{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2890", "width": "1906", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "f,lass BS 2.33 D\\nBook ^D 3\\nCopyright N\u00c2\u00b0 Q -UV\\nCOPYRIGHT DEPOSIT.", "height": "2804", "width": "1888", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2776", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2804", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "Nefo Testament Hantrfiookg\\nEDITED BT\\nSHAILER MATHEWS\\nAN INTRODUCTION TO THE\\nNEW TESTAMENT", "height": "2780", "width": "1844", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "J^ew Cestament handbooks\\nEDITED BY SHAILER MATHEWS\\nTHE -UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO\\nA series of volumes presenting briefly and intelligibly tbe\\nresults of the scientific study of the New Testament. Each vol-\\nume covers its own field, and is intended for the general reader as\\nwell as the special student.\\nArrangements have been made for the following volumes\\nTHE HISTORY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW\\nTESTAMENT. Professor Marvin R. Vincent, Union Theo-\\nlogical Seminary. [Beady.\\nTHE HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW\\nTESTAMENT. Professor Henry S. Nash, Cambridge Divinity\\nSchool. [Ready.\\nINTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\\nProfessor B. Wisner Bacon, Yale Divinity School. [Ready.\\nTHE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\\nProfessor J. R. S. Sterrett, Amherst College.\\nTHE HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES IN PALESTINE.\\nProfessor Shailer Mathews, The University of Chicago.\\n[Ready.\\nTHE LIFE OF PAUL. President Rush Rhees, The University\\nof Rochester.\\nTHE HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Dr. C. W. Votaw,\\nThe University of Chicago.\\nTHE TEACHING OF JESUS. Professor George B. Stevens,\\nYale Divinity School.\\nTHE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Pro-\\nfessor E. P. Gould. [Ready.\\nTHE TEACHING OF JESUS AND MODERN SOCIAL PROB-\\nLEMS. Professor Francis G. Peabody, Harvard Divinity\\nSchool.\\nTHE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE UNTIL EUSEBIUS.\\nProfessor J. W. Platner, Harvard Divinity School.", "height": "2804", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "AN INTRODUCTION\\nTO\\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT\\nBY\\nBENJAMIN WISNER BACON, D.D.\\nPROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS\\nIN TALE DIVINITY SCHOOL\\nNefo fgotft\\nTHE MACMILLAN COMPANY\\nLONDON: MACMILLAN CO., Ltd.\\n1900\\nMl rights reserved", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "59449\\nLibrary of Congress\\nTwo Copies Received\\nOCT 11 1900\\nCopyright entry\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0CL!kS?ft.4r\\nFIRST COPY.\\n2nd Copy Dethwed ts\\nORDER DIVISION\\nNOV 12 .g nu\\n3\\n4?\\nCOPYRIGHT, 1900,\\nBy THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.\\nNortoooti 5|wb8\\nJ. S. Cushing Co. Berwick Smith\\nNorwood Mass. U.S.A.", "height": "2804", "width": "1892", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "PREFACE\\nThe limitations of this volume are imposed by the\\neditor. Even the mere outline, which alone is pos-\\nsible in the narrowly prescribed space, might be made\\nfairly complete if technical terminology, abbreviation,\\nand the presuppositions admissible among experts\\nwere allowable. But to be easy and readable in a\\ntenth of the space required and, at the same time,\\nconvey a true impression, is difficult. One must watch\\nand pray not to tell half-truths.\\nNor can one, even so, be content merely to revamp\\nfor a different circle what is familiar to scholars in\\nthe great treatises. I have not been deterred from\\npresenting views which are peculiar to myself when\\nthese seemed best to set forth the results toward\\nwhich critical science is tending, by the consciousness\\nthat adequate presentation of my reasons is precluded.\\nScholars will recognise what is new. If valuable, they\\nwill adopt it if disapproved, they will bring it into\\nthe arena of debate, where opportunity will be given\\nfor completer discussion. In the writings which name\\ntheir authors, independent study has led me to results\\nmore conservative than those of leading critics. Thus\\nthe cosmology of Ephesians appears to me essen-", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "VI PREFACE\\ntially Pauline. In the one point wherein the Tubin-\\ngen critics were nearer to early tradition than most of\\ntheir present opponents, the Johannine authorship of\\nRevelation, I am compelled by the external evidence,\\nwhich with them counted for so little, to go their way.\\nContrariwise, in the anonymous historical books my\\npersonal study has led to the conviction that our pres-\\nent gospels and Acts are the outcome of a longer and\\nmore complex process of growth than most critics\\nadmit. The problems of the Synoptic and Johannine\\nTradition, more especially that of the special sources\\nof our third gospel and Acts, in connection with\\ntheories of the Western Text, defied all attempts at\\nconcise statement of accepted results in proper rela-\\ntion to personal conviction. In the dilemma between\\njustice to views which have obtained the sanction of\\nthe greatest modern scholars and to the solution which\\nhas finally commended itself to me as true, I have\\nthrown myself upon the reviewer s mercy (reviewers\\nare supposed to read prefaces), stating my results,\\nthough forced to do so with a baldness painfully sug-\\ngestive of egotistic self-confidence. Yet I can but\\nhope that some of the departures will be found to be\\nnot a going aside from the course of sober criticism,\\nbut, to some extent, in advance of it. The aim at\\nleast has been to set down nothing as fact which is\\nin conflict with accepted results, nor as probable to\\nwhich these do not appear to be leading up.", "height": "2804", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "PREFACE Vll\\nIf the attempted unity of impression has been at-\\ntained, it will be found in a loyal response to the\\nwatchword of Harnack, back to tradition, or,\\nrather, through tradition back to fact. The Tubingen\\nattempt to overleap tradition on the way to the goal\\nhas brought a just reaction. No Introduction can\\nfairly reflect the present state of the science which\\ndoes not illustrate this fact. But the aim is not to\\nlearn what was thought in the eighteenth, nor even\\nin the second, century about the New Testament writ-\\nings and their origin our goal is the same which\\ncriticism from the first has had in view, the facts\\nthemselves, only with larger attention than heretofore\\nto early tradition as a means. Facts are the divine\\nword, theories the human interpretation. The phe-\\nnomena of text and tradition are the facts; a new\\ntheory will be preferable to the old in proportion as\\nit adjusts itself to these.\\nTwo insertions have been made in the manuscript\\nafter delivery, at the editor s request the logical\\nanalyses of the several books, and the appended bibli-\\nographies. The analyses, it is hoped, will do more\\nthan merely duplicate the synopses of contents which\\nimmediately follow, though disproportionate space\\nmay thus seem to be given to interpretation. The\\nbibliographies were prepared under peculiar difficul-\\nties and are only adapted to the convenience of the\\nreader unfamiliar with other than the English Ian-", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "Vlll PREFACE\\nguage, works in other languages being referred to\\nonly in the footnotes. But scarcely more than a selec-\\ntion is made from English works. Reliance must be\\nhad on the larger works referred to for full lists of\\ntitles.\\nIn conclusion, I owe a debt of thanks to the friends\\nwho lent ready assistance when my own ill-health\\ninterrupted work upon the book for a period of many\\nmonths, just as the first proof-sheets were beginning\\nto come. To my colleagues, Professors W. F. Black-\\nman and F. C. Porter, I am especially indebted, above\\nall to Professor Porter, without whose kindness in\\ntaking down at dictation from a sick-bed the last\\nchapter of the book, the delays would have been\\nlonger, and the faults for which I am fain to ask the\\nreader s indulgence more conspicuous than is now the\\ncase. To my father, Dr. L. W. Bacon of Norwich,\\nCt., I am indebted for the preparation of the Indices\\nand Table of Contents.\\nThe admirable discussion by Wernle, Die Synoptische\\nFrage, 1899, published since chapters viii and ix were\\nsent to press, came to hand too late for subsequent\\nemployment. Otherwise much labour would have been\\nspared me, and a more finished, and, on secondary\\npoints in dispute, in some respects more accurate\\nresult presented to the reader.\\nB. W. B.", "height": "2804", "width": "1888", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS\\nPAGE\\nPreface v-viii\\nPART I\\nCRITICISM vs. TRADITION\\nCHAPTER I\\nNew Testament Introduction. History, Method,\\nScope, and Present State of the Science 1-25\\nThe term Introduction, 1. Method of this\\nwork, 2. Early attempts, 2. Ancient Introduc-\\ntions, 3. Criticism of the Reformers, 3. Modern\\ndiscussion, 4. Pounders of German criticism, 4. Con-\\nfusion between science and doctrine, 5. Revolt\\nagainst modern tradition, 6. Questioning of Pauline\\nand Johannine writings, 6. Of the General Epistles,\\n7. Of the Synoptic Gospels, 7. Conservative reac-\\ntion, 9. Progress in Germany, 9. First precise defi-\\nnition of Introduction, 10. A definite scope and\\nmethod, 10. Strauss and Renan, 11. Historical vs.\\nliterary criticism, 12. Tubingen, 12. Corrected by\\nRitschl and Harnack, 14. Four currents of the Apos-\\ntolic age, 14. Weizsacker, et al., 15. Extreme posi-\\ntions abandoned, 16. Pauline Epistles, 16. Synoptic\\nGospels, 17. Resultant views, 18. Three schools of\\ncriticism, 19. Centre, on the Gospels, 19. On the\\nother books, 20. Radicals, 21. Outside of Ger-\\nmany, 22. English criticism, 23. The conservatives,\\n24. Agreement of all schools in method and scope, 25.\\nix", "height": "2788", "width": "1804", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "X CONTENTS\\nCHAPTER II\\nPAGE\\nGrowth of Tradition and Formation of the Canon 26-53\\nExternal evidence, what 26. Threefold source of\\nauthority in primitive Church, 27. Scripture in\\npost-apostolic age, 27. Revelation, 28. Gospel, 29.\\nEarly references, 30. Special writings discrimi-\\nnated, 30. Epistles, 31. Gospels and Revelation, 32.\\nDependence on writings begins, 32. Apostolicity\\nof authorship, 33. Collections of New Testament\\nwritings, 34. Canon of Marcion, 34. Ignatius, 35.\\nPolycarp, 35. Barnabas, 36. The Didache, 37.\\nHermas, 38. Four Gospels distinguished, 38. Justin\\nand Papias, 39. The Logia obsolete in Papias s\\ntime, 44. His use of other New Testament books, 45.\\nGrowing dependence on books, 45. Authority of New\\nTestament books, 46. Justin, Tatian, Irenseus, 47.\\nClement of Alexandria, 48. Canon of Muratori, 50.\\nPAKT II\\nTHE PAULINE EPISTLES\\nCHAPTER III\\nThe Epistles of the First Period Letter to the\\nGalatians and Correspondence with Thessa-\\nlonica 54-79\\nTradition of the priority of the Pauline Epistles, 54.\\nPeriods in Paul s literary career, 55. Admitted genu-\\nineness of major epistles, 56. Galatians the earliest\\nNew Testament writing, 57. Its date and occasion, 58.\\nChurches of Galatia in Acts, 58. In the epistle, 59.\\nPaul s opponents, 60. Jews from Asia 61.\\nAnalysis, 62. Contents, 63. Coincidence of Luke\\nand Paul, 64. The Jerusalem agreement, 64. Subject\\nto two constructions, 65. Jerusalem decrees, 67.", "height": "2796", "width": "1916", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS XI\\nPAGK\\nPaul withstands Peter at Antioch, 68. Separation of\\nbrethren, 68. Later rule of the Church, 69. Results\\nof the Galatian crisis, 70.\\nCorrespondence with Thessalonica, 71. Analy-\\nsis of 1 Thessalonians, 72. Of 2 Thessalonians, 72.\\nOccasion of 1 Thessalonians, 73. Doctrinal con-\\ntent, 73. Occasion of 2 Thessalonians, 74. Doctrinal\\ncontent, 74. Practical content, 75. Genuineness, 75.\\nApocalyptic ideas of Jesus and of Paul, 76. Anti-\\nchrist in 2 Thessalonians, 77. Date, 78.\\nCHAPTER IV\\nEpistles of the First Period Correspondence with\\nCorinth, and Letter to Rome 80-105\\n1 and 2 Corinthians, 80. Church in Achaia, 81.\\nDate of 1 Corinthians, 82. Events in Corinth, 83.\\nAnalysis of 1 Corinthians, 84. Of 2 Corinthians, 86.\\nFactions rebuked in 1 Corinthians, 87. Scandals in\\nthe church, 89. Questions submitted (1) Meats, 90.\\n(2) Decorum in worship, 91. (3) Doctrine of resur-\\nrection, 91. Date and occasion of 2 Corinthians, 91.\\nPaul s antagonists, 92. Denunciatory letter, 93.\\nIdentified with 2 Corinthians, chapters 10-13, 94.\\nAnother fragment, 6 14-7 1, 95.\\nRomans, 95. Analysis, 97. Occasion, character,\\nand content, 98. Paul s gospel, 99. Relation of\\nJew and Gentile, 100. Conditions at Rome, 101.\\nChapter 16 a separate letter, 101. Addressed to\\nEphesus, 103. Verses 25-27 another fragment, 104.\\nCHAPTER V\\nEpistles of the Captivity 106-126\\nPaul s silence at Csesarea, 106. Occasion of Phi-\\nlemon, Colossians, Ephesians, 107. Paul s circum-\\nstances, 107. Philemon analysis, 108.", "height": "2780", "width": "1788", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS\\nEphesians and Colossians analysis, 109. Char-\\nacter and object of Ephesians, 111. Christ and his\\npeople heirs of the universe, 112. The Colossian\\nheresy, 113. Like conditions at Ephesus, 113. Ephe-\\nsians, to whom addressed 114. To Laodiceans,\\namong others, 115. Early accepted, 116. Genuine-\\nness, 116. Apocalyptic quotations, 121.\\nPhilippians analysis, 121. Date, 122. Paul s\\ncircumstances, 123. Later than end of Acts, 124.\\nUnity 124. Eelation of parts, 125.\\nCHAPTER VI\\nSecondary Canon of Pauline Epistles Pastoral\\nEpistles and Hebrews 127-149\\nEarly distinction among Pauline Epistles, 127.\\nDistinction by modern critics, 128. Analysis 1 and\\n2 Timothy, 129. Titus, 130. Contents: 1 Tim-\\nothy, 130. 2 Timothy, 131. Titus, 131. Historical\\nsituation in 2 Timothy, 132. Incompatible ele-\\nments, 133. Threefold difficulty, 135. Un-Pauline\\nelement, 139.\\nHebrews Early treatment, 140. An indepen-\\ndent author, 141. Analysis, 142. Nature and con-\\ntent, 143. To whom addressed 145. Authorship, 147.\\nDate, 148. Eorm of Judaism which it opposes, 149.\\nPART III\\nTHE CATHOLIC EPISTLES\\nCHAPTER VII\\n1 Peter, James, Jude, 2 Peter 150-174\\nVarious early canons, 150. 1 Peter not forged, 151.\\nAnalysis, 152. Content, 152. Pauline character, 153.\\nUses Ephesians and Romans, 163. Language, 154.", "height": "2800", "width": "1920", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS\\nDate and circumstances, 155. Written from Rome,\\n156. Authenticity, 157.\\nJambs Letter, or homily 158. Date, 158. Cir-\\ncumstances, 159. Style and language, 160. Analy-\\nsis, 161. Content, 162. Jewish, or Christian 163.\\nRelation to Hebrews and Clement, 164.\\nJude and 2 Peter: Analysis, 166. Author of\\nJude, 166. 2 Peter: pseudonymous, 168. Use of\\nepistles and apocalypses, 168. Date and object, 168.\\nGnostics opposed, 169. 2 Peter posterior, 170. Con-\\ntrast with 1 Peter, 172. Late date, 173.\\nPAET IV\\nTHE HISTORICAL BOOKS\\nCHAPTER VIII\\nThe Stnoptic Tradition 175-194\\nBiblical history anonymous, 175. Fourth Gospel\\nstands apart, 176. Interrelation of the three Synop-\\ntics, 177. Material in common, 179. How explained,\\n180. Material peculiar to each, 181. Analysis of his-\\ntorical books Mark, 183. Matthew, 184. Luke, 184.\\nActs, 185. Priority of Mark, 187. Two-document\\ntheory confirmed, 188. Order of events not chro-\\nnological, 189. First, Logia; then, Mark s narra-\\ntive, 192.\\nCHAPTER LX\\nThe Synoptic Writers 195-229\\nVicissitudes of Matthew, 195. Aramaic origi-\\nnal, 196. Character and date, 197. Relation to our\\nMatthew, 198. Our Matthew late, 199. Elements\\nfrom Logia, 200. Final recast, 202.\\nMark Author and place, 203. Primitive criti-", "height": "2792", "width": "1772", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "XIV CONTENTS\\ncism, 205. Traits of eye-witness, 206. Traits of\\ncompilation, 207. Omissions of logia, 209.\\nLuke Acts: Traditional authorship, 211. Use\\nof Diary, 212. Hebraistic elements, 213. Ele-\\nments not from Diary, 215. Author s qualifica-\\ntions, 217. Design of twofold work, 218. Peculiar\\nmaterial, 219. Earlier source, 223. Interpolations,\\ngreater and less, 223.\\nActs Composition, 225. Duplications, 226.\\nSpeeches, 227. The Diary, 228. Date, 229.\\nPART V\\nTHE JOHANNINE WRITINGS\\nCHAPTER X\\nThe Apocaltpse and the Epistles 230-250\\nPlace of origin, 230. Only one John of Ephesus, 231.\\nApocalyptic literature, 232. In the church, 233.\\nRevelation Analysis, 234. Unity, 235. Assertion\\nof authorship, 236. Apostolic title not claimed, 237.\\nDissimilarity to Gospel and Epistles, 238. Indepen-\\ndent writer using prior materials, 239. Questioned\\nafter 300 a. d. 240. Primeval tradition confirmed, 241.\\nIndications of late date, 242.\\n1 John Analysis, 244. Design, 245. 2 John and\\n3 John Analysis, 246. Authorship, 246.\\nCHAPTER XI\\nThe Gospel according to John 251-279\\nNature of the book and tradition of its origin, 251.\\nState of the problem, 252. Analysis, 253. Design, 254.\\nAgainst Gnostic-baptists, 254. Appeals to (1) teach-", "height": "2804", "width": "1920", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS XV\\nPAGK\\ning of the Spirit; (2) historic traditions, 256. The\\ndiscourses, 257. Unhistorical, related to cycle of\\nJewish feasts, 258. Based on genuine logia, 259.\\nAnd on historical data, 260. Call to Messiahship and\\nfunction of the Baptist, 261. The seven signs, 262.\\nAnachronisms and relation to Synoptics, 263. Points\\nof historical superiority, 264. Supplements synoptic\\ntradition, 265. Corrects date of crucifixion, 266. In\\nagreement with Paul, 267. Main source of Gospel, 268.\\nThree contributors distinguishable, 270. (1) Son of\\nZebedee (2) presbyter of Ephesus (3) redactor, 271.\\nDisplacements by R., 272. In what sense Johan-\\nnine, 274. Date, 276.\\nSummary: (1) The named books, 277. (2) The\\nanonymous books, 278. Tradition vs. criticism, 278.\\nTable of Approximate Dates 280\\nIndex 281", "height": "2788", "width": "1776", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2821", "width": "1887", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "AN\\nINTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE\\nOF THE NEW TESTAMENT\\nPART I\\nCRITICISM vs. TRADITION\\nCHAPTER I\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION. HISTORY, METHOD,\\nSCOPE, AND PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE\\nSchleiermacher illustrates the special use of the The term\\nterm Introduction by referring to its common use, Int I r odu c-\\nJ tion.\\nparticularly in modern editions of ancient works. A\\nmodern book may often dispense with an introduction,\\nbut with lapse of time it becomes increasingly needful\\nto supply that indispensable element of knowledge\\ncommon to author and readers, which in ordinary\\ncircumstances may be tacitly presupposed. Thus,\\nDemosthenes s oration On the Croicn would be unin-\\ntelligible to us without an explanation of the his-\\ntorical circumstances, the requirements of Athenian\\nlaw, the policy of Philip and Alexander of Macedon,\\nthe relation of Demosthenes to his client Ctesiphon, his\\nown public career and that of his antagonist ^Eschines.\\nEecently the public have become familiar with books\\nand fragments unexpectedly recovered from ancient\\nlibraries, or the sands of Egypt, such as the Teaching\\nB 1", "height": "2784", "width": "1732", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nMethod to\\nbe here fol-\\nlowed.\\nEarliest\\nof the Twelve Apostles 1 or the so-called Gospel of Peter.\\nWhat meaning could they convey without the accom-\\npanying historico-literary explanations of experts em-\\nbodied in an Introduction\\nWith these illustrations in mind, we shall be better\\nprepared to frame our own definition of Introduc-\\ntion by reviewing the history of the science.\\nFamiliar assumption has obscured to our minds the\\nfact that most of the New Testament writings really\\ncome to us without a title-page, destitute of date or\\nauthor s name, save such as late, ambiguous, and often\\ncontradictory tradition has supplied. Some lack be-\\nginning (Hebrews), or ending (Mark). The letters of\\nPaul, fortunately, are carefully superscribed with the\\nnames of author and recipients but without some\\nidea of the circumstances of the correspondence on\\nboth sides, they will be scarcely better understood\\nthan the audible half of a telephone conversation, and\\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, 1, 2, and\\n3 John are anonymous. The natural outgrowth of\\nthese conditions has been the science of Introduction.\\nThe Authorised Version still retains the attempts\\nof early scribes to furnish the required information\\nin its titles and subscripts, which in the later manu-\\nscripts gradually extended to greater and greater\\nlength. The beginnings of this accumulation of tra-\\nditional data can be traced to a period near the mid-\\ndle of the second century, when the Church began to\\nappreciate the special value of apostolic writings.\\nIts development is traced in Histories of the Forma-\\ntion of the Canon. Suffice it for the present that by\\nthe end of the second century the leading churches\\nof the Empire, east and west, were approximating\\nboth a uniform practice as to which writings out of\\n1 Referred to hereafter as AiS.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "CRITICISM vs. TRADITION 3\\nthe mass in circulation were suitable for public read-\\ning in the churches, and in justification of the selec-\\ntion a uniform tradition of their origin and history. 1\\nAs the object of the compilers of this tradition was\\nnot so much impartial history as the justification of\\ntheir own list as apostolic against rivals, later\\ngenerations are compelled to estimate and interpret\\ntheir conclusions in comparison with other authorities\\nand with the books themselves. But the birth of a\\ngenuine science was long delayed.\\nThe admirable Church History of Eusebius 2 (a.d. 324) Ancient\\nserved all the purposes of an Introduction to the New J^^ 110\\nTestament for a millennium, and is still the great the-\\nsaurus of information. True, a book entitled An Intro-\\nduction to the Holy Scriptures was written ca. 450 a.d.,\\nby a certain Hadrian, which Cassiodorus (f ca. 570)\\nenumerates and transcribes together with four similar\\nworks written between 380 and 551 but these really\\ntreat of methods of exegesis, while mediaeval and\\nCatholic writers down to the time of the Reformation\\ngive us no more than indiscriminate compilations of\\ntradition from Cassiodorus and the church historians\\nand commentators in defence of the received Canon.\\nEven Luther, Carlstadt, and Calvin, in debating the Criticism\\ngenuineness, inspiration, and canonicity of 2 Peter, former^. 6\\nJames, Eevelation, and other books, were actuated by\\na doctrinal rather than a historical interest, and made\\nno systematic attempt to supply the need. It was\\nrather in opposition to the doctrine of an infallible\\nScripture, developed by the post-Reformation dog-\\nmatists as an offset to the infallible hierocracy of\\nRome, that Richard Simon, priest of the Oratory at\\n1 The list adopted at Rome ca. 175 a.d. is given in the frag-\\nment discovered by Muratori in 1740. See p. 51.\\n2 Referred to as Eus. Hist. See the translation with notes\\nby A. C. McGiffert, Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, 1890.", "height": "2788", "width": "1776", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nModern\\ndiscussion.\\nFounders of\\nGerman\\nCriticism.\\nParis (t 1712), brought out the first treatise worthy\\nto be called an Introduction. 1\\nSimon devoted only the first 230 pages out of more\\nthan 2000 to problems of Introduction in the modern\\nsense but besides proving by textual criticism the\\nunauthenticity of Mk. 16 9-20, Jn. 7 53-8 11, 1 Jn.\\n5 7-8, he also discussed such questions of the higher\\ncriticism as the dates and order of the Gospels, the\\npurpose of Luke in writing his Gospel, and ancient\\nopinion, Oriental and Occidental, as to the Pauline\\nauthorship and canonicity of Hebrews.\\nSuch free handling of the tradition was, of course,\\ndenounced, especially by Protestants. But even Simon s\\nopponents were fain to imitate his attempt at a His-\\ntory of the New Testament, besides borrowing copi-\\nously from his material. But the interest was still\\npolemic, still there was insistence on treating the New\\nTestament as a unit, not merely every book of which,\\nbut each individual verse and letter, must be what\\ntradition represented, or the whole was religiously\\nworthless.\\nThe establishment of the science on a better basis\\nis largely owing to two German theologians, J. D. Mich-\\naelis 2 (f 1791) and J. S. Sender 3 (t 1791). The former\\nundertook to defend the genuineness and credibility of\\nthe books rather than their divine inspiration the\\nlatter proved that the Canon was not a mere divine\\nfiat, but the outcome of a process of human selection,\\nprovidentially guided, indeed, yet so slow and halting\\nthat by 200 a.d. it had reached no more than the broad\\n1 Histoire critique du N. T., Rotterdam, 1689-95.\\n2 Einleitung in die Gottlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes,\\n1750-1780 The edition of 8 1777 is the first to treat the entire\\nN. T. (Engl. tr.).\\n8 Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, 1771-\\n1775 (four parts).", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 5\\noutline of its results, and for centuries thereafter con-\\ntinued in dispute. 1 It was natural to hold that a selec-\\ntion so fallible in character must be reexamined in its\\ngrounds and perhaps altered, as if the function of In-\\ntroduction were to criticise canonicity. 2\\nHere was an unfortunate confusion of the theological The limits\\nquestion of the wisdom of the selection made by the k e tween\\nJ science am\\nFathers under providential guidance for the practical doctriDe\\npurposes of edification, with the historical question of obscure\\nthe correctness of the theory and tradition of Apos-\\ntolic authorship on which they rested it. The choice\\nis a fact of natural (i.e. divine) selection, which\\nevery added century of the Church s experience makes\\nmore immutable. The theory was demonstrably false\\nin many particulars and has varied in every age.\\nIt was long before theologians could see that a Presump-\\ndefence of the traditional date, origin, arid literary\\ncharacter of each New Testament book is a mere\\nencumbrance to the doctrines of inspiration, revelation,\\nand canonicity, obstructing the legitimate inquiry of\\nthe historian. Critics were equally slow to see that\\nthe discovery that tradition often misrepresents the\\nmode of the divine revelation and propagation of the\\ntruth is no refutation of the fact.\\n1 Cf. the admirable statement of Loescher, quoted by Driver,\\nIntrod. to 0. T., p. 36 Nonuno, quoddicunt, actuab hominibus,\\nsed paulatim, a Deo, animormn temporumque rectore, productus.\\n2 The definition Criticism of the Canon, meaning investi-\\ngation of the theory and tradition of Apostolic authorship on\\nwhich the selection of the canonical books was theoretically\\nbased, is practically misleading. The Bible Canon is a finality, v\\na survival of the fittest in a process unalterably complete. But\\nfitness in this case was determined far less by the critical\\nopinions of rabbis and Fathers than by the instinct of Synagogue\\nand Church, retaining in use books found practically to embody\\nthe faith, a long- deferred, fully enlightened verdict of the people,\\nwhose voice thus uttered is the voice of God.\\ntions hard to\\novercome.", "height": "2788", "width": "1768", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nRevolt\\nagainst\\nmodern\\ntradition.\\nResults.\\nThe Pauline\\nand Johan-\\nnine writ-\\nMichaelis undertook to defend the genuineness of\\nevery New Testament book, but had admitted the\\ntask to be difficult in the case of Jude. The spirit\\nof revolt against a modern tradition whose dogmas\\nencroached upon foreign ground soon proved that\\nthere would be difficulty in other and much graver\\ncases. The early years of our century are signalised\\nby an outburst of debate not merely reviving the dis-\\nputes of the first three centuries, but soon calling in\\nquestion the authenticity of the hitherto unquestioned.\\nIn most cases the debate is still open, in few only can\\nit be said to be approaching settlement to-day. 1\\nAncient tradition had been practically unanimous\\nin accepting all the epistles which profess to be from\\nPaul. The Pastoral Epistles were now disputed, not\\nso much because of their rejection by Marcion (140 a.d.),\\nas on internal grounds. 2 Thessalonians followed suit.\\nJohn and 1 John had been traditionally attributed since\\nca. 175 a.d. to the Apostle, with all but unanimous\\nconsent. 2 Bretschneider 3 now brought against these a\\ncriticism of such weight that while its own author\\nquailed and retracted before the storm of protest\\naroused, the question of the authorship of the Johan-\\n1 Of authors whose Introductions followed that of Michaelis\\nonly H. K. A Hanlein (Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schrif-\\nten des N. T., 1794-1800, 2 1801-1809 Abstract, 1802) and\\nJ. E. C. Schmidt (Historiseh-kritische Einleitung in d. N. T.\\n1804-1805, 3 1818) need be mentioned. The latter was first to\\nquestion the authenticity of 2 Thess. and the Pastoral Epistles.\\nSchleiermacher followed, casting the weight of his great influ-\\nence against 1 Tim., but failing to appreciate its solidarity with\\n2 Tim. and Tit.\\n2 An unimportant sect represented by Caius of Rome (180-\\n235), called Alogi by Epiphanius, had rejected the Johannine\\nwritings on grounds as arbitrary as Marcion s.\\n8 Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolartim Joannis Apostoli\\nIndole et Origine, 1820.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 7\\nnine writings remains to this day the most open as well\\nas the most difficult of New Testament criticism.\\nNeedless to say that since Simon s day an ever in- The General\\ncreasing number of scholars agree with the verdict of pist es\\nOrigen (230 a.d.) as to Hebrews, God only knows\\nwho wrote it moderns adding, however, that Paul\\ncertainly did not. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John,\\n3 John, Eevelation, the disputed books of antiquity, 1\\nwere of course widely denied to their ostensible or re-\\nputed authors. Even 1 Peter, hitherto undisputed,\\nwas admitted by Sender and Eichhorn (1818) as Pe-\\ntrine only in an indirect sense. The state of the science\\nduring this period is clearly shown in the Introduc-\\ntions of two great German scholars, J. G. Eichhorn, 2\\nalready named, and W M. L. de Wette.\\nEichhorn applied a too undisciplined conjecture to The\\nthe problem, but rendered his most real service in ^ynop ic\\nformulating into a definite theory the fruits of earlier\\ndiscussion of the curious combination of identity and\\ndissimilarity between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, known\\nas Synoptic Gospels from their common point of view.\\nTwenty years before, Storr, Koppe, and Michaelis had\\nattacked this problem from the standpoint of the his-\\ntorian of literature rather than the hitherto sovereign\\nharmonist. Augustine (396 a.d.) had, indeed, offered\\nan explanation, holding in his treatise On the Agree-\\nment of the Evangelists (I, 2, 4, 12), that Mark merely\\nfollowed in the footsteps of Matthew, abridging his\\nGospel. This theory of dependence on the part of\\none evangelist on the other was now applied in various\\norders, and Griesbach 3 supplemented it by suggested\\n1 So Eus. Mst., Ill, 25, 1, following Origen (Ibid., vi., 25,\\n3-14) Eusebius personally would have rejected Rev. and 2 Pet.\\n2 Einleitung in d. N. T., 1804-27 (five volumes).\\n8 Commentatio qua Marci Evang. totum e 3Iatthcei et Lucce\\nCommentariis descriptum esse monstratur, 1789-90.", "height": "2780", "width": "1740", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "8\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ncombination Mark had made a somewhat servile ab-\\nstract of Matthew and Luke. But Eichhorn became\\nthe founder of modern Gospel criticism by showing\\nthat the coincidences and differences antedate our pres-\\nent writers. He advanced the theory of a primitive\\nGospel employed by all three. This Urevangelium\\ntheory for twenty years was variously modified and\\nadapted to meet the complicated phenomena. 1\\nDe Wette. The great Introduction of all this period, however,\\nwas that of W. M. L. de Wette. 2 It was conceived in\\na truly scientific spirit and shows historical method\\nbut the author s principle, to go no further in affirma-\\ntion than the point to which we are led by tangible\\ndata, gave it a somewhat negative character. Ephe-\\nsians, already questioned by Schleiermacher, De Wette\\npronounced a verbose amplification of Colossians,\\nand at first 3 confirmed the doubts already expressed\\nby Schmidt (op. tit.) against 2 Thessalonians. With\\nSchmidt, Eichhorn, and Bretschneider he would add\\nto the disputed books of antiquity the Pastoral Epis-\\ntles, 1 Peter, John, and 1 John.\\nSummary. Thus in the first third of the century we see the\\ntheological world, Catholic and Protestant, not in\\nGermany only, but in Holland, France, England, and\\neven beyond the Atlantic, roused to the consciousness\\nthat the reign of tradition as to the origin of the ca-\\nnonical books was imperilled, if not already overthrown.\\n1 The Synoptic problem soon became a discipline in itself,\\nwhose older history is best summarised in Holtzmann s Die\\nSynopt. Evang., 1863, pp. 15-43. For the subsequent history\\nand present state of the problem see O. Cone, Gospel- Criticism,\\netc., 1891, and articles by Sanday, Expositor, IV, iii, and\\nWendt, New World, June, 1895.\\n2 Lehrbuch der historisch-lcritischen Einleitung in die Bibel\\nA. und N. T., 1826, 6 1848. The edition by Messner and Lune-\\nmann 6 1860) modifies in a spirit of conservatism.\\n8 In editions 1-4.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "CBITICISM VS. TBABITION 9\\nIndeed, the revolt had gone further still. Schleier-\\nmacher and Credner 2 had urged the necessity of dis-\\ntinguishing our Matthew from the simple compilation\\nof discourses of the Lord in Hebrew, to which the\\noldest tradition bore witness, leaving of undisputed\\nNew Testament writings nothing in the strict sense\\nApostolic save eight epistles of Paul.\\nAgain a Roman Catholic scholar came to the rescue. Conserva-\\nThe ablest as well as most brilliant contribution from action\\nthis branch of the Church down to our own day is that\\nof J. L. Hug 3 (fl846), who skilfully adopted the\\nmethods of the new science only to prove how need-\\nless were its criticisms of the traditional views. Ob-\\njections to each and all of the canonical books were\\nplausibly explained away. The evangelists simply\\nmade use of one another in the order of the canon.\\nIn England Home s Introduction 4 fulfilled a similar\\napologetic purpose. Meanwhile Michaelis, Hug, and\\nDe Wette were translated into French and English.\\nBut Germany remained the home of the science. Progress in\\nHere it was vindicating its right to a place among German y-\\ntheological disciplines by definition of its scope and\\ndisavowal of a polemic or negative animus. De Wette\\nhad conceived his task as a branch of hermeneutics,\\nbut confessed at the outset that Introduction is\\ndevoid of any true scientific principle and necessary\\nconnection. His work, accordingly, was a mere\\naggregate of material adapted to the Bible-reader s\\nneed of a historical background. Schleiermacher urged\\na development of the science in this direction, but\\n1 Stiidien u. Kritiken, 1832, p. 735.\\n2 Beitrdge zur Einleitung in die bibl. Schriften, 1832-1838,\\nand Einleitung i. d. N. T., 1836.\\n3 Einleitung i. d. Schriften d. N T., Freiburg, 1808, 1847.\\n4 An Introd. to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the\\nHoly Scripture, 1818, 1846.", "height": "2768", "width": "1724", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "10\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ndefinition of\\nIntroduc-\\ntion.\\nhimself evinced a more historical point of view than\\nhis predecessors by adopting a chronological order for\\nhis discussion, placing first the Pauline Epistles. In\\nLucke s preface to the posthumous work, 1 however,\\nIntroduction is still defined as criticism of the\\nCanon. 2 Credner, on the contrary, had defined it as\\nthe history of the New Testament, making the\\nscience a branch of the history of literature, though\\nhis method was an investigation of the individual books\\nin the order of the printed text. The first to give\\nsystematic application to the principle was E. Reuss\\nFirst precise (f 1891), the veteran Biblical scholar of Strassburg. 3\\nReuss undertook to relate (1) the origin of the indi-\\nvidual writings of the New Testament, according to\\nthe order of date which he believed he could deter-\\nmine (Literary History) (2) the account of the union\\nof these books in a sacred collection received in the\\nchurches (History of the Formation of the Canon)\\n(3) the account of the preservation and transmission\\nof this collection (History of the Text) (4) its dif-\\nfusion (History of the Translations), and (5) its inter-\\npretation (History of Exegesis).\\nThus the science of Introduction was gradually re-\\nduced to a definite scope and method. Treated as a\\nbranch of ecclesiastical history it escaped the Scylla\\nof mere negative polemic, and the Charybdis of mere\\napologetic. At the same time it shook off the incubus\\nof indefinite extension into the domains of general\\nhermeneutics, Biblical archaeology, philology, geog-\\nraphy, general history, with which it had been en-\\ncumbered. No wonder that Julicher in his admirable\\nThe science\\nattains a\\ndefinite\\nscope and\\nmethod.\\n1 Einleitung i. d. N. T., edited by Wolde (Sammtliehe\\nWerke, i, 8, 1845).\\n2 So even Baur and Holtzmann but in a different sense.\\n8 Die Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften N. T., 1842, 5 1887. Eng-\\nlish translation published by Houghton and Mifflin.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 11\\nhandbook, 1 treats Eeuss s definition as final, declaring jiiiicher s\\nIntroduction to be that branch of historical science, defimtl0n\\nin particular of the history of literature, whose sub-\\nject is the New Testament for in the meantime\\nhad appeared a noble work of this type, the widely\\nknown Introduction of F. Bleek 2 (f 1859), not yet\\nwholly free from the digressions of De Wette, but\\nsteadily pursuing the historical purpose and method,\\nthough with more conservative results. Bleek reluc-\\ntantly, but decisively, abandoned the identification of\\nour canonical Matthew with the Apostolic Logia, and\\ntreated 1 Timothy and 2 Peter as unauthentic. Beve-\\nlation he attributed not to John the Apostle, but to\\na supposed Ephesian elder of that name. He main-\\ntained with vigour and true scientific method the\\nauthenticity of the other books.\\nThe great critical movement inaugurated by Strauss Strauss\\nand the Tubingen scholars, which midway in the cen- a Kenan\\ntury shook the theological world to its foundations,\\nhas permanently affected the science of Introduction,\\nbut not by its specific conclusions. The celebrated\\nauthor of the mythical theory of New Testament\\nstory 3 made no pretensions to have applied the pro-\\ncesses of literary or documentary criticism to his\\nsources, for the very reason that he considered his\\nCanons of historical criticism to have already proved\\nthem unworthy of the effort. Almost equal neglect\\ncharacterised his great rival in France. 4 His ortho-\\ndox opponents generally took the same position from\\n1 Einleitung i. d. N. T., 2 1894, p. 1.\\n2 Einleitung i. d. X. T., 1862. Engl, by T. T. Clark, 1883.\\nThe third and fourth German editions by W. Mangold (1875,\\n1886) are adapted by footnotes to the advance of the science.\\nThese often contradict the text.\\n8 Das Leben Jesu, D. E. Stra,uss, 1835 (Engl, transl.).\\n4 Vie de Jesus, E. Kenan, 1863, 13 1882 (Engl, transl.).", "height": "2784", "width": "1740", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "12\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION\\nHistorical\\nvs. literary\\ncriticism.\\nTubingen s\\ninfluence\\nupon Intro-\\nduction.\\nthe opposite motive, to their own great detriment.\\nThe Tubingen School, founded by F. C. Baur, was\\nalso a school of historical rather than literary criti-\\ncism, but not so oblivious of the need for a basis in\\nscientific analysis of the documents. The Synoptic\\nwritings became, accordingly, the special field of\\ndebate, but results were almost wholly vitiated by\\nundue haste to apply a special theory of the progress\\nof events, making use of negative results already\\nattained in behalf of this theory, and employing it in\\nturn against some of the few remaining undisputed\\nsources. Doubtless it was time that historical criti-\\ncism should endeavour to draw from even crudely clas-\\nsified materials a more consistent picture of the age\\nwhich gave them birth. Early Christian literature,\\ninside and outside the Canon, is the precipitate of a\\ngreat movement of religious thought, and must be\\nstudied as the product of definite currents of human\\nopinion in a continuous process. Theoretically, there-\\nfore, the result should serve to interpret church tradi-\\ntion as embodied in its canon. Practically Baur and\\nhis adherents were as overconfident in their recon-\\nstruction of history as their dogmatic opponents, and\\nthey used it as if bent on destroying tradition rather\\nthan interpretiDg it. Nevertheless, the attempt to\\nbring the somewhat vague, disconnected, and negative\\nresults of literary criticism into definite relations with\\nhistorical processes was salutary. Baur wrote no Intro-\\nduction, nor did any of his earlier followers. Only a\\ndeeply and wisely modified remnant of Tubingen views\\nremains in its one great Introduction by A. Hilgenfeld\\nof Jena. 1 But the discussions of special topics by Baur,\\nZeller, and Schwegler 2 revolutionised the methods of\\nthe science.\\n1 Einleitung i. d. N. T., 1875.\\n2 See in particular by Baur Die Christuspartei in Korinth", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "CEITICISM VS. TRADITION 13\\nThe fulcrum for the whole theory was found in the The\\ngreater Pauline Epistles, whose genuineness had never l^ff^\\nbeen questioned, and whose internal character might\\nwell be assumed to make suspicion forever impossible.\\nAs contemporary letters these threw an unintended\\nand thus more trustworthy light upon the period. Its\\ndominant feature seemed to be the struggle of infant\\nChristianity to free itself from the swaddling bands\\nof Judaism. The echoes of this great struggle are\\nstill audible at the close of the second century, when\\nliterature becomes fairly abundant. Midway of the\\ncentury stands Marcion, champion of an extreme Pau-\\nlinism, rejecting all Scripture save ten epistles of Paul\\nand the Gospel of Luke. A decade or two later were\\nplaced the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, sup-\\nposedly representing an extreme form of Judaistic her-\\nesy and attacking Paul under the guise of Simon Magus.\\nWriters of this period show that the great body of the\\nChurch had come meantime to occupy a mediate, though\\nnot altogether consistent, position, from which extrem-\\nists on both sides were excluded as heretics. What\\nmore natural than to find here evidences of a histori-\\ncal progress of Hegelian type, from the antagonism\\nof Jewish (Petrine) against Gentile (Pauline) Chris-\\ntianity to the higher unity of the Catholic Christian-\\nity of Justin Martyr and Irenseus, and in the stages of\\nadvance the touchstone and key to the New Testa-\\nment writings The historical setting of each would\\nin the Tub. Zts. f. Th., 1831 Paulus der Apostel c, 1845,\\n2 1866 (English); Kritische TJntersuchungen ilber d. Kan.\\nEvang., 1847 and for a comprehensive view, Kirchengeschichte\\nder drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1853.\\nZeller s contributions as editor of the Theol. Jahrb. extend\\nfrom 1842 to 1857. His Apostelgeschichte, 1854, appeared in\\nEnglish in 1875, and has value.\\nSchwegler set forth the theory comprehensively in his Das\\nnachapost. Zeitalter, 1846.", "height": "2792", "width": "1740", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "14\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nTubingen\\nviews of\\nthe history\\ncorrected.\\nHarnack s\\nfour cur-\\nrents of the\\nApostolic\\nAge.\\nbe revealed by its animus or tendency, whether\\npolemic or conciliatory.\\nThe church historians of more recent times, Eitschl 1\\nand Harnack, 2 have taught us that Baur s supposedly\\ndominant issue of early Christianity had already\\nceased to be dominant by 70 a.d., when the last\\nclaims of Jerusalem to be the centre of Christen-\\ndom forever disappeared. Thus Paul himself may\\nwell have witnessed, if he did not personally effect,\\nthe great reconciliation for which in Eom. 15 30-33\\nwe see him risking his life (cf. Acts 20 22-24). Not\\ntwo but four principal currents of thought must be\\ndistinguished in the later Apostolic age, whose ten-\\ndencies are thus classified by Harnack (1) The Gos-\\npel has to do with the people of Israel, and with the\\nGentile world only on the condition that believers\\nattach themselves to the people of Israel (particular-\\nism and legalism, in practice and in principle, which,\\nhowever, was not to cripple the obligation to prose-\\ncute the work of Missions). (2) The Gospel has to\\ndo with Jews and Gentiles the first, as believers in\\nChrist, are under obligation as before to observe the\\nLaw, the latter are not (universalism in principle, par-\\nticularism in practice). (3) The Gospel has to do\\nwith both Jews and Gentiles no one is any longer\\nunder obligation to observe the Law for the Law is\\nabolished, and the salvation procured by Christ s death\\nis appropriated by faith. The Old Testament in its\\nliteral sense is of divine origin, but was intended from\\nthe first only for a definite epoch of history (Paulin-\\nism universalism in principle and in practice tem-\\nporary validity of the whole Law.) (4) The Gospel\\nhas to do Avith Jews and Gentiles no one need, there-\\n1 Entstehung der altcath. Kirche, 2 1857 (Engl, transl.).\\n2 Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 1888- 3 94. Engl. 1896.\\nChronologie d. altchristl. Literatur, 1897.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 15\\nfore, be under obligation to observe the ceremonial\\ncommandments and sacrificial worship, because these\\ncommandments themselves are only the wrappings of\\nmoral and spiritual commandments which the Gospel\\nexhibits in the perfect form (universalism in princi-\\nple and in practice in virtue of a neutralising of the\\ndistinction between Law and Gospel, old and new.\\nThe Law never had validity save in a spiritualised\\nand universalised interpretation). 1\\nFor the sober second thought of the school of Baur, Later repre-\\ncorrected by church historians within and without th fschooi. 0f\\nthe pale, we must look to the brilliant work of C.\\nWeizsacker 2 both as a literary and historical critic.\\nFor it was in the field of Introduction that retractation\\nwas most imperative and complete. The tendency\\nwhich Tubingen critics found so clearly marked in\\nGospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, and by which they Weizsacker.\\nundertook wholly to supersede tradition, is now ac-\\nknowledged to have been almost wholly fanciful. Eig-\\n1 Abridged from Harnack, Hist, of Dogma (Engl.), Vol. I,\\nch. ii, Supplement 2. Of these four tendencies only (2) and\\n(3) are directly represented in the N. T. (1) is the view of\\nthe Judaisers, overcome by the common opposition of Paul,\\nJames, and the older Apostles. (2) is the view taken by James\\nand the older Apostles, and is the basic idea of the Synoptic\\nwriters and Rev. In practice it met the difficulty of finding a\\nmodus vivendi between Jewish and Gentile Christians (Acts 15\\n28, 29, Eev. 2 14, 20, Aid. 6:3). (3) was at first accepted by\\nPeter as well as Paul (Gal. 2 11 sq.). The breach at Antioch\\nwas caused by Peter s reaction to (2) under the influence of\\ncertain from James. (4) may be called Hellenism or Alex-\\nandrianism, and found points of connection with pre-Christian\\nattempts to universalise Judaism. Apollos would seem to be its\\nN. T. representative. Elements of Acts (ch. 7), Heb. and Jn.\\nare affected by it, as the Synoptics and Rev. have elements that\\nstill show traces of (1).\\n2 Das apost. Zeitalter d. christl. Kirche, 1886, 2 1892 (Engl,\\ntransl. The Apostolic Age).", "height": "2788", "width": "1772", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "1G\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nExtreme,\\nbut now\\nabandoned,\\npositions of\\nBaur.\\nTheir\\nposition on\\nquestions of\\nIntroduc-\\ntion.\\n1. Pauline\\nEpistles.\\norous application of the theory led Baur to outdo the\\nscepticism of Schmidt, Bretschneider, and De Wette.\\nOnly Boinans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians were\\nleft as authentic Pauline Epistles, the other six in his\\njudgment reflecting various phases of the struggle\\nagainst Gnosticism, which followed after the Petro-\\nPauline controversy. Matthew and Luke exhibited\\ntraces of more than one superimposed type of doctrine,\\nbut that of Mark was latest, a colourless compend of\\nMatthew and Luke of the conciliatory type. Matthew\\nwas Petrine, Luke and Acts Pauline, but modified in\\nthe interests of conciliation. The Johannine Epistles\\nand Gospel were intelligible only in the age of the\\nsecond century theologians, when the Catholic faith\\nwas assuming shape. Only Bevelation exhibited the\\nintense and narrow Jewish conservatism of that\\nApostle who in the compact of Gal. 2 9 had classed\\nhimself with Peter as an Apostle to the circumcision\\nonly. 1 Peter, as deutero-Pauline in character, was\\nnecessarily late and unauthentic, James anti-Pauline,\\nbut late, Jude and 2 Peter anti-Gnostic, like the\\nPastoral Epistles.\\nThe inexorable march of discovery has forced back,\\nby fully half a century, some of the latest dates as-\\nsigned by the tendency critics, while the greatest\\nof Baur s followers have made haste to retract his\\nunjustifiable rejection of the Pauline Epistles not pre-\\nviously questioned. Holsten, 1 it is true, remained rigid\\nto the end in rejecting all but the four, even while his\\nkeenly discriminating interpretation of Paulinism 2 ef-\\nfected more than a conciliation between Peter and Paul\\nbut Hilgenfeld, 3 the most distinctive living adherent of\\niZts.f.w. Th., 1872, p. 456.\\n2 Evang. d. Paulas a. d. Petrus, 1867, and Evang. d. Paulas\\ndargestellt, Pt. I, 1880, Pt. II (posthumous), 1898.\\n8 Sist.-krit. Einleitung i. d. N T., 1875.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 17\\nthe school, has proved that 1 Thessalonians, Philippi-\\nans, and Philemon must be by the same author as\\nGalatians and Corinthians, while Weizsacker, Baur s\\nworthy successor at Tubingen, and 0. Pfleiderer, 1\\nnearest to Holsten of living interpreters of Paul,\\nrecede still further toward the pre-Ttibingen views,\\nrejecting as un-Pauline only 2 Thessalonians, Ephe-\\nsians, Colossians(?), and the Pastoral Epistles, and\\nadmitting a Pauline basis even here, at least in Ephe-\\nsians and 2 Timothy.\\nBaur s Synoptic theory has not a living adherent, for 2. Synoptic\\nVolkmar 2 and Pfleiderer follow the prevailing view of Gos P els\\nthe dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark, dat-\\ning their proto-Mark in 70-80 a.d., Luke ca. 100-110,\\nMatthew 110-130. Weizsacker 3 scarcely differs from\\nthe views of Holtzmann, and even Hilgenfeld retains\\nonly the priority of a proto-Matthew to Mark. Thus\\nin matters of date and authorship criticism reverts to\\nwhere it was before the rise of the Tubingen School.\\nSays Harnack, Baur s brilliant attempt to explain\\nCatholicism as a product of the mutual conflict and\\nneutralising of Jewish and Gentile Christianity reck-\\noned with two factors, of which the one had no sig-\\nnificance at all, and the other only an indirect effect.\\nThe growth of the Church was a progressive Hellenis-\\ning of Old Testament religion in the Gentile world,\\nbut the currents traceable in its literature were many\\nand complex. Of true Jewish Christianity there is no\\ntrace in the New Testament save indirectly in Paul\\n1 Das Urchristenthum, seine Schriften u. Lehren, 1887, and\\nDer Paulinismus, 1873, 2 1890 (Engl, transl.).\\n2 Die Evangelien, oder Marcus u. d. Synopsis, 1870, 2 1876\\nJesus Nazarenus, 1882. Substantially represented by Super-\\nnatural Religion, an Inquiry, etc., 1874, 8 1879.\\n3 Evangelische Geschichte, 1864.\\nHist, of Dogma (Engl, of Buchanan), I, p. 293.", "height": "2788", "width": "1740", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "18\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION\\nResultant\\nviews in the\\nhistory of\\nN. T. litera-\\nture.\\nand the underlying sources of Bevelation 1 and the Syn-\\noptic writers. True Paulinism was also very limited\\nin its direct influence. Almost equally strong is the\\nreaction against the violence of tendency theories of\\nforgery.\\nYet we owe much to Baur. He has taught us,\\nsays Julicher, to appreciate the books of the New\\nTestament in a truly historical way, as products of\\nthe spirit of Christianity at a definite time and as\\nwitnesses for it. In this light we may class them\\nin four great groups, according to their purpose. The\\nbeginnings of the literature emanate from the struggle\\nagainst pure legalistic Judaism, in Paul s day a still\\nthreatening though vanquished power. But there is\\na rapid change of front. In the latest writings the\\ndanger is from Gnosticism, a theosophic, eclectic prop-\\naganda, which sought to Hellenise Jewish and Chris-\\ntian ideas in systems now ascetic, now antinomian,\\nbut always dualistic. Internally the growth of the\\nChurch is marked by the growth of a didactic, cate-\\nchetic literature illustrated in the Synoptic writings,\\n1 Peter and James, and theologies illustrated in He-\\nbrews and John.\\nSuch are the impressions left in our field from a\\nhalf century of historical criticism. Harnack rightly\\nwelcomes the retreat all along the line of the ten-\\ndency critics as a return to tradition. What should\\nbe observed, however, is that the tradition in question is\\nnot that of the eighteenth, but of the second, century\\nfor it is significant that in the same breath he cites as\\nits truest interpreters the Introductions of Julicher\\nand Holtzmann, 2 the two which, if any, represent the\\nbest results of the schools of Bleek and Baur. 3\\n1 Jewish pure and simple in the peculiar view of Harnack.\\n2 Lehrbuch d. hist.-krit Einleitung i. d. N. T., 1885, 3 1892.\\n8 Reference in Chron. d. altchr. Lit., pp. 8, 10.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "CBITICISM VS. TRADITION 19\\nA psychological law seems to decree that, in move- The\\nmerits of opinion, men shall group themselves into an e f t r e\\nextreme right of immovable conservatives, a right cen- right of\\ntre of conservatives capable of advance, a left centre criticism\\nof cautious progressives, and an extreme left of radi-\\ncals. So in the case of the great wave set in motion\\nby Strauss and Baur. Of the first group we need say\\nnothing, because mere reassertions of tradition have\\nno effect on progress, convincing only those convinced\\nbefore. Scarcely more than this were the anti-Tubin-\\ngen replies of Guericke l and Hofmann, 2 though Lut-\\nhardt, Hofmann s pupil, did better work in defence of\\nthe Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. 3 But\\nCredner, Schleiermacher, and De Wette had successors\\nwho learned from the Tubingen School, while refusing\\nto be carried away by its tendency theory. Such\\nwas the erratic H. Ewald. 4 Such were Reuss, Bleek,\\nand Mangold, already mentioned, with whom we have\\nventured to class Julicher as the most liberal of con-\\nservatives, though he himself defers to Holtzmann, to\\nwhose work, accordingly, we must look as that of the\\nmost conservative of liberals. It began with an epoch-\\nmaking study of the Synoptic problem.\\nGieseler s 5 modification of the Urevangelium theory, position\\nwhich substituted an oral Gospel, grown stereotyped fthe\\nby use, for Eichhorn s primitive source, had proved of in Gospel\\nsmall service. As little resulted from that of Paulus, criticism\\nSchleiermacher, Lachmann, and H. Ewald, breaking\\n1 Hist.-krit. Einleitung, 1843, 8 1868, as N. T. Isagogik.\\n2 Die h. Schrift d. N. T., 1862-86.\\n8 Johanneische Ursprung d. vierten Evang., 1874, 2 1876\\n(Engl, transl.).\\nGesch. d. VolTces Israel, Bd. V, 1855, 3 1867 VI, 1858,\\n8 1868; VII, 1859, 2 1869 (Engl, transl.).\\n5 Hist.-krit. Versuch uber d. Entstehung u. d. fruhesten\\nSchicksale d. Evang., 1818.", "height": "2784", "width": "1732", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "20 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nup the proto-Gospel into groups of narratives. Apolo-\\ngists persistently seek to magnify the Logia as nearly as\\npossible to the dimensions of the present Matthew, and\\nthus make of this a proto-gospel but critics will not be-\\nlieve in the traceless disappearance of a primitive Apos-\\ntolic source of the assumed proportions, any more than\\nthey can conceive a process for its concoction. Such a\\nthing might well provoke the sweeping scepticism of\\nStrauss. This, however, was met by Weisse^nd Wilke 2\\nwith an effective documentary criticism, which gave to\\nour canonical Mark its true position as a fundamental\\nsource, till Holtzmann, 3 sifting down the multitude\\nof discussions of the problem, and rejecting tendency\\ntheories, laid down as the basis of future study the\\npresent so-called two-document theory. This recog-\\nnises in Mark and the Logia the chief elements which,\\nin different combination and with the addition of some\\nfurther material, have been used in the compilation of\\nour Gospels of Matthew and Luke.\\nAnd in the The same mastery of critical method was applied\\nother books, D y Holtzmann to the chief problems of Pauline liter-\\nature, 4 the comprehensive results of criticism being\\nsummed up finally in his Introduction already men-\\ntioned. Here he places the composition of Mark\\nabout 70, Matthew and Luke 90-94 a.d. The names\\nMatthew and Luke he regards as derived from the\\nemployment in the one case of the Logia, in the other\\nin Acts of the journal of Paul s companion. Of\\nthe Johannine writings only Revelation might perhaps\\nbe attributed to the Apostle as a compilation ca. 95\\na.d. of older prophecies. The Gospel and Epistles\\n1 Die evang. Oesch. kritisch u. philosophisch behandelt, 1838.\\n2 Der Urevangelist, etc., 1838.\\n8 Die synopt. Evang. ,1863.\\n4 Kritik der Eph. und Colosserbriefe, 1872, and Die Pastoral-\\nbriefe, 1880.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "CBITICISM VS. TRADITION 21\\nof John are slightly later. Of the Pauline Epistles\\nonly 2 Thessalonians is wholly rejected. Colossians and\\nEphesians are different elaborations of a single Paul-\\nine original. Even the Pastoral Epistles contain Paul-\\nine elements, especially 2 Timothy, adapted ca. 100\\nto combat incipient Gnosticism. Hebrews is, of course,\\ndeutero-Pauline, 1 Peter is dated under Trajan on ac-\\ncount of the type of persecution presupposed. The\\nother Catholic Epistles are dated later still.\\nThe position of Julicher is still more moderate.\\nHe admits 2 Thessalonians and Colossians, while still\\ndoubtful of Ephesians, and otherwise follows the more\\nconservative alternatives of Holtzmann.\\nBut from this significant agreement in matters of Radicalism.\\nIntroduction of Ritschlians with the followers of Baur,\\nwe must turn to the handful of Dutch and Swiss\\nscholars who have lately sought to atone for what\\nthey seem to regard as an abandonment of the Tubin-\\ngen holy war against tradition by a tendency criti-\\ncism so extreme as to undermine the very basis of\\ncriticism itself. Following the preposterous attempt\\nof Pier son and Naber l in Holland to throw doubt upon\\nthe historicity of the person of Jesus, as well as the\\nauthenticity of all the Pauline Epistles, A. D. Loman 2\\nundertook to galvanise the long defunct ultra-radi-\\ncalism of Bruno Bauer 3 (f 1882) by an inversion of the\\nTubingen axiom. The journal of Paul s companion\\nin Acts 16 10-18, 20 5-17, 21 1-18, etc., is made the\\nonly contemporary writing of the New Testament.\\n1 Verisimilia: Laceram conditionem N. T. exemplis illu-\\nstrarunt et ab origine repetierunt A. Pierson et S. A. Naber, 1886.\\nWittily refuted by the O. T. critic A. Kuenen in a review in the\\nTh. Tijdschr., entitled Verisimilia?\\n2 Qusestiones PaulinaB, Th. Tijds., 1882, 1883, 1886.\\ns Krit. d. Evang., 1850-52; Apostelgesch., 1850; Krit. d.\\nPaul. Briefe, 1850-52, Christus u. d. Caesaren, 1877.", "height": "2784", "width": "1724", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "22 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nThe discrepancies between this and Paul prove the\\nunauthenticity of all the Epistles in their present\\nform, and the mythical character of the Gospel story\\nThe arguments advanced have most force in the less\\nextravagant writings of R. Steck 1 and D. Vblter, who\\nreject, however, only certain parts of the greater\\nEpistles. 2 These views have met such thorough-going\\nrefutation, particularly at the hands of Holsten 3 and\\nClemen, 4 not to speak of conservatives like Gloel s and\\nZahn, 6 and liberals like Holtzmann, 7 that we are con-\\nstrained to join the great majority of scholars of whom\\na present leader of the school complains that they\\ntreat the theory as unworthy of serious consideration. 8\\nCriticism in It is to be regretted that on the outskirts of the\\not er an s. arena w h ere criticism encounters a more solidly\\nentrenched traditionalism than in Germany, extreme\\nviews are most in evidence. Eew, indeed, are the gen-\\nuine contributions to the simple unpolemic progress\\nof the science from Dutch, French, or English scholars.\\nThe anti-supernaturalism of Renan continues in France\\nto give undue importance to questions of historical\\ncriticism, making the cautious liberalism of Sabatier 9\\nexceptional, and setting the more radical criticism of\\nthe two Eevilles, d Eichthal, and Havet 10 in mutually\\n1 Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, etc., 1888.\\n2 Komposition d. Paul. Hauptbriefe, I, 1890.\\n8 Six arts, in Prot. Kirchenztg, 1888.\\n4 Einheitlichkeit d. Paul. Briefe, 1894.\\n6 Jungste Eritik d. Gal., 1890.\\n6 Einleitung, 9, 1898.\\n7 Einleitung, Kp. V, 11, 1892.\\n8 Van Manen, Paulus I und II, 1891. The complaint is made\\nmainly as to English scholars in Expos. Times, September, 1898.\\n9 Essai sur les Sources de la Vie de Jesus, les trois premiers\\nEvangiles et le quatrieme, 1866 Vapotre Paul, 2 1891 (Engl.\\n1896), and Apocalypse de St. Jean, 1888.\\n10 See under Synoptic Gospels.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 23\\ninjurious opposition to the scholarly but slowly pro-\\ngressive conservatism of the veteran Godet. 1\\nEnglish scholarship, too, has either lacked indepen- English\\ndent productive power, or been preoccupied by polemic criticism\\ninterest. In special departments Conybeare and How-\\nson, 2 Lightfoot, Ezra Abbot, 3 and others have made\\ncontributions fully abreast of German scholarship;\\nbut general Introductions of independent value are\\nlacking. The polemic of S. Davidson, 4 reproducing\\nextreme Tubingen radicalism, provoked from G.\\nSalmon 5 a learned and brilliant, but equally polemic,\\nreply from the opposite extreme while popular\\nIntroductions, like those of J. E. Lumby, 6 M. Dods, 7\\nand even the voluminous productions of J. E. Gloag 8\\ndo little more than restate tradition. American his-\\ntorical criticism has its Weizsacker in A. C. McGif-\\nfert, 9 reversing many of the conclusions, though not\\nlowering the scholarly standard of his predecessor, 10\\n1 Introd. au N. T., 1892, 1898 (Engl, transl. of Vol. I, 1894).\\n2 Life and Epistles of St. Paid. Latest of the many editions,\\n1894.\\n8 See the Commentaries of the former on the Pauline Epistles\\nand the Essays in reply to Supernatural Eeligion on the\\nauthorship of the fourth Gospel, reprinted with that of Ezra\\nAbbot on the external evidence, in The Fourth Gospel,\\nAbbot, Peabody, and Lightfoot, 1891.\\nAn Introd. to the Study of the N. T., 2 vols., 1868, 3 1894.\\nThe earlier work (3 vols., 1848-51) was conservative.\\n6 A Historical Introd. to the Study of the Books of the\\nN. T., 1894.\\n6 A Popular Introd. to the N. T., 1883.\\n7 Introd. to the N. T., 1889.\\n8 Introd. to the Pauline Epistles, 1874. To the Catholic\\nEpistles, 1887. To the Johannine Writings, 1891. To the\\nSynoptic Gospels, 1895.\\n9 History of the Apostolic Age, 1897.\\n10 Ph. Schaff, author of Apostolic Christianity (Part I of his\\nHistory of the Christian Church) 1882, 5 1890.", "height": "2792", "width": "1732", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "24 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nbut it rests with, the forthcoming work of S. D. F.\\nSalniond 1 to determine whether English Introductions\\nshall transcend the level of apologetics by abiding\\nresults independently achieved.\\nConserva- But we should do injustice to the line of conserva-\\ntism. tiy e scholars if we failed to recognise the splendid\\nscholarship and industry of German critics such as\\nB. Weiss 2 and Theo. Zahn, 3 whom one hesitates to\\nclass as apologetic, so genuine is the purpose, espe-\\ncially of the former, to be free from traditional bias.\\nSuch critical research as Weiss s into the origin and\\nsources of the Synoptic writings, 4 proves that schol-\\narly conservatism has ceased to play into the hands\\nof the sceptical historical critic by disdaining scru-\\ntiny of the documents, and advances Introduction by\\nshowing certain weaknesses of the two-document the-\\nory. Something there is also of judicial reserve in\\nthe treatment of 2 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles,\\nthough it is hard to believe a really unbiassed writer\\ncould make 1 Peter the earliest of New Testament\\nwritings. 5 Even Zahn, prince of conservative schol-\\nars, while all his magnificent wealth of learning\\nappears enlisted in behalf of the authenticity and\\nintegrity of every canonical book, knows no method\\nbut the universal method of pure scientific criticism.\\nThat he uses it as a master, none will deny and occa-\\nsionally, as when he explains the Pauline character\\nof 1 Peter, by transferring an important share in the\\n1 To appear in the International Series edited by himself and\\nC. A. Briggs.\\n2 Einleitung i. d. N T., 1886 (Engl, transl.), \u00c2\u00bb1897.\\n8 Einleitung i. d. N. T., 2 vols., 1897, 1898.\\n4 Marcus Evangelium, 1872, and Matthcetis Evang., 1876. See\\nalso the Introd., 50, on the Sources of the Acts.\\n6 The present views of Weiss on the Pauline Epistles are\\ngiven in an article in Am. Journ. of Theol., April, 1897.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 25\\nauthorship to Silvanus, 1 he surprises us by the simi-\\nlarity of his results to those of Semler and Eichhorn.\\nBut the Aramaic Matthew, which Weiss had already\\nexpanded into a biography, in Zahn becomes in-\\ncredibly similar to our Matthew. From this, written\\n61-66 a.d. and Mark, Luke, who writes his double\\nwork 70-75 a.d., has drawn.\\nWith all these differences of judgment, there is Agreement\\nnevertheless to-day but one science of Introduction, \u00c2\u00b0nmethod\u00c2\u00b0 1S\\none method of literary and historical criticism. The and scope,\\nperfect balance of evidence in detailed results remains\\nfor him who shall be able to join to the amplest schol-\\narship an impartiality of judgment absolute not only\\nin intention, but in fact. 2\\ni Op.cit., Vol. II, p. 30.\\n2 Excellent reviews in English of the history of Introduction,\\nincluding full bibliography, will be found in the Introductions\\nby B. Weiss and Godet also much of the outline of Holtz-\\nmann s review and bibliography in the Student s N. T. Hand-\\nbook, by M. K. Vincent, 1893, pp. 48-112. The History of\\nCriticism, including much of Introduction, is treated in the\\ncompanion volume of this series by Professor Nash. The\\nHistories of the Apostolic Age, by Weizsacker and McGiffert,\\nare substantially Introductions.", "height": "2792", "width": "1732", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "CHAPTEE II\\nGROWTH OF TRADITION AND FORMATION OF THE\\nCANON\\nWritings not altogether ineffective soon impress\\nexternal their mark upon contemporary literature. So of the\\nevidence\\nNew Testament books. At first we can only guess at\\ntheir existence from more or less doubtful traces in\\nother writers of familiarity with their special language\\nor ideas. Later on quotations are made, here and there\\nexplicitly and by name, and at last they are referred\\nto as peculiarly authoritative, and this authority is de-\\nfended by references to their Apostolic origin. Both\\nkinds of use, acknowledged and unacknowledged, are\\ndesignated external evidence, though it is evident\\nthat mere employment can prove nothing as to author-\\nship but only as to date, and even this on condition that\\nreal literary dependence can be shown, and that the\\nevidence of priority be not ambiguous. All kinds of\\nexternal evidence are wont to be comprehensively and\\nsomewhat confusedly treated under the title History of\\nthe Canon. 1 We are not now concerned to prove how far\\nback the existence of the various New Testament books\\ncan be traced by the doubly doubtful evidence of ech-\\noes and influences, often cited, even when acknow-\\nledged, in inverse directions but with the much less\\nobscure process by which the Church begins first to\\n1 See, e.g. Westcott, Hist, of the Canon of the N. T., 6 1889,\\nand Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons, 1888-92.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON\\n27\\nmanifest its knowledge of certain writings as Apostolic,\\nand ultimately to recognise and defend a group of such\\nas possessing special authority i.e. the segregation\\nof a Canon and growth of a tradition. This process\\nhad reached a finality with regard to nearly all the\\nimportant writings of the New Testament by 200 a.d.\\nthe later disputes, extending through centuries, as to\\nthe delimitation of the list, i.e. the question just which,\\nif any, of the minor group of disputed books. already\\nreferred to 1 should be included, we need not consider.\\nThe practice of the early Fathers enables us to date\\nwith tolerable definiteness the stages of the process\\nby which New Testament writings came gradually to\\nbe raised to the authority of sacred Scripture on a\\nlevel with that which the Old Testament had enjoyed\\nfrom the start.\\nDown to the second Jewish war (135 a.d.) the testi-\\nmony of the Apostolic Fathers is negative but conclu-\\nsive. Nowhere is it more fully admitted than by B.\\nWeiss in 5 of his Introduction, that for this early\\nage there is no New Testament sacred literature, no\\nCanon, no authoritative standard not recognised by the\\nSynagogue as well, save the authoritative teaching of\\nJesus, and that not as written in specially selected\\nbooks, but a living tradition, expounded by the Apos-\\ntles and their official successors in the churches.\\nFor New Testament writers and Apostolic Fathers\\nalike Scripture means simply the Old Testament,\\nwith considerable latitude in the inclusion of apocry-\\nphal material. 2 To both this is the word of God\\nip.7.\\n2 Cf. the use of Wisdom by Paul, Heb., and Clem. Rom.\\nApoc. of Elias in 1 Cor. 2:9 (so Origen) and Eph. 5 14 (so\\nEpiphanius) Ps.-Fhilo in Mk. 9 13 unknown writings in\\nLk. 11 49, Jn. 7 38 Enoch in Jd. 14 Eldat and Modad in\\nClem. Rom., 2d Clem, and Hermas, etc.\\nThe three-\\nfold source\\nof authority\\nin the primi-\\ntive Church.\\nScripture\\nin the post-\\nApostolic", "height": "2792", "width": "1732", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "28 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ninspired of the Holy Ghost, oracles of God\\nthat cannot be broken, oracles of the teaching of\\nGod which are true, which were given through\\nthe Holy Ghost, wherein nothing unrighteous or coun-\\nterfeit is written, 1 precisely as to the rabbis from\\nwhom through Paul and the Fathers the Church has\\ntaken over its doctrine of inspiration. The difference\\nbetween Synagogue and Church is simply that whereas\\nthe former defers authoritative interpretation to the\\ncoming of the Prophet like unto Moses who will\\ntell them all things, 2 the latter rejoices in the posses-\\nsion not only of the tradition of that complete and\\nperfect interpretation, but of a present unction from\\nthe Holy One giving absolute understanding of all\\nthings (1 Cor. 2 6-16, 1 Jn. 2 20, 27, 5 20). The\\nChurch has thus a threefold source of divine author-\\nity. It is to remember (i) the words which were\\nspoken before by the holy prophets; (ii) the com-\\nmandment of the Lord and Saviour through the\\nApostles (2 Pet. 3:2, cf. Heb. 1:1 f., 2:3), and\\nlast but by no means least it has (iii) the prophetic\\nSpirit. 3 Por down to the end of this period the\\nRevelation, claim of present inspiration is anything but a stere-\\notyped form. Inspiration voices itself officially in the\\nauthoritative utterances of the Church (Acts 15 28 cf\\nClement of Eome, 93-96 a.d., 4 obey the things\\ni Clem. Rom., 45 1, 53 1, 62 3.\\n2 Jn. 4 25, cf. Un. 5 20.\\n3 Just. M. Apol. I, 6 (150 a.d.) We [Christians] rever-\\nence and bow to God, and to the Son who came from him and\\ntaught us these things, and to the prophetic Spirit. Cf. 1 13,\\n23 and Dial. 48, 139. Hegesippus (175 a.d.) appeals to the\\nLaw, the Prophets and the Lord (Eus. Hist., 4 22, 23). See\\nfurther the passages cited by Holtzmann, Einleitung, 3 p. 106 f.\\n4 The dates for the Ap. Fathers are taken from Harnack s\\nChronologie, 1897, p. 718 f. They agree substantially with\\nLightfoot. Holtzmann dates Clem. Rom., 93-125 a.d.; Von", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON 29\\nwritten by us through, the Holy Spirit the words\\nspoken by Him [God] through us individually in\\nthe visions and revelations of prophets (1 Cor.\\n14 29-32, 2 Cor. 12 1, Acts 15 32, 16 6, 7, 20 23,\\n21 4, 9-11, Eevelation passim) for the conviction\\nof early Fathers of their own possession of such gifts\\nof the Spirit is not only every whit as vivid as that of\\nPaul and John, but is expressly acknowledged by the\\nChurch. 1\\nIf even Scripture in the New Testament and the\\nearly Fathers proves to have been a far less exclusive\\nterm than with us, or even with the Roman Church,\\nwe need not be surprised that the commandment of\\nthe Lord through the Apostles was by no means\\nlimited to a fixed group of writings, whereas the\\nlimitation of the prophetic Spirit to documents at\\nall was a difficult matter, still more that of reducing\\nthe three most cherished productions of this kind\\nEevelation, Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter to\\na single canonical representative.\\nIt never occurs to the early Fathers to say whence Gospel,\\nthey obtain their references to sayings and doings of\\nthe Lord. Generally the language most nearly ap-\\nSoden, 93-120. The letters of Ign. and Polyc. are dated by\\nHoltzniann and Hilgenfeld after 150 but see Zahn, Gesch. d.\\nKan., and Kriiger, Hist, of Early Christian Lit., 1897. The\\npassages cited are from Clem. Rom., 59 and 63.\\ni With Gal. 1 11, 12, cf. Ign. ad Philad. 7 (110-117 a.d.).\\nWith Rev. 22 6-9, cf. Hermas, Mand. 3 1, 2, 4, (140 a.d.). It\\nis with the greatest reluctance that I am constrained to exclude\\nthe citation of these passages in full, refuting as they do the\\nbaseless notion of a sudden cessation of the consciousness of\\nrevelation. The judgment of the early Church appears in At5.\\n11 7 (120-150 a.d.). Any prophet speaking in the Spirit\\nye shall not try, neither discern (cf. 1 Cor. 12 10, 14 29) for\\nevery sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven\\n(cf. Matt. 12:32).", "height": "2788", "width": "1740", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "30 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nproximates Matthew, less frequently Luke and Mark,\\nsometimes uncanonical Gospels. The readers are ex-\\npected to know by common tradition whether the state-\\nments are authentic or not. Ignatius (110-117 a.d.)\\ncites the story of Luke 24 36^9 in the version of\\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews. 1 Papias (145-\\n160 a.d.) in his youth (110-120 preferred oral tradi-\\ntion to any written record for the interpretation of the\\noracles of the Lord, though he fortunately gives the\\nEarliest tradition regarding the origin of both Matthew and\\nreferences. Mark, reporting their defects as well as their merits.\\nJustin Martyr, writing ca. 155 a.d. for heathen readers,\\nexplains that the sources relied on by himself, and\\nread for edification in the churches are memorabilia\\nof the Lord called Gospels, written by Apostles and\\ntheir followers, one of them memorabilia of Peter.\\nProm his quotations, free as they are, it is easy to\\nrecognise our Matthew, Mark, and Luke. To-day\\nit is even admitted to be possible to identify John,\\nthough Justin s acquaintance with this Gospel was long\\ndisputed. But Theophilus of Antioch (181-190 a.d.)\\nis the first to cite a Gospel by name, quoting John 1 1\\nas from John, one of those who were vessels of the\\nSpirit.\\nSpecial writ- Not until the multiplication of secondary Gospel\\ningsdis- narratives in the age of Traian 2 and the contempo-\\ncrimmated. J\\nrary advance of a heretical pseudo-tradition by the\\nGnostics 3 could the necessity of citing a recognised\\nauthority for evangelic tradition be felt. In Apoc-\\n1 So Jerome. Origen found the passage in the Kerygma Petri.\\nBoth are probably right. See Lightf oot, Apost. Fathers, ad loc.\\n2 Eus. Hist., 3:37.\\n8 Cf. the Pistis Sophia, and the references to the Gospel of\\nBasilides, Traditions of Matthias, etc. Cerin thus is said to have\\nemployed one of the forms of Matt, which excluded the virgin\\nbirth.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "FOBMATION OF THE CANON 31\\nalypse it would seem to have been the extravagant\\nclaims of Montanism (157 a.d.) for its prophetic\\nrevelations which led to similar limitation.\\nPaul himself had directed a restricted reading and Epistle\\ncirculation of his letters (1 Thess. 5 27, Col. 4 16).\\nThese were, of course, frequently cherished and ap-\\npealed to as evidence of Apostolic opinion where\\nthe oral authority of the officials appointed by the\\nApostles appeared indecisive. In the second century\\nchurches began the regular public reading of them for\\nedification, not at first limiting themselves, however,\\nto such as belonged to the Apostolic age. 1 But soon\\narose the theoretical requirement of apostolicity 2\\nwhich in the west led even to the exclusion of\\nHebrews. But before the time of such distinctions\\nthere were exceptional circumstances, as when the\\nChurch addressed had itself been the recipient of the\\nletter, when epistles of Paul are referred to by name.\\nThere are three instances of this kind in writings of\\nthe Apostolic age (i) Clement of Bome (93-96 a.d.)\\nwrites to the Corinthians\\nTake up the epistle 3 of the Messed Paul the Apostle\\nOf a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and\\nCephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made\\nparties. (1 Cor. 1 10 ff.)\\n1 Thus about 170 a.d. Dionysius of Corinth writes to Soter,\\nBishop of Rome To-day we have passed the Lord s holy day,\\nin which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we\\nread it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the\\nformer epistle [of the Roman Church] written to us through\\nClement, The writing known as 2d Clement is perhaps the\\nletter of Soter referred to.\\n2 See Tertullian below (p. 33).\\n3 1 Cor. is very widely employed in the earliest period no\\ntrace of 2 Cor. appears till much later it appears to be unknown\\nto this writer.", "height": "2784", "width": "1776", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "32 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION\\n(ii) Ignatius (110-117 a.d.) writes to Ephesus\\nThose who are borne by martyrdom to God pass through\\nyour city ye are fellow-initiates in the mysteries (avuixdarai\\nEph. 3 3-5) with Paul, the sanctified, the martyred who\\nin every letter (Rom. 16 5, 1 Cor. 15 32, 16 8, 19, 2 Cor.\\n1 :8 f. and 1 and 2 Tim.) makes mention of you.\\n(iii) Polycarp at the same date writes to the Philip-\\npians\\nThe blessed and glorious Paul wrote letters l to you, into\\nwhich if ye look diligently ye can be built up.\\nFurther on he writes\\nOr are we ignorant that the saints shall judge the world as\\nPaul teaches (1 Cor. 6:2)? You, among whom the\\nblessed Paul laboured, who were his letters (2 Cor. 3:2) in the\\nbeginning. For he glorieth of you (2 Cor. 8 1 ff.) in all those\\nchurches which alone at that time knew God; for we (of\\nSmyrna) knew Him not as yet.\\nGospels and A generation later we have Papias s tradition of the\\neve ation. wr ^j n g S f Matthew and Mark, corroborated and sup-\\nplemented by his contemporary, Justin Martyr, to the\\neffect that the memorabilia of the Lord called i gos-\\npels were written by Apostles and their compan-\\nions we have also one further statement of Justin\\n{Dial. 81):\\nJohn, one of the Apostles of Christ, prophesied, in a revela-\\ntion made to him, that those who have believed on our Christ\\nshall spend a thousand years in Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 20 4).\\n140-170 a.d. With these exceptions we have no direct reference\\nin Christian n early times to the authorship of the New Testa-\\nauthority, ment writings. The lifetime of Papias, who in his\\n1 Even if our single epistle is composite, as many hold, it is\\nnot likely that Polycarp knew of more than one. Zahn sug-\\ngests that the Macedonian church of Thessalonica and its let-\\nters may be included in thought.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF TEE CANON 33\\nyouth preferred the living and abiding voice, but\\nabout 145 a.d. himself joined in the endeavour to\\nreduce it to writing, covers the momentous change in\\nthe Church from chief dependence on oral to chief\\ndependence on written sources, when the question of\\nauthorship would begin to have significance. If, then,\\nit is disappointing to find, in this period, within which\\nthe gradually increasing echoes soon enable us to deter-\\nmine the existence of nearly all the books, so little\\nweight attached to their authorship, it is consoling to\\nreflect that there was also no motive for forgery;\\nsince a Clement of Rome, to whom the sole written\\nauthority is Scripture, x may employ far more copi-\\nously the un-Apostolic letter to the Hebrews 2 than even\\nthat of Paul to the Corinthians, whom he is himself\\naddressing. Just a century later Tertullian, a Father of Apostolicity\\nthe same Latin Church, excuses himself for citing from m 200 A,D\\nHebrews on the ground that, although not Apostolic, it\\nwas written by Barnabas, a companion of Apostles,\\nwho had been referred to by Paul (1 Cor. 9 6), and, in\\nhis treatise against Marcion, 4 2 (200-210 a.d.), lays\\ndown the following principles\\nFirst, that the Evangelic Instrument 3 has Apostles for its\\nauthors, on whom this charge of publishing the gospel was\\n1 Nearly one-fourth of the entire letter, equal in length to 1\\nand 2 Cor. combined, is occupied by citations from the 0. T.\\nappealed to as divine authority.\\n2 Heb. is the model for whole paragraphs of Clem. Rom., but no\\nreference whatever is made to it, though forty-seven echoes\\nhave been counted. There are clear traces of familiarity with\\nRom., Eph., 1 Pet., Jas., 1 Tim., and doubtful resemblances to\\nothers.\\n8 Tertullian is the first to divide the Scriptures into an 0. T.\\nand N. T., and further divides the N. T. into instrumenta,\\nEvangelicum, Actorum, Pauli, Johanni (Marc. 4:2, 5 2, De\\nBesur. 38, 40, De Fudic. 19).\\nx", "height": "2772", "width": "1732", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "34\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nimposed by the Lord himself that if it includes the writings\\nof Apostolic men also, still they were not alone, but wrote with\\nthe help of Apostles, and after the teaching of Apostles.\\nFirst collec-\\ntions of\\nN. T. writ-\\nMarcion s\\nN. T. Canon.\\nThe growth, of this now full-fledged theory of apos-\\ntolicity should be a subject for careful study.\\nWe have seen how Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and\\nPolycarp presuppose that, at least, 1 Corinthians, Ephe-\\nsians, and Philippians are read by those whom they\\naddress, and as letters of Paul. Ignatius (110-117 a.d.)\\nrefers to a whole group in every letter In 2 Peter\\n(135-150 a.d. this collection is to be studied along\\nwith the other Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16). When\\nit was formed and how constituted we do not know,\\nbut relative frequency of employment goes to show\\nthat Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians were more\\nwidely circulated than Galatians or Colossians. The\\nyear 140 a.d., however, is a date of vital significance\\nin our history, for it marks the first attempt to frame\\na canon of New Testament Scripture.\\nOf Marcion, its author, we have already heard.\\nThe son of a Christian bishop in Phrygia, an ardent\\ndisciple of Paul, and a man of unblemished, though\\nascetic morality, he came to Pome ca. 138 a.d., con-\\nvinced that a reform was necessary in the Church to\\nfree it from its continued slavery to Judaism. The\\nmost important means adopted was the rejection of\\nthe Old Testament, for which was substituted, in the\\nnumerous churches founded by him, his own Gospel\\nand Apostle. Of the then current practice of read\\ning from the Gospels, together with the Prophets (Old\\nTestament), we know from Justin Martyr. Marcion,\\nhowever, not only removed the Old Testament, but\\nexcluded all gospels save that of Luke. His Apos-\\ntle was simply our ten letters of Paul, excluding\\nHebrews and the Pastoral Epistles. Both Gospel", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON 35\\nand Apostle were mutilated by arbitrary expurga-\\ntion of what Marcion regarded as Jewish, inter-\\npolations. Whether his omission of 1 Timothy,\\n2 Timothy, Titus, was for doctrinal or critical reasons,\\nor both, is disputed. 1\\nThe process which outside the Church was thus Ignatius,\\nhastened by the repudiation of Scripture and eccle-\\nsiastical authority, was rapidly advancing within the\\npale. For Ignatius the divinely prescribed panacea is\\nthe Apostolic successiou. Against the inroads of Do-\\ncetic heretics in the churches of Asia he appeals\\nnot to Scripture, still less to the Johannine writings,\\nthough there are indications that he knows them, 2 but\\nto the utterance he had himself made by special,\\ndivine revelation when among them I cried with a\\nloud voice, with God s own voice, Give ye heed to the\\nbishops and the presbytery and deacons. Ignatius,\\nhowever, met opposition from a conservative element\\nof the type of Clement of Rome, who disputed his\\ninterpretations of Scripture, saying If I find it not\\nin the charters (the Old Testament) I believe it not in\\nthe Gospel. And when I said to them, It is written,\\nthey answered me, That is just the question. 3 His\\nfinal answer was, My charter is Jesus Christ, mean-\\ning the traditional teaching of Jesus.\\nThe contemporary exhortation of Poly carp to the Polycarp.\\nPhilippians to read diligently the letters of Paul,\\n1 Jerome (Expl. in Epist. ad Ti., IV, p. 407, ed. Benedict)\\ndeclares that Basilides and Marcion rejected Heb. and the\\nPastoral Epp. as un-Pauline.\\n2 So even Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann, who, however, date\\nthe Ignatian letters ca. 160. The traces of N. T. writings are\\nvery scanty, but include our Matt., 1 Cor., Eph., Rom., 2 Cor.,\\nGal., Col., Phil., 1 Thess., Philem., 1 Pet., Jn. Acts in\\norder of certainty.\\n8 Phiiad. 8 2.", "height": "2772", "width": "1740", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "36 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nadvice which he certainly had followed himself, 1 illus-\\ntrates a third tendency, more in the spirit of Greek\\nChristianity than the oriental hierocratic ideas of Igna-\\ntius, but equally divergent from the simple dependence\\nof Clement of Eome on the Old Testament, without\\ndisparagement of it as in Marcion. New Testament\\nwritings are not appealed to by Polycarp as having\\nthe authority of Scripture but the future is with\\nhim. There could be no contrast more significant of\\nthe predestined change, than that between Clement s\\nepistle and his. The former barely refers twice to\\nteachings of Jesus with the simple formula of Acts\\n20 35 2 and once to Paul the latter is as saturated\\nwith New Testament phraseology as Clement with the\\nOld Testament.\\nOne other tendency illustrative of the growing con-\\nsciousness in the Church, of the need of some further\\nwritten standard of its divine revelation than the Old\\nTestament, is found in a writer perhaps contemporary\\nThe with Marcion, viz. Pseudo-Barnabas (132 a.d.). Bar-\\nstandard of na b as i s arL Alexandrian, representing the fourth of\\nHarnack s tendencies. His standard is Scripture,\\nbut the interpretation thereof was first revealed by\\nChrist. Barnabas is indeed the first to refer to\\na brief logion, preserved in Matthew 22 14, as\\nScripture, 3 but it is extremely doubtful if he was\\n1 Polyc. unmistakably employs the language of Matt., Acts,\\nRom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 2 Thess., 1 Tim., 2 Tim.,\\n1 Pet. 1 Jn. and has in addition more or less trustworthy\\nechoes of Mk., Lk., and 1 Thess.\\n2 The one reference (18 2) is a free combination of Matt.\\n6 7, 6 14, 7 12 with Lk. 6 31, 36-38 the other (46 8) a\\nfree reproduction of Matt. 26 24, 18 6.\\n3 Another trace or two of Matt, and a few echoes of Rom. and\\nHeb. only heighten the contrast of his copious (allegorical) use\\nof the O. T., including Enoch and other uncanonical writings,\\nwith his neglect of the N. T. Even the Two Ways chapters", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON 37\\nconscious that the saying was of New Testament ori-\\ngin, for he sharply divides his epistle into two parts,\\n(i) chs. 1-17, an interpretation of the Old Testament in\\nthe allegorical sense, without which it is to him quite\\nas offensive as to Marcion for in his view the Jews\\nwere only led to interpret it literally by the sophistry\\nof an evil angel, (ii) the new Law of Christ,\\nwhich is free from any yoke of constraint. This he\\npresents in chs. 18-21 as another lesson and teaching,\\ngiving it not in words of his own, nor in those of any\\nNew Testament writing, but, as now appears from the\\nrecent discovery of the Teaching of the Lord through\\nthe Twelve Apostles, in those of the Tivo Ways, a\\nprimitive teaching of baptisms, or catechism for the\\ninstruction of neophytes in the rudiments of Christian\\nmorality, similarly incorporated in the Teaching,\\n1-6.\\nThis document (131-160 a.d.), 1 as its title shows, re- That of the\\ngards the teaching of the Lord as supreme authority, lSa M-\\nbut the significant difference from Clement s simple ex-\\nhortation to remember the words of the Lord Jesus,\\nhow he said, etc., is that here the direction is to do as\\nye find it in the Gospel of our Lord, so that a written\\nsource has taken the place of general tradition, and\\nthis source is recognisable from the excerpts as our\\nMatthew. 2 By the ways of the Lord as known\\nare devoid of the quotations from the Gospels with which the\\ndocument has been enriched in the Aid. text.\\n1 It is dated by Holtzmann in 120-150. Harnack explains\\nhis unusually late dating as applying to the present form only.\\nHe regards the Two Ways as possibly even pre-Christian.\\n2 Ai5. 15: 4 cf. 8 2, 11 3. No certain trace of Mk. or Jn.\\nappears. Matt, is employed seventeen times. In four cases the\\nlanguage approaches Lk., but these are in the later portions.\\nOral tradition is probably responsible for the logion At5. 1 6.\\nThere are traces of Eom., 1 Cor., Eph., 1 Thess., 2 Thess.,\\n1 Pet., 1 Jn., Jd.", "height": "2784", "width": "1740", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "38\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nHermas.\\nEmergence\\nof the Four\\nGospels.\\nthrough oral and written tradition, even those who\\nspeak in the Spirit are to be discerned as true or false\\nprophets. 1\\nIn the Shepherd of Hermas (140 a.d., portions from\\ntwenty to twenty-five years earlier), tediously volumi-\\nnous as it is, we look for no written revealed author-\\nity save the Old Testament, because the author, as\\nHoltzmann says, regarded his own prophetic author-\\nity as equal to that of any Christian writer. 2 In fact,\\nthe only Scripture he anywhere quotes as such is\\nEldat and Modad, though he shows unmistakable\\ndependence on James, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians,\\nand knows the Synoptic tradition, apparently in the\\nform of Mark, but with traces of Matthew and Luke. 3\\nBy 150 a.d. a tendency was already manifesting\\nitself to distinguish our four Gospels from the rapidly\\nincreasing mass of less authentic and often heretical\\nmaterial. 4 For the Syrian Church the (written) Gospel\\nlong continued to be that of Matthew, as it had been\\nelsewhere. But there were many and widely differ-\\ning writings which claimed to be the Gospel accord-\\ning to Matthew, and the Church itself acknowledged\\nthat the work of the Apostle in its original form was\\nno longer in its possession. It is possible that we\\n1 11 1 ff.\\n2 Einleitung 3 p. 92. For Hermas s idea of prophetic inspir-\\nation, including his own, see the passage above referred to in\\nMand. 11, p. 29.\\n8 Hermas s acquaintance with other N. T. writings may be\\nshown in order of probability as follows Heb., 1 Pet., Jn.,\\nActs, Rev. In all cases the use is extremely scanty.\\n4 The resemblance of Vis. 3 13 to Iren. Her. 3 11, 8 has\\nbeen used to trace it back even to Hermas. Irenseus doubtless\\ndoes depend on Hernias for his (probably correct) interpreta-\\ntion of the four cherubim supporting the throne of Christ as the\\nfour Elements {(XTOLxela) but the further comparison of these\\nto the four Gospels is an idea of his own.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON 39\\nhave still a trace of these early disputes in the Syriac\\nmanuscript entitled As to the Star showing how and\\nby what means the Magi knew the Star, and that Joseph\\ndid not take Mary as his wife. In its present form\\nthis is only a worthless legend in support of the per-\\npetual virginity of Mary, but, as Hilgenfeld observes,\\nit preserves certain dates of remarkable significance.\\nThe visit of the Magi to Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1-13)\\nis declared to have been in the three hundred and\\neleventh year (Seleucid era 1 b.c.) in the second\\nyear of our Redeemer (cf. Matt. 2:16). The inci-\\ndent itself is declared to have been authenticated by\\na council assembled for the purpose in Rome in\\nthe year 430 119 a.d.), under the reign of Hadri-\\nanus Caesar, in the consulship of Severus and Fulgus,\\nand the episcopate of Xystus (Sixtus I), bishop of the\\ncity of Rome. 2\\nThe proportionate use in early writers would indi- Their rela-\\ncate that Mark and Luke came next in order of author- tlve cur\\nrency.\\nity, but at a considerable interval after Matthew then,\\nafter Luke, John; and again at a considerable inter-\\nval, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel of\\nPeter, etc.\\nBut we are fortunately supplied with a compara- Justin and\\ntively full and certainly trustworthy statement of the Pa P ias\\nprocess from one who himself had lived through the\\nchange from Clement, with his mere memoriter com-\\nbinations of any or all sources for the tradition of\\n1 Published by W. Wright in Journ. of Sacred Lit., October,\\n1866. See Hilgenfeld s article Das Kanon. Mtev. in Zts.\\nf. w. Th., 1895, p. 449.\\n2 Other forms than Matt. s of the story of the Virgin and Star\\nwere in circulation at this time (cf. Eev. 12 1 f., 5 with Ign.\\nad Eph. 19:1-3, and the legend attributed to Africanus).\\nAn early ecclesiastical decision in Eome may have supported\\nthe canonical version against the Ebionites and Adoptionists\\nwho rejected Matt. 1 18, 2 23.", "height": "2780", "width": "1764", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "40 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nthe Lord s teaching, to Justin Martyr, substantially\\nlimiting himself to the memoirs written by apostles\\nand the companions of apostles, publicly read in\\nthe churches. The fragment of Papias s Expositions\\nof the Oracles of the Lord, recently published by De\\nBoor, states that some of those brought to life by\\nJesus lived until the time of Hadrian, 1 implying a\\ndate for the work as late as Justin (145-160 a.d.).\\nPapias was probably acquainted with our third Gos-\\npel for his earlier contemporary, Marcion, a native of\\nPapias s own neighbourhood (Hierapolis in Phrygia),\\nhad given it a position which would seem to imply both\\nits previous wide acceptance and traditions connect-\\ning its author with Paul. Moreover, Holtzmann and\\nothers have pointed out how Papias s preface seems\\nwritten in obvious imitation of Luke 1:1-4. He\\ncannot have been ignorant of our canonical Matthew,\\nand it is in the highest degree probable that he knew\\nour fourth Gospel as well. This appears from Irenseus s\\ncitations of the Eeliques of the Elders, which Lightf oot\\nand Harnack agree must Jiave been taken from the\\nwork of Papias, and which embody Johannine mate-\\nrial, and from certain resemblances of his style to\\n1 John and 3 John, and still more from the explicit\\nand wholly trustworthy statement of Eusebius (Hist.\\n3 39, 16), The same writer (Papias) uses testimonies\\nfrom the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter\\nlikewise. And yet he cannot have referred to the\\n1 If the fragment is really from Papias, it shows dependence\\non his part on the Apology of Quadratus, addressed to Ha-\\ndrian, which had declared as to the persons healed and raised\\nby Jesus that they were alive after his death for quite a while,\\nso that some of them lived even to our day. If Quadratus\\nwas then an old man his statement might well be true. In the\\nChronicle Eusebius dates his Apology 124-125 a.d., and calls\\nhim an auditor Apostolorum.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "tradition.\\nFORMATION OF THE CANON 41\\norigin of either Luke or John, 1 for Eusebius, who\\ngives us his testimony as to Matthew and Mark, and\\nafter searching through his book notes that he uses\\ntestimonies from 1 John, was particularly in search\\nof two things which he promises to give to his readers\\n(i) evidence of the early use of the then disputed books,\\namong which neither 1 Peter nor 1 John are included\\n(ii) data as to the origin of the undisputed books, par-\\nticularly the Gospels. 2 But Eusebius has not a word\\nas to Luke or John from this source. We cannot rea-\\nsonably account for this silence in the preface of\\nPapias s work, wherein he gave his authorities both\\noral and written, if he placed the Gospels of Luke\\nand John in the same category with the two which\\nhe describes and defends as Apostolic and trustworthy.\\nMost probably he regarded it as important to give Papias s\\nwhat tradition reported of the two ancient Gospels\\nby Palestinian authorities, because these had formed\\nthe substratum for later writers, whom he might re-\\ngard as belonging rather to his own generation, among\\nauthors of evangelic compendia he had already alluded\\nto in general terms. 3 His statement as to his method\\nand authorities was as follows\\nBut I will not scruple also to give a place for you along\\nwith my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully,\\n1 In spite of the Argumentum to the Gospel of John in a\\nlate Vatican manuscript The Gospel of John was published\\nand given to the churches by John while yet alive (Jn. 21 23\\nf.), as Papias of Hierapolis, a beloved disciple of John relates\\nin his five exoteric (sic) books.\\n2 Hist. 3 3, 3, and 5 8, 1.\\n3 We must beware of prejudging the question of the author-\\nship of the fourth Gospel yet it must be admitted that the\\ngrowing evidence of Papias s acquaintance with it involves the\\nserious difficulty of his apparent inability to refer to the direct\\ntestimony of the Apostle in either oral or written form, though\\nApostolic testimony was the object of his search.", "height": "2784", "width": "1764", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "42 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nand remembered carefully in time past 1 from the elders, guar-\\nanteeing its truth. For unlike the many, I did not take pleasure\\nin those who have so very much to say, but in those who\\nteach the truth nor in those who relate alien commandments\\n(Gnostic evangelists), but in those who record such as were\\ngiven from the Lord to the Faith, and who are sprung from the\\ntruth itself (cf. 3 Jn. 12). If, then, any one came who had\\nbeen a follower of the Elders, I would question him about the\\nwords of the Elders 2 what (by their report) Andrew or what\\nPeter had said, or what had been said by Philip, or by Thomas,\\nor by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the\\ndisciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the Elder\\nJohn the disciples of these were saying. 3 For I did not think I\\ncould get so much profit from the contents of books, as from\\nthe utterances of a living and abiding voice.\\n1 The expressions indicate a rather remote past 100-120\\na.d. yet not remote enough for Papias to know directly any\\nApostle this, Eusebius tells us, he testified himself.\\n2 I.e. what the Palestinian Elders by no means to be con-\\nfounded with the Apostles, but authorities who could remember\\nApostles, reported the words of the Apostles to have been.\\nOf these elders, two, Aristion and John, were actual disciples\\nof the Apostles, which made their own sayings independently\\nworthy of reporting.\\n3 For TOVKV read TOVTo). See my article in Journ. of\\nBibl. Lit. 1897. The Apostles were dead Aristion and the\\nElder John were still living hence the contrast in tense (direv,\\n\\\\iyovffiv). But Papias had no direct access even to the latter,\\nsave through their writings. Aristion he quoted so freely that\\nEusebius takes him to have been directly his hearer. Mk. 16\\n9-20 is now known to have been taken from the Gospel com-\\npend of a Presbyter Ariston, probably the same work. The\\nPresbyter John is not known as a writer; for though 2 Jn.,\\n3 Jn., are addressed by the Presbyter, the name John\\nappears only in the titles added by scribes on the assumption\\nof Apostolic authorship for both Epistles and Gospel. If the\\nquestion is asked, Why does not Papias refer to his contempo-\\nrary and near neighbour Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle\\nJohn, for traditions of this kind, rather than to less famous\\nmen only indirectly accessible to him, our answer must be,\\nthe inquiries were as to Palestinian tradition, and the title", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON 43\\nOf a different character to Papias s mind, however, His primi-\\nfrom the books which he treated as inferior to oral tlYe gospe s\\ntradition, must have been at least the two sources as\\nto whose origin he took pains to obtain the testimony\\nof the Presbyter for it cannot be supposed that he\\nplaced more reliance on reports of what had been\\nsaid by Matthew, than on what he believed to be\\nthe writing of Matthew himself. The tradition is\\ngiven as follows\\nThis also the Presbyter (probably John) said: Mark, who\\nhad been (yev6[j.ei os, spoken of an ex-official) the interpreter of\\nPeter, wrote down accurately, though not, indeed, in order,\\neverything that he remembered, whether of things said or things\\ndone by Christ. 1 Tor he was neither a hearer nor a follower\\nof the Lord, but afterwards, as I said, of Peter, who adapted\\nhis instructions to requirements, and had no design of giving\\na connected account of the Lord s oracles (or sayings X67WV\\nother manuscripts have \\\\oytuv). So then Mark made no error\\nwhile he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them 2\\nfor he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard,\\nor to set down any false statement therein.\\nPresbyter as well as the remoteness of Aristion and John\\nfrom Papias goes to show that they were living in Palestine,\\nthe home of Gospel story. Possibly these are none other than\\nAristo of Pella, author of a Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus\\n(ca. 135 a.d.), and John, mentioned seventh among the fifteen\\nbishops more properly Elders of the Palestinian Church\\nbefore 135 a.d., by Eusebius {Hist. 4 5, 3).\\n1 What follows may be only Papias s explanation of the tra-\\ndition. The i) \\\\ex6ivra 17 irpaxdivra appears to distinguish\\nMk. s work from Matt. s which had been a compilation of say-\\nings only (\\\\6yia). Acts 1 1 similarly refers to the former\\ntreatise as a record both of teachings and doings of Jesus.\\n2 The Muratorian fragment (see below) begins [ali] quibus\\ntamen interfuit et ita posuit, spoken of Mk., apparently in\\ndependence on this same tradition, but going quite beyond it.\\nThe meaning is quite as likely to be In certain enlargements\\nmade upon other forms of the story (Matt.) Mk. is not to be\\ndeemed arbitrary, for he is only recording and that with\\nreverential care what he had heard from Peter.", "height": "2784", "width": "1764", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "44 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nPerhaps a little higher up the page, probably on\\nauthority of the same Presbyter, Papias had written:\\nSo, then, Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew (or\\nAramaic) language, and each one interpreted them as he could.\\nThe Logia It is here implied that the original work of Mat-\\nobsolete, thew was no longer extant or accessible. In Papias s\\nday it had already been superseded by our own Greek\\nMatthew, for the need of translation, every man for\\nhimself, no longer existed. But had the translator\\nconfined himself to simple translation, or had he\\namplified and interpreted after the manner common at\\nthe time 1 Had he reset the simple sayings 2 in a\\nnarrative of the doings after the manner of Mark,\\nand prefixed to it the story of Jesus birth and child-\\nhood Only internal evidence can decide how close\\nwas the relation of the Hebrew writing to the\\nGreek. The mere fact that Papias regarded the Logia\\nas the original of our Matthew can decide nothing;\\nfor Jerome, who had translated the Gospel according\\nto the Hebrews into both Latin and Greek, and who\\ngives us a number of passages showing the wide diver-\\ngence of its tradition, also regarded it as the original\\nHebrew Matthew. Epiphanius regarded the Hebrew\\nGospel used by the Nazarenes, which was not simply\\nour Matthew in another language, but a separate Gos-\\npel, differing both from it and from that employed by\\nthe Ebionites, as the original Hebrew Matthew.\\nWe are rather led to infer from Papias s description\\nof the Logia as tradition reported the work (avveypd-\\n\\\\j/a.To some manuscripts o-wera\u00c2\u00a3aTo to. Ao yia), and\\nfrom the fact that he adopts from oral tradition an\\naccount of the death of Judas as wholly at variance\\n1 As in the Test, of the XII Patriarchs.\\n2 Eeferred to hereinafter as the Logia.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON 45\\nwith Matt. 27 3-10 as with Acts 1 18, that there\\nwere elements of his own (our) Matthew which he\\ndid not regard as having the direct sanction of the\\nApostle. This need not imply that he held views\\nlike Jerome s or Epiphanius s, though Eusebius found\\nthe story of a woman accused of many sins before\\nthe Lord (cf Jn. 7 53-8 11), which Papias\\nrelated, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Luke His use of\\nand John will have been to him among the books 1 books. N T\\nwhich like Aristion s he used, but gave no account of,\\nesteeming them secondary to the living and abiding\\nvoice. Of 1 John and 1 Peter, as already stated,\\nwe only know that he used them. With regard to\\nRevelation, the case is different. Andreas of Caesarea\\n(ca. 490) not only quotes Papias word for word in\\npassages dependent on Revelation, but declares that\\nhe bore testimony to its genuineness. A multitude\\nof writers, including Eusebius, testify to how great an\\nextent both Papias and his successors of the Ephesian\\nschool were affected by this book.\\nThus between Papias s youth and his old age depend- Growing\\nence on tradition has given way to books, for Papias on 1 books?\\nhimself is then content to write down what he had\\nheard from the daughters of Philip the evangelist.\\nJustin, his younger contemporary, as we have seen,\\nemploys our four Gospels as directly or indirectly\\nApostolic. Occasionally he takes up an uncanonical\\ntradition, but in all his seventeen or eighteen express\\nreferences to the Memoirs he uses our Synoptics,\\nwhile his fifty allusions in the two Apologies (152-\\n153 a.d.) and seventy in the Dialogue (155-160 a.d.)\\npoint to the same authorities. The last serious denials\\nhave been silenced by modern discovery. The Akhmim\\n1 See the passage from Iren. quoted below (p. 50), Luke\\nrecorded in a book, etc.", "height": "2780", "width": "1780", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "46 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nfragment of the Gospel of Peter 1 (100-130 a.d.) dis-\\npelled all theories which made this the source of\\nJustin s quotations and identified it with his Memoirs\\nof Peter (i.e. Mark). It made the preeminence of the\\nfour yet more apparent by the evidences of dependence\\non these by the Gospel of Peter itself. Serapion of\\nAntioch (191-211 a.d.) found indeed this Gospel still\\nemployed for public reading in a church of his diocese\\n(Rhossus), and for a time tolerated, but afterward\\nsuppressed it as heretical.\\nCiasca s publication of the Diatessaron, 2 or Har-\\nmony of the Four Gospels, by Tatian, a pupil of Jus-\\ntin (160-170, 172 a.d.) forever settled all questions\\nas to which four had been thus employed, and showed\\ntheir relative standing. Finally Mrs. Lewis s dis-\\ncovery of the Sinaitic Syriac, a version of our four\\nGospels of 160-170 a.d., fairly leads us over to the\\nhistory of the text.\\nTheir But we should beware of the hasty inference that\\nauthority. even e Qur Q 0S p e s h a( j y e k ecorae a scriptural\\nauthority. Justin has still substantially the same\\nstandard as Clement of Rome, Scripture and the\\nTeaching of the Lord. We have been commanded\\nby Christ himself, he writes, to obey not the teach-\\ning of men (Matt. 23 8-10), but those precepts\\nwhich were proclaimed by the blessed Prophets, and\\ntaught by himself. 3 Only now the more trustworthy\\nrecord of the teaching is beginning to be differentiated\\nas Apostolic from the unauthentic. Besides Scrip-\\nture and the Lord s teaching, Justin recognises but a\\nsingle writing which possesses a claim to special\\nauthority. The Revelation of John, one of the Apostles\\n1 See the ed. of H. B. Swete, London, 1893, and Kruger,\\nHist, of Chr. Lit., p. 53.\\n2 Engl, by J. H. Hill, Edinb., 1894.\\nDial., c. 48.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "FOBMATION OF THE CANON 47\\nof Christ has the twofold claim of its prophetic\\ncharacter, and its apostolicity. 1\\nWith Justin and Tatian we are thus only at the be- irenseus s\\nginning of the road which with Irenseus (174-189 a.d.) SnTtl* f\\nleads to the exclusive use of Matthew, Mark, Luke, books and\\nand John 2 and treatment even of the evangelist s own their Origin,\\nlanguage as inspired. 3 But the only writing besides\\nthese of which even Irenaeus is concerned to give the\\ntradition is Revelation, which he not only declares\\nauthentic on the authority of those who saw John\\nface to face, but tells us that the revelation was\\nseen not long ago, but almost in our own generation,\\ntoward the end of the reign of Domitian. Incident-\\nally he quotes 1 Jn. 2 18 as from the Epistle 4\\nof John the author of the Gospel, and is the first to\\nconnect 1 Peter with the Apostle, quoting it with the\\nformula Peter says, 5 but he reserves the title\\nScripture for Hernias, 6 which as prophetic is\\nentitled to rank with the Evangelic Word and the\\nRevelation of John. His tradition as to the Gospels\\nwe must cite in full\\nMatthew then published his Gospel among the Hebrews in\\ntheir own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and\\n1 There are a few traces of acquaintance with all the Pauline\\nEpistles except Phil., Philem., and the Pastoral Epistles, but\\nJustin does not so much as mention the name of Paul, much\\nless can we suppose he would treat letters, even those of\\nApostles, as Scripture.\\n2 In Her. 3 11, 8 he resorts to extraordinary analogies to\\nshow that there must in the nature of the case be four Gospels\\nand only four.\\n8 Her. 3 16, 2 has Spiritus Sanctus per Matthseum ait, quot-\\ning Matt. 1 18.\\n4 In 3 16, 8 and 1 16, 3 he also quotes 2 Jn. without dis-\\ntinguishing it from 1 Jn.\\n5 In 4 16, 5 and 5 7,2.\\n6 4 20, 2 cf. Eus. Hist. 6 8, 7.", "height": "2784", "width": "1780", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "48 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nfounding the Church in Rome (60-67 a.d.). 1 After their decease\\nMark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to\\nus in writing those things which Peter had preached and Luke\\nthe attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul\\nhad declared. Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who\\nalso reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel while staying\\nat Ephesus in Asia. 2\\nClement of Eusebius, mindful of his promise, reports to us\\nAlexandria. finally the account f a n the New Testament writings\\nas preserved in a work, now lost, of Tertullian s\\ngreat contemporary, Clement of Alexandria. Clem-\\nent gave, he says, in the Hypotyposes, abridged\\naccounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the\\ndisputed books I refer to Jude and the other Catho-\\nlic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse\\nof Peter. But all he finds worthy of citation here\\nis a rather forlorn attempt of Clement s to explain\\nHebrews as written by Paul in Hebrew and trans-\\nlated by Luke. Paul refrained from signing his name\\nout of consideration for the Hebrews. We understand\\nthe motive of this plea when we remember Tertullian s\\napology for citing this epistle to the Hebrews from\\nBarnabas in spite of its non-apostolic origin. Else-\\nwhere in the Hypotyposes Clement gave the tradi-\\ntion of the earliest presbyters 3 as to the order of the\\nGospels\\nThe Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were writ-\\nten first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion.\\n1 Irenseus makes the same effort as Tertullian to trace the\\nGospels to the Apostles themselves, but is unable to say that\\nMatthew translated his own Gospel into Greek.\\n2 Her. 3:1, 1. In 3 11, 1 he tells us that John s Gospel\\nwas written to correct the errors of Cerinthus.\\n3 In the Stromata 1 1 these elders are described as liv-\\ning in Ionia, Italy, Ccele-Syria, Egypt, Palestine, and the\\nEast.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON 49\\nAs Peter had preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared\\nthe Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that\\nMark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered\\nhis sayings, should write them out. And having composed the\\nGospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter\\nlearned of this he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. 1\\nBut last of all John, perceiving that the external facts had been\\nmade plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and in-\\nspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. 2\\nWe see that the tradition as to the Gospels was Tradition in\\nalready stereotyped. As to the thirteen Pauline let- to\u00c2\u00b0 tl D as\\nters, only a few heretics like Marcion rejected the epistles.\\nPastoral Epistles, while the growing tendency to make\\napostolicity the test of inspiration, cooperated with\\nthe general practice of public reading in the churches\\nrapidly to raise them to the level of inspired Scrip-\\nture, along with Gospels and Apocalypses. A third\\ninstrumentum, to adopt Tertullian s word, was nec-\\nessary to accommodate the second part of Luke s\\nbook, and still a fourth for 1 Peter and 1 John for\\nthe latter, while making no direct claim like 1 Peter\\nto apostolicity, was as inseparable logically from the\\nfourth Gospel as Acts from Luke.\\nPor writings like Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 John,\\n3 John (superscribed the Elder which made no\\ndirect claim to apostolicity, and 2 Peter, whose claims\\nthough explicit, were very ill supported, the changed\\nrequirements created difficulties. Hebrews had such\\nweighty support in ancient use that pretexts were\\nfound in the East, as in the case of the writings of\\n1 If Peter s attitude is taken toward the act of Mark, as the\\norder suggests, and not toward the proposal only, it is both\\ninexplicable in itself and flatly contradicts Irenseus. The\\nqualifications of Mark here specified suggest that in its original\\nform the tradition agreed with Irenaeus and the yev6fx.evos of\\nPapias, inverting the order of the last two sentences.\\na Eus. Hist. 6 14, 1, 5, 6.", "height": "2784", "width": "1772", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "50 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nLuke, for smuggling it in at the end of the Instrumen-\\ntum Pauli. In the West it was reluctantly excluded.\\nJames was known anciently, but only locally when\\naccepted, its author was identified with the Apostle,\\nthe son of Alphseus. The like may be said of Jude.\\nAffinity with 1 John was the plea of 2 John and 3\\nJohn; for real tradition was silent.\\nThe Canon Tradition, legend, and inference from the text are\\nj f Muraton. intermingled in the ancient fragment discovered by\\nGospels. Muratori, giving the list of writings in ecclesiastic use\\nat Eome toward the close of the second century. It\\nwill show us, more graphically than description, what\\nthe Church had then come to regard as the origin and\\ncontent of its New Testament Canon. It begins in\\nthe midst of a sentence relating to Mark.\\nin some 1 things, however, he participated, and has\\nthus recorded them.\\nThe third book of the Gospel according to Luke, Luke com-\\npiled in his own name from report, the physician whom Paul\\ntook with him after the ascension of Christ, as it were for a\\ntravelling companion however he did not himself see the Lord\\nin the flesh, and hence begins his account with the birth of\\nJohn as he was able to trace (matters) up. 2\\nOf the fourth of the Gospels (the author is) John, one of\\nthe disciples. 8 At the instance of his fellow disciples and\\nbishops he said, Fast with me three days and whatever shall\\nbe revealed to each, let us relate it to one another. The same\\nnight it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John\\nshould write all in his own name, the rest revising. 4 And\\n1 [alQ quibus interfuit.\\n2 This and the contemporary notice of Iren. 3: 1, 1 are the\\nfirst direct ascriptions of Lk. and Acts to Luke (cf. Col. 4 14,\\nPhilem. 24, 2 Tim. 4 11). Eusebius adds {Hist. 3 4, 6),\\ndoubtless from ancient tradition, that he was of Antiochian\\nparentage.\\n8 Original Quarti evangeliorum Johannes ex decipolis (sic).\\ni A further elaboration of the tradition of Clement of Alex-\\nandria above cited, probably based on Jn. 21 24, and here", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON 51\\ntherefore, although varying ideas may be taught in the several\\nbooks of the Evangelists, there is no difference in that which\\npertains to the faith of believers, since by one sovereign Spirit\\nin all are declared all things that relate to the nativity (of\\nJesus), his passion, resurrection, intercourse with his disciples,\\nand concerning his twofold advent, the first in humble guise,\\nwhich has taken place, the second splendid with royal power,\\nwhich is yet to be. What wonder, then, if John in his epis- 2. The\\ntie also, speaking of his own authorship, so boldly advances Epistle of\\neach detail, saying, What we have seen with our eyes, and Acts of 1\\nhave heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these Luke.\\nthings we have written. x For thus he professes himself not\\nonly an eye-witness, but a hearer, yea, and a writer as well, of\\nall the wonders done by the Lord in their order.\\nBut the Acts of all the Apostles are written in a single book.\\nLuke relates them admirably 2 to Theophilus, confining himself\\nto such as fell under his own notice, as he plainly shows by the\\nomission of all reference either to the martyrdom of Peter or\\nthe journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. 3\\nBut the letters of Paul themselves make known to those who 3. The\\nwould know both what they are, and from what place, on what Epistles of\\noccasion they were sent. At considerable length he wrote to a\\nthe Corinthians first, forbidding schismatic divisions, then to\\nthe Galatians (forbidding) circumcision, and to the Romans\\n(expounding) the general tenor of the Scriptures, showing,\\nhowever, that Christ is the essence of their teaching to these\\n(epistles) we must devote separate discussion 4 for the blessed\\nperhaps taken from the Acts of John (160 a.d.). Clement and\\nIrenseus preserve other and more trustworthy traditions as to\\nthe old age of John in Ephesus. Polycrates, writing to Victor\\nof Rome in 185 a.d., at the age of sixty-five, appeals to John,\\nwho was both a martyr (Rev. 1 9) and a teacher, who reclined\\nupon the bosom of the Lord (Jn. 13 23), and being a priest\\nwore the wtrakov, who fell asleep at Ephesus. Polycarp, Me-\\nlito, and others were held to have been John s personal disciples.\\ni 1 Jn. 1 1.\\n2 Optime Theophilo a misrendering of Kpdrtare Qe6 ptXe\\n3 Corrupt text. The rendering is approximate.\\nAn indication that the work from which the Fragment is\\nan extract went on to expound the N. T. Lightfoot conjectures\\nthat it was taken from a work of Hippolytus.", "height": "2776", "width": "1780", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "52 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nApostle Paul himself, following the example of his predeces-\\nsor 1 John, wrote by name to seven churches only in this\\norder First to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, third\\nto the Philippians, fourth to the Colossians, fifth to the Gala-\\ntians, sixth to the Thessalonians, seventh to the Romans. True,\\nhe wrote twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their\\ncorrection, but he shows thereby 2 the unity of the universal\\nchurch for John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to\\nseven churches only, yet speaks to all. 3 He also writes one to\\nPhilemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy, out of personal\\nregard and affection, but these too are hallowed in the respect\\nof the Catholic Church for the arrangement of ecclesiastical\\ndiscipline. Moreover there is in circulation an Epistle to the\\nLaodiceans, 4 another to the Alexandrians forged under the\\nname of Paul, looking toward the heresy of Marcion, 5 and sev-\\neral others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church\\nfor gall should not be mixed with honey. However, the\\nEpistle of Jude, and two of John the above named are received\\namong Catholics. Also the Book of Wisdom written by the\\nfriends of Solomon in his honour. 6\\nApoca- We receive, moreover, the Apocalypse of John and Peter 7\\nlypses.\\ni Gal. 1 17. An allusion to Rev. 1-3.\\n2 In the number seven. 3 Rev. 2 7, 11, 17, etc.\\nProbably only Marcion s mutilated form of Eph. which had\\nthis title.\\n5 Unknown.\\n6 The author s Instrumentum Evangelicum included a refer-\\nence to 1 Jn., and doubtless (in connection with Mk.) to 1 Pet.\\nHis Instrumentum Actorum followed. His Apostolicon con-\\nsisted of an Instrumentum Pauli in two parts, the limits of\\nthe second being defended against dispute. This was followed\\nby a group of writings of secondary (non-apostolic) authority,\\nlike the 0. T. apocryphon Wisdom (cf. Eus. Hist. 5 8, 6 13).\\nThis included Jd. ,2 Jn. 3 Jn. 2 Pet. seems to be unknown,\\nJas. either unknown or ignored. Heb. cannot have been unknown\\nand there are no signs of accidental mutilation. It was omitted\\nbeyond doubt because known to be unapostolic. Prophecy\\nis the last group of the Canon, and only the Apostolic proph-\\necies are admitted.\\n7 120-140 a.d. See the ed. of Robinson and James from\\nthe Akhmim fragment, London, 1892, and Kriiger, op. cit., p. 36.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "FORMATION OF THE CANON 53\\nonly, though some of our body will not have the latter read in\\nthe Church. The Shepherd indeed was written quite recently\\nin our own times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his\\nbrother Pius occupied the seat of Bishop of the Church of\\nRome (130-155 a.d.) 1 wherefore the private reading of it is\\nindeed commendable, but it can never be publicly read to the\\npeople in the Church whether among the Prophets or\\namong the Apostles.\\nWe receive nothing whatever of the Arsinoite, or Valentinus,\\nor of Mitias Who also were the compilers of the new\\nBook of Psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides 2\\nWe thus reach the New Testament of Tertullian\\nand Origen, a Canon of sacred writings not yet fully\\ndetermined as to its outer limit, but with an already\\nstereotyped tradition as to the origin and nature of\\nthose received by us except James and 2 Peter. The\\ntradition is partly historical, partly inferential and\\ntheoretical, with a liberal element of legend. It is\\nfor the modern critic to analyse and interpret it. 3\\n1 An indication of the author s own date. Like Tertullian\\nhe objects to Hermas and makes it as recent as possible.\\n2 The concluding paragraph, relating to various Gnostic\\nwritings is corrupt and mutilated.\\n3 Besides the works above cited see Sanday, The Gospels in\\nthe Second Century, 1876 and Reuss, Eistoire du Canon des\\nSaintes Ventures dans VFJglise Chretienne, 2 1863, Engl. 1884,\\nand in particular Euseb. Hist. 3 3, 23-25, 36-39, 5 8, 6 14,\\n25. Popular and interesting is E. H. Hall s Pap ias and his Con-\\ntemporaries, 1899, and D. S. Muzzey s Bise of the New Testa-\\nment, 1900.", "height": "2784", "width": "1780", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "PART II\\nTHE PAULINE EPISTLES\\nCHAPTER III\\nTHE EPISTLES OF THE FIRST PERIOD THE LETTER TO\\nTHE GALATIANS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THES-\\nSALONICA\\nTradition on Ancient tradition is unanimous in placing first\\nof e thePauf- chronologically the Epistles of Paul, both as individual\\nine Epistles, writings and as a collection, though the superior au-\\nthority of the Teachings of the Lord soon led to the\\nplacing of the Gospels first in the Canon. The mere\\nfact that the epistles were earliest read in the churches,\\nand thus soonest gathered into a collection, of course\\ncould not suffice to give them precedence over Mar-\\ncion s single Gospel, much less at a later time over\\nthe sacred quaternion. Sporadic modern attempts to\\nfind writings earlier than Paul s among the Catholic\\nEpistles, 1 or elsewhere in the New Testament, have no\\nsupport in ancient tradition, and are inherently im-\\nprobable as well as contrary to the indications of the\\ntext. The Muratorian fragmentist possessed no tradi-\\ntion of the origin and occasion of the letters of Paul,\\n1 As B. Weiss, explaining the relation of 1 Pet. to Rom. and\\nEph. by dependence on the part of Paul and others who\\napply similar reasoning to Jas.\\n64", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 55\\nbut had already observed that they are self-explana-\\ntory on this score; the letters in turn explain the\\nrise of a literature of this type in the Church, and\\nthe process cannot be inverted. The Canon of Marcion\\nis proof positive of the collection having contained at\\nleast the ten letters accepted by him in 138 a.d. and\\nearlier. But it is supposable that some portion even\\nof this was of unauthentic material, so that in the\\ncase of 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians, the two against\\nwhich a scientific modern criticism still raises doubts,\\nwe must weigh both internal and external evidence.\\nIn the case of all we must look to the letters\\nthemselves to know both what they are and from\\nwhat place, on what occasion they were sent.\\nThe literary activity of Paul is separated into two Periods in\\nwell-marked periods. The great crisis to which he is yf nVs T\\nlooking forward in Kom. 15 25-33, resulted, as we career,\\nknow from the pen of a companion, in nearly three\\nyears of relatively close imprisonment, after which,\\nthough still a captive, his circumstances are changed,\\nas well as the dangers that beset his churches, and\\ntherewith the character of the teaching by which he\\nwould defend them. The theory of Meyer and others,\\nwhich assigns Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, if\\nnot Philippians as well, to the captivity of Csesarea\\nrather than Eome, rests largely on the false reading\\niv E^eo-u in Eph. 1 1, and cannot adequately explain\\nthe Apostle s accessibility nor his confident expec-\\ntation of release and promise of a visit, Philem. 22.\\nThese four, known as Epistles of the Captivity from\\nthe repeated allusions of the author to his bonds, were\\nsent from Rome, three of them on a single occasion.\\nThe four which, from the time of the Muratorian frag-\\nmentist down, have stood apart as the great doctrinal\\nepistles, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ro-\\nmans, belong to an earlier period, but are only disso-", "height": "2780", "width": "1800", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "56 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nciated from the perhaps still earlier 1 Thessalonians,\\n2 Thessalonians, by the accidental circnrnstance that\\nin Thessalonica the difficulties grappled with were of\\na different and less serious character. These six\\nmight be classed together as the Missionary Epistles.\\nAdmitted With the unimportant exception of 2 Thessalonians,\\nonh^maior no doubt exists to-day among scientific critics regard-\\nepistles, ing the authenticity of any one of them, for indeed\\n1 Corinthians is referred to in 96 a.d. as written by\\nPaul to Corinth, -and this and others of the group can\\nbe traced even further bant as employed by Hebrews,\\n1 Peter, and James. Moreover, the impression of\\nvivid feeling, of intense and close relation to objective\\nfact, produced by the writings themselves is corrobo-\\nrated by the largely contemporary tradition of Acts,\\nwhich shows just such combination of agreement in\\nessentials and discrepancy in detail as we expect from\\nhonest witnesses. 1\\nFor the circumstances of the Apostle during the\\ncritical years of his career between the cutting loose\\nfrom his missionary base at Antioch and the carrying\\nto Jerusalem of the first fruits of the Gentile churches\\nfounded by his independent efforts, we must refer to\\nthe lives of Paul, 2 preeminently to the autobiography\\n1 See Paley s Horce Paulines, still the best general statement\\nof the agreement. As to the internal evidence it was Baur who\\nsaid of these four They bear on themselves so incontestably\\nthe character of Pauline originality that it is not possible for\\ncritical doubt to be exercised upon them with any show of\\nreason.\\n2 Besides that of Professor Rush Rhees in the present series,\\nsee those of Baur (Engl, tr.), Conybeare and Howson, Farrar,\\nLewin, Renan, (Engl, tr.), Sabatier, (Engl. tr. 1891), and\\nO. Cone, 1898, with articles on Paul in B. D. s and Enc. s.\\nNew archaeological and geographical data of value have been\\ncontributed by Professor W. M. Ramsay, in the works below\\ncited (p. 59, n. 1).", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 57\\nprefixed to his first great letter as a defence of his\\nindependent position.\\nThere is reason to regard Galatians as written in Galatians\\n50 a.d., earliest of all the epistles of Paul which have n. t.\\nsurvived to us or, if not, as antedated only a few weeks wntin S-\\nor months by 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Nothing in the\\nepistle itself gives much indication of the place of writ-\\ning. Zahn infers, however, from 4 20, that the place\\nwas Corinth, because the readers require no explanation\\nof Paul s inability to visit them, which could hardly\\nhave been the case at Antioch or Ephesus, the alterna-\\ntive localities. 1 This early date is supported by the\\nfact that Paul has but just heard the disheartening\\nnews which calls forth his mingled denunciation and\\npleading (1 6-10, 3 1-3, 4 19, 20). The time seemed\\nto him marvellously short (1 6) for the change which\\nhad come over the Galatian churches since a second\\nvisit (4:13) he had made them, on which he and a\\ncompanion apparently included in Paul s present cir-\\ncle, though not participant in the letter, had warned\\nthem against the danger (1 9). 2 It was not so long\\nafter the agreement among the Apostles at Jerusalem\\nregarding the freedom of Gentile converts from cir-\\ncumcision and the Law, and the subsequent disagree-\\nment of Paul with Peter and Barnabas at Antioch,\\nregarding the basis of table fellowship between cir-\\ncumcised and uncircumcised Christians, but that a\\n1 Ramsay, Paul, p. 191, suggests Antioch, on occasion of\\nActs 18 23 McGiffert, Ap. Age, p. 226 1, Antioch on occasion\\nof Gal. 2 11, -which is excluded by 4 13 rb irpdrepov. Older\\nauthorities say Ephesus, Acts 19 8-10.\\n2 Not I reiterate, but as we said before, so 7 now\\nrepeat. Barnabas, therefore, cannot well be meant (cf. 2:\\n13). Silas might be (Acts 15 40-16 6), especially as on Paul s\\nfirst arrival in Corinth he was still in Macedonia (Acts 18 5).\\nThe previous warning by us must, therefore, be assigned to\\nthe visit of Acts 15 40-16 6.", "height": "2788", "width": "1780", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "58\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nIts date and\\noccasion.\\nThe\\nchurches of\\nGalatia\\nthose of\\nActs 13\\nand 14.\\nclear and explicit statement of the facts, however\\npainful, should seem requisite to Paul. It was long\\nenough after these events, related in their true order\\nin Galatians c. 2, and somewhat more confusedly in\\nActs c. 15, for Paul s Judaising opponents to have\\ndistorted and misrepresented them in their endeavour\\nto make proselytes of his converts. Indeed, Paul\\ndoubted if his statement were not already too late\\n(4:11).\\nAll of these data are best accounted for on the sup-\\nposition that Paul had just completed the great jour-\\nney of evangelisation, which, beginning with a second\\nvisit to the churches of Southern Galatia and Phrygia\\n(Acts 15 40-16 6), had led him across the Hellespont,\\nthrough Macedonia and Achaia, and now had brought\\nhim to Corinth (Acts 18 1), whence communication\\nwith the Galatian churches by way of Ephesus would\\nbe relatively easy. 1 We take this to have been early\\nin the spring of 50 a.d. 2\\nIt is involved in the foregoing that the churches\\nof Galatia (1 2) are the same whose foundation by\\nPaul and Barnabas forms so conspicuous an element\\nin the story of Acts, leading over directly in cc. 13, 14\\nto the great crisis in Jerusalem, c. 15 for the once\\ndominant North-Galatian theory, which intercal-\\nated the evangelisation of Central Asia Minor in Acts\\n16 6 has no room for a second visit of Paul to Galatia\\n1 Zahn thinks that in 1 Thess. 1 8 we have actual evidence\\nthat news of Paul s work in Thessalonica had gone to Timo-\\nthy s home in Lystra, and an answer been brought to Paul in\\nCorinth.\\n2 Our chronology of Paul s career has been fully developed\\nin a series of three articles delivered in 1897 to the Expositor,\\nof which the first appeared in February, 1898, the other two in\\nNovember and December, 1899. Somewhat similar results\\nwere obtained independently by C. H. Turner, art. Chrono-\\nlogy in Hastings Bible Die, 1898,", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "TEE EABLIEST EPISTLES 59\\nuntil Acts 18 23. It is true that in Acts, Derbe, Lys-\\ntra, Iconium, and Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13 14, 14\\n6) are not spoken of as Galatian, or, at most, are in-\\ncluded in the region which is Phrygian and Galatic\\n(rrjv $pvyiav kol TaXaTLKrjv x^P av vera lect.), and\\nthere are important authorities who consider it impos-\\nsible that Paul should have addressed these converts,\\neven if subsequent effort had extended the original\\nfield northward and eastward (Acts 16 6), as men\\nof Galatia (Gal. 3:!). 1 But Paul s practice differs\\nfrom Luke s in that he habitually employs Roman\\ngeographical terms rather than popular designations\\nsuch as Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, and by Roman\\nterminology these cities had been Galatian for\\nseventy-five years. Other objections are insignificant\\nas against the improbability that the historian of the\\ntransition of the Gospel from the Jewish to the Gen-\\ntile world should have related at great length the\\nevangelisation of four cities which had no particular\\nconnection with the great struggle, while overlooking\\nentirely, or mentioning only in passing (Acts 16 6),\\nthat of the great province on whose behalf it was\\nfought (Gal. 2 5). The indications of the epistle Indications\\nare also more favourable to the South Galatian view. e p t f e-\\nWhile its recipients had been generally heathen (4 8),\\nthey were not remote from Jewish influence, and knew\\nthe Law in its Jewish interpretation (4:21). They\\nhad been converted by Paul (4 12-15, 19) in company\\nwith Barnabas, as we should judge from the frequent\\nreferences (2 1, 9, 13) rather than Silas, whose name\\nis not mentioned. They had received Paul as an angel\\n1 The South Galatian theory was maintained hy Kenan,\\nWeizsacker, Hausrath, and others against Lightfoot, Lipsius,\\nand other eminent authorities. Of late Professor Ramsay has\\ngiven it important new support in his Church in the Soman\\nEmpire, 1893, and Paul the Traveller, 1896.", "height": "2780", "width": "1780", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "60 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nof God on this occasion (4 14; cf. 1 8 and Acts 14\\n11), though his visit had been caused by an infirmity\\nof the flesh, such as might occasion hasty retirement\\nfrom the unhealthy coast to the mountainous interior\\n(Acts 13 13), but would not naturally lead to toil-\\nsome journeys over the vast plains of the interior, i.e.\\nNorthern Galatia, with only here and there a city\\nwhere the Apostle s language would be understood. 1\\nIt is then the same fickle multitude of Acts 14\\n8-20 which first received the Apostles as divine and\\nnext stoned them, of whose fickleness Paul has now\\nagain to complain; mongrel kinsmen of the same\\nJews whose persecutions drove him out thence (Acts\\n13:45, 14:19; cf. Gal. 6:12) are now by indirect\\ninfluence seeking to filch from him the churches for\\nwhose liberty he suffers all.\\nPaul s But the agitators who dogged his footsteps along\\nand\u00c2\u00b0their S the wn \u00c2\u00b0l e roa( l from Antioch across Southern Galatia\\npropaganda, to Ephesus, Corinth, and finally to Borne, 2 were Chris-\\ntian Jews, at least in name (6 12 2 Cor. 11 13, 22 f.,\\nPhil. 1 15) they called themselves apostles of\\nChrist, ministers of Christ, and laid stress on\\nhaving known him in the flesh, as against Paul s mere\\nvisions 3 (2 Cor. 5 12-17), and hinted that those who\\nwere of repute, pillars in the mother church, had\\nlittle sympathy with Paul. Their chief purpose was\\nto maintain the prerogative of Israel in the Messianic\\nkingdom (2 Cor. 11:22, Phil. 3:2) and the means\\n1 The language of Central Galatia was still Celtic in\\nJerome s day.\\n2 The traditional route of Gnosticism in the person of Simon\\nMagus and his followers.\\n3 See the anti-Pauline passage Clem. Rom. 17 19 (170-200\\na.d.). Paul s vision of Jesus is compared to Balaam s, to whom\\nthe angel came as an adversary (Nu. 22 22 f.). His speak-\\ning of Peter as condemned (naTe-yvuHxixivos, as in Gal. 2 11),\\nis contrasted with Jesus calling him blessed (Matt. 16 17).", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 61\\nto this end was of course to induce Gentile converts\\nto pass under the yoke of Mosaism. With this all\\nmotive for persecution would cease (Gal. 6 12). If\\npossible, the Gentiles should be persuaded to be cir-\\ncumcised, though after the Jerusalem council (Acts\\n15 1-11, Gal. 2 1-10), this was no longer treated\\nas essential, but as highly advantageous, on the plea\\nthat Paul himself still recommended it (Gal. 5 11\\ncf. Acts 16 3). Our epistle shows it to be only rec-\\nommended for perfection (3:3). Afterward it\\nseems to have been entirely dropped; for, with all\\ntheir pretence of devotion to the Law the Judaisers\\ndid not scruple to take liberties of their own with\\nits requirements (Gal. 6 13), and were well aware\\nthat modifications were indispensable to that religious\\nempire over the Gentile world of which they dreamed. 1\\nThe immediate proximity of the Lycus valley, which Were they\\nPaul on his second visit had been dissuaded from Asria S fr m\\nentering (Acts 16 6), and which he subsequently found\\ninfested with a superstitious type of syncretistic Jew-\\nish-Christian theosophy (Colossians c. 2), suggests this\\nas the derivation of the interloping Galatian Judaisers,\\nand this has some support in the hint of Gal. 3 19,\\n4 1-3, 8-11, that they commended the Mosaic ritual\\nas a proper honour to elemental Beings and angels,\\nas was the case at Colossae and Laodicea (Col. 2 1,\\n8-10, 16-20). 2\\n1 The missionary zeal of the Pharisees rivalled that of the\\nChurch in intensity (Matt. 23 15) and was by no means unready\\nto make concessions, in particular as to circumcision (Jos. Ant.\\n20 2, 4) and the sacrificial system (Mk. 12 33). Their rage\\nwas excited by Paul s abolition of Jewish prerogative.\\n2 Por the aroixela toO K6 rfj.ov see Everling, Paulinische Angel-\\nologie und Damo?iologie, 1888, and E. Y. Hincks in Journ. of\\nBibl. Lit. 1896, and cf Hermas Vis. 3 13, 3 with Rev. 4 6-9.\\nThe Preaching of Peter (Clem. Strom. 6 17) similarly declared\\nthe Jewish observance of Sabbaths, new-moons, and feasts to be", "height": "2784", "width": "1808", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "62 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nWhence had these interlopers the courage, after the\\nsignal defeat of their allies in Jerusalem, to renew\\ntheir propaganda with far more vicious attacks on\\nPaul s character, authority, and doctrine, and in Cor-\\ninth even to display letters of commendation as\\nApostles from the older churches (2 Cor. 3:1; cf\\n1 Cor. 9 1 f.) Our best explanation is Paul s de-\\nfence, including his own account of the controversy at\\nAntioch, as to which, it would seem, he had hitherto\\nobserved the same silence as Luke (Acts 15 30-40).\\nAnalysis of The epistle permits the following logical analysis\\ni. Salutation emphasising Paul s divine call and\\nGospel of a dying Christ, but without the usual\\nthanksgiving, 1 1-5.\\nii. Thesis: Paul s apostolic commission and anti-\\nlegalistic doctrine are of divine authority, 1 6-10.\\niii. Proof. 1. Historical (with principal stress on\\nhis apostleship), cc. 1, 2.\\n(1) From the circumstances of his conversion and\\nindependent missionary activity, 1 11-24.\\n(2) From his successful vindication of both a. when\\nchallenged by false brethren at Jerusalem, 2 1-10\\no. when endangered at Antioch by the weakness of\\nPeter, 2 11-21.\\n2. Doctrinal (in demonstration of his Gospel), cc.\\n3,4.\\n(1) From the outpouring of the Spirit, c. 3. a. Cha-\\nrismatic endowments were granted upon faith, not\\nworks. The Law produced curse. The blessing prom-\\nised to Abraham came on abolition of the Law by\\nChrist, and to all believers as a single body, 3 1-14.\\na worship of angels and archangels. Cf. Acts 7:42 with\\nJust. M. Dial. 18, 19. For syncretistic Jewish-Christian Gnos-\\nticism see Harnack, op. cit., p. 302, and Friedlander, Vorchrist-\\nliche Judische Gnosticismus, 1898.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 63\\nb. The Law was subsequent (v. 15), hence subordinate\\n(17 f.), indirect and disciplinary (19-22), hence of\\ntemporary service to the Christ-heir (23-29).\\n(2) The condition of the legalist is one of relative\\nslavery, 4 1-5 1. a. The adoption effected in Christ\\nwas a deliverance from tutelage (1-7), so that resort\\nto Mosaism by Gentiles is equivalent to return to\\nheathen ceremonial (8-11). Contrast with present\\nconditions our tender relations at the time of your\\nconversion (12-20). b. The Torah itself indicates\\nthis slavery of the legalist. If the inheritance were\\nby fleshly descent it should go to Ishmael, the slave s\\nson. Those who correspond to Isaac, the heir whose\\nbirth was effected by a promise (cf Eom. 9 6-9),\\nare free believers, children of the New Jerusalem,\\n4 21-5 1.\\niv. Practical Inferences, cc. 5, 6. TJiesis The per-\\nsuasion to legalism is a nullification of the Gospel,\\nwithout support in my preaching (5 11) and uncalled\\nfor, 5 2-12.\\n(1) Because our spiritual freedom does not relax but\\nheightens morality, 5 13-24.\\n(2) In particular its law of love calls for brotherly\\nconduct (25 f and reciprocal service, of the erring by\\nthe spiritually gifted, and of the teacher by the taught,\\n6 1-6.\\n(3) Never imagine that it annuls the principle of\\nretribution, 6 6-10.\\nv. Autograph recapitulation and farewell.\\nPaul defended his apostleship, as we see, by appeal Contents,\\nneither to the church in Antioch (Acts 13 1-4), as his\\nassailants probably hoped he would, nor to the Twelve\\nbut proudly declared his calling to the office to have\\nbeen, like Peter s, (1:12, ovSk eyw, 2:8; cf. Matt.\\n16 17) direct from God. Independent as he had been,", "height": "2792", "width": "1812", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "64\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nThe coinci-\\ndent testi-\\nmony of\\nLuke and\\nPaul.\\nThe Jerusa-\\nlem agree-\\nment.\\nand consistent from the start in declaring the aboli-\\ntion of the dispensation of Mosaic Law with its dis-\\ntinction of Jew and Gentile, the Judsean churches\\nhad at first only gloried in his preaching the faith of\\nwhich he once had made havoc (c. 1).\\nThen had come the plots of the false brethren\\nagainst Gentile liberty, and his splendid vindication\\nat Jerusalem by the very pillars, James and Cephas\\nand John, an agreement unmarred by a single reserva-\\ntion, for Paul himself had been as zealous as they in\\ninculcating the duty of alms-giving, impossible for\\nJewish Christians to forget, and they endorsed his Gos-\\npel of the uncircumcision absolutely as committed to\\nhim by the grace of God (2 1-10).\\nWe cannot emphasise too strongly this positive\\nstatement of both Paul and Luke. Whatever else is\\nstated to have occurred on this momentous occasion,\\nneither Paul nor the author of Acts has any idea of\\nadmitting a difference in principle between Paul and\\nany one of the three pillars as to the complete free-\\ndom of the Gentiles from any and all obligations of\\nthe Mosaic Law as such cf Gal. 2 15, 16, with\\nActs 15 11. The disagreement, as Paul is most care-\\nful to explain, arose subsequently and purely as a\\nmatter of practical application of the agreement. 1\\nTo avoid conflict it had been agreed that Paul should\\ngo to Gentile territory (of course not to the exclusion\\nof individual Jews), and the rest to Jewish (of course\\n1 Eamsay s attempt (Paul, 162 ff.) to invert the order of\\nGal. 2 1-10 and 11-14, identifying 2 1-10 with Acts 11 30 s\\n12 25 is based on a misapprehension of the matter in question,\\nviz. eating with Gentiles, which must necessarily be subse-\\nquent to admitting them. Paul is not giving Peter a new idea\\nin Gal. 2 16, but appealing to his professed principles (Acts\\n15 11). Another objection to Ramsay s view is the vacillatory\\nconduct it would require us to impute to Barnabas.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 65\\nnot to the exclusion of individual Gentiles). The Jew\\nshould not be persuaded to give up the customs of his\\nfathers (Acts 21 21) nor the Gentile to assume the\\nyoke. So they parted, with a hearty right hand of\\nfellowship, and Paul and Barnabas returned to Anti-\\noch. Soon after came Peter thither, a further evidence\\nof sympathy. But now an unforeseen contingency arose.\\nIn mixed churches like Antioch the agreement was in-\\nherently incompatible with fellowship. At the com-\\nmon table of the Church, either the Jew must Hellenise\\nto the extent of eating what was set before him,\\nasking no questions for conscience sake (1 Cor.\\n10 25), thus disregarding the Mosaic prohibition of\\nblood, and things strangled, and things offered\\nto idols or the Gentile must Judaise to the extent\\nof fencing his table from these pollutions.\\nTo Paul there was no question as to which alterna- Its two pos-\\ntive should be adopted. From the beginning it had p re tatious~\\nbeen his practice to be as without the Law to them\\nthat are without, and as under it, to them that are\\nunder the Law (1 Cor. 9: 20 f.). Christian considera-\\ntion should lead the strong brother, who knows\\nthat there is nothing unclean in itself, not to dis-\\nregard the scruples of the weak (Bomans, c. 14).\\nIf the Jewish Christian was thus protected from\\ncompulsion Paul had a right to expect reciprocally\\nthat no compulsion should be put upon the Gentile\\nChristian. He and Peter, therefore, who knew that\\na man is not justified by the works of the Law\\n(Gal. 2 16) should not stand upon their ceremonial\\ncleanness when among Gentiles, compelling them\\nto Judaise on pain of separation. To do in Borne\\nas the Bomans do was Paul s solution of the ques-\\ntion how to regulate his diet in the different fields\\n(1 Cor. 9 20 f.). Nor would Peter, the ardent,\\ngenerous fisherman of Galilee, when left to himself,", "height": "2780", "width": "1816", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "66\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nJewish\\nbe less liberal than his learned fellow-apostle. Hence\\nPeter also ate with the Gentiles.\\nBut the false brethren, though silenced at Jeru-\\numstian sa i em could not leave unchallenged a construction of\\nconstruction D\\nof the the agreement which, on occasion, would release Jews\\nagreement. frQm the obligation of the Law. Hence there soon\\nappeared in Antioch, doubtless on their complaint to\\nJerusalem, a second delegation from James (Gal.\\n2 12), implying a second assembly in Jerusalem,\\nto which must be referred most of what in Acts\\n15 19-35 is mistakenly related as of the first (but cf.\\n21 25). In deference to these demands not only\\nPeter, but the rest of the Jews, including even\\nBarnabas, drew back and separated themselves.\\nPaul accused them publicly of compelling the Gen-\\ntiles to Judaise. Does he mean that they now\\nattempted to repudiate the great concession made at\\nJerusalem, and reimpose the law That would be\\ninconceivably childish, especially for Barnabas. No,\\nbut conversely with Paul his Jewish friends felt that\\nunless rules were laid down governing the eating of\\nChristian Jews when among Gentile brethren, the\\nGentile Christian would be compelling his Jewish\\nbrother to Hellenise. Hence the elder brethren\\nin Jerusalem, applying in the absence of Peter and\\nPaul what they conceived to be implied in the agree-\\nment, prescribed for mixed communities (Acts 15 23)\\nabstinence from pollutions which would involve the\\nJew. 1 This well-meant, but to Paul intolerable, attempt\\n1 It is a common error to suppose that eating with Gentiles is\\nto the Jew unlawful per se. The strictest Jew may eat with\\na Gentile if the latter s table is guarded from pollutions.\\nWhen the unforeseen case of mixed communities arose, the\\nJerusalem authorities assumed this to be a necessary corol-\\nlary of the agreement. In reality it was impracticable. Paul\\nwent as far toward adjusting Gentile tables to Jewish suscepti-", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 67\\nto construe the agreement, constitutes the substance Purpose\\nof the so-called Jerusalem decrees, the enactment of decrees\\nwhich Paul explicitly denies, for the occasion of Acts\\n15 1-12 Gal. 2 1-10 so that their introduction in\\nActs 15 13-35 is premature. Indeed, in the nature\\nof the case, they could not precede Peter s vacillation\\nat Antioch, for three of the decrees prescribe just the\\nterms on which he might eat with the Gentiles.\\nThe fourth, the prohibition of fornication, is intended\\nto remove an obstacle to fellowship of a different kind.\\nIt must be understood literally as a reenforcement of\\nthe incredible laxity of Gentile morality. Its perti-\\nnence appears from the emphasis which Paul himself\\nlays upon it in the same manner and the same con-\\nnection (1 Thess. 4:3-8; Gal. 5 20 1 Cor. 6 12-20).\\nTo suppose that the Apostles would have wantonly\\ninterfered with the marital relations of Gentile fami-\\nlies is to regard them as insane fanatics.\\nThus the course of events which led up to the great\\nbreach between Paul and the older Apostles, and so\\ncolours all his later career, was as follows After the\\nevangelisation of Galato-Phrygia, reactionaries in An-\\ntioch objected, but met complete discomfiture on refer-\\nence of the question to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas\\nreturned to Antioch accompanied by Peter (not Judas\\nand Silas, Acts 15 22). Disregard of the law here\\nby Peter and the Jews for the sake of fraternisation\\nwas made the occasion of a second complaint at Jeru-\\nsalem drawing thence the delegation (Judas and\\nSilas and the decrees in application of the compact,\\nto which all the Jews at Antioch save Paul gave in.\\nThe more completely Paul found himself in the\\nbilities as was practicable when he directed the strong\\nbrother to abstain when in his presence the weak (scrupu-\\nlous) declared, This hath been offered to an idol (1 Cor.\\n10:14-33).", "height": "2784", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nPaul s\\nsecond stand\\nfor Gentile\\nliberty at\\nAntioch.\\nConsequent\\nseparation\\nfrom the\\nelder\\nbrethren.\\nminority the more unsparing was he in his remorse-\\nless logic and his determination to make a second\\nstand against Peter, Barnabas, the delegation from\\nJames, and all the rest of the Jews that the truth\\nof the Gospel might continue with his Gentile con-\\nverts. In a public meeting of the Church (e[XTrpo r6ev\\nirdvTwv) he charged Peter himself with a betrayal of\\nboth the agreement (drayKa\u00c2\u00a3as IovSai\u00c2\u00a3\u00c2\u00abv) and of his\\nown acknowledged principles (vs. 16). He does not\\nhesitate to impute to him in this letter both cowardice\\nand hypocrisy (vs. 12 f.). 1\\nWe need no other explanation why Paul thenceforth\\nno longer depends either on Jerusalem or Antioch as\\nhis missionary base why he is separated from Barna-\\nbas, his old companion (Acts 15 39) why the Juda-\\nisers no longer scruple to undermine his influence,\\nattack his character and apostleship, proselytise his\\nconverts, and even guardedly recommend circumcision.\\nWe understand why Paul on his part makes no further\\nappeal to the Apostles or older churches to put a stop\\nto their machinations, why, after ten years of unsup-\\nported missionary labour when his great peace-offering\\n(Bom. 15 16) of the churches of the Greek world is\\nat last ready, and he is about to go up to Jerusalem\\nbearing the rich evidence that he had indeed taught\\nthem to remember the poor, he even doubts whether\\nthe ministration which he has for Jerusalem will be\\nacceptable to the saints, scarcely venturing to expect\\nthat he can be delivered from them that are diso-\\nbedient in Judaea (Bom. 15 30 f.). We only wonder\\n1 And Loman, Steck, Van Manen, and others maintain\\nthat this was forged, yet in spite of all was shortly after\\naccepted as Pauline by churches which revered both Apostles,\\nincluding those to which it falsely purported to have been sent\\nWe cannot believe that even Paul himself a year or two later\\nwould have written as he has in Gal. 2 12 f.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 69\\nat the Christian forbearance which on both sides went\\nso far to heal the breach. For here is Paul on his\\npart, at the first opportunity, even circumcising Tim-\\nothy to conciliate the Jews that were in those parts\\n(Galatia, Acts 16 3), 1 and subsequently in his letters\\nto his churches so insisting upon those two of the\\ndecrees which had a real moral foundation as almost\\nto conflict with his principle that even abstinence\\nfrom d8t)\\\\69vTOL is a voluntary concession to the scruples\\nof the weak (Eom. c. 14 1 Cor. 6 12 ff 8:1-\\n11 1). We find him in all his quarrel with the\\nsupereminent Apostles speaking with only respect With\\nand honour of Peter, Barnabas, James, and the Twelve Aspect\\n(1 Cor. 3 22 9 5 f. 15: 1-11), and in Ephesians,\\nafter the visit to Jerusalem, he is brimming over with\\nthe glad consciousness that the enmity between Jew\\nand Gentile is slain, the wall of division in the new\\ntemple of God broken down; nay, in his vision, the\\nvery foundation of the now united Church is the\\nconsecrated Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus him-\\nself being the head stone of the corner (2 20). On\\nthe other side there was also generosity. Beyond the\\nimmediate circle of Antiochian churches for -which\\nthe decrees were enacted Antioch, Syria and Cilicia,\\nActs 15 23) there is no evidence of their promulga-\\ntion, 2 and even the passages which relate to them in\\nActs 15 20, 29 21 25, in the Western text have been The later\\ntransformed into mere moral requirements. 3 At Ephe- church.\\n1 McGiffert in dating Galatians before Paul s departure from\\nAntioch (Acts 15 36 ff.) is of course obliged to reject Acts\\n16 3 as unhistorical cf Gal. 5 2.\\n2 The statement of Acts 16 4 not only is preposterous in view\\nof the above, but conflicts with the address of the letter (15 23).\\n2 It reads in vs. 29, To abstain from things offered to idols\\nand blood (i.e. violence) and fornication, and not to do to an-\\nother the things ye would not should happen to yourselves\\ncf. A:5. 1 2.", "height": "2772", "width": "1812", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "crisis.\\n70 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nsus a generation later the author of Kev. 2 14, 20,\\nwhether John the Apostle, or only some representa-\\ntive of Palestinian Christianity, deems himself abso-\\nlutely loyal to the great founder of the churches of\\nAsia in insisting upon those two of the decrees, and\\nthose only (v. 24, cf Acts 15 28), to which Paul him-\\nself had demanded obedience not indeed as decrees,\\nbut on moral grounds. A few years later still we find\\nthe same requirement put forward by the Church at\\nlarge. At8. 6 3, after a prohibition of fornication,\\ndirects, As concerning meats, bear what thou art\\nable yet abstain at all events from meat sacrificed to\\nidols for it is the worship of dead gods (cf 1 Cor.\\n10 20 f\\nResults of We may not have the direct language of Peter in\\nthe Galatian p eter nor of James in James, the former Pauline\\nto the core, the latter a well-meant interpretation of\\nPaulinism but if Mk. 7 1-19 and Acts 10 9-16\\n11 3-10, are not Petrine in source it would be hard to\\nfind what might be so termed, and here Paul s demand\\nis conceded both in principle and in practice, though\\nin Acts anachronistically, and elsewhere, too, not\\nalways with clear appreciation of Paul s point of\\nview. But in general we may say: What might be\\nexpected to happen when Paul carried his olive\\nbranches to Jerusalem after the ten years of misun-\\nderstanding and estrangement, is substantially what\\nwe find related in Acts 21 17-28, including the attack\\nof the Jews from (Proconsular) Asia for while\\nPaul s differences with the older Apostles never in-\\nvolved a principle, and could not fail to give way\\nto the spirit manifested in Rom. 15 25-33, there\\nwas in all the region from Antioch to Ephesus an\\nelement of bitter, implacable hatred, from the time\\nthat he had openly denounced the second attempt of\\nthe Judaisers to employ the authority of the Jerusalem", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 71\\nChurch against him. It must be confessed that the\\nletter to the Galatian churches was not of a type\\nto conciliate them (Gal. 1 10). To the legalists\\nit was, in fact, a declaration of open war, and not\\naltogether one-sided in strength, since Paul had de-\\nprived himself of his best allies by his harshness to\\nPeter and Barnabas. Of its effect on the Galatians\\nwe have only hints, but most happy ones, in 1 Cor.\\n16 1 and Acts 20 4, where the delegation charged\\nwith the offering at Jerusalem includes Gaius of Derbe\\nand Timothy of Lystra.\\nIf Paul s two letters to Thessalonica were also of The corre-\\nthe year 50, as we have assumed, but a few weeks or ^th The\\nmonths later than Galatians, we should expect them salonica.\\nto show some echo of the conflict. It is true that the\\nJudaisers seem never to have penetrated Macedonia\\n(Phil. 1 3) and the same motives which led to the\\ndrawing of a veil over the painful scenes at Antioch\\nwould exclude the subject now, if possible. Uncon-\\nsciously, however, the Apostle s tone might be expected\\nto betray here and there his emotion. Such traces\\nappear indeed to be present but they are few, 1 for\\nanother subject engrosses him.\\nUnlike Galatians and Romans, the letters to Thessa-\\nlonica and Corinth form part of a correspondence, so\\nthat logical form is often superseded by the sequence\\nof the letter, or other information, to which Paul is\\ni We mention only 1 Thess. 2 4 (cf. Gal. 1 10) 2:15 (cf.\\nGal. 6 12), 3 7 f. (Gal. 4 19) 1 5 ff. (Gal. 6:7); 2 Thess.\\n3 2 f. (Gal. 1:7; 3:1; 4:17; 5 7-12) 2 Thess. 3 13 (Gal.\\n6:9). One of the counts against the genuineness of 2 Thess.\\nhas been its undue suspicion of unscrupulous enemies, 2 2, 15\\n3: 17. Paul s own previous letter, distorted by report, was\\nprobably the only objective factor: cf. 1 Thess. 5: 27, and see\\nJulicher, Einleitung 3 p. 41, but after the Galatian episode he\\nhad cause to distrust false brethren.", "height": "2776", "width": "1808", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "72\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nAnalysis of\\nl 1\\nAnalysis of\\n2 Thess.\\nreplying. The order of 1 and 2 Thessalonians is as\\nfollows\\ni. Answer to the Thessalonians letter, cc. 1-3.\\n(1) Salutation, and epistolary thanksgiving and\\nprayer, 1 1, 2-10.\\n(2) Defence against Jewish (2 15 f.) charges that\\nthe Apostles (vs. 6) were self-seeking deceivers,\\n2 1-12.\\n(3) Eeciprocation of the Thessalonians thanksgiv-\\ning for the word of the message in praise to God\\nfor their steadfastness under Jewish persecution,\\n2 13-16.\\n(4) Why Paul had been unable to revisit them, and\\nwas compelled instead to send Timothy, whose report\\njust received on his return is a great relief. Until\\nable to come in person, Paul commends them to God,\\n2 17-20 3 1-5, 6-10, 11-13.\\nii. Exhortation to further Progress, cc. 4, 5.\\n(1) In Christian morality, (a) regarding sexual pur-\\nity, 4 1-8 (6) regarding the manifestation of love in\\nreciprocal service and industry, 9-12.\\n(2) In doctrine, (a) as to the participation of de-\\nceased friends in the Messianic resurrection, 4 13-18\\n(b) as to the sudden coming of Christ, 5 1-11.\\n(3) In administration of church affairs, 5 12-22.\\n(4) Blessing and farewell, 5 23-28.\\nA reply to 1 Thessalonians was soon received by\\nPaul, to which 2 Thessalonians makes answer as\\nfollows\\nSupplementary Letter\\n(1) Salutation and thanksgiving reciprocating 1 that\\nof the Thessalonians, 1 1, 2, 3-12.\\n1 From 1 4 it appears that the corresponding element of the\\nThessalonians letter had deprecated Paul s praise (1 Thess. 1\\n4-10 2 14). They should glory in Paul. From 1 11 it is", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 73\\n(2) Correction of current misinterpretations of\\nPaul s doctrine of the Parousia; evil must first cul-\\nminate expression of confidence and blessing, 2 1-12,\\n13-15, 16-17.\\n(3) Concluding exhortation, 3 1-15. (a) General\\napproval, 1-5 reenf orcement of the previous ad-\\nmonition to church, discipline in view of reported\\ninsubordination, 6-15.\\n(4) Blessing and autograph farewell, 3 16, 17-18.\\nIn 1 Thessalonians Paul is replying to a letter just Occasion of\\nreceived by the hand of Timothy, whom he had sent 1 Tness\\nback from Athens after receiving his report of the\\ntrials the infant church was undergoing, to comfort\\nthem (1 Thess. 3:1-5). A fuller account of the cir-\\ncumstances can be had by comparing the slightly dis-\\ncrepant statements of Acts 17 1-10 18 1, 5 with\\n1 Thess. 1 1, 5, 7, 8 2:9; 3 1-6. 2 A promised visit\\nhad been frustrated, the persecuting Jews making the\\nfact a basis for slander which Paul must meet. Tim-\\nothy s report had been highly encouraging (3 6 f\\nthough there is room to perfect that which is lacking\\nin their faith. Morally Paul urges only the matter\\nof purity and the general obligation of love and mutual\\nhelpfulness (4 1-12). Doctrinally they as Greeks are Doctrinal\\nnaturally in need of explanation of his teaching as\\nto the bodily resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. c. 15), deaths\\nclear that they had assured him of their prayers in his behalf,\\nas requested 1 Thess. 5 25.\\n1 See the art. by R. Harris in Expositor, January, 1899, and\\nnote the /cat ij/xeTs 1 Thess. 2 13.\\n2 Acts gives a wrong impression (i) of the proportion of Jews,\\na result of the author s pragmatism (ii) of the time spent\\n(17:2); cf. Phil. 4: 16, and the evidences of development in\\n1 Thess. 2 8-11, 17-20 3 5-10 (iii) Acts 17 14-16 18 5\\nomits a journey of Timothy to Athens and back cf. 1 Thess.\\n3:1-6.", "height": "2784", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "74\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nOccasion of\\n2 Thess.\\nDoctrinal\\ncontent.\\nhaving occurred in the church. Paul appeals to the\\nteaching of Jesus (Matt. 10 39 regarding the equal\\nshare in the kingdom of those who die before the\\nSecond Coming, following this with a typical Jewish\\nrepresentation of the scenes of the Judgment Day,\\nwhich will overtake the unbelieving world as a thief\\n(Lk. 12 39 f 17 26-30 Eev. 3 3). Christians will\\nwatch and be sober, not taken unaware, however sud-\\nden the Coming of the Lord. Concluding exhortations\\nlook especially to church discipline and the moderation\\nof a somewhat inflammatory spirit of prophecy.\\nA further link in the correspondence is 2 Thessalo-\\nnians; for while the amanuensis may have been dif-\\nferent, 1 the senders (Paul, Silas, and Timothy) are the\\nsame, and the situation merely a little later in time,\\nenough for word back and forth (1:11; 3 1, 4). 2\\nThe opening thanksgiving and prayer 3 (combined\\nas in 1 Thess. 1:2; Col. 1:3, 9; Eph. 1:3 ff., 15;\\nPhil. 1:3 f.) are for the continued growth of the\\nchurch in faith and love, despite persistent persecu-\\ntion. They foreshadow, characteristically, the main\\nsubject, the Day of the Lord.\\nThe main occasion of the letter appears in c. 2.\\nThe notion was current whether through spirit (i.e.\\nutterance of a local prophet cf. 1 Thess. 5 19 f.),\\nor report, or letter purporting to be from those with\\n1 Slight peculiarities of language are noted, as eix a P l rTe v\\n6 peiXofj.ev 1 3 2 13, for evxapt-o-Todfiev 1 Thess. 1:2; 2 13,\\nKtjpios for 6e6s in a few formulae, etc.\\n2 We may date 2 Thess. about the end of 50 a.d. Corinth is\\nalready the centre of a group of churches (1 4, cf 2 Cor. 1:1;\\nRom. 16 1) and opposition is high (3 2), but Gallio s decision\\n(Acts 18 12) does not come within view.\\n3 Note again the significant and inimitable uare avroi/s\\ni] fia s iv bfj.iv evKavxaadai. The Thessalonians had written that\\nthey boasted of the Apostles against the slanderers cf. 2 Cor.\\n1: 14.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 75\\nPaul (2 2), that the Day of the Lord had already\\nbegun 1 (cf. 1 Thess. 2:16; Jn. 3:19-21; 12:31).\\nPaul suspects misrepresentation (iiaTraT^arj). He en-\\nters, therefore, more into the particulars of his escha-\\ntology, qualifying the warnings of 1 Thessalonians as\\nto the suddenness of the Coming, by interjecting the\\nJewish doctrine of Antichrist, whose work must first\\nreach its culmination. If this constitutes a contradic-\\ntion of 1 Thessalonians it is not more so than the\\nqualification in Lk. 21 7-33, and parallels, of the warn-\\ning against being taken unaware in Lk. 17:26-30;\\n21 34-36, and parallels. Both are elements of the\\nLord s teaching. The section closes with an exhorta-\\ntion to stand by the traditions taught them (cf 1 Thess.\\n4 15), whether by word, or epistle of ours.\\nThe practical section (c. 3) lays increased emphasis Practical\\non repression of the disorders of 1 Thess. 4 11 f\\n5 14, advancing from general exhortation to specific\\ncommand (2 Thess. 3:4, 6, 12). The drones who\\nreceive church support in return for inflammatory\\nprophecies are commanded to follow Paul s\\nexample of industry (1 Thess. 2 9-12). Disobedience\\nis to be visited with church discipline. The autograph\\nfarewell is the token of authenticity in every letter. 2\\nOf all the earlier epistles of Paul, 2 Thessalonians\\nalone admits a reasonable doubt of genuineness in the Genuineness\\njudgment of modern critics. 3 External evidence proves J ess\\n1 Just at hand, Am. R. V., hardly expresses ivia-TTjKev\\ncf. 2 Tim. 2 18.\\n2 References to the previous letter (2:2, 15 3 13 or\\nletters (3 17) show that Paul s correspondence with his\\nchurches did not begin with 1 Thess. or even with Gal. (cf 2\\nCor. 11 28), though with Gal. they may well have assumed a\\nvastly increased importance.\\n8 A post-Pauline imitation of 1 Thess. in the judgment of\\nHilgenfeld, Weizsacker, Holtzmann, et al. Defended by Juli-\\ncher, and many others.", "height": "2780", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "76 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nit indeed to have been, in existence at least as early as\\n117 a.d. and universally acknowledged in 138, which\\nprecludes the date under Trajan assumed by Hilgen-\\nfeld and a few radicals. But if we place the date\\nbefore 70 a.d., as is reasonably certain from 2:4, it is\\nconceivable that a Christian apocalyptist might aim\\nto modify Paul s eschatology in 1 Thessalonians in the\\ndirection suggested by the reign and death of Nero,\\nand martyrdom of the Apostle. 1 The style is admit-\\ntedly Pauline and the language not un-Pauline, but\\nthis can be accounted for as due to the large element\\nof reproduction of 1 Thessalonians. The subject\\n(1 5-10 2 1-12) and the appeals to apostolic tradi-\\ntion and command (2 15 3:4, 6, 14) are readily\\nadaptable to such a theory, while the distinctly sharper\\ntone of authority than in 1 Thessalonians may also be\\nPrincipal so explained. 2 But the principal objections to the gen-\\nobjections. uineness are two 2 Thess. 2:2, if the epistle\\nwere genuine, would prove the circulation during\\nPaul s lifetime of spurious letters, which is admitted\\nto be highly improbable, (ii) The eschatology is said\\nto be un-Pauline.\\nReply. But (i) 2 Thess. 2 2 does not prove the existence\\nof spurious letters, but, at most, of the suspicion in\\nPaul s mind of such a possibility, 3 which as Julicher\\nhas pointed out would be easily accounted for by dis-\\n1 So Schrniedel in Holtzmann s Handbuch.\\n2 Spitta (Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchr., p. 137) suggests a different\\namanuensis a reasonable explanation of the phrases above\\nnoted (p. 74 n. 1). The sharper tone is quite as likely to be due\\nto historical conditions cf. 2 Cor. 10-13 with 1 Cor. 9. It cer-\\ntainly proves 2 Thess. the later of the two (against Grotius, Bun-\\nsen, Ewald, et ah). From 3 11, 14 it might be inferred\\nthat the Thessalonian church authorities had requested this sup-\\nport from the Apostle toward the carrying out of his exhorta-\\ntion, 1 Thess. 5 14.\\n8 Perhaps not a more serious suspicion than in Gal. 1 8.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 77\\ntorted reports of what was taught in the genuine\\nletter (cf 1 Thess. 1 10 2 16 4 13-17).\\nObjection (ii) borrows much of its force from a now\\ndiscredited method of treating apocalypse. Gunkel\\nand Bousset have shown that the true key to its sym-\\nbolism is not to be found in the allegorising of current\\nevents, but in the adaptation of a stereotyped, in all\\nessential elements pre-Christian material. The little\\napocalypse, 2 Thess. 2 3-12, is un-Pauline in precisely\\nthe same way that the little apocalypse of Matt. ch.\\n24 and parallels is un-Christian. 1\\nIt does not follow that Paul and Jesus did not take Apocalyptic\\nup such elements of current belief in which they had jesus and\\nbeen nurtured since childhood, even alongside of new Paul,\\nprinciples which to moderns seem more or less incon-\\ngruous. It is undeniable that they showed this natural\\nmental hospitality in the sphere of angelology and\\ndemonology why not in eschatology But more we\\nmay rightly deny that any incompatibility of thought\\nexists between 2 Thess. 2 3-12 and the Pauline es-\\nchatology of 1 Thessalonians or elsewhere, and fairly\\naffirm that no date subsequent to Paid s death will\\nso well account for the representation of 2 Thess. 2\\n3-12 as 50-51 a.d.\\nT\\\\ T e need not assume with Hitzig in vs. 6 f a play upon Antichrist\\nthe name Claudius (=qui claudit, he who restrains), in ess\\nnor deny that the restrainer may well be a primeval\\nelement of the Antichrist legend but in the present\\napplication of the word, first neuter, then masculine,\\nthe reference is certainly to Paul s unfailing refuge\\nagainst Jewish malice and persecution, the usually\\nincorruptible Koman magistracy (Bom. 13 1-6),\\nwhich at this very period was signally befriending\\nhim (Acts 18 12-17). The savage persecution of\\ni Cf. Belial 2 Cor. 6 15 with 2 Thess. 2 3, 4, and see\\nE. Haupt Eschat. Aussagen Jesu, 1895.", "height": "2780", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "to date.\\n78 NEW TESTAMENT INTBOBVCTION\\nNero, in which both Peter and Paul were victims, at\\nleast according to early belief, was a thunderbolt from\\nthe clear sky, which struck the Church dumb with\\nhorror and completely transformed its conception of\\nthe Empire (cf Rev. 6 9-11 7 14 14 8 16 19\\n18 24). A representation of Rome as a protecting\\npower, restraining Belial, even temporarily, is\\ninconceivable after July 64 a.d.\\nResults as Similarly with the mystery of lawlessness, the\\nAntichrist whose lying signs and wonders will\\nlead to the great apostacy among the elect people\\n(Israel), so that, as a parody of the true Messiah, he\\nshall sit in the temple at Jerusalem, receiving divine\\nhonours. We may admit a possible tincture of the\\nlanguage by the frightful experience of Paul s father-\\nland in Caligula s insane attempt to erect his statue\\nthere for worship (39-40 a.d. cf. 1 Thess. 2:16),\\nbut the elements are pure, stereotyped Jewish apoc-\\nalyptic tradition (cf. Matt. 24: 15, 24, 30 and parallels,\\nand Rev. cc. 13, 17 2 Esdr. 13 10 f At8. 16 etc.).\\nBut it is no less certain that the author presupposes\\nthe continued existence of the Jerusalem that now\\nis (Gal. 4:25; cf. Rev. 11:1-8) and its visible\\ntemple, at least until the culmination of the power of\\nAntichrist, than that the centre of gravity for the entire\\npower of evil is Jewish and purely Jewish. The an-\\ntithesis is between the earthly Jerusalem under the\\nmastery of Belial and apostate Israel (vss. 3, 10-12), 1\\nand the heavenly Jerusalem, revealed at the coming\\nof Jesus (Phil. 3 20). Rome plays a subordinate\\npart. Surely the Pauline disciple who between 65\\ni Cf. Rev. 11 8 Rom. 11 11-14, 23-32 supplements this doc-\\ntrine of the rejection of all but the remnant of Israel with\\nthe hopeful paradox of the provocation to jealousy of the rest\\nbut this looks beyond the point reached in 2 Thess. and itself\\nis probably an adaptation of apocalyptic tradition.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 79\\nand 70 a.d. could so readjust the eschatology of the\\ngreat Apostle would be an extraordinary phenomenon.\\nAnd then, in addition, to procure the acceptance of\\nhis forgery in the churches And this in spite of the\\nfact that within a year or two events had given the\\nlie to his expectation (2:4).\\nIn spite of all ingenuity, no historical setting has Forgery\\nyet been framed to account for 2 Thessalonians, whether probable!*\\nas a unit, or as a combination of Pauline with post-\\nPauline elements 1 so free from serious objection to\\nan impartial judgment as the view supported by its\\nown representation and by the unbroken tradition of\\nantiquity, that it was written by Paul from Corinth\\nin answer to the reply from Thessalonica to 1 Thes-\\nsalonians, 2 and aims to remove certain misconstructions\\nof the same. The present tendencies of criticism are\\nall in favour of this view.\\n1 So P. W. Schmidt (Prot. Bibel), Davidson (Introd. i,\\np. 347), Hase (Kirchengesch. i, 1885, p. 284). Schmiedel (loc.\\ncit.) acknowledges the futility of division theories.\\n2 Observe 1 4, 11 3 1, and the relation above noted of\\n3 11, 14 to 1 Thess. 5 14 followed by 2 Thess. 3 6-15.\\nIn addition to Introductions, Lives of Paul, etc., see Ram-\\nsay s Historical Commentary on Galatians, 1899 Lightfoot,\\nGalatians, 10 1890 J. Weiss, Apostelgesch., 1898 Lightfoot s art.\\nin Smith s B. D., Second Thess. and Farrar, Paul, ii, Exc.\\n1. For the genuineness of Paul s epistles see especially Knowl-\\ning, The Witness of the Epistles. Jowett The Epistles of St.\\nPaul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Bomans, 1856) and Elli-\\ncott, (Galatians 1854, \u00c2\u00b11867, Tliessalonians 1865) have special\\ncommentaries of value. The consecutive vols, of Meyer s great\\nCommentary on the books of the N. T. (Engl. 1887) contain\\neach. Introductions. Holtzmann s Hand-Commentar is unfortu-\\nnately untranslated. Less thorough are those of the English\\nserial commentaries, the Cambridge Greek Testament 1887-, etc.", "height": "2792", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "CHAPTEE IV\\nTHE EPISTLES OF THE FIRST PERIOD THE CORRE-\\nSPONDENCE WITH CORINTH AND LETTER TO ROME\\n1 and 2 Cor.\\nand Rom.\\nCharacter\\nof the\\nAchaian\\nchurch.\\nThe letters of the period between Paul s two depar-\\ntures from Corinth, after his first and after his last\\nvisit, present problems of a predominantly historical\\ncharacter. Their authenticity is practically undis-\\nputed. Romans can be shown to have been known\\nnot only to Clement of Kome, Ignatius, and Polycarp,\\nbut even to the authors of 1 Peter, Hebrews, and\\nJames. 1 1 Corinthians is almost equally well known\\nfrom the very beginning, and, as we saw, is spoken\\nof by Clement of Rome as written by Paul to the Cor-\\ninthians. 2 Corinthians appears to have come into\\ncirculation later, but is equally unassailable. Critics\\ndiffer only as to the circumstances of writing, and as\\nto whether in 2 Corinthians and Romans, fragments\\nof other letters of Paul may not have been editorially\\ntaken up.\\nThe special interest of the author of Acts leads him\\nto drop the whole subject of Paul s missionary activity\\nin Achaia as soon as the inevitable breach with the\\n1 Thus Rom. 9 25 1 Pet. 2 10, Rom. 9 32 f. 1 Pet. 2\\n6-8, Rom. 12 1 1 Pet. 2 5, Rom. 12 2 1 Pet. 1 14. We\\nhave reproductions of the thought of Rom. 12 3-6, 9 f., 16-18,\\n13 1-7 in 1 Pet. 4 7-11 1 22 3 8, 9, 11; 2 13-17. Heb. 11\\n11 f 19 and 10 30 depend on Rom. 4 17-21 and 12 19. Rom.\\n2 1, 13 4 1, 20 5 3-5 7 23, and 13 12 recur in Jas. 4 11\\n1 22 2:21; 1 6, 2-4 4 1, and 1 21.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 81\\nsynagogue takes place (18 6 cf 13 46, etc. and\\nthe Apostle is thus compelled to turn to the Gen-\\ntiles. Hence, while it is clear from the epistles\\n(1 Cor. 12:2) that this group of churches, including\\nperhaps even Athens, as well as Cenchreee and other\\nneighbouring towns (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1 1), was pre-\\ndominantly of Gentile origin, the converts mentioned\\nin Acts 18 1-18 include not one Gentile, not even\\nthose whom Paul had personally baptised (perhaps in\\nthe early period before the coming of Silas and Timo-\\nthy, Acts 18:5), not even the household of Stepha-\\nnas, the firstfruits of Achaia (1 Cor. 1 14-16 16 15).\\nOn the other hand, the epistles give even more unmis-\\ntakable evidence than Acts of the usual leaven of Jews\\nand Jewish Christians, with the troubles occasioned at\\nfirst by the former (Acts 18: 12-17; cf. 20:3), after-\\nward by the latter (2 Cor. cc. 10-13).\\nBegun under a special sense of personal insufficiency its early\\n(1 Cor. 2:1-5), Paul s work among the mixed popu- hlstor y-\\nlation of the great heathen city had proved excep-\\ntionally fruitful (1:4-7; cf. Acts 18:8-11), though\\namong the humbler classes (1 26), and against strenu-\\nous opposition (1 Thess. 2:15 f.; 2 Thess. 3:2; cf.\\nActs 18: 6, 12-17). His earliest allies were a certain\\nAquila and Prisca (Acts, Priscilla a Jewish\\ncouple whom he encountered on his arrival, recently\\nexpelled from Rome under an edict of Claudius, which\\nOrosius dates in 49 a.d. 2 This couple, if not owing\\ntheir conversion itself to Paul, became his permanent\\nhelpers, not merely in evangelisation, but in the\\nmanual labour by which the Apostle eked out the\\nscanty aid of the infant and persecuted churches of\\nMacedonia; for he would suffer no man to say he had\\ni See B. D., Corinth.\\n2 Probably an error for fifty. See Ramsay, Paul, p. 254.", "height": "2780", "width": "1816", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "82 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ntaken money from those he was seeking to evangelise\\n(2 Cor. 11 7-12). But Jewish malice was effectually\\nfrustrated by Gallio, the high-minded and courteous\\nbrother of Seneca, who would seem to have reached\\nhis province about May, 1 51 a.d. The charge they\\nimmediately brought against Paul before him appears\\nto have been that of propagating a cult unrecognised\\nby Eoman law; for they argue from their Scriptures\\nthat the new doctrine has no claim to the legal privi-\\nleges of Judaism. Gallio, with all a philosopher s\\ncontempt for religious persecution, and a lawyer s for\\npettifogging, summarily quashed the complaint, and\\npermitted the crowd its own emphatic approval of the\\nverdict. 2 Thus, when Paul, shortly after, with Prisca\\nand Aquila, took his leave of the church where he had\\nlaboured for eighteen months (Acts 18 11) all out-\\nward circumstances were propitious. Subsequent\\nevents must explain to us the painful conditions so\\nclearly exhibited in the letters.\\nDate of Paul writes from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8). Be-\\nl Cor. tween two and three years have elapsed (Acts 18 22 f\\n19:8-10; 20:31); for his work there is nearly done,\\nand his journey to Jerusalem with the great offering\\nof his churches is already planned (1 Cor. 16:1-6).\\nIt is shortly before Passover (5 7 f but Paul will\\nstay until Pentecost, because of great exigencies and\\nopportunities. The plan is the same as that of 2 Cor.\\n1: 15-2: 1; 9: 4 f., the same as actually carried out\\n(Acts 19:21 f.; 20:1-3). It appears from 2 Cor.\\n1 Eamsay, Expositor, V, 5, p. 205.\\n2 The Sosthenes whose unlucky conduct of the case against\\nPaul brought retribution from the bystanders must then either\\nbe a wholly different person from Paul s friend (1 Cor. 1 1),\\nor his flogging must have led to a very surprising change of\\nheart. More probably there is a confusion of names in Acts\\n18 17 occasioned by vs. 8.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 83\\n1 15 ff to have been the substitute for an earlier\\nplan, involving a double visit in Corinth, which Paul\\nfor his own reasons had changed. Unless we suppose,\\ntherefore, a change and a change back again, 1 the\\nalteration was in a plan which preceded our 1 Co-\\nrinthians, 2 and this is the more probable from the\\napologetic tone of 1 Cor. 16 5-9, especially verse 7.\\nIt is, therefore, early spring of 54 a.d., and Paul has\\nnot been in Corinth since his departure in the fall of\\n51 8 for all his information is at second hand. Di-\\nrect knowledge would certainly appear if he had him-\\nself visited the church.\\nIn the meantime, during Paul s absence among the Events in\\nscenes of his earlier missionary labours, Prisca and since 1 Paul s\\nAquila had met at Ephesus an Alexandrian Jewish departure.\\nChristian, named Apollos, of great learning and brill-\\niancy (Acts 18:22-24 19: 1), and, after indoctrinat-\\ning him with Pauline views, had commended him to\\nthe church in Corinth, where his work prospered in\\nthe extension of the church, as well as in the refuta-\\ntion of the Jews (1 Cor. 3:10-15; Acts 18:24-28).\\nBut at the time of our epistle, Apollos has come back\\nto Ephesus and is with Paul; he even declines to\\nreturn to Corinth, though Paul himself seconds their\\ninvitation (1 Cor. 16:12). This is one source of\\nPaul s information concerning the church. Further\\nreports, by no means favourable, had come through\\nthe household of Chloe (1 11), whose residence had\\nperhaps been transferred from Corinth to Ephesus.\\n1 Various combinations of 2 Cor. 1 15 with 12: 14, 20, 21;\\n13 1 are tried by Schmiedel et al. to make 1 Cor. 16 5-7\\nappear the original plan.\\n2 Communicated in the letter mentioned 1 Cor. 5 9 or through\\nTimothy.\\n3 Implied in 2 1. Many infer a visit from 2 Cor. 2:1, 12\\n14, 21 13 1, 2, but the margin (R. V.) gives the true meaning.", "height": "2780", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "84 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nBut there had been direct communication as well. A\\nprevious letter from the Apostle had been sent to\\nwarn the church against fellowship with fornicators\\n(5:9). Paul is now in receipt of the reply, whose\\nbearers, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, are\\nstill with him (16: 17 f.) but it is far from satisfac-\\ntory on the point of discipline involved, while asking\\nlight on several other problems, which Paul ulti-\\nmately discusses seriatim. Before this, however, he\\ndeals with the abuses of which report has reached\\nhim, and which have become so serious as to require\\nthe sending of Timothy in advance of his own coming,\\nthough the letter is expected to reach them first of all\\nOccasion (4:17-21; 16:10 f.). The twofold occasion for the\\nofi Qor lyS1S l e er is thus as clearly indicated as we have found its\\ndate. It appears in the sharp division at 7:1, Now\\nconcerning the things whereof ye wrote. In the\\nlatter half, accordingly, the order will be simply that\\nof the Corinthians questions, which are probably\\nanswered seriatim. As a whole, the letter yields the\\nfollowing analysis:\\ni. Salutation and Thanksgiving, 1:1-3; 4-9.\\nii. Rebuke of the Evils reported to Paul by Visitors\\nfrom Corinth, 1 10-6 20.\\n1. Factiousness, 1 10-4 21. a. The four party\\ncries, 1 10-17. b. Paul in his personal method had\\nbeen indifferent to philosophical elaboration of the\\nmessage, though able so to apply it as to solve mys-\\nteries, 1:18-2:5; 2:6-16. c. Simple teaching was,\\nand still is, better adapted to their undeveloped con-\\ndition; the building of Apollos or others on Paul s\\nsubstructure must be judged by its stability, 3 1-9,\\n10-15. d. Destructive rather is the factious exalta-\\ntion of one teacher and depreciation of another,\\n3 16-23 4 1-5. e. Application to himself and", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 85\\nApollos, whose spirit is far different from that of\\nthe party leaders. A threat against the usurpers,\\n4:6-13, 14-21.\\n2. Immorality and Litigiousness, cc. 5, 6. a. A\\ncase of incest tolerated, 5 1-8. b. The excuse of\\nmisunderstanding Paul s previous letter removed,\\n9-13. c. Litigation between Christians a disgrace;\\nstill more the wrong-doing. Our freedom not liber-\\ntinism, 6:1-11. d. Eating of el8w\\\\66vTa and fornica-\\ntion an abuse of the principle all things are lawful,\\n12-20.\\niii. Reply to the Enquiries of the Corinthians Letter,\\ncc. 7-16.\\n1. Celibacy, Marriage, and Separation (in further\\nexplanation of the requirement, 2 Cor. 6 14 f c. 7.\\n2. Tilings sacrificed to Idols (further explaining\\n2 Cor. 6 16-7 1?), 8 1-11 1. a. Those superior to\\ndietetic scruples must not forget the duty of considera-\\ntion for the weak, c. 8. b. Reply to those who ques-\\ntion his authority and practice. Paul s principle of\\naccommodation, c. 9. c. But Christians who commit\\nfornication and join in temple feasts repeat the sin\\ninto which Israel was led by Balaam at Baal-peor\\n(Num. 25: Iff.). However, it is not necessary out-\\nside the temples to enquire whether the meat was sac-\\nrificial or not, unless to avoid stumbling a weak\\nbrother, 10:1-11:1.\\n3. Order in Church Meetings, 11 2-14 40. a. Pro-\\npriety in female costume, 11 2-16. b. Social cliques\\nat the love-feasts, with the resulting inequalities of\\nfood and drink, grossly interfere with proper observ-\\nance afterward of the sacrament, 17-34. c. The vari-\\nous charismata must be mutually subordinated. The\\nspectacular endowments tongues, prophecy are\\ntemporary; faith, hope, love, the abiding gifts. Good\\norder, conducing to edification, the rule, under", "height": "2792", "width": "1828", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "86 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nwhich prophecy appears superior to tongues,\\ncc. 12-14.\\n4. Explanation of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of\\nthe Body, c. 15. a. The deniers of bodily resurrec-\\ntion refuted, 1-34. b. The spiritual body not the old\\nflesh resuscitated, vss. 35-58.\\n5. Business Arrangements and Farewells, c. 16.\\na. The collection for Jerusalem, vss. 1-4. b. A post-\\nponement of Paul s visit, 5-9. c. Timothy s impend-\\ning arrival. Apollos declines for the present the\\ninvitation, 10-12. d. Personal farewells, 13-24.\\nOccasion Just what occurred in Corinth after receipt of this\\nan o 5, nal y sis letter is a subject of difficult and varied conjecture,\\nbut at the point where our documents resume Paul is\\napparently writing in response to the Corinthians\\nmessages expressive of profound repentance and re-\\nnewed loyalty, sent by Titus (7 6-11), and as his\\nfourth letter in the correspondence, our 2 Corinthians,\\nwith the following content\\ni. Salutation and Thanksgiving for the divine com-\\nfort, especially in view of Paul s recent narrow escape\\nfrom death, 1 1-11.\\nii. Explanations of certain features of Paul s letters\\nand conduct which had given offence, and expression\\nof satisfaction for the reparation made, 1 11-2 4,\\n5-11.\\niii. Paul s Present Circumstances and Disposition,\\n2:12-7:16.\\na. His arrival in Macedonia from Troas, and rejoic-\\ning at Titus news, 2 12-17. b. The vindication at\\ntheir hands of himself and his fellow-workers not that\\nof an unworthy ministry, as charged by legalists,\\nthough a ministry unintelligible to the carnal minded,\\nand given to weak instruments. These, however, will", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 87\\nbe glorified in the last day a hope which strengthens\\nthem in their service and supports them in their\\nembassy, cc. 3, 4 1-6, 7-15; 4 16-5 10, 11-19, 5 20-\\n6 10. c. Appeal to the Corinthians to dismiss the\\nlast vestige of distrust, because Titus report shows\\nthem to have fully repented, 6:11-13; 7: 2-16 [6: 14-\\n7:1, an unconnected fragment].\\niv. Directions as to the Collection and Paul s Visit,\\ncc. 8, 9.\\na. The generosity of Macedonia an example, 8 1-15.\\n6. Commendation of the delegates who take the letter,\\n16-24. c. Exhortation to a generous contribution, c. 9.\\nv. Strenuous Denunciation of the Church for disloy-\\nally supporting the open enemies and slanderers of\\nPaul, cc. 10-13.\\na. Sarcastic comparison by Paul of himself with\\nhis detractors, c. 10. b. Denunciation of the intruders,\\n11 1-15. c. Forced self -commendation, 11 16-12 13.\\nd. Warning to the church against compelling him to\\nprove his Apostolic authority in punishment, 12 14-\\n13:10.\\nvi. Farewell and Blessing, 13 11-14.\\nTaking up now Paul s second letter, our 1 Corin- Factious-\\nthians, it is manifest that the fundamental difficulty Rebuked in\\nat Corinth was a spirit of conceited self-sufficiency lCor.\\n(4: 6-13) in their religious charisms (1 5-7; cc. 12-14)\\nand enlightenment (1 18-2 5 3 18 f which had\\nled to factious contentions about the forms of doctrine\\n(1 10-12) coupled with a corresponding and fatal\\nindifference to practical morality (cc. 5, 6). It is\\ntrue, as urged by B. Weiss, 1 that Paul does not state\\nthat there were just four distinct parties in the church;\\nand critics have doubtless gone too far in the attempt\\n1 Einl. 3 1898 and art. in Am. Journ. of Theol, April, 1897.", "height": "2788", "width": "1816", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "88 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nto identify in the four rallying cries of 1 12 four dis-\\ntinct doctrinal divisions. It is noteworthy that Paul\\nhas no longer any occasion, as in Galatians, to defend\\nthe principle of justification by faith and freedom\\nfrom the Law, or to warn against the Judaising propa-\\nganda. In fact, the only doctrinal discussion of the\\nwhole correspondence is the refutation of certain\\ndeniers of the (bodily) resurrection, whose tendencies\\nwere of course Hellenistic rather than Judaising\\n(cf. Acts 17:32). But it should also be recognised\\nthat the rallying cries, I am (a convert) of Paul, and\\nI of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ (1 12)\\nare not taken at random and while indicative of ten-\\ndencies rather than parties, are worthy of the most\\npainstaking scrutiny as exhibiting, in inchoate form,\\njust those currents which the critical historian has\\ncome to recognise independently as determinative of\\nthe growth of doctrine. 1\\nThe parti- In rebuking the spirit of partisanship, Paul pur-\\nanT Apollos. P ose ly confines himself to two of its manifestations\\n(3:4-6; 4:6), though he implies (3:22 f.) that the\\nsame might be said as to all. The proof that the par-\\ntisans of himself and Apollos are pursuing a mistaken\\nloyalty lies in the fact that he and Apollos agree (3:8),\\nwhile they are divided. The direction taken by the\\nover-zeal of Paul s own adherents will appear from\\nthe letter of the church, since the appeal to him must\\nchiefly represent his own adherents. 2 That taken by\\nthe converts of Apollos is easily recognisable from\\nPaul s representation, in 1:17-3:20, of the contrast\\nit presented to his own teaching. He, the founder of\\nthe church (4 15), had purposely refrained from\\n1 See above p. 14.\\n2 See the excerpt from the church s letter in 8 1-8 as below\\nexplained. Another extract is 11: 2, ye remember, etc.,\\nexpressing the strong loyalty of the writers to Paul.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 89\\nspeculative dogma, declaring the simple facts of the\\ncrucified and risen Messiah, in whom is forgiveness\\nand salvation (2:1 f 15: 1-8). The teaching of the\\nAlexandrian had been of such a character as we should\\nexpect from the description of Acts 18:24-28. To\\nhim, as perhaps to Paul at Athens, the philosophic\\nsoil of Achaia had seemed just the place to prove how,\\nin the new religion, the great, half -realised idea of\\nPhilo, the Jewish neo-Platonist of Alexandria, could\\nbe achieved, and the wisdom of Israel married to the\\nphilosophy of Greece. Christ, as the Wisdom of\\nGod, became the key which, by the allegorical\\nmethod, would unlock all the treasures of divine\\nrevelation in the Old Testament. The best fruits of\\nthis type of early Christian thinking are visible in\\nActs 7, Hebrews, the Johannine Epistles and Gospel,\\nand the Alexandrian Fathers; a cruder form in the\\nEpistle of Barnabas.\\nBut the church was not only puffed up with its Scandals in\\nknowledge, it was grossly lax in its discipline. tnecnurcn\\nA case of incest went unrebuked in spite of Paul s\\nprevious letter, which they had interpreted in an\\nimpracticable sense (c. 5). Litigation between fellow-\\nChristians put to shame the churchly prerogative of\\narbitration. 1 The Pauline principle that all things\\nare lawful (6:12; cf. 10:23), he that loveth his\\nneighbour hath fulfilled the law (Eom. 13 8-10),\\nwas perverted into antinomian laxity on the subject of\\nmeats and fornication. To Greeks it was not clear\\nhow any restriction on these points could be involved\\n(6 12-20). The resulting scandal to Jewish believers\\nmay be imagined from Acts 15 20-29.\\nHence, when Paul now takes up the church s letter\\n1 (6 1-11). A practice common to Greek religious fraterni-\\nties and to the synagogue, Schurer, Jewish People, etc., (Engl.)\\nII, ii, 31, p. 262 f cf. Lk. 12 13.", "height": "2776", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "90\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nQuestions\\nreferred to\\nPaul:\\n1. Meats\\nand rela-\\ntions of the\\nof inquiry, we are not surprised to find the two ques-\\ntions of marital and domestic relations 1 (c. 7) and\\nthe eating of things sacrificed to idols (8:1-11:1)\\noccupying the foremost place. For the former his\\nprinciple is: Existing social relations are to be\\naccepted as the providential conditions within which\\nthe divine order must develop. In the latter he\\npleads for the weak brother, whose model appears\\nto be Cephas. In 8: la/3, 4, 5a, 6, 8, we have an\\nextract from the letter before him, 2 exhibiting the\\nstrong Paulinism of the writers, which Paul quali-\\nfies in his comments (8: 1 2 f., 56, 7, 9 ff.) by the\\nprinciple of consideration. A defence against cer-\\ntain deniers of his Apostolic authority, already alluded\\nto in passing, in 4:3, 18-21, is interposed 3 (9 1-18\\ncf 2 Cor. 11 7-13 12 13) before the commendation of\\nhis own practice, correctly apprehended, as the right\\nexample in the matter of meats (9:19-11:1). With\\nthe positive prohibition of participation in idol\\nfeasts, and the condemnation of any known eating of\\nel8a}\\\\66vTa, as a stumbling of the weak, coupled\\nwith his previous denunciation of fornication (6 12-20;\\ncf 10 7, 8), Paul has gone as far to meet the brethren\\nof the Lord and Cephas as it is possible on his prin-\\nciples to go. The two remaining conditions of eating\\nwith the Gentiles imposed at Jerusalem are dropped,\\nas we saw, in Eev. 2 14, 20.\\nAnother extract from the letter in 11 2 introduces\\n1 See below, p. 95, note 2.\\n2 Heinrici in Meyer s Commentary, 1880 cf. W. Locke in\\nExpositor, 1897.\\n8 Doubtless because his correspondents had referred to\\nothers (9:2) who repudiated the authority of Paul to\\nwhich they themselves had appealed in justification of their\\nliberty (vs. 1). Paul refers them to his own voluntary sac-\\nrifice of his liberty (vs. 19).", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "trine of res-\\nurrection.\\nLETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 91\\nPaul s settlement of questions of order in public wor- 2. Order in\\nship and the Lord s Supper (11 3-34), which leads gJrtMp.\\nto a regulation of the coveted spiritual gifts of\\nprophecy, tongues, etc., in accordance with their\\nreal inferiority to the abiding inner spiritual qualities\\nof faith, hope, and love, on the principle that edifica-\\ntion is the real end in view (cc. 12-14).\\nThe attempted Platonising of Paul s doctrine of 3. The doc-\\nresurrection is met by a vigorous exposition of his\\ndoctrine of the spiritual body, based upon the admitted\\nappearance of the risen Christ (c. 15). Epistolary\\nmatters occupy the closing chapter.\\n2 Corinthians introduces us to a later stage of affairs. Date and\\nIts problems are chiefly as to what has occurred in 2 C Cor 10n f\\nthe meantime. 1 It is written from Macedonia (7:5;\\n8:1; 9:2, 4) and sent by Titus and other delegates of\\nthe churches appointed to travel with Paul to Jerusa-\\nlem in charge of the fund (8:18-24). Paul s own\\ncoming will immediately follow, according to the plan\\nof 1 Cor. 16 5 f Thus, it appears that the time is\\nshortly before winter (1 Cor. 16:6; Acts 20:3, 6),\\nand this agrees with 9:2 since last year, cf. 1 Cor.\\n16 :1). 2 Some six months, therefore, have elapsed.\\nIn the meantime not only had 1 Corinthians been\\ndelivered, and Timothy fulfilled his mission and\\n1 For a complete summary of views see Holtzmann s Einl. 3\\np. 228 f. Paul s own recent movements, including escape from\\nEphesus under sentence of death, so recently that the\\nCorinthians will not have heard of it, are related in 2 Cor. 1 8-\\n10 2 12 f 7 5-7 cf Acts 19 21-20 1. To say the least, 2\\nCor. 2:1; 12 14, 20 f.; 13 1 f (marginal rendering R. V.)\\naffords no evidence of a visit to Corinth by Paul since the\\nfounding of the church see Hilgenf eld in Zts. f. w. Th. Janu-\\nLiy, 1899. For the movements of Timothy and Titus see s. v.\\nCorinthians in Hastings B. D.\\n2 The Macedonian and Jewish year began about October 1.", "height": "2780", "width": "1824", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "92 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nreturned (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10 f 2 Cor. 1:1), bat\\nPaul had sent Titus and a brother x on business\\nconnected with the collection. Until just before,\\nindeed, he has been in an agony of anxiety for his\\nreturn (7 5-16), for matters in Corinth had taken a\\nfar different turn from what Paul had hoped (1 Cor.\\n4:18-21), and the deniers of his apostolic authority,\\nwhom, but for 1 Cor. 4:3-5, 18-21; 9:1-18; 16:22,\\nhe had deemed it wisest to treat with silent contempt,\\nhad proved their ability so to take advantage of the\\nsituation as temporarily to threaten, if not usurp, his\\ncontrol (11 20 12:11-13). In 10 7 11 4, 13, 22 f\\nit appears that these intriguers are no other than the\\nself-styled (converts) of Christ of 1 Cor. 1:12. 2\\nPaul s _ They had come armed with letters of commendation\\nan agoms s. as apostles of Christ/ preaching another Jesus,\\na different spirit, and a different gospel, based\\non knowledge of Christ after the flesh (5 12, 16\\n!The mission of Titus with the brother (12: 18) is of\\ncourse to be distinguished from that on similar business, but\\naccompanied by the brethren (8:6, 16, 18, 22-24). It is\\ndoubtless the earlier mission referred to in 8 6. On the\\nhypothesis adopted below as to 2 Cor. cc. 10-13, this verse,\\n12 18, must have been written while Titus was still detained.\\n2 Godet (Introd. i. p. 254 f.) has an interesting theory based\\non 2 Cor. 11 3, 4 in comparison with 1 Cor. 12 3. The Christ\\nparty were docetists, who used the cry We are of Christ not\\nmerely in opposition to the names of Paul, Apollos, and\\nCephas, but to that even of Jesus. Jesus be anathema was\\nthe cry by which they expressed their contempt for knowledge\\nof Christ after the flesh. But this is just the opposite dispo-\\nsition from that which Paul attributes to his chief opponents,\\nwhom he charges with externality, carnality, dependence on\\nHebrew descent, etc. The cry Jesus be anathema is doubt-\\nless correctly interpreted, (cf. 1 Jn. 4: 1-3), but those who\\nuttered it stood just at the opposite extreme, out-Pauling Paul\\nin their disdain for external reality, as e.g. in the rejection of\\nthe doctrine of bodily resurrection.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 93\\n11 18 cf Gal. 1 6-9) as against what they termed\\nthe veiled gospel of Paul (4:3). Paul was termed\\na crazy visionary (5 13), imposing upon his dupes by\\nterrifying letters (10:9 f.), whose threats he spared\\nhimself the vain attempt to carry out (10 10) by\\nindefinite postponements and changes of plan 1 Cor.\\n4: 18-21; 16:4-9; 2 Cor. 1:15-2:3). Nay, they\\nsuspected worse. It was clear that if he were\\nexamined (1 Cor. 4:3; 9:3; 2 Cor. 13:3) it would\\nappear that his refusal to burden them with his\\nsupport was really because, unlike themselves (2 Cor.\\n11 20), he lacked authorisation (1 Cor. 9 1-18 2 Cor.\\n11 7-12) and how suspicious that, nevertheless, once\\nunder his influence all his churches were induced to\\ncollect great sums of money and entrust them to him 1\\n(12:16-18). The least the church should do would\\nbe to require a proof of his pretended Apostolic powers,\\nmiraculous and otherwise (12:11-13; 13:3, 10), and\\nhis ability to discipline, before entrusting money to\\nhis agents.\\nThat Paul should write such a denunciation as The denun-\\n2 Cor. cc. 10-13 against a church which had allowed fetter. 7\\nitself to be swerved from loyalty by the intrigues of\\nsuch despicable interlopers is not surprising. Their\\nsuccess would be more surprising, but for the devilish\\nplausibility of their imputations, and the circum-\\nstances which made it so easy for the church to put\\noff Timothy and Titus 2 with proposals to wait for\\n1 Accusations of conversion of similar trust funds contributed\\nfor the support of the temple by the Jews of the Dispersion\\nand entrusted to men held in the highest honour are a feature\\nof the time. Special imperial legislation condemned the fraud\\nas temple robbery cf. Acts 19 37 Rom. 2 22.\\n2 We conjecture that 2 Cor. 10 1-13 10 was written from\\nEphesus (10 1G) while Titus was at Corinth, on report from\\nhim of the disloyal attitude of the church. See below.", "height": "2788", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "94\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nTo be identi-\\nfied with\\n2 Cor. cc.\\n10-13.\\nPaul s promised coming. What is incomprehensible\\nis, that this denunciation, which is not of the recalci-\\ntrants directly, but of the church as a whole for yielding\\nto them, should come at the close of a letter overflow-\\ning with joy (7:4) and thankfulness at the coming\\nof Titus with news that the crisis is past, complete\\nobedience reestablished, the chief offender punished,\\nand a liberal contribution promised (2 Cor. 1:3 f., 11,\\n14; 2:5-11; 4:15; 6:11-13; 7:2-4, 13-16), so that\\nPaul can thankfully call upon them to prove his\\nboasting of their generosity well founded (cc. 8-9).\\nEven stranger is the forced self -commendation (12 11)\\nafter disclaimers in 3 1 and 5 12 of further self-\\ncommendation, because the Corinthians now fulfil\\ntheir part (3 2 f.). Moreover, the references in 2 4;\\n7 8-12 imply a letter very different from 1 Corinthians.\\nIt had been much more recent; for, though tormented\\nby anxiety as to its effect, Paul has but just been able\\nto obtain the cheering news (2 12 f 7 5-7; cf. 10 6).\\nIt was so painful in character that he had even\\nregretted its despatch yet in what purports to be part\\nof the same letter he uses language so bitter, sarcasm\\nso cutting, that nothing in 1 Corinthians can compare\\nwith it. Nothing can fully meet these facts but the\\nrecognition that 2 Cor. 10 1-13 10, with its sudden,\\nunexplained change of speaker, 1 and more extraordi-\\nnary change of tone, must come before, and not after,\\nchapters 1-9 is, in short, a fragment of the painful\\nletter of self -commendation which Paul had been com-\\npelled to write by the church s disloyalty. 2\\n1 Now I Paul myself, implying that others words have\\npreceded.\\n2 So Hausrath, Der Vierkapitelbrief, 1870. Others make\\n2 Cor. 2:4; 7 8, 9, 12 refer to a lost letter, which referred to\\nthe case of 1 Cor. 5 1 f or assume that a new offence had\\nbeen committed directly against Paul, who would then be the", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 95\\nWith the illustration of Bom. 16: 1 ff., 25-27 before 2 Cor. 6:14-\\nus, there is no difficulty in appreciating how two let- f r ag ^uV er\\nters written at no great interval to the same church,\\nby the same author, should, when subsequently pub-\\nlished, be copied as one whole. This granted, we\\nshall find it the easier to account for the strange frag-\\nment 6 14-7 1, which interrupts the connection of\\n6 11-13 with 7 2-4, without any affinity of subject.\\nIt may be hazardous to identify it with the lost\\nletter referred to in 1 Cor. 5: 9-13, but one may at\\nleast say that such a requirement as 2 Cor. 6: 17-7: 1\\nis singularly capable of just the misinterpretation\\nPaul here complains of. 2\\nPaul s side of the Corinthian correspondence con-\\nsisted, then, of four letters (1) 2 Cor. 6 14-7 1\\nplus, calling for separation from heathen pollutions,\\nreferred to in 1 Cor. 5 9 and answered by the Co-\\nrinthians with a request for further explanation as\\nto conjugal relations with heathen and d8 i \\\\66vTa.\\n(2) Our 1 Corinthians. (3) The painful letter of forced\\nself-commendation, 2 Cor. 10 1-13 10 plus. (4) Our\\n2 Corinthians, less the exceptions noted.\\nThe storm and stress of the first period are over in The Epistle\\nthe great letter by which the Apostle to the Gentiles ^ns\\nprepares for a new basis of mission work in the centre\\nof the world-empire. It is early in 55 a.d., toward\\nL5iK7i0\u00c2\u00a3ls of 2 Cor. 2 5-8, 10. In general support of our view\\nsee especially McGiffert, Apost. Age, p. 316-320, and Kennedy\\nin Expositor for September and October, 1897 in opposition,\\nZahn, Einl. i, 20.\\n1 So Hilgenfeld, Franke, and Whitelaw (Classical Review,\\n1890, p. 12, 317 f\\n2 Cf. also 6 14 with the first item in the letter of inquiry\\napparently sent in reply (1 Cor. 7 1-17), and vs. 16 with 1 Cor.\\n3 16 f.", "height": "2784", "width": "1820", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "96 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nthe end of the three months stay in Achaia (Acts\\n20: 3; 1 Cor. 16: 6 1), which the timely repentance of\\nthe Corinthian church (2 Cor. 10:6; 2:6-9) had at\\nlast enabled Paul to make to their building up and\\nnot to their casting down (2 Cor. 1 23-2 1\\n13:2, 10). The great peace offering is ready (Rom.\\n15:26-29). The Grseco-Syrian world is evangelised\\nfrom Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum. When\\nPaul has sealed this fruit of his Greek churches in\\nJerusalem, he must seek the larger field of the great\\nLatin West, whither his daring hopes have soared\\nthese many years (vss. 19-24, 28; cf. Acts 19:21;\\n2 Cor. 10: 16). But Rome is no virgin field. Antioch\\nand even Ephesus, in some degree, were preoccupied\\nterritory on Paul s first coming. At Rome, also,\\naccording to its own most trustworthy traditions 1 the\\nseed had been self-sown and with Paul it was a point\\nof honour, if not a stipulation involved in the Jerusa-\\nlem agreement (Gal. 2 9), not to glory in another s\\nprovince in things ready to hand, or build on\\nanother s foundation (2 Cor. 10:13-16; Rom.\\n15:20 f.). Sad experience had taught him, indeed,\\nhow indispensable it would be to forestall misrepre-\\nsentation (Rom. 3:8); and while it might be safely\\nassumed that Gentile influences would be at least as\\nstrong in Rome as at Antioch (Acts 11:20, 26), it\\n1 Ambrosi aster In the times of the Apostles Jews were\\nliving at Kome in pursuit of their business such of them,\\ntherefore, as were believers impressed on the Eomans the con-\\nfession of Christ with retention of the Law whose faith is\\ncommendable, since without seeing any miracles, nor any of the\\nApostles, they accepted the doctrine of Christ, albeit in Jewish\\nform. Not improbably the decree of Claudius reported by\\nSuetonius to have expelled the Jews from Rome for their\\nincessant rioting provoked by one Chrestus (cf. Acts 18 2)\\nwas really due to agitations in the Synagogue over the new", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 97\\nwas at least equally certain that the omnipresent\\nJudaiser would be there at his old occupation (Phil.\\n1 17) while for the friendly disposed, weak or\\nstrong (Rom. 14:1; 15:1), it was in the highest\\ndegree desirable to present in advance of his coming\\na general outline of his doctrine, not as if he would\\ninstruct incompetents, but by way of mutual under-\\nstanding and reciprocal helpfulness (1 11 f 15 14 f.).\\nThe Epistle may be logically arranged as follows Logical\\nanalysis.\\ni. Salutation and Epistolary Thanksgiving and Prayer,\\n1:1-7, 8-17.\\nii. Doctrinal Section. The gospel Paul would\\npreach as the power of God unto salvation, 1 18-\\n11 36.\\n1. God s Conquest of Evil by Good in the Universe.\\n(1) Justification.\\na. Gentile and Jew had failed of righteousness and\\nwere under the wrath of God, 1 18-3 20.\\nb. The propitiatory death of Christ furnished a\\ndivine means of universal pardon, 3 21-31.\\nc. Relation of the new dispensation to the Mosaic;\\na fulfilment of the Abrahamic promise, c. 4.\\nd. Result of justification by faith a new humanity\\nstarting from Christ, as the old from Adam; the\\ndispensation of law incidental, 5:1-11, 12-21.\\n(2) Sanctification. The superlegal morality of\\nspiritual living.\\na. Freedom from the Law is attained only by death\\nto sin; the experience of a justified soul, cc. 6, 7.\\nb. Results of the triumph of the Spirit in human\\nlife glorified and made eternal. The creation attains\\nits goal with the achievement by the elect of the\\ndivine ideal, c. 8.\\n2. God s Working in Human History. Tlie Choos-\\ning of Israel a Means to Redemption of all, cc. 9-11.", "height": "2764", "width": "1812", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "98 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\na. The Messianic Inheritance was given to Israel,\\nthough not in the sense of physical descent, and with\\nconstant turning to the Gentiles, so that the para-\\ndoxical condition Israel obdurate, the- Gentiles\\naccepting is in accord with Scripture, and also with\\nthe superiority of God to race distinctions, cc. 9, 10.\\n6. But the paradox will soon disappear. Ulti-\\nmately, the very incoming of the Gentiles will be, as\\nin prophetic times, a provocation to Israel to acknowl-\\nedge their Messiah. Doxology, c. 11.\\niii. Practical Section. Ethical application of the\\ndoctrine.\\na. The rational sacrificial worship of reciprocal love\\nand service, c. 12.\\nb. The Christian s relation to the social order; good\\ncitizenship, c. 13.\\nc. His relations to the ecclesiastical organism; the\\nduty of Christlike accommodation to the overscrupu-\\nlous will solve the points of disputed obligation, 14 1-\\n15:13.\\niv. Epilogue. Personal explanations, plans, and\\ngreetings. Farewell, 15 14-33.\\nAppendix. A Letter of Commendation introducing\\nthe Deaconess Phcebe, and various fragments,\\n16:1-16, 17-23, 25-27.\\nOccasion, Paul s introductory statement (1 1-17) of the occa-\\nC nd r content s on anc P ur P ose \u00c2\u00b0f hi s letter explains its character\\nand content. Romans is of the first importance as an\\nexposition of Paulinism, much less important than\\nGalatians or 1 and 2 Corinthians as a source of con-\\ntemporary history. In unperturbed and orderly\\ncompleteness, yet here and there with impassioned\\nardour, the Apostle presents his gospel of the\\nrevelation of a righteousness of God by faith unto\\nfaith (1 17), and of a people of promise, who are", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO COBINTH AND HOME 99\\nthe heirs of eternal life. Chapters 1-11 form the\\ntheoretical part; chapters 12-15 are practical. Again,\\nchapters 1-8 explain Paul s religion as against\\nJudaism; chapters 9-11, his view of God s providen-\\ntial purpose as related to Israel s national preroga-\\ntive.\\nIt is postulated that the wrath of God overhangs Paul s\\nthe guilty world, the culpable ignorance of the heathen Gos P e1,\\nbeing only less inexcusable than the sin against light\\nof the Jew; though his light is still to be reckoned an\\nadvantage, since it gives him at least the knowledge of\\nsin (1:18-3:20). To meet this condition of uni-\\nversal conviction the salvation foreshadowed in the\\nLaw and the Prophets has come through the pure\\ngrace and love of God. The Messiah, Son and agent\\nof God, came and strove unto death against sin. Only\\nin view of this could free forgiveness be given to sin-\\nners even without works of the Law, and hence above\\nall distinctions of Jew and Gentile, if once for all\\nthey unite themselves with their Messiah in his\\nstruggle unto death. Without it there would be real\\nor apparent laxity on God s part (3:21-31). Mes-\\nsiah s death is thus seen to be propitiatory, for\\nour sins, according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:3;\\nIs. 53:1-11; cf. Acts 8:32-35). The act by which\\nthe convicted and repentant sinner avails himself of\\nthe mercy of God, proclaimed in and by the Messiah,\\nis faith, the same quality which in Abraham was\\nmade the basis of promise, the ground of justification,\\nbefore the Law was given (4: 1-5: 11). The universal\\nforgiveness thus made possible to all who die with\\nChrist unto sin becomes an actual redemption of the\\nspiritual seed of Abraham to eternal life, by God s\\nfurther act of Messianic grace in the impartation of\\nhis Spirit, restoring the supremacy of spirit over\\nflesh, a supremacy lost through the inheritance of sin", "height": "2772", "width": "1824", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "100\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nRelation of\\nJew and\\nGentile.\\nand death devolved upon all sons of Adam. The sense\\nof this loss it was the real function of the Law to pro-\\nduce (5: 11-7: 25). As incarnate vehicle of the life-\\nrestoring Spirit, in which he himself triumphed over\\ndeath, Christ is to humanity a second Adam, agent of\\na spiritual new creation, wherein even nature partici-\\npates, being ultimately restored to that subordination\\nto the sons of God originally intended by the\\nCreator (8:19-23; cf. Gen. 1:26 f. and Heb. 2:5-9).\\nThis sublime precreative purpose of God, to make\\nhimself a holy people endowed with eternal life, con-\\nformed to the image of his Son, is the key to revela-\\ntion, including that in Christ, and is the unshakable\\nground of our triumphant hope (c. 8).\\nSubordinate to this eternal purpose of election is\\nthe providential relation in history of Jew and Gen-\\ntile, the former first blessed for the fathers sake,\\nthen rejected, save a remnant, because of their own\\nperversity; the latter now welcomed to Israel s\\ninheritance, though ultimately, as Paul hopes and\\nbelieves, the now hostile mass of Israel will be impelled\\nby very jealousy to return to its Messiah (cc. 9-11).\\nSuch is Paul s exposition of the general tenor of the\\nScriptures.\\nThe practical duties which flow from this insight\\ninto the divine plan are such as characterise the\\nSpirit given by Christ. It implies the law of love\\nand mutual service (c. 12). It implies obedience to\\nthe present political order, and to social morality\\n(c. 13). It implies consideration of the strong for\\nthe weak in the disputed matters belonging to the\\npresent relation of Jew and Gentile in the Church\\n(14:1-15:13).\\nThe letter ends with the epistolary matters of\\n15 14-33 whose touching relation of the circum-\\nstances and farewell we have already reviewed.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0120.jp2"}, "121": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 101\\nThe vexed question as to conditions presupposed in Conditions\\nthe Roman church 1 is probably unanswerable for the at Rome\\nreason that Paul himself clearly has before his con-\\nsciousness not local and specific, but general condi-\\ntions. That both Pauline and Petrine elements were\\npresent is both a priori probable and clearly implied\\nin chapters 14, 15. But Paul himself varies. If he is\\nconcerned to show that Some is really in his province,\\nthen there is no question of the Gentile character of\\nthe community (1:5, 6, 13-15). In 11:13-32 the\\narguments are directed explicitly and exclusively to\\nGentiles. If he thinks of the elements whose\\nreligious training (7 1) and experience (7 4-6), anti-\\npathies (3:5-8; 11:1, 11) and sympathies (3:1-4, 9;\\n9:1-5; 10:1, 2), whose habitual attitude toward his\\ngospel (6:1, 15; 7:7) he so well knows, he addresses\\nhis readers as Jews (2:1, 17-27), recognises their\\nJewish prejudices, tactfully meets their moral and\\nreligious objections, and removes their misunderstand-\\nings and suspicions. 2\\nIf the argument of Lightfoot, 8 from the type of Rom. 16 a\\nnames found in Eoman inscriptions, could really con- flttefof\\nvince us that chapter 16, the letter of commendation commenda-\\nof the deaconess Phoebe, was originally addressed to\\nRome, and not Ephesus, as internal characteristics\\nrather indicate, this chapter would present an excep-\\ntion to the rule of absence of local and specific knowl-\\nedge in Romans. But how can it really belong with\\nthe letter to Rome? Had Paul s entire company of\\n1 A Jewish majority Gentile majority Proselyte Jewish\\nChristian minority according to various authorities. See Holtz-\\nmann s Introd., and Vincent, Student s New Testament Hand-\\nbook, p. 74.\\n2 Holtzmann, Einl. s p. 234 f\\n3 Commentary on Philippians, p. 169 enlarged on by Sanday\\nand Headlam, Comm., p. 422.", "height": "2792", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0121.jp2"}, "122": {"fulltext": "102 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nhelpers suddenly emigrated thither, Prisca and Aquila\\nat their head? 1 Yet in 2 Tim. 4:19 Prisca and\\nAquila are back again in Ephesus, and Epaenetus, who\\ncomes next, is the first fruits of Asia (cf 1 Cor.\\n16: 15). Paul has affectionate, personal greetings for\\na host of friends, including kinsmen, fellow-pris-\\noners, fellow-workers, apostles in Christ before\\nhim, even one whose mother has been a mother to\\nhim (vs. 13) he knows the households where they\\ngather, and their individual work (vs. 12) and relation-\\nships. The churches of Achaia also join in the salu-\\ntation as they cordially commend their sister from\\nCenchrese, the port of Corinth. But even the Corin-\\nthian friends who stand about Paul appear equally\\nwell acquainted; Timothy first of all, then three\\nunknown Jewish brethren, then Tertius, who is serv-\\ning as amanuensis, throw in a greeting, followed by\\nGaius (1 Cor. 1 14) and Erastus (2 Tim. 4: 20). Such\\nclose relations at this time with Eome would be unac-\\ncountable. Yet everything points to the time and\\nplace when the great epistle, which ends at 15 33, was\\nwritten; so that the epistle of commendation (cf.\\n2 Cor. 3 1), though a separate letter, may well have\\nbeen dictated to the same amanuensis at the same\\nsitting. 2 But we have evidence, both internal and\\n1 The reply of Sanday and Headlam, Milligan (s. v. Epsene-\\ntus, Hastings B. 2 and others to Renan s argument, that it\\nrests on three names only out of twenty-six, assumes that\\nhe appeals to none save such as can be connected with Ephesus.\\nBut it appears that besides Prisca, Aquila, and Epametus, Paul\\nmust have been intimately associated with at least Andronicus,\\nJunias, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Rufus, and his mother,\\nall of whom, consequently, must have gone to Rome from some\\nunspecified place in Paul s field of labour. Ten names indicate\\na different place from Rome, three of them define it as Ephesus.\\n2 If the names should be deemed conclusive evidence of a\\nRoman destination, Rom. 16 might better be taken as a product", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0122.jp2"}, "123": {"fulltext": "to Ephesus.\\nLETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 103\\nexternal, that not all which in our texts follows after\\nchapter 15 was originally addressed to Rome. It may-\\nbe that our thanks are due to some unknown Corin-\\nthian copyist, whose zeal led him, after completing his\\nreal task, to append what more he found before him in\\nthe same hand, though of a different and more familiar\\ncharacter, including fragments of a separate letter.\\nThat which remains shows it to have been addressed Addressed\\nto a church endeared to Paul by years of arduous, but\\nrichly fruitful labour, amid a host of helpers; a church\\nprobably of Asia (vs. 5), where he had been impris-\\noned (vs. 7), where were Prisca and Aquila, who had\\nlaid down their necks for his life (vs. 4; cf. 1 Cor.\\n16:19; 2 Cor. 1:8-11), where there were also, how-\\never, division and occasions of stumbling, pretended\\nservants of Christ who served their own belly, and\\nviolent opposition of Satan (vss. 17-20; cf. 1 Cor.\\n16:9; 2 Tim. 2:15 ff Acts 20:29; Eev. 2:2, 6,\\netc.), pretence of wisdom, without moral earnestness\\n(vs. 19; cf. Pastoral Epistles and 1 John j)assim) against\\nwhich the church must be fortified by an understand-\\ning of the great mystery revealed in Christ of the\\neternal purpose of God in creation and redemption\\n(vss. 25-27; see on Eph.). This church can scarcely\\nbe other than Ephesus.\\nThe wide acknowledgment won in modern times by\\nSchulz s theory of Rom. 16 as such a fragment, 1 is\\nlargely due to the support of textual evidence. Even\\nHort 2 cannot believe that the doxology, 16 25-27,\\nof the unknown period assumed as that of the Pastoral Epistles,\\nwhen Paul might have such knowledge of conditions in Rome\\ncf. vs. 18 with Phil. 3 18 f. and vss. 25-27 with Tit. 1 1-3, and\\nnote vs. 7.\\n1 Schulz (1829) was followed by many, including more\\nrecently Lipsius, Weizsacker, and McGiffert.\\n2 See for the textual discussion the essays of Lightfoot and", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0123.jp2"}, "124": {"fulltext": "104 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nwhich in some manuscripts is wanting, in others vari-\\nously placed, genuine as it is, could ever have belonged\\nin the letter to Borne. The R. V. rightly omits verse\\n24. On the other hand, the second century text which\\nThe doxol- ended the epistle with 14 23, or with the doxology,\\nfr g a y gment her 16:25-27, appended at that point, 1 certainly cut off\\ntoo much, 2 whether from doctrinal prejudice (Mar-\\ncion) or possibly through variant tradition. The\\nquestion is too abstruse for details, 3 but textual evi-\\ndence alone will prove that early editors of Romans\\nwere embarrassed by a surplus of material in these\\nclosing chapters. 4 Perhaps the disordered fragments, 5\\n16 1-16, 17-20, 21-23, 25-27, of a simultaneous lost\\nletter to Ephesus, appended by the copyist at Corinth,\\nwere recognised as unconnected with the main epistle\\nwhen this form came to be compared with that pre-\\nserved at Rome. The influence of this fact, combined\\nwith Marcion s arbitrary mutilation 6 of chapter 15,\\nHort, Journ. of Philol. ii, iii, reprinted in Lightfoot, Biblical\\nEssays, pp. 287-374.\\n1 So Marcion, as reported by Origen and Tertullian, also cod.\\nAiniatinus and cod. Fuld.\\n2 14 23 is an impossible ending, and the appending of 16\\n25-27 is no real improvement. 15 3-6 looks like a duplicate\\nof 7-13, as if a discarded page had been accidentally included\\nbut 15 1 f., 7-13 is indispensable to c. 14, as 15 14-33 is indis-\\npensable to 1 10-15, and to the epistle as a whole.\\n3 Fuller discussion in my art. in Journ. of Bibl. Lit. for 1899.\\n4 Rom. stood last in the early canon of Paul s letters to the\\nSeven Churches (Murat. Can., p. 50). This position may help\\nto explain the fragments added in c. 16.\\n5 Verses 17-20 cannot belong to Rom., which neither displays\\nknowledge of local conditions, nor assumes authority nor to\\nc. 16 as it stands. Verses 25-27 form an anacoluthon. No place\\nat all can be found for them. There is affinity with Rom.,\\nbut more with Eph. (cf. Rom. 8 18-39 Eph. 3 5 f., 9 20 f.j\\nTit. 1 2 f.).\\n6 Origen dissecuit.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0124.jp2"}, "125": {"fulltext": "LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 105\\ninight lead to a limited currency of the form lacking\\nchapters 15, 16. The longer form, however, would\\nsoon triumph, not merely because of the invariable\\ntendency of longer texts to supersede briefer rivals,\\nbut because of the heretical taint which, in this case,\\ncould not fail to cling to the shorter. 1\\n1 On Eom. see especially Sanday and Headlam, Internat. Com-\\nmentary Series, pp. xiii-cix also Godet s Commentary (Engl.\\n2 1892) and J. Morison s three monographs on Rom. 3, Eom. 9,\\nand Rom. 6. On 1 and 2 Cor. see Meyer s Commentary, 5 1869\\n(Engl. 1884), and Godet s (Engl. 1886). It is needless to repeat\\nreferences to the special articles in standard Bible Dictionaries\\nand Encyclopaedias such as the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible\\nand Cbeyne s Encyclox ccdia Biblica and to special treatises in\\nwell-known commentaries covering the entire N. T., such as the\\nPulpit Commentary or The Expositors. See above, p. 79.", "height": "2788", "width": "1892", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0125.jp2"}, "126": {"fulltext": "CHAPTEE Y\\nTHE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY\\nThe Caesar- The long and, to Paul (Bom. 15 25-33), momen-\\nuTa C period tous P er i\u00c2\u00b0 c l on which so full a light is shed by the\\nof silence. record of a companion (Acts 20-28), affords us not a\\nword from his pen. 1 Whether Paul s hopeful confi-\\ndence (Kom. 15:29) in a removal of misunderstand-\\nings and reunion of the church by this visit was\\njustified, we must judge by the tone of his subse-\\nquent letters.\\nHere it is not merely the disappearance of the hith-\\nerto constant need of mediating between the strong\\nand the weak on the matter of the pollutions of\\nidols, and of all traces of further real danger from\\nthe Judaisers, 2 which convinces us that Paul was\\nnot disappointed; but more especially the note of\\ntriumphant joy in the unity of the Church character-\\nistic of the letters which immediately follow, and\\nwhich in Ephesians is dominant, rising repeatedly\\ninto prolonged rhapsodies (1:3-14, 18-23; 2:13-22;\\n3:5-11; 4:4-16; 5:25-30; cf. Col. 1:18-25).\\nThe common occasion to which we owe the three\\nconnected letters, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon,\\n1 As to the view which places the writing of Eph., Col.,\\nPhil em. in Csesarea, see above, p. 55.\\n2 Phil. 1 18 shows their malignity in Eome to be harmless\\n3 2 ff. is a recapitulation of former warnings. In 18 f. it appears\\nthat he is speaking not because of conditions in Philippi, but\\nbecause of past experience cf 3 19 with Rom. 16 18.\\n106", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0126.jp2"}, "127": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 107\\nis best seen in Philemon, the engaging note of Paul to Occasion of\\na personal friend and fellow-worker, bespeaking a andcom-\\nkindly reception for the bearer, Onesimus, Philemon s panion\\nrunaway slave, whom Paul would gladly have retained epls es\\nin his own service for in the comparative freedom of\\nhis Roman imprisonment (Acts 28 30 f cf 24 23)\\nhe had both won him to the faith, and begun to love\\nhim as his very heart, his child begotten in his\\nbonds. With a gentle playfulness (vs. 11) he pleads\\nwith Philemon to treat Onesimus no longer as a\\nslave, but a beloved brother in the Lord. Paul\\nengages personally to repay any loss incurred through\\nOnesimus, but hints that his own scrupulousness in\\nreturning the runaway should meet the Christian\\nreturn of renunciation of ownership by Philemon;\\nthough Paul will not enjoin it, knowing that Philemon\\nwill do even beyond the letter of the request (v. 21).\\nThe household includes an Apphia, Philemon s\\nwife, and Archippus, his son, besides a church\\namong the retinue of clients, freedmen, and slaves.\\nIn Col. 4 9, 17 Philem. 2, it appears that Archippus\\nis minister of this church, which is one of the two or\\nmore (Col. 4 15) in Colossae founded by Paul s present\\nColossian fellow-prisoner, Epaphras (Col. 1:7 v.L).\\nHence, Philemon will have been converted in Ephesus\\n(Philem. 19; Col. 2:1; cf. Acts 19:10).\\nPaul is in company with Timothy (Philem. 1) and Circum-\\nEpaphras, who is greatly exercised for the Colossians p^ 68\\nand for the adjoining churches of Hierapolis and\\nLaodicea. Aristarchus of Thessalonica (Acts 20 4),\\nanother fellow-prisoner, Mark, who also is leaving for\\nProconsular Asia, and Jesus Justus, three Jews who,\\nin contrast with the rest (cf Phil. 1 15-18 2 21), are\\na help and comfort to Paul, are with him. Demas,\\nas yet still faithful (cf 2 Tim. 4 10), and Luke, a\\nbeloved physician, two Gentile fellow-workers, also", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0127.jp2"}, "128": {"fulltext": "108 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nsend greetings (Philem. 23 f. Col. 4: 10-14). Tychi-\\ncus of Asia (Acts 20: 4) and Onesimus are the bearers\\n(Col. 4:7-9). Paul is hoping soon to be released\\nand to visit Asia in person (Philem. 22; cf. Phil.\\n2:24).\\nThe absence of any mention in this group, Ephe-\\nsians, Colossians, Philemon, of the earthquake which,\\naccording to Tacitus (Ann. 14 27), reduced Laodicea,\\nin 60 a.d., to ruins (Eusebius, however, dating the\\noverthrow of all three cities of Col. 4 13 in 64), con-\\nfirms our early dating of Paul s imprisonment in Eome\\n(58-60 a.d.), for his arrival cannot have been recent,\\nhis correspondents being informed in general as to his\\ncircumstances.\\nAnalysis of It is noteworthy that even so brief a letter as\\nFt^genuine- P n emon conforms to the regular epistolary forms, as\\nness. follows\\ni. Salutation, 1-3.\\nii. Epistolary Thanksgiving and Prayer, 4-7.\\niii. Principal Subject (commendation of Onesimus),\\n8-22.\\niv. Greetings and Benediction, 23-25.\\nBaur himself half apologises for the really mon-\\nstrous suggestion that it is the work of an ecclesias-\\ntical forger of the second century, inditing a romance\\nin the interest of his views on the slavery question.\\nFortunately, to-day not even the necessity of acknowl-\\nedging the genuineness of the connected elements of\\nColossians can restrain the most radical Tubingen\\ncritics from recognition of its inimitable genuineness.\\nThe connection of Colossians with Ephesians is so\\nintimate that we must discuss their occasion and\\ncontent together.\\nThe emphatic position of the contrasted pronouns in", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0128.jp2"}, "129": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 109\\nCol. 1:9; Eph. 1:15; 6:21/ with, some other data Eph. and\\nindicates that Paul had received a letter from the r e \u00c2\u00b0pheg e t0\\nColossians, probably including messages from the letters,\\nadjoining churches of the Lycus Valley (2:1; 4:16;\\ncf Eph. 1 15) for Colossians was accompanied by\\nanother letter which would reach Colossee from Laodi-\\ncea, and the two were to be exchanged (Col. 4:16).\\nColossians, accordingly, will have supplemented the\\ngeneralities of this circular letter. Eor the latter was\\ndesigned for churches of which Paul had even less\\npersonal knowledge than of Colossse (Col. 2:1; cf\\n1:7 f.), and could not therefore be made adequately\\nspecific in application to special conditions at Colossse,\\nof which Paul knew through Epaphras (Col. 4:12 f.).\\nNow it is a strong support for the identification of\\nEphesians with this circular, which was to reach\\nColossse from Laodicea, that its outline, thought,\\nand even much of its phraseology are identical with\\nColossians except for the paragraphs Col. 2 1-3 4\\nand 4 9-18, which are respectively a reply to local\\nheretics and Paul s greeting to local friends. In\\nEphesians the thought appears in expanded form.\\nThis common plan is as follows Analysis of\\nthe two\\ni. Salutation, Eph. 1 1 f. =Col. 1 1 f.\\nii. Epistolary Thanksgiving and Prayer, Eph. 1:3-\\n3: 21 Col. 1:3-29.\\na. Thanksgiving for God s precreative choice of his\\n1 Thus Eph. 6:21: Iva S\u00c2\u00a3 eiS^-re /cat vp.e?s to. kclt \u00c2\u00a3fj.{, rl Trpdacro),\\nmust be rendered in strictness But that ye may be informed\\nof my affairs, ye also of mine (sc. as I have been of yours).\\nSimilarly 1 15 icayd virkp ifiuv, and Col. 1 9 kclI -rj/xeTs\\nvirep vfiQv, (toe) too on your behalf. The information\\nconveyed is also alluded to in Eph. 1:15; Col. 1 4 (but cf. 8),\\n6 2 5-7, 16, 20 4 10 the expressions of sympathy are met\\nin Eph. 3 13 6 22 Col. 1 24 2 2 4 8. See the art. by\\nH. B. Swete, Expositor, December, 1898.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0129.jp2"}, "130": {"fulltext": "110 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION\\npeople in the person of their Head, and revelation in\\nhim of this solution of the mystery of being, Eph.\\n1 3-14. (In Col. 1 3-8 for the good report of Epaph-\\nras as to the Colossians.)\\nb. Prayer for their mental enlargement to appre-\\nciate the greatness of this divine calling, which\\nhistorically is revealed in the adoption of a united\\npeople of God, Jewish and Gentile, whose separation\\nhas been overcome by Christ, Eph. 1:5-23; 2:1-10,\\n11-22 Col. 1:9-23.\\nc. (Peculiar to Ephesians, but cf. Col. 1:24-29\\nwith Eph. 3:1-13.) Repetition of the prayer, with\\nspecial digression for the benefit of such as may not\\nbe familiar with Paul s revelation of the mystery.\\nDoxology, Eph. c. 3.\\niii. Doctrinal Section (peculiar to Colossians).\\nRefutation of the theosophic speculations and\\nasceticism of the false teachers at Colossse by an\\napplication of the Mystery of God, who, before\\ncreation, chose Christ to be head of the universe, in\\nwhom we died to this world and rose to the heavenly,\\nCol. 2 1-3 4. (Much of the doctrine included in\\nEphesians under ii.)\\niv. Practical Application, Eph. 4: 1-6: 20= Col.\\n3:5-4:6.\\na. (Peculiar to Ephesians.) Hence, the charis-\\nmata are to be used for edification of Christ s body,\\nEph. 4:1-16.\\nb. The fleshly life must be superseded by the\\nChrist-life with its characteristics of purity and love,\\nEph. 4: 17-5: 21 Col. 3:5-17.\\nc. And individual propensity curbed by the mutual\\nsubordinations of the divine social organism, Eph.\\n5:22-6: 9 Col. 3:18-4:1.\\nd. General exhortation to prayer and watchfulness,\\nEph. 6: 10-20= Col. 4:2-6.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0130.jp2"}, "131": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 111\\nv. Personal Epistolary Matters and Farewell, Eph.\\n6: 21-24= Col. 4:7-18.\\nPaul may almost be said, in Eph. 1 3-3 21 Col. Character\\n1 3-29), to have cast his remarks into the form of of Eph^ Ct\\na prayer, for the false teachers are wholly in the\\nbackground (5 6), and the reason for the special sub-\\nject of thanksgiving and prayer is only perceived by\\ncomparing Colossians. Paul aims at a deeper ground-\\ning of the faith of his correspondents by an adequate\\napprehension of the cosmic character of the redemp-\\ntion. Christ and the Church, mutually complementary\\nas male and female in the ideal Adam of Gen. 1 27,\\nor as head and body, both together in their ideal\\nsupremacy the complement of the Creator, give the\\nkey to the problem of the universe. The long hidden\\nmystery of God s design in creation (Eph. 3 9-11\\nCol. 1 26 f cf Rom. 16 25-27) may be expressed\\nin the one word euoWa (Eph. 1:5, 9; Col. l:19), a the\\npreordaining choice by the Creator of a Being comple-\\nmentary to himself (Eph. 1:9-11; Col. 1:15-19).\\nFor in behalf of, unto, and through this Son, the\\narchetypal Man, made in God s image, the entire\\ncreation, heavenly and earthly, personal and imper-\\nsonal, was produced (Gen. 1:27 f.) that ultimately\\nit might be subject unto him (Eph. 1:22; cf. 1 Cor.\\n15 27 f Heb. 2 5-8). But this precreative choice of\\nthe Son making him the first-born of all creation\\n(Col. 1 15-17) involved as his complement a redeemed\\n1 For a discussion of the sense of this technical term, as con-\\nnected with the title 6 AyaTnjrds (=6 E/cXeXeY/x^os Lk. 9 35)\\nhere (Eph. 1 6) and in Matt. 12 18 also with Lk. 2 14 the\\nmen rijs evdoKias 1 1 i.e. God s elect), the Voice from Heaven,\\nMk. 1 11, also Matt. 17 5; Mk. 9 :7 Lk. 9 35; 2 Pet. 1 17, see\\nmy art. On the aorist 61)56/070-0, Journ. of Bibl. Lit.., 1897.\\nCf. also Acts 9 22 (Western text).", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0131.jp2"}, "132": {"fulltext": "112\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nChrist and\\nhis people\\nheirs of the\\nuniverse.\\nThe Colos-\\nsian heresy.\\npeople as his bride, the Church (Eph. 5:23-32).\\nChrist, as manifested in the glorified body, must be\\nidentified with this archetypal, ideal Man, and is\\nactually subduing all powers both of earth and heaven.\\nThe Church, chosen by God in him before the\\nfoundation of the world (Eph. 1:4 f.), is this bride;\\na new people of God s own possession, joint heirs\\nwith Christ of the world (Eph. 1: 18-22; Eom. 4: 13;\\n8:17; Gal. 4:7; Heb. 1:2, etc.). This people of God\\nis not Jewish only, but as now seen in the working out\\nof the redemptive process, both Jewish and Gentile\\n(Eph. c. 2; cf. Rom. cc. 9-11; Gal. 3:26-29). The\\nevoWa, therefore, or primeval purposive choice of the\\nCreator, contemplating the Beloved, and us his\\nredeemed people in him, is the key to the eternal\\nmystery of creation and redemption; and it has been\\nplaced by Jesus in the hands of his Apostles and\\nsaints (Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:27). Christ, its head, is the\\nexplanation of creation; for the universe, visible and\\ninvisible, material and personal, is both from him\\nand unto him (Col. 1: 15-19; cf. 1 Cor. 8:6). The\\nChurch is the explanation of God s redemptive work-\\ning in history for it is its intended outcome the body\\nof Christ, complementary to him as both together are\\nthe complement (TrX^pw/Ma) of God (Col. 1 19 f cf\\n1 Cor. 3:22 f.). This comprehensive outlook over all\\ntime, all space, all being, is Paul s revelation of the\\nmystery of the eternal purpose of the Creator which\\nhe purposed in Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:9-11); and he\\nrightly judges it to be worthy of most strenuous prayer\\non behalf of his readers, that their mental and spir-\\nitual capacity may be enlarged to take it in (Eph.\\n1:17-19; 3:14-19; Col. 1:9; 2:1-3).\\nAfter this sublime cosmology, overburdening and\\nbursting through the framework of doxology and\\nprayer with which he had begun, Paul introduces in", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0132.jp2"}, "133": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 113\\nCol. c. 2, the special adaptation of his thought to local\\nconditions. Agents of a Judaistic (vs. 16) theosophy\\nhad found congenial soil for their proselytising work\\nin Phrygian Asia, ancient home of mysticism and\\neclectic theosophy. Their commendation of circum-\\ncision (cf. vs. 11, ye also the Law (vs. 14), Sab-\\nbaths and other holy days (vs. 16), recalls the Judaisers\\nof Galatians. But we have something more here than\\nmere Pharisaic nomism. There was discrimination\\nof meats and drinks with an ascetic instead of cere-\\nmonial purpose (vss. 21-23). The Old Testament\\nordinances were supplemented by precepts and doc-\\ntrines of men, which Paul calls will-worship, as\\nhe would not call the prescribed worship of the Law.\\nThese observances they commended as properly due to\\nthe angelic and elemental Powers through whom the\\nLaw was given (cf. Gal. 3:19; 4:1-3, 8-11; Acts\\n7:42 f., 53; Heb. 2:5), and with whom the adept\\nentered into communication (vs. 18), so that the unique\\nlordship of the Son of Man was obscured, if not\\ndenied (vss. 8-10, 19). We see, in fact, the begin-\\nnings of that amalgamation of Judaism with Gnos-\\nticism, which, entering perhaps by the avenue of\\nEssene 2 sects, was already seeking to rival or supplant\\nChristianity in the religious conquest of the world\\n(Tit. 1:10-16).\\nThe knowledge that such conditions were present Eph. reflects\\nmay have affected the more general letter in its treat- |\\\\tions. C n\\n1 The Elements of the world both here and in Gal. 4 3,\\n8 f. are semi-personal, consistently with the general type of\\nOriental cosmologies for a description see Rev. 4 6 f. and cf\\nHerm. Vis. 3 13, 3 and the passages adduced by Everling,\\nPaulin. Angelol. u. Damonol., 1888.\\n2 See Lightfoot s Colossians, ii, The Colossian Heresy, and\\nDissertations 1-3 on Essenism. Also Friedlander s Der vor-\\nchristliche Gyiosticismus der Juden, 1898.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0133.jp2"}, "134": {"fulltext": "114 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nment of the theme (cf Eph. 4 14 5 6) but the\\nauthor only interjects at this point his rhapsody on\\nthe organic unity of the Church, whose current of life\\nis the Spirit flowing from the ascended Christ\\n(4:1-16).\\nThe practical section in both epistles (Eph. 4 17-\\n6 20 Col. 3 1-4 6) is specially close in connection.\\nMutual love and purity belong to the Christian s\\nspirit as against the darkness and lust of heathenism,\\nwith joy of the inward man as against enjoyment for\\nthe outward (Eph. 4: 17-5: 21 Col. 3:1-17). The\\ndomestic relations are to be held sacred, as a type of\\nthe organism of the divine kingdom (Eph. 5 22-6 9\\nCol. 3 18-4 1), and constant watchfulness and\\nprayer, including prayer for Paul, are enjoined (Eph.\\n6:10-20 Col. 4:2-6). Tychicus, the bearer, will\\ngive them news from Paul (Eph. 6: 21 f. =Col. 4:71).\\nOriginal Thus, the difference between the two epistles is\\naddress of obviously one of Paul s relation to the readers. In\\nEphesians Paul thinks of the universal Church; in\\nColossians, of the church of Epaphras. The complete\\nabsence of any local colour in Ephesians would be\\nenough in itself to discredit the title to the Ephe-\\nsians, to say nothing of 1 15, Having heard of\\nyour faith, 3:2; 4:21, 22, if indeed ye have\\nheard, and other positive indications that Paul is\\naddressing strangers (cf. Acts 20:18 ff., 31). These\\nphenomena are borne out against the early tradition\\nby the textual evidence, which shows conclusively\\n1 So the reiterated representation of Christ and his people as\\nsuperior to all angelic and demonic Powers 1 10, 20-22 2 1 f.,\\n6 3 10, 14 4 9 f. 6 12. In Col. this is made even more dis-\\ntinct. The highest ranks of angels owe to Christ both their\\ncreation and redemption, 1 16 f., 20 2 8-10, 18 f. for with\\nPaul the drama of redemption includes angels as well as men,\\n2 15 cf. Eph. 3 10 1 Tim. 5 21 Heb. 1 2-14 2 5-8.\\nEph.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0134.jp2"}, "135": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 115\\nthat the copies in circulation during the second and\\nthird centuries had not the words iv E \u00c2\u00a3eo-a in 1:1.\\nCertain recent manuscripts referred to by Basil in\\nthe latter half of the fourth century are the earliest to\\nwhich the words can be traced. The ancient reading\\nis interpreted by most of the Fathers and by some\\nmodern scholars the saints who are (really such),\\nor who are also faithful. Other modern scholars,\\nbeginning with Archbishop Ussher (1650), supposed\\nthe Apostle to have left a blank, the letter having been\\nintended for a number of churches, and the bearer\\nbeing authorised to insert in each locality the proper\\nname. All attempts to translate without a geographi-\\ncal term are excluded by the fact that Paul does not\\naddress this letter, nor others, to classes distinguished\\nby moral character, but to localities (6:21; cf. Col.\\n1: l). 1 The blank theory is too modern, and does not\\naccount for the textual history.\\nThe surest clew is in the fact that in Marcion s text To the\\nLaodiceans\\nby far the earliest of which we have any knowledge a]\\nthe epistle was entitled To the Laodiceans. Ter- others,\\ntullian, who informs us of the fact, insinuates that\\nMarcion was giving himself airs as a diligentissimus\\nexplorator; but it is not likely that Marcion drew\\nthe inference from Col. 4: 16, which does not speak of\\nan epistle to, but an epistle from Laodicea. Probably\\na variant tradition was current in his Phrygian home.\\nProconsular Asia was certainly the region to which\\nTychicus bore the letter. Hence, Ephesus would be\\nvisited on the way. Col. 4 16 is highly favourable to\\nthe idea that Laodicea was one of the churches for\\nwhich it was intended (cf. Gal. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).\\nIn that case, Hierapolis and Colossse would be included\\n1 Against T. K. Abbott, Internat. Crit. Commentary, p. 2.\\nThe interpretation adopted by him makes ofoiv superfluous.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0135.jp2"}, "136": {"fulltext": "116\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nEarly attes-\\ntation of\\nEph.\\nGenuine-\\nness.\\nin the perhaps unfamilar geographical term now lost,\\nfor which h E^eVa) has been substituted in the later\\ntexts. The substitution, first in tradition 1 and ulti-\\nmately in the text itself, was of course due to the\\nprominent position of Ephesus, from whence copies of\\nthe letter would generally be derived.\\nWe have seen that Ephesians is surpassed by\\nscarcely another New Testament writing besides\\n1 Corinthians in explicit attestation from the earliest\\ntimes; for the allusion in Ignatius ad Eph. 12\\n(ovfjLfjLvo-TaL), while precarious in itself, becomes a\\nprobable allusion to Eph. 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9, etc., when\\nthe wide circulation of this epistle from the very\\nbeginning is considered. 2 From this evidence, says\\nAbbott, it is all but certain that the epistle already\\nexisted about 95 a.d. (Clement), quite certain that it\\nexisted about 110 a.d.\\nAll this without taking account of its admitted\\ninfluence on New Testament writings. For granting\\nthat Col. 4 16 may refer to some unknown letter, and\\nnot to this which so well suits the case, Holtzmann\\nhimself would be the last to deny that 1 Peter, John,\\nand 1 John show familiarity with its doctrine of Christ\\nand the Church. 3 But with the example of Hebrews\\n1 Even the Fathers, who are ignorant of any iv E^crcp in the\\ntext, regard the letter as written to Ephesus.\\n2 For we have indisputable employment in Clement of Rome,\\nc. 36 (cf. Eph. 1 19), c. 38 (Eph. 5 21), c. 46 (cf. Eph. 4 4-6),\\nc. 64 (cf. Eph. 1:4, 5), probable use in Aid. 4 10, 11 and Barn.\\n19 7 (cf. Eph. 6 9, 5), also in Ign. ad Eph., c. 1 (Eph. 1 1 ff.\\n5 1), c. 6 (Eph. 6 11), c. 9 (Eph. 2 20-22), and ad Polyc. 5\\n(Eph. 5 :29), unquestionable use in Polyc. ad Phil., c. 1 (Eph.\\n2:5,8, 9) and c. 12 (Eph. 4 26) with increasing familiarity\\nin later writers.\\n3 We may cite in general the high Christology of all the\\nJohannine writings as depending on Eph. and Col., butcf. Eph.\\n2 :21 f. with Jn. 2 19-21 Eph. 4 10 with Jn. 3 13 Eph. 5", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0136.jp2"}, "137": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 117\\nbefore us, it will not do to say that the age from 75-100\\nto which Holtzmann assigns it was incapable of pro-\\nducing so splendid a reproduction of Pauline thought.\\nAgainst so able and careful a scholar one cannot ven-\\nture to say that some such masterful unknown genius\\nmight not have elaborated a pseudo-Pauline letter by\\na process of minutely imitative modelling on the basis\\nof Colossians, and subsequently have expanded the\\nmodel itself by loans from his copy, so as to produce\\nthe appearance of dependence on both sides. To put\\nhis twin letters in circulation without exciting a ripple\\nof suspicion, even when Ephesians was so promptly\\nseized on by the Valentinians in support of Gnostic\\nspeculations, may also be deemed a possibility. But\\nto find a motive sufficient to induce a teacher of such\\nfervid genius to condescend to such slavish toil, even\\nif to that age less dishonest than to ours, when\\nwithout any such false pretence his doctrine would\\nbe scarcely less acceptable and incomparably more\\nunfettered, this is a task indeed! It behooves us to\\nscrutinise the grounds which are held to make this\\nneedful.\\n1. The vague historical situation. But this ceases Objections\\nto be incongruous or incomprehensible as soon as the ^General-\\ncorrupt reading iv E \u00c2\u00a3eo-o is abandoned and the circular ising char-\\ncharacter of the letter recognised. Local colour should ac er\\nbe wanting if, as assumed, this be the letter from\\nLaodicea.\\n2. The objective way in which the author speaks 2. The\\nof himself and the Apostles (2 20; 4 11). But in ipJ stl e Si\\nso far as it differs from the Pauline manner (cf 1 Cor. etc.\\n3 10 12 28) it may be accounted for by the lack of\\n13 f. with Jn. 3 19-21, and see Intern. Comm. on Eph. and Col.,\\nT. K. Abbott, 1897, p. xxviii. The basis of N. T. cosmological\\nChristology can be nothing else but Pauline (cf Heb. 1 1-2 15\\nwith 1 Cor. 15 24-28, and Kev. 22 13 with Col. 1 15).", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0137.jp2"}, "138": {"fulltext": "118 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nconcrete relations. In 3: 1-3, 7; 4:1; 6:20 we have\\nindeed the effort to create snch a concrete relation,\\nand that by virtue of the claim to a position among\\nthe consecrated Twelve (3: 5), 1 as a sharer in the great\\nrevelation; nay, as having been peculiarly entrusted\\nwith an essential part of its content. But with proper\\nrendering this cannot be deemed un-Pauline (cf 1 Cor.\\n9:1 ff 15:3-11), unless we ignore Paul s reverence\\nfor his office and longing for solidarity with the\\nTwelve in the view of Christians to him unknown.\\nNeither is there vanity in 3 4, which if it refers to\\n2 11-22 is only concerned with a divinely granted\\ninsight, not the result of Paul s own powers, nor\\noverwrought modesty in 3:8, considering the inten-\\ntion of the paradox.\\n3. The high 3. The exalted Christology might seem incredible\\nChristoiogy. at g0 early a per i 0( j ut f or fae simple fact that in\\nevery essential feature it is corroborated in undeni-\\nably genuine passages. Disregarding the parallels in\\nColossians, as disputed, we find the same conception\\nof Christ as preexistent in 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2: 5-11;\\nas the image of God, archetype of redeemed human-\\nity, in Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; as be-\\nginning and end of creation in association with God\\nin 1 Cor. 8:6; 15 22-28 as lord of all created being\\nin heaven and earth and under the earth, triumphant\\nover angelic and demonic Powers in Phil. 2: 9-11; 1\\nCor. 15 24 ff as agent of a cosmic redemption in\\nEom. 8: 19-22. And this is but the negative half of\\n1 This verse is the equivalent of vs. 10 and Col. 1 26. The\\nsaints as a whole are entrusted with the revelation, but more\\nespecially those particular saints who are Apostles and proph-\\nets ywi Tr6o-To\\\\oi ko.1 irpo p-/)Tai), and hence officially pro-\\nclaim it. To Paul it had been specially revealed (Gal. 1 15 f.).\\nIt would not be true to say that the other Apostles had not also\\nreceived it, though less unreservedly (see above, p. 64).", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0138.jp2"}, "139": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 119\\nthe argument; for in 1 Cor. 1:24, 30; 2:6-10, 16 we\\nhave hints that Paul also has a philosophy wherewith\\nhe could put to shame the speculations of the Corin-\\nthians, had he deemed them prepared for it, a phi-\\nlosophy which was concerned with Christ as the Power\\n(Swa/us) of God and the Wisdom (o-o^ta) of God. It\\nconsisted of a revelation of the hidden mystery of\\nGod which he foreordained before the worlds unto our\\nglory (1 Cor. 2: 7; cf. Rom. 16: 25-27; Eph. 1: 4-12;\\n3 9-11), and set forth the divine plan in creation and\\nredemption (1 Cor. 2:9-11). Again, what have we\\nin Romans as a whole but this same theme of the\\nrevealed purpose of God in creation and redemption\\n(11 31-36) Here the full extent of what is meant\\nby the cosmic atonement is but darkly hinted in\\nchapter 8, and the union of Jew and Gentile in the\\nnew people of God in chapters 9-11 is only a hope.\\nBut in Ephesians, with the supplemental parallels of\\nColossians, Paul opens wide to us, as no imitator could,\\nthe doors of that comprehensive cosmic philosophy of\\nhis faith.\\n4. When Paul expressly undertakes the revelation 4. Apoca-\\nof the mystery of Christ, which in other generations and^expres-\\nwas not made known unto the sons of men, nay, was sions.\\nhid in God who created all things, even from the\\nPrincipalities and the Powers in the heavenly places\\n(cf. Rom. 16:25-27; 1 Cor. 2:6-8; 1 Pet. 1:12), we\\nshould need no second hint to seek in the current\\napocalyptic literature, to which Paul was no stranger\\n(2 Thess. 2: 39; 2 Cor. 6: 14; 12: 2), and whose inter-\\nest was as truly cosmological as eschatological, 1 for\\nthe analogies which will explain both his thought\\nand language. In point of fact, we find everywhere\\nin this literature the conception that the world was\\n1 E. H. Charles, s. v. Apocalyptic Lit. Hastings B. D.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0139.jp2"}, "140": {"fulltext": "120 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ncreated for Messiah and his people, and will ultimately\\nbe subjected to him. It is based upon Gen. 1:27 f.\\nThis purpose of creation, which is therefore its alpha\\nand its omega, beginning and ending, God concealed\\nfrom human philosophy, and even from angels, who\\nvainly crave to know the secret of their creation and\\ndestiny. He revealed it to Enoch, Moses, and other\\nchosen prophets and seers. 1 In Christian apocalyptic\\nChrist is of course the Mediator of the new covenant\\n(Heb. 8:6; cf Ass. Mos. 1 1), and the doctrine as-\\nsumes the form: For the sake of the Church the\\nuniverse was created. 2 Eemembering what literature\\nunderlies Paul s cosmology, we shall not be surprised\\nif in Ephesians there are a number of un-Pauline\\nexpressions, particularly in this special field. 8 We\\nshall rather be unable to explain how an imitator could\\n1 Eph. 1 4-11 is a reproduction, in places almost verbal, of\\nthe thought of Assumptio Mosis 1 14-16 (14-30 a.d., E. H.\\nCharles) God hath created the world on behalf of his\\npeople. But he was not pleased to manifest this purpose of\\ncreation from the foundation of the world, in order that the\\nGentiles might thereby be convicted, yea to their own humilia-\\ntion might by their (cosmogonic) arguments convict one\\nanother (cf. 1 Cor. 1 27 ft). Accordingly he designed and de-\\nvised me [Moses], and prepared me before the foundation of\\nthe world that I should be the mediator of his covenant (cf.\\nGal.l: 151; 3:19f.; Heb. 8 6; 9 15; 12: 24; Eph. 3: 2-9, etc.).\\nSimilarly 2 Esdr. 6 56-59 7 11 9 13 Apoc. of Baruch 14\\n18, 19 15:7; 21 24. Asto the hiding of the mystery from the\\nangels see Slav. Enoch (Charles, 1-50 a.d.) 24 2 40 3, and cf.\\nEph. 3 10 1 Pet. 1:12; Matt. 24 36.\\n2 Hernias, Vis. 1 1, 6 2 4, 1, cc. 4, 5 Mand. 12 4 cf. Rev.\\n21 7, v. I., Just. M. Ap. 1 10 2 4, 5, etc.\\n3 The most conspicuous are iv ro?s iirovpavlois, SiafioXos, Hpx^v\\ntTjs O-ovalas rod afpos, eh trdcras rots yeveas toO alwvos tQv aluivuv,\\nepya dKaptra, etc. Cf. Holtzmann, Einl. 3 p. 259. The preexist-\\nent treasury of deeds 2 10 is an apocalyptic trait, cf Slav.\\nEnoch. 53 3.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0140.jp2"}, "141": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 121\\nhave introduced the peculiar Pauline Sio five times,\\ntwenty words unknown to the New Testament save in\\nthe greater Pauline Epistles, with only seventy-six\\nthat can in any sense be considered unusual to Paul. 1\\nNay, we have the positive information from Origen Paul used\\nthat in the apocalyptic passage 1 Cor. 2:6-16 the a P\u00c2\u00b0 cal yP se\\nScripture quoted by Paul (vs. 9) is from the Apoca-\\nlypse of Elias. If now on the authority of Epi-\\nphanius, 2 the Scriptural (\\\\eyei) quotation Eph. 5:14\\nis also taken from the Apocalypse of Elias, we shall\\nnot only find it easy to explain a few peculiarities of\\nlanguage and style, but very hard to explain how an\\nimitator should hit upon the same obscure, unnamed\\nbook for the further development of Paul s cosmology,\\nwhich Paul himself had in mind when writing to the\\nCorinthians that he could, if he chose, speak God s\\nwisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been\\nhidden, which God foreordained before the worlds\\nunto our glory, which none of the Rulers of this world\\n(apxovTes tov aiwvos tovtov) knoweth (cf Rom. 16 25\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n27; Eph. 3:3-5, 9 f 6:12 and the passages from\\nSlav. Enoch, Ass. Mos., etc., above cited).\\nIn Philippians the situation is again changed. Paul Character,\\nis not writing to correspondents more or less indirectly anTanalysis\\nrelated to him, but to his intimates, and the most of Phil,\\nbeloved of all his churches (1:3-8; 4:15). We are\\nnot surprised to find it the most epistolary in form\\nof all his letters, abounding in special and local refer-\\nences, which, on the one side, have conduced to the\\nabandonment of former attacks upon its genuineness,\\nbut, on the other, involve us in unanswerable prob-\\nlems as to the precise historical situation.\\n1 Phil, alone has thirty hapaxlegomena.\\n2 Cf. Iren. 4 22, 1 with Eph. 4 9 and Just. M. Trypho 72.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0141.jp2"}, "142": {"fulltext": "122 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nThe structure of the epistle is as follows\\n1. Salutation and epistolary thanksgiving and prayer,\\n1 1-11.\\n2. Report of Paul s condition and prospects, 1 12-26,\\npassing in 27-30 to\\n3. Doctrinal exhortation to unity through imitation\\nof the mind of Christ, whose exaltation was through\\nhumbling himself; thus Paul s work will stand in any\\nevent, 2 1-18.\\n4. Personal business, with commendation of Timothy\\nand of Epaphroditus, 2 19-30.\\n5. Doctrinal section. Warning against the con-\\ncision. Righteousness by the Law vs. righteousness\\nby faith, c. 3.\\n6. Exhortations, personal business, and acknowledg-\\nment of gift. Farewell, 4:1-9, 10-20, 21-23.\\nDate. Lightfoot s argument from the relation of Philip-\\npians to Komans in style and language for a date\\nanterior to the group Ephesians, Colossians, Phile-\\nmon, 1 has won the assent of Hort, but, as this distin-\\nguished scholar himself admits, 2 of so few beside that\\nit need only be mentioned alongside of the similar\\none for the late date of Galatians. Not a year or two\\nof time, but circumstance, subject, and literary rela-\\ntion chiefly modify an author s style. Per contra the\\nletter gives clear evidence of a decided change for the\\nworse in Paul s situation. The references to his bonds\\nin the letters to Asia are quite compatible with the\\nrelative freedom enjoyed during the two years of\\nActs 28: 30 f., though one of the occasions of the let-\\nters from Asia he is answering would seem to have\\n1 Essay on the Order of the Epistles of the Captivity in\\nComm. on Phil.\\n2 Rom. and Eph. Prolegomena, 1895.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0142.jp2"}, "143": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 123\\nbeen a disheartening report of his affairs (Eph. 3: 13;\\n6:22; Col. 1:24; 4:8; cf. Philem. 22) as looking\\ntoward an unfavourable issue. In Philippians Paul\\nis still hopeful (1:25; 2:24), but far from buoyant,\\nand his hope is fixed not on earthly helpers, nor on\\nhuman probabilities of release though, for the com-\\nfort of his beloved Macedonians he argues that his in-\\ndispensableness to them will be a motive even with\\nthe Disposer of all events. The difference between\\nPhilem. 22 and Phil. 1:19-30; 2:12-18 is that in\\nthe former Paul is preparing friends for news of his\\nrelease, in the latter for news of his execution.\\nNor is this a sudden, unheralded change, nor mere Circum-\\nsubjective fluctuation of the Apostle s hopes. Paul p^ es of\\nhas been through a period not only of sorrow\\n(2:27), but of actual physical hunger and want\\n(4 12-14), which Epaphroditus, bearer of a belated\\ngift from the Philippians, had been able to supply only\\nat the risk of his life (2 30; 4 14, 18). For in Phi-\\nlippi they have not only had time to hear of this\\ncalamitous turn in the affairs of their Apostle, and to\\nrespond to it by despatching the aid which previously\\nthey had lacked opportunity to send (4 10), but had\\nheard also of what, but for the courage and determina-\\ntion of their messenger, might have proved a sorrow\\nupon sorrow. For while in pursuit of his commis-\\nsion, Epaphroditus had been taken sick nigh unto\\ndeath (2:261, 30).\\nPaul has still friends around him, few, but faith-\\nful. But his preaching has ceased, of which his\\nenemies think to take advantage, not knowing the\\nApostle s faith in the Master s promise (Matt. 10:18\\nand parallels) that his very bonds should preach for\\nhim (1:13), and in his own principle that we can\\ndo nothing against the truth, but for the truth\\n(2 Cor. 13 8 cf Phil. 1 15-18). Thus the things", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0143.jp2"}, "144": {"fulltext": "124\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nLater than\\nend of Acts.\\nComposite i\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0which happened unto him, certain very definite, and,\\nobviously to the Philippians who have heard of them,\\ncalamitous further restrictions of his liberty, have,\\nto Paul s noble optimism, fallen oat rather unto the\\nprogress of the gospel. But the crisis, involving life\\nor death (1 20-24), is very near so near that, but for\\ntheir anxiety, Paul would have retained Epaphroditus\\nas go-between. As it is, he will send Timothy, his\\nlast remaining faithful adherent, forthwith, so soon\\nas I shall see how it will go with me.\\nThis situation cannot reasonably be brought within\\nthe two years of unhindered preaching, with which\\nPaul began at Pome in his own hired house of Acts\\n28 30 f Since then new hardships have come. But\\nthese and all the world of toil and conflict are fast\\nreceding from view. The Apostle repeats again and\\nagain his loving farewell (3:1; 4:4), but he has\\nceased to mind earthly things he is pressing on\\ntoward the goal unto the prize of his high calling,\\nto know Christ and the power of his resurrection,\\nand the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming con-\\nformed unto his death if by any means he may attain\\nunto the resurrection from the dead (3: 10-14).\\nWhether we have in Philippians more than one\\nletter of this farewell correspondence is a subordinate\\nquestion. 1 The breaking of all the waves of criticism\\nabout 3 1 ff is an indication, as Holtzmann says, of a\\nprobable hidden reef. We have at least in 2 1-18\\nand chapter 3 two distinct doctrinal sections, each\\nfollowed by an ending of the usual epistolary char-\\nacter, 2 19-30, and chapter 4, and the abruptness of\\nthe change at 3 1 ff remains to be explained. The\\n1 Polycarp s allusion to letters is either a plurale tantum\\n(cf. 11 3), or possibly includes 1 and 2 Thess. as also Macedo-\\nnian. If more than one letter had survived to Polycarp s day it\\nwould have survived to ours.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0144.jp2"}, "145": {"fulltext": "THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 125\\nJudaisers in Koine have sunk beneath Paul s feet in\\n1 18. Has his peace of mind been suddenly broken\\nagain by news of their inroads at Philippi? There\\nis no mistaking the portrait of 3 2 ft. in comparison\\nwith 2 Cor. cc. 10-13. Hebrew descent, circum-\\ncision, righteousness of the law, glorying in the\\nflesh, enmity to the cross (cf. Gal. 6:12-14),\\nthese traits are familiar; but are we to suppose that\\nit is such men as followed Barnabas and Cephas at\\nAntioch, or, in fact, any Christian Jew in fellowship\\nwith the Apostles, of whom Paul now writes (vs. 19),\\nwhose end is perdition, whose god is the belly, and\\nwhose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly\\nthings 1 We are reminded rather of a letter of\\nPaul to Ephesus (Rom. 16 18) and of another Apostle\\nwho writes to the churches in Asia to beware of the\\nfalse apostles (Eev. 2:2), men of the synagogue\\nof Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do\\nlie (3:9; cf. Phil. 3:2 1); though here libertines\\nand Judaisers are differentiated. Paul s antidote for\\nthe poison is the old rule (3 1, 16) of conformity by\\nfaith to the death and resurrection of Christ.\\nIf Phil. 3 f be a separate letter it will have shortly Relation of\\npreceded chapters 1, 2 (cf. 4:21 f. with 2: 20 f.) as an P arts\\nacknowledgment of the gift conveyed by Epaphroditus\\n(4:18), and answer to the Philippians letter (4: 10).\\nPaul s final teaching then (2: 1-18) will have supple-\\nmented the brief exhortation of 4 1-9 with that incom-\\n1 Libertinism could find no shadow of sympathy in the mere\\nnarrowness of the converted Pharisee still clinging to the Law.\\nThese are not the circumcision, but (to substitute Paul s\\nown term for a Judaism which sought to rival Christianity in\\nits influence on the heathen world by conforming Mosaism to\\nheathenism) they are the concision. We may well employ\\nthe word in place of the cumbrous expression syncretistic\\nJudaism.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0145.jp2"}, "146": {"fulltext": "126 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nparable picture of the mind of Christ, 2:5-11,\\naccording to the saying, He that humbleth himself\\nshall be exalted (Matt. 23:12). For the ideal hu-\\nmanity is not of him who was made in the image of\\nGod, yet counted it a matter to be seized by robbery\\n(apTraynov) to be as God, knowing good and evil\\n(Gen. 1:27; 3:5), but of a second Adam, who\\nbeing, in a higher and truer sense, in the form of\\nGod, humbled himself and became obedient even\\nunto the death of the cross.\\nThe Commentaries of Lightfoot on Phil, and on Col. and\\nPhilem. are supplemented by the posthumous Notes on Epistles\\nof St. Paul, 1895, with comments on Eph. extending only to 1\\n14. See also Hort s Kom. and Eph. Prolegomena, 1895. The two\\nvolumes by T. K. Abbott on Eph. and Col. and by M. R. Vin-\\ncent on Phil, and Philem. in the International Commentary\\nSeries give the most recent special discussions in English, but\\nshould be compared with those in the Bible Dictionaries, Ency-\\nclopaedia Brittanica, and New Testament Introductions. For\\nGerman literature see Vincent (op. cit.), pp. xxx and xl sq., as\\nto Phil. and Abbott (op. cit.), pp. xxxv-xl and lxii-lxv, as to\\nEph. and Col.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0146.jp2"}, "147": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER VI\\nTHE SECONDARY CANON OF PAULINE EPISTLES: THE\\nPASTORAL EPISTLES AND HEBREWS\\nThe distinction of the Mnratorian Canon between Early classi-\\nPaul s letters to the Seven Churches, and those which, ca lon\\nthough written from personal feeling and affection,\\nare hallowed nevertheless in the respect of the Catholic\\nChurch for the arrangement of ecclesiastical disci-\\npline, is by no means peculiar to that document, and\\nmay well go back even to Marcion s day, for the typus\\nseptiformis ecclesice is well known to early Latin\\nwriters. We have seen that Hebrews also, when in\\ndanger of losing its ancient position of respect, found\\nfriends in the East who could discover reasons for\\nattaching it at the end of this secondary Pauline\\ncanon in spite of its un-Pauline characteristics and\\nthe tradition declaring it non-apostolic, which in the\\nWest was still too strong to be disregarded.\\nMarcion cannot have been ignorant of the Pastoral\\nEpistles, which are known to Ignatius and Poly carp;\\nnor would he have scrupled to eliminate anything\\nobnoxious to his beliefs if they had occupied to his\\nmind the same position as the primary Pauline canon.\\nHis omission was not due to their private character,\\nfor he retained Philemon, which the Church classed\\nwith them as also private. It may perhaps be ex- use made of\\nplained in part by the use to which we are told they e Pastoral\\nwere put in the churches, and the resultant treatment\\nof the text. For his Scripture Marcion required\\n127", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0147.jp2"}, "148": {"fulltext": "128 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nfrom the Church, only its Gospel and Apostle.\\nHe had no use for its orders of ecclesiastical disci-\\npline mainly directed against teachers of his own\\ntype, and without any such pretences of being a dili-\\ngentissimus explorator, as Tertullian imputes to him,\\nhe might well regard this somewhat mixed mass of\\ndirections, regulations, exhortations, and denuncia-\\ntions, in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus as, on the whole,\\nfalsely purporting to come from Paul. If such was\\nMarcion s judgment it agrees with the great majority\\nof modern scholars, though the present tendency is\\ntoward fuller justification of the Church s tradition.\\nCritics generally admit (i) that fragments at least of\\ngenuine letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus are here\\npresent (ii) that neither the regulations of church\\norder, nor, in their general traits, the heretics\\nopposed, nor the mode of opposition, are altogether\\nout of relation to the later Pauline period; (iii) that\\nmany whole phrases, not merely in the epistolary\\nparts, but even in the portions regarded as interpolated\\ninto the genuine historical framework, are Pauline,\\nwhether borrowed from the primary canon or derived\\nfrom tradition. On the other hand, the writing of\\nthree such letters as these, as they stand, by the\\nApostle, is declared to be incompatible with the his-\\ntorical situation presupposed, and with their features\\nof language and style. Accordingly, the prevailing\\nefforts of criticism are in the direction of separation\\nof those elements which may be taken to have formed\\n1 Nearly all critics admit at least 2 Tim. 1 1 f., 15-18 4: 9-\\n21 as genuine (so Hausrath, Pfleiderer, von Soden, et al). Many-\\ndivide these genuine elements between two letters of Paul to\\nTimothy and find traces of others in 1 Tim. 1 1 ff. Tit. 1 1, 4,\\n12-15. See e.g. McGiffert, Ap. Age, p. 408, who regards only\\n1 13 f 2 14-3 17 4 3 f. as spurious in 2 Tim. but two\\nletters are combined.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0148.jp2"}, "149": {"fulltext": "THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 129\\nthe original letters from tlie material Pauline or\\notherwise which early church editors have inter-\\npolated to adapt these private notes to the public uses\\nof ecclesiastical discipline. l\\nA brief summary of the contents will show that Logical\\ncriticism has some ground for declaring the Pastoral ana ysis\\nEpistles, especially 1 Timothy, to be characterised in\\npart by the desultory, general, sometimes incoherent\\nstructure of ecclesiastical compilations rather than\\nPaul s close-knit, logical sequence. The structure of\\n1 Timothy is as follows\\ni. Salutation, 1:1, 2.\\nii. Charge to refute heretics, 1:3-20 [vss. 12-17,\\nThanksgiving of Paul for his trust\\niii. Order in church services, and appointment of offi-\\ncials, cc. 2, 3.\\niv. Duties of the minister: against false teaching,\\nin organisation, and administration of the Church, and\\nthe instruction of various classes. Farewell, cc. 4, 5,\\n6:l-21a [vss. 11-16, 20, 21, personal charge with the\\ntrust 216.\\nIn 2 Timothy we have\\ni. Salutation, thanksgiving, and exhortation to loy-\\nalty to the Apostolic trust, 1 1 f 3-14.\\n[ii. Personal conditions, 1:15-18; perhaps dis-\\nplaced.]\\niii. Doctrinal section. Charge to loyalty continued.\\nFaithful subordinates to be chosen as against un-\\nworthy teachers, 2:1-4:8 [2 20-26, mirror of the\\nLord s servant\\n1 The fundamental critical work on the Pastoral Epistles is\\nthat of H. J. Holtzmann, 1880. The most thorough and recent\\nattempt at documentary analysis, summing up the work of pred-\\necessors, is by Hilgenfeld, arts, in Zts. f. w. Th., 1897. ~E. H.\\nHesse s monograph, JEntstehung d. N. T. Hirtenbriefe, 1889,\\nseems to have suggested the view of McGiffert.\\nK", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0149.jp2"}, "150": {"fulltext": "130 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\niv. Personal data, greetings, farewell, 4 9-18, 19-\\n21, 22.\\nThe Epistle to Titus has the following structure\\ni. Salutation, 1 1-4.\\nii. Directions in church appointments in view of he-\\nretical teachers, 1 5-16.\\niii. Directions to the minister as to his own adminis-\\ntration and teaching, 2 1\u00e2\u0080\u00943 5 3: 11.\\niv. Personal business and farewell, 3 12-15.\\nContent of After address and greeting (1:1 f.), 1 Timothy\\nl Tim. plunges at once into an attack upon heretical teachers\\nof a mythologising, antinomian type (3-11), as against\\nwhom Paul thanks God for the sound doctrine in-\\ntrusted to him, though once a persecutor (12-17).\\nTimothy must be heir to this trust (18-20). Chapters\\n2-3 turn to matters of church order. The proper\\ncourse as to intercession in public worship (2 1-7),\\nconduct of the women (8-15), office of bishops (3 1-7)\\nand deacons (8-13) is set forth as necessary for\\nTimothy s instruction in case of delay in Paul s com-\\ning (14-16). Chapter 4 returns to denunciation of\\nthe heretics. As against their ascetic, encratite prac-\\ntices and mythologising superstitions (1-10), Timothy\\nis exhorted to preach the wholesome doctrine as a\\ndisciplined and authoritative teacher (11-16). His\\nduties toward the various classes in the Church are\\ndefined, in his relations to the elder and younger of\\nboth sexes (5: 1 f.) in enrolment of widows (3-16),\\nin ordination of elders (17-22) [here a disconnected\\ndirection as to Timothy s diet (23-25)], and in amelior-\\nating the relations of slaves to masters (6: 1 f.). The\\nheretical teacher is described, vaunting the disputa-\\ntious sophistries he preaches for money (6 3-10), as\\nagainst the true man of God (11-16). A special charge\\nfor the rich (17-19) and to Timothy to guard the", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0150.jp2"}, "151": {"fulltext": "THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 131\\ntrust against the profane babblings of Gnostics,\\ncloses the epistle (20 f cf. 2 Tim. 1 13 f 2 16).\\nThe second epistle begins with a similar appeal to Content of\\nTimothy to guard the good deposit, prefaced in 2Tim\\nthis case by the usual Pauline thanksgiving and prayer\\n(1:1-14). After a disconnected item referring to\\nkindness shown the writer by the Ephesian Onesi-\\nphorus when in Eome (1 15-18), Timothy is exhorted\\nto carry on the work of Paul (2: 1-13). He is given\\nthe pattern of the Lord s servant 1 as against the\\nprofane babblings and foolish and ignorant ques-\\ntionings of the heretics (14-26). Keproof of these\\nimpostors is drawn from the Repentance of Jannes\\nand Jambres, 2 a work perhaps included among the\\nScriptures inspired of God, which are of service\\nfor this, and which expressly foretell, by the Spirit,\\ntheir coming, as a feature of the last times (c. 3; cf.\\n1 Tim. 4:1 ff. and 2 Thess. 2:3). Timothy, accord-\\ningly, must be a faithful preacher, evangelist, and\\nsuccessor to Paul, whose martyrdom is immediately\\nat hand (4 1-8) The letter concludes with epistolary\\nmatters (4:9-22).\\nThe same burden is laid on Titus. Paul is the Content of\\ntrustee of a divine message (1: 1-4). Titus was left Tlt\\nin Crete to provide an ecclesiastical organisation ca-\\npable of defending the wholesome doctrine against\\nunruly talkers and deceivers, the worst of whom are\\n1 The incongruity of 2 20-26 with the context consists in\\nthe fact that here the pattern is furnished Timothy apparently\\nfor application to himself (22 f.), whereas the context (2 2,\\n14-19 3 1-13 has to do with the type of faithful teachers he\\nmust select (2 2) Moreover, the faults warned against in\\n2 20-22 cannot be imagined in Timothy.\\n2 This work was known to Pliny, who died in 79 a.d. Origen\\n(on Matt. 27 8) is our informant of the source of Paul s\\nreference.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0151.jp2"}, "152": {"fulltext": "132 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nJews, though our author fails to distinguish between\\nthe asceticism of one type of Gnostic (1 14, 15) and\\nthe licentious and superstitious speculations of the\\nother (1 5-16).\\nBesides appointing suitable elders, or bishops\\n(1 5-9), Titus must teach all classes in the Church,\\nyoung and old of both sexes, slaves and masters (c. 2)\\nand bid them show the effect of the gospel of the\\ndivine love in orderly behaviour to the world around,\\nshunning the disputatious superstitions of the heretics\\n(3:1-11). The epistle ends with a few words of\\nbusiness (3:12-15).\\nHistorical The point of departure for determining the historical\\n^Tim! 011 m situation implied in these letters must necessarily be\\n2 Tim. c. 4; for whether we consider their content as\\na whole, combating heretical tendencies by means of\\na wholesome tradition the good deposit in the\\nhands of a well-disciplined ministry; or their closely\\nrelated phraseology, it will be obvious that no broad\\nseparation can be made. The three are certainly com-\\npanion letters, and in 2 Tim. c. 4 we have at least\\none clearly defined historical situation. It is essen-\\ntially the same as in Phil. 2 17, where we have the\\nsame remarkable metaphor as in 2 Tim. 4:6. Only\\nmatters have advanced one step nearer the goal of\\nmartyrdom (Phil. 3:14). The libation is already\\nbeing offered, the course is fully run (4:7). Timothy,\\nwho was then waiting to be sent shortly to Philippi,\\nhas been despatched. This farewell letter is to com-\\nmit to him the good fight Paul has finished (vs. 7 f.\\ncf 1 Tim. 6 12 if Of those present in Col. 4 10-14,\\nLuke alone is left. Demas has deserted. Others now\\nin Asia also forsook him, though one faithful friend\\nfrom Ephesus has gone to a heavenly reward for the\\ncourage with which he had made his way to Paul s\\nprison and relieved his wants (1 15-18).", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0152.jp2"}, "153": {"fulltext": "THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 133\\nWith these conditions the tone of 1:1-14; 2:1-13 Consistent\\nis thoroughly in harmony. The epistle is the last ^^asa\\nlegacy to a beloved child 1 of a martyr whose only whole,\\ntreasure is the good deposit of the gospel revela-\\ntion, a trust greater even than that of the ancient\\noracles of God (Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. 4:1). 2 Genuinely\\nPauline is the conception of this Gospel as the calling\\nof God in the precreative gracious choice of us in\\nChrist, a mystery hidden from times eternal, until\\nmanifested by the shining forth of Christ (1:9 f.; cf.\\nTit. 1:2 f.; 2:11-14; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Cor. 4:4-6).\\nEqually inimitable is the Pauline consciousness, pre-\\neminently characteristic of 2 Timothy, that his Gospel\\nis a special word of God, a trust for the world.\\nNor would the writer of Philippians in transmitting\\nthis sacred trust, under essentially the same con-\\nditions, have omitted a parallel to the warning of\\nPhil. c. 3. The portrait of the false teachers in 2\\nTim. 2 14-3 17 4:3, 4, while probably interpolated\\n(2:19 6-26? 4:3f.?), may therefore be largely gen-\\nuine. Eor Paul believed in a falling away in the\\nlast times partly on the basis of such Scripture as\\nunderlies chapter 3 (cf. 2 Thess. 2: 3 ff.), and, in the\\nmain, the apostates must be admitted to resemble the\\nconcision of Paul s day (cf. 2:18 with 2 Thess.\\n2:2; 1 Cor. 15:12 and Tit. 1:14-16; 3:9; 1 Tim.\\n1:4-7; 4:1-7 with Col. 2:8-10, 16-18, 20-23) far\\nmore closely than the anti-Jewish Gnostics of the\\nsecond century.\\nBut in chapter 4 itself we find representations irrec- incompati-\\noncilable with this historical situation. Verses 9, bleelem ents\\n11-18, 20, 21a compel us to assume that Paul had\\n1 The supposed incongruity with Timothy s age and experi-\\nence thus disappears from this passage.\\n2 In 1 12 render according to margin (R. V.) comparing\\nvss. 13, 14 1 Tim. 6 20 Tit. 1 3.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0153.jp2"}, "154": {"fulltext": "134 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nrecently been at Troas, Corinth, and Miletus. More-\\nover, in spite of desertion by friends he has made a\\nsuccessful defence before the Gentiles, and is greatly\\nencouraged. 1 If the verses named are inseparable\\nfrom 2 Timothy, they force us to assume that Paul\\nwas released from his imprisonment in Eome, made\\nconsiderable journeys in Greece and Asia, revisiting\\nEphesus, in spite of Acts 20 25, 38, was subsequently\\nreincarcerated in Eome, and repeated the experiences\\nwhich, in Philippians, had already led him almost to\\nthe goal of martyrdom.\\nNow, in the absence of any evidence for it 2 outside\\nthe Pastoral Epistles themselves, such a repetition of\\nPaul s course is highly improbable, especially in\\nview of Acts 20: 25, 38. 2 It cannot indeed be said to\\nbe insupposable. To the martyr also there sometimes\\ncomes an unexpected reprieve. Years after he may\\nutter a second time his last farewells. But that\\nwhich, under such circumstances, he will not do, is to\\nreturn to his former leave-taking, and, with no refer-\\nence to having used the figure before, borrow thence\\nthe phraseology for his parting legacy. This is the\\nculminating reason 3 for regarding 2 Tim. 4 6-8 as\\nwritten from the same captivity as Phil. 2 16-18, not\\ni With 2 Tim. 4 17 f., cf. Acts 23 11 and 2 Cor. 1 10.\\n2 The passage in Clement of Rome, c. 5, is at least ambiguous.\\nThe mention in the Muratorian Canon of a journey to Spain\\nrests on Rom. 15 28 and is destitute of support in history or\\ntradition.\\n3 Others of importance are (i) the extreme improbability\\nof Paul s escape from the Neronian slaughter of 64 a.d. (ii) the\\nsituation and presuppositions of the Pastoral Epistles them-\\nselves, as e.g. the youthfulness of Timothy, 1 Tim. 1 18 4 12\\n5 1 2 Tim. 2 22, the limitation of their scenes to the sphere\\nof Paul s earlier activity, without mention of Spain (iii) the\\nimpossibility of framing a consistent idea from them of Paul s\\nmovements or circumstances.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0154.jp2"}, "155": {"fulltext": "THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 135\\nmore than a few weeks later. The consequence is\\nunavoidable that vss. 9, 11-18, 20, 21a, 22 b, whose\\nwhole tone is as different from the preceding as the\\nimplied historical situation, were written by Paul on\\nsome much earlier occasion. 1 The only alternative is\\nthe highly improbable supposition that such data as\\n2 Tim. 4: 9-13 were forged out of whole cloth for the\\nexpress purpose of deception.\\nThe evidence of compilation out of various Pauline Pastorals\\nfragments is not surprising in view of the phenomena gpf ir e io t u S er\\nof Komans and 2 Corinthians, and would go far to composite,\\nexplain the historical difficulties confronted when the outside the\\ngenuineness of the letters in their present form is known life\\nmaintained. For it has come to be almost universally\\nadmitted that no place can be found for them within\\nthe known life of Paul. But thus far we have only a\\nclew. It must prove its helpfulness in explaining\\nthe well-known problems of these epistles before being\\nadopted as a theory.\\nThe difficulties are of three classes (i) as to his-\\ntorical situation; (ii) as to the implied ecclesiastical\\norganisation and doctrinal development, both orthodox\\nand heretical; (iii) as to style and vocabulary.\\n(i) One of the two irreconcilable historical situa-\\n1 But for Acts 21 29 we should say with confidence, Paul is\\nwriting to some unknown friend (in Macedonia shortly after\\nthe hearing before Felix, Acts 24 1-21 (N.B. vss. 9, 16, 21, and\\ncf. 17 f. with Acts 23 11, and vs. 14 with Acts 21 27 24 18).\\nLucht, Overbeck, and J. Weiss (Absicht etc., der Apg., 1898, p.\\n39) have thrown serious doubt on the historicity of Acts 21 29\\nas wrongly explaining the assault. In that case Trophimus\\nmight really have been left in Miletus sick on this occasion.\\nThe resemblance of 2 Tim. 4 17 f. to 2 Cor. 1:10 suggests rather\\nMacedonia, shortly before the coming of Titus (2 Cor. 2 12 f.),\\nthe defences alluded to having been made in Ephesus (Acts\\n19 38 2 Cor. 1:9; Rom. 16 4, 7). The genuine elements of\\nTit. will then be slightly earlier. See below.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0155.jp2"}, "156": {"fulltext": "136\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\n1. Implied\\nrelations of\\nPaul to\\nTimothy\\nand Titus.\\ntions of 2 Tim. c. 4 is entirely adapted to a known\\nsituation of Paul s life, and the other to an ear-\\nlier, with or without error in Acts 21 29. That of\\nTit. 3 12 f. is not known, but these verses might\\nhave been written shortly before 2 Corinthians, when\\nPaul (in Ephesus?), unable to count on the loyalty of\\nCorinth, was planning to await the outcome in Mace-\\ndonia and Epirus. 1 But herewith we have reached\\nthe limit of probabilities. The implications of 1 Tim.\\n1 3 ff 3 14 ff Tit. 1 5 ff are simply improbabili-\\nties, not to say impossibilities, as they stand, whether\\nthe letters be placed in periods known or unknown of\\nPaul s life. A long epistle of every sort of general\\ninstruction regarding church discipline could not\\npossibly be required by Timothy under the implied\\ncircumstances, least of all when Paul was himself\\nexpecting to come shortly. And if Timothy had re-\\ntpiired instructions as to the appointment of officers\\nfor the church in Ephesus, are we to suppose that\\nPaul had not a single individual whom he could nomi-\\nnate in the church founded by himself and diligently\\nfostered by the space of three years Had all the\\nelders and bishops who came to meet him at Miletus\\n(Acts 20:17, 28) suddenly resigned?\\nSo with Titus. To say nothing of the fact that it\\nis the absentee Paul, after a stay in Crete so brief that\\nhe has not even appointed elders in the churches, who\\nyet must inform Titus of the character of the people\\nof his own field to say nothing of the extraordinary\\nindictment of Cretans as a class in 1:12 f., it is in-\\ncredible that Titus should require at any time subse-\\nquent to Paul s acquaintance with Apollos (3 13) such\\nelementary instruction, especially when it merely sup-\\nplements an oral charge, 1 5, and is coupled with a\\nsummons to the presence of the writer, 3 12.\\n1 See B. D., s. v. Nicopolis, and cf. Eom. 15: 19.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0156.jp2"}, "157": {"fulltext": "THE PASTOBALS AND HEBREWS 137\\nIn both epistles Paul s relations to these intimate\\nfellow-labourers are inconceivable in the known period,\\nstill more so the later we go. It cannot have been\\nneedful in a casual letter to Timothy for Paul to\\ndefend his apostolic calling, as in 1 Tim. 1:12-17,\\nnor to assure him when speaking of it that he is\\nspeaking the truth and not lying, 1 Tim. 2 7 (cf\\nRom. 9:1). On the other hand, the fancy of a forger\\nis not likely to have framed the caution as to Tim-\\nothy s diet, in 5 23.\\n(ii) The burden of all three epistles is the for- 2. Author s\\ntifying of the Church against the inroads of the stand P\u00c2\u00b0 int\\nconcision of Paul s time. But phrases and repre-\\nsentations are present, especially in 1 Timothy, which\\nimply fully developed systems of pseudo-Christianity, 1\\nclosely corresponding to the heresies denounced in\\nJade, 2 Peter, Revelations, 1-3 John, and the Igna-\\ntian letters, and delineated for us by Irenaeus and\\nother Pathers as the doctrine of Cerinthus, the Jewish\\nGnostic contemporary of John in Ephesus. To this\\nthe letters oppose (a) the traditional teaching of the\\nChurch, to which various new terms are applied, such\\nas the pattern of wholesome words, the words of\\nthe faith, the wholesome doctrine, 2 the doctrine\\nwhich is according to godliness, the faithful word\\nwhich is according to the teaching (b) ecclesiastical\\norganisation and discipline, including not only bishops\\nand deacons (Phil. 1:1), but the hitherto unknown\\norder of enrolled widows, or almoners. Both these\\nmethods are more external and conventional than we\\nshould expect from Paul. Paul s gospel is super-\\nseded by the Church s teaching (1 Tim. 6:1; Tit.\\n1:9; 2: 10), and an advanced officialism testifies to an\\n1 So 1 Tim. 6 20, implying the use of gnosis as a technical\\nterm.\\n2 Six times.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0157.jp2"}, "158": {"fulltext": "language.\\n138 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nage much later than that of 1 Cor. cc. 12-14, or even\\nof Eph. c. 4, in which the government of the Church\\nis a matter of spiritual endowment. These regula-\\ntions resemble rather the early manuals of church\\norder, such as the At8ax 7, the Apostolic Constitutions,\\netc. Even in 2 Timothy we realise that the charge to\\nthe Lord s servant in 2 20 (196 ?)-26 is addressed\\nnot so much to the real Timothy, as to the ideal can-\\ndidate for holy orders.\\n3. Style and (iii) Along with a number of Pauline characteris-\\ntics in style and language which are hard to explain\\nas due to mere imitation, there is a pronounced un-\\nPauline character. This appears in an unusual pro-\\nportion of unknown terms, seventy-four words found\\nonly in 1 Timothy, forty-six more found nowhere\\nbut in 2 Timothy, twenty-eight more nowhere but in\\nTitus, with whole families of words such as o-ox^poveiv,\\no-w$povi\u00c2\u00a3,av and the cognate forms, rare or unknown\\nto Paul, new compounds of hhao-Ktiv, oIkos, \u00c2\u00a3i Aos, sub-\\nstitution of different forms, as e.g iv irao-iv (six times)\\nwhere Paul writes h ttclvti, implying a sudden and un-\\nexplained change in the Apostle s mode of expression.\\nPeculiar phrases appear also, often such as imply\\nnew modes of thought evo-e/fto? \u00c2\u00a3,fjv, 2 Tim. 3 12 Tit.\\n1 Observe e.g. the addresses and greetings, the item of per-\\nsonal news 2 Tim. 1 15-18, the connection in 1 Tim. 1 11\\n13 and cf. yovevaiv aireideis 2 Tim. 3 2 with Eom. 1 30, Kara\\nt6 tvayytkibv fj.ov 2 Tim. 2 8 with Rom. 2 16; 16 25, rb evayyi\\\\iov\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a27-7)5 56\u00c2\u00a3t7s 1 Tim. 1 11 with 2 Cor. 4 4, inaTeiea-dai. in the sense\\nof be entrusted, 1 Tim. 1:11; Tit. 1 3. and be believed,\\n1 Tim. 3 16 and 2 Thess. 1 10 and the expression d popfiT]v\\nSidovai tiv l 1 Tim. 5 14 and 2 Cor. 5 12 only (d pop/j.ri occurs six\\ntimes in the N. T., all in Paul). Note also the allusions to\\nPaul s peculiar mystery of the Gospel, the divine precreative\\nivSoda hidden from past ages but now manifested to men and\\nangels in the elect people, 1 Tim. 3 16 6 14-16 2 Tim. 1 9,\\n10 Tit. 1 2 f. 2 12-14 3 4-7.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0158.jp2"}, "159": {"fulltext": "THE PASTOBALS AND HEBBEWS 139\\n2:12; SiwKcii/ SiKaioa-vvrjv, 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22;\\ncf v\\\\d(T(TCLv tt]v TrapaOrjKrjv, 1 Tim. 6 20 2 Tim. 1 12, 14\\nirapaKoXovOelv rrj SiSacrKaAta, 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:10.\\nNew terms in great number are applied to the heresy,\\ne.g. (3ef3r)\\\\oL p.v6oi, p.wpal \u00c2\u00a3rjTr) rei ypatoSeis fxvdoi, ktX.,\\nand, on the other side, the phrases already referred\\nto as designating the wholesome doctrine, 1 Tim.\\n4:6; 6:1,3; 2 Tim. 4:3; Tit. 1:9; 2:1, 8, 10.\\nHerewith must be connected frequent references to\\nfaithful sayings, 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim.\\n2:11; Tit. 3:8, one of which, in commendation of\\nseeking the office of a bishop, cannot well be sup-\\nposed current at an early period. References to the\\nOld Testament, on the contrary, so characteristic of\\nPaul, are conspicuous by their absence.\\nAs against 133 un-Pauline words we have a striking\\nabsence of many which seem almost indispensable to\\nPaul. Not merely is there no reference to the Church\\nas the o-w/Aa toS Xpio-rov, but the very word o-wfia, used\\nmore than seventy times in the four great epistles\\nalone, does not once occur. The whole family of\\niXevOepos is absent, of poveiv, of irpacnreiv (for which\\nthese letters substitute iroielv), of Te Aaos, yes, even of\\nhep-yew, Trepiaaeveiv and KavxacrOcu. Finally, as evidence\\nwhich Dods admits to be staggering, there is an\\nabsolute disappearance of the favourite Pauline par-\\nticles apa, 8l6, Slotl, eiret-Ta, en, t8e, l8ov, pLrjTr j) s, O7rcos,\\novKeri, ovtto), ovre, 7raXtv, ev 7ravTi, 7rore, ttov, uscnrep, and of\\nthe prepositions dvrt, aXP l efX-n-poirOev, evEKev, Trapd with\\nthe accusative, and even of o-w, for which our author\\nuses p-erd.\\nIt is impossible to regard these phenomena as acci- inference\\ndental. They coincide with peculiarities of style and Enfsties t0ra\\ncorrelation of thought, they are connected with a his- have been\\ntorical situation which belongs to the close of the recast\\ncentury. They positively demonstrate an un-Pauline", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0159.jp2"}, "160": {"fulltext": "140 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nelement present in all three epistles, but most strongly\\nmarked in 1 Timothy and Titus.\\nA wise conservatism will yield so much as this,\\nwhile refusing as yet to commit itself to any special\\nscheme of documentary analysis, or even to the pos-\\nsibility of extricating the Pauline from the traditional\\nand editorial material. We must simply recognise in\\nthe Pastoral Epistles a special group hallowed in the\\nrespect of the Catholic Church for the arrangement of\\necclesiastical discipline, but later formed than the\\nprimary Pauline Canon, and bearing the marks of much\\nalteration, interpolation, editorial adaptation to this\\nuse, mainly on the basis of Paul s great legacy to\\nTimothy of his trust in 2 Timothy, partly on frag-\\nments of notes to Timothy, Titus, and perhaps others\\npartly, no doubt, on traditional formulae and teachings\\nof the Apostle. They have passed through an experi-\\nence similar to all known compilations of their class,\\na process of more or less unconscious accretion arrested\\nonly by the stereotyping hand of the Canon-maker.\\nHebrews. The anonymous epistle anciently superscribed To\\nEarly treat- ftie Hebrews, was early connected in Alexandria and\\nthe East with the letters of Paul. Even in the West,\\nwhere the statements of all the Fathers down to the\\nfourth century are opposed to Pauline authorship, 1 its\\nposition in the Canon, when admitted, was next to\\nthese. This fact may partly account for the popular\\nbelief in Alexandria which Pantaenus, Clement, and\\nOrigen successively sought to harmonise with its mani-\\nfestly un-Pauline characteristics for in ancient manu-\\n1 Besides Tertullian (see above, p. 33) and the Muratorian\\nCanon, both Irenseus and Hippolytus are credibly reported by\\nStephan Gobar (in Photius) to have denied the Pauline author-\\nship. Caius (ca. 200), Cyprian, Victorinus, and others count\\nbut thirteen Pauline Epistles.\\nmeiit.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0160.jp2"}, "161": {"fulltext": "THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 141\\nscripts of the Pauline Epistles the titles ran To the\\nCorinthians, Galatians, Bonians, etc., the\\nreader supplying tacitly the words Epistle of Paul.\\nBut for the strange decision of the English revisers\\nto leave unchanged the titles given in the Authorised\\nVersion, we might say, with Bruce, That the Apos-\\ntle was not the author of it is now so generally\\nadmitted that it is hardly worth while discussing the\\nquestion. 1 Luther, Calvin, and Erasmus were already\\nconvinced of this it was demonstrated in the Intro-\\nduction of Ziegler (1791), and the commentaries of\\nSchulz (1818), and especially of Bleek (1828). The\\nproof rests primarily upon the author s classification\\nof himself, in 2 3, with those whose relation to Christ\\nwas that of the second generation; a fact in itself fatal\\nto the various attempts of ancient and modern times\\nto claim for the epistle even an indirect derivation\\nfrom Paul. 2 Eor it is certainly no translation, but,\\non the contrary, employs the most classical Greek of\\nthe New Testament in carefully framed periodic struc-\\nture (1:1-4; 2:2-4; 7:20-22; 12:18-21), including\\neven word plays (5:8 tfxadev ZiraOev 9:15-18 SLaOrJKrj;\\n10 38 f 11 37, 13 14 jxevovcrav /j-iXXovaav) and para-\\nnomasias (5:14; 8:7, 8).\\nMoreover, in spite of the author s unmistakable An inde-\\nacquaintance with Bomans and 1 Corinthians, if not author. 1\\nEphesians and Galatians, 3 as well, both form and con-\\ntent display the sturdiest independence. Even the\\n1 B. D., 1899, s. v. Hebrews, Epistle to.\\n2 Including the curious revival of the theory of Stier,\\nGuericke (1842), Ebrard (1850), and Delitzsch (1857) by a\\nrecent writer in the Bibl. World, who has won the support of\\nRamsay Expos., June, 1899.\\n3 For the parallel passages see Holtzmann, Einl. s p. 298, with\\nthe reference Heb. 10 30 below also Von Soden, Handcomm.,\\np. 2.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0161.jp2"}, "162": {"fulltext": "142 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nAlexandrian Fathers had observed its un-Pauline style\\nand vocabulary, 1 and Jerome the fact that, unlike\\nPaul, this author depends exclusively on the LXX.\\nversion, in apparent ignorance of the original Hebrew.\\nThe only exception to this rule is the quotation in\\n10 30, which is borrowed from Eom. 12 19. Acquain-\\ntance with Philo is at least equally certain, affecting\\nnot merely the writer s doctrine of the ideal universe\\nand creation through the Logos, but even his citation\\nof the Old Testament in 13 5 in a form nowhere found\\nsave in De conf. ling., 33. The Alexandrian apocry-\\nphon Wisdom of Solomon is also employed.\\nBut the content will show that we have here neither\\nLogical an imitator of Paul nor a mere borrower from Hellen-\\nanalysis. j s ^i c w i s d m, but a free combination of the results\\nof Pauline theology with the current ideas of Alex-\\nandrian-Jewish philosophy, producing a genuinely\\nnew type of Christian thought.\\nThe structure of Hebrews is as follows\\n[i. Address, salutation, etc., wanting.]\\nii. First doctrinal section and application. Christ\\nsupreme over the universe, higher than all angels, and\\nhis administration than the Mosaic. Hence, warning\\nagainst failure to enter his rest (kingdom), 1:1-\\n3:6; 3 7-4 13 (14-16 transitional).\\n1 As an impartial test of the diversity of style Professor\\nRendall cites the connecting particles In the Epistles of St.\\nPaul etns occurs fifty times, etre sixty-three, wore (in affirmative\\nclauses) nineteen, elra (in enumerations) six, el de ko.1 four,\\netirep five, \u00c2\u00a3kt6s el fir) three, etye four, /xrjTrws twelve, /x^/ceTt ten,\\nfievovvye three, e u eighty-eight times, while none of them are\\nfound in Heb. except e v, and that only once (or twice) except\\nin quotations. On the other hand, S0ev which occurs six times,\\nand e vwep which occurs three times are never used by St. Paul.\\n(Theol. of Hebrew Christians, p. 27 quoted by Dods, Introd.,\\np. 182).", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0162.jp2"}, "163": {"fulltext": "THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 143\\niii. Second doctrinal exposition. Christ the eternal\\nHigh Priest after the type of Melchizedek, cc. 5-7\\n(5:11-6:12 digression for practical exhortation).\\niv. Third doctrinal section and application. Supe-\\nriority of the later, eternal form of worship corre-\\nsponding to this priesthood, to the Mosaic forms.\\nHence warning to hold fast, 8 1-10 18; 10 19-39.\\nv. Fourth doctrinal section and application. The\\nnature of faith as insight illustrated from Scripture.\\nAn encouragement to persevere, cc. 11, 12.\\nvi. General practical exhortation, personal news, and\\nfarewell, c. 13.\\nWith the general purpose of checking any disposi- Nature i\\ntion in his readers toward a Judaising eclecticism or C0Qtent\\ndeistic indifference, 1 the author presents the contrast\\nof the new revelation with the old, which is primarily\\nillustrated in the person of their respective mediators.\\nIn the one case are subordinate agents, angels and\\npowers, which, great as they are, exist only for ser-\\nvice to the heirs of salvation in the other, the heir\\nof all things, the archetypal Man of God s eternal\\ncreative forethought, who in Wisdom is identified\\nwith the visible phase of the divine glory, the sub-\\nstantive counterpart of the eternal Being (1 3=Wisd.\\n7:25 f.). Originally the agent of creation, he has\\nnow become the agent of redemption also, until the\\nultimate subjection of the universe to him is accom-\\nplished, chapters 1 and 2. And as in his cosmic func-\\ntions Christ is exalted above the angels, to whom the\\npresent world is subject (2 5) and through whom the\\n1 See the repeated applications of the argument, 3 12-4 16,\\n6 9-12 10 19-39 12 1-13 17. Relapse into Judaism, for-\\nmerly regarded as the danger threatening the readers, would\\ncertainly not be described as falling away from the living\\nGod, 3:12.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0163.jp2"}, "164": {"fulltext": "144 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nLaw was given, so in the historical process of redemp-\\ntion he towers above Moses and Joshua, achieving a\\nrest for the people of God, of which the rest of\\nCanaan (Ex. 33:14) was a mere type and shadow;\\nthe real rest of God being that of the ultimate\\ncreative sabbath, the period when with the aboli-\\ntion of the curse of death the universe is brought to\\nthe divinely contemplated ideal, c. 4. An exhortation\\nto faith and obedience to this living, all-penetrating\\nLogos of God, who is the one with whom we have to\\ndo, leads over from the consideration of Christ as\\nthe Sod of Man of Ps. 8, source and goal of creation,\\nto the consideration of him in his redemptive work as\\nthe Son of God, typified in the Messianic priest -king\\nof Ps. 110. After a digression (5:11-6:12) urging\\ndeeper religious insight, the high priest forever after\\nthe order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110 4) is elaborately\\ninterpreted as the ideal and eternal mediator with\\nGod, of whom the Aaronic priesthood was a mere type\\nand foreshadowing. As the Sabbath of God had been\\ntreated (3: 11-4: 10) as\\nThe stupendous march\\nOf grand eternity,\\nso now the Messianic temple is\\nThe unmeasured arch\\nOf yon ethereal sky,\\ninto whose holy of holies, the actual presence of God,\\nChrist has passed with the blood of an efficient sacrifice,\\nwhereof the Levitical, unable in themselves to cleanse\\nfrom sin, were mere types, cc. 5-10. This section on\\nthe relation of the Old Testament dispensation to the\\nnew as temporary and typical, winds up with a second\\nexhortation to persistent faith, 10 19-39. The third\\nsection expounds the nature of faith, scarcely distin-", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0164.jp2"}, "165": {"fulltext": "but to whom\\naddressed\\nTHE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 145\\ngtiishing it from gnosis; for it is set forth as a faculty\\nof the human mind, whereby it can make the future as if\\nit were present, and the unseen as if it were visible. 1\\nA roll-call of heroes from the creation to Christ, who\\nall endured as seeing him who is invisible, looking\\nto the recompense of reward, and esteemed the pres-\\nent and material at its true pettiness as compared with\\nthe ideal and eternal, illustrates this definition, and\\nleads over to the third and final exhortation to emulate\\nthis example, considering the nearness of that sublime\\nconsummation to which all had looked forward, cc.\\n11, 12. A few special practical admonitions and epis-\\ntolary notes conclude the epistle, c. 13.\\nIn the form of a letter for the local allusions in A letter\\n6:10; 10:32-34; 13:7, 9, 18, 19, 23 admit no doubt\\nthat an actual local church is addressed by its teacher,\\nnow separated from it by special circumstances in\\nthe epistolary form whose great capacities Paul had\\ndemonstrated, we have here one of the grandest of\\nsermons. Theologically, the author stands midway\\nbetween Paul and John, master not only of Pauline\\nideas, but of a style and rhetorical finish scarcely\\nattributable to any other than one of the type of\\nPhilo, a Jew versed in the neoplatonism of Alexandria,\\nas much at home in its Hellenised Jewish wisdom\\nas in the Old Testament. But by whom, whence, and\\nto whom was it written? For, whether by accident\\nor design, the address and superscription, which either\\npreceded the opening verse on the same sheet, or were\\nwritten on an outside page or wrapper, have disap-\\npeared, leaving only the problematical tradition that\\nit was sent to the Hebrews.\\nIf the tradition has a geographical sense, and is\\nnot a mere inference from the contents as adapted to\\nthose in danger of overrating the Old Testament, we\\n1 Bruce, B. D., 1899, op. cit. p. 334 b. cf. Heb. 11 1.\\nL", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0165.jp2"}, "166": {"fulltext": "146 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nmust look paradoxical as this may seem last of\\nall to Palestine itself. Not only would such an address\\nbe meaningless where the mass were Hebrews, but the\\nvery language is decisive, for all notions of an Aramaic\\noriginal have long since been exploded. 1 Antioch or\\nSyria has been proposed 2 as the home of Hebrew\\nChristianity, but with no advantage as regards the\\nAlexandria, title, nor as to any local allusion save 6 10. Alex-\\nRome?^ andria is favoured by many, 8 and finds support in the\\npeculiar type of doctrine for Hebrews stands almost\\nalone in the New Testament in the degree to which it\\nrepresents that fourth tendency of early Christian\\nthought which Harnack defines as universalism in\\nprinciple and in practice, 4 and which conceived the\\nparticularism of the Old Testament as a mere husk\\nto be penetrated by allegorical interpretation. The\\nAlexandrianism of the author, however, need not be\\nassumed to have characterised the readers, and even\\nthe more telling argument that we have evidence in\\nEgypt of native and Jewish Christian writings being\\ndifferentiated as according to the Hebrews and\\naccording to the Egyptians, is paralleled at Eome\\nby inscriptions mentioning the name of one of the\\nmany Jewish synagogues as the ^waywyrj E/fyaiW. 5\\n1 The general abandonment of a Palestinian destination\\nmakes it superfluous to point out the inappropriateness of 3\\n12 5 12 6 2-5 to Jewish readers.\\n2 So Kendall.\\n8 So among others Ritschl, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Keuss, and\\nDavidson.\\n4 See p. 14. In his History of Dogma, (transl. Buchanan),\\ni., p. 91, however, Harnack seems to regard even Heb. as not yet\\ncrossing the limit between Paulinism and Alexandrianism.\\n6 Schiirer, Gemeindeverfassang der Juden in Bom, 1879, p.\\n16 f In favour of a Roman destination are such leading critics\\nas Holtzmann, Harnack, Zahn, and Von Soden. Wettstein in\\n1752 had already adopted this view and Alfred in 1859.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0166.jp2"}, "167": {"fulltext": "THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 147\\nThe mention of Timothy, 13 23, and the most prob-\\nable explanation of a special greeting to the recipients\\nfrom the brethren of (or from) Italy combine with the\\nfact that the earliest known use of the epistle is in\\nthe Eoman church, 1 and that the truth regarding its\\nun-Pauline origin was here so persistent, to make one\\nof the Christian communities of Eome the most prob-\\nable destination. This throws most light upon the\\nreferences to the readers experience in conversion,\\n2 3, earlier persecution, 10 32-34, which in the case\\nof fellow-Christians had been unto blood, 12 4, and\\nmunificence to the poor saints, 2 6: 10. True, there is\\nno reference to the controversy between Jew and\\nGentile in the Church. All alike who follow Christ\\nhave come forth with him without the camp, encircling\\nan altar whereof they who serve the tabernacle have no\\nright to eat, 13 10, 13. But Paul had already tri-\\numphed in the breaking down of this wall of partition\\nand slaying of this enmity, Eph. 2 14-17. Moreover,\\nthe supposed references to a tendency of the readers\\nto relapse into Judaism, tempted by the magnificence\\nof a ritual in current practice among them, are now\\ngenerally recognised as fallacious. 8 Eeal Judaism\\nhas sunk out of sight.\\nOf all the conjectured names of authors only two Authorship,\\nneed detain us. In Tertullian s day, in Africa, it was\\nbelieved, whether by early conjecture or tradition, to\\nhave been written by Barnabas. To this the author s\\nreference to his own conversion, 2 3, and his sur-\\nprising errors in regard to temple ritual, 7 27 10 11\\n1 Used in forty-seven places by Clement, 93-95 a.d., also by\\nHermas, 120-140.\\n2 In other cases this expression refers to the collections for\\nJerusalem.\\n8 See the article of Bruce above referred to, B. D., p. 337\\n338, and below under Date.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0167.jp2"}, "168": {"fulltext": "148 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\n(based on the error of Philo, Be special. Leg. 23) 9 4\\n(against Ex. 26: 35; 1 Kings 6:22), 21, are decidedly\\nopposed (cf. Acts 4:36 f.). Luther s conjecture of\\nApollos, on the contrary, lacks only that which could\\nalone entitle it to be considered more than a pleasing\\npossibility, viz. some traditional or historical point\\nof attachment. The description of Apollos, Acts\\n18 24-28, seems as if coined on purpose to represent\\nthis author, and has further support in 1 Cor. 1 12\\n3 6 4 6 16 12 Tit. 3 13. Yet there is no answer\\nto Kendall s demand: How could so well-known a\\nname have disappeared? unless we ask in turn: How\\ncould any name borne by so great a writer disappear? 1\\nThe destruction of Jerusalem is contemplated\\nneither in retrospect nor in prospect. Neither the\\nearthly city nor its temple are before the writer s\\nmind. His antithesis is between the Old Testament\\nreligion of form and the New Testament religion of\\nspirit, the tabernacle of the Pentateuch vs. the\\nliving temple of the Church. Not the actual ritual\\nof the temple is a temptation to his readers to apos-\\ntatise, but a Judaism on paper, a bibliolatry of the\\nOld Testament, to which the church in Kome, under\\nthe influence of reviving rabbinism, in 70-100 a.d.\\nmay well have been peculiarly exposed. 2 Nor is it\\na pure Old Testament Judaism whose influence our\\nauthor dreads, but divers and strange teachings\\nwith ascetic distinctions of meats, 13 9, and, if we\\nmay judge from the effort of chapters 1 and 2, ten-\\ndencies, as in Colossse, toward a gratuitous self-\\n1 The interesting theory just broached by A. Harnack, attrib-\\nuting Heb. to the joint authorship of Prisca and Aquila, comes\\nto hand too late for more than mention as a third possibility.\\n2 See p. 33 ff. on Scripture in the early Church, and cf.\\nJn. 5:39 f. (R. V.). Observe also the complaint of Ignatius\\nabove, p. 35.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0168.jp2"}, "169": {"fulltext": "THE PASTORALS AND HEBREWS 149\\nhumiliation and worshipping of the angels. The\\nordinances of the Law, which are a shadow of the\\nthings to come (Col. 2:17; cf. Heb. 8:5; 10:1),\\nwere inculcated in a mystical and eclectic spirit,\\nreminding us rather of the false teachers of 1 Tim.\\n1:4, 7; 4:lff., 7; 6:3-10; 2 Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:10 ff.;\\n3:9, etc.\\nFar from furnishing a motive to the author of The Judaism\\nHebrews, the events of the Jewish war of 66-70 a.d. the Rabbinic\\naffect him indirectly, if at all. The destruction of neo- _\\nthe temple was the apotheosis of the synagogue, the aism\\ndownfall of the priest was the exaltation of the rabbi,\\nand the cessation of the temple cultus gave a tremen-\\ndous impetus to both orthodox and syncretistic wor-\\nship of the letter of the Law. It is this propaganda\\nof the Jewish scribe and theosophist which our author\\nantagonises, not a living temple-worship. The fact\\nthat he rests upon the great letters of Paul is against a\\ndate earlier than 70, his silence as to Palestinian affairs\\nagainst one immediately after. On the other hand,\\nhis mention of Timothy, and the copious use Clement\\nof Rome has made of his letter makes it impossible to\\ndate it later than the reign of Domitian. The sugges-\\ntion that both the author and his companions from\\nItaly may have been exiled by this emperor is en-\\ntirely reasonable (cf. 13:23 f.).\\nOn The Epistle to the Hebrews see in addition to general\\nworks the following English authorities Rendall, 1888, with\\nAppendix, 1888, Westcott, 1892 2 Vaughn, 1891. On the\\nAuthorship, Welch, 1898; Theology, Milligan, 1899.\\nThe Pastoral Epistles are exhaustively treated by Holtzmann\\n{op. cit.) but the attempts to discriminate a genuine element\\nare mostly foreign. (Lemme, Renan, Beyschlag, Sabatier,\\nHesse, Hilgenfeld.) See McGiffert, Ap. Age, pp. 398-423.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0169.jp2"}, "170": {"fulltext": "PART III\\nTHE CATHOLIC EPISTLES\\nCHAPTER VII\\n1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER\\nThe group of seven writings called Catholic\\nVarious (j. e general, encyclical) is the latest formation of the\\nCanons. Canon. 1 Peter and 1 John formed a nucleus univers-\\nally received from a very early period. These still\\nstand apart for Junilius Africanus (550 a.d.), though\\nhe explains that very many add the remaining five.\\nChrysostom s Synopsis mentions only three. Amphi-\\nlochius (375-400 a.d.) notices that some say seven\\nCatholic Epistles are to be received, others only three,\\nviz. one of James, one of Peter, one of John. The\\nCanon of the Syrian church, which at first had none,\\nafterward followed the latter opinion. By the begin-\\nning of the fourth century, however, the Eastern\\nchurch had come to include all seven, though much\\nopposition was still offered, especially to 2 Peter. At\\nRome, apparently, Jude, 2 John, 3 John formed a\\nspecial group in 175 a.d., unapostolic, 1 yet received\\nin the Catholic Church. James is ignored and 2 Peter\\nunknown.\\n1 This appears from the connection with Wisdom written\\nby the friends of Solomon in his honour. So the Muratorian\\nCanon, p. 50. But to read superscriptas, for superscript!\\n(Johannis duas) is violent.\\n150", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0170.jp2"}, "171": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 151\\nAmong all these the position of 1 Peter is unique, l Pet. not\\nOf the rest 1 John alone can presume to rival it in JJ\\nuniversality of early acceptance and in employment by\\nthe earliest Fathers. But 1 John is an anonymous\\ncomposition, without superscription or local reference\\nof any kind, owing its ascription to the Apostle purely\\nto outsiders, who probably infer it from its obvious\\nrelation to the Gospel, which is itself anonymous.\\nOne must first ascertain in what sense the name of\\nJohn has been properly associated with the Fourth\\nGospel if properly at all and thence draw one s\\ninferences as to the three affiliated epistles. Hence,\\nour consideration of these must be in connection with\\nthe Gospel. But the name of Peter belongs to 1 Peter\\nin its own right. The letter has a definite address,\\noccasion, superscription, location. It is either genu-\\nine or forged, or partly one, partly the other and in\\neither case the facts should be discoverable. The\\nname of Peter was indeed a favourite mask for\\npseudonymous writings we have, in fact, a whole\\npseudonymous Canon of Gospel, Acts Preach-\\ning, Teaching, and Travels Apocalypse,\\nand Epistles of Peter but our epistle stands not\\nonly on a completely superior level as regards both style\\nand content, but is carried back by the positive evi-\\ndence of employment by Polycarp and Papias, and\\nprobable use in Clement of Borne, to say nothing of\\nthe reference by name in 2 Pet. 3: l, 1 to a date when\\nsuch forgery had as little motive as it had likelihood\\n1 Cf. Clem. 5:7; 16 17; 33 8 with 1 Pet. 2 21 (vTroypafj.fj.fc\\nof the sufferings of Christ) Further Clem. 7:4 1 Pet. 1:19;\\nClem. 5:9 1 Pet. 2:9; Clem. 21 6-8 1 Pet. 3 1-9 Clem.\\n22 1 ff. 1 Pet. 3 10-12 Clem. 30 2 1 Pet. 5:6; Clem. 33\\n7 1 Pet. 3:3; Clem. 49 5 1 Pet. 4:8; Clem. 59 2 1 Pet.\\n2 9. For the date of 2 Pet. whose witness to 1 Pet. is of\\ncourse independent of its own authenticity, see below.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0171.jp2"}, "172": {"fulltext": "152 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nof unopposed success, and when we have, as a matter\\nof fact, no evidence of the practice among Christian\\nwriters.\\nFormidable indeed must be the internal evidence\\nwhich can outweigh such testimony; and formidable\\nin all fairness must we acknowledge the opposing case\\nto be. It rests (1) upon the content; (2) on the im-\\nplied historical situation and date.\\nLogical The structure of 1 Peter is as follows\\nanalysis.\\ni. Salutation and epistolary thanksgiving, 1:1 f.,\\n3-12.\\nii. Doctrinal appeal. Nature of the calling of Chris-\\ntians as an adoption in Christ, a Messianic living\\ntemple, a people of God, 1: 13-2: 10.\\niii. Application. (1) As to purity, 2 11 f (2) As\\nto subordination in the social organism, political,\\n2 13-17, and domestic, 2 18-3 7.\\niv. Special exhortation to submission under unmerited\\npersecution, 3 8-4 19.\\nv. Exhortation to a Christlike spirit in church rela-\\ntions, 5:1-11.\\nvi. Personal greetings. Farewell, 5 12-14.\\nContent. After a superscription and salutation to the people\\nof God in the principal provinces of Asia Minor, 1 1,\\n2, the author enters upon a prolonged doxology of the\\nPauline type for the revelation from heaven of the\\n_ Gospel of salvation as key to the problem of the cos-\\nmos, 1 3-12. As the redeemed people of God, the\\nMessianic living temple, the spiritual Israel, their\\nconduct should exemplify their calling and hope,\\n1 13-2 10. Heathen calumny will be silenced by\\nsuch conduct; first, in the relations of social order,\\nas citizens to magistrates, slaves to masters, wives to\\nhusbands, and reciprocally, 2 11-3 7 second, and\\nmore particularly, in the patient, Christlike bearing", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0172.jp2"}, "173": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 153\\nof unmerited suffering and death, 3 8-4 6. Within\\nthe Church charismatic gifts should serve for recip-\\nrocal benefit, 4 7-11 in the present outbreak of per-\\nsecution martyrs should make it clear that they suffer\\nnot for crime, but for the name of Christ, and rest\\nconfident in God, 4 12-19. The elders are exhorted\\nby their fellow-elder, a witness of the martyrdom of\\nChrist, to be faithful shepherds, 5 1-11. Salutations\\nand close, 5 12-14.\\nFrom beginning to end this is the letter of a dis- Pauline\\nciple of Paul. 1 We might say with Harnack, Holtz- character\\nmann, Jiilicher, and others, In the absence of the\\nfirst word alone no one would ever have guessed that\\nPeter was the author. Not that at the late date\\neverywhere implied Peter was not wholly in sympathy\\nwith Paul, to such a degree even as to make him appear\\nthe natural comforter and teacher of the churches of\\nPaul s especial province; but that it is so hard to\\nimagine the first and nearest of the Twelve so much\\nmore affected, apparently, by the teaching of Paul\\nthan of Jesus. Surely Peter did not go about preach-\\ning the doctrines of Paulinism Papias informs us,\\nwith every probability in his favour, that Peter was\\naccustomed to relate his personal experience of the\\ndoings and sayings of the Lord. 2 Not only is there\\nno such sense of an independent message in this letter,\\nbut even the references to the sufferings of Christ\\nseem to have a literary rather than a historical base.\\nIts Christ is the suffering Servant of God of Is. 53.\\nBut the literary dependence goes much further. It Dependence\\nis one of the most solid results of criticism, that our n E P n and\\nepistle stands in direct literary dependence on the\\ngreat epistles of Paul, particularly Ephesians. The\\n1 Seufert (Zt.f. w. Th., 1881, pp. 178, 332) seriously advanced\\nthe theory that Eph. and 1 Pet. were by the same author.\\n2 Corroborated by CI. Horn. 17 19.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0173.jp2"}, "174": {"fulltext": "154 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ndesperate attempt of B. Weiss to break the force of\\nthis by the theory that Paul is here the borrower, has,\\nso far as known, but one adherent, and still stands a\\nsignificant witness to the undeniable relation. The\\nwords of Sanday and Headlam will best express the\\njudgment of conservative scholars x\\nThe resemblance [of Komans to 1 Peter] is too great and\\ntoo constant to be merely accidental. In 1 Pet. 2 6 we have a\\nquotation from the Old Testament with the same variations\\nfrom the LXX. that we find in Eom. 9 32. Not only do we find\\nthe same thoughts, such as the metaphorical use of the idea of\\nsacrifice (Rom. 12 1 1 Pet. 2:5), and the same rare words,\\nsuch as awxwaT^e r0cu, avvTrdxpiTos, but in one passage (Eom.\\n13 1-7 1 Pet. 2 13-17) we have what must be accepted as\\nconclusive evidence, the same ideas occurring in the same order.\\nNor can there be any doubt that of the two the Epistle to the\\nEomans is the earlier. St. Paul works out a thesis clearly and\\nlogically St. Peter gives a series of maxims for which he is\\nlargely indebted to St. Paul.\\nThis relation between the two epistles is supported by other\\nindependent evidence. The same relation which prevails between\\n1 Peter and Eomans is also found to exist between it and Ephe-\\nsians, and the same hypothesis harmonises best with the fact\\nin that case also. The three epistles are all connected with\\nEome one of them being written to the city, the other two in\\nall probability being written from it.\\nLanguage. But the author of 1 Peter is not only in close literary\\ndependence on Eomans and Ephesians. He writes in\\nexcellent and flowing Greek, certainly needing no\\n1 See Sanday and Headlam, Intern. Comrn. on Eomans,\\np. lxxiv ff and Abbott, on Eph. p. xxiv ff. Cf. Eom. 9 25, 32,\\n33 with 1 Pet. 2 10, 6-8 Eom. 12 1-3, 6, 9, 13 13 8-10,\\n11-14 with 1 Pet. 2 5 1 14 4 7-11 Eom. 12 9 f. with 1 Pet.\\n1 22 Eom. 12 16-18 with 1 Pet. 3 8, 9, 11 Eom. 13 1, 3, 4,\\n7 with 1 Pet. 2 13-17. Cf. also Eph. 1 3 with 1 Pet. 1:3; Eph.\\n1 5-15, 1 Pet. 1 5-13 Eph. 2 18-22, 1 Pet. 2 4, 5, 6 3 18\\nEph. 1 20-22, 1 Pet. 3 22 Eph. 3 5, 10, 1 Pet. 1 10-12\\nEph. 3 9, 1 Pet. 1 20.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0174.jp2"}, "175": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 155\\ninterpreter, as we are told that Peter did, and uses\\nthe LXX. version as if acquainted with no other.\\nSuch considerations lead even Zahn, 1 after the example\\nof many critics of all schools, to interpret 5 12 as\\nindicating Silvanus as real author. Oriental custom,\\nin fact, permits the great man to make the composi-\\ntion of a subordinate his own by the addition of a\\npersonal word or two at the end. His letters are thus\\nwritten by or through the scribe.\\nMore serious than the difficulties which may, in Date and\\npart, be met by such a supposition, are those of date, stances.\\nThe persons addressed are Gentile Christians (1 14,\\n18; 2:9, 10; 4:2-4; cf. 3:6), a sowing of God, 2\\nno people before their conversion, but now united\\nby an inward bond into a people of God to the\\nexclusion of Israel after the flesh (2 7-10 cf Hos.\\n1 6-9; 2 1, 23). Their churches now extend beyond\\nthe Pauline provinces of Galatia and Asia northward\\nto Bithynia and Pontus, southward to Cappadocia.\\nIf Paul is not already dead, why does Peter, or some\\none who speaks in Peter s name, invade this field?\\nAnd why is Paul unmentioned, while both Silvanus\\nand Mark are present? Moreover, the occasion and\\npurpose are unmistakable. A fiery ordeal of persecu-\\ntion has broken forth to the dismay of the Church\\n(4:12). No longer is it the petty social malice of\\nJewish and heathen neighbours, though this of course\\nis still present (3 16 4:4, 14) but now the adversary\\nis a roaring and devouring lion, whose ravages are\\nuniversal (5:8 f.), the penalties of murder and robbery\\nare inflicted (4 15), one is liable to suffer capital pun-\\n1 Einleitung, 38, vol. n, p. 10 f.\\n2 There is a play upon the word Diaspora (i.e. scattered\\nor sown as in Hos. 2:23, Jer. 31:27 on Jezreel. The\\nsame figure is beautifully employed in the sacramental prayer\\nAt5. 9:4.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0175.jp2"}, "176": {"fulltext": "from Rome.\\n156 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nishment as a Christian, in which case one must\\nseek to glorify God in this name. No candid\\nhistorical exegesis can remove the figure of the\\nRoinan magistrate from 1 Pet. c. 4 as the inflicter\\nof such penalties. It is Ramsay himself who con-\\nfesses himself shut up to the dilemma: Either Peter\\nsurvived, contrary to all tradition, until the reign of\\nDomitian, before whose time there was no official\\npersecution in the provinces, or 1 Peter is not gen-\\nuine. 1\\nWritten We may be confident that Eome would not be re-\\nferred to as Babylon (5:13), for neither history\\nnor tradition afford the slightest support for the literal\\ninterpretation of the word, nor the conditions of\\nfiery persecution be thus depicted, nor Paul s\\nchurches in Asia Minor thus addressed, until after\\nhis martyrdom at the hands of Nero. There are few,\\nif any, who can think with Ramsay that the tradition\\nof a common martyrdom for Peter and Paul at the\\n1 Church in the Soman Empire, c. xi. The Neronian perse-\\ncution was confined to Eome (see Arnold, Neron. Christen-\\nverfolgung, 1888), and was for a specific accusation of crime.\\nVespasian and Titus did not persecute. Domitian (81-96 a.d.)\\nwas at first tolerant, and even at the end of his reign will not\\noften have gone outside of Rome for victims. The distinction\\nin Pliny s inquiry (110 a.d.) regarding the very provinces of\\nour letter and in Trajan s reply, is of utmost historical impor-\\ntance. It implies that at some time, probably under Domitian,\\nmagistrates had been authorised to punish Christians as such,\\nthe name itself, if confessed, being taken as evidence of crime,\\nas recent legislators have proposed to treat the name Anarchist.\\nUnder Nero the flagitia cohaerentia nomini had to be proved.\\nRamsay goes too far in saying that 1 Pet. implies that the dis-\\ntinction already existed in law. 1 Pet. 4 15 f. earnestly desires\\nthat such a distinction should be made. As yet the magistrates\\nappear to act on the popular (unstatutory) assumption that the\\nname implies the fact cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15 44 quos per\\nflagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0176.jp2"}, "177": {"fulltext": "authen-\\nticity.\\n1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 157\\nhands of the same mad tyrant, can be so far astray as\\nto permit the survival of Peter beyond 81 a.d. Yet\\nwhile the martyrdom of Peter is established by John\\n21 19 and Clement of Rome (cc. 5, 6), Dionysius of\\nCorinth (250 a.d.) and Eusebius are the first to date it\\nin the ISTeronian persecution. A later date, therefore,\\ncannot be pronounced impossible.\\nIf the critic s knife could be wielded like the sword Integrity\\nof Alexander, Harnack s solution 1 for this G-ordian knot involve\\nwould be simple The superscription (1 1) and salu-\\ntation (5 12-14) are an addition of the Canon-makers. 2\\nBut there is no natural cleavage 1 1 is of a piece\\nwith all the section 1 1-2 11, and 5 12-14 agrees\\nwith it, as well as with 5 1 ff We are driven to the\\nquestion: If not Peter, who else? McGiffert s sug-\\ngestion of Barnabas as this disciple of Paul, spiritual\\nfather of Mark, and witness of the crucifixion, surely\\ncannot be outdone for plausibility. But how patron-\\nising even then will be the tone of 5 12 And how\\naccount for 5 1-4 unless Barnabas himself is trying\\nto pass himself off as the real recipient of the charge\\nof Christ to tend his flock in John 21 15-19 All\\nthings considered, 1 Peter may still represent to us\\nthe adoptive work of Peter, writing by Silvanus\\nfrom Pome to the churches of Paul in Asia; the letter\\nof an old man (5:1), whose charge from the chief\\nShepherd (John 21:15-17), and spirit of humility\\nimbibed from him, lend a wonderful beauty and appro-\\npriateness to his encouragement to Paul s churches,\\nthrough Paul s companion, that the doctrine they have\\nlearned is the true grace of God, and his exhorta-\\ntion that they stand fast in it. A disposition to\\n1 Chronologie, vol. I, p. 451 ff.\\n2 For a summary of objections to Harnack s theory see Jii-\\nlicher, Einl., 15, 5, p. 136.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0177.jp2"}, "178": {"fulltext": "158 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nspeak of persecution in Asia Minor in terms not yet\\nstrictly appropriate by one who writes from Rome\\nunder the immediate impression of the horrible fore-\\ntaste of official persecution experienced in the last\\nyears of Nero, is less incredible than absolute pseudo-\\nnymity at so early a date.\\nJames, is If the difficulties of 1 Peter are created by the very\\nSense of r definiteness of its implied historical and geographical\\nsuperscrip- relations, the case is reversed in James. The super-\\nscription, 1 1, alone suggests that it is a letter, and\\nnothing could be more indefinite than the characteri-\\nsation of both writer and readers even here. The\\nFathers, true to their theory of apostolicity, usually\\npitched upon James the son of Alpheeus as the writer,\\nJames the brother of John having been beheaded in\\n44 a. d. (Acts 12:1). Modern scholars agree that at\\nthe date whence this superscription derives, genuine\\nor not, no other than the pillar of the Jerusalem\\nchurch (Gal. 2:9; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 21:18)\\ncan have been intended, both here and in Jude 1, this\\nbrother of the Lord Gal. 1:19) being the James\\npar Eminence.\\nDate verv Again, the address is such as to tax to the utmost\\nearly or very the ingenuity of the many able scholars who have\\nlate endeavoured to find a place for the epistle or better,\\nencyclical within the lifetime of James, i.e. before\\n62 a.d. On account of the apparent reference to\\nPauline formulae in 2 14-26 1 the attempt has been\\nmade to place it between 57 and 62, but critics of all\\nschools are now agreed that the author wages no con-\\nscious polemic against Paul, whose fundamental doc-\\ntrines could not have been dismissed, as it were, in an\\nobiter dictum. The absence of any trace of the conflict\\n1 Cf. especially 2 23 with Eom. 4 3 j Gal. 3 6.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0178.jp2"}, "179": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 159\\nbetween Jew and Gentile, distinctive of 48-70 a.d., a\\nsilence as marked as in Hebrews, forces the defenders\\nof the superscription, accordingly, to an extremely-\\nearly date. Moreover, the ideal Israel addressed (1 1)\\nbecomes a more conceivable entity as the actual recip-\\nient of a letter, in proportion as we recede toward\\nthe early period when the confines of Christendom\\ncould be supposed to coincide with the boundaries of\\nSyria. On the other hand, the notion of James writing\\nencyclicals before Paul has even begun to write his\\nepistles, is almost grotesque, to say nothing of the\\ndubious relation which would then subsist between\\nJas. 2:14ff. and Galatians and Romans. Certainly\\nthe Christendom of 1 1 is no less comprehensive than\\nthe Israel of God of Gal. 6:16, and the new peo-\\nple of God of 1 Peter. On the contrary, the con-\\nception is identical, as appears by comparison of verses\\n18, 21, where the same figure of the Diaspora sow-\\ning of God shines through. 1 These twelve tribes\\nare the one hundred and forty-four thousand of Reve-\\nlation, twelve thousand from each tribe of the ideal\\nIsrael, precisely as Hennas, Sim. 9 17, 12, by the\\nsame expression, sets forth the ecumenical character\\nof Christendom.\\nBut the time when James the Lord s brother could Implied cir-\\nbe supposed to send forth encyclicals as bishop of\\nbishops to such a constituency had existence only\\nafter his death in the devout imagination of the Syrian\\nchurch. The very idea of the new Israel as a scat-\\n1 Cf. also vss. 10, 11 with 1 Pet. 1 24. Attempts to exclude\\nthe Jews of Palestine itself from the circle addressed are in-\\ncompatible with a date within the lifetime of James. The\\ntwelve tribes would be a preposterous form in which to\\naddress the Jews of the Dispersion. At the utmost we should\\nhave the ten tribes, or the Dispersion of the Twelve\\nTribes.\\ncumstances.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0179.jp2"}, "180": {"fulltext": "160 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ntered people of God, chosen from the poor of the\\nworld to be heirs of the kingdom (Jas. 2 5), it was\\nthe life work of Paul to bring home to the pillars,\\nwhose horizon was limited to the circumcision (Gal.\\n2 9), and is present in Jas. 1 1 only by the mediation\\nof 1 Pet. 1: 1. Certainly James cannot have written\\nto the conservative faction only as the twelve\\ntribes, and even when Paul, after many years\\n(Acts 24 17), and at the risk of his life, had accom-\\nplished his peace-making mission, and could write\\nthat the enmity was slain, he is not likely to have\\nissued an encyclical containing such language as Jas.\\n2: 14-26, unless he wished to revive the conflict. 1\\nStyle and Even more fatal to the authenticity of the super-\\nlanguage, scription is the language. Before the founding of the\\nGreek churches, while as yet the Gospel itself was in\\ncirculation only in Hebrew or Aramaic, if not earlier\\nstill, James, as recognised head of this Christendom,\\nwhose centre is Jerusalem and whose circumference a\\nfringe of unknown proselytes, addresses an encyclical\\nto the twelve tribes of Israel and addresses them\\nin mellifluous Greek, the most rhetorical of the New\\nTestament with the single exception of Hebrews 2\\nBut with James the case is very different from\\n1 The best English representative of the conservative position\\nis J. B. Mayor, Introd. to St. James, 2 1897. See also his art.,\\nJames, Epistle of, in B. D., 1899.\\n2 The forlorn hope of Bishop Wordsworth to make this epistle\\nout the translation of an Aramaic writing may be worth the\\nattention of scholars (Dods), but only as an example of des-\\nperate expedients. Dods himself explains that in the Epistle\\nof James words occur which would hardly be used save by a\\nwriter acquainted with Greek literature. It has thirteen\\nwords unknown to the LXX., seven more extremely rare\\nwords, twenty-seven common to LXX. and classics, but not\\nin colloquial use, and even metaphors (1 17 3:6) which have\\nno explanation in the whole range of Jewish literature.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0180.jp2"}, "181": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 161\\n1 Peter. There the superscription and farewell are\\nof the same texture as the epistle. Here the super-\\nscription there is no other epistolary material\\nis both ill-fitting and historically inapplicable.\\nEemove it, and we find in the writing itself every\\ncharacteristic, not of a letter, but of a homily, or\\nperhaps, better, a series of somewhat disconnected\\nhomiletical excerpts. 1\\nSo far as the exhortation has logical arrangement, Logical\\nit is as follows:\u00e2\u0080\u0094 analysis.\\ni. Salutation, 1:1. (Probably a scribal conjecture.)\\nii. Commendation of the worthy object of desire wis-\\ndom, the divine ethical ideal) as against unworthy\\n(ease, wealth, etc.); lust vs. the [ideal] law, 1:2-11,\\n12-27.\\niii. Social discriminations violate the law of love;\\nfaith (intellectual) no substitute, 2 1-13, 14-26.\\niv. The working of wisdom not shown in word, but\\nin life, c. 3.\\nv. The working of unworthy desire: self-seeking,\\nself-exaltation, a perilous worldliness, 4 1-5 6.\\nvi. Inference, patient continuance in faith and\\ngood works will insure the reward of saints, 5 7-20.\\n1 Jas. has rightly been compared to the so-called Second\\nEpistle of Clement of Rome, of which Lightfoot says (Ap.\\nFathers, ed. of 1891, p. 41) We may now [since the dis-\\ncovery of the latter half containing the words Let us not\\nthink to give heed and believe now only, while we are being\\nadmonished by the presbyters but likewise when we have\\ndeparted home, etc.] definitely regard it as the earliest Chris-\\ntian homily extant. True, Harnack (Chron. d. a. Lit., p. 440)\\nmakes a tempting identification of 2 Clem, with the letter of\\nSoter of Rome to Corinth (170 a.d.). If so, it simply shows\\nthat the good bishop s idea of letter writing was to work up an\\nold sermon not exactly the primitive conception. We may\\nsay the same of Jas.\\nM", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0181.jp2"}, "182": {"fulltext": "162 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nCharacter The exhortation is of an extreme ethical type, not\\nand content. on i y un a ctrmal, but anti-doctrinal (1:22; 2:19 f\\n3:1 ff., 13). The factors of salvation are two: the\\nhuman, which consists in persistent well-doing, in\\naccordance with the revealed moral law; the divine,\\nwhich consists in the bestowal of wisdom in answer\\nto believing prayer, wisdom having the pregnant\\nethical sense of the Old Testament (cf. Lk. 1:17).\\nThe trials of life (1 2-4), vicissitudes of fortune\\n(9-11), and temptations of the flesh (12-15) perfect\\ncharacter, if met by this dependence on God (5-8,\\n16-18).\\nIn view of this, our part is to be doers of the law\\nof Christ, the revealed, implanted word, the mirror\\nof moral perfection; neither mere hearers nor mere\\ntalkers, but keepers of the divine requirement of\\npurity and humanity (1 19-27). This perfect law,\\nfree and royal, demands, first of all, that we\\nhonour the poor man, our fellow-heir to the kingdom\\n(2 1-13) second, that we carry out our profession\\nin actual works of humanity (14-26). Moreover, it\\nrarely becomes our part to assume the function of\\nteacher; the tongue needs taming more than training\\n(3:1-12). If the divine wisdom is in us, it will\\nappear in a good life (13-18). The strife and evil of\\nthe world come from greed; beware of this kind of\\nself -exaltation (4 1-10) also of that of criticising\\nothers (11 f.), and assuming to control in place of\\nGod (13-17). A denunciation of the oppressions of\\nthe rich (5 1-6), commendation of the patient suffer-\\ning of Job and the prophets (7-11), with special warn-\\ning against oaths (vs. 12), and a call to prayer and\\npraise in the Church (13-18), with effort for the con-\\nversion of sinners (19 f.), somewhat abruptly con-\\nclude the exhortation.\\nWe can hardly wonder that a brilliant and original", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0182.jp2"}, "183": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 163\\ncritic 1 should have soberly suggested a purely Jewish Jewish or\\norigin for a writing so exclusively moral and practical, Christiau\\nwhich ignores every distinctive doctrine of Chris-\\ntianity, every question of the relation of Jew and\\nGentile in the Church, which has not a trace of the\\nnew Messianism, and, with one more or less pre-\\ncarious exception, does not so much as mention the\\nname of Christ, taking even its examples of patient\\nsuffering and effective prayer from the Old Testament\\n(5:10, 17 f.). 2 Yet even if we admit the awkward 1\\nposition of the words Irjaov Xpiarov in 2 1 to be due\\nto their interpolation, the doctrine of the spiritual\\nIsrael, 2 5, the sole validity of the law of love,\\n2:8, and the gift of the divine spirit of wisdom,\\nmaking us heirs of God, 1:18; 2:5; 3:13-18, would\\nprove this writing not only Christian, but post-\\nPauline, however Jewish in type. The meagre in-\\ndications of date by historical allusion permit us,\\nindeed, if we would cling, at all costs, to the super-\\nscription, to disregard objections based on the traces\\nof growing worldliness (2:1 ff 4: 13 f.) and profes-\\nsion without practice (2 14 ff 3:1, 13) but the\\nindications of date by literary relationship are really\\nconclusive.\\nThe Pauline Epistles are certainly presupposed,\\nboth by the use of Pauline terminology and expres-\\n1 F. Spitta, Zur Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums, vol. II,\\n1896, and Der Brief des Jacobus, 1896. So previously L. Mas-\\nsebieau in Revue de VHistoire des Religions, 1895.\\n2 And this is supposed to emanate from Jesus brother In\\nreality the treatment of the Christian faith as essentially a nova\\nlex (cf. Barn. 2 6 icaivbs vhfxos 8.vev fryov dvdyKijs) belongs to\\nthe relatively late period of manuals of Gospel Teaching (Ai5.)\\nand of the Oracles of the Lord. Acts 2 22 ff. 3 13-26 7: 51-\\n56 8 35 10 38-43 give a very different impression of the\\nideas dominant in the primitive Church in Jerusalem.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0183.jp2"}, "184": {"fulltext": "164\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nRelation to\\nPauline\\nEpistles,\\nHeb., and\\nClement of\\nRome.\\nsions 1 for we have seen that dependence on the side\\nof Paul is insupposable, and denial of the relation is\\nunconvincing. But there is no attempt to deny this\\nrelation between James and 1 Peter (cf 1 Pet. 1 1,\\n23 f. with Jas. 1:1, 18, 21 1 Pet. 5:5, 9 with Jas.\\n4:6, 7, etc. 2 and a comparison of the natural and\\nlogically connected way in which the Diaspora\\nfigure appears in 1 Peter with the irrelevant mention\\nin James will show that the unbiassed judgment of\\nLuther and Bengel, who recognise the priority of 1\\nPeter, is to be preferred to that of some moderns who\\nwould invert the relation. Finally, a careful com-\\nparison of the treatment of the relation of faith and\\nworks in Jas. 2 21-25, in the examples of Abraham\\n(representing Israel) and Kahab (representing the\\nGentile world), with the complete parallels in Heb.\\n11:8 ff., 31 (cf. Bom. 4:17 f.), on the one side, and\\nin Clement of Rome, cc. 10-12, on the other,\\nwill show that it is not Paulinism which our author\\nconsciously antagonises, but the doctrine of faith,\\n1 Note SiKaiovcrdcu e/c Trio-revs or e\u00c2\u00a3 iprytov, diKaioaijvr) Oeov, reXeiv\\nrhv vofiov, the connected ideas KXrjpovop.e lv and /3a ri\\\\eia, Kplvecrdai,\\nvwb v6p.ov, /cara/cai xSo ^ai, tL rb pe\\\\os, p.7) rrXavaade, dXX ipei\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0m, 6\\\\6k\\\\t)pos, 7rapa\\\\oyi\u00c2\u00a3e r6ai, p.4\\\\r], Trapa^dryjs v6p.ov, iXevdepla\\nand compare the passages 1 2, 3 Rom. 5 3, 4), 13 (against\\n1 Cor. 10: 13), 18 Rom. 8 23), 21 Rom. 13 12), 22\\n(=Rom. 2:13); 2:4 Rom. 14: 1), 5 (=1 Cor. 1 27, 28\\n2 Cor. 6 10 8:9), 6 (=1 Cor. 6 2, 4), 8 Rom. 13 8\\nGal. 5 14), 10 Gal. 5 3), 19 1 Cor. 8 4 2 Cor. 11\\n14), 21 (against Gal. 3:6; Rom. 4 3), 24 (against Rom. 3 28\\nGal. 2:16); 3:15 (=1 Cor. 2:6, 14), 16, 18 1 Cor. 3:3\\n14: 33; 2 Cor. 12: 20); 4: 1 Rom. 6 13 7:23), 4 (=Rom\\n8 7), 5 Gal. 5 17 Rom. 8 9, 11), 11, 12 Rom 2 1\\n14 4), 15 (=1 Cor. 4 19). Other striking examples are given\\nby Holtzmann, Einl. 3 p. 335.\\n2 Further cf. 1 Pet. 1 6, 7 with Jas. 1 2, 3 1 Pet. 1 12,\\nJas. 1 25 1 Pet. 1 22, Jas. 4 8 1 Pet. 2 1, Jas. 1 21 IPet.\\n4 8, Jas. 5 20 1 Pet. 5 6, Jas. 4 10.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0184.jp2"}, "185": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 165\\nas a reader of Heb. c. 11 might misinterpret it. In\\nClement s still further elaboration of the same theme,\\nwe have a more advanced stage of the same effort to\\nguard against a similar one-sided understanding. 1\\nNot the mere belief of the promise made Abraham s\\noffering of Isaac and Eahab s receiving of the spies\\ntypes of justification (Heb. 11 17, 31) according to\\nJas. 2 21, 25 it was faith plus works. Clement takes\\na further step and declares it to have been due to\\nfaith plus the specific works of obedience and hos-\\npitality. The date of the homily will therefore be\\nabout 90 a.d., and the superscription a mistaken con-\\njecture. Its interests are those of the Christianity of\\nEome, where we soon find it copiously employed by\\nHernias, not those of Palestine in 35-45 a.d. 2\\nWe have space for little more than mention of the\\nbrief epistle which comes to us once under the name\\n1 Other passages showing dependence on Heb. are 1 17 (cf.\\nHeb. 12 9); 2 17, 20, 26 (cf. Heb. 6:1; 9 14) 3 18 (cf. Heb.\\n12 11) 4 15 (cf. Heb. 6:3); 5 10 (cf. Heb. 13 7).\\n2 With Newton we say Hypotheses non fingo. Yet to\\ncorrelate facts into working hypotheses capable of being tested\\nis the essence of the Newtonian method. As a working\\nhypothesis we may lay down the following possibilities: (i)\\nThe homily known as the Epistle of James originated in Rome\\nca. 90 a.d. and was delivered to and preserved by the syna-\\ngogue addressed (2 2), possibly the actual (Christianised)\\nZwaywyi] tot EfipaLwv, which had previously received Heb.\\n(ii) Later tradition of this local church attached the superscrip-\\ntion (1 1) as it attached the title of Barnabas to Heb., in\\nthe belief that in the revered document it possessed an Epistle\\nof James but failed to secure recognition for it in general\\nRoman use, for the same reasons which in the Muratorian\\nCanon weigh against Hermas, and in western authorities gen-\\nerally against Heb. (iii) The superscription procured it admis-\\nsion to the Syrian Canon, but the early limitation of its use\\nprevented its securing general acceptance.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0185.jp2"}, "186": {"fulltext": "166 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nJude and\\n2 Pet.\\nLogical\\nanalysis.\\nSense of\\nsuperscrip-\\ntion of Jude.\\nof Jude, and a second time in an expanded form, and\\nwith additions, as 2 Peter. With allowance for a\\nchapter prefixed and another appended to 2 Peter, the\\nsame analysis will serve for both.\\ni. [Peculiar to 2 Peter.] Salutation and general\\nexhortation in one, 1:1-11. Self-introduction of the\\nApostle, as spokesman for Christ and the prophets,\\n1:12-21. (In Jude, Salutation only, vs. 1 f.)\\nii. Denunciation of libertine teachers, 2 Pet. c. 2\\nJude 3-16.\\niii. Exhortation to hold to the Apostolic word. Dox-\\nology, Jude 17-25. [Expanded in 2 Peter into a fur-\\nther refutation of the error of those who pervert the\\nPauline Epistles and the other Scriptures, denying\\nthe second advent, 2 Pet. c. 3.]\\nThe superscription of Jude has the negative advan-\\ntage that next to nothing whatever is known of the\\nperson in question. Judas the Apostle (son) of James,\\nLk. 6 16 Acts 1 13, cannot be meant, for the addi-\\ntion, brother of James, of course connects the writer\\nwith some noted individual, hence, doubtless, James\\nthe Lord s brother. This Judas is mentioned in\\nMatt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3 (Acts. 1:14?; 1 Cor. 9:5?),\\nand, according to Hegesippus (175 a.d.), his grand-\\nchildren were, in the time of Domitian, (81-96), the\\nliving representatives (apparently the only ones) of\\nthe family of the Lord; these grandchildren were\\nthen living by manual labour on their farm, in Pales-\\ntine, of thirty-nine acres. 1 What there is of history\\nrelating to Jude is, therefore, unfavourable to the\\nidea that he issued an encyclical in the Greek lan-\\nguage to the universal Church, at a time when the\\nwarnings of the Apostles were a thing of the past\\n(17, 18), and the predicted heresies of the last times\\n1 Euseb. Hist. 3 19, 20, 1.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0186.jp2"}, "187": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 167\\nwere, in this writer s judgment, already corrupting\\nthe Church. The superscription is as indefinite as\\nthat of James, and was almost as widely disbelieved\\nby the scholars of antiquity best qualified to judge,\\nthough here we need only suppose the words dSeA^os\\nSe 1o.ku (3ov to have been added by conjecture, and the\\nlocal name to have disappeared at the end of verse 1.\\nIn their present form, however, both superscriptions\\nare as ill-fitted to the respective writings as the papal\\ntiara to the brow of the fisherman Apostle, and are\\ncertainly not deserving of more consideration than\\nthey received at the hands of the great Eeformers, and\\nof the Fathers in whose age the claim of apostolicity\\nwas first put forth in their behalf. 1\\nScepticism as to the two interrelated superscrip- To be\\ntions enables us to preserve our respect for the contents ^fof with\\nof James and Jude. For while we must needs believe James,\\nthat actual brothers of Jesus, if they could be sup-\\nposed to speak ex cathedra to the universal Church,\\nwould have had something to say of him, and as from\\nhim, we are more attentive to hear the exhortation of\\nnameless later preachers against the worldliness and\\nfalse teaching which, according to Hegesippus, left\\nthe Palestinian church as unstained as a pure virgin\\nuntil the second century, if we know they are not\\nattempting to impose upon their readers by false pre-\\n1 Eusebius (325 a.d.) classes both with the vTi\\\\ey6neva,\\nhimself apparently rejecting them, though admitting that\\nNevertheless they are publicly used in most of the churches.\\nOrigen (250 a.d.) is the first to quote Jas. by name, and that not\\nas authentic, but in rfj cpepo^vrj Io.ku)(3ov i-n-La-ToXy. Jerome\\nwrites as to Jas. It is asserted that this was published by some\\nother person under his name, though as time went on, it by\\ndegrees obtained authority. Jude per contra has actual sup-\\nporters in Clement of Alexandria (215 a.d.) and the Muratorian\\nCanon, though there is not a trace of its existence in earlier\\ntimes save in 2 Pet.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0187.jp2"}, "188": {"fulltext": "168 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ntences. Toward Jude, which makes no pretences to\\ngreat antiquity and authority beyond this probably\\nconjectural superscription, we may properly take such\\nan attitude. Toward 2 Peter, alone of New Testa-\\nment writings, the loudest and most persistent in its\\npretensions, while at the same time by far the weakest\\nin the attestation and regard of both antiquity and\\nmodern times, 1 our attitude must needs be different.\\nFrom the point of view of the historian, pseudony-\\nmous may be as useful as authentic writings for the\\nlight shed on their own real age; but the Christian\\ncan only mitigate the disrespect he feels for plagia-\\nrists and impostors by the reflection that the conscience\\nof the second century had practically no recognition\\nfor these literary crimes, rampant as they then were\\nin the Church.\\nLiterature Jude, for its extent, is peculiarly rich in its use\\nJude 0yed m \u00c2\u00b0f li terature including the Pauline, 2 especially the\\nPastoral Epistles, which are probably expressly re-\\nferred to in 17, 18 (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1, 2;\\n4 3), but instead of the Old Testament it largely relies\\non apocryphal apocalyptic writings. The Assumptio\\nMosis is employed in verse 9 3 and in 14, 15, Enoch\\n1 1 is expressly cited as an actual writing of Enoch\\nthe seventh from Adam. Other material from the\\nsame source is borrowed without acknowledgment in\\nverses 6, 8.\\nDate and The date and place of origin of this letter is deter-\\nobject. minable only from the character of the heresy to\\nresist which it was written, and which Clement of\\nAlexandria identified with the libertine Gnosticism\\n1 2 Pet. has not the support even of Eusebius among the\\nFathers nor of Calvin himself among the Keformers.\\n2 Cf. 10, 19 with 1 Cor. 2 14, 15 20, 24 with Col. 1 22 2\\n7 24, 25 with Eom. 16 25-27.\\n3 Origen, De Princip. 3 2.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0188.jp2"}, "189": {"fulltext": "1 PETEB, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 169\\nof Carpocrates (120-140 a.d.). In reality not mere\\nantinonrian laxity of morals is opposed (4, 8, 10, 12,\\n16, 18), but a definite system of pretended gnosis (vss.\\n8, 10, 19), inimical to respect for angels and for the\\nauthority of God and Christ (4, 8, 10, 18; cf. 1 Jn.\\n2:22; Enoch 48:10; Herm. Sim. 5:6, 1; AiS. 4:1),\\nand the heretics who, in the Pastoral Epistles, are\\nstill tolerated are here also part of the Church (vs. 12)\\nand treated with lenity (22 f.), though already sepa-\\nrating themselves 1 (19). But they are not yet gone\\nout from the Christian body, as in 1 Jn. 2 19.\\nAccurate location in time and place of the special Gnostics\\nGnostic sect here antagonised is impracticable. There\\nis close relationship to the avaricious false teachers\\nof the Pastoral Epistles (cf. e.g. 11 f., 16 with Tit.\\n1:11), but much closer still with the Balaamites\\nof Eev. 2:14, 20, 24 and the lawless false\\nprophets and deniers of the Eather and the Son\\nof 1 Jn. 2:18-23, 26; 3:4-12; 4:1-6 (cf. Jude 4, 8).\\nIn opposition, the writer urges that this apostasy was\\nlong since foretold (4, 14 f., 18), and commends to\\nhis readers the remedy of the Pastoral Epistles, the\\ndeposit of the faith, and form of wholesome words\\ndelivered by the Apostles. 2\\nBut the mythologising and ascetic features of the\\nJewish theosophists have here receded behind the\\nimmorality of the concision, contemptuous of an-\\ngelic authorities. Asceticism and libertinism are, in A D\\nfact, the two foci about which the Gnostic sects\\nrevolve. In Eev. 2 14 disregard for the rules of\\nmorality and communion with demonic beings (1 Cor.\\n1 The phraseology indicates the Gnostic discriminations of\\nthe spiritual (Gnostics) from the psychic (ordinary\\nmen).\\n2 3, 17, 20 cf. 1 Tim. 1 11, 18 4 6, 11, 16 6 3, 13 f., 20\\n2 Tim. 1:13 f. 2:2, 14: 3:14 f. Tit. 1:9; 2:1.\\nTheir char-\\nacter sug-\\ngests\\nAsia ca.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0189.jp2"}, "190": {"fulltext": "170 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\n6:12-20; 10:1-11:1) is named the teaching of\\nBalaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block\\nbefore the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed\\nto idols and to commit fornication (cf. 1 Cor. 10:7,\\n8; Num. 25:1 ff.), and distinguished from that of\\nthe Nicolaitans, which church tradition reports to\\nhave been ascetic. In Jude 7, 11, 16 (cf. 1 Cor.\\n10 10), 18, the heretics plunge into the way of Cain,\\nthe error of Balaam, and the rebellion of Korah. 1\\nAll this suggests that the epistle, notwithstanding the\\nsuperscription, is intended for a definite Christian\\ncircle, probably in Asia Minor, 2 whither its compan-\\nion, 2 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles, 1-3 John, and\\nRevelations are all directed, at a period not far from\\n90 A.D.\\n2 Pet. The genius of Spitta 8 has not availed in the minds\\ndeP Jud ent scn \u00c2\u00b0l ars to reverse the relation of dependence of\\n2 Peter on Jude. The former has an introductory\\nchapter exhorting believers in general to progress in\\nChristian virtue in order to make sure of salvation,\\nand an introduction of its writer in the personality of\\n1 An early Ophite (i.e. serpent worshipping) Gnostic sect was\\ncalled Cainite because of its peculiar attitude toward the O. T.\\nMaterial existence being a misfortune, Jehovah the demiurge\\nwas an evil being, the Serpent who revealed to Adam and Eve\\nthe way of apotheosis through knowledge of good and evil\\n(gnosis) was the type of the Redeemer (Rev. 2:24; 12: 9).\\nThus the good and evil of the O. T. were reversed. Cain was\\nthe first saint (cf. 1 Jn. 3 12), Korah the first martyr, Balaam\\nthe first true prophet, Judas, from whom they pretended to\\nhave a Gospel of Judas, the only one of the Twelve who\\nunderstood Jesus, etc.\\n2 So Von Soden, Handcomm., p. 186, who points out the\\nincompatibility, yet maintains the possibility of Jude having\\nbeen written between 80 and 90 by Jude the Lord s brother.\\n8 Der 2 Brief des Pt. u. d. Brief des Jd., 1885.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0190.jp2"}, "191": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 171\\nSimon Peter giving diligence to call the truth to their\\nremembrance after his decease (c. 1). Its author\\nthereupon launches into an elaboration of Jude s de-\\nnunciation of the false teachers, following that epistle\\nstep by step and, in considerable measure, word for\\nword (c. 2). 1 To this is appended, after reference to\\nthe former epistle, a refutation of another class of\\nmockers who say, Where is the promise of his\\n(Christ s) coming for from the day that the fathers\\nfell asleep all things continue as they were from the\\nbeginning of the creation. The answer is, that the\\ndelay is not due to slackness on God s part in fulfil-\\ning his promises, but to long suffering. His mercy\\nreckons a thousand years as one day. The Pauline\\nEpistles, on account of obscurity of style, have been\\nmisinterpreted, along with the other Scriptures, by\\nthe error ists.\\n1 That the dependence is on the part of 2 Pet. is manifest\\napart from the absolute marks of very late date, such as the\\nallusion to the Pauline Epistles as Scripture, 3 15 from six\\nconsiderations (i) 2 Pet. absorbs all of Jude and adds to it.\\n(ii) The connection in Jude is logical, simple, and direct 2 Pet.\\n2 1-3 3 wanders into supplementary digressions and elabora-\\ntions (e.g. 2 5 after 2:4 Jude 6 2 7-9 after 2:6 Jude 6\\n2 15, 16 after 2 14 Jude 11). (iii) The copy is sometimes\\nunintelligible without comparison of the original. So 2 Pet.\\n2 4 (through omission of the reference to Gen. 6 2 f. in Jude\\n6), 12 (cf. Jude 10), 17 (cf. Jude 12, 13). (iv) The opponents\\nin Jude are a definite, tangible class (16, 19), in 2 Pet.\\n2 1-3 something foreseen in the future, then, after the digres-\\nsion, 4-9, from 10 on, something present, (v) The omission\\nbetween 2 ,17 and 18 removes the citation from Enoch, Jude\\n14, 15, as the reference to Apoc. Mos. is similarly expurgated\\nin 2 11 but the material taken from Enoch by Jude without\\nacknowledgement remains, (vi) The reference of Jude 17 to\\nApostolic forewarnings is expanded in 2 Pet. 3 2 to a reference\\nto the threefold canonical authority of the second century, pro-\\nphecy, commandment of the Lord, apostolic tradition but cf\\n3:3 Jude 18.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0191.jp2"}, "192": {"fulltext": "172\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nObject.\\nContrast\\nwith 1 Pet.\\nThe chief purpose of the writer appears in the\\nappended chapter and at the same time makes the\\nlate date unmistakable. He would stir up a remem-\\nbrance of the words of the prophets and the com-\\nmandment of the Lord and Saviour through the\\nApostles, and counteract the misinterpretation of the\\nPauline Epistles, so that after the decease of Peter,\\npredicted in Jn. 21 18 ff (cf 2 Pet. 1 13-15), and\\nthe rest of the fathers, mockers x may not jeer at\\nthe failure of the expected parousia (2 Pet. 3:4; cf.\\nJn. 21:23; 1 Thess. 4:15-18).\\nBut while 1 Peter is referred to and employed, even\\nclaimed by the writer as his own, scholars of ancient\\nand modern times have recognised the impossibility\\nof both being by the same author; 2 nor is there, in\\nspite of the ostensible identity of the readers (3:1;\\nbut contrast 1 1), the slightest resemblance of cir-\\ncumstances. Persecution has suddenly passed away;\\nheresy as suddenly appeared. Diversity of style\\nmight be accounted for, indeed, if Silvanus be real\\nauthor of 1 Peter, but not the complete diversity of\\nspirit and of circumstances; and we should then be\\nunable to explain why in the one case the nominal\\nwriter subordinates his personality and in the other\\nobtrudes it.\\nWe may explain away, with Salmon, 3 the indi-\\ncations Edwin Abbott 4 has found of the author s\\nacquaintance with Josephus (90 a.d.); or, if it\\nreally be considered more probable, assume, with Ear-\\n1 If these are the same who pervert the Pauline Epistles (3\\n16) we may compare Hymenseus and Philetus, 2 Tim. 2 18.\\n2 Jerome endeavoured to account for the palpable difference\\nof style by suggesting a twofold translation, from Greek to\\nHebrew and thence back to Greek\\n3 Introd. (1885), pp. 638-653.\\nExpositor, 1882, Vol. III.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0192.jp2"}, "193": {"fulltext": "1 PETER, JAMES, JUDE, AND 2 PETER 173\\nrar, 1 that Josephus borrowed from 2 Peter still\\nthe dependence on New Testament literature from the\\nSynoptists (2 Pet. 1:17 f.) to the Gospel of John\\n(1 14) from the Pauline Epistles, which already form\\na definite Canon classed with the other Scriptures,\\nsubject to the study of the devout, as well as to per-\\nversion by teachers of error, to 1 Peter and Jude,\\nwill carry us down irresistibly toward the middle of\\nthe second century. Here among the mass of pseuclo-\\nPetrine writings is one, at least, with which our\\nepistle shows literary connection. 2\\nThe connection of the denunciation of Jude (c. 2)\\nwith the author s own polemic (c. 3) is probably due Late and\\nto the fact that the Gnostic false teachers are also the ^ous char-\\nscoffers. Both objections and answers point to a late acter.\\nage. Both parties dispute about higher knowledge\\nas a means of participation in the divine nature\\n(1:3 f.), and appeal to Scripture of Old and New\\nTestament (l:20f.; 3:1 ff., 15 ff.). That a genu-\\nine writing of the Apostle Peter, plainly repre-\\nsenting itself throughout as such (1:1, 14-16, 18\\n3:1, 15), should leave not a trace of its existence\\nthroughout the second century, emerging at last to\\nimpress the scholars of the third and all succeed-\\ning centuries as the most out of character of all\\nNew Testament writings, is an extreme improbabil-\\nity. It can no more be met by romances imagining\\nthe Apostle to have kept his work in temporary con-\\ncealment, than the internal evidence can be overcome\\nby ignoring the author s dependence on late writings\\nand explaining his anti-Gnostic zeal as prophetic\\nforesight.\\n1 Expositor, 1888, Vol. VIII.\\n2 The Apocalypse of Peter see A. Harnack, Texte u. Unters.,\\nix, 2, 1893, p. 90 f.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0193.jp2"}, "194": {"fulltext": "174 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION\\nOn the Catholic Epistles see Gloag s Introduction to Cath.\\nEpp. and the arts, in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1899)\\nand Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899); also Sanday s Bampton\\nLectures on Inspiration, and other general works on New\\nTestament Introduction on James, Mayor (ut supra) on 1 Pet.,\\nCommentaries by Hort (1 1-2 17) 1898, and Johnstone (1888),\\nand Jones s Studies in 1 Peter (1887); on the Johannine Epis-\\ntles, Westcott, The Epistles of St. John. Bibliographies in the\\ncommentaries. For the teaching of the epistles see the volume\\nby Gould, Bib. Theol. of the N. T. in this series.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0194.jp2"}, "195": {"fulltext": "PART IV\\nTHE HISTORICAL BOOKS\\nCHAPTER VIII\\nTHE SYNOPTIC TRADITION\\nThe historical books of the New Testament differ Biblical\\nfrom its apocalyptic and epistolary literature as those anonymous,\\nof the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being\\ninvariably anonymous, and for the same reason.\\nProphecies, whether in the earlier or later sense, and\\nletters, to have authority, must be referable to some\\nindividual; the greater his name the better. But his-\\ntory was regarded as a common possession. Its facts\\nspoke for themselves. Only as the springs of com-\\nmon recollection began to dwindle, and marked differ-\\nences to appear between the well-informed and accurate\\ngospels and the untrustworthy, or when two or more\\nof different content were read in the same church, did\\nit become worth while for the Christian teacher or\\napologist to specify whether the given representation\\nof the current tradition was according to this or\\nthat special compiler, and to state his qualifications.\\nPrevious to 175 a.d., accordingly, we have only cita-\\ntions from the Gospel x from 175 on, in grow-\\ning number, references to the Gospel according\\nto (Kara) this or that evangelist, and this or that\\n1 Such was the title of Marcion s composition.\\n175", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0195.jp2"}, "196": {"fulltext": "176 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ncommunity (koto, tovs E/3paiovs, Kara rovs AiyvvTiovs\\nKtA.). 1\\nThe Fourth The term historical, as here used, does not of\\nband s course exclude the express (Jn. 20 31) or implied\\npurpose of the writers to utilise the material at com-\\nmand in the supreme interest of edification nor pre-\\njudge the question of credibility. Even the Fourth\\nGospel, aiming, as its beginning and close (1 1-18\\n20:26-31) expressly teach, simply to interpret a\\ndoctrine as to the person and work of Christ by selec-\\ntions from the tradition of his life and teaching, might\\nbe held to belong among the historical books for\\nit employs their form of narrative, and is drawn, at\\nhowever late a period and through however divergent\\na channel, from the common stream of Church tradi-\\ntion. But the history of the Fourth Gospel in the\\nsecond century no less than its internal characteris-\\ntics, and the practice of critics for one hundred years,\\ncompels us to make a broad distinction between it and\\nthe three whose singular interconnection, as we have\\nseen, justly entitles them to the name Synoptic.\\nFor if we represent by one hundred the entire contents\\nof all four, the following table 2 will exhibit the\\nrelation\\nPeculiarities Coincidences\\nMark 7 93\\nMatthew 42 58\\nLuke 59 41\\nJohn 92 8\\n1 Salmon correctly points out that in some cases at least the\\npreposition implies authorship, and not a mere indirect respon-\\nsibility; otherwise our Gospel according to Mark would\\ncertainly have been designated according to Peter for\\nJustin Martyr already speaks of it as the Memorabilia of Peter\\n{Dial. 106). On the other hand, such titles as Gospel ac-\\ncording to the Twelve Apostles, and the like, plainly imply\\nthat it was also used in the wider sense.\\n2 See Westcott s Introd. to the Gospels, p. 191.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0196.jp2"}, "197": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 177\\nSetting apart, therefore, for later consideration, this\\nalmost wholly disconnected Gospel of John, 1 there\\nremains for solution the problem of mingled peculi-\\narities and coincidences in Matthew, Mark, and Luke,\\nor the so-called Synoptic problem, and the related\\nproblem of the Book of Acts.\\nGlance at the page of a Synopticon, such as W. G. interreia-\\nKushbrooke s (1880) or A. Wright s (1896), where the ^atthLw\\ncoincident parts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are Mark, and\\nshown in parallel columns, or otherwise, or take an e\\nordinary Gospel Harmony in Greek or English. 2 A\\nvery few moments will show why the problem exists,\\nand will help to show why the successive attempts,\\nalready referred to, 3 to explain it by theories of oral\\ntradition, of a primitive gospel, of utilisation by one\\nanother, are all found inadequate. Even the two-\\ndocument theory, provisionally adopted in one form\\nor other by nearly all modern scholars, lacks much of\\nmeeting all the requirements of the case.\\nThe first division of Wright s Synopsis includes Coincident\\nthe general outline of Jesus career, from baptism to Narrative,\\nresurrection, as given in Mark, this gospel being\\ngiven entire in its order, and covering forty-nine\\ncolumns quarto. On the left hand appears the coin-\\ncident material of Matthew, paralleling Mark from\\nbeginning to end, omitting barely one or two brief\\nincidents, but rearranging the order in the earlier\\npart. On the right is the coincident material of\\n1 The ancient Church also recognised the difference, some-\\ntimes grouping the Johannine writings by themselves apart\\nfrom the Synoptic Gospels. So Tertullian repeatedly speaks of\\nthe instrumentum Johannis.\\n2 Robinson and Gardiner s Greek Harmonies of the Gospels\\nwill soon be superseded by that of Sanday and Allen in the\\nInternational Commentary series. Stevens and Burton s Eng-\\nlish Harmony will serve for ordinary purposes of comparison.\\n3 See pp. 7 and 17-20", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0197.jp2"}, "198": {"fulltext": "178 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nLuke, also reproducing the whole of Mark, though\\nwith the considerable omission of Mk. 6:45-8:26/\\nbesides a few minor passages, but with no change of\\norder. On whichever side the dependence lies, this\\nrelation of Mark to Matthew and Luke is inexplicable\\nwithout literary connection; for neither direct know-\\nledge of the facts on the part of the writers them-\\nselves, nor oral tradition, can account for the\\nselection of the same material, 2 nor the relation of it\\nin substantially the same order, and, to a very large\\nextent, in the very same words. For the coincidence\\nis not only in the material or substance, but in the\\nform as when in the story of the healing of the\\nparalytic 3 the curious parenthesis then saith he to\\nthe sick of the palsy is exactly reproduced and in\\nthe language, which for whole sentences is word for\\nword the same, particularly in the words of Christ.\\nAnd this verbal coincidence extends to rare forms and\\nexpressions of the Greek, as airapOfj, Matt. 9 15\\nMk. 2:20 Lk. 5:35; ydkaBax Oavdrov, Matt. 16:28\\nMk. 9:l Lk. 9:27; Z vf iiov r6ai, Matt. 16:26\\nMk. 8:36 Lk. 9:25; AireKpivaro, Matt. 27:12\\nMk. 14 61 Lk. 23 9 (elsewhere always airacpffhi)\\nSuo-koAcos, nowhere but Matt. 19:23 Mk. 10:23\\nLk. 18 24. Even if with some we could imagine the\\nTwelve settling, by common consent, upon a given\\nselection, form, and order of events in the narrative\\nthey would relate of Jesus life and teaching, and\\n1 On the reason for this omission, see Chapter IX.\\n2 First of all the cities wherein most of his mighty works\\nwere done in Matt. 11 20 ff. is Chorazin. But none of the\\nevangelists steps from the beaten track so much as to mention\\none of these miracles. Almost the same can be said of Beth-\\nsaida, which comes next in order. Mk. 8 22 ff. is the sole\\ninstance, and is omitted in both Matt, and Lk. For the special\\nadditions of Lk. and the order, see below.\\na Matt. 9 6 Mk. 2 10 Lk. 5 :24.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0198.jp2"}, "199": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 179\\nas committing to memory the ipsissima verba of this\\nmechanical scheme, we should still have only an\\nagreement in Aramaic, and nothing to account for\\ncoincidences in the Greek. 1\\nThe question, therefore, now reduces itself to the\\nform Have our Synoptists borrowed from one another\\nfor their narrative of Jesus career, or do they depend\\nin common on some older source?\\nPassing to Wright s second division of the mate- Discourse\\nrial, consisting wholly of discourses of considerable ^^monto\\nlength, we find it to include some twenty-eight columns Matthew\\nof material from Matthew, six-sevenths of which is\\nparalleled in Luke. But one-third of this, or two-\\nsevenths of the material of Matthew, shows a rela-\\ntively close verbal identity. 2 Mark has only here\\nand there a touch betraying acquaintance with this\\nmass of discourse material.\\nHere again the oral tradition theory is helpless, for\\nhow could the story of the Baptist s message and\\nJesus reply be orally transmitted in but two ver-\\nsions, 3 and these two even in Greek almost word for\\nword the same? And why is the case so entirely dif-\\nferent with the Eschatological Discourse? But a\\n1 Wetzel (Synopt. Evang., 2 p. 143 f.) seems indeed to assume\\nthat such a recitation as to-day in a public school was actu-\\nally carried on in Greek by Matthew, as special delegate of the\\nTwelve, for the benefit of the Hellenistic Jews. But were the\\nrest meantime debarred from teaching in Aramaic The whole\\nrepresentation, pp. 142-146, is most instructive as an illustra-\\ntion of the absurdities involved in the attempt to form a his-\\ntorical conception of the beginnings of an Erzahlungstypus.\\n2 E.g. Lk. 3 7-9, 17 Matt. 3 7-10, 12 Lk. 4 26-13 Matt.\\n4 2-lla Lk. 12 22-31 Matt. 6 25-34 Lk. 7 18-28, 31-35\\nMatt. 11 2\u00e2\u0080\u00941 1 16-19, the other two-thirds being much more\\nwidely divergent, e.g. Lk. 6 206-23 Matt. 5 3-12 Lk. 14\\n15-24 Matt. 22 1-14 Lk. 15 3-7 Matt. 18 12-14.\\n3 Matt. 11 2-19 Lk. 7 18-35.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0199.jp2"}, "200": {"fulltext": "180\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nExplained\\nneither by\\noral tradi-\\ntion nor\\ndirect de-\\npendence.\\ntheory of direct literary dependence throughout the\\ntwo gospels is equally helpless. Our Matthew, if\\nborrowing from Luke, would not have omitted the\\nparable of the Prodigal Son, 1 nor the miracle of\\nNain. 2 Conversely, the use of Matthew by Luke,\\nsupported as it is by some admirable scholars, 8 is\\nincredible. Gentile indifference on the part of the\\nevangelist himself and his readers to the differentia-\\ntion of the new righteousness from that of scribe and\\nPharisee might explain the omission of Matt. 5 17-43;\\n6:1-18; ll:28-30(?); 21:28-32(?); 23:15-22 in\\nLk. more easily still in his predecessors 4 but (1)\\nneither this nor any other motive attributable to our\\nMatthew can account for the omission of 13 24-30,\\n36-52 18 23-35 20 1-16 25 1-13, 31-46. (2) It\\nis incredible that Luke should have left the beginning\\nand end of his gospel (cc. 1-3, 24; cf. Mt. cc. 1, 2,\\n28) in such flagrant contradiction with that he so\\nlargely depended on, especially if it was believed to\\nemanate from the pen of an Apostle. 5 (3) It would\\nbe impossible to explain why two-thirds of the mate-\\nrial, not differing as to content in any definable way\\nfrom the rest, should be entirely recast, while the\\nremaining one-third should be taken over almost\\nverbatim.\\nThe common discourse material of Matthew and\\ni Lk. 15 11-32. 2 Lk. 7 11-17.\\n3 Even Holtzmann yields to the seductive pages of Simon\\n{Hat der dritte EvangH d. can. Mt. benutzt 1880) so far as\\nto admit that Lk. is affected by reminiscences of Matt.\\n4 Wright, op. cit. p. viii, suggests that in process of convey-\\nance to Lk., from Palestinian to Gentile regions, the Jewish\\nfeatures of the tradition were dropped.\\n5 This objection does not apply to employment by Lk. of an\\nearlier form of Matt. which had not as yet these peculiar fea-\\ntures. But this theory we purposely leave open to further con-\\nsideration.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0200.jp2"}, "201": {"fulltext": "material.\\nTHE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 181\\nLuke, accordingly, requires the assumption of at least\\none underlying written source. The third of the\\nabove considerations suggests two if not more.\\nTurning now from the material common to all three, Peculiar\\nor to two only, of the Synoptists to that which is\\npeculiar to each, and discriminating as before between\\ndiscourse and narrative, we observe that Mark has\\npractically no peculiar material of either kind. 1 But\\nwhat could be more absurd than an evangelist who\\nattempts to improve upon a gospel already current by\\nsimply extracting a part of its contents, and that part\\nthe smaller and less authoritative, and touching it up\\nwith a few unimportant embellishments and addi-\\ntions Could he imagine that his readers would pre-\\nfer plagiarising extracts to the rich source from which\\nhe drew? 2 If his source was Matthew, either he\\nwould not have written at all, or he would have\\nreedited the larger work; most of all, if it was then\\nregarded as the work of an Apostle. If his source\\nwas Luke, what amazing method guided him in the\\nselection of his material? The omissions would be\\n1 The Demoniac of Capernaum, 1 23-28 Lk. 4 33-37,\\nfails to appear in Matt. but to balance accounts the Demoniac\\nof Gerasa, 5 1-20, who utters the same remarkable confession,\\nis made duplicate in Matt. 8 28-34. So of the Dumb man,\\nMk. 7 31-37, and the Blind man of Bethsaida, Mk. 8 22-26,\\nomitted by both Matt, and Lk. To balance accounts, the healing\\nof Matt. 12 22, which has an identical effect on the multitude,\\nincludes both blindness and dumbness, though in the parallels\\nof 9 32 and Lk. 11 14 it is dumbness only the connected\\nblind man of 9 27-31 is not only duplicated, but his counter-\\npart, 20 29-34 Mk. 10 46-52 Lk. 18 35-43 as well. The\\nomission of Mk. 4 26-29 by Matt, and Lk. is probably due to\\nits close resemblance to vss. 30-32 that of Mk. 12 41-44\\nLk. 21 l^i) by Matt, is unexplained. On Lk. s omission\\nof Mk. 6 45-7 26, see Chapter IX.\\n2 Comprehensiveness was principally sought. See the Papias\\nfragment ov yap tois to. irbWa Xeyovaiv exaipov w r?rep oi iroWol.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0201.jp2"}, "202": {"fulltext": "182\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nMatthew\\nwholly,\\nLuke partly,\\ndependent\\non Mark s\\nnarrative\\nmaterial.\\neither way incredible. Not so if we reverse the case.\\nBoth Matthew and Luke have enough of their own to\\nadd to Mark to make the recast well worth while.\\nThe difference is this Matthew has an exceptionally-\\nrich store of discourse material, partly shared by\\nLuke, to add, and practically nothing else pertaining\\nto Jesus public career. 1 Luke has a strongly marked\\nmass of material, including both narrative and dis-\\ncourse, in rich profusion and of the highest impor-\\ntance, entirely peculiar to himself and demonstrably\\nextending far on into his second treatise. We need\\nmention only in the way of narrative: The Infancy, 2\\nThe Widow of Nam, 3 The Anointing of the Lord s\\nFeet, 4 Mary and Martha, 5 The Crooked Woman, 6 The\\nTen Lepers, 7 Zacchseus, 8 Pilate and Herod, 9 The Peni-\\ntent Thief, 10 The Journey to Emmaus u in the way of\\ndiscourse the parables of The Good Samaritan, 12 The\\nEich Fool, 13 The Prodigal Son, 14 The Unjust Steward, 15\\n1 Significant in character are the narrative additions of\\nMatt. They consist of the following: (a) cc. 1, 2 the gene-\\nalogy and infancy of Jesus fulfilling prophecies of Messiah.\\n(6) Certain additions of an apocryphal character in the story\\nof the Passion and Resurrection the Suicide of Judas, 27 3-8\\nPilate s Wife s Dream, 27 19, and his Washing his Hands, vss.\\n24, 25 the Earthquake and Opening of the Tombs, vss. 516-53\\nthe Setting and Bribing of the Roman Watch, vss. 62-66 28\\n11-15. (c) A brief close in general terms to fit the fragmentary\\nending of Mk., Matt. 28 16-20 (28 9, 10 is a doublet of vss. 7,\\n8). (d) Two stories seemingly gathered from floating legend:\\nPeter s Walking on the Water, 14 28-31, and the Coin in the\\nFish s Mouth, 17 24-27. In the account of Jesus public\\ncareer the only narrative additions to Mk., aside from mere\\nduplications and editorial generalities, are the two under (d),\\nthe Centurion s Servant, 8 5-13 Lk. 7 2-10 Jn. 4 46-54;\\nand the Rejection of Two Volunteer Disciples, 8 18-22 Lk.\\n9 57-60. See below. 2 cc. 1-3. 3 7 11-17.\\n4 7: 36-50. 6 10: 38-42. 6 13:10-17. 7 17: 11-19.\\n8 19 1-10. 9 23 4-19. 10 23 39-43. 24 13-35.\\ni 2 10 25-37. 13 12 13-21. 15 11-32. i 16 1-12.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0202.jp2"}, "203": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 183\\nThe Eich Man and Lazarus, 1 The Unjust Judge, 2\\nThe Pharisee and Publican, 3 and discourses on special\\noccasions, such as 4 16-30 9:51-56; 13:1-5, etc. 4\\nA synopsis of the contents of these three related Logical\\ngospels in the form given them by the ultimate f^e s ynop*\\neditor will aid us in perceiving the relation. The tic writings,\\nchronological order is doubtless Mark, Matthew, ai\\nLuke, though there is no direct interrelation between\\nMatthew and Luke, and the discourse nucleus of\\nMatthew is doubtless older than Mark.\\nMark has the following scheme\\ni. Preliminaries (dpx^ t. evayy.). The Baptism of John\\nand Jesus Call, 1 1-13.\\nii. The Galilean Ministry, 1 14-8 26.\\n(a) Jesus preaching and healing and its effects;\\npopularity and opposition, 1 14-3 12.\\n(6) The training and mission of the Twelve to\\npreach and heal. The parables. The mighty works,\\n3:13-35; 4:1-34; 4:35-6:13.\\niii. The Crisis in Galilee, 6 14-8 26.\\n(a) Episode of Herod and John. Jesus amazing\\nmiracles, 6:14-29, 30-56.\\n(6) He defies the Pharisees and goes into exile,\\n7:1-23.\\n(c) [Largely duplicate.] Incidents connected with\\nthe period of exile, 7 24-8 26.\\niv. The Journey to the Passover and Jerusalem Min-\\nistry, 8 27-13 37.\\n(a) Eevelation of the nature of Jesus calling,\\n8:27-9:13.\\n(b) Incidents of the journey through Galilee and\\nPeraa, 9:14-10:52.\\ni 16 19-31. 2 18 1-8. 8 18 9-14.\\n4 For a discussion of the special source of Lk., see Chapter IX.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0203.jp2"}, "204": {"fulltext": "184 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\n(c) The appeal to Israel at tlie Passover, cc. 11, 12.\\n(d) The prediction of the end, c. 13.\\nv. The Passion and Resurrection, cc. 14-16.\\nThe scheme of Matthew modifies the above only in\\n2. Matthew. ii and by constant additions, almost solely of dis-\\ncourse material, as follows\\ni. Preliminary Story, 1 1-4 17.\\n(a) Birth and childhood of Jesus, cc. 1, 2.\\n(b) Ministry of John, baptism and call of Jesus,\\n3:1-4:17.\\nii. The Galilean Ministry, 4 18-9 35.\\n(a) The preaching, 4: 18-7 29.\\n(6) The mighty works, 8:1-9:35.\\n(c) The mission of the Twelve, 9:36-10:42.\\n(d) Effects: (1) Acceptance by the few and lowly\\n(2) opposition by the Pharisees; (3) Jesus teaches in\\nparables, cc. 11, 12, 13.\\niii. The Crisis and Rejection in Galilee. Jesus founds\\nhis Church, 14 1-16 12 16 13-18 35.\\niv. The Ministry in Peraea and Jerusalem, cc. 19-25.\\nv. The Passion and Resurrection, cc. 26-28.\\nThe scheme of the third Gospel follows the order\\n3. Luke. of Mark without transposition, but omits iii (c) and\\nintercalates two masses of mingled narrative and dis-\\ncourse in ii (b) and iv with the following result:\\ni. Preliminary Story, cc. 1-3.\\n(a) Preface, 1 1-4.\\n(b) Birth and childhood of John and Jesus, 1:5-\\n2:52.\\n(c) Ministry of John. Baptism and call of Jesus.\\nHis pedigree, 3:1-20, 21 f., 23-28.\\nii. The Ministry of the First Period, 4:1-9: 50. 1\\n1 In many ways the geographical limits of this period 2\\nin Mk.) are obliterated in Lk. By transposing 4:9-13 (cf.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0204.jp2"}, "205": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC TBADITION 185\\n(a) Beginning of Jesus work. Temptation in\\nJudaea. Preaching and opposition in Galilee. Call\\nof Peter and others, 4 1-6 10.\\n(6) Choosing and instruction of the Twelve,\\n6:12-49.\\n(c) The witness of Jesus works appeals to the\\nlowly and to John, 7 1-8 3.\\n(d) The rest of Mark s account of the Galilean min-\\nistry and crisis, including Peter s confession and the\\nconnected story, but omitting 3 (c) (incidents of the\\nExile period), 8:4-9: 50.\\niii. The Ministry of the Second (Peraean) Period,\\n9:51-18:30.\\n(a) A heterogeneous group of incidents and dis-\\ncourses ending with an eschatology, 9 51-13 35.\\n(b) A second group, principally of discourses exalt-\\ning the lowly, with second eschatological discourse,\\n14:1-18:14.\\n(c) The rest of Mark s material up to the final jour-\\nney to Jericho and Jerusalem, 18 15-30.\\niv. The Ministry of the Final Passover, with Third\\nEschatology, 18 31-21 38.\\nv. The Passion and Resurrection, cc. 22-24.\\nThis evangelist s second treatise has the following\\nscheme 4 Acts\\ni. Founding of the Church in Judaea, Samaria, and\\nSyria, and First Attempts to convert the Gentiles. The\\nCareer of Peter, cc. 1-14.\\n(a) Peter and the Apostolic body in Jerusalem.\\nVain opposition of the authorities, and resulting\\nMatt.), and inserting Judsea in 4 44 5 17 6 17, the field\\nis widened to all Palestine, a step toward the Johannine\\nview, and the Temptation, 4 1-14, and incident of Csesarea\\nPhilippi though not the locality included.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0205.jp2"}, "206": {"fulltext": "186\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nInferences\\nfrom con-\\ntent as to\\nsources and\\ninterrela-\\ntion.\\nspread of the Gospel, and conversion of the arch-\\npersecutor, cc. 1, 2, 3-5; 6:1-9:31.\\n(b) Peter inaugurates and justifies the conversion\\nof the Gentiles. Antioch a second centre of Chris-\\ntianity. Final establishment of the mother church,\\n9:32-11:18; 11:19-30; c. 12.\\n(c) First missionary journey. Paul and Barnabas\\nextend the Gospel from Antioch to Cyprus, Cilicia,\\nand Galatia, cc. 13, 14.\\nii. Spread of the Gospel in the Graeco-Roman world.\\nCareer of Paul, cc. 15-28.\\n(a) The basis of Gentile recognition determined by\\nthe Apostles, 15 1-35.\\n(6) Paul and Silas evangelise Greece and Procon-\\nsular Asia (second and third missionary journeys),\\n15:36-19:20.\\n(c) Paul goes with the delegates of the Greek\\nchurches to Jerusalem. His arrest and defences,\\n19 21-21 26 21 27-26 32.\\n(d) Paul s journey to Rome and planting (estab-\\nlishment) of the Gospel there, cc. 27, 28.\\nEeturning to the sources of this historical material,\\nit appears that the narrative material of Matthew is\\nsimply that of Mark transferred to form a framework\\nfor the masses of discourse. Of the 103 narratives\\nenumerated by Wright as the content of Mark,\\nMatthew contains all but five of the briefest, and has\\nmore or less distinct parallels to three of these; 1 and\\n1 The other two are Mk. 9 38 f. and 12 41-44, probably\\nadditions to Mk. later than Matt., but earlier than Lk., for Mk.\\n9 38 f interrupts the connection of 37 with 40 (42 ff. (cf.\\nMt. 18:1-6), and 12:41-44 has no relation to what follows,\\nand only indirect relation to what precedes the hypocrisy of\\nthe scribes, who for a pretence make long prayers, but de-\\nvour widows houses. For the three duplicated incidents, see\\np. 181 note 1", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0206.jp2"}, "207": {"fulltext": "Mark.\\nTHE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 187\\nof narrative material he has practically nothing else, the\\ninfancy chapters and the trifling additions in 14 28-\\n31, 17 24-27, and c. 27 f merely emphasising, by\\ntheir peculiar character, the evangelist s poverty in\\nthis particular. So exact a coincidence is inexpli-\\ncable without a knowledge of Mark itself in substan-\\ntially its present form and it being insupposable that\\nthe author of Mark should have composed his work\\nby merely subtracting the narrative element of\\nMatthew, we find here positive proof of dependence\\nby our Matthew on our Mark. 1 Equally certain is Matthew\\nthe dependence of Luke. We have not, indeed, the ^JreraUy\\nsame coincidence of narrative material here, but, as use our\\nabove shown, large masses from an unknown source,\\nand per contra omissions of Marcan material which\\nhave suggested theories of a briefer proto-Mark; but\\nwhat the demonstration loses in cogency on this score\\nis made up by the carefulness of Luke to preserve the\\noriginal sequence of the narrative. 2 Nor can the\\n1 It is important to observe that the proof rests by no means\\non the general phenomena above cited alone. On the contrary,\\nthe literary dependence of Matt, on Mk. can be proved in\\ndetail, paragraph by paragraph, as e.g. 13 10-23, where the\\nparenthesis of Mk. 4 10-25, inserted by a trait characteristic\\nof this author, is obliterated, while substitution is made in vss.\\n34-36. A still more remarkable example occurs in the follow-\\ning chapter, where, the closing bracket of the parenthesis of\\nMk. 6 14-29 being obliterated through misunderstanding, the\\nstory which in 14 1 ff. begins as a matter of the past winds up\\nin vs. 12 as a matter of the present.\\nIt should also be observed that the use of our Mk. in sub-\\nstantially its present form by no means precludes independent,\\nperhaps previous, employment of the sources from which Mk.\\nis drawn.\\n2 Once the dependence of Matt, on our Mk. is proved, at-\\ntempts to account for the relation between Mk. and Lk. in\\nsome other way (proto-Mark theories, etc.) become a priori\\nimprobable.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0207.jp2"}, "208": {"fulltext": "188 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nomissions of Luke be due to their absence from\\nthe Mark he follows, for the contemporary or earlier\\nMatthew stands witness of their presence.\\nPrevious Our survey of the material content of the Synoptic\\nfirmed. C n Gospels in search of an explanation of their origin has\\nthus reduced to a minimum of applicability the once\\ncherished theory of oral tradition. 1 That of a proto-\\ngospel, from which each evangelist has drawn his\\nshare of both narrative and discourse material, is\\nequally insupposable. We should not know at which\\nto marvel most: the disappearance of so supremely\\nprecious a record; the folly of our evangelists in\\nomitting each some of the choicest material, whether\\nfrom their point of view or ours; or the folly of the\\nChurch in accepting the meagre substitute for the\\nwhole. 2 The current two document theory our\\nMark and the Logia as the principal sources of\\nMatthew and Luke may, therefore, be considered\\npermanently established as giving in outline the ulti-\\nmate solution. But no more than in outline.\\nSome theory of one or more underlying collections of\\ndiscourses is indispensable to explain the relation of\\nMatthew to Luke; and at least one extensive work,\\ncontaining independent masses of discourse and nar-\\nrative together, underlies the whole work of Luke.\\n1 The few able advocates it still retains are mainly English\\nscholars, notably Westcott (op. cit.) and Wright (op. cit., and\\nThe Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890).\\n2 See the able attempt of Edwin Abbott, Enc. Brit., art.\\nGospels, and Abbott and Rushbrooke, The Common Tradi-\\ntion of the Syn. Gos., to reach an original triple tradition\\nby elimination of all not common to the three Synoptists. The\\nfurther the process is carried the greater the resemblance of the\\nresultant original written gospel to our Mk. Says Pods\\n(Introd., p. 13), The approximation of Mk. to the original\\nwritten gospel is one of the most generally accepted findings of\\nmodern criticism.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0208.jp2"}, "209": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 189\\nFinally, the relation of Matthew and Luke to Mark\\nis inexplicable, save by a theory of mutually inde-\\npendent employment of this proto-gospel or gospels.\\nThese conclusions will only be strengthened by an From order\\nexamination of the second striking phenomenon of ofevents\\nthe Synoptic tradition, viz. its order of events. Of\\nthe hopeless confusion which reigned on this score,\\nwe have not only the eloquent witness of the gospels\\nthemselves, with their chaos of sequences, but the\\nimplicit testimony of the author of Luke, and the\\nexplicit statement of our oldest external authority.\\nThe words of Papias, reporting his ancient authority,\\nare all the more weighty that he himself does his\\nutmost to minimise their effect; for practically all he\\nreports bears upon this one point the inaccuracy of\\nMark s order, which was due to his not having been\\nhimself a follower of the Lord, but, later, of Peter,\\nand Peter s discourses not having been given as a\\nconnected narrative. 1 As we shall see, this testimony\\nis strictly in accord with the phenomena of the gos-\\npel itself. The outline of Mark is the very spinal\\ncolumn of the entire Gospel tradition; but in Mark Mark s\\nboth discourses and incidents are grouped almost inva- \u00c2\u00a3opf c r a i.\\nriably on a subjective or topical, not a chronological\\nplan. 2 And vet Luke, specially desirous as he is of\\n1 Discussions of the standard by which Mk. s inaccuracy of or-\\nder was measured are beside the mark, for Papias is reporting a\\ntradition old enough to go back to the living and abiding voice.\\n2 Thus the incident 1:40-45 winds up the account of Jesus\\ngrowing and burdensome popularity, but obviously is taken by\\nprolepsis from a much later time, for in what follows Jesus is\\nstill teaching in cities and synagogues, 2:1; 3:1; 6 1-6.\\nThe section 2 1-3 6 again extends in both directions beyond\\nthe apparent limits, grouping together a series of conflicts, of\\nwhich the last (3 6) would make further teaching, such as is\\ndescribed in 6 6, impossible. The series of teachings, 4 1-34,\\nfollowed by that of mighty works, 4 35-6 6, simply illus-", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0209.jp2"}, "210": {"fulltext": "190\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nBut fol-\\nlowed by-\\nMatthew\\nand Luke.\\nremedying this defect of the tradition, carefully\\ntracing up all things from the very first that he may\\nset them down in (chronological) order, clings to\\nthis order of Mark as the one Ariadne thread of the\\nlabyrinth; while even Matthew never ventures to\\ndepart from it from the point where he ceases his\\ngeneral description of Jesus teaching and mighty\\nworks, and the unfavourable reception accorded them\\nin Galilee, cc. 4-13. Even here, the order is mani-\\nfestly not historical, but literary, in fact, it is the\\nsame general scheme as in the section of Mark referred\\nto in our note, 3 7-6 13, only much more mechani-\\ncally carried out (a) the teaching (cc. 5-7), addressed\\nto a vast multitude, though as yet Jesus fame has\\nhad no opportunity to spread, 1 and arranged upon a\\nstereotyped, numerical plan; (6) a chain of ten mira-\\ncles (cc. 8, 9), so selected that each class is illustrated\\nby one example. 2 After this, (c) the mission of the\\ntrates the training of the Twelve, whose appointment for this\\npurpose (3 14, 15) is related in 3 7-35. But neither did the\\nincident of the scribes who came down from Jerusalem,\\nwith the associated intervention of Jesus mother and brethren,\\n3 20-35, occur at this time (cf. 7 1 ff. and Lk. 11 14-54\\nMatt. 12:22-50; 15:1-20, and see B. Weiss, Mkev., 1872, p.\\n127 note) nor can the subsequent series of mighty works have\\nall followed in chronological order.\\n1 By carrying back the introductory description, 4 23-25\\nMk. 3 7-12, from its proper position after Mk. 1 14-45 2 1-\\n3 6, Matt, has deprived it of all proper sense. It has no expla-\\nnation in what precedes, for Jesus has done nothing to excite\\nsuch extraordinary fame nor does it agree with what follows,\\nfor the true Sermon on the Mount (nucleus of cc. 5-7) was\\ndelivered not to the mixed multitude, but to the disciples.\\nBut note that when cc. 5-7 are removed, with their Marcan\\nsetting (Matt. 4 18-25 8 1-4), we obtain in 4 12-17 8 5-\\n10 a connection not only natural in itself but in agreement\\nwith Jn. 4:46ff. (2:12).\\n2 Thus the mighty deeds, for unbelief in which, in c. 11,\\nthe people are upbraided, while John in prison and the humble", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0210.jp2"}, "211": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC TBABITION 191\\ntwelve disciples, whose selection, however, the evan-\\ngelist has omitted to mention, to preach and heal in\\nlike manner (c. 10). This is followed (d) by Jesns\\ncommendation of the Baptist and rebuke of unbeliev-\\ning Israel, above mentioned (c. 11), and (e) his adop-\\ntion, after a series of conflicts with the scribes and\\nPharisees (c. 12), of the method of parables to\\ninstruct the multitude (c. 13).\\nWhile there are subordinate groups here, which have Variations\\nno relation to the general scheme (e.g. 8 1-4, 5-13, ex P llcab e\\n14-17, followed by 18-22), it is clear that the plan is\\nliterary, not historical. 1 Yet this arbitrary scheme\\nis all that the Synoptic Gospels afford of divergence\\nfrom the order of Mark, save for the occasional timid\\nattempts of Luke to correct palpable dislocations,\\nsometimes making confusion worse confounded. 2\\nOral tradition, in the sense of such preaching as\\nPapias describes, undoubtedly accounts for the Inferences.\\nChurch s condition of helpless confusion as to the ol f c Z^^\\nsequence of events in the life of Jesus, after the death gospel.\\nbabes are encouraged, are each exhibited in turn the\\nblind see (9 27 f.), the lame walk (8 5 f. 9 1 f.), the lepers\\nare cleansed (8:1 ff. the deaf hear (9 32 f the dead are\\nraised up (9:18 f., 23 f.), and the poor have glad tidings\\npreached unto them (9 35).\\n1 Cf. e.g. 8:1, great multitudes with 8:4a, tell no\\nman and 8 14, which, as we see from Mk. 1 14-34, should\\nfollow Matt. 4 22.\\n2 As an example of correction, cf Lk. 3 19 with Mk. 6 14-\\n29, and contrast the va-repov -wporepov of Matt. 11:2; 14:3.\\nFor confusion cf. Lk. 4 16-30 with Mk. 6 1-6 but see vss.\\n23 and 31 ff. Observe also Lk. 5 1-11 following 4 31-44\\nMk. 1 21-49. In substituting the narrative of the call of\\nPeter and those with him for the call of the four, Mk. 1 16-\\n20, Lk. failed to observe that in Mk. the relation established in\\n1 16-20 explains those of vss. 29 ff., so that the Simon of Lk.\\n4 38, whose house Jesus enters and whose wife s mother he\\nheals, became a wholly unknown character.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0211.jp2"}, "212": {"fulltext": "192\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\n2. The tra-\\ndition veri-\\nfied: first\\nattempts\\nlogia\\nMark the\\nfirst narra-\\ntive of note.\\nof the principal witnesses, and accounts for it rightly\\nand naturally. But only upon the assumption that\\nno Apostolic proto-gospel or authoritative biography\\nwas in existence. Doubtless, at first only the testi-\\nmony of the Lord himself was deemed worthy of\\nwritten record, forming collections of aphorisms and\\nmemorable sayings after the plan of the Pirke Aboth 1\\nor the Oxyrhynchus fragment improperly called the\\nLogia, while the varying groups of narratives, which\\nwould form the testimony of Apostles and other wit-\\nnesses to his wonderful works, deeds of wisdom and\\nmercy, death and resurrection, went through a much\\nlonger process of sifting, combination, and editing\\nbefore attaining a quasi-authoritative form and con-\\ntent, such as now appears in the Synoptic material.\\nUntil the strictly Apostolic witnesses began to dis-\\nappear, this material would be largely unwritten,\\nand altogether too free and copious for codification.\\nMen would rely on the memory of the preacher, or\\neven, as in Acts 10 37 ff., on general information and\\nreport, for the thread of narrative needful to explain\\nand bind together the pearls of logia, which taught\\nthe Way of Life. The greater difficulty and conse-\\nquent delay in reducing this mass (cf Lk. 1:1; Jn.\\n21 25) explains, in a manner as completely natural\\nas it is harmonious with the primeval tradition, the\\nalmost servile dependence of both our chief authori-\\nties for their order on the sequence of Mark, the\\nreported interpreter of Peter. Imperfect and\\nsubjective as it was admitted to be, it was the\\nnearest approach to a written standard; so that our\\nMatthew and Luke vary from it only in a few\\ninstances, mostly such as show their conjectural\\n1 The oldest tractate of the Talmud, a collection of apho-\\nristic sayings handed down by tradition mostly from pre-Chris-\\ntian Jewish Fathers.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0212.jp2"}, "213": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 193\\ncharacter upon their face. The tradition reported by\\nPapias is therefore exactly in accord with the phe-\\nnomena, including others not here mentioned, such as\\nthe striking coincidence of language where the words\\nof Jesus are given, tending to disappear as soon as\\nthe narrative framework is reached. 1 Whether the\\nFourth Gospel, if known as Apostolic, would have\\nfurnished the sought-for standard, is a question by\\nitself. But it is not a supposable case that our\\nMatthew, or any similar biographical gospel com-\\nprising both sayings and doings, widely known and\\nacknowledged as from the hand of an Apostle,\\nafforded the desired authoritative standard of order,\\nyet was unknown to, or disregarded by, both Mark and\\nLuke. We scarcely need the host of evidences prov-\\ning the Greek origin of our Matthew its dependence\\non our Mark and the sources thereof, its composite\\ncharacter, exhibiting as it does no less than twenty-\\ntwo instances of the same incident or saying twice\\ntold in slightly different forms, 2 with others similar,\\nin view of this culminating fact. The primeval and\\nwidespread tradition of the Church needs not correc-\\ntion, but restatement. It maintained, we should\\nremember, that the work of the Apostle Matthew had\\nbeen a compilation, in Papias s day no longer extant,\\nof the sayings of the Lord, in express distinction\\nfrom such narratives as Mark and Luke, the former of\\nwhom undertook, with however scanty qualification\\nfor giving a connected account of the Lord s say-\\nings, 8 to write down accurately everything that he\\ni Cf. e.g. Mk. 10 32-34 with Matt. 20 17-19 Lk. 18 31-\\n34 in the respective parts.\\n2 E.g. Matt. 9 27-31 20 29-34, or 12 38, 39 16 1, 2.\\n3 The Lord s teaching was always the object in view, whether\\nin the report of the word itself or the accompanying explana-\\ntory narrative.\\no", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0213.jp2"}, "214": {"fulltext": "criticism\\n194 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nremembered whether things said or things done\\nof the narrations of Peter. The latter, Luke, him-\\nself informs us (Acts 1 1) that his earlier work was\\nintended as a narrative of Jesus earthly career com-\\nplete, both doings and teachings, and that the ques-\\ntion of the order had been a matter of special care\\n(Lk. 1:3).\\nResults of Independently the critic arrives at the following\\nexplanation of the literary phenomena: (1) A com-\\npilation of Logia by the Apostle Matthew, early cur-\\nrent in many forms, and (2) the biography of Mark\\nconstitute the foundation of the Gospel tradition of\\nlater times and two of the most important sources of\\nLuke. In its slow, but more and more confident and\\nuniversal adoption of this two-document theory, as its\\nfundamental position on the Synoptic problem, the\\ncriticism of to-day may well be said to be going back\\nto tradition. We shall see, however, that these two\\nfacts, while the most fundamental, are by no means\\nsufficient to explain the complex history of the forma-\\ntion of the Synoptic tradition. 1\\n1 For statistics bearing on the problem, see Hawkins, Horce\\nSynopticce, 1899. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, and\\nWestcott, Introduction to the Four Gospels, 1895, are among\\nthe best of the older special works in English. 0. Cone, Gospel\\nCriticism and Hist. Christianity is the best recent compendium.\\nE. Abbott, Badham, Carpenter, and A. Wright have discus-\\nsions in support of particular views. Wilkinson s Four Lectures\\non the early History of the Gospels, and Baring-Gould s Lost\\nand Hostile Gospels have special features of value. Very\\nrecently (1899) J. Palmer discusses The Gospel Problems and\\ntheir Solution. Articles of value on the Synoptic Problem,\\nby Sanday, may be found in Smith s B. D., 2d ed., also in\\nthe Expositor, Series IV, Vol. Ill, and by H. H. Wendt in the\\nNew World for June, 1895. Biblical Introduction, 1900, 0. T.\\nby Bennett, N. T. by Adeney, should have been mentioned before\\namong popular general works. The discussion of the Synoptic\\nproblem is excellent.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0214.jp2"}, "215": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER IX\\nTHE SYNOPTIC WRITERS\\nAs yet we have but touched the surface of the Syn-\\noptic problem; but we have reached common ground\\nfor tradition and criticism, disembarrassed of several\\nuntenable theories. From this standpoint, however,\\nit is apparent that our gospels have already a long\\nhistory behind them of compilation, accretion, read-\\njustment of material from various sources, which\\nmakes even our present working theory quite too\\nsimple to account for all the phenomena. Indeed, we\\nmight have guessed at such a past from the fact that\\nwhile the author of Lk. 1 1 was acquainted with\\nmany attempts to draw up a comprehensive narrative\\nof the facts {a.va.T a^aadai StrjyrjaLv twv Trpay/xdroyv), in One\\nway or another, our three Synoptic Gospels have man-\\naged to take up all the material of any value, of which\\ntraces remained until the second century. As we\\nmight expect from the many variant forms of our first Literary\\ngospel, which early circulated in Palestine, from the ^Mattl eS\\ninternal evidence and testimony of tradition as to the\\nextremely early origin of the more essential element\\nof its content, and from the fact that to at least an\\nimportant section of the Church and for a considerable\\ntime it continued to be the Gospel par eminence,\\nthe traces of a checkered career of editorial amplifi-\\ncation, recasting, modification are more marked in\\nMatthew than in any other. Only the process of\\ntranslation of the Logia nucleus from the Aramaic\\n195", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0215.jp2"}, "216": {"fulltext": "196 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\n(Hebrew the one universally attested fact of early\\nChurch tradition, has left no traces. Nor can this be\\naccidental. Not only would such traces be more\\nincapable of eluding research than those of any other\\nprocess, but by positive evidence, now universally\\nadmitted to be conclusive, 1 our Gospel, in all its parts,\\nwas originally a Greek gospel. Since, then, says\\nProfessor Salmon, our Greek gospel bears marks of\\nnot being a mere translation, we must choose between\\nthe hypotheses that we have in the Greek the gospel\\nas written by Matthew himself, or the gospel as\\nwritten by an unknown writer who used as his prin-\\ncipal material an Aramaic writing by St. Matthew,\\nwhich has now perished. In defiance of primitive\\ntradition Salmon adopts the former alternative.\\nWith more reasonable conservatives, such as West-\\ncott, Godet, Weiss, Zahn, and Dalman, we hold that\\nThe the Apostle wrote his work in Aramaic, and only\\nAramaicf Aramaic, 2 and that the subsequent Greek edition, by\\nwork.\\n1 Holtzmann, Einl., z p. 377: The Greek original of the\\nfirst Gospel is now absolutely assured. Keim, Life of Christ,\\ni, 77: Hardly any one now believes that this Gospel was\\nwritten in Hebrew. Dods, Introd. p. 18 One of the ascer-\\ntained conclusions of criticism. Most apologists assume two\\ngospels by Matt., the later in Greek. See Gardiner, in Journ.\\nBibl. Lit., 1890, p. 1 ff.). Besides the adoption of the whole\\nmass of our Greek Mk., and coincidence in the Greek of the\\ndiscourse material of Lk., we have as evidence the citations\\nfrom the 0. T., which conform usually to the LXX. even more\\nclosely than in Mk. in the body of the work. Only in the\\neditorial supplements are there traces of acquaintance with the\\nHebrew, and even here, e.g. 1 23, the inferences drawn often\\ndepend entirely on the use of the LXX. It is needless to refer\\nto plays upon words (Greek), explanations of Palestinian cus-\\ntoms (27 15 28 15 22 23), etc.\\n2 See the thorough discussion in Zahn, Einl. Vol. II (1899),\\nIX, 54, also B. Weiss, Introd., Vol. II, pp. 228 ff., Eng. tr.,\\nbut especially Dalman, Worte Jesu, Bd. I, 1898.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0216.jp2"}, "217": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 197\\nan unknown hand, was a representative, rather than\\na translation of the original, probably supplemented\\nby a considerable amount of narrative material. In\\nother words, the process of translation has left no\\ntraces in our gospel because, strictly, the history of\\nour gospel does not reach back so far. Yet, in con-\\nsideration of what may be called its prehistoric\\nperiod, we may venture to treat it first in order, with-\\nout deciding for the present whether its first appear-\\nance as a complete biographical Greek gospel preceded\\nor followed that of Mark.\\nEvery indication favours and nothing opposes the its char-\\nprimitive tradition attributing the Aramaic compila- j^ r and\\ntion of Logia to the Apostle Matthew the character\\nof the writing, its language, its occasion (departure\\nof authoritative teachers), the relative insignificance\\nof the name, 1 the occupation of publican, 2 even the\\nfact that but for the change here and in 10 3 from\\nthe form of Mk. 2 14 3 18 we should not know that\\nMatthew was the publican Levi, son of Alphseus.\\nFor this change may safely be attributed to that\\neditor who embodied the contents of Mark. Doubt-\\nless we may also accept the statement that the Apostle\\nput forth his work as he was about to leave Jerusa-\\nlem; 8 for authorities agree as to this. Irena3us, by\\nfar the oldest and best authority, is followed by Euse-\\nbius in his History in making this departure the\\nflight of the Church from Jerusalem just before the\\nsiege (66-67 a.d.). In his Chronicle, however, Euse-\\nbius dates the composition in 41 a.d., apparently\\n1 As against Peter, John, James, to -which a multitude of\\napocryphal writings attach themselves.\\n2 Mt. 9 9.\\n8 See the quotation from Irenaeus above, p. 47, and cf.\\nEuseb., Hist., 3 5 and 24 also Chronicon, ad an. ii. Gaii\\n41 A.D.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0217.jp2"}, "218": {"fulltext": "198 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nfollowing a different tradition, which identified the\\ndeparture with the traditional going forth of the\\nTwelve from Jerusalem, according to a pretended\\ncommandment of Jesus, 1 after twelve years (i.e.\\nfrom the crucifixion, generally dated by the Fathers\\nin 29 a.d.). Both the weight of authority and the\\nabsence from the Pauline Epistles 2 of any trace of\\nsuch a compilation favour the date of Irenaeus\\n(66 a.d.) as that of the foundation of gospel-writing\\nin general, and of the growth of our gospel in\\nparticular. 3\\nIts relation Since the abandonment of the identity of our\\nMatt r Matthew with the work referred to by Papias s\\ninformant, the efforts of conservative writers are\\nnaturally directed to the inclusion of as large a part\\nas possible of the narrative element of this gospel.\\nWe need not recapitulate the difficulties already men-\\ntioned, which increase in force as we attempt to\\nextend the Logia in this direction. To say nothing\\nof the dependence on Mark, the very scheme of our\\nMatthew is such as no Apostle could possibly have\\nframed. What we may call the outer envelope,\\ncc. 1, 2, 28 9-20, with the kindred element in c. 27\\n(vss. 3-8, 19, 24 f., 516-53, 62-66) and 14:28-31;\\n17:24-27, besides its markedly apocryphal and leg-\\nendary character, gives clear evidence of a date not\\n1 Kerygma Petri, fragment in CI. A., Strom. 6 5, 43.\\n2 The case is different with Jas. and perhaps 1 Pt. and the\\nPastoral Epistles.\\n3 There were doubtless earlier unauthoritative writings re-\\ngarding words and deeds of Jesus, but among his authorised\\nrepresentatives writings of an evangelic character would be\\nstrongly discouraged by two considerations: (i.) the writing\\ndown of the teachings of a rabbi was regarded as a shameful\\noffence. They must be preserved memoriter, lest they encroach\\nupon the sacred prerogative of Scripture. (ii.) The second\\ncoming was expected almost momentarily.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0218.jp2"}, "219": {"fulltext": "form of\\nMatt. late.\\nTHE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 199\\nearlier than 80-90 a.d. It seems to be connected\\nwith that final recast of the gospel which, besides\\nabsorbing the whole of Mark, has thrown the mate-\\nrial into an artificial numerical scheme, 1 and left\\ninnumerable marks of editorial manipulation and\\npiecing. 2 Luke either treated the envelope with\\ncontempt, 3 or, far more probably, had never heard of\\nthese data. The reference to the destruction of Jeru- Present\\nsalem, most incongruously inserted in 22 6 f (cf\\nLk. 14:21 ff.), the sacramental formulae, 26:28 (cf.\\nMk. 14:24) and 28:19 (trinitarian) adjusted to the\\nlater practice, 4 the rule of procedure in the discipline\\n1 For the scheme of 4 18-9 35 9 36-13 58, see p. 190.\\nIn cc. 14-18, cc. 19-25, and cc. 26-28 the events and order are\\nfrom Mk. Corresponding to these five periods of the ministry\\nare five masses of discourse material agglomerated into arti-\\nficial groups (i.) the Sermon on the Mount, cc. 5-7 (original\\nseparate discourses in Lk. 6 20 ff. 11 1-13 12 13-34, etc.)\\n(ii.) Mission of the Twelve, c. 10 (original discourses in Lk.\\n10:1-12; 12:1-12, etc.) (iii.) Parables, c. 13 (note the ad-\\ndendum, vss. 44 ff. to make seven Parables cf. vss. 34-36)\\n(iv.) Woes against Pharisees, c. 23 (taken from the Denuncia-\\ntion in Galilee, Lk. 11 37-54 Mk. 7 1-23, and the Warning\\nagainst Pharisaism in Jerusalem, Lk. 20 45-47 Mk. 12 38-\\n40) (v.) Esckatology, cc. 24, 25 (original discourses in Lk. 12\\n35-13 9 17 20-18 7 21 5-36, etc.). For numerical prag-\\nmatism in detail, note 1 1-17, three divisions of 2 x 7 genera-\\ntions 5 21-48, five new laws of the second table 6 1-18,\\nthree works of righteousness cc. 8, 9, ten mighty works 13\\n1-52, seven parables 23 13-32, seven woes, etc.\\n2 In addition to the twenty-two duplications above cited\\n(p. 193), the agglomerated discourses, and the addendum, 13:\\n44 ff. after 13 34-36 of the preceding note, observe the sepa-\\nration of 4 18-22 from 8 14-17, when even was come, 8 16\\n(cf. Mk. 1 21, 32), and the colophon of vs. 17 etc.\\n3 Cf. Lk. cc. 1-3 and 24 Cor. 1 18 f.; 2 38 10 48, etc.\\n4 First occurrence of baptism in the name of the Trinity in\\nAt5. and Justin M. For the earlier practice cf Acts 2 38 8\\n16 10 48 19 5 1 Cor. 1 13 6 11 Gal. 3 27 Rom. 6 3.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0219.jp2"}, "220": {"fulltext": "200 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nof the Church, 18:17,* and the frequent adjust-\\nment of the narrative to the exact wording of the Old\\nTestament (e.g. 19:18; 21:2 ff.; 27:34, 43 [=Wisd.\\n2 18 are by no means the only internal evidences of\\nthe lateness of this editorial recast. 2\\nElements We cannot even allow that the whole of the dis-\\ntheTor k\u00e2\u0084\u00a2 course material is derived from the Logia; some of\\nthe omissions of Luke would otherwise be unaccount-\\nable, as well as the fact that two-thirds of the coin-\\ncident discourse material shows so abrupt a difference\\nin the degree of divergence.\\nOther considerable portions of the discourse element\\nomitted by Luke, however, must have belonged to the\\nLogia, 3 and we gladly accept the careful demonstra-\\n1 Cf. the insertion of the parables of the tares among the\\nwheat, 13 22-30, 37-43, and the net, 13 47-50 the wedding-\\ngarment in 22 11-14 the term iKK\\\\r) rLa and the interest in\\nchurch discipline generally in c. 18.\\n2 If we may judge from the generalising character of 28 16-\\n20, it is simply one of the many attempts to supply the missing\\nending of Mk. (cf. v. 16 with Mk. 16 7, in contrast with Matt.\\n28 7). The genuine ending must have gone on to relate the\\nrehabilitation of Peter in fulfilment of the angel s promise (v. 7;\\nnote and Peter, and cf. Lk. 24 34 1 Cor. 15 5, and Gos-\\npel of Peter, close) substantially as in Jn. 21 15-19. When\\nMatt. 28 16-20 was written this account was therefore already\\nlost.\\nThe turning of the point of the parable 21 33-41, originally\\ndirected against the unworthy rulers (cf. v. 41 and Mk. 12 9,\\n12), by means of v. 43 into a rejection of the nation, shows an\\neditor who looks back on the national humiliation. The intro-\\nduction of the Pharisees in v. 45 to share the blame shows\\nwho are his present antagonists.\\n3 Lk. 6 20-49 is far more correct as a representation of the\\nactual Sermon on the Mount than the heterogeneous agglomera-\\ntion of Matt. cc. 5-7. Nevertheless it is incorrect in omitting\\nMatt. 5 17-22, 27, 28, 31, 32a, 33-41 6 1-6, 16-18, which\\nform the negative side of the argument (cf Lk. 6 27a with\\niy b S\u00c2\u00a3 X^yw, Matt. 5: 22 etc.). Other instances might be cited.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0220.jp2"}, "221": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WBITEBS 201\\ntion of B. Weiss that certain elements of the narra-\\ntive are by no means merely borrowed from Mark,\\nbut by their greater simplicity and brevity, as well as\\nby the repeated support of Luke in minute variations,\\nprove their independence, if not their priority. 1 But\\nthe proportion of this pre-Marcan narrative element\\nof Matthew, which can have belonged originally with\\nthe Logia, is very minute indeed.\\n1 E.g. Matt. 15 21-28 is more original than Mk. 7 24-30,\\nwhich omits the obnoxious verses Matt. 15:23, 24; Matt. 20:\\n22 f than Mk. 10 38-40, which works in Lk. 12 50. The\\nsupposed abridgment of Mk. by Matt, ignores important\\nfacts and is not the invariable practice of Matt, himself. In\\nMatt. 8 2-4 Mk. 1 40-45 it is Mk. who embellishes, as\\nproved by Lk. cf Lk. 5 12 f. with Matt. vs. Mk. A consid-\\nerable number of similar passages can be cited, especially in\\nMatt. 8 23-34 9 18-26, where but for dprl ireXevrrjaev (ren-\\nder with Mk. ia-xarus e% e the simplicity of Matt, is original.\\nIn Matt. 14 1-13 the few words of the original can be restored\\nfrom Lk. 9 7, and ran as follows *H.Kovaev 8Z Hpy Sijs did rb\\n\\\\4ye rdai, Iwdvys yjyipdr] \u00c2\u00a3k veKpQv. O yap HpyS^s aireKt pa.\\\\i iev\\niwdvijv iv rrj pv\\\\a,Krj. Kal ol p.a0T)Tal clvtov (SC. Irjcrod, misunder-\\nstood by Matt. 1 i\\\\d6vres dwriyyeikav t$ Itjctov kt\\\\. The added\\nmaterial in Mk. 6 14-29 is derived from popular romance.\\nAgain in Mk. 8 34-9 1, in 9 33-37, in 10 10 f., in 10 15, it\\nis Mk. who imports the foreign material. The parallels of Matt.\\nin 16 13-28, in 18: 1-4, in 19 1-8, and 13-15 would have been\\nirreproachable but for a later hand which has introduced from\\nMk. Matt. 16 24 f. 18 5 f. 19 9, in every case introducing\\na second time and at a wrong place a passage already con-\\ntained in the gospel, viz. Matt. 10 39 (cf. Lk. 17 33 Jn. 12\\n25 f.) Matt. 10 40 Matt. 5 30 (misplaced) Matt. 5 31 f.\\nOf these all but 5 30 stand in their true connection. Other\\nexamples might be cited.\\nFurther evidences that Matt, had already received narrative\\nadditions before final supplementation from Mk. may be found\\nin 8 1-22, a section calculated to follow 4 18-22 in the order\\n4 18-22 8 14-16 (17), 15-13 (cf. Lk. 7 1-10 Jn. 4 46-54\\n6 1 ff.), 18 ff., but broken up by the present artificial order.\\nSimilarly 13 34 ff. etc. See below on Lk.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0221.jp2"}, "222": {"fulltext": "202 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION\\nResults as to The history of our gospel appears, therefore, to\\ntion and include three stages (i) Matthew 1 the Aramaic\\ntype of Logia, almost entirely without narrative framework;\\n(ii) Matthew an edition in Greek supplied with an\\noutline of the public ministry and passion, and a very\\nsparing enrichment of the discourses (iii) Matthew 1\\na complete recast grouping the discourse material\\n(with additions) into five great masses, taking up the\\nadditional material of Mark, retouching much of the\\nparallel material of Matthew and supplying some\\nlegendary accretions in connection with the external\\nenvelope already described.\\nFrom the characterisation of the gospel by Irenaeus\\n(Frg. 29), as intended to prove to the circumcision\\nthat Jesus was their expected Messiah, down to that\\nof Kostlin, which adds, although Israel refused to\\nrecognise him as such, there has never been entire\\nfailure to recognise the circle from which this gospel\\nemanated and to which it is addressed. Jewish\\nChristian only in the innocent sense of the Epistle of\\nJames, without a trace of hostility to Paul, and fully\\nrecognising that the prerogative of Israel must pass\\nto a worthier people, 1 brought in from the Gentiles, 2\\nit retains many traces of the undeveloped particular-\\nism 3 and Jewish coloration 4 of the earliest days.\\nSalvation comes by keeping the moral commandments\\nof Scripture as interpreted by the new Law of Love.\\nTo be perfect, Christ s example of unlimited self-\\nsacrifice must be followed. 5 He is the Son of David, 6\\n1 21 43 22 7 27 24, 25.\\n2 2 11, 12 3:9; 8 10-12 12 21 15 28 21 28-32 22\\n1-10 28 19.\\n3 5 47 7 6 10 5, 6, 23 15 22-27 18 17 19 28.\\n5 23, 24, 35 17 24-27 23 1-3, 16-22.\\n5 19 16-21 cf. 5 17-48 23 1-3.\\n6 1 1-17, 20 2 1 etc. So called eight times, four times king\\nof the Jews (2 2 21 5 25 31 f. 27 11).", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0222.jp2"}, "223": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 203\\nforetold, by the prophets, King and Saviour of the\\nscattered flock of Israel, 1 and Judge of the world. 2\\nOn the other hand, no gospel is so relentless in its Anti-rab-\\ndenunciation of the blind guides of nornism, who are binic.\\nto blame for the perversion of Israel from its salva-\\ntion, 3 while the constant appeal to Scripture fulfil-\\nment 4 is but one of many signs that the struggle\\nis against the scribe and Pharisee of the rabbinic\\nperiod. 5\\nThat which is of supreme importance to us, how-\\never, is the admirable fidelity with which the teach-\\ning of Jesus is reproduced, scarcely altered even by\\nthe crucial events of 66-70 a.d. 6 The few exceptions\\nare mostly mere minute alterations or resettings of\\ngenuine sayings. 7\\nWhen Lk. 1 1 was written John Mark was by no Mark,\\nmeans the only minister of the word 8 who had its author\\nalready taken in hand to draw up a comprehensive origin,\\nnarrative of the facts delivered by the eye-wit-\\nnesses; but his was the most important, or it would\\nnot have been made the framework of Lk. 4 31-24 9.\\ni 10:6; 15:24. 2 25:31,32. 8 c. 23.\\n*1:22 2: 61, 17 f., 23; 3 3 4 14 8:17; 12:17-21;\\n13 35 21 4, 5 27 9, 10.\\n6 Cf. 3 7 16 1, 6, 11, 12 [vs. Lk. 3 7 Mk. 8:5]; 15 20\\n6 1-18 9 13 11 28 f. 12 5-7, 38 16 1 [vs. Lk. 11 16 j\\nMk. 8 11] 21 45 22 41 23 1 ft, 35, 36.\\ne Cf. 24 15-20 with Lk. 21 20, 21, and 24 29 with Lk. 21\\n24, where even Mk. omits evdiws.\\ni 12 40 16 18 18 17 19 17 (cf. Mk. 10 18 Lk. 18\\n19) 21 43. Even 12 40, which Westeott and Hort them-\\nselves are disposed to regard with suspicion, is probably only\\naltered from the form Lk. 11 30. Matt. 17 24-27 is a para-\\ndoxical logion genuine, but probably avoided because supposed\\nto imply a grotesque miracle. Matt. 22 6 f is the only in-\\nstance of perversion.\\n8 viTTjpeT^s, applied specifically to Mk. in Acts 13 5.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0223.jp2"}, "224": {"fulltext": "204 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nHe was the son of a certain Mary, in whose house\\nin Jerusalem we find the infant Church assembled. 1\\nThis house, to which Peter, when released, at once\\nbetakes himself, may well have been that of the\\nfamous upper room 2 whence the step is easy to\\nthe conclusion that the nameless lad who, roused from\\nhis couch by the midnight band of Judas seeking\\ntheir victim, ran to give the alarm, arriving at Geth-\\nsemane just too late, 3 was John Mark himself, who in\\nthese singular verses has left, as has been poetically\\nsaid, the artist s autograph in an obscure corner of\\nthe painting. Barnabas was his mother s brother,*\\nand he thus came into association with Paul, 5 but\\nturned back to Jerusalem, to Paul s displeasure, when\\nonly the first part of the first missionary journey was\\naccomplished. 6 Barnabas, nevertheless, subsequently\\ntook him with him, and, as in Philem. 24; 2 Tim.\\n4 11 he again appears in friendly relations with\\nPaul, the fault must have been forgiven. Col. 4:10\\nis sometimes regarded as indicating the beginning of\\nhis relation with Peter, of which the only other trace\\nin the New Testament is 1 Pet. 5 13 (but cf Acts\\n12 12), where both the expression my son and\\nBabylon are doubtless to be understood figuratively,\\nas all antiquity agrees. Borne, in fact, is both tra-\\nditionally the place of origin of the gospel and is\\nsuggested by the internal evidence. 7\\n1 Acts 12 12. 2 Acts 1 13 f Lk. 22 8-13.\\n3 Mk. 14 51 f. Col. 4 10.\\n6 Acts 12 25 13 5. Acts 15 37-39.\\n7 Note the explanation of Jewish expressions and words (3\\n17, 22; 5:41; 7 11, 34 9:43; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22, 34,\\n42) and Jewish customs (7 3, 4 14 12). A Roman origin is\\nparticularly indicated by the addition 10 12, based on a pecul-\\niarity of Roman law, the Grecized Latinisms 2 4, 9, 11 5:9,\\n15 6 27, 37, 55 7:4, 8 12 14 14 5 15 15, 39, 44, 45,\\nand the explanation in 12 42 that two \\\\eirrd make a quadrans.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0224.jp2"}, "225": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 205\\nAs before, the remarkable modesty of the claims Character\\nput forth in tradition on behalf of the gospel as the n ancient\\ni tradition,\\ncompilation of Peter s interpreter after his death\\nin Borne, is the guarantee of their antiquity. Indeed,\\nfrom Papias down what seems to strike the historical\\ncritic is that the claim is too modest, and the order\\nof this gospel is so much better than any of the other\\nthree that it almost requires us to assume that the\\nmaterial must have undergone readjustment, perhaps\\nexpansion, since the tradition was formulated. 1 But\\nof this we have no evidence; for, unlike Matthew,\\nthis gospel seems to have had no uncanonical rivals\\nto its title, and, when employed by Matthew, must\\nhave had substantially the same content as now. The\\noriginal ending is lost, 16 9-20 being wanting in the\\nbest manuscripts, and now known to have been taken\\nfrom the work of Aristo, and the shorter ending\\nof other texts merely patching the gap indicated by\\n14:27-31, 66-72, and 16:7. But if additions have\\nbeen made to the original they were of the slightest. 2\\nIf we ask why a gospel which of all the four sup-\\nplies the best outline of Jesus public career, preserv-\\ning even a good degree of historical perspective,\\nshould have borne the reputation of being deficient in\\norder, the answer must be that the author of this\\nearly criticism was not thinking of the general out-\\nline, which was a common possession 3 already appar-\\nently so stereotyped as to have fastened the great\\n1 Reuss and others regard the tradition of the Presbyter as\\nreferring to a simple narrative underlying our Mk.\\n2 Mk. 9 38-40 and 12 41-44 known to Lk. seem unknown\\nto Matt. 1 2 f is the only instance of the gospel in which the\\nevangelist quotes Scripture on his own account. Here 26 is\\nnot from Isaiah whom Mk. professes to quote but has been\\nadded from Matt. 11 10 Lk. 7 27. Mk. 9 49, 506 10 12,\\n386, 396 are the only other passages we find reason to suspect.\\n8 Cf. Acts 10 36-42 13 23-31.\\nWhy defi-\\ncient in\\norder", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0225.jp2"}, "226": {"fulltext": "traits.\\n206 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nevents of the gospel history for all our Synoptists\\nwithin the too narrow limits of a single Jewish\\nchurch year, 1 but of the sequences in detail, wherein\\nthe criticism is justified. 2\\nGraphic For the first glance at our gospel should suffice to\\nshow that its author did not rely upon his ability to\\nrelate personal experiences of Peter with Jesus,\\nhitherto unknown, or even to draw such a distinctive\\nportrait as that of John. He does preserve traits of\\nthe eye-witness, but they appear in the form of a mul-\\ntitude of minute embellishments of a story already\\nfixed. Sometimes these touches are mistaken infer-\\nences, 3 but in a host of cases are fresh, lifelike,\\ninimitably historical. 4 Nowhere in the Gospels do\\nwe stand so near to the eye-witness of Jesus healings\\nas in the two stylistically connected incidents, pecul-\\niar to this gospel, Mk. 7 31-37 and 8 22-26. The\\nsign language of Jesus to the deaf and dumb man\\ninterprets his thought as if he stood before us. 5 The\\nblind man s description of his returning sight is\\ninimitable. Yet just these are the incidents, just\\nsuch are the graphic embellishments (cf 5 3-10 and\\n9:20-27 with parallels), which Matthew and Luke\\nbarely mention, or wholly omit.\\nAn explanation of these and similar phenomena 6 may\\n1 So the fathers generally, e.g. Clem. Horn. 17:19, Jesus\\nabode a whole year.\\n2 See p. 189.\\n3 E.g. in 5 12, 30 cf. Matt. 8. 31 9 22 in 1 24 5 7)\\n1 346; 7:11; cf. Matt. 8 29 also in 6 56 8 20, etc.\\n4 E.g. in 1 29-34 cf. Matt. 8 14-16, note also 2:4; 3:5,\\n20 f. 4 38 5 8-10 6 31, 39 11 3.\\n5 Looking up to heaven he sighed betokens appeal to\\ndivine help hi prayer, cf. 9:29; 11:22-24. (Against Gould,\\nIntern. Comm., 1896.)\\n6 E.g. the characteristic form of double statement of Mk.\\nwhich led Tubingen critics to the notion that the gospel had", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0226.jp2"}, "227": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WBITEBS 207\\nbe found in the suggestion that Matthew and Luke are why\\nguided in their omissions and changes, many of which j?F 1 ted V\\nwill otherwise appear arbitrary or frivolous, by a Lk.\\nknowledge that their authority, Mark, himself depends\\non authorities, some of which were in their own pos-\\nsession, so that they do not always choose to follow\\nMark s embellishments. 1 The evidence of the gospel\\nitself is, in fact, conclusive that its origin is not from\\nmere memory or oral tradition, but from careful put-\\nting together of written sources which the evangelist\\nmodestly undertook rather to adjust together and\\nembellish with graphic touches from the Apostle s\\ndiscourse, than to supersede by a narrative altogether\\nhis own. The proof of this statement rests mainly on\\nthree considerations\\n(i) Besides the general tendency to duplication in Mk. a com-\\nexpression, a very considerable element of the gospel ^f^ten f\\nrepeats, section by section, the same story which, in sources.\\na more or less widely different version, had already\\nbeen related. 2 This phenomenon at the same time\\nborrowed by turns from Matt, and Lk. So 1 32 (cf. Matt.\\n8 16 Lk. 4 40), 42 (cf. Matt. 8 3 Lk. 5 13), etc.\\n1 The omission of descriptive healings like Mk. 7 31-37\\n8 22-26 9 20-27 by Matt, and Lk. is less surprising than\\nMr. Badham imagines. The later evangelists have no liking for\\nprocesses. They prefer to depict the omnipotence which cast\\nout the spirits with a word (Mt. 8 16).\\n2 Not mere individual incidents are told in duplicate, but a\\nconnected series. Thus Mk. 7 32-36, 37 8 1-9, 10, 11 f.,\\n13-22a, especially if compared with the parallel Matt. 15 29-\\n16 12 will be seen to be a briefer, simpler account of the series\\nof incidents already related in Mk. 6 32-44, 45-52, 53-56\\n7 1-23 (3 20-35) 7 24a, though the identity is not apparent\\nuntil we compare with the latter its parallels in Matt. 9 27-\\n34 Matt. 12 22-50 Lk. 11 14-51 12 1 ff. Instead of the\\npresent impossible tangle of itineraries we obtain thus the fol-\\nlowing Scene of the Feeding Gennesareth Capernaum\\nBethsaida Cesarea Philippi. [Here the account Mk. 8:27-", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0227.jp2"}, "228": {"fulltext": "208 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nexplains the singular omission by Luke of Mk.\\n6:45-8:26; for it is just this section which contains\\nthe principal duplications, and, as we shall see, Luke\\nsometimes goes even too far in his endeavour to avoid\\nthis fault.\\n(ii) It is now admitted among critics that the occa-\\nsional coincident variations of Matthew and Luke\\nfrom Mark cannot be accidental; and, as knowledge\\nof our Matthew by Luke is incredible, the devia-\\ntion must be by Mark from a source underlying all\\nthree. 1 Again, we have already cited many passages\\nin which Mark has unmistakably developed and added\\nto the simpler story presented in Matthew. 2 At least\\none older narrative source was therefore certainly\\nused.\\n(iii) Too many of the seeming dislocations, 3 mis-\\nunderstandings,^ and misadjustments of material 5\\n9 1, 11-13 (except 8 34 f., 38a) should be followed by 7 24-\\n31.] Then Tyre Sidon Acco border of Galilee and\\nSamaria (Lk. 9 51 ff. 17 11) Scythopolis Capernaum.\\nMk. 9 2-10 again interrupts the connection of vss. 11-13,\\nthe sequel to 8 27-9 1. There is further duplication in\\n8 31-33 9 30 f. 10 32-34), 9 33-37 10 35-45), and\\n10:13-16 (=9:36).\\n1 As one instance out of many, note how the omission of the\\nwords Who smote thee in Mk. 14 65 has made unintelli-\\ngible the Prophesy. But cf. Matt. 26:67=Lk. 22:63.\\nNote also Matt. 8:2, 3 Lk. 5 12, 13 embellished in Mk.\\n1 40-42.\\n2 Observe as typical instances of the parenthetic style thus\\nproduced the series of belated imperfects in 5 8-10 (cf. Matt.\\n8 29), and the seven consecutive participles in 5 25-27.\\n3 As 3 196-35 (on account of vss. 34 f.), 1 40-45 3 1-6, etc.\\n4 As 6 8 f., where the teaching of the missionary s right to\\ndepend on his hearers for all needful things is changed into a\\nprescription of simplicity of dress.\\n6 As the most flagrant instance take 11 22-24, which should\\nfollow 9 14-29 as in Matt. 17 20 cf. Lk. 17 6. The syn", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0228.jp2"}, "229": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 209\\ncan be accounted for by comparison of Matthew\\nor Luke to be in all cases mere illusions of the\\ncritic.\\nThere is one source which Mark, if he knew it, Why so\\npassed over with a bare extract or two, viz., the Logia. of^e*\u00e2\u0084\u00a2 06\\nBut he has left indications in the gospel itself that Logia.\\nhis omission of discourse material was not from igno-\\nrance, but intentional. For 4:33 implies a know-\\nledge of more of the parables, and 1 13 that the nature\\nof the temptations was known. Moreover, in the\\nexceptional cases where the course of his narrative\\nrequires the insertion of more or less discourse mate-\\nrial we have often scarcely more than a reference,\\nalmost always secondary in character and often mis-\\nplaced. 1 Had Mark approached his task regardless\\nof current usage, which certainly distinguished\\nbetween an Apostle s report of the Lord s teachings\\nand mere accounts of his life, unauthoritative, how-\\never useful in supplementary explanation, we might\\nfeel surprise at this seeming neglect. But we can\\nreadily understand it if he regarded his own work as\\nbolic judgment on Israel 11 12-14, for whom the fig-tree is\\nmerely a prophetic symbol chance has brought in the way, is\\ntaken as a judgment on the tree itself, and made to takt: effect\\nby the appending of 11 20-25. Vss. 20 f. are editorial solder,\\n22-24 from the connection of Matt. 17 20 (Lk. 17 6), vs. 25\\nfrom that of Matt. 6 14. Matt. here follows suit. Lk. omits.\\nLess conspicuous misplacements are 8 34 f 14 55-64, where\\nMatt. follows, but Lk. corrects. C. 13 affords many instances.\\n1 The substitution in 1 7 f. of the Baptist s answer (cf. Lk.\\n3 16 Jn. 1 26) for his preaching, Matt. 3 7-10 Lk. 3 7-9,\\ntransforms the whole conception in the later sense, and in turn\\naffects Matt, (ziirev for direKplvaTo, Lk. aweKpidr), Jn.) 1 15 is\\naffected by the preaching Lk. 4 21 (cf. 6 1-6) 1 24 by Matt.\\n8 29, from which Mk. deduces a general theory 1 34 3 11 f.\\nDisplaced Logia fragments in 2 28 4 22, 246 8 34 f 38a\\n9:37,41-50; 10:11,15, 386, 396; 11:22-25; 12:386, 39;\\n13 9-13, 21-23, 33-37 14 25", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0229.jp2"}, "230": {"fulltext": "210 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nbelonging to this supplementary class. Apparently\\nhe aimed to reedit for the benefit of readers familiar\\nwith the teachings, several existing, unauthorita-\\ntive accounts of the doings, with such additions\\nand enrichments as his special relations with Peter\\nenabled him to give. 1\\nThetradi- Properly interpreted, the tradition as to Mark s\\ndescribes gospel is corroborated in every point, including date,\\nour Mk. location, and qualifications of the writer. Historical\\ninterest is pronounced, almost to the exclusion of\\ndoctrinal, though the writer shows his opinion on the\\nquestion of the controversy at Antioch, 7 19 His\\nfidelity to the sacred teaching of Jesus in c. 13 is\\npractically as pure as Matthew s. While the tes-\\ntimony of Irenseus makes it certain that some of the\\npredicted events, if not actually transpiring, were\\nalready matter of history, the bare omission in vs.\\n24 of the eiOim of Matt. 24 29 is the only change\\nopen to the suspicion of accommodation to the known\\n1 We can only wonder that he should have shown these\\nanonymous narratives the respect he did, e.g. the retention of\\nboth versions of the Feeding of the Multitude shows remarkable\\nregard for even minute differences of statement in the sources.\\nMk. s embellishment and explanations vary in value. Thus\\n1 6, 206, 33, 35 ff., 43, 45 2 1, 4 3 3-5a, 7-10, 196-21, 32\\n4 10-25, 38 5 3-6, 8-10, 15 f., 18-21, 22-43 passim; 6 31,\\n37, 40 7 17-23, 32-36 8 14-19, 22-26 9 14-16, 20-29\\n(mostly); 10:24, 32; 11:4, 11, 16; 12:13, 32-34 (41-44);\\n13 3 14 13-15, 51 f 15 7, 16-19, 216 might well rest on\\ntestimony accessible to him alone. Often they are mere infer-\\nences from the text, as 1 136, 346 2 7, 156, 166, 18a, 20\\n3 11 f., 14-15a, 30 4 33 f 6 16, 12 f., 56 7 26a, 30\\n8 20 10 49 f 11 2a/3, 20 f. 14 30, 72a (dls) 15 44 f.\\nor explanatory additions, as 7 2-4 14 76 sometimes false\\ninferences, as in 5 13, 30a in at least one instance a popular\\nreport of a highly fanciful kind, 6 16-29 cf. 15 38. Of a\\ndisposition to absolve his readers from the duty of critical\\nscrutiny there is no trace whatever.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0230.jp2"}, "231": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 211\\nevent. 1 It indicates the lapse of a year or two at least\\nafter 70 a.d. The fact that c. 13 is the only instance\\nin which our evangelist constructs an elaborate\\ndiscourse, is also indicative of the beginnings of\\nthe murmur, Where is the promise of his coming?\\n2 Pet. 3 4. What we must guard against is the hasty\\nassumption that Mark s work represents in the main v\\noriginal composition rather than compilation and\\nredaction.\\nThe traditional connection of the double work, Lk.-Acts.\\nLuke-Acts, with the beloved physician 2 dates tributedto\\nback at least to the Muratorian Canon, and may even Luke,\\naccount for Marcion s preference for this gospel. Of\\nLuke we know simply that he was a physician, a Gen-\\ntile, 3 and a companion of Paul at Eome. The diary\\nof a companion of Paul is used in Acts 16 10-18\\n20:5-17; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16, who can scarcely\\nhave been other than Luke, 4 and this is quite sufficient\\n1 The theory of Colani, Weiffenbach, and others of the in-\\ncorporation in c. 13 of a small Jewish apocalypse is sufficiently\\nrefuted by E. Haupt (Eschatol. Aussagen Jesu, 1895). Eemove\\nthe material taken from Mt. 10 17-22 and Lk. 12 36-46, and\\nnotbing remains but the commonplaces of current Jewish ex-\\npectation of the last days, adapted to answer the question of\\nvs. 4 cf 2 Esdr. 9 1-8 16 18 6 24 f. 5 9 and the Enoch\\nfragment Bam. 4 3. That Jesus accepted these expectations\\nas in some sense justified is apparent from 1 Thess. 4: 15-17.\\nCf. e.g. Mk. 13 :27 with 3 29, Matt. 13 30 40-42, 47-50\\n1 Thess. 4:17, etc.\\n2 Col. 4 14 Philem. 24 2 Tim. 4 11.\\n8 Col. 4 11.\\nThere has been just enough of effort on the part of Schleier-\\nmacher, De Wette, Bleek, and Beyschlag in favour of Timothy,\\nof Schwanbeck and others in favour of Silas, of Horst and\\nothers in favour of Titus, as author of the Travel document,\\nor We-narrative, to show how difficult it is to find a com-\\npanion of Paul better fitted to the case than Luke, who is\\nfavoured by most critics as well as by tradition.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0231.jp2"}, "232": {"fulltext": "212\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nRelation of\\nthe Diary\\nto the\\nwhole.\\nto account for second-century tradition regarding the\\nauthorship of both parts of the work. But the first\\nperson of Lk. 1 1-4; Acts 1 1 is not necessarily the\\nDiarist. A compiler who takes such pains to main-\\ntain the intensely Hebraistic style of 1 5 ff in all its\\ncontrast with the Preface, might well shrink from\\nobliterating the most fascinating characteristic of the\\nDiary, even if not himself its author. Theophilus\\nand his other immediate readers would be in no danger\\nof drawing false inferences. Doubtless we should\\npresuppose the correctness of the identification made\\nby the Fathers but neither Scripture nor experience\\nof their other inferences guarantees it. If the gen-\\neral design of the work is not of a character attribut-\\nable to the author of the Diary, or the material\\nappears to have been adjusted to conceptions insup-\\nposable in a companion of Paul, nothing requires us\\nto regard Luke as the evangelist-historian. Careful\\nstudy of style, vocabulary, phraseology, adaptation\\nof material to purpose, proves the writer indeed an\\nauthor rather than mere compiler, but gives us no\\nname. 1 The Diary forms but a minor element of\\nthe substructure, of little influence and much over-\\nlaid. The overlying strata are those which give the\\nwork its present character, and these are not what we\\nshould expect from a Gentile and companion of Paul. 2\\n1 For statistics exhibiting the pronounced Lucan style and\\nvocabulary see Vincent, Word Studies, 1889 Thayer s Lexicon\\nof N. T. Greek, 1896, Appendix Simcox, Writers of the N. T.,\\n1892; and Hawkins Horce Synopticce, 1899. It is admitted\\nthat a general individuality pervades the whole work, con-\\nclusively showing the author to have made the material wholly\\nhis own, while preserving much that was characteristic of the\\nsource.\\n2 Even the prefatory sentence Acts 1 1 contains an unmis-\\ntakable Aramaism {rjp^aro, see Dalman, Worte Jesu, 1898,\\nI, p. 21), while the Hebraisms derived from 0. T. usage, not likely", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0232.jp2"}, "233": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 213\\nKemove the Diary and Mark, and the general char-\\nacteristics appear tenfold more salient, and these seem\\nto point rather to a believing Hellenistic Jew of the\\nsame type and period as the author of our Matthew,\\nthough a far more skilful and cultured writer.\\nIt is true that an intensely Jewish style and point Hebraistic\\nof view characterise that special source already noted elements\\nwhich we not only may, but must, distinguish from\\nthe work of the compiler (whom we may designate\\nE) for the material not found elsewhere hangs together\\nas an organic whole, pervaded by a uniform purpose\\nand a uniform conception and phraseology, 1 and, to\\nto be copied by a Gentile, are not confined to special sections\\nlike Lk. 1 5-3 38, but while mainly characterising the author,\\nextend even to the Pauline speeches and the Diary {e.g. iirl\\niravrbs irpo runrov ttjs 777s 17 26 and ko.1 eyivero 21:1, 5 27 44\\n28 8, 17. See Dalinan, op. tit., pp. 23, 26, 33). Note also the\\ndating by the Fast, 27 9.\\n1 There are references forward and back from Lk. to Acts,\\nand vice versa (e.g. Lk. 24 47-49 to Acts cc. 1 ff., 4 27 to Lk.\\n23 7-12), and various habits of expression, as in describing the\\neffect of divine manifestations, usually in the form, and great\\nfear came upon all that heard, and they glorified God (Lk.\\n1 65 2 9, 20 5 26 7 16 f. 8 25 9 34 13 17 24 37\\nActs 2 43 5 11-13 19 17, etc.). There is a typically Jew-\\nish interest in quoting prayers and psalms in full as in Chr.,\\nDan., Ezra, Neh., and the later literature (Lk. 1 46-55, 67-79\\n2 14, 29-32 Acts 1 24-26 4 24-30) the elaborate report of\\nspeeches, dialogues, and documents is a kindred feature (Lk.\\n4 16 ff. Acts 2 15-40 3 12-26 4 8-12 5 35-39 c. 7\\n10 34-43 11 1-18 13 16-41 15 7-21, 23-29 17 16-31\\n20:18-35; c. 22; 23:26-30; c. 24; c. 26; 27:21-26; 28:\\n17-28). Christ as the Prophet like unto Moses (Lk. 7 16, 39\\n24:19-27; Acts 3:22; 7:20-37, etc.) and as the suffering\\nServant of Isaiah (Lk. 24:26, 45 f. Acts 3:13, 18 4\\n27 f. 8 29-35, etc.) are illustrations of pervasive ideas. For\\nphraseology note e.g. the appellative the Lord (Lk. 7 13,\\n19; 10:39-41; 12:42; 13:15; 17:6; 18:6; 19: 8, etc.; Acts\\n5 9, 14 9 11, 15, 29, 31, etc.), and cf. Lk. 1 70 with Acts", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0233.jp2"}, "234": {"fulltext": "214\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nCharac-\\nterise the\\ncompiler s\\nwork.\\nend all doubt that E lias really incorporated some of\\nthe sources which he admittedly had at command (Lk.\\n1 1), there are references to portions which he has\\nomitted, 1 others to incidents whose form he has\\naltered 2 or has developed in a different sense. 3 Now,\\nif the working over showed any considerable Gentile\\ninterest, the explanation of conservatives like B.\\nWeiss would be plausible, viz The Jewish features\\nbelong to the sources employed by the Diarist, imper-\\nfectly concealed or purposely left unchanged. But\\nsuch is not the case. The overlying strata, as much\\nas any, show the characteristic Jewish point of view.\\nTraces of working over attributable to a Gentile hand,\\nif any exist, 4 are extremely slight, superficial, and\\n3 21, Lk. 15 17 with Acts 12 11, Lk. 7 30 with Acts 20 27,\\nActs 12 17 with 21 40, etc. Other important characteristics\\nwill appear later.\\n1 Lk. 24 34 Acts 1 15, 21 9 31 f. 19 16, etc. Among\\nR s omissions should be included Jn. 7 53-8 11 which Blass\\n(Philology of the Gospels, p. 157 f.) is quite right in saying\\nmust have stood originally after Lk. 21 36. It is of the\\nvery bone and flesh of Lk. s unique material (cf. e.g. Lk.\\n7 36-50) but never had a rightful place in our canonical gospel.\\nVss. 37, 38, are framed expressly to take the place of this\\nstory which R declined (for obvious reasons) to incorporate.\\nThe editors of the late Western texts, which insert it after\\nLk. 21 38, took it doubtless from the Gospel according to the\\nHebrews, where Eusebius found it, inserting it as nearly as they\\ncould in its original connection. A. Pott, in his Abendl.\\nText der Apg., 1900, received since these pages were in type,\\nhas proved that some Western readings are in fact, as here\\nsuggested, survivals from the precanonical sources.\\n2 Acts 10 41-43 cf. Lk. 24 36-49 with Jn. 21 5, 9, 12 and\\nthe Kerygma Petri in Ign. ad Smyrn. 3.\\n3 Acts 11 15-17 cf. 2 1-4, 15 ff. and 5-11.\\nSo the chronological errors Lk. 2 2 (an insertion of R,\\nagainst the sense of the original, cf. 1 5) and Acts 5 36 f\\nand the conception of the Sadducees as a religious sect, Acts\\n4 1 (Kal ol ZaddovKaioi), 2b R), 23 6-8. In Lk. 2 22 read", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0234.jp2"}, "235": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 215\\ndoubtful, while the compilation, as a whole, is\\nadjusted to a conception which centres in Jerusalem\\nand views Christianity essentially as the true and\\nScriptural Judaism. The Diary is itself overlaid,\\nand the expansions are not only in the interest of the\\ngeneral scheme, but are of the same purport as the\\nalterations made in material drawn from Mark and\\nthe Logia. 1 Moreover, even these occasionally show\\nas characteristically Jewish a point of view as the\\nmost Jewish of the sources. 2 The Diary we know\\nto be the earliest narrative element of the New Tes- Elements\\ntament; but in Acts cc. 1-12, where the main stock the Diary.\\nof the Lucan history appears unburdened of foreign\\naiirris. Dalman (op. tit., p. 32) gives linguistic evidence to show\\nthat the author was ignorant of Hebrew and Aramaic but\\nnone of these count against authorship by a Hellenistic Jew.\\n1 Thus Lk. 4 16-30 substitutes for the opening scene of\\nJesus ministry in Mk. one which though out of place (Lk. 4 23)\\nis specially adapted to foreshadow the entire work in both its\\nparts; Lk. 5:3-10, also misplaced (cf. 4:38), transforms the\\ncall of the Four Mk. 1 16-20 into a call of Peter, corresponding\\nwith Peter s part in Acts cc. 1-15 (cf. Lk. 9 28, 32 12 41 ff.\\n22 8, 31 f., 61 f. 24 12, 34). Similar treatment has befallen\\nthe Logia. In the Sermon on the Mount Lk. 6 20-49, the sec-\\ntion contrasting the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees\\nwith the new Law is omitted, while an anecdote is appended\\nin 7 1-10 to illustrate Gentile faith in contrast with Israel s\\nobduracy.\\n2 Vision is not a matter of exceptional temperament, as in the\\ncase of Paul (2 Cor. 12 1 ff.), but is the stereotyped mode of\\ndivine guidance. In Acts 9 12 we have even vision of vision.\\nLike the frequent angels it is a literary device, entirely\\njustifiable among Orientals. Peter s scruples against eating\\nwith the Gentiles are thus overcome Acts 11 3-10; whereas\\nwe know from Gal. 2 11 ff. that Paul s rebuke was the real\\nagency. It pervades Lk. cc. 1-3, reappears in 9 28-36 22 43,\\nand c. 24, pervades Acts cc. 9, 10, 12 but also interprets to\\nthe reader the significance of events in the Diary and adjoining\\nsections. Besides 16 9 note 18 9 f. 23 11, and 27 23.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0235.jp2"}, "236": {"fulltext": "216 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nmaterial, not only is it admitted by all schools of\\ncritics to be certainly composite in structure, but its\\nvery elements have varied from one another and from\\nthe facts to a degree unaccountable at an early date. 1\\nThe principal author, if a Gentile, had so absorbed\\nthe spirit of his Jewish sources that it completely\\ndominates, not the style alone, but the purpose and\\njJwish! ly content; if a companion of Paul, personal interest in\\nthe missionary hero had disappeared behind reverence\\nfor the Apostolic function. Paul s career is dropped\\nfrom the moment the Church has been planted at\\nKome, as Peter s is after the recognition of Gentile\\n1 In c. 12 Peter s providential release from prison probably\\nthrough the sudden death of Herod in the summer of a.d. 44\\n(cf. Jos. Ant. 19 8, 2) is but slightly idealised, the angel of\\ndeath of vs. 23 being really the same as the angel of deliverance\\nof vss. 7 ff., and the tradition still retaining highly realistic\\nfeatures (vss. 10-15). Still it manifestly cannot be dated less\\nthan a score of years or so after the event. The replica in 5\\n19-25 has not only lost all historical motive and connection, but\\nstands in a connection overflowing with anachronisms (note the\\negregious anachronism of 5 36 f cf. Jos. Ant. 20 5, If.; also\\nthe officialism of the later Church in 6 1 ff. widows the\\nevangelists [21 8] conceived as deacons, etc.) and legendary\\naccretions (5 1-11, 15, 16), even the phraseology reflecting the\\nperiod of Eoman persecution (cf. 5 41 rejoicing to suffer\\nfor the Name with 1 Pet. 4 4-16, Herm. Vis. 3 1, 9 3 2, 1\\n3 5, 2 Sim. 9 28, 2, 3, 5, 6). The redactor who imposes a\\nstrange sense upon the gift of tongues in 2 4-11, against the\\nsense of the speech (2 15-18), the source (11 15), and the\\nfacts (1 Cor. c. 14), can scarcely have known the phenomenon\\nas a living reality. Tongues had already ceased. He\\nviews the Pentecostal gift from the standpoint of the Hel-\\nlenistic litterateur, as a parallel to the giving of the Law,\\nwhich tradition reported to have taken place at Pentecost, the\\nvoice from Sinai dividing into 70 languages (for the 70 nations\\nof the world) as sparks fly from the anvil. See Hausrath,\\nHist, of N. T. Times, II, ii, p. 117, Philo. De Decal., and below\\np. 227, note", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0236.jp2"}, "237": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 217\\nequality at Jerusalem. He is not even reckoned an\\nApostle, save in the broader sense, along with and\\nafter Barnabas, 1 but a subordinate. 2 Peter receives\\nthe special Pauline revelation, and becomes the true\\nApostle to the Gentiles. 3 Yet the writer is anything\\nbut unfriendly to Paul. He simply seems never to\\nhave taken into his mind the things which to Paul\\nwere vital. 4 Against such facts we have need of more\\nthan the retention of the first person in the Diary\\nsections, and a tradition, probably based upon it, 5 to\\nmake Lucan authorship of the whole easy to accept. 6\\nOf more real importance than the author s name are Author s\\nhis qualifications for his task, which he himself q. ualifi ca-\\ndefines, not as personal acquaintance with Paul, still\\nless as supernatural inerrancy, but simply as acquaint-\\nance with many sources (ttoXKoX iirexeipyo-av), compre-\\nhensive researches (ttcLo-lv iraprjKoXovOrjKW i), and a\\npurpose to write the story from remote beginnings\\n(avw0ev), with greater accuracy (aKpiftws) and better\\nchronological order (Ka6t\u00c2\u00a3iji) than his predecessors.\\ni Acts 1 21 f 11 30, etc.\\n2 9 26-30 13 1-3 15 22 f.\\nActs 9 32-11 18 j 15:7, 14.\\nCf. Acts 9 22-30 with Gal. cc. 1, 2, and Acts c. 15 with\\nGal. c. 2. Also the author s apparent lack of acquaintance\\nwith the Pauline epistles, which cannot be accounted for by an\\nearly date.\\n5 The Western reading one of us for one of them\\nin Acts 11 28 can scarcely serve for more than to show what\\ninferences were drawn in the second century as to Antioch s\\nbeing the traditional home of Lk.\\n6 We only mention here the further difficulties of the redac-\\ntion of Acts, changing the character, not only of the glossolaly\\n(2:1-11), but of the community of goods (2:44; 4:32; cf.\\n5:4; 12 12), officers (6 1 ff.), and other institutions of the\\nprimitive Church, and in Acts 28 17-28 carrying the pragmatic\\ntheory of 13 46 to the point of ignoring the existence of a\\nGentile church in Eome.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0237.jp2"}, "238": {"fulltext": "218\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nof\\nLuke- Acts.\\nShown in its\\noutline.\\nBy observing the use made of Mark, the Logia, and\\nthe Diary, and their adaptation to the predominant\\nsource, we may gain an insight into his purpose and\\nsome idea of the earlier work on whose lines he built.\\nWe may understand the silence of Papias as to our\\nauthor s work, by realising how different was its pur-\\npose from that of the simple, early records of the\\nsayings and deeds of Jesus. His was a History of\\nChristianity in its Origin and Progress, designed to\\nshow that its rejection by Israel and consequent\\nplanting among the Gentiles were in accordance with\\nthe divine purpose as foretold in Scripture, and were\\ndivinely directed. His former treatise showed how\\nthe awaited Redemption had come to Israel and been\\nrejected by all save a remnant the poor, the lowly,\\nthe weak, publicans and sinners, Samaritans and\\nwomen; his second showed how in further fulfilment\\nof the Scriptures, and by the power of God exerted\\nthrough its risen Head, the Church had grown up in\\nJerusalem, extended to the Gentile world, and become\\nestablished from Antioch to Eome. Part I relates\\nMessiah s Humiliation in his unwelcomed coming to\\nIsrael; Part II, his Triumph in the creation of a new\\nPeople of God. There is no adequate reason to regard\\nit as incomplete. 1\\nThe opening chapters of Luke, including 4 16-30,\\nwhere Jesus cites the examples of Elijah and Elisha\\nfor turning to the Gentiles, form the prelude to the\\ndrama, 2 whose first climax is the crucifixion and\\nresurrection, when Jesus opens the Scriptures and\\nproves that thus it was written of him. The theme\\n1 Against the inference from irpwrov (Acts 1 1) of a missing\\nthird part. For irpuros instead of irpdrepos, see Matt. 21 28, 31.\\n2 Cf. Lk. 2:32-35; Acts 7:51-8:4, 26 ff 9:15, 20-25,\\n29 ff. cc. 10, 11; 13:1-4, 7 ff., 40 f., 45-48, etc., and see\\nJ. Weiss, Absicht u. Char. d. Apg. 1898.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0238.jp2"}, "239": {"fulltext": "material.\\nTHE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 219\\nthus led up to (Lk. 24 44-49) is restated and devel-\\noped in Acts (1:1-5, 8). Peter establishes the Gos-\\npel in the centre of the Jewish world and vindicates\\nits universalisrn. Paul is driven by the obduracy of\\nIsrael to fulfil the counsel of God by planting the\\nChurch in Greece and Eome, as the Holy Ghost had\\nspoken by Isaiah the prophet, Acts 28: 23-28.\\nBut this theme was not the invention of B. A Peculiar\\nkindred purpose characterises the materials which\\nmust have come down to him from the very earliest\\ntimes. The material peculiar to the gospel runs as\\nfollows after the characteristic cc. 1-4: the Call\\nof Peter to be a Fisher of Men; 1 the Widow of\\nNain; 2 the Baptist s Acceptance with the Lowly; 3\\nthe Sinful Woman forgiven 4 Ministering Women 5\\nSamaritan Village 6 Parable of the Good Samaritan 7\\nMary and Martha; 8 Introduction to Discourse on the\\nTrue Biches 9 Murdered Galileans 10 Crooked Woman\\nhealed; 11 Parables of the Chief Seats, the Feast of\\nthe Poor, Counting the Cost, the Lost Piece of Money,\\nand Prodigal Son, Bight Use of Unrighteous Mam-\\nmon, and the Bich Man and Lazarus 12 the Error of\\n1 5 1-11 (vs. Mk. 1 16-20). Parts of vss. 1, 36, 4a, 10a are\\nenrichments from the parallels in Mk. See note 4.\\n2 7 11-17.\\n3 7 29 f. Note the similar interest in Matt. c. 11.\\n7 36-50. Verses 37, last clause, 38, last clause, and 4b, and\\nthe name Simon are embellishments drawn from Mk. 14:\\n3-9, which K wrongly omits as another version of the same.\\n5 8 1-3 cf 24 22 Acts 1 14 f.\\n6 9 51-56. 10 25-37.\\n8 10 38-42. Is this chivalrous treatment of women in opposi-\\ntion to teaching illustrated in the fragment from the Two Ways,\\nwhere John cites a command to exclude women, based on\\nalleged frivolity of Mary and Martha? See Hilg. N. T., extra\\ncan. rec. 4, 118.\\n9 12 13-21. w 13 1-5. u 13 10-17. 12 Cc. 14-16.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0239.jp2"}, "240": {"fulltext": "220 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nthose who think they have Merit the Samaritan\\nLeper; 2 the Widow (God s elect avenged; 3 the\\nPharisee and Publican; 4 Zacchseus the Publican. 5\\nCharacter of We should expect Luke to be able to draw, as he does,\\nsource? 0131 w s P e \u00c2\u00b0i a l copiousness from his unique source in the\\nstory of the Passion and Kesurrection, for it aimed\\nto show that so it behooved the Christ to suffer and to\\nenter into his glory 6 and wound up with the charge\\nto the disciples to go forth to all the nations with this\\nmessage. 7 But besides the usual contrast between the\\nhigh and the lowly, as in Herod s Mockery, 23: 7-12,\\nvs. the Penitent Thief, 39-43, the items added here\\noften supplement Matthew and Mark with historical\\ndata, 8 especially with reference to Peter. 9 There are\\nothers which, not having been deemed worthy a place\\nin the original Luke, have only crept in through the\\ninferior Western text, attaching themselves at the\\npoint indicated by their position in the uncanonical\\ngospels from which they were taken. 10\\ni 17 7-10. 2 17 11-19. 3 18 1-8. 18 9-14.\\n5 19 1-10. The special peculiarities of style characteristic\\nof Lk. s unique material are far too numerous for mention.\\nSome have been already noted (p. 213, note 1 others will\\nstrike every attentive reader in phraseology which certainly is\\nnot K s (cf. Lk. 13 16 with 19 9 and 3 8) and other minor\\nmarks, but it is chiefly the all-pervasive purpose in the selected\\nmaterial which proves a single directing mind. One need\\nhardly cite the continuation in Acts of the peculiar interest in\\nSamaritans (Acts 1 8 8 5-25), John the Baptist (Acts 1 22\\n10 37 13 24 f. 18 24-19 7), women (1 14 9 36-43 12\\n12-15; 17:4), and the poor (2:45; 3 1 ff 4 32 ff 9:36;\\n10:2, 4, etc.).\\n6 24:26f., 46.\\n7 24 44-49. Constant appeal to Deutero-Isaiah is a dis-\\ntinctive feature of Lk.-Acts.\\n8 22 27-31. 9 22 31 f., 35-38, 49-51, 61 24 12.\\n10 The so-called Western text is a form of the Lucan\\nwritings which, along with much mere scribal corruption, in-", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0240.jp2"}, "241": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 221\\nOf course, we must not assume that this funda- Relation to\\nmental source of Luke-Acts is present only where the ^ucan\\nmaterial does not happen to coincide with Matthew material,\\nand Mark. On the contrary, we have already noted\\na curious diversity in the discourse material common\\nto Matthew and Luke, one-third of which only has\\nverbal identity. The two-thirds which has but slight\\nverbal resemblance may readily be credited to the\\nLogia, both from the nature of its content (the Sermon\\non the Mount and many parables and teachings) and\\nthe checkered history of this early collection. 1 But\\ntroduces occasional enrichments like the Pericope Adulterce,\\nJn. 7 53-8: 11 (see above, p. 214), which appear to be actual\\nsurvivals of the pre-canonical form of the sources. In this in-\\nstance the narrative survived in the Gospel according to the\\nHebrews (Eus. Hist. 3 39, 16). Between this gospel and the\\nKerygma Petri, the principal fragment of which parallels Acts\\n17 24-31 and 7 41 ff., some unexplained relation existed.\\nThe Kerygma (ap. Ign. ad Smyrn. 3) had also a version of Lk.\\n24 36-49 containing the features referred to in Acts 10 40-42\\n(cf. Jn. 21:13, 15 and Lk. 24:43 Vulg.). The Western\\naddition to Matt. 20 20-28 occupies the true historical position\\nof the parable. The canonical form, Lk. 14 7-11, is forced into\\nan incredible setting (cf 14 1, 7a) by the displacement of the\\noriginal setting (cf. Lk. 22 24-27 with Mk. 10 35-45). Here\\nthe uncanonical form is certainly more original, though\\nnever a part of Lk. Similarly Lk. 24 12, though part of the\\nsource (cf. 24:24), owes its preservation to other hands than\\nthe author of the gospel. The mass of these survivals gravi-\\ntates toward Lk.-Acts as meteorites beset the earth s orbit\\nwhere the parent body was absorbed. See also the additions\\nto Lk. 6 4, and especially to cc. 22-24, and the work of Pott\\nabove referred to (p. 214, note v\\n1 The very different phraseology would indicate that it came\\nto Lk. in a different version from Mattes. The bold omissions\\n(e.g. Matt. 5:17-42; 6:1-6, 16-18) suggest an early date\\nwhen material was abundant and selection free. The Logia\\nelements will have already formed part of a complete narrative\\nwhen R incorporated Mk., but their adaptation to the Lucan", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0241.jp2"}, "242": {"fulltext": "Matt.\\n222 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nthe other one-third evinces a much more direct lit-\\nerary dependence, and by its content and character is\\nunlikely to have ever formed part of the Logia. It\\nis confined to the portions relating to John the Bap-\\ntist and the period before the public ministry of Jesus,\\nand some of the discourses in the earlier part 1 of the\\nso-called great interpolation. 2 But here we invari-\\nably find dependence, as regards the source, 3 on the side of\\nMatthew, while the nature of the content corresponds\\nto the unique material of Luke, already described. 4\\nWe can only conclude that the presence of this element\\nKelation to in Matthew is to be accounted for as a very sparing\\nenrichment of the Logia by kindred material drawn\\nfrom this self-same Lucan source. 5 In two instances\\nscheme is unmistakable. Note e.g. the above-mentioned omis-\\nsion from the Sermon on the Mount and the appended narrative,\\nLk. 7 1-10, illustrating Gentile faith (cf. Lk. 4 16-30). Matt. m\\ntakes it over in 8 5-13, but loses the special significance.\\n19:51-13:35.\\n2 Lk. 9:51-18:14.\\n3 Certain minor adjustments, such as the inversion of order\\nin Lk. 4 6-12, are readily distinguishable as alterations by the\\nLucan E.\\n4 See, e.g., above, p. 221, note l last clause.\\n5 This element includes the following Lk. 3 7-9 Matt. 3\\n7-10, the Baptist s Preaching 3:17 Matt. 3 12, Extract\\nfrom the Baptist s Answer (cf. Jn. 1 19-28) 4 3-12 Matt.\\n4: 3-10, the Temptation 7 18 f., 22-28, 31-35, the Baptist s\\nMessage and Jesus Discourse; 10:12-15, 21-24 Matt. 11:\\n20-24, 25-27 13 16 f., Denunciation of Galilean Cities and\\nDoxology 9 57-60 Matt. 8 18-22, Volunteer Disciples 10\\n2 Matt. 9 37 f Labourers for the Harvest 11 9-13 Matt.\\n7 7-11, Discourse on Prayer 11 17-26, 29-32, 34 f. Matt.\\n12 25-30, 38-45, 6 22 f., Denunciation of the Generation de-\\nmanding a Sign (12 6-9 Matt. 10 29-33 Encouragement\\nto the Disciples 12 13-34, 39-46 Matt. 6 25-34, 21 24\\n43-51, Great Discourse on Earthly and Heavenly Wealth 13\\n20 f. Matt. 13 33, Parable of the Leaven (11 49-51) 13\\n34 f Matt. 23 (34-36) 37-39, Denunciation of Jerusalem.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0242.jp2"}, "243": {"fulltext": "in Luke.\\nTHE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 223\\nonly does narrative material appear to have been taken\\nover, except through the medium of Mark, viz. Matt.\\n8 5-10 Lk. 7 1-9, x and Matt. 8 18-22, more com-\\nplete in Lk. 9:57-62 (cf. Lk. 14:26-35). But the\\nremarkable tendency of Matthew 1 to reproduce Mark And to Mk.\\nin a simplified form, with variations coincident with\\nLuke, finds explanation in the influence of an earlier\\nsource which all our evangelists employ, but only Luke\\nhas utilised in its most fully developed form. 2\\nA higher regard for Mark appears in our author s Use of Mk.\\nutilisation of this entire gospel, in its own order, as\\nthe groundwork for his delineation of the year 3 of\\npublic ministry. His other material, after the open-\\ning scene of 4:1-30, is massed in two interpola-\\ntions, a smaller in 6:20-8:3, and a greater in\\n9 50-18 14. Tor the rest, his departures from Mark\\nconsist only of occasional additions 4 and substitu-\\n1 In one or other there has been considerable alteration.\\nStill another version in Jn. 4 46-54.\\n2 Lk. himself, though far more willing to borrow from this\\nUrevangelium than Mk. or Matt. shows less respect to it than\\nto Mk., altering freely (cf. Lk. 24 36-49 with Acts 10 40-43)\\nand omitting (Lk. 24 34). Hence the difficulty of establishing\\npriority in triplicate material. But cf. the additions of Mk. to\\nLk. and Matt, in passages above cited (p. 206), and note that,\\nwhile Lk. is not free from expansions, both Matt. 3 1-4 11\\nand Mk. 1:1-13 must be abridgments of Lk. 3 1-4 13 (see\\nnote on p. 379 and cf. Matt. 3:6 Mk. 1:5 confessing their\\nsins, with Lk. 3:10-14). So the official trial of Jesus, Lk.\\n22: 66-71, is absurdly confounded in Mk. 14 53-65 and Matt.\\n26 57-68, with his detention and ill-treatment in the house of\\nCaiaphas. The features of the Transfiguration Story, Mk. 9\\n2-8, which in Lk. has independent traits and is of extraneous\\norigin in Mk. (cf. p. 207), suggest priority in the Lucan source.\\n3 A single year of public ministry seems to have been the\\nconception of Mk. adopted both in Matt, and Lk. in spite of\\nindications in the material of all three of a duration of at least\\ntwo years. Jn. corrects the error.\\n4 Additions are made in Lk. 5 39 9 :^31-33a 19 1-28, 41-", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0243.jp2"}, "244": {"fulltext": "of Luke.\\n224 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ntions, 1 accompanied by a constant minute change of\\nphraseology, wherein the coincident variation of\\nMatthew often shows Luke more faithful than Mark\\nto the proto-gospel. The omissions can be accounted\\nfor, without exception, as intentional, usually to avoid\\nduplication (real or fancied) of matters elsewhere\\ngiven in a version derived from other sources. 2\\nComposition We find, then, that the main stock of Luke is a\\nkind of proto-gospel j for in some much earlier form\\npart of its discourse material was added by Matthew\\nto his version of the Logia, and part of its narrative\\nmaterial incorporated by Mark; but the meagre use\\nmade of it is hardly compatible with apostolic stand-\\ning or authority. Moreover, when used as the\\ngroundwork of Luke it was at an advanced stage of\\ndevelopment, some parts being far later than others\\nin origin, 8 and the narrative was already supplied\\n44 [21 1-4] 21 37 f. 22 15-18, 28-32 (34 35-38 (43 f.?),\\n51, 61a 23 2, 4-19, 226-25, 27-31, 39-43.\\ni For Mk. 9 11-13 we have Lk. 1 17 f or 6 17-29, Lk.\\n3 19 f for 6 1-6, Lk. 4 16-30 for 1 16-20 3 9, Lk. 5\\n1-11 for 13 14 ff., Lk. 21 20-28 for 10 35-45, Lk. 22 24-\\n27 for 15 16-20a, Lk. 23 11, 36 f.\\n2 Thus Mk. 3: 20-30 Lk. 11 14 ff. Mk. 4 26-29 (sup-\\nposedly) Lk. 13 18 f. Mk. 6 45-8 26 (supposedly) Lk.\\n9 106-18a 11 14, 16, 29, 37 ff. 12 1 Mk. 11 12-14 (sup-\\nposedly) Lk. 13 6-9 Mk. 12 28-34 Lk. 10 25-28 Mk.\\n14 3-9 (supposedly) Lk. 7 36-50 Mk. 3 20 f 6:5; 7\\n24-30 8 22-26, 32 f. (cf. Jn. 6 70); 9 20-26 15 34 f. were\\nprobably felt to be objectionable, and 7 1-23 9 43-49 10\\n1-9 unsuited to the work.\\n3 Thus Lk. 4 16-30 (in part) 13 1-17 18 1-14 19 1-10\\nand the like must in substance be very early. Per contra,\\ncc. 1, 2, besides being unknown to Matt. 1 must be subsequent\\nto the Adoptionist heresy (see Beyschlag, N. T. Theology,\\nvol. ii, p. 481 [Engl.]), and narratives such as 7:11-17; 23:\\n40-43 and 24 36-43 can scarcely be regarded as untouched by\\nlegendary influence. It may be well to repeat, however, that", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0244.jp2"}, "245": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WBITEBS 225\\nwith its sequel on the preaching of the Gospel to the\\nnations. 1\\nThe phenomena of Acts are similar. All admit Composition\\nthat written sources must have been used to relate of ActSt\\nthe founding of the Church in Jerusalem, cc. 1-5, 2\\nand the evangelisation of Samaria and the sea-\\ncoast, cc. 6-8. Most scholars will grant, further,\\nthat the sources for these two cannot have been the\\nsame, for cc. 6-8 presuppose a different account of\\nthe beginnings from that we have, and carry us\\nquite beyond the section 9:32-11:18, wherein Peter\\ncarries the Gospel to the same regions, and reaches,\\nby supernatural revelation, the result which, in cc.\\n6-8 11 19-30, happens as an unavoidable result of\\npersecution. 8 Between the two comes the episode\\nof Paul s conversion, written from the standpoint of\\neven these late elements are not the work of R. This is proved\\nby the contrasted style of 1 5 ff after 1 1-4, and still more\\ndecisively by the discrepancies between substance and editorial\\nretouchings (cf. 2 2 with 1 5, the reversal of the order of the\\nGenealogy and completion of it up to Adam, and adjustment\\nof the Resurrection tradition to a theoretical centre at Jeru-\\nsalem, etc.).\\ni Lk. 24 47-49 cf. Acts 10 42.\\n2 The duplication of 4 1-31 by 5 17-42 has been spoken of.\\nWe might say 4 32-5 42 2 43-4 31, but in 5 12 the occa-\\nsion for the interference of the authorities, the healing of the\\nlame man, has been omitted. Other duplications in cc. 1-5 are\\ndiscovered by B. Weiss, Spitta, and others.\\n3 C. 7 displays a decidedly Alexandrian conception of the\\n0. T. revelation (cf Barn. 4 6-8 and 14 1-4 Heb. 3 5-6\\nand Kerygma Petri, ap. CI. Al. Strom. 6:5), and appears to\\nhave been adjusted to the story of Paul by insertions in 586,\\n59 8:1. The incident of Simon Magus, 8 9-24, aims to dis-\\nparage the arch-heretic, whose subsequent injury to the Church\\nis alluded to in 8 23.\\nQ", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0245.jp2"}, "246": {"fulltext": "226 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\na Jerusalem Christian, 9: 1-31, 1 and followed by the\\nDuplica- account of the Pauline Gentile mission, in cc. 13,\\ntions. -j^ with its sequel, c. 15, which again settles the\\nquestion not only of the admission but of the\\neating with Gentiles as well, which had previously\\nbeen settled by divine revelation to Peter, 10 9-16\\n11 3-10. As we know from Gal. 2 11-21, neither\\naccount is strictly correct, though that of cc. 10,\\n11 is much more highly idealised. With this are\\nconnected the incidents of 9 32-43 and c. 12, which\\nhad no direct bearing on the story, but were of in-\\nterest for the career of Peter.\\nThe Without seeking to follow the various attempts to\\nspeeches. extricate the sources of this Petrine half of Acts, 2 it\\nis enough to point out that the great speeches which,\\naccording to the custom of antiquity, are placed in the\\nmouths of Peter and Paul, though admirably adapted\\nto circumstance and speaker, are compositions which\\nform part of the fundamental structure of the book. 8\\n1 The Jewish character of 9 1-31 is very marked including\\nthe use of vision in vss. 10-16, which reminds us of c. 10 and\\nthe subordination of Paul to the Apostles at Jerusalem in con-\\ntradiction of Gal. 1 11-24. In fact there need be no real break\\nfrom 9 1 to 11 18 for the missing account of the church in\\nGalilee, implied in vs. 31, and the missionary tours of Peter\\nimplied in v. 32, may have preceded 9 1.\\n2 For the documentary analysis of Acts, see B. Weiss, In-\\ntrod. 50; Jacobsen, Quellen d. Apg., 1885; Sorof, Entste-\\nhung d. Apg., 1890 Feine, Vorkan. Ueberl. d. Lukas, 1891\\nSpitta, Apg. Quellen, etc., 1891 Clemen, Chron. d. PI. Briefe,\\n1893, and St. u. Kr., 1895, and Hilgenfeld, arts, in Z. f. W.\\nTh.j 1895-96.\\n3 Attempts are made to show alleged Petrine or Pauline\\nfeatures in the speeches. In reality the speech of Paul in\\n13 16-41 is a replica of Peter s in c. 2 (cf. 13 26-37 with 2\\n27-39; 3: 13-18), that of 14:15-17, expanded in 17:24-31, is\\nthe stock address to the heathen in Tatian (Orat. IV), Athe-\\nnagoras {Leg. 13), Diognetus (Ep. 3), Aristides {Ap. 1 and 10),", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0246.jp2"}, "247": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITEBS 227\\nAs the paralleled exploits of Peter and Paul form the Not from\\nwarp, so these the woof of Acts, yet they do not he i atest\\nrepresent the latest hand. In the speech 2 14 ff the\\ngift of tongues is conceived as it really was (see above,\\np. 216 and cf. 1 Cor. c. 14), and the ascension is an\\ninference, as in Eph. 4:8 ff., from the Messianic gift\\nand from Scripture (vss. 33-36). In the accompany-\\ning narrative, 1 9-11, the ascension, with the con-\\nnected second advent, like the baptismal vision (Lk.\\n3 22) is taken as concrete, tangible reality, while the\\ngift of (fiery) tongues is transformed into a Christian\\nparallel to the phenomenon described in Jewish legend\\nas accompanying the giving of the Law from Sinai, at\\nPentecost. 1 In the sweeping generalisations as to\\nand is found in conjunction with its complement, rebuke of\\nthe false worship of the Jew (cf. Acts 7 35-50) in the great\\nfragment from the Kerygma Petri in Clem. Al. Strom. 6 5.\\nPauline phraseology is not more conspicuous than Petrine or\\nLucan, even in Acts 20:18-35 (cf. vs. 28 with 1 Pet. 5:2ff.,\\nand vs. 27 with Lk. 7:30; Acts 2:23; 4:28; 5:38), while\\nthe special features of Paulinism justification by faith, life in\\nthe Spirit are absent or misconceived (13:39). The doc-\\ntrine of the speeches of Peter is the author s interpretation of\\nScripture (cf. 2 23 3 18, 21, etc., with Lk. 1 70 24 26 f.,\\netc.), and, like the sermon of Stephen and the dialogue of\\nPhilip and the Eunuch, serve the author s purpose of exhibit-\\ning the relation in which Christianity stands to the old dispen-\\nsation. Neither the speeches of Stephen nor of Paul can be\\nconceived as real defences before a tribunal, though account\\nis taken in both very skilfully of the character of the speaker.\\nCf. the initial sermon of Jesus, Lk. 4 16-30, framed on the\\nbasis of Isa. 61 1, 2a, and Mk. 6 4, and constituting the\\ntheme for the entire work.\\n1 See the Midrash on Ps. 68 11 above referred to (p. 216,\\nnote When the Word went forth from Sinai it became\\nseven voices, and from the seven voices was divided into\\nseventy tongues. As sparks leap from the anvil, there came\\na great host of the proclaiming voices. Philo (De Decal.)\\nalready presupposes this legendary interpretation of the voices", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0247.jp2"}, "248": {"fulltext": "228 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION\\nmiracles, and community of goods, E, is again much\\ninferior to his sources (cf 5 15 f with 3 10 4 16\\nthe miracle here exceptional, and 4:32 with 5:4;\\n12:12).\\nThe con- The latter half of Acts is mainly based on the\\nsouiSe^ 7 Diary, an( i here are found those minute and accurate\\ncoincidences with historical fact so often appealed to\\nas proof of the accuracy of the entire work. 1 Some,\\nindeed, are found, as we should expect, in adjoining\\nsections (13 7 17 6, 18), where the early narrative is\\noverlaid, but the graphic realism of the portraiture\\nfrom c. 16 on, in marked contrast with the idealism\\nof cc. 1-12, makes it superfluous to prove that the\\nstory of Paul s great journeys comes mainly from\\nan eye-witness. Here it is only the account of\\nthe origins of the church in Ephesus (18 24-19 20),\\nwhich reminds us of cc. 1-12, 2 though in 28: 17-31\\nthe story of the Diary is adjusted to the author s\\nstereotyped idea (cf. 13:38-49), and in 13:6-12\\nand 16:25-40 the general parallelism between the\\ncareers of Peter and Paul becomes more than natu-\\nrally close. The great speeches with which the\\nplain story of the Diary is embellished in 17:22-\\n31; 20:18-35; 27:21-26, with the three defences in\\ncc. 22, 24, and 26, balancing those of Peter in cc. 2,\\n3, and 4, are worthy of high commendation when\\ntaken, as the practice of the time and indications\\nand the lightnings of Ex. 20:15. The Jeioish source of\\nthe ideas in this secondary element of Acts c. 2 is important to\\nobserve. So the euphemism his own place, Acts 1:25,\\nbecomes luminous in the light of the Midrash which interprets\\nit in Num. 24: 25, as Gehenna. C. 7 is notoriously full of\\nmidrashic traits.\\n1 See James Smith s Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1880*,\\nand Eamsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895, passim.\\n2 With 19 17 cf. 5 11-13 Lk. 1 65 5 26 7 16, etc.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0248.jp2"}, "249": {"fulltext": "THE SYNOPTIC WRITERS 229\\nof the work suggest, as illustrations of what Paul\\nmight have said, in the judgment of a Syrian Chris-\\ntian almost wholly ignorant of his epistles. They\\nshould no more be taken for the actual utterances,\\nthan the speech of Gamaliel, 4 35-39, the letter of\\nLycias, 23 26-30, or the private dialogue of Agrippa\\nwith Festus, 26 30-32.\\nIn opposition to ancient tradition, which made Date of\\nLuke the latest of the Gospels, 1 some modern writers Act8,\\nhave inferred, from what they deemed the abrupt\\nending of Acts, a date earlier even than the Fathers\\nassign to Matthew and Mark. In reality, the former\\ntreatise has been adjusted in the discourse on the\\noverthrow of Jerusalem (cf Lk. 21 20, 24 f with Mk.\\n13:14, 24 f.; Matt. 24:15, 29 f.), not only to the\\nfacts of the actual siege, but to a subsequent period\\nof Jewish exile and of treading down of Jerusalem\\nby the Gentiles. Acts must of course be still later.\\nFrom the indications already referred to (p. 216 f.),\\nwe cannot reasonably date it earlier than late in the\\nreign of Domitian (81-96 a.d.).\\n1 The tradition cited by Clement of Alexandria that the\\nGospels containing the genealogies are the earliest may sup-\\nport the priority of the Lucan source, but would be contrary to\\nthe voice of all antiquity if applied to our Lk.\\nThe Lives of Christ, by Th. Keim (Engl., 1876-83) and B.\\nWeiss (Engl., 1883-89), have the most thorough discussion of\\nthe nature and origin of the gospel sources. See also Gilbert s\\nStudent s Life of Jesus 2 1900, Appendix. Blass s Philology of\\nthe Gospels touches interesting special points. His Commen-\\ntary on Acts (Latin) is invaluable. J. Morison (1894) and\\nH. B. Swete (1898) have special Commentaries on Mark.\\nGodet (Engl., 1887) on Luke, and Hackett on Acts (latest ed.,\\n1882). Special discussions of Acts, principally in histories of\\nthe Apostolic Age, e.g. Weizsacker and McGiffert ut supra.\\nDiscussions of documentary analysis of Acts by Jiingst, Spitta,\\nPeine, Hilgenfeld, et al., all untranslated.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0249.jp2"}, "250": {"fulltext": "Place of\\norigin of the\\nInstru-\\nmentum\\nJohanneum.\\nPART V\\nTHE JOHANNINE WRITINGS\\nCHAPTER X\\nTHE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES\\nAlmost a canon by itself is formed by the group of\\nwritings attributed anciently to the Apostle John,\\nconsisting of an Apocalypse or Prophecy, a Gospel,\\nand three Epistles. These are referred, both by tra-\\ndition and by internal evidence, to Ephesus, one of\\nthe most important centres of church life at the begin-\\nning of the second century. This is not doubted in\\nthe case of the Revelation addressed to the seven\\nchurches of (Proconsular) Asia, and dating from\\nPatmos; nor can we imagine any other location for\\nthe three Epistles and the Gospel, whose mystical\\ntheologoumena so well agree with the whole atmos-\\nphere of Phrygian Asia, the home of speculative\\ntheosophy, and which are first employed by writers\\nconnected with Ephesus. Besides, the type of heresy\\nthey antagonise is clearly the docetic Gnosticism of\\nCerinthus. It may therefore be set down as admitted\\nfact that the Johannine writings, Tertullian s Instru-\\nmentum Johanneum, represent the special contribu-\\ntion of this great centre of early Christianity to the\\nCanon.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0250.jp2"}, "251": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 231\\nIt has indeed been denied, both in ancient and The Apostle\\nmodern times, that all five of these writings, one of ^^nol\\nwhich so widely differs from the other four, in sub- Ephesus.\\nject, in purpose, in attitude toward doctrines and\\npersons, in style, language, and vocabulary, could be\\nfrom the same hand so that if the Gospel and Epistles\\nwere John s, the Apocalypse could not be. But the\\nextreme scepticism which denies even the presence of\\nthe Apostle in Ephesus is purely modern. The tradi-\\ntion of the survival of the beloved disciple in\\nEphesus down to the times of Trajan 1 is wide-\\nspread, uncontradicted, circumstantial, and so ancient\\nas to be presupposed, at least to the extent of the\\ngreat age and peaceful end of the Apostle, even in\\nJn. 21:18-23. As against the very considerable\\nmass of tradition relating to the last years of the\\nApostle at Ephesus, some of it entirely credible, and\\nthe explicit testimony of Irenseus and Polycrates as\\nto the intercourse of Polycarp and other Ephesian\\nworthies with the Apostle, of which they knew at\\nfirst hand, the counter evidence is trivial. 2 The\\nattempt of Eusebius, based on his doctrinal prejudices\\nagainst Eevelation, to find a distinguished presbyter\\nJohn in Ephesus on whom the book could be fathered\\nhas been widely taken up in modern times, but with\\na failure to appreciate the extreme improbability that\\n1 Iren. Her. 2 22, 5, quoted by Eus. Hist. 3 23, 3. McGif-\\nfert appends the note, The fact of John s continuance at\\nEphesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other pas-\\nsages, and there is no reason to doubt it.\\n2 It is forcibly stated by Badham in Am. Journ. of Theol.,\\nOct., 1899. But much more careful readers of Papias than the\\nmediaeval catenists found no allusion to the death of John in\\nPapias s comment on Mk. 10 39. Doubtless it was ambiguous,\\nso that later readers took his statement that the prediction had\\nbeen fulfilled as applying to both the sons of Zebedee in the\\nsame sense.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0251.jp2"}, "252": {"fulltext": "232 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nDionysius, the pupil of Origen, from whom Eusebius\\ntakes the idea, would have been unable to make a\\nbetter suggestion than that there were many with\\nthe same name as the Apostle John, for example,\\nJohn, surnamed Mark, as they say that there\\nare two monuments in Ephesus each bearing the name\\nof John. If, however, there was but one John of\\nEphesus, it is a violent contradiction of all the testi-\\nmony, much of it extremely ancient, to maintain that\\nthis was not the Apostle. 1\\nNature of The New Testament Canon now includes but a single\\nlypse. C example of the once popular apocalypses or revela-\\ntions. The denationalising of Israel in and after the\\nexile involved a profound change in the nature of\\nprophecy. The prophet, as spokesman of Yahweh in\\nthe government and destiny of the nation, disappeared\\nwith the disappearance of nationality. But the\\nMessianic hope was too deeply rooted. With the\\nwidening of Israel s horizon it tended to become more\\nand more a hope for all mankind, as religion, losing\\nits national limitations, became the relation of the\\nindividual man to the Creator of all. Israel is still\\nthe central figure, but its foes are the foes of humanity,\\nits redemption the redemption of the creation. Thus\\nthe horizon was indefinitely widened. Again, the\\nincreasing hopelessness of Israel s political situation\\nmade the aspirations and expectations of the prophets,\\nwhich, however ideal, had been conceived as operated\\nthrough intelligible means, more and more incredible\\nwithout a deus ex machina. The only alternative\\nto Sadducean worldliness lay in supernaturalism.\\nHence prophecy, as it lost its footing on the solid\\n1 Against W. Bousset, 15, 16 of the art. Apocalypse\\nin Cheyne s Encyc. Bibl., 1899.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0252.jp2"}, "253": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 233\\nearth, took refuge in the clouds. Moreover, scribism whypseu-\\nhad relegated the voice of divine authority to the past. donymous.\\nWhat God had revealed to Moses, Elias, Ezra, Daniel,\\nor still more to the dim and mysterious figure of\\nEnoch, 1 might be received as divine, though the same\\nspeculations under the author s true name would have\\nbeen disregarded. Hence the flood of pseudonymous\\napocalypses in Jewish circles from 165 b. c. to 200 a. d.,\\nwhose strange and grotesque visions and symbolism\\nare largely borrowed from Ezekiel and Daniel, but\\ndeal fundamentally with themes drawn from the\\nancient cosmological myths in which the Orient, from\\ntime immemorial, had expressed its conception of the\\nworld conflict of light and darkness, good and evil,\\nand its hopes of their ultimate outcome. But Mes-\\nsianism, whether of this type, or the more spiritual\\ntype of the meek man, was left to this people\\nwhich knoweth not the law by the scribes of the\\nPharisees, as much as it was practically antagonised\\nby the Sadducees. Haggadah might do well enough\\nfor Galileans. Eor the nomist only halachah, i.e.\\ncasuistry, was authoritative.\\nChristianity came as a reenforcement to all these Christian\\nmysterious hopes and beliefs of the lowly. Jesus a P\u00c2\u00b0 cal yP se\\nhimself had adopted the most exuberant language of\\nDaniel, however spiritual the interpretation he might\\nhave given it, if we had his interpretation. His\\nofficial self-designation is probably borrowed from\\napocalyptic terminology. 2 But Christianity owed to\\n1 Probably the chief figure referred to in Acts 3 21 (cf. Lk.\\n1 70) among the prophets who spake of the restoration of all\\nthings (d7roKard(7Ta rts wavruv since the world began. Enoch\\nis the chief pseudonym in the prophetic literature of this\\ntype.\\n2 See the copious literature on the title Son of Man, by\\nWellhausen, Lietzmann, Appel, and others, cited in Dalman,", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0253.jp2"}, "254": {"fulltext": "234 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nhim also the consciousness that prophecy was not an\\nexclusive prerogative of the dead past, and prophets\\nsoon made every Christian assemblage ring with their\\nvisions of the glorious Messianic triumphs of the\\nimmediate future. It is therefore only what we should\\nexpect when the primitive Christian prophet, a\\nJohn, or a Hermas, disdains the pseudonymity of his\\nJewish rivals; though of course he still employs the\\ncurrent imagery, phraseology, and cosmological con-\\nceptions, which indeed appear not only in Eevelation,\\nbut in the eschatology of Gospels and Pauline Epistles\\nalike. We certainly have abundant evidence of this\\nflotsam and jetsam of the past in all three, but\\nLogical especially in the Apocalypse of John. We may\\nanalysis of analyse the book as follows\\nRevelation. _.\\ni. Introduction, cc. 1-3. a. Superscription, 1 1-3.\\nb. Address and salutation to the churches of Pro-\\nconsular Asia, 4-8.\\nc. The prophet s vision of his call, 9-20.\\nd. The Spirit s special message to each of the seven\\nchurches, cc. 2, 3.\\nii. Vision of the Book of Destiny, cc. 4-11. a. The\\ncourt of God described, c. 4.\\nb. The Lamb appears to open the Seal of the Book\\namid heavenly acclamation, c. 5.\\nc. First cycle of six plagues, leading up to the Day\\nof Jehovah; suspended climax with the opening of\\nthe seventh Seal, cc. 6, 7.\\nd. Second cycle. Six Trumpets lead up to the\\nimpending final consummation, cc. 8, 9 through the\\nAngel of revelation the prophet is recommissioned,\\ncc. 10, 11.\\nWorte Jesu, I, p. 191 ff. In English N. Schmidt, Was KtPJ -Q\\na Messianic title in Journ. Bibl. Lit., 1896, and Hommel in\\nExpos. Times, May, 1900.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0254.jp2"}, "255": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 235\\niii. Vision of the war against the Dragon, cc. 12-18.\\na. The theocracy and Messiah vs. the Dragon, c. 12.\\nb. The Beasts which work for the Dragon on earth,\\nc. 13.\\nc. The Lamb and his host, c. 14.\\nd. The Seven Bowls of the wrath of God, culminat-\\ning in the overthrow of Babylon-Rome, cc. 15-18.\\niv. Vision of the Heavenly Jerusalem, cc. 19-22.\\na. Coming of the Bridegroom and destruction of his\\nenemies, cc. 19, 20.\\nb. Appearance of his Bride, the City let down out\\nof heaven from God, 21 1-22 5.\\nv. Epilogue. Commendation of the prophecy to\\nthe churches, 22 6-21.\\nWhatever the evidences of diverse origin 1 in various unity of the\\nparts of this complex prophecy, in its present form it book\\nis a real unit, the interrelation of whose parts is not\\nmechanical but organic, not superficial but internal.\\nThus the letters to the seven churches in the prelude\\n(cc. 1-3) have a profound inner connection with the\\nvisions which follow. 2 The same applies to the\\nintroductory vision, with its description of the glo-\\nrified Messiah 8 (1 10-18), who addresses the seven\\n1 As in the allusion to previous prophecy, 10 11, and inter-\\npretation to his readers, 11 4-13, of the current apocalyptic\\ndatum of the two witnesses (i.e. Moses and Elias cf. Mk.\\n9:11; 13 4, and the apocalypses cited by Bousset, Antichrist\\nLegend, p. 203 ff.). See also below as to the earlier date of\\n11: If.; 17:7-18.\\n2 Cf. 2 76 with 22 2, 2:11 with 20 6, 14 21 8, 2 17\\n3 12 with 14 1 19 12 22 4, 2 26 f. with 12 5 19 15\\n20 4, 2 28 with 22 16, 3:5 with 19 8 13 8 17 8\\n20 12 21 27, 3 12 with 21 2, 10 22 4, 3 18 with 7 13\\n16 15 19 8, 3 21 with 17 14 20 4.\\n8 Cf 1 10 with 4:1; 10 8, 1 14 with 19 12, 1 15 with", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0255.jp2"}, "256": {"fulltext": "236\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nIts explicit\\nassertion of\\nJohannine\\nauthorship.\\nchurches, and even more closely to the preface and\\nsalutation (1 1-3 4-9), l which have not the slightest\\ntrace of Johannine reserve, but present the person-\\nality of the writer, I, John, your brother and par-\\ntaker in the tribulation and kingdom, in the strongest\\nand boldest light, just as the conclusion (22 8-21)\\nintroduces in reverse order the same personalities in\\nthe same bold and authoritative style, I, John, am\\nhe that heard and saw these things. Unless we\\naccuse the author of deliberate falsification, this verse\\nis decisive as to authorship, though not of course\\nexcluding such redaction of earlier prophecies of the\\nauthor s own, and to a limited extent of others, as is\\ncharacteristic of Old Testament prophets. But if\\nthere is pseudonymity we marvel that some great per-\\nsonality, such as Moses, Elias, Enoch, or Daniel, was\\nnot assumed; most of all, if that of the beloved dis-\\nciple, why no claim is made to apostleship. No\\nreasonable alternative remains to the supposition that\\nthe author s name was really John, a Jew, the rugged\\nvehemence of whose thought and barbarous solecisms\\nof whose language fail to conceal a conscious mastery\\nof the sublime tenets of the Gospel, even as his\\nfamiliarity with, and attitude toward, special con-\\nditions in each of the seven churches are inexplicable\\nfrom the mere authority of the spirit of prophecy.\\nSuch a tone could not be assumed by every ordinary\\nprophet who received a revelation even in the great\\nchurch of Ephesus, and we have seen what formidable\\nobstacles lie in the way of assuming a second John of\\n14:2; 19:6, 1 16 with 19 15, 21, 1 17 with 22:13, 1:18\\nwith 4:9; 5 14 20 1.\\ni Cf. 1:1 with 4:1; 22 16, 1:2 with 6:9; 12 17, 1:3\\nwith 22 7, 10, 1:4 wLn 4:5; 5:6, 1:5 with 17 14 19 16\\n7 14, 1:6 with 5 10 20 6 5 11, 1:7 with 14 14, 1:8\\nwith 21 6 22 13 4 8 11 17 16 5, 1:9 with 6 9.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0256.jp2"}, "257": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 237\\nthe needful greatness side by side with, the Apostle at\\nEphesus, yet unmentioned by contemporaries.\\nIt is objected that the Apostle would have called Why the\\nhimself such, instead of modestly classing himself }g n e ot pos\\nwith his fellow-servants the prophets, l and that he adopted,\\nspeaks of the Apostles objectively. 2 But he speaks\\nno less objectively of the prophets, among whom he\\ncertainly classes himself; and Paul, as we saw, uses\\nthe same figure in the same objective way of the\\nTwelve. 3 As to the Apostle s self -designation, it is\\nreally much more probable that John did not habitu-\\nally speak of himself as an Apostle, the term being\\napplied, ca. 100, not so much historically with refer-\\nence to the sending of the Twelve, as descriptively,\\nto designate the class of peripatetic evangelists. 4\\nFunctionally, John had not been an apostle since\\nthe day when he took the mother of Jesus to his own\\nhome, and the name dTroWoAos having as yet no sacred\\nassociations (for of course it was not the term employed\\nby Jesus) it is less surprising to find that it is alto-\\ngether the exception when the Fathers who had\\nrelations with Ephesus speak of John as the\\nApostle. The habitual term, as in Irenaeus and\\nPolycrates, is the disciple of the Lord. 5 Function-\\nally, John was a witness and a teacher. 6 It is\\ndoubtful if he would have spoken of himself in the\\npresent as an apostle, however much he might mag-\\nnify his authority as a prophet.\\ni 22 9. 2 18 20 21 14.\\n3 Cf. Rev. 18 20 with Eph. 3 5, and Rev. 21 14 with\\nEph. 2 20.\\nRom. 16 7 1 Thess. 2:6; AiS. 11.\\n6 Thus, the Muratorian fragment speaks of John as ex dis-\\ncipulis, though immediately after Andrew is described as ex\\napostolis.\\n6 Polycrates ap. Eus. Hist. 5 24, 3.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0257.jp2"}, "258": {"fulltext": "238\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nDissimi-\\nlarity to Jn.\\nand 1-3 Jn.\\nin the light\\nof external\\nevidence.\\nComposite\\norigin of\\nRev.\\nIt should be needless to add that objections drawn\\nfrom the extreme dissimilarity in style and tempera-\\nment of the anonymous Gospel and Epistles, after the\\nfashion of Dionysius, invert the true state of the case.\\nSo far as we have any knowledge of the Son of\\nThunder from the New Testament outside of these, 1\\nit is in harmony with the type of mind revealed in\\nRevelation. To use a different portrait, drawn from\\nthe Gospel and Epistles not known to have been attrib-\\nuted to John before 170 a.d., to disprove the authen-\\nticity of Revelation, is the inversion of logic.\\nSuch being the indications of the internal evidence,\\nwe cannot but regard it as presumptuous to ignore the\\nfact that external evidence for the later date (95 a.d.)\\nand the Apostolic origin of the book is stronger than\\nthat of any other book in the New Testament. 2 We\\nrecall the positive, explicit, and uncontradicted state-\\nments of Justin (155 a.d.) and Irenseus (180 a.d.)\\nthat this work was written by John the Apostle,\\nIreneeus adding, at the end of the reign of Domitian\\n(95 a.d.), and we have the testimony of Andreas of\\nCesarea that Papias himself not only used the book,\\nbut bore testimony to its genuineness (see p. 45),\\nwhich can mean nothing else than that Papias, like\\nJustin, also referred to it as the work of John the\\nApostle. To dismiss all this peremptorily as false\\nwitness sounds strangely supercilious in an other-\\nwise singularly judicious Introduction. 8\\nOn the other hand, the concentration of criticism on\\nthe question of the composition of Revelation during\\nthe last fifteen years has been far from barren. We\\n1 As in Mk. 9 38 10 35 ff. Lk. 9 54 Gal. 2 9.\\n2 Reynolds in Hastings s B. D. art. John, Gospel of,\\np. 707a.\\nJulicher, Einl. 22 5.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0258.jp2"}, "259": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 239\\nmay sum up the results in the language of one of the\\nforemost critics and commentators\\nIt seems to be settled that the Apocalypse can no longer be\\nregarded as a literary unity. Against such a view criticism\\nfinds irresistible considerations. 1 This result holds good, not-\\nwithstanding Gunkel s warning against the overhasty efforts of\\ncriticism. That a variety of sources and older traditions have\\nbeen worked over in the Apocalypse will not be denied even by\\nthe student who holds that it is no longer possible to reconstruct\\nthe sources. 2\\nWith the above conclusions, and the grounds on individ-\\nwhich they are based, we find ourselves in complete ^una^\\naccord. But Bousset also has wisely counterbalanced author,\\nthe evidence for diversity with equally convincing\\nproof of a relative unity, that the Apocalyptist is\\nhimself an independent writer who has simply in-\\ntroduced various fragments into his corpus apoca-\\n1 Among these, continues our author, is the incongru-\\nity between 7 1-8 and 7 9-17, as also that between 7 1-8 and\\n6:12ff., the two explanations of the 144,000 in 7: Iff. and\\n14: Iff., the interruption of the connection caused by 10:1-\\n11 13, the peculiar new beginning made in 12 1, the singular\\ncharacter of c. 12, the doublet presented by cc. 13 and 17, the\\nfact that in 14 14-20 a last judgment is depicted, whilst that\\ninvolved in c. 13 does not arrive till 19 11 ft the observation\\nthat in c. 17 two representations of the beast and his associates\\nare given alongside each other, and the isolated character of\\ncc. 17 and 18 and 21 9-22 5.\\nFurther, the chapters do not represent the same religious\\nlevel. C. 7 1-8 (cf. 20 7-9), with its particularistic charac-\\nter, is out of harmony both with cc. 1-3, and with 7 9-17 in\\n11 1 f. the preservation of the temple is expected, whilst in\\n21 22 the new Jerusalem is to have aone.\\nMoreover, different parts of the book require different\\ndates c. 11 1-2 must have been written before 70 a.d., c. 17\\nprobably when Vespasian had already been emperor for some\\ntime, whilst the writing as a whole cannot, at the earliest,\\nhave been finished before the time of Domitian.\\n2 W. Bousset in Enc. Bibl. 32.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0259.jp2"}, "260": {"fulltext": "A.D.\\n240 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nlypticum. This relative unity is shown (1) in the\\nartificial structure of the whole {e.g. groups of sevens\\nand artificial connections), and (2) in the uniform-\\nity of style and language which is unique in the\\nNew Testament, 1 monotonously diffuse: article and\\npreposition are almost always repeated when there\\nare more substantives than one, as also is the govern-\\ning word before the governed. Whole clauses are\\ngone back upon and repeated in the negative Hebrew\\nparallelism is not uncommon.\\nWhy Rev. It is not surprising that connoisseurs of style, like\\ntioned U after Dionysius of Alexandria, should have declared it\\nimpossible that this writer should have been the same\\nas he whose fluent Greek and Hellenistic conceptions\\nare exhibited in the Johannine Epistles and Gospel,\\nnor that those acquainted, like Eusebius, with the\\nMontanistic and Chiliastic extravagances which\\nappealed to its authority should have begun after\\nthe third century to question its apostolicity. But\\n1 The defiance of the rules of Greek grammar in Rev. is no-\\ntorious. (1) Throughout the book are irregularities, wrong\\nconstructions {e.g. l:5f. 12:7), and confusions of case, es-\\npecially with following participles (1:4, 10; 2:18 [K], 20;\\n3:12; 5 11 f. 6:1; 7:4, 9 ff 8 9 9 14 10:8; 11:1;\\n14 6, 12, 14 16 12 17 4, 8 18 12 f. 19 6 20 2 21 27\\n[K]); (2) Hebraisms abound in the construction, as well as in\\nthe choice and arrangement of words, occasionally the Hebrew\\nwords themselves being introduced, or presupposed (9 11\\n13 18 16 16) (3) Sense constructions are specially frequent\\n{e.g. 4 1, 7 f. 5 6, 12 f. 7 4 9 3 ff., 13 11 4, 15 13 14\\n14:3; 17:3, 11, 16; 19:4, 14) with plural predicate after\\nneuter plural subject (3:2; 4 5, 8, 9 5 14, etc.), and confu-\\nsion of gender (9:7; 14 19 19 20 21 14 22 2) (4) A\\nvast number of systematic peculiarities of idiom, vocabulary,\\nand terminology forbid quite absolutely the identification of\\nthis writer with any other of the N. T., in spite of occasional\\nterms (6 X670S, \\\\r)6ii 6s, etc.) designated Johannine, which may\\nwell have become current among Christians at Ephesus.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0260.jp2"}, "261": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 241\\nwhat is there, unless it be the lofty Christology,\\nwhich prevents modern critics, who do not admit the\\ndirect apostolic authorship of the Epistles and Gos-\\npel, from admitting the emphatic testimony of the\\nsecond-century Fathers of the Ephesian School to the\\nauthenticity of Revelation? And is not this very\\napocalyptic Christology a much needed explanation of\\nthat conviction of the primeval Church which could\\nlead even a tolerant Pharisee (of the school of Gama-\\nliel?) like Paul, first to persecute this Way unto\\ndeath, 1 and afterward to set its Messiah at the\\nright hand of God in his own theological and\\neschatological system?\\nOn the other hand, nothing is more certain than The pri-\\nthe error of the Tubingen critics in attempting to dition of\\nmake of this solitary representative, in their system, authorship\\nof the doctrine of the Twelve, an early and an anti- probable.\\nPauline book. Its heretical antagonists are of the\\nsame type as those antagonised by Paul in the same\\nregion, Jewish, theosophical, antinomian, but now\\nclearly differentiated and named. 2 As Paul 3 rebukes\\nthose Corinthians who committed fornication and\\npartook of \u00e2\u0082\u00acl8w\\\\69vTa, things offered to idols, with-\\nout restraint, by the example of Israel at Baal-peor,\\nled astray by the counsel of Balaam 4 as he antago-\\nnises an ascetic theosophy in Asia Minor 6 and in\\ni On the ground of Deut. 13 6-11, 12 ff.\\n2 The teaching of Balaam, 2 14 (cf. Num. 25 1 ff. 31 16\\nand 1 Cor. 10 7-10 2 Pt. 2 15 Jd. 11), may or may not he\\nthe same as the teaching of the Nicolaitans, 2 15 but the\\nclear discrimination of heretical sects outside the Church is the\\nmark of a late period (cf. 1 Jn. 2: 19).\\ns 1 Cor. 10 6-8.\\nNum. 25 1 f. 31 8, 16 cf Philo Vita Mos. 1 48-55,\\nJos. Ant. 4 6, 6-9.\\n6 Eph. 4 14 Col. 2 8-23.\\nE", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0261.jp2"}, "262": {"fulltext": "late date.\\n242 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nCorinth., Philippi, 1 Ephesus, 2 a libertinism mingled\\nwith Jewish fables so John confronts the same\\nheresies with the same figures. 3 For him, too, the\\nChurch is the Israel of God, 4 the real Jews 6 the\\ncircumcision 6 their outwardly circumcised oppo-\\nnents are a synagogue of Satan, which say they are\\nJews and are not. Over against the false apostles,\\nand false prophets (2:2, 20), John also sees the\\nnew Jerusalem founded on the Apostles and proph-\\nets, 7 though it is clear from the way in which he, as\\nit were, closes the Canon of New Testament prophecy\\n(22 18, 19), that to him also the time is near for\\nprophecies to be done away. 8\\nInternal The development (with occasional degeneracy) of\\nevidences of the Asiatic churches and differentiation of the heresies\\nis only less decisive as an indication of late date than\\nthe stage which has been reached in the struggle\\nwith the imperial power. The Jerusalem of fleshly\\nJudaism is still, as to Paul, 9 the seat of Antichrist,\\nspiritually Sodom and Egypt (11 8) but what a\\ntransformation since Paul s day in the view of Eome!\\nNo longer the restraining, protecting power, a terror\\nonly to evil doers her mighty sword is now the chief\\ninstrument of Satan. Eome is Babylon the Great,\\nthe arch-enemy, and has been so for so long that there\\nis no need to justify the identification. Nor is there\\ndoubt of what has wrought the change. Violent\\npersecutions have broken out in four of the seven\\nchurches, the martyrs are a distinct class, 10 their souls\\nare under the altar u the struggle is ever before the\\ni Phi. 3 19. 2 2 Tim. cc. 2, 3, in part Eom. 16 18.\\na Eev. 2 6, 9, 14 f., 20-24. Gal. 6 16.\\n6 Cf. Eom. 2 28. 6 Col. 2:11; Phi. 3:3.\\n7 Eph. 2 20. 8 1 Cor. 13 8.\\n9 2 Thess. 2 4 ff. i\u00c2\u00b0 20: 4ft; 7 :9ff.\\n116: 9ff.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0262.jp2"}, "263": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 243\\nauthor s mind. 1 But a still greater and mightier\\nstruggle than that in which Rome had become drunk\\nwith the blood of the saints and with the blood of the\\nmartyrs of Jesus (17:6), is in immediate prospect. 2\\nThis struggle w ll turn upon the worship of the\\nbeast, i.e. as scholars now admit, Caesar-worship.\\nThe great conflict between Christianity and the Eoman\\nstate religion is foreseen with a clearness, a detail,\\nan., implication of so large a part of the struggle\\nalready past, as bring us unavoidably down to the\\nlater years of Domitian, as the early tradition so\\nexplicitly maintained.\\nNor is the fact that much of the apocalyptic mate- Notwith-\\nrial of the book is from an earlier date opposed to standing\\nsuch a view. On the contrary, the very inconsist- material,\\nencies of its attempts to identify the beast (a con-\\nstant of apocalypse generally) with first one, then\\nanother, of the emperors, till, in 17 9, 10, 11, the list\\nis extended and reextended to admit the author s final\\nview, identifying him with Nero redivivus,^ only\\nproves the more certainly the readjustment cf the\\nvisions to meet the views we know to have been cur-\\nrent in Asia Minor in just this period of the reign of\\nDomitian. 4 Harnack does well to choose as the defi-\\n113:1; 14:9ff.; 15 1 ff. 16:6; 17 6 18 20-24.\\n*6:9ff.; 3:10, and cf. 7 14.\\n8 In 13 18 the number 666 iDp }Vti the ancient variant\\nattested by Lrenseus 616 icp TO.\\n4 Since Eichhorn it has been recognised on all sides, and\\nwith justice, that the kings with whom the beast returns for the\\ndestruction of Eome are the Farthians, whose satraps might\\nalready be regarded as independent kings (Mommsen, Bom.\\nKaisergesch. 5:521). Thus our present chapter (17) also\\ncomes into a larger historical connection. As early as the year\\n69 a.d., a pseudo-Nero had raised commotions in Asia Minor\\nand Greece (Tac. Hist. 2:8f. Bio Casshis, 64:9; Zonaras,\\n11 15) in the reign of Titus a second pseudo-Xero showed", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0263.jp2"}, "264": {"fulltext": "244\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nnitely determinable starting point for his Chro-\\nnology of Ancient Christian Literature the years\\n93-96 for the Apocalypse of John. 1\\nThe other\\nJohannine\\nbooks.\\nThe First\\nEpistle.\\nLogical\\nanalysis.\\nIn strongest contrast of style, doctrinal standpoint,\\ncharacter, and attitude, as regards the personality of\\nthe author, are the four remaining writings attributed\\nto John, of which we have to consider first the Epis-\\ntles, as apparently earlier in date than the Gospel in\\nits present form.\\nBut for 1 12 ff we might regard 1 John as a homily\\nrather than a letter, and, as it is, the distinction\\ndrawn by Deissmann between letters (such as 2 John,\\n3 John, Philemon) and epistles (a stereotyped literary\\nform of the early Church, led up to by the writings\\nof Paul) is fully applicable. But the gnomic style,\\nwhich gives to 1 John the appearance of an unrelated\\nseries of meditations, is the characteristic mode of\\nthought of this individual author, rather than a liter-\\nary form. An epistle it must be admitted to be, and\\nnot without plan or purpose, though the logical\\nsequence is often obscure. We may take the follow-\\ning as exhibiting the general structure.\\ni. Introduction. The historical manifestation of\\nhimself on the Euphrates (Zonaras, 11 18), and was acknow-\\nledged by the Parthian king, Artabanus (Mommsen, ibid.).\\nAbout 88 a.d. a third pseudo-Nero again made his appearance,\\nalso among the Parthians, and threatened the Roman empire\\n(Suet. Nero, 50, Tac. Hist. 1:2). In this form we find the\\nsame expectation also in the fourth Sibylline book, written\\nshortly after 79 a.d. (Sibyll. 4 19 ff. 137 ff.), and in the oldest\\nportion of the fifth book, written about 74 a.d. (5 143 ff.\\n361 ff.) in the last passage it is associated with a denunciation\\nof Babylon and a prophecy of the rebuilding of Jerusalem\\n(condensed by Bousset, op. cit., from Zahn Apoc. Stud. in\\nZKWL, 1885, 1886).\\n1 Chronologie, p. 245.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0264.jp2"}, "265": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 245\\nGod in Christ, the special treasure of the Church, an\\noccasion for writing, 1 1-5.\\nii. Doctrinal. (a) Bearing of the faith against\\nmoral indifference, (b) against worldliness, and\\n(c) against Gnostic self-sufficiency, 1:6-2:11}\\n2:12-17; 2:18-29.\\niii. Ethical. Love as the foundation of Christian\\nmorality, c. 3.\\niv. Application. This leads (a) to the exclusion of\\nthe errorists; to edification within the Church;\\n(c) to assurance of salvation, 4 1-6, 7-21 5 1-12.\\nv. Conclusion. The Christian s blessed conscious-\\nness of forgiveness and fellowship with God, 5 13-21.\\nWe scarcely need 2 26 to tell us that these things Design in\\nwere written concerning them that would lead you j^ostic.* 1\\nastray. Without a direct polemic, the entire Epistle\\naims to build up the churches of Asia against a liber-\\ntine 1 and docetic 2 Gnosticism, which is no longer\\nwithin the Church, but has shown its true affinity\\nwith the sinful world (4 5) by its unloving separa-\\ntion from the Church. 8 The particular sect of Gnos-\\ntics known as Cainites 4 need not be specially in\\nview on account of 3:12; but the allusions to the\\nboasts of Gnostic illuminati, 5 the warning to dis-\\ncriminate against the pretended revelations of their\\nprophets (4:1-6), and the persistent emphasis on\\nthe historic revelation of the Church, 6 and the ade-\\nquacy of its illumination by the Spirit and conscious-\\nness of eternal life in redemption from sin, 7 makes\\n12:4; 3:4-7. 2 2: 22;4:2. 32:18f.\\n4 See, however, Friedlander, Vorchristliche Gnosticismus,\\n1898, pp. 18-27.\\n5 In 1 6, 8, 10 2 3, 4, 6, 9 4 5-8, 20.\\n6 1:1-3; 2 13, 14, 24 3 5, 8 4 14 5 6, 11, 20.\\n1 35, 4 2 12, 20, 21, 27 3 2, 5, 14 4:7, 12-18 5 8-\\n12, 13-15, 18, 19, 20.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0265.jp2"}, "266": {"fulltext": "246 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nunmistakably clear, by contrast, the nature of the\\nfalse teaching and the purpose of the author.\\n2 Jn. and Scarcely any one will now deny that 2 John and\\n3 John are from the same hand as 1 John. The\\ninimitable style and phraseology require the assump-\\ntion either of identity of authorship, or of forgery so\\nmotiveless as to be absurd. The agreement of the\\nlast verse with the first of 2 John indicates that the\\nelect lady is a church (cf vs. 8), for which the warn-\\ning of 1 John against the docetic errorists is made\\nmore specific. Verses 7-11 state the occasion and give\\nthe warning. The regular epistolary form is observed.\\ni. Salutation, 1-3.\\nii. Epistolary Thanksgiving, 4.\\niii. Doctrine and Application, 5 f., 7-11.\\niv. Conclusion, 12 f\\nStill more concrete, practical, and individual is\\n3 John, addressed to Gaius, a member of the church,\\nindependently written to (in 2 John?), commending\\nto him as host the bearers, who, as they are to pro-\\nceed on their journey, are perhaps intrusted with all\\nthree communications, (a) the general circular,\\n1 John; (6) 2 John, the special epistle to the local\\nchurch, whose bishop, Diotrephes, is hostile to the\\nwriter; (c) the personal letter, 3 John. It also is in\\nstrict letter form,\\nsuggestions Here the strange writer most nearly unveils him-\\nof .author- se jf t jjis name nowhere appears, but he is an elder\\nin high authority, hence, doubtless, in the metro-\\npolitan church at Ephesus, for his threat in verse 10\\nimplies authority. And yet, we wonder if Diotre-\\nphes could so stand out if this were the Apostle John,\\ni 2 Jn. 1 f. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12 3 Jn. 3, 4, 8, 11, 12.\\nship.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0266.jp2"}, "267": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 247\\nand whether, in that case, the threat would take the\\nform of verse 10.\\nBut 1 Jn. 1 1-4 implies, we are told, a personal Meaning of\\nrelation with the historic Jesus. Undeniably it is tive S we\\nthe effort of the author to counteract the pretentions\\nof a docetic Gnosticism by emphasising to the utmost\\nthe historic tradition in possession of the Church.\\nBut it is just the characteristic of this Epistle, and\\nstill more markedly of the Gospel in the many passages\\nwherein it pursues the same object, that it fails to say\\nwhat Bevelation so repeatedly and emphatically says,\\nI, John, am he that heard and saw these things,\\nand which it ought, if possible, to say to produce the\\ndesired impression. Where the effort is to substan-\\ntiate by the most reliable testimony it either refers\\nexplicitly to the authority of another 2 or speaks\\nsimply in the name of a plurality, whose witness is\\ngiven in common, and is twofold in its content: (a)\\nhistorical, a faith once delivered to the saints, the\\ntreasured common possession of the Church; 8 (6) eter-\\nnal and subjective, the manifestation of the Spirit. 4\\nThe bearers of this witness, whether historical or\\nspiritual, are not only the writer as an official repre-\\nsentative of the Church, but all who have received the\\nwitness of Jesus, and, conscious of eternal life, have\\nset to their seal that God is true (i.e. to his promise\\nof redemption). 8 The community of witnesses ante-\\ndates even Jesus himself. The plurality includes\\nJohn the Baptist, Moses, and the prophets, who\\n1 On 2 Jn. and 3 Jn., see the monograph of Harnack, Ueber\\nden dritten Johannesbrief (Texte u. Unters., xv, 3).\\n2 Jn. 19 35.\\n1 Jn. 1 1, 2 cf. 2 24 3 5 4 13 f. 5 91, 20.\\n1 Jn. 2 201, 27 5: 9-12 cf. 1 Cor. 2 6-16 Rom. 16:\\n25-27 Eph. 1 9 f\\n6 Jn. 3 33-36, cf 1 Jn. 4 14 5 1-12.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0267.jp2"}, "268": {"fulltext": "248\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nFutile sup-\\npositions as\\nto the\\nApostle.\\nspeak that they do know and bear witness of that\\nthey have seen. 1 Question-begging assumptions of\\nan extreme diffidence on the part of the Son of Thun-\\nder, or an inexplicable wish to conceal his identity in\\nspite of the fact that one of the chief raisons d etre\\nof the Johannine Gospel and Epistles is the possession\\nby the Ephesian church through John of a direct his-\\ntorical tradition opposable to Cerinthian docetism,\\nare inadmissible in the face of Kev. 1 1, 4, 9; 22: 8 f.,\\n18 f and even when the authenticity of Eevelation\\nis denied are futile as explanations of the conspicuous\\nabsence from Gospel and Epistles of direct Johannine\\nauthority. We may follow Dionysius of Alexandria\\nby connecting the name of John with the writings\\nwhich make no claim to it, and are associated with it\\nonly by a tradition of the latter part of the second\\ncentury, whose significance we have yet to examine,\\nand refusing to connect it with a contemporary work\\nof totally different character, which positively claims\\nit; or we may attempt a refutation. We cannot\\nignore the facts he so distinctly sets forth. 2 So far\\nas the three Epistles throw light upon the question,\\nthe indications are all in favour of a totally different\\nauthor, 8 an elder in Ephesus of great, but not\\nstrictly apostolic authority, upon whom tradition later\\nconferred the name of John, because of his manifest\\nrelation to the Gospel, which embodied the Johan-\\nnine tradition and soon came to be known by that\\ni Jn. 3 11 4 38, cf. Un. 1 3 4 6, etc.\\n2 The whole extract should be read, Eus. Hist. 7 25.\\n3 Contrast e.g. this writer s conception of Antichrist, 1 Jn.\\n2 18, 19 4 3 2 Jn. 7 with that of Rev. c. 13, of almost\\ncontemporaneous date. The theory of identity of authorship\\ncannot reasonably be held without an extreme theory of bor-\\nrowing from other (Jewish) sources (Vischer, Harnack), such\\nas the relative unity of Rev. excludes.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0268.jp2"}, "269": {"fulltext": "THE APOCALYPSE AND THE EPISTLES 249\\nname. 1 The date for Kevelation, to which both tradi- Light\\ntion and internal evidence confine us, 90-95 a.d., con- ^Epistfes\\nsidering the extreme old age the Apostle would then on the ques-\\nhave reached, perhaps precludes the most direct form jXannine\\nof personal authorship; but the apostolic imprimatur authorship,\\nis stamped upon the book (22 8) far more explicitly\\nthan upon 1 Peter; 2 and the Baruch who compiled\\nthese prophecies of the New Testament Jeremiah,\\nif he cast them into a highly artificial mould, must\\nhave expressed not only the thought but the language\\nof the seer himself, to enable the tremendous claims\\nof his work to pass unchallenged in Ephesus from the\\nvery outset.\\nThe epistles entitled of John are clearly from\\nthe same region and period, perhaps a few years\\nlater. Their author superscribes himself simply The\\nElder. That this Elder s name was assumed by\\nscribes of the second century to be John was a simple\\nconsequence of their manifest relation to the fourth\\nGospel. If we find reason to think the connection of\\nthe name of John with the fourth Gospel has no more\\ndirect justification than that of Matthew with the\\nfirst, there remains nothing to indicate that the\\nunknown Elder s name was John rather than\\nAlcibiades or Melchizedek. 8\\n1 We should remember that Papias merely employed the\\nEpistle (and Gospel but quoted the Apocalypse as of the\\nApostle. Justin Martyr boasts of the possession of the Pro-\\nphecy by John, an Apostle of the Lord, but if he uses the\\nGospel uses it only as Papias did the Epistle. Modern criticism\\nfinds similar employment of Gospel and Epistles in spite of still\\nstronger motives for quoting them as of the Apostle, if known to\\nbe Johannine, in the Ignatian Epistles (117 a.d.); see E. von\\nder Goltz, Ignatius von Antiochien (T. u. U. xii, 3, 1894).\\nCitation begins with Theophilus of Antioch (180 a.d.).\\n2 1 Pet. 1:1; 5:12.\\n3 For a thorough discussion of present-day criticism of Rev.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0269.jp2"}, "270": {"fulltext": "250 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nsee the article Apoc. and Recent Criticism, by Barton, Am.\\nJourn. of Theol., Oct., 1898, who rightly commends the analytical\\nkeenness of the discussion by Briggs in Messiah of the Apostles,\\n1895. Bousset s Legend of Antichrist (Engl., 1896) and article\\nApocalypse in the Encycl. Bibl., 1899, are indispensable.\\nThe special theory of Vischer, espoused by Harnack, and most\\nof the documentary analyses are accessible only in German and\\nFrench (German Volter, Spitta, et al. French Schoen and\\nSabatier). Weizsacker {Ap. Age, transl. 1894-95) has specially\\nsensible treatment of the problem.\\nOn the Johannine Epistles, see Gloag s Introduction, 1891,\\nB. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, 1892, S. Cox, Private\\nLetters of St. Paul and St. John, and the article, John,\\nEpistles of, by S. D. F. Salmond in Hastings s B. D., 1899.\\nFor foreign literature generally, see bibliographies in the\\nCommentaries and Introductions.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0270.jp2"}, "271": {"fulltext": "CHAPTEE XI\\nTHE GOSPEL ACCOBDISTG TO JOHN\\nThe fourth Gospel is the effort of a gifted mind, Nature of\\nschooled in Phrygo-Alexandrian mysticism, and andtradi-\\ndivinely exalted in the conscious apprehension of the tion of its\\nmystery of the faith, to ground the higher Chris- ongm\\ntology of Paul in an interpretation, based on partly\\nindependent sources, of the ministry and teaching of\\nJesus. It is the answer of the church in Ephesus to\\nthe exhortation and prayer of Paul (Eph. 1 15-19\\n3 14-19 Col. 1 9-18 2 1-3. See p. 112)\\nTradition, dating from about 180 a.d., making no\\ndiscrimination of the three elements, Hellenistic\\nmysticism, Paulinism, Johannine reminiscence,\\nattributes the book, as a whole, to the Apostle John\\nin Ephesus, at the age of ninety to one hundred years.\\n1 Exhibited chiefly in Eph. -Col., hut developed in an Alexan-\\ndrian sense in Heb. The Paulinism of the fourth Gospel has\\nbeen well brought out by Oscar Holtzmann in his Johannes-\\nEvang., 1887. In particular, its dependence on Eph. is unmis-\\ntakable in such passages as Jn. 3 13 Eph. 4:10; Jn. 3 20f.,\\n12 35 Eph. 5 8, 11, 13 Jn. 10 16 11 52 17 20, 21, cf.\\nEph. 2 13-22 3 6 Jn. 17 24, cf Eph. 1 4, 6 2:4. Note\\nalso the Logos doctrine in Eph. 1 10, the washing of regener-\\nation, Eph. 5 26 (cf. Jn. 3:5; 15:3); Col. 2:11; Tit. 3 5,\\nthe unio mystica in the body of Christ, Eph. 4 1-18, cf. Jn.\\n15: Iff. In Eev. also the influence of Eph. and Col. is mani-\\nfest see Intern. Coram, on Eph. and Col. by T. K. Abbott, 1897,\\np. xxviii, and cf Eph. 2 20 with Eev. 21 14, Eph. 3 5 with\\nEev. 10 7, Eph. 6 11 with Eev. 18 4, Eph. 5 25 ff. with\\nEev. 19 7, etc.\\n251", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0271.jp2"}, "272": {"fulltext": "252 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nCriticism, once credulously sceptical in its estimate\\nof the capacity of authors to invent, and of churches\\nto adopt a pious fiction, sobered by larger knowledge,\\ntends to-day to admit, as the historical element of the\\nGospel, trustworthy data and genuine logia, resting\\non the authority of the son of Zebedee, but is more\\nconvinced than ever of the need for discrimination,\\nrecognition that the data have been mingled with less\\ntrustworthy material and wholly recast, the logia\\nexpanded into dialectic discourses, and the work as a\\nwhole adapted to the author s purpose of theological\\nexposition and interpretation, in a manner wholly\\nincompatible with the clear, historical recollection of\\nPresent an eye-witness. 1 The problem of the fourth Gospel\\nproblem! 116 is sti11 the most unsettlecl tlie mos t living, the most\\nsensitive in all the field of Introduction; but not all\\nthe controversy has been in vain. The acknowledged\\nleaders can touch hands across the chasm. Cham-\\npions of the Johannine authorship admit the extremely\\nlate date, the extreme subjectivity of the representa-\\ntion, making the story an interpretation rather than\\na life the great liberty in utilisation of discourse for\\nthe exposition of the author s conception of the doc-\\ntrine, so that all speakers have the same style and\\nideas, and these the highly peculiar style and ideas\\nof the Johannine Epistles; finally, the pervasive\\nHellenistic mysticism. Their opponents have been\\npushed back, in the matter of date, to within a decade\\nor two of the traditional, have rejected the idea of\\npure allegorical fiction, admitted (generally) a basis\\nof Johannine authority, and modified the demand for\\nexclusive dependence on the Synoptic tradition as\\nx An admirable review of both elements in the problem,\\nreceived too late for more than mention here, is given in\\nWendt s Johannesevangelium, 1900, chapters 1 and 2.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0272.jp2"}, "273": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 253\\ninvariably correct. We may surely venture to hope\\neven here for something more than a perpetual dead-\\nlock.\\nThe essential unity of the book is manifest from its Logical\\ncarefully studied form. The following structure is anal y sis\\ntraceable\\ni. The Galilean Ministry, cc. 1-6. a. Prologue. In\\nhis preexistence Christ is to be identified with the\\nLogos, 1:1-18.\\nb. Before the imprisonment of John. (1) Dis-\\nciples won at the baptism of John, the sign at Cana,\\nappearance at Jerusalem, and first preaching in\\nJudaea, 1 19-3 36. (2) In Samaria, 4 1-42.\\nc. In Galilee. (1) Capernaum, 4:43-54. (2) Sab-\\nbatarian opposition in Jerusalem, c. 5. (3) The Crisis\\nin Galilee, c. 6.\\nii. The Judaean Ministry, cc. 7-12. a. Jesus at the\\nFeast of Tabernacles, c. 7.\\nb. Breach with the men of Jerusalem, 8 12-10 21.\\nc. From the Feast of Dedication to the close of the\\npublic ministry, 10 22-12 50.\\niii. The Passion and Resurrection, cc. 13-20. a. Fare-\\nwell discourses and prayer, cc. 13-17.\\n6. Death and burial, cc. 18, 19.\\nc. The resurrection, c. 20.\\niv. Appendix, c. 21. 1\\n1 The unforeseen result of a threefold division under each of\\nthe above three heads recalls the numerical arrangement in\\nthis Gospel noted by H. Holtzmann, Einl., z p. 438. The Pro-\\nlogue begins with 3 propositions 3 days are spent with the\\nBaptist 3 times Jesus is in Galilee 3 times journeys to Judaea\\n3 Passovers and 3 other feasts fall within his ministry 3\\nmighty works are related of the Judaean field, and 3 of the Gali-\\nlean 3 divisions are expressly made of the discourse on the\\nlast day of Tabernacles 3 disclosures of the traitor are made\\nby Jesus 3 times he is himself condemned 3 times Pilate at-", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0273.jp2"}, "274": {"fulltext": "254\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nGeneral\\nGnostic-\\nbaptist\\ntendencies\\ncounter-\\nacted.\\nThe author s ultimate purpose is stated in general\\nterms in the formal conclusion, 20 30 f The seven\\nsigns given in ascending series from the wine at\\nCana to the raising of Lazarus, are a selection mani-\\nfesting the glory of Jesus but the higher type of\\nfaith the author principally aims to produce is that\\nwhich apprehends and ratifies the word of Jesus as\\nthe key to all truth. Hence the expository dialectic,\\nin which, first, sayings of the Baptist are cited and\\napplied in support (a) of the Logos doctrine, 1 (6) of\\nJesus as the suffering and atoning Messiah; 2 second,\\nsayings of Jesus, in support of the principal doctrines\\nof the faith. The subjects are (a) [the Eesurrection\\n(2:19 ff.)J; 8 (6) Kegeneration (3:1-21); (c) Life in\\nthe Spirit (4 1-42) (d) [the Authority of the Son of\\nMan, 4 cc. 5, 7]; (e) Christ the Bread of Life, c. 6;\\nChrist the Light of the World and True Shepherd,\\ncc. 8-10 (g) Christ the Resurrection and Life, c. 11\\n(h) Christ the Mystical Head of the Church, his Body,\\ncc. 13-17.\\nAlthough primarily for edification, the polemic\\nside glances of the gospel are as unmistakable as\\nthose of the Epistles, corroborating the primitive tra-\\ndition which declared its purpose to have been anti-\\nCerinthian. 5 Baldensperger, 6 recurring to the habit\\nof the gospel wherever opportunity occurs of contrast-\\ning Jesus with the Baptist, noted a century ago by\\nMichaelis, has thrown new light upon this feature\\nof the author s design. Clearly he aims to correct\\ntempts to save hini 3 words are spoken from the cross after\\n3 days he rises and appears 3 times to the disciples.\\nil: 6t 16. 2 1 19 ff., 26 f., 29-34, 36 3 22-36.\\n8 Perhaps a later addition. See below.\\n4 C. 5 is probably displaced. See below.\\n6 Cf. 19 34 f with Un. 5 6.\\n6 Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, 1898.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0274.jp2"}, "275": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO JOHN 255\\nexaggerated views of the personality and work of the\\nBaptist, 1 so that we cannot but be reminded of the\\ncuriously abnormal type of Christianity Paul had\\nfound at Ephesus, connecting itself with the Baptist,\\nthough professing some sort of belief in Christ, and\\nnot improbably mingling with it certain speculative\\nelements of an Alexandrian type. 2 To suppose, how-\\never, that these were disciples of John the Baptist,\\npure and simple, is, in our judgment, less probable\\nthan to recognise here one of the many Judaistic\\nGnostic sects 8 of the usual eclectic character, which,\\nafter the manner of parasitic growths, had fastened\\nupon the movement of the Baptist, before endeavour-\\ning to absorb Christianity. The fact should not be\\nforgotten that by unanimous representation of the\\nFathers, both Simon Magus, the father of Gnosticism,\\nand Dositheus, his reputed predecessor and rival in\\nSamaria, began as disciples of John the Baptist, pro-\\nclaiming a doctrine of successive reincarnations of the\\nLogos, while Gnostic sects known as Hemerobaptists,\\nSabeeans, and disciples of St. John (i.e. the Baptist),\\nperpetuated themselves for centuries in the East.\\nWriting when he does, where he does, and as he Other\\ndoes, we cannot accept as a complete statement of our features of\\nauthor s purpose the general desire to confirm and author s\\nbuild up the faith of believers 4 expressed in the esign\\n1 1:8 (note context and emphasis), 15, 19-28 (especially\\nvs. 20), 30, 33; 3:25-30, 31-36; 4: If., 5:33ff.; 10:41;\\n13 10, etc.\\n2 Acts 18 24 f. 19 1-7 cf. Col. 2 8-23.\\n8 Friedlander, op. cit., pp. 28-40, employs Heb. (by Apollos\\nto show the relation of Christianity to the Gnostic sect known\\nas Melchizedekians. Needless to say Proconsular Asia was the\\nhotbed of their speculative eclectic theosophies.\\n4 That the intended readers are Christians is apparent, not\\nonly from the subject-matter as a whole, but from the frequent", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0275.jp2"}, "276": {"fulltext": "256 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nResources\\nof the\\nChurch.\\n(1) The\\nteaching of\\nthe Spirit.\\n(2) The\\nhistoric\\ntraditions.\\ncolophon 20 31. We recall the more specific declara-\\ntion of 1 Jn. 2 26. The two great resources of the\\nChurch appealed to by that author, its historic tradi-\\ntion and the inner light, are used again to edify\\nbelievers, but again specifically to fortify their faith\\nagainst the threatening conditions of their peculiar\\nenvironment, to wit, the temptations of a vaunting\\nspeculative theosophy equally forgetful of the his-\\ntoric reality and of the moral earnestness of the faith.\\nAgainst this error our author sets up the truth held\\nby the Church, historic and moral. Its doctrine is a\\nrevelation profounder than any Gnostic system, and\\nself-demonstrative to the conscience (1 Jn. 5 9-12).\\nPrimarily it is the teaching of Jesus, but not the\\nmere logia in current use; there is a heart of the\\ndoctrine of Christ which appears only by aid of\\nthe supplementary teaching of the Spirit, 1 as when\\nit is enriched by all the deeper speculative thought of\\nPaul, whereby a few principles of Jesus are developed\\ninto a grander cosmology than Gnostics can boast,\\nand given an eternal and universal application. We\\nhave, then, in this gospel the teaching of Jesus as it\\nappears to a mind which looks back upon the Church s\\nconflict of 50-100 a.d. against Hellenistic theosophy,\\nand round about on its Gnostic rivals. No wonder\\nthe writer speaks with authority as the conscious\\npossessor of a revelation which reaches the end of\\nreligion by attaining fellowship with God.\\nBut he has more than a subjective assurance.\\nSpecial tradition enables him to treat even the Syn-\\noptic story with bold independence, supplementing,\\nexplaining, correcting, with a confidence attributable\\nassumption of their familiarity with gospel story, e.g. 3:24;\\n11:2.\\ni Jn. 14:26; 15: 26; 16 12 ff.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0276.jp2"}, "277": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 257\\nonly to apostolic testimony. 1 Per contra a closer\\nscrutiny of the freedom with which he handles both\\nthe teaching and the story, a freedom marked not so\\nmuch by disdain as by simple unconsciousness of its\\ninconsistency with historical perspective and environ-\\nment, forbids our accounting for his frequent superi-\\nority of knowledge by supposing him to have been\\npersonally an eye-witness.\\nWe turn first to the discourses. Few will deny that The\\nin this gospel the prerogative of the ancient historian J? hanQin e\\nto place in the mouth of his characters discourses\\nreflecting his own idea of what were suitable to the\\noccasion, has been used to the limit. 2 It is often\\nimpossible to say where the words of the speaker 8\\nleave off and the reflections of the evangelist begin.\\nThroughout, the style has its own marked individu-\\nality, but in vocabulary, in doctrine, in content, it is\\nthat of the author of the Johannine Epistles and differs\\nwidely from the whole type of Jesus discourse, as\\notherwise known. 4 As an illustration take the Johan-\\nnine parable. It has a uniform type and subject:\\nI am the good Shepherd, I am the bread of life,\\nI am the door, I am the true vine, etc. Is this\\na historical representation of Jesus characteristic\\nmode of teaching? Apart from all questions of\\nattestation we must decide in favour of the Synoptic\\nrepresentation and against that of John on internal\\ngrounds. The former bears the stamp of veracity in\\n1 For example, see below, p. 265.\\na Thus in 18 33-38 he can report the private dialogue of\\nPilate with Jesus, as in 3 1 ff. that with Nicodemus, and in\\n4 7-26 that with the woman of Samaria.\\n8 E.g. 3 13 ff., Jesus 3 27 ff., the Baptist.\\nWe note that Luke also gives new discourses of Jesus, and\\nsometimes adapts them but in Luke the new material agrees\\nwith the old in John all is different,\\ns", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0277.jp2"}, "278": {"fulltext": "258 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nIncompati-\\nble with the\\nhistoric con-\\nditions.\\nTheir rela-\\ntion to the\\ncycle of\\nfeasts.\\nits admirable adaptation to the historical circum-\\nstances and the wise purpose of Jesus. Beginning\\nwith a close adherence to the reformatory message of\\nthe Baptist, his preaching advances through an imper-\\nsonal teaching as to the nature of the Kingdom, the\\ncharacter of the new righteousness, the breadth of the\\nlove of God. He sows the good seed as widely as pos-\\nsible and in a form adapting it to lodgement and fruc-\\ntification in the minds by which he is surrounded,\\nbefore he precipitates the crisis by the announcement\\nof his Messiahship. This comes only when the utmost\\nhas been done to forestall misunderstanding, and to\\nlift his followers and the public to something like his\\nown conception.\\nThe Johannine discourse is utterly wanting in any\\nsuch adaptation to the known conditions. In form\\nit is enigmatic and abstruse, often polemic} in subject,\\nunsympathetic. From the outset Jesus announces,\\nwithout reserve, his Messiahship, and the discussions\\nwhich ensue, dealing with his ethical relation to the\\nFather and to the spiritual life of the believer, are ill\\nadapted indeed to the synagogues of Galilee or the\\nstreets of Jerusalem. Should we conceive a back-\\nground for this subtle dialectic it might be rather the\\nschool of Tyrannus in Ephesus, where some successor\\nof Paul reasons on the higher Christology against\\nsome unfledged Cerinthus, before a Christian assembly.\\nThe great discourses of the fourth Gospel show,\\nindeed, as we shall see, 1 a certain adaptation to the\\nfeasts on occasion of which they appear to be uttered.\\nThus, the discourse concerning Christ as the true\\nmanna, whereby the supreme miracle of Moses is out-\\ndone, is given on occasion of the Feast of Unleavened\\n1 On the original order of John, which exhibits the relation\\nof the great discourses to the cycle of feasts, see below, p. 273.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0278.jp2"}, "279": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 259\\nBread. At the ensuing Pentecost, the Feast of the\\ngiving of the Law, the authority of Christ and his\\nhigher law is set over against the authority of Moses\\n(c. 5). At the Feast of Tabernacles, with its rite of\\nwater pouring, we have discourses regarding the bath\\nof regeneration and the invigorating water of life.\\nAt the Feast of Dedication, known as the Feast of\\nLights, from the illumination of the city in celebra-\\ntion of it, Jesus presents himself as the Light of the\\nworld. And in the final great discourses at Passover\\nthe disciples are taught the doctrine of the true Israel\\nof God, brought into an eternal fellowship with the\\nFather through the Son, in the parable of the True\\nVine, and the related discourses (cc. 15 f., 14). But\\nit is easy to see that this kind of relation between the\\nfeasts and the discourses is of literary, not historical\\norigin.\\nWe are far from denying the presence of genuine Composed\\nlogia embedded in these discourses. In 2 19 we have the basis\\none indisputably such. 1 In other cases single clauses logia.\\nmay be identified with great probability as words of\\nJesus. In 15:18-16:2 we have a Johannine elabo-\\nration of discourse material found also in Matt.\\n10 17-22. It would be indeed strange if an author\\nof this period, employing the historical form, should\\nnot utilise such. But with all due allowance, it is\\nimpossible to regard the set discourses of John, as a\\nwhole, as other than literary compositions by the\\nauthor of the Johannine Epistles. The lofty Chris-\\ntology, the mysticism and spirituality of Paul are\\npresupposed in their still deeper, subtler mysticism.\\nThe Pauline doctrine of the preexistence 2 and mission\\ni Cf. Mk. 14 58 15 29.\\n2 1 1, 14 3 13, 17, 31-34, etc. cf. 1 Cor. 8 6 2 Cor. 8:9;\\nEph. 1:4; Col. 1 15, etc.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0279.jp2"}, "280": {"fulltext": "260 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nHistorical\\nmaterial\\nsimilarly-\\nelaborated.\\nof the Son, 1 atonement, 2 regeneration, 3 life in the\\nspirit, 4 form a dominating element in the author s\\nmind. Is he, then, presenting to us what he conceives\\nthe teaching of Jesus actually to have been, or is he\\npurposely idealising? Probably neither. He is not\\nconsciously either historical or unhistorical. He\\nsimply frees his own mind on these essentials of\\nChristian doctrine without considering the question\\nof historicity. But we may well ask, Could the mind\\nof an eye-witness and peculiarly devoted follower of\\nJesus be so emptied of the veritable utterances of the\\nMaster as to leave room for such idealisation? When\\nwe consider how others were perpetuating the histori-\\ncal discourses an affirmative answer is not easy.\\nSimilar conclusions are still more obvious in our\\nauthor s treatment of his historical material. Here\\nwe have the same extreme liberty, hand in hand with\\na limitation almost equally extreme. The story of\\nthe Synoptic Gospels is presupposed. There is\\ndependence upon it, sometimes mistaken dependence. 5\\nThe outline of the career of Jesus is sketched in a\\nmanner not merely out of harmony with the triple\\ntradition, but irreconcilable with the historical situa-\\ntion, and with the narrative itself. The call of the\\nMessiah, the foundation stone of the Synoptic story,\\nwhich in Mark forms the beginning of the Gospel,\\nis not simply displaced, as in Matthew and Luke, by a\\nmiraculous Messiah-birth, but absolutely disappears\\nfrom the scene. Paul s doctrine of a preexistent\\n1 3 16 cf. Rom. 5 8 2 Cor. 9 15, etc.\\n2 3 14 12 32 cf Rom. 3 25.\\n3 3: 3; cf. Rom. 6 4ff. Tit. 3:5.\\n4 10-14 cf. Rom. 8 10 f.\\n5 See below on the dependence of Jn. 11 2 12 3 on Lk.\\n7 38, itself dependent on Luke s special source combined with\\nelements from Mk. 14 3.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0280.jp2"}, "281": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 261\\nchoice on the part of the Son to come into the world\\nand assume the role of Eedeemer, 1 having been adopted\\nas a persistent consciousness in the mind of Jesus, 2\\nthere remains no room for the vision in his earthly\\nlife. Messiah s call is in the preexistent eternity. The call to\\nConsequently, the story of the baptismal vision cannot l V Q M s\\nbe connected with Jesus, but it is vouchsafed to the and func-\\nBaptist. 3 The function of the Baptist himself is sub- g^tistmis-\\nordinated, still further than in the Synoptic Gospels, conceived.\\nto his successor; it no longer has any independent\\nsignificance whatever. The Baptist declares that he\\ncomes exclusively for the purpose of making known\\nthe Messiah to Israel. This done, his work is at an\\nend and his disciples are referred to Jesus. 4 For\\nthese, in turn, there is no long process of preparation\\nby which they are made ready to receive the startling\\nannouncement, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the\\nliving God but from the very outset the Messiah-\\nship is announced to them, and in its fullest contents. 5\\n12 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6-8.\\n2 13:3; 16:28; 17:5.\\n3 This extraordinary result, making the Baptist the recipient\\nof the vision whereby Jesus perceived his divine calling,\\nalthough the nature of the vision is foreign to the Baptist s\\nconceptions, and the effect of it is felt by Jesus, may have been\\nfacilitated by the ambiguity of the pronoun in Semitic narrative\\n(cf. Matt. 3: 16), as conjectured by B. Weiss {Life of Christ,\\nVol. I, p. 324, note), though with inversion of the facts. See\\nmy article, Autobiography of Jesus, in the Am. Journ. of\\nTheol, July, 1898, p. 544 ff. This, however, is only the final\\nstage of the process begun by the Synoptists of reducing the\\nfunction of the Baptist from independent importance to that of\\na witness to Jesus personally, and nothing more. Such a com-\\nplete misconception is especially insupposable on the part of\\none who had himself followed the Baptist.\\n1 31-34, 35-37 3 26-30.\\n5 The attempt to meet the difficulty of the unmistakable\\nnovelty of the announcement at Caesarea Philippi in the", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0281.jp2"}, "282": {"fulltext": "262\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nUnhistorical\\nview of the\\natonement.\\nOf the\\nsigns\\nand other\\nincidents.\\nA similar blindness to historical conditions and\\nperspective characterises our author s representation\\nof Jesus approach to the final catastrophe. The\\nhours of witness-bearing are a mere interval to be\\npassed over toward the great hour in which the Son\\nof Man is glorified the atoning death is anticipated\\nfrom the beginning. Even John the Baptist preaches\\nthe Pauline doctrine in an utterance which no reason-\\nable exegesis can make consonant with his proclama-\\ntion of the Coming One. 1\\nThe details of the narrative are equally unreal.\\nThe typical miracle of Jesus, exorcism, has absolutely\\ndisappeared, and the seven signs are, to a great\\nextent, of a different type. 2 The failure of our\\nauthor to comprehend the material he uses is in some\\ncases clear. The transposition of the cleansing of the\\ntemple from its only possible position in the histori-\\ncal nexus, at the point where Jesus is ready, by this\\nsymbolic .act, to throw down the gauntlet to the\\nreligious authorities and openly declare his reforma-\\ntory purpose, to a place at the beginning of the min-\\nistry, cannot be due to correct tradition. The very\\nsaying connected with it is inseparable from the\\nSynoptic story, by urging that Jesus was now recognised as\\nthe Messiah in a higher sense than before, inverts the\\nrelation of Jn. 1 29-34, 86, 45, 48-51 to Matt. 17 16 and\\nparallels.\\ni Jn. 1 29, 36 cf. Lk. 3 7-9, 161, and 7 18 f., 23.\\n2 Jesus himself places a moral limit on the right of appeal to\\nGod for intervention, Matt. 4:3-7; 26 53 f. Lk. 11 16, 29.\\nThe all-prevailing prayer of faith cannot be resorted to against\\nreasonable evidence that the will of God is opposed, Mk. 14 41 f.\\nThe Synoptists often fail to appreciate the distinction (contrast\\nMk. 14 25-33 with 4 5-7), but our author leans even further\\ntoward thaumaturgy (contrast 2 1-1 1 with Matt. 4 3 f and\\n11:4-6; cf. 9 3 f. with Lk. 11 29), though the discourses show\\na higher point of view, 5 30 6 32.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0282.jp2"}, "283": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 263\\nclosing scenes of Jesus life and this saying itself\\nis interpreted in a literal and certainly incorrect\\nsense. If Ave look at the scenes depicted in common Faulty de-\\nby the fourth Gospel and the Synoptists, we find s y n p\u00c2\u00b0\u00c2\u00b0c\u00c2\u00b0 n\\ndependence on the part of the former. The multitude story.\\nno sooner appear in 6 5 than Jesus puts the question\\nto his disciples, Whence are we to buy bread, that\\nthese may eat the author overleaping, in the\\nfamiliarity of the story, the necessary Synoptic\\nexplanation that they are faint for lack of food,\\nhaving been with him three days in the wilderness.\\nStill more striking is the dependence upon Luke and\\nMark in 12: 1-8, 2 already referred to as proving mis-\\ntaken dependence. In 11:2 knowledge by the reader\\nof the Marcan story is presupposed, but the essential\\nsignificance of the anointing is lost in 12 1-8, in the\\neffort to make the mode in which the honour is offered\\nmore humble. In Mk. 14:3-9 Matt. 26:6-13)\\nthe motive is consonant with the festal occasion; the\\nwoman (in John doubtless correctly identified as\\nMary) testifies her faith in Jesus Messiahship by a\\nsemi-public anointing, 3 which Jesus, however, mourn-\\nfully turns from a royal to a funereal sense, to the\\ndisgust of Judas (vs. 10). Luke, who discards the\\nstory, doubtless as a duplicate of his own 4 of the Ee-\\npentant Harlot who bathed Jesus feet with her tears\\nand wiped them with her hair, inappropriately grafts\\nin the Marcan traits of the alabaster cruse of oint-\\nment, 6 and the name Simon, 6 to embellish his own\\nwholly different narrative. But Jn. 12 1-8 follows Later exag-\\ngerations,\\ni Cf Mk. 14 57 f 15 29.\\n2 Verse 8 is identical verbatim et literatim with Matt. 26 11,\\nand would therefore show use of Matthew also, but the verse is\\nomitted in Sin. Syr., and looks like a scribal loan.\\n3 Cf. 1 Sam. 10 1 16 13. 7 36-50.\\n5 37 bp, 38 /3, 46. 6 40, 43, 44.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0283.jp2"}, "284": {"fulltext": "264 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nthe conflate form, returning to the narrative of Mark,\\nbut adding, from Luke, traits which necessarily belong\\nin the story of the Eepentant Harlot; for we cannot\\notherwise account for the statements that Mary\\nanointed Jesus feet and wiped them with her hair.\\nThe relation of our Gospel to (Matthew?), Mark,\\nand Luke could hardly receive more convincing illus-\\ntration.\\nOr granted that thus far we have established but a\\nprobability, what candid mind can ignore the flagrant\\nexaggerations of Jn. 18 1-6 in contrast to the mourn-\\nful simplicity of the Synoptic parallel? Is it not the\\nvery essence and pathos of the story of Gethsemane,\\nthe heroism of its victory of faith, that no such\\nmiraculous intervention came? A rabble of slaves\\ngathered from the high priest s household and hastily\\nequipped with sword, bludgeon, and torch, sufficed\\nto overpower the Son of Man. His frightened fol-\\nlowers did not obtain their dreamed-of opportunity of\\nseeing a cohort (o-7ra/oa) of six hundred Eoman soldiers\\ngo backward and fall to the ground at the mere\\nmention of his name. 1\\nPoints of Per contra we should greatly mistake the facts if\\nsuperiority, we undervalued the features of historical tradition\\nwhich underlie the story of John. The Synoptic\\ntradition tends, as all know, to condense the career of\\nJesus within the limits of a single ecclesiastical year,\\nculminating at the Passover. It foreshortens his\\nministry in Samaria, Persea, and Judaea to a dispro-\\n1 The exaggeration is part of a systematic effort to show that\\nJesus was not, as commonly objected, ignorant of the true\\ncharacter of his betrayer, nor overtaken unawares by a fate he\\nwas too weak to resist. A succession of passages evince this\\ndesign, Jn. 6 64, 70 f. 13 11, 18 f., 21-30 2: 21, 23-25 3\\n14 4 44 7 30, 44 8 206 10 39. Cf. Wendt, Johannesev.,\\np. 25 f.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0284.jp2"}, "285": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 265\\nportionate brevity as compared with the ministry in\\nGalilee. The fourth Gospel reverses this. If the\\nGalilean ministry is reduced to a bare paragraph or\\ntwo, that of Samaria, Peraa, and, especially, Judaea,\\nenlarges to inversely corresponding dimensions. The\\nSynoptic chronology, likewise, is expanded in John,\\nand this is in accordance with the facts for traces are\\ndiscernible in the Synoptic story itself 1 of the arti-\\nficiality of the annual system. The fourth Gospel\\nalso follows a system connected with the Jewish\\nfeasts, but at least it boldly breaks the fast solidifying\\nbond of a false tradition.\\nNot only so, but even before the days of Clement Data of Jn.\\nof Alexandria it had been remarked how it supple- U Qop^ 1 c ent\\nments the triple tradition with invaluable historical tradition,\\ndata. In Mk. 1 14 and parallels the story of the\\nGalilean ministry begins abruptly after the impris-\\nonment of John. Of what has gone before we only\\nknow that in some more or less remote period of the\\npast, Jesus, at the baptism of John, has received his\\nMessianic call. Why the fishermen of Galilee forsake\\nall to follow the enigmatical summons of an apparent\\nstranger we cannot divine. It is the fourth Gospel\\nwhich explains the mystery Jesus is no stranger to\\nthese men. They have already served with him in\\ncooperation with the reformatory movement of the\\nBaptist. They have known what it is to catch men.\\nUnder his leadership a work like that of John himself\\nhad been begun, and withdrawal from it resulted only\\nfrom his unwillingness to appear a competitor with\\n1 Mk. 2 23 (6 39 implies at least one more Passover\\nseason than the evangelist allows. Luke s Peraean ministry is\\nquite too crowded, and demands an interval of several months\\nafter the return from Tyre and Sidon, and before the final visit\\nto Capernaum, which may perhaps be dated in March, Matt.\\n17 24-27.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0285.jp2"}, "286": {"fulltext": "266 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nthe great forerunner. 1 John s imprisonment is the\\nconnecting link between the two parts of the tra-\\ndition. Completely as our author misunderstands\\nthe Baptist s work and character, the facts he has\\nhere to supply are incapable of invention, and testify\\nto the value of his knowledge.\\nJn. corrects A more celebrated instance of discrepancy between\\ndat S o7th tlC e Synoptic and Johannine tradition is that connected\\ncrucifixion. x with the so-called quarto-deciman controversy. It\\ncannot be through inadvertence that the fourth Gos-\\npel represents, in contradiction to the Synoptists,\\nthat the death of Jesus took place on the 14th Nisan,\\nsimultaneously with the slaughter of the Passover\\nlamb. Its representations are not explicit, but the\\nrepeated suggestions of the true date are too clear to\\nconceal the author s purpose of setting right the\\nvariant tradition. 2 Much has been made of this con-\\ntradiction to prove the unhistorical character of this\\nnarrative. The facts of the case, when closely scru-\\ntinised, would seem to lead rather to the opposite\\nconclusion. The tendency was doubtless strong\\nenough in the early Jewish Christian Church to iden-\\ntify the last meal of Jesus with his disciples with\\nthe Passover, whose recurrence continually reminded\\nthem of the closing scenes of his life. Yet, if we\\nlook at the Synoptic story itself, as distinguished\\nfrom the evangelists conception, how little is there\\nto justify such an identification. If this had been in\\ntruth the Passover meal, how strange that no allusion\\nis made to its formal rites, so suggestive of compari-\\nson with the fate Jesus was about to suffer. If the\\nPassover lamb lay upon the table, why is it that there\\nis no mention of anything but the bread and wine and\\ndish of sauce, and Jesus, for comparison of his own\\n1 Jn. 3 22-24. 2 13 1, 29 18 28 19 31.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0286.jp2"}, "287": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 267\\nslaughtered body, uses only the wafer of bread Why\\ndoes he, if with desire he had desired to eat that Pass-\\nover with them before he suffered, not eat of it, but\\npoint them only to its fulfilment in the Kingdom of\\nGod? l We can understand how the simple meal of\\nthe night before Passover should soon come in the\\nChurch to be identified with the Passover itself. We\\ncould not understand the reverse. And let us turn to\\nthe oldest and best of all witnesses. The Apostle In agree-\\nPaul, writing to the Corinthians at the Passover pj 1\\nseason, makes a twofold comparison: Christ our\\nPassover is sacrificed for us and is become the\\nfirst fruits [6.Trapxn\\\\ of them that slept. If the date\\nof Jesus death was, as John relates, the Friday,\\nfourteenth iSTisan, on which the lamb was slain, and\\nthe third day, the Sunday of his resurrection, was\\nsixteenth Nisan, the day of first fruits, when the\\na-Kapxn was offered in the temple, how beautifully\\nappropriate the comparison. How strange that Paul\\nshould make it if in reality the ritual acts took place\\nin each case on the day preceding the corresponding\\nevent in the life of Jesus. In spite of difficulties, we\\ncannot but think the fourth Gospel and the tradition\\nof Asia Minor as to the actual practice of the beloved\\ndisciple are the true representatives of historical\\nreality.\\nWhat, then, shall we say of the result, but that it\\nis a mingled one? In both elements of the Johannine\\ntradition, teaching, and story, we have the evidence\\nof superior knowledge conjointly with errors insup-\\nposable in an eye-witness. The conclusion we thus\\nforeshadow grows only stronger as we take up the\\nother phenomena of the book.\\nIt would be puerile to proceed at once to the as- The sources\\nof superior\\niLk. 22:15 f.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0287.jp2"}, "288": {"fulltext": "268 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\ninformation sumption that because a more and a less trustworthy\\nextricable 6 e l emen t are present in the discourses and narrative of\\nthe fourth Gospel we have nothing to do but to resort\\nto the methods of documentary analysis to reach\\noffhand the solution of the problem. Against all\\nsuch rough and ready attempts to distinguish an ele-\\nment which we may deem worthy of the Apostle, and\\nanother which shall bear all the onus of the mistakes\\nand misunderstandings, the famous comparison of\\nBaur holds true the Gospel of John is like the seam-\\nless coat of the Lord. But even the seamless coat\\nalso had a warp and woof and a tasselled fringe, and\\nevery historian, including our author, must use mate-\\nrials oral and written, to which his own reflections\\nwill be appended. In fact, it can hardly be explained\\nhow Tatian and other authors of the second century\\ncan have given this material in what appears to be a\\nmore original form and order than in John, unless\\nthrough acquaintance with some of the still surviving\\nsources of the Gospel. 1 Among these were Luke as\\nwe have seen, and at least one other of our Synoptic\\nThe main Gospels. But the main source on which the compiler\\nGospel. of John, in its present form, has relied is unmistak-\\nably the work of the writer of the three Epistles.\\nBoth narrative and discourse material bear the pe-\\nculiar mark of his inimitable genius. Disordered,\\n1 Thus the story of the Pool of Bethesda, Jn. 5 1-9, in the\\nbest and most ancient texts, lacks the explanation of the angel\\ntroubling the water, vss. 36, 4. If the unanimous verdict of\\ncritics is correct, the author of our Gospel never wrote them.\\nBut they form an integral part of the story, being presupposed\\nby vss. 3, 7, and agreeing in style. Doubtless the interpolating\\nscribe took them from an extra-canonical source, but that same\\nsource must then represent what lay before the author when he\\ncut out the objectionable feature. Cf. the reinstatement of Jn.\\n7 53-8 11 in the Ferrariani after Lk. 21 38.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0288.jp2"}, "289": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 269\\ninterpolated, disconnected from its original sequence,\\nmisinterpreted as much of it now is, the mass of our\\nGospel can be derived from no other hand. But this\\nis as surely to be distinguished from the hand of the\\nauthor of the Revelation on the one side as from the\\nhand of the compiler and author of the appendix\\n(c. 21) on the other. 1 There is scarcely a paragraph\\nor sentence the author of the Revelation could have\\nwritten, and whole chapters which are incompatible\\nwith his views. Strange indeed would it be, if two\\nworks emanating within the same decade from the\\nsame small circle should not afford a few specimens\\nof similarity in phraseology and vocabulary 2 but the\\nminds to which we owe these two productions stand\\nalmost at opposite poles of Christian thought. Not\\nin its eschatology alone, but in almost every depart-\\nment the one shows the extreme of Semitic objectiv-\\nism, crudity, particularism of thought, the other a\\ndepth, refinement, and subtlety, a mastery of Hellen-\\nistic mysticism worthy of a pupil of Philo.\\nWe are told, indeed, by the writer of the appendix Testimony\\nthat his compilation presents the testimony and writ- appendix\\n1 Zahn (Eiril. \u00c2\u00a766, Vol. II, p. 483 ff.), the prince of con-\\nservative scholars, proves conclusively that chapter 21 is really\\nan appendix by another hand, and no one will dispute such an\\norigin for 21 24 f But why limit the work of the final editor\\nto chapter 21 Lightfoot {Biblical Essays, p. 194, Additional\\nNote A, On the Twenty-first Chapter has shown that we\\nmust attribute 21 19 to the same hand as 12 33. The proper\\ninference is not that the Apostle wrote the correction of current\\nopinion in 21 23, which only his own death would naturally\\nprompt, but that the final editor not only wrote an appendix,\\nbut retouched, if he did not recast, the gospel. See below.\\nWendt, op. cit., attempts to extricate the book of discourses,\\nwhich he attributes to the Apostle John.\\n2 Altogether too much is made of these inter alios by Reyn-\\nolds in the article for Hastings B. D., above referred to.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0289.jp2"}, "290": {"fulltext": "270 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nThree hands ing of the beloved disciple, and, as we have seen, the\\nable mSU1Sll conscious authority and superior knowledge evinced\\nwould scarcely admit any other explanation, even if\\nwe had not in 19 35 the explicit and solemn assevera-\\ntion that the statement is made on the authority of a\\nstill living eye-witness. But 19:35 can only have\\nbeen written by the author of 20: 20 his side and\\n1 Jn. 5:6; and Jn. 20:20 ff. is surely not from the\\nhand which added the appendix. Hence, we have\\nthree to distinguish, (a) the witness (e/cetVos otSev,\\n19 35), (b) the original reporter of the Apostle s tes-\\ntimony, (c) the compiler of our gospel and author\\nof the appendix. Of these three, when the gospel\\nappeared in the form known to us, the first was cer-\\ntainly dead (21:23), and the second almost certainly;\\nelse why should his work be edited by another. Is\\nit reasonable, then, to treat the general statement of\\nthe third, in which he lays claim to the highest pos-\\nsible authority for the work he is issuing as testified\\nand written by the Apostle (21 24), as if he intended,\\nor were able, to distinguish between such elaborative\\nreproduction of the Apostle s testimony as would be\\nnatural to the profound and cultured mind which has\\ngiven us the Epistles, and ordinary dictation? No;\\nhis intention is simply to claim Apostolic authority\\nfor the gospel material left by the Elder, and which\\nhe now edits, in the same way that later writers claim\\nit for Mark and Luke, by asserting that they were\\nwritten (i.e. dictated) by Peter and Paul. The editor\\nand the church in whose name he speaks assert their\\nknowledge that the gospel herewith given forth is\\nthe Gospel according to John, as he had testified\\nand as he had caused it to be written 1 the figure of\\n1 If the author of Jn. 21 24 really intends to assert more\\nthan that the work of the Elder had the approval of the\\nApostle, it is at least as probable that the attributing to him of", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0290.jp2"}, "291": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 271\\nthe great-minded Elder sinks into the insignificance\\nof a mere amanuensis because the one essential point\\nwas to connect the work as closely as possible with\\nthe Apostle.\\nAs to the personality of these two, the Son of Personality\\nThunder and the nameless Elder of Ephesus, it is only J vs\\nneedful to remind the reader that two portraits of the author of\\nApostle are current in the Church, differing from one a nd nfain eS\\nanother as widely as the Apocalypse from the other source of\\nJohannine writings. The one is based on the n\\nSynoptic writings and Paul 1 and depicts a fiery,\\nzealous partisan, 2 whose salient faults are a self-\\nassertive ambition 3 and a narrow intolerance, 4 which\\neven a score of years after had not disappeared suf-\\nficiently to permit the association of John with Paul,\\nrather than with the conservative James, as an\\nApostle to the circumcision only. 5 The other repre-\\nsents almost the opposite extreme of self-effacement,\\nbroad and spiritual-minded universalism. But it\\nis based exclusively upon the Gospel and Epistles\\nassumed to be, as reported, the work of John, and\\ntakes no account of the contemporary Book of\\nKevelation.\\nAs for our compiler and author of the appendix, Work of the\\nthe traces of his work are frequent throughout the and^uthor\\nGospel in misunderstandings and disarrangements of of the\\nthe material. Thus, the saying of Jesus in 17 12 is a PP endix\\nmisapplied in 18 9, as 2 19 is misinterpreted in 2 21\\nand surely a cultured Hebrew would not have taken\\nthe familiar figure of the bath qol in 12 29 in the\\nliteral and concrete sense. Most striking of all the\\nevidence, however, is the strange dislocation of\\ndirect participation in the authorship is a mistaken inference\\nfrom 19 35, as that he had personal knowledge on the subject.\\ni Gal. 2 1, 10. 2 Mk. 3 17. 3 Mk. 10 35 ff.\\nMk. 9 38 Lk. 9 54. 6 Qal. 2 1-10.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0291.jp2"}, "292": {"fulltext": "272 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nmaterial, of which we have instances throughout.\\nDiscourses begun in one place to one audience are\\ncontinued months after in a different situation to a\\ndifferent audience, or to no audience at all, as if no\\ninterruption had occurred. Peter begins his denials\\nat the house of Annas around the fire of the servants\\nthere, and completes them before another fire at the\\nhouse of Caiaphas at the conclusion of Jesus second\\nexamination. The discourse of chapter 5 cannot\\noriginally have been intended to interrupt the sequence\\nof the Galilean ministry, or to produce the extraordi-\\nnary transition from the Temple in Jerusalem to the\\nother side of the Lake of Tiberias. The study of\\nthe Johannine chronology long ago revealed to J. P.\\nNorris that its true position is after, not before\\nchapter 6. 1 Not long after Bertling 2 and Wendt, 8\\nignorant of Norris s conclusions, proved that the con-\\ntinuation of the discourse in chapter 5 appears in\\nc. 7:15-24.\\nDisplace- In like manner, the farewell discourse reaches not\\noriginal on ^Y ^s final leave-taking, but the actual command,\\norder. Arise, let us go hence, in chapter 14. This should\\nbe followed by the prayer, chapter 17 (conceived as\\nuttered standing), 4 but is now followed, wholly with-\\nout connection, by the larger part of the discourse,\\ncc. 15, 16. 6\\nA list of displacements of similar character, resting\\n1 Article On the Chronology of St. John V and VI, in\\nJournal of Philology, Vol. Ill, No. 5 (1871).\\n2 Eine Transposition, etc., in Stud. u. Krit. for 1880,\\np. 351 ff.\\n8 Lehre Jesu, Vol. I, p. 228 ff.\\nMatt. 6:5; Mk. 11 25 Lk. 18 11, 13.\\n6 See my article, Displacement of John 14, in Journ. of\\nBibl. Lit., 1894, p. 64 ff. anticipated by Spitta, Zur Gesch. u.\\nLitt. des Urchristenthums, 1893, I, 186 ff.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0292.jp2"}, "293": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN\\n273\\npartly on ancient testimony, partly on conjectures of\\nmodern critics, is appended in our note. 1\\nInstances of this kind have led so conservative a a Ticis_\\ncritic as Blass to declare, when the discovery of the transmis-\\nSinaitic Syriac had corroborated Spitta s conjecture sl o ut of\\nregarding the displacement of Jn. 18 13-24, that sition.\\ninverted order is a special feature in the textual\\ncondition of John sometimes on a larger scale,\\nand to refer to Wendt s conjecture removing 7 15-24\\nto the end of chapter 5, among others, as highly\\nprobable. 4 But we have not here a textual phe-\\nnomenon. Had this been due to carelessness in\\ncopying and the leaving out of sentences which were\\n1 An article entitled Tatian s Kearrangement of the Fourth\\nGospel, giving the original order of the material as conjectured\\non the basis of Tatian, will soon appear in the Am. Journ. of\\nTheol. Here will be found the bibliography of the subject,\\nand the evidence for altering the order. The following order\\nis reached as probably that of the original material i. The\\nMinistry in Cooperation with the Baptist [1 1-18], 19-51;\\n[2 1-11], 3 22-4 3 [44]. ii. The Galilean Ministry [4 46a]\\n2:12; 4:466-54; 6:1-71. \u00c2\u00a7iii. The Period of Exile, and\\nSamaritan Ministiy Jesus at the Feast of Pentecost, 4 4-42\\n[43] 5 1-47 7 15-24; [4 45]. iv. The Visit to Jerusalem\\nat the Feast of Tabernacles, 7 1-14, 25-30 3:1-21; 7 31-36,\\n45-52, 37-44. v. The Visit at the Feast of Dedication,\\n10:22-25, 7* 8a [56], 10-18, 26-39; 9:1-10: 5, 9*, 19-\\n21; 8:12-59; 10:40-42. vi. The Period of Retirement\\nin Ephraim, 11 1-57 12 20-36a, 1-19, 42-50, 366-41. vii.\\nThe final Passover, 2 13* 14-22 [23-25*] 13 1-15 [16], 17-\\n19 [20], 21-35 15 1-16 33 [13 36-38] 14 1-31 17 1-18\\n13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 256-40 19 1-20 31 [21 1-25].\\nHere the only transpositions made on internal evidence alone\\nare italicised. All others, save in 18 13-25, are made by\\nTatian, and with not more than one exception for some other\\nthan harmonistic reasons. The rearrangement of 18 13-25 is\\nthat of Sin. Syr. Square brackets enclose material supplied\\nby R. asterisks indicate working over.\\n2 Philology of the Gospels, 1898, p. 239.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0293.jp2"}, "294": {"fulltext": "274\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nredaction.\\nafterward supplied in the margin and from thence\\ncame again into the text, but at the wrong place, our\\ncopies would not all have been alike. The occasion\\ngoes further back than the diffusion of the book.\\nThe appen- Already we have seen reason to identify the author\\ngeneral* f ^is disarrangement of the material of our Gospel\\nwith the writer of the appendix (above, p. 269, note 1\\nWe have now a single additional proof to advance.\\nIs it probable that the writer of the narrative should\\nhave told us the story of Peter s base denial and then\\nconcluded his work without any reference to Peter s\\nrehabilitation? Did he forget to relate the fulfilment\\nof the promise 13: 366 If these, 21: 15-17, 18 f.,\\nwere appended later, is it not likely that the story\\nof the denial is also an insertion, occasioning as\\nit does the displacements of material in the order\\nof the discourse, for the prediction of the denial\\nin 13 36 introduces the displacement of chapter 14,\\nand the story of the denial itself, as we have\\nseen, is so awkwardly introduced in chapter 18\\nthat Blass declares the present order to be the\\nwork of blundering scribes. x A closer scrutiny, in\\nfact, of all the displacements will show a remark-\\nable connection with parts which are common to this\\ngospel and the Synoptic tradition. The problem is\\none far more subtle no doubt than it has yet been con-\\nceived to be, and will involve the searching not only\\nof internal evidence, but of the most ancient patristic\\nliterature.\\nOnce more the question of authorship and date for\\nthese anonymous historical books turns out to be more\\ncomplex than at first supposed. Tradition retains\\nonly that element of the truth with which it was\\nIn what\\nGospel is\\nJohannine.\\n1 As evidence that Jn. 13 36 f., and 21 19, 22 are from the\\nsame hand, note the peculiar pregnant sense given to anoXovdeiv.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0294.jp2"}, "295": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 275\\ndirectly concerned. The material Here employed has\\nhad no such simple history as it assumes in ingenu-\\nously attaching to the Gospel the name of the Apostle.\\nOf ancient external evidence we have nothing what-\\never pointing to the direct authorship of the book by\\nthe Apostle; for while the evidence for its existence\\nin Asia Minor, near the beginning of the second cen-\\ntury, grows stronger and stronger with each new dis-\\ncovery, each new fact of this kind adds equally to the\\nstrength of the argument from silence, that a gospel\\nof such supreme importance should have excited so\\nlittle attention, and been turned to so little account\\nby men like Papias and Justin Martyr, who, when\\nthey quote from Eevelation, are careful to declare it\\nthe work of the Apostle John. It is not insupposable\\nthat even at the age of ninety or upward the fisher-\\nman Apostle may have superintended the compilation\\nof this book of his prophecies. But we must appeal\\nto the supernatural to imagine him, at an even greater\\nage, transforming the whole character of his theology\\nand cast of his mind to become the author of the\\nEpistles and Gospel. The very features of style and\\nexpression throughout the gospel, however inter-\\nmingled with individual traits of Palestinean know-\\nledge, are those not of one born to the country, but of\\none trained in the refinements of Greek education, and\\nwho speaks of the Jews and their law as only a\\nforeign-born Jew would do. But a reasonable inter-\\npretation of the tradition leaves us entirely free to\\nexercise our imagination. Johannine authorship was\\nnot an expression, for that early day, to be taken in a\\nstrictly critical modern sense. That he that had seen\\nhad borne witness, and he who had been a disciple of\\nthe Apostle had written out the teaching, would be,\\nto our informants, enough to justify the phrase. If\\nsuch a disciple of the Apostle had been his spokesman", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0295.jp2"}, "296": {"fulltext": "276 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nduring the years which Jerome speaks of as burdened\\nwith the weight of mental and bodily weakness, and\\nhad left behind what he possessed of testimonies\\nof the Apostle, perhaps embodied in compositions of\\nhis own, capable of being put in the form of a gospel,\\nwe cannot deem it strange or uncandid that his lit-\\nerary executor (or executors) should give forth the\\nproduct as the testimony and writing of the\\nbeloved disciple. At the same time the veiling of his\\npersonality, of which so much has been made, would\\nhave its simple explanation.\\nOf the late date of the appearance of this gospel,\\nthe employment of our Gospel of Luke is already\\nproof, if proof were needed. The last echo of the\\nperiod when the life and teaching of Jesus were still\\ncapable of presentation in an independently conceived\\nform, it constitutes the crowning gift of the churches\\nof Asia to the generation which would depend no\\nlonger on the living and abiding voice, but on\\nwritten records of the life and teaching of Jesus. Its\\nparting blessing is to those who have not seen and\\nyet have believed (20 29). Not only as the last and\\ngreatest of the five books of the Johannine Canon does\\nit fitly illustrate the depth and power of Christian\\nthought in Ephesus, its first great theological centre,\\nbut it closes the first century with what Christendom\\nhas come to recognise as the ripest thought of the\\napostolic age, in many respects the noblest of all the\\ninterpretations of the life and teaching of Jesus. 1\\n1 On the external evidence for the early date of John, see\\nAbbott, Peabody, and Lightfoot, in The Fourth Gospel, 1891.\\nOn the general problem see, besides works already mentioned,\\nWatkins, Bampton Lectures, 1890 Luthardt, St. John the\\nAuthor of the Fourth Gospel, 1875 Evans, St. John the\\nAuthor of the Fourth Gospel, 1888 Sanday, Authorship and\\nHistorical Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872, with articles", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0296.jp2"}, "297": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 277\\nWe have reached the end of our inquiry. Our Summary of\\nreview of criticism and tradition respectively, and Q^he\\nour independent investigation have all served only to named\\naccentuate the tendency already remarked as character- books\\nising the New Testament criticism of our day. Back\\nto second-century tradition; for its testimony will\\nrepay another sifting. Back to the New Testament\\nwritings themselves and their testimony, direct and\\nindirect, as to their own origin and nature. These\\nare principles which commend themselves as much\\nnow in retrospect as in prospect. Of the twenty-\\nseven books of our New Testament Canon sixteen\\nmake direct statements, in their own substance, as to\\ntheir authorship and origin. Of these there is but one\\nwhose testimony we are compelled to reject 2 Peter.\\nOf the thirteen Epistles of Paul, only the three Pas-\\ntoral Epistles appear to give good cause for dispute,\\nwith the tendency on the increase to account for their\\npeculiarities by the recasting and interpolation they\\nhave undergone to adapt them to public use, rather\\nthan by denial of their claim to be truly, although by\\nno means wholly or unqualifiedly, Pauline. 1 Peter,\\nwith all its signs of late date, may be better conceived\\nas written by Silvanus, with the imprimatur of the\\nfisherman Apostle, than as even in part a falsification.\\nYet the possibilities of mutilation at beginning and\\nend are so wide, and the limitations of our knowledge\\nas to elders (5 1) who might have written it so\\nnarrow, that a positive opinion would be indiscreet.\\nFinally, among the books which themselves contain\\nby the same in Expositor Series, IV, Vols. 4, 5, and in The\\nPilot, April, 1900 also Matt. Arnold in God and the Bible,\\nChaps. 5, 6 articles by E. Schurer in Contemporary Review,\\n1891 0. Cone, in New World, 1893 J. Drummond, in Am.\\nJonrn. of Theol., 1897; C. G. Montefiore, in Jewish Quarterly\\nReview, Vol. 7 E. D. Burton, in Bib. World, 1899.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0297.jp2"}, "298": {"fulltext": "278\\nNEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\n(2) The\\nanonymous\\nbooks.\\nRelative\\nrights of\\ntradition\\nand criti-\\ncism.\\nclaims to authorship by some individual, those of the\\nRevelation of John have yet to be invalidated or\\nexplained away.\\nThe remaining eleven writings, the five historical\\nbooks, the two letters of the Elder, and the longer\\nEpistle by the same writer, were doubtless anony-\\nmous either from the beginning or soon after. When\\nthe Canon-makers began their work James and Jude\\nwere provided with a superscription; Hebrews was\\nleft to be fathered by tradition upon whom it could.\\nThe mere titles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1 John,\\n2 John, 3 John, as we have seen, represent no ele-\\nment of the text itself, but merely the belief of scribes\\nand copyists, more or less well founded in church\\ntradition, as to the authorship of these writings.\\nIt would be crude indeed to take the few enigmatic\\nwords which embody the primeval tradition, whether\\nthose of church Fathers, Canon-makers, or scribes,\\nregarding the origin of these eleven anonymous\\nwritings, our one datum of external evidence, prop-\\nerly a subject for the most delicate, careful inves-\\ntigation, and set it up as a complete and every\\nway adequate account of the whole matter, to which\\nresearch can add nothing but categorically to declare\\nit either true or false. Eesearch will prove it\\nboth and neither. The names of the writers of\\nHebrews, James, Jude, and 1, 2, and 3 John will\\nprobably remain unknown to us. The names attached\\nby early report to the five historical books represent\\nin each case the first and most important link in the\\nlong process, more complicated, if the new evidence\\nconstantly developing be believed, than even criticism\\nhas yet conceived it, through which the common pos-\\nsession of the Church in the story of Jesus life and\\nteaching and the story of its own origins came at last,\\nin various important centres, to be embodied in our", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0298.jp2"}, "299": {"fulltext": "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 279\\nfour Gospels and Book of Acts. To ask more of\\nancient tradition than the registration of this first and\\nmost important link is to demand more than we have\\na right to expect. The answer regarding the further\\nphases of this obscure and complicated history must\\nbe sought by the indirect evidence of the books them-\\nselves, an investigation which to-day is still only at\\nits beginning.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0299.jp2"}, "300": {"fulltext": "280 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION\\nTABLE OF APPKOXIMATE DATES\\nGalatians, Corinth Spring of 50 a.d,\\n1 and 2 Thessalonians Spring and Summer of 50\\n2 Cor. 6 14-7 1 and 1 Corinthians, Ephesus, Winter of 53-54\\n2 Cor. 10 1-13 10, Ephesus Summer of 54\\nFragments in Pastoral Epistles, Troas Summer of 54\\n2 Corinthians, Macedonia Autumn of 54\\nEomans, Corinth February, 55\\nRom. 16 1-23, to Ephesus, from Corinth February, 55\\nEphesians, Colossians and Philemon, Rome 58-59\\nPhilippians and 2 Timothy (additions excepted), Rome, 60\\nHebrews 75-85\\n1 Peter, Rome 75-85\\nJames, Rome 85-90\\nJude, Proconsular Asia 85-90\\n2 Peter 100-150\\nMark, Rome 75-80\\nMatthew, Jerusalem 80-90\\nLuke-Acts, Antioch 85-95\\nRevelation, Ephesus 95\\n1, 2, and 3 John, Ephesus 95-100\\nJohn, Ephesus 100-110", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0300.jp2"}, "301": {"fulltext": "INDEX\\nThe page-references in this Index are intended to include foot-\\nnotes as well as text.\\nThe letters TC refer the reader to the table of contents, pp.\\nxi-xy.\\nAhbot, Ezra, 23.\\nAbbott, Edwin, 172, 188.\\nAbbott, T. K., 115, 116, 117.\\nActs, Book of, 51. TC. ch. IX.\\nActs, Western text of, 69, 214,\\n217, 220.\\nAkhmim Ms. of Gospel of Peter,\\n45, 52.\\nAlexandrianism in Hebrews, 146.\\nAlogi rejected Johannine writ-\\nings, 6.\\nAmbrosiaster, 96.\\nAnachronisms in Acts, 216, 225.\\nAnonymity in O. T. and N. T.,\\n2, 175.\\nAntichrist, 75, 78, 242.\\nAntilegomena, see Disputed\\nbooks.\\nAntioch, Collision at, 65.\\nPlace of writing to Gala-\\ntians, 57.\\nApocalypse of John, 52. TC.\\nch. X.\\nApocalyptic ideas in Matt., 211;\\nin Paul, 77, 119.\\nApocalyptic writings, 29, 52, 121,\\n168, 232.\\nApocrypha in early Christian\\ncanon, 27, 142, 168.\\nApollos, 83, 148.\\nApostolicity of N. T. Books, 33,\\n49.\\nAquila and Priscilla, 81, 83, 102.\\nAramaic original of Matt., 195 f.\\nAristo or Aristion (author of\\nMk. 16: 9-20), 42, 205.\\nAssumption of Moses, 120,\\n168, 171.\\nAugustine on the Gospels, 7.\\nAuthority in early Church, 27, 34.\\nBadham, 207, 231.\\nBalaamites, 169, 241.\\nBaldensperger, 254.\\nBarnabas, author of Heb.,\\n33, 147 of 1 Peter, 157. Uncle\\nto John Mark, 204.\\nBarnabas, pseudo, 36.\\nBauer, Bruno, 21.\\nBaur, F. C, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 56,\\n108, 268.\\nBlass, F., 214, 229, 273,274.\\nBleek, F., 11, 19.\\nBousset, W., 232, 235, 239, 244.\\nBretschneider, 6, 8.\\nCaesarea, place of Paul s\\nwriting, 55, 106.\\nCainite sect, 170, 245.\\nCalvin, John, 3, 168.\\nCanon, formation of, 2, 5. TC.\\nch. II.\\nCanon of Catholic Epp., 150.\\nCaptivity, Epp. of, see Epistles.\\n281", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0301.jp2"}, "302": {"fulltext": "282\\nINDEX\\nCarlstadt, A. R. B., 3.\\nCatholic Epp., see Epistles.\\nChristology of Paul, 116, 118 of\\nJohn, 240.\\nChurch in Paul s conception, 112,\\n119, 133, 138.\\nClemen, C, 22.\\nClement of Rome, 28, 31, 33, 35,\\n134, 147, 151, 157, 161, 164 f.\\nClement of Alexandria, 48, 50,\\n168, 229.\\nClementine Homilies and Recog-\\nnitions, 13, 60, 206.\\nColossians, Ep. to. TC. ch. V.\\nConybeare and Howson, 23, 56.\\nCorinthians, Epp. to, TC. ch.\\nIV. Lost ep. to, in 2 Cor. cc.\\n10-13, 93 f Factions and scan-\\ndals among, 87, 89.\\nCredner, K. A., 9, 10, 19.\\nCriticism, history of, TC. ch. I.\\nDalman, G., 196,212, 213, 215, 233.\\nDate of N. T. writings, see under\\ntitles of the several books.\\nDate of Nativity, 39 of Crucifix-\\nion, 266.\\nDates, table of approximate, 279.\\nDavidson, S., 23, 146.\\nDe Wette, see Wette.\\nDiary of Luke, 211, 215, 228.\\nDiaspora, 155, 159, 164.\\nDiatessaron, see Tatian.\\nDionysius of Alexandria, 232,\\n240, 248.\\nDionysius of Corinth, 31.\\nDiotrephes, 246.\\nDisplacements in John, 263, 271 f\\nDisputed books, 7, 8, 14, 27, 41,\\n48, 167.\\nDocetism, 92, 245.\\nDods, M., 160, 188, 196.\\nDutch and Swiss radical critics,\\n21.\\nEditorial work in Fourth Gospel,\\n269, 274.\\nEichhorn, J. G., 7, 8, 19.\\nEichthal, d 22.\\nElias, Apocalypse of, 121.\\nEnoch, Prophecy of, 120, 168, 169,\\n233.\\nEphesians, Ep. to, TC. ch. V.\\nEphesus, source of some Pauline\\nEpp., 82; of Johannine writ-\\nings, 230 fragment addressed\\nto, 101 f.\\nEpiphanius, 44.\\nEpistles, use of in early Church,\\n31, 49; of Paul, TC. chs. in,\\nIV, V, VI; Catholic, TC. ch.\\nVII; of captivity, 55, 106, TC.\\nch. V; Pastoral, TC. ch. VI.\\nEschatology of Paul, 75 f., 133.\\nEschatology of Jesus, 133.\\nEusebius, 3, 7, 40, 48, 50, 157, 168,\\n197, 231, 240.\\nEwald, H., 19.\\nExternal evidence of canonicity,\\nFarrar, F. W., 56, 172.\\nFeasts, Jewish in Fourth Gospel,\\n258, 265.\\nFragments incorporated\\nin 2 Cor., 94, 95.\\nin Rom., 101, 104.\\nin Phil., 125.\\nin Pastoral Epp., 128, 140.\\nin Rev., 239.\\nFriedlander, M., 255.\\nGalatia, North or South? 58 f.\\nGalatians, Ep. to, TC. ch. III.\\nGallio, 82.\\nGieseler, J. K. L., 19.\\nGloag, J. R., 23.\\nGloel, 22.\\nGnosticism, 18, 30, 61, 132, 169,\\n230, 245, 255.\\nGodet, 23, 25, 92, 196.\\nGospels, uncanonical, 30, 39.\\nGospels, the Four, 38, 47. TC.\\nchs. VIII, IX, XL", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0302.jp2"}, "303": {"fulltext": "INDEX\\n283\\nGriesbach, J. J., on Gospels, 8.\\nGuericke, H. E. F., 19.\\nHanlein, H. K. A., 6.\\nHarnack, A., 14, 17,18, 146, 148,\\n157, 161, 243.\\nHaupt, E., 211.\\nHavet, 22.\\nHebrews, Gospel of, 30, 45, 214,\\n221.\\nHebrews, Ep. to, 33, 48, 50, 127.\\nTC. ch. VI.\\nHegesippus, 28, 167.\\nHeresies in N. T. times, 137, 168,\\n241 f., 245, 254.\\nHennas, 29, 38, 47, 53, 159, 165,\\n169.\\nHesse, F. H., 129.\\nHilgenfeld, A., 12, 16, 17, 76, 129.\\nHofmann, J. C. K., 19.\\nHome, T. H., 9.\\nHolsten, C, 16, 22.\\nHoltzmann, H. J., 17-22, 28, 91,\\n117, 129, 141, 146, 180, 196,\\n253.\\nHoltzmann, O., 251.\\nHug, J. L., 9.\\nIgnatius 30, 32, 35, 127.\\nInspiration in early Church, 28.\\nInterpolations, greater and\\nless, in Luke, 223.\\nIntroduction, history of, TC. ch. I.\\nIrenaeus, 40, 47, 197, 202, 210,\\n231, 238.\\nJames, Ep. of, 50. TC. ch. Vn.\\nJerome, 44, 142,167.\\nJew and Gentile in early Church,\\n100.\\nJewish Christianity, 17 in Matt.,\\n202.\\nJohannine writings, TC. ch. X.\\nJohn the Baptist in Fourth Gos-\\npel, 254, 261, 262.\\nJohn, only one, at Ephesus, 231\\na prophet, 236.\\nJohn, Gospel of, 30, 32, 48, 49,\\n50. TC. ch. XI.\\nJohn, Epp. of, 50. TC. ch. X.\\nJohn, Revelation of, 45, 46, 47.\\nTC. ch. X.\\nJudaising opponents of Paul,\\n60, 125, 133.\\nJudaising leaders in Hebrews,\\n149.\\nJudaism, 18, 203.\\nJude, Ep. of, 6, 50. TC. ch. VII.\\nJulicher, 10, 18, 19, 21, 238.\\nJustin Martyr, 28, 30, 32, 34, 39,\\n45, 46, 199, 238, 249.\\nKeim, T., 196, 229.\\nKostlin, J., 202.\\nLachmann, K., 19.\\nLaodiceans, Ep. to, 52, 115.\\nLatinisms in Mark, 204.\\nLightfoot, J. B., 23, 161, 269.\\nLogia of Matt., 20, 44, 188, 193,\\n197, 200, 221.\\nLogia in John, 252, 256, 259.\\nLogia of Oxyrhynchus, 192.\\nLoman, A. D., 21, 68.\\nLiicke, G. C. F., 10.\\nLuke, Gospel of, 40, 50. TC.\\nchs. VIII, IX.\\nLumby, J. R., 23.\\nLuthardt, E., 19.\\nLuther, M., 3, 148.\\nMagi and Star, 39.\\nManen, van, 22.\\nMangold, W. L., 11, 19.\\nMarcion, 6, 13, 34, 40, 52, 54 f.,\\n127, 175, 211.\\nMark, Gospel of, 20, 43, 48. TC.\\nchs. VIII, IX.\\nMatthew, 37, 38, 44. TC. chs.\\nvni, IX.\\nMayor, J. B., 160.\\nMcGiffert, A. C, 23, 25, 57, 128,\\n129, 157, 231.\\nMeats, question of, 69, 90, 148.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0303.jp2"}, "304": {"fulltext": "284\\nINDEX\\nMeyer, E., 55, 106.\\nMichaelis, J. D., 4, 6, 7, 9, 254.\\nMuratorian Canon, 3, 43, 50, 127,\\n134, 211.\\nMystery of Christ, in Paul, 119,\\n133, 138.\\nNaber, S. A., 21.\\nNazarenes Gospel, 44.\\nNero as persecutor, 78, 156.\\nNero in Apocalypse, 243.\\nNicolaitans, 170.\\nOral-tradition theory of Gospels,\\n178 f., 188 f.\\nOrder of events in Gospels, 189,\\n205.\\nOrigen on Hebrews, 7.\\nPaley, Archdeacon, 56.\\nPapias, 30, 32, 33, 40 f., 153, 189,\\n231, 238, 249.\\nParousia, 74, 172.\\nPastoral, see Epistles.\\nPauline writings, questioned, 6;\\nlargely rejected, 16; rehabili-\\ntated, 17; in early use, 31 f.,\\n51. TC. chs. Ill, IV, V, VI.\\nPaulinism, 18.\\nPaulus, H. E. G., 19.\\nPeter, apostle, source of Mark,\\n43,49, 176,189; Gospel of,\\n46; Memorabilia of, 30;\\nApocalypse of, 173 Preach-\\ning of, 61, 198, 214, 221, 225,\\n227.\\n1 Peter and 2 Peter, TC. ch.\\nVII.\\nPfleiderer, O., 17.\\nPhilemon, Ep. to, TC. ch. V.\\nPhilippians, Ep. to, TC. ch. V.\\nPierson, A., 21.\\nPolycarp, 32, 35, 51, 127.\\nPolycrates, 51.\\nPott, A., 214.\\nPresbyter, anon at Ephesus, 271.\\nPrisca or Priscilla, 81, 102, 148.\\nProphecy in N. T., 232.\\nProto-gospel theory, 20, 188,\\n191 f., 224.\\nQuarto-deciman controversy, 266.\\nQuotations in the Fathers, 30.\\nRamsay, W. M., 56, 57, 59, 94, 156.\\nRedactor of Luke-Acts, 212, 225.\\nRenan, E., 11, 22, 56.\\nRendall, 142, 148.\\nReuss, E., 10, 19, 146, 205.\\nRevelation, see John.\\nReville, MM., 22.\\nRhees, Rush, 56.\\nRitschl, A., 14, 146.\\nRome, protector and persecutor\\nof the Church, 78, 156, 242-3.\\nRomans, Ep. to, TC. ch. IV.\\nRushbrooke, W. G., 177, 188.\\nSabatier, 22, 56.\\nSalmon, G., 23, 172, 176, 196.\\nSalmond, S.D. F., 24.\\nSanday and Headlam, 154.\\nSchaff, Philip, 23.\\nSchleiermacher, F. D. E., 6, 8, 9,\\n19.\\nSchmidt, J. E. C, 6.\\nSchools of criticism, 19, 21, 22.\\nSchiirer, E., 146.\\nSchwegler, A., 12, 13.\\nScripture in early Church,\\n27, 35 f., 46, 148.\\nSemler, J. S., 4.\\nSerapion of Antioch, 46.\\nSilvanus, author of 1 Peter,\\n155; author of We docu-\\nment, 271.\\nSimon, Richard, 3.\\nSinaitic Syriac version of Gos-\\npels, 46, 273.\\nSoden, von, 141, 146, 170.\\nSosthenes, 82.\\nSoter, Bishop of Rome, 31, 161.\\nSpeeches, in Acts, 226, 228.\\nSpeeches, in John, 257.", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0304.jp2"}, "305": {"fulltext": "INDEX\\n285\\nSpitta, F., 76, 163, 170, 273.\\nSteck, R, 22, 68.\\nStrauss, D. F., 11, 20.\\nSupernatural Religion, 17, 23.\\nSynoptic problem, vi, 7, 8, 17,\\n19,24. TC. chs. VIII, IX.\\nSynoptic tradition discrepant\\nfrom Johannine, 266.\\nTatian s Diatessaron, 46, 273.\\nTeaching of the Twelve\\nDidache), 29, 37, 138, 169, 199.\\nTendencies in apostolic age,\\n13, 14.\\nTertullian, 33, 48, 147.\\nTheophilus of Antioch, 30.\\nThessalonians, 1 and 2, Epp. to,\\nTC. ch. in.\\nTimothy, 1 and 2, Epp. to, TC.\\nch. VI.\\nTitus, Ep. to, TC. ch. VI.\\nTradition, growth of, TC. ch. II\\nreturn to, 18, 32.\\nTubingen school, vi, vii, 11-17,\\n207, 241.\\nTwo-document theory of Gos-\\npels, 181, 194.\\nUncanonical writings in early\\nChurch, 36.\\nUrevangelium, see Proto-gospel.\\nVariations among Gospels, 191.\\nVincent, M. R., 25, 212.\\nVision, a Hebraistic literary de-\\nvice, 215, 226.\\nVolkmar, G., 17, 146.\\nVolter, D., 22.\\nWe document, see Diary.\\nWeiss, B., 24-27, 87, 154, 196, 201,\\n214, 229, 261.\\nWeiss, J., 218.\\nWeisse, C. H., 20.\\nWeizsacker, C, 15, 17, 25.\\nWendt, H. H., 252, 269, 273.\\nWestcott, Bishop B. F., 176, 188,\\n196.\\nWestcott and Hort, 203.\\nWette, W. M. L. de, 7-9, 19.\\nWetzel, 179.\\nWilke, 20.\\nWordsworth, Bishop C, 160.\\nWright, A., 177, 180, 186, 188.\\nZahn, Theodor, 22, 24, 57, 146,\\n155, 196, 244, 269.\\nZeller, E., 12, 13.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0305.jp2"}, "306": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0306.jp2"}, "307": {"fulltext": "New Testament Handbooks\\nEDITED BY\\nSHAILER MATHEWS\\nProfessor of New Testament History and Interpretation,\\nUniversity of Chicago\\nArrangements are made for the following volumes, and the publishers\\nwill, on request, send notice of the issue of each volume as it appears and\\neach descriptive circular sent out later; such requests for information\\nshould state whether address is permanent or not\\nThe History of the Textual Criticism of the\\nNew Testament\\nProf. Marvin R. Vincent, Professor of New Testament Exegesis,\\nUnion Theological Seminary. \\\\_Now ready.\\nProfessor Vincent s contributions to the study of the New Testament rank him\\namong the first American exegetes. His most recent publication is A Critical\\nand Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon\\n(Internatio?ial Critical Commentary which was preceded by a Students\\nNew Testament Handbook, Word Studies in the New Testament, and\\nothers.\\nThe History of the Higher Criticism of the\\nNew Testament\\nProf. Henry S. Nash, Professor of New Testament Interpretation,\\nCambridge Divinity School. [A r ow ready.\\nOf Professor Nash s Genesis of the Social Conscience, The Outlook said: The\\nresults of Professor Nash s ripe thought are presented in a luminous, compact,\\nand often epigrammatic style. The treatment is at once masterful and helpful,\\nand the book ought to be a quickening influence of the highest kind; it surely\\nwill establish the fame of its author as a profound thinker, one from whom we\\nhave a right to expect future inspiration of a kindred sort.\\nIntroduction to the Books of the New Testament\\nProf. B. Wisner Bacon, Professor of New Testament Interpretation,\\nYale University. [Now ready.\\nProfessor Bacon s works in the field of Old Testament criticism include The\\nTriple Tradition of Exodus, and The Genesis of Genesis, a study of the\\ndocumentary sources of the books of Moses. In the field of New Testament\\nstudy he has published a number of brilliant papers, the most recent of which is\\nThe Autobiography of Jesus, in the A merican journal of Theology.\\nThe History of New Testament Times in Palestine\\nProf. Shailer Mathews, Professor of New Testament History and\\nInterpretation, The University of Chicago. \\\\_Noiv ready.\\nThe Congregationalist says of Prof. Shailer Mathews s recent work, The Social\\nTeaching of Jesus Re-reading deepens the impression that the author is\\nscholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and yet conservative and pre-\\neminently sane. If, after reading the chapters dealing with Jesus attitude\\ntoward man, society, the family, the state, and wealth, the reader will not agree\\nwith us in this opinion, we greatly err as prophets.", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0307.jp2"}, "308": {"fulltext": "The Life of Paul\\nProf. Rush Rhees, President of the University of Rochester.\\nProfessor Rhees is well known from his series of Inductive Lessons contributed\\nto the Sunday School Times. His Outline of the Life of Paul, privately\\nprinted, has had a flattering reception from New Testament scholars.\\nThe History of the Apostolic Age\\nDr. C. W. Votaw, Instructor in New Testament Literature, The\\nUniversity of Chicago.\\nOf Dr. Votaw s Inductive Study of the Founding of the Christian Church, Modern\\nChurch, Edinburgh, says: No fuller analysis of the later books of the New\\nTestament could be desired, and no better programme could be offered for their\\nstudy, than that afforded in the scheme of fifty lessons on the Founding of the\\nChristian Church, by Clyde W. Votaw. It is well adapted alike for practical\\nand more scholarly students of the Bible.\\nThe Teaching of Jesus\\nProf. George B. Stevens, Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale\\nUniversity.\\nProfessor Stevens s volumes upon The Johannine Theology, The Pauline The-\\nology, as well as his recent volume on The Theology of the New Testament,\\nhave made him probably the most prominent writer on biblical theology in\\nAmerica. His new volume will be among the most important of his works.\\nThe Biblical Theology of the New Testament\\nProf. E. P. Gould, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Prot-\\nestant Episcopal Divinity School, Philadelphia.\\nProfessor Gould s Commentaries on the Gospel of Mark (in the International Criti-\\ncal Commentary) and. the Epistles to the Corinthians (in the American Com-\\nmentary) are critical and exegetical attempts to supply those elements which\\nlacking in existing works of the same general aim and i\\nI scope. [Now ready.\\nThe Teaching of Jesus and Modern Social Problems\\nProf. Francis G. Peabody, Professor of Christian Ethics, Harvard\\nUniversity.\\nProfessor Peabody s public lectures, as well as his addresses to the students of\\nHarvard University, touch a wide range of modern problems. The many read-\\ners of his Mornings in the College Chapel and his published studies upon\\nsocial and religious topics, will welcome this new work.\\nThe History of Christian Literature until Eusebius\\nProf. J. W. Platner, Professor of Early Church History, Harvard\\nUniversity.\\nProfessor Platner s work will not only treat the writings of the early Christian\\nwriters, but will also treat of the history of the New Testament Canon.\\nOTHERS TO FOLLOW\\nTHE MACMILLAN COMPANY\\n66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0308.jp2"}, "309": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0309.jp2"}, "310": {"fulltext": "OCT 11 1900", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0310.jp2"}, "311": {"fulltext": "?6", "height": "2784", "width": "1860", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0311.jp2"}, "312": {"fulltext": "", "height": "2804", "width": "1880", "jp2-path": "introductiontone00baco_0312.jp2"}}