always a part of Mark's Gospel. But to suppose that an author should have begun his book by saying to his readers, “ Here my book begins,” or “Now | begin,” would be an absurd conjecture. Such an idea is also impossible, because then Mark would have called his book not only ὦ Gospel, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Even if he had said “‘a@ Gospel” it would have been an anachronism, because the name εὐαγγέλιον was not used to designate a writing, or a number of writings, until after the beginning of the second century, certainly not in the apostolic age (above, p. 387f.). But even granting that here the individual author may have antici- pated the general development of ecclesiastical language, or that Mark i. 1 was not written until 120, still, in designating his work “the Gospel,” 4.6. the only Gospel which exists or has a right to exist, and, more than this, in calling it “the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” the author would make himself guilty of a presumption which is in- comprehensible. The title which Mark gives his book is not εὐαγγέλιον I, Xp., but ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ; for it is entirely self-evident that, if the words are to be taken as a title, they have reference to the whole book and not to any one of its chapters, be it longer or shorter. | Aside from the fact that the title applies very inappropriately to what follows it immediately (i. 2-13), if the title covered only part of the book, we should expect a number of chapters, each with its own special title ; this, however, 15 not what we find. Accepting the words as a title, they are not to be compared with titles like Bereshith or Γένεσις κόσμου at the beginning of the first book in the ΟἹ, which were invented at a late date by learned editors or ignorant seribes. It is rather to be ascribed to the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 459 author himself, or perhaps to the redactor or editor ot our Mark, like the titles of the prophetie books of the O.T., of the Proverbs, of Revelation, of the Antiquities of Josephus, and of the work of Irenzeus against. heresies. In the case of such titles it does not matter at all whether or not the author mentions his own name in the title, or whether a name which may occur in the title be that of the real or only of an alleged author, or whether it is only represented as such. It must be taken for granted that such a title characterises rightly the content of the book, and indicates the subject which the author intended to discuss, at least when he began his work; only, of course, due allowance must be made for the ὦ potiora fit denoma- natio in a title designed to sum up in a word the varied contents of a comprehensive work. Mark purposes, therefore, to set forth in his book the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since his work is in the form of a narrative, ἀρχή cannot be meant in the sense of “cause, principle, ground” (Prov. 1. 7, vii. 22; Sirach xxix. 21; Col. i. 18; Rev. iii. 14), but is to be understood only in the usual sense of “ beginning.” The conception of origin is, however, involved ; for how is it possible to describe the beginning of a thing without indicating its origin? An ἀρχή is always an ἀρχὴ γενέσεως (Wisdom of Solomon vi. 23, vii. 5). In his account he intends to answer the question how the Gospel of Christ began, and therewith also the question how the Gospel of Christ originated. In a certain sense the question is answered at the outset by the very terms which Mark chooses to designate the Gospel, for Gospel of Jesus Christ means in this passage, as everywhere else in the N.T., the message of salvation brought into the world by Jesus, which was preached by Him first, and which now, when it is no longer proclaimed by Jesus Himself but by His ambassadors, bears upon it the seal of its author (above, p. 377 f.). A fuller answer of the same character is to be 460 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT found in Heb. 1. 3; the Gospel began with its first pro- elamation by Jesus, the Apostle of God (Heb. iii. 1), and after He ceased to speak to men directly it was continued by those who had heard the preaching of the great original Evangelist. This same idea, which is common to the whole of the N.T., is given noteworthy expression in Acts i. 1, where all of Jesus’ work and teaching set forth in the third Gospel is characterised as the beginning of a con- tinuous work. ' The same thought is to be found in Acts x. 36f., though presented from a different point of view, —the beginning of the proclamation of the good tidings which God sent to the people of Israel was not through John and his preaching, but after the baptism and preach» ing of John, through Jesus Christ, the original Evangelist (cf. Eph. 11. 17). This is exactly Mark’s thought: In the apostolic preaching there was never wanting some reference to Jesus’ forerunner ‘and something showing the relation between Jesus and John, who in his turn was connected with the O.T. revelation. Nor could this backward refer- ence be omitted in an historical account of the beginning of this preaching. Itis wanting in no one of our Gospels ; but what Mark says about the Baptist in i. 2-8, and his notice, showing the connection between Jesus’ history and the work of the Baptist in i. 9-13, is so outlinear and so brief that it cannot possibly be the form in which the tradition was used for the instruction of converts and in the missionary preaching. He makes it so, because what he set out to portray was not the preliminaries, but the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus. The discussion of the subject proper’ begins in 1. 14 with the sentence, “After John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent ye and believe the Gospel.” This sentence, which gives an outline view of Jesus’ entire ministry, is in keeping with the title of the book, and THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 461 goes to confirm the interpretation of the same given above, Jesus’ mission is represented to be the proclamation te men of God’s good tidings, and He Himself urges''upon them faith in this message. While it is true that, accord- ing to other traditions, Jesus in quoting from Isawlxi. 1 makes use of the word translated by the Greek εὐαγγέλιον or of the corresponding verb (Luke iv. 18, vil. 22 ; Matt. xi. 5), nevertheless, in comparison with similar passages in the other Gospels, Mark’s use of the word in his description of Jesus’ life-work (ver. 14) and in the summary which he gives of the essential contents of Jesus’ preaching (ver: 15), also the comparatively frequent recurrence of the word in the further course of this Gospel (n. 3), all go to prove that in using it Mark had in mind always the purpose of the book indicated in its title. This is to be seen also in the separate narratives which show how the program indi- eated in 1. 14 was carried out. In contrast to the brevity which characterises the sketch that precedes the verse in which Jesus’ ministry is outlined,—a brevity which renders single passages in the same so obscure as to be scarcely intelligible (especially 1. 13),—from 1. 16 on the narratives are remarkable for their graphic clearness and for a fulness of detail which is certainly not essential (n. 4). Even if such a conclusion were not necessary from a comparison of Mark’s account with the presentation of the same facts in the other Gospels, the careful reader would still’ be com- pelled to admit from a comparison of Mark’s style with that of accounts presenting different material —as for instance the Fourth Gospel or Josephus—that Mark has not only a predilection for vivid and clear narrative, but possesses distinguished ability in this direction. His de- scription of the features and movements of those speaking or acting, the constant use of direct discourse in reporting chance remarks and replies, the use of numerous synonyms in the discourses, repetition in full of words repeated in spoken discourse, and the use of elliptical expressions 462 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT customary in conversation but not in written discourse,— all tend to give Mark’s style a dramatic quality.: If all this is artificial and not natural, then certainly Mark was an adept at artem arte celure, That this was the case is, however, quite improbable, in view of the thoroughly clumsy way in which Mark uses language. These little touches never make the impression of being designed; to write in this way is the author's second nature. What he did keep clearly before himself, however, was his purpose to set forth the history of the beginning of the gospel. In the first section (1. 16-45) we see how the preaching which Jesus declared to be His essential vocation (i. 38 f.) was accompanied from the first by miracles which attested the effective power of His word, and which contributed much to the spread of the conviction throughout all Galilee that Jesus was a teacher with full authority from God, and that His teaching, in contrast to the instruction of the rabbis based upon the traditions, was a new and powerful doctrine (i. 22, 27 £.). At first Jesus alone is the preacher; He silences the demons who proclaim Him the Holy One of God (i. 24f., 34, ef. ii. 11f.), and forbids the man whom He has healed to publish what had been done for him (1. 44). But just as He Himself discloses, at the very beginning (i. 16-20), His intention of winning helpers in His ministry, so He is totally unable to hinder those who have been helped by Him from becoming at once tireless proclaimers of His deeds (i. 45, ef. vil. 36). Every word in the concluding sentence of this first section is consciously chosen—*#pEaro, which is not altogether without significance (ef. v. 20, also i. 1); κηρύσσειν, everywhere else used of the preaching of the gospel (cf. 1. 14, 38, 39, ii. 14, v. 20, vi. 12, xiii, 10, xiv. 9, ef. i. 4,7); the added πολλά, which in- dicates that when the preaching is begun it is not to end at once; and, finally, τὸν λόγον without any addition, used elsewhere of the gospel (ii. 2, iv. 14-33), to describe the report which the man who had been healed circulated where- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 463 ever he went. The second section (ii. 1-iii. 6) shows how Jesus’ preaching, attested as it was by His works, especially His proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, and the free- dom of His life and teaching from asceticism and slavish observance of the law, induced constant opposition on the part of the religious teachers whose influence had been dominant up to this time, and made Him more and more the object of their deadly hatred. The third section (iii. 7-vi. 13) begins with a general description of the spread of Jesus’ fame throughout all Palestine and the adjoining regions, and of the effect which this had in widening the circle of those among whom Jesus had to work (iii. 7-12). This seems to have influenced Jesus to make free choice from among His hearers of twelve, with a view to sending them out as preachers (iii. 13-19). The section thus begun is concluded in a general way with the aecount of the first mission of these twelve (vi. 7-13). It is noteworthy that in both these accounts the name apostle, which is only used by Mark once (vi. 30), is avoided ; also, that the commission of the disciples here deseribed is expressly declared to be the first of its kind, and is called the beginning of the sending out of twelve preachers. Finally, in the account of their choosing, the fact is not to be overlooked that, while its ultimate purpose is indicated to be their later commission to preach, and though they engaged in this work at once (vi. 12), the immediate purpose and the one first mentioned is that they may be constantly with Jesus (iii. 14, ἵνα ὦσιν per’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν). Through their intereourse with the first preacher of the gospel they were to be trained for their future vocation as preachers. Thereby Jesus intends to make true in the case of these men the words He had spoken to some at the beginning of His preaching in Galilee (i. 17). What is recorded between the choice of the apostles and their first com- mission to preach, shows how Jesus trained the Twelve in 464 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 'PESTAMENT that independence of judgment and knöwledge requisite for the exercise of their calling: When on one occasion His relatives, apparently His nearest kinsmen, expressed the opinion that the immoderate zeal with which He gave Himself to His work was deranging His mind, and His opponents declared Him to be possessed by am evil spirit (i. 21, cf. ver. 30); He declares’ those to be His true relatives\ who, notwithstanding’ ‘these opinions, cive heed to His word (ii. 31-85); and, while He preaches the secret of the kingdom of God to the multitude in parables, to His disciples—among whom, as is evident from the peculiar wording of iv. 10, the Twelve primarily are meant —He not only interprets the individual parables spoken to the people (iv. 14-20, 34), but declares them to be those chosen; ones to whom this secret is entrusted (iv. 11). This secret they are to learn, to understand, even when it is concealed in figurative, language (iv. 13), and: one, day are to reveal it to the world (iv. 21-25). Of the parables spoken on, this, particular day, the great number of which is referred to repeatedly (iv. 2, 33), three are recorded, among them one that is peculiar to Mark’s Gospel (iv! 26-29). The first, parable explains the differing reception which the word—-used thus alone, and referring, therefore, to the gospel preached by Jesus and to be preached by the apostles—receives among men as due to the different qualities of heart to be found in the hearers. The second parable shows that the kingdom of God, once it has been brought into. the world through Jesus’ preaching, has within itself germs which will develop to the harvest, and that, too, without direct intervention on His part. The third parable shows that the small beginnings of this kingdom. are no reason for! doubting that ultimately it will compass the entire world. | In the narratives which follow, iv. 35—vi. 6, the relation το the apostles and their future calling remains in the back- ground, though attention is called repeatedly to their THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 465 presence or participation in the work (v. 31, 37, vi. 1, otherwise in Matt. ix. 22-26, xii. 54). Not until the account of the commission and instruction of the Twelve (vi. 7-11) is the reader again reminded that the “being with Jesus,” which was their special privilege (iii. 14) and which was denied to others, without their being forbidden on this account to make known the grace that they had received (v. 18-20), was intended primarily to prepare the disciples for their vocation as preachers of the gospel. This relation of the history to the apostles and their future calling comes out more clearly in the fourth section (vi. 14—x. 52). Jesus appears here not so much engaged in work as a preacher and prophet among the people, as in training His apostles. He avoids the principal scene of His earlier labours, moves frequently, and changes con- stantly His place of abode, though there are times when His sympathy for the multitudes leads Him to mingle with them, or to help individuals among them who are in need (vi. 34, 45, vii. 2, 10, 13). He removes to the boundaries of Jewish territory and goes beyond the same (vil. 24, 31, vil. 27), not with the intention of preaching to the Gentiles, but in order to escape contact with the crowds and His enemies, that He may devote Himself entirely to the instruction of His disciples, as expressly stated in ix. 30f. In the accounts of the miraculous feed- ing the part taken by the disciples is emphasised more strongly than in the parallel accounts, especially those of Matthew and John (vi. 37-39, 41, viii. 6). In vi. 52, which has no parallel in the other Gospels, and the account in vill. 14-21, which is much more detailed and more emphatic than in Matt. xvi. 5-12, these occurrences are treated altogether from the point of view of a practical instruction of the disciples. They are to learn not only to believe in Jesus’ miraculous power, but out of what Jesus furnishes them also to satisfy thousands of those who hear the word. Where the superstitious opinions VOL. II. 3° 466 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW '"PESTAMENT concerning Jesus, produced by His work so far, are'men: tioned for the first time (vi. 14f.), the occasion is made use of to introduce an episode about the death of the Baptist (vi. 17-29). When we compare this account, which is very full, with the exceedingly brief notice in i. 2-8, it does not seem that it is inserted for its own sake, but as a prophecy with reference to the death of the mightier preacher (ef. ix. 12f.)... In the second instance where these superstitious opinions are mentioned—this time by the apostles in answer to a question by Jesus (vii. 27 £.)—the design is to bring out strongly the inde- pendence of faith and knowledge developed in the disciples under the influence of Jesus’ teaching and work. But progress in this development is slow and painful. Although it was not necessary any longer for Him to ask the reproving question, “Have ye not yet faith ?” (iy. 40, cf. per contra, ix. 23f.), He did, nevertheless, have con- stantly to lament their lack of insight (vi. 52, vii. 17-21), their failure to; understand His purposes (viii. 33, ix. 32), their want of determination and presence of mind (ix. 18 f., 28f.), and their failure to make unselfish sacrifice of themselves (ix. 33-50, x. 28-31, 35-45). They are still much affected with the hardness of heart, the unbelief, and the superstition that characterised their countrymen (vi. 49-52, vill. 11-15, ix. 19). It is not to be denied, how- ever, that the governing thought, which in the earlier sections iS everywhere noticeable, in the whole of the plan, in the details, of its elaboration, and especially in the choice of material, becomes less and less prominent as the narrative proceeds. specially in the fifth section (xi. 1-xvi. 8), where the closing scenes of Jesus’ life are described, does. interest in, the material itself, without which no history of Jesus’ public ministry would be possible, predominate over the particular. point of view from which this material is handled in Mark’s Gospel. A certain parallelism is noticeable between Jesus’ work, in THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 407 Galilee and in Jerusalem, which shows itself sometimes in the use of similar language. Jesus begins His work in Jerusalem with deeds (xi. 1-10, 15-18) and teachings (xi..18 =1. 22, el. x1.,17, xii. 14, 35, 37, 38, xiv. 49) which arouse the enthusiasm of the people, only to fall back upon the use. of parables, of which but, one example is recorded. Here, as there, He encounters an alliance be- tween the Pharisees and the Herodians, (xii. 13-1. 6). Here also in these circles there are those who are drawn to Jesus, and in whom He finds something to commend (xii. 34 =x, 21). And finally, in Jerusalem as in Galilee, He devotes Himself to the instruction of His disciples (xiii. 1 ff.). In this instruction a prominent place is given to a series of statements about the call of the apostles to preach (xiii. 9-13), which are introduced by Matthew—in part also by Luke—in a different connection. Repeatedly notice is taken of the presence of the disciples, or of the impression which something has made upon them (xi. 11, 14, 20f., xiii. 1-5), and the fact recalled that their task 15 the commission of Jesus’ word to others (xii. 37), and that the Gospel is for the whole world (xiv. 9). But not- withstanding all this, one observes that the material is not subordinated to the governing thought of the book. Very possibly this thought would have become more prominent again at the close. But the book was never finished. It may be regarded as one of the most certain of critical conclusions, that the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, xvi. 8, are the last words in the book which were written by the author himself (n. 5). How early and how generally it was felt to be unfortunate that Mark had broken the thread of his narrative with these words in the midst of his account of Jesus’ resurrection just as this account was begun, is attested by the existence and circulation of two additions, which were attached to the Gospel in order to supply this lack. The first positive witness for the former of these—xvi. 9-20 in the textus receptus, designated 468 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT in what follows by A—is that of Irensus (iii. 10. 6: GK, i. 924). That it was a part of Mark, however, is presupposed also in Tatian’s Diatessaron, in which the substance of the pericope was incorporated (n. 5)F¥ fora has not been shown as yet that a passage of any con- siderable length was taken by Tatian from a source other than one of the canonical Gospels. Apparently Justin also was familar with the passage (GK, i. 515). It must therefore have been appended to the Gospel as early as the first half of the second century. While there is no trace of the pericope, or of a substitute for it, to be found in Tertullian and Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, and numerous other authors who would have had occasion to make use of it had it been known to them, nevertheless from the middle of the fourth century on it became more and more widely circulated. Whereas in Eusebius’ time it was to be found in only a few Greek MSS. (GK, ii. 913), in those that have come down from the fifth century (Codd. AUDE, ete.) it is found regularly, also in the different Syriac versions, with the exception of Syr. Sin. and in the Gothic and later Egyptian (Memphitic) translations. It is witnessed, further, by Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Marcus Kremita, and the Apostolic Constitutions. The first to testify to its existence in Alexandria is Didymus; in Latin North Africa, Augustine; in Italy, apart from Justin and Tatian, who in a sense are to be reckoned here, and some doubtful notices (n. 5), Ambrose, the Latin MSS. of the Gospels used by Jerome, and Jerome himself, who gave the A text a fixed place in the West by adopting it in his revision of the Latin N.T. Besides this addition, there is another much shorter conclusion to the Gospel designated here by B, which was circulated somewhat widely at a comparatively early date (n. 6). This text is found (1) as an integral part of Mark’s Gospel in a fifth century MS. (k), which represents THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 469 the oldest form of the Latin text of the Gospels, show- ing much agreement with Cyprian’s citations. (2) In several Greek uncials of the seventh to ninth centuries (LT'¥) and several Greek cursives and Ethiopic MSS., only that here as if giving a choice between the two, the A text is added also partly with introductory and inter- posed remarks which give evidence that these additions are doubtful and circulated only here and there. (3) On the other hand, it appears on the margin of a Greek cursive of the tenth century (Ev. 274), A being inserted in the text. This is the case also in the latest Syriac version made in Alexandria in the seventh century by Thomas of Heraclea, who compared Greek MSS. (GA, ii. 922). (4) Finally, it is probable that the scribe who copied the Codex Vaticanus was familiar with B, not A. There is also a Coptic MS. which seems to depend upon an ori- ginal having the B text (GA, i. 912, 921). A third recension (C), namely, that in which Mark’s Gospel is concluded with xvi. 8, is found (1) in the two oldest Greek MSS. extant (ΝΒ); (2) according to Eusebius’ testimony in “almost all,” and these the ‘‘ accurate” MSS. of his time, which Jerome also declares to have been the case still in his time (@X, i. 919); (3) in one of the two oldest forms of the Syriac translation (Ss). To the above is to be added (4) the silent witness of authors who betray acquaintance with neither A nor B, and (5) the indirect witness of the B recension. From the witnesses cited above under 2, 4, for the B text, it is clear that in the regions where B originated and was circulated A did not become known until later; nor is it hardly conceivable that B should have been invented where A had been handed down by the tradition. The B text cannot be traced back beyond the fourth century, although it may have originated in the third century, and apparently in Egypt, whence it found its way into single MSS. in Latin Africa. The A text, which was the only one known to 470 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Irenzeus, originated probably in Asia Minor before ‘the middle of the second century, whence it spread without resistance to Italy and Gaul, whereas in Palestine though known it was rejected by scholars. And in Syria, where its contents were very early made known by its incor- poration in the Diatessaron, it had to struggle for its existence. The way in which both the additions harmonise with the beginning of the book, show that they were written after careful consideration. The statement with which both A and B conclude, namely, that the apostles, author- ised by the risen Christ, preached the gospel throughout the world, is a suitable conclusion for a book which, ac- cording to its title, was intended to set forth the beginning and origin of the gospel of Christ. In B this is all that is said, and at the same time expressed in ecclesiastical language which has a comparatively modern sound. The only thing it contains in the nature of a conclusion to the interrupted narrative is the brief statement that the women fulfilled the commission given them by the angel. The apparent contradiction with xvi. 8—which, after all, is only apparent—was partly removed, as in codex k, by changes made later in xvi. 8 (GA, ii. 920f.). The con- tradiction was, however, little felt, because the passage was written more with reference to xvi. 7 (cf. Luke xxiv. 9f., 28; John xx. 18). The A text is of an entirely different character. To begin with, it is very easy to see that the text is made up of different elements. In vv. 9-13 and vv. 19-20 there is no narrative such as we find elsewhere in the Gospels, especially in Mark. | Com- pared with these sentences, the meagre sketch in 1. 2-13, which precedes the account of Jesus’ preaching, shows ample breadth of description, and is full of graphic detail, while the use of direct discourse (i. 7 f., 11) lends it a certain dramatic vigour. In the addition, on the other hand, not a single word spoken by the risen Christ THE FIRST THREE ‘GOSPELS AND ACTS 47ι1 at the time of His appearances to His diseiples is repro- duced, nor is an account given of a single act. In short, it is not narrated, but chronicled, that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and then to two unnamed persons going into the country, with the statement in both eases that their tidings were not credited by the others (xvi. 9-13). At the close, moreover, (xvi. 19-20), in the fewest possible words, the ascension, Jesus’ exalta- tion to the right hand of God, and the entire missionary work of the apostles are outlined. The sources from which these statements are taken are not hard to find: xvi. 9-11 is from John "xx. 1-18, with the insertion of a phrase from Luke vii. 2; xvi. 12-13 is from Luke xxiv. 13-35, the dependence being in part verbal (Luke xxiv. 13, δύο ἐξ αὐτῶν... πορευόμενοι eis κώμην), but with omission of all details. The language of ver. 19 is that of the Apostolic Creed, not of the Gospels, while that of ver. 20 resembles the apostolic teaching (Heb. ii. 3f. ; Rom. x. 14f., xv. 18 f.; Col. 1.6; 1 Tim. ii. 16; Acts xv. 12). Vv. 14-18 are strikingly different from the verses between which they stand (vv. 9-13, 19-20). This is a real narrative, being in its substance an address to the apostles by the risen Christ, with a brief statement of the circumstances under which they were spoken. Further, there is nothing in the passage betraying its dependence upon a canonical Gospel; while, on the other hand, its style does not, like that of vv. 19-20, differ from the classic style which characterises the Gospels. xvi. 14 is cited in Latin by Jerome from a Greek MS. with a very original addition (n. 7). When the Lord reproaches the disciples for their unbelief and hardness of heart, they excuse themselves, saying, “This unrighteous and unbelieving world is under Satan (Satan’s power), who by the agency of unclean spirits prevents (men) from laying hold of the true power of God. Therefore reveal 472 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT now thy righteousness.” Everyone sees at once that this is not a gloss written by some copyist, but that it is a bit of conversation handed down by the tradition, which is not only in perfect. accord with the spirit of that time (Acts i. 6), but which suits also the context in the Textus receptus. Whereas in the latter the account passes very abruptly from reproof of the disciples’ unbelief to the commission in which they are bidden to preach the gospel to the whole world, in the passage as cited by Jerome the necessary transition is supplied. In the excuse which they offer, the apostles confess themselves guilty (ef. Mark ix. 24), so that it can be taken for granted without any statement to this effect that the exhortation, “ Be not faithless, but believing” (John xx. 27), is already more than half realised.. And the request of the apostles that Jesus reveal His righteousness at once, .e. set up His kingdom, thereby destroying the power of Satan and his emissaries in the world, is followed naturally by the promise with which He sends them out into the wide and wicked world (xvi. 17f., cf. Mark vi. 7, 13, ix. 1, 284); Luke ix. 1, x. 17-20). This fragment, which Jerome preserved but did not incorporate among the variants in his revision of the Latin Bible, restores the original connection of the passage. ‘The words are not, however, original in Mark, and could not have been written by the author of the A text; for then it would be impossible to explain why they have disappeared from all the Greek MSS. and from the Syriac and Latin texts which have A. That Satan and his emissaries have power in the world (John xil., 31, xvi. 11; 2 Cor iv. 4; Eph. vii 11f.; 1 Pet. v. 8), that the world is lying in wickedness (1 John v. 19), and that the apostles longed for the coming of the kingdom of Christ and the future world in which righteousness dwells (Acts i. 6; 2 Tim. iv. 8), were certainly not thoughts so offensive to Bible readers and copyists of the second century that they felt constrained, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 473 when they found such thoughts in their copies of the Gospels, to cut them out of the text. Then there is the other difficulty of explaining the ineredible thoroughness with which this was done in all quarters. The original form of this narrative which is preserved by Jerome must have been taken from the very source from which the author of A took this part of his compilation. It found its way into the Greek MS. of the Gospel, in which Jerome found it apparently first as a gloss and then as a part of the text. Unless all appearances are greatly deceptive, this source was rediscovered some years ago (n. 8). In an Armenian Evangelistarium belonging to the year 989, and purporting to be copied from MSS. of a much earlier date, after Mark xvi. 8 there is a space left large enough for two lines; then follows the title written with red ink—“ Ariston’s, the Presbyter’s.” Since the Armenian translation of Eusebius, 7. E. i. 39. 4, and the Syriac original on which the Armenian translation is dependent, transcribe ’Apiotiwy with Aviston, and since this Aristion was one of the, presbyters who were Papias’ teachers,—from whom also Papias became acquainted with numerous sayings of Jesus which did not become canonical and with other gospel tradi- tions, all of which he preserved in his work,—there is little reason to doubt that this notice has reference to the Aristion whom Papias makes a personal dis- ciple of Jesus (above, p. 452 f.). In so far as it states formally, or seems to imply, that Aristion is the author of the whole A text, the notice is misleading. In the first place, as already shown, the A text is made up of fragments which are totally different in style; but neither Papias’ fragments nor the account of Eusebius in which they are incorporated give the impression that Aristion was engaged at all in literary work, and in making compilations from the canonical Gospels. Apart from this, however, if Aristion were the author of A, it 474 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT would be quite impossible to explain how the original form of the narrative could disappear from all the Greek MSS. having the A text, to turn up again suddenly in a Greek MS. in the hands of Jerome. So the fact of the matter must be, rather, that Mark xvi. 14—18 is one of those narratives and traditions (ef. Luke i. 1) of the dis- ciple Aristion which Papias incorporated in his work (Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 7, 14). This is confirmed in the most strik- ing manner by a marginal gloss to Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39. 9, though inserted by a later hand, which connects Aristion’s name with the story taken by Eusebius from Papias, that Justus, called Barsabbas (Acts i. 23), once drank a deadly poison, but was preserved by the grace of the Lord from all harmful effects. Here is an actual case where the promise of Jesus in Mark xvi. 18 is fulfilled. This promise and the narrative of its fulfil- ment are referred independently to the same Aristion by two different persons acquainted with Papias’ work. Papias’ work is therefore the source from which the author of A took the middle part of this addition, com- bining it with material from Luke and John into an in- different unity. The way for the Lord’s rebuke of the disciples’ unbelief (ver. 14) is prepared by the statement that the reports of Mary Magdalene and of the two going into the country were discredited (vv. 11, 13), while the sketch of the apostolic missionary work (ver. 20) follows naturally the command and promise of the Lord (vv. 15-18). The fact that the redactor of A left out the sentence, of which we gain our first knowledge from Jerome, does not need special explanation ; since, in constructing a suitable close for Mark’s Gospel, he did not need to copy his sources, but to excerpt and to compile them. The very originality of the sentence, which makes it interesting to everyone who is fond of the antique, may have made it appear to him too peculiar and too obscure to form a part of an epilogue so entirely outlinear in character. These THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 475 last statements also go to strengthen the conjecture that the A text was appended to Mark’s Gospel in Asia Minor, where this Gospel was highly esteemed at an early date (above, p. 444 f.), and that this was done before-the middle of the second century, since, outside of Asia Minor, ac- quaintance with Aristion’s oral narratives and Papias’ work in which these narratives were recorded cannot be presup- posed at such an early date. After what has been said, further proof that A does not belong to the author of the book is scarcely necessary. Defenders of this view have undertaken to explain the later setting aside of this alleged concluding section, on the ground of objections to the contradictions between its contents and the other Gospels. To be sure, the learned harmonists, from Eusebius on, busied themselves with these differences along with others (GK, ii. 913-918). But, after all, what do they amount to compared with those which exist between the evangelists’ narratives in other parts of the gospel history. The attempt was made, from the second century on, to modify or to remove such differences by means of exegesis, more or less artificial, and by small changes in the text, consisting of removals and additions ; that, however, a section of this compass, above all this section, to which authors like Irenzeus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine made no objection, should have been cut out for such reasons, and the Gospel of Mark thereby simply mutilated in a passage where it would be particularly noticeable to every reader and copyist, is inconceivable, quite as much so as that the work of the mutilator should have been accepted so widely for centuries. To begin with, there are two points in the language which show that Mark could not have been the author of A. (1) Instead of (ἡ) μία (τῶν) σαββάτων, the only usage current in the Apostolic Church (Mark xvi. 2; Matt. xxviii. 1; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1, 19; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2), we find in Mark xvi. 9, πρώτη σαββάτου, 476 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which is better Greek (vol. i. p. 19, n. 14), but which does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. (2) Jesus is twice called “The Lord” (xvi. 19, 20), an expression which does not oceur elsewhere in the book, and which is not to be found in Matthew, and only rarely in Luke and John. Attention has already been called to the fact that the whole character of the narrative is foreign to Mark, certainly that of xvi. 9-13, 19-20 (above, p. 470f.). That Mark could not have excerpted portions from Luke and John, as the author of A evidently did, will appear when these Gospels are investigated. They are later than Mark. The content of A is, moreover, of such a character that Mark could not have written it as the conclusion of the narrative begun in Xvi. 1, and so as the conclusion of his book. After making the angels repeat the promise of Jesus recorded earlier in xiv. 28 so near the close of the Gospel as xvi. 7, he could not, have omitted to mention that the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee, and to tell how this took place. But in A the reader thus made expectant does not hear a word about Galilee. Cf. per contra, Matt. xxviii, 16 in relation to Matt. xxvi. 32, xxviii. 7. Nor could Mark have omitted to narrate how the women so far recovered from the terror which at first sealed their lips (xvi. 8) as to be able to carry out the angel’s commission (xvi. 7), which was undoubtedly the case with Mary Magdalene, whom Mark mentions for the first time in xvi. 1, if we may believe Mark xvi. 10 and all the other traditions. If it be accepted as proved from what has been said that A is in the same position as B, which no modern scholar is bold enough to claim as original with the author of the book, and that both are later additions, it follows that © is the original text. The same result follows even from the application of the critical canon that, where two mutually exclusive longer texts are opposed to a shorter text from which their origin can be explained, the shorter reading is to be preferred, especially if it has good witnesses THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACIS 477 (n. 9). The canon is entirely applicable to the case in hand ; for, in the first place, it is perfectly evident that a text breaking off suddenly with the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, as does C, must have given rise to attempts to supply the book, so manifestly incomplete, with a suitable conclusion. Presupposing, therefore, that C is original, the origin of A and B is entirely conceivable. In the second place, C is strongly supported by direct and indirect witnesses (above, p. 469). In the third place, we cannot understand how C could have originated from either A or Β. The assumption that originally C was followed by another conclusion—here called X—written by the author, which afterwards disappeared altogether from the tradition (n. 8), is to be rejected as fanciful, because, as shown, it is un- necessary in explanation of the facts. Whatever form it may take, this hypothesis, which we may indicate briefly as © + X, is improbable. Though the N.T. text can be shown to have met with varying treatment, it has never as yet been established from ancient citations, nor made really probable on internal grounds, that a single complete sent- ence of the original text has disappeared altogether from the text transmitted in the Church, 1.6. from all the MSS. of the original and of the ancient translations. Quite as little has the opposite been shown to be the case, namely, that there is a single sentence of the text, transmitted in the Church and witnessed by all existing sources, which did not belong originally to the text (n. 9). Here, however, it is not a question of a short sentence, but the part which is wanting—which must, therefore, have been lost if originally in the text—must have been a narrative of considerable compass (see above, p. 475). Nor is it a case where the section was of such a character that it could disappear without notice, because an intelligible connection remained after it was left out; it is rather the question of the concluding section, which the reader must await with interest after what precedes, and the loss of which 478 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT must leave the book noticeably incomplete. The most inconceivable supposition of all would be that some one, who was displeased with this alleged genuine conclusion (X), vemoved the same intentionally, and that this muti- lated copy succeeded in entirely replacing the complete exemplars... The mutilation must have been made imme- diately after the appearance of the book and before it began to circulate, consequently in the region where it was written, and, if the author did not die at the very moment when his work was completed, in the vicinity where he was. Such an intentional setting aside of X would have been a senseless and hopeless undertaking, if the eritic who ventured it did not at once furnish a suitable substitute, 2.e. if the person who mutilated, Mark were not at the same time the author of A, the most widely circulated of the spurious conclusions. But if X was set aside by the author or the redactor of A, how are we to explain the origin of all those exemplars, widely circulated until: after the fourth century, which at that time were, and in their existing form are, without either the original conclusion (X) or the conclusion which it is alleged was intentionally substituted for it (A)—in other words, all the witnesses for Band C? It is, of course, conceivable that a recension, C + X, was objected to in various quarters, and that the recension A won friends earlier than we know—hbefore it came into general use in the Chureh; but it is absurd to assume that entire Church provinces should have adopted the negative part of this new recension—a mutilation of the Mark which they possessed originally—-but not the positive part of the same, 2.e. the new conclusion, The absurdity is not helped by, the assumption (n. 8) that, while the intentional setting aside of X and the appending of xvi. 9-20 took place in the same circles and from similar motives, a period of twenty years or more elapsed between the two processes, during which time the Gospel was widely circulated) in its THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS, 474 mutilated form, without as yet having been completed again. It is inconceivable that one who had read critically the original in its completed form should have been satisfied with the production of such an, unsightly torso, and that persons in possession of the completed book in circulation as early as the first century in Rome, as well as Asia Minor,—certainly also in many other places,—should have exchanged the same for the mutilated work. The conclusion stands, therefore, that Mark was circu- lated from the beginning only in its incomplete form C (i. 1-xvi. 8), and the question arises as to the origin of this abnormality. An accident to the original MS. has been suggested, which must have taken place before any copies were made. But if this happened before the book. left his hands, why did not the author correct it before he permitted his book to be copied, 2.e. before it was issued ? More probably death, or some other compelling circum- stance, arrested his pen. If he died before the completion of the work, the friends for whom it was originally intended would have felt it their duty to copy and issue the posthumous work without additions. If, however, as the tradition seems to show (above, p. 433), Mark published the book himself, its incompleted form would be incom- prehensible only in case that a few lines were wanting which the author and editor could have added, at any time. On the other hand, the small compass of the work, in comparison with the other historical books of the N.T., leaves room for the conjecture that Mark intended to add several portions to his work (n. 10). Other things besides the resurrection appearances could have been included. For, carrying out the idea expressed in the title, a mass of material remained. which could have been appropriately used, such as we find utilised in Acts (cf. e.g. 1 Pet. 1. 12 with Acts i. 1-14). If he began to write the Gospel before the death of Peter (64), but did not publish the same until after the death of Paul (67), things enough 480 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT eould be mentioned which must have interrupted the pen of this spiritual son of Peter and younger friend of Paul in the eity where both the apostles had died as martyrs, and which also in the time immediately following must have prevented him from at once completing his book as he desired. If, in these circumstances, he yielded to the request for its issue, it would not have been something unheard of or irrational. It is perfectly possible also that during the months and years while he and others were hoping for the completion of the interrupted work he had given the unfinished book to friends to read, and that they had made several copies without his being able to prevent it (n. 11). At all events, the incomplete char- acter of the book is proof that it was handed down in the Church in the form in which it came from the author's pen, since the first attempt to recast the work would have been directed toward furnishing it with a conclusion. The varied and slow success of the later attempts in this direction show how difficult it was to change the form of a book after it had once found a circle of readers in the Church. Nor is the result different if we assume that it is not the original work of Mark which has had the misfortune, either by accident or intention, of losing its conclusion, but only a later working over of the same ; for how could a new working over of the Gospel, which was never completed, have replaced the original work, which was complete, and which had already come to be highly esteemed by many ? 1. (P. 456.) The question, whether υἱοῦ Θεοῦ is to be read after Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Mark i. 1 need not be raised here. Iren, iii. 10. 6, 11, 8, 16, 3, seems to have construed i, 1 as subject of the predicate contained in ver. 2, as if it read, ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἶ. Xp. ἐγένετο κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ. Origen, however, without expressing himself definitely as to the grammatical construction, interprets the passage (in Jo. tom. 1. 13, vi. 24) as if ver. 1 with ἐγένετο of ver. 4 were the predicate and Ἰωάννης the subject. This con- struction, so popular in later times, was deliberately exeluded by N#, καὶ ἐγένετο, and Copt. ἐγένετο δέ in ver. 4. The fundamental error of the still dominant interpretations appears in Bengel’s Gnomon, though at the same THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 481 time he rejects a still more mistaken construction : “ Initium tamen appellat Marcus non libri sui, sed rei geste.” For further details we must refer to the commentaries. ' 2. (P. 457.) That the indication of the close of a book serves to set off one complete literary production from another writing following it in the same codex is shown as early as Hier. Ep. xxviii. 4: “Ut solemus nos com- pletis opusculis ad distinctionem rei alterius sequentis medium interponere ‘explicit’ aut ‘feliciter’ aut aliquid istiusmodi.” The same, of course, is true of the corresponding incipit. It may be mere chance that these formulas appear earlier in Latin Gospel books (eg. in Vercell. see. iv., Veron. and Bobb. see. v., ef. Bianchini, Hv. Quadr. i. 262 ff., 474 ; Old Latin Biblical Texts, ed. Wordsworth, ii. 23) than in the Greek. The oldest Greek text of the Gospels in which such formulas are found is that of the Greeco-Latin Canta- brigiensis (sec. vi., ed. Scrivener, p. 95, evayyeAıov κατα Μαθθαιον ετελεσθη, apxera evayyehuov κατα loavyny; p. 262, ἐπληρώθη, ἄρχεται). That τέλος and ἀρχή Were also customary at an earlier period needs first to be proved. With regard to τέλος, cf. GK, ii. 933. The comparison with Hos. i. 2 which has been suggested,—by whom first the present writer does not know,—is not apt. Aside from the fact that the Hebrew ought probably to be translated, “ As Yahweh began to speak with Hosea,” the ἀρχὴ λόγου κυρίου πρὸς ‘Qoné of the LXX is not the beginning or the title of the book, but comes after it (Hos. i. 1), and refers only to the succeeding portion,—say chaps. i. and ii.,—or perhaps only to the command of i. 2 itself. 3. (P. 461.) In the Johannine writings we do not find εὐαγγέλιον and εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, except in Rev. x. 7, xiv. 6—where it is not applied to the Gospel usually so called—and a suggestion of the word in ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5, iii. 11. Even Luke, who shows most clearly the derivation of the idea from Isa. Ixi. 1 (Luke iv. 18, ef. vii. 22 ; Matt. xi. 5), and who uses the verb with some frequency, putting it in Jesus’ own mouth (iv. 43, vii. 22, xvi. 16), besides applying it to the preaching of His disciples (viii. 1, ix. 6, xx. 1; Acts v. 42, viii. 35, x. 36, etc.) and to other announcements connected with it as well (i. 19, ii. 10, iii. 18), does not use the noun inthe Gospel, and in Acts only in the mouth of Peter (xv. 7, cf. Mark i. 15) and of Paul (xx. 24, ef. 32) with a designation which is characteristic of his teaching. Matthew uses εὐαγγέλιον four times, twice in words of Jesus (xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13), and twice referring to Jesus (iv. 23, ix. 35), three of these times with the addition, peculiar to him, of τῆς βασιλείας (for in Mark i. 14 τοῦ θεοῦ is certainly to be read instead of τῆς βασιλείας). But Mark in his much shorter Gospel has the word seven times ; he alone of the evangelists uses it in connection with Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (i. 1), as is common with Paul, or τοῦ θεοῦ (i. 14) ; and among the five passages in which he puts the word without addition in Jesus’ mouth (i. 15, viii. 35, x. 29, xiii. 10, xiv. 9), there are two where comparison with the parallels (Mark viii. 35= Matt. x. 39 ; Mark x. 29= Matt. xix. 29 ; Luke xviii. 29) shows that the expression is peculiar to Mark. 4, (P. 461.) We find in Mark’s narrative a number of details lacking in Matt., and for the most part in Luke also, which are not indispensable to the understanding of the story, but which describe the situation more exactly or the action more graphically : i. 19 (ὀλίγον), 20: (“the hired servants ”), 29 (particular designation of the house and of Jesus’ companions), 33 (“the whole VOl.. II, 31 482 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT city was gathered at the door”), 36, ii. 1b, 2, 16 (ἰδόντες ὅτι ἤσθιεν), 18 (it was a fast-day), 111, 9f., 20f., 34 (“looking about Him at the multitude which surrounded Him,” ef. ver. 32), iv. 36,38 (ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον), v. 3-vi. 13 (the number of the swine), 15 £., 26, 29-33, 40 (Jesus’ company), 41 (the exact words), 42 (the age of the girl), vi. 13 (anointing with oil), 20f., 37 (cost of the bread), 38, 39 (“ the green grass”), 40, vii. 26, viii. 3b, 14 (the one loaf), 27 (ev τῇ ὁδῷ, and often besides, ix. 33, x. 17, 32, 52), ix. 3, 14-16 (see § 53), 17 f., 21-26, 28 (eis οἶκον), 33 (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ), 34, 35 (καθίσας), 36 (ἐναγκαλι- σάμενος, 80 also x. 16), x. 10, 32a, 46, 49-51, xi. 4, 13 (first what Jesus saw from a distance, then what He noticed on the spot), xiv. 7b, 30 (dis, τρίς, ef. xiv. 72), 44 (καὶ amayere ἀσφαλῶς), 51f., 54 (ἔσω πρὸς τὸ φῶς), xv. 21, 24 (τίς ri ἄρῃ), 29 (οὐά), 44. It is often noted that Jesus looked about Him, noticed objects, or looked at persons, and sometimes the effect is also men- tioned, iii. 5, 34, v. 30, 32, x. 21, 23, 27, xi.11. The feeling and manner, too, of Jesus’ words and actions is sometimes noticed by Mark alone, i. 41, iii. 5, x. 14, It is frankly stated that Jesus failed to hear something, inquired about something that He did not know, and looked for something that was not to be found, v. 30-32, 36, vi. 38, xi. 13, cf. xiii. 32; and that His relatives and disciples spoke of or to Him with disrespect or reproach, iii. 21, iv. 38, v. 31 (vy. 40), viii. 32... Mark likes to give a precise note of time, sometimes by an addition to the less definite expression found in the other accounts, i. 32, 35, xvi. 2, cf. i. 21, ii. 1, iv. 85, vi. 2, 35, 47,48, viii. 2, ix. 2, xii 11, 19, 20,:xiv. 12, 17, xv. 1, 25 (hour of the crucifixion, Mark only), 33,34. He likes strong forms of expression : ἐξέστησαν εὐθὺς ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ, V. 42; λίαν ἐκ περισσοῦ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἐξίσταντο, Vi. 51, ef. vil. 57, x. 26; πολλοὶ πλούσιοι πολλὰ--- μία χήρα λεπτὰ δύο, xii. 41 ἢ. (ef. in comparison with this Luke xxi. 1f.). The merely adverbial πολλά, i. 45, iii. 12, iv. 2, v. 10, 23, 38, 43, vi. 20, 34, ix. 26, he alone of the evangelists has; vii. 8, 13 also belongs here, while v. 26, viii. 31, ix. 12, xv.3 belong in the same category as Matt. xvi. 21, xxvii. 19 ; Luke ix. 22, xxii. 65. A comparison with the parallels shows that μόνους, ix. 2, πάντων, x. 44, ὄντως, Xi. 32, πολύ, xii. 27, are the sharpening of other simpler and suflicient terms. For him πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν is not suflicient, he adds ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς, xii, 44. The much repeated καὶ εὐθύς (often amended by transcribers to εὐθέως) and the likewise frequent πάλιν and καὶ πάλεν will perhaps weary a reader attentive to the style, but on the other hand show the vivacity of the narrator. Some proper observations on this point occur in Mandel, Kephas der Evangelist, 2-6. Like other narrators from among the people, Mark seems rather to favour than to avoid the repetition of the same circumstantial expression within the single narrative, instead of an abbreviation of similar meaning, iii. 1, 3, 111. 31, 32, v. 9, 15, v. 30, 31, vi. 14, 16, x. 47, 48, xiv. 13, 72, xv. 37, 89 (ἐξέπνευσεν), xiv. 28, xvi. 7. In the discourses and conversa- tions, moreover, he likes refrain and recapitulation, vii. 8 (even according to the shorter text), 13, vii. 15, 18-20, x. 23, 24, xii. 24, 27 (πλανᾶσθε), xii. 29-31, 32-33. Consequently ix. 44, 46 are not to be removed from the text on the ground of tautology. He uses direct discourse even where unspoken thoughts (v. 28, ix. 10), or remarks of several persons, or words spoken on different occasions, are reproduced, i. 37, iii. 11, vi. 14, 16, and also where other narrators do not find it necessary to repeat the words at all, vi. 24, x. 49. Mark is not afraid of ellipsis, iii. 30, (he spoke in view of the fact) “ that they said” ; ix. 11, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 483 (how is it related with the fact) “that the Pharisees say?” ix. 23, (how can you say) “If thou canst?” ix. 28, “That we could not east it out” (how is that to be explained ?) ; xiv. 49, “but (it must happen so), in order that the Seriptures might be fulfilled.” The impression of accuracy is also heightened by the frequent retention of the Aramaic phrase ; gee § 53. 5. (Pp. 467, 468.) The most detailed and scholarly arguments for the authenticity of Mark xvi. 9-20 are those of Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark, 1871; Martin, Introduction ἃ la Critique Textuelle du N.T., Partie Pratique, tome ii. 1884. Among those who dispute the authenticity of these verses, special mention may be made of the critical apparatus of Tischendorf, that of Westcott and Hort, N.T. Appendix, 28-51, the investigation of Klostermann, op. cit. 298-309, and the writer’s discussion GK, ii. 910-938, which cannot be fully repeated here. With regard to the evidence for the text which closes with xvi. 8, we might add that the: Gospel of Peter (circa 150) should probably be included ; cf. the writer’s work on the subject, 1893, 5, 53. The dependence of this Gospel upon Mark in general, and especially in the account of the resurrection morning, is un- deniable. An ἦν, which is proper only in the mouth of the narrator, Mark xvi. 4, is in Gospel of Peter xii. 54 attributed to the women, on whose lips it is meaningless. From Mark xvi. 5 the Gospel of Peter xiii. 55 takes νιανίσκον . περιβεβλημένον στολήν κτὰ., Whereas in xi, 44 it had called the same angel ἀνθρωπός ris; from Mark xvi. 8 it borrows φοβηθεῖσαι ἔφυγον. But the Gospel of Peter concludes the account of the resurrection day at this point. This coincidence with the original conclusion of Mark would be a very remarkable circumstance if xvi. 9-20 had also been before the author. Lods, L’Ev. de St. Pierre, p. 64, compares Gospel of Peter, vii. 27, πενθοῦντες καὶ κλαίοντες ; Conybeare, Zupos., Dec. 1895, p. 413; Gospel of Peter, xiv. 59, ἐκλαίομεν καὶ ἐλυπούμεθα, with Mark xvi. 10, πενθοῦσιν καὶ κλαίουσιν. But the first passage belongs to a different historical connection, and the second is not particularly similar. The combination πενθεῖν καὶ κλαίειν is quite usual, Jas. iv. 9; Luke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 11, 15, 19; and also John xvi. 20,—a prediction which was not to fail of literal fulfilment. Rohrbach (Der Schluss des Marcusev. 27-33; Die Berichte über d. Auferstehung Christi), following up a conjecture of Harnack’s (Bruchstücke des Ev. und der Ap. des Petrus, 2te Aufl. 33), has attempted to show that the Gospel of, Peter derived its conclusion from the lost original ending of Mark. But, granted that there was such an ending, how is one to show what it contained? We must assume that Mark, if he had finished his work, would have told of an appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee, as would probably Gospel of Peter, xiv., also—where, however, the name Galilee does not appear, and there is no account of an appearance of Christ. But Matt. xxviii. 16-20 and John xxi. also tell of an appearance in Galilee, and the connection of the Gospel of Peter with the latter chapter is evident. That Levi the son of Alphus is men- tioned there, only shows that the writer knew Mark and used it here as in other passages ; ef. Mark ii. 14. Horn, Abfassungszeit, Geschichtlichkeit und Zweck von Jo. xxi. S. 94-156, has given an extended criticism of the Harnack - Rohrbach hypothesis. With regard to the authorities for Mark xvi. 9-20, we must notice also that the fact that the section was worked over by Tatian (Forsch. i. 218 f. ; GK, ii. 554) has been still further confirmed ; cf. NKZ, 1894, 106. On the other hand, one may not with Harnack (TT, xiii, 484 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 4. 51) adduce Novat. Trin. viii., in connection with which Gallandi, Bibl.2 iti, 292, had inappropriately cited Mark xvi. 15, or the writing Ad Novat. (Cypr., ed. Hartel, App. p. 56) attributed ky Harnack (op. cit. xiii. 1) to Pope Sixtus m. and the year 257-258 ; for evangelizate gentibus, also in an inexact quotation of Matt. xxviii. 19, does not correspond exactly with Mark xvi. 15 (predicate evangeliwm ommi creature). Conybeare, op. cit. 402, shows that the Armenian Eznik, in his work against heresies (ed. Venet. 89), quotes Mark xvi. 17, 18 verbatim according to the usual Armenian translation, but without attributing the words expressly to Mark. The principal conclusion which Conybeare draws is that Mark xvi. 9-20 always belonged to the Armenian translation of the Gospels, but was afterwards set aside because the addition was known to the Armenians from the beginning as a work of the presbyter Ariston (see n. 8), and so, with stricter views regarding the Canon, could not be permanently admitted as a part of Mark. The history of the Armenian translation of this section, of which Martin, op. eit. 325 ff., gives a different account and opinion than Conybeare, 403f., 417f., cannot be followed further here. But seen. 8. For an extended variant of the longer form see Freer MS. 6. (P. 468.) The most important witnesses for the shorter addition B are—(1) L. (sec. 8, ed. Tischendorf in Monum. sacra ined. 1846, p. 206); (2) © (sec. 8 or 9, in Gregory, Textkritik des NT’s, i. 94); (3) ΤΊ (sec. 7 or 8, in Gregory, op. cit. 70, a Coptic-Greek fragment); (4) Ol (so called by Schmidtke, Die Hvv. eines alten Uncial codex, 1903, the text is given 8.29; it is Miniscule 574, according to Gregory’s enumeration = Paris, Bibl. nat. gr. 97, used. by the present writer in discussion of the question [GK, ii. 921] following Martin, Description techn. p. 91-94; Nestle, ΖΗ͂Ν ΤΊ, 1903, S. 255, is mistaken). The text is accordingly as follows: πάντα δὲ ra παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα αὐτὸς ὁ (ὁ omitted in Ψ) Ἰησοῦς (edavn+WT) ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς (τοῦ ἡλίου -- ΤῊ καὶ ἄρχε (μέχρι, VY) δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι’ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας" ἀμήν (omitted in L). In Ψ this portion is separated from xvi. 8 only by τέλος, which indicates the close of a Church lection, and is followed by ἔστιν καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ “ ἐφοβοῦντο yap” ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωϊ κτλ. =xvi. 9-20. Not until this point does the subscription εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μᾶρκον (without ἀμήν) occur. In L the shorter ending is introduced by φέρεταί mov καὶ ταῦτα, then follows the longer ending without an ἀμῆν as conclusion of what precedes, introduced by ἔστιν δὲ καί ταῦτα κτλ. (except for the δὲ interpolated here as in Y, see above) and concluding with ἀμήν. ed. x. Μᾶρκον. In Ol all intervening remarks are wanting. So also in TA, where, however, the shorter ending is separated from xvi. 8 as from the following longer ending by lines filled out with flourishes ; and at the begin- ning of the longer ending the words εἶχεν γὰρ---ἐφοβοῦντο yap of xvi. 8 are repeated (cf. the Coptic MSS. concerning which, following Lightfoot, the present writer has made some comments), Only in the Latin Codex k (Bobiensis, swe. 5, Old Latin Bibl. texts, ii. 23) is B fully amalgamated with the text of xvi. 8; but in such a way, that the text of xvi. 8 is violently changed, in order to add the shorter ending without producing a eontra- diction (ef. GK, ii. 920). 7. (P. 471.) Jerome, contra Pelag. ii. 15 (Vallarsi, ii. 758; ef. GK, ii. 919, 935); “In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxime in greeis eodieibus iuxta THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 485 Marcum in fine eius evangelii seribitur : ‘ Postea quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis Jesus et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his, qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi satisfacie- bant dicentes: Seeculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis sub satana (al. substantia) est, qua (read qui) non sinit per immundos spiritus veram dei apprehendi virtutem : idcirco iam nunc revela iustitiam tuam.” 8. (Pp. 473,477,478.) With regard to the Gospel of Etchmiadzin artistically considered, see Strzygowski, Byzantinische Denkmäler, i., Vienna, 1891. The statement “of Ariston the presbyter,” which it contains, was first published and discussed by Conybeare in the Expos., Oct. 1893, pp. 241-254; again, Dec. 1895, pp. 401-421. Cf. the writer’s discussion, ThLb, 1893, No. 51. Resch, Ausserkanon. Paralleltexte zu den Evv. ii. 450-456, on the basis of this phrase, argued the probability that Ariston of Pella (circa 135) was not only the author of the conclusion of Mark, but also the editor of the Gospel Canon. Rohrbach (see ἢ. 5, above), who declares (26) the issue and circulation of. an unfinished book to be “nonsense,”—in singular contradiction to the literary history of all ages,—and therefore treats the former existence of an original and genuine ending as a matter of course, holds the Gospel to have come to Asia Minor intact, and also to the place where the Gospel of Peter originated, which in all probability, however, is to be looked for elsewhere (p. 483, above). It was of this unmutilated book (C+X) that John the presbyter spoke with his pupils (Kus. H. E. iii. 39. 15). One of these pupils, Papias, wrote several decades later of a Gospel of Mark, which had meanwhile been deprived of its closing chapter (X) and furnished with a spurious addition, and wrote under the candid impression that he had in his hands the same book as that on which in his youth he had heard his teacher comment. So Papias did not notice that, in the meantime, the dissatisfaction with X in the circle of his fellow-students had led to its, omission; that the book thus mutilated had been widely circulated in Asia Minor, for example, in the places where Matt. and Luke originated; and that in Asia Minor again, somewhere about 110-120, the spurious ending (A) had been attached, while at the same time X had been worked over into John xxi. And so we are not to be surprised that about 130 the genuine Mark (C+ X) had completely dis- appeared wherever it had once existed, in Rome where it had originated, in Syria where the Gospel of Peter was probably written, in Palestine where Matt. was composed, in the unknown place of Luke’s origin, also, and in Asia Minor itself, where so much had been done with X, and that it had given place partly to recension (ἡ, which presupposes B, and partly to recen- sion A. ‘The spurious ending (A) is said to be the concluding portion of a “kerugma” of the presbyter Aristion, that is, a sermon of his concerning the whole life of Jesus from the birth to the ascension. If the marginal gloss of the Oxford MS. of Rufinus on Kus. H. E. iii. 39.9 is from a late hand (Προ. Dee. 1895, p. 415), it must nevertheless rest upon an older statement which could have come only from one who knew Papias’ work. Rohrbach’s assertion (17), that every reader of Eus. iii. 39 could have set the name Aristion in the margin of §9, is more bold than obvious. If such a person was setting up conjectures as to the source of the story of Justus Barsabbas and the poisoned drink which proved harmless, he could only think of the daughters of Philip (there mentioned), or of Philip himself, as the authorities. The references to 486 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Aristion in 88 7 and 14 are apart from the question, and in the only passage where Eusebius mentions his communications more partieularly it is not stories that he relates, but words of Jesus that he reports ($14). Mark xvi. 14-18 is such a διήγησις λόγων τοῦ κυρίου, but not xvi. 9-13 and 19,20. What is made to show the original unity of A as a whole, namely, the preparation for the main section vv. 14-18 in ἠπίστησαν, ver. 11, and οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευ- σαν, ver. 13, only shows that the writer of A proceeded with some reflection. Thus, also, he was led, in the same words which present themselves as a fitting introduction to ver. 14, to go beyond the authority from which vv. 9- 11 are derived, namely, John xx. 1-18, where nothing is said of the disciples’ unbelieving attitude toward the message of Mary Magdalene, and into incon- sistency with the narrative in Luke xxiv. 13-35, from which he also makes excerpts, and especially with its close. That this modification of the materials found support in John xx. 8, Luke xxiv. 11, 22-24, Matt. xxviii. 17, is obvious. But that we have a compilation of excerpts in vv. 9-13 is unquestionably shown by the statement which is inserted from Luke viii. 2, and which is inappropriate in this connection. In opposition to the opinion of Westcott and Hort, N.T. Appendix, 51, that the opening words, ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωΐ without Ἰησοῦς, indicate that the whole was borrowed from another connection, we may remark that the omission of the name is not rendered more intelligible by this hypothesis. In analogous cases, like John vii. 53, Luke xxi. 38, the interpolators have introduced the foreign material with a sentence of their own which simplifies the connection. In the present instance the compiler has followed the style of Mark. After the proper name has been given in xvi. 6, Jesus is indicated by αὐτόν, αὐτοῦ, and again αὐτόν, while between them stands a προάγει without noun or pronoun. One might just as well require Ἰησοῦς, or a substitute for it, in xvi. 14, as in xvi. 95 but the modern ὁ κύριος does not appear till xvi. 19 (Ὁ. 476, above). Mark himself is very sparing in the use of the name Jesus and its equivalents. We miss it in i. 21b after 21a, and in i. 30-ii. 4 after i. 29, and in the entire section iii. 7-v. 21, with all its change of actors and speakers. 9. (P. 477.) Examples for the canon of textual criticism on p. 477 are: John vi. 47, rıoreöov—additions, eis ἐμέ and eis θεόν (Sc Ss); John vii. 39, mvedpa—additions, ἅγιον and δεδομένον, both, indeed, in B ; Jas. v. 7, πρόϊμον additions, ὑετόν and καρπόν. It is without question that many readings which found considerable currency in the second and third centuries; among them some of no little extent and importance, from the fourth century on, were more and more supplanted, and have in part disappeared from the later tradition, and also that interpolations have become established which were not known in the second century. But even now we are always in a position to base our judgment, however it may incline in doubtful cases, on existing sources, 6.4. John iv. 9b, v. 3b, 4, vii. 53-viii. 11; ef. vol. 1. 535, above, 124, on Phil. i: 3; 1 Tim. iii. 1. Whoever considers “This day have I begotten thee” in Luke iii. 22 original, need not complain that the true reading has disappeared from the tradition after 300. Of peculiar readings which Mareion did not invent, but found existing in part, as in Luke xi. 2f., Gal. iv. 26 (GK, ii. 471, 502, 1015; ZKom. Gal. 298), there are certainly but few, though various traces in the following centuries, and even on internal grounds their genuineness is to be doubted. The variant readings of Cod. Ὁ THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 487 and allied MSS. in Acts do not belong here, for they are part of a com prehensive recension standing over against another which is likewise original. See $ 59. 10. (P. 479.) The length of the historical books of the N.T. reckoned according to the ancient stichoi (GK, i. 76, ii. 395) is: Mait., 2480; Mark, 1543; Luke, 2714; John, 1950; Acts, 2610. The difference, then, between Mark and John, the next smallest, is 407 stichoi, about the length of 1 and 2 Pet. together (403), or 1 and 2 Tim, (420); between Mark and Luke, 1171 stichoi, which is considerably more than Rom. (979). 11. (P. 480.) Tertullian, contra Mare. i. 1, relates that the original copy of the second edition of his Antimareion was borrowed by a friend, who afterward fell away from the Church, transcribed inaccurately, and published (exhibuit frequentie). The subsequent lapse does not affect the matter. Premature publication against the wish of the author was nothing infrequent (Cicero, ad Attic. xiii. 21. 4). Before all, however, one must keep in mind that in ancient times the real editio by the booksellers, with which the earliest Christians were hardly concerned, was often preceded by a private circulation among friends, sometimes for examination and correction, and sometimes by the way of gift, or to satisfy curiosity (cf. Haenny, Schriftsteller u, Buchhändler in Rom. 1884, S. 9 ff., 17 ff.). The history of opera imperfecta, all of which were by no means opera posthwma, gives free play to the imagination (cf. also GK, ii. 930f.). § 53, COMPARISON OF MARK’S GOSPEL WITH THE TRADITION. According to tradition, the Gospel was written in Rome by the Mark mentioned in Acts xu. 12, 25, xiii. 5, 13, xv. 37-39; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. ἵν: ΤΊ, after he had been engaged for some twenty years in missionary work outside of Palestine (§ 51). His original name, John, as well as that of his mother, Mary (Mariam), and of his cousin, Joseph, who bore the Aramaic surname Barnabas, make it extremely probable that the family, which was settled in Jerusalem, belonged to the Hebrews, not to the resident Hellenists (Acts vi. 1), although the fact that Barnabas was a native of Cyprus (Acts iv. 36) shows that it had relations to the Diaspora living in regions where Greek predominated. This is in keeping with the fact that Mark reproduces in his Greek book with apparent pleasure the Aramaic form of Jesus’ words and those of other persons, although it is always necessary 488 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to append a Greek translation for the benefit of his readers, This impression is strengthened by comparison with the longer Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the first of which was written by a Jew, if we may believe the tradition, but is preserved to us only in a translation ; the second, however, by a Greek (n. 1). It is also to be noticed that Mark’s Greek shows Hebraic colouring more strongly than any other of the Gospels and almost beyond that of any other N.T. writing. Although Mark does not exhibit as many flagrant errors against grammar, conscious or unintentional, as does the Book of Revelation, he has more genuine Semitic idioms (n. 2). Not only is he familiar with the geography and customs of the Holy Land, but he endeavours also to acquaint his readers with them. He portrays, as does no other evangelist, the shrill lamentations for the dead (v. 38, where very probably, reference is made to instrumental music, ef. 1 Cor. xiii. 1). He is familiar with the fact that the Jewish fasts were no longer a voluntary exercise of religious earnestness, but that there were certain ‘fast days which the zealous were re- quired to observe, and explains in great detail that the marriage festivities, which lasted for several days, and which on that. account could conflict with the two weekly fast days of the Pharisees (Luke xvii. 12), relieved one from every obligation to fast (1. 18-20). The Jewish conception, of “defiled hands” he explains clearly, and makes use of the occasion to inform his readers in detail how the Pharisees and the Jews generally laid weight upon the washing of hands before meals, and upon similar purification of all sorts of vessels, and how all this was regulated by traditional Rabbinic rules (vii. 2-4). Just as he translates Aramaic words and phrases for his readers (n. 1), so he explains Jewish ideas even when expressed (παρασκευή, xv. 42) or transliterated (yéevva, ix. 43, but not in v. 45, 47) in Greek. With Pilate and his: office, on the other hand, the readers appear to be entirely THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 489 familiar (xv. 1, n. 3), likewise with a certain bloody revolt which took place during his term of office (xv. 7). The fact that Mark uses more Latin technical terms than the other evangelists has only comparative value, since such words were in common use everywhere in the provinces, even among the Jews in Palestine (n. 4). The use of such terms instead of the Greek expressions indicates difference of taste, not the author’s nationality. Still it must have been very natural for an author writing in Rome for Romans to employ Latin names for Latin things. It is also conceivable how a Jew, born in Jerusalem, who was repeatedly in Rome, who lived: there for considerable periods of time, and wrote his book there, could come to employ Latinisms in his Greek book without necessarily being familiar with the Latin language. The passages in which he explains Greek terms by Latin, or, more accurately, Roman expressions (xi. 42, xv. 16, n. 4), are decisive proof that the book was intended for Western readers. This is still more definitely indicated by Mark xv. 21 (n. 5). Mark agrees here with Matthew (xxvii. 82) and Luke (xxiii. 26) in representing Simon of Cyrene as an unknown person, accidentally met on the way to the Cross; but the phrase which he adds, that this man was the father of Alexander and Rufus, makes it certain (1) that the sons of Simon were known to the readers, just as it renders it clear that the father was unknown ; (2) that the only purpose which Mark had in view in this addition peculiar to his account. was to render the history more interesting to his readers by connecting it with what was familiar to them, since for the understanding of the development of thought in the passage it is a matter of no consequence whether Simon had sons or not, much less what their names were. Now, from Rom: xvi. 13 we know that in the year 58 there was a Christian by the name of Rufus living in Rome with his mother, both of whom had migrated thither from the East not long before. 490 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT In brief, the situation is this: a Gospel which, according to the oldest tradition, was written for Roman readers, between 64 and 70, takes for granted, in a purely incidental way, personal acquaintance on the part of his readers with two brothers, Alexander and Rufus, formerly resident in Jerusalem ; and, according to a document of the year 58, there was in the Roman Church a Christian, Rufus by name, living there with his mother, both of whom had come thither from the East. With persons possessing so little judgment as to explain this coincidence as accidental, further discussion is useless. Granted that the tradition that Mark was written in Rome has strong and independent support in many passages of the book, it becomes probable that it was the tendency among the Roman Christians with which we became acquainted in Rom. xiv.—noticed also in Heb. xiii. 9 (above, pp. 332 f., 346 £.)—that influenced Mark to reproduce with such great detail the discourse concerning things clean and. unclean (vii. 1-23), and generally to emphasise strongly, Jesus’ opposition to ceremonialism (above, p. 463). The author of Mark nowhere speaks in the first person, nor does he make any reference to himself at once intel- ligible to every reader. It is very noticeable, however, that he calls the apostle John τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβου both in the list of apostles, iii. 17, and in v. 37, instead of designating him, as in other passages where he is men- tioned with James, either as the brother of the preceding (αὐτοῦ, Mark i. 19; Matt. iv. 21, x. 2, xvii. 1), or without any definite characterisation (Mark i. 29, ix. 2, xiv. 33; Luke vi. 14, viii. 51), or both brothers as the sons of Zebedee (Mark x. 35; Luke v. 10; Matt. xx. 20; John xxi. 2). This characterisation does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., and is very noticeable in view of the much greater importance of the apostle John in comparison with his brother James, who died in 44 (n. 5a). It must have been employed by the author to distinguish one John THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 491 from another, just as the reverse form is used in Acts xii. 2 to distinguish one James from another (Acts xii. 2, 17; ef. Jude 1). It would have been natural for an author himself called John, and standing in’ close rela- tion to the events which he recorded, occasionally thus to distinguish the apostle of the same name. ‘Though it may be doubtful whether in this case the original readers, when they read the words “John the brother of James,” perceived the feeling with which they were written (“ John, but not the narrator surnamed Mark”), they were undoubtedly in a better position than later readers to understand that xiv. 51f. recorded a personal experience of the author (n. 6). After it is narrated that all those who accompanied Jesus, 2.e. according to the context (xiv. 17, 26, 32, 47) all the apostles, with the exception of the traitor, forsook Him and fled, we are told the experience of a certain youth who followed Him. The characterisation νεανίσκος τίς shows at once that he was not one of the apostles named and partially described in iii. 16-19. Τὸ is self-evident that no one of these could have partaken of the Passover and have accompanied Jesus through the city to Gethsemane clad as was this young man. Finally, it could not here be said abruptly of an apostle that he simply accompanied Jesus (συνηκολούθησεν) or followed Him (συνηκολούθει) during the transactions previously described, which, however, is the chief statement in xiv. 51; on the contrary, in making any remark in this connection about the clothing or fate of an apostle, it would have been necessary to say that he was one of those who up to this time had been in Jesus’ company (cf. xiv. 37). Whether the σινδών, which was the only clothing that the youth had on, was a garment (Judg. xiv. 12; 1 Mace. x. 64, variant reading) or a large cloth (Matt. xxvii. 59), at all events it should not again be questioned, having been proved by Casaubon (above, p. 447, n. 6) that the youth had got up suddenly out of bed, and, in his 492 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT curiosity or anxiety to find out whither Jesus would go and what might happen to: Him, had not taken time to clothe himself again, but had stealthily followed Jesus and the apostles clad in his night garments or’ bed blanket. «This confirms the ancient conjecture that: he was'a member of the household where Jesus celebrated the Passover, since in no other house in Jerusaleny would it be possible for a person, who had already retired, to know the moment of Jesus’ departure, and to beled suddenly to the decision by the breaking up of the Pass- over gathering to follow the group in his night garments. But why should this event be recorded by Mark, and by him only ὁ It does not add anything to the: description of the peril of the situation or even to the fury and: mad- ness of those sent to make the arrest, since the picture of a strong and well-armed police force (xiv. 43, 48) getting only the garment of the man whom they design to arrest makes a ludicrous rather than a terrifying Impression. The episode explains nothing that precedes or follows, and must have been narrated only because of its interest to the author, and, as he thought, to the readers. The same hesitancy which led him to withhold the youth’s name, and his relation to Jesus and the apostles, also kept him from | saying anything from which we can infer directly that the youth belonged to the household where Jesus spent His last. night with His disciples. This reserve is to be explained only if the narrator was identical with the youth who fled. The house in question was his: own home, whose guest-room the author describes with detail in xiv. 17—in striking contrast to Matt. xxvi. 18f.; John xii. 1 ff. N That Luke, who practically repeats Mark’s description (xxii. 12), here as in other passages, was not independent of our author, we shall show later (§ 61). Luke does mot, however, repeat the sentence with which Mark begins the account ‘of the last supper. ΔΩ when it was evening, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 493 he cometh with the Twelve” (xiv. 17). We have a sudden transition to the present, and Mark describes the approach! and arrival of the announced guests as if he were inthe house in which the Passover was prepared (n. 7). Involun- tarily he reproduces the impression which he had received at the time. Here the opinion of the Muratorian Frag- mentist, “ aliquibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit,” 15 correct, and the oldest tradition, when rightly understood, offers no contradiction (above, pp. 428, 442 f.). The correct inter- pretation of Mark xiv. 17, 51f., finds independent support in the narrative of Acts xi..12-17. The household in which Mark grew up was well-to-do; it did not lackvfor ser- vants, and the house had room for a considerable gathering of Christians. The fact that they assembled there for prayer in the middle of the night could possibly be explained on the ground that their solicitude for the imprisoned Peter led them to engage in tireless, united petition on his ‘be- half (xu. 5)... When, however, Peter, who knew nothing of this fact, sought out the house of Mary instead of going to his own dwelling,—which he must certainly have had, and indeed, as the narrator clearly indicates (Acts xii. 12), because he knew that there would be a large gathering there on that night,—the most natural explanation is that it was the Passover night (xii. 3 f.), and that the Jerusalem Christians were fond of celebrating the Passover meal in the house and room where Jesus had celebrated it with the apostles just before His death. The interpretation of Acts xi. 12-17 leads to the same result as that'of Mark xiv. 17, 51 f. Jesus celebrated His last Passover in the home of Mark, and the son of this household is the author of this Gospel. In spite of the large number of spurious titles of honour gathered about this house in the Church legends (above, pp. 428, 447, n. 7), they must contain a grain of genuine tradition, since it is not conceivable that: they should have grown up from exegetical combinations such ‘as those above. The father (Mark xiv. 14; Matt)! 494 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT xxvi. 18) must have been in sympathy with Jesus even before His death. He regarded Him as a rabbi, and gladly showed Him a favour. Jesus, in His turn, is confident of not being betrayed before His time, either by him or any member of his household. The curiosity which led the half-grown boy to follow the Passover guests of the house is entirely conceivable, and we can also understand how in riper years, when he wrote his Gospel, he should mention briefly his own part in the great events which he narrates. Instead of indicating the ipse fect with a monogram, as do others, he paints a small picture of himself in the corner of his work which contains so many figures. What he narrates of himself is no heroic deed, but only a thought- less action of his youth. In case we possessed no tradition regarding the person and relations of the writer, xiv. 17, 51 ἢ would not be the only passages from which the reader would receive the impression that the narrative of the book is that of an eye- witness. This would be the most natural way in which to explain the above-mentioned peculiarities of style in most of the accounts (above, pp. 461 f., 481 f.,n. 4). There are other observations, however, which are against this impression. The barest comparison of Mark ix. 14 with Matt. xvu. 14, Luke ix. 37, is suflicient to show that the former was written not from the point of view of the historian, to whom all the subjects in his narrative have the same interest, nor from the point of view alone of the. chief person in the narrative, but according to the reading (ἐλθόντες. . . εἶδον, NBLAKSs Armenian), which is un- doubtedly correct, from the point of view of Jesus and His three most trusted disciples. As they come down from the mountain and draw near to the place where the other apostles are, the first thing which they notice is a large crowd, in the midst of which the apostles are standing engaged in discussion with the scribes. As the four approach they are noticed by several of the crowd THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS ANE ACTS 495 surrounding the persons engaged in discussion. The crowd then turns and leaves the scribes and the nine apostles standing, and (some of them) run to greet Jesus, among them the father of the possessed child, whom the disciples had been unable to heal. Before Jesus reaches the scribes and the disciples who had been left behind, He inquires of the crowd the occasion of the animated discussion. Then He suffers the father to tell his story, and as He goes on complains of the wearisomeness of His work in this faithless generation. He commands that the sick child be brought to Him, but does not perform the act of healing until the crowd begins to press about Him on all sides (ver. 25). The original narrator of this incident was evidently one of the three witnesses of the transfiguration upon the mountain, Peter, John, or James (Mark ix. 2; 2 Pet. i. 18). Ac- cording to the tradition it was Peter, whose narratives Mark reproduced in several parts of his Gospel so accur- ately that it is possible to recognise his source from the style of his narrative. The attempt was repeatedly made in the common text tradition and also in the ancient versions, for palpable reasons, to eliminate this peculiar style of Mark both in xii. 3 and ix. 14. If the sin- cular ἐπηρώτα is to be retained in xii. 3 with NBL, the most natural explanation is to suppose that, in the original account of Peter, the verse ran somewhat as follows : “ Then I asked the Lord confidentially, and James, John, and Andrew joined me in the question.” It may have been Peter also who earlier called the Lord’s attention to the beauty of the temple buildings (xii. 1, eis τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ; cf. xiv. 47). Atall events, we have features here not found in Matt. xxiv. 1-8, Luke xxi. 5—7, which are naturally explained by assuming that Mark is repro- ducing the account of one who took part in the scene. The same observation is forced upon us by xi. 12-14, 20-25 (ef. Matt. xxi. 18-22). The naive detail of the narrative, the exact indication of the day and hour of the 496 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT various incidents in the story, and the rabbi with which the master is addressed, have been mentioned above: (p. 482). It is especially to be noticed that what is said in xl. 14 appears to be a very independent remark, “His disciples heard Him (make this remark);” but that’ is followed in xi. 21 by the sentence, “ And Peter, calling to remembrance (what was said on the morning of the pre- ceding day), saith unto Him, ‘Rabbi,’” ete. A more remarkable account than that which we have in i. 29 cannot be imagined, “ And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and of Andrew, with James and John” (n. 8). The subject is not specifically indicated, but from i. 16-21 is without doubt Jesus, Peter, James, John, and Andrew. But why are the four apostles mentioned again by name, and two of them as accompanying the others, as if they were not already included in the subject? Why is the plural of the verb, so often employed elsewhere to include Jesus and those with Him at the time, not sufficient here (1. 21, vi. 58, ix. 14); or, if the author desired to mention the presence of the disciples expressly after i. 21b-28, where only Jesus is spoken of, why did not an expression like that in 11. 15, Π|: 7, vill, 27 suttice ? Peter's original account at the basis of the narrative evidently ran somewhat thus: “We came direct from the synagogue to our house, and James and John accompanied us; and my mother-in-law lay sick of a fever, and: we spoke with Him at once concerning her.” ‘Mark transfers the narrative from Peter’s lips into the language of another not very skilfully, but faithfully. Peter must have said ‘our house,” not “my house,” because it was the dwelling of his brother and mother-in-law, and possibly belonged to the latter originally ; for Peter's own home was) in jethsaida, not Capernaum. Mark ‘translates ἡμῶν by Σίμωνος καὶ ᾿Ανδρέου, and then returns to Peter's words, and says that James and John accompanied the others, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 497 with the resulting awkwardness that it remains unclear who else came into the house, in particular, whether James and John were accompanied by Andrew and Peter. The use of the expression Σίμων καὶ οἱ pet αὐτοῦ, 1. 36, to designate the disciples, is unparalleled in the other Gospel accounts, and represents a “we” of Peters discourses, Just as the expression used in iii. 13 (n. 7) shows that the choosing of the Twelve is viewed and narrated from the standpoint of one of their number, so the exceedingly awkward character of the narrative, ii. 16, is very much easier to understand, if we suppose that it is based upon some such words of Peter as follows : “ He chose us twelve, and gave me the name Peter” (cf. Klostermann, 72). Otherwise it cannot be said that Peter is noticeably pro- minent. He is one of the first four to be called to assist Jesus in His work (i. 16-20, 29, xii. 3), and one of the three with whom He was most intimate (v. 37, 1x. 2, xiv. 33). The giving to him of the name Peter (Cephas) is dis- missed with a word (111. 16, cf. per contra, Matt. xvi. 18 ; John i. 42). His great confession, vill. 29, is reproduced in the shortest possible form (cf. per contra, Matt. xvi. 16-19; John vi. 68 £. ; also Luke ix. 20). At the beginning of the resurrection history, xvi. 7, he is no more prominent than in Luke xxiv. 34; John xx. 2-9. His name does not appear in vu. 17, though he is expressly mentioned in Matt. xv. 15; nor is it to be found in xiv. 47 (cf. Matt. xxvi. 51; Luke xxii. 50), in case Peter is here specifically meant (John xviii. 10). The narrative concerning him, which we have in Matt. xiv. 28-31, is wanting in Mark vi. 50. In the account of his denial, however, the close delineation of details reappears ; he warms himself by the fire, the reflexion of which enables the maid who sees him standing there, and who looks upon him scrutinisingly, to recognise his features. His asseveration that he does not know Jesus, is reproduced with greater fulness than in the other Gospels. Corresponding to the more pointed way in VOL. 11. 32 498 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which Jesus’ warning prophecy is given, the narrative indicates that the cock crowed twice (xiv. 29-31, 54, 66, 72). [Ὁ would not have been natural for Peter, in a narrative concerning Jesus, to represent himself as the chief of the apostles, as the rock upon which Jesus meant to build His Church, as the chief steward in this: house, and as the leader who was to strengthen and encourage the company of the brethren (Matt. x. 2, xvi. 16-19; Luke xxil. 32; John 1. 42, vi. 68£., xxi. 15-22). On the other hand, he could not narrate the Passion history without giving strong expression to the inglorious part which he had taken in the same, and which was so indelibly stamped upon his memory. The lament of Jesus over the human weakness of His most faithful disciples in the hour of temptation has in Mark xiv. 37 a pointed reference to Peter which does not appear at all in Luke xxi. 46, and which is much less direct in Matt. xxvi. 40. Only in Mark’s account does Jesus call Peter by name, and blame him alone because he could not watch for a single hour (n. 9). According to the opinion of the disciple John, Mark did not write a narrative which reproduced the order of events (above, p. 439). This agrees with the fact that frequently in Mark a new narrative is introduced by καί, even in cases where the preceding context has no chrono- logical connection. In i. 16, 40, im. 13, the descriptions which precede are general ; in iii. 20 we find ourselves in Capernaum again without statement to this effect, though just before we were upon the mountain (111, 13), where it is entirely possible that other things besides the choosing of the disciples took place. In other passages the events could not have taken place in the succession indicated, e.g. in i. 21, notwithstanding the εὐθύς after the second , since what is narratea ἴῃ 1. 16-20 could not have taken place on a Sabbath. In ıv. 26 the hearers are no longer confined to the disciples as in »v. 11, 21, 24, but the / καὶ THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND AUTS 499 words are addressed to the multitude again as in iv. 1-9 (ef. iv. 33 f.); so that the account belongs after iv. 10. In the first half of the book especially, where the influence of the governing idea is strongest (above, p. 462 f.), the content of the separate narratives is throughout the connecting bond among them, which does not prevent occasionally the clear indication of the chronological order ‘of events (12°29, 32, 35, or iv. 35, v..1,.21, or xu 12, 20, and xiv. 12+ xvi. 8). When Papias reminds us, in his explanation of the opinion of his teacher John concerning Mark’s Gospel, that Peter was under the necessity of arranging his accounts of Jesus sayings, upon which accounts Mark drew in many passages of his book, in accordance with the practical purpose of his discourses and the necessities of his hearers, he implies that these sayings were reproduced with a certain freedom. Their use for edification and the effort after clearness render impossible a scrupulously exact reproduction of Jesus’ words spoken years before under entirely different conditions. This is the case in Mark’s Gospel. Comparison of Mark vii. 35, x. 29 with Matt. xvi. 25, xix. 29, Luke ix. 24, xviii. 29, shows that the καὶ ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, which occurs in both passages, is only an addition due to an intention to make what Jesus had said in language appropriate to that situation (ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ) applicable to every Christian after Jesus’ departure from this world. Likewise the mention of Jesus’ words with Jesus Himself in viii. 38 is without support in the nearest parallels, Matt. x. 33f.; Luke xi 9. Further, the sharp distinction between the rewards which one has: in. this world and in the world to come,—which we notice in x. 30 ἢ when compared with Matt. xix. 29,—suggests the endeavouring of the preacher to guard himself against possible misunderstanding. The comparison of Mark ix. 1 with Matt. xvi. 28, Luke ix. 27, makes it clear that the saying of Jesus about His return in the lifetime of some of His contemporaries (cf. Matt. xxiv. 30; Mark xii. 30; 500 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Luke xxi. 32), —a saying which was regarded as an un- solved problem in the apostolic age (John xxi. 22 f.),—is reproduced with puzzling abruptness in Matthew, replaced in Luke by a more general idea, but in Mark, on the other hand, is given a definite didactic turn which modifies this more general idea. Standing as it does in immediate connection with a direct prophecy of the second coming of Jesus as the judge of the world (viii. 38), the expression about the coming of the kingdom of God with power cannot have exactly the same meaning, but points to events which, while proving the power of the kingdom of God in the world for the believers who experience them, are only a pledge of the fulfilment of the promise of His personal return. If τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστη- κότα ὅπου ov δεῖ is the correct reading in Mark xii. 14, then, in spite of grammar, the verse contains a definite interpretation of a saying which in its original indefinite form is found in Matt. xxiv. 15, and which was developed in the apostolic age, principally in view of events which took place in the reign of the emperor Caligula (vol. 1. pp. 228, 235 ff.). Mark ii. 27 gives a suitable reason for the saying of Jesus which follows, a saying preserved also in Matt. xii. 8; Luke vi. 5. The same general thought we find in John vii. 22, 23; but as the verse stands in Mark is it not the interpretation of a preacher in his narrative? The distinction of the literal from the spiritual temple in xiv. 58 (cf. per contra, Matt. xxvi. 61 ; John ii. 19; Acts vi. 14) sounds exactly as if the inter- pretation of the preacher’s narrative had been taken over into the account. So far as we know, the ex- pression ὅτε Χριστοῦ ἐστέ (ix. 41), added as an explana- tion of ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί pov (cf. Matt. x. 42), is not the language of Jesus but of His Church (Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. iii. 28; 2 Cor. x. 7). Of itself it is possible that Mark arbitrarily introduced into the tradition which he received all these additions, which in the usage of the Christian THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τοὶ Church and in the interpretations of the Church teachers were ascribed to Jesus Himself. But this is against the assumption of serupulous exactness and conscientiousness in reproducing Peter's discourses, for which Mark is praised by his contemporaries, and of which we have gained an impression from numerous passages of his work. The assumption is also rendered improbable by the fact that other authors, like John and Matthew, who handle their material with perceptibly greater freedom than Mark, who was a disciple of one of the apostles, kept such historical inaccuracies out of the sayings of Jesus. Such free repro- duction of Jesus’ words is to be ascribed, first of all, to the missionary preacher and Church teacher, Peter, who was conscious of possessing faithful recollections, and who did not make a sharp distinction between the commands of Jesus and their proclamation in the apostolic teaching (2 Pet. iii. 2; cf. Matt. xxvii. 20). When John became acquainted with Mark’s Gospel, it seemed to him as if Peter were again alive, and as if he were hearing, as in earlier years, his story about the words and deeds of Jesus ; and so he called the evangelist Mark, Peter’s interpreter. The testimony of the disciple John, as correctly inter- preted by Papias and the tradition generally, when rightly understood and kept free from later exaggerations, does not exclude the possibility of Mark’s having employed other sources and helps besides his recollection of Peter's narratives. He himself indicates here and there that what he gives is selected from a fuller narrative, cf. iv. 2, 33 £., xi. 1, 38. He seems to be excerpting from a longer dis- course when, contrary to his habit, he reproduces the instructions to the disciples in vi. 8 f., in indirect discourse, and then in vi. 10f. gives a single saying in direet form, as if beginning the narrative again. The brief account of the temptation, some of the details of which are un- intelligible (i. 13), is not here given in a form in which accounts of such events are wont to pass from mouth 502 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to mouth, but is presented in a way that impresses one as being an excerpt taken from a written exemplar. Positive judgment on this point must be reserved, how- ever, until after other accounts employing related material have been investigated. 1. (P. 488.) With regard to Hebrew and Aramaic words in the N.T., see vol. i. 15-22, Mark uses such words (1) in sections which are peculiar to him : Boavnpyes, 111]. 17; εφφαθα, vil. 34 ; (2) in sections to which Matt. and Luke, or one of the two, offer parallels, corresponding more or less closely, but expressed in a purely Greek form : Kavavaios, iii. 18 (so also Matt. x. 4, but ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15); ταλιθα coup, v. 41; kopßav, vii. 11 (δῶρον, Matt. xv. 5, but the Aramaic word in xxvii. 6) ; Βαρτιμαιος along with vids Τιμαίου, x. 46 ; ραββουνι, x. 51 (κύριε, Matt. xx. 33; Luke xviii. 41) ; ραββι, ix. 5 (κύριε, Matt. xvii.4.; erıorara, Luke ix. 33), xi, 21 (not in Matt. xxi. 20); once in xiv. 45, where Matt. xxvi. 49 also has it ; twice in Matt. xxiii. 8, xxvi. 25, without parallels in Mark ; not at all in Luke, but eight times in John ; aßßa, xiv. 36; αμην, iii, 28, viii. 12 (not in Matt. xii. 31, 39, xvi. 4), xii. 43 (ἀληθῶς, Luke xxi. 3), xiv. 25 (not in Matt. xxvi. 29; Luke xxii. 18) ; also (3) in sections where the parallels also give the Hebrew or Aramaic expression: ἀμὴν (see under No. 2); yeevva, ix. 43-47 ; BeeAleßovA, iii. 22; oaravas, iii. 23, 26, Vili. 33; @oavva, xi. 9, 10 (so Matt. xxi. 9, John xii. 13, but not Luke xix. 38); Γεθσημανει, xiv, 32 (Matt. xxvi.36 ; avoided by Luke xxii. 39; John xviii. 1); ToAyoda, xv. 22 (Matt. xxvii. 33, John xix. 17; only the translation Luke xxiii. 33); eAwi, ete., xv. 34 (Matt. xxvii. 46, vol. i. 15; without parallels in Luke or John). The passages in which Matthew gives Hebrew or Aramaic words or names which are lacking in Mark have no parallels at all in the latter Gospel (Matt. v. 22, xvi. 17). Xavavaia is hardly to be included. here (Matt. xv. 22, cf. Mark vii. 26). 2. (P. 488.) Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Marcus und seine Schriften, oder welcher Johannes hat die Offenbarung verfasst? 1843, S. 29-37, 65 1f., has called attention to the Hebraising style of Mark with special emphasis. Elsewhere in the N.T. a double δύο is unheard of; likewise συμπόσια and πρασιαί doubled in a distributive sense, vi. 7, 39, 40 (cf. the writer’s Hert des Hermas, 490) ; also the oath formula with εἰ, viii. 12; elsewhere only in O.T. quota- tions, as Heb. iii. 11, iv. 3, though perhaps also 1 Cor. xv. 32. Pleonastic use of αὐτοῦ, αὐτῆς «A. with the relative i. 7, vii. 25. The use of καί to carry on the narrative, instead of syntactical articulation, is not so noticeable in Mark as, say, in 1. Mace., but decidedly more frequent than in the other Gospels and Acts; cf. for example, Mark iii. 13-19. In. Bruder’s Konkordanz, under “at in oratione historica,” p. 456 ff., Matt. occupies 4 columns, Like ΘῈ, John 14, Acts 23, while the short Gospel of Mark oequpies 64. Even where the relation is adversative he is satisfied with καί, vi. 19, xii. 12; ἀλλά he hardly uses except after negative clauses. 3. (Ρ.. 480.) With the simple Πιλάτῳ, xv. 1, ef. Matt. xxvii. 2, Tlovrio Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι. The equally simple form in Luke xxiii. 1 is prepared for‘ in ili. 1; ef. xiii. 1. John, writing considerably later, everywhere assumes acquaintance with the main facts, and perhaps his readers already knew THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 503 Pilate (xviii. 29) from a baptismal confession (1 Tim. vi. 13, above, p. 131, n. 20; ef. the writer's work, Das Apost. Symbolum, 39-44, 68 f.). On the other hand, a title is given to Herod Antipas when he is first introduced, vi. 14, to be sure not the exact title of tetrarch (Luke iti. 1, 19, ix. 7; Matt. xiv. 1; Acts xiii, 1), but that of king. If one reflects, however, that Matthew, in spite of his knowledge of the official title (xiv. 1), calls him king in the narrative (xiv. 9= Mark vi. 22; cf. ver. 23, βασιλεία ; John iv. 46, βασιλικός), and that Josephus also speaks occasionally of Archelaus, who had likewise received and borne ne royal title, although he hoped to receive one from Rome, as king, and of his rule as βασιλεύειν (ef. Matt. ii. 22, and § 56, n. 6), it is evident that one has to do with a usage current among the Palestinians, who, in the interval between the death of Herod the Great (Matt. ii. 1; Luke i. 5) and the designation of Herod Agrippa 1. as king (Acts xii. 1), did not cease to speak of “ king, kingdom, royal officers,” ete. So too Mark, although he knew that this Herod had inherited only a part of the dominion of his father (vi. 21, Γαλιλαίας), and of course, also, that he had not received his full title. On the other hand, it is probable that in Mark vi. 17 there is real ignorance of the complicated family relationships of the Herods; see § 56, n. 6. Only Mark xi. 13, and not Matt. (xxi. 19), who wrote for Palestinians, observes that there are no fresh figs at the Passover time. In Rome they did not know when figs ripened in Palestine. 4. (Ρ. 489.) On the Latin see vol. 1. pp. 41 f. 64 ff; kevrupiov, Mark xv. 39, 44, 45; im the parallel passages and everywhere else in the N.T. only ἑκατόνταρχος or -xns (Matt. 4 times, Luke 3 times, Acts 14 times, but Gospel of Peter xevtupiov 4 times, so also the Syrian translators, where the original has the Greek word, e.g. Se. Matt. viii. 5-13, Luke xxiii. 47; and Ss. Matt. xxvii. 54); σπεκουλάτωρ, vi. 27, not elsewhere in the N.T., but in the Targum and Midrash ; similarly λεγιών, v. 9, 15 (also Luke viii. 30 ; Matt. xxvi. 53, vol. i. 66); δηνάριον, vi. 37, xii. 15, xiv. 5 (also Matt. 6 times, Luke 3 times, John twice, Rev. twice); ξέστης, vii. 4, 8, which is not, as Epiphanius, de Mens. 55 (ed. Lagarde, 199 f.), thought, a Greek word adopted by the Romans, but is deformed from the Latin sextarius, and was also current among the Jews as xvop and xvpw3; cf. Krauss, Lehnworter, ii. 293, 535, only Mark in the N.T.; also φραγελλοῦν, xv. 15=flagellare (also Matt. xxvii. 26, ef. John 11. 15); κῆνσος, xii. 14 (also Matt. xxii. 17, 19; vol. i. p. 66); and κοδράντης, xii. 42 (Matt. v. 26); πραιτώριον, xv. 16 (Matt. xxvii. 27; John xviii. 28, 33, xix. 9; Acts xxiii. 35; Phil. i. 13). ‘On the other hand, xpaßßaros (Mark 5 times, John 5 times, Acts 5 times) is not the Latin grabatus, but vice versa a Macedonian word (Lobeck, ad Phryn. 62) used in the common Greek speech, but despised by the Attieists, which was adopted by the Latins as well as by the Jews, Krauss, ii. 570. The parallel passages themselves show that, as has been said above, p. 489, the occurrence of these Latin-words cannot of itself prove that Mark was written in a Latin- speaking region. They had all (even κεντυρίων, Krauss, ii. 529) gone over into the current speech of Palestine. It might also be a mere matter of taste that Luke preferred the Greek φόρος to the Latin census in xx. 22, and δύο λεπτά to quadrans in xxi, 2. The decisive point is that Mark explains Greek by Latin : xii, 42, λεπτὰ δύο, 6 ἐστιν κοδράντης ; and xv. 16, ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς, 6 ἐστιν 504 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT πραιτώριον. Asa counterpart to the former, Plutarch (Vita Cic. xxix.) says to his Greek readers, of the Romans, τὸ λεπτότατον (ef. τὸ λεπτόν) τοῦ χαλκοῦ νομίσματος κουαδράντην ἐκάλουν (al. καλοῦσιν, see Blass, ET, x. 186). If ἐκάλουν is the correct reading, the explanation of the imperfect is not, as Blass supposes, that the Quadrans was not minted after Trajan’s time (which, more- over, is only Mommsen’s conjecture), for Plutarch wrote under Trajan, and even twenty or thirty years after the introduction of the mark and pfennig coinage a German historian would make himself ridiculous by using the imperfect to introduce a bit of archeological instruction regarding the meaning of thaler and groschen, gulden and kreuzer. It is only because Plutarch’s narrative deals with past time that he gives his information in the imperfect (see vol. iii, § 69, n. 6). The discussions between Blass and Ramsay (ET, x. 232, 287, 336) have only made it evident that it could not possibly occur to one who was writing for Greeks to explain the common expression δύο λεπτά by the word koöpavrns—a word to them at least much less familiar ; ef. Ramsay, ET, x. 232. This is just the situation in Mark xv. 16. To support his assertion—which has no support whatever in the tradition—that Mark is a translation of an Aramaic book, Blass (loc. cit.) says that 6 ἐστιν πραιτώριον is a mistranslation of αὐλή, which there denotes not palace, but courtyard. The word has the latter meaning only in xiv. 66 (“below in the court,” in distinction from the transaction in the hall “above,” the scene of the preceding narrative), but not in xiv. 54 (Matt. xxvi. 58). The Sanhedrin does not assemble in the “courtyard of the high priest” (Matt. xxvi. 3), which would be an extraordinary expression in any ease, but in the residence of the high priest, consisting of various buildings, courtyards, and so forth. In contrast with Pilate’s dealings with the Sanhedrin and people, which took place in the street before his residence (Mark xv. 1-15, ef. John xviii. 28f.), it is said in xv. 16 that the soldiers led Jesus into the interior of the palace, without specifying whether the following scene took place in an enclosed building or in the courtyard of the palace. The use of ἡ αὐλή to denote the ruler’s abode for the time being was common with all Greek writers (ef. Forsch. iv. 276 ; also, for example, Epist. Aristee, ed. Wendland, p. 48. 12, 21, 80. 15, but p. 50. 9, ἡ ἄκρα, royal residence. On πραιτώριον see vol. i. 551 f. It is difficult to decide whether the peculiar expressions, often altered by copyists, συμβούλιον διδόναι, iii. 6 (BL, ete.; Klostermann, 62 f.=edere) ; φαίνεται, xiv. 64 (for doxei=the ambiguous videtur ?) ; ῥαπίσμασιν αὐτὸν ἔλαβον, xiv. 65 (verberibus ewm acceperunt) ; ἐπιβαλών, xiv. 72; ποιῆσαι τὸ ἱκανόν, xv. 15 (satisfacere), are to be considered Latinisms, and what value they have in determining the historical and local cireumstances of Mark’s Gospel. 5. (P. 489.) Concerning Rufus (Rom. xvi. 13) see vol. i. 392. There is no tradition about him and his brother Alexander, independent of the N.T. Alexander and Rufus are called companions of Andrew and Peter in the Acts of Andrew and Peter (Acta Apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 2, 117. 5, 118, 9, 119. 13; cf. Lipsius, Apokr. A. @. i. 553, 617, 621, ii. part 2. ΤΊ, 79, 83 ; Papadop. Kerameus, Cat. Bibl. Hieros. ii. 497, No. 8). Other fables in Forbes Robinson, Copt. Apoer. Gospels, p. 50. Epiph. Her, Ixxviii. 13, evidently confuses the nameless mother of Rufus (Rom. xvi. 13) with the Mary of Rom, xvi. 6 (vol. i. 430), where he probably read ἡμᾶς, and identified these with the women under the cross (John xix. 25). The old tradition. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τος used by Epiphanius in his confused way, probably referred to that “ other Mary,” the mother of James “the less” and a Joseph (Matt. xxvii. 56, xxviii. 1; Mark xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1). The interest in this Mary and her sons, which Mark, in contrast to Matthew, mentions and presupposes on the part of his readers, and other traces of a (Joseph) Barsabbas Justus (Acts i. 23; Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 9) in the early Roman Church (Acta Apocr., ed. Lipsius, i. 108. 13, 116. 12) in fact makes probable the identity of the Mary of Rom. xvi. 6 with the “other Mary” of Matthew (ef. Forsch. vi. 348-350). If this is so, we would have a companion-piece to “Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus” (Mark xv. 21). This narrative presup- poses that this Simon was known to the Jews as one who esteemed Jesus, and was therefore pointed out to the soldier who had charge of the execution (ZKom. Matt. 703). He was therefore not a festival pilgrim from abroad, but a Jew of Cyrene, dwelling in or near Jerusalem. The ἀγρός from which he was coming into Jerusalem (Mark xv. 21) must have been his country- place outside of the city, ef. Lightfoot’s note to Mart. Polyc. chap. v. In any case he cannot be identified with the Simon Niger, Acts xiii. 1 (a conjecture made by Spitta, Die Apostlegesch. S. 134, and not yet abandoned (Untersuch. über den Rm. S. 73)) ; for, since the Lucius who is named with him is referred to as “of Cyrene,” this designation is indirectly denied concerning Simon Niger. 5a. (P. 490.) Acts (iii. 1-iv. 31, viii. 14) gives evidence of the prominence of John, for it mentions James only in connection with his own execution, and, on the other hand, joins John with Peter; cf. also Luke xxii. 8; John xill. 23f., xx. 3 ff, xxi. 20-22. Paul also in Gal. i. 18 f. does not name along with Peter, James the son of Zebedee, who was then living, but just as in Gal. ii. 9 in relation to a later incident, he mentions another James in con- nection with Peter and John. 6. (P. 491.) For the opinions of the ancients with regard to the fleeing youth see p. 446f. above. Among modern writers the combination presented above was first brought forward as a conjecture by Olshausen, Komm. zwm NT?®, ii. 474, and then more carefully elaborated by Klostermann, 281 f., 337 f. The reading eis τις νεανίσκος (AE, ete., against NBCDL Ss 51, the Egyptian and Latin versions, which have καὶ νεανίσκος [or νεανίσκος δέ] τις) is evidently conformed to ver. 47 with the mistaken idea that another of the apostles’ circle is referred to here. The addition οἱ νεανίσκοι after αὐτόν, which has still less support, presupposes that the fleeing youth was not one of the disciples, but one of the δῆμος ; ef. Anonymus in Catena in Mare., ed. Possimus, 327. 7. (P. 493.) To be sure, ἔρχεσθαι does not always mean to come, but sometimes also to go, Matt. xvi. 5; Mark xi. 13a (in distinction from 136), John vi. 17, but also Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1 (ef. ZKom. Matt, 579, n. 48), a signification which appears particularly in ἀπέρχεσθαι, διέρχεσθαι, and sometimes also in ἐξέρχεσθαι, e.g. John iv. 30 (“they went out of the city and came to Him”). But it would be hard to point out an ἔρχεσθαι entirely undefined which describes the movement from the standpoint, not of the goal, but of the starting-point. After Mark xiv. 16, if the standpoint of the narrative thus far was to be preserved, Jesus’ going to the house could be expressed only by ἀπῆλθεν, ἐπορεύθη, or similar terms It is instructive to 506 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT compare iii. 13, where it is not said, “Jesus called them and they. came* (ef. Luke vii. 8, for example), but “they went to Him,” so that one sees that the story is not told from the standpoint of the one who called and awaited the result of his call, but from the standpoint of the diseiples who were summoned (cf. Klostermann, 70). 8. (P. 496.) The alterations of i. 29 (B ἐξελθὼν ἦλθεν, D beeq S! praeti- eally the same) are not improvements, for by them the presence of Peter and Andrew is actually excluded. Ss is peculiar: “And he went out of the synagogue and came into the house of Simon Cephas—Andrew and James and John were with him—and the mother-in-law,” ete. 9. (P. 498.) Eusebius, Demonstr. 111: 5. 89-95, and more explicitly Theoph. (Syriac trans.) v. 40, on the supposition that Peter spoke through Mark, found the omission of the contents of Matt. xvi. 17-19 and Mark’s more detailed account of Peter’s denial an indication of the apostle’s freedom from all self-sufficiency. § 54. THE TRADITION REGARDING MATTHEW AND HIS GOSPEL. The Matthew who occupies the seventh or the eighth place (n. 1) in all the lists of the apostles in the N.T. is the only person who has ever been regarded as the writer of the Gospel which bears this name. In only one passage is he called a tax-gatherer (Matt. x. 3), and here with the narrative of ix. 9-13 in view. We find exactly the same account with all its details in Mark ii 13-17; Luke v. 27-32 with reference to a tax-gatherer Levi. Since there can be no doubt that the same incident is related in all three cases, this Levi. must be identified with the apostle Matthew. ‘This takes for granted, of course, that Matthew is trustworthy, which, however, we have no reason to question in this instance, because there is no conceivable reason why a writer should identify the apostle Matthew, in whom later he shows no particular interest, inasmuch as he is not mentioned again anywhere in his book, with a man of another name, the account of whose call in the other two reports which have come down to. us is in no way connected with the apostles. The difference is to be accounted for as follows :—In the account. of his calling, Mark and Tnke employ the name by which he was THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 507 commonly known at the time; while in Matthew the name which, according to the four lists of the apostles, was regularly used to designate him as an apostle’ and member of the Christian community, is employed also in this passage of the history. Whether Jesus gave him a new name as He did other of His disciples, and if so, why the particular name Matthai (“Gift of Yahweh ”) was chosen, we do not know (n. 1). In view of the way in which the tax-gatherers were hated by the Jews, a person who had given up this calling must have been doubly glad to be known by another name. His father, Alpheeus (Mark ii. 14), can hardly be identical with the Alpheeus whose son James was. also one of the Twelve; since, if Matthew and this James were brothers, it would be so indicated in the lists, as are the brothers Peter- Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, particularly in Matt. x. 3, Acts i. 13, where they are mentioned together. As a tax-gatherer in Capernaum, in the territory of Herod Antipas, Matthew was not a Roman official, but stood either directly in the service of the reigning prince (ef. John iv. 46; Luke vii. 3), or under the person who had the taxes of the city or a larger district in tenure. In order to fill this office he must have had considerable readiness with the pen, and, in addition to the Aramaic dialect of the land, must without question have been able to use Greek. Judging from the fact that He interrupted him in the midstiof his work and also from the result of the call; Jesus must have intended that Matthew, like the fishermen earlier, should give up his former vocation and attach himself to Him as a constant companion and future worker. Such a demand and Matthew's immediate com- pliance presuppose that he had been acquainted with Jesus for a long time, had been affected by His preaching, and felt the utmost confidence in Him. Consequently, for a considerable time he had been one of those publicans and sinners who more than others in Galilee felt drawn to 508 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Jesus (Matt. xi, 19; Luke vil. 34, xv. 1). A large number of persons belonging to the same class as himself, and of like feeling, he invited to a feast in his house, in order to celebrate along with them and with Jesus the deeisive change which had taken place in his life (n. 2). Exactly when Matthew became a constant companion of Jesus cannot be determined, at least not here in passing: So much, however, may be said, namely, that according to the accounts in the N.T. he had not been a companion and disciple of John prior to his association with Jesus, as was the case with the first six of the apostolic group ; he had no part in the series of events which, according to John i. 19-iv. 54 (or v. 35), preceded the arrest of the Baptist ; and after this event and the beginning of Jesus’ extensive prophetic work in Galilee considerable time elapsed before the publican became a regular disciple. Others had been for some time constant companions of Jesus. Peter, James, and John are mentioned as already the most trusted of the disciples on the day in which Matthew received his call (Mark v. 37; for the order of events cf. Matt. ix. 11, 14, 18). The battle with the Pharisees was already in full progress. The choosing of the apostles and the Sermon on the Mount were almost at hand. That is all that the N.T. relates concerning the apostle Matthew. The meagreness of the record about him, with the corresponding implication that he was called late, and was one of the less important of the apostles, gives the tradition that he was the author of the first Gospel particular weight. If the name had been chosen arbitrarily, an Andrew or James the son of Zebedee, a Philip or a Thomas, would have been preferred to Matthew. ‘The reports which we have outside the N.T. concerning Matthew are so late, so fantastic, and in part so confused on account of the interchange between the names Matthew and Matthias, that they possess no historical value (n. 3). This also shows that the name THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 3509 Matthew was not one that would be naturally chosen for a Gospel in eireulation in the Church, the origin of which Gospel was unknown, or whose real origin one would wish to conceal. That the author himself did not make it a point to be known as the apostle Matthew, or to pass for the same, is perfectly clear. For the oldest and most important report concerning Matthew’s literary activity we are indebted to Papias, just as we have to thank him for the oldest report regarding Mark as a writer of gospel history. What Eusebius preserves is not an opinion of the presbyter John, but what Papias says himself (n. 4). Papias’ words read : ‘Matthew compiled the sayings, to be sure, in the Hebrew language, but everyone translated the same as best he could.” The Greek expressions used by Papias show even more clearly than this English translation that the whole emphasis rests upon the contrast between the language in which Matthew wrote and the translation which this rendered necessary, but which not everyone who attempted it could make successfully. The emphasis does not, as has been so often assumed since Schleiermacher (above, p. 411), rest upon the result of Matthew’s literary work. He does not begin by saying that among others the apostle Matthew also had written a book, but he speaks in exactly the same manner as does the Presbyter con- cerning Mark (above, p. 439 ff.), under the presupposition that the readers are aware that Matthew had written, and that they are familiar with his work. He states what possibly is not known to them all, namely, that Matthew did not write in the language of Papias and his readers, but in Hebrew, a language with which they were not familiar. For this reason Papias could use the extremely abbreviated expression τὰ λόγια to designate the subject of Matthew’s work. There can be no acceptance of the view that ra λόγια was the title of a work known at the time. A Hebrew book could not well have had a Greek 510 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT title; but, apart from this, a title translated by the Greek τὰ λόγια, or rather, if it were a title, by λόγια without the article, would have been an incomprehensible puzzle. ‘Oracles,’ or, according to the predominating usage, ‘Divine Oracles,’ would have been an utterly senseless title for a book which certainly was not a collection of all the words of God’s revelation or of single oracles, but which dealt with Jesus. Moreover, if there was a work with this title which at the time of Papias and: in his vicinity was assigned without contradiction to the apostle Matthew, it would not have been so easy for every trace of it to disappear from the remaining literature. Papias does not say that the author of the known Logia was the apostle Matthew, but he says that the distinguished apostle Matthew, whom he had already mentioned in ‘his preface as a disciple of Jesus, wrote in Hebrew. | Nor does any author of the ancient Church, not even those who are quite at home in the extra-canonical Gospels and kindred literature, as Irenzeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, ever say anything of a book of this title, much less of such a book from Matthew’s hand. This universal silence is conclusive evidence that these persons had never read or heard anything of such a work. Consequently it is also very improbable that such a work existed in Papias’ time. On the other hand, the unemphatic position of the τὰ λόγια and the lack of all explanatory definition of the words exclude the possibility of Papias having meant that Matthew, in distinction from other authors who narrated also the deeds of Jesus, limited his account to the words, The only possibility left is to suppose that Papias took it for granted that the content of Matthew's writing was known, and used an abbreviation of the same, which in its connection could not be misunderstood. According to the title, Papias’ entire work was devoted to the inter- pretation, of the λόγια κυριακά, Te had always been a searcher after “The commands that are given from the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 511 Lord to our faith, and that come from the truth itself,” as he says in the preface. That is, he was a searcher after the words of Jesus, not His deeds. As to the books, moreover, which dealt with Jesus, those parts which contained the words interested him by far the most. This is indicated by his comment upon John’s judgment concerning Mark... John mentions as the subjects which Mark had handled, without giving the exact chronological order, the’ ‘‘ words or deeds of Christ”; Papias speaks only of the ‘ words of the, Lord,” which were without ordered connection in the discourses of Peter, upon which Mark drew. From this we may assume that here also, where he uses the words τὰ λόγια to designate the subject of Matthew's work, he mentions only that part of the book to which his own special interest was directed, without thereby implying that Matthew did not record also deeds of Jesus and the historical occasions of all the words which he preserved. The idea of a collection of sayings by Matthew, or even of a work bearing the remarkable title Nya, has there- fore no support from the words of Papias. It lacks also internal probability ; by far the greater number of Jesus’ words which have been preserved to us were spoken in conversation with His disciples and in discussion with His opponents. According to the tradition, upon which we are in any case dependent, even the longer discourses had definite occasion in outward events, without knowledge of which they cannot be understood, and which must have been communicated for their intelligent transmission. They are pictures which could never have existed without frames, in literature any more than in fact (n. 4). When, now, Papias sets in contrast to the fact that Matthew com- piled the Logia in Hebrew, the other fact that for this reason a ἑρμηνεύειν was necessary, which everyone exercised according to his ability, it is self-evident (1) that épunvevew here can mean only translating; and (2) that this was a 512 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT translation into the Greek language, which did not need to be mentioned expressly, because this was the language of Papias and his readers. Those who knew Hebrew required no translation of a Hebrew document, and the Phrygian bishop knew nothing of hearers or readers unfamiliar with both Hebrew and Greek. (3) The fact deserves more atten- tion than has been paid to it heretofore, that Papias does not speak of the translation of Matthew’s writing, but of the words of Jesus which it contained. The idea that the words ἡρμήνευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ (se. τὰ λόγια) ἕκαστος mean that ἃ number of written translations or revisions of Matthew’s Gospel were made, can be arrived at only under the pre- supposition already shown to be untenable, that τὰ λόγια was the title of a book. Even if this presupposition were as correct as it is palpably false, the construction would be out of harmony with the words ; the fact to which they are supposed to attest Papias would have to express in some such way as this: πολλοὶ δὲ τὴν τοῦ Ματθαίου συγγραφὴν ἡρμήνευσαν OT ἑρμηνεύειν ἐπεχείρησαν. Then we would have the impossible puzzle to solve, how so many written trans- lations, say five or six, of which Papias still had know- ledge in 125, so suddenly disappeared from the life and recollection of the Church, and were replaced by the sixth or seventh translation, which is the only one preserved in all the Greek MSS., and the only one which was made the basis of all the ancient versions. We are freed from all these historical, linguistic, or logical impossibilities as soon as we realise that Papias is talking about oral translation, and, indeed, oral translation such as was made in assem- blies of Greek-speaking Churches or congregations whose language was mixed. We cannot recall the fact too often that the oral translation in the religious assembly of books written in a foreign language played an important röle not only among the Jews, but also in the Christian Chureh of antiquity (ef. vol. i, 111, 23; GK, i. 39-60). For the benefit of Christians who did not know Greek, in Jerusalem THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS σι and Scythopolis all the Scripture readings, prayers, and dis- courses were translated orally into Aramaic in 300 as in 400, and certainly very much earlier. Before the preparation of the Latin Bible, such oral translation was the only means employed by Occidental Christians, who were ignorant of Greek, for the transference of the words of the Gospel and. of the apostolic letters from Greek into Latin. Among the Africans who knew only Latin, this was the case until Tertul- lian’s time; whereas among the Punie-speaking population of the same province in the time of Augustine, and among the Celts in Gaul, it wasnever otherwise. From this point of view Papias’ statement is very luminous: Then the ἕκαστος, which is out of place when his words are interpreted to refer to a number of Greek translations of Matthew’s Gospel, is limited in the nature of the case to Christians who had some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, and who attempted to make the content of a Hebrew book intelligible to con- gregations with little or no knowledge of this language. It was necessary for them to translate. There were per- sons, like the disciples John and Aristion, Philip and his daughters,—to confine ourselves to Papias’ vicinity,—who certainly possessed considerable ability in this direction, but not everyone requested to do the work was equally skilled in translation, and it was possible to succeed once and fail the next time. The work was burdensome, and the method of discourse defective. We have a repetition of conditions and occurrences such as are described in 1 Cor. xiv. 11-19, 26-28 in another connection. Now we understand the distributive ἕκαστος (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 26); on each occasion—and this could recur hundreds of times —the question arose as to how the acting interpreter would succeed in edifying the congregation by his: trans- lation. It is also clear why Papias did not think of the translation of the Book of Matthew, but of the sayings of Jesus which it contained. Through Hebrew Christians the existence of a great sermon which Jesus had preached VOL. II. 33 514 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT on the mountain became known, which was recorded in the Hebrew Matthew but not in the Gospel of Mark, which was in circulation in the province of Asia at the time (above, pp. 444, 456 n., 16). If this‘or some other discourse was to be brought to the ears of the congregations in Ephesus or Hierapolis, it must be through the translation of a Hebrew Christian. It was never the Book of Matthew which was translated, but always and only single pericopes from the same, and, what was the chief point for Papias, always a portion of the λόγια κυριακά. Papias’ words give us a glimpse into the history of the Christian worship at a time when the Greek Gospel of Matthew did not yet exist in Asia Minor, but while there were still numerous Hebrew Christians who possessed a Hebrew Matthew. Papias does not describe Christian worship as conducted during his younger years; in this case he would have used the imperfect (ἡρμήνευε) to express the fact that the reading of sections of Seripture in Greek was exchanged for the translation of Hebrew pericopes. Neither does he describe a condition of things in existence at the time when he wrote (ἑρμηνεύει), but employs the aorist (ἡρμήνευσε) to indicate that it was something belonging entirely to the past. It was so once; when Papias wrote it was no longer necessary. This statement carries with it the explanation why it was that the earlier state of things of which Papias speaks was no longer in existence when he wrote. It is inconceivable that a Hebrew book made familiar by reiterated translation and doubtless also highly prized should have been forgotten, possibly because the other Gospels were a sufficient substitute, or because the interpreters who knew the language, the emigrants from Palestine, had died out in Asia Minor. In this case there would have been no longer any Matthew, and Papias would no longer have had any interest in speaking) of Matthew’s literary work. He did have such an interest, however, because when he wrote there was a Greek Gospel THE FIRST ‘THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 515 whose content purported to be the same as that of the Hebrew Matthew. The same process must have taken place here that we observe elsewhere under similar con- ditions. Just as the oral translation of the Hebrew Serip- tures in the Palestinian and other Oriental synagogues was finally crystallised in the written Targums, and just as Oyprian’s Latin Bible grew out of the translation of the Greek Bible in the African Church into which Tertullian gives us a glimpse, so the Greek Matthew is the final outcome of the translation of the Hebrew Matthew, testi- fied to by Papias, in the Greek congregations of | Asia Minor, and perhaps also in other regions. We know also from other sources that when Papias wrote, 125 A.b., or possibly somewhat later, that the Greek Matthew was not only in existence, but already somewhat widely circulated. ‘lo mention only the most striking evidence, the Kpistle of Barnabas (130 A.D.) cites as Holy Scripture the saying which we find preserved in Matt. xxii: 14, and in the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp (110 a.p.), a friend of Papias (Iren. v. 33. 4), also in the Didache (probably written at the same time), we find several: sen- tences peculiar to Matthew employed as if they were the common property of the Christian Churches (n. 5). ' The Greek Matthew, which is the only known source to which we can refer these citations, was, however, universally accepted as a work of Matthew (above, p. 386 ff. ; below, n.- 5). Consequently, the data for the history of Matthew derived from other sources confirms the interpretation of Papias’ testimony given above. The latter remains, however, of inestimable value, since Papias gives us no mere literary- historical report of uncertain origin handed on by him, but testifies to a condition which had existed for a long time in his native Church, an unfortunate condition burdening the Church’s life, beyond one’s imagination. If, during Papias’ earlier years, there was a Hebrew Gospel purporting to be the apostle Matthew’s, which persons in 516 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the province of Asia had long been in the habit of trans- lating into Greek, often orally in the manner which he describes, it is (1) incontrovertible that the original lan- guage of the book in question was Hebrew (or Aramaic, see below), and that at this time there was no Greek translation or recasting of the same. (2) The tradition that Matthew wrote this Hebrew book was just as firmly believed as that regarding Mark’s authorship of the Gospel bearing his name, since this Hebrew book was much read, translated, and also highly esteemed as a work of the apostle Matthew at a time when personal disciples of Jesus and other “ Hebrews” from Palestine were to be found in the Churches of Asia’ Minor. (3) This shows that the book whose oral translation appeared to be rendered un- necessary by the existence of a Greek book bearing the name of the same author was no unknown work. The transference of Matthew's name from the Hebrew to the Greek Gospel, which took place under the eye of Papias and of others who, like himself, were disciples of apostles, presupposes that in this circle the Greek Gospel was regarded as a complete substitute for the Hebrew book, 1.6. as a substantially correct translation of the same.» We are not informed in so many words as) to the time and place of this transition: Inasmuch, however, as we have no knowledge of another Greek-speaking province outside of Asia where the Hebrew Matthew was in use, and since we are informed by Papias that this Gospel had been translated orally for a long time in the Churches of Asia, the only natural inference is that the change from the Hebrew to the Greek Matthew was made in this region. In view of the practicalvadvantage to be derived from such a work, it is not likely that it was left until only one or two interpreters were to be found capable of executing the translation. It may, therefore, be con- sidered very probable that the Greek Matthew originated before the close of the first century in the province of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 517 Asia, whence it was circulated, and, in view of the wit: nesses cited, more probably before 90 than after 100. The fact that the name of the translator of this book, like those of all the ancient Bible translators, has disappeared, requires no explanation (n. 6). There are two things, however, that must not be forgotten, first, that Papias’ statement to the effect that the oral translation of the Hebrew Matthew was not always made in a manner entirely satisfactory, will hold good also of one of these oral translators who wrote out the Greek Matthew. Then, secondly, we must bear in mind that at least one Greek Gospel, that of Mark, was already in circulation in his vicinity (above, p. 444 f.) when the Greek text of Matthew was prepared. The report that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew was often recalled in the ancient Church and never con- tradicted (n. 7). Undoubtedly, Papias’ work and, after 325, the Church History of Eusebius, which was widely read, contributed much to the circulation of this tradition. This is not enough, however, to render Papias entirely responsible for the same. Origen, whose writings betray not the slightest trace of acquaintance with Papias’ work, speaks of the original language of Matthew with as much confidence as does Irenzeus, who had read Papias’ book. The Alexandrians received the information from another, or indeed an additional source. The Alexandrian teacher Panteenus is reported to have found on the occasion of his journey to India, 1.6. probably to South Arabia (before 180), a Gospel, written in Hebrew characters and the Hebrew language, in use among the Christiahs in this region. These Christians, who for this reason are called Hebrews, are reported to have held this Gospel to be a work of Matthew, which they claimed to have received through the apostle Bartholomew, to whose preaching they were said to owe their Christianity (n. 7)» Regardless of the) correctness or incorrectness of the statements and 518 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT opinions of these Jewish Christians, they had'a tradition that Matthew wrote a Hebrew Gospel, which, in any case, was not derived from the Greek work of the Phrygian bishop. It was at that time at the latest, however, that Panteenus learned this same tradition and brought: it to Alexandria. The opinion that the entire tradition of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is due to an error of Papias, who; had heard of the Aramaic Gospel in use among Jewish Christians in Syria and Palestine, is not only inconsistent with the proper understanding of Papias’ testimony con- cerning the Hebrew Matthew, and unsuited to explain the citculation of the tradition regarding the same, but is in itself also, historically improbable. . For, to our knowledge, the Jewish Christians in question, the Nazarenes, never called their only Gospel (the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews) after Matthew (GK, ii. 723); and the older scholars who deal with the Gospel of the Hebrews, Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, do not say anything which indicates) that it was closely related to. Matthew. Only those who, like Irenzeus (n. 7), were) unacquainted with the conditions and Scriptures of Jewish Christians in the far East were liable to be led into the error of supposing that the Ebionites, as these Jewish Christians were indiscriminately called, used only the Hebrew Matthew. The tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew for the Hebrews, together with the reported existence of a Hebrew Gospel in. use among Jewish Christians, and uncertain reports of correspondence between the Greek Matthew and. the Gospel of the Hebrews, gave rise to the opinion that the latter was the original upon which the Greek Matthew was based. Jerome, who was exactly informed as to the facts, gave occasional support to the view in order to establish a reputation for being also a N.T, scholar by rediscovering the veritas hebravca. These obseure» statements and errors are not the source of the: tradition regarding the Hebrew Matthew, but pre- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS — 51g suppose its existence. In reality the relation between the Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Greek Matthew is very close. If, on the other hand, it be accepted as proved that no relation of dependence of the Gospel of the Hebrews on the Greek Matthew exists, or vice versa (GK, ii. 704-723), we have a new proof, entirely independent of the witness of Papias, that the Greek Matthew goes back to a Hebrew original which is also the basis of the Gospel of the Hebrews. In every case where Jerome speaks of the Hebrew original. of Matthew as a book in his possession, he means this Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes (GA, u. 648 fl., 681 f.). It is not im- possible that the book shown to Panteenus by Jewish Christians in South Arabia was likewise a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews. But it is just as possible that at that time copies of the original Matthew were really preserved in this. far-off corner of the Christian world. In his account of the incident, Eusebius expresses surprise (nu. 7) that the Hebrew Matthew should be still in exist- ence in Pantzenus’ time (180), as he concluded from the incident which he narrates. This fact shows us that the learned bishop of Caesarea, who had the largest Christian library of the fourth century at his disposal, would have sought in vain for the Hebrew Matthew in his age and vicinity. When Epiphanius repeats what he had heard from eye-witnesses about a Hebrew Matthew and also a translation of John’s Gospel and of the Acts in the posses- sion of the Jews in Tiberias in 330 (n. 7), and states, further, that this Hebrew Matthew was not a, translation but the original, the latter,is an incorrect addition of his to the otherwise credible narrative which he had heard. It is possible that here also, as so often by Jerome, the Gospel of the Hebrews was taken to be the original Matthew. It is improbable, however; since, in the first place, as already remarked, the single Gospel used by the Nazarenes was not called by Matthew’s name, and, in the 520 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT second place, the contemporaneous existence of a Hebrew John and Acts indicates rather that the Hebrew Matthew, like the other two books, was ἃ translation from the Greek. These Aramaic translations originated from the oral trans- lation of the Greek N.T. which, according to traditions which come down to us from the time, was still customary in the Churches of these regions in 300. Large portions of the same are preserved for us in the Hvangeliarium Meroso- lymitanum and the accompanying fragments of other N.T. books. This explanation of the origin of the translation is not weakened by the fact that several parts of the same, including the three books mentioned, were in existence as early as 330. There is no doubt that the translation of Matthew, as of the other N.T. writings, goes back to a Greek original) Here we have a new proof that at the beginning of the fourth century the original Hebrew Matthew no longer existed in Palestine. No one would translate Matthew’s Gospel from the Greek into the ver- nacular if the original Gospel written in ‘this language were still in existence. The same is true of the’ oldest Gospel translations of the East Syrians (Sc, Ss), in which Matthew is also dependent upon the Greek. The Hebrew Matthew has disappeared. And why not? The Nazarenes who retained their native language had their Gospel of the Hebrews not later than 150. Other Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria had a Greek translation of their own apparently from 170 onwards (GA, ii. 724-742). By 100 at the latest, the Gentile Christian Churches of Asia Minot; perhaps also of other regions, where once the Hebrew Matthew was orally translated with great effort, were in possession of a Greek translation Which was considered in every sense a substitute for the original. After the middle of the second century, none of the Churches that\ we know anything about had any interest in retaining the Hebrew Matthew. ‘The disappearance of the book in no way ob- sures the clear traces of its earlier existence. Scholars who THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 521 regard our Matthew as an original Greek work (n. 8) have not succeeded in showing the unanimous tradition against them, which goes back into the first century, to be in error, and therefore have not succeeded in setting it aside. Further, the assumption that Matthew himself wrote his Gospel both in Greek and in Hebrew stands in irreconeil- able contradiction with the testimony of Papias, when rightly understood, which rests upon the experience of a large section of the Church, and it finds no support in the tradition. How the theory goes to pieces when the attempt is made to reconcile it with the text itself, we shall show later (§ 56). The evidence derived from its original language showing that Matthew was written for Hebrews, 1.6. for non- Hellenised Jews in Palestine, is frequently stated by the Fathers. No more definite tradition than this appears to be at the basis of the statement occasionally made that the original readers were Jews who had been already con- verted to Christianity (n. 7). The objection can be made at once on purely external grounds, that James and Judas, as well as Peter in 2 Peter, wrote in Greek to the Jewish Christians of Palestine and the neighbouring regions, . If the readers whom Matthew had in mind were of exactly the same character, in using Hebrew he would be depart- ing from the rule which we find otherwise to be observed. Matthew's use of the ἑβραὺς διάλεκτος, like Paul’s (Acts xxi, 2), indicates that he has in view compatriots and countrymen in general, and wrote the book in the vernacular because he desired to show also in this outward manner his geniune Israelitish feeling, and to bring its contents as close to their hearts as possible. The choice of the language was one of the means by which he sought to accomplish his apologetic purpose,—a means which, to say the least, would have been unfortunately chosen if it was Hebrew in the strict sense, 1.6. the sacred language of the O.T., or the modernised Hebrew of the rabbis... In this case he would 522 INTRODUCTION TO: THE NEW) TESTAMENT have transferred the discourses of Jesus and His conversa tions with friend and foe out of the language of the common people (Aramaic) into a learned language little understood, by the majority, especially the poor, ὕο whom first of all the gospel was to be brought. The assumption may be rejected at once as historically impossible. The language in which Matthew wrote could have been no other than the language of Jesus, “the original language of the gospel” (δ 1), the Aramaic vernacular of Palestine (n. 9). The only tradition regarding the time of composi- tion which is of sufficient age and definiteness to be, of value has been already discussed (above, p. 392 ff.). It is limited to the two points : that (1) of the four evangelists Matthew wrote first, and (2) his gospel was written be tween 61 and 66. For the latter, lrenzeus is, to be sure, the only witness; but he speaks with a definiteness and certainty which indicates dependence upon older sources (n. 10). | 1. (Pp. 506, 507.) The position of Matthew in the lists is not always the same; in Mark iii. 18 and Luke vi. 15: 6th Bartholomew, 7th Matthew, 8th Thomas ; in Matt. x. 3: 6th Bartholomew, 7th Thomas, 8th Matthew ; in Acts i. 13: 6th Thomas, 7th Bartholomew, 8th Matthew. In the fact that Matthew alone in his list calls himself the publican, and puts his name after that: of his σύζυγος Thomas, Eus. Demonstr. 111. 5. 81-86; Theophan. v. 38, saw a proof of his humility. Cf. Orig. Schol. in Prov. (Tischendorf, Not. Cod. Sin. pp. 78, 119) ; Didascalia, ed. Lagarde, p. 44. 9 ff.; Epiph. Her. li: 6 ; also Barnabas v. 9. ‚In the Diatessaron, according to the testimony of the Syrian Ischodad of the ninth century (given by Goussen, Stud. Bibl. i. 66, cf. Harris, Fragments of the Comm. of Ephrem on the Diatessaron, p. 101; ThLb, 1895, p. 499), the five apostles invariably placed first: were followed. by ; 6th Bartholomew, 7th Thomas, 8th Matthew the publican, 9th James Lebbzeus, son of Alphzeus, 10th Simon Cananwus, 11th Judas, son of James, 12th Judas the traitor.’ So Ss in Matt. x. 3f., except that James the son of Alpheus has not the added name Lebbeus. Tatian seems to have found a ὁ before καὶ Acßßaios in Matt. x. 3 (or Mark iii, 18), or to have invented it in the effort to harmonise the lists. This combination presupposes the reading Ἰάκωβον instead of Aeviv, Mark ii. 14, which Tatian shared with D and the old Latins according to Ephrem, Kxposit. p, 58, and which was also known to many Greeks, and probably was before Origen as well (cf. Forsch. i. 130; Tischend. and Matthäi on Mark ii. 14, iii. 18; Matt. x. 3; Se, S# on Mark ii. 14 are unforttinately lacking). Aevis, which is written THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 523 Aeßns in Orig. c. Cels. i. 62, was mistakenly identified with Δεββαῖος. Since the same publican who in Luke v. 27 was called Levi, with the addition τὸν τοῦ ᾿Αλφαίου, according to Cod. 1), was called James the son of Alpheus in Mark ii. 14, according to the same text, it followed that the apostle James the son of Alphzeus was also a publican. Tatian, therefore, found it appro- priate to put the two publicans together among the apostles. It cannot be doubted that in Luke v. 27, 29 Levi without addition, in Mark ii. 14 Levi, son of Alpheus (so also Gospel of Peter, xiv. 60 from Mark), is the original text; and also that in Mark ii, 13-17, Luke v. 27-32 the same event is recorded as in Matt. ix. 9-13. Now, as this publican bears the name Matthew in Matt., and in Matt. x, 3 the apostle is expressly characterised as the publican mentioned shortly before, the identity of Levi and Matthew really followed of necessity in the interpretation of the Church. Neverthe- less the distinction between the two publieans, called by Jesus in very similar circumstances, is found not only in the Valentinian Heracleon, which is passed over without criticism by Clement in his report of it (Strom. iv. 73), but also in Orig. δ. Cels. i. 62, who says expressly that this Levi did not belong to the number of the apostles, in contradiction to which the preface of his in Epist, ad Rom. (Delarue, iv. 460) is of no consequence, since the whole discussion about the names of the apostles comes from the translator Rufinus. Cf. also Ephrem, Exposit. Ev. Conc. 287 ; Forsch. i. 130. This distinction was at least more reasonable than that, say, between Peter and Cephas, in so far as Mark iii. 18, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13 do not indicate the identity of Levi with an apostle. ‘This follows only from the comparison with Matt. ix. 9, but should not have been overlooked by those who, like Origen, acknowledge the credi- bility of Matt. The cases where to a Hebrew name is added a Latin one (John —Mark, Saul—Paul, Jesus—Justus) or a Greek one (Judas—Aristobulus, Jonathan—Jannai—Alexander, vol. i. 37) are not wholly analogous to the combination of Levi and Matthew in one person. Nor is the union of the father’s name with one’s own exactly similar (Joseph Bar-Saba, Acts i. 23; Simon Bar-Jochanan, John i. 42, xxi. 15-17; probably also Nathanael Bar- Tholmai, vol. i. 31). Yet we do also find two independent Hebrew names applied to one person, as Ἰωσὴφ 6 καὶ Καϊάφας, Jos, Ant. xviii. 2.2. As a rule, one is probably a by-name received later, as Joseph Kabi (Jos. Ant. xx. 8.11), Simon Kepha, Joseph Barnaba. Just this is to be presumed in the case of Levi—Matthew, and from the; analogy of Simon—Kepha (Peter), Joseph— Barnaba, it is probable that the name by which the man was famed among Christians, and by which in his own lifetime he was regularly called, was the later of the two. With historical precision Mark ii. 14, and Luke v. 27, 29 following him, have stated that the publican at the time of his call was known as Levi, while in Matt. ix. 9 the name which he uniformly bore as apostle and in the Church is carried back into the story of the call. This corresponds with the fact that until he has related Peter’s change of name (iii. 16) Mark speaks of him only as Simon (i. 16, 29, 36), whereas the second name is intro- duced at once in Matt. iv. 18, and, except for the solemn moments, x. 2, xvi. 16f., is used exclusively. That tradition tells us nothing of Levi’s renaming, and its occasion follows from the fact that. tradition leaves him personally altogether in the background. It is only Mark 11]. 17 that tells us even of John and James, that Jesus gave them the surname of Boanerges, and then 524 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT it is simply the faet we learn and not the circumstances and occasion. . The same is true of Nathanael as regards double naming. According to John i. 46-51, he was one of the first disciples, and according to John xxi. 2 a per- manent member of the most intimate circle, and so certainly one of the apostles (cf. John vi. 66 ἢ). And yet he is missing from all the lists of apostles, unless he is identical with Bartholomew, who is the sixth in order in Matt., Mark, and Luke, as Nathanael is the sixth disciple of Jesus accord- ing to the correct understanding of John i. 35-51. The formation and mean- ing of the name Μαθθαῖος (so in the oldest MSS. NB, and also D, instead of Ματθαῖος of the later MSS. corresponding to the Greek rule) are much debated, but in any case it is to be written *m or 'smo, In B. Sanhedr. 48a (omitted in the expurgated editions, printed in Laible-Dalman, Jesus Christus im Talmud, S. 15,* translation, S. 66; Eng. trans. by Streane, text, p. 15,* translation, p: 71f.) we read : “Jesus had five disciples, Matthai (Ἀπ), Nakai (xp), Nezer (753), Bunai (53), Thoda (mn). They took Matthai before the court. He said to the judge: Shall Matthai be put to death? It stands written : When (22) shall I come and appear before God? (Ps. xlii. 3). They said to him: By all means Matthai shall be put to death, for it is written : When (np) will he die, and his name perish ? (Ps. xli. 5).” According to frequent analogies (6... Zarxatos= 21, abbreviation of na), un» is probably an abbreviation of mynd (2 Kings xxiv. 17; Neh. xi. 17, 22, Ματθανίας, gift of. Yahweh). Just as the name mnm of similar meaning (Neh. viii. 4; 1 Chron. ix. 31, Mar@a6ias) was customary as a special name, in addition to the other, so we find the abbreviation of the one name (Ματθαῖος) along with the abbreviation of the other (Ματθίας, Acts i. 23; am, Jastrow, 861). Onom., ed. Lagarde, 174. 79, Ματθαῖος δεδωρημένος, Ματθίας δόμα θεοῦ. Cf. Dalman, Gram. des jüd. Ara- miiisch.? 178. A discussion of various derivations and explanations by Grimm (ThStKr, 1870, 8. 723-729), who for his: part would derive nn from the unused singular no (man). Still other views in Schanz, Komm, zu Mt. 1f. Like Ewald and Hitzig, Nöldeke also, GGA, 1884, S. 1023, takes the name to be an abbreviation of ‘px or max. 2. (P. 508.) What Luke v. 29 says more expressly, that the publican gave a feast in his house in honour of Jesus, and to celebrate the day (cf. Luke xiv. 13, 16; John xii. 2), is also the meaning of Matt. ix. 10; Mark ii, 15; for, aside from the improbability that Jesus was able to entertain a large company in His own lodging, τῷ ’Inoov makes it certain that the αὐτοῦ which Matt. puts forward with strong emphasis, and the αὐτόν of Mark, do not refer to Jesus, but to the publican, the principal person in the preceding sentence.’ The account in Matt: as in Mark is brief but perfeetly clear, First the publican is sitting at his place of business; at the call of Jesus he leaves it and attaches himself to Him; finally, he sits at table in his own house. Matt, expresses only the difference in the localities, while Mark with αὐτοῦ after ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ expressly indicates that which is of itself obvious, Matt. gives the most wnassuming form of the story; cf. ZKom, Matt, 370f. 3, (P. 508.) Aside from the accounts which refer to the Gospel, the only statement which ean be called traditional is that of ‘Clement, Pad, ii. 16; Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν ὁ ἀπύστολος σπερμάτων καὶ ἀκροδρύων Kal λαχάνων ἄνευ κρεῶν 'μετελάμβανεν. But there is a suspicion that Clement drew here from the Parudoses of Matthias or the Gospel of Matthias, and so that Ματθαῖος is to THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 352; be emended to Ματθίας; ef. GK, ii. 751-761. The suggestion concerning Matthew’s ascetic manner of life in Martyr. Matthei (Acta Apocr,, ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 1. 218) is not contrary to this view ; for in this as in/othe; legends (op. cit. pp. 65 ff., xxi, xxxiv) the interchange of the name ‘Matthew and Matthias is so confused, that it is difficult to determine which name is original. ‘The confusion of these two names is in many instances an uninten- tional error, e.g. in the list of “the sixty books,” GK, ii. 292, A. 7, οἵ, 758, A. 1, 759, A. 2. But it took place designedly when, in an apocryphal varia- tion of the story, Luke xix. 1-10, the name of the chief publican Matthias was substituted for that of Zacchzeus, Clem. Strom. iv. 35 ; ef. Quis Div. xiii.; GK, ii. 752; as it was conscious trifling, also, when a Gospel was ascribed to, the last chosen apostle Matthias, whose name was enough like that of the evan- gelist Matthew in derivation, meaning, and sound to be exchanged with it. In the region of the apocryphal Gospels of the childhood the unaltered name of Matthew had yet once more to suffer, Ev. Apocr.? Tischend. 51-112. With regard to the legends concerning him, see Lipsius, A pokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 2. 109-141 et passim. With regard to a copy of Matt., ostensibly from the hand of Barnabas, of which much was said in the sixth century, see cbid. 291 ff. 4. (Pp. 509,511.) After the quotations from Papias concerning Mark, Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16 continues: περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαίου ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηται (sc. τῷ aria). “Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν EBpaidı διαλέκτῳ ra λόγια συνεγράψατο (al. συνετάξατο), ἡρμήνευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς (al. ἠδύνατο), ἕκαστος." For the expression ch. Berl. ägypt. Urk. No. 1002 of 55 A.D. ἀντίγραφον συγγραφῆς πράσεως Αἰγυπτίας, μεθερμηνευομένης κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν. The Syrian translates: “But of Matthew he says this: Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language, but everyone (literally “man for man”’) translated it as well as he could.” Rufinus: “ Matthzeus quidem scripsit hebreo sermone; interpretatus est autem ea, que seripsit, unusquisque sicut potuit.” The fact that Rufinus leaves τὰ Aöyıa untranslated, confirms what was said above (p..509f.) as to the unemphatic nature of the object of the verb. The Syrian, on the other hand, corroborates the view that Papias was speaking of nothing else than ‘the Gospel of Matt. already current in his time. Irenzeus understood him so when he made acknowledgment to Papias for his information concerning the original language of Matt. (see p. 393 f. above, and note 7 below) ; and so did Eusebius himself when he added this testimony regarding Matt. to that con- cerning “the Mark who wrote the Gospel,” without finding any further explanation needful. The authorities on biblical introduction, too, long assumed it as a matter of course that Papias was speaking of the Gospel of Matt. Michaelis, Hinl. 951, translated, as Rufinus did, Eichhorn, Hinl.? 1. 200, 458, like the old Syrian, Hug, Einl.? ii. 16 : * Matthew wrote his history in the Hebrew language.” Schleiermacher (see p. 441 above), in 1832, was the first to emphasise τὰ λόγια, and to infer that Papias was discussing a Hebrew book very different in its content from our Matt. Since then the Adya of Matthew have been constantly spoken of as a lost source of our Gospels. For the idea of λόγια see GK, 1. 857 Ε΄, ii. 790ff. It is, of course, granted that. λόγια kupuard or λόγοι Ἰησοῦ (cf. Amos i. 1) might have been the title of a book containing a collection of extended discourses and short sayings of Jesus. But if one recalls what was said (above, p. 511) with regard to the historical framework of Jesus’ discourses, this is most’ improbable. The Greeks had collections of 526 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT anecdotes whose real content lay in some brilliant saying, called ἀποφθέγματι a potiori, e.g. Plutarch’s various collections (Moralia, pp. 172-236, 240-242). The Jews called an anecdote of this sort rather nwvyn=pä£ıs. Of the in- numerable discussions of Papias’ testimony regarding Matt. (and Mark), besides Schleiermacher’s famous treatise (see above, p. 425, note 12) and the writer’s discussion (@K, i. 889-897), let us mention, further, only Weiffenbach, Das Papiasfragment über Marcus und Mattheus, 1878, and Lipsius, JbfPTh, 1885, S. 174-176, claiming the reference of Papias’ evidence to our Gospels of Mark and Matt. Among the unfounded prejudices from which the correct understanding of the few words of Papias has suffered, there is the idea that he was a Jewish Christian. So even Hofmann, ix. 270. The name of a Papias of Seythopolis, but also the name of an Ammia of the same city, which is likewise a Phrygian name (Forsch. v. 94, vi. 364) are found on Sarcophagi, which were recently brought to light in Jerusalem (known to the present writer from the Quartalschrift des Syrischen Waisenhauses of May 1905, and from photographs). Papias is a genuine Phrygian and Gentile name. Forsch. v. 94, vi. 109. One should not infer that he had the Gospel of the Hebrews in his hands from the fact that, according to Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16, he embodied in his work the account of the sinful woman accused before Jesus, which was included in the @ospel of the Hebrews also, and which was probably the same as was inserted later in John: viii. 1-11. As Eusebius says, just before, that Papias cited passages from 1 John and 1 Pet. (κέχρηται μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ κτλ.), it followsrather from the form of his statement regarding Papias and the Gospel of the Hebrews that Papias did not name this book, but merely presented matter which Eusebius, who had himself studied the Gospel of the Hebrews, knew to be contained in it as well. For Papias, as for all Asiatic Christians, a Hebrew book was a closed book, unless a Jew was at hand who could translate it for him. The only Hebrew book of which, according to the extant fragments and statements, he made any mention was the Book of Matt. When, in describing the studies on which his work rested, he names Matthew among the other disciples of Jesus from whose oral state- ment he used to seek information, and when he explains this diligent inquiry by saying that he proceeded on the assumption that he could not derive so much benefit from books as from the spoken words of living witnesses, he does not express any indifference toward books in general which would: be inconsistent with his remarks on Mark, Matt., 1 John, 1 Pet., and Rey. nor does he say what was his own opinion of the value of books now that he himself had become an author (he writes ὑσσελάμβανον not ὑπέλαβον or ὑπολαμβάνω), but what he thought in earlier years, at the time of this in- vestigation. Mark was not suflicient. The Book of Matt. he could not understand. Interpreters were not always at hand, and did not always understand their business as well as they might have done. 5. (P. 515.) Barn. iv. 14: προσέχωμεν, μήποτε ὡς γέγραπται “ πολλοὶ κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ" εὐρεθῶμεν, Matt. xxii. 14; ef. GK, i, 848, 924, From Barn. v. 9 one must conclude that he always knew the Gospel of Matt. by this name. When he there asserts that, in confirmation of Matt. ix. 13, Christ chose the most sinful men to be His apostles, he has in view primarily the narrative in Matt. ix. 9 (ef. x. 3), the only passage where the publican is: designated as the apostle Matthew. The generalisation of this fact and the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 527 characterisation of the apostles at the same time as those who were afterward to preach the gospel of Christ, would be unintelligible, if Matthew were not known to the author as one who had a peculiar share in this work, and in general as a prominent apostle fitted to serve as the type of the whole company. But both these statements are true of Matthew only in so far as he was author of a Gospel. With regard to the time of Barnabas, ef. Funk; ThQSc, 1897, S. 617 ff., who assigns him once more to the time of Nerva, or the end of the first century ; and A. Schlatter, Die Tage Trajans und Hadrians, 1897, S. 1, 61-67, who comes forward with new arguments for the date which is probably correct, 130-131. With regard to Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, ete., cf. GK, i. 922-932, 840-848. Nestle, Murginalien und Materialien, ii. 72, calls attention to a passage in the writing of the pseudo- Eusebius on the star of the Magi (preserved in the Syriac), which reads : “In the second year of the coming of our Lord, in the consulate of Caesar and Capito (?5 a.p., Klein, Fasti Cons. 17), in the month of Kanun II. (=January), these Magi came from the East and worshipped our Lord. And in the year 430 (Oct. 1, 118-119), in the reign of Hadrian (117-139), in the consulate of Severus and Fulgus (read Fulvus=120), and the episcopate of Xystus, bishop of the city of Rome (circa 115-125), this question was raised among the people who were acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, and through the efforts of great men in various places this history was sought out and found, and written in the language of those who attended to the matter.” The exactness of the fourfold dating is surprising. If we change the first figure 430 to 431 (Oct. 1, 119-120 A.n.), all four dates agree, a great rarity in chronological notices of this sort. In the year 120, then, and primarily in Rome, as the manner of dating shows, the question in what year the Magi had come to Bethlehem was actively discussed. We are re- minded of discussions like those concerning the census of Quirinius and of the fictitious Acts of Pilate (Justin, Apol. i. 34, 35). If there is anything in this remarkable statement, then in 120, in Rome and “in various places,” men were occupied in a scholarly fashion with Matt. ii., that is, of course, with the Greek text of this chapter of our Matt. This agrees with the citations previously mentioned. 6. (P. 517.) The Greek translator of Matt. was a someone, nameless and unknown to Eusebius (see the following note). We cannot conclude with certainty from Jerome, Vir. Ill. iii., that at this time conjectures on the subject had already been advanced. In Greek minuseules (Tischendorf, 1. 212) the translator is identified with John (which has a certain justification in older legends, such as may be read in the Acts of Timothy, ed. Usener, p. 9, cf. GK, i. 948), with Bartholomew (which has some connection with the aecount of the journey of Panteenus to India, Eus. v. 10. 3), and, finally, with James the brother of the Lord. This is also the view of the Synopsis which goes under the name of Athanasius (ed. Montfaucon, ii. 202). Ac- cording to Epiphanius, Mon., ed. Dressel, p. 44, who finds evidence in Matt. x. 23 that no apostle had travelled far from Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem, and who in the same passage advances the pseudo-Clementine idea that James was the overseer of the apostles, Matt. would have written his Gospel thirty years after the Ascension at the direction (κατ᾽ ἐπιτροπήν) of this James, who died two years before. 528 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 7. (Pp. 517, 518, 519, 521.) That Matt. was written in Hebrew and intended for Hebrews, cf. Iren. iii. 1.1 (p. 398, above). Also a frarment of a catena in Stieren, p. 842 ; τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πρὸς ᾿Ιουδαίους ἐγράφη" οὗτοι γὰρ ἐπεθύμουν πάνυ σφόδρα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ Χριστόν, ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος ἔτι μᾶλλον σφοδροτέραν ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπιθυμίαν, παντοίως ἔσπευδε πληροφορίαν παρέχειν αὐτοῖς, ὡς εἴη ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ ὁ Χριστός" διὸ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς. γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἤρξατο. Cf. the excerpts from Matt. in Iren. iii. 9 ; iii. 11.8 on’ the beginning of the book; iii. 11. 7: “Ebionzei etenim eo quod est secundum Mattheum solo utentes, ex illo ipso eonvincuntur, non recte presumentes de domino.” This statement regarding the Gospel of the Ebionites, to which is added i. 26. 2, et apostolum Paulum reeusant, rests on Iren®us’ inexact knowledge of the circumstances of the Jewish Christians; cf. GK, ii. 664, Eus. H..E. v. 10. 3: ὁ Πάνταινος καὶ eis Ἰνδοὺς ἐλθεῖν λέγεται, ἔνθα λόγος εὑρεῖν. αὐτὸν προφθάσαν τὴν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον παρά τισιν αὐτόθι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπεγνωκύσιν, οἷς Βαρθολομαῖον τῶν ἀποστόλων ἕνα κηρῦξαι αὐτοῖς τὲ Ἑβραίων γράμμασι τὴν τοῦ Ματθαίου, καταλεῖψαι γραφὴν, ἣν καὶ σώζεσθαι εἰς τὸν δηλούμενον χρόνον. Cf. Forsch. iii. 168-170; GK, ii. 666, 680. While Irenzus supposes Matt. to be written for theJ ews, and, according to the fragment at least, primarily for the Jews not yet, converted to Christianity, Origen (in Eus. ἢ. E. vi. 25. 3, and tom. vi. 17 in Jo., see above, p. 397) says it was meant “for those converted from Judaism” and “for the believing from the circumcision.” Elsewhere, however, he too says (tom. i. 6 im,Jo.): τοῖς προσδοκῶσι τὸν ἐξ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Δαβὶδ Ἑβραίοις. Eus. himself says, H. E. iii. 24..6: Ματθαῖος μὲν γὰρ πρότερον Ἑβραίοις κηρύξας, ὡς ἤμελλε καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττῃ γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸ Kar’ αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ λεῖπον τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ τούτοις, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου. On what grounds Eusebius claims to know this no one cansay. It goes beyond lven, iii. 1. 1 (see above, p. 397), where it is said, to be sure, that Matthew “ preached among the Hebrews” and wrote his Gospel, but where it is in no way implied that he ever left Palestine. Of this, too, there is no ancient and credible tradition. The Jewish Christians in “ India” (see above) be- lieved that they had received the Gospel not from Matthew himself, but from Bartholomew. Eus. Quest. ad Marinum (Mai, N. Patr. Bibl. iv. 1. 257; ef. Jerome, ad Hedibiam Epest. exx. 4.on Matt. xxviii. 1): λέλεκται δὲ “ὀψὲ τοῦ σαββάτου" παρὰ τοῦ ἑρμηνεύσαντος τὴν γραφήν᾽ ὁ μὲν γὰρ. εὐαγγελιστὴς Ματθαῖος ἑβραΐδι γλώττῃ παρέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλήνων φωνὴν μεταβαλὼν αὐτὸ τὴν ἐπιφώσκουσαν ὥραν εἰς τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν “ὀψὲ σαβ- βάτων " προσεῖπεν. Directly afterward he calls not the Greek translator who is here held responsible for the obscure expression, but the apostle John, ὁ διερμηνεύων, referring to John xx. 1 in comparison with Matt. xxviii. 1; as immediately before he writes : ὥσπερ διερμηνεύων αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ὁ Ματθαῖος, Eus. in Ps, Ixxviii, (Montfaucon, Coll. Nova Patr, i. 468): ἀντὲ yap τοῦ “φθέγξομαι προβλήματα dm’ ἀρχῆς" Ἑβραῖος ὧν ὁ Ματθαῖος οἰκείᾳ ἐκδόσει κέχρηται εἰπών" “ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς" (Matt. xiii, 35). Here οἰκεία ἔκδοσις, of course, does not mean a particular Greek translation (dis- tinguished from the LXX, like those of Aquila and Symmachus which are cited immediately after, but the native, te, the Hebrew, text which belonged to Matthew as a Jew. The statement (Eus. H. E. vi. 17, cf. GK, ii. 740 ἢ.) regarding the polemic of Symmachus the Ebıonite against. the Gospel of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 329 Matt. has no importance in this connection. What is handed down (Mai, op. cit. 270) as a declaration of Eusebius (καὶ δὴ συνόρα ἐν τούτοις ὕφος καὶ ἀπολουθίαν ἱστορικῆς διηγήσεως, ἣν 6 Ματθαῖος ἐκτίθεται, Σύρος ἀνήρ, τέλώνης τὸν βίον, τὴν φωνὴν Ἑβραῖος), but should probably be assigned to Julius Africanus (ef. Spitta, Brief des Africanus an Aristides, 70 ff., 111), presupposes the composition of Matt. in Hebrew. This tradition is repeated by Cyril, Hieros. Cat. xiv. 15; Epiphanius, Her. xxx. 3 (ἑβραϊστὶ καὶ ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμ- μασιν), Xxx. 6 (rd κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον ἑβραϊκὸν φύσει ὄν, a gospel said to have been extant as late as 330 along with a Hebrew translation of John and Acts in the possession of Jews in Tiberias; ef. Forsch. 1.345 ff. ; @K, i. 411, A. 1, ἢ. 672); Her. li. 5 (ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμμασι); Chrysost. Hom. i. 3 in Matt. ; Jerome, Vir, Ill. 111. (“evangelium Christi Hebreis litteris verbisque compo- suit, quod quis postea in Grecum transtulerit, non satis certum Vest”); Preef. Comm. in Mt. (“qui evangelium in Judza Hebr&o sermone edidit”) ; Comm. in Oseam (Vall. vi. 123: “Mattheum evangelium Hebreis litteris edidisse, quod non poterant legere, nisi hi qui ex Hebreis erant”). What Jerome meant here and in many other passages by the Hebrew language of the Gospel of Matt. is most plainly shown by the fact that the Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes, which he studied with care, copied, and translated into both Latin and Greek, was sometimes considered by him to be the original of Matt.; ef. moreover, vol. i. 23 f., 27. Nothing but absolute ignorance could find in the frequent mention of the Hebrew characters in which Matt. wrote a proof that the Gospel was composed in the ancient Hebrew language. The same statement is made by Jerome regarding the Aramaic sections in Daniel and Ezra, and by him and others as well regard- ing the Gospel of the Hebrews, the language of which has never’ been a matter of doubt; cf. GK, ii. 661, 667, 718. The tradition of the Hebrew Matt. came to the Syrians chiefly, if not exclusively, through the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Church History. Ephrem shows his dependence on Eusebius in this as in many matters (Ev. Concord. Exposit. 286), An anonymous Syriac fragment also, which from the excerpt in Wright, Catalogue of Syr. MSS. p. 1016, the present writer took to refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews (GK, ii. 681), is shown by the fuller account given by Barnes in the Academy, 1893, p. 344, to refer to Matt., and repeats only the ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις of Ivenzeus (see p. 398 above). The Syrian Ischodad in the ninth century (Harris, Fragments of the Comm. of Ephr. Syr. p. 16, ef. TRLB, 1896, col. 2) remarks on Matt. i. 20: “Others (say) that he who translated (this) out of Hebrew into Syriac altered (the expression), and for (the words) is conceived in her substituted zs born. But the Diatessaron says, ‘The one who is born in her is of the Holy Spirit.’” These exegetes went on the supposition that the Syriac version of Matt. was taken directly from the Hebrew original and not from a Greek translation, a view which in modern times has been revived by W. Cureton for the Se discovered by him (Preface, p. 76 ff.), and by Minischalchi Erizzo for the Sh (Evang. Hieros. Prief. p. 45) which he published. On the other hand, the Arabian bishop George in the seventh century still knew that the Hebrew Matt. was first translated into Greek, and that errors crept in at this point which the Syriac text shares with the Greek; cf. Georg, Gedichte wnd Briefe, translated by Ryssel, S. 140. VOL. 11. 34 530 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 8. (P. 521.) Erasmus is said to have been the first to dispute the tradition of the composition of Matt. in Hebrew. Several Catholics, like cardinal Cajetan, and the representatives of both Reformed and: Lutheran orthodoxy followed him ; ef. the counter-argument of R. Simon, Hist. Orit. du Texte du. NT, 1689, p. 47 ff., and the excerpts in Credner, Hinl. i. 78 ff. It is significant of Luther’s historical. insight and freedom that he held to Hebrew as the original language of Matt. In the discussions ‘concerning the institution of. the Lord’s Supper, according to the report of Gregor Casel in 1525 (Kolde, Anal. Lutherana, 72), he said what still holds: true for a hundred other problems, “Si haberemus. Hebrzeum Matthaum, facile expediremus!” Following in Simon’s steps, Michaelis, Hinl. 946ff., de- fended the older tradition with great thoroughness. Yet theologians of the most various schools have again and again set it aside, eg. Hug, Einl.? ii. 16-63; Fritzsche, Comm. in Ev. Matthwi, 1826, p. xvii ff.; Harless, Fabula de Mattheo Syrochaldaice Conscripto (Erlanger Programm, 1841). That our Matt. is not a translation, but written in Greek at the beginning, is the pre: vailing opinion to-day. Bengel’s suggestion im the Gnomon’ (Vorbemerkung zu Mt., ed. Stuttg. 1860, 8. 2), that Matt. himself published his Gospel in both Hebrew and Greek, has been seriously adopted by a few, among them men like Thiersch, Versuch, 192 ff., and Hofmann, ix. 326. The self-contra- diction in which Thiersch becomes involved is very remarkable. On p. 103, in an explanation of Papias’ statement which is otherwise essentially correct (cf. 8. 222 f.), he amplifies it tomean that the oral interpretation of the Hebrew Matt. continued “until he (Matt.) himself published the Greek writing which is read in the whole Church as his Gospel” ; while, according to p. 197, Matt. gave his two versions to the Churches of Palestine, the Greek to the Hellenistic and the Hebrew to the Hebrew congregations, “at the same time or nearly so.” In that case the translating of Matt. would have been super- fluous everywhere, and the Hebrew Matt. could not have been brought to Asia Minor in place of the Greek except by an extraordinary confusion. 9. (P. 522.) The only scholar familiar with linguistic conditions in the time of Jesus and the apostles who has declared in favour of Hebrew in the stricter sense as the original language of Matt. is Franz Delitzsch (The Hebrew NT, Leipzig, 1883, p. 30), and he himself previously held that it was Aramaic (Neue Untersuchungen über Entstelung und Anlage der kanon. Bvv. 1853, S. i. 7, 45, 49, 50). The long-continued and valuable labour which this distinguished Hebraist devoted to the restoration of a Hebrew version of the N.T. seems to have been the chief influence which led him thus to change his view. In his Brief an die Römer, in das Hebr. übersetzt und aus Tulmud und Midrasch erläutert, 1870, 8. 16 ἢν, he already showed some un- certainty with regard to the language even of the Gospel of the Hebrews, On other representatives of this view see GK, ii. 718 ἢ. 10. (Ὁ. 522.) The statement made by Gla, Die Originalsprache des Mtev. 1887, 8. 177, that Eusebius in his Chron, ad Ann. 41 assigned the composition of Matt. to the eighth year after the Ascension, is false in every particular. In anno Abrah. 2057 =41 A.D., or according to Jerome’s revision anno Abrah. 2058, Busebius says nothing of Matt., and of Mark only that he went to Eyypt to preach (ed. Schoene, pp. 152, 153), The Chronicle has nothing whatever to say about the composition of any Gospel. THE FIRST THREE: GOSPELS AND ACTS 531 8 55. CONTENTS, PLAN AND PURPOSE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. The words which stand at the beginning of the book form an introductory title. It would seem as if the fact that these words stand at the beginning of a book, in the further course of which there are no other titles were sufficient to make it clear, beyond all doubt that BiBros γενέσεως Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ κτὰ. is the title of the entire book, just as we have seen that ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου «tr, is the title of Mark’s Gospel. On the supposition that itis applicable to only a part of the same, we have great difference of opinion as to how much shall be included in the section. The title has been variously referred —(«@) to, i. 1-17 ;(b) to i, 1-25; (c),to i.,1-2, τῶν (d) to i 1-2, 23, the number of which diyisions, shows that the author never thought of the possibility of so many interpreta- tions. If he had, how could. he have omitted to make clear by a new title or in some other, way where the first division ended and the second began? ‚The words them- selves will bear the translation, ‘“‘Book of the origin of Jesus Christ,” with corresponding reference to i. 18-25 where the γένεσις or γέννησις τοῦ Χριστοῦ, to follow what is probably the original reading, is described (n. 1). But this applies only te this second paragraph of the. book, not to the entire chapter. In the first place, in 1. 18a, which reads almost like a title, it 1s very clearly implied that the discussion of the generation and birth of Jesus begins with this passage, and therefore that it was not the subject of what precedes, i. 2-17... In the second place, it is perfectly self-evident that no informed person could have called the enumeration of a man’s ancestors an account of his γέννησις, or even his γένεσις (cf. Luke 1. 17). A title with this meaning would not.have been in place until after, i.17; and there even it. would have been as Strange as it was superfluous, since what follows is not 532 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT properly an account of the beginning of Jesus’ life, Neither the time nor the place of the events related is indicated, and the birth is mentioned only in a subordinate sentence, i. 25, as was the case also in 1. 16. Not until ii. 1 do we have the statement of the time and place of the birth, and there because both are significant for the narrative which begins with this verse. Reference of the title to 1. 2-17 is to be rejected as impossible linguistically until a case is cited where a Greek or Hellenist calls a genealogical table βίβλος γενέσεως (n. 2). On the other hand, the expression was familiar to the Greek Christians, for whom the Greek Matthew was written, from their O.T., and it was certainly not in keeping with the inten- tion of the author, or rather of the translator, that, perhaps at a very early date, in spite of the clear depend- ence of the words upon very familiar passages in the Greek O.T., the first clause of the book was mistaken for a title of the genealogy of Jesus or of the history of His birth. It was certainly a misunderstanding if the expression was borrowed from the Greek O.T., since in no O.T. passage where this or a similar expression occurs is it employed to introduce a list of the ancestors of the person with whose name it is used, or a narrative of his birth. Where genealogies follow they are those of descendants, not of progenitors. From other passages we see that! the etymological’ meaning of the Hebrew word, ‘‘a man’s generations,” has been widened in usage to the more general conception of the family history beginning with the person mentioned, or of history in general (n. 2). Since descendants of Jesus were out of the question, the translator could take it for granted that this O.T. expres- sion would be understood in the sense in which it was used in the O.T. He gave his writing the title “ Book of the History of Jesus.” When, however, he adds immedi- ately to the name Jesus the title of His office, Christ, which had come to be used in the Church as a second THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS, AND ACTS 533 proper name, and then goes on to indicate that, the bearer of the same is a son of David, a son of Abraham, it is clear that he intends to set. forth the history of Jesus. in such a way that He shall be recognised from the history as the Messiah; and as the fulfilment of the promise made to the house of David and the seed of Abraham. The appositives attached ‚to Χριστοῦ show that here it is not used asin Mark i, 1 and frequently elsewhere as a common expression of the author for his Christian faith, but. indi- cates the point of view from which the author intends. to set forth the history of Jesus; and this is confirmed, by his usage of ὁ Χριστός, which varies from that of the.other Gospels (i. 17, 18 [n: 1], xi. 2)... The more exact meaning of the thought expressed in the title of the book is to be derived from the investigation of the fulfilment which he found disclosed in the history. The first section, 1. 2-1. 28,15 not only without parallel in the other Gospels, but is distinguished also for other reasons. The genealogical table at its beginning | could hardly be more grossly misunderstood than to construe it as a proof of the Davidic descent of Jesus, and His accompanying natural right to the throne of David. That David was an Israelite and therefore a descendant of Abraham, and that Zerub- babel was the offspring of the Davidic house, required no proof. For this supposed purpose two-thirds of the table is superfluous ; and in view of the long period which it is made to cover, and the much longer list of names in Luke 111. 23-27, the remaining third is clearly so. short, that. it would have been very poorly adapted for such an alleged purpose. In general, it would have been difficult for anyone to conceive such a purpose. That.the carpenter Joseph, who was known to all.as Jesus’ father (Matt: xiii. 55; Luke ii. 23, iv. 22; John i, 46, vi. 42), and whose line of descent Matthew represents to be that of Jesus, was a “‘son of David,” was. not the peculiar. belief of the Christian Church, which could have originated from. the 534 INTRODUCTION ΤΟ THE NEW TESTAMENT confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. i. 16, 20; Luke i. 27), but was universally known and acknowledged by his countrymen and contemporaries. When all the people called Jesus the son of Joseph, the son of David, and showed themselves inclined to affirm that He was the one expected son of David (Matt. ix. 27, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31, xii. 28, xxi. 9, 15), His opponents, to be sure, denied the latter, but without contesting the presupposition. Accord- ing to the testimony of the Gospels, which bring before us the greatest variety of objections which the opponents of Jesus raised against Him, they never attempted, not even in their bitterest attacks, to deny Jesus’ Davidic descent, i.e. Joseph’s, and thereby to remove the entire basis of His claims. The bitterest insults of the Talmud are accom- panied by the recognition that Jesus was closely related to the royal house (πη. 3). To be sure, His descent was suspected, but not in the direction of the descent of Joseph from David as set forth by Matthew. The legitimacy of His birth was denied. It was claimed that He was a bastard, whom the unfaithful Mary had ‘borne to another man and then passed off as the son of Joseph, and thus as the son of David. It is, therefore, historically impossible that Matt. i. 2-17 should have been intended to prove the descent of Jesus from David and especially from Abraham. Matthew’s object is not proof of any kind, but to bring before his readers in the shortest possible form—in the form of a genealogical table—the whole history of Israel from the founder of the race to the Messiah, in order to express the thought, already hinted at in the title of the book, that the Jesus who received the name Messiah (i. 16) was the goal of the entire history of His people. For this purpose he not only employs a list of names which is incomplete, a fact to which he betrays striking indifference (ἢ. 4), but also gives it an artificial arrange- ment to which he directs our attention in i. 17 more expressly than in the genealogy itself. He divides the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 535 latter into three groups of fourteen members, each indi cating the division between the groups within the list itself. Ini. 6 he mentions David the king, which marks the end of the first group, and in i. 11, 12 the deportation to Babylon is twice mentioned as the event which separated the line of ruling Davidic kings from the line of dethroned successors of David. The first indicates the highest, the second the lowest point in the historical development from Abraham to Christ, That the names meant to him an outline of the history, is also indicated by the fact that in two cases the brothers are mentioned along with’ the re- presentative of the line. By this means he indicates in i. 2 the transition from family to national history, and in i. 11 the change brought about in the Davidic house when the unity of the family and the inheritance of the promise was no longer represented in one person who occupied the throne, but when what was once the royal seed continued to exist only as a number of families, with uncertainty as to which one would enter upon the inheritance. In order to express this thought and in this outward way to re- present the symmetry of the history in which he believed, Matthew’s arrangement of fourteen members in each group of the genealogical table is evidently intentional (n. 4). It is inconceivable that an author who intentionally invited his readers to recount the list of names should have left out from pure carelessness the three kings, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, whose names are wanting in ver. 8 after Joram. it:is inconceivable also that he should have made a mis- take of one figure when he reckoned the whole as 42, v.e. 3x 14, instead of 41, the number actually found (i. 17). Inasmuch as the O.T. gave him fourteen members for the period from Abraham to and including David, he assigned the same number to the two groups that followed. | In order to do this he threw out the names of the three kings from the second group, and, as we have seen, made the third list short in proportion to the period which it 536 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT covered. We σοῦ a further insight into the author's purpose from his remarks regarding ‘lamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba which would have been out of place in a simple genealogical table (1. 3, 5, 6). These four names are not used to adorn the genealogical table in some such Rebecca, are employed in the Old and New Testament (ef. 1 Pet. i. 6; Gal. iv. 23; Rom. ix. 9; Heb. xi. 11; for Rebecea, Rom. ix. 10), but their sole purpose is to point to dark blots in the history. That the first heir of David's throne was the offspring of an unlawful marriage is ex- pressed delicately but clearly when his mother is called not, Bathsheba, but the wife of Uriah. Ruth was a Moabitess and therefore a heathen, as was also. Rahab; who according to a legend which has no basis in the O.T. was the mother of Boaz, and from Josh. 11. 1 (ef. Jas. i, 25; Heb. xi. 31) was known as a harlot. The names of Tamar and her twin sons must have recalled to every reader for whom the passage had any meaning at all the incestuous intercourse between her,and her father-in-law. (Gen. xxxviil. 13-30). Since it is self-evident that the author could not have designed to cast reflections upon the ancestry of the Messiah and so upon Him, his purpose in these references can be only apologetic. In answer to the Jewish slander concerning Mary’s adultery (n. 3), Matthew points out the fact that the things which are slanderously charged against the last son of David are actually to be found in the early history of the Davidic house, and, above all, in the history of the birth of David's first son. If these blots on the history of his people and of the royal, house do not hinder the Jew from recognising in the same a sacred account of the divine revelation, cer- tainly the evil suspicion cast upon the birth of Jesus by malicious enmity should not prevent him from investigat- ing the facts and from hearing patiently the exposition of the same. ‘Jesus is not a bastard, but a true son of David, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 535 inasmuch as He was born of the legitimate wife of ἃ descendant of David, Joseph. That Joseph's paternity was the particular point from which the suspicion of the Jews could originate is suggested already in i. 16 (n. 5), and the explanation which this demands follows: in i. 18-25... As a history of the birth these verses would be entirely incomplete (see above, p. 531 f.), but they are per- feetly adapted for the purpose indicated in 1. 18a, namely, to show how the conception and the birth of the Messiah had taken place. He was conceived before Mary was married, but not born until she was the wife of a son of David, Joseph. The condition which appeared to him even to be due to sin on the part of his. bride, and which he was justified in not enduring until informed of its cause by divine revelation, was a miracle of the Holy Spirit. The very thing which was an offence to the Jewish people because not in accordance with their expectations, corre- sponded so literally in all its details, notwithstanding, to the prophecy regarding the Immanuel (Isa. vii. 14), that Matthew does not hesitate to say at this point what. is often repeated later, namely, that the history of Jesus took place as it did by divine arrangement even: in those details which were most objectionable to the Jews, because God designed thereby the fulfilment of the pro- phecy in which long before His decree was declared. From this agreement between the history of Jesus and the O.T. propheey it should: be recognised that He was the Christ in spite of all appearance to the contrary (ι.. 22, ἡ. 6). In significant contrast to this passage, which bears a genuine Israelitish stamp, particularly in the description of Jesus’ future vocation as the Saviour of His own people (i. 21), we have the narrative concerning the Magi (i. 1-12), in the course of which account itself the same contrast comes strongly to the front. Whereas heathen astrologers, incited by an observation in the field of their 538 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT occult science, and animated with a religious ‘interest, make the long journey to Palestine to pay homage to the newborn King of the Jews, and do not rest until ' they find Him ; the high priests and scribes are satisfied with giving the correct answer to the’ scholastic question about the place-where the Messiah was tobe born. The reigning king of the Jews, however, alarmed by the news’ brought by the strangers and the definite answer of the Sanhedrin to the question which he had put to this body, allows himself to be moved to nothing less than a plan ‘to murder the true King of the Jews, born in Bethlehem in accord: ance with the prophecy. The wickedness of Herod and the indifference of the guardians of Israel’s holy things make it appear as if the King and: Saviour of Israel, hailed with joy by the heathen, had been born in vain in so far as His own people were concerned. For this reason He does not grow up in the place out of which, according to prophecy, He was to come forth (ii. 6), but at first found refuge outside the “land of Israel” (ii. 20, 21; vol. i. 24, π. 7) among the Gentiles in Egypt (ii. 15). In this also He appears to be estranged from His people; and this must have been a further occasion for Jewish suspicion (n. 3). Although the flight into Egypt was eaused by Jewish wrong-doing, it was none the less of God's ordering. By this also a word of prophecy found fulfilment, not a prophecy with regard to the coming Messiah, but a passage in which Hosea recalls historically Israel's departure from Egypt (ii. 15). The fact that the child Jesus fled to Egypt and not to Damascus, for example, the author regards as a significant ordering of events on the part of God from which we should recognise the repetition of the history of Israelv in’ the history of Jesus ; He was no more unfitted for the fulfilment of His vocation by His residence in’ Egypt than was Israel by theirs. The slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, viewed from one side, was a lamentable misfortune which THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS = 530 overtook the innocent; from another point of view it was oruesome folly. For this reason Matthew could not say that the horror was ordered of God for the fulfil- ment of His word. Nevertheless it did fulfil a part of Israel’s history experienced by Jeremiah, and expressed by him in impressive words (11. 17 f.). After Herod’s death the child Jesus was able to return to the “ land of Israel,” but not to Judea and Bethlehem, out of which, according to prophecy (ii. 6) and the popular expectation, the Messiah was to come (John vi. 42). On the contrary, he came to the half-Gentile Galilee, out of which no prophet ariseth (John vii. 52), and to the village ‘of Nazareth, which is not once mentioned in the O.T., and which appears to have been despised by its neighbours (John i. 47). . This, in turn, was another consequence of the wickedness which had become hereditary in the Jewish kings. This, however, was so ordered by God that thereby not merely a single word of an individual prophet, but the prophetic word in general should be fulfilled in Jesus, inasmuch as He was to be called the Nazarene, from Nazareth, where He grew up and whence He made His appearance among the people. ‘This name was employed to express the complete repugnance felt by the Jewish people toward Him and His Church (ii. 28, ef. xxvi. 71; John i. 46f.; Acts vi. 14, xxiv. 5, xxvi. 9, and n. 7). This points at the same time to the history of the man Jesus among His people, which we expect to find ‘set forth from the same apologetic point of view evidenced by every line of the first section. Before this, however, we have a second section (iii. 1-iv. 11) devoted to the aceount of preparatory events. Just as in Ex. ii. 11, whole decades are passed by with an “in those days,” and the figure of the Baptist and the preacher, John, is introduced as the prophesied forerunner of the Lord. It is especially noticeable that the kingdom of God, whose coming John 'announced, is characterised 540 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT as the kingdom of heaven in the short summary of the Baptist’s preaching (111. 2), as generally in Matthew (n. 8). Without the earth’s ceasing to be the scene of the action (cf. v. 4 al. 5, vi. 10, xii, 24, 38, 41), the expression indicates that it is a rule of God over the world whieh comes down from heaven, 1.6. by God's act. This’ con- ception of the Baptist stands in contrast to the expectation of a Messianic kingdom which is a purely earthly product. The masses accepted John’s testimony ; also representatives of the two. parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who in general stood for the two classes, the scribes and the high priests, in the Sanhedrin (ii. 4), visited the place where he baptised. It was just this appearance of the leaders of the people, however, that furnished the Baptist with an occasion to deliver a scathing denunciation, in which the work of the coming founder of the kingdom is described as predominantly that of the judge of His own people and in which God’s freedom to receive the Gentiles into, His Church in place of the unworthy Israelites is main- tained. Jesus also visits the scene of baptism in order Himself to be baptised. In the case of all others it is a confession of sin (111. 6); with Him, however, itis only an exemplification of the principle that it was fitting. for Him to fulfil the entire legal economy of God (111. 15). This self-humiliation on the part of Jesus, God answered from heaven by the impartation of His Spirit, an inner experience, which was externalised for Jesus Himself in a visible form as well as in the audible message that Jesus was the beloved or the only Son of God whom., He had chosen as the instrument for His approaching work (iii, 17, ef. xxi. 37). In what spirit Jesus would, carry out the commission thus entrusted to Him is indicated in the Temptation history (iv. 1-11). As a humble, pious man, and an Israelite who believed in the Scriptures, He overcomes every temptation to win the world-rule which belonged to Him by any means other than that which THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 541 God had apppointed,—the way of patient faith and self: denying obedience. The third section (iv. 12-xi. 1) sets forth by general descriptions and selected examples Jesus’ publie work in Galilee which followed the arrest of the Baptist. All that follows the second section is appended to the announce- ment made to Jesus of John’s arrest, without bringing this event into any chronological connection with the narra- tives that precede, and without narrating the story, well known to the author, of the way in which he came to be cast into prison (xiv. 3-5). The return of Jesus (John v. 35) to Galilee from Judea, where at the time He seems to have been residing, is a second retreat (iv. 12, ἀνεχώρησεν, cf. 11. 22), naturally not in the sense that He sought thereby to escape the danger of a fate like John’s, for Herod Antipas, who had put an end to the Baptist’s work, was also the ruler of Galilee.’ But Judea and the Holy City (iv. 5, xxvii. 53), “the city of the great King” (v. 35), seemed the appropriate place for the public appearance (John vil. 3f.) of the anointed King who was born in Bethlehem. It denoted self-denial on Jesus’ part when He withdrew to the despised Galilee. In keeping with this is the fact that He began His preaching there (iv. 17) with exactly the same sentence that the Baptist employed (iii. 2). He does not appear as the King whom the Baptist had announced, but as the prophet continuing the Baptist’s work, and, indeed, in Galilee, where the latter had never worked. The fact, however, that He did not make Nazareth, where He grew up, His head- quarters, but Capernaum, where He settled later, and whence He planned to make tours in all directions in Galilee, appeared to Matthew to be a remarkably literal fulfilment of the prophecy to be found in Isa. viii. 23- ix. 1. He quotes it not as Jesus’ motive, but in order to justify this feature in the history of Jesus which was offensive to orthodox Jews (iv. 14-16). The lack of 542 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT connection between the account of the call οἵ the fisher: men to become fishers of men and what precedes and follows, only shows more clearly that it is merely a part of the introductory portion of this section (iv. 18-22). The Prophet of Galilee was accompanied from the beginning by, countrymen who were to share His work... In iv, 23-25 we have a general description of this, period of, Jesus’ workin Galilee, ending with the climax where Jesus. is represented as surrounded. by persons seeking His help, who come from all parts of Palestine and even from the neighbouring Gentile regions. Three additional points are, brought out: (1) The constant moving from place to place, throughout Galilee ; (2) the teaching and preaching; and (3) the healing of all sorts of diseases, Thus we have in iv, 12-25 a sketch of Jesus’ entire work in. Galilee, which, according, to ver. 24f., must, have occupied at least several months. The elaboration of this sketch proposed in the plan begins with an example of His, teaching (chaps. v.—vii.). This great discourse is not, however, what we should expect from iy. 17, 28. It,was not delivered in a synagogue (iv. 23), but under the open sky ; nor was it a sermon directed. to the people sitting in darkness in Galilee, but instruction (v. 1 1.) intended for the disciples, who are the light of the world (v. 14), Not until toward the close of the, discourse does Jesus direct His attention to the crowd (vii. 24, 28f.), in the presence of whom the disciples had received the preceding instruction, with its constant reference to their particular religious condition, their deeper relation to Him, and their special vocation in the world. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is not, the preaching of repentance (iv. 17) nor the gospel of the kingdom (iy, 23), but a setting forth of the moral conduct which the disciples of Jesus are to exhibit before the world as His disciples, and as children of God (v. 16; u. 9). Why Matthew chose as an, example of Jesus’ teaching THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 543 this instruction of His disciples, which ; presupposes throughout faith in Himself and His gospel, we must learn from the elaboration of the theme (v. 16). First of all, He warns them against. the folly of supposing that it was their Master’s mission to set aside the O.T., and, as the further context shows, its authoritative content. It is not His mission to destroy anything whatever that is divine in. its origin, and that exists for the sake of what,is right, but rather to fulfil the sacred forms which He found. existing, to put into them the content. which ‘they themselves demanded. (v.17, οἵ iii. 15).. As long as this world stands, not even) the smallest portion of the O.T. law can pass away unfulfilled (18)... The same reverence for the law in word and deed, which. He here confesses and Himself always: exhibited, He demands in His disciples (19). Far from allowing the exact interpretation and. fulfilment of the law to remain solely the distinction of the rabbinic guild and the party of the Pharisees, He makes actual righteousness, which exceeds by far that of the scribes and Pharisees, a condition of blessedness on the part of His disciples (20). Thus by the standard of Jesus’ favourable attitude toward the O.T. law, and His condemnation of the rabbinic interpretation and Pharisaic observance of it, shall the good works be measured by which His disciples are to demonstrate that they are children of God. The theme thus more closely defined is now elaborated in such a way as to show first of all (v. 21-48) by a series of examples, and in contrast to the superficial and, in part, even foolish rabbime interpretation of the law, how the Israelitish laws, written and unwritten, are to be treated in order to discover in them the will of the divine Law- giver concerning the moral conduct of the individual. | In the light of this exposition, in vi. 1-18, He sets forth the kind of alms, prayer, and fasting which becomes the children of God, in contrast to the Pharisaic externalisa- 544 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tion of the principal acts in which piety finds expression. Rabbinic interpretation of the law and Pharisaic piety do not take us beyond the standard of heathen morality and piety (v. 46f, vi. 7). In relation to the things of this world also, children of the heavenly Father may not, as do many of the Pharisees, sink to the level of the Gentiles (vi. 32), but, free from inordinate covetousness and unbelieving anxiety, the two principal forms in which slavery to mammon exhibits itself, they are to make’ the kingdom and the righteousness of God first and last the only goal of their life (vi. 19-34).. Opposition to the Pharisees, which is already less prominent in this part of the discourse, recurs only once in what follows (vii. 5). For our purpose we do not need to investigate the last part of the discourse (chap. vii.). It is clear that the choice of ‘the Sermon on the Mount as an illustration of Jesus’ teaching was due to Matthew’s apologetic, and at the same time polemic, purpose, and that, in so far as this discourse is his ER its form is the result of. his work. Three examples of ‘healing follow. That viii. 1-17 is to be taken as an independent unit, is shown not only by the fact that we have, beginning with viii..18, a series of narratives which cannot be included under this title, but also by the citation with which the whole is solemnly concluded by the author in viii, 17. The first example is that of a leprous Jew whom Jesus enjoins to observe the prescriptions ‘of the law. Here we have actual evidence that Jesus was not a revolter against the Mosaic law (viii. 1-4, ef. v. 17-20). The second example is that of a Gentile whose importunate faith puts the Jews to shame and opens a vista into the future, when in the place of the unworthy Jews the Gentiles of the entire world shall have part in the blessings of the kingdom of God (viii. 5-13). ‘These two narratives bear the same relation to each other as i. 21b to 11. 1-12, or iv. 23 (ἐν τῷ χαῷ) to iv. 24 (ὅχην THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 545 τὴν Συρίαν). The third example forms the introduction to a scene in which Jesus is pictured as engaged with multi- tudes of the sick until the day begins to fade. Such work as this shows Him to be the Servant of God who bore as His own all the infirmities of His people, even in the form of physical disease (viii. 14-17). The series of narratives which follows, viii. 18-ix. 34, is made up of a variety of very different incidents which, taken together, serve to expand a third feature of the programme laid down in iv. 12-25 (above, p. 541 f). Itisthe restless wandering life of the teacher and physician which is here pictured in a long series of very brief but chronologically insepar- able narratives. The saying of Jesus in vill. 20 serves as an introduction for the whole. At first glance it might seem as if iv. 23 and ix. 35, which contain practically the same words, formed a sort of frame for what stands between ; but closer observation shows at once that in the latter case the tireless journeying through all the cities and villages is recalled primarily for the sake of what follows in ix. 36 f., which seems to give the motive for the sending out of the apostles (x. 1). Jesus’ own work is not sufficient; the harvest requires many labourers. Moved by sympathy for the neglected multitudes, He sends out His apostles to do a work of preaching and healing similar to His own. Not until now does the reader learn that twelve disciples had been chosen earlier for this purpose, and what their names are. ‘The special injunction to confine the work of their preaching journeys to the Jews (x. 5 f., 23) is in accord with Jesus’ sympathy for His people (ix. 36) and Matthew’s apologetic purpose (ef. i. 21, iv. 23, ἐν τῷ λαῷ; also xv. 31 end); what follows, namely, ix. 36-x. 42, is an elaboration of the fourth point of the introductory programme. Jesus de- signed to carry on His prophetic work in Galilee supported by regular helpers (iv. 18-22). The third section is con- cluded by the notice that Jesus did not on this account VOL. Il. 35 546 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT cease His own work of preaching in different places (xi. 1). The fourth section, xi. 2-xx. 34, brings before us the different impressions which the work of Jesus previously described made upon the different individuals and classes who were affected by it. This is done in such a way, however, as to bring out at the same time the particular actions and discourses of Jesus occasioned by it. The words which we find in xi. 6 may serve as a title for the whole section. It is conceivable that men should be offended in Jesus, but deeper reflection as to what creates objection to Him helps to remove the offence. Happy the man for whom this is true! Even the great prophet in imprisonment, the prophet who surpasses all others, who in his original greatness is inferior to no man, since he ushered in the great epoch of the approaching kingdom of God steadfastly and without fear,—even he cannot under- stand the work of Jesus of which he hears. The works which Matthew describes as the works of the Messiah, because they distinguish Jesus as the Messiah (xi. 2), the Baptist cannot understand as the fulfilment of his own proclamation, By means of the fresh impression which the Baptist’s messengers carried back, and the warning with which this answer was concluded, Jesus hopes to save His impatient friend from a fall. He strives also to ward off the possible injurious effect of John’s inquiries upoı the crowd (xi. 2-15). The frivolous muititude is totally incapable of comprehending the significance of the times. Like whimsical children, they find fault with the Divine wisdom manifested differently in its different personal agents, in one way in John, in another way in Jesus (16-19). The cities of Galilee, distinguished above measure by the works of Jesus, exhibit a worse blindness than the heathen cities whose sins and destruction made them a. proverb (20-24). But Jesus does not allow Himself to be dis- turbed by such experiences, In that hour He praises THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 547 His Father, the God who rules the world, that He has so determined the revelation of the Divine counsel of salva- tion through Him, the Son, that it is intelligible to babes, but misunderstood by the wise and understanding. He is not weary of calling to Himself those who are burdened with a heavy yoke (25-30). The wise ones and those who lay the yoke of their precepts upon others are the Pharisees and scribes (cf. xxii. 4). When Jesus is attacked by these on the ground of supposed profanation of the Sabbath, He proves to them from the sacred history, the temple worship prescribed by the Torah, and their own daily practice, that He is not a transeressor of the Law, but that they accuse Him without justification on the ground of a Law which they themselves have misunderstood (xii. 1-13). Jesus retires before the hostile attempts which are thereupon planned (14), but continues to minister to the suffering. The absence of all display which characterised this work, as well as the fact that Jesus refrained from all violence in the conflict with His enemies, led Matthew to bring forward again from Second Isaiah, as he had done in viii. 17, the picture of the Servant of Yahweh, who works with perfect quietness, and yet through the power of the Spirit wins victory for all peoples, as a prophecy fulfilled and to be fulfilled in Jesus (15-21). When, however, the Pharisees blaspheme the Spirit by whose power He worked His deeds of healing, calling the same a satanic power, He does not remain silent, but shows them the self-contradietion in their charge, and, more than this, warns them against commit- ting the unpardonable sin (22-37). When, thereupon, they seek a sign from Him which will render it unnecessary for them to exercise faith, He gives them the sign of His resurrection, represented by the sien of Jonah, which, in turn, will be of use only to the believing. In spite of temporary improvements in their condition, He sees the multitude of His compatriots and contemporaries facing 548 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT an incurable state (38-45). From this generation, how- ever, involved as it is in destruction, is gathered the company of Jesus’ followers; these are not His kinsmen, but those who hear and do His words (46-50). The same distinction appears also in the fact that, in order to punish the multitude for their indifference to the truth, Jesus conceals it from them entirely by the use of parables, while He interprets these to His disciples, and teaches them to grasp the truth even in this form (xiii. 1-52). The account of the impression which Jesus made in His native city,—characterised by the word ἐσκανδαλίζοντο, xiii. 57, ef. xi. 6,—and of the superstitious utterances of the ruling prince when he heard of the miracles of Jesus (xiv. 1-2), serve also to complete further the series of incidents begun in xi. 2. In order to explain the latter, he formally narrates the account of the Baptist’s execution and the cause of his arrest, already presupposed in iv. 12, xi. 2. Although this is only an episode, it determines the further trend of the narrative, which from xiv. 13 to xvii. 21 appears to retain a chronological order, as in vili. 18-ix. 34. Constant change of residence is noted (cf. ἀναχωρεῖν, xiv. 13, xv. 21; also other passages where Matthew does not use just this word). Jesus constantly avoids contact with the crowds and with His opponents, and devotes Himself to the training of His disciples, as we have seen already in the corresponding part of Mark (vi. 14-ix. 32; ef. above, p. 465f.). This suits Matthew's plan also, only he makes the separation between the disciples and the multitude with their religious leaders much sharper. It does not appear for the first time in this section of the Gospel, but the way is prepared for these statements by what is said earlier in v. 10-12, x. 16-39. From chap. xiii. onwards, Matthew does not say anything more about the preaching of Jesus to the people of Galilee (cf. Matt. xiv. 14 with Mark vi. 34). Matthew alone (xv. 12-14, not in Mark vii, 17 £.) narrates how THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 549 the disciples called Jesus’ attention to the fact that His severe condemnation of the Pharisaic overvaluation of the rabbinie statutes was offensive to the Pharisees. Likewise peculiar to him is the severe judgment with which Jesus replies: they are a foreign growth which God has not planted in His garden, and which deserves no care; as is also the injunetion of Jesus to His disciples to leave these blind leaders of the blind multitude to their inevit- able fate. Only in Matt. xvi. 6, 11, 12 (not in Luke xii. 1; ef. Mark viii. 15), are the Sadducees included also in the warning against the leaven of the Pharisees; and this warning itself repeated three times, and its meaning expressly stated. No concealment is made of the incurable divisions which Jesus made among His people by His testimony concerning the true law of God (xv. 3, 6, 9; ef. xxiii. 2 ΕἾ, 23, v. 17-48, xu. 1-11, xix. 3-9). On the other hand, the same section discloses clearly the author's apologetic purpose. ‘The agonising struggle of the Gentile woman with Jesus, who disregarded her cries and went on His way in silence, is impressively described (xv. 22 ff., ef. per contra, Mark vii. 25 ff... The sympathetic Jesus appears to be severer than His disciples, who, for the sake of being rid of her cries, are willing to be a little incon- sistent. Only in Matthew does Jesus state the principle that His lifework is limited to Israel (xv. 24, ef. 1. 21, x. 5f). To this principle He remains true even to the extent of harshness toward the Gentile woman. Not until she recognises to the full Israel’s prior rights does He give her help. When in another region—from Mark vil. 31 we know that it was the half-Gentile Decapolis— we find Him scattering the gifts of His merey with free hand, the gratitude of all the people finds expression in praise of the “God of Israel” (xv. 31). Those, therefore, who say that Jesus is disloyal, an enemy and a disgrace to His people, and a blasphemer of the God of Israel, are condemned as liars. 550 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT In the description of the intercourse between Jesus and His disciples there is less emphasis than in Mark upon the slowness with which they progressed in know- ledge. Severe judgments concerning them, such as we have in Mark vi. 52, vin. 17f., are either wanting: alto- gether or less bluntly expressed (Matt. xvi. 9). On the other hand, the way for Peter’s great confession (xvi. 16) is prepared by the account of his experience on the sea with the confession which it called out (xiv. 28-33). His later confession is more fully reproduced than in Mark, and is solemnly acknowledged by Jesus; it is declared to be due to God’s revelation (xvi. 17, cf. xi. 25), and rewarded by a great promise. The separation between the disciples and the Jewish people had been mentioned before ; now we hear that the company of disciples, who hitherto had been gathered about Jesus like a family (x. 25, xii. 49 f., ef. ix. 15),—one of a number of groups within the same national bounds,—is to become a Church which is to exist alongside of the Israelitish Church and outlast all hostile attacks. The ἐκκλησία is not yet in exist- ence; Jesus will build it in the future, and He will rear it upon the man of rock-like character, who in the name of the other disciples has given utterance to the true confession, and who is to exercise the oflice of a steward in the house of this Church, with the power accompany- ing this office to institute rules for the ordering of the house (n. 10). What is said primarily to Peter as the first confessor is on that account none the less applie- able to the companions of his calling, who have received a similar office not from him, but like him and with him from Jesus (xix. 28, x. 1-5). As to the right to establish ordinances in this future household of Christ upon earth, to enforce their observance, and to punish their trans- gression, that belongs to the whole Church (xvii. 15-20), i.e, the Church separated from the Jewish people by their confession of Jesus as the Christ. It is this idea THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 551 of the Christian Church which distinguishes the entire fourth section of Matthew’s Gospel from the parallel sec- tions in Mark, which in other respects are so similar. By the latter the disciples are represented as preachers of the gospel in course of training for their future calling. In Matthew, on the other hand, we are taught to look upon them as the foundation and leaders of the Church of Jesus in process of formation. When, however, this confession of Peter and Jesus’ answer is followed by the first express announcement of the sufferings and death in Jerusalem (xvi. 21); and when, further, the instruction of the disciples with reference to the future conditions of the Church is interrupted repeatedly by the announce- ment of His sufferings (xvii. 12, 22f., xx. 17, 22, 28), we infer that the two conceptions are intimately con- nected. It is because Jesus is condemned to death by the heads of the people and delivered over to the Gentiles for the carrying out of their sentence (xvi. 21, xx. 18f.) that the kingdom of God is to be stayed in its sweeping onward progress (cf. xi. 12), and a period intervene be- tween its beginning through the word of Jesus and its completion with His parousia, during which the kingdom of heaven shall have its preliminary realisation in a Church of the Christian confession by no means free from foreign elements, in which even the best members are still tainted with sin (xill, 36-43, 48, xvill. 7-35, xxii. 11, xxiv. 12). This Christian Church and the Jewish people are repre- sented as two sharply distinguished bodies. The teaching concerning discipline within the Church (xviii. 15-35), marriage (xix. 3-12), the relation of children to Jesus and so to His Church (xix. 13, 14), the attitude toward earthly possessions (xix. 16-26), the Divine reward in relation to human labour (xix. 27-xx. 16), ruling and serving (xx. 20-28, cf. xxii. 8-12, xxiv. 45-51),—all these presuppose a Church of Jesus, which, whatever its organisation, was certainly separate from the Jewish people, and regulated 552 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT by a different law from that which prevailed among the Jews. Still, these two groups are not without relation te each other. The twelve apostles are never to forget their relation to the people of the twelve tribes (xix. 28, ef. x, 23), and the disciples in general are to follow Jesus’ ex- ample, and from pure love are to cherish their relation to Israel. This we learn from the profound narrative preserved in xyil. 24-27 (peculiar to Matthew). Though funda- mentally separated from the Jewish cultus, and though freed by sonship of the “great King,” whose dwelling is not in Jerusalem but in heaven (cf. v. 34f.), from every obligation to observe the ceremonial law, as long as the temple stands they are still to pay the temple tax, ze. to fulfil the cultus duties incumbent upon an Israelite, as Jesus had done (11. 15, v. 17-20, 23 f., xxii. 3, 28). The words, “in order that we may not offend them,” contain the entire programme of the politics of the Israelitish Church of Jesus before the year 70. Jesus intended \to make the distinction between the Jewish people as repre- sented officially in the high priests and rabbis, further in the Pharisees who were beyond all hope of improvement, and the blind multitude that followed them, on the one hand (xv. 12-14), and the house of Israel, the people of the twelve tribes, on the other, many of whom had erred but could yet be brought back to the fold (x. 6, xv. 24). The former may be offended if they will (xv. 12); no one is to place a stumbling-block in the way of the others which can keep them from the truth (xvi. 27, ef. xi. 6). The last narrative of the fourth section (xx. 29-34) has the appearance of an allegory, because it stands without any practical connection with what precedes and what follows. Besides the blind who fall into the ditch (xy. 14; xxiii. 16), there are also those blind persons in Israel who appeal to the mercy of the Son of David, and who become His followers after He has healed them. The localities of tke single narratives in this section are for the most part THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 553 very indefinitely indicated (xiv. 13, 22, xv. 29, xvi. 5, xvii. 1, 22, xx. 17). The reader is able to form no idea of the journey to J erusalem. Similarly, the change from Galilee to Perea in xix. 1 is marked by no break in the narrative, since the arrangement of the material is deter- mined by the contents. In the fifth section we have the description of Jesus’ work in Jerusalem (xxi. 1-xxv. 46), where the same material is employed throughout that we find in Mark. Still even here the features that distinguish Matthew are not want- ing. It is the prophet of Galilee (xxi. 11) who as King enters the royal city, and it is prophecy which He fulfils in the choice of the method of entrance (xxi. 5), designing thereby to show that while He gives up none of the claims which belong to Him, He will not make use of force. The enthusiasm of the people, which is caught up even by the children, is more offensive to the members of the Sanhedrin than the cleansing of the temple and the severe condemnation, that its guardians who are re- sponsible for its sacredness, have allowed it to become a den of thieves (xxi. 151). The parable in xxi. 28-32 brings the resistance of the ruling classes to the testimony of Jesus into stronger relief than the discussion (recorded also by Mark and Luke) which precedes. Only in Matthew is the parable of the husbandmen followed immediately by the unmistakable declaration that the kingdom of God shall be taken from the Jewish people as a nation and given to another people, 3.6. to a people independent of every nationality (xxi. 43). In the parable which follows (xxii. 1-14, Luke xiv. 16-24 is only remotely parallel) we have a sentence, not an essential part of the picture, pointing clearly to the destruction of Jerusalem as the punishment of the Jewish people for their refusal to accept the invitation to enter the kingdom of God (xxii. 7). The teaching discourses, which arouse the astonishment of the crowd here as in Galilee (xxi. 46, xxii. 33), and 554 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the discussions in which Jesus overcomes the Pharisees and Sadducees are followed (chap. xxiii.) by a compre: hensive discourse addressed alike to the undecided multi- tude and the disciples, in which He condemns the scribes and Pharisees occupying Moses’ seat, who will not be satisfied until they have made full the sin of Israel and of Jerusalem against the bearers of all God’s revela- tion. ‘The rejection of Jesus’ witness is not the last step in this direction. There remains still the persecution of the prophets, the wise men, and the scribes whom Jesus will send to His people (xxiii. 34). The present genera- tion, however, shall live to see the judgment upon Jeru- salem. The decisive cause of the catastrophe lies in the rejection of the repeated efforts of Jesus to shelter the inhabitants from the coming storm. This condemnation, and at the same time the public testimony of Jesus, are brought to a close with an outlook toward the day when this unfortunate people shall hail Jesus as their Messiah with more sincerity than they had shown on the preceding Sabbath. Connecting itself directly with the words con- cerning the destruction of Jerusalem, we have in what follows Jesus’ instruction of His disciples with regard to the end of the world (chaps. xxiv., xxv. ). The seath section (chaps. xxvi.-xxvii.) covers the history of the Passion and the Resurrection. "The following features are peculiar to Matthew :—(1) A sharp portrayal of the betrayer and his history. Only Matthew records the bargain with the hi¢h priest about the price of the betrayal and the sum agreed upon (xxvi. 15), the conversation be- tween him and Jesus while they were still at table (xxvi. 25), the remark which Jesus made to him at the arrest (xxvi. 50), and the account of his end (xxvii. 3-10). (2) Only Matthew emphasises the way in which Jesus, in obedience to the will of God as He found it indicated in the Seriptures, refused to call the Divine help to His aid in order to deliver Himself from His enemies (xxvi. 52-54, ef. xxi. 5). THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 555 The evidence for Jesus’ innocence, to which, according t« all the records, Pilate testified several times, is rendered still stronger in Matt. xxvii. 19, 24 by the accounts of his wife’s dream and of the washing of his hands. Responsi- bility for the blood of this man, whom the Gentile judge more than once declared to be innocent, is assumed by the whole people, in so far as they have a part in the transactions (xxvii. 25). If Barabbas was also called Jesus, as possibly may have been the case in the original text of Matthew (n. 11), the narrative of the choice be- tween Barabbas and Jesus would be more pointed than anywhere else. In any case, it is made clear that the people delivered up their Messiah (xxvu. 22), and that it was the king of the Jews upon whom the Roman soldiers heaped every mockery (xxvii. 27-30, simpler in Mark xv. 16-19). To the account of the rending of the veil of the temple, found also in Mark xv. 38, Matthew (xxvii. 51-53) adds notice of the earthquake and of the opening of the graves of departed saints, who after the resurrection of Jesus appeared to many in the “Holy City.” This is also witness against the Jewish people, but they will not be convinced. The sealing and guarding of the tomb, arranged between the Sanhedrin and Pilate (xxvii. 62-66), was due to a sincere disbelief in Jesus’ prophecy of His resurrection. When, however, unsuspected witnesses in- formed the Sanhedrin that the grave had been opened by other than human hands, the highest officials took refuge in intentional falsehood, and circulated the report which still existed “among the Jews” at the time when Matthew was written, that Jesus’ friends had stolen His body (xxvii. 11-15). But the one thus declared to be dead appears alive to His friends in Jerusalem as well as in Galilee (xxviii. 9, 17). The same person who refused to call either the power of God or that of the devil to His aid in order to disarm His foes and to gain dominion over the world (iv. 8, xxvi. 53), speaks as a Lord of heaven 556 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT and earth. The Messiah of Israel who longed to save His people from sin, and who remained loyal to this His first duty, even unto death (i. 21, x. 5f., 23, xv. 24), commis- sions the Eleven to make all peoples without distinction His disciples through baptism and teaching. With this Church, which shall increase constantly as the majestic command is carried out, His invisible presence shall abide until the end of the world, 1.6. until His visible return (xxvii. 18-20, xxiv. 3, 14). Thus ends “ The Book of the History of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” If the preceding summary of the principal thoughts of the book is in the main correct, we must admit that the work is exceedingly rich in its content, that it is constructed according to a plan, and that this plan is carried out to the smallest detail. In greatness of con- ception, and in the power with which a mass of material is subordinated to great ideas, no writing in either Testament, dealing with a historical theme, is to be compared with Matthew. In this respect the present writer would be at a loss to find its equal also in the other literature of antiquity. On the presupposition—which is justified— that the author believed the incidents which he recorded to be real facts, and sharing with him the conviction that history is governed by God and not by blind chance, we need only a little historical imagination to discover in Matthew a genuine Jewish book, that is, in so far as the method of exposition is concerned. It would not pass for history in the Greek sense. Matthew makes little effort to give us what is called historical narrative. What he gives as a history of Jesus’ birth is in no sense narrative (above, pp. 531 f., 537). He records the sending out of the apostles, and indicates by an introduction (ix. 35-38) and the communication of a long preparatory dis- course that it is an event of great importance. But he says nothing whatever as to how the apostles fulfilled the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 3557 eommission, and whether they returned to Jesus. When and from what quarter Jesus came to His native city, and whither He went upon leaving (xiii. 54), are questions to which he seems entirely indifferent. Evidently he finds no difficulty in giving us Jesus’ words in which Chorazin and Bethsaida are said to be the chief scenes of His miraculous work (xi. 21), without himself. mentioning the two cities in any passage of his history of Jesus... The book is concluded, not with words appropriate for a work which began as a narrative, but with a saying of Jesus. Even in the case of those actions and discourses which have great weight for him, the outward circumstances are treated with great carelessness. Without the help of other accounts, no reader could form a picture of the situation in v. 1, vil. 28, or ix. 10-14, or explain wherein Jesus “saw” the faith of the bearers in ix. 2, or whether Jesus entered Jerusalem riding upon the ass, or the foal, or upon each alternately, xxi. 7, or why the sick did not besiege the house of Peter until after sundown (viii. 16, cf. Mark 1. 32 with i. 21). Matthew disdains all ex- ternal pragmatism. In a passage where he gives us a series of closely connected events (vil. 18-ix. 34, xiv. 13—xvul. 21), the reasons for this arrangement have nothing to do with the chronology. The charge that Matthew transferred the Sermon on the Mount to the beginning of the Galilean ministry, and the choice of the apostles to a later time, was a misunderstanding for which the author is not responsible, since he does not narrate the latter incident at all (x. 1 ff.), and, moreover, the Sermon on the Mount is introduced without connection with any other single event, after he had brought the readers to the climax of Jesus’ work in Galilee. Far greater weight is laid upon the discourses of Jesus than upon the clearness of the narratives and the external connection of events. Matthew closes his book with words of Jesus (xxviil. 18-20), and often represents Him as speak- 558 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ing at length. Five times discourses of considerable length or series of discourses are concluded with the formula, καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους (vii. 28, xi. 1, ΧΙ, 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1). That he used a large amount of freedom in the composition of these discourses is clear even without comparison with the parallels im Mark and Luke. The connected and well-arranged dis- course of chap. x., which is associated with a definite oceasion, could not have been spoken on the occasion there indicated. While the ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω (not ἀποστελῶ) ὑμᾶς (x. 16) cannot be referred to any other sending out of the apostles than that which is narrated in x. 5, every intelligent reader says to himself that on this preaching tour the apostles could not possibly have been in a position where they would be brought before kings and rulers, and where they would flee from city to city in expectation of Jesus’ return (x. 16-23). In x. 38 it is taken for granted that Jesus has already spoken of His death as a death on the cross. Comparison with Matt. xvi. 21-27, John xvi. 4, and the parallels, Mark xin. 8-13, Luke xii. 2-9, 51-53, xxi. 12-17, shows beyond doubt that Matthew connected the commission which Jesus gave His disciples when He sent them out for the first time with other say- ings relative to their later work, weaving the whole into an ordered discourse. The same is true of the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. v.-vil.). Comparison with the discourse in Luke vi. 12-49 proves that in both the same historical fact is related. Luke’s account has the same beginning and conclusion as that of Matthew; all the parts of the discourse are to be found in Matthew, and with the single exception of Luke vi. 31 (= Matt. vii, 12) in the same order. There is no reason to doubt that v. 16-48, vi. 1—6, 16-18, which are essential for Matthew’s extended plan of the Sermon on the Mount, and of importance for the apologetic purpose of his Gospel, were in their essen- tials a part of the original discourse, and that Luke THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 5359 omitted these sentences which related to the O.T. and Judaism, retaining only the main principles of Christian morality (vi. 27-36). Still even here the work of Matthew’s free hand is undeniable. The Lord’s Prayer, with its introduction and the application at the end (vi. 7-15), spoils the perfect symmetry of the three parts of the discourse concerning alms, prayer, and fasting. To this must be added the fact that the historical occasion for the Lord’s Prayer, given in Luke xi. 1-4, has every appearance of genuineness, and that a second impartation of the same prayer, without any reference to a previous giving of the same, is extremely improbable. Matthew must therefore have taken it out of its historical connec- tion and incorporated it in the Sermon on the Mount, with the fundamental thought of which it thoroughly agrees. This prayer, which every Jew could use, and which even in Luke is given in answer to the request for a specific formula for Christian prayer, shows, on the one hand, that Jesus did not desire to replace Jewish forms by new forms, but to fill the same with genuine content. On the other hand, it serves to throw a glaring light upon prayer as practised by the Pharisees, which had sunk to the level of the heathen abuse of this office. The same is possible and probable with reference to other parts of the Sermon on the Mount. In chap. x. the historical foundation of a great discourse is reproduced along with a disproportionate amount of material borrowed from elsewhere, but the reverse is true in the case of the Sermon on the Mount, chaps. v.-vii. ; the parable dis- courses, chap. xili. ; the great sermon against the scribes, chap. xxui.; and the eschatological discourses, chaps. xxiv.-xxv. That, however, in the last three groups of discourses also the author has handled the historical material with freedom, is not only rendered probable from the analogy of the discourses in chaps. v.—vii. and chap, κι, but is proved by comparison with the parallels; ef. eg. 560 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Luke xi. 37-53, xiii. 31-35 with Matt. xxiii. 23-39, or Luke xvii. 20-37 with Matt. xxiv. 26-28, 38-41. When we survey the entire book, its material and method of exposition, its aim and the means by which its aim was accomplished, the purpose of the whole is no longer obscure. It is an Austorical apology of the Nazarene and His Church over against Judaism. The book takes for granted that the Jewish people to whom Jesus was sent as a Saviour from sin had rejected Him, had been offended in Him, and had crucified Him as a revolter against the Law and its authentic interpretation, as a false Messiah and a blasphemer against God, by which act they had made Him all the more a σκάνδαλον to themselves (ef. 1 Cor. 1. 23 f.; 1 Pet. ii. 7). It is further presupposed that the spiteful slanders of this people, whom Jesus had loved so deeply and so faithfully, followed Him after His death (pp. 536f, 555), and that up to the time when the Gospel was written false aspersions rendered faith in Him difficult for the “Jews” (xxviii. 15), also that now a Church bound together by Christian confession exists as an independent body alongside of the Jewish people, identifying themselves with their rulers (xvi. 18, xvii. 24-27, xviil. 17, xxi. 41-43), and that this Church, whose nucleus was gathered from the lost sheep of Israel (x. 6, xv. 24, xix. 28), was nevertheless hated and persecuted by the Jews (v. 10-12, x. 17-26, xxii. 34-36), whereas it opened its doors more and more to the Gentiles (viii. 10-12, xxi. 43, xxii. 8-10, xxiv. 14, xxv. 32, xxv. 13, XXvill. 19, 20, ef. ii, 1-12, ii. 9, v. 13, 14, xiii, 38). None of these facts are concealed or apologised for, but all are clearly brought out and defended. It is admitted that Jesus and His Church have appearances strongly against them. Joseph, a son of David, was offended at the son of David yet to be born, the greatest of the prophets at the prophet Jesus, and the chief of the apostles at the Messiah who chose the cross (1,019, “χι" 16) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 561 xvi. 22f., xxvi. 31-35). Still the true Israelite does not need to be offended in Jesus, and for those who have been thus offended there remains always only one choice, that between the fate of a Judas (above, p. 554 f.) and the blessedness of a Peter, since in spite of all Jesus is the Messiah. Those very features in His history which appear to be against His Messianic claims when rightly understood, will be found to be in harmony with prophecy ; all charges of infraction of the law are set aside by Jesus’ words and deeds, and what is really strange and objectionable to the Jew who judges the matter superficially, the flight into Egypt, His bringing up in Nazareth, the choice of Galilee as the scene of His labours, and His crucifixion,—all were brought about by the sin of the Jewish people which will not remain un- punished. His blood is upon this entire “people and their children” (xxvii. 25), and indeed upon the same generation that would not believe His testimony (xii. 38-45, xxill. 36-38, xxiv. 34). A book of this character must have been written by a Jew for Jewish readers.. In keeping with the usage of the Hebrew Paul (1 Thess. ii., 14; 2 Cor. xi. 24; Rom. ii. 17, ef. Gal. 1. 18 f.) is the author’s employment in one instance of the name ᾿Ιουδαῖοι to designate those of his contemporaries who had not become disciples of Jesus (xxviii. 15), whereas in Mark vii. 3 the name is used only to describe the Jewish nationality in contrast to those who are not Jews. Matthew’s language is in general that of a Jewish Christian. On the one hand, he makes use of conceptions which of themselves could not be understood by a Gentile (e.g. v. 22, xvi. 19, xviii. 18). He takes for granted that his readers understand the difference between the Galilean and Judean dialects (xxvi. 73), as is not the case in Mark xiv. 70 in the genuine text. Matthew never explains Jewish words and customs as something strange to his readers (n. 12), as is the case with Mark (above, p. VOL. 11. 36 562 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 488f.). On the other hand, from the title onwards, he does not hesitate to avow his Christian confession. For this reason the book could have been written for the Jewish- Christian Churches of Palestine; it was adopted by them, and afterward recast in the Gospel of the Hebrews. But the prominent apologetic and polemic character of the book as well as the choice of the language (above, p. 521) makes it extremely probable that Matthew desired to see his book read primarily by Jews who were not yet Christians. It was always possible to find in the Jewish- Christian Church persons enough who were almost more Jewish than Christian (Acts xv. 5), and others who were open to the influence of Jewish insinuations; but the Churches of Palestine as a whole as they are known to us from the Greek Epistles directed to them, the hints of the Acts, and the occasional remarks of Paul, were not in need of such an apology for Christ and of such a defence of the right of His Church to exist, nor of such a sharp attack upon Judaism as governed and misled by Sadducaie high priests and Pharisaic rabbis. The book was suited for Jewish Christians who were still open to Jewish influences, or who had again become so after conversion, also for Jews who still resisted the Gospel. And for such readers it was probably intended (n. 13). 1. (Pp. 531, 533.) More detailed proof of many points can be found in the writer's commentary on Matthew (Komm. zum NT unter Mitwirkung anderer herausgeg, von Th. Zahn, Bd. i. 2te Aufl, 1905), cited in this work as ZKom. Matt. With regard to the text of i, 18, observe first of all that Origen (Scholion in Migne, xvii. col. 289, cf. Delarue, iii. 965) knew no other reading than γέννησις, and on that basis discussed the difference between it and γένεσις, i, 1; also that Ss Sc S! use different words in i. 1 and i, 18; and, finally, that the important D is defective at this point. Furthermore, with Iren. iii. 11. 8, Sc Ss, ete., we are probably to read rod δὲ Χριστοῦ without Ἰησοῦ. 2. (P. 532.) We find the usual designation of a genealogy, γενεαλογία, in 1 Tim. 1. 4; Tit. iii. 9; cf. γενεαλογεῖσθαι, Heb. vii. 6, cf. ver. 3; 1 Chron v. 1. No Hellenist would have translated the Jewish words on om son, with or without 20 (Jerusalem Targum, Gen, v. 1; 1 Chron. v. 1; 2 Chron, xii. 15) or 7539 (Jerusalem Targum, Taanith, 68a ; Bab. Jebam. 495) otherwise than by yeveadoyia. The earlier Syriac translators, Ss Sc, have in THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 563 Matt. i. 1 μη δῆτ sans, like the O.T. Peshito, Gen. v. 1 (except so for xan>); only S! ventured to reproduce γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ more exactly by ye ams The LXX has αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως not only for nıbın 20, Gen. v. 1, but for non so, Gen. ii. 4, while in Gen. vi. 9, x. 1 the latter phrase is more accurately represented by αὗται ai γενέσεις, which is the rendering of Aquila and Symmachus in Gen. ii. 4 also. On the ground both of content and of form, Gen. v. 1 must be regarded as the basis of Matt. 1. 1, for here the Hebrew text, both Targums, the LXX, and Aquila (βιβλίον γεννημάτων) all agree. There the ereation of the first man is briefly recalled, and then the successive generations from Adam to Noah are enumerated. Gen. xxv. 12, 19 are the only other instances in which the birth of the person named in the heading is so much as mentioned ; everywhere else either the history of the man in question, without reference to his own birth, or else the history of his descendants is entitled his “ Toledoth,” Gen. vi. 9, x. 1 (32), xi. 10, 27, xxxvi. 1, 9, xxxvii. 2—nowhere an enumeration of his ancestors. According to O.T. usage, therefore (and we can refer to no other for βίβλος γενέσεως), Matt. i. 1 eould not in any ease be the heading of a genealogy, but rather that of an account of Jesus which, like Mark and John, made no mention of His parentage and birth. It is possible that this phrase, borrowed from the LXX, seemed to the translator less unsuitable for Greek readers than it does to us, because he had also in mind the wider sense of γένεσις, “ being in its activity—life” (ef. Jas. i. 23, iii. 6). - 3. (Pp. 534, 536, 538.) Sanhedr. 43a, x7 mabns mp7 (Cod. Mon. add »s\37) γ᾽ “ Jesus (the Nazarene), who was connected or related with the royal house”; ef. Laible-Dalman, Jesus im Talmud, S. 79 and 15*; Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel, 2te Aufl. S. 13; Derenbourg, Hist. et geogr. de la Pal. p. 349; ZKom. Matt. 43f. A.6. As long as the temple stood the Davidie family elaimed to be able to prove their descent, as appears from the table of the days on which the different families were to provide wood for the altar of burnt- offering. Mishnah, Taanith iv. 5 (ef. Schürer, ii. 260 [Eng. trans. τι. i. Ῥ. 9597) ; on the 20th of Thammuz the house of David. In the N.T. οἵ, Luke i. 5, 11. 36; Rom. xi. 1; Phil. iii. 5. The great concern which the Jews, and the priests in particular, felt in establishing their descent (Jos. c. Ap. i. 7; Vita, i.; Jul. Afric. in Eus. H. E. i. 1) was invariably satisfied by proving the links between the latest admittedly legitimate member of the family and the one whose legitimacy was in question ; cf. Schiirer, ii. 229 [Eng. trans. 11. i. 210]. The accusation that Jesus was born out of wedlock, through an adulterous relation between His mother Mary, the wife of Joseph, and a soldier named Panthera or Pandera, is brought forward by the Jew whom the pagan Celsus introduces into his polemie against Christianity, eirca 170 (Orig. ὁ. Celswm, i. 28, 32; cf. Eus. Hecl. Proph. iii. 10, ed. Gaisford, p. 111). But the ramifications of this fable in the Talmudic literature show that its kernel is still older; cf. Laible-Dalman, S. 9-39, 5*-8*; Dérenbourg, pp. 203 f., 468 ff. Justin also seems to have it in mind, Dial. xxiii. (δίχα duap- rias), Ixxviii. (Joseph’s suspicion, ἐγκυμονεῖν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ συνουσίας ἀνδρός, rov- τέστιν ἀπὸ πορνείας, cf. xxxv. exvii.) ; ef. Forsch. vi. 266-269. Nor did Celsus invent for his Jew the story that Jesus spent part of His youth in Egypt, and there learned magic arts by means of which He imposed on the people when He returned to His own land (Orig. c. Celswm, i. 28, 38, 46). It is 564 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT a much older Jewish fable ; ef. Laible-Dalman, S. 40-48, 8*ff. ; Derenbourg, 203, note 2; 361, note 1; 471. 4. (Pp. 534, 535.) Except for insignificant variations in the spelling of in- dividual names, the text of Matt. i. 1-15 is certain. When Sc—but not Ss Sh 51 S*—inserts the three missing kings in ver. 8 (as does D in the arbi- trarily arranged genealogy which it inserts at Luke iii. 23) without altering the figures in ver. 17, the interpolation is self-evident. If the genealogy in Matt. were Greek to begin with, and constructed on the basis of the LXX, the omission of the three kings might be explained, perhaps, as an error due to the similarity of ᾿Οχοζίας (2 Kings viii. 24-29 ; 2 Chron. xxii. 1) and ’Olias (Isa. i. 1; 2 Chron. xxvi. 2), especially in view of the mistakes which this similarity had already occasioned in the LXX itself (1 Chron. iii, 11, ‘O¢ias wrongly for Ahaziah ; 2 Chron. xxvi. 1, ᾿Οχοζίας wrongly for Uzziah). But the premise does not hold; see § 56,n. 11. If it is probable, further, that the author took the names of the kings from the list in 1 Chron. iii. 10 ff., instead of collecting them laboriously from the narrative (ef. what Africanus says of the genealogical inquiries of Jesus’ relatives, Eus. H. E. i. 7.14; Spitta, Brief des Africanus, 102), the text there gave no occasion for confusion. In that passage Uzziah bears the name any, LXX ’Alapias, which bears no marked resemblance to nx, LXX Ὀζίας (wrongly for *Oyotias). Matthew, then, must have excluded the three kings intentionally, among them Joash, who reigned forty years, and Amaziah, who reigned twenty-nine. Any particular reason for omitting just these names is not to be sought or found; but, on the other hand, it is quite conceivable that Matthew did not care to dispense with the names from Uzziah onwards, made famous by Isa. i. 1, vi. 1, vii. 1, xxxvi.-xxxix. ; Hos. i. 1; Amosi. 1. The fact that Jehoiakim is also lacking before Jeconiah in Matt. i. 11 cannot be independent of the further fact that one of the 42 (3 X 14) vouched for by ver. 17 is missing. We cannot here appraise the various attempts (ingenious attempts in part) to show that this defect is only apparent (Hilarius (?) in Florileg. Biblioth. Casin. ii. 66; Hofmann, Werssag. u. Erf. ii. 42). It is clear that the insertion of the name Jehoiakim in ver. 11 (so as early as Iren. iii. 21. 9, which, according to ZKom, Matt.? 58, A. 18 is rather to be denied) does not relieve the difficulty. By that means the second section is made to contain fifteen names; for, according to the analogy of the first section, Jeconiah is the concluding member of the second, and the third section still lacks one. If one recognises the mistake, and holds it inconceivable that the writer of the table and of ver. 17 should have mis- counted, the most natural supposition is that which Jerome was the first to put forward, distinetly, at least (on Matt. i. 11, Vallarsi, vii. 11; cf. Eus. Quest. ad. Steph., in Mai, Nova P. Bibl. iv. 1. 243), namely, that Ἰεχονίας in ver. 11 is an erroneous rendering of ap, while in ver. 12 the same form stands for ya», If the LXX represents both these names by Ἰωακείμ in a single sentence (2 Kings xxiv. 6; cf. xxiii. 36, xxiv. 1, 5=Jehoiakim ; xxiv. 8, 12, 15, Jehoiachin—which led Eusebius, loc. cit., into very inapt com- ments), the Greek translator of Matthew may equally well have obliterated the distinction made in the original. In that case Matthew himself meant Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, eleven years on the throne, and in καὶ rods ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ grouped the other princes with him, his brother Jehoahaz who reigned THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 565 for three months before him, his brother Zedekiah who came to the throne later, and also his son Jehoiachin or Jeconiah who was king only three months. He does not refer to the latter by name till ver. 12, but he mentions him as the one who maintained the succession (1 Chron. iii. 17). 5. ἣν 537.) The text of Matt. 1. 16 has been handed down in the three forms which follow, designated by the present writer as A, B,C. (A) Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. So all Greek uncials, and all MSS. and versions except those named under B and C. (B) Ἰακὼβ de ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ιωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν. So (1) the min- uscles 346, 543 (Scrivener’s, 556), 826, 828 (cf. Ferrar, Collation of four MSS. 1877, p. 2; Scrivener, Adversaria Critica Sacra, 1893, p. 1; Lake, J ThS, i. (1899) p. 119; Harris, Further Researches in the History of the Ferrar- group, 1900, p. 7). (2) This text forms the basis of the old Latin version. The Codex k, which is considered the truest witness for its oldest form, gives: “Et Jacob genuit Joseph, cui desponsata virgo Maria genuit Jesum Christum” (Old Latin Bibl. Texts, ed. Wordsworth, ii. 24). Essentially the same is found in other old Latin MSS. (op. cit. 1. 5, iii. 1; Bianchini, Ev. Quadruplex, i. 4, 5; also in d[D is defective]) and in Latin writers, cf. for example, Chron. Min., ed. Frick, i. 60. 24, 100. 7, 102.1. This text also underlies (3) Se: “Jacob begat Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, who bare Jesus Christ.” (4) The Armenian version presents a con- flation of texts A and B (according to Robinson, Euthaliana, p. 82): “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, to whom being betrothed Mary the virgin, from whom was born Jesus, who was named Christ.” The words in italics have been introduced very awkwardly from Binto A. In the same way, moreover, only without παρθένος, the citation of the Christian, Timothy, is given in his dialogue with the Jew Aquila, concerning the Christ (ed. Fr. Conybeare, Anecd. Oxon., Class. Ser. viii. 76): Ἰακὼβ de (sc. ἐγέννησεν) τὸν Ἰωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα Μαρία, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. Similarly, but still more freely, on p. 88 [C] Ss: “Jacob begat Joseph ; Joseph, to whom Mary the virgin was betrothed, begat Jesus, who is called Christ.” A trace of this text appears, as it seems, in a sentence of Dionysius Barsalibi on Matt. i. 18, perhaps copied from an older source, which Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. 266, gives, following the MSS. : “And when he (the Evangelist in his genealogy) comes to Joseph, he says, ‘Who begat the Messiah,’ and for that reason afterwards he says, ‘The birth of Jesus the Messiah was thus,’ etc.” On the other hand, as Burkitt shows on p. 265, one has no right to discover in a passage of the dialogue of Timothy with Aquila (viii. 76, line 11f.) a Greek witness for the text ©. The Jew cites from the Gospel of Matt. (κατὰ Ματθαία !) exactly the text A, and adds to it: καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν, περὶ οὗ νῦν ὁ λόγος, φησίν, ἐγέννησεν ἐκ τῆς Μαρίας. Although the text does not appear to be entirely in order, still it is clear that these words are not a second eitation added to the first, but a Jewish interpretation of the A text. It is easy to understand that before the discovery of Ss no especial attention was paid to the variant readings of Matt. i. 16 (see Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort, 1881, i. 4; Appendix, p. 7); for it was and is evident 566 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that A did not arise from B, but B from A, and from the necessity to obtain a text which corresponded better with the belief of the Church. That the designation of Joseph as the husband of Mary (A) was found objectionable, is proved also by the fact that Sc, which is also a principal witness for B, i. 19, has omitted τὸν ἄνδρα, and in i. 20 has translated τὴν ἐμνηστευμένην σου instead of τὴν γυναῖκά gov. Even more necessary appeared a change of i. 16, since the relative sentence in that verse hints at the condition of affairs presented in i. 18 ff., but in no way clearly expresses it. Accordingly the meaning of Matthew would be made sure against any danger of mis- understanding by μνηστευθεῖσα and παρθένος, and at the same time, through a change of construction, an ἐγέννησεν substituted for ἐγεννήθη, and thereby an external harmony would be obtained with the form of the preceding sentences, which occurs thirty-nine times. In this last instance, however, ἐγέννησεν does not mean “begat” but “bare.” Moreover, τὸν λεγόμενον was in all probability struck out by the originator of the B text; for the agreement of the old Latin witnesses (and, judging by d, also D) with Se outweighs the evidence of the Greek min., which in this passage have accommodated themselves to the reading of the A text. τὸν λεγόμενον corresponds to the style of Matt. (iv. 18, ix. 9, xxvi. 3, 14, xxvii. 16, 17, 22), and is therefore surely genuine; however, not original to B, but omitted because of its indifferent tone. Consequently the B text in comparison with A is proved to bea secondary transformation, and the peculiar C text, which is found only on Syrian soil, a tertiary form. CO shares with B, the μνηστευθεῖσα and παρθένος, changes of the A text, prompted by dogmatic caution, and only in respect of the unimportant 6 λεγόμενος does it show dependence on the A text, as do the Greek MSS. mentioned above under B, No. 1, and the mixed texts under B, No. 4. These last disprove the assumption of Burkitt (p. 263), that on Syrian soil Ss represents the original (appearing essentially in the B text), and Se an emended form of the first Syriac translation. To be sure, Sc with its double relative sentence is an awkward rendering of the B text, but yet inexact only in so far as B, accurately translated, would read: “to whom being betrothed, a virgin (named) Mary,” etc., and Se translates as though it had found ἡ παρθένος before or after Μαριάμ. This inexactness is also found in Ss; and even if Burkitt were correct in his opinion that Ss connected the & found in B, both with ἐγέννησε and μνηστευθείσῃ (1.6. would perhaps read: “to whom the Virgin Mary, betrothed to him, bare Jesus, who is called the Christ”), would not this have been a very awkward and in the highest degree erroneous translation? And how then could the second Joseph peculiar to Ss be explained? For every uncritical reader would have understood it to he the subject of ἐγέννησεν. Why did Ss not write like Se a %, instead of repeating the name, in order to have the relative sentence depend upon it? The emendation of the reading of the B text, supported by a prevalent tradition, which was in essentials correetly rendered by the first Syriac translation, lacks support from any other tradition. The reason for the change is that he made Joseph the subject of ἐγέννησεν. His intention cannot have been to represent Joseph as the physical father of Jesus, for it is impossible that one who had this purpose should at the same time and in the same sentence speak even more clearly then the A text of Mary’s vir: THE FIRST 'THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 567 ginity ; exclude the existence of marital relations between her and Joseph ; and in i. 18-25 emphasise as strongly as does the catholic text that Jesus was begotten through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Ss does not show elsewhere either in respect of this or any other writer an especially dogmatic bias. Presumably the translator stumbled unawares into his strangely self-contradictory reading through the comparison of a Greek text with the form of the Syriac version which lay before him. As he took from this τὸν λεγόμενον, so also the ἐγέννησεν. The Greek MS. compared by him was similar to those mentioned under B, No. 1. Of this ἐγέννησεν, which, just as in the thirty-nine preceding instances, he thought, must be under- stood to designate the connection between father and son, only Joseph could be the subject. He must therefore repeat his name as subject of a new sentence. He could do this unhesitatingly, since also in many of the pre- ceding sentences (6.0. ver. 8) the same word in no sense expresses physical fatherhood. He wished by this to designate Jesus as Joseph’s son only in the same way as in i. 1 He was called David’s son. The zeal with which many haye seized upon the reading of Ss as a bit of the primitive Gospel, without looking to right or left, is explained by the old prejudgment that the genealogy of Jesus, leading as it does to Joseph, could have been prepared only by one who took him to be the actual father of Jesus. But the alleged contradiction between the genealogy and the following narrative is found equally in Luke—and so in both of the only old Christian writings extant which trace the Davidie descent of Jesus in a genealogy. That His Davidie descent was ever understood in the Christian community in any other sense is an hypothesis without support in the existing literature ; cf. with regard to the Gospel of the Hebrews, GK, ii. 670f., 686f., 690; and on the whole question, the writer’s Das apos. Symbol., 2te Aufl. S. 54-68. The hope of finding indications in old MSS. and versions that the authors of lost Gospels or brief writings which may have been worked over in our Matt. and Luke regarded Joseph as the physical father of Jesus, should at last be dismissed. An author who knew how to make even the dry material of a genealogy to its least detail contribute to the purpose of his thought regarding the slandered miracle of the Messiah’s birth (see p. 534 ff. above), cannot at the same time have taken over statements from a genealogy of Joseph or Jesus used by him which directly contradicted his conception of this fact. Any text of Matthew which contained such statements would be condemned in advance as one altered against the author’s intent. 6. (Ὁ. 537.) The formula used nine times by Matthew, ἵνα or ὅπως πληρωθῇ κτλ. (to which the similar expressions in ii. 17, xxvi. 54, xxvii. 9 should be added), appears elsewhere only in Mark xiv. 49 (a parallel to Matt. xxvi. 54), and seven times in John, referring to O.T. predictions and prophetic words of Jesus; it does not occur in Paul or in either of Luke’s books, and Jas. ii. 23 is the only further passage to be brought into com- parison. This is not the place to defend against unintelligent fault-finding the thoughtful conception of history which is set forth in these words, For a proper appreciation of the Gospel of Matthew in this regard, the point which is before all else decisive is the fact that the author, who in i. 23, ii. 6, xil. 18-21, xv. 8f., xxvii. 9 (also probably xiii. 13-15, see ZKom. Matt. 474) shaped the O,T. texts to his purpose with entire freedom, makes not the 568 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT slightest attempt to transform historical statements, like those cited in in 15, 18, viii. 17, into predictions of future events. 7. (P. 539.) We must reject every interpretation of Matt. ii. 23 which disregards the fact that the passage differs from i. 22 f. (ii. 5), ii. 15, 17, iii, 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 35 (xv. 7), xxi. 4 (xxii. 31, 43), xxvii. 9, first, in that it mentions not an individual prophet, but the prophets in general ; and, secondly, in the omission of the λέγοντος or λεγόντων of citation. These facts make it impossible to look here for a quotation from either a canonical or an apocryphal book. Moreover, örı cannot introduce, in indirect quotation, a summary of the whole prophetic teaching with regard to the lowliness of the Messiah and the possibility of misjudging Him (so practically Hofmann, Weiss. u. Erf. ii. 63-66, in an otherwise admirable discussion), nor yet a composite of passages like Isa. xi. 1; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12; for it is not said in any of these passages that the Messiah is to bear any name approaching that of Ναζωραῖος, but He is spoken of figuratively by the prophets themselves as a 7x3 or nos. The appeal to the prophets col- lectively is not followed by any sort of citation, exact or inexact, any more than in xxvi. 56 or the other passages that might be compared (Mark xiv. 49; John xvii. 12). ὅτι, then, instead of which γάρ would be plainer and better Greek, is to be understood causally, as in Matt. xxvi. 54; Actsi. 17. In justification of his view that the settlement of the Holy Family in Nazareth, a city unnamed in promise, was not a mere accident, but a fulfilment of the whole tenor of prophecy, Matt. recalls that the Child who there grew to manhood was one day to receive from His people the opprobrious title of the Nazarene. The Promised One was to enter upon His mission misunderstood and misjudged. The harshness of the construction, which lies in the fact that κληθήσεται must be understood from the standpoint of a moment already past at the author’s time (= ἤμελλε yap Ναζωραῖος κληθῆναι), is paralleled in Rom. iv. 24, and for that matter also in Matt. xvii. 11, ef. 12, and is not without support in the best Greek ; ef. Kiihner-Gerth, i. 173f. The translation is obscure and liable to misunderstanding, perhaps in consequence of a too anxiously exact fidelity to the Aramaic original. It might also be doubted whether the translator himself understood the original correctly. 8. (P. 540.) In Matt. ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν occurs thirty-three or thirty- four times; elsewhere in the N.T. only once (namely, John iii. 5), according to the correct text. The conception is thoroughly Jewish, and very common in the Mishnah and allied literature (cf. Schürer, Jb/PTh, 1876, S. 166 ff.) ; but it is there quite colourless and divested of its eschatological character. The root of the idea, to speak briefly, lies in Dan. ii. 34f., 44f. and its authentic interpretation in John xviii. 36 ; ef. ZKom. Matt. 124 ff. 9. (P. 542.) On the 25th of April 1868, in Göttingen, the present writer publicly defended this thesis among others: “ Orationis montane a Matthao evangelista tradite summa in cap. v. 16 proposita est,” te. not in v. 17; for the latter statement covers only the discussion through v. 48 ; and even if one takes v. 17-20 as the theme, it is impossible to bring the whole content of the discourse within it. Moreover, while vii. 12 may appear to be a summing up of the whole with v. 17 in mind, it is only apparently so. Concern lest the accentuation of v.16 should result in a contradiction of vi. 1 is needless, for the discrepancy is not increased by taking v. 16 as the fundamental thought THE FIRST 'THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 569 of the discourse. As a matter of fact, there is no contradiction. The only possible query is whether opposition to the Pharisees still exists in vi. 19- vii. 5; cf. xxiii. (14?) 25 ; Mark xii. 40 ; Luke xii. (1) 22-31, 34, xvi. 13-31. ὑποκριτά, vii. 5, would indicate that the contrast was still in mind. 10. (P. 550.) We cannot introduce here an exposition of the passage xvi. 16-20, which, on account of the practical ecclesiastical interest which attaches to it, has been so variously misinterpreted. The present writer confines himself to the following suggestions : (1) The attempt to show from Tatian’s Diatessaron that even past the middle of the second century xvi. 18 f. was lacking in many or all manuscripts of Matt., and so that what we have before us is a later catholic interpolation, has been futile (Forsch. i. 163 f., 243 f., 290f.; GK, ii. 546). How essential the statements about the Church are in the construction of Matthew’s Gospel appears above. (2) ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν does not signify here, any more than elsewhere, the kingdom of God to be found in heaven, the other-world abode of the exalted Christ and the blessed who wait for the resurrection (2 Tim. iv. 18 ; John xiv. 2), but the kingdom of God from heaven set up on earth. Between Hades below and heaven above is the kingdom of God on earth. This kingdom is not repre- sented here, however, in its future completion after the parousia (xvi. 28), but in its preparatory, still imperfect form. Such a form the kingdom—in its essence invisible, and established in men’s hearts through God’s Word (xiii. 18 ff., 37) and His Spirit (iii. 11)—already before its completion possesses in the Church of Jesus. This conception, so clear in xiii. 41, is demanded by the connection of thought in the present passage. The keys, ver. 19, belong to the house, ver. 18; the house, therefore, is identical with the kingdom, ef. xxi. 42, 43 and also xii. 25-29. (3) The key or keys are the symbol of the steward’s office, cf. Isa. xxii. 22 (in Rev. iii. 7 the master of the house himself carries them). Peter is the (chief) οἰκονόμος in the administra- tion of the Church ; cf. Matt. xxiv. 45-51; Luke xii. 42-48; 1 Cor. iv. 1, ix. 17; and, to the point, John xxi. 15-17. (4) To the administrative authority thus announced ver. 19) adds legislative power; for δέειν and λύειν correspond to the Rabbinic 1px “declare forbidden,” and nn “ declare permitted.” The reference, as a rule, is to courses with regard to whose per- missibility different opinions might be entertained, but never to past actions, sins committed. Matt. xvi. 19 has absolutely no connection with John xx. 23. 11. (P. 555.) Origen (Gallandi, xiv., Appendix, p. 81; Comm. in Matt., Delarue, iii. 642, 918) found Jesus as the real name of Barabbas, Matt. xxvii. 16 ff., “in very old manuscripts.” So also Ss (Sc is defective), Arm., Sh (which is entirely independent of the other Syriac versions), and also a few Greek minuscules and scholia. Tatian probably did not have it, for Bar- Bahlul refers to it expressly as a reading of the Gospel of the Separated (Forsch. i, 105 ; ef. 108, 211). Nor can it be established in the Gospel of the Hebrews ; GK, ii. 697-700. Still, the reading, which could easily give offence, and may for that very reason have been set aside by the redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews also, is early and well enough attested to permit the conjecture stated on p. 555 above ; cf. ZKom. Matt. 702 ; Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mephar- reshe, ii. 178, 277. 12. (P.561.) If the reading of the later MSS., οἱ λέγοντες, were authentic, 570 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Matt. xxii. 23, like Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27, Acts xxiii. 8, it would be an instance of information to the readers with regard to the doctrines of the Sadducees. According to the original text without oi, the meaning is rather that the Sadducees disputed with Jesus concerning the Resurrection, which they denied, and in the course of a discussion of this sort laid before Him the captious question about the woman seven times married, 13. (P. 562.) Among the many charaeterisations of the Gospel of Matt., the following are worthy of special attention :—Hofmann, Vermischte Aufsätze (1878, written in 1856), S. 15-33 (ef. also his N.T. ix. 297-317), and Aberle, ThQSc, 1859, S. 567-588 (cf. his Hinl. ins N.T., published by Schanz, 1877, S, 20-32). Aberle brought out the apologetic and polemic aim of the Gospel more clearly than others have done; but his idea that it was written asa reply to a document traducing Christ and His Church, circulated by the Sanhedrin and known to Justin (Dial. xvii. 108, 117) and even to Origen (ὁ. Cels. i. 38, vi, 27), has met with little acceptance. Neither Matt. (xxviii. 15, ἐφημίσθη ὁ λόγος οὗτος) nor Justin nor Origen refers to such a document. Eusebius (on Isa. xviii. 1 f.; Montfaucon, Coll. Nova Patr. ii. 424 f.) was the first to conceive of these Jewish slanders as taking the form of official communications from the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to the Jews of all the world ; and, while Eusebius appealed to older authorities, he wrote under the influence of the text upon which he was commenting, and for the purpose of contrasting the apostles of Christ, who were also letter-writers, with the “apostles” of the Jewish “patriarch,” This, then, is not old tradition, but learned invention. The passages in the N.T. which refer to Jewish calumnies and Jewish opposition to Christianity outside of Palestine (Rom. iii. 8, cf. Rom. as a whole, and vol, i, 424; .1 Thess. ii. 15f.; Gal. iv. 29; Rev. ii. 9, iii. 95: and the narratives in Acts, perhaps with the exception of ix. 2), convey no hint of any action of the Sanhedrin to that end, and Acts xxviii. 21f. is evidence to the contrary, It is true that the Jewish slanders, in oral cireulation, to which Matt. has reference, were still current to some extent in Justin’s time ; but the very ones which are most clearly indicated by the apologetic attitude of Matt. i. and ii. are hardly hinted at in Justin (see p. 563, n. 3). The alleged theft of Christ’s body by the disciples is known to Justin (Dial. evili) from Matt. xxviii. 13, § 56. COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW WITH THE TRADITION REGARDING IT. It has been established by the preceding investigation that Matthew was written for Jews and Jewish Christians in Palestine, as the tradition reports (above, pp. 521, 560 ἢ). The fact that in spite of this it was circulated as early as the first century even in Churches predominantly Gentile, was orally translated, and then finally translated into Greek (above, p. 513 ff.), is easily explained by the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND: ACTS 571 richness of its contents, and by the absence of all such Jewish ideas as were out of harmony with the Christian confession in general, or with the views which prevailed in the Gentile Christian Churches at the beginning. Paul would have no objection to this Gospel, which represented Jesus as “a servant of the circumcision” under the law, and yet at the same time the King of heaven and earth, who bestows the gospel upon all peoples (Gal. iv. 4; Rom. xv. 8). Not until the true historical picture of Jesus and of the situation of His first Church had faded out, did critical questionings arise among Gentile Christians as to the truth of Matthew’s peculiar setting forth of the history and his new uncritical interpretations of it (n. 1). There is nothing in the Gospel which contradicts the tradition that it was written between 61 and 66. If the “to this day ” (xxvii. 8, xxvill. 15) were after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem and the temple, we would expect that an author who values so highly as does Matthew proof based upon the concurrence of prophecy and its fulfilment for the justification of Christ over against Judaism, would indicate somewhere and in some manner that the prophecy of Jesus had been fulfilled in this judgment (xxii. 7, xxiii. 35-xxiv. 2, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40). Matthew makes no attempt whatever to separate the prophecy concerning the parousia from the prophecy concerning the judgment upon Jerusalem and the Jewish contemporaries of Christ (xvi. 28, xxiv. 3, 34, xxvi. 64; see above, p. 449f.). There are sayings which make it appear as if the apostolic preaching was to continue in Israel until the parousia of Christ, and as if the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles was not to begin until after the destruction of Jerusalem (x. 23, xxi. 7-10, xxiii. 34-36), standing alongside of other say- ings in which the completion of the preaching among all peoples is made the condition of the parousia (xxiv. 14, ef. v. 14, vii. 11, xii. 18-21, xiii. 38, xxiv. 31, xxv. 32, xxvi. 13, xxvill. 19). The author makes no attempt to harmonise 572 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT these differences. Because when Matthew was written there was as yet no sign of fulfilment, the relation in which the predicted setting up of the idolatrous abomination in the temple, with the accompanying desolation, 1.6. desecra- tion of the temple (xxiv. 15), stood to the other event prophesied at the same time, namely, the destruction of the temple and of the city (xxi. 7, xxii. 38-xxiv. 4), is left obscure. It is evidence of the faithfulness with which this particular prophecy is recorded in Matthew, that the author, unlike Mark (xiii. 14; above, p. 500f.), does not employ the language in keeping with the later under- standing of apostolic Christianity which was the result of actual experience (n. 2). In the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem itself we do not find such features in Matthew as appear in Luke’s account (xix. 41-44, xxi. 20, xxiii. 28-30), which could be judged a reflection of the event after its fulfilment. The attempt has been made to derive from Matt. xix. 1 the idea that, from the point of view of the author, Judea lay on the other side of the Jordan, and that accordingly the book, or this portion of it, was written on the east side of the Jordan, about the time when the Christian refugees from Jerusalem found a place of safety in Pella. This would bring us down a little beyond the time limits drawn by Ireneeus, since the departure from Jerusalem certainly did not take place before the year 66 (n. 3). It is, however, incon- ceivable that merely in consequence of a change of residence to the other side of the river, which had taken place shortly before, and against the regular Jewish usage and the usage which he himself follows in other passages of his book, a Jew, who up to this time had lived west of the Jordan, should have characterised the latter region πέραν τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου in a narrative the scene of which up to this point had been Galilee. The words themselves do not forbid, but favour the interpretation that on this occasion Jesus made the journey from Galilee to Judea through THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 573 Perea instead of Samaria (n. 4). Equally erroneous is the opinion that in Matt. xxiu. 35 Jesus is made to refer to an event which took place in the year 67 or 68, not prophetically, but in historical reminiscence (n. 5), If this were an unintentional error, the composition of Matthew would have to be brought down at least to the year 100, a date which, as has been shown, does not agree with the other contents of the book. If, on the other hand, it were an intentional modification of a word of Jesus in the tradition (Luke xi. 51), it would represent an inconceivable mixture of thoughtlessness and perverseness. In reality the occurrence of the name Barachiah instead of Jehoiada is only one of those oversights on the part of Matthew which the learned redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews saw fit to correct (n. 5). There are no critical reasons why we should not accept the tradition according to which Matthew wrote his Gospel in Palestine between the years 61 and 66 (n. 6). Likewise the supposition that he wrote in the common language of Palestine, and that our Greek Matthew is a translation from the Hebrew, 1.6. Aramaic, made con- siderably later (above, pp. 506-522), finds support in the text. In the discussion of this question it is first of all to be kept in mind that Jesus made use of Aramaic (§ 1) in His preaching to the people and in instructing His disciples, as well as in all His intercourse with His contem- poraries, so that «ll the discourses of Jesus and the words spoken by Him to the Jews, who had intercourse with Him, preserved to us in Greek books, are only translations. And we are not the first to be dependent on such trans- lations; but this was likewise true for the Christians in Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome in the days of the unwritten Gospel (§ 48). The possibility or the necessity of referring one of Jesus’ words to an Aramaic original in order to understand it fully or to explain the different forms in which it occurs in the tradition, proves nothing 574 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT as to whether the writings in which it is found were originally Greek or translations from the Aramaic. The material which an evangelist like Luke, who knew little or no Aramaic, took from the oral or written tradition must have been already in Greek, and the Hebrew or Aramaie idioms which are observable in his accounts may be regarded as in so far proof of the faithfulness with which he reproduces what he received from the tradition. lt does not, however, establish anything with reference to his linguistie ability, nor prove that one of his sources was in Aramaic, since the oral account or writing at the basis of his narrative can go back either directly or indirectly to a Jewish Christian who knew Greek enough to be able to give an oral or written account of Jesus in this language, and who at the same time was still “Hebrew” enough to betray himself in his language either intentionally or unintentionally. Even an evan- gelist like Mark, whose native language was Aramaic, but who for decades had been in the service of missionary work outside of his native land, and had finally come ‘to know Greek well enough to undertake composition in this language, did not have to construct the Greek form of his Gospel entirely new. He was influenced by the manner in which the words and deeds of Jesus were customarily related in Greek in connection with the missionary work. This would be even more true in the case of a translator who put the Aramaic Matthew into Greek after it had been translated orally for a number of years, especially if the work was done at a time when Greek Gospels were already in existence and circulated in the circle to which the trans- lator belonged. In the case before us, however, this is at least very probable. Besides Mark (above, pp. 444, 516 ἢ), still other Greek Gospel writings could have been in exist- ence in the vicinity of the Greek translator of Matthew, as the Gospel of Luke or one of the writings mentioned in Luke i. 1 which have not come down to us. Besides being THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 575 influenced by the ecclesiastical language of the Greek Churches, it was unavoidable that the author should be affected also by the oral translation of the Aramaic Matthew, which had been practised for years, and from which, finally, the written translation originated, as well as by Greek Gospels like that of Mark. We must also remember that translations made in ancient times varied greatly in character. We find a disposition to translate a text which was already regarded as Holy Seripture with slavish literalness. For this reason the LXX is on the whole a very literal translation which everywhere does violence to the genius of the Greek language, a particular in which Aquila’s translation is even a greater offender (vol. i. p. 56). The Old Latin translation, particularly that of the N.T., which was not made until the N.T. had long been accepted as Holy Seripture by the Church, was designed to be literal. In this point the revisers had few changes to make; they simply freed it from its slavish dependence upon the original, and made the Latin smoother. The translation of the Gospels among the Syrians exhibits the reverse process. From the Diates- saron or Syrus Sinaiticus to the work of Thomas of Heraclea we notice a constant development away from great freedom to slavish literalness; a tolerably good manipulation of the native language gives place to a handling of the same which grows constantly worse and worse as the attempt is made to render the original more and more faithfully. When the Greek Matthew was produced (above, p. 516), the development in the direetion of treating the original upon which it is based as Holy Seripture could not yet have gone very far. The trans- lator could not have been a pure Hellenist, since as such he would not have understood the original, but was simply one of those ‘‘ Hebrews” who, like Paul, was not only proficient in his own language, but master also of Greek (vol. i. p. 48 ff.). He must have been born or have 576 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT grown up among the Hebrews, and therefore have been accustomed to the oral translation of the Hebrew original into Aramaic as it was practised in the synagogues of the Hebrews. Here literal exactness was not regarded as essential even in relation to the O.T. Much less, then, could it have appeared to the translator to be his first and only duty with reference to Matthew,—a writing not yet old enough to be regarded as sacred. Finally, it is to be remembered that the language of a translator does not always show stronger traces of dependence upon the original language than that of an independent author who is under the necessity of using a language other than his own. A German writing in English and for English readers about conditions in his native land would be far less careful to avoid Germanisms than a German trans- lating a work of Goethe or Ranke into English. The style of Matthew shows throughout fewer Hebra- isms than that of Mark and Revelation. Constructions entirely foreign to Greek idiom do not occur, and the use of καί in, the narrative is much less frequent (n. 7, and above, p. 502, n. 2). Indeed, the question arises whether the painful frequency of certain formule and construc- tions which take the place of the Semitic form of narrative are not due to the translator’s effort to avoid the latter (n. 7). That Matthew is a translation from a Semitic original is proved primarily on other grounds. An author writing originally in Greek could not have written 1. 21. A Greek reader unfamiliar with the etymological meaning of yw» could not see the logical force of the explanation of the choice of the name here given, and, therefore, for such the sentence is simply unintelligible. The Aramaic- speaking Jews, among whom the Hebrew proper name Jesus was very common, and to whom the meaning of the stem must have been generally familiar from the liturgical use of hosanna, understood the sentence at once even if the σώζειν of the Greek Matthew did not represent THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 577 the corresponding Hebrew verb, but the purely Aramaic pr» (n. 8). The Greek translator could or should have helped his reader out of the difficulty by a 6 ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον σωτήρ OY σωτηρία κυρίου, which would have rendered the following αὐτὸς yap σώσει intelligible. Justin (Apol. i. 33) did so. That the author of the Greek Matthew omits this explanation, is proof of the exactness of his translation, but not of his skill as a translator. The case is similar ın Matt. x. 25, where the connection between the literal meaning of the name Beelzebub and the figure of the οἰκοδεσπότης and the οἰκιακοί (vol. i. p. 20) is lost to the Greek reader, and therewith the point of the discourse. If they had recorded this saying at all, Mark, and certainly Luke, would not have omitted an explanation of the word. A simple explanation of the content such as we have in Matt. xu. 24 (ef. Mark in. 22; Luke xi. 15), would not have been sufficient. The absence of an explanation of the word κορβανᾶς, xxvii, 6, is all the more striking, because in xv. 5 the Hebrew and Aramaic word, which was un- intelligible to Greek readers, is replaced by the Greek translation which Mark found it necessary to add in vil. 11. Here and in other places the Greek Matthew not only makes less effort than does Mark to retain the form of the original language, but rather betrays a purpose to furnish his Greek readers with a text at once intelli- gible, with the fewest possible foreign expressions (n, 9). This fact makes the other cases where Hebrew and Aramaic words and names are left unexplained, as in ᾿Ιησοῦς, i. 21; BeedfeBovr, x. 26; ῥαχά, v. 22; kopßaväs, xxvii. 6, seem to be due to dependence upon the Aramaic original, and to a lack of courage on the translator's part to render this freely. In the same way is to be explained the obscurity of the expression in ii. 23 (above, p. 568, n. 7); further, the use of πέραν τοῦ ’Iopdavov as a substantive without the article in iv. 25, which is contrary to Greek idiom, and also the occurrence of genitives like Γαλιλαίας VOL. 1. 37 578 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT and ᾿Ιουδαίας governed by ἀπό (iv. 25, cf. iv. 15), likewise the translation of Jewish scholastic terms by öde» and λύειν (Xvi. 19, xvill. 18; above, p. 569, ἢ. 10), which is literal but unintelligible to Greek readers. If, according to John 1. 42, xxi. 15-17, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, Peters father was called Jochanan, the Bar-Jonah of Matt. xvi. 17 is a mistake more likely to have been made by a translator than by the author (vol. 1. 17). The retention of the Aramaic bar without an added translation seems to be without purpose, and its employment along with the Greek form Πέτρος (cf. per contra, John i. 42) is inconsistent, and exhibits poor style. Kavavatos (x. 4), which an ignorant scribe changed to Kavavérns, and Xavavaia (xv. 22), are correct transcriptions of 8282? (Dal- man, Gr.1 188, better than 2te Aufl. 174) and xn»; but it would have been better for his Greek readers if the author of the Greek Matthew had given the translation of the first, which is customary in Luke and Josephus, ζηλωτής, and if he had substituted for the latter the specification which we find in Mark vii. 26. Perhaps if we could compare the original with the translation, we should be able to make the same definite claim with regard to other passages where now we must be content with modest conjectures (n. 10). The omissions of things it was incumbent upon a translator to say, which are noted above, lose none of their force as proof because in other places the translator is more careful to make himself in- telligible to his readers. In xxvii. 46 he himself must have felt that a translation of the Aramaic words was quite as indispensable as the translation of the Hebrew name Immanuel in i. 23 (n. 9). Familiarity of his readers with Mark xv. 22, 34 (ef. John xix. 17) may have induced him to retain the original in xxvii. 46, and to add the translation of the Hebrew name in xxvii. 33, which was not absolutely necessary. Stronger proof that Matthew is a translation is to be THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS κ79 derived from a consideration of the form of its eitations from the O.T. When a Hebrew like Paul makes only very moderate use of his knowledge of the Hebrew O.T., and when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who was likewise learned in the Scriptures, takes his citations wholly from the LXX, it is inconceivable that an evan- gelist writing originally in Greek for Greek or Hellenistic readers, whose knowledge of the Scripture was inferior to that of the persons mentioned (n. 11), should, while following the LXX in many instances, still, wherever he felt it necessary, give a translation of the Hebrew text entirely independent of the LXX. On the basis of the differences observable in Matthew in this respect, the attempt has been made to distinguish two elements in our Gospel, and to prove, on this ground, that it is a compilation. Where the redactor cites the O.T. on his own responsibility, he takes his quotations direct from the Hebrew original, without paying much regard to the LXX, and reproduces them in free translation. On the other hand, citations which occur in the discourses of Jesus, and such as are made by other persons represented in the narrative as speaking, he takes from a Greek book before him in which all the citations were quoted from the LXX (n. 12). The röles here assigned are impossible. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, it is extremely improbable that His own quotations from the O.T. were influenced by the LXX. The same must have been true of the oral tradition of the discourses among the Hebrews in Pales- tine, and of the supposed record of these discourses by Matthew. Therefore the person who translated into Greek the Hebrew or Aramaic Adya, discovered by Schleiermacher, must have obliterated all traces of his original’s independence of the LXX, looked up all the passages cited in the LXX, and have copied them from this source; while, on the contrary, the author of Matthew, who wrote in Greek, to begin with, for Greek 580 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT readers, ignored the existence of an O.T. in Greek, and everywhere paraded his Hebrew learning. The real state of the case was different, and is very easily explained if we recognise what is not only handed down by the tradi- tion, but also sufficiently proved from what precedes, namely, that our Greek Matthew is the result of an effort to give a literal translation of a uniformly Aramaic original document. Since the translator was proficient in Greek, he must have been familiar also with the LXX, which was industriously read by those about him. In the translation of an Aramaic book he used the LXX as one of his models. He made use of its expressions where it was not easy to produce better ones of his own (i. 1; above, p. 532). Sayings such as must have been often employed in preaching the gospel in Greek, and in instruction within the Church, in part also to be found in the Greek Gospels which existed in his vicinity (e.g. ii, 3), he reproduced as he found them in the LXX, especially if no violence was done to the sense of his original, In other passages it must have seemed to him that the substitution of the text of the LXX would obseure the sense of his original and the purpose of the citation. In such cases he translated the O.T. quotations of his original in exactly the same way that he did the rest of the Aramaic book. Familiarity with the LXX, and with the language employed in the Church in his vicinity, made it inevitable that expressions which we find in the LXX should flow from his pen, especially in such passages as were often read in Christian cireles. That he looked up the quotations and allusions regularly in the LX X, and translated them with this before him, is extremely improbable, otherwise he would have corrected a number of mistakes in his original, as the learned redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews did in at least one case (n. 11) The question remains still as to whether or not the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 3581 unanimous tradition which assigns the authorship of our Gospel to the apostle Matthew is borne out by the book itself. Scholars who deny this claim base their opinion partly upon the content,—which, it is elaimed, is incon- sistent with authorship by one of the twelve apostles,— partly upon the dependence of the account upon older documents of similar content, either still extant or to be assumed. With regard to the latter point, the real rela- tion that exists between Matthew and Mark deserves special investigation (ἢ 57). Particularly, certain repeti- tions of the same or similar words and actions—the so- called doublets—have played an important röle in proving Matthew's dependence upon various written sources. Evidence, convincing to one who does not already believe the point to be proved, has not been produced (n. 13). Granted, however, that it is possible to prove—a_possi- bility which is here contested—that the original Matthew is dependent upon our Mark or a similar document, it would not follow that it was not written by an apostle. It must always be borne in mind that Matthew became a disciple and companion of Jesus comparatively late. It cannot be proved at this point, but simply claimed on the assumption that the order of events accepted as correct by the present writer is, that Matthew was no more an eye-witness of what is recorded in Mark i. 4-39, ii 1-12; iii. 20-v. 20 (Matt. ii. 1-iv. 25, viii. 14+ix: 8) xil. 22-xill. 52, possibly xiii. 58) than he was of the events narrated in Matt. 1-11. or John 1. 19-v. 47. With refer- ence to such portions of the history, Matthew was less favoured than Mark, if the latter was able to draw upon the narratives of Peter, who became a disciple of Jesus so much earlier. Further, it is hard to understand why an apostle should have hesitated to make use of the record by a disciple of one of the apostles for such parts of his book. But even in connection with the narration of such events as he may have witnessed, an intelligent author 582 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT is always glad to make use of existing records in prepara- tion for his own work, no matter from whom they may have originated. In his own recollection he has a certain standard by which to estimate its worth and to correct its errors. With reference to the content of the book and Matthew’s method of exposition, apart from the question of its dependence upon older written sources which cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be considered the task of a text-book like this to combat the dogmatic prejudices of those who conclude, from the miraculous character of the events recorded in Matthew, as in all the Gospels, that none of these books could have been written by a com- panion of Jesus and an eye-witness of even a part of the history here recorded. It was necessary to touch upon this question earlier in connection with 2 Pet. i, 16-18, and it will recur again more pointedly in the consideration of the Fourth Gospel. Whoever finds one miracle of feeding a difficulty to begin with, will be under the necessity of regarding the feeding of the 4000 (Matt. xy. 32; Mark viii. 1), and that of the 5000 (Matt. xiv. 15-21; Mark vi, 34;| Luke ix. 12; John, vi. 5), asa double form of one and the same fact, exaggerated by legend. In the same way he must regard the conversa- tion connected with the two events (Matt. xvi. 5-11; Mark viii. 14-21) as the patchwork of a compiler whose attitude toward the traditions, already varying widely from the truth, was uncritical and generally helpless. This judgment would apply in the same way to Mark, and finally to all Gospel tradition. Hypothetical refer- ence of the existing Gospels to written sources which are now lost, the content and form of which each constructs according to his own liking, puts us in a position where we can neither answer nor escape the great dilemma whether the Gospel history is unconscious and conscious mythologising, or whether it goes back to actual facts. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 583 Criticism of the Gospel literature, and the counter criti cisms, can render at best only preliminary service. For this end it is, to be sure, important to observe that Matthew’s narrative lacks the clearness which character- ises that of the eye-witness. It must be admitted that we cannot make such observations in connection with this Gospel as led us to refer Mark’s account to an eye-witness (above, p. 491 ff.). The theological thought which domi- nates Matthew, determining the choice as well as the form of the subject-matter, does not admit ample breadth of narrative, depiction of the scene, and delineation of the characters. But we must remember, ın the first place, that the purpose of the writing, as developed in § 55, gave little occasion for the features which we miss in Matthew. The Roman Christians for whom Mark wrote desired a narrative concerning Jesus, whom they had not seen, but whom they nevertheless loved (1 Pet. 1. 8). To the Jews and Jewish Christians for whom Matthew wrote, it needed to be proved that, in spite of all Jewish pre- judices to the contrary, Jesus was the promised Messiah. For this purpose the appropriate material was a few characteristic actions and detailed discourses. In the second place, it betrays ignorance of real life to decide a question of this character by reference to a common standard, instead of by the actual diversity of individual inclination and capacity. It is possible for everyone to find, in his daily experience, examples of such difference between a fact and the same as reported by two different persons, when exactly similar conditions had existed for both. In the third place, in the criticism of Matthew we must take into consideration also the fact that narratives which, in comparison with those of Mark, make the impression of unelaborated sketches, e.g. Matt. vii. 18- ix. 8, could have been reproduced by Matthew in part only from extraneous accounts. Further, he purposed in this whole section,—viii. 18-ix. 34,—by a rapid succession 584 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of chronologically connected events, and by constant change of scene, to give us a pieture of the restless activity with which Jesus performed His lifework (n. 14). Is it to be considered a coincidence that Matthew, who follows the Jewish method and reckons the day from evening to evening, chooses for this purpose the parti- cular day in the middle of which his own call took place, and that an apostle selects, as an example of Jesus’ teach- ing, the great discourse which followed directly upon the choosing of the apostles, perhaps the first longer discourse which Matthew, who had been called shortly before from the stall of the tax-gatherer to be a disciple, had heard from Jesus’ lips? Most of the objections to the apostolic authorship of Matthew are due either to a failure to recognise its plan and method of exposition, or to opinions about the history, which, in their turn, lack sufficient basis ; or, finally, to preconceived opinions with reference to the uncertain beginnings of literary activity in eonnee- tion with the Gospel. If the outline of the plan and character of the book given above, pp. 531-562, is relatively correct, the complaints about the lack of chronological order in Matt. iii. 1-xiv. 12, and the contradictions between the arrangement of material in this part of the book and the more trustworthy accounts in Mark and Luke, are without purpose. The requirement that a historian, in close touch with the events which he narrates, must main- tain a chronological order in all details, is not met even by Luke in either his Gospel or in Acts, though in the former this appears to be promised, i. 3 (καθεξῆς). It is entirely inapplicable to Matthew, who is in no sense primarily a historian, but an apologetic preacher in Israel of the Nazarene denied by His own people. The freedom with which Matthew handles the form of the great dis- courses (above, p. 558 f.) is much more conceivable in case of an apostle, who is not called to write history, but to publish the commandments of Jesus to others (Matt. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 58; xxvill. 20; cf. 2 Pet. iii. 2), —and who, moreover, felt con- fidence on account of his own recollection,—than in that of a younger contemporary who constructed his work from the narratives of those who heard the discourses, or from documents in which the same could have been recorded, part of them not without historical setting. The idea. that the first records of the words and deeds of Jesus must have been simply collections of material, with no other purpose than to preserve the memory of them, and that for this reason a book so thoroughly planned as is Matthew, so rich in thought, and written with such a clear purpose, could not have originated except upon the basis of such purposeless collections of material, is a pre- judgment. Of course, lack of knowledge on the author's part with regard to important facts in the Gospel history, especially with regard to events which took place when the apostles were present, would be proof that the book was not written by an apostle. Apart, however, from the consideration that, as far as this point is concerned, it does not make any essential difference whether the book was written by an apostle or some other Palestinian Christian in the year 65, or even 75, such ignorance on Matthew's part remains to be demonstrated (n. Ey) oT he older criticism of Matthew, which in many instances pro- ceeded upon the presupposition of the apostolic origin and essential trustworthiness of the Fourth Gospel, is incon- sistent, to the extent that objections to the apostolic origin and historicity of this Gospel are as strong as those against Matthew. The more important points of difference will not be considered until we discuss the Fourth Gospel. Also the question as to why Matthew and Mark begin the account of Jesus’ publie work with the arrest of the Baptist, thereby limiting their narrative practically to Galilee, must be postponed, in order to avoid repetition (§ 63). 1. (P. 571.) Marcion contended that Matt. v. 17 was not spoken by Jesus (Tert. c. Mare. iv. 7, 9, 12, 36, v. 14), that either He Himself spoke ita 586 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT direct opposite or His disciples after Him (and before the fourth century) substituted it for this saying, which was alleged to have been smuggled into the Gospel by the Judaists (@K, i. 609, 666-669). Holsten (Die drei ursprüngl. Ew. 61 ff.) and Holtzmann (HK?, i. 5) still take practically the same position with regard to Matt. v. 17-19, and the latter with regard to xxiii. 3, xxiv. 20 also. According to Weizsäcker, also (Unters. über d. ev. Gesch. 125), xxiv. 20 contradicts “the whole gospel tradition concerning Jesus’ attitude in regard to this day.” But the fundamental principle on which all depends is preserved besides in Luke xvi. 17, and also in Matt. iii. 15, only in a still more general form. Nothing is gained by the excision of xxiii. 3 as long as xxiii. 23 (ταῦτα ἔδει ποιῆσαι) remains. That Jesus assumed and required the observance of the ceremonial law by His disciples, and consequently also that xxiv. 20 is in entire accord with the historical conditions in which Jesus and His disciples moved, is one of those facts which can be disputed oniy by a dogmatism, whether orthodox or heterodox, which is absolutely devoid of historical insight. According to John, as well as according to Matthew and the other Synoptists, Jesus never conceded to His accusers that He had annulled one jot or tittle of the law, and never claimed for Himself a peculiar position either above or outside the law. On the contrary, He repeatedly proved from the law and the prophets, from the recognised requirements of the temple service, and from His opponents’ own practice, that His attitude toward ceremonial regulations —so much freer, as compared with Pharisaism—was the only fulfilment of the law which answered to the will of the divine lawgiver, the idea of the regulations themselves, and the patterns of O.T. history. It was rather His opponents who made empty the law, who nullified and evaded it (Matt. v. 20-48, xii. 1-13, xv. 1-20, xix. 3-12, xxi. 30, xxiii 1-33 ; John v. 16-18, 42, 45, vii. 19-24). Matt. ix. 14-17 (ef. xv. 2, 7-20) has nothing to do with the law, which prescribed fasting only on the Day of Atonement, and neither there (ix. 15) nor elsewhere (vi. 16-18, xvii. 21) does Jesus belittle the pious observance of voluntary fasting. On the other hand, also, Jesus never taught that the law given to the people of Israel (Mark xii. 29), to His own and His disciples’ forefathers (Matt. v. 21, τοῖς ἀρχαίοις), was to be extended to all nations. Yet His Jewish disciples were not to imagine that the nearness of the kingdom of heaven and of the accompanying collapse of the hitherto exist- ing order, released them from their duty toward the God-given though nation- ally limited appointments of the O.T. Jesus did not touch upon the question of the Gentile Christians’ position with regard to the law. Only in regard to His own commands is it His will that they be communicated to all peoples (xxviii. 20). Even according to Matthew no details of the future form of life in His Church, composed as it was of Jews and Gentiles together, were legally prescribed by Jesus. Rather was it left to the Church and its leaders to institute such rules of administration as might be required (xvi. 19, xviii. 18; above, p. 550f.). Intimations are not lacking that in the course of the historical development even essential portions of the law would be set aside (xvii. 24427; ef. John iv. 21; above, p. 552). In the two ideas, namely, that Jesus Himself recognised it as His ealling to bring the law to its ful- filment, and that so long as the world stands no element of the law can perish unfulfilled, lie the fruitful germs of thought which were to be developed later. Hilgenfeld attempted (above, p. 414) to distinguish in Matt. be- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 587 tween a Jewish particularistic tendeney derived from the primitive Matt. ir Aramaic or from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and a universalistic tendency attributable to the Greek redactor, and to sort out the inserted sections. In this he could not possibly succeed ; for, as (pp. 531-556) has been shown, the whole book is built up upon the antithesis which he would thus explain. The supposed redactor speaks of Jesus’ redemptive mission in i. 21 as if it were confined to Israel, while the supposedly Jewish writer of the Sermon on the Mount points (v. 13-16) to the whole world as the sphere of the dis- ciples’ labour and the field of the Gospel, as clearly as does the universalistic editor in xiii. 38, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13, xxviii. 19. If vil. 6 were a prohibition of preaching among the Gentiles, Matthew would reduce Jesus toa standpoint lower not only than that of the O.T., but lower than that of the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 15) and the narrow-minded Jewish Christians, who never doubted that the Gospel was intended for all mankind, but simply disagreed with Paul and others as to the conditions upon which this was to be realised. Indeed, that group of Jewish Christians which made use of the Gospel of the Hebrews, alleged to be the primitive Matt., fully recognised Paul’s Gentile mission (GK, ii. 669). But Matthew has nothing to say about these conditions for the reception of the Gentiles; there is simply a certain obscurity as to when and how the Gospel is to pass from Israel to them, which, however, is only a proof that Matthew has preserved the words of Jesus with remarkable fidelity uncoloured by later conceptions (above, p. 571). Jesus Himself knew that for the period of His earthly life He was confined to Israel (xv. 24); it would have been unfair to the privilege which rightly belonged to that nation if He had withdrawn from it and turned at once to the Gentiles (xv.26). This is quite in accord with Rom. xv. 8 and with the Fourth Gospel, which represents Jesus’ death and exaltation as the indispensable precon- dition of the extension of His work to the Gentiles (iii. 14-16, x. 16-18, xi. 51£., xii. 20, 23, 32; cf. per contra, vii. 35). From this followed naturally the similar restriction of the apostles; primarily for the like period (Matt. x. 5f.). But in accord also with the actual situation until after 60 a.p., which Paul himself acknowledged to be justified (Gal. ii. 7-10), and with another report of Jesus’ words (Luke xi. 49, xxiv. 47; Acts i. 8), it is inti- mated that even after His departure the disciples were to preach first in Israel (Matt. xxiii. 34, xxii. 4). Neither the promise of x. 23, nor the expectation it presupposed, namely, that the Twelve would preach in Israel until the time referred to (the destruction of Jerusalem), failed of fulfilment. It was only when the signs of the approaching end were multiplying that Peter went to Rome. The other apostles remained still longer at their posts, and not till about 70 and from then onwards do we find John and others of the early apostolic circle, like Philip and Aristion, at work among the Gentile Churches of Asia Minor. With this corresponds the representation of Matt. xxii. 7-9, that the Gospel is to turn from Israel to the Gentiles only after the destrue- tion of Jerusalem, and it is not at variance with the missionary command, xxvii. 19; cf. Luke xxiv. 47, and all the similar sayings recorded in Matthew. For (1) Israel also belongs among “all the nations” (vol. i. 370, n. 2). (2) The allegorical language of the parable, xxii. 1-14, makes it necessary to represent the call of Israel and the call of the Gentiles as two absolutely distinct acts, the latter taking the place of the first. (3) According to 588 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Matthew, Jesus represents His future Church as a community separated from the Jewish nation and open to non-Israelites, which comes into independent existence immediately after His rejeetion by the Jewish authorities (xxi. 40- 43; above, p. 550ff.). (4) Only a part of this Church is to be found in Judea at the time of the parousia (xxiv. 16); others are scattered among the Gentile nations of the world (xxiv. 9, 31). One who, with the fullest recognition of Israel’s prior claim upon its Messiah, repeatedly noticed the call of the Gentiles to salvation and the universal significance of Christ and His Church (ii. 1-12, iii. 9, iv. 24, v. 13-16, viii. 11, 12, x. 18, xii. 18-21, xiii. 31-33, 38, xxii. 7-14, xxiv. 14, 31, xxv. 32, xxvi. 13, xxviii. 19), certainly did not look askance at the mission to the Gentiles which was undertaken before the fall of Jerusalem and independently of the twelve apostles of the twelve tribes of Israel. He found in it no violation of a single command or prohibition of Christ’s which he reported, and no unfaithfulness, furthermore, to Jesus’ example. For Jesus marvelled at the faith of a Gentile man and a Gentile woman (viii. 10, xv. 28), granted His assistance to them both ; and though He in neither case permitted the great faith which He found among Gentiles to draw Him away from Israel and His primary calling, He did not conceal from the Canaanitish woman that after the children were satisfied the dogs should have their turn. It is the more impossible to find a con- tradiction between the two narrativesif one recognises what Fritzsche pointed out as long ago as 1826 (Comm. in Mt. p. 311), that ἐγὼ ἐλϑὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν, viii. 7, is to be taken interrogatively (cf. ZKom. Matt. 335). Astonished at the implied request of the centurion, and hesitating to comply with it, Jesus asks, “I am to come and heal him?” Only so can we understand the emphatic ἐγώ and the eenturion’s second remark. He divined the Jew’s hesitation to enter a Gentile house (cf. Luke vii. 3 ff.), and, by the opposition it at first met from Jesus, his faith was roused to unexpected earnestness, to which Jesus yielded in this instance as in xv. 28. 2. (P. 572.) Whereas Colani, Jésus-Christ et les Croyances Messianiques de son Temps, 1864, p. 201 ff., explained the whole eschatological discourse (Matt. xxiv., Mark xiii.) as an apocalypse from the later apostolic period, Weizsäcker, Unters. d. ev. Gesch. 124 {¥., would find in Matt. xxiv. 6 ff. and Mark xiii. 7 ff. a Jewish apocalypse under the name of Enoch, referred to also in Barn. iv., and dating from the time immediately before the destruction of Jerusalem, just as he considers also that Luke xi. 49 (= Matt. xxiii. 34) points to the use of a Jewish writing. It follows next from this that there is nothing to be said for the Petrine origin of Mark (127), and—though not on this account alone, to be sure—that Matt. was not written till soon after 70 (201 ff.). Similar conjectures, which cannot be supported at any point by valid proofs, were put forward by Renan, L/Antéchrist, 3me ed. pp. 289-300. 3. (P. 572.) Bus. H. E. iii. 6. 3. After the death of the bishop, James, and the expulsion of the apostles from Judea, and before the outbreak of the Jewish war, the Jerusalem Church removed to Pella in Perea, in accordance with the revelation made to its leading members (κατά twa χρησμὸν τοῖς αὐτόθι δοκίμους δὲ ἀποκαλύψεως ἐκδαθέντα). Epiphan. de Mens. xv: ἡνίκα yap ἔμελλεν ἡ πόλις ἁλίσκεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν Ρωμαίων καὶ ἐρημοῦσθαι, προεχρὴματίσ- θησαν ὑπὸ ἀγγέλου πάντες οἱ μαθηταὶ μεταστῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως, μελλούσης ἄρδην ἀπύλλυσθαι' οἵτινες μετανάσται γενύμενοι ᾧκησαν ἐν Ἰϊέλλῃ κτλ. (cf. Her, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 358g xxix. 7, xxx. 2). These accounts probably go back to Hegesippus, ef. Forsch, vi.269f. The time was the year 66 at the earliest, 69 at the latest. Josephus (Bell. ii. 20, 1, iv. 6.3; Ant. xx. 11.1) also says that many Jews fled from Jerusalem for fear of Zealot rule and of siege ; and in Bell. ‘iv. 6. 3 end, vi. 5. 3, tells of prophecies old and new announcing the city’s fall. 4. (P. 573.) It is needless to say that under certain circumstances πέραν τοῦ ‘lopdavov=j119 729 can denote the west side of the Jordan, namely, when it is clear from the connection of a narrative, or from an express statement, that the speaker’s standpoint is east of the Jordan (Deut. iii. 25). But it is just this condition which Matt. xix. 1 does not present. The term can be understood, therefore, only in its invariable, technically geographical sense, a fully established usage in the N.T. period, especially where two other sec- tions of the Holy Land are mentioned at the same time; cf. Mishnah, Baba Bathra iii, 2 ; Shebiith ix. 2, 53m jrinagyyapm. So Pliny, H. N. v. 14.70, Perea along with Galilea and reliqua Judea, from which Perea is separated by the Jordan. In Josephus, regularly ἡ Περαία, Bell. i. 30. 3, iii. 3, 3, and less frequently ἡ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Ant. xii. 4.9 end. So, also, unquestion- ably the substantive adverbial phrase Matt. iv. 25 (iv. 15) and the simple adverbial phrase everywhere in those Gospels which were written neither east nor west of the Jordan (Mark iii. 8, x. 1; John 1. 28, iii. 26, x. 40). The idea that Matt. departed here from his own usage and set πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου as an attribute to ra ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας, thereby indicating his east-of-the-Jordan standpoint, is to be dismissed for this further reason also, that he nowhere else found it necessary to give his Palestinian readers such information with regard to the divisions of the country. Again, it would be impossible to speak of a part of Judea as situated across the Jordan, for this would require the article before mépay, and would be an incompre- hensible error, not to be explained by Ptolem. Geogr. v. 16.9. Ptolemy did not know the term Perea at all, but divided Palestine, or Judea in the wider sense (y. 9. 1), exclusive of the coast towns (8 2), into the districts of Galilee, Samaria, Judea (including Perea), and Idumea, Everyone knows that designations of locality with eis by no means denote invariably the place into which, but very often the point toward which the motion is directed (Matt. xvi. 21, xvii. 27, xx, 17, xxi. 1), and everyone might know that in such connections ἔρχεσθαι means “go” as well as “come” (cf. Matt. xvi. 5, and above, p. 505, n. 7). What Matthew says, then, is this: Jesus left Galilee and journeyed to Judea (choosing of the two possible routes the one) east of the Jordan. Mark x. 1 means the same thing, but expresses it still more clumsily, mentioning first the main goal of the journey, and then connecting the nearer and less important objective with the other by means of καί (“ and, indeed, first of all”), 5. (Ὁ, 573.) Acting upon a suggestion of Grotius (i. 454) with regard to Matt. xxiii. 35 (already Lightfoot, Opp., ed. Rotterdam, 1686, ii. 361, had rejected this view which had been widely accepted), many even down to the present time have ventured the assertion that the author or redactor or trans- lator of Matt. made the Zachariah here intended—the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22), as he is correctly called im the corresponding passage in the Gospel of the Hebrews (Jerome in Matt. xxiii. 35, Vall. vii. 190; ef. GK, ii, 695)—into a son of Barachiah, in order to identify him with the Zachariah 590 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT who, according to Jos. Bell. iv. 5. 4, was murdered by the Zealots. This ie attributing a senseless piece of folly to the editor, who must have said to himself that at most Jesus might have foretold this deed. The name of the father of that Zachariah, mentioned by Josephus, is very uncertainly reported. Niese writes it Bapeıs, and we find besides, Bapırkalov and Bapovxov, but not Βαραχίου. The scene of the event is given merely as ev μέσῳ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. The designation of the place in Matt. xxiii. 35 points to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21 (LXX, ἐν αὐλῇ οἴκου κυρίου). The martyr death of a righteous man and a prophet, recorded in the last historical book of the O.T., corresponds with the murder of Abel reported in its first book ; ef. Gen. iv. 10 with 2 Chron. xxiv, 22. The mistake of our Matt. in calling him the son of Barachiah is due to a confusion of the martyr of 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 ff. with the prophet Zechariah, i. 1 (ef. Isa. viii: 2?; 2 Chron. xxvi. 5?) as it also appears in the Targum to Lam. ii. 20; ef. ZKom. Matt. 649 ; Lightfoot, ii. 362 ; and concerning other instances of confusion in respect of these persons, Fürst, Kanon des AT’s, S. 44; Hamburger, RE, i. 887. For the fable identifying the Zachariah of Matt. xxiii. 35 with that of Luke i. 5 ff. (Protev. of James, xxiii. xxiv.), cf. GK, ii. 695, 711f. 776f. Berendts, Studien über Zacharias-apokryphen u. Zachariaslegenden, 1895, gives a more detailed account, not all of which, however, is beyond dispute. 6. (P. 573.) F.L. Sieffert, Ueber den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Ev. 1832, and M. Schneckenburger under the same title, 1834, have already stated with measurable fulness what seems to weigh against the apostolic authorship of Matt. Mistakes with regard to the political history, at points where it comes in contact with the Gospel story, would not furnish sufficient ground for assuming that the author must have been somewhat widely removed in time or place from the events recorded. The historical trustworthiness of the narratives in Matt. ii. 1-18, xvii. 1-13 (cf. Mark ix. 2-10; 2 Pet. i. 16-18), xvii. 24-27, xxvii. 51-53, xxviii. 11-15, cannot be investigated here. It is unthinkable that a Christian in Palestine should have invented the Jewish explanation of Jesus’ resurrection (xxviii. 15) and the Jewish insinuations to which he replies in chaps, i. ii. ; and it will be impossible also to discover any middle ground between the Jewish and the Christian estimate of the beginning and the close of Jesus’ life. If the word βασιλεύει is used of Archelaus in ii. 22, although he had simply the rank of ethnarch and the royal title in expectation only (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11.4; Bell. ii. 6. 3), Josephus himself, notwithstanding that he is the source of this very information, does the same thing (Vita, 1); in fact, he calls him βασιλεύς outright, Ant, xviii. 4. 3; cf. above, p. 503, n. 3. If the name Philip were authentic in Matt. xiv. 3, we should have there the same confusion with another brother of Herod Antipas named Herod that actually occurs in Mark vi. 17 (ef. Schiirer, i. 435 [Eng. trang. τ. i. 401 f.]) ; but it is most improbable that the MSS. (D and important Latin witnesses) which left the name unquestioned in Mark vi. 17 should have erased it in Matt. xiv. 3 for reasons of historical erudition. Rather have they preserved the original, while the great body of MSS. and versions (also Ss) have interpolated the mistaken name here (and many of them in Luke iii. 19 also) from Mark vi. 17. Mark alone is open to the charge of being somewhat leas familiar than Josephus with the complicated relationships and scandals of the Herodian family. Matt. xvii. 24-27 is THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τοὶ intelligible only in a work written before the year 70, see above, p. 552 f. The gist of the narrative in xxvii. 51-53 is confirmed by the statements of two Jewish contemporaries of Matthew, independent of each other and of him ; ef. the writer’s article, “Der zerrissene Tempelvorhang,” NKZ, 1902, S. 729-756. It has been argued against the authenticity of Matt. xxviii. 19 and against the apostolic authorship of the first Gospel, that according to Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x. 48, xix. 5, ef. 1 Cor. i. 13-15, vi. 11, believers in the early apostolic times were baptized into or in the name of Christ, not into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. But these passages do not give a formula used in Church baptism any more than Gal. iii. 27 or Rom. vi. 3 (ef. 1 Cor. x. 2, xii. 13), and, on the other hand, in Matt. xxviii. 19 the use of the threefold name in administering baptism is not commanded. In the Didache we find a reference to Christians as οἱ βαπτισθέντες eis ὄνομα κυρίου (ix. 5) along with the trinitarian formula (vii. 1,3). Why should the oecur- rence of this phrase of the Didache in the time of Paul or Acts disprove the use of the trinitarian formula, or its origin from a saying of Jesus in refer- ence to baptism? That arbitrary assumption deprives us of an explanation for the other trinitarian formulas in the N.T. (2 Cor. xiii. 13 [Eng. 14]; Rev. i. 4f.). Nor is it strange (ef. John xvii. 3) that precisely in such a formula as this Jesus should have spoken of Himself thus objectively as the Son without qualification (cf. Matt. xi. 27). Against the attempt of Conybeare, Z/NTTh, S. 275 ff., to prove that the trinitarian formula is a late interpolation in the text of Matt. xxviüi. 19, ef. ZKom. Matt. 718. 7. (P. 576.) Such sentences as xix. 1-3, καὶ ἐγένετο, ὅτε... . nernpev . καὶ ἦλθεν... Kal ἠκολούθησαν. . . καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν... καὶ προσ- nAdov, are not common in Matt. According to the Concordance, the use of δέ is about as frequent as in Luke, and twice as frequent as in Mark, and pev— de considerably more common than in Luke, and decidedly more so than in Mark. It is quite noteworthy that the asyndetic use of λέγει, λέγουσιν, so frequent all through John, does not occur at all in Matt. i.-xviii. (for in viii. 7, as also in vill. 4, 20, 26, ix. 9, καὶ λέγει has quite the preponderance of evidence), whereas it is found in rapid succession in xix. 7, 8, 10, 20, 21 (ἔφη), xx. 7 (twice), 23, 33, xxi. 31 (twice), 41, xxii. 21, 43; also in xxvi. 25, 64, xxvii. 22. The construction and order, ἐγερθεὶς δὲ Ἰωσήφ. . . ἐποίησεν, oceurs repeatedly, i. 24, ii. 3, viii. 8, 10, 14, 18, ete. (cf. Gersdorf, Beiträge zur Sprachcharacteristik, 90 f.) ; also without mentioning the subject by name, ii. 10-12, 22, iv. 12, 18, v. 1, and in other cases than the nominative, karaßavrı δὲ αὐτῷ . . . ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ, Vili. 1, 23 ; εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ... mpoc- nAdev αὐτῷ, viii. 5, 28. Cases of the genitives absolute followed by ἰδού are not infrequent, i. 20, ii. 1, 13, 19, ix. 10, 18, 32, xii. 46, xvii. 5, xxviii. 11, and it is noticeable that the formula occurs repeatedly in some passages and then again is quite absent. 'The commonest formula for the continuation of the narrative is τότε, which is used in Matt. some ninety times in all. This usage is quite unknown to Mark, nor is it exactly paralleled in Luke and John, for in Luke xi. 26, xiv. 21, xxi. 10, xxiv. 15, τότε signifies “at that moment,” immediately after the occurrence of what has just been related, 1.6. in reality, “thereupon” ; so also τότε οὖν in John xix. 1, 16, xx. 8. Matt. also, to be sure, uses the word sometimes to denote immediate sequence, ii. 7, 16, iii. 15, iv. 1, 5, 10, 11, ix. 6, 14, but very often, also, as an indefinite term 592 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT for approximate correspondence in time, where there is no single preceding incident which leads up to the account that follows, iii. 5, 13, xii, 22, xv. 1, xx. 20, xxiii. 1, xxvi. 3, 14, so that the phrase does not differ appreciably from ἐν ἐκείνῳ TO καιρῷ, Xi. 25, xii. 1, xiv. 1.. This latter expression, which is not found elsewhere in the N.T, (cf., however, Acts xii. 1), is confined in Matt. itself within narrow limits. Semitic scholars may decide whether the Aramaic pix, with and without j2 or 3, does not after all underlie τότε and ἀπὸ τότε (iv. 17, xvi. 21, xxvi. 16; elsewhere in the N.T. only Luke xvi. 16), as in the LXX, for example, Ezra v. 16; ef. Dalman, Gr.? S. 213 (different from lte Aufl. S. 169) and the lexicons under px, jy. The participial construc- tions just mentioned give the style a more pleasing effect as compared with that of Mark, but may also create the impression of a closer connection in time and occurrence than was intended by the original. If in viii. 5, 14, xii. 9, for example, the narrative were carried forward simply in independent clauses connected by «ai, as in xix. 1-3, it would not seem that the last inei- dent related was immediately connected with that mentioned just before, or even fell on the same day. 8. (P. 577.) With regard to Hosanna and the root pw see vol. i. 21. Delitzsch translates Matt. 1. 21, yw map yw. Cf. the explanation of the change of name Hoshea-Joshua, Num. xiii. 16, in Sota, 34) (qywyr m), and also in the Midrash on the passage (translated by Wünsche, 8. 418). Cf. still other passages in Jastrow, 6015, 751b. The fact that in the Talmud the name of Jesus of Nazareth is constantly given in the mutilated form sw, while others of the same name are always written yw, serves to mar that καλὸν ὄνομα (Jas. ii. 7) whose literal meaning was understood by every Jew ; ef. ZKom. Matt. 76, A. 48, 49. 9. (Pp. 577, 578.) Matthew contents himself with the Greek term where Mark has attached it as a translation to the Aramaic original ; Matt. xv. 5, ef. Mark vii. 11; Matt. xxvi. 39, cf. Mark xiv.36. Mark vii. 34 has no parallel in Matt., and Matt. ix. 25 corresponds but partially to Mark v. 41. Here, too, we note that Matt. uses ὁ διάβολος, iv. 1, 5, 8, 11, xiii. 39, xxv. 41; ὁ πειράζων, iv. 3; ὁ πονηρός, xiii. 19,38, where Mark in the parallel passages, so far as there are such, has σατανᾶς, i. 13, iv. 15. Inconsistently, the latter appears also in Matt, xii. 26, xvi. 23. In this case the Greek translation was not needed. On the other hand, the. necessary Greek interpretations, which cannot have been found in the original, are introduced in Matt. xxvii. 46 just as in Mark xy. 34. Perhaps also xxvii. 83=Mark xv. 22. The explanation in i. 23 might also be an addition by the Greek translator, although the cor- responding statement may equally well have stood in the Aramaic original, since Immanuel was a Hebrew name whose Aramaic interpretation would not sound absolutely tautological. The name of the city Jerusalem must also be mentioned here. Like Strabo, pp. 759-762 ; Ptolem. v. 16. 8, viii. 20. 18; Josephus, Tacitus, and others, Mark (ten times—also xi. 1) and John (twelve times) use only (τὰ) Ἱεροσόλυμα, and never Ἱερουσαλήμ. The latter genuinely national form, which seemed to Aristotle (in Jos. c. Apion. i. 22. 7) an ὄνομα πάνυ σκολιόν, is used by Paul, Gal. iv. 25, 26, in elevated theological discourse, alongside of the Hellenised form in the simple narra- tive, Gal. i. 17, 18, ii. 1. Similar is the use of -λημ in Rev, along with -Avua in John. In the diseourses of Jesus and others, Luke writes always THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 593 “Anp (xiii. 33, 34, xxili. 28, xxiv. 18, 47; also certainly xviii, 31), and so also in Acts, with the exception of Paul’s addresses before a Gentile audience in Cesarea, xxv. 15, 24, xxvi. 4, 10,20. It should be noted in this connection that in Mark the name does not occur in a discourse of Jestis and in John only once (iv. 21), and that with Luke, as with Paul, -Anp is much commoner than -Avua, the latter occurring in Luke only four times, and -Anp twenty-six or twenty-seven times, and irregularly interchanged (cf. Luke ii. 22, 43, xix. 11, 28). Matt., on the other hand, has Ἱεροσόλυμα throughout (eleven times, including words of Jesus, v. 35, xx. 18), except in xxiii. 37=Luke xiü. 34, Ἱερουσαλήμ. Whoever traces this exception to a source used by Matthew here, but not in v. 35, xx. 18, ought also to divide Gal. between two writers, and would have to refer the alternation of terms in Luke’s two books to similar causes. The real reason, however, for the change is easy to understand ; even in Matt. -Ann was better suited to the solemn declaration of xxiii. 37 ; and, besides, in this address to a personified Jerusalem (ἡ ämorreivovoa . . . τὰ τέκνα σου), the form (ra) Ἱεροσόλυμα would have been very inconvenient rhetorically ; likewise for Paul, where he represents Jerusalem as mother. The translator would not care needlessly to repeat the awkward treatment of the Greek form as a feminine singular, iil. 3 (along with neuter plural, ii. 1) and perhaps iii, 5 (where, however, πᾶσα is a spurious addition). He might have used -Anu everywhere in Jesus’ discourses, as Luke did. But the Greek form is more easily declined (v. 35), and directly after xx. 17 -λημ in xx. 18 would have been forced. And, finally, what translator is ever consistent in such matters ? 10. (P. 578.) The traces of Hebrew or Aramaic originals in Matt. and in the Gospels generally were investigated as early as Michaelis, Einl. 982- 1003, and Eichhorn, Einl.2 i. 510-530. Cf. the bibliography, vol. i, 14 ἢ. It requires a better knowledge of the Aramaie dialeet than the present writer possesses, and more caution than others have shown, to arrive at trustworthy conclusions in this matter. Merely by way of example, and without elaiming originality for the observations, the following illustrations are adduced in addition to the remarks above, p. 577 ff., and in nn. 7-9, 12: (1) iii. 15, πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην, can mean nothing else than πᾶν dixaiwpa=every legal requirement or ordinance. Now, as the LXX translates npıs and wavy without fixed distinction by δικαιοσύνη (which stands, besides, also for prs, nox, Aram. 131, Dan. vi. 23, ete.), as well as by δικαίωμα (which also represents pn, ms», etc.), it would seem that yawn, or rather one of its Aramaic equivalents, underlay Matt. iii. 15. As such equivalents we may mention xm, Targ. Onk. Ex. xxi. 1, 31; Num. xv. 16; Deut. vii. 11, 12; also Targ. 1 Sam. viii. 3; Isa. xlii. 1, 2 (LXX and Matt. xii. 18, 20, κρίσις), sows or xDD (νόμος), 1 Sam. ii. 18, viii. 9, 11; Ποῖ. xx. 25; especially, however, xnasa, Onk. Er. xxi. 9. (2) Since δικαιοσύνη in the LXX not infrequently stands for nox (Redpath’s Concordance gives seven instances), to which Dwp, Kbrnp corre- sponds in Aramaic, the phrase ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, xxi. 32, which is unnatural as Greek, and unusual in conception as well, is to be explained as a literal translation of wwp nxz, Onk. Gen. xxiv. 48 (LXX, ἐν ὁδῷ ἀληθείας) ; cf. Matt. xxi. 16; but ef. also Prov. viii. 20 in original, Targ., and LXX, (3) Since apis and xnprs, like the Syr. xnpn also, acquired the meaning of charity, alms, which led even the LXX to translate the first-named nine or VOL, II. 38 594 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ten times by ἐλεημοσύνη (ef. also Clem. Strom. vii. 69, ἡ ἕξις ἡ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν» μεταδοτικὴ δικαιοσύνη λέγεται, and Acts x. 2 with x. 35), we have eonstantly to consider whether δικαιοσύνην (vi. 1), if it is the true reading, may not represent this Aramaic word in the sense of ἐλεημοσύνην, and whether the very early variants of this saying do not finally go back to the time when the Aramaic Matt. was still translated orally in these various ways: N*BD Ss (this latter, also, distinguishing clearly between vi. land vi. 2), τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑμῶν. Se “your gifts,” cf. Ephr. en Epist. Pauli, p. 74, dona vestra; Na τὴν δόσιν ὑμῶν, S! and the later Greek authorities, τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην ὑμῶν. (4) In Aramaic, 8729 means servant; x73%, (x17%y, ΝῊ ΔΨ, anı'2y fem.), work, act. Con- sequently the Syriac translator of Clem. 1 Cor. xxxix., or one of his copyists, has rendered 129 by ἔργων instead of παίδων (Lightfoot, St. Clement, i. 138, ii. 119). Lagarde, in his Agathangelos (Abh. der gött. Ak. 1889, xxxv. 128), commenting upon the variants, Matt. xi. 19, ἔργων ; Luke vii. 35, τέκνων, recalls Orig. Hom. xiv. 5 in Jerem. (Delarue, iii. 211 ; an earlier commentator, he says, understood by the “mother” in Jer. xv. 10, Wisdom, ra δὲ τέκνα τῆς σοφίας Kai ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ἀναγέγραπται “Kal ἀποστέλλει ἡ σοφία ra τέκνα αὐτῆς," ef. Luke xi. 49). If ἔργων is the original reading in Matt. xi. 19, it is then the correct rendering of the Aramaic word spoken by Jesus (see ZKom. Matt. 431 f. in contradiction of the Ist and 2nd editions of the Einlei- tung). Luke, or rather the earliest authority for the tradition, which Luke followed, heard and spoke abdeh (your servants), instead of abadeh (your works). He thought of wisdom as a person ; cf. Luke xi. 49, and found in this passage the children of the divine wisdom contrasted with the capricious children of that generation. Instead of the more exact παῖδες (servants, ef. Matt. xiv. 2; Luke i. 54, xii. 45), he chose τέκνα, having in mind, doubtless, such Wisdom passages as Prov. i. 8, ii. 1, xxxi. 2; Sir. ii. 1. He might equally well have said υἱοί (cf. John xii. 36 with Eph. v. 8). (5) If the Gospel of the Hebrews has preserved the original form of the fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer as it was offered from the beginning by Aramaic-speaking Christians (Lat. “panem nostrum crastinum da nobis hodie,” GK, ii. 693, 709 f., recently confirmed anew, Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 2. 262), we have a sub- stantially correct translation of it in Matt. vi. 11; ἐπιούσιος is derived from ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, sc. ἡμέρα. But Matthew’s phrase is not a natural one, for the proper antithesis to σήμερον is αὔριον, ποῦ ἡ ἐπιοῦσα. ‘The latter denotes the day next following, as reckoned from whatever day may have been previously mentioned (Acts xvi. 11, xx. 15, xxi. 18; ef. vii. 26, xxiii. 11). Hence it is approximately used in Luke xi. 3 in contrast with τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, but in- appropriately by Matthew, who might more properly have written τὸν τῆς αὔριον or eis τὴν αὔριον instead of τὸν ἐπιούσιον. Observe that Greek, like German (and English), has no proper equivalent for crastinus (but cf. Pape under aöpıos, and Heyne, Deutsche Wörterbuch, ii. 867, under “morgend”). Of. ZKom. Matt. 275 ff. The wording of the Greek Matt. can be explained only on the supposition that the translation was influenced, not direetly by the Gospel of Luke, but by the Church usage of those regions where the Lord’s Prayer was customarily spoken in the form which Luke has preserved. Here, then, we have strong evidence that our Greek Matt. is (a) a translation ; (b) a translation made in the Greek Gentile Church ; (0) a translation not always felicitous, but in its intent exceedingly faithful. It has not sub THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 598 stituted traditions of a later time or other localities for the original, but has translated the Lord’s Prayer just as the Jewish Christians said it in J erusalem, Kokaba, or Bercea about 60-70 a.p., and even down to about 400. (6) The saying, Matt. v. 34-37, yields no other meaning than: “Thstead of using all manner of oaths, let your speech be confined to a double Yea or Nay.” One might compare the reduplicated ἀμήν of Jesus Himself in the Fourth Gospel, and the vai, ἀμήν of Rev. i. 7, ef. xxii. 20. It-would be less strange that Christians should thus emphasise their affirmations and denials than that, in spite of the Sermon on the Mount, they should take oaths and, as in Paul’s case, use other strong forms of assertion as well ; yet it is hardly thinkable that, in the very connection where he declared all περισσόν in the attestation of truth to be a consequence of evil,and therefore unworthy of the sons of God, Jesus should have recommended a reduplication of the Yea and Nay which in itself is needless. If we compare the saying in Jas. v. 12 (which can hardly be independent of Matt. v. 37, if the latter really originated with Jesus) and other citations of Jesus’ words which correspond with Jas. v. 12 (Just. Apol. i. 16; Clem. Strom. v. 99 [al. 100], vii. 67; Clem. Hom. xix. 2; Epiph. Her. xix. 6), we must give the preference to the form ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ val, καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ. This seems the more certain, since it accords with an actual Jewish idiom. Jesus had eited Lev. xix. 12; on Lev. xix. 36 the Talmud (Baba Mezia, 49a) makes the exegetically impossible comment, “ That thy yea may be a true (yea) and thy nay a true (nay).” Cf. Midrash on Ruth iii. 18 (Wiinsche’s trans. 8S. 53), and several similar passages in Levy, i. 465; Jastrow, 348, 365, under yn, jn=yes. Jesus doubtless said rs, cf. Levy i. 67; Dalman, Gr.? 223; also Paul, the Pharisee, assumes in 2 Cor. i. 17-20 that the yea must be ἃ real yea, and not nay at the same time. The original of Matt. v. 37 need not have been absolutely identical with the original of Jas. v.12; ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν suggests some such form as “let your yea-saying be a yea,” etc. Jas. v. 12 may have had an influence in spreading the uncanonical form of the saying (GK, i. 323, A. 2). But we must reckon also here with the possibility that forms of much-quoted sayings which date from the time of the oral translation of Matt. were preserved in Church use till Justin’s time or beyond it. (7) With regard to the use of participles in the N.T., it must always be remembered that in Aramaic, as in Hebrew, these forms are entirely timeless. A noteworthy example is Matt. v. 10, where the context makes it impossible that those should be called blessed who have survived a persecution, so that δεδιωγμένοι stands for διωκόμενοι. Polycarp (baptized in 69), who writes the latter form (ad Phil. ii.), might have heard in his youth some interpreter who did his work better than the Greek Matt. Perhaps a participle underlies the äprı ἐτελεύτησεν of ix. 18, which Luke’s authority rendered more satisfactorily by the imperfect ἀπέθνησκεν (viii. 42) ; cf. Matt. v.23. We might point also to ζητοῦντες for ζητήσαντες, ii. 20, and the uncertain interchange of παραδούς and παραδιδούς, X. 4, xxvi. 25, 46, xxvil.3,4. If the very common use of the partieipial constructions (see above, τι. 7) seems on superficial observation to give to the style of Matthew a more distinctively Greek impress, in comparison with the stronger Hebraistic character of Mark and also John, then the hand of a translator, who seeks to avoid the monotony of the Semitic narrative style by employing the correct Greek expression, is betrayed in the immoderate use of this construction in 596 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the resultant awkwardness of expression (concerning xiv. 6, see ZKom. Matt 504, A. 79), and in the consequent obseuring of the facts. Im ὀψὲ σαββάτων, xxviii. 1, which appears strange to us, Eus. Quest. ad Marin (Mai, Nova Patr. Bibl. iv. 1. 255 ff.), and Jerome, Epist. exx. 4 ad Hedib., think they have dis- covered a mistake of the translator ; but it corresponds to later Greek usage (cf. ZKom. Matt. 710, A. 1). For possible Hebrew or Aramaic equivalents, cf. Lightfoot, Opp. ii. 389; on the other hand, however, Dalman, Gr.1 197, and positively @r.? 247. 11. (Pp. 579, 580.) As to the pardonable error in xxiii. 35, see above, p. 589, n. 5. Matt. ii. 23 is not an error on the part of the evangelist (see above, p. 568, n. 7). The Gospel of the Hebrews, or, as Jerome calls it in Vir. Ill. iii. and elsewhere, the ipswm Hebraicum of Matt., also contained the words quoniam Nazareus vocabitur, and, as one must infer from Jerome’s silence in the passage where this is mentioned, introduced the alleged eitation with no different formula. The learned but mistaken conjecture of certain Hebrew Christians, whose guidance Jerome followed (Comm. in Jes. xi. 1, Vallarsi, iv. 155; cf. Comm. in Mt. ii. 23, Vall. vii. 17), that the passage presents a citation from Isa. xi. 1, is not to be imputed to the redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews some 250 years earlier. There is a mistake in Matt. xiii. 35, in that Ps. lxxviii. 2 (entitled a psalm of Asaph) is cited as τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου. The genuineness of Ἡσαΐου (wrongly placed in Tisch. ed. 8) is attested by N* min. 1, 13, 124 (these two belonging to the Ferrar group), 33, 253 ; and, further, many MSS. seen by Eusebius (Montf. Coll. nova, i. 462) and Jerome (in Mt. xiii. 35, Vall. vii. 94), and especially by its offensiveness, which would be the more keenly felt because Porphyry had made use of it to prove Matthew’s ignorance (as shown by the Breviar. in Psalmos under Jerome’s name, which is now proved to be genuine in this portion ; see Anecd. Maredsol. iii, 2. 60). When Eus. loc. ett. maintains that in the accurate MSS., and Jerome in Mt. that in the vulgata editio, the name Isaiah is wanting, it only indicates the early date of the emendation, which is apparent also from its wide attestation (add Ss, Se, and Clem. Hom. xviii. 15), Jerome conjectured (Comm. in Mt.) that “ Asaph” was originally written, then exchanged by an early copyist for the better known name of the prophet Isaiah, and finally that the mistaken emendation was set aside again by the deletion of the name. This supposition is valueless, but still it is better than the bold assertion in Breviar. p. 59f., that all the old MSS. of Matt. read in Asaph propheta, which was altered by stupid persons. Since Jerome nowhere appeals to the Gospel of the Hebrews to establish the original text of Matt. xiii. 35, we must infer that the error was found there also, and, furthermore, that the reading which in substance is incorrect was the original one, The same is true of Matt. xxvii. 9, where one would look for a refer- ence to Zechariah rather than to Jeremiah. If the former had appeared in the Gospel of the Hebrews, it would be hard to explain not only the silence of those familiar with that book, who diseussed the problem of Matt. xxvii. 9, namely, Orig. Comm. in Mt. (Lat.), Delarue, iii. 916; Eus. Demonstr. x. 4. 13 ; Jerome in Mt. p. 228; Breviar. p. 60f., but especially the appearance of an apocryphal Hebrew or Aramaic Book of Jeremiah, containing word for word the quotation which is not to be found in the canonical Jer. Because the Gospel of the Hebrews also assigned the words in Matt. xxvii. 9 to Jeremiah, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 597 the Nazarenes fabricated the apocryphal book, or booklet, which they showed to Jerome; cf. his Comm. in Mt. xxvii. 9, and GK, ii. 696f. The only instance in which the Gospel of the Hebrews evidently corrects a mistake due to imperfect knowledge of the O.T. is Matt. xxiii. 35; see above, p. 589, n. 5; GK, ii. 711f. The incorrect forms of the names in i, 5, 7, 8 (see fol- lowing note) are due probably to the translator, not to the author. 12. (P. 579.) Eusebius (on Ps. Ixxviii.—ef. above, p. 528) explained the variation of citations in Matt. from the text of the LXX on the ground that the Hebrew Matthew made use of the Hebrew O.T. Jerome’s opinion was that both Matthew and John in their Gospels quoted directly from the Hebrew original without reference to the LXX (Comm. in Osee xi. 1; in Isaiam vi. 9, ix. 1; Prol. in Pentat., Vall. iv. 97, 128, vi. 123, ix. 3), and he appealed in proof of his opinion to the supposed Hebrew original of Matt. in the library at Czsarea, 1.6. to the Gospel of the Hebrews (Vir. Ill. iii. ; cf. GK, ii. 697f.). The view to which exception is taken on p. 579 was first developed by Bleek, Beiträge zur Evangelienkritik, 1846, S. 57f. Since then the matter has been repeatedly discussed without convincing results. Anger, “Ratio qua loci VTi in ev. Matt. laudantur, quid valeat ad illus- trandam huius ev. originem,” parts i.-ii., Leipziger Programme of 1861 and 1862, collated the material most thoroughly. The hypothesis defended by Bohl (Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit J. esu, 1873 ; cf. his Atl Citate im NT, 1878), that in Jesus’ time there was an Aramaic translation of the O.T. dependent on the Greek LXX, and that this was used by Jesus and the apostles (by the latter in conjunetion with the LXX), would have thrown everything into confusion, if anyone had accepted it. The comparison of Matthew’s quotations with the LXX is made more difficult by the fact that in those MSS. of the latter which were transcribed by Christian hands, especially the Cod. Alex., the O.T. text has frequently been altered to corre- spond with the wording of the citation in the N.T. Moreover, also, the text of the citations in Matt. is in many passages by no means certain. It remains to be proved whether it be allowed, as the present writer has sought to prove in detail (ZKom. Matt. 474 ff.), that the citation in xiii. 140-15 originally consisted only of the words: πάχυνε τὴν καρδίαν τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν βάρυνε καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν κάμμυε, or that the incor- rect forms of the names Ioßnd (for Ωβηδ), i. 5, Αβιουδ (Αβια), i. 7, Ασαφ (Aca), i. 7f., Ayos (Αμων), i. 10, were original in the Greek Matt. (see ZKom. Matt. 57-61). The familiarity of the one, who gave Matt. its present Greek form, with the LXX is very evident. Just as clear, however, is his relation to the Hebrew text of the O.T.—a relation which was not brought about by the LXX or by any other known Greek translation whatsoever, This double relation, which can be accurately determined in a single instance, is also on that account an extremely complicated task, since Matthew gives many and especially the more extended citations with great freedom, in order to make the text serve the purpose of its use, for example, ii. 6, iv. 15f., xi. 10, xii. 18-21, xiii. 14-15 (see above), xxii. 24, xxvi. 31, xxvii. 9, The erroneous reference of the citation in xiii. 35 to Isaiah instead of to Asaph—the composer of Ps. Ixxviii.—as of that in xxvii. 9 to Jeremiah instead of to Zechariah (see above, No, 11), proves that the author, at least in these cases, had consulted neither a Greek nor a Hebrew Bible, but had trusted hig 598 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT memory. Accordingly, it is probable that in many other, if not in ah instances, the author’s memory of Bible passages, frequently heard or read, was the source of his citations. The present writer feels that he must here forego a complete presentation of the list of eitations, and a comparison of them with the Hebrew text, the LXX, and the Targum, as he gave in the first and second editions of his Einleitung. A specific difference in respect of their relation to the original text and to the LXX cannot be shown be- tween those eitations through which the author desires to prove the agree- ment of prophecy with fulfilment (Class A), and the eitations given in the sayings of Jesus and other persons (Class B). To Class A belong, in their contents, i. 23 and ii. 5, although, according to their form, an angel speaks in i. 23, and the Sanhedrin in ii. 5. Translations, made independently of the LXX from the Hebrew, or an Aramaic original, are found not only in Class A (ii. 15, viii. 17, xxvii. 9), but also in Class B (xi. 10, xxvi. 31; οὗ also x. 36=Mic. vii. 6); furthermore, clear traces of a consideration of a Hebrew or Aramaic text appear in Class A (ii. 5, 18, xii. 18-20, xiii. 35); but also in Class B (xi. 29=Jer. vi. 16; and in the order of the Decalogue, xix. 18, ef. v. 21, 27 ; ZKom. Matt. 590, A. 65). Likewise, essential depend- ence upon the LXX is shown in Class B (e.g. iv. 6, 7, 10), but also in Class A (i. 23, iii. 2). As translator of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, Matt. is characterised by several transcriptions of Hebrew personal names at vari- ance with the Greek tradition ; for example, Payaß, i. 5 (ann=Paaß in LXX, everywhere, and without variants, Jas. ii. 25; Heb. xi. 31; Clem. 1 Cor. xii. ; in Jos. Ant. v. 1, 2, 5, 7, Paaßn, here, to be sure, with the variant read- ing Paxaßn). Further discussion of this subject, and consideration of the absolutely incorrect forms of names, which are possible only on the part of a translator, are to be found ZKom. Matt. 57-61. All the facts in the case are most easily explained by the presupposition, which is offered by the tra- dition and confirmed by a series of observations independent of it (above, pp. 573 f., 593), that our Matt. is a translation of an Aramaic writing, in which latter the O.T. eitations and allusions were often given in a very free Aramaic form ; and that the Greek translator was guided partly by an eflort to give a true rendering of his text, and partly by his memory of the LXX, especially of the sayings most frequently used by the Christians about him, or already introduced into Greek Gospels which were known to him. He freed himself more or less from the influence of the LXX familiar to him : (1) im passages where, through dependence on it, the thought of the Aram. Matt., expressed in a free form of the citation, would be obliterated, or the purpose of the citation made of none effect ; (2) where, on account of a lacking, or unclear, or incorrect statement of the source, the passage cited could not easily have been found, even if he had looked for it. 13. (P. 581.) With regard to doublets, we have first to notice that Matthew is fond of repeating the same formula like a refrain: five times, καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, Vil. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 58, xix. 1, xxvi. 1; five or six times, ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, V. 21, 27, (31), 33, 38, 43 ; the opening and conclusion of the Beatitudes with the same phrase, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” v. 3, 10; the repetition of the words xix. 30 and xx. 16 at the beginning and end of the parables (Mark x. 31; Luke xiii. 30—once each, but in an entirely different connection in Luke) ; THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 3599 also xxiv. 42, xxv. 13; cf., further, above, p. 567, note 6. Moreover, the repetition of a maxim, whether it be original or derived from the O.T. or from the popular proverbial philosophy, is not of itself a sign that discourses are not trustworthily recorded. As Paul repeatedly made use of such sayings in letters separated by some interval of time (Gal. v. 9=1 Cor. v. 6; 1 Cor. i. 31=2 Cor. x. 17; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 14=1 Tim. v. 18; 1 Cor. vi. 9f.=Gal. v. 19-21), so, too, Jesus may have used quotations like that in Matt. ix. 13 and xii. 7 (without parallels), or sayings like Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14, and in another connection, Matt. xxiii. 12, not only three but twenty times. The same applies to Matt. xiii. 12 (= Mark iv. 25) and xxv. 29, to Matt. xvii. 20 and xxi. 21 (= Mark xi. 23—Luke xvii. 6 is only related), and would apply to Matt. xx. 16b and xxii. 14 if xx. 16) were not to be omitted, with NBLZ, Orig. and the Egyptian versions; ef. ZKom. Matt. 600. As for the narrative sections, it is not in the least improbable that Matt. xii. 38-40 (= Luke xi. 29-30) and xvi. 1-4 (= Mark vii. 11-12) are different occurrences ; the re- quest for a sign came up more than once, according to other reports as well (John ii. 18, vi. 30, ef. vii. 3f.; Mark xv. 29f.; Matt. xxvii. 42f.; 1 Cor. i. 22). According to Matt., the request is made by different persons in the two instances, and in the second it is more precisely defined by ek τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Only the answer is in both instances the same, if the sentences of vv. 2b-3, which are connected with the word “heaven,” but are otherwise most original, are accepted. They are, to be sure, not to be considered as an interpolation from Luke xii. 54-56 because of a merely remote similarity to that passage, but rather as an early gloss, taken from a good source. Accordingly, if the narrative Mark viil. 11 ff. is to be considered more historically exact than Matt. xvi. 1-4, then the complete similarity of Matt. xii. 39 and xvi. 4 is not only a new proof of the great freedom with which Matthew shapes the dis- courses of Jesus, but especially also an example of his preference for the refrain (see beginning of this note). Also in content the answer of Jesus to the similar demand (Jolin ii. 19) is related to Matt. xvi. 1-4, and in form also in so far as Jesus uses in both the enigmatic saying (Mashal). With Matt. ix. 33 f.=xii. 22 f. the case is not quite the same. Since there is no chrono- logical connection between chap. ix. and chap. x., and between chap. xi. and chap. xii., it would not be inconceivable (so the present writer judged in the first and second edition) that Matthew should, in passing, touch upon a single, event as a conclusion of the sketches, viii. 18-ix. 34 (see n. 14), which are in time very closely connected, and then, moreover, should once again narrate the same event with more precision and detail (xii. 22f.) in a connection where it was of importance for describing the conflict with the Pharisees, The fact that in ix. 32f. the author tells about a dumb man, and in xii. 22 about a blind man who is also dumb, gives no warrant for distinguishing the narratives ; but just as little also for identifying them. If ix. 34 is to be omitted with DakSs, every reason for this disappears; for the words of the people, ix. 33, have nothing in common with xii. 23, and do not refer to the one deed of healing last mentioned, but to the entire chain of varied deeds and words in viii. 18-ix. 32; ef. ZKom. Matt. 385, 451 f. If the discourses Matt. v.-vii. and x. are in part free compositions of the author (above, p. 558f., then v. 29f. can be historically identical with xviii. 8f., v. 32 with xix. 9, x. 38f. with xvi. 24f. If, furthermore, one compares the 600 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT sentences x. 17-22, which do not suit the historical situation described in x. 5 (above, p. 558), with Mark xiii. 9-13 and Luke xxi. 12-19, where they are found in an historically probable connection, it can hardly be doubted that, when Matthew came to the passage (xxiv. 9-13) where these sentences historically belonged, he deliberately abbreviated them, in order not to repeat too much. There is no trace anywhere of an unconscious procedure based upon mechanical use of sources ; such a procedure, also, would be inconsistent with the thoughtful care to be observed in all parts of the book and the unity of just this Gospel. The remaining instance in which it might at first be suspected that a single incident had been doubled through ignorance of the facts and dependence on two varying narratives—the feeding of the five thousand and the feeding of the four thousand—is safeguarded against such suspicion by the occurrence of the same phenomenon in Mark, and by those discourses of Jesus, reported by Matthew and Mark, which refer to both occasions (see above, p. 582). 14. (P. 584.) On the place of viii. 18-ix. 34 in the plan of the Gospel, see above, p. 545. Cf. Hofmann, “Zwei Tage des Menschensohnes,” ZfPuK, xxii. (1851), S. 331 ff. Assuming the credibility of the express and careful statements of time and place in this section of Matt., the events make up a definitely ordered series, which may be extended from the accounts of Mark and Luke, but not corrected. According to Matt. xiii. 1, Jesus spoke the succeeding parables on the same day upon which the discourses and con- versations of xii. 23-50 fall. The change of place, xiii. 53, with which xiii. 54 is but loosely connected, is, according to Mark iv. 35, the same crossing of the Sea of Galilee at evening with which Matt. viii. 18 opens a new section. In Luke viii. 22, also, it has no immediate connection with anything that precedes. Further, the connection of Mark ii. 1-22, Luke v. 17-39 (= Matt. ix. 1-17), with the preceding and following context, is so entirely free that it argues nothing against the concatenation of the incidents in Matt. The passage viii. 18-ix. 34, then, is an account of a single day from one evening to the next, which followed immediately the day of the events and addresses in xii. 23-xill. 53; ef. ZKom. Matt. 344, A. ὃ. 15. (P. 585.) Mention has already been made (above, p. 590, n. 6) of individual instances of alleged lack of knowledge on Matthew’s part. Other criticisms have been based on a misunderstanding of his presentation of the subject. It is said that Matthew did not know what we learn, indeed only from Luke i. 26, ii. 4 (ef. John i. 45), that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth before Jesus’ birth. But there is no mention in i. 18-24 of the place of any of the events there recorded; and even the place of Christ’s birth (first referred to in i. 25) is not given there, but in ii. 1, where it leads up to the questions and answers ii. 2, 4-5. It is true no narrator proceeds in this fashion, whether the clumsy compiler of a “curriculum vite” which is to be presented to the examiners or read at a memorial service, or a master of the biographie art. But what this proves is only that Matthew had no inten- tion of writing either a good ora poor account of Jesus’ life for those who were not acquainted with it. The reader unfamiliar with the facts first discovers from ii. 23 that the Holy Family had close relations with Nazareth even before Jesus’ birth. This is presupposed by the choice of Nazareth as a residence from among the many villages of Galilee; for the angels com- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 601 manded only the return from Egypt to the “land of Israel.” Joseph’ reflection on the political situation prompted the choice of Galilee rather than Judeea, and the reason for the choice of Nazareth remains unstated. The reference to a fulfilment of prophecy is no substitute for it, for the divine counsel which is realised by the settlement in Nazareth is not announced to Joseph by man or by angel, but only by Matthew to his readers. § 57. THE RELATION OF MARK’S GOSPEL TO THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. The oldest tradition concerning the origin of the Gospels which we have found heretofore to be a trust- worthy guide shall be considered first, with reference also to the question of their relation to each other. According to the tradition, Matthew wrote before Mark, but there was no great interval intervening (above, p. 392 ff). In this case, if one used the work of the other, it must have been Mark who employed Matthew, not, however, the Greek translation, which was made considerably later than the time when Mark composed his Gospel (above, p. 516 ten but the Aramaic original. Of all the conjectures with regard to the relation between Mark and Matthew, only those of H. Grotius agree with the tradition (above, p. 422, n. 4). If it was possible for it to come into his possession, the Gospel of Matthew, written in his mother tongue, must have had the greatest interest for Mark, who was a native of Jerusalem. And it is inconceivable that he should have left it unread and made no use of Ib, if he had become acquainted with it before he had besun the composition of his own book. If the journey to Asia Minor, which Mark had in view at the time of Col, Iv. 10, was made in the interval between his first residence in Rome, of which we learn in this passage and in Philem. 24, and the second sojourn there, witnessed to by 1 Pet. v. 13 and the traditions as to the origin of his Gospel (above, p. 427 f.), there is nothing in the way of suppos- ing that this journey to the Rast was extended to include 602 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT a visit to his native city, and it is very probable that he returned from Jerusalem, or some other point in Palestine, to Rome in company with Peter in the autumn of 63 or the spring of 64. Since the tradition gives us nothing further with reference to the date of Matthew’s Gospel than that it was written earlier than Mark— which was begun at the earliest in the year 64—and that Matthew wrote his Gospel between 61 and 66; and since, moreover, nothing has appeared in either of the Gospels which proves that Matthew was composed after 61-63, or Mark before 64-70, there is no reason why Mark, on the occasion of his eastern journey in 62-63, should not have learned in Palestine of Matthew’s Gospel, which had been written shortly before. He might, therefore, have brought it back with him to Rome, and have used it shortly afterwards in the composition of his own Gospel. This conjecture would be raised to probability bordering on certainty, if it should appear that Mark is dependent upon an older document, which only resembles our Matthew. But it is at least equally probable that the Greek translator of Matthew was acquainted with Mark, which had appeared in the meantime, and used it, along with other helps, in the execution of his difficult task (above, p. 575 f,). Following the tradition, it is possible and probable, from the order in which the books in question originated (Aram. Matthew, Mark, Greek Matthew), that a rela- tion of mutual dependence exists between our Matthew and our Mark. Mark could have used the Aramaic Matthew, and the person who translated Matthew into Greek could have used Mark, The first would necessarily show itself chiefly in traces of dependence in content, the second in traces of dependence in form, Before entering upon the discussion of details, with regard to which there has been so much dispute, and with reference to which endless strife is possible, it may be advantageous to make several general statements, some THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND: ACTS 603 of which have been proved already, others of which are self-evident. (1) The employment of an older writing by Mark is not exeluded either by the tradition concern- ing the relation of Mark to Peter or the special occasion and purpose of his Gospel (above, pp. 440 ἢ, 501 f.). (2) Entire ignorance on the part of a later vere regarding earlier writings dealing with the same theme is rendered improbable by the constant intercourse which, in the apostolic age, bound all parts of the Church together, and by the difficulty of constructing a history of Jesus from the oral tradition alone, which would be in any degree systematic and free from contradiction. This would have been, of course, unlikely in the case of a dis- ciple of one of the apostles like Mark, and entirely so, if a rumour had reached him that shortly before an apostle had written a comprehensive book concerning the deeds and sayings of Jesus. (3) The number of those who believe that the extensive agreement between Matthew and Mark in single narratives and in whole series of narratives (n. 1) can be explained by the uniformity of the oral tradition, upon which both are dependent, will always be small. Comparison of Matthew with Luke proves that widely differing traditions existed together in the apostolic Church regarding the most important parts of the Gospel history. Notwithstanding the fact that the Lord’s Prayer was employed in the second century in parts of the Church most widely separated—by the Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians as well as by Marcionitic congregations and the catholic Church—certainly also frequently used as early as the apostolic age, it is reproduced in Matt. vi. 9 ff. and Luke xi. 2 ff. in two widely variant forms. The account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper which was recalled to the Church by every celebration, is given very differently in Matt. xxvi. 26 ff., 1 Cor. xi. 23 ff., and in the corrected text of Luke xxu. 17-20. Further, a compari- son of Matt. 1. 1-17 with Luke iii. 23-38, or of Matt. v.- 604 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT vii. with Luke vi. 20-49, or Matt. xxvi. 57-68 with Luke xxi. 54, 63-71, will show the impossibility of the exist- ence of a stereotyped tradition circulated throughout the entire apostolic Church, even regarding the most im- portant facts of the Gospel history. The assumption of literary dependence in order to explain the agreement between Matthew and Mark is rendered all the more necessary by the fact that the two books were written under entirely different conditions and for entirely dif- ferent readers. In this respect the disparity between Matthew and Mark is incaleulably greater than that between Mark and Luke, and scarcely less than that between Matthew and Luke. (4) So long as the impossi- bility of a relation of direct dependence between two extant documents remains undemonstrated, it is arbitrary or unscientific to explain the agreements between them by supposing that both are dependent upon documents no longer extant and without witnesses. But if one of these Gospels is dependent upon the other, an historical considera- tion of the relation existing between them will be enough to render impossible the belief that a Gospel written for Jews and Jewish Christians in Palestine, the form and content of which is determined in detail by this purpose, is dependent upon a Gospel written for Christians outside of Palestine. (5) It does not follow because important parts are wanting in one Gospel that the author did not have before him another Gospel containing these portions ; since neither of these books supplies a basis for presuppos- ing that their authors intended to record all that was in itself commemorable, or all that they themselves regarded as trustworthy. Mark, as well as Matthew, exhibits proof to the contrary. We have already seen, in considering the title of the book, that Mark’s plan permitted only a sketch of the work of the Baptist, and of the baptism and temptation of Jesus, which could not have been the original form of the oral or written tradition concerning THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 6053 these facts (above, p. 460). The same reason accounts also for the absence of a narrative regarding the origin, birth, and childhood of Jesus. To conclude that Mark had not read the narrative in Matt. 1-1. is quite as inad- missible as to assume that it was known to him but rejected as untrustworthy, or, moreover, to suppose that all the traditions or fictions preserved in Matt. 1.1. and Luke i.—i. originated later than the time when Mark wrote. It is absurd to imagine that more than thirty years elapsed after the death of Jesus before the Christians began to make inquiries and to construct narratives about His origin, birth, and childhood. If Mark could leave un- noticed these narratives, which he certainly must have known, he could have done so notwithstanding his know- ledge of Matt. ii. The Sermon on the Mount, which is found in Matt. v.-vu. and Luke vi. 20-49 in two very different recensions, must, for this reason, as well as on account of its significance in each of the recensions, be regarded as an important part of the Gospel tradition. Mark, however, could not use it as an example of Jesus’ preaching characterised in 1. 14f., since it does not come under this head. The Sermon on the Mount is not the Gospel (above, p. 542 1). In the form in which it occurs in Matthew, he could not have used it at all. Sentences like those in Matt. v. 17-20, which have a very important place there, could have produced only confusion among the Roman Christians as we know them from the Epistle to the Romans (vol. 1. 421 ff). To say the least, a com- mentary would have been necessary—a commentary of an entirely different character from that which we find in Jesus’ discourse itself (Matt. v. 21-48)—in order to render the words intelligible and profitable to the Roman Chris- tians for whom Mark wrote. So Mark himself must have thought, provided that Paul’s judgment regarding his work as a missionary in Rome was at all just (Col. iv. 11; vol. i. 450, n. 4). The omission of the Sermon on the Mount 606 INTRODUCTION TO ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT in Mark is no proof that the author had not read Matthew. (6) Nor does the lack of τάξις in Mark, of which notice had been taken already by those in the neishbourhood of John in Ephesus, argue against Mark’s dependence on Matthew. We were under necessity of admitting earlier that Matthew made no attempt in most parts of his book to reproduce the events in chronological order. This must have been especially evident to a person like Mark, who knew from the narratives of an eye-witness the historical place of many incidents which Matthew took out of their historical connection and arranged again after the order of content (above, p. 556 ff.). ‘Matthew was not suited to serve as a guide for the arrangement of the historical material in Mark. If Mark had followed Matthew en- tirely, the result could have been what John sums up in the words—ov μέντοι τάξει. With these prefatory remarks we pass to the compari- son of the two Gospels. Here weight is to be given, first of all, to the total impression which they produce. Matthew appears as a work of large proportion, cast in one mould ; Mark is a mosaic, carefully constructed out of numerous pieces. In Matthew we notice the freedom with which the author handles a mass of material, the arrangement of which, from beginning to end, is determined by his theo- logical conception and apologetic purpose, and at the same time his frequent carelessness with regard to the narrator's literary task, and the lack of all effort to fulfil the duties which to us seem incumbent upon the accurate historian. While Mark made a similar effort to follow a leading thought, we notice that this is much less definite and more neutral than the controlling idea in Matthew ; and more than this, that he is unable to carry the idea through. The material stifles the thought. On the other hand, in spite of numerous infelicities of expression, Mark shows himself a master in clear narrative, in his ability to por- tray a situation and to reproduce with exactness trivial THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 607 details, which, in the memory of an eye-witness, are in- separably connected with the kernel of the event. If this is true, it follows that Matthew is more original. That Matthew should show deficiency as a narrator is in keeping -with the peculiarity of the author, which appears uni- formly in every part of his book. It would, however, be inconceivable that with the narratives of Mark before him, which for the most part are very clearly drawn and accurate in details, he should have obliterated or otherwise destroyed these characteristics without intending either to correct errors or to make considerable abridgement. Matthew could not have been influenced by the effort to secure convenient brevity of narrative, in case the short Gospel of Mark was before him when he wrote, since his own Gospel is much more elaborate. Matthew’s narratives do not exhibit the character of excerpts, as do sentences like Mark xvi. 9-13, but give the impression of unfinished sketches. Moreover, the universal rule will apply here, that the unfinished sketch precedes the completed drawing and the highly coloured painting. Nothing was more natural than for Mark, in the narratives which he both found in Matthew, and also had often heard from Peter, to pick out such touches as would render the pictures more accurate, richer in colour, and clearer. A writing constructed as was Matthew (above, p. 556 f.) must have made every later narrator who had it in his hand desire to add explanatory additions. That such a document was before Mark, and that he followed it, has been proved beyond all question, particularly by Klostermann. The entire Gospel of Mark furnishes evidence that, with all his independent knowledge of details, resting as it did upon the eye-witness of Peter, Mark had a written exemplar from which he sometimes made excerpts and to which he sometimes added glosses (n. 2). In some pas- sages this is evident at once from the expressions used, which can be explained only under this presupposition. 608 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Althoush designing to record only a single parable in xii. 1, Mark writes, “He began to speak to them in parables,” because an account lay before him according to which Jesus spoke three parables in succession on the same day in the temple (Matt. xxi. 28-31, 33-41, xxii. 1-14). In the parallel narrative of Matthew (xxi. 33), the words, “Hear another parable,” indicate to the reader expressly that this parable is only one in a series of such discourses (cf. xxi. 45, xxii. 1). Further, this occurs in a passage having an extended context (Mark xi. 27-xil. 87 = Matt. xxi. 23-xxii. 46, n. 1), which, with the exception of the two parables that are intentionally cut out by Mark, is practically without variation in both Matthew and Mark. Therefore the book employed by Mark was not some work which simply resembled our Matthew, but, as far as content and arrangement go, our Matthew itself. The fact that here, as in most other cases, the expression is more awkward in Mark than in Matthew, is accounted for when we remember that it was the Aramaic Matthew which Mark had before him. On the other hand, the numerous agreements between Matthew and Mark in the choice of words is explained, if the person who translated Matthew into Greek was familiar with Mark, and if he followed this in cases where he found an expression that suited him, without, however, abating his effort to find expressions that were more pleasing (n. 3). It is entirely contrary to Mark’s habit to reproduce the discourses of Jesus and of other persons in indirect discourse. Even discourses which are really summaries of repeated and much more elaborate utter- ances are thrown into direct form (Mark i. 15, vi. 14-16, x. 33 f.). When he departs from this rule in vi. 7-8, then passes to the direct form in ver. 9 without notice, and, finally, in vv. 10-11 introduces a single independent saying with a special introduction (καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς), the inconsistency is explained if, in the first place, he made THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 609 a summary of the elaborate discourse in Matt. x. 5 ff. which was before him, but afterwards saw fit to excerpt parts with greater accuracy. The same is true of Mark i, 4, 7-8 in relation to Matt. iii. 2, 7-12, and of several other passages in which the discourse of Jesus is interrupted by a καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, not called for by the context of the discourse in Mark (ii. 27, vii. 9: ef. i. Ay 0:92). The use of the O.T. in the two cases deserves special notice. No great weight can be laid upon the fact that at least in one instance (xiv, 49) Mark reproduces the ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν ai γραφαί, which occurs so frequently in Matthew, and is of so much importance for his purpose ; since it is not used to express his own thought, but is put into the mouth of Jesus, who is represented in Matt. xxvi. 56, ef. 54, as speaking similar words on the same occasion. Moreover, the words are in keeping with Jesus’ attitude to O.T. prophecy. [Ὁ is, however, significant that Mark quotes no O.T. passages not also cited by Matthew (n. 4). Only in one instance does Mark cite the O.T. on his own responsibility (i. 2f.). ΑἹ] other citations from the O.T. are put into the mouth of the speakers in the narrative, particularly the Lord, and, what is more striking, always in the same connection in which the same O.T. words are employed by Matthew, whose book is so much richer in quotations, both direct and indirect. This not only furnishes new evidence that Mark and Matthew are very intimately related, in a way that cannot be explained except by the assumption that one is dependent upon the other, but it also shows that it is Mark which is dependent upon Matthew. The poor borrows from the rich, not the reverse. In the case before us this would necessarily appear doubtful, if it were the Greek Matthew upon which Mark drew; for then the numerous variations from Matthew shown by Mark in the citations, which for the most part affect the sense very little, and which are by no means always improvements, VOL. II. 39 610 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT must be regarded as particular caprices of the author. In this connection, also, the tradition, according to which Mark could have had only the Aramaic Matthew before him, proves to be the thread of Ariadne. In Mark’s exem- plar, also, the words taken from the O.T. were in Aramaic; that is, his native language. It was just as easy for him to translate these citations into Greek as words like Abba, Rabboni, Talitha kumi, ete. (n. 5). On the other hand, it is conceivable and self-evident that after twenty years of intercourse with the Greek Churches, where it was customary to study the LXX to determine “whether these things were so” (Acts xvii. 11), Mark was very familiar with this text, particularly in passages that were often quoted in Christian circles, and that in his book intended for Greek-speaking Christians he would make use of the LXX where it was convenient. Whether for this purpose he ever found it necessary to unrol the LXX may be considered doubtful. Mark was in the same position in relation to the Aramaic Matthew as was the person who translated the whole of Matthew into Greek some fifteen or twenty-five years later (above, p. 5791. ). The fact that in many instances the text is the same, or practically the same, in both, is satisfactorily ex- plained by the assumption of the dependence of both Mark and the Greek Matthew upon the same Aramaic original, the LXX, and the language current in the Church of their time. The fact, however, that they vary in numerous details, which for the most part do not affect the sense, is just as simply accounted for by the supposi- tion that Mark was not as yet acquainted with the Greek Matthew, and that the translator of Matthew into Greek was bound, first of all, to follow his original, and in other respects was under even less obligation to take into con- sideration the form of the eitations in Mark than he was to pay attention to the LXX and the language of the Chureh (n. 6). The dependence of Mark upon the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 611 Aramaic Matthew is shown also by the relation of the citations in both to the Hebrew text. While we are able to recognise, even in the Greek form in which we possess his work, that the author of Matthew used the Hebrew text of the O.T., though the citations which he took from this source are freely handled, and while we observe that the Greek translator retained this relation to the Hebrew text in many decisive passages in spite of his frequent dependence upon the LXX, Mark is much more strongly under the influence of the LXX, and gives us a translation which is independent of the LXX only where Matthew does the same. This he was able to do, not by reason of his independent know- ledge of the Hebrew text, of which he nowhere shows a clear example, but from his acquaintance with Matthew in its original Aramaic form. We have decisive proof of this in the citations in Mark i. 2f. and xiv. 27 (n. 6). In the first passage, Mark quotes a combination of Mal. il. 1 and Isa. xl. 3 as a single connected saying of Isaiah. All the efforts made by the early Church to defend the evangelist against the censures of the Neoplatonist Por- phyry, by means of emendations of the text and apologetic interpretations of the only trustworthy text, were not enough to explain away the fact that at the very begin- ning of his book, and in the single passage where he quotes an author by name, Mark makes a mistake in citing his source. This would have been avoidable, if he had drawn upon the O.T. directly. If he had cited the passage freely from memory, it could be explained as a mere slip; but since both fragments of which the quota- tion is made up show clear traces of Mark’s dependence upon Matthew (n. 6), the incorrect reference of the com- bined passages to Isaiah is to be explained as due to the same cause. Mark found both passages used in Matthew in connection with the Baptist, the one correctly referred to Isaiah (Matt. üi. 3), the other, however, quoted as 612 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Scripture without the name of a prophet (Matt. xi. 10) More than this, the latter was produced in Matthew freely, and for this reason, possibly, was not to be found at once in the Hebrew or Greek Bible. Accordingly, Mark, who wished to connect these words with those of Isaiah, took them also as the words of the prophet. 1. (P. 603.) In the first part of both Gospels the similarity of substance and form appears chiefly in single sentences (Mark i. 3, 5= Matt. iii. 3, 5) and short narratives (Mark i. 16-20= Matt. iv. 18-22 ; Mark i. 40-44= Matt. γ 111. 1-4) ; farther on it is rather in whole series of sections (Mark x. 1-xi. 17 = Matt. xix. 1-xxi. 13, interrupted only by the parable in xx. 1-16; Mark xi. 27-xii. 37= Matt. xxi. 23-xxii. 46, interrupted only by the parables xxi. 28-32, xxii. 1-13; Mark xiv. 1-xv..47= Matt. xxvi. 1—xxvii. 61, inter: rupted only by xxvi. 52-54, xxvii. 3-10, 510-53). Single rare words or forms deserve less stress than is sometimes laid upon them. In the first place, every argument for literary dependence, based upon such resemblances, is confronted by the fact that no form of textual corruption is more frequent in the Gospels than the assimilation of one Gospel with another. Thus, for example, in Luke v. 20, 23, ἀφέωνται is undoubtedly the correct reading, whereas, taking the parallels in Matt. ix. 2, 5, the weight of evidence is for apiovra Or ἀφίενται, and in Mark ii. 5, 9 the external evidence leaves us undecided. This Doric form of the perf. ind. (Kühner-Blass, Gram. i. 2. 201) is clearly supported in Luke vii. 47. 48; John xx. 23; 1 John ii. 12, which shows its general currency. The form adiovra also meets the case in Matt, ix. 2, 5 and parallels (against Winer-Schmiedel, § 14. 6), though not in these other passages. In the second place, much that has been represented as remarkable is not so to a connoisseur, as ἀπεκατεστάθη, Matt. xii. 13; Luke vi. 10; Mark iii. 5; ef. arerareorn, Mark viii. 25. Besides the instances in Winer-Schmiedel, § 12. 7, note 12, cf. Ign. Smyrn. xi. 2. It is entirely out of place to adduce in evidence ἀπεκρίνατο (for ἀπεκρίθη) in Matt. xxvii. 12; Mark xiv.61; Luke xxiii.9 ; for these three passages deal with three different occurrences; while in the actual parallels, Matt. xxvi. 63; Mark xiv. 61; Luke xxii. 66, or Matt. xxvii. 12; Mark xv.5; Luke xxiii. 3, both content and form are very different ; cf. Veit, ii. 125. Moreover, in Matt. xxvii. 12 we are probably to read ἀπεκρίνετο alongside of ἀπεκρίθη, xxvii. 14 (= Mark xy. 5). The Attic ἀπεκρίνατο is attested beyond question only in Luke iii, 16; Acts iii. 12; per contra, Mark xiv. 61; Luke xxiii. 9 (only L, to be sure, has -vero, but correctly ; cf. Blass, ΝῊ. Gram.? § 20.1 [Eng. trans. p. 44]; John v. 17, 19, it is uncertain, and in John xii. 23, decidedly so. In the third place, every proof of the dependence of one author upon the other, based upon such phenomena, comes to nothing in the case of Matt. and Mark, if Mark was familiar with the Aramaic Matt., and the Greek translator of Matt. was familiar with Mark. 2. (Pp. 607, 609.) Mark i. 2-13 makes the impression not of a freely drawn sketch, but of an excerpt. Now excerpts are commonly made from books, not from oral traditions. Mark found the materials in Matt. iii. 1-6, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 613 iii. 13-iv. 11, and also Matt. xi. 10 (see note 6 below). The only traces that Mark shows of an individual conception or tradition are that he represents Jesus alone as the recipient of the divine witness at the baptism (ver. 10 f.), and that he mentions the beasts (ver. 13). But that the narrative from which he made his extracts was wholly or substantially identical with Matt. iv. 1-11, must be inferred from the fact that Mark concludes his account with the ministry of the angels. This is intelligible only in Matt., where this διακονεῖν (serving at table, care for all physical needs, cf. viii. 15, xxv. 45, xxvii. 55) corresponds with the opening of the narrative iv. 2-4. Mark i. 16-20= Matt. iv. 18-22. Matthew omits ὀλίγον, which in Mark i. 19 presents the situation more vividly, and μετὰ τῶν μισθωτῶν, which in Mark i. 20 renders the brothers’ immediate decision more comprehensible, and saves it to some extent from the appearance of being unfilial. These omissions certainly could not be explained in Matt. on the ground of an effort to secure brevity, for Matthew’s account is on the whole a trifle more extended than Mark’s (89 words against 82), nor yet in any other way. It is Mark that contributed these illuminating details, Mark 1. 40-45 = Matt. viii. 1-4. The principal difference lies in Mark’s representation of the charge to the leper as a very emphatic one, for the sake of contrasting with it the uninterrupted spread of the report of Jesus’ mighty deeds (vv. 43, 45). This idea would have been entirely to Matthew’s purpose, and very suitable as an example in connection with xii. 15-21. By the place to which he assigned the narrative, he gave it quite another significance (see p. 544 f.), and in the phrase eis μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς gave characteristic expression to his conception. As Mark, who shows no anxiety here, or elsewhere, to defend Jesus from the charge of annulling the law, preserves this detail, he is seen to be the dependent author. Mark ii. 1-12= Matt. ix. 1-8. Mark’s additions throughout serve to illuminate Matthew’s less perspicuous account. The unintelligible ἰδών, Matt. ix. 2, is made clear by the account in Mark ii. 4, and with this in view the situation is already carefully described in vv. 1, 2. It would have been better to mention the presence of the scribes at this point, also, as Luke does in introducing the story, v. 17. But as Mark has Matthew’s account. before him, he first alludes to their presence at that point in the narrative (ver. 6) where Matthew assumes but does not expressly state it. The complaint otros βλασφημεῖ, Matt. ix. 3, which would be obscure to readers unfamiliar with Jewish modes of thought, is explained in detail in Mark 11. 6-8, as is the way that Jesus “saw” the thoughts of the fault-finders. In Mark ii. 27 the separation by καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς of two sayings of Jesus occasioned by similar circumstances, shows that Mark had before him a narrative in which the two were either separated by other matter or at least differently arranged. That is, Mark excerpts from Matt. xii. 1-8, passing over the sentences, xii. 5-7, between those two sayings. Of itself, it would be conceivable that Matthew, who, in accordance with his plan, sought in viii. 18-ix. 34 to present as rapid a succession as possible of changing scenes (above, pp. 544, 583 f.), was thus led to condense extended accounts from Mark, if he had them before him, by the omission of unessential details. For example, Mark iv. 36-41 (108 words) = Matt. viii. 23-27 (76 words), where Luke viii. 23-25, also (69 words from καὶ ἀνήχθησαν, ver. 22), has abridged decidedly. But this is incapable of proof. In any case, the striking οἱ ἄνθρωποι, Matt. viii. 27, cannot be derived from 614 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Mark iv. 41, where the reference is plainly to the diseiples, whom Matthew everywhere designates as μαθηταί, never ἄνθρωποι (x. 35, 36 cannot be used in evidence, nor can xiv. 33 also be compared with it, where the disciples who remain in the ship, in distinction from Peter and Jesus, are called οἱ ev τῷ πλοίῳ). Also the people in general cannot be intended, who later heard of the act of Jesus, for whom Matthew commonly uses a different form of ex- pression (ix. 8, 33, xii. 23, xiv. 13, xv. 37, xxii. 33). Finally, Matthew did not refer to other persons who were with Jesus and the disciples in the same boat, for.the practised fishermen did not need the help of sailors, and the company of strangers was not in place when Jesus desired to withdraw from the people, and had dismissed all who were not entirely suited to accompany Him (viii. 20) in order to cross the lake alone with the disciples (ver. 23). A solution of this difficulty, as well as of the use of ἰδών in Matt. ix. 2, ean- not be found in Matt., but, on the other hand, is found in Mark, in the state- ment iv. 36, that yet other ships alongside of or following the boat which held Jesus and His disciples, crossed the sea with them. This is one of the fine strokes of the brush which correctly reproduces the recollection of Mark’s authority, Peter, and, without any intention on the part of Mark, it serves us as an historical explanation of the enigmatical ἄνθρωποι in Matt. It would be entirely incomprehensible, however, that Matthew, when Mark’s Gospel was before him, should have omitted this remark, which was essential for the understanding of his narrative ; and also why he placed the exclama- tion of astonishment in the mouths of the puzzling “men,” instead of the disciples, as is the case in Mark. Mark vi. 14-32= Matt. xiv. 1-13. It is self-evident that Mark vi. 14-16 is not spontaneous narration, but an ex- planation of a received account by means of glosses (by davepov—avrov in ver. 14, and then by ver. 15; cf. viii. 28), and that in consequence of these glosses the author is obliged to return to the beginning of the story as he had re- ceived it, in altered form, with ver. 16. Even those who are not sensitive to stylistic impressions must recognise this on comparing the passage with Luke ix. 7-9. It is equally clear, however, that Luke’s smooth account is not the basis of the awkward narrative in Mark, especially as everything added in Mark vi. 17 ff. is found in Luke, not in this connection, but in a partial and most condensed form at iii. 18-20. On the other hand, Matt. xiv. 1 ff. presents the original text which Mark glosses. If Mark did not find Herod’s brother designated by name in Matt. xiv. 3, the mistaken Φιλίππου of Mark vi. 17 is his addition (above, pp. 503, note 3, and 590). The omission of the name cannot be viewed reversely as a correction made by Matthew in material drawn from Mark, for a critical reader working upon Mark and, with more exact historical knowledge, noticing the error, would not simply have deleted the mistaken name, but have put the right one in its place, as the redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews did in Matt. xxiii. 35 (above, p. 589, n. 5). But here, also, Mark is not simply a compiler of extracts. The lively and graphic treatment, richer in every way as compared with Matthew, cannot be the product of the free artistic fancy of this Mark, who yet showed himself so painfully bound to the written source before him. It can only have come from the accounts of those who stood nearer the events themselves, and in this connection—besides Peter—we are to bear in mind Luke viii. 3; John iv. 46; Acts xiii, 1. From Peter, too, he would have known, what did not appear THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 615 from Matt., that the feeding of the five thousand was connected with the return of the apostles from their preaching tour. The champions of Mark’s priority over Matthew have with singular unanimity found a leading proof of Matthew’s dependence in the comparison of Matt. xiv. 12-13 and Mark vi. 30-33. Matthew, they say, thoughtlessly failed to observe that xiv. 3-11 was an episode growing out of what preceded xiv. 1f., and connects the continuing narrative immediately with the close of the episode, and he transformed the returning apostles (Mark vi. 30 ; Luke ix. 10) into John’s disciples informing Jesus of their master’s death, because in his story the apostles had long since returned from their wanderings, being present with Jesus as early as xii. 1. In reply, let us note—(1) That Mark could not have betrayed Matthew into confusing Jesus’ disciples with the Baptist’s, for in Mark vi. 29 the disciples of the Baptist are plainly distinguished, even to the dullest comprehension, from the disciples of Jesus, who are spoken of as apostles, vi. 30. So if Matthew made the ἀπήγγειλαν of Mark vi. 30 the predicate of μαθηταί in vi. 29, it was not a case of confusion, but of wanton change. (2) There could be no occasion for Matthew to do this, in the fact that he had already recorded the sending out of the apostles in chap. x., for he had said nothing of their return, and he might mention that incidentally here as an introduction to something further. For by the whole arrangement of v. 1-xiv. 12 (above, pp. 542 ff., 558) he had precluded the readers’ finding in the succession of the narratives any reflection of the chronological order of the events. Therefore xii. 22-24 may be identical with ix. 32-34 (above, p. 599), and xiii. 54-58 may precede 5-7. Ifa mere repetition of Mark vi. 30-33 had still seemed to him inconvenient, he could have omitted these statements and substituted a general note of time like iii. 1, xii. 1, xiv. 1. (8) If Matt. v. 1-xiv. 12 is not continuous narrative at all, but a series of narrative fragments, connected chro- nologically only here and there (viii. 1, viii. 18-ix. 34, xii. 46, xiii. 1—above, pp. 557 f., 584 f.), it must be considered a misunderstanding of the peculiarity of the Gospel to infer from the connection of xiv. 12 that what is related in xiv. 12 ff. followed the remarks of Herod in xiv. 2, which would then be incompatible with the immediate connection of these same events with the Baptist’s execution. (4) As a matter of fact, there is nothing more likely than that Herod should have been visited by these superstitious fancies directly after the commission of his miserable deed. All that is related in Matt. xiv. 1-36, and also, with some additions, in Mark vi. 14-56, may easily have occurred in the space of a few weeks. Mark vii. 1-23= Matt. xv. 1-20. Matthew’s smoothly flowing account, which assumes acquaintance with Jewish customs, cannot be dependent on Mark’s, which is broken by glosses intended to explain these customs to extra-Palestinian and non-Jewish readers, and so made very awkward at the very beginning. Here again, too, as in ii. 27, vi. 10, ef. i. 7, the interruption of the discourse by καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, vii. 9, shows that Mark was drawing upon a book in which the several parts of the discourse in question were differently arranged, or given in a more extended form. The former is the case in Matt. xv.3-9. Mark found it more satisfactory to put first Isaiah’s condemnation of externalism in worship, which had an immediate relation to the question in dispute, and then follow with the proof, which in Matt. precedes, that the Pharisees in other matters also over-esteemed the Rabbinic precepts, in that they even set them above the explicit law of God. 616 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 3. (P. 608.) The correctness of the above remarks on Matt. xxi. 23- xxii. 46=Mark xi. 27-xii. 37 will appear to everyone from any sort of a synopsis. Notice how Matthew reduces to bearable proportions the constant repetition of καί in Mark xi. 27, 28, 31, 33, xii. 2, 12, 13, 23, 28, 35, 38, ef. above, pp. 502, n. 2, 591, n. 7; also the smoother sentence-structure, Matt. xxi, 26, as compared with Mark xi. 32, and the apt mayıdevew, Matt. xxii. 15, instead of dypevew, Mark xii. 13. The same consideration which led Mark to cut down the series of parables directed against the Pharisees moved him also to abridge Matt. xxi. 40-44, although Mark xii. 10 is thereby deprived of its natural connection. 4. (P. 609.) Mark xv. 28 is recognised to be an interpolation ; οἵ. Luke xxii. 37. Mark ix. 48 (and, according to the later authorities, ix. 44 also) is not so much a quotation as a free adaptation of Isa. Ixvi. 24, only with such divergences from the LXX as its introduetion into Jesus’ discourse required. Mark xii, 29, where Deut. vi. 4 (exactly after the LXX) is prefixed to the words from Deut. vi. 5, which Matthew also quotes (chap. xxii. 37), is not to be regarded as a citation of Mark’s own; nor yet Mark xi. 17, where the quotation from Isa. lvi. 7, abridged in Matt. xxi. 13, is filled out in harmony with the LXX. 5. (P. 610.) On the Aramaic words in Mark see above, p. 502, n. 1. On Mark xv. 34=Matt. xxvii. 46=Ps. xxii. 2, cf. vol. i. 15f. This short ejaculation of the crucified Christ, as well as the other words of Jesus which Mark gives in Aramaic, might have been known to him from oral narratives before he read Matt. xxvii. 46. In the translation his ὁ θεύς μου approaches the LXX more nearly than Matthew’s θεέ μου, but εἰς ri departs from the LXX and from the Greek Matt. (ivarı). 6. (Pp. 610, 611.) Certain citations call for more particular discussion. (1) Mark xiv. 27= Matt. xxvi. 31=Zech. xiii. 7. Mark’s independence of the LXX here is beyond doubt, and on the other hand, also, he gives a far from exact translation of the Hebrew. He is, therefore, following a document in which the Hebrew text was indeed the basis, but was very freely handled, that is to say, Matt., which like Mark gives πατάξω instead of πάταξον against the original text and LXX. But even here we see that it was not the Greek Matt. that Mark had before him ; for what should have prompted him to turn about καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται ra πρόβατα (τῆς ποίμνης) into ra πρόβατα διασκορπισθήσονται! Elsewhere Mark shows no aversion to a Semitic word-order ; in comparison with the Greek Matt., he is throughout the less elegant stylist. This is a mere chance, then, explained only by the sup- position that the same Aramaic original was before them both ; whereas Mark chose the order natural in Greek, the translator of Matt. preserved the order of the original. For the rest, there is no such agreement as would compel us to assume that Mark had the Greek Matt. before him, or that Matthew was influenced by Mark. The word πατάσσω is usual, and offered by the LXX ; besides, ποιμήν and πρόβατα were inevitable, and διασκορπισ- θήσονται was in use in similar connections ; ef. Jer, xxiii. 1, 2; John xi. 52; Acts v.37. It may still be a matter of discussion whether the addition of τῆς ποίμνης (ef. Ps. Ixxiv. 1, ὁ. 3; Ex. xxxiv. 31), by means of which the con- trast of shepherd and flock is made more noticeable to the ear, was already contained in the Aram, Matt., and was omitted by Mark, or whether ib is an THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 617 addition of the Greek Matt. (2) Mark i. 2=Matt. xi. 10=Luke vii 27= Mal. iii. 1. It cannot be doubted that the bold alteration of this verse in- dependently of the LXX goes back to someone acquainted with the Hebrew. But if in Mark i. 2 ἐγώ is to be omitted, with BD, ete., and ἔμπροσθέν σου according to all good authorities, Mark cannot have been the model for Matthew, who took this ἐγώ from Ex. xxiii. 20, and through conflation with this passage came to his twofold “before thee.” But neither can Mark’s reading be based on the Greek Matt., for why should he drop the ἐγώ ὃ If, on the other hand, he had in the Aramaic Matt. some such phrase as we find in the Targum Mal. iii. 1, nbw sax xn, he might take the pronoun to be unemphatie (as it is in the Targum= Hebrew, 7137), and unnecessary to be expressed in Greek. If, furthermore, he found without doubt in both parts of the clauses, supposing that his original was an Aramaic book, a zn"p with or without 5 prefixed (=Hebrew 7359), it was very natural to omit the second. On the other hand, the writer of the Greek Matt. appears here, too, asa translator intent at once upon exactness and upon a certain elegance. He does not leave the six (Hebrew ’»»x in the underlying passage, Ex. xxiii. 20) untranslated, but renders the double zn1p> first by πρὸ προσώπου σου and then by the synonymous ἔμπροσθέν σου, to avoid monotony. (3) Mark i. 3=Isa. xl. 3= Matt. iii. 3; Luke iii. 4. As all three Synoptists, unlike John i. 23 (abridged form of the quotation), have no word that does not appear in the LXX, anyone might equally well pass as the exemplar of the other two. Luke, indeed, might seem to be entitled to this precedence, as it is evident from iii. 5-6 that he consulted the LXX, and from it extended the quotation. But if for other reasons Luke’s priority is not to be thought of, Mark, too, can lay no claim to it ; for, first, by the mistaken combination of Mal. iii. 1 and Isa. xl. 3 he shows here his dependence on Matt. (above, 611); and, secondly, it is unlikely that he was affected by those apologetic considerations which prompted Matthew—who aimed to present Jesus primarily as the king veiled in the form of the lowly servant of God, and the guise of a prophet—not to set Him forth to begin with as the God of Israel, and led him accordingly to reduce the concluding τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν to αὐτου. ADDENDUM. Vor. II., PAGE 185, LINE 10. Concerning Christianos or Chrestianos, it should be said that, according to Andresen, Wochenschrift f. Klass. Philol., 1902, S. 780f. (ef. Codd. greci et lat. photogr. depicti, tom. vii., pars. post. fol. 38r ; also Harnack, Mission des Chris- tentwms*, i. 348), in the only MS. of this portion of the Annals of Tacitus, Chrestianos was written by the first copyist, and subsequently was corrected into Christianos, whereas the Christus which follows was written in this form by the first hand. BED HERD AH Ar ASAE ΡΜ N, ES μην =I8 iv odul=Ol „ir τὴν SS la), tte] lad 9 Mi πῖον au to noite hi log ofl) Jacky oh xl domus) Fe WsidoHl A) ae | ἘΝ 0 BOOS 27 Gach: io sou SSBooq my 429. of ‚bad ΟἹ si oy Sir tot Toboin ae ay ; TOMES ti ; ius hoog tha tldtw "others d sort Dats, 0x i Lox aids Loot ote ef προ, το ἧς t ἀπε Carl) ay ἣ ΕἸ ὁ sid οὐ omAoss r ar ‚blnods aly γι ἮΝ EN ἊΣ ef] 0 bang slo aye od “ἢ : Er ‘Seat OYE pittos el Bis u αὶ „baut, od bute 19 fon 6 iodo al ὙΠ dfgien of πὰ acm wen (fit „lol ΝΕ off A τ a. Dats: drin ‚uaulaHl = arg ΘΠ αἱ si Ji,ag) oitsclgm 9 ern ; ai sduob. Ipod tow ‘bauiol oi) ori Al, Asai) ui bots rg Hood Si ΠΝ ts erw If Tiss (0 aid, ἀρ actleoqqura aesılo oily: ie off fino of lesuien Ἔτον enw ti (cen werdo =) Hoxitosy ὁ duodiive, 10, ol ‚sad: AIO sk, toss) οἱ. 10 goliıwı of) ~basthsdlto, a sosagole it 8 ποι ‚bus BBY SDK sogu soo “8 detog eri. ION za REEL. sutlraban od) ar cr werdsHl), ni er ra Bor vORGUgT don ae teat darap alduob; od ero bast sud, boislensitan ( ‚11oJogor “biovs οἱ σοῦ 439: υσαπὴῦ BHO YUOITYA sur yd sod aeijqonye goss Ue ah, biti Ομ] 18.1 dei & In wel τι 8: Rn nd hap %.00 eyed «αρίμουρ. old lo wrt hog birds) es. si auf “solqiaox9, ail 28 aus [om yo sdalıı onpyum ALL odd τὲ 2p ee ‘aisha. of holdin od of nos dılgin „boobui gain, out hobirai?: 0 son) bus been! Al ἐπ) Het lsenoo.od jad ὃ--ἃ ἢ ort we ἊΣ ΤΊ idguosti i of ton ei yairoing egal emozgey soslto ποῖ Ai jy. Εν ΤΉ „aan sd χα, αι 10) οἱ of miss oo yal ud. ὦ ial Er soubgoqoh aid, sıad, enorta rad & [x nal. baw att loge. u uh fe itis an rye deu, ὙΠ απ 1 at ᾿χίβιρος IB, assaaL Yargekıı igs is. ‚odw—-wedkel » shosqgaronq laity -bus ἜΝ ne ingirtoa ylwol os) 10 mol οἷα, i, balisy gual, odd * hop) sits 9 dig «αἰτεῖ οὐ ΩΣ doa οὐ. Jost bodqgorgy soul ΠΥ ‚Nor, paliplagee, 9 ῬΏΜΗΙ ot Mgainceon mid : v 1: hw ‘he oo Ἧ ᾿ » i the ()γευϊς Mi, Mal 2. ware : ; oh wi vhere Ki ae in Be 73 Cr re — hope es OL ule etter 6 Mages ort “ wre, A ons rien Wi Greek ft hh u) 7 7 int ἈΦ ἰὴ οι is wa MUCWSCHTA eaple ined : - » int She una γᾶ ιἘιη origi u: sh er ΠΣ i ad mate ΟΝ mn Δ] "πὸ nH 6) Lon a οὐδ One orig ge cngred u ttifytooos, sat Βῇω Pr Hino Ἢ on Δ Ὁ TOR A Ὁ DW) ὁ it el : Bunyan ἣν ai fl NY wer ΕΜ. ΓΝ uk oe ltr ἀπ. Sue Ask WR N" ον Yo hit ὌΠ ὙΠ|0 Gift u ei bitieries Ὑ8ι: 5100} dod bite lates dea πὴ ve ha rot 110] w rim «wollt “Ht ἢ Rd οἱ Eu tu ; ΄ con ot a " ka canola Wy er .. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. IX.— Continued. THE WRITINGS OF LUKE. 8 58. ΤῊΝ TRADITION CONCERNING LUKE AND HIS WORK. Tre Luke to whom the composition of the third Gospel and of Acts was unanimously ascribed by the ancient Church (n. 1), is first mentioned by Paul in the Epistles of the first and second Roman imprisonments. Since he is characterised in Col. iv. 14 as “the beloved physician,” and mentioned in Philem. 24 last in the list of Paul’s helpers, we are justified in assuming that he was in some way connected with the missionary work in Rome, without, however, having given up his professional calling, which might open the way for him to many homes and hearts that remained closed to others. [Ὁ is also possible that he rendered valuable services as a physician to the apostle himself, who was often severely ill. While Demas, who is mentioned in both these passages along with Luke, deserted the apostle from sordid motives in 66, after the apostle’s second arrest, and when his life was in constant danger, Luke remained faithfully with him (2 Tim. VOL. III. I 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT iv. 10) The only other thing indicated by Col. iv. 10-14 and its context is the fact that Luke was a Gentile by birth (n. 2). Further facts with regard to Luke’s life history have always been derived from the two parts of the work ascribed to him, under the pre- supposition that he is the author of both, and that the “we,” which occurs repeatedly in Acts, includes the “I” of the author who mentions himself in Luke i. 3; Acts i. 1. In the original recension of Acts (8. 59) this “ we” oceurs for the first time in Acts xi. 27 (n. 3). Inasmuch as the narrative in this passage dates back to a time preceding the first year of the joint work of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch (43-44), before the Emperor Claudius came to the throne (Jan. 41; for both dates cf. Part XI.), the narrator must have become a member of the Antiochian Church at the latest by the year 40, so that his conversion cannot have been due to Paul, who did not come to Antioch until 43. Nor is this statement confirmed by Luke. The tradition that Luke was a native of Antioch was always so definite, that it is extremely unlikely that it is the result of scholarly reflection upon Acts xi. 27 (n. 4), and we are unable to prove that the oldest witnesses for this tradition, Eusebius and Julius Africanus, who wrote probably a hundred years before Eusebius, were not in possession, of other information besides Acts xi. 27. There must) be taken into account here the further tradition, likewise old, according to which there was a rich Antiochian. by the name of Theophilus who became a Christian in the apostolic age, and who later was expressly identified, with the Theophilus of Luke i. 3; Acts i. 1; but. not in any way contradictory of the original story (n. 5). | Every- thing else that is said and narrated about Luke impresses us as being of the nature either of uncertain conjecture or inference from the “we” passages of Acts and from the hints of the prologue to the Gospel, which were in part misunderstood, in part exaggerated (n. 6). THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 3 In the same way, the ancient Church possessed’ ne tradition regarding the time and place of the composition of the two “books; but depended altogether upon conjec- tures (n. 7). Only one point seems to go back to a very ancient recollection, namely, that Luke wrote later than Matthew and Mark, and before John, 1.6. somewhere between the years 67 and 90 (vol. 11. 392-400). 1. (P. 1.) Concerning Luke as the author of the third Gospel, so acknowledged even by Marcion, see vol. ii. 389 f. That he wrote Acts was equally taken for granted by the earliest writers who discuss the book or cite it formally : Iren. iii. 13. 3, after extracts from Acts i._xv. (ex sermonibus et actibus apostolorum, 111. 12. 11; ex actibus apostolorum, 111. 13. 3), speaks of the book as Luce de apostolis testificatio, and similarly in iii. 15. 1 as the testificatio following his Gospel. Canon Murat. line 34, “acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro seripta sunt. Lucas optime Theophile,” ete. Clem. Strom. v. 83: Καθὸ καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς ἐν ταῖς πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστύλων ἀπομνημονεύει τὸν ἸΤαῦλον λέγοντα (Acts xvii. 22); Hypot. (Lat. version) on 1 Pet. v. 13: “Sicut Lucas quoque et actus apostolorum stylo exsecutus agnoscitur et Pauli ad Hebreos interpretatus epistolam.” .Tert. de Jejunio, x., after citations from Acts, in eodem commentario Luce. 'The fact that the book is seldom ascribed explicitly to Luke, even by those who mention its rejection by Mareion (Tert. c. Marc. v. 1.2; Preser. xxii; pseudo-Tert. Her. xvi. ; also, indirectly, Iren. iii. 14. 4-15. 1), and that it is constantly cited simply as ai πράξεις with or without τῶν ἀποστόλων, Lat. acta (so Tertullian always, and also Cyprian GK, ii. 52, A. 1) or actus, likewise with or without apostolorum, shows that no other opinion concerning its authorship had been expressed in any quarter, “With regard to the claim that Clement of Alexandria (Scholia of Maximus on Dionys. Areop. Opera, ed. Corderius, ii. 242) asserts that the Dialogue of Jason and Papiseus was written not by Ariston of Pella, but by Luke, the present writer believes that in Forsch. iii. 74 enough has been said for anyone who knows what ἀναγράφειν means, as distinguished from γράφειν and συγγράφειν (ef. 6... Kus. H. E. iii. 4.11). Following Grabe’s necessary emendation, Ἰάσωνος ὃν (instead of Av) Κλήμης . - . τὸν ἅγιον Λουκᾶν φησὶν avaypayaı—we find that Clement simply said that the Jason of the dialogue was the same one that Luke mentioned in Acts xvii. 5. It was doubtless this passage, and not Acts xxi. 16 (8 Copt. Ἰάσονι) ies Gon had in mind. In Hom. in Ascens. Chr. et in Prineipiam Actorum, ii., which Montfaucon (Opp. Chrysost. iii. 757 ff.) includes with the * Spuria” as only partly genuine, it is said (p. 764) that some considered Clement of Rome the putes of Acts others Barnabas, and still others the evangelist Luke : the preacher himself decides for Luke (cf. also iii. 774). This is repeated verbatim by Photius in Quest. cxxiii. ad Amphil. (Migne, ci. col. 716), which, like Quest. cxxiv., is simply an excerpt from the homily. Plainly the preacher, speaking extemporaneously, was led by mistaken recollection or careless reading of Bus. A. E. vi. 14. 2, 25. 14, to confuse the tradition concerning the author of Heb. with that concerning the author of Acts, which could happen the more easily since, in mentioning the 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. former, Clem. Alex. and Orig. allude also to Luke’s authorship of Acts (vol. ii. 308 f., notes 5, 7). 2. (P. 2) From Col. iv. 10-14 it follows that Luke was not ‘only a Gentile by birth, but also remained uncircumcised ; cf. vol. i. 450f. This was also the opinion of the early writers. When Jerome, Quest. Hebr. in Gen. (ed. Lagarde, 64), writes “licet plerique tradant Lucam evangelistam ut proselytum hebreas literas ignorasse,” he can hardly mean that he was first converted from heathendom to Judaism, and afterward from Judaism to Christianity, but only that, unlike the other N.T. writers, who were Hebrews, he came to Christianity out of heathendom ; ef. Just. Dial. exxii. When, in another place, he credits Luke with only a better knowledge of Greek than of Hebrew, and so with some knowledge at least of the latter (on Isa. vi. and xxviii., Vall. iv. 97, 378),he doubtless has in mind merely such explanations of proper names as are given in Acts i. 19, iv. 36. 3. (P. 2.) Underlying the usual text of Acts xi. 27, D—with which several Latin authorities are in substantial agreement—gives : ἦν δὲ πολλὴ ἀγαλλίασις. συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν, ἔφη eis ἐξ αὐτῶν dvdpare” AyaBos σημαίνων διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος κτλ. As to text and style, see § 59,n.6. Harnack (Berl. Sitzungsberichte, 1899, 8. 316-327) has extended his depreciating judgment concerning the 8 text to cover this passage also, and, besides, has explained the ἡμῶν as a later interpolation, not even originating withthe author of the text, instead of an original αὐτῶν. In view of the agreement of the numerous witnesses from Augustine (fromm 394 A.D.) onwards for 8 in this passage, this last statement should, however, need stronger proofs. The solitary position of the ἡμῶν is not strange, since, except perhaps for xiii. 2, this is the only place where a single scene taken from the Church life of Antioch is portrayed. In xiii. 2—especially according to β (see ἢ. 6)—only the prophets, not all the Church members, are the participants, and Luke has there expressed in another way his especial interest in Antioch. The charge that the description lacks the vividness which would be expected of an eye- witness, is based upon arbitrary assumptions, as, e.g., that σημαίνων points to a symbolical act (S. 319, A. 1; ef. per contra, with the exception of διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, Which is rather against it, John xii. 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 19; Rev. i. 1), and that ver. 29, where the “disciples” are again mentioned quite objectively, refers to the gathering described in vv. 27-28, whereas it has to do with decisions and economic deliberations of individuals who are without official position. If Luke had said that he also was one of these more or less affluent and charitable Church members, no one would have commended him for such a statement. The agreement of the 8 text of this passage with Luke, and especially also with the peculiarities in style of the 8 text in general (Harnack, 8. 321f.), is no proof against the originality of the entire 8 text, but is a witness only to its integrity. 4. (P. 2.) The episcopate of Timothy at Ephesus and of Titus in Crete (iii. 4, 6), the distribution of countries among the apostles (iii. 1), and the composition of The Shepherd by the Hermas named in Rom. xvi. 14 (iii, 8. 6), are plainly mentioned by Eusebius as uncertain traditions. Other matters, such as the identity of the Roman bishops Linus and Clement with the N.T, personages of the same names, are supported by the citation of the N.T. passages (iii, 2, 4. 9f., 15 ; ef. iii, 4. 11 on Dionysus the Areopagite). On the THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 5 other hand, iii. 4. 7: Λουκᾶς δὲ τὸ μὲν γένος ὧν τῶν am’ ᾿Αντιοχείας, τὴν ἐπιστήμην δὲ ἰατρός κτλ. It is probably not Eusebius but Africanus (ef, Spitta, Brief des Afr. an Aristides, S. 70, 111) who, being himself a physician, writes of the physician Luke (Mai, Nova. P. Bibl. iv. 1. 270): ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς τὸ μὲν γένος ἀπὸ τῆς βοωμένης ᾿Αντιοχείας ἢν, ἐν ἣ δὴ οἱ πάντες λογιώτατοι τοὺς ”"Iovas προγόνους αὐχοῦσιν᾽ οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ πρὸς τῷ κατὰ φύσιν ἑλληνικῷ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐπήγετό τι πλέον ὁ Λουκᾶς ἐν λόγοις, ἅτε ἰατρικῆς ἔμπειρος ὧν ἐπιστήμης. The true Euthalius depends on Eusebius (Zacagni, 410; cf. 529); hardly, however, the old prologue (N.T. ed. Wordsworth, i. 269 ; cf. the prologue on Acts ii. 1-4): “Lucas Syrus natione Antiochensis, arte medicus, discipulus apostolorum, postea Paulum secutus,” ete. In this and in other particulars Jerome’s Prief. Comm. in Matt. (Vall. vii. 3) accords more exactly with this prologue than do Vir. Ill. vii, and other passages. Origen, iv. 686, on Rom. xvi. 21, mentions, without approving, the view that Luke was the Lucius there referred to; which is impossible, if for no other reason, because Paul speaks of the latter, as of Jason and Sosipater, as Jews (vol. i. 417, n. 22). This view was known also in another form, namely, that the Luke supposed to be mentioned in Rom., 1.6. Lucius, became bishop of Laodicea in Syria (Dorotheus on the 70 disciples, Chronicon Paschale, Bonn ed. ii. 126). Modern scholars (Wettstein, N.T. ii. 532; Bengel, Gnomon on Luke i. 1, 3, ed. Stuttgart, 1860, pp: 204, 205) were the first to undertake the identification of Luke with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 1), explaining thus the tradition that he was an Antiochian. But (1) no one of the early writers thought that Luke was mentioned in that passage, and the text tradition of Acts xiii. 1 shows no trace of this identification. It cannot, therefore, be the source of the very old tradition in question. (2) The idea that Luke was a native of Antioch, or even Syria, could not arise from a passage in which a Lucius living in Antioch is called a Cyrenian. (3) Luke (Lucas) has nothing to do with the name Lucius, or Λεύκιος, as it is commonly written in Greek, ‘but is an abbreviation of Lucanus (perhaps also Lucilius, Lucillus, Lucinus, Lucinius, but certainly not Lucianus). It may be due to authentic tradition that in the Old Latin Bible, along with the thoroughly Greek cata Lucan (Evang. Palat. ed. Tisch. 232), we find not infrequently secundum Lucanuwm, which is probably the.original form. So Cod. Vindobon. ed. Belsheim, 1885, p. 1 ff. ; Vere., Ambrosian., Corbei. in Bianchini, Evang. Quadrupl. ii. 2, 208 ; Old Latin Bible Texts, ii. 85 ; further—as Turner (JTRS, 1905, June, p. 256 f.) has recently proved by use of new material—in Cyprian’s Testimonia, also in Priseillian, ed. Schepps, 47. 4, and on a sarcophagus of the fifth century at Arles; cf. Schultze, Greifswalder Stud. 8. 157; Mercati, JTRS, 1905, April, p: 435. The present writer finds a Lucanus in Cypr. Ep. Ixxvii. 3, Ixxviii. 1, Ixxix.; a Lucas in August. Hp. clxxix. 1. He knows of no one bearing the name earlier than our evangelist. Cf. Οἱ I. @. Nos. 4700k (in the add. vol. iii. 1189) and 4759 from Egypt. In Eus. H. E. iv. 2.3 the reading handed down is Aovkova (in gen.), but Rufinus has Luca, Syr. Lukia. 5. (P. 2.) Clem. Recogn. x. 71 says in describing the great success of Peter’s preaching in Antioch : “Ita ut omni aviditatis desiderio Theophilus, qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate sublimior, domus sus ingentem basilicam ecclesiwe nomine consecraret, in qua Petro apostolo constituta est ab ‘omni populo cathedra,” ete. Later writers, spinning out this thread, 6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT made the Theophilus of Luke a bishop of Antioch (pseudo-Hippol. at the close of the Const. Ap. ed. Lagarde, p. 284; ef. min. 293 in Tischend. N.T. i. 738), and finally identified him with the well-known bishop and apologete, circa 180 ; cf. Cotelier on Recogn. x. 71. For this, however, the author of the Recoyn. is not. to be held responsible. Nor can his graphic account be compared with the colourless statement in Const. Ap. vii. 46 to the effect that, after Zaccheus (Luke xix. 2) and Cornelius (Acts x. 1), a Theophilus was appointed third bishop of Caesarea by the apostles. Along with the N.T,, Eusebius’ Church History is the main source of Const. Ap. vii. 46, and this Theophilus of Czsarea is identical with the one (circa 190) mentioned in Eus. H. EK. v.22. Whether the Theophilus mentioned as joint addressee in the seventh letter of Seneca to Paul (ed. Hase, iii. 478) is the same as Luke’s, cannot be decided. Without absolutely disputing the historicity of the person outright, Origen, Hom. i. in Luc, applied the name, Theophilus, to everyone who is loved hy God—which is not even linguistically correct (better Jerome, amicus vel amator dei, see Morin, Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 3. 20). Salvianus, Ep. ix. 18, goes so far as to say that Luke addressed the two books ad amorem dei. A preacher under the name of Chrysostom (Montfaucon, iii. 765 f., see above, p. 3, n. 1) infers, no doubt, simply from the title κράτιστε in Luke i, 3—which in Luke’s time meant just what λαμπρότατε did later—that Theophilus was an imperial governor, and, like Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 7), had become a Christian while in that office. As to this it may be remarked that the prefects of Egypt had the title κράτιστος till about 160, and after that λαμπρότατος, but that senatorial rank need not be inferred from the latter ; cf. Wilcken in Hermes, 1885, S. 469 f., 1893, S. 237 ; Berl. Agypt. Urkunden, i. 373, ii. 373. 6. (P. 2.) With regard to Luke as the brother referred to in 2 Cor. viii. 18 and his Gospel as that of Paul’s, see vol. ii. 385.) The contradiction between this exegetical “discovery” and the much older tradition that Luke was written after Mark, and, consequently, after Paul's! death, was, not noticed. Still, if Luke was occupied for some time in Philippi as an evan- gelist in the N.T. sense of the word, it may be that he is really intended in 2 Cor. viii. 18, in an allusion to this work ; for 2 Cor. was written in Mace- donia, and in the interval between the we-sections of Acts xvi. 10 ff. and Acts xx. 5 ff. (8. 60). Even Iren. iii. 14. 1 began to exaggerate somewhat when he inferred from Acts xvi. 8 ff. (for he allowed the “we” to begin in xvi. 8) in contrast to xv, 39, as also from 2 Tim. iv. 11, that Luke was inseparably associated with Paul. This again was further pressed into an assertion that in the entire book of Acts he recorded only what he himself had experienced (Eus. H. E. ii. 4. 7 ; Jerome, Vir. Ill. vii; not yet true of Canon Mur. lines 34 f., see GK, ii. 54, and ef. ii. 28), That Luke had been a disciple of other apostles also (Iren. iii. 10. 1, 14. 2) was the more easily inferred from Luke i 2, if one saw in the mapnxodovOnkdre ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν of ver. 3 a reference to his accompanying the eye-witnesses asa disciple or a travelling-companion; so probably Justin (Dial. ciii., see vol. ii. 389), and clearly Kus. H. E. iii. 4. 7; Epiph. Her. 1.7 ; pseudo-Kuthalius (Zacagni, 421). This is not impossible linguistically (see vol. ii, 455), but is forbidden by the context, Luke, like Mark (vol. ii, 445, n. 3), was declared in the fourth century to have been one of, the seventy, or seventy-two, disciples, THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 7 Luke x. 1 (Adamantius, Dial. c. Marc. ed. Bakhuyzen, p.\10. 14 ; Epiph Her. li. 11; Anaceph. ed. Pet. 138). The identification with the unnamed companion τὰ Cleopas, Luke xxiv. 13-18, is much later (cf, Forsch. vi. 350). In the Acts of Paul (ed. Lipsius, Ρ. 104. 2, 117. 5), Luke is joined with Titus, and instead of Crescens (2 Tim. iv. 10), is sent to Gaul, which explains the confused statements of Epiph. Her. li. 11... His work as evangelist came naturally to be regarded as a higher counterpart of his medical work, Eus. H. E. iii. 4. 7; Jerome, Epist. liii. 8; Paulinus Nol. Carm. xxvii, 424; Prologue to Acts in Wordsworth, N.T. Lat. ii. 2. 9, 3. 1. The passages, 1 Cor. ix. 9, 1 Tim. v. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 6, were the more readily applied to the evangelist among Paul’s disciples (ef. Aug. Doctr. Christ. ii, 10. 15 ; Prol. to Gospels, N.T. Lat. ed. Wordsworth, i. 271. 5) because the bos was made, his symbol from early times (see vol. ii, 399, τι. 7),—in better taste, at least, than when Baronius, Annales ad a. 58, n. 34, put forward the conjecture that the symbol was chosen in allusion to his name and the bos Luca or Lucanus, i.e. the elephant. A Greek legend appears to be the source of the tradition that Luke was unmarried, that he wrote his Gospel in Achaia and later than Matt. and Mark, and that he died in Bithynia at the age of seventy-four or eighty- four ; cf. Prol. Wordsworth, i. 269. 4 ff., 271. 3 ff, ü. 1.4. Niceph. Call. ii. 43 says he died at eighty, in Hellas, where he had previously sojourned, first meeting Paul at seven-gated Thebes, that is to.say, in Beotia, A glance at Acts xvi. 7-10 and ἃ comparison of the Latin prologues shows that Beotia has arisen from Bithynia. Jerome combines the two statements of the Latin prologues, and says, provided that he is the author of the Praf. Comm. in Mat. (Vall. vii. 8; Wordsworth, i. 12, 18) in Achaie Beotieque (al. Bithynieque) partibus volumen condidit; ef. Paulin. Carm, xix. 88, Ureta, Titwm sumpsit, medicum Beotia Lucam. In 357 A.D. the remains of Andrew and Luke were brought from Achaia, and Timothy’s from Ephesus, to Constantinople (Jerome, Vir. Il. vii. contra Vigilant. ed. Vall. ii. 391; Chron. Anno 2372; Philost. H. E. iii, 2; Theodorus Leetor, ii. 61 ; Niceph, Call. ii. 48). The origin of the tradition that Luke was a painter has not yet been made clear, even by E. v. Dobschiitz, Christusbilder, ii. 267**-280**, According to Theodorus Lector, i. 1—if this i is not an addition made by the compiler of the extracts (v. Dobsehiitz, 271**)—a picture of Mary supposed to have been painted by Luke was sent from Jerusalem to Coustantinople by the empress Eudocia about 440. Cf. J. A. Schmid, De Imagin. Marie a Luka Pictis, Helmstedt, 1714, n. 2. Since the word ἱστορίαι was used of paintings as early as Nilus, Ep. iv. 61, and ἱστορεῖν with the Byzantians was equivalent to ζωγραφεῖν, Theodore’s words (τὴν εἰκόνα τῆς θεοτόκου, ἣν ὁ ἀπόστολος Λουκᾶς καθιστύρησεν) certainly cannot be understood otherwise. But may not the whole myth go back originally to an early misunderstanding of the word καθιστορεῖν ? It is not Luke, to be sure, but Leueius, who repeatedly reports (καθιστόρησεν }) concerning contemporary portraits of Christ and the apostle John, and it is he also who reports legends concerning Mary ; cf. the present writer— Acta Jo. pp. 214. 7, 215. 13, 223 f. 7, (P: 2.) Though Iren. iii. 1. 1 (vol. ii. 398) gives the time and place of the other Gospels with more or less exactness, all he knows with regard to Luke is that it is the third in the order of composition. Perhaps Clement (vol. ii. 394 f.), or his teachers, had already inferred from the conclusion of 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Acts that it, and the Gospel with it, were written just after the expiration οἱ the two years mentioned, Acts xxviii. 30. Euthalius (Zacagni, 531) makes this same affirmation with regard to Acts. Jerome (Vir. Ill. vii.) concludes from the ending of Acts that it was written in Rome, and so intimates indirectly that it was written at the close of those two years. In Greek minuscules, at times Rome, also, however, the “ Attica belonging to Boeotia,” are mentioned as the place where Luke’s Gospel was written (Tischendorf, 8th ed. i. 738; ef. the meaningless combination Achaie Beotieque in n.. 6 above, as if Boeotia did not belong to Achaia). Macedonia also was some- times spoken of as the place of composition of both Luke and Acts (Doctrine of the Apostles in Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, Ὁ. 32; an Arabie authority in Tischendorf, N.T. i. 738), a view which is easily explained by the early interpretation of 2 Cor. viii. 18, see above, n. 6. Ephrem (Ev. Concord. Expos. p. 286) probably gave Antioch as the place of the composition of the Gospel ; cf. Forsch. i. 54f. The later Syrian tradition, quoted on the same pages, gave Alexandria. This view grew on Greek soil, for according to Tisch. loc. cit. it is found in seven Greek minuscules. Consequently it is probable that it arose from’ Const. Ap. vii. 46, where, after Mark has been named as consecrator of Annianus, the first bishop of Alexandria, Luke is said to have ordained Abilius, the successor of Annianus, Since it could not be an apostle, a second evangelist was named along with the first from sheer perplexity. In short, nothing was known about it. In a later liturgical fragment (in Grenfell and Hunt, Greek Papyri, Series ii. p. 170), Luke as apostle and archbishop of Alexandria is even placed before the apostle and archbishop Mark. Also the Syriac Martyrdom of Luke (edited by Nau, Revue de L’Orient Chret. [1898] iii. 151 ff.) contains nothing of historical tradition. § 59. THE TWOFOLD RECENSION OF THE TEXT OF ACTS. In the preceding investigations it has been possible to proceed without entering, except incidentally, into questions of text criticism. Here, however, the case is different, and the investigation of both of Luke’s books depends at essential points—as, for example, in connection with the question of the author's witness to himself in Aects—to a considerable extent upon the answer to the question in which of the records we possess the original form of the text. | Recently Fr, Blass, following several earlier attempts in the same direction (n. 1), which were for, the most part, however, barren of results, has. energetically. attempted THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 9 to prove that two recensions of Acts are to be dis- tinguished, exhibiting characteristic differences in con- tents and style, both of which go back to very early times, and neither of which could have originated from the other by the ordinary processes of text tradition, i.e. through unrelated interpolations, emendations, glosses, and scribal errors, but must have come—both of them— from the author himself. According to his view, Luke, who wrote Acts in Rome shortly after the two years mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, revised the first’ draft of his book before he let it pass into Theophilus’ hands. The first copy (recension 8 or editio Romana) remained in the possession of Luke and his Roman friends, and naturally circulated chiefly in the West, while the second copy or improved edition (recension ἃ or editio Antio- chena) predominated in the East. Blass limited his hypothesis, at the outset, strictly to Acts (ThStKr, 1894, S. 118), later, however, he broadened it to include the Gospel, but without making his case any stronger. According to Blass, the Gospel, which was written as early as Paul’s imprisonment in Cxsarea, was afterwards revised and re-edited by Luke in Rome, so that the case here is the reverse of what we find in Acts, and recension 8 is the improved second edition, recension a the first draft.‘ For the present we confine our attention to Acts, To begin with, we must rid ourselves of the idea that we possess 8 only in one. Greek MS.—perhaps the codex Bezze Cantabrigiensis (D)—which originally suggested these observations, or only in one complete translation. On the contrary, there is a large amount of material at our disposal (n. 3), on the basis of which it is possible to claim that for centuries a form of the text (8) was prevalent in different parts of the Church, varying widely throughout in contents and language from the text of Acts dominant later (a), This was the case in the West from: Irenzeus to Jerome. The fragments of the Old 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Latin translation and the citations of a writer like Cyprian are sufficient to prove that this version, at least in its original form, which goes back to between 200 and 240 «a.p., is derived from a Greek text which is related to the text of our oldest Greek MSS. (NABC, etc.) in the way indicated above. It is possible that the latter text existed in the West in numerous exemplars long before Jerome’s time, but we cannot prove it. On the other hand, we know that Western readers, who were confined to their Latin versions, as the Roman interpreter of the Pauline Epistles, known as Ambrosiaster (370 a.p.), rejected the a text on the ground that it was interpolated by the Greeks (nn. 3, 5). So far as we know, it was not until a later date that the a text influenced appreciably the Latin texts of the West. The Greeco-Latin text of Codex D, written in the sixth century, is the outcome of very complicated developments, mixtures, and cor- ruptions, but nevertheless retains in its Greek portion important features of the form of Acts known to Irenzeus, and to the first, unknown wterpres Latinus. The Alexandrian scholars, Clement and Origen, seem to have used a text practically identical with a (n. 2); but there must have been also a 8 text which circulated in Egypt in their time, and which was highly esteemed, otherwise we are at a loss to understand why it was that the Sahidie, presumably the oldest Egyptian version, written possibly during Origen’s lifetime, while not adopting 8 in its entirety, did take over important elements of it. These were afterwards removed in the later Egyptian version, the (ρος proper. It is possible that at this time texts existed in Egypt which represented a mixture of « and β. Such a text was found by the Syrian, Thomas of Heraclea, as late as the year 616, in the Anthony cloister in Alexandria, and he borrowed from it a number of read- ings belonging to 8, adopting some of them into his revision of the Philoxenian version, putting others on the THE WRITINGS OF LUKE ΕἸ margin as noteworthy variant readings. In this way Syrian scholars of the Middle Ages afterwards became acquainted with the fragments of a text which—in how pure a form we do not know— was at the basis of the oldest Syriac translation of Acts. Meanwhile, however, the a recension triumphed in the Syrian Church also, and in the Bible which was used in the Syrian Church, the Peshito, only scattered traces remain, showing aflinity with the original text of the Syriac Acts, and these would not be noticed now save by a few (n. 3). Wherever we find traces of 8, whether in the West, in Eeypt, or in Syria, it seems to represent the earlier form of the text, while a represents the later form. With those to whose historical sense these facts do not appeal further dis- cussion is useless. The 8 text is not in our possession, but evidences that it existed at an early date in parts of the Church, widely separated from one another, put us under obligation to discover it. Gratitude is due to the philologian who has devoted so much energy and shown so much acumen in restoring it as far as was possible. The main difficulty in all the investigation arises from the fact that, with the exception of a number of fragments, 8 is preserved to us only in texts which are strongly mixed with a, or represent a predominantly. Since undoubtedly a also dates back to a very early time, we are unable to say how early the process of mixing began at various points in the Church. Furthermore, it is to be remembered that ß, which possibly Irenzeus and the first Syrian and also the first Latin translator had before them in. an unmixed form, could and presumably did undergo numerous changes through internal developments, apart from the influence of a, before it came into the hands of these writers. By no means all the variants from @ which we find it necessary to class with 8, because of difference from a, and similarity to 8, are at once to be regarded as ı2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT necessarily an original part of 8. As was natural, and as is proved by numerous examples, the most radical changes in the text of the N.T. were made as early as in the second century. | Assuming then the existence of a 8 recension, in order to answer the question concerning the origin and relation of a and ß it is necessary to enter into details. In and of ‘itself it is quite conceivable: (1) that β is ἃ modi- fication of a, and that either this took place suddenly or developed gradually, appearing in the West some time between 120 and 150. After gaining a certain currency and authority there, it cireulated in Syria and in Egypt. It is also possible: (2) that 8 is the original form of the text which was deliberately worked over into the form a by recensionists, more or less learned, who improved the:style, and removed much that was unnecessary. This revised Acts, which necessarily commended itself to scholars and to the heads of the Church, circulated under their patronage and finally replaced 8 almost completely.’ It is further possible: (3) that. «a and β are both original, if, ‚as Blass assumes, the author issued two editions of his work, as was very frequently done in ancient, times (n. 4). In favour of the first. possibility is the un- deniable fact that texts which are undoubtedly spurious, eg. Mark xvi. 9-20, or the apocryphal additions, to Matt. xx. 28, were in circulation from Lyons to, Edessa as early as, the second and third centuries (vol. ἢ. 486, n. 9). In favour of the second possibility is the equally undoubted fact that from an early date changes were made in the N.T. text, partly for dogmatic, partly for stylistic, and partly for liturgical reasons. Im many) passages this caused either the complete or the almost complete disappearance of the original text from the Church (n. 5). Only here, as in every other in- stance of the kind) it is necessary to understand this revision of the text as independent of the myth οὗ 8 THE WRITINGS OF LUKE Ε3 canonisation of the N.T. writings in connection with ‘the equally mythical rise of the Catholic Church about. the year 170. For, while Rome, Lyons, and Carthage | were parts of the Catholic Church, they retained @ after as before the revision, and knew little of a until sometime in the fourth century, and to some extent refused to recognise it. It must also be borne in mind that, while Origen lamented the confusion of the N.T. text, and was the first to think of remedying it, he never became the text critic of the N.T. (GK, i. 74, A.) But, according to this second hypothesis, the revision in question was thoroughgoing and carefully planned, affecting contents as well as style, and indeed of such a character that it must have been made long before Origen’s time. The first hypothesis mentioned, namely, that of a gradual or sudden rise of 8 on the basis of a, is likewise out of harmony with the facts. If this were its origin, we should not have in 8 simply single interesting sayings or narratives added, designed to enrich the book, nor should we have simply single instances where the narrative is rendered awkward by such additions, but we should have a systematic recasting of the text with- out essential enrichment of the contents, showing. a general deterioration in the style. Only the third possibility remains. Decisive proof of the essential correctness of Blass’ hypothesis is to be found in the following considerations: (1) The’ facts to be found in 8 and not in @are neutral in character. They are) not such as would be excised, nor are they important enough to call for insertion. (2) Notwithstanding the difference in their contents, a and 8 never really contradict each other. (3) Both recensions exhibit throughout the style characteristic of the larger part of the book, which is the same in both recensions. A few examples will sutliee to make this clear. It has been previously remarked (above, p- 2) that. the 14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tradition which makes Luke a native of Antioch is in agreement with the 8 text of Acts xi. 27, but could not well have originated from this text. Still less can & be a gloss suggested by that tradition. An interpreter or scribe who wanted to insert a marginal note in connection with a passage of Acts to the effect that Luke was a member of the Church in Antioch, or who wanted to incorporate this remark in the text, would have selected some other passage like xiii. 1, and would have written, καὶ ἐγὼ Λουκᾶς ὁ ’Avrioxevs ($ 60, n. 11). What follows in the 8 text after xi. 27, “ And there was great rejoicing. And when we were assembled, one of them by the name of Agabus spoke,” etc., certainly does not sound as if it were an intentional addition, designed to indicate that the narrator was a member of this assembly. It seems to us rather to be the involuntary impression of the memory of the exalted state of feeling produced in the infant Church by the visit and messages of the Jewish prophets. The originality of the words is further proved by the genuine Lucan character of the language (n. 6). On the other hand, a could not have been produced from ß by a corrector, since correctors who did not object to the sudden and repeated appearance and disappearance of “we” from xvi. 10 onwards could not well have rejected the “we” in this passage. | Nor is the de- scription of the joyful state of feeling that prevailed in the Christian assemblies something exceptional in Acts (ii. 46, xv. ὃ, xvi. 84); it certainly was not objectionable to later readers. The only other hypothesis possible is to suppose that the author himself, when ‘he revised the first draft (8) of his work, found the deseription of the vathering where he had been present not only unnecessary, but even out of keeping with the style of his outline sketch of conditions in the Church at Antioch during the early years of its history (xi. 19-30). In this manner a arose from £. In chap. xii. we find in 8 a whole THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 15 series of additions, part of which it would have been entirely impossible for a corrector to invent without the aid of knowledge derived from sources other than a, e.g. the seven steps ow hil led down from the castle of Antonia to the street (xii. 10). Other of these additions are so harmless and so unnecessary, that they could not have arisen from the necessity of explaining the text (n. 7). On the other hand, they do not contain anything of a character which might have led a corrector to omit them. Since, however, there is nothing, either in contents or style, contradictory to a, it follows that this is another case where the author, in revising his book, cut out unnecessary details. The especial interest of the author in the continuance and condition of the Church of Antioch, which is apparent even in the common text of xiii. 1, has, unless all the facts are deceptive, found in β an especially vivid expression in the statement that Lucius of Cyrene was still living when Acts was written, whereas the other teachers of the Church of the years 43-50 were already dead (n. 6). The statement of Acts XViil. 22 in a has often been taken to mean that Paul, after his first short visit in Ephesus and his landing in Czesarea, visited Jerusalem. But this interpretation is to be rejected as being quite unsupported by the text, to say nothing of the surprise which one must feel at the entire lack of information concerning ‘this visit: to Jerusalem (n. 8). Luke says simply that Paul landed in Ceesarea, ereeted the Church in that city, and journeyed to Antioch. If the goal of this journey were Syria (ver. 18), that is to say Palestine (cf. xx. 3), it remains unexplained why he went no farther than Caesarea; or, if his objective point were Antioch, where he made a stay of some length (ver. 23), it is not clear why he went to Czesarea at all, instead of journeying directly to Seleucia, and thence to Antioch. We have also elsewhere’ similar cursory sketches of journeys, 6.9. xx. 1-4 (ἢ. 9), and, formally r6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT considered, the account in question lacks nothing; how- ever, it leaves the reader, who seeks a clear conception of what took place, unsatisfied. From 8 alone we learn that Paul) actually intended, when he left Corinth, to journey to Jerusalem, there to take part in the approach- ing feast, and that) he urged the importance of this journey ‘as an excuse for the brevity of his first. visit in Ephesus (ver. 21). Afterwards, however, we learn (xix. 1) that Paul was prevented from carrying out this plan by an exhortation of the Spirit, by which he was directed to turn back to Ephesus (without continuing his journey from Ceesarea to Jerusalem). ‘The intention to go to Jerusalem suggests xx. 16, but not a single word in xviii, 21 suggests that the addition in 8 is borrowed from this passage. Similar cases where Paul's own plans were set aside by a warning of the Spirit are to be found in xvi. 6f., according to 8 also in xvii. 15 (vol. 1. 214, n. 7; Harris, Four Lectures, p. 47), and again later in xx. 3. Comparable also is the almost reverse case, where Paul refuses to be hindered hy prophetic utterances from continuing his last journey to Jerusalem (xx. 23, xxi. 4, 11-14). But here again it will be observed that the expression in xix. 1 is entirely original (n, 8 end), If there be no question that this revelation took place in Ceesarea, then it cannot be regarded purely as a coin- cidence that at this time Paul was among those who cultivated the gift of prophecy (xxi, 9), and that im one other passage, in which an account of such a revelation of the Spirit is given (xvii. 15, here again only in 8), he was journeying in company with a prophet. The in- junction of the Spirit to Paul, “ Return to Asia,” we. “Do not proceed, further on the journey to Jerusalem,’ is to be regarded as a prophetic utterance of the Church spoken by someone near the apostle (vol. i. 207, 227 f, 237, n. 6; vol. ii 110 f.), as is true in all analogous cases, especially where direct address is used (xiii, 2, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 17 Brus 11 chub che, tx... 3). Possibly it. was the pro. phetically gifted daughters of Philip (xxi. 9) who “ spoke to Paul through the Spirit” (ef. xxi, 4), or, in other words, through whom the Spirit spoke to Paul (cf, xiii. 2, xxi. 11); just as it was the prophet. Silas through whom the Spirit spoke in xvi. 6, 7, and, according to 8, in xvi, 15 also. Is it conceivable that one whose only sources were a and his inkstand, should. introduce these transactions into the narrative just in those passages where it can be proved historically that they are possible and really presupposed? And if, like ourselves, he had reached this conclusion by a process. of combination, could he have failed to mention Silas and the pro- phetesses in Ciesarea? The only other thing which it is possible to suppose is that out of the fulness of his knowledge the author wrote down much in_ his first draft (8) which he cut out again in the revision (a), because it was unnecessary and in parts might even be misunderstood. _An improvement, in style is shown in a, as compared with β, by connecting xix. 1 with the episode in xviii. 24-28 and by resuming in the same verse the account of the journey interrupted in xviii. 23, But anyone who has had oceasion to correct, his own work, with a view to cutting out whatever seems superfluous and otherwise awkward, knows that in this process it is easy to lose some of the original freshness, and that not everything designed as an improvement, is really such. In Acts xx, 12 a picture is spoiled in the a text with no corresponding gain, a picture which, to be sure, is only imperfectly developed in 8. Paul leaves the house where he had talked to the assembled congregation until the break of day. The narrator, with the greater part of the company of travellers, departs to the harbour and g0es on board the ship, while Paul plans to follow by land some- what later, The last glimpse which Luke had, as the ship departed, was that of the Christians beckoning and VOL. III. 2 ı8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT calling good-bye to him and his companions, and in their midst Paul holding by the hand the young man whom he had restored to life (n. 10). It has been supposed that, according to the common text of xxi. 16, the house of Mnason, where Paul and his numerous travelling companions (n. 9) were entertained, was in Jerusalem. It is peculiar, of course, that no men- tion of the arrival in Jerusalem is made until ver. 17. It is equally strange that Christians from Czesarea should accompany Paul and his companions all the way to Jeru- salem in order to secure lodging for him in the house of Mnason, notwithstanding the fact that in the large con- gregation in Jerusalem, where now, as earlier, Paul re- ceived a most cordial welcome (xxi. 17, ef. xv. 4), there must certainly have been several houses where entertain- ment would have been most gladly furnished him, and where assistance would have been rendered in caring for the numerous strangers. All these difticulties are cleared up by 8. Mnason lived in a village on the way from Czesarea to Jerusalem. Paul and his companions were accompanied to this point by Christians from Ceesarea, who provided him with entertainment for the one night with a good and aged Christian—perhaps the only well- to-do Christian—in a little congregation in Samaria or Sharon (Acts vill. 4-17, ix. 31-43, xv. 4). This is what is meant ina; but the abbreviation of the narrative pro- duced a certain lack of clearness. The text relations of Acts xv.—a chapter naturally much considered from the earliest times—are peculiar, Even in the early verses of the chapter (vv. 1-5) the witnesses from which our knowledge of β is derived show variations from a which at once give rise to the sus- picion that originally they were not a part of 8 (n, 11). Even more in the case of vv. 15, 20, 29—from which xxi. 25 cannot be separated—readings oceur which it is impossible to reconcile with a, if this variant form be THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 19 correctly transmitted in our oldest MSS. and in the majority of citations and versions—readings, therefore, which certainly cannot have the same author as a. Par- ticularly but not exclusively in connection with the decree, xv. 29, the following peculiarities are to be noticed : (A) The omission of καὶ πνικτῶν or καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ ; (B) the famous saying ; καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλουσιν (θέλετε) ἑαυτοῖς γενέσθαι, ἑτέροις (ἑτέρῳ) μὴ ποιεῖν (ποιεῖτε), which is frequently found after the enumeration of the four or three things from which the Gentiles were to abstain; (C) the addition φερόμενοι ἐν (τῷ) ἁγίῳ πνεύματι after ed πράξετε (n. 12). A is clearly a mutilation, since if καὶ πνικτῶν were a spuri- ous addition, the most natural place for its insertion would be in the decree itself, xv. 29, then in xv. 20, and least natural of all in xxi. 25. But as a matter of fact it is in xxi. 25 that evidence for this fourth item is strongest. Since, moreover, it is inconceivable that the author should have recorded the decree more fully in an incidental refer- ence (xxi. 25) than in the passage where he gives its original form (xv. 29), and in the discourse of the mover of the resolution (xv. 20), it follows that καὶ πνικτῶν is genuine in all the cases where it occurs. While always retained in the East, before the time of Ireneus and Tertullian it disappeared from the text commonly used in the Western Church. But that it belonged originally in the Western text is proved also by the custom of the Church in abstaining from the use of the flesh of animals which had been strangled, or which had died a natural death, as is witnessed by Tertullian ; although he no longer found this passage in the text (n. 12). Nor is A to be regarded as a defect due merely to accident. It connects itself with a tendency variously manifested in other parts of the Church also. Only after the word “strangled” had been removed was it possible to make “blood” refer to human blood, and to find here, as Tertul- lian did, a commandment against murder, In accordance 20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT with this interpretation, the use of flesh offered to idols was made to refer to idolatrous worship itself (n. 13), and unchastity was narrowed to mean adultery. Thus we get the three mortal sins: /dololatria, machia, homicidium. The apostolic enactment, which had reference only to certain phases of moral life emphasised by the conditions of the time, became thus a sort of elementary moral catechism. Cis of the same general character, and like A was confined to the West, being the only text possessed by Irenzeus (who also gives A and B), and by Tertullian (who also gives A). It is true that in the East also the conclusion of the apostolic communication, which had a secular sound (ed πράξετε, ἔρρωσθε, ‘So shall it be well with you. Farewell”), was given a moral and religious turn— the former phrase being taken as a general injunction to good conduct, and the latter being enlarged into a Chris- tian formula (n. 14). But this process was carried further in the West, and good conduct in general, which was left undefined, was referred to the power of the Holy Spirit in the sense of Phil. ii. 15 (D, Irenxus, Tertullian), which opened the way for an extension of Church morality. The secular valete was also stricken out (n. 14). How widely C was circulated in the West it is impossible to say; in the East it did not make headway. On the other hand, the East was the home of B. While this text was not known to Tertullian, unless all appearances fail this locus communis was accepted as a part of the apostolic decree by the apologist Aristides of Athens in 140, and by the apologist Theophilus of Antioch in 180. Moreover, in .B alone (without A and C) xv. 20 and 29 are witmessed to by Origen, the Sahidie version, the Neoplatonist Porphyry, and Greek cursives, and in xy. 29 by Thomas of Heraclea (n. 12), The spuriousness of the saying is proved by the faet that its omission is entirely inconceivable in view of the general tendency to construe the decree as a moral cate- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 21 chism for those “turning from the Gentiles fo God” (xv. 19), especially where this tendency had already ex- erted a strong influence upon the text (Tertullian). On the other hand, the addition of this “ simple, true, and beautiful law, without question applieable to Christians,” as it is called in the Didascalıa (Syriac ed. p. 2.7), is fully explained by just this tendency. Direct occasion for its addition among the Greeks in the East was given by the Didache, which was much prized by them. In the first part of this document, which was intended “ for the Gentiles” and appointed to be read to candidates for baptism (chaps. i.-vi., ef. vii. 1), this commandment stands at the very beginning (i. 2) along with the commandment to love God and one’s neighbour, while at the conclusion of the same part (vi. 3) restrictions regarding the use of food are mentioned, only one of which, however, is un- conditional, namely that relating to things offered to idols. Since this writing was regarded as a teaching of the apostles, it was deemed all the more permissible to enrich from this source the apostolic decree, parts of which had become obsolete (§ 62). That this was the origin of the insertion is betrayed also by the fact that the sentence structure is not always smooth where these words are incorporated in the text (n. 15). The insertion was made in the East between 110 and 140, soon after which B began to circulate in the West, though its acceptance was by no means general. Tertullian does not have B, although it is found in Irenzeus, Cyprian, and many later Latin writers, also in D. But only in Irenzeus and D is it demonstrably fused with the two Western variants, A and C. It may be considered certain that the author of Acts was not responsible for this miatuwm compositum, nor for any one of its three elements, all of which give an interpreta tion unhistorieal in character. The only reason why A and C’ can be regarded as deteriorations of the original 8 text is the fact that they originated and circulated in the 22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT region where the £ recension predominated ; while B could just as easily have been inserted first in an ex- emplar of the a text, from which it found its way into copies of a as also of £. Although in this important point and in many others less important, readings, which Blass explains as part of the original text, prove to be only deteriorations of it dating back to an early time, the essential correctness of his hypothesis remains unaffected. On the other hand, his extension of the theory to the Gospel of Luke is untenable. The text which Blass gives us as the second or Roman edition of the Gospel, prepared by Luke him- self, is substantially nothing but a bold attempt to restore what is known as the Western text (n. 16). The question which has been answered in so many ways as to the value of this form of the text—it can hardly be called a recen- sion—is by no means confined to the third Gospel, but arises also in connection with the other Gospels and the Epistles of Paul. The only difference in this regard between the Gospels on the one hand, and the Epistles and Acts on the other, is occasioned by the existence of Tatian’s Diatessaron. While it is true that this work of Tatian’s is as yet far from being fully restored, it is never- theless a valuable source, which, taken together with the Western witnesses, enables us to determine accurately the age of many Western readings, and also to explain. the circulation of this form of the text from the Rhone to the Tigris. In addition, we have for the Gospel of Luke, and for this Gospel alone, the Gospel edited by Marcion in Rome about 145, our knowledge of which is far from com- plete, but much more accurate than it once was (GA, i. 585-718, ii. 409-529). It is not strange, therefore, that in the case of Luke the variation of the so-called Western text-—whieh here also may be designated as 8-—from the text (a) preserved in our oldest MSS. and the majority of Greek witnesses comes more clearly to view than in the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 23 case of the other Gospels, and particularly the Epistles. But throughout the question is essentially the same. There must be made a much more extended study of B— in the widest sense in which β is used—before a unani- mous conclusion can be reached by the critics. There are as yet no definite results, the statement of which would properly find place in a text-book. But those who hold that our oldest MSS. (NB) are to be dated about 200 years later than Marcion, Tatian, and Irenzeus, and who have some feeling for the difference between originality which is naive and uniformity due to liturgical, dogmatic, and stylistic considerations, must in a general way agree on the following points: (1) Very much that is original both as regards contents and form is preserved in 8, which was of a character that, for the reasons indicated above, early led to changes, and after the close of the third century to excision by learned recensionists of the text (Lucian, Hesychius, and Pamphilus). (2) A large number of arbitrary additions and verbal modifications were made in & throughout the whole of the period during which the text of the N.T. remained without systematic revision, and when it developed without the regular con- trol either of the Church or of scholars. More of. these additions and modifications were made in the more naive period from 150 to 200 than later, and in the Gospels much more than in the other N.T. books. This was natural, in the first place because the recollection of parallel texts led to the enrichment of each of the Gospels from the parallels, and, in the second place, because there were reports concerning words and deeds of Jesus which had not found their way into the four Gospels, but which were retained in the oral tradition until the beginning of the second century, and then continued to survive in writings like the five books of Papias. (3) The difficult problem will be solved to be sure only approximately, at any rate, however, only as two extremes are avoided : on 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the one hand, superstitious reverence for our so-called best MSS., which is often accompanied by a corresponding con- tempt for much older traditions, is to be laid aside; on the other hand, the critic must beware of an unhealthy fondness for all the interesting products and excrescences of the wild tradition of the second and third centuries, and of the feeling that goes with it that the learned recen- sionists from 300 onwards were simple destroyers of the text, to be compared, if not as regards orthodoxy, at least in matters of taste, to the enlightened revisers of German Church hymns in the rationalistic period. Applying these principles, we shall find in the case of Luke and of other N.T. writings in the 8 text, of which here also D may be regarded as our clearest witness : (1) a number of apoery- phal additions (n. 17), and (2) many cases where words are substituted and transposed, often for very trivial reasons (n. 18). (3) We shall find also a number of texts, giving material for the most part important, and exhibiting ‘an originality such as could not have been invented, which were wrongly set aside by the tradition of the third and fourth centuries (n. 19). This com- plicated relation between 8 and a is to be observed in all the Gospels, being more marked in Luke than in the others for the reasons indicated above. But we are not confronted in Luke as in Acts with parallels which make equal claims to acceptance, but the question is always an alternative between what Luke did write and what he could have written. This conclusion with regard to the texts of Luke does not in any way weaken the other con- clusion that in Acts we have a twofold form of the text. This fact, however, is of importance in connection with the question as to the origin of Luke's work. In deter- mining his witness concerning himself in Acts, a and ß are to be treated as of equal value. Whether the author who edited the second part of his work twice was what he claims to be, or only a compiler and fabricator of a some- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ‘ACTS 25 ¢ what later period, does not enter into the question here under discussion. 1. (P. 8.) According to Semler (Wetstenti libelli ad crisin NTi. 1766, p. 8), Jo. CLerIcus (in what writing?) under the pseudonym of Critobulus Hierapolitanus was of opinion that Luke published Acts twice; and Hemsterhuis (where ?) expressed a similar opinion in regard to still other N.T. writings. Deserving of mention here is also Acta apost. ad codicis Cantabrig. fidem ita rec. Bornemann, ut nunc demum divini libri primordia eluceant, Pars 1, Grossenhain and London, 1848. In the winter of 1885-86, in the New Testament seminar in Erlangen the present writer proposed as subject for the prize competition : “ Untersuchung der sachlich bedeutsamen Eigentümlichkeiten des cod. D in der AG” (Investigation of the essentially significant peculiarities of Cod. D in Acts), and required that the spread of these variants among Latin, Greek, Egyptian (Sahidic), and Syrian writers should be taken into account as far as this was possible for a student, using Tischendorf’s apparatus. According to the purpose of the present writer at that time, the objective point which he hoped to see the investigation reach, and which Fr. Gleiss, now pastor in Westerland on the island of Sylt, in some measure approached, was: (That there is presented in this recension) “either the first draft of the author before publication, or the copy which the author ased with his supplementary marginal notes.” Further than this the present writer had not advanced, but was not surprised when Fr. Brass, without knowing his view, came forward with his more definitely conceived and more thoroughly elaborated hypothesis in the following publications : “Die Textüberlieferung in der AG” (ThStKr, 1894, S. 86-119) ; Acta apostolorum sive Luce ad Theophilum liber alter, Ed. philol., Göttingen, 1895 ; “ Uber die verschiedenen Textesformen in den Schriften des Le” (NKZ, 1895, S. 712- 725; cf. NAZ, 1896, S. 964-971); “De duplici forma actorum Luce” (Hermathena, 1895, ix. 121-143, as against Chase in the Critical Review, 1894, p. 300 ff.) ; ThStKr, 1896, S. 436-471; Acta ap. secundum formam que videtur Romanam, Lips. 1896 ; Ev, sec. Le. secundum f. R., Lips. 1897, with an extensive introduction ; and, again, recently in ThStKr, 1900, 1 Heft. Those who expressed themselves as substantially in favour of this view were E. NESTLE, ChW, 1895, Nos. 13-15; cf., by the same author, Philologica sacra, 1896 ; ThStKr, 1896, 5. 102-118 ; ZÖCKLER (Greifswalder Studien, 1895, 8. 129- 142) ; BELSER, Die Selbstverteidigung des Pl im ΟἹ (Bibl. Stud. ed. Bardenhewer, Bd. 1, 3.189); Beiträge zur Erkl. der AG auf Grund der Lesearten des cod, D und seiner Genossen, 1897. Against Blass there have written, among others, P. Corssen in GGA, 1896, 5, 425 ff., and B. Weiss, Der cod. D in der AG, 1897. Of recent literature are mentioned: Port, Der abendl. Text der AG und die Wirquelle, 1900; COPPIETERS, De historia textus actor. ap., Louvain, 1902 ; Ernst, “Die Blass’sche Hypothese und die Textgeschichte,” Z/N7' W, 1903, S. 310-320. 2. (P. 10.) Cf. Griesbach, Symbol. erit. ii. 457-468, On the addition to Acts xv, 20, which, as has been recently attested, Origen also used, seen. 11. 3. (Pp. 10, 11.) A survey of the sources of recension 8 seems necessary : I. The Greek witnesses with which we are concerned are (1) the Greek and Latin 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Cod. D sxe. vi., of which, until recently, Beze Cod. Cantabrigiensis, ed Scrivener, Cambridge, 1864 (now in the phototype edition, 2 vols. Cantabrig. 1899), has been the best edition to use. Cf. also the collation in NTi. Supplementum, ed. Nestle, 1896. For criticism, cf. D. Schulz, Disputatio de cod. D, 1827 ; Credner, Beitr. zur Einl. (1832) i. 452-518; Rendel Harris, cod. Bese Cantabr. 1891 (Texts and Stud. ii. 1); by the same: author, Four Lectures on the Western Text, 1894; Chase, The Syriac element in the text of Cod. Beze, 1893 ; furthermore the literature inn, 1. The Greek text of Acts vill. 29-x. 14, xxi. 2-10, xxi. 15-18, xxii. 10-20, xxii. 29-xxviii. 31 is wanting in D, and the defects of the Latin text do not coincide fully with these, inasmuch as the latter is written on the front of the leaf to the right of the Greek text which is upon the back of the preceding leaf. In addition, but only here and there of significance, are (2) Cod. E Laudianus, Oxon. (see. vi.), Greek and Latin, ed. Tischendorf, 1870, in Monumenta Sacra, ix.; (3) cod. min, 137, sec. xi. (al. xiii.) in Milan; for the last-four chapters newly com- pared by Blass, cf. Acta, ed. minor, p. xxi ; fully compared by Mercati for Hilgenfeld ; Actus apost. gr. et lat. 1899, p. ix. The collation of Min. 58 (Bodlei. Clarke, 9) in Pott (Der abendl. Text. der AG und die Wirquelle, 1900, S. 78-88) offers only a little that is of value. Presumably there lies still in the minuscules, as well asin the Greek writers, a great deal of nndiscovered material. Τὸ the latter belongs especially Irenzeus, although he speaks to us almost entirely through a Latin translation ; to a certain extent Tertullian also, inasmuch as he read the N.T. not in the Latin translation, but in the original. Traces of recension 8 in Chrysostom, perhaps due to dependence upon an older commentary, have been proved by Harris, Your Lect. pp. 91-96, and Conybeare, “On the Western text of the Acts as evidenced by Chrysostom ” in AJPh, xvii. 2. A trace of the ß text is contained in Pionius, Vita Polye. chap. ii. (of the fourth century, see GGA, 1882, S. 289 ff.) ; for if the journey of Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1 through Galatia to Asia is there intended (cf. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part I. vol. i. Ign. Polye. 447), then the words μέχλων λοιπὸν ἀπιέναι εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα would be based upon an inexact recollection of 8 xix.1. IT. The Latin witnesses all go back to the old Latin translation. This seems to be preserved in an almost uncorrupted form (1) in the frag- ments of a Paris palimpsest (Acts iii, 2-iv. 18, v. 23-viii. 2, ix. 4-23, xiv. 5-23, xvii. 34-xvili. 19, xxiii. 8-24, xxvi. 20-xxvii. 13), edited by Berger, Le palimpseste de Flewry, Paris, 1889; cf. JThS, 1906, p. 454 f. (designated in Tischendorf as reg. in Wordsworth, ii. p. ix as h); (2) in the citations in the writings of Cyprian (cf. Corssen, Der cypr. Text der Acta ap. 1892). Portions also in the works of Augustine, Ambrosiaster (see below, n. 5, and vol. i. 553 f.), Lucifer, and others ; e.g. in a writing, de prophetis et prophetiis (from (od. 133 of St. Gall, published in Miscell. Casinese, parte ii. No. iv. p. 21ff.), and in the Martyrologium of Ado; cf. Quentin in Revue Bénédict. 1906, p. 4 ff. Mixed texts are exhibited in many Bibles which give the Vulgate in other books of the N.T., namely, (3) the so-called Gigas in Stockholm (ed. Belsheim, AG und Ap. aus dem Gigas, Christiana, 1879 ; (4) Cod. Paris, Lat. 321, especially important for chaps. i.—xiii., edited in part by Berger in Notices et. extraits des mas. χχχν. 1, 169-208, fully collated by Blass (ed. min. p. Xxv) 5 cf. Haussleiter, ThLb, 1896, No. 9; Blass, ThSt Kr, 1896, 8. 436 ff. ; ef. both of the above for (5) Cod. Wernigerodensis Z* 81, collated by Blass; (6) Paris THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 27 Lat. 6 (Bible of Rosas, see Wordsworth, ii. p. vii; Berger, Hist. de la Wulg. p- 24f.), partly in text, partly on margin; (7) a Provencal N.T. ed. Clédat, Paris, 1887. IIL. The Sahidie translation, almost entire (i. 1-xxiv. 19, xxvii. 27-38) in Woide-Ford, Append. cod, Alex. 1799, pp. 106-167 ; the lacune filled out in part by Amélineau, Zf/AgSp, 1886, pp. 112-114, and by other as yet unedited fragments ; see Scrivener-Miller, Jntrod. to the crit. of the N.T.4 ii. 135f. IV. It has been shown from the commentary of Ephrem on Acts, for the most part preserved in an Armenian catena, and from several passages in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles, that the oldest Syriac version of Acts coincides in many decisive points with Cod. D (Harris, Four lectures, pp. 22-51). The later Peshito has retained, as in the Pauline Epistles, many remnants of this oldest Syriac version (GK, ii. 556-564). Very little light has been cast upon them. At all events, Thomas of Heraclea, who in the year 616, in the monastery of St. Anthony in Alexandria, revised the so-called Philoxenian version of the N.T. which arose in the year 508, and who employed for Acts and the catholic Epistles one (for the Gospels two or three) Greek MS. of that monastery, gathered from this MS. and translated into Syriac a considerable number of readings which agree in substance with β. Some of them he introduced into the text, calling attention to them, however, by means of asterisks ; some he placed in the margin beside the reading given in the text. This indicates evidently that both sorts of readings were foreign to the older Philoxeniana, Still the question requires renewed investigation ; ef, e.g. Gwynn, Hermathena (1890), vii. 294f. 801. In what follows, these Syriac readings, as elsewhere the whole text of Thomas of Heraclea, have been designated for the sake of brevity as S°. 4, (P. 12.) Blass, ed. maj. p. 32; ed. min. p. vi, gives as examples of works which were twice edited by their authors :—-Demosthenes, Philipp. iii. ; Appolodorus, Chron.; Longinus, Nom. Attica; Cicero, Academ.; and, in addition, a remark of Galen (ed. Kühn, xvii, 1. 79) concerning the marginal notes of his own writings. Zockler, Greifswalder Stud. 132f., adds the three editions of Tertullian, c. Mare. i, (also adv. Judeos); a double edition of Lactantius, Jnst.; Eusebius, de Mart. Pal.; and other instances from the Middle Ages. Cf. also what Sedulius (ed. Huemer, p. 172) says concerning triple editions of the writings of Origen and the jurist Hermogenianus originating with the authors themselves. 5. (Pp. 10, 12.) Ambrosiaster on Gal. ii. 1 ff. (Ambrosii Opera, ed. Bened, il, app. p. 214; Souter, Study of Ambros. p. 199 1.) cites the decree to all appearances substantially complete, “Non molestari eos, qui ex gentibus credebant, sed ut ab his tantum observarent, id est a sanguine et fornicatione, et idololatria.” Thereupon he attacks the sophiste Grecorum, who imagine that they are able to observe these articles by their own reason and strength. Then he rejects the interpretation of a sanguine as homicidium, and wishes to have this understood correctly according to Gen. ix. 4, ὦ sanguine edendo cum curne. Then, p. 215: “ Denique tria hee mandata ab apostolis et senioribus data reperiuntur, que ignorant leges Romane, id est ut observent se ab idololatria, et sanguine, sicut Noé, et a fornicatione, Que sophisti Greecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen a sanguine abstinendum, adulterarunt seripturam, quartum imandatum addentes “et a suffocate observandum,’ quod puto nune Dei nutu intellecturi sunt, quia jam supra 28 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT dictum erat, quod addiderunt.” On the use of recension 8 by Ambrosiaster see vol. i. 553f. On his attitude to the Greek text, see GK, i. 34. Even impartial Greeks like Origen (in Osee; tom. xxxii. 32 in Jo. Delarue, iii. 438, iv. 455), and even an Epiphanius (Ancor. 31), recognised that not only stylistic, but dogmatic scruples of the orthodox had altered to a great extent the biblical text of the Church. 6. (Pp. 14,15.) Acts xi. 27 8 shows the linguistic character of Luke. Aside from Jude 24 and a citation in Heb. i. 9 we find ἀγαλλίασις only in Luke i. 14, 44; Acts ii. 46. He employs the verb also in Luke i. 47, x. 21; Acts xvi. 34. He alone, following the classical usage, has, Acts xxvili. 3, ovo- τρέφειν =“ gather together” (“ zusammenraffen”); xix. 40, xxiii, 12, συστροφῆ, “mob” (* Zusammenrottung”). With the same meaning, the verb, according to B, Acts xvi. 39, xvii. 5; textually uncertain, and with another meaning is συστρέφεσθαι (=cvvavacrpéper bar), Matt. xvii. 22; Acts x. 41, Cod. Ὁ. The word gives a graphic picture of the way in which the crowds collect about and press upon the prophets. The text of D is confirmed in essentials by d, Paris, 321, the Bibles of Rosas and Wernigerode ; by Augustine, de Sermone Dom. in Monte, lib. ii. 17, §57; Ado on Ides of Febr. (Quentin, Revue Bénédict, 1906, p. 4), and the writing de Prophetis, p. 21. In the last writing xi. 27-28 is quoted with the introduction: “et in actibus apostolorum sic legimus.” Immediately connected, however, with this citation is the following: “Et alium in locum: ‘Erant etiam in ecclesia prophets et doctores Barnabas et Sailus (read Saulus), quibus manus imposuerunt prophet, Symeon qui appellatus est Niger, et Lucius Cirinensis, qui manet usque adhue, et Ticius conlactaneus, qui acciperunt responsum ab spiritu sancto, unde dixit: ‘segregate mihi Barnabam et Saulum,’ etc.” Also in this citation there must be some trace of 8. That a and 8 vary widely from each other in this passage appears from the remarkable variants of D (ev οἷς after διδάσκαλοι [this also in Vulgate] Ἡρώδου καὶ rerpdpxov) and Paris, 321 (secundum unamquamque ecclesiam). In the text given above, before or after conlactaneus, which would otherwise be unintelligible, a genitive belonging to it, either ejus or Herodis tetrarche, has at all events dropped out, in addition, however, probably also Manen before conlactaneus. This last omission could perhaps have arisen mechanically from the similarity of MANZEN to MANET, which stands a few words before it. But the entire citation, in all its original variations, could never be explained from a false reading of the name Manan. Ticius is for Titus ; ef. the variants Τίτου, Teriov, Acts xviii. 7, a difference which the Latins did not express in the genitive Titi ; see Wordsworth, ad loc. Since Paul, a few years later, took Titus (Gal. ii. 1) with him from Antioch to Jerusalem, Luke could have mentioned him very naturally in this passage. How the name Ticius or Titus in this passage could be otherwise explained, is unknown to the present writer. The most remarkable variant, however, is the addition to the name of Lucius of Cyrene: qui manet usque ad hue, i.e. ὃς μένει ξως ἄρτι; ef. 1 Cor. xv. 6. All must acknowledge that this cannot be an arbitrary addition of a writer citing Acts, or the gloss of a later copyist. It can have been written only at the time when Lucius of Cyrene was still alive, and indeed by the same man, who, in this passage, according to all recensions of the text, by the enumeration of the teachers and prophets of Antioch,—persons who, with the exception of Paul and Barnabas, are wholly unimportant for THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 29 the further narrative,—has shown his especial interest in this Church, and according to 8 (Acts xi. 27) has made himself known as a member of thie Church about 40 a.p. It is Luke, then, who allowed these and other remarks of interest for his friend Theophilus to appear in his first edition. In the revision of his work preparatory to a second edition, he might have thought of a larger circle of readers, and a longer continuing circulation of his book, and therefore struck out the statement concerning Lueius, which after a short time might not agree with the fact. Luke wrote at a time when there was living at least one of the men who about 43-50 had been busy as teachers and prophets in Antioch, while others, at all events, the Simon Niger mentioned above, probably also Paul and Barnabas, were already dead. The especial interest of Luke in Antioch is also confirmed by the fact that in vi. 5 the home of only one of the seven men, £.e. of Nicoläus of Antioch, is given. 7. (P. 15.) The clause ev τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ, xii. 1 (8), is not, as though τῆς stood in its place, a nearer definition of τῆς ἐκκλησίας which might have appeared necessary to a later reader, but indicates the scene of the story, xii. 1-20, in contrast to Antioch, the scene of xi, 19-30. Οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας is good Greek (Kühner-Gerth, i. 457)=Church members (cf. xv. 5 a)=of πιστοί, ver. 3 (8), entirely without regard to any particular place or the congregation of any locality. That it is a question concerning such persons in Jerusalem and Judea and not in Antioch follows clearly enough from the personal and other particulars of the account. A reader who felt the loss of an expressed subject of ἀρεστόν ἐστιν in ver. 3 would have introduced τοῦτο, as several translators (e.g. Lucifer) have done. The text 8, ἡ ἐπιχείρησις αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς πιστούς, is too original in its manner of expression to be ranked as a gloss. In the N.T. ἐπιχείρησις does not occur elsewhere, and ἐπιχειρεῖν only in Luke i, 1; Acts ix. 29, xix. 13. Moreover, the feminine subject following the neuter predi- cate (Matt. vi. 34; 2 Cor. ii. 6) does not look like the work of a glossarist. Such a one would have supplied the need in ver. 5 of completing ἐτηρεῖτο ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ by mention of the guards, with words taken from ver, 4. The ὑπὸ τῆς omeipns τοῦ βασιλέως extends beyond ver. 4, and does not indicate the 4x4 soldiers entrusted with the guarding of Peter’s person, but the whole cohort (cf. x. 1, xxi. 31, xxvii. 1) which served as a garrison for the building, —probably the Antonia,—and whose duty it was to station the various sentries (ver. 10) in continuous relays. The words κατέβησαν τοὺς ἑπτὰ βαθμοὺς καί which 8 (ver. 10) offers between ἐξελθόντες and προῆλθον can only have been written by one who knew the locality. In xxi. 35, 40, where the stairs are mentioned which connected the Antonia not with the street, but directly with the Temple Area, no one could hit upon these seven steps by guess and then introduce them with the article as if well known to the reader. The seven and eight steps at the Temple gate in Ezek. xl. 22, 26, 31, in which Jerome found great mysteries (Morin, Anecd. Maredsol. iii, 2. 18, 111; cf. Origen, Fragm. in Jo. xi. 18, ed. Preuschen, 547. 21), explain nothing. On the contrary, it is quite plausible that Luke, who at first introduced at this point, unchanged, the story which evidently arose in Jerusalem, and was probably found by him in an older writing, upon looking over what he had written removed these words as being ill adapted to foreign readers. 8. (P. 15.) Belser has recently (Bibl. Stud. i. 3. 141 ff. ; Ausführlicher Beiträge, S. 8, 89 il.) not only maintained the formerly prevalent interpre- 30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tation of xviii. 22 of the a text, but introduced it into ß also. Paul is supposed to have journeyed from Cesarea to Jerusalem, and, after he had wandered from Antioch through Galatia and Phrygia, according to xix. 1 β, once more to have entertained the thought of returning to Jerusalem, instead of going finally to Ephesus, as he had promised. The Spirit, however, prevents him from carrying out this strange plan, and compels him to keep his promise. In the first place, as far as a is concerned, (1) the bare ἀναβάς (ver. 22) cannot indicate a journey from Ceesarea to Jerusalem. The 18 passages in the N.T. (3, Luke; 7, Acts) where ἀναβαίνειν εἰς ‘Iep. occurs, prove that this qualification is indispensable, as well as eis ᾿Αντιόχειαν, xiv. 26, xv. 30, xviii. 22. An absolute ἀναβαίνειν, John vii. 10, near the thrice recurring avaß. eis τὴν ἑορτήν, or John xii. 20, where Jerusalem is the scene of the previous events, and where, in addition, attendance upon the feast is given as the purpose in view, can scarcely be used for comparison ; for, according to a, Jerusalem, in Acts xviii., has not yet been named at all as the destination (ver. 18=Syria; ver. 21=only that Paul must make one more journey before his permanent settlement). The meaning of avaBaivew here is either “to go ashore” (cf. Matt. iii. 16), or, according to the Greek notion, to go wp from the harbour into the city, 1.6. from the shore inland. Cf. καταβαίνειν (Cod. D, kareAdeıw Textus ree.), Acts xiii. 4 of the wandering from Antioch to the seaport ; xx. 13 D and elsewhere κατελθόντες from the land to the harbour and ship. (2) The Church in Jerusalem is nowhere called simply ἡ ἐκκλησία, ef. rather viii. 1, xi. 22. On xii. 1, seen. 7. Chap. viii. 3, following viii. 1, proves nothing aside from the fact that at the time of the events of viii. 1-3 the local Church of Jerusalem (v. 11) was still essentially identical with the Christendom which Paul had persecuted (cf. Acts ix. 1, 31; 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i, 22f.). Only the Church, there- fore, of the place which is mentioned (xi. 26, xv. 3 Antioch; xv. 4 Jerusalem) can be meant: in this instance the Church of Cxsarea. It is not easy to see why the Church of Cesarea, which at that time had been so long in existence, might not have been called ἐκκλησία as well as those which were much younger (Acts xiv. 23, xv. 41, xvi. 5; 1 Thess. i. 1; Rom. xvi. 1, 4). But as for xix. 18, it is unthinkable that Paul, just after he had, as alleged, visited Jerusalem, and had made the long journey from that place vid Antioch and through Asia Minor as far as the neighbourhood of Ephesus, suddenly decided to journey again to Jerusalem, and in doing so, after having almost reached the end of a month’s journey, to return avain to its starting-point. This would be exactly an ὑποστρέφειν, and, on the other hand, the continuation of his journey to Ephesus would be merely the completion of a journey already nearly finished. The 8 text reads rather the opposite. And what then would be the τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη Which Paul would have had to wander through, after he had already traversed the land of the Galatians and Phrygia (ver. 23), in order to reach Ephesus? He is indeed, according to xviii. 23, already on the border of Asia in the narrowest sense of the term (as used by Luke, vol. i. 186f.), and only a few days distant from Ephesus, and the short journey thither leads through ἡ κάτω ᾿Ασία (vol. i. 187, line 16; Aristides, Epist. de Smyrna, ed. Dindorf, i. 766; Pausan. i. 4.6). It cannot be doubted, then, that Luke in xix. 1 8 refers to what pre- cedes xviii. 23, or rather that in xviii. 23 he anticipates the journey of Paul, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 31 and has so far deseribed it that in xix. 1 ἔρχεται εἰς Ἔφεσον could immediately follow. Even in xviii. 24, Luke goes back in time before the point reached in ver. 23 ; for what is related in xviii. 24-28 did not take place after Paul had come to Phrygia vid Cesarea and Antioch, and so had arrived in the vicinity of Ephesus, but occupies a great part of the time intervening between the first visit of Paul in Ephesus (xviii. 19-21) and his return thither (xix. 1). After this episode, and before resuming the narrative of the journey, interrupted in xviii. 23 (xix. 1, διελθών = xviii. 23, διερχόμενος), and before giving an account of Paul’s settlement in Ephesus, Luke turns back to an earlier point in the narrative (xix. la), and explains how it happened that Paul had not carried out his purpose to visit Jerusalem on this journey. According to the marginal reading of Thomas of Heraclea, from which D differs only in the matter of the weaker ὑποστρέφειν, instead of ὑπόστρεφε, xix. 1 reads: θέλοντος δὲ τοῦ Πάυλου κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν βουλὴν πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ πνεῦμα" “ ὑπόστρεφε εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν." Cf. above, p. 26, line 30 f. ; further, Ephrem, in Harris, Four Lectures, p. 48 ; marginal reading of the Bible of Rosas, and Ado (Quentin, p. 7), which describes the Journey of Acts xviii. 18-xix. 1 as follows: « Et inde (from Corinth) navigavit in Syriam et venit Ephesum et inde Czsaream et (therefore not to Jerusalem) Antiochiam et Galatiam regionem et Frigiam. Hine, cum vellet ire Hierosolimam, dixit ei spiritus sanctus, ut reverteretur in Asiam ; et cum peragrasset superiores partes, Ephesum venit.” The hine at the beginning of the second sentence, which is due to the misunderstand - ing explained above, is evidently an addition of Ado’s, just as the et inde, which often occurs. Ado naturally had also the stopping-place Trogyllium, xx. 15, 9. (Pp. 15,18.) On Acts χχ. 8 see above in text and Harris, Four Lectures, 49. On xx. 4f. see in part vol. i. 209, n. 2. The uncorrupted text of a has been transmitted by NB, the Coptic version, the Vulgate (and substantially by the Sahidie version): συνείπετο δὲ αὐτῷ Σώπατρος... καὶ Τιμόθεος, ᾿Ασιανοὶ δὲ Τυχικὸς καὶ Τρόφιμος. οὗτοι δὲ προελθόντες ἔμενον ἡμᾶς ἐν Τρωάδι, Inasmuch as ver. 3 pictures the moment in which Paul formed the resolution in Corinth to make the Journey to Syria by way of Macedonia, instead of by the sea route, and since συνείπετο, not συνείποντο, is the reading established for a, it is stated at first only regarding Sopater that he accompanied Paul from Corinth on this journey. This agrees with the fact that, as far as we know, Sopater was the only one of those mentioned, aside from Timothy, who was present with Paul at the time of his sojourn in Corinth (Rom. xvi. 21; vol. i. 209, 213, 417, n. 22). Timothy may have gone on ahead of Paul and Sopater from Corinth to Macedonia and even as far as Troas, and the rest, among whom were two persons of Thessalonica, Aristarchus and Secundus, would have Joined him en route, possibly in Thessalonica, so that Θεσσαλονικέων δέ is really in respeet of them equivalent to saying “from Thessalonica onwards.” ‘ The narrator himself does not join the company until they reach Philippi. ΑἹ] the persons named were fellow- travellers of Paul’s, so that συνείπετο could be placed at the beginning of the sentence, and be connected zeugmatically with all of them, Only in this way can the present writer understand the prominent position which is assigned to Sopater, and the explanatory phrase, οὗτοι δὲ κτλ, designed to ΄ 32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT prevent any misunderstanding. If this does not refer to all the persone named, besides Sopater, we cannot know which of these are to be dis- tinguished from others, The 8 text ind and D is at all events mutilated in different ways, and in S® it is preserved in a not altogether unmixed condition. Instead of inserting, as Blass does, an unwarranted προήρχοντο, συνείποντο αὐτῷ might be inserted according to d (comitari [a mistake for comitatiJeum) and S*. The eye of the copyist of D wandered from αὐτοῦ to duro. It reads therefore: μέλλοντος οὖν ἐξιέναι αὐτοῦ συνείποντο αὐτῷ μέχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας Σώπατρος . . . καὶ Τιμόθεος, ᾿Εφέσιοι δὲ Τυχικὸς καὶ Τρόφιμος, οὗτοι προελθόντες ἔμενον αὐτὸν ἐν Τρωάδι. This text also was not intended to be different from a. The Textus receptus is made really insufferable by the contlation with the a text (AEHLP) of the reading : ἄχρι (or μέχρι) τῆς ᾿Ασίας, which is genuine only in 8. As Luke wished to give the particulars of what had taken place in Asia, namely, in Troas and Miletus, he brought the journey of Paul and his companions (according to ß) for the time being only “as far as Asia,” without wishing to say that it came to an end there (cf. Rom. v. 14). Again, since he wished to cover rapidly the journey as far as Troas, he did not take pains to avoid the expression which makes it appear as if the whole company remained together from Corinth to Troas, although he has to add the remark that they arrived in Troas, at least in part, before Paul. One can understand that Luke found it advantageous in revising to smooth down these inequalities ; but not how one, who had a before him, might produce 8 from it. 10, (P. 18.) Acts xx. 12 reads, according to 1), ἀσπαζομένων δὲ αὐτῶν ἤγαγεν (not ἤγαγον; as d has it) τὸν νεανίσκον ζῶντα. This ἤγαγεν occurs in three minuscules and apparently also in the Armenian version, which has retained to a large extent traces of the oldest Syriac version ; ef. Robinson, Euthaliana, 76-92, according to which Paul leads the youth whom he has saved, and the latter does not let go his hand. In this case the greetings will apply not to Paul, or at least not to him alone, but especially to the “we” who departed before him. That these persons take leave before Paul does (προελθόντες according to a) is, however, also stated by Bin ὡς μέλλων αὐτὸς πεζεύειν, in spite of the κατελθόντες, which he uses in its place. Of the 8 text here only fragments are extant. Perhaps such are embedded in the Peshito, where, instead of οὕτως ἐξῆλθεν in ver. 11, we read; “and then he went out, to travel by land,” and ver. 13: “ But we went aboard the ship and sailed as far as the neighbourhood (?) of Thesos (for Assos), because we were to take Paul on board there, for so he had appointed when he set out by land.” 11. (P. 18.) In respect of Acts xv. 1-5 the present writer cannot admit as text 8: (1) the addition after Ἰουδαίας, ver. 1, of τῶν merurrev- κότων ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων, and the omission of the corresponding words in ver. 5; for aside from the fact that no witness (DS* min. 8, 137) presents this text unmixed and complete, and that there exists no Latin witness for it (see also Iren. iii, 12. 14), it seems ineredible that Luke should have taken this characteristic of the disturbers of the peace from its natural place in ver. 1 and placed it as an afterthought in ver. 5. (2) The un- wonted expression in a, ver, 1, wepırundnre τῷ ἔθει τῷ Μωῦύσέως, as well as the comparison in yer. 5 or xxi. 21, caused in DS* and the Sahidic version “ THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 38 the change καὶ τῷ ἐ. M. περιπατῆτε. But this is not characteristic of B. It is found verbatim, only with further additions, in Didase. (syr. version), p- 102. 26, where in the main (on vv. 2, 5, 20, 29 see ἢ, 12) not β, but a is presupposed. Moreover, the still further altered form in Const. Ap. vi. 12, which is based upon Didase., could not be introduced into the text by Blass in the face of his own chief witnesses. But the better accredited text of 8 also betrays itself as being an interpolation, in the singular τῷ ἔθει which is retained from a, and which does not construe with περιπατεῖν. Cf. on the eontrary vi. 14, xxi. 21. (3) The addition in ver. 2, ἔλεγεν, γὰρ ὁ Παῦλος μένειν (al. αὐτούς, al. ἕκαστον) οὕτως καθὼς ἐπίστευσαν διισχυριζόμενος, has a much wider currency in 8 and only in such witnesses as represent 8 largely in other respects also. Against its originality stand the facts: (a) that not a single earlier witness has the corresponding construction which Blass is obliged to create in order to use; (b) that the language is Paul’s as hardly anywhere else in the Acts (1 Cor. vii. 17, 20, 24, 40). On the other hand, it must be admitted that διισχυρίζεσθαι oceurs in the N.T. only in Luke xxii. 59; Acts xii. 15. (4) The’ following, ver. 2, of δὲ ἐληλυθότες ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ παρήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς (αὐ. 1), τότε 53) τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ Bapvaßa καί τισιν ἄλλοις ἀναβαίνειν πρός... ὅπως κριθῶσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, in β in itself might be genuine. In a also, only the newly arrived strangers could be the subject, of ἔταξαν, since if it were otherwise another subject (perhaps the Church) would have had to be named. 8 would conform to the correct text in Gal. 11. 5 without ois οὐδέ and to the correct interpretation put forward by Jerome, according to which Paul’s journey to Jerusalem signifies a temporary yielding to the Judaizers. It is quite comprehensible also that Luke in ashould have softened the harsh expression. But all is again made more than doubtful by the fact that the corresponding words in ver. 5, οἱ δὲ παραγγείλαντες αὐτοῖς ἀναβαίνειν πρὸς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, are incompatible with the characterisation of the people as Pharisees (see above, under 1), which is genuine there, and which is retained by D. 12. (Pp. 19, 20.) Of the variants indicated above on p- 19 by A, Band Ο, (1.) A and B are to be found in D for xv. 20 (where C could have no place) ; and in Iren. iii. 12. 14, now preserved also in Greek in a scholion (on xv. 20) of the Athos MS. (von der Goltz, TU, n.f. ii. da, S. 41, see vol. i. 396,n. 3). Ac- cording to the Bible text of this MS. (here without, but in xy. 29 and xxi. 25 with καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ) which, according to the statement of the copyist (8. 7 f.), is said to agree with the text used by Origen as the basis of his commentary, it could appear as if Origen also had had both the defect A and the addition B. Since, however, Origen neither here nor in the scholion on xy. 29 (S. 43), as so often elsewhere, is expressly mentioned, he may not be adduced either for A or for B and C in any passage whatsoever. Since, furthermore, the eritical marks, which point to the scholion on xv. 20, refer only to B, not to A, Porphyry also, whom the scholiast adduces with’ an appeal to Eusebius as advocate of the text of Trenzeus, may be made responsible only for B. The scholiast on xv. 20, where he omits καὶ rod mv., and on xv. 29, where he has it, takes no notice whatever of A in the scholia on the two passages, Like Porphyry, also the Sahidie version and many Greek min. witness in xv. 20 only to B without A; on the contrary, Gigas witnesses to A without B in xv. 20. (II.) For xv. 29 we find A, B, and C united in VOL. II. 3 34 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT Irenzus (in Greek scholion in v. ἃ. Goltz, TU, S. 43; ef. S. 41) and D; only A and B in Cyprian, Test. iii. 119 (perhaps cited incompletely) ; only A and C in Tertullian, Pud. xii. (differing in the arrangement : a fornicationibus [d has this plural also, in stupris] et sanguine) ; only A in Ambrosiaster (see n. 5), Pacianus, and others, known to Jerome as the ordinary Latin text (Vall. vii. 478, “*ab idolothytis et sanguine et fornicatione’ sive, ut in nonnullis exemplaribus scriptum est, ‘et a suffocatis’”). The text of the Vulgate, which has no trace of A, B, C in xv. 20, xxi. 15, is uncertain. One can agree with the judgment of Wordsworth and White, who place suffocato without et in brackets as a gloss, only in the sense that the MSS., which offer sanguine suffocato, go back to older MSS., in which the text of the Vulgate in this decisive passage (not, however, in xv. 20, xxi. 25) had been conformed to the Occidental tradition by striking out et suflocatis (or—to) found in the text, and that later copyists had again introduced into the text the fourth portion, which meanwhile had also in the Occident obtained the ascendency, in the form suffocate as attribute to sanguine. Jerome himself, who had taken notice of the variants, is to be credited neither with the inconsequence, of which he would have made himself guilty in his treatment of xv. 21 and xv. 29, nor with the adoption of a reading like sanguine suffocato, which, to say the least, is very erroneous. For this last reading one may not appeal to Cyril of Jerusalem, for, according to the MSS. (ed. Reischl and Rupp, i. 120, ii. 286), he cites (Catech. iv. 28, xvii. 29) καὶ mvixrod in the second passage with the variant καὶ πνικτῶν. Only the B of xv. 29 is found in S®, the Sahidie version, nine of the minuscules in Tischendorf, and the Latin Bibles pw, which Blass was the first to compare. In addition to these we are to take as evidence for B the letter of a Pelagian, circa 415 in Caspari, Briefe, Abhandlungen, ete., 1890, S. 18, cap. 4; cf. p. 9 (see other material in (1K, i. 367, A. 1, ii. 589, A. 6), probably also Theop. ad Autol. ii. 34, and the Latin Theophilus, i. 31, ii. 4; ef. Forsch. ii. 140f., and quite certainly Aristides, Apol. xv. 5; ef. Seeberg, Forsch. v. 213, 397. From many others which cite the passage thus or similarly, eg. Aphraates, ed. Wright, 498, Ephrem, Com. in epist. Pauli, pp. 9, 26, its likelihood is not to be established. It is very doubtful whether Marcion was acquainted at all with the passage (GK, ii. 462). Tertullian knew it (contra Mare. iv. 16, ed. Kroymann, p. 472), but,-as Pud. xii. shows, not as an element of the Apostolic Decree. The oldest Christian writing in which it is found is the Didache ; but in this the passage (i. 2) is widely separated from the place where it touches upon the Decree (vi, 3). So also in the Didascalia (Syr. p. 2. 8= Lat. ed. Hauler, 2. 12), while the Decree, according to the ordinary text, does not follow until much later (Syr. 104. 23; Lat. 45. 1). (IIL) For xxi, 25 the defective reading A is to be found only in D and the Gigas. It cannot be concluded (so also again Wordsworth-White, ii. 139), from Tert. Apol. ix,, that he had in this earlier writing, in distinction from the later, de Pud. xii., a text with καὶ πνικτῶν. In Apol. ix. he cites no text at all, but mentions the Christian custom of abstaining from every use of the blood of animals, in consequence of which they abstain also from the flesh of animals which have been strangled, or which have died (qui propterea suffocatis quoque et morticinis abstinemus). If this custom was so general in Africa also, as Tertullian here represents it to have been, this presupposes that the unmutilated Decree . THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 35 was known and operative there. As far as Tertullian himself is concerned. there exists between Apol. ix. and Pud. xii. only this difference : that in the former instance he assumes the interpretation of the “blood” in the Decree as the blood of animals, to be the natural and only one; and merely draws the conclusion that it would be wholly impossible for the Christians to drink human blood; and that, on the contrary, in Pud. xii., without ex- cluding the other interpretation, he prefers to make the word refer to human blood and more particularly to the shedding of blood in murder (homieidium). Moreover, a more detailed treatment of the history and the original meaning of the Decree cannot be given in this place; ef., however, § 62, n. 10. New literature on the subject: Böckenhoff, Das Apostol. Speisegesetz, 1903, and the very venturesome writing of Gotthold Resch (son of A. Resch), Das Aposteldekret nach seiner wusserkanonischen ΤΙ extgestalt, 1905. 13. (P. 20.) Tertullian, Pud. xii, translates εἰδωλοθύτων accurately by sacrificvis, but interprets it as ddololatria. The Latin Bible in Cyprian has already the translation ab idololatrüis. What is to be understood by φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα can be seen from 1 Cor. viii.-x. It refers merely to an indirect participation in idol worship, a dangerous approach to idolatry, The com- mand is φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας, 1 Cor. x. 14, not τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν as in 1 Cor. vi. 18, where the reference is to πορνεία. Only for the purpose of sharpening the conscience is it said (Didache, vi. 3; cf. Col. iii. 5) that even the partaking of sacrificial meat, or participation in festivities and banquets whose background is one of idol worship, is in itself idolatry, 14. (P. 20.) In the Didascalia, Syriac ed., p. 104. 23, the conclusion reads ; “And ye shall abstain from necessary (things), from sacrifices, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from unchastity. And from these (things) guard your souls, and ye will (shall) do good (=e πράξετε), and ye will be sound in health” (ἔρρωσθε). The reading πράξατε (CDHL, Didasc., Latin ed. bene agite) or πράξητε (E) expresses the same conception ; but the future πράξετε might also, as in the Decalogue, be taken as an imperative, and bene (Irenzeus, Pacian) or recte (Tertullian) agetts was not intended to mean anything else. The ἔρρωσθε is wanting in Ireneus and Tertullian, which is hardly accidental, inasmuch as Irenzeus at least gives in other instances the writing in complete form. D, which contains it, must have here also a mixed text. Cf. also Clem. Al. Peed. ii. 56, without ἔρρωσθε, 81: “be strong in the Lord.” 15. (P. 21.) Didache, i. 2 : πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσῃς μὴ γίνεσθαί σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ ποίει. Cod. D xv. 20, where the Gentile Christians are spoken of in the third person ; but καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι (written γεινεσθαι), ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε (ἃ faciatis, Ireneus faciant), and per contra xv. 29, where the address would be possible because of what follows, D has θέλετε ἑαυτοῖς... ποιεῖν ; d, Irenwus (Lat. text), Oypriany"wultis fieri vobis ... Fuciatis or feceritis ; Iren. (Greek text) (v. ἃ. Goltz, TU, S. 41), here as in xv. 20, καὶ ὅσα ἂν μὴ θέλωσιν αὐτοῖς γενέσθαι, ἄλλοις μὴ ποιεῖν. The singular ἑτέρῳ, xv. 39 (Ὁ, d, Cyprian ; pseudo-Aug. Sermo 265, ed. Bass. xvi. 1367; the Pelagian letter [see n. 12] alii and nullo wit), which other Greek and Latin writers felt to be unsuitable alongside of ἑαυτοῖς, vobis, and ποιεῖτε, is also an echo of the form ἄλλῳ in the Didache. 16. (P. 22.) Blass in Luke i. 26 gives, instead of the definite statement 36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of time, ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ χαιρῷ, only according to Latin witnesses. Why does he not, therefore, give the same formula in Acts v. 1 according to E, and in Acts iii. 1 according to D—ev δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις ? The first formula is, however, a solemn introduetion of the pericopes in the Greek as in the Latin lectionaries ; see, e.g., Scholz, N.T. ii. 455 ff.; Liber Comicus, ed. Morin, pp. 7, 13, 15, ete. It is found also countless times in the Ev. Hiersol. in the half- Greek form μον (Ξε καιρῷ) 7, in most cases standing outside the con- struction, and even where the statements of time contained and retained in the text itself make it superfluous (Matt. iv. 1, 17, xxiii. 1; John vii. 1, 33, ed. Lagarde, p. 282. 1, 19, 302. 18, 370. 15, 371. 21), but also amalga- mated with the text, where it contains no determination of time (John viii. 1, p. 372. 7; in pure Syriac, Matt. xv. 21, p. 292. 25, “at this time came Jesus”). In other passages, as Matt. iii. 1, p. 281. 10, 19, the formula arising out of the system of pericopes displaces that contained in the text. Acts ~ iii. 1, v. 1 were the beginnings of Church pericopes (Scrivener, Introd. i. 80 and the marginal readings of Cod. 104 in Tischendorf on Acts iii. 1). Although the later Greek system had Luke i. 24-38 for Annunciation-day (Scrivener, p. 88; Ev. Hiersol, ed. Lagarde, pp. 273, 329), i. 26 is, however, the natural beginning. The fact that already Iren. iii. 10. 2, or, at least, his Latin translator, had in i. 26 the liturgical formula, may be of weight for the history of lectionaries, but cannot make the source of the reading doubtful. Cod. D, however, which does not here follow the Latins, stands in other passages under the influence of a pericope-system ; cf. Scrivener, Introd. p. li. Blass (with D Ss) has not only placed the words διὰ τὸ εἶναι κτλ. taken from Luke ii. 4, after ver. 5, but also by adopting αὐτούς for αὐτόν has burdened Luke himself, in spite of Luke i. 36, with the fable of the Davidie descent of Mary, which arose in the second century. The only direct witness for this is the Lat. Palat. (ed. Tischendorf, p. 245, qued essent de domo, etc.). Since, however, this is the ordinary position of the sentences, accord- ing to which up to this point Mary has not been mentioned at all, essent is accordingly an evident mistake for esset. The Syrians, however, who read here “since both of them were of the house of David,” depend upon Tatian, who had allowed himself this insertion (Forsch. i. 88, 118, 265 ; ef. the apocryphal Ste Korintherbrief, ed. Vetter, S. 54, ver.4; GK, ii. 561 ; in addition, Ephrem, Comm. in ep. Paul, p. 260; ThLb, 1893, 8. 471 ; 1895, S. 19); also a Dutch Harmony of the Middle Ages, which offers the same statement in Luke i. 27 (Academy, 1894, March 24). This interpolation brought about the trans- position of the sentences ; since it, however, can be considered an improve- ment of the style, and since it is to be found in D without the interpolation, Tatian may have found the transposition already present in his Luke. 17. (P. 24.) It it beyond dispute, that in the genealogical scheme of Luke iii. 23 ff., D Nas introduced the names from Matt. i. 10-16; ef. com- pilations such as are given in Cod. Fuld., ed. Ranke, p. 33. D has a large harmonising interpolation in Luke v. 14, taken from Mark i. 45, a liturgical gloss at the beginning of a pericope, Luke xvi. 19, see Tischendorf, ad loc., and also on xvi. 1. D alone has after Luke vi. 4 the following: τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῷ" “ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας, τί ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἶ, εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου." This is followed, vi. 6, by the following recasting of the text: καὶ THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 37 εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ πάλιν eis τὴν συναγωγὴν σαββάτῳ, ἐν 7 ἢν ἄνθρωπος κτλ. On the other hand, ver. 5 does not follow until after ver. 10. That all οἱ these changes are arbitrary, appears (1) from the fact that the disappearance from the whole tradition except D of the clever anecdote, at which no Gentile Christian could have taken offence, would otherwise be incomprehensible. (2) It should not be disputed that the teaching in ver. 5 is deduced neither from this anecdote nor from the following Sabbath story, vv. 6-10, but only from the incident related in vv. 1-4. This same closing sentence of the incident is found Matt. xii. 8; Mark ii. 28, and, according to all witnesses except D, also in Luke vi. 5. (3) The anecdote betrays by τῷ σαββάτῳ, which is intolerable after τῇ αὐτῇ nuepa,—since, according to vi. 1, this day is a Sabbath, —that the second statement of time originally belonged to the anecdote ; the first statement, however, was added to help in fitting it into the present connection. (4) The awkward position, also, which σαββάτῳ has been given by D in ver. 6, betrays the interpolator. Since two other long interpolations in D, namely, John vii. 53-viii. 11 and Mark xvi. 9-20 (these at least in substance, see vol. ii. 471 f., and below, § 69, n. 3) were taken from Papias, it is probable that this apocryphal Sabbath story was taken from the same source. It can, of course, be historically true: Jesus can have said, that he acts well who, like the priests in the temple (Matt. xii. 5, cf. John vii. 19-23), breaks the letter of the commandment concerning the Sabbath in the consciousness that he is fulfilling a higher duty. The obligatoriness of the law, when rightly understood, he did not by this saying dispute, 18. (P. 24.) Whereas the additions discussed in n. 17 are peculiar to D, it shares with many Latin and partly also Syrian texts a large number of changes of words and inversions which are no more to be understood as actual improvements—perhaps from the author correcting his first edition— than as belonging to the original form from which the a text could have arisen. Examples: according to a, i. 63, all are astonished that the dumb Zacharias in spite of the general protest gives the child the same name, John, which Elisabeth had given it. It appeared much more astonishing that sud- denly he could speak again. Therefore 8 transfers καὶ ἐθαύμασαν πάντες to a position after ἐλύθη ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ. In ß this is followed by “his mouth, however, was opened” ; then first comes the statement, “he spoke, praising God.” By what means, however, before he opened his mouth and spoke, could the people have known that his tongue was loosed? It was a necessary improvement of this laughable “ improvement,” when Ss, and, in view of this one witness, Blass also, transposed the astonishment to a position after the speaking. But how, then, is the much stronger witnessed reading of D abg! to be explained? Concerning the commonplace change of xii. 38 (which Marcion found in existence, but which D and most MSS. offer mixed with the genuine text), see GK, i. 682 f,, ii. 476. In view of the fact that, as a rule, the mother herself is not able at once to attend to her new- born child, the Lat. Palat. (0) has written in ii. 7 the plurals obvolwerunt . . . collocaverunt. The noticeable brevity of the introductory formula in a, xxill, 42 f., and the form of address with the bare Ἰησοῦ, not found elsewhere in the N.T. (cf., however, Mark i. 24, x. 47; Luke viii. 28 [also here omitted from D], xvii. 13, xviii. 38 [omitted in AE, etc.]), must have stimulated copyists to corrections, But the great multiplicity of the variants, several of 38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which may be very early, is evidence against all of them. Especially the τῷ ἐπιπλήσσοντι along with αὐτῷ in D characterises itself by its very super fluousness as a gloss to αὐτῷ. A preacher, who contrasted the two male- factors with each other, might have so designated the remorseful one in view of ἐπιτιμῶν, ver. 40; and to a man of this kind all variants of D in this passage are to be credited, e.g. ἔλευσις (also xxi. 7 D), θάρσει (also viii. 48 inserted by others). The expression of Luke, in part peculiar but also varied in manifold ways according to the object and the sources used, incited to changes in order to make his Gospel agree partly with the other Gospels and partly with the common usage. In this respect D, and its satellites especially, have gone to great lengths. The inconsistency of 8 proves that the variants which have arisen in this way have not been brought about by a systematic working over either of 8 into a, or of a into 8, but by sporadic changes in B. The word πλησθῆναι (the verb 13 times in Luke, 9 times in Acts, only 3 times elsewhere), used to designate the passing of a period of time, i. 28, 57, ii. 6, 21, 22 (found only here in N.T.), is retained 3 times in D, however, ii. 6 τελεσθῆναι (cf. Rev. xx. 3-5), ii. 21 συντελεσθῆναι (cf. Luke iv.2; Acts xxi. 27). D has replaced καλεῖν ὄνομα, i. 13, 31, ii. 21 (Matt, i. 21-25) only in ii. 21 by the preferable ὀνομάζειν ὄνομα (cf. Acts xix. 13; Eph. i. 21), and, on the other hand, has replaced the latter in vi. 13 by καλεῖν, used more commonly in the choice of the apostles, and in vi. 14 by ἐπονομάζειν, which is more suited in giving a person a surname. For ἐπιστάτης, which is used only by Luke, D has in v. 5 διδάσκαλε, villi. 24 κύριε, per contra in viii. 45 (one min. omits), ix. 33 (the min. 157, which otherwise agrees with D and Marcion, has διδάσκαλε), ix. 49 (many διδάσκαλε), and xvii. 13 has retained it. For ἦχος (only Luke iv. 37; Acts ii. 2, also κατηχεῖν, in the Gospels only Luke i. 4; Acts xviii. 25, xxi, 21, 24) D has iv. 37 axon, as Matt. and Mark everywhere, Luke never in this meaning. For αἶνος, xviii. 43 (cf. αἰνεῖν 4 times in Luke, 3 times in Acts, only twice elsewhere in N.T.), D has the common δόξα ; for ἄτοπον, xxiii. 41 (elsewhere only Acts xxv. 5, xxviii. 6; entirely different 2 Thess. iii. 2), the trivial πονηρόν. 19. (P. 24.) The present writer mentions as genuine texts which D and its satellites have preserved : (1) iii. 22: υἱός μου ef σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον yeyev- νηκά σε. So D and a large number of Latin witnesses. Augustine, who throughout his work, de Cons, Evv., uses the Vulgate as the basis of his dis- cussion (Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, 1896), mentions (ii. 19. 31) only the older Greek MSS., which have the common text. In the Latin Bible, 8 was at all events predominating and original. The fact that the Syriac versions do not have this form is explained by their dependence upon Tatian, who naturally could use only one form of the words spoken by the heavenly voice, for which, however, he did not choose Luke iii. 22, but Matt. iii. 17 (Forsch. i. 124). If it is established that the Gospel of the Ebionites (circa 170) is a compilation from the canonical Gospels, and has made especial use of Luke,—also in the account of the baptism (ἐν eidei),—it cannot be well doubted, that of the three heavenly voices which this Gospel contains, the first is taken from Mark i. 11, the second from Luke iii. 22 (in the form 8), and the third from Matt. iii. 17 (@K, ii. 726, 732f.). It may further be considered as settled that Justin, Dial. Ixxxviii. ciii. to whom THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 39 t.is text was evidently embarrassing, had read it in Luke (GK, i. 541) According to the creed of the Church, Jesus, on account of His wonderful entrance into human life, was already looked upon as the Son of God ; further, as early as in Heb. i. 5, Ps. ii. 7 was interpreted as referring to this event, and this seems better to suit Luke i. 32, 35. The variation from Matt. and Mark must have also appeared objectionable, and finally an extreme emphasis was laid upon the baptism of Jesus by many heretics. In view of all these facts, therefore, the 8 text must have become more and more intolerable to the consciousness of the Church, and at the same time to those who, like Justin, in addition to the wonderful generation of the man Jesus, taught also a pretemporal generation of the Logos. The rise and wide circulation of 8, on the basis of a, in the Church of the second century appears incomprehensible ; on the other hand, the gradual supplanting of β by a seems almost unavoidable. It is inconceivable that one and the same Luke in the two editions of his work should have changed from one to the other of the mutually exclusive traditions. There is, however, no evidence against the fact that 8 originated with Luke himself. If Ps. ii. 7 could have been connected with the resurrection in Acts xiii. 32-34, and in Heb. i. 5f. with the incarnation, so also could it have been connected with the baptism. Luke iii. 22 8 is just as consistent with Luke i. 35 as Acts ii. 36 with Luke ii. 11, iv. 18, Acts x. 36, 38, or as Rom. i. 4 with Rom. i. 3, vill. 3. God begat Jesus as His Son, since He was born ; and again in the figurative mean- ing of the Psalm passage made Him His Chosen Christ, since He furnished Him in the baptism with the spirit of His office (Luke xxiii. 35 ; John i. 34 according to N Ss Scet al). (2) From fear that they might be utilised by the Marcionites, the words, ix. 54, “even as Elijah did,” and ver. 55, “ ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of,” were struck out, the former by some (Se, of the Latin MSS. e vg), the latter by others (AC), both by still others (NBL Ss). These facts prove that an antinomistic text produced by Marcion has not here found the most extensive circulation in the Catholie Church (D, most Latin MSS. 51 S3, Chrysost. ete.), but that Marcion found this, and that Luke had written it (@K, ii. 468). (3) The history of the text of xxii. 17-20 is very involved. I. The a text is found with some variants in NABCL, ete,, and accordingly in Tischendorf as in the Text. receptus, II. The present writer considers as belonging to β the text of the two most important old Latin MSS. Ὁ e (k lacks this passage). In this text ver. 16 is immediately followed by ver. 19a, καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον --τὸ σῶμά μου, then comes vv. 17, 18 as in Tischendorf. There is lacking, therefore, vv. 195-20 (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον---τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον). How Marcion’s text is related to this text has not yet been determined with entire certainty. At all events he has nothing of vv. 16, 18, 195 (on this point @K, ii. 490, is not fully exact) ; further, he has the cup after the bread, 1.6. immediately after 19a, and only one cup. He agrees, therefore, in deeisive points with B against a. The sentence about the cup contains, however, the word διαθήκη. It was accordingly formed, not as in ß=ver. 17 of a, but probably after 1 Cor. xi. 25, as to a certain extent also in a, ver. 20. In another way Ss and Sc in this passage (concerning S'=Peshito at the present writing there is nothing certain to be said) show that 8 is their basis which they have interpolated in various ways from the parallels. At the same time one must 40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT eonsider that they are influenced by Tatian, who, as may easily be conceived, had in his harmony a mixed text from the different accounts of the Gospels, probably also from 1 Cor. xi. (Forsch. i. 204; GK, ii. 551 ff.). That the Syriac versions have attempted many times to improve this passage is shown by the fact that γέννημα is rendered by three different words in Se Ss Sh. Se Ss agree with 8 in that they have the order vv. 16, 19, 17, 18, 21, and so only one cup. However, ver. 19 f. reads in these texts: “And he took bread, and gave thanks over it, and brake it, and gave it to them, and said : This is My body, which (Ss+is given) for you ; this do in remembrance of Me. And (Ss+after they had eaten) He took a cup, and gave thanks over it, and said: Take this, divide it among yourselves (Ss+this is My blood of the new covenant). I say to you that from henceforth I will not drink of the fruit of the vine (Ss of this fruit) until the Kingdom of God comes” (ver. 21 follows). It is evident to everyone that all that Ss has additional to Se is interpolation ; no Syrian who had» 1 Cor. xi. and the other Gospels, or the Diatessaron (cf. Aphraates, p. 221), in his Bible, could take offence at it. Therefore, if Se offers the relatively or absolutely original Syriac text of the “separate” Gospels, then this differs from 8 only by the acceptance of ver. 19). This addition does not come, however, from a Greek text of Luke, but, since διδόμενον is lacking, from 1 Cor. xi. 24. III. D and four old Latin MSS. have vv. 16-19a (as far as τὸ σῶμά pov) in the order of a, but without vs. 19-20. This text, which is here called y, can neither in itself nor in relation to II. be original. For (1) the ancient character of the Latin wit- nesses for 8 (Ὁ 6) in comparison with the Latin witnesses for y (a ff? i 1), as also the essential agreement of the former with the oldest Syriac text (see above), proves that β is the more original form in the Latin Bible, from which at a later time y developed. This change is explained if we presuppose on the part of the author of the y text a regard for the a text, which also in the Occident gradually gained the ascendency. This arrangement (of the account of the Supper) was adopted more easily, since thereby a seemingly suitable parallelismus membrorum between vv. 15-16 and 17-18 would be secured. On the other hand, the wording of the old Occidental, and at the same time Syriac text ß itself was retained even in details, such as the omission of the second καί, ver. 17. (2) Consequently y cannot be original, since in this text the one cup, which 8 and y have, is placed before the bread. This, however, contradicts all tradition, both of the N.T. (1 Cor. xi. 24f., οἵ, χ. 3 f.; Matt. xxvi. 26 f.; Mark xiv. 22f.; also Marcion and Tatian, GK, ii. 490, 509 ; Forsch. i. 204) and of the liturgical usage. Against this one cannot adduce as evidence to the contrary the mention of the cup before the bread, 1 Cor. x. 16f., or even before the table, %.e. before the entire meal, ver. 21; for it is ineon- ceivable that Paul should contradict himself in so brief a passage. The Didache also recognises the order, food and drink (Didache, x. 3, ef. 1 Cor. x. 3f.), while the prayers (Didache, ix. 2f.) at first over the cup, then over the bread, do not belong to the Eucharist in the narrower meaning, but to the introductory Agape (Forsch. iii. 293 ff.). There remains accordingly only the question whether a or 8 was written by Luke. For 8 there are decisive : (1) the age of its attestation, (2) that the origin of 8 from ais just as easily understood as the origin of a from ß is inconceivable. No Christian of earlier or later times could take offence at the words in vv. 19), 20, known THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 41 in part from Matt. and Mark and in part from 1 Cor. xi, On the other hand, everyone must take offence at the fact that the cup of Luke is not likened to the blood, and was not in any way characterised in its sacramental significance. Inasmuch as the Gospel of Luke in earlier times was held to be the Gospel of Paul (vol. ii. 385, n. 7), nothing was more natural than to add to his meagre text from 1 Cor. xi. Since, however, according to a very effective Canon of the text criticism of the early Church, anything that had been handed down in the tradition, and was suited to the taste of the Church, might not be relinquished (cf. Eusebius in Mai, Nova p. bibl. iv. 1. 255), the original account of the cup, in no way characterised as a sacrament, was transferred to a position before the account of the institution of the sacra- ment, i.e. immediately following ver. 16, after it had been displaced by an interpolation from its original position. Along with the eating of the pass- over, ver. 15 f., stood now as seemingly suitable a drinking of the cup, which belonged just as little as the former to the sacrament, but as well as that constituted an act preparatory to the institution of the sacrament. (3), That a grew out of β in such an artificial way, is betrayed also by the fact that ro ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, ver. 20, does not in its content suit τὸ ποτήριον nor in its wording τῷ αἵματι as apposition. Neither a solecism so bad, and in no way necessary, is to be credited to a Luke, nor the impossible thought that the cup which Jesus hands to the disciples was poured out or shed in their behalf. The genuineness of 8 appears from all these facts to the present writer to be without doubt. The peculiarity of the account of Luke, which, to be sure, is noticeable, is due to the purpose of this Gospel, ef. § 60, The present writer must content himself with these examples out of the textual history of Luke’s Gospel, and add only the assertion, that also in other important passages it must first be determined what is the original of the group of Western and Eastern witnesses, designated by ß, before one can decide anything as to what is the original. The present writer is of the opinion that D has preserved also at xxii. 43 f., xxiv. 51, what was written by Luke ; on the other hand, the false additions, xxiii. 38, 53 ; omissions, xxiii. 34; false changes, xi. 53f. § 60. PREFACE, PLAN, AND PURPOSE OF LUKE'S HISTORICAL WORK. Unlike Matthew and Mark, the third Gospel has no title given to it by the author, in which respect it resembles the Fourth Gospel and Acts. Nor is there evidence to show that Luke, whom we may assume to be the author, ever provided either of his two books with a common title, or each of them with individual titles, which were subsequently lost (n. 1). In fact, such a title was quite unnecessary, if Luke did not design his work for circulation among the reading public through the ordinary 42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT channels, and if he did not intend it to be read in the services of the Church, as John did Revelation, but wrote it primarily for the use of an individual. That this was the case is proved by the dedication prefixed to the work. In this Luke is the only one of the historical authors of the N.T. to follow a eustom much in vogue among the Greek and Roman writers of that time. Although in classic usage the dedication frequently was only a polite expression of personal regard or of servile appeal, having no intimate connection with the contents and purpose of the writing, there are numerous cases where the address shows that the writer dedicated his work to a friend and patron because he had suggested its composition, or because, from his interest in the subject of the work or in the person of the author, the latter hoped to secure a wider circula- tion of his work, or because such a person seemed to him appropriately to represent the class of readers whom he desired his book to reach (n. 2). In general, this characterises the dedication of Luke’s work to Theophilus, as is clear from the specific statement of the author’s purpose with which the dedication con- cludes. The address, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, not only shows that Theophilus was a man of high position (n. 3), but also proves that, at the time, he was not a member of the Christian Church; since there is no instance in the Christian literature of the first two centuries where a Christian uses a secular title in addressing another Christian, to say nothing of a title of this character, which may be said to correspond in a general way to “Your Excellency” (n. 3). Theophilus is a Gentile interested in Christianity. The word κατηχήθης cannot be interpreted to mean that he was a “ catechumen” in the technical sense, 2.e. a person under instruction by the Church preparatory to baptism. “For, in the first place, we do not find this technical meaning of κατηχεῖν, karnxeiodaı in use until a later time, and, in particular, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 43 it is not to be found in this sense elsewhere in Luke’s writings. In the second place, the use of the aorist would indicate that Theophilus had previously received this instruction, and had been already baptized. This, however, is not only out of harmony with the title by which Luke addresses him, as already indicated, but even more so with the statement of the result which Luke hoped to accomplish in the case of Theophilus by his historical account. _ The work is designed to give Theophilus his first real knowledge, fundamental insight, and conviction regarding the “trustworthiness of the words concerning which he had heard” (ver. 4, n. 4). Assuming as self-evident that the λόγοι, about the trust- worthiness of which the author is here speaking, were words, discourses, or teachings relating to the πράγματα which Luke was about to set forth in their historical order, it is perfectly clear that one who had been instructed by the Church and baptized into its membership would not need to be convinced of the trustworthiness of these λόγοι. Moreover, from Luke’s language it is certain that the information which Theophilus had received about the facts. of Christianity and the Christian doctrines based upon these facts, had not afforded a certainty which satisfied his critical understanding (n. 4). On the other hand, the fact that Luke’s book is dedicated to him, and the tone of the dedication, prove that it was not mere curiosity that led Theophilus to enter into relation with the Christians and with Luke, but that he was favourably inclined toward the Christian faith, only all his doubts had not yet been overcome. The fact that Luke dedicated a second book to him may be taken as proof that the first had met a kindly reception, while from the absence of the polite form of address in Acts i. 1 we are possibly to conclude that in the meantime he had ceased to be the man of distinction, and had become a brother. One of the Greek preachers (above, p. 6, n. 5) fittingly compares Theophilus with the pro- 44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT consul Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 6-12). In view of his social position, it is very natural to suppose that Luke may have written for him primarily, as he says (σοὶ γράψαι). But Theophilus’ position was also a guarantee that when the work had accomplished its immediate end it would find a wider circulation. >= If such was Luke’s purpose, it follows at once that vv. 1-2 are not designed to give the reasons which led him to the decision to write this work. In the first place, the contents of vv. 1-2 are not at all suited to express such a purpose (n. 5). Moreover, it is self-evident that the only adequate and generally intelligent reason for literary work of any sort is always and only the purpose which the author believes can be accomplished in this way, and only in this way. Therefore, vv. 1-2 must have been written solely in order to justify Luke’s undertaking by citing the case of others who had undertaken similar work before him, whose historical position gave them no more right to do so than he possessed, and whose information wäs no greater than hisown. The structure of the sentence (ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν... ἔδοξε κἀμοί) shows at once that Luke places himself on quite the same level with these earlier writers, in order to show that his undertaking is not unheard of or presumptuous. If, as Origen thought (n. 6), criticism of his predecessors were implied in ἐπεχείρησαν, then he chose the means least adapted to accomplish this end. Writing of this kind is here simply deseribed as a difhieult task, both in the case of the “many” and in his own case. It is possible that he means at the same time that one or another of the many, or all of them, had failed to accomplish their purpose. Nevertheless, the “1 also” (ver. 3) shows that all which he says of his predecessors is equally applicable to himself. On the other hand, all that he says of his own work, in vv. 3-4, except ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ γράψαι, namely, the dedication to Theophilus, what he hoped to accomplish with him, the preparatory investiga- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS As tions which he made, and the method of his exposition, refers exclusively to Luke. Since all these are things not touched upon in the characterisation of the older writers and their work, we may assume that Luke means to imply that these features of his own work are not to be found in these earlier writers. While it is not expressly stated what it was that was lacking in the earlier writings, the fact that Luke does not recommend to Theophilus any one of them, proves that no one of them was adapted to Luke’s particular purpose. “Many,” says Luke, “have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us.” In contrast to Theophilus, who is still outside the Church, Luke here, as in ver. 2, associates himself not only with the earlier writers, but also with the entire group of those occupying the same position and seeking the same ends, to which both he and these writers belonged. This is the Christian Church, and, in particular, the Christian Church of Luke’s own time as distinguished from the eye-witnesses of the gospel history (ver. 2; ef. John i. 14), many of whom were perhaps no longer living. Taking πληροφορεῖν in the only sense in which it occurs with an impersonal object (n. 6), it may mean either that the things in question have been accomplished, 1.6. reached their consummation, in the Christian Church of Luke’s time, or τὰ ἐν ἡμῖν mpayyara,—instead of which ra καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, Or τὰ map ἡμῖν, Or τὰ ἡμέτερα πράγματα could have been used equally well —may be used to distinguish the facts in question from all other historical facts, and the facts thus carefully limited would then be said to have been to a certain extent accomplished in the writer’s lifetime. The latter interpretation is favoured not only by the position of ἐν ἡμῖν after πεπληροφορημένων, but also by the fact that, according to the other construction, the indication of the subject of the proposed historical work would be very obscurely designated. Accordingly, the sentence may be 46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT taken to mean that many have undertaken to set forth the distinctively Christian facts, in other words the history of Christianity, and that Luke intends to make a similar attempt, since πράγματα is certainly to be supplied as the object of παρέδοσαν in ver. 2, and of παρηκολουθηκότι πᾶσιν and γράψαι, ver. 3. The norm by which the earlier writers and Luke alsc were guided, and, consequently, the prineipal source upon which they depended, was the reports of those who from the beginning had been eye-witnesses (of these πράγματα), and ministers of the word (n. 7). ‘It follows at once that the writers with whom Luke here compares himself were not αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου from the beginning, but became such later. Such a contrast as this, whidhid is left unexpressed elsewhere also (1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14; John i. 14; 1 Pet. v. 1; 2 Pet. 1. 16), is necessary in order to explain the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, since the trustworthiness of a witness and the value of his testimony is by no means conditioned upon his having had a personal connection with the details of the history from the beginning. The centurion at the cross, a member of the Sanhedrin like Nicodemus, Lazarus in Bethany, a travelling companion of Paul’s, were the really classic witnesses for the portions of the history in which they took part. But those from whom the tradition was received, the persons to whom the Christian Church owed its knowledge of the facts of Christian history and the faith which was based upon these facts, were of a different class. Although no one of them could have experienced every detail which Luke designs to set forth, taken together they may be considered witnesses of the whole series of events in question, and recipients of a eall which made it their duty to communicate their knowledge of these facts to others. As to the second phrase, the ministry of the word, am ἀρχῆς clearly means “from the beginning of the Christian preac hing after the resurrection of Jesus,” and THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 47 possibly Acts i. 22, x. 37, John xv. 27, cf. vi. 64, xvi. 4, indicate that this is the meaning of the same phrase in relation to the eye-witnesses. It is to be observed, in the first place, that Luke has chosen an expression to describe the call of the original witnesses which cannot be limited to the apostles, but which, leaving the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς out of account, includes all who had taken part in the διακονία τοῦ λόγου (Acts vi. 4, xili. 5, xx. 24, xxvi. 16; 1 Cor. iii. 5, iv.) 29 Col. 1097525 sc Timea, 12) ov. 37 ΘΟ wmanotic 15) iv. 2,5). Even if this circle is limited by the am’ ἀρχῆς to those who had been engaged in this work ever since the first years of the gospel preaching, if not from the Day of Pentecost, it is not confined to the apostles, but includes persons like Philip (Acts vin. 4 ff.), the brothers of Jesus (Acts 1. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5, xv. 7), and other ἀρχαῖοι μαθηταί (Acts xxi. 16). In the second place, this is true also of the am’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. Even where the latter expression is limited to the apostles, it is not possible to make it refer with equal literalness to the same point of time for all; since Matthew, for example, became a companion of Jesus much later than did Peter and John. Moreover, since the apostles were chosen still later, on this assumption important parts of the gospel history would be_excluded from the realm covered by the testimony of eye-witnesses. Of all the gospel writers, Luke in particular could not have regarded either the choosing of the apostles or the baptism of John as the beginning of Christian history, from which point of time the Church had received an account based upon the testimony of eye-witnesses ; for both in i. 3 and in the carrying out of his plan he places the beginning of the history which he is about to set forth at a point very far back. Account must be taken also of the contents of Luke i. 5-11. 52. What was the length of Mary’s life, who is not mentioned in the N.T. after the events recorded in Acts i. 14, and who is not referred to at all outside the historical books, except in Gal. iv. 4, and 48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT here not by name, we do not know. The brothers of Jesus also were ‘‘ministers of the word,’ and the fact that they retained a critical attitude towards Jesus until the last makes them none the less eye-witnesses of the history of His early life (vol. 1. 104 f.). Reverting now to the question as to the way in which this entire circle of the original witnesses of the history of Christianity transmitted the facts to the growing Church (παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν), we infer, more from the context of the prologue than from the language used in it (n. 8), that it must have been by oral narratives. For, in the first place, it was the chief business of the “ ministers of the word” not to write books, but to proclaim the unwritten gospel (§ 48). In the second place, παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν can refer to the composition of one or more Gospels only in case all the eye-witnesses and the ministers of the word edited a single Gospel together, or each one of them prepared a separate Gospel. But both suppositions are equally absurd. The only thing in which all of these witnesses could have had part was the oral transmission of the facts, and that in a great variety of ways. In the third place, the work of the writers with whom Luke classifies himself could not be called an ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν if they had possessed the facts, which they desioned to set forth before them, in several writings prepared by the original witnesses, 1.6. in the form of written narrative (διηγήσεις); for such narratives must have had some plan, and the work of these writers would necessarily have consisted in some sort of a rearrangement of the plan and exposition of the material found in these books. The expression in ver. 1 means that Luke's numerous predecessors collected and themselves arranged for the first time into a connected and continuous narra- tive, facts which up to that time had been testified to and narrated in detail only as occasion demanded. In the fourth place, if, in ver. 2, Luke was thinking of written THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 49 records of the original witnesses, it would not have been suflicient justification of his undertaking to call attention to the example of many before him who, without being eye-witnesses, had undertaken work similar to his own. On the contrary, it would have been necessary for him to show that the writings of the original witnesses did not render superfluous those of others writing in the second generation and dependent upon the original witnesses, and to indicate how this was so. The presupposition which lies behind this entire justification of his under- taking seems to be that the original witnesses of the history of Christianity were the ones originally called to be its historians, but that they did not undertake this task ; so that now it was necessary for others, who were apparently much less suited to its accomplishment, to venture upon this work. It is clear, therefore, that Luke knew nothing of a Gospel written by one of the apostles and personal disciples of Jesus. With regard to the numerous gospel writings, how- ever, of which he did have some knowledge, there is’ at least one with which we have already become acquainted that exactly suits his deseription, namely, the Gospel of Mark. This was written by a man who was not among the original eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, but who became both in the later course of the history of Christianity. He was dependent, consequently, upon the testimony of these original witnesses, especially wpon that of Peter, for the most important part of the gospel history. Their narratives were the norm to which Mark conformed, and, at the same time, the principal source from which he drew. We say principal source, because Luke does not say more of his predecessors—if we have correctly inter- preted him to mean that the “many” actually became eye-witnesses during the course of, the history which it was their task to set forth, so that they were not dependent upon the tradition of those who were eye-witnesses from VOL. IIL, 4 50 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the beginning for everything they wrote. The reference of Luke’s deseription to the Gospel of Mark is not ex- cluded by the fact that Mark is dependent in many places upon the Aramaic Matthew, since Luke did not necessarily know that this relation existed. Moreover, an Aramaic book, so long as it remained untranslated into Greek, was outside of the range of the knowledge of a Greek like Luke, even if he had heard of its existence; while it was entirely outside Theophilus’ range of vision. Nor can the applicability of the description to Mark be denied, because the subjects with which these histories dea! are described as πεπληροφορημένα. For, in the first place, Luke could speak of them from the point of view of his own time without implying that they were known to his predecessors in the same completed form in which they were known to him. In the second place, Luke does not say that his predecessors set forth the entire history of Christianity, but that they undertook to construct a narrative dealing with it. When we recall, on the one band, that Mark’s work was never completed, atid, on the other hand, that it was probably designed to reach down to and include the history of the apostolic preaching (vol. ii. 479), it would seem that Mark was just the kind of a work that Luke had in mind when he wrote the deseription in 1. 1-2. Inasmuch as a Mark and many others, whose names we do not know, had undertaken to write concerning the history of Christianity, Luke also, overcoming the doubts betrayed in his preface, decided on the basis of careful investigation, which went back to the beginning, to set forth for Theophilus’ benefit in order and in writing all the facts in question, having in view the purpose which has already been discussed (n. 9). The language Luke uses does not give the impression that he made the investigations upon which his narrative is based after his decision to write, nor that these investigations were THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 51 carried on as the plan was developed. It would seem rather that, for other reasons, and because of his own interest in the facts, he had already investigated all the facts in question carefully from the beginning, and that now he had decided to set them forth because of the opportunity to do Theophilus a service which the latter had probably requested. Inasmuch as Luke implies at the outset in ver. 2 that he, like the other gospel writers, did not belong to the company of those who had been eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the be- ginning, but was able to give an ‘account of the earlier events only from the oral traditions of those who were such, it follows that his investigations must have been inquiries into these oral traditions, and that these inquiries were made of persons who handed these traditions down. This does not necessarily imply that it was possible for Luke to inquire of the original witnesses themselves concerning all the details, for it will be observed that the “we,” which is used twice at the beginning (vv. 1, 2), identifies Luke not only with the writers with whom he compares himself, but likewise with the Christian Church, which owed to these original witnesses the knowledge of its origin and early history. It is possible, therefore, that Luke received the tradition from the original witnesses indirectly. If, however, the investigations to which Luke refers were as comprehensive and as careful as he assures us they were, he must have made every effort to secure the testimony of the most trustworthy and oldest pos- sessors of the tradition in proportion as he was able to consult such persons. If the author was a member of the Church in Antioch as early as the year 40 (above, p. 2), and if he is identical with the narrator in the “we” sections of Acts, and with the Luke of the Pauline letters, he had abundant opportunity to secure informa- tion directly from prominent first-hand witnesses of the Christian tradition. Although he does not say in so many 52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT words that he; made use of the writings of his predecessors, he does not deny it. So far as the Gospel is concerned, the καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν means that he made the testimony of these original witnesses, alone his authority in matters pertaining to the history of the Christian tradition. But this does not preclude the possibility of his having ap- preciated and used. the work of earlier writers, who. used practically the same sources as himself, but who in special points drew from sources no longer at Luke’s command; or which ‚had never been accessible to him. A man of the literary training which the style of the dedication shows the author to have possessed, could) not have been, in- different to writings, known to him, which dealt with the same topics as his own (ef. § 61), even if his own investigations among the sources. of the oral tradition, the particular purpose for which he wrote, and the: corre- sponding arrangement of his book made him independent of his predecessors. Since his preparatory studies took him back to the beginning of the history which he was to set forth (ἄνωθεν), this was also the natural point at which to begin his account. Comparison of Luke 1. 5-iv. 15 with Mark i, 1-15 will show what is meant. This was one of the means by which a man like Theophilus might be im- pressed with the trustworthiness. of the history οἱ Christianity. A further means is suggested by καθεξῆς. For inasmuch as the facts in question were historical, it is self-evident that the order in which they were to be set forth must in a general way correspond to the order in which they took place... But we do not know definitely how far Luke, notwithstanding the, carefulness of. his investigations, was in a position to give the exact chronology. Moreover, by the, use of this expression he does not mean to say that chronological accuracy is the main point in his narrative, but that he intends ‚te give a logically connected historical account in which THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 53 what precedes prepares for and explains what follows, in contrast to the disconnected narratives to which Theophilus had been heretofore accustomed. There remains to be discussed the question as to how much ground Luke intended his account to cover—in other words, to what work and to what sort of a work the dedication refers: The fact that the Gospel of Luke was early united with the other Gospels, which ‘were generally considered a unit even after the codex form of manuscript came into use (GA, i. 61 ff), with the con- sequent separation of Luke from Acts, is not sufficient reason for denying, as is frequently done, that thesé two books belonged together, being parts of one work, and that both are covered by the prologue (n. 10). "The prologue itself shows that the work which it introduces is not to be limited to the Gospel. If Luke meant the prologue to cover only the history of Jesus up to the time of His ascension, the statement of the theme, namely, τὰ πεπληροφορημένα ἐν ἡμῖν πράγματα, is inexplicable. | Why did not Luke use some such expression as that in Acts i. 1, or such an expression as John used in his testimony re- garding Mark (vol. ii. 453, n. 14), or τὰ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ so frequently employed by himself (vol. 11. 377, n. 2), which would serve as a general description of writings covering the gospel history and likewise of his own? If he had a general conception of the history of Christianity, and if he thought of this history as reaching a definite consummation in his own time, he must’ have intended ‘in the nature of the case to set it forth in its completeness. Just as he planned to begin at the very beginning (ἄνωθεν), so he must have purposed to carry the narrative down to its conclusion. ‘This historical period was, however, by no means concluded with the promise of the Spirit and the command to convert all peoples (Luke xxiv. 44-49) ; and even if a Christian had regarded these events as the practical conclusion of the ra ἐν ἡμῖν πράγματα, there is ne 54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT conceivable reason why it should be expressly stated that they were completed, when no more was meant than that they had happened. Furthermore, we found it suggested in. ver. 2 that Luke, like some of his predecessors, e.g. Mark, became an eye-witness and a minister of the word during the course of events which he was attempting te set, forth., Since, however, both according to his, own testimony and that, of the tradition, he was not one of the personal disciples of Jesus, he must have included among the, events to be set forth those that took place in the apostolic age, in which other eye-witnesses and ministers of the word were added to those who had been ‚such from the beginning. We should expect also that in the course of the work the writer would at least indicate the point where he passes to the a¢count of events in which he himself took part. If the third Gospel were all we had from Luke’s hand, we should certainly infer from the prologue that only the first part of his work is preserved to wus... But we, have also Acts, which is ascribed to Luke quite as unanimously as is the Gospel. Acts is likewise dedicated to Theophilus, and. is, moreover, represented to be the second part of a larger work, the first part of which set forth the deeds and teachings of Jesus. And as if this were not sufficient to establish the connection between the two, the deeds and teachings of Jesus set forth in the first book. are declared to be the beginning of a work continued after His departure (Acts i..1; n, 10). This is the authenticated interpretation of the πεπληροφορημένων in Luke i. 1. | If all that, Jesus did and taught before His ascension, was a beginning which required to be continued and completed, the Gospel was not planned without reference to Acts, and the two together constitute a single work, the intro- duction to which is Luke i. 1-4. So in Acts we. find confirmation of the preliminary reference in am’ ἀρχῆς, The “we” of Acts xi, 27 ἢ (above, p. ı4,.n. 3), xvi THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 55 10--17,; xx. 5. (or, xx.1,6)-xxi., 18, xxvii. :l-xxviii: 16 corresponds to the “I” of the prologue and of Acts i. 1. Ihe author permits us to recognise him as an eye-witness of events which he describes in his history. At the beginning of each book, where, as the author, he contrasts himself to Theophilus, he unconsciously uses “I.” | Where he appears as an actor in the narrative he does not use this designation, nor does he employ his name, which possibly could have been taken to refer to some person other than the author, but uses “we,” thus choosing. the middle course between the two tendencies of ancient historians in setting forth events in which the narrator had part. These manifested themselves, on the one hand, in the effort to secure objectivity in the narrative, which seemed to be sacrificed when the personality of the author was introduced ; and, on the other hand, in the desire to make it clear that the things recorded were not mere hearsay, but based on the author’s own experience (n. 11). According to xi. 27f., the author was mot one of the prophets who came from Jerusalem to Antioch in the year 40 (see Part XI.), but was a member of the Church in Antioch; and, since he clearly was not a Jew, he must have been one of the Greeks converted before Paul’s or eyen Barnabas’ arrival in Antioch, through. the influence of persons from Cyprus, and Cyrene who had fled originally from Jerusalem (Acts xi. 20£.). Since th narrative preceding Acts xvi. 10, where the “we” is introduced for the second time, is of a very summary character, it is impossible to. determine exactly the moment when Luke joined Paul. He is the fourth member of Paul’s party when, with Silas and Timothy, the latter reached Troas on the second missionary journey, and he was with them during the journey to Macedonia, and during their, stay in, Philippi (n. 12). Inasmuch as the “we” does not appear again until. the passage in which Paul, is represented as setting out on ἃ Journey 56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT from Philippi, about the time of the Passover in the year 58 (xx. 5; n. 13), it appears that Luke was in Philippi during the five or six years intervening, after which he accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (xx. 7, 13-15, xxi. 1-18). According to the prologue, his interest in the tradition was not entirely new when this was written; and if he began to feel this interest as early as this journey to Jerusalem, he could not have failed to make use of the opportunity to satisfy it which was afforded him by inter- course with early disciples (Acts xxi. 16), with a certain James (xxi. 18), and with others who had been eye- witnesses from the beginning. Since he accompanied Paul on his journey to Rome in the autumn of the year 60 (xxvii. 1—xxviii. 16), it is probable that he remained in Palestine, in the vicinity of Ceesarea, during the whole of the two years and a quarter during which Paul was compelled to remain in that city. If Luke is the author, we have information concerning him for a considerable time longer. He was with Paul during both the first and second Roman imprisonments (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11). He seems to’ have remained in Rome from his arrival in the spring of the year 61 until after the year 66. The statement of the prologue about the ministry of the word likewise receives confirmation in the N.T. Not only does Paul call Luke one of his fellow-workers (Philem. 24), but the author of Acts describes’ himself in xvi. 10, 13, 17 as being engaged with Paul, Silas, and Timothy in preaching the gospel in Philippi. If he remained here for a number of years (see above), it is not unlikely that he performed the work of an evangelist in addition to his reeular medical’ calling, and it is possible that the ancient tradition which makes Luke the brother referred to in 2 Cor. viii. 18 may have a basis in fact (above, p. 6, n. 6). If from what has been said it follows that Acts is an THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 57 integral part of the historical work introduced by Luke i. 1-4, this does not in any sense imply that the work which Luke planned to write reached its intended con- clusion with Acts xxviii. 31. [Ὁ is certainly a significant point‘in the history of Christianity which is reached at the close of the second book. After having overcome difficulties which seemed to multiply themselves, Paul] has αὖ last reached Rome, which for so many years has been the longed-for goal of his plans (Acts xix. 21, SR DL) xx PA DALE Qo ox eva! Ql Kk vi P46: οἵ, Rom. i. 10-15, xv. 22-29), and although under arrest the apostle is able to preach the gospel without hindrance in the capital of the empire. But nota single detail of his preaching during these two years is recorded ; much less is said about it even than about his three weeks’ preaching in Thessalonica, xvii. 1-9. The reader, whose attention has been kept fixed upon this goal since xix. 21, is bitterly disappointed, not only because of the meagre- ness of the sketch in Acts xxviii. 30f., but particularly because nothing is said about the outcome of Paul’s trial, which has been in’ view ever since xxv. 10f., xxvii. 24. A more awkward conclusion of the work could scarcely be imagined. This is not explained by the assumption, which was made in early times, but is incapable of being proved, that Luke wrote or concluded his book im- mediately after the close of the two years (above, p. 7 f, n. 7). The fact that he writes διετίαν ὅλην proves that he knew what event brought to an end the condition deseribed, which had lasted for two years. Furthermore, the faet that he uses the imperfect tense in describing Paul’s situation and activity, instead of saying that both continued for two years and lasted up to the time when he wrote, shows clearly that the change in Paul’s con- dition, with which the author was familiar, put an end also to his abiding in his own hired house, and to the preaching which he had carried on unhindered ‘during 58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT this residence (vol. 11. 58f.). Consequently, at the very earliest, Luke could not have written these lines before Philippians was written, 1,6. before the summer of 63 (vol. 1. 539 ff.).. But why does not Luke tell us what it was which brought the two years’ residence to an end, and what the situation was at the time when, he wrote? In order to explain this difficulty, it has been supposed that Theophilus had been for some time in Rome with Luke and Paul, and hence was thoroughly informed about the facts of which Luke here says nothing, although he indicates that he was acquainted with them. In that case xxviil. 30f. is superfluous, and the form of the sentence is as unnatural as it could well be. In fact, a very common custom (n. 10) made the end of the work a most fitting place in which to explain to Theophilus in a second address why the author thought it appropriate to break off at this point and to conclude his work in so peculiar a manner (cf. 2 Tim. i. 18). All that is strange entirely disappears, however, if Luke, having reached an important turning-point in the history of, Christianity, appropriately brought to a close the second book of his work, at the same time intending to continue or, to complete it, in a third book. It will be remembered that at the close of the Gospel, after the account of the resurrection, there is added a short sketch of what happened up to the time of Jesus’ ascension, and of what took place immediately thereafter (Luke xxiv. 44-58; n. 14), and then the author begins the second book by going back again to the: time between the resurrection and the end of the period during which the disciples waited for “the promise of the Father,” in order, to set forth these events in greater detail (Acts i. 1-26), telling us here for the first, time how the period of waiting was brought to a close (Acts ii, 1-47). In the same way, in Acts xxviii. 30, 31, he adds to the narrative, which, up to this point has heen very detailed, a, short \sketch of the situation which THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 59 followed the events last narrated, intending to take-up the account at this point in his third book. The only inap- propriateness in the comparison is the fact that, Paul does not take the place in Acts which both in reality and accord- ing to the testimony of Acts 1. 1, Jesus has in the Gospel. | Although the title πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων cannot be traced to Luke, it is, notwithstanding, of very ancient date, as is evidenced by the fact that it is the only title which we have in the tradition (n. 15). Moreover, it reproduces correctly the impression which every reader gets from Acts of the author's purpose. . Beginning with Acts i. 1, it is his purpose to set forth the continuation, through the apostles and the apostolic Church, of the work and teaching begun by Jesus. From chap. xiii. onwards, however, Acts is simply a history of missionary work among the Gentiles under the leadership of Paul. The. little which is said of the other apostles and of the ‘mother Church is incidental, and is found only in connections where Paul and the missionary work among the Gentiles come into contact with Jerusalem (Acts xv. 31). Nothing 15 said of the missionary preaching of the earlier apostles and. the brothers of Jesus (Acts xii. 17; Gal. ii. 9; 1 Cor: ixi!5); 2 Pet. i..16). It is unnecessary to prove that this silence on Luke’s part. is not due to lack of appreciation of those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the, beginning, Rather. does Luke exhibit, the character of a genuine historian when he gives a continuous treat- ment of the history of missionary work among the Gentiles in chaps. xiiii—xxviii., proving that he did: not feel it necessary, in view of the καθεξῆς of Luke i. 3, to write a chronicle or a journal of the nature of an historical calendar.» But this one-sided development. ofa single thread of the narrative is incomprehensible unless it was Luke's intention ina third book to go back and take up again’ the history of the original apostles. "A: third book is demanded also by the proloste. (If 60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Luke intended to set forth the history of Christianity te the point of development which it had reached up to his time (above, pp. 45, 53), this plan is by no means carried out, if the work is complete in the two books before us, Ingenious speculations have been made about the interest- ing contrast between the message of the angels in the Temple in Jerusalem and in Mary’s chamber in Nazareth (Luke i. 11, 28) and the unhindered preaching of the gospel in the capital of the world (xxviii. 31). But the gospel had been preached in Rome and a large Church organised there long before Paul’s arrival. Furthermore, the meagre sketch in Acts xxviii. 30 ἢ is no fitting parallel to the exalted poetical narratives of Luke i. 5-56, and, what is even more to the point, the close of Acts does not conclude even the history of Paul or of the missionary work among the Gentiles, to say nothing of the history of Christianity. The author who wrote Luke xxiv. 47 and Acts i. 8,and the Luke who was with the imprisoned apostle when he wrote 2 Tim. iv. 7, 17, could not have regarded the Christian preaching as practically at an end before Paul so regarded it. Moreover, anyone giving such a repeated and full account as Luke gives of Jesus’ prophecy concerning the judgment of Jerusalem (Luke xxii 82; cf. xix. 41-44, xxi. 120-24, xxiii. 28-31) could not well, before the year 70, have thought of the history of Christianity as having reached its conclusion even temporarily. But if the events recorded in 2 Tim., the death of Peter and Paul, and the fall of Jerusalem, had already taken place (§ 62), the writer had abundant material for a third book. And that he actually intended to add ıa τρίτος λόγος when he began the second book, or at least when he revised it after it was completed, he himself indicates in Acts i. 1; since it is not conceivable that one who could write the finished sentences which we have in Luke i. 1-4 should have made the mistake of writing THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 61 τὸν μὲν πρῶτον for the more correct τὸν μὲν πρότερον λόγοι in Acts i. 1, if he intended to say that the Gospel was the first of two books only and not one of a number of books (n. 16). For, in this passage, he is not following an older source in which there were Hebraisms, and the style of which was otherwise inferior, but is freely expressing his own thoughts at the beginning of a book. It is painful to refleet what we have lost, either because of Luke’s failure to write this third book, or, what is less probable, because of its disappearance immediately after it was written. This opened the way for the petty fabricators of the second century, who were fond of treating the material which Luke had reserved for his third book. In all the apocryphal literature dealing with the history of the apostles which is preserved to us, we notice dependence upon Luke’s second book and imitation of his style, but there is not a single page of it even remotely comparable to one of the chapters of our Acts (n. 17). Even before the particular material which Luke worked over, the sources which he employed, and the trustworthiness of his accounts, are investigated, it, is possible to affirm that he kept in view throughout his work the purposes expressed and suggested in his dedi- cation. He does not, like Matthew, write an, apology on behalf of Christ and His Church in order to meet objections of a national character. Nor does he, like Mark, present, from a single point of view,. narratives which have been impressed upon his memory by frequent hearing and repetition. His design is rather, as a Greek historian, to set forth the history of Christianity from its beginnings to, the completion which it had reached in his own time, and he aims to do this in such a way that his exposition, based upon thorough investigation and_pre- senting the whole development of Christianity connectedly, shall impress, with a sense of the trustworthiness of the Christian traditions, a cultured Gentile who has heard 62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT much about the facts which are eurrent in the Christian Church and held to be the basis of its faith, who has become interested in this history, and whose relations to individual Christians; like the author, are friendly. One of the first things which impresses us when we compare Luke with the other Gospels is the effort to show how one thing develops out of another. If the περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης (Luke 1. 4) means anything, Theophilus must already have heard something about John, the forerunner of Jesus, possibly no more than what is said about him in Mark i. 2-8 or Matt. iii. 1-12. Luke gives an account of the messages which indicated the future significance of the Baptist even before his birth, of the hopes awakened by his birth, of his hermit life (1. 80), and of his call to be'a prophet (iii. 2; ef. Jer. i.°4). ‘The unusual character of the circumstances of John’s birth helped to render faith’ in the greater miracle of Jesus’ birth easier, not only for Jesus’ own mother (i. 36f.), but also for the reader of Luke’s Gospel. The kinship and friendly relation between the two families, and the mingling of their hopes in connection with the children, make more comprehensible the subsequent relations between John and Jesus. If, as was undoubtedly the case, Theophilus had heard that the Christ whom the Christians followed was called Jesus of Nazareth, and if, as was probable, he had heard also that He was born in Bethlehem, it was natural for Luke to explain to him the combination of circumstances by which ‘it came about that the parents of Jesus, who lived in Nazareth, journeyed to Bethlehem shortly before His birth (ii. 1-5, i 26f.). In keeping with the brief account of the development of the child John into the type of man that he afterwards became (i. 80), is the story concerning the twelve-year-old Jesus, which, in its setting (ii. 40, 51-52), is meant to serve as a clear proof of the extremely happy but entirely natural and thoroughly human development of the child Jesus.’ ~ THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 63 While the effort to treat the material “ pragmatically ” generally involves the retention of the proper chrono- logical order, it is nevertheless evident from the outset that this order is not observed at the expense of this desired “pragmatism.” In i. 80 the history of John’s life is told up to the point where it is taken up again in il. 2, while ἢ. 1 goes back to a much earlier date, ἃ few months later than the events recorded in i. 57-79. The history of the Baptist’s public’ work is developed in 11. 19, 20 to its conclusion, which must have’ been ‘at least several months after its’ beginning (iii. 2). But in ii. 21, when he takes up again the history of the man Jesus, he begins with an event which took place long before the arrest of the Baptist, and gives Jesus’ genealogical descent at this point instead of in connection with 1. 27. The contrast between the divine sonship of Jesus revealed from heaven and His supposed and’ out- wardly valid descent from Joseph (iii, 22, 23), is of much more importance in the mind of the author than the mere mechanical arrangement of the material in its chrono- logical order. No specific mention is made of the fact that John was in prison when Jesus began His work in Galilee, described from iv. 14 onwards, and when John sent two of his disciples to ask the now famous quéstion (vil. 19; cf. per contra Matt. iv. 12, xi. 2; Mark:i. 14). Nor can the reader infer this from the order of events in i. 18-23. Even if he could, it is a question whether this would enable him to understand the author’s mean- ing in all the narratives that follow iii. 23. © What is true of Luke iii, 21, which goes back to a point of time prior to ἯΙ. 20, and of the account of the temptation (iv) 1213), which precedes the arrest of the Baptist, as is shown by its immediate connection with the account of the baptism and is confirmed by all the other traditions; can very well be true also of more than one of the narratives following iv? 13,0 The’ history’ of" John is evidently 64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT concluded with iii. 20, Not even his execution is narrated later, though knowledge. of it is assumed in 1X.) 779. It is apparent, not only in the account of John but everywhere, how little Luke intended to reproduce all the events in their exact chronological order. In the account of Jesus’ work in Galilee he begins after a general de- scription (iy. 14, 15), by relating His visit to His native village, although he does not conceal from the reader that Jesus, had already done many remarkable works in Capernaum (iv. 28). After this account of the visit to Nazareth there follow several chronologically connected incidents describing Jesus’ work in Capernaum, the city of Galilee most honoured by Jesus with His works (iv. 31-42; ef. ἵν. 23, vil. 1, x. 15). Finally, he shows how the other cities of Palestine were at the same time not, neglected (iv. 43 f.). The logical arrangement of ‘the material which here takes the place jof the chronological order is not due to,dogmatic considerations, as in the case of Matthew, but arises from. Luke’s historical method. If we accept the reading τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας in iv. 44, which is the better attested reading, and which is to be considered genuine also, because its character is such that it could not well have been invented (n. 18), there is no doubt that Luke intends his) first description of Jesus’ work in Galilee to be concluded at iv. 48 with Jesus’ explanation that the nature of His calling made it necessary for Him to preach also to the other cities, 1.6. to all the cities of the people and land to which He was sent. Although this statement makes it quite impossible to limit Jesus work to Galilee, in. the general statement that follows (iv. 44), which may; apply to many of the separate narratives which follow, Luke goes on to say that, Jesus, true to His word, did not limit Himself to Capernaum, or Nazareth, or even Galilee, but, preached in the synagogues of Judea, ie. throughout the whole of the Holy Land THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 65 (n. 18). The general description of iv. 14f. is not, therefore, repeated in ver. 43f., but there is substituted for it a description of a very different and mueh more comprehensive character, which may even be contrasted to iv. 14f. Consequently the reader, having only Luke’s account, is at a loss to know in what part of Palestine to look for the places which the author sometimes groups together in a summary fashion (vill. 1, 4, ix. 6, x. 1), sometimes mentions separately, but without names or any other indication of their geographical location (v. 12, vii. 11, 37, x. 38, xiii. 10), especially since he sometimes mentions all the villages of Judea together (v. 17). If it were not known from other sources where Nain was situated (vii. 11), one might be led by Luke’s account to seek it in Judea. On the other hand, the village mentioned in x. 38, the name of which is given in John xi. 1, 18, together with the fact that it was situated near Jerusalem, so far as Luke’s account is concerned, could have been in Galilee. There are occasional state- ments which throw light upon the situation of separate localities (viii. 27, cf ver. 26, ix. 51, 52, 56, xiii, 22). But these are of no great importance, since by far the greater part of the narratives follow each other without any indication as to time order (v. 1, 12, 17, viii. 4, 19, 22, ix. 1, 7, x1.1,14, etc.). It is seldom even remarked that an event recorded after another occurred in this order (v. 27, vill. 1, ix. 28, x. 1). The use of such expressions as “on one of the days” (v. 17, viii. 22, xx. 1), which does not occur in the other Gospels, and the rarity of definite indications as to time relations (vi. 1, vi. 1, 11, ix. 28, 37, x. 21, xiii. 1, 31), show that’ Luke’s investigations had not enabled him to obtain an exact idea of the order in which the gospel events took place, and also that he was conscious of this fact. Although Luke shows an interest, not to be observed in the other Gospels, in supplying the history of Jesus’ VOL. III. 5 66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT life with chronological notices (i. 36, ii. 21, 22, 42, iii, 23), and in connecting it chronologically with facts of uni- versal and national history (1. 5, 11. 1f., iii. 1f.; Aets xi. 28, xviil. 2, 12), he does not assume a knowledge of the details of the chronology of Jesus’ public ministry which it was beyond his power to obtain. This is evidenced even in connection with the last days in Jerusalem, both by the absence of connection between single events in the section, the setting of which is marked by the general descriptions of xix. 47 f. and xxi. 37 ἢ, and by the use in xx. 1 of the same ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν which occurs earlier. What seems to be the account of a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem in ix. 5l-xix. 46 is, therefore, to be regarded as only apparently such. It may be that the scattered notices of this journey in Luke, while not giving the order of events with entire correctness, are for the most part accurate (n. 19). But it was not the intention of the author to be understood as giving such a chronology. For, in the first place, there is no decernible relation among these scattered notices. There is nothing here which resembles a list of stations, as in the accounts of the journeys in Acts (xiii.— xxvill.). No mention is made even of the journey through Perea (Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1). In the second place, in this section of the book there is the same lack of con- nection between the single narratives which occurs earlier (e.g. τι. 1, 14, 29, xii. 13, 22, 54, xiii. 6, 10, xiv. 1, xv. 1, xvi. 1, xvii. 1, 20, xviii. 1, 9, 15, 18), so that the reader cannot tell when and where the separate events took place. If we know that what is narrated in Luke x. 38-42 took place in a village near Jerusalem, our information is not derived from Luke, and it would be a misunderstanding of his account to infer from it that this unnamed village (Bethany) was on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem, and farther removed from the city than the places indicated in xiii, 22, xvil. 11, xviii. 31, 35. In the third place, it is apparent that the first notice regarding the journey to THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 67 Jerusalem (ix. 51), which is given with a special solemnity, was not intended to mark an important transition in the narrative. ‘There is ἃ close connection with what precedes. This is, however, so throughout. While these scattered notices of movements from place to place have no con- nection and are too few to enable us to form any clear conception of the journey to Jerusalem, there is every- where evident a connection between the contents of the single narratives quite independent of the chronological relations. In the fourth place, even where places are clearly indicated, as in ix. 51, xi. 22, xvii. 11, it is evident that this is done in order to make clear events immediately connected with them, and is not designed to furnish the outlines of a journey. ‘The fact that in the history of the Passion and in most parts of Acts the chronological order is more apparent and more strictly adhered to, is due, in the first place, to the more exact knowledge which the writer had regarding these parts of the history from the tradition and his own recollection. In the second place, while it was quite possible to record single deeds, dis- courses, and conversations which took place during Jesus’ Galilean tours, without knowing the order in which they took place, this could not be done in the history of the Passion and Resurrection, or in an account of the extension of missionary work from Antioch to Rome. The narrative in Acts does not, however, resemble a chronicle. Acts ix. 1 refers back to vill. 3, and what is recorded in ix. 1-17 can have taken place before the events recorded in viii. 5-40. In xi. 19 the narrative is taken up where it had been left off in viii. 1-4, and what is recorded in xi, 22 may have oceurred before chap. x. The episode of chap. xii. belongs before the point in the narrative where it is recorded, and apparently the same is true of xi. 27 (Part XI.). Attention has already been called to the order of xviii. 23 and xix. 1 (above, p. 30, n. 8). If Luke designed his proposed third book to continue to its completion the history of the 68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT apostles (above, p. 53f.), it would have been necessary for him to take up the narrative again at Acts xu. 17. Just such a fact as this, and Luke’s carefulness about his chronological statements in the Gospel, show how conscious he was that his task was that of a historian. Another means which Luke uses to impress Theophilus with the trustworthiness of Christian historical tradition is the frequent connection of this history with the events of political history. No N.T. writer except Luke mentions a Roman emperor by name. He mentions Augustus, _ Tiberius, and Claudius (Luke u. 1, ii. 1; Acts xi. 28, xviii. 2), and when he says that the famine prophesied in the Church in Antioch took place under Claudius (Acts xi. 28), he implies that the prophecy was made in the time of Caligula, Claudius’ predecessor (Part XI). The decrees of Augustus (Luke ii. 1) and of Claudius (Acts xviii. 2) affect the history of Christianity. This is not something existing only in the realm of pious fancy. It connects itself chronologically with a definite year in the reign of Tiberius (Luke iii. 1). This impression of the thoroughly real character of Christianity is strengthened by the men- tion of all the rulers throughout the region which was the scene of the gospel history (Luke iii. 1-2), and which after the fall of Jerusalem was ruled by Agrippa π. (Schürer, i. 594 [Eng. trans. 1 ii. 201]). The reader must have known that Quirinius was the governor of Syria (Luke ii. 2) and Gallio the governor of Achaia (Acts xvii. 12), since their governorships are mentioned in order to fix dates, which is not true in the case of Sergius Paulus (xiii. 7). In general it will be noticed that the number of proper names in Luke is much larger than in the other Gospels, and that these names include not only those of persons in political life and of actors in the narrative, but also of numerous persons whose position is entirely sub- ordinate (n. 20). This reveals the investigator who has taken great pains to inform himself regarding the details THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 69 of the history he records, and also the story-teller who strove to bring his characters out of the shadows of uncertain tradition into the clear light of reality. The author’s purpose fully to win over to Christianity a Gentile who was still outside the Church but favourably inclined: to Christianity, shows itself in various ways. Such a purpose imposed upon the Christian historian a certain reserve. He could not use throughout the sonorous language of the Church, but was under the necessity of handling the material objectively, as it were, and retaining in his narrative a certain secular tone. Luke does, how- ever, employ the language of the Church when frequently in his narrative he calls Jesus ὁ κύριος, a usage not to be found in Matthew and Mark (n. 21). But this simply shows that Luke was not one of the eye-witnesses of the gospel history who was in daily intercourse with Jesus, but that through their preaching he became one of the members of the Church which accepted Jesus as its Lord. On the other hand, he represents persons in personal inter- course with Jesus as addressing Him by His name, ᾿Ιησοῦ (above, p. 37 f.), and in six instances he uses ἐπιστώτα, which does not occur in the other Gospels, and which is not an ecclesiastical word (v. 5, viii. 24, 45, ix. 33, 49, xvii. 13). This replaces the Hebrew Rabbi, which Luke statedly avoids, and is used in addition to διδάσκαλε, which occurs very frequently, and κύριε, which is only sparingly used. Luke’s very meagre account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which early led to the introduction of whole- sale interpolations in Luke xxii. 16-20 (above, p. 39 f.), is to be explained only by the assumption that the narra- tive was intended for a non-Christian. The word spoken in connection with the distribution of the bread, “This is My body,” could impress such a person only as a profound figure. The single word which, according to the genuine text of Luke, Jesus spoke as He distributed the cup, 70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT contained no reference to His blood, and consequently suggested no mystery. Heathen slanders associated with the Christian teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper are very ancient. Pliny, in his report to Trajan, speaks as if such slanders were common, but not confirmed by his judicial inguiries. Although we cannot prove that these slanders were current as early as the time when Luke was written, it may be assumed that this was the case, or rather it may be inferred from Luke’s account. But even if this were not so, it is entirely conceivable that Luke should hesitate to unveil this deepest mystery of Christian worship before the eyes of one who was uninitiated, and that he should hesitate to make a remark about eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus which might arouse the suspicion of one who was still outside the Church. In thus guarding the mystery Luke betrays his Greek character, and the fact that he is writing for Greeks. This shows itself also in very many other directions. Without in any way eliminating the Israelitish char- acter of the beginnings of the history of Christianity (n. 22), Luke emphasises strongly from the very first the universal significance of Jesus. That Jesus was born in the city of David was brought about by a decree of the emperor, who, however, had no thought of this result, so that it was really due to the overruling providence of God (ii. 1). Angels proclaim the glory of God, who through His Anointed One is to establish peace over the whole earth among men of good-will (11. 14). Simeon, wholly under the dominance of thoroughly Jewish ideas and forms, prophesies for the child a saving and enlightening in- fluence upon all peoples (ii. 31 f.). Only in Luke iii. 4-6 is the quotation of the prophecy of Isaiah, which is always associated with the Baptist, continued so as to include the verse in which the salvation announced by John is described as a salvation for all flesh (iii. 6, ef. John xvii. 2). The descent of the Son of David and Son of God is carried THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 71 back beyond Abraham to Adam and even to God Himself. The coming of Jesus marks not only the consummation of the history of Israel, but the consummation of the history of the race, and the divine sonship of men established in creation finds its consummation in the divine sonship of Jesus (iii. 23-38, cf. Acts xvii. 28, 31). The account in iv. 1-13, which is thus introduced, shows how Jesus as the second Adam overcame the temptation by which the first Adam fell. With manifest fondness he writes of the Gentile whose faith was great (vi. 2-10), and of the merciful and grateful Samaritans (x. 33, xvi. 16). Pilate is presented in a light which is in no way more favourable than that in which he is portrayed in the other Gospels (ef. xiii. 1, xxii. 25; Acts 11. 23, iv. 27), but the thrice repeated witness of this Gentile to Jesus’ innocence is much more strongly emphasised than in Matthew and Mark (xxii. 4, 14, 15, 22; Acts ii. 13). Besides this we have the testimony of the Gentile centurion in xxiii. 47, which seems to be told here in a form more historically probable than in Matt. xxvii. 54; Mark xv. 39. In Acts vill. 5—xi. 18, Luke describes at length how the natural hesitation of the older apostles to turn to the Samaritans and then to the Gentiles was overcome by the providence of God, and in Acts xv. he shows how the freedom of the Gentile Christians from the law was championed by the Gentile missionaries and acknowledged by the original apostles and the mother Church. Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to all peoples upon earth (Luke xxiv. 47; Acts i. 8, ix. 15, ef. i. 39, iii. 25) is not here obscured by words which are open to misinterpretation and harsh in tone, as we find in Matt. x. 5, xv. 21-28; Mark vi. 24-30. Frequently practical piety, honesty, and chari- tableness are declared to be preparations for greater bless- ing among the Gentiles (Luke vii. 2-5; Acts x. 2-4, 35, xi. 7) as well as among the Jews (Luke i. 6, ii. 25, 36 ἢ, xix. 8, xxii. 50, ef. Acts xvii. 11), and the humane dis- 72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT position even of those who have no close relation to the gospel is recognised (Acts xix. 31, xxvii. 3, 43, xxviii. 2,7), Sometimes also the official integrity of individuals is simply related without special attention being called to it (Acts xviii. 12-17, xix. 35-41, xxv. 1-26, 32, as dis- tinguished from xxiv. 24—27). On the other hand, Luke, in much stronger colours than any other evangelist, depicts Jesus as the friend and Saviour of those most deeply sunk in sin and farthest astray, and represents penitent humility as the way of salvation (Luke v. 8, 29-32, vii. 29, 34, 37-50, xv. 1-38, Xvill. 9-14, xix. 7-10, xxiii. 39-43). A Greek who read the parables in chap. xv. would necessarily apply them to men like himself rather than to the Jews. While such a reader might be astonished, he would nevertheless be impressed by the fact that the great ascetic and mighty prophet John preached an almost trivial morality (ii. 10-14), and that Jesus, who was free from any gloomy asceticism (v. 33-39, vil. 34, ΧΙ]. 26), manifested deep sympathy with all human sufferings even when the sufferer was guilty (vü. 13, xiii, 15f, xix. 41-44, xxii. 28, ef. ver. 34), avoided all narrow and violent fanaticism (ix. 49f., 54f., xxii. 50f.), and always in word and deed preached a brotherly love which transcended the cere- monial seruples of Judaism and went beyond the national bounds (vi. 6-11, 27-36, x. 25-37, xi. 41-46, xii. 10-17, xiv. 1-6, xvii. 11-19, xix. 7-10). There are also instances where Jesus enjoins good manners and refinement in social intercourse (vii. 44—46, x. 5-11, xiv. 7-10, 12-14, xx. 46f., ef. xii. 37, but also xvii. 7-10). The choice and arrange- ment of material suggests a writer of kindred spirit with the man who wrote Phil. iv. 8 (n. 23). No single moral obligation is so richly and variously illustrated as that indicated by the words poverty and wealth. In addition to the account of the rich young man, the story of the widow with the mites, and several THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 73 sayings about benevolence which are to be found also in Matthew and Mark (Luke vi. 30-36, xii. 33, xviii, 18-30, xxi. 1-4), the instances recorded in vi. 24, xi. 41, xii. 13-21, xiv. 12-14, 16-24 (as regards this point not to be compared with Matt. xxii, 2-10), xvi. 1-31, xix. 2-10, are found only in Luke. Only in Luke xvi. 9, 11 is the Aramaic word mamona, which was current in Antioch (vol. 1. 18), modified by the adjective unrighteous, and in xix. 8 an example is given to show by how great un- righteousness many riches are accumulated. Jesus refuses to have anything to do with the legal side of questions about property (xii. 13-15), in order that He may lay greater weight upon the moral use of earthly possessions, especially when these are great. Luke has portrayed for all time in a striking and incomparable manner that con- fidence in riches devoted solely to one’s own service which is so foolish because of the uncertainty of human life (xii, 16-21); the complete absorption of the rich in luxurious living with their accompanying heartlessness towards the poor and sorely afilicted brother at their door (xvi. 19-31); the power of riches even over men of noble spirit and men who strive after eternal things (xviii. 18-30); a magic influence which can be broken only by the power of God. ‘“Woe to the rich,” he says, who find their satisfaction in this life, who give themselves up to the quiet enjoyment of life’s comfort, and who are always sure of being treated with deference on every side (vi. 24-26). But through God’s power it is possible even for these (xviii. 27, ef. iii, 8) not only to realise the fact that man’s life does not consist in riches (xii, 15), and that possessions are only an un- important good, bestowed for a short time and not really belonging to the possessor (xvi. 9-12), but also to be freed from the bondage of mammon (xvi. 13). The use of money for the benefit of one’s neighbour is proof that a man possesses the state of mind which leads into the kingdom of God (xviii. 22, xvi. 9); it sanctifies also his 74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT earthly life (xi. 41). This generosity is not one of the works of which the Pharisees boast (xviii. 12, ef. xi. 42, xvi. 14, xx. 47), but is found in the wealthy tax-gatherer (xix. 8) and the poverty-stricken widow (xxi. 1-4). Love to Jesus is manifested in the same way (vii. 3, ef. xxiii. 50-53). This very spirit was exercised on a large scale by the early Church (Acts u. 44f., iv. 32-37, vi. 1-6, ix. 36-39). It was also a bond of union between the Gentile Church and the mother Church (xi. 28-30, xii. 25, xxiv. 17). It is commended in the case of the Gentile Cornelius (x. 2-4, 31, 35, ef. Luke vii. 5). The love of money, of which a fearful example was not wanting in the early Church (Acts v. 1-11), had no influence on the first preachers of the gospel (viii. 20, xx. 31-34). Possessing no money, they were yet rich in God (Acts i. 6, ef. Luke xii. 21), and observed the word of their Master, “ To give is more blessed than to receive” (Acts xx. 35). Instead of scenting in this social morality which pervades both the books of Paul’s disciple, Luke, a residuum of Ebionism (n. 24), it is more natural to assume that here also Luke has in mind the fact that his work is intended for Theo- philus, a Gentile of high position, and also, according to trustworthy tradition the owner of a large house in Antioch (above, p. 5, n. 5), before the gate of which it is very possible that a Lazarus may sometimes have lingered. It was also important in writing to men, of whom Luke chose Theophilus as a type, to point out that Christ and Christianity stood in no hostile relation to the State. In striking contrast to Jesus’ recognition of the obligation to pay taxes (xx. 20-26), stand the false accusations of the Sanhedrin that Jesus refused to pay tribute and was re- bellious against the authority of the State (xxiii. 2, 5, 14), which are related by no other evangelist with so much fulness as by Luke, to which also he alone refers at an earlier point in the narrative (xx. 20). But the falsity of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 75 these particular charges is proved by the thrice repeated acknowledgment of His innocence by Pilate, an acknow- ledgment which is based upon the testimony of king Herod (xxiii. 4, 14-15, 22). It was only the weakness of this Roman official’s character, whose attitude was sometimes that of violence against the Jews (xiii. 1) and sometimes that of false compliance with their will, which led him to give over to their fanaticism the Jesus who, by his own confession as well as by the confession of other Gentiles (xxiii. 47), was righteous, while he released a robber and murderer in His place (xxiii. 25). But even among the “transgressors with whom He was reckoned” (xxii. 37),—the criminals between whom He was crucified, —there was one to confess that Jesus was innocent of all offence against the civil law and to acknowledge His future kingship (xxiii. 39-43). Personal interests led the rulers of the Jews (Acts iv. 1-7, 13, v. 28) first to reprimand the apostles, then to imprison and scourge them. The first martyr’s blood was shed through the testimony of a false witness and by a tumultuous pro- ceeding which violated (John xviii. 31) existing laws (see Acts vi. 11-14, vii. 54-60). In order to win the favour of the Jews by posing as a protector of their religion, the bigoted Agrippa 1, who shortly thereafter lost his life in an attempt to deify himself in heathen fashion, murdered James the son of Zebedee, while Peter escaped his hand only by a miracle (chap. xii.). On several occasions Paul was accused and unjustly treated on the ground that he taught doctrines hostile to the Roman government (xvi. 21-23, 35-39, xvii. 7--9, xviii. 13). Likewise his opposi- tion to heathen idolatry (xix. 26 ff.) and his alleged hostility to Judaism and Jewish ceremonials (xxi. 28, xxiv. 1-9) often involved him in danger, and finally led to a long imprisonment. Repeatedly he saved himself from worse treatment by appeal to his Roman citizenship, and compelled the officials to apologise for their encroach- 76 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ments upon the law (xvi. 37, 38), or to seek escape from the consequences of their action by perverting their official reports (xxii. 24-29, xxiii. 25-30). [Ὁ was the unworthy dependence upon his Jewish wife and the Jewish people of the procurator Felix, who was as base as he was low born, and to whose infamous immorality and unrighteousness Luke calls attention (xxiv. 25; ef. Schürer, i. 571 f [Kng. trans. I. ii. 174]), which led him unjustly to prolong Paul's case (xxiv. 24-26). On the other hand, where Paul had to do with honourable officials, who were of more dis- tinguished birth and more noble culture, such as Gallio (xviii. 12-17) and Porcius Festus (xxv. 11-xxvi. 32), he was treated with impartiality and was protected against the fanaticism of the Jews. Several Asiarchs in Ephesus, representatives of the emperor cult, even showed him favour (xix. 31). While king Agrippa IL, in pure irony, declares himself inclined to accept Christianity (xxvi. 28), the “intelligent” proconsul of Cyprus, who bore the same name as the apostle, really received a deep impression of the truth, although we cannot say how lasting this im- pression was (xiii. 7-12). After all the cheering experiences, all the divine inter- positions and deliverances of the second book, the reader would expect nothing else than to find in a third book the account of new victories for the good cause of the gospel in Rome and in the Roman empire. There is to be no escape from persecution (xiv. 22). As regards this pomt the prophecy at the beginning (Luke ii. 34) corresponds literally to the historical statement at the close (Acts xxviii. 22). Opposition is not to be confined to words. The blood of martyrs will also be shed, as it has been from the beginning, but the true minister of the word does not allow this to hinder his course or to dishearten him (xx. 24, xxi. 13), but with every new station reached he gains new courage (xxvili. 15). It has often been re- marked that Acts is pervaded by a joyful spirit; but this THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 77 is Just as true of the Gospel (n. 25). This work also was of a charaeter to make a favourable impression upon an educated Greek whose keen interest in the gospel has been already awakened. Although enough has been said to prove the symmetry of the plan and the unity of the entire work, as regards the latter point we have independent evidence from the agreement as to the manner in which the material is handled in Luke and in Acts. If Luke ii. 2 gives the impression that in Pilate’s procuratorship Annas shared the high-priesthood with Caiaphas, and was the more influential of the two, the same is true of Acts iv. 6. The ἀπογραφή of Luke ii. 1-3 is referred to again in Acts v. 37 by the same name. The identity of the two is not affected by the fact that in the latter passage the taxing is described as the one famous taxing, and hence as the only one of its kind, whereas in Luke ii. 2 it is spoken of as if it were a first taxing; for the expression in Luke does not necessarily mean more than that such a taxing had never before taken place in Palestine. There was no occasion in Luke ii. 2 to mention the insurrection headed by Judas. But Luke shows that he was familiar with the then exist- ing party of the Zealots, not only in Acts i. 13 but also in Luke vi. 15, and he is the only one of the gospel writers to designate them by their Greek name which is found in both books (n. 26). The story of how the tetrarch Herod took part in Jesus’ trial, and especially of how he and Pilate were made friends through their common relation to Jesus, found only in Luke xxiii, 6-12, 15, prepares the way for Acts iv. 27, a passage which would be quite unintelligible without this preceding narrative. Other references in Acts to the gospel history agree entirely with the accounts in the Gospel (Acts ili. 13 f. = Luke xxiii. 16: Acts x. 41 = Luke xxiv. 41 f.). Although Luke does not in any way represent the work of Jesus as confined to Galilee (above, p. 64 and § 63), yet in both books he 78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT emphasises the fact that the whole gospel movement had its beginning in Galilee, spreading thence over the whole of Judea, 1.6. Palestine (Luke xxiii. 5; Acts x. 37; cf. Luke iv. 14, xxii. 59, xxiii. 49; Actsi. 11,1. 7, xi. 31). In the two lists cf the apostles (Luke vi. 14-16; Acts i. 13) the names are not given in exactly the same order, but both agree, as against Matthew and Mark, in men- tioning a ᾿Ιούδας Ιακώβου (Judas | the son] of James), who does not appear at all in Matthew or Mark under this name (but ef. John xiv. 22). They also agree in placing this name after that of Simon, whom Luke alone calls a Zealot, using the Greek name of the party im both passages. Luke is the only evangelist who says explicitly that Jesus called the Twelve, apostles (vi. 13), but it is also Luke who teaches in various ways that Jesus did not intend the preaching of the gospel to be confined to those especially called to be preachers. As at the beginning we find the angels (i. 19, ii. 10) and the Baptist (ii. 18) preachers of the gospel, so the apostles are told not to forbid anyone to preach who is working in Jesus’ name, even though he is not of their own number (ix. 49 f.). Jesus Himself commands others also to proclaim the king- dom of God (ix. 60), and sends before Him into all cities and places as heralds of His preaching “ other seventy,” who afterwards return rejoicing because of the success of their work (x. 1-20; n. 27). This may partially explain the fact that in Luke i. 2, where another would have used simply of ἀπόστολοι even at the risk of inaccuracy, Luke chooses an expression which includes persons not apostles, and calls to mind those who did not become ministers of the word until well on in the course of the history which Ὁ he is setting forth. All this is preparatory to the account of how, in fact, men who did not belong to the apostolic circle, and who had received no special commission to preach, opened the way for missionary work, becoming the forerunners of the apostles just as the Seventy were THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 79 of the Lord (Acts viii. 5-40, xi. 19-21, cf. vi. 5, xxi. 8). It is also preparatory to the account of the rise of a new apostolate coexistent with that of the Twelve, whose number was kept intact (Acts 1. 15-26), by which the gospel was rapidly carried beyond the limits within which the Twelve were confined by their immediate calling (Acts ix, 3280, xin! 2 ff.) ziv.’& 14). Luke’s work shows great variety in regard to language and style; but these are not differences as between the two books, of which the work consists, but are to be observed just as much in the Gospel as in Acts. Since these differences are probably to be explained, partly from the character of the language in the sources used, partly from the different character of the subjects treated, they may be appropriately discussed in connection with the investigations which follow (§§ 61, 62). It hardly needs to be proved in detail that, notwithstanding the differ- ences of style which exist between separate parts of the work, there is a large number of peculiar words and phrases to be found throughout both books, so that from the point of view of the language also the unity of the work is demonstrated (n. 28). Against ail the discussions of the purpose of Acts, which take into consideration only the second book of Luke’s work,—assuming that a somewhat external con- nection exists between it and the first book,—stand first of all the prologue, when this is correctly interpreted, and likewise many of the considerations, some of them old, others new, which have been adduced above. In parti- cular, there is no longer any necessity of disproving in detail the hypothesis of the school of Baur, by which it is assumed that the writer of Acts set out with the inten- tion of harmonising the unreconciled and irreconcilable differences in the apostolic Church, by perverting facts in his narrative and intentionally adding fictitious elements (n. 29). One could wish, however, that those who admit 80 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that this hypothesis cannot be accepted in its entirety would purge out the remnants of the old leaven that remain. Whatever details in the premises of this inter- pretation may require refutation will be discussed in 88 62, 63. On the other hand, points in which the hypothesis is correct are explained by the purpose which the author actually claimed to have had in view through- out the entire work. A polemical writing produced in the midst of a heated contest and under great stress like Galatians, naturally employs language different from that used in an historical work designed to set forth the same facts perhaps twenty years later. If Luke had introduced into his account of the great struggle for the independence of the Gentile Church, and for its freedom from the law, the excited moods of those who actually participated in the struggle, he would simply have betrayed his unfitness to be an historian of Christianity. In a work intended for a man like Theophilus, who was still outside the Church, this would have been particularly unwise, and calculated to defeat the very end for which the work was intended. There are occasions when Luke does not con- ceal the fact that good Christians could differ with Paul (Acts xv. 37-39), and reserves his own judgment as to who was the more to blame. But with regard to the burning question of the age, Luke reports more clearly than is done in any of the Pauline letters, how the oppo- nents of the apostle, whose Pharasaic origin Luke alone records (Acts xv. 5), were severely and clearly rebuked by all the authorities of the Church (Acts xv. 10, 19, 24). Luke understands better than does the Roman who de- clared this to be his purpose (Tacitus, Ann. 1. 1), the meaning of tradere sine wra et studio. 1. (P.41.) Zeller (Die AG nach Inhalt und Ursprung krit. unters., 1854, S. 460, 516) declares it to be practically beyond question that “the greeting” of this entire work, which consists of two parts, contained “the name of the author,” i.e. of the alleged author, “Luke.” But he says nothing further of the form and contents of this title. Blass (Acta ap., ed. maj., 1895, p. 2) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 81 proposes as the title of Acts, Aoura ᾿Αντιοχέως πρὸς Θεόφιλον λόγος β΄, and for the Gospel a similar title only with λόγος a’, But, is it conceivable that Luke should have given ἃ work dealing with so great a subject such a meaningless title as this, which deserved to be lost? On the other hand, if he actually chose a better one, why. has it.not been preserved, like, the titles of Matt., Mark,,and Rev.? .In antiquity the title was not such an essential and unalterable part of,a book as in later times, especially since the invention of printing. The fact that the titulus or index was attached to the outside of the closed roll (Birt, Das Antike Buchwesen, S. 66) rendered its fate all the more precarious. Our ignorance as to.what, title Josephus gaye or meant to give his Bellum jud,is not due to,the loss of the original title. Josephus himself quotes the work under different titles: in Ant. i. 11. 4, xiii. 3. 3,.5..9, 10.6; Vita, 74, as do also the ancient writers and the MSS. ‚of Josephus’ work (cf. Niese, ed. maj. vi, pref. § 1 and p. 8). We are familiar with the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome concerning the title of the Vir. Ill., which was still unsettled ‚ten or twelve years after the appearance of the work (Jerome, Ep. Ixvii. 2, exii.'3 ; Vall. i. 403, 738). Least of all was a formal title necessary in the case of a writing which was designed and given out by the author as a private document, with no expecta- tion that it would haye wider circulation, The writing of another; Antiochian, which in this respect was similar to Luke’s work, was given inthe tradition the meaningless title Θεοφίλου. πρὸς Αὐτόλυκον a’ β΄ γ΄. τῷ, (P. 42.) Cf. the present writer’s lecture, ‘ Der Geschiehtschreiber und sein, Stoff im NT.,” Z/KW, 1888, S. 581-596, especially S. 690 ἢ, Josephus wrote his Antiquities at, the instigation of his fellow historians, one of whom was Epaphroditus (Amt. i. proem. 1, mentioned in the third person), to whom the completed work is dedicated in the closing words of the Appendix (Vita, 76, κράτιστε ἀνδρῶν ἜἜ Ππαφρόδιπε), as are also the two books, c, Apion, i. 1, ii, 1. At the close of the latter work, ii. 41, the writing is declared to be intended also for those who, like Epaphroditus, desire to ascertain; the truth concerning Judaism: Cf, the dedications and prefaces of Irenaeus, especially i, pref, ὃ 2-3, iii, pref. § 1; Melito in Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 13 ; Artemidorus, Interpretation of dreams [᾿Ονειροκριτικά], iv., with reference to the hooks i.-iii., dedicated to a certain Cassius Maximus who is called κράτιστος. 3. (P..42.) Κράτιστος is used as a title of the governor of Palestine (Acts xxiii, 26, xxiy. 3, xxvi, 25), of the proconsuls of the large proyinces (C.J. Gr. Nos. 1072, 1073 ; Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, Inscr. of the Odeum, Nos, 3, 4; Dioscorides, Mat. Med. i. prowem, ed. Sprengel, p. 4) and other high officials (Berl, ägypt. Urk,, Bd. i. 373, ii. 373 in the index under δικαιοδότης, διοικητής, ἔπαρχος, ἐπιστράτηγος ἐπίτροπος, and above, p. 6, n. 5); but it is also used to designate other men of distinction (οἵ. τ. 2), Josephus uses interchange- ably, in addressing Epaphroditus, κράτιστε ἀνδρῶν (Vita, 76 ; c, Apion, i. 1), τιμιώτατέ μοι, ii. 1 (cf. Ant. xx. 1, 2), and simply "Exadpdéure, ii. 41. In Christian literature we find in Zpist. ad Diognetum, κράτιστε Διόγνητε addressed to a pagan, according to the older view the teacher. of Marcus Aurelius; and in the dialogue of Methodins, de Resurr. 33, 54 (Bonwetsch, pp- 122, 166) we have κράτιστε Θεόφιλε addressed to the judge of a debate. In addressing one another, the early Christians used either the simple name as in 1 Tim. vi. 20; Iren. Lp, ad Florinum in Eus, H. E. v. 20, or employed VOL. IIL 6 82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT distinetively Christian attributives, such as ἀδελφέ (Philem. 20), yvijou σύζυγε (Phil. iv. 3) ’Ovnoiuo τῷ ἀδελφῷ (Melito in Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 13), ἀγαπητέ (Iren. i. pref. § 2, and in the prefaces of all the books that follow), ἀγαπητέ pov ἀδελφὲ Θεόφιλε (Hippol. de Antichr. i.). By the beginning of the third century, secular titles, such as κύριε and the like, had come into use also among Christians ; Alex. Hieros. in Eus. H. E. vi. 11. 6; pseudo-Petr. ad Jac., greeting and eonclusion ; Afric. ad Orig. (Delarue, i. 10), although in the ey (p. 12) Origen uses the Christian form of address. 4. (P. 43.) Since Luke construes κατηχεῖσθαι (Acts xxi. 21, 24) and ἦχος (Luke iv. 37) with περί τιύος; there is no reason for conte i. 4 in any other way than : τὴν ἀσφάλειαν τῶν λόγων περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης, nor for under- standing the verb otherwise than to mean a report, rumour, which one has heard ; cf! Philo, Leg. ad Cai. xxx. "The word in itself does not mean formal ἜΗΝ ction’ but the hearing or telling of something which the hearer has not previously known (ef. Jos. Vita, 65). Thus in Acts xviii. 25 the word does not, as in Gal. vi. 6; 1 Cor. xiv. 19 (cf. Rom. ii. 18), mean catechetical in- struction, since, at that time, Apollos had not received the baptism of the Church, nor had he as yet come into any contact with the organised Church, but indicates only the fact that he had become acquainted with Christianity in a general way. On the other hand, his introduction by Aquila into the knowledge of Christianity as held by the Church, is called an ἀκριβέστερον ἐκτίθεσθαι, Acts xviii. 26. The relation which the communication of Luke to Theophilus bore to the latter’s previous knowledge is the same. The latter use of the word to mean the instruction which had conversion in view, and was ‘preparatory to baptism, which is found in 2 Clem. xvii. 1; Acta Thecle, xxxix., may have been suggested by passages like Luke i. 4; Acts xviii. 25. Eus. Ecloye Proph. (ed. Gaisford, p. 3) construes Luke i. 4 in this sense, which is as yet foreign to the N.T. 5. (P. 44.) Lagarde (Praltertum Hieronymi, 1874, p. 165) felt the state- ment of Luke’s reasons for writing in Luke i. 1 to be so awkward that he made this the main reason for his hypothesis, that Luke is here imitating the preface of the physician Dioscorides (circa, 40 to 70 A.D.) to his work περὶ ὕλης ἰατρικῆς, in which he attempts to show that, notwithstanding the numerous writers, ancient and modern, on the same subject, his own work is not superfluous, because the work of the former was not complete, while the latter drew largely from mere hearsay, not from their own experience (ed. Sprengel, i. 1f.). It is, of course, possible that Luke had read this work by a contemporary and a member of the same profession. But the resemblance between the two dedications is slight. Words like αὐτοψία, ἀκριβής, and their derivatives are not so distinctive in character as to prove familiarity on Luke’s part with Dioscorides in particular. It is, however, true that, throughout his entire work, Luke’s language does show the most striking resemblance to that of the medical writers from Hippocrates to Galen, as has been conclusively shown by Hobart (see n. 28 and § 62, n, 5). This is noticeably true in the prologue. Hippocrates and Galen use, like Luke, the thoroughly medical word ἐπιχειρεῖν (found in the N.T. only in lake i, 1; Acts ix. 29, xix. 13) with γράφειν, and Galen construes it with ἀνέλεῖν exactly as in Acts ix. 29 (Hobart, 87, 210). This verb occurs 21 times in Luke, and elsewhere in the N.T. only thrice (not including the THE FIRST 'THREE;GOSPELS AND ACTS $3 use of the derivative ἀναίρεσις in Acts viii. 1). Hobart (87-90, 229,/250 £.) cites from Galen not less than 11 instances of αὐτόπτης γενόμενος, γίνεσθαι, γενέσθαι, 2 instances of ἀκριβῶς παρακολουθεῖν, and numerous, instances οἱ διήγησις, both from medical essays and historical works. .,One of Galen’s dedications (ed. Kiihn, xiv.,210, τοῦτόν cou τὸν. περὶ: τῆς: θηριακῆς Χόγον ἀκριβῶς ἐξετάσας ἅπαντα, ἄριστε Πίσων, στουδαίως ἐποίησα), Hobart (251) compares to the; prologue of Luke (cf. also Acts ἅ.. 1). For the struc- ture of theisentence, cf. Jos. Bell,.i. procem, 1, ἐπειδὴ. «΄. ἀναγράφουσιν. προυθέμην eyo... ἀφηγήσασθαι ; ὃ 6 ἐπειδήπερ καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίω» πολλοὶ κτλ.» but especially Acts xv. 24 f. ἐπειδὴ ἠκούσαμεν. .. , ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν. Christians of ἃ later period very often imitated ‚the Prologue of Luke; 6.9. Athanasius. in his 39th Easter Epistle (see Hpist. fest. 39 in the writer’s edition, Grundriss, S.. 87. 94f.), toa) certain extent also, Palladius, Hist.’ Lawsiaca/ (Texts and Studies), ed. Butler, p. 9. 1, 10; Epiphan. Mon,, ed. Dressel, p. 45, ἴῃ ‘the life of Andrea. ' 19 6, (Pp. 44, 45.) Origen, in Hom. i. im Luc. (Delarue, iii. 933, ef. the Greek text GK, ii. 627), followed by Eus, H. E. iii. 24. 15 and Athan. Epist. fest. 39, in misinterpreting ἐπεχείρησαν; understands verAnpobopnpevwv.as a stronger form of πεπιστευμένων, but neither of them explains adequately the transfer- ence of the word from its association with the person of Luke (πεπληροφόρητο καὶ οὐδὲν ἐδίσταξε) to the things of which he was convinced. This, moreover, cannot be explained. With πιστεύεσθαι, παραδίδοσθαι, ἐπιτρέπεσθαι, and similar. words only the reverse transfer, of the passive construction occurs, namely, from the thing which is entrusted, delivered, committed, to the person to whom something is entrusted, comuiitted, or permitted, who is charged with something, ete. (6... Rom. vi. 17; νο]. 1.. 374, n. 8). Even more im- possible is the interpretation first advocated by Lessing (ed, Maltzahn, xi, 2. 135), which he endeavoured to support by the assumption of a Hebraism, According to this view, Luke would have called the facts of the gospel history “ Things which haye been fulfilled,’ because in them O,T. prophecies were fulfilled, instead of saying that the prophecies had heen fulfilled by these facts, With reference to this interpretation it may be remarked ; (1) Luke does not use Hebraisms in the prologue. (2) When speaking of the fulfil- ment of prophecy he uses regularly the usual πληροῦν (i. 20, iv..21, xxiv. 44 ; Acts 1. 16, iii. 18, xiii. 27), occasionally τελεῖν (xviii. 31, xxii. 37; Acts xiii, 29), once πλησθῆναι (Luke xxi. 29). (3) The thought that the O.T. prophecy is ful- filled in the gospel history is not at all fundamental in Luke. (4) Leaving out, of account the illogical substitution of the facts fulfilling the prophecies for the prophecies being fulfilled, it would be diflieult for any reader. to understand the expression standing at the beginning of the book, where as yet no mention has been made of prophetie prediction, while to a Gentile like Theophilus it would be entirely unintelligible. If it is impossible to construe the verb Anpobopeiv with a personal object. (or πληροφορεῖσθαι with a personal subject, Rom, iv, 21, xiv. 5; Col. iv.-12; Eccles. viii. 11; Berl. äyypt. Urk. No. 665, whence the word Anposopia), the only other con- struction possible is πληροφορεῖν with an impersonal object, the same as in 2 Tim. iv. 5 (=Acts xii; 25, xiv. 26); 2, Tim. iv. 17 (=Ool. i. 25 ; Rom. xv. 19); also Herm, Mand, ix. 2. It is to be taken as a rhetorical synonym for πληροῦν (Luke vii. 1, “after he had fmished speaking”; Acts xiii, 25, 84 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT xix. 21; 2 Cor. x. '6; Rev. iii. 2). Luke’ is fond of such formations, ed τελεσφορεῖν, Luke viii. 14; τροποφορεῖν, Acts xiii. 18; etpopeiv, Luke xii. 16 (used only by Luke) ; καρποφορεῖν, Luke viii 15. Used in this connection; πληροφορεῖν, like πληροῦν, always means “to carry ‘through to the end,” “to bring to an end,” not as’ Wuttig affirms (Das joh. Ev. “und seine Abfassungszeit, 1897, S. 60), “to make complete” “in the sense’ of #to supplement.” ' Wuttig introduces a manifest change in the setise when he substitutes (8, 61) the meaning “to complete by the addition of a supple- ment”; for, while the object of πληροῦν or πληροφορεῖν may be the things indomiplete without this act or transaction (service, vocation, life, discourse, preaching of the gospel, and the like), it can never be thexé things, words, acts, ete., which are added to those already existent in order to make them complete. Wuttig’s desire in this way to derive the idea that the traditions which Luke and.the πολλοί worked over into literary form were ‘added’ as a supplement to complete ” the facts which had already been earlier reduced to literary form’ in the Fourth Gospel, is impossible of fulfilment; for it could never be said of past events which are here spoken of as- the objéct of literary work on the part of many, and indirectly of Luke, that they were added as a supplement to the already existing Gospel of the eye-witnesses or of one eye-witness ; but only of the oral accounts concerning these events by the eye-witnesses and’ the written’ records made by their disciples. “But Luke says nothing about an existing written Gospel of the eye-witnesses, nor of its completion by oral accounts of the same witnesses and ἫΝ the Me pe of the πολλοί. 7. (P. 46.) The adverbial ar’ ἀρχῆς must be taken with the γενόμενοί which concludes the characterisation of the Drigsanl witnesses. Τῦ is likewise impossible to construe the phrase with αὐτόπται alone and not also with ὑπηρέται. : 8. (P. 48.) There is nothing in the words παραδιδόναι ‘and νὐβαϑόσα themselves which determines whether the communication is in oral or written form. It is the function of history to transmit faets to posterity (ef. Polyb. ii. 35. 5, εἰς μνήμην ἄγειν καὶ παράδοσιν τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις): Concerning the historian Jos. remarks (c. Apion, i. 10), δεῖ τὸν ἄλλοις πάράδοσιν πράξεων ἀληθινῶν ὑπισχνούμενον αὐτὸν ἐπίστασθαι ταῦτα mpörepov ἀκριβῶς, ἢ παρηκολου- θηκότα τοῖς γεγονόσιν ἢ παρὰ τῶν εἰδότων πυνθανόμενον ; cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 25.2; Dioskor, Mat. Med. in the prefaces to books ii. iii. iv.; in Book v. he uses instead ἀποδιδόναι. Hence παραδιδόναι (Acts vi. 14) as well as διδόναι (John i. 17, vii. 19) can be used of the giving of the law by Moses, who is regarded as the author of the written Law (Luke xx. 28; John v. 45-47; Rom. x. 5). To what has been said above (p. 48) in the light of the context of the prologue the following remarks may be ‘added : (1) In Jewish usage there is a cottrast between the written law and παραδιδόναι, παράδοσις, teach- ings and regulations transmitted orally (Matt. xv. 2,3, 6; Mark vii. 3-13; Gal. i. 14; Col. ii. 8, 22). Such tradition is “ hkard N (Matt. v. 21; John xii, 34). (20 Moreover, where the word is used of apostolie teaching and advice, this is Always oral (1 Cor. xi. 2, 28, xv. 3; Rom. vi. 17; 2 These. iii. 6; vol. ii, 372f., 384), where it is not expressly added that this is given in written form (2 Thess. ii. 15). (3) Quite apart from the dogmatic contrast between Holy Scripture and the less thoroughly authenticated tradition, the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS: AND: ACTS 85 idea suggested by παραδιδόναι is always so entirely that of an oral com- munication, that Clement, e.g. in Helog. Proph. 27, could write: οὐκ ἔγραφον de οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μή ἀπασχολεῖν βουλόμενοι τὴν διδασκαλικὴν τῆς δότω τες φροντίδα τῇ περὶ τὸ γράφειν ἄλλῃ φροντίδι, μηδὲ μὴν κτλ. 9. (P. 50.) ~The mistaken interpretation of παρηκολουθηκότι πᾶσιν by early writers (above, p. 64.); which made Luke ἃ disciple in companionship with all the apostles, requires no refutation. Equally impossible is the inter- pretation which makes Luke an active witness of all the events which he is about to set forth, although: this is linguistically possible, when πράγμασι is supplied with the correct addition (cf. Jos. c. Apion, i. 10, see n. 83 or what Philo, de Decal. xviii., says about the false witness, that he speaks ὡς παρηκόλουθηκὼς ἅπασιν). This would make Luke an eye-witness from the beginning, which he emphatically declares not to have been the case. Further, παρακολουθεῖν means to pursue and follow. with the critical and apprehending intelligence (Hpict. Diss. 1. 5. 5, vi. 12, 18, ix. 4, xxvi. 13 and 14), also with the purpose of historical investigation and exposition (Polyb. i. 13. 7, iii. 32.2). This ie the only meaning which suits ἀκριβῶς. By μετὰ πάσης ἀκριβείας τοῖς ἡμετέροις γράμμασι παρακολουθεῖν, Josephus, ὁ. Apion, i. 23, means an intelligent study of the O.T. Sceriptures.‘ If, when Luke expressed his purpose with reference to Theophilus, his plan had included the in- ~ vestigations as well as the statement of the results, he would have written παρακολουθήσαντι or -cavta ; cf. Acts xv. 25. 10. (Pp. 53, 54,58.) Of the Fathers, Augustine in particular (Cons. Βουιὰ iv. 8. 9) claims that the prologue has rateveutie to both of Luke’s books. Among the arguments urged against this position the most incomprehensible is that Acts would not then begin with another address to Theophilus, which was necessary in order to co-ordinate the beginnings of the two books... This is practically the position of Overbeck, Introduction to the revision of de Wette’s Komm. zur AG, p. xxi anm. (1) Acts i. 1 does not contain a second prologue, much less an independent prologue, but simply a reference to the first part of the author’s work, which serves to connect the second book with the first. (2) It is indeed the rule at the beginning of the successive books of a large work to insert a short reference to the dedication of the first book, or a new prologue, without the prologue of the first book thereby ceasing to be the introduction to the entire work. Examples from the years between 60 and 200 are Dioscorides, Materia Mediea, libri iv. ;: Jos, ὁ. Apion, i, and ii. ; Artemidorus, Interpretation of Dreams [’Oveporpırıra], i.—iii., dedieated. to a different person than/are iv.-v. zu Iren. i-v.. Very frequently an address is also found at the conclusion of separate books οὐ οὗ theientire work, ‚Diose, v. p- 828; Jos. ὦ: Apion, ii. 41; Artemid, i. 82, iii..66, iv..845 Iven. i..31,,3, iv. 14. 45 cf. also the present writer's “ Studien zu Justin,” Z/KG, viii. 451. (8) Luke does not say, Acts i. 1, that he has set forth the, gospel history; ἐν ἐτέρῳ (βιβλίῳ, «συγγράμματι, or perhaps λόγῳ) or ἐν ἐτέροις, but he calls the Gospel ὁ πρῶτος λόγος, to which Acts is added as ὁ δεύτερος λόγος. ΟἿ, Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, 8. 28: “A large work is composed of a number of λόγοι." Of course, it is possible that each one of a number of, independent writings might be called a λόγος, but such independent writings could not, be enumerated and called “the first book” and the “second book.”... Whether or not, when he wrote Luke i 1-4, Luke knew that the working out of his plan 86 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT would require a work of several parts, certainly when he wrote Acts ἧς 1. πε was aware that his plan had been only partially carried out, and therefore, at this point she added what followed: as a second part οὗ ἃ. larger work, | He betrays this same consciousness where he gives as the subject: of the first booky, περὶ πάντων ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν re καὶ διδάσκειν. >This a fourth proof (4) of the seope of the prologue. On the basis simply of single passages, like Acts ix. 4, or in view of the tendency to consider all gospel preaching as the “ gospel of Christ and the word of the Lord (vol. 11. 377), it would be wrong to interpret this phrase to mean that Jesus was the actual subject of all that the Apostles did and suffered and taught. Om the other hand, the use of ἤρξατο in Acts is not to be. considered entirely purposeless, especially in this passage where Luke is speaking with his further writing. in mind. All. that Jesus did and said, as set forth in the Gospel, is only the) beginning. of a wider activity (cf. Heb. ii. 3). (This ἤρξατο. stands in. contrast to the memAn- ροφοῤῥημένα πράγματα of Luke i. I, which is intended to cover the subject, of all Luke’s literary work. In this way the proofs derived from Acts i, 1 con- nect themselves naturally with those derived from the preface to the Gospel (above, p. 53 f.). 11. (P. 55.) | Xenophon. in: the Anabasis, like Er in. the Gallic War and Matthew in his Gospel, always speaks of himself in the third, person (Amab. i. 8.15, ii. 5.40, iii, 1. 4, 10, 47. The only paragraph in which,a “we” occurs, vil. 8. 25, is regarded as spurious). , In, the Memerabilia, on, the other hand, the author’s “I” occurs from the beginning (i. 1.1, 3. 1,4. 2). But.in the account of a dialogue in which he took part, 1. 3, 8-13, he uses. Ξενοφῶν. Thucydides uses his name from the outset, employing the personal pronoun; so always in speaking of: himself in the capacity of a narrator and of the source of his knowledge of the events which he records (i..20, 1, 22.1, ii, 48.13, v. 26. 4). But when referring to himself as ἃ general, he uses consistently the thirdo person, only indicating the identity οἵ the general with the author of the book at the first introduction of the name (iv. 104.4). Polybius is familiar with the two forms, but does not maintain the. distine- tion strictly. Besides “1” he frequently uses an equivalent “we” (i, 1.1, 8 ἢν, ii. 40, 5, iii, 5.8, 48. 12); sometimes he uses “ I” when speaking of himself as one of the actors (xxxix. 6); also remarks about his intentional change of © Polybius” to “I” or “we” (xxxvii. 1 f.). Inthe preface of the Jewish. War, § 1, Josephus says, “I, Josephus, the son of Matthias, a priest of Jerusalem.” And universally, in speaking of himself as an author, he uses “1” or“ we” (Bell. v. 4.1, 5. 4, 5.7, vii 11. 5; Anti i. proem.; x. 11. 7, xii. 5.2, xvi, 7.1). But in the same work, when speaking of himself as an actor in the history, he introduces himself impersonally as “ Josephus,” first in ii. 20. 4, and regülarly from that point onward. Ib is only in the autobiography that he employs “1” throughout without adding the name. On the other hand, Porphyrius in the Vita Plotini writes, cc. iv.-vi., ἐγὼ ἱπόρφυριοι ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου, mr ἤλθον 6 IL. For the imitations of Luke's “we” see nm. 17. 12. (P. 55.) ‘In’ Acts xvi. 17, according to recension ß also in xwi. 10, “we” is found where Paul is expressly excepted |; therefore the “ we) in- cludes Silas, who has been with Paul since xv, 40, and Timothy, introduced into the narrative in xvi. 1-3. That the unnamed person designated by “1” and included in the “we” cannot be identified with Silas or Timothy, who THE FIRST THREE, GOSPELS AND, ACTS 87 are mentioned ,hy name, is self-evident. That it was not Silas is clear from the following, combinations: ‘Paul and us” (xvi. 17), “Paul” (xvi. 18), “Paul and Silas” (xvi. 19). In both recensions (above, p. 81, π, 9) Timothy is excluded by xx. 4-6. He is one of those who on the journey to Troas preceded Paul and those associated with him who are included in the Swe.” 13. (P. 56.) Concerning the text of Acts xx. 3 ff., see above, p. 31, n. 9, and vol, i. 209f. According to this passage, the companions of Paul’s journey mentioned, with the exception of Sopater, who. accompanied him. from Corinth, and the writer of the narrative who found him at Philippi, went on ahead from Macedonia to Troas before the Passover. But too much is not to be inferred from the absence of the “we.” In narratives where Paul alone, or Paul and Silas, are represented as actors or sufferers (xvi, 18-40), the “* we” is omitted without the absence of the narrator or of Timothy being thereby implied. According to xxi. 18, the narrator was,in the party that met James; but in what follows there is no occasion to use the “ we” again.; ;, The;same is true οἵ xx. 16-38, where the, account concerns only Paul’s decision and a transaction between himself and the Ephesian elders. “We” might have been used in xx. 36 (ἡμῖν instead of αὐτοῖς), although it is possible, but not definitely proved by the recurrence of the * we” in xxi, 1, that part of PaulJ’s company—among them the narrator—remained on shipboard while Paul and his other companions went on shore. Since the elders accompanied Paul to the ship (in a boat), and certainly went on board (xx. 38), those of the com- pany who remained on the ship could haye participated in the leave-taking of the elders (xxi. 1). Irenaeus’ statement; im iii. 14. 1 (GK, ii. 54, A, 2), accord- ing to which Luke accompanied the apostle from Antioch, apparently im- mediately after the separation between Paul and Barnabas, is not absolutely precluded hy, the absence, of “we” in the very sketchy narrative of xv. 40- xvi. 8. But Luke may have followed, Paul from Antioch to Troas as Agathopus did Ignatius (Ign. Philadel. xi.; Smyrn. x.; cf. the present, writer's work on Ignatius, 263 f.). 14. (PB, 58.) Quite independently of the question concerning the correct- ness of the text in Luke xxiy. 51, and of the harmonistic difficulties suggested by a comparison of Luke xxiy. 44-53 and: Acts i, 1-14, it is shown by Acts i. 2 that the author is conscious of haying already given an account of the ἀνάληψις in Luke xxiv. 51. (15. (P. 59.) Concerning the ‘title πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων see above, p: 3, n. 1., Even in the Coptic and Syriac versions the Greek word: is adopted into the text, although in the latter version a Syriac equivalent is also used (GK, i. 377 f.; for other variants, ii. 52, A.2). . The use of πρᾶξις in & legal sense,as a translation of Actio = “suit, proceedings of ἃ court, synod,” ete.,is out of the question, also the use of actum, acta, which when used by the Greeks is left untranslated (Just. Apol. 1. 35, 48 ; Acta Theele, xxxviii.), It can mean only historical facts as in Polybius (cf. Raphelii Annot. in N.T., ed. Hemsterhuis, 1747, ii, 2). The present writer is not familiar with any other ancient historical work in the title of which the word is used, The titles of the apocryphal πράξεις Παύλου, Πέτρου κτλ. are imitations of the canonical Acts (see n. 17). On the other hand, one is easily reminded) of the late Hebrew, neya (Mishnah, Meg» ἦν, 8; Chag. ii, 1; also in the title of the 88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Aramaic Book of Tobit, ed. Neubauer, 1878, pp. 3, 17). Dependence upon this usage would argue for the very early date of the title of Acts. 16. (P. 61.) J ode phitid writes at the beginning of the second and last book contra Apion, διὰ μὲν οὖν τοῦ προτέρου βιβλίου κτλ. Philo says in Quod omn. prs liber i., βρέ πεῖς of ἃ companion work now lost, ὁ μὲν πρύτερὸς Adyos ἦν ἡμῖν, ὦ Θεόδοτε, περὶ τοῦ κτλ. Also Vata Mos. ii. 1, which is correct, since as yet a third book was not in view. This is ΜΕΥ ΡῈ (iii. 1, τρίτον δὲ προσαποδοτέον). The genuine Euthalius (Zacagni, 410) writes in the same way of Luke: δύο βίβλους συνεγράψατο, μίαν μὲν καὶ προτέραν τὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, δευτέραν δὲ τάὐτην κτὰ. So Origen regularly in quotations from 1 Cor., 1 Tim., ete., in Matt: tom. xiv.'22, xv. 27, xvii. 29. The careless use of πρῶτος for πρότερος is not once to be fotind in Luke’s writings, where he could have been dependent on his sources. Acts xii. 10 “a first watch and ἃ second watch” is not a case in point, nor is the adverbial πρῶτον in Luke xiv: 28, 31. Bunsen’s Anal. Antentc, i. 130f., calls attention to the use of πρῶτόν, Acts i. 1, as distinguished from #rporepov. 17. (P. 61.) The not ungifted author of the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter, whom we now know to have been a member of one branch of ‘the Valentinian School, introduces himself in the former work by a “we,” as Luke does in Acts, making himself a witness of the history of John which he fabricates. He also uses occasionally an “I,” and once at least the name Leucius Charinus ; ef. the present writer's Acta Jo. Ixviii., Ixx., xevii. ; GK, ii. 860. In his Acts of Peter the same author clearly imitates and borrows from Acts (GK, ii. 854f.). It is not likely that the author meant to identify him- self with the Lucius in Acts xiii. 1, still less with Luke. Equally im- probable is the conjecture of James (Apocr. Anecd. ii. p. xi), that the author of the Muratorian fragment regarded the stories of Leucius as a work of Luke, implying by the nse of semote, line 37, that this work was a non-canonical, unpublished writing by the author of the canonical Acts: The Oatholic author of the Acts of Paul, and, as we now know, of the Acts of Theele, which are a part of it, has followed Acts even more closely than has Leucius. The much later biographer of the Apostle John, Prochorus, took his name from Acts vi. 5, and derived much of his material from this source (Acta Jo. liv.). 18. (P. 64.) In Luke iv. 44 the reading τῆς Ἰουδαίας is very strongly attested both as to age and currency by NBCLQ (fifth century) R (sixth century), Ss S*, copt. and a large number of cursives, so that it is not to be compared with the τῆς Ἰουδαίας in i. 26, for which there is only one witness (x*). Furthermore, thé entire context after iv. 14 suggests no objection to Γαλιλαίας, Whereas Ἰουδαίας would necessarily have raised questions, | More- over, the variants τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (cf. vii. 3), rots ᾿Τουδαίοις (the Jewish popula- tion of Galilee in contrast to numerous persons in this country who were not Jews) and αὐτῶν (according to iv. 15), which have only a single MS. in their support, prove that there stood here originally a reading which created difficulty,’ namely, τῆς "Iovdalas. Unfortunately Mareion’s text has not come down to us (GK, ii. 478). But, according to a statement of an anonymous Syrian writer, Mareion made his Christ appear first between Jerusalem and Jericho (Mus. Brit. Add. 17215, fol. 30; ef. Academy, 1893, October 21); and although it has not vet been possible to bring this statement into agreement with that of Tertullian (ThLb, 1896, col. 19), it argues in favour of the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 85 assumption that Marcion, who construcied the beginning of his Gospel in the most arbitrary fashion out of Luke ii. 1, iv. 31-35 (or 399), iv. 16-43 (or 44%), found Ἰουδαίας in this passage. If Luke wrote the word, he certainly did not employ it in the narrower sense, implying complete exclusion of Galilee (v. 17, xxiv. 8), but in the broader sense according to which it includes Galilee, as in i. 5, vi. 17, xxiil.5; Acts x. 37 (ef. vol. i. 186). This is in keeping with the context ; for after the mention of Galilee in general (iv. 14) and of Nazareth (iv. 16-30), and of the “Galilean city, Capernaum” (iv. 31-42), in particular, ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν (iv. 43), without any modifying words, means all the other cities in Jesus’ sphere of labour, exclusive of those already mentioned. Among these not the least important was Jerusalem (ii. 38, xiii. 33f.), but all the other Jewish cities of the Holy Land are included (cf. Matt. x. 23). It is, therefore, possible that in v. 12 a city in South Palestine is meant, as Tatian assumed »—possibly influenced by the original text of Luke iv. 44 (Forsch. i. 251 f.; GK, ii. 545), just as in x. 38 a village near Jerusalem is meant, although it is not expressly said that this is the location. 19. (P. 66.) In ix. 18-x. 42 we seem to have a series of events closely connected in time and piace. The temporal connection is directly indicated in ix. 28, 37, x. 1, 21, also to some extent in x. 17, and possible in x. 25 by καὶ ἰδού. The way is prepared for the journey to Jerusalem, ix. 51, by ix. 22, 31. Evidently in ix. 57 the same πορεύεσθαι is referred to as in ix. 56. This seems also to be the case in x. 1, 38. If it could be assumed that Luke knew Cesarea Philippi to be the scene of what is narrated in ix. 18-27 (Mark viii. 27-38), and that he knew the location of the village referred to in x. 38 (John xi. 1, 18), and its name, Bethany, we would have here a journey from the extreme northern part of Palestine to Jerusalem, and it would be natural to assume that the material of the parable in x. 30 ff. was suggested by Jesus’ journey through Jericho to Bethany and Jerusalem. But Tuke does not make such combinations. He mentions neither Caesarea nor Bethany ; he would not have mentioned the fact that the city in ix. 52 was Samaritan if it were not necessary for understanding what took place. This is true also of the statement that Jerusalem was the goal of His journey, as is shown bya com- parison of ix. 51 with ix. 53. There must have been an interval of a con- siderable number of days between x. 1-16 and x. 17, and nothing is: said of Jesus’ progress. The äveorn, x. 25, seems to presuppose that Jesus was surrounded by a crowd of seated listeners (Mark iii. 34), although immediately before Jesus is represented as being alone with His disciples (Luke x. 23). Throughout the book there is no external connection between events. On the other hand, the logical connection is very elear—partieularly between ix. 49 f. and ix. 54-56. Everything from ix. 22 onward is designed to show how the disciples—even those of them who were most trusted—needed to be brought, contrary to their natural inclinations, to the state of mind necessary or experiencing the sufferings and death of their Master. The conclusion of this train of thought is reached at x. 24, and at this point we have'the beginning of a new series of events which likewise are related logically, not locally or in respect of time. If in x. 38 we are in the vicinity of Jerusalem, the supposed account of the journey to Jerusalem can go no farther. In xiii. 1, Jesus is certainly not in Jerusalem, and it is not until 90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT xili. 22-35 that we find Him on His way hither, and then He seems to be at.a considerable distance away, in the domain of Herod Antipas (xiii. 31-33), 1.6. either in Galilee or Perea. An examination of xiii. 33-35 shows that Jerusalem is mentioned in xiii. 22, not in order to begin or to continue, the account of a journey, but in order to make intelligible a word of Jesus’ spoken, ab this particular, time (xiii. 31). In xiv. 1-+xvii. 10 the references to time and place are vague, as is also the reference to.a journey in xiv. 25. Again, in xvii, 11 the place is mentioned only in order to make clear the passage xvii, 12-19. Τῦ is not until xviii. 31, 35, xix. 1,11, 28, 41, 45 that we havea continuous development of the course of events. Nevertheless, it, is possible that we have here scattered statements concerning a journey to Jerusalem, or, as we may say in view of ix. öl, the last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. Since quarters were refused Jesus in a Samaritan city (ix. 52), we may infer that the village in ix. 56 was Jewish, and. assume that Jesus gave up his intention to. go to Jerusalem through Samaria, taking instead the route through Perea (Mark x. 1; Matt. xix. 1; vol. ii. 589, n. 4). With this xvii. 11 may be connected. That the er in this passage is not to a journey through the midst of Samaria and Galilee is self-evident, because, in this case, it would necessarily be a journey from Judea to the northern boundary of Galilee, because of the order in which the countries: are men- tioned, and because the readings διὰ μέσης or διὰ τῆς, by which this meaning is expressed, are practically unsupported, Probably the most original reading is μέσον, without a preposition (D, ef. viii. 7, x. 3). This was replaced by ἀναμέσον (Ferrar group), which was not a bad conjecture, by διὰ μέσου (AX, ete.), which, on. the other hand, was worse, and by διὰ μέσον (NBL), which is very bad. Jesus travelled along the border between Samaria and, Galilee naturally from west to east with the intention in the neighbourhood of Scythopolis of crossing the Jordan into Perea, ‚and thence to journey. to Jerusalem. So it happened that in one of the border villages nine Jewish and one Samaritan leper met Jesus. Here could have followed what. is recorded in xiii, 22-35, if these events occurred in Perea (see above), although Luke records them at an earlier point in the narrative. In xviii. 31, 35, xix. 11, 28, 41, 45 we follow Jesus through Jericho to the Temple in Jerusalem without again being carried back in time or place. 20, (P. 68.) Of the proper names that are found in Matt. or Mark only Archelaus (Matt. ii, 22), Bartimaeus (Mark x. 46), and the names of Jesus’ brothers are Jacking in Luke. On the other hand, omitting the genealogy and O,T, names, the following are peculiar to Luke; Zacharias and Elisabeth, with very explicit, statements about them, i. 5, ef. 36; Augustus and Quirinius, ii. 1, 2; Simeon and Anna, with explicit statements regarding them, ii. 25, 36 ; Tiberius and Lysanias, iii, 1 ; Annas, iii. 2, Acts iv. 6 (also John xviii. 13); Simon the Pharisee, vii. 40; Joanna and Chuza, yiil, 3, ef. xxiv. 10; Susanna, viii, 3; Mary and Martha, x. 39 (also John xi.) ; Zaechaus, xix, 1; Cleopas, xxiv, 18, A proper name is found even in one of the parables (xvi. 20), It will also be observed that in Acts a number of persons are mentioned who play only a subordinate role in the narrative, or none at all, and who, if we may judge from analogy, would not have been mentioned in. Matt. or Mark ; e.g: in iv, 6, v. 1, vi, 5 (altogether seven persons, only two of whom are. mentioned again); ix, 10, 11, 33, 36, x. ı1, 32 (Peter’s host) ; THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS: AND) ACTS 91 xi. 28, ef. xxi. 10, xii. 12, 13 (the maid) ;Ixii. 20, ΧΗ]. 1 (three,, obscure persons with very explicit statements about them, still more in, text ß, see above, p.28f., n. 6); xiii. 6-8, xvil. 6, xviii, 7, 8, 17, xix. 9, 14, 22, 24, 29, 33, xx. 4, 9, xxi. 16, xxiv. 1, 24, xxvil. 1, xxviii, 7, 21. (P. 69.) In some of the passages of Luke’s narrative, where he calls Jesus 6 κύριος, the text is uncertain as regards this particular point. The present writer regards the following passages as gennine ;,vii. 13 (not vi. 31) ; x. 1, xi. 39, xii, 42, xiii. 15, xvii. 5, 6, xviil. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 31, 61 (twice) ; (xxiv. 3?) ; altogether twelve or thirteen times. In John it is found only four times (iv. 1, vi. 23, xi. 2, xx. 20). But in the only passage really com- parable with it (John iv. 1), possibly ὁ Ἰησοῦς is the correct reading. In xx. 20 the author speaks from the point of view of the disciples. In vi..23, xi. 2 we have the evangelist’s own words, which have no connection with the narrative. This usage is not found in Matt. or Mark, On;Mark-xvi. 19 see vol. ii. 476. With reference to the reticence of Luke in the account of the Last Supper, cf. the present writer’s essay: Brod und Wein im Abendmahl, 1892, 5. 14f. 22. (Ρ..10.) The Israelitish tone is strongly marked in chs. i,-ii. (i. 6, 32f., 54 f., 68-79, ii. 4, 11, 21-24, 25, 31f.,34,37f,41f.). The man Jesus, however, is represented: as loving His people (xiii. 16, xix. 9), and as, therefore, very deeply pained both by their sins and misfortune (x. 31 ff, xiii. 34, xvii. 18, xix, 41-44, xxiii, 28-31). He acknowledges not only the prophetic and doctrinal significance of the O.T. (iv. 4-12, 17-21, x. 25-28, xiii. 28, xvi, 16, 29-31, xviii. 19f., xx. 37, 41-44, xxii. 37, xxiv. 27, 44-46), but also the inviolability of the law (xvi. 17). He Himself was submissive to the law to which as a child He was made subject (ii. 21-24), and remained loyal to the religious customs (iv. 16, 31, xxii. 7-16) under which He was brought up (ii. 41f.).- He made no objection even to the painfully literal fulfilment. of the law by the Pharisees, so long as they kept also the fundamental moral law (xi. 42, ef. v. 34ff.). In relation to the Sabbath He takes the same liberal- conservative attitude asin the other Gospels (vi. 1-11, xiii. 10-17, xiv. 1-6) ; see vol. ii. 585 ff. His disciples also live according to the law (xxiii. 56). His Church retains its connection with the Temple, and is full of zeal for the law (xxiv. 53 ; Acts ἢ. 46, v. 12, 42, xxi. 20). The significance of Israel: is not destroyed by the rejection of the Messiah and of the apostolic preaching. The times of the Gentiles shall pass away (Luke xxi. 24), The nation which it was Jesus’ first mission to redeem (i. 54, 68-79, ii. 34, 38, xxıv. 21; Acts ii. 39, iii. 25) shall finally acknowledge and enthrone Him (xiii, 35, xxii, 30; Acts iii. 20f.). No man can know, nor is any man privileged to know, the time (Acts.i. 6f.). But the fact is certain. 23. (P. 72.) Cf. E. Curtius, SBAW, 1893, S. 928f.,0n Phil. iv. 8, and similar statements of Paul. Cf. also what Herder says (Vom Erlöser der Menschen, 1796, S. 218): “He (Luke) might be called the evangelist. of Philanthropy, if this word had not been desecrated... Such a Gospel is in keeping withrthe character of a man who had made numerous journeys among the Greeks and Romans with Paul, and who dedicated his writings to'a Theophilus.” 24. (P. 74.) With regard: to the alleged Ebionitie doctrine of the meri. torious, ‘or God-pleasing character of voluntary poverty, see vol. 1. 147f, 92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT There is no reason why anyone should have been misled, as has ‘repeatédly been the case, by Origen’s scholastic play on words (Princ. ivi 225 6. Celsy ii, 1; ef. Eus. H. E. iii. 27. 6) into the very remarkaple opinion that the Ebionites: were so called because of the poverty of their thought, or that they‘ called themselves by this name because of their extreme poverty (Epiph. Her. xxx. 17). auaal, 25. (P. 77.) No other Gospel emphasises so strongly the joy, the pleasure, the enthusiastic admiration occasioned by Jesus: ii.'10, 20, 47, 52, iv. 22, v. 26, vil. 16, 35, ix. 48, xi, 27, ΧΙ 17, xviie 15; xviii. (43, xix. 37 ff., 48, xxi. 38, xxiii. 8, xxiv. 52, ef. i. 14, 46 ff., 68, ii. 29 ff, x. 17 ΕἾ, xv. 7, 10, 23, 32. Only a few of these passages have parallels in the other Gospels. ] 26. (P. 77.) Instead of ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13, Matt. x. 4, and Mark iii. 18, we find the Hebrew term.‘ Josephus speaks of them asa party in the account which he gives of their origin, but mentions no name (Bell. ii. 8. 1; Ant. xviii. 1. 1 and 6); elsewhere he calls them (Arai (Bell. iv. 5! 1,6. 1). For the ἡ ἀπογραφή and ἀπογράφεσθαι of Luke, Jos. uses various terms : ἀποτιμᾶν, ἀποτιμᾶσθαι, ἀποδίδοσθαι, ai ἀποτιμήσεις, also ai ἀπογρᾶφαί, Ant. xvii. 13. 5, xviii. 1. 1, 2.1, Bell. vii. 8. 1, but never ἡ ἀπογραφή. 27. (P. 78.) The number 70 or (according to BD, Tatian, ancient Syriac and Latin versions, see Forsch. i. 148) 72 disciples in x/ 1 has no more connection with the 70 Gentile nations and their languages and angels, as the Jews recorded them (Schiirer, ii. 343, iii. 198 [Eng. trans. 11. 1. 344, iii. 64]), than it does with the 70 members of the Sanhedrin or the 70 trans- lators of the O.T. or any other number 70. The 70 were not sent to the Gentiles, and there is nothing to indicate that Luke meant it to be taken in this symbolical sense. Luke and Theophilus were not Jews, and could not have expressed or understood such a thought simply by the’ use of the number 70. On the other hand, the contrast between ihe 70 and the 12 (Luke ix. 1) is clearly expressed, and, as shown above (p. 78), the way) was prepared by ix. 49f., 60 (cf. also viii. 39), for the transfer of the preaching office to those who were not apostles. According to an ancient. tradition, accepted as true by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii, 25), and probably derived from the Gospel of Philip, it was Philip who was addressed, in Luke ix, 60; and since the person here spoken to must be one who was not an apostle, the evangelist Philip must be meant (cf. Forsch. vi. 26; 168 f.).: 98, (P. 79.) Concerning the linguistic unity of Luke's work, cf. ARLLER, S. 415-425, 442-446, 498 ff. ; LeKeBuscn, Komposition und Entstehung der AG, 1854, S. 37-81; Knosrermann, Vind, Lucane seu de itinerarti in libro actorum asservati auctore, 1866, pp. 46-63 ; Howart, The Medical Language of St. Luke, a proof from internal evidence that the Gospel according to St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same person, and that the writer was’a medical man, Dublin, 1882; Voaun, Zur Characteristik. des Lucas nich Sprache und Stil, eine philologische Laienstudie, 2te Aufl, 1899. For details see above, pp. 28 f., nn. 6, 75 37 f., n. 18; 82 ἔν, nn. 4-6 ; below, § 61, nn. 10-12, 26; § 62, ἡ. 5. 29. (P. 79.) M. Scunroxenpuraer (Uber den Zweck der AG, 1841) made the first important investigation in the direction indicated/by the title, He takes no account of the prologue, which he thinks belongs only to the Gospel, THE FIRST THREE | GOSPELS AND ACTS 93 nor of the dedication to Theophilus, but argues from Acts xviii.-xxviii, that the purpose of the entire second book, which he thinks was written in Rome by Luke the disciple of Paul after the death of the apostle and before the fall of Jerusalem, is to give an apologetic portrayal of the apostolic labours of Paul in answer to all the accusations and misinterpretations of the Judaisers which come to light in the Pauline letters;| The principal means by which this is accomplished is the constant contrast between Paul and Peter. He defends the consistency of this irenic tendency of Luke with his trustworthi- ness and familiarity with the facts against the criticism, which was even then being made by Schrader and Baur, that in many instances the history was deliberately falsified by Luke. Starting with the hypothesis of Schnecken- burger, who had only half worked it out, but at the same time developing principles that; he himself had already laid down, Baur (Paulus?, i. 7-16; Christentum und Kirche der 3 ersten Jahrh.? S. 50, 125 ff., and in many other passages) showed that Acts was a partisan work, dating from about the middle ofthe second century. it is attributed with some hesitancy to Luke; the disciple of Paul, who, as a representative of the modified Paulinism of his time, recasts in this work the ‘entire history of the Apostolic Church in thé most arbitrary manner, in order to bring about an adjustment with Jewish Christianity, which it is alleged was still powerful at that time, and in order to effect a catholic union. This view was so thoroughly worked out by E, ZELLER (Die AG nach Inhalt und Ursprung krit. unters. 1854), who dated the work between 110 and 130 (8. 466-481), that Baur felt that this could. be called simply “the, critical view,” in contrast to which any view which differed from it essentially was “uncritical.” A similar point of view is represented by Overbeck (in the introduction of his revision of de Wette’s Komm. zur) AG, 1870). However, according to Overbeck, Luke’s purpose was not conciliatory in the Tiibingen sense, 7.6: in the sense that it is designed primarily for Jewish Christians, but it is apologetic from the point of view of Gentile Christianity, which had become estranged from 'genuine Paulinism, and which was practically dominant in the Church in, Trajan’s time (98-117). Besides the emphasis laid upon a “national anti-Jndaism,” Overbeck calls special attention to a “secondary, political: aim,” namely, to show that Christianity is in harmony with the Roman government. From this it follows that Acts “could not well have been directed to any one save to Gentiles outside the Church” (p. xxxiii). More recently J. Weiss (Über die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der AG, 1897), in opposition to one-sided efforts to determine the sources of Acts, and with full recognition of Overbeck’s services, has made an investigation with the following result : “ Acts is an apology for Christianity to the Gentiles against the charges of the Jews; it shows how Judaism was supplanted by Christianity in its world mission.” In.order to obtain what is correct in the views of Overbeck and Weiss, namely, the fact that Acts was designed for Gentile readers, it is not necessary to have recourse to highly questionable interpretations and forced inferences. It follows as a matter of course from the prologue and the dedication of the work to the Gentile, Theophilus (above, pp. 61-80). Of works in opposition to the “ tendenz criticism” special mention may be made of those by E. Lexesuscu (Komposition und Entstehung der AG, 1854); A. KLOSTERMANN (Vindicie Lucane, 1866); C. Scumm (Die AG unter dem 94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Hauptgesichtspunkt rer Glaubwürdigkeit, i, 1882, unfinished). | Still wort} reading is HormanN’s unpretending essay, “ Das Geschichtswerk, des Tuugag/ Fernie hte Aufs., 1878, S. 153-176). [ioei fond τ feds § 61. THE SOURCES USED BY LUKE: » > doid From the language of the dedication we ‚might. infin hat Luke derived all the material which he used, eithe from his own recollection of what he had experienced,.0 from the oral reports of older Christians, especially oft disciples. of Jesus.; But it is hardly probable that on who was conscious that. his task was that. of an investigato and an historian, as Luke shows himself to have been would have confined himself to these sources, and hay made no use whatever of the: large body. οἵ. literatux dealing with his subject, of which ‘he himself speaks We should expect, further, that he would, ‚have user documents where it was possible for him to obtain them. and since it was part of his purpose to connect the histor of Christianity with the history of the outside world, i would not be surprising if he consulted some» οὗ t accounts of contemporary history, : Taking up this last point, it has been thought ag to prove that Luke took numerous facts from the work: of Joseruus, also that he modelled his style after thi writer (n. 1) The latter is @ priori improbable. . Greek who could write such a periodic sentence as Luk i 1-4 would not have copied a Jew, who, by his ow: confession, talked more or less of a jargon: all his. life and who was not able to publish his Greek writing without the help of men. who were masters. of. thi language (n. 2). Dependence of Luke upon Josephus i also improbable from chronological reasons. The wor on the Jewish War appeared in its Greek form betweer the years 75 and 79 (Schürer, i 79 | Enge. trans. 1. 831) the Antiguitiés, in 93 or 94; the Vira, either at thi same time as anvappendix tothe Amsiquataas, or, according THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 95 to others, not until after 100; and the books contra Apion, later than 94. Since the question here does not in any way concern the use of the Jewish War alone, but quite as much, and even more, the use of the later works of Josephus, Luke's writings, if dependent ‘upon Josephus; would have to be dated at the very earliest in the year 100. Against this, however, is, first, the unanimous tradition which, up to the present time, has- not been’ successfully. controverted, that the author of the Gospel and Acts’ was Luke, the friend of Paul, and the éye-witness in the “we” passages of Acts. If he was’a member of the Antiochian Church in the year 40, though he may have been not more than twenty years of age at the time, it is very improbable that he should have elaborated as late as the year 100 this great work, which certainly does not give the impression of being the éffort of an aged man, using the recent writings of his younger contemporary, Josephus (born 37 A.D.). It is also unlikely that he would have entertained at this late date the purpose of further continuing the work (above, p. 86 8.). In the second place, quite aside from the confirmation which the tradition regarding the author receives from Luke’s writings themselves, strong proof is to be found in them that they could not well have been written later than 80 (§ 62). This makes the use even of the earliest writings of Josephus improbable, while employment of his later works is entirely out of the question ; and, if striking resemblances should be found to exist between the two writings, it must have been Josephus who used Luke’s work, which appeared some ten or twenty years before the publication of the Antiquities, and not the reverse. Dependence of the Christian upon the Jewish historian would most naturally betray itself in statements regarding political coriditions. But the very opposite is what we actually find. Both Luke (ii, 1-3; Acts v. 37) and 96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Josephus know of a “taxing” earried, out, in Palestine at the, beginning of our era, which was the, first ‚and, for ἃ long time, the only one of 105. kind, and ‚to, which was due the,bloody insurrection of Judas the Galilean (n. 3). But here the resemblance ends. Luke refers ‚the taxing to,a decree of Augustus, in which, it was) com- manded that the whole world—naturally the world under © the Roman dominion—should be taxed. In the Jewish War and the passages of the Antiquities where the matter ‚is treated; in, detail, Josephus speaks only of an order which covered. the territory οὗ Archelaus, which did not include even the whole of Palestine (Ant. xviii 1.1; 2.15,Bell. {γιὶς 8.1; cf; 1.) 8.1, 17.8). Tn, one passage only, where the matter is mentioned incidentally (Ant. xvii. 13. 5), 10 is made to cover Syria. This, how- ever, is connected with an idea which first, appears in the Antiquities. In, the Jewish, War, Quirinius nowhere appears as the governor of Syria, but is a high official, who, after the deposition of Archelaus, was sent thither with the extraordinary commission to organise the territory of, Archelaus, \ which ‚was. now ‘taken, directly ὦ under Roman econtrol.. On the other hand, in. the © passages where Quirinius is mentioned in the Antiquities, © the very inaccurate; or rather erroneous, assertion 18 twice made, that the territory, of Archelaus was at this . time added to the province of Syria (xvii, 13. 5, xyiii, 1. 1), Ὁ But neither in this passage nor anywhere else does Josephus — call Quirinius the governor of Syria. The; reader of the | Jewish War would never guess that he had at any time | occupied this position, nor could it be inferred from, the unclear hints of the Antiquities, We have, therefore, a second statement of Luke's which is independent, of ! Josephus, namely, that, the taxing took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. On this, point the Antiochian, Luke, is better informed than Josephus, since, as a matter of fact, P. Sulpicius Quirinius,, who was THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 97 consul in the year 12 B.0., was governor of Syria from autumn of the year 4 (B.0.) to the year 1 (8.0.}... Accord- ing to an inscription, the genuimeness of which was long questioned, but which was proved to be correct by a discovery of the year 1880, a certain @. Aimilius Secundus, by order of the royal governor of Syria, Quirinius, had a census taken in the Syrian city, Apamea (n. 4). A third point in’ which Luke proves himself to tie independent of Josephus, and where he shows a know- ledge of the facts which is certainly closer to, the historical truth than Josephus’, is the chronology.’ The latter writer, whose information for the four decades between the death of Herod (4 B.c.) and his own birth (37 a.p.) is extremely meagre (Schürer, 1. 84 f. [Eng. trans. 1. i. 88 £.]), dates both the taxing by Quirinius and the insurrection of Judas in the year after the deposition of Archelaus (6-7 Aa.D.). But it is inconceivable that Judas, who was a native of Gamala, in Gaulanitis, and who was called the ı“ Galilean ”—not beeause Galilee was his home, but because it was the scene of the insurrection which he led (Acts v. 37; Jos. Bell. i. 8. 1, 17. 8, Ant. xvii. 1. 6)— should have raised the banner of revolt in a year when there was no political change of any kind in Galilee. That Josephus is in error is very clear from the fact that, in addition to this insurrection, he tells of still another revolt led by one Judas in Galilee, which took place in the year of Herod’s death (4 B.c., Bell. ii. 4. 1; Ant. xvi. 10. 5), and which is really identical with the one already mentioned. His error is further shown by the fact that, without any explanation, he repeats again in the year 6-7 (A.D.) the) short high-priesthood: of Joazar, who sought to quiet this disturbance, and who held office im the year 4 8.0. (ef. on the one hand, Ant. xvii 6. 4, 9.1, 13. 15 Bell. ii. 1. 2; on the other, Ant. xviii. 1. 1, 2.1). This tendency of Josephus to repeat events is quite surpassed by the modern historians, who, in order VOL. II. 7 98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to'save Josephus from inaccuracy, assume still a second Syrian governorship of Quirinius covering the year 6-7, in addition to the historically attested governorship οὗ the year (eirca 4-1 B.c.); although as a matter of fact Josephus does not anywhere say that Quirinius was ever governor of Syria. The insurrection of Judas, the rise of the party of the Zealots (Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 18, v. 37), the deposition of the high priest Joazar, who had been installed in office a few months before, and the taxing under the direction of Quirinius, took place in the first year after Herod’s death (March 4-3 B.¢.). Josephus, who places these events in the year 6-7 a.D., although he reproduces them in part in the year 4-3 B.c., has made a mistake οἵ ἃ decade, and, in other respects as well, displays a serious lack of critical judgment. Even if Luke was mistaken, it is certain that he does not copy his errors from Josephus, and his chronology is independent of the Jewish writer. The reader, who knows from Luke 1.'86 that Jesus’ birth took place a few months after that of the Baptist, cannot’ very well assume that the events recorded in Luke ii. 1-39 occurred later*than the reign of Herod 1, mentioned in 1.. 5 (n. 5), especially sinee no conflicting dates: are mentioned in ii. 1; and it is not ‘until iii, 1 that we find a new and thoroughly detailed chronological notice. This unavoidable impression is fully confirmed by Matt. ii, 1-22, from which we know that, according to. the tradition of Palestinian Christians im 60-70, Jesus was born shortly before the death of Herod 1. When, therefore, Luke makes the birth of Jesus contem- poraneous with the taxing which took place during the Syrian governorship of Quirinius (ii. 2), it does not mean that, im unconscious contradiction to the Christian tradi- tion, he places the birth of Jesus shortly after, instead of shortly before, the death of Herod, but that he dates the governorship of Quirinius, together with the taxing which took place under‘ his direction and the insurrection of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 96 =, Judas, shortly before, instead of shortly after, Herod’s death, thus making a mistake of at least several months— possibly of from one to two years, For it is certain, not only from Josephus, but also from coins, that the governor of Syria, during the last year of Herod’s reign and after his death—from the autumn of 6 B.c. at the latest until the summer of 4 B.0.—was Varus, not Quirinius (Schürer, i. 322 £. [Eng. trans. 1.1. 851). ‘In view of the result of the discussion of this one example, which at the same time gives us an insight into the characteristics of the two historians, detailed discussion of the other accounts of Luke and Josephus which have been compared may be omitted. There is not a single historical notice of Luke, whether correct, inaccurate, or questionable, which can be explained on the supposition that he had read Josephus. On the other hand, in many instances he shows ‘an acquaintance with contemporary events and with more or less distinguished persons outside the Church which can be shown to be quite independent of Josephus. The slaughter of the Galileans in the temple as they were offering sacrifices (Luke xiii. 1); the estrangement between Pilate and Antipas, and their reconciliation (Luke xxii. 12); the names of the distinguished priests, Alexander and (if the correct reading be not Jonathan, cf. Jos. Ant. xviii, 4.:3) John (Acts iv. 6); the imposing figure of Gamaliel (Acts v. 34, xxi. 3), mentioned by Josephus only as the father of the younser Gamaliel (Bell. iv. 3. 9; Vita, 38, 60); the Samaritan Simon (Acts viii.'9); the officers of Herod, Chuza (Luke vii. 3) and Blastus (Acts xii. 20, ef. also xiii. 1); the chiliarch, Claudius Lysias (Acts xxiii. 26); the centurions, Cornelius and Julius (Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1); and the orator, Tertullus (xxiv. 1) —all these statements and names could not have been taken by Luke from Joseplius.” In the instances where their accounts ‘cover the same eround, we find traces of independent and variant traditions (n. 6). Tn the ‘ease 100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of the Antiquities and Vita, which, according to ali indications, are considerably later than Luke’s work, it is more natural to suppose that Josephus is dependent upon Luke than that the reverse relation holds; and it does not seem to the present writer entirely creditable to those who feel that the agreements between Josephus and Luke call for explanation, that they have not, seriously considered this possibility. This is not the place in which to discuss the question at length (n. 7). [Ὁ is sufficient to have shown that Luke could not have followed Josephus as an authority in historical matters, nor have copied the Greek style of this writer. At first glance, the genealogy (Luke ii. 23-38), the communication of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts xv. 23-29), and the letter of Lysias (xxiii. 26-30) give the impression of being reproduced from orginal documents. If the second of these was a communication actually sent from Jerusalem, delivered in Antioch with the solemnity which Luke describes, and communicated also to other Churches (xvi. 4), it is impossible, to. suppose that so important a document was immediately lost. If Luke was a member of the Antiochian Church at the time when the communication was delivered there (above, p. 2), he probably heard it read, but this is no evidence at all against the possibility of his having had a copy of it when he wrote his history. The style is not that of Luke, and the secular tone of the introductory and coucluding formule is against the assumption that, the author composed the document, either from his imagina- tion, or from indistinet recollections (n. 8. This could more easily have been the case with the letter in xxiii. 26-30, but it cannot be proved. In the proceedings before Felix (xxiv. 1-23) and Festus (xxv. 1-12) the report of Lysias would almost, certainly have been read, and, if written in Latin, translated into Greek. The situation in which Paul found himself in Czsarea THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS [ΟῚ (xxiv. 23), and the friendly relations which always existed between him and the military officers to whose charge he was committed (xxvii. 3, xxvii. 16, 808; Phil. i. 13), make it quite conceivable that he and his friends may have secured a copy of this report, which, though brief, was of fundamental importance in his trial. Against the assumption that the language of the report is entirely Luke’s, which, according to methods of historical composition in antiquity, might very well be possible, is, first of all, the fact that, although there is no stylistic necessity for it, Luke makes the chiliarch, who has not been mentioned by name up to this time (xxi. 31- xxiii. 22), and who afterwards is called simply Lysias (xxiv. 7, recension 8; xxiv. 22), write his name Claudius Lysias. | In the second place, Lysias’ report shows marked variations from the facts as previously recorded. If the author of Acts was inventing this report, only partially true, he would have directed special attention to the effort of the chiliarch to obscure the law in the case, and to conceal his own mistake. The connection in which the genealogy is recorded, and its conclusion (ii. 23-38), indicate that it is an expression of Luke’s own peculiar thought (above, p. 70f.); but this does not explain its independetice not only of Matt. 1, but also of the O.T., in so far as the latter could be used for a source. Since it was impossible for Luke himself personally to investigate the contents of vv. 24-31, and inasmuch as the tradition here presupposed could have been transmitted only in written form, he must have made use of an older record. We know that the relatives of Jesus and their descendants interested themselves in these matters (n. 9), Since Luke was familiar with a number of attempts to write the history of Christianity, and since his char- acterisation of these efforts perfectly suits Mark’s Gospel (above, p. 49), it is natural to suppose that he used! this writing. He was acquainted with Mark and knew his ı02 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT relation to Peter, who was a prominent eye-witness of the gospel events. He was in Rome in company with Mark about the year 62 (Col. iv. 10, 14), and possibly again in 66 (2 Tim. iv. 11), consequently at the time when Mark wrote his Gospel. A comparison of the two Gospels gives for the various portions a greatly varying picture. With reference to the order of single narratives, not much is‘to be coneluded from Mark 1. 1-13 = Luke iii. 1--ἰν. 13, since the order of these events—the preaching and baptism’ of John, the baptism and temptation of Jesus—is determined by their very nature. Moreover, Mark’s account here is nothing more than a brief sketch. Leaving these passages out of account, therefore, the first notable parallel is that between Luke iv. 31-vi. 19 and Mark i: 21-11. 19 ; Luke vill. 4-|χ. 17 = Mark iv. 1-vi 44 is a second; Luke ix. 18-50 = Markowiil. 27+ix. 40 is a third; Luke xviii) 15-43 = Mark x. 13—52)a° fourth ; and Luke xix: 29—xxiv. 8 = Mark xi. 1—-xvi. 8 a fifth. Inthe case of these five series of ‘passages the parallelism is by no means complete. Luke interrupts the! first series with a narrative, v. 1-11, only remotely similar to Mark i. 16-20. Im’ the second series Luke inserts.a passage, vill. 19-21, which is found in Mark aii. 31-35, while Mark. iv.) 26-29, 30-32, ‘and vi. .1-6 arevomitted. There is nothing at all in Luke corresponding to the first passage, the second is found in Luke’ ‘xiii! 18-19, closely connected with a narrative peculiar to him, while in place of the third we find a much fuller account in the early part of Luke’s Gospel, iv. 16-30. In the fourth series, between xviil. 34 and 35, Luke omits the narrative found in Mark x. 35-45; @iving only a meagre substitute for it in Luke xxii, 24-27. In the fifth series, the cursing of the fig-tree, Mark xi. 12-14, 20-25, the question about the greatest of the command- ments, Mark xii. 28-34, and the anointing in Bethany, Mark xiv.»3-9, are not found in Luke. .For the last, Luke vii. 36450 is substituted; for the second, Luke’ x. THE FIRST 'THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 103 25-37 ; while in'a measure Luke xiii. 6-9 takes the place of the first (cf. § 63); and for a single saying in this same passage, Mark xi. 23 (Matt. xxi. 21, xvii. 20), we find a similar saying in Luke xvii. 6. Since these equivalents for such material as Mark retains and Luke omits are all peculiar to Luke, it is clear that, although Luke consciously omitted some things found in Mark, he en- deavoured to find substitutes for the omissions. On the other hand, in the last series of parallels, Luke substitutes a number of brief accounts which are peculiar to himself (xix. 41-44 [xxi. 20-24], xxii. 35+38, xxiii. 6-12, 39-43). In all five series, however, Mark’s order is, without excep- tion, retained throughout. This of itself is sufficient to render necessary some explanation of the dependence of one of the Gospels upon the other—particularly since, in many instances, the order followed is not a reproduction of the real succession of events. This lack of ehrono- logical order does not escape the attention of the careful reader of Mark (vol. ii. 499 f.), and Luke betrays a clear consciousness of it. There is evidence that Luke made an effort to fix more definitely the time of events, as, e.g., when he gives a more definite datt to a Sabbath which Mark leaves undetermined—following the Jewish calendar (Luke vi. 1)—and distinguishes it expressly from another Sabbath (vi. 6), whereas the ordinary reader might infer from Mark iii. 1 (ef. Matt. xii. 9) that the transactions which Luke assigns to two different Sabbaths happened on the same day; cf. also other occasional instances where he gives’ the time more accurately (e.g. vi. 1, 6, vii. 11). In many‘ instances, however, he either did not do this at all or did it ‘ineffectively, as is proved by the use of formule such as are found in v. 12, 17, viii. 4, 22, ix, 18, xx. 1. These occur in the sections parallel to Mark, as well as in other parts of Luke’s Gospel (v. 1, x. 38, xi. 1, 29, xiii. 10, xiv. 1; ef. above, p. 66). When, however, notwithstanding this formal disavowal of all attempt tc 104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT give an exact chronology where this is not attainable, he nevertheless follows in these five series exactly the same order as Mark, the coincidence can be explained as due neither to a stereotyped oral tradition, nor to accident. But if one of these Gospels is dependent upon the other, Mark must be considered the earlier of the two. Leaving out of account the tradition, according to, which Mark wrote before Luke (vol. ii. 392 ff.), and the proofs which we have from Luke’s own work that it was written later than 70 (8 62), this conclusion follows from a com- parison of the details of the parallels. Combinations’ of words, such as. κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας eis) ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, Which are found in Mark 1. .4 following: καθὼς γέγραπται. ἐν τῷ ‘Hoaia τῷ προφήτῃ, in Luke iii. 8 before ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ λόγων Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου, do not originate independently, of each other. Luke appears here, however, as the stylist smoothing down the awk- ward expressions which Mark. uses in making his: citations (n. 10). In. fact this 'is everywhere the case. It is not to be. assumed ‚that, Luke undertook to remove all the Hebraisms which, ‚he found in’ the accounts he used, and to produce an historiwal work uniform in style, modelled after the language of Polybius or the periods of bis own preface. As regards style, Luke’s work is as varied as it could well be, The narratives in. Luke i—ii.) and the psalm-like discourses of, these chapters read like. sections out of the O.T.; while the style and. language of the discourses of Paul, on. the Areopagus).( Acts) xvil. 22-31) and before the noble lords, and ladies in Caesarea (xxiv! 10-21, xxvi. 2-23) are, more like, those of the, orator Tertullus (xxiv. 2-8), and of the. procurator Festus (xxv. 14-21), than the discourses in| Acts ux. Luke usesia few Hebraisms, not only in the, narratives, probably, or certainly, taken from ‚older | sources, but, in. connective phrases and summaries, which are) of his ;own) composi- tion (n. 11).;, He shows a, feeling for the, special style THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τος corresponding to the sacred character of his theme, and does not allow the spirit in which the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word were wont to speak from the beginning to be replaced) by a secular tone. He does, nevertheless, soften somewhat the Semitic colouring, set- ting aside expressions unnecessarily harsh, and striving to make the narrative more lucid. Not only are the most marked Hebraisms and the Aramaic words of Mark re- moved, but also such characteristic expressions as Mark’s εὐθύς (n. 12), also such peculiarities as are due to Mark’s personal relations and the fact that his Gospel was de- signed for Roman readers (Mark xu. 42, xiv. 17, 51 f,, KV. 21} see vol. 11.1487’f. ;cf. Luke xxi. 2, xxi 14, 53, xxiii. 26), and. imperfections in the presentation due to ‘Mark’s very exaet reproduction of the narratives of Peter (Mark i. 29= Luke iv. 38; Mark ii. 26= Luke vi. 14; Mark ix. 14 f= Luke ix. 37£. ; Mark xii. 1-3 = Luke xxi. 5). He avoids also other redundancies and awk- wardnesses which occur in Mark (e.g. Mark i. 32 = Luke iv. 40), and in countless instances. selects words which are more pleasing or more expressive (n. 13). . Since some of these words and phrases are hapaxlegomena in the N.T., and inasmuch as others of them are used in the same way elsewhere in Luke’s work, and only in Luke's work; they are to be considered as peculiarities of his style, and are not to be explained as derived from one of the sources which Luke and Mark may have used in common. This, like the other assumption that Mark had Luke before him, would compel us to assume that Mark intentionally and regularly replaced) the better language of Luke, or of the common source, by more awkward expressions: But this is incredible. Consequently ἃ comparison of the style of Mark and Luke shows | that, inthe five sections of his Gospel mentioned, Luke made use:of Mark in preparing his own work. While Luke recasts the style of Mark with consider: 106 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW "TESTAMENT able thoroughness, very little change is to be noted ir the contents of such portions as he adopts, and) which he does not replace in other parts of his work by similar and sometimes fuller narratives (above, p. 102). Only in one important point does Luke consciously vary his account from that of Mark. Mark i. 14, like Matt. iv. 12, connects the beginning of the Galilean ministry with the arrest of the Baptist, and associates it) with the account of the temptation in such a way. as to lead the reader readily to infer that the arrest of the Baptist follows immediately upon the temptation. Luke, however, varies this order of events. On the one hand, he, alone of the Synoptists, connects the beginning of the Galilean ministry of Jesus definitely and closely with His baptism (iv. 15, ev τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος ; cf. 11]. 22, iv. 1), and describes the journey to Galilee, which introduces His ministry there, as a return (iv. 14, ὑπέστρεψεν ; cf iv. 1) from the journey which had taken Jesus to the place of His baptism and temptation. On the other hand, he wholly separates this journey from the arrest of the Baptist (above, p. 63:f.), a later ineident which here he anticipates in the form of an episode in ii. 19-20. The journey to Galilee, which: Luke: places after the baptism and temptation, is not the same as: the journey to Galilee, which in Mark follows the arrest of the Baptist. It must be assumed that the apparent succession of events in Mark is replaced in) Luke by another, which is the result of the author's investiga- tions, and which is adopted in view of καθεξῆς in 1.3. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that thereafter Imke introduces immediately and chiefly events, which Mark:and Matthew place in Galilee after the arrest, of the Baptist ; since it is apparent that throughout. his Gospel, in the sections following iv. 14-15, tuke eon- sciously abandons the attempt to arrange the single narratives chronologically (above, p. 64). It is ‘also THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 107 clear that, according to him, the work of Jesus between His baptism and temptation is by no means confined to Galilee (iv. 44, x. 38-42; above, p. 88 ἢ, n. 18). It may be remarked here, that through his investigations Luke made marked advances on the form of such an historical work as Mark’s Gospel in the direction of what we find in John. He is no mere imitator of written models which he has before him, nor is he satisfied simply to recast the style of his sources; he is rather an historian who handles his material critically. We may assume that, in addition to Mark, he made use of other attempts at a gospel history, working them over in the same way that he did this Gospel. We have already seen from the prologue that Luke did not have access to any gospel writings that originated with an apostle or disciple of Jesus (above, p. 49); it is, therefore, equally improbable that he used Matthew ; for the latter was never attributed to a disciple of an apostle, but was from the first assigned to the apostle Matthew (vol. ἢ. 177 ff.). This statement would be true of an “original apostolic document” or the “logia,” if these books ever existed ; since, if their existence be as- sumed, all the traditions denied with reference to Matthew must be transferred to them. One of these mythical books, from which the author of our Matthew is supposed to have drawn, must have passed as the work of the apostle Matthew, otherwise we are unable to understand why, from the very first and uniformly in the tradition, the Greek Matthew was ascribed to this apostle. More- over, we have seen the correctness of the position, accord- ing to which Matthew is the translation of an Aramaic book, the contents of which were for'a long time accessible only through oral interpretation to those who were un- familiar with this language. The same would be true of the “logia.” But it may be doubted whether Luke, who was a Greek, was able to read an Aramaic book. His t08 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT citations from the O.T.. betray no knowledge whatever of the original text, or of a Targum. Not all of the fou translations’ of Aramaic names which we find im Luke's work (Acts 1. 19, iv. 36, ix. 36, xil..8) are beyond question, and if they were it is perfectly possible that Luke may have taken his translations from others, with- out himself possessing even a superficial knowledge of Aramaic. There are several Aramaic words with which, as a native ofıAntioch, he may always have been familiar; and others, together with several Hebrew termini, with which he} became acquainted in the common life of the Chureh (m 14). On the other hand, if, as is probable, the Greek Matthew was not written before the year 80 (vol. 11. .516¢f.), it isounlikely, for chronological reasons, that Luke vead it before writing his own Gospel (§ 62). This improbability is) strengthened into impossibility! by a comparison of the two Gospels, One who: had read Matt. itii—especially in a work which purported, to be that of an apostle—could not -have written Luke ii. im its; present form, which is practically without resemblance to the narrative in Matthew (itis only necessary to compare Luke! i..316 and Matt. 1. 21a), notwithstanding the fact that) there is much that is common in the subject-matter. Moreover, the later writer would certainly have betrayed his attempt at correction or improvement, where he) be+ lieved that the contents and form of Matt. iii. could be improved, In. particular, it would have been impossible for an historian of the character Luke shows himself ‘to be, us compared with) Mark, to pass, by practically um; noticed material so important as that in Matt. ii--really excluding it as he does by Luke ii. 39. It may after ἃ fashion ‚be, possible in.a Gospel harmony to, reconcile’ the contents of the opening chapters of the two Gospels, \in- cluding Luke iii. 23-88, but a synoptic presentation, jis out of the question, Not, until Matt. iii) 1 = Luke iu. 1 is this possible, and then only here and there. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS tog The proof derived from a comparison of the opening chapters of the Gospel and confirmed by the, hints οἱ Luke’s prologue, that Luke did not use our Matthew asia source; is so strong, that the only question which ean be seriously discussed is whether Luke and Matthew drew from common sources. We know that Luke made use of written sources, and the relation which’ has been proved to exist between Luke and Mark leads us to assume that, in addition to Mark, he used other similar documents. It is, however, ὦ priori improbable that he used docu- ments which earlier or later were employed in the com- position of Matthew ; since our investigation of Matthew gave no occasion for the assumption that this author made any use whatever of written sources (vol. ü. 581 ἢ.) In the investigation of this question the five sections ‚of Luke, which we saw were taken over by Luke from Mark with certain modifications, are to be excepted ‚at the outset (above, p. 102 f.); since whatever agreements. be- tween Luke and Matthew appear in these passages, all go back to Mark, and are to be explained on the ground of the relation of Mark to Matthew (see vol. ii, 601 £.), and the connection which has been shown to exist between Luke and Mark (see above, p. 101 f.). In these five sections there is not a single sentence from which a direct. relation between Luke and: Matthew, or the relation: of Luke to a source used in Matthew, can be proved (n. 15). In the second place, in the critical comparison of Matthew and Luke, the following passages peculiar to Luke are. to, be left out of consideration—passages to which there is ἃ remote parallel are placed in parentheses : i, 1-3, ii. 10- 15, 23-38 (iv. 16-30, y. 1-10); vii 11-17,.36-50, viii. 1-3, ix. 51-56, 61-62, x. 1-20, (with the exception of a few sayings), x. 29-42 (xi. 1-4), xi. 5-8, 27-28, 37-41, xii, 13-21 (32-57), xiii, 1-17, 31-33, xiv, 1-16, 31 (with the exception of xiv. 11,.17,,xv, 4-7); xvil. 7-22, xviii. 1-14, xix.) 1-27, 41-44 (xxi. 20-24), xxiii, 5-12,,27-31, ıro INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 39-43, xxiv. (1-11) 12-53. Comparatively little re- mains, and, with the exception of short disconnected sentences, this consists of only the following passages [parallels of Matthew in parentheses]: iii. 7-9, 17 (ii. 7-12), iv. 1-13 (iv. 1-11), vi. 20-49 (5-7), vii. 1-10 (viii. 5-10, 13), vii. 18-35 (xi. 2-19), ix. 57-60 (viii, 19-22), x. 13-15, 21-24 (xi. 20-27, xiii. 16-17), xi. 24-26, 29- 36 (xii. 38-45, v. 15, vi. 22-23), xi. 42-52 (xxiii, 4285), xii, 2-12 (x. 17-33), xii. 22431 (vi. 25-33), xii, 41248 (xxiv. 45-51), xi. 54-56 (xvi. 2-3 2), xii, 57-59 (v.°25- 26), xiii 24-30 (vii. 13-14, 21-23, viii. 11-12), xiii 34-35 (xxiil. 37-39), xvii. 23-37 (xxiv. 23-28, 37-42), xix. 12-28 (xxv. 14-30). In order accurately to com- pare these parallels, even more than in other eritical investigations, it would be necessary to have a text of both Gospels, but especially of Luke, and this reliable even in smallest details, since nothing contributed so much to the degeneration of the Gospel text as the tendeney to supplement and correct one Gospel from the parallels in the others, and in fact especially the text of Mark and Luke on the basis of Matthew. In the Textus receptus the Gospels are very much more alike than in any even moderately critically corrected text; and the difference would be even greater, if text criticism were more advanced than it is at present. Few narratives are to be found among the parallels cited, though, on the other hand, there are numerous sayings, which are gener- ally reported with an historical setting. As regards the narrative sections, it is impossible to form an intelligent conception of a single written source from which, e.g., the two differing narratives in Luke vii. 1-10 and Matt. viii. 5-10, 13 could both have been derived through a process of revision on the part of the authors. What Luke adds (vv. 3-5) has the marks of genuine tradition, and the effort to secure brevity, to be seen in some parts of Matthew (vol. ii. 583 ἢ, 607) could not have brought it THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 111 about that in this passage the narrative should be of the character of an excerpt 3 since the account is enlarged by the insertion of a saying of Jesus, probably spoken on another occasion (Matt. viii. 11-12, cf. Luke xiii. 28-29). Even if Luke made use of an earlier account im this passage—as is perfectly possible—in the last analysis the divergence of his narrative from Matthew goes back to variations in the historical’ material, which appear when- ever what has happened and been experienced) is re- peatedly related by different persons, even when there are eye-witnesses among the narrators. The accounts of the temptation are very similar in Matthew and Luke; but the differing order in which the second and third tempta- tions are narrated is most naturally explained by the assumption that those who had heard Jesus give an account of them (n. 16) repeated what they heard from memory in different ways. It is inconceivable that Luke should have deliberately chosen the reversed order, if he had had before him Matt. iv.'1-11,'or any other docu- ment having the order of Matthew’s account ; since the close of Luke’s account, which leaves Jesus standing upon the pinnacle of the temple instead of upon a mountain in the wilderness, cannot be said to be an improvement on Matthew. ῃ δ. 9: Some of the discourses’ and sayings common to Matthew 'and Luke’ show striking similarity, but others vary widely from each other in form, though having essentially the same content and'showing the same: pro- gress of thought. The best example of the former is the denunciatory address of the Baptist (Luke 11. 7-9, cf. also x. 21-22, xiii, 34-35), of the latter, the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 20-49, cf: xiii, 24-40). Elements of the tradition similar to ’those'which appear in Luke ii. 7-9, ete., could be easily preserved and strongly impressed upon the memory quite without the help of writing. On the other hand, when sayings) like Luke iii. 7-9, Matt. 112 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ii. 7-10 came to be written, it was necessary at least ‚to intimate who the persons were whom John called. a “ generation of vipers.” Here, however, the accounts of Matthew and Luke vary widely from each other. The Sermon on the Mount in Luke (vi. 20-49), cannot. be regarded as an excerpt from Matthew (v.-vii.), nor can the latter be explained as a remodelling of the material in Luke. Even granting that Luke may have left out state- ments of great importance for the first evangelist, such as are found in Matt. v. 17-43, because they did not suit) his purpose,—assuming, of course, that he found them in one of his sources, and granting that Matthew incorporated into. his account of the Sermon on the Mount more passages belonging in a different historical connection than we are able at present to prove (vol. 11. 558 f.), —in those parts which are parallel we find differences in the language which cannot be explained as due to necessity for modification in style, or rearrangement of material. These differences are, however, natural, if the discourse was heard by numerous persons and variously reproduced in the oral tradition. It is more than, likely that, Luke found this and other discourses im one or more of the records of the “ many”. of whom he speaks (i. 1). In view of Luke’s handling of Mark’s Gospel, we are justified in assuming that the greater elegance of style, e.g. Luke vi. 47-49 = Matt. vii. 24-27, is due to him. But we are not able to go much beyond such assumptions in. ascer- taining what other sources, besides Mark, Luke used, in his Gospel (n. 17). Passages like Luke 1.-1., the poetical charm and, true Israelitish spirit of which in, the narrative portions and the inserted psalms is comparable only to the finest) parts of the books of Samuel, could not have been written by a Greek like Luke. They must have originated in Pales- tine, where men and women of prophetic temperament and prophetic gifts were closely associated with the be- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 113 ginnings and progress of Christianity (i. 41, 46-55, 67- 71, ii. 25,86 ; Acts 11. 17, xi. 27 f., xv. 32, χα θη} Luke twice points out (i. 19, 51, cf. 1. 66) that Mary kept in memory and pondered significant sayings associ- ated with the childhood and youth of her son. This’ is said only of Mary, not of Joseph, though at this time he must have been still alive. In this way Luke indicates that the traditions in Luke 1.-11. were transmitted through her. Who first wrote them down and when they were written we do not know. Nor can any intelligent critic regard the other narrative sections peculiar to Luke as his own fabrications, or as legends which originated outside of Palestine in the second or third generation after Christ. Their striking originality, which could not have been invented, has impressed them upon the mind of the Christian world to an extent scarcely true of any other portion of the whole body of gospel literature. In the distinctively historical portions we find indications of locality (vii. 11, xvii. 11, xix. 1, xxiv. 13), names of persons (vil. 40, vill. 8, x. 38 ἢ, xix. 2, xxiv. 18), and delineations of character difficult to invent (x. 40, xiii. 32, xix. 3 f.), also references to current events otherwise unknown (xiii. 1, 4, xxiii. 12), and a genuine Israelitish colouring (xi. 27, xii. 11, 14, 16, xiv. 15, xix. 9, xxiii. 28-31, 42 f., xxiv. 21)—all of which is proof against the suspicion of later invention. The same is true of the parables and kindred sayings of Jesus (x. 30-37, xii. 16— 21, xili. 6-9, xiv. 16-24, xv. 1-xvi. 31, xviii. 1-14). When on one occasion Luke says, in flat contradiction to Mark x. 46, which he had before him, that Jesus healed a blind man as He drew near to Jericho (xviii. 35), not as He was leaving the city, it must be because he has before him still another account of the incident, from which he does not wish to vary; and the more unimportant the detail the more likely is this to have been the case. The passage xix. 1-10 shows that he had at his disposal VOL. II. 8 [14 INTRODUCTION 'TO THE NEW TESTAMENT independent traditions regarding the events of this par- ticular day. - Whether this information was derived from Zacchzeus, or from a book, no one is able to, say (n. 18). The two narratives concerning Herod Antipas peculiar to Luke (xiii, 81-33, xxiii. 6-12, 15)—the way for the second of which is prepared as early as in ix. 9 by an addition peculiar to Luke, which is also referred to again in Acts iv. 27—naturally recalls the fact that the wife of an official, under this prince was one of those who accompanied, Jesus (Luke viii. 8, ef. John iv. 46 2), also that, according to Acts, xi. 1, a foster - brother, or youthful companion of the tetrarch, was one of the teachers of the Church in Antioch at the time when the narrator, in Acts was a member: of that congregation (according to xi, 27 £, above, p. 2). But the existence of such oral sources, upon which Luke could draw in making his. investigations, does not preclude, the, possi- bility of his having used, in addition to Mark, one or more of the numerous written accounts which are men- tioned in Luke i. 1. The fact that Luke modified materi- ally the style of the documents which he used, as proved by his relation to Mark and by a comparison of his Gospel with Matthew (above, p. 104, and below, nn. 9-12), deprives us almost entirely of one favourite means of determining sources, namely, by comparison of language. Here and there we find narratives which more than others show genuine Jewish conception and modes of expression, or greater elegance of Greek style ; but on the whole the narratives are uniform. The differences for the most part are to be easily explained by the variety of the material and of the setting (above, p. 104, and below, n. 19). With. reference to most of the accounts in Acts, the author was in a different situation than he was im regard to the contents of his, first book—-provided our interpretation of the prologue be correct (above, p. 41 f.). In much of the history which he here records he had been THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 115 a participant, as he indicates by the introduction of a “we” in parts where this was the case (above, p. 54 f.). Among these “ we” passages there are two long sections, xx. 5—xxi. 17 and xxvii. 1—xxviii. 16, which stand out as peculiar, in character. While im xi. 27 »(above, p. 4, u. 3), xvi. 10-17 the only practical purpose which the “we” seems to serve is to call attention to the presence of the narrator, without the narrative on this, account assuming a character, different from, that of chaps. zii. XV. XViil—-xix., in the two passages (xx, 5—xxi.. 17, xxvii. 1—xxviii. 16) we have connected accounts of journeys which are totally distinet from all other parts of Acts, the contents of which admit of comparison. The journey from Antioch to Philippi,,and thence to Thessalonica, and from Bercea by way of Athens to Corinth (xv. 40—xvi. 12, xvi. 40—xviii. 1) is so. briefly sketched that for the most part we must conjecture the route selected, the places touched on the way, the length of the stops, and the time of the year (vol. 1. ὃ 13). Only when the author records what happened in the cities of Philippi, .Thessalonica, Athens, and Corinth does the account become more de- tailed ; practically nothing is said concerning the journey itself, Essentially the same is true in the case of the first missionary journey, Acts xii.—xiv. Other journeys, e.g., in, Acts xi. 30-xü. 25; xviii... 18-xix., 1, xx. 1-4, are) dis- missed with a few words; but in xx. 5—xxi,. 17 and xxvii. 1~xxviii. 16 we have practically, a daily record of the journey with numerous exact statements as to the time of the year (xx. 6, 16, xxvii. 9, 12), the various stopping places on the way—even those where nothing of any special importance took place (xx. 13-15, xxi. 1-8, xxvii. 3-8, 16, xxvii. 12-15)—the time occupied by different parts of the journey and by the stops, the change of ships, the nationality, destination, and names of ships in which, the journey was made (xxi. 2, xxvil. 2, 6, xxviil. 11), changes from trayel by land to travel by 116 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT sea and vice versa (xx. 13, xxi. 7), conditions of weather and the minute details of the sea veyages. In not ἃ single instance can the indications of time be said to be designed to make the history elear. After what is said in Acts xx. 6, 16, the reader is interested to know whether Paul succeeded in reaching Jerusalem before or after Pentecost, but he is destined to be disappointed. There is no clear indication of the time when the end of the journey was reached, and, from the notices of the daily journey which precede, we are unable to estimate the length of time occupied between Philippi and Jeru- salem, since the length of the stay in Miletus and Ceesarea (xx. 15-xxi. 1, 8-15) and the length of the voyage from Rhodes to Tyre (xxi. 1-3) and of the land journey from Tyre to Ptolemais and from Ceesarea to Jerusalem are not given by days. It is true that the elaborateness of these two accounts does impress the reader with a strong sense of the situation. He receives a vivid impression of the care exercised by divine providence over the life of the apostle who was destined to do more great things. But most of the details mentioned have no bearing on this point. They are out of relation to the main historical idea that is being developed to an extent not paralleled anywhere else in Luke’s work. Luke’s interest in minute details, proper names, ete., which are not absolutely necessary in the narrative, is to be observed elsewhere also (Acts ix. 25, xii. 13, 20, xiii. 1, 31.29.37 Fo eet) 2, Ra 16 198 exh SL LY mei ap 11), and it would be arbitrary to infer from the absence of ‘“we” in xx. 16-38, xxi. 19-26, 32, that the narrator was less familiar with the facts which he records in these passages than he is with the facts recorded in the “we” passages. [or it will be observed that the sections where the “ we” is omitted deal in every instance with some action or suffering of Paul’s which could not be shared by another in the same way that a journey in company with THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 117 him from Philippi to Jerusalem and from Ceesarea. tc Rome could be shared (cf. above, pp. 55f., 87, n. 13). In connection with the meeting with James, where the narrator was present (xxi. 18), it was necessary to. omit the “‘ we,” because Paul alone had to do with the elders in Jerusalem. As yet no evidence has been advanced which proves that the person who wrote’ the entire section, xx. 4-xxvill. 31, was not always in close touch with the events which he records. Nevertheless, the accounts of the two journeys mentioned—to which possibly xvi. 10- 18 may be added as a remnant of a third—are distinct in character. They could not have been written for the first time when the author composed his history ; rather he must have had them in his possession and have inserted them in his book, retaining all the details which were not necessary, either for the sake of the narrative or for the readers’ understanding of the history. There may be difference of opinion as to how many changes Luke made in the form and contents of these journey-narratives, whether he inserted passages from his memory of events that had happened elsewhere, or narratives of his own invention. But, apart from all these conjectures, there is no doubt as to the fact that these portions are distinct in character from the rest of the book. Repeated examination of chap. xxvii. by experts has shown that, while it could not have been written by a mariner, it must have been written by some gifted) man who accompanied Paul on the journey, and who had an appreciation of nature and of the incidents of a sea voyage (n. 20). If, without recourse to the tradition, we were to ask which one of Paul’s travelling companions was most likely to have been the author of the accounts of these journeys, the most probable answer would be Luke, the physician. If he is, at the same time, the author of the entire work, it was his own notes, which he had written down in the form of a journal during the voyage, that he 118 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT incorporated in his history. Even the best memory wil: not retain for decades all such details as changes in the weather and the movements of the sailors in a voyage lasting for months, and no historian would record in a large work such recollections as he might have, simply because he had not forgotten them. The incorporation by the author in the work of these accounts, which in their details are so out of proportion to the other narra- tives in the book, is most conceivable, if they were recorded by him years before. In addition to the pur- pose which he had accomplished in an earlier passage by the introduction of “we ”—namely, to prove that he had been an eye-witness of the events recorded—he secured by this means vividness in the narrative which could be obtained in no other way. The fact that Luke incor- porates into his work only accounts of travels, is easily explained by the common experience that persons who do not regularly keep a journal do so with the greatest pre- cision when they travel. However uninteresting and meagre such notes may be in themselves, for the person who afterwards has to relate the history of travels in which he was one of the party, they are invaluable and become more and more so as the years pass. A further point to be noted—self-evident, but ‘at first thought strange—is the fact that Luke did not use as sources the letters of Paul, which in our estimation are authorities of the first importance for the history which Luke records (n. 21). When Luther expresses the opinion that Acts may well be called “a gloss to the Epistles of St. Paul” (in a preface of the year 1534), he means that Acts furnishes historical illustrations of Pauline doctrine. Acts may be so designated also because it furnishes the reader of Paul's letters with an historical guide, without which even those who question its genuineness could not make their way through the Epistles. If, on other grounds, it were conceivable that Luke had never heard THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 119 of Paul’s letters, this unaccountable ignorance on his part would be quite confirmed by the entire silence of Acts concerning the Hpistles of Paul (n. 22), and by the absence of points of formal resemblance between Acts and the letters, where both handle the same facts. Of course there are points of similarity between the contents of an early account of Paul’s missionary work and the letters which Paul wrote in the midst of this work : if the ease were otherwise, it would be necessary to assume, either that the Epistles are pure forgeries or the historical accounts pure inventions. Since neither can reasonably be accepted as time, it is not surprising that the Epistles and Acts agree as to numerous facts. But the fact that the narratives of Acts are uniformly independent of the Epistles, both as regards the form and the compass of historical material handled, is of great significance in the criticism of Acts. Exactly the same relation exists as between Luke ii. and Matt. 1. ἢ. (above, p. 108 f.). It is altogether inconceivable that an author, who read the letters of Paul for the sake of the historical information in them, and who intended to use them as sources, should have made no use of the wealth of interesting historical matter which they contained, particularly if he were short of material. Such a procedure would be inexplic- able, even if the author were so devoid of conscience as to esteem his own theological or ecclesiastical opinion and purpose above historical truth as contained in such ancient documents as the Pauline letters. For he was under obligation, not simply to pass by the things which he desired to set in different lieht from that in which they had been represented by Paul, in fact he had no right to do so, but he was able, and was in duty bound, to recon- struct Paul’s statements to suit his own unhistorical purpose. Taking up first the gospel history, if the opinion regarding the text of Luke xxii. 17-20 expressed above, p. 39 f., ‘be correct, Luke did not utilise im any way the ı20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT account in 1 Cor. xi. 23-25. If the text, as it stands proves to be the right one, significant differences ‚still remain, and the agreement may be very simply explained as due to the fact that Luke belonged to the Church in Antioch at the time when Paul was a teacher there (above, pp. 39 f£, 28 f.), so that his idea of the institution of the Lord’s Supper was derived from the same oral tradition as that of Paul. It may be for the same reason that Luke x. 7 agrees with 1 Tim. v. 18 (μισθοῦ), as against Matt. x. 10 (τροφῆς). Luke makes no use whatever of the account in 1 Cor. xv. 5-7, which, in our estimation, is so important. During the forty days mentioned in Acts 1. 3) there was ample time for the appearance to the “more than five hundred brethren,” and to James. There is no evidence of a disposition on Luke’s part to emphasise the exclusive authority of the twelve apostles (but ef. above, p. 49 f.), or to minimise James’ position in the Church. The fact that he mentions an appearance to Peter alone, but without giving any account of it (Luke xxiv. 34=1 Cor. xv. 5), and the fact that he records an appearance to the group of apostles on Easter evening, and still another appearance to the same circle at the olage of the forty days (xxiy. 36; Acts 1. 4 ff.)—seeming in these points to agree with 1, Cor. xv. 5b, 7b—do not lessen at all his manifest independence of Paul. Luke makes no use of Paul’s autobiographical statements. A statement of the apostle’s descent from the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. ii. 5) would have been just as much in place in Acts xxi. 3 as is the remark in Luke ii. 36 (cf. also Acts xiii, 21). No mention is made in Acts of “the contest with wild beasts” in Ephesus (1 Cor. xy. 32), which in the Aets of Paul is enlarged into an adventurous story (GK, ü. 880). Nor is anything said about the five times thirty-nine stripes which Paul received from the Jews, the three shipwrecks prior to the voyage to Rome, dangers by rivers and perils by robbers (2 Cor, 23-26). Luke mentions only one instance when the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 121 apostle was stoned (Acts xiv. 19=2 Cor. xi. 25; ef. 2 Tim ii. 11), and of the three scourgings with rods he gives an account of only one, and records only one of the numerous imprisonments which Paul suffered prior to his long im- prisonment (Acts xvi. 22-40; 2 Cor. xi. 23, 25). ‘From all this it appears that Acts gives us anything but a complete history of Paul; at the same time, it is evident that its reports are derived from independent and trust- worthy sources. As regards Paul’s history before his conversion, at the time of it, and shortly afterwards, one acquainted with the Epistles, who had formed his conception of the scene near Damascus from 1 Cor. ix.) 1, xv. 8; cf. Gal. iL. 12, 16; 2 Cor iv. 6, would hardly have obscured, so completely as.in Acts ix. 4-7, xxil. 6-11, xxvi. 12-19, the fact that Paul saw the form of Jesus, nor would the testimony to this fact be sc indirect as in Acts ix. 17, 27, xxii. 14,15; ef. ix. 7b. There is no reason why, if Luke used Paul’s letters, he should have passed over the journey to Arabia, which is mentioned in Gal. i. 17, as a merely temporary absence from Damascus, and which, therefore, could very well have taken place during the ἡμέραι ἱκαναί of Acts ix. 23; nor isjit easy to see why he should have omitted all reference to the part taken by the ethnarch Aretas in the plot against Paul’s life (2 Cor. xi. 32)—which does not in any way exclude the possibility of the plans having originated with the Jews (Acts ix. 23 ; seen. 23)—nor why he should have replaced the notice of the personal contact of Paul with Peter and James (Gal. i. 18f.) by the colourless statement that Paul had intercourse with the apostles (Acts ix. 27 f.), nor why the exact) statement that Paul’s stay in Jerusalem lasted but fifteen days should have been exchanged for a brief sketch which leaves the reader to guess whether this sojourn lasted ten days or several months. Even where Luke and Paul do agree, no striking similarity of expression is to be observed (n. 23). In the ı22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT account of the first missionary journey (xiii. 2-Xiv. 28) besides the similarities in the story of the stoning in Lystra, which has been already mentioned, Luke’s narra- tive has points of resemblance to 2 Tim. ii. 11, and to various hints and presuppositions in Galatians (vol. 1 § 11). "While, on the one hand, it would be impossible to form a definite idea of the course of events from ‘the hints of Galatians—for example, from the reference in Gal. iv. 14 f. to the event deseribed in Acts xiv. 11-18 (vol. i: 180)}—without aid from the vivid narrative of Acts, on the other hand, it is just'as impossible to suppose that Luke's account, which is so full of details, was derived from this source. The very clear statement’ of Paul (Gal. iv. 13; vol. i 165, 181), that his sojourn in the cities of ayobsiid was due tovan illness, is not found in Acts at all. The relation of this account of Luke to Paul's letters may be summarised in a word, by saying that it is such as would naturally exist between the account of a well- informed and truthful historian and original sources whieh he had not seen. This is the case also with reference ' to the second missionary journey (Acts xv. 40-xvii. 17). Silas was the elder of Paul’s two helpers, and Paul always places his name before that of Timothy (1 Thess. 1. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 19), but Luke never calls him by his Roman name, Silvanus, as does Paul uniformly (vol. i 31£, 207). Luke’s statement that Timothy's mother was a Jewess and his father a Greek (xvi. 1), is confirmed by what is said and left unsaid in 2 Tim. i. 5 (volo 11. 22, n. 4), but Luke does not mention the name’ Eunice. The hints with reference to the ordination of Timothy in. Tim. i. 18, iv. 14; 2 Tim. i 6 (1 Tim. νἱ. 12) harmonise with Acts xvi. 2 (vol. ii 28, n. δ, 94), but there is no evidence of dependence. We know from Phil. iii 3 (vol. i. 538, n. 7) that Timothy was cireum- eised (Acts xvi. 3); and that this was done in Timothy's home, the province of Galatia, is confirmed by Gal. v. 11 THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 123 (vol. i 182). But if these facts are overlooked or denied by our clever critics, notwithstanding the fact that they have the “gloss to the Hpistles of St. Paul,” how could Luke have constructed his concrete narrative from such obscure hints? No notice is taken in Acts of the names of the persons who are prominent in the organisation of the Church in Philippi, Phil. iv. 2-3 (voli. 529 f., 532 f.), or the remittances of money from the Philippians, Phil. iv. 15-16, and of the hints in 1 and 2 Thess. concerning the cireumstances under which the Church in Thessalonica was organised. The only point directly confirmed in Acts’ is the fact that Paul went to Thessalonica from Philippi after he had been maltreated in the latter city (1 Thess. i. 2). In Acts xv. 15 f., xviii, 5, Luke leads the reader to infer that Paul remained in Athens alone without his two helpers, and that these did not join him again until after his arrival in Corinth (vol. i. 205, 210f.), which is directly opposed to 1 Thess. 11. 17-111. 6,—a contradiction for which there is no conceivable reason, while there is no contradiction between Paul and Acts with regard to the history of the Corinthian Church (vol. i. 265); their state- ments are as mutually independent of each other as they could well be. What we learn from 1 Cor. 1. 1, 14, xvi.'19, regarding Sosthenes, Crispus, ‘Aquila, and’ Priscilla does not in any way resemble what is said of these persons in Acts xvii. 1-17. The names Chloe, Gaius (it is not the Corinthian Gaius who is referred to in Acts xix. 29, xx. 4), Stephanas, Achaicus, and Fortunatus do not occur in Acts (ef. 1 Cor. i. 11, 14+16, xvi. 15-17). The description of Apollos in Acts xvii. 24-28 in every way supplements what may be inferred concerning him from 1 Cor. 1. 12-iv. 6, xvi. 12, but there is nothing to indicate ‘that Luke had read Paul’s opinions concerning him and thie results of his work. From the character of Luke’s book, which is intended to set forth the progress of missionary work—from chap. xiii. onwards, particularly Paul’s' mis- 124 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT sionary labours—we should not expect an account of the internal development of the various Churches, nor of the heated conflicts concerning which we learn in 1 and 2 Cor., nor of Paul’s journey from Ephesus to Corinth (vol. i. 271), nor of the important journeys of Titus spoken of in 2 Cor. ii. 13, vi. 6-16, vill. 16-24, xi, 17 £., nor of the stay of Paul in Antioch (Gal. i 11). But even when the development of missionary work led to transactions within the Church of such a nature) that Luke does not leave them unnoticed, there is no evidence that he was influenced by Paul’s accounts of the same events. This is not the place in which to discuss the question whether, in view of Gal. ii. 1-10, Acts xv. 1-33 is to be regarded as historical. All that needs to be shown is that Luke had never read Gal. ii. 1-10, or, at least, did not recall it when writing his own account. Here again the proof is to be found in the omission of features for the intentional suppression of which there is no conceivable motive, as well as in the absence of all traces of formal imitation, or of conscious denial, of what Paul had written. There is room enough in Acts xv. 2 for the statement that Paul made the journey to Jerusalem in consequence of a revelation (Gal. ii. 1), and this would be in perfect harmony with the spirit of Acts, where the co-operation of human reflection and effort with divine suggestion is frequently mentioned (cf. xvi. 6-10, xx. 16 with xx. 22, xix. 21 and xxv. 10 with xxiii. 11 and xxvil. 24; see above, p. 16 f.). It could not have been Gal. i. 1-3 which influenced Luke to let Titus—whom he had mentioned, according to the 8 text, in xiii 1 (above, p. 28, n. 6)— disappear among the τινὲς ἄλλοι in Acts xv. 2. In Acts xv. 5 he himself relates how the demand that all Gentile Christians be circumcised was made in Jerusalem as in Antioch, and even if Luke, like some modern writers, mis- understood Paul—supposing him to mean that ‘Titus was THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 125 circumcised out of deference to the Judaisers—in view of what is said in xvi. 8, Luke could not have objected to it. There was nothing about the Gentile missionaries’ recogni- tion of their duty to care for the poor in Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 10) that could displease him (cf. xi. 29f., xii. 25, xxiv. 17); and if he had wanted to mention still other stipulations not mentioned by Paul, he needed only to omit the μόνον in Gal. 1. 10. No writer who had read Galatians with a view to informing himself from this first- hand source regarding these matters, could disregard altogether the impressive words, Gal. ii. 7-9, in which Paul expressed the recognition received from Peter, John, and James of the standing and independence of his apostolic work. With regard to the apostolic decree, see above, p. 18 f.,, and below, $ 62. The undeniable fact that Luke did not feel it necessary to draw from Paul’s letters as sources, or in any way to take account of them, is decisive proof of his close relation to the events recorded in Acts xii.-xxvii. Whether the author of Acts was a friend of Paul’s, or someone who wrote between 100 and 120, it is inconceivable that a Christian so deeply interested in Paul as was the author of Acts should have been ignorant of his letters, and, if they had come into his possession, that he should have left them unread. They made a deep impression, and attracted attention even among contemporaries outside the circle of those to whom they were originally ad- dressed (2 Cor. x. 10f.; 2 Pet. iii. 15f.; vol. ii. 276 ff.). From the close of the first century onwards, the letters of Paul came to be more and more the means by which the apostle’s memory was kept fresh in the mind of later generations (n. 24). The relation of Acts to the Pauline letters proves not only that the former was written before the close of the first century (§ 62), but also that its author was so close to the apostle, and had been associated with him so long, that it was not necessary for him to study 126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT his letters in order to enlarge his.own knowledge of the history. While, on any other hypothesis, the relation, of the author of the Lucan history to, the Pauline letters is an anomaly, the relation is perfectly natural, if ıt was written by Luke (or Timothy or Titus). ‚The only source which a man like Luke required for the composition of Acts xill.-xxvill., and, also of Acts vi. 8—vill. 3, 1x, 1-30, was his remembrance of what he had heard from Paul, and of events in which he had participated. Naturally, in the course, of conversation Paul must frequently have spoken of his: earlier experiences, and this is abundantly confirmed by his, letters (1,Cor, ix. 1-6, χν. 8, 8, 32; 2 Cor: i (85L0,. x1,[,22-x. 95, Gal, 1,11, (143, Eph. πὶ. 08: Phil. i1..37,,iv. 3, 15-16 5,1 Tim. i, 12—16;,11,.7 ; 2, Tim. i. 3, iii. 10-11, ive 16-17,;\.Rom,., xy. .16-32,.xvi. 7), Especially, in, times of enforced idleness when Luke; was with him, as, for example, during the second captivity in Rome (2 Tim. iy. 11), and during the winter months spent on the island of Malta, perhaps also during the two years’ imprisonment in Czesarea (above, p. 56), we cannot think of a more natural subject of conversation between the apostle and his friends than the experiences of the years when he had been fully, occupied with his labours. Upon returning from missionary journeys, and on many other occasions, Paul and his companions must often have given before an assembled congregation a connected and detailed account of their, experiences (Acts xiv. 27, xy. 3, 12, 26, Kxi. 19 καθ᾽ ὃν ἕκαστον ; Gals 11. 3, 7-9). It is just as con- ceivable that some of those who, heard these narratives, or that Luke, after such conversations, made notes of them, as that a Timothy or Silvanus kept a sort of daily journal during, their, travels, as did the author of the, “ we” passages, though, of course, it cannot be prov ed. Throughout Acts, as, in. xiii—xxvili., we note the absence Ἢ variations in the Somers such as are naturally explained by the ‚use of different sources im- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 127 perfectly worked over. [Ὁ may seem peculiar. that Agabus is introduced in xxi. 10 as if entirely unknown, although he has been introduced earlier in an exactly similar manner, xi. 28. But both notices (the first in the recension 8) are in “we” sections (above, p. 4, n. 3). It is, therefore, necessary to assume that in xxi, 10 the author either. did not. recall the cursory mention of Agabus which he had made earlier, or did not venture to assume that the reader still remembered it. . Where this could be assumed, as in the case of Philip, xxi. 8, such references to earlier passages are to be found—in this particular instance to vis 5 and Viii. 5-40. The substitution of the name Paul for Saul, in xii. 9, cannot ‚bei explained by supposing that at this point a new source, in which the apostle is called by his Roman name, takes the place of an earlier source in which, he is called Saul. Such a new source could not well begin in the middle of an account of Paul’s sojourn in Paphos. A new account does begin with ΧΙ], 1, or perhaps xii, 25, but here we find the name Saul also, xii. 25, xiii, 1, 2, 7 (n. 25). Luke exchanges one name for the other, for reasons similar to those which led to the substitution of Peter for Simon (vol. ii. 219, n. 9). As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had always been known by his Roman name, Paul. Hence it) was, appropriate that he should be so designated in Luke's narrative at the point where he ceased to appear in the synagogues (xiii, 5, ix. 20-xxii. 29) and in the role of a teacher in congregations composed of Jews and Gentiles (xiii. 1, xi: 25-30), and became a teacher in the home of a Gentile in opposition to unbelieving Judaism (Acts xiii.) 8-12). If some of the events narrated in Acts vi. 8—viii. 3, ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii, 25-xxvii. 31 were experienced by Luke, and if he had such abundant opportunity to hear the account of others from those who were participants, 128 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT so that, as seems to be the case,-he felt no necessity for using written sources or literary helps in the preparation of these parts of his work, the question arises whether he was dependent at all upon earlier written sources in the preparation of his second book. If he was a guest of Philip for several days (xxi. 8-12), and if, during Paul's two years’ imprisonment, he was with him even occa- sionally, he had in Philip the best possible witness for the events reeorded in viii. 4-40, also in vi. 1—vill. 3 and x. 1-xi. 18. What he relates in ix. 31-43 may have been learned from Mnason, who lived midway between Ceesarea and Jerusalem, and who had been a disciple from the very earliest times, Acts xxi. 16 (above, p. 18). If Luke was a member of the Church in Antioch when Barnabas came hither from Jerusalem and settled there, he had for a number of years the opportunity of hearing from him the story of the mother Church. That Barnabas would have occasion to relate this history is self-evident. It would also be a strange coincidence if, among the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who in the year 35 fled from Jerusalem to Antioch, and there proclaimed the gospel for the first time to the Gentiles, there were not also those who had been’ baptized on the first Christian Pentecost (Acts xi. 19 f., xiii. 1; οὗ ἢ. 10, 41). Indeed, these men must have related to the younger Christians all they knew. And one of them, Lucius of Cyrene, was still alive when Luke wrote (above, p. 28, n. 6). So there were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning for the events narrated in Acts ii—v., from whom Luke could have obtained his information directly. It is possible that some one of these, or Barnabas, noted down at a comparatively early date recollections of what had taken place during the early years of the Church’s history. If Mark pl: anned to extend his work to cover apostolie times (vol. ii. 479, above, p. 50), he may have left behind notes which he had gathered for the part of his book that was THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 129 never written, and possibly these fell into Luke’s hand. But neither of these things can be proved. In order to explain the fact that there are more Hebraisms in 1.-xü. than in xiii.—xxviii. (n. 26), it is not necessary to assume the use of written sources showing this characteristic, if Luke heard these narratives from Jewish Christians who were Palestinians, and had been in Palestine, and if he had sufficient literary sense in the narratives to retain their native colouring (above, p. 104 8). The assumption that the history of the early apostolic age was written in Hebrew or Aramaic (n. 27) is not only incapable of proof, but also extremely improbable; since the ‘‘ Hebrews” would have had very little occasion to use such a book, and the reasons which influenced Matthew to write in Aramaic (vol. ii. 521) would not apply in this case. A Greek like Luke would certainly not have been in a position to make use of such a book. Notwithstanding numerous attempts to distinguish different sources in Acts, this has- never been shown to be even remotely probable (n. 28). The general outcome of such attempts is the conclusion that the author of the Lucan history, who was in reality a man of fine literary training, and an intelligent, thoughtful, and systematic writer, was a miserable bungler. They fail also to explain the tradition according to which Luke was the author of these writings, or to weaken the proofs of the correctness of this tradition which are to be found in the writings themselves. 1. (P. 94.) M. Krenkel (Josephus und Lucas, 1894, 5. 1 ff.) discusses at length the sources upon which Luke depended. His method is not to be commended, In the section on “ Josephus’ influence upon the language of Luke,” S. 283 ff., the comparison, arbitrarily limited to these two writers and the LXX (with the exclusion of 1 and 2 Macc., books so very essential just at this point), is put in tabular form. But what value has the comparison when such words as αἰσθάνομαι, γῆρας, δῆμος are found in a table purporting to give the vocabulary which the three works have in common, or when words like δορκάς, doxn, ἐρείδω, areipos are included in a list of words supposed to give the vocabulary of Luke and the LXX, not found in Josephus. More than this, the citation of the first of these words, δορκάς, is incorrect (cf. Bell. VOL. III. 9 130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT iv. 3. 5 with Acts ix. 36). The only list of words which really belongs: here is that of the words common to Luke and Josephus, not found in the LXX (S. 304-309). And this would be significant (1) only if very familiar words were excluded, such as are found quite universally in literature since Homer —as ἄγνωστος, ἀνατρέφω, ἐκεῖσε, μόγις, περαινέω, πλοῦς κτὰ. In this class belongs also αὐτόπτης, Luke i, 2, upon which Krenkel (S. 55,.56, 305) lays weight ; whereas it is used by Herodotus, iv. 16; Polybius, i. 4. 7, iii. 4, 13, and frequently—generally with γίνεσθαι, asin Luke. The last passage eited from Polybius (διὰ τὸ τῶν πλείστων μὴ μόνον αὐτόπτης, ἀλλ᾽ ὧν μὲν συνεργύς, dy δὲ καὶ χειριστὴς γεγονέναι) can just as well as Jos. c. Apion, i. 10, be compared to Luke (see above, p. 82f.,n. 5). (2) It would also be necessary to omit all words, the use of which time or circumstance rendered impossible in the LXX, eg. ἀνθύπατος, κολωνία, νεωκόρος, ῥήτωρ, Σεβαστός, σικάριος, στρατοπε- δάρχης. (3) It would also be necessary to compare other authors known. not to be dependent upon Josephus, who might show points of resemblance to Luke in content and form: the O.T. Apocrypha, especially those portions of it which are of a narrative character, Philo, the other N.T. writers, the historians from Polybius to Herodian, also the medical writers whom Luke may have read (see above, pp. 32f., 92, nn. 5, 28). It would be particularly necessary to make comparisons with Polybius, from whom such ‘a writer as G, Raphelius, Annotat. in. 8. script. ex Xenophonte, Polybio, ete... 1747, tom, i. 431-602 ; ii. 1-209, has collected much material. If this extended investigation should show a special resemblance between Luke and Josephus in language and style, it would naturally be explained by the fact that both are in a sense writers of Jewish history and contemporaries. Cf. A. Harnack, Lucas der Arzt als Verfasser des 3 Ev. und der AG, 1906 [Eng. trans. 1907] (Beiträge zür Ein]. in d. NT., 1 Heft) received too late for consideration. 2. (P.94,). In the matter of Josephus’ imperfect command of Greek, ef. Ant. xx. 12 (cf. also procem., 8 2) ; as to literary assistance rendered him, ef. ec. Ap. i. 9, ef. vol. i. 63, n. 9. On the other hand, regarding the style of Luke i. 1-4, ef. the conclusions of Blass, Ntl. Gr. § 79. 6 (Eng. trans. § 79. 6); Vogel, S. 18. 3. (P. 96.) The present writer’s extended discussion of the Syrian governorship of Quirinius (Ν᾽ ΚΖ, 1898, S. 633-654) cannot here be quoted at length. When Schiirer, i. 542 (new, not in Eng. trans.), has nothing more to say against the writer’s “fascinating” argument than that, even if it be valid, “nothing of apologetic value would be gained,” his criticism is evidence of a lack of regard for an historical investigation, carried out without consideration of desired conclusions.. The investigations of Ramsay, embodied in his book Was Christ, Born at Bethlehem ? 1898, have not as yet resulted in a perfectly clear conclusion. Cf. Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchos Papyri, ii. (1899) p, 207 ff, among others in Schiirer, i, 514, A. 21 (new, not in Eng, trans.). Worthy of note is Origen’s exposition of the matter, tom. xvii. 25 tn Matt., which is probably dependent on Philo (cf. Forsch. vi. 304f.). Krenkel discusses the question without any attempt at a criticism of Josephus (S. 64-75). The vain effort to prove that πάσα or ὅλη ἡ οἰκουμένη, Luke ii. 1, Acts xi. 28, cf. Matt. xxiv. 14, Rev. 111. 10, xii. 9, xvi, 14, can mean Judea in Luke’s writings need not be here considered, since Krenkel does not think that Luke uses it in this sense, All examples of the use of the word cited THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 131 prove that, in order to mean anything other than the whole world, 7 οἰκουμένη must have a modifier (Luke iv. 5; Acts xvii. 6, 31, xix. 27, xxiv. 5) such as ἡ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ βασιλευομένη, Jos. Ant. xi. 6. ὅ (a modification of the exaggerated expression in xi. 6. 2), or ἧς emnpxev, Ant. xix. 1. 2, or ἧς ἐβουλήθη, sc. κρατῆσαι, Ant. xi. 6. 6. The word ttself is used with a single general limitation —in other words, it is customary to treat the parts of the world which are civilised and ruled by the Romans as the world proper, and simply to designate them as such (Philo, Leg. ad Can. ii.), except where the context makes it necessary to say more accurately ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς οἰκουμένη, Ptolem. Geogr. ii. 1..1, cf. $ 2; Jos. Bell. ii. 16. 4 (Niese, 378), as contrasted with another ἑτέρα Or ἄλλη οἰκουμένη, Bell. ii. 16. 4 (363), Ant. iv. 6.8. Of. the distinction made by us between the old world and the new world, 1.6. the more recently discovered world—a distinction which is disappearing. The limitation of the meaning in Luke ii. 1 to the world ruled by the Romans is clear from the very character of the statement made ; similarly in Acts ii. 28 it is expressed by the name of the Emperor. The same exaggeration of statement is to be found in Paul’s writings, Col. i. 6; Rom. x. 18; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 17. This, however, is to be said with reference to the alleged unhistorical character of the statement in Acts xi. 28 : the scarcity of food, and the consequent rise in its price in Rome in 41-43 A.D., and again in 51 (Dio Cass. lx. 11; Tac. Ann. xii. 43; ef. Anger, De temp. in Actis ratione, 42), must have been due to repeated failure of crops in Egypt, which would increase the price of grain in other lands. There is also to be considered in this connection the reports regarding conditions in Palestine (Jos. Ant. iii. 15. 3, xx. 2. 5, 5.2) and Greece (Eus. Chron. Anno Abr. 2064, cf. ad 2057). In a metrical inscription from Apollonia in the province of Galatia (Le Bas- Waddington, Asie min. No. 1192=C. I. G. 3973), dating possibly from the year 57 a.D. (Ramsay, Stud. Oxon. iv. 1896, p. 52 {f.), is found the following : ὅτε βούβρωστις κατὰ γαῖαν vapkoßopos δεινή re, φόνον βρείθουσα ἀἄλυκτον! κόσμον ἐπέσχεθε πάντα. Even if the date of the inseription be considered uncertain, because of the impossibility of determining exactly the period to which it belongs, the text does show how educated people in imperial times were accustomed to speak of such calamities. The carping critic must also admit that Luke uses the language to which exception is taken only in reproducing the prophecy of Agabus, he himself adding merely the brief remark that this was fulfilled under Claudius. No details are added, which show how nearly the events corresponded to the letter of the prophecy. This fact Theophilus and every contemporary knew better than Overbeck and Krenkel. How one- sided Krenkel is in his treatment of this problem appears on S. 281, where the frequently noticed parallelism between Josephus (Vita, 3) and Paul’s voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii.-xxviii.) is passed over without further discussion, and the dependence of Luke upon Josephus in this passage is denied, on the ground that Acts xxvii. and xxviii. are the report of an eye-witness. Both authors agree in the following points: (1) The dangerous journey by sea from Palestine to Italy ; (2) the extreme dangers in the Adriatie Sea, and by night (Acts xxvii. 27); (3) the loss of the ship (Acts xxvii. 27, 41-44) ; (4) the transfer from one ship to another during 'the journey (Acts xxvii. 6, to an Alexandrian ship; Josephus, to a Cyrenean ship); (5) landing at Puteoli. It is an unimportant difference in the accounts that Paul made his journey ı32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT in the autumn of 60, Josephus in the autumn of 64. Nor is the resemblance rendered less striking by other differences, such as that in the size of the crews, Paul’s sojourn in Malta, etc. 4. (P. 97.) 0. I. L. v. i. No. 136%: de Rossi, Bull. di arch. Christ. 1880, p- 174 and plate ix.; Mommsen, Ephem. Epigr. iv. (1881) 8. 537-542 ; also the present writer’s essay quoted above, n. 3, NKZ, 1893, 5. 647 1. 5. (P. 98.) It is hardly necessary to prove that the Herod referred to in Lukei.5can be no other than Herod the Great, who died in March of 4 2.0. (Matt. ii, 1-19). Agrippa 1. (37-44 A.n.), who is also called Herod in Acts xii, 1-23, and Agrippa 1. (Acts xxv. 13 [50 to 93 or 100 A.D.]). are entirely out of the question. It is also inconceivable that Luke should have called by the title “King Herod” the Archelaus, who governed a part. of Palestine from 4 B.c. to 6 A.D. under the title of ethnarch. For, in the first place, Luke always employs exact titles in designating the rulers of this house, iii. 1, 19, ix. 7; Acts xii. 1, xxv. 13 (cf. per contra vol. ii. 503, n. 3); in the second place, the name Herod is never substituted for that of Archelaus either by Josephus or in the N.T. (cf. Matt. ii. 22) (Schiirer, i. 450 [Eng. trans. 1. ii. 39)). 6. (P. 99.) The more noticeable resemblances between Jos. and Acts in points of detail are the following: (1) Theudas, Acts v. 36, Ant. xx. 5. 1. The question cannot be here discussed whether the same individual is referred to in both passages, or whether, as Wieseler (Ohronol. Synopse, 103 f. ; Beiträge, 101 1.) endeavours to show, the Theudas of Luke is identical with the Matthias in Jos. Ant. xvii. 6; Bell. i. 33. Whether Luke himself com- posed the speech of Gamaliel, or took it from some older writing, he certainly was of the opinion that the insurrection under Theudas took place a long time before the speech in question, namely, before the insurrection of Judas and the one famous taxing, which in Luke ii. 2 he places between 4 and 1 8.0. (above, p. 94 ff.). According to Josephus, the insurrection under Theudas was put down by the procurator Fadus in 45 a.D.—a date considerably later than Gamaliel’s speech, and from forty to fifty years later than the insurrec- tion under Judas. The account in Josephus cannot be accepted as of unquestionable trustworthiness. Josephus was at the time a child between seven and nine years of age. Moreover, his reports of the history of this period are extremely meagre; the story about Theudas is a very isolated supplement to the description of Fadus’ procuratorship in xx. 1, and is separated from it by the long episode in xx. 2. 1-4. 4. If Josephus is right and Luke wrong, at all events it could not have been Josephus that misled Luke into this chronological error of half a century. No credence is to be given Krenkel’s hypothesis (163 ff.) that the mention of the sons of this Judas in the following paragraph of Josephus (xx. 5. 2) caused the confusion of father and sons in Luke’s mind,—leading him to suppose that the insurrection of Judas followed that of Theudas, For in this case Luke must have over- looked or forgotten the fact that Josephus, a few lines before, had mentioned the great famine—which, as Luke knew, took place under Claudius (Acts xi, 28)—as well as the names of the procurators, Cuspius, Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus, and the name of the Emperor Claudius in Ant. xx. 5. 1-2. Furthermore, the agreement between the two narratives is so slight as to leave it only probable that Josephus and Luke are referring to the same THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACIS 133 event. According to Josephus, Theudas is a juggler, who pretends to be a prophet, leads his followers to the Jordan, and promises by a miracle to render easy the passage of the river. He is beheaded by a company of cavalry, who destroy part of his company and take the rest prisoners, and his head is sent to Jerusalem. It will be seen that much is wanting in Luke’s account besides the name of Fadus. The number of followers which Luke gives (400) could not have been suggested by Joseph ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος, and only frequently used words are common to the two accounts (Luke ἀνῃρέθη, Jos. ἀνεῖλεν, Luke ἐπείθοντο, Jos. Emeide,). (2) The death of King Agrippa 1., Acts xii, 19-23; Jos. Ant. xix. 1,2. In passages that precede and follow, Josephus calls him Agrippa. In this passage he calls him simply “the King”; Luke says “ Herod.” According to Josephus, the occasion of his death was a feast of several days in honour of the saving of the Emperor, at which the distinguished persons of the region were gathered ; according to Luke, it was the presence of a number of Tyrians and Sidonians, who, on account of their dependence upon the King’s country for their supply of grain, through the chief chamberlain, Blastus, begged peace of the enraged monarch. According to Josephus, the King appeared in the theatre on the second day of the feast; according to Luke, he delivered an oration to the ambassadors before all the people, on a day appointed with the Tyrians for the discussion of the matter. While Josephus describes in detail the splendid garments of the King, and the reflection of the morning sun upon them (ef. per contra Luke, ver, 21), and represents the flatterers of the court as proposing in well-turned phrases an apotheosis of the King, Luke produces a greater effect by the use of five words, in which he gives the exclamations of the people. In place of Luke’s impressive conclusion of the scene in ver. 23, Josephus gives the following account: Suddenly Agrippa saw an owl sitting upon a rope, and, because of an earlier experience with an owl which he had had in Rome, recognised at once that it was a messenger (ἄγγελον) of death (Ant. xviii. 6. 7). He was seized with severe pains in the abdomen, delivered a philosophical discourse to his friends, was carried into the palace, was deeply moved by the sympathy of the people, and died five days later. It is pertectly clear to everyone that each story has as its basis an entirely independent tradition, and it requires no great exercise of one’s historical sense to understand that Luke has reproduced more successfully than Josephus the spiritin which the event was recounted by those who witnessed it. The “ Angel of the Lord,” which the Gentile Luke represents as acting, is more natural in the story of the death of a Jewish King in Palestine than the discourses about mortal nature and fate which the Jew Josephus represents the King as delivering. The very fact that Josephus calls the owl an “ἄγγελος " in a different sense from which it is used in Luke’s account, would seem to’ indicate familiarity with the popular account of Jewish contem- poraries. Christian writers have transformed the owl again into what it was originally, a real angel (cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 10.6). (8) The Egyptian, Acts xxi. 38; Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 6, Bell. ii. 13.5. It is possible that Luke may have taken his short notice, which, however, is connected with another event in a manner hardly to be considered as invented, trom the longer accounts of Josephus ; but there is nothing to prove it. Nothing in Jos. indicates that the followers of the Egyptian were Stcarit. Indeed, Josephus describes the 134 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT activity of this body in an entirely different way (Ant. xx. 13.3, Bell. ii. 8. 10), and does not connect them at all with the Egyptian. Their number in Luke, 4000, agrees neither with the 400+200 of Ant. xx. 8. 6, nor with the 30,000 of Bell. ii. 13.5. The other points in which the accounts agree prove nothing as to the dependence of one author upon another. Luke cannot win the favour of the critics: When he differs from Josephus, he errs or fabricates ; when he agrees with him, he copies; what he omits or adds is due to arbitrariness or misunderstanding ; but Josephus is always infallible. 7. (P. 100.) The question whether, before completing his Antiquities and writing his Vita, Josephus read Luke’s work, cannot -be answered without entering at length into Josephus’ attitude toward the religious life of his people, the Messianic expectation, and the Christian movement. He did not understand this movement any more than would the rich, worldly, and heartless Jew of our own time. But he knew ten times more about it than he says. The famous testimony to Christ is put into his mouth by someone else, and there is a suspicion that the same is true of the statement about James, the brother of the so-called Christ ; ef. Forsch. vi. 301-305. A con- venient starting-point for the discussion of this question is the chapter on John, Ant. xviii: 5. 2, which Grätz (Gesch. ἃ. Juden®, iii. 294) declares to be a forgery, while Ranke (Weltgesch.t iii. 1. 161, 2. 39) uses it as a principal source, instead of the gospel account. It is an episode at the beginning and end, of which regard is had for the popular way of treating history, characteristic of certain Jews. It is senseless to suppose that’ Antipas feared that John would create a popular uprising, if at the same time he exhorted the people only to righteousness and piety, because this leaves out of account altogether the preaching of the nearness of the Kingdom of God and the fire of judgment. When Josephus makes John teach’ that men ought to be baptized, “not in order to apologise for certain offences,” there is implied a direct rejection of the Christian tradition, according to which he preached a βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (Luke iii. 3; Mark i. 4f.). If Josephus had read Luke iii. 10-14, it explains the very moderate moral teaching which he puts into the mouth of the Baptist. The variation in the statements about Quirinius in the Antiquities from the earlier account in Bell. (above, p. 96) is explained, if between these writings Josephus had read Luke ii. 2. It is noteworthy, moreover, that the two important parallels between Jos. and Acts are to be found only in the Antiquities, not in Bell. ; see n. 6. The story (Vita, 2) of the fourteen years old Josephus, whose advice was sought by the high priests on questions of the law, has the appearance of being a grotesque imitation of the incomparable story in Luke ii. 41-52. The present writer has no desire to argue with one whose taste permits him to regard the reverse relation as possible. 8. (P. 100.) Concerning the secular χαίρειν, Acts xv. 23 and Jas. i. 1, which is almost contemporaneous, see vol. i. 119, n. 7. To this corresponds ἔρρωσο, xv. 29-—-the verb is not found in the N.T. (in xxiii. 30 it is probably spurious), Leaving out of account expressions required by the subject under discussion, this short message contains the following words not found else- where in the writings of Luke or the N.T. (the latter are indicated by *), ἀνασκευάζειν, διαστέλλεσθαι (only five times in the writings of Mark, a native of Jerusalem) ; ἐπάναγκες, εὖ mpdrrew*, of ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῶν, without ἀδελφοί ; THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 135 the appositional ἀδελφοί after πρεσβύτεροι, undoubtedly the correct reading. On the other hand, ὁμοθυμαδόν, which is used 8 or 9 times in Acts, but never with γίνεσθαι ; διατηρεῖν, not as used in Luke ii. 51, but in an essentially different sense, and ἐπειδὴ ἠκούσαμεν---ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν, ver. 24f. (ef. Luke i. 1-3), need hardly be taken into account, 9. (P. 101.) Julius Africanus in Eus. H. H. 1. 1. 7-15. The δεσπόσυνοι drew partly from family traditions, partly from chronicles ; see ZKom. Matt. 44f. A. 7. 10. (P. 104.) To Luke the use of the article, with both the name and the title of Isaiah in Mark i. 2, seemed harsh, as did also the bare phrase, “in Isaiah” (ef. Rom. ix. 25, xi, 2). One reads “ Isaiah” (Acts viii. 28, 30; cf. xv. 21) as he does “‘ Homer,” but “ the book of the prophet Isaiah” (Luke iv. 17) is handed to him, and when this and other books are quoted, reference is made to the book (Luke iii. 4, xx. 42; Acts i. 20, vii. 42). Because Theophilus is not entirely familiar with the work, it is remarked, in. con- nection with the first cuotation from it, that the book is a collection of the sayings of the prophet mentioned (Luke iii. 4). 11. (P. 104.) Outside of chaps. iii. in the narratives peculiar to Luke, but certainly not created by him, we find such expressions as ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς ἀδικίας, XVi. 8; ὁ μαμωνᾶς τῆς ad., Xvi. 9 (ver. 11 is different); ὁ κριτὴς τῆς ἀδ., XVill. 63 ev τοῖς ὠσίν, eis ra ὦτα, Luke iv. 21, ix. 44; Acts xi, 22; ἰδού or καὶ ἰδού (apart from quotation) 56 times in the Gospel, 23 times in Acts, often where it is not found in the parallels in Mark (found in this Gospel only 8 or 10 times), frequently wanting also in Matt., Luke v.12 (=Matt. viii. 2, not Mark 1. 40); v. 18 (= Matt. ix. 2, not in Mark 11, 3) ; vi. 23 (not in Matt. v. 12); ix. 30 (=Matt. xvii. 3, not in Mark ix. 4); ix. 38, 39 (not in Matt. xvii. 15; Mark ix. 15). Passages without parallel: vii. 12, 37, x. 19, 25, xi. 41, xiii. 7, 11, ete. Noticeable is the frequent occurrence of Kal ἐγένετο or ἐγένετο δέ (often with ἐν τῷ, followed by the infinitive or ὡς ἤκουσεν and similar expressions, or with a statement of time). This is found in a number of different constructions: (a) followed by the principal verb, without καί, i. 8, 23, 41, 59, ii. 1, 15, 46, vil. 11, vili. 40, ix. 18, 33,-37, x1.01, 14, 27, xvii. 14, xviii 35, xix, 29, xx, 1;.(0), with καί, ν, 1, 12, 17, viii. 1, 22, ix. 51, x. 38, xvii. 11, xxiv. 4, 15; (c) followed by the infinitive with the accusative, iii, 21, vi. 1, 6, 12, xvi. 22. Of these con- structions only the third, which is (in the first place) found in vulgar Greek, also occurs in Acts and very frequently (iv. 5, ix. 8, 32, 37, 43, xiv. 1, xvi. 16, xix. 1, xxi. 1, 5, xxii. 6, 17, xxvii. 44, xxviii. 8, 17; about xi. 26 there may be a question), The second construction (b) is: the most Hebraistic of the three, especially in constructions like Luke xiv. 1, καὶ ἐγένετο, ἐν τῷ ἐλθεῖν αὐτόν... καὶ αὐτοὶ ἦσαν ... καὶ ἰδού, οἵ. vi. 1, 2, xxiv. 4. It is avoided altogether by Mark and Matt. The only one of the constructions used by Matt. is (a) vii. 28, ix. 10 (where the correct reading is ἰδού without καί), xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1; Mark uses it twice, i. 9, iv. 4; also (b) 11, 15, 23, twice. 12. (P. 105.) For the use of εὐθύς in Mark see vol. ii. 482. Luke uses εὐθέως appropriately, also παραχρῆμα, which is found outside of Luke’s writings (Gospel 10 times, Acts 6 times) only in Matt. xxi. 19f. The strong Hebraism in Mark vi. 39 is removed in Luke ix. 14, as are also the 136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Aramaic words and names, Mark iii. 16, 18, v. 41, ix. 5, x. 46, 51, xi. 10, xii. 43, xiv. 32, 36, 45, xv. 22, 34. In some cases translations are substi tuted: ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15 (Acts i. 13); ἡ mais Eyeipov, viii. 54 ; emıorara, ix. 33 (v. 5, vill. 45, ix. 49, xvii. 13, where there are no parallels ; viii. 24 for διδάσκαλε) ; κύριε, xvili. 41 (for paßßovvi), ἀληθῶς, xxi. 3 (for ἀμήν removed in xxii. 18 altogether, used only 6 or 7 times in the Gospel). In other cases the Hebrew or Aramaic word, or name, is simply stricken out, xix. 38, xxii. 40, 42, 47, xxiii. 33. In Luke’s writings are found the following Hebrew words: ἀμήν, iv. 24, xii. 37, ete. (used by Jesus only in connection with λέγω ὑμῖν, hence not found in Acts) ; BeeACeSovA, xi. 15-19 (with explanation); yeevva, xii. 5 (but in xvi. 23 döns); πάσχα, 11. 41 (ἡ ἑορτὴ τοῦ m., as in Matt. and Mark); xxii. 1 (with detailed explanation), ef. Acts xii. 3, 4, xxii. 7-15 ; σάββατον and σάββατα, often in the sense of week, xviil. 12, xxiv. 1; Acts xvii. 2, xx. 7, vol. i. 212, n. 5 ; Σατανᾶς 5 times in the Gospel, twice in Acts (also διάβολος from 4 to 6 times in the Gospel ; twice in Acts); σίκερα indeclinable, Luke i. 15 (Isa. xxiv. 9 nom. Num. vi. 3 gen., Deut. xiv. 26, Cod. AF dat., Lev. x. 9 ace.). Luke and Theophilus, who lived in Antioch, were probably familiar with the Syriac words papevas, xvi. 9-13, and βάτος, xvi. 6 (more correctly written βάδους, NLX, Epiph. Mens. xxii. 4. 10, which is the source of the reading in D xadovs), ef. vol. i. 18; regarding the use of Syriac in and about Antioch see Forsch. i. 40 ff. 13. (P. 104.) : The expression ἄνθρ. ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ in Mark i. 23, v. 2 is improved in Luke iv. 33, viii. 27. In two instances ἐξ αὐτοῦ following ἐξελθεῖν, Mark i. 25f., is changed into ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, iv. 35 (cf. iv, 41, v. 8, viii. 29, 33, 35, 38, 46; Acts xvi. 18, xix. 12); ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ, Mark i. 28, is replaced by ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ, Luke iv. 37; in two cases κράβατος, Mark ii. 4, 11, is replaced by κλινίδιον in Luke v. 19, 24, left out altogether in v. 23 (Mark ii. 9) and reproduced by a circumlocution in ν. 25 (Mark ii. 12), while the word is tolerated in Acts v. 15 (along with κλιν άρια) and ix. 33. For words and phrases in parallels in Mark, not altogether polished in character, Luke substitutes the following (those not occurring elsewhere in the N.T. are marked with an *): mapadoga*, v. 26; δοχή, v. 29 (also xiv. 13), ὑγιαίνοντες, v. 31 (also vii. 10, xv. 27); Ixnas*, νη]. 6; δέχεσθαι, viii. 13; ἀποδέχεσθαι, viii. 40, ix. 11 (used similarly 3 or 4 times in Acts) ; reXeohopeiv*, vili. 14; δοκεῖ ἔχειν, Vill. 18; συντυχεῖν rıwı*, vill. 19; λίμνῃ, viii. 22, 23 (also v. 1, 2, viii. 33 always instead of θάλασσα in Mark and Matt. and John, of the sea of Gennesaret) ; διηγεῖσθαι, viii. 39, ix. 10 (Acts ix. 27, xii. 17, διήγησις, Luke i. 1); προσαναλώσασα ὅλον τὸν βίον, Vili. 43°; διαπορεῖν, ix. 7 (Acts v. 24, x. 17; in the middle voice in ii. 12); βρέφη for παιδία, xviii. 15 (i. 41, 44, ii. 12,16; Acts vii. 19) ; ἐξεκρέμετο αὐτοῦ ἀκούων", xix. 48; ἀναθήμασι κεκόσμηται, xxi. 5 ; mpopederav®, xxi. 14 ; amoAoyeiodaı, xxi. 14 (xii. 11, 6 times in Acts). For medical terms cf. § 62. While Luke does not avoid altogether Latin terms, such as ἀσσάριον, xii. 6; δηνάριον, vii. 41, x. 855; Aeyıov, viii. 30; Καῖσαρ (in the Gospel 6 times, in Acts 10 times), which are found also in the other Gospels, he does avoid κεντυρίων (Mark, Luke has instead ἑκατόνταρχος, vii. 2, 6, xxiii. 47, 13 or 14 times in Acts) κουστωδία (Matt., but cf. Acts xii. 4); κῆνσος (Matt., Mark for which Luke xx. 22, xxiii. 2 has φόρος) ; κοδράντης (Matt., Mark for which Luke xxi. 2 has δύο λεπτά, which in Mark xii. 42 is given as the equivalent of one THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 137 quadrans, vol. ii. 504 ; ξέστης (Mark); σπεκουλάτωρ (Mark) ; 'τίτλος (John); φραγελλοῦν (Matt., Mark), see vol. ii. 504. In Luke xx. 24 probably the correct reading is νόμισμα instead of δηνάριον. Neither does Luke use πραιτώριον designating the guard in the passion history (Matt., Mark, John), but only in Acts xxiii. 35. In Acts we have colonia (xvi. 12) and sicaris (xxi. 38). Otherwise Luke uses Greek names for everything Roman (officials, the military, ete.): ἀνθύπατος, ἡγεμών, ἡγεμονεύειν, ἡγεμονία, στρατόπεδον, στρατοπεδάρχης, στρατεύεσθαι (στρατιά, Luke ii. 13; Acts vii. 42 applied to the world of spirits), χιλίαρχος (so used elsewhere only in John xviii. 12; in Mark vi. 21, Rev. vi. 15 more indefinite) ; σπεῖρα (of cohorts, Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1, also in Matt., Mark, John); τετράδιον στρατιωτῶν (Acts xii. 4) ; δεξιολάβος (Acts xxiii. 23) ; παρεμβολή (elsewhere only in Heb. and Rey.). Likewise for Jewish officials and authorities Luke uses only Greek titles: στρατηγός (xxii. 4, 52; Acts iv. 1, v. 24, 26); γερουσία (Acts v. 21); νομικός (6 times elsewhere, only in Matt. xxii. 35); νομοδιδάσκαλος (Luke v. 17; Acts v. 34). 14. (P. 108.) For the Hebrew and Aramaic words in Luke’s writings see n. 12. On Akeldama see vol. i. 28; on Barnabas, vol. i. 30. The translation of the word Tabitha only (Acts ix. 36) is unquestionably correct (cf. Jos. Bell. iv. 3. 5). In xiii. 8 the text is obscure, cf., however, NKZ, xv. 195ff. To the mind of the present writer, Klostermann (Probleme im Apostelt. S. 18) has, with great probability, proved that μεγάλη, Acts viii. 10, was originally xbap or ‘ban (“ The Revealer”), which Luke has misunderstood. 15. (P. 109.) In the parallels between Matt., Mark, Luke there are a few words in which Luke agrees with Matt. against Mark. But in the case of the more important of these there is a suspicion about the correctness of the text, e.g. ὡς ἡ ἄλλη, Luke vi. 10 (omitted by NBL, Old Lat. and Copt.) = Matt. xii. 13, not found in Mark iii. 5; like the preceding ὑγιής, which likewise is genuine only in Matt., it has crept into the text of Luke, only at an earlier date, and, therefore, is found more generally in the MSS. Other agreements may be due to the fact that the translator of Matt. and Luke both made the same changes in the clumsy language of Mark; in which process the former may have been influenced by the latter ; cf. vol. ii. 574 f., 594. 16. (P. 111.) Matt. iv. 1-11 and Luke iv. 1-13 must be based upon a report by Jesus to His disciples, and this is confirmed by Matt. xii. 29; Mark iii. 27; Luke xi. 21f.; also by Luke x. 18, when this saying is rightly understood ; cf. ZKom. Matt. 147 f. 17. (P. 112.) Feine (Hine vorkanonische Überlieferung des Lc. 1891) con- structs, on the basis of material found only in Luke, a Jewish Christian “source,” 1.6. a source which originated in the Christian Church in Palestine before 70, peculiar to Luke. This fourth source Luke used in addition to the other sources, which in learned fashion he adopted, namely, (1) Mark; (2) “ The original synoptic document” (following B. Weiss) ; (3) “Sayings” (Logia). But, according to Feine, Luke probably found this fourth source already combined with the third. In Acts i. 1-viii. 24, ix. 31- xi. 23, xii. 1-24 he finds essentially unaltered a writing closely related to this fourth source, “ possibly ” (8. 236, 244) in some way combined with it into a whole. 138 INTRODUCTION TO ‘THE NEW TESTAMENT 18. (P. 114.) It is to be assumed that the subordinate characters ir the gospel history, who are mentioned by name in the Gospels (Jairus, Bartimeeus, Simon of Cyrene, Alexander, Rufus, Nicodemus, Lazarus) were more or less widely known in the apostolic age as members of the Church, as was also the rich, small statured chief publican of Jericho. According to Clement, Hom. iii. 64-71; Recogn. iii. 65-68; cf. Hom. ii. 1, xvii. 1.6; Recogn. ii. 1, he became bishop of Ceesarea. Of the fifteen Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusalem before 132 or 135 the fourth to be mentioned is a Zaccheeus (Kus. H. E. iv. 5. 3), or, according to Epiph. Her. Ixvi. 20, Zacharias, which, however, is only the full Hebrew form for the Aramaic abbreviation; ef. Dalman, Aram. Gr.? 178. For further a Ses of the subject see Forsch. vi. 291 f., 500 ἢ. 19. (P. 114.) Luke x. 30-37 is freer from Semiticisms than other passages peculiar to this Gospel. In xv.-xvi., xviii. 1-14 also, notwith- standing thoroughly Jewish expressions and ideas (xv. 18, 21, 24, 32, xvi. 8, 9 [n. 11], 22, xviii. 6), a fairly good style is to be observed. Naturally one speaks of heaven and hell (xvi. 22f., xxiii. 43) in a different way than of the happenings of a journey and of inns (x. 30-35). . 20. (P. 117.) J. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1848, 3rd ed. 1866; A. Breusing, director of the naval academy in Bremen (Die Nautik der Alten, 1886, S. 142-205). In his introduction, p. xiii, Breusing says: “The most valuable nautical document preserved to us from antiquity is the description of the sea journey and shipwreck of the apostle Paul. Every seaman recognises at once that it must have been written by an eye-witness.” Th. Mommsen (Sitzungsber. d. berl. Ak. 1895, S. 503) has not increased his reputation by his scornful remark, that “ Luke speaks of the Adriatic Sea in the vicinity of Crete, and of the Barbarians on the island of Malta.” Even Strabo (pp. 123, 317) knows ’Adpias to be the common name of the Adriatic proper and of the Ionian sea; and in Ptolemeus (iii. 4. 1, ef. Pausan. viii. 54. 2) it ineludes also the Sicilian (or Ausonian) sea. Just as Strabo (p. 123) remarks that the Sicilian sea reaches to the western end of Crete and to the Peloponnesus, so Ptolemeeus says (111. 17. 1) that Crete is bounded on the west by the Adriatic sea. Luke, whose chronological position is between Strabo and Ptolemzeus, had no more occasion than did Josephus (Vita, 3) to make an accurate geo- graphical statement regarding the scope of the term ’Adpias, but, like Ptolem®us and Josephus, he seems to have made it include the entire sea lying between Crete and Sicily (Acts xxvii. 27); for during the fourteen days (xxvii, 27, 33) after land was lost sight of on the south-west coast of Orete, namely, the island Cauda (xxvii. 16 B vg, also 51 not Clauda, called now Gavdos or Gozzo), until shortly before the stranding of the ship on Malta it was tossed about in the Adriatic sea. Mommsen’s mocking remark deserves even less credence than the claim that Luke included Malta in the Adriatic sea, upon which W. Falconer (Dissertat. on St. Paul’s Voyage and on the Apostle’s Shipwreck on the Island of Melite, 1817, 2nd ed., by Th. Falconer, 1870) based the hypothesis that Melite is to be identified with the modern Meleda, on the Illyricum coast. But the inference would be wrong in any case (cf. Breusing, 8. 150). Proeopius (de Bell. Vand. i. 14) makes the islands of Gaulos and Malta the boundary between the Adriatic and 'THE FIRST ‘THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τς Tyrrhenian seas. That Luke’s view was the same cannot be proved. It would be pedantic, in order to make Luke agree with Ptolemeus (iii. 4. 1, cf. iv. 3. 47), to require him to say that during the last of the fourteen days the ship passed the longitude of Cape Pachynos, so that when Paul landed on Malta he was no longer in the Adriatic (Siculum) sea, but in the African sea. With reference to the βάρβαροι on the island of Melita (Acts xxviii. 1, 4), it is difficult to understand how Mommsen knows that in the year 60 the Punic language had died out on this island, which was long a part of the dominions of Carthage—its name Melita being in fact a Punic name—and was also an old Pheenician colony (Movers, Die Phönizier, ii. 2. 347-358 ; ef, the inscriptions in Schröder, Die phön. Sprache, 8. 232-235), especially in view of the fact that on the mainland opposite there were extensive regions where it remained the dominant language until within the fifth century (GK, i. 40-42 ; Movers in Ersch and Gruber, Eneye., article “ Phonizien,” 433f.). Of the twelve existing coins which were struck on the island of Malta between the time of Roman annexation (218 2.c.) and Augustus (A. Mayr, Die antiken Munzen der Inseln Malta, Gozzo, and Pantelleria, Miinchen, 1894, especially S. 18f.), numbers 1 to 4 are Punic, from 5 to 10 are Greek and Latin, and 12 is Latin. Punic and Greek coins were struck cotemporaneously: All that Luke says is that the fishermen, sailors, and peasants whom those who were shipwrecked first met did not know Greek. On account of the close connection between Punic and ancient Hebrew, it is quite possible that Paul understood at once the words of the Barbarians (xxviii. 4). The landed proprietor Publius, with whom those who were shipwrecked, or at least part of them,—among these the three Christians in the company,—spent three days as guests, and most of the inhabitants of the city where they spent three months (xxviii. 11) may have understood and spoken Latin, or Greek, or both. Luke shows his knowledge of actual conditions in Malta by the use of the title ὁ πρῶτος τῆς νήσου, xxviii. 7, which is attested for this island by ©. I. @. No. 5754=Kaibel 1. @. Sicilie, No. 601: ἱππεὺς Ῥωμαίων, πρῶτος Μελιταίων καὶ πάτρων. C. I. L. x. No. 7495, municipti Melitensium primus ommium, according to the addenda to this inscription, p. 994, dating from the first or second century. 21. (P. 118.) The literary relation of Acts to the letters of Paul is not carefully investigated by those critics, who are most under obligation to do so, because of the late date which they assign to Acts, and because of the conscious modification of the Pauline history which they assume. ZELLER speaks very incidentally (S. 518f.) of “the Pauline letters,” and especially of Gal., as sources of Acts. OVERBECK (p. lix) claims in a mere remark—as if this question were not of fundamental importance in any critical estimate of Acts, that while as a matter of course Luke was acquainted with the genuine Epistles of Paul, as evidenced by ix. 19-30, xv. 1-33, xviii. 24-28, these Epistles were “not among the sources of Acts.” There is, however, nothing added to explain this, which Overbeck calls “a characteristic fact.” JACOBSEN (Quellen der AG, 1885, S. 8 ff.), on the other hand, represents the author of Acts as elaborating the most important statements and narratives even of chaps. i.-xii. from the hints in Paul’s letters, while Steck (Gal. 1888, S. 78-151) thinks that he is able to show that the author of the four “ chief 140 INTRODUCTION "TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Epistles” presupposed and utilised Acts and perhaps even the Gospel οἱ Luke (S. 191-211). 22. (P. 119.) The reading ἐπιστολήν for ἐντολήν (Acts xvii. 15 ES! “And when they parted from him they received from him a letter to Silas and Timothy”) is untrustworthy, and, if genuine, would refer to a lost letter. 23. (P. 121.) Paul refers to his Pharisaism in the description of his condition before conversion, Phil. iii. 5f.; Gal. i. 14; Luke does not refer to this until much later, and then in a different connection, Acts xxiii. 6, xxvi. 5, and the expression ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων, Gal. i, 14=Acts xxii. 3, is not at all striking ; ef. Acts xxi. 20. There is nothing in Luke which reminds us of the bold figure in 1 Cor, xv. 8. The fact that besides the more common διώκειν (1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 13, 23; Phil. iii. 6; 1 Tim. i, 13) πορθεῖν is used twice by Paul (Gal. i. 13, 23) and once by Luke (Acts ix. 21) proves nothing ; Philo also, ὁ. Flace. vili., calls the Jew baiting in Alexandria πορθεῖν Ἰουδαίους. In the description of the flight from Damascus in Acts ix. 341. and 2 Cor. xi. 32 all the words are different, until the designation of the city wall, which it was necessary for both to mention, and except χαλᾶν, which is used by Luke elsewhere (Luke y. 4,5; Acts xxvii. 17, 30); Paul: ἐφρούρει τὴν πόλιν .. . πιάσαι pe. διὰ θυρίδος ἐν σαργάνῃ. διὰ τοῦ τείχους ; Luke: παρετηροῦντο τὰς πύλας ἡμέρας τε καὶ νυκτός, ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀνέλωσιν, λαβόντες δὲ. .. νυκτὸς διὰ τοῦ τείχους καθῆσαν αὐτὸν χαλάσαντες ἐν σπυρίδι. (On this point cf. NKZ, xv. 34-41. 24, (P. 125.) Clement of Rome possesses independent knowledge about the end of Paul’s life (1 Cor. v.; vol. ii. 68f.), but nevertheless refers the Corinthians in chap. xlvii. to 1 Cor., as if it were the first letter in a collection of Pauline letters (cf. GK, i, 812f.). Ignatius (Eph. xii. 2; Rom. iv. 3) and Polycarp (Phil. iii. 2, xi, 3) uniformly treat Paul as the author of the letters that pass under his name (vol. i. 535, n. 3; GK, i. 811- 822), although they were not unfamiliar with Acts (GA, i. 923). Marcion confines himself entirely to the letters, and leaves Acts out of account altogether. The schools of Basilides and Valentinus made large use of the Epistles, while it is impossible to prove certainly that they utilised Acts (GK, ii. 751-763, 773). In the Acts of Paul, including the Acts of, Thecla and in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, we find the Epistles of Paul just as much noticed or imitated as Acts (GK, ii. 854 f., 887-889, 903-909, i. 783, 787- 789). 25. (P. 127.) On p. 127 above, in xii, 25-xiii, 9, the a text is pre- supposed. 88 and p have ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Παῦλος after Σαῦλος in xii, 25, and the latter alone, Παῦλος instead of Σαῦλος in xiii. i, 2 also, but see p, 28, n. 6 above. If, in view of xi, 25,30, it is probable that SavAos was used in Antioch when Paul first came to the city, the scantily attested| Παῦλος in xiii. 1, 2 is improbable, and for the recurrence of Σαῦλος in xiii. 7 there is no sufficient reason, and the addition in xii. 25 is superfluous. For the two names see vol. i. 69f. It is very possible that Paul’s, own companions, Barnabas and Mark, up to this time had used Aramaic in conversing with him, hence had called him Σαῦλος. From the time, however, when they found it necessary to use Greek they called him Παῦλος, 26, (P. 129.) The following are Hebraistic expressions in Acts i.-xül.: THE FIRST THREE (GOSPELS AND ACTS 141 διὰ χειρὸς (χειρῶν), ii. 23, ν. 12, vii. 25, xi. 30; οἷ, ἐν or σὺν χειρί, Vil. 35, alse xiv. 3, xv. 23, xix. 11; ἐκ χειρός, xii. 11; Luke i. 71, 74, also xxiv. 7; ἦν χεὶρ κυρίου per αὐτῶν, xi. 21, elsewhere only in Luke i. 66, but ef. also Acts iv. 28, 30, xiii. 11; διὰ στόματος, 1. 16, iii. 18, 21, iv. 25 (Luke i. 70), alse xv. 7, ef. xxii. 14; Luke xi. 54, xix. 22, xxi. 71; ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα, viii. 35, x. 34 (viii. 32 quotation), cf. xviii. 14; ἠκούσθη eis τὰ Gra, xi. 22, cf. Luke i. 44; Matt. x. 27; Jas. v. 4; ἰδού, 16 times in chaps. i.-xii., only 7 times in chaps. xiii—xxviii, see above, p. 135, n. 11. 27. (P. 129.) E. Nesrne has repeatedly attempted to explain the variations of Cod. D and the allied MSS. from the commonly accepted. text in Acts, on the supposition that they are different translations of the same Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, or due to variations in this, original (ChW, 1895, off print, 5. 6; Philol. sacra, 1896, 8. 39 ff.; ThStKr, 1896, S. 102f.). This is conceivable, if, with D. Schultz (De cod. Cantabrig. 1827, p- 16), we may regard the text of D as a later form of the text, dependent upon a Syriac translation of Acts; but this theory is irreconcilable with the view that both a and ps originated with the author, and that 8 represents his original draft of the book. For, in view of the language conditions of the time, it is impossible to believe that one so thoroughly Greek in character as the Antiochian physician Luke, the author of the prologue, and the author or redactor of the entire Lucan work, could have read a Hebrew book. To every thousand Jews (Syrians, Copts) who at that time were able to read, write, and speak Greek, there could not at most have been more than one Greek who had obtained a corresponding knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. And the present writer confesses that he has sought this rara avis in vain. A few words and expressions were occasionally picked up from the natives (Forsch. i. 41), but it occurred to no educated Greek or Roman to learn their language in a systematic way (vol. i. 34 ff.), Except in cases where a Greek pastor was assigned to a region where only Syriac was used (Forsch. i. 43), this was not done until Christians, such as Origen and Jerome, studied Hebrew in the interest of theology, Among these Aquila would be included, if he were actually a native Gentile and a Greek. 28. (P. 129.) Soawanseck, Uber die Quellen der Schriften des Le., vol. i. (the only vol.) ; der AG, 1847; ZELLER, 8. 489-524. Jaconsen, Quellen der AG, 1885; Soror, Entstehung der AG, 1890; Spitta, Die AG, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtl. Wert, 1891 ; GERCKE, Hermes, 1894, S. 373-392; Der δεύτερος λόγος des Le. und die AG; FEINE, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung des Le. 1891; Jüngst, Quellen der AG, 1895. Cf. the review by Zöckler, Greifswalder Stud. 1895, S. 107-145: “Die AG als Gegenstand höherer und niederer Kritik.” It would be useless to undertake to review the separäte hypotheses of the scholars mentioned. It will be sufficient to illustrate the conception of the redactor of the entire work, if attention be called to Spitta’s idea of his work in writing down Acts ii. 1 (S. 23, 51). In the A source the outpouring of the Spirit was connected with the choice of an apostle by the words καὶ ev τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι, to which the indulgent reader was left to supply αὐτούς or τὸν ἀριθμόν, sc. τῶν ἀποστόλων. At the moment when the number of the apostles was complete they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. In the B source the story began with the words, 142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT “But when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together." The redactor, however, misunderstood A, and out of A and B constructed the alleged bungling construction of ii. 1. The only conceivable motive for the retention of συμπληροῦσθαι, which was misunderstood,—also entirely unintelligible in A,—would be the childish fondness of the redactor for this word, which is found elsewhere only in Luke viii. 23, ix. 51, and used here inaccurately, as in Luke ix. 51. For also in Luke ix. 51 it is not the time until the taking up, which is said to be fulfilled,—the natural expression,— but the time at which the taking up oceurs. Itis the same common shift- ing of the idea that we have in the πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός of Mark 1. 15; John vii. 8, and other similar combinations (cf. Luke ix. 31; John iii. 29). In this way it comes about that a point of time or an event which really marks the conclusion of a period at the end of which these are expected, is itself said to be fulfilled. $ 62. THE AUTHOR OF THE WORK ATTRIBUTED TO LUKE AND THE TIME OF ITS COMPOSITION. Assuming that the “we” passages, Acts xvi. 10-18, xx. 5-xxi. 18, xxvii. 1-xxvi. 16, were written by a travelling companion of Paul’s, either in the form m which we now possess them, or at least in substance (above, p. 115f.), it is entirely arbitrary to attribute their composition to some person other than Luke, to whom they are assigned by the tradition, whether it be to TimoTHy or Sıras (Silvanus) or Trrus (n. 1). The first two names are excluded because both are mentioned in the third person and by name in xy. 22- xviii. 5, directly before and directly after the first long “we” passage. Timothy is mentioned again in xix. 22 and once more in xx. 4, directly before the “we” re- appears. The sudden transition from the impersonal designation of one of these persons, “ Silas or Timothy,” to “I,” which is implied by the use of ‘ we,” and especi- ally the contrast between one group of individuals, which includes Timothy, and a second group, which includes Paul and the narrator speaking in the first, person (Acts xx. 4-6), would not only make the narrative: incredibly awkward, or introduce into it a needless element of mystery, but would be positively meaningless (above, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 143 p. 86 f., nn. 11-13). Moreover, if the “we” im xi. 27 is original (above, p. 4, n. 3; 28, n. 6), Silas and Timothy are excluded. Silas was not at this time a resident of Antioch, but of Jerusalem (xv. 22), and Timothy had not yet become a Christian ; for it was not until very much later that the gospel reached the province where he lived (xiv. 6, xvi. 1). Furthermore, Silas is not mentioned as one of Paul’s companions in any of the letters written from Rome. But, according to Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, the narrator accompanied Paul to Rome, and, unless we assume that a strange accident took place, he was, like Aristarchus (xxvii. 2), whom we meet again in Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, one of the persons mentioned in Col. i. 1, iv. 7-14; Philem. 1, 23 f. Since Paul took Titus with him from Antioch to the apostolic council after the first missionary journey (Gal. ii. 1), possibly he may be concealed behind the “we” of Acts xi. 27. Since, moreover, he is not mentioned at all in the prevailing text of Acts (see, however, above, p. 28, n. 6), some of the difficulties disappear in which we are involved when we assume that the “we” passages were written by Silas or Timothy. But Titus could not have been the author of the “we” passages, because there is nothing to indicate that he accompanied Paul to Rome, or was with him there during the first imprisonment. It has already been remarked (above, p. 117) that, if, without reference to the aneient tradition, we were under necessity of conjecturing which one of Paul’s friends who were with him in Rome wrote the account of the journey in Acts xxvii., the choice would most naturally fall upon the physician Luke. | But, in addition, there is an ancient and unanimous tradition which represents Luke as the author of the entire work, 1.6. identifies him with the person speaking in Luke i. 1-4; Acts i. 1, also, how- ever, with the person associated with Paul and his 144 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ce other travelling companions in the “we” passages of Acts. It is impossible to explain this tradition unless there are at least good reasons for assuining that Luke is the author of the “we” passages. For it is inconceivable that Luke should be the author of the entire work and at the same time have appropriated for his own use, in different parts of his work accounts of journeys written by Titus, or some third party, without so much as changing the inappropriate “we” into the third person. A man with the literary training of the writer of these two books could not have made such a blunder unintentionally (n, 2), Nor could a man like Luke, who was so closely associated with Paul and the events narrated, have endeavoured to deceive his readers by borrowing the journal of another disciple of Paul’s and by retaining the “we” used in these accounts. He did. not need to borrow a mask; his own authority was sufficient. In this case it would be neces- sary to assume at once’ that some later writer, out of touch with the events which he was about to narrate, sought by the retention of the “we,” which he found in one of his exemplars, to create the impression that he was an eye-witness. And, as a matter of fact, this is the assumption made by those who grant that Luke was the author of the “we” passages, but not of the entire work (n. 3). But this hypothesis is in itself incredible and incapable of explaining the tradition. One unacquainted with the original work would not notice the fact that in Acts several of its passages had been borrowed, and hence could not in this way be led to believe that Luke, who may have been known as the author of the original work, was the author of the much later compilation. But the same would be true also of the reader, who was acquainted with the original work, and who knew that Luke was; its author; since such a person would detect the plagiarism and could not possibly confuse a large historical work, consisting of two books, with a work by Luke of, an THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 145 entirely different character, because of a few chapters incorporated from the latter. Nor is any such deception to be attributed to the author of the Lucan work; for if this were his purpose, then the means which he chose in order to pass himself off for Luke, the friend of Paul, were ridiculously inadequate. In the preface he would be merely suggesting that, in the course of the history which he is about to set forth, he became an eye-witness of the events which he records, and a helper in the proclamation of the gospel. And, indeed, in such a delicate way that modern readers can deny that the passage really contains the author's testimony to himself which we have found it to contain (above, pp. 46f., 54f.). When he comes to deal with the events where he wanted the reader to think that he was an eye-witness, when he was not, he would be concealing his identity by the use of a “we,” which clearly includes several persons, without indicating the specific person for whom he wishes himself to be taken, and with- out relating how he became a companion of Paul.. Why did he not use one of the unmistakable methods employed by the classical historians, or by Polybius, or Josephus, or Porphyry, when they wanted to make clear to their readers things about themselves and their personal rela- tions to the facts which they recorded (above, p. 86, n. 11)? Anyone having such a purpose, no matter how stupid he was, could not have failed to make use of means which were suited to accomplish it. In particular, judging by all analogous cases, the deceptive intention of the author to pass himself off for Luke must have betrayed itself in a bold use of unmistakable designations of himself (n, 4). The modest way in which the author refers to himself in the hints of the prologue, and the corresponding manner in which he introduces himself in Acts xi. 27, and from xvi. 10 onwards, is evidence of his truthfulness. If there is no reasonable ground for denying the Lucan VOL. III. Io 146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT authorship of the “ we” passages, he is to be regarded also as the author of the entire work. The burden of proof rests with those who deny this claim, not with those who find no reason to question the agreement of the tradition with the witness of the book to its author. But this latter conclusion is otherwise supported both by the con- tents and by the style of the entire work. Against the proof based upon similarity of language in the “we” passages and other parts of the work (above, pp. 79, 92, n. 28), it is argued, either that the redactor of the entire work introduced long interpolations in xx. 5—xxviii. 31, or that he revised thoroughly the style of the sources which he used. Thus it will be seen that this evidence is met, not by counter arguments, but by hypotheses. The first of. these assumptions can never be positively proved, and against the second stands the fact that Luke admitted into his work the greatest variety of style (above, p. 104). His revision of the style of such narra- tives as he took from Mark was due to the clumsiness of their language, particularly to their strongly Hebraised character. That, however, the account of the journey written by one of Paul’s companions would have required as much revision as Mark’s Gospel is very unlikely. W. K. Hopart (n. 5) has proved to the satisfaction of anyone open to conviction, that the author of the: Lucan work was familiar with the technical language of Greek medicine, and hence was a Greek physician. It is not to be judged as a coincidence that Luke alone preserves the proverb used by Jesus, “ Physician, heal thyself” (iv. 23), that he only of the four evangelists who tell the story of the wounding of Malchus’ ear, also related that it was healed by Jesus (xxii. 51), and that in the description of Jesus’ healing work he sometimes writes more fully than does Mark, and with greater vividness, notwithstanding the fact that in the sections which he borrows from Mark he frequently omits unnecessary details, The friends of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 147 the woman stricken with fever consult the physician. He approaches the bedside, bends over the patient, and rebukes the fever as He does elsewhere the evil spirits (iv. 38f.=Mark 1. 30f.). It did not seem natural to a physician after the restoration of the maiden to life, that Jesus should first have forbidden those present to make the fact known, and then have given the medical instruc- tions that the child be supplied with something to’ eat (Mark v. 43). So he reverses the order (Luke viii. 55 f.). Just as in the accounts of cases of healing peculiar to his Gospel, Luke often indicates how long the person healed had been afflicted (xiii. 11; Acts in. 2, iv. 22, ix. 33, xiv. 8, only Luke viii. 43 has parallels in Matthew and Mark), so in vii. 27-29 he inserts such a notice in an older account (Mark v. 2), with the added remark that the person possessed of the evil spirit would not endure clothing upon his body, a fact which has been observed by physi- cians (Hobart, p. 14). It is Luke alone who accurately indicates that it was the right hand which was healed (vi. 6), and who notes that healing was accomplished by the laying on of hands (iv. 40), where mention of this act is not made in Matthew (villi. 16) or in Mark (i. 34), Luke alone describes vividly the physical side of Jesus’ struggle in prayer*(xxii. 43f.). Out of consideration for himself and his fellow practitioners, Luke does not omit the humiliating confession that the believing touch of Jesus’ garment brought healing where long and expensive treatment by physicians had accomplished nothing (Luke vill. 43, n. 6). It is even more significant that Luke everywhere avoids the inaccurate popular designations of diseases and kindred things, and uses the technical language of medical writers. It will also be observed that Luke often uses, in describing other objects and relations, words with which a physician must have been familiar in his practice, and which, therefore, occur with very great frequency in the writings of the Greek physi- 148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT cians (n. 5). The erowning proof of the composition οὗ the entire work by the physician Luke is the fact, first, that these peculiarities are found in those sections of Luke which have parallels in Matthew and Mark ; secondly, that they recur in other parts of the entire work, or, at least, have their analogies; and thardly, that they consist of words and expressions which are to be found in the N.T. in no other writings save those of Luke, or occur here with greater frequency than in all other N.T. writings. These facts cannot, therefore, be explained on the ground that one of the sources used by the author of the entire work was written by a trained physician, but from the fact that the author of the entire work—the person who worked over the older narratives of Mark and also of other writers who are unknown to us—must himself have been an educated physician. It would require a complete historical commentary to answer fully all the arguments that have been advanced against the composition of the Lucan work by a friend of Paul’s. While the theologians have persistently charged Luke with ignorance of the historical conditions and personages with which he deals, historians and. investi- gators of antiquity of the first rank, who have gone into the matter with great care, declare Acts especially to be throughout an important and, in the main, trustworthy historical document (n. 7). Whereas all the apocryphal literature of the second century (the Gospels of James, Thomas, and Peter; Acts of Pilate, Paul [ineluding the Acts of Thecla|, Peter, John, etc.) clearly betray in the Christian and even more in the non-Christian, characters which they introduce, and in their portrayal of political conditions in Palestine and in the empire, the influence of the N.T., and consist almost entirely of fantastic stories, Luke’s account is everywhere confined to facets which we are able to verify from other sources, On the subject of Jewish history from 4 B.c. to 60 A.D., THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 149 Luke’s information is independent of Josephus, and for the earlier decades of the period, is sometimes more reliable (above, pp. 95 ff, 131), for example, with reference to the official position of Quirinius and the time when he held office (above, p. 96). It is possible that in what Luke says about Theudas (Acts v. 36) there is a great chronological error (above, p. 132, n. 6), but this cannot be proved from the conflieting account by Josephus. In any case Luke did not compose the speech in which this error is supposed to be found, but took it from some older source which he may not have been able to correct in this minor point. The case is different when he is dealing with subjects that come properly within the scope of Christian history, for example, in what he says concerning the Fabian policy of the Pharisees toward. Christianity, prior to the death of Stephen, as distinguished from the attitude of the Sadducees, which alone enables us to explain the entrance of Pharisaism into the Christian Church (xv. 5), and without which it would be impossible historically to explain Paul’s development. Here his testimony is historically unimpeachable. Consequently progress in our knowledge concerning Jewish parties is to be made, not along the lines suggested by Geiger and Wellhausen,—by more thorough study of the Talmud or of Josephus,—but by a better appreciation of the words ἡ οὖσα αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων in Acts v. 17. Luke is even better acquainted with conditions and persons in the provinces and eities which were the scene of Paul’s labours than he is with Jewish conditions. The proconsuls Sergius Paulus and Gallio (xii. 7, xvii. 12) are historical personages, and, so far as we are able to determine the date of their respective terms of office in Cyprus and Achaia, there is no contradiction to the prob- able chronology of Paul’s life and work (Part XI.). In the investigation of Paul’s letters we have frequently found the notices of Acts confirmed by inscriptions and writings, 150 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT for example, with regard to the politarchs in Thessalonica and the population of Philippi (vol. 1. 211 ἢ, 532f.). Here there is no difference between the “ we” passages and other parts of Acts. No success has attended the effort to explain the uprising of the silversmiths (Acts xix. 23 ff.) by assuming that it is simply a misinterpretation of an official title (n. 8). It is impossible to determine in separate instances to what extent Luke, in recording the longer discourses of Peter and of Paul, made use of the liberty often taken by the ancient historian freely to reconstruct their form, in the light of his knowledge of persons and conditions involved. Nor do we know how far these could have been taken from the reports of persons who heard them (e.g. xvii. 34, xxv. 23, cf. xxiv. 23). But it is only necessary to compare the addresses recorded by Luke; with. the miserable harangues which Josephus puts into the mouths of his heroes, in order to see that Luke was not only much better educated than Josephus, but that he regarded much more seriously the obligation of historical accuracy. The strongest proof of Luke’s thorough acquaintance with what he undertook to set forth is the fact that, without consultation of Paul’s letters as sources (above, p. 118 ff.), Luke’s accounts, in their main outlines and in a great many of their details, are in thorough agreement with them. In addition to what has been already said incidentally in numerous passages of the earlier volumes, the following points may be noted here. In Acts the progress of Paul’s ministry is marked not only by visions and revelations (ix. 3-9, xiii. 2, xvi. 6-10, xvill. 9, xx. 29, xxi, 11, xxii. 17-21, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 23), by notable cases of healing (xiv. 8-10, xix. 11-17), and similar miracles (xiii. 11, xvi. 18, xx. 9, xxviii, 3-6), but also by natural phenomena of the most extraordinary character (Xvi. 26-30). But all this is in accord with Paul’s own testi- mony. In addition to the revelation of Christ to which THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 151 he owed his faith and calling (Gal. 1. 12-16 ; 1.Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8), the visions of a later time which he could never forget (2 Cor. xii. 1-4; Gal. ii. 1), and his participation in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. χιῖν. 18), he refers to signs, wonders (τέρατα), and mighty works which prove his right to exercise his apostolic calling (2 Cor. xu. 11-12; Rom. xy. 19), and which, if need be, will again establish his right to punish evil-doers (1 Cor. v. 3-5; 2 Cor. x. 4, xii. 2-10)... It shows a lack of careful thinking when the letters of Paul mentioned above are accepted as genuine, but the authorship of the correspond- ing narratives in Acts, or the entire book of which these narratives are a part, by a friend of Paul’s and by an eye-witness of some of these things, is denied, because of the miraculous element which it contains. Literary and historical criticism have nothing to do with the question as to the nature of these events and why it was that they influenced so strongly the consciousness of Paul and those about him. | By the “very chiefest apostles,” in contrast to whom Paul speaks of the signs and wonders which were done through him (2 Cor. xi. 11 f.); are meant, not the original apostles, but the followers of Peter, who were not willing to admit that Paul’s apostleship was on a par with that of Peter (vol. i. 288f.). The very fact that in making this contrast Paul calls these miraculous signs τὰ σημεῖα Tod ἀποστόλου, shows that in this respect also he claimed to be the equal of the older apostles, especially of Peter (cf. also 1 Cor. ix. 1-5, xv. 5-11). But this comparison is not something new, suggested now for the first time by his opposition to the Petrine party. But, according to Gal. ii. 7-9, at the apostolic council the same comparison was made between Peter and Paul, and the fact that God owned and blessed Paul’s preaching in exactly the same way that He did Peters made a profound impression. Even then this was the effect produced by. the stories 152 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT told in Jerusalem by the missionaries to the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 2; Acts xv. 3, 12, σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, cf. xxi. 19). There is no occasion, therefore, because of a certain parallelism in Acts between the miraculous deeds and experiences of Peter and of Paul to question the historicity of these accounts (n. 9). If Luke, in choosing from the abundance of material at his disposal, brought out this relation, he was led to do so only under the influence of a Pauline idea, or, as is more probable, by an uplifting experience of apostolic Christianity. In summarising the main ideas that pervade the entire work (above, p. 69 ff.), it has been repeatedly observed that the author was influenced by ideas not found in the N.T. except in Paul’s writings. The claim that Luke represents the attitude of Paul toward legalistic Jewish Christianity as one of yielding to it, thereby sacrificing historical accuracy and contradicting the fundamental principles of Paul, cannot be substantiated. The circum- cision of Timothy, which, if it had not actually happened, would be, as an invention, in the most glaring contradiction to history, is testified to by Paul himself (vol. i. 538, 182). The Paul of Acts, who, on the one hand, denies that the observing of the law has any saving efficacy, either for Jews or Gentiles, attributing this power to faith in Christ (xiii. 38f, cf. Luke xv. 1-32, xviii. 9-14, vil. 36-50), and who will not suffer the Mosaic law to be forced upon the Gentile Christians, but, on the other hand, is eager to keep Jewish feasts in Jerusalem (xx. 16, cf. xx. 6, accord- ing to 8, also xviii. 21), has no objections to the assump- tion of vows by Jewish Christians (xviii. 18), and on one occasion himself takes part in such an act (xxi. 26),—this Paul is none other than the Paul of the letters. In fact, Paul never required Jewish Christians to give up the observance of the law. Even in Churches, where there were both Jews and Gentiles, the former might retain their Judaism as a religious non-essential, in so far as it THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 153 did not conflict with higher ends (1 Cor. vii. 18£.; Gal.v. 6, vi. 15; Rom. xiv. 5f., vol. 1. 422 1.) Consequently he was able to deny the false report that he compelled the Jews of the diaspora to renounce the law (Acts xxi. 21). He repre- sents his own emancipation from the law as being for the sake of his calling, a renunciation of rights which were legitimate, and of his natural Jewish manner of life (1 Cor. ix. 21, ef. Gal. iv. 12). On the other hand, he asserts with equal clearness that, notwithstanding his inward freedom from the law, he observes it for the sake of the Jews, with whom his calling brought him into contact (1 Cor. ix. 20). For this reason the so-called apostolic decree cannot be regarded as contradictory to Paul’s account in Gal. 1]. 1-10, nor treated as an invention, made on the basis of customs in vogue in the Church at a later time; because, by the end of the first century, some of its stipulations had become obsolete and after that time were nowhere strictly observed (n. 10). The literal fulfilment of all its requirements—in some quarters down to the Middle Ages, and even to the present time—was due entirely to the tendency to observe the letter of this apostolic command. The fact that, in his short account in Gal. 11. 1-10, Paul does not mention abstinence from the four things men- tioned, which were not the only, nor by any means the principal, contents of the decree, is no argument against its historical character. For, in the first place, this requirement had nothing to do with Paul’s relation to the original apostles and the mother Church, which is the only question under discussion in Galatians. The missionaries to the Gentiles were not commissioned to enforce these regulations upon the Gentile Christians, but the mother Church dealt with them directly through her own am- bassadors. In the second place, the resolution did not affect intercourse between the Gentile and Jewish Chris- tians, concerning which not a single word is said in Acts xv. The Jewish Christians who desired to live according 154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to the law, could not associate in social life and worship even with Gentile Christians who observed the four re- strictions, without constantly being made ceremonially unclean. In the third place, the decree was no concession to the Judaisers; since the recommendation to abstain from the four things specified was not intended as a substitution of a partial observance of the law for a full compliance with its demands. On the contrary, it was meant to free the Gentile Christians entirely from. the legal yoke, which already had its advocates among the rabbis in every city (xv. 19-21, cf. ver. 10). In the fourth place, it represented no compromise between the missionaries to the Gentiles and the Judaisers. On the contrary, while the work of the former was unconditionally recognised (ver. 25ff.), that of the latter was unconditionally condemned (vv. 10, 19, 24). In the fifth place, it was not a new command, observance of which was made a condition for the recognition of men as Christians. The Christian character of the Gentile Christians is acknow- ledged from the outset as unconditionally as that of their missionaries (vv. 8-11, 14, 19, 23), and it was not the recognition of their Christian character, but their well- being as Gentile Christians, which is represented as dependent upon their abstinence from, the four things specified (ver. 29). Finally, in the svwth place, nothing whatever is said about commands and requirements, but mention is made only of a communication by letter (ver. 20, ἐπιστεῖλαι, cf. xxi. 25), which was received joyfully by those to whom it was sent, being regarded by them as an encouraging word, as were also the oral communications of those by whom the message was brought (ver. 31 f. some- what in the sense of 1 Pet. v. 12)... For this reason it is not to be supposed that the Gentile Christians in Antioch had not heretofore abstained from the things mentioned, that Paul had not demanded it of them, and that the requirement was now laid upon them for the first time as THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 155 a new burden. If only they continue to abstain from these things (ver. 29, διατηροῦντες), it will go well with them. The fact that the Council in Jerusalem had reached this decision made it natural for the missionaries to at once enjoin abstinence in these four particulars upon the more recently organised Churches of Lycaonia, but that does not in any way affect the fact that the principal point in the decree was the recognition of the right of the Gentiles to live as they had lived heretofore, unfettered by the law, and that the accompanying recommendation of abstinence in the four particulars mentioned set the Council’s approval upon a Christian custom in process, of formation in the Churches of Antioch and Cilicia. This custom spread in the missionary Churches among the Gentiles. The attitude of the majority in the Corinthian Church regarding the question about meats offered to idols, as well as the laxity of their opinions concerning un- chastity, were opposed to the general Christian practice (1 Cor. x. 32, vol. 1. 297, n. 7). Gradually the require- ments, which from the beginning were of minor import- ance, namely, abstinence from blood and things strangled, were no longer observed, with the result that the text of the decree as preserved by Luke was misinterpreted and modified in many ways (above, p. 33 £.). Luke would not have incorporated this document in his work—especially in a book intended for Theophilus, who was still outside the Church—if already in his time the progress of Christian morals had made the stipulations of the decree in some respects antiquated, as they were at the time when Revela- tion and the Didache were written (n. 10). The Lucan work must, therefore, have been written somewhat earlier than the close of the first century. This we have already seen to be the case, because of the author's entire independence of the Pauline letters (above, p. 118 ff.), and because he had no knowledge of any Gospel written by an apostle, in particular of our Greek Matthew (above, 156 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT pp. 50, 108 ἢ). Furthermore, if the reasons for the com: position of the whole work by Luke have been shown to be as strong as the objections to it are weak, and if Luke was a member of the Church in Antioch as early as the year 40 (above, p. 2), it is not likely that it was written later than the year 85; especially if that Lucius of Cyrene, who in the years 40-50 is mentioned by name as a teacher of the same Church—therefore at that time no longer a young man—was still alive when Acts was written (above, p. 28, n. 6). On the other hand, it eould not well have been written before the year 70. The use of Mark, which at the earliest was not written before the year 67, brings us almost down to the year 70. Luke’s intention to conclude his work in a third book (above, p. 56 ff.) presupposes that a period of Christian history of considerable length had intervened since the time the narrative was broken off in Acts xxviii. 30 ff., 7.e. since the spring of 63. Finally, a Christian of the age in which Luke lived could not well have the idea that the develop- ment of the history of Christianity had reached its con- summation before the judgment upon Jerusalem and the Temple, prophesied by Jesus, had taken place (above, p: 60). This would be especially true in the case of Luke, who records more fully than any other evangelist very definite prophecies of Jesus regarding these events. Besides Luke xii. 34-35, xxi. 6 (Matt. xxii. 36-xxiv. 2; Mark xiii. 2, ef. Matt. xxii. 7, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40; Mark xiv. 58; John ii. 19; Acts vi. 14), Luke alone records the impressive scenes in xix. 41-44, xxiii. 27-31, the parable of xix. 11-27, the meaning of which is unmistakable, the pointed application after xx. 18 (Matt. xxi. 44 is spurious), and, finally, the discourse in xxi. 20-24. While the latter has many words in common with Matt. xxiv. 15-20, Mark xiii. 14-18, and has the same relative place in the long prophetic discourse as do the corresponding sections of Matthew and Mark, its contents are essentially different. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 157 According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus did not on this occasion speak of the awful destruction of the temple, much less of the siege, capture, and destruction of Jeru- salem. But their words refer rather to the setting up in the temple of an idolatrous abomination prophesied by Daniel, by which true worship is to be displaced, the temple desecrated, and consequently desolated, and to the last and greatest persecution of the Church which will be connected with this event, and which will be ended by the return of Christ (vol. 11. 570f, vol. i. 226ff., 235 ff.). Luke says nothing of these things, and gives instead a prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem by hostile armies xxi. 20, cf. xix. 43), of the flight of the saints from Jerusalem and Judea (xxi. 21 ff.), of the slaughter of part of the population of Jerusalem, and the capture and lead- ing away into captivity of others, and of the permanent conquest of Jerusalem by the Gentiles (xxi. 24, cf, xix. 44, xxii. 28f.). Only by gross misinterpretation of the prophecy to be found in Matthew and Mark is it possible to affirm that Luke merely states with greater clearness what is mysteriously hinted at in Matthew and Mark. The real question is why Luke replaced the prophecy of the desecrating abomination in the holy place, with which he was familiar from Mark and from the prophetic teach- ing of the Pauline Churches, by a prophecy of totally different contents, and why generally in his Gospel he inserts with so much greater clearness and so much greater variety than do Matthew and Mark the prophecies:of the fall of Jerusalem. In answer to the first question, we have the fact that his book was intended for a man still outside the Church, who would not be able to understand such a prophecy. Luke here follows the principles of his own teacher (1 Cor. ii. 6-16). The answer to the, second question is not dependent upon the question whether it was probable or even possible for Jesus to depict the events which took place in 70 with greater clearness 158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT than in the passages quoted from the other Gospels, for example, as clearly as in Luke xix. 43f, xxi. 20-24. Aceording to the unanimous tradition, Jesus predicted that the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple would occur before His own generation passed away. Consequently, it is presumptuous to deny that He was able to describe this event with the clearness of Luke xix. 43f. as of xxi. 20-24. The only question is whether in the prophetic discourse recorded by all three of the Synoptists in the same connection Jesus actually spoke what is found in Matt. xxiv. 15-28; Mark xii. 14-23, or what is found in Luke xxi. 20-24. If the objections to the historicity of what Matthew and Mark say on this point are without weight (vol. ii. 570f., 588, n. 2), then it follows that the departure from strict historical accuracy is on the side of Luke, who wrote later than the others. When it is re- called that in the same passage Mark interpreted the prophecy preserved in its original form by Matthew, with distinct reference to the later understanding of the Church, and otherwise recast it (vol. ii. 500), there can be little doubt that Luke was led by the destruction of Jerusalem, which had now actually taken place, to report the pro- phecies of Jesus relative to this event with greater detail and fulness than the evangelists writing before 70 had done, and in xxi. 20-24 to substitute such a prophecy for the one which is found in Mark. The narratives in xix. 11-27, 41-44, xxiii. 27-31 do not read as if they were written after 70, or as if they were the inventions of Luke. The fact that Luke brought these narratives out of the treasury of tradition is itself only an indication of the time when he wrote. On the other hand, the recasting of the original prophecy in xxi. 20-24 was the effect of the events of the year 70. Whether this modification was due to Luke alone, or whether it was simply a reflexion of the impressions made upon Palestinian Christians who witnessed these events, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 159 the present writer does not venture to decide. The latter supposition is the more probable. It was impossible for these persons to watch the approach of the destruction of Jerusalem, and see it actually accomplished, without con- sidering the events of their time in the light of Jesus’ prophecy, and without following their development with the deepest interest. It is almost impossible not to suppose that the prophecies among these Christians which are said to have led to the flight from Jerusalem to Pella (vol. ii. 588, n. 3), were based upon the prophecy of Jesus preserved in Matt. xxiv. 15-28; Mark xiii. 14-23, and consisted of an adaptation of these words to the particular circumstances of the time. . Luke, by appropriating this modified form of Jesus’ prophecies, and by adopting into his narrative a large number of prophecies concerning the fall of Jerusalem,—omitting, however, the prophecy of the βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως, which was based upon Daniel and unintelligible to Theophilus,—was able to make it serve his apologetic purpose. If he had written his third book, he would certainly have shown definitely how the pro- phecies of Jesus concerning Jerusalem were fulfilled forty years after they were made. In view of all these con- siderations, it may be assumed with practical certainty that Luke wrote his work about the year 75 (n. 11). According to the present writer's view, it is not pos- sible to make any affirmation relative to the place where the work was written. A tradition represents Luke as writing his work in Greece and dying between his seventy- fourth and eighty-fourth year in Beeotia, or Bithynia ; this is based upon legends which we must have before us in a complete form before it is possible to determine whether they contain a germ of historical fact (n. 12). 1. (P. 142.) MAYERHOFF, Einl. in die petrin. Schriften, 1835, S. 13-30, endeavoured to show that Timothy was the author of the travel-document, and also of the whole Lucan work. According to the statement of Ulrich, ThStKr, 1837, 8. 369 ff., SCHLEIERMACHER, in his lectures, regarded Timothy as the author of the travel-doeument, but not of Acts; and in this Bleek 160 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT and others followed him. The view is not found, however, in the printed lectures (cf. his Werke, Zur Theologie, iii. 344-379). _ SCHWANBECK (Ueber die Quellen der Schriften des Lucas, 1847) pietured that Silas was the author of the itinerary, or rather of the memoirs, incorporated with little change in Acts xv. 1-xxviii. 31. He printed these memoirs (S. 265-309), and added (S. 309-320) fragments of a life of Barnabas from Acts iv. 36-xv, 4. Krenkeb, Paulus der Apostel der Heiden, 1869, S. 214, following others, suggested Titus. 2. (P. 144.) Examples of the mechanical retention by a later writer of an “I” or “we,” which was appropriate only in the source of which he made use, are given by Schwanbeck, S. 189 ff. (after Stenzel, Geschichte Deutschlands unter den fränk. Kaisern, ii. 10 ff.), from the annalistie literature of the Middle Ages. Attention was called also to the interchange of the first and third persons in Ezra-Nehemiah, to similar phenomena in the book of Tobit (König, Alttest. Einl. 276 ff. ; Schürer, iii. 176 [Eng. trans. 11. iii. 407), and to a curious “we” at the close of the Diamartyria Jacobi (Lagarde, Clementina, p. 6. 1). Jerome occasionally falls into a peculiar style midway between thoughtlessness and deception ; ef. Forsch. ii. 88f., 278 f. 3. (P. 144.) According to Baur, Paulus, i. 17, the author of Acts was very willing to be taken for Luke, whose travel-document he adopted, and with whom he thus identified himself. According to Zeller, 456, 460, 516, with less diffidence he did his utmost to deliberately confuse the reader as to his identity by giving the book a title which included the name of Luke, and thus made the “we” later on intelligible (see above, p. 80, n. 1). Overbeck, xlv., also assumes intentional pseudonymity. 4. (P. 145.) Protev. Jacobi, chap. xxv. 1, ἐγὼ de Ἰάκωβος 6 γράψας ταύτην τὴν ἱστορίαν ; Ev. Thome, chap. i., according to both Greek recensions ; Ev. Petri, xiv. 59 f., ἡμεῖς δὲ οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταὶ... ἐγὼ δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ ᾿Ανδρέας ὁ ἀδελφός pov. Clem. Hom. i. 1. Cf. GK, ii. 725 (Gospel of the Twelve, fragment 2), 772, 775, 856-860 (with regard to Leucius as author of apostolic histories). Cf. also the examples from secular literature above, p- 86, n. 11. 5. (Pp. 146, 148.) Hobart (The Medical Lanquage of Luke, Dublin, 1882), with remarkable industry, has collected parallels to Luke out of the writings of Hippocrates (circa 430 2.0.), Dioscorides (contemporary with Luke), Areteous, and Galen (both about 160 A.n.), arranging them topically, and furnishing a good index, pp. 299-305. A few only can be selected here, partly to amplify and partly to justify what has been said above, p. 146 f.: I. Designa- tions of bodily processes, symptoms of disease, cures, and the like, in harmony with the usage of medical writers. (1) In those portions of Luke which have more or less exact parallels in Matt. and Mark. Let it be observed, to begin with, that Luke avoids the following terms for sickness which are not customary with the medical men, μαλακία (Matt. LXX., Test. XII. Patr,), βάσανος, βασανίζεσθαι (Matt. iv. 24, viii. 6, ridiculed by Lucian, Solace. 6), and that of Luke terms for conception, etc., ἔχειν ἐν γαστρί (xxi. 23), συλλαμβάνειν with (i. 31, cf, ii, 21) and without ἐν γαστρί (i. 24, 36), ἔγκυος, στεῖρα, ἄτεκνος, Which, with σπαργανοῦν also, are all current with the physi- cians, only the first is found in Matt. (i, 18, xxiv. 19) and Mark (xiii. 17). Terms of a specifically medical character which are not found in the parallel THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 161 passages are, for example; papay. . . μηδὲν βχλάψαν, iv. 35 (ef. Mark xvi. 18) ; συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ, iv. 38 (cf. muperois καὶ δυσεντερίῳ συνεχόμενον, Acts xxviii. 8). This last-named verb, occurring 6 times in Luke (of a constrained state of mind in viii. 37 and xii. 50), 3:times in Acts, and once in iv. 24 with βασάνοις (see above), belongs, like the distinction between “great” and little fever and the plural ruperoi to the technical phraseology of medicine. Even the combination of πυρετὸς καὶ δύσεντερία is quite usual (Hobart, 3f., 52f.). Luke, however, preferred the common form δυσεντέριον (Lobeck, ad Phryn. ὅ18). Instead of παραλυτικός (Matt. and. Mark each 5 times), Luke always uses παραλελυμένος, as do these four medical authorities —Luke v. 18, 24 (variant readings) ; Acts viii. 7, ix. 33. Instead of the poetical expression of Mark v. 29, Luke viii. 44 has ἔστη i ῥύσις τοῦ aiparos, which is strictly medical throughout. For the accompanying παραχρῆμα (10 times in Luke, 6 or 7 in Acts, elsewhere only in Matt. xxi. 19 f.) as a designa- tion of immediate curative or’ destructive action, Hobart, p. 971. adduces 16 examples from a single work οὗ Hippocrates, 27 from Galen, and 7 from Dioscorides.. Similarly ἐξαίφνης, Luke ix: 39 (cf. ii, 135 Acts ix. 3, xxii 6; elsewhere only in Mark xiii. 36), ἐπίβλεψαι ἐπὶ τὸν υἱόν pov, Luke ix. 38 (Galen, ἐπιβλέπειν τι or eis τι), and ἀποχωρεῖ (of the abating of disease), also find support in medical usage. (2) In the sections peculiar to Luke there occur the following words, appearing rarely, or not at all, elsewhere in the N.T., but employed: in accord with medical usage : x. 30-35, ἡμιθανής (in an entirely similar connection in Galen, ed. Kühn, vi. 850, vii. 602), karadeeıv, τραῦμα (τραυματίζειν, Luke xx. 12; Acts xix. 16; Rev. xiii. 12, 14,.on the other hand, has πληγή, which in Luke x..30, xii. 48, Acts xvi. 23, 33 denotes blows), ἐπ᾿ μελεῖσθαι (of. ἐπιμελείας τυχεῖν; Acts xxvii. 3; in 1 Tim, iii, 5 quite differently expressed), ἐπιχέειν ἔλαιον καὶ οἶνον. Luke xvi. 20-25, ἕλκος (Rev. xvi. 2 also), ἑλκοῦσθαι, ὀδυνᾶσθαι (Luke ii. 48; Acts xx: 38 of mental suffer- ing); Luke xxii. 44, ἀγωνία, ἱδρώς, θρόμβοι αἵματος, καταβαίνειν. Further, ὀχλεῖν, ἐνοχλεῖν, παρενοχλεῖν, Luke vi. 18; Acts v. 16, xv. 19 ; avarnpos (or dvareıpos), Luke xiv. 13, 21, and its opposite, ὁχοκληρία, Acts iii. 16; ἀποψύχειν, ἐκψύχειν, καταψύχειν, ἀνάψυξις, Luke xvi. 24, xxi. 26 ; Acts iii. 20, v. 5, 10; xii. 23; von, Acts xvii. 25, cf. ii. 2; ἐμπνέειν, Acts ix. 1; ἐκπνέειν, Luke xxiii. 46 (this also in Mark xv. 37, 39); ζωογονεῖν, Luke xvii. 33 ; Acts Vii. 19; ἀπέπεσαν . . . λεπίδες, Acts ix. 18 (Hobart, 39f.) ; ἔκστασις, Acts x. 10, xi. 5, xxii. 17 (in Luke v. 26 ; Acts iii. 10, on the other hand, as in Mark v. 42, xvi. 8, in the sense of astonishment) ; εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπειν, Acts xxvi. 24 (the medical writers use τρέπειν, but also περιτροπή) ; κραιπάλη, Luke xxi. 34 ; χρώς, Acts xix. 12 in the wider sense (Ionic, according to Galen, but used by all the medical men) ; προσδοκᾶν (6 times in Luke, 5 in Acts, and elsewhere only in two parallels in Matt.,and 3 times in 2 Pet. iii. 12-14 ; also προσδοκία, only in Luke xxi. 26; Acts xii. 11) is used in Acts xxviii. 6 quite in Galen’s manner, and close to a specifically medical μηδὲν ἄτοπον (Hobart, 162, 289) ; cf. also οὐδὲν ἄτοπον, Luke xxiii. 41; τὶ ἄτοπον, Acts xxv. 5 (ἄτοπος in any use is found elsewhere only in 2 Thess. iii. 2). Also πιμπρᾶσθαι, καταπίπτειν, θηρίον -- ἔχιδνα, Acts xxviii. 3-6; ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι, Acts xix. 12 (with νόσοι as subject) ; καταφερόμενος ὕπνω βαθεῖ, Acts xx. 9, are medical phrases. Finally, ef. ἄσιτοι διατελεῖτε, Acts xxvii. 33, with Galen, ἄσιτος διετέλεσεν, ἄδιψοι VOL. III. ΕἸ ı62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT διατελοῦσιν, and in Hippocrates as here a διατελεῖν for fourteen days, Hobart, 278. . Cf. Madan, JThS, 1904, Oct. p. 116, who understands ἄσιτος in this passage to mean loss of appetite, resulting from sea-sickness.. II. Note- worthy also is the application to other subjects of words common in medicine. If the needle used for surgical purposes is regularly ‘called βελόνη, not pais, and the eye of it isıcommonly spoken of by the doctors as τρῆμα, ποῦ τρύπημα or τρυμαλία, and if we read in Galen τοῦ κατὰ τὴν βελόνην τρήματος or τοῦ διατρήματος τῆς βελόνης (Hobart, 60f.), the wording of Luke xviii. 25 as compared with Matt. xix. 24, Mark x. 25 (following Tischendorf’s text in all three passages), indicates that the writer ‚was'a physician. If Galen expressly comments on the customary use of ἀρχαί, by himself.as previously by Hippocrates, to denote the ends (πέρατα) of a bandage (οἱ ἐπίδεσμοι, and often ὀθόνια and ὀθόνη), it is clear that Acts x. 11, xi. 5 were written by a physician. Among the numerous peculiar words and phrases used by Luke to which Hobart further adduces parallels, are : ἀναδιδόναι ἐπιστολήν, Acts Xxili. 33, and οὐκ ἄσημος πόλις, Acts xxi. 39 (both in Hippoerates); ἄσιτος, ἀσιτία, τὰ σιτία, Acts vii. 12, from Gen. xlii. 2 (LXX σῖτος) ; ἀτενίζειν, ἰκμάς, κατακλείειν, Luke iii. 20; Acts xxvi. 10 (Galen with ἐν εἱρκτῇ also); πλήμμυρα, ῥῆγμα, προσρήγνυμι, συμπίπτειν (Luke: vi. 48 f., words which occur neither in Matt. vii. 25-27 nor elsewhere in the N.T.), συκάμινος With συκομορέα, Luke xvii. 6, xix. 4, often interchanged in ordinary usage, according to Dioscorides. Of course, such words and turns of phrase, found elsewhere only in the medical books (cf. also above, p. 82, n. 5; p- 129 f., n. 1), have no weight in and of themselves, but only in connectiom with the examples previously given. 6. (P. 147.) That the account, not very flattering to doctors, in Mark v. 26 was toned down by Luke as a physician, viii. 43 (according to Tischendorf’s text, at least), is an unworthy insinuation. Mark himself does not say that the condition of the sick woman grew continually worse in consequence of the medical treatment, but in spite of it. .This in a case continuing for twelve years is as natural as the other statement to the effect that the in- effectual treatment by constantly changing physicians was a serious burden. Here, as elsewhere (cf, above, p, 105), Luke simply avoided Mark’s diffuse- ness. The case is the same if one omits ἰατροῖς--- βίον, Luke viii. en with rg Ss Sah. Arm. ; for, of course, “no one” here means “no physician,’ 7.(P. 148.) Rank, Meltgesch.! iii. 1.170-193, who follows Acts in his narra- tive, speaks, with reference to chap. xxi. (187), of the “simple account of the documents”—and in coneluding (191) refers to the entire book as a narrative which “combines trustworthiness with simplicity of presentation.” E.Currrus, Griechische Gesch. i. 50, A. 18, was not indeed, as Maass holds, in Orpheus, 1895, S, 8, the first to disclose the meaning of Acts xvii., but blundered in trans- ferring the scene from Mars Hill to the market-place. Still it is of some significance when one, who knows Athens as Curtius does, declares (8. 925): that in Acts xvii. “a well-informed witness is giving a faithful account of the occurrence. In the sixteen verses of the text there is such an abundance of historical material, everything is so pregnant and original, so characteristic) and full of life, there is such a lack of anything formal and stereotyped, as must be the case if one were relating a fictitious story. It is impossible to show a single trait which might render deliberate invention im any way THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 163 probable. One must be familiar with Athens in order to understand the account properly.” The altar inscription (xvii. 23), which some who could not boast this familiarity have criticised, was cited without hesitation by Clement, a native Athenian (Forsch. iii. 162), Strom. v. 83, and by Origen, who had seen the city, tom. x. 5 in Jo. At the time of Didymus (Mai, Nova p. Bibl. iv. 2. 139) such an inscription was no longer to be found, but only certain forms similar to it with a plural dedication. If one compares with this reference Jerome, ad Tit. (Vall. vii. 707), it will at once be seen that Jerome is copying from his teacher Didymus, on the one hand, and, on the other, from some other Greek who had given the wording of the inscription, in all probability Origen (ef. Forsch. 11. 88 £., 275 ff., GK, i. 426 ff.). But that Jerome, through his blending of information from two sources, contaminated the text, appears from a comparison with Oecumenius (Migne, cxviii. 237). The latter derived from the same source as Jerome, presumably, therefore, from Origen, the text: θεοῖς ᾿Ασίας καὶ Εὐρώπης καὶ Λιβύης, θεῷ ἀγνώστῳ καὶ ξένῳ, which Jerome, under the influence of Didymus’ remark, altered to diis ignotis et peregrims. The inscription, which might still be seen at Athens in the time of Clement and Origen, had disappeared before the time of Didymus (+ 395) and Jerome, perhaps during the reaction under Julian; οἵ. Lucian, Philopatris, 8. Among the eminent archeologists who. appre- ciate the great historical value of Acts should also be mentioned first of all W. M. Ramsay, in the works so frequently cited. TH. Mommsrn is an un- fortunate exception ; vol. i. 67£., n. 15, 392 f. ; above, 138, n. 20; NKZ, 1893, S. 648 ; 1904, S. 23 ff, 190 ff. 8. (P. 150.) Hicks (Expos. 1890, p. 401 ff.) identified a Demetrius who seems to be reckoned with the νεωποιήσαντες or νεωποιοί (the letter N is all that remains of the title) in an Ephesian ineription (Ancient Greek Inscriptions of the British Musewm, No. 578, line 6), with the Δημήτριος ἀργυροκόπος, ποιῶν ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς ᾿Αρτέμιδος, Acts xix. 24, and thereupon charges the author of Acts with having misunderstood the former title, and so made a silversmith of a temple-oflicer, and invented the manufacture of silver representations of the temple of Diana. Ramsay’s refutation, Church in the Rom. Emp. p- 112 ff., seems to the present writer to be sufficient. 9, (Ὁ. 152.) The following come under consideration as parallelisms between Peter and Paul: The healing of the lame man, iii. 1-10=xiv. 8-10; in some measure also iii, 12, x. 26=xiv. 11-18, xxviii. 6; the marvellous cure of multitudes, v. 15 f.=xix, 11 f.; the sorcerers, viii, 18-24=xiii. 8-11; the effect of the laying on of hands, viii. 17-19=xix. 6 ; the raising of the dead, ix. 36-41=xx. 7-12; the miraculous release, from prison, xii. 3-12 (v. 18-21)=xvi. 23-40. One hardly knows whether to admire more the art shown in the symmetry of construction or the skill that devises scenes ever new and radically different, unless all this is rather a faithful reprodue- tion of reminiscence and tradition, 10, (P. 153, 155.) Even in Rey, ii. 14, 20, out of the four divisions of the apostolic decree, we find only φαγεῖν. εἰδωλύθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι referred to, and when Christ assures the faithful portion of the Church in, Thyatira (ii. 24 f.) that He lays upon them no further burden, but simply charges them to hold fast what they have, we ean understand by ἄλλο βάρος, according to usage and context, not censure or punishment, but only burdensome obliga- {64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tions ; and by that which faithful Christians have hitherto had and held we must understand primarily their abstinence in the two points named. These are contrasted, however, with broader obligations of a kindred sort, of course ; for it goes without saying that Christ also requires men to abstain from lying, theft, murder, and similar sins. The author thus meets the apprehension, probably fostered by the Nicolaitans,—the preachers of an immoral liberty— (2 Pet. ii. 19, cf. vol. ii. 281 f.), that further limitations and constraints were to be laid upon the Gentile Christians. The requirements laid down pre- suppose the apostolic decree, and the express setting aside of further restric- tions with regard to external conduct presupposes that even before the time of Revelation the two remaining items of the decree were no longer observed in the Asiatic Churches. In the Didache, chap. vi., there is a still more explicit reference to other apostolic commands to the Gentiles concerning foods, besides the prohibition of meat from idol sacrifices ; these others were known to the author from Acts, but their observance was no longer insisted upon; ef. GK, ii. 9334. As a further result of the fact that the prohibition of blood and of things strangled was no longer enforceable and had actually ceased to be observed, arose the modified interpretations and alterations ef the text, see above, p. 8 ff. The present writer must not enter here into an exhaustive discussion of the decree. It is sufficient to say that μηδὲν πλέον βάρος, Acts xv. 28, like οὐκ ἄλλο βάρος, Rev. ii. 24, can only mean “no further burden beyond the obligation which you already bear, and this accepted willingly, so that it is in fact no burden.” ‘The πλήν in both passages does not, like ἢ after πλέον, introduce an exception to the negative statement, which would imply that the following requirement was in fact an ἐπιβάλλειν βάρος (Rev. ii. 24), an ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγόν (Acts xv. 10), a παρενοχλεῖν (Acts xv. 19); on the contrary, πλήν, as usual, introduces a matter only more remotely connected with the contrasted subject of discussion, a matter which is not to be excluded by what precedes. This is equally true whether it is an independent sentence (Matt. xviii. 7; Luke xxii. 21, 42; Phil. iv. 14; Rev. ii. 25— yet,” “ however”), or a dependent clause (Acts xx. 23), or a single substantive (Acts xxvii. 22—the ship is not ἃ ψυχή) that follows. 11. (P. 159.) The words αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος, Acts viii. 26, are of no service in determining the time, though Hug, Einl.? i. 23, mistakenly assuming that this was a parenthetic remark of the author—whereas it belongs to the address of the angel-—and also that it referred to the city of Gaza, besides tacitly inserting a νῦν, claimed to find in it a reference to the destruction of Gaza by the Jews, a.p. 66 (Jos. Bell. ii. 18. 1). If the second supposition were correct, the phrase would more properly point to the time before the rebuilding of Gaza, 62 B.c., recalling Strabo, p. 759 (μένουσα ἔρημος, on which see Schürer, ii. 87 [Eng. trans. τι. i. 70f.]). Plainly, however, the reference is not to the city which had no interest for Philip, but to the road between Jerusalem and Gaza, which he was to take, and on which he was to meet the eunuch as he travelled alone. Not in the sense, however, that of several roads leading from Jerusalem to Gaza that is intended, which runs through a sparsely inhabited district (as Robinson, Palostine, ii. 644, 748 ; Overbeck, Kom. über d. Apostelges. on Acts viii. 26)—a linguistic impossibility. The remark is expressly made of the one main road—probably that by way of Eleutheropolis—in order to indicate to Philip that he is not ‘to proceed this THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 165 time as a missionary from city to city, preaching to the people, but that he is to be prepared for a meeting on the lonely road with something that he does not expect. Hofmann’s opinion (ix. 265) that the author would not speak in the present of the loneliness ofthis road at a time when all Palestine had been desolated ıby the Jewish war, would not be in point even if Luke were to be regarded as the speaker, and not rather. the angel ; for it is not to be imagined that all Palestine after 70 was an uninhabited waste. Nor is it obvious that after 70, because so, long subsequent to the death of Agrippa 1. (+ 44), Luke (iii. 1) would have had no further occasion to mention Lysanias of Abilene (Hofmann, ix. 261). Agrippa IL, during whose reign (circa 50-100) Luke certainly wrote, received this Gerrit in 53 (Jos. Ant. xx. 7.1; Bell. ii. 12..8), and not only does Josephus, but Ptolemyyalso (v. 15. 22), ἌΧΟΣ to the distriet by the name of its former possessor. 12. (P. 159.) For the opinions of the ancients concerning the place of composition see above, p. 7f., n. 7. Until the most recent times, it has been argued in favour of Rome: that unimportant places in its neighbourhood, like Forum Appw and [res Taberne, Acts xxviii. 15, are assumed to be known. It would be a sufficient explanation if Theophilus had at some time made a journey to Rome. Troas, Samothrace, Neapolis, Cenchrez, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, Trogyllium (or Trogylia, Cod. D), Cos, Patara, Myra, Adramyt- tium, Cnidus, Salmone (Acts xvi. 11, xviii. 18, xx. 13-15, xxi. 1, xxvii. 2- 7), are introduced in the reports of Pauls j journeys in just the same way as the noted cities of Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, or these unimportant tions on the Anpiam Way. It cannot be shown that there is a uniform procedure in this regard. The Palestinian cities Nazareth, Juda (Jutta ἢ), Bethlehem, Capernaum, Nain, Arimathea, and their situa: tions, are introduced as en (Luke i. 26, 39, ii. 4, iv. 31, vii. 11, xxiü, 51), the location of the Gadarene country (Lake viil. 26), the distance of the Mount of Oliyes and the village of Emmaus from J erusalem, and of Lydda from Joppa (Luke xxiv. 13; Wats i. 12, ix. 38) are given, while Jericho (Luke xviii. 35), Gaza, Kshdod) Lydda, Joppa, Antipatris, Caesarea, Ptolemais, Tyre, Damascus (Acts viii, 26, 40, ix. 2, 32,38, 40, xx..3, 7, xxiii. 31), are introduced as familiarly as Jerusalem and Antioch, At ER: same time one may infer from those more detailed references that Theophilus did not live in Palestine, and from Acts xvi. 12, xvii. 19, 21,—remarks which are important for the understanding of the events,—that Luke did not assume in Theophilus’ case the same knowledge of conditions in Macedonia and Greece that he himself possessed. Köstlin, Urspr. der synopt: Evv. S. 294 ff., and, Oyerbeck, 8. Ixviii. fl, have argued for the composition’ of the work in Ephesus, or at least Asia Minor. § 63. RETROSPECT AND FORECAST. Of the three historical works investigated up to this point, the first is preserved to us only in translation, whichis for the most part» faithful, but ποῦ alwayis felicitous. ‘The second was not completed ; and the third, 166 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which was planned to occupy three books, was not continued beyond the second. , The condition of the Church between the years 60 and 80, and the practical needs which the three authors of this period desired’ te meet by their writings, were not such as tended to. the production of finished literary works. Nor could they lead to the production of works which meet our need for historical information. Even Luke, who.in nationality, training, and insight is closer than the other evangelists to the modern and Western mind, could not have said with reference to his, work: τοῦ συγγραφέως ἔργον Ev: ὡς ἐπράχθη εἰπεῖν (Lucian, Hist. conser. 39). All three of the gospel writers had in view religious instruction and religious impression. The character of these books was correctly described by the post-apostolic Church, when the word εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγγέλια was applied to them. The description was more correct in the case of the first three Gospels than of the Fourth. For, while the last is addressed to Christian Churches already long existant, the first three, each in its own way, are connected with the missionary preaching, which was originally called \ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, Matthew concerns himself almost more with. unbelieving Jews than with his fellow-believers; Luke endeavours to win over altogether to the faith and the Church a Gentile favourably inclined, toward Christianity. Even Mark in his writing does not deny that he was a missionary helper; he has in view primarily new converts (vol. τ. 482 ff). And so all three of the Synoptists follow closely the main outlines of the history as given in the missionary preaching, which covered the activity of Jesus after the arrest of the Baptist—from this point onwards giving an uninterrupted and progressive account of His public ministry up to the time of His death and resurrec- tion. As is so often the case in the popular treatment of complex historical development, intermediate steps are omitted and the whole progress of events so set forth that THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 167 the movement which began in Galilee ends in Judea (Acts x. 37-42, xiii. 23-31, cf. 1 21 £5 see vol. ἢ. 869 ἢ, 377, bp. 1, 379, 3883 f n. 5, 459 8} This» does: not mean that the individual writers did not, each in accord- ance with his own special point of view, make departures from this scheme. For different) reasons Matthew and Luke did this in their ‘histories of the childhood.” "This was omitted by Mark, because it did not fall in with his proposed plan. But all three of the evangelists made this scheme the basis of their accounts, and generally confined themselves within its bounds... From this it is .certainly not to be inferred that their knowledge was limited to this outline—an idea which would mean that the con- clusions heretofore reached regarding the authorship and origin of the synoptic Gospels are only so many’ errors. The correctness of this negative conclusion would’ seem all the more certain to one convinced of the’genuineness and trustworthiness of the Fourth Gospel (n. 1). But it has) already been observed more than once (vol. ii. 372 f., 441 f.,.556f., 605} that the premise upon which this conclusion rests, namely, that the information of Matthew, Mark, and Luke was limited to the material found in their respective Gospels, is false. As is well known, the principal difference between the Fourth Gospel and the other three—a difference which has been made use of in the criticism both of John and of the ‘‘ Synoptists” ever since the second century—is their different representation of Jesus’ relation to Jerusalem! In the synoptic Gospels He appears here only once during the last days of His life, whereas in John there are no less than five visits to Jerusalem (ii.'13, v. 1, viv 14, x. 22, xii, 12). He is also represented as working for some time in Judea (11. 22-iv. 3), and His ministry covers at least three Passovers after His baptism (ii. 13, vi'4, xii, Pff.). The opinion that Jesus’ teaching covered only one year— which is based upon the synoptic account, and often 168 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT supported by an appeal to Luke iv. 19, and which was frequently maintained in the ancient Church, notwith- standing acquaintance with and acceptance of the Fourth Gospel—cannot be maintained even when the Fourth Gospel is left out of account. No one of the Synoptists gives a chronological statement with regard to Jesus’ first appearance which can possibly justify this limitation of His: ministry. § Moreover, according to Matt. xi. 1; Mark ii. 23; Luke vi. 1, Jesus witnessed the beginning of a harvest while He was in the midst of His Galilean ministry, and long before His crucifixion. It is not possible to suppose that authors like Matthew, and’ Mark, and, also Luke,—authors who nowhere betray evidence of stupid ignorance, and who, on the other hand, show them- selves to be thoroughly acquainted with Jewish customs and with the natural features of Palestine,—thought of this scene as taking place inthe autumn or winter. They knew that the beginning of the harvest was coterminous with the Passover season, consequently that between this time and the Passover, when Jesus was crucified, at least one full) year elapsed. Moreover, Luke understood the tradition, which he reproduces with the phrase σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ, to mean that it was the second Sabbath reckoned from the first Sabbath of the Jewish “ ecclesi- astical” year—which always fell between the 8th and 14th of Nisan—on which this event took place, 1.6. it was just before the Passover. This is not the: place in which to prove that this Passover is identical with the one mentioned in John vi. 4, The language which Luke uses in iii. 23 must also be considered very strange, if he was not aware that a! number of years elapsed between the baptism and death of Jesus. No intelligent writer would say of a man who ceased to work at the end of the same year in which his work began, “he was when he began about thirty years old.” Moreover, if Luke under- stood the discourses of Jesus’ which he incorporated in THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 169 his Gospel, he must have learned from them—if he did not know it from other sources—that the year of grace foreseen by the prophet in which salvation was to be offered to Israel (iv. 19) in its fulfilment covered a number of years. Hven at the risk of being charged with old- fashioned. exegesis, the present writer is bound to maintain that, according to Luke xiii. 6-9, Jesus, at a time con- siderably remote from His crucifixion,—probably during the last summer or autumn of His life,—looked back ovér a period of three years, during which God had looked in vain for fruit from the preaching of the gospel begun by the, Baptist and continued by, Himself—primarily in Jerusalem, the unfruitful fig-tree in the vineyard of Israel (n. 2). Nor is it possible to interpret the word in Luke ΧΙ. 34, which closely follows Luke xii, 6~9—a word preserved also in Matt. xxiii. 37—in any other sense than that Jesus Himself had often striven in vain through His testimony, which was always rejected, to save the people of Jerusalem from their threatened doom (n. 3). That the public appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, described only by the “Synoptists,” was not the only but the last attempt, is evidenced by the word which He spoke over the city as He rode down from the Mount of Olives (Luke xix. 42), “If thou hadst known (as do the Galilean disciples) in this day (the last opportunity given to thee) even thou, the things which belong unto peace!” Unless there were earlier visits to Jerusalem, not altogether temporary in character, the words of Jesus in Matt. xxvi. 55, Mark xiv. 49 (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, cf. John xviii. 20) would sound strange, and one:is at a loss to account for the close personal relations between Jesus and several persons in and about Jerusalem, which are presupposed ‚in Matt. xxi. 8, 17, xxvi. 6, 18, xxvu. 57; Mark xi. 3,11, xiv. 3, 13.ff; 51 (vol. ii. 491 £.), xv. 43; Luke xix. 31, xxiii. 50f. Luke shows most clearly that he is entirely free from the conception of the ministry of Jesus; which is supposed 170 INTRODUCTION TO ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT to be based upon the accounts of all three of the “Synoptists.” It has been already seen (above, p. 106 f.) that) Luke avoids giving the impression, to which support is given by the accounts of Matthew and Mark, that all Jesus’ activity in Galilee followed the arrest of the Baptist, and why this is so. He separates the journey from Judea tooGalilee, which marks the beginning of this and of ‘all Jesus’) public work, from its association with the con- clusion of John’s work, and connects this journey directly with the baptism and temptation of Jesus (Luke iii. 22, iv. 1, 14; John i. 29-11. 11). He says expressly in one of the earlier passages of his book (iv. 48 f.) that Jesus preached, not only in Galilee, but in the synagooues of all Palestine (above, pp. 64, 88, n. 18). ‘In x. 38-42 he tells of the sojourn of Jesus in the house of the sisters of Bethany, near Jerusalem, a sojourn which cannot belong to the closing days of His life. But why; is 10 Luke alone who relates these facts, and why do Matthew and Mark fail to relate formally and in detail what evidently they knew? Anyone not satisfied with the answer afforded by the ‘particular purpose which each of these evangelists had in view, and by their common dependence upon the main’ outlines of the missionary preaching, is at liberty to ‘supply ἃ better answer. But let him also explain why Matthew and Luke tell us nothing of the great and numerous miracles which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, and which are mentioned in Matt. xi.''21, Luke x. 13, before the deeds in Capernaum, and why they say nothing about the appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter (Luke xxiv. 34), and of the earlier relations of the four fishermen in Capernaum to Jesus, without which it is impossible historitally to understand the account in Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20. The facts here suggested are certainly not satisfactorily explained by any one of the constructions of the history THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 17 of the Gospels hitherto brought to light—constructions that contradict the internal testimony of the Gospels and the first century. tradition regarding their origin, and which at the same time leave this tradition and internal testimony entirely unexplained. Only when it is shown to be probable that the men whose identity is concealed by the names Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote after the eye-witnesses of the gospel history had passed away, and that the investigations to which one of these authors refers (Luke i. 3) were limited to the reading of two or three earlier writings, can the present writer admit that the passing over by the Synoptists of important events, to which they make clear reference, is to be explained by their dependence upon sources now lost. Even this. does not solve the problem; it simply pushes it back. The question recurs, “Why did these earlier authors, whose writings we no longer possess, make such limited use of their abundant knowledge ?” It remains to be seen whether the investigation of the Fourth Gospel confirms or contradicts the conclusions heretofore reached. 1. (P. 167.) P. Ewald, who considers the one-sided choice of material by the Synoptists “the chief problem of the Gospels,” assembles on 8. 52 f. of his work (Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, 1890) all that has hitherto been pointed out of Johannine material in the synoptic Gospels, and adds to it, particularly by his reference to Luke xxii. 24 ff., 35 ff, as compared with John xiii. ff. 2. (P. 169.) Rightly conceived in substance, though not in detail, as early as by Ephrem, Lv. Conc, Expos. pp. 166 f., 183 f., 213; Opp., ed. Rom. i, 562 (cf. Forsch. i. 68, 261); Bengel, Gnomon ad Le, xiii. 7; Wieseler (Chron, Synopse, 202 ; Beiträge, 165). In opposition to his own instructor in exegesis, J, Stockmeyer, Erklärung ausgewählter Gleichnisse (ed. C. Stockmeyer, 1897), S. 251-260, and Hofmann, N.T. viii. 351 ff., who reject this interpre- tation, the present writer must remark that: (1) The tree is planted in the vineyard, the vineyard is expressly spoken of as belonging to the owner of the tree, and the gardener is particularly called an ἀμπελουργός, although in the parable he has to do only with the fig-tree. It cannot possibly be that all this expresses merely the thought that the tree stood on well pre- pared soil and in a sheltered position (as Stockmeyer, S. 254). The vine- yard, which is so significantly prominent in the parable, is an established ı72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT figure for the Jewish people (Isa. v. 1-7, xxvii. 2-6 ; Matt. xxi. 33+46;, Luke) xx. 9-16). The fig-tree within it, therefore, cannot mean Israel again, but only Jerusalem. (2) This is confirmed by the story in Matt. xxi. 18-22; Mark xis 12-14, 19-24, which, in the historical connection, can be ‘applied only to Jerusalem... It cannot be mere chance that Luke does not have this story, but has this parable as if to take its place ; cf. above, p. 102. (3) That Luke himself had Jerusalem in mind is shown by his attaching the parable to xiii. 15a passage that refers to two calamities in this city which were admonitory to repentance. As there is no note of time im xiii, 6, the connection must have been occasioned by the thought relationship between the! passages. Jerusalem is again mentioned directly afterwards in xiii. 22, 33-35. (4) As the owner of the) vineyard stands for God, and the vine- dresser puts in a good word for the tree at the end of the three years, one, might be inclined to take the three years as denoting the centuries during which God had often visited His people seeking fruit (Luke xx. 10ff.). But, in the first‘ place, Jerusalem and not Israel is under discussion, Even if this city was peculiarly to blame for the ill-success of, these prophetic visitations (Luke xiii. 33f.), still the visitations concerned not Jerusalem but the whole’ people. - In the second place, Luke represents Jesus as speaking immediately afterwards (xiii. 34, n. 3) of His own repeated) efforts in behalf of Jerusalem. In the third, place, the precise period of three years seems strangely chosen, and the explanation from Lev. xix. 23 ff. ; Judg) ax. 27; Jos. Ant. iv. 8.19 (Hofmann, ‘viii. 352) is unsatisfactory: On the other hand, one cannot identify offhand, the three years of the passage with the three years of Jesus’ public ministry, or even find an allusion in them to the three visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, separated each from the other by a year’s interval. The latter finds no support in ver 7, for the owner says simply that three years have now passed since he began looking—who knows how often ?—to see if the tree would not at last bear fruit. (Here, too, we must remember that the fig-tree bears at very different seasons, ef. Winer, Realw. i. 367). The former would lead us to reckon the three years from the Passover of John ii. 13, and with a correct under- standing of the Fourth Gospel they would end with the Passover of John xii.’ 1 ff. We should then be transferred by the parable to a point im- mediately before the last Passover, about the time of Luke xviii. 31-xix. 28, or xix. 41-44, or John xi. 55. But from the surroundings in which Luke has placed the parable (ef. also xiii. 31-33) the reader must rather infer that a considerable time was yet to elapsé before the end. That the fourth year, which, from the analogy of the three years, should be in this case a plain statement of actual time, should answer in reality to the period of some forty yeurs until the execution of judgment upon Jerusalem, is inconceivable, Jesus did not announce that this judgment would come in the following year, but simply that it would be within the experience of His con- temporaries. We must, therefore, seek another starting-point in the count of years, namely, that‘ indicated in Luke iii, 1-6. According to Luke himself, Jesus representéd the appearance of John the Baptist as the beginning of the new epoch of revelation (xvi. 16, cf. ili, 18, vii. 27-35, xx. 3-7; Acts i. 5,22). Through John, too, God had sought for fruit, and had threatened the destruction of the barren trees (iii. 8 f.), but without any THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 173 effect upon the leaders of the people (vii. 30, xx. 4-7; Matt. xxi. 24-32), whose chief seat was at Jerusalem. The rulers there rejected the double testimony of the Baptist and of Jesus (John 111. 11, v. 33-36). To give John’s testimony a peculiar reference to Jerusalem was all the more warranted, as he had never worked in Galilee, but always in the neighbour- hood of the city (Matt. iii. 1,5; Mark i. 5; Luke iii. 3; John i. 28, iii. 23- iv. 1, x. 40). John appeared several months at least, and perhaps a whole year, before Jesus’ first visit at the feast in Jerusalem (John ii. 13). Jesus, therefore, can have spoken this parable about the time of the Passover next before His last—the one He did not attend (John vi. 4)—or, as the present writer considers more, probable, about the time ‚of the following Feast of Tabernacles, when He had already fixed His eye upon a later festival as the time of decision (John vii. 8). Not all hope has disappeared as yet ; Jesus begs a further respite for Jerusalem--may God still have patience with the unfruitful fig-tree in this fourth year, now beginning or already begun. When this year also is spent, Jesus speaks and acts quite differently (Luke xix. 41-44; Mark xi. 12-14). 3. (P. 169.) While Strauss, Leben Jesu krit. bearb. (1835) i. 444, ef. Leb. Jesu für das Volk, S. 247. was unprejudiced enough to. recognise that Matt. xxiii. 37 (=Luke xiii. 34) presupposed repeated efforts by Jesus in Jerusalem, Steinmeyer, Apologet. Beitr. iv. 219, sought to refer the ποσάκις to the many summons to repentance which “the grace of God” had addressed to Jerusalem through the prophets and finally through Jesus as well. But the speaker is not “the grace of God,” nor, as others have dreamed, “the wisdom of God,” but Jesus Himself and no other. Still more impossible is the favourite application of the words to the attempts so far made to convert the Jewish people at large, for (1) the children (sons, daughters, daughter) of Jerusalem or Zion in Isa. i. 8, iii. 16, iv. 4, xxxvii. 22; Zech. ix. 9; Ps. clxix.2; Luke xix. 44, xxiii. 28; Matt. xxi. 5; John xii. 15, are the inhabitants of that city ; so that to put upon Jesus’ lips the theological phrase, based on an extended allegory, which Paul uses in Gal. iv. 25, is the more inadmissible because the context in Luke xiii. 31-35 distinguishes definitely between Jerusalem and other sections of the Holy Land. In Matt. xxiii. 37 also the city is first addressed. twice by name and in the singular, and not until her children have been mentioned do we come, with ἠθελήσατε, to the plural address. Just as plainly as the “thou” is identical with the “ye,” is Jerusalem (and the Jewish people is never called by that name) identical with her children, that is, the city with its inhabitants. But (2), and most important, ποσάκις does not mean “how long” or “for how many months or years,” but “ how often.” X. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN. $ 64. THE TRADITION. ΟΝῈ who has extricated himself from a labyrinth is wont to breathe a sigh of relief and set out with increased courage upon the way which he has farther to pursue. That is the natural feeling which the investigator has in passing from his study of the oldest historical literature of the apostolic age to the latest writings of the N.T. which bear the name of John, in particular to the Gospel of John, which follows the other three Gospels and is known as the Fourth. In the case of the others the inexperienced observer is confused by a mass of material practically identical in contents and language, the similarities of which are as difficult to explain as the corresponding differences, In the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, we have an entirely distinct work, which never gives the impression made by the earlier Gospels, of being only another variation of the common primitive form. Because John is an independent work, it follows at once that traces of its existence and influence in the Church are much clearer than in the case of the Synopties (n. 1) When the reader finds, for example, in Clement of Rome, or Polycarp, a saying of Jesus which is to be found in similar form in Matthew, and also in Mark or Luke, he is unable to determine from which one of these sources it is taken, or whether it may not possibly be 174 THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 175 derived from a lost Gospel, or even from the oral tradition. That which bears the Johannine stamp cannot be mis- taken for or confused with anything else. It must: also be remembered that the tradition concerning the origin of John’s writings goes back much nearer to the time and place of their origin than does the tradition con- cerning the origin of the other historical books. We have no: tradition concerning Matthew and Luke which can be proved to have originated in the place where these books were written and among the disciples of the men who wrote them. In fact we are compelled to conjecture the place where these books originated from their contents alone, or from traditions of a comparatively late date. The situation with regard to Mark is not much more favourable as regards this point. The Johannine writings, on the other hand, originatediin the province of Asia, and for this information we are not) dependent »upon tradition alone. It is unmistakably affirmed in Revelation, and the tradition is entirely confirmed in this point by the contents of the Gospel and the Epistles. In this same province also we find living until far on in) the second century personal disciples of the John οἵ Ephesus, to whom these writings are ascribed: Some of these are bishops, as Papias in Hierapolis and Polycarp in Smyrna ; others ‘are not mentioned by name, but associated by Irenzeus, the) personal disciple of Polycarp, with. Papias and Polycarp, and called “the elders” (οἱ πρεσβύτεροί, seniores). The fact that John lived to ,an extreme age and was still alive at the beginning of Trajan’s reign (98-117), dying, therefore, about the year 100, and, the fact that Polycarp died im the year 155 (Feb. 23) at a very great ave,—-86 years after his baptism, which must have taken place, therefore, in the year 69,—gives us an unbroken tradition from Jesus to Irenzeus, 1.6. from 30 to 180, with only two links between them, namely, John of Ephesus and Polycarp of Smyrna. | Naturally there were 176 INTRODUCTION ΠΟ THE NEW TESTAMENT numerous other lines of connection between Irenseus and his contemporaries and the representatives of the apostolie generation in Asia Minor (Philip in Hierapolis, Aristion, see vol. ii, 436 f.), and doubtless in most cases there were more links in the chain than in the case of this one of four links, which we are able to establish biographically (n./ 2). The first clear traces of the influence of the Fourth Gospel upon the thought and language of the Church are found in the Epistles of Ignatius (about the year 110) How unmistakable these traces are may be inferred from the fact that not infrequently this dependence of Ignatius upon John has been used as an argument against the genuineness and antiquity of the Ignatian letters. [Ὁ is possible, if one is disposed’ to do so, to assume that the resemblance of passages in Clement of Rome (circa 94), in the Shepherd of Hermas (circa 100), in the Didache (circa 110), in the so-called Second Epistle of Clement (circa 120), in the Epistle of Barnabas (curew 130), in the Protevangelium of James, and the fragments οἵ Basilides, to passages in the Fourth Gospel presupposes no more than the pre-existence of Johannine ideas and expressions, but in the majority of these cases the more natural explanation is acquaintanceship with the Fourth Gospel (GK, 1. 767, 906-912, 915). On the other hand, it is certainly proved that Valentinus, who must have developed his system before the year 140, outlined his list of veons under the dominating influence of) the Johannine prologue (G‘K, i. 736-739), and that the entire school of Valentinus valued the Fourth Gospel highly, and regarded it as the work of an apostle. | One of the leaders of this school, Heracleon, wrote a com- mentary on this Gospel in the year 160, important fraements of which are preserved to us by Origen (GA, i. 732-739, ii. 956-960). The whole of John xii, 4—xv. 34, xy. 19, possibly also portions of John vi. 88 fl., were THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 177 found in Marcion’s Gospel, and it cannot be proved that these passages were incorporated into this Gospel by his disciples and not by Marcion himself, about 145, with whose ideas they agreed perfectly (GK, i. 663 ff., 675- 680). Not a few passages were appropriated from the Fourth Gospel by others, who prepared new Gospels and apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, e.g. the unknown author of the Gospel of Peter (about 150), and Leucius, the alleged disciple of John, in the Acts of John and of Peter (between 160 and 170). Among other things, Leucius represents Peter as developing his ideas concerning the limited value of the written Gospel on the basis of John xxi. 25 and 1 John i.-iv. (Forsch. vi. 195£.). Justin, who wrote the works, which have come down to us, between 150 and 160, knew the Fourth Gospel as the composition of apostles and their disciples, which was also im use in religious services in his time (GK, i. 516-533). Since Justin lived in Ephesus between 130 and 135, and became a Christian there, his knowledge concerning the Gospels and their use in the Church was derived from this period and region. From the beginning of the controversy about the time of the Easter celebration, which broke out in the province of Asia between 160 and 170 a.p., the equal authority of the Fourth Gospel with the other three was presupposed. It is impossible to understand the Mon- tanistie movement which started in the year 157 (or 156), except in the light of the Johannine discourses about the Paraclete. When (170 a.p.), in opposition to Montanism, a party, to which Epiphanius foolishly gave the name Alogi, declared the Johannine writings to be the work of the heretic Cerinthus, they stated their opinion of them in the sentence, “They are not worthy to be in the Church” (Epiph. Her. li. 3). They made no effort to prove that these writings did not make their appearance in the Church until after the death of John, but, in VOL. ΠῚ. 12 178 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT aseribing their composition to a contemporary of John’s, they admitted that they had been “ in the Church” since the close of the first century. The Asiatic “elders” of Irenzeus appeal to the Johannine sayings of Jesus, as well as to the synoptie sayings (Iren. v. 36. 2; GK, i. 782). The appendix to the Gospel of Mark, which at latest was probably added about the year 150, is based, among other passages, upon John xx., and also upon the work of Papias (see vol. ii. 471-476). The fragments of the latter work also show some traces of familiarity with the Fourth Gospel (n. 3). Ina fragment preserved only in Latin, the genuineness of which there is no other reason to suspect, Papias expressly says that John gave his Gospel to the Church during his lifetime (n. 4). The fact that Eusebius has not preserved for us this testimony of Papias is easily explained by its manifest triviality. As a matter of fact the sense of the fragment is excellent ; since, when superficially considered, the appendix, and especially John xxi. 24f., might make it appear as if the Fourth Gospel were an opus posthumum, edited by the friends of the author. There are two ancient accounts of the origin of the Fourth Gospel. One of these was found by Eusebius in Clement of Alexandria, and is preserved to us only in indirect discourse, and apparently in a very much abbreviated form. It is referred by Clement himself to his teachers (of πρεσβύτεροι), as are the similar state- ments concerning Mark (n. 5). According to this account, John, who was the last of the evangelists, considering that the human and external side (of the gospel history) had been set forth in the (already existing) Gospels, at the suggestion of his friends, and under the influence of the Spirit of God, prepared a spiritual Gospel. The other account, manifestly also abbreviated and more of the character of a legend, is found in the Muratorian Canon (n. 6). According to this account, John replies to THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 179 his fellow disciples and the bishops, who exhort him to write a Gospel, with the suggestion that they fast with him for three days and await a revelation. On the very next night it is revealed to the apostle Andrew that John shall write all down in his own name, but that all the others (disciples present) shall revise his writing... If, as is probably the case, this account was derived from Leucius’ Acts of John, which were written in Asia Minor between 160 and 170 a.D. (n. 6), it is possible that many similar but more extravagant things which are reported by later writers concerning the origin of John were largely derived from this same book of Leucius, which, notwithstanding its Gnostic character, was much read. Most of these accounts agree in representing the bishops of Asia as sent by their Churches to urge John to write, and in representing the prevailing heresies as creating a feeling that a new Gospel was needed. By some no specific heresies are mentioned (Cat. in Jo., n. 4); others mention Cerinthus and Ebion (Epiph. Her. li. 2. 12; Jerome, Vir. Ill. ix.). Quite anachronistically mention is made also of Valentinus (Victorinus on Rev. xi. 1), or in lieu of all others, Marcion (Argum. in Jo., seen. 4). But even Irenzeus, who elsewhere shows no traces of this legendary story, is confident that John wrote his Gospel im conscious opposition to his contemporary Cerinthus, and the still earlier Gnostic teaching of Nieolaüs (n. 7). All tradition which is ancient and in general worthy of notice agrees in representing John as writing after Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at a great age, and during his residence in the province of Asia, or more speci- fically in Ephesus (n. 8). As already noticed, this is frequently combined with the tradition held by the teachers of Clement, according to which John wrote his Gospel with the other three in view (n. 8 end). This is confirmed by the fact that the John of Ephesus, to whom the Gospel is attributed, did actually express his views 180 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT with regard to the Gospel of Mark, and by the fact that, during his lifetime and in the region where he lived, the original of the Gospel of Matthew was orally interpreted in religious services, and finally replaced by a written translation (see vol. ii. 433-444, 509-517). The tradition of the Church is also unanimous in representing the evangelist John as at the same time the author of Revelation and the Johannine Epistles—and as none other than the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. John the evangelist is called a disciple of the Lord both by teachers of the Church and by heretical writers, and by these same persons he is sometimes called an apostle (n. 9). The first designation is the more natural, since the writing of a Gospel is not of itself the function of an apostle, and since the significance and trustworthiness of a Gospel depend very much upon its author’s having been an eye-witness of the facts he records, but not at all upon his apostleship. Furthermore, there was no need fre- quently to describe John as one of the twelve apostles, since John, surnamed Mark, was known in the Gentile Christian Church only by the latter name, and since down to the time of Dionysius of Alexandria the Church was acquainted with only one distinguished John of the apostolic age, namely, the son of Zebedee, the disciple and apostle, the guardian of the Asiatic Churches during the last decades of the first century, the teacher of Polycarp and of Papias (see vol. ii. 433 f.). Until after the death of Origen, all the Johannine writings in the N.T. were assigned by all the Fathers of the Church to the same author without question or explanation. When, as is occasionally the case, attention is called to the identity of the author of some one of the Johannine writings, it is done either for the purpose of recalling the various gifts for which the Church was indebted to this one John, or for the purpose of honour- ing him, or in order to indicate special relations existing THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 181 between the Gospel and Revelation, or between the Gospel and the Epistles. It is never done in order to establish the identity of the author, as if this were not self-evident (n. 10). This was the point of view even of the Alogi. They simply rejected “the books of John” (n. 11). Naturally their polemie was directed mainly, if not entirely, against the two principal Johannine works, —the Gospel and Revelation,—since the Montanists, in opposition to whom their opinion was developed, based their views upon the Paraclete passages in the Fourth Gospel and upon the visions of Revelation. | Conse- quently Hippolytus writes, in opposition to the Alogi, his apology “for the Gospel according to John and for Revelation.” But it must not be forgotten that the criticism of the Alogi applied to all the Johannine writings, and that they regarded the John, whose mask Cerinthus assumed, as an apostle. It was not until much later that the attempt was made, on the basis of one accepted work of the apostle John, to deny his authorship of another writing bearing his name, and to assign it to another John. This was impossible in the year 170, because at that time only one John who belonged to the apostolic age was known. And even as late as 210, when Caius of Rome accepted the negative conclusions of the Alogi with reference to Revelation, but rejected them in the case of the Gospel, he did not distinguish between an apostle John who wrote the Gospel and another John who was the author of Revelation, but maintained the opinion that it was not John but Cerinthus, under the mask of “a great apostle,” who wrote Revelation (n. 11 end), The history of the criticism of Revelation, and later of the shorter letters, isan important chapter in the history of the Canon, but does not concern directly the investi- gation of the tradition relative to these books: for the reason that from the'very outset this criticism is a con- scious denial of every tradition. But even this is an ı82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT indirect witness to the one existing tradition regarding the Johannine authorship of these books. Justin, who; as we have already seen, became ὃ Christian in Ephesus between 130 and 135 A.D., says that, like Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the author of Genesis and the Psalter, the Christian John, the apostle of Christ; received a revelation and prophesied the millennial reign of Christ and the Christians and the general resurrection that is to follow (m..12). The elders of Ivenzus, “‘ who had seen John face to face,” endeavoured: to find out the meaning of the number 666 in Rev. xiii, 18, interpreted other passages of the book; and thereby fixed their own eschatological views (n. 13). According to the testimony of those who saw his work, Papias, a disciple of John of Ephesus, affirmed the “trustworthiness” (τὸ ἀξιόπιστον) of Revelation, made explanatory comments on some passages of the book, and, most significantly of all, derived his belief in the millennium from this source. Mark, the Valentinian, who lived in Asia Minor about the year 150, fed upon the mysteries of Revelation, Melito of Sardis wrote a book on Revelation about‘ the year 170. In short, we have an unusually large number of witnesses to the fact that between the years 100 and 180 Revelation was highly esteemed in the Churches of Asia, to which it was originally directed (Rev. i. 4, 11), and that it was regarded as the work of John of Ephesus, who, at the very latest, from 130 onwards, was generally held to be one of the twelve apostles. Between 170) and 220 we find Revelation circulated and accepted in) all parts of the Greek and Latin Church as the work of the apostle and evangelist John. td It is a noteworthy fact, however, that the circulation of Revelation outside of the province’ of Asia cannot be traced back as far as the circulation of the Gospel. With the exception of Papias, the only writer before Justin who shows familiarity with Revelation is the author of the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 183 Epistle of Barnabas, who wrote about the year 130 (GK, i. 954 £.). The absence of clear reminiscences of Revelation in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the author of the sermon bearing the name of Clement (2 Cor.), might be explained as an accident. But when no reference is made to it in a great apocalypse like the Shepherd of Hermas (cirew 100), and by the author of the Dridache (probably ewrea 110), in an extended teaching concerning the end of the world (chap. xvi.), it is strong proof) that Revelation was not yetin circulation in the regions where these works were written, 1.6. in Rome and (probably) Alexandria, or at least it had not yet won its place in these large Churches. This agrees with the tradition concerning the time when Revelation was written. Ina context in which he appeals constantly to the authority of the Asiatic elders, the disciples of John (v. 5. 1, 30. 1, 33. 8, 4, 36..1-3), Ivenzeus says positively that the vision of Revelation “ was seen” shortly before he was born, near the close of the reign of Domitian (died September 96) (m. 14). A date so definite as this, and one that could, not be derived by exegesis from Revelation itself, would be significant, even if found in a later writer, and even if Irenzeus did not testify that this was the common view among the personal disciples of the author of Revela- tion. It is confirmed, not only by the indications of the date of its own composition to be found in Revelation, but by the above mentioned fact that outside of Asia Minor there is as yet no trace of the influence of Revelation upon the Church in the literature dating from between 90 and 120 A.D. ‚lt is not until later that traces of it are found. The, correctness of the date is also confirmed by all those traditions which refer the exile of John upon Patmos to his,extreme old age, or which describe Revelation as the latest, or one of the latest, writings in the N.T. On the other hand, all the differing views, as to the date of the composition of Revelation to be found in the literature of 184 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the Church are so late and so manifestly confused, that they do not deserve the name of tradition (nn. 8, 10, 14). There are three Epistles which in the tradition bear the name of John. The longest of these is without any greeting, and there is nothing in the course of the letter which definitely identifies the author. In the place usually oceupied by the name of the writer, the author of the two shorter Epistles calls himself ὁ πρεσβύτερος----ἃ, title which is used as a proper name—instead of by his own name. Nevertheless, except by the Alogi, who denied the Johannine authorship of these Epistles, and ascribed them to Cerinthus (above, 181, and n. 11), no one of these Epistles was ever attributed to an author of another name than John. It follows, therefore, that this tradition mast have originated in the same circle in which the letters originated, from which also they were circulated in the Church. According to Eusebius, Papias, the disciple of “the presbyter whose name was John” (vol. 11. 451 ff.), quoted, or adopted, passages from 1 John. In the case of his companion Polycarp, we ourselves can prove as much (n. 15). Both the disciples of John show traces of their famiharity with the shorter Epistles. Naturally, these shortest writings in our N.T. are seldom quoted. Their history is also not a little obscured through a widespread custom of early writers, by which they were accustomed to speak of the Epistle of John or of Peter, or of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians or to the Thessalonians, even when there was more than one letter by the same author or to the same readers (n. 16). Because of their brevity, 2 and 3 John would never have circulated beyond the first readers and have come down to us, if from the first they had not been connected with 1 John, and if they had not had the support of this more extended writing, which was full of important teachings. Without such connection with a longer writing, or a place ina collection of writings, or an insertion in an historical THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 185 work, such fragments are apt to be scattered to the winds. As a matter of fact we meet 2 and 3 John in Alexandria, Rome, and Gaul at the beginning of the second century. At that time, and for a long time afterwards, it was only their relation to the Canon that was uncertain. The Syrian Church, which at first had none of the catholic Epistles in its N.T., afterwards, when the redaction of the Peshito was made, accepted only the three longest, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. It was not until much later that the four shorter Epistles were accepted. At the time when the Muratorian fragment was written, 2 and 3 John and Jude were found “in the Catholic Church” in Rome, 1.6. in the N.T. of the Roman Church, which was still in Greek. But there was no such clear witness in them of their Johannine origin as in 1 John, the relation of which to the Gospel is assumed in 1 John 1. 1-4. Perhaps it was not known in Rome that ὁ πρεσβύτερος was a name given to the apostle John (n. 17). This uncertainty may explain why 2 and 3 John were probably not found in the oldest Latin Bible, and why, as late as the middle of the fourth century, the effort to introduce these letters in the Latin Church met with opposition in Africa. Not very long after this there appeared also in Alexandria, where Clement had commented upon 2 John, without suggesting any doubts as to its Johannine origin, and probably also on 3 John, the same questioning which had appeared in Rome, or it seemed best to take account of the omission of the shorter Epistles from the canon of other Churches. “Not all regard 2 and 3 John as genuine,” says Origen, but without attaching any great weight to the objection. The result was, however, that Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria described only 1 John as a catholic Epistle, and that Eusebius reckoned 2 and 3 John among the antilegomena. It is worth noting that Dionysius in his efforts to discover a second John of the apostolic age, to whom the authorship of Revelation might be assigned, did 186 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT not think of ascribing to the same author the. shorter Epistles about which questions had been raised. Likewise Eusebius, who thought that the desired author needed by his hypothesis was to be found in the presbyter John of Papias, commended this discovery only to those who could not ascribe Revelation to the apostle John. In the case of 2 and, 3 John, he contents himself with the suggestion that they may have been written by some John other than the evangelist. It is not until Jerome that we meet with the definite statement that many regarded the presbyter John, who was to be distinguished from the apostle as the author of 2 and 8 John. But in both the chapters where this statement is made Jerome simply copies Eusebius without scruple (n. 18). There is no tradition concerning the occasion of the Johannine Epistles and the time of their composition. The assumption that 1 John: was written after the Gospel was simply the result of a very questionable interpretation of 1 John i. 1-4 and of the making of this passage refer to the Gospel. In the same way the statements which we meet incidentally, that 1 John was written after Revela- tion, or that Revelation was written after the Gospel, or vice versa (nn. 8, 11), have not the value of traditions regarding the chronology of these books. The only things which do have this value are (1) the report that John wrote Revelation on the island of Patmos between the, years 93 and 96, and (2) that John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus at an advanced age. The reports regarding the person of the apostle and author John may be divided into four classes: (1) The express statements of the N.T. regarding the apostle John ; (2) those statements of the. N.'T. which are to be referred to the same John, on the presupposition that he is the author of the writings attributed to him; (3) the reports concerning the John of Ephesus which originated among the apostle’s disciples in Asia; (4) the legendary accounts. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 187 Since John is regularly mentioned second, when he is associated with his brother James, we may. assume that he was the younger of the two sons of Zebedee. The tradition that he was the youngest of all the apostles: is to be constantly met, and is probably much older than the sources enable us to prove (n. 19). The family: in Capernaum was not poor. ‘The father carried on a fishing business with the aid of his sons and a number of hired servants (Mark i. 20). Whereas the name of the father occurs frequently only because the sons are called the sons of Zebedee, in order to distinguish them from numerous other persons bearing these very common names, the mother is very prominent. We learn that her name was Salome only by a comparison of Matt. xxvil. 56 with Mark xv. 40 (ef. xvi. 1). She was one of the women who accompanied Jesus and the apostles on their preaching journeys and on the last journey to Jerusalem, and who used their own means to defray the expenses of the support of the large company of travellers (Mark xv. 41; Luke viii. 3). She is also mentioned among the women who purchased spices to embalm the body of Jesus after it was laid in the grave (Mark xvi. 1; ef. Luke xxin. 55-xxiv. 1). All this goes to show that, as regards its prosperity and social position, the family of Zebedee is to be compared with that of Chuza (Luke viii. 3), the financial officer of Herod, or even of Joseph of Arimathea, rather than with that of Joseph and Mary (Luke ii. 24; ef. ii. 7). But these two families were closely related. Since it is extremely unlikely that two sisters would have each been called Mary, we may assume that four, not three, women are mentioned in John xix. 25. It is also very natural to identify these four women with the women mentioned in Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40f. and the unnamed sister of the mother of Jesus, mentioned in John, with Salome (n. 20). The sons of Zebedee were, therefore, own cousins of Jesus, and if Mary and Salome 188 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT were relatives of Elizabeth, who was a priest’s daughteı (Luke i. 36), were, like Jesus, relatives of John the Baptist. While the brothers of Jesus continued to main- tain at least a neutral attitude towards Him (John vii. 3), after the arrest of the Baptist Jesus’ cousins became per- manently His disciples (Mark i. 19 ; Matt. iv. 21; Luke v. 9), and after they were chosen among the Twelve they with Peter are repeatedly distinguished by Jesus as His most intimate disciples (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiv. 33; Matt xvil. 1, xxvi. 87; Luke vii. 51, ix. 28). Occasionally a special commission is given John and Peter alone (Luke xxii. 8). Weare not told what it was that led Jesus to give the brothers the name, “Sons of thunder” (Mark ii. 17, vol. 1. 16), but what is said of them in Mark ix. 38-40, Luke ix. 49-55 (above, p. 89, n. 19), shows. that they had intense zeal for their Master's honour, and were possessed by burning anger whenever any insult was offered Him. But this was accompanied by the over- weening ambition which led them and their mother to ask for the place nearest to the throne of the Son of David in His glorious kingdom (n. 21). For both these exhibi- tions of unsanctified zeal they were earnestly rebuked by Jesus ; but He does not for this reason cease to trust them, nor is their loyalty and that of their mother to. Him thereby shaken. Jesus’ prophecy that they must suffer like Himself (Mark x. 38 f.; Matt. xx. 22 f.) was fulfilled in James’ case at Easter 44 (Acts xii, 2). His execution by Herod Agrippa 1. is the only thing which is recorded of him in Acts. On the other hand, John is represented as being from the first along with Peter one of the leaders in the Palestinian Church (Acts iii. 1-iv. 23, viii, 15-25). But always when they appear together Peter is the speaker (Acts iii. 4, 12, iv. 8, v. 29, viii. 20), and frequently, without mention of John, Peter is represented as the undisputed leader of the early Church. The fact, how- ever, that after the death of his brother and the assumption THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 189 of the leadership of the mother Church by James, the brother of Jesus, John, together with Peter and James, occupied a distinguished place in the Jewish Church is evidenced by Gal. u. 9. The picture of John which we get from these definite statements is essentially enlarged by what is said in the writings attributed to him—provided the interpretation of their testimony to their author, which is given below, proves to be correct. This explains at once why the sons of Zebedee, after the arrest of the Baptist, in response, to the brief command of Jesus that they give up their business and attach themselves to Him with a view to becoming His future helpers in His calling, were willing to obey at once and unconditionally (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 22; Luke v. 11). Both were disciples of their relative John, and at the suggestion of their former master attached themselves to Jesus, when He returned again to the place of baptism not long after His own baptism, forming with Peter and Andrew, Philip and Nathanael (Bartholomew), the first group of Jesus’ disciples. This enables us to understand why, in all four of the lists of the apostles in the N.T., the first five, and, with the exception of Acts i. 13, where the name of Thomas is inserted between Philip and Bartholomew, all six occupy the foremost places. From the moment when they attached themselves to Jesus they were constantly associated with Him, both in their native city Capernaum, where Jesus settled with His family (John ii. 12), and upon a journey to Jerusalem to attend a feast, as well as during a somewhat. protracted residence in Judea (John ü. 13-iv. 2). When sub- sequently Jesus, because of the continued activity of the Baptist, abandoned His work in Judea and withdrew into Galilee and the quietness of private life, determined to await the further development of events (John iv. 1-3, 43 ff.), His disciples went with Him and in all probability resumed for a time their usual occupations, until Jesus 190 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT recognised the imprisonment of the Baptist (cf. John v. 35) as the signal for the resumption of His work, and sum- moned His disciples to share it. If the unnamed disciple in John xiii. 23-26 (xviii. 15f.), xix.' 26, 27, 35, xx) 24105 xxi. 7, 20-25 is the apostle John, this confirms at once the statement of the other Gospels, that he was one of the apostles who were most intimate with Jesus. The state- ment that he had relations with the high priest Caiaphas, and that he was known to the servants in the high priest’s house, is new and surprising, if John xvii. 15 ἢ refers to him and not to his brother James (see below, § 65) ; but in either case is less surprising when we remember that Zebedee’s wife was a priest’s daughter, and that the family, while not one of the highest social standing and broadest culture (Acts iv. 13), did belong to the prosperous middle class. The statement in Acts iv. 13 also proves that John, like Peter, had been known by sight to some of the high priestly circle even before Jesus’ death. The statement that John, with his mother Salome, ventured to approach near to the cross during the last moments of Jesus’ life (John xix. 25 ff., 35), is neither confirmed nor contradicted by Matt. xxvii. 55f.; Mark xv. 40f.; Luke xxiii. 49. But it will be observed that Mark mentions Salome among the women who at this time watched the cross from afar, and that Luke mentions, besides the women, also the men who were friends of Jesus. If John was a near relative of Jesus, and if more than this his family was in comparatively good circumstances, it is easy to understand why Jesus entrusted His mother to John’s care, and why he took her into his family (xix. 26 f.). The contributions made to the history of John’s life by John xxi. will be discussed later (§ 66). The three Epistles show that when they were written John was a teacher and occupied a position of leadership in a group of Christian Churches, the main constituency of which did not owe their conversion to his preaching, and THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 191 that they were Gentile Christian Churches. From Revelation we learn that he occupied this position in the Churches of the province of Asia. The traditions current among the disciples of John in Asia concerning the last period of his life, so far as they relate to the origin of his writings, have already been established (above, p. 174 ff.). There is, however, some further matter of importance for the criticism of these writings. According to the testimony of Irenzeus, his disciple Polycarp, who became a Christian in the year 69 (1.6. was baptized in that year), was “made a disciple by apostles,” which means that he was not a small child when he was baptized, but was converted sometime during his boyhood by apostles and afterwards baptized (n. 22), Inenzeus repeatedly mentions a number of apostles and also other personal disciples of Jesus with whom Polycarp was in constant intercourse during his youth. Evidently men like Philip and Aristion are meant (see vol. ii, 452 £.). But again and again Irenzeus mentions John as the prin- cipal teacher of Polycarp, and of Papias and of the other Asiatic elders. Consequently at the latest he must have taken up his residence in the province of Asia in the year 69. Inthe year 66, when 2 Tim. was written, he evi- dently was not working in these regions. It is conceivable that after the death of Paul and Peter, men who remained at their posts in Palestine until the breaking out of the Jewish war (cf. Matt. x. 23; see vol. ii. 572) now recog- nised that the time had come when their calling, which had always been wider than Israel, should now be more extensively exercised—just as Peter had attempted to do not long before (vol. 11. 158 f.). It is also conceivable that they should choose as the scene of their apostolic labours (1.6. their labours as missionaries and leaders in Churches that were already organised), the Churches of the province of Asia, which, to judge from conditions in the second century, were especially numerous and strong—especially ı92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT since in these Churches the wheat and the tares grew to- gether luxuriantly, as is evidenced by the last letters of Paul. The tradition that it was after the death of James and shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish war that the apostles left Palestine and the mother Church in Jerusalem, also favours the dating of the settlement of apostles and other disciples of Jesus in Asia between 66 and 69 (n. 23). Since, according to Irenzeus, John wrote his Gospel in opposition to Cerinthus, and since the Alogi declared Cerinthus to be the author of the Johannine writings (above, p. 177), it is significant that Irenzsus is able to cite witnesses who heard from Polycarp’s lips the well- known story of the meeting of John and Cerinthus in a publie bath in Ephesus (n. 24). In this John of Ephesus one easily recognises the young Boanerges and the author of the Epistles. Judging from the context in Irenzeus, it appears that Polycarp related this anecdote in Rome on the occasion of his visit there at Easter 154. It was on this same occasion also that Polycarp, speaking with reference to the differences in ecclesiastical custom between his native Church and the Roman Church, said that he himself, with John and the other apostles, had always celebrated the Christian Passover as it was then celebrated in Asia, not as it was celebrated in Rome—in other words, that a fast had preceded the Passover, which was really a special yearly celebration of the Lord’s Supper (n. 25). No mention is as yet made in the intercourse between Polycarp and Anicetus in Rome in the year 154 about another difference which led to a vigorous contest within the Asiatic Church between the years 165 and 170, and which about the year 190 created a dissension between the Asiatic and Roman Church that was still more danger- ous and which finally implicated the entire Church. Since in these later controversies most of the Asiatic bishops appealed to the authority of John of Ephesus, Philip of THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 193 Hierapolis, and also of Polycarp and all the prominent bishops of the past in defence of their practice in observ- ing the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, there can be no doubt that John and the other members of the apostolie circle who came from Palestine to Asia Minor after the year 66 were quartodecimans, that is to say, they cele- brated the Christian Passover in the manner mentioned above every year at the time of the Jewish Passover, on the 14th of Nisan, no matter on what day of the week it fell. It is more difficult to determine how much trustwor- thiness attaches to the other traditions concerning John. Some of them sound as if they were genuine history (n. 26), and it would be foolish to reject as pure inventions all the accounts concerning John peculiar to Leucius Charinus, who wrote in Asia from 160-170. In this work Leucius must have followed existing tradition much more closely than was done in the Acts of Peter, which was also probably written by him. The scene of the latter was the distant city of Rome, and the death of Peter had taken place some thirty or forty years earlier than that of John. Whereas in the case of John, Leucius wrote a few years after the death of the last of his disciples. Of special importance to us is his description of the death of John. According to ancient and genuine tradition, John of Ephesus died a natural death in that city in his extreme old age, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan (1.6. about 100), and was buried there (n. 27). If there had been anything remarkable about this death except John’s extreme age, it is impossible to understand the silence of Ireneus and the other prose witnesses concerning’ it. Nor is Leucius’ representation of it essentially different from this tradition (n. 28). Ona Sunday after religious services, John went outside the gates of the city, accom- panied by a few trusted disciples, had a deep grave dug, laid aside his outer garments which were to serve him as FOL. ΠΙ. 13 194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT a bed, prayed once more, stepped down into the graye, greeted the brethren who were present, and gave up the ghost. According to this writing he does not die of weakness, as one might expect to be the case from the genuine traditions concerning the old man who. had finally grown decrepit ; but he does actually die and rests in his; grave in Ephesus, just as truly as Philip and his daughters rest in theirs at Hierapolis, and just as truly as do the other “ great heavenly lights of Asia, who will rise on the day of the Lord’s return” (Polycrates of Ephesus [circa 190] in: Hus. v. 24. 2-5). , It was not until the fourth century that popular superstition, taking up the suggestion of John xxi. 23, began to disturb his rest in the grave and to relate miracles about. the immortal disciple and his grave, which grew constantly more and more fantastic (n. 28). vl 1. (P. 174.) With regard to the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel, cf. E. LUTHARDT, Der joh. Ursprung des 4 Ev. 1874 ; E. Asporr, The Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel. External Evidences, 1880 ; J. DRUMMoND, An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1903, pp, 72-351 ; GK, i. 17 £., 150-192, 220-262, 516-534, 675-680, 732-739, 767, 778, 780, 784 ff., 901-915, 934, ii. 32-52, 733, 850f., 909 ἢ, 956-961, 9674973 ; Forsch. vi. 105, 127, 181-190, 201-203. As to the use of John’s Gospel in the Gospel of Peter, cf. the writer’s work, Evang. des Petrus, 1893, S. 49 f. 2. (P. 176.) Concerning Apostles and the disciples of Apostles in the province of Asia, ef. Forsch. vi. 1-224, where also the biography of Irenmus, the chronology of Justin, and other relevant facts and questions are con- sidered. More recently, E, SCHWARTZ (“ Uber den Tod der Söhne Zebedäi, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Johannesev.” 1904, Abh. der gött. Ges. ἃ. Wiss. philol.-hist. KL, N. F. vii. No. 5) has once again made an attempt, surpassing in audacity all earlier ones, to prove that the entire tradition concerning the long-lived Apostle John is,a myth. Starting from a remark of Wellhausen (Ev. Murci, 90), made without much consideration of the matter, ‘Schwartz infers from Mark x. 35-40=(Matt. xx. 20-23) that the apostles John and James died violent deaths and at the same time ; therefore, according to Acts xii, 2, about 44 a.pv. This inference naturally does not depend, like the old myths of the martyrdom by oil, and of the poisoned cup related in ¢on- nection with John, upon the presupposition that every prophecy of Jesus must have been literally fulfilled. (Cf. the writer’s Acta Jo, exvii. ff., Forsch. vi. 103, 147 ff.). Schwartz (8. 4) considers it self-evident, and not at all needful of proof, that the saying of Jesus is not authentic, but a vatiomniwn ex eventu attributed to Jesus. In that case certainly before the first record. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 195 ing of the apparently prophetic words there must have taken place the event which Schwartz asserts is implied in that saying. This assertion is made with the naivete of the philologist, which has become proverbial, and again without any attempt at proof. If Mark x. 38f, might be understood to mean that James and John would die in the same way as Jesus (cf. John xiii. 36, xxi. 19), it would be necessary also to postulate that they were crucified, a fate which neither of them experienced, The drinking of the cup and the being baptized to which Jesus refers as the ‚experience which is to come to Himself and His disciples, have the much more usual meaning of the suffering preceding the glorification, and thus understood form, as so often, the contrast to the reigning of Jesus, and the reigning with Him, which are to follow (cf. Luke xxiv. 26 ; Acts xiv. 22; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 11f.). In itself this saying stands on a level with the demands which Jesus made upon all true disciples and His announcements concerning their future (Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24f.; John xii, 25 f., χν. 20 1., xvi. 2)... Not until James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa (Acts xii. 2) could one be tempted to aecept the supposition that this announcement to John was to be fulfilled, as in the case of his brother, by a martyr’s death. It was possible that Mark and Matthew entertained such an expectation when they wrote down that conversation ; for both of them wrote some twenty years after the death of James the son of Zebedee, and some thirty years before the death of John. The conclusion of Wellhausen, that this prophecy of martyrdom would hardly have stood in the Gospel if it had been only half fulfilled, would have a faint appearance of plausibility only if John had already died a peaceful death at the time when Mark and Matt. were written. As long as he lived, his death as a martyr could be expected daily. Does not the Gospel contain many prophesies of Jesus which had not been fulfilled when the evangelists wrote, and are not yet fulfilled? Entirely without any support in the text is the improbable assertion of Schwartz, that Mark x. 88 f. prophesies a simultaneous martyrdom of both apostles, or rather that on the basis of this fact the prophecy was fabricated. Here again. the eritic makes what he would prove the presupposition of his exegesis, What further violent efforts are necessary to save this thesis from. absolute absurdity ? The author of Acts, “for the sake of the later tradition,” omitted the name of John in xii, 2 ; 1.6., to favour the myth that identified the long-lived John of Ephesus with the son of Zebedee, he falsified the history handed down to him, The John who, according to Gal. ii, 9, at the time of the Apostolic council was, together with Peter and; James, the Lord’s brother, one of the pillars pf the mother Church, is held to,be not the apostle of this name, who, according to Acts iii.-viii,, stood second to Peter, but the John Mark of Acts xii. 12, whom the author of Acts through his umhistorieal statements (xii. 25, xiii, 5, 13, xv. 37f.) made a helper of Paul and Barnabas in their preaching, and who is not to be identified with the Mark of Col. iy. 10; Philem, 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11. From these criticisms of the Gospels and Acts it is easy to imagine how the fragmentary and in part obscure) state- ments of the post-apostolic literature were handled W. Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 32, has correctly characterised the tone of this treatise; and O. Benndorf (Forschungen im Ephesos, i. 107, published by the Austrian Archwological Institute, 1905) is probably not the only non- 196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT theological historical investigator who turns away from its method and conclusions unsatisfied. 3. (P. 178.) Concerning traces of the Fourth Gospel in Papias’ work, ef. GK, i. 902. In connection with this is what Conybeare communicates to us in the Guardian of July 18, 1894, from the Solutiones in IV. evv. of the Armenian Vardan Vardapet (XII. Cent.), according to the MS. at S. Lazzaro, No. 51, fol. 3: “ And as the doors were shut, He appeared to the Eleven and the others who were with them” (ef. Luke xxiv. 33 ; John xx. 19; a con- nection with the following is not clear). But the aloes, which they brought (John xix. 39), was a mixture, so to speak, half of oil, half of honey. It is certain, however, that aloes is a sort of incense, as we are told by the Geographer and by Papias, who say there are fifteen kinds of aloes in India, four of which are costly—namely, Nikré (1 Ingré), Andrataratz (? Sangra- taratz), Jerravor, Dzakethén. Accordingly, what Joseph and Nicodemus used for the burial was (ἢ of these four costly kinds) ; for they were rich (John xix. 38f., cf. Matt. xxvii. 57, πλούσιος). The “ Geographer” is Moses of Khorene, in whose work, chap. xli., we can read of the four kinds of aloes. So this did not come from Papias. Just as little is he the originator of the popular misunderstanding of aloes as a mixture of oil and honey, because the Geographer and Papias are cited directly in opposition to this idea. There remains the assertion of Papias that aloes is a kind of incense. Conse- quently he has made John xix. 38f. the subject of one of his ἐξηγήσεις. In this connection it is to be noted that the acquaintance of the Armenians with the work of Papias is also otherwise assured ; ef. Forsch. vi. 128- 130, 155. 4. (P. 178.) According to Cardinal Thomasius (Opp., ed. Vezzosi, i. 344) and Pitra (A nalecta, ii. 160), the following argument for the Gospel of John is found in a Latin Bible of the ninth century, in the Codex Regina 14 in the Vatican : “Evangelium Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Johanne adhue in corpore constituto, sicut Papias nomine Hierapolitanus, diseipulus Johannis carus, in exotericis id est in extremis quinque libris retulit. De- seripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte. Verum Marcion hereticus, cum ab eo fuisset improbatus eo quod contraria sentiebat, abjectus est a Johanne. Is vero scripta vel epistolas ad eum pertulerat a fratribus, qui in Ponto fuerunt.” This same text is found in bad orthography in a Codex Toletanus of the tenth century as the conclusion of a long prologue, which in the preceding sentences agrees essentially with Jerome, Vir. Ill. ix. This codex is printed in Wordsworth-White, N.T. Lat. i. 490; ef. also Burkitt, Two Lectures on the Gospels, 1901, pp. 90-94, in addition GK, i. 898 ff. Only as far as constituto have we the right to refer this statement to Papias. Whether the author of the argwmentum borrowed directly from Papias, or, as the present writer assumes, from a work in which he found Papias cited, may not here be discussed. There is no doubt that a Greek source lies at the basis, and that in exolericis=év τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς κτλ. is an error of the copyist for ἐν τοῖς ἐξηγητικοῖς ; ef. Clem. Strom. iv. 83, Βασιλείδης ἐν τῷ εἰκοστῷ τρίτῳ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν. Enough has been said (Forsch. vi. 127, A.1) against a very superficial criticism of what Papias reported concerning the publishing of the Fourth Gospel by the John who was still living, and also in @K, i. 900, concerning “the justness of the theological criticism,” which THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 197 passes over this testimony of Papias in silence, and contents itself with the rejection of the “myths” connected with his words. The words which immediately follow retulit, connected by a vero, are also extant in Greek in the Proemium of the Catena in Jo., ed. Corderius, 1630, and in the Acta Jo. of Prochorus are assigned to this disciple of the Apostle (cf. the writer’s Acta Jo. p. 154 ff.), Also the subdictante of the Codex Toletanus in place of the dictante of the Regino-Vatic. points to a Greek source ; it is a literal translation of ümayopevovros Ἰωάννου. Although it is not possible to name an authority for this account, there is no reason for treating it as a senseless myth. It is almost self-evident that John, like Paul, dictated extended portions of Greek writings to an amanuensis; and Papias, the friend of Polycarp, and a companion of the same age, can just as well as he have been twenty-five or more years of age when the Fourth Gospel was written. The notice concerning Marcion, introduced by a verwm and in the Codex Tole- tanus written as a new section, the source of which we are less able to dis- cover than that of the statement concerning Papias as secretary, is chrono- logically unbelievable in the form in which it appears, but excepting the name of John does not sound senseless. Marcion came from Pontus, and Polycarp seems to have come to know him in Asia before he met him again in Rome ; cf. Iren. iii. 3.4. Evidently there is a misunderstanding of the source like the apud Johannem, Jerome, Vir. Ill. vii.; ef. NKZ, 1898, S. 216, A. 1. 5. (P. 178.) Clem. Alex. in Eus. H, E. vi. 14. 7 (after the words cited, vol. ii. 400, n. 9, and 448, n. 9, and governed by the ἔλεγον, sc. of πρεσ- βύτεροι) : τὸν μέντοι Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον συνιδόντα, ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προταπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, πενύματι θεοφορηθέντα, πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον. 6. (Ρ. 178.) Can. Mur. lines 9-16; GK, ii. 5, 32-40 ; Acta Jo. pp. exxvi- exxxi, The origin of this narrative in the Acta Jo. by Leucius (GK, ii. 38) has become still more probable, since it has been proved that the Can. Mur. stands also in close relation to the Acta Petri written by the same author (GK, ii. 844). In GK, ii, 37 f., are given also the noteworthy patristic state- ments in this connection (cf., further, GK, i. 898 f., and the previous notes 4,5). As to the relation of the narratives of Leucius and Clement, cf. Forsch. vi. 201-204. 7. (P. 179). Tren. iii, 11. 1: “ Hane fidem annuntians Joannes, domini discipulus, volens per evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur Nicolaite, qui sunt vulsio eius, que falso cognominatur scientia, ut con- funderet eos... sic inchoavit in ea, que, est secundum evangelium doc- trina: ‘In principio erat verbum,’” ete. Cf. vol. i. 515, n. 4 8. (P. 179.) That John was the last of the evangelists to write, cf. vol. ii. 392 f., 397-400. This supposition involves the admission that he wrote in old age. After a life spent only in preaching, he came at its close to make use of the written word (Eus. H. E. 111: 24,7). Epiph. Her. li. 12 expresses himself most definitely : διὸ ὕστερον ἀναγκάζει τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τὸν Ἰωάννην, παραιτούμενον εὐαγγελίσασθαι δι’ εὐλάβειαν καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνην, ἐπὶ τῇ γηραλέᾳ αὐτοῦ ἡλικίᾳ μετὰ ἔτη ἐνενήκοντα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ζωῆς, μετὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου ἐπάνοδον, τὴν. ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου γενομένην Καίσαρος καὶ μετὰ ἱκανὰ ἔτη τοῦ διατρῖψαι # 198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT αὐτὸν ἐπὶ (Dindorf, ἀπὸ) τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἀναγκάζεται ἐκθέσθαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Οἱ li. 2,6 ἅγιος Ἰωάννης μεθ᾽ ἡλικίαν γηραλέαν ἐπιτρέπεται κτλ. As to the determination of the date of the exile on Patmos, cf. below, n. 14; and with reference to the strange statements contained in Her. li. 33, cf. Forsch. v. 35-43. Not one of the Church Fathers (Ireneus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius) says that John wrote his Gospel after his return from Patmos, and therefore after the completion of Revelation. At the same time, with the exception of Epiphanius, there is a whole line of witnesses for this statement : (a) A speech delivered at Ephesus under the name of Chrysostom (Montfaueon, viii. 2.131), which Suidas (ef. sub voco, Ἰωάννης [ed. Bernhardy, i. 2. 1023]) had looked upon and copied as a genuine work of Chrysostom ; (b) many Lat. prologues to John’s Gospel (N.T. Lat., ed. Wordsworth, i. 486, 490) ; (c) two treatises ascribed to Augustine (Mai, Nova patr. Bibl, i. 1. 381 ; Aug. Opp., ed. Bass. iv. 382); (d) indirectly, the “ History of John,” which was preserved in the Syriac (Wright, Apocr. Acts, 1. 60-64), in so far as it states that John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus after an exile, the place of which it does not give; and (e) Prochorus in’ his History of the Apostle John in so far as it tells us that John dictated to him his Gospel in two days and six hours at the end of his exile, while he was still on Patmos ; however, after he had left behind for the churches of the island a copy which was also written by Prochorus, but on’ parchment, he brought with him to Ephesus the original, which was on paper (cf. the present writer’s edition of the Acta Jo. pp. 154- 158, xliii-]). As ‘has been more explicitly shown in. ‘the above reference, there must have come a confusion into the tradition, at the time when.and in the circles where the Johannine origin of ‚Rev.--this reeord of the exile on Patmos—was denied, and the book itself was far from being given a place in the N.T. Canon. Prochorus puts the Gospel in» the place of Rev. whieh was written on Patmos; and ‘only through! an evident interpolation is there brought into his book a supplementary narrative of the Patmos origin of Rev. (op. cit. 184). It/is. an echo of the original narrative of Prochorus, when min. 145 (Tischend. ΝΟ, i. 967, ef. another min. by Matthei, Evang. Jo. 1786, p. 356) and the Synopsis of “ Athanasius ” (Athan., ed. Montf. ii. 202) admit that John wrote or dictated the Gospel on Patmos, but published it in Ephesus, and also when the Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 11 and 411, idly talks of the ἰδιόχειρον of the Johannine Gospel, which was alleged to be still preserved in Ephesus (Acta Jo. p. lix). But the souree of the tradition that the Gospel of John was written in Ephesus after the return from Patmos can scarcely be any other than the legend of Leucius (Acta Jo. p. exxvi fl). It does not deserve any particular credence, because Trenaus, who offers very definite statements in regard to the time of the writing of Matt., of Mark (iii. 1. 1), and of Rev. (v.80. 3), would not. have contented himself with the nore indefinite statements as to the Fourth Gospel—e.g. that John may have written it later than Matt., Mark, and Luke, and that he may have written it during his stay αὖ Ephesus (iii. 1. 1)~if the word of Papias or the oral tradition of the elders of Asia had furnished him with more exact informa- tion, "Not only Leucius, if the present writer’s opinion in regard to him as above etated ie correct, and the Syriac history of John, but the general tradition agree with Irenius, that Ephesus is: the birthplace of the Gospel (as to the Syrians, ef. the writer's Acta Jo, piexxviii; Forschs i. δά f.). Also THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 199 where only Asia is spoken of, Ephesus is meant. The fables of that Syriac legend and of the Acta Timothei need no further discussion (CK, i. 943, ii. 38 ; Acta Jo. p. exxxviii). Yet it is to be noted that these apocryphal statements, in so far as they allow that John in the writing of his Gospel had at hand and took into account all three of the synoptic Gospels, rely upon a very old tradition—a tradition going back to the teachers of Clement (above, n. 5) and repeated by well informed people such as Eusebius (H. E. iii. 24. 7-13) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Comm. in N.T., ed. Fritzsche, p. 19 f.). 9. (P. 180.) We lack the definite testimony of Marcion and Justin that they ascribed the Fourth Gospel to the apostle John (cf., however, vol. ii. 389 ἔν and with regard to Justin as a witness for the apostolic title of the Christian writer John, below, note 12. The Valentinian Ptolemäus calls the evangelist now Ἰωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου (Iren. 1. 8. 5), now ἀπόστολος (Ep. ad Floram in Epiph. Her. xxxiii. 35 ef. GK, i. 132 ἢν, 11. 956 ff.), The Valentinian Heracleon (Orig. tom. vi. 2 in Jo.) designates him at first as ὁ μαθητής, in order to distinguish him from the Baptist, and classes “him directly afterwards among the oi ἀπόστολοι. This view of Heracleon’s state- ment is based on the more probable limiting of. the fragment by Brooke (Texts and Studies, i. 4.55), which Preuschen, p. 109. 15 ff., ascribes to Origen. Also the Oriental Valentinians (Clem. Al. Epit. δ. Theodoto, §§ 7, 41) call the writer of the prologue apostle. The Alogi certify that this was the prevailing view up to that time (see n. 11). Ireneus regularly uses “disciple of the Lord” where he speaks of John as author of the Gospel (Im. i. 1, xi. 1. 3, end), and also at other times; vw. 33. 3, ii. 22. 5 (here, however, immediately follows non solwm Joannem, sed et alios apostolos viderunt), iii. 3.'4.fat first’ pad. τ. kupiou, then including him of ἀπόστολοι] ; Epist. ad Victorem in Eus. v. 24. 16, “John the disciple of the Lord and the other apostles”—Can. Mur. line 9, quarti (read quartum) evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis:. Weare then told of the consultation which John held with his condiseipuli and episcopi about the writing of a Gospel (above, note 6), and that within this eirele—evidently from among the condiscipuli of John— Andreas ex apostolis was specially noted. In other words, John too is an apostle as well as Andrew. In fact, the only Christian of the apostolic age, by the name of John, of whom the author of the fragment knows (cf. lines 27, 49, 57, 69, 71), has already, before Paul’s time, been a holder of the apostolic office (line 48); cf: GK, i. 154 f., ii. 32:ff, 48f., 88f.; in general, cf. Forsch. vi. 72-78, 10. (Ρ. 181.) Irenwus, Clement, Tertullian, Can. Mur., Hippolytus, Origen statedly cite the Gospel, the Epistles (particularly 1 John), and Rey. as the works of the one person, John, without finding it necessary. to characterise him more definitely (GX, i. 202 ff.).. It is only for the purpose of explaining the statements of one writing by means of the others or of specially honouring John that now and then mention is made of the identity of the author of these different writings. Thus Irenzus, iii. 16. 5, in con- nection with a citation from John xx. 31, says: propter quod et in epistola' sua sie testificatus est nobis; following whieh is 1 John ii. 18 ff. «So Can. Mur. (lines 26-34) brings to the discussion of the Fourth Gospel the evidence of his Epistles, 7.c..of 1 John i. 1-4—in fact, it:presents it as a writing later than the Gospel. Hippolytus (Contra Noet:\15) explains the name Logos, Jolin 11,14, from Rev. xix. 11-13, as a later statenient of the same John (ὑποβὰς ἐν 200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT τῇ ἀποκαλύψει ἔφη). Without expressing this idea of the chronological sequence of the books, Orig. (tom. 11. ὅ im Jo.) makes a similar statement as to the identity of these writers (ὁ αὐτὸς de ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψεξ. κτλ.). Tert. De Fuga, 9; Scorpiace, xii., takes it for granted that Rev. was written before 1 John (ef. GK, i. 207). Frequently titles are given to John, appro- priate to his different writings ; 6.0. Hippol. De Antichr. 36 addresses the Seer in Rev.: ὦ μακάριε Ἰωάννη, ἀπόστολε Kat μαθητὰ τοῦ κυρίου Clem. Ped. ii. 119, with reference to Rev. xxi., uses φωνὴ ἀποστόλικη. In his Quis Dives, xlii., he calls the exile of Patmos 'Isavvns 6 ἀπόστολος ; in Strom. iii. 106) he speaks of the writer of Rev. as ὁ προφήτης ; Orig. tom. ii. 5 in Jo. refers to him as 6 ἀπόστολος καὶ ὁ εὐαγγελιστής, ἤδη δὲ Kai διὰ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως καὶ προφήτης. For other examples, cf. GK, i. 206 A. 2; Forsch. vi. 210 A. 2. 11. (P. 181.) With regard to the Alogi and the further related eritical attempts of Caius of, Rome, cf. @K, i, 220-262, ii. 967-991; PRE, i. 386. Before Epiphanius gave the Alogi their name they were called ἡ αἵρεσις, ἡ ἀποβάλλουσα ᾿Ιωάννου tas βίβλους (Epiph. Her. li. 8). Inasmuch as these and similar designations by Epiphanius occur repeatedly (ed. Dindorf, ii. 452. 9, 19-21, 453. 6, 501. 30), and Epiphanius himself, reflecting upon the meaning of the expression, confesses that he does not’ know exactly whether only the Gospel and Rev. or also the Epistles are to be understood by it (raya δὲ καὶ ras ἐπιστολάς, § 34; cf. $ 35), we may, therefore, be sure that this expression had been used by Hippolytus, whose writing against the two-and- thirty heresies was a source for both Epiphanius and Philaster (Her. xxx.). But since Hippolytus, to judge from those who depended upon him for their information, and from the title of his writing ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως, discussed. only the critical. arguments of the Alogi directed against these two principal works of John, it is likely that he did not originate the expression “the books of John,” but found it in his opponents’ writings. The Alogi themselves stated: “the books of John are not by John, but by Cerinthus, and are not worthy to be in the Church” (Dindorf, pp. 452. 9, 20 F.), and further declared that “his books do not agree with the other apostles” (p. 453. 6). | By the latter expression they testify that the John around whose books the discussion gathers was an apostle. | Epiphanius (p. 451. 16) observes quite truly that “they know that he—the alleged John—belonged to the number of the apostles.’ They indicate the books individually with sufficient exactness : τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ eis ὄνομα Ἰωάννου ψεύδεται (p. 474, 18) ; Or λέγουσι τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον ἀδιάθετον εἶναι (p. 475. 7), also ὁ Ἰωάννης (2.4. the author of the Fourth Gospel, who passed himself off as, John), ψεύδεται (p. 479. 6) 5 τί pe ὠφελεῖ ἡ ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου (p. 499. 7), That, in rejecting the “ books of John,” they could not ignore his Epistles, is evident from the fact that they were known in the country and in the time of the Alogi under the name of John (below, note 15). This is verified also in the Can. Mur. line 26 ff.; for in the passage after the harmony of the four Gospels is maintained in the face of the assertion of the Alogi that the Fourth Gospel is inconsistent with the other three, the positive testimony to its author in 1 John i, 1-4 is defended as one well warranted and! by no means! surprising. The Alogi urged, as Dionysius did later in regard to Rev. (Eus. H. E. vii. 25. 6-11), that this strong self-attestation was a ground of suspicion against the genuineness of 1 John (GK, ii 45-52, 136). Caius in Eus. H. E. iii. 28.2 says\of the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 201 author of Rev.: Knpıvdos, ὁ δι ἀποκαλύψεων ὡς ὑπὸ ἀποστόλου, μεγάλου γεγραμμένων τερατολογίας ; ἡμῖν ὡς δι᾿ ἀγγέλων αὐτῷ δεδειγμένας ψευδόμενος κτλ. 12. (P. 182.) Just. Dial. Ixxxi. : καὶ ἐπειδὴ (so. codd. read ἔτι δή, al. ἔτι δέ, al. ἔπειτα) καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀνήρ. τις, ᾧ ὄνομα ᾿Ιωάννης, eis τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτη ποιήσειν ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοὺς τῷ ἡμετέρῳ Χριστῷ πιστεύσαντας προεφήτευσε, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τὴν καθολικὴν καὶ συνελόντι φάναι αἰωνίαν ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἅμα πάντων ἀνάστασιν γενήσεσθαι καὶ κρίσιν. Of. Rev. xx. 4-15; GK. 1. 560f. ᾿ 13. (P. 182.) The Asiatic Elders of Iren. iv. 30. 4, ν. 30.1, 36.1. In regard to the number of the antichrist, v. 30. 1, ef: Z/KW, 1885, S. 561 ff.; as to the older witnesses for Rev, in general, cf. GK, i. 201-208 (Epvst. Lugd. in Eus. H. E.v.1; Irenzeus, Can. Mur., Hippolytus, Acta mart. Sccllit., Passio Perpetue, Tertullian, Clement and the Church of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, the Montanists, Melito of Sardis), 560-562 (Justin; cf. above, note 12), 759-761 (the Valentinians), 794 f. (the Elders of Ireneeus, Szbyll., circa 150), 950-957 (Papias and Andreas in Ap. [ed. Sylburg, p. 2, 52], and Eus. iii, 39. 12: Barnabas), With reference to Leucius, cf. Forsch. vi. 197-201. 14. (P. 183.) Iren. v. 30.3. (The Greek is rather free, rendered by Eus. Η. E. v. 8.6. There are added here in brackets the variants of the Lat. version : ἡμεῖς οὖν (pevodv) οὐκ ἀποκινδυνεύομεν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου. ἀποφαινόμενοι βεβαιωτικῶς (ἀποκινδυνεύσομεν ἐν τούτῳ, οὐδὲ βεβαιωτικῶς ἀποφανούμεθα, ὅτι τοῦτο ἕξει τὸ ὄνομα). εἰ γὰρ ἔδει (εἰδότες ὅτι εἰ ἔδει) ἀναφανδὸν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δι᾿ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρρέθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη (Lat. visum est), ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς. In accordance with Wettstein (NT, ii. 746), whose interpretation E. Böhmer, Über Vf und Abfassungszeit der Ap, 1855, S. 31, has appropriated, Iren®us is held to have said, that John was to be seen on earth or was alive towards the end of Domitian’s reign. According to Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4, however, John had lived in Ephesus, not until toward the end of Domitian’s reign, but until the times of Trajan. There is also no proof needed to show that ἑωράθη is to be understood in any other way than as €wpaxéros. According to, his commentary on Rey., Dionysius Barsalibi, who had at hand writings of Hippolytus not possessed by us, this author was of the same mind as Irenaus with reference to the time of the writing of Rev. ; cf. J. Gwynn, Hermathena, vii. (1889) p. 146. The extant writings of Hippolytus, however, offer no confirmation of this view. He simply says (De Antichr. 36) that Rome, that is to say, the emperor, had brought about the banishment of John to Patmos. Also Orig. tom. xvi: 6 im Mt, does not dare to name a definite emperor, because in Rey.i: 9 none is named. Cf. Forsch. vi. 199f. In the legend of the young man saved by John (Clem, Quis Dives, xlii.), no emperor, indeed, is named, though Doniitian certainly is meant ; for, in the first place, John is represented as a very old man; and, secondly, the return from the exile is closely connected; with the death of the tyrant (1.6. of the emperor, who had banished him). This presupposes the change in affairs at the passing of the rule from, Domitian to Nerva, Cf. Dio Cass, Ixviii. 1f. ; Victorinus on Rev. x. 11 (οἵ. what immediately follows); Lact. De Mort. Persec. 3; Hus, H. E. iii. 20,10... The exile on Patmos and the writing of Rev, are assigned expressly to the time of Domitian by Victorinus tm, Apoc.,(Migne, v. col, 333); Eus, 202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT H. E. iii, 18. 1 £., 20. 11, 23.1; Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2109 and 2113 (catitious only in regard to Rev., whose genuineness he doubted); Jerome, Vir. Tl. ix.; contra Jovin. i. 26; psendo-Chrys. in the discourse (Montfaucon, ‘viii. 2.131) referred to above, p. 198. Victorinus of Pettau, circa 300, remarked (loc. cit.) in Apoe. x. 11: “ Hoc dicit propterea quod, quando heec Joannes vidit, erat in insula Pathmos in metallo damnatus a Domitiano Cesare. Ibi ergo vidit apocalypsin. ἘΠῚ cum jam senior putaret, se per passionem accepturum receptionem, interfecto Domitiano judicia eius soluta sunt, et Joannes de metallo dimissus sie postea tradidit hane eandem, quam aceeperat a ‘deo, apocalypsin.” The publication of Rev. after the return from Patmos is referred to in the statement of the renewed prophecy given in Rev. x. 11. Clearly Victorinus follows here an older narrative. In comparison with this, Epiphanius appears entirely innocent of the old tradition and lacking sound intelligence when (Her. li. 12, 33) he places the exile, the writing of Rev., and the return from Patmos in the reign of Claudius (41-54), and at the same time (li. 12) makes John at ninety years of age write his Gospel “after the return from Patmos.” To be sure, he seeks in some degree to adjust the contradiction between this statement of John’s age and the name of the emperor under whom ‘he is said to have lived out his exile and returned, since he introduces, or seems to introduce, a considerable number of years of residence in Ephesus between the return from Patmos and the writing of the Gospel (above, p. 197, n. 8). The’ contradiction, however, is but poorly veiled, for no sensible man will use the words “after the return from Patmos, which occurred» under Claudius,” to fix chronologically an event which, according to the statement of John’s age, and according to the old tradition, happened about forty years after the death of Claudius. Of still less value is the opinion of Can. Mur. line 48—an opinion only incidentally expressed and as self-evident—that John, who, in comparison with Paul, was the’ older Apostle (Gal. i. 17), also wrote the messages to the seven Churches of Asia before Paul wrote his letters to the seven Churches. Cf. @K, ii. 70. The oft-mentioned Syriae History of John, which knows nothing of Rev. and does not name Patmos, represents John as banished by Nero and again'set free by him (Wright, i. 60#.). Prochorus transfers’ the exile on Patmos to the time of Trajan or, according to another ‘reading, of Hadrian (cf. the writer's Acta Jo. pp. 45, 46, 178, xxii, exxv). ‘To the emperor under whom John again received his freedom, he gives no name at all (p. 151). An indirect witness for the tradition supported by Irenaeus is furnished by the opinion which repeatedly crops out, that Rev. is the last, or one of the last, writings of John and of the N.T) This is the'view of Hippolytus, when he'eonceives of Rey. as written later than the Gospel (above, p. 197, n. 10). Furthermore, the employment of Rev. xxii. 18 f to express the thought that it is sacrilege to add anything to the holy reeord of the N.T. revelation as of equal worth, seems t6 presuppose that Rev. is the last apostolic writing. Cf. Anonym. Contra Montan. in Bus. H. E. v. 16. 3; Tren. iv. 33. 8, v. 30. 1; Tert. Contra Hermog. xxii. ; GK, i. 112 ff. 15. (P. 184.) According ‘to Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16, Papias is witness for 1 John (ef. vol. ii. 185 f,,n. 1). Tt is very significant that the Syriao trans- lation of Eusebiné (cf. ThDb, 1893, col. 472), already known to Ephrem, and consequently originating at the latest about 360, freely renders this passage ; THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 202 “This writer makes use of Papias as witness (for portions) of the letters οἱ John and of Peter.” By this there would not perhaps be meant several letters of John and of Peter; but the Syrian, who knew or recognised only the one letter of John and the one of Peter, included these both in one plural. The designation of Christ as αὐτὴ ἡ ἀλήθεια in the preface of Papias (Kus. H. #. iii. 39. 3, ef. ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια in Orig. tom. vi. 3 in Jo.) reminds one very strongly of 3 John 12. Polycarp’s statement (ad Phil. vii.: mas γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν) has a much clearer connection with 2 John 7 than with 1 John iv, 2f. On this point, as well as in regard to the similarity of Barnabas to the Epistles of John, ef. GK, i. 905 f. 16. (P. 184). Concerning the method of citation mentioned on p. 184 f., above, ef. the examples given in @K, i. 210f. «Even by such a learned man as Origen there is nothing more common than this carelessness. For new examples, cf. tom. i. 23 in Jo., κατὰ τὸν Παῦλον... ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ; just the same i. 31; further, 11: 7, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς. So also i. 33, ἐν τῇ Ἰωάννου ἐπιστολῇ (=1 John ii. 1), besides i. 22, ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ ὁ Ἰωάννης ; Ambros. in Ps. xxxvi. (ed. Bened. i. 777); Jerome, ad Eph. vi. 5, Vall. vii. 667. 17. (P. 185.) With reference to the Johannine Epistles in the Can. Mur. lines 28-34, 68, ef. @K, ii. 48-52, 88-95; on the other evidences for the Epistles, ef. i. 209-220, 374f., 739, 759, 905 f. 18. (P. 186.) In’the matter of Origen’s witness to 2 and 3 John as given in Eus. H. E. vi. 25. 10, cf. GK, i. 211. . For the testimony of Dionysius, ef. H. E. vii. 25.11. And for the testimony of Eusebius himself, cf. H. E. iii. 24. 117, 25. 3. In the latter passage, at the end of the Antilegomena, he mentions 7 ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη Ἰωάννου, εἴτε τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ τυγχά- νουσαι εἴτε καὶ ἑτέρου ὁμωνύμου ἐκείνῳ: Here Eusebius evidently has in mind John the presbyter who was discovered by him. So.is he understood by a later writer who quotes from him (TU, v. 2. 170). But in the passage where Eusebius communicates his discovery of the presbyter John (iii. 39. 5-6), he makes use of him only in reference to Rev., just as the double tomb of John at Ephesus is employed by him and before him by Dionysius (Eus. vii. 25. 16) only for the hypothesis of a second John as the author of Rev., not as the author of the shorter Epistles. Jerome (Vir. Ill: ix.) has nothing to say about the very clearly stated hypothesis of Eusebius regarding the presbyter John as the author of Rev. ; in fact.he turns against it the material offered him through Eusebius and the mere hints which Eus. gives (iii. 25. 3) as to the boastful assertions respecting the Epistles (Vir. Ill. ix. after the dis- cussion of 1 John: “relique autem duo. . . . Johannis presbyteriasseruntur, enius et hodie alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesum ostenditur; et nonnulli putant, duas memorias eiusdem Johannis evangeliste esse,” etc. Later (Vir. Jil. xviii.) he infers as does Eus. (H. E. iii. 39. 4-6) from the preface of Papias, that a presbyter John—a different person from the apostle—had been the teacher of Papias, and continues : “Hoc autem dicimus propter superiorem opinionem (i.e. Vir. Ill. ix.), qua a plerisque rettulimus traditum, duas posteriores epistulas Johannis non apostoli esse, sed presbyteri,” Jerome does not even know how to quote himself accurately. Cf. ν, Sychowski, Hieron. als Läterarhist. 8. 91, 107. 204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 19. (P. 187.) James stands before his brother John three times in Matt., nine times in Mark, three times in Luke. John precedes James only in Luke viii. 51, ix. 28; Acts i.18.. The use of οἱ (υἱοί or τοῦ) Ζεβεδαίου without the proper name is found only in Matt. xx. 20, xxvi. 37, xxvü. 56; John xxi. 2; beside the names of the sons, Matt. ἵν. 21, x. 2; Mark 1: 19, ili. 17, x. 35; Luke v.10, In regard to John as the youngest of all the apostles, cf. the writer’s Acta Jo. p. exxxivf.; im addition to this, ef. Theod. Mops. Comm. in Jo. (Syriac ed. Chabot, p. 3. 16). 20. (P. 187.) Cf. the discussion regarding the brothers and the cousins of Jesus, Forsch. vis 225-363, especially 338-341. ᾿ 21. (P. 188.) Mark x. 35 represents the sons of Zebedee as themselves presenting the request. At theisame time the statement (Matt. xx. 20) that their mother came before Jesus with them and was herself the spokesman sounds most» credible. Mark and still more Luke, who gives no account of this incident, leads the reader, who knows the story through the sequence of the narratives in Mark ix. 33-40, Luke ix. 46-55, to suppose that the brothers were very actively concerned in the dispute for position. According to Luke xxii, 24-34, ef. John xiii, 4-17, the dispute was renewed at the time of the Last Supper, and Peter also appears to have had a part in it. ‘iv ol 22. (P. 191.) Iren. iii. 8..4. In regard to this passage and the entire testimony of Irenzeus as to the relation of Polycarp to John, cf. Forsch. iv. 259 £., vi. 72-78, 96-109. 23. (P: 199.) Ἐπ5. H. E. iii. 5. 2f.; Demonstr, ev. vi. 18.14; Epiph. De Mens: xvi; Her. xxix. 7, xxx. 2 (cf. vol. ii. 588f,, n. 3), οἵ. Theod. Mops., ed. Swete, i. 115 f. 24. (P. 192.) /Iren. iii, 3, 4 (as given in Greek in Eus; ivi 14.6): καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ ἀκηκούτες αὐτοῦ (i.e. of Polycarp), ὅτι Ἰωάννης, ὁ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητής, ἐν τῇ ᾿Εφέσῳ πορευθεὶς λούσασθαι καὶ ἰδὼν ἔσω Κήρινθον, ἐξήλατο τοῦ βαλανείου. μὴ λουσάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειπών : “ φύγωμεν; μὴ καὶ τὸ βαλανεῖον συμπέσῃ ἔνδον ὄντος Κηρίνθου τοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθροῦ." No suspicion can be attached to this narrative of Polycarp’s, traced back so definitely to ear-witnesses, who were still. living in the time of Irenzus, through the very similar narratives of Epiph. Her. xxx. 24, in which Ebion takes the place of Cerinthus (GK, ii. 757). If, in all probability, the latter account goes back to Leucius, who wrote earlier than Irenzeus; then it is ἃ significant confirmation of the historicity of Polycarp’s narrative. « Leucius, who was at least connected with the school of Valentinus (vol, ii. 73, n.'7), and therefore not so greatly out of sympathy with the teaching of Cerinthus, although he was anti-J udaistic, has substituted the name of Ebion for Cerinthus, which he has probably retained beside it as “ Merinthus” ; ef. the writer’s Acta Jo. p. exxxviii, Theanecdote is of itself not possible of invention. What inventor of legends would ze- present an apostle as frequenting a public bathing-place. In Epiph. (op. ett.) one can read how offensive this story from a secular source was to the pious taste, But it could not even have been invented fifty or sixty years after the death of John, if the fact was not established that Cerinthus im the lifetime of John had been prominent im Ephesus as a heretic. rig 25. (P. 19%) »Polycarp’s position im the question of the Passover we know through Iren: Dp: ad Viet, im Bus, H. ον. 24. 16 (Forsch. iv. 283-303, where the present writer believes he has contradicted old errors, and has made clear THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 205 for the first time the real facts in the case) ; cf., further, Polye. Ep. ad Vict. in Eus. H. E. v. 24. 1-8. 26. (P. 193.) Of the narratives regarding John which cannot be traced nearer to their sources, the one that claims special confidence is in Clement (Quis Div, xlii.), beginning with the words, ἄκουσον μῦθον, οὐ μῦθον ἀλλὰ ὄντα λόγον περὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου παραδεδομένον καὶ μνήμῃ πεφυλαγμένον, not poorly rendered by Herder in the legend, “Der gerettete Jüngling,” ef. Acta Jo. p. exl ff. ; Forsch. vi. 16-18, 199. Further seems genuine what Jerome on Gal. vi. 10 (Vall. vii. 528f., at all events according to one of the Greeks named on p. 370, probably according to Origen) related of the decrepit J ohn, who, brought by his disciples into the assembly, could utter nothing but the ever repeated word Filiolt, diligite alterutrum. So the story of John playing with the partridge, though originating with Leucius, has nothing made up about it (Acta Jo. pp. exxxvi, 190), The resurrection of a dead man at Ephesus through the agency of John, which is testified to by Apollonius (in Eus. v. 18. 14) in the year 197, is perhaps identical with the interesting account Acta Jo. pp. 188. 33-190. 2, and also p. exxxvi. 27. (P. 193.) The expression concerning the death of John at Ephesus, παρέμεινε αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Tpaiavod χρόνων, twice used by Irenzeus (ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4), particularly in comparison with the similar assertion in regard to Poly- carp (also in iii. 3. 4), allows of no other conception than that of a natural death. When at this same time Polycrates (Eus. iii. 31. 3, v. 24. 3) writes, ἔτι δὲ καὶ Ιωάννης ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ κυρίου ἀναπεσών, bs ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκὼς καὶ μάρτυς καὶ διδάσκαλος, οὗτος ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ κεκοίμηται, he characterises John, in the first place, according to John xiii. 25, as the Evangelist ; secondly, as the high priest (as Epiph. Her. xxix. 4, Ixxviii. 14, characterises the Lord’s brother James, an idea which probably arose in con- nection with the priestly origin of Mary and Salome ; ef. above, p. 87) ; thirdly, as a witness and teacher, both of which he was in all the writings that bear his name, as well as in his preaching (John i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24; 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14; Rev. i. 2 ; ef. Forsch. vi. 208-214). That Polyerates could have thought of μάρτυς in the sense of martyr, as he directly afterwards uses it of Polycarp and Thraseas, is improbable also, because, as in the case of these two, he would have placed the paprus as designating the manner of John’s death directly after the other titles. Otherwise he must have seen a martyrdom perhaps in the banishment to Patmos, Rev. i. 9. That prophecy regarding the sons of Zebedee, which is given in Mark x. 38f., Matt. xx. 22 f., and which was fulfilled literally only in the case of James, gave early oppor- tunity for explanatory interpretations, providing a Lat. fragment under Poly- carp’s name were genuine (Patr. Ap. ii, 171, with the necessary emendation Acta Jo. p. exix). At all events, such interpretations were forthcoming from Origen and many later than he. On the other hand, this prophecy also gave rise to the invention of the legend regarding the immersion of John in boil- ing oil and his drinking a cup of poison (Acta Jo. pp. exvi-exxii). "All this; and especially the silence of Irenzeus, who had in his possession the work of Papias, would be incomprehensible or rather impossible, if, as has been often maintained, Papias had stated that the apostle John had been killed by the Jews. In one passage of the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos, about 860, where, according to all other manuscripts, he testifies to the peaceful death of 206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT John (ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἀνεπαύσατο), a single MS. has the direct contrary, μαρτυρίου κατηξίωται, and adds to this further that Papias says of John, in the second book of his work, ὅτι ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη, by which the prophecy of Mark x. 39 was fulfilled in regard to him as well as in regard to his brother James (Georg. Hamart., ed. Muralt, p. 336, pref. xvii. f.; Nolte, ThQSc, 1862, S. 466 f.). De Boor, TU, v. 2. 170, has published from a collection of extracts, essentially the same thing in this form ; Παπίας ev τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ λέγει ὅτι Ἰωάννης ὁ θεολόγος Kai Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν:. That this MS. of Georgios is interpolated at this place, is just as certain as that in the second book of Papias there must have been something which served as a basis for the two extracts (cf. De Boor, 177 ff.). We do not possess the text. Just after this place the interpolator of Georgios has reproduced a passage from Orig. tom, xvi. 6 wm Mt. most inexactly and with absolute in- correctness. The second excerptor shows by ὁ θεολόγος that he is not quoting the words of Papias. That which is common to both, namely, Ἰωάννης ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη, will remain as the expression of Papias. But who is the John of whom Papias speaks? Certainly not his teacher, the presbyter John of Ephesus, or an apostle John, to be distinguished from him, who possibly might have been a martyr in Palestine and never have come to, Ephesus. For, in the first place, Papias knew only one John of the apostolic generation (vol. ii. 435 f.) ; and, secondly, in both of these cases the silence of Ireneeus and all the testimony of those witnesses, among whom Irenzwus is merely the clearest, would be incomprehensible. The question must, then, deal with another John, who can be no other than the Baptist : Commodianus, Apol. 222 (Judai), Johannem decollant, jugulant Zachariam ad aras : Pseudo-Cypr. Adv. Jud. 2, Tohannem interimebant Christum demonstrantem. Still more mistakenly and yet just as certainly does Theop. (Lat. ed.) Jn Evv. (Forsch. ii. 56, Text and Anm.) say the same thing in regard to the Baptist, Whoever thinks it improbable that Byzantine excerptors have transferred to the Apostle an expression of Papias concerning the Baptist, let him read the communication of Conybeare in the Guardian of July 18, 1894.. The above mentioned Vardapet (above, p. 196, n. 3) calls Polycarp a “disciple of the Baptist,” referring to the much older Ananias Sharkuni, who had rightly called him a “disciple of the evangelist John.” Cf., besides, Acta Jo. exviii, and more in detail Forsch. vi. 147-151. 28. (P. 193.) The last chapter of Leucius’ Acts of John is preseryed for us in what the Syriac version and the Armenian version, which is attributed to the fifth century, have in common with the Greek texts, and is confirmed not only by the silence of those who possessed the book, but incidentally also by their positive statements, e.g. Epiph. Her. Ixxix. 5, ef. Acta Jo. pp. xeiv-exii, 238-250, also p. 235; Acta Ap. Apoor,, ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii, part i. 215. Augustine is the oldest witness for the superstition that John still breathes in his grave and thereby lifts the surface of the earth ; cf. the writer’s Acta Jo. pp. 205, xeviii, eviii. In the same work, ef. pp. eliv-elxxii in regard to the various places where people later believed him to be buried, and the buildings connected with them, THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 207 8 65. THE TESTIMONY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL TO ITS AUTHOR. John, whom we may venture to call the author of the Johannine writings, did not, like Matthew and Mark, pre- fix a title to his Gospel. Nor did he, like Luke, write a preface, or a dedication taking the place of a preface, in which the author, addressing the first reader or readers of his book, discussed the presuppositions and purpose of his literary work ; since what is called the prologue to John (John i. 1-18) is an introduction of an entirely different sort. But in two later passages of his book (xix. 35, xx. 31), addressing his readers, John does speak concerning the reasons why he wrote, and in the first of these of his own, the narrator’s, relation to the facts which he recorded. The oceurrence of a “ you” addressed to the readers in the midst of a narrative in which there is nothing else to indicate that it is of the nature of a communication, and to which no dedication is prefixed giving it a certain resem- blance to a letter, is something unheard of in literature (n. 1). It is the language of the preacher addressing his congregation. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in both passages the purpose of the written narrative is declared to be the upbuilding of the religious life of the readers. The narrative is a means used for the accom- plishment of the preacher’s'end. [Ὁ is, therefore, a sermon addressed to a definite group of hearers, or rather, since it is in written form, a definite group of readers. From this it follows at once that the readers for whom John wrote his book were Christians, with whom he was acquainted and who knew him. That they belonged to the Church is in no way rendered doubtful by the fact that Christian faith is declared to be the goal to which the readers are to be led by the testimony of John. For it is a peculiarity of the Fourth Gospel frequently to speak of a relative unbelief, and of a beginning of belief in those who in a general sense 208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT have already become and are believers (n. 2). . Further- more, the language of the Gospel, especially xx. 31, shows very clearly that the reference is not to a first beginning of belief, but to the strengthening of already existing faith, and to the increase of the blessedness that accompanies liv- ing faith. The entire character of the book is against the assumption that it is intended to be a written sermon for the conversion of persons not yet believers. To address as “you” the indefinite and unknown “ public” into whose hands the book might fall, especially a Gentile or Jewish public of this character, would show a lack of good taste quite unparalleled. With the help of the tradition (above, pp. 179 ἢ, 194 δ) we may define the first impression of xix. 35, xx. 31 as follows: In imagination John sees the Church of Ephesus, or all the Christians of Asia, gathered about him, and in important passages of his book he addresses ‘them directly. Under ordinary circumstances in written, as in oral, discourse the “ you” which is twice used would correspond to an “ I” representing the speaker. This is not only wanting in xix. 35, xx. 31, but throughout the entire book, and the question arises what substitute for it was chosen by the author who was known to the readers. Omitting for the present the consideration of the supplement (chap. xxi. $ 66), we observe that, while “I” does not occur in the prologue, “ we,” which includes the author, is used three times (1. 14, 16). When John com- pares the existence of the Logos, who became flesh upon earth, with the visible appearance of the glory of Yahweh during the flight out of Egypt and its descent upon and into the tabernacle, he immediately represents himself as one of the group of men among whom the Logos dwelt in the flesh as inatent. Consequently he was also one of the men who beheld the glory of the Logos shining through the veil of the flesh when He dwelt among men ; and, finally, he’ was one of those, all of whom had received from the fulness which this one personality held within itself grace upon THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 209 grace (n. 3). The use of the aorist three times in these statements, the subject of the last verb and the object of the first, make the writer's meaning perfectly clear. John does not regard himself as simply one of the contemporaries and fellow-countrymen of Jesus who saw Him occasionally and heard Him speak, but reckons himself, just as clearly as is done in 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14, among “the eye- witnesses from the beginning ”—the disciples who believed on Jesus and were in constant fellowship with Him : since Jesus had revealed His glory, not to those who had seen some of His wonderful deeds, or who had only heard of Him (11: 23 ff., vi. 2, 14, 26, 36, xii. 37 ff., xv. 24), but’ to the disciples who believed on Him (ii. 11; ef. i. 51, xi. 40). To this circle the author belonged. When first mentioned, the two disciples of John, who were the first to attach themselves to Jesus shortly after His baptism (i. 35-39), appear without names, It is not until later, and then in a very circumstantial way,—when something is to be narrated about Peter,—that we learn that one of these was Andrew, Peter’s brother (ver. 40 f.). The thoughtful reader asks, “Who is the other of these first two disciples of Jesus?” One would naturally sup- pose that this particular evangelist, who is the only one to relate how a group of disciples was first gathered about Jesus, and who gives details about more disciples than do the other evangelists (n. 4), must have regarded these first two disciples as of equal importance. Our wonder js increased when we read ver. 41. According to the correct reading, which is to be accepted more because of its originality than because of strong external testimony, it is stated with marked emphasis that Andrew, the first of the two disciples, finds his own brother, which implies that after Andrew the other of the two disciples, whose name is not mentioned, also finds his brother, whose name is like- wise unmentioned (n. 5). To everyone who can read Greek it is perfectly clear between the lines that, in VOL. 111. 14 210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT addition to the two brothers Andrew and Peter, there must have been two other brothers who left John and, became disciples of Jesus. \. The more peculiar this suppression of the names of the second pair of brothers and the, mere suggestion of an event which clearly was of importance to the author seem, the more imperative is it that we ask the reason for the peculiarity. Inall four lists of the apostles the two brothers whom John mentions, Andrew and Peter, are associated with two other brothers, John and James, and the names of these four always stand at the head, of the lists. [015 more than, conjecture to suppose that, the two brothers associated with Peter and Andrew in John’s account of the call of the disciples are the same as those who in the lists of the apostles without exception sustain the same relation to them. This enables us also to explain why these four, names always come first, .They were, the first of the apostles who became disciples of Jesus, . This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in all four of the lists Philip occupies the fifth place, as in John, and Nathanael, who is sixth in John’s account—if he be identical with Bartholomew—oceupies this same position in the lists of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, being seventh only in, Acts i, 13 (n. 6). For the present we may conclude our proof of the identity of the unnamed brothers in John i. 35-41 with James and John by ealling attention to the further faet that these two apostles, who, according to the testimony of all the other tradition, together with Peter stood closest to Jesus, and who are distinguished by the place given them in the lists of the apostles and by the röle which they played in Acts (above, p. 187 f.), are never mentioned by name in the Fourth Gospel. Nor, is their father, Zebedee, men- tioned except in the supplementary chapter xxi. (ver. 2); and, as we have already seen (above, p. 187), even their mother, Salome, is designated as the sister of Jesus’ mother without mention of her name. How are we to explain the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 211 fact that no mention is made of the names of this family, all the members of which were so close to Jesus, and the fact that in this Gospel, in which the personal characteristics of the members of the apostolic circle are more strongly brought out than in any other, there is complete. silence concerning two apostles of the first rank? It is even less possible to think of the omission of the names of the two brothers in John i. 35-41 without connecting this fact with the entire silence of the Gospel concerning James and John, than it is to think of the unnamed brothers, among the first four disciples without connecting this fact with the occurrence of the names of James and John among the first four apostles in all the’ lists. Unless we are willing to assume a multitude of peculiar accidents and to admit that the facts to which attention has been called are a meaningless puzzle, we must admit, as the result of a purely exegetical study, that one of the two. disciples whose name is not mentioned in i. 35 ff. was either James or John, and that the brother whose name is likewise unmentioned, whom one of these found and. brought. to Jesus as Andrew did Peter, was either John or James. But the only credible reason for the absence of the names of James and John and of the entire family in the Fourth Gospel, is the aversion of the author of this book to introducing himself by the use of “I,” or by the use of his name, into the history, which to him and his readers was sacred—an aversion which is manifested in different ways by the other evangelists and the author of Acts (n. 7). It is the author of the book who introduces him- self and his brother without mention of their names. The author is, or means to represent himself as being, either the unnamed companion of Andrew in 1. 35-39, or the brother of this unnamed person not expressly mentioned, of the finding of whom we read between the lines in ver, 41. Which of these two it was is determined by the character of the narrative in vy. 35-39, While there is no account 15 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of the finding of the brother by the companion of Andrew, in vv. 35-39, it is either the account of something the author experienced, or a skilful imitation of such an ex- perience (n. 8). The unnamed person is, therefore, the narrator, who with Andrew followed Jesus at the sug- gestion of his former teacher, and who after hours of conversation with Jesus became convinced that He was the Messiah, and who, like Andrew, but somewhat later, brought his own brother to the newly-found teacher. It is easier still to determine whether the narrator was John or James. Not only does tradition unanimously make John the author, but it is impossible that James, who was put to death in the year 44 (Acts x1. 2), should have been the ‘author of this Gospel, which was certainly written much later. Nor is it conceivable that a writer of a later time should have identified himself with this James who died at such an early date, and who was so little prominent after the death of Jesus, and that this identification should have been entirely without result. ‘The author was, there- fore, John, the son of Zebedee. Sitice the six men, whose first contact with Jesus is narrated in i. 35-51, accompanied Him on His journey to Gulilee (i. 43), and are represented as being among the witnesses of His wonderful deeds (i. 50 f.), it is self-evident that wherever in the further course of the Gospel the disciples of Jesus are mentioned (ii. 2, 11, 12, 17, 22, il. 22, iv. 2, 8, 27-38) these disciples are meant, or at least ineluded, This name is also applied to ‘all’ those who, throuch their faith in" Jesus and at least a temporary attachment to Him, are distinguished from the multitudes who eome and go (iv. 1, vi. 60-66, vii. 8, Vili. 31, 1x 27 Ef, xix. 38). But where “ the diseiples are spoken of as the travellin® companions of Jesus, or His reoular followers, or His companions at table, it is made clear im various ways that those are meant whom Jesus had appointed at the beginning to share His work, whom He had attached THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 213 to Himself, and twelve of whom He had chosen to be apostles at a time not definitely indicated by John (m 9). Where individuals belonging to this circle are mentioned by name they are always those who, from the other sources we know, belonged to the circle of the Twelve, namely, Andrew (vi. 8, xii. 22), Peter (vi. 8, 68, xiii. 6-9, 24, 36-38, xviii. 10, 11, 15-18, 25-27, xx. 2-7), Philip (vi. 5-7, xii. 22, xiv. 8), Thomas (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24-29), Judas the traitor (vi. 71, xii. 4, xu. 2, 11-26-30, xviii. 2-9), and the other Judas (xiv. 22). When Philip and Peter reappear in the narrative, it is assumed that they are already known from chap. 1. On the other hand, Thomas and Judas are introduced as if heretofore unknown. While Andrew is introduced in vi. 8 as a new figure, it is done in such a way that the reader recalls 1. 40, just as he recalls i. 44 in connection with the third mention of Philip in xu. 21. Attention is never again called to 1. 35-39, 41, and the two unnamed brothers. It is not until xiii. 23-25 that an unnamed person belonging to the inner circle of the disciples is once more brought into prominence, and then again in xix. 26-35 and xx. 2-10, with unmistakable reference to xi. 23. One of the disciples reclining with Jesus at the table occupied the place at His. right, which is explained by the remark that Jesus had a special fondness for him. The confidence which was a natural result of this fondness is evidenced by the fact that the disciple arose from his place, which was lower down and removed some- what from the Lord, and, leaning on Jesus’ breast, quietly whispered to Him the question about the identity of the traitor. Who is this disciple for whom Jesus showed: a special love, which was distinguished from His love to all men, and especially to: His disciples (xiii. 1, xv. 9, 18), not so much by its greatness or its strength as by His special fondness for the particular personality of \this disciple (n. 10)? The answer of the early Church: always. was; “ This unnamed disciple is the evangelist who is identical 214 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT with the apostle John” (n. 11). And it is difficult te understand how, if we accept the identity of the evangelist with the diseiple who leaned on Jesus’ breast, the identity of the same with the apostle John can be denied. Accord- ing to Matt. xxvi. 20; Mark xiv, 17, 20; Luke xxi. 14, 30, no one except the twelve apostles took part in Jesus’ last meal, and John itself makes it clear that it was the apostles whom Jesus had chosen for a special service, and particularly for the service of preaching, who sat with Him on the last evening at table, and that the only person among those at the table not really belonging to the circle was the apostle Judas, not some admirer of Jesus who belonged to the larger group of His disciples (n. 9). In view of the entire agreement of the evangelists as to this point, every statement to the effect that others were present at the table is to be regarded as ὦ prior? false, and every attempt to derive from the Fourth Gospel itself a conception in contradiction to the more explicit testimony: of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is to be regarded as making mockery of the text (n. 12). The fact that the disciple who leaned on Jesus’ breast, like the companion of Andrew ini. 35 ff., is unnamed, is to be explained, as it is in i. 35 ff., by the fact that the author is speaking of himself; and what in the latter instance was inferred from the apparent identity of the two pairs of brothers who were the first disciples, with the two pairs of brothers who are mentioned first in all the lists of the apostles, namely, that the narrator was, like his brother, an apostle, follows directly from the situation in xiii.—xvii. In i. 35 ff. the only question was as to whether John or James was the narrator, which, in view of the time prior to which the Fourth Gospel could not have been written and the unanimous tradition, was decided in favour of John; and both these arguments apply in case of the unnamed narrator in xiii. 23ff. The fact is also to be taken into consideration, that in the nature of the case the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 215 apostle upon whom Jesus bestowed His special friendship must have been one of the three most intimate disciples of Jesus (above, p. 187). If for reasons already mentioned James is out of the question, and if Peter is excluded because in John xii. 24 and frequently also in other passages he is associated with the unnamed disciple, there remains only the apostle John. This conclusion that the unnamed apostle in xii. 23 ff. was John is confirmed by the fact that in John xii. 23 ff., xx. 2-10, and, as will be shown, in xxi. 1-7, 20-25 also—possibly also in xviii. 15-18—this unnamed disciple is associated with Peter, just as was the apostle John, according to other tradition (Luke xxi. 8; Acts m. Lff., iv. 13 ff, villi. 14 ff; ef. Gal. ii. 9), even. before the death of James, the son of Zebedee, who was the third among the intimate apostles of Jesus. In xix. 26, xx. 2, the unmistakable reference to xili. 23 makes it certain that the apostle John was among the disciples who stood near the cross and hastened to the grave ; but in xviii. 15, according to the reading supported by the strongest evidence (ἄλλος μαθητής, without the article), a disciple is introduced in association with Peter, who for the time being is left unidentified. While formally it is possible to assume that here some person other than the apostle John is meant, the analogy of xiii. 23, where in the same manner, without regard to his earlier reference to himself ini. 35 ff, the apostle is introduced as merely one of the disciples, and, afterwards characterised by his special relation to Jesus, shows that this assumption, while possible, is not’necessary. Certainly the unnamed person in ‘xvill. 15 was one of the apostles, since, together with Peter, he follows Jesus from the place where Jesus was taken prisoner to the palace of the high priest. But’ in Gethsemane, as at the Last Supper, . only apostles were present; and of these Peter, John, and James were especially near to Jesus. When it is further borne in mind that the names of personages so little prominent in 216 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT the narrative as Malchus (xviii. 10), Mary the wife οἱ Clopas (xix. 25), and Joseph of Arimathea (xix. 38) are mentioned by name in John, and that nowhere save in the passages in which we have discovered the author himself is an apostle introduced as speaking or acting without being mentioned by name, there can be no doubt that the anonymity of the other disciple and apostle (xviii. 15) is to be judged by the analogy of similar passages already discussed. The other disciple is one of the two apostles whom the author, from principle and without exception, introduces only anonymously, ee. either John or James. But the reasons which in all the other cases were decisive for John and against James are not applicable here. There is nothing in the experience related in xvii. 15-16 to indicate that it was that of the author. The apostle John could have learned this simple incident from his brother James, or from Peter. Nor have we, as in the case of zii. 23 (xix. 26, xx. 2), a very ancient tradition—found as early as John xxi. 24—that the unnamed person in xviii, 15 is identical, with the author. Consequently the unnamed person in xviii. 15 could have been some person other than the author, namely, the apostle James, the son of Zebedee ; and if anyone prefers this assumption, and thinks that it explains the noticeable absence in xvii. 15 of a reference to xiii. 23, which is taken up again in x1x. 26, xx. 2, there is no decided objection to this view. Not even the consideration that the apostle, who alone had the courage to press his way up to the cross, namely, the evangelist and. apostle John, was probably the same disciple who ventured into the palace of the high priest, is decisive (n. 13)... But hesitancy in this one instance about deciding which of the two sons of Zebedee is meant does not affect in any way the definiteness of the conclusion based on the other passages, namely, that the author is, or intends to represent himself as, the apostle John. If the apostle John was not the author, then the author THE WRITINGS, OF JOHN 217 certainly expresses in the strongest possible way his inten- tion of being taken for John, particularly in the one passage (xix. 35) in the narrative where he imagines himself among his readers, and addresses them. The account of Jesus’ death on the cross is concluded by the mention of two incidents connected with it—the fact that the soldiers, when they say that Jesus was already dead, did not, as in the case of those crucified with Him, break His legs; and that one of them pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, and that blood and water flowed from the wound. That the last-mentioned fact, important as it may be in itself, is incidental in this connection, is proved by the fact that the two quotations, designed to prove that these things took place in fulfilment of prophetic utterances in Scripture (ver. 36f.), refer only to the fact that the legs were not broken, and that Jesus was pierced with a spear, but not at all to the issue of blood and of water from His side. Nevertheless, the remark which the author inserts between the narrative and the reference to the prophecies which it fulfilled, καὶ 6 ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκεν KTA., refers to the entire contents of vv. 32-34. Since it is not stated that some eye-witness of the event narrated it to others, but as the subject is “he, who saw it,” .e. the specific eye-witness who has been already mentioned and is known, and since, for grammatical reasons, and because of the contents, the women in ver. 25, and especially the soldiers in yer. 32, are excluded, the only person that can be referred to is the one man who remained loyal to Jesus, who, according to ver. 26 ἢ, stood near the cross during the last moments of Jesus’ life. —the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved, the) apostle who in xii. 23 and in xix, 26 is characterised in the same way. The readers here addressed would have recognised the. well-known author (above, p. 207) as they did in i. 35 ff., xiii, 23 f. (xvii. 15 f.); they certainly did not ascertain for the first time in xix. 35 who the author was. On the other hand, INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ae modern reader, farther removed from the author, fearns for the first time clearly in xix. 35 what can’ be ascertained from the earlier ‘passages only by ‘inference, namely, that the narrator of the story of the cross and the author of the Gospel are identical with the apostle whom Jesus especially loved. For the μεμαρτύρηκεν relates to the testimony given in the written account that precedes. It is possible that the eye-witness testified to these things orally more than once before he embodied his testimony in a narrative, and that inthis passage his thought em- braces both the oral and written testimony. But it is impossible to interpret the words as referring to any oral testimony whatsoever without regard to whom it was addressed. The perfect does not exclude the possibility of its reference, primarily or even exclusively, to the written testimony that immediately precedes (ef. i. 34, iv. 18, vi. 65, xiv. 29, xv. 15, xx. 31); while the presents which follow (ἐστίν, λέγει), and the statement that this testimony and word in question are designed to influence the readers addressed to believe (cf. xx. 31), prove that the reference is to the testimony which has just been laid before the readers of the book in the preceding account. As has been already remarked, the author did not write xix. 35 with the purpose in view which it may ineidentally serve in our case, namely, to enable his readers here toward the end of the book to discover his identity—something which could have been done much earlier and much more simply. He wrote it rather to make his readers feel that it was an eye-witness who reported the facts which imme- diately preceded. This conclusion is confirmed by the second and third statements which follow, each of which is connected with what precedes by καί, According to the regular usage of ἀληθινός in John—the retaining of which here is all the more reasonable because ἀληθής is used in the same con- text—the second clause means that the testimony of the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 219 narrator is worthy of the name ; it is testimony in the full sense of the word. In the broad sense any statement which corresponds to the facts may be called a testimony, but the full and original sense of the word is preserved only when one testifies to what he has seen, heard, and in general experienced (n. 14). The third clause goes farther, and says that the witness here testifying speaks the truth, which would by no means necessarily follow from his having been present when the events in question took place, and that he records this truthful account only in order that the readers, like the author, may attain to faith. This is not stated directly with the words, καὶ ἀληθῆ λέγει «Tr, but is introduced by the very much disputed phrase κἀκεῖνος οἶδεν ὅτε a. >. Even if the inter- pretation of the preceding clauses just given be incorrect, it is nonsensical to claim that here in one breath the evangelist claims that‘ his account is that of an eye- witness, and at the same time distinguishes himself, the writer, from the eye-witness who is absent and no longer living (n. 15). At all events, it is a fact that the author, instead of using an “I” or a “ we,” that would include himself (i. 14; 1 John i. 1 ff; Acts xvi. 10 ff.),—which formally would be in better keeping with the “ you” of the address,—follows the same course as in the preceding narrative, and speaks of himself in the third person (λέγει, n. 7). Theoretically this makes it possible for him to use ἐκεῖνος Of himself, the writer, or of “the writer of these things,” as he might use οὗτος, or αὐτός, or ὁ τοιοῦτος, which in a discourse where the speaker uses the first person of himself would imply strong emphasis upon the “LI” (ix. 87, ef. iv. 26; 2 Cor. xii. 3). But if the subject of οἶδα is the same as the subject of μεμαρτύρηκεν and Akyeı, there is no reason why it should be emphasised by the use of a demonstrative, and thereby be given a certain contrastive force. The idea, however, that the author himself was conscious of the entire truth of his account, 220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT or of his statement about being an eye-witness, would not be expressed in this way, but by αὐτὸς οἶδεν or (αὐτὸς) ἑαυτῷ σύνοιδεν. Nor is it possible to understand what value this appeal to the author's own conscience would have for the readers. In v. 31 f., vii. 13-18, ef, x. 25, 37 f., xiv. 11, they had read how the most guileless of men had acknowledged the insufficiency of His own. testi- mony to Himself. Consequently they would not have understood, nor could they have allowed the exaltation, of the disciple above his master and the proud appeal to his own consciousness as the decisive proof of the truth of his statement. Therefore it follows, both from the con- tents of the passage and from the language used, that: the ἐκεῖνος to whom the author appeals is another and a higher one than himself. But it would be only an empty phrase, if the one to whom he appeals to bear witness to the truth of his statement were some person already dead, who can neither affirm nor deny what he says. Nor can God be meant, the only natural expression for which would be ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν. On the other hand, it is quite in keeping with the Johannine usage for ἐκεῖνος to refer to | Christ (n. 16). It seems even more natural here than in 1 John ; for, in the first place, John has here reached the, con- clusion of the earthly life of the Lord, and He is the one overshadowing figure in all the preceding, narratives. John and his readers know that He who died on the cross lives in the world above; nor can there be any ques- tion in their minds that He who in His earthly life showed such wonderfully profound knowledge of the human heart (John i. 42, 47 f., 1.125, iv. 17 f., vi. 64-71), now from His heavenly throne, to which the cross was only preparatory, knows, proves, and judges even more deeply the innermost thoughts and works, of His servants upon earth (Rev. ii. 2, 9, 18, 29). In the second place, as indicated by the address to the readers, John imagines himself in the midst of the assembled congregation. Here, THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 221 however, the Christians of that time knew Christ to be always invisibly near (Matt. xvii. 20; 1 Cor. v. 4; Rev. ii. 1). In an address to the assembled congregation, a “Thou knowest that I speak the truth” (ef. John xxi. 15-17) direeted to Christ passes naturally into the assur- ance intelligible to every member, “ He, the only one, He who is exalted from the cross to heaven, He knows that His witness on earth speaks the truth, and that he does not here testify out of any feeling of self-complacency in order to represent himself as the only faithful witness among the apostles, but only in order that the readers may possess the same unwavering faith which he himself enjoys.” Such an affirmation has the force of an oath. This is the climax of all the testimony of this Gospel to its author. This is not the place to discuss why John makes so much of this testimony, and why he lets it eulmi- nate just in this passage in an appeal to Christ; as the highest witness and judge, that has the force of an oath. The exposition of the actual situation is of itself sufficient refutation of the attempts to make the. testi- mony of the Fourth Gospel refer to some other person than the apostle John (n. 17). Those efforts are fre- quently influenced by the idea that the author refers to himself in some very mysterious manner. Again there are others who think that between the attempt to identify himself with the intimate disciples of Jesus and the con- sciousness that he was making a false claim, the author's attitude becomes one of wavering. To the extent that this opinion is based upon xix. 35 it must fall to the ground of its own weight, even if the preceding interpre- tation of this passage be incorrect. Since it is incon: ceivable that, at the very moment when for the first time, with the exception of the general testimony of i. 14, he unhesitatingly describes his account as that of an eye- witness, the courage and intelligence of the author should have failed him, to such an extent as no longer to render 222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT him able in intelligible language to say to his readers that he himself is this eye-witness, or that he is someone else who received his information directly or indirectly from the eye-witness. If this was the actual relation of the author \to the apostle John, then 1. 14 is a weak attempt to deceive the readers as to the real facts, and xix. 35 is the halting confession of a false witness who is no longer able to maintain his röle, But granted, that the contradiction between i. 14 and xix. 35 can be got md of, by’ proving in the former passage, with the aid’ of exegetical art, that it is not the testimony of jan eye- witness, and by reading into xix. 35 the clear confession of the author who was not the eye-witness as to his actual relation to this person, yet the consistent silence of the Gospel concerning the apostle John and his entire family in i. 35 f.; xii. »23 fl, xvii. 15 ff; xix: 26 f.,.35, xx. 2-8 is an unsolvable riddle, or rather an unreasonable and purposeless trifling. If, as the fact that they are twice addressed would seem to indicate, the author was known to the readers, as the writer of a letter is usually known to the persons whom he addresses, the avoidance, of the use of“ I” and of “ we” in the narrative, and his constant suppression of his own name and that of his family, is not to be considered an aimless attempt to create an air of mystery, even less so than is the similar procedure of Mark; but it is an expression of that sense of fitness which in various ways meets us everywhere in the his- torical literature of this time, Christian and non-Christian alike. Therefore, the only question is whether the witness of the Gospel to its author, which was clear to the original readers at once, and is so to the modern reader, after a little reflection, is worthy of credence or not. The testi- mony of the post-apostolic Church as to the origin of the book (§ 64) does not so confirm its witness and correspond so exactly to it that,it may be regarded as simply an echo of it; for, with regard to the time and place of the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 223 composition of the Gospel, concerning which the tradition of the ancient Church gives very definite information, no clear testimony is to be derived from John i.-xx., of which the tradition of the origin of the Fourth Gospel in Ephesus late in the apostolic age might be regarded as a reflexion. 1. (P. 207.) As to addressing a person to whom a writing is dedicated, apart from the dedication itself, cf. above, pp. 81, 85, nn. 2, 10. Concerning Just. Dial. viii. exli., ef. Z/KG, viii. 45f, ΑΒ a rule, such direct address occurs also in writings at the beginning of which there stands a dedication, but in such cases only at the end of the entire writing or at the-transition from one book of a larger work to another, so that xx. 31 would be less striking than xix. 35. The address xx. 31 is not without example even in writings in which the preface has not the form of a letter of dedication (Jos. Vita, 76; ef. Ant.i., Proem. 2). On the other hand, the direct address, xix. 35, is unprecedented in historical literature. There is, of course, no parallel here with such narratives as the accounts of the death of Polyearp or of the martyrs of Lyons, which have throughout the form of epistles (Patr. Ap., ed. maior, ii. 132, 162 ; Eus. H. E. v. 1.3); the comparison lies rather with the Passio Perpetuew (ed. Robinson, p. 62. 13), which, partly in Johannine forms, show that it is intended for reading in the meetings of the Church (pp. 61, 94). Im other writings, as in the pseudo-Cyprian ad Novatianum and de Aleatoribus, it appears from addresses, such as fratres dilectissimi, that they are not treatises, but either sermons or letters. 2. (P. 207.) Itis indeed said of those who are already believers, that they came to their faith through a new experience, ii. 11, 22, xx. 8, or that they should believe, xi, 15, 40, 42, xiii. 19, xiv. 1, 11, 29, xx. 24-29, or it is denied that they have the right belief, ef. iii. 2 with iii. 11f., or viii. 30f. with viii. 45-47 ; also iv. 41f., 48-53. It is to be further noted that in xix, 35, xx, 31 is probably to be read with N*B πιστεύητε (“may believe”), not πιστεύσητε (“shall believe”), and that an author who writes x. 38, iva γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε, is conscious of this difference. 3. (P. 209.) The comparison of the Logos appearing in the flesh with the manifestation of the glory of God, Ex. xiii. 21f., xxxiii. 9f., xl. 34-38, is warranted not only by the word ἐσκήνωσεν, which the LXX does not employ of the Shekinah (it uses, indeed, κατασκηνοῦν, Num. xxxv. 34; 1 Kings vi. 13), though it is used by Aquila, Ex. xxiv. 16, xxv. 8, but also by the combination of the conceptions σκηνοῦν and δόξα, as well as by the antithesis of the nox) non. and the law given through Moses (vv. 14, 16, 17; ef, Ex. xxxiv. 6, 29-35); cf. also John ii. 21; Rev. xxi. 3; Ex. xxxvii. 27; Joel iv. 17. Moreover, the metaphorical use of σκῆνος, 2 Cor. v. 1, 4, and σκήνωμα, 2 Pet. 1. 13f., for the body may have occasioned the employment of σκηνοῦν in this place, and made the thought more intelligible to the first readers. The circle of the disciples is designated by ἐσκήνωσεν ev ἡμῖν as the Church, in whose midst the glory of the Logos dwelt in the flesh, as in a tabernacle. But the additional πάντες, ver, 16, does not mean an expansion 224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of this circle to those who later attained to the belief, among whom the Logos had not visibly dwelt—in which case the aorist would not haye been adhered to—but is explained from the contrast of the many who received, and the One from whose fulness all drew as from one single source. =~ 4..(Ρ. 209.) In Matt. iv. 18-22, ix. 9, x. 2-4; Mark i. 16-20, ii. 14, iii. 13-19; Luke v. 2-11, 27, vi. 13-16 we are not informed, as we are in John i. 35-51 (al. 52 because of the division of ver. 39), of the organisation of a circle of the disciples. We are told simply of the call of those who already believe on Jesus to follow and work with Him (vol. ii. 541f.). The Synoptists present to us the character outlines only of Peter, the sons of Zebedee, and Judas the traitor; concerning the publican among the apostles, of whose call we are told (vol. ii. 506f.), as also of Andrew, very little is said. On the other hand, Peter (i. 40-42, vi. 68, xiii. 6-10, 36-38, xviii. 10-27, xx. 2-10, xxi, 2-22) and the traitor (vi. 70f., xii, 4-6, xiii. 2, 11, 18-30, xviii. 2f.) are, at least, as prominent as they are in the Synoptics. However, it is John alone who informs us of the remarks of Philip (i. 43f., vi. 5-7, xii. 21f., xiv. 8-10), of Thomas (xi. 16, xiv. 4f., xx. 24-29 ; cf. xxi. 2), of Andrew (i. 40f., vi. 8; cf. xii. 22), of Judas the son of James (xiv. 22), indeed, very characteristic remarks throughout (cf. Luthardt, Das joh. Ev. i. 78-119). The phlegmatic character of Philip, which accounts for the fact that he alone of the first disciples had to be expressly invited (i. 43) by Jesus to join the Twelve, is reflected in the cumbrous confession (i. 45), especially in contrast to the brief εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν of Andrew (i. 41), which expresses no less exultation than the εὕρηκα of Archimedes. Philip doubt- fully makes calculation, while Andrew immediately discovers the means at hand (vi. 5-9). He does not venture to submit the wish of the Greeks to Jesus until he has consulted the more courageous Andrew ; while the latter, as is shown by the fact that he is first mentioned, is ready to make the request of Jesus in the name of them both (xii. 21). Also in xiv. 8-10 Philip still appears more than the others as the doubtful one. It would be in special keeping with this character sketch that, as Clem. Strom. iii. 25 declares—probably following the Gospel of Philip—the remark given in Matt. viii. 22, Luke ix. 60 might have been directed to Philip if the apostle, and not the evangelist Philip were meant by it (cf. GK, ii. 766; Forsch. vi. 26, 158 f., 161). The portrait of Thomas, whose name John alone translates (xi. 16, xx. 24; ef. xxi. 2), speaks for itself. Here belongs; too, the fact that only John gives an account of the characteristic remarks of the brothers of Jesus (vii. 3-10), whose attitude toward Jesus as given in the Synoptists is not at all clear (Matt. xii, 46-50, xiii. 55; Mark iii. 21 (9), 31-35, vi. 3; Luke viii. 19-20 5 Acts i. 14), and that he as well as Luke (i. 26-ii. 51), through important information, gives character to the picture of the mother of Jesus (ii. 3-5, xix. 25-27 ; ef. ii. 12, vi. 42), which is entirely colourless in the other Gospels. But it is worthy of note that throughout his narrative he calls her merely “ His mother,” only once “the mother of Jesus” (ii. 1), and never by her name, which Matthew uses 5 times, Luke (incl. Acts i. 14) 13 times, and Mark at least once.‘ John lets his adopted mother also participate in the anonymity of his whole family. 5. (P. 209.) In John i. 41, ABMTPXIT have πρῶτον, also one of the later correctors of NS'S*, and a few minuscules, among which are two of THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 225 the Ferrar group (69, 346, on the other hand not 124); N*LTAA and the mass of the remainder have πρῶτος. So also Sh. Moreover, there is not much more to gain on this point from the older versions. Sc Ss eliminate the characteristic passage, “and one of these disciples of John; Andrew was his name, the brother of Simon (Kepha,t Se). And this Andrew saw Simon Kepha on that day (so Ss; only “Simon Kepha,” Se) and said to him,” ete, The copyists who corrected πρῶτος to πρῶτον (N° from N*) certainly wished to have it understood not adverbially, but as an accusative ; because, to designate this deed as the first that Andrew did (cf. Matt. v. 24, vii. 5; John ii. 10, vii. 51; Rom. i. 8), would be meaningless in a connection where nothing of the further action of Andrew is told, and a closer time connection of ver, 40f. with vv. 35-39 is not expressed at all. Moreover, the accusative (cf. Matt. xvii. 27), which would mean that Andrew, as the first of those whom he found or of all who were found, found Peter, is impossible ; because, in the first place, the hypothesis, that Andrew had received and later carried out the command to seek men, would have no support in this connection, while the notion of Delff (Gesch. des Rabbi Jesus, 1889, Κ΄. 80), that not Jesus, but Andrew, is the subject of εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον, ver. 43, merits no refutation. But, secondly, τὸν ἴδιον would not suit such a con- nection ; instead of this, αὐτοῦ alone would have been more appropriate. We are, therefore, to read πρῶτος. But this finds its antithesis, of course, not in Philip who finds Nathanael later (ver. 45),—about which the reader knows nothing in ver. 41, and to which his attention is not called in ver, 45, —but in the other of the two men who have been already introduced. As the first of the two disciples of John who had followed Jesus, Andrew finds his brother (cf. John xx. 4, 8; Matt. xxii. 25; Rom. x. 19). In this way only is explained the strongly accented τὸν ἴδιον, which, just as πρῶτος here, and as ἴδιος everywhere (especially in connection with ἕκαστος, John xvi. 32 ; Acts ii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 23, 38), is intended adversely or distributively. Each of the two men finds his brother, but Andrew as the first finds his. 6. (P. 210.) In regard to Nathanael= Bartholomew, cf. vol. ii. 524 and vol. i. 31; in regard to the variation of the list, ef. vol. ii. 522f.n.1. Späth (ZW Th, 1868, S. 168 ff., 309 ff.) wished to show that Nathanael is a pseudonym for the author, who, however, still wishes to pass for the apostle John. Aside from xxi. 2, where Nathanael stands next to the sons of Zebedee, the author through the use of this name would have made it absolutely impos- sible for the reader to identity him with the nameless disciple of xiii. 23 f,, etc., and especially to recognise in him the apostle of the wholly different name of John. The name Nathanael, which, according to the O.T., the Talmud (vol. i. 22), and Josephus (Ant, vi. 8.1, xx. 1.2), has been borne by Hebrews of all times, is said to be an entirely non-Hebrew invention of the Gospel, a Grecised (!) form of Elnathan or Jonathan (S. 324, 329f.). On the contrary, Hilgenfeld (Zf/WTh, 1868, 8. 450; ef. also N.T. extra Can. iv. (evangeliorum secundum Heb., sec. Petrum, ete.) 119) held firmly to his theory that Nathanael should= Matthias of Acts i. 23. The Apostolic Church Directory, which counts Nathanael among the twelve apostles, agrees im this with the correct interpretation, while its distinction of Nathanael and Bar- tholomew is as mischievous an invention as the distinction of Peter, and Cephas and the whole catalogue of such distinetions (N.T. extra Can.2 iv. 111). VOL. III. 15 226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 7. (P. 211.) In regard to the forms by which the authors introduce themselves in the Gospels, the Acts, and the other N.T. literature, ef. above, pp. 55, 86, n. 11. That Matthew, just as Xenophon or Thucydides, Polybius or Josephus, does not omit his name from the narrative, is fully counter- balanced by the fact that, in distinetion from them as well as the other historians of the N.T., he does not in any way identify the author with the Matthew mentioned in ix. 9, x. 3, or even hint at such identification, and that he offers absolutely no sort of substitute for the I of the author which fails in his whole book. That John in the prologue speaks of himself in the first person (plural), but in the narrative in the third person, is not especially remarkable. Josephus and many others have done the same (above, p. 86). The peculiarity of John consists merely in the twofold fact that he addresses the readers in the midst of the narrative (xix. 35; ef. xx. 31, above, p. 223, n. 1), and that in the same narrative where, as over against the “you” of the address an “I” or a “we” would be the more natural and more correct way for an author to designate himself, he retains the third person (μεμαρτύρηκεν, λέγει). But this is no more grossly inconsistent with good style than when one of us signs a letter: “Hearty greetings from your old friend, X,” or when, in petitions to a Minister of high rank, the latter is addressed as “ Your Excellency ” and “ You,” notwithstanding the writer of the petition, avoiding every “I,” speaks of himself constantly as the “ your most obedient servant”; or when a popular author writes: “Know, dear reader, that the writer of this is a grandson of the hero of his story.” In ancient times, also, we find examples of the same sort of awkwardness. With the more definite ἐγὼ Téprios ὁ γράψας (Rom. xvi. 22), ef. Mart. Polye. xx. 2, Εὐάρεστος ὁ γράψας, without ἐγώ (therefore in the third person with ὑμᾶς. . . ἡμῖν) ; also the appearance of the first and second person, even before the real greeting, which contradicts the style of the ancient form of greeting (see vol. i. 369. n. 1); or inscriptions such as those in Hogarth, Devia Cypria, p. 114, No. 36: “ Apollonius erected this column to his father and mother according to your own order.” : 8. (P. 212.) The passage i. 35-39 is one of the most picturesque in the Gospel. The Baptist stands with two of his disciples; his eye falls upon Jesus (35 f., much more colourless ver. 29). The brief exclamation, “ Behold the Lamb of God,” attracts attention, and results in action (ver. 37). At first, not noticing those who were following Him, Jesus turns around (as He hears their steps) and lets His gaze rest in contemplation upon them. In direet form of speech, question, answer, and rejoinder follow. The Hebraistie form of address is retained. The ever memorable hour of the first meeting with Jesus is exactly noted, though the reader is left to infer the contents of many hours of conversation from the εὑρήκαμεν of Andrew. 9. (P. 213.) In iv. 1 μαθηταί has the wider meaning ; but of μαθηταί, which immediately follows in iv. 2, has the narrower meaning, as, Of course, is to be understood in iii. 22-iv. 38. They are those who had been drawn by Jesus into His company to work with Him, and therewith commissioned (ἀπέσταλκα, iv. 38, ef. xiii. 20, xvii. 18, xx. 21) His ἀπόστολοι, xiii. 16. The number of the baskets, vi. 13, bears witness to the number of these disciples ; and where the question has to do with the distinguishing of these followers who adhered to Him from the beginning to the end as against the larger circle of the disciples THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 227 who only temporarily accompanied Him, this number is three times expressly repeated, vi. 67, 70, 71, otherwise only one other time, xx. 24. It is signifi- cant, however, that the apostle John, as well as the apostle Matthew (x. 2) and Mark, who repeats the narratives of an apostle (vi. 30), uses only once the title ἀπόστολος (xiii. 16); while Luke, who was not an’apostle, makes use of it 6 times in the Gospel and about 30 times in the Acts. Their installation in office, which John no more narrates than the apostle Matthew, is designated by the former (otherwise only by Luke) as ἐκλέγεσθαι, vi. 70, xiii. 18, xv. 16, 19, while he never uses this word of an act of Jesus which had to do with other men (also ἐκλεκτός, 1. 34, N* Sc Ss ete., only once of the Messiah). It is, therefore, to be considered a bold stroke that F. v. Uchtritz, Studien eines Laien über das Ev. nach Jo. 1876, S. 222, gave to the word in xiii. 18 another meaning from that which it has in vi. 70, particularly since in xiii. 10f., 18-21, as in vi. 70f. (cf. xvii. 12), the same antithesis prevails between the whole of those present, whom Jesus had chosen, and the one member of this circle who forms the sad exception. The significance of Jesus’ choice of all those present is given us in the thrice repeated the twelve (vi. 67-71) ; but in chap. xiii. this is expressed by the name ἀπόστολος (xiii. 16) and by the ratification of the remaining disciples in their mission, xiii. 20,—7.e. ἀποστολή (Rom. i. 5; 1 Cor. ix. 2; Gal. ii. 8),—which was made necessary by the desertion of the apostle Judas. Also from the close connection of xv. 16 with ver. 18 it follows that ἐκλέγεσθαι does not signify reception into the number of the believing worshippers,—which no Gospel traces back to an ἐκλέγεσθαι of Jesus,—but to choice as apostles. They are those called to be preachers, xv. 20, 26 f. 10. (P. 213.) With ἀγαπᾶν (xiii. 23, xix. 26, cf. xxi. 7, 20), φιλεῖν (xx. 2) is interchanged, as in the account of the similar relation to the brother and sisters of Bethany (xi. 3, 5, 36). The latter word is not confined to personal friendship (cf. per contra, xvi. 27, xxi. 15-17; 1 Cor. xvi. 22), though it is still the more distinctive expression for it. 11. (P. 214.) Polyerates in Eus. H. H. v. 24. 3, Ἰωάννης ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ κυρίου ἀναπεσών. Similarly Iren. iii. 1. 1; Orig. in Eus. vi. 25.9; Jerome, Pref. Comm. in Mt. (Vall. vii. 3). By later writers ὁ ἐπιστήθιος ; cf. Routh, Reliquie Saere?, i. 42. The first exegete who formally states, and through appeal to John xxi. 24 establishes, what the others presuppose, namely, that the unnamed person in xiii. 23 is identical with the evangelist and apostle John, is Origen in Jo. (Ed. Preussen) tom. xxxii. 20. 12. (P. 214.) When the Gospel to the Hebrews apparently makes James the Lord’s brother take part in the Last Supper (@K, ii. 700), it belongs to the realm of fable, if for no other reason because of the chronological contradiction which the whole narrative of the Supper would thus have with 1 Cor. xv. 7. We can no more infer from this inclusion of James in the circle of John xiii, that the redactor of this Gospel held James for an apostle, than that one who was not an apostle had taken part in the meal (cf. Forsch. vi. 277f.). Still less can the master of the house in which the Last Supper took place (as Delft, op. cit. 83, would have us believe), be thought of as a table companion, who then is to be identified further with the young man of Mark xiv. 51 ; for although a friendly relation between Jesus and this house must certainly have existed, it is not to be considered too intimate a one simply because of the 228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT question of the disciples (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 19), and because of the way in which the two disciples are to find the house (Mark xiv. 13). With these facts as well as with such positive statements as Matt. xxi, 17, xxiv. 1-3, xxvi. 6; Mark xi. 11, 15, 19, 27, xiv. 3, 13,16; Luke xxi. 37, xxii. 10, it is an irreconcilable fancy of Delfl’s (S. 89, 94) that this house was the regular lodging place of Jesus: The clothing of the young man men- tioned in Mark xiv. 51, and the distinction there made between him and the company of Jesus, excludes him from having had any part in the Supper. As to the actual facts in the case, see vol. ii. 491 f. Jesus does not send word to the master of the house that with him and his family, but that with His own disciples He wishes to keep the Passover in his house (Matt. xxvi, 18 ; Mark xiv. 14; Luke xxii. 11). Jesus and the Twelve made a household and a company at the table (Matt. x. 25; John xii, 6) of more than the requisite size for the Passover meal (ef. Ex. xii. 4). If, according to Jos. Bell. vi. 9. 3, the number of the participants might not be less than 10 (so also the Jeru- salem Targum on Ex. xii, 4), but sometimes rose even to 20, yet Josephus took the number 10 as that nearest the average for a basis of his reckoning of those present at the feast. 13. (P. 216.) Here P. Cassel’s Das Ev. der Söhne Zebedäi (1870) should be named, and his Die Hochzeit von Cana (1883, S. 49-64). Cassel found these two brothers suggested in i. 35ff., and recognised in xili. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2 the John whose name was to some extent to be translated by ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς. James was considered as the one referred to in xviii. 15. But when Cassel, against whose views up to this point there is nothing to be said (see above, p. 209 f.), distinguishes without reason (and no reason ean be dis- covered) the witness and the reporter in xix. 35 from the eye-witness of the death of Jesus in xix. 26f., he comes to the assertion that the ἑωρακώς, pepaprupnxos—who is designated also by ἐκεῖνος (xix, 35)—is James, and that therefore he and not John is the narrator in chaps. i.-xx. In other words, he claims that James is the actual author of the Gospel (S. 49 f.), which was written, consequently, before 44, and through the addition of chap, xxi. enlarged. by his younger brother John at a date considerably after the death of Peter, but published otherwise practically unchanged (S. 52-55). |The words, xxi, 24, οἴδαμεν--- ἐστίν (very inexactly quoted by Cassel, S. 55) are held by Cassel to be an ungenuine gloss taken fiom xix. 35. This is not, however, adhered to in his second work, 8. 57. 14. (P. 219.) Throughout the Fourth Gospel an actual sense perception, or at least an experience comparable to this, and to be designated by this name, is posited as a presupposition of the μαρτυρεῖν, i. 34, iii, 11, 32 (v. 37), viii. 14, xii, 17 (xii, 41), xv. 27; 1 John i. 1-4, iv, 14; Rev. 1.2; cf. vol. ii. 155 f. n, 9. 15. (P. 219.) The Greek interpreters, in spite of the remarkable phrase- ology of xix. 35, have clung to the opinion that the evangelist himself is the only subject of all the verbs of this sentence (Chrys. Hom, lxxxv. in Jo., Montf. viii, 507). It is difficult to explain the statement of Cyril of Alexandria (Migne, Ixxiii. col. 677), oby ἕτερόν τινα σημαίνων, on the basis of any other interpretation of the ἐκεῖνος. This remained the ruling opinion, Even Baur did not make use of the passage to establish his opinion that the author throughout the Gospel pursued his purpose to be known by the readers as THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 229 the disciple beloved by Jesus, and as John the apostle and the author of the Apocalypse, but refrained, however, from so announcing himself directly In fact, in xix. 35 as well as in 1. 14 it was rather a mere spiritual vision which the author had in mind (Krit. Unters. über die kan. Evv. 1847, 8. 364-389). It was his pupil Köstlin (ΤΊ, 1851, S. 206-211) who, mainly from this passage, and especially from the ekeivos, first established the view that the author of John i.-xx. does not identify himself at all with the apostle John,—an identification which is first made by the author of xxi. 24,—but that he distinguishes clearly between himself, the author, and the apostle as his main authority. This was taken up by Hilgenfeld, who, however, more in the view of Baur, held that the purpose of the author was to pass for the apostle. At the same time, instead of following in the line of Köstlin and explaining xix. 35 as an uncontradictory expression of the author, who makes a clear distinction between himself and the apostle, he found in the very unnaturalness of the expression a proof that the author, who had written also xxi. 24 and thereby gave his book out for a work of the apostle, had in the determinative passage unintentionally betrayed his difference from the apostle (Die Evv. nach ihrer Entsiehung u. geschichtl. Bedeutung, 1854, S. 341; Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche, 1860, S. 151f., 403 ; Einl. 731). The discussions concerning ἐκεῖνος in John which this theory occasioned between G. Steitz (ThStKr, 1859, S. 497-506 ; 1861, 5. 267-310) and A. Buttman (ThStKr, 1860, S. 505 ff. ; ΖΗ Th, 1862, 8. 204 ff.) have not helped to any clearness’ of exegesis. It is also of little interest to follow out the opinions of others in their wavering between the interpretations of Késtlin and Hilgenfeld. The present λέγει, with its added purpose in regard to the readers, leaves no doubt that the λέγων is the author who is here addressing the readers, and not some dead authority from whom the author directly or indirectly claims to have received the material and the spirit of his report. Such an authority does not speak to the readers in the present tense. Even if the author in a vivid representation could cite him as a witness still to be heard to-day (cf. i. 15), he could not have cited him as one addressing the readers and having their religious advancement in view. If, however, every reader had to recognize the author as the subject of λέγει, then the author was to be charged not with an ambiguous, but with a meaningless phraseology, in case we understand him as wishing to distinguish between the subject of Aeyeı which is not detached from the preceding statement either by a pronoun or in any other way (possibly ὅτι ὁ γράψας ἀληθῆ héyer)—and the subject of μεμαρτύρηκεν, and so of the ἑυρακώς, and the person again indicated by αὐτοῦ. The only question there can be is as to whether ἐκεῖνος also indicates the same subject ; cf. Forsch. vi. 183 f. and the following note. 16. (P. 220.) The “ἐκεῖνος κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (Schol. on Aristoph. [Nub.], The Clouds, 195, ed. Dindorf, i. 196, compared with the “ αὐτὸς ἔφα" of the Pythagoreans) is used in John vii. 11, xix. 21 (ix. 12, 28) by those who stood far aloof from Jesus, or in unfriendly relations with Him. It is also used from a diseiple’s point of view in 2 Tim. ii. 13, where in the preceding sentence (συναπεθάνομεν κτλ.) Christ is not named, but is only to be under- stood as ‘referred to by the pronoun. In 1 John ii. 6, iii. 3, 5, 7, 16, iv. 17, it appears as a firmly established expression. The 6 θεὸς οἶδεν, 1 Cor. xi. 11, 31 (xii. 2,3), is formal, and the formule for solemn assertion in 1 Thess, 230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ii. 5, 10; Gal. i: 20; 2 Cor. i. 23, xii. 19; Rom. i. 9; ix. 1;..Phil. i: 8 (1 Tim. v.21; 2 Tim. iv. 1), especially 3 John 12, are to be compared with it as related in kind : To the testimony of the Church is added that of the ‘truth itself,” ae. of Christ (John xiv. 6; Papias in Eus. H. E, iii. 39. 3). For the truth of his own testimony, however, John does not appeal in this Epistle to his own consciousness, but to the knowledge of the recipient of the letter, Gerhard (Harmonia Ev. ad locum, ed. Jen. 1617, p. 874) mentions certain who haye applied the ἐκεῖνος to the soldier Longinus, who ran the spear into Jesus’ side ; and others (p. 883) who, in appeal to Rom. ix. 1, have referred it to Christ, as the present writer has done above and in Z/KW, 1888, S. 594. Recently essentially the same interpretation has been advocated by H. Dechent in ThStKr, 1899, S. 446 #f., and Hausleiter, Zwei apost. Zeugen für d. Jo. Ev. 1904, 5. 27. Sanday also in The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905, shows himself favourably disposed towards this view, as doubtless others will be; cf. ET, 1905, Nov. p. 51. 17. (P. 221.) The “presbyter John,” who owes his existence to the critical needs and devices of Eusebius (vol. ii. 452), served first as a suitable author of Rev., and incidentally also. as author of the shorter Epistles of John. More recently the Gospel also has been repeatedly ascribed to him, This hypothesis has been developed in fullest detail by the novelist and dramatic poet Fr. v. Uchtritz [+ 1875] (Studien eines Laien über das Ev. nach Jo. 1876), and without any consideration of this predecessor, who was far superior to him in suggestive speculations and in delicacy of treatment by the philosopher H. Delff (Gesch. des Rabbi Jesus von Naz. 1889, 8. 67-111 ; Das 4 Ev. ein authentischer Bericht über Jesus, 1890; Neue Beiträge zur Kritik u. Erklärung des 4. Ev. 1890 ; ThStKr, 1892, S. 72-104). Both agree that the nameless disciple (i. 35 ff., xiii, 23 ᾿ς xviii. 15 f., xix. 26 ff, xx. 2) is the author of the Gospel, yet not the apostle John, but the presbyter John of Ephesus. Uchtritz makes a few insuflicient attempts (S. 220 ff.), while Delff considers it superfluous to demonstrate how it was possible or even probable that one who was not an apostle should. partake of the Last Supper—over against the distinct ‚statement of the Synopties and of the Fourth, Gospel itself (above, pp. 214, 227 ff. nn. 9, 12).. Both leave unexplained the strange silence of the Fourth Gospel in regard to two of the three apostles who stood closest to Jesus, and as to the entire family of Zebedee (above, p. 211 f.), But both think that they can prove that the author, who appears as a member of the exclusively Galilean discipleship, of Jesus (i. 35-51, cf. vii. 52 ;, Mark xiv. 70; Acts ii. 7, in reference to all the disciples in Jerusalem) was no Galilean, but a man of Jerusalem, and did not belong to the regular follow- ing of Jesus. That this theory is wrecked by the inseparable connection of chap. i, with chaps. ii.-iv. has been already shown (p. 213 f.). Moreover, the acceptation of interpolations, by which Delff has tried to strengthen his hypothesis (Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus von Naz. S. 97 ff., Das 4 Ev. 8. 11-16. If we correct the entirely faulty numbering of the verses in accordance with the reconstruction of the text given in Das 4 Ev. S. 30-94, the following passages are omitted : i, 1-5, 9-18, ii. 1-11, 17, 21-22, iv. 44, 46-54, vi. 1-29, 37-40, 40b, 54b, 59, vii. 39 [45-53 placed before 37, 38, 40-44], xii. 16, 33, 38-41, xiii. 20, xx. 11-18; in 1890, xix. 35-37 was also added),—affords no help as long as there remains i. 61, according to which, even without the or” THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 231 textually uncertain ἀπάρτι, the whole number of these newly won disciples are to be from that time onwards the witnesses of the wonder-revelation of Jesus, and as long as there is left xv. 27 (ef. xvi. 4), according to which the whole number of the table companions were constant followers of Jesus. From xix, 27, Uchtritz (S. 287) and Delff (Geschichte Jesu, S. 82) conclude that John possessed a house of his own, and that it was in Jerusalem (as to further fantasies of Delff, see above, p. 227, n. 12). With equal right one might conclude from John xvi. 32 that all the apostles were owners of houses in Jerusalem, and in the same night in which Jesus spoke these final words fled from His presence to their eleven dwellings. Cf. with the expression, Luke xviii. 28; Acts xxi. 6; Jos. Bell. i. 33. 8. Further, ar’ ἐκείνης τῆς Spas (Matt. xv. 28, xvii. 18) is not the same as ev ἐκ τ. Spa, John iv. 53; Luke vii. 21, or αὐτῇ τῇ Spa, Luke ii. 38, x. 21, xii. 12. The meaning is merely that, from the moment Jesus spoke, John fulfilled the duty of a son to the mother of Jesus, who was now, as it were, deserted—a filial care that must have appeared during the attendance upon the festival in Jerusalem in other ways, which through lack of information cannot be more definitely ascertained, as afterward it showed itself when both had returned to their residences in Capernaum (John ii. 12), whence Mary a few weeks later again came to Jerusalem (Acts i. 14, ii. 7) with the other Galilean women of the company of Jesus (Luke xxiii. 49, 55), her sons and the apostles, to dwell in that city for the future, as did the apostles and brothers of Jesus. The idea that Jesus could not have committed His mother thus to the apostle John, who himself had a mother that believed, in Jesus (Uchtritz, S. 204 1.), is due to the mistake of supposing that it was a question of providing John with a mother, instead of Mary with a son, who would consider her sorrow and take care of her as Jesus would have done. The natural sons of Mary were at all events not at that time the right ones for such a service (see vol. i. 104 f., vol. ii. 239 ἢ, ; Forsch. vi. 336 f. A. 1). Delff found support for further vagaries in xviii. 15, 16, according to which John was supposed to be a relative of Annas’ (rather of Caiaphas’, for he is the only one whom John designates as the high priest). But that γνωστός in the Bible, as sometimes γνωτός in the poets since Homer, ordinarily, or exclusively, designates the confidential friend, in the sense of relative, becomes no truer by repetition (e.g. Cremer, Worterb.? S. 223; Baljon, Woordenboek, i. 447). Luke xxiii. 49 is clearly not to be thought of in this connection, while Luke ii. 44 so under- stood would be a useless redundancy; for that συγγενής designates the more distant, γνωστός the nearer, relative, is in view of Luke i. 61 (cf. i. 36) a groundless assertion. Asin Acts x. 24, where the combination ἀναγκαίους φίλους proves that not relatives but trusted friends are to be understood (cf. the proofs in Wettstein), so in Luke ii. 44 relatives and acquaintances are placed together. Moreover, no proof that yywords=“ relatives” can be found in the LXX. In Neh. v. 10: it is a free translation for 1yi=servant; in 2 Kings x. 11, as is shown by the position of the optimates and sacerdotes (Vulg.) and the “and,” by which these three elasses are joined to the house of Ahab and the kingly princes (ef. vv. 6-8), relatives are not meant, but friends: belonging to the court, No other meaning is apparent in Ps. xxxi. 12, ly. 14, Ixxxviii. 9,18. But Delff found in Polycrates of Ephesus, circa 195 (Eus. H. E. v. 24. 3, above, p. 205, n. 27), another and more definite 232 INTRODUCTION ΤΟΥ ΤΗΝ NEW ‘TESTAMENT evidence that the evangelist belonged to the high priestly aristocracy. Τη- asmuch as he desigriätes the John μηδ in Ephesus as the evangelist, but not as the apostle, it is claimed that he knew that he was no apostle, and this in contradiction to the conviction of his contemporary and fellow- countryman, Irenzeus, of his still older countrymen, the Alogi, and of Leucius Charinus, as well as of all the other heretics and Church teachers before and after his time (above, p. 177 f.). However, his statement ὃς ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκώς is said to bear witness to the fact that this same John, on one occasion on the Day of Atonement, without being ruling high priest, officiated in the full high priestly dress (Geschichte Jesu, S. 93; 4 Evangelium, S. 9) as substitute for the real high priest, who had been hindered, or, as he puts it later, when this view is rejected (ThStKr, 1892, S. 93), that John was “a priest of the first high priestly rank.” The aristocratic reserve which this man of rank, who had leaned on the breast of the Lord, is held to have observed toward the Church of Jesus, we may estimate by the fact that he possibly is identical with the John of Acts iv. 6 (read rather ’Iovadas) (Delff, Geschichte Jesu, S. 95). He is said to have written his Gospel before the destruction of Jerusalem for the sake of his colleagues in that city (ThStKr, S. 83-90). That the readers are twice addressed would then probably be explained by the fact that he had invited these mentioned in Acts iv. 6 to his reception room, and had read his composition to them, according to the custom of the literary men of the time, before he gave it to the publie at large. From beginning to end Delff has made simply an earnest effort to weaken by exegesis and criticism the witness found within the Fourth Gospel itself. Of the subterfuges by which Renan, Weizsäcker, Harnack, and others have thought to reach the same result, even this cannot be said ; cf. Forsch. vi. 186-190. § 66. THE SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER. No other historical writing in the N.T., and few histori- cal writings of antiquity, have such a clear conclusion as does the Fourth Gospel in xx. 30f. Having in view the entire contents of the book, which he is now bringing to its close, the author declares to the readers, whom he here addresses for the second and last time (ef. xix. 35, and above, p. 223, nn. 1 and 2), that the σημεῖα of which an account is here given, as contrasted with many other miracles which Jesus performed in the presence of His disciples not recorded in this book, were written that they micht believe on Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and in this faith might enjoy the life which is to be had in His name, If it be, insisted that this distinction between the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 233 signs of Jesus, which are recorded in this book, and those which are not recorded, is confined to the resurrection appearances of Jesus (xx. 14-29),—of which there is no indication and which is also extremely improbable, because the word. σημεῖα is much less adapted to describe these phenomena than it is the ἔργα and σημεῖα of which announcement is made in 1. 51, and which forms the frame- work of the entire narrative (ii. 11, 23, ii. 2, iv. 45, 54, v. 20, 36, vi. 26, 30, vii: 21, 31, ix. 16, χ. 32-38, 41, xi. 47, xii. 11, 18, 37, xv. 24),—then there is all the more reason for regarding chap. xxi. as a supplement to the book, added after its completion. For here‘ also we have the account of a σημεῖον wrought by Jesus in the presence of His disciples, and in xxi. 1, 14 this is connected with the two appearances of the risen Jesus of which an account is given in xx. 19-29, which is described as a third appear- ance, and which, in the nature of the case, has the same purpose as the preceding accounts. If, when xx. 30f. was written, the addition of this chapter had been con- templated, the only appropriate place for the verses would have been after xxi. 14, or rather after xxi. 23. There is clear evidence also that the composition of chap. xxi. has its own peculiar history. In general, this chapter has the stamp of the peculiar style of the Fourth Gospel (n. 1), which makes it impossible to treat it as an appendix added by some unauthorised hand, as we do, for example, Mark xvi. 9-20 (vol. ii. 467 £.) ; nor is it possible to cut out even a part of the chapter as an interpolation, as we do other portions of the Gospel, the style of which proves that they are not part of the original work (John vill. 1-11; see $ 69, n. 3). The relation of this chapter to the body of the book differs from that of such sections as these mainly in this, namely, that while it is possible by means of existing documents and patristic evidence to prove the absence of such sections from the books into the text of which they were interpolated, down to the Middle 234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Ages, so far as we know the Fourth Gospel never eireulated without chap. xxi., nor is there nearly so much uncertainty in the tradition of the text of this chapter as in the case of the interpolations mentioned (n. 2). Since now, as is indicated by the address to the readers (above, p. 207), the book was intended from the first for a Church, or a group of Churches, in close touch with the author,—which necessarily required that it be read in the congregations,— it follows that chap. xxi. must have been added to the book before it was circulated outside of this small circle. For if the book had been circulated without chap. xxi., there was no power on earth which could have prevented copies. of the Gospel from being read and multiplied without this final chapter. The only argument which can be opposed to this opinion is the fantastic idea, not worth refuting, that the canon of the Gospels was made by an official body, which had authority over the whole Church to withdraw from circulation and destroy copies of a Gospel already in use, and to substitute in their place the canonical recension of the same Gospel. Chap. xxi is therefore not to be thought of as an appendia, independent of the history of the origin of the Gospels, but as a supplement, added to the Gospel not long after it was written, and in the same region where it originated. The only interval which it is necessary to assume between the composition of chaps. i.-xx. and of chap. xxi., is that required for the feeling to arise that the supplement was necessary, which the author had not felt when he wrote xx. 30f., and for the need to be met. On the other hand, chap. xxi. cannot be referred to the author with the same directness as chaps. 1.-xx. The passage ex- hibits several differences from the main body of the book, which consist not so much in another style as in a different attitude of the narrator to the disciple whom Jesus especially loved and to his‘family. Whereas in chaps. L_xx. all the members of this family remain anonymous (above, THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 235 p. 211 f.), at the very beginning of chap. xxi. John and James, while not spoken of by name, are clearly designated as the sons of Zebedee (xxi. 2), as is sometimes the case in the other Gospels (Matt. xx. 20, xxvi. 37, xxvii. 56; ef. Mark x. 35; Luke v. 10). This impresses us all the more as an involuntary expression of the point of view natural to the author of this account, because in its course John is again characterised by a reference to xii. 23 without any name, as. in xix. 26, xx..2. But whereas,in xix. 26, xx. 2, this is done in the simplest possible manner, merely in order to prevent any doubt as to the identity of the person in question, in chap. xxi. more emphasis is placed upon the designation. The ἐκεῖνος in xxi. 7, which 15. not found in the parallel passages, and especially the detailed way in which the account in xi. 23-25 is recalled in xxi. 20, show that someone else is here writing who is no longer influenced by the fear lest he should seem to sound his own praises. In xxi, 24 it is even more clear that some- one else, or rather a number of persons are speaking of the apostle and evangelist John in the third person. “This (1.6. the disciple concerning whom. an incident. is ‚told in vv. 20-23) is the disciple that beareth witness of this (these things) and wrote this: and we know that his witness is true.” From its very nature, the “ we” includes an “I” and excludes the “he.” For this reason it is impossible to appeal on the one hand to i. 14, and on the other to xix. 35 in support of the idea that this “ we” includes the author of the book, while at the same time he is con- cealed behind the third person in ὁ μαρτυρῶν, ὁ γράψας. While in the prologue—+.e. outside the narrative sections of the Gospel—John does use “ we,” which, if occasion required, might have been changed to “I,” just as the “we” in xxi, 24 is changed naturally into “I” in the οἶμαι of xxi; 25 (n. 3), in the narrative sections he regu- larly uses the third person in referring to himself, even where, in addressing his readers, the use of the first person 236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT would seem to be more natural (xix. 35). It is true that xxi. 24, like the prologue, is not in the narrative sections of the Gospel, which makes it possible for the ‘‘ we” to in- clude the author of the book. But that in designating himself in the course of one short sentence the author should have so wavered and changed between “he” and “we” (including himself), it is impossible to assume. This abnormality is found neither in 1. 14-16 nor xix. 35, consequently not in xxi. 24. It is also rendered im- possible by the fact that the author of this particular Gospel is the last person to appeal to his own testimony to himself in affirmation of his truthfulness (above, p. 210 f.). We conclude, therefore, that others, who know him on the basis of their adequate experience, are here testifying to the readers of this book that the witness who speaks. to them in it is trustworthy. But, like the appeal to the Lord’s knowledge in confirmation of the truthfulness and pious purpose of the author in xix. 35, this testimony seems to be only an addition to the main affirmation, namely, that the disciple whom Jesus especially loved is the disciple who testifies to and wrote what precedes. It is unnecessary to prove that what is said in xxi. 1-23 is included among the things to which he testifies (περὶ τούτων) and the things which he wrote (radra). The only question is whether the object of μαρτυρῶν and γράψας is to be confined to the contents of the supplement. This is altogether improbable. In the first place, while the con- cluding sentence of the preceding chapter, xx. 30 f., shows chap. xxi. is a supplement, there is nothing in the chapter itself to indicate that it is an independent account. ‘The passagé John xxi. 1 is connected with what precedes just as are John iii. 22, v. 1, vi. 1,— probably according to the cor- rect reading without ’Incods,— while xxi. 1, 14 refer back to xx. 19229, just as iv. 46, 54 do to 1. 1-11. While’chäp. xxi. is thus added as a supplement, it is really an essential part of the whole. Tf xxi. 24 referred exclusively to xxi. THE WRITINGS, OF JOHN 237 1-23 this would necessarily be expressed, and, since vy, 1-23 describe one continuous and uninterrupted event, this could have been done by the use of περὶ τούτου and τοῦτο (cf. μετὰ τοῦτο, 11. 12, as distinguished from μετὰ ταῦτα, iii. 22). In the second place, if ver. 24 referred only to the supplement, every reader who understood it would ask who wrote chaps. 1._xx.; and if it was necessary to assure the readers that chap. xxi. was written by the beloved dis- ciple of Jesus, it was even more important to make clear to them who wrote chaps. .—xx. If this was omitted because it was self-evident, there must have been some hint to this effect in ver. 24, which could, have been very simply indicated by writing καὶ περὶ τούτου and καὶ τοῦτο. That disciple is the author also of the supplement, as he is known to be the author of the entire book. In the third place, reference is made in ver. 25 to a multitude of books which would have to be written in order to set forth in detail all the notable things in the history of Jesus, Here, as in xx. 30, a contrast is implied to the deeds of Jesus set forth in the Fourth Gospel, and to this one book with which the readers ought to be content. .Hence the person, who in ver. 24f. is speaking in the name of a number of persons of kindred mind with himself, has in view the entire book, which here reaches its final conclusion. John xxi. 24 refers to 1. 1-xxi. 23. To this conclusion it may be objected that traces of a hand other than that of the author of the entire book are to be found not simply in ver. 24f., but even from ver. 2 onwards (above, p. 233). From this, to be sure, it would follow that the entire supplement was added by the friends of John, who came prominently to the front in ver, 24£. But this does not harmonise with the statement of this very verse, that John was the author of the supplement as well as of the rest of the book; or, if the statement concerning the authorship of chap. xxi. was written hy another hand, there would be the same authority for the 238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT authorship of the entire Gospel. The latter conclusion is certainly to be rejected ; since from chaps. 1._xx. it has been shown (§ 65) that the apostle John is here conceived of and represented, not as an authority upon whom the author depended, but as himself the author of the book, and since, from the difference in the way in which John is referred to in chap. xxi. and chaps. 1.—xx., it has been con- cluded that chap. xxi. is not from the same hand as chaps. i._xx. Consequently the testimony of xxi. 24 (ὁ γράψας ταῦτα) agrees literally with the result of the exegetical study of these preceding chapters. This is not so, how- ever, with regard to xxi. 1-23. At the same time there is nothing peculiar about the use of ὁ γράψας ταῦτα in connection with this supplement. As good a letter writer and author as Paul regularly made use of an amanuensis to whom he dictated ; accordingly Peter could say that he had written a short letter to the Christians of Asia Minor just as though he had written it with his own hand, although he had not even dictated it, but, after stating what he wanted written, had left its entire composition to Silvanus (1 Pet. v. 12, vol. ii. 149f.). As regards xxi. 1-23, this or some similar relation must have existed between John, who in xxi. 24 is declared to be the author of the supplement, and the men who in ver. 24f. are clearly distinguished from him, providing the observations which show that this account was written by someone else than John, and the testimony of xxi. 24 are both allowed due weight. With John’s consent, or even at his suggestion, persons who were near him recorded the things which he more than once had related to them, and which he certainly repeated before he wrote them down. If they were conscious of having added nothing of their own, and of having omitted nothing contained in John’s communications, they could say that John was the author of this account; nor is there any apparent reason why they should have distinguished sharply between the direct THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 239 Johannine authorship of chaps. i.-xx. and his indirect authorship of xxi. 1.-23. There would be occasion to charge these persons with culpable inaccuracy, which could hardly be defended against the suspicion of being intended to deceive the readers, only in case the apostle had left behind him as his work chaps. 1.-xx., and after the apostle’s death the author of chap. xxi. had added the supplement without his knowledge or consent.’ But this assumption is to be rejected not only because of the apparent candour of xxi. 24 and the naive tone of ver. 25, but mainly because it contradicts the language of ver. 24. The first statement of ver. 24 concerning John is not ὁ γράψας ταῦτα, but ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων ; and not only the order of the words is significant, but the change in the tense. If uaprupety here as μεμαρτύρηκεν in xix. 35 referred to the testimony which John gave when he wrote his book, including the supplement, the only appropriate place for it would be after γράψας ταῦτας In this case also the use of μαρτυρῶν instead of μαρτυρήσας or μεμαρ- τυρηκώς would be unnatural, but might be justified on the ground that the act of writing belongs entirely in the past, while testifying by means of a book which outlives its author is continuous, lasting as long as the book is read (cf. John v. 46 with v. 39). But if these were what the writer meant, μαρτυρῶν would in that case have to follow γράψας, because the continuous testifying is the result of the preceding act of writing. When there is also taken into consideration the fact that, according to the reading, which is probably correct (ὁ ypawas, see n. 2), “the writer” and “the witness” are two ideas independent of each other, which it is possible to refer to two different persons, there can be no doubt that John’s testifying is thought of as independent of his writing. The former ‘still continued at the time when xxi. 24 was written; so the author writes the present, ὁ μαρτυρῶν : the latter 240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‚TESTAMENT belonged to the past; so he uses the aorist, ὁ γράψας, This proves that John was still living when this was written. For, in view of the use of the aorist. participle, it is stylistically impossible that the present should have been chosen in order to make vivid oral testimony of the past (ef, John 1. 15, μαρτυρεῖ and also κέκραγεν), or that the present participle should be used without reference to time, —as is not infrequently the case in John’s writings (e.g. i. 29),—because after the death of John his oral testimony quite as much as the composition of the Gospel belonged to the past. That John was still alive when the supplement was added, follows with even greater certainty from xxi. 20-23. It is clearly a mistake to seek in these sentences the main, still less the exclusive purpose of the supplement. What precedes has independent meaning, and even without vv, 20-23 would not only be worth telling for its own sake, but would be also a real addition to the book. Just as in xx. 21-23 all the apostles are newly confirmed in the calling for which they seemed to be rendered, incapable by the shattering of their faith (xvi. 32, xx. 9); so im xxi. 3-17 in a particular way, Peter who, after the traitor, yielded most to the temptations of the. hours of Jesus’ passion (xiii. 38, xvill. 17-27), is confirmed anew in his calling, and indeed on both sides of the apostolic office— 1.6. as regards the task of winning men for the kingdom of God and of Christ by preaching (vy. 3-11), and as regards the office of directing the life of the Church (vy. 15-17, n. 4). But this confirmation of Peter concludes with. pro- phecies as to his personal fate, and indirectly also as to the fate of John, the right understanding of which on the part of the readers is manifestly a matter of concern to the narrator. In the first of these prophecies it is revealed to Peter that in his old age, as contrasted with his youth, the impulsive and intrusive character of which was still THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 241 constantly creating trouble for him (xii. 6-10, 36-38, xvii. 10-11, 17, 25, 27),—qualities which come to view again in this chapter (xxi. 7), although not in a dangerous way,—he shall streteh out his hands like a helpless old man for support and for someone to lead him, while others shall put his elothes upon him, and even compel him to go where he does not wish to go. If this had meant that at the end of his life he was to be given over to the power of his enemies, he could not possibly have understood that the added injunction of Jesus to follow Him signified only that he was to accompany the Lord a few steps further until He disappeared from view, as in the earlier resurrection appearances. Peter prepares to obey at once the command literally ; but he could not do this without endeavouring to discover in this, as in the other commands and transactions of that day, a deeper symbolic and pro- phetic meaning. When Peter connected this command with the prophecy of ver. 18, and recalled the conversation of xiii. 36-38, he must have understood it to mean—if not at once, certainly as soon as he thought the matter over—that after a long life he was to follow the Lord into the other world by a violent death (n. 4). We have already seen (vol. ü. 211 ff.) that Peter did actually under- stand these words and xii. 36 in this way (2 Pet. 1. 14). These words of Jesus could not be taken to mean more, either by Peter or by anyone else who heard them. But in ver. 19a the narrator gives the first saying—which is clearly a prophecy (ver. 18)—an interpretation which no amount of reflection upon the language of the passage could of itself produce. According to this interpretation, Jesus indicated in this prophecy by what death, «.e. by what kind of a death, Peter should glorify God. Since the language of the prophecy does not even suggest a violent death, much less a particular kind of death, such as beheading, strangling, or crucifixion, the interpretation given by the writer of the supplement must have origin- VOL. ΠῚ 16 242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ated after Peter’s death, being suggested by the death itself. All doubt in this point is removed when ver. 19a is compared with xii. 33 (ef. xviil. 32), which is in all respects parallel, and when there are recalled the express remarks of the evangelist in two instances, which are at least similar to the effect that it was not until after their fulfilment that the disciples understood the meaning of prophetic utterances and symbolie actions of Jesus (11. 22, xi, 16;;ef vii 61f., vi. 89m. 7, 19; xiv. 20, 26,29; xvi. 4, 12f., xvi. 9, xx. 81). After Peter was crucified in Rome in the year 64 (vol. 1. 165 ff.), Jesus’ words to Peter, which made such a profound impression upon Peter’s own mind (2 Pet. 1. 14), but which heretofore had remained somewhat mysterious, were called to mind. Now, in the light of what had taken place, it was no longer possible to think that in John xii. 36, xxi. 19b, Jesus had meant to express only the unimportant truth that Peter would sometime die and leave the world, like all men and like Jesus Himself. Since Peter died a martyr’s death, it was natural in the command to follow Him to find the suggestion to Peter that he like Jesus was to die for the sake of God and the truth, 1.6. that he was to suffer a martyr’s death. Since, moreover, Peter like Jesus was crucified, it was felt necessary to take the prophetic description of Peter's de- clining years in xxi. 18—especially the stretching out of his hands and arms—as a prophetic forecast of this par- ticular manner of death (n. 4). After the death of Peter, it seemed to the Church as if all Jesus’ various prophecies about Peter's work as a fisher of men and as the shepherd of the flock, about the patience he would have to learn, about his martyrdom and the particular manner in which he was to die, had been ful- filled. Thereafter it was almost inevitable that all who were familiar with the story related in xxi. 15-22 should endeavour to interpret the saying of Jesus with reference to John as it had been interpreted with reference to Peter. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 243 When Jesus replied to Peter, who wanted to apply te John the same command that he had received, “ If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” and when the command to Peter was repeated with strong emphasis upon the contrast between him and John, “ Follow thou me,” it seemed as if this could only mean that John was not to follow Jesus in the sense in which the word of Jesus had found fulfilment in Peter’s case—in other words, he was not to die a martyr’s death. It seemed at least possible that John should not die at all, but live until the Lord’s return, an event which makes death impossible for those of His followers who witness it. Words of Jesus like Matt. xvi. 28, Mark ix. 1, Luke ix. 27 gave this interpreta- tion a certain justification. Especially if John survived Peter and the other apostles a considerable number of years, it was very natural to regard the long life of this apostle as proof that he was destined to live until the parousia. This view actually became current and assumed the form of a definite judgment, “That disciple shall not die” (ver. 23). But this judgment is decisively opposed by the narrator, and inasmuch as this is the last thing which he says about this event,—indeed, the last word before the conclusion in ver. 24 f. which relates to the entire book,— it is clear that the story in vv. 20-22 was told primarily to correct the false interpretation of it which had become current. If this be so, it follows also that chap. xxi. was written while John was still living, a conclusion which has often been misunderstood and even rejected. If John died and was buried in Ephesus, this was a conclusive and final refutation of the idea that, according to a prophecy of Jesus, he was not to die, but to live until the parousia. If, notwithstanding John’s death and burial, the super- stition grew up that his death was only apparent, that he had secretly fled, as Nero was said to have done, and would appear again when the Lord came, all that the 244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT author says—his account of the event which gave rise to the superstition, the reminder that Jesus did not say in so many words that John was not to die, and the repetition of the hypothetical statement of Jesus—would be an entirely inadequate refutation of the belief. The only effective argument against such a superstition would be an appeal to those who witnessed John’s death, and above all a reference to the grave which was outside the eity gate. If, however, at the time when the supplement was written the superstition had grown to the point where it was claimed that John, who had seemed to die and was really buried, was still living in his grave, or that the grave had been opened by a miracle and that John had escaped, against such μῦθοι γραώδεις, vv. 20-21 would be merely childish prattle. When ridicule and reproof failed, the only effective answer to such foolishness was spade and shovel. But there is no need for these hypothetical con- siderations, since it is certain that, from the time of John’s death about 100 until the time of Polycrates in 190 and long afterwards, no one in Ephesus questioned the fact that John had really died and was resting in his grave like other men (above, p. 193 f.). It has been maintained that vv. 20-23 were not in- tended to refute the story about John’s immortality, but the claim made after John’s death to the effect that Jesus had been mistaken in His prophecy. But who would have ventured to make such a claim? ‘The fact that Jesus connected His prophecy about His return almost inseparably with His prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiii. 36-xxiv. 35), and the faet that decade after decade passed after the destruction of Jeru- salem without the Lord’s return, furnished the strongest possible temptation for claims of this sort. But there is not the slightest evidence that between the years 70 and 170 the Church lost its faith in the parousia, much less its confidence in the truthfulness and infallibility of Jesus, THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 245 There was a disposition manifested before the year 70, even in the reproduction of Jesus’ prophecies, to interpret elastically the chronological statements that seemed to relate to the parousia (vol. 1. 500f. ; cf. above, p. 158 f.); and in the decades after the year 70, men waited entirely confident of the truthfulness of Jesus, and certain that His promise of His return would be fulfilled. To be sure, before the year 70, as well as afterwards, there were, of course, weak souls whose faith in the promise, like their faith in everything else, wavered, requiring to be strengthened by argument and exhortation (Jas. v. 7-11; 2 Tim. ü. 11-13; Heb. iii. 6-iv. 11, x. 35—xii. 29); there were also mockers who despised all the prophecies of Jesus (2 Pet. iii. 3-13). But in the present instance it is not a case of frivolous mockery, or of a general weakness of faith, but of a wrong interpretation of a single saying of Jesus’ which was current among the brethren,—among believers who were members of the Church,—and a wrong expectation regarding John based upon this interpretation, both of which errors could persist only until John’s death. To attempt their refutation after this event would have been foolish. But it would have been even more foolish to reply to an unfavourable judgment concerning Jesus and His prophecy, without so much as intimating that there were such impious opinions in the Church, and that they had arisen because of the contradiction between Jesus’ prophecy and John’s death. But the most foolish thing of all would have been the refutation of such opinions by the means which the author uses. A man of any in- telligence at all would have attempted the refutation of an unfavourable opinion regarding Jesus, which was based upon an alleged contradiction between a saying of His and the later course of events, only in one of three ways. It would have been necessary for him either to deny out- right that Jesus had said what was attributed to Him and was declared to be a false prophecy ; or, if Jesus 246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT really did speak the word which was interpreted as an unfulfilled prophecy, to prove that this interpretation was false, which eould have been accomplished only by giving another definite interpretation of Jesus’ words ; or, if this was impossible, he would have to show that this undeniable and perfectly clear prophecy was fulfilled by facts which his opponents had not properly appreciated (n. 5). The author does none of these things, He does not deny that Jesus spoke the word the meaning or fulfilment of which was in question ; he mentions no fact which could be con- sidered its fulfilment ; he does not oppose a wrong inter- pretation of the word of Jesus in question by another which could satisfy the reader. The only objection which he makes to the widely current interpretation of the saying is, that it does not correspond to the language used. It varies in two ways: (1) It takes for granted that “to tarry until the Lord comes” is equivalent to “not to die”; (2) it overlooks the hypothetical character of the saying and makes out of it an unconditioned affirmation. But this reply, which would have been so foolish if John had been dead for ten or thirty years, is natural and to the point if it was written in the interval between the death of Peter and that of John. Just as the crucifixion of Peter made possible a clear and certain interpretation of the two sayings of Jesus about him (vv. 18, 19),—as was true also in the case of other significant or enigmatical words and deeds of Jesus (ii. 19, 22, xii, 14-xvi. 32 f.),— so the author of chap, xxi. and John who stood behind him desired that a final judgment about the saying of Jesus referring to John be withheld until the Lord had made good His word by deeds. Different possibilities were conceivable. What Jesus had promised in a purely hypothetical sense could actually happen in exact keeping with its language, ze. the Lord might return before John’s death. It was also possible that John might die before the parousia. In the latter case, the Church found it THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 247 necessary either to be satisfied with the belief that Jesus had spoken of a possibility which was not expected to be realised, simply in order to rebuke Peter, and to safeguard the freedom of His action, or to take the saying about Jesus’ coming in an elastic sense, interpreting it in the light of events, as they had already learned to do in the case of Matt. xvi. 28. In this particular instance they would have to refer it toa single event of the last time connected with the parousia, namely, to the destruction of Jerusalem, which would make Jesus’ prophecy mean that Peter would die before the year 70, John not until after this date. We reach accordingly the following conclusions as the result of a purely exegetical study of chap. xxi., par- ticularly of vv. 18-23 and ver. 24: (1) The supplement, chap. xxi., was written subsequent to the death of Peter, but while John was still living ; (2) it was not written by John with his own hand, but by persons closely associated with him who composed this account with John’s consent, probably at his suggestion and upon the basis of his oral statements. It was added as a supplement to the com- pleted Gospel, and from that time onwards remained an inseparable part of it. (3) These same persons testify that John is the author of the entire book, making their testimony cover also the supplement, without expressly saying that John’s authorship of chap. xxi. was indirect, as is affirmed in (2), but without in the least concealing this view. Proposition (3) agrees with the testimony of chaps. i.-xx. concerning itself (§ 65) and the unanimous tradition (§ 64); but in view of objections to this threefold witness to the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, the trustworthiness of the statement remains to be tested (§ 69). Proposition (2) is not confirmed by a certain tradition which is independent of the text of the supple- ment. The stories of the teachers of Clement of Alex- andria and the stories of the Muratorian Canon, as well as 248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the manner in which later writers tell of the amanuensis of whom John made use in the composition of his Gospel (above, pp. 178 f., 196 f., nn. 4-6), may be echoes of the fact that the friends of John had a part in the completion and the publication of the Fourth Gospel. But proposition (2) does not require the confirmation of external tradition, since it is proved absolutely by xxi. 24 and confirmed by observations on xxi. 1-23 (above, p. 233 f.). The fact that there is no clearer evidence in the tradition for proposition (2) is satisfactorily explained by the circumstance that the supplement itself, in the same sentence in which it is clearly indicated that it was written by friends of John, speaks of John as the real author of the supplement as well as of the Gospel. It is also explained by the fact that proposition (1) was firmly held by the tradition. Irenzeus calls John not only the author, but also the pub- lisher of his Gospel (n. 6); and Papias testifies even more emphatically, and with unmistakable reference to chap. xxi, that the Gospel was published and given to the Church by John while he was still living (n. 2). Then there is the added fact that everywhere and always the Gospel was transmitted and circulated with chap. xxi. attached, which would be inconceivable if chap. xxi. was added to it after the author of chaps. i.—xx. had published this book which he had written for the Church, and sub- sequent to his death. If this were the case, we should expect the same or similar phenomena in the tradition of the text that we find in the case of Mark xvi. 9-20. Finally, as has been shown, xxi. 18-23 is meaningless the moment it is assumed that this account was written after the death of the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved. In view of all these considerations, it may be said to be established beyond the possibility of critical doubt that chap. xxi., as well as the entire Gospel, was written and put into cireulation before the death of Jesus’ long-lived disciple, John of Ephesus, 2.6. before the year 100. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 249 1. (P. 233.) Eberhardt, Ev. Jo. cap. 21, 1897, gives on S. 7-19 a review of the criticisms which have been made of this chapter, and on S. 73-78, as well aa in the intervening comment a varied assortment of remarks in regard to its language as compared with that of chaps. i-xx. Much more thorough is the work of Horn, Abfassungszeit, Geschichtlichkeit und Zweck von Ev. Jo. ο. 21, 1904. Words and phrases which are found elsewhere only or almost only in John are (A=chaps. i.-xx., B=chap. xxi.) : davepovv ἑαυτόν, φανεροῦσθαι, B 1. 14 (3 times, A 6 times ; elsewhere only in Mark iv. 22, and then without reference to Jesus, and twice in the ungenuine supplement, Mark xvi. 12, 14) ; ἡ θάλασσα ἡ Τιβεριάς, B 1 (similarly only in A vi. 1); ek τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ dio, B 2 (just so Ain 1. 35; cf. ix. 16, xii. 42); ὀψάριον, Β 9, 10, 13 (again only in A vi.9, 11; for this in the parallels we have ἐχθύς) ; the asyndeton λέγει αὐτοῖς, αὐτῷ with and without an expressed subject, B 3 (twice), 6, 10, 12, 15, 16 (3 times), 17 (twice), 22 (very frequently in John alone, sometimes in Matt. See vol. ii. 591, note 7); also λέγει οὖν, B 5, 7 (A vii. 6, xii. 4); further, in general a more abundant use of οὖν (B, 8 or 9 times in the whole of Mark, certainly not more than 7 times ; on the other hand, in A oftener than in Matt., Mark, Luke, and Acts together). ἀμήν, ἀμήν, B 18 (elsewhere only A); inter- change between ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν, B 15-17 (ef. A xix. 26 with xx. 2). Com- pare the entire sentence B 19 with A xii. 33; further, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον, B 14, and πάλιν δεύτερον, B 16, with A iv. 54 ; ὡς ἀπὸ πηχῶν διακοσίων, B 8, with A xi. 18; also B 4b with xx. 14. Also in Bas in A, Jesus is designated regularly by His personal name (13 or 14 times), and within the narrative, merely in view of a former remark of the disciples and from their standpoint, by ὁ κύριος (xxi. 12 ; cf. ver.7). The latter occurs in A only in iv. 1 (?), vi. 23, xi. 2, and in xx. 18, 20, just as in xxi. 12. Cf., on the other hand, Mark xvi. 19 and vol. ii. 476. Further, “Simon Peter” is given in B 5 times, in A 12 times ; as “ Son of John” only in B 15-17 and A i. 48 ; Thomas called Didy- mus B 2, otherwise only A xi. 16, xx. 24. Only in B 2 and A i. 46 ff. is Nathanael mentioned ; but here for the first time—that which helps us to understand the connection of ii. 1 with i. 46 ff.—his origin from Cana is stated, and in a form which, both because of the superfluous addition τῆς Γαλιλαίας (ef. ii. 1, iv. 46) and in view of the ἀπό (1. 45, 46, xi. 1, xii. 21, xix. 38, other- wise only in Matt. xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 43; Luke xxiii. 51), is genuinely Johannine. The παιδία used once in address in B 5 (cf. 1 John ii. 14, 18) with the once used rexvia, A xiii. 33, is of no consequence ; but the ἀρνίον, B15 (Rey. 29 times instead of ἀμνός, A i. 29), and προβάτιον, B 16, 17, instead of πρόβατον (A x. 1-28), are full of significance, The interchange between lamb and sheep, however, is plainly only an interchange, just as that between ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν, and the diminutive forms have reference to the need of protection and care of the flock which is given into the charge of the shepherd. For the use of οἱ ἀδελφοί, B 23,—instead of which οἱ μαθηταί (thus Ss) would have been misleading, since the latter would have been understood of the apostles while the former designates the members of the Church,—there would have been absolutely no opportunity in A, except perhaps in the prologue, where there was, however, no urgent need of it, Naturally xx. 17 is no parallel. 1 John iii. 14, 16; 3 John 3, 5, 10, however, offer good comparison. The πρωΐας γινομένης OT γενομένης, xxi. 4 (cf. Matt. xxvii. 1), would have been out of place in xviii. 28, xx. 1, because the previous context does not inform us that some- 250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT thing had happened in the night before. But from the point of view of style ὀψία ἐγένετο, Vi. 16, is quite similar. 2. (Pp. 234, 239.) To the testimony of all the Greek MSS. and of all the old versions (also Ss, though Se. is defective), is to be added the above mentioned statement of Papias, pp. 178, 196, n. 4, which is intelligible only if the Fourth Gospel was already supplied with the supplement, which through ver. 24 could make it appear as if not John himself, but others after his death, had published the Gospel. It is also noteworthy that Tatian in the Diatessaron has worked up the substantial contents of chap. xxi. (Forsch. i. 218), and that, following the combined testimony of the Arabic and of the Latin Diatessaron, he concluded his work with John xxi. 25 as he began it with Johni. 1 (@K, ii. 554). What is said above on p. 234 of the whole chapter holds also of ver. 25, which Tischendorf has excluded from the text. The former opinion that this verse is wanting in Codex 63 at Dublin, which formerly belonged to Usher, has been refuted by Scrivener, more thoroughly by Gwynn (Herma- thena, vol. viii. No. 19, 1893, pp. 1-7). The latter has shown in the same article, pp. 7-17, on what a weak foundation Tischendorf’s opinion rests, that ver. 25 and the signature of the book in X were not written by the first hand, but by the hand of the contemporary corrector. In fact, Tregelles, who had seen the Dublin codex, opposed Tischendorf’s view, while the spelling κατὰ Ἰωάννην instead of ’Ioavnv, which is peculiar to the corrector (N ), is decisive. There is, therefore, no manuscript evidence against ver. 25. A scholiast also, who explains it as a marginal note which had gradually worked into the text (in Wettstein N.T. i. 964, and Matthaei, Hv. Jo. p. 354. Accord- ing to the Cod. Vatic. Regin. 9, fol. 1976, in Mai, N. patr. bibl. vii. 1. 407, this was Theodore of Mops.), bears witness that ver. 25 is found in all MSS. But if the case were otherwise, every critic would have to hold that the simple hyperbole of the expression had induced pedantic writers to expurgate it. As Tatian in the Diatessaron, so also the probably still somewhat older Acts of Peter have taken ver. 25 into account ; for if the ἃ ἐχωρήσαμεν ἐγράψαμεν to which Peter there gives expression (ed. Lipsius, p. 67, 2: preserved in the Greek by Isidorus of Pelusium ; cf. GK, ii. 848 A. 2, 849 A. 2, 851) both in the name of the other apostles and especially of the sons of Zebedee, is based primarily upon 1 John i. 1-4, still the expression ἐχωρήσαμεν which is not found in the Epistle passage, and which in the Acts of Peter is at once taken up again in χωρητικῶς (capaciter), proves that there is reference at the same time to John xxi. 25. Origen (in Jo, tom. xiii. 5f., xix. 10, xx. 34; ef. Eus. H. E. vi. 25) and Isidorus, who through Jewish polemic against John xxi. 25 had his attention called to the passage of the Acts of Peter, and also Bengel, all understood χωρῆσαι to concern the intellectual comprehension. Leucius both in the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter had already given a similar interpretation, only that at the same time he connects it with the uncertainty and incomplete- ness of the sense perception of Jesus’ being which was conditioned by the muta- bility of His bodily appearance? Cf. Forsch. 6, 195 f. That Theodore of Mops. pronounced ver. 24, or ver. 25, or the entire chapter as spurious, is pure myth. Where Mill (N.T., 1707, Proleg. p. xxix) obtained his note in regard to Theodore which Eberhart, 8. 8, so remarkably misinterpreted, the present writer has no knowledge. According to the Syrian Ischodad, circa 850 (cod. Sachau, 311 fol. 163 ; ef. Goussen, Stud. theol. i. p. 111), Theodore would have eliminated John THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 251 v. 4 and xxi. 25 from the text. Barhebr&us (in Ev. Jo., ed. Schwartz, p. 24) repeats this statement, but refers this opinion to people generally (φασίν rıves)instead of to Theodore. According to the Syriac translation of Theodore’s commentary on John, with whose conclusion Prof. L. Abel aequainted the present writer by a copy of the Cod. Sachau, 217 fol. 280%, at Berlin, Theodore adds to the text of xxi. 24 and 25 given in full by him nothing further than this: “These are sentences (xdinp) which are not from John, but (belong) to someone else. And here we conclude the seventh book, with which this writing (that of the commentary on John) ended and was com- pleted.” It follows from this that Theodore did not at all dispute the _ Johannine authorship of xxi. 1-23, but merely, as a good exegete, had con- cluded from the plural οἴδαμεν that ver. 24 and with it ver. 25 were not written by the hand of John himself, but by that of some unknown person. In the Cod. Syr. 308 at Paris, upon which the printed edition is dependent (Theodorus Mops., Comment. in Ev. Jo. versio syr., ed. Chabot, Paris 1897), the concluding sentence (p. 412) runs literally as follows: “ But these sentences from ἔστεν δὲ καί onwards, and up to this point, the Commentator says, are not by John, but by another, whoever that may be.” The writer of this MS, forgets his röle when he speaks of Theodore, who by the Syrians bears the honorary title of “the commentator” as of another person, probably in order to entirely remove from himself the responsibility of this critical remark. At the same time, however, he confines the criticism expressly to ver. 25; while Theodore, according to the original text of the Berlin MS., wished to have it referred to vv. 24 and 25. The texts for vv. 24-25, which have come down to us, show no greater fluctuations than other undoubtedly original pas- sages. A καί before μαρτυρῶν (B, Orig. in Jo. xxxii. 13, ed. Preuschen, p. 461. 9, and Cyril) might be genuine, and it might be correlative with the following καί, which Origen, however, discards. Only in that case we could not read 6 before the second καί (x@ Cyril, etc.) or after it (BD). Probably, however, B, which has in part Origen and in part D and good Latin witnesses on its side, has the original wording: ὁ καὶ μαρτυρῶν m. τ. καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα. From Ss (“who bore witness of this and wrote this”) we cannot infer a reading μαρτυρήσας. Just as little critical value has the free translation of Ss in ver. 25 (“and many other [things] Jesus did, which, if they were written down one by one, the world would not be enough [have been big enough] for them”). It gives evidence of the tendency to displace the real and tangible conception, which has been vouched for by ra γραφόμενα βιβλία by the inter- pretation which has been shown to be very early. The only doubt can be whether we are to read the hard ὅσα, but which just on that account demands especial notice, instead of ἅ before ἐποίησεν, and whether χωρήσειν or χωρῆσαι is the correct reading. 3. (P. 235.) Inasmuch as of those who in xxi. 24 testify to the writing of the book by the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who witness to his truth- fulness, only one actually penned the statement, the change from οἴδαμεν to the singular οἶμαι cannot appear strange, especially since the latter expression, like οἶδα, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως, opinor, and other similar ones, had come to be almost an interjection. The whole circle of those in whose name the writer of these lines speaks, guarantees the testimony of ver. 24 ; but to make all of them responsible for the very subjective judgment contained in ver, 25 would be unnatural. 252 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 4. (Pp. 240, 241.) The symbolical meaning of the draught of fishes, which at the same time was full of a promise of blessing, could not have remained secret to such readers as knew the traditions in Matt. iv. 19, xiii. 47; Mark i. 17; Luke v. 10, and, least of all to Peter, if in this passage as in the others actual words and deeds of Jesus have been reported. The disciple John, who had been an eye-witness of Peter's former draught of fishes, recognised the Lord by this one (ver. 7). On the other hand, the number 153 (ver. 11) as well as the number 200 (ver. 8) and the numbers in i. 39, ii. 6, 20, iv. 6, 18, v. 2, vi. 7, 9, 19, xi. 18, xii. 5 elude every reasonable allegorical or cabalistie signification, in spite of the frequent attempts which have been made in this direction, e.g., by Theophilus, Latin version, Forsch. ii. 84= Augustine, Tract. exxii. mm Jo.; by Ammonius (Cramer’s Catena, ii. 408); Severnus Antioch. (Cat. in Jo., ed. Corderius, p. 438) ; Jerome, ad Exk. xlvii. 12 (Vall. v. 595), with appeal to the ἁλιευτικά of the poet Oppianus : OLIIT. esse genera piscium, which Hilgenfeld, Einl. 717, further applies to the men who are to be won from the heathen peoples, as if John had said anything about the different kinds of fishes, or could have represented Peter as primarily the apostle to the heathen. Volkmar, Mose Prophetie, S. 62, found that the name Simon Bar Jona Kepha, written in Hebrew (x53, however, instead of x=) and resolved into its value in figures, yields 153. The only unfortunate thing is that the author of John xxi. 15-17 as well as of i. 42 does not call the father of Peter Jona, but Jochanan. The symbolic meaning of the draught of fishes in Matt. iv. 19; Mark 1. 17 is connected with Peter and Andrew, in Luke v. 10 with Peter alone. In xxi.6 the command falls upon the seven disciples of ver. 2 (cf., however, also Luke v. 4, χαλάσατε, with eravayaye, and v. 5, χαλάσω), but Peter occupies the entire foreground in xxi. 3, 7, 11, so that the predictive meaning of the incident concerns him primarily. Moreover, according to Matt. xvi. 17-19 (of which the reader of the Fourth Gospel is reminded by i. 42); Luke xxii. 32; John x. 9 (where men are introduced, who through the interposition of Jesus receive the office of shepherd in the Church), the allegorical meaning of the three times repeated injunction of vv. 15-17 could not be any more doubtful for Peter than for us. More in agreement with the command in ver. 6 than with that in vv. 15-17 is that in ver. 19, so far as it refers to a definite outward act, which immediately is to and actually does ensue. But the deeper predictive meaning is excluded thereby as little here as in ver. 6. As surely as Peter must have been re- minded by the thrice asked question vv. 15-17 of his thrice uttered denial (xiii. 38, xviii. 17, 25, 27), so certainly must the ἀκολούθει μοι have called to his mind the conversation of xiii. 36 f.—especially after the prophecy in ver. 18 had pointed out to him his future life up to old age. Furthermore, the reader, to whom the narrator in ver. 19a had explained this prophecy as relating to the death of Peter, could have understood the ἀκολούθει μοι, with- out detracting from its most probable and proper meaning, as referring to nothing else than to Peter’s following into death and the invisible world. It is evident from ver. 20f., however, that Peter himself at once grasped this meaning more or less cles shes Whether in connection with it a recollection of the prophecy in Matt. xx. 23, Mark x. 39 assisted him, cannot with cer- tainty be determined. Only when in his following of Jesus, which was the point in question here, he recognised a symbolic expression of that following THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 253 of which Jesus in xiii. 36f. had spoken, namely, an accompanying and fol- lowing of Hım into the other world, through which for him the time of the painful separation from Jesus was shortened, only then could he perceive in this a privilege and an honour, a share in which he could wish to have given also to his fellow-diseiple John who stood so elose to Jesus. For no proof is needed that this is the meaning of Peter’s question as to John in ver. 21, and that Peter in the following of Jesus, which he had before desired, bab which was now proffered him, and at the same time foretold of him, saw no punishment, that in his jealousy for his rival he wished him to share. Ina Gospel which contains words such as xii. 26, xiii, 36-xiv. 6, xvi. 16-22, and in a period of the history of Christianity in which words such as Phil. i. 20-23; Rev. xiv. 13; Ign. Rom. ii.—vil., were written, the latter meaning would have been a blasphemy and an absurdity beyond all comprehension. The second draught of fishes, as the first, had led Peter to the most humble self-abasement (cf. Luke v. 8); and whatever remnants of a false ambition might have been present in him, must have been entirely stifled, at least for the moment, by this conversation of vv. 15-17, which put him again in his place as leader, and yet at the same time painfully reminded him of his weakness (ver. 15, πλέον τούτων ; ver. 17, ἐλυπήθη), and also by the prophecy of ver. 18, which was not lacking in censure. The interpretation of ver. 18 in the light of ver. 19a is similar, not only in form but also in substance, to xii. 33. As that word concerning the lifting up from the earth (xii. 32) by its context expresses first of all the thought of the removal from the earth to heaven (xii. 23, 34-36, 111. 14, vi. 62, viii. 21-28), and was only recognised after the crucifixion of Jesus as a predictive indication of this definite kind of death in which the one about to die is raised from the earth (xii. 33, XViiii. 32), so xxi. 18 gave Peter, and, as long as Peter lived, the reader no definite information concerning the apostle’s death, while it was only through combination of ideas that Peter himself came to base upon this statement, among other things, the expectation of a violent death (vol. ii. 211 f.). Inas- much as he remained active in the service of the truth until his old age, he, as Paul in Phil. i. 20, ii. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 6, must have connected with this the hope that his violent death would be a martyrdom, and so redound to the glory of God. But John xxi. 19 goes beyond that ; for ποίῳ θανάτῳ here, as in xii. 33, xviii. 32, points to a definite kind of death, in fact, here as there to the same kind of death—the crucifixion ; for even if we did not possess historical information concerning the crucifixion of Peter, we would not be able to think of anything but the crucifixion, if any hint of a definite kind of death is given in ver. 18. The point of comparison lies in the stretching out of the hands, the extending of the arms ; cf. Epict. Diss. iii. 26. 21 (in the address to the man who feared to become poor) : δέδοικας μὴ οὐ σχῇς. ἄλλον τὸν ὑποδήσοντα, ἄλλον τὸν ἐνδύσοντα, ἄλλους τοὺς τρίψοντας, ἄλλους τοὺς ἀκολυθήσοντας, iv’ ἐν τῷ βαλανείῳ ἐκδυσάμενος καὶ ἐκτείνας σεαυτὸν ὥς οἱ ἐσταυρωμένοι τρίβη ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν; with reference to Artemi- doras, Interpretation of Dreams (Ονειροκρίτικα), i. 76, see Horn, S. 98. 5. (P. 246.) Itis instructive to note the comparison of the martyrdom of the sons of ΟΣ ἘΣ —a prophecy not given even in pate form with the Miserly of John (ef. above, p. 205, and Acta Tol 199. 20- 900. 5, 254 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 201. 4, 207. 2, 237. 27; Act. Ap. Apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part i 156. 13 ff.) ; and above, p. 195 f. 6. (P. 248.) Iren. iii. 1.1; see the text, vol. ii. 398,n. 7. If the expres sion used of John (καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε τὸ evayyeAuov)—as distinguished from that previously said of Luke, and more plainly than the expressions used of Matt. and Mark—itself asserts not only the writing, but the formal publica- tion of the Gospel by John, so does the context completely prove that Iren»us had no thought of a merely indirect Johannine origin of the Gospel. According to Irenzeus, the fourfold Gospel originated with apostles—the second and third with Peter and Paul through the agency of Mark and Luke, the first and fourth direct with Matthew and John. Moreover, the legend which tells of certain assistance of others in the writing of the Fourth Gospel, neverthe- less emphasises the fact that John himself wrote the whole book (Can. Murat. line 13 ff., “Revelatum Andrew ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis Joannes suo nomine cuncta deseriberet ἢ). § 67. THE RELATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL TO THE EARLIER GOSPELS. The view that the Fourth Gospel was written for a Christian church, or for a group of such churches, which cannot be said in any way of Matthew and Luke, and only with limitations of Mark, is corroborated by the observa- tion forced upon us as soon as we read the Gospel, that John takes for granted a considerable degree of acquaint- ance with the gospel history on the part of his readers. The question arises whether this knowledge was derived from the unwritten Gospel which they heard from their missionaries ($ 48), or from books in circulation among them. The tradition makes John write his Gospel in his old age, and later than Matthew, Mark, and Luke (above, p. 178 f.), and for this very reason favours the latter sup- position. We have also the account of the teachers of Clement of Alexandria, that John wrote with the three older Gospels consciously in view and with the purpose of supplementing the same on the theological side (above, p. 197, n. 5). Moreover, it has been shown that Mark’s Gospel was the subject of earnest discussion among the friends of John at Ephesus (vol. ii. 438 ff.), and that in the same region the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew was THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 255 interpreted orally in the church services for a long time, until the translating of the Gospel into Greek rendered this unnecessary (vol. 11. 510 ff.). There is no certain starting-point in the tradition for the determination of the chronological relation between these facts and the com- position of the Fourth Gospel. It is possible, however, that our Gospel of Mark was much read in Ephesus, that the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew was interpreted orally there, and that even the Greek translation of it had been made prior to the time when John wrote. In fact, Luke’s work may have been known in Ephesus at this time (above, p. 159). Since, moreover, the preceding investi- gation has not confirmed any of the conjectures concern- ing lost documents which Matthew and Mark made the basis of their works, and since, with the exception of Mark, there is no trace of the wider circulation of the older attempts to produce a gospel history with which Luke became acquainted in the course of his investiga- tions, we infer that our Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the writings from which John’s readers may have derived the knowledge of the gospel history which he takes for granted they possessed (n. 1). No one of the Gospels shows from the outset so clearly as does the Fourth Gospel the lack of any attempt to furnish readers who may not be as yet familiar with the subject a history which could be understood out of its own material. Without any introductory words acquainting the readers with the person and work of John the Baptist (n. 2), the Gospel begins (i. 19), in striking contrast to the other Gospels, with an account of an official embassy from the Jews of Jerusalem, which presupposes that John had been carrying on an important work for a considerable time ; as a matter of fact, we learn incidentally (i. 25, 26) that he had been engaged in baptizing with water. Whence John obtained that knowledge of the person of the Messiah—who had already made His public appear- 256 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ance— which he shows in reply to a question put to him at the time by the Pharisees (n. 2), the reader first learns from the following narrative, in which John applies to Jesus as He was approaching him, a testimony spoken earlier concerning Him, while still absent, and explains (i. 29-34) from a definite experience his knowledge of the high dignity of Jesus, which had already been attested by the earlier testimony and at the time it was given. Even if there were no thoroughly characteristic words recalling the account of the baptism in Matt. ii. 13 ff; Mark i. 9 ff.; Luke ii. 21 ἢ, every reader would under- stand from the way in which John twice recalls the fact, that his mission was to baptize with water (vv. 31, 33),— which otherwise would be without point in this connection, —that John as he concluded the act of Jesus’ baptism had seen the sign which God had revealed to him as the sign of Him who should baptize with the Spirit, namely, the visible descent of the Spirit from Heaven, in the form of a dove which rested upon Jesus. From these statements of John we conclude that his baptism of Jesus preceded not only the scene recorded in vv. 29-34, but also the testimony in ver. 26f., and the still earlier testimony to be distinguished from that of ver. 26, to which the Baptist refers in ver. 30. After His baptism, which took place some time prior to the events recorded in i. 19 ff., Jesus came again to Bethany where John was baptizing, before His return to Galilee (1. 43), which continued to be His home (i. 45) notwithstanding His presence in Judea, Anyone familiar with Matt. iv. 13-17; Mark 1. 9-11, or Luke 111. 21-22, iv. 1-14, recognizes at once that this interval between Jesus’ baptism and His return to the Jordan was the forty days of His temptation. Without acquaintance not only with the general outlines, but also with numerous details of the synoptic accounts of the work of the Baptist and of the baptism of Jesus, the entire narrative in John i. 19-34 is unintelligible (n. 3). THE WRITINGS OF JOFIN! | 257 ıt is consequently inconeeivable that the author should have: written in this way without. consciously taking it for granted and without being certain that. his: readers were in the possession of such knowledge. This appears ina particularly striking) manner in ii. 24. No intelligent writer could communicate in this form to readers, who: did not as yet: know that the work of the Baptist: was brought to an end by imprisonment, a fact of which he relates: nothing either in what precedes or in what follows (cf. per contra, Matt. ıv. 12, xi. 2, xiv. 35 Mark i. 14, vi. 17 ; particularly, however, what is said by Luke, who is a real historian, Luke in. 19 £., vii 18). Nor would mere acquaintance with the fact on the part of the readers be sufficient to render the sentence intelligible. For, since it ‘is impossible that a man could be engaged in a public work of baptism and. preaching and surrounded by his disciples, as indicated in in. 25 and im. 25-1v. 1, and be suffering at the same time the imprisonment from which he was never to be released, it is self-evident that this statement was not made on John’s account. Least of all could it be intended to explain the statement about his continued public work. The remark is intelligible only if John presupposed on the part of his readers a clear idea of the relation between Jesus’ public work and) John’s imprisonment—a relation with which his account did not seem to harmonise. Although such a conception was not required by) Luke’s account (above, p.' 106 ἢ, 167 £.), it was an inevitable inference from Mark 1. 14 and Matt. ivi 12; since bothiof these evangelists make all: of Jesus’ publie work, which they deseribe, follow the arrest of the Baptist.. Christians who had a definite idea of the course of the gospel history which they had derived from Mark or Matthew could read John 1.19-11.' 21 with the feeling that here were important facts: of which they had known nothing heretofore.» When, however, they came to 11]. 22-iv. 2, which contained an ‘account of the’ contempor: VOL. III. 17 258 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT aneous activity of Jesus and of the Baptist, the new account may have, indeed it must have, seemed to contra- dict their familiar conception of the course of the history, The statement in iu. 24 was intended for the information of such readers, possibly also designed to offset: their wrong impression. ‘The writer says to them in effect: “You must understand that what is here related ‘took place before the imprisonment of the Baptist ; it was) not until after this event that Jesus began the work: with which you are familiar, which was then confined chiefly to Galilee.” This remark, which is intended for the infor- mation of his readers, is inserted at this particular point where it is necessary, in order to make the narrative clear to those acquainted with Mark and Matthew ; it is, how- ever, related to the entire contents of 1. 19-iv. 54, for Jesus breaks off the work which He had begun and with- draws from Judea to Galilee, in order not to interfere with the Baptist’s work so long as God permits: it to be carried on, and in order to avoid the appearance of rivalry with His Forerunner (iil. 25-iv. 3). [Ὁ would never oceur to readers such as John had in mind—treaders familiar with the synoptic tradition, and others of common intelligence —to identify this journey of Jesus from Judea to Galilee, which was undertaken because of the continuance of the work of the Baptist, with the journey from Judea, to Galilee which Jesus made after the arrest of John (Matt. iv. 12; Mark i. 14). This unlikely combination of events was made altogether impossible by the fact that, according to the synoptic accounts, this journey marked the begin- ning of a prophetie work on the part of Jesus: which moved the whole of Galilee, whereas in John there is nothing to indicate that Jesus resumed in (Galilee the work which He had broken off in Judea. Nothing is recorded in iv. 43-54 concerning teaching and baptism on the part of Jesus, and nothing is said of His activity as ἃ mirmeulous healer, Only a single act of healing is ΤῸ: THE WRITINGS OF JOHN (|: 256 corded, which was wrung from Jesus against His will (iv. 48); and in this instance the parallelism between. this miracle and that im Cana (iv. 46, 54) is twice pointed ‘out, showing it to have been a revelation of Jesus’ glory which was just as isolated and just as premature as was the latter event (ii. 4), and just as much an exception to the rule which Jesus observed at this time of refraining from publie work. It is: Just here, in connection with this stay in Galilee, that John represents Jesus as formally: estab- lishing this rule, for he gives as the motive of this journey to Galilee a saying of Jesus —when spoken need’ not be considered here—from which no exegetical sophistry can derive any other meaning than this, namely, that Jesus went to Galilee at this time because He was convinced— and as occasion demanded, expressed the conviction—that in His native Galilee He was less likely to receive such recognition as He had) received im Judea and even in Samaria, as He passed through it on His hasty journey to Galilee (n. 3). It was not His intention, therefore, to change the scene of His labours from Judea to Galilee, which would not have relieved in any way the unfortunate state of affairs which had caused His withdrawal from Judea (ii. 26, iv. 1), but He designed to remain in retire ment so long as it pleased God that the Baptist: should remain at liberty and! continue his: work. When Jesus appears again im Jerusalem at) a feast (v. 1); this period of waiting is at, amend; because now He speaks of John ass a hight whieh, was no» longer burning jand shining (ν.. 85). Readers, such as were presupposed) in ii) 24, knew that when im the narrative Jesus: appears “again in Galilee after this visit to Jerusalem (vi. ff), the! time is that following the arrest of the Baptist,:to which period the older accounts were almost exclusively confined...» And their expectation 1s confirmed by the very first incident! which John records after this reappearance in Galilee (vi: 3-13). Here they find a portion of the: older tradition’ 260 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT with which they were familiar (Matt: xiv.:13 f.; Mark vi. 31 ff.; Luke ix. 10ff.), and this is the first instance where John gives essentially the same account as was — in the Syndpties. Here there comes: to light with great clearness the general presupposition on which the Fourth Gospel was based. The readers are introduced at once to the climax of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, of which not only is nothing said. in what precedes, but for which, rather, there is, no place before v. 1, and consequently no place before vi. 1. » As the imperfects in vi. 2 indicate, on account of His numerous deeds of healing, Jesus is fol- lowed constantly in Galilee by great throngs. The en- thusiasm of the people is roused to a dangerous pitch (vi. 14 f.). As we learn in a purely incidental way in vi. 67-71, the twelve apostles have been for a long’ time already chosen. A harsh saying of Jesus brings about a crisis among the disciples less intimately attached ‘to Him ; from this moment the movement, now at its cul- mination, begins to: decline (vi. 6-66). The) ebb con- tinues, so that half a year later (cf. vii. 2-9 with vi. 4) Jesus’ brothers, in view of the decrease of His popularity in Galilee, urge Him now at last to reveal Himself before the whole world in Judea, where it was alleged that He had. won, so many followers (vii. 8, cf. ü. 23, iii, 26, iv. 1, 45). There is an interval of at least: six months between v. 1 and vi. 4 (n. 4), and according to John’s account this period was occupied by a work which moved the whole of Galilee, or more specifically, by the! whole) series of events which, according to Matt. iv. 12-xiv. 12); Mark i. 14-vi. 80; Luke iv. 14-ix. 10, took place in! the interval between the arrest and the execution of the Baptist. Then follows another six months, from’ the Passover which, according to vi. 4, took place | shortly after the events recorded in vi. 3-71 until the feast of Tabernacles in vit. 2,.to which John gives only a single THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 261 sentence, vii. 1. Nor was this six months a time of retirement, like the period beginning with ἵν. 48 (πα. 3); for at its close Jesus’ brothers do not find fault with Him because He had begun His work on ἃ large scale in Galilee and then given it up again, but because He did His’ works in Galilee instead of in Judea and Jerusalem. We have, therefore, at least one full’ year of important prophetic work in Galilee which John passes over in silence, with the exception of the one connected account in vi. 3-71 and the general hints of vi. 2, vii. 1; although he not only betrays knowledge of the events ‘which he passes over, but indicates their significance. There is no com- parison between this procedure and that of the Synoptists, who also sometimes mention single events about which they know, without giving ‘a full account of them (Matt. xi, 21, xxii. 37, above, p. 170 ff.).° John’s procedure’ at this point, where for the first time his narrative comes into touch with the great current of the synoptic account (vi. 1-vii. 2), can be explained only on the assumption that his readers were fully informed’ about all the events which took place during this great “ year of the Lord ” in Galilee (Luke iv. 19, above; p. 169). Where, however, he does have occasion to bring before the readers again in full the account of a particular event which is recorded also in the older Gospels (vi. 3-13),—in order’to add to it the account of other and new incidents and discourses, closely connected with the event (vi. 14 £, 23, 26-71), which he hadıto give, he shows again, as in the history of the relations between Jesus and the Baptist (above, p. 256 f.), by the addition of various details which cannot be explained as due to the influence of a poetic or didactic idea, that: he has at his command independent woah eo of the situation (n. 5). A new:aspect of the relation between John and the Synoptists comes to view in John xi. 2/°3. Inasmuch as x. 40 refers back ito 1. 28, where Bethany (not Bethabara) 262 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT on the east bank of the Jordan is mentioned as the place in which John began his baptism, it would not be αὖ all unnatural, in the passage immediately following, where another, Bethany near, Jerusalem is referred to (xi. 1, 18), if in some way the latter place were distinguished from the former.’ The fact, however, that Bethany in Perea is ‘not mentioned again by name in x. 40-42, renders such a geographical notice unnecessary. But even if it were, what a remarkable designation is that) given in xi. 1. Instead of saying that the Bethany mentioned in this verse was situated near Jerusalem (ver..18), John calls it “the village of Mary and her sister Martha.” It is not until ver. 2 that the reader learns that the two women are the sisters of Lazarus ; and even if it had been possible to infer this earlier, it must have impressed him as peculiar that the place which is mentioned as Lazarus’ home is described not by his name, but as the village of Mary and. Martha. Neither designation, however, is suited to distinguish. the geographical location of the one Bethany from: that of the other. The passage. is intelligible only if we assume that the readers were already acquainted with a ‘village: of Mary and Martha.” In this ease it would be of interest to them to learn, what they had not. known before, that the Bethany where Lazarus lived and where he was now sick was the “village of the sisters Mary and) Martha”. of which they already knew. | Manifestly the readers were in the same ‘position in which we find ourselves to-day, Krom, Luke x. 38-42 they knew, as do we, of a village: im which two sisters, Mary and Martha, possessed a house; but that this village was called Bethany, and that it was the same Bethany where also a certain Lazarus lived, they learned, as do we, for the first time when they read John xi. 1. Before, however, informing his readers concerning the relationship. of Mary and’ Martha to Lazarus (ver! 2b), who up to this time has remained unknown to them (xi. 1, vis), the writer arouses further interest in the persons who THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 263 appear in the narrative which follows, by indicating that Mary was the woman who had anointed the Lord with oil and wiped His feet with her hair. This incident was te be narrated with ample detail in its historical connection, xii. 1+8. But unless informed from’ other sources, the reader could not know this beforehand; and would neces- sarıly understand. xi. 2 incorrectly to’ mean that the anointing had taken place before the time of xi: 2, just as vil. 50, xviii 14, 26, xix. 39 are to be taken as references to events which had happened and which are recorded earlier in the book, namely in ii. 2, x1. 50, xvii. 10. Here, how- ever, where, as xi. 1-8 shows, the narrator has no inten- tion of being so understood, he nevertheless refers to an anointing of Jesus with oil by a woman, just as though he himself had narrated the incident’ earlier. He takes for granted, therefore, that his readers are familiar with the details of the ıincident from other sources, and the new thing which he relates is the fact that this .woman 15 identical with the Mary who has just been mentioned, Consequently the readers must have known, ‘as we’ do, either: from’ Matt. xxvi. 6-13, Mark xiv. 3-9, or from Luke vii. 36-50, the story of an anointing such as John took for granted they knew, 1.6. one in’ which the act was narrated without the name of the woman being given. But comparison with John xi. 1-8 shows that: John had in mind Mark xiv. 3-9 = Matt. xxvi. 6413, not Luke vu. 36 ff; and here again his account resembles that of Mark so closely, both in subjeet-matter and in language, that it is most natural to suppose that Mark:was consciously made use of by John: (n. 6). Here, as in the account: of the feeding of the five thousand, John represents one disciple as saying what Matthew and Mark represent the disciples as saying collectively. Neither does he hesitate to report the ‘most significant saying of Jesus in a form differing widely from that of the other accounts (ver. 7),—a form which, at a comparatively early date, seemed to pious 264 INTRODUCTION TO ‘THE NEW TESTAMENT readers objectionable, because, as John reported the saying, it had the appearance of ve a ) prophecy which was net fulfilled (n. 6). we ΠῚ Up to this point two things seem to have been estab- lished, or shown to be extremely probable. (1)'John takes for granted on the part of his readers a comprehen- sive knowledge of the gospel history. This knowledge includes ‘not only the main outlines of the Gospel and the facts of great religious importance which would necessarily be brought out in the mission preaching, but also many separate stories which sometimes may "ἘΣ been narrated orally, but which could not have been parts of a uniform tradition in general circulation. (2) He is ποῦ only him- self acquainted with the synoptic Gospels, especially with Mark, apparently also with Luke; but) he presupposes this knowledge on the part of his readers. This is proved by the fact that throughout his Gospel he utilises the synoptie narratives, sometimes by connecting ' his! own ‘account directly withthe same on the presupposition that they are known, sometimes by’ taking for granted that some event there recorded had) happened which he doesnot repeat, sometimes by guarding the readers against possible» mis- understanding of the synoptic’ accounts, or by informing them for the first time of details which had beeome effaced in these accounts, or by correcting slight imaecuracies which had crept into them. On the whole, however; ‘the synoptic accounts ‘are confirmed both by what John re- peats and by what he does not report but takes for granted as having happened and as being known. heen daom Assuming that these facts suflice to:prove that John’s omission of material found in the Synopties, which imitself is important, is no: proof either that he was ignorant of the same or that he disapproved of it; we may pursue this line of inquiry still further... In passages like 1. 19-34, mi. 24, vi. 1-21, xi 1 fi; xi, 1-8, the reader is: reminded con- stantly of the synoptic accounts, and nowherendoes he get THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 265 a conception of events essentially different‘ from that which he finds in the earlier Gospels. Just as in the case of the most important facts of the gospel history; as, for example, the whole of John’s baptismal work, Jesus’ bap- tism by him, the imprisonment of the Baptist, the healing of multitudes in Galilee, and the choice of the apostles, the reader finds his previous conception directly confirmed by the fact that John: does not undertake to give a new and different account of these facts ; so he discovers with regard to numerous other instances to which John less π᾿" refers. «Without claiming anything at this point as to: the purpose of the Botrth Gospel, we may call attention to the patent fact, which the author ‚himself brings out very explicitly in) xx. 30: (xxi. 25), that what he records is selected from: a mass of material at his disposal.» Ina degree unparalleled by any other evangelist, he abandons all attempt at’ completeness: in: the narrative in the history, and consequently disregards entirely an external pragmatic treatment of the history. »Im‘the case of the ‘year of grace in Galilee” this is self-evident, and like» wise in the case of the beginnings'of the history of Jesus. We: haverseen how the curiously chosen beginning of his narrative in il 19 does ποῦ exclude the accounts in Matt. iii 14,11; Mark 1. 2-133; Luke it, 1-iv. 13, nor lessen their “importance, but ‘rather presupposes them (above, p» 256). Quite as little does this beginning exclude or disparage the accounts in Matt. 1.-ii. ; Lukei-ii. Just before it is said that the Logos became flesh, who, because of the incarnation, isicalled' the only-begotten Son of God (i 14); it is stated (accordine’to the text still accepted) very explicitly how those for whom Christ’ has won ‘the right and possibility of becoming children of God, and who are now believers on the name οἵ Christ, become children of God. If the reader were unacquainted with the) traditions in ‘Matt. i and Luke 1, possibly the ποῦ 266 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that the simple thought that we become children of God not by a natural, human birth, but by a working of God which may be figuratively described as begetting or birth (ef. iii. 3-8), is expressed by three negative and one simple positive statement, might excite only surprise; especially, however, that the willsof the man as a factor im the begetting and birth of the child of God is:exeluded} whereas) in natural birth the'woman as well as the man is a factor, and besides the use of the plural αἱμάτων, suggests the inclusion of both ‘the mam ‘andthe woman: On the other hand, for readers such as those whom John addressed—who belonged to the: Christian) Chureh’/ and were familiar with the traditions of the beginning) of Jesus’ life—the mystery was solved at once when it was observed that John deseribed the birth of the children; of God according to the analogy of the birth of the only- begotten Son of God, who is this in the fullest sense, and from His mcarnation onwards. How imevitably Christian readers discovered in the passage’ reference to the beget+ ting and birth of Jesus without the mingling of the blood of two human beings; and) without the concurrence οὗ fleshly desire and of the willof man, would be shown in the history of the text, if in ver. 13 οὗ. „u ἐγγενήθησαν were the original treading, from which in :the second century the reading ἐγγεννήθη, without ἃ connecting relative (of or ὅς), τῆᾶν have arisen and been widely spread | abroad in» the Churches. There are, however, strong reasons for the originality οἵ this, latter reading, For. John would then have expressly acknowledged the traditions in Matt. 1. and! Luke i., and all the more have presupposed readers who knew these traditions and believed them to be true (n. 7). After having put before his readers in. i, 19-x1.157 material which, with the exception, of vi 1-18 and occasional references. to, what they) knew from „other sources, was entirely new, in the account of the last days THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 267 of Jesus’ life John was under the necessity either of remaining silent altogether or of repeating what. was already known from various sources; for, like the earlier Gospels, the missionary preaching and all the oral traditions concerning these days must have contained a full: account of:everything: connected with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Nevertheless, in this section also the author of: the Fourth Gospel follows the same eclectic method, and makes no effort to conceal the fact. Here it) was impossible for a reader of any intelligence at all to conclude from John’s silence regarding facts which were important in themselves, and which still survived in the tradition, either that the events had not taken place or that they were not accepted by John as true. From ΧΙ 1, 12: the reader learns that a number of days inter- vened between ithe entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem and His death; but: only one event, xii. 20-36, which took place during these days, and one short discourse, xu. 44- 50, the:time and place of which is not even indicated, are recordedi: It is'also necessarily presupposed in xii... 35 1 that Jesus did not in any way withdraw Himself from the people, but rather testified to them of Himself by, His teaching and His deeds. After all the conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, of which John especially gives us a full account from. 11]. 18) on- wards, it must have been perfectly clear to everyone that collisions of this character could not be avoided during His last visit to the city. The fact that John, passes all these events by in silence without even so much as} such general remarks as are found in Luke xxi. 37f., which would give the readers an idea of Jesus’ life during these eventful days, of His place of residence, and of His works and discourses, is to be explained only on the supposition that they were : sufficiently informed regarding these particular facts (Mark xi. 12-xiii. 37; Matt. xxi. 12- xxv.46; Luke xix. 47-xxi. 38). In contrast to the 268 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT seanty account of this part of the history, we have. de- tailed reports regarding the last hours which Jesus spent with the apostles) (xiii. 1-xvu. 26). But this) narrative would be quite unintelligible to readers unacquainted with atleast the main features of the history of the last night of Jesus’ life. It is not until well’ on in the narrative that such readers would become aware that it was the last evening which He spent with them and the night: before His arrest (zii. 32, εὐθύς; ΧΗ]. 38, xiv. 25-31, xvi 32, xvii. 11). Without’ statement as to place’ or “time (xiii. 1, n. 8), an account is given of what) took place during a meal of which Jesus partook with His disciples. That Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, which is referred to at an earlier point in the narrative (vi. 64, 70f., xii. 4), and again in xiii 2, 18430 (xiv. 22), xvii. 12, as if it !were already known, was the outcome of an arrangement with the authorities, is not indicated either here or anywhere else, not even in xviii. 2, where the progress: of the narrative requires that it be’ presupposed. ἰὖ must. be taken for granted, therefore, that this fact was known. If; as all ‘the tradition from 1 Cor. xi. 23) onwards attirms, Jesus instituted the Christian sacrament of the Lord’s Supper'on the oceasion of His last meal (vol. si. 880, No. 7), the idea could occur to no Christian writer that, by passing byom silence this event; which was. of such "great importance in ‘Christian worship, he. could banish the same from the consciousness of the Church for which he wrote (above, p. 208 f.). And the later he wrote and the more deeply the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, which depended upon this act of Jesus, became ingrained into the custom of the Church with the lapse of: time, the more’ impossible would it be for him to entertain ‘such an idea. «If the writer had not taken it for granted» that his readers: were fully informed, concerning ‘this part of! the history, he could not have passed this event by in silence, nor eould he have written chaps. xill.-xvii in their present THE WRITINGS OF/JOHN | 269 form: The same is'true of chaps. xvill.—xx.,, The omission of the account of Jesus’ struggle in prayer in Gethsemane’ and of Judas’ kiss in xvii.) 1-11; and) the) introductiom into, the picture of a number of features which are not found) inthe Synoptics:(the names of Peter and of Malchus, the co-operation’ of the Roman cohort, and the conversation between Jesus and those sent to arrest Him), are quite in keeping with what:we have observed in sections previously diseussed, which are formally parallel to accounts in the Synoptics. Here, however, is to be / especially, observed that John does not omit important facts which) the parallelism between portions of his account and that) of the Synoptics would naturally lead him to relate without elsewhere supplying a kind of substitute for them,—a fact which was found to be true also of Luke in relation to Mark (above, p. 102 ἢ). The essential contents of the story of the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi..| 37-45; Mark xiv. 33-41 ; Luke xxii. 41+46;) Heb. v. 7, vols in 362, 380), which John omits, are given in connection) with an event recorded by him alone in xu. 27. There is no account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper; but im vi. 26-65 is found a discourse which the. original: readers could construe only as a prophecy fulfilled by the observance of the Supper in the Church, and which was actually» so construed (n. 9). Peter’s ‚great confession (Matt. xvi. 16; Mark vin. 29; Luke ix. 20) is replaced by: another having the same significance, but different) in form, and found in a different: connection (John vi.'69). For the missing story of Jesus’ birth there is a brief but significant substitute in 1. 18:1. (above, p. 265 f.); and in place of the account of His baptism, Johmoffers 1. 32-34, In all these instances John’s statements and» narratives are independent. » An author who, on the one hand, shows by such chapters as iii. 1-v. 47, vil.~xi., xiil—xvii. that he has a large amount of material at his disposal not used in any form by the Synoptists, and that he knew 270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT also how to arrange the same, and who, on the other hand, does’ not hesitate to’irepeat without essential modification "what the Synoptists had written earlier (vi. 1-13, xii, 1-18, xviii. 1 ff), is above the ‘suspicion of having produced these and other accounts (n. 10) with the help of his imagination and by recasting the material furnished him by the Synoptics. J In the history of the Passion, repetition was unavoidable; but here also John writes with the same conscious reference to the Synoptics. Accepting the text of the older MSS., modifications of which are easy to understand and therefore to be rejected (n. 11), John in xvii. 13-28 distinguishes between a transaction in the house of Annas and a later hearing in the house of Caiaphas. The express statement that the former of these hearings took place first (xviii. 13, πρῶτον), and the omission of all account of the second hear- ing, with only the insertion of the account of Peter's second and third denials between the notice of Jesus’ deliverance into Caiaphas’ hands by Annas (ver. 24) and His handing over to Pilate by Caiaphas (ver. 28), would be incomprehensible on the part of an author who was giving the history of these events without reference to other accounts with which the readers were familiar. τ: For it is altogether self-evident that what is first recorded and what immediately follows the account of the arrest took place first ; and everyone understands that what took place, in the house of Caiaphas, whose position as ruling high’ priest is strongly emphasised in vv. 13f., 24'as earkien:in xi: 49-51, must have been more important than the: hear- ing before Annas, to whom | John ) a1p) to him.” The letters 'v27p were dropped-out by mistake before 1277, and, in order again to give the words meaning, the preposition 3. was inserted. before the first word) \xov. | The harmonising of! the synoptic account thus corrected with the Johannine tradition is effected, through the hypothesis that im that year, when the 14th: of Nisan «fell on Friday, the Passover lamb. was killed: on the evening of the 13th, im order to ‚prevent ἃ desecration of the Sabbath, which otherwise would have beer unavoidable, because! presumably at that time the lamb was not slain before sunset, as in the time of Josephus and the Mishnah (see note 16), but after sunset, so that, it would, have fallen on the Sabbath, 6.9. on the 15th of Nisan. The. Passover could be celebrated immediately after the lamb. was slain on the evening of the 18th, or not until the evening of the 14th. Jesus and the Pharisees kept the Passover on the former, the Sadducean high priests on the latter day. According to J. Lichtenstein’ (from his: Hebrew commentary on the N.T. 1895, Schr. des Instit. Jud. aw Leipzig, No. 48, S. 24-29), this difference between the majority under the leadership of the high priests and a minority to which Jesus belonged arose from the fact: that, the Sadducees, in accordance with their view that Lev. xxiii, 11 refers tothe Sabbath, falsified the dates of the new/moon, so that in this year the first, day of the Passover fell upon a Sabbath. | 16. (Ρ. 281.) John xii. 1 Seems to be an. exact date, and it is naturally to be taken not as|Hilgenfeld takes it (Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche, 8. 221 1), 85 the peculiar terminology of the Roman calendar, but asan ordinary Jewish expression (2 Mace, xv. 365 Jos, Bell. ii. 8.95, Winer, sec. 61. 4.end; Wieseler, Beiträge, 264); and is unquestionably to be reckoned backwards from the beginning of the celebration of the |Passover, i.e. from the slaying of the Passover lamb between three and five o'clock on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan (Jos. Bell. vi. 9:3 ;-cf.Pesachim ν. 5), which makes Jesus come to Bethany on the afternoon ‚of the 8th of «Nisan. It now, as the Synoptics imply, Jesus died on Friday the löth, then the 8th of Nisan fell alse Γ THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 295 on Friday. If, om the other hand, as the Johannine account is supposed to necessitate, Jesus died on the 14th, and if the 14th was also Friday, then the 8th, the date on which Jesus arrived in Bethany; must. have been a Sabbath. But that is impossible, since Jesus could not travel on the Sabbath. One is. compelled to make the very improbable assumption that Jesus arrived in the vicinity of Bethany on the 7th—so that on the 8th He was compelled to make only a Sabbath day’s journey. But why should Jésus have planned the journey so badly as, within a short distance of His destination—the friendly home in which He regularly lodged during the last days of His life—to be under necessity of seeking quarters for Himself and the large company with Him? It was only necessary to start fifteen or twenty minutes earlier, or to hurry a little, in order to avoid this. But if the day of Jesus’ arrival in Bethany, according to John xii. 1,'the 8th of Nisan was not a Sabbath, then, according to John, the 15th of Nisan) was not a Sabbath; in other words, the Sabbath, during which Jesus was in His grave (John xix. 31, 42, xx. 1), was not the 15th of Nisan. Since to assume in this particular year, in addition to the synoptic and the alleged Johannine chronology, ἃ third arrangement of the days of the week. in relation to the days of the month, for which there is no evi- dence whatever, is entirely arbitrary, it follows that John and the synoptics are in perfect agreement at this point. In xii. 2 we are not told that Jesus and the disciples ate supper at the end of their journey,—something indeed which would not have been worth telling, and which would have been men- tioned incidentally, like the supper in xiii. 2,—but that a feast was prepared in His honour (above, p. 287, n. 6), which probably did not take place immediately upon Jesus’ arrival on Friday the 8th, but'on the Sabbath, the 9th (ef. Luke xiv. 1). If Jesus arrived in Bethany eariy in the afternoon of the 8th, when the usual preparation of the food for the coming Sabbath was made, the arrangements for the feast of the following day could still have been completed before sunset and hence before the beginning of the Sabbath. This would make the entry into Jerusalem take placeion Sunday the 10th. The time mentioned in xii. 12 can only be the day after the anointing, since vv. 10, 11 contain no indications as to time, This conclusion is not affected by the fact that in xii. 2 the relation of this event to the time indicated in xii. 1 is left indefinite. The same thing occurs, e.g.,in 1. 41 in relation to i. 39, and yet the narrative is continued in i. 43 with 7; ἐπαύριον. John is not writing a journal, in which no day may be passed over, especially is he not doing so in the Passion history.’ He simply desires to call attention to the fact that on the day after the quiet anticipation’ of His burial in Bethany, Jesus entered Jerusalem amid universal rejoicing, which to His enemies seemed so terrible (xii. 12-19). The common view has been thought to have support in xix. 14, on the assumption that παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα corresponds to the Jewish nopn Sy, which means literally evening, 1.6. eve, οὗ the Passover, being also parallel to wy ya, the common. term for the whole of the 14th of Nisan (eg. Pesachim iv. 6), and, like naw ary, a designation of the day before the Sabbath, e.g. Friday.‘ John, according to this view, presents the case in which the 14th of Nisan, the “ereb happesacl, falls on a Friday, om ‘ereb: shabbath (Pesachim v. 1). But it must first be shown that παρασκευή is ever used as an equivalent for sy, and, like the 296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT latter term, came to be regarded as needing a modifying genitive, like σαββάτου or rod πάσχα. In the N.T. and Christian literature the word is complete in itself, and always used like the Aram. ΝΗῚ (xnany) for the sixth day of the week, namely, Friday. Where a qualifying word is found, it is not: the name of the following day in the genitive (Jos. Ani. xvi. 6. 2, ev σάββασιν ἢ τῇ πρὸ αὐτῆς παρασκευῇ). The word παρασκευή without any modifiers whatever is used of the day of Jesus’ death in Mark xv. 42 ; Matt. xxvii. 62; Luke xxiii: 54; John xix. 31, 42, consequently also in John xix. 14. John lays great weight upon the days of the week on which the crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection took place, and upon the fact that this whole series of events took place during the time of the Passover (above, pp. 276 f., 280f.). The two ideas are associated in the passage, xix. 14, where he men- tions the day and the hour when sentence of death was passed upon Jesus : “Tt was Friday at the time of the Passover, and about the sixth hour.” These statements serve at the same time as a preparation for what follows. Because the following day was a Sabbath falling within the Passover period, it was especially holy, and every desecration had to be avoided (xix. 31, 42), even more scrupulously than on other Sabbaths (v. 9, vii. 23, ix. 14), The fact that in the Bab. Sanhedrin 43a, 67a, it is thrice stated that Jesus was crucified “on the ‘ereb happesach” (fol. 43a, according to the Florentine MS., quoted by Dalman following Laible’s Jesus in Talmud, 8. 15*, “om “ereb shabbath and ‘ereb happesach”) contributes nothing to the understanding of the Fourth Gospel. The rabbis obtained their knowledge of the gospel his- tory mostly from uncertain hearsay and Christian tradition which had begun to fade; ef. GK, ii. 673 ff. If these statements were derived from the Hebrew or Aramaic translation of John’s Gospel, which was read by Jews at Seytho- polis in the fourth century (Epiph. Her. xxx. 6), the translation of John xix. 14 could not have been very happy. Sh (in two MSS. against one) has xnıny in xix. 14, 31, 42; 51 has xnany in xix. 14, 31, but in xix. 42 renders quite freely “because the Sabbath had begun.” Ss has the same in xix. 42 with a different verb ; but xix. 14, 31 is lacking in Ss, and all three references in Sc. 17. (P. 282.) Scuirur in his festal publication, Uber φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχὰ (Giessen, 1883), strongly opposes the interpretation briefly outlined above. It has recently been defended by J. van BEBBER (Zur Chronol. des Lebens Jesu, 1898, S. 5-81), partially on new grounds. Here discussion must be limited to bare essentials. Πάσχα means in the N.T. as in the O.T.—(1) The Passover lamb, as object of θύειν, φαγεῖν, etc. ; Ex. xii. 21; Deut. xvi. ΘΕ. ; 2 Chron. xxx. 15, 18 ; Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12-14; Luke xxii.'7,11,15; 1 Cor. v. 7; (2) the observance of the 14th of Nisan, te. the feast of the Passover, including the slaying of the lamb, which preceded, to: be dis- tinguished from the seven days’ festival which followed, called ithe ἄζυμα, generally used as the object of ποιεῖν, Ex. xii. 48; Lev. xxiii. 5f.; Deut. xvi. 1; Philo, De Septen. xviii. 19 ; Jos. Ant. ii. 14. 6, iii. 10.5; Bell. vi. 9. 3: Matt. xxvi. 18; Mark xiv.1; Heb. xi. 28. In the case of ἐτοιμάζειν τὸ m., Matt. xxvi. 19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 8, 13, we have the choice of either meaning. (3) The name ἄζυμα is also applied to the Passover which precedes, Jos. Ant. ix. 13. 2. 3 (Niese, §§ 263, 271); Bell. ii. 12. 1, iv. 7. 2,80 that the Azyma includes eight days (Jos. Ant. ii. 15. 1), and the 14th of Nisan could be reckoned as the first day of the Azyma (Matt. xxvi. 17 ;:Mark xiv. 12), or THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 297 even more broadly, simply as the day of the Azyma (Jos. Bell. v. 3.1; Luke xxli. 7). (4) On the other hand, the name πάσχα is also made to cover the days of the Azyma, and the two terms are used quite synonymously, Jos. Bell. ii. 1. 3, vi. 9. 3 (where certainly uninformed readers could not infer that. the feast called the “ Passover” is only a part of the previously, mentioned feast of Azyma) ; Ant. xiv. 2.1, xvii. 9. 3, xviii. 2.2; Luke xxii. 1; cf. Acts xii. 3 with xii. 4. This wider use of πάσχα is evidently found in John ii, 23; xviii. 39, perhaps also in'xix. 14; and there is clearly no intention, of dis- tinguishing the Passover proper from the feast of the Azyma in John ii, 13, vi. 4, xi. 55, xii, 1, xiii. 1; Luke ii. 41. (5) The rabbis also were quite familiar with this usage. The Mishnah tractate o'no» treats of the festival of the entire seven, days, which as a whole is there called por (i. 3) or nop7 (ii. 2-7). The latter term had entirely replaced the original name myon an. Consciousness of the divergence from the original usage betrays itself. In Pesachim ix. 5 we read: “What [is the difference] between the Egyptian Passover and the Passover of the generations (1.6. the yearly.Pass- over feast)? The Passover of Egypt: it [took place] beginning with ‘the 10th [of Nisan] (Ex. xii. 3), and it was necessary to sprinkle the lintel and the two side posts of the door with a bunch of hyssop (Ex. xii. 22), and it was eaten in haste in one night (ns o5°52); but the Passover [οἵ the Genera- tions is customary (an)3, custom) for the whole seven [days].” From this. it follows not only that the learned rabbis used the term nos to include the Passover proper and the Azyma, but also that they spoke of the seven days’ celebration as “eating of the Passover.” The phrase, “whole seven days,” can stand in contrast to nothing save “in a single night.” Moreover, since no new verb takes the place of “eating” the Passover in the original celebra- tion, this same verb is to be supplied in the second instance 8180. This same usage is found in 2 Chron. xxx. 21f.: “ And the children of Israel . . . kept the feast of the Azyma seven days with great gladness . . . so they did eat throughout the feast for the seven days, offering sacrifices of peace-offerings and making confession to Jahweh, the God of their, fathers.” When Bleek (Beiträge zur Evangelienkritik, 1846, S. 111) suggests modestly, and Schiirer, op. cit. S. 12, claims confidently that, instead of ax" attested by the massorah and without the keri, by the Targum, the Peshito, and Jerome, the correct reading is 2» (LXX συνετέλεσαν), they fail, in the first place, to show that nba (“to complete”), followed by an object such as 1», ın, etc., means any- where in the O.T. or even in late Jewish literature, to celebrate a feast. In the second place, they have not given due weight to the fact that witnesses mentioned above forthe reading “they ate” are very much stronger for the usage of the Jews of Palestine among whom John belonged than for the usage of the Alexandrian translators, If this reading were a later correction of the original reading preserved in the LXX, then it only goes to prove that the expression “to eat the seven days’ feast” (7.e. the Passover, called a potiort a “seven days’ feast”) was much more familiar among the Jews than the expression “to complete,” 7.e. to celebrate a feast of seven days, which occurs nowhere else. The expression φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, ἴῃ this broader sense, is: no more peculiar than Josephus’ θύομεν ἑορτὴν πάσχα καλοῦντες, Ant. 11. 14. 6; xvii. 9. 3, infra, and the corresponding θυσία for the entire observance of the 14th of Nisan, or also of the seven days, Bell. vi. 9. 3. The only 298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT difference is that the latter expression represents classical usage (θύειν τὰ Λύκαια, Xen. Anab. i. 2, 10; τοὺς γάμους, Philostr. Vita Apoll. vii. 7 ; see Bebber, S. 55, and the lexicons), whereas φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα represents Jewish usage, which John everywhere follows more closely than does Josephus. Jewish idiom is peculiar in a very broad application of the idea “to eat,” e.g. **to eat the years of the Messiah,” Bab. Sanhedrin 98); “eat up widows’ houses,” Mark’ xii. 40; “to taste death,” John viii. 52, ete. ; cf. Bebber,S. 55% and it was very natural to speak thus broadly of the Passover, because the act after which the whole observance was loosely called was a meal, and because the sacrificial meals as well as the eating of unleavened bread were characteristic of this feast. On the other hand, the regular technical expres- sion for the celebration of the 14th of Nisan is. not φαγεῖν but ποιεῖν τὸ πάσχα, Hx. xii. 48; Num: ix. 2,5, 6,10, 12-14; Deut. xvi. 1; Matt. xxvi. 18; Heb. xi. 28. In the celebration of the Passover, eating is only one feature along with the θύειν, and is never mentioned unless the more general expres- sion ποιέῖν or θύειν has preceded, or unless the Passover has been previously spoken of; Num. ix. 11; 2 Chron. xxx. 18; Matt. xxvi. 17 (ef. vv. 1,5; Mark xiv. 12b (ef. vv. 1, 2, 12a); Luke xxii. 11, 15 (cf vv. 1, 7, 8). The full expression φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα is found in the LXX, including the Apoerypha, only once; 2 Chron. xxx. 18 (ἔφαγον τὸ φασέκ, here, as the con- text indicates, xxx. 1-22, probably in the broadest sense); in Philo and in Josephus, so far as the present writer is aware, it never oceurs ;)in the N.T. (besides John xviii. 28) five times of the participation in the Passover’ meal. But it is very improbable that the Jews, t.e. the high priests and their ser- vants (xviii: 35, xix. 6), whose excuse to Pilate is given in John xviii. 28, had in mind only the evening Passover meal and not also the earlier slaying of the lamb, which on the morning of the 14th of Nisan had not yet taken place, when they spoke of being prevented from participation by defilement. (6) Of less importance is the question whether, in Deut. xvi.’ 9. (2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9, ef. 3 Esdr. i. 8f., are left out of account), the cattle for the Shelamim as well as the sheep or goats for the Passover meal are covered by the expression nop. Certainly here, where it is not a question of the usage of the time of Josiah or Moses, but of the time of John, it is wrong to say with Schürer, S. 14: “The fact simply is that according to the author of Deuteronomy not only smaller animals but also cattle could be used for the Passover proper.” Because for the Jews of the time of Jesus, who knew nothing of the modern criticism of the Pentateuch, Ex. xii, 3-5 made this interpretation of Deut. xvi. 2 “simply” impossible. In his account of the Jewish interpretations, Schürer, S.'17f., constantly confuses the manner in which the rabbis understand the word no» in the text, and the manner in which in their effort after exact interpretation they use the same word in their comments. Leaving out of account the merely hypothetical consideration of the possibility that, according to Deut. xvi. 2, it was allowable to use cattle for the Passover proper—naturally the possibility has not been considered seriously—all the above mentioned interpreters agree that in the text the word nop includes the animals for the Passover sacrifice and the Passover meal and the animals for the Chagigah ; but in order to make this’ clear, naturally it was necessary to employ the more definite expression and to say “small animals for the Passover, cattle for the Chagigah” Zr THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 299 § 68. PURPOSE AND METHOD, CHARACTER AND READERS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL, At the close of his book, John states very clearly its purpose, just as Luke does in his dedication ; at the same time, however, John goes on to speak of the means by which he endeavoured to accomplish this purpose (xx. 30f.; cf. xix. 35). As was unavoidable in a brief concluding sentence, both these statements are so general that it is necessary to seek in the book itself some more definite information, in particular, to draw certain conclusions from the means used with reference to the author’s purpose. From among a large number of σημεῖα which Jesus did in the presence of His disciples, John sets forth a few in order to lead the readers whom he addresses to ‘believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, to the ‘end that they, believing this to be the case, may have life'in the name of this Jesus Christ. We have already seen (above, p. 207 f.) that it was not His intention to convert Jews or Gentiles to the Christian faith through a written missionary sermon. The readers were already believers—confessors of the name of Christ (ef. 1. 12), a Church with which the author was acquainted and on intimate terms, or a group of such Churches who needed to be furthered and strength- ened in the faith which they already had; just as Jesus by constantly bearing new testimony to Himself endea- voured to strengthen His disciples and also such as had come to have a certain faith in Him and yet could not be called His disciples (viii. 30f., ef. ii 22, vii’ 31, x. 38, xiv 45, xii. 11) in the faith which they confessed when they first came into contact with Him (i. 41, 45, 49),'in order that this faith might become le fixed, and so to deepen this faith that it might develop into an independent and experiential knowledge of the truth revealed in Him (ii. 11, iv. 39-42, vi. 45 Ὁ, 69, viii. 32, x. 88) xi. 15, 42) xiii. 19, xiv. 1-11, xvi. 30-33, xvii. 8, xx. 8, 24-29). Only in this 300 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT way do believers become disciples of Jesus in the full sense of the word (viii. 31; ef. xiii. 35, xv. 8) and win the free- dom, the ‘peace, the joy, in short, the life which is transmitted from the only-begottten Son of God to, those who become children of God (i. 12) through Him (vii. 32, 25 fx iy 27 απ. a Veo tne ER xx, 29). , There is no greater human distinction than te become a disciple of Jesus’, and, through His mediation attain to God (vi. 46, xiii. 16, xiv. 6, xv. 5, 8), But this is also a goal which the believer can attain only step by step. It is the mission. of Jesus and of the Spirit whom He will send to further them toward this end (xiv. 26, xvi. 12 ff., xvii. 26); the apostles also are called to share this teaching work (xv. 27). It is John’s purpose to fulfil this mission in the case of the believers for whom, he writes by giving his own testimony, in order that they may share the same blessed experience as himself (xix. 35, xx. 31; ef i. 16); \1,John ii. 3 £.). The fact that, the book was intended for believers, whom it is designed to confirm in this manner, gives it an esoteric character, which distinguishes it from the Synoptics, and especially from Luke. The detailed account. of the dis- courses. ab the Last Supper is not the most unmistakable evidence that John, is writing for the imstruction of believers. More significant is, the fact that he, chooses, as the subject, of his account a number of signs which Jesus did before the eyes of His disciples (xx, 30). It is.self- evident that, Jesus’ constant companions were eye-witnesses of all His miracles. In view.of this, it is all the more certain that the remark means that for the most, part the author contemplates the σημεῖα from the point, of view, of Jesus’ self-revelation to His disciples and for their sake. Naturally, however, this dogs not lessen, the significance of these onueia-—especially of those which, are not related, but only summarily mentioned--for all those. who witnessed them. and for the progress of the history, (11. 23, i. 12, iv. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 301 45, ν 20) 36) vil Qy 14,1 vis 21 Bly χυ 25~3By xk: (47) χῇ. 10, 37, xv. 24). The entire book, from i. 14 onwards, is in keeping with the emphasis laid in xx. 30 upon the significance of these signs for the disciples. The very first utterances of Jesus of which an account is given are wonderful proofs of that profound knowledge of the human heart, transcending all the limits of sense by which He won His first. disciples (1. 42-49), while as a title to all that follows stands the promise to Nathanael and to the entire group of the first six diseiples that in the companionship of Jesus they shall experience greater things, and learn from a multitude of deeds that God who rules in heaven has put at the disposal of the Son of Man upon earth all the angel powers by which He Himself rules the world (i. 50£.). The result of the first of these experiences is declared to be simply that, in consequence of this revelation of the glory of Jesus, His disciples believed on Him (ii. 11), notwithstanding the fact that there were other witnesses besides the disciples, e.g. the mother of Jesus, who certainly was not inditferent and must have witnessed the miracle. In other words, the disciples were confirmed in their faith. While it is true in the case of the second and third miracles which are related (iv. 46-54, v. 1-18) that the disciples are not mentioned, in the first case one who is already a believer is stimulated by a rebuke of Jesus’ to greater faith. In vi. 5 ff. again it is clearly described how the faith of those who believe in Jesus is tested and strengthened. While the multitude see signs and yet do not see (vi. 14, 26, 30, 36), the miracle of the feeding and of Jesus’ walking on the water make the disciples able not only to bear the discourse of the fol- lowing day, but in the light of its promises to rise to a joyful confession. With one sad exception this was true of the Twelve, while other disciples, who were not really dis- ciples, deserted Jesus (vi. 60-71). The healing of the blind man is introduced as ἃ means of instruction for the disciples 302 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (ix. 1-5); and in the case of the man who was healed, it is to be observed how, under the impression of the deeds οἱ Jesus, his open-minded understanding is developed from stage to stage. At first the Lord isa man named Jesus (ix. 11), then a prophet (ver. 17), certainly not a sinner, but a man from God (vv. 25, 30-33), and finally the Lord, to whom he kneels in faith and prayer (vv. 35-38). While the raising of Lazarus is an important event in the concluding days of Jesus’ life (xi. 45-53, xu. 9-11, 17-19), the principal thing described is the significance of this deed and the circumstances accompanying it for the faith of His disciples (xi. 15; ef. the whole of vv. 4-16), the women who believed on Him (x1. 3, 20-40), and the larger group of those who were receptive (vv. 42, 45). Where the Lord is, who Himself is Resurrection and Life, sickness and death and the grave must lose their terrors (xi. 4, 11, 23-27, xii. 1, 2, 9). He who makes the dead to live .can- not Himself remain in death. In chap. xx. it is not so much Christ’s own glorification that is described, as the convincing of two souls that He who was dead was alive. This helps to explain why John, more than any other of the evangelists, gives us character sketches of. Jesus’ disciples both of those who were intimately and those who were more remotely associated with Him (above, pp. 209, 224, n.4). He gives accounts of conversions which have a wholly individual stamp, often with a few strokes of, his pen, sometimes, however, at length. The genuine Israelite, Nathanael, who comes to Jesus with mockery upon his lips, but who, when he perceives that his heart is known, pours forth words of earnest confession, with the result that he never leaves Jesus again (i. 45-50; cf, xxi. 2); Philip, cautious, slow of speech and understanding, (i. 43- 45, vi. 5-7, xii. 21 f., xiv. 8-10; above, p. 224); Thomas, melancholy, disinclined to any easy optimism (xi, 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24-29); Nicodemus, who at first comes to Jesus by night because he is afraid of the light, and, afterwards THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 303 alone of all his colleagues has the courage in the Sanhedrix to demand fair treatment for Jesus; and at last, when the most trusted of Jesus’ disciples deny and desert Him, con- fesses himself a follower of the crucified Jesus (ii, 1-21, vii. 50-52, xix. 39); the Samaritan woman, who, in spite of her sinful past and the wilful spirit which she manifests at first, becomes an earnest believer (iv. 7-42); the para- lytic, whose own sin had evidently brought upon him an incurable disease (v. 5-15); and the man who without any fault of his own was born blind (chap. ix.); the two sisters in Bethany, so different in type (xi. 1-xii. 8); and Mary Magdalene, who made up for her lack of knowledge by her self-sacrificing love (xx. 1-18),—all of these are incom- parably described, and, without any express effort to bring out the fact, are instructive illustrations of the divine leading and of human development out of darkness into light, and from faith to faith. They were drawn, not by the herald of the gospel proclaiming his message to all peoples, but by the pastor devoting Himself to the human souls committed to Him, and who by these pictures de- signed to increase the faith of those who were already believers and to make them true disciples. It necessarily impresses one as peculiar that both in xx. 30 and in the retrospect of the whole of Jesus’ public testimony in xii. 37, His deeds are the only recognised form of His testimony to Himself, and that these are declared to be the contents of this book ; whereas in reality the dis- courses not only occupy much space, but in many ways are emphasised as important. Although on the authority of i. 50 f. it is possible to reckon sayings like i. 48, iv. 16 (29) or prophecies like 11.19, vi. 70, zii. 32f. (xviil. 32) among the σημεῖα, the author understands the word as applying only to the miracles (11. 11). Consequently it is evident from xx. 801 that he does not regard the deeds as a sort of customary adornment of the Redeemer, or as an occasion for profound discourses which are really the more import- 304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ant things. There are only a few deeds to which long dis: courses are attached (namely, v. 17-47, vii. 19 ff. attached to v. 1-16, and vi. 26-71 attached to vi. 3-13); while other deeds of Jesus no less striking are left to speak for themselves (ii. 1-11, ix. 1-38, xi. 1-44). ‘This is true not only of the few which are formally related, but also of the many which are summarily mentioned. These works, as they are often called by John without any further quali- fication (n. 1), distinguish Jesus from the Baptist, who was the witness by water and word (x. 41). Since Jesus works only in dependence upon God, in fellowship with God, and ‘by means of the angel-powers at His command (v. 19, 30, xi. 41 f., 1. 51), these works are a work of God Himself (xiv. 10), or a participation of Jesus in the work of God (v. 17-23, ix. 3 f.). To the extent, however, that God permits these works to happen through Jesus and through Him alone (xv. 24, x: 41, vil. 31), they are God's own testimony concerning Jesus (v. 36 f., x. 25, 37 f., xiv. 11), which renders unbelief without excuse (xii. 37, xv. 24). John’s use of the O.T. and Jewish word σημεῖα to designate the miraculous deeds of Jesus regularly and much more frequently than the other evangelists (n. 1), is not intended to indicate that they are regarded by him either exclusively as symbols or as prophecies. The con- ception is broader. The onueia are events which point be- yond themselves to the cause of which they are the effect, to the person of whom they are the acts, to the unseen events of which they are the symbols, to the future events of which they are the prophetic preludes. In these strik- ing acts of Jesus the entire work of God, itself invisible— in the completion of which Jesus has become an active participant—is visibly manifested (ix. 3 f., ef. iv. 34, v. 36). The healing of the blind man, just before which Jesus makes the statement of ix. 3, He Himself transforms into a symbol, a real allegory which He afterwards interprets (xi. 39-40). In the same way the miraculous feeding becomes to Him a prophetic symbol of a still more wonder- THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 305 ful feeding (vi. 27 ff.). The healing of the sick foreshadows the subsequent awakening of the dead, and the cases where Jesus raised the dead during His earthly ministry are at one and the same time symbols of the awakening by the word of Jesus of the spiritually dead to spiritual life and intima- tions of the general awakening of the physically dead by Jesus at the last day (v. 20-26, vi. 39, xi. 23-27). Along with this high valuation of the miraculous deeds of Jesus are found other words which seem to lessen their value. In order that faith in Jesus, and the blessings, primarily invisible, which are mediated by Him, may strike root at all among men, faith must be preceded by a vision of the witnessing of Jesus to Himself through deeds, which show Him to be the “ Saviour of the world” sent from God (iv. 42), 2.e., by a θεωρεῖν, θεᾶσθαι, ὁρᾶν (i. 14, 32-34, 39, 46, 51, ii. 11, iv. 19, vi. 36, 40, xii. 45, xiv. 9, xx. 6, 8, 20, 27). To those, however, who have not lacked this opportunity, and who, nevertheless, de- mand a sign so as to be exempted from the act and the work of faith (vi. 26-31), the sign is denied (ii. 18, vi. 30). With those who through the signs have obtained a certain faith, but do not receive the testimony concerning the moral and religious conditions of salvation, it is im- possible for Jesus to enter into more intimate relations (11, 23 ἢ, ii, 11, 32). Moreover, persons otherwise well disposed, but who constantly demand new signs as if they had a right to do so, are earnestly reproved (iv. 48, xx, 27). The conception of the sign is such that it is designed to render itself unnecessary. The Gospel, which is intended for readers who have seen none of the signs of Jesus, concludes with the blessing of those who have not seen, but nevertheless have believed (xx. 29). But the signs are not without value even for those who have not seen. They need to be related. If the discourses oecupy more space in the Fourth Gospel than the signs, it is to be remembered that as a rule the commentary is longer than the text, which nevertheless remains the more important VOL, III. 20 306 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT thing. The author’s written testimony concerning the σημεῖα which Jesus did in his presence, is designed as a substitute for what the readers lack, as compared with the author, and is intended to enable them to believe as he believes (xix. 35). Since, however, he was writing for Christians who already had considerable knowledge of the gospel history, and who, of the Gospels which have come down to us, were certainly familiar with Mark, probably also with Luke, and perhaps also with Matthew, although only throuch oral translation (§ 67), it was only natural for John to choose from the abundance of reminiscences at his command such σημεῖα with the corresponding dis- courses as the readers had not yet become “acquainted with through the other Gospels. Nothing could be more incorrect than to attribute to the author, as his principal design, instead of the purpose mentioned in xx: 31, the supplementing of the Synopties. But the circumstances under which he wrote were such as to make it natural for him actually to supplement the earlier Gospels by the insertion of parallels to their accounts, by explanatory remarks which corrected mis- understandings to which these accounts were naturally open, by formal corrections (above, pp. 256 ff., 270 f.), but primarily by such entirely new information as was caleu- lated to render more intelligible the picture, obtained from the Synoptics, of the course of the gospel history as a whole and of many of its details. With reference to the first point, from what the Synoptists relate from the last days of Jesus’ life, it is impossible historically to understand the origin of the deadly hatred of the Jewish authorities toward Jesus, which led to His crucifixion. John explains the catastrophe. Such accounts as the official embassage from Jerusalem to the Baptist (i. 19), the visits to Jerusalem with the attendant constant con- flicts with the Jewish authorities (ii. 13 ff, v. 1 ff, vi. 1 ff., x. 22), the repeated resolutions of the Sanhedrin and THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 307 of the Pharisaie party, which in some instances led tc attempts upon Jesus’ life (v. 16, 18, vii. 1, 13, 25, 30, 45-52, viii. 28, 37, 59, ix. 13, 22, x. 39, xii 8, 46-50, 57, xii, 9-11, 19), the raising of Lazarus and the retrospec- tion of the entire public testimony in Jerusalem in xii. 37-43, give the idea of an intelligible development which it is impossible to derive from the Synopties. The ποσάκις of Luke xiii. 34, Matt. xxii. 37 (above, p. 173, n. 3) is elaborated by John. There are single points also in which John’s narrative serves to explain the synoptic account. The call of the fishermen to become fishers of men (Matt. iv. 18 ff; Mark 1. 16 ff.) is psychologically incompre- hensible without the assumption of previous familiarity on the part of those called with the person and intentions of Jesus. How they obtained this acquaintance we read in John i. 35-51. The treachery of Judas, which in the Synoptics falls like a thunderbolt from heaven, we learn from John vi. 70, xii. 4-6, xiii. 2, 11, 18-80, xvii. 12, xvill. 2-5, was long in preparation, and connected with Judas’ earlier attitude among the disciples. The reference of Isa. xl. 3 to the Baptist in all the Synoptics is intel- ligible if he applied the saying to himself (John 1. 23), and it is not strange that the disciples of John understood the figure in Matt. ix. 15, Mark 11. 19, if their master had used it to represent his relation to Jesus (John iii. 29). The historical occasion for the accusation of Jesus in Mark xiv, 58, xv. 29, Matt. xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40, Acts vi. 14, is to be found only in John 1. 19. This and other things are the incidental, if not altogether unintentional, results of the method which circumstances compelled the author to use, especially of his eclecticism in the choice of material. The purpose of his book is proved to be that already noted, namely, the confirmation and furtherance of the readers in the faith which they have confessed. But this faith in which it is John’s purpose to confirm his readers he states in the terms of the common Christian 308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT confession, namely, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (xx. 81). It is the old message which the readers have heard ever since their first contact with the gospel (1 John 1. 5, iii. 11), and which stands at the very fore- front in all the gospel testimony concerning Jesus. Even the Baptist testifies, “I am not the Messiah, ‘but Jesus is” (iv 20, 25 Ὁ, 58 ἢ; ii. 28:8} Those who were the first to: leave John in order to become disciples of Jesus used this title to express their new faith (1. 41, ef. vv. 45, 49); and the author, who was one of these disciples, in the passage where he gives the account of this event, retains the form which the title had in’ his native language, although it is necessary for him to translate it for the readers (n. 2).: John uses also the archaic titles “ The Chosen One” and ‘the Holy One of God,” which had hardly yet been taken up into the language of the Church, and hence disappeared from the text in the common tra- dition (n. 2). Τὴ the same way Jesus maintains the con- nectiom with: the O.T. and the people of Israel. Although Jesus is the Saviour of the world (iv. 42, ef. 1.29, i. 14 ff, xii. 47, xvil. 2, 17 ff.), nevertheless salvation is of the Jews (iv. 22). Not until after His death and exaltation is it possible and is it His desire to exercise His world calling in its full compass beyond the boundaries of Israel (x. 14-16, xii. 23-32). For this reason He quickly withdraws from the Samaritans who willingly "receive Him (iv. 40, 43), and refuses to receive the Greeks (xii. 20 ff.). Although His enemies taunt Him with being a Samaritan (viii. 48), and believe it possible that He may seek safety in the Greek diaspora and preach to the Greeks (vü. 35), which would be equivalent to ‘self- destruction (vill. 22), nevertheless He remains a Jew (iv. 9, 22) and faithful unto death to His own people, the race of Abraham. For He is the one promised in the O.T. (i. 45, v. 39, 46f.), the King of Israel (i. 49, xii. 13), the: Good Shepherd predicted by the prophets THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 309 (x. 1-10), 2.e. the Sovereign of His people, to be distin- guished from the usurpers of the throne,—the Herodian family, foreigners who obtained their power through craft and. violence,—and from such bandits as Judas the Gali- lean (x. 1,8, 10), and from other false. Messiahs who were yet to come (v. 43). His kingdom, like Himself, did not originate in the world, and in the realisation of the same He makes use of no earthly powers (xvii. 33-37). The scorn, »however, with which Pilate, notwithstanding this avowal of Christ, that His kingdom was not of this world, calls Him the King of the Jews (xviii. 39, xix. 8, 14, 19 f.), represents the full truth. Tle Jews themselves were compelled to confess that He had so spoken. of Him- self (xix. 21), and only by the betrayal of their Messianic idea to the heathen (xix. 15) was it: possible for them to destroy. Him in whom this idea: was fulfilled. «In spite of the protest of the Jews, it is proclaimed to all the world in the language of the people from whom Jésus, sprang, in the language of the world-ruling Romans and in the language of the Greeks,—the common bond: between all civilised peoples,—that the crucified Jesus is) the king of thesJews (xix. 19 £.). The confession.to which “all flesh,” we the entire world, is to be brought in order that: they may receive eternal life from Jesus, is, besides the acknowledgment that the Father of Jesus.is the only true God, the confession: of Jesus whom He hasısent as the Messiah (xvii. 2.1)... © When in xx. 51 (ef. xi, 27) we find, in addition, to the Messianic title, the expression ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, it is nothing new.) Neither’ in the Synoptics nor in John is this title synonymous with 6 Χριστός. Just as the combination of these two titles in. Matt. xvi..16- presupposes. the. con» fession of Matt. xiv. 38, which is based upon an experi- ence of the supernatural greatness of Jesus, so the -con- fession of John. i.,49, in) which mention, of the divine sonship precedes that of the Messiahship, is based upon the overwhelming experience which had come:te!one of 310 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the first disciples of Jesus through the wonderful witness of Jesus to Himself. This confession of the divine Sonship is capable of being deepened ; not, however, by the use of ὁ μονογενής, a title which John uses both with and without vios to describe Jesus (n. 3). For this simply aftirms that Jesus is the Son of God in the full sense of that word. » Like ὁ vids alone (iii. 35f, v. 19 ff., vill. 35, cf. Matt. x1.027 ; Luke x. 22, ef. Matt. xxi. 38) or ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ (John ix. 35, xi. 4; Luke xxii. 70), it serves to distinguish Him from the children of God who become such only through His mediation (i. 12, xii. 36) and through a second‘ birth (iii. 3-8). Although in xx. 17 Jesus makes parallel His original Sonship and the derived sonship of His disciples with a definiteness not to be found in the Synoptics, calling them His brethren in the same context, neverthe- less the specific distinction remains. This is true also’ in the Synoptics, which, to put the matter briefly, never represent Jesus as combining the ideas of “ my Father” and “ your Father” in an “our Father,” for the Lord's Prayer is'not'a prayer which Jesus prayed Himself, but one which He taught His disciples. Since John uses the word μονογενής for the first time in the sentence in which he declares that the Logos became flesh (i. 14), and in very close connection with the sentence which, according to the. éommon text, deals with the divine sonship wrought by Jesus in those who believe on Him (1.12 f.), but according to the original text treats of the begetting and birth of Jesus without the assistance οὗ ἃ man (1. 13, above, pp. 266, 288, π. 7), there is no doubt that “ohn calls Jesus the wovoryevjs, the Son of God 'in a unique sense because of ‘this wonderful entrance into human life. Jesus ois from birth what other men’ become ' through regeneration, and by nature what they are by ‘grace—a thought which finds expression in various ways elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (n. 3). ΒΥ i. 13, even according to THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 311 the Textus receptus, the physical fatherhood of Joseph is excluded ; but, according to John as well as the Synoptics, during Jesus’ lifetime His divine Sonship as opposed to His descent from Joseph was not the subject either of teaching or confession... Those who first confessed that He was the Son of God regarded Him at the same time as the son of Joseph (i. 45). To others, who, because they are acquainted with Him, think they know all about His origin, it is simply said that they are in error (vi. 42, vil. 26 ἢ, vill. 14, 57f.). As is proved by the prologue of John and the birth stories of Matthew and Luke, at the time when all these Gospels were written it was com- monly believed by the Church that Jesus was not the son of Joseph ; but neither John nor the Synoptics make this a part of the teaching of Jesus. John does, however, show an advance upon the other evangelists when he represents the Baptist and then Jesus as testifying with constantly increasing clearness His’ pre- existence and His eternal being with God, His sending forth, origin, and descent from heaven to earth. The ἐκ θεοῦ “γεννηθῆναι, without which no man can become a child of God, took place also in: Jesus’ case, since He entered into the human estate; but for Him it was an ἐξέρχεσθαι παρά or ἐκ τοῦ πατρός (xvi. 27 f.), the incarnation of one who was eternal and whose divine Sonship involves His being God. It does not follow, however, that what the Baptist recognised prophetically (1.15, 30) was recognised by Jesus’ disciples from the beginning. It is a long way from the confession of the sincere Nathanael, od ei ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, who at first mocked, to the confession of the sincere Thomas, ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, who at first was unwilling to believe. ‘What heretofore had escaped from Jesus’ heart in excited and often in obscure language He did not state in unmistakable terms to His disciples until on the last evening (xvi. 24-30). The development of faith from the first (i. 45-49) to the final confession (xx. 28) of 312 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the diseiples is proof of the truth of such sayings of Jesus as iii. 21, xviii. 37. It is the way, the goal of which John desires that the readers of his Gospel shall not fail to attain (xx. 31). How anxious he is that this shall be the case is evidenced in the prologue, which begins with the affirmation of the eternal being of Christ with: God. Moreover, in the course of this prologue he represents the Baptist as bearing testimony (i. 15) in the same words as are used in i. 30, where they are recorded for the first time in their historical connection, and the prologue con- cludes with a confession of Jesus as the ‘‘ only-begotten God” (i. 18, n. 3), an expression which seems self-eontra- dictory. This and not “ the Logos doctrine” is the thing peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, and indeed the only new thing in the representation of the person of Jesus as com- pared with that of the Synopties (n. 4). It would be possible to speak of John’s Logos doctrine, or of a Logos doctrine in the Gospel of John, only in case John formally identified the Logos which was familiar to the readers (i. 1) with Jesus the Christ (1.117), or in: case he formally stated that Jesus Christ whom the readers know is the divine Logos, or an incarnation of it, and if by the unfolding of the conceptions involved in one or the other of these propositions he went on to» make some further statements about either the Logos or Christ. But nothing of this kind is found in the prologue (nv 5). Although the historical name of the Redeemer does not occur until i. 17, any reader at all acquainted with the gospel history would understand when he read 1.06-13, if not before, that the author was speaking of Jesus; sinee the Baptist’s testimony was concerning Jesus the Ohrist, not concerning a being called “ Logos” or “ Light” (4. 7), and since the name on which the children of God believe is none other than the name of Jesus Christ (i. 112, ‘ef. ii, 23, 1. 18, xx. 31). In 1. 445 also the only) possible subject is Jesus. When and while He dwelt upon the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 313 earth He and He alone was the light of men (i. 4, ef. viii. 12, ix. 5, xii. 35f., 46, ii. 19). » Although He may not be the light now in the same sense, nevertheless the light which He was is not entirely lost, but continues to be manifested in the children of heht (xii. 36), inowhom He lives by word and spirit and who are in Him (xv. 5, 7, xvi. 7-15, xvu. 8, 17, 23). Nor has the dark world in which this light has long been shining (1 John ii. 8) and in which it still shines, been able to overcome and extin- guish it (i 5). Throughout the passage, ὁ λόγος like τὸ φῶς is a name applicable only to the historical Christ. Even assuming that the proposition, ‘ Christiis and is called the Logos,” may contaima logos doctrine,—in: the nature of the case a Christian Logos doctrine,—this doctrine is not expounded but presupposed in the prologue.) From the simple designation of Christ as Logos, even if this be found in an independent statement (n. 5), the existence of a Christian Logos doctrine cannot be inferred any more than a Christian doctrine of light can be:inferred from John viii. 12, ix. 5, xii. 46, or from the: numerous sug- gestive designations of Christ)an equal number of doctrines bearing these distinctive names (John vi. 35, 48, 51, 11,—xi. 25,—xiv. 6,—xv. 1,—Col. 1. 27,1. 2,—2 Cor. ivo4; Coli. 15). Such an inference would be justified only if it were known that the Christians of that time derived further propositions from the identification of the Logos with Christ, or of Christ with the Logos, which! would then likewise be silently taken for granted in the prologue. Certainly in: the prologue nothing is deduced from. this identification only presupposed of Christ: with the. Logos. The original existence of the Logos with God and_ its divine nature are not derived through a definition: of development of the Logos idea ; they are simply affirmed. Since essentially the same expressions (viii. 58, xvii. 5, ef. xi. 41) recur as utterances: of Jesus concerning Himself without any connection with the name of the Logos, the 314 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT statements of i. 1 would have exactly the same meaning, if their subject were ὁ Χριστός instead of ὁ Adyos. This is the language Paul would have used (n. 5). The idea of the creation of the world through Christ (i. 3) 1s expressed in the Fourth Gospel only in this one passage, but. is found elsewhere in the N.T. without any discernible dependence upon the Logos idea (1 Cor. vii. 6; Col. i 15-17 ; Heb. i. 2; Rev. iii. 14). Consequently, there is no basis for assuming that John derived his statement from the Logos idea, or, on the other hand, that he called Christ the Logos because this was one of the articles of the common Christian faith. He does not in any way intimate that this was the case; and if this thought had been in his mind he would certainly have repeated the name of the Logos in i. 3, in order to direct the readers’ attention to Gen. 1. 8; Ps. xxxili. 6;9... That John does not regard the name of the Logos as a mine of speculative ideas is evidenced by the fact that the prologue does not contain any such ideas, and more especially by the fact that from i. 4 onward the Logos idea is replaced by that of light, and the former idea does not recur until 1.14, and then nothing is said which could have been derived from the Aoyos conception. We conclude, then, that in the prologue no Chöistikaie or non-Christian Logos doctrine is expounded or presupposed, but that shin omthior assumes that the readers are familiar with the term λόγος as a designation of the Christ. The question then arises how this usage originated, and why John employs it in the prologue. He does not represent Jesus as using it, nor is there any obvious basis for it anywhere in the’ Fourth Gospel (n. 5). | On the» other hand, we do find the term used in two other writings of John’s which confirms what is apparent from the pro- logue, namely, that the name was in more or less common use in the Church circles where these writings originated. In 1 John i. 1 the term ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is used to describe THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 315 not the gospel preaching, but the personal centre of that preaching—the person of Jesus, who, on the one hand, is without beginning, and, on the other hand, one whom the disciples heard speak, whom they saw walk and act, a man whom it was possible to touch, whom they perceived with all their senses. This eternal person is the eternal life, and as such has existed eternally with the Father. | But because this life has issued from its silent’ abode with God, appeared in tangible form among’men and become manifest to them, it can be called the “ Word of. Life.” In His own person Christ is the eternal life (John xiv. 6), and eonsequently the life which became visible and which could be heard is ‘‘the word of life.” Hence o> λύγος is a designation, not of the pre-existent Christ as sul but of ‚the incarnate Christ (n. 6). In Rey. xix. 11-16 John is represented ‘as . seeing Christ coming from heaven to judgment with the insignia of royal and judicial power (n.‘7)..:In this’ vision He bears one name related to the work He had come to do at this time (ver: 16) ;: also another, inscribed apparently. on His diadem, which no one knew but Himselfi(ver. 12, ef. ii; 17). John saw this name inscribed on the diadem, but could not decipher it, hence was «unable to: express. it. This means that) for human thought and speech there: is no term suited to express the entire significance of ‘Christ and His being which is fully known only to Himself.) But it is impossible for men not to give Him names, in which the attempt is made to express this thought. The name ὁ Noyos τοῦ θεοῦ (ver. 13) is one such attemptio It will: be observed that John does not see or hear the: namein the vision, but that he simply remarks at the close of the description of the personal appearance of Christ that this name was given to Him. Jt was the name used for Christ in) the Church, and He was so called when it was: desited to express in a comparatively comprehensive way what He is and-'what He signifies. He is the Word of God 316 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT expressed in the world. His person represents completely what the numerous revelations of God by word are in part. The attributes of truth and trustworthiness belong to Him, just as they do to these revelations (xix. 9; xxi. 5); but because He is a person they are expressed by a proper name (xix. 11, ef. 1 John i. 9, v. 20). The fact that Christ revealed the Word of God as a faithful witness (Rev. i. δ, iii. 14) is only one way in which He proved Himself to be the Word of God: He Himself>is “the Amen,” or, as we should express it, “the Amen in person,” 1.6. God’s solemn declaration of His will and of His thought toward men (Rev. iii 14, n. 8). | Heads not an amen or @ word, but, since God has revealed Himself finally and definitely in Christ (Heb. i. 1), the Amen and the Word of God. This thought is: not without analogies in N.T. writings other than those of John (n. 8). ἡ This is the conception which we have in the Fourth Gospel. The general presuppositions and analogies are found here in the words of Jesus Himself. Jesus) is the life, but also in His own person the truth!(xiv: 6, χἱ 25), the visible manifestation of Godi(xi. 45, xiv. 7-10), and He supplies men with the knowledge of God necessary to life, not simply through the words. which He speaks asa teacher, but also through His deeds, 1.6) during His earthly life He is the light of men (ix. 4-5, vu 12, xi 385f., 46): He distinguishes Himself from all the official representa- tives and mediators of divine revelation who came before Him by affirming that, whereas they became what they were for other men through some word of God that came to them from without, He in the whole compass of His life is the one consecrated by God for His mission to:men and sent by Him to fulfilit (x. 35 f.). If, as the prologue taken in connection with 1 John i. 1, Rev. xix. 13 proves, 6 λόγος had come to be used along with other terms to designate Christ in the region where John lived, manifestly not without his influence, THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 317 the comprehensiveness of the term made its use parti- eularly appropriate in the prologue which deseribes in large outlines the history of Christ and the revelation accomplished by Him ; from the eternity out of which He sprang to the present when He has returned again to God, when, however, the body of those who believe on Him, the heirs of His grace, the guardians of the knowledge of God brought into the world by Him, continue to exist in a world which is without this knowledge. Christ is here represented as throughout the Gospel and in Revelation as the indispensable witness of the truth and revealer of the knowledge of God which no man can derive from him- self (i. 18, of. 1.11, v. 37f., vi. 46, xviii. 37). . But His relation to the God whom He reveals is different from that of all other bearers of the divine revelation. Not only had He seen God before He appeared as His only- begotten, Son; He is Himself θεός (1. 18). While the revelation of the law was transmitted through the hand of Moses to other men, the grace and truth of God with which Jesus Himself was filled has become through Him an historical reality (i. 17, cf. xiv. 16). His person isthe complete revelation of God to men, consequently “the Word” per se. The question how the term ὁ λόγος (τοῦ θεοῦ, τῆς ζωῆς) came to be used as.a general expression, gathering up the early Christian conceptions of Christ which otherwise were unconnected, and how it came to be used as a proper name, we are unable to answer by tracing its history, just as we are unable to answer many similar questions; for the reason that we know practically nothing of what was taught in the Church. | It is conceivable historically that the apostle John may ‘have become familiar in Jerusalem with the Greek speculation, the first representative of which, so far as we know, was Philo; since there was a synagogue of the Alexandrians in Jerusalem, and many Hellenists in the membership of the mother Church 318 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (vol. i. 60f. n. 8). It is also possible that Alexandrian Jews, like Apollos, brought such ideas to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 24). "If only someone could sueceed in showing’a real connection between Philo and’ John! John’s con- ception of Christ is not Philo’s conception of the Logos, the Platonic idea of’ ideas, the plastic world-soul of the teachings of the Stoa. It would be more natural to suppose that the teaching concerning the memra eurrent among the rabbis was utilised by the Christian teachers in expressing their ideas concerning Jesus. But apparently this term could be! used only if the pre-existent Christ were thought of ‘as’ the mediator’ of the Old Testament revelation as well as of the New.‘ But no traces of this ideh ave to be found in John, even ‘where it’ might be expected (v. 37-47, viii. 52-58, ΧΙ. 37-41). Probably, therefore, the expression is to be explained as one which orew'up in the late apostolic age out of the above-men- tioned roots embedded in the soil of the Christian Church, If John had applied to Christ a Logos ‘speculation de- rived from non-Christian sources, and under its influence had attempted a higher conception of Christ, inevitably the clear figure of the man Jesus would have faded away like a shadow and been distorted into ghostly form. In reality the opposite is the case. No one of the Gospels presents a picture of Jesus which in all essential respects is so entirely human as that of John. Jesus is weary with His journey (iv. 6); confesses that He is thirsty (iv. 7, xix. 28); weeps at the grave of His friend (xi. 35); cherishes friendships with individuals, which can have ‘no direct connection with His redemptive work (xi. 3, 11, 36, xiii. 23, xx. 2). When dying He made provision for the temporal well-being of His mother (xix. 26). Justias He is deeply stirred and even moved by a feeling of anger at the desolation which death had been permitted to bring into the ‘home of a friend, especially because He Himself by His delay had been responsible for this victory of death THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 319 (xi. 38, 38), so He is profoundly shaken by the thought of His own approaching death, and in a state of doubt and uncertainty seeks to be assured of the divine will regard- ing it (xii. 27), which he had long known (viii. 21-29). He can do all things only as He depends upon God (v. 19, 30); the Son of Man requires the aid of God’s angels, in order miraculously to testify that He is the Son of God (i. 51). All His miracles are done in response to prayer (xi. 41). He is and continnes to be the studious pupil of His Father (v. 30, viii. 26, 40, xv. 15). However far and deeply He is able to see into human hearts and into the dark recesses of the future (n. 10), this is no proof ofa native omniscience, but is a gift of God in accordance with Jesus’ vocation, a manifestation of the Spirit which He has received for His work (i. 32 f.). Like other men, He is in- formed of things which He Himself does not witness (iv. 1,xi. 3-6), or draws inferences from what He does witness (vi. 15). He asks questions, not simply in order to test others (vi. 6), but in order to find out what He does not know (xi. 34). Even in the case of His official work, His knowledge is sub- ject to growth, and thus (temporarily) limited, with the re- sult that His decisions to act are subject to change (n. 9). Nor can this thoroughly human representation of Christ—in comparison with which there is little in the Synoptics which gives so naive and so clear an impression — be explained as the remnant of an older view, which the author himself had transcended. On the contrary, this is the image of Jesus which lives in his thought, and which with loving devotion he pictures before the eyes of his readers. However important he may regard it that they believe the Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of God, he does not, like Matthew, picture the Christ (n. 10), indeed very seldom calls Him “ Lord,” as is frequently done by Luke (vol. ii. 476 ; above, pp. 91, n. 21, 249), and in all his statements about Him makes the subject the man Jesus. That this is not only the natural reflection of his 320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT view of Jesus, but his conscious purpose in the Gospel, is evidenced by 1.14. , The language is strong. He who from eternity was God (i. 1), and who in every aspect did not cease to be God (i, 18, 33-36, n. 3, xx. 28), became flesh—appeared as flesh. It is clear, even without the light thrown upon the passage by the Epistles, that this language, which, in comparison with Phil. i. 7, Rom. viii, 3. is so very harsh, can, be explained only in the light of another and contrasted view of Jesus. Just as the humanity of Christ is emphasised here, where His entrance into the human estate is described, so in the account of the end of His life strong emphasis is laid upon the reality of His death. It is true that the two details, namely, that Jesus’ legs were not broken, and that He was pierced with a spear after His death, are important in the eyes. of the author as fulfilments of prophecies (above, p. 217); but in comparison with the earlier accounts of the eruci- fixion these facts are in themselves new and significant. The legs were left unbroken, only because the soldiers were convinced that Jesus was already dead, and it was the doubt of one of the soldiers as to this fact that led to the piercing of the side. Even if the soldier's doubt, were well grounded, the piercing of the side with a spear would have caused death.‘ Apparently both to the soldier and to the narrator the issue of blood and water was evidence of the disintegration of the blood which had taken place after death. It is in connection also with this entire trans- action that the narrator introduces the solemn assurance that he is an eye-witness whose account is in accordance with the truth (above, p. 219 ff)... When it is further remembered that no other Gospel gives such circumstantial historical proof that the graye was empty (xx. 1-13), or records the way in which, Thomas was convinced ofthe reality of the body of the risen Jesus, and of the identity of this body with the one which was crucified (xx. 24-29), it becomes clear beyond question that John’s purpose js to THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 321 fortify the faith of his readers against doctrines which questioned the reality of the 'incarnation and death of Jesus. According to Irenzeus, this was the teaching of Cerinthus. But the Epistles must be investigated before definite conclusions can be reached on this point. There is still another direction in which John seems to show a polemical purpose. If the author is the un- named companion of Andrew in 1. 35 ff., there is nothing peculiar about the fact that he reports in detail and with strong emphasis the Baptist’s testimony concerning Jesus which brought Andrew to Jesus (1. 6-9, 19-36, ili. 27-36, v. 33-36, x. 41). Nor is it strange that outside the narrative, in a form other than that of an historical notice, he should represent this asa testimony given in the present, and thus valid for the readers, as he does when he puts it among the statements regarding the experience of himself and of his fellow-disciples who companied with Jesus (i. 15). This would all be satisfactorily explained by the purpose indicated in xix. 35: ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς πισ- τεύητε. In other words, that you as well as I and my fellow-disciples may believe, you as well as the μαθητής (xix. 26) and his συμμαθηταί (xi. 16), who were disciples as well of the Baptist as of Jesus. But this does not explam the marked emphasis with which from the very beginning of the Gospel both the author and the Baptist himself deny that John is the Messiah or the Light of Life (i. 8, 20-27, 30-33, in. 28-30). ‘The temptation which John had to represent himself as the Messiah he honourably and steadfastly resisted (1. 20), and rejected all other titles which in the confusion of Jewish ideas about the person of the coming Messiah might be interpreted as implying a claim to the Messianic dignity, or equality with the Messiah (i. 21, 25, n. 11). The only office which he claims is that which Isaiah represents under the figure of a voice, the subject of which remains entirely undefined (i. 23). His work is great, but is entirely in the service VOL, III, 21 322 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of his incomparably greater successor, whose origin is from eternity, and of the greater work which He came to do. They are related to each other as water to spirit, word to deed. Hence John must recede into the background, as Jesus, the bridegroom of the bride, the Messiah of the Church, comes into prominence. He does it without envy and willingly, even with profound joy as the friend of the bridegroom (iii. 27-36); while Jesus in His turn fully recognises John’s calling (v. 35), classes him with Himself as a true witness (iii. 11), declares that for the time being John’s baptism with water is just as necessary as the future baptism with the Spirit (iii. δ; ef. the contrast 1, 33), for a time practises it through His disciples (ii. 22, iv. 2), and, in order to avoid the appearance of rivalry, even gives up this work as soon as He sees that it may interfere with the activity of the Baptist (iv. 1). While, therefore, perfect harmony existed between John and Jesus, and not a few of John’s disciples, accepting his testimony concerning Jesus and following his suggestion, left him in order to become henceforth disciples of Jesus (i. 35-51), and while many who heard John believed on Jesus later (x. 42), there were other followers of John who remained with him, refused to join themselves to Jesus, and in the spirit of envy endeavoured to stir the jealousy of their master against Jesus (iii. 26). But He who came from above, and so is above all (iii. 31), has no rival. Although John was a lamp which burned for a long time but was finally extinguished (v. 35), he is not @ light of the world to be compared with the only one who is the Light of the World. Rather is he one of those who in obedience to a divime command exercised a calling limited both in time and seope (x. 35); nor has he any of the glory of the σημεῖα (x. 41) which distineuished Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God (xx. 30f.). Just as John declares his entire subordination to Jesus, so Jesus also, when He has occasion to point out to the Jews their hostile attitude toward Himself from the be: THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 323 ginning of His ministry as contrasted with their favourable reception of John, states clearly that by the divine witness He is declared to be greater than John (v. 36 ; see §69, n. 1). Not taking into account at all the Synoptics, in which scarcely any of this historical material is to be found (Luke iii. 15 ἢ, v. 33-39, xi. 1; Matt. ix. 14-17 ; Mark τ. 18-22), from the manner in which the relations between John and Jesus are set forth—strongly emphasised even in the prologue— one is compelled to infer a polemical purpose on the part of the author. Among those in the circle about! John there must have been some who attached overmuch import- ance to the personality of the Baptist; and who denied the definite distinction between him and Jesus. We have not sufficient historical knowledge to set forth, concretely, de- finitely, and with entire certainty, this fact which appears _ from the Fourth Gospel. But it is natural to assume that the after effects of the wrong attitude which some of the Baptist’s disciples took toward Jesus were connected with or helped to give rise to the movement which the author opposes by his strong emphasis upon the incarnation, the truly human life and death of Jesus, and His bodily resur- rection. ‘I'here are also indications that it was in Ephesus especially, where, according to all the tradition, the Fourth Gospel originated, that the influences of the work of the Baptist continued to be felt, the connections of which with apostolic Christianity were ambiguous (n. 12). This leads us to consider, finally, the question as to the nationality and home of the original readers of the Fourth Gospel. That they were familiar only with the Greek language is evidenced by the fact that) the writer, who is fond of retaining the Hebrew or Aramaic form of the names of persons and things, translates them into Greek regularly at least the first time they are used, sometimes also in the second instance—i, 38 (cf. i, 49, iii, 2, 26, iv. 31, vi. 25, ix. 2, xi. 8), 1. 41,(the second time in iv, 25), 1.42, ix. 7, xi. 16 (again in xx:.24, xxi. 2), xix, 13, 324 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 17, xx. 16. In only one instance does he leave the name of a place untranslated, and this name is of significance tc himself because of the meaning of the word (v. 2, vol. i. 28, n. 15). Names of feasts and holidays like πάσχα, σάββατον did not need to be translated, because they had long since passed over into Christian usage ; others, like ornvormyla (vii. 2), ἐγκαίνια (x. 22), are given directly in their Greek form, the meaning being clear from the words themselves. With words like ἀμήν (i. 51), ὥσαννά (xii. 13) the readers were likewise familiar from their own cultus or the earlier Gospels. ‘They are not familar with Jewish customs and cultus practices, nor with the geography of Palestine. The author tells them that the usual route from Judea to Galilee led through Samaria (iv. 4, n. 13). The readers do not appear to know that Cana is in Galilee (11. 1, 11, iv. 46, 54), nor are they familiar with the location of Bethany on Jordan (i. 28, x. 40), and of the other Bethany near Jerusalem (xi. 1, 18). Ephraim in Judea (xi. 54) is quite as unknown to them as Sychar in Samaria (iv. 5). He informs them for the first time that there is a pool in Jerusalem called Bethesda (v. 2). To designate the Lake of Gennesaret, John uses ἡ θάλασσα τῆς Γαλιλαίας, which was to be found in Matt. iv. 18, xv. 29; Mark i. 16, vu. 31, and was therefore, perhaps, familiar to his readers. However, out of regard for them, who, because of their unfamiliarity with the geographical situation and the Jewish custom to call an inland lake also a sea, might have misunderstood his reference, he adds the other name of the Lake, ἡ Τιβεριάς (vi. 1,n. 14). Because the readers are accustomed yearly to celebrate a Christian Passover lasting for one day, and, on the other hand, know that the Jews, some of whom must have resided in their vicinity, celebrated the feast for several days, John uses the expression, “ Passover of the Jews” (ii. 13; ef. vi. 4, xi. 55) in order to call their attention to the fact that Jesus’ first sojourn in Jerusalem THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 325 covered an entire week (ii. 23, iv. 45). With the feast of Tabernacles they may have been familiar (vu. 2). It is necessary, however, to inform them that the last day was celebrated in Jerusalem with special solemnity (vü. 37); likewise that the Sabbath which fell within the Passover period was observed with special strictness (xix. 31). It is necessary at least to remind them that on Friday evening, just before the beginning of the Sabbath, Jews were unable to take an extended journey, even in order to bury a corpse (xix. 42). The presence of the large water jars in Cana he explains by reminding the readers of the custom of the Jews as to purification, with which perhaps the readers were familiar, but which they did not practise (ii. 6). Special attention is called to the particular manner in which the Jews bury their dead (xix. 40), in part at least because one feature of this description is to be noticed again in xx. 6. Probably it is John himself and not some glossator who remarks in iv. 9, in explanation of the conversation which there takes place, that the Jews and Samaritans are accustomed to hold no friendly intercourse with one another (n. 13), which makes the meaning of vii. 48 clear without any comment. In a word, then, we conclude that the original readers of John were Greek Christians remote from Palestine. There is nothing which contradicts the tradition that they lived in the province of Asia. Assuming that the Gospel was written by the apostle John, this is proved with cer- tainty by the date of the composition of the supplement (§66) and of the entire Gospel (§ 69), for at this time John was resident in Ephesus. This was also the seat of the unsound tendencies against which we have seen the Fourth Gospel to be directed (n. 9; cf. also § 69, n. 9). 1. (P. 304.) John uses σημεῖον regularly only ‚of the deeds of Jesus (indirectly also in the negative statement of x. 41). He has the word 18 times : whereas in Matt, it is found only 6 or 7 times, in Mark only in viii, 11-12, and in Luke, omitting the parallels (xi. 16, 29-30), only in xxiii, 8; Paul uses it more frequently. It is appropriately used in the sense of mx, in 326 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Ex. iv. 8f., 17, for the demand of the Jews for some miraculous evidence ΟἹ God’s approval of Him whom He sent (John ii. 18, vi. 30; ef. 1 Cor. i. 22). John never uses δυνάμεις, so common in the Synopties, and in addition to the word σημεῖα (once connected with repara=prodigia in a passage where Jesus reproves the half faith which seeks confirmation by miracles, iv. 48) uses only ἔργα in an equivalent sense, v. 20, 36, vii. 3, 21, x. 25, 32, 33, 37, 38, xiv. 10- 12, xv. 24. The only other passage where ἔργα is used in this sense is Matt. xil 2. 2. (P. 308.) Concerning Μεσσίας, John i. 41, iv. 25 (nowhere else in the N.T.), see vol. i. 20f. There is nothing peculiar about the use of the word by the Samaritan woman. For even if the Samaritan title for the Messiah 3770 (the “ Converter” ; cf. Cowley in the Expositor, 1895, March, p. 165, in opposition to Merx and Hilgenfield) does go back so far, this woman who remarks upon the religious differences between the Jews and the Samaritans must have known the Jewish name, and could have employed it in conver- sation with the Jews. Concerning ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, i. 34, see above, Ρ. 384 π. 2. Both this title and 6 ἅγιος τ. θ., vi. 69 (NBC*DL), have been replaced by 6 υἱὸς τ. θ. (Se and the old Latin versions), more frequently preceded by ὁ Χριστός (so also in Ss) and followed by τοῦ ζῶντος. Matt. xvi. 16 was preferred to Mark i, 24; Luke iv. 34 (cf. Acts iii. 14, iv. 27, 30). Cf. also John x. 36, xvii. 19. John uses also ὁ Χριστός 14 times, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός twice (i. 17, xvii. 3), once Χριστόν (ix. 22), as a predicate. Mention may be made also of ὁ βασιλεὺς. rod Ἰσραήλ or τῶν Ἰουδαίων (above, p. 309), and ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, viii. 24, 28, where ὁ Χριστός, or a synonym, must be supplied. 3. (Pp. 310, 312.) The stately tone of the English phrases “ The only- begotten” (John i. 14) and “ The only-begotten Son of God” (iii. 16, 18; 1 John iv. 9) is lessened when we remember that every only son is spoken of in this way (Luke vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38; Tob, iii. 15; Clem. 1 Cor. xxv. 2 of the Pheenix). The word is used to translate wm and wn ja in Judg. xi. 34; Ps. xxii. 20 LXX ; Gen. xxii. 2; Jer. vi. 26 Aquila ; Heb. xi. 17 (ὁ ἴδιος υἱός instead in Rom, viii. 32). But since the same expression is usually translated in the LXX by ἀγαπητός (Gen, xxii, 2,12, 16; Zech. xii, 10 ; Jer. vi. 26, see also the variant reading in Judg. xi. 34 (it follows that ἀγαπητός in Matt. iii. 17, xvii, 5; Mark i. 11, ix. 7, xii. 6 (ἕνα. . . υἱὸν. ay.) ; Luke iii. 22, xx. 13; 2 Pet. i. 17 (ef. Col. i. 13), is synonymous with μονογενής in John. It may be con- sidered as proved that the correct reading in John i. 18 is μονογενὴς Beds without 6 (not ὁ μονογενής vids) ; ef. Hort, Two Dissertations, 1876 ; GK, 1. 736, Forsch. i. 122. The following is the sense of the two affirmations of i, 1 and i, 14; One, who was God, and therefore One who in His essence is and ‚con- tinues to be God, since He cannot.cease to be God, and who at the same time by reason of His incarnation is God’s only Son, has revealed to us men the God who otherwise cannot be known. In x. 33-38 also the conception of the Son of God is such as to include His divine being. Not only the accusation of the Jews, but also the scriptural proof adduced by Jesus, show that He called Himself God—a claim which the Jews repudiated, but which Jesus held to be justified. When in x. 36 Jesus calls Himself “ Son of God” instead of God, the title is in accord with His matter of fact method of speech ; but is so much the Jess to be regarded as an intentional weakening of what He has just proven from the Scriptures, namely, His right to call Himself THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 327 God, since in Ps. Ixxxii. 6 “gods” and “sons of the Highest” are used inter- changeably. Because His consecration to His calling coincides with His sending into the world or even precedes it, He is in person and vocation the Son and the Holy One of God (x. 36, ef. vi. 69). But since the consecration and the sending presuppose His existence, that is to say, His supramundane and ante-historic existence, His Sonship of God includes His deity. Every- thing He possesses, even life itself, is a gift of God, and yet possessed by Him as God Himself possesses it ; in other words, He does not, like created beings, find the conditions and means of life outside Himself, but in Himself. For this reason also he has the Godlike power to impart His life without Himself losing it, v. 26, vi. 57. 4. (P. 312.) Valentinus, the Gnostic (above, Ρ. 176), and Justin, “the philosopher,” were the first to discover in the prologue a Logos doctrine, or rather they were the first to read the doctrine into the prologue. That this was not the way in which the original readers understood the prologue is evidenced by Ignatius, earlier than either Justin or Valentinus, and the first clear witness for the Fourth Gospel, when, in Magn. viii. 2 he writes : “God is one, who has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son, who is His Word proceeding out of the silence, who in all things was well-pleasing to the one who sent Him” (Patr. Ap. ii. 36, 201, also editions of Lightfoot and Funk). Consequently the man Jesus is called the Word of God, because, after a long silence, in Him, His Son, God finally spoke clearly and audibly to men, revealing Himself not:only through Jesus’ teachings, but equally through His deeds (ef. Ign. ad Eph. xv. 1). As to His person, Jesus is “the infallible mouth, by which the Father has truly spoken” (ad Rom. viii. 2), the γνώμη of the Father (ad Eph. iii. 2), the γνῶσις of God (ad Eph. xvii. 2); cf. Zahn, Ignatius von Ant. S. 382f., 472f. Traces of this early Christian “Logos Doctrine” are found le aloe e.g. in the “Kerugma of Peter” in Clem. Eel. Proph. 58 (νόμος καὶ λόγος αὐτὸς ὁ σωτὴρ λέγεται), and in later writers ; cf. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, δ. 147f. The one-sided tendency to consider only the name of the Logos and not the many similar titles found especially in the Fourth Gospel, such as Truth, Light, Life, ete., is appropriately condemned, especially by Origen, in his Commentary on John, tom. i, 21-39) The opinion which, notwithstanding this protest, has remained prevalent no one has expressed more unfortunately than Keim: (Gesch, Jesw 1. 1295}: “Cannot all the flesh and blood in this history be explained from the: philo- sophy which sits at the entrance and distributes the admission tickets and the programmes ?” 5. (Pp. 312, 313, 314.) To be compared with the lack of all explanation of the readers’ familiarity with the use of ὁ λόγος as a name for Christ, which familiarity is presupposed in the prologue, is the manner in which Paul connects with Christ ideas not directly derived from the gospel history or from current ecclesiastical usage (1 Cor. x. 4; Col. 1. 27, ii. 2), or lets such ideas appear as predicates in sentences where Christ is the subject (1 Cor. 1. 30; 2 Cor. iii. 17, iv. 4; Col. i. 15 ; Eph. v. 23), and this peculiarity of John may also be compared with Ignatius’ procedure in similar cases) (see preceding note). In addition to analogies and foreshadowings of the use of the name “Logos” noted in the text and in notes 6-8, special attention is called, to x. 35 (cf. n, 3, and Luthardt, Das joh. Ev.-i. 278). Where the O.T. 328 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT worthies are spoken of as those to whom the word of God came (Jer. i. 4, Luke iii. 2), and Jesus likewise is represented as having to do with the word of God (John vii. 16, viii. 26, xiv. 10, xvii. 6-8, 17), it would seem almost necessary that the distinction between them and Jesus should be brought out, namely, that this connection with the word of Ged is original, involving His entire personality. But even in x. 35 the author does not attribute these thoughts to Jesus. The use of the term in i. 1 and i. 14 is mainly responsible for the opinion that ὁ λόγος in the prologue is a specific name for the pre- existing Christ, or for His eternal and unchangeable essence. But it must be remembered, first, that the apostolic Church had no specific name for Christ’s essence apart from His human manifestation. Even when speaking of Him as pre-existing the Church used names applicable to men—Jesus, Christ, the Son of God, the Lord, Eph. i. 3f.; Phil. ii. 5f.; Col. i. 13-20; 1 Cor. viii. 6, x. 4, 9. In a sentence like John i. 1, Paul would have used ὁ Χριστός ; according to xii. 41 (ef. ver. 32, viii. 58; Jude 5 (vol. ii. 252 f.)), John might have used even Ἰησοῦς instead of ὁ λόγος ini. 1, just as well, however, ἡ ζωή (1 John i. 2) or τὸ φῶς, ἡ ἀλήθεια κτὰ. It showed better taste to put the more general name at the beginning, and not to employ the common historical names until the passage where Moses, through whom the first revelation came to Israel, is contrasted with Jesus, through whom the final revelation was made (i. 17). Consequently the use of λόγος in i. 1 indicates nothing as to the source whence Jesus derived this name, and as to the length of time He had borne it. In the second place, it is just as impossible to infer from the use of this name in i. 14 that Jesus was so called apart from His incarna- tion and in contrast to it. The name is used here again appropriately because in vy. 14-18 the author is about to show fully how far the historical Jesus is the complete and final revelation—i.e. the Word—of God. Further, the reappearance of 6 Adyos in these verses is for the sake of reference to and connection with ver. 1. Just as ev τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν in ver. 10 stands in contrast to ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν in ver. 1, 80 the σὰρξ ἐγένετο in ver, 14 stands in contrast to θεὸς ἦν in ver. 1. No contrast exists between the subject and predicate of ver. 14a ; but between the predicates in ver. 1 on the one hand and ver, 14 on the other hand, given the one and the same subject called ὁ Adyos, there is a sharp and intelligible contrast. For the concept of the word does not at all involve immateriality ; the word is rather thought become perceptible to the senses ; the spoken word is audible, it can sound loud or soft, pleasant or harsh ; the written word is visible, and when it is cut in stone or printed in the blind-alphabet, may be perceived even by the sense of touch. On the contrary, the spirit is contrasted to the flesh in John (iii. 6, vi. 63) as every- where in the Bible (God, however, is spirit (iv. 24, ef. xxxi. 3)). He, who im the beginning was God, and therefore spirit, became flesh, 7.2. man of flesh and blood. He became a member of the human race, which John also calls πᾶσα σάρξ (xyil. 2). It isself-evident that He was not changed into flesh, as the water into wine (ii. 9) or the stones into bread (Matt. iv. 3); for He, who is God without beginning, cannot in that sense cease to be such a being. The correct text of i. 18 states this to excess (above, n. 3) ; accordingly, there- fore, there is meant only an exchanging of the one mode of being and form of appearance with another, a metamorphosis in the essential meaning of the word (cf. Phil. ii. 6f.), by which the identity of the ego is not destroyed. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 320 Still less are we to think of such a transformation of the Logos into flesh, by which He would cease to be the Logos. For, whatever may be included in the name ὁ λόγος, it must, however, at any rate be predicated of the one whe became flesh ; indeed, strictly taken, it may first be predicated of the one who has become flesh. One principal reason for the continued misinter- pretation of ver. 14 lies in the untenable opinion, that finally at this point the transition is made from the representation of the being and activity of the pre-existent to the description of the one appearing as man, whereas from ver. 4 onwards reference is made only to the one who has become man. If one accepts as genuine the text of ver. 13, presented above, p. 288, n. 7, it must be fully admitted that this transition is not first made with ver. 14. Rather the statement concerning the begetting of Jesus by God without the aid of a man is extended by the sentence, that in and with this begetting the Logos—which in the beginning and from the beginning until His miraculous begetting as man was God—became flesh. 6. (P. 315.) Since in 1 Johni.1 τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς in the sense of gospel (Phil, ii. 16; Acts v. 20) could very easily be connected as a loose apposi- tional phrase (cf. Acts x. 37, τὸ γενόμενον ῥῆμα) with the four relative clauses which are the objects of ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, the use of the construction περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is a positive proof that this connection is intentionally excluded. Not the word of life which the apostles proclaim, but the person about which their preaching centres, namely, Jesus, is meant (1 John v. 9, 10; John i, 7, 15, v. 31-46, x. 41, xii. 41, xv. 26; Rom. i. 3, xv. 21; Acts viii. 12). In the preceding relative clauses also, this person who always existed, all the manifestations of whose life and whose physical qualities were sensibly perceived by the apostles with ears, eyes, and hands, is meant, but described impersonally and by a paraphrase. All that was audible, visible, and tangible which the disciples were able to perceive in their intercourse with Jesus, is summed up in the ὁ λύγος τῆς ζωῆς, and, as the change in the construction shows, referred back to its centre. The ἀπαγγέλλειν τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (vol. ii. 377, n. 3)-ε ἀπαγγέλλειν and μαρτυρεῖν περὶ Ἰησοῦ. But the personal Logos is not called ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς because He gives life, but because He has life in Himself (John i. 4), 2.e. is living ; or, as the substitution of the idea 7 (on in ver. 2 shows, by means of an appositional genitive, He is Himself described as the one who is in person life; cf. John xi. 25, xiv. 6. 7. (Ρ. 315.) In Rev. xix. 12, ἔχων ὄνομα γεγραμμένον 6 has the strongest MS. authority (to which S? has been recently added), The reading ὀνόματα γεγραμμένα ἅ is due to the mention of many diadems in the same verse, In BS® the two readings are confused. ‚In ver. 13 the present writer considers κέκληται to be the correct reading. The testimony of the versions as such for καλεῖται has no great weight. Although in xix. 16 we have the names directly connected with the judgment, the name ὁ λύγος rod θεοῦ, which is outside of the vision, is not without reference to the coming of Christ to judgment. If Christ did not come, or if He did not conquer and administer judgment, then He would not be, what He as the Word of God must be, truthful and reliable (cf. xix. 9, 11, iii. 14). 8. (P. 316.) Although originally an adjective, ἸῸΝ is never so used either in the O.T. (where joxı and poxsare used instead) or in the N.T. Conse- quently, it is not so used in Rey, iii, 14, where it would be a mere parade of 330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT learning, since ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός immediately follows. The readers were familiar with ἀμήν only as an adverbial exclamation. Elsewhere, when used substantively, τὸ ἀμήν (1 Cor. xiv. 16; 2 Cor. i. 20) occurs, but ὁ ἀμήν 1s used here because it is the name of a man. Practically the same thought is expressed by the synonym vai in 2 Cor. i. 19. The primary reference is to Christ as preached (cf. Rom. x. 5-8). As such He is not at the same time both Yea and Nay, but in Him is a Yea which cannot be contradicted. Moreover, in relation to the promises of the O.T., Christ Himself is found the confirming Yea to all the questions contained in and suggested by prophecy. According to Paul, therefore, Christ is a word of God spoken unto the world at the end of days, an affirming word, itself in turn confirmed by the Amen of the Church. . 9. (Pp. 319, 325.) The contradiction between John vii. 8 and John vii. 10 early led to a change of the reading οὐκ avaß. (ND Sc Ss, etc.), which could not have been invented into οὔπω avaß. (BL Sah. etc... Appealing to this passage, Porphyrius (in Jerome, ὁ. Pelag. ii. 17) accuses Jesus of inconstantia et mutatio. Schopenhauer (Grundprobleme der Ethik, 2te Aufl. S. 225) in proving that falsehood is not unconditionally wrong, eites the fact that on one occasion “even Jesus Christ intentionally told an untruth.” Something of the same contrast is to be observed between ii, 4 and ii. 7f. 10. (P. 319.) Reference to the fulfilment of O.T. prophecy in the gospel history is more frequently made by John (i. 23, 45, ii. 17, 22 [τῇ γραφῇ], xii. 14 f., 38-41, xix. 24, 36, xx. 9) and by Jesus Himself in the Fourth Gospel (v. 39, 46f., vi. 45, xiii. 18, xv. 25, xvii. 12) than by Mark and Luke. The point of view, however, is entirely different from that in Matt. In Matthew the purpose is apologetic, namely, to prove to the Jews that in the very respect in which Jesus was an offence to His people, He fulfilled prophecy —when this is rightly interpreted (vol. ii. 560f.) ; on the other hand, John does not attempt to refute formally and in detail the objections raised by the Jews on the ground of the apparent lack of correspondence between prophecy and fulfilment (i. 46, vi. 42, vii. 27, 41 f., 52, xii. 34). This contradiction is met by the fulfilment in Jesus of God’s plan of salvation foreshadowed in the O.T. by example and by word (i. 14, 16, 17, 23, 33, 41, 45, iti. 14, iv. 26, 42, v. 39, 46f., vii. 31, ix. 37, x. 11, 35, xii. 37-41), which general position the Christian readers of the Gospel accepted, and which is frequently attested’ in the Fourth Gospel without detailed instances. On Him as the agent of salvation, God has set His seal (vi. 27), and whoever believes in Him, becomes by the change thus wrought in himself a confirming seal of the truthfulness and loyalty of God in the fulfilling of His promises (iii. 33, ef. vi. 35; 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 2). So that the agreement between prophecy and fulfilment which catches the eye, becomes a matter of great significance for the faith of believers. Just as the first disciples were strengthened by the discovery of this agreement even after the death and resurrection of Jesus (ii. 22, vii. 39, xii. 16, 37-41, xiii. 18, xv. 25, xix. 24, 36 ἢ" xx. 9), so here references to it are designed to strengthen the faith of the readers. The same is true also of the predictions of Jesus Himself (ii. 19-22, vi. 70f., xii. 32 f., xiii, 19-29, xiii. 38, xvi. 4, xviii. 9, 32) ; to which for this reason the solemn iva πληρωθῇ is applied (xviii. 9, 32), as it is likewise to the prophetic téstimony of the Baptist'(x. 41), and even to the unintentional prophecy of Caiaphas THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 331 (xi. 51). This is the significance also of the prophetic utterances dealing with the past and bringing to light the hidden things of the present. Jesus is a “seer,” who does not need human intervention in order to know things most secret, when His calling demands such knowledge (ii. 24f., iv. 16-18, 29, 39, 50, 52, vi. 64, 70, xiii. 10 f., 18, xxi. 15-17). Although Jesus rejects the dogma that every affliction suffered by the individual is punishment for his personal sins (ix. 2f.), in a particular case He does recognise this to be the relation of sin to suffering (v. 14). It is the inexplicable manifestation of such deep, prophetic insight that overwhelms Nathanael and the Samaritan woman (i. 47-50, iv. 16-19, 29,38). It was this insight which qualified Jesus to be the Good Shepherd, who knows every member of His flock, calling it by name and dealing with it in accordance with its individual character- isties (x. 3, 14, 27; cf.i. 42, xx. 16). The way in which John treats prophecy and prediction throughout the Gospel proves that he is not like Matthew an apologetic historian, much less a speculative religious philosopher, but the pastor and spiritual guide of his readers, 11. (P. 321.) The negative answer in John i. 21, 25 to the question as to whether John is Elijah, which in the light of Matt. xi. 10, 14, xvii. 10-13; Mark i, 2, ix, 11-13; Luke vii. 27, seems remarkable, is no absolute answer ; since in John iii. 28 John speaks of himself as the one prophesied in Mal. iii. 1, hence as Elijah (Mal. iii. 23). Moreover, the principal mission which in i. 31 he aseribes to himself is, according to the doctrine of the Jewish schools, that of Elijah ; ef. Just. Dial. viii. 49 ; Goldfahn, Justin und die Agada, 8.34 f.; better Weber, Jüd. Theol. § 77. There is also a strong resemblance between John v. 35 and Sirach xlviii, 1. In John 1. 21, therefore, the question is answered in the negative only in the superstitious sense in which it was asked (ef, Matt. xvi. 14, xxvii. 47, 49 ; Mark vi. 15, viii. 28, xv. 35f.); on the other hand, it is affirmed in the sense of Luke i. 17. John was also obliged in i. 21, 25 to answer in the negative the question as to whether he was the prophet ; because this idea was used in connection with that of the Messiah, without a clear distinction being made between them, and might easily be confused with the latter (vi. 14f., vii. 40). 12. (P. 323.) It is true that in Acts xix. 1-7 nothing is said about “diseiples of John,” simply disciples being mentioned, te. according to the usage of Acts, believing worshippers of Jesus, ae. Christians. But, since prior to the time when Paul came to Ephesus they had not received. the baptism of the Church, and knew nothing of a baptism followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit, their Christianity was independent of the Church and preceded it. They could have received the baptism of John only from John the Baptist himself, or possibly, since we are informed in John iii. 22-iv, 2 that the baptism of John was used by the disciples of Jesus, from the latter ; they had not prior to this time been members of a Christian Church, into, which no one was received without Christian baptism at the hands of the Church. It is not distinctly stated in xviii. 25 that Apollos likewise had received the baptism of John, and hence it is not expressly stated that he afterwards received the baptism of the Church. But he also represents a form of Christianity earlier than the Church, (vol. i. 262), When he came to Ephesus, he was familiar only with the baptism of John, and therefore knew nothing of the Church and its baptism. Moreover, his knowledge of 332 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the Christian teaching needed to be completed by Aquila. If these state ments of Luke be correct, then faith in Jesus and a relatively accurate knowledge of His history (Acts xviii. 25, ἀκριβῶς) must have reached Alex- andria (xviii. 24) and Ephesus prior to the time of Acts ii. 1, 38, and possibly even before the death of Jesus, through Jews who in Palestine had come to believe the preaching of John the Baptist and the testimony of Jesus to Himself, perhaps through visitors at the feasts from the Diaspora (Luke xxiii. 26, xxiv. 18; Acts xxi. 25). The danger, which lay in this form of Christianity unrelated to the Church, was averted by Paul and his friends in the case of the twelve disciples at Ephesus and of Apollos. We do not know whether this was true also in the case of all those at Ephesus and elsewhere related in the same or a similar manner to Jesus and His Church. Whether this happened in the case of the disciples of John in Palestine, who in Jesus’ own time kept themselves separate from Him (Matt. ix. 14ff.; John iii. 25ff.), is even more uncertain. Reference may be made here to 1 John ii. 19, according to which the connection of certain errorists with the Christian Church seems from the first not to have been beyond question. Furthermore, it is not at all impossible that the confused statements con- cerning a connection between the followers of the Baptist and the semi- Christian adherents of Simon Magus and Dositheus have some basis in fact (Clem. Hom, ii. 22-24 ; Recogn. 1. 54, 60, ii. 7-12). Moreover, the Mandeans or Sabians, with their worship of the prophet John, the son of Zachariah, and their anti-Christian system are probably only the Eastern descendants of a Palestinian gnosis which appealed to the authority of the Baptist, and rejected the Messiahship of Jesus, although they may have adopted many Babylonian elements into their system. This is'not the place in which to dispute the assertions of Baldensperger, which overshoot the mark, Der Pro- log. des 4 Ev. sein apologetisch polemischer Zweck, 1898. 13. (Pp. 324, 325.) In John iv. 4, ἔδει (ef. Luke xi. 42, xix. 5, xxii. 7) means little more than ἔθος ἦν in Jos. Ant. xxii. 6. 1, referring to the same route; cf. Bell. ii. 12. 3; Vita, 52 (ἔδει for those who desired to travel rapidly), also the remarkable parallels to John iv. in Bereshith Rabba, chaps. xxxiii. and Ixxxi. (trans. by Wünsche, S. 141, 398). Jesus Himself would have travelled through Samaria on His last journey to Jerusalem, if the Samaritans had been willing to furnish Him lodging’ (Luke ix. 51-56, above, p. 89f. n. 19). The strong expression in John iv. 4, which is not, however, to be pressed too far, is chosen, in order to emphasise the faet that Jesus travelled through Samaria without any intention of working there, and met with unexpected success, which astonished even Him. It is uncer- tain whether οὐ yap συνχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρείταις in iv. 9 is to be omitted, with 8*D abe, or to be retained, as in all other MSS. (including the eontem- porary first corrector of N, also Se Ss, and probably therefore also Tatian, Forsch. i. 159). The classical brevity of the insertion is in favour of its genuineness. Strong evidence to the effect that John continued to live entirely under the influence of home surroundings and opinions, is to be found in the fact that he sometimes omits an explanation, where it would seem to be very necessary. To John himself the name Bethesda (v. 2, ef. ver. 42) is important, because of the meaning of the word (vol. i. 28, n. 15), and he recalls the connection between the ceremony of the seventh day of the feast THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 333 of Tabernacles and the words spoken by Jesus on this day, vii. 37 f.; but in neither case does he take the trouble to make these relations clear to his readers—who were not familiar with them. 14. (P. 324.) From the fact that τῆς Τιβεριάδος (xxi. 2) is alone given as the name of the Lake, it is probably to be concluded that outside of Pales- tine this name was already the better known. When Jos. Bell. iii. 10, 1 writes, ἡ λίμνη. . .,» ἣ καλεῖται Γεννησὰρ πρὸς τῶν ἐπιχωρίων, and Pliny, Historia Naturalis, v. 71, Pacum quem plures genesarum vocant, it is equiva- lent to saying that alongside of this name another, or many such, were used According to Pliny, loc. eit., the Lake bore among other names also that of the town Tarichea. Matthew and Mark use only ἡ θάλασσα τῆς TaXıXaias, although they know Tevvnoaper as the name of the country (Matt. xiv. 34; Mark vi. 53). Of the Gospels, only Luke in v. 1 has ἡ λίμνη Tevvnoaper ; Jos. with or without λίμνη, regularly ἡ Tevvnoap (Bell. ii. 20. 6, ini. 10. 1, x. 7 and 8), and in the later writings the Hellenised form ἡ Τεννησαρίς or Γεννησαρῖτις, Ant. vy. 1. 22, xviii. 2, land 3; Vita, 65 (Niese, 349). With this, however, we read in his Bell., published between 75 and 79 (iii. 3. 5), μέχρι τῆς πρὸς Τιβεριάδα λίμνης, and (iv. 8. 2) twice ἡ Τιβεριέων (sc. λίμνη), corresponding to the Talmudic na» Sv mx. The translation of John is more exact than the circumlocutions of Josephus. 8 69. INTEGRITY, DATE OF COMPOSITION, AND GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. One of the principal causes for the degeneracy of the text of the earlier Gospels is practically non-existent as far as the Fourth Gospel is concerned, namely, the irresistible tendency to make similar accounts resemble one another yet more closely. The thoroughly distinctive character of the Gospel prevented confusion of its text with that of the Synoptics. It is more natural to suppose that such details as the inscription over the cross in three languages (xix. 20, xxiv. 34), the notice of the casting of lots for the coat, and the piercing of Jesus’ side with a spear, were inserted in the Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 35, 49; Luke xxi. 38) from John, than that John’s Gospel was enriched by citations from them, although early changes in the text of John made on the basis of the Synoptics are not wanting (6.0. i. 34, vi. 69) More frequently changes in the original text are due to the boldness of John’s thought or the awkwardness of his language (n. 1). There are also early 334 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT glosses which became widely eurrent (n. 2), and one undeniable interpolation which came to be almost uni- versally regarded as a part of the Fourth Gospel (vil. 53- viii. 11, n. 3). The main reason why the work of the original author has been preserved praetically intact is the fact, it was intended originally for the Church, and so was read in the congregations. In this respect it had the ad- vantage of the letters sent by the apostles to the Churches (vol. i. 159), to which the two addresses to the readers which it contains give it a certain resemblance, The attempts to distinguish the later elements in the Gospel have proved illuminating only to those who have under- taken their separation (n. 4), while the assumption that disorder of sequence has been created in the Gospel through the accidental misplacing and loss of leaves, presupposes so many unlikely accidents (n. 5) that attention need only be called to it in a text-book. | The investigation of the supplement ($ 66) has shown that this, and consequently the entire Gospel, could not have been written after the year 100. With this con- clusion agrees the entire Church tradition, which even the ancient deniers of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel did not venture to reject (above, pp. 177 f., 180). On the other hand, the supplement could not have been written before the death of Peter, and we saw that it seemed probable that a number of years elapsed after 64 and 70 before it was written (above, p. 240f.), a Terminus a quo deter- mined wholly on exegetical grounds, but, like the Terminus ad quem, confirmed by the unanimous tradition. Now, it is possible that, while the composition of chap. xxi. certainly belongs later than the year 70, chaps. i._xx. were written con- siderably earlier. But the history of the book shows that prior to the addition of the supplement it was confined to a very small group of readers, so that only a short interval could have intervened between the composition of ehaps. i._xx. and chap. xxi. This conclusion is confirmed by the in- THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 335 vestigation of the relation of chaps. 1—xx. to the Synoptics (§ 67), as a result of which we were compelled to bring the composition of the entire book down to the year 75, probably to some time between 80 and 90. This state- ment may be regarded as proved, until the representatives of other views discuss more fundamentally than they have done heretofore the proofs for the statement derived from tradition, the book itself, and comparative criticism. "The attempt has been made frequently, but manifestly without warrant, to prove from the present tense in v. 2 that the Gospel of John was written before the year 60 (n. 6). Much more frequently a later composition of the Gospel has been assumed, always in consequence of the denial of its composition by the apostle John. That for a hundred years the question of the genuine- ness of this Gospel should have been discussed zealously, even heatedly, without any resulting agreement among otherwise capable critics, is comprehensible and almost self-evident (n. 7). The contents of the book and its demands upon the reader are too great for it to be other- wise. Since the second century we have had exaggerated representations of its peculiarities ; speculations and mys- teries foreign to it have been found in it; though there are not lacking more sober treatments of the Gospel, which establish beyond question its unique place among the books of the N.T. In this Gospel alone do we find an historical scheme of the work of Jesus, which enables us to arrange the material supplied by the other tradition, and which gives us a picture of the development of events in the history of the world of the utmost significance for religion, and so for mankind. And this scheme is filled out with detail, which to the intelligence limited to the things of ordinary experience must seem a priorz to be merely fantastic inventions, but which through all the centuries of the Gospel’s existence have been received by multitudes of both wise and foolish men as disclosures. of 336 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT truth essential for life and death, and held to with glowing love. Here are deeds which defy every attempt to bring them under the laws of action which are daily observed and commonly accepted ; sayings of Jesus which cannot be derived by inference from other sayings attributed to Him by tradition. And all this makes a stronger claim to historical trustworthiness than does any other account of Jesus’ life. The Gospels of Mark and Luke were put forth as the writings of disciples of the’ apostles, repro- ducing not what the authors themselves had experienced, but the accounts of others. There is nothing in Matthew which indicates a direct personal relation between the author and the contents of his book, and not only does his book lack clear personal testimony of the author, but there is no witness of contemporaries which can be traced back to its origin. On the other hand, the Fourth Gospel contains the personal testimony of its author in the solemn form of an oath (above, p. 217 f.), and at its close is found a testimony to his authorship and truthfulness written in the author's lifetime by friends of his, and made an inseparable part of the original Gospel. So long as and wherever Christianity is conditioned by what Jesus was, and did, and taught, it will be conditioned also by the answer given to the question concerning the genuineness, and consequently the trustworthiness, of this Gospel. Among thoughtful persons there are only a few who admit that the book was written by an eye-witness and apostle, and yet deny its trustworthiness in essential points (n. 8). A writer who makes truthfulness the con- dition of all knowledge of the truth and of the possession of eternal life (1. 47, ii. 20f., iv. 16-18, xv. 17, xviii 37), and declares the Devil to be the father of lies and deceits (vi. 70, viii. 44, xiii, 2, 27), by every attempt made to confirm the personal testimony of i. 14, especially by the tragie retrospect in xii. 37-43, by words of Jesus, xy. 24, and the solemn assurance in xix. 35, would call THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 337 down upon himself almost unutterable eondemnation, if he declared to be deeds and sayings of Jesus things which he knew better than his eritics Jesus had never done or said. It is not on purely scientific grounds, therefore, but out of pure necessity, that the majority of those who distrust the historical testimony of the Fourth Gospel on internal grounds deny also its composition by an eye-witness and apostle, and that others, not so de- cided in their opinions, seek ambiguous compromises in the question of the Gospel’s genuineness, by a reinterpretation either of the tradition or of the internal evidence of the Fourth Gospel. The scientific grounds for the denial of the genuineness of the Gospel, either wholly or in part, have been discovered after it has been determined to seek them. The arguments derived from the relation of John to the Synopties, on the presupposition that the latter are essentially trustworthy, have been answered in $ 67 (cf. also $ 63). Other arguments based upon a comparison of the Gospel with Revelation, on the pre- supposition that this is a work by the apostle John, cannot be discussed until Revelation has been investigated. All the other arguments consist of very questionable observations. It is true that in many sections the narrative lacks the clearness and definiteness which we should expect from an eye-witness. While John shares Mark’s tendency to retain the Aramaic form of names and addresses (vol. 11. 502, n. 1, and above, pp. 307 f., 323; below, n. 13), he lacks Mark’s pictorial gift. Scenes which begin with a certain amount of definiteness have no conclusion; eg. the passages iii. 21, vy. 47, xx. 23, 29, xxi, 22 (cf. also 11. 20, iii, 36) end with a saying of Jesus instead of a narrative statement, although there is no lack of definiteness in the beginning of these narratives (cf. Matt. xxviii. 16-20). In xiv. 31 nothing is said which indicates that the disciples followed the bidding of Jesus to rise from the table and leave the meal, or the manner in which they did it ; but in xvii. 1 VOL. III. 22 338 INTRODUCTION ‘TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT (cf. xi. 41) we notice that at that moment Jesus was in the open air. Only by a careful reading of xi. 21-36 do we learn that the request of the Greeks was not granted (xii. 20). The representation of the course of events in vi. 21-24 is very awkward. Where and under what circumstances sayings like xii. 44-50, the beginnings of which (xi. 44, ἔκραξεν) show that they are not unrelated sayings thrown together like Matt. i. 2, Mark i. 15, were spoken, we are not informed. In other instances, where the beginning lacks the desired definiteness, the name of the place is given farther on in the narrative (1. 28, vi. 59, viii. 20). In this the author does not seem to have any special purpose, e.g., to answer the question which one who heard an oral narrative might ask afterwards as to where the event narrated took place. At the same time, we notice an accuracy of details and a clearness in the delinea- tion of things secondary and unimportant (n. 9) which reveals the vividness of the author’s underlying conception. In clear characterisation of the persons who appear (above, pp. 224 f., 302), and in brief original sayings, which are not without a touch of delicate humour and bitter irony (i. 46, iv. 15, vii. 8, 28,35, 48 f., 52, viii. 19,-22, 48, 57, ix. 20f, 24-34, xi, 11, 16, xviii. 31,35, 38, 39, xix. 5/4030 OtaeD the incidents and conversations in 1. 46-50, iv. 6-26, ix. 1-41, xi. 1-44, xviii. 29-xix. 22 are without parallel in narrative literature. The numerous elements which were accustomed to mingle on the occasion of the great feasts in Jerusalem (xviii. 20) are clearly delineated : the natives of Jerusalem (vii. 25); the multitudes of festival pilgrims (vii. 12, 31, 40), who disappeared again (viii. 12—x. 21) when it was over (ef. vii. 37); those non-Jews who came to the feast (xii. 20); the Pharisees who, notwithstanding their contempt for the multitude ignorant of the law (vii. 49, n. 10 end), mingle with it, observing the people’s expression of feeling and motives, and dispute with Jesus (1, 24, above, p. 283 f.; iv. 1, vii. 32, 47, vill. 13, ix. 13, 40, xi. 46, xi. 19), THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 339 in clear distinction from the ruling aristocracy, the high priests, who hold themselves aloof (especially vii. 48, xii. 42). John is aware that the Pharisaic party is prac- tically identical with the guild of the scribes, and dominates in the synagogue (i. 10; ef. vil. 49, xii. 42), although he never mentions the scribes (n. 10). He also knows that they are represented in the Sanhedrin along with the ruling party (iü. 1, vu. 47, 50). They have an interest in the religious movement set on foot by the Baptist and Jesus, which is prompted by religious motives, but they are able to take practical steps to regulate this movement only by bringing the observations which they have made among the people before the Sanhedrin, which then takes action, issues orders for arrests, and gives other directions (vil. 32, 45, ix. 22, x1. 46-53, 57, xii. 10, xviii. 3, 12-28). The moral influence of the Pharisees is greater in the Sanhedrin than that of the high priests (xii. 42), but the latter have more political courage. It is the ruling high priest who suggests that Jesus be got rid of, and how this may be done (xi. 49). In similar decisions with reference to Lazarus (xii. 10), and in the prosecution of the matter before Pilate, in which all law and all of Israel’s religious hope were trampled under foot, the Pharisees do not seem to have had part. Only the high priests and their servants are represented as speaking (xix. 6, 12-15, 21). It needed only the skill of an historian, which John lacks, to create out of such material a monument of. historical art; and it needed only a slightly poetic temperament, which John also lacks, to transform narratives like chaps. iv. ix. xi. into engrossing romances, and to make out of the material in chaps. vil. Xvill.—xix. a thrilling drama. It is just this lack of art, along with accurate knowledge of innumerable small details and a correct historical view, which proves that the author is a Jewish Christian from Palestine and an eye- witness. It would require learning, which none of the critics of 340 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the Fourth Gospel can claim, to convict of ignorance on these very points the author, who occasionally informs his readers who are not Jews and who do not live in Palestine, of the location of places in his native land and of the customs of his people (above, p. 324). The opinion that he is not well informed with regard to geographical matters (n. 11) and political conditions in Palestine in the time of Jesus (n. 12) cannot be established. It is likely to become gradually more and more clear that it is better for us to learn from John with regard to these matters, rather than to criticise him without knowledge superior to his own. As evidenced by the Hebrew and Aramaic words and names which he retains, he, like Mark, is familiar with the language of his people. Nor does he, in translating these terms, make such mistakes as are to be found in the Greek Matthew and even in Luke (n. 13), e.g. in his translation of the name of Iscariot (n. 11). In his use of the Greek language also he betrays his Hebrew origin. While the book in respect of vocabulary, grammar, and style has a thoroughly unified character, and shows nothing of the patchwork of both of Luke’s books (above, pp. 79, 104), the character of the language of the Fourth Gospel proves with complete certainty that it cannot have been written (n. 14) either by a Greek or by a Hellenist in the narrow meaning of the word (vol. i. 39 f.). Only a very one-sided and short-sighted comparison with certain stylistie peeuli- arities of the Book of Revelation, such as Dionysius of Alexandria made (Hus. H. E. vii. 25. 25 f.), could lead to a misunderstanding of this fact. The author's knowledge of the O.T. is not confined to the LXX, which he generally follows (n. 15). The peculiar use of the term οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι has been thought to betray the non-Jewish character of the author. However, (1) those passages must be left out of account in which the Jewish author informs his non- Jewish readers concerning Jewish customs, conditions, and feasts which are unknown to them, or which are feasts THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 341 and customs foreign to their usage (i. 6, 13, v. 1, vi. 4 vii. 2, xix. 40, 42). Mark, who was a native of Jerusalem (vii. 3), and Josephus uniformly use the same expression. Furthermore, (2) those passages must be left out of account where the author or those whom he represents as speaking contrast Jews with Samaritans or Romans (iv. 9, 22, xviii. 35, and throughout the entire section xvii. 31-xix. 21). More peculiar is (3) the use of the term for the political organisation of the Jewish people and their official repre- sentatives. In many passages Sanhedrin might be sub- stituted for of ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, or it might be replaced by τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, as in Josephus. This is clearly possible in weh9 ivi 135.4x.1229 avi: 19,014, oxrx..(31,0 88 xx 19: Then connected therewith are (4) other passages where not the whole Sanhedrin, but members of it and official persons of high rank, such as the commandant of the temple, must be understood: ii. 18, 20, v. 10, 15-18, vii. 1, 11, 15 (ef. vil. 19? vii. 35, vui 22-81, ef. vv. 40, 48, 52, 57, x24, 31, 83, xi. 87%). Finally, (5) there are’ ἃ number of passages where the term is used to designate the majority of the people who do not yet believe on Jesus, or who are already pronounced unbelievers, as contrasted with Him- self and the group of disciples gathered about Him, the future Church. In addition to the passages placed in brackets above, which evidently belong here, are to be reckoned in this class x. 19, xi. 19, 31, 33, 36, xii! 9, 11, also vi. 41, 52, where in the course of the narrative, Gali- leans, who are increasingly irritated with Jesus, are called Jews; likewise vill. 48-57, where after viii. 30, 31 the occurrence of the term is surprising, and ix. 18 where it seems to be equivalent to Φαρισαῖοι. In all these instances the narrator is speaking from the point of view of himself and his readers, just as the Jew, Paul, does when writing to Gentile Christians (2 Cor. xi. 24; 1 Thess. ii. 14; ef. 1 Cor. ix. 20), and the Jew, Matthew, writing in Palestine (xxvii. 15). The first passages which are really peculiar 342 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT are those in which John represents Jesus as using this term in speaking to the disciples (xiii. 33; with regard te xviii. 20, 36, seen. 16). Evenif it could be proved, which is not the case, that for the sake of clearness John repre- sents Jesus as using a term for His enemies which was not used by Christians of Jewish and Gentile origin until after the organisation of the Church, it would not at all follow that the author was not a thorough Hebrew. Even according to the Synoptics, one of the inevitable results of Jesus’ contest with Pharisaism and official Judaism was His treatment of His disciples as a body of men separated from Israel (Matt. v. 11f., x. 16-42, xvi. 17-21, xvi. 24-- 27, xviii. 15-20, xxi. 40-46; Luke xii. 32). But inas- much as John sets forth the entire development of the contest with official Judaism in Jerusalem, intimating it in i. 19 and entering into it fully from ii. 13 onwards, we find in his Gospel severe words which do not occur in the Synoptics. John also represents Jesus as acknowledging the absolute authority of the Scriptures, which justify His claims (x. 35, v. 39, 46, xi. 18, xv. 25); Jesus never admitted that He had broken the law of Moses (v. 17—47, vil. 19-24); it is not simply among Samaritans that He feels Himself a Jew (iv. 22). He delights in true Israel- ites, whose king He is (i. 47, 49), and is faithful to His own people (i. 11) even unto death (above, p. 308). But when in opposition to Him who holds the law to be sacred, they appeal to their law, or plead their descent from Abraham against His religious and moral demands, or meet His offers of grace with declarations of what Moses gave to their fathers (v. 45, vi. 31, vii. 33 ff.), He gives them back their own language, and says, “ your father” (vi. 49), “your father Abraham” (viii. 56), and “ your law” (vill. 17, x. 34, xv. 25). All this is in keeping with the prophetic announcement from the beginning. Anyone who is unable to comprehend historically such words spoken by a messenger of God in the struggle with His THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 343 people must necessarily regard Isaiah as opposed in prin- ciple to the whole temple cultus (Isa. i. 10-20), and must explain such words as those of the Baptist in Matt. iii 7-9, Luke iii. 7-8 as inventions of the Gentile Christian Church. The naive manner in which John mentions the friendly relationship between himself and Jesus, and sub- stitutes it for his personal name, which is never employed, has been criticised. With reference to this point, it is to be observed that the modesty characteristic of modern writings is no more a certain guarantee of the correctness of their contents than the naiveness of ancient writings is of theirs. There is not a word in the Fourth Gospel that gives the impression of self-exaltation, such as Paul does not seriously attempt to avoid in 1 Cor. xv. 10 and else- where. What the author as briefly as possible says of himself in ΧΙ]. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, could have been said equally well by Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, who were not distinguished persons (xi. 3, 5, 11, 36). Such a personal friendship is not conditioned by an exceptionally high grade of moral and religious qualities. There is no evidence of any prominent position occupied by John among the disciples. Apart from the statement of his call in i. 35 ff., unnoticed by many, John does not let him- self appear until xii. 23, whereas reference is made to the future significance of Peter for the Church as early as i. 42 (ef. xxi. 15-27). In vi. 68f. Peter is the great confessor, as in the Synopties. It is true that John represents him, as do the Synoptists, as the impetuous disciple, whose zeal outruns his discretion, and who is deeply penitent for his failings (xii. 6-10, 36-38, xviii. 10-11, 15-27). But it is not sound critical judgment which finds in the race between Peter and John, in which the younger disciple outruns the older one (xx. 1-8), an expression of rivalry between these two apostles. That there were such. rival- ries among the apostles to the very end is proved by 344 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Matt. xviii. 1, xx. 20-28; Mark ix. 33 ff., x. 35-45 ; Luke xxii. 24-32. There is only a hint of it in John xii. 12- 17 and in the πλέον of xxi. 15. Moreover, it is this very supplement, added with John’s knowledge and consent, which proves that after the death of Jesus all petty jealousy was banished from the apostolic circle. The question as to the literal trustworthiness of the discourses of Jesus which are contained in the Fourth Gospel—a question which cannot be answered categori- cally even in the Synoptics—is to be distinguished from the question as to the origin of this Gospel. If the book was written between the years 80 and 90 (above, p. 334 f.), it seems hardly likely that one who heard the longer dis- courses of Jesus should retain an exact recollection of them for so long. Here, in the first place, due weight must be given to those considerations which explain in a general way the persistence of gospel traditions for decades (vol. ii. 418 1). In the second place, a man who between the ages of twenty and twenty-five years received impressions which determined the whole eourse of his life, would know just as much about them at eighty, if he remains in full possession of his faculties, as twenty years earlier, particularly if it had been his vocation for fifty years to testify orally concerning what he had seen and heard when he was with Jesus (1 John 1. 1-3). The difference between the discourses in John and in the Synoptics, and the resemblance of the former to the language of 1 John, do not prove that John’s report of them is unfaithful. . The latter merely shows that in him more than in others the “words of eternal life,” which bound the author to Jesus, especially those words which Jesus spoke to His disciples, had been transformed into flesh and blood. With reference to the comparison between the discourses in John and in the Synopties, there are sayings in the latter which no one would feel to be out of place in John (n. 17). Moreover, by cor- rect exegesis there is much that can be discarded from the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 345 discourses of Jesus, such as speculative ideas and colourless generalities, which false interpretation has introduced into them. Finally, regard must be had to the esoteric char- acter of this book, due to the fact that the Fourth Gospel was written for persons who had long been believers, and manifesting itself in the choice of the discourses to be recorded. How much freedom John allowed himself in the reproduction of the discourses it is not possible to determine exactly and in detail (n. 18). Whoever assumes that John used a large degree of liberty, must remember that this is more natural in the case of one who has heard and who feels certain that he is in possession of the essen- tial historical truth, than in the case of one farther removed, who is dependent upon the accounts of those who heard, i.e. that it would be more natural for the apostles John and Matthew than for Mark and Luke, who were disciples of apostles. 1. (P. 333.) Examples of early and widely current alterations in the text are found in i. 18 (above, p. 326, n. 3), 1. 34 (above, p. 284, n. 2), ii. 3 (there is no reason why the critics should question for an instant the originality of the genuine Semitic text, 8* [D defective] S? [cf. also Adler, de Verss. Syr. p. 57; Se Ss are defective], and of the best Latin MSS.); iii. 34 (all changes from x, such as the addition of 6 θεός and the omission of πνεῦμα, the complete alteration of the text found in Ss, are due to the failure to recognise that τὸ πνεῦμα is the subject); v. 36: μείζων ABE, etec., is harsh and hard to invent; even if μείζω (cf. i. 50), which superficially considered seems more satisfactory, or μείζονα be the correct reading, on account of the article before μαρτυρίαν and the contrast between ἐκεῖνος, ver. 35, and ἐγώ, ver. 36, the passage cannot mean: “1 have a greater witness than that which John gave concerning Me,” but must signify, “I possess the (requisite) witness for Myself in greater measure than did John for himself,” Jesus refuses to appeal to the testimony of John in ver. 33f.; and in ver. 35 John is not regarded as a witness for Jesus, but with Jesus is treated as a medium of revelation. Accepting the reading μείζων, the passage means ; J, a greater personality than John, possess the (one, the only witness to be con- sidered) witness (of God)” (see above, p. 322 f.). 2. (P. 334.) Whether iy, 9) is an interpolation or not is uncertain (above, p. 332, n. 13). This is certainly true of v. 3b, ἐκδεχομένων---κίνησιν, and vy. 4. In addition to the strong external evidence against both additions is the fact that this must have been a welcome explanation of ver. 7, and contains nothing out of harmony with ideas about angels held by the early Church, On the other hand, the additions certainly go back to an early date. Ver.) 4 346 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT was already part of the Greek text used by Tertullian (de Bapt. v.), and he explained κατὰ καιρόν to mean “one each year”; cf. Didymus and Cyril in Tischend. 785, and Theophil. (Lat.), Forsch. ii. 81, 215, the last having also τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν from ver.3. Moreover, the gloss is thoroughly Jewish ; ef. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., ad loc.; Weber, Jud. Theol. §34; Rev. xvi. 5. Pos- sibly it is one of Papias’ comments ; cf. note 3. 3. (P. 334.) With regard to vii. 53-viii. 11 the following remarks will suffice: (1) a distinction is to be made between witnesses for the existence of the story and witnesses which make it part of the Fourth Gospel. To the first only belongs the Didascalia, chap. vii. end (Syr., ed. Lagarde, p.31; Lat., ed. Hauler, xxiv. 15-22= Const. ap. 11. 24); because this third century work contains much apocryphal material and the length at which this story. is reproduced (in the Greek recension even more noticeable because of the brevity with which a reference to Luke vii. 36 f. is here inserted) shows that it was not derived from one of the canonical Gospels. The story is very old, and could be read in various books not directly dependent upon each other. Unless all signs fail, it was to be found in Papias and in the Gospel to the Hebrews (Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16; GK, ii. 703 f.). In and of itself, and because of the analogy to Mark xvi. 9-20 (vol. ii. 478), it is very probable that the passage was inserted in the N.T. from Papias. Probably it is one of those apostolic traditions which Papias inserted in connection with his interpre- tations of the sayings of Jesus, most likely in connection with John vii. 24 and viii. 15, so that those who gave it its present place in the Gospel were perhaps influenced by their source, the work of Papias. This location would be also favoured by the fine contrast between this passage and the illegal proceed- ings of the session of the Sanhedrin in vii. 45-52. There is no reason why the story itself should not be regarded as historical. (2) The earliest witnesses for the location of the passage before viii. 12 are Lat. MSS. from the fourth century onwards; of the Greek MSS. the earliest witness is D. (sixth cent.). The Syrians (Tatian, Se Ss S! S*) for a long time knew nothing of the passage. It was not until the sixth century that it was made accessible to them by various translations ; ef. Forsch. i. 190; Gwynn, Transact. of the Irish Acad. (1886) xxvii. 8, pp. 17-24; Nestle, PR#®, iii. 174. The passage is certainly no part of the Fourth Gospel; in the first place, because the Gospel to the Hebrews, in which it oceurs, contains no other material in common with John ; and, in the second place, it is not likely that Papias would have repeated an entire story of this kind if it were already in the Fourth Gospel (above, p. 196), which was known to him. Moreover, the possible moral danger arising from the story is not 'suflieient to explain its disappearance from the oldest Greek MSS., and the fact that it was wanting originally in all the forms of the Syriac versions. Direct evidence of the spurious character of the passage is to be found also in the fact that its position is very uncertain. In the early MS., now lost, represented by the Ferrar group of cursives (13, 69, 124, 346, ete.), it was inserted after Luke xxi. 38, where the location indi- cated in viii. 1,2 made it seem natural ; in other cursives and Armenian MSS. it is appended to John xxi. Even if the latter position be due to the fact that it was found before John viii. 12, recognised as suspicious or spurious, and removed to the end of the Gospel because of unwillingness to omit it altogether, this does not explain its location following Luke xxi. 38. Finally, THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 347 the language shows that the passage is not Johannine. The Synoptic expression of γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι in Vill. 3 is entirely foreign to the Gospel of John, notwithstanding the frequent occasions when it might have been used. Also em’ αὐτοφώρῳ, ἀναμάρτητος, ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως are likewise not Johannine. The opinion advocated by Spitta (note 5), S. 197 f., following the suggestion of other writers,—that a genuine passage has fallen out between vii. 52 and viii. 12 and has been replaced by an apocryphal story, is untenable. For how does it happen then that the earliest MSS. NABC, ete., Origen, Eusebius (who if this were known to him could not have written as he does regarding Papias), certainly also Tertullian and the Syrian writers until the sixth century, know nothing of either the genuine or the spurious passage? The situation is practically the same as in Mark xvi. 9-20, save that the connection between John vii. 53-viii. 11 and the Gospel of John cannot, as Spitta maintains, be traced back into the second century, but only into the fourth. The oldest witness for this passage is Ambrosius ; to counterbalance the Verona MS. b, in’ which the passage was written by the first copyist, and crossed out by a later hand, there is the Vere. MS. a (fourth or fifth cent.) of equal age, which does not have it. 4. (P. 334.) DeEnrr’s interpolation hypothesis (above, p. 230) follows in part that of ScHwEIzEer (Das Ev. Jo. nach seinem inneren Wert unters. 1841), who likewise cuts out the Galilean sections and with these the erudest of the miracles. 'TOBLER (Ev. Jo. nach dem Grundtext, 1867) demonstrates ad oculos an extremely brief ur-John. H. H. Wenpr (Lehre Jesu, 1886, i. 215-342 ; in a more extended and improved form, Das Johannesev. 1900) has attempted to eull out an original writing of the apostle John, which in essentials was a collection of sayings to be compared with the mythical “Logia.” In a way similar to that in which the authors of our first and third Gospels compiled their books out of the “Logia” and an original writing of a more historical character, a Christian of Asia Minor (circa 100- 125) prepared the Fourth Gospel out of this Johannine colleetion of sayings by means of an independent and comprehensive recasting of the material, namely, by the insertion of stories of miracles, which were drawn partly from narra- tions of the apostle John which had been misunderstood, and partly from the earlier synoptic tradition (ii. 1-12, vi. 1-26, ix. 2-3, 6-38, xi. 39-xii. 19). The additions of the editor are not to be called interpolations, and one igs not to be provoked with him on account of the awkward interpretations and the bold transpositions. We are rather, even to-day, to be grateful to him, that by means of the awkwardness of his recasting of the material he has made it possible for the eritie to free the alone trustworthy witness of the ‘apostle John from the deceptive covering. 5. (P. 334.) Spipta, Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Urehristent. i. (1893) S. 155-204, “Uber Unordnungen im Text des 4 Ev.,” discussing disarrangements in the text of the Fourth Gospel, believes that such disarrangements can be proved; (1) xviii. 12-28, he thinks, should be arranged as follows: verses 12, 13, 19- 23, 24, 14, 15-18, 255, 27,28. In a measure this agrees with Ss, 1.6. probably Tatian (Thlb, 1895, col. 20 £.), whose order is verses 12, 13, 24, 14-15, 19-23, 16-18, 25-28, and the motives for this rearrangement are in part the same as those which clearly influenced the first harmonist. (2) According to Spitta, 348 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the section xiii.-xvii. was originally arranged as follows :—xiii. 1-3la, xv.-xvi., xiii. 31b-xiv. 31, xvii. Moreover, after xiii. 3la a passage dealing with the institution of the Lord’s Supper has been omitted. (3) A page has been omitted between xii. 52 and viii. 12 (see above, note 3). (4) vil. 15-24 belongs after v. 47. Furthermore, inquiring how these disarrangements arose, Spitta reaches the conclusion that the book restored by the removal of these dis- arrangements was itself the alteration of an original work (S. 184, 185, 202), differing from its original, for example, by the insertion of vi. 51-59 (S. 218 in the essay on the Lord’s Supper). The observations upon which this hypothesis is based are attractive only in the case of chaps. xiii—xvii. But the explanation of the disarrangements in the text is not satisfactory. In xviii. 12-28 we are supposed to have the mistake of a copyist, whose eye skipped from the end of ver. 13 to the end of ver. 24, between which in the original stood vy. 19-23. Without noticing his mistake, he copied ver. 14 which stood after ver. 24, and what followed in the original, namely, vv. 15- 18. Inthe midst of the story of the denial he discovered his mistake and added the omitted verses, 19-24. In other words, he consciously inserted them in the story of the denial, the conclusion of which he was able to record only by inserting ver. 25a which he himself composed. This writer did not, therefore, belong to the familiar species of librarit oscitantes, but was an ex- tremely smart and devil-may-care sort of fellow. To such a man as this was intrusted the production of the archetype of all later copies of the Gospel, the fair copy of a book intended for the use of the Church, and no correction of the text was deemed necessary. The displacement of vii. 15-24 was due to an equally bold procedure, only here the disarrangement was not due, as in the case of xiii.—xvii., to the wandering of a scribe’s eye from one passage to another on a sheet before him, but to the displacement of the sheets, which the seribe subsequently noticed and tried to conceal. This might readily happen, if it were a case of the original construction of the book, the transcription of the text from the schedule and plagule of the author toa roll, although one is astonished at the carelessness of a writer who permitted his work to be thus misborn. But, according to Spitta, the scribe to whom the Church owes the Fourth Gospel had before him a book which from a literary point of view was already complete, this work being in its turn the working over of an earlier original. Even Spitta is not able to assume that the copy which the seribe used had accidently fallen apart (S. 182f.). Neither has he succeeded in showing that published books were circulated in separate sheets not yet fastened together in a roll, which were intrusted to scribes for copying. Ulpian (Dig. xxxii. 52. 5) certainly means by libri nondum conglutinatt vel emendati, books in the process of being made, 7.e. manuscripts more or less complete, which, however, must first be fastened together, and have errors of the copyist corrected, before they could be published. In such an instance it is necessary to make peculiar negligence on the part of the emendator (διορθωτής) and on the part of the author himself the basis of the entire literary history of the Fourth Gospel ; and in the other very improbable case, assumed by Spitta, we are met by the strange circumstance that all correct copies of the book have disappeared, and that all the copies used in the church were based upon a eopy as carelessly and as boldly constructed as his assumption calls for. A commentary would be neces- sary in order to set forth the internal reasons for this and similar hypotheses. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 349 6. (P. 335.) Bengel in his Gnomon on ἔστιν in v. 2 says: Scripsit Joannes ante vastationem urbis. This is the position taken earlier by Lampe and recently by Wuttig, S. 28. In the first place, we are by no means justified in coneluding from the brief deseription in Jos. Bell. vii. 1. 1 that no build- ing remained standing in Jerusalem. In the second place, it would be just as reasonable to conclude from John xi. 18 that Bethany and Jerusalem had disappeared when John wrote, especially in view of the fact that this information is not, like iv. 6, xvili. 1, xix. 41, a part of the narrative, introduced in the past tense after the fashion of popular story-telling, not- withstanding the continued existence of Jacob’s well and of the two gardens near Jerusalem ; but asa matter of fact it is a paranthetical remark of the author, intended to make xi. 19, 31, 45f., xii. 9-11 clear to the readers. In the third place, as a general rule such conclusions are not to be drawn from remarks of this kind (vol. ii. 340, n. 13 on Heb.). Josephus (Bell. v. 1-4) regularly uses the imperfect with reference to buildings and even localities not affected at all or not essentially changed by the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g. the towers Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne, which Josephus himself tells us, Bell. vii. 1. 1, remained undamaged, τετράγωνος ἦν, etc.), the imperfect tense is used in the entire account (τρίτος jv λόφος, περιείχοντο, ἐκαλεῖτο [not only ὑπὸ Aaßidov but also πρὸς ἡμῶν], ἐκαλοῦμεν, ἐκάλουν). But he uses also ὃν καλοῦσιν ’OcbAäs (Niese, § 145), ὃς καλεῖται Beleda (8 149), and again ἐκλήθη δὲ ἐπιχωρίως Beleda. Gebhardt (Die Abfassungszeit des Joev. 1906), who is of the opinion that John i.-xx. were written in Ephesus about 65, and chap. xxi. about 67, uses the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned (8. 21, 32 f.) as proof for so early adate. As if Matt. and Luke give “detailed descriptions” of this event, and as if the destruction of the temple were not just as surely pro- phesied in John ii. 19 as in the Synopties (see above, p. 156). With reference to the unsupported assumptions of Delff and Cassell, see above, pp. 228, 230. 7. (P. 335.) A review of attacks upon the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is to be found in LUTHARDT (Der joh. Ursprung des 4 Ev. 1874, 8. 6-34). A more detailed review, complete to 1890, is to be found in WATkıns’ Modern Criticism in tts relation to the Fourth Gospel, Bampton Lectures, 1890, especially pp. 187-413. Sanpay, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905 (Lectures delivered in the autumn of 1904 in New York). Among the latest opponents of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel may be men- tioned: KREYENBÜHL, Das Ev. der Wahrheit, i. ii. 1900, 1905, who has used about 1600 pages to prove the statement that the Fourth Gospel is nothing other than the evangeliwm veritatis of the Valentinians (Iren. iii. 11. 9), and that its author is Menander, the disciple of Simon Magus, in Antioch (Just. Apol. i. 26); also GrILL, Untersuch. über die Entstehung des 4. Ev.; 1 Teil, 1902, who, to be sure, has not gotten beyond an “ Analysis of the Pro- logue on the basis of a history of ideas,” but thinks (S. 384) that he has already made clear to his readers that Baur’s date for the Gospel appears to him hardly less tenable than that of Harnack. Finally, Wrepr, Charakter und Tendenz des Johannes ev. 1903. J. DrummonD, An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; and Sanday, in the above mentioned lectures, 1905, calmly give apologies for the genuineness of the Gospel, which weigh the arguments pro and con. 8. (P. 336.) Baur’s remarks in Krit. Unters. 8. 388, that even if the apostle 350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT John were the author of the Fourth Gospel, “ We should still have to assume that he had no intention whatever of writing a purely historical Gospel,” has little weight, since Baur was of the conviction that John did not write the Gospel. Moreover, none of the four Gospels claims to be ‘ purely his- torical.” They are all writings containing historical material having a religious or didactic purpose. LAGARDE, Verhältnis des deutschen Staats zu Theol., Kirche u. Rel. 1873, S. 31), declares himself convinced that the author of all the Johannine writings in the N.T. “can be none other than the apostle John,” and describes this apostle and Peter as the only importanv disciples of Jesus (S. 30); but at the same time he holds (5. 28-30) the state- ment that Jesus is the Messiah to be unhistorical and without meaning, declaring John, who by his Gospel desired to convince his readers of the truth of this statement, guilty of “ gross exaggerations” (S. 31). WurricHEen, who in his first work (Der gesch. Charakter des Ev. Jo. 1869) is far from accepting the contents of the Gospel as historically true, nevertheless admits that the book was written between 70 and 80 a.p. by the apostle John. Later, however, he gave up the apostolic authorship of the Gospel (Leben Jesu, 1876, 8. viii). 9. (P. 338.) Accurate details are given in i. 35-39 (above, p. 226, n. 8); i. 44 (where mention is made of the home, not of Peter and Andrew and Nathanael, but only of Philip, which may serve incidentally to show how the gospel reached Philip from Jesus, since subsequently Bethsaida is de- clared to be also the home of Peter and Andrew. In xii. 21, on the other hand, this is not the purpose of the remark, but it is probably intended to distinguish this Philip from the evangelist Philip of Hierapolis, who was known to the readers), ii. 6 (numbers, which do not submit of any symbolical interpretation), ii. 15f., 20, iii, 23, iv. 18, 28 (the leaving behind of the water-pot), iv. 30 (the picturesque imp. ἤρχοντο, which prepares the way for the parable in iv. 35), iv. 52 (where the mention of the hour as in ver, 53 would have been sufficient), v. 2, vi. 3-12 (above, p. 286, n. 5), vi. 19, 23, vi. 71 (cf. xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26, xiv. 22, the name of the father of Judas and ex- planation of Iscariot, see n. 11), viii. 48, 57, xi. 30, 44, xii. 1-8 (above, p. 286 £,, n. 6), xviii. 1, 10 (ef. ver, 26), xix. 39. 10. (P. 339.) Speaking with reference to the relations of the Jewish parties, Wellhausen (Pharisäer und Sadducäer, 1874, S. 124) says of the Fourth Gospel: “The writer cannot be accused of ignorance of pre-Tal- mudie Judaism,” and rightly emphasises the fact, that John’s combination “high priests and Pharisees” (elsewhere only in Matt. xxi. 45, xxvii. 62), while technically incorrect, really describes the facts, and quite agrees with the views and representation of Josephus (S. 42, cf. S. 8, 30). For the dis- tinction between the Pharisees, i. 24, and the embassy of “Jews of Jeru- salem,” 1.6. of the Sanhedrin (i. 19, ef. iii. 28, v. 33), see above, p. 284. The representatives of the Sanhedrin performed their duty without taking any deep interest in the matter, i. 22. The Pharisees inquire as to the basis and justification of the Baptist’s work, i. 25. They hate Jesus because in their judgment He is a Sabbath-breaker and a sinner, ix. 16, 24. Back of His miracles, which they carefully examine (ix. 16-34) and do not deny (xi. 47), they suspect some ungodly magic. They speak of political dangers (xi. 48) only in order to win the alliance of the Sadducees, who are indifferent re- [4 ligiously. Especially noteworthy is vii. 49, where ὁ ὄχλος κτλ. reproduces THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 351 exactly the Jewish pra oy; ef. Weber, Jüd. Theol. 8. 11; Schürer, ii. 387, 400 (Eng. trans. 1. ii. 8. 22). 11. (P. 340.) The present writer must reserve an exhaustive investiga- tion of the geographical statements for his Commentary. Furrer, ZINTW, 1902, S. 257-265, has given a brief survey. In respect of John vi. 1, where Furrer, 8. 261, would cross out either τῆς Τιβεριάδος or τῆς Γαλιλαίας, see above, p. 333. In addition the following is repeated from the second edition of this work: Heracleon as early as 160 A.D. read Βηθανία in i. 28, and this is the reading of nearly all the MSS. of Origen’s time, and also of our earlier MSS. But exception was taken to the reading by several writers before Origen, and especially by Origen himself, because there is no place of this name on the Jordan. They read instead Bndaßapa, because the traditional place where John baptized was said to have this name (Orig. tom. vi. 40 in Jo. ; Bus. and Hier. De Situ et Nomin. Loc. Hebr., ed. Klostermann (Griechisch- Christliche Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte), p. 58. 18, also Se Ss, but not Sh). Too much dependence is not to be placed upon local traditions of this sort, as, e.g., the traditions concerning non and Salim in John iii. 23 ; perhaps Bethany could not be located because it was looked for in the wrong place. It need not necessarily have been situated directly on the Jordan, although, according to the Synoptics, John baptized in the Jordan. Possibly it is iden- tical with Betonim, Jos. xiii, 26 (Eus. op. cit. (ed. Klostermann) 48. 11, Borvia ἡ καὶ Horeeiv, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. . . Kal εἰσέτι νῦν ὁμοίως ἐν τοῖς τόποις χρημα- τίζει. Jerome (ed. Klostermann), 103. 14, Bothnin trans Jordanem civitas . . . que usque hodie similiter adpellatur). The form of the name seems to have gone through all sorts of changes. Furrer, S. 257, has also come to this conclusion, which he thinks he was the first to discover. Συχάρ, John iv. 4, is ποῦ ἃ copyist’s mistake for Συχέμ or Σίκιμα (02%, so Ss in this place) ; this would have been rendered by John as by Josephus (Bell. iv. 8. 1), Neapolis or Marbatha. Nor is the name an intentional alteration on John’s part (Hengstenberg, Komm. 8. 244 f.=“ Liigenstadt,” town of lies), The place is 20 (so in Sh, which shows acquaintance with localities) half an hour east of Sichem (Shechem) on the road from Jerusalem to Galilee, a place still in existence in the fourth century, and plainly distinguished from Sichem (Shechem) by the geographers (Rus. op. cit. 150. 1, and 164. 1); a distinction not essentially modified by Jerome, although in another place Interpr. Hebr. Nom., ed. Lagarde, 66. 20, and Quest. Hebr. in Gen. xlviii. 22, he explains Sychar as an early scribal error in John iv. 5. Cf., further, the Pilgrim of the year 333, Itin. Hierosol., ed. Geyer, p. 20. 7; Sechar, 1000 paces from Sechim ; Epiph. De Gemmis, Dindorf, iv. 209), prob- ably identical with the Talmudic 10; ef. provisionally Delitzsch, Z/LTh, 1856, S. 240 ff., in later times written by the Samaritans with the variant forms 730°, 209, maoy. The present name is Asker or Askar; cf. Socin- Bädekert, S. 245, 251. Because of his familiarity with language and localities, John knows that the synoptic Ἰσκαριώθ, Ἰσκαριώτης means the “man of Kerioth,” and that this was the home of Judas’ father, Simon, whom John alone mentions. The reading ἀπὸ Kapvorov is to be recognised as original either wherever it occurs, vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26, xiv. 22, or in some one of these passages whence it has found its way into the others. Who could have invented it? The place is either Kerioth, Jos. xv. 25, the modern Kureitein (ef. Buhl, Geogr. 182) in Southern Judea, or Kopéa (Jos. 352 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Bell. i. 6. 5; Ant. xiv. 8.4, 5, 2) in the northernmost extremity of Judea. the modern Kuriyät or Küriyät ; ef. Robinson, Palestine, iii, 301 ; Wellhausen. Pharister, 8.152. With the latter location would agree the tradition recorded by Eusebius (on Isa. xxviii. 1 (Migne, xxiv, col. 284), that Judas belonged to the tribe of Ephraim. 12. (P. 340.) If in xi. 49, 51, xviii. 13, John expressed the idea that the office of high priest changed yearly, and that Caiaphas, who held the office from about 18 to 36 A.p. officiated only during the year of Jesus’ death, he would show gross ignorance. But, (1) John does not say that Caiaphas was “the high priest of that year,” which especially in this passage, xi. 49, would have to be expressed by 6 apy. τ. ἐν. ἐκ. without ὥν (cf. Matt. xxvi. 57; John xviii. 33, xix. 19, 21). (2) Nor have the critics shown that Greeks spoke of officials, like consuls and archons, who changed office yearly in the familiar modern fashion (“the champion shot of last year,” “the hero of the day,” and the combinations with du jour). The years were named after the consuls and archons, not vice versa. (3) One of the most absurd rules is the one given, for example, by A. Buttmann, Ntl. Gr. S. 148 [Eng. trans. p. 170], that the genitive is used to denote only general determinations of time (νυκτός, ἡμέρας, ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ). Some examples to the contrary are to be found in Kühner-Gerth. i. 386; Winer, $ 30. 11. The present writer is able to add the following twenty cases: Gen. xi. 10; Isa. xiv. 28, xx, 1, xxxvi. 1; Jer. i. 2; Dan. i. 1, vii. 1 (LXX, not Theodotion); 1 Mace. iii. 37, vi. 16, 20, vii. 1; Just. Dial. eiü. n. 22; Leucius (Acta Jo. p. 222. 5); Artemid. Oneiroer. v. 12 ; Herodian, ii. 14. 3, iv. 15. 4, vi. 9. 2, vii. 3. 3,5. 3, viii. 1. 3 (cf. also Rohde, Griech. Roman, S. 462, A, 2). This temporal genitive does not, like dates with cardinal numerals (ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν, Herodian, iv. 2. 4; Clem. Hom. iii. 72, vii. 5) denote the period of time within which the state- ment is to be limited, but means merely that at the time of the event recounted, Caiaphas was high priest, with no implication as to the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem of his high priesthood. John uses τοῦ ev, ἐκ, instead of the equally permissible τότε or ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ, etc., because he has in mind the fact that the only specific function performed by the high priest took place but once a year (Heb. ix. 7). It was necessary that the man, upon whom devolved the official duty of offering in that same year in his capacity as high priest on the Day of Atonement the legal sin-offering for God’s people (Heb. ii. 17, v. 3), should unconsciously prophesy the propitia- tory death of Jesus for the salvation of His people and of all children of God in the world, Jesus is the true sin-offering for mankind (1 John ii. 2, iv. 10), just as He is the true Passover lamb (John i, 29). If in John xix, 13 it were said that Pilate placed Jesus on the judgment-seat in order to mock Jesus, or the Jews, or both, the idea expressed would be historically impossible. In all probability the Acts of Pilate, which belong to a very early date, so understood or rather misconstrued the passages from which Just. in Apol. i. 35 confesses that he derived this idea upon which the Gospel of Peter is likewise certainly dependent (cf. the present writer’s article on the Gospel of Peter, S. 42-45, 79 f.). The tendency to represent Pilate as practically inno- cent of the execution of Jesus, evidenced by the way in which Justin and the Gospel of Peter make the Jews, not Pilate, the subject of καθίσαι, which is taken transitively, is the governing idea in all the stories associated with THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 353 the name of Pilate, and is derived, therefore, from the Acts of Pilate. But it is perfectly clear that in John xix. 13 ἐκάθισεν is not to be taken transi- tively but intransitively, as in Jos. Bell. ii. 9. 3, 6 Πιλᾶτος καθίσας ἐπὶ Βήματος ; for (1) In John as in the Synoptics and Acts the word is used only intransitively and reflexively (36 times in the Synoptics and Acts, often in the connection, ἐπὶ @pdvov, βήματος, καθέδρας). (2) Any writer who wanted to make his meaning clear, especially any one using the style that John does, would necessarily have added αὐτόν or ᾿Ιησοῦν, as in Justin and the Gospel of Peter, if this were really the object of ἐκάθισεν. (3) Historically it is quite impossible that Pilate should have desecrated the judgment-seat which symbol- ised his dignity by enacting with his own hands such a farce; for, since the reading is not ἐκέλευσεν καθίσαι, ἐκάθισεν if taken transitively must mean, like the ἐκάθισαν of Justin and the Gospel of Peter, a forcible elevation to the judgment-seat. (4) There is nothing in John’s Gospel which necessitates our attributing to him the bad taste of inventing such an absurdity. The mocking of Jesus, which belonged to an earlier stage of the trial, xix. 2-5, Pilate left to the soldiers, and merely utilised the result of it to mock the Jews. In this passage, on the other hand, he is acting as the supreme judge of the land. The mention of the hour, the description of the place, the statement of the outcome of the trial in xix. 13-16, show that John here intends to deseribe the imposition of a very seriously intended death sen- tence by the judge who alone could impose such a sentence (xviii. 31, xix. 10f., 19-22). 13. (P. 340.) Heb. and Aram. words and interpreted names are as follows : pai, 1. 38, 49, iii. 2, vi. 25, ix. 2, xi. 8 (Matt. and Mark 7 times together, Luke none) ; paßßovvi, xx. 16 (cf. Mark x, 51, vol. i. 20); Μεσσίας, i. 41, iv. 25 (vol. 1. 20f.); Κηφᾶς, 1. 42 (vol. i. 16); ἀμήν, ἀμήν, i. 51 (only in John, 25 times, vol. i. 18) ; Βηθέσδα, v. 2 (which is not translated, but inter- preted in accordance with the literal meaning of the word (see vol. i. 28) ; μάννα, Vi. 31,49; Σιλωάμ, ix. 7 (vol. 1. 29); Θωμᾶς, xi. 16, xx. 24; ὥσαννά, xii. 13 (vol. i. 21); Taßßada, xix. 13 (vol. i. 29) ; ToAyodä, xix. 17. Cf. also the explanation of the name Iscariot above, note 11. Concerning σάββατου πάσχα, see above, p. 324. 14. (P. 340.) Cf. SCHLATTER, Die Sprache und Heimat des 4 Evangelisten, 1902. In addition to Heb. and Aram. words (n. 13) and the form of O.T. eitations (n. 15), evidence of the Hebrew origin of John is to be found not so much in single Hebrew phrases like ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων -- Φαρισαῖοι τινες (above, Ῥ. 284), and expressions like ἔρχου καὶ ide, i. 46, cf. 39 (= m an) ; Heb. (nxn mn) ; ἀπῆλθον eis τὰ ὀπίσω, Vi. 66; ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, XVii. 2; ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, xvii. 12, as in the character of the style as a whole, which is in need of special investigation, John hardly ever attempts ἢ periodic sentence, and when he does he fails, e.g. vi. 22-24. It is noteworthy how often καί is used in an adversative sense (i. 10, iii. 19, vi. 70, viii. 20, 49, x. 25, xvii. 11). Its use with the imperative or future to express sequence, 1. 39, 46, vii. 52, xiv. 1, xv. 7, is likewise to be noted (cf. ZKom. Matt. 303, 442). In continuing an account καί is frequently replaced by δέ, also by οὖν, which is used over frequently, and by the omission of a connecting particle altogether, e.g. i. 40, 41, 42 (twice), 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, frequently in conversation by the unconnected λέγει αὐτῷ foal il. 591, n. 7 on Matt.). It is as if there were VOL, II. 23 354 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT writing a Jew, to whom someone had said : You must not always say “and. The rhythm of the language, while impressing the reader with a certain solemnity, shows on the other hand a monotony due to poverty of expression. 15. (P. 340.) Cf. Franke, Das AT. bei Jo. 1885, ὃ. 255-316. The freedom with which John everywhere makes his eitations (e.g. ii. 17, κατα- φάγεται instead of κατέφαγε, xii. 15, μὴ φοβοῦ, variations which suit the situation) renders it difficult to determine the relation of the passages to the original text and to the LXX. In i. 23, cited from Isa. xl. 3, εὐθύνατε corre- sponds to εὐθείας ποιεῖτε (LX X and Syn.) in the second part of the verse not quoted by John, but is an exact translation of nw» independent of the LXX. If i. 29 were based upon Isa. liii. 4, which is very questionable, αἴρων would be a new translation of xs. The citation in vi. 45 from Isa. liv. 13 could be changed into an independent sentence very easily if taken from the original text, but with difficulty if taken from the LXX. The abridged citation in xii. 15 from Zech, ix. 9 does not contain a word which shows its dependence upon the LXX; on the other hand, πῶλον ὄνου is a translation from the Heb., independent both of Matt. xxi. 5 (ef., however, Matt. xxi. 2) and of the LXX. The citation in xiii. 18 from Ps. xli. 10 shows no resemblance to the LXX, and is an exact translation of the Heb., especially if we read pod with BCL, not per’ ἐμοῦ with NAD; ef. Matt. xxvi. 23; Mark xiv. 20. The same is true of the citation in xix. 37 from Zech. xii. 10, where the LXX has ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο (the LXX MSS,, e.g. Cryptoferr. rescr., and others in Field, Hexapla, ii. 1026, which have also εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, some of them before, others after ἀνθ᾽ ὧν xar., are, of course, interpolated from John xix. 37). Only in the later Greek versions, all of which seem to have retained ἐπιβλέψονται πρός pe (this is proved in the case of Theodotion), is the text corrected : Aquila, σὺν ᾧ ἐξεκέντησαν ; Theod. eis ὃν ἐξεκ. ; Symm. ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεξεκέντησαν. Cf. also Rey. i. 7, οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν ; Barn. vii. 9, ὄψονται αὐτόν... κατακεντήσαντες, ; Just. Dial. xxxil. ἐπιγνώ- σεσθε cis ὃν ἐξεκεντήσατε. In view of these examples, the supposition that in the Gospel and Rey. John is dependent upon some unknown Greek version, in which was found the characteristic forms ὄψονται (only in John and Barn.) and eis ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν (Just., Theod., only partially in Aqu.), only serves to prove that there are some who refuse to recognise what is per- fectly evident, namely, that John is citing Zech. xii. 10 in the Gospel and Rey. from his own knowledge of the original text, and that Barnabas and Justin are dependent upon John. 16. (P. 342.) Once, in xviii. 36, Jesus speaks to the Romans of the Jews, who have cast Him out (cf. Acts xxv. 10, xxvi. 2, 4), which is less strange than the remark in xviii. 20, where before the high priest Jesus says “all Jews,” instead of “ our entire people.” Yet the present writer is not disposed to consider this impossible historically, after Jesus has been called a Samaritan (viii. 48), charged with the intention of going to the Gentiles (vii. 35), and arrested with the help of the heathen cohort (xviii. 12). In Acts xxi, 21 Luke represents the presbyters of Jerusalem as speaking in the same way to the Jew Paul. 17. (P. 344.) Matt. xi, 25-30= Luke x. 21f.; Matt. xii, 12 (Mark iii. 4; Luke vi. 9 (cf. John x. 32, ἔργα καλά); Matt. xv. 13, xvii. 26 (John viii. 35 f.), xviii. 3 (John iii, 3-5), xviii. 7 (τῷ κόσμῳ), xvili. 14 (John vi. 38f.), xix, 11 THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 355 xxvi. 38f. (Mark xiv. 34 fl. ; ef. John xii. 27, v. 30, vi. 38), xxviii. 18 (John v. 27, xvii. 2), have a Johannine sound. 18. (P. 345.) In opposition to the view that John sometimes permits a speech of Jesus to shade off into theological expatiations of his own, instances to the contrary may be cited. John iii. 19-21 is a fitting conclusion of the address to Nicodemus, who was still afraid of the light (iii, 2, xix. 39, νυκτός). In John v. 2 the relation is manifest between the place (Bethesda) and the character of action which suggested the discourse (vol. i. 28, n 15). There is no discourse where it is difficult to imagine the source of John’s information. If the gradual acceptance of the gospel by Nicodemus, which John describes, terminated, as it undoubtedly did, in his reception into the membership of the Chureh, John could have learned from him what he recalls in iii. 1-21, vil. 45-52, xi. 47-50. The contents of iv. 7-26 were probably repeated more than once by the Samaritan woman, and John had abundant opportunity both at the time (iv. 40) and later (Acts viii. 25) to hear her tell it on the spot. § 70. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. Both of the smaller writings which have come down to us under the name of John bear the stamp of genuine Epistles, in spite of the fact that the author calls himself simply “the Elder”; but the larger writing, which we are aceustomed to call 1 John, lacks almost all the elements that constitute that form of composition. Not only is the greeting wanting, as in Hebrews, but in the course of the letter, and notably at the close, there is an absence of all that otherwise marks Hebrews as an Epistle. In this respect it is comparable rather to James, which, however, is introduced as an Epistle by its opening greeting. That 1 John has not lost its epistolary form by accident or design, is proved by the opening words (i. 1-4); as is the case in Hebrews in so far as its beginning might give occasion for a similar suspicion. Even after a greeting supposedly lost, an Epistle could not begin with such phrases as 1 John presents to us (vol. ii, 312f). On the other hand, it does not repre- sent a speech put into writing before or after delivery ; for the author indicates everywhere throughout the docu- ment (i. 4, and twelve times from ii, 1 onwards) that 356 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT writing is the form of the communication he is making Only once does he allow a λέγω (v. 16) to intrude in place of ypabw—a change which Paul often makes. 1 John is then, like James, —except that it lacks the form of a pastoral Epistle which is peculiar to the latter,—a written address to a circle of Christians, all, or the majority of whom, live at a distance from the author. Furthermore, inasmuch as there is wanting in this Epistle, just as in James, and even to a greater degree than in the latter Epistle, all regard for special, personal, or locally con- ditioned relations between the author and the readers, there can be no doubt that a somewhat large cirele of congregations—as, é.g., the Christians of a district or of a province—are here addressed. The warning against idols, v. 21, which, as the last word of the writing, leaves all the deeper impression, indicates that these Churches have grown up on heathen soil. If we may trust the tradition and the first impression made by the comparison of 1 John with the Gospel of John, which would lead us to suppose that both writings have the apostle John for their author, we may assert even upon this basis that the author in this address has to do with the Churches of the province of Asia. The author who does not find it neces- sary to introduce himself personally to the readers—for i. 1-4, in which he does not speak of himself alone, is not a substitute for the introduction—possesses the authority of a father among them. Although he uses the name of “brother” often enough, he employs it only once in addressing the readers (iii. 13). On the contrary, he addresses them seven times as texvia, and twice as παιδέα, with which ἀγαπητοί, occurring six times, is almost equiva- lent, because of the frequent combining of ἀγαπητός with υἱός or τέκνον (n. 1). Despite the differentiation between old and young in their company, which occurs twice, he admonishes them all as a father would his children. Such language befits only an old man. This seems so much the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 357 more certain when one notices that this fatherly relation is not such as would be based upon the fact that the writer was the missionary who had instituted their religion among them (ef. 1 Cor. iv. 14-17 ; 1 Tim. i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. iz. 1; 1 Pet. v. 13). He declares repeatedly and emphatically that he has nothing new in the way of doctrine or ex- hortation to offer them, but only that which they have heard and adopted from the very beginning (ii. 7, 18, 20f., 24, 27, 1. 11). Im none of these passages is there, however, any hint that the author had taken a personal part in this original evangelisation and fundamental in- struction of the readers; ef. per contra 2 Pet. i. 16; 1 Cor. xy. 1; Gal. i. 8f. If, therefore, despite this, he adopts toward the readers the attitude of paternal authority, he must have been active in these com- ‘munities for a considerable period of time, as a teacher and a leader, though they had been founded by another. But this is not true of him alone. Since he per- sistently uses “I” when he speaks of himself as the author of this writing, it is clear that the “ we ”— where it is not used as a general term for all Christians—(i. 6-10, 111. 1 1, 14-16), comprehends, besides the author, a number of persons who, in distinction from the readers, share in some way the author’s position (i. 1-5, iv. 6, 14, 16). What they possess in common is, first of all, the fact that they have heard with their ears, seen with their eyes, and touched with their hands, the Son of God, sent by Him to be the Saviour of the world—the life which had existed from eternity, but which had been revealed in this historical personage—the personal Word of ‘a (above, p. 329, n. 6) in all its manifestations (i. 1, 8, 5, iv. 14). In words which cannot fail to remind us of John i ag 14-16, vi. 68 ἢ, the author reckons himself as one of the personal disciples of Jesus. But with this experience is given the commission to preach and bear witness regard- ing what he has seen, heard, and experienced, to those 358 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT who have not enjoyed such an advantage (i. 2, iv. 6, 14: ef. John xv. 27). Even if this preaching (i 2f, 5) is spoken of as directed toward the readers, the absence of an ὑμῖν in iv. 14 reminds us of the evident fact that the mission of the disciples of Jesus to testify to others of the revelation of the eternal life in Jesus, which they had experienced, was not limited to the circle of readers of 1 John. More than this, it is very emphatically stated ini 3 that John and those whom he includes with him- self, announce to the readers (καὶ ὑμῖν) also, what they have seen and heard (n. 2). In other words, what they here proclaim they announce or have announced to others. The purpose of the proclamation is that the hearers may be in fellowship with the preachers, which is at the same time fellowship with the Father and with Jesus Christ. Inasmuch, however, as this purpose, 88. regards the readers, is expressed by the words ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, it is thereby stated that John and the other. disciples—with whom he here includes himself— have at some former time preached to others, outside their circle, and with the same purpose and success, what they have experienced in their intercourse with Jesus. | John speaks, then, in the name of several of the dis ciples of Jesus, who formerly in other places and in other communities pursued their calling as witnesses, and wh are now carrying it on among those congregations to whic 1 John is directed. If we turn to history we shall fin that, from about’ the year 68, besides John several othe disciples of Jesus who had formally been at work i Palestine, had settled in the province of Asia. We car name with certainty Aristion and Philip ; but there isn lack of support for the assumption that still other member of the apostolic eirele—whether understood in the narrowe or wider sense—lived there for a more or less extende time (n. 3). Of himself and of these companions of his John says, “ And these things (which we have announce THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 3.50 ard still announce to you as well as to others) we write, chat our joy may be made full.” It should be self-evident that this does not refer solely to the letter he is writing or solely to the Gospel he had written. That it does not refer to the letter is evident: (1) Because ‚John, as has been remarked, always speaks of himself as the author of this letter, in the singular only. The other disciples, who likewise live and preach in Asia, have not the smallest share in this letter. It is the address of John the individual, who assumes toward this eirele of readers the entirely unique position of a father. Whether it is his age, or apostolic dignity, or both which raises him above the other disciples in Asia, we cannot gather from the letter; but we may conclude that he probably did not share his peculiar position in the circle of readers with the companions mentioned in 1, 1-5, iv. 6, 14, 16. (2) In ver. 4, according to the genuine text (n. 2), no reference is made to any connection existing between this literary work and the present readers—a reference which could not possibly have been wanting at the place where the author would first have had in mind his authorship of the letter. Ver. 4 does not refer to the satisfying of some need of the readers (cf. per contra 11. 1, v. 13), but to the joy and satisfaction which it affords the eye-witnesses to set forth in writing what they have heralded by word of mouth. Similarly the reference in ver. 4 cannot be to the Gospel. This would not agree with the tense nor with the plural number of γράφομεν (cf. per contra, John xix. 35, xxi. 24, above, p. 239). It is rather a statement without reference to time, embracing all of the literary work of the eye-witnesses, both past and future. This general statement refers, therefore, quite naturally to the writing in which it occurs, as well as to others. With these words the apostle expresses the joy with which he paw resorts to writing as a means of conveying to the “ his testimony to the “ Word of Life”—his message 360 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to them upon many former occasions having been delivere} orally. It affords him pleasure to employ writing also as a means to the fulfilment of his mission. Whether he has employed it often before, either in letters to his present readers (n. 4) or to others, or in the composition of a Gospel, cannot be ascertained from this passage, since it does not refer to the writings of John alone. If he had at that time written the Gospel,—which is more likely than 1 John to have been the writing referred to by the object (ταῦτα) of ypadew,—or if he was then busy with its composition, or even with the project of its com- position, he must have had this also in mind; we do not know. But as far as the others are concerned, who like him not only testify, but also write, ver. 4, which does not speak of any connection between the γράφειν and the pre- sent readers, therefore does not compel us to think of the other writers as just these disciples in Asia. Further, the lack of any element of time in γράφομεν gives us no occasion to think solely of recent writings or of writings which are about to be made. From the literature which has come down to us we must exclude the Epistles of Paul, who was not an eye-witness, as well as the Epistle of James, which contains nothing of the object of γράφειν, as it is summed up in the ταῦτα of ver. 4. On the other hand, we must remember that Peter, the witness to the Passion and exaltation of Jesus (1 Pet. v. 1; 2 Pet. i. 16-18), toward the end of his life recognised it as his duty to supplement his oral testimony by writings of various kinds, and so to give his teaching permanent form. One of these letters has not come down to us. We do not know whether any further literary purpose which he may have had was ever realised (vol. ii. 200f.).. We learn of this same desire on the part of Jude, who wrote his Epistle after the year 70 (vol. ii. 241 f.). Moreover, before this year the Apostle Matthew, and Mark, the disciple of Peter, had writt“ | their Gospels, and at the time John was living in ppnieste | THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 361 both books were known in the Churches of the province of Asia. The close relation of Mark’s Gospel to Peter, which John discussed with his disciples, justifies our considering this Gospel also as part of the literature referred to, al- though Mark himself had been only in a very limited sense an eye-witness. Briefly, it is the Christian litera- ture which since the sixties had been in process of forma- tion and which had not yet reached completion, written directly and indirectly by the eye-witnesses of the gospel story, which John includes with his own written testimony, By this address John wishes to strengthen the readers as a whole in that Christianity which has been brought to them not by him, but by others before him. He wishes to write, not that they may believe, nor that their present belief may be strengthened (cf. John xix. 35, xx. 31), but that they may become thoroughly conscious of the posses- sion of eternal life, which they have as believers on the name of the Son of God (v. 13, ef. 1 Pet. v. 12). They have received forgiveness of sins and the anointing of the Holy Spirit (ii. 12, 20, 27); they have known the Son of God who is from the beginning ; and through the faith in Him which is common to all Christians, they have over- come the World and the Evil One in whose power the present transitory world is held (ii. 12-14, v. 4f., 18f.). From the very beginning they have heard the whole truth, which alone is the important thing for them to hold fast (ii. 7, 24, 27, i. 11). Moreover, as to the prediction of the end of the world, they need only to be reminded of what they have formerly heard (ii. 18); they all possess truth not recently received through the anointing (ii. 20f., 27), but truth which they have always possessed (ii. 7, εἴχετε not ἔχετε), 1.6. before John became connected with them. But the old truth must again and continually be preached, and taken to heart, and its consequences followed out; and this is to be done in two ways: as regards morality, and as regards appreciation of the person of the Son of God. 362 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT A superfieial survey gives one the impression that 1. 5, 17 inclines toward the former, that ii. 18-iv. 6 leans at least predominantly toward the latter, and that iv. 7-v. 12 or to v. 21 unites both lines of thought. But the division cannot be strictly carried out. Even in the first two divisions the ethical is inseparably connected with the religious. The demands for purity of life in God’s light, which includes the confession of sin (i. 5-10); for the observance of the commands of Jesus in emulating His holy life (1. 4-6, cf. 11. 3), especially for brotherly love (ii. 7-11, i. 11-18), as well as for the forsaking of the love of the world (ii. 15-17 ),—are everywhere derived from the highest truths of faith and religious experience. The one and only will of God, the fulfilment of which brings to man eternal life, embraces both: belief in the Son of God, and brotherly love according to the standard of the command of Jesus (ili. 23, cf. u. 7f., 17). Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the ethical admonitions are occasioned in a different way from the Christological state- ments. In the first section 1. 5-11. 17, in which the purpose assigned for the discussion is the very simple one, that the readers may not sin (ii. 1), there appear as occasions for the exhortation only the undeniable facts that the Christians also are still burdened with sin, and that they still live in a world which exercises a seductive influence upon those who live in it and in the flesh (i. 8- 10, ii. 1b, 16). Even in the further injunctions as to moral requirements, i. 3f., 9-18, iv. 7-21, we meet everywhere only such motives for sinning as lie in the general depravity and weakness of human nature, and never a theoretical support of immorality, such as Paul— and Peter and Jude in a much more developed form—had to combat (vol. ii. 279f.). The warning against being led into error (ili. 7), which oceurs only in a single: isolated instance among the ethical discussions, and in a later passage, points unquestionably to the fact that there were THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 363 persons in the cirele of the readers who spoke as though one could be righteous without practising righteousness and avoiding sin. With an eye to such false teachers (ii. 29-iii. 12), the contrast between the righteousness which has its origin in the righteous Jesus, and which has as its goal the future perfecting of the children of God in like- ness with the Son of God, and sin, which is rebellion against God’s law, and which makes one a child of the Devil, is described as an unreconcilable antagonism, ex- tending from Cain and Abel down through human history. Perhaps one may here adduce the likewise isolated and exceedingly brief, but by reason of its position at the close, very effective warning in v. 21. Inasmuch as it is directed to the readers, who are here again tenderly addressed, and who in the whole letter appear in a very favourable light, it cannot mean that they are not to fall away to formal idol-worship, but that they are to avoid that dangerous approximation to the heathen cult against which the apostolic decree was directed (Acts xv. 20, 29, Xxl. 25, φυλάσσεσθαι), and against which Paul had so insistently warned (1 Cor. viil.—x., especially x. 14, vol. 1. 296, n, 2). Living in a land where there was a high degree of culture (ii. 16) and a flourishing cultus (v. 21), the readers do not want for enticements, and there is no lack of Gentile Christians who take lightly the duty of keeping oneself unspotted from this world. | But. still there is no trace of any libertine theory. Neither is there any hint of a connection between the phenomena by which John felt himself led to his treatment of ethical matters, and those phenomena which led him to very definite, positive and negative statements in regard to the person of Jesus. The first section which has this purpose in view, ii. 18 ff.; closes formally at 11. 26, and is followed in ii. 27 1. by a peroration, by means of which the ethical section ii. 29-1. 18 is separated from the first warning against the false teachers in ii. 18-26, just as it is separated by iii. 364 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 18-24 from the second warning against the same false teachers. With these two portions directed against the same distortion of the picture of Christ, and the peculiar statements of 1 ‚John concerning Christ which are occa- sioned by them, we may without hesitation connect the evidently similar passages in 2 John. Many deceiving teachers have appeared who seek to lead the readers astray to their own doctrine (i. 26; 2 John 7). They have gone forth from Christianity—not specifically from the circle of the present readers, which would in that case be stated in ii. 19. According to the opinion of John, however, they have not from the be- ginning, not even before they appeared with their peculiar teaching, belonged inwardly to Christianity. For him they are, as the Pharisaical Jewish Christians were to Paul, wevdaderdos from the very beginning (Gal. ii. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 26) people who, when they entered the Church, did not break completely and conscientiously with ideas and aims which proceed from their former religious condition. That became evident from the fact that they appeared with their peculiar teaching concerning Christ; and so perfectly evident did that become, that they could no longer remain in the Chureh. They are expelled from the Church (ii. 19), and that, too, against their will; the Asiatic Churches have overcome them (iv. 4). But in spite of this they themselves seek to exert their seductive influence upon these congregations, and to claim, as Christian brothers, friendship and hospitality in the houses of the members of the Church. On this account John demands that they be refused greeting and hospitality (2 John 10 f.). Their appearance is to him an omen of the approach- ing end; for they seem to him to be forerunners of the antichrist of whom Christian prophecy, based upon the prediction of Jesus, had warned men, and in this sense they themselves are antichrists (n. 5). Although they THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 365 are called “ false prophets”—+.e. teachers inspired, with the spirit of the antichrist—and even “spirits” which are to be proved (iv. 1-3), there is nothing to lead one to suppose that they employ certain forms of address characteristic of the prophets, and base their claims upon visions or special revelations. It is sufficient for this characterisation, which occurs but once, to say that they preach their pseudo-Christian doctrine with the pretension of an, inspiration coming from God. The fundamental falsehood which they champion is said to be the denial of the proposition that Jesus is the Christ; and this is characterised as a denial of the Son (11. 22 ἢ, ν. 1, 5), which might in itself be said of every Jew or Gentile who rejects the fundamental article of Christian belief (John 1. 41-49, vi. 69, xx. 31). But inasmuch as it has to do with people who not only have belonged to the Christian Church but who also wish still to be accounted Christians, it is impossible that they have in every sense denied the identity of the person of Jesus with the idea of the Christ ; as also their designation as antichrists, and false prophets animated by the spirit of the antichrist, would be inappropriate if they had fallen away from the confession of the Christian faith to a simple negation and dispute of the same. Their doctrine is rather a distorted picture of Christian belief clad in its forms. What they deny is that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (iv. 2; 2 John 7). They do not deny the idea of the Christ, nor the fact that the promised One came, but they deny Jesus, or, according to the evidently original reading, they resolve into its human and divine elements the historical person of Jesus (n. 6). They deny that the man Jesus is the Son of God (v. δ). In opposition to them, therefore, the author testifies that this man of history who went through water and blood, 1.6., who not only allowed Himself to be baptized, but dying, also shed His blood,—the Jesus of the gospel history and the Christ 366 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of the Churches’ belief—is the Son of God (n. 7). In addition to the witness, which is in the baptism by water and in the bloody death of Jesus, there is the testimony of the Spirit—of that Spirit we may say, who before Jesus, in the Prophets, including the Baptist, had borne witness to Jesus as the Christ and Son of God; who came upon Jesus at His baptism, and who has passed over from Him, as the one baptizing with the Spirit, to His Church. The testimony of the Spirit, of the water, and of the Blood is a triple and yet single witness of God that He has, in Jesus, a man living in the body, sent His Son to the world, and in Him has given it life (v. 7-12). The matter here in dispute is not to be characterised by the one word “docetism.” The reality of the human person and of the human experiences of Jesus is not denied, but the complete identity of this Jesus with the Christ and the Son of God. Excessive emphasis was laid upon the baptism of Jesus, while the significance of the death of Jesus, on the contrary, was disparaged. One can hardly understand this otherwise than that the false teachers said that in the baptism of Jesus, the Christ and the Son of God had a part, in so far as He united Himself with Jesus at the time of and by means of the baptism ; but that in the death upon the cross He had no part, in so far as He separated Himself again from Jesus before that event. In the broader sense this doctrine was, to be sure, docetie; and it is with perfect propriety that John, in answer to it, testifies that the Christ, who is inseparable from Jesus, came in the flesh (iv. 2; 2 John 7); that he emphasises the redemptive power of the blood not so much of Jesus as of the Son of God (i. 7); that he teaches the recognition of the essential purpose of the sending of the Son of God in the propitiation for sin, which is to be conceived of only through the shedding of blood (iv. 10, ii. 2); and that he, at the very beginning of the Epistle, THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 367 i, 1-8, gives assurance with such incomparable energy, that the Man whom they perceived with their senses, with whom he and his companions were allowed to associate so intimately, was the revelation of the life which had existed with the Father from the beginning, He does not say, nor prove by means of reminiscences of isolated events in the gospel narrative, that Jesus was a man, perceptible to the senses, incarnate, revealing Him- self as human in all that He did and suffered; but with the still incontestible presupposition of that tinhe, when many disciples of Jesus were still living, that these things were true of Him, he bears witness that this man was the Son of God, sent as Redeemer of the world (iv. 14), the personal and incarnate manifestation of the eternal life (i. 2). From this standpoint the polemic and apologetic attitude of the Fourth Gospel becomes more intelligible (above, p. 321); not only to crass identification of the revelation accomplished through Jesus, with the incarnate, living man, but also the emphasis upon the reality of the death of Jesus and the shedding of His blood, of which John himself was one of the witnesses. When the false teachers laid excessive emphasis upon the baptism of Jesus, and when they admitted only at His baptism a temporary personal union of the Christ and Son of God with Jesus, Jesus the man was not, to them, specifically different from other persons through whom revelation was given; and it is at least conceivable that the Baptist, through whose mediation God first made Jesus the instrument of the Christ, occupied almost as high a place as Jesus Himself. How intelligible then does it become that the Fourth Gospel, with an unmis- takably polemical purpose, portrays the Baptist as the humble witness—vastly inferior to Jesus—of the coming Son of God, manifested in Him! If we look in the history of heresies for the original of the false doctrine depicted and contested by John, we shall find what we 368 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT are seeking in the teaching of Cerinthus, the contem- porary of John of Ephesus, in so far at least as we free the true portrait of this teacher from the foreign additions by which the ignorance of the later writers on heresy have disfigured it (n. 8). The report that Cerinthus enjoyed an Egyptian education has nothing against it. If he came from that country to Ephesus, as Apollos did, the theory obtains new support from this parallel that a school of thought, connected with that of the Baptist, outside the Church from the very beginning, was formally received into the Church of the province of Asia, though it did not give up altogether its peculiar opinions (above, pp. 323, 331). In accordance with this theory is also the fact that the false teachers of 1 John had their origin probably in Christendom, though not in the Asiatic Church (i. 19, above, p. 364), so that the prophecy in Acts xx. 29, not that in Acts xx. 80, was fulfilled in their appearance. After all this evidence has been considered, there can be no doubt as to the answer to the question regarding the origin of 1 John. The unanimous tradition which attributed this writing to the author of the Fourth Gospel, is corroborated by an aflinity of thought, vocabulary, and style, such as can hardly ever be proved between an historical and a didactic writing of the same author, to say nothing of different authors (n. 9). If, without con- sidering the varied problems which John had to solve, it be claimed on the basis of certain differences, that both writings have merely issued from the same school, it is equivalent to treating these writings as impersonal works of art, or as school exereises. In 1 John it is not a school, nor the single member of a school, who speaks to these eager readers; but, as has been shown, it is a teacher of unimpeachable authority who addresses a somewhat large eirele of Gentile Christian Churches lying outside of Palestine. It is a personal disciple of Jesus who speaks THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 369 here; one who has been active formerly as a Christian teacher in other regions, but who has had for a long time the position of a spiritual father in this new field of activity. He shares this career with several others, but so far surpasses them that he does not once find it necessary to allude to himself by name. Such a state of affairs existed, as far as we know, only in the province of Asia, and between about 68-100 A.D. At the same time, we find there also the false doctrine which 1 John combats (n. 10). There must be taken into account also the fact that a writing which was originally anonymous cannot be called pseudonymous. The author cannot have intended to pass for the apostle John, without being so in fact, for he does not employ the means which are customary and indispensable for such purposes. He is, therefore, in the light of this writing, the writer of the Fourth Gospel, the John of Ephesus, and the apostle of that name. As to whether he wrote the letter earlier or later than the Gospel, the present writer would hardly be able to decide. A direct reference to the Gospel would have been very natural, if ıt had been already written and delivered to the Church. The Epistle must certainly have been written earlier than Revelation. All that we learn from the latter—a book intended for the same circle of readers—as to the condition of the Church in its relation to heathenism and to the State, as to the internal condition of the Churches, and as to the Nicolaitans and other matters—could not have failed to leave a trace in such a detailed writing as 1 John. On the other hand, John must have been at work in Asia for years, to have been able to address the Churches there in such a manner. 1 John can hardly have been written before the year 80. 1. (P. 356.) The ἀδελφοί which appears in 11. 7 and iii. 13 is genuine only in the latter passage. The readers as a body are addressed as rervia either with or without pov in ii. 1, 28, iii. 7, 18, iv. 4, v. 21, unquestionably, also in ii. 12. The expression does not mean that the Christians so addressed are youthful, as distinguished from aged, members of the Church—as is clearly VOL. II. 24 370 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT proyed by the fact that in this case the order, “children, old men, young men,* ver. 12 f., would be senseless. The same is true also of παιδία, ii. 14 (in some texts ver. 135), which in ii. 18 is certainly used to designate the readers as a body. Consequently the readers, who are alternately addressed as τεκνία (ii. 12) and as παιδία (ii. 14) (ef. John xiii. 33, xxi. 5), are twice divided into two classes, πατέρες and νεανίσκοι ; οἷ. πρεσβύτεροι and νεώτεροι, 1 Tim. v. 1f. 0 2. (Pp. 358, 359.) The text of i. 1-4, in regard to which Tischendorf and Westeott-Hort agree, is not subject to improvement. The καί before ὑμῖν in ver. 3, removed in the Antioch recension, and the second καί, to which there is no serious objection, are attested by the Passio Perp. chap. i. The double καί is not pleonastie ; in which case we should have it also in ver. 2 and ver, 5. Moreover, the relation between the disciples and the readers is already so strongly expressed by the conception κοινωνία pe? ἡμῶν that the double καί, still deemed necessary, must be explained by a contrast between the readers and other groups of Christians ; ef. Eph. vi. 21, vol. i. 490,n.6. The variations of ver. 4 from the original text are due, for the most part, to the feeling that this must refer to the composition of the Fourth Gospel. There- fore the reading ἐγράψαμεν is presupposed in the Acts of Peter (above, p. 250), Jan. Mur. line 31, and some MSS. of the Vulgate. More widely diffused is the reading ὑμῖν instead of ἡμεῖς (so as early as the Canon. Mur.), and ὑμῶν instead of ἡμῶν. Not only are ἡμεῖς and ἡμῶν better attested, but they are also favoured by the fact that these readings could not have been easily invented. Since ὑμῖν is spurious, ἡμῶν cannot as in 2 John 12, assuming that it is genuine in the latter passage, include the readers with the author and his companions. The reading ἡμεῖς, which is peculiar both in itself and because of its position (cf. iv. 14, 16), refers back to the group of eye-witnesses previously mentioned. 3. (P. 358.) In regard to John and the other disciples in Asia Minor, see vol. ii. 435, 451 f., above, pp. 191f., 193f. In 1 John i. 1-4 the reference is not to apostles but, to disciples of Jesus, There is nothing which prevents us from including Aristion and other μαθηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου. Even Philip of Hierapolis is not to be excluded. This Philip, who, because of his pro- phetically endowed daughters, who likewise resided in Asia Minor, is held in Eus. (H. E. iii. 31) to be the evangelist Philip, might the more easily be confounded with the apostle of the same name—as is done by Polycrates about 195 (Kus. H. E. v. 24. 2)—if he had been a personal diseiple of Jesus. Nothing which makes this impossible is suggested in Acts vi. 5, viii. 4-40, xxi, 8f. Of. Forsch. vi. 158-175. Whether Andrew, also, was temporarily in Asia Minor is more uncertain. Regarding Andrew and Aristion, see Forsch. vi. 217-224. The present writer thinks that in Forsch. vi. 187 f., ef. S. 177, 183, he has paid sufficient attention to the attempts to refer 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14-16 to the mystical contemplation of an epigone, instead of to an experience of the senses on the part of a life companion of Jesus. a 4. (P, 360.) The word ἔγραψα, which is thrice repeated in ii, 14, is not equivalent to γράφω as used in letters; because we find γράφω used in ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13 with reference to what is to be written immediately following. Neither does it refer to a previous letter ; for in that case first of all ver. 14 would have to precede ver. 12 and a contrast indicated between the present THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 371 letter and the earlier one by means of a νῦν, ἄρτι, πάλιν (cf. Gal. i. 9 where the antithesis is to earlier oral statements), or Τὸ δεύτερον (ef. 2 Cor. xiii. 1 f.; 2 Pet. iii. 1). Secondly, the object of the ἔγραψα is practically the same as the object of γράφω in ver. 12f. Consequently ἔγραψα is to be taken here, as in ii. 21, 26, v. 13, as an aorist referring to what immediately precedes (cf. 3 John 9). John is fond of repetition, but likes at the same time to vary his language. Paul expresses himself more tersely, cf. Phil. iv. 4. 5. (P. 364.) In 1 John ii. 18 the idea that an antichrist will come is presupposed as part of the common Christian teaching familiar to the readers, in fact we have already seen that such an idea was actually part of the common Christian faith (vol. i. 226 ff.). Only at the time when 2 Thess. was written the name ἀντίχριστος does not seem to have been as yet in common use. Neither is it strange that the readers had heard of a spirit of antichrist yet to come, iv. 3, 6; because it was predieted that he would appear in the full glory of pseudo-prophetic signs and wonders, 2 Thess. ii. 9f. Just as Paul saw the μυστήριον of the antichrist already at work in his time, so John saw the spirit of the same manifesting itself in his day (iv. 3, ἤδη ; ef. 2 Thess. ii. 7). In every teacher inspired by this spirit he perceives a preliminary incarnation of the future antichrist (ii. 18, 22, 2 John 7). The relation of this preliminary to the complete manifestation is conceived of in the same manner as in John iv. 21-23, v.25. The first is not merely analogous to the second ; it is the beginning and indieation of it. Because there are many antichrists, John recognises that “it is the last hour,” naturally not in the general sense, in which the beginning of the end comes with the appearance of Christ (1 Pet. i. 20; 1 Cor. x. 11; Heb. i. 1), nor yet in the sense that “the last hour or the last day” has come (John xi. 24, xii. 48; Matt. xxiv. 36); but in the sense that the present, which is full of significant portends of the coming end, for this very reason partakes of the character of the end, cf. Jas. v. 3, 5, 8. 6. (P. 365.) The text of iv. 3 has been very much corrected, which is proof that its original language was unusual. In the first place, it is certain that the correct reading is Ἰησοῦν without Χριστόν, which is frequently added (KL S! 55, Sah. Copt. Vulg., once also in a free quotation by Tert. ὦ 4). i.) or κύριον (X). Other readings are as follows: (A) 6 λύει Ἰησοῦν, so Iren. (Lat.) iii. 16. 8; according to the scholion of the Athos MS. ad loc. (von der Goltz, S. 48), also in the Greek text of Irevzus. In this same scholion it is stated that Cuement of Alexandria in his work on the Passover (Forsch. iii. 32), and ORIGEN in tom. 8 of his Commentary on Rom., quote the passage in this way. This is confirmed by Orig. (Lat.) in Matt. § 65, Delarue, iii. 883, cf, tom. xvi. 8 in Matt. p. 727, ob λύω τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (aceording to Cramer, Cat. v. 226 on 1 Cor. xii. 6, Origen, however, seems, moreover, to have known the B reading, which is found also in the text of the Athos MS.). Here belong also certain “ancient MSS.” referred to by Socrates, H. E. vii. 32, who appeals at the same time to ancient interpreters ; also by TErTUL- LIAN (6. Mare. v. 16, negantes Christwm in carne venisse [according to 1 John iv. 2; 2John 7], et solventes Jeswm [according to iv. 3]; Je. 1: nec quod Jesum Christum solvant); Lucırer, ed. Vindob. 262. 3; PriscıLıan, p- 31.3; Aveustine, Vulg. (+Christum) etc. (B) 6 μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν AB, with the added Χριστόν, Sahid. Copt. (C) The reading B with the addition 372 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ev σαρκὶ eAnAvdöra, NKL 51 58, (D) The reading A with almost the same addition in Ticonius, Lib. Reg., ed. Burkitt, p. 68. 1, qui solvit Jesum et negat in carne venisse. (E) Quite as isolated is the reading in Cypr. Test. ii. 8, where simply qui autem negat in carne venisse is added as ver. 3 at the end of 1 John iv. 2. Other very early witnesses, such as Polye. vii. 1; Tert. Carn. Chr. xxiv., refers rather to 2 John 7—a passage which Irenzeus, Pris- cillian, and others quote in connection with 1 John iv. 3, which also Tert. c. Mare. v. 16 freely quotes in connection with the same passage. Readings CDE are clearly derived from 2 John 7 under the influence of 1 John iv. 2. B likewise is only an “improvement” of the original A text. 7. (P. 366.) In regard to the sentence v. 6a, which is interpreted in very different ways, the following remarks may be made: (1) The οὗτος which points backward can take up again only the predicate ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ, not the subject Ἰησοῦς in ver. 5, and is itself the predicate; otherwise ὁ ἐλθών instead of ἦλθεν and the appositional phrase "Inc. Xp., added at the end, are impossible. The expression is not smooth, but such language is often found in John (John vi. 50, 58, cf. 33). The name “the Son of God” is applicable to Him, who has gone through water and blood, namely, to Jesus Christ. (2) ὁ ἐλθών is not equivalent to ὁ ἐρχόμενος. It certainly, therefore, cannot refer to a repeated coming in the sacraments, or yet to the coming of Christ into the world, or to His public appearance. For, in the first place, in that case it would be necessary to refer to the flesh (cf. iv. 2; 2 John 7); and, in the second place, water and blood were not the medium through which Christ came into the world or entered upon His public work, nor were they associated with His coming or with His public manifestation (ef. 2 Cor. ii. 4, “I wrote unto you with many tears”). Still less does the passage mean that Christ thus equipped and clothed came into the world, in whichever sense this is taken. That would require ἐν not dua. The word ἔρχεσθαι means here, as it does else- where (vol. ii. 589, n. 4, also John iv. 30, vi. 17, xxi. 3), “to go” ; consequently with dua= διέρχεσθαι, “to go through.” Jesus underwent the baptism of blood as well as the baptism of water (Mark i. 9, x. 38 f.). On the strength of this statement John could add that Jesus the Christ is to be found not “in the water alone, but in the water and in the blood.” Whoever seeks Him and hopes to find Him in the water alone “ has not the Son,” and so is without the Father and without the life” (v. 12, ii. 23). | With reference to the so-called “Comma Joanneum ” about the three heavenly witnesses after 1 John v. 7, it is sufficient to refer to Tischendorf ad loc., Weste.-Hort, App. 103, and to Scrivener, Introd,* ii. 401-407, for the literature. But none of these authorities cite the earliest quotation of the passage which is certain and which can be definitely dated (circa 380), namely, that of Priscillian (p. 6) and the possibly contemporane- ous quotation in the Hxpositio Fidei Cathol. (in Caspari, Kirchenhistor. Anecd. S. 305), which quotation is apparently taken from the proselyte Isaac (alias Ambrosiaster). Nevertheless, on the 13th of January 1897, the Congr. 8. R. et U. Inquisitionis declared that denial or doubt of the authenticity of this passage was not unobjectionable; cf. the present writer’s lecture, Uber die bleibende Bedeutung des ntl. Kanons, 1898, S. 26. Conscientious Catholic theologians, however, have not allowed this declaration to prevent them from proving so much the more thoroughly the apocryphal origin of this interpolation. So especially Kiinstle, Das Comma Joannewm auf seine THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 373 Herkunft untersucht, 1905, who seeks to show that Priscillian is the author of it. 8. (P. 368.) Concerning the real teaching of Cerinthus, see vol. 1. 515, n. 4; concerning the opinion of the Alogi that Cerinthus was the author of the Johannine writings, see above, p. 200f. n. 11; for his personal relations to John, above, p. 204, n. 24. If he denied the possibility of the virgin con- ception and birth of Jesus (Iren. i. 26. 1), the fact throws a new light on John i. 13 f. (above, p. 265 f.). John’s references to Mark, which are partieu- larly evident, must also be considered in the light of the fact that Cerinthus admitted only this Gospel to be genuine (vol. ii. 456, n. 16). No trust- worthy witness charges Cerinthus with gross immorality or antinomian ethies, and this agrees with the tone of 1 and 2 John (above in the text, p. 362f.). Not even 2 John 11 can be made to support such theories and practice on the part of heretics ; since τὰ ἔργα τὰ πονηρά is only a description of their moral attitude as a whole, and their conduct as tending to mislead the children of God; ef. John 111. 19, vii. 7; 1 John iii. 12; 3 John 10. But it is evident that John failed to discover in them the true love of God and of their brethren. The πολλοί in 1 John ii. 18, iv. 1; 2 John 7 does not refer to a number of different types of errorists, but to the strong follow- ing secured by one type of them. The reason why their teaching found acceptance, is their use of non-Christian ideas and forms of expression, 1 John iv. 5. Cerinthus was learned in Egyptian wisdom and culture (Hipp. Ref. vii. 33, x. 21) ; he was a Gnostie. 9. (P. 368.) Regarding the relation of 1 John to the Gospel of John, see Holtzmann, JbfPTh, 1881, S. 699 ; 1882, S. 128, 316, 460. In order to show the elose relationship between 1 John and the Gospel of John, it would be necessary to place beside nearly every sentence of 1 John two or three parallels from the Gospel. They agree, too, in not using certain conceptions, elsewhere widely current, such as εὐαγγέλιον (in the Johannine writings only in Rey. xiv. 6, and there not of preaching ; ἀγγελία is used instead in 1 John i. 5, iii. 11), εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (neither word is found in James, Jude, and 2 Peter). That the resemblance between 1 John and the Gospel is not greater, only goes to confirm what is apparent from the Gospel itself, namely, that John in writing the Gospel was conscious of the difference between the language of Jesus and the understanding of the disciples at that time on the one hand, and the language and understanding of the Church on the other hand. He does not represent Jesus as using the name Logos, but himself employs it as a well-known phrase. Comparing 1 John i. 1 with John 1. 1, 14, perhaps one can say that in the letter the conception of the Logos seems to be less fixed and the name less formal. There is nothing strange about the use of παράκλητος in 1 John ii. 1 to describe the relation of the exalted Jesus to God and to the Church (vol. i. 64f.) ; because in John xiv. 16, Jesus represents Himself as having been heretofore the paraclete of the disciples. Not in every respect does He cease to be a paraclete because of His exaltation. But His Church, which remains on earth, needs for its. life in the world another Paraclete which will remain with it. Neither Jesus nor Paul mention the “antichrist ” by this name (above, n. 5). It is a mis- conception, however, to assume that the Fourth Gospel excludes the common eschatological views of the early Christians. To show this in detail would 374 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT require a complete exposition of John iii. 17-19, iv. 21-23, v. 20-29, vi 39, 44, 54, xi. 24-26, xii. 48, xiv.—xvi. 10. (P. 369.) Of the heresies of the post-apostolic age none has nearly sc many points of contact with the errors which John opposes as the real teach- ing of Cerinthus, certainly not the Jewish docetism of Ignatius or the gnosis of Basilides. While in Cerinthus the cosmological speculations and the speculations based on the historical treatment of religion appear to be little developed, Basilides has a well developed system. Although Basilides may have laid a certain emphasis upon the baptism of Jesus (Clem. Hx. ὁ. Theodoto, 16; Strom. i. 146), there is no evidence that his teaching on this point was the same‘as that of Cerinthus. The errorists of 1 John exhibit none of Basilides’ phantastie docetism (Iren. i. 24. 4) and loose morals (Iren. i, 24. 5 ; Clem. passim). Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the teachings of Basilides spread from Egypt to Asia Minor. § 71. THE LESSER EPISTLES OF JOHN (N. 1). The Third Epistle of John is evidently a letter of recommendation which the author has given to some Christians who wish to journey from his place of residence to that of Gaius, the person addressed. Their purpose, however, is not to settle in this new place, but to continue their journey. They are commended to Gaius that he may show them hospitality and send them forward on their way (5-7, n. 2). Apparently, not long before the same brethren have experienced similar kindness from Gaius. The author expresses his pleasure and gratitude (n. 2) that these brethren, who had recently returned to his home, which seems also to have been their own, have borne witness not only to the genuineness of Gaius’ char- acter and manner of life, but also to his love; and have commended it before the assembled congregation (3-6). It is this same love which Gaius is again to show them. These brethren are not, however, persons who, as private individuals, live a restless, roving life; they are preachers of the gospel, or rather travelling missionaries. As such they receive no help from those outside the Church, and are therefore so much the more dependent upon the hospitality of fellow-Christians (7). Whoever entertains such persons co-operates in the spreading of Christian THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 375 truth (8). This describes quite fully the occasion and purpose of the letter ; since what follows serves really to explain why the author addresses the communication to Gaius and not to someone else. This would require no justification if Gaius occupied an official position in the local Church, upon which rested the duty of caring for missionaries and other Christians passing through the place. But there is no hint of this. Gaius seems to be a member of a congregation, who is upon friendly terms with the author, and whose means, as in the case of his namesake at Corinth, enables him to practise hospitality upon an extraordinary scale (n. 3). Since, however, the exercise of such Church hospitality is the business of the congregation, and therefore the affair of its presiding officer (n. 3), it is most strange that the travellers are recommended to Gaius exclusively, instead of to the local Church or to Gaius as its leader, with the injunction to interest the remaining members of the congregation in the matter. It is this, however, which is explained in vv. 9 ff. To be sure, the author also wrote a letter to the consrega- tion to which Gaius belonged; but in this he could not and would not write what he writes to Gaius alone; for he could not be sure that his request would be granted (n. 4). Although we should expect him to have exhorted the congregation, either directly or through their leader, to entertain the missionaries,—especially since, apart from this, he had, at that time, to write to the congregation, and actually did write to them,—the remark about Diotrephes makes any such hypothesis impossible; for Diotrephes does not recognise the authority of the author and of the other disciples of Jesus (n. 5), who like him have come into the circle of the local Church. He will not be advised by them, and ventures even to make derogatory remarks about them. In fact, not satisfied with this, he refuses to receive the brethren recommended by the author— such as the travelling missionaries who 376 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT are the bearers of the letter to Gaius; and not only forbids their reception by the members of the congrega- tion, who would have been inclined to receive them, but excludes from its membership such as do not submit te his orders. Diotrephes, consequently, possesses great power in the local Church, and exercises it in a direction hostile to the author, and directly opposed to the measures which he recommends. ‘The author is not at all inclined to allow Diotrephes to continue to do as he pleases. He plans, when next he visits the place where Diotrephes and Gaius reside, to bring to issue the evil conduct of the former (10, 14), and to do this before the assembled congregation ; for his purpose is not simply to remind Diotrephes of his duties, but rather to bring to their minds his evil words and deeds (10, ὑπομνῆσαι without αὐτόν; cf. 1 Tim. v. 20). Until such time, however, the author refrains from addressing letters of recommendation in behalf of journeying brethren to the congregation in which this imperious man rules, or to the man himself. The description of the conduct of Diotrephes, especially the ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει, presupposes that he occupies an official position, formally recognised even by those who do not agree with him, and one which even the author is bound to consider, and which enables him successfully to play the autocrat., The conclusion drawn from the description of him as ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν, that Diotrophes was only striving for the position of autocratic bishop, is shown from the facts adduced to be unjustified (n. 6). He already has this official position, and what he is accused of is simply that he employs it in an imperious and ruinous manner; that he is an ambitious hierarch who does not follow the precept of Jesus (Mark x. 44) and the example and exhortation of the apostles (1 Pet. v. 3; 2 Cor. i. 24), being in addition an opponent of the author and of the other disciples of Jesus in that Church circle. This assertive and hostile attitude is not due merely to THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 377 the fact that, as lord in his own house, he will not allow himself to be dietated to by these men in the affairs of his congregation. The insufficiency of such a theory is evident from the simple fact that it is unproved, and that it is unlikely that others of the apostolic circle besides the author occupied a similar superior ecclesiastical office in the Asiatic Church. His attitude is rather, like the instance in 1 John iv. 6, one of contradiction of the apostolic teaching (n. 5). The leader of this congregation is an enemy of the author and of his companions; but there are in the same place we know not how many persons such as Gaius, and perhaps also a certain Deme- trius (12), upon whom the author looks as his friends and to whom he sends greetings by name (15). That which distinguishes these persons from Diotrephes, however, is not merely a respectful friendship for the author or a greater measure of practical brotherly love for the Chris- tians travelling through their locality (6, 10, τοὺς βουλο- μένους); for the thing to which the missionaries bore witness upon their return from the home of Gaius, and that at which the author particularly expresses his pleasure, is that Gaius possesses the truth and walks therein (3, 4), which, according to 2 John 4ff., 1 John i. 7 ff., certainly cannot be taken to mean a theoretical orthodoxy, still less an active brotherly love alone. It is rather the firm adherence to the apostolic teaching which shows itself in life. That this is the testimony given of Gaius, distinguishing him from others (3, where σύ is not to be disregarded), shows clearly enough that Diotrephes is not attached to that truth, and that he is, principally on that account, unfriendly towards its advocates—i.e. to the author and the other disciples and missionaries recom- mended by him. It by no means follows that he was on this account a declared false teacher. The false teachers of 1 John were expelled from their congregations; not one of them could have been the leader of a loeal Church 378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT But one who refuses as decidedly as does Diotrephes to give ear to the apostolic wishes (ef. 1 John iv. 6), and who speaks so disrespectfully of those who communicate them (8 John 10), marks himself thereby a confederate of these errorists ; and it may be assumed that his rejection of the missionaries recommended by the author carries with it a suspicious toleration of the πλάνοι. In spite of the schism which divided the congregation, and the strained relations existing between Diotrephes and him- self, the author wrote a letter to the Church of which the former was the presiding officer (3 John 9). When, in consideration of the power of Diotrephes over the con- gregation, the author does not take up the subject of practical demands which call for immediate fulfilment, he surely does not contemplate giving up his position of authority over that local Church. He intends soon to assert it in person (10a), and he already manifests it in his letter. He has friends; there who at times are oppressed by Diotrephes (1, 105, 15), and he looks upon all the members of the congregation as his children, even if he is able to take pleasure only in those who walk in the truth (4). Fortunately we are not constrained to guess what the author wrote in the letter to the congregation, of Diotrephes, since we possess it in 2 John. According to 3 John 9 (&ypaya te) it was brief in form,—in fact it is shorter than any other Epistle in the N.T. with the exception of 3 John. It is so exactly like 2 John in extent, that one must assume that the author used two pages of papyrus (χάρται, 2 John 12) of the same size for both these letters (n. 7). Furthermore, the stylistic form of both is so very similar, that, for this reason also, it cannot be doubted that both are from the hand of the same author, and were written at the same time (n. 7). In both of them the author expresses his hope of coming soon to those whom he is addressing, and, instead THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 379 of the unsatisfactory epistolary communication, to speak to them face to face. In 2 John nothing is said about recommending travelling missionaries, just as there was nothing on this subject in the letter to the congregation mentioned in 8 John 9, if we interpret it rightly. But 2 John is really directed to a local Church which the author addresses as a chosen mistress, as the mother of its members, wedded to the Lord Christ, and as a sister of the Church in the place where he is living, 1, 5, 13 (n. 8). We find here the same contrast which existed in the con- gregation of Gaius. The author found only a few children of the congregation to be walking in the truth (4). In fact, it must have happened that persons who did not hold the apostolic doctrine, but the same false doctrine that is combated in 1 John, received hospitality among the people, if we are to understand why the author so earnestly warns against the very thing which is con- demned in the first Epistle, and stigmatises even the friendly greeting of such persons as participation in their evil ways (10,11). "The author includes all the members of the congregation in sincere love; not because of their virtues, but because of his faith in the enduring truth, which in Christians is not easily destroyed (1 f.). He uses great moderation of expression when, instead of rebuking the others, he speaks of his special pleasure at the good behaviour of many of the members of the congregation (4). His appeal goes out to the whole congregation to hold fast to the ‘old command of love, to the old truth of Jesus Christ as come in the flesh, and to the doctrine of Christ Himself, and the warning not to lose, in their folly, the whole harvest of the labour of their Christian life (5-9; n. 9). ‘The danger in which this local congregation stood was great; but Diotrephes had not yet reached the point where he could hinder the reading of the letter before the assembled congregation. The author does not give the congregation up, but trusts, by means of both letters, to 380 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT prepare the way for the discussion in which he hopes te contend with Diotrephes and to restore the congregation to the right and proper way of thinking. The author mentions by name neither himself nor the locality to which he is sending the letter by the hand of travelling missionaries; he characterises himself rather as “the Elder” (ὁ πρεσβύτερος) who has a right to consider as his children also the Christians of other parts of the pro- vince in which he lives (2 John 1; 3 John 1, 4). This is the name applied in the circle of his disciples to the John who lived in Ephesus (vol. 11. 435 ff., pp. 451fl. ; above, 184f.). A man of letters who wished to pose as the apostle John, would have brought himself into the Epistle under the name and plain title of the latter. The apostle John could, thanks to his unique position in the Church of Asia, either neglect entirely the introduction of himself (1 John) or, in the case of real letters (2 and 3 John), select an appellation which had become current in daily life. Concerning the date of the composition of the Epistles only conjectures are possible. The disinclination to write (2 John 12; 3 John 13), which stands in such contrast to the pleasure which it gives him in 1 John 1. 4, may be due to the painful occasion which gave rise to the lesser Epistles, but may also be explained by the increasing age of the author, in which case the term ὁ πρεσβύτερος which he gives himself would be most appropriate. The aggravation of the internal factionalism of the congrega- tion, which is merely hinted at in 1 John iv. 6, may be due to the fact that 1 John is directed to the Churches of Asia, which on the whole were a source of satisfaction to the apostle ; while, on the other hand, the lesser Epistles refer to a local Church in which exceptionally critical con- ditions had developed. But a further development may have taken place. The abuse which Diotrephes made of his episcopal position seems to take for granted that this institution was not one which was entirely new. At the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 38i same time it is likely that 2 and 3 John were written several years later than 1 John. 1. (P. 374.) Recent works on the subject are : Pog@er, Der 2 and 3 Brief des Apostels Jo. 1896; HARNACK, TU, xv. 3b, 1897, on Third John ; CHAPMAN, “The historical setting of the 2. and 3. epistles of St. John,” JThS, 1904, p. 357 ff., 517 ff. Chapman infers from 3 John 7 that the strangers, who had been hospitably received by Gaius, had journeyed to the East from Rome, on account of the persecution of Nero. One of these was Demetrius (ver. 12), identical with Demas (Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 10), in whose home city, Thessalonica, Gaius was also resident; the same Gaius as the native of Corinth mentioned in Rom. xvi. 23, who, according to a tradition referred to by Origen, became the first bishop of Thessalonica. Therefore Diotrephes also lived in the same city ; and the letter, referred to in 3 John 9, but not extant to-day, was directed to that city. 2 John is subjected to similar caprices. 2. (P. 374.) The reference to hospitality is given in ver. 5, καὶ τοῦτο ξένους; ver. 6, προπέμψεις refers to aid on the journey (vol. ii. 54, n. 4). For ἐχάρην λίαν in ver. 3, ef. Philem. 7; Phil. iv. 10; Polye. Phil. i. 1 ; vol. i. 456, n. 3. In ver. 3, ἀδελφῶν, which is without an article, might refer to other than the persons mentioned in ver. 5, except that in ver. 6 μαρτυρεῖν, which we find in 6 as in ver. 3, is attributed to those who are now journeying to Gaius, only in ver. 6 the word has a more definite object. For ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος, οἷ. Rom. 1. δ; for τὸ ὄνομα, which = the name of Christ, see Acts v. 41=ix. 16, xv. 26. In the Didache, xi. 3-6, we learn of the itinerant missionary preachers of a somewhat later period, called ἀπόστολοι (cf. also vol. i. 290 f., 302, 306). 3. (P. 375.) This Gaius can hardly be identical with the Gaius of Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14; Rom. xvi. 23), nor with the Macedonian of the same name (Acts xix. 29), but perhaps he is the same as the Gaius of Derbe (Acts xx. 4; vol. i. 209, n. 2). This Gaius is referred to in Const. vii. 46, where he is represented as having been ordained by John as bishop of Pergamum, just as Demetrius, mentioned in 3 John 12, is made bishop of Philadelphia. That φιλοξενία was a duty everywhere incumbent upon the Christians is evidenced by 3 John 8; ef. Tit. iii, 14; 1 Tim. v. 10; Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii, 2; 1 Pet. iv.9; but because it was the duty of the Church, it was a special obligation on the part of those at the head of the Church (1 Tim. iii, 2; Tit.i.8; Herm. Sim. ix. 27; Just. Apol. i. 67). Letters of introduc- tion in the apostolic Church were always directed to the Church (Rom. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. iii. 1, viii. 23 f.; Polye. ad Phil. xiv.). 4, (P. 375.) The reading ἔγραψα ἄν instead of ri, ver. 9, is due either to the feeling that it is improper for an apostle to confess that he is powerless against the Church, or, less probably, if the reference to 2 John is denied, to the desire to avoid the necessity of assuming a lost letter. It is of itself quite conceivable that John should say that in a letter to the Church he had already made the same request and recommendation that he does in 3 John, knowing, however, that it was useless, because Diotrephes would use his influence against it. But (1) in that case we should have, instead of ri, rather περὶ τούτων, αὐτὸ τοῦτο, or some similar expression ; (2) it is hardly likely that John would have made his request of the Church when he knew that it would be refused 382 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT because of the opposition of Diotrephes; (3) it is certain also.on other grounds that our 2 John is here meant, which says nothing concerning the introduction of travelling Christians. The situation, therefore, is rather that outlined above, pp. 374, 381. 5. (P. 375.) Of course, after the constant use of the personal-pronoun “1” in the letter, the ἡμᾶς in vv. 9 and 10 cannot mean John alone, nor John and all who thought as he did, for the reason that the reference here is not to the hospitable reception of travelling brethren, as in ver. 105, but to the recognition of authority and respect for exhortations. Consequently the reference here, as in 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 6, 14, must be to John and the other eye-witnesses who were in the province ; above, p. 357 f. 6. (P. 376.) The word $i\dmporos= English, ambitious (Artemia: ii. 32; Plut. Mor. 844 ἘΠ, does not mean one who is not yet πρῶτος, any more than φιλάργυρος means a poor man merely desirous of obtaining money (cf. φιλόλογος, φιλόσοφος, φιλότιμος, φιλόπονος, φιλόνεικος, φιλόξενος). It cam refer to persons of distinetion, ambitiously inclined, who lay undue weight upon their position as such and misuse it, as well as to those who are desirous of winning such a position for the first time (ef. Matt. xxiii. Ger = Mark xii, 38f.; Clem. Ep..ad Jac. ii. ἡ τοιαύτη καθέδρα (the bishop’s chair) οὐ φαρνάθεδ μεθ βξαδ τολμηροῦ χρείαν ἔχει, Iren. iv. 26. 3 speaks of presbyters, &.e. of holders of the πρωτοκαθεδρία (ef. Clem. Strom. vi. 106 1, ; Herm. Vis. iii. 9. 7), who con- twmelits agunt reliquos et principalis consessionis (πρωτοκαθεδρίας) tumore elati sunt; ef. 1 Tim. iii. 6. To this class belongs Diotrephes, although, according to 3 John 9-10, he is not, like the προηγούμενοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας in Rome in the time of Hermas (Joc. cit., and vol. ii. 124, n. 5), a member of the πρεσβυτέριον, but a ruler. What John may write to the Church is without effect save as Diotrephes allows it to be effective. He determines how travelling Christians shall be received. Those who do not submit to his will he excommunicates. If there were even moderate opposition on the part of other office-holders, or if there were co-operation between him and them, there would be some hint of it. Demetrius, who is mentioned in ver. 12, may be a presbyter who opposed Diotrephes—an assumption which possibly gets some support from the reading ἐκκλησίας instead of ἀληθείας, ver, 12 (see Gwynn, Hermathena, 1890, p. 304). But in that case the official position of the presbyter, as over against the bishop, must have been very weak. Demetrius may also have been one of the missionaries (vv. 3-8), the leader of the company of travellers. John makes no attempt to weaken the oficial position of Diotrephes by defining the latter’s rights and the rights of others; he simply reproves Diotrephes’ opinions, words, and deeds on moral grounds. 7. (P. 378.) According ‘to Nestle’s edition, 2 John consists of only 33 lines, of which two contain only a few words, and two are not complete ; 3 John likewise consists of 33 lines, of which six are incomplete. Counting the letters, and allowing 36 letters for the ancient line, gives for 2 John 32) lines, for 3 John not quite 31 lines; ef. GX, i. 76, ii. 397. The resemblance of style is closer than between Eph. and Col., or between 1 Tim. and Tit. Of. ὁ πρεσβύτερος (without a name)... obs (dv) ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (2 John 1; 3 John 1), ἐχάρην lav... περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καθώς (4 and 3), εἰργάσασθε (8 and 5) ; cf. especially 2 John 12, and 3 John 13-14, 8. (Ὁ. 379.) It is true that Kupia does occur, although seldom, as a proper THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 381 name, and is found in Asia Minor (ef. Sterrett, The Wolfe Exped. p. 138, No. 237 ; p. 389, No. 564; Epigraph. Journey, p. 167, No. 159), as does also Κύριος, which is found even in the Talmud, Jer. Shabbath, 7c; Beza, 61d ; ef. the Aramaic name Martha, with the meaning κυρία. Even if this render- ing were possible in 2 John 5, it is out of the question in ver. 1, where we should certainly expect Kupia τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ (cf. ver. 13; Rom. xvi. 13, cf. 8-10, and the entire list of names in this passage where similar epithets are used ; see also Ign. Smyrn. xiii. 2). Neither can κυρία be the title of a woman of rank ; because, in the first place, the early Christians by common consént refrained from the use of such titles (above, p. 81, n. 3); in the second place, while such a title might be used in address (ver. 5; ef. Phil. iv.3; 1 Tim. vi. 11), ina greeting it would have to stand in apposition to a proper name (1 Tim. i. 2; Philem. 1). While S* S° transeribe κυρία as a proper name, ἐκλεκτή is so taken by Clement of Alexandria. He seems to have discovered the same name in ver. 13 also, where he construed it in apposition to cov. On this basis he appears to have justified the identification of the woman addressed in 2 John as ’ExAe«xrn with the συνεκλεκτή of 1 Pet. v.13. In this way he makes her a Babylonian, and maintains that under existing political conditions she and her children, who are likewise addressed, were Parthians. In this way arose the mythical title or subscription to 2 John, πρὸς Πάρθους (misread παρθένους by the Latin translator of Clement). In the West this was transferred to 1 John, and even to all three of the Epistles (cf. Forsch. iii. 92, 99 1}}.Ψ The opinion that κυρία is a figurative name for a local church is not a new discovery (cf. Scholion of Matthei, pp. 153 and 242, where, however, the question as to whether the reference is to a man or to a church is left undecided); Jerome, Ep. exxiii. 12, Val.2 i. 909. Since 1 Pet. was highly esteemed by the disciples of John in Asia, to which province the Epistle was directed, it is not unlikely that John was acquainted with it, and that 1 Pet. v.13 led him to personify the Church, and to employ the word ἐκλεκτός, which is very rarely used by him elsewhere (only in John i. 34, above, p. 284, n. 2, and Rev. xvii. 17). ‘The Church is not only the bride of Christ (John iii. 29; Rev. xxii. 14), but also His wife (Rev. xxi. 9; Eph. v. 22-32; cf. Rom. vii. 4), and what is true of the Church as a whole is applicable to the individual Church (2 Cor. xi. 2), only in this case the Church is not “the wife,” but a “ wife of the κύριος," so that κυρία stands without the article. The transfer of the name κύριος in its feminine form to the wife is not a customary Jewish, Greek, or Roman usage, but yet it finds a certain analogy in the use of the term Shulamite in Cant. vii. 1 [Eng. vi. 13], the choice of which word is, without prejudice to its original meaning, determined by its relation to Solomon. Neither does the interpretation of the word to mean an individual woman agree with the contents of the Epistle. If John wished to say that he had had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with some of this woman’s children while on a visit to their aunt (ver. 13), and of hearing that they were good Christians,—while in ver. 1 he assumes the same to be true of the woman’s other children, whom he did not know personally,—the language of ver. 4 is impossible. This is practically Poggel’s position (work cited n. 1), 8.137 ff. Moreover, the greeting in ver. 3, the apostolic fulness and solemnity of which are in strong contrast to the almost secular tone of 3 John 2 (vol. i.78,n. 2; 119, n. 7), shows that it is not a friendly family 384 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which is here addressed, but a Church in which there was much to be desired in the way of grace, compassion, peace, love, and truth. 9. (P. 379.) It is assumed that eipyaracde (Iren. iii. 16.8; Lucifer, p. 29; NA S? S®) is the correct reading in 2 John 8. The recollection of such passages as 1 Thess. iii. 5; Gal. iv. 11; Phil. ii. 16, caused the correction to eipyaraneda (B Sah. Vulg. Cop. margin of S*, «.e. Egyptian texts), in con- formity to which were written ἀπολέσωμεν and ἀπολάβωμεν (KLP, 1:6. Antiochian texts), whereas, as a matter of fact, John vi. 27-29, 1 Thess. i. 3, are a close analogy. § 72. THE NATURE, STRUCTURE, AND UNITY OF REVELATION. The book which we are accustomed to call the Revelation of John after its author, who speaks of himself repeatedly by name (i. 1, 4, 9, xxi. 8), styles itself the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to impart to His servants, announcing through it prophetically what must shortly come to pass. In carrying out this divine com- mission, Jesus, through His angel, imparted the revelation given Him to His servant John, who committed to writing all that it had been given him to see, and so presented, in his book, the word of God and the testimony of Christ (i. 1-2, ἢ. 1); for in the last analysis it is God who speaks to John, and Christ who testifies to him. The decision to put into writing the revelation which he had received, and to send it to seven Churches of Asia, was not his own ; it was the execution of a task repeatedly imposed upon him in the vision, both as regards the whole of what he had seen, and in respect of its separate parts (111519; ii ὃς B,-etelye xive' 18) xix9,oxxi6, ROY: Only once is he forbidden to write down a communication made to him (x. 4). The condition in which he represents himself when he saw and heard that which goes to make up the contents of his book is described as one of ecstasy, and his seeing and hearing as that of a vision (1. 10, iv. 2, n. 1). On the other hand, when the revelation comes to him through an angel, even when the appearance is not a visible and audible one (i. 1, xxii. 6, 8, 16, ἃ. 1), the author THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 385 will have us understand that the ecstatic state and all the events therein experienced and impressions therein received are the direet results of the influence upon his nature, of this heavenly messenger. It is upon this origin of the book and its contents that the author bases the conscious- ness that in it he has, as a human witness (1. 2; cf. xxii. 8, 18), presented the word of God and the testimony of Christ ; and thus has the right to call his work a revelation (i. 1) and a word and book of prophecy (i. 3, xxii. 7, 10, 18, 19). It is but another way of expressing the same thing when this communication to John, and through him to different persons and Churches, is said to be the word of the Spirit to those for whom the book is intended (ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; in. 6; 13, 225 ef. xxi. 16f.); for even the re- cording of the revelation, bidden as he is to make it, is a προφητεύειν (x. 11), and what the prophet speaks or writes is everywhere a declaration of the Spirit (Acts xxi. 11, 1 Tim. iv. 1; 1 Thess. v. 19 f., n. 2). The Revelation of John consequently takes its place as a part of Christian prophecy, which, as a source of know- ledge, edification, and action, was such a powerful and highly esteemed manifestation of the Spirit in the time of the apostles. Revelation is distinguished from the other products of this Christian prophecy merely in the fact that it is a written record of revelation received ; whereas the prophets, so far as we know, had up to this time contented themselves with oral utterance. In this Reve- lation becomes a continuation of the writings of the O.T. prophets (n. 2). An understanding of the contents, origin, and value of Revelation, indeed even of the mean- ing of many individual passages, and of the nature of the book itself, is impossible until one has at least stated clearly the question with what right the author speaks thus of himself and of his book, and has answered it with the candour which is indispensable in scientific thinking. [Ὁ is a misuse of language to speak of the author of the book VOL. III. 25 386 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT as the “ Seer,” and to hold at the same time that he saw nothing but some books lying about him within the light of his study lamp; while it is a violation of the laws of historical criticism to assume that the author himself was as confused in regard to the origin of the pictures repre- sented as his visions, as are many scholars who seek to explain them. His statements mentioned just above leave nothing to be desired in the way of clearness; and the claim which he makes for his rendering of the revelations received (i. 2 f., xxii. 18 f.) bears no evidence of uncertainty. When, as author of the book, he represented himself to be a witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus, he must have known as well as Paul, as a preacher, that there are false witnesses, who report as facts things which have never occurred (1 Cor. xv. 15). He protests the same horror at all lying (xxi. 27, xxi. 15; cf. xiv. 5) as the John of the Gospel and of the Epistles. In declaring his book to be prophetic—ranking himself thus on the one hand with the prophets of the O.T., and on the other with those of the apostolic age—he does not claim absolute infallibility ; for the prophets of the apostolic age had to subject themselves to the criticism of their fellow-Christians, and were under necessity of being cautioned against un- natural excitement, and the infusion of their own thoughts and desires into what was given them by the Spirit (n. 2). But there is no doubt that, in so estimating himself and his book, he assures us of the absence of any conscious admixture of this sort. On the other hand, every Christian prophet of that time must have been conscious of the con- trast between the true and the false prophets who appeared among them, especially one who was acquainted with such persons in his immediate neighbourhood (Rev. ii, 20 ; 1 John iv. 1, cf. Matt. vii. 15-23, xxiv. 11, 24; Luke vi! 26; 2 Pet. ü. 1; Rey. xix. 20). These are, without exception, depicted as immoral men, and in some cases as preachers of false doctrine. But the idea of false prophets involves THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 387 neither immorality nor false teaching (n. 2, end); it is rather the pretending to be a prophet and to have received divine revelation without this really having been the case (Rev. ii. 20; Jer. xiv. 14; Deut. xviii. 20-22). They are to be known by their fruits in life and in doctrine ; but to these fruits belongs, first of all, the sincerity of their state- ments as to the origin of their preaching. In the case of the early Christian, there can be no suspicion of confusion in regard to these elemental truths. From the name ἀποκάλυψις, a title never borne by any writing before the time of Revelation, has been divined the idea of an “apocalyptic literature.” The determining features of this class of writing (n. 3) are secured, however, not from the specific peculiarities of the Revelation of John, but from certain formal similarities between it and the Book of Enoch, the Book of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees, IV Ezra, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Sibylline Oracles, the Ascension of Moses, and the Ascension of Isaiah. Even if one considers the Book of Daniel, the first specimen of the “ apocalyptic literature,” on the assumption that it was composed about 168 B.c., common sense and an uncorrupted taste rebel at placing in the same literary group the Revelation of John, although it be the one from which the group has been named. A presentation of the world’s historical development in the form of prophecy purporting to be of an earlier date, if it occurs at all in Revelation, is an entirely subordinate feature of the book. As far as the pseudonymy is concerned, which consti- tutes the very essence of this literature, who can compare the name of Enoch or Moses, or even Daniel, Baruch, or Ezra, with that of John! The writers of these books transported themselves hundreds and thousands of years into the past, clothed themselves with the illustrious names of hoary antiquity, and then addressed themselves to the eredulous public of their own day, without even so much 388 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT as fabricating a personal relationship to it. In Revelation. on the other hand, a man speaks to seven Churches of the province of Asia, and commits to them his book. He is accurately acquainted with their present condition (ὃ 73), and speaks to them under the name of John—a name which circa 70-100 was borne by the most prominent ecclesiastical personality in that region; and all this is done, according to tradition, circa 95, 1.6. at a time when the celebrated John of Ephesus was still living, and, by any conceivable hypothesis, at a time when the personal disciples of this John were yet alive. Although no intelli- gent person to-day believes that Enoch or Ezra wrote the books which bear their names, or that the daughter of Noah proclaimed the future in Homeric verses, but recog- nises the artificial character of such inventions, we have here to do with the product of the Christian Church in a time when visions, inspirations of different kinds and preaching based upon them, were part of the accepted order of the day. According to the testimony of Paul, the Book of Acts, and the literature of the Early Church, certain things, in spite of all the contemporary criticism, had maintained their character in the consciousness of the Church as a product of the prophetic spirit, independent of the personal desire and opinion of the speaker. He who has not the courage to characterise everything of this sort as artificial patchwork or pseudo-prophecy, has no right to treat a book, originating in that time and representing itself to be a book of prophecy based upon visionary experiences, as an artificial literary product, or a mixture of the effects of ecstatic states and the painstaking art of a man of letters at variance with the spirit of his time. Especially is this impossible when we consider that it was immediately recognised as contemporary and genuine by the Churches to which it was directed. To write a book on the basis of visions experienced is, of course, literary work which cannot be produced so mechanically as the ~ THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 389 impressions of a photographie plate. That the recording of the visions received may be a προφητεύειν (x. 11), the prophet who employs the medium of writing must, to the ‘same degree as the one who speaks orally to the congrega- tion, reproduce vividly the apocalypsis which he has received. He must also have the prophetic spirit, which, however, does not, as in the state of ecstatic vision, raise his consciousness above the external world and limit his individual activity, but awakens and stimulates it to pro- phetic enthusiasm. But it does not follow from this that the book is an artificial product of the artist, which de- liberately deviates from the content of the vision which he has seen. It would in so doing lose the very claim which it makes. The book cannot be understood without taking the standpoint of the author and his first readers ; so that we must assume, if only for the sake of argument, that John in 1. 10-xxii. 16 is giving an account of visions which he has really experienced. Disregarding for the time being the extended title of the book, John gives it the form of an epistle to “the Seven Churches in Asia.” As in the apostolic Epistles, he begins with an address (i. 4—5a@), in which he speaks of himself and of the recipients of the letter in the third person ; but, like Paul and Peter, and in contrast to the antique epistolary style, drops into the direct address— using “you” and “we” (including “I”)— when he comes to the greeting itself. A doxology follows (vv. 5b-6 ; ef. Eph. 1. 3; 1 Pet. 1. 3), which is separated by an Amen from the next two sentences, that furnish a hint of the contents of the following writing. After this there comes an announcement of the return of Christ (ver. 7), given from the standpoint of the writer and strengthened by vai, ἀμήν, and an utterance of the almighty God (ver. 8). The Epistle in which John speaks of himself throughout in the first person (1. 9, xxi. 8, 18)—a form to be expected in letter-writing—begins at this point. The fact that— 390 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT except for the words of Christ addressed to the individual Churches and their leaders (11. 1-11. 22)—the readers are not again addressed after i. 9 or in the closing greeting (n. 4), shows that the epistolary form, as in the case of many didactie and historical writings of that time (above, pp. 42, 81, n. 2, 223, ἢ. 1), is intended merely to express ina clear manner the fact that the account is especially designed for certain definite readers. But this casting of the whole book in the form of an epistle does not exclude the use of a book title, any more than in other literature; indeed, this would be more in accord with common custom. It was all the more natural not to leave the book without a title, since its epistolary form might cause it, after a single reading, to be laid aside. But the author is persuaded of the importance of its contents for the Churches. It takes its place beside the ‘‘ prophetical books” which the Church had inherited from Israel, as one of the same kind. It is to be to her an eternal possession, which she is to protect, as a sacred treasure, from every violation (xxu. 18 f.), and use diligently until the longed-for return of Christ (xxii. 17, 20), 2.e. she is to make it accessible to her members by reading it in the meetings at public worship (1. 3; ef. 2,7, 11, ete., xxü. 10, 17). Furthermore, the author is convinced that the contents of the book are designed and have significance not only for the seven Churches to which it is sent as an epistle, but for all the servants of God and of Christ (i. 1, xxi. 6)—for the whole of Christendom (xxü. 17), His Bride. The Churches to which the prophetic spirit speaks through this book (11. 7, 11, 17, 29, i. 6, 13, 22, xxii. 16) are doubtless primarily the seven Churches of Asia; though its range of vision and purpose extend far beyond these to all the Churches (ii. 23), But just because the book was in the form of an epistle to the seven Churches, it was necessary by means of a formal book title to give expression to the fact that it was intended for the whole THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 391 Church, and for reading at divine service. A little reflec- tion might have saved the writers of more recent literature on Revelation and their readers any surprise that the author, who in the body of the book speaks of himself in the first person, should employ the third person in the title (n. 5). There are also many things-difheult to under- stand which vanish when one bears in mind that the make-up of the book presupposes that all of the preceding visions have already been seen (n. 6), and by remembering that under normal conditions, especially in ancient times (above, p. 80, n. 1), the title is the part of the book last written, just as it is to-day the part last printed. Therefore the writer is looking backward in the title not only on the revelations received at an earlier time (vv. 1, 25, εἶδεν), but also upon his completed literary activity (ver. 2a, ἐμαρτύρησεν), and he pictures to himself the near future when the ἀναγνώστης will read the book before the as- sembled congregation (ver. 3). But even when he begins to put in writing the book opening with i. 4, the visions lie behind him, their content being present to his mind ; and his mode of expression acquires a definiteness which can be accounted for only by them. Since in 1. 11 seven local Churches lying in the province of Asia are designated by him as those to whom he is to send the completed book, and since, in the course of the first vision, he receives the commission to speak to each of the congrega- tions a special word, which, as a constituent part of the book directed to all seven of them, each will receive, read, and hear (n. 6), these seven Churches must have been definitely preseut in his mind from the start (i. 4). It is not the Churches of Asia which are here alluded to (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 1,19; Gal. 1. 2),—as though there were not in this province, even as early as the time of Paul, independent congregations at Colossee, Hierapolis, and Troas (Col. i. 1, ii. 1, iv. 13; Acts xx. 6ff.; 2 Cor. 1. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 13),—but the seven Churches designated by the 392 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT angel which are all to be found in Asia. The definiteness with which he also speaks in i. 4 of the seven spirits before the throne of God, where, on the analogy of 2 Cor. xiii. 13, 1 Pet. i. 2, one would expect instead to find but one, is to be explained on the basis of the vision in which the Spirit revealed itself to John in the form of seven torches before the throne of God, and as the seven eyes of the lamb standing by it (iv. 5, v. 6). In Rev. 11. 17, xive' 1B; xxii. 17, however, it is the one spirit who is spoken of. One may characterise the definiteness of expression in i. 4, which is conditioned in this way, as literary awkward- ness; but at any rate it bears witness to the origin of the written account, in visions previously experienced. The division of the account into the two unequal parts i. 10-iii. 22 and iv. 1-xxii. 9, corresponds to .the division of the subject-matter of all the visions into that which already existed at the time of the revelation, and that which is to come to pass in the future (1. 19, n. 6). The first part represents a single vision. John is sojourning upon the island Patmos. It is the Lord’s Day. While the apostle is in an eestatie state, Christ reveals Himself to him, in priestly array, as the Lord who rules in His Church, and who judges it with the sword of His word, and during the whole vision continues to speak to the apostle who has fallen at His feet, and through him to the “angels” of the seven Churches. At the close there is no mention of the vanishing of the vision or of the cessation of the ecstasy; but both are presupposed in iv. 1f. The indefinite term pera ταῦτα, iv. 1 (ef. vii. 9, xv. 5; John v. 1, vi. 1), may denote hours and days quite as well as a very short intermission. As John tells nothing at all of the execution of the command to write out what he has seen, it is possible that in the intermission that occurred he may have proceeded with the writing down of the first vision, i. 10-1. 22. Aceording to iv. 2, John falls again THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 393 into a trance, which presupposes that he had returned tc consciousness ; and the fact that the voice of the angel who shows him what he sees is said to be the same as that which spoke to him in 1. 10, enables us to recognise the beginning of another revelation, No feature of the picture which John had before him during the first vision passes over into the new one. When Christ appears later, it is in another form (v. 6, xix. 11), nor does He ever again speak with the apostle face to face (on xxii. 10-16, 20, see ἢ, 4). In the second vision (iv. 1-- 111. 1), which is interrupted toward the close by two episodes (vii. 1-8, 9-17), John feels himself transported to heaven. and beholds the Creator and Ruler of the world (chap. iv.) sitting upon His throne adorned with the attributes of His might over the world, surrounded by the council of His spirits, and unceasingly praised by all the adoring creatures of heaven. Not until John has received the impression of this picture as a whole does he become conscious of a βιβλίον on the right of the Enthroned, which is written only within, and on the back close sealed with seven seals (v. 1, n. 7). When it becomes evident that in the whole circle of creation no one can be found who would be able by loosing the seals to open the βιβλίον and read the writing contained in it, John breaks out into loud weeping over the fact, but is comforted by one of the twenty-four elders who sit around the throne of God, and reminded him of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, who has won a victory by virtue of which He can break the seven seals and open the book. Only now does John observe in the vision a Lamb, standing in the midst of the throne, and bearing marks as though it had been slain. This Lamb, amidst the songs of praise from the spirits of heaven, and from all creatures, receives from the hand of God the βιβλίον, and breaks in succession its seven seals (vi. 1-viii. 1). The word βιβλίον itself permits of a great many inter- 394 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT pretations, but for the readers of that time it was desig nated by the seven seals on its back beyond the possibility of mistake. Just as in Germany before the introduction of money-orders, every one knew that a letter sealed with five seals contained money, so the most simple member of the Asiatic Churches knew that a βιβλίον made fast with seven seals was a festament (n. 8). When the testator dies the testament is brought forward, and, when possible, opened in the presence of the seven witnesses who sealed it; 1.6. unsealed, read aloud, and executed. The making of a will assumes that the death of the testator lies in the future, while its opening and execution imply that his death has taken place. But, as is well known, the Chris- tians of earliest times, although mindful of the fact that God does not die (Heb. ix. 16f.) and that omne simile claudicat, do not hesitate to imagine the property sup- posed to belong to God, to His Son, and to His Church, and the entrance of the Church into possession of it, under the figure of inheritance (heritage and inheriting), and accordingly, to compare the assurance of these properties on God’s part with a testamentary disposition. Jesus Himself uses the figure (Luke xxi. 29, ef. Matt. v. 5, xxi. 38, xxv. 34; Mark xii. 7; Luke xx. 14), and all the N.T. writers (Gal. ii. 15-iv. 7; Rom. viii. 17 ff. ; Eph. i, 14, 18, v. 5; Coli a 12, m. 24; 1 Pet. ἈΠ Heb. 1 2, vi. 17, viii. 6, ix. 15 ff; Jas. 1. 5). So also here, the document fastened with seven seals is an easily understood symbol of the promise and assurance by God to His Church of the future βασιλεία. This irrevokable dispo- sition of God, similar to a man’s testamentary disposition of his goods, has long ago occurred, been documented and sealed, but not yet carried out. ‘The inheritance is still laid up in heaven (1 Pet. i. 4), and the testament there- fore not yet opened and executed. That its content has been proclaimed through the prophets, and through Jesus and the Spirit which rules in the Chureh (1 Cor. ii. 10), THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 395 and has to a certain extent become known, does not destroy its resemblance to a sealed testament still waiting to be opened, any more than the oral communication of a human testator, concerning the content of his will, destroys the importance of the document and renders its opening unnecessary. Apart from the fact that the heritages promised to the Church are to exceed all previous human experience, imagination, and anticipation (1 Cor. ii. 7-9, xiii. 12; 1 John i. 2), and that not until they are delivered over will their true nature be disclosed (Rom. vill. 18), the point of comparison, since the promise of future glory and royal dominion is likened to a sealed will, lies not so much in the fact that no one knows the contents, as that they still await realisation. No one is authorised to open the testament and thereby to put into execution the will of God therein laid down, except the Lamb, who by dying gained the victory like a lion, and delivered the Church (v. 5, 9f.). The returning Christ will open the testament of God and execute it. The fact that a will is opened by breaking all the seven seals at one time, but that in the vision the seals are broken one after the other by the Lamb, and that the opening of each seal is accompanied by a vision (vi. 1-17, vii. 1), does not destroy the applicability of the symbolism. At the same time, the breaking of the seals of a testament is a eom- plicated act, which may be divided into seven operations, and which primarily prepares the way for its opening and execution. For this reason it is well adapted to show what, through the returned Christ, preparatory to τὲ must precede the final fulfilment of the promise. The visions which occur as the first six seals are opened naturally bear upon the contents of the still unopened testament in this way: (1) the word of God must take its victorious way through the world (vi. 2, cf. Matt. xxiv. 14); (2) bloody wars must come (ver. 3 f., cf. Matt. xxiv. 6; Mark xiil. 7); (3) times of scarcity (ver. 5f.); (4) plagues 396 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT destroying part of the people (ver. 7 f., ef. Matt. xxiv. 7; Luke xxi. 11); then (5) bloody persecutions of the Church, the punishment for which is delayed (vv. 9-11, ef. Matt. xxiv. 9; Mark xii. 11-13); but at last (6) events in nature which are to convulse the world and fill earthly despots with terrible anticipation of the wrath of God and of the Lamb which is about to be outpoured upon them (vv. 12-17, ef. Matt. xxiv. 29f.; Luke xxi. 25, xxiii. 30). After the events which prepare the way for the end have thus led up almost to the day of the parousia, the opening of the seventh seal can bring only the parousia itself. But this is also to be seen from the figure of the testa- ment itself with its seven seals; for with the loosing of the seventh seal the testament is opened and will there- upon be executed. But instead of there being any description of this act or the statement that it has oceurred, a silence of about half an hour intervenes in heaven, where the apostle has been since iv. 1 (viii. 1), and neither here nor in the further course of the narrative does there follow anything which can be taken to be the phenomena accompanying the opening of the seventh seal. When, therefore, in place of an apocalyptic deserip- tion of the opening of the testament—.e. the induction of the Church into the inheritance vouchsafed by God through Christ, the opener and executor of the will—this long silence occurs, it may be meant that not only is this act, which has been prepared for by the opening of the six seals, not to be described now or at all by word or picture, but also that this silence is a symbol of the condition which has thereby come upon the Church. God's people have entered into the Sabbath rest promised them (Heb. iv. 1-11). This was all the easier to understand, since both the inserted episodes (vii. 1-8, 9-17) answer the pressing question as to what the condition of the Church is to be THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 307 during the world-eonvulsing events immediately preceding the parousia (vi. 12-17), which is naw described under the new figure of a devastating storm (vii. 1ff.). The first answer is that one hundred and forty-four thousand of the people of Israel will be kept from this world-disaster and saved out of the midst of it (vu. 3-8). But the further, question as to how it will be at that time with a much larger congregation collected from all the nations (vii. 9; cf. v. 9), is answered by the second episode: they are taken up into heaven, dying, from the final tribulation of the Church (a familiar idea, vii. 14; cf. Matt. xxiv. 15-28) which was alluded to in i. 10 and vi. 116, and there enjoy the repose of the blessed. The impression that the silence in heaven, after the opening of the last seal, lasted about half an hour (viii 1), could not but have constituted a sharp division for the apostle’s consciousness, before whose eyes the vision of iv. 1-vili. 1 must have passed in a much shorter time. With vill. 2-x1. 18 comes a third vision, which is interrupted before the seventh trumpet-blast by two episodes (x. 1-11, xi. 1-14), just as the second vision is interrupted by two episodes before the seventh seal is opened. In vii. 2 we do not hear, as in iv. 2, of another ecstasy. The scene of action and the place where the apostle is stationed remain the same as in iv. 2—viii. 1. Nothing follows, however, which can be made to connect with the opening and execution of the testament by the returning Christ; but a description begins here which refers back to a point preceding this time, and one which, as the reference to vu. 3 in ix. 4 shows, takes us back to a point immediately preceding the parousia. As a conse- quence of the first four trumpet-blasts (vill. 6-12), which are separated by ver. 13 from the three following, occur catastrophes in nature, which in each case affect one part of the earth only; while, as a result of the fifth and sixth trumpet-blasts, such judgments are pronounced as affect 398 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT men themselves, without, however, moving them to re pentance (ix. 1-21} At the seventh blast of the trumpet, which is closely connected with the fifth and sixth by ix. 12, xi 14, in spite of their being separated by the episode in x. 1—xi. 14, there is again, as in the case of the opening of the seventh seal, no description of what happens; but we haye here expressed by the songs of praise in heaven, just as in the former case by the silence, what takes place when the seventh act is performed. God and Christ have begun their world rule (xi. 15): God is no longer the One who is to come in the future (xi. 17; ef. per contra i. 4, ὁ ἐρχόμενος), but the One who has come to’ judgement in order to punish enemies and to reward the godly. It is, in fact, the “last trump,” of which Christian propheey had already spoken elsewhere (1 Cor. xv. 52; 1 Thess. iv. 12). As announced beforehand in x. 7, and as we saw in viil. 1, the end has again been reached ; but it is not described. The first episode expresses the thought that the apostle is not to communicate to the Church (x. 4) every- thing which he sees, but that he shall later experience and preach to the Church more than formerly the judgments of God upon the nations (x. 8-11). Jerusalem, the once holy city, forms a contrast to the heathen ; in punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus, it has, like Sodom and Egypt, experienced judgments which have brought it nigh unto destruction (n. 9). By the chronological statement (ver. 26) we are transported into the time of the last calamity brought about by the anti- christ, made familiar by Dan. vu. 25, xii. 7, 11. This tribulation will extend even unto Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv. 15-24), and at that very place will reach its culmination in the killing of the two prophets who are still to be a last protection to the Church; but a sacred area, and a congregation of the true worshippers of God remain, pro- tected from the antichrist (xi. lf; ef. vii. 3-8, ix. 4); and THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 395 even the people of Jerusalem, who do not belong ta this congregation, will, after a severe judgment, repent (xi. 13). A fourth vision (xi, 19-xiv. 20) is introduced by a view of the Ark of the Covenant, set up in the Holy of Holies. The forms in which it is presented are borrowed from the O.T. sanctuary, but the expressions used show that the technical terms are not employed as familiar names for the objects themselves, but in accordance with the real meaning of the terms, and as symbols for higher things. It is the temple of God in heaven which is meant, in which there is no longer any barrier to shut out from view the holy of holies (Heb. vi. 19f., ix. 8-12); and what the apostle sees is the ark in which the διαθήκη of God is deposited: 1.6. no longer the long-vanished tables of the Law, but the documents of the eternally valid testament of God. The conception is similar to that of the sealed testament in v. 1, with but the differ- ence that in the former instance the expressions are borrowed from the heathen legal institutions, while here they are taken from the holy institutions of Israel. In the former instance the subject is that which God has promised to His Church collected from all nations, includ- ing Israel; in the latter case, that which He has promised His Church in so far as it is the continuation of the O.T. Church and realises its purpose in a believing Israel. The first readers of this must have understood the vision, ΧΙ. 19-xiv. 20, more easily than we; for this idea, which was already alluded to in the prophecy of Jesus, and which Paul had before him in developed form, could not have been strange to them; and they were well acquainted with the preaching of Christian propheey— drawn chiefly from the Book of Daniel—concerning the last battle of the rebellious power of the world with the Church, and concerning the antichrist (1 John ii. 18, above, p. 371, n. 5, also vol. i, 228 ff.) It is of a 400 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT thoroughly eschatological character in the narrower sense of the term. The same is true according to xv. 1 and xvi. 17 (γέγονεν) of the fifth vision (xv. 1-xvi. 17), in which the last judgments, which are comparable to the plagues of Egypt, and which in vain call men to repent- ance, are represented in the form of seven angels who pour out vials full of the wrath of God. In the sath vision (xvii. 1—xvili. 24), introduced by xvi. 18-21, an incident already touched upon in xiv. 8, xvi. 19—the judgment upon Babylon, the metropolis of the antichrist —is depicted in a retrospective view of her history. The songs of praise, which are directly connected with this vision, glorify the fall of Babylon as the beginning of the kingly dominion of God and as a last event before the marriage of the Lamb, :.e., before the final union of Christ with the Church which is now prepared for it (xix. 1-8). In this will participate, however, according to the word of the directing angel (xix. 9, 10), not only those then living, but all who have ever obeyed the invitation to the wed- ding and have held fast the witness of Jesus. With this the seventh vision (xix. 11—xxi. 18) is intro- duced. Here is at last represented the event which was by intimation anticipated as far back as vill. 1 and again in xi. 15-18, and in xix. 7 announced as being in the immediate future. Jesus Himself comes upon the scene of action in order that, after overcoming antichrist and binding Satan, He may enter upon His kingly rule of a thousand years upon earth,—a reign in which there shall participate not only the congregation who live to witness His coming, but also those who remained true till death, and who on that day are to be brought to life. Not till the millennium has expired do the general judgement, the destruction of death, and the creation of a new world take place. In this new world there is also a new Jerusalem. It is this eity which is unveiled before the eyes of John in a last and eighth vision, xxi. 8—xxil. 5 (or THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 401 -xxil. 15). However, it is not conceived of as a part of the new world, but, during the period of the kingly rule of Christ, as the glorified centre of a world not yet com- pleted, to be transformed into a new and eternal world (n. 10) when the kingly rule of Christ is over. With this the course of the story closes most appropriately ; for the longing of the Church is directed not to an endless eternity, but to the specific coming of Jesus into union with His Chureh, and to His royal reign, limited in time, but broadening out into eternity (xxi. 17, 20). The foregoing attempt to sketch the structure of Revelation was also intended to bring out the evident unity of the book, in spite of the lack of all literary art. It would have been labour in vain to attempt to refute the manifold hypotheses by which Revelation is represented to be a patchwork compiled from different writings, partly Jewish, partly Christian; inasmuch as this could be done convincingly only by means of a complete exegesis (n. 11). None of the inventors of such hypotheses has really come to satisfactory terms with the tradition concerning the origin of Revelation, which extends back to the circle of persons and to the times in which it was written. None of them seems once to have weighed earnestly the unde- niable fact without which the story of the book would become wholly inconceivable, namely, that the book, as was required by its own statement (i. 11), was delivered immediately after its completion to the Churches of Asia which stood in close personal relation to the author, was received there as a work of the John, who was well known to these Churches, and as a true account of visions which he had experienced; and as such was read before the assembled congregation. None of these scholars has supported his claim by an exposition of the book which would satisfy even the most modest claims. Several matters which ought to be corrected have been stated already ; others will be discussed in §§ 73-75. VOL. 11]. 26 402 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 1. (P. 384.) Im no other writing of the N.T. are the difficulties of literary and historical investigation, unaided by a detailed commentary, so great as in Rev. The style of the book alone, apart from the peculiarities of its contents, makes it very difficult to understand—a fact which has called forth the most remarkable interpretations. As regards 1. 1-2, it is sufficient to observe that ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ κτλ. (cf. Matt. xi. 2) agrees in content with ἀπέστειλεν .. . δεῖξαι, xxii. 6; ἔπεμψα. . . μαρτυρῆσαι, xxii. 16, which also refers to the whole of Rev. with this difference, namely, that σημαίνειν refers more particularly to the prophecy of future events which follows in the form of allusions, images, and figurative language (John xii. 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 19; Acts xi. 28), while δεικνύναι means rather the disclosure to the prophet by the display of images of things invisible and future. For the idea of the revealing angel, ef. Zech. i. 9, iii. 1, iv. 1; Herm. Mand. procem. § 5; Sim. ix. 1, 1-3, and Zahn, Hirt des Hermas, 8. 274 ff. Through this angel, even without his becoming visible, John was enabled to hear and to see revelations (iv. 1). The reference in the latter verse to i, 10 shows that this is true of the first vision, i. 10-iii. 22, just as i. 1, xxii. 6, 8, 16 show it to be the case with all the visions of the book. Not until xvii. 1, xix. 9-10, xxi. 9-15, xxii. 1, 6-9 does the revealing angel become visible to John and communicate with him. The fact that the latter presents himself as one of the seven angels with the vials of wrath in xv. 1-7, does not prevent John from conceiving of him as the angel through whom he received all his revelations. In the account of the impressions of his visions, John has no more intention of speaking dog- matically or statistically regarding the angelic personages than in i. 1 and xxii. 6 he implies that Jesus and God have only one angel at their command (ef. Acts xii. 11), or that by ἄγγελος without an article the evangelist would imply in Matt. i. 20, ii. 13, 19 that the angels which appeared to Joseph were in every case different. No special importance is to be attached to the fact that in i. 10f. John’s ecstasy is mentioned before anything is said about what he hears and sees through the angel, whereas in iv. 2 the ecstasy appears to be a result of the angel’s voice, since in iv. 1 John sees things which he could not have seen in a waking state. In iv. 1f. he reproduces accurately sensa- tions which he remembered, and which those who can claim no visions are able to conceive only by the analogies of sleeping and dreaming. Before normal consciousness disappeared completely, he saw a door opened in heaven. Then, when he hears again the voice which he heard at the beginning of the first vision, he feels himself entirely separated from his earthly surroundings and translated to heaven (2 Cor. xii. 2). In this way the command of the angel to ascend into heaven is realised, and the vision which follows fulfils the angel’s announcement δείξω σοι. That ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι, i. 10, iv. 2 =yevérOa ἐν ἐκστάσει, Acts xxii. 17 (x. 10, xi. 5 in contrast to ev ἑαυτῷ γενόμενος, οἷ. τῷ πνεύματι... τῷ voi, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 19), means a change into an ecstatic condition, does not need to be proved. 2. (Pp. 385,386, 387.) For incidental remarks concerning prophecy in the N.T. cf. vol. i. 228 ff., 505 ἢ, ; vol. ii. 97 f., 110-118 ; in respect of τὸ πνεῦμα see vol. i. 207, n. 1, 234, n. 2, 237,n.6; above, p. 16. The richest source is 1 Cor, xiv., from which two definite conclusions are to be derived ; (1) that prophets, in contrast to those speaking with tongues, remain self-conscious and retain control of their powers when speaking, using language the form and contents THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 403 of which are intelligible. (2) So that prophets, as contrasted with teachers and preachers without prophetic gifts, do not speak as a result of their meditation, investigations, and inferences, but always as a result of a special ἀποκάλυψις (1 Cor. xiv. 30, cf. vv. 6, 26; Eph. iii. 5). For the criticism to which it was necessary to subject even the inspired utterances of the prophets, ef. 1 Thess. v. 19-22; 1 Cor. xiv. 29; Rom. xii. 6, and the present writer’s lecture on Die bleibende Bedeutung des ntl. Kanons, S. 36-46. Rev. xviii. 20, 24 (cf. xvi. 6, xvii. 6, xix. 2; vol. ii. 165, n. 4) refer to N.T. prophets, and there is no reason why x. 7, xi. 18 should be taken as having in mind the O.T. prophets exclusively and not also those of the N.T. Prophecy is a con- tinuous chain, which reaches from the oldest prophets of the O.T. to John, their youngest brother (xxii. 6, 9). The analogy of ψευδάδελφος and Ψευδαπόστολος shows beyond doubt that the idea of false prophets was familiar. Those who are in the habit of lying are not apostles and Chris- tians, but persons who say that they are Christians, or apostles, when they are not; cf. vol. ii. 232, n. 2. 3. (P. 387.) Lücke, Komm. über die Schriften des Ev. Jo. iv. 1 (1832),—“ an attempt at a complete introduction to the Revelation of John and the entire apocalyptic literature,”—introduced the latter idea. The present writer offered some objections to Liicke’s classification in his work on the Hirt des -Hermas (1868, S. 70 ff.) (which cannot be classified as apocalyptic literature any more than can Rey.), and in his “ Apokalyptischen Studien” (ZfKW, 1885, p. 523 ff.). The latter are quoted in what follows as Ap. Stud. i. (1885) and ii. (1886). Herder’s remark (Maranatha, 1779, 8. 13; Werke, ed. Suphan, ix. 111), perfectly correct in itself, that the pictures in Rev. cannot be repre- sented artistically, or at least not all of them, has had a confusing effect upon the interpretation of the book. Dürer and Cornelius knew what could be drawn or painted. But from this it does not follow that there is no need to reproduce imaginatively the changing scenes of the book in order to under- stand them. 4. (P. 390.) The correct reading of xxii. 21 is either μετὰ πάντων without τῶν ἁγίων (thus B, and S? which adds αὐτοῦ), and certainly without ὑμῶν, or μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων with N. In xxii. 16 it is not John but Jesus who says ὑμῖν, for in xxii. 12 (or 10)-16 Jesus again speaks to John, 1.6. addresses him together with all the other Christians. It will be noted also that this final address of Christ as well as the separate saying of Jesus in xxii. 20a are, like the word spoken by God in i. 8, outside the visions the series of which ends with xxii. 8-9 (or -11). God and Christ speak through the prophet, 7.e. through John, the author of the book, without becoming visible to him (God in i. 8; Christ in xxii. 12-16, 20). 5. (P. 391.) Völter (Entstehung der Apoc., 2 Aufl. 1885, S. 8 f.) holds that the later origin of i. 1-3 as compared with i. 4-6 is proved by the fact that in vy. 4-6 John introduces himself and declares his relation to the readers, whereas vv. 1-3 “are characterised by an objectivity, impossible if the verses were written by the apostle John” (similarly also Sprrra, Offend. Joh. 1889, S. 10ff., and also J. Weiss, Offenb. Joh. 1904, 5. 35f.). But Völter overlooks the fact that this has always been and is the character of a book title, whether written by the author himself or added later. Among the Hebrews (Jer. i. 1-3 and i. 4) and the Greeks (Herodotus, i. 1, Ἡροδότου ᾿Αλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης 404 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ἀπόδεξις ἥδε «rA., cf., on the other hand, ii. 23, ἔγωγε οἶδα, and wherever he speaks of himself as an investigator or narrator), and, as is well known, among modern European writers, in the title of a book the author speaks of himself in the third person (edidit), where it is possible, adding all his titles as if he were writing his epitaph. On the other hand, in the preface and in the course of the book, he allows himself to use the first person—even using the familiar “thou” in the dedication to a friend (among the ancients this was permissible in the course of the book or at the end—above, p. 228, n. 1). On the other hand, in a serious book the use of the first person in the title would be a violation of style permissible only for novelists, and then in quotation marks, e.g. “Graham and J,” “ We Two,” “ My Wife and 1.” In i. 4 also the author speaks of himself and the readers in the third person, in a wholly objective way, as is required in ancient letter-writing, and allows himself only in the extended greeting itself to change to a “you” and a “we.” But enough has already been said on this point in vol. i. 369, n. 1; above, p. 226, n. 7. 6. (P. 391, 392.) When John, before seeing anything whatever, is eom- manded by the voice of the revealing angel: ὃ βλέπεις γράψον εἰς βιβλίον (i. 11), and when in i. 19 (where reference to ver. 11 is indicated by οὖν) he is commanded by Christ Himself: γράψον οὖν ἃ εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα, it is perfectly self-evident that John was not directed to write down what he saw while in a state of eestasy, accompanying as it were the visions step by step with his pen at lucid moments in his ecstasy. There is no place for such a lucid moment before iv. 1. There is no interruption in the discourse of Jesus in 1. 17-iii. 22. If the vision were written out while the writer was yet in a state of ecstasy, the fact itself would necessarily be recorded like the falling down of the prophet (i. 17), and such a procedure would destroy the dramatic vividness of the visions. Moreover, it would serve no conceivable purpose ; since a record originating in this way would itself be of the nature of a vision, 7.e. when the prophet awoke from his ecstatic state, it would have no more objective existence than what he had seen in a state of eestasy. Just as the present βλέπεις (ver. 11) has the force of a fut., so the aor. εἶδες has the force of a fut. perfect (cf. x. 7, xv. 1), and both alike refer to all that John sees in his ecstatic state. There is a corresponding division of what John sees and afterwards is to commit to writing into things existent in the present and events to take place in the future. To the first class belong mainly the contents of chaps. ii.-iii. ; to the second class mainly the contents of chaps. iv.-xxii. The division of the contents of all the visions that follow is to be understood ὦ potiori, as is also the designation which covers the contents of the entire book ini. 1, xxii. 6. Spitta’s interpretation of the passage (Offenb. des Joh. 1889, S. 29) as meaning “what thou hast seen up to this time and what it means and what may further take place, de. what may further be perceived by thee,” seems to the present writer scarcely to need refutation either from a grammatical or logical point of view. In ii. 1, 8, 12, 18, iii. 1, 7, 14 γράψον is naturally to be taken as in i. 11, 19, as a command to the writer that when the vision is ended he shall inelude these several sayings to the separate Churehes in the book which in i, 11 he is directed to write and send to all the seven Churches. One should not speak any more, at least in scientific literature, of the seven apocalytie letters. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 405 These are not independent letters, but each Church receives its special message from Christ only as part of the book which, as a whole, is sent to them all (i. 4). The same is true of γράψον in xiv. 13, xix. 9, xxi.5. In this way attention is called to separate sayings particularly worthy of notice. Neither can x. 4 be made a basis for the opinion that the writing of the book and the seeing of the visions took place at the same time. Since John was to regard the recording of the sevenfold voice of thunder as forbidden by God just as the recording of the other visions was commanded, during the vision he must have felt a desire to record what he heard. This made the impression of the prohibition more profound. 7. (P. 393.) The only text of v. 1 which can be regarded as genuine is γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν κατεσφραγισμένον σφραγῖσιν ἑπτά (A, numerous eursives, Cypr. Test. ii. 11, 2.e. the earliest Latin Bible ; Orig. in Ps. i., Delarue, ii. 525; οἵ. Epiph. Her. Ixiv. 6; 58). Since there was at an early date an inclination to connect καὶ ὄπισθεν with what precedes instead of with what follows (S? [the earlier Syr. version edited by Gwynn, 1897] inserts καί, S? a relative before κατεσφραγισμένον), unavoidably an effort was made to get rid of the apparent disagreement between “within” and “behind”; sometimes ἔξωθεν was written for ὄπισθεν (B [in this passage=Vatic. 2066, Sec. viii.] P, also Hippol. in Dan., ed. Bonwetsch, 276. 1; Orig. Philoc., ed. Robinson, pP. 37. 10; Primas. Forsch. iv. 95; S*), and sometimes ἔμπροσθεν was used for ἔσωθεν (N, Orig. Philoc. p. 46.15). If, then, the inharmonious readings ἔσωθεν and ὄπισθεν be correct, it follows that ἔσωθεν has no correlate, either here or in iv. 8 (which correlate would necessarily be ἔξωθεν) (Matt. xxiii. 25, 27, 28 ; Luke xi. 40; 1 Cor. v. 13; 2 Cor. iv. 16), and that καὶ ὄπισθεν is to be taken with κατεσφραγισμένον, as even Grotius perceived in spite of his inaccurate text. Consequently, the idea of a papyrus roll written on both sides, a so- called opistograph (against Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, S. 506), must be given up. Such a poor document as this would give an unfavourable impression of this book, which rested upon the hand of the Almighty, upon which also the salvation of the whole world depends. The ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν shows that it was not a roll, in which case we would necessarily read ev τῇ δεξιᾷ (i. 16, ii. 1, x. 2.85; Ezek. ii. 9), if the idea be that God is holding a roll in His hand. A roll would fall from an open hand, such as John saw the βιβλίον resting upon, unless an unusual effort to balance it be assumed. Moreover, if the document were a roll, the opening of the book, which necessarily precedes the seeing and reading of the text, would not be four times described by ἀνοῖξαι, to say nothing of the opening of the seal (ver. 2), but we should certainly have ἀνειλεῖν (Ezek. ii. 10), ἀνελίσσειν (revolvere, the opposite of ἑλίσσειν, Rev. vi. 14), or ἀναπτύσσειν, as in Luke iv. 17. That the βιβλίον was not written on the outside is further evidenced by the fact that it was sealed seven times, the only purpose of which was to make it impossible to open the βιβλίον and to see and read its written contents. Not until the last seal was broken was it possible to open the βιβλίον and to see and read what was written in it. This βιβλίον is altogether different from the open βιβλαρίδιον in x. 2. 9; Ezek. ii. 8-iii. 3. It is not a rolled sheet, or the larger book roll, but has the form of a codex, or codicil, 7.e. of a modern book. Naturally, John did not, see what was written in the book, since he saw only the closed βιβλίον ; but in his vision he received the impression that it was written within, just as in 406 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT dreams we associate ideas with objects, although these ideas cannot be repre sented to the senses (cf. Gen. xl. 16). It is hardly likely that he saw the seven seals; since these were on the back of the book, 2.e. certainly not on the upper side, the side turned toward the spectator, but on the side turned away from him, the side resting upon the hand of Him who sat on the throne, It is, of course, self-evident that the βιβλίον did not consist of empty pages, but that something was written in it. But to say this was not superfluous, since a letter, for example, which sometimes is called βιβλίον, has an address on the outside, a document has a mark of registration on the outside, and a literary work has a title pasted on the outside from which some idea of the contents can be derived. This βιβλίον contains writing only on the inside. No one can know what it contains, until the seals are loosed. The only suggestion as to its contents is given by the seven seals. 8. (P. 394.) E. HuscHke (Das Buch mit 7 Siegeln, 1860), following out the idea of his essay on the wax tablets found in Siebenbürgen, Austria (Zt. f. gesch. Rechtswiss. xii. 173 ff.), is the first writer to set forth the essentially correct view, except that he is influenced by many ancient exegetical pre- judices, and unnecessarily substitutes for the idea of the Testament—first transferring to other documents processes used in preparing a testament (Huschke, S. 15)—the more general idea of legal documents. The so-called Pretorian Testament must have had on the outside, more particularly on the threads with which, according to ancient custom, documents, consisting of little wooden tablets covered with wax, or of leaves of parchment or of papyrus (Dig. xxxvii. 11. 1), were tied together, the seals of seven required witnesses, with their names inscribed beside the seals. Cf. Marquardt, Röm. Privatleben, 2 Aufl. p. 805 f.; Bruns, Fontes jur. Rom., ed. 5, pp. 292-303, especially p. 302 ; Gaius, Inst. ii. 119, 147 ; Ulpian, Fragm. Vatic. 23. 6, 28. 6. In Berl. Aeg. Urk. No. 361, 60]. 3, line 12, καὶ περὶ τῆς διαθήκης δὲ ἀποκρίνομαι, ὅτι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς διαθήκαις ἑπτά εἰσιν σφραγισταὶ κτλ. Cf. in the same collection the will, Nos. 86 and 326; also the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. Grenfell and Hunt, i. 171, No. 105. 9. (Ὁ. 398.) The present καλεῖται in xi. 8 represents the point of view of the time when the book was written, as does also ἐσταυρώθη. Scdom and Gomorrah, however, are not merely types of a sinful city, but of a city condemned because of its sins (Isa. xiii. 19; Jer. 1. 40; Matt. x. 15, xi. 23; 2 Pet. ii, 6; Jude 7). Therefore Isaiah before the first destruction of Jerusalem and Paul before the second, declare that Israel would have been made like Sodom and Gomorrah, had not God left it a remnant (Isa. i. 9; Rom. ix. 29). Ezekiel, on the other hand, after the first destruction of Jerusalem, declares (xvi. 49-50) that Jerusalem has become a sister of Sodom; and this is the way in which John speaks here after the second destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. 10. (P. 401.) It seems as if xxi. 2 must be taken to mean that John beheld the descent of the Jerusalem, which until then had been in heaven, and that this descent was subsequent to the establishment of the new world. Against this interpretation is the analogy of xxi. 10, where the same thing seems to be stated more explicitly, and where John does not witness the descent of a city, but is shown a city built upon a mountain. Moreover, the new Jerusalem is the Bride of Jesus, whose marriage with Him takes place THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 407 at the parousia—z.e. at the beginning, not at the end of the millennium (xxi, 2. 9, xix. 7). It is also to be noticed, that in xxi. 2 as distinguished from ili. 12 (τῆς καινῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἡ καταβαίνουσα) we read, “the Holy City, a new Jerusalem (the adjectives which follow are likewise without the article), coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.” As seen by John it is primarily a part of the new world, to the establishment of which the vision extends. Here all national limitations are set aside, and even Christ Himself retires into the background (ef. 1 Cor. xy. 24-28). But this Jerusalem has already existed during the millennium on the earth, prior to the establishment of the new world, and so it is repre- sented in xxi. 9-xxii. 15. In this passage the Lamb is everywhere prominent (xxi. 9, 14, 22, 23, 27, xxii. 1, 3), and at the end of the last vision Jesus Himself speaks, uttering both a promise and a threat (xxii. 12-15), just as God is represented as speaking in xxi. 6 ff. In the latter passage God and humanity are represented as united without any suggestion of differences among men (xxi. 3-7), whereas in xxi. 9-xxii. 15 Jerusalem retains its Israelitish character, as is evidenced by the prominence of the number twelve ; the heathen are visitors, but not citizens of the city (xxi. 24f.). In xxi, 5ff. everything is accomplished and everything has become new, and sinners have been delivered over to the second death (xxi. 5-8, cf. xx. 10-15) ; - but in xxi. 9-xxii. 15 without the holy walls are a mass of Gentiles for whom the unlocked city stands open, that they may bring their gifts, and receive blessings of healing (xxi. 24-26, xxii. 2). Only the unholiness and immorality which still exists among men is excluded from the city (xxi. 27, xxii. 15). 11. (P. 401.) A review of the more recent hypotheses will be found in HırscHt, Die Ap. und thre neueste Kritik. 1895 (see also the supplements in the preface). For the more important attempts to distinguish different sources, strata, or literary hands in Rey., see VÖLTER, Entstehung der Ap. 1882 ; much revised in the second edition 1885 (cf. Zahn, Apok. Stud. i. 525 ff., 567). The main part of Rev. he represents as written originally by John (at first by the presbyter, afterwards by the apostle), in the year 65 or 66. It was afterwards enlarged by the same author, and was constantly revised by Christian hands up to 140 (former view 170). Völter represents the matter in still a different manner in Das Problem der Ap. 1893. ViIscHER (Die Off. Jo. eine jüdische Ap. in christlicher Bearbeitung, 1886), starting from the observation that chaps. xi.-xii, present difficulties if taken as Christian prophecy which disappear if the chapters are Jewish, finds iv. I-xxii. 5 to be a Jewish Apocalypse written in Hebrew, to be dated before the year 70. This was later superficially worked over by some unknown Christian into what at first glance seems a Christian book by the addition of chaps. i.-iii., xxii. 6-21, and numerous interpolations. Sprrra (Of. des. Jo. 1889) distinguishes (1) a Christian Apocalypse which, omitting some interpolations by the redactor, is preserved in i, 4-vi. 17, viii. 1, vii. 9-18, xxii, 8-21 (printed on S. 549-560), and which belongs in the year 60 (S. 504, not the year 70, nor about the year 62, as Hirscht, 8. 5, 7, states) by John Mark, who is, however, not the author of the Gospel of Mark (S. 528); (2) a Jewish Apocalypse, belonging to the time of Pompey (Rev. x. 8-xi. 18, xiv. 14-xv. 8, xvi. 1-xvii. 6, xviii. 1-xix. 8a, xxi. 9-xxii. 3a, and ver. 15) ; (3) a second Jewish Apocalypse 408 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT belonging to the time of Caligula (Rev. vil. 1-8, viii. 2-x. 7, xi. 15, 19 xii. I-xiv. 11, xvi. 13-20, xix. 11-xxi. 6). All this was edited either under Domitian or Trajan by a Christian, who thought that he was acting “in the spirit” of the Apostle John (who perhaps was still living), and “therefore was justified in seeking to give authority to the writing (the original Christian Apocalypse of John Mark?) in falling back upon the judgment of (the apostle ?) John” (S. 543, cf. GK, i. 952). Thus the authorship of Rev. was transferred from the real John of the year 60 to the apostle John of the year 95 or 100 (ef. vol. ii. 263). ERBES (Die Offenb. Jo. kritisch untersucht, 1891) simplified Spitta’s hypothesis, and declared the whole work to be of Christian origin. GUNKEL (Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, eine religionsgesch. Untersuchung über Gen. 1 und Apok. 12, mit (babylonischen) Beiträgen von Zimmern, 1895). The chaos into which the cosmos of Rev. is changed in this work can hardly be described, at least it cannot be described briefly. JoH. Weiss. (Die Offenb. des Joh. 1904), in many points depending on Spitta, comes to the opinion that an original apocalypse, which was written by the John of Ephesus between 65-70, is preserved for us, with the exception of a few additions and changes from the later edition in chaps. i. 4- viii. 1, viii. 13-ix. 21, xii. 7-12, xiii. 11-18, xiv. 14-20, xx. I-xxii. 21. The editor of the whole book, who worked into the original Johannine apocalypse an original Jewish apocalypse, written between May and August of the year 70, published his compilation in 95, while the original apocalyptie writer, the John of Ephesus, was still alive, s 73. THE CONDITION OF AFFAIRS IN THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO REVELATION I-III. The opening words with which John begins his account (i. 9) remind the Asiatic Churches that they are all, like himself, suffering under the oppression of a hostility which their Christian belief has brought upon them. This fact constitutes a bond of union between the readers and himself—isolated, though he is, upon the little island of Patmos, for the sake of the word of God and the witness of Jesus—which strengthens the tie of Christian brotherhood. In this statement we are told what the first readers must have already known before, that John had been banished to the island because of his activity as a preacher, and on account of his Christian belief (n. 1). To this reference is to be added the tradition concerning the exile upon the island of Patmos, which has in its favour, at least, the fact that it cannot be proved to have THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 409 arisen through an expansion of the passage before us. Banishment to an island can have occurred only as the result of a legal sentence, and, in the case of the province of Asia, of a sentence imposed by the proconsul of that distriet, who would not have been able, upon his own authority, to punish in this way a preacher of the gospel and an adherent of the Christian faith, if he had not felt himself authorised so to act by some decree issuing from the Imperial Government, or some regulation tolerated by it, by which the propagation of the Christian religion was to be checked by the courts or the police. When we attempt to shed more ight upon this fact by the applica- tion of other data in the book, we must not, of course, employ indiscriminately everything which is said in regard to the persecution and slaughter of the faithful. We must disregard first of all the repeated reference to the great tribulation of the latter days, which is assumed to be well known (11. 10, vil. 14, xii. 17—xiii. 17, xiv. 9-13, xx. 4; cf. Matt. xxiv. 15-28); secondly, we must ignore the retrospective references to all the martyrs and martyr- doms for the sake of the Christian faith which have occurred in the past (vi. 9f.). At the same time, it must be noted that the standpoint from which the author makes these declarations is in most cases that of one who is speaking at the moment when judgment is being pro- nounced against the antichristian power of the world, and against its antichristian capital; so that even what, from that point of view, is past, must, when viewed by one living at the time when the book was written, lie partly, at least, in the future. In vi. 11, persons who, from the standpoint of those living at the time, are about to become martyrs, are included with the Christians who have already suffered. In xx. 4, again assuming the standpoint of the parousia, the martyrs of the anti- christian persecution are especially mentioned along with all those beheaded for the sake of the Christian faith. 410 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Similarly, in xvii. 24 are included with the prophets and saints whose blood was shed in Babylon, all those who at any time or place have been slain for the same cause (cf. xvi. 6; Matt. xxii. 35). But since in pre-Christian times it was not Babylon on the Euphrates, but Jerusalem, which was the murderess of the prophets (Matt xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 34; 1 Thess. ii. 15; Acts vil. 52), and since apostles are also named among the martyrs whose blood is avenged by the judgment against the capital city, xviil. 20, it becomes clear that here, as in xvii. 6, where Babylon is described as drunken with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus, and in xvill. 24, xix. 2, where more general terms are employed, the author refers to the Roman martyrs of the time of Nero, and especially to Peter and Paul (vol. ü. 165, n. 4). The reference in chaps. 11.--11. are temporally and locally less remote. The angel of Smyrna is already experiencing tribulation arising from the slanders of the Jews in that place. More suffering is predicted for him in the future. Punishment by imprisonment is to overtake some of the members of the Church. But the angel himself is required to remain faithful till death (11. 9f., see below). In Philadelphia also it is the synagogue of Satan, made up of Jews unworthy of the name, which is hostile to the angel of the Church. If we may draw conclusions concerning the present and future attitude of the Jews from the state- ment that the angel has kept the word of Jesus loyally, and has not denied His name (111. 8-10), it is evident that Jewish hostility has brought persecution upon him. But the situation was different in Pergamum (ii. 12-17, n. 2). The angel in that place is subject to a special temptation to deny Jesus and belief in Him, because he lives where Satan’s throne is, and he has up to this time successfully resisted. He has demonstrated his loyalty apparently not long before, since a certain Antipas was killed in Pergamum as a faithful witness of Christ, an occurrence THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 411 which is explained by the fact that Satan dwells there. This change of expression alone betrays the fact that it is not something external, like a prominent building or work of art, which is meant, but an institution or custom there prevalent in which the Christians recognised a striking embodiment and activity of the dominion of Satan. This is the cause of the martyrdom of Antipas, and of the continued danger in which the confessors of Christ are placed. It cannot well be doubted that the author means the cult of A‘sculapius, the God of healing, in Pergamum, which flourished there as nowhere else. The serpent, which was to the Christians a symbol of Satan (Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 3), was also the chief emblem of Aisculapius. His most common epithet was σωτήρ; he was not infrequently called ὁ σωτήρ with- out qualification, and was looked upon as σωτὴρ τῶν ὅλων. He became in Pergamum, especially, Ζεὺς ’Ackdjmos, and the most exalted king. He absorbed all other deities, and even became identified with the Emperor. It was inevitable—and the fact is well attested—that he should appear to the Christians to be, more than any of the other heathen sons of God, a devilish caricature of the true σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (n. 2). How easily it might have hap- pened that in daily life, or at the celebration of the feast of ARseulapius, Christians in Pergamum came into conflict with the heathen population, and that a Christian who openly expressed his abhorrence of this cult might have been killed by fanatical worshippers of the divinity! It is very improbable that Antipas was executed upon sentence of a court (n. 3). It is evident, then, that at the time Revelation was written the Jewish congregations at Smyrna and Philadelphia knew very well how to fan into a flame the slumbering hostility of the populace ; and that things had reached such a state in Pergamum, especially in connection with the worship of A‘sculapius, that the devotees of the old cults had employed violence 412 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ‚against the Christians, and were likely to do so again at any time. Such acts of hostility had been encountered by the Christians in Asia and Europe from the very beginning. On the other hand, compared with conditions in the time of Paul and of 1 Peter, it was an innovation for the Roman government to take measures which—as in the case of the banishment to a small island of a prominent Christian teacher from the field of his activity —could aim only at preventing the spread of Christianity. Equally new was the state of affairs in which the Asiatic Churches had come to suffer a general persecution of such a character that they were compelled to confess or to deny the name of Christ—a situation which forces us to assume that legal measures were employed. It cannot be shown that the Christians ever faced such conditions at any time previous to the later years of the reign of Domitian (n. 4). The tradition, im itself unassailable, that Revelation was written about 95 A.D., is thus corro- borated (above, pp. 183, 201). A consideration of the internal affairs of the Church leads to the same result. We are to draw no conclusions from the fact that, among the seven Churches enumerated, some are missing which were in existence even when Paul was living (n. 5, and above, p. 391 f.). We know, for example, that the Church of Hierapolis continued to flourish. This city was the residence of the evangelist Philip and his daughters, and the episcopal residence of Papias (Kus. A. E. iii. 31. 3f., 39. 9). It may be a mere coincidence that Pergamum, Smyrna, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Thyatira are not mentioned in even such early writings as Acts and the Pauline Epistles. But as regards Smyrna, we know from the trustworthy testimony of Polycarp, the local bishop, that during the lifetime of Paul no Church as yet existed in that place. From the life of Polycarp we may conclude that it was not until circa 67-70 A.D. that a Church arose in that place, THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 412 through the efforts of the apostle John and others of the apostolic circle (n. 5). As there is no hint in Rev. ii. 8-11 that the Church of Smyrna—the second to be addressed— was founded in the immediate past, Revelation must have been written considerably later than 70 a.p. The apostle John, obedient to the command which had come to him, sent the Book of Revelation to the seven Churches, from Ephesus to Laodicea, in the form of a single letter, of which seven copies were probably made, if he had scribes at his disposal (i. 4, 11). In the framework of the first vision he receives the commission to set down in the very beginning of this book, which he is commanded to write and despatch, what Christ has to say to the seven different Churches, or rather to their “angels” (above, p. 404, n. 6). That he may gain an immediate and correct understanding of this commission, which is to be seven times repeated, but which is not yet alluded to in i. 11, two elements of the vision before him are interpreted immediately preceding the first utterance of this command (i. 20, n. 6). The seven stars which Jesus holds in His hand, united as if by an invisible hoop in the form of a wreath or diadem, are angels (but not the angels) of the Churches previously mentioned ; the seven candles, in the midst of which the author sees Jesus stand and move, are the Churches themselves. The omission of the article before ἄγγελοι shows that the latter is no technical designa- tion derived from the real conditions surrounding the author, or from the group of ideas familiar to him, or from the revelation which has just begun, but that it is a qualifying characteristic, and therefore in some way a figurative designation of the persons meant. The theory first found in the writings of Origen, that real angels are here meant, to each of which was given the guardianship of a separate Church, must be rejected; for the idea is absurd that the Lord should make known His will to the spirits which like Himself belong to the invisible heavenly 414 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMEN] world, through the agency of John, a being of this earth and that they should learn of this will only as unseen visitors at the meetings of the Churches when John’s book is read (i. 3). Moreover, the praise and blame which Christ bestows upon them is incompatible with the idea that they are real angels, sent by God, «.e. good angels. The interpretation which makes the angel the personified spirit or heavenly idealisation of the individual local Church is equally bad. This is a modern conception, in itself obscure, which seeks in vain for support in Dan. x. 13-21, xii. 1, or from other biblical views concerning angels (Matt. xviii. 10; Acts zii. 15; Rev. xiv. 18, xvi. 5), and which has arisen from a mixture of ancient heathen ideas with the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit. On this point Goethe’s Faust has said all that it necessary. According to the early Christian view, the Christian Churches have no other spirit than the one Spirit of God and of Christ, common to them all, which cannot be punished or called to repentance for the sins and weak- nesses of the members of the congregation. All other dominant ideas and common tendencies which arose in a Church were conceived to be the effect of forces at work in the non-Christian world and in the unregenerate nature of the members; and were not ascribed to a mythological subject, called the “ Spirit of the Church of Ephesus,” or the “ Spirit of the Phrygian Church.” Only human beings can be meant, and only such as are in a high degree responsible for the condition of the Churches in which they occupy a position called figuratively ἄγγελος. But one must also reject the conjecture that these “angels” are emissaries of the seven Churches who have come to John at Patmos, and who are now to return to their homes with his written account of the visions which have been granted him. The theory is untenable: (1) because the author could not have applied to these persons such an indefinite term as ἄγγελοι (1. 20 without the article), but must have THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 415 spoken of them as the representatives of the seven Churches, known to him, present with him, and perhaps awaiting orders from him, and so would have used οἱ ἄγγελοι, or better οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῶν ἑ. ἐκκλ. (2 Cor. vii. 23 ; Phil. ii. 25); and the author could hardly have omitted calling the attention of the readers in i. 9-11 to these conditions. (2) It would be a very strange proceeding in the addresses to each of the seven Churches, to direct these not to the congregations in question, but to the messengers present with the author, who were to deliver these com- munications. If there were seven letters, each of which was to be brought to the Church for which it was intended by an ἄγγελος as a letter-carrier, it is at least conceivable that these messengers would have been indicated in the outside addresses of the sealed letters, to avoid confusion. But such is not the case. What the author sends—no matter by whom—to Ephesus, Smyrna, and the other cities, is the whole book, and in this book the ἄγγελοι are addressed by Christ. (3) What is said to the ἄγγελοι would be appropriate only if they were men definitely responsible for the condition of the Churches to which they belong, 1.6., leaders of these Churches; it is immaterial whether they are with the apostle at the time, as envoys, or remain at home. But since it is usual to deal with persons present, not in writing but orally, it follows from γρώψον (used seven times from ii. 1 onwards) that the ἄγγελοι are not on the island of Patmos, but in Ephesus, Smyrna, and the other cities. The point of departure in determining their station is not from the strange epithet ἄγγελοι, but from the way in which the author makes Christ address them. That “thou” everywhere in the address indicates the ἄγγελος is self-evident; and there is not a single phrase to lead to the assumption that this is a collective personality present only to the mind. When “thou” is occasionally replaced by “ you,” which probably applies to a number of Christians of the locality in question 416 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (ii. 10, 135, 24), it follows that the “angel” is a member of the Church ; but this does not exclude his being at the head of the congregation (n. 6, end). When the candle- stick (%.e., according to the authentic interpretation of 1. 90, the Church of Ephesus) is called the candlestick of the angel of Ephesus (ii. 5), it is clear that the “angel” is neither some member of the congregation nor the con- gregation itself. It is the bishop to whom Christ says “thy candlestick,” 1.6., thy congregation. In accord with this is the fact that other “angels” are told that they “have” people in their congregations worthy or unworthy in their character (ii. 14 f., 11. 4). There are such persons in his congregation; and it is the bishop’s duty to test and to ward off suspicious elements which force their way into his Church (ii. 2, 6, 14 f.). He is to strengthen the wavering members (iii. 2). He is severely censured when he allows impure elements to flourish and to exercise a seductive influence, as in the case of the angel of Thyatira (ii. 20). According to the reading, which is undoubtedly correct, it is the wife of the bishop, who, like a second Jezebel, along with her irresolute husband is introducing ruinous practices (n. 7). None of the names of the ἄγγελοι is given. But, since Bengel’s discovery, one should not again lose sight of the fact that in iii. 1 there is a play upon the name of the bishop of Sardis, Zotikos (n. 8). If Revelation was written circa 95, we know from other accounts the name of the ἄγγελος of Smyrna. Even at that early date Poly- carp stood at the head of the Church in that place. A short period of persecution is predicted for the Chureh, which will culminate apparently in nothing more serious than the detention of some of the members; but of the bishop is required faithfulness unto death. He is to die asa martyr. The allusion of Christ to Himself as the One “which was dead and lived again” (ii. 8), and the closing words of ii. 11 bear this out. The fact that this prophecy THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 417 to the congregation and its bishop was fulfilled in the year 155 a.p. (n. 9) would lead one to regard it as a vaticinium ex eventu, if it were not an assured fact that Revelation had been written long before, and was at that time current in the Church. The monarchical episcopate, of which in the period of the Pastoral Epistles there was no trace in this province of Asia (above, p. 195 ff), had, when Revelation and 3 John were written, a firm foothold in that region (above, p. 376 f.); and the Epistles of Ignatius show the same condition at about 110 a.p. For this reason Revelation cannot have been written until a considerable period had elapsed after the death of Paul—not before the year 80, and very probably circa 95 A.D. The name ἐπίσκοπος seems not yet to have become the regular title of the individual bishops, as is the case in Ignatius; for then one would expect in 1. 20 οἱ ἐπίσκοποι instead of the anarthrous ἄγγελοι. The apostle who felt himself upon the Lord’s day (n. 10) transported involuntarily to the con- eregations assembled for divine service, must have under- stood the term bishop, probably borrowed from Jewish conditions, to mean the one who, appearing before God in the name of the congregation, leads in prayer and directs the service (n. 6, end). In the same way that he presents before God and Christ the petitions of the congregation, Christ speaks to him in order that the congregation of which he is in charge may through him hear the word of their Lord. It is incomprehensible how one can admit that the “angels” refer to the bishops, and still bold that Rey. 11.11. was written evrca 65-70 (e.g. J. Weiss, S. 49). In Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira a pernicious theory (διδαχή, 11. 14f., 24) and praxis (ἔργα, ii. 6, 22) has sought to gain entrance; in Ephesus without result, in Pergamum with some, and in Thyatira with great success. Its advocates are in ii. 6, 15 called Nicolaitans. This name is not to be read into the conditions described in ii. VOL, IIL. 27 418 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 18-29, since it is clear that in Thyatira a single individual the wife of the bishop himself, is at the head of the move- ment, and apparently supports it in a peculiar way. She represents herself to be a prophetess (ii. 20), and it is only here that we meet with any indication of a speculative basis for the movement (n. 24). But the teaching is the same as that of the Nicolaitans (11. 14, 20). Fornication and participation in heathen sacrificial meals are not merely regarded with indifference, but are frankly re- commended, and have been instituted, at least by the prophetess of Thyatira, for the reason that one must acquaint himself with the deep things of Satan,—not, of course, to be engulfed therein, but that he may realise the powerlessness of the world of evil spirits, and attain freedom from evil (n. 11). Even though in Rev. 1. 14 this teaching is not said to be that of Balaam, we must recognise its essential agreement with the doctrinal tendency combated in 2 Peter and Jude (vol. ii. 223 ff, 232 ff., 276-281, 292f.). The only difference is that in the latter case we read of a libertine doctrine which arose in a region of Gentile-Christians and which made its way among the Jewish-Christians ; whereas Revelation concerns itself wholly with the Gentile-Christian Churches of Asia, where the errorists did not need to practise the reserve necessary among the Jewish-Christians (vol. ii, 281 f.). They found in their heathen surroundings the strongest support for their efforts. But it appears that this tendeney had only recently become a threatening danger for the Asiatic Church. In the Epistles of John we hear nothing of it; and if this seems of little importance in view of the brevity of 2 and 8 John, the silence of 1 John is all the more significant. From 1 John v. 21 the only fact that can be gleaned is that the heathen cults subjected these Churches to temptations, as was the case with the Corinthian er at the time of 1 Cor. viii—x.; 2 Cor. vi. 14=vii. 1, and with the Churches in Asia Minor when THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 410 7 1. Pet. iv. 1-4 was written. The doctrine of the Nicolaitans must, therefore, have found favour in the province only at some time ee to that represented by 1 John. A comparison of Rev. 1. 2 and 1]. 6 leaves no doubt that emissaries of this party fda come to Ephesus some time before, and, after being turned away by the bishop of that place, had moved on to Pergamum and Thyatira, where they met with better success (n. 12). The fact that they represented themselves to be apostles, and were declared to be false apostles, makes them itinerant teachers who roamed about, like the followers of Peter in Corinth, but does not necessitate the assump- tion that, like these, they originated in Palestine and taught a doctrine more or less Judaistie (vol. i. 289 ff.). The name “ Nicolaitans” gives rise to more definite conjectures. The theory, not yet abandoned, that the name is a translation of “ Balaamites” deserves at last to be buried (n. 13). But the tradition that Nicolaiis, the proselyte of Antioch (Acts vi. 5), later went astray as a libertine, deserves to be believed, if for no other reason, because it contradicts the nature of ecclesiastical legend-making, when it imputes evil to a Christian who is Ba önbe with honour in the N.T. Even as late as the time of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii, 118) there were persons, or writings of persons, who cited this Nicolaiis as authority for their libertine doctrine. The Book of Revelation cannot have led them to use the name in that way. It is clear, therefore, that it did not create this party and the name it bears, but that both existed independently of the book. In that case it is impossible to see whence the party could have got its name, if not from some man by the name of Nicolaiis; and since the party itself, as well as the teachers of the Church who oppose them, make the Nicolaüs of Acts vi. 5 the originator of the doctrine, it would be useless to seek for another person of that name. If, then, this Nicolaiis himself, like 420 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Philip his former companion in office, emigrated to the province of Asia, or if adherents of his came to that place —which is more likely—it is quite conceivable that the representatives of this doctrine, because of its outward connection with the primitive Church, introduced them- selves as apostles of a true gospel. This last discussion also confirms the tradition that Revelation was written circa 95. At all events, the words of Christ to the seven Churches were written at a time later than 1 John, 1. (P. 408.) The fact that θλῖψις stands first shows that this is not something which always accompanies the quest for the kingdom (Acts xiv. 22), but that it was present in the writer’s mind at the time. The ἐν Ἰησοῦ, which is connected with it and which corresponds to the Pauline ev Χριστῷ, shows that it was persecution for the sake of Christianity. The ἐγενόμην ev τῇ νήσῳ (cf. Acts xiii. 5; 2 Tim. i. 17), which refers primarily to the arrival at Patmos (Athanas. in Montfaucon, Coll. nova, il. 5 =mape- γενόμην), and which in this sense is connected with διὰ τὸν λόγον, affords even less basis than would ἤμην for the assumption that, at the time when he wrote, John was no longer on Patmos. By a mistaken reference to i. 2, Liicke, Bleek, and others are led to take διὰ τὸν λύγον κτλ. as meaning that John went to Patmos for the purpose of receiving the revelation. But (1) there is nothing which suggests this meaning in i. 9, while in 1. 2 it is demanded by ἐμαρτύρησεν and by the context. (2) A Christian can do nothing what- ever to induce revelation except to pray for it under certain conditions which give him a right to do so. Eestasy certainly would not have to be induced by a twelve or twenty hours’ trip by sail- or row-boat. Equally impossible is the interpretation, “in order to preach the gospel on Patmos.” While the gospel preached by man can be called “testimony of Jesus” or “ testimony of God” or “word of God” (vol. ii. 378 f. n. 2), it is contrary to all known usage by διά with the acc. to represent its proclamation as the purpose of an action (ef., per contra, such passages as 2 Cor, ii. 12; Phil. i. 5, ii, 22). Moreover, a missionary journey from the thickly populated mainland to the unimportant island on which there was no city (see n. 4, end) would be a strange proceeding. The interpretation given above is the only one in keep- ing with the usage of Rev. (vi. 9, xx. 4; ef. xii, 17, xix. 10) and of the N.T. (Matt. xiii. 21; Mark iv. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 14; Col. iv.3; 2 Tim. i. 12) and with the context (“partaker with you in tribulation”), For the tradition con- cerning the exile, see above, pp. 197, 201, nn. 8, 14. According to a donbt- ful Latin fragment (Patr. ap. ii. 171), Polycarp mentioned the ewilia of John. 2. (Pp. 410, 411.) Pergamum (τὸ Πέργαμον since Polyb. iv. 48. 11) or Pergamus (ἡ Πέργαμος, the earlier form, oceurs Xenoph. Hell. iii. 1. 6, but is found later in connection with the later form, Ptolem. v. 2. 14), longe elar- issimum Asie Pergamum (Plin. v. 126), had in the time of Galen (Opp. v. 49) 120,000 inhabitants, and was at that time the principal city of one of the 13 THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 421 or 14 judicial districts (comventus juwridiei), but was in no sense the capitai of the province of Asia, a distinction claimed by Ephesus (Cicero, ad Famil. v. 20.9; Jos. Ant. xiv. 10. 11; Digest. i. 16. 4). Consequently it is wrong to explain Rev. ii. 13 on the assumption that Pergamum was the centre of the Roman government. Moreover, to treat the latter as an incarnation of the rule of Satan is contrary to the views of Rev. as well as to those of Paul. Nor is the reference to the temple of Augustus built in 29 B.c. upon the highest point of the acropolis; since there is no apparent reason why this seat of the worship of an emperor should have aroused the aversion of the Christians more than did numerous other such places in the province. The passage has also been connected with the huge altar, rediscovered in 1878, famous on account of the relief work upon it. Cf. in general, Beschreibung der Skulpturen von Pergamon, i. Gigantomachie (edited by Puchstein), 2te Aufl. 1902. This structure, evidently built under Eumenes ΤΙ. about 180 B.c., and dedicated to Zeus and Athena Nicephoros (cf. Fränkel on No. 69 of the In- schriften von Pergamon), was much less a place of worship than an artistically adorned monument allegorically commemorative of the victory of Attalus 1. over the Gallic hordes about 240 B.c.; ef. Tondeur, Die Gigantomachie des pergam. Altars, erläutert von Trendelenburg, 1884 ; Ranke, Weltgesch.} ii. 1. 286. This work could be regarded by Christians as the throne of Satan even less ‘than could a temple ; certainly there was nothing about it to make Pergamum dangerous for Christians. This would, however, be in a high degree true of the worship of Aisculapius. For information on this subject, cf. the article “ Asklepios” by Thrämer in Roscher’s Lex. der Myth. 1. 615-641, and Pauly- Wissowa, ii. 1642-1697. For the Christian estimate, cf. Just. Apol. i. 21 (of the sons of Zeus comparable to Jesus besides the Hermes= Logos, there is also a second son, ARseulapius, the god of healing, who ascended into heaven); i, 22 (where Aseulapius’ and Jesus’ healings and restorations of the dead to life are compared); i. 54 end (the fable fabricated by the demons and conformed to the propheey of Christ); the contrast between ZAsculapius and Christ in Origen (contra Cels. iii. 3; Arnob. i. 49, iii. 23, vii. 44-48). Under Diocletian, Christian stone-cutters from Rome without seruple carved in the quarries of Pannonia not only pillars, capitals, and baths, but also vietories and eupids, and even the sun-god in his chariot ; but they steadfastly refused to make an image of Aisculapius. For this they were put to death as followers of Antipas of Pergamum ; ef. Passio quat. coron. in Biidinger’s Unters. zur Kaisergesch. 111. 324 ff., 331 ff. 3. (P. 411.) The legend of Antipas (Acta SS. April. ii. 3, 965), which in some form had been read by Andreas of Cesarea (ed. Sylburg, p. 11), has no historical value. To this extent Görres (Z/V Th, 1878, S. 257 ff.) is right. That independent of Rev. Antipas was no distinguished martyr is evidenced also by the confusion in the tradition and interpretation of the text among the ancients, Probably the correct reading is ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ᾿Αντιπᾶ, ὁ μάρτυς (cf. i. 5). The nominative in apposition easily gave rise to the reading ᾿Αντιπᾶς, which was early interpreted as avreimas (“thou contradictedst”) and also changed into ὅτι πᾶς ; see especially Gwynn, The Apoc. of St. John in a Syr. version, 1897, Notes on the Syr. text, p. 44 f. That Antipas was put to death in consequence of a judicial sentence is unlikely, because the throne of Satan is not to be connected with the Roman authority, and especially because the 422 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT mention of only a single bloody martyrdom in the recent past, from among the seven Churches, is incomprehensible, if in Asia at that time, as in Bithynia in 112 under Trajan and Pliny, confession of Christianity when proved before a court was regularly punished by death, John, who was certainly more prominent and not less courageous than the others, was punished simply by banishment. 4. (P. 412.) Concerning the difference between the status of the Christians in the time of Nero and in the time of Domitian, see vol. ii. 177-185, 189-191 ; ef. Zahn, Hirt. des Hermas, S. 44 ff., 118-135. The present writer regards it as certain that not before Domitian, but in the time of this emperor and under his personal leadership, the government of the empire and the pro- vineial magistrates under it took a position antagonistie to Christianity, and adopted a regular procedure with reference to it. There is also a tradi- tion to the effect that Domitian sent Christians into exile because of their confession ; thus, for example, Flavia Domitilla was banished to the island of Pontia (Eus. H. E. iii. 18.5; Chron. an. Abr. 2109, and after an. 2110; Dio. Cass. Ixvii. 14). Reference is made to the banishment of Christians in Herm. Sim. i. (ef. Zahn, Hirt, des Hermas, 8. 124). Sparsely settled islands were generally used as places of exile, such as Gyara or Gyaros (Tac. Ann. ili. 68 £., iv. 30; cf. xv. 71; Juven. i. 73, x. 170; Epict. i. 25. 19, iii. 24. 100, 109, 113; Philostr. Vita Afoll. vii. 16), an island among the Cyclades, of which Plin. H. N. iv. 69 says, as he does also of Melos and Calymna in iv. 71, that it had at least one city, a statement which in iv. 69 he is unable to make with reference to Patmos. 5. (Pp. 412,413.) Polye. ad Phil. xi. 3, speaking in his own name and in that of the presbyters of Smyrna, says concerning the Macedonian Churches with which Paul corresponded : “de vobis etenim gloriatur (Paulus) in omnibus ecclesiis, que deum sole tune cognoverant ; nos autem nondum noveramus.” or further particulars, see Forsch. iv. 252-259. Of the Churches of the province, mentioned by Paul or in the Acts but not in Rev. (Coloss», Hiera- polis, 'Troas), Ignatius in 110 mentions only Troas (Smyrn. xii. 1; Philad. xi. 2); of those first mentioned in Rev., he mentions Smyrna and Phila- delphia, besides these, but first he mentions Magnesia and Tralies. The order in Rey. 1. 11, ii. 1 ff. is geographical. The Church which can first be reached from Patmos is Ephesus. Then going north follow Smyrna and Pergamum, and following in a south-east direction lay Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. Leueius in his “ Wanderings of John” makes this order of the cities of Asia the basis of his entire treatment (Forsch. vi. 194-199). 6. (Pp. 413, 416.) After the comprehensive statement, given in i. 11, 19, of what John is to write (above, p. 404), τὸ μυστήριον xrA., i. 20, naturally cannot be the object οἵ γράψον in i. 19, a construction of the passage possible only on the absurd supposition that during the vision John produced pen and paper and begged the Lord, who stood before him, to cease speaking for a few minutes. The words are accusative absolutes and introductory appositives ; ef. Luke xxi. 6; Rom, xii.1. A somewhat freer use of the cases in apposition is characteristic of Rev. (i. 5, ii. 26, xxi. 17). “As regards the mystery of the seven stars, etc., the seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches.” The fact that in this passage the article is missing before ἄγγελοι THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 423 is not to be overlooked any more than is the very peculiar use of language in the headings in ii. 1, 8ff. Without entering with detail into the very com- plicated critical question as to the text, where special consideration must be given to S* and the old Latin version, the present writer believes it possible to affirm that the smooth reading, τῷ dyy. τῆς ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ ἐκκλησίας, is spurious. If the reading suggested by Hort, τῷ dyy. τῷ ev “Ed. ἐκκλησίας, be correct, ἐκκλησίας, which is probably to be struck out altogether in ii. 18 as a modifier of ayy., is hardly a Greek construction, “To the church-angel in Ephesus.” Origen discovers here actual angels, who along with the human bishops are charged with the oversight of the local Churches (Hom. xii. xiii. in Le. ; de Orat. xi.; Theoph. (Latin) ii. 6; see Forsch. ii. 67. 19; ef. Jerome on Matt. xviii. 10 (Vall. vil. 139 f.) ; Andreas, p. 8 on i. 20 (who also quotes Gregory Naz. as holding this view) ; moreover, p. 4 on i. 4 and p. 19 on iv. 5, Andreas attempts to identify the seven angels with the seven spirits, and makes an obscure statement about a similar view of Irenweus, which probably relates to Rev. i. 4, iv. 5=viii. 2); among modern writers the same view is held, e.g., by Bleek (Vorl. über die Ap.S. 167). Ambrosiaster (Quest. 102, ed. Bass. xvi. 466) and Epiph. (Her. xxv. 3) identify the angels with the local bishops ; the latter, however, seems also to believe in mystical union between the bishop and an angel of the altar, Ebrard, Olshausen’s Komm. vii. (1853) S. 144, and recently Spitta, S. 38, identify the angels with the messengers of the Churches who came to John. While the Jewish analogies adduced by Vitringa, de Synag. vet., ed. ii. (1726) pp. 889-914 ; Comm. in ap., ed. ii. p. 25; Lightfoot, Hore hebr. on Matt. iv. 23 (Opp. ii. 278) ; Schoettgen, p. 1089, on Rey, ii. 1, clearly need sifting and supplementing, they contain the gist of the correct view. The expression 73x my, which corresponds exactly in form (ef. the remarks above on the text of ii. 1), did not in itself and originally mean a fixed office, still less a humble office in the synagogue, but it meant the person in the congregation who was invested with full power, who acted in its name in all relations, especially in matters con- cerning the liturgy, the leading of prayers, etc. The idea is not that of the priest, who acts in the assembly in the name of God, or that of the prophet and apostle, who are sent by God or Christ, but that of an author- ised agent of the Church, its representative before God and in acts of de- votion. It is a noteworthy fact that the early Syrians, who were not familiar with Rev. or who at least did not have it in their canon, under- stood by ἄγγελοι in 1 Cor. vi. 3 and in other places the priests (Aphraat, p. 432 ; Ephr. Carm. Nisib. 42.10 ; Comm. in ep. Pauli, p. 175), on the analogy of Mal.ii. 7; cf. Hag, i. 13. The best example of a transition from address to the bishop to address to the Church is Ign, ad Polye. i.-üi., vi. 1-vii. 1, vii. 2, 3, viii. 1, 3; remote parallels are found in the concluding greetings in 1 Tim. vi. 21 ; 2 Tim. iv. 15; Tit. iii. 15. 7. (P. 416.) In Rev. ii. 20 the external authority for γυναῖκα followed by σοῦ (AB, many cursives, old Lat. version [Cypr. Primas.], S? 8%) is at least as great as that for γυναῖκα alone (NCP Copt. vg; Epiph. Her. li. 33). The later insertion of σοῦ cannot be satisfactorily explained as a mechanical repetition of σοῦ used three or four times earlier, On the contrary, since ἄγγελοι was early understood to mean angels (see ἢ. 6), σοῦ must have seemed out of place, However, when the earliest witnesses for γυναῖκα 424 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT without σοῦ were written, married bishops were objectionable exceptions, at the history of Synesius shows ; especially a bishop who had such a godless wife in his house. Furthermore, the expression τὴν γυναῖκα “lef. is a gross violation of style, which in the nature of the case cannot be justified by examples like ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡρώδης (Mark vi. 14, “the king, namely, Herod ”). Therefore, accepting σοῦ as correct, the reference can only be to the wife of the bishop. The daughter of a Phcenician king, who as the wife of the weak king Ahab used her position to introduce into Israel the worship of Baal and the unchastity associated with it (1 Kings xvi. 31, xviii. 4, 13, xix. 1, xxi, 25), and who herself is charged with adultery (2 Kings ix. 22, ef. ix. 30), was a fitting type by which to describe a bishop's wife who countenanced.the teaching of the Nicolaitans, reeommended without scruple unchastity and participation in the heathen sacrificial feasts, and who herself indulged in vice. If, as is clearly the case, mopvevoa in ii. 20 is to be taken literally (ef. ii. 14; Acts xv. 20,29; 1 Cor. x. 7, 8; 2 Pet. ii. 18-20; Jude 4, 11f., vol. ii. 224 f., 245f.), πορνεία in ii. 21 must be taken in the same way, and the fact that the sin of those who have had intercourse with her is called μοιχεύειν μετ᾽ αὐτῆς, only goes to confirm the fact that she was married ; all unchastity on the part of a married woman is adultery (cf. Matt. v. 32). But it is not likely that her children were the fruits of such adulterous relations (τέκνα πορνείας, Hos. ii. 6; John viii. 41). That would necessarily be expressed. They are the legitimate children of the wife and also of the bishop. They are to be swept away by a pestilence (cf. Rev. vi. 8=733, Ex. v. 3, ix. 3, 15). If there is any point at which a depraved woman can be deeply touched it is with reference to her own children. The comparison with Jezebel is imper- fect in so far as the weak Ahab actually committed wrong, although not without misgivings (1 Kings xxi. 27-29). The bishop of Thyatira, on the other hand, is praised because of his constantly increasing good conduct (ii. 19); but it isa blameworthy weakness on his part that he permits his Wife to do as she likes. As a husband and a bishop he ought not to have allowed his wife entire freedom in her movements, which made it possible for her to exercise her seductive influence on many members of the Church. From the manner in which Christ describes Himself in ii. 23, it is evident that Jezebel knew how to conceal her actions from the knowledge and eriti- cism of others ; hence also from her husband. She passed not as πόρνη, but as προφῆτις, and we do not know how far she and her followers went. In every century the history of the Church shows all degrees of confusion between immoral conduct and exalted religiousness. He who tries the hearts and reins calls the more refined use of feminine charms in order to allure admirers πορνεία, and in no allegorical sense, and in the case of a married woman he calls it μοιχεία ; ef. Matt. v. 28. The idea, put forth by Andreas, p. 12, that Jezebel is a personification of the Nicolaitan party is to be rejected ; (1) if the reading of ii. 20 advocated above be correct, then we are confronted by the incredible supposition that this godless party could be represented as the wife of the pious bishop; (2) Jezebel, who teaches others and who commits adultery with her admirers, and who has children, cannot be identical with the party, the members of which are distinguished from her as her adulterous companions and her children. Even weaker is Sehiirer’s view (Theol. Abh. C. Weizsacker gewidmet, 1892, S. 37 ff.), that Jezebel is the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 425 Chaldean Sibyl, Sambethe (Prol. in Orac. Sibyll., ed. Rzach, p. 4. 28) or Sabbe (Pausan. x. 12. 9). This fancy is possible only on the basis of the wrong reading of Rev. ii. 20; furthermore, it is by no means settled whether the σαμβαθεῖον mentioned in an inscription at Thyatira, belonging to the time of Trajan or later (0. I. @. 3509), was a sanctuary of this Σαμβήθη ; finally, how can this purely mythical figure be made to agree with the text of Rev. ii. 18-29, which unquestionably deals with actual events at the time when Rev. was written ? It is necessary to suppose that at that time a priestess officiated in the sanctuary of Sambethe who pretended to be a prophetess, like the Sibyl, or a new incarnation of the Sibyl. In that case the name Jezebel would be the most unsuitable possible, since she was not a heathen prophetess, but the wife of an Israelitish king who had come out of paganism. Even accepting Schiirer’s false reading, there is still no doubt that “ Jezebel” belonged to the Christian Church. (1) In ii. 20 it is very plainly indicated among whom she passes as prophetess and teacher; she does not teach and lead astray a few persons who have been Christians and who have fallen back into paganism, or weak individuals who, while attending the Church services, at the same time visited heathen oracles, but the servants of Christ in Thyatira. Those who have suffered themselves to be led astray by her (ii. 22), are contrasted with the members of the Church who remained ~ faithful (ii. 24); it follows, therefore, that all are Christians. A heathen prophetess, who promulgated her “teachings” only among Christians, would be a peculiar saint. (2) The content of her teaching (διδάσκει, ii. 20; τὴν διδαχὴν ταύτην, ii. 24) is exactly the same as that which in ii. 14, 15 is called the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which were promulgated by alleged apostles (Rev. ii. 2, 6) among the Churches of Asia Minor. It is, therefore, evident that the false prophetess as well as the false prophets was outwardly a member of the Christian Church. (3) The angel or the bishop could not be blamed for permitting a heathen Pythia or Sibyl to do as she liked (ὅτι abeis κτλ.) ; since he had neither power nor authority over her. The only thing he could be blamed for would be his failure to warn the Christians under his care against visiting the heathen temple and against the suggestions of this heathen soothsayer. (4) Jezebel and all her followers are under the discipline of Christ; more precisely the discipline of the Church exercised most signally and most comprehensively by Christ Himself (ii. 21-23, especially v. 23, πᾶσαι ai ἐκκλησίαι and ὑμῖν). The fact that the exalted Christ has a part in God’s government of the world, and that God requires repentance also of the heathen,—something that does not need to be proved from the Sibylline Oracles (cf. Matt. xii. 41; Acts xvii. 30),— offers no justification for the assumption that Christ is here conceived of as the master who punishes Jezebel and her followers in order to bring them to repentance and as a warning to all the Churches (cf. per contra 1 Cor. v. 12). 8. (P. 416.) Bengel (Erklärte Offenb. Joh. 1740, 8. 262) saw that in iii. 1 a proper name is presupposed connected with the word “Life” The popular interpretation, “ Thou enjoyest the reputation of living when thou art dead,” (1) presupposes the reading of the Text. rec. τὸ ὄνομα, which is entirely unauthenticated, and which even Luther was obliged to translate (“the name”). (2) There is no justification of the interpretation from usage. The passage, Herod. vii. 138, cited by Raphel, ii. 794, is not parallel, since the 426 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT reference there is not to a person who as such would have a proper name but to a warlike undertaking, the real purpose of which was eoncealed by false statements—a thought which would be expressed by λέγεσθαι (1 Cor. viii. 5; Eph, ii. 11; cf. Rev, ἢ, 2, 9, 20, 39); ὀνομάζεσθαι (1 Cor, v. 11), or δοκεῖν. (3) On this hypothesis it would be necessary to explain how the angel secured the unjustified reputation of being alive. It would be necessary to call him a hypocrite and to unmask him. That ὄνομα is here a proper name is further evidenced (cf. ii. 17, iii. 12, ix. 11, xix. 12), by the fact that in the immediate context, iii. 4, and only here ὀνόματα occurs in the sense of “ persons,” and that in iii. 5 ὄνομα (ef. Phil. iv. 3) is again used to designate the proper name. If, then, the meaning be, “ Thou bearest a name (which signifies) that thou livest,” it must be either Ζώσιμος or Ζωτικός͵ The latter is the more likely, because this name occurs very frequently in the inscriptions of the province (Forsch. v. 94; οὗ. also Ramsay, Cities and Bishopries, i, 390, 392, 475, 525, 533, 536, 539, 564, 656 f., 702, 705, 744, 760, 761, and the inscriptions in Altert. von Hierapolis, S. 87, 89, 114, 140, Nos. 41, 46, 133, 220); Zosimus, on the other hand, is comparatively rare (6.0. 0. 1. @. 3509 ; Ramsey, op. cit. 472 f., 535) ; moreover, ζώσιμος as an adjective is rare, while ζωτικός occurs frequently (=vividus, vegetus). The suggestion of the meaning of the word brings to mind not only the opposite idea νεκρὸς εἶ, but affects also what follows: ver. 2, ἀποθανεῖν ; ver. 5, ἡ βίβλος τῆς ζωῆς. For a similar use of the literal meaning of proper names, see vol. 1. 456, n, 5. 9. (P. 417.) According to Mart. Polyc. xix. 1, Polycarp was put to death in Smyrna in the year 155, either as the last of the twelve Christians, who in part, at least, had been brought thither from Philadelphia (according to the reading δωδέκατος), or as the thirteenth, after the twelve Philadelphians had preceded him in death (according to the more probable, reading δώδεκα). If any other Smyrnean besides Polycarp suffered martyrdom at this time, in the detailed account which we have there would necessarily be some trace of it. 10, (P. 417.) In the light of second century usage there can be no doubt that ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα means Sunday, and not the Christian feast of the Passover (ef. Zahn, Skizzen, 2 Aufl. S. 354, A. 16). The fact that Sunday is no longer designated by its Jewish name, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7, and in the Gospels, but by the Christian name in use later, is proof of the relatively late date of the composition of Rev. It would have been in bad taste to use this in John xx. 1, 19. 11. (P. 418.) If the saints in Thyatira are taken as the subject of ὡς λέγουσιν in ii. 24, these words are superfluous, since John’s judgment con- cerning the teachings of the Nicolaitans cannot differ from that of the saints in Thyatira. If, on the other hand, the Nicolaitans are the subject, they would hardly be made responsible for the opinion that their pious opponents lack knowledge of the deep things of Satan; in that case ἐκεῖνοι would hardly be lacking before λέγουσιν. The meaning is rather, that the Nicolaitans themselves boast of such knowledge, and by the use of the slightly emphasised ὡς λέγουσιν John merely means to indicate that this expression is borrowed from the language of the Nicolaitans. In any case the saints are without “this alleged knowledge of the deep things of Satan,” of which the Nicolaitans boast. Not satisfied with the knowledge of the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 427 deep things of God (1 Cor. ii. 10), they feel that they ought also to penetrate the abysses of Satan (ef. vol. ii. 225 f., 246, 280 f.). 12. (P. 419.) The opinion of Baur (Christent. der drei erst. Jahrh., 2 Aufl. S. 81) and his school, that Rev. ii, 2 is aimed at Paul, is refuted by the fact that we have καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν, not ἦσαν, which excludes all possible reference to the deceased Paul. The opinion that aspersions are cast on Paul, who wrote 1 Cor. vi. 12-20 and viii. 1-x. 33, as a representative of the teachings described in Rev. ii. 14, 20, and that the angel of the Church of Ephesus, which owed its existence to the work of Paul, is praised because he rejected Paul and his assistants as false prophets, and the opinion that the apostle John, whose attitude toward Paul we know from Gal. ii. 9, is responsible for such foolish utterances—need only to be stated to be refuted. There is no more definite description of the false apostles in ii. 2 or of the Nicolaitans in ii. 6. But since in ii. 2 the bishop’s action in trying and rejecting the false prophets is mentioned as an example of his praiseworthy intolerance of evil men, and since in ii. 6 his hatred of the conduct of the Nicolaitans is the only praiseworthy act of his mentioned, we infer that the false prophets must have been representatives also of the teachings of the Nicolaitans. 13. (P. 419.) The best treatment of the Nicolaitans is that of WOHLENBERG in NKZ, 1895, S. 923-961. The most important sources are Iren. i. 26. 3, iii. 11. 1; Clem. Strom. ii. 118, iii. 25-29; Hippol. Refut. vii. 36, and in the writing addressed to Mammea (Hippolytus’ Kleinere Schriften, ed. Achelis, p. 251). Victorinus also has some distinctive remarks on Rev. ii. 6 (Migne, y. col. 521). According to Irenzeus and Hippolytus, Nicolaiis himself fell into error ; while Clement, in order to prove Nicolaiis’ innocence, charges the Nicolaitans with misconstruing innocent words and actions of his. The latter view only shows how hard it was to believe that an early Christian mentioned in the N.T. could become a heretic, and is proof of the historicity of Irenzeus’ account. The opinion current since the time of Vitringa (Comm. in apoc., ed. ii. 1719, p. 65f.), that Νικόλαος, from which the term Nicolaitans is derived, is a translation of oyba cannot be maintained. While those who really know Hebrew would rightfully and necessarily take exception to this translation, certainly inaccurate and probably false, to Christians in Asia Minor unfamiliar with Hebrew, the term would be entirely blind. They would more naturally infer that the teaching referred to in ii. 15 was different from that referred to in ii. 14. Actual translations, such as ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15, or passages where it is expressly said that words are translations, as John i. 38-42, xix. 13, 17, xx. 16, Rey. ix. 11, cannot be cited as parallels. Such a translation would have served no purpose, since Balaam, like Jezebel, was a familiar historical figure, having a typical significance (2 Pet. ii. 15 ; Jude 11, vol. ii. 235, n. 3), and therefore Balaamites would have been much more intelligible than Nicolaitans, if there were no real Nicolaiis and no real Nicolaitans. If there were such, however, these must be meant; and it would be a strange accident if the name Balaam, which is unquestionably mentioned because of the historical importance of this person, and not because of the literal meaning of the name, could seem to one imperfectly acquainted with Hebrew to be a translation of Nicolaiis. Furthermore, the right place for the com- parison of Balaam and Nicolaiis would be ii. 6, not ii. 14f. 428 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT $ 74. THE AUTHOR OF REVELATION. Since the author, who gives his book the form of a message to the seven Churches, begins his writing with a greeting, he has occasion to introduce in the greeting his own name (1. 4). But he calls himself by this name also in i. 9, «ΧΙ. 8, and in the title of the book, i. 1. From the explicit manner in which the author says in xxii, 8, “I, John, am he who saw and heard this,” we infer that the reason for the repeated mention of himself is the feeling that the one who has received revelations (i. 2, xxii. 18) should in person testify to the truthfulness of his account (Dan. vu. 2, 15, vill. 1, ix. 2, x. 2). The name indicates that he was a Hebrew (n. 1), and this is fully confirmed by his language. He is, therefore, to be regarded as a Christian of Jewish origin from Palestine who settled in Asia Minor. From the absence of all modifying clauses attached to the name except that of “a servant of Christ” (i. 1), it is clear that he was the only person of this name known among the seven Churches, or, if there were other Hebrews with this name, they were entirely overshadowed by this John. Unless the author were distinguished throughout the entire circle of Churches addressed, and were familiar with their conditions, the passage i, 4-11. 22 would be quite incomprehensible. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that the com- munications he sends had their origin in visions. From this it follows that he was, or pretended to be, the well- known John of Ephesus, the author of the Fourth Gospel and of the three Epistles bearing this name, whom we have found to be the apostle John. Of writers who do not think that Revelation can be attributed to the apostle, Dionysius of Alexandria is the first to suggest the identity of the author of Revelation with John Mark; but he refuses to make John Mark the author of Revelation, because of his inability to make this THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 429 agree with the statements in the N.T. concerning Mark (n. 2). Nor have modern writers who hold Mark to be the author of Revelation, or of some parts of it, been able to get over this difficulty. This John, with the toman surname Mark, is never designated among Gentile Christians (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11; 1 Pet. v. 13) and in the tradition of the early Church by his Hebrew, but always by his Roman name. The name John is never added, except in passages where reference is had to his early history (Acts xii. 12, 25, ΧΗ]. 5, 13, xv. 37), and then always in such a way as to make it clear that in the Gentile Christian Churches the Roman had replaced the Hebrew name (Acts xv. 39), just as Paul had taken the place of Saul. In the year 62 Mark was as yet personally unknown to the Asiatie Churches (Col. iv. 10; vol. 1. 442, 450, n. 4). Apparently he came to Asia shortly thereafter, but only for a short time; since we find him in Rome toward the end of the year 63, or at the beginning of the year 64 (1 Pet. vy. 13). He was again in Asia in the year 66, but is directed to come again to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11). Mark’s permanent residence in the province of Asia, prior to the year 67, is out of the question (vol. 11. 427 ff.). Since, however, the apostle John and others belonging to the apostolie group settled in this province not later than the year 69, it is impossible that thereafter Mark should come to occupy a position such as that occupied by the author of Revelation. Least of all could he introduce himself in this work as the one distinguished John known to the Churches in Asia; for this name belonged to the aged John of Ephesus, 2.e., the apostle John. | Surprise has been expressed that the author did not call himself an apostle; but this overlooks the fact that Paul even, who more than any other apostle had occasion to call attention to his apostleship, and who made use of such opportunities, fails to use this title in a number of 430 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT his letters to the Churches (1 Thess. i 1; 2 Thess. i. 1), occasionally also designating himself simply a slave of Christ (Phil. i. 1; ef. Rev. i. 1). It is also to be remem- bered that in writing his Epistles John does not use the apostolic title, and that the use of it is almost entirely avoided in the Gospel (above, p. 227, n. 9). But the most important consideration of all is the fact that the present work gave him no occasion to call himself an apostle. Any member of the Church possessing prophetic sifts may become the recipient of a revelation, and the high regard in which John was held in the Church of Asia, such as is certainly presupposed by the simple manner in which he introduces his own name in Rev. i. 4, 9, is due much less to his position among the Twelve—which give him no authority over the Gentile Christian Churches founded by other missionaries—than to the fact that he was able to bear testimony as one who had heard and seen Jesus (1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14). Of this fact the readers are reminded at the very beginning of the book. When he falls down as one dead before the majestic gaze of the Lord who appears to him, he is again heartened by the familiar summons, “ Fear thou not, it is I” (i. 17). At the same time, the hand of the Lord, whom he has previously seen, heard, and handled (1 John i. 1), rests upon his head to comfort and reassure him (n. 3). It has also been considered strange and inconsistent with the apostolic dignity of the author, that im xxi. 14 he should relate in so naive a manner what he had seen, namely, the names of the twelve apostles written upon the twelve foundation stones of the wall of the Jerusalem coming down to earth. In that case words like Luke xxii, 30, Matt. xix. 28, which only apostles could have heard and repeated, must be the invention of persons who were not apostles ; and when Paul wrote 1 Cor. i. 28 and Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11, he must have forgotten that in 1 Cor. i. 1, Eph. i. 1 he had very solemnly declared himself to be an apostle. John has never been able to THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 431 satisfy his critics (n. 4). When, as in the Gospel and the Epistles, he refrains from using his title of honour explicitly, it is evidence that he has oceasion to conceal something; on the other hand, if, as in Revelation he mentions his own name, it is the sign of disagreeable obtrusiveness. If he emphasises, as in John xix. 35, 1 John 1. 1-4, the fact that he was an eye-witness, it . betrays a suspicious design; if, as in Revelation, he lets his historical relation to Jesus remain in the background, it is proof that the relation did not exist. When he happens to speak once objectively of the twelve apostles, this is just as conclusive evidence that he was not one of their number, as if he called himself the presbyter instead of the apostle. Nor does any real problem arise from a comparison of the teachings of Revelation with those of the Gospel and of 1 John. The single fact, discussed above, p. 312 ff., that in all three of these writings, and nowhere else in the whole of early Christian literature, save in the writings which can be shown to be dependent upon the Johannine writings, ὁ λόγος is used as a comprehensive name for the Christ ; and this usage presupposed, has more weight than all the objections based upon supposed irreconcilable contradictions between ideas found in Revelation and the other Johannine writings (n. 5). It would require almost an entire interpretation, not only of Revelation, but more especially of the Gospel, in order to correct all the misunderstandings, which in this instance have hindered the acceptance of the correct view concerning the relation of these two works—as, for example, when one discovers in the Gospel the disappearance of the early Christian prophecy and hope, or a universalism in which the special position of Israel is totally denied, or a tenderness nullify- ing all serious thought of the wrath and judgement of God. Furthermore, one who regards both the discourses of the Gospel and the visions of Revelation as pure inventions, will necessarily make demands relative to similarity in 432 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT idea and language between writings purporting to be from the same author, entirely different from the demands which one will feel himself compelled to make who regards the Gospel and Revelation not, to be sure, as stenographic reports, but as faithful accounts of a witness concerning what he had seen and heard. Jesus uses language in His earthly life and says things to His earthly companions different from the language and the message of the exalted | Lord in visions to His servant and prophet. And still He is the same person. The only real problem is that arising from the great difference wm style observable between the Gospel and Epistles on the one hand and Revelation on the, other. Here, first of all, it is necessary to correct the exaggerated statements made as early as the time of Dionysius the Alexandrian, concerning the good Greek of the Gospel and Epistles (n. 6). Even the Fourth Gospel must have been written by a Hebrew. Only by confining one’s attention to a narrow group of expressions is it possible to overlook the gross violations both of the spirit and rules of the Greek language in the Gospel. Furthermore, in Revelation phenomena of this kind are for the most part due not to ignorance of Greek, but in particular instances to intention (n. 7), and to the dependence of the visions themselves and their literary form upon the model of the prophetic writings of the O.T. Oral, and written prophecy in the apostolic Church had its own peculiar style, following closely the O.T. model, as did also the thoughtful didactic addresses and the historical narratives, and the Psalm. Consequently the same man, when writing as a prophet, would necessarily use language different from that which he would employ in a didactic communication to the Churches committed to his care, or in writing an account of the deeds and sayings of Jesus. Then it must be remembered that in the nature of the case the relation of the prophetic writer to his subject THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 433 is one of much less freedom than in any other form of composition. Particularly when his prophecy is based upon visions, received in an ecstatic state, everything is received, not only the material, but also the form. All that he has to do is to put what he has seen into words, and for this reason he is much less inclined than is the historian and the teacher to polish or to permit to be polished for him the style of his first draft. The original account, written under the immediate impression of the vision beheld, is the best, because the most faithful. The more important the contents, the less important the form. With all the difference of content and form, however, there are significant agreements between the language of Revelation and the Gospel (nn. 5, 6). The tradition regarding the origin of Revelation, the testimony of the book itself in those portions which have to do with the circumstances under which it was written, and in single expressions, and in the impression received from the whole book that it is a genuine product of early Christian prophecy, are all in harmony with the position that Revelation was written by the apostle John in the year 95 during his exile on the island of Patmos, and that it was received and handed down by the seven Churches to which he sent it as being really what it claims to be in its title. This conclusion has yet to be defended against that construction of its prophetic contents—a construction frequently shown to be untenable, but nevertheless not abandoned—according to which the book, either as a whole or in many of its parts, is thought necessarily to have been written considerably earlier. 1. (P. 428.) The present writer knows no Jew of the Graeco-Roman diaspora with the name of John; whereas, e.g., Jude, Joseph, Jonathan, Samuel, Miriam, and Salome occur in Roman inscriptions. Cf. also Forsch. vi. 176, A. 1. It was not until long after the time of Revelation that the custom arose among the Christians of calling themselves by the names of apostles (cf. Dionysius in Eus, vii. 25. 14). 2. (P. 429.) Dionysius in Eus. vii. 25. 15 rejects the idea that Mark is VOL. III. 28 434 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the author only because of Acts xiii. 5, 13. HırzıG (Über Jo. Mr. und seine Schriften, 1843) declares Mark to be the author of the whole of Revelation Spirra (see above, p. 407, n. 11) declares him to be the author of an Ur- Apocalypse preserved principally in Rey. i. 3-iii. 22. 3. (P. 430.) Rev. i. 17 is correctly understood by Iren. iv. 20. 11 (“quoniam ipse est, in cujus pectore recumbebat ad ccenam”); also by Herder (Maranatha, S. 13, notwithstanding his wrong division of sentences, S. 11). In favour of this interpretation is the clear suggestion of John vi. 20; Matt. xiv. 27, cf. Luke xxiv. 38f.; John xviii. 5. Furthermore, if ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος were here used predicatively, and not in apposition to ἐγώ, there would be absolutely nothing in it to relieve the overwhelming impression of the vision, and to allay fear, as is the case in all other sentences in the Bible which follow un φοβοῦ, φοβεῖσθε. Following i. 8 (cf. xxi. 6) so closely, it would be even impossible to avoid the misunderstanding that the one who here appeared is God the Lord Himself,—a mistake which would not be cor- rected until i. 18. It is also to be observed that in Rev., which in this respect resembles the doctrinal Epistles rather than a Gospel, the person of the Lord is frequently called simply Ἰησοῦς, even when the reference is to His exaltation and the religious attitude toward Him (i. 9, xii. 17, xiv. 12, xvii. 6, xix. 10, xx. 4, xxii. 16). Naturally the author is acquainted with the solemn formulas of i. 1, 2, 5, xiv. 13 ; uses also Χριστός in suitable places, xi. 15, xii. 10, xx. 4, 6; prays to Him as “ Lord Jesus,” xxii. 20; but he is not in the habit of using 6 κύριος or ὁ Χριστός instead of the proper name, any more than does the John of the Gospel and the Epistles. He is too close to the historical manifestation of Jesus to do this. 4. (P. 430.) Dionysius, in Eus. vii. 25. 6-13, is an example of false criticism of John’s mention of himself in Rev. The Alogi also seem to have criticised 1 John i. 1-4; GK, ii. 50. 5. (P. 431.) As has been shown above, pp. 312 f., 327 f., in discussing the * Logos doctrine” of the Johannine writings, it is not a formula capable of several interpretations and differently understood by different writers, in the use of which the Gospel, Rev., and the Epistles agree, but it is the idea which comes out more clearly in Rev. than in any other early Christian writing, whereas the form in which the idea is expressed changes (Gospel, 6 Adyos ; Rey. ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἀμήν ; 1 John, ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς). Jesus could be called “Logos” even if He were not in an eternal manner God. But Rev., the Gospel, and Epistles agree in ascribing this estimate to His person. While the angels will not accept any worship (Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9), there is no objection when John falls down at the feet of Jesus (i. 17). He addresses Him with the marana tha of the liturgy (xxii. 20; ef. vol. i. 303, n. 12), and all the inhabitants of heaven include Him in their worshipful praise of God (v. 9-14; cf. vii. 10, xi. 5). With God and His sevenfold Spirit He is the source of grace and peace, i. 5. To Him are ascribed the attributes, “the first and the last,” which seem to belong imalienably to God, i, 17, xxii. 13; cf, also i, 8, xxi. 6. Like God, He stands at the beginning not only of history, but also of the ereated world, which is inconceivable without the presupposi- tion that He had part in the creation (iii. 14; ef. John i. 3; Col. 1. 15-18). And yet He calls God both His God (ii. 7, iii. 12) and His Father (iii. 5, 21; ef. John xx. 17), and confesses that all that He has was received from His Father THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 435 (Rev. ii. 27, i. 1; cf. John iii. 35, v. 22, 27, xvii. 2). In view of His earthly and human vocation He is called the faithful witness (i. 5, iii. 14), which agrees perfectly with the Fourth Gospel (xviii. 37). Reference to the Con- cordance under paprupety and paprupia (found elsewhere only in Mark xiv. 55-59 with reference to false witnesses) shows that all the Johannine writings have the same author. Jesus is called 76 apviov only in Rev., where the word oceurs twenty-nine times; the word occurs elsewhere only in John xxi. 15, while the figure itself is found in John i. 29, 36 in the testimony of the Baptist, which led this apostle to Jesus. Only in Rev. xxi. 2, 9, xxii. 17, and John iii. 29 is the Church directly called the νύμφη of Christ, etc. The claim of Dionysius, op. cit. § 22, that Rev. has not a single syllable in common with the Gospel and 1 John, is a foolish exaggeration. 6. (P. 432.) Dionysius’ contrast between the style of Rev. and that of the Gospel, op. cit. §§ 24-27, is just as much exaggerated as what he says con- cerning the teachings (seen. 5). Cf., on the other hand, Origen’s carefully weighed judgment of the style of Heb. in comparison with Paul’s Epistles in Eus. vi. 26.11. In the latter case the comparison is between writings of the same class ; but, leaving that out of account, the relation is altogether different from that existing between Rev. and John. Concerning Hebrew words and Hebraisms in the Gospel, see above, p. 353, nn. 13, 19f.; in Rev., see below, p. 4471. It is noteworthy that in each writing John once neglects to make clear to the readers through translation the idea associated with a name which is called Hebrew (John v.2; Rev. xvi. 16; p. 353, n. 13). To be noted also is the Hebraistic use of ex in the sense of a partitive gen. (above, p. 283, n.2). The use of the neuter to describe persons (John vi. 37, 39, x. 29) in Rev. iii. 4; the use of the article as in John iii. 10 (“ the official teacher among us,” or “ of us two”), also Rev. "1.17. Cf. also single characteristic phrases such as those found at the end of each book referring to their respective contents, Rev. xxii. 18, 19; John xxi. 20 (γεγραμμένα ev τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ), Or σὺ οἶδας (“thou knowest better”), Rev. vii. 14; John xxi. 15-17. 7. (P. 432.) When a writer who uses ἀπό with the gen. between thirty and forty times writes once (i. 4) ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν καὶ 6 ἢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, it must be because he wants to indicate that 6 ὧν κτλ. is used as an indeclinable proper name, as a paraphrase for Yahweh. Also ὁ ἦν (ef. also i. 8, iv. 8. xi. 17, xvi. 5) must likewise be an intentional substitute for an omitted im- perfect or aorist participle. Just as ro can be placed before any part of speech whatever when the reference is to objects, so ὁ can be used (ef. ὃ ἀμήν, ill. 14; above, p. 329, n. 8) when the reference is to persons. In i. 5, xx. 2, likewise, the disagreement in case between the noun and the word in apposition seems to be intentional, designed to give the word in apposition more prominence, by making it an independent exclamation ; this may be true also in the case of πλήρης in John i. 14 (but cf. Blass, Gr.2 S. 81). In other instances (ii. 20, 111. 12, vii. 4, ix. 14) there may be actual soleeisms, carelessness such as would be likely to occur in the ordinary speech of barbarians not yet fully Hellenised. The present writer does not regard it as impossible that the style of John’s other writings was revised by friends more familiar with Greek than himself (cf. vol. i. 68 on Josephus), but that, for the reasons suggested above, p. 433, he failed to have this done in the case of Rev. 436 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT § 75. CONTEMPORARY-HISTORICAL OR FUTURIST INTERPRETATION. Without due recognition of the very definite tradition, and the evident marks of time in chaps. i.-üi., the attempt has long enough been made to determine the date of the composition of Revelation by the so-called contemporary- historical interpretation of its prophetic contents (n. 1). Especially since it was thought that it had been discovered that the number 666 (Rev. xiii. 18) represents the name of Nero, it has been held by the majority of German eritics to be a proved fact that Revelation was written soon after the death of Nero (7 June 9, 68 A.D.), and shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (August 70). The five kings, who had fallen (Rey. xvii. 10), are said to have been the five emperors from Augustus to Nero, and the sixth, who was ruling when Revelation was written, either Galba (ft January 69) or—if Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, who had brief reigns, are omitted—Vespasian. The seventh, who is represented as having already been emperor and as to come again as antichrist (xvu. 8, 11, ef. xiii. 3, 12, 14), is supposed to be Nero, who, according to popular belief, was to return from the realm of the dead. In setting over against this interpretation and others of a similarly contemporary-historical character a futurist view, it must be recognised that they are not in every respect mutually exclusive The former does not indeed deny that future events—the appearing of the anti- christ, the parousia of Christ, and the final judgment—are predicted by John ; and the latter does not deny that these final events are announced as being near at hand, and are represented as intimately connected with present facts. This is the nature of all prophecy. It aims always at the final outcome, and is yet bound to the past and the present. Moreover, the origin of this prophecy in visions actually experienced does not alter the question, since THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 437 the imagery of the ecstatie vision, as of the ordinary dream, is formed out of material present within the eircle of vision of the seer or dreamer when awake. For Christians inquiring concerning the issue of the develop- ment of history and longing for the fulfilment of all of God’s promises (xxi. 17, 20, v. 4, vi. 10), such material was at hand in the predictions of the O.T. prophets, especially Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, above all, however, in the prophetic testimony of Jesus, the possession of which alone secures to them a portion of the spirit of prophecy (xix. 10, ef. John xvi. 13 f.), and in the prophecy of the Church —based upon this possession of the prophetic spirit (1 John ii. 18; above, p. 371, n. 5)—with which Revelation is con- nected as a new—and, as far as the present is concerned, the last—link of the prophetic chain beginning with the prophecy of Jesus Himself. The Christian prophets from the first had held in view the course of the historical development of the world and the signs of the times (vol. 1. 228 f., 235 ff., vol. ἢ. 110 ff.); John did likewise. It is, moreover, simply in agreement with the form of all N.T. prophecy, from the Baptist onwards, that the end is announced as imminent, the final coming of the kingdom of God and of Christ as rapid, sudden, and near at hand (i. 1, 3, m1. 11, xxu. 7, 10, 12, 20, cf. Matt. ili. 2-12; Jas. v. 8f.; Rom. xii. 11 ff. ; Phil. iv. 5; Heb. x. 37; 1 John i. 18; above, p. 371, n. 5). None the less, however, Revelation maintains the underlying principle of true prophecy, in withholding from men outside, and from the Church itself, a chronologically definite knowledge of the coming of the end (Matt. xxiv. 36; Acts i. 5; 1 Thess. v. 1 ff.). It does not contain a single statement that even in obscure reference gives the period of time intervening between the present and the parousia. It also contains prophecies which must be fulfilled before the final events, if they are to be fulfilled at all. Among these are included not only the partly hypothetical words, ii. 5, 22, iii. 9 (iii, 438 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 3, 191. 2), but also the persecution which will come upon the Church of Smyrna, and will cause the death of its bishop (11. 8-11; above, pp. 417, 426). As far as the prophecies are concerned, which unques- tionably have in view the really final events, it has already appeared (above, p. 406, n. 9) that the naming of Jeru- salem as the spiritual Sodom—-a name chosen from the point of view of the present— presupposes that the destruction of the former Holy City had already taken place. Further, the number of the forty-two months = 1260 days = 34 years (xi. 2, 3, cf. xu. 6, 14, xi. 5; Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7, 11) proves that this prophecy transports us into the time of the rule of the antichrist. It does not take its forms and colours from the pre-exilie prophecy of an Isaiah and a Jeremiah, but bases itself upon the prophecies of Daniel, which were uttered after the con- quest of Jerusalem, and foretold not a destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but a desecration of the temple in the end of days. To be sure, it is in the abstract conceivable that a Christian prophet before the year 70, like Jesus Himself, might have combined both kinds of prophecies without clearly explaining their mutual relation- ship. He might in this way have combined a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, given in the tone and meaning of an Isaiah, a Micah, or a Jeremiah, with a prophecy of the “antichrist” in the meaning of a Daniel. However, apart from the fact that the Christian prophecy of the antichrist in the time of Paul shows no trace of a confused mingling of these radically different lines of thought (1 Thess. ii. 16; 2 Thess. un. 1-12), nothing of the sort appears at least in Rev. xi. 1-18. There is no mention of a taking of Jerusalem by an army, but only of a rule of the Gentiles in Jerusalem during the period of the antichrist (xi. 2 f.). The destruction of only a tenth of the city, and the killing of only a small portion of the inhabitants, are not occasioned by a hostile army, THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 439 but by an earthquake (ver. 13), and the temple suffered so little destruction at the hands of the Romans, that the main building with the outer courts of the priests, in which the altar of burnt-offering stood, together with the congregation, worshipping there, is to remain protected from every desecration by the Gentiles (xi. 1f.). No further proof should be needed to show that this prophecy could not have been made by a Christian before the year 70 who knew only of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, prophesied by Jesus. It is only necessary to call to mind, that in the period from the death of Nero to the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish revolution had its reion of terror, with mutual destruction of the different party-groups. Since the Christians had fled to Pella, there was no longer in Jerusalem a worshipper of the true God, or a temple worthy of divine protection, but only Jews, who were no longer worthy of the name (Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9). No Christian could have judged this more mildly than the Jew Josephus (e.g. Bell. iv. 9. 10). All these events lie behind Revelation, just as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians lies behind Daniel. By the beast with the ten horns and seven heads, which at the command of Satan comes up out of the sea— an image of the world of nations—and begins the last struggle of wickedness against God and the Church of Jesus (xii. 1 ff), John could have understood only the world kingdom at enmity with God, and that too in its last development, since all the essential attributes and acts of the beast must have reminded him of Dan. vii. 2-27. However, in John’s writing, as throughout Daniel (ii. 37 ff., vill. 20 ff.), the image of the kingdom changes to that of the kings who govern and represent it. The description of the transference of the rule to the beast (xiii. 2), the undoubtedly authentic masculine αὐτόν (ver. 8) and és (ver. 14), as also the statement that the name of the beast is a man’s name (xii. 18), demand this personal 44cC INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT heading up of the conception, without, however, doing away with the fundamental idea of a new and final world kingdom. From the connection of xii. 1 ff. with xu, 13- 17 (cf. xi. 7), it appears that no more than its personal head was this last world kingdom in existence at the time of the writing of Revelation. Still more clearly it is stated three times in xvii. 8-11, with emphatic reference to chap. xu, that the beast does not exist in the present, and twice that it will appear in the future (μέλλει avaBaiver and παρέσται, ver. 8). There also the ten horns are in- terpreted to mean ten kings, who are allied with it and place their powers at its disposal. They, together with the beast, will receive the authority for a short period ; in the present, however, they have not received it any more than the beast (xvu. 12). On the other hand, however, the beast has already once existed and will again come up out of the abyss—+.e. the world of the dead (ef. ix. 1f, 11)—(xvii. 8, 11 three times ἣν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν). The anti- christ and his kingdom are a power which had already appeared once in history, had then disappeared, and at the end of the times is to appear again in life. This is a fundamental thought of early Christian prophecy (vol. 1. 251,n.8). The same thought is expressed, ΧΙ]. 3, 12, 14, in the statement that one of the seven heads of the beast had received a mortal wound, which healed again. This means that the beast itself had received a death-stroke, and had come to life again (xi. 12, 14), The healing of the wound of the one head caused the world to wonder in the same way as did the coming up of the beast out of the abyss (xiii. 3, xvii. 8). In a certain sense, therefore, the beast is identical with its seven heads. ‘This is even more clearly stated in xvii, 10f. Five of the seven heads had fallen, a sixth is standing at the time of Revelation, a seventh has not yet appeared. But one of the five beasts which had already fallen will appear again, and this head, which was and is to come again, is absolutely identified THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 441 with the beast (xvii. 11). On the other hand, the whole idea of the seven heads of the beast would be impossible were the meaning of the beast itself out and out identical with the meaning of one of its seven heads. An analogous relation must exist between it and the remaining six heads. The heads are consecutive phases of the greatness of the world kingdom at enmity with God through all changes of history, which the beast represents. This broader meaning of the beast, along with the narrower one, according to which it represents a single one of the seven phases,—namely, the antichristian kingdom and its ruler, who had existed once and was to return,—is expressed in xii. 2 by the state- ment that the beast bears in itself the marks of the three world rulers, which, according to Dan. vii. 4-6, precede the fourth and last. Accordingly, the seven heads cannot be individual rulers of one and the same kingdom, but only kingdoms which follow each other, together with their respective kings; so, for example, the Babylonian with Nebuchadnezzar, the Gr&co-Macedonian with Alex- ander, and the Roman with Ceesar at the head. The seven heads are interpreted in xvu. 10 simply as seven kings (βασιλεῖς and not βασιλεῖαι); but this cannot lead one astray, for, as has been said, since the time of Daniel the idea of the kingdoms had become inseparably blended with that of their founders or representatives (n. 2). Since Revelation was written at the time of the Roman Empire, this is, according to xvi. 10, the sixth head ; another seventh kingdom will follow it, but will not long reign. Upon this follows the eighth,—that of the anti- christ,—which, however, is only a revivification of one of the five earlier kingdoms. Without question this is in- tended to be the Greeco-Macedonian and its typical ruler, the pre-Christian antichrist, Antiochus Epiphanes (vol. i. 227, 237, n. 4, 238ff.). The interpretation of the seven heads as the line of Roman emperors from Augustus or from Cesar onwards, which has confused many, is unten- 442 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT >) able. In passing judgment upon the Roman kingdom as the antichristian kingdom of the end of the world, Revela- tion, in the first place, would step entirely out of the position which we see was held in the presence of the Roman Empire by Jesus (Matt. xxii. 21; John xix. 11), by Peter (1 Pet. τ. 13-17), by Paul (Rom. xii. 1 ff. ; 2 Thess. ii. 6f.), and by the early Christian prophecy of which Paul approved ; further, by Clement of Rome, Melito, and Irenzeus (vol. 1. 229 f., 252 ff.). At all events the Roman Empire is one of the consecutive world kingdoms which together form a contrast to the kingdom of God and Christ, or, speaking figuratively, it is the sixth of the seven heads of the beast. So then Rome, 1.6. the world-metropolis at this time, is represented as Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13; vol. 1]. 163). The blood of saints and apostles has been shed in this Babylon-Rome, according to Rev. xvii. 20, under Nero (vol. ii. 165, n. 4). Probably also the seven hills, on which the harlot Babylon sitteth (xvii. 9), without detracting from their actual meaning (n. 2), are intended to refer to the seven hills of Rome. For that reason, however, Rome is by no means the Babylon of the last times, and the Roman kingdom the beast in his last antichristian development, or a Roman emperor of the immediate future the antichrist. In the second place, by this interpretation it would be wholly inconceivable how the beast, who accordingly must be the Roman Empire founded by Caesar or Augustus, could be represented as an appearance of the closing period of the world. That the beast has already once existed does not alter the case; for the former existence is fully separated from the future prophesied existence by a present non-existence (xvii. 8-11). The Roman Empire, however, has not ceased to exist since it was established, at least at the time of Revelation, when the Christians came to feel its power heavily enough. The interpretation of the seven heads as the Roman emperors succeeding each other is in the third place THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 443 incomprehensible, as the killing of one of these heads is said to be at the same time the killing of the beast (xiii. 3f., 12, 14, xvi. 8). By the death of Nero, or any other one of the emperors, before the time of Revelation, the continued existence of the Roman kingdom had never been questioned, much less had it ever ceased to exist (ef. vol. 1. 229f.). If a Ceesar dies, there is another Ceesar who immediately lives and reigns. In spite of the tem- porary disturbances of the national unity, which were occasioned by the simultaneous reigning of several pretendants during the two years from the death of Nero until the general recognition of Vespasian, in Asia Minor at least the governmental machinery continued in activity, andin that section of the empire no provincial in 68-70 a.p. could think of the Roman Empire as dead. This contemporary-historical interpretation makes in the fourth place any acceptable interpretation of the ten horns (xi. 1, xvii. 8, 12-17, ef. xii. 3) impossible. The idea, however, that the representation of the revivification of the fatally smitten beast or of one of its heads (xiii. 3, 14, xvii. 8, 11) rests upon the myth of the return of Nero, is irreconcilable with the history of this myth (n. 3). The notion, which arose soon after the suicide of Nero and at first among his heathen admirers, that he had not died, but had fled to the Parthians, and would return from that country to Rome to take vengeance on his enemies and to assume the throne again, existed unchanged until the beginning of the second century,—namely, until the time when it was no longer probable that Nero, who was born in 37 A.D., was still alive. We find this notion in two Jewish Sibyllists of the year 71, and about the year 80. In the field of just this literature, about 120 to 125,— namely, at a time when Nero could no longer have been alive,—the idea of his return appeared in the changed form, that Nero, the instigator of the destruction of Jerusalem, though lone since dead, would return again to life with 444 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT signs and wonders. Finally, however, he would be de- stroyed in punishment for his last attack on the Holy City of the Messiah. A Christian Sibyllist about 150 to 160 combined these Jewish notions with the statements in Rev. ΧΙ, 3, 15, xvii. 8, 11, and thus introduced into the Christian world one of the most confused ideas of which it was possible to conceive. The idea of the return of the dead Nero first arose when he could no longer likely be among the living, and the original form of the popular belief evidently for this reason only underwent transformation into the complete fantastic form ; consequently this idea cannot be present in Revelation, whether it was written in 69, when Nero, if still alive, would have been thirty-two years old, or about 95, in which year Nero would have completed his fifty-eighth year. An oracle had warned him with regard to his seventy-third year, which he would have attained in 110 (Suet. Nero, xl.). Earlier than that date neither friends nor enemies, who believed in his return, had any occasion whatever for believing in a return from the dead. No thoughtful person, however, can consider it possible that Revelation was written after the year 110. Moreover, the interpretation of the number 666 as the alleged Hebrew form, op m. (Νέρων Kaicap), of the name Nero (n. 4), is extremely improbable. Revelation was written for Greek Christians, for whom it would be necessary to translate a Hebrew name, in order that they might grasp its literal meaning (ix. 11, ef. xvi. 16). The author makes use of only such Hebrew words as would be familiar to the readers from their liturgy or their Greek Ὁ, ἽΝ, like amen and hallelujah. He paraphrases the Yahweh name by a Greek participial form (i, 4), and does not use the Hebrew (n—s), but the Greek alphabet (A—2) when he employs the first and last letters as a figurative expression for beginning and end (i, 8, xxi. 6, xxii, 13). He does not in any way indie ate (xiii. 18) that it needed a knowledge of THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 445 Hebrew and the numerical value of the Hebrew letters to solve the riddle. His readers could and had to understand him in no other way, than that the numerical values of the letters of the personal name written in Greek are summed up in the number 666. It was a fixed tradition (Iren. v. 30) in the circles of the disciples of John in Asia Minor, that the Greek alphabet was to underlie any interpretation of Scripture ; and also those, who in the second century took the liberty of changing the number 666 to 616 in order to secure the name of the Emperor Caius (n. 5)—ze. Caligula—follow this self-evident rule. In fact, we perceive from this early change of the test, on the one hand, how foreign it was to the Christians, even of the post-apostolic period, to consider Nero as the type of the antichrist ; and, on the other hand, how still unforgotten the figure of the ἀντίθεος Caligula had remained (vol. i. 227, 237, n. 7). The disciples of John, to whom Irenzeus appealed not only for the authenticity of the number 666, but also for the principles of interpreting it, discarded rightly the interpretation that it meant a former or future Roman emperor. They did not know, further, what name the number represented, but were convinced that at the time of the appearance of the antichrist, this prophecy also would be fulfilled, and that the agreement between name and number would assist the Church, at once and with certainty, to recognise their last enemy. ‘This method of consideration is in accord with the “spirit of prophecy” and the “testimony of Jesus” (Rev. xix. 10), as the apostle John has preserved it in his Gospel (John xiii. 19 and else- where ; above, p. 330, n. 10). That is the position which Christianity has taken from the beginning toward all prophecy, recognised as genuine. Genuine prophecy con- tains much which lies outside the consciousness of the prophet himself, and will first become clear through its fulfilment.’ It is on this account, nevertheless, a guiding star, before it is fulfilled, and does not become through its 446 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‚TESTAMENT fulfilment in any way superfluous, but as fulfilled prophecy renders just then the greatest service to the Church. Whoever holds Revelation to be an artificial patchwork of a seer who has seen nothing, may make further effort to discover solutions of the number riddle 666, and in fact any other riddle of this book more satisfactory than have been found up to this time under these presuppositions. The rest of us, who, in memory of the warning of Paul (1 Thess. v. 20), find genuine prophecy in Revelation, of which we already understand something and hope later to understand more, shall, in face of the scorn which is not spared us, remember the words (1 Cor. xiv. 22) : ἡ προφητεία οὐ τοῖς ἀπίστοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. 1. (P. 436.) A useful history of the interpretation οἵ Rev., which would be almost equivalent to a history of Christian eschatology, has not yet been written. Cf., however, Lücke, Kommentar über die Schriften des Jo. ἵν. 1: Versuch einer vollständigen Einl. in die Offenb. und die gesamte apokal. Literatur, 1832. 2. (P. 441.) A diffieulty is certainly presented by the double interpreta- tion of the seven heads in xvii. 9 and xvii. 10f. But no confusion is created, simply because the two interpretations occur so close together. The inter- pretation, as seven kings, which alone is elaborated, is the only one which agrees with xiii. 1-3, 12, 14, since a mountain cannot be mortally wounded. At the same time, the identification in the latter passage and xvii. 11 of one of the heads with the beast, proves that the heads, like the beasts, cannot designate kings in distinction from kingdoms, but mean kingdoms together with their representative kings. Moreover, the fact that the harlot sits upon the seven-headed beast (xvii. 3), whereas in xvii. 9 she is represented as sitting upon the seven heads, presupposes that the beast is a world empire, and that the seven heads are phases of the empire, since the capital city of the world does not ride upon a king or upon a number of kings, but reigns over the world empire or over several successive world empires. If xvii. 9 were omitted, nothing essential would be lost. Just as the beast signifies not only the world empire of the antichrist at the end of time, together with its ruler, but also the world empire whose successive phases are represented by the seven heads from its beginning, so Babylon also is the capital of the world empire as such. It was situated formerly on the Euphrates, now on the Tiber, in the language of the prophets later perhaps it will be on the Seine or the Bosphorus ; but through all historical changes it retains its old name. If, then, the beast be conceived of as an entity persisting throughout the course of history, then Babylon sits upon the beast ; if the point of view be the changing aspects of the world empire, then Babylon sits upon the seven heads. Ina stationary picture successive events are necessarily repre- sented as simultaneous. This is true also of the interpretation of the seven THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 447 heads as seven mountains, which is not further elaborated. Of course, as the writer intended, the readers who regarded Rome as the Babylon of their age (1 Pet. v. 13), would necessarily think of the seven hills of Rome; and therefore they have always understood that Rome was intended by the Babylon of John, as by that of Peter (see vol. ii. 163, n. 3, 165, n. 4, 189, n. 5; ef. Hippol. de Antichr. 36 ff. ; Tert. contra Jud. ix. ; Jerome, preface in Libr. Didymi de spir. sancto; Andreas in Apoc., ed. Sylburg, p. 75 ff., 81 ff.). However, even these seven mountains were only symbols of the places— probably upon earth—where successively the’ capital of the world has stood and is destined to stand (ef. Jer. li. 25). Of subordinate importance is the question as to the succession of world empires presented in Rev. Probably (1) Egypt with Pharaoh as the typical name of the king, (2) Assyria with Sennacherib, (3) Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar, (4) the Medo-Persian empire, (5) the Graeco-Macedonian empire, (6) the Roman Empire with its Cesar, (7) the shortlived empire which is to come, to be followed by a renewal of the fifth empire of which Antiochus is the antitype, who is the antichrist of the last days. This is the eighth kingdom. 3. (P. 443.) For the legend concerning Nero, ef. vol. i, 246 f., 252 ; Apok. Stud. ii. 337-352, 393-405. 4. (P. 444.) In regard to the number of the antichrist, ef. Apok. Stud. i. 561-576. Its interpretation, as equivalent to op 7%, was proposed first in 1831 by Fritzsche (Annalen der ges. theol. Lit. i. 3, S. 42 11.) and then by Benary, Hitzig, and Reuss, as it seems, quite independently both of Fritzsche and of one another (cf. Bleek, Vorles. über die Ap. S. 292f.), The defective spelling op instead of the regular 107 (as in the Talmud ; cf. also Sh, Matt, xxii. 17, and the inscription found near Bostra belonging to the year 47 a.p, ©. I. Sem. ii. No. 170), is the least suspicious thing about this discovery, Mention may be made of other Hebrew interpretations as follows: Vitringa, Comm. 633 ff., op»7x, from Ezra ii. 13 with reference to the 666 fellow-tribes- men, and without reference to the numerical value of the letters. Lightfoot (with whose view the present writer is acquainted only from Wolff, Cur. phil. in epist. Jac. ete. 1735, p. 546), mmo from Num. xiii, 13; this gives the number 666, and the meaning of “no suggests μυστήριον. This is united by Herder (Maranatha, S. 148) with the interpretation mo suggested by Portzig and purporting to mean apostasie ; also Herder appropriates Lakemacher’s suggestion pyow κα but does not, like its originator, refer it to the Rabban Simon, the son of Gamaliel (Schürer, ii. 365 [Eng. trans. τι. 1. 365]), but te Simon bar Giora, the revolutionist (Schürer, i. 621 [Eng. trans. 1. ii, 232]). Ziillig (Offenb. Joh. ii. 247) proposes opp aya ja oyba, Jos. xiii. 22; but in order to get the number he wants, it is necessary to omit the indispensable article before nop and the vowel 1 twice. Aberle (TAQSc, 1872, S. 144) suggests wn (sic! supposed to mean Trajan). Volter (2 Aufl. S. 77), ow on (Trajanus Hadrianus). Bruston (Le chiffre 666, Paris, 1880, p. 11), v12 72 mo, Gen. x. 8, ) has to be omitted in the second name. Gunkel, 8. 377, nan mop, “Chaos of the primeval age.” The well-known analogies adduced by Gunkel himself might well have suggested to him that an attribute without an article is questionable Hebrew. Several of these interpretations are worthy of the jest pow n, “Mr. Salmon,” in Salmon’s Historic. Introd. to N.T. (1885) p. 300. Greek interpretations.—Iren. v. 30. 3 gives us our choice 448 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT among Εὐάνθας, Teırav, Aareivos, the last favoured by Hippol. (de Antichr. 50), although, according to the report of J. Haussleiter, the real Victorinus of Pettau gives no name; in the later editions of his commentary (Migne, v. col. 399), ΓἌντεμος and the Gothic name Tevonpixos are referred to as possi- bilities. Others suggest ἀρνοῦμαι, “I deny,” or Papiscus (written Παπεῖσκος), since the time of the ancient dialogue, “ Jason and Papiskus,” a typical name for the Jew who contends with the Christian. More recent explanations are to be found Z/NTW, 1901, 8. 109-114; 1902, S. 238-242 ; 1903, S. 167-174, 264-267 ; 1904, S. 84-88, 257-261. 5. (P. 445.) In his discussion of Rev. xiii., and after a theological ex- planation of the number 666 (v. 28-30), Irenzeus remarks in a supplementary way (v. 30. 1, cf. Forsch. vi. 70): “ His autem sic se habentibus et in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoe posito, et testi- monium perhibentibus his, qui facie ad faciem Joannem viderunt, et ratione docente nos, quoniam numerus nominis bestie secundum Grecorum com- putationem per literas, qu in eo sunt, sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex . . . ignoro, quomodo ignoraverunt quidam, sequentes idiotismum et medium frustrantes numerum nominis, quinquaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex decadis unam decadem volentes esse.” This reading 616 is also attested to by Cod. Ο (fifth cent.), by two eursives which unfortunately are no longer extant (5 and 11, ef. Gregory, Prolegomena, 676), and by the Donatist Tyconius, whose remarks on this point are to be inferred from the agreement of the three commentaries dependent upon him; those of the pseudo-Augustine, of Primasius, and of Beatus, cf. Haussleiter, Forsch. iv. 133, also by the tract on the monogram of Christ (Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 3. 195), aseribed by tradition to Jerome. Ireneus was of the opinion that this reading origi- nated innocently through errors in writing ; since the numbers were written not only in numerals (thus Rev. xiii. 18, NACP sah. vg. S? 55. Iren. and apparently also in his ἀρχαῖα καὶ σπουδαῖα καὶ παλαιὰ ἀντίγραφα), but also in numeral letters (thus B, some cursives, Copt., and probably Hippol. de Antichr. 48, 50: x&’), by vertical extension = could easily be changed into I. Notwithstanding the present writer’s remarks in Apok. Stud. i. 569, this is certainly possible, not only in the case of the old Doric form of the 1 (ef. Kirchhoff, Stud. 2. Gesch. des griech. Alphabets, 3te Aufl. Tafel i. ; Paleogr. Soc. series, vol. i. table after plate 101 ; Inscr. antiquiss. Grecia, ed. Röhl, Nos. 15, 17, 20 ff.), but also according to inscriptions and coins of the time of the emperors ; cf. Ramsay, J HSt, 1887, p. 466f. It was not until later, according to Irenwus, that inquisitive persons attempted to give a meaning to the meaningless scribal error by endeavouring to find a name which it would represent. The gist of Irenwus’ further discussion is that a Roman emperor was found designated by xı: an opinion which Irensus controverts. Tyconius, who was familiar only with the number 616, makes no reference to an historical explanation. He thought that he discovered in the number the monogram of Christ, and, as Burkitt proves (Cambridge University Reporter, 1896, p. 625), in reverse position. x is held to be a combination of X=600, I=10, and the old form of the episemon=6, which at the same time stands for the name of Christ. This reversed Kk is, therefore, a suitable monogram for the antichrist. This meaning cannot be correct and original; for, in the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 449 first place, according to Irenzus, there is no doubt that 666, not 616, was the number written by John. In the second place, there is just as little doubt that this was originally written in numerals, not in numeral letters. This disposes of Irenzeus’ well-meant supposition that the reading is due to an innocent scribal error, and likewise of Tyconius’ explanation, which is, moreover, based upon the incredible supposition that the monogram of Christ was in use at the time of Rev., or, if the reading 616 is not genuine, at least some time before Irenzus ; see, however, vol. ii. 192f. Finally, it is impossible that the number 616 should have originated in this accidental way and afterwards been given a meaning, because, without any resort to artifice whatever, the number gives a thoroughly intelligible name, dios Kaicap (T=3, a=1,:=10, o= 70, c=200, K=20, a=1, ı=10, c=200, a=1, p=100=616). This observation, which the present writer believed to be original with him in Apok. Stud. i. 571, is said to have been made earlier by Weyers, Disput. de libro wpoc., Lugd. Bat. 1728 (so quoted by Züllig, Offb. Joh. i. 147 ; others, 1828. The present writer has not seen the work). Because of the desire to find here a reference to Caius Cesar, 7.6. Caligula (ef. vol. i. 228, 237f.), before the time of Irenzeus, unknown persons residing in Rome or the West, not in Asia, changed the number 666 to 616. Spitta, S. 392 ff., holds the view that in the Jewish Apocalypse of Caligula’s time, which he makes one of the sources of the canonical Apocalypse (above, p. 407, n. 11), the number 616 was found which meant Caligula, that between 90 and 110 the Christian editor, by making the Hebrew alphabet his basis and changing 616 into 666, introduced the name Nero Cesar, and that finally those who are opposed by Irenzeus, on the basis of “an old tradi- tion” (S. 394), reintroduced the original number 616 from the Jewish into the canonical Apocalypse. It seems impossible to accept this explanation. For it represents the Jewish apocalyptic writer as basing his computation upon the Greek alphabet, while the Christian apocalyptic writer living in Asia Minor uses the Hebrew alphabet! But most inconceivable of ali is the interpolation about the year 150 of a canonical Apocalypse originating between 90 and 110 from a Jewish Apocalypse written about 40. Nothing is more common than a confusion of the texts of an earlier and a later recension of a Biblical book (cf. in the MSS. of the Vulgate the many elements which date from a time previous to Jerome). But this presupposes that the older recension has been used canonically for generations in the Church; and cannot be at once entirely displaced by the new recension. Phenomena of this kind offer no analogy whatever for the relation of this alleged Jewish Apocalypse to the Apocalypse of Jolin. VOL. IN, a9 Az CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY. 1. Preuiminary Remarks.—(1) It is not the purpose of this text-book to arrange the entire chronology of the history recorded in the N.T. and at the same time to fix the dates of the writings brought together in that collection. The relative chronology of these writings, however, has been established in many particulars by the investigation of the individual books. In order to con- struct their absolute chronology, there seemed to be de- manded, as the only sufficient thing, a complete enumera- tion and not a wholly superficial discussion of the possible synchronisms between the N.T. literature and general history, and of those synchronisms which do not as yet, but perhaps in the near future may help in fixing the dates absolutely. These synchronisms concern especially the history of Paul, the chronology of which has been discussed in recent years with particular interest. (2) Literature :—Bengel, Ordo temporum, 1741, 268-295; Wurm, TZfTh, 1833, 8. 3-103; Anger, De tempor. ın actis apost. ratione, 1833; Wieseler, Chronologie des apost. Zeitalters, 1848; Hofmann, NT. v. 11-17; Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays (written 1863), 1893, pp. 21-233; Aberle, ThQSc, 1886, 8. 553ff.; Aberle, Bibl. Zeitschrift von Göttsberger und Sickenberger, 1903, 8. 256 ff. ; O. Holtz- mann, Ntl. Zeitgeschichte, 1895, S. 128 ff. ; Blass, Acta Apost. editio phalol. 1895, p. 22 ff. ; Harnack, Chronol. der altchristl. Literatur, Bd. i. 1897, 8. 233 ff. ; Belser, ThQSc, 1898, S. 353 ff; Ramsay, several articles in 450 CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 451 Expos. 1896, 1897, 1900; Bacon, Expos. 1898, 1899 1900 ; Schürer, Z/WTh, 1898, S. 21-42; Schurer, Gesch des Jüd. Volks*, i. (1901) in many passages, especially 8. 577 ff. [Eng. trans. 1. ii. 181 ff]; Hönnicke, Chronol. des Apostels Pl. 1903; Zahn, PRE®, xv. 62-68 (1904); Clemen, Paulus, Bd. i. (1904). (3) In the following remarks, which set forth the grounds for some of the principal dates in the table on p. 481 ff., the conclusions already reached in this book concerning the origin and trustworthiness of the N.T. writings, especially of Acts, are assumed. These remarks also recognise the principle, that in historical matters no writer is infallible, but each must be judged according to his historical position and probable intention in writing. For example, Tacitus is better acquainted with Rome than is Josephus ; Josephus is better acquainted with Palestine than is Tacitus. Josephus (born in 37), though poorly informed concerning conditions among the Jews during the forty years prior to his birth and the first decade after it (above, p. 97 ff.), is the classical witness for the same conditions between 50 and 70, and in questions concerning the order of events during this period certainly deserves incomparably more eredence than the chroniclers, learned and unlearned, from the time of Julius Africanus onwards. Leaving out of account the length of time between a writer and the event which he records, in chronological questions the authority of even a mediocre historian who gives a connected narrative is greater than that of chroniclers who group together separate dates, generally on the basis of some scheme. Where the chronicler has used, or seems to have used, official lists of emperors or bishops and their years of oflice, he should be given a hearing; but it is certain that there were no such lists of the procurators of Pales- tine. Furthermore, it must be regarded as not per- missible to change dates which without variation are transmitted by such ancient and widely manifest tradition 452 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT as that of the N.T. writings, e.g., in Gal. ü. 1 to substi- tute for διὰ δεκατεσσάρων, with Marcion (GK, ii. 497), διὰ τεσσάρων, as proposed by Grotius and Reiche (Comm. erit. ii. 1-10), and accepted by Baljon (Aomm. zum Gal. S. 16-19, 102). If in the future a text with this reading should turn up, every critic would certainly know that it was a correction due to such reflections as are found in the Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 436. Furthermore, on stylistic grounds, it seems impossible to reckon the fourteen years from the conversion of Paul (Gal. 1. 15) instead of from the first visit to Jerusalem three years after the conversion (Gal. 1. 18). Even omitting πάλεν in Gal. i. 1, which refers directly to 1. 18, with Marcion (GK, 11. 497), Iren. et al. ἔπειτα, which is twice repeated in i. 18 and ii. 1, shows that the three facts—the conversion, the first and the second visit to Jerusalem—are links in a chain (ef. 1 Cor. xv. 4-8), the second of which is separated from the first by a space of three years, and the third by a space of fourteen years (cf. the expression with that of Acts xxiv. 17); so that we have an interval of seventeen years between the conversion and the event narrated in Gal. ii. 1-10; ef. ZKom. Gal. 1608 Moreover, for the present writer as for most modern scholars there is no question that the events referred to in Gal. ii. 1-10 are the same as those of Acts xv. 1-29. This is evidenced not only by the practical identity of the two accounts, but also by the impossibility of making any other combination. A combination of Gal. 11. and Acts Xvili. 22 is impossible, because in the latter passage Paul does not go to Jerusalem at all (above, p. 29 f., ἢ. 8), and because Galatians was written prior to this time. But it is just as impossible to combine Gal. ii. with Acts xi. 30, xii, 25, because this journey with the collection took place in the autumn of 44 (see below), subtracting from which the seventeen years, we should have the year 27 as the date of Paul’s conversion, which is impossible. Even if, on the presupposition of the combination of Acts xi. 30 CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 453 and Gal. 11. 1, it were admissible to subtract only fourteen years, Paul’s conversion would have to be dated in the year 30, which would make such combination very improb- able. In the opinion of the present writer, it is by ne means certain in what year Jesus’ death took place; it certainly did not occur before the year 29. Moreover, it is impossible to crowd the events of Acts 1.-ix. into the interval between the Passover of 29 and the autumn of 30. One needs only to recall the complete change in the attitude of the Pharisaical party and of the entire popula- tion toward the early Church—as contrasted with that of the Sadducees—which took place in the interval between the events of Acts i—v. and the events of Acts vi.—ix. This would require years. Furthermore, Rom. xvi. 7 (vol. 1. 418, n. 23) shows that Paul’s conversion could not have taken place until several years after the death of Jesus. The fact that Paul makes no mention of the journey with the collection in Gal. 11. 1 is no reason either for such impracticable combinations, or for questioning the historicity of the journey with the collection in Acts ΧΙ. 30. The historicity of the account is proved both by the general character of Acts and by the fact that Luke was in Antioch at the time when Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem (Acts xi. 27; above, pp. 2, 4, 28). Paul does not say in Gal. u. 1 that after his first visit he re- mained away from Jerusalem fourteen years; this would have required just as positive a denial of his presence there as we have in i. 16-18 if there had been any occasion for such a statement. He merely says that he went to Jerusalem fourteen years after his first visit, and tells why. There is no claim that the narrative is com- plete, especially if πάλιν, which is by no means certain, be omitted. It will, however, be made clear below (p. 455 f.) why Paul omits mention of the journey with the collection, and why his opponents could not use this against him, 454 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Finally, it is assumed that the regulations governing ancient traffic were used, where the sources do not expressly state otherwise. Navigation was regularly closed from the beginning of November until the beginning of March (according to Vegetius, de Re Milt. iv. 39, from Novem- ber 11 until March 10), According to the ancient calen- dars, the festival connected with the opening of navigation, the Navigium Isidis (ef. Apul. Metamorph. xi. 7 ff. ; Lactant. Inst. i. 11. 21) fell on the fifth of March, (1.1.1. i. 1 (ed. ii.) pp. 260, 280, 311. For the causes of this “ weak point in ancient navigation,” the mare clausum, see Breusing, Nautik der Alten, 8. 160. From 1 Cor. xvi. 6, Tit. iii. 12 (ef. Acts xx. 3, 6), we see that Paul took this into consideration in making the plans for his journeys. He awaits in port cities the end of the winter, 1.6., the reopening of navigation. This is also the meaning of παραχειμάζξειν in Acts xxvii. 12, xxvii. 11. For this reason an assumption like that of Erbes (Die Todestage der Apostel Pt. und Pl. 8. 48f.), that Paul sailed from Malta on the twenty-sixth of January, is quite inadmissible. Partieularly, after the experiences which the travellers had had on their way to Malta, this would have shown an incredible lack of caution on the part of the centurion Julius. Moreover, the latter was merely taking passage, and the decision as to whether, contrary to custom, the ship and cargo should be exposed to special danger rested primarily not with him, but with the captain of the Alex- andrian vessel. That part of the sea was regarded as especially dangerous (Polybius, i. 37), and an officer en- trusted with a responsible order would, according to Vegetius (op. eit.), exereise more, not less care, than the captain of a merchant vessel. In view of the character of his report in Acts xxvi._xxvii., Luke could not have failed to note any departure from the rule, or to have stated the reason for the particular haste of the Alex- andrian captain and for the consequent decision of Julius. CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 455 The synchronisms will be noted in their chronological order. 2. THE ETHNARCH OF ARRTAS, t.e., of the Nabatzean king Harithath ıv., the father-in-law of Herod Antipas, showed himself hostile to Paul, according to 2 Cor. xi. 32 ( = Acts ix. 24), at the time of his flight from Damascus to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18). The question need not be discussed whether Damascus was at that time, and only temporarily, a part of the king- dom of Aretas (mentioned by Gutschmid in Euting, Nabat. Inschr. 8. 85; Schürer, 1. 737, 11. 82, 118 [Eng. trans. 1, ii. 357, 11. 1. 66, 98}. The present writer believes that on very good grounds he has disputed this position (Ν ΑΖ, 1904, 8. 34ff.; PRE°, xv. 62f—in the latter of which articles he has contested other confused views). Certainly it was impossible to speak of an ethnarch of Aretas after the latter had ceased to live and reign. At the same time we cannot determine definitely either the beginning or the end of his reign, though from his coins and in- scriptions we know that he lived to see the forty-eighth year of his reign. His immediate successor, Abia, ruled under Claudius and in the time of Izates of Adiabene (Jos. Ant. xx. 4. 1), the latest possible dates of whose successor, Malchus (Maliku) πη. (listed by Gutschmid as Malchus u1.), according to Gutschmid, 8. 86, were from April 49 to April 71. But only the final date is certain, whereas the year of importance to us is that of the beginning of his reign. It is probable, however, that Aretas reigned from about 9 B.c. to 39 A.D. (Gutschmid, 8. 85; Schiirer, 1. 736 ff. | Eng. trans. 1. 11, 356 {1}... If Aretas’ reign did not extend beyond this year, Paul’s flight from Damascus must have taken place in the year 39, at the very latest, and his conversion at the very latest in the year 36. However, it may just as well have occurred several years earlier. 3. Herop Aarippa 1., who received the dominion and 456 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT royal title of his grandfather from Claudius immediately after the accession of the latter to the throne, Jan. 24th, 41 (Jos. Bell. u. 11. 5; Ant. xix. 5. 1), died three years later (Bell. ü. 11. 6; Ant. xix. 8. 2), v.e. in the year 44, according to Acts xii. 3, 19, some time after the Passover. With this agrees the fact that the festive games at Cesarea, on the occasion of which he died, were held in honour of the emperor, more specifically ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτηρίας ( Ant. xix. 8. 2), which can refer only to Claudius’ safe return from Britain in the spring of 44 (Dio Cass. Ix. 23. 1, ef. Ix. 21.2; Suet. Claud. xvii. ; Eus. Chron. Abr. 2060 ; ef. Schiirer, 1. 562 [ Eng. trans. 1. 11. 163]). The summer of that year must have come before the news of this event could have reached Palestine and been the occasion of extraordinary festivities. If this determines the chronology of the events in Acts xii. 1-23, the question arises as to the relation of the collection journey in Acts xi. 30, xu. 25, to the events which took place at the time of the Passover in the year 44. There are three possibilities. Of these, the first is to be excluded, namely, that which makes the journey of Paul and Barnabas to and from Jerusalem take place before the events of xii. 1-23. In this case it is impossible to under- stand why xii. 25 is not added directly after xi. 30, especially since nothing is added after xii. 25, the narrative beginning in xiii. 1 being entirely new. The second possi- bility, namely, that the events recorded in xii. 1-23 coincide with the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, is likewise to be rejected. In that case, (1) these events would naturally in some way be woven into the story of the experiences of Paul and Barnabas, and it would some- where be intimated that Paul and Barnabas witnessed these events in Jerusalem, and the story would not be inserted into the account by means of a very indefinite date like that in xii. 1. (2) The only natural explana- tion of πρὸς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους in xi. 30 is the absence of the apostles from Jerusalem. The disposition of the collection CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 457 money by the presbyters, with the apostles present in the city, is, of course, conceivable ; cf. vi. 1-6. But m xi. 30 the Church to which the money was sent seems to be represented by the presbyters alone, among whom the “bishop” James is reckoned, notwithstanding his eminent position (cf. xi. 17, xxi. 18; per contra, cf. xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, xvi. 4, Gal. ü. 1-10 ; Forsch. vi. 353). Only the thard possibility remains, namely, that Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem after the events of xii. 1-23. Peter had already fled from Jerusalem (xii. 17). Inasmuch as Peter in departing speaks only of James and the Church, not of the other apostles, we infer that the latter, or as many of them as were then present in Jerusalem, had made use of their right to flee (Matt. x. 23) immediately after the execution of the apostle James and during the imprison- ment of Peter, since manifestly Agrippa’s designs were against the apostles in general. So Acts xii. 1-23 is an episode taken out of the past, which, apart from whatever independent value it may have, serves to show the con- dition of things which Paul and Barnabas encountered in Jerusalem. One apostle had been beheaded, another had been saved by a miracle and had afterwards fled, the others had left Jerusalem earlier. The direction of the Church was in the hands of James and the presbyters alone. Paul did not see an apostle on this occasion. Therefore he had no reason whatever to mention this journey in Galatians. The only thing that follows directly from what precedes is the fact that the collection journey took place after the death of Agrippa 1., therefore at the earliest in the summer of the year 44. Since, moreover, the full year during which Paul and Barnabas were teaching together in Antioch (xi. 26) could have ended, not with the introduction of the name Christian, or with the appear- ance of Agabus (xi. 27), but only with an event causing a serious interruption in the teaching work, te. with the journey with the collection, from which point the time 458 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον) is to be reckoned backwards, it follows that Barnabas could not have brought Paul from Tarsus before the summer of the year 43. But these dates (summer of 43 and summer of 44), before which the events could not have taken place, must coincide very nearly with the actual dates. For, in the first place, if a year or more elapsed after Peter’s flight and the death of Agrippa, before Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem, the episode in xi. 1-23 is inserted in a very awkward place, and fails to fulfil its purpose, namely, to show the condition of things at the time when Paul and Barnabas arrived. Moreover, the expression κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρόν, xii. 1 (cf. xix. 23), not- withstanding its flexibility, needs to be connected in some way with the context, and the only thing with which it can be connected is the collection journey, which ended the first full year of Paul’s work as a teacher in Antioch (xi. 26, 30). The events recorded in xu. 1-23 did not take place before the beginning of this year,—in which case the episode would belong before xi. 25, if it ought not to follow immediately after xi. 18,—but in the course of this year, from summer to summer, or autumn to autumn. Therefore the collection journey took place in the summer, or, since it was not customary to travel to the south in the hottest part of the year unless it was necessary, more probably in the autumn of the year 44,—the autumn of the year in which James had been put to death at Kaster,— and Barnabas brought Paul from Tarsus in the summer or autumn of 43. But these dates must be further defended, in view of the misunderstandings which have arisen about the collection journey. ‘The first occasion for the collection mentioned (xi, 28)is Agabus’ prophecy of a general famine. This very general prophecy (that ὅλη ἡ οἰκουμένη cannot refer to Judea has been shown above, p. 130 f.) caused the Christians of Antioch to think at once of their poverty- stricken brethren in Judea, and led to the decision to raise a collection for them, each giving according to his ability. CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 456 The language in xi. 29 and the analogy of other collections (1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. vill. 10, ix. 2) justify us in supposing that a year or more elapsed before the collection was com- pleted, and that it was not sent until much later. In xi. 30 (ὃ καὶ ἐποίησαν, cf. Gal. 11. 10) the sending of the collection is clearly distinguished from the resolution to take and to send a collection. The difference in time between the prophecy and its fulfilment is even more clearly indicated in xi. 28. Every unprejudiced reader would necessarily infer from the contrast between μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι and ἥτις ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου that the prophecy was made wm the time of Caligula (died January 24, 41), and fulfilled in the time of his successor Claudius (vol. i. 228 ; cf. Bengel, Ord. temp. p. 247). Since now xi. 25-26, 30, xu. 25, place us in the year between the summer or autumn of 43 and the same time in 44, it is clear that in xi. 27-29, according to his eustom (above, pp. 64-68), Luke goes back to the time prior to January 41 in order to explain the journey with the collection in the autumn of 44. The date mentioned in xi. 27 (cf. vi. 1; Matt. iii. 1) refers quite generally to the beginning of the Church in Antioch, described in xi. 19-26. No statement is made as to what occasioned the sending of the money, and to assume that the actual breaking out of the famine in Palestine caused it to be sent is arbitrary. If the indefinite prophecy of a single prophet was sufficient to lead to the collection of a charitable fund, any indication that this prophecy was about to be fulfilled could have led to the resolution to send the money at once to the poor Judeans, who had been in mind from the first. If, in addition, the news had reached Antioch of Agrippa’s persecution of the apostles, and of the orphaned condition of the Church at Jerusalem, then there was all the more reason for such an immediate exercise of brotherly love. The prophecy of Agabus, how- ever, did not begin to be fulfilled until after the beginning of Claudius’ reign, which was generally afflicted by assidua 460 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT sterilitates (Suet. Claudius, xviii. ; for further particulars see above, p. 130f.). For Luke this was sufficient fulfil- ment of the prophecy of Agabus, whose indefinite and popular language he does not hesitate to repeat. It was likewise sufficient to induce the Antiochians to send the money collected, without waiting for a great famine actually to occur in Judea. Although this makes the Pauline chronology really independent of the date of the famine in Judea, the following brief remarks concerning the latter may be made. According to Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 2, it took place under the procurator Tiberius Alexander. The correct reading in this passage is certainly not that adopted by Niese following the epitome ἐπὶ τούτου, but ἐπὶ τούτοις, as in the Greek MSS., the Latin version, and Eus. H. E. ii. 12. 1; at the same time, however, it is unnecessary, with Anger, 43 f.; Wieseler, 157 f.; Lightfoot, 216; Schürer, 1. 567 f. |[Eng. trans. 1. ἢ. 169 f.], to refer this to the last two procurators mentioned, namely, Fadus and Tiberius Alexander. Because, in the first place, Josephus, in the concluding sentence of xx. 5. 1, sharply distinguishes the history of the procuratorship of Fadus from what follows. In the second place, that construction would require the reading ἐπὶ τούτων. The phrase ἐπὶ τούτοις, like the following πρὸς τούτοις (cf. also xx. 12; Niese, 267), is to be taken in a neuter sense, and means, as often in Eusebius, ‘‘ under these conditions and eireum- stances,’ and consequently “at this time”; ef. H. BR. i. 1. 8, 2. 20 (ἐφ᾽ οἷς), 111. 4.11; chap. 12; 23. 1; Mart. Palestine, xii. (beginning) (cf. xi. 31), practically the same as ἐν τούτοις, H. E. iv. 21, and ἐν τούτῳ, 11]. 18. 1, iv. 15. 1, v. 13. 1, vi. 18.1. There is nothing in the con- text of xx. 2. 1 to indicate that the famine in connection with which the princess Helena distinguished herself by deeds of mercy (xx. 2. 5) oecurred during the procurator- ship of Fadus (xx. 1. 1 f.), for the reason that xx. 2. 1 ff. deals with the conversion of Helena to Judaism. In this CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 461 connection, Josephus speaks proleptically of her journey to Jerusalem, which was coincident with the famine (xx. 2. 5), and, in the same way, speaks even of her death (xx. 4. 3). He then returns to the procuratorship of Fadus (xx. 5. 1), and only after he has given an account of the accession of Tiberius Alexander does he indicate that the activity of Helena belongs historically in connection with the famine (xx. 5.2). From xx. 1. 2 we know that Fadus was still in office in 45 (according to a more uncertain reading, on the 28th of June 45). According to xx. 5, 2, Tiberius Alexander was again recalled in the year 48; for Josephus connects this event with the death of Herod of Chaleis, which is dated by him in 48, by a καί before which there should be no pause. The year is, therefore, the date of Alexander’s recall. This is not contradicted by the indefinite connection indicated in Bell. i. 11.6. If we are willing to assume, contrary to the whole impression of the narrative in Ant. xx. 1. 1-5. 2, that the decree of Claudius, referred to in xx. 1. 2, belonged to the latter and not to the earlier part of Fadus’ term of office, and that Fadus held office a very short time, while Tiberius Alexander held office for a very long period, their respective terms of office must be divided somewhat. as follows: Fadus, 44 to 46 or 47; Tiberius Alexander, from 46 or 47 to 48. Therefore the famine in Judea certainly did not fall in 44 or 45, but took place between 46 and 48, probably 47 or 48. Even if repeated bad harvests from 41 to 45 in various lands had raised prices in Palestine also, famine conditions did not exist there at the very earliest until 46, and so were not the occasion of the collection journey. Two further remarks may be added. In 2 Cor. xii. 1-4, Paul alludes to an experience of visions of a kind to give him a feeling of his importance for the rest of his life. Although, according to his own state- ment, fourteen years have elapsed since this experience took place, he speaks of it with the greatest animation and 462 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT preeision. When he confesses himself unable to give any definite account of his physical and psychical condition at that moment, it is not because the memory of it has faded, but merely because he is reproducing the first impression which one has upon awakening from a state of ecstasy (ef. Acts xi. 9). For him it must have been a very significant experience. Of course, the reference here cannot be to the experience near Damascus, as some ancient writers suppose, nor to his vision on the occasion of his first visit to Jerusalem subsequent to his conversion (Acts xxii. 17-21); for 2 Cor. was certainly written later than Galatians, in which we are informed that the apostolic council, which is spoken of as already past, took place fourteen years after the first visit and seventeen years after Paul’s conversion. By the vision referred to in 2 Cor. his thoughts were turned to a future mission to the Gentiles (Acts xxü. 21, ἐξαποστελῶ, not ἐξαποστέλλω). It was necessary for him to wait for years in Tarsus until the Lord should redeem His word and send him to the Gentiles. In the summer of 43, Barnabas sought him out in Tarsus, and drew him into the missionary work at Antioch. According to the chronology here followed, 2 Cor. was written towards the end of the year 57. Subtracting fourteen years, we have the year 43. The two dates, arrived at independently of each other, agree in this, namely, that the significant revelation in 2 Cor. xu. 2, and the new call and actual participation of Paul in missionary work among the Gentiles, both fall in the year 43. [5 this to be explained as chance, or do the two reckonings agree both as regards the year and even the time of the year, because the events mentioned in 2 Cor. xii, 2 and Acts xi, 25 were simultaneous? If several years before this Paul became aware that he was to receive a new manifesta- tion of Jesus, by which he was to be directed to preach to the Gentiles, he could not have begun this work until this revelation was received. Barnabas’ summons could not of CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 463 itself have been sufficient. The fact that only the human summons is mentioned in Acts xi. 25 is merely an accurate illustration of the same relation which exists between Acts xv. 2 and Gal. ii. 2. The human summons does not exclude the κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν. But in both cases the historian Luke emphasises the external aspect of the matter, whereas Paul emphasises the supernatural side in the great crises of his life. A second remark needs to be added here concerning Peter’s visit to Antioch. Following Schneckenburger, Zweck der Apg. 8. 109 ff., the present writer, in VA Z, 1894, 8. 435-448, claimed and endeavoured to prove that this visit took place before the apostolic council, probably shortly after Acts xu. 17. It is left to others to judge whether or not Belser, Bibl. Stud., edited by Bardenhewer, i. 3 (1896), 8. 127-139, has successfully refuted this thesis. The visit of the prophets from Judea, Acts xi. 27; the collection journey, xi. 30; Mark’s settlement in Antioch, xii. 25, in the autumn of 44 ; the visit of Peter and of others associated with James, Gal. ii. 11-14,—constitute a series of events extending from about 40 to 45. 4. SERGIUS PAULUS, THE PROCONSUL OF Cyprus, Acts xım. 7—12.—ÜConcerning this, cf. the extended discussion, NKZ, 1904, 8. 189-195, which is directed especially against Mommsen. Cyprus became a senatorial province under Augustus, and remained such from 22 B.c. onwards (Dio Cass. lin. 12. 7, liv. 4. 1). It seems that during the great Jewish rebellion under Trajan (Dio Cass. Ixviii. 32, and therefore under unusual conditions, Cyprus was governed by an imperial Legate, a certain M. Calpurnius Rufus, CLl.L. ii. No. 6072, if the latter be identical with the person of the same name who previously under Hadrian had been proconsul of Achaia (Digest, i. 16. 10. 1). The governors of Cyprus usually bore the title of proconsul before as well as after Trajan’s time. The full name of the proconsul (Acts xiii. 7), L. Sergius Paullus, is found in all probability in an inscription of the city of Rome 464 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT according to which he was one of the curatores ryparum et alver Tiberrs under Claudius (C./.L. vi. 31545, cf. Prosopographia, ii. 221, No. 876). The year cannot be determined ; the only thing that is sure is that L. Sergius Paullus later than this was appointed to the much more important post on Cyprus. At Soloi on the island of Cyprus an inscription has been found, first published by Cesnola (Cypern, German. transl. by Stern, 8. 379, No. 29), and then more carefully edited by Hogarth, Devia Cypria (1889), p. 114. This inseription ends with the words: riunrevoas τὴν βουλὴν [δι]ὰ ἐξαστῶν (510) ἐπὶ Παύλου [ἀνθ)])υπάτου. Hogarth regards the writing as wholly that of the first century. This makes it impos- sible to doubt the identity of this proconsul of Cyprus (the Paulus of the Soloi inseription) with the proconsul Sergius Paulus of Acts, and with the Sergius Paullus of the Roman inscription. For other than chronological reasons alone, the opinion of Mommsen, that the Soloi inscription refers to a certain Paullus Fabius Maximus, who died 14 B.c., cannot be maintained ; see Ν ΑΖ, 1904, S. 193 ff. Of importance as showing the connection of the Sergian gens with Cyprus is another Cyprian inserip- tion found in 1887 (J HS, ix. 241, No. 56: Δούκιον Σέργιον ΚΙ... .] Appıavov συγκλητικὸν TpıBodvov Yepyia Δημητρία τὸν ἀδελφόν). Moreover, Lightfoot (Essays on Supernat. Rel, p. 295) has shown it to be probable that the Sergius Paullus whom Pliny, H. N. i., mentions in the list of authorities for lib. 11. and xviii. (in the first reference only Sergius, not Paullus, see the critical apparatus of Sillig or Detlefsen), is the proconsul of Cyprus, and that the notes about Cyprus, H. N. ii. 210, xviii. 68, were derived from him. For other conjectures see Prosopographia, i. 222, under Sergius Paullus. The Soloi inscription contains a date, A certain Apollonius (if he is to be identified with the Apollonius of 61.1.1. vi. 1440 is questionable) set up a monument to his parents on the 25th Dem- CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 465 archexusios of the year 13. If this date refers to the year of the emperor’s reign (cf. C. J. @. 2632, 2634), —in this case the emperor Claudius, —then the date is fixed as 53. Hogarth’s hypothesis, that the figure P (100) should be added,—which gives the number 113, to be reckoned from the first organisation of the province, giving us the year 55,—seems to the present writer hazardous. The con- cluding words of the inscription just quoted seem to presuppose that the Paulus in whose proconsulship Apol- lonius as censor examined the senate of Soloi, was no longer in office; that, therefore, Paulus governed Cyprus before 53. Now it is true that these two lines and a half are written in somewhat different characters, 2.e. are a later filling out of Apollonius’ list of offices. But from this it does not follow that Apollonius and the proconsul Paulus did not hold office until a time subsequent to the date of the original inscription. Since whatever Pauline chronology is accepted, it is impossible to date Sergius Paulus’ proconsulship of Cyprus later than 53, it follows that the supplement to the inscription records a distinc- tion of Apollonius belonging prior to 58, and forgotten in the original inscription. But the proconsulship of Sergius Paulus must be dated back at least two. years. According to C. I. σ΄. 2632, the. proconsul of Cyprus in the twelfth year of Claudius, 1.6. in the year 52, was L. Annius Bassus (cf. Plin. Hp. vu. 31), who was not consul suffectus until the year 70 (CLL. vi. 200). There is no need to discuss the question whether he is identical with the person mentioned in Tac. Hist. 111. 50, year 69, nor the statements of Mommsen concerning him in the index to Keil’s Plimus, p. 401, which to the present writer are unintelligible and certainly incorrect, nor the statements of Marquardt, Rom. Staatsverwaltung’, i. 391, concerning his predecessor, Cordus ; ef.,on the other hand, the correct statements concerning both in Prosopographia, 1. 63, 11.188. Since in C. 1. @. 2632, Bassus carries out VOL, III. 30 466 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT an order of his predecessor, Cordus, and had, therefore, only just begun to govern, Q. Julius Cordus (C. I. @. 2631; the same person mentioned in Tac. Hist. i. 76?) must have governed the island until the spring of this same year, 52. The proconsulship of Sergius Paulus falls in the year beginning in the spring of 51, and ending in the spring of 52. 5. THe ExpuLsIon oF THE JEWS FROM Roms, Acts xvinl. 2—Dio Cassius (lx. 6. 6) makes the following remark in connection with the first year of Claudius, 2.e. A.D. 41 (since there is no transition to the year 42 until lx. 9. 1, ef. 10.1): “The Jews, who had again so increased in numbers that it would have been diflieult to exclude them from the city without a riot on the part of their rabble (ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου σφῶν), he did not indeed drive out, but commanded them, while retaining (otherwise) their ancestral customs, not to assemble.” The reference in πάτριος Bios can be to nothing else than that which in the edicts of tolerance in Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 2-3 is called ra ἴδια ἔθη, ἡ πάτριος θρησκεία, τὰ πάτρια ἔθη, οἱ ἴδιοι νόμοι. Since the observation of the Sabbath and the religious services in the synagogue on the Sabbath were a prime feature of their ancestral customs, the decree against συναθροίζεσθαι cannot refer to the religious services, which in Rome were held in a large number of different synagogues (vol. i. 47), but is directed against large assemblies and tumultuous gatherings of the whole Jewish populace in Rome, which were especially pleasing to the Jews (Jos. Bell. i. 6. 1, 10. 3; Ant. xvii. 9. 1 ff., 11. 1, xviii. 8. 2; Philo, Leg. ad Cai. xxxii.), and which would be appropriately designated by συναθροίξεσθαι (Acts xix. 25; Jos. Bell. ii. 10. 3) as distinguished from συνάγεσθαι (cf. συναγωγή, σύναξις ; Acts xix, 39, ἔννομος ἐκκλησία). With this deeree against the Jews is to be compared the strieter measures against the heterie, which Dio Cassius reports in the passage imme- diately following. ‘Thus understood, this account of Dio CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 467 Cassius agrees well with the fact that Claudius at the beginning of his reign showed great favour to the Jewish princes, Agrippa I. and Herod of Chalcis (Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 1; Dio Cass. lx. 8. 2), and that at their request he granted the Jews throughout the whole empire, including Italy, the right of religious worship (Ant. xix. 5. 3, of the year 42),—the same had been granted earlier to the Alex- andrian Jews, Ant. xix. 5. 2,—warning them, however, to make modest and peaceful use of it. If this warning were not followed, it did not mean a return under Claudius of the conditions that prevailed under Caligula, but the en- forcement of police regulations against the insubordination of troublesome Jews in different places. But it is very improbable that the Roman Jews gave occasion for such measures so soon after the year 42. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome mentioned in Acts xvi. 2 and Suet. Claudius, xxv. (vol. i. 488, n. 6), must belong to a later date. On the other hand, it is wrong to conclude, with O. Holtzmann, Ntl. Zeitgeschichte, 8. 127, that, from favours shown by Claudius to Agrippa 11. between 50 and 54 (Schürer, i. 586 f. [ Eng. trans. 1. ii. 191 f.]), this edict does not belong to this, but to an earlier period. This con- tinuous patronage of Agrippa does not presuppose general love for the Jews on the part of the emperor; neither is the fact that in consequence of the repeated tumults among the Jews in Rome, the patience of the Roman police was finally exhausted, to be taken as evidence of an especially unfriendly feeling or attitude of the Emperor toward the Jews. The date cannot be fixed more definitely either from the “ Teaching of Addai,” ed. Philips, p. 16, or from Kus. H. E. ii. 18. 9, who simply follows Acts, or from Orosius, Hist. vii. 6. 15, who declares that he found the ninth year of Claudius’ reign mentioned in Josephus, who says nothing whatever about it; it must be fixed from the chronology of Paul as determined from other data. 6. GALLIO, PROCONSUL oF ACHAIA, ACTS ΧΥΠΙ. 12-17. 468 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT — Since the words in xviii. 12, TaAXiwvos δὲ ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος τῆς ᾿Αχαΐας, are clearly intended to indicate not the motive for the Jews’ charges against Paul, but the time and circumstances of them, it is fair to infer that Gallio did not assume office until some time during Paul’s eighteen months’ sojourn in Corinth, and, since official changes were usually made in the spring, not until the spring following Paul’s settlement in Corinth. L. Junius Gallio (called Anneus Novatus before his adoption by the rhetorician Gallio), the elder brother of the philo- sopher Seneca, left Achaia on one occasion (according to Seneca, Epest. xvii. 1 [105]) in order to get rid of a fever which he had contracted there. The sea-voyage here referred to cannot be the same as that which took him to Egypt (Plin. H. N. xxxi. 62), for the occasion of the latter voyage was a hemorrhage. He died in the reign of Nero (Dio Cass. lxii. 25). It is naturally impossible to determine the date of his death more definitely from Tac. Ann. xv. 73. The date of his consulate is just as uncertain (Prosopogr. 11. 237) as that of his proconsulate in Achaia. Inasmuch as his younger brother Seneca was consul in 56, Gallio probably held the office at an earlier date. During the exile of his brother, from which the latter was recalled in 49 (Seneca, Dial. xii. 18. 2), Gallio continued his honourable career undisturbed. Seneca’s history, therefore, throws no light upon the dates of his brother’s career. In addition, the investigations of Ramsay (Expos. 1897, March, p. 201 f.), Schürer (Z/WTh, 1898, S. 41), and of Hönnicke (Chronol. des Apostels Pl., 8. 26 ff.), have led to no sure result. Even if we knew when Gallio was adopted, and received this name from his adopted father, this information would be of no importance for the chronology of Paul ; for Luke could have given him this name (Acts xviii. 14) without scruple, even if he had not yet assumed it at the time of this incident of which he writes. CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 469 7. THE PROCURATORS FELIX AND Festus, ACTS XXIII. 24-xxv1. 32.—Josephus, the only authority in any way closely associated with the events in question, in Bell. ii. 12. 8 mentions the sending of Felix to Palestine as the last event of Claudius’ reign (i. 11. 1-12. 8), and places everything which he relates concerning Felix’s pro- euratorship (ii. 13. 2-7, ef. Ant. xx. 8. 4 on the first year of Nero) after the accession of Nero (ii. 12. 8). The remark in il. 13. 2 concerning Nero, that he gave Agrippa 1 some other cities of Palestine in addition to the tetrarchy of Philip (i. 12. 8) which Claudius had bestowed upon him, and that he appointed (κατέστησεν not ἐξέπεμψεν) Felix procurator over the rest of Judea, can only mean that Nero confirmed Felix in the procu- ratorship to which he was appointed by Claudius, except that he reduced his jurisdiction in the manner mentioned. The date of the transference of office from Felix to Festus is not definitely fixed by Bell. 11. 14. 1. Practically the same situation is found in Ant. xx. 7. 1-8, 9. Here also no account of the official acts of Felix is given until the reign of Nero (8. 1-8). Only his appointment to Pales- tine falls in the reign of Claudius (7. 1). This cannot be claimed as certainly regarding his marriage with Drusilla (7. 2), the account of which is given merely as an episode. Josephus’ idea of the appointment of Felix is indicated not only in the distribution of material be- tween the reigns of Claudius and of Nero, but also by the fact that immediately after mentioning the appointment of Felix he reports the assignment to Agrippa of the tetrarchy of Philip (7. 1), which took place in the begin- ning of the thirteenth year of Claudius’ reign (53). Con- sequently there can be no doubt about Josephus’ idea of the date of Felix’s procuratorship. Felix entered office in one of the last years of Claudius’ reign (between 51 and 54), was confirmed by Nero immediately upon his accession (October 13th, 54), and was recalled in the same 470 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT reign. But the greater part of Felix’s term of office which, according to Acts xxiv. 10, 27, must have covered at least (4- 2) six years, fell in the reign of Nero. Even if only half of the six years belong after the accession of Nero (October 54), Felix could, according to Josephus, have been withdrawn, at the very earliest, in the autumn of 57. The chronology of Josephus is confirmed by Tacitus (Ann. zii. 54) to this extent, namely, in that Tacitus assigns to the year 52 the sentence of Cumanus, which, according to Josephus, was the immediate occasion of the appointment of Felix. In another respect Tacitus’ statement in this passage has caused confusion. Whereas, according to Josephus (Bell. i. 12. 8; Ant. xx. 7. 1), Felix was sent from Rome to Palestine to succeed Cumanus, at the request of the high priest Jonathan, who was present at Rome at the time of the condemna- tion of Cumanus (Ant. xx. 8. 5; Bell. ii. 12. 6), accord- ing to Tacitus, Felix had governed Samaria for a long time prior to this sentence (jam pridem Jude impositus) while Cumanus was governing Galilee. The statement of Tacitus is to be rejected, not only because in respect of time and place Josephus was much nearer the facts than Tacitus, and could not have invented such specific reports as those about Jonathan, but also because Tacitus’ alleged division of the small province takes no account of the most important part of Palestine, namely, Judea and Jerusalem. This is a point on which Tacitus is poorly informed. It is more difficult to explain a contradiction in which Josephus involves himself notwithstanding his otherwise clear statements about Felix. In Ant. xx. 8. 9 he says that after Festus had been sent by Nero to Pales- tine to succeed Felix, the foremost Jews of Ceesarea went to Rome in order to accuse Felix, and that he would have received the punishment which he deserved for his mis- deeds if the emperor had not pardoned many of his offences at the intercession of Felix’s brother Pallas, who CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 471 was at that time greatly esteemed by Nero. Josephus evidently knows of the subsequent downfall of Pallas, and says with reference to it, that just when (μάλεστα δὴ röre) Felix had to answer charges in Rome, Pallas was in high favour with Nero. But, according to Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 14), who must have been informed on this point, the downfall of Pallas occurred in the year 55 (cf. the state- ment concerning the consuls, xiii. 11) shortly before Britannicus had completed his fourteenth year (xii. 15). But, according to Suet. Claud. xxvii., Britannicus was born on the twentieth day of the reign of Claudius during his second consulate, 2.e. (reckoning from January 24th, 41) on the 12th or 13th of February 41, not on the 12th of February 42, as Schiller states in his Kazsergesch. 1. 338. Naturally no account need be taken of the incidental statement of Dio Cassius, lx. 12. 5, from which it might be inferred that Britannicus was born in the year 42. Accordingly, Britannicus’ fourteenth birth- day fell on the 13th day of February 55, and Pallas was deposed in January of the year 55. With this, however, agrees Dio Cassius, Ixi. 7. 4, where the death of Britan- nicus is placed in the year 55. In view of the complete agreement of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius regard- ing these dates, which are entirely independent of each other, referring in part to the birth, in part to the four- teenth birthday of Britannicus and his poisoning, which took place shortly before his fourteenth birthday,—dates, moreover, which are associated with the names of consuls, —such trivial statements as those of Harnack, Chronol. der Altchrist. Int. 8. 238, to the effect that Tacitus made a mistake of a year in giving the age of Britannicus at the time of his death, and consequently put the downfall of Pallas in the year 55 instead of 56, the correct date, are to be rejected. On the other hand, from the fact that in the year 55, when Pallas was charged with high treason, he showed a defiant spirit, and was acquitted along with 472 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Burrus (Tac. Ann. xiii. 23), it is not to be inferred that between 55 and 57 he had gradually or suddenly regained the favour of Nero. Nero never showed him any special regard (Ann. xii. 2), and it is certain that from January 55 until he was poisoned in 62 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 65) he was never in favour with the emperor, which would agree fairly well with the words of Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 9. How O. Holtzmann, Ntl. Zeitgeschichte, S. 128-130, infers from this statement of Josephus that in the summer of 55 Felix went to Rome and Festus to Palestine, and especially how Harnack, 8. 235, reaches his conclusion that Felix was recalled not later than the year 55 or 56 (ef. S. 237, Accession of Festus, summer of 56), these writers themselves must explain. A glance into older works, e.g. Wieseler, Chron. des apost. Zeitalters, 8. 72-74, would have prevented such mistakes. According to Acts xxiv. 27 (cf. xx. 16, xxvii. 9), Felix departed, and Festus assumed office in the summer. Felix’s accusers could, therefore, have left Ceesarea immediately after his departure and have reached Rome before the close of navigation; but if Josephus is correct in his statement about Pallas, they did not arrive in the autumn of the year 55, at the beginning of which Pallas was deposed, nor in the year 56, 2.6. one year and nine months after the fall of Pallas, but must have come at the very latest in the autumn of 54. But this, too, is impossible. For since Nero did not come to the throne until October 13th, 54, Festus, who arrived in Palestine in the summer of this same year, would not have been sent out by Nero but by Claudius, and Felix, who departed in the summer, would have found Claudius still alive. Josephus would then be entirely wrong in his statement that Nero con- firmed Felix in his procuratorshop and appointed Festus as his successor, and in his belief that the procuratorship of Felix fell largely under Nero. But even if he be cor- rect in one point, namely, that Nero sent Festus to Pales- CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 473 tine, nevertheless his statement about Pallas is untenable. It is impossible to crowd the journey of Festus from Rome to Palestine, the journey of Felix and the Jewish embassy to Rome, and the adjustment of their troubles, into the period of time between October 13th, 54, and approximately February 1st, 55, to say nothing of the fact that such journeys were not usually made in the winter months, and that according to the Acts they must necessarily have been made in the summer. Josephus’ statement about Pallas is, therefore, certainly incorrect. But even if this were not as evident as it is, even if we had the choice of rejecting either this incidental account of Josephus’ idea of events in distant Rome, or his con- sistent conception of the relation of the procuratorships of Felix and Festus in Palestine to the administration of Claudius and Nero, without question we would hold the latter to be historical, and reject the former as an error of Josephus’ due to the practical necessity of explaining Felix’s escape from punishment, and to a confusion of the times of Claudius with those of Nero. Whoever makes this error a corner-stone in chronology will certainly arrive at conclusions which are absurd—and these con- clusions affect more than the history of the Church. Three examples will suffice: (1) If Festus succeeded Felix at the latest in the year 54,—which, as we have seen, would be the case on this supposition,—Paul was arrested at Pentecost, 52. On this occasion, fully two years before the recall of Felix, the uprising of the Egyptians is spoken of as an event not belonging to the immediate past (Acts xxl. 38, πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν, cf. v. 36). According to Josephus (Bell. ii. 13. 5; Ant. xx. 8. 2), however, this uprising occurred during the reign of Nero. The arrest of Paul took place, therefore, several years after October 54, and the recall of Felix several years after 56. (2) When, at the beginning of his imprisonment in Uxsarea, Paul spoke before Felix, the latter was married 474 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to Drusilla (Acts xxiv. 24), and there is nothing which im plies that he had been only recently married. Drusilla, who in 44 was only six years old (Ant. xix. 9. 1), was only fourteen years old in 52. But when Felix induced her tc infidelity she was married to Azizus of Emesa (Ant. xx. 7. 2), and, prior to this first marriage, her brother Agrippa 1. had seriously negotiated with Epiphanes of Comagene for her marriage to him (xx. 7. 1). Drusilla’s first marriage was of short duration (loc. cit.). In order to compress into a period of two years the whole of the first marriage, the struggle with the difficulties which Felix had to over- come in order to make Drusilla unfaithful to her husband, and to induce the Jewess to marry him (Ant. xx. 7. 2), and the period during which at the time of Acts xxiv. 24 Felix and Drusilla had been married, it is necessary to assume the most extreme possibilities. Her first marriage took place at twelve years, after negotiations concerning another marriage, which also required time, had failed. This in itself is hardly probable. Moreover, Josephus evidently knows when the first marriage took place. At the end of the twelfth year of Claudius, 1.6. at the begin- ning of the thirteenth year of Claudius (= 53), Agrippa IL. received the tetrarchy of Philip, and after this elevation in rank, 2.e. at the earliest in the year 53, he gave his sister, who was then fifteen years of age, in marriage to Azizus (Ant. xx. 7. 1). At the very earliest, then, it was not until the year 54, probably later, that Drusilla became the wife of Felix. This marriage had already taken place when Paul spoke before Felix, and the latter retained his procuratorship for two whole years thereafter. Con- sequently, at the very earliest, Festus succeeded Felix in 56, probably later. (3) Neither does the “new chrono- logy” agree with Josephus’ statements about his first journey to Rome (Vit. 3). He was born in the winter of 37-38 (Schiirer, i. 74 [ Eng. trans. 1. 1, 77 |), and completed his twenty-sixth year in the winter of 63-64 ; so that he CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 475 started on his journey in the spring of 64. The purpose of this journey was the liberation of some Jewish priests from imprisonment in Rome, whither Felix had sent them during his procuratorship to be condemned by the Imperial court. If Felix was removed from office in 54 (55 or 56), these priests must have remained prisoners in Rome for at least ten (or according to the incorrect reckoning of our modern chronologists, at least eight or nine) years. ‘This imprisonment was not the result of a judicial sentence, a mode of punishment unknown among the Romans, but it was an imprisonment pending a trial. The case 1s con- ceivable only if Felix remained in office until the summer of 60; so that the imprisonment of these priests until they were set free by Josephus may have lasted about four years, just as the first Roman imprisonment of Paul lasted from two to two and a half years. As regards the data of the Eusebian Chronicle (Schoene, 11. 152 ff.), (1) due regard is to be paid to the fact that Hus. A. E. ii. 20. 1, 22. 1, agrees with Josephus as against the Armenian version of the Chronicle in making Felix a procurator under Nero,—indeed, he places his procuratorship mainly under Nero,—and in making Nero appoint Festus. (2) It is not possible, with Blass, Acta apost. p. 22, to harmonise the two chronologists, Eusebius and Jerome, on the assumption that they differ only by a year. The Latin editor places the sending of Felix in Anno Abr. 2066, the tenth year of Claudius, and the sending of Festus in Anno Abr. 2072, the second year of Nero. On the other hand, the Armenian version places the sending of Felix in Anno Abr. 2067, the eleventh year of Claudius (= 51), but puts the sending of Festus in Anno Abr, 2070, the fourteenth year of Claudius (= 54). 'Ihat the Armenian version is confused, appears also from the peculiar fact that Felix’s entrance upon office is not re- corded until after a statement is made concerning an event which took place under his proeuratorship. (3) But 476 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT even if the dates of the Armenian version are correeted on the basis of Jerome’s editing (cf. Ver. Ill. v.), and even if we assume with Harnack, 8. 234, 236 f., that the Eusebian dates for the assumption of office by Felix and Festus are the summer of 51 and the summer of 56 respectively, and that Paul’s first trial before Felix took place at Pentecost (Harnack, 8. 237, makes the surprising statement “at Easter”) 54, there is still a contradiction to Acts xxiv. 10; for Felix had been then only three years in office, a period covering less than one-third of the time of Pilate’s pro- curatorship. More especially there remains the irrecon- cilable contradiction to the course of events in Palestine under Claudius and Nero, according to the representation of Josephus. Certain dates can be obtained only by reckoning back with the help of Josephus from the Jewish war. According to the episodic narrative of Bell. vi. 5. 8, Albinus, the successor of Festus, was in Jerusalem at a feast of Tabernacles, which visit, according to Josephus, took place four years before the outbreak of the war, and seven years five months prior to a point of time just before the capture of Jerusalem. The second date, which is more definite, with which, however, the first agrees, refers clearly to the feast of Tabernacles in the year 62. But now all that is related in Ant. xx. 9. 2-3 (ef. the meagre allusions in Bell. ii. 14. 1) concerning Albinus’ ἡ stay in Jerusalem, also took place at a feast of Tabernacles ; for, since there is no previous mention of a feast κατὰ τὴν ἑορτὴν, ἐνειστήκει γὰρ αὕτη in xx. 9. 3 is to be understood as referring to the feast of Tabernacles (cf. above, p. 285, n. 4, on John v. 1, vii. 2). This is a Jewish usage of language which is evidently found in Bell. 1. 12. 3; since ἡ ἑορτή in this passage is not the Passover mentioned in ΧΙ. 1, nor an undetermined feast, in which case there would be no artiele (cf. the importance attached to the feast of Tabernacles, Ant. viii. 4. 1). Unless a peculiar coincidence be assumed, the feast of Tabernacles, briefly CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 477 referred to in Bell. vi. 5. 3, is identical with that spoken of in Ant. xx. 9. 2. From the context of xx. 9. 1-3 we learn that Albinus journeyed to Jerusalem very soon after his arrival in the country (cf. a similar case in Acts xxv. 1). If he was there at the feast of Tabernacles in 62, then he arrived in Palestine late in the summer of 62. But from xx. 9. 1 it follows that Festus died in Palestine at least three months previous, 7.e. in May or June 62. Josephus gives the comparatively just and energetic ad- ministration of Festus only two lines in Bell. 11. 14. 1, and also describes it very briefly in Ant. xx. 8. 10-11. It produced no change in affairs, and must have been of short duration. In view of the silence of Josephus, it is a bold venture to assume that the procuratorship of Festus lasted from 54 to 55 or 56 (see above, p. 472 f.) until June 62. On the other hand, the events in Ant. xx. 8. 10-11 cannot possibly be crowded into the space of time—ten months at the most—between the arrival of Festus in the late summer and June of the following year. Therefore he cannot have assumed oflice so late as 61, but at the very latest began to rule in the year 60. When in Ant. xx. 8. 11 (ef. 11. 2; Vita, 3) Josephus calls Poppzea the wife of Nero, he is certainly speaking either pro- leptically or euphemistically ; for the formal marriage between the two (Tac. Ann. xiv. 60-64; Suet. Nero, xxxv. lvii.) did not take place until after Nero’s separa- tion from Octavia and her death (June the 9th, 62), 1.6. about the time of the death of Festus, whereas Ant. xx. 8. 11 refers to a period prior to his death. Moreover, the original reading in Acts xxvill. 16 (vol. 1. 551f.) pre- supposes that at the time of Paul’s arrival in Rome there was only one Prefectus pretorio. That was the case until the death of Burrus, which, as the context of the narratives shows (Tac. Ann. xiv. 51; Dio Cassius, Ixil. 13), occurred in the beginning of the year 62. After his death this office was shared by two persons. If Paul had 478 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT arrived in Rome in March 62, he would have found this new arrangement in operation. Therefore he probably arrived in Rome at the latest in the spring of 61, and accordingly Festus assumed office as procurator at the latest in the summer of 60. But this latest possible date for his assumption of office has every claim to be the correct one. As has been shown, a date much earlier is impossible, while there can be no serious objection to taking the year 59 as the date of the change of office from Felix to Festus. In view of Acts xxiv. 10 and the re- presentation of the rule of Festus in Josephus, there is little to recommend in deducting a year from Felix’s procuratorship and adding it to Festus’. Then there is also to be considered the significant coincidence, shown above, p. 462, between 2 Cor. xii. 2 and the date in Acts xi. 25, which can be absolutely fixed. By referring the relative dates back a year, this very likely combination would be rendered impossible. 8. Taking the fixed date—the death of Agrippa τ. in the summer of 44—and a date almost as certain, namely, Festus’ entrance upon office in the summer of 60, the Pauline chronology can be arranged plausibly without any conflict with established dates. It requires no change in the traditional dates, but only the proof that Josephus and Tacitus each in one instance gave an inaccurate report of matters with which they were imperfectly acquainted. The excess of between five and six years, concerning which we have no information, causes no difficulty. The question, whether these years should be inserted between Acts xii, and xiii., or between Acts xiv. and xv. 1, or between Acts xv. 33 and xv. 40, is not difficult to answer. The apostolic council took place soon after the first mis- sionary journey. The language in xiv. 28 may apply to ἃ period of months, but not to five or six years. Paul and Barnabas brought to Jerusalem the fresh reports of the first missionary journey (xv. 3, 4, 12). In xv. 35 mention CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 479 is made of the resumption of teaching in the Church at Antioch and of missionary preaching in the same city, but the elose connection between xv. 40 and xv. 30-34, and between xvi. 4 and xv. 29, makes it impossible to assume an interval of more than weeks or months. Evidence is also found in Phil. iv. 15 (ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ evayyeriov) for the statement that only a short space of time intervened between the first and second missionary journeys. But, on the other hand, in xii. 1 we have the beginning of an entirely new historical narrative. Nothing suggests that Paul and Barnabas took Mark with them to Antioch with a view to making him their companion on a more extensive missionary journey (xii. 25). But Mark settled in Antioch, where we meet him again in xv. 37. Only in a passing moment of discouragement did he go back to Jerusalem to his mother (xii. 13). In view of what has just been stated, room for the insertion of a five- year period of the preparation of the apostle to the Gentiles for the calling which had been placed before him, is to be found only between Acts xu. and xiii. If Luke had written a third book, we would prob- ably know much of the history of the older apostles during the years 44-50, which he dismisses with Acts xiii. 1 (above, p. 59 f.). During this period no important steps were taken affecting missionary work among the Gentiles. 9. THE DEATH OF PETER AND PAUL UNDER NERO.—In view of the investigations in vol. 1]. 54-84, 158-194, it may be assumed as certain that both apostles died as martyrs in Rome in the reign of Nero, and also that Paul died considerably later than Peter. The parts of 2 Tim. which it would have been most impossible to invent, prove that the last imprisonment and the death of Paul were not part of the persecution of the Christians in 64. Paul’s silence regarding Peter in all his imprisonment letters, and Peter’s silence concerning Paulin 1 Pet., prove 480 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that their ways parted at the end. The clearest traces of the true course of events are preserved in the tradition of Clement of Rome up to and beyond the Chronicle of Eusebius. Harnack’s assertion, Chronol. der altchristl. Lit. 8. 239, 240, that Paul was certainly executed in the year 64, is as incorrect as it is bold. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. ROMAN AND JEWISH. Deposition of Pilate and of Caiaphas, . 36. Death of Tiberius, March 16, 37. Reign of Caius Cesar (Caligula) March 16, 37, to January 24, 41. Birth of Nero and of Josephus, 37. Herod Agrippa I., 37-44. Persecution of the Jews in Alexandria, 38. Attempts of Caligula to erect his statue in the temple, 39-40. teign of the Emperor Claudius, Jan. 24, 41, to October 13, 54. Death of Herod Agrippa 1., summer of 44, Fadus’ procuratorship, 44-46 (or 47). VOL. III. CHRISTIAN. Death and Resurrection of Christ, probably 30. The events in Acts i.-viii. 1, from 30 to 34. The Conversion of Paul, beginning of 35. Three years’ sojourn of Paul in Damascus, once interrupted by a journey to Arabia (Gal. i. 17). Flight from Damascus, first visit to Jerusalem, settlement in Tarsus (Gal. 1. 18-24; 2 Cor. xi. 32; Acts ix. 23-30, xxii. 17-21, xxvi. 20; Rom. xv. 19), 38. Peter in Joppa and Cxsarea (Acts ix. 32-xi. 18, xv. 7). Agabus and the other prophets in Antioch (Acts xi. 27 f.), about 40, Luke a member of the Antiochian Church. Paul brought by Barnabas from Tarsus to Antioch (Acts xi. 25; 2 Cor. xii. 2), summer or autumn, 43. Execution of James the son of Zebedee, imprisonment of Peter, flight of Peter from Jerusalem, about Easter, 44. Journey of Barnabas and of Paul to Jerusalem with the collection, and the settlement of Mark in Antioch (Acts xi. 30, xii. 25), autumn of 44. 31 482 ROMAN AND JEWISH. Procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander, 46 (or 47)-48. Faminein Judea. Procuratorship of Cumanus, 48-52. Sergius Paulus, governor of Cyprus, about 50 (certainly not between 5l and 53). Banishment of Jews from about 52. Procuratorship of Felix, from 52, or beginning 53, until summer, 60. Rome, Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, probably from the spring of 53 on. Reign of Nero, from Oct. 13, 54, to June 9, 68. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE CHRISTIAN. Paul and Barnabas, active as teachers and missionaries in Antioch until the spring of 50. The visit of Peter and of other Judeans in Antioch, The Epistle of James, about 50. First missionary journey of Paul (Acts xiii. 4-xiv. 27; Gal. iv. 13), spring of 50 until autumn of 51. The apostolic council (Acts xv. 1-29; Gal. ii. 1-10), beginning of 52. Beginning of the second missionary journey (Acts xv. 40), spring of 52. Arrival, in Corinth, about November 52. The Epistle to the Galatians, about April 53. Arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth (Acts xviii. 5; 1 Thess. 111. 6). First Epistle to the Thessalonians, about May or June 53. Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, August or September 53. Hearing before Gallio (Acts xviii. 12-17), autumn of 53. Journey from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18-21. Beginning of the three years’ stay in Ephesus, Acts xx. 31, ef. xix. 8-10, xx. 18), before Pentecost, i.e. about May 54. Continuation of the journey to C»sarea (not to Jerusalem) and Antioch (Acts xviii. 21f.). Journey of Apollos from Alexandria by way of Ephesus to Corinth (Acts xviii. 24-28), summer, 54. Beginning of the third missionary journey from Antioch to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1), probably in the late summer of 54. Settlement in Ephesus, somewhere about February 59. Transfer to the lecture-room of Tyran- nus, about Pentecost, 55. Short visit in Corinth from Ephesus (vol. i. 263 f.). A lost letter of Paul to the Corinth CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 483 RoMAN AND JEWISH. CHRISTIAN. ians (1 Cor. v. 9), toward the end of 56 or beginning of 57. Sending of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, and thence to Corinth (Acts xix. 22; 1 Cor. iv. 17). Letter of the Corinthians to Paul (1 Cor. vii. 1). The First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 7, xvi. 8), about Easter, 57. Return of Timothy to Ephesus. Send- ing of Titus to Corinth (vol. i. 321 ff.). The uprising of Demetrius (Acts xix. 23-41). Departure of Paul and Timothy from Ephesus to Macedonia by way of Troas (Aete’xx. 1; cf. 2 Cor. i. 8, ii. 12, vii. 5), at or shortly after Pentecost, 57. Meeting of Titus and Paul in Mace- donia (2 Cor. vü. 5-15). Second Epistle to the Corinthians, about November or December 57. Journey of Paul from Macedonia to Corinth (Acts xx. 2), at New Year, 58. The Epistle to the Romans written during the three months’ stay in Greece and Corinth (Acts xx. 3; Rom. xv. 25, xvi. 1), about Feb- ruary 58. Juurney by way of Macedonia (Easter in Philippi, Acts xx. 6), Troas, Miletus, ete., to Jerusalem, Arrival in Jerusalem, and beginning of the Cesarean imprisonment, Pentecost, 58. Porcins Festus, proenrator from sum- mer 60 to early summer 62. Defence before Festus, late summer of 60. Departure from Cvesarea for Rome (Acts xxvii. 1, 9), September 60. Arrival at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16; ef ver. 11), March 61. Epistle to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, summer, 62. Second Epistle of Peter, in 62, Matthew writes his Aramaic Gospel in Palestine, in 62. 484 ROMAN AND JEWISH. Burning of Rome (vol. ii. 68), from the 19th to the 24th of July 64. Beginning of the Jewish War, 66. Victory of the Jews over Cestius, November 66. War in Galilee, 67. Civil war in Jerusalem, winter 67-68. Death of Emperor Nero, June 9, 68. Death of Galba, January 15, 69; of Otho, April 16, 69; of Vitellius, December 21, 69. Vespasian proclaimed Alexandria, July 1, 69. jerinning of the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, April 70. Capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple, August 70. emperor in CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE CHRISTIAN. End of the two whole years (ef. Acts xxviii. 30), about April 63. The Epistle to the Philippians, sum- mer of 63. Release of Paul, late in the summer of 63. Journey of Paul to Spain, autumn of 63 or spring of 64. Arrival of Peter in Rome, in the autumn of 63 or spring of 64. First Epistle of Peter, spring of 64. Mark engaged in Rome in the pre- paration of his Gospel, summer of 64. Persecution under Nero and cruci- fixion of Peter, autumn of 64. Return of Paul from Spain, tour of the Eastern Churches, composition of 1 Timothy and of Titus, spring and autumn of 65. Stay in Nicopolis during the winter of 65-66. Death of James the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem, at Easter, 66. Return of Paul to Rome, spring of 66. Paul’s arrest in Rome, composition of 2 Timothy, summer of 66. Paul beheaded, at the end of 66 or beginning of 67. Publication of the Gospel of Mark, in 67. Flight of the Christians from Jeru- salem to Pella, 67. Settlement of the apostle John and other disciples (Philip, Aristion, and others) in the province of Asia, 68. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE ROMAN AND JEWISH. Reign of Titus, from June 23, 79, until September 13, 81. Reign of the Emperor Domitian, Sep- tember 13, 81, to September 18, 96. Reign of the Emperor Nerva, from the 18th of September 96 until the 25th of January 98. Reign of the Emperor Trajan, from the 25th οἵ January 98 until August 117. 485 CHRISTIAN. Epistle of Jude, about 75. Gospel and Acts of the Apostles by Luke, about 75. Epistle to the Hebrews, about 80. The Gospel and Epistles of John, 80-90. Appearance of the Greek Matthew, about 85. Revelation of John, about 95. Death of John, about 100. ee eae eqaon) oT “sr ‚08-08 werkttalt doer) 0 30 vonetaaqqgA- £ 08 suode Ren, to nvitnlovenl ine ods Y Epth to the nae of ply δι, t ‘ \ j fixion of Peter; auto ’ Return af! Paul fran § he Rast m .Dbure ΤΙ of 1 Timothy and o uch ond Ankarın of 5. ὦ ar Stay dn Nicapolik du FR , ᾿ of 05-65, .Boginning af the Jowish War, δύ, Death of Janin the ὃ R \ in Jerusalane δὶ Piper t ki 5 Retafn of van to Som } , ᾿ # Su, = Ὶ ᾿ : j Faul’s arrest ἢ! & Οἱ Ἷ ἵ ᾽ 2 Timothy, num Victery οὔ thew Jew over ee eit Mg Nov cries δ, lied N ox or" jes Paul beheaded, at: the, ' οἵ . ᾿ ὰ ι ‘ oy eine the & 1 Γ ᾿ 18 War in Galilee, 47, Blight of the Christine‘ ᾿ ἢ salem to Pella, δ). ἠὲ i Ciyit wer lin Jere, winter 67468. Setddemen® of thedape . ather dige‘phon : (P gi - wand ao here) ii . 68, Π σιν Death af Em ecrogd Non June 8 i 88, ᾿ 3 Donth af Gale Jannary τῆ, We af " ὦ Othe, ye Mb: δὲ Viteliun, Dogwaber SE ma wen . ᾿ Vorasian οι, ory perer ‘An ; Alu anilr ag LP AIR zZ = Berinpiriey om at a a ὧς 4 hy Ἄν»; Ape Bar ne | Bo. eh y A of the bewple 7 i) GENERAL INDEX. I— abba, i. 48 f. Abilius, second Bishop of Alexandria, iii. 87. Achaia, i. 185 f.,, 256, 266,; iü. 467 f. Achaicus, 1. 260, 269;. Acta Pauli, i. 2705. see also Acts of Paul. Acta Thecl, ii. 915. ‘see also Acts of Thecla. Acts of the Apostles— see also Luke, Writings of. Accounts of Journeys, 111, 115 ff. Agreement with Pauline Epistles, iii. 150 f. Alleged Hebrew (Aramaic) original, 111. 14197. Author, iii. 54 ff., 125 f. Author, relation to events recorded, iii. 114 ff. Authorship ascribed to Luke by early Church, iii. 1, 3}. Chronological order lacking, iii. 67 f. Date, iii. 294, 125 f. Dedication, 111. 43, 54. Discourses of Peter in, compared with 1 Pet., ii. 173 f., 1865. Hebraisms in i.-xii., iii. 129, 140 figg. Heb. translation, ii. 819 1. Historicity, iii. 162 f.,. Names of Roman provincesin,i.186ff. Purpose, iii. 79 f., 9339. view of Baur, iii. 79 f., 93... Relation to Pauline Epistles, iii. 118-126, 1391.91, 93. Sources of, iii. 114 ff. bibliography, iii. 127 £., 141 fgg. Text of— - recension a,editio Antiochena, 111.9 ff. recension ß, editio Romana, 111. 9 ff. recension ß, sources of, iii. 25 ff.. two-fold recension of, iii. 8-41. bibliography, iii. 25. theory of Fr. Blass, 111. 8f. | 487 Acts of the Apostles—continuen. Title, iii. 3,, 59, 8715. “We” passages, iii. 14; iii. 54 ff, 8615 (ct. 8715), 15}. author, iii. 142-145, 159 £.,, 5. Acts of John, iii. 88,7, 197, 20655. Date, iii. 179, 1975. Acts of John and of Peter, iii. 177. on John xxi. 24f., iii. 2505. Acts of Paul; i. 270,, 451,, 455, ; ii. 20, ; iii. 8817. Coptic fragments bearing on im- prisonment of Paul, ii. 83 f.,9. Testimony of, to Journey of Paul to Spain, 11. 63. Acts of ‚Peter, ii. 168f.,, 45175; iii. Bahr Acts of Philip, ii. 163;. Acts of Pilate, iii. 352£.,3. Acts of Thecla, ii. 213; iii. 88,7. Addai— Missionary work of, ii. 164,. Teaching of, see Teaching of Addai. Address, Christian— Forms of, iii. S81f.,. Adjectives, ending in ävos, avus, avis, li. 1934. Ado, ili. 263, 31g. AEsculapius— Cult of, iii. 411f., 421,. Africanus, Epistle of, to Aristides— on Luke, iil. 5,4. Agabus, iii. 127, 1313. Prophecy of, date, i. 458 ff. Agape, li. 211,, 229, 235 f.;. Ignatius on the, ii. 2365. Agrippa I.,1. 5539; 11.130, ; 111, 75, 467 Death, 111. 133,. date, iii. 455 ff. Persecutes Christians, iii. 457, 459, Agrippa IL, ii. 130,9 ; ili. 76, 467, 474. Akeldama, meaning, i. 28,,. 228; 11]. 488 Albinus, iii. 476. Alexander, Cypriote Monk, i. 433, ; ii. 447g. Alexander (in Actsand 1 and 2 Tim.), ii. 42,, 86. Alexander (in. Pastoral Epistles), 11. 108 ἢ. Alexander (the coppersmith), ii. 16f., 21 f... "8 Alexander (son of Simon), ii. 489f., 504,. Alexander Jannzus, i. 25g, 37, 59;- Coins of, i. 25. Alexandria, Church in— Founder, ii. 159. Origin, ii. 3574. Alexandrians, Epistle to the, i. 160; ii. 295, 306,. Aloes, 111, 1965. Alogi— Estimate of Johannine Writings, iii. 177 f., 181,.200],. on Cerinthus, i. 515,. on Gospel of John, ii. 389. Alpheus (father of Levi), i. 522 Ὁ}: “Amen, the,” iii. 316, 329 f.g. Ammonius— Diatessaron of, ii. 401, 420). Ampliatus, i, 393, 419945 11. 219. Anagnost, ii. 374. Andreas Cretensis, on James, i. 108, Andrew, the Apostle, 1. 41. Greek name, i. 63} . in Asia Minor, iii. 3705. in John, iii. 179, 209 f., 213, 224,. Andronicus, i. 391, 41893. Angelolatry, 1. 475-479... Among Jews, 1. 475 f.¢. Views of fathers, i. 476 f.g. Angels (of the Churches)— Meaning of term, iii. 413-417, 422 f.,. View of Origen, iii. 413 f. Annas, 111, 270f., 292 ἢ, 11. Annianus, first Bishop of Alexandria, ili. 87. Antichrist, i. 227 ff., 236 ff. 4-9. in First Epistle of John, iii. 3641., 507, 371, in Revelation, iii. 399 f., 438 f., 441 f., 446». number of, i, 238f.,; iii. 444 ff., 447 ff. . 5 in teaching of John, i, 228. in teaching of Paul, i, 239 7.0, 251,. Antioch, Church of— Gentile Character of, ii. 344. INDEX Antioch in Pisidia, i. 191 f., .. | Antiochus Epiphanes, i. 36, 2374, 239 f.g, 2619. Α Antipas, iii. 410f., 421 f.,. anus, adjective ending, ii. 193. Apamea, i. 448 f.,. Apocalyptic Literature, iii. 387 f., 4035. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, de- pendent on Canonical Acts, iii. 61, 88,7. Apoeryphal Gospels— Gospel of Etchmiadzin, ii. 485;. Gospel of the Ebionites, iii. 3819. Gospel of the Hebrews, i. 109, ; ii. 518 ff., 529,, 562, 573, 594,,, 596,1, 59712. | Date, 1. 13. Language, i. 13. on James, iii. 22719. Relation to the Heb. Matthew, ii. 518 f. View of Baur, ii. 413. Witness to John vii. 53-viii, 1, iii. 3465. Gospel of Matthias, ii. 524s. Gospel of the Nazarenes, ii. 403, δ18 1. Relation to the Greek Matthew, ii. 519. Gospel of Peter— Date, 11. 45615. on Pilate, ill. 352 Ἐπ} Relation to Mark, ii. 488. Gospel of Philip, iii. 9237. Apollos, ii. 49f., 87 ; iii. 82, 193, Alleged author of Hebrews, ii. 356, 364 8.15. and Corinthian parties, i. 285 ff. Christian belief of, ii. 356, 357,. in Corinth, i. 262, 270 ἢ, 1. in Ephesus, i. 262f.; iii. 331 1... Name, i. 2700. Apollos Party, i. 2711}. Apostle, Apostleship, i. 354, 371 ἴω, 536, ; ii. 389, 463f.; iii. 49, 226 1.0, 429 ἢ. Title, i. 1073, 210, ; ii. 147f., 206 f., 220,0, 386 f. Use of term by Paul, i. 2103, 505 f. Apostles— Forged letters of, i. 242 f., 247), 2705. in Asia Minor, iii. 191f., 194f.,, 904... Apostles, and Apostolie Letters— nterest of Post-apostolic Churches in, i, 162, 164,. 283 f., INDEX Apostolate, iii. 78 f. Apostolic Council and Decree, i. 146, 168, 179, 266; ii. 161, 208; iii. 19ff., 27, 33 flo 124, 153 ff, 163,0, 452. Apostolic Decree— Bibliography, iii. 35)». Style, compared with Luke’s style, iii, 100, 1345. Apphia, i. 447,, 452, 458,. Aquila, the translator, 1. ὅθ, 62,; ii. 563, 575. Translation approved, i. 625. Aquila and Priscilla— Authors of Hebrews, ii. 365 f.1;- in Corinth, i, 257, 265s. in Ephesus, i. 262, 2664, 389, 417,,, 483. in Pontus, ii. 152). in Rome, i. 417, 429, ; ii. 19, 350. Church in the house of, ii. 350. Arabia, i. 186,. Bartholomew in, ii. 3857. Gospel of Matthew in, 11. 3857. Aramaic—- Biblical =Syriae, i. 22 f,. Dialects, i. 8 ff. Dialects of non-Jews, 1. 2814 Forms in LXX, 1. 18, 67,3. Idioms and Terms in the Gospels, ii, 573£., 576 ff., 591-597,.1). in Rabbinic Circles, 1. 3319- In Seleucidan Empire, i. 34. Language used by Jesus and Dis- ciples, i. § 1; 11. 573 Ἠ Language used by Paul, i. 11, 48 ff., 57 Language used in Synagogue services, ı LER. Names for places in and near Jerusalem, i. 28. Original language of “the gospel,” i §1 Original language of Matthew, ii. 522, 5305. Words in Synoptic Gospels, i. 2 ff. ; ii. 487 f., 502). in John, iii. 323 f,, 353). in Luke, iii. 135 f.,., 13774 in Mark, ii. 610, 616;. in Matthew, ii. 576f., 610, 616,. in Revelation, iii. 444. Archippus, i. 446 f., 452, 458,, 4595. Aretzeus, iii. 160 f.;. Aretas, i, 5; ii. 1309. Date of reign, iii. 455. Aretas IV., i. 5; ii. 180,95 iii. 455. 489 Aristarchus, i. 209, 213,, 320,, 440, 4514. Aristion, 11. 437 f., 453 5. (Ariston), relation to Mark xvi. 14- 18, ii. 473 f., 4851... in Asia Minor, iii. 358, 3703. Aristobulus, i. 392 f., 41994. Arsinoé, 11. 3574. Artemas, ii. 48. Ascetic Party in Rome, i. 365 f., 376 1.10, 406 £325 ll. 346 ΤΙ: 490. Asceticism— Among readers of Hebrews, ii. 331 ff. in Colossee, i. 465 ff., 4738-47949. View of Paul, ii. 332. Asia, Province, 1. 186,, 1894. Beginnings of Church in, ii. 138. Churches founded by Paul in, ii. 1355, Churches of, Character of, ii. 136. Jews in, i. 449,. Paul’s work in, 1. 259. Asia, Seven Churches of, iii. 390. Asia Minor, i. 47. Christian Church in, before Paul, ii, 137 f. Churches founded by Paul in, ii. 135 f. Churches of, Character of, ii. 136. Paul’s journeys through— Ramsay’s view, i. 188 fl... Asia Minor, Churches of— Condition of, according to Rev. i—ii1., 111. 408-427. Founded by Paul, iii. 412 f., 422,. Intercourse of Paul with, during the Roman imprisonment, ii. 161. Internal condition about 90-100 A.D., iii. 409 ff. Organisation, ii. 93. Persecution of, iii. 409 ff. Relation to Church in Rome, ii. 148 f. Relation to Mark, ii. 148 f. Relation to Paul, ii. 148 f. Relation to Silvanus, ii. 148 ff. Teaching of Nicolaitans in, ii. 292, 5. Author’s reference to himself in his work, iii. 226,. Azyma, Feast of, iii. 296 8.17. Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13)— = Babylon in Egypt, ii. 159, 162,. = Babylon on Euphrates, 11. 159, 162 1... = Rome, ii. 159f., 163 fig... 490 Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13) —continued. Interpretation of Barhebreeus, ii. 164 £.5. Interpretation of Papias, ii. 1633. Babylon (Rev. xvii. 5, ete.)— Interpretation of, ii. 165 ἔ,,. = Rome, ii. 165 fl... Babylon— in Revelation, ili. 400, 442, 4465. Meaning of name in 1 Peter, ii. 158 ff., 162-1734.4. Origin of use of name for Rome, ii. 178, 188 f.,. Babylon, Church in, ii. 162-1739-4. Balaam, ii. 2333. Compared with Nicolaüs, iii. 419, 427 13- in Jude, ii. 2461. in 2 Peter and Jude, ii. 282f., 291,4 in Revelation, 11. 283. the way of (2 Pet. ii. 15), ii. 225, 235,5 Baptismal Formula, ii. 591;. in Pastoral Epistles, ii. 119, 13139. Barabbas, ii. 555, 5691. Name, 1. 30je- Barnabas, 1. 207,, 442, 450, ; 11. 527,. Alleged author of Hebrews, ii. 302 f., 303, 308,, 31019, ı1, 354-356, Biographical notes on, ii. 354 f. Collection journey, Acts xi. 30, iii. 456 ff. Cousin of Mark, i. 442 ; ii. 428. in Galatia with Paul, i. 178 ff. in Rome, i. 4335. Name, 1. 9110 Surname of Joseph of Cyprus, 1. ie Jarnabas, en of, ii. 302, 310,0; 111. 183 148, 158 ff, Matt, use of, in the, ii. 515, 526 f.,. 3artholomew— brought Gospel of Matthew into India, 11, 3857. see also Nathanael. Jartimzeus (Bar-Timai), 1. 31je- Basilides, ii. 455 f.,,. Teaching, iii. 37449. Bercea, Church of — Character, ii. 344, Bethany, iii. 261 f. jethesda, Bnbeada— Meaning, i. 28,5. sible, Jewish term for, ii. 277. Bishop, ii. 32, 90 ff., 123 f.,, 124. Qualifications, il. 821. 90 ff, INDEX Bithynia, i. 1853, 188, 5 ii. 151, ; iil. 7 76 Churches in, Character of, ii. 1861, Beethusians, Family of, i. 625. Books— Reading of, in antiquity, ii. 373f., 385;. Britannieus, iii. 471. Ceesarea, i. 38, 58,, 629, 443, 4515. Garrison in, 1. 60,. Jews in, i. 451g. Paul in, i. 451,. Caiaphas, 111. 270 ἐξ 292 f.11 35219. Cain, Comparison with, in Jude, 11.957. Caius of Rome, ii. 825. Dialogue with Proclus, i ii, 3111}. on Johannine writings, 111. 181, 9001. Calendar— Athenian, i. 319,. Jewish civil, i. 319,. Jewish ecclesiastical, i. 319,. Macedonian, i, 319,. Olympian, 1. 319,. Caligula, i. 228. Antichrist, 1. 2353, 2399. Decrees of, relating to Jews, i. 997). References to, in Rev., 111. 445, 449,. Canon Muratori— Dependence on Acts of Peter, and Acts of John, ii. 62 f., 73 ff... on origin of John, iii. 178£., 197,. Canon, N.T.— Composition of, i. 124. Capitulatio Amiatina, i. 398f.,. Cappadocia— Churches in, Character of, ii. 136. Carpocrates— Teachings of, 11. 292 f.15- Carpoeratians, ii, 12917, 29215. Carpus, il. 16. Catholic Epistles, Canonieity, i. 123. Celsus— on angelolatry of Jews, i. 4755. Polemic against Christianity, ii. 563,. Cephas, ii. 206. see also Peter. a, other than Peter, ii. 1555. Cerinthus, i. 497, 515,; ii, 116; in. 181. Alleged author of Fourth Gospel, ii, 389 ; iii. 177. Alleged author of Johannine writ- ings, iii. 184, 200,1. Relations with John, iii, 2049.4. School of, ii. 444, 456). INDEX Cerinthus—continued. Teaching, i. 515, ; iil. 9740. Contested in 1 John, iii. 365f., 3735. Chagigah, the, iii. 283, 2987. Christ— see Jesus Christ. Christian Address— Forms of, iii. 81 f.. Christian Church, see Church, Chris- tian. Christian Life and Worship, ii. 326 ff. Christian Literature, Early— Character of, ii. 367 f. Christian Literature of 60-64, ii. 278. Christian Preaching in Synagogues, i. 996. Christianity— Attempts of Roman government to suppress, ii. 178 f., 189,. Relation to the State— in Luke’s writings, iii. 74 ff. Situation of, in the world, from Paul’s Epistles, ii. 179 ff. Situation of, in the world, from 1 Peter, li. 179 ff, 189-194;-10- Christians— Conditions under Nero and Domitian, ii. 177-185, 189-191 ; iii. 412, 422... Frietion between Jewish and Gentile, i, 1472. Jewish, in Jerusalem— Attitude toward temple worship, ii. 333. Jewish, in Palestine— Attitude toward the law, ii. 334. Origin of term, i. 213; ii. 185, 191 ff.49. Persecution of, under Nero, ii. 185. Relation of, to the State, in 1 Peter, ji. 181f. Christians, Persecutions of— Nature of, in first century, ii. 180f., 189,. mentioned in 1 Peter, ii. 179 ff., 184 f. Chronological Survey, iii. 450-480. Chronological Table, iii. 481-485. Church, Christian— Conception of, in Matthew’s Gospel, ii. 550 ff. Condition after 60 A.D., ii. 200, 241, 2865, 293. in Asia Minor before Paul, ii. 137 f. in Jerusalem, ii. 138. Relation to the Jewish People in Matthew, ii. 550 ff. 491 Church, Christian, Early— Deaconesses in, ii. 94 f. in Jerusalem and Palestine— Greek in, i. 43 ff., 112. Hellenists in, i. 43 ff. Membership of, i. 43-46. Instruction, relation of, to the words of Christ, ii. 370f. Marriage in, ii. 95. Patristic and modern views of, ii. 125 Fao: Offices in, ii. 32 f., 89-99. Bishop, ii. 32, 90 ff., 123 £.4, 124,. Deacon, ii. 91 f., 123 f.4. Elder (presbyter), ii. 91 ff, 1248.53. Officers in, functions, ii. 96 ff. Qualifications, ii. 32 f., 90 ff. Oral translation in, ii, 511 ff. Persecution of, A.D. 35, 1. 93. Prophecy, ii. 97 f., 110 ff., 2305 236, ; iii. 16 f., 385 ff., 402 ἢ... Services open to outsiders, 1. 99,. Teaching, ii. 961. Compensation for, ii, 127 £.13- Widows, ii. 94f. Worship, ii. 514. Church, Idea of — in Paul’s Epistles, i. 503 f. Church, the Palestinian— Leaders in, iii. 188 f. Church Services— Gospels read in the, ii. 386. Churches— in Asia Minor, organisation of, ii. 23, 551}, Cilicia— Churches in, ii. 134. Claudia, ii. 90 1... Claudius, Emperor, i. 228; ii. 168 f.4 ; iii. 469 ff. and the Jews, 11. 348. Edict of, i. 427, 433 f.,. Expels Jews from Rome, iii. 466 f. Return from Britain, iti. 456, 459 f. Claudius Lysias, see Lysias. Clement, Epistle of, to James, i. 108; ; ii. 1714 289s. Clement of Alexandria— on James (first Bishop of Jerusalem), i. 103. on Mark’s Gospel, ii. 432 f. on origin of John, iii, 178, 197;. Clement of Philippi, i. 530, 534,, 537,, 559, 5615. Clement of Rome— on Hebrews, ii. 299, 309. 492 Clement of Rome—continued. First Epistle to the Corinthians, ii. 264. Confirming further activity of Paul, ii. 60 ff., 68 ff... Date, ii. 60. on parties in Corinthian Church, i. 2985, 342. Relation to Epistle to the Hebrews, ii. 346, 358 fiz. Relation to the Epistle of James, i. 134 f.4. Testimony to martyrdom of Peter and Paul, ii. 61 f. Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ii. 264, 3118.12. Echoes of James in, i. 135¢. Clementine Romance (Homilies and Recog.). Ebionism of, i. 148,. INDEX Colossians and Ephesians, Epistles to the— Order of, i. 486, 490,. Genuineness of — Hilgenfeld on, i. 514 fig. Mayerhoff on, i. 514 ἢ... Theory of interdependence— Hitzig, i. 491, 499, 5153: Holtzmann, i, 491, 499, 514,. “Comma Joanneum,” 111. 3727. Corinth— Apollos in, 1. 262, 270 f.43- Church of, i. 232 f. Apollos and Parties in, i. 283f., 285 ff. Baptism in, i. 303,,. Charges of fickleness against Paul, i. 321 ff., 343 f.,. Christ Party in, i. 292 ff. Collection in, i. 308 f., 318 f.;, 320,, 338, 351;. on Barnabas, i. 433,. on James, i. 108,, 136,. on Peter, ii. 170 ff., ; ἢ. 270, 289g ; 111. 5 f.,. Codex— Origin of, ii. 393, 398,. Collection, the Great, ii. 317, 3365. Colosse, i. 447 ff... Church of, ii. 138. False teachers i in, 1. 463 ff., 4787, g- False teaching concerning Christ in, i. 467. Founded by Epaphras, i. 440f., 449 f.,, 460. Jewish Christians in, i. 463 ff. Relation to Paul, i. 460f. Teaching concerning asceticism in, i. 465 ff. Colossians, Epistle to the, i. 459- 479. Authorship, i. 456. Date, i. 4525. Destination, i. 460. Genuineness, 1. 491-522. Hitzig’s criticism of, i. 491, 5153. Occasion, i. 461. Predominant tone, i. 501f. Relation of Ephesians to, 1. 499 ff., 516 ἢν. Relation of teaching of Valentinus to, i. 498 f. Resemblance to Ephesians, i. 500 If., 517 fig Time and place of composition, i 439-452. Valentinian Gnosticism in, 1. 497 ff, 515 fig. Condition at date of 1 Cor., i. 273- 306. Early history, i. 256-273. Errors regarding resurrection in, 1. 278 ἢ. False apostles in, i. 290 ff., 305 fag. Founded by Paul, i. 256 f., 264. Independent spirit of, i. 281f., 2977. Intercourse with heathen, i. 274 ff., 278 f., 296, Letters from, το Paul, i. 261. Date of, i. "262. Libertines in, ii. 280 ff. Lord’s Supper in, i. 284, Lost Epistle of Paul to, i. 263 f., 307, 312 ff., 327 f., 329, 345 ff... Hausrath’s theory of, i. 313 f. Lost Epistle of, to Paul, i. 263, 264, 27315. Membership, i. 278. Moral condition when 1 Cor. was written, i. 268 f., 273 f.yg. Origin, i. 258. Parties, i. 282 ff. Various views about, i. 298 ff. 9. Peter and Parties, i. 283 f. Question of sexual relations, i. 276, 296s. Slaves in, i. 297,. Unrecorded visit of Paul, i. 263 f., 271 fr9-14) 307, 316», 327 f. Women in public worship, i 280f. History of, i. 256 f., 264). Paul’s first visit, i. 256 f. INDEX Corinth—continued. Paul’s work, i. 232 f. Peter in, i. 302 f.,o. Population, i. 273. Work of Paul in surrounding region, i. 257, 2648... Corinthians, First Epistle to the— Date, i. 259 f., 268,, 320,. Krenkle’s view, 1. 268;. Occasion, i. 260 f., 263 f., 295. Readers, i. 297 f.7. Corinthians, First and Second Epistles to the— Events intervening between, i. 321. Corinthians, Second Epistle to the— Analysis, i. 309-312. Date, i. 320;. Effect, i. 342 f. Integrity, i. 312, 338 ἢ, Occasion, i. 321-351. Purpose, i. 335 ff. Readers, i. 308. “ Survey, i. 307-321. Writers, i. 307, 316 fl.g. Corinthians, Third Epistle to the, i. 160, 249, 2709 3 1]. 285 fig. Crescens in Gaul, ii. 11f., 265. Crete, iii. 13899. Christianity in, 11. 44. False teaching in, ii. 44 f. Jews in, ii. 52]. Paul in, ii. 43 f., 106. Crispus, 1. 258, 265,. Cumanus— Governor of Galilee, iii. 470. Cyprian, Latin Bible of, origin, ii. 515. Cyprus under Roman rule, iii. 463 ff. Dalmatia, i. 186, ; ii. 26;. Missionary work in, ii. 11f. Damascus, i. 67,9; 111. 455. “Day of the Lord ”— in 2 Peter, ii. 226. in 2 Thess., i. 226 f., 235. Deacon, ii. 91 f., 123 f.4. Qualifications, ii. 32 f., 90 ff. Deaconesses— in the early Church, ii. 94f. Decapolis, i. 35, 6753. Dedication of Classical Writings, iii. 42, 812. Demas, i. 213,, 441, 450, ; ii. 3, 21,, 87, 129,,; iii. 1. Demetrius, the Silversmith, 111, 163s. Demetrius (3 John 12), iii. 377, 381), 3. Derbe, 1. 191 f. 5, 6 2095. 493 Diaspora, the, i. 75f., 80,, 829; i. 140f., 153 f.s. Connection with Jerusalem, i. 607. Greek influence of, i. 39 f. Greek used by, i. 46-48. Diatessaron of Ammonius, 11. 401, 420). Diatessaron of Tatian, 11. 401, 421, ; iii. 22. Didache— Apostolic decree in, iii. 21, 3513, 15, 1644. Baptismal formula in, ii. 591,. Date and origin, ii. 3574. Dependent on Jude, ii. 2595. Eucharistic prayers of, i. 30412. Lord’s Supper in, iii. 4079. Maranatha in, 1. 30412. Use of Matthew, ii. 515. Didascalia— Apostolic decree in, iii. 21, 3544. Witness to John vii. 53-viü. 11, ii. 3463. Dio Cassius— on Claudius, iii. 466 f. Diognetus, Epistle to, ii. 819). Dionysius of Alexandria— on Revelation, 111, 428 f., 432, 433 fis, 435, 6° Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 185 f. Dionysius of Corinth— Letter to Romans, ii. 75g. on Peter and Paul, i. 302 f.4. Dioscorides, iii. 82,, 160 f.,. Diotrephes, iii. 375 ff., 381 f.4.g. Disciples of Jesus— Calling of the first, in John, iii. 209. Choice and work, in Matt., ii. 545. Familiar with Greek, i, 42. First, iii. 189. Greek names, i. 41, 42 in Asia Minor, iii. 358, 370s. Items about, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 224,. Lists, ii. 506, 522 ff... Lists in Luke’s work, iii. 78. Order, iii. 210, 225,. Meaning of term, iii. 212f., 226f.,. Missionary activity, 11. 5877. Personal, distinction between, and other Christians, ii. 206 f. Relation to Jesus, ii. 463 f., 465 f. » Relation to Jewish law, ii. 586 f.,. Sketches of, in Fourth Gospel, iii 302 f. the Twelve— training, ii. 463 ff. Training, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 301 ἢ 494 Domitian, ii. 240 ; iii. 183, 201, ,, 412, 422, Doxologies in Epistles, i. 406,.. Drusilla, iii. 469, 474. Early Christian Writings— Date, i. 157 f. Literary Character, i. 158 f. Easter Controversy, iii. 273-283, 293- 298} 9-17. Easter— Date, iii. 293... Controversies concerning, iii. ΠΌΤΝΑ 192 f., 904... View of Polycarp, iii. 20455. Ebionism in James, i. 148,. in Luke, iii. 74, 92,,. Ebionites— Doctrine of poverty, iii. 91f.,,. Gospel of the— see Apocryphal Gospels. Gospel used by, ii. 518. Literature, ii. 308,. Edom— Jewish name for Rome, ii. 178, 188 fis. Egypt— Church in, ii. 344, 357 f.,. Founder, ii. 159. Jews in, 1. 47; ii. 357 ἢ. Jewish Christian communities in, ii. 357%... Egyptian, the, iii. 133,. Elder, ii, 23,, 33 ff., 91f., 1248. 5.3. “ Elders” of Irenzous, iii. 175, 178, 182, Elect, the, ii. 153, 5. Enoch, Book of, ii. 286 ff... Original, ii. 270, 287 f.,. Quoted in Jude, ii. 248, 269 f., 286 ff.,. Epewnetus, i. 389 f., 4175, ; ii. 138. Epaphras, i. 450,, 495 ; ii. 16. Founder of Church of Colossa, i. 440 f., 449 f., 460, 484. Epaphroditus, 1, 525 f., 528, 5379. Ephesians and Colossians, Epistles to the— order of, i. 486, 490,, genuineness— Hilgenfeld on, 1. 514 f.». Mayerhoff on, i. 514 ἴω. Theory of interdependence— Hitzig, i. 491, 499, 515,. Holtzmann, i. 491, 499, 514,. INDEX Ephesians, Epistle to the— Alleged motive for 511 ff. Alleged new ideas in, i. 508 f, Baur on, i. 491, 511f. Christ, significance in, i. 509 ff. Copies, ii. 177. Date, i. 452,, 483, 489 f.,, 492 f. Dependence on Colossians — View of Holtzmann, i. 517 ἢ... Destination, i. 479-491. View of Church Fathers, i. 489 f.,. View of Marcion, i. 480 f., 488,. Eneyclical character, i. 484 ff. Genuineness, i. 491-522. Holtzmann on, i. 491, 512 ff. Predominant tone of, i. 501 f. Relation to Colossians, i. 516 f.g. Relation to Philemon, i. 493 ff. Relation to teaching of Valentinus i. 498 ἢ. Resemblance to Colossians, i. 500 ff., 517 8.5. Spuriousness, lexical proof of alleged, i. 502 ff., 518 fl... Time and place of composition, i. 439-452. Title, i. 481, 483, 488f.5 , ,, 499 f. Marcion’s criticism, i. 481, 4885. known by Ignatius, i. 481. Origin, 1. 486. Valentinian Gnosticism in, i. 497 ff., 515s. Ephesus— Christians in, ii. 135 f. Church of, iii. 331 f.,o, 417 f. origin, i. 483 f. Paul, and the, i. 483 f., 489 f.,. Paul’s work in, i. 259. Ephrem— Commentary on Acts, iii. 275. on Colossians ii. 18, i. 476,. on 2 Thessalonians ii., i. 239. on Church of Ephesus, i. 4895. on Hebrews, ii. 308,. on Paul in Spain, ii. 74,. on Peter, ii. 1644. Text of Romans known to, i. 405,, Epimenedes, ii. 44, 52 f.,. Epiphanes— Teachings of, ii. 292 f.,,. Episcopate— in Asia Minor, iii. 376, 417, Epistles, Catholie— Canonicity, i. 123. forgery, i. 499 ff, 3 INDEX Epistles of N.T.— Address and greeting, i. 73f., 77s, 785, 1197. Doxologies in, 1. 40619. Silence of, concerning a Gospel literature, ii. 375 f. Epistles of the Apostolic and Post- apostolic Age, greetings of, ii. 312 f., 335). Epistles of the Early Church, ii. 367 f. Epistolary Greeting— Classical form, i. 369. Epistolary Salutations, i, 4145. Equality of Jew and Gentile in— Epistle to the Romans, i. 372 ff.4. Erastus, i. 259 ; ii. 88, in Corinth, ii. 14f. Eschatology— Teaching of Gospels, i. 224,. Teaching of Jesus, i. 2244, 2631. Teaching of Paul, i. 221, 223f.4, N 25311- Teaching of 1 Thessalonians, i. 221, 223 f.4. Essenes, i. 376 ἢ...» 471, 479; ; ii. 1261}. Angelolatry among, 1. 476. Etchmiadzin, Gospel of— see Apocryphal Gospels. Eunice, ii. 22 ἢ... Euodia, i. 530, 533,, 5375, 561 f.,. Eupolemos, i. 37, 594. : Eusebius of Cxsarea— Chronicle of, ii. 168, ; ii. 475. Gospel catalogues (κανόνες), Gospel sections (mepıroral, κεφάλαια), ii. 401, 420). on Aristion and John the presbyter, on earthquake in Asia Minor, i. 449,, 452,. on Luke, iii. 2, 4f.,. on Mark and his Gospel, ii. 432f., 448 fig 9, 4508.11. 19. on Matthew and his Gospel, ii. 528,. on Peter and Paul in Rome, ii. 77 f.., 800, 167 £.4, 4498.40. Use of term Syriac, i. 22 f.4. Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 185f., 203, 9. Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum, ii. 520 ; iii. 361. Evangelist— Meaning of term in Paul’s Epistles, i. 5071. Evangelium Veritatis, ii. 389 f. Eye-witnesses, iii. 46 ff., 82,, 84,. 495 Ezekiel— Tragie Jewish poet, wrote in Greek, i. 38, 594. (Fourth) Ezra, i. 142. on fasting, i. 3779. Fables, ii. 103 ff., 113, 128 f.,,. Fadus, iii. 460 f. Faith— Teaching concerning, in John, iii. 305 ff. False Teachers— of Coloss&, i. 463 ff., 478,. of 1 John, iii. 363-368. of Jude, ii. 243-252, 292 f.,;. Character, ii. 279-283. of 2 Peter, ii. 224ff., 231, 2321.,, 292 furs. Character, ii. 279-283. Origin, ii. 226 f. Famine in Judea, the— Date, Josephus on, iii. 460 f. Faustus, Manichean— on the Gospels, ii. 387, 3963. Felix, Procurator, iii. 76, 469-478. Festus, Procurator, iii. 469-478. First Person— Use of, in aneient literature, 11]. 61). Flavia Domitilla, iii. 422,. Fortunatus, i. 260, 2695. Fourth Gospel— see John, Gospel of. Gabbatha, Taßßada— Meaning, i. 28. Gaius (of 3 John), iii. 374 ff., 381,-.. Gaius of Corinth, i. 209, 266,, 435. Gaius of Derbe, 1. 2095, 213,, 321;- Gaius of Macedonia, i. 209,, 213,. Galatia, 1. 173-193 5 li. 134, 151 fir: 2. Bibliography, i. 183). Churches of, i. 176 f., 191 f., ; ii. 138, Character, ii. 136. Composition, i. 166, 177, 192 f.,. False teachers in, i. 166 f. Founded by Paul, ii. 135 f. Origin, i. 164f. Jews in, i. 177, 192,. Judaisers in, 1. 177 f., 182 f. Luke’s use of term, i. 174f. Meaning of, in Galatians i. 2, i. 175 ff. Meaning of, in 1 Cor. xvi. 1,1. 175. Meaning of, in 1 Peter i. 1, 1. 175. Older(North Galatian)and modern (South Galatian) views, 1, 174f., 183». 496 Galatia—continued. Meaning of, in 1 Peter i. 1—continued. Confirmation of South Galatian view, i. 178 ff. Messengers from, to Paul, i. 198. Paul’s use of term, i. 174 ff. Use of term by Roman writers, i. 174, 183 ᾿ς Confirmed by inscriptions, i. 1841... Galatians, 1. 173-193. Nationality of, i. 183). Galatians, Epistle to the— Acquaintance of Paul with Roman law in, i. 201 f.,. Analysis, i. 167 ff. Baur’s view of, i. 243 f. Calvin’s view of date, i. 202,. Compared with Acts, i. 178-182. Date and place of composition, i. 170, 173,, 193-202, 195, 196f., 198 f., 200,, 202, 233. on North Galatian theory, i. 193 f. on South Galatian theory, i. 194 ff. False teachers of, ii. 257,. Genuineness, i. 242-255. Hist. presuppositions and occasion, 1. 164-173. How written, i. 170, 1724. Ideas of,compared with Romans, i. 201. Marcion’s view of, i. 243. Occasion, i. 166 f, Peculiar words, i. 503, 521 f.4o. Peter, form of name, in, 11. 155g. Readers, i. 173-193, 175 ff., 178 ff. Source of information for, i. 169. View of Dutch School, i. 243 ἢ, Galen, iii. 82f.,, 160 f.,. Galilean Dialect, i. 9, 27133 ü. 292,4 45545. Gallio, i. 258, 267, 9; iii. 149, 467 1, Gamaliel the elder, i. 11, 51 ; iii. 99. Gamaliel the younger, i. 32,» 62, ; iii. 99. Three letters of, i. 10. Gaul— Missionary Work in, ii. 111. Gaza, 111. 164, |- Genealogies, ii. 103 ff., 128 £.15- Genealogy, ii. 532, 562 fig. Gennesaret, iii. 333) 4. Gentile Churches— Paul’s care of, i. 462 f, View of 2 Peter, ii. 264. Gentiles— and the Gospel View of Matthew, 11. 587f.,. Relation to Synagogues, i, 212 f.,. INDEX Gischala, i. 68 ἢ... Glaukias, 11. 455 8.75 Gnosticism, in Ephesians and Colos- sians, 1. 497 ff. Valentinian, in Epistle to the Philippians, i. 557. Gnosties— Misunderstanding of Paul, i. 125 f. on the Gospels, ii. 389. Golgotha, meaning, i. 2915. Gomorrah, iii. 398, 4069. Gospel, the— and the Gospels, ii. 388. Uniqueness, ii. 388. Gospel, the One, ii. 388. Gospel, the Original— View of J. G. Eichhorn, ii. 404, 429 fag. View of Herder, ii. 423,. View of Hilgenfeld, ii. 414. View of H. J. Holtzmann, ii. 415, View of G. E. Lessing, ii. 403. View of B. Weiss, ii. 417. Gospel, the Original Unwritten— View of Gieseler, ii. 408 f. View of Herder, ii. 406. View of Holsten, ii. 426 f.13- Gospel, the Unwritten, ii. 367-386. Gospel History, the— Oral transmission of, ii. 384; ; iii. 48, 84,. Variant forms of the oral, ii. 603 f. Gospels, the, and Acts— Length of, ii. 4870. Gospel Literature— Beginnings of, date, ii. 376, Occasion for, ii. 375 f. Silence of other N.T. writings con- cerning, 11. 375 f. Gospel Preaching— Early— Content, ii. 174. to Gentiles and O.T. Prophecy, ii. 146. to Gentiles— Content, ii. 203. to Jews— Content, ii. 202 f., 215 fig. “Gospel of Christ ”— in Pauline writings, ii, 370 ff, 377 8.2. Gospel of Jesus Christ, the— Meaning, ii. 459 £. Gospels, the— and the Gospel, ii. 388. Authorship, internal evidence con- cerning, ii. 391 f. INDEX Gospels, the—continued. Authorship, origin of tradition con- cerning, 11. 391 f. Authorship, tradition concerning, in Ist and 2nd century, ii. 386- 392. Authorship— View of Clement, ii. 387. View of Faustus, ii. 387, 396. View of Gnosties, 11. 389 f. View of Irenzeus, 11. 387, 3974. View of Justin, 11. 389. View of Marcion, ii. 390f. View of Muratonian Canon, 1]. 387. View of Origen, ü. 387. View of Papias, ii. 394. View of Tertullian, ii. 399 f.,. View of Valentinians, 11. 390. Differences in, early attempts to harmonise, ji. 402, 421,. Divisions (mepıromat, κεφάλαια, κανόνες) made by Eusebius, ii. 401, 4201... Eschatology of, i. 224,. Greek MSS, titles of, ü. 396.5. Harmonies, ii. 421). Latin MSS, titles of, ii. 386 f., 396. Order in Egyptian Codex, ii. 393, 398,. Order of Composition— Tradition concerning, ii. 392-396, 397-400,-¢- View of Clement of Alexandria, ii. 394 ff., 4005. View of Irenzus, ii. 393 f., 398,. View of Muratorian Canon, ii. 393, 386 f., 899... View of Old Latin Prologues, ii. 400.. View of Origen, ii. 392 f., 397). Origin, common tradition in the Church regarding, ii. 386-400. Origin, date of traditional, ii. 374 f. Read in Church services, ii. 386. Relation of, to the original language of the gospel tradition, ii. 574 ff. Similarities of language in, noted by Augustine, ii. 402, 422,. Synopses of, ii. 421). Titles, meaning of, ii. 387 f., 396... Unity of, ii. 388, 397;. Use in religious services of Christians, ii. 376. View of Marcion, ii. 390f. VOL. III. | | xospels, Synoptic— see Synoptie Gospels. Greek, attitude of Rabbis towards, 1, 62 f.,. Greek and Latin Words used by Jesus, i. 41. Greek Churches— Liturgical Formule, Aramaic ex- pressions in, i. 12, 13, 183. origin, i. 12 f. Greek cities in Palestine, i. 35 f. Greek coins in Palestine, i. 37. Greek Influence on Hasmonean High Priests, i. 37. Greek Influence on Jews, through diaspora, i. 35 ff., 39 f. Under Greek Rule, i. 35-37. Under Hasmoneans, i. 37. Under Herod the Great, i. 37 f. Under Roman Rule, i. 38 f. Greek— Josephus’ knowledge of, i. 639. Knowledge of, among higher classes of Palestine, 1. 41. Knowledge of, among middle and lower classes of Palestine, 1. 40-43. Language among Jews, i. § 2. Language in Palestine, 1. 35-46. Official language under Roman rule in Palestine, i. 38 f. Used by Jesus and disciples, i. 42. View of J. Voss, i. 58). Harmonies of the Gospels, ii. 421). Hasmonean High Priests, Greek Influ- ence on, 1. 37. Hebraisms in Luke, iii. 104 f., 135,). Hebrew, Hebrews (Eßpatos)— Meaning of term, i. 48 ff, 60 ἔς ; ii. 296, 306 f.4. Hebrew Language— Greek knowledge of, iii. 141,7. Modern— origin, 1. 6. Use of, in time of Christ, i. 6-9, 2549: Used on Maccabean Coins, i. 25s. (Aramaic) words in Luke, 135 Tey]! (Aramaic) words in Mark, iii. 135f.45. Zeal of Rabbis for, i. 40. Hebrews, Epistle to the— Author— = Apollos, ii. 356, 364 f.,,. = Aquila and Priscilla, ii. 365 f.,, = Aristion, ii. 366,,. iii. 32 498 INDEX Hebrews, Epistle to the—continued. Author—continued. = Barnabas, ii. 302f., 310, 9, 354- 356, 3615. origin of tradition, ii. 303. Birthplace, ii. 3575. =Clement of Rome, ii. 300. Facts about, 11. 316. Known to the readers, 11. 304. = Luke, ii. 300. Nationality, ii. 324. = Paul, ii. 296, 298-302, 303, 352f., origin of tradition, ii. 304. Relation to readers, 11. 316. Traditions concerning, 11. 298-305. Authorship— Origin of three-fold tradition concerning, 11. 303 ff., 31153. Tradition of Alexandrian Church, ii. 298-301, 308,, 309,. Tradition of Greek Churches, ii. 301. Tradition of Western Churches, li. 301 £., 309 f.g. View of Clement of Alexandria, i. 296. View of Harnack, ü. 365 ἔν. View of Hippolytus, 11. 301 f., 3105. View of Irenzeus, 11. 301 f., 310g. View of Klostermann, 11. 3053. View of Luther, 11. 356, 364,5. View of Montanists, 11. 302 f. View of Origen, ii. 352f., 356. View of Pantzenus, ii. 308,. View of Tertullian, 11. 302, 31049. Canonicity, 11. 305). Character, ii. 313 f. Date, ii. 293, 320 f., 323, 343, 351 ἢ, Didactie writing, 11. 293. Epistolary character, ii. 314f. False (strange) teachings, warned against, 11. 3311. Greek style, ii. 299. Greeting, alleged lost, 11. 311), 313. Greeting wanting, 11. 293 f. Hebraisms, ii. 361... Historical presuppositions, ii. 312- 341. in the Roman Church, ii. 346. Jerusalem, references to the destruc- tion of, in, ii. 351, 359 fi. Language and style, ii. 360 fy. Language, original, ii. 361,9. Literary form, ii, 312. Luke, the alleged translator οἵ Hebrews, ii. 298 f., 3085. Hebrews, Epistle to the—continued. Origin, ii. 352. Original language, alleged, ii. 296, 298 fF., 308s, 309,. O.T.,allegorical and typological treat- ment of the, in, 11. 320-323. O.T. quotations in, ii. 320f., 8376. Pauline Epistles compared with, ii. 353 f., 3608.19. Purpose, ii. 314, 330. Readers, ii. 293, 296, 297 f., 314f., 3231., 341-351, 356-3594. and the Jerusalem Collection, ii. 317. asceticism among the, ii. 332 ff. Location— Alexandria, ii. 344, 3575. Antioch, ii. 344, 356 1... Ephesus, 11. 344. Italy (Rome), ii. 345-351, 358,, 359;. Jerusalem, ii. 341-343. Palestine (outside Jerusalem), ii. 343 f., 356). varying views, 11. 333 ff. Nationality of, ii. 323 ff, 328 f., 338,. Not hearers of the preaching of Jesus, ii. 315 f., 342. Persecution of, ii. 317 ff., 336 f.,. Relation to temple cultus, ii. 34173. Religious life of, ii. 317f., 319f., 328 f., 330 1., 3396.11. Tradition concerning, ii. 293-298. View of ancient scholars, ii, 297. Readers, date and author of, ii. 341- 366. Relation to Philo, ii. 364 f.15. Relation to Romans, ii. 365. Septuagint used in, ii. 361)». Style, ii. 353. Teaching— Mosaic Law, ii. 3331., 340£.15, 342, New covenant, li. 324, O.T. Cultus, ii. 326 f., 333 f., 338,, 340 8.13. Temple Cultus, alleged ignorance of, ii, 355, 361 ἢ 14. Theology— Christology— High Priest, ii. 327, 330, 362 fay, Humiliation, ii. 330, Incarnation, ii, 3291. King, ii. 329 f. Redeemer, ii. 329 f,. Faith, ii, 325 1., 3281. INDEX Hebrews, Epistle to the—-continued. Title, ii. 294-298. Currency, ii. 294f., 304. Date, ii. 295. Meaning, ii. 296. Origin, ii. 295, 298 f., 305,;, 3065. View of Klostermann, ii. 3055. View of Pantienus, 11. 308;. View of Semla, ii. 305 f.». Tradition eoncerning, ii. 293-312. View of Clement of Alexandria, ii. 298 f., 308,, 309¢. View of Origen, ii. 309;. Hebrews, Gos, ‚el of the— see Apocry phal Gospels. Hegesippus— on Heresy in Palestinian Church, ii. 292,,. on James the Just, i. L074. Helena, Princess, iii. 460f. Hellenes, i. 585. Josephus on, 1. 585. Hellenic— Meaning, i. 36. Hellenism in Jewish Christian Churches in Syria, i. 44, 6613. Hellenistic— Usage and meaning of term, ii. 296, 3096. Hellenistic Dialect, i. 56, ΙΝ Greek, i. 54-57, 71 ἴ..1. Bibliography, i. 57). 299 f., 308, Hellenistic influence in Palestine, i. 35 ff. Hellenists, i. 8, 9, 39f., 71.51. in Early Church, 1. 43 fl. in Jerusalem Church, i. 40, 43, 60g, 6645. Synagogues of, in Jerusalem, i. 39 f., Heracleon, i. 475,. Commentary on John, iii. 176. on Author of John, iii. 1999. “ Heresy,” ii. 232f.,. Hermas, ii. 359,. acquainted with Hebrews, ii. 346. Hermas, the Shepherd of— Date, 1. 128. Relation to Hebrews, ii. 346, 359,. Relation to James, i. 128, 135, Relation of 2 Peter to, 11. 284 f.,. Uncanonical, ii. 302 ἢ. Hermas (Rom. “~ 14), 1.42054. Hermogenes, li. 3, 213, 12947. Herod the G u ii, 189... Greek influence of, i. 37f. 499 | Herodion, i. 393: Hierapolis, i. 185,, 448 fi». Hierapolis, Church of, iii. 412. Founded by Epaphras, i. 441, 449 1... Hippocrates, iii. 82 f.;, 160 f.;. Hymenzeus, ii. 213, 42,, 108 ff, 115, 129,7. Iconium, i. 191f.,, g; 11. 6, 19. Ignatius— in Province of Asia, 1. 497. Epistles οἵ--- Influence of Fourth Gospel on, 11]. 176, 327,. on Jewish Teachers in Asia Minor, its 716. on “love feasts,” ii. 2365. Title of Ephesians known to, 1. 481. Witness to Peter’s presence in Rome, li. 165 f.4. India— Bartholomew in, ii. 3857. Gospel of Matthew in, ii. 3857. Inscriptions, Bilingual, i. 59,. Trenzeus— on Antichrist, 1. 238 fig. on Cerinthus, 1. 5154. on Hebrews, 11. 295, 301, 3105. on John, iii. 20174, 20557, 954. on Mark, ii. 387, 393 f., 398,, 433 f. on Matthew, ii. 393 f., 398,. on Peter and Paul in Rome, ii. 76;, 393, 398,. on Polycarp, iii. 20494. on Rev. xiil. 18 (666), iii. 445, 448,. Ischodad, ii. 522). on the list of disciples, ii. 522). on Matt. i. 20, ii. 5297. Israel, Spiritual, i. 76, 819. Italian Band, 1. 60,. | James, Brother of Jesus, i. 109,, ii. 240. Attitude toward Paul’s doctrine of Justification, 1. 124, 129ff.,, 132,. Author of Epistle, i. 104, Brother of Jude, ii. 288 f., 2565. Called “the just,” i. 103, 1074, 131), 139f. Death, i. 103. Head of Jerusalem Church, i. 103 f., 1085. =James of Mark xiv. 51 f,, Personality, i. 101-110. Spurious letter of, i. 148,. Training and habits of ‘thought, i 110- 123 iis 447. 500 James, the Less, 1. 106. James, Son of Alpheus, i. 102, 106; ii. 507, 522). James, Son of Zebedee, i. 102, 106 ; iii. 187, 20419, 0, 210ff., 216. Alleged author of John, 111. 22813. Death, iii. 188, 1945. Martyrdom, iii. 457. Notices of, in N.T,, ii. 490, 505;.- James, Protevangelium of— Date, ii. 375. James, Epistle of— Address and greeting, i. 73, 890» - 100,5, 113, 1197, 136, 146 f... Affinity with discourses of Jesus, i. 114, 121 £.,.. Analysis, i. 1173. Author, i. 101 ἧς, 104, 106 ἢ. familiar with Gr. O.T., i. 113, 120g. knowledge of Heb. O.T., i. 113f. Canonicity, i. 123 f. Canonicity in Alexandrian Church, i, 123 f. Christian ideas, i. 144 f. Date, i. 73, 77, 91f., 124, 129, 136, 146 £.,, 1473. evidences of early, i. 148 f.g. Destination, 1. 73-83. Divergent views regarding, i. 136- 151. Ebionism in, i. 148,. External evidence for, i. 123-136. Language, i. 112f., 117 ἢ... Law referred to, i. 110f., 115f.,, 130 f.... Literary character, i. 139 f. Progress of thought, 1. 1175. Readers, i. 83-101. Jewish Christians, i. 89 ff., 1009, 10. Resident in Palestine, i. 91, 100, ,- Relation to Clement, 1 Cor., i. 128, 134,. Relation to Clement, 2 Cor., i. 135, Relation to Pseudo - Clementine Literature, i. 136,. Relation to Gospels, i. 114, 122)). Relation to Hebrews, i. 123, 1- Relation to Hermas, i. 128, 135,. Relation to Revelation, i. 123; 1- Relation of 1 Peter to, i. 128, 133 f., ; ii. 175 f., 1865. Relation of Pauline Epistles to, i. 132,. Relation of Romans to, i. 126 f., 132). Style, i. 112, 118,. INDEX James, Epistle of—continued. Theory of Aramaic original, i. 112 ἔν, 118,. Theory of Harnack, i. 147,. Theory of Spitta, i. 141 ff., 149 f.,. Theory of Weizsäcker, i. 1484. Tone of, 1 101, 1061, 2 Use of Sirach, 1. 114, 12149. Jannes and Jambres, ii. 115. Jason, i. 2134, 41755 5 iil. 3). Jason and Papiscus, Dialogue of— Authorship, 111. 3.1. Jerome— Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 186, 20315. Jerusalem — Christian Church in— Attitude toward temple worship, 11. 333. Beginnings of, ii. 138. Church of— Missionary activity of, ii. 342 f. Poverty of, ii. 342. Jerusalem Collection, i. 209,, 368 f. Jerusalem Couneil— Date, i. 178, 194. Jerusalem— Destruction of, ii. 254 f. Prophecy of, iii. 156 ff. References to, in Hebrews, ii. 351, 3591... Greek form of name in N.T., ii. 592 8... Jewish pronunciation of, i. 391: Jesus, the name, ii. 555, 569,1; U1. 576 f., 592s. Jesus Christ— Aramaic words used by, i. 3. List, i. 15 ff... Attitude toward Jewish law, ii. 586}. Attitude toward Judaism, in John, iii. 342. Attitude toward Pharisees, in John, iii. 342. Attitude toward Pharisees and Sadducees in Matt., ii. 549. Baptism, in Matt., ii. 540. sirth— Date, iii. 98. Blasphemy of name, i. 89, 99s. Brothers, i. 104f., 1107; ii. 238f., 240 f., 256. Brothers and Cousins, iii, 188, 204.4. Crucifixion, in missionary preaching, ii, 369. INDEX 501 Jesus Christ—continued. Crucifixion and death in John, ii. 217 f. persons present at, 111, 217 f. Davidie descent, ii. 533 ff., 563,, 567;. Death, in John, iii. 320 f. Date, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 277 f., 281, 293 ἔς Date, in Synopties, iii. 278, 294 f.,,. Teaching concerning, in Matt., ii. 551. Death and resurrection— Date, iii. 481. Deeds and words— Committed to writing, li. 368- 376. Early source of knowledge of, ii. 374. in Missionary preaching, ii. 369 f., 3778... Origin of Paul’s knowledge of, ii. 373, 384,. References to, by Paul, ii. 370 ff., 3795, 379 ff.4. References to, in N.T. writings (Gospels excluded) for Chris- tians outside of Palestine, ii. 379 ff... References to, in N.T. writings (Gospels excluded) for Jewish Christians of Palestine, ii. 383 f.,. Tradition of Apostolic Church con- cerning, li. 372. written records of (Gospels ex- cluded), ii. 372 ff. Disciples in Asia Minor, iii. 358 f., 3705. Discourses in Matt., ii. 557 ff. Early history in Luke, iii. 62 ff. False teaching concerning, in Church of Colosse, i. 467. Familiar with Greek, i. 42. Feasts during ministry of, iii. 285 f.,. Foreign words used by, i. θά}. Galilean ministry, in Fourth Gospel, 111. 260 f. in Luke, iii. 106. Healing acts, in Matt., ii. 544. Healing work, in Luke, iii. 146 ff. History οἵ, agreement with O.T. prophecy in Matt., ii. 537 ff., 567,. in Hebrews, ii. 327, 329 f. Intercourse with His disciples, in Matt., ii. 550. Language of, ii. 573 f. Jesus Christ—continued. Language cf—continued. Aramaic, i. 2 f. Bibliography, i. 14. Last days, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 267 ff. Last Passover, place of celebration, ii. 429, 447,. Last Supper— Persons present, iii. 214, 227 f.40. Matthew’s acquaintance with, ii. 507 f., 524,. Name, in Pauline Epistles, ii. 353 f. Names in Revelation, iii. 434, ,. Origin, Jewish suspicion concerning, ii. 536, 538, 5635. the Paschal Lamb, iii. 276 f., 293,3. Passion— in Fourth Gospel, iii. 270 ff. in Synoptics, iii. 278 f. Passion and Resurrection— History in Matt., ii. 554 ff. Passovers in ministry of, iii. 167 f. Predicts destruction of Jerusalem, iii. 156 f. Public ministry, length of, iii. 167 f. Relation of disciples to, ii. 463 f.,465 1. Relation to Jewish Law, in Luke, iii. 9195. Relatives of, iii. 101, 1359. Resurrection— Date, Fourth Gospel, iii. 281. Synopties, iii. 278. in missionary preaching, ii. 369. Sayings, how cited, ii. 388. Significance in Luke, iii. 70 ff. in Paul’s doctrine, i. 509 ff. Teaching— Disciples and the Jewish Law, ii. 586 f. Eschatology, i. 224,, 2591. False Christs, i. 228. in John— Significance of Miracles, iii. 299 f., 303 ff. in Luke— Poverty, 111. 72 ff. Wealth, iii. 72 ff. in Matt. ii. 542 ff. the Gospel and the Gentiles, ii. 587 f.,. Temptation— Account in Luke, iii. 111, 137,,. in Matt., iii. 111, 137,,. Title, in Luke, iii. 91,,. Titles, in John, iii. 308 Β΄, 316, 3265, 5. 502 Jesus Christ—continued. Transfiguration, ii. 204, 215 f.,. References to, in 2 Peter, ii. 216 ff. Trial, 111. 270 ff., 352 f.40. Visits in Jerusalem, iii. 167 f. Words of — Relation of instruction in the Early Christian Church to, ii. 370f. see also Deeds and words. Work— According to Mark, ii. 460 f. in Galilee, ii. 541 f. in Jerusalem, ii. 553 f. Jesus Justus, i. 64,9, 441 f., 4504, 494 ; ii. 371. Jesus, the son of Sirach, i. 6. Jews— Usage and meaning of term, 11. 306 f.;. Jew and Gentile, equality of, in Epistle to the Romans, i. 372 ff... Jewish Christian Communities in Egypt, ii. 357 f.4. Jewish Christianity of Post-Apostolic Age, i. 138. Jewish Christians— in Church of Colossee, i. 463 ff. Jewish Epitaphs in Rome, 1. 67,3, 6714. Jewish Greek, i. 54-57. Jewish Law— Attitude of Jesus toward, ii. 586 f.,. Jewish Literature, foreign words in, i. θ4:- Jews— Expelled from Rome, iii. 466 f. in Asia Minor, i. 47. in Crete, ii. 521. in Egypt, i. 47; ἢ. 357 f.4. in Galatia, i. 177, 192,. in Jerusalem, Letters of, to other Jewish communities, i. 144, 161. in Philippi, i. 522 f. in the Provinee of Asia, i. 449». in Rome, i. 47), 673. Language used by, in time of Christ, 1. § 1. Palestinian, Greek influence on, i. 35 ff. Proper names of, i. 63». Synagogue services, 1. 212. Use of Greek, i. § 2. Jezebel, the prea ii, 292,5; 111. 4241. Johannine Writings— see John, Epistles of, Gospel οἵ, Writings of— INDEX John— Use of name, iii. 433,. Alleged meeting with Cerinthus, 111. 192, 904... at trial of Jesus, 111. 271. Author of Johannine writings, tradi- tional, iii. 178 ff., 1999, 10: Identity, ii. 180 £., 199 8. ]0- Biographical notes, iii. 175, 191, 194 ἢ... in Synoptics, ili. 187f. Clement on, 111. 2059. Death, iii. 194 1... Various accounts, iil. 205 f.97, 28° Designation, in 193 f., Mark, ii. 490f., BOB gas Disciples of, iii. 175 f., 191, 194 f.,. Exile on Patmos, 111. 201 f..4, 408 f., 420). Family, references in Fourth Gospel to, iii. 210 ff., 222, in Asia Minor, iii. 358 f., 370;. Inferences concerning, from Johan- nine Epistles, iii. 190 f. Jesus’ prophecy concerning, li. 242- 247 Mother of, iii. 187 f., 190, 204.,. References to, in Fourth Gospel, üi. 189 f. Testimony of, to Mark’s Gospel, ii. 501. Various stories about, 111, 205o¢. Writings of— Tradition concerning, 11, 174-206. John, Acts of, ii. 4495. on Transfiguration, ii. 218,. John, Epistles of— Antichrist in, i. 228. Author, 111. 184 ff. John, First Epistle of, iii. 355-374. Antichrist in, iii. 364 f., 371,. Author, iii. 356 ff., 368 f. Character and form, 111, 355 ἢ, Christology, iii. 366 ἢ, Date, 111. 369. Epistolary character, 11. 313. Ethical admonitions in, iii. 361 ff. False teachers of, 111, 363-868, Introduction, ii, 313. Readers, iii. 356, 363, 369 f.,. Relation to Fourth Gospel, iii, 368, yee Witness of Papias to, iii, 184, 2028.15. Witness of Polvcarp to, 111, 184. John, Second and Third Epistles of, iii. 374-384, INDEX John, Second and Third Epistle of— continued. Author, iii. 378, 380. View of Dionysius, 111. 185 f. View of Eusebius, iii. 186, 20315. View of Jerome, iii. 186, 309. View of Origen, ili. 185, 208. Canon, iii. 185. Circulation, iii. 184 f. Date, iii. 380. Length, iii. 378, 982). Style, 111. 378, 382. John, Second Epistle of, iii. 378-380, 382 ff.,.g. Readers, iii. 379. John, Third Epistle of, iii. 374-378, 381 $.1-e- Addressee, iii. 374 ff. Criticism— Bibliography, 111. 381). John, Gospel of — Aramaic and Hebrew words in, iii. 340, 3633. Author— An eyewitness, iii. 209, 219, 221, 328, 4, 336 ff., 349 1... Relation to Jesus, iii. 343 f. Testimony of the Gospel to, 11]. 207-232. View of Irenzus, ili. 254,. View of Alogi, ii. 389. Character, iii. 299-307. Chronology of Passion History in, iii, 273-283, 293-298 5.17. Date, iii. 334 f., 349;. Witnesses for, iii. 1985. Disciples, items about the, in, iii. 224,. Discourses of Jesus in, compared with discourses in the Syn- opties, iii. 344, 354,7. Discourses of Jesus in, trustworthi- ness, iii. 344 f., 354 f.47 18. External evidence for, iii. 174, 194). Galilean ministry in, iii. 260 f. Genuineness, ili. 335-345, 349- 3557-78. Arguments against, ii. 336f., 349 f... Bibliography, 111. 3497. Geographical references in, iii. 340, 351.4). Greek style, iii. 340, 353,,. Heb. translation of, ii. 519 f. Influence in Early Church literature, iii. 176-178. Integrity, iii. 333 f., 345 ff. .,- | 503 John, Gospel of—continued. Jesus, last days of, in, 111. 267 ff. Jesus, titles of, in, i. 308 ff., 316, 3265 5. Narrative style of, iii. 337 ff., 350,. Origin— Canon Mur. on, iii. 178 f., 197,. Clem. Alex. on, iii. 178, 197,. Trenzeus on, iii. 179, 197,. Tradition of, iii. 179 f., 197 f., Original material in, iii. 269 f. O.T. citations in, iii. 340, 354, ,. O.T. Prophecy in, iii. 330 f.,9. Papias on, in Latin fragment, iii. 196 fy. Papias, testimony of, to, iii. 178, 1963. Peculiarity, iii. 335 f. Political references in, 111. 340, 352). Prologue, iii. 312 ff., 3274, 327 ff. ,. Purpose, iii. 207 f. Alleged, iii. 275. Purpose and Method, iii. 299-323. Readers, iii. 207 f., 299, 323 ff. Acquaintance with the history, iii. 254 ff., 280. Addressed, iii. 207, 223). Relation of 1 John to, iii. 368, 373,. Relation of, to Gospel of Mark, ii. 444, Relation to Philo, iii. 317 f. Relation to the Synoptic Gospels, iii, 254-298, 3061. Bibliography, iii. 283]. Relation to traditions concerning Jesus’ deeds and words eur- rent in Apostolie Church, ii. 372. Gospel Supplementary Chapter, iii. 232- Author, iii. 234 ff. Date, iii. 240. Early witnesses to, iii. 234, 250 f.». Language, compared with chs. i.- XX., 111. 233, 249,. Origin and date, iii. 247 f. Relation to chs. i.-xx., iii. 233- 236. Synoptic Gospels presupposed in, iii. 254-264, 280, 284,. Text— Changes in, iii. 333, 345,. Disarrangements in— View of Spitta, 111. 334, 347 f.,. Glosses, iii. 333 £., 345 f.,. Integrity, iii. 333 f., 345 ff...,. 504 John, Gospel of—continued. Text—continued. Interpolations in, iii. 334, 346 f.,. Later elements, iii. 334, 347,. Theology— Faith, 305 ff. Jesus— Humanity, iii. 318 ff. Incarnation, iii. 310 f. Knowledge, iii. 319. = Logos, 111. 312-321, 3275. Messiah, iii. 308 f. Pre-existence, iii. 311 f. Son of God, iii. 309 ff. Logos, the, iii. 312-321, 327 ff. 4.3. origin of term, iii. 314-318. “ Logos doctrine,” iii. 312 f., 3274. Use of Synoptic narratives, iii. 264 f. Use of “ we” in, iii. 208. View of F. Chr. Baur, ii. 412. View of G. E. Lessing, ii. 404, John, Writings of— Author— (alleged) Cerinthus, ii. 389; ii. 177, 2003). (traditional), 111. 199 f.,o- View of Alogi, iii. 181, 1999, 200)). View of Can.-Mur., ii. 1999. View of Delff, iii. 230 ff.,7. View of Heracleon, iii. 1999. View of Irenzeus, iii. 1999. View of Uchtritz, 111. 230 ff.17- Carping criticism of, iii. 430 f., 434,. Date, 111. 186. Greek of, iii. 432 f., 435, ς. Logos Doctrine, iii. 312f., 327f.,, 431, 434 f.,. Origin, 111. 175. Tradition concerning, iii. 174-206, “John,” Syriac “ History of, iii. 202,4. John the Baptist— Disciples, iii. 322 f., 331 f.,9, 368. in Fourth Gospel, iii. 255 f., 283 f.». Luke’s account, ili. 62 ff. Preaching, ii. 539 f. Reference to, in Mark’s Gospel, ii. 460. Teaching — Kingdom of Heaven, ii. 539f., 568, 10. Work of, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 321 f., 331,1. John of Ephesus, ii. 435 ff. ; ii, 428 f. John Mark— see Mark. John, the Presbyter, ii. 394, 435 f., 451 ff.45. INDEX John, the Presbyter—continued. Alleged author Johannine writings, 111. 230 ff.j7. Identity, ii. 435 ff., 4511.43. View of Eusebius, ii. 436 f. Papias, witness of, to, ii. 437 f., 453, 4. Witness to Mark’s Gospel, ii. 435 ff., 408... Joseph— Davidie descent, ii. 533 £. Josephus— Antiquities— Christian interpolations, i, 142. Dedication of, iii. 815. Relation of Jude and 2 Peter to, ii. 291,4- Bell. Jud.— Language of, i. 9f., 264). Title of, iii. 81,. Contr. Apion, dedication of, iii. 812. in Rome, iii. 474 f. Knowledge of Greek, i. 63, ; iii. 94, 1303. Knowledge of Luke’s work, iii. 1347. on Felix and Festus, iii. 469 ff. on Hellenes, i. 58,. on John the Baptist, iii. 1347. on Judas, the Galilean, ii. 97. on Quirinius, 111. 96f., 1347. on the Zealots, iii. 92o¢. Relation to Luke’s writings, 111, 99- 100, 129-134, .,. Relation to religious life of his time, iii. 134,. Trustworthiness, iii. 451. Use of Hebrew and Aramaie, i. 2611, 19: Use of term Hebrew, i. 26,9. Writings of— Date, iii. 94 f. Greek of, 1. 56. Judah the Nasi, i. 224, 629. Judaisers— in Galatia, i. 166 ff., 177 f., 189 1. Success in Galatia, i. 169. Judas Barsabas, i. 207 f., ; 11. 255). Judas, Bishop of Jerusalem, ii. 255 f.,, 284,. Judas, the Galilean, iii, 96, 97 ff. Judas (of) James, ii. 255, ; wi. 213, 224,. Judas Iscariot, ii. 255, ; iii. 213, 224,, 801... Jude =Judas— the persons so named in the N.T., ii. 238, 255 ἢ... INDEX Jude, i. 105. Biographical notes, 11. 240 ff. Brother of Jesus, i. 104; ii. 238f., 256,. Tradition concerning, ii. 268. Grandsons of, 11. 240, 2925. 505 Laodicea, i. 448 f.,, 452g. Church of, ii. 138. Founded by Kpaphras, i. 441. 449£.,. Relation to Paul, i. 460 f. Relation to readers of his Epistle, ii. ; Laodicea, Council of, i. 477,. 241, 242 f. Jude, Epistle of, ii. 238-262. Author, ii. 238 f., 255), 2563. Canonicity, ü. 263. Date, ii. 254 f., 286. False teachers, ii. 243-252, 257,, 2928.15. Character, ii. 279-283. Genuineness, ii. 262-293. Proof of, ii. 268 ff. Suspicions concerning the, ii. 283 f... Libertines of, ii. 244. Not pseudepigraphie, ii. 262 ἢ. Purpose, ii. 241 f., 256f.;. Relation to the Antiquities of Josephus, ii. 29144. Relation to Assumption of Moses, ii. 269, 288,. Relation to Book of Enoch, ii. 269 f., 286 ff. 7° Relation to literary works after 70 A.D., ii. 279, 291 f.44. Relation to 2 Peter, ii. 211}, 2854. Various hypotheses of, ii. 264- 268. Traces in literature of the early Church, ii. 284 f.,. Use of Pauline writings, ii. 278 f. Use of prophecy of 2 Peter, ii. 250. Junius, 1. 391, 41833. Justification— by faith, i. 126 ff., 129 ff.,, 132,. by works, i. 126 ff., 129 ff.,. Justin, i. 135, ; iii. 327,. on the Fourth Gospel, iii. 182. on Pilate, iii. 352 f.49. on relation of Mark to preaching of Peter, ii. 450,5. on Simon Magus, ii. 168, 172. on the Gospels, ii. 389. on the resurrection, ii. 1997. 177, Kepha, ii. 219 f. Kingdom of heaven— in Matt., li. 540, 568, 10° Korah, ii. 281. in the Epistle of Jude, ii. 244f., 257 f.;. Laodiceans, Epistle to the, i. 160, 249,, 480, 488,, 499f., 503, 535, ; ii. 131,1, 2855, 295, 306. Latin and Greek words used by Jesus, 1. 41. Latin technical terms— Used by Jews in Palestine, ii. 489, Laying on of hands, ii. 6, 23,, 91 f., 98f. Lazarus, iii. 262 f. Lebbeeus, ii. 255,, 522 £... Lectionaries, iii. 3561. Leontopolis— Jewish temple in, ii. 333, 341... Letter “ρον style, greeting), 1. 117 Τῶν Leueius, iii. 88:7. Account of death of John, iii. 193 f., 20655. Knowledge of Fourth Gospel, iii. 177. Levi, ii. 506, 5221... Matthew identical with, ii. 506 f. see also Matthew. Libertines— in Corinthian Church, ii. 280 ff. of Jude, ii. 244, 278, 279 ff. of 2 Peter, ii. 225 f., 278, 279 ff. of Revelation, iii. 418. Linus, ii. 20,. First Bishop of Rome, ii. 167,. Literature, Early Christian— Character of, ii. 367 f. Logia, the, ii. 416, 579. of Matthew, ii. 509 ff. Logos, the, iii. 223f.,; iii, 312-321, 327 ff.4., 431, 434,. Origin of term, iii. 314-318. , Logos Doctrine— in Johannine writings, iii. 434}... Lois and Eunice, ii. 22 f.4. Lord’s Prayer— Early use of, ii. 603. in Luke and Matt., ii. 559, Variant forms, ii. 603. Lord’s Supper, the— Heathen slanders concerning (Pliny), iii. 70. Ignatius on, and love feasts, ii. 236,. Institution— Date, view of Tiibingen School, 111. 275, 29375: 431, 506 Lord’s Supper, the—continued. Institution—continued. in Luke, iii. 69 f. Text of, 111. 39 ff.,y. Codex D, iii. 4019. Didache, iii. 404. Latin MSS, iii. 4049. Marcion, iil. 3949. Syriac versions, ili. 409. Persons present, iii. 214, 227 f.12- Place, ii. 447,, 492, 493. Variant forms, 11. 603. Meaning of the Church observance, iu. 276 f. Observance— Date — Anti - Quartodecimans, iii. 274 f. Churches of Asia Minor, iii, 273 f. John (apostle), iii. 275 ff. Paul, 111. 277, 279. Quartodecimans, iii. 273 ff. Western Church, iii. 277. Presupposed in Fourth Gospel, iii. 268 f. Lucian of Samosata, use of term Syrian, i. 234. Lucius of Cyrene, ii. 505, ; iii. 15, 28 f... Luke identified with, iii. 5,. Luke (the evangelist), 1. 440, 450 f.;. Acquaintance with material in Acts, 111. 148 ff. Author of Luke and Acts, iii. 1, 3). Biographical notes, iii. 51. Biography of, sources for, iii. 1f. Identified with Lucius (Rom. xvi. 21), 111. 5y. Identified with Lucius of Cyrene, iii. 5,. in Philippi, iii. 56. in Rome, iii. 56, 102. ‚in Rome, with Paul, 11. 2f. Knowledge of events recorded in Acts, iii. 127 ff. Knowledge of Mark and his Gospel, iii. 101 f. Knowledge of written Gospels, iii. 48f. Nationality, view of Jerome, iii. 4 1.2. Native of Antioch, iii. 2, 5,. Sources used by, iii. 94-142. Tradition concerning, and his work, iii. 1-8. Traditions concerning, iii. 6 f.,. Use of names of Roman Provinces, 1, 174 f., 186 f.,. Luke, a ἃ of (see also Historical ork of)— INDEX Luke, Gospel of—continued. Authorship ascribed to Luke by Early Church, in. 1, 31. Chronological order of events lacking, 111. 64 ff., 89 f. 49. Compared with Gospel of Matt., ii. 603 f. Dedication, iii. 42 f. Dependence on Mark, iii. 49 f., 101- 107, 135 ἘΠ εἰ Hebraisms in, iii. 104 f., 135). Israelitish tope of, iii. 9139. Jesus— Galilean ministry of, iii. 106. Healıng works of, iii. 146 ff. Joyful spirit in, iii. 76 f., 9255. Marcion’s edition, iii. 22. Parallels to Mark, iii. 102 f. Parallels to Matt., iii. 110. Pragmatism, iii. 63 f. Prologue, scope of, iii. 53-61, 85 f.,o- Proper names in, 111. 9059. Prophecy of destruction of Jerusalem in, iii. 156 ff. Purpose, iii. 42 ff. Relation to Matthew, iii. 107-112. Relation to oral preaching of Paul, ii. 299. Relation of, to Paul, ii. 387 f. Relation to Paul’s epistles, iii. 119 f. Sources, iii. 50 ff., 94-142. View of Feine, iii. 1377: Source of material peculiar to, iii. 113f. Style, compared with Mark, iii. 104 f., 135,0, 13635 Text, history of, iii. 24. Title lacking, iii, 41f., 80f.,. Two-fold recension of— Theory of Blass, iii. 9, 22. Criticism of, iii. 22 ff. Western text, ili. 22 ff., 33-4109. Luke, Historical work of — Aramaic and Hebrew words in, iii. 108, 136,5, 13744: Author, iii. 95. and date, iii. 142-165. Familiarity with Greek technical medical terms, iii. 146 ff, 160 ff, Shronology of, iii. 97 ff. Date, iii. 3, 7 f.,, 95, 155 ff., 164 f.4).. Israelitish tone in, iii. 70, 9100. Jesus, Teaching concerning, 111, 70 ff. Language and style, iii. 79, 9295. Medical terms in, iii. 82 f.,, 146 f., 160 f.,- INDEX Luke, Historical work of—continued. Place of composition, 111]. 7f.,, 159, 165,5. Plan, iii. 59-68. Preface, plan and purpose, iii. 41 ff. Proper names in, ill. 68, 90 f.go. Purpose, iii. 42 ff., 61 f. Reference to contemporary events in, iii. 99. References to political history, iii. 68. Relation to Josephus, ii. 94-100, 129-134, 7. Relation to Josephus— Krenkel on, iii. 129 f.,. Third Book, iii. 58 ff., 67 f., 76. Title lacking, iii. 41f., 80f.,. Unity of, iii. 77 ff., 9295. Lycaonia, i. 174 ff. Cities of, 1843. Lydia, i. 523, 533}. Lysanias of Abilene, iii. 165,,. Lysias, iii. 101. Lystra, i. 191 f., 4. Church organisation in, ii. 98... Maecabean coins, i. 25,, 37. Maccabean revolt, i. 36 f. Macedonia, 1. 186,, 211 f.,, 532). Magi, the— Date of the visit to Bethlehem, early discussion, ii. 527;. Malta, iii. 138 f.99. Man of Sin [Lawlessness], i. 226 f., 229, 238 fi... Mandwzans, iii. 33273. Maranatha, i. 304,3. Marcion— Apostolicon of, i. 152, 156 f., 491. Date, i. 156. Edition of Luke, iii. 22. Gospel of, ii. 391, 445, ; ili. 891. Portions of Fourth Gospel in, iii. 177. on the Gospels, ii. 390 f. Teachings, ii. 118, 130,5. Text of Romans, i. 379f., 396 ff... View concerning title of Epistle to the Ephesians, i. 480 f., 4885. View of Galatians, 1. 243. Marcionitie Gospel, ii. 3857. Mareosians— - - Field of activity, i. 135,. Mark, i. 441f., 450,. Alleged author of Revelation, iii. 498 f., 433 fi», Biographical notes, ii. 427-431, 445- 448,.,. 507 Mark—continued. Called “stump-fingered” (koAoßodar- rvXos), 11. 428, 445 f.4. Canon Muratori on, ii. 428f., 446,. Family, ii. 487. Founder of Church in Alexandria and Egypt, ii. 159. Hebrew name, ii. 4451. House of, ii. 427, 429, 447 f.,. Household of, ii. 493. in Antioch, ii. 429, 430 ; iii. 479. in Asia Minor, ii. 148 f., 431. in Cyprus, ii. 430. in Egypt, ii. 431, 448,. in Rome, ii. 601 f. in Rome, with Paul and Peter, ii. 431. Knowledge of the Gospel history, ii. 604 f. Knowledge of Jewish laws and cus- toms, 11. 488. Missionary activity, 11. 429 f., 434. Mother of, ii. 427. Papias on, ii. 427. Papias on relation of, to Peter, ii. 438 ff. Peter, relation of, to Mark— John the Presbyter on, ii. 442 f. Related to Barnabas, ii. 428. Relation to Paul, 1). 148f. Relation to Paul and Barnabas, 1]. 427, 429 ff., 434. Relation to Peter, ii. 148, 394, 427, 432, 434, 445,. Mark and his Gospel— Tradition regarding, ii. 427-456. Mark, Gospel οἵ-- Agreement between Gospel of Matt. and, ii. 603, 608, 6191. Analysis, ii. 462-467. f Aramaic words in, ii. 487 f., 502,. Author, ii. 493 f. Relation of, to youth of xiv. 51, ii. 491 f. Traditional view, ii. 487. Canon Muratori on, ii. 441 f. Chronological order lacking, ii. 498 f. Comparison of, with the tradition, 11. 487-506. Conclusion, ii. 467 ff., 483 ἔς ¢. Abrupt, explanation of, ii. 479 f. Comparisons of the conclusions, 11. 470 f. in Textus Receptus, witnesses for, 11. 467 f., 483 f.,, Freer MS. Original, ii. 476 ff. Rohrbach on, ii. 485 f.,. 508 Mark, Gospel of—continued. Conelusion—continued. Shorter form, witnesses for, ii. 468 ff., 484,. Witness of Gospel of Peter to, ii. 483,5. Date, ii. 4791., 602. Dependence on Matthew, ii. 602, 607 ff., 612 ἢ"... Dependence on Peter, iii. 49. Direct discourse in, ii. 608 f. Early judgment concerning, ii. 439 f Greek of, Hebraic colouring, ii. 488, 502. Incomplete, iii. 50. John, the Presbyter, witness of, to, ii. 435. Known early in Asia Minor, 11. 444. Latin technical terms in, ii. 489, 5031... Length, ii. 479, 48779. Literary character, ii. 606 f., 614,. Luke dependent on, ii. 492 ; iii. 49. Method in presentation of Gospel history, ii. 441 f. Narratives, character of, ii. 461 f., 481 ff... Omits parts of the Gospel history, ii. 604 ff. Origin— View of Clement of Alexandria, ji. 432 ἢ, 448 f.9, 449 fo. View of Eusebius, ii. 432 f., 449 ἴ. 10. View of Irenzeus, ii. 433. O.T. citations— Form, ii. 609 ff., 616 f.4. 5, ¢ Papias, witness of, ii. 434, 435, 438 ff., 449 8.10, 45011, 485g. Parables, ii. 464 f. Passages, parallel with Luke, iii. 102f. Place of composition, 11. 450,1. Traditional view, ii. 434, 449 f.40, 487. Plan, ii. 604 ff. Purpose, ii. 459, 461, 583, 604 ff. References to Peter in, ii. 497 f., 5065. Relation of Gospel of John to, ii. 444. Relation to Peters discourses and preaching, ii. 387f., 434 f., 450 8.15, 495 ff., 501. Justin on, ii. 450.73. Papias on, ii. 438 ff. Relation to Luke, iii. 101 - 107, 135 fl. 10-18- Relation to Matthew, ii. 601-617. Traditional view, ii. 601 f. Septuagint used in, ii. 610f. INDEX Mark, Gospel of —continued. Style, ii. 457, 401 f., 481 f.4. Compared with Luke, iii. 104f, 135,0, 136,53. Title, ii. 456-460, 480,. Title, plan and conclusion of, ii, 456- 487. Used by Cerinthus, ii. 444. Written for Western readers, ii. 489. Mark, Writings of— View of F. Hitzig, 11. 423;. Marriage in early Church, ii. 95. Patristic aud modern views of, ii. 125 f.49- Mary (the Virgin)— Davidie descent, 111, 361. Reference to, in John, 111. 224, ena Mary, mother of Mark, ii. 427. Mary and Martha, iii. 262f. Matthew (Apostle), ii. 581, 584. Biographical notes concerning, il. 507 f. Call of, ii. 507 f. ’ Confusion of name with Matthias, ii. 508, 524 ἢ... Early acquaintance with Jesus, 1]. 507 f., 5249. Identical with Levi, ii. 506 f. Literary activity, Papias’ witness to, ii. 509 fl, 525 1... Names of the evangelist, ii. 506f., 522 fl... Position in the lists of disciples, 11. 506, 522 ff... Tradition regarding, and his Gospel, 11. 506-530. Matthew, Gospel of— Agreements between Gospel of Mark and, ii. 603, 608, 612). Analysis, ii. 533-556. Author, ii. 506, 508 f., 581. Knowledge of the Gospel history, ii. 585, 600 f.45. Nationality, ii. 561 f. Authorship, Apostolic— Objections to, ii. 590 f.g. Traditional view— Dogmatic objections to, 11, 582 Il. Canonical, the, ii. 403. Canonicity of, ii. 301. Carried by Bartholomew into India, ii. 385, 517, 528,. Character, ii. 556£., 570 f. Characterisations of, 11. 57013. Christian Church, eonception of, in the, ii. 550 ff. Compared with Luke, ii, 603 f. INDEX Matthew, Gospel of—continued. Compared with the tradition, 11. 570-601. Contents, plan and purpose, ii. 531- 570 Date, ii. 392 ff, 522, 530,,, 571 ff, 588,, 602. Witness of Irenzeus to, ii. 522. “ Doublets” in, 11. 581 f., 598 ff. 5. Gospel of the Hebrews, relation to the Heb. Matt., ii. 518 f. Gospel of the Nazarenes, relation to the Greek Matt., 11. 519. Greek Matt., origin, ii. 514f. Relation to Aramaic original, ii. 576 ff., 591-597,.;. a translation, 11. 594.79. Translator of, ii. 517, 527,, 575f., 579 f. Witnesses to the, ii. 515 f., 526 f.,. Greek Translation— Date and place of, ii. 516 f. Hebraisms in, ii. 576 ff., 591-597,.,;. Hebrew Matt., the, ii. 511f., 515 ff. Disappearance of the, ii. 520 f. in “ India,” ii. 517, 528,. Witness of Panteenus to, ii. 517. Hebrew names in, Transcription of, ii. 698... Hilgenfeld’s view concerning, ii. 414, 586 f.,. Historical material in, ii. 559. in Syrian Church, ii. 529,. Jesus, discourses of, in, ii. 557 ff., 584f. Literary character, ii. 606f. Narratives, Character of, ii. 583 f. Original language, ii. 530,, 573 f. Epiphanius on, ii. 519. Franz Delitzsch on, ii. 5305. Irenzeus on, ii. 518, 528,. Jerome on, ii. 518f., 529,. Origen on, ii. 517, 528,. Papias on, ii. 509f., 617. O.T. Citations— Form, ii. 579 f., 596£.,1, 12, 611. O.T. Prophecy in, ii. 537 ff. Parallels to Luke, iii. 110. Place of composition, ii. 571 ff., 590,. Purpose, ii. 544, 545, 560f., 570,,, 583. * Readers, ii. 521 f., 528,, 561f. Refrain in, ii. 598 f.,5. Relation to Luke, iii. 107-112, Relation to Mark, ii. 601-617. Traditional view, ii. 601 f. Septuagint in, ii. 610 f. 509 Matthew, Gospel of—continued. Teaching— Kingdom of heaven, ii. 540, 5685, 10° Parousia, ti. 571 £. Title, ü. 531 ff. Used by Epistle of Barnabas, ii. 515, 526 1... Matthias, ii. 508, 524 ἔς. Medical language of Luke, iii. 82 f.,, 146f., 1601... Menander, ii. 110, 129,,; iii, 349,. Mesopotamia— Early missionary work in, ii. 163 f.,. Miletus, ii. 265. Miracles, Significance in Fourth Gos- pel, iii. 299 f., 303 ff. Missionary preaching, i. 285 ff. Content, 11. 369-373, 377 ff.;-.. Crucifixion of Jesus, ii. 369. Resurrection of Jesus, ii. 369, 3771. Words and deeds of Jesus, ii. 369 f., 377 ff. Scope, ii. 587 f.4. to Jews and proselytes in Palestine— content, 11. 369, 3777. to Jews of the diaspora and Gen- tiles— content, ll. 369, 377 Ties, 3793. Mnason, i. 66,5 ; 111. 18. Modern Hebrew, works on, biblio- graphy, 1. 959. Montanists, 1. 405, ; ii. 302f., 310f.,, ; ili. 177. Moses, Assumption of— Quoted in Jude, ii. 269, 288,. Muratorian Canon, see Canon Mura- tori. Muratorian Fragment, see Canon Muratori. Mystery of Lawlessness, i. 229, 236,, 251;. Naassenes, ii. 116, 126,,, 129,7. Names in Philemon, Discussion of, i. 458,. Narcissus, i. 392, 419,,. Nathanael, i. 31,6; ii. 517, 524,, 528, ; 111. 210, 225,, 302. Navigation, Regulations in 1st century, 111, 454. Nazarenes, ii. 74, 403, 518. Nazarenes (4th century), ii. 264. Nazarenes, Aramaic Gospel of the-- see Apocryphal Gospels. Nazareth, ii. 539. 510 Nazarites— Gospel used by, i. 13. Jewish zeal, i. 44 f. Language, i. 13. Vow of abstinence from wine, i. 4734. Neapolis (in Macedonia), 1. 533. Nereus, 1, 42054. Nero, ili. 410, 422,, 469 ff. Legend concerning (and Rey.), 11]. 436, 443 fl, 4475. Legend concerning (and 2 Thess.), i. 246 f., 250;, 2529, 10- Marriages, iii. 477. Persecution of Christians, ii. 57 f., 61f., 68,, 71, 76£., 160,.170, 185, 3471. New Testament Canon, composition of, A245 New Testament Canon of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 1. 123. New Testament Times, Chronology, ii. 481 ff. New Testament Writings— Chronology, iii. 481 ff. Synchronisms with general history, Bibliography, 111. 450 f. Jewish origin, 1. 57, Literary dependence in, 11. 603 ff, Names in, i. 29 ff. 4. Text of, iii. 12 ἢ. History, ili. 22 f. N.T. Writings (Gospels excluded)— to Christians outside of Palestine, reference in, to the Gospel story, ii. 379 f.,. to Jewish Christians in Palestine, references in, to the Gospel story, 11. 383 ff. ,. Nicodemus, ili. 302 f., 35513: Nicolaiis, Nicolaitans, i. 497, 515, ; 1]. 110, 129,,, 283 ; iii. 179, 197,, 417 ff., 426) 45 42715: Teaching of, in the Churches of Asia Minor, 11. 292,5 Nicopolis, ii. 48 f., 53 fig. Novatian, 11, 303, 310 £.11- Officers of the Early Church— Functions, ii. 96 ff. Qualifications, ii. 32 f., 90 ff. Old Latin Translation— Relation to original language of Gospel tradition, ii, 575. Old Testament Citations— in Fourth Gospel, iii. 340, 35445. in Mark, ii. 609 fF., 616, 5, 9: in Matthew, ii. 579 f., 5961.,,, 19 GLOF. in Pauline epistles, ii. 52. INDEX O.T. oral translation of, i. 12, 23,4, 33,9. O.T. Propheey— Fulfilled in Gospel history, 11]. 330 £.40. Onesimus, i. 439 f., 444, 446), 451 f.., 453 f., 456, 458,, 494. Onesiphorus, ii. 2f., 19, 20}, 68;, 86. Oral translation— in the Early Christian Church, ii. 511 ff. of O.T., i. 12, 234, 3390. Origen, i. 6944. Eusebius on, 11. 397;. Latin sermons attributed to, ii. 303, 310 ἔν. on angelolatry of Jews, i. 475,. on “ Angels of the seven Churches,” ill, 423,. on chronological order of Gospels, li. 392 f., 398 ἔς, 7. on Ephesians, i. 482, 488 f.,. on Hebrews, ii. 299 ff., 309. author, ii. 308,. on inscription of Acts xvii. 23, iil. 163,. on Paul’s missionary activity, ii. 74. on Peter’s missionary activity, ii. 1525. Text of Acts, iii. 10, 9319. Text of 1 John iv. 3, iii. 3715. Text of Rom., i. 379, 395, 406)). Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 185, Palestine—- Christianising of, i, 93. Greek Cities in, i. 35 f. Greek language in, i. 35-46, Land of Israel, i. 75, 807. Ptolemy’s division of, ii. 5894. Pallas, iii. 470 ff. Panteenus— in India, ii. 517 f., 527,. on authorship of Heb., ii. 298, Teacher of Clement, ii. 308;. Papias— Biographical notes, 11, 526,. Date, ii. 436, 515. Designation of Christ, iii, 203,5 Disciple of Aristion, 11. 473. Disciple of John, iii. 175, Fragment (Latin) on Fourth Gospel, iii. 196 ἢν. Fraginents of, in Eusebius, ii. 435 ff, 451 fl, 453 8.14 Interpretation of Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13), ii. 163;. INDEX Papias— continued. Interpretation of John’s testimony to Mark’s Gospel, ii. 501 f., 510f. on Mark, ii. 394, 427, 434 ff., 449 f.,,, 450; 1, 45314, 4854, 499. Witness to 1 Peter, ii. 173, 186). Witness to Gospels— View of Griesbach, ii. 405. View of Schleiermacher, ii. 411 f. Witness to John, iii. 178, 1965. Witness to John vii. 53-viii. 11, iii. 346,. Witness to Matthew, ii. 509 ff., 511 f., 525 ἢ... Witness to Revelation, iii. 182. Work of, the, ii. 436. Parousia, ii. 222, 237 f. in Gospels, i. 224,. in Matthew, ii. 571 f. in 2 Pet., ii. 273. in 1 Thess., i. 291 ἢ. in Rev., iii. 396 f., 4371. ‚Reference to, in John xxi., iii. 243- 247. Time of, ii. 230. Parthia— Early missionary work in, ii. 163 f.,. Participial construction in N.T., ii. 9545. Passion History— in Fourth Gospel, iii. 270 ff. in Synoptics, iii. 2781. Passion and Resurrection of Jesus— History in Matthew, ii. 554 ff. Passover— Celebration of, iii. 296 FF. 7. Last, of Jesus— Place of celebration, ii. 429, 447,, 492, 493. Pastoral Epistles, ii. 1-133. Alleged interest in the organisation of the Church, ii. 93 f. Alleged late date, ii. 99-118. Baptismal formula in, ii. 119, 13150- Comparison with pseudepigraphical literature, ii. 123,. Date, ii. 118 f. ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι in, ii, 126,1. False teachers in, ii. 99 ff. Linguistic ‘character, ii. 1318... Similarity of Romans to, i. 413,,. Term, meaning, ii. 55, 67). Unity of Christian doctrine and confession demanded 119 ff, 282 f., 294,,, 121 f., i, ii. 511 Pastoral Epistles, ii. 1-133—continued. Not inconsistent with Paul’s teach- ing, found elsewhere, ii. 119 ff. Patmos, iii. 408 f., 420,. Patrobas, i. 420,,. Paul— of Acts, iii. 152 f. Address of, in Acts xxi. 37 ff., i. 42 Fy Age, i, 457,. Alleged author of Hebrews, ii. 296, 298 ff., 302. Antioch, work in, date, iii. 458 ἡ, 462 ἢ. (“ Apology ἢ πρώτη ἀπολογία, ii. 7 f., 125. Apostle to the Gentiles, i, 353 f., 370 fo. Apostolic calling of, i. 353 f. Apostolic dignity, defence of, i. 289. Aramaic, language of, i. 48 ff., 57. Asia— Danger in, i. 309, 318,, 321f. Extent of work in, i. 449f.,. Asia, Churches of, intercourse with, during Roman imprisonment, li. 16. Asia Minor, ii. 148 ἢ, Athens, i. 205. Journey from Bercea to, i. 214,. Biographical notes, i. 48-54, 67153 ii. 370f. ; iii. 455-480, Cxsarea, i. 443, 444f,, 451, ; ii. 16; ili. 473 f. Trial before Felix, date, iii. 476. Chronology of life and writings, iii. 481 ff. Churches founded by— Character of, ii. 136. in the provinces of Asia and Galatia, ii. 135 f. Churches of Colosse and Laodicea relation to, i. 460 f. Churches under Pauls jurisdiction, ii. 11. Care of, i. 206, 4621. Citizenship, i. 69,4; iii. 75f. Close of career, ii. 54-84, Bibliography, ii. 67 f.,. Collection journey (Acts xi. 30)— Date, iii. 456 ff. Conversion, in Acts compared with Epistles, iii. 121. Corinth, first visit, i. 256 f. Second visit, i. 263, 271), 271f 272 Krenkel’s view of, i. 272,,. > 14 "135 512 Paul—continued. Corinth—continued. Unrecorded visit, i. 327 f. Work in, i. 232 f., 256 f., 259. Corinth, Church of— Charges Paul with i, 391 ff., 343 fio. Lost correspondence with, i. 261, 2705. Date, 1. 262. Lost epistle of Paul to, i. 263 f., 307, 312 ff.,, 3271. Identified with 1 Cor., i. 330 ff. Lost letter of, to Paul, i. 325. Crete, 11. 43 f., 106. Death of, iii. 479 f. Date, ii. 58. see also Martyrdom. Doctrine— Antichrist, i. 226 ff. Sources of, 1. 227 ff., 236 ἢν μὲ Asceticism, ii. 332. Church, i. 508 f. ἐκκλησία in epistles, i. 504 ἢ, Eschatology, 1. 2534. in 1 Thess., i. 221, 223 f... Justification, i. 124, 129 ff.,, 1323. Misinterpretations of, ii. 275, 290, o- Misunderstood by Gnostics, i. 125 f. Significance of Christ in, i. 509 ff. Ephesus, i. 194, 199, ; iii. 33143. Church of, and Paul, i. 483f., 489 1... Epistles of— Agreement of Acts with, iii. 150 f. Circulation, ii. 275 f. in the first century, ii. 125, 14094. Criticism of, Review, i. 152-164. Date, 1. 156 ff. Development of thought in, i. 200 f. Genuineness, i. 156-162. Genuineness, Views regarding— Bauer, i. 155, 168;. Baur, i. 154f., 163). Dutch School, i. 155 f., 163,, 4. Evanson, i. 154, 1635. Hitzig, i. 156, 163,. Marcion, i. 152, 155, 156f. Schleiermacher, i. 154, 163,. Semler, i. 156. Tradition of Chureh, i. 154. Weisse, i. 156, 163,. 307, 316,, fickleness, 152, INDEX Paul—continued. Epistles of—continued. How written, i. 234,, 249f.,. Influence of, in Apostolic Church, i. 161f. Jesus, name for, in, 11. 353 ἢ, Jesus’ words and deeds, reference to, ii. 370 ff., 379 ffs. 4. Lost Epistle to readers of 2 Peter, li. 198 f., 209, 227, 274 f., 277. Places where written, ii. 162). Preliminary critical remarks, i. 152-164. Readers, ii. 227 ff. Relation of Acts to, iii. 118-126, 139 ων, 93° Relation to James, i. 1323. Relation to 1 Peter, i. 161. Spurious, i. 160f., 164,. Style and thought of, 11. 353. the First Roman imprisonment, i. 439-563. Thought, form, and language of, compared with that of He- brews, 11. 353 f. Three oldest, i. 152-255. Titles, i. 486. “We? in, i. 203, 209 f.;. Writing of the, 1. 172 f.,. Epistolary style, characteristics, i. 500, 516 £.,. Family of, i. 68f.,.- Flight from Damascus— Date, iii. 455. Galatia, i. 165 ff., 1719. Illness, i. 181. Ramsey’s theory, i. 1715. Visits to the churches of, i. 165, 1715. Gospel, i. 353f., 357f., 412f.47; ii. 385;. Origin, ii. 352. Preached, ii. 370 ff., 379s. Greek language and literature— Knowledge of, i. 51 f., 70,5, 7119. Heb. O.T., knowledge of, i. 51, 52, 7017: History of — Data in, iii. 452 f. Synchronisms with general history, iii. 455-480. James’ doctrine, attitude to, i. 124, 129 ff.,, 1325. Jerusalem Collection, i. 200,. Jesus’ life, knowledge of facts of— Source, ii. 370 f., 373, 384,. Luke’s Gospel, relation to, ii. 387 f. INDEX Paul—continued. ΄ Mark, relation to, ii. 148-f., 427, 429 f., 445,. Martyrdom, ii. 165 ff... Date, ii. 66. Early tradition concerning, ii. 62, 78 fl... Not a vietim of Nero’s persecution, ii. 57 f., 685. Patristic testimony to, ii. 75 ff... Testimony of Clement to, ii. 61f. see Martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Missionary Career— Journeys in Asia Minor, Ramsay’s view, i. 188 f.,. First journey, i. 176 f. Churches founded during, i. 176£., 191 fig. in Acts compared with Epistles, iii. 122. Second journey in Galatia— in Acts compared with Epistles, iii. 122 f. Method of work 265 8... Work in Asia Minor, ii. 137 f. Missionary preaching, i. 237,, 462, 471}. Content, ii. 370 ff., 3795, 379 ff.4. “Gospel of Christ” in, ii. 370 ff. Jesus’ words and deeds in, refer- ence to, ii. 370 ff., 379 ffs 4. Principles, 1. 285 ff. Names, iii. 127, 140,5. Origin, i. 70:6. Nephew of, i. 50. Peter, parallelisms with, in Acts, iii. 151 f., 163,. Pharisaism, i. 50, 68), ; iii. 14033. Philippi, i. 522 ff. Church of, communications with, i. 524 ff. Lost correspondence with, i. 526 ff., 535 ἔς. Relation to, i. 212,. Philippians, Epistle to the— Condition when writing, i. 527 ff., 539-556 ; ii. 18. Roman law, acquaintance with, in Galatians, i. 201 1.1. Rome— Arrival in, iii. 478. Imprisonment, First, ii. 1 f. in cities, i. Coptic fragments of the Acts of | Paul on, ii. 831. VOL. 11]. 513 Paul—continued. Rome—continued. Imprisonment—continued. Evidences for activity after, ii, 59 f. Tradition concerning, in Cle- ment of Rome, ii. 60ff., 68 FR... Release from, ii. 55 f. Expectation of, in Philippians, li. 55 f. Probable order of events suc- ceeding, ii. 14 ff., 66 f. Testimony to, ii. 63 ff. Imprisonment, Second, ii. 67. Intended visit to, i. 367 ff., 377... Purpose of, i. 355 ff., 371 f... Renewal of charges against Paul in, 11. 57, 68,4. Residence in, i. 444 f., 451,, 539 ff. ; 11. 2ff. ; iii. 57 f. Trial, i. 540 ff., 542 ff. ; ii. 4 ff., 131. Date, ii. 57 f. Voyage to, iii. 454. Rome, Church of— Acquaintance with, i. 352, 428. Sanhedrin letter to, language, i. 10. Septuagint, Quotations from, i. 52. Sister of, i. 50. Spain, ii. 161 f. Journey to, ii. 10, 12, 61 ff. Testimony of Acts of Paul to, ii. 63. Testimony of Acts of Peter to, li. 63. Testimony of Canon Muratori to, ii. 62 ff., 73 ff... Proposed visit to, i. 367 ff., 577. Supernatural leadings of, i. 555, ; iii. 16 f. Thessalonica, i. 203. Timothy, relation to, ii. 34 f. Titus, communication of, to Paul, ii. 46 f. Training, i. 53 f., 67.15; ii. 22 f.4. Troas, ii. 16 f. Use of names of Roman Provinces, i. 175, 185 ff... Use of plural by, i. 354, 369). Use of terms apostles and prophets, 1. 505 f. Use of term Evangelist, i. 507 f. Paul and the Jewish law, iii. 152 f. and the Jewish Synagogues, ii. 137 f. and the Roman government, iii. 75 ἢ, and the readers of 2 Peter, ii. 203. Paul, Acts of, i. 69,6; ii. 1704. 33 514 Pella, Flight of Jews to, ii. 572, 588 f.; ; iii. 159. Pentecost, Place of, ii. 429, 447,. Pergamum, iii. 411, 420 f.,. Church of, iii. 410f., 417 1. Pericopes, the Church, iii. 361. Persecutions of Christians— in Asiatic churches, 90-100 A.D., iii. 409 ff. Mentioned in 1 Peter, ii. 179 ff., 184 f. Nature of, in Ist century, ii. 180f., 189,. Under Nero, ii. 185. Peter, iii. 213, 224,. Alleged daughter of, ii. 1643. at trial of Jesus, iii. 271. Attitude toward Jewish and Gentile Christians, ii. 276. Confession of, 11. 550 f. Death, ii. 160, 165 ff.,, 214; iii. 479. Date, ii. 160, 1704, 255. in Acts of Paul, ii. 214, in Acts of Peter, ii. 214. Prophecy concerning, iii. 241 f. Discourses of, in Acts, compared with 1 Peter, ii. 173 f., 186. Epistles of— Canonicity, ii. 2845. Comparison of, 1]. 289 fig. Genuineness, 11. 262-293. Resemblances between the, ii. 271, 289 8.9. First Epistle of, ii. 134-194. Alleged purpose, ii. 174. Author, an eyewitness, ii. 155 fig. Author, relation to readers, ii. 145 f., 148, 154f.,. Author’s description of himself, ii. 146 ff. Canonicity, ii. 263 f. Character, ii. 173 ff. Compared with discourses of Peter in Acts, ii. 173 f., 1869. Date, i. 128, 161; ii, 148f., 161), 160 ff., 177. Genuineness, ii. 173-194. 197, 271 ff, 147, External evidence, ii, 178, 185f.,. | Greetings of, ii. 148, Persecutions of Christians men- tioned in, ii. 179 ff. Ramsey’s view of, ii. 190 ἔκ. Persons addressed in, ii. 134, Place of writing, i. 161; ii. 158f,, 162-173... Purpose, ii. 1451. INDEX Peter—continued.. First Epistle of—continued. Readers and author— Internal evidence, ii. 134-158. Readers, not Jewish Christians, ii 136-142. Gentile Christian Churches in Asia Minor, ii. 142-145. View of Kühl, ii. 1525. View of Origen and Greek Church, ii. 136 f., 1525. View of B. Weiss, ii. 152s. Relation to Ephesians, ii. 176 ff., 186 f.,, 275 f. Relation to James, i. 128, 133 f.,; ii. 175 f., 1865. Relation to Pauline Epistles, i. 161; ii. 176 ff, 185 ff... Relation to Romans, ii. 187 f.4, 275 £. Silvanus, writer, not author of, ii. 148 ff., 157 £.]2, 174, 176. Time and place, ii. 158-173. Title, ii. 297. Second Epistle of— Apologetic tone of, ii. 223, Apostleship of Peter in, ii. 273 f. Author and readers of, ii. 194-221. Author, ii. 232. An eyewitness, ii. 203 f., 215 f.,. Relation toreaders, ii. 201ff.,208 f. Self-designation, ii. 271. Canonicity, ii. 263 f. Cireulation, ii. 264, Date, ii. 209f., 237, 255, 278, 286,. False teachers of, ii. 224 ff, 231, 232 f., 292 fir. Character, ii. 279-283. Origin, ii. 226 f. Genuineness, ii. 262 f., 271-283. Suspicions concerning, ii. 283 f.,. Occasion, ii. 221-238, 231 f. Parousia in, ii. 273. Expectation of, ii. 222, 230 f. Pauline epistles, reference to, ii. 274 f., 2900. Polemical note, ii. 222. Purpose, ii. 195. Readers, ii, 202, 205 f.,. 207 ff, 226 ff, 264. Missionaries to the, ii. 208 ff., 208. Relation to Paul, ii. 203. Relation to the Antiquities of Josephus, ii. 29144. Relation to the extra Biblical writings of the Karly Church, ii, 264, 176 ff., INDEX Peter—continued. Second Epistle of—continwed. Relation to Jude, ii. 211, 250, 285,. Various hypotheses of, ii. 264— 268. Relation to Jude 4, 17 f.; ii. 285 f.,. Relation to literary works after 70 A.D., 1.279, 291.14. Relation to the “Shepherd of Hermas,” ii. 284 f.,. Spirit, ii. 274. Style, ii. 271. Title, ii. 297. Traces in literature of the Early Church, ii. 284,. Transfiguration, ii. 274, Father’s name, i. 179. Flight from Jerusalem, iii. 457. Galilean origin, i. 27,3. in Corinth, 1. 302 ἢ 10. in Pontus, ii. 154 f.,. in Rome, ii. 159 ff., 163 f.,, 166 ff.,, ; 210. Alleged Roman episcopate of, ii. 160, 167 £.,. Witnesses for, ii. 165 ff... Acts of Peter, ii. 166 f.,. - Clement of Rome, ii. 165,. Eusebius, 11, 167 f.,. Ignatius, ii. 165 f.,. Marcion, ii. 1664. Papias, ii. 166,. Knowledge of Greek, ii. 443. Lost Epistle of, to readers of 2 Peter, ii. 195, 197 f., 231, 236,, 271 1. Martyrdom— Karly tradition concerning, ii. 62, 78 ff... Manner, ii. 169 f.,. Patristic testimony, ii. 75 ff... Testimony of Clement, ii. 61 ἢ. Missionary activity, ii. 159 f., 163 f.,, 443 f., 587). Name, i. 165. Aramaic form, 1. 17g; ii. 146, 155g. Greek, i. 64:0. in Galatians, ii. 155,. Names used in 2 Peter, ii. 206, 219 f.,. Parallelisms with Paul in Acts, iii. 151£., 163,. Parousia, expectation of, ii. 230 f. Party of, i. 289 ff. Preaching, relation to Mark’s Gospel, ii. 387 f., 434 f., 4508.15, 495 ff. References to, in “ Acts of Philip,” ii. 1635. References to, in Mark, ii. 497, 506,. 515 Peter—continued. Relation to Churches addressed in 1 Peter, ii. 145 f., 148, 154 f.,. Relation to Mark, ii. 148, 394, 427, 432, 434, 4455. Wife, views about, ii. 157). Writings ascribed to, ii. 270. Peter and Corinthian Parties, i. 283 f., 287 ff. Peter and Paul— Martyrdom, ii. 62 ff., 78 ff.9. Work and martyrdom of, in Rome, ii. 165 ff... Peter and Paul’s Day, ii. 78 ff... Commemoration of, ii. 62, 78 ff.,. Peter, Acts of— Author, ii. 449,. Gmostie teaching, ii. 270. on the Gospels, ii. 390. on Peter in Rome, ii. 166 f. on Simon Magus, ii. 168 f. on Transfiguration, ii. 218,. Peter, Apocalypse of, ii. 270, 273. Peter, Epistle of, to James, ii. 289,. Author and date, ii. 289,. Peter, Gospel according to, ii. 270. Peter, Preaching (κήρυγμα) of, ii. 1674. Author, ii. 270, 273. Logos doctrine in, iii. 327,. on Colossians ii. 8, i. 475,. Pharisees, i. 50; ii. 258,. Attitude toward Christianity, iii. 149. in Fourth Gospel, iii. 338 f., 350, . Name, i. 327. Pharisees and Sadducees— Attitude of Jesus to, in Matt., ii. 549. Opposed to each other, i. 50. Philadelphia, Church of, iii. 410 f. Philaster— on author of Hebrews, ii. 308,. on Cerinthus, i. 5154. Philemon, i. 446f., 452 f., 458,. Philemon, Epistle to, i. 452-459. Authorship, i. 4565. Date, i. 452,. Genuineness, i. 457 f.,, 8. Various views concerning, i. 458f.¢. Names in, i. 458,. telation to Ephesians, i. 493 ff. Time and place of composition, i. 439-452. Philetus, 11. 21,,:109 f., 129, ,. Philip, the Apostle, i, 46 ; iii, 210, 218, 294. 302, 350,. Greek name, i. 63). 516 Philip, the Evangelist, i. 45, 443 ; ii. 92.7, 412. in Asia Minor, i. 448 ; iii. 927, 3505, 358, 3705. Daughters of, iii. 17. Philip, Acts of, ii. 163. Philippi, i. 522, 532 1... Jews in, i. 522 f. Philippi, Church of— Care of Paul, i. 212,. Communications with Paul, 1, 524 ff. Composition, i. 523. Condition at writing of Epistle to the Philippians, i. 529 f. Jewish Christian preachers in, i. 530 ff. Lost correspondence with, 1. 526 f., 535 1.,. Philippians, Epistle to the— Alleged composite character of, i. 560, 562 ff.;. Alleged motive for forgery of, i. 558 ἢ, Date, i. 548 f., 555 f.;. Epistolary style, i. 560). Genuineness, 1. 556-564. View of Baur, i. 556 ff., 561;. View of Hitzig, i. 556 ff., 5615. View of Tiibingen School, i. 556- 559, 560 fio 5. 4 Hist. presuppositions and occasion, i. 522-539. Occasion and purpose, i. 532. Paul’s condition at writing, i. 527 ff. Valentinian Gnosticism in, i. 557. View of Völter, i. 560, 561 f.,, 562 ff.,. Philo— Hebrews, relation to, 11. 364 f.,5. Logos speculation of, iii. 317 f. Use of Greek, i. 56, 59s. Use of Hebrew, i. 6773. Phlegon, i. 420.4; 11. 169. Phrygia, 1. 1845. Phygelus, ii. 3, 213. Pilate, ii. 488, 502f.,; iii. 71, 352 f.19- Pilate, Acts of, iii. 35273. Pilate, Apocalyptic literature of, ii. 375. Pisidia, i. 184 ffs, 4. Pliny, the Elder— on Galatia, i. 184f. Pliny, the Younger— Correspondence with 178 f., 189,. Epistles of, ii. 178, 180. on Christians in Pontus, ii. 152). ~I or Trajan, 1), INDEX Plural, used by author to designate himself, i. 171,, 209f.,, 307. 3163, 456, ; ii. 354, 365 ; ΠῚ 357. Poetry in N. TS 1: 52, 71 199 118,. Politarch, i. 211,. Polycarp— Bishop of Smyrna, iii. 412 f. Disciple of John, ii. 435 f.; ii. 175, 191 f., 20495, 94. in Rome, 111. 192. Martyrdom, iii. 416 f., 426,. on Pauline Epistles to the Philip- pians, 1. 5353. Witness to 1 Peter, ii. 173, 185 f.,. Polyerates of Ephesus— on John of Ephesus, iii. 20557, 231f. Use of μάρτυς, 111. 20557. Pontus, ii. 151 f.,. Christians in, 11. 151 f.,. Churches in, character of, ii. 136 f. Peter in, li. 154f.,. Porphyry, ii. 611. Pretorium, i. 541 f., 551 ff. Preaching, Christian— Source of, ii. 379. Preaching, Missionary— see Missionary Preaching. Presbyter, ii. 23,, 33 ff., 91f., 124 f.,... Priests— Abstinence from wine, i. 4734. Priscilla— see also Aquila. in Corinth, i. 257, 2653. in Ephesus, i. 262. Priscilla and Aquila, ii. 19. in Romans, i. 389 ff., 4179). Prochorus, iii. 8817. Author of Acta Jo., iii. 197,. on John, iii. 198, 202,4. Proclus (Proeulus), ii. 5111}. Prologues, Old Latin— on order of Gospels, ii. 4003. to Acts, iii. 7,. to John, 111. 196,. to Mark, ii. 400,, 445,. Prophecy, Prophet, i. 116,, 207,, 227 f., 237 505 f.; iii. 385 ff., 402f., in the Christian Church, ii. 97 f., 110ff., 230, 236,; ii. 16, 385 ff., 4028... in Jude, ii. 248 f. in Revelation, iii. 437 ff. Prophecy, N.T., iii. 437. Prophecy, O.T.— Agreement of history of Jesus with, in Matt., ii. 537 ff., 567,. INDEX Prophecy, O.T.— continued. Fulfilment in Fourth Gospel, iii. 330 ἤν 0. Fulfilled in Gospel history, iii. 380 7.10. and the preaching of the Gospel among Gentiles, ii. 146. Prophet— Use of term by Paul, i. 505 f. Proselytes— Jewish, i. 61s. of the gate, i. 213,. . Protevangelium of James— Date of, ii. 375. Pseudepigraphic writings, i. 140, 144, 158 ff., 1645. Character of, ii. 123,. Pseudo-Clementine Literature— Relation to James, i. 136,. Pseudo - Petrine writings, üi. 289s. Publius, iii. 139,0. Pudens, ii. 21,. Punic language, iii. 139,0. 270, Quartodecimans, iii. 193, 273 ff. Quirinius— Governor of Syria, iii, 96 ff., 130 f.,, 134,. Rabbis— Attitude towards Greek, i. 62 f.,. Zeal for Hebrew, i. 40. Reading of books in antiquity, ii. 373f., 3855. Resurrection— see Passion and R. Revelation of John, the— Analysis, iii. 392-401. Antichrist, iii. 399f., 438f., 441 f., 446,. Number of, i. 238 f.9; iii. 444 ff, ML. 5. Author, iii. 387 f., 428-435. Name and nationality, iii. 428, 433, 433,. References to himself, iii. 391, 403 fis. Tradition on, iii. 180. View of Justin, 111. 182, 20173. Beasts in, iii: 439 ff., 446. Circulation of, iii. 182 f. Date, iii. 183, 201 f.,4, 412, 413, 417, 420, 433, 438 f., 444. View of Irenzus, iii. 183, 201 f.,,. False teaching and practice, iii. 417 ff., 517 Revelation of John, the —continued. Greek style of, compared with other Johannine Literature, iii. 432 f., 435, 7. Hebrew words in, iii. 444, Interpretation— Contemporary Historical, Futurist, Nature of, iii. 384-389, Parousia in, iii. 437 f. Propheeies in, iii. 437 ff. Purpose, iii. 384, 390. Readers, ini. 390, Condition, iii. 408-427. Reference to Caligula, iii. 449,. References to Nero, iii. 436, 443 ff. Reference to Roman Empire, iii. 441f., 447,. Relation of 2 Thess. to, i. 250,. Seals, the Seven, iii. 394 ff., 406,. Sources— Critical discussions, iii. 407 f.,). Structure, iii. 389-401. Teaching, iii. 431f., 434 f.,. Title, iii. 391, 403 f.,. Unity, iii. 401, 407 f.,,. Visions in— Materials of, iii. 436 f. Nature, iii. 385 f. Origin, iii. 384 f., 392, 402,. Witness of Epistle of Barnabas to, 111, 183. Witness of Papias to, iii. 182. Rolls, Scripture, ii. 392 f., 398,. Roman citizenship, i. 69;,. Roman Emperors, mention of, in N.T., i. 24149. Roman Empire, in 2 Thess., i, 229 f., 2385. Roman Officials, Titles of, iii. 815. Romans, Epistle to the— Benedictions in, i. 408 ff. 13. Contents and progress of thought, i. 352-378. Date, i. 377,1, 434 f. Doxology in, i. 379 ff., 396,—412,,. Evidence (external) for, i. 380 ff. Evidence (internal) for, i. 382 ff. Genuineness, i. 385 ff. Hypotheses regarding, i. 385. Origen’s testimony regarding, i. 379 f., 396 ff.z. Position, explanation of, i. 384f., 4.115: Position in Liturgies, i. 410,4. iii. 436-449. 445, 518 Romans, Epistle to the—continued. Doxology in—continued. Position in MSS and versions, i. BEAT, 410. Position with Patristie writers, 1. 405g, 9 Hebrews, ralation of, to, ii. 365. Integrity, 1. 378-421. Marcion’s text, i. 379 f., 396 ff.;. Occasion, i. 434-438. Readers, 1. 375g. Nationality, 1. 372s. Relation of 1 Peter to, ΤΙ 187 f.4, 2751. Relation to James, 1. 126 ff., 1325. Salutation, i. 352 f. Salutations in, 1. 387 ff. Schott’s view, 1. 438. Similarity to Pastoral Epistles, i. 413, 7. Text known to Ephrem, i. 405g, 4723. Vulgate MSS— Capitula in, i. 398 ff... Rome— Bishops of, 11. 1674. Burning of, ii. 68;. Church of — Absence of Judaisers in, i. 425 ἢ, Asceticism in, ii. 346. Ascetic party. in, i. 366, 376 f.4o. Character of, in 58 A. D:, 11. 345 f. Conditions, ii, 350, 359,. Constitueney of, i. 421-427, 429, 429. Views regarding, i. 431 f.4. Grouping in membership of, i. 430). Jewish, predominantly, 1. 421 f. Missionary activity of, ii. 349. Nationality of members, 1, 375g. Origin, i. 129, 352, 427-429, 432 f.,. Parties in, i. 406 f.49. Paul’s acquaintance with, i. 352, 428, Paul’s intended visit to, i. 367 ff, 377. Purpöse of,i. 355 ff.) 371 8.5. Relation to churches in Minor, ii. 148 f. Relation to the Jewish Synagogues, ii, 3593, Government of — Attempts to suppress Christianity, ii. 178 f., 1895. 176 ff, 365 ff., 376 fio, Asia INDEX Rome—continued. Jewish epitaphs in, i. 67,3, 6714. Jews expelled from, iii. 466 f. Jews in, 1. 47, 67,5. Peter in, ii. 159 ff., 163 f.,, 165 fl,. Date, ii. 160 f., 166, 170. Synagogues in, 1. 47f.; 11. 359. Variant preachers in, 1. 542 ff., 557 £ Rome ἘΠ daughter of Peter, i. 164,. Rufus, 1. 392, 42004 5 ; li. 489 f., 504,. Sabians, iii. 33,5. Sadducees, i. 50. Attitude toward Christianity, iii. 149. see also Pharisees. Saints— Meaning of term, 11. 2573. Salome, mother of John, iii, 187, 190, 904... Samaria— Greeks in, i. 35. Jesus in, ili. 33213. Samaritans, ill. 3263. Language of, i. 5. Sanhedrin, the, iti. 339, 5500. Sardis, Bishop of, iii. 416, 425 f.g. Satan, Synagogue of, iii. 410f., 421. Saul = Hebrew name of Paul, i. 50. Saul = Paul, ii. 127, 140,,. Scripture rolls, ii. 392 f., 398,. Scriptures— Form in which written, it. 392 f. Scythian Christians, ii. 152, Secundus, i. 209, 213;. Semitie idioms in Hebrews, ii. 961... Septuagint, i. 46, 56. Paul familiar with, i. 52. Quoted in Gospels, ii. 610. » », Hebrews, ii. 3611. » 9, John, iii. 354,,. 2) ” Matt., 11. 579 i 596 f.44, 12° Serapion of Antioch, ii. 1645. Sergius Paulus, iii. 149. Proconsul of Cyprus, iii. 463 ff. Sermon on the Mount— in Luke, iii. 112. ‘in Matt., ii. 542 ff, 544, 558f.; iii | 12. Position in Matt., ii. 557. The two rece nsions, ii. 605. “ Seventy,” the, iti. 78, 927. Seventy Disciples, the, ii. 1645, 4455. Shepherd of Herd ἡ the— Authorship of, E usebius on, Ui. 4,. Relation of 2 Peter to, ii. 284 fig. Sibyllines, i, 2525. INDEX 203 f., 207 fu, Silas = Silvanus, i. 17, 8i%,, 1491. 209 f.3; iii. 160). Accompanying Paul on second mis- sionary journey, 1. 176 f., 178 f. Character, ii. 151. in Asia Minor, ü. 149. Name, i. 81 1.16- Preaching of, 1. 237;. Prophet, 1. 237.;. Relation to churches in Asia Minor, ii. 149 ff. Work of, in vieinity of Corinth, i. 265,. Writer of 1 Peter, ii. 149 ff., 157 £. >, 174, 176. Simeon (eousin of Jesus), ii. 240 f. Simeon = Peter, 11. 206, 218f.;,. Simeon, Rabbi, i. 62.9. Simon Magus— in Clementine Romance, ii. 170 f.,. _in Rome, ii. 839, 168 ff. Contest with Peter, ii. 63, 74. Simon Niger, ii. 505,. Simon of Cyrene, i. 392; ii. 489f., 5055. and his sons, i. 665. Sinope, Episcopates of, ii. 162. Sirach— Greek trans. of, i. 46. Language of, i. 6. Use of, in James, i. 12145. Smyrna, Church of, iii. 410 f., 416£. Angel of, iii. 416. Origin, iii. 412 f. Sodom, iii. 398, 406,. “Son of God,” 11. 309 f. Sopater, Sosipater, 1. 2095, 2134, 41755 ; iii. 31 fy. Sosthenes, i. 258, 267 f.¢. Soter, Bishop of Rome, ii. 753. Spain— Journey of Paul to, i. 367 ff.; ii. 61. Evidence of Acts of Peter, ii. 63. Evidence of Canon Muratori, ii. 62 ff., 73 ff.,. Paul in, ii. 161 f., 1664. Spirit— Work of, in early Church, iii. 385, 4025. Spiritual gifts, 1. 279 ff., 297,. Stephanas, 1. 260, 266,, 269;. Sychar, iii. 351). Symmachus, ii. 563. Synagogue, i. 94 f.). Christian preaching permitted in, 1. 99. 519 Synagogue--continued. Gentiles in, 1. 212 f.,. Language used in, i. 33a. Services, i. 212,. Synagogues in Rome, i. 47 f.; ii. 359,. Relation of Roman Church to, ii 359s. Synagogue in Thessalonica— Paul began work in, i. 204, 212,. Synoptic Gospels, the— Choice of material in, iii. 165-171,171,. Interrelation of— View of Augustine, ii. 402, 422,. Views of early Church writers, ii. AQ1 figs 4. View of G. E. Lessing, ii. 403 f., 422... see Synoptic Problem. Jesus— Discourses compared with dis- courses in Fourth Gospel, iii. 344, 3647. Jerusalem visits of, in, iii. 167 f. Purpose, iii. 1661. Relation of Fourth Gospel to, iii. 254-298, 306 f. Relation to the traditions concerning Jesus’ deeds and words current in Apostolic Church, ii. 372. Synoptic Problem— Facts to be used in a solution of the, 11, 401 f. History of, ii. 400-427. Hypothesis of Bruno Bauer, 1]. 407, 4245. Hypothesis of F. Chr. Baur, ii. 412 ff., 425 f.45. Hypothesis of J. G. Eichhorn, ii. 404, 422 8... Hypothesis of J. C. L. Gieseler, ii. 408 ff., 424 f.,,. Hypothesis of J. J. Griesbach, ii. 405, 423,. Hypothesis of G. Herder, ii. 405 ff., 4238... Hypothesis of Hilgenfeld, ii. 414, 42515. Hypothesis of Holsten, ii. 414, 425 f.43. Hypothesis of J. Holtzmann, ii. 415 ff., 426,4. Hypothesis of J. L. Hug, ii. 408, 4340. Hypothesis of G. E. Lessing, ii. 403 f., 422,. Hypothesis of A. Ritschl, ii. 414, 42614. 520 Synoptie Problem—continued,. Hypothesis of Schleiermacher, 11. 411 f., 420... Hypothesis of G. Chr. Storr, ii. 407, 423s. 8 Hypothesis of K. Veit, ü. 410 f., 42511. Hypothesis of G. Volkmar, ii. 407, 494.. Hypothesis οἵ B. Weiss, ii. 417 f., 427, 5. Hypothesis of Chr. H. Weisse, ii. 414, 42614. Hypothesis of C. Weizsäcker, ii. 417, 42714 Hypothesis of Wendling, ii. 426f.,,. Hypothesis of G. Wetzel, ii. 410, 42511. Hypothesis of Chr. G. Wilke, ii. 407, 4244, Origin, ii. 401 f. Results of the investigation of the, 11. 418. Syntyche, i. 530, 533,, 561 f.4. Syriac or Aramaic, 1. 22 f.4, 36. Syriac translations— Relation to the original language of the Gospel tradition, 11. 575. Syrian Church, Canon of, ii. 263. Tabitha, iti. 137... Tacitus— : on Christians, ii. 185, 191 £.74, 617. on earthquake in Laodicea, 1. 449,. on Neronian perseeution of Chris- tians, ii. 57, 62. on Roman officials in Palestine, iii. 470. Trustworthiness, iii. 451. Targums— Origin of the, ii. 515. Tarsus, i. 49. Centre of Gr. culture, i. 53f., 7120. Tatian— Diatessaron of, ii. 401, 421). Order of twelve disciples in, ii. 522). Witness for John xxi. 24f., ili, 2505. Witness for Mark xvi. 9-20, ii. 468. Witness for text of Lucan writings, iii. 22. Teaching in the early Church, ii. 96f. Compensation for, ii. 127 f.13: “Teaching of Addai,” ii. 164,;, 167, ; iii. 467. “Teaching of the Apostles” Syriac, ii. 164 f.,. INDEX Temple, Bilingual inscriptions in, i δ" Temple Cultus— Alleged ignerance of, in Hebrews, ii. 361 fa. Tertullian— Contra Marcion, li. 48771. on Apostolic letters, i. 213. on Hebrews, ii. 295, 301 f. on Marcion’s text of Romans, i. 397. on Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, ii. 76f. Translation of 2 Thess. ii. 6f. i. 2385. Witness to text of Eph. i. 1, i. 481, 488,. Textual Critieism, Canon of, ii. 477, 4865. Thaddeus, Missionary activity of, ii. 164,. Thecle, Acta, i. 181. Theodore of Mopsuestia— Com. on Philemon, i. 446). on Angelolatry, 1. 476. on Authorship of Heb., 11. 3095. on John xxi. 24f., 111. 250 fy. on John’s residence in Ephesus, i. 4905. N.T. Canon adopted by, i. 123. Theodotians, ii. 302, 5109. Theophilus of Ceesarea, 111. 65. Theophilus of Luke i. 3, iii. 2, 5f.,, 42f., 58. Thessalonians, Epistles to the— Authorship of, i. 203, 209 f.3. Resemblances between, i. 253 f.17. Thessalonians, First Epistle to the— Analysis, 1. 215-224, Apologetic purpose, 1. 216 ff. Baur’s view, 1. 248 f.,. Date, i. 206 f., 215, 233. Eschatology, i. 221, 223 f.4. Genuineness, i, 242—255. Proof of, i, 2494. Occasion and purpose, i. 215 f. Place of composition, i. 205 f., 233. Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the— Analysis, 1. 224-242, Antichrist in, 1 227 De 236 ff. 4-9. Authorship, i. 224f., 233 f.,. Spitta’s ee en i, 234, 237,. Date and place, various views on, i. 231 ff, 9411. Dependence on Rev., 1, 2507. Eschatology, i. 226-231. Source of, i. 227 f., 236 f.4, 2375. 244 ff, INDEX 521 Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the— continued. Genuineness, 1. 242-255, 247). Nero legend in, i. 250,, 2529, ı0- Occasion, i. 234,. Place of composition, i. 233. Purpose, 1. 226. Thessalonica, i. 208 f., 211 f.4, 213,. Church of— Membership, i. 204, 212 f.,. Moral condition of, i. 220 f., 223;. Origin and history, i. 203-215. Persecution of, i. 204f., 215 f., 222,, 225. Jews in, i. 204. Theudas, iii. 132 f.,. Third person, use of, in ancient litera- ture, iii. 8611. Thomas, iii. 213, 224,, 302. Missionary activity of, 11. 16433. Thomas of Heraclea— Gr. MS. of N.T. used by, iii. 273. ~ Text of Luke used by, iii. 10. Thyatira, Angel of, iii. 416. Church of, iii. 417f., 419, 496. Tiberias, Lake, iii. 324, 339... Tiberius Alexander, iii. 460 f. Tiberius— Death, date, iii. 481. Timothy, i. 440; ii. 2ff.; iii. 87,5, 142 f., 1591... Age of, ii. 38. Circumcision of, i. 182; iii. 152. Conversion, ü. 6. Episcopate of, in Ephesus, ii. 41,. Eusebius on, ili. 4,. Timothy—continued. Relation to Church of Antioch, ii. 357, Relation to Paul, ii. 6 f., 23, 34 f. Reports Macedonian work to Galatia, i. 198. Training of, ii. 6, 22f.,. Work of, mentioned in 1 Timothy, ü.29 ff. in 2 Timothy, ii. 29£. Timothy, First Epistle to— Date, ii. 35 ff. Facts attested by the, ii. 27-42, Lack of personal greetings in, ii. 42,. Occasion, ii. 28 f. Personal notices in, ii. 35. Place of composition, ii. 27 ff. Relation to Epistle to Titus, ii. 52. Timothy, Second Epistle to— Date, ii. 37, 66. Facts presupposed by the, ii. 1-27. Timothy and Titus, Epistles to— Alleged forgery of, motives for the, 11. 89-118. a. Regulation of the life of the Church, ü. 89-99. ὃ. Opposition to certain doctrinal errors, 11, 99-118. Alleged interest in the organisation of the Church, ii. 93 f. Date, ii. 118 f. Alleged late, ii. 99-118. False teachers of, 11. 99 ff. Genuineness, ji. 85-133. Argument for, 11. 85 ff. Denial of, ii. 85, 122 f.,. see also Pastoral Epistles. Eschatological views of, i. 2375. Home of, i. 209. in Corinth— Work in vicinity, i. 2653. in Ephesus— Work in city, ii, 29ff, 34f., 44. Work outside city, 11, 33 f. in Macedonia, i. 203 f., 209 1... in Philippi, i. 523 f., 547. Joint author of Epistle to Colos- sians, 1. 456;. Joint author of Epistle to Philemon, i. 4565. Location of, at writing of 1 Timothy, ii. 27 ff. Location of, when 2 Timothy was written, 11, 18f., 26 f.4. Pastoral office in Asia, ii. 89 f. Picture of, in 1 and 2 Timothy, ii. 88 f. Title of a book, Ancient usage, iii. 81,. Titles of books, ii. 458 f. Titles of Roman officials, 111. 81,. Titus, 1. 208 f., ; iii. 28,, 142 f., 160). Circumcision of, iii. 124 f. Communication to Paul, ii. 46 f. in Corinth, 1. 308 f. in Crete, Episcopate, Eusebius on, iil, 44. Pastoral office, ii. 48, 535, 89 f. Work, 11. 45 ff. in Dalmatia, 11. 11 f. Journey to Dalmatia, ii. 48. Location of, when Epistle to, was written, ii. 43, Titus, Epistle to— Date, 11. 50 ff. Facts presupposed by the, ii. 43-54. Genuineness— see Timothy and Titus, Epistles to. Relation to 1 Timothy, ii. 52. 522 Titus Justus, 1. 266,. “ Tractatus Origines de libris ss. scrip- turarum,” ii. 303, 310f.,). Trajan’s correspondence with Pliny, ii. 178, 189,. Transfiguration, the— in “ Acts of John,” ii. 218,. in “ Acts of Peter,” ii. 2186. in 2 Peter, 11. 216 ff.,, 274. Synoptic account of, ii. 274. Witnesses of, ii. 204, 215 f.,, 495. Trophimus, ii. 88. in Miletus, ii. 14f., 265. Tryphzna, 1. 393, 41994. “Twelve,” the, iii. 78f., 213, 2279. Training, ii. 463 f. Twelve tribes, i. 74 ff. 784. Tychicus, i. 439f., 441 ; ii. 48, 87. Urbanus, i. 393, 41994. Valentinus, Valentinians— Doctrine of αἰῶνες and πλήρωμα, 1. 515f., ; 1. 128,4 Ἢ ΤῊ. 176. Relation to Eph. and Col., i. 498 f. Doctrine of σοφία, i. 557. INDEX Valentinus, Valentinians—continued. Estimate of Fourth Gospel, ii. 176, 3274, 349,. “ Evangelium veritatis” of, ii. 389. Gospel used by, ii. 4565. on the Gospels, ii. 389 f. Versions— Relation to the original language of the Gospel tradition, 11. 574 ff. “We? Use of, in Paul’s Epistles, i. 203, 209 8.5. Widows in the early Chureh, ii, 33, 941. Worship, Christian, ii. 326 f., 514. Year, the calendar, i. 319,. Zaccheeus, iii. 138... Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, ii. 589 f.,. Zealots— Greek term used by Luke, iii. 92,.. Party of the, iii. 77, 78, 923- Zebedee, iii. 187. Sons of, iti. 187 f., 204,9, 21, 22813- Zenas, 11. 49, 54,. Zotikos iii. 416, 425 ἔς. PATRISTIC AND OTHER EXTRA-BIBLICAL WRITINGS, (Only the passages which are cited in full or discussed in the text or notes are here indexed.) Acta SS. Jun. v. 411 ff., 423 e., i. 764. Acta Thecle xiv., 11. 129,7. Ambrosiaster in Gal. ii. 1 ff., iii. 27f.;. Augustine de consensu Hv. i. 2, 4, 5, 11, 422. Can. Mur., lines 1, 6, ii. 446,. lines 9-16, ili. 197,. Clement of Alex., Eclog. Proph. 27, iii. 855. Hypotyp. (in Eus. H. E. vi. 14. 5), ii. 400,. Hypotyp. on 1 Pet. ν. 13, ii. 448,. in Eus. H. E. vi. 14. 7, 111. 197,. Peed. ii. 16, ii. 524 f. Quis Dives xlii., ii. 41, ; 111. 906. Strom. vii. 106, ii. 45515. Vlement of Rome— 1 Cor. v. 1, ii. 68 f.g. x. 1, i. 134,. xxxviüi. 2 ff., i, 135,. xlvii., i. 2985, 342. lxv., 1. 2694. Clementine Literature— Recoqn. x. 71, 111. 55. Didache 1. 2, 111. 35,5. xi, 3-6, iii. 3814. Dio Cassius Ix. 6. 6, iii. 466 f. Dionysius of Corinth— in Eus. ἢ. E. ii. 26. 8, ii. 75. in Eus. A. E. vii. 25. 6-13, iii. 434,. in Eus. H. E. vii. 25. 15, iii. 433 f... Epiphan. Her. li. 4, ii. 399g. li. 12, iti. 197 £.,. Eusebius, H. E. 1]. 15, il. 449,0 4534. ii, 22, 2, ii. 775. ii. 26. 7, ii. 825. ii. 25. 8, ii. 755. iii. 24. 6, ii. 403, 5285. iii. 39. 4, 7, ii. 452 1.1}. ili. 39. 14 f., ii. 453 8.14. iii. 39. 16, ii. 509-515, 525 f.,. iv. 14. 6, iii, 204,4. v. 8. 2, ii. 398,. v. 8. 6, iii. 201,,. INDEX Eusebius, H. E.—continued. vi. 14. 2 ff, ii. 3085. vi. 14. 5 ἢ, ii. 4005, 4489. vi. 14. 7, iii. 197,. vi. 25. 3, ii. 3975. vi. 25. 11-14, ii. 309,. vil. 25. 6-13, iii. 434,. viii. 25. 15, iii. 433 f.». in Ps. lxavitit., ii. 528,. Quest. ad Marinum, ü. 528,. Theoph. (Syr.) iv. 7, ii. 80,. Es, 71% Hippolytus, Refut. vii. 30, ii. 445,. Ignatius, Magn. viii. 2, iii. 327,. Rom. x. 1, ii. 15740. Smyrn. vi. 1, 1. 6291. Treneus iii. 1. 1, ii. 215,, 398,, 528, ; ii. 7,7. iii. 3. 4 (Eus. iv. 14. 6), iii. 204,,. ii. 11.1, iii. 197,. iii. 11. 7, ji. 456,,, 528,. v. 30. 1, iii, 448 1... v. 30. 3, iii. 201,,. Jerome, contra Pelag. ii. 15, ii. 484 f.,. Ep. ad Philem. 23, i. 68... in Eph. iti. 5, i. 4055. Var. IU. ix.; tit. 903). 523 Josephus, Ant. xviii. 5. 2, iii. 1345. xix. 5. 2-3, iii. 4661. xix. 12, iii. 133,. xx. 2. 1 ff., ili. 460 f. xx. 5. 1, iii. 132 fig. xx. 5. 2, 111. 460 f. xx. 8.6, ill. 183,. Bell. ii. 13. 5, iii. 133,. iii. 10. 1, iii. 33344. Justin, Dial. xxiii. ii. 5635. Ixxxi., iii. 201). evi., ii. 450 f.45. Mart. Polye. xix. 1, 111. 426,. Papais (in Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16), ii. 509-515, 525 ἢ... Plutarch, Vita Oi. xxix., ii. 5044. Polycarp, ad Phil. iii. 2, 1. 5855. Polycrates (Eus. iii. 31. 3, v. 24. 3), 11]. 20855. Suetonius, Claudius xxv., i. 433 fine Symeon Metaphrastes in Acta SS. Jun. v. 411 ff, 423 c., ii. 76,. Tacitus, Ann. xii. 54, iii. 470. Tertullian, contra Mare. i. 1, ii. 487. iv. 5, 11. 451,5. v. 17, 1. 488,. INDEXES. A—NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES. MATTHEW. MATTHEW—continued. en ἘΠ ΣΙ ΤΙ cope. ΠΟ aoe „Ars ΒΒΘΙΣ lan SIE AA ΟΡ ir DER, viii. 18-ix. 34 . ii. 545, 583 f., 600,4 RN δὰ rao vii.22...0.7. 0: 31.224, LOH, gece cl DEE Hedy viii. 27 . ii. 6131... I RT bs POG th: ἴχ. 1-8 ii. 613. I ai Ge ix. 2,5. ii. 612). ἘΠ nto ΡΟΝ ix. 10 . ii. 524.. iF Blain at TRUG 2 DDR, ix. 14-17 ii. 586). je N TO be: ix. 32 ff. ii. 599,2. 1: 2Batatios το We) Ube eb 9 Se. sgh dE ii. 545, 558, Dds ee ἋΣ: BAe 3 2. 578. GIES Se MDT E: ieh. ii. 558. ii. 60073: DaB eo τς ΈΒΩΣ EL: 792. 2 | 5 800, X D.C X ΠΣ 083. x. 17-22 X 193. ΠΣ Rb Ga oe X τ 2; PATRIATIGiABD) 5685 OSIBLICAL Williaa HG 2) ch beso Onin Lie Xi. ΟἿ ὡς itr. op pebee oe i 97-127 48% ΤΡ mL ME Xia Gy τς τὴ ΠΟΘ 1, 15... . « 1.540, 586,, 9910. 21.10 +. 107. ἀπ ΘΙ ΝΟ Di EU AL ER el 11.} |CRindOtine Liam Ma 137, χίλι δας. 21.6. ΔΗ ET iv.12-25 . . . ii 541f., 545. ZU 4.2, ili. Bhp. BOO imghiine Vo eeu. 54: xu. 48, iii, 967,. 1. 548; iv. 18-22, ~ ii. 613». xull. 146-15 δ) il. 59719. iv, Bir. lance ). 0.40, SVG, 689,. εἰ γϑδις of Corin δεῖν. 696 ΙΕ ΘΟ y.3ß 3-19, ik 197.1..6142. xiv. 1-13 . . . ü.614f.. eilt οἵ Alox.» Kilo, DIA, 25681, | ve. . ii. 590,. 605 ; iii, 112. xiv. 13-21. . . ii. 286,. γεν» Gn Han, ΑἹ; Babyy: xv.1-20 . . ὦ ii. 615». v.16... . . ii 5428, 568). xy, Ba itt. 1512, Gu ole v.17. . ὧν 1 « ii. 543, 568,585 ἢ... | xv. 12-14. . . ii. 548f, Vak HN ee xv. 22. . . . ii. 549, 578. Wierd, τα ἢ, Got 1. 694, 4. xvi. 1-4 . . . 11. 5995. WTB ii), MILD, xvi. 6, 11,12. . ii. 549. WB, vil..109- 49221003: xvi. 16-20. . . ii, 550, 569,0. μὰ 101 οὐ Bume Au 501, χυ 3.160): 4, . 76 18; vi. «ὦ ia 5: zvi. 188. 1.1 /. i. ἢ 06055 Villy 13-4), 13.4, ὦ 618.. XVLiQLs9. 15, ἢ CORSE viii, 1-17 ὦ . „ i. 544f. χυ τ δὲ i, 24. 216m viii. 5-10 τ δ, 291,0. xviis, 94 ff, ii. 30% 1/590. viii. 5-18 . . . iii. 110f. xvii. 24-27 . . 11. 552. 524 INDEX MATTHEW — continued, XVili. 15-20 ἘΠῚ BB} ob ae . EK 27 oe RAD. xx. 29-34 . xxi. 1-xxv. 46 1,12-16% Th Os} a RR! .s EM Sohne « 1 —14. 7 EX11ln/ ἃ xxi. 14. ΧΙ Ὡς ex 54 Α΄. ἜΣΤΙ! 35 xxii, 37 xxiv. 6ff. . xxiv. 9-13. xxiv. 20 XXVL—XXVil. . xxvi. 6-13. xxvi. 15, 25, , 50 8 xxVi. 18 xxvi. 31 xxvi. 57 XXvil. 2. XXVil. 6. xxvil 9 xxvil. xxvii. 46 xxvi.Ö5 xxvii. 51-53 . xxvil. 6 Xxvili. 1 xxvii. Kev . xxvii, 1423 Χ ΧΗ 60. : li. 5501. 11. 591,. li. 572, 5894. 2.15 317. 1% 11.552. li. 553 £. 111. 291, - τ. 608, 6165. ll. 553. . 59310- . 608. Ὁ 5877. li. 553. li. 515, 526 f:.. ii. 569 £.49. SZ 11. 573, 589f.,. ill. 1732. ji. 588,. li. 60073. ii. 586). li. 554 ff. ii. 286 f.,. li. 554. ii. 494. ii. 616,. iii. 999. ii. 502s. 11. D’ul. li. 596115 8972. ΤΙΣ 56941. 1. 15,5 11.,578. 11. 591g. 117999: 11,559. ii. 5960. 11. DDD. 1% 661. = =H =P ji. 382,, 557 £., 5914. ii. 373, 3775, 456 ff, 480). ii. 617,. ji..617,. ii, 460, 609, 611, 612 ἔ,,. ii. 460f. ii. 613». ii. 496 £., 5065. ii. 497. ii. 613,. ii. 613,. ii. 6191. 525 MARK—continued. vi. 34-44 . Viis- 1-23 vii. 3 | Vit, 11V: Vii. 26-25% Vili. 35, 38 roc Il. Htb-< 2-13 | ix. 14 ff. IxsAl 1 Δ τυ, ix. 48 > ae Le 39950: Χ Ὁ. ae x. 35-40 | = 12-14, 20-95. xv. 16, Blass on . >All ZV.28 « ii. 507, 522 1... i. 524,. 11. 500, 6135. 111. 13715. li. 497, 506;,. li. 490, 523 f.; 5 11], 188. li. 490. ii. 501. li. 614 fig. li. 503,, 590,. 11. 6145. 111. 286,. li. 490, 6159. ii. 561. i. 577. ii. 578. 11. 499. 11. 499 f. li. 216 fff. 11. 494. ii. 500. li. 616,. li. 589,. 11. 499. 111. 204.1. 111..194 f.,. li. 495 f. 11. 5032. i. 29149. li. 6164. 11. 608, 616g. ii. 608. 11. 616,. li, 495. li. 5885. i. 2374, 11. 500. 111. 286 ἔς. li. 447,. ii. 429, 447, 493 f. 11. 505;. ii. 492 f. il. 611, 616,. li. 609. li. 4281., 446f., 491 £., 505, li. 493, 505, 11. 500. ii. 489, 502 f., ; iii. 271. li. 504,. 1. 392; ii. 489f., 505,. ii, 616,. i. 15, ; ii. 6165. 526 INDEX MarK—continued. xv. 38 : xvi. 8, Conclusion 11. 555. of Mark’s Gospel ii. 467, 469. xvi. 9-13 xvi. 9-20 τι. 607. Al. - A6TE., 11119. 483 fx: Relation to Mark ii. 4751. xvi. 14-18, Origin of. . ΟΣ ii. 471-475, 484,; 485 1.2. LuKE—continued. vii. 2-10 vil. 27 5 vii. 36-50 . vil. Im: χα 18-198 xii. 16-21 . ΧΙ. 38 xiii. 6 fh ἘΠῚ 4 Ὁ: xiv. 13-16% xvi. OF 11 VAN . erate Ge xviii. 25 xix. 45 f. xx. 201. .. xx1. 20-36. XI. 12. ii. 9910. 8: iii. 169,171 ἢ. iii. 169, 1724. ii. 5245. iii. 73. li. 586). 111. lil 111. il. 111. 9019. 162;. 29149. 158 f. 156 ff. li. 492. LUKE. i-ii., Source of traditions in iii. 112 f. i-ii. . ili. 265 f. i. Ἢ ii. 278, 3765) ili. 45 f., 82 f.5. i. 1-2 iii, 44, 821.5 @ yy 1 A: a ta lil. 41-56. Scope of iii. 53-61, 85 1.10. 1 PR iii. 48, 78, 84g. LE Ὁ χα £81550, 85. Lit Le Bre {π|’ 44 iM... ,« 88 Binde E09, LB5-I.. .. «0. (il152,. 126...) BOG 7116 35.1.7¢. 1,635 . ct bOl- (E57 41 51 iii. 70. 31.58 . 111. 68, 77. 138... pe. ΠΗ 17. 9641808, WALL 5. .. OL she i, 71 111. 37, Mi. 1114.47. iii. 4. ii. 617, ii.4-6. .. .30» 81170. 11.17-98. .. ‚ara $e IE £. iii. 16 ii. 612. 111. 22 li. 486, ; ili, 38 f.45. i203” τιν ΜΠ BBiy- iug@3r BU, vo» 10 78, 101. ins id. ana ti. lak iv. af. . τρῶν +2i1u65,.BAR..5 2005, τ διὸ ata HISAR, ivi@Si.. . ‚oo 115 147], ivwhds » Ὑρωι... 10 84,188. 25) ν.] . « . οἵ tie 111, 333} 4. v. 20, 23 δόλον 612), ©. 27.5 2 1) 008 115583, 9:29. % 0% Gabe P21 5245. ΔΕ 5 le ana ΜΠ 1.480 fay. vwial0 .. .. pe BULGE. a RE he 111. 78. δι. LEYS, 191.775 92, 26° vi. 20-49 li, 605 ; iii. 112. vii. I-10 .. 81 LO. xxii. 16-20 ᾿ . iil. 69£. xx217- 90°C tix) Ser OO beta . ii. 146. xxi: ASE) 48°, Sin Sia xxiv. 44-49%', 111.58. xxiv. 44-53 °. . ii. 58, 87. xiv; 61 «= ‘hoa sll OwaE JOHN. Il to.) τς ς gl Bull aOR, 327 ff.4.3, 328,. TBA oA TE fro sly ole 1, 182... 4°. οὐδ. αὐ nah τ 88, 310f. i, 14,16 ...10.1116 2088, 29825 RE 00) cud „il 2917 Ὁ, 31@F- 320; 3264, 328,, 435, 518; . .tQ0)..iimi, 812, Seoul ‚19... ..500.1 did, 255, 2845)°350, οἱ 2112506 „1 AO.. tills, OP Ly 38 1 γι, νος RGD. 18g ; ti GOB. har 5 1618. BOS tame y Was τ᾿ 50. Sale en to τὰ INDEX 527 JoHn—-continued. Joun—continued. BB. iti ..; i . «T8544, Sil ἘΣ ΤΕΣ ΜῊ fil. 208,, 28108 i. 331. iii. 284,. 288 ff... i. 35-41 iii. 209-212, 214, | xiii. 14 iii. 268, 288 ff... 226,. xiii. 1-20 iii. 293,4. DAL. iii, 209 f., 224 f.,, | xiii. 16, 18 iii. 226 ἔν. 308, 3263. xiii. 18 . ili. 354,,. i 44. iii. 3505. xiii, 23 ff. iii. 214 f. 18. ii. 345). xiii. 23: iii. 213£., 22749 433 te 6...) & ili. 325. ἘΠῚ. 33 . iii. 342. ii, 13-22. ii. 9910. xiv.6 . iii. 315. iii. 16, 18 Ὁ. iii. 3265. xiv. 16 iii. 373,. iii. 19-21 . iii. 35512. xiv. 31 iii, 337. iii. 22-iv. 2 iii. 33149. Xvi. 27£ li. 311. 111. 24f.. iii, 2571. ΧΙ: 2f. δ iii. 309. ii. 34 . iii. 8481. xviii. 12-28 iii, 347 f.,. ἘΠῚ ο΄. iii. 996. xviii. 13 iii, 352,5. ar iii. 324, 332,5,351,,. | xviii. 13-28 iii. 270, 291 f.1). iv. 7-26 iii, 35515. xviii. 16 ἢ, iii. 215,228, 5,231, 7. mo. . iii, 325, 339). | xviii. 20, 36 iii. 342, 354, . 3455. xviii. 28 ii. 274, 282, 293,4. iv.25 . 11, 3264. xix. 2-5 ill. 35345. iv. 43 ff. iii, 258 ff. xix. 13 . iii, 352 f. .. iv.44 . 111, 284 fg. mix. 14, ili. 295 f.,¢. iv. 46-54 iii. 29140. xix. 14 ff iii. 309. Vad ili, 260, 285 f.4. Ka 0 lil. 333. Vea . 1.28), ; 111.335,349,, | xix. 25 . iii. 187. 35313, 35513. rab. ee Σ iii. 215. v.3ff. iii. 3451... ἘΠῚ Ὡς iii. 231,,. v. 36 ili. 345). xix. 35 11. 207, 217-223, =. iii. 324, 333,4, 351). 223,228F.15 15.19: vi. 3 ff. iii. 260 £., 286,. xix, 36 f. iii. 217. vi. 5ff. ὃ 11, 301. xix. 37 ill. 35415. vi. 26-65 ili, 269. AH) c ili. 1963. vi. 45 ill. 35415 OR iii. 302. vi. 47 ii. 4865. xx. 1-8. iii. 343, Vi. G6, ii. 4455. Xx. 2 iii. 272 f. vi. 68f. . 111, 343. zes] - iii. 310. vii. 8,10 . ill. 3305. xx, 19297. 111. 233. vil. 15-24 . 111, 348,. xx. 80f. ill. 232, 301, 303 f. vii. 39 ii. 486,. xx.31 . . . . iii 207, 223, 223, vii, 42 ii. 539. 308 ff. vii. 49 iii. 338, 3504p, xx. ı iii. 232-254. ρ΄ ΤῈ .e ii. 539. ΣΙ Se. iii. 333,4. vii. 53-vii. 11 . iii. 334, 346,. xxi. 6 ff, iii. 407,9. x. 33 ff. . iii, 3265. xxi, 11. iii, 2524. x. 35 iii, 327 f.,. xxi, 15-17. iii. 240 f., 252,. xa 1. li. 358,. xxi. 18f. |, u. QS xi lf. . iii. 261 ff. xxi. 18, 19. iii. 241 ff., 253,. xi. 49f. . ill. 352,9. xxi. 20-23 . ili, 240-247, 252 f.,. mL 1 iii. 281, 294 ff.4,. xxi. 24f. iii 235 — 240, xii, 2. ii. 524,. 250 δὲ, 9. xii. 2-8. lil. 263, 286 ff... Acts of John and xii. 12 iii. 295... Peter on. - Lis 9508 ἘΠ 15. . iii. 354,,. Data mel jit Gea τ xii. 20-36 . ill. 338, 3505. Theodore of aH xii. 35 f. 111, 267. xxiv. 34 ili. 333. Wig Qi Sh, Gol i. 5 ff., 9 f 1 ee AVG 7% ΤΟΒΣ ἵν. 36: τ ΝΣ v. 36. 3 WOOT . a er vi. 5. vi. 7: vi. 9. viii. 1-3 viii. 10 . vill. 26 . cism of the ß text of ZI IT: : xi. 27-30 xi. 28 INDEX ii. 460; iii. 43, 54, 59, 61, 8540, 8816. li. 429 ἢ 111. 77, 9256, 210. ii. 4488... ii, 429, 447,; iii. le 60 f.g, 71}. iii, 29,, 419. i. 66 8.33. i. 39, 60g. iii, 302. τ 187,6: iii. 1641. i. 53, 60 1... i. 605. ii. 460. i. 60.. iii. 55. iii. 478, i 191 ἢ 0: iii. 2, 14, 28,, 143. iii, Ay. 111. 15, 29,. ii. 429, 445,, 447 ἴ.7. ii. 493. 111. 133,. ii. 445, ; iii. 1405, 456. ili. 463 ff. 1.157. 11, 3772. i. 180. iii. 478 f. iii. 153 ff. iii. 18, 3251. ili. 124 £. iii. 149. iii. 18 f., 3335; 3515: i, 131,. Acts—continued. xv. 23-29 ., xv. 28 f. xv. 30-34. . XVi. XV1. 1 1-6 xvi. 4 XVl. 6 xvi. 6, 7 xVi. XVl. xVi. XVi. Xvi. XVl. XVil. XVll. XVli. xvil. XVii. XVli. XVli. xix. >. ab. xvill. XVill. XViii. xvill. xvil. XViil. xvil. XViil. xvill. XVill. xvill. XVili. xvill. πὸ ἀξ» 10-18% 12. eB 14 ἡ. 1 2 IR 14f. 15. 23.1 Θ ΒΕ. οι Bo. 4 12-17 12 13 OR DREI 22 23 94. 24-28 25 26. 27, 28 1 17 iii, 198, 3384, 3513, 14, 15: 16410. i. 207£.,. i, 209,. i, 188 ἢ. 1.17% i. 176f., 1881... i. 207,. iii, 55, 86,2. 111. 142 ff, i. 532). i. 534). i. 5881. iii, 866.4. i. 2124. i. 212, i, 2125. i. 9147. iii, 14099: iii. 162 fr. i, 265, ; iii, 4664, 111, 467 f. 111, 68. i. 267,. i, 267, iii, 15, 16, 306.4. 111, 452. i. 177, 190, i. 262, 2701». iii. 123. iii, 82,, 33149. iii, BB, i. 270,1. iii, 16, 80 fig. iii, 381 fire: i. 199). iii. 150, 168. 111. 15. iii, 15, 1%. iii, 66, 87,5. i. 209, ; iil, 81 ἔν. ili. 142 ff. iii, 32,9. iii, 17 ἔν Bon ii. 56, 685, li. 372. 111. 368. ii. 381,, iii, 874. ii. 17. ills 127, 111. 18, iii, 87.0 iii. 89, Acts- ΧΕΙ, 95, xx]. 3/-xxll; 2 X21.88. 5 16- 22 Xxilil. 24-xxyi 32 Xxiil. 26-30 χχὶν.ὅ. xxiv. 25. RX VIA, XXV1L ily. xxvil.-xxvill.. xxii. xxvii. 12 XXvili. 11 xxvil. 16 . xxviil..16-31 | INDEX continued. iii. 18 f., 34 f.49. 1. 42. ili. i. 100 r ἘΠ ul Se 138 1.00, 149 ff. iii. 454. 111. 454. 1. 552, ; i. 451,. 111. 477. xxviii. 21 i. 57, 68,. xxviii. 30f. li. 58 f. ; 111, 57%) ΒΟΜΑΝΒ. LITE: 1. 352f. us. ii. 379,. Ie 1. 354. 17 i, 378f., 394ff.,, 2, i.15. i. 16f. : 11. 16, Marcionitic interpretation ο 411 f.r6. i. 394 ff... 1. 4305. i. 356 f., 415 yy. 1, 378, 396,, 419). L 357, 3721... ΦΧ εν li. 385,. i. 432,. i. 126 £., 131... i 3745. 1. 374. 1. 359 f. ii. 188,. 1. 361, 374, g. i. 361f., 375s. i, 421 f. li. 346. 1. 363 ff. ii. 188,. i. 375 f.,. li. 36515. li. 187,. i. 366, 376 £.19- 1. 379 ff. 1318, 529 Romans—continued. xv. 1-13, Baur’s view . arten. gre Let a ae τὺ δ΄... κ« xv 19 τ΄. "ἢ ἘΝῚ ΟΖ. xv.-xvi., Genuine- ness of Hak xv.-xvl., Litur- gical use of xv.-xvi., Patristic citation of . . xvi., Genuineness of. xvi. 1- 16 : XVi., Hy potheses of Volter and Spitta xvi. 3 ff. ΣΥῚ. 5.- Ὁ Kyle δ... - xvi. 6 Xvi 7 age . χυ ΒΖ see ΧΡ". Xvi. XVi. XVl. XV. XVi. ¢ Relation of Jude 24 f. to xvi. 27, Text of . i. 414 f.y9. ii. 587. Beil i, 435, 437 £... i, 1864, 415 fuyg ; 74,. Se, 4169. 378 £., i. 389 ἢ, i. 410,4. i. 400 ἢ... _ . 416 fn. i. 393 f. ἧς 490 E95 is. 3807, 429). ii, 860 1, ii. δ0ῦ,. i. 430, ; ii. 504,. 1 i. 4185, ; iii. 453, i. 4191 1 41751, Br 8925 i. 504;. i. 480, ; ii. 351. i, 425, 430,. N. 409, i. 370, 3775. 1. 379 ff, 41246. 489 f., 396,- ii. 291,5. i. 406,1. 1 CoRINTHIANS, i, 282, 297 f.g. 11. ii. 377,. 1. 298,. i. 8081. ii. 382,. 1. 288. i, 296,. 1.332 ff. 1.1276. Thre 285;- i. 261, "270, 322; Ι. 976, 1: 2709 3-11. 285;- 34 530 INDEX 1 CORINTHIANS--continned. 2 CoRINTHIANS—continued, ne sie i. 296,. χὶ οι τὸ ΒΘ ΟΣ WT. LAO ss. Vil. 10°. or, Ὶ » oii, 382,. ΧΙ, 14. . 4“) -ll-46F £ viL1-3 . οὁδᾷ τ 296). xi:2; . . 8: .11j11.-462,7478; 1X0 . . ".mel& 31,208. xm. 7 if... .. ΠΣ: ix, 14 «jf ΟΣ „41. 382,. Xi kf, , +2 411.151. Ὁ 10 ῳ - . » δ il. 2575. xl. 16 ff. 4 . A i. 314 £46 x. 14, ΚΟ ἸΌΝ xii. 18. OV2Q0! δ ΠΟΥ, x.115-22 opp.) τοῦ, -1. 296,. ΧΙ. 19... ZW Athi. 260,1. > 32 . 5 Ρ ὑ Ὁ 1: 2977. ΧΙ]. 1 i Ξ 5 N A i. 27143. C19. OO", eae xi, 93 ff. . -| G48 di. 380,, 389; 5848 ; iii, 3919) 120 GALATIANS, ΧΙ alt 4 297;: La (Of . VT) i. 175 ff ZIV. δι „SAD: 1. 6 BEL 1.1785. xiv. 23-25... 1. 99,. 1. 6- 8, Mareionitie av. 13. .°.° 31.8848 interpretation KV. Off. .. ov hOI} WM, SSE, ;- iii. 120) of) iii, 7 e865 aL 3857. xv. 7 §. . +685 να 110. 1.81. . . “οἰῶν n.,171,16102, see; a 06 4: 5. BO) 180. By Be es a eras i, 1970 ii 1.88 1. 109,. ΧΙ. 1 '. ‘ag-hOSS «ἃ, 175. 1..1-10.. τς .. 12.1247, bee xvi. 3-7 „|. «ἢ, 2687. lan: i. 202, ; lil. 28g. xvi. 5-7 ἡ. ἰδ ἼΘΙ) τὸ: 325. ii. 1ff,, Ambrosi- xvi6 ©, . Τῆς „iiL-454, aster on... IT Bid dees zyL7 '. *..480G.0 271... Th, 10, a8 oe ng LAN ΧΙ Πρ ii ; OEP 1 269,. αν τον eee xvi. 17 {{ : 81} ἢ 260, 269;. ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟ ΤῚΣ xvi.22 . ool) 4,13, 288, 808 fyg* || ME 7-9 ee 2,208. 1:9 „Ne. cite ὉΠ} 1. 10 i. 2007. 9 CORINTHIANS. TVs loa i. 165, 1715, 181. Na. i. 1725, 180. 1, 3-12 i. 316 ἔκ. ΟΝ =, foment: 2 pc ee 1. SH awe Mere 72.309, 318,. er ee en 1. 128. 2 ope - 9: 321, 34365; vy. ll. i, 181% Bug; ‚Sid Ὁ 548 1... vi. 11 i. 170, 172,. 1. 17-20. . .. 4.5910 vi. 17 i. 195, 199. 1.19. ~ -. 108 :311.'8930,. ii. 3 ff. i. 330 ff, 345 ff.;. ii. 5ff i. 347 ff... EPHESIANS. HD ov Δ Ve +; SRE Ba FE; 11 PET, 10S! ih, 4g MB ἢ 22-16 he: 5175. v. 16. ν᾿ . 1. 8005. i. 1, TextofJerome 1. 482, 488 f.,. vi. 14-vii. 1 i. 349 f.,. i. 1, Text of Mar- vi. 16 oad tk, fh 2965. cion date i. 481. vii.7-12 . «Ὁ Ἢ, 3361. i. 1, Text of Origen i. 482, 488 f.,. vii. 11 f. i. 336, 348,. i. 1, Text of Ter- viii. 1-5 1. 320,. tullian . . i. 481 f., 488,. viii. 6 i. 345,. i. 1, Witness of viii. 10 . i. 318 ἔς. MSS. . 1.00} 4, 482, viii. 18 . ii. 385, ; iii. 6f.g. Ὧν ig RRM ac Pee 5!) X.—xiil. . i, 8191...) 338 ff. ii. 11-22 ow 11. 186j. x.1-11. i, 3801. 111. 8-8΄. al ἀπ ΟΝ x. Pi i, 294, 301 f.o. εἰν, BD Seats xi. 4. i, 30: Bf. 13° iv. 110. 74%) Ce AY BOO, xi. Sf, i, 257, vi GF. ‘Pr A 0 Ge INDEX PHITIPPIANS. I. i. 526, 534 fis. i. 12 ff. . i. 537, 54Lf. 1188 ἘΠ 41, 551 ff... 1% LA, 1. 542 ἣν 2,14-18 1. 543 f., 548. i. 15-18 1. 557 £. 17198 i. 554,. i. 19-26 1. 5444, i. 20 . i. 546, 5554. 1. 25 1. 1. 545f., 554 f.,. DR. 308, 118. 6565). ü. 65.11..... 1098 τὰς 557. ii. 14-18 i. 536,, 546. 11. 19-24 1. 546 1. li. 19-23 11. 66. ul, . . 2.1. 525, 530, 5353. 113. 3 ths i. 538%... iii. 18£.. 1. 5395. iv. 2. i. 529, 537,, 559, 561 f.,. iv. 15 i. 257, 534,. τίν», ΟΣ N. 584. iv 16... : MEiE 19. iv. 22. „DE da, δρΌ: 1. COLOSSIANS. i 0% 1. 449 f.,. 1. 14-23 1. 467. 1.95. i. 461, 471} ii. 1-5 i. 462, 472,. ii. 10-15 1: datt. ii. 11 ii. 382, ii. 16 ᾿ς AND. ii. 18 ff. i. 468 f ii. 18. 1. 475¢. ii. 20. i. 418. ii. 28. i. 468 f., 478, BL 1-17 1. 469 £. ὅτι 11 11.1152, iii. 16 ii. 371, 378,. maB=iv: 6°. 570. moe λον AN ἃ. 439, 446.. iv. 10 li. 428, 431, 601 ἢ. Ivo FL. . L 45, ; 10.374. iv. 10-14 nisi A. iv. 14 ii. 1f. iv. 15 i. 455). wald-1I7 . „BI 2. 499; ived6 . . ..,80 479,486, AUT; ; li. 985 D5: iv. 17 1. 446 f.,. 1 THESSALONIANS, were. i, 197-8, 205 f. ἘΠΊ. i. 248 f.,. 531 1 THESSALONTANS—continued. oie 1 ie 108: IVO. ΠΕ. 15 i. 205, 210,. i. 218, 2221... in 388, i. 221, 2235. i. 221, 223,5 ii, 382,. ii. 382 ἢ. 2 THESSALONIANS. rie: a 1.5-10 . ie octane li. 3-12, Relation Mer . 24154. 1. 253 f.43. i. 226 ff, 242 f. 234, to Nero Legend 1. 246f., 250 f.,. iit, 1. 226, 235s. i. 6f. 1. 229f., 238 ἢ. epee i. 229, 2365. ii. 14 f, . i. 232, 242,19. iii, 17 i, 231, 241,,, 242 f,, 245, 1 Tımoray. Mar. i. 27. £., 38. i. 3, Hug on 1]. 801. 425. i. SR ll. 395. 1. 8-11 11. 105. i. 20 ii. 22,, 42,, 108. τι 1 ii. 32, 39 11... Te 13. is | nears u. 8 ff. ii. 404. Lutte Lig. ii. 1246. ii. 1-13 ii. 32f., 91. TURM ei ii. 95 ri 21192. Patristie and modern i in- terpretations of 11. 125 f.,.- ii. 11 li. 94. egy Fie ii. 39,. iii. 16 Li. 131). iv. 1. ii. 260,0. ιν. 1 {ἢ ΠΣ ΠΣ iv. 13 ii. 385,. rin lb 11. 98. v. 3-16. li. 94. v. 18, ii. 119, 382,. SH, ii. 39,, 371, 378). vi. 3-10, ii. 101, 107 £. vi. 20 li. 130),. vi. 21 li. 42,, 107 f. 2 TIMOTHY. 1.45 il. 224. i. 6 ii. 98, 532 2 TrmotHy—continued. ἘΠῚ. ii. 1f., 19 f.,. ii. 17 ii. 215, 108f., 117, 129,,. ine —5 11. 1191. iii. 6-19 é li. 114f. iv. 3. a8. im LIZ, lief. iv. 4. τ τ Se iv.7. " li. OF. iv. 10 3 i. 186,, .41619; il. 11f, 25f.g, 48. iv. EDI. ii. 430, 431. iv. 1-13 11.2371. iv. 12 ff. nu. 15 ff. iv. 14f. . ii. 16f., 21 Ἐς, 42,. iv. 16f.. ii. 6-14, 18 f., 23 ἔς. iv. 17 ii. 11 f. iv. 20 ii. 14f., 969. iv. 21 ii. 20 fig. iv. 22 11. 42,. Tıros. 15,5 ii. 46f., 124f.,. 1. 5-9 li. 67}. Ta) sc. owe a ODE i. 6, Patristie and modern inter- pretations of li. 125£.10. 1, 91% 11. 100. 1. 10-16 li. 44 ff. i.12. i. 52 ; ji. 44, 52). 1. 14-16 li. 1051. τς 8. Ὁ 11. 45. 111. 191 i. 48 I, 53 f.g,4- iii. 12 11. 454. 111. 15 li. 45. PHILEMON. lf. i. 452, 455. 2. i. 4551. 5-7 i. 454, 455,. ee i. 4555. 9. i. 4675. 11 i. 456, 18. i. 456,. 20 i. 456,. Qi. i. 442, 444, 550. 23 ἢ, . i. 440 f., 450 ἢ, 24 ) i. 442, 451,; ii. 601 ; iii. If. Hrprews. lal. 4 ii. 324, 338,. ii. 83, ii. 315. HEBREWS—continnued. rhb 33 Py ii. 347, 352, 364,5. TR ii. 320 ff., 3375: lui. 9 li, 320f.,. 328if,, 351. Wi. 15-iv. 11 li. 322 £. Van ἢ 11. 362,4, 380% v.12. ii. 319, 339,0, 350. vi. 1 i. 325f, 1.338, 9990. vi. 4-8 li. 302, 303. vi. 10 i. 317, 3365. vil. 27 11. 361 fi. 1x. a 1. 363 Te 7X AGitte ii. 340 f.;5. IX, 14 il. 326 i; 339.10 x. UT li. 362. X. 25 ii. 339 f.,,, 348 f. 830%: ii. 36515. χρ 99 ff. li. 347. χ. 99... 94 ii. 317 ff, 336 f.,. σι, li. 304, 312,4. xe 14-16: u. 140. ΧΗ τς : li. 318. xii. 13 ii. 86145. ΧΙ]. 22 u. 33910- ΧΙ]. 4 1. 333. ΧΙ]. 7 ii. 316, 319, 320, 347. x. 1-25 li. 297. xili. 8 li. 3365. xa, I § il. 331, 340,». xiii. 10-16 . ii. 324 f., 331, 3389. ἘΠῚ. Ὁ Le 11. 359 ἢ. ΧΙ 17 Τὶ ii. 316, 335 fig. x15 18-94 . li. 304, ΣΧ Ὁ 5 Ὁ ‘Weer “Lolo. xiii. 23, Interpre- tation of Baur 1]. 360; . ΧΙ. 24. 11. 345, 350, 358g. JAMES. al i, 74£, 78 £4, 795 79,, 98, 100, 150;. i. 9 ff. i. 86, 98;. 12). 7. 129. 1, Wit i. 118,. 2.18,. i. 149 i. 20 f. i. 962. i. 261. i. 975. li. 1 ff. 1. 87 f. i 3; i. 151). 15 0, i. 83, 94,. ii 5 . i. 99,, 116). aay ἃ] i. 995. il. wa 14-26 INDEX James—continued. 1.199, 124, 130}, 1491... i, 97. i. 190. i. 91. i. 95 fig. i. 87. i. 1209. 11. 48δρ. TR i. 122. 1 PETER. i. il. il. ii, 134, 151 ΠΣ 1853 H 146, 154 f.,. 147 ἢ 156,0. 186,. i. 1335. 11. li. . 144, 187,. . 186,. . 139 ff. 147, 156,.- 146. 188,. 186 ἢ... i. 1884. . 142 f. . 139 ff. . 181, 189. sl 187,. 144, 154,. 187,. . 184, 191,. . 2895. i. 9899. i. 188,. i. 186,. . 179 ff. 180 ff, 189 - 1945.19, 190 fig. 1468. .141. ii. 146 f. ii. 158 f., 179 ff. 145, 149, 157 της, 174 £. ii. 148. i. 148, 1571, 158 ff, 162,-1734, | 427, 431, 445,, 450,0 601. 533 1 PRTER—continued. v. 13, Clement of Alex. on. 11. 4485. ve 14 li. 135. 2 PETER. ΤΊ Se SEE ails py, 19% . one; EL, 9: sr ii. 207, 220 8.10. To bay rhe, ΟΝ i one ii. 222 f., 232. i. 12 f. ii, 199%, 211 ffs, 221. i. 14. ii. 169, 212 ff... £15’. ü. 200, 215,, 272 f., 2865. 1, 16-18. li. 200 ff... 204 if. 215 ff.,, 223, 274. li. 1-111. 4. 10250: li. 1 f., interpreta- tion of Spitta . ii. 233 f.,. 1. .„ Brass 991. ii, 1-3 ii, 224, 232 f.,. HOA li, 229 f. 4 : ii. 225, 288 f... 105. 11. 289,. ii. 10 f. li. 225. li. 10-22 li. 229. 13. ii, 211,, 229, 235 f.,, 299. ii. 13 f. ii, 225, 235 1... ii. 15. ii, 225, 291,4 1. 16. ii. 29134. ii. 18. ii. 225, 229, li. 20-22 ii. 232,. 111: Is. 11. 195 Tes 199, 202, 210f.,,211,,271f. iii. 2 ii, 204 f., 218,. li. 3. 11. 251 f, iii. 3 f. li. 196, 226, 230, 236.4 iis At, DU, S08 flit) er, 238, iii. 4, view of Spitta ii. 236 ff.,. ii. 15 120% OPS, ΠῚ .909. iii. 16 £. ii, 198f, 211, 274 ff., 990,0. ii. 16 . 1.977,90 11.10.17 li. 227 ff. 1 JoHn. i.1 i iii, 314f, 329, 373,. 1. 1-3 ili. 344. i. 14 111. 356-361, 3709, 5. 119 14 5 iii, 3739. 534 1 Jonn—continued. ii. 1 iii. 3735. ii. 14. ili. 360, 370 fg ii. 18 ff. iii. 363, 371,. IMD. 5 ἘΠῚ ΡΣ. 2. iii. 12-15 li, 257,. iv. 3 lil. 365, 371 f.,. iv. 5 111. 3735. iv. 6 ili. 377. iv. 9.. iii. 590. iv. 14-16 iii. 3703. v. δ ff iii. 365 f., 3727. v. 6 ff. I. ir i380, vite Uy 111. 3727. v.21... iii. 356, 363. 2 JOHN. Lx N iiso148, 157.15. in 379 f., 383;. Bre ili. 379.£., 3833. 7 ff. ili. 364 £., 372,- Si; iii. 3845. 11. ii. 373s. 19: iii. 370,, 378. B.. 238 ii. 148, 1671. 3 JOHN. 9 ff. Lily 970 tint) pelo, at eee 12. 131 347% JUDE. gi ii. 238 f., 256,, 268. ah ii, 241f., 256 ἢ; 269, 286, ς. 3, Spitta’s inter- pretation of li. 286,. | et re ey, ii. 241 f., 247, 248 ff., 257 ,,259f.4,26041, 265 f., 285 f.,. 5 x ii. 252 ff., 260 Πα: δ, text of 4 ake. Sate ee ee 8-16, varying in- terpretations of 9, relation to the “ Assumption of Moses” . ll. 12. 14 f., text of 14f., relation to Book of Enoch ii. 260 f.,0. ii. 246, 292, 5. 11, 292] 5- ii, 288,. ii, 244f, 2468, 257 f.5, 291,4- ii. 211,, 235,, 243, 245f., 257,, 258,. ii. 286 fy. ii, 286 fy. JupE—continued. 161 li. 246. 17. ii. 239, 250 f., 265 f, 285 fs. 18. . ἢ, 251, 26019. Ike)E, E58 li. 244, 258,, 279. 21-23 ii. 248, 258 fig. ZS. = say lope Ms BAG? 24f., relation to Rom. xvi. 25-27 ii. 2915. REVELATION. ie kts li. 378,; iii. 384, 391, 402,, 403 f.,. 1. Sli, 22. . rw peli. (434. 148 =. « (lig SBB,. eg. 11. 4857. i. dh. iii. 391 f., 403 8.5. iad fe. iii: 354,,, 389, 444. i. 9 οι iii. 408 f,, 420). ry LOE 11. 402). i. ls iii. 391, 404,. U. iii. 430, 434,. i: 19); iii. 392, 404,, 422,. 1.90. iii. 413 f., 422 fig. ΠΝ ς iii. 423,. ii. 2-6 ii. 292 5. ii. 2, 6 iii, 419, 42719. li. 8 ff. li, 416 f., 4265. ii. 12-17 iii. 410, 4205. ii. 131. iii, 491.. i. 14. li. 2355, 2916,45 iii, 163,0, 417 f. li. 20 ii. 292,5 ; ii. 168,4, 416, 418, 423 fi, ii. 23 111. 424,. 11. 24. ii, :163; AUTE, 426 ἢ 11. iii, 1. iii. 416, 425 f.g. iii. 14 iii. 316, 329 f.g. iv. ΠῚ, 111. 392 f., 402), 404,. v. 1 iii, 393, 405 fy. vi. 1-17 111. 395. vi. 9 ff. 111. 409, vii. 1-17 111. 396 f. viii. 1 „IQ iii. 395 fl. Vili, 2-ix. 21-4 iii. 397 ἢ, zui4. , iii. 398, 405g. x. LE iii. 20214 xi. 1 ff ili. 398 f. ΧΙ. 1-18 111. 438 f. xi.8. . . 881 iii, 398, 4065. xi. 19-xiv. 20. 111. 399 ἢ, xiii. 1 fF iii. 439 ff., 446,. iii. 182, 436, 444, 447. INDEX REVELATION—continued. xiv. 6 li. 373. παρ Ξἥτειν, δὺς, TOIT: Ὧν 1: νυν, 17..... ἡ 400 xvii. 1-xvii. 24 . ii. 400. Ἐν]. θ᾽ ὦ we ἢ απ" 410: xvü. ΒΝ I a. “1 436, 9 441i, 446... xviii. 20.10 457,8 in: 16545 1012403, 410, IV am, oO: 535 REVELATION—continued. IR 10. πο ar S76! zix. 1116.40... ὙΠῸ 31029. xix. 1]—xxi. 18 ©. ° 111.400. BA. BAHT xxl. 2 τ = 5 . il. 406 {τ xxi. 8xxi.5. . im. 400f. xxi. 103 oh oe . iil. 406 f.10- απ 14 Se Sain ASO, xxil. 12-16. . . 1. 408,. XxiL 21 . 111. 4034. B.—OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES. GENESIS. iv. 7 Ä > ΝΜ x li. 2575. Vv. 1 = . > > A il. 5689. LEVITICUS. x1%.%12; 36. 11659575. PSALMS. xev. 7b-11. li. 320 f., 337,. ISAIAH. vii. 14 11. 537. Vill. 23-1. 11. 541. HosEA. Le |. ehr Jin: Ga dual, BARNABAS. iv. 14 ii. 526 f.,. C.—GREEK WORDS. (The words found in this Index unaccented follow the form of the words adopted by Dr. Zahn in the text of his book, and represent simple transliterations from the Hebrew and Aramaic.) aßßa, i. 165, 48 f. ἀγαπᾶν, 111. 2279, 249,, 289s. ἀγάπη, ii. 211,, 229, 235, ; iti. 289g. ἀγαπητός, 111. 3263, 356. ἀγγαρεύειν, 1. 66,1: ἄγγελος, iii. 1334, 402,, 413-417, 4228... ἅγιοι, οἱ, i. 455,, 506f. ; ii. 2575, 3363. ayipas, 1. 2612. ἀδικεῖν, i. 349,. "Aöpias, iii. 13859. ἄζυμα, ii. 296 8.17. ἄθεσμος, li. 228, αἵρεσις, ii. 232 fo. αἱρετικοί, ii. 100, αἰῶνες, i. 498, 516 f.,. Ακελδαμα, i. 28,5. ἀληθινός, 111. 218. αλληλουΐα, 1. 12. ἄλλος, 11. 277, 2902. ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, li. 1909. ἀμαθής, li. 228 f. ἀμαθία, i. 229. αμην, i. 13, 18, ; iii. 13615, 316, 329 £.g. avaßaiveıv, 111. 302. ἀνάγνωσις, li. 3855. ἀναγράφειν, ill. 31. ἀνθρώπινος, li. 188,. ἄνθρωποι, 11. 613 f.,. Avvas, 1. 173. ἀνομία, 1. 229, 240,, 251. avds (adj. ending), ii. 193. ἀντίδικος, 1. 64,1. ἀντίθεος, i. 226, 228, 2525. avrixpıoros,, i. 227 ff., 2409. ἄνωθεν, ji. 170, 214, ; iii. 52f. ἅπαξ, li. 256s, 260; 2- 536 ἀπεκδύεσθαι, i. 474,, 5215. ἀπό, 1.605 ; 11.358, 3844; iii, 29,, 4355. with gen,, ii, 578. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, iil. 46 f,, 84,. ἀποδιορίζειν, ii, 258,. ᾿Απολλῶς, i. 270} o. ἀπολογία, i. 540. ἀπόστολος, ἀποστολή, i. 210ς;: 384, 3701.,, 505f., 507 ; ii. 206f,, 290,,, 386 1. ; iii, 78 f., 226 fo. ἀρετή, li. 2899. ἀρχή, ἀρχαί, i. 457 ff. ; iii. 162,. acapda, 1. 264. ἀσσάριον, i. 41, 6643. dornpırros, ii. 228. ἄτοπος, iii. 161,. αὐλή, ΠΕ δ04,. αὐτήκοος, ii. 439. αὐτόπτης, li. 439; iii. 46 f., 82,, 84,, 180. ἀφέωνται, ii. 612). ἀφωρισμένος, i. 6815; ii. 258... Βαραββας, i. 30 f.¢. βάρβαρος, 1. 2615, 59; ; iii. 139,0. Βαρθολομαῖος, i. 31jg- Bapıwva, 1. 17. βάρος, i. 5167. Bapvaßas, i. 315. Βαρσαβας, 1. 314. βασανίζεσθαι, iii. 1605. βασιλεία τ. οὐρανῶν, ἡ, 11. 539 f., 568, 10. βασιλεῖς, ii. 130 8.19. βάτος (Badovs), 111. 136. Βεελζεβουλ, 1. 195. βελόνη, Ui. 162. Βηθεσδα, 1. 2815; iii. 3568. Bn@dbayn, 1. 29,5. βιβλίον, 111. 393 f., 405 ἔν, g. Boavnpyes, i. 163. Βοσορ, il. 2924 4. Γαββαθα, re 28) 5. Γαλατία, TaAXia, i. 174 ff., 188f.; 11. 251.;. Γαλατικὴ χώρα, ἡ, i. 187 ff... yeevva, 1. 19, ; ii. 488, Γεθσημανει, i. 29,5. γειώρας, i. 30, 67,3 ; 11, 163... γενεαλογία, ii. 103 ff., 128 ἢν,» 562... γένεσις, γέννησις, li. 531 f., 562). Γεννησάρ, ἡ, ii. 333,,. γνωστός, lil. 951 7. Γολγοθα, i. 391. γράμματα, γραφή, ii. 277, 2390... γράφειν διά τινος, il. 15712. γράφω, ἔγραψα, 1..172f.,, 345f.,; ii. 39, ; 111, 238 f., 8701... INDEX Δαλματία, i. 186,. δέειν, 11. 569,0, 578. δεικνύναι, iii. 402). Δεκάπολις, ἡ, 1. 88. δεσπότης, li. 234 f.,. δηνάριον, i. 41, 65,1 ; 11. 503,. διά, with ace., i. 437, ; iii. 420. with gen., iii. 372,. διὰ μέσον, 111, 900, διάβολος, ὁ, i. 195, 520 ; iii. 196. διαθήκη, i. 41, 6511. διακονεῖν, ii. 6135. διάκονος, 11. 91 f., 128 f.,. διάλεκτος, 1. 2713, 54 1. διασπορά, i. 807, 82, ; ii. 140f., 153 f.,. διδασκαλία, 11. 133, διδάσκαλος, i. 116,. διδαχή, 1. 116, ; ii. 138. δικαιοσύνη, ii. 699 0. δοκίμιος, τὸ δοκίμιον, i. 1335 ; li. 1865. δύναμις, ii. 21ὅς. δυσεντέριον, iii. 161. Ἑβραῖος, i. 48 ff., 595, 608.9, 67143 il 296 f., 3074, 359;. ἑβραΐζειν, ἑβραϊστί, ἑβραῖς διάλεκτος, i. ἘΠ if. 26 ἔπ ἢ ll. 5254. ἐγκαταλείπειν, il. 339,1. ἐθελοθρησκεία, i. 478,. ἔθνος, τ 6815; 354 f;, 370 be ei (oath), ii. 502,. ex, gen. partitive, iii. 284,, 353,4, 435,. ὼ ἐκεῖνος," ill. 219 Te 228 fis. 16° ἐκκλησία, 1. 297, ; 11. 550; iii. 30,; in Paul’s Epistles, i. 504 f. ἐκλεκτή, li. 15744. ἐκλεκτός, ἐκλέγεσθαι, ii. 1534 5, 1573) 3 iii, 227, 284y. Ἕλλην, ἕλληνίς, ἑλληνικός, i. 24,, 36, 58,, 373 f.4. ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος, ἡ, 1. 54-57. Ἑλληνιστής, i. 60 f.g, 71 fg). ἐνέστηκεν, 1. 2352. ἔξοδος, li. 2155, 398 f.7. ἑορτή, ἡ, 111. 285 f.4, 476. ἐπιδημεῖν, 1. 61g. ἐπιούσιος, li. 594. ἐπίσκοπος, ii. 32, 9OfE., 123 f.4, 124, ; 111, 416 f., 422 f.,. ἐπιστάτης, ili. 38,9, 69, 1369. ἐπιστρέφειν, ii. 154g. emiovvayoyn, i. 2364, 255; ii. 840}; 347, 350. ἐπιφάνεια, i. 255 ; 11. 133, 215,. ἐπιχειρεῖν, lil, 297, 44, 82 ἔν, 4 " ἔργα, interchanging with τέκνα, ü 10° INDEX ἔργα νεκρά, li. 326, 3390. ἑρμηνεύειν, 11.511] ff. ἑρμηνευτής, ii. 394, 442 f., 45115, 454 ἴ.1.- ἔρχεσθαι, li. 505, 589, ; ill. 372 ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν (meaning), 11. 1961. .12» ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι--- in Pastoral Epistles, ii. 126,,. Origin, ii. 117. Patristic application of references in Pauline Epistles, ii. 128) ,. Relation to Judaisers, 11. 116. Relation to Ebionism, 11. 116. Relation to Petrine Party, ii. 116. Relation to Jewish teachers in Col- ossee, li. 116. Relation to Mareion’s teaching, ii. 118. Relation to Jewish teachers in Igna- tius, 11. 116. ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες, 11. 96 f., 101 ff. ἕτερος, 11. 277, 29019. εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, i. 165, 1715, 3723 ; 1]. οὐ σῆμα εὐαγγέλιον, i. 507; ii. 373, 538ῦ;, 386 ff., 457, 461, 481, 5; iii. 166, 3735. N.T. usage of term, ii. 4815. εὐαγγέλιον κατά τινα, li. 386 ff., 396 £.1-3. εὐαγγέλιον τ. Χριστοῦ, 11. 370 f., 377 1... 456 ff. εὐαγγελιστής, 1. 507 £. ; ii. 30 ; 111. 20049. εὐθύς, li. 482, ; 111. 135y0. εὐλαβής, 1. 613. eppada, 1. 15s. ζηλωτής, 11. 578 ; iil. 77, 92og. Ζωτικός, 111. 426,. ἡγούμενος, Ul. 70, 316, 347, 350. nrer= doi, 1. 15. θάλασσα-ε:λίμνη, 111. 136,5, 249), 333... θέλειν ἔν τινι, 1. 4177. θηρίον, iii. 161. θρησκεία, θρησκός, 1. 973,4, 1311, 468 f., 477 1.1. θυμιατήριον, 11. 363. θυρεός, 1. 519. ιᾶνός, adj. ending, ii. 193 f. ἴδιος, iii. 2255. ἰδιώτης, 1. 259. Ἱερουσαλήμ (Ἱεροσόλυμα), i. 2955 11. Ἢ Ἰησοῦς, 75 451,; li. 260 f. 12> DDD, 56944, 576 f., 592, ; tik. Ylgı, 371g, 4345. Ἰουδαία, i. 1864. 537 *Tovdatos, i. 60f., ; 11. 561. in Fourth Gospel, iii. 340 f., 354; 2. usage and meaning, ii. 306 f.,. Ἰσκαριώτης (Ἰσκαριώθ), 111. 35144. ’Ioav(v)ns, 1. 175; iii. 227,1, 2505, 433; Ιωσηφ, loons, Ivonx, i. 2815, 296. καθαρισμύς, ii. 232). καθίζειν, 111. 3528.13. καθιστορεῖν, 1 lil. Te: kai, li. 5025, 576, 591 f.,, (ΘΙ 5"; 111; 959... κακοποιύς, li. 181 f., 189 f.g. καλός, li. 132. Kavavatos, 1. 3217 ; ii. 578. Kavavirns, 11. 578. καταβραβεύειν, 1. 472,, 5189. καταλείπειν, 11. 340 κατέχον, κατέχων, 250 f.,. κατήγωρ, 1. 64,1. Karnyeiv, 111. 42f., 82,. κατοικεῖν, κατοικία, 1. ΟἿς ; 11. 1534. κεντυρίων, li. 5034; 111. 136. κῆνσος, 1. 66), ; U. 5034. Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, 1. 475¢. Κηφας, 1. 16, ; ii. 155g. κλῆσις, 1. 2641). κοδράντης, 1. 41, 6611; ii. 5603, ; iii, 1361. κοινή, 1), 1. 84. κολοβοδάκτυλος, U. 4454. κορβαν, kopßaväs, i. 163; 11. 577. κράββατος, li. 5034. κράτιστος, li. 6;,. 42, 81. κυρία, di. 379, 382 fi. κυριακὴ ἡμέρα, ἡ, 111. 426,0. κύριε, 1. 41, 651- κύριος, 002121508 in 1 and 2 Thess. „1. 25444 in John, iii. 91,1, 249). in Jude, ii. 253, 260 f.49. in Mark, 11. 476, 4865. in Rev., iii. 4343. is i. 229 £., 2365, 238 fig, Aa¢apos, 1. 30, ¢. λαλιά, 1. 2745. λαμπρότατος, 111. 6;. λαός, 6= Israel, ii. 143, 253 f., 545. λατρεία, λατρεύειν, ii. 326, 339. λεγεών, 1. 41, 66). λεγιών, 11. 508,. λεπτόν, re 66,1. Außeprivon, 1. 60%. λόγια, 11. 525,, 579. λόγια ra, 11. 509 ff λογίζομαι, i. 5167. 538 Aoyırös, li. 1874. λόγος, ke 234, ; iti, 312-321, 327 ἢ ες. 431, 4345. λόγος τοῦ κυρίου, li. 378 1.3. λοιπός, li. 277, 29073. λουσαμένη, 11. ᾿282.. λύειν, 11. 569,0, 578. μαθηταί, iii. 2969. μαμωνας, i. 18; ; iii. 135 £.11, 12- μαραναθα, i. 13, 303 ff.1>- Mapa, 1. 3016. Μαριαμ, i. 901. μαρτυρεῖν, papmipia, μάρτυς, li. 70, 1559 ; li. 20507, 22814, 239f., 435;- μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 11. 5711. 2- Mardavos, ii. 5241, 3- Ματθιας, ii. 524 f.;. Μεσσιας, i, 205 ; lili. 3265. μονογενής, iii. 5101. , 3265. μῦθοι, ii. 103 ff., 1281. “15° μυστήριον, 1. 229, 2365, 413,7 ; iii. 4225, 4474. μωρός, i. 17f. Ναθαναηλ, i. 314g 5 ii. 524, ; iil. 225¢. vai, 111. 330g. νεκρός, 11. 326, 33949. νομικός, U. 544, 103. νομοδιδάσκαλοι, li. 103, 130. ξένος, ll. 139. ξέστης, li. 5034. οἰκονομία, οἰκονόμος (θεοῦ), 1. 471, 5 ii 3 οἰκουμένη, ὃ, iii, 130 f.5. ὀνειδίζεσθαι, ii. 190,. ὄνομα, iii. 381... 426;. οὖν, in John, iii. 2855. ὄχλος, 111, 3öljo- ὀψώνια, i. 375s. παῖδες, li. 594,9. πάλαι, li. 252, 260, ,- πανδοκεῖον, πανδοκεύς, i. 41, 654). as μιν ii. 40. ID II ἄν" ἐν τ παράδοσις, 1. 384,5; Mi. 4g. ΠΤ μων 41, 64,1; iil. 3735. παρακολουθεῖν, ii. 455 ; iii. 64, 854. παραλυτικύς, ili. 161,. παραμένειν, i. 555,. παρασκευή, 11, 488 ; παραχρῆμα, iil. 161,. παρεπίδημος, ll. 130 ΠῚ, πάροικος, EL, 1, Ol, ili. 295 f. 152... 152%... 82; ii. 139 Mf, INDEX παρουσία, li. 2155. πασχα, i, 193; iii. 282 f. » 296 ff. πάσχειν, li. 190,. Παῦλος, ii. 140... πέραν τ. Ἰορδάνου, ii. 572 £., 577, 5894. περιπατεῖν, ii. 332, 340,5; 11]. 32 χὰ: περιτομῆς, οἱ ἐκ, usage Of term, ii, 3074. Πέτρος, ii. 219 f. πλάνη, ii. 247, 258,. πλήν, iil. 164} . πληροφορεῖν, ili. 45, 50, 83 f.,. πλήρωμα, i. 4971. διδ fig. πνεῦμα, 1. 207, 234, ; 3) δ΄. “110: m 402, ποιμήν, 1. 520; 11. 1245. πολιτεία, an, 1. 520. πολιτάρχης, 1. 2114. «- πορθεῖν, 111. 14053. πραιτώριον, 1. 541 f., 551 ff, ; 11. 503f.,. πρᾶξις, πράξεις, 11. 526, ; ii. 3), 8715. πρεσβύτερος, li. 235, 33, 91f., 124 fige ; ii. 146f., 436 ff, 452,5 ; iii. 380. πρεσβύτερο:, 6, in 1 "John, ili. 184, 185. πρεσβύτεροι, ol, in Clement of Alex., iii. 178, 197,. in Irenzus, iii. 175, 178. πρεσβύτης, 1. 457¢. προπέμπειν, 1. 488ς ; li. 54,. προσδοκᾶν, iii. 161. προσευχή, 1. 523, 534). πρόσκλισις, 1. 298,. προφήτης, niet toe: 1. 116,, 207,, 505f. ; iii. 385 ff., 402 πρῶτος, -ov, πρότερος, i. 372f,,, 582; ; li. 22, ; 111, 61, 88,6, 13955, 224 ἔς. πτωχός, 1. 1484. mveunarikds, i 297, ; ; ἢ, 258,, 279. | | | ραββι, ραββουνι, 1. 205 ; ἢ, 155g. ρακα, 1. 173. paxa, il. 577. σάββατον, -Ta, L 193, 3116: =week, i 1. 212; ; iii. 1360. pia and πρώτη σ΄; ii. AT5E. a. Bevrepenpieroy, iii. 168, σαίνειν, 1, 2229, σαμβαθεῖον, i iii. 425,. oaravas, 1. 183, 520, Σαῦλος, ill. 14035. σεβόμενος, i. 61x, 213,. σημαίνειν, 111. 4g, 402). σημεῖον, lil, 233, 804 ff, 325 f.,. σίκερα, ili. 136... Σικιμα, Συχεμ, 1. 30,5; ili. 35144. Σίλας (Σιλονανός), 1. 31 10. 907. i, 99. ε , Σιλωάμ, Σίμων, Συμεών, i. 29 ἢ )ς ; ii. 219,. σινδών, li. 491. σκηνοῦν, ill. 298... σπεῖρα ᾿Ιταλική, Σεβαστή, i. 605. σπεκουλάτωρ, li. 803... σπιλάς (σπῖλος), ii. 258,. στοιχεῖα, τὰ, i. 473f.,. στρατοπεδάρχης, i. 552. συγγενής, rf 417 figs; 111]. 231. συκάμινος, συκομορέα, iii. 1625. συλλαμβάνεσθαί τινι, i. 5375. συμβιβάζειν, i. 4725. Συμεών, 11. 2195. Συμεὼν Πέτρος, ii. 271. συμπληροῦσθαι, iii. 141 fig. συμπρεσβύτερος, ii. 146 f. συναγωγή, i. 94 1.1 ; ii. 3840. συναιχμάλωτος, i. 418,5, 440, 451, συνέδριον, 1. 41, 64:1. Σύρος, i. 23,. Συροφοινίκισσα, i. 247. σύσσωμος, i. 520. συστρατιώτης, 1. 440, 4477. συστρέφειν, συστροφή, iil. 28,. ταβιθα, 1 2611 ; lil. 137... ταλιθα κουμ, 1. 153. τάξις, ii. 400,, 439, 606. ταπεινοφροσύνη, 1. 468 f., 477 £.. raxıvos, 11. 212. τέκνα, 11. 59445. τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, li. 72, Τιβεριάς, Ui. 324, 339... Fére, ii. 5918.,. τρῆμα, iii. 162,. τρόπαιον, li. 82. O AS INDEX 539 ὑγιαίνειν, ὑγιής, i. 78, ; 11. 199. | ip ΤΣ Δ ae vids τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ, 111. 309 f. φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, iii. 282 f., 296 ff, Φαρισαῖος, i. 3217, 6815; 11, 258,. φιλεῖν, 11]. 22719, 249), 289;. Se hea aa 3 982. OPOUMEVOS, 1. Ol; 6 φραγελλοῦν, i. 503,. φρονεῖν τὸ αὐτό, i. 5375. φωτίζεσθαι, li. 3375. Xaavaia= priests, i. 26)». χαίρειν, 1. 85, 119, ; iii. 1844. Xavavaia, il. 578. χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, i. 1197. χάρισμα, i. 2975, 3752. χαρίσματα, i. 279 ff. Χερουβειν, 11. 361... Xpnoros, 1. 438... Χριστιανός, χρηστιανός, i. 21., 433,5; iu 185, 191£.,., 617. Χριστός, rh 20 fg, 433, ; lil. 4345. χρώς, 111. 161, χωρεῖν, ill. 2505. ψευδοδιδάσκαλος, ii. 232 f.,. ψευδοπροφήτης, li. 232, ; iii. 403. ψευδόχριστος, i. 228, 238,, 2399. ψύχαι, ii. 2895. Ψυχικός, 1. 498 ; ii, 258,, 279. ὡς, 1. 214,; ὡς καί, ii. 234, oravva, 1. 9, 12, 21,, 304. END μαθηταί, Di. ZY 6: - wlan, ἢ Te tg papaonda, ἢ, TH; Bt MapBu, 1.0, Sanu. i, 30, aS, Noe Age wann τὰς τὴ . Jit Br τη κε ταν = Sift ‘givin ere. Jf era { Ina anghy 2 dar & aves οἷ PADAGHY, ais Dita GFE „I wrmyvigny pare Hot. 52.188 fl ee Γ΄ SBE I „adrong CHA ab Ἤτον οἶνον smh Pe S10 ΘΙ er i Dp. 108 .i “abrnigh " AOL ‚ii POX ἢ Nabari, Ί. 8 va ΤῊ 330, νεκρὴ uy I i one δῇ dene WERE IE agripoq nobus 4 νομοδιδάμ m. Heäe: Jr nanrwaybbun] NR) and ξέν έν 1 139,072 „BAR it; ὅθ. Ji ἀδχίχι Berne Ἧ; τ ταν εὖ τον a δν TOTER ER A ν οὖν En ΜΠ ὌΝ = radleröcı, 11.190 oma, τ, 38] HU. αὖν, in δόμα, Bi. Qty. Ν᾿ SyAot, Τὰ, Βδ1γ.... " ori, i, 3705 J N “αλεὲ ib DMs fe vor te ti ῳ sy 20%), ~ pomedon ὧι tu 1, ah Tay ry yen! a, th, 40, rape) ws, grating σι di; Tape, i, dete) ti | 44, 84. 7 race, i. 41, Bd, FR hapa © ai mdi, εἶ, 46 ἯΙ θὲ Al, ποραλυνις Oy, ti ΤῊΝ wurden, de Bin παρὸν noah, li, ABS iM. φῦ} ἢ, "op Ve = wipeerlänguengän, R01.) WM, ei . wu, [7 An. i N, Th, 4h 1801 m Ὺ pr Ama Ann pi may =, QRSSS „ii penis 7} uit, 033: ae ν diy Buren, i Tan 4 πε τομῆς, |e tir por, Le | der ’ be | re OEE eh “1d ob : + Ὁ ee page NEL, Ἷ ‘waar Mee My ts eg herd 74 ij, 75 Tr lit ταν, ili, iM i [ 2. Be - in my iti, ἐβόγι > ΟὟ u, de 18 ω am, > 7 τ Diy ue, i, din 413, δὲ ων, ih ἕω ig 4.42 , 188... 44, ἐξ, Date Due ren - w Testament Seminary-Speer Library p eton Theologica ; | "}}}} WARY OU) MO TT | III I IN . Pe | III EIN | IN || IH || | I} ri | | | IH || | - > Il HE IH II} ne 1 1012 00063 9718 Era LES Zu 22 24 23 32 25 AU 22 12 12 22 22 20 200 ὝΨΎΥΎΨΨΨ ee tet uh ee hee bi ths | an di el ett ee we ε; ? " ἀνὰ il el % WETTEETERT . ‘ a le Ah . ..n..r en ar em er ar #